Food Chemistry Advances 4 (2024) 100647

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Chemistry Advances

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/focha

A comprehensive review on donkey milk and its products: Composition,

functionality and processing aspects
Sunil Meena a, Ganga Sahay Meena b, *, Priyae Brath Gautam c, *, Dinesh Chandra Rai a,
Samlesh Kumari d
a
Department of Dairy Science and Food Technology, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India
b
Dairy Technology Division, ICAR- National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana, India
c
Department of Dairy Chemistry, Warner College of Dairy Technology, Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Sciences, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh,
India
d
Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Demand of donkey milk is globally increasing because of its important nutritional characteristics, functional
Donkey milk properties and pleasant sensory attributes. Donkey milk is highly appreciated for its low energy value, higher
Dairy products content of polyunsaturated fatty acids, essential amino acids and lactose content compared to other (human,
Functionality
bovine and buffalo) milks. Strikingly, donkey milk possesses lower cholesterol, casein to whey protein ratio,
Non-thermal and thermal processing
higher Ca to P ratio and taurine content than bovine milk. Functional and health promoting attributes of donkey
milk in terms of infant nutrition, cholesterol reduction, hypertension minimization, antimicrobial, immunomo­
dulating activities and hypoallergenicity have been meticulously discussed. Apart from it, the scarce information
and limited studies on the thermal and non-thermal processing of donkey milk have been clubbed for reader’s
convenience. In particular, the technological interventions for the formulation of different donkey milk-based
products have been highlighted. Thus, donkey milk can be used as a substitute to human milk for infant
nutrition and milk protein allergy. The literature review also lays emphasis on the nutritional and functional
qualities of donkey milk, which can be retained to a better extent with non-thermal processing than its
counterpart.

Introduction
Milk has a significant place in the human diet. It provides most of the
essential nutrients to our body and plays an important role in main­
taining good nutrition and health. The native constituents present in
cow milk (CM) have been reported to adversely affect the consumer’s
health with disorders like milk protein allergy (MPA) and lactose
intolerance. Donkey milk (DM) is now emerging as a better option for
the persons suffering from MPA. It is currently gaining special research
attention across the globe because of its chemical composition, func­
tional and therapeutic properties. Similarity between chemical compo­
sition of DM and human milk (HM) has been established in the published
literature (Souroullas et al., 2018; ; Garhwal et al., 2022) that makes it a
suitable substitute of HM particularly for infant feeding and allergic
consumers (Cavalcanti et al., 2021; Martini et al., 2021). The total solids
(TS) content of DM is least among CM, buffalo milk and HM (Salimei
et al., 2004; Polidori et al., 2019). Both DM and HM contain distinctly
higher lactose, lower protein and ash content compared to that present
in CM and buffalo milk. In comparison to CM, the proportion and
composition of proteins present in DM are quite different (Guo et al.,
2007). The casein to whey protein (WP) ratio of DM is quite comparable
to that of HM, but quite lower compared to CM (Brumini et al., 2016),
thus minimizing the allergenic potential of DM (Lara-Villoslada et al.,
2005; Bertino et al., 2010). DM is highly appreciated for its low energy
value, higher content of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), essential
amino acids and lactose compared to that of human, cow or buffalo
milks. Furthermore, lysozyme present in the DM possesses potential
antimicrobial properties against range of microorganisms (Zhang et al.,
2008).
Several studies have reported the presence of somatic cells, food
borne pathogens and bacteria in raw DM, but in lower numbers as
compared to CM and buffalo milk (Kaskous & Pfaffl, 2022; Pilla et al.,

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: gsiitkgp@gmail.com (G.S. Meena), priyae.gautam92@gmail.com (P.B. Gautam).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.focha.2024.100647
Received 22 June 2023; Received in revised form 16 February 2024; Accepted 16 February 2024
Available online 21 February 2024
2772-753X/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc/4.0/).
S. Meena et al.
2010). Despite of food safety, contamination of fresh DM with food
borne bacteria and pathogens decreases its shelf life. Thus, DM has been
processed employing traditional/ conventional pasteurization as well as
other novel milk processing methods such as high-pressure processing
(HPP) (Giacometti et al., 2016), ultrasonication (Sun et al., 2014),
ultraviolet-C (UV-C) treatment (Papademas et al., 2021) and combina­
tion thereof. These conventional/ traditional technologies have been
proved to be reliable, cost-efficient, versatile, and can be applied from
small to large scale dairy plants. However, certain limitations associated
with intensive heat treatments include flavor changes, nutritional losses
and color modifications (Tsakalidou & Papadimitriou, 2016).
The novel technologies have now emerged as an alternative efficient
technique to enhance the quality, safety and shelf-life of food by elim­
inating microbial contamination with minimal loss of nutritional and
sensory properties (Giacometti et al., 2016). The mechanism of these
emerging technologies is well documented in a recently published
article (Zhao et al., 2019). HPP treatment of pasteurized DM extended its
shelf life up to a month at 4 ◦ C (Addoa & Ferraguta, 2015). UV-C
treatment of raw DM was found to be effective in inactivation of the
pathogens (Papademas et al., 2021).
Therapeutic and functional properties of DM had been well docu­
mented in the ancient literature, and its use in treating various diseases i.
e., asthma, bronchitis, gastritis and joint pain (Garhwal et al., 2022). The
functional properties of DM like antimicrobial (against various patho­
gens), antitumor, antiproliferative, antioxidative, antihypertensive
(ACE inhibitory) (Aspri et al., 2018) and their role in improving human
health or preventing the onset of disease has been meticulously
reviewed. These health promoting effects have been largely attributed to
the presence of a range of functional compounds like lactoferrin, lyso­
syme, bioactive peptides, oligosaccharides, immunoglobulins, etc. (Guo
et al., 2007). These potential nutraceuticals properties have increased
the use of DM as functional food. Tidona et al. (2011) reported that DM
consumption improves the gastrointestinal condition of all age groups
due to presence of natural antimicrobial and specific epidermal growth
factors in it.
Several authors, Di Renzo et al. (2013); Perna et al. (2015); Tidona
et al. (2015); D’Alessandro et al. (2019); and Cavalcanti et al. (2021);
have attempted to develop DM-based dairy products, considering its
potential health benefits. So far, different new age dairy products such as
fermented emulsions, beverages and probiotic beverages, kefir, soft and
hard variants of cheese, ice-cream and powder have been developed
from DM. Due to its compositional specificity, it affects the properties of
formulated products and affects fermentation and cheese making pro­
cess (Garhwal et al., 2022).
As reported, despite of holding a minor share in the global market,
due to a lower yield and problems faced in its commercial production,
DM market share has been projected to rise by 2027, due to its nutri­
tional and therapeutic significance. Thus, accordingly this review
sequentially discusses the global scenario for the production of DM,
environmental and animal factors affecting its yield and composition,
detailed compositional analysis and its comparison with CM, HM and
buffalo milk, alongwith its various functional and bioactive properties.
To the best of our knowledge and extensive literature mining across
various platforms, no study has reviewed the impact of conventional
(thermal) and non-thermal processing techniques employed in pro­
cessing of DM and various technological interventions applied for con­
version of raw DM into different value added dairy products.
Production, demand and global market
Production of DM depends on genetic, environmental, and physio­
logical factors. Herd management, delivery order, and physiology also
influence the milk yield and its composition. The mammary gland of
donkey has lower capacity (less than 2.5 L) (Martini et al., 2014). Per
lactation yield of DM (100–150 kg, 300 days lactation period) (Martini
et al., 2014) was markedly lower than that of CM (8724 ± 163 per
2
Food Chemistry Advances 4 (2024) 100647
lactation (305 days) (Mellado et al., 2011). Thus, the lower production
of DM is considered as one of the major problems in its processing on
commercial scale. Several studies were conducted to estimate the milk
production of DM, Giosue et al., (2008) reported milk yield of Ragusana
breed ass, 489 kg milk for entire lactation period (295 days) when ass
was milked twice daily. A higher milk production was observed in
winter and summer (517–600 kg) than spring and autumn (392–442 kg).
On the contrary, Martini et al. (2014) reported higher milk yields during
summer and autumn than winter and spring, with significant differences
(P < 0.01) between seasons. The%fat and%dry matter, remained un­
changed with season, while protein, lactose and ash varied significantly
(P < 0.01). D’Alessandro and Martemucci (2012), conducted detailed
experiment on Martina Franca breeds jennies to evaluate the effects of
number of milking in a day on milk yield and udder health. Result of
conducted study revealed that increasing the milking frequency (1 – 3
times in a day), improved the milk yield up to certain extend, but on
further increasing it (3 – 6 times in days) no positive effects were
observed on milk yield. In addition, higher milking frequency yielded
higher somatic cell count signifying negative effects on udder health.
The authors reported no difference in the milk yield between the left and
right hand udders. Another group of authors, Salimei et al. (2004)
experimented on six pluriparous asses (three Martina Franca and three
Ragusana breed) and reported average of milk yield of 740 mL (± 32.3
mL). In addition, milk yield of morning milking (549.2 mL) were sta­
tistically (p < 0.001) lower than afternoon milking (949.3 mL). Higher
milk production was obtained during mid lactation (85 – 95 days).
Another study also demonstrated higher milk yield with a higher fat
content when the asses were milked thrice instead of milking them twice
(Alabisoet al., 2006). The stage of lactation has been documented to
affect the daily yield of DM, as it decreased from 3.30 kg/day (early
lactation) to 2.20 kg/day (late lactation or end of lactation period)
(Muhatai et al., 2017). Similar results were reported by Giosue et al.,
(2008). The dry matter, fat content remained unchanged with stage of
lactation while protein, casein, lactose and ash varied significantly (P <
0.01) with the stages of lactation (Martini et al., 2014). Another study
reported a decrease in the fat and protein content, while the lactose
content increased with stage of lactation (Giosue et al., 2008). Guo et al.
(2007), reported a decrease in the protein content, to a minimum at 120
days, which increased in late lactation milk. The fat content was found to
be highly variable with lactation, which started from a minimal value
during initial period of lactation, increasing upto 105 days followed by a
sharp decline at 120th day, which increased abruptly in late lactation.
The ash content decreased significantly (P < 0.05) throughout the
lactation period. Diet fed to the animal influences the milk yield, quality
(Doreau et al., 2002), breed (Gou et al., 2007) and parity (Muhatai et al.,
2017).
The literature available regarding the milk production and distri­
bution of DM is scanty; however, it is estimated that DM accounts for 0.1
% of the entire world’s milk production (Spada et al., 2021). European
markets serve as premium markets for DM as it is sold at a premium
price (12 - 16 euros per litre), in the form of fresh pasteurized milk. The
unsold or surplus DM is converted into milk powder due to seasonal
variations in the market demand (Altieri et al., 2016). The global market
size for DM was valued to be USD 28,180 thousands in 2019 and is
expected to reach USD 68,000 thousands by 2027 with CAGR of 9.4 %
from 2021 to 2027 (Chouhan et al., 2021).
Comparison between CM, HM and DM
Chemical composition of different milk types (DM, CM, buffalo milk
and HM) are shown in Table 1. The TS, fat, protein, lactose and ash
content of DM varied in the range of 8.80–11.70, 0.30–1.80, 1.50–1.80,
5.80–7.40 and 0.30–0.50 g per 100 g of milk, respectively (Salimei et al.,
2004; Polidori et al., 2019). DM contains low TS (9.5 %), compared to
CM (12.5 %), HM (11.7 %) (Salimei et al., 2004; Martini et al., 2018) and
buffalo milk (>15 %) (Fox et al., 2015; Gautam et al., 2023). The fat
S. Meena et al. Food Chemistry Advances 4 (2024) 100647

Table 1
Physical properties and chemical composition of different milks (donkey milk, human milk, buffalo milk and cow milk).
Species Chemical constituents (%) Physical properties
Total solids Fat Protein Lactose Ash Energy Specific pH Viscosity Electrical Freezing
(kJ/kg) gravity (cP) conductivity point ( ◦ C)

Donkey 8.24–9.96 0.30–1.41 1.0–2.11 5.38–7.21 0.32–0.47 1939.4 1.02–1.037qrs 7.0–7.2bt 3.6u 2.66–2.79vq(µS) − 0.520 to
Milka-f, − 0.510wq
p

Human 11.70–12.90 2.17–6.33 0.93–2.05 6.33–8.35 0.2–0.3 2855.6 1.031qrs 7.0–7.5bt 3.2u – –
Milkg-
m,p

Buffalo 16.30–18.40 6.6–8.8 2.70–5.20 4.5–5.2 0.71–0.85 4330.4 1.031qrs 6.74–8.81bt 2.04u 6.69–9.17vq − 0.518 to
Milkn (mmhos) − 0.590wq
qrs bt u
Cow 12.80–13.70 3.7–4.3 2.90–3.70 4.6–5.0 0.70–0.72 2983.0 1.030 6.6–6.8 3.45 0.0040–0.0055vq − 0.520wq
Milkop mho/cm

Modified from.
a
Salimei et al. (2004); bGuo et al. (2007); cMalissiova et al. (2016); dMadhusudan et al., (2017); eMalacame et al., (2019); fMassouras et al., (2020); gNommsen et al.,
(1991); hWojcik et al. (2009); iFleischer Michaelsen et al., (1990); jBauer and Gerss (2011); kHartmann et al. (2007); mAspri et al. (2017b); nEl-Salam and El-Shibiny
(2011); oKhetra et al., (2022); pVincenzetti et al., 2008; q; rKeipopele et al. (2018); sLawrence. (2022); tOsman Swar (2011); uEl-Hatmi et al. (2015); vFrancesca. (2013);
w
Aroua et al. (2018).

content of DM ranges from 0.28 - 1.82 %, which varies within breeds,
number and type of milking (Guo et al., 2007). DM has lower protein
(1.5–1.8 %) content than CM (3.1–3.8 %) and buffalo milk. A study
documented the average composition of milk obtained from Jiangyue
breed of donkey was found to be 1.16 % milk fat, 1.57 % milk protein,
9.53 % TS, 6.33 % milk sugar (lactose) and 0.4 % ash, which were within
the range reported for mare and HM (Guo et al., 2007). Another study
revealed that fat content of DM (1.2 %) was lower compared to CM (3.2
%; Malacarne et al., 2002) and HM (3.5 – 4.0 %; Malacarne et al., 2002).
The αs1, αs2, β, and κ-casein are the different fractions of casein present
in DM (Luoyizha et al., 2021). Major fractions of casein and whey pro­
teins (WP) present in DM, CM, buffalo milk and HM are shown in
Table 2. Amongst the caseins, αs1 and κ-casein are present in very low
amount in DM, while αs2 is absent in HM (Altomonte et al., 2019). The
non-casein nitrogen in DM ranges between 35 and 50 % of the total
nitrogen fraction, indicating a higher WP:casein ratio than CM. The ratio
of casein to WP of DM (70.3:100), was quite similar to HM (71.4:100),
while casein to WP ratio in CM ranged in 400:100 (Li et al., 2018), on the
contrary Guo et al. (2007) reported the casein:WP ratio of 52:37 in DM.
The major WP fractions reported in DM are α-lactalbumin, β-lacto­
globulin and lysozyme as analyzed by sodium dodecyl
sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE). Further, minor
WP fractions reported in literature are immunoglobulins (Igs), blood
serum albumin (BSA) and lactoferrin (Guo et al., 2007). A higher lactose
content (6–7 %) of DM than CM (3.0–4.5 %) aids in taste enhancement
and in the absorption of minerals like Ca and P (Iacono et al., 1992).
Regarding the somatic cells, it has been reported that DM obtained from
healthy udder had shown lower somatic cells (5000- 1,00,000 cells/mL
milk) (Kaskous & Pfaffl, 2022; Pilla et al., 2010) compared to cow (1,50,
000 cells/mL milk) and buffalo milk (1,00,000 cells/mL milk) (Gautam
et al., 2023). Stage of lactation and the protein content were reported to
influence the size of the casein micelles of DM ranging from 257.5 ± 4.9
- 330.1 ± 1.6 nm (average 298.5 ± 18.9 nm), which were higher than
CM (average 120 nm) and HM (average 65 nm) (Tidona et al., 2014; Fox
et al., 2015; Luo et al., 2019). Analyzing the thermal stability of DM
casein micelles, it was found that the casein micelles exhibited lower
heat stability than the WP, with sedimentation being observed after heat
treatment at 75 ◦ C for 10 min (Luo et al., 2019). These results were
shockingly in contrast to the excellent thermal stability of the CM casein
micelles (Fox et al., 2015). Lower values of zeta potential (− 15.4 ± 0.5
mV), arising due to lower κ-casein content and higher amount of calcium
(<40 %) associated with the casein micelles were the main factors
contributing to its lower heat stability. Physical properties of DM, CM,
buffalo milk and HM are shown in Table 1.
Functional constituents in DM for infant nutrition
Table 3 shows the fatty acid composition of DM, cow, buffalo and
HM. The saturated fatty acid (SFAs) content of DM (57 g/100 g of fat)
and HM (45 g/100 g of fat) were quite similar, but lower compared to

Table 2
Major casein and whey protein fractions in different milks (donkey milk, human milk, buffalo milk and cow milk).
Protein fractions Donkey milk Human milk Buffalo milk Cow milk
g/kg

Casein αs1-casein 0.18–0.25a 0.04–1.68d 14.4–18e 8.0–10.7d

αs2-casein 0.32–0.40a Absent 2.2–2.8e 2.8–3.4d
β-Casein 3.9b 0.04–4.42d 12.6–15.8e 8.6–9.3d
γ-Casein – – 1.6e 1–2d
κ-Casein – 0.1–1.72d 4.3–5.4e 2.3–3.3d
Whey proteins α-Lactalbumin 1.9c 1–9–3.4d 1.4e 2–4e
β-Lactoglobulin 3.3c Absent 3.9e 1–5e
Minor proteins Protease peptone – – 3.3e 6–18e
Serum albumin 0.4c 7.16–7.58c 0.3e 1–4e
Lactoferrin 0.37c 1.5–2.0d 0.3e 0.02–0.5d
Lysozyme 1.0c 0.1–0.9d – Trace

Modified from.
a
Guo et al., (2007);.
b
Polidori and Vincenzetti, (2012);.
c
Aspri et al., (2017b);.
d
Meng et al., (2021);.
e
Khetra et al., (2022).

3
S. Meena et al. Food Chemistry Advances 4 (2024) 100647

Table 3
Principal fatty acids in milk triglycerides of different milks (Cow milk, buffalo milk, human milk, and donkey milk).
Fatty acid Cow milka,d (% of total fatty Buffalo milka (% of total fatty Human milkb,c (% of total fatty Donkey milkc (% of total fatty
acids) acids) acids) acids)

Butyric acid (C4:0) 2.50–4.20 2.80–5.20 *6.8–689g 0.04–0.09

Caproic acid (C6:0) 1.40–2.90 1.40–3.0 – 0.16–0.27
Caprylic acid (C8:0) 0.90–3.90 0.90–3.90 0.22 3.45–5.35
Capric acid (C10:0) 2.30–4.60 1.50–3.80 1.57 7.03–12.81
C10:1 – – – 1.17–2.27
Undecanoic acid (C11:0) – – – –
Lauric acid (C12:0) 1.00–2.90 2.10–4.10 5.47 5.94–12.01
C12:1 – – – 0.07–0.28
Tridecanoic acid (C13:0) – – – –
Myristic acid (C14:0) 9.10–13 9.10–11.80 6.54 3.08–8.66
Myristoleic acid (C14:1 cis-9) 0.70–1.40 0.50–1.20 – 0.18–0.50
Pentadecanoic acid (C15:0) 1.20 0.90–1.74 – 0.22–0.26
Cis-10-pentadecanoic acid (C15:1) – – – –
Palmitic acid (C16:0) 24.70–33.80 25.70–36.0 20.48 17.42–22.37
Palmitoleic acid (C16:1 cis-9) 1.0–2.80 1.0–2.80 – 3.02–3.94
Trans Palmitoleic acid (C16:1 trans-9) 0.20–0.60 0.20–0.60 – –
Hepatadecanoic acid (C17:0) 0.40–0.70 0.40–0.70 – 0.07–0.22
Cis-10-heptadecanoic acid (C17:1) – – – 0.19–0.30
Stearic acid (C18:0) 8.90–13.90 8.60–14.50 8.14 0.68–1.88
Elaidic acid (C18:1 n9t) – – – –
Oleic acid (C18:1 n9c) 22.13–26.40 17.40–26.20 34.7 18.25–28.48
6-Octadecenoic acid – – – –
Vaccenic acid (C18:1 t11) 0.20–3.10 0.10–2.70 – –
Linoelaidic acid (C18:2 trans-9, 12) 0.20–0.60 0.20–0.70 – –
Conjugated linoleic acid (C18:2, cis-9, trans- 0.40–1.0 0.30–0.90 – –
11)
Conjugated linoleic acid (C18:2, trans-10, cis- 0.03–0.05 0.02–0.03 – –
12)
Linoleic acid (C18:2 cis-9,12) 1.0–2.10 1.0–2.90 14.47 –
Arachidic acid (C20:0) 0.10 0.20 0.57 –
Gama linolenic acid (C18:3 n6) – – – –
Cis-11-eicosenoic acid (C20:1) – – – 0.11–0.25
Linolenic acid (C18:3 n3) 0.50–1.10 0.20–1.40 1.85 2.37–14.55
Heneicosanoic acid (C21:0) – – – –
Cis-11, 14- eicosadienoic acid (C20:2) – – 0.50 0.14–0.26
Behenic acid (C22:0) – – – –
Cis-8, 11, 14,- eicosatrienoic acid (C20:3 n6) – – 0.56 –
Erucic acid (C22:1 n9) – – – 0.20–1.21
Cis-11, 14, 17- eicosatrienoic acid (C20:3 n3) – – – –
Tricosanoic acid (C23:0) – – – –
Arachidonic acid (C20:4 n6) 0.10–0.50 0.10–0.20 0.68 –
Cis- 13, 16- docosadienoic acid (C22:2) – – – 0.05–0.11
Lignoceric acid (C24:0) – – – –
Cis-5, 8, 11, 14, 17- eicosapentanoic acid 0.10–0.40 0.10–0.30 – 0.20–0.35
(C20:5 n3)
Nervonic acid (C24:1) – – – –
Cis-4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19- docosahexaenoic acid – – 0.27 –
(C22:6 n3)
C22:6 n6 0.10 0.10–0.20 – 0.05–0.11
Short-chain fatty acids 8.60–14.50 8.0–14.90 – –
Saturated fatty acids 55.70–69.60 62.10–70.80 42.99 42.93–62.59
Mono-unsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) 25.00–30.30 24.0–29.40 38.06 24.19–35.52
Poly-unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) 2.70–3.0 2.30–3.90 18.33 13.23–27.78
PUFA n-3 – – 1.27–2.19e 7.12–9.64ef
PUFA n-6 – – 11.17–14.10e 11.57–13.09e,f
Conjugated linolenic acid (CLA) 0.50–1.10 0.40–0.90 – –
Atherogenicity – – – 0.60–1.53
Thromobegenicity – – – 0.37–1.13
a
Khetra et al. (2022); bLawrence (2022); cMassouras et al. (2017); dAtbhaiya et al. (2022); eAspri et al. (2017b). fMartemucci & D’Alessandro, (2012); gSmilowitz et al.
(2013)
*Value of butyric acid reported as Butyrate (μmol/L) (Metabolite of butyric acid) measured using 1H- NMR in human milk (Smilowitz et al., 2013).

CM (71 g/100 g of fat), while content of unsaturated fatty acid was
higher than CM (29 g/100 g of fat), in DM and HM i.e. 43 and 55 g/100 g
of fat, respectively (Martini et al., 2018). Collectively enhancing its
nutraceutical properties such as cholesterol-lowering, preventing blood
clots, minimizing the risk of hypertension, thrombosis and heart disease
(Gastaldi et al., 2010). It should be noted that the value of butyric acid as
mentioned in Table 3 in HM is reported as its metabolite (butyrate). It
might exist largely as a free short chain fatty acid or might have origi­
nated from synthesis by the microbiota that is known to be resident in
HM (Smilowitz et al., 2013) or as a metabolite of metabolic or microbial
metabolism processes (Prentice et al., 2019).
Ragona et al. (2016) and Vincenzetti et al. (2008) reported lower
casein (0.7 %) content in DM which is nearby to that of HM (0.4 %) that
helps in reducing the renal load in children in comparison to the children
consuming CM with higher casein content (2.6 %). DM is a rich source of
essential amino acids, as it was reported to be rich in eight essential
amino acids (38.2 %) along with higher percentage of glutamic acid
(22.8 %), serine (6.2 %), arginine (4.6 %), and valine (6.5 %), while a

4
S. Meena et al. Food Chemistry Advances 4 (2024) 100647

lower cysteine content (0.4 %) vis-a-vis cow and mare milk (Guo et al.,
2007). The taurine content in DM was nine times higher than CM (0.097
mg/100 g), but lower than HM (6.117 mg/100 g).
DM had a higher concentration of lysozyme (1.50 g/L) compared to
CM (0.0013 g/L) and HM (0.42 g/L). Despite of the fact that lysozyme
shows appreciable antimicrobial activity in milk, but its poor di­
gestibility under in-vitro conditions has been reported (Caroli et al.,
2015; Marletta et al., 2016). The digestibility of DM protein in gastric
digestion model has also been reported i.e., 77 % of protein degraded
after 30 min of gastric digestion with duodenal enzymes and after 60
min of gastric digestion, 100 % digestion of caseins and lactoferrin was
accomplished, but lysozyme and α-lactalbumin remained undigested
(Tidona et al., 2014). The lysozyme activity of DM ranges from 4000 to
5000 U/mL while the corresponding enzyme activity in CM and HM
were 0.0292 U/mL and 39,000 U/mL, respectively (Priyadarshini &
Kansal, 2002; Ragona et al., 2016). Presence of lysozyme exhibits a
higher antimicrobial potential although it may interfere with the
fermentation process.
The calcium and phosphorous content of DM was 68.9 mg/100 g and
41 mg/100 g respectively, which lies in between that of CM (122 mg/
100 g and 93 mg/100 g) and HM (33 mg/100 g and 14 mg/100 g) (Li
et al., 2018). Another study reported similar values for Ca, K, Mg, Na, P
and established the ratios for Na/K, Ca/P as 0.19 and 1.26, respectively
in DM (Fantuz et al., 2012). A higher Ca to P ratio in DM than CM and

Table 4
Major and minor mineral content in different milks (donkey milk, cow milk, buffalo milk and human milk). Partitioning of major minerals in (donkey milk, cow milk,
buffalo milk).
Major minerals Donkey milka,d,e,f,g,h (mg/ L) Cow milkb (mg/ L) Buffalo milkb (mg/L) Human milkc (mg/ L)

Ca 207–1298 1140 1630–2240 280

P 200–845 850 890–1370 140
S 141.7 100i 157–314 –
Mg 40–250 110 160–300 35
K 240–2010 1480 1020–1480 525
Na 100–993 500 450–570 180
Citric acid – 1660 1580–2180 –
Chloride – 1060 570–1060 –
Ca/P 0.3–1.72 1.04 1.71 1.70d

Minor minerals Donkey milkj,d,f (µg/ L) Cow milki (µg/ L) Buffalo milkb (µg/ L) Human milki (µg/ L)

Zn 1200–3200 2000–6000 3200–7300 2600–3300

Cu 77.2–500 100–600 70–2600 370–430
Mn 4.7 20–50 7–15
Se 4.1–4.5 5–67 8–19
Mo 3.1–5 18–120 4–16
Co 0.4–20 0.5–1.3 700–1600 1–27
Li 2–9 –
B 209.3 500–1400 –
Ti 79.7 111d 25d
Cr 2.2–200 8–13 6–100
Rb 340–1434 – –
Sr 370.4–4800 417d 60d
Fe 400–3900 300–600 400–13,000 620–930
I 75 100–900d 8600–19,400 20–120
F – 30–220 400–18,500 21–155
Ni 10–50 0–50 8–85
Si – 750–7000 150–1200
V – Tr-310 Tr-15
Sn – 40–500 –
As – 20–60 –
Ag – – –
Al 14,900–16,400 – –
Pb 50–90 – –

Donkey milka Bovine milki Buffalo milkb

Associated with caseins Associated with whey Present in aqueous Present in soluble Present in colloidal Present in soluble
(colloidal) proteins phase phase phase phase
% of total in milk % of total in milk % of total in milk

Ca 63 4.8 32.3 33.5 66.5 22

P 53 3.4 43.4 43 57 31
S 25 63.6 11 100 0 –
Mg 33 8.8 58.5 67 33 46
K – 2.7 97.3 92 8 95
Na – – – 92 8 95
Citrate – – – 94 6 –
Chloride – – – 100 0 99
a
Fantuz et al. (2020);.
b
Khetra et al. (2022);.
c
Lawrence, (2022);.
d
Aspri et al. (2017b);.
e
Malacarne et al. (2019);.
f
Nayak et al. (2020);.
g
Fantuz et al. (2012);.
h
Kandhro et al. (2022);.
i
Fox et al. (2015);.
j
Fantuz et al. (2022).

5
S. Meena et al. Food Chemistry Advances 4 (2024) 100647

comparable to HM, makes it a good substitute for infant food compared Functional properties of DM
to CM. The detailed composition of major and trace minerals and the
partitioning of major minerals in DM is given in Table 4. Consumption of functional ingredients helps in improving the human
Higher vitamin content in DM aids in improving the nutrition and health and aids in preventing the onset of diseases (Martemucci &
human health (Cunsolo et al., 2007). It has a lower amount of vitamin A, D’Alessandro, 2012). Several investigations are advocating potential
C, B1 and B2 vis-à-vis to cow and HM, while vitamin D content of raw health benefits of DM (Gubic et al., 2014). It is consumed mostly in
DM (Vitamin D2 and D3; 1.68 and 0.60 μg/100 mL, respectively) European countries like Italy, France, Netherlands and Hungary (Salimei
(Martini et al., 2018) was higher than bovine (Zhang et al., 2012) and & Fantuz, 2012; Martini et al., 2014). DM is rich in various functional
HM (Schmid & Walther, 2013) (see Table 5 for detailed vitamin compounds including lysozyme, lactoferrin, omega-fatty acids, immu­
composition of DM). noglobulins, bioactive peptides with a low casein to WP ratio. These
DM also contains several oligosaccharides that can play a pivotal role factors contribute to various functional properties like antimicrobial
in bacterial metabolism in large intestine, as these oligosaccharides activities, immunomodulating activities, and hypoallergenicity as dis­
cannot be hydrolysed by enzyme(s) in the upper intestine and easily cussed hereunder (Nazzaro et al., 2010).
reach to the large intestine (Engfer et al., 2000). Nearly 200 different
types of oligosaccharides are identified in HM, but very limited study Antimicrobial properties
has been conducted on identification and quantification of oligosac­
charides in DM. Licitra et al. (2019) identified seven sialylated oligo­ Antimicrobial protein fractions such as lactoferrin, lactoperoxidase
saccharides in DM, i.e., 3′-sialyllactose (3′-SL); 6′-sialyllactose (6′-SL); and lysozyme present in DM have demonstrated inhibition against wide
sialyllacto-N-tetraose a (LSTa); sialyllacto-N-tetraose b (LSTb); range of bacteria and also help in minimization of gastrointestinal in­
sialyllacto-N-tetraose c (LSTc); Neu5Ac(α2–3) + Gal(β1–4)GlcNAc fections in digestive system. The low initial microbial load in raw DM,
(β1–6)(Gal(β1–3))Gal (β1–4) Glc (3-SLNP) and Neu5Ac(α2–6) + Gal owing to higher concentration of lysozyme, makes it suitable for infant
(β1–4) GlcNAc (β1–6) (Gal(β1–3)) Gal(β1–4) Glc (6-SLNP) and also feeding, as it improves gastric conditions of children, minimizing or
quantified their concentration over the period of 60 days. In addition, preventing the gastrointestinal infections (Cosentino et al., 2013).
Wang et al. (2019) identified neutral oligosaccharides such as Galacto­ Lysozyme has been reported to exhibit various functions like
triose, Galactotetraose, 3-FL, LNnT, isoLNnT, LNnP1 and LNnH and re­ anti-inflammatory, anti-tumor, microbial inhibition activity and inacti­
ported that DM oligosaccharides can help in maturation of intestinal vate some of viruses (Salimei et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2008; Mao et al.,
epithelial cells and maintained homeostasis of intestinal epithelial. As 2009). Lactoferrin shows antimicrobial activity in bacterial cell wall, by
reviewed above, considerable differences were observed between the hydrolyzing glycosidic bond of mucous polysaccharides. The concen­
fatty acid profile of DM (non-ruminants) and CM (ruminants), due to the tration of lactoferrin in DM (~4× higher) and CM are 0.37 and 0.10
differences in the precursors available and synthesis of these fatty acids g/kg, respectively (Guo et al., 2007; Uniacke-Lowe et al., 2010).
in non-ruminants and ruminants. The protein profile in DM, in terms of As reported by Ashok kumar et al. (2011), DM milk contains com­
casein, taurine content shows considerable differences making it a better ponents that promote the growth of bacteriocin-producing lactic acid
choice for infant nutrition. A considerable amount of micronutrients bacteria L. paracasei and the bacteriocin is effective against several gut
(minerals and vitamins) and non-digestible oligosaccharides supplied by pathogens i.e., Salmonella typhi, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, E. coli (Ashok
DM aids in improving the human health and nutrition. kumar et al., 2011). Supporting this another publication by Murua et al.
(2013), an isolate of L. plantarum grown in DM produced a bacteriocin
(LP08AD), which inhibited the growth of spoilage causing bacteria, and
pathogens namely Lactobacillus curvatus, Enterococcus faecium, and Lis­
teria monocytogenes. Furthermore, recently it was found that components
Table 5
of DM serve as substrate for the growth of bacteriocin producing strains
Vitamin content in different milks (donkey milk, cow milk, buffalo milk and
human milk).
of Enterococcus genus, produced three different enterocins namely type
A, B, P, exhibiting bactericidal activity against Listeria monocytogenes.
Vitamin Donkey Cow milk Buffalo Human milk
Zhang et al. (2008) observed that DM antimicrobial activity was
milka milk
found to be most sensitive towards Shigella dysenteriae (CGMCC 1.1869)
Vitamin A (µg per 100 1.7 32–50a 69,000c 30–70a and Salmonella choleraesuis (CGMCC 1.1859) strain on study against nine
g)
Vitamin D (µg per 100 – 0.01–0.15b 2000c 0.04b
microorganisms using agar diffusion assay. While under in-situ condi­
g) tions, DM showed bactericidal activity against S. dysenteriae and reduced
Vitamin E (µg per 100 5.1 98 − 128a 190c 3–8a the viable count of the sample below the detection limit.
g) The antimicrobial activity of DM lysozyme against Bacillus cereus,
Thiamine (µg per 100 41 37b 50b 15b
Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, and Escherichia coli was
g)
Riboflavin (µg per 100 64 180b 100b 38b investigated. Protein pattern of hydrolyzed milk varied between 0.78 to
g) 25.2 kDa in microelectrophoresis and the inhibition halos were recorded
Niacin (µg per 100 g) 74 90b 80b 170b as 4.3 mm (for E. coli), 17.4 mm (for E. faecalis). The study revealed that
Pantothenic acid (µg – 350b 370b 270b antimicrobial activity of DM may be due the biomolecules released on
per 100 g)
Pyridoxine (µg per 100 – 36b 25b 14b
protein hydrolysis, which plays a significant role in host defence system
g) (Murgia et al., 2016). Aspri et al. (2018) assessed ACE-inhibitory, anti­
Biotin (µg per 100 g) – 4b 11b 1b microbial and antioxidant activity of the bioactive peptides isolated
Folic acid (µg per 100 – 7b 3.69d 8b from fermented (with indigenous LAB strain Enterococcus faecium DM33
g)
and Lactobacillus casei DM214) DM. The fermented DM was digested by
Cobalamin (µg per 100 110 <1b <1b <1b
g) in-vitro simulated gastrointestinal digestion and the digested sample was
Ascorbate (µg per 100 350–500 2000b 2500c 5000–10000a analyzed by HPLC-LTQ-Orbitrap XL for comprehensive peptide
g) profiling. The highest antioxidant and antimicrobial activity were
a
Aspri et al. (2017b);. recorded for the sample fermented using Enterococcus faecium DM33
b
Fox et al. (2015);. while the maximum ACE-inhibitory activity was exhibited by the milk
c
Khetra et al. (2022);. sample fermented with Lactobacillus casei DM214. In another study,
d
Sharma and Lal (1997). Koutb et al. (2016) reported that maximum antimicrobial activity of DM

6
S. Meena et al.
was against Trichophyton mentagrophytes and T. rubrum at the lethal
concentration of 32 mg/mL. However, DM had more sensitivity for
Bacillus cereus and Staphylococcus aureus compared to E. coli. DM after
pepsin digestion (2 mg/mL) showed 60–62 % antimicrobial activity
against Bacillus cereus and Staphylococcus aureus but it was ineffective
against dermatomycotic fungi and E. coli. Anti-fungal properties of DM
were analyzed by measuring fatty acids by gas chromatography.
The antimicrobial activity of DM’s lysozyme and lactoferrin was
assessed in Kashar cheese. Cheese samples dipped in antimicrobial so­
lution containing lysozyme and lactoferrin showed lower bacterial count
compared to control sample (Ozturkoglu-Budak et al., 2021). The
lysozyme isolated from DM has shown its ability to prevent late blowing
defect in Italian cheese by inhibiting spore forming clostridia, thus it can
be best suited as an alternative to egg lysozyme in cheese manufacturing
(Cosentino et al., 2015).
Health promoting properties
According to Mao et al. (2009), DM contains antitumor and
anti-proliferative bioactive peptides and the most effective whey protein
fraction (IV) of >10 kDa showed potent cytotoxicity and apoptosis by
accumulation on A549 cells (human lung cancer cells) in G0/G1 and
G2/M phases. Li et al. (2020) and Esener et al. (2018) reported the in­
hibition of breast tumor in mice and release of nitric oxide mediated DM
tumoricidal activity, respectively. When whey protein fraction (IV) was
conditioned with fraction-IV-stimulated murine splenocytes; the secre­
tion of Interleukin-6 (IL-6), Interleukin-1β (IL-1β), Interleukin-2 (IL-2),
Interferon-γ (IFN-γ) and tumour necrosis factor α (TNF-α) increased. The
possible mechanism involved was, suppression and reduction of tumor,
due to the ability of the isolated protein fraction to activate the lym­
phocytes and macrophages. Lysozyme present in the fraction-IV was the
major factor for anti-tumour activity.
Through another investigation, Aspri et al. (2018) demonstrated that
water soluble extract of raw and pasteurized DM (unfermented)
exhibited antioxidant activity (determined by the ABTS radical scav­
enging assay), which further increased with fermentation. Casein and
WP hydrolysis with digestive enzymes helped in alleviating the antiox­
idant activity. In addition to this, DM also possesses ACE-inhibitory
activity, with 2.14 ± 1.48 mg/mL IC50 for raw DM. Aspri et al.
(2018) reported that fermentation of DM with Lb. casei DM214 and
Enterococcus lactis DM237, showed highest ACE inhibitory activity with
0.04 and 0.06 mg/mL IC50, respectively.
Generation of anti-oxidative peptides by microbial fermentation or
enzymatic hydrolysis has been a key outcome of various studies
(Zanutto-Elgui et al., 2019; Gaspar-Pintiliescu et al., 2020). Protein
hydrolysates containing antioxidant peptides reduce the oxidative stress
by scavenging the free radicals, like reactive oxygen species. Prevention
of the non-enzymatic and enzymatic peroxidation of essential fatty acids
by antioxidant bioactive peptides in fermented milks has been also re­
ported (Perna et al., 2015). The anti-inflammatory properties of DM in
wound healing and cosmetic dermatology has also been revealed (Kocic
et al., 2020). Zhou et al. (2023) showed DM, differentially expressed
proteins exhibited immunoregulatory, antibacterial, antioxidative,
promoting cell proliferation and skin moisture enhancement properties.
The presence of various functional ingredients in DM contribute to its
various health promoting activities like antimicrobial as affected by the
presence of lactoferrin, lysozyme, lactoperoxidase, presence of growth
factors facilitating growth of bacteriocin producing lactic acid bacteria.
Appreciable antioxidant, ACE inhibitory peptides have been isolated
from fermented DM. In addition to this, significant antitumor,
anti-proliferative and anti-inflammatory response has been well docu­
mented for DM.
Processing of DM
Processing of raw DM makes it safer for human consumption by
7
Food Chemistry Advances 4 (2024) 100647
destruction of the food-borne pathogens of animal or environmental
origin; several findings have reported presence of food-borne pathogens
in DM obtained from healthy udder as well (Kaskous & Pfaffl, 2022).
Hence, good hygienic practices must be adopted along with thermal
processing of raw milk to ensure food safety (Martini et al., 2018). Aspri
et al. (2017a) also emphasized that consumption of raw DM should be
avoided as it contains pathogenic microorganisms. Zhang et al. (2008)
reported a low microbial count of freshly drawn DM, however it in­
creases with the storage time and increased to 6.66 log cfu/mL LAB, 5.88
log cfu/mL coliforms and 2.95 log cfu/mL fungi, at 20 ◦ C after 24 h,
while no change in the microbial count was observed at 4 ◦ C after 96 h
storage except coliform whose count increased by one log cfu/mL. To
ensure the quality and safety of DM, various reports have indicated the
processing of DM by different thermal and non-thermal processes as
outlined hereunder.
Thermal processing of DM and associated changes
Martini et al. (2018) thermally processed DM samples at 65 ◦ C for 30
min and pasteurized samples were stored for 21 and 90 days at 3 ± 2 ◦ C
and -20 ± 5 ◦ C, respectively. Heat treatment did not alter the gross
composition of the milk. Chemical composition of the milk samples
varied, particularly the lactose level, which reduced significantly at the
seventh day in refrigerated milk and at 14th and 30th day in frozen milk.
The pH ranged between 7.17 - 7.22; similar pH values of DM were re­
ported by Giacometti et al. (2016). The pH value of pasteurized milk
changed non-significantly at refrigerated (3 ± 2 ◦ C) and frozen (− 20 ± 5
◦
C) condition during the study period. The fatty acid profile of refrig­
erated milk remained unchanged up to 21 days at 3 ◦ C (± 2 ◦ C), while
significant changes were observed in samples stored at − 20 ◦ C (90 days)
in particular fatty acids i.e. reduction in C 18:2- c9,12 with a concomi­
tant increase in C 6:0, C 14:0, C 14:1, C 18:1 (t11), C 21:0, C 20:3 n-3 and
n3/n6 ratio. Storage did not alter the total PUFA, saturated/unsaturated
fatty acids ratio (SFA/UFA), and several essential fatty acids i.e. 18:3 n-3
(ALA), 20:5 (EPA), and 22:6 (DHA). The unchanged SFA/UFA ratio
indicated the absence of any degradation and oxidation reactions during
prolonged cold storage (Giacometti et al., 2016). Raw DM had an
average microbial load ranging between 4.30–5.60 log cfu/mL at 30 ◦ C
which remained below one log cfu/mL in pasteurized milk during
storage period (Papademas et al., 2021; Giacometti et al., 2016).
Coagulase-positive Staphylococci count was below one log cfu/mL in
processed milk compared to 2.20 - 2.26 log cfu/mL in raw DM, which
were lower than those reported by Malissiova et al. (2016), while the
Enterobacteriaceae count was lower than one log cfu/mL in stored
pasteurized milk. Food borne pathogens such as Salmonella spp., Listeria
monocytogenes, Campylobacter spp. were not detected in both raw and
pasteurized milk.
Charfi et al. (2019) processed DM at different time/temperature
conditions i.e., 68 ◦ C/2.5 min, 75 ◦ C/10 min and 100 ◦ C/5 min and
investigated possible biochemical and quality changes due to process­
ing. The pH of DM remained constant in milk samples subjected to 68
◦
C/2.5 min and 75 ◦ C/10 min, while it decreased significantly to 7.19
from 7.31 after processing at 100 ◦ C/5 min. Reduction in pH may be
attributed to the thermal oxidation of lactose to organic acid(s)
(contributing to 50 % reduction in pH), mainly formic acid, organic
phosphate hydrolysis (responsible for 3 % decrease) and precipitation of
tri-calcium phosphate and with a concomitant release of hydrogen ions,
contributing in reduction of pH (Singh, 2004). Markedly higher reduc­
tion in pH of donkey than CM was attributed to higher lactose content of
the former.
Heat treatment of DM increased the degree of lipolysis, but the level
of lipolysis was lower in DM vis-a-vis CM, owing to the structural dif­
ferences of the fat globule membrane and the fatty acid profile of both
milks. The surface-active fatty acids such as caproic, caprylic, capric,
lauric and myristic acids are readily released during tri-glyceride hy­
drolysis and retarded the rate of lipolysis (Hamosh et al., 1999).
S. Meena et al.
Formation of free fatty acids (FFA) was highest at 100 ◦ C/5 min, how­
ever FFA increase was lower at 68 ◦ C/2.5 min and 75 ◦ C/10 min. In­
crease in FFA could be due to destruction of the milk fat globule
membrane, thus accelerating the oxidative rancidity (Cilliers et al.,
2014). However, the changes in the protein content of DM were more
significant compared to bovine milk, which might be due to higher
soluble protein content. Heat treatment of DM resulted in reduction of
β-lactoglobulin, lactoferrin and lysozyme. It was reported that the de­
natured WPs of DM formed complexes with the casein micelle post
thermal treatment, thus forming a part of micelle-bound complexes. The
degree of WP denaturation increased with increasing thermal treatment
(Felfoul et al., 2017; Ozturkoglu-Budak, 2018). DM whey protein was
more heat sensitive than CM whey protein, with denaturation rates of
82.89 % and 65.95 % in donkey and bovine milks, respectively, at 100
◦
C/5 min. This could be due to its increased WP nitrogen content and
lack of casein compared to CM.
Heat treatment reduced calcium solubility in donkey and bovine
milk samples. The lowest soluble calcium concentrations were found in
bovine and DM treated at 100 ◦ C for 5 min (483.23 mg/L to 431.18 mg/L
and 526.19 mg/L to 463.60 mg/L, respectively). The considerable dif­
ference in soluble calcium between raw and processed milk samples can
have an impact on their thermal stability and future technological ap­
plications (De la Fuente et al., 2002; Singh, 2004). The lowest soluble
phosphorus concentrations were found in donkey and bovine milk
treated at 100 ◦ C/ 5 min (from 410.65 mg/L to 200.80 mg/L and from
478.44 mg/L to 203.38 mg/L, respectively). The soluble phosphorus
content in DM samples was more stable than that in CM after the heat
treatment. This could be related to the differences in pH, Ca/P ratio, and
protein profiles between these two types of milk (O’Connell & Fox,
2011).
Lysozyme activity in DM reduced from 45,640 U/mL in raw milk to
40,526 U/mL in heat processed milk (68 ◦ C/2.5 min). Increase in heat
intensity from 75 ◦ C/10 min and 100 ◦ C/5 min, significantly (p < 0.05)
decreased the enzyme activity to 31,130 U/mL and 12,324 U/mL,
respectively (Charfi et al., 2019). The lysozyme activity of DM treated at
100 ◦ C/5 min was higher compared to HM. Partial denaturation of
lysozyme at 80 ◦ C for 20 min, lowered its antibacterial efficacy than
native lysozyme. Lysozyme has been reported to have a high thermo­
stability, which loses its biological activity at temperatures above 75 ◦ C
for >5 min (Polidori & Vincenzetti, 2012; Ozturkoglu-Budak, 2018).
Presently, DM is sold in the form of raw milk, pasteurized milk and
UHT milk which exhibits shelf life of three days, 4 - 6 days and six
months at refrigeration (0 - 4 ◦ C) and ambient temperature (Giacometti
et al., 2016). Thermal processing of milk destroys many microorganisms
and enzymes, increases the shelf life and microbial safety of milk, but it
impairs the organoleptic and nutritional quality of milk depending on
the intensity of applied thermal treatment (Ahmad et al., 2019).
Non-thermal processing of DM
Alternative non-thermal processing has emerged as novel technolo­
gies for producing safe and nutritious dairy products without deterio­
rating its nutritional quality. Different non-thermal processing methods
used for shelf-life extension and product manufacturing using DM are
discussed hereunder.
High pressure processing (HPP) of DM
HPP technology is widely employed in the production of meat, dairy,
marine, vegetable, and fruit goods, as well as a variety of beverage
products (Chawla et al., 2011). It is a non-thermal food processing
technology that involves subjecting liquid or solid foods to pressures
ranging from 50 to 1000 MPa. As HPP is applied at ambient tempera­
tures, hence considered as a cold processing technology.
Processing of DM under different processing conditions such as raw
milk (without treatment), pasteurization (65 ◦ C for 30 min), HPP, and
combination of pasteurization and HPP, revealed that DM treated at 600
8
Food Chemistry Advances 4 (2024) 100647
MPa/180 s and 400 MPa/180 s was unfit for human consumption as it
showed visible microbial colonies with flocks. HPP (400 MPa/180 s) of
pasteurized DM showed no alterations, safe for consumption and stable
up to 30 days at 4 ◦ C (Giacometti et al., 2016). Addoa and Ferraguta
(2015) studied the effects of ultra-high-pressure homogenization
(UHPH) at 100 MPa, 200 MPa and 300 MPa in comparison to pasteur­
ization performed at 70 ◦ C for 1 min and 85 ◦ C for 1 min on the quality
and shelf-life of DM. In terms of microbiological quality, the UHPH
treatment of DM was shown to be comparable to or better than
pasteurization, with its minimum shelf-life being 28 days. The UHPH did
not affect the lysozyme activity of milk, as the milk sample retained the
entire enzyme activity during its shelf life. However, the UHPH reduced
the physical stability of milk as it induced sedimentation at 200 MPa and
300 MPa. Koker (2021) showed that the microbial count, lactoferrin and
lysozyme content of DM reduced as a function of increase in applied
pressure (200, 400 and 500 MPa). However, the reduction in microbial
count, lactoferrin and lysozyme content due to HPP is only possible
when HPP is combined with heat treatment at 75 ◦ C or above. It was
observed that, when DM was heated at 75 ◦ C for 1 and 2 min, microbial
load reduced to acceptable limits with no effect on the activity of lac­
toferrin. These finding suggest that the combination of both HPP and
heat treatment increases the shelf life of DM. Moreover, rheological
properties of heat-treated milk were better in comparison to HPP treated
milk or untreated milk samples. In contrast, another study reported that
DM processed with HPP was better than heat treated milk as loss of
antimicrobial proteins was lower in case of HPP treated milk with better
shelf life (Giacometti et al., 2016).
Freeze drying of DM
Freeze drying or lyophilisation is an alternate method for food
preservation. Despite of being an expensive technology, it is widely used
in food processing and preservation, as the food retains its key functional
attributes such as minimal or no loss of volatile compound(s), enzymatic
activity and a better nutritional value, as heat has a deteriorative effect
on the raw or processed material (Vincenzetti et al., 2018). Polidori et al.
(2019) prepared freeze-dried DM powder and compared the chemical
and nutritional properties of fresh milk and reconstituted milk. The
nutritional properties of reconstituted milk (90 %, wb) and fresh milk
were quite similar in terms of chemical composition, fatty acid profile
and mineral content. In fresh DM, volatile compounds such as 2-hepta­
none; 1, 3-bis (1, 1-dimethylethyl)-benzene; nonanal; D-limonene;
octanoic acid; and 1-octanol were detected. The accelerated shelf-life
study of freeze dried and spray dried milk showed continuous increase
in 2-heptanone, octanoic acid, and nonanal compared to fresh milk.
Freeze drying and spray drying significantly changed the β-lactoglobulin
and lysozyme percentage in DM, while α-lactalbumin remained unaf­
fected. The lysozyme activity (58 % residual activity) and β-lactoglob­
ulin content (5.51 mg/mL in spray dried milk compared to 6.43 mg/mL
in fresh milk) decreased significantly (P < 0.05) during spray drying of
DM. This is probably due to exposure to high temperature during drying
(Vincenzetti et al., 2018). However, in case of freeze-drying noticeable
changes were not observed in both the components. Divya (2019) pre­
pared freeze dried and spray dried DM powder from dwarf grey breed
milk using fluidized bed drying. The powder thus obtained from freeze
drying exhibited better reconstitution and handling properties than
fluidized spray dried powder.
Other novel processing techniques used for DM processing
Traditional thermal processing such as pasteurization, ultra-heat
treatment (UHT) has negative impact on DM constituents such as milk
fat globule membrane and whey protein. Miao et al. (2020) attempted to
optimize the processing condition of mild heat and ultrasonication
treatment with affecting the milk stability for processing and production
of fermented products. WPs were found to be more stable as compared to
casein on ultrasonication of DM. Heating and ultrasonic treatment
increased the rate of centrifugal precipitation and surface
S. Meena et al. Food Chemistry Advances 4 (2024) 100647

hydrophobicity because ultrasonication results in the unfolding of the Table 6

protein structure (Sun et al., 2014). Ultrasonic treatment of DM had no Effect of thermal and non thermal processing on donkey milk.
significant effects on zeta potential and particle size. High peptide Treatment Processing Observations Reference
content with L. helveticus LZ-R-5 and Lb. helveticus MB2–1 was observed conditions
during fermentation of DM but the formed gel had weak and poor Thermal processing
texture (Miao et al., 2020). Temperature/time - Gross composition Martini et al.
DM processed using UV-C (λ between 100 and 280 nm) technique combination: 65 ◦ C not altered on (2018)
was assessed for the inactivation of food-borne pathogens in raw DM. for 30 min heating
Storage condition: - pH remains constant
Staph. aureus (NCTC 6571), B. cereus (NCTC 7464), Cronobacter sakazakii Refrigerated (3 ± 2 during the storage
(NCTC 11,467), E. coli (NCTC 9001), Salmonella enteritidis (NCTC 6676) ◦
C) for 21 days and period
were destroyed at UV-C dose approx. ranging between 200 and 600 J/L frozen (− 20 ± 5 - - Fatty acid profile
while L. innocua the most resistant pathogen was inactivated at 1100 J/ C) for 90 days remains constant at
◦

refrigeration, while
L. Thus, UV-C can be used as a potential alternative non-thermal tech­
significant changes
nique for processing of raw DM. The effects of UV-C on biological active under frozen
components i.e., immunoglobulins, lactoferrin, and lysozyme and vita­ conditions.
mins require further study for its use at commercial scale (Papademas Time/temperature - pH decreased on Charfi et al.
et al., 2021). Table 6 shows the effect of various thermal and non combination: 68 intense heating and (2019)
◦
C/2.5 min, 75 ◦ C/ remained constant
thermal processing on DM. 10 min and 100 on mild heating.
◦
C/5 min - Degree of lipolysis
DM based dairy products increased with heat
intensity.
- Changes in the
Dairy product(s) obtained from DM has several health promoting
protein content
factors that attract special attention towards DM and its products. The (especially
compositional similarity between DM and HM can serve a better alter­ β-lactoglobulin,
native for allergic population. DM is being utilized in liquid form as well lactoferrin and
as converted in to different products to enhance its shelf life, palatability lysozyme) of DM
were more
and price. significant
compared to bovine
DM powder milk.
- Heat treatment
reduced calcium
Commercial production of pasteurized DM or UHT is not viable at
solubility.
industrial level due to low milk production and calving seasonality. Due - - Lysozyme activity
to its perishable nature, drying techniques such as spray and freeze reduced
drying enables to extend the shelf life of milk (Rysstad & Kolstad, 2006). significantly with
Although as reviewed through the existing literature, the potential of heat treatment.
Non-thermal processing
drying techniques has not been exploited fully for manufacturing DM UV-C UV- C dose used: 0 - - Inactivation of food- Papademas
powder. Di Renzo et al. (2013) concentrated DM (10.1 % total solids) to 1300 J/L borne pathogens in et al. (2021)
23 % TS at 55 ◦ C. Further, the concentrate was dried in spray dryer (at Flow rate: 4000 L h raw DM. Staph.
− 1
different air inlet temperatures; 120, 150, 185 ◦ C) to obtain “extra-­ aureus, B. cereus,
Model: “SurePure Cronobacter sakaza­
grade” powder. The obtained DM powder was compared with powders
Turbulator™” kii, E. coli, S.
of goat milk and CM for different parameters. Within the applied range enteritidis.
of inlet air temperatures (120–185 ◦ C), thermal damage index of DM - L. innocua consider
powder, goat milk powder and CM powder varied in the range of as most resistant
45.17–72.58 %, 22.18–60.19 % and, 56.09–68.07 %, while their insol­ pathogen.
- - It can be used as a
ubility index varied in the range of 1–1.30 %, 0.5–1.13 % and, 0.58–1.18 potential alternative
% respectively. It was emphasized that resistance of DM towards ther­ non-thermal tech­
mal damage was least. Presence of low-fat content was responsible for nique for DM
more denaturation of proteins in DM. Optimized air inlet temperature of processing.
High pressure HPP (600 and 400 - Alone HPP treated Giacometti
173.5 ◦ C produced “extra-grade” DM powder with ≤80 % thermal
processing MPa for 100 s and milk not suitable for et al. (2016)
damage index and ≤1.2 mL insolubility index, respectively. Similarly, (HPP) 180 s). consumption due
Nayak et al. (2022) studied the impact of processing conditions on the HPP (600 and 400 visible alterations
quality of DM powder obtained by spray drying of milk obtained from MPa for 100 s and with flocks
Indian small grey donkey. 180 s) combination - - HPP (400 MPa/180
with pasteurization s) of pasteurized DM
The systemic study on nutritional and functional attributes of DM (65 ◦ C for 30 min). showed no
powder has not been well studied. Li et al. (2018) reported that DM and alterations, safe for
its powder are low in fat and cholesterol content, with the cholesterol consumption and
content of milk and milk powder being 8.6 mg/100 g and 33.8 mg/100 stable up to 30 days
at 4 ◦ C.
g, respectively, while the taurine content in DM was reported to be 0.87
HPP Pressure: 200, 400, - Significant decrease Koker
mg/100 g and 10.87 mg/100 g in DM powder. Tedeschi et al. (2023) and 500 MPa for 5, in microbial count, (2021)
compared freeze dried DM powder prepared from milk treated with 10, and 15 min. lysozyme and
UV-C, normal pasteurization and raw milk. Pasteurized milk powder Model: 760.0118, lactoferrin content
showed better digestibility than UV-C and raw milk powders, while SITEC, Zürich, was observed with
Switzerland increase in pressure.
negative effects were observed on the antibacterial, antioxidant and - Findings suggest
ACE-inhibitory activity than UV-C and raw milk powders. Indicating that the
UV-C treatment to be a better choice in preserving the bioactivities and (continued on next page)
protein quality of the milk or milk powder.

9
S. Meena et al. Food Chemistry Advances 4 (2024) 100647

Table 6 (continued ) analysis on weekly interval. Authors demonstrated that compared to

Treatment Processing Observations Reference fresh DM, fermented DM had lower pH, essential amino acids, lactose
conditions and mineral (zinc, sodium, magnesium, phosphorus and calcium) con­
combination of both
tents. Fermented DM contained monounsaturated and polyunsaturated
HPP and heat fatty acids in higher concentration than fresh DM. The concentration of
treatment increases saturated fatty acids was higher in fresh DM than fermented DM. After
the shelf life of DM. 21 days storage of fermented DM, its amino acid profile improved but a
- - Rheological
negative impact was observed on its fatty acid profile. It was concluded
properties of heat-
treated milk were that fresh and fermented DM possess important nutrients. Fermented
better in comparison DM exhibited a shelf-life of 21 days at 4 ± 1 ◦ C.
to HPP treated milk Perna et al. (2015) produced control yoghurt and probiotic yoghurt
or untreated milk samples using Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. Bulgaricus and Streptococcus
samples.
Ultra - High Pressure: 100 MPa, - UHPH treatment of Addoa and
thermophilus (@ 1% w/v) as traditional yoghurt cultures; Lactobacillus
pressure 200 MPa and 300 DM was quite Ferraguta acidophilus and Lactobacillus casei (@ 1 % v/v) as probiotic strains,
processing MPa duration 0.5 s comparable to or (2015) respectively. DM was heated (95 ◦ C/ 15 min); cooled and inoculated at
(UHPH) Model: FPG11300, better than 45 ◦ C with traditional yoghurt culture and probiotic strains; incubated at
Stansted Fluid pasteurization in
37 to 42 ◦ C in sealed plastic containers until pH reached 4.6. Thereafter,
Power Ltd., Essex, terms of
UK microbiological control and probiotic yoghurt samples were stored at 4 ◦ C up to 30 days
quality and subjected to analysis of lactose content, antioxidant activity and
- Lysozyme activity sensory evaluation. It was observed that initial lactose content of control
did not affect in the (4.54 %) and probiotic (4.74 %) yoghurt samples decreased gradually
UHPH treatment.
- - UHPH reduced the
during storage and reduced to 2.36 % and 2.10 % levels after 30 days of
physical stability of storage, respectively. With gradual increase throughout the storage
milk as it induced period, higher antioxidant activity was recorded in probiotic yoghurt
sedimentation at samples over control sample. This study clearly revealed the effect of
200 MPa and 300
lactic acid bacteria on antioxidant activity of prepared yoghurt samples.
MPa.
Ultrasonication Heating treatment: - WPs were found to Miao et al. The overall acceptability scores assigned to control and probiotic
65 ◦ C, 85 ◦ C, 100 be more stable as (2020) yoghurt samples on a 9-point hedonic scale by 310 consumers were 7.11
◦
C and 121 ◦ C for compared to casein and 7.02, respectively and these results were encouraging for the
15 min. on ultrasonication of placement of DM yoghurt samples in market. Researchers concluded
Ultrasonic DM.
that produced yoghurt samples could be considered as health and nu­
conditions: 200 - Unfolding of the
MPa, 300 MPa, 400 protein structure traceutical food owing to their ability to meet requirement of target
MPa, 500 MPa and and with heating consumers suffering from lactose intolerance and CM protein allergy.
600 MPa for 15 induce centrifugal Tidona et al. (2015) formulated an emulsion using processed (heat­
min. precipitation and
ing to 68 ◦ C for 2.5 min & cooling) DM in which sunflower oil was added
surface
hydrophobicity @ 1.6 % (v/v) to improve energy intake, textural and health attribute.
- - It had no High pressure homogenizer (five cycles at 300 bar) was used to produce
significant effect on the mentioned emulsion. Two strains of Streptococcus thermophilus (St
zeta potential and 907 & St 563) were used to ferment (pH 5) the formulated emulsion
particle size.
which resulted in the production of exopolysaccharide (EPS) and folic
High hydrostatic HPP equipment: - H75+P400 resulted Gong et al.
pressure Beijing Suyuan the higher protein (2024) acid. The fermented emulsion had 10× higher concentration of folic acid
combined with Zhongtian aggregation and (2.03 ± 0.17 µg/100 mL) compared to that was present in DM (0.16 ±
HTST Scientific., Ltd., lower physical 0.03 µg/100 mL). The researchers concluded that formulated emulsion
pasteurization Beijing, China. stability.
could act as a base material for the preparation of new age fermented
Processing - Particle size of DM
conditions: H75 increased
foods. The EPS played an important role in product stabilization while
(HTST significantly with sunflower oil incorporation and fermentation collectively improved the
pasteurization at HPP pressure. nutritional properties of developed product over DM.
75 ◦ C for 15 s) + - H75+ P200 and Saric et al., (2016) stated that due to unique physico-chemical
HPP at 200 MPa P300 preserved the
properties of donkey and equine’s milk, cheese cannot be manufac­
(H75 + P200), H75 protein fraction i.e.
+ P300 and H75 + lysozyme, tured purely from any of them. This is because of their casein content
P400 for 5 min, α-lactalbumin and which is crucial milk constituent for cheese making. The casein content
respectively β-lactoglobulin of bovine milk, donkey’s milk and caprine milk are 80, 47.3 and 55%
- - H75+P300
w/w of the protein respectively. Hence, this research group admixed
extended the shelf
life of donkey milk.
these (i.e., donkey’s, 60 % v/v: caprine milk 40 % v/v; 3:2 ratio) milks;
prepared cheese and characterized it in detail in terms of sensory eval­
uation, textural attributes, chemical parameters and microbiological
Novel functional fermented donkey milk-based products and beverages analysis. The prepared donkey/caprine cheese had 61.47 % TS, 20.72 %
protein, 23.41 % fat (65.83 % on dry matter basis), 3.17 % lactose, 9.55
Cavalcanti et al. (2021) compared the physicochemical characteris­ % salt, 17.54 % casein, 2.73 % WP and, 46.43 % moisture content on a
tics and nutritional potential of fresh and fermented DM. Chilled DM was fat free basis, respectively. By virtue of its chemical make-up, the fully
heated at 65 ± 2 ◦ C for 15 min and then cooled to 45 ± 2 ◦ C. Thereafter, ripened cheese was referred as extra-hard cheese containing high-fat
it was inoculated with 0.4 % thermophilic culture consisting Strepto­ and salt contents. The water activity and pH values of ripened (6
coccus thermophillus and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. Bulgaricus and month) cheese were 0.94 and 4.71, respectively. Moderately hard and
incubated for four hours at 28 ± 2 ◦ C, cooled to 4 ± 1 ◦ C and held for 24 crumbly texture was observed in mature cheese. Sensory evaluation
h, respectively. Samples were stirred using a glass rod, packed in poly­ revealed that the cheese was very salty along with pronounced fatty,
ethylene bottles and stored at 4 ± 1 ◦ C up to 21 days followed by their creamy and acidic taste. The researchers considered the donkey/caprine

10
S. Meena et al.
cheese as high-quality functional product possessing a sound market
potential.
D’Alessandro et al. (2019) reported that presence of low fat, TS and
casein particularly κ-casein in DM is problematic during cheese pro­
duction, resulting in formation of a very weak gel network. This research
team investigated the effect of microbial transglutaminase (MTGase)
fortification (@ 5 U/ gram of milk protein) in DM using different pat­
terns and its influence on cheesemaking process. Milk without MTGase
was treated as control. In pattern one, MTGase was added at 40 ◦ C, 15
min prior to the inoculation of starter while in pattern two, both were
simultaneously added at similar temperature. Rennet at 42 ◦ C and
MTGase were added together in acidified milk having pH of 6.3 in
pattern 3. Change in pH during acidification and related cheesemaking
parameters, proximate composition and color of developed cheese
samples were measured and recorded after 24 h. It was observed that
MTGase addition did not induced any significant change in fat, protein,
moisture content and yield of cheese samples. However, compared to
control, rennet and MTGase addition in acidified milk (pattern 3)
resulted in improved curd firmness. This treatment also curtailed the
time required for gel formation, duration between renneting and
molding of cheese as well as cheese weight loss after the fixed interval of
24 h. Furthermore, cheese produced by this treatment exhibited
maximum yellowness and minimum lightness scores compared to other
samples. It was emphasized that simultaneous use of MTGase and rennet
was effective in improving the curd firmness during production of
cheese from DM.
Based on the challenges encountered during coagulation of DM and
subsequent curd formation, Faccia et al. (2020) referred this process as
unfeasible. This research group produced cheese from DM using mi­
crobial rennet and the resultant product was characterized for its
proximate composition, sensory attributes, volatile organic compounds
and estimation of total fatty acids. In short, the cheese making process
consisted heating of DM to 42 ◦ C followed by starter addition and
acidization till pH 6.3. Thereafter, calcium chloride and microbial
rennet were added at the rate of 0.3 g/L and one mL/L, respectively. This
was followed by cutting of curd (cube size: one cm) with cook­
ing/heating to 42 ◦ C, 10 min settling and whey drainage (gently in 30
min), molding and storage at 4 ◦ C. It was demonstrated that rapid
coagulation of DM resulted in the formation of soft curd that best suited
for the production of soft cheese only. Sensory evaluation revealed
unique and pleasant flavour in developed cheese. It was emphasized that
vacuum evaporation or membrane processing can be adopted to in­
crease the protein concentration in DM so that its subsequent coagula­
tion result in improved curd firmness. Natrella et al. (2024) accounted
low protein and a high pH value of DM for its poor response to rennet
during cheese making. This technological challenge was addressed by
ultrafiltration and pre-acidification (to pH 6.3) with EPS producing
starter culture. Increase in the protein content with ultrafiltration and
increase in the acidity seemed to be the best possible technological
intervention in preparation of DM cheese with a good firmness and
satisfactory yield.
Tidona et al. (2017) reconstituted 11 g DM powder in sterilized water
to obtain reconstituted milk which was mixed with fresh strawberries
(6.32% w/w soluble solids) previously cleaned by chlorine-based sani­
tizer and supplemented with Lactobacillus plantarum 998 and Bifido­
bacterium adolescentis ATCC15703 as probiotic strains and developed ice
cream possessing high functional profile. For the formulation of a lot of
ice cream, 200 mL reconstituted DM (pH 7.09), 200 g homogenized
strawberry (pH 3.34), 20 mL probiotic cell suspension and 93 g sucrose
were processed through a semi-professional ice cream machine and
stored at − 20 ◦ C in polyethylene glasses for different time interval i.e., 0,
2 and 4 months. Product characterization revealed that the developed
ice cream had 26.44 g dry matter, 19.79 g sucrose, 2.98 g lactose, 1.28 g
fructose, 1.19 g protein and 0.08 g fat 100 g − 1 product, respectively.
The maximum over run achieved in this study was 24.70 %. The hard­
ness of fresh ice cream was ~ 9 N that increased up to 21 N after 2
11
Food Chemistry Advances 4 (2024) 100647
months and reached to ~48 N after 4-months of storage, respectively. A
significant decrease was observed in vitamin C content with the pro­
gression of storage period however, the total phenols and the antioxi­
dant capacity of the product exhibited no significant changes. The total
viable probiotic counts of the produced were > 9 log CFU g− 1 during
studied storage period. Hence, the developed new ice cream was
referred as good carrier of probiotics.
Perna et al. (2019) heated DM (9.16 g 100 g− 1, pH: 7.03) at 95 ◦ C for
15 min; cooled to 45 ◦ C and incubated at 25 ◦ C for 24 h after inoculation
with 1 % (w/v) kefir grains. Kefir grains were separated after the
completion of fermentation process via filtration through a sieve. The
aliquot thus produced was devised in three equal parts. First part
(without any addition) was treated as control. Sulla honey was added in
second part at 30 % (w/v) while rosemary essential oil (density: 0.909
g/mL at 20 ◦ C) was added at 0.15 % (w/v) in third part. Incorporation of
Sulla honey and rosemary essential oil was performed through me­
chanical stirring that result in stirred type products. All samples were
packed in 0.5 L plastic containers and stored at refrigerator temperature
for 15 days. It was demonstrated that 2, 20 -azino-bis-(3-ethylbenz­
thiazoline-6-sulfonic acid values and ferric-reducing antioxidant power
values were highest in rosemary essential oil and sulla honey incorpo­
rated kefir samples, respectively. Maximum antioxidant was observed at
the end of storage period (15 days). Sensory evaluation revealed that
control kefir was well accepted by the consumers. Incorporation of sulla
honey further increased its acceptability while addition of rosemary
essential oil decreased acceptability of consumers. In was emphasized
that the findings of this investigation could act as a base point for the
production of kefir from DM loaded with specialized nutraceutical
potential.
As discussed above, DM has been subjected to various downstream
processing treatments resulting in its conversion into different products.
Products namely DM powder, fermented products, cheese, ice cream etc.
have been developed and characterized for their compositional, nutri­
tional, functional and sensory attributes. Owing to its low solids content
i.e. casein, various group of authors have reported cheese manufacture
from DM as a challenging job. Various processing modifications have
been tried and tested for improving the cheese manufacturing process
and end product properties. Supplementation of DM with various non-
dairy ingredients in combination with various probiotics or lactic acid
bacterial cultures has also been practiced to improve the nutraceutical
properties of DM derived products. In the nutshell, conversion of DM
into various value added products requires extensive manipulation in
the processing conditions owing to its altered composition in compari­
son to CM or buffalo milk.
Conclusion and future prospective
DM can be a functional ingredient for human diet in form of func­
tional drinks, beverages or other fermented and non-fermented dairy
product(s). It can be utilized as the best alternative to CM protein
allergic population. It is rich in all the micro nutrients namely B-group of
vitamins such as thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, pyridoxine, folic acid. The
composition of DM is very much comparable to HM which makes it fit
for human consumption after proper heat treatment. In addition, higher
lactose content and presence of non-digestible oligosaccharides (pre­
biotics) in DM improves the intestinal health by promoting the growth of
beneficial microflora inside the gut. DM has been reported to be good for
the patients suffering with cardiovascular diseases and diabetes. Both
thermal and non-thermal processes have been successfully employed for
the processing and shelf-life extension of DM. Although the potential of
these non thermal techniques in processing of DM requires to be
explored to its full potential. Hence, it can be expected that application
of these techniques in near future can result in development of newer
DM products. However, the impact of thermal and non-thermal pro­
cessing technologies on different constituents as well as interactions
among them, functional properties like water holding capacity,
S. Meena et al.
viscosity, emulsifying, foaming, gel forming, heat stability needs more
focused investigations. Application of different novel processing tech­
nologies like bioprocessing/fermentation, UV-C treatment, HPP and
ultrasonication can be an alternative approach for manufacturing
different dairy products so as to retain or improve the functional and
nutritional properties of DM. In addition membrane processing such as
reverse osmosis can be used to increase the total solids of DM for
manufacturing of various dairy products. The potential risks related to
the novel processing technologies like lipid oxidation, survival of spores
during non-thermal processing, radical generation due to ultrasonic
processing needs to be evaluated to increase their efficiency. In addition
there is need of detailed clinical studies about safety and efficacy of DM
supplementation to children and adults, to improve knowledge about its
supplementation in these age groups. Lastly, DM being rich in basic
nutrients, along with the application of the non-conventional tech­
niques, can pave the new path for technological advances in milk pro­
cessing, along with developing new functional food products which can
improve the health status of the consumers and fulfillment of the future
market’s demand.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sunil Meena: Writing – original draft, Resources, Methodology,
Conceptualization. Ganga Sahay Meena: Writing – original draft,
Visualization, Methodology. Priyae Brath Gautam: Writing – review &
editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Supervision, Methodology,
Investigation. Dinesh Chandra Rai: Formal analysis, Data curation.
Samlesh Kumari: Writing – original draft.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Sunil Meena reports financial support was provided by Banaras
Hindu University. Sunil Meena reports a relationship with Banaras
Hindu University that includes: employment and funding grants.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
Authors acknowledge Banaras Hindu University for providing
necessary support and facilities. Also, sincere thanks are extended to
Institution of Eminence (IoE) Scheme, Banaras Hindu University, Var­
anasi (UP) India for support under Incentive to Seed Grant under IoE
Scheme (Dev. Scheme No. 6031(B) and PFMS Scheme No. 3254).
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.focha.2024.100647.
References
Abd El-Salam, M. H., & El-Shibiny, S (2011). A comprehensive review on the composition
and properties of buffalo milk. In Dairy Science and Technology, 91. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13594-011-0029-2. Issue.
Addoa, C. N. A., & Ferraguta, V. (2015). Evaluating the ultra-high-pressure
homogenization (UHPH) and pasteurization effects on the quality and shelf life of
DM. International Journal of Food Studies, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.7455/ijfs/
4.1.2015.a9
Ahmad, T., Butt, M. Z., Aadil, R. M., Inam-ur-Raheem, M., Abdullah, Bekhit, A. E. D., &
Guimarães, J. T. (2019). Impact of nonthermal processing on different milk enzymes.
International Journal of Dairy Technology, 72(4), 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1471-0307.12622
12
Food Chemistry Advances 4 (2024) 100647
Alabiso, M., Giosuè, C., Alicata, M. L., Mazza, F., Iannolino, G., & Pellerito, M. (2006).
Effetto della frequenza di mungitura sulla produzione quanti- qualitativa di latte di asine
(pp. 1–5). Palermo: II Convegno Nazionale Sull’asino.
Altieri, G., Genovese, F., Admane, N., & Di Renzo, G. C. (2016). On-line measure of
donkey’s milk properties by near infrared spectrometry. LWT - Food Science and
Technology, 69, 348–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.01.069
Altomonte, I., Salari, F., Licitra, R., & Martini, M. (2019). Donkey and HM: Insights into
their compositional similarities. International Dairy Journal, 89, 111–118. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2018.09.005. Elsevier Ltd.
Aroua, M., Jemmali, B., Mahouachi, M., Aroua, M., Jemmali, B., Said, S.Ben et al..
(2018). Milk composition Comparison between donkey, goat and cow breeds Donkey milk
composition View project milk fermentation View project Milk composition Comparison
between donkey, goat and cow breeds. 9(5), 202–206. www.jnsciences.org.
Ashok kumar, S., Krishna, R., Pavithra, V., Hemalatha, V., Ingale, P.S. (2011). Production
and antibacterial activity of bacteriocin by Lactobacillus paracasei isolated from
donkey milk.
Aspri, M., Bozoudi, D., Tsaltas, D., Hill, C., & Papademas, P. (2017a). Raw DM as a source
of Enterococcus diversity: Assessment of their technological properties and safety
characteristics. Food control, 73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.05.022
Aspri, M., Economou, N., & Papademas, P. (2017b). Donkey milk: An overview on
functionality, technology, and future prospects. In Food reviews international, 33.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87559129.2016.1175014. Issue.
Aspri, M., Leni, G., Galaverna, G., & Papademas, P. (2018). Bioactive properties of
fermented DM, before and after in vitro simulated gastrointestinal digestion. Food
Chemistry, 268, 476–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.06.119
Atbhaiya, Y., Sharma, R., Gandhi, K., Mann, B., & Gautam, P. B. (2022). Methods to
differentiate between cotton tract area ghee and cotton seed oil adulterated ghee.
Journal of Food Science and Technology, 59(12), 4782–4793. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13197-022-05563-5
Bauer, J., & Gerss, J. (2011). Longitudinal analysis of macronutrients and minerals in
human milk produced by mothers of preterm infants. Clinical Nutrition, 30(2).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2010.08.003
Bertino, E., Gastaldi, D., Monti, G., Baro, C., Fortunato, D., & Garoffo, L. P. (2010).
Detailed proteomic analysis on DM: Insight into its hypoallergenicity. Frontiers in
Bioscience - Elite, 2 E(2), 526–536. https://doi.org/10.2741/e111
Brumini, D., Criscione, A., Bordonaro, S., Vegarud, G. E., & Marletta, D. (2016). WPs and
their antimicrobial properties in DM: A brief review. Dairy Science and Technology, 96
(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13594-015-0246-1
Caroli, A. M., Bulgari, O., Gigliotti, C., Altomonte, I., Salari, F., & Martini, M. (2015).
Milk protein profile and protease activity in DM. Scienza e Tecnica Lattiero-Casearia,
66(1/2), 11–16.
Cavalcanti, N. S. H., Pimentel, T. C., Magnani, M., Pacheco, M. T. B., Alves, S. P., &
Branquinho Bessa, R. J. (2021). DM and fermented DM: Are there differences in the
nutritional value and physicochemical characteristics? LWT, 144. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.lwt.2021.111239
Charfi, I., Tidona, F., Makhlouf, A., Rezouga, F., Boukhari, H., & Bornaz, S. (2019).
Biochemical and quality changes occurring in DM subjected to non-standard heat
treatments. Integrative Food. Nutrition and Metabolism, 6(4). https://doi.org/
10.15761/ifnm.1000261
Chawla, R., Patil, G. R., & Singh, A. K. (2011). High hydrostatic pressure technology in
dairy processing: A review. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 48(3), 260–268.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S13197-010-0180-4
Chouhan, N., Vig, H., & Deshmukh, R. (2021). DM Market Size, Share | Industry Research
Report, 2021-2027. Allied Market Research. https://www.alliedmarketresearch.
com/donkeys-milk-market.
Cilliers, F. P., Gouws, P. A., Koutchma, T., Engelbrecht, Y., Adriaanse, C., & Swart, P.
(2014). A microbiological, biochemical and sensory characterisation of bovine milk
treated by heat and ultraviolet (UV) light for manufacturing Cheddar cheese.
Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, 23, 94–106. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ifset.2014.03.005
Cosentino, C., Paolino, R., Freschi, P., & Calluso, A. M. (2013). Short communication:
Jenny milk as an inhibitor of late blowing in cheese: A preliminary report. Journal of
Dairy Science, 96(6), 3547–3550. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6225
Cosentino, C., Paolino, R., Valentini, V., Musto, M., Ricciardi, A., & Adduci, F. (2015).
Effect of jenny milk addition on the inhibition of late blowing in semihard cheese.
Journal of Dairy Science, 98(8), 5133–5142. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9458
Cunsolo, V., Saletti, R., Muccilli, V., & Foti, S. (2007). Characterization of the protein
profile of donkey’s milk whey fraction. Journal of Mass Spectrometry, 42(9),
1162–1174. https://doi.org/10.1002/JMS.1247
D’Alessandro, A. G., & Martemucci, G. (2012). Lactation curve and effects of milking
regimen on milk yield and quality, and udder health in Martina Franca jennies
(Equus asinus). Journal of Animal Science, 90(2), 669–681. https://doi.org/10.2527/
jas.2011-4283
D’Alessandro, A. G., Martemucci, G., Loizzo, P., & Faccia, M. (2019). Production of
cheese from DM as influenced by addition of transglutaminase. Journal of Dairy
Science, 102(12). https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-16615
De la Fuente, M. A., Olano, A., & Juárez, M. (2002). Mineral balance in milk heated using
microwave energy. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 50(8), 2274–2277.
https://doi.org/10.1021/JF0110349
Di Renzo, G. C., Altieri, G., & Genovese, F. (2013). DM powder production and properties
compared to other milk powders. Dairy Science and Technology, 93(4–5), 551–564.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S13594-013-0108-7
Divya, V. (2019). Development of Process Technology for Production of Instant DM Powder.
Doreau, M. M., Gaillard, J. L., Chobert, J. M., Leonil, J., Egito, A. S., & Haertlé, T. (2002).
Composition of mare and donkey milk fatty acids and proteins and consequences on
milk utilisation. 4. Convegno. Nuove Acquisizioni in Materia di Ippologia.
S. Meena et al.
El-Hatmi, H., Jrad, Z., Salhi, I., Aguibi, A., Nadri, A., & Khorchani, T. (2015). Comparison
of composition and whey protein fractions of human, camel, donkey, goat and cow
milk. Mljekarstvo, 65(3). https://doi.org/10.15567/mljekarstvo.2015.0302
Engfer, M. B., Stahl, B., Finke, B., Sawatzki, G., & Daniel, H. (2000). HM oligosaccharides
are resistant to enzymatic hydrolysis in the upper gastrointestinal tract. American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 71(6). https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/71.6.1589
Esener, O. B. B., Balkan, B. M., Armutak, E. I., Uvez, A., Yildiz, G., & Hafizoglu, M.
(2018). Donkey milk kefir induces apoptosis and suppresses proliferation of Ehrlich
ascites carcinoma by decreasing iNOS in mice. Biotechnic & Histochemistry, 93(6),
424–431.
Faccia, M., D’alessandro, A. G., Summer, A., & Hailu, Y (2020). Milk products from minor
dairy species: A review. Animals, 10(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10081260.
Issue.
Fantuz, F., Ferraro, S., Todini, L., Cimarelli, L., Fatica, A., & Marcantoni, F. (2020).
Distribution of calcium, phosphorus, sulfur, magnesium, potassium, and sodium in
major fractions of donkey milk. Journal of Dairy Science, 103(10). https://doi.org/
10.3168/jds.2020-18251
Fantuz, F., Ferraro, S., Todini, L., Piloni, R., Mariani, P., & Salimei, E. (2012). DM
concentration of calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium and magnesium.
International Dairy Journal, 24(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2011.10.013
Fantuz, F., Ferraro, S., Todini, L., Spurio, R., Fatica, A., & Marcantoni, F. (2022).
Distribution of selected trace elements in the major fractions of donkey milk. Journal
of Dairy Science, 105(8). https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-21901
Felfoul, I., Jardin, J., Gaucheron, F., Attia, H., & Ayadi, M. A. (2017). Proteomic profiling
of camel and CM proteins under heat treatment. Food Chemistry, 216, 161–169.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.08.007
Fleischer Michaelsen, K., Skafte, L., Badsberg, J. H., & Jørgensen, M. (1990). Variation in
macronutrients in human bank milk: Influencing factors and implications for human
milk banking. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, 11(2). https://doi.
org/10.1097/00005176-199008000-00013
Fox, P. F., Uniacke-Lowe, T., McSweeney, P. L. H., & O’Mahony, J. A (2015). Dairy
chemistry and biochemistry. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Francesca, C. (2013). Quality of donkey milk: Correlations between electric conductivity,
freezing point and composition parameters. International Food Research Journal, 20
(2).
Garhwal, R., Sangwan, K., Mehra, R., Kumar, N., Bhardwaj, A., & Pal, Y. (2022).
A systematic review of the bioactive components, nutritional qualities and potential
therapeutic applications of DM. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, 115, Article
104006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2022.104006
Gaspar-Pintiliescu, A., Oancea, A., Cotarlet, M., Vasile, A. M., Bahrim, G. E., &
Shaposhnikov, S. (2020). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition, antioxidant
activity and cytotoxicity of bioactive peptides from fermented bovine colostrum.
International Journal of Dairy Technology, 73(1), 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1471-0307.12659
Gastaldi, D., Bertino, E., Monti, G., Baro, C., Fabris, C., & Lezo, A. (2010). Donkey’s milk
detailed lipid composition. Frontiers in Bioscience - Elite, 2 E(2), 537–546. https://doi.
org/10.2741/E112
Gautam, P. B., Sharma, R., Atbhaiya, Y., Gandhi, K., & Mann, B. (2023). Activities of
indigenous proteases in cow, buffalo and goat milk of Indian subcontinent and their
correlation with somatic cell count. International Dairy Journal, 139, Article 105567.
Giacometti, F., Bardasi, L., Merialdi, G., Morbarigazzi, M., Federici, S., & Piva, S. (2016).
Shelf life of DM subjected to different treatment and storage conditions. Journal of
Dairy Science, 99(6), 4291–4299. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10741
Giosue, C., Alabiso, M., Russo, G., Alicata, M. L., & Torrisi, C. (2008). Jennet milk
production during the lactation in a Sicilian farming system. Animal : an international
journal of animal bioscience, 2(10), 1491–1495. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1751731108002231
Gong, H., Wu, X., Du, J., & Mao, X. (2024). High hydrostatic pressure combined with high-
temperature short time pasteurization improves the quality characteristics and extends the
shelf life of donkey milk. LWT, Article 115789.
Gubic, J., Tasić, T., Tomić, J., & Torbica, A. (2014). Determination of WPs Profile in
Balkan donkey’s milk during lactation period. Journal of Hygienic Engineering and
Design, 8, 178–180.
Guo, H. Y., Pang, K., Zhang, X. Y., Zhao, L., Chen, S. W., & Dong, M. L. (2007).
Composition, physiochemical properties, nitrogen fraction distribution, and amino
acid profile of DM. Journal of Dairy Science, 90(4), 1635–1643. https://doi.org/
10.3168/jds.2006-600
Hamosh, M., Peterson, J. A., Henderson, T. R., Scallan, C. D., Kiwan, R., & Ceriani, R. L.
(1999). Protective function of HM: The milk fat globule. Seminars in Perinatology, 23
(3), 242–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0146-0005(99)80069-X
Hartmann, B. T., Pang, W. W., Keil, A. D., Hartmann, P. E., & Simmer, K. (2007). Best
practice guidelines for the operation of a donor human milk bank in an Australian
NICU. In Early Human Development, 83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
earlhumdev.2007.07.012. Issue.
Iacono, G., Carroccio, A., Cavataio, F., Montalto, G., Soresi, M., & Balsamo, V. (1992).
Use of ass’ milk in multiple food allergy. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and
Nutrition, 14(2), 177–181. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005176-199202000-00010
Kandhro, F., Kazi, T. G., Afridi, H. I., & Baig, J. A. (2022). Compare the nutritional status
of essential minerals in milk of different cattle and humans: Estimated daily intake
for children. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jfca.2021.104214
Kaskous, S., & Pfaffl, M. W. (2022). Milk properties and morphological characteristics of
the donkey mammary gland for development of an adopted milking machine—a
review. Dairy, 3(2), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.3390/dairy3020019
13
Food Chemistry Advances 4 (2024) 100647
Keipopele, K., Seifu, E., & Sekwati-Monang, B. (2018). Composition and microbial
quality of donkey milk sold in Gaborone, Botswana. Livestock Research for Rural
Development, (7), 30.
Khetra, Y., Meena, G. S., & Arora, S. (2022). Buffalo milk and its products: composition,
nutrition and benefits. Biotechnological Applications in Buffalo Research. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-981-16-7531-7_6
Kocic, H., Langerholc, T., Kostic, M., Stojanovic, S., Najman, S., & Krstic, M. (2020). The
regenerative potential of donkey and human milk on the redox-sensitive and
proliferative signaling pathways of skin fibroblasts. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular
Longevity, 2020.
Koker, A. (2021). Effect of high hydrostatic pressure and heat treatment on antimicrobial
protein stability, shelf-life and rheological characteristics of DM [Graduate school of
natural and applied sciences of middle east technical university].
Koutb, M., Khider, M., Ali, E. H., & Hussein, N. A. (2016). Antimicrobial activity of DM
against dermatomycotic fungi and foodborne bacteria. International Journal of
Biomedical Materials Research, 4(3), 11. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.
ijbmr.20160403.11
Lara-Villoslada, F., Olivares, M., & Xaus, J. (2005). The balance between caseins and WPs
in cow’s milk determines its allergenicity. Journal of Dairy Science, 88(5),
1654–1660. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72837-X
Lawrence, R. A. (2022). Biochemistry of human milk. Breastfeeding: A Guide for the
Medical Profession, 93–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-68013-4.00004-3
Li, L., Liu, X., & Guo, H. (2018). The nutritional ingredients and antioxidant activity of
donkey milk and donkey milk powder. Food Science and Biotechnology, 27(2),
393–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10068-017-0264-2
Li, Q., Li, M., Zhang, J., Shi, X., Yang, M., & Zheng, Y. (2020). Donkey milk inhibits
triple-negative breast tumor progression and is associated with increased cleaved-
caspase-3 expression. Food & function, 11(4), 3053–3065. https://doi.org/10.1039/
C9FO02934F
Licitra, R., Li, J., Liang, X., Altomonte, I., Salari, F., & Yan, J. (2019). Profile and content
of sialylated oligosaccharides in DM at early lactation. LWT, 115. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108437
Luoyizha, W., Zeng, B., Li, H., & Liao, X. (2021). A preliminary study of proteomic
analysis on caseins and WPs in DM from Xinjiang and Shandong of China. EFood, 2
(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.2991/efood.k.210222.001
Luo, J., Jian, S., Wang, P., Ren, F., Wang, F., & Chen, S. (2019). Thermal instability and
characteristics of donkey casein micelles. Food Research International, 119, 436–443.
Madhusudan, N. C., Dr.Ramachandra, C. T., Udaykumar, N. Dr., Sharnagouda, H. Dr.,
Nagraj, N. Dr., & Jagjivan, R. Dr (2017). Composition, characteristics, nutritional
value and health benefits of donkey milk-a review. Dairy Science & Technology. https:
//hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01538532.
Malacarne, M., Criscione, A., Franceschi, P., Bordonaro, S., Formaggioni, P., &
Marletta, D. (2019). New insights into chemical and mineral composition of donkey
milk throughout nine months of lactation. Animals, 9(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/
ani9121161
Malacarne, M., Martuzzi, F., Summer, A., & Mariani, P. (2002). Protein and fat
composition of mare’s milk: Some nutritional remarks with reference to human and
cow’s milk. International Dairy Journal, 12(11), 869–877.
Malissiova, E., Arsenos, G., Papademas, P., Fletouris, D., Manouras, A., & Aspri, M.
(2016). Assessment of DM chemical, microbiological and sensory attributes in
Greece and Cyprus. International Journal of Dairy Technology, 69(1), 143–146.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0307.12245
Mao, X., Gu, J., Sun, Y., Xu, S., Zhang, X., & Yang, H. (2009). Anti-proliferative and anti-
tumour effect of active components in DM on A549 human lung cancer cells.
International Dairy Journal, 19(11), 703–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
idairyj.2009.05.007
Marletta, D., Tidona, F., & Bordonaro, S. (2016). DM proteins: digestibility and
nutritional significance. Milk Proteins - from Structure to Biological Properties and
Health Aspects. https://doi.org/10.5772/62597
Martemucci, G., & D’Alessandro, A. G (2012). Fat content, energy value and fatty acid
profile of DM during lactation and implications for human nutrition. Lipids in Health
and Disease, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-511X-11-113
Martini, M., Altomonte, I., Salari, F., & Caroli, A. M. (2014). Monitoring nutritional
quality of amiata DM: Effects of lactation and productive season. Journal of Dairy
Science, 97(11), 6819–6822. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8544
Martini, M., Altomonte, I., Tricò, D., Lapenta, R., & Salari, F. (2021). Current knowledge
on functionality and potential therapeutic uses of donkey milk. Animals, 11(5), 1382.
Martini, M., Salari, F., Altomonte, I., Ragona, G., Piazza, A., Gori, R., et al. (2018). Effects
of pasteurization and storage conditions on DM nutritional and hygienic
characteristics. Journal of Dairy Research, 85(4), 445–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0022029918000687
Massouras, T., Triantaphyllopoulos, K. A., & Theodossiou, I. (2017). Chemical
composition, protein fraction and fatty acid profile of donkey milk during lactation.
International Dairy Journal, 75, 83–90.
Massouras, T., Bitsi, N., Paramithiotis, S., Manolopoulou, E., Drosinos, E. H., &
Triantaphyllopoulos, K. A. (2020). Microbial Profile antibacterial properties and
chemical composition of raw donkey milk. Animals : An Open Access Journal from
MDPI, 10(11), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ANI10112001
Mellado, M., Antonio-Chirino, E., Meza-Herrera, C., Veliz, F. G., Arevalo, J. R., &
Mellado, J. (2011). Effect of lactation number, year, and season of initiation of
lactation on milk yield of cows hormonally induced into lactation and treated with
recombinant bovine somatotropin. Journal of dairy science, 94(9), 4524–4530.
Meng, F., Uniacke-Lowe, T., Ryan, A. C., & Kelly, A. L. (2021). The composition and
physico-chemical properties of human milk: A review. Trends in Food Science &
Technology, 112, 608–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TIFS.2021.03.040
S. Meena et al.
Miao, W., He, R., Feng, L., Ma, K., Zhang, C., & Zhou, J. (2020). Study on processing
stability and fermentation characteristics of DM. LWT, 124. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.lwt.2020.109151
Muhatai, G., Cheng, L., Rugoho, I., Xiao, G., Chen, G., & Hodge, S. (2017). Effect of
parity, milking time and stage of lactation on milk yield of Jiangyue donkey (Equus
asinus) in North West China. Journal of Dairy Research, 84(1), 23–26.
Murgia, A., Scano, P., Contu, M., Ibba, I., Altea, M., & Bussu, M. (2016). Characterization
of DM and metabolite profile comparison with HM and formula milk. LWT - Food
Science and Technology, 74, 427–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.07.070
Murua, A., Todorov, S. D., Vieira, A. D. S., Martinez, R. C. R., Cencič, A., &
Franco, B. D. G. M. (2013). Isolation and identification of bacteriocinogenic strain of
Lactobacillus plantarum with potential beneficial properties from DM. Journal of
Applied Microbiology, 114(6), 1793–1809. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.12190
Natrella, G., Maggiolino, A., De Palo, P., Mefleh, M., & Faccia, M. (2024). Effect of
ultrafiltration on the cheesemaking properties of donkey milk. International Dairy
Journal, 149, Article 105830.
Nayak, C. M., Ramachandra, C. T., Nidoni, U., Hiregoudar, S., Ram, J., & Naik, N. M.
(2022). Influence of processing conditions on quality of Indian small grey donkey
milk powder by spray drying. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 59(8),
3266–3273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-021-05340-w
Nayak, C. M., Ramachandra, C. T., Nidoni, U., Hiregoudar, S., Ram, J., & Naik, N. (2020).
Physico-chemical composition, minerals, vitamins, amino acids, fatty acid profile
and sensory evaluation of donkey milk from Indian small grey breed. Journal of Food
Science and Technology, 57(8). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-020-04329-1
Nazzaro, F., Orlando, P., Fratianni, F., & Coppola, R. (2010). Isolation of components
with antimicrobial property from the DM: A preliminary study. Benthamopen Com, 4,
43–47. https://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOFSJ-4-43.
Nommsen, L. A., Lovelady, C. A., Heinig, M. J., Lönnerdal, B., & Dewey, K. G. (1991).
Determinants of energy, protein, lipid, and lactose concentrations in human milk
during the first 12 MO of lactation: The DARLING Study. American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, 53(2), 457–465. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/53.2.457
O’Connell, J. E., & Fox, P. F. (2011). Heat treatment of milk: heat stability of milk.
Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences: Second Edition (pp. 744–749). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.
org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374407-4.00222-3
Osman Swar, M. (2011). Donkey milk-based formula: A substitute for patients with cow’s
milk protein allergy. Sudanese Journal of Paediatrics, 11(2).
Ozturkoglu-Budak, S. (2018). Effect of different treatments on the stability of lysozyme,
lactoferrin and β-lactoglobulin in donkey’s milk. International Journal of Dairy
Technology, 71(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0307.12380
Ozturkoglu-Budak, S., Akal, H. C., Bereli, N., Cimen, D., & Akgonullu, S. (2021). Use of
antimicrobial proteins of DM as preservative agents in Kashar cheese production.
International Dairy Journal, 120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2021.105090
Papademas, P., Mousikos, P., & Aspri, M. (2021). Optimization of UV-C processing of
DM: An alternative to pasteurization? Animals, 11(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/
10.3390/ani11010042
Perna, A., Intaglietta, I., Simonetti, A., & Gambacorta, E. (2015). DM for manufacture of
novel functional fermented beverages. Journal of Food Science, 80(6), S1352–S1359.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.12862
Perna, A., Simonetti, A., & Gambacorta, E. (2019). Phenolic content and antioxidant
activity of DM kefir fortified with Sulla honey and rosemary essential oil during
refrigerated storage. International Journal of Dairy Technology, 72(1), 74–81. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1471-0307.12561
Pilla, R., Daprà, V., Zecconi, A., & Piccinini, R. (2010). Hygienic and health
characteristics of DM during a follow-up study. Journal of Dairy Research, 77(4),
392–397. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029910000221
Polidori, P., & Vincenzetti, S. (2012). Differences of protein fractions among fresh, frozen
and powdered DM. Recent Patents on Food, Nutrition & Agriculturee, 2(1), 56–60.
https://doi.org/10.2174/2212798411002010056
Polidori, P., Spera, M. D., Sabatini, A., & Vincenzetti, S. (2019). Comparison of
nutritional characteristics of fresh and freeze-dried DM. Food Science and Nutrition
Technology, 4(1), Article 000172. https://doi.org/10.23880/fsnt-16000172
Prentice, P. M., Schoemaker, M. H., Vervoort, J., Hettinga, K., Lambers, T. T., & Van
Tol, E. A. (2019). Human milk short-chain fatty acid composition is associated with
adiposity outcomes in infants. The Journal of nutrition, 149(5), 716–722. https://doi.
org/10.1093/jn/nxy320
Priyadarshini, S., & Kansal, V. K. (2002). Purification, characterization, antibacterial
activity and N-terminal sequencing of buffalo-milk lysozyme. Journal of Dairy
Research, 69(3). https://doi.org/10.1017/S002202990200554X
Ragona, G., Corrias, F., Benedetti, M., Paladini, I., Salari, F., & Altomonte, I. (2016).
Amiata DM chain: Animal health evaluation and milk quality. Italian Journal of Food
Safety, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.4081/ijfs.2016.5951
Rysstad, G., & Kolstad, J. (2006). Extended shelf life milk advances in technology.
International Journal of Dairy Technology, 59(2), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1471-0307.2006.00247.x
Salimei, E., & Fantuz, F. (2012). Equid milk for human consumption. International Dairy
Journal, 24(2), 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2011.11.008.
IssueElsevier Ltd.
Salimei, E., Fantuz, F., Coppola, R., Chiofalo, B., Polidori, P., & Varisco, G. (2004).
Composition and characteristics of ass’s milk. Animal Research, 53(1), 67–78.
https://doi.org/10.1051/animres:2003049
14
Food Chemistry Advances 4 (2024) 100647
Saric, L., Saric, B. M., Mandić, A. I., Hadnađev, M. S., Gubić, J. M., & Milovanović, I. L.
(2016). Characterization of extra-hard cheese produced from donkeys’ and caprine
milk mixture. Dairy Science and Technology, 96(2), 227–241. https://doi.org/
10.1007/S13594-015-0261-2
Schmid, A., & Walther, B. (2013). Natural vitamin D content in animal products.
Advances in Nutrition, 4(4), 453–462.
Sharma, R., & Lal, D. (1997). Effect of dahi preparation on some water-soluble vitamins.
Indian Journal of Dairy Science.
Singh, H. (2004). Heat stability of milk. International Journal of Dairy Technology, 57
(2–3), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1471-0307.2004.00143.X
Smilowitz, J. T., O’Sullivan, A., Barile, D., German, J. B., Lönnerdal, B., & Slupsky, C. M
(2013). The human milk metabolome reveals diverse oligosaccharide profiles.
Journal of Nutrition, (11), 143. https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.113.178772
Souroullas, K., Aspri, M., & International, P. P. F. R. (2018). U. (2018). DM as a
supplement in infant formula: benefits and technological challenges. Elsevier, 109,
416–425.
Spada, V., Ferranti, P., Chianese, L., Salimei, E., Addeo, F., & Picariello, G. (2021).
Antibacterial potential of donkey’s milk disclosed by untargeted proteomics. Journal
of Proteomics, 231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2020.104007
Sun, Y., Chen, J., Zhang, S., Li, H., Lu, J., & Liu, L. (2014). Effect of power ultrasound pre-
treatment on the physical and functional properties of reconstituted milk protein
concentrate. Journal of Food Engineering, 124, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jfoodeng.2013.09.013
Tedeschi, T., Aspri, M., Loffi, C., Dellafiora, L., Galaverna, G., & Papademas, P. (2023).
Processing of raw donkey milk by pasteurisation and UV-C to produce freeze-dried
milk powders: The effect on protein quality, digestibility and bioactive properties.
LWT, 173, Article 114404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2022.114404
Tidona, F., Charfi, I., Povolo, M., Pelizzola, V., Carminati, D., & Contarini, G. (2015).
Fermented beverage emulsion based on DM with sunflower oil. International Journal
of Food Science and Technology, 50(12), 2644–2652. https://doi.org/10.1111/
IJFS.12936
Tidona, F., Cortellino, G., Charfi, I., Rizzolo, A., & Carminati, D. (2017). Functional
properties of a strawberry ice cream based on DM and lactic acid bacteria. Nutrition
& Food Science International Journal, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.19080/
nfsij.2017.03.555613
Tidona, F., Criscione, A., Devold, T. G., Bordonaro, S., Marletta, D., & Vegarud, G. E.
(2014). Protein composition and micelle size of DM with different protein patterns:
Effects on digestibility. International Dairy Journal, 35(1), 57–62. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.idairyj.2013.10.018
Tidona, F., Sekse, C., Criscione, A., Jacobsen, M., Bordonaro, S., & Marletta, D. (2011).
Antimicrobial effect of donkeys’ milk digested in vitro with human gastrointestinal
enzymes. International Dairy Journal, 21(3), 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
idairyj.2010.10.008
Tsakalidou, E., & Papadimitriou, K. (Eds.). (2016). Non-Bovine Milk and Milk Products.
Academic Press.
Uniacke-Lowe, T., Huppertz, T., Fox, P.F. (2010). Equine milk proteins: Chemistry,
structure and nutritional significance. International Dairy Journal 20, Issue 9,
609–629). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2010.02.007.
Vincenzetti, S., Cecchi, T., Perinelli, D. R., Pucciarelli, S., Polzonetti, V., & Bonacucina, G.
(2018). Effects of freeze-drying and spray-drying on DM volatile compounds and
WPs stability. LWT Food Science and Technology, 88, 189–195. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.lwt.2017.10.019
Vincenzetti, S., Polidori, P., Mariani, P., Chemistry, N. C. F., & U. (2008). Donkey’s milk
protein fractions characterization. Food Chemistry, 106(2), 640–649.
Wang, J., Lei, B., Yan, J., Li, J., Zhou, X., & Ren, F. (2019). DM oligosaccharides influence
the growth-related characteristics of intestinal cells and induce G2/M growth arrest:
Via the p38 pathway in HT-29 cells. Food and Function, 10(8). https://doi.org/
10.1039/c8fo02584c
Wojcik, K. Y., Rechtman, D. J., Lee, M. L., Montoya, A., & Medo, E. T. (2009).
Macronutrient analysis of a nationwide sample of donor breast milk. Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, 109(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2008.10.008
Zanutto-Elgui, M. R., Vieira, J. C. S., Prado, D. Z.do, Buzalaf, M. A. R., Padilha, P.de M., &
Elgui de Oliveira, D. (2019). Production of milk peptides with antimicrobial and
antioxidant properties through fungal proteases. Food Chemistry, 278, 823–831.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.11.119
Zhang, J. Y., Lucey, A. J., Galvin, K., Nolan, L., Cashman, K. D., & Higgins, J. R. (2012).
Vitamin D content of human milk and associations with milk fat content and
maternal serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations. Proceedings of the Nutrition
Society, 71(OCE2), E54.
Zhang, X. Y., Zhao, L., Jiang, L., Dong, M. L., & Ren, F. Z. (2008). The antimicrobial
activity of DM and its microflora changes during storage. Food control, 19(12),
1191–1195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2008.01.005
Zhao, Y. M., de Alba, M., Sun, D. W., & Tiwari, B. (2019). Principles and recent
applications of novel non-thermal processing technologies for the fish industry a
review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 59(5), 728–742.
Zhou, M., Huang, F., Du, X., Liu, G., & Wang, C. (2023). Analysis of the differentially
expressed proteins in donkey milk in different lactation stages. Foods (Basel,
Switzerland), 12(24), 4466.