Next Article in Journal
A Long-Term Study on Chemical Compounds and Their Location in Sweet Basil Leaves from Organic and Conventional Producers
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Conventional Humid–Dry Heating through the Maillard Reaction on Chemical Changes and Enhancement of In Vitro Bioactivities from Soy Protein Isolate Hydrolysate–Yeast Cell Extract Conjugates
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Camel Milk: Antimicrobial Agents, Fermented Products, and Shelf Life

by
Nejat Shifamussa Hamed
1,2,
Mustapha Mbye
1,
Mutamed Ayyash
1,
Beyza Hatice Ulusoy
2 and
Afaf Kamal-Eldin
1,3,*
1
Department of Food Science, College of Food and Agriculture, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain P.O. Box 15551, United Arab Emirates
2
Department of Food Hygiene and Technology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Near East University, Nicosia 99138, Cyprus
3
National Water and Energy Center, United Arab Emirates University, Al-Ain P.O. Box 15551, United Arab Emirates
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2024, 13(3), 381; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13030381
Submission received: 16 December 2023 / Revised: 8 January 2024 / Accepted: 16 January 2024 / Published: 24 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Dairy)

Abstract

:
The camel milk (CM) industry has witnessed a notable expansion in recent years. This expansion is primarily driven by the rising demand for CM and its fermented products. The perceived health and nutritional benefits of these products are mainly responsible for their increasing popularity. The composition of CM can vary significantly due to various factors, including the breed of the camel, its age, the stage of lactation, region, and season. CM contains several beneficial substances, including antimicrobial agents, such as lactoferrin, lysozyme, immunoglobulin G, lactoperoxidase, and N-acetyl-D-glucosaminidase, which protect it from contamination by spoilage and pathogenic bacteria, and contribute to its longer shelf life compared to bovine milk (BM). Nevertheless, certain harmful bacteria, such as Listeria monocytogenes, Yersinia enterocolitica, and Escherichia coli, have been detected in CM, which is a significant public health concern. Therefore, it is crucial to understand and monitor the microbial profile of CM and follow good manufacturing practices to guarantee its safety and quality. This review article explores various aspects of CM, including the types of beneficial and harmful bacteria present in it, the composition of the milk, its antimicrobial properties, its shelf life, and the production of fermented CM products.

1. Introduction

Camels, which belong to the genus Camelus, can be classified into two distinct species: Camelus dromedarius, also known as the dromedary or one-humped camel, and Camelus bactrianus, commonly referred to as the two-humped camel. CM is commonly consumed in the Middle East, Africa [1], Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and China [2]. CM dairies are expanding in the Middle East, India, China, and Europe, where research on the microbial profile and safety of CM is warranted. In the last decade, the camel dairy industry has rapidly grown primarily owing to emerging health and nutritional claims regarding the antidiabetic, hypoallergenic, anticarcinogenic, and immune-protective effects of CM [3,4]. The global camel dairy market was valued at USD 6.9 billion in 2021 and is projected to reach approximately USD 18.3 billion by 2027, experiencing a compound annual growth rate of 6.8% during the forecasted period [5].
The camel milk industry is slowly developing in several countries, including the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, and India [6]. The development of this industry requires intensive research on camel breeds, feed, animal health, milking, milk yield and quality, refrigeration, transport, storage, and processing technology [7]. Proper nutrition, access to clean water, and regular veterinary care are essential for maintaining the health of camels and ensuring optimal milk production and quality [8]. Recent research has focused on the genomics of Bactrian camels and the candidate genes related to milk production traits were revealed by transcriptome analysis [9]. A total of 1185 genes related to milk traits, including milk yield, milk protein, milk fat, and milk lactose, were identified [10]. Twenty-seven candidate genes and 16 core signaling pathways were connected with maternal parturition, estrogen control, lactation initiation, and milk production features [9]. It was shown that milking camels twice a day can result in higher milk yield and better milk quality compared to milking once a day [11]. The efficiency of milk removal and emptying of the mammary glands is a key factor influencing milk output in machine-milked dromedaries since the leftover milk after machine-milking ranges from 15 to 42% [12]. Recent research has emphasized the technological advancements and challenges associated with ensuring the quality and preservation of CM during transportation. This includes considerations for temperature control, packaging innovations, and efficient logistics to maintain the freshness and nutritional integrity of CM during transportation [13]. The microbial quality of CM plays a significant role in determining its shelf life and the quality of its products, such as cheese and yogurt [14,15].
CM is described as having a sweet, sharp, and sometimes salty flavor [16]. CM and its fermented products are reported to have varying composition and sensory and nutritional characteristics compared to BM [17,18,19]. CM was reported to have a longer shelf life compared to BM [20], possibly due to the presence of several antibacterial agents in the former [21,22]. Available evidence shows that the growth of both pathogenic and fermentation bacteria is significantly slower in CM than in BM [23,24]. However, the resistance of CM to fermentation bacteria results in a watery and fragile consistency of camel yogurt [25]. This review article aims to offer an overview of the current knowledge on the fermentation properties, microbial diversity, growth kinetics, traditionally fermented products, and shelf life and quality of CM.

2. Composition and Antimicrobial Properties of Camel Milk

CM is only slightly different from BM with respect to its proximate composition (2.9–5.5%), protein (2.5–4.5%), lactose (2.9–5.8%), minerals (0.35–0.95%), and not-fat total solids (8.9–14.3%) [1,24]. Overall, CM has slightly higher levels of antimicrobial factors, vitamins, water, and minerals but lower levels of lipids, carbohydrates, and proteins compared to BM [1]. CM is high in vitamin C and thus is considered an essential source of vitamin C in desert and arid environments [18,24,26,27]. It is also considered a rich source of minerals, such as copper, iron, and zinc [18,24,28]. In addition, CM contains monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids and bioactive protein hydrolysates that are beneficial to health [29]. According to Table 1, the percentage homology between CM proteins and milk proteins from other animal species, including humans, ranges f33 -95%. BM proteins differ significantly from camel and human milk proteins [30].
The proportional ratios of αs1-, αs2-, β-, and κ-caseins in CM are 26:4:67:3 [31] compared to ca 40:10:40:10 in BM [32]. CM lacks β-lactoglobulin and contains much lower levels of κ-casein and much higher levels of α-lactalbumin compared to BM [33]. Κ-casein is an essential protein for making cheese [34], and β-lactoglobulin is crucial for the hardness of yogurt [33]. The differences in the composition of CM proteins and BM proteins are presumed to be the main reason for the difficulty in obtaining solid cheese, thick curd, and yogurt from CM [19]. Due to the presence of several antimicrobial compounds [35], CM exhibits a lower growth rate of bacteria than BM [36]. The whey obtained from CM is a protein source characterized by its high heterogeneity and abundance of biologically active and protective properties [37]. Lactoferrin (LF), lysozyme (LYZ), immunoglobulins (Igs), lactoperoxidase (LPO), and bacteriocins are naturally occurring antimicrobial and antiviral substances in CM. The levels of these compounds are generally much higher in CM than in BM, which might explain the stronger inhibitory effect of the former against pathogens [1,4,32,38]. A previous study also showed that hydrolyzed CM proteins inhibited pathogenic Candida species more efficiently than BM protein hydrolysates [39]. In general, there is scattered circumstantial evidence supporting the antimicrobial effect of CM hydrolysates and whey proteins [29]; however, the specific effector molecules (e.g., peptide fractions of proteins) and their mechanisms of action have not yet been revealed [29].

2.1. Lactoferrin (LF)

The concentration of LF in CM is significantly higher than that in BM [24]. LF, naturally obtained from milk, exhibits a diverse range of biological properties, such as antiparasitic, antifungal, antibacterial, antiviral, anticancer, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant [35,40]. LF potentially modulates the immune system of the intestine, offering natural and sustainable strategies for managing infectious diseases [41]. By inducing iron deficiency and impairing bacterial cell membranes [22,26], LF shows antimicrobial activities against both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria [2].

2.2. Lysozyme (LYZ), (EC 3.2.1.17)

The levels of LYZ in CM are much higher than those in bovine, buffalo, sheep, and goat milk but much lower (~100–150 fold) compared to those in human milk [24,35,42]. LYZ acts as an antibacterial agent by cleaving the β (1–4)-glycosidic bonds in the peptidoglycan layer of the bacterial cell wall, leading to cell lysis and destruction [43]. The lytic activity of LYZ depends on the nature of the bacterial cell wall as it is observed to be more effective against Gram-positive than Gram-negative bacteria [42]. Temperature may affect lysozyme activity, e.g., pasteurizing CM at 80 °C considerably decreased LYZ activity in CM [44].

2.3. Immunoglobulin G (IgG)

CM has a higher concentration of IgG than BM and milk from other animals [34]. IgG is the primary antibody found in milk, providing newborns with passive immunity [45,46]. The IgG2 and IgG3 subclasses found in CM differ from those in other animals in lacking light chains and are solely composed of heavy chains [35]. Therefore, they are smaller than human antibodies (about one-tenth) [47]. This diminutive size allows CM Igs to effortlessly navigate cell membranes, including those of bacterial cells. The LF and IgG in CM have been found to inhibit hepatitis C virus infection [48]. Notably, milk processing approaches, such as ultra-high temperature (UHT) and pasteurization, may reduce IgG concentrations to varying degrees [46].

2.4. Lactoperoxidase (LPO), (EC 1.11.1.7)

The range of reported values indicates that the concentration of LPO in CM (2.23 U/mL) is higher than in BM [49,50]. LPO is an antimicrobial enzyme that acts through a hydrogen peroxide/thiocyanate-dependent mechanism [51,52]. Camel LPO exhibits bacteriostatic activity against Gram-positive bacteria while exerting bactericidal action against Gram-negative bacteria [53]. The LPO of CM is more susceptible to thermal denaturation than that of BM [54] suggesting potential variations in activity level [55].

2.5. N-acetyl-D-glucosaminidase (NAGase)

The concentration of NAGase in CM varies significantly depending on the animal’s health [54]. NAGase is a lysosomal glycosidase that is secreted by damaged udder epithelial cells that undergo lysis [56]. In camels, NAGase, somatic cell count, and lactate dehydrogenase significantly correlate with subclinical mastitis [57]. NAGase functions by breaking N-acetylglucosamine linkages, rupturing bacterial cell walls, and inhibiting bacterial growth [58]. Being an enzyme, the activity of NAGase in milk and dairy products is expected to also depend on processing temperatures.

2.6. Peptidoglycan Recognition Proteins (PGRPs)

CM contains a significantly higher content of PGRPs than human and bovine milks [59]. The concentration of PGRPs in milk may vary depending on a number of variables, such as the camel’s health, lactation stage, and season [59,60]. PGRPs are believed to inactivate bacterial pathogens by attaching peptidoglycan to their cell walls [35,61,62]. In addition, PGRPs may bind to both lipopolysaccharide and lipoteichoic acid and inhibit proinflammatory cytokines [63]. PGRPs of CM and BM were found to be substantially impacted by heat treatment at 80 °C for 60 min [64].

2.7. Bacteriocins

Bacteriocins are produced by certain bacteria strains and act as antibiotics against other strains. Thus, their concentrations in milk depend on the different bacteria present in the milk rather than on the milk source [65,66]. Bacteriocins exert their antimicrobial action by disrupting the cell membrane of the target bacteria, leading to cell death [67]. Novel peptides found in fermented CM exhibited strong similarities to peptides produced from bacteriocins [68]. Bacteriocin-like proteins produced by Lactococcus lactis, L. cremoris, Enterococcus durans, E. faecium, and E. avium from CM have been proposed for use as biopreservatives in food products [68,69].

2.8. Milk Protein Hydrolysates and Bioactive Peptides

The antibacterial properties of CM proteins are known to increase by hydrolyzing to shorter peptides with enzymes like pepsin, papain, chymotrypsin, and alcalase [39,70,71]. A comparison between the electrophoretic profiles of raw CM and BM proteins (Figure 1) reveals the presence of several low-molecular-weight bands in CM but not in BM. These proteins/peptides may be produced by endogenous CM proteases, such as chymotrypsin A and plasmin/plasminogen [72,73]. The antimicrobial activity of CM protein hydrolysates is influenced by several physicochemical factors, such as hydrophobicity, peptide concentration, and peptide sequence [37,74]. The nature of these proteins/peptides has not been determined and, thus, there are no data on their concentrations in milk.

3. Microorganisms Prevalent in CM

CM can host a variety of microbial organisms, including LAB and some pathogenic species [18,27]. The LAB found in CM are dominated by mesophiles, such as lactobacilli, streptococci, leuconostoc, and lactococci. The pathogenic bacterial species in CM include coliforms, Staphylococcus, Enterobacter, Salmonella, Listeria, and E. coli, whose prevalence varies depending on the environmental conditions and the hygienic conditions of the farm [76]. Studying the prevalence and growth dynamics of these microorganisms is crucial for milk processing and safety [77]. This section focuses on the various types of bacteria that have been reported to exist in CM and its fermented products.

3.1. Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB)

The distribution of LAB in CM reveals a diverse microbial landscape, as shown in Figure 2. Lactobacillus emerges as the predominant LAB genus in CM, followed by Enterococcus, Lactococcus, Weissella Pediococcus, and Streptococcus [78,79,80,81]. CM with probiotic properties was found to contain L. plantarum IS10, which exhibits strong antimicrobial activity against S. aureus and E. coli [82]. Certain strains, such as L. rhamnosus PTCC 1637 and L. fermentum PTCC 1638, were shown to have high proteolytic activity and to improve the sensory quality of fermented CM and BM [81]. Probiotic products derived from CM by L. plantarum and L. lactis could provide natural and helpful alternatives for newborn nutrition [83]. Lactococcus lactis and Leuconostoc mesenteroides were shown to exhibit strong antioxidant, lipolytic, proteolytic, and exopolysaccharide production capabilities. Based on technological assessment, the isolated strains Enterococcus faecium MN994352, Lactococcus lactis MN994342, and MT032418, Leuconostoc mesenteroides MT032416, MN994377, MN994378, and MT032415 hold potential as starter co-cultures for enhancing the rheological characteristics of food products [84].

3.2. Pathogenic Bacteria

The safety of milk and dairy products is affected by pathogenic microorganisms that can enter the milk during milking, storage, or processing, resulting in microbial spoilage [89,90,91]. Some microorganisms come from the udder of the milking camel, especially in cases with mastitis [91]. The most abundant pathogenic bacteria isolated from CM were Staphylococcus and Streptococcus, while Corynebacterium, Klebsiella, Listeria, Pseudomonas, Salmonella, and Serratia were found occasionally (Figure 2B) [86,87,88,92,93]. It has been reported that unsanitary methods of milking, the incorporation of raw milk in conventional dairy products, and a lack of hygiene during milk production fundamentally impact the growth, proliferation, and survival of Yersinia species in CM [94]. Salmonella contamination of CM might be attributed to the farm environment, including water, feces, soil, and people [95]. The coliform load in CM ranged from less than 3 to 7 log CFU/mL with significant variations across milk samples from Ethiopia, Morocco, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Somalia [88,92,96,97,98,99].

3.3. Yeast and Mold

Figure 3 summarizes the prevalence of yeast and mold in raw CM from different countries [77,86,92,97,100,101]. The presence of yeast and mold in raw milk signals unsanitary practices in production and postharvest handling, including transport and storage, and renders the milk unfit for consumption due to potential safety concerns [102]. Mycotoxins, including zearalenone, ochratoxin A, and fumonisins, were reported to transfer from camel feed to milk [103]. Yeast species reported in CM samples include Candida, Cryptococcus, Geotrichum, Issatchenkia Kazakhstania, Kluyveromyces, Rhodotorula, Saccharomyces, and Trichosporon [104,105,106]. Dipodascus (38.0%), Pichia (31.2%), Saccharomyces (27.9%), and Kluyveromyces (2.4%) have been found in khoormog, a fermented CM product, collected from Mongolia [106].

3.4. The Kinetics of Bacterial Growth in CM

The kinetics of bacterial growth in CM involves studying the rate and dynamics of bacterial growth. The growth of pathogens in both raw and pasteurized milk at different temperatures was slower in CM compared to BM [22]. S. aureus had a lower specific growth rate in CM than in BM. The predicted duration for no growth of S. aureus in CM at 8 °C is about 504 h, or 21 days [107]. Figure 4 shows reduced growth of Cronobacter sakazakii in raw and pasteurized CM at varied temperatures from 10 to 37 °C [23]. Dromedary skim milk was analyzed to understand its acid curd formation during lactic acid starter fermentation [25]. It was shown that skim CM exhibited a slower rate of acidification during fermentation than BM (Figure 5). Additionally, the initiation phase of the starter in CM exhibited an extended lag period (5 h compared to 1 h in BM) and an earlier decline stage. These observations suggest that the presence of lower pH levels and inhibitors contributes to CM’s optimal buffering capability and its minimal apparent viscosity.

4. The Shelf Life of Came Milk

Milk quality is influenced by several factors, such as the genetic traits of the animal, the type of animal feed, and the level of hygiene during production, which affects the presence of bacteria [108]. As mentioned before, CM contains antibacterial characteristics that can help to keep it fresh and increase its shelf life. It should be noted that the shelf life of CM varies based on factors such as the initial microbial load, storage circumstances, and processing procedures [109]. A previous study on the handling, preservation, and utilization of CM and its products indicated that fresh CM could be preserved without spoilage for about 7 days, exceeding the shelf life of raw BM (24–48 h) [110]. Heat treatment has been found to improve the microbial profile and enhance the shelf life of CM [111,112,113]. Pasteurized CM can be stored at 4 °C for more than 10 days [114]. It was discovered that pasteurizing CM before fermentation improved the microbial content while also enhancing the product’s shelf life. The shelf life of milk is extended by pasteurization and the efficiency of multiple pasteurization protocols has been assessed. In a previous study, the least number of microbes (2.45 log CFU/mL) was observed after a treatment of 80 °C/5 min, followed by treatments of 65 °C/30 min (2.57 log CFU/mL), 75 °C/10 min (2.65 log CFU/mL), and 72 °C/15 s (2.77 log CFU/mL) [111]. Treatment at 63 °C/30 min was deemed better for preserving sensory flavor and texture, while treatment at 100.5 °C/10 min was found to be the best for the shelf life of CM [16]. Both raw and pasteurized CM had longer shelf lives than BM at both ambient (25 °C) and refrigerated (7 °C) conditions and acidity development was significantly slower in CM than in BM [115]. Smoking of milk containers has also been demonstrated to inhibit microbial growth. This approach can help maintain cleanliness and preserve raw CM in arid and semiarid regions where cold chains for milk preservation are unavailable [116]. The process of creating dried CM powder while preserving its bioactive components has become crucial for ensuring global availability and prolonging its shelf life. This not only reduces transportation costs but also expands the potential applications of CM. The predominant method for producing CM powders is freeze drying due to its ability to maintain the integrity of bioactive compounds at low drying temperatures, safeguarding the quality of the final product. This approach plays a pivotal role in making CM more accessible and versatile in various applications [55]. Spearmint and wild thyme oils are suitable additions for enhancing the organoleptic properties and shelf life of CM [117]. Activation of the LPO system under good, hygienic milking and handling settings was found to increase the shelf life of BM and CM by 6 and 12 h, respectively [49]. Evaluation of the effects of LPO activation on selected pathogens revealed that this enzyme inhibited the growth rates of S. aureus and E. coli in CM after 6 h of incubation.
The effects of high-pressure processing (HPP) were compared with heat treatment on the quality of CM- and BM-derived cheese, and a lower microbial load was observed in CM up to 7 days of storage [103]. HPP was investigated as an alternative to conventional BM processing approaches, assessing the effectiveness of various HPP protocols (pressure range of 400–600 MPa; 1–5 min) against artificially injected multiple pathogenic bacteria, including Salmonella, L. monocytogenes, and E. coli. HPP efficiently eliminated 5 log CFU/mL of bacterial concentration [118]. Future UHT CM research will focus on the investigation of various additives. These include disodium phosphate, kappa-casein sourced from cow milk, and calcium-chelating agents, all aimed at stabilizing CM proteins. Additionally, researchers are exploring the use of hydrocolloids to increase viscosity and reduce sedimentation in UHT CM, opening new possibilities for product improvement and innovation in the field [55].

5. Traditionally Fermented CM Products

Fermented dairy products are part of a balanced diet, with various positive effects on human health [119]. The different protein profiles and the antibacterial characteristics of CM may influence the proliferation of particular microorganisms during fermentation, thus affecting the fermentation process [109]. Fermented CM contains rich nourishment with potent bacterial strains that enhance its bio-functional properties [120,121]. Fermented CM also shows anti-inflammatory, antidiabetic, and ACE-inhibitory effects [121]. The ACE-inhibitory activity of fermented CM samples is considerably higher than that of unfermented samples [122]. Fermented CM has been shown to exhibit cardioprotective effects attributed to high levels of bioactive peptides, antioxidants, vitamins, and linoleic acid, among other substances [123]. LAB present in fermented CM help hydrolyze lactose, glucose, and galactose. Furthermore, LAB can also help prevent gastrointestinal diseases and reduce serum cholesterol levels [24,124]. According to a study on bacteria and fungi in naturally fermented Bactrian CM, the primary bacteria shifted from Lactococcus to Lactobacillus, whereas the dominant fungi changed from Apiotrichum, Cutaneotrichosporon, and Candida to Kazachstania and Kluyveromyces [109]. Lactococcus lactis strains SCC133 and SLch14 isolated from CM, having high acidifying and proteolytic activities and antibiotic sensitivities, were used to produce traditional Tunisian fermented dairy products, i.e., Lben, Raib, Jben cheese, and Smen. These dairy products had low pH values and microbial cell counts [15]. Lactobacillus paracasei FM-LP-4, isolated from Xinjiang camel yogurt, demonstrated strong antioxidant activity and favorable probiotic and stress tolerance characteristics. Therefore, L. paracasei FM-LP-4 holds promise as a potential antioxidant strain for the development of functional foods and antioxidant supplements [125].
Camel herders across the world produce a variety of traditional fermented CM products with distinct tastes and flavors, including laban, chal, ititu, gariss, shubat, dhanaan, kefir, lfrik, airag, dahi, khoormog, ititu, tarag, and suusac (Table 2). CM and its traditional fermented products are mostly locally consumed because camel herds are located far from urban markets, and the CM industry is not highly developed. These products include drinkable, alcoholic or non-alcoholic fermented yogurts with weak and fragile consistency [126,127]. The challenges linked to the processing of fermented CM products are continuously growing, mirroring the complexities observed in the production of CM cheese or yogurt [2]. Fermented CM products have a different texture and thinner consistency than fermented BM products primarily because of variations in the composition of the casein, casein micelle size, and lack of β-lactoglobulin [33]. Previous research has shown that water mobility within the stabilizers, such as alginate and gelatin, during storage, is responsible for increased syneresis for CM yogurt [2,128,129]. This syneresis further aggravates during storage with the addition of salts, specifically 0.075% calcium chloride, resulting in a reduced tendency of casein to coagulate near the isoelectric point, leading to the production of softer CM yogurt compared to CM yogurt samples that did not contain calcium chloride [130]. Adding hydrocolloids was reported to enhance the viscosity of CM yogurt and provide an optimal mouth feel [33]. Microbial communities critically influence the flavor, aroma, and texture of fermented dairy products [124,131]. The production of fermented dairy products involves monitoring a particular group of microorganisms that ferments milk, causing a drop in pH and subsequent coagulation of milk proteins [124]. The difference in the acidities of CM and BM fermented products is primarily attributed to variations in buffering capacity, proteolytic activity, and antimicrobial proteins [33]. The bacterial fermentation of CM is known to be slower and to lead to much weaker coagulum and liquid products than BM fermentation [25]. Depending on microbial activity, various metabolites are produced during milk fermentation, imparting anti-pathogenic and preservation properties to the fermented milk [130]. Furthermore, the antimicrobial LF found in camel milk can inhibit the activity of starter cultures, delaying curd formation [132].

6. Conclusions

Camel milk is emerging as an alternative to BM with a number of advantages, including antidiabetic, anticancer, and anti-allergic effects. CM was described to be more resistant to bacterial growth than BM and this was used to explain the poorer quality of its fermented products (both yogurt and cheese). These products are characterized by soft consistency and more fragile structures compared to similar products from BM. This review discussed the fermentation properties of CM focusing on its microbial profile including LAB, pathogenic microorganisms, antimicrobial systems, and their influence on the shelf life and quality of fermented CM products. A strong antimicrobial system in CM, comprising LF, LYZ, IgG, LPO, NAGase, PGRPs, bacteriocins, protein hydrolysates, and bioactive peptides, may support resistance to microbial growth and elongates the shelf life of CM. This is the first comprehensive review on this subject, and it highlights the need for extensive research on the quality of raw CM, especially with respect to its exact antimicrobial mechanisms and the contributions of the different antimicrobial agents in the milk. In addition, more research is warranted to investigate the in vitro and in vivo antimicrobial effects of CM against a diverse array of pathogenic microorganisms.

Author Contributions

N.S.H.: Writing—Original and final drafts. M.M. and M.A.: Review and Editing. B.H.U.: Conceptualization and Writing—Review and Editing. A.K.-E.: Conceptualization and Writing—Review and Editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This article was supported as part of a project (31R331) funded by United Arab Emirates University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Dioli, M. Observation on dromedary (Camelus dromedarius) welfare and husbandry practices among nomadic pastoralists. Pastoralism 2022, 12, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Muthukumaran, M.S.; Mudgil, P.; Baba, W.N.; Ayoub, M.A.; Maqsood, S. A comprehensive review on health benefits, nutritional composition and processed products of camel milk. Food Rev. Int. 2022, 39, 3080–3116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mohamed, H.; Nagy, P.; Agbaba, J.; Kamal-Eldin, A. Use of near and mid infra-red spectroscopy for analysis of protein, fat, lactose and total solids in raw cow and camel milk. Food Chem. 2021, 334, 127436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Oselu, S.; Ebere, R.; Arimi, J.M. Camels, Camel Milk, and Camel Milk Product Situation in Kenya in Relation to the World. Int. J. Food Sci. 2022, 2022, 1237423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Grand View Research. Camel Milk Products Market Size. Industry Report. 2020. Available online: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/camel-milk-products-market (accessed on 6 January 2024).
  6. Kamal-Eldin, A.; Ayyash, M.; Sobti, B.; Nagy, P. Camel milk. In Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences, 3rd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 504–513. [Google Scholar]
  7. Nagy, P.P.; Skidmore, J.A.; Juhasz, J. Intensification of camel farming and milk production with special emphasis on animal health, welfare, and the biotechnology of reproduction. Anim. Front. 2022, 12, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Seifu, E. Recent advances on camel milk: Nutritional and health benefits and processing implications—A review. AIMS Agric. Food 2022, 7, 777–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yao, H.; Dou, Z.; Zhao, Z.; Liang, X.; Yue, H.; Ma, W.; Su, Z.; Wang, Y.; Hao, Z.; Yan, H.; et al. Transcriptome analysis of the Bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus) reveals candidate genes affecting milk production traits. BMC Genom. 2023, 24, 660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Guo, L.; Lema, D.; Liu, B.; Dai, L.; Wang, X.; Wang, X.; Cao, J.; Zhang, W. Identification of Bactrian camel milk-related genes and regulatory networks in supplementation and grazing. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2023, 55, 342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ayadi, M.; Hammadi, M.; Khorchani, T.; Barmat, A.; Atigui, M.; Caja, G. Effects of milking interval and cisternal udder evaluation in Tunisian Maghrebi dairy dromedaries (Camelus dromedarius L.). J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 1452–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Atigui, M.; Marnet, P.-G.; Ayeb, N.; Khorchani, T.; Hammadi, M. Effect of changes in milking routine on milking related behaviour and milk removal in Tunisian dairy dromedary camels. J. Dairy Res. 2014, 81, 494–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Konuspayeva, G.; Faye, B. Recent Advances in Camel Milk Processing. Animals 2021, 11, 1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Shori, A.B.; Baba, A.S. Viability of lactic acid bacteria and sensory evaluation in Cinnamomum verum and Allium sativum-bio-yogurts made from camel and cow milk. J. Assoc. Arab. Univ. Basic Appl. Sci. 2012, 11, 50–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fguiri, I.; Ziadi, M.; Atigui, M.; Ayeb, N.; Arroum, S.; Assadi, M.; Khorchani, T. Isolation and characterisation of lactic acid bacteria strains from raw camel milk for potential use in the production of fermented Tu-nisian dairy products. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2016, 69, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lund, A.K.; Shah, A.H.; Jatoi, A.S.; Khaskheli, G.B.; Malhi, M.C.; Khaskheli, A.A.; Khanzada, M.A.; Kalwar, Q. 9. Effect of heating on shelf life and sensory characteristics of camel milk. Pure Appl. Biol. (PAB) 2020, 9, 74–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ismaili, M.A.; Saidi, B.; Zahar, M.; Hamama, A.; Ezzaier, R. Composition and microbial quality of raw camel milk produced in Morocco. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2019, 18, 17–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kadri, Z.; Spitaels, F.; Cnockaert, M.; Amar, M.; Joossens, M.; Vandamme, P. The bacterial diversity of raw Moroccon camel milk. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2021, 341, 109050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Mbye, M.; Sobti, B.; Al Nuami, M.K.; Al Shamsi, Y.; Al Khateri, L.; Al Saedi, R.; Saeed, M.; Ramachandran, T.; Hamed, F.; Kamal-Eldin, A. Physicochemical properties, sensory quality, and coagulation behavior of camel versus bovine milk soft unripened cheeses. NFS J. 2020, 20, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Aralbayev, N.; Dikhanbayeva, F.; Yusof, Y.A.B.; Tayeva, A.; Smailova, Z. Devising optimal technological parameters for spray drying to produce whole camel milk powder. East. Eur. J. Enterp. Technol. 2021, 4, 82–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Abusheliabi, A.; Ayyash, M. Growth inhibition of foodborne pathogens in camel milk: Staphylococcus aureus, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp. and E. coli O157: H7. Czech J. Food Sci. 2017, 35, 311–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sakandar, H.A.; Ahmad, S.; Perveen, R.; Aslam, H.K.W.; Shakeel, A.; Sadiq, F.A.; Imran, M. Camel milk and its allied health claims: A review. Prog. Nutr. 2018, 20 (Suppl. 1), 15–29. [Google Scholar]
  23. Abusheliabi, A.; Al-Rumaithi, H.O.; Olaimat, A.N.; Al-Nabulsi, A.A.; Osaili, T.; Shaker, R.; Ayyash, M.M. Inhibitory effect of camel milk on Cronobacter sakazakii. J. Food Saf. 2017, 37, e12343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Derradji, F.B. Evaluation of camel milk: Gross composition—A scientific overview. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2021, 53, 308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Attia, H.; Kherouatou, N.; Dhouib, A. Dromedary milk lactic acid fermentation: Microbiological and rheological characteristics. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2001, 26, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Arain, M.A.; Khaskheli, G.B.; Shah, A.H.; Marghazani, I.B.; Barham, G.S.; Shah, Q.A.; Khand, F.M.; Buzdar, J.A.; Soomro, F.; Fazlani, S.A. Nutritional significance and promising therapeutic/medicinal application of camel milk as a functional food in human and animals: A comprehensive review. Anim. Biotechnol. 2022, 34, 1988–2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zahra, H.K.; Ismail, B.; Wahiba, B. Physico-Chemical Analysis and Microbiological Quality of Raw Camel Milk Produced by Targui breed in Adrar region of Algeria. South Asian J. Exp. Biol. 2021, 11, 190–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mostafidi, M.; Moslehishad, M.; Piravivanak, Z.; Pouretedal, Z. Evaluation of mineral content and heavy metals of dromedary camel milk in Iran. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 36, 717–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Khalesi, M.; Salami, M.; Moslehishad, M.; Winterburn, J.; Moosavi-Movahedi, A.A. Biomolecular content of camel milk: A traditional superfood towards future healthcare industry. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 62, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Maryniak, N.Z.; Hansen, E.B.; Ballegaard, A.-S.R.; Sancho, A.I.; Bøgh, K.L. Comparison of the Allergenicity and Immunogenicity of Camel and Cow’s Milk—A Study in Brown Norway Rats. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mohamed, H.; Johansson, M.; Lundh, Å.; Nagy, P.; Kamal-Eldin, A. Caseins and α-lactalbumin content of camel milk (Camelus dromedarius) determined by capillary electrophoresis. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 11094–11099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Swelum, A.A.; El-Saadony, M.T.; Abdo, M.; Ombarak, R.A.; Hussein, E.O.; Suliman, G.; Alhimaidi, A.R.; Ammari, A.A.; Ba-Awadh, H.; Taha, A.E.; et al. Nutritional, antimicrobial and medicinal properties of Camel’s milk: A review. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 3126–3136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sobti, B.; Aljneibi, A.H.A.; Seraidy, H.A.A.; Alnaqbi, A.A.H.; Al Zain, B.; Ramachandran, T.; Hamed, F.; Kamal-Eldin, A. The effect of pectin and sodium alginate on labans made from camel milk and bovine milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 5279–5284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mbye, M.; Ayyash, M.; Abu-Jdayil, B.; Kamal-Eldin, A. The texture of camel milk cheese: Effects of milk composition, coagulants, and processing conditions. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 868320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Mohamed, H.; Ranasinghe, M.; Amir, N.; Nagy, P.; Gariballa, S.; Adem, A.; Kamal-Eldin, A. A study on variability of bioactive proteins in camel (Camelus dromedarius) milk: Insulin, insulin-like growth factors, lactoferrin, immunoglobulin G, peptidoglycan recognition protein-1, lysozyme and lactoperoxidase. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2022, 75, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Tanhaeian, A.; Ahmadi, F.S.; Sekhavati, M.H.; Mamarabadi, M. Expression and Purification of the Main Component Contained in Camel Milk and Its Antimicrobial Activities Against Bacterial Plant Pathogens. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2018, 10, 787–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Kumar, D.; Chatli, M.K.; Singh, R.; Mehta, N.; Kumar, P. Antioxidant and antimicrobial activity of camel milk casein hydrolysates and its fractions. Small Rumin. Res. 2016, 139, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kumar, D.; Verma, A.K.; Chatli, M.K.; Singh, R.; Kumar, P.; Mehta, N.; Malav, O.P. Camel milk: Alternative milk for human consumption and its health benefits. Nutr. Food Sci. 2016, 46, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mudgil, P.; Jumah, B.; Ahmad, M.; Hamed, F.; Maqsood, S. Rheological, micro-structural and sensorial properties of camel milk yogurt as influenced by gelatin. LWT 2018, 98, 646–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Santos-Pereira, C.; Andrés, M.T.; Fierro, J.F.; Rodrigues, L.R.; Côrte-Real, M. A review on lactoferrin as a proton pump inhibitor. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2022, 202, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Vega-Bautista, A.; de la Garza, M.; Carrero, J.C.; Campos-Rodríguez, R.; Godínez-Victoria, M.; Drago-Serrano, M.E. The impact of Lactoferrin on the growth of intestinal inhabitant bacteria. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 4707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Benkerroum, N. Antimicrobial activity of lysozyme with special relevance to milk. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2008, 7, 25. [Google Scholar]
  43. Al-Baarri, A.N.M.; Legowo, A.M.; Arum, S.K.; Hayakawa, S. Extending shelf life of indonesian soft milk cheese (dangke) by lactoperoxidase system and lysozyme. Int. J. Food Sci. 2018, 2018, 4305395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Martini, M.; Salari, F.; Licitra, R.; La Motta, C.; Altomonte, I. Lysozyme activity in donkey milk. Int. Dairy J. 2019, 96, 98–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jinesh, P.; Lijina, P.; Kumar, B.S.G. Sequence and N-glycan diversity analysis of immunoglobulin G from buffalo milk using RP-UHPLC MS/MS. Amino Acids 2021, 53, 533–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Wang, L.; Zhou, L.; Ma, N.; Su, Q.; Wan, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, F.; Qian, W. Real-time monitoring of immunoglobulin G levels in milk using an ordered porous layer interferometric optical sensor. Talanta 2021, 237, 122958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Behrouz, S.; Saadat, S.; Memarzia, A.; Sarir, H.; Folkerts, G.; Boskabady, M.H. The Antioxidant, Anti-Inflammatory and Immunomodulatory Effects of Camel Milk. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 855342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. El-Fakharany, E.M.; El-Baky, N.A.; Linjawi, M.H.; Aljaddawi, A.A.; Saleem, T.H.; Nassar, A.Y.; Osman, A.; Redwan, E.M. Influence of camel milk on the hepatitis C virus burden of infected patients. Exp. Ther. Med. 2017, 13, 1313–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Amenu, B.; Eshetu, M.; Hailu, Y.; Hansen, E.B. Activation of lactoperoxidase system: Evaluation of the acidification rate, microbial quality, and shelf life of camel and cow milk. East Afr. J. Sci. 2017, 11, 107–116. [Google Scholar]
  50. Seifu, E. Camel milk products: Innovations, limitations and opportunities. Food Prod. Process. Nutr. 2023, 5, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hailu, Y.; Hansen, E.B.; Seifu, E.; Eshetu, M.; Ipsen, R.; Kappeler, S. Functional and techno-logical properties of camel milk proteins: A review. J. Dairy Res. 2016, 83, 422–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Köksal, Z.; Alim, Z. Lactoperoxidase, an antimicrobial enzyme, is inhibited by some indazoles. Drug Chem. Toxicol. 2020, 43, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mati, A.; Senoussi-Ghezali, C.; Zennia, S.S.A.; Almi-Sebbane, D.; El-Hatmi, H.; Girardet, J.M. Dromedary camel milk proteins, a source of peptides having biological activities—A review. Int. Dairy J. 2017, 73, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Seligsohn, D.; Younan, M.; Larsen, T.; Morrell, J.M.; Chenais, E.; Nyman, A.K. Detection of subclinical mastitis in camels (Camelus dromedarius) using somatic cell count, N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase and lactate dehydrogenase activity. Small Rumin. Res. 2021, 204, 106512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ho, T.M.; Zou, Z.; Bansal, N. Camel milk: A review of its nutritional value, heat stability, and potential food products. Food Res. Int. 2022, 153, 110870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Abdurahman, O.S. Milk N-acetyl-B-D-glucosaminidase and Serum Albumin as Indicators of Subclinical Mastitis in the Camel. J. Vet. Med. Ser. A 1995, 42, 643–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kumar, D.N.; Pinker, N.; Shtenberg, G. Inflammatory biomarker detection in milk using label-free porous SiO2 interferometer. Talanta 2020, 220, 121439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ragland, S.A.; Criss, A.K. From bacterial killing to immune modulation: Recent insights into the functions of lysozyme. PLoS Pathog. 2017, 13, e1006512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ryskaliyeva, A.; Henry, C.; Miranda, G.; Faye, B.; Konuspayeva, G.; Martin, P. Combining different proteomic approaches to resolve complexity of the milk protein fraction of dromedary, Bactrian camels and hybrids, from different regions of Kazakhstan. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0197026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lajnaf, R.; Attia, H.; Al Ayadi, M. Chemistry of Camel Milk Proteins in Food Processing; InTech Open: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  61. Kawahara, A.; Zendo, T.; Matsusaki, H. Identification and characterization of bacteriocin biosynthetic gene clusters found in multiple bacteriocins producing Lactiplantibacillus plantarum PUK6. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2022, 133, 444–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sharma, P.; Dube, D.; Singh, A.; Mishra, B.; Singh, N.; Sinha, M.; Dey, S.; Kaur, P.; Mitra, D.K.; Sharma, S.; et al. Structural basis of recognition of pathogen-associated molecular patterns and inhibition of proinflammatory cytokines by camel pep-tidoglycan recognition protein. J. Biol. Chem. 2011, 286, 16208–16217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Maurya, A.; Sharma, P.; Singh, P.K.; Viswanathan, V.; Kaur, P.; Sharma, S.; Singh, T.P. Structure of the complex of camel peptidoglycan recognition protein-S with hexanoic acid reveals novel features of the versatile lig-and-binding site at the dimeric interface. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA)-Proteins Proteom. 2023, 1871, 140887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Felfoul, I.; Jardin, J.; Gaucheron, F.; Attia, H.; Ayadi, M.A. Proteomic profiling of camel and cow milk proteins under heat treatment. Food Chem. 2017, 216, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Maity, S.; Ambatipudi, K. Quantitative proteomics of milk whey reveals breed and season specific variation in protein abundance in Holstein Friesian cow and Murrah buffalo. Res. Veter. Sci. 2019, 125, 244–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Kirtonia, K.; Salauddin, M.; Bharadwaj, K.K.; Pati, S.; Dey, A.; Shariati, M.A.; Tilak, V.K.; Kuznetsova, E.; Sarkar, T. Bacteriocin: A new strategic antibiofilm agent in food industries. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2021, 36, 102141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Vimont, A.; Fernandez, B.; Hammami, R.; Ababsa, A.; Daba, H.; Fliss, I. Bacteriocin-Producing Enterococcus faecium LCW 44: A High Potential Probiotic Candidate from Raw Camel Milk. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Algboory, H.L.; Muhialdin, B.J. Novel peptides contribute to the antimicrobial activity of camel milk fermented with Lactobacillus plantarum IS10. Food Control. 2021, 126, 108057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Khay, E.O.; Idaomar, M.; Castro, L.P.; Bernárdez, P.F.; Senhaji, N.S.; Abrini, J. Anti-microbial activities of the bacteriocin-like substances produced by lactic acid bacteria isolated from Moroccan dromedary milk. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 10447–10455. [Google Scholar]
  70. Khay, E.O.; Idaomar, M.; El Moussaoui, N.; Abrini, J. Application of a bacteriocin-like inhibitory substance producing Enterococcus durans E204 strain, isolated from camel milk, to control Listeria monocytogenes CECT 4032 in goat jben. Ann. Microbiol. 2014, 64, 313–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Al-Shamsi, K.A.; Mudgil, P.; Hassan, H.M.; Maqsood, S. Camel milk protein hydrolysates with improved technofunctional properties and enhanced antioxidant potential in in vitro and in food model systems. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ipsen, R. Opportunities for producing dairy products from camel milk: A comparison with bovine milk. East Afr. J. Sci. 2017, 11, 93–98. [Google Scholar]
  73. Vincenzetti, S.; Cammertoni, N.; Rapaccetti, R.; Santini, G.; Klimanova, Y.; Zhang, J.-J.; Polidori, P. Nutraceutical and Functional Properties of Camelids’ Milk. Beverages 2022, 8, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Brandelli, A.; Daroit, D.J.; Corrêa, A.P.F. Whey as a source of peptides with remarkable biological activities. Food Res. Int. 2015, 73, 149–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Mbye, M.; Mohamed, H.; Raziq, A.; Kamal-Eldin, A. The effects of camel chymosin and Withania coag-ulans extract on camel and bovine milk cheeses. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 13573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Mbye, M.; Mohamed, H.; Ramachandran, T.; Hamed, F.; AlHammadi, A.; Kamleh, R.; Kamal-Eldin, A. Effects of pasteurization and high-pressure processing of camel and bovine cheese quality, and proteolysis contribution to camel cheese softness. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 642846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Kaindi, D.W.M.; Schelling, E.; Wangoh, J.; Imungi, J.K.; Farah, Z.; Meile, L. Microbiological quality of raw camel milk across the Kenyan market chain. Food 2011, 5, 79–83. [Google Scholar]
  78. Yasmine, S.; Eddine, S.D.; Miloud, H.; Mebrouk, K. Characterization of Dominant Cultivable Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from West Algerian Raw Camel’s Milk and Assessment of Their Technological Properties. Int. J. Biosci. 2019, 15, 400–411. [Google Scholar]
  79. Nagyzbekkyzy, E.; Sembayeva, D.; Sarsenova, A.; Mansurov, N.; Moldabayeva, A.; Moldagulova, N. Data on the diversity of lactic acid bacteria isolated from raw and fermented camel milk. Data Brief 2020, 31, 105956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Davati, N.; Yazdi, F.T.; Zibaee, S.; Shahidi, F.; Edalatian, M.R. Study of Lactic Acid Bacteria Community from Raw Milk of Iranian One Humped Camel and Evaluation of Their Probiotic Properties. Jundishapur J. Microbiol. 2015, 8, e16750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Seifu, E.; Abraham, A.; Kurtu, M.Y.; Yilma, Z. Isolation and characterization of lactic acid bacteria from Ititu: Ethiopian traditional fermented camel milk. J. Camelid Sci. 2012, 5, 82–98. [Google Scholar]
  82. Moslehishad, M.; Mirdamadi, S.; Ehsani, M.R.; Ezzatpanah, H.; Moosavi-Movahedi, A.A. The proteolytic activity of selected lactic acid bacteria in fermenting cow’s and camel’s milk and the resultant sensory character-istics of the products. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2013, 66, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Sharma, A.; Lavania, M.; Singh, R.; Lal, B. Identification and probiotic potential of lactic acid bacteria from camel milk. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2020, 28, 1622–1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Rezaei, M.; Noori, N.; Shariatifar, N.; Gandomi, H.; Basti, A.A.; Khaneghah, A.M. Isolation of lactic acid probiotic strains from Iranian camel milk: Technological and antioxidant properties. LWT 2020, 132, 109823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Maitha, I.M. Microbial Safety of Traditional Camel Milk Products from North Eastern Kenya and Functional Characterization of Selected Lactic Acid Bacteria. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  86. Adugna, M.; Seifu, E.; Kebeded, A.; Doluschitz, R. Quality and safety of camel milk along the value chain in Eastern Ethiopia. Int. J. Food Stud. 2013, 2, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Omer, R.H.; Eltinay, A.H. Microbial quality of camel’s raw milk in central & southern regions of United Arab Emirates. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2008, 20, 76–83. [Google Scholar]
  88. Abera, T.; Legesse, Y.; Mummed, B.; Urga, B. Bacteriological quality of raw camel milk along the market value chain in Fafen zone, Ethiopian Somali regional state. BMC Res. Notes 2016, 9, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Mihajlović, L.; Cincović, M.; Nakov, D.; Stanković, B.; Miočinović, J.; Hristov, S. Improvement of hygiene practices and milk hygiene due to systematic implementation of preventive and corrective measures. Acta Vet. 2022, 72, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Zhu, S.; Zimmerman, D.; Deem, S.L. A Review of Zoonotic Pathogens of Dromedary Camels. Ecohealth 2019, 16, 356–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Geresu, M.A.; Wayuo, B.A.; Kassa, G.M. Occurrence and antimicrobial susceptibility profile of Salmonella isolates from animal origin food items in selected areas of Arsi zone, southeastern Ethiopia, 2018/19. Int. J. Microbiol. 2021, 2021, 6633522. [Google Scholar]
  92. Ayuob, E.; Amer, A.; Keshta, H.; Sedeek, E. Microbial Assessment of Raw Dromedary Camel Milk in Matrouh Governorate, Egypt. Alex. J. Veter. Sci. 2020, 66, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Alnefaie, Z.; Mutawakil, M.H.; Ahmed, M.M.M. Molecular identification for camel udder microbiota. Adv. Environ. Biol. 2019, 13, 7–13. [Google Scholar]
  94. Rahimi, E.; Momtaz, H.; Behzadnia, A.; Baghbadorani, Z.T. Incidence of Listeria species in bovine, ovine, caprine, camel and water buffalo milk using cultural method and the PCR assay. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Dis. 2013, 4, 50–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Matofari, J.W.; Shitandi, A.; Shalo, P.L.; Nanua, N.J.; Younan, M. A survey of Salmonella enterica contamination of camel milk in Kenya. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2007, 1, 46–50. [Google Scholar]
  96. Laiche, A.T.; Khelef, C.; Daoudi, H. Study of the Antimicrobial Activity of Bactericocins Produced by Lactic Bacteria Isolated from Camel Milk in Southern Algeria. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 13, 1285–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. El-Ziney, M.G.; Al-Turki, A.I. Microbiological quality and safety assessment of camel milk (Camelus dromedaries) in Saudi Arabia (Qassim region). Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2007, 5, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Benyagoub, E.; Ayat, M.; Dahan, T.; Smahi, K. Level of control of the hygienic quality of camel milk (Camelus dromedarius) in south west Algeria and its impact on security. Peak J Food Sci Tech 2013, 1, 53–60. [Google Scholar]
  99. Zeidan, R.; Ul Hassan, Z.; Al-Naimi, N.; Al-Thani, R.; Jaoua, S. Detection of multimycotoxins in camel feed and milk samples and their comparison with the levels in cow milk. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 10, 609–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Benyagoub, E.; Ayat, M. Biochemical, Physico-Chemical and Microbiological Properties of Camel Raw Milk Marketed in Bechar city (South-West Algeria): Hygienic and Safe Consumers Approach. Microbes Health 2016, 4, 14–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Sulieman, A.E.; Osawa, R.; Tsenkova, R. Isolation and identification of lactobacilli from Garris, a Sudanese fermented camel’s milk product. Res. J. Microbiol. 2007, 2, 125–132. [Google Scholar]
  102. Hassen, M.; Amentie, T. Microbiological Quality of Raw Camel Milk in Degahbour District of Jarar Zone, Somali Regional State, Ethiopia. Open J. Anim. Sci. 2022, 12, 226–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Njage, P.; Dolci, S.; Jans, C.; Wangoh, J.; Lacroix, C.; Meile, L. Characterization of Yeasts Associated with Camel Milk using Phenotypic and Molecular Identification Techniques. Res. J. Microbiol. 2011, 6, 678–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Akhmetsadykova, S.; Baubekova, A.; Konuspayeva, G.; Konuspayeva, N.; Loiseau, G. Micro-flora identification of fresh and fermented camel milk from Kazakhstan. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2014, 26, 327–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Shokri, H.; Torabi, S. The effect of milk composition, yeast-mould numbers and seasons on aflatoxin M1 amounts in camel milk. J. Food Saf. 2017, 37, e12300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Guo, L.; Xu, W.; Li, C.; Guo, Y.; Chagan, I. Comparative study of physicochemical composition and microbial community of Khoormog, Chigee, and Airag, traditionally fermented dairy products from Xilin Gol in China. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 9, 1564–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Xie, Z.; Peng, Y.; Li, C.; Luo, X.; Wei, Z.; Li, X.; Yao, Y.; Fang, T.; Huang, L. Growth kinetics of Staphylococcus aureus and background microorganisms in camel milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 9958–9968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Bao, W.; He, Y.; Yu, J.; Yang, X.; Liu, M.; Ji, R. Diversity analysis and gene function prediction of bacteria and fungi of Bactrian camel milk and naturally fermented camel milk from Alxa in Inner Mongolia. LWT 2022, 169, 114001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Seifu, E. Handling, preservation and utilization of camel milk and camel milk products in Shinile and Jijiga Zones, eastern Ethiopia. Livest. Res. Rural. Dev. 2007, 19, 6. [Google Scholar]
  110. Eissa, O.E.H.; Hamid, O.I.A. Quality characteristics of camel milk during different heat treatments. J. Agric. Vet. Sci 2017, 10, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  111. Robertson, G.L. (Ed.) Food Packaging and Shelf Life: A Practical Guide; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  112. Mohamed, I.M.A.; El Zubeir, I.Y.M.; El, Y.M. Effect of heat treatment on keeping quality of camel milk. Ann. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 15, 239–245. [Google Scholar]
  113. Khalil, A.E.M.; Alshikh, A.D.A.I.; Almansoori, A.E.; Abdalla, M.A. Effect of Different Types of Packaging Materials on the Shelf Life of Pasteurized Camel Milk. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2021, 10, 24–37. [Google Scholar]
  114. Kumar, A.; Seth, R.; Kumawat, D. Effect of some processing treatments on shelf life of camel milk in comparison to cow milk. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 2021, 91, 681–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Wanjala, N.W.; Matofari, J.W.; Nduko, J.M. Antimicrobial effect of smoking milk handling containers’ inner surfaces as a preservation method in pastoral systems in Kenya. Pastoralism 2016, 6, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Maaroufi, S.H.; Rezaei, K.; Raftaniamiri, Z.; Mirzaei, F. Evaluating the effects of herbal es-sences from spearmint and wild thyme on the quality of camel’s milk. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 50, 2168–2174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Stratakos, A.C.; Inguglia, E.S.; Linton, M.; Tollerton, J.; Murphy, L.; Corcionivoschi, N.; Koidis, A.; Tiwari, B.K. Effect of high pressure processing on the safety, shelf life and quality of raw milk. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2019, 52, 325–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Zhang, S.; Li, H.; Engström, G.; Niu, K.; Qi, L.; Borné, Y.; Sonestedt, E. Milk intake, lactase persistence genotype, plasma proteins and risks of cardiovascular events in the Swedish general population. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2023, 38, 211–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Khakhariya, R.; Sakure, A.A.; Maurya, R.; Bishnoi, M.; Kondepudi, K.K.; Padhi, S.; Rai, A.K.; Liu, Z.; Patil, G.; Mankad, M.; et al. A comparative study of fermented buffalo and camel milk with anti-inflammatory, ACE-inhibitory and anti-diabetic properties and release of bio active peptides with molecular interactions: In vitro, in silico and molecular study. Food Biosci. 2023, 52, 102373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Patel, D.; Sakure, A.; Lodha, D.; Basaiawmoit, B.; Maurya, R.; Das, S.; Bishnoi, M.; Kondepudi, K.K.; Hati, S. Significance of lactobacillus fermentum on antioxidative and anti-inflammatory activities and ultrafiltration peptide fractions as potential sources of antioxidative peptides from fermented camel milk (In-dian breed). J. Am. Nutr. Assoc. 2023, 42, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Soleymanzadeh, N.; Mirdamadi, S.; Mirzaei, M.; Kianirad, M. Novel β-casein derived antioxidant and ACE-inhibitory active peptide from camel milk fermented by Leuconostoc lactis PTCC1899: Identification and molecular docking. Int. Dairy J. 2019, 97, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Aljutaily, T.; Rehan, M.; Moustafa, M.M.A.; Barakat, H. Effect of Intermittent Fasting, Probiotic-Fermented Camel Milk, and Probiotic-Fermented Camel Milk Incorporating Sukkari Date on Diet-Induced Obesity in Rats. Fermentation 2022, 8, 619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Benkirane, G.; Ananou, S.; Dumas, E.; Ghnimi, S.; Gharsallaoui, A. Moroccan Traditional Fermented Dairy Products: Current Processing Practices and Physicochemical and Microbiological Properties—A Review. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci. 2022, 12, e5636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Wang, Y.; Zhou, J.; Xia, X.; Zhao, Y.; Shao, W. Probiotic potential of Lactobacillus paracasei FM-LP-4 isolated from Xinjiang camel milk yoghurt. Int. Dairy J. 2016, 62, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Al-Zoreky, N.S.; Al-Otaibi, M.M. Suitability of camel milk for making yogurt. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2015, 24, 601–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Rahman, I.A.; Dirar, H.A.; Osman, M.A. Microbiological and biochemical changes and sensory evaluation of camel milk fermented by selected bacterial starter cultures. Afr. J. Food Sci. 2009, 3, 398–405. [Google Scholar]
  127. Kamal-Eldin, A.; Alhammadi, A.; Gharsallaoui, A.; Hamed, F.; Ghnimi, S. Physicochemical, rheological, and micro-structural properties of yogurts produced from mixtures of camel and bovine milks. NFS J. 2020, 19, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Mudgil, P.; Al Mazroui, M.; Redha, A.A.; Kilari, B.P.; Srikumar, S.; Maqsood, S. Cow and camel milk-derived whey and casein protein hydrolysates demonstrated effective antifungal properties against selected Candida species. J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 105, 1878–1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Sobti, B.; Mbye, M.; Alketbi, H.; Alnaqbi, A.; Alshamisi, A.; Almeheiri, M.; Seraidy, H.; Ramachandran, T.; Hamed, F.; Kamal-Eldin, A. Rheological characteristics and consumer acceptance of camel milk yogurts as affected by bovine proteins and hydrocolloids. Int. J. Food Prop. 2020, 23, 1347–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Agyei, D.; Owusu-Kwarteng, J.; Akabanda, F.; Akomea-Frempong, S. Indigenous African fer-mented dairy products: Processing technology, microbiology and health benefits. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 60, 991–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Zhadyra, S.; Han, X.; Anapiyayev, B.B.; Tao, F.; Xu, P. Bacterial diversity analysis in Kazakh fer-mented milks Shubat and Ayran by combining culture-dependent and culture-independent methods. LWT 2021, 141, 110877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Ali, A.H.; Abu-Jdayil, B.; Al Nabulsi, A.; Osaili, T.; Liu, S.Q.; Kamal-Eldin, A.; Ayyash, M. Fermented camel milk influenced by soy extract: Apparent viscosity, viscoelastic properties, thixotropic behavior, and biological activities. J. Dairy Sci. 2023, 106, 6671–6687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Ishii, S.; Samejima, K. Products made from camel’s milk by Mongolian nomads. Milk Sci. 2006, 55, 2. [Google Scholar]
  134. Tsuchiya, R.; Kawai, T.; Bat-Oyun, T.; Shinoda, M.; Morinaga, Y. Electrical conductivity, pH, minerals, and sensory evaluation of airag (fermented mare’s milk). Foods 2020, 9, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Watanabe, K.; Fujimoto, J.; Sasamoto, M.; Dugersuren, J.; Tumursuh, T.; Demberel, S. Diversity of lactic acid bacteria and yeasts in Airag and Tarag, traditional fermented milk products of Mongolia. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2008, 24, 1313–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Mahmoudi, M.; Khomeiri, M.; Saeidi, M.; Kashaninejad, M.; Davoodi, H. Study of potential probiotic properties of lactic acid bacteria isolated from raw and traditional fermented camel milk. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2019, 21, 1161–1172. [Google Scholar]
  137. Soleymanzadeh, N.; Mirdamadi, S.; Kianirad, M. Antioxidant activity of camel and bovine milk fermented by lactic acid bacteria isolated from traditional fermented camel milk (Chal). Dairy Sci. Technol. 2016, 96, 443–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Nahidul-Islam, S.M.; Kuda, T.; Takahashi, H.; Kimura, B. Bacterial and fungal microbiota in traditional Bangladeshi fermented milk products analysed by culture-dependent and culture-independent methods. Food Res. Int. 2018, 111, 431–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Shangpliang, H.N.J.; Rai, R.; Keisam, S.; Jeyaram, K.; Tamang, J.P. Bacterial community in naturally fermented milk products of Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim of India analysed by high-throughput amplicon sequencing. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Tamang, J.P.; Tamang, N.; Thapa, S.; Dewan, S.; Tamang, B.; Yonzan, H.; Rai, A.K.; Chettri, R.; Chakrabarty, J.; Kharel, N. Microorganisms and Nutritional Value of Ethnic Fermented Foods and Alcoholic Beverages of North East India. 2012. Available online: https://nopr.niscpr.res.in/handle/123456789/13415 (accessed on 6 January 2024).
  141. Berhe, T.; Ipsen, R.; Seifu, E.; Kurtu, M.Y.; Fugl, A.; Hansen, E.B. Metagenomic analysis of bacterial community composition in Dhanaan: Ethiopian traditional fermented camel milk. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2019, 366, fnz128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Biratu, K.; Seifu, E. Chemical composition and microbiological quality of Dhanaan: Traditional fermented camel milk produced in eastern Ethiopia. Int. Food Res. J. 2016, 23, 2223. [Google Scholar]
  143. Abdelgadir, W.; Nielsen, D.S.; Hamad, S.; Jakobsen, M. A traditional Sudanese fermented camel’s milk product, Gariss, as a habitat of Streptococcus infantarius subsp. infantarius. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2008, 127, 215–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Ahmed, A.I.; Mohamed, B.E.; Yousif, N.M.E.; Faye, B.; Loiseau, G. Effect of starter cultures on various classes of fatty acids in Sudanese fermented camel milk (Camelus dromedarius) gariss. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2016, 28, 353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Ashmaig, A.; Hasan, A.; El Gaali, E. Identification of lactic acid bacteria isolated from traditional Sudanese fermented camel’s milk (Gariss). Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2009, 3, 451–457. [Google Scholar]
  146. Berhe, T.; Vogensen, F.K.; Ipsen, R.; Seifu, E.; Kurtu, M.Y.; Hansen, E.B. Traditional fermented dairy products of Ethiopia: A review. East Afr. J. Sci. 2017, 11, 73–80. [Google Scholar]
  147. Pereira, G.V.d.M.; Neto, D.P.d.C.; Maske, B.L.; Lindner, J.D.D.; Vale, A.S.; Favero, G.R.; Viesser, J.; de Carvalho, J.C.; Góes-Neto, A.; Soccol, C.R. An updated review on bacterial community composition of traditional fermented milk products: What next-generation sequencing has revealed so far? Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 62, 1870–1889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Farag, M.A.; Jomaa, S.A.; Abd El-Wahed, A.; El-Seedi, H.R. The many faces of kefir fermented dairy products: Quality characteristics, flavour chemistry, nutritional value, health benefits, and safety. Nutrients 2020, 12, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Kavas, G. Kefirs manufactured from camel (Camelus dramedarius) milk and cow milk: Comparison of some chemical and microbial properties. Ital. J. Food Sci. 2015, 27, 357–365. [Google Scholar]
  150. Seo, K.-H.; Lee, H.G.; Eor, J.Y.; Jeon, H.J.; Yokoyama, W.; Kim, H. Effects of kefir lactic acid bacteria-derived postbiotic components on high fat diet-induced gut microbiota and obesity. Food Res. Int. 2022, 157, 111445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Van Wyk, J. Kefir: The champagne of fermented beverages. In Fermented Beverages; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2019; pp. 473–527. [Google Scholar]
  152. Oki, K.; Dugersuren, J.; Demberel, S.; Watanabe, K. Pyrosequencing analysis of the microbial di-versity of airag, khoormog and tarag, traditional fermented dairy products of mongolia. Biosci. Microbiota Food Health 2014, 33, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Jans, C.; Bugnard, J.; Njage, P.M.K.; Lacroix, C.; Meile, L. Lactic acid bacteria diversity of African raw and fermented camel milk products reveals a highly competitive, potentially health-threatening predominant microflora. LWT 2012, 47, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Lore, T.A.; Mbugua, S.K.; Wangoh, J. Enumeration and identification of microflora in suusac, a Kenyan traditional fermented camel milk product. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2005, 38, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Sun, Z.; Liu, W.; Bao, Q.; Zhang, J.; Hou, Q.; Kwok, L.; Sun, T.; Zhang, H. Investigation of bacterial and fungal diversity in tarag using high-throughput sequencing. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 6085–6096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Takeda, S.; Yamasaki, K.; Takeshita, M.; Kikuchi, Y.; Tsend-Ayush, C.; Dashnyam, B.; Ahhmed, A.M.; Kawahara, S.; Muguruma, M. The investigation of probiotic potential of lactic acid bacteria isolated from traditional Mongolian dairy products. Anim. Sci. J. 2011, 82, 571–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. SDS-PAGE profiling of proteins and peptides in BM and CM. Reprinted from Ref. [75]. Under Creative Commons permission.
Figure 1. SDS-PAGE profiling of proteins and peptides in BM and CM. Reprinted from Ref. [75]. Under Creative Commons permission.
Foods 13 00381 g001
Figure 2. Bacterial species isolated from naturally fermented camel milk (CM): (A) lactic acid bacteria (sources: s1 [78], s2 [79], s3 [80], s4 [81]); (B) pathogenic bacteria (sources: s1 [85], s2 [86], s3 [87], s4 [88]).
Figure 2. Bacterial species isolated from naturally fermented camel milk (CM): (A) lactic acid bacteria (sources: s1 [78], s2 [79], s3 [80], s4 [81]); (B) pathogenic bacteria (sources: s1 [85], s2 [86], s3 [87], s4 [88]).
Foods 13 00381 g002
Figure 3. Coliform, yeast, and mold detected in raw CM. Sources: s1 [77,101], s2 [86], s3 [92], s4 [97], s5 [100].
Figure 3. Coliform, yeast, and mold detected in raw CM. Sources: s1 [77,101], s2 [86], s3 [92], s4 [97], s5 [100].
Foods 13 00381 g003
Figure 4. Growth of C. sakazakii, S. aureus, and L. monocytogenes inoculated into raw CM, pasteurized CM, and pasteurized BM at different incubation temperatures: (A) 10 °C, (B) 25 °C, and (C) 37 °C: (◆) Pasteurized Cow, (■) Pasteurized Camel, (▲) Raw Camel. Reproduced from [21,23] under Creative Commons permission.
Figure 4. Growth of C. sakazakii, S. aureus, and L. monocytogenes inoculated into raw CM, pasteurized CM, and pasteurized BM at different incubation temperatures: (A) 10 °C, (B) 25 °C, and (C) 37 °C: (◆) Pasteurized Cow, (■) Pasteurized Camel, (▲) Raw Camel. Reproduced from [21,23] under Creative Commons permission.
Foods 13 00381 g004
Figure 5. The kinetics of acidification and the activity of the lactic acid starter in dromedary (•) and cow skim milk (o) during fermentation at 20 °C. (a) Bacterial growth, (b) lactic acid production, (c) acidification rate and activity, and (d) pH changes. Source: [25]. Reproduced with copyright permission from Springer Nature.
Figure 5. The kinetics of acidification and the activity of the lactic acid starter in dromedary (•) and cow skim milk (o) during fermentation at 20 °C. (a) Bacterial growth, (b) lactic acid production, (c) acidification rate and activity, and (d) pH changes. Source: [25]. Reproduced with copyright permission from Springer Nature.
Foods 13 00381 g005
Table 1. Milk proteins’ amino acid sequence identity (% similarity) between bovine milk and goat, sheep, camel, and human milks (Reproduced from [30] under Creative Commons permission.).
Table 1. Milk proteins’ amino acid sequence identity (% similarity) between bovine milk and goat, sheep, camel, and human milks (Reproduced from [30] under Creative Commons permission.).
GoatSheepCamelHuman
Caseinβ-casein91916755
αs1-casein88884733
αs2-casein888956Absent
κ-casein85855852
Wheyα-lactalbumin95956074
β-lactalbumin9393AbsentAbsent
Serum albumin88928176
Lactoferrin92927570
Table 2. Description of the different traditional fermented CM drinks around the world.
Table 2. Description of the different traditional fermented CM drinks around the world.
ProductCountriesProduct DescriptionIdentified MicroorganismsReference
AiragChina, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and some regions of RussiaFermented beverage typically made from raw milk and has a mild alcohol content. Traditional airag production includes adding fresh milk to previously produced airag (as a starter culture) in a leather sack called a khokhuur, stirring it frequently by hand with a stirring rod, and then letting it ferment overnight.Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus, L. reuteri, L. helveticus, Leuconostoc mesenteroides subsp. dextranicum, and Streptococcus lactis[133,134,135]
ChalBulgaria, Iran, and TurkeyFermented CM typically made by fermenting fresh milk using already fermented acidic milk as an inoculum. Fermentation is performed in a porcelain jug for 1–2 days.Lactobacillus plantarum, L. paracasei, L. kefiri, L. gasseri, L. helveticus, Enterococcus faecium, Weissella cibaria, Lactococcus lactis, and Leuconostoc lactis[136,137]
DahiBangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, and PakistanFermented ready-to-drink beverage made from milk subjected to intensive heating before fermentation, which gives the end product a brown color and caramelized taste. Fermentation takes about 1–2 days.Lactobacillus helveticus, L. delbrueckii, and Lactococcus lactis[138,139,140]
DhaananEthiopiaWhite opaque fermented milk with a sour taste and thin consistency. Dhanaan is made by putting unpasteurized CM in a smoking container, wrapping it in fabric, and storing it at room temperature for an extended period of time. People prefer it to milk for its taste and longer shelf life.Lactococcus lactis and Weissella cibaria[141,142]
GarisSudanRaw CM is subjected to a semi-continuous fermentation procedure involving shaking in a leather bag made from tanned goat skin. Fresh CM is continuously added for months to replace the removed fermented product.Lactobacillus helveticus, L. plantarum, L. brevis, and L. leichmannii[143,144,145]
ItituEthiopiaSpontaneously fermented CM made from raw milk with no defined starter culture. Fermentation is performed at room temperature for an extended duration, typically up to 14 days or longer. The main production characteristic is the separation of whey from fermented caseins.Lactobacillus plantarum, L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus, L. salivarius, Enterococcus faecalis, and Lactococcus lactis[81,146]
KefirCaucasus, Eastern Europe, Iran, Mongolia, and TurkeyTraditional kefir preparation involves incubating milk with kefir grains that contain bacteria and yeast. Sterile milk is inoculated with kefir grains and incubated at 25 °C until the pH reaches 4.4.Lactobacillus helveticus, L. kefiranofaciens, L. delbrueckii, L. kalixensis, L. parafarraginis, L. crispatus, L. apis, L. intestinalis, L. gigeriorum, L. taiwanensis, L. gasseri, L. lactis, L. psittaci, L. reuteri, L. rossiae, L. thailandensis, L. tucceti, L. senmaizukei, L. sanfranciscensis, L. farraginis, L. parafarraginis, L. rapi, L. parakefiri, L. sunkii, L. parabuchneri, L. nagelii, L. animalis, L. sakei, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae[147,148,149,150,151]
KhoormogChina and MongoliaSpontaneously fermented dairy product made from raw CM in a wooden barrel without the use of commercial starters. It has a sour and alcoholic taste.Lactobacillus helveticus, L. kefiranofaciens, L. delbrueckii, Leuconostoc spp., Lactococcus spp., Dipodascus, Pichia, Kluyveromyces, and Saccharomyces[106,147,152]
LfrikMoroccoMade by spontaneous fermentation of raw CM in goat skin bags at ambient temperature for 12 h.Lactobacillus fermentum, L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus, L. delbrueckii subsp. lactis, L. acidophilus, L. plantarum, L. brevis, Leuconostoc mesenteroides subsp. dextranicum, Leuc. lactis, Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis biovar diacetylactis, Lc. lactis subsp. cremoris, Lc. lactis subsp. hordniae, Lc. raffinolactis, Lc. plantarum, and Streptococcus thermophiles[123]
ShubatKazakhstanMade by fermentation of fresh, unprocessed CM by adding a small quantity of previously soured milk (typically around 50 mL/L). Fermentation is performed for 1–2 days in a specialized container made of skin or wood.Lactobacillus bulgaricus, L. helveticus, L. kefiri, and Streptococcus thermophiles[104,126,131]
SuusacKenyaCM is fermented spontaneously in smoke-treated gourds. Fermentation lasts 1–2 days at 26–29 °C to produce a product having a white color, astringent taste, and low viscosity.Lactobacillus curvatus, L. plantarum, L. salivarius, Lactococcus raffinolactis, and Leuconostoc mesenteroides subsp. mesenteroides[153,154]
TaragChina and MongoliaFresh milk is fermented using previous inoculum for a duration of 5–8 days at temperatures of 10–25 °C to achieve the necessary level of acidity, alcohol, and flavor.Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus, L. helveticus, L. kefiri, L. plantarum, L. pentosus, L kefiri, L. paracasei subsp. tolerans, Leuconostoc citreum, Weissella confusa, Enterococcus faecium, Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis, Leuconostoc mesenteroides, Galactomyces, Pichia, Kluyveromyces, Saccharomyces, and Trichosporon[135,155,156]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hamed, N.S.; Mbye, M.; Ayyash, M.; Ulusoy, B.H.; Kamal-Eldin, A. Camel Milk: Antimicrobial Agents, Fermented Products, and Shelf Life. Foods 2024, 13, 381. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13030381

AMA Style

Hamed NS, Mbye M, Ayyash M, Ulusoy BH, Kamal-Eldin A. Camel Milk: Antimicrobial Agents, Fermented Products, and Shelf Life. Foods. 2024; 13(3):381. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13030381

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hamed, Nejat Shifamussa, Mustapha Mbye, Mutamed Ayyash, Beyza Hatice Ulusoy, and Afaf Kamal-Eldin. 2024. "Camel Milk: Antimicrobial Agents, Fermented Products, and Shelf Life" Foods 13, no. 3: 381. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13030381

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop