Nutritional
Communication
Biosci. Biotech. Res. Comm. 11(3): 387-392 (2018)
Comparative studies on the physicochemical and
microbiological characteristics of different animal milk
collected from the farms of Khartoum State, Sudan
Sabah Ibrahim Omer Ibrahim
1
, Amir Mahgoub Awadelkareem
2
, Syed Amir Ashraf
2
* and
Murwan Khalid Sabahelkhier
1
1
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Al-Neelain
University, Sudan
2
Department of Clinical Nutrition, College of Applied Medical Sciences, University of Hail, Hail, Saudi Arabia
ABSTRACT
Milk is considered as one of the nest natural foods containing all the essential nutrients such as lactose, fat, protein, minerals
and vitamins in balanced ratio rather than the other foods. The present study was aimed to compare the physicochemical and
microbiological qualities of cow, camel and goat milk farmed in Khartoum states. Milk samples were collected from the villages of
Khartoum, Sudan and analyzed for nutritional and mineral variations. Our proximate analysis showed that, there was no signi -
cant difference (p > 0.05) in total solid content, moisture and fat content of cow, camel and goat milk. However, we found signi -
cant differences (p > 0.05) in cow, camel and goat milk for protein content, ash content, total acidity content and pH. In addition
to that, mineral analysis of entire samples revealed that level of potassium was highest followed by calcium and phosphorus.
However, level of magnesium and zinc was found to be lowest in concentration. Microbiological investigation showed that, total
viable count in cow, camel and goat was 3.5 10
3
, 7.5 10
3
and 4.5 10
3
, respectively. Moreover, total coliform count was found
to be 9, 7 and 6 in cow, camel and goat respectively count indicates possible poor hygienic practices at farm level. In addition to
that, Yeast and Mold, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli and Salmonella was not detected in the samples. This work provides
updated information on the current physicochemical and microbiological characteristics of cow, camel and goat milk collected
from the farms of Khartoum, Sudan. This can be of great importance in the elds of dairy, food technology and food analysis.
KEY WORDS: MILK, PHYSICOCHEMCIAL ANALYSIS, MINERAL ANALYSIS, SUDAN
387
ARTICLE INFORMATION:
*Corresponding Author: amirashrafy2007@gmail.com,
s.amir@uoh.edu.sa
Received 19
th
July, 2018
Accepted after revision 29
th
Sep, 2018
BBRC Print ISSN: 0974-6455
Online ISSN: 2321-4007 CODEN: USA BBRCBA
Thomson Reuters ISI ESC / Clarivate Analytics USA and
Crossref Indexed Journal
NAAS Journal Score 2018: 4.31 SJIF 2017: 4.196
© A Society of Science and Nature Publication, Bhopal India
2018. All rights reserved.
Online Contents Available at: http//www.bbrc.in/
DOI: 10.21786/bbrc/11.3/6
388 COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON THE PHYSICOCHEMICAL AND MICROBIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
Sabah Ibrahim Omer Ibrahim etal.
INTRODUCTION
Milk is one of the utmost important nutritious foods con-
sumed throughout the world. It has been considered as
key sources of all basic nutrients required for mammals
including human beings. Milk is a complex colloidal dis-
persion containing fat globules, casein micelles and pro-
teins in an aqueous solution of lactose, minerals and a
few other minor compounds. Moreover, major chemical
composition of milk has been reported in the form of
water, carbohydrate, fat, protein, organic acids, enzymes
and vitamins. Though, its physical and chemical proper-
ties depend on intrinsic compositional and structural fac-
tors, extrinsic factors such as temperature, diet and type
of breed as well as post-milking treatments. In addition
to that, milk from several animals such as cow, camel and
goat etc. are used for various nutritional purposes such as
feeding to young ones or used for dairy preparation such
as milk cream, butter, yogurt, ghee, sour milk, etc., (Imran
etal., 2008, Sood etal., 2016).
The health bene ts of milk and other dairy products
are known to humanity since ancient times and could
be attributed due to naturally occurring active com-
pounds that are existing in milk. Milk facilitates post-
natal adaptation of baby through digestive maturation
simultaneously by providing the bioactive components
and nutrients. It supports lymphoid tissues development
and in the establishment of symbiotic micro ora. The
importance, potency and the quantity of milk bioactive
compounds are possibly more than old consideration.
They comprise certain speci c organic acids, vitamin A,
B12, D, ribo avin calcium, carbohydrates, phosphorous,
selenium, magnesium, zinc, proteins, bioactive peptides
and oligosaccharides (Ahmad et al., 2011; Homayouni
etal., 2012, Gasmalla etal., 2017).
According to the Ministry of Livestock of Sudan
(North African Country), an estimated 4.8 million ton of
milk per year is produced of which 50% is used for direct
human consumption and the remaining for bakeries and
for feeding young stock. The average consumption is 6.5
million liters per day, which equals 0.18 liter (one cup
of milk)/capita per day or 66 liter per year. Most of this
milk is consumed directly without processing. Moreover,
previous study shows major concerns for cow milk only,
which represent 84 % of the milk consumed around the
world and to a lesser extent to other animal likewise
camel and goat milk despite of their high nutritional
importance (Dairy Quick Scan Sudan, 2016, Mayilathal
etal., 2017).
Camel milk has been considered as an important source
of proteins for the people living in the arid lands of the
world. Its medicinal properties, has been widely exploited
for human health. Camel milk is considered to possess
anti-cancer, hypo-allergic and anti-diabetic properties. A
high content in unsaturated fatty acids contributes to its
overall dietary quality (Konuspayeva etal., 2008). On the
other hand, goat is considered as the poor man’s cow due
to its great contribution to the health and nutrition of
the landless and rural people. Consumption of goat milk
should be enhanced because of its therapeutic properties
and nutrition value (Mayilathal etal., 2017).
Goat was one of the rst animals to be domesticated
and it remained a popular animal serving the needs of
human beings all over the world. Goat milk is one of the
milk sources that was characterized as an economical,
nutritional and medical importance, especially for chil-
dren who suffer allergy from the cow milk. In addition to
that, goat milk has high importance as a source of nutri-
tion for poor communities (Warsama etal., 2015). Goat
milk has high biological value and nutritional qualities
due to its higher digestibility and its dietary character-
istics with smaller diameter fat globules. It presents a
chemical composition composed of proteins of high bio-
logical value and essential fatty acids, besides its min-
eral and vitamin content (Nascimento etal., 2017).
Based upon the nutritional facts and importance of
animal milk such as cow, camel and goat their quality
needs further exploration and updated information. The
present study was carried out to evaluate and compare
the physicochemical and microbiological properties of
cow, camel and goat milk collected from the farms of
Khartoum State, Sudan.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Collection of sample:
A total of 9 fresh milk samples were collected during the
month July–September 2017 from the individual ani-
mals (cow, camel and goat) by using hand milking and
milk samples collected in separate sterilized containers
used for sample collection. Then the collected samples
were immediately transferred to an ice-box and trans-
ported to the laboratory for further chemical and micro-
biological study.
Proximate Analysis:
Total solid, moisture content, Lactose content and fat
was measured as per method mentioned (El-Hag etal.,
2013; Ashraf etal., 2016). Total protein was measured
according to Kejldahl method using factor 6.38 (Bashir
etal., 2015). pH, titratable acidity and ash was measured
according to AOAC (2006) methods.
Microbiological Analysis:
Microbiological quality (Total viable count, yeast and
mold, Staphylococcus aureus, coliform, Salmonella and
E. coli) of the products were investigated by ISO (Inter-
national Organization for Standardization) methods ISO:
BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON THE PHYSICOCHEMICAL AND MICROBIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 389
Sabah Ibrahim Omer Ibrahim etal.
Table 1. Chemical composition of cow, camel and goat milk
Sample
Parameters
Cow Camel Goat
Moisture content (%) 86.34±0.0
a
87.28±0.09
a
87.71±0.07
a
Fat content (%) 3.63±0.01
b
4.3±0.01
a
3.90±0.12
b
Protein content (%) 3.42±0.10
b
3.83±0.15
a
4.81±0.12
a
Ash content (%) 0.813±0.06
a
0.653±0.05
b
0.899±0.34
a
T.S.S (%) 15.0±0.05
a
15.28±0.01
a
14.66±0.057
a
pH 6.42±0.01
b
6.32±0.05
c
6.47±0.05
a
Acidity (%) 0.230±0.06
c
0.183±0.08
b
0.153±0.03
a
Lactose (%) 3.19±0.01
b
4.04±0.05
a
3.79±0.7
c
Table 2. Mineral composition of cow, camel and goat milk
Sample
Parameters
Cow Camel Goat
Calcium (mg/100 g) 119.90±0.69 119.27±3.43 127±3.42
Phosphorus (mg/100 g) 95.03±0.72 83.58±7.64 66.36±9.91
Magnesium (mg/100 g) 13.42±0.24 12.43±0.94 11.86±1.28
Sodium (mg/100 g) 49.67±0.70 68.58±3.52 41.91±7.02
Potassium (mg/100 g) 147.02±1.55 160.50±9.23 133.57±10.42
Zinc (mg/100 g) 0.38±0.00 0.519±o.o35 0.326±0.030
Cobalt (mg/100 g) 0.0599±0.007 0.0638±0.0069 0.0559±0.0084
Iodine (mg/100 g) 0.0336±0.004 0.0357±0.0067 0.0317±0.0049
Table 3. Microbiological analysis of cow, camel and goat milk
Sample
Parameters
Cow Camel Goat
Total viable count (CFU ml
-1
) 3.5 103 7.5 103 4.5 103
Yeast and Mold (CFU ml
-1
)ND ND ND
Staphylococcus aureus (CFU ml
-1
)ND ND ND
Total Coliforms (CFU ml
-1
)9 7 6
E. Coli (CFU ml
-1
)NDNDND
Salmonella 25ml ND ND ND
4833-2003, ISO: 21527-(2)2008, ISO: 6888-(1) 1999,
ISO: 4832-2006, ISO: 6579-2004 and ISO: 6888-(1) 1999
respectively.
Determination of Milk Minerals : 2 gram milk sam-
ple and 10 ml of 20% Nitric acid (HNO
3
) were added
to crucible. The mixture was initially heated at 70–85°C
for 2 hours and later on placed into muf e furnace for
another 3 hours. In addition to that, after completion
of sample digestion the content of crucible was ltered
using Nalgene lter (Thermo scienti c) unit. The ltrate
was collected in 100 ml volumetric ask and allowed
to cool. After cooling the volume was made up to 100
ml using deionized water and analyzed with ICP-MS
(Inductive Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry). For the
sample preparation all the glassware was washed with
deionized water and rinsed three times with 20% nitric
acid. Milk minerals were determined for calcium, phos-
phorous, sodium, potassium, magnesium, zinc, iodine
and cobalt (Alghamdi etal., 2018).
Statistical Analysis:
All the experiments were carried out in triplicates. The
data were analyzed statistically with SPSS-17 statistical
software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Mean was sta-
tistically compared by student t test at P <0.05% level.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Variations in the composition of cow, camel and goat
milk collected from the farms of Khartoum state, Sudan.
Physicochemical investigations were presented in table 1.
Moreover, mineral analysis showed a signi cant varia-
tion as depicted in table 2. In addition to that, table 3
represents microbiological analysis.
Sabah Ibrahim Omer Ibrahim etal.
390 COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON THE PHYSICOCHEMICAL AND MICROBIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
Total solids and Moisture content: Our results showed
that, the total solid content for cows, camels and goats
milk in the present study were 15.0±o.05a%, 15.28±o.01a
and 14.66±0.o57a%, respectively. The statistical analysis
of the data showed non-signi cant differences (p > 0.0
5) between cows, camels and goats milk. However, mois-
ture analysis showed that, cow, camel and goat milk in
the present study were 86.34 ± 0.0a, 87.28 ± 0.09a and
87.71 ±0.07a respectively as shown in table 1. The statisti-
cal analysis of the data showed no signi cant difference
(p≤0.05) between three species and it was similar between
them. Ealier reports reveal that, the total solid content in
these milk was slightly lower than the observed results
(Konuspayeva etal., 2008; Elsheikh etal., 2016 ).
Lactose content: The lactose content of cow, camel
and goat milk in the present study were found to be
3.19±0.01%, 4.04±0.05%, 3.79±0.7%, respectively as
shown in Table 1. The lactose content of cows, camels
and goats milk in the present study revealed that there
was signi cant difference (p≤ 0.05) between cows, cam-
els and goats milk. The lactose of camels milk in the
present study was found to be similar to the previous
reports (Konuspayeva et al., 2008). Moreover, lactose
content in goat milk was not signi cant with the pervi-
ous study ie; 5.0±0.04% (Warsama etal., 2015).
Fat: The content of fat in cow, camel and goat milk in
the present studies were 3.63±0.01%, 4.3±0.01% and
3.9±0.12% respectively as shown in table 1. The sta-
tistical analysis showed, no signi cant difference (p >
0.05) between cow , camel and goat milk. The milk fat of
camels support the ndings determined by Shuiep etal.,
2014. However, fat content in cow milk was similar to
previous study ie; 3.70% (Mourad etal., 2014). Moreo-
ver, the fat percentage in different milk samples could be
due to genetic and environmental factors.
Protein: The content of the milk protein for cows, cam-
els and goats were found to be 3.42±0.10b, 3.83±0.15a,
4.81±0.12a respectively as shown in Table 1. The sta-
tistical analysis of the data showed signi cant differ-
ence (p > 0.05) between cows, camels and goats milk.
This results was in accordance with the previous study
(Mourad etal., 2014).
pH and Acidity: Table 1 shows that, the results of pH for
cows, camels and goats milk in the present study were
6.42±o.01, 6.32±0.05 and 6.47±0.o5, respectively. In addi-
tion to that, acidity for cows, camels and goats milk were
found to be 0.230±o.06%, 0.183±0.08% and 0.153±0.
o3% respectively. The content of the pH and Acidity of
cows, camels and goats milk in the present study the data
revealed that there was signi cant difference (p≤ 0.05)
between cows, camels and goats milk. Our results were in
accordance with the previous study (Fahmid etal.2016).
Ash: Our results shows that, cow, camels and goats
milk had 0.813±0.0%, 0.653±0.05% and 0.899 ±0.034%
of ash respectively as shown in Table 1. The statisti-
cal analysis of the data showed signi cant difference
(p≤0.05) between camel from other species. The content
of milk ash of camels in present study was similar to the
previous study (Mourad etal., 2014).
MINERAL ANALYSIS
The results of calcium (Ca), Phosphorus (P), Magnesium
(M), Sodium (Na), Potassium (K), Zinc (Zn), Cobalt (Co)
and Iodine (I) for cow, camel and goat milk were pre-
sented in table 2. The data indicated that there was highly
signi cant difference (p≤ 0.001) between goats with cow
and camel milk. Goat milk had higher amount of calcium
level than camel milk. The variation of Ca concentration
in milk could be due to species, absorption and avail-
ability of Ca to the animal, environmental factors. More-
over, results of phosphorus showed a signi cant differ-
ence at (p ≤ 0.05 ) between cows and other two species .
No signi cant difference between camels and goats. The
level of P in camel milk in present study was higher than
values reported (Zamberlin etal., 2012). However, result
of magnesium shows that, there was a signi cant differ-
ence (p ≤ 0.05 ) between Mg level of cows , camels and
goats milk. The camel milk exhibited higher Mg level
than goat milk. The level of Mg in camel milk in the
present study was similar for the value demonstrated by
(Konuspayeva, etal., 2009). Similarly, results of sodium
and potassium showed highly signi cant different at (p
≤ 0.01) in Na concentration between cows, camels and
goats but no signi cant difference (p>0.05) in K con-
centration. The results of potassium, in the current study
showed that there was no signi cant difference among
the cows, camel and goats milk. The levels of micro min-
erals of cow milk in present study were Zn 0.38±0.00,
Co 0.0599±0.007 and I 0.0336±0.004, camels milk Zn
0.516±0.035, Co 0.0638±0.0070, and I 0.035±0.0072
mg/100ml. Where, as the levels of micro minerals of
goats milk Zn 0.326±0.030, Co 0.0559±0.00837, and I
0.035±0.0072. The data revealed that, there was no sig-
ni cant difference (p > 0.05) between camels and goats
milk in Zn, Co and I concentrations.
MICROBIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
The microbiological analysis results of cow, camel and
goat milk were presented in table 3. Our data shows that,
Salmonella spp were not detected in the milks. However,
the number of total viable count in cow, camel and goat
milk were found to be 3.5x10
3
, 7.5 x10
3
, 4.5x10
3
CFU
ml
-1
, respectively. Moreover, total coliform count was
found to be 9, 7 and 6 in cow, camel and goat respec-
tively count indicates possible poor hygienic practices at
Sabah Ibrahim Omer Ibrahim etal.
BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON THE PHYSICOCHEMICAL AND MICROBIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 391
farm level. In addition to that, Yeast and Mold, Staphy-
lococcus aureus, E. Coli and Salmonella was not detected
in the samples.
CONCLUSION
Milk is an essential product for human consumption as
it is a complete food supplement in various parts of the
world. Milk can be obtained from different animal spe-
cies, such as goats, cows and camels. Our study focuses
on the nutritional and microbiological characteriza-
tion of cow, camel and goat milk. We found that, cow,
camel and goat milk contained similar percentages of
protein implying that any of them can adequately serve
as a nutritional source of protein for human consump-
tion. However, lactose and fat percentage had signi cant
variation. In addition to that, the level of potassium was
highest among the entire mineral tested. Detection of
coliform and total viable count indicates poor hygienic
conditions during the milking process by farmers. Fur-
thermore, intensive studies should be carried out to
investigate the vitamin and other micro nutrients present
in milk. This work provides updated information on the
physicochemical and microbiological characteristics of
cow, camel and goat milk collected from the farms of
Khartoum, Sudan. This can be of great importance in the
elds of dairy, food technology and food analysis.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are thankful to the Department of Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology, Faculty of Science and Technol-
ogy, Al-Neelain University, Sudan and Department of
Clinical Nutrition, CAMS, University of Hail Hail KSA to
carry out present study.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors do not have any con ict of interest.
REFERENCES
AOAC (Association of Of cial Analytical Chemists) (2006).
Of cial Methods of Analysis, 18th edn. (Gaithersburg, S. edn).
AOAC Press, Washington DC., USA.
Alghamdi, A.A., Awadelkarem, A. M., Hossain, A.B.M. S., Ibra-
him, N.A., Fawzi, M., Ashraf, S.A. (2018). Nutritional assess-
ment of different date fruits (Phoenix dactylifera L.) varieties
cultivated in Hail province, Saudi Arabia. Bioscience Biotech-
nology Research Communication 11(2): 263-269.
Ahmad, M. F., Ashraf, S.A., Ahmad, F. A., Ansari, J. A., and
Siddiquee, M. R.A. (2011). Nutraceutical market and its reg-
ulation. American Journal of Food Technology. 6: 342-347.
10.3923/ajft.2011.342.347
Bashir, A., Ashraf, S.A., Khan M. A., and Azad, Z.R.A.A. (2015).
Development and compositional analysis of protein enriched
soybean-pea-wheat our blended cookies. Asian Journal of
Clinical Nutrition. 7: 76-83.
Ashraf, S.A., Khan, S., Khan, M.A. and Azad, Z.R.A.A. (2016).
Optimization of fat extraction technique in khorasan wheat
using different solvent system. International Journal of Bio-
sciences. 8(4): 36-42.
Dairy Quick Scan Sudan. The Friesian dairy development com-
pany, The Netherlands 2016.
El-Hag, F.M., Ahamed M.M.M., Mahmoud K.E.H., Khair,
M.A.M., Elbushra, O.E., Ahamed, T.K. (2013). Assessment of
rural and experimental dairy products under dryland farming
in Sudan. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 8(47)-
5967-5977.
Elsheikh, N.A. H., Rahamtalla, S.A. and Abdalla, M.O. M.
(2016). Chemical composition of raw milk produced and dis-
tributed in Khartoum State, Sudan. Asian Journal of Agricul-
ture and Food Sciences. 03(01):34-39.
Fahmid, S., Sajjad, A., Khan, M., Jamil, N. and Ali J. (2016).
Determination of chemical composition of milk marketed in
Quetta, Pakistan. International Journal of Advanced Research
in Biological Sciences. 3(5), 98-103.
Gasmalla, M. A. A., Tessema, H.A., Salaheldin, A., Alahmad, K.,
Hassanin, H. A.M., and Aboshora, W. (2017). Health bene ts of
milk and functional dairy products. MOJ Food Processing &
Technology. 4(4):108-111.
Homayouni A., Azizi A., Javadi M., Mahdipour, S. and Ejtahed,
H. (2012). Factors in uencing probiotic survival in ice cream:
A review. International Journal of Dairy Sciences. 7: 1-10.
Imran, M.,Khan, H.,Hassan, S.S., and Khan, R. (2008). Phys-
icochemical characteristics of various milk samples available
in Pakistan. Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE B., (9)7:
546–551.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) methods.
Konuspayeva, G. Faye, B., Loiseau, G. (2009). The composition
of camel milk: A meta-analysis of the literature data. Journal
of Food Composition and Analysis. 22: 95–101.
Mayilathal K., Thirumathal K., Thamizhselvi N., and Yasotha
D. (2017). Comparative study on the chemical parameters of
milk samples collected from cow, buffalo and goat at Dindigul
district, Tamilnadu, India. International Journal of Recent Sci-
enti c Research .8(4):16612-16614.
McCarthy O.J., Singh H. (2009) Physico-chemical Proper-
ties of Milk. In: McSweeney P., Fox P. (eds) Advanced Dairy
Chemistry. Springer, New York, NY.
Mourad, G., Bettach. G. and Samir, M. (2014). Composition and
nutritional value of raw milk. Issues in Biological Sciences and
Pharmaceutical Research. 2(10),115-122.
Nascimento, T. V. C., Júnior, W. L. G. A., Júnior, E. S. L., Men-
ezes, D. R., Dias, F. S., and Costa M. M. (2017). Physical and
chemical characteristics of milk from goats supplemented with
different levels of total digestible nutrients in the dry period.
Acta Scientiarum. 39(4)429-435.
Sabah Ibrahim Omer Ibrahim etal.
392 COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON THE PHYSICOCHEMICAL AND MICROBIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
Rehman Z, Salariya A.M, Zafar, S.I. (2012). Effect of process-
ing on available carbohydrate content and starch digestibil-
ity of kidney beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Food Chemistry.
73:351–355.
Snedecro, G.W. and Cochran, G.W. (1967). Statistical Meth-
ods, 6th edition.The Iowa state University Press. Ames. Iowa,
USA.
Shuiep ,E.S., El Zubeir, I.E. M., and Yousif, I.A. (2014). Compo-
sitional Quality of Camel Milk and Some Husbandry Practices
Associated with Camel Milk Production in Two Production
Systems in Sudan. SUST Journal of Agricultural and Veteri-
nary Sciences. 15 (2): 10-18.
Sood, A., Sood, R., Kumar, A., Kaur, G., Sidhu, C. (2016). Microbial
quality analysis of milk and avoured milk products from local
vendors in Vellore. Electronic Journal of Biology, 12(1): 48-52.
Warsama, L.M., El Zubeir, I.E. M. (2015). Comparison of chemical
composition of goat milk from farms and individual households
in Khartoum State, Sudan, Management of land use systems
for enhanced food security: con icts, controversies and resolu-
tions., Tropentag, September 16-18, 2015, Berlin, Germany.