CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 48Animal Diversity and Health StudiesProbiotics and Fermented FoodsAdvanced Scientific Research Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of the acidification activities of commercial starter cultures in camel and bovine milk.

Open access
Berhe, Tesfemariam, Ipsen, Richard, Seifu, Eyassu, Kurtu, Mohammed Y., Eshetu, Mitiku, Hansen, Egon Bech·2018·LWT
DOI 10.1016/j.lwt.2017.10.041
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Camel milk has been reported to be difficult to ferment due to anti-microbial properties. The present study tested eight commercial starter cultures for their ability to grow in camel milk. All investigated cultures were able to acidify camel milk and reached a final pH at a level similar to what was achieved in bovine milk, but the speed of acidification was generally lower in camel milk. This could be due to inhibitory substances in camel milk or due to reduced availability of nutrients. Experiments using mixtures of camel and bovine milk or supplementation with casein hydrolysates allowed us to distinguish between these possibilities. High acidification rates were obtained in camel milk mixed with bovine milk or supplemented with casein hydrolysate. This demonstrates that the cultures are not inhibited by camel milk and we conclude that the growth rates of these cultures in pure camel milk are limited by the rate of proteolysis.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.lwt.2017.10.041

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Mehaia, 2006, Manufacture of fresh soft white cheese (Domiati type) from dromedary camel's milk using ultrafiltration process, Journal of Food Technology, 4, 206

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Berhe, T., Ipsen, R., Seifu, E., Kurtu, M. Y., Eshetu, M., & Hansen, E. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Botswana University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (BW)
  • Haramaya University (ET)
  • Technical University of Denmark (DK)
Corresponding author
Berhe, Tesfemariam
ORCID
Venue
LWT
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-03
Volume
89
Pages
123-127
ISSN
0023-6438 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.lwt.2017.10.041
OpenAlex
W2767199435
Cited by
48
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
4.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • LWT (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
  • Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Danish International Development Agency (12-017DTU)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Animal Diversity and Health Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Advanced Scientific Research Methods
Keywords
camel milk, cow's milk, starter cultures, acidification, lactic acid bacteria, dairy fermentation, casein hydrolysate, proteolysis, milk mixtures, antimicrobial activity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review