COMPARATIVE PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES, AMINO ACID AND VOLATILE COMPONENTS OF YOGURT PRODUCED FROM COW, GOAT AND CAMEL FRESH MILK
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33003/jaat.2026.1201.07Keywords:
Camel milk yogurt; Physicochemical properties; Amino acid profile; Volatile compounds; Sensory evaluation; Comparative studyAbstract
Abstract
The study evaluated and compared the physicochemical properties, amino acid profiles, volatile compounds, and organoleptic characteristics of yoghurts produced from fresh camel, sheep, and cow milk to determine their respective quality profiles. Fresh milk was obtained from camels, sheep, and cows, then pasteurized and processed into yogurt using a Yogourmet® starter culture containing active bacterial cultures (Lactobacillus bulgaricus, Streptococcus thermophilus, and Lactobacillus acidophilus). The yogurts were analysed for physicochemical properties (pH, Brix, specific gravity, viscosity, total solids, moisture, and lactic acid), amino acids, sensory attributes, and volatile compounds using standard methods. The physicochemical parameters ranged as follows: pH(4.32- 4.50), specific gravity(1.030 – 1.038), brix (18.20 – 21.00%), moisture (71.00 – 74.20 %), total solids (25.80 – 29.00 %), lactic acids (0.85 – 0.95 %), and viscosity (4450 – 4000 mPa.s). Camel milk yoghurt showed highest proportions of most of the essential and non essential amino acids. The volatile compounds identified in the yogurts were classified as alcohols, aldehydes, acids, esters, and aromatic compounds. Specifically, aldehydes (including furan, hexanal, heptanal, octanal, and decanal) and esters (such as ethyl acetate, ethyl propionate, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl octanoate, and ethyl butyrate) were primarily responsible for the flavor profiles of the yogurts, based on their relative proportions. Ethyl pyrazine, 2 – Acetyl – 1 – pyrroline, Benzyl alcohol were aromatic compounds identified. Sheep milk yoghurt was the most viscous, smooth, and spreadable with a robust flavour, while cow milk yoghurt achieved the highest overall acceptability due to its balanced flavour and absence of off-flavours. Camel milk yogurt was characterized by a thinner, more watery consistency and a more pronounced sourness, but sweet than the other samples. All the samples were acceptable.
References
Adamu, A. M., Ardo, M. B., and Hassan, S. (2021). Biochemical and physio-chemical variation in the milk of some indigenous breeds of cattle in Mubi. Journal of Biological and Genetic Research, 7(1), 1–12.
Adepoju, A. B., & Selezneva, I. S. (2020). Production and quality evaluation of yoghurt from cow milk and soy milk blends. International Journal of Food Science and Biotechnology, 5(4), 51–57.
Akinlabi, E.T., Babaremu, K.O., Okokpujie, I.P and Akinlabi, S.A. (2019). Production and Operational Study of a Local Product in Nigeria. Case Study; Xx Yogurt Company in Ota. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1378 (2019) 022055.doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1378/2/022055
Anumudu, C. K., Miri, T., & Onyeaka, H. (2024). Multifunctional Applications of Lactic Acid Bacteria: Enhancing Safety, Quality, and Nutritional Value in Foods and Fermented Beverages. Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 13(23), 3714. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13233714
AOAC International. (2000). Official methods of analysis of AOAC International (17th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
Arain, M. A., Salman, H. M., Ali, M., Khaskheli, G. B., Barham, G. S., Marghazani, I. B., & Ahmed, S. (2024). A Review on Camel Milk Composition, Techno-Functional Properties and Processing Constraints. Food science of animal resources, 44(4), 739–757. https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2023.e18
Azwa, A. N., Siti, M. H., & Nor-Khaizura, M. A. R. (2021). Evaluation of physicochemical and sensory properties of yogurt produced from different animal milk sources. Journal of Food Research, 10(2), 45–54.
Chandan, R. C., & O'Rell, K. (2013). Principles of yogurt processing. In R. C. Chandan & A. Kilara (Eds.), Manufacturing yogurt and fermented milks (2nd ed., pp. 239–261). John Wiley & Sons. doi.org
Cheng, H. (2010). Volatile flavor compounds in yogurt: A review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 50(10), 938–950.
Day, L., Seymour, R. B., Pitts, K. F., Konczak, I., & Lundin, L. (2021). Foundations of milk and dairy-based systems: Role of milk components in structure and function. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 20(3), 2846–2871
El Zubeir I E M, Basher M A E, Alameen M H, Mohammed M A S and Shuiep E S (2012). The processing properties, chemical characteristics and acceptability of yoghurt made from non bovine milks. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 24, Article #50. Retrieved January 24, 2026, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/3/zube24050.htm
Fresno, M., Torres, A., Capote, J., & Álvarez, S. (2020). Goat milk flavor: A review of the factors that affect it. International Journal of Dairy Technology, 73(1), 1–12.
Galeboe, O., Seifu, E., & Sekwati-Monang, B. (2018). Production of camel milk yoghurt: physicochemical and microbiological quality and consumer acceptability. International Journal of Food Studies, 7(2), 51–63.
Germini, A., Rossi, S., & Marchelli, R. (2014). The yogurt amino acid profile’s variation during the shelf-life. The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, 18(4), 384–389.
Grout, L., Baker, M. G., French, N., & Hales, S. (2020). A Review of Potential Public Health Impacts Associated With the Global Dairy Sector. GeoHealth, 4(2), e2019GH000213. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GH000213
Gupta, M. K., Torrico, D. D., Ong, L., Gras, S. L., Dunshea, F. R., & Cottrell, J. J. (2022). Plant and dairy-based yogurts: A comparison of consumer sensory acceptability linked to textural analysis. Foods, 11(3), 463.
Gyawali, R., Feng, X., Chen, Y. P., Lorenzo, J. M., & Ibrahim, S. A. (2022). A review of factors influencing the quality and sensory evaluation techniques applied to Greek yogurt. The Journal of dairy research, 1–7. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029922000346
Kabir, A., Khaliq, A., & Mohammed, S. S. (2022). Nutritional properties of yoghurt prepared using exopolysaccharide producing Lactobacillus spp. isolated from nono. Nigerian Journal of Animal Science, 24(1), 63–76.
Li, D., Cui, Y., Wu, X., Li, J., Min, F., Zhao, T., Zhang, J., & Zhang, J. (2024). Graduate student literature review: Network of flavor compounds formation and influence factors in yogurt. Journal of Dairy Science, 107(11), 8874–8886.
Liu, C., Yang, P., Wang, H., & Song, H. (2022). Identification of odor compounds and odor-active compounds of yogurt using DHS, SPME, SAFE, and SBSE/GC-O-MS. LWT, 154, Article 112689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2021.112689
Martin, J. W., Caroutas, C. A., & Vickers, Z. M. (2005). The role of sensory attributes and beliefs in predicting the consumption of milk and yogurt. Journal of Dairy Science, 88(1), 16–27.
Mbam, N. J., & Ekwu, F. C. (2021). Evaluation of the rheological properties of yoghurt prepared from dairy milk and soy milk. IDOSR Journal of Applied Sciences, 6(1), 96-102.
Mohamed Ahmed, I. A., Almusallam, A. S., Al-Durehim, H. S., et al. (2021). Physicochemical quality attributes and antioxidant properties of set-type yogurt fortified with argel (Solenostemma argel Hayne) leaf extract. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 137, 110389. View on ResearchGate
Olugbuyiro, J. A. O., & Oseh, J. E. (2011). Physico-chemical and sensory evaluation of market yoghurt in Ilaro, Ogun State, Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 10(10), 914–918.
Opara, C.C, Kuru, T., & Ezenwaka, I.B (2013). Production of Soy yoghurt from Lactobacillus isolated from fermented African Oil Bean Seed (Ugba). Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 3(2): 110-119, http://doi.org/10.15580/GJAS.2013.2.112412293
Othman, M. A., Ahmed, I. A. M., Al-Juhaimi, F. Y., Ghafoor, K., Babiker, E. E., & Osman, M. A. (2019). Physicochemical, rheological and organoleptic assessment of yogurt produced from camel milk. Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Food Sciences, 9(3), 560–566.
Park, Y. W. (2007). Rheological characteristics of goat and sheep milk. Small Ruminant Research, 68(1–2), 73–87.
Razak, M. A., Begum, P. S., Viswanath, B., & Rajagopal, S. (2022). Multifarious Beneficial Effect of Nonessential Amino Acid, Glycine: A Review. Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity, 2017, 1716701. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1716701
Reeta, K. S., Ankita, J., & Ramadevi, N. (2015). Fortification of yogurt with health-promoting additives: A review. Research and Reviews: Journal of Food and Dairy Technology, 3(2), 9–17.
Shivana, S., Kumar, R., & Gupta, P. (2024). Comparative profiling of physicochemical, amino acid, and volatile compounds in yogurts from diverse animal sources. Journal of Advanced Dairy Research, 12(1), 115–128.
Stojanoval, M., Stojanova, M.T., Satana, A, Djukic, D.A. (2025). Novel functional plant-based yoghurt designed and analysed using conventional and AI techniques. Journal of Central European Agriculture, 26(2):471-483.
Sumi, K., Tagawa, R., Yamazaki, K., Nakayama, K., Ichimura, T., Sanbongi, C., & Nakazato, K. (2023). Nutritional Value of Yogurt as a Protein Source: Digestibility/Absorbability and Effects on Skeletal Muscle. Nutrients, 15(20), 4366. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15204366
Terzioğlu, M. E., Bakırcı, İ., Oz, E., Proestos, C., & Oz, F. (2023). Comparison of camel, buffalo, cow, goat, and sheep yoghurts in terms of various physicochemical, biochemical, textural, and rheological properties. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 184, 115049.
Wang, L., Wu, T., Zhang, Y., Yang, K., He, Y., Deng, K., Liang, C., & Gu, Y. (2023). Comparative studies on the nutritional and physicochemical properties of yoghurts from cows', goats', and camels' milk powder. International Dairy Journal, 138, 105542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2022.105542.
Watkins, P., Wijesundera, C., & Guitton, Y. (2021). Volatile and flavor compounds of non-bovine milk and their dairy products. In Handbook of Milk of Non-Bovine Mammals (pp. 513–544). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 FUDMA Journal of Agriculture and Agricultural Technology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
