Camel milk is more than a food product in Somaliland. It is part of daily life, local identity, nutrition and household income. In Burao City, it moves from producers to families and markets every day, linking pastoral traditions with a growing urban food system.

That importance is precisely why food safety matters.

Our paper, “Demographic characteristics and camel milk production and handling practices in Burao City, Somaliland: implications for food safety,” published in Discover Food, examined how camel milk is produced, handled, transported and stored, and what these practices may mean for consumer safety.

We studied 384 camel milk producers in Burao City using questionnaires and direct observation of milking, storage and transport practices. What we found was not a simple story of “good” or “bad” practice. Instead, it revealed a combination of strong cultural value, important hygiene gaps and clear opportunities for improvement.

Why we studied camel milk safety

Camel milk plays an important nutritional and economic role in Somaliland. In our study, 90.1% of participants viewed camel milk as an important part of their dietary habits.

But milk is also highly perishable. Its safety depends on what happens at several stages: before milking, during milking, when containers are used, during transportation, and while the milk is stored before sale or consumption.

In settings where refrigeration, training, appropriate containers or food-safety awareness may be limited, these stages can become points where contamination risk increases.

Despite the importance of camel milk in Somaliland, there had been limited local evidence describing these practices in detail. We wanted to generate evidence from Burao itself rather than relying only on findings from other settings.

The hygiene gaps were striking

Some of the clearest findings involved basic hygiene.

Only 13.02% of participants consistently washed their hands before milking.

Even more concerning, 84.11% reported never cleaning the camel’s udder before milking.

Almost all participants 96.48% used plastic containers for milk handling and storage.

These practices matter because contamination can begin before milk ever reaches the market. Hand hygiene, udder cleaning, equipment sanitation and appropriate containers all influence how safely milk is handled.

Training was another major issue.

Only 12.5% of producers had received hygiene training, and only 44.01% were aware of the food-safety risks associated with contaminated milk.

This suggests that improving food safety cannot simply mean telling producers to “be more careful.” Safer practice also requires accessible training, practical knowledge and realistic options for equipment and storage.

Tradition and modern practice exist side by side

One of the most interesting findings was the coexistence of traditional and modern preservation methods.

Most producers 75.78% reported prompt refrigeration, which is encouraging. However, 24.22% stored milk at ambient temperature.

Traditional preservation was also common. About 34.9% reported smoking milk containers, while refrigeration was used by 65.1%.

This is important because traditional practices are not just technical choices. They are connected to local knowledge, culture and experience.

For that reason, food-safety interventions should not be designed as if tradition itself is the problem.

A better approach is to identify which practices may increase risk, understand why they persist, and introduce safer alternatives in ways that producers can realistically adopt.

Storage conditions matter

Our statistical analysis also pointed to storage and preservation as important factors.

Milk stored at ambient temperature was associated with poorer hygiene outcomes compared with refrigerated storage. Traditional smoking preservation was also associated with poorer hygiene in the multivariable analysis.

These findings highlight an important reality: food safety is partly an infrastructure issue.

A producer may understand the importance of refrigeration, but that knowledge is difficult to act on without reliable electricity, cooling facilities or affordable storage options.

Likewise, recommending better containers is only useful if safer alternatives are available and affordable.

Improving food safety therefore requires attention not only to individual behaviour, but also to the conditions that make safer behaviour possible.

There was also an encouraging side

The picture was not entirely negative.

Overall, 56% of producers were classified as having good hygiene practices, while 44% were classified as having poor practices.

This means safer handling is already being achieved by many producers within the same local context.

The strong cultural importance of camel milk may also provide an opportunity. Improvements in hygiene can be framed not as a rejection of tradition, but as a way of protecting the quality, reputation and future of a highly valued food.

That distinction matters.

Interventions are more likely to succeed when they respect the cultural and economic importance of the system they are trying to improve.

What should happen next?

Our findings suggest several practical priorities.

Producers need culturally appropriate training on hand hygiene, udder cleaning, container sanitation, safe storage and contamination risks.

Cold-chain capacity also deserves attention. Expanding access to cooling and encouraging rapid refrigeration could reduce the time milk spends at temperatures that favour bacterial growth.

Safer containers should also be promoted in ways that consider cost and local availability.

Importantly, improvement efforts should involve producers themselves, together with veterinary services, public-health professionals, local authorities and community leaders.

Peer-to-peer learning may be especially useful. Producers already practising safer methods can help demonstrate that improvement is achievable within the same social and economic environment.

What our study could not answer

Our study also has limitations.

Because it was cross-sectional, it cannot prove that a specific handling practice directly caused a specific food-safety outcome.

Some information was self-reported and may have been affected by recall or social-desirability bias.

Most importantly, we did not conduct microbiological testing of the milk. This means we identified practices and conditions that may influence food safety, but we did not directly measure bacterial contamination in the milk itself.

Future research should combine behavioural observation with microbiological testing, longitudinal follow-up and evaluation of practical food-safety interventions.

Beyond the paper

For us, the broader lesson is that food safety and tradition do not need to be opposing ideas.

Camel milk is already an important part of life and livelihood in Burao.

The goal is not to remove that tradition.

The goal is to make the journey from camel to consumer safer.

That means improving hygiene, strengthening training, expanding access to safe storage and cooling, and designing interventions that respect local knowledge and economic realities.

Locally generated evidence helps make that possible.

It allows us to move beyond assumptions and identify where practical improvement is most needed.

We hope this study contributes to a safer camel-milk value chain in Somaliland one that protects consumers, supports producers and preserves the cultural importance of a food that has sustained communities for generations.

Read the published article:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s44187-025-00595-0