Optimization of flocculation and clotting time of camel milk with camel and goat rennets, and chicken pepsin in comparison with cow milk using response surface method (RSM)

2Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

To solve the difficulty of coagulation of camel milk, three animal coagulating enzymes: Camel rennet, goat rennet, and chicken pepsin were used. The study was focused on the optimization of two milk coagulation key parameters: pH and temperature using the response surface methodology. The cow milk is used as reference. Characterization of the coagulating enzymes extract showed that the protein content is higher in chicken pepsin [20 ± 0.00 mg/ml] followed by camel and goat’s extracts [15.4 ± 0.00 mg/ml, 8.8 ± 0.00 mg/ml]. However, coagulating and specific activities were more important in camel rennet [111.12 ± 1.23 RU.ml-1, 7.21 ± 0.03 RU.mg-1] than in goat’s rennet and chicken pepsin. On the other hand, coagulant strength was for camel rennet 1/4166.67 SU, goat rennet 1/2531.64 SU, and chicken pepsin 1/6153.85 SU. Moreover, results of pH and temperature optimization of camel milk flocculation showed the following pairs: [X1 = 5.35, X2 = 42] for camel rennet, [X1 = 5.48, X2 = 30] for goat rennet and [X1 = 5.49, X2 = 39.45] for chicken pepsin. Also, the coagulation showed the following couples: [X1 = 5.37, X2 = 39.09] for camel rennet, [X1 = 5.36, X2 = 38.84] for goat rennet and [X1 = 5, X2 = 42] for chicken pepsin. The conclusion was flocculation and coagulation optimum points of camel and cow milk with coagulating enzymes studied are different based on surface plot analysis and the relationship between response and variables

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bouras, B., Aïssaoui-Zitoun, O., Benyahia, F. A., Djeghim, F., & Zidoune, M. N. (2022). Optimization of flocculation and clotting time of camel milk with camel and goat rennets, and chicken pepsin in comparison with cow milk using response surface method (RSM). Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, 34(7), 575–585. https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.2022.v34.i7.2881

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free