Camels are known as "ship of the desert" and "beast of burden" and resistant to harsh climatic conditions. Their function has changed in the modern world and they have become a food source like other farm animal species. In the last 60 years, the number of camels, their meat and milk production in the world have increased 3.0, 4.95 and 5.0 times, respectively. In Türkiye, both Bactrian and dromedary camels are reared since F1 hybrid ♂ Tülü (Bactrian ♂ x dromedary ♀) perform better in camel wrestling, which is a unique culture of Anatolia. There are also a few farms aiming to produce camel milk and rearing young camels intensively in Türkiye. However, many practices such as calf rearing, insemination of cows, milking stimulation, milk preservation, milk quality control, milk collection and marketing and milk processing into the products are not as modern as in dairy cattle production. Although dairy camel farms in Türkiye have a higher milk production potential, since high milk prices lead to low demand for camel milk and there is only one camel milk processing facility to turn camel milk into products, farms produce far below their capacity. Processing camel milk into the products such as cheese, whey, yoghurt, pasteurized milk, kefir and ayran is still in its infancy. In conclusion, although the basis of camel rearing in Türkiye today is based on wrestling camel breeding, understanding of the benefits of camel milk on human health and the increase in demand for camel milk products suggest that this situation will change in favour of dairy camel breeding in the near future.

Camels are known as "ship of the desert" and "beast of burden" and resistant to harsh climatic conditions. Their function has changed in the modern world and they have become a food source like other farm animal species. In the last 60 years, the number of camels, their meat and milk production in the world have increased 3.0, 4.95 and 5.0 times, respectively. In Türkiye, both Bactrian and dromedary camels are reared since F1 hybrid ♂ Tülü (Bactrian ♂ x dromedary ♀) perform better in camel wrestling, which is a unique culture of Anatolia. There are also a few farms aiming to produce camel milk and rearing young camels intensively in Türkiye. However, many practices such as calf rearing, insemination of cows, milking stimulation, milk preservation, milk quality control, milk collection and marketing and milk processing into the products are not as modern as in dairy cattle production. Although dairy camel farms in Türkiye have a higher milk production potential, since high milk prices lead to low demand for camel milk and there is only one camel milk processing facility to turn camel milk into products, farms produce far below their capacity. Processing camel milk into the products such as cheese, whey, yoghurt, pasteurized milk, kefir and ayran is still in its infancy. In conclusion, although the basis of camel rearing in Türkiye today is based on wrestling camel breeding, understanding of the benefits of camel milk on human health and the increase in demand for camel milk products suggest that this situation will change in favour of dairy camel breeding in the near future.

Recently, the use of camel milk has increased as a new and alternative animal protein source for human consumption. However, there are some differences in the composition of camel milk compared with other kind of milk sources. One of these differences is that camel milk contains in high concentrations of antimicrobial agents such as lysozyme, lactoferrin, lactoperoxidase and immunoglobulins. In many studies, it was reported that camel milk is not suitable for production of fermented milk especially for yoghurt due to the high concentration of antimicrobial substances. The aim of this study, to investigate suitability of the mixture of camel milk with different ratio of cow, sheep and goat milk for yoghurt production. After preparing of milk mixtures heat treated at 90°C for 15 minutes the mixtures were cooled to 45°C. The starter culture (YC 350) was added and incubated at 42°C until the pH reached 4.7. During fermentation every hour the pH, SH and viscosity were measured. According to the results of analysis in which the highest viscosity and the fastest pH drop, mixtures were chosen as optimum points for yoghurt production. In these optimum points yoghurt production were performed and all of the samples were stored for 1., 7., 14. and 28. days at 4°C. During the storage, water holding capacity and syneresis analyses were conducted. According to the results, the optimum mixture was determined at 80% :20%cow milk:camel milk mixture. However, after 4 weeks of storage it was concluded that an increase in the syneresis and a decrease in water holding capacity (%) were found for yoghurt obtained from 80% :20:% cow-camel milk mixture.

Recently, the use of camel milk has increased as a new and alternative animal protein source for human consumption. However, there are some differences in the composition of camel milk compared with other kind of milk sources. One of these differences is that camel milk contains in high concentrations of antimicrobial agents such as lysozyme, lactoferrin, lactoperoxidase and immunoglobulins. In many studies, it was reported that camel milk is not suitable for production of fermented milk especially for yoghurt due to the high concentration of antimicrobial substances. The aim of this study, to investigate suitability of the mixture of camel milk with different ratio of cow, sheep and goat milk for yoghurt production. After preparing of milk mixtures heat treated at 90°C for 15 minutes the mixtures were cooled to 45°C. The starter culture (YC 350) was added and incubated at 42°C until the pH reached 4.7. During fermentation every hour the pH, SH and viscosity were measured. According to the results of analysis in which the highest viscosity and the fastest pH drop, mixtures were chosen as optimum points for yoghurt production. In these optimum points yoghurt production were performed and all of the samples were stored for 1., 7., 14. and 28. days at 4°C. During the storage, water holding capacity and syneresis analyses were conducted. According to the results, the optimum mixture was determined at 80% :20%cow milk:camel milk mixture. However, after 4 weeks of storage it was concluded that an increase in the syneresis and a decrease in water holding capacity (%) were found for yoghurt obtained from 80% :20:% cow-camel milk mixture.

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the possibilities of technological production of camel milk yoghurt. First of all, denaturation of antimicrobial substances in camel milk by heat treatment and their effects on pH decrease and on the viscosity were analysed. Although the pH decrease was present, the viscosity of camel milk didn’t change. In the study, two different heat treatments (20 min at 90°C and 20 min at 95°C) were applied to camel milk and pH and SH (Soxhelet Henkel) values were determined until pH reached 4.7 during fermentation. After culture addition the pH drop was at 90°C for 20 minutes heat-treated camel milk slower than the camel milk heated at 95°C for 20 minutes. Similarly, the increase in SH in the cultured milk treated at 90°C for 20 minutes was slower than the increase in SH in the cultured milk treated at 95°C for 20 minutes. In the next study, viscosity and pH changes in yoghurt produced from cow and camel milk were compared. For this purpose, both milks were heat treated at 80°C for 20 minutes. After 180 minutes in cow’s milk, the viscosity was 9891 mPa.s, and after 210 minutes it reached 25237 mPa.s. In contrast, the viscosity in cultured camel milk was determined as 1210 mPa.s after 90 minutes, while the viscosity remained around 1216 mPa.s after 380 minutes. In the next study, for the production of yogurt from cow milk and camel milk were performed. Both milks were heat treated at 80°C for 20 minutes and changes in viscosity and drop of pH during fermentation were analysed. After the 180 minutes of fermentation in cow’s milk the viscosity came to 9891 mPa.s, after 210 minutes it was 25237 mPa.s. In contrast, after 90 minutes in the cultured camel milk, the viscosity was 1210 mPa.s, while after 380 minutes the viscosity reached to 1216 mPa.s. E. coli, L. bulgaricus and Listeria innocua were used to determine the antimicrobial effect of raw camel milk, cow milk, heat treated camel and cow milk camel colostrum. While camel milk and colostrum had inhibitory effect on E. coli, L. bulgaricus, Listeria innocua was not inhibited

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the possibilities of technological production of camel milk yoghurt. First of all, denaturation of antimicrobial substances in camel milk by heat treatment and their effects on pH decrease and on the viscosity were analysed. Although the pH decrease was present, the viscosity of camel milk didn’t change. In the study, two different heat treatments (20 min at 90°C and 20 min at 95°C) were applied to camel milk and pH and SH (Soxhelet Henkel) values were determined until pH reached 4.7 during fermentation. After culture addition the pH drop was at 90°C for 20 minutes heat-treated camel milk slower than the camel milk heated at 95°C for 20 minutes. Similarly, the increase in SH in the cultured milk treated at 90°C for 20 minutes was slower than the increase in SH in the cultured milk treated at 95°C for 20 minutes. In the next study, viscosity and pH changes in yoghurt produced from cow and camel milk were compared. For this purpose, both milks were heat treated at 80°C for 20 minutes. After 180 minutes in cow’s milk, the viscosity was 9891 mPa.s, and after 210 minutes it reached 25237 mPa.s. In contrast, the viscosity in cultured camel milk was determined as 1210 mPa.s after 90 minutes, while the viscosity remained around 1216 mPa.s after 380 minutes. In the next study, for the production of yogurt from cow milk and camel milk were performed. Both milks were heat treated at 80°C for 20 minutes and changes in viscosity and drop of pH during fermentation were analysed. After the 180 minutes of fermentation in cow’s milk the viscosity came to 9891 mPa.s, after 210 minutes it was 25237 mPa.s. In contrast, after 90 minutes in the cultured camel milk, the viscosity was 1210 mPa.s, while after 380 minutes the viscosity reached to 1216 mPa.s. E. coli, L. bulgaricus and Listeria innocua were used to determine the antimicrobial effect of raw camel milk, cow milk, heat treated camel and cow milk camel colostrum. While camel milk and colostrum had inhibitory effect on E. coli, L. bulgaricus, Listeria innocua was not inhibited