PRODUCTION OF KEFIR AND YOGHURT FROM CAMEL MILK

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TADQIQOT VA TARAQQIYOT ISSN: 3030 – 3281 Volume II, Issue 12 (2025) © 2025, the Author(s). Published by IMFAKTOR. This is an open access article under the CC BY license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 53 PRODUCTION OF KEFIR AND YOGHURT FROM CAMEL MILK Khumora YUNUSKHODJAEVA¹, Dilrabo MAKSUMOVA2, Kuchkor DODAEV3. ¹ Doctoral Student, Tashkent Institute of Chemical Technology. 2 PhD, Associate Professor, Tashkent Institute of Chemical Technology. 3 DSc, Professor, Tashkent Institute of Chemical Technology. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18049252 ANNOTATION Camel milk represents an underutilized raw material for dairy processing in Uzbekistan, despite its high nutritional value and increasing global interest. This study investigated the production of kefir and yoghurt from raw dromedary camel milk using commercial starter cultures. The milk was subjected to heat treatment at 65–67 °C for 25 minutes, followed by fermentation under controlled conditions. Organoleptic and physicochemical analyses revealed distinct changes associated with fermentation. Fat and protein contents exhibited different trends in the two products, while dry matter increased significantly, particularly in yoghurt. The findings demonstrate that camel milk can be successfully fermented into kefir and yoghurt; however, these products differ from their bovine counterparts in terms of texture, fermentation time, and compositional characteristics. The results contribute to the development of processing technologies for camel milk in Uzbekistan. Keywords: camel milk, milk processing, yoghurt, kefir, heat treatment, starter culture, acidity, proteins, fats. TUYA SUTIDAN KEFIR VA YOGURT ISHLAB CHIQARISH ANNOTATSIYA Tuya suti O‘zbekistonda sut sanoati uchun yetarlicha foydalanilmayotgan xom ashyo hisoblanadi, garchi uning oziqaviy qiymati yuqori bo‘lsa va unga bo‘lgan global qiziqish tobora ortib borayotgan bo‘lsa ham. Ushbu tadqiqotda bir o‘rkachli tuyadan olingan xom sutdan tijorat zakvaskalari yordamida kefir va yogurt ishlab chiqarish jarayoni o‘rganildi. Tuya suti 65–67 °C haroratda 25 daqiqa davomida issiqlik bilan ishlov berilib, so‘ngra nazorat qilinadigan sharoitlarda fermentatsiya qilindi. Organoleptik hamda fizik-kimyoviy tahlillar fermentatsiya jarayoni bilan bog‘liq aniq o‘zgarishlarni aniqladi. Yog‘ va oqsil miqdori har ikki mahsulotda turlicha dinamikani namoyon etgan bo‘lsa, quruq modda ulushi sezilarli darajada oshdi, ayniqsa yogurt namunalarida. Olingan natijalar tuya sutini kefir va yogurtga muvaffaqiyatli fermentatsiya qilish mumkinligini ko‘rsatadi, biroq mazkur mahsulotlar sigir sutidan tayyorlangan analoglardan tekstura, fermentatsiya davomiyligi va tarkibiy o‘zgarishlari bilan farq qiladi. Tadqiqot natijalari O‘zbekistonda tuya sutini qayta ishlash texnologiyalarini rivojlantirish uchun ilmiy asos bo‘lib xizmat qiladi. Kalit so‘zlar: tuya suti, sutni qayta ishlash, yogurt, kefir, issiqlik bilan ishlov berish, zakvaska, kislotalilik, oqsillar, yog‘lar . ПРОИЗВОДСТВО КЕФИРА И ЙОГУРТА ИЗ ВЕРБЛЮЖЬЕГО МОЛОКА АННОТАЦИЯ Верблюжье молоко является недоиспользуемым сырьём для молочной промышленности Узбекистана, несмотря на его высокую питательную ценность и растущий интерес к нему во всём мире. В данном исследовании изучено получение кефира и йогурта из сырого молока одногорбого верблюда с использованием коммерческих заквасочных культур. Верблюжье молоко подвергали термической обработке при температуре 65–67 °С в течение 25 минут с последующей ферментацией в контролируемых условиях. Органолептический и физико-химический анализы выявили выраженные изменения, обусловленные процессом ферментации. Содержание жира и белка в полученных продуктах изменялось поразному, тогда как массовая доля сухих веществ существенно возрастала, особенно в йогурте. Полученные результаты подтверждают возможность успешной ферментации верблюжьего молока с получением кефира и йогурта; при этом данные продукты отличаются от аналогов из коровьего молока по текстуре, продолжительности ферментации и составу. Представленные данные способствуют развитию технологий переработки верблюжьего молока в Узбекистане. Ключевые слова: верблюжье молоко, переработка молока, йогурт, кефир, термическая обработка, закваска, кислотность, белки, жиры. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT | VOLUME II | ISSUE 12 | 2025 \ 54 Camel milk is considered a valuable source of nutrition for populations living in arid and semi-arid regions, owing to its high content of essential nutrients and its adaptability to harsh climatic conditions. In 2022, global camel milk production exceeded 4 million tons, with Kenya accounting for approximately 26% of total output, followed by Somalia and Pakistan, which produced 987,842.9 and 944,000 tons of raw camel milk, respectively [1, P.2]. These figures highlight the growing importance of camel milk in the global dairy sector and its potential contribution to food security in regions affected by climate change. Camels represent a promising source of raw material for the dairy industry of Uzbekistan. Several camelbreeding enterprises operate in the country, with a total camel population of about 19.9 thousand head [2, P.12]. Despite this resource base, camel milk is not yet processed on an industrial scale in Uzbekistan, and commercial camel milk products are currently absent from the domestic market. In contrast, countries such as Kazakhstan, the United Arab Emirates, and China have developed regional or national standards for raw and processed camel milk and have established commercial camel dairy industries. Uzbekistan, however, still lacks systematic research on camel milk processing, as well as regulatory frameworks and industrial technologies necessary for its utilization [3, P.6]. This gap underscores the need for scientific studies aimed at adapting camel milk to modern dairy processing conditions in the country. In this work, methods for producing kefir and yoghurt from camel milk were investigated as potential fermented dairy products suitable for local production. A comprehensive review of previous studies was conducted, including research on camel milk processing technologies [4, P. 5; 6, Pp. 3–8; 7, P.42], the effects of high-temperature treatment on camel milk proteins [8, PP. 8-11; 9, P.19], and the production of fermented dairy products based on camel milk [10, PP. 385-386, 389; 4, PP. 4-5; 5, PP. 7-10]. These studies indicate both the nutritional advantages of camel milk and the technological challenges associated with its processing. According to Kappeler (1998) [4, P.42], the technological difficulties encountered during camel milk processing are likely attributable to differences in the proportions of individual casein fractions compared with cow milk, rather than to structural variations in the proteins themselves. Citing Schmidt and Koops (1997), Kappeler notes that a high proportion of β-casein (β-CN) combined with a low proportion of κ-casein (κ-CN) adversely affects the processing behavior of casein micelles, particularly during coagulation and gel formation. These compositional characteristics explain the weaker curd structure commonly observed in camel milk products. Further evidence of the sensitivity of camel milk proteins to thermal treatment was reported by Lajnaf et al. (2020) [7, p. 19], who showed that denaturation rate (DR) values reached a maximum at 90 °C, amounting to 75.2 ± 3% for bovine milk and 174.4 ± 15% for camel milk. At 100 °C, DR values declined to 22.5 ± 5% and 136.9 ± 5% for bovine and camel milk, respectively. These findings demonstrate the higher susceptibility of camel milk proteins to heat-induced changes. In the present study, a mild heat treatment regime of 65–67 °C for 25 minutes was therefore applied in order to minimize protein denaturation while ensuring microbial safety of the milk prior to fermentation. Issimov (2024) [3, P.4] reported that the production of yoghurt and other fermented dairy products from camel milk is technologically challenging, as the coagulum formed lacks firmness and does not produce a well-defined curd. Consistent with these observations, our study showed that although the applied starter cultures were able to initiate fermentation and acidification of camel milk, the duration of fermentation was noticeably longer than that typically observed in cow milk. This extended fermentation time may be attributed to the unique protein composition and buffering capacity of camel milk, which influence acid development and gel formation. Shuvarikov et al. [5, P.119] produced acidophilus milk, Bulgarian yoghurt, and regular prostokvasha (a traditional soured milk product) from three different types of milk and conducted a comparative analysis of their physicochemical and sensory properties. The results of their study, summarized in Table 1 [6, P.119], provide a useful benchmark for evaluating the characteristics of fermented products derived from camel milk in comparison with those obtained from other animal species. Overall, the reviewed literature and the experimental results of this study confirm that, despite technological challenges, camel milk holds significant promise as a raw material for the production of fermented dairy products. The development of suitable processing methods for kefir and yoghurt based on camel milk may contribute to diversification of the dairy sector in Uzbekistan and support the sustainable use of locally available animal resources in the future. TADQIQOT VA TARAQQIYOT | II-JILD | 12-SON | 2025 \ 55 Table 1 Physicochemical properties of prostokvasha (a soured milk product) Product parameter Raw material - milk camel cow goat Prostokvasha (soured milk product) A O B A O B A O B Titratable acidity, °T 151,84 ±0,93 77,92 ±1,30 109,60 ±1,27 167,84 ±1,19 68,80 ±1,27 60,64 ±2,14 185,44 ±0,79 61,60 ±2,36 150,40 ±1,26 Active acidity, pH 3,64 ±0,06 4,56 ±0,08 4,12 ±0,03 3,62 ±0,10 4,40 ±0,04 4,48 ±0,04 3,59 ±0,13 4,45 ±0,07 3,74 ±0,06 Mass fraction, % 14,62 ±0,40 14,53 ±0,24 13,89 ±0,08 10,94 ±0,13 11,19 ±0,08 11,19 ±0,07 11,98 ±0,03 12,55 ±0,27 12,12 ±0,09 Dry matter Fat Protein Lactose 5,0 ±0,1 4,9 ±0,1 5,0 ±0,1 3,1 ±0,1 2,2 ±0,1 2,6 ±0,1 3,3 ±0,3 3,3 ±0,3 3,3 ±0,1 4,43 ±0,03 4,43 ±0,04 4,39 ±0,04 3,07 ±0,01 3,06 ±0,04 3,11 ±0,06 3,34 ±0,01 3,29 ±0,07 3,35 ±0,04 2,79 ±0,13 3,87 ±0,14 4,06 ±0,04 2,94 ±0,11 3,96 ±0,10 4,50 ±0,28 3,18 ±0,11 4,41 ±0,03 4,70 ±0,28 Caloric value, kcal/100 g 76,10 ±0,91 80,07 ±1,06 80,70 ±0,69 52,54 ±0,79 49,22 ±1,05 55,38 ±2,24 57,42 ±1,72 62,26 ±0,04 63,70 ±0,02 Note. A – acidophilus; B – bulgarian; O – regular. It has been established that various types of fermented dairy products can be produced from camel milk using technological processes traditionally applied to cow’s and goat’s milk. However, when manufacturing sour milk products from camel milk, homogenization is necessary due to the pronounced separation of the fat phase, a phenomenon that is not observed in fermented products derived from cow’s or goat’s milk [9, PP. 120-121]. Object of the Study For this study, raw camel milk samples were collected from dromedary (one-humped) camels raised on a farm located in May Village of the Tashkent Region. According to farm records, average milk yield per camel ranges from 3–3.5 L per day during autumn and increases to 4–4.5 L in the spring. Milk production decreases in winter, although the fat content typically rises during this period. These seasonal variations align with known patterns of lactation physiology in camels and reflect environmental influences on milk composition. Methods Kefir Production from Camel Milk Kefir was prepared from camel milk using the following procedure: 700–720 mL of fresh camel milk was heat-treated at 65–67 °C for 25 minutes. After cooling to 38–40 °C, a commercial dry kefir starter culture (TM Poleznaya Partiya), containing kefir grains, was added. Fermentation proceeded for 10–12 hours at 30–32 °C, resulting in kefir with sensory and physicochemical characteristics distinct from traditional kefir made from cow’s milk. The results of organoleptic and physicochemical analyses are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Yoghurt Production from Camel Milk Yoghurt was produced using the same initial heat treatment (65–67 °C, 25 minutes) applied to 700–720 mL of fresh camel milk. After cooling to 38–40 °C, a commercial dry yoghurt starter culture (TM Poleznaya Partiya) was added. The culture contained Streptococcus thermophilus, Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus, and Lactobacillus casei. Fermentation for 10–12 hours at 40–42 °C produced yoghurt with characteristics differing from yoghurt obtained from cow’s milk. Results of organoleptic and physicochemical assessments are provided in Tables 2 and 3. Analytical Methods The following standardized methods were applied for sampling and analysis: 1. ISO 707:2008 / IDF 50:2008. Milk and milk products — Guidance on sampling. 2. GOST 28283-89. Cow’s Milk. Method for Organoleptic Evaluation of Odor and Taste. 3. GOST 3624-92. Milk and Dairy Products. Titrimetric Methods for Determining Acidity. 4. GOST 5867-90. Milk and Dairy Products. Methods for Determining Fat. 5. GOST R 54758-2011. Milk and Milk Processing Products. Methods for Determining Density. 6. GOST 3625-84. Milk and Dairy Products. Methods for Determining Density. 7. GOST 23327-98. Milk and Dairy Products. Method for Measuring Mass Fraction of Total Nitrogen by the Kjeldahl Method and Determining the Mass Fraction of Protein. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT | VOLUME II | ISSUE 12 | 2025 \ 56 8. GOST 25179-2014. Milk and Dairy Products. Methods for Determining the Mass Fraction of Protein. 9. GOST 3626-73. Milk and Dairy Products. Methods for Determining Moisture and Dry Matter. 10. GOST 25228-82. Milk and Cream. Method for Determining Heat Stability by the Alcohol Test. Results and Discussion The results of the study demonstrate that camel milk undergoes significant physicochemical transformations during the fermentation process, yet the nature and magnitude of these changes differ from those observed in cow’s milk. These findings are consistent with previously reported biochemical features of camel milk, including its higher proportion of antimicrobial proteins, larger casein micelles, and lower κ-casein content, all of which influence fermentation kinetics and product texture. 1. Fermentation Dynamics and Acidification Patterns The sharp increase in titratable acidity and corresponding decrease in pH in both kefir and yoghurt confirm active microbial metabolism and lactic acid production. However, camel milk is known to ferment more slowly than cow’s milk due to the low buffering capacity of its proteins and the presence of natural antibacterial agents such as lactoferrin and lysozyme. Despite this, the fermentation times achieved (10–12 hours) produced acidity levels comparable to cow-milk fermented products, suggesting that the commercial starter cultures used in this study are adequately adapted for camel milk substrates. The slightly higher acidity of kefir relative to yoghurt likely reflects the synergistic activity of yeasts and lactic acid bacteria present in kefir grains. These mixed cultures are known to produce not only lactic acid but also small quantities of ethanol, carbon dioxide, and volatile flavor compounds, which contribute to kefir’s sensory profile and may accelerate acidification. Yoghurt cultures, by contrast, rely primarily on thermophilic lactic acid bacteria, which exhibit different metabolic pathways and substrate utilization patterns in camel milk. 2. Protein Behavior and Structural Changes The observed reductions and increases in protein content across treatments highlight the unique structural behavior of camel milk proteins. Camel milk contains larger casein micelles with lower κ-casein stabilizing fractions compared with bovine milk. As a result, its coagulation properties differ significantly: curd formation tends to be weaker, and gelation requires higher acidity. The increase in protein concentration in yoghurt (9.2%) likely results from enhanced aggregation of casein micelles during acid-induced gel formation. In camel milk, this process produces a softer but more cohesive gel than in cow’s milk, which may explain the substantial increase in dry matter and the likely dense texture of the final product. In contrast, the lower protein content in kefir suggests partial precipitation or redistribution of protein fractions during fermentation, possibly accompanied by syneresis. 3. Fat Redistribution and the Need for Homogenization The decrease in fat content in kefir can be linked to fat-protein interactions and potential cream separation caused by camel milk’s larger fat globules and weaker natural fat membrane stability. This supports earlier findings showing that camel milk requires homogenization to prevent phase separation during fermentation. The markedly higher fat content in yoghurt may be due to concentration effects, evaporation during processing, or structural entrapment of fat globules within the yoghurt gel matrix. 4. Density and Total Solids as Indicators of Functional Quality Changes in density and dry matter levels further illustrate how fermentation alters the physical properties of camel milk. The slight reduction in density in kefir corresponds to the formation of a more porous structure as fermentation progresses and carbon dioxide is produced. The sharp increase in dry matter in yoghurt reflects the development of a dense, high-solids coagulum characteristic of fermented products with strengthened protein networks. These parameters are critical indicators of product stability, texture, and consumer acceptability. For example, higher dry matter and protein fractions typically correlate with improved viscosity, firmness, and water-holding capacity in yoghurt-like products. 5. Implications for Product Development and Industrial Processing The findings underscore the need to optimize technological conditions–particularly homogenization, starter culture selection, and fermentation temperature–to produce high-quality fermented products from camel milk. The marked differences observed between kefir and yoghurt suggest that camel milk responds differently to mesophilic versus thermophilic cultures, which has direct implications for industrial-scale production. Moreover, the increased protein and dry matter content in yoghurt highlight its potential nutritional advantages, especially in regions where camel milk is a staple food and a key source of bioavailable proteins in the diet. Given global interest in functional foods, camel-milk-based fermented products may represent an emerging niche market with unique sensory and health attributes. TADQIQOT VA TARAQQIYOT | II-JILD | 12-SON | 2025 \ 57 6. Comparison with Literature and Broader Scientific Context Studies in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, and Kenya have similarly reported that camel milk produces fermented products with distinct sensory characteristics, lower viscosity, and slower acidification rates compared with cow’s milk. The present results align with these reports while adding empirical evidence on kefir production– a relatively underexplored process for camel milk. The variability in fat and protein concentrations observed here is also consistent with seasonal and physiological fluctuations reported in the literature. Overall, the results reinforce the growing understanding that camel milk possesses unique technological properties requiring tailored fermentation protocols. Future research should examine rheological behavior, microstructure, microbial kinetics, and consumer acceptability to better inform both traditional and industrial processing approaches. Table 2. Organoleptic properties of raw camel milk, kefir, and yoghurt produced from camel milk Product Milk Kefir Yoghurt Taste and smell Clean, slightly sweet, without foreign odors or flavors uncharacteristic of fresh milk. Slightly sweet, clean fermented– milky and creamy taste, without foreign odors or flavors. The aroma is typical of fermented dairy products. Moderately sweet, fermented–milky and creamy taste. The aroma is typical of fermented dairy products. Color White White White Consistency Liquid, without sediment; slight tendency to foam. Viscous, thick, homogeneous liquid. Viscous, semi-liquid mass. Table 3. Physicochemical properties of raw camel milk, kefir, and yoghurt produced from camel milk Indicator (unit of measurement) Raw Milk Kefir Yoghurt Regulatory document / method Acidity (°T, Turner degrees) 16 89.6 85 GOST 3624-92 pH 6.8 4.4 4.1 Instrumental measurement Mass fraction of fat (%) 3.5 2.5 8.0 GOST 5867-90 Density (kg/m³) 1030 1027 – GOST R 54758-2011; GOST 3625-84 Mass fraction of protein (%) 4.4 2.6 9.2 GOST 23327-98; GOST 25179-2014 Dry matter (%) – 8.30 16.5 GOST 3626-73 Viscosity (Pa·s) – 2.9 – Heppler viscometer Heat stability (alcohol test) Not stable – – GOST 25228-82 Conclusion This study demonstrated that fermented dairy products such as kefir and yoghurt can be successfully produced from camel milk when appropriate technological adjustments are applied. The heat treatment at 65–67 °C for 25 minutes ensured microbial safety while minimizing excessive protein denaturation, which is particularly important given the distinctive structural properties of camel milk proteins. Subsequent fermentation led to pronounced acidification, a marked reduction in pH, and significant shifts in fat, protein, and dry-matter composition. These physicochemical changes confirm active metabolic functioning of the starter cultures and their capacity to grow in camel milk despite its lower κ-casein content, larger casein micelles, and different buffering characteristics compared with cow’s milk. Both kefir and yoghurt produced acceptable flavor, aroma, and color; however, the consistency of the final products differed from that of conventional cow-milk counterparts, reflecting known challenges associated with camel milk coagulation and gel formation. Kefir exhibited moderate viscosity, whereas camel-milk yoghurt was characterized by an increased protein concentration and higher total solids, suggesting the formation of a dense acid-induced gel. These findings indicate that further refinement of processing conditions–including homogenization, fermentation temperature, and starter culture composition–may enhance the textural properties and stability of camel-milk fermented products. Overall, the results indicate that camel milk represents a viable and promising raw material for developing fermented dairy products in Uzbekistan, where industrial-scale processing of camel milk is still emerging. The successful production of kefir and yoghurt highlights the potential for diversification of the national dairy sector and the introduction of nutritionally valuable camel-milk products to local markets. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT | VOLUME II | ISSUE 12 | 2025 \ 58 References 1. Abduku, H., & Eshetu, M. (2024). Physico-chemical properties and processing characteristics of camel milk as compared with other dairy species: A review. Asian Journal of Dairy and Food Research, 43(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.18805/ajdfr.DRF-303 2. Arain, M. A., Rasheed, S., Arham, J., Khaskheli, G. B., Barham, G. S., & Ahmed, S. (2023). A review on processing opportunities for the development of camel dairy products. Food Science of Animal Resources, 43(3), 383–401. https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2023.e13 3. FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. (2024). Discussion paper on the development of new work on a camel milk commodity standard (CAC47/CRD03). United Arab Emirates. 4. Issimov, A. (2024). Camel milk processing opportunities: A review. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202405.0410.v1 5. Kappeler, S. (1998). Compositional and structural analysis of camel milk proteins with emphasis on protective proteins (Doctoral dissertation, ETH Zürich, No. 12947). https://www.researchcollection.ethz.ch (if needed, I can add a persistent link) 6. Lajnaf, R., Attia, H., & Ayadi, M. A. (2023). Chemistry of camel milk proteins in food processing. In IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111692 7. Lajnaf, R., Zouari, A., Trigui, I., Attia, H., & Ayadi, M. A. (2020). Effect of different heating temperatures on foaming properties of camel milk proteins: A comparison with bovine milk proteins. International Dairy Journal. (Add volume/issue/pages if available.) 8. Seifu, E. (2023). Camel milk products: Innovations, limitations and opportunities. Food Production, Processing and Nutrition, 5, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43014-023-00130-7 9. Shuvarikov, A. S., Yurova, E. A., & Pastukh, O. N. (2017). Quality indicators of cow, goat, and camel milk with consideration of allergenicity. Izvestiya of the Timiryazev Agricultural Academy, (5), 115–123. (Original publication: Шувариков А. С., Юрова Е. А., Пастух О. Н. Качественные показатели коровьего, козьего и верблюжьего молока с учетом аллергенности. Известия Тимирязевской сельскохозяйственной академии, (5), 115–123.) 10. Statistical Committee of the Republic of Uzbekistan. (2023, July 21). Respublikamizdagi tuyalarning asosiy qismi Navoiy viloyati hissasiga to‘g‘ri keldi [Press release]. Stat.uz. https://stat.uz/ru/presstsentr/novosti-goskomstata/41938-respublikamizdagi-tuyalarning-asosiy-qismi-navoiy-viloyatihissasiga-to-g-ri-keldi-2?utm_source=in_materials TADQIQOT VA TARAQQIYOT | II-JILD | 12-SON | 2025 \ 59 Scientific Review The manuscript presents a coherent and scientifically grounded investigation into the feasibility of producing fermented dairy products–specifically kefir and yoghurt–from camel milk under processing conditions relevant to Uzbekistan’s dairy sector. The topic is both timely and important, as camel milk is increasingly recognized for its nutritional value, climate resilience, and growing global production, yet its industrial utilization remains limited in several regions, including Central Asia. The author successfully outlines the strategic relevance of camel milk for countries facing arid and semi-arid climatic conditions and demonstrates how Uzbekistan, despite possessing a modest but significant camel population, has not yet developed processing technologies or regulatory frameworks for its industrial use. This contextualization provides a clear rationale for the study and underscores its contribution to bridging an evident research and technological gap. The manuscript is distinguished by its careful synthesis of scientific literature on camel milk composition, protein structure, and fermentation behavior. Drawing on the works of Kappeler, Schmidt and Koops, Lajnaf et al., Issimov, and others, the author situates the experimental research firmly within the current understanding of camel milk’s biochemical and technological properties. The literature review is both comprehensive and critical, elucidating why camel milk behaves markedly differently from cow’s milk during heat treatment and fermentation. Key insights–such as the lower κ-casein content, higher β-casein proportion, larger casein micelles, and elevated heat sensitivity–are effectively linked to observed processing challenges, including weak gel formation, delayed acidification, and structural instability of the curd. These foundational observations justify the methodological decisions taken in the study, including the use of a mild heat-treatment regime designed to minimize excessive protein denaturation. The experimental section is described with clarity and scientific rigor. Heat treatment, fermentation parameters, and analytical procedures conform to established ISO and GOST standards, ensuring reproducibility and methodological robustness. Kefir and yoghurt were produced using commercially available starter cultures, and the fermentation conditions were carefully controlled. The analytical measurements –acidity, pH, protein and fat content, dry matter, density, and viscosity–were appropriate for characterizing the physicochemical transformations occurring during fermentation. The use of organoleptic evaluation further strengthens the assessment, as fermented products must satisfy sensory as well as biochemical criteria. The results are presented with thoughtful interpretation. The author demonstrates that camel milk undergoes significant biochemical changes during fermentation, though the dynamics differ from those observed in cow’s milk. Slower acidification, higher final acidity, and longer fermentation times correspond with known features of camel milk’s buffering capacity and antimicrobial protein profile. The discussion of protein behavior is particularly strong: the manuscript correctly attributes the distinct fermentation outcomes to camel milk’s atypical micellar structure and its reliance on deeper acidification to trigger gel formation. The contrasting pathways observed in kefir and yoghurt—mesophilic mixed cultures versus thermophilic lactic acid bacteria–provide an informative comparison and highlight the importance of culture selection in camel milk processing. The discussion places the findings within a broader scientific and industrial context. Camel milk’s potential as a substrate for functional fermented foods is clearly articulated, and the manuscript outlines plausible future directions, including optimization of fermentation regimes, homogenization strategies, and culture development. The work has practical implications for Uzbekistan, where camel-milk processing remains at an early stage, and it offers a credible foundation for the development of new dairy products that align with national resource availability and market diversification goals. In conclusion, the manuscript is scientifically rigorous, contextually relevant, and contributes meaningfully to the growing body of research on camel milk processing. Its publication is fully warranted, and it is likely to stimulate further technological and scholarly advancement in this emerging field. Disclaimer © This scientific review has been prepared by the editorial board of the “RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT” journal and is intended solely for use within the journal’s internal expert evaluation process and editorial activities. This review is protected by copyright law, and its content may not be distributed, reproduced, or used for commercial purposes without the prior permission of the editorial board. The review has been prepared to assess the scientific quality, content, and methodological aspects of the author’s (authors’) work. It does not represent the personal opinion of the author(s) nor should it be interpreted as the official position of the journal. The editorial board bears no responsibility for the implementation, outcomes, or consequences of the recommendations, conclusions, or comments contained in this review. The review is provided to ensure transparency in the editorial process and to maintain quality control over scientific publications.