Short Communication · Volume 53, Issue 6, 16 October 2021 · Open Access
Impact of Parity Order on Nutritional Values of Camel Milk in Modern System
· · · · · ·
Affiliations & Notes ⌄
- 1Therapeutic Nutrition Department, Faculty of Nursing and Health Sciences, Misurata University, Misurata, Libya 2Department of Livestock and Poultry Production, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan 3Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, University of Gadarif, Gadarif, Sudan 4A’Sharqiah University, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Ibra, Sultanate of Oman 5CIRAD-ES, Campus international de Baillarguet TAC/dir B, 34398 Montpellier, France , * Corresponding author: drasimfaraz@bzu
Article Info ⌄
- Journal:
- Pakistan Journal of Zoology
- Published:
- 16 October 2021

From the article
- The results also indicated that there was no significant (P˃0.05) effect of parity and age on lactose content.
- Wide variations of camel milk constituents and nutritional values have been detected in current study.
- These variations might be attributed to difference in parities, lactation stage postpartum, calving number, ecological and physiological variables and reproductive age of she-camel.
- The study findings elucidated that the camel milk production in modern system can be provided with better nutritional values with adequate amount of nutrients in desert and semi desert regions.
Selected from the article's own text.
Abstract
Materials and methods
The study was carried out at Alzakiat Camel Farm, in Ezba area close to Bahri City, Khartoum from June to December 2013. Two clinically healthy groups, each of eight lactating she-camels at 2nd week postpartum, 6-17 years, average mean body weight 477.13± 32.291 kg were chosen from the mixed herd of camels. All selected camels belonged to Arabi Kenana breed from Alzakiat Farm. Group of early lactation (GY) included she-camels in first and second parity, whereas group of mid lactation (GD) included she-camels in third, fourth and fifth parity. All experimental animals were herded in closed pen and provided ration feed, which consisted of concentrates in addition to roughages feed. Water source was available daily ad libitum.
Milk samples were collected in sterile glass bottles (40 ml) by manual milking four times a day (7:00 am, 12:00 noon, 5:30 pm and 11:00 pm). The collection of samples was started in second week postpartum and continued biweekly interval up to 4th month postpartum. These samples were delivered to dairy laboratories in University of Khartoum within 24 h for laboratory analysis. During experiments, one case each of mastitis and internal parasites were observed. Therefore, the dams in this case were discarded from experiment.
Major fat, protein, lactose, solid non-fat (SNF) and density percentages were determined biweekly for 16 weeks postpartum by automatic milk analyzer device (lactoscan Model-90, Europe).
All data were subjected to General Linear Model using Statistix8 version-2 software program; variations of means regarding treatments and weeks were calculated. Least significant differences (LSD) test used for means separations (Free Software Foundation, Boston, MA 02110, USA).
Results and discussion
Table I shows the effect of parity order on milk constituents and nutritional values, and fat content (%) of milk produced by young camel group versus old camel group camel under intensive farming system. There is no difference in fat content among two groups, but the fat content continue to increase regularly from week 2 to 8 postpartum. It ranged between 3.46± 0.85 and 6.34± 0.85% in GY compared to that of GD which ranged between 3.46± 0.70 and 3.92± 0.70%. The results also indicated that there was no significant (P˃0.05) effect of parity and age on lactose content. The lactose level in milk fluctuated during the first 8 weeks, but thereafter it increased stably.
Table I.- Variations of milk fat, lactose, protein, SNF and density contents of milk during experiment period.
| Para-met ers | Fat (%) | Lactose (%) | Protein (%) | Density (%) | ||||||||
| GY | GD | Ove rall | GY | GD | Ove rall | GY | GD | Ove-rall | GY | GD | Ove rall | |
| 2nd week | 3.46± 0.85b | 3.46± 0.70b | 3.46± 0.54A | 4.15± 0.31c | 3.93± 0.26c | 4.04± 0.2C | 3.02± 0.23e | 2.91± 0.18e | 2.97± 0.14C | 27.2± 4.5ab | 25.33± 3.71ab | 26.2± 2.87AB |
| 4th week | 4.91± 0.70ab | 3.97± 0.70b | 4.44± 0.5A | 4.98± 0.26ab | 4.50± 0.25b | 4.74± 0.18AB | 3.66± 0.18abcd | 3.29± 0.18cde | 3.47± 0.13AB | 32.6± 3.71ab | 29.5± 3.71ab | 31.1± 2.62AB |
| 6th week | 5.04± 0.60ab | 5.54± 0.61ab | 5.29± 0.4A | 5.23± 0.22a | 4.98± 0.22ab | 5.11± 0.16A | 3.83± 0.16ab | 3.69± 0.16abc | 3.76± 0.1A | 34.0± 3.21a | 32.2± 3.21ab | 33.1± 2.27A |
| 8th week | 6.34± 0.85a | 3.92± 0.70b | 5.13± 0.54A | 4.66± 0.31ab | 5.07± 0.26a | 4.87± 0.0AB | 3.5± 0.22abcde | 3.69± 0.18abcd | 3.6± 0.14AB | 29.7± 4.54ab | 33.52± 3.71ab | 31.6± 2.87AB |
| 10th week | 5.05± 0.85ab | 4.33± 0.70ab | 4.69± 0.54A | 4.18± 0.31c | 4.97± 0.26ab | 4.58± 0.2BC | 3.11± 0.23de | 3.64± 0.18abcd | 3.37± 0.14BC | 26.8± 4.54ab | 23.8± 3.71b | 25.3± 2.87B |
| 12th week | 5.06± 0.70ab | 4.51± 0.61ab | 4.79± 0.46A | 4.56± 0.25b | 5.01± 0.22ab | 4.78± 0.18AB | 3.37± 0.18bcde | 3.66± 0.16abcd | 3.51± 0.12AB | 29.4± 3.71ab | 26.2± 3.2ab | 27.8± 2.42AB |
| 14th week | 5.13± 0.70ab | 4.50± 0.54ab | 4.82± 0.43A | 4.61± 0.26ab | 5.28± 0.19a | 4.94± 0.15AB | 3.64± 0.18abcd | 3.86± 0.14a | 3.77± 0.11A | 32.0± 3.71ab | 34.7± 2.87a | 33.3± 2.27A |
| 16th week | 4.08± 0.70b | 4.26± 0.54b | 4.17± 0.43A | 5.02± 0.26a | 4.56± 0.19b | 4.79± 0.15AB | 3.65± 0.18abcd | 3.34± 0.14cde | 3.5± 0.1AB | 33.0± 3.7ab | 29.9± 2.8ab | 31.4± 2.27AB |
| Over all | 4.88± 0.25A | 4.45± 0.22A | 4.66± 0.24 | 4.67± 0.09A | 4.79± 0.08A | 4.73± 0.09 | 3.47± 0.07A | 3.51± 0.06A | 3.49± 0.06 | 30.6± 1.39A | 29.3± 1.17A | 30.0± 1.27 |
Different letters in same column and row indicates significant difference (P˂0.05). GY, young group (early lactation); GD, old group (late lactation).
The protein content had lower values in the beginning of lactation in both groups but later increased significantly (P˂0.05) throughout the lactation stage with higher value at week 14 (3.77± 0.11%). The content of SNF likewise increased significantly (P˂0.05) with advancement in lactation stage during four months postpartum. There was no difference in milk density during the first eight weeks after calving but it decreased during week 10 and 12 and later increased till the end of experiments.
The results of this study revealed that milk of young camel is slightly richer in fat content compared to that of old camel. These findings are similar to those who stated that parity seemed to have no effect on milk fat content ; ; Mustafa et al; 2014). In contrast, the effect of parity on fat content of camel milk was significant as reported by Zeleke (2007) and milk yield was also reported to be affected significantly by parity .
High value of milk lactose content during four months postpartum was recorded. These findings are close to previous studies, who mentioned that high lactose content were recorded during first lactation. This is justified by general herders who think that camel milk is sweeter in first lactation (Zeleke, 2007; ; ; . The results of current study showed no significant difference of milk lactose, fat and density content between two groups during experiment period. These findings are in agreement with those who show insignificant differences of fat, lactose, SNF and density contents of milk camel after calving (Bakheit et al., 2008; . The variation in protein content recorded in current study is close to studies reported in Sudan and Ethiopia ; . There are many limitations of working with camels since the owners look for trade benefits rather than scientific researches. Moreover, camels are expensive in modern farm.
Conclusion
Wide variations of camel milk constituents and nutritional values have been detected in current study. These variations might be attributed to difference in parities, lactation stage postpartum, calving number, ecological and physiological variables and reproductive age of she-camel. The study findings elucidated that the camel milk production in modern system can be provided with better nutritional values with adequate amount of nutrients in desert and semi desert regions. Therefore, management practices, parity order and camel breed should be considered. In addition to, physiological adaptation to certain types of commercial feed, feed additives and milking times. However, significant intervention to improve and maintain the milk nutritional value is recommended.
Acknowledgements
The help extended by the management of Alzakiat Camel Farm, Khartoum is gratefully acknowledged.
Statement of conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Abdelgadir, M.M., Faye, B. and Al-Mutairi, S.E., 2013. Emir. J. Fd. Agric., 25: 618-624. https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.v25i8.16095[CrossRef]
- Abdelrahman, Y.M., Eisa, M.O., Mustafa, A.B. and Salih, A.M., 2011. Res. Opin. Anim. Vet. Sci., 3: 174-177.
- Aljumaah, R.S., Al-Mutairi, F.F., Ismail, E., Al-Shaikh, M.A., Sami, A. and Ayadi, M., 2012. J. Anim. Vet. Adv., 11: 141-147.
- Bakheit, S.A., Majid, A.M.A. and Nikhala, A.M., 2008. J. Camelid Sci., 1: 32-36.
- Elagba, H.A.M., Mustafa, A.B. and Atti, K.A.A., 2016. Int. J. Sci. Knowledge, 5: 9-12.
- Faraz, A., Waheed, A., Mirza, R.H. and Ishaq, H.M., 2019a. J. Fish. Livest. Prod., 7: 289.
- Faraz, A., Waheed, A., Mirza, R.H., Ishaq, H.M. and Tariq, M.M., 2019b. J. Fish. Livest. Prod., 7: 288.
- Faraz, A., Waheed, A., Mirza, R.H. and Ishaq, H.M., 2019c. J. Fish. Livest. Prod., 7: 290.
- Haddadin, M.S.Y., Gammoh, S.I. and Robinson, R.K., 2008. J. Dairy Res., 75: 8-12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029907002750[CrossRef]
- Iqbal, A., Gill, R.A. and Younas, M., 2001. Emir. J. agric. Sci., 13: 7-10. https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.v12i1.5197[CrossRef]
- Khanna, N.D., 1986. Indian Farm., 36: 39-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/014833318603600117[CrossRef]
- Khaskheli, M., Arain, M.A., Chaudhry, S., Soomro, A.H. and Qureshi, T.A., 2005. J. Agric. Soc. Sci., 2: 164-166.
- Konuspayeva, G., Faye, B. and Loiseau, G., 2009. J. Fd. Compos. Analysis, 22: 95-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2008.09.008[CrossRef]
- Mustafa, A.B., Mohamed, E.H.A., Haroun, K.A. and Attia, M.A., 2014. Int. J. Adv. Pharm. Biol. Chem., 3: 266-271.
- Raziq, A., Younas, M., Khan, M.S. and Iqbal, A., 2010. J. Camel Prac. Res., 17: 1-4.
- Sawaya, W.N., Khalil, J.K., Al-Shalhat, A. and Al-Mohammad, H., 1984. J. Fd. Sci., 49: 744-747. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1984.tb13200.x[CrossRef]
- Sohail, M.A., 1983. World Rev. Anim. Prod., 19: 38-40.
- Wafa, I.A.B. and El-Zubeir, I.E.M., 2014. Emir. J. Fd. Agric., 26: 333-341. https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.v26i4.17664[CrossRef]
- Zeleke, Z.M., 2007. Livest. Res. Rural Develop., 19: 6.
Services
Article usage statistics
Loading…
