Development of Fermented Camel Milk Incorporating Oats and Sukkari Date Palm Fruit: Nutritional, Physicochemical, Functional, and Organoleptic Attributes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- Introduction is slightly longer, could condense this section

- In the Table 1. Copper is misspelled as cupper, please check and correct.

- The results could be discussed by providing some possible correlations, for example, the fermentation performance with interpreted appropriately, but what could have been the causes for such results obtained would add value to the manuscript. 

- Minor English verification could improve the manuscript quality further.

Author Response

• Introduction is slightly longer, could condense this section

>> Major enhancements in the introduction has been done; shortened from 978 to 670 words.

• In the Table 1. Copper is misspelled as cupper, please check and correct.

>> The mentioned mistake has been corrected.

• The results could be discussed by providing some possible correlations, for example, the fermentation performance with interpreted appropriately, but what could have been the causes for such results obtained would add value to the manuscript. 

>> More detailed explanations and possible correlations have been made in the discussion section. We appreciate your suggestion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Production of functional food and beverages by fermentation has attracted widespread attention over the past few decades. In the manuscript entitled “Development of Fermented Camel Milk Incorporating Oats and Sukkari Date Palm Fruit: Nutritional, Physicochemical, Functional and Organoleptic Attributes” the authors used camel milk, oat beverage, and Sukkari date paste to develop enhanced camel milk using ABT-5 starter culture. That will be of interest to readers. However, all the following comments should be addressed:

1.The proportion of the camel milk and oats beverage of treatment T1-T5 described in results section, do not agree with Table 2.

2. The dietary fiber content of date palm fruit is 8 g/100 g, of rolled oats, is 10 g/100 g (Table 1), please explain why no fiber was detected in T1(Table 3), which with 10% date palm fruit.

3. As shown in Table 1, 100 g rolled oats have 3.9 g iron, then about 0.3 g iron in 100 g oats beverage. There is 0.63 g iron in100 g camel milk. Thus, the highest iron content should be observed in T1. However, as presented in Table. 3, the highest iron content was observed in T2, please explain why?

4.There are a few language errors, e.g, the third paragraph L4 the compromises, should be comprise?

Author Response

• The proportion of the camel milk and oats beverage of treatment T1-T5 described in results section, do not agree with Table 2.

>> We could see your point; both give the same meaning or proportions but were written differently. Table 2 shows the exact % of all ingredients used, eventually equaling 100%. In the result section, we described the % of oat-drink:camel-milk regardless of date fruit as those two were the main ingredients. To avoid confusion or misunderstanding for readers, we changed the proportions in Table 2 to match those found in the results section.

• The dietary fiber content of date palm fruit is 8 g/100 g, of rolled oats, is 10 g/100 g (Table 1), please explain why no fiber was detected in T1(Table 3), which with 10% date palm fruit.

>> We then checked the procedure of the analytical method used and found an error during the analysis (the concentration of the lipolytic enzyme was incorrect, and the condition of enzymatic decomposition was not working as provided in the protocol). Later, we fixed this problem, repeated the analytical procedure carefully, got results, tabulated them, and the whole proximate composition results were checked again.

3. As shown in Table 1, 100 g rolled oats have 3.9 g iron, then about 0.3 g iron in 100 g oats beverage. There is 0.63 g iron in 100 g camel milk. Thus, the highest iron content should be observed in T1. However, as presented in Table. 3, the highest iron content was observed in T2, please explain why?

>> These results were explained previously in lines 466-473.

• There are a few language errors, e.g., the third paragraph L4 the compromises, should be comprise?

>> Yes, indeed, that was corrected to “comprises”. Further language checking was performed.

Reviewer 3 Report

In Introduction the authors should better introduce the advances on fermented food and beverages and related references added such as:

Durazzo et al. Fermented food/beverages and health: current perspectives.Rendiconti Lincei.Scienze fisiche e naturali.33:1-10

Table 5, Figures 2 and 3 should be better described in the text.

Results on sensory attributes should be better described.

Author Response

• In Introduction the authors should better introduce the advances on fermented food and beverages and related references added such as:
  • Durazzo et al. Fermented food/beverages and health: current perspectives.Rendiconti Lincei.Scienze fisiche e naturali.33:1-10

>> Major enhancements in the introduction have been made. We appreciate your suggestion.

• Table 5, Figures 2 and 3 should be better described in the text.

>> These results were described much better. We appreciate the suggestion.

• Results on sensory attributes should be better described.

>> Improvements in describing the sensory attributes have been made.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been sufficiently improved，I have no more questions.