2Animal Reproduction Research Institute, Agriculture Research Center, Ministry of Agriculture, Egypt
This study could be recommended to increase awareness of the nomads about the importance of the effect of feeding system and parity on yield and nutritive value of camel milk produce for human consumption or suckling their newborns
Keywords: Maghrebi Camel; Management System; Parity; Milk Production;
Several factors, such as type of food, are expected to affect the quality and composition of camel milk [7]. The information on the milk off take of camels varies according to the management of camels in their natural environment or under improved condition [8]. However, geographical origin and seasonal variations were found to be the most effective factors in camel milk composition [9]. Milk yield in the dromedary camels ranged between 3.5 and 20 kg , varies greatly depending on the region [10,11]. Camel milk contained all the essential nutrients found in bovine milk [12]. Milk yield and composition in camels are influenced by environmental conditions, and time and number of milking [13].
Camel management systems are different from region to another, and very rare references on various quantitative traits of milk under different productive systems are available [14]. (Musaad, et al.) concluded that camel milk composition showed a wide variability in its constituents depending on the physiological, genetic and environmental factors. Milk yield of Maghrebi she-camels under traditional extensive conditions averages 2.0 l/d though, under more favorable conditions, it ranges between 6 and 12 l/d [15]. which suggest that the milk yield potential of this breed is greater than that recoded under the traditional extensive conditions. Variations observed in camel milk composition could be attributed to several factors such as feeding conditions and production systems [16,17,18].
The objective of this study are evaluate the effect of different management system and parity order on milk yield, milk composition and bacteriological examination of Maghrebi camel under Egyptian conditions
Camels in the second group (G2, n = 20) were managed under traditional pastoral system; animals were brought to graze and browse the available plants and agricultural residues. The dominant vegetations of the natural pasture are Leucaena (30% CF and 20% CP), A triplex (20% CF and 15% CP), Mesquite (25% CF and 23.5% CP), Kochia indica (14% CF and 23% CP) and Alph alpha (20% CF and 17% CP).Climatic conditions, including ambient temperature (Max. and Min.) and relative humidity as well as calculated temperature-humidity index all over the year were 25.6 and 16.7 oC, 64.6 and 58.1%), respectively. However, photoperiod fluctuate between 11 h of light and 13 h of dark during this period.
Item |
CFM |
BH |
RS |
DM (%) |
89.44 |
88.91 |
88.46 |
Chemical analysis (%): |
|||
OM |
92.43 |
82.92 |
82.24 |
CF |
8.85 |
24.91 |
35.69 |
CP |
12.24 |
13.85 |
2.53 |
EE |
4.64 |
1.14 |
1.52 |
NFE |
66.7 |
43.02 |
40.5 |
Ash |
7.57 |
17.08 |
19.76 |
YijK= μ+ Ti + DK + eijK
Where μ = overall mean,
Ti = fixed effect of management,
DK= fixed effect of parity and
eijk = Error.
The significant differences among means of parity groups were set at P < 0.05 using multiple range test of Duncan [24].
It is worth noting that overall mean of all udder measurements showed significantly (P < 0.05) gradual increase by advancing animal parity, being the lowest at 1-2 parities and the highest at 7-8 parities. On the other hand, the effect of interaction between management system and animal parity on all udder measurements was not significant, reflecting similar trend of changes in all measurements by advancing parity order udder both management system (Table 2).
Treatment |
Udder measurement (cm) |
||||
Depth |
Length |
Width |
Circumference |
||
Effect of management system: |
|||||
Farm (F) |
22.75±0.64a |
21.00±1.01b |
19.75±0.91 |
55.25±3.58a |
|
Pastoral (P) |
21.25±1.13b |
22.75±0.72a |
19.55±0.81 |
50.25±3.43b |
|
Significance |
* |
* |
NS |
** |
|
Effect of parity: |
|||||
1-2 parities |
16.00±1.01c |
17.00±0.94c |
14.50±0.62c |
34.00±1.75d |
|
3-4 parities |
21.50±0.56b |
21.00±0.65b |
20.00±0.58b |
45.00±2.13c |
|
5-6 parities |
24.50±0.73a |
24.50±0.78a |
20.00±0.70b |
60.50±2.02b |
|
7-8 parities |
26.00±0.67a |
25.00±0.56a |
23.50±0.72a |
71.50±1.61a |
|
Significance |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
|
Interaction between management system and parity: |
|||||
F x 1-2 parities |
18.00±1.38 |
15.00±0.14 |
15.00±1.05 |
35.00±2.00 |
|
F x 3-4 parities |
22.00±0.71 |
20.00±0.55 |
19.00±0.89 |
48.00±2.10 |
|
F x 5-6 parities |
25.00±0.95 |
24.00±1.14 |
20.00±0.95 |
64.00±2.28 |
|
F x 7-8 parities |
26.00±1.10 |
25.00±0.95 |
25.00±0.55 |
74.00±2.59 |
|
P x 1-2 parities |
14.00±0.84 |
19.00±0.84 |
14.00±0.71 |
33.00±3.05 |
|
P x 3-4 parities |
21.00±0.89 |
22.00±1.05 |
21.00±0.45 |
42.00±3.39 |
|
P x 5-6 parities |
24.00±1.18 |
25.00±1.14 |
20.00±1.14 |
57.00±3.24 |
|
P x 7-8 parities |
26.00±0.89 |
25.00±0.71 |
22.00±0.95 |
69.00±1.34 |
|
Significance |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
Means denoted within the same column for each factor with different superscripts are significantly different at P < 0.05.
In lactating camels, (Zayeed, et al.) mentioned to a highly variations due to many factors such as breed, lactation stage, parity number and disease which can be influence on the size and length of udder and teats [25]. Similarly, Abdallah and Faye observed a clear variability in teats and udder length in 12 breeds of camels in Saudi Arabia, while some of the udder morphometric measurements of Lahween dromedary camel in Sudan have proved to possess an impact on their milk yield [26,27]. In addition, lactating camels are characterized by the development of the udder and milk veins [28].
Our results were less than that reported by (Ayadi, et al.) for udder measurements (cm) [29]. (Ayadi, et al.), also found positive relationships were detected between milk yield and udder morphology traits of dairy camels [29]. Udder height measured was similar to values reported by (Eisa, et al.) [27]. However, udder length and depth values were greater than the results previously reported by Abdallah and Faye in dromedary camels [26].
In accordance with the present results in this study, (Ayadi, et al.) and Abdallah and Faye found that teat length showed similar values in different breeds of camel in Saudi Arabia [26,29]. Meanwhile, the distance between teats was greater than the results previously reported by (Eisa, et al.) on camel [27]. Similar results were observed for milk vein diameter trait by (Eisa, et al.) in camels [27]. The well developed milk vein observed in our study may reflect a high yield milk secretion potential.
Variable |
Fore teats |
Rear teats |
Distance between lateral teats |
Milk vein diameter (MVD) |
||||||||||
Length |
Circum-ferenc |
Height |
Distance in-between |
Length |
Circum-ferenc |
Height |
Distance |
|||||||
Effect of management system: |
||||||||||||||
Farm (F) |
3.75±0.43 |
2.42±0.21 |
93.10±2.20 |
12.85±0.73 |
5.55±0.50 |
11.75±1.01 |
91.65±2.15 |
13.50±0.73 |
3.90±0.22 |
3.01±0.25 |
||||
Pastoral (P) |
4.05±0.45 |
2.32±0.22 |
94.90±1.95 |
12.55± 0.71 |
5.70±0.52 |
11.90±0.96 |
93.55±1.96 |
13.35±0.68 |
4.35±0.25 |
3.05±0.28 |
||||
Significance |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
||||
Effect of parity: |
||||||||||||||
1-2 parities |
1.90±0.23d |
1.39±0.09d |
81.10±1.68c |
9.10±0.56b |
3.00±0.21d |
6.90±0.43d |
79.80±1.77c |
9.30±0.42c |
3.30±0.33b |
1.59±0.12c |
||||
3-4 parities |
3.00±0.21c |
1.99±0.10c |
93.80±1.84b |
12.90±0.65a |
4.40±0.30c |
9.50±0.45c |
92.70±1.93b |
13.90±0.62b |
4.10±0.23ab |
2.45±0.12b |
||||
5-6 parities |
4.30±0.42b |
2.43±0.18b |
100.20±1.38a |
13.70±0.70a |
7.00±0.42b |
13.70±0.70b |
98.60±1.24a |
14.70±0.78ab |
4.50±0.22a |
3.88±0.22a |
||||
7-8 parities |
6.40±0.37a |
3.65±0.18a |
100.90±0.80a |
15.10±0.97a |
8.10±0.27a |
17.20±0.48 |
99.30±0.74a |
15.80±0.55a |
4.60±0.40a |
4.19±0.14a |
||||
Significance |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
* |
*** |
||||
Interaction between management system and parity: |
||||||||||||||
F x 1-2 parities |
2.00±0.31 |
1.46±0.13 |
79.40±1.65 |
9.20±0.860 |
3.00±0.31 |
6.40±0.67 |
78.00±1.51 |
9.00±70 |
3.20±0.48 |
1.72±0.1 |
||||
F x 3-4 parities |
2.80±0.20 |
2.08±0.08 |
91.60±2.06 |
13.00±0.94 |
4.60±0.50 |
9.20±0.58 |
90.60±2.15 |
14.40±0.87 |
4.20±0.37 |
2.40±0.1 |
||||
F x 5-6 parities |
3.60±0.40 |
2.32±0.22 |
99.80±2.74 |
14.20±1.20 |
6.60±0.74 |
14.80±1.01 |
98.00±2.40 |
15.40±1.07 |
4.20±0.37 |
3.80±0.35 |
||||
F x 7-8 parities |
6.60±0.50 |
3.80±0.22 |
101.60±1.02 |
15.0±1.48 |
8.00±0.44 |
16.60±0.81 |
100.00±0.89 |
15.20±0.96 |
4.00±0.44 |
4.10±0.24 |
||||
F x 1-2 parities |
1.80±0.37 |
1.32±0.14 |
82.80±2.98 |
9.00±0.83 |
3.00±0.31 |
7.400±0.50 |
81.60±3.18 |
9.60±0.50 |
3.40±0.50 |
1.46±0.18 |
||||
F x 3-4 parities |
3.20±0.37 |
1.90±0.18 |
96.00±2.93 |
12.80±1.01 |
4.20± 0.37 |
9.80±0.73 |
94.80±3.15 |
13.40±0.92 |
4.00±0.31 |
2.50±0.19 |
||||
F x 5-6 parities |
5.00±0.63 |
2.54±0.30 |
100.60±0.97 |
13.20±0.80 |
7.40±0.40 |
12.60±1.20 |
99.20± 1.01 |
14.00±1.18 |
4.80±0.20 |
3.96±0.31 |
||||
F x 7-8 parities |
6.20±0.58 |
3.50±0.302 |
100.20±1.28 |
15.20±1.42 |
8.20±0.37 |
17.80±0.48 |
98.60±1.20 |
16.40±0.50 |
5.20±0.58 |
4.28±0.18 |
||||
Significance |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
Means denoted within the same column for each factor with different superscripts are significantly different at P < 0.05.
Concentration of IgG in camel milk is 1.64 mg/ml as compared to 0.70, 0.67, 0.55, 0.63 and 0.86 mg/ml for goat, cow, sheep, buffalo and human milk, respectively [31]. In spite of the higher mean IgG concentration in the Dromedary camels, found that mean IgG concentration in raw camel milk was 0.718 ± 0.330 mg/m, but IgG concentration differed for region [32]. They also found seasonal change in IgG content, being higher in winter than in summer. Concentration of IgG decreased regularly (P < 0.001) throughout the year, with the highest value in January and the lowest in July.
It is highly required to investigate colostrum under farming and traditional systems to evaluate the impact of this variable on neonatal viability rate. In this respect, (Bernabucci, et al.) mentioned that multiple factors influence the production and the composition of colostrum, including the species, breed, health status of the mammal, feeding practices, and time collected post-parturition [33]. However, (El-Hatmi et al.) found that concentration of IgG at first milking in Tunisian camels dropped abruptly in the subsequent milkings [34]. Fahmy and Maha found that the concentration of IgG1 decreased by 94% within the whole period of lactation in dromedary camel (Camelus Dromedarius) reared in Marsa Matroh governorate during the first season of lactation [35]. (Mackle, et al.) showed that a pasture supplementing with maize grain and silage led to slightly decreasing of IgG content [36]. Also, In bovin, (Król, et al.) reported that feeding system has the major impact on the milk yield and its chemical composition [37]. Milk of cows grazing the pasture were characterized by a higher content of IgG. Osman mentioned that individual animals showed a wide range of colostrum composition which suggests a prominent role of animal individuality [38]. The chemical characteristics of colostrum were greatly affected by colostral days and slightly by lactation number.
Variable |
IgG (g/dl) |
IgM (g/dl) |
IgA (g/dl) |
Effect of management system: |
|||
Farm system (F) |
33.69±2.31 |
4.93±0.20 |
2.92±0.24 |
Pastoral system (P) |
32.0±2.09 |
4.98±0.21 |
3.11±0.20 |
Significance |
NS |
NS |
NS |
Effect of parity: |
|||
1-2 parities |
20.54±0.79d |
4.49±0.32 |
2.49±0.27b |
3-4 parities |
28.99±0.89c |
5.43±0.24 |
2.73±0.25b |
5-6 parities |
36.96±1.56b |
4.88±0.15 |
3.60±0.30a |
7-8 parities |
44.89±0.91a |
5.02±0.34 |
3.23±0.33ab |
Significance |
*** |
NS |
* |
Interaction between breeding system and parity |
|||
F x 1-2 parities |
20.28±1.21 |
4.36±0.48 |
2.14±0.28 |
F x 3-4 parities |
29.36±1.24 |
5.20±0.35 |
2.48±0.26 |
F x 5-6 parities |
39.64±1.78 |
5.02± 0.25 |
4.10±0.50 |
F x 7-8 parities |
45.48±1.34 |
5.14 ±0.50 |
2.94±0.41 |
P x 1-2 parities |
20.80±1.14 |
4.62±0.50 |
2.84±0.44 |
P x 3-4 parities |
28.62±1.40 |
5.66±0.32 |
2.98±0.41 |
P x 5-6 parities |
34.28±2.06 |
4.74±0.19 |
3.10±0.16 |
P x 7-8 parities |
44.30±1.34 |
4.90±0.53 |
3.52±0.53 |
Significance |
NS |
NS |
NS |
Means denoted within the same column for each factor with different superscripts are significantly different at P < 0.05.
It is worth noting that increasing milk yield of camels under farm system was associated with significant increase in depth and circumference of udder with insignificant changes in teat characteristics as compared to pastoral camels. Also, increasing milk yield by advancing camel parity, regardless management system, was related to developmental changes in udder and teat measurements by age progress. These results indicated significant effects of camel management system on yield and composition of milk. Remarkable variation in feeding system was achieved in camel farms or during grazing. In this study, camels were under good feeding system in the farm, while camels under pastoral system were under poor feeding of fry and wet shrubs and desert shrubs and insufficient in drinking water (thirst). The most important factor in camel milk for peoples living in dry zone is its water content [39].
In similarity with the present results, (Bakheit, et al.) found that average daily milk yield was 6.85±1.32 and 3.14±0.66 liter
Variable |
Milk yield (kg) |
Milk composition (%) |
|||||||
Daily |
Total |
Fat |
Protein |
Lactose |
Ash |
Total solids |
Solid not-fat |
||
Effect of management system: |
|||||||||
Farm system (F) |
7.29±0.39a |
496.0±26.18a |
2.52±0.11a |
3.08±0.15a |
5.77±0.17a |
0.80±0.04b |
12.17±0.38a |
9.64±0.32a |
|
Pastoral system (P) |
5.78±0.26b |
437.4±33.04b |
1.87±0.05b |
2.64±0.11b |
5.30±0.24b |
1.004±0.03a |
10.81±0.35b |
8.94±0.34b |
|
Significance |
*** |
** |
*** |
*** |
* |
*** |
*** |
** |
|
Effect of parity: |
|||||||||
1-2 parities |
4.86c±0.26c |
282.7±27.76c |
1.94±0.15c |
2.28±0.07d |
4.34±0.23b |
0.75±0.06b |
9.32±0.21c |
7.37±0.25c |
|
3-4 parities |
6.22b±0.37b |
478.6±26.60b |
2.04±0.07bc |
2.59±0.11c |
5.60±0.25a |
0.88±0.06a |
11.12±0.34b |
9.08±0.29b |
|
5-6 parities |
6.90b±0.51b |
508.3±19.68b |
2.33±0.16ab |
3.00±0.14b |
6.09±0.17a |
0.97±0.03a |
12.41±0.35a |
10.07±0.27a |
|
7-8 parities |
8.15a±0.28a |
597.3±12.32a |
2.46±0.18a |
3.55±0.17a |
6.08±0.14a |
0.99±0.04a |
13.09±0.36a |
10.63±0.22a |
|
Significance |
*** |
*** |
** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
|
Interaction between management system and parity: |
|||||||||
F x 1-2 parities |
4.94±0.51 |
351.2±31.77 |
2.18±0.23 |
2.26±0.14 |
4.66±0.27 |
0.66±0.12 |
9.76±0.17 |
7.58±0.33 |
|
F x 3-4 parities |
7.14±0.39 |
505.0±44.11 |
2.24±0.04 |
2.88±0.09 |
5.95±0.14 |
0.76±0.07 |
11.83±0.14 |
9.59±0.18 |
|
F x 5-6 parities |
8.26±0.44 |
515.0±33.90 |
2.72±0.19 |
3.20±0.11 |
6.35±0.22 |
0.89±0.01 |
13.17±0.33 |
10.45±0.24 |
|
F x 7-8 parities |
8.82a±0.25 |
613.0±11.79 |
2.95±0.19 |
3.97±0.18 |
6.11±0.08 |
0.89±0.03 |
13.91±0.34 |
10.96±0.21 |
|
P x 1-2 parities |
4.78±0.22 |
214.2±10.61 |
1.71±0.16 |
2.31±0.07 |
4.02±0.36 |
0.84±0.04 |
8.88±0.30 |
7.17±0.41 |
|
P x 3-4 parities |
5.30±0.25 |
452.2±29.85 |
1.84±0.04 |
2.31±0.09 |
5.25±0.46 |
1.01±0.08 |
10.42±0.51 |
8.58±0.49 |
|
P x 5-6 parities |
5.54±0.28 |
501.6±23.92 |
1.94±0.11 |
2.80±0.26 |
5.85±0.25 |
1.07±0.03 |
11.66±0.40 |
9.71±0.47 |
|
P x 7-8 parities |
7.48±0.28 |
581.6±20.52 |
1.98±0.07 |
3.15±0.16 |
6.05±0.30 |
1.11±0.04 |
12.28±0.40 |
10.30±0.36 |
|
Significance |
** |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
Means denoted within the same column for each factor with different superscripts are significantly different at P < 0.05.
By advancing animal parity, Ca and P contents significantly (P < 0.05) increased up to 7-8 parities, while Na and K significantly (P < 0.05) increased up to 5-6 and 3-4 parities, respectively. Yet, Mg and chlorine contents were not affected significantly by parity. The interaction between management and parity was highly significant (P < 0.001) only on K and P, reflecting different trend of change in K and P contents in camels under farm and pastoral system by advancing camel parity (Table 6).
It was reported that the major mineral contents (Ca, P, Na, and K) of dromedary camel milk showed a large variation among different studies due to breed, feeding, stage of lactation, drought conditions, or analytical procedures [50,51]. In agreement with this study, Obied and Hakem found that the desert camel bulk milk had significantly higher amount of Ca, Na and K than in farm camel milk [42]. Shawket and Ibrahem found increased (P < 0.05) content of macro-elements (Na, K and Ca %) in milk of camels fed ad lib. on fresh Atriplex halimus due to higher Na, K and Ca contents in Atriplex than in berseem hay [52].
On the other hand, Elnour and Bakheit indicated that mineral contents in camel milk were affected by parity [53,54]. Contents of P, Na and K markedly increased with increasing parity number. Content of P in milk of camels at one and three parities were 1.13 and 1.4%, respectively, increased to 1.8% at advanced perities. Content of Na (0.65- 0.95%) and K (3.37-4.1%) increased, while Ca content (5.2-1.55%) markedly decreased (5.2 and 1.55%) by
Variable |
Mineral content (mg/dl) |
|||||
Calcium |
Sodium |
Potassium |
Inorganic phosphors |
Magnesium |
Chlorine |
|
Effect of management system: |
|
|
||||
Farm system (F) |
188.27±4.34 |
75.38±2.97b |
87.83±1.49b |
117.74±3.07b |
11.80±0.34a |
100.24±0.54 |
Pastoral system (P) |
190.77±3.61 |
81.98±3.31a |
92.22±3.06a |
102.47±1.79a |
7.38±0.17b |
101.38±0.42 |
Significance |
NS |
** |
* |
*** |
*** |
NS |
Effect of parity |
||||||
1-2 parities |
167.55±4.68c |
65.30±2.10b |
75.43±2.05b |
104.07±2.21c |
9.53±0.96 |
99.80±0.49 |
3-4 parities |
190.25±4.44b |
68.45±2.70b |
94.36±2.35a |
103.62±2.26c |
9.51±0.66 |
101.07±0.65 |
5-6 parities |
197.61±3.17ab |
88.39±2.12a |
93.26±2.35a |
111.20±4.72b |
9.64±0.95 |
100.28±0.81 |
7-8 parities |
202.66±1.81a |
92.58±2.91a |
97.05±1.80a |
121.55±4.84a |
9.66±0.71 |
102.09±0.66 |
Significance |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
NS |
NS |
Interaction between management system and parity: |
||||||
F x 1-2 parities |
158.48±3.32d |
62.22±2.68 |
79.55±1.37e |
106.53±2.47bc |
12.02±0.97 |
99.94±0.93 |
F x 3-4 parities |
196.88±5.79ab |
66.23±3.98 |
90.51±2.32cd |
106.97±1.82bc |
11.36±0.48 |
100.52±1.23 |
F x 5-6 parities |
198.66±3.71a |
86.40±2.82 |
88.97±3.06d |
124.34±3.16a |
12.23±0.85 |
99.56±1.41 |
F x 7-8 parities |
199.06±1.75a |
86.65±3.13 |
92.29±1.13bcd |
133.14±5.39a |
11.58±0.44 |
100.94±0.95 |
P x 1-2 parities |
176.64±6.82c |
68.38±2.82 |
71.32±2.93f |
101.61±3.59bc |
7.04±0.32 |
99.66±0.48 |
P x 3-4 parities |
183.62±5.76bc |
70.67±3.82 |
98.21±3.49ab |
100.27±3.77bc |
7.67±0.18 |
101.62±0.50 |
P x 5-6 parities |
196.56±5.57ab |
90.39±3.22 |
97.56±2.54abc |
98.07±2.02c |
7.05±0.08 |
101.0±0.87 |
P x 7-8 parities |
206.26±2.30a |
98.50±3.30 |
101.80±1.42a |
109.95±3.09b |
7.76±0.54 |
103.24±0.67 |
Significance |
* |
NS |
** |
** |
NS |
NS |
Means denoted within the same column for each factor with different superscripts are significantly different at P < 0.05.
- El-Bahrawy KA, Khalifa MA, Rateb SA. Recent advances in dromedary camel reproduction: An Egyptian field experience. Emir. J. Food Agric.2015;27(4):350-354.
- Faye B, Konuspayeva G. The sustainability challenge to the dairy sector the growing importance of non-cattle milk production world-wide. Int. Dairy J.2012;24(2)50–56.
- Agrawal RP, Jain S, Shah S, Chopra A, Agarwal V. Effect of camelmilk on glycemic control and insulin requirement in patients with type 1 diabetes: 2-years randomized controlled trial. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr.2011;65(9):1048–1052.
- Magjeed N. Corrective effect of milk camel on some cancer biomarkers in blood of rats intoxicated with aflatoxin B1. J. SaudiChem. Soc.2005;9(2):253–263.
- Mal G, Sena DS, Jain VK, Sahani MS. Therapeutic value of camel milk as a nutritional supplement for multiple drug resistant (MDR) tuberculosis patients, Isr.J. Vet. Med.2006;61:88-91.
- Shabo Y. Barzel R, Margoulis M, Yagil R. Camel milk for food allergies in children. Immun. Allerg.2005;7:796–798.
- Mustafa B, EHA M, Atti AKA, Abunokhila AM, Rahmatalla SA. Elterife AMA. Effect of parity on milk yield and dam body change postpartum of dromedary camel (Camelus dromedarius) under farming system in Sudan, I.J.A.P.B.C.2015;4(1): 131-137.
- Yagil, R. (1982). Camels and camel milk. Rome, Italy, FAO, 69 P(FAO animal Production and Health Paper n°26).
- Konuspayeva G, Faye B, Loiseau G. The composition of camel milk, a meta-analysis of the literature data, J. Food Comp. Anal. 2009;22(2):95-101.
- Jianlin H. Camelids. In: Pond, W.G., Bell, A.W. (Eds.), Encycl. Anim.Sci. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York,2005;187–190.
- Kamoun, M. and Jemmali, B. (2012). Milk yield and characteristics of Tunisian camel. J. Anim. Sci. 1:12-13.
- Narmuratova M, Konuspayeva G, Loiseau G, Serikbaeva A, Barouh N ,Montet D, et al. Fatty acids composition of dromedary Bactrian camel milk in Kazakhstan, J. Camel Pract. Res.2006;13(1):45-50.
- Aljumaah RS, Almutairi F, Ayadi M, Alshaikh M, Aljumaah A, Hussein M. Factors influencing the prevalence of subclinical mastitisin lactating dromedary camels in Riyadh region, Saudi Arabia. Trop.Anim. Health Prod.2011;43(8):1605–1610.
- Eha M, Mustafa B, and Atti AKA. Milk composition of the udder quarters of she-camel (Camelus dromedarius) raised under intensive farming system, I.J.S.K.2016;5(1):9-12.
- Ayadi M, Hammadi M, Khorchani T ,Barmat A, Atigui M, Caja G. Effects of milking interval and cisternal udder evaluation in TunisianMaghrebi dairy dromedaries (Camelus dromedarius L.). J. Dairy Sci.2009;92(4):1452–1459.
- Aljumaah RS, Almutairi FF, Ismail E, Alshaikh MA, Sami A , Ayadi M. Effects of production system, breed, parity and stage of lactationon milk composition of dromedary camels in Saudi Arabia. J. Anim. Vet.Adv.2012;11:141–147.
- Bakheit SA, Majid AM, Abu-Nikhila AM. Camels (Camelus dromedarius) under pastoral systems in North Kordofan, Sudan: Seasonal and parity effects on milk composition. J. Camelid Sci.2008;1:32-36.
- Khaskheli M, Arain MA, Chaudhry S, Soomro AH, Qureshi TA. Physicochemical quality of camel milk. J. Agric. Soc. Sci.2005; 2:164-166.
- Fahey JL, McKelvey EM. Quantitative determination of serum Immunoglobulins in antibody agar plates. J. Immunol.1965;94:84-90.
- Mancini G, Carbonara AO, Hermans D. Immunochemical quantitation of antigens by single radial immunodiffusion. Immunochem.1965;2(3):235-254.
- AOAC.Official Methods of Analysis. 13th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.1980.
- Watanabe FS, Olsen SR. Test of an ascorbic acid method for determining phosphorus in water and NaHCO3 extracts from soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.1965;29(6):677–678.
- SAS. (2002). SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA. NOTE: SAS Proprietary Software Version 9.00 (TS M0).
- Duncan DB. Multiple Range and Multiple F-tests. Biometrics.1955;11(1):1-42.
- Zayeed, A.A.; Magdub, A.B.; Shareha, A.M.; El-Sheikh, A. and Manzally, M. (1991). Conf. of camels in the Arab World. University of Omar El-Mukhtar, 1st Ed [Arabic].Tripoli (Libya). pp: 115.
- Abdallah HR, Faye B. Phenotypic classification of Saudi Arabian camel (Camelus dromedarius) by their body measurements. Emir J Food Agric.2012;24(3):272-280.
- Eisa MO, Ishag IA, Abu-Nikhaila AM .A note on the relationships between udder morphometric and milk yield of Lahween camel (Camelus dromedarius). Livest Res Rural Develop.2010
- Wardeh MF, Al-Mustafa M. (1990). Camel breed types in the Arab countries North and West Africa. Proc Arab Symp of camel husbandry and diseases and methods of their control. Alger (Algeria), 24-26 March. pp: 105.
- Ayadi M, Aljumaah RS, Musaad A Samara EM, Abelrahman MM, Alshaikh MA, et all. Relationship between udder morphology traits, alveolar and cisternal milk compartments and machine milking performances of dairy camels (Camelus dromedarius). Spanish J. of Agric. Res.2013;11(3):790-797.
- Osman, M.O.E.M. (2006). Udder conformation and milk ability of She-Camel (Camelus dromedarius) in EL- Showak, Eastern Sudan. PhD. Thesis, Department of Dairy Production Faculty of Animal Production University of Khartoum August.
- El-Agamy EI, Nawar M. Nutritive and immunological values of camel milk: A comparative study with milk of other species. In: Proc. 2nd International Camelid Conference: Agroecons. Camelid Farm, Almaty, Kazakhstan.2000.8-12 Sept.
- Konuspayeva G, Faye B, Loiseau G, Levieux D. Lactoferrin and Immunoglobulin contents in camel’s milk (Camelus bactrianus, Camelus dromedaries, and Hybrids) from Kazakhstan. J. of Dairy Sci.2007;90:(1):38-46.
- Bernabucci U, Basirico L, Morera P. Impact of hot environment on colostrum and milk composition. Cell. Mol. Biol.2013;59(1): 67-83.
- El-Hatmi H, Levieux A, Levieux D. Camel (Camelus dromedarius) immunoglobulin G, α-lactalbumin, serum albumin and lactoferrin in colostrum and milk during the early post partum period. J. of Dairy Res.2006;73(3):288-293.
- Fahmy BGA, Maha MM. (2010). Interrelationships between Somatic cell count and biochemical changes in Egyptian camel milk. SCVMJ, XV (1) 45-72.
- Mackle TR, Bryant AM, Petc hSF, Hill JP. Auldist MJ. Variation in the composition of milk protein from pasture-fed dairy cows in the late lactation and the effect of grain and silage supplementation. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research.1999;42(2) 147-154.
- Król J, Brodziak A, Litwińczuk Z, Barłowska J. Selected Factors Determining the Content of Lactoferrin, Lysozyme and Immunoglobulins G in Bovine Milk A Search for Antibacterial Agents.2012;107-124.
- Osman, MMH. Assessment of cows and she-camel colostrum and some factors affecting their chemical composition. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Dairy Production, Faculty of Animal Production, University of Khartoum.2014.
- Wilson RT. (1998). Camels. CTA series, Mac Millan Educational Press LTD, London, Uk. Pp: 120-124.
- Bakheit SA, Bernard F, Ibrahim IE. Effect of improving management system on camel milk production. University of Kordofan Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, UKJNRES.2015;2(2):13-22.
- Abdalla EB , Ashmawy AA ,Farouk MH ,Salama OA, Khalil FA , Seioudy AF. Milk production potential in Maghrebi she-camels. Small Ruminant Research.2015;123(1):129–135.
- Obied AA, Hakem BZ. Milk composition of Libyan Maghrebi camels (Camels Dromedaries) reared under farm and desert conditions. International Conference on Chemical, Environment & Biological Sciences.2014;92-94.
- Shuiep ES, El Zubeir IEM, Yousif IA. Compositional Quality of Camel Milk and Some Husbandry Practices Associated with Camel Milk Production in Two Production Systems in Sudan SUST Journal of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences (SJAVS).2014;15(2) 10-18.
- Al Haj OA, Al Kanhal HA. Compositional, technological and nutritional aspects of dromedary camel milk. International Dairy Journal.2010;20(12):811-821.
- Babiker WIA, El Zubeir IEM. Impact of Husbandry, stages of lactation and parity number on yield and chemical composition of dromedary camel milk. Emir Journal of Food and Agriculture.2014;26(4):333-341.
- Bekele T, Lunderheim N, Dahlbron K. Milk feeding and feeding behaviour in the camel (Camelus dromedarius) during 4 watering regimens. Journal of Dairy Science.2011;94(3):1310-1317.
- Riyadh SA, Faris FA, Elsyed I, Mohammed AA, Ahmed S. and Moez, A. Effects of production system, breed, parity, and stage of lactation on milk composition of dromedary camels of Saudi Arabia. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances.2012;11(1):141-147.
- Dowelmadina IMM, El Zubeir IEM, Salim ADA, Arabi OHMH. Influence of some factors on composition of Dromedary camel milk in Sudan. Global J. of Animal Scientific Research.2014;2(2):120-129.
- Mustafa AB, Mohamed EHA, Haroun E, Attia KA, Nikhala MA. Effect of parity on camel milk composition under traditional pastoral and farmed systems in Sudan. International Journal of advances in pharmacy, biology and chemistry (IJAPBC).2014; 3(2):266-272.
- Gorban AMS, Izzeldin OM. Mineral content of camel milk and colostrum. J. Dairy Res.1997;63(3):471–474.
- Mehaia MA, Hablas MA, Abdel-Rahman KM, El-Mougy SA. Milk composition of Majaheim, Wadah and Hamra camels in Saudi Arabia. Food Chem.1995;52(2):115–122.
- Shawket MS, Ibrahem AH. (2012). Impact of long-Term feeding atriplex (Saltbush) on camel's milk production under arid conditions. in: Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of the International Society of Camelid Research and Development.
- Elnour AAHM,Bakheit SA. (2012). The effect of parity number on some mineral level rations in camel’s milk. A case study: North Kordofan State, Sudan. in: Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of the International Society of Camelid Research and Development.
- Musaad AM, Faye B, Al-Mutairi SE. Seasonal and physiological variation of gross composition of camel milk in Saudi Arabia. Emir. J. Food Agric.2013;25(8):618-624.