ArticlePloS one2025
Sensory trial of camel milk powder among pastoralist communities of the Somali Region, Ethiopia.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCamel milk is a vital source of nutrition for people living in many arid and semi-arid regions. Camel milk powder offers a valuable opportunity for the dairy industry to develop and launch innovative products in the milk and dairy market.
objectiveTo evaluate the sensory preference of camel milk powder compared to fresh camel milk among pastoralist communities in the Somali Region of Ethiopia.
methodsA single-blinded sensory crossover study was conducted among randomly selected 248 pastoralist communities in the Somali Region. Data were collected using structured questionnaires. Participants did not know whether they tasted fresh milk or camel milk powder. The sequence was randomized, assigning either fresh/camel milk powder or powdered/fresh camel milk to each participant. Data was summarized using mean, median, frequency, and percentage and was presented using charts and tables. Bi-variable and multivariable binary logistic regression were used to identify variables associated with the outcome. Statistical associations were assessed using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals, with significance declared at a P-value < 0.05. A t-test was used to compare milk spending and milk liking levels between powdered and fresh camel milk.
resultsIn this study, 31% (95% CI: 25.5%-37.1%) preferred powdered milk among pastoralists in the Somali Region. Factors significantly associated with preference of camel milk powder included being an urban pastoralist resident, AOR = 2.02 (95% CI: 1.30, 3.16), and being female, AOR = 1.94 (95% CI: 1.25, 3.01). There is no statistically significant mean difference between fresh camel milk and camel milk powder regarding willingness to pay.
conclusionAlthough most preferred fresh milk, the mean rating of powder was still high. Powdered milk might be a good alternative in settings where a cold chain is difficult to maintain and shelf life is an issue. Factors such as place of residence and sex of pastoralist significantly influence preference of powdered milk. There is no significant difference in willingness to pay between fresh camel milk and powdered camel milk. Focusing on nutritional advantages, safety, and convenience regarding camel milk powder is crucial for rural and male pastoralists' adoption. Promotional efforts should be improved in accessibility and practicality without reducing cost.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.