a review of the growth, and of the carcass and meat...

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci

Meat Science 80 (2008) 555–569

MEATSCIENCE

Review

A review of the growth, and of the carcass and meatquality characteristics of the one-humped camel (Camelus dromedaries)

I.T. Kadim a,*, O. Mahgoub a, R.W. Purchas b

a Department of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, College of Agricultural and Marine Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University,

P.O. Box 34 Al-Khoud, Muscat, Omanb Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand

Received 19 July 2007; received in revised form 6 February 2008; accepted 12 February 2008

Abstract

The dromedary camel is a good source of meat especially in areas where the climate adversely affects the performance of other meatanimals. This is because of its unique physiological characteristics, including a great tolerance to high temperatures, solar radiation,water scarcity, rough topography and poor vegetation. The average birth weight of camels is about 35 kg, but it varies widely betweenregions, breeds and within the same breed. The meat producing ability of camels is limited by modest growth rates (500 g/day). However,camels are mostly produced under traditional extensive systems on poor levels of nutrition and are mostly slaughtered at older ages aftera career in work, racing or milk production. Camels reach live weights of about 650 kg at 7–8 years of age, and produce carcass weightsranging from 125 to 400 kg with dressing-out percentage values from 55% to 70%. Camel carcasses contain about 57% muscle, 26% boneand 17% fat with fore halves (cranial to rib 13) significantly heavier than the hind halves. Camel lean meat contains about 78% water,19% protein, 3% fat, and 1.2% ash with a small amount of intramuscular fat, which renders it a healthy food for humans. Camel meat hasbeen described as raspberry red to dark brown in colour and the fat of the camel meat is white. Camel meat is similar in taste and textureto beef. The amino acid and mineral contents of camel meat are often higher than beef, probably due to lower intramuscular fat levels.Recently, camel meat has been processed into burgers, patties, sausages and shawarma to add value. Future research efforts need to focuson exploiting the potential of the camel as a source of meat through multidisplinary research into efficient production systems, andimproved meat technology and marketing.� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Camel; Meat quality; Nutritive value; Meat composition; Meat processing

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5562. Growth rate and live weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5563. Carcass weight and dressing-out percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5594. Non-carcass components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5605. Carcass composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5606. Meat composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5627. Meat quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5648. Nutritive value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5659. Meat processing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566

0309-1740/$ - see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.02.010

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +968 2441 5232.E-mail address: [email protected] (I.T. Kadim).

mailto:[email protected]

556 I.T. Kadim et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 555–569

10. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567

1. Introduction

The family Camelidae include two subfamilies: Cameli-nae (Old World Camelids) and Laminae (New WorldCamelids). There are two species of camel within the genusCamelus. The Dromedary one-humped camel (Camelus

dromedaries) is most widely distributed in the hot aridareas of the Middle East and Africa, whereas the Bacteriantwo-humped camel (Camelus bacterianus) is found in partsof central Asia and China (Dorman, 1986). Four species ofthe New World camelids are found in South America: theguanaco (Lama guanacoe) and the vicuna (Vicugna vicu-

gna) are wild, whereas the llama (Lama glama) and thealpaca (Lama pacos) are domesticated (Murray, 1989;Skidmore, 2005). The Llama and Alpaca are mainly usedfor meat and fibre production. The camel originated inNorth America and was domesticated by secondarynomads around 4000 years ago in South Arabia primarilyfor transport and labour rather than as a producer of meat,milk or clothing (Wilson, 1984). The dromedary is morenumerous than the Bactrian camel and represents almost90% of the genus Camelus. Generally, there has been rela-tively little differentiation into specialised types in the cam-els (Wilson, 1998). Camels are multipurpose animals withfemales used primarily as milk producers, the males fortransport or draught and both sexes providing meat as ter-tiary product. The genetic diversity and relationshipsamongst the dromedary populations are poorly docu-mented. Phylogenetic analysis (micro-satellite loci) showedthat dromedary breeds can be classified according to coun-tries (Mburu et al., 2003). This chapter mainly reviews find-ings on meat production from the dromedary (henceforthreferred to as the ‘‘camel”), and when reference is madeto the Bactrian this will be noted. There have been someattempts for crossing between the dromedary and Bactriancamels resulting in weak non-fertile offspring. Recently asuccessful attempt was made to cross the dromedary withthe Llama (Skidmore, 2005).

The dromedary camel is one of the most importantdomestic animals in the arid and semi arid regions as it isequipped to produce high quality food at comparativelylow costs under extremely harsh environments (Knoess,1977; Yagil, 1982; Yousif & Babiker, 1989). The camelhas great tolerance to high temperatures, high solar radia-tion and water scarcity. It can survive well on sandy terrainwith poor vegetation and may chiefly consume feeds unuti-lized by other domestic species (Shalah, 1983). Tandon,Bissa, and Khanna (1988) noted that the camel is likelyto produce animal protein at a comparatively low cost inthe arid zones based on feeds and fodder that are generallynot utilized by other domestic species due to either theirsize or food habits.

The role of the camel as a meat producer is becomingmore important due to the versatile role it plays rather thanas a symbol of social prestige, which was the role it used toplay but which has since greatly diminished (Dawood &Alkanhal, 1995). The common opinion towards camelmeat as tough, coarse, watery and sweetish in taste com-pared to meats from other animals may be partly attributedto the fact that camel meat is usually a by-product of prim-itive traditional systems of production where it is mainlyobtained from old males and females that have become lesseffective in there primary roles of providing transportation,milk, or as breeding females (Morton, 1984; Wilson, 1998).However, limited evidence suggests that quality character-istics of camel meat are not greatly different from beef ifanimals are slaughtered at comparable ages (Elgasim, El-Hag, & Elnawawi, 1987; Khatami, 1970; Knoess, 1977;Tandon et al., 1988).

A camel carcass can provide a substantial amount ofmeat for human consumption with certain parts of the car-cass such as the hump and liver considered a delicacy thatis favoured in Middle Eastern markets. Although the mar-keting systems for camel meat are not well organised, thereis evidence of a high demand for fresh camel meat and forcamel meat to be used in blended meat products evenamong societies not herding camels (Morton, 1984; Perezet al., 2000; Shalash, 1979a). Camel meat could be a cheapoption to meet the growing needs for meat in developingcountries especially for low income population groups(El-Mossalami, Awad, Ibrahim, & Diab, 1996; Saparov& Annageldiyev, 2005). However, camels are generallyraised in less developed countries and research for improv-ing their reproductive and productive characteristics hasbeen limited (Skidmore, 2005). Little work has been pub-lished on growth and body composition of the camel. How-ever, some information is available in reviews by Ulmer,Herrmann, and Fischer (2004), Kurtu (2004), Wilson(1984), and Farah and Fischer (2004). This chapterattempts to highlight characteristics of growth and devel-opment of the camel for meat production with specialemphasis on meat composition, meat quality and its nutri-tive value for human consumption.

2. Growth rate and live weight

Growth in body weight is the basis of meat productionin domestic animals. There are many factors that influencegrowth rate including breed, nutrition, sex and health.Heredity is the main factor determining prenatal growth,either directly via the genotype of the foetus or indirectlythrough the genotype of the dam (Shalash, 1978). Prenatalpatterns of growth and development of the camel foetus issimilar to that of cattle (Musa, 1969). However, the lifetime

I.T. Kadim et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 555–569 557

output of meat for breeding female camels is often limiteddue to long gestations, low calving rates and long milkfeeding periods, especially under traditional systems. Aftera gestation periods of 13 months, a camel female usuallybears a single calf, and rarely twins. The new born camelwalks within hours of birth, but remains close to its mothersometimes until maturity at five years of age (Bhargava,Sharma, & Singh, 1965).

The average birth weight of the dromedary camels isabout 35 kg (Wilson, 1978), but it varies widely betweenregions, breeds and within the same breed. Reports oncamel birth weights range between 27 and 39 kg, which iscomparable with that of tropical cattle breeds. Forinstance, reports of birth weights include 26–28 kg forSomali camels (Field, 1979; Ouda, 1995; Simpkin, 1983);27 kg for Tunisian camels (Hammadi et al., 2001) and39 kg for Indian camels (Bissa, 1996).

The influence of sex on birth weight of the dromedarycamel appears to be minimal (Ouda, 1995). Males(38.2 kg) were slightly but not significantly heavier thanfemales (37.2 kg) in the study of Yagil (1985). Harmas,Shareha, Biala, and Abu-Shawachi (1990) also reportedaverage birth weights of 36 and 34 kg for male and females,respectively with no significant differences between sexes.No differences in body weight between sexes were observedup to two years by Ouda, Abui, and Woie (1992) or up tofour years of age by Simpkin (1983).

The age of dam has a significant effect on birth weights.The means of birth weights were 30.83 ± 0.76 kg for camelsat the age of 5–6 years, 35.82 ± 0.56 kg for animals at theage of 7–10 years, 36.26 ± 0.68 kg for animal at the ageof 11–15 years, and 35.46 ± 0.72 kg for animal at the ageof 15 years or more in the study of Harmas et al. (1990).

The geographical location affects camel birth weights,possibly due to genetic differences or nutritional factorssuch as the availability of natural grazing which is themajor feed source under traditional systems. For example,in India, the birth weight of the camel calves varied from26.3 to 51.2 kg, with a mean of 37.3 kg (Bhargava et al.,1965). In Tunisia and Kenya calves were smaller (Her-trampf, 2004), weighing an average of 25.8 and 30.9 kg,respectively (Burgemeister, 1975), whereas Sudanese cam-els had birth weights between 30 and 40 kg (El-Amin,1979). The weight of the newborn camels in Australia ran-ged between 30 and 40 kg under normal and healthy condi-tion (Central Australia Camel Industry Association, 1997).

Daily growth rates for camels also vary widely betweenregions, breeds and within the same breed. Hammadi et al.(2001) reported camel body weights of 27, 48, 65, and 79 kgat birth, 30, 60 and 90 days of age, respectively, which indi-cates a daily growth rate of 580 g/day between birth and 90days of age. Bissa (1996) reported average body weights of39, 119 and 171 kg at birth, 90, and 180 days, respectively,for Indian camels indicating a daily growth rate of 733 g/dbetween birth and 180 days. These growth rate values arelower than those commonly reported for cattle, but itshould be noted that camels are normally raised under

extensive systems depending mainly on rangeland grazingrather than on feedlots. The limited work carried out onimproving camel nutrition demonstrated significant rela-tionships between daily gain and daily intake of concen-trates for dromedary camels. Camels fed a diet with highdietary protein and energy gained more weight (550 g/d)than non-supplemented camels fed only on mangroves(260 g/d) (Kamoun, 1995).

Generally the growth curve for camels follows a patternmore or less similar to that of other farm animal species.The average daily weight gain of Bikaneri camels accordingto Tandon et al. (1988) in different age groups is presentedin Fig. 1. According to this information average dailygrowth rate gradually increased from 400 g/d in the 0–1year group to a maximum of 720 g/d in the 7–8 years groupthen declined to 300 g/d by 10–11 years of age. However,the growth rates given should be considered as maximumvalues as a growth rate of 300 g/day will result in a weightgain of over 100 kg per year, which does not match thechange in body weights shown in Fig. 1 at ages of six yearsor more. The graph resembles the specific growth pattern inother farm animals with an inflection point where growthrate is at a maximum at about one year of age. This patternis affected by many factors such as weaning age, season,and nutrition.

Pre and post-weaning growth rates have significanteffects on final weights of camels. The pre-weaning growthrate of the camel calf is affected by milk quantity and thesystem of management (Babiker & Tibin, 1989). Tribalcamel calves in Kenya grew at a rate of 222 g/day to 6months of age in dry years and at a rate of 655 g/day inwet years (Field, 1979). Post-weaning growth rate dependsmainly on husbandry practices and conditions of the vege-tation (Babiker & Tibin, 1989). It is partially determined bythe availability of browse throughout the year according toWilson (1998).

There are varying estimates of camel live weight in theliterature. It is obvious that the weight of camels dependson age, sex, feeding condition and general health of the ani-mal (El-Amin, 1979). Camels attain maturity compara-tively slowly as indicated by the average body weights ofcamels in different age groups (Fig. 2), which show thatcamels reach a maximum live weight of about 650 kg at7–8 years of age. The graph resembles the sigmoid-shapedgrowth curve of other farm animals and matches the pat-tern in Fig. 1 with an inflection point at 7–8 year group.

Although there are no marked sex differences in liveweight earlier in life, males get heavier than females atolder ages. Mature male camels were heavier than femalesby 38% in the study of Kurtu (2004). Wilson (1978)reported higher body weights for mature males (448 kg)than females (414 kg) (Table 1).

Breed and type affect camel live-weight. Most breeds atmaturity weigh 450–550 kg with the heavy camel breedsweighing up to 660 kg when mature and in good condition(Hertrampf, 2004; Williamson & Payne, 1978; Wilson,1984). Wilson (1984) provided estimates of live weights of

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0--1

(18)

1--2

(15)

2--3

(11)

3--4

(14)

4--5

(15)

5--6

(8)

6--7

(13)

7--8

(6)

8--9

(6)

9--1

0(2)

10--1

1(33

)

Age in year (camel number)

Bod

y W

eigh

t (kg

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Gro

wth

Rat

e (g

/d)

Body Weight (kg) Daily Growth Rate (g/d) Poly. (Daily Growth Rate (g/d))

Fig. 1. Average body weights and levels of daily weight gain of Bikaneri camels in different age groups under improved management at the NationalResearch Centre on Camel (Tandon et al., 1988). The growth rates shown are indicative of the maximum achievable. They would lead to body weightsconsiderably greater than those shown.

Fig. 2. Body weights, carcass weights (±SE) and dressing-out percentage of dromedary Najdi male camels showing how dressing-out percentage generallyincreases with increasing weight (Abouheif et al., 1986).


camels in different countries with the lightest live weights inSomalia desert camels (350–400 kg) and the heaviest live-weight (660 kg) in Indian camels. In Australia, the weightsof mature camels ranged from 514 to 645 kg for males and470 to 510 kg for females. Iranian camels at an age of fiveyears were ranged in weight from 340 to 430 kg (Khatami,1970). There are also reports of varying camel bodyweights within the same region. Live weight in 4300 Turk-

man camels ranged between 439 and 489 kg (Keikin, 1976).Nutritional history and body condition have significanteffects on live-weight. Live weights of mature well-finishedmale desert Saudi camels ranged between 359 and 512 kgwith an average of 475 kg (Babiker & Yousif (1987). How-ever, there are reports of extremely high body weights incamels. For instance Herrmann & Fisher (2004) reporteda range of live weights between 530 and 800 kg for eight

Table 1Carcass weight and dressing-out percentage in dromedary camels

Number/breed and sex Carcass weight (kg) Dressing-outpercentage

References Remarks

21 Sudanese males 231.3 ± 49.18 51.4 ± 2.88 Wilson (1978) Sex effects39 Sudanese females 196.3 ± 24.94 47.4 ± 325227 Najdi males and females 88.81 ± 1.4 to 68.0 ± 4.2 53.8–57.7 Abouheif et al. (1986) Live body weight and sex

effect52 Males 200–288.5 51.1–67.2 Yousif and Babiker

(1989)Full and empty body weighteffect

52.5–74.221 Najdi males 105.3–273.4 61.5–60.6 Abouheif et al. (1990a) Age effects (8–26 months of

age)16 Males 184–343 60.3–71.4 Kamoun (1995) Nutrition and age effectMale 231.3 51.4 Wilson (1998) Sex effectsFemale 196.3 47.411 Najdi males 148.6 ± 9.1 to 153.5 ± 8.3 48.7 ± 0.8–49.2 ± 0.73 Al-Owaimer (2000) Nutrition effectsMajaheem and Harrah 119.5–132.5 52.1–56.1 Al-Ani (2004, chap. 6) Breed effects88 Somalian males and 12

females170.01 ± 20.49 to252.27 ± 26.58

50.65 ± 3.7–54.03 ± 5.13

Kurtu (2004) Sex effects

8 Somali � Rurkana males 302.1–414.8 47.5–58.4 Herrman and Fischer(2004)

Body weight effects

8 Males 283.2 53.7 ± 3.26 Hertrampf (2004) Sex and region effect8 Females 251.1 50.7 ± 4.6724 African 231.1 53.7 ± 2.88 Asian 393.7 62.1 ± 12.7

Table 2Weights of the carcass (including the hump) and non-carcass componentsplus the same items expressed as a percentage of empty live weight or aspercentage of empty live-weight of the camel (Wilson, 1978)

Weight (kg) % of empty live weight

Mean Range Mean Range

Carcass wt 208.5 ± 38.7 141.0–310.0 60.7 ± 2.09 55.75–65.11Hump 4.0 ± 4.3 0.0–20.0 1.1 ± 1.04 0.00–4.45Heart + lungs 8.4 ± 1.13 6.5–10.5 2.5 ± 0.33 1.78–3.36Liver 7.5 ± 1.45 4.5–11.0 2.2 ± 0.41 1.47–3.45Head (skinned) 12.1 ± 1.81 8.0–16.5 3.6 ± 0.32 2.80–4.49Feet 14.6 ± 2.25 10.5–19.5 4.3 ± 0.37 3.31–5.16Hide 34.8 ± 6.11 22.5–47.0 10.2 ± 0.81 8.5–11.76


Somali � Turkana castrated male camels. They attributedthe high live weight to the general condition of the camels,which was ranked as a very good without any externalinjuries.

3. Carcass weight and dressing-out percentage

Camels are a good potential source of meat as they yieldreasonably heavy carcasses under inexpensive managementsystems. A wide range of carcass weights have beenreported for camels, with the variation apparently due tocondition, sex, breed and age at slaughter. Camel carcassweight, which generally ranges between 125 and 400 kg,increases with increasing bodyweight (Fig. 2) as expected.The average carcass weight was 168 kg in the study ofAbouheif, Basmaeil, & Bakkar (1986), but was muchhigher at 300–400 kg in Iranian camels (Khatami, 1970).In Kenya, the average camel carcass weight was 290 kg(Bremaud, 1969).

Following the trend in camel live weight under the sameenvironmental condition, Kurtu (2004) reported that theweight of male camel carcasses was greater than that ofcarcasses from females by 48%, while Wilson (1978)reported an average of 209 kg for Sudanese camel carcassweights, with males (231 kg) being heavier than females(196 kg). Higher values of 240 and 232 kg carcass weightsof male and female camels, respectively, were reportedfor this breed by Yousif & Babiker (1989).

Dressing out percentage is an important measure ofyield in meat animals, but it varies due to factors such asage, weight, fatness, dressing procedures, and degree ofgut fills at slaughter (Table 2). In the camel dressing-outpercentage varies from 55% to 70% (Kamoun, 1995; Kno-

ess, 1977; Tandon et al., 1988) depending on sex, body con-dition and breed. Males have higher dressing-outpercentages than females, which varies between 51% and54% for Ethiopian camels (Kurtu, 2004). Wilson (1978)reported an average dressing-out percentage of 48% inSudanese camels with it being higher for males (51%) thanfemales (47%). Babiker & Yousif (1987) reported dressing-out percentages of 54.4% for cold carcasses and 55.9% forhot carcasses in Male Sudanese camels. Higher values werereported for both sexes by Yousif & Babiker (1989), (57%and 63.8% dressing-out percentages, respectively).

Congiu (1953) reported a 56.1% dressing-out percentagefor males and 54.1% for female Somali camels. In Austra-lian camels, the dressing-out percentage was 53% for 4-year-old male camels and 48% for 7-year-old females (Cen-tral Australia Camel Industry Association, 1997). Herrman& Fischer (2004) reported an average 53.6% dressing-outpercentage for castrated 7–10 years old Somali � Turkana


camels in Kenya. Further examples of factors affectingcamel dressing-out percentage are given in Table 1.

The weight of hump, which is mainly composed of fat,may account for 8.6% of the carcass weight (Kamoun,1995), and can affect dressing-out percentage (Table 1).Large fat animals in that study had a dressing-out percent-age of 58% whereas relatively thin camels had a dressing-out percentage of 48%. The differences in dressing-out per-centage in the previous study may have been due to varia-tion body weight and fatness because the animals were feddifferent quantity and quality rations. Although age has asignificant effect on carcass components with advantagesto slaughter camels at an early age, Abouheif, Basmaeil,& Bakkar (1990a) found no significant differences in dress-ing-out percentages in 21 Najdi male camels slaughtered at8, 16 and 26 months of age. Dressing-out percentage valuesin the camel are comparable to those reported for tropicalcattle (Mahgoub, Olvey, & Jeffrey, 1995a, 1995b) with thedromedary having a tendency for higher dressing-out per-centage than other cattle (Al-Ani, 2004, chap. 6).

4. Non-carcass components

There is little data available on non-carcass componentsof the camel. Proportions of live weight as feet and hide arehigher for the camel than for cattle, but the head is propor-tionately lower than cattle (Mahgoub et al., 1995a, Mah-goub, Olvey, & Jeffrey, 1995b). The latter difference ismost likely due to lack of horns in the camel. The head,hide and feet contributed 2.4%, 7.3% and 3.4% of liveweight in the dromedary camels evaluated by Herrman &Fischer (2004). Proportions of offal (edible non-carcasscomponents) are high in the camel (Table 2) and therefore,they represent a very useful protein source in arid areaswhere the camel is mainly kept for meat. The relative pro-portions of body components indicated that the heaviestcomponent was the hide followed by intestines while thelightest organ was the spleen followed by reproductiveorgans (Yousif & Babiker (1989). The liver weight waslighter than values for Somali camel livers reported byCongiu (1953). The weights of head, liver, feet, hide andgut fill agreed with values reported by Wilson (1978) forthe dromedary. Breed differences and the nutritional state

Table 3Means ± SE of various body measurements for eight groups of Najdi male ca

Camel body wt (kg) Number Dimension (cm)

Neck length Arm length Body

136–185 32 72.5 ± 1.3 33.5 ± 0.3 108.8186–235 50 76.5 ± 0.8 35.8 ± 0.5 116.8236–285 35 83.3 ± 1.1 38.8 ± 0.4 126.9286–335 33 94.9 ± 1.1 42.2 ± 0.6 137.4336–385 32 99.6 ± 1.3 44.1 ± 0.4 144.4386–435 19 105.6 ± 2.0 46.3 ± 0.5 151.8436–485 12 113.2 ± 2.2 48.9 ± 0.6 159.8486–535 14 116.9 ± 1.2 48.4 ± 0.7 169.5Average 227 89.3 ± 1.0 40.1 ± 0.4 132.1

of the animal may be responsible for any variationsbetween different studies. The camel body contained anaverage of about 4.2% offal (liver, heart and lungs). Thenon-carcass included the head (3.5%) and the feet (3.6%)and hide (8.6%) (Yousif & Babiker, 1989).

Al-Ani (2004, chap. 6) reported that camels had pro-portionately heavier kidney and lighter digestive tractsand head than cattle or sheep or goats. The larger kid-ney, which was twice that of cattle and four times thatof sheep, was possibly due to adaptation of the camelto arid desert life. Camel kidneys have been estimatedto be up to 850 cc (Abdalla & Abdalla, 1979). Table 3shows the significant increase in body measurements withincreasing body weight that were observed by Abouheifet al. (1986).

Yousif & Babiker (1989) found positive correlationsbetween heart girth and liveweight (r = 0.67, P < 0.001).The depth of the camel hump was significantly correlatedwith carcass fat and the hump fat weight had a high posi-tive correlation (r = 0.97, P < 0.001) with carcass fat. Thecorrelations of carcass weight and body measurements on227 Najdi camels were higher than body weight and theirmeasurements (Abouheif et al., 1986). They concluded thatcorrelations of body weight and carcass weight with chestgirth, hump girth, and hip girth were the highest amongstall those studied (Table 4).

5. Carcass composition

There is no standard cutting system for camel carcassesas there are for other meat animal species. Abouheif et al.(1990a) divided the carcass side into forequarter and hind-quarter by cutting between the 11th and 12th ribs. Theforequarter is usually divided into five wholesale cuts(neck, shoulder, brisket, rib and plate), while the hindquar-ter into three wholesale cuts (loin, flank, and leg). Fig. 3shows the general cutting procedures for eight wholesalecuts. However, Herrmann & Fisher (2004) and Kamoun(2005) proposed a different method that gave the propor-tions of different cuts that are presented in Table 6 togetherwith those from a second study. The values from the twostudies are very similar. The largest cut of the carcass usingthis cutting procedure is the leg followed by the shoulder.

mels (Abouheif et al., 1986)

length Leg length Chest girth Hump girth Hip girth

± 0.8 39.5 ± 0.6 113.2 ± 1.2 134.9 ± 1.3 91.1 ± 0.9± 0.8 40.8 ± 0.4 122.3 ± 0.9 153.8 ± 1.1 99.0 ± 0.8± 1.3 43.1 ± 0.5 134.1 ± 1.0 167.7 ± 1.3 108.0 ± 0.9± 1.2 43.9 ± 0.6 144.4 ± 0.9 180.9 ± 1.2 116.8 ± 1.0± 1.4 46.3 ± 0.6 149.5 ± 1.3 188.9 ± 1.1 122.6 ± 0.9± 1.7 49.4 ± 1.0 158.1 ± 1.8 197.5 ± 2.2 127.9 ± 1.2± 3.0 46.3 ± 0.9 165.8 ± 2.6 209.0 ± 3.5 134.9 ± 1.4± 2.7 50.6 ± 1.0 176.4 ± 2.5 214.9 ± 3.1 138.2 ± 1.2± 1.3 43.8 ± 0.3 138.3 ± 1.3 169.4 ± 1.6 111.2 ± 1.0

Table 4Coefficients of correlationa between body weight, carcass weight and bodymeasurements (Abouheif et al., 1986)

Character BW CW NL AL BL LL CG HG

Body weight (BW)Carcass weight

(CW)0.91

Neck length (NL) 0.82 0.89Arm length (AL) 0.81 0.86 0.86Body length (BL) 0.89 0.94 0.89 0.87Leg length (LL) 0.58 0.69 0.66 0.70 0.69Chest girth (CG) 0.91 0.94 0.89 0.86 0.92 0.67Hump girth (HG) 0.90 0.95 0.85 0.82 0.92 0.95 0.93Hip girth (HG) 0.91 0.94 0.87 0.84 0.93 0.70 0.94 0.92

a Based on an over all estimation; N = 227. All values are significantlydifferent (P < 0.01).

Table 5Non-carcass components of dromedary camels over seven years old(Kurtu, 2004)

Male (n = 88) ± SE Female (n = 12) ± SE

Mean Range Mean Range

Live wt (kg) 465 ± 63.85 402–530 335.7 ± 42.2 293–378Shoulder height

(m)2.0 ± 0.13 1.8–2.23 1.6 ± 0.05 1.6–1.7

Hump girth (m) 2.3 ± 0.15 2.0–2.50 2.2 ± 0.19 1.8–2.2Thoracic girth (m) 2.1 ± 0.14 1.9–2.35 1.9 ± 0.02 1.9–1.9Neck wt (kg) 13.5 ± 3.51 10–17 10.3 ± 3.0 7.4–13.3Hump wt (kg) 33.5 ± 7.74 25.8–

41.3619.8 ± 5.8 14.0–

25.0


The forequarter is larger than the hindquarter with thelatter being about two thirds of the former (Table 5). Thisis mainly due to the presence of the hump which comprisesabout 1–5% of live weight. Kurtu (2004) reported similarfigures for male and female camels (Table 6). Excludingthe hump (4.6%), the forequarter contributed 23.8%whereas the hindquarter contributed 21.3% of live weightin Somali � Turkana camels (Herrmann & Fisher, 2004).In the same study, the forequarter, hind quarter, neckand hump constituted 44.3%, 39.7%, 7.1% and 8.6% ofthe carcass. The forequarter, hindquarter, Longissimus

dorsi muscle, neck and hump constitute the major edibleparts of the carcass. The neck, being long, and usually sep-arated from the carcass in the camel, contributed about 4%of live weight in the camel (Herrmann & Fisher, 2004).Abouheif, Basmaeil, & Bakkar (1990b) studied the lean%in fore- and hind-quarters and in nine wholesale cuts ofeight Najdi male camels slaughtered at three different ages(8, 16 and 26 months) (Table 7). Carcass components areunevenly distributed within the carcass between the hindand fore quarters. Muscle, bone and fat components were59.3%, 4.5% and 36.2% in the fore half and 66.5%, 14.9%and 17.3% in the hind half, respectively (Kamoun, 1995).

Fig. 3. A side of carcass showing the genera

The higher proportions of fat in the forequarter are mainlyattributed to the hump fat. The hump fat accounted for 9%of the carcass weight. The back and the leg contained77.6% and 74.1% of muscle, respectively.

Males have higher forequarter:hindquarter ratiosmainly due to higher proportions of neck and hump (Table6). The forequarter:hindquarter ratio was 1.61% for malesand 1.27% for females. Although, intact males during themating season stop growing and may even lose weight,males are known to have more developed heads, necksand shoulders; a necessary characteristic for competingmales during the breeding season.

An important characteristic of camel meat is its low fatcontent compared to many other meat species. However,there are some reports of higher fat contents in camel car-casses apparently depending on the feeding system.Kamoun (1995) reported that 269 kg dromedary malecamel carcasses contained 57% muscle, 25.5% bone and16.9% fat. Wilson (1998) reported a proportion of 57%muscle, 25.5% bone and 16.9% fat in average camel car-casses. The proportion of muscle in Sudanese camels was56%, with 19% bone, and 13.7% fat, with a muscle:boneratio of 3.0 (Yousif & Babiker, 1989).The fact that camelmeat contains less inter and intramuscular fat than othermeat animals may be used in marketing strategies of camel

l position of the cuts using dotted lines.

Table 6Examples of studies that have provided data on live weight, carcass weight and weights carcass components of dromedary camels (±SE)

Items Kurtu (2004) Abouheif et al. (1990b) Kamoun (2005) Herrman and Fischer(2004)

Wilson (1978)

Live weight (kg) 465 ± 63.85 (M) 530–800 426.2 ± 65.74335.7 ± 42.2 (F)

Carcass weight(kg)

309.7–414.8 208.5 ± 38.78

Hindquarter 47.3 ± 12.01 (M) 131.0–149.3 84.5 ± 14.5336.0 ± 10.3 (F)

Forequarter 76.0 ± 11.86 (M) 123.4–196.8 120.2 ± 22.2145.9 ± 8.9 (F)

Neck 13.5 ± 3.51 (M) 55.3–63.6 ± 3.1 8 22.0–25.010.3 ± 3.0 (F)

Shoulder 57.7–62.5 ± 3.0 22Brisket 47.6–62.9 ± 2.9 12Rib 36.4–46.8 ± 3.4 8Plate 35.2–50.0 ± 1.8Loin 44.1–47.7 ± 1.6 9RumpFlank 5Leg 25Remarks 7 years old Age effects 8–26 months

(18 animals)Values as % ofcarcass

Eight dromedaries 60 Sudanesedromedaries

88 male (M) and 12females (F)

Values % of the side

Table 7Muscle as a percentage of total muscle in different cuts from the camelcarcass (Elgasim & El-Hag, 1992)

Part of the body Mean (%) Range

Hind legs 28 27–29Fore legs 22 21–23Ribs and backbone 30 30–32Neck 8 8Hump fat 8 5–10Other fat and tissue 4 3–4


meat (Dawood & Alkanhal, 1995). However, the intramus-cular fat content of muscle is of some importance because itenhances the palatability traits such as flavor, juiciness andtenderness.

The proportion of muscle in the camel carcass is compa-rable to that of cattle (Babiker, 1984; Mahgoub et al.,1995a, 1995b; Preston & Willis, 1975) whereas carcass boneis higher and therefore the muscle to bone ratio is lower forcamels (Babiker, 1984). This may be possibly attributed toincreased bone length. The muscle:bone ratio was 3.0 inSudanese camels (Yousif & Babiker, 1989). Muscle distri-bution varied according to the anatomical site on the car-cass (Table 7). The highest proportions of muscle in thecarcass were in the ribs and backbone, hind legs, fore legsand the neck.

Age, sex, breed and the nutritional state influence bodycomposition in the camel. Age has a significant effect oncarcass components with distinct advantages in slaughter-ing camels at an early age. Muscle content was highestfor 2-year-old castrated camels. Hump fat represented1.9% of the dressed carcass of the 24 month old and5.19% of the carcass of 44-month-old camel (Kulaeva,

1964). Sex is an important factor in determining carcassyield in the camel. The total meat weight from male camelswas higher than from females by 53% (Kurtu, 2004). As inother farm animal species, females are fatter than malesespecially at older ages. Congiu (1953) reported 8.8% and20.5% carcass fat for male and female 10–12-year oldSomali camels.

6. Meat composition

Camel meat varies in composition according to breedtype, age, sex, condition and site on the carcass. Water con-tent differs only slightly between species, while differencesin fat content are more marked (Sales, 1995). Camel meatcontains 70–77% moisture (Al-Owaimer, 2000; Al-Sheddy,Al-Dagal, & Bazaraa, 1999; Dawood & Alkanhal, 1995;Kadim et al., 2006). These levels are higher than those inmeat of other farm animal species (Table 8). It is also agood source of protein containing about 20–23% (Al-Owai-mer, 2000; Kadim et al., 2006; Kilgour, 1986). This level issimilar to those in other farm animals, but lower than thatin the Llama (Table 8). These protein contents are similarto values reported by Dawood & Alkanhal (1995), butare lower than values reported by Elgasim & Alkanhal(1992). This level of protein in camel meat makes it a goodsource of high quality protein in arid and semi-arid regions.

Chemical intramuscular fat levels in camel meat varygreatly. Al-Owaimer (2000) reported a value of 5.2% forcamel Longissimus dorsi. Kadim et al. (2006) reported amean chemical fat of 6.4% for camel Longissimus dorsi,which is comparable to the 7% reported by Dawood &Alkanhal (1995). Shalash (1988), El-Faer, Rawdah, Attar,& Dawson (1991), & Elgasim & Alkanhal (1992) reported

Table 8Comparison of camel meat with meat from other species

Species Moisture(%)

Protein(%)

Fat(%)

Ash(%)

Muscle

Camela 71.0 21.4 4.4 1.1 LongissimusLlama b 73.9 23.1 0.51 2.43 LongissimusAlpacac 73.6 23.3 0.49 2.5 LongissimusBeefd 71.5 21.5 5.5 0.9 LongissimusSheepe 68.9 21.0 8.5 1.2 LongissimusGoatf 76.5 20.8 1.6 0.87 LongissimusBroilerg 75.5 22.4 1.5 0.6 Pectoralis majorDuckh 76.8 21.0 1.68 1.0 Pectoralis majorTurkeyi 73.5 22.2 0.3 1.4 Pectoralis major

a Kadim et al. (2006).b,c Cristofaneli et al. (2004).

d Mills et al. (1992).e Sen et al. (2004).f Marinova et al. (2001).g Castellini et al. (2002).h Baeza et al. (2002).i Rosenvold et al. (2001).


slightly higher values, whereas Babiker & Yousif (1990) &Cristofaneli et al. (2004) reported lower values (0.50–1.43%). However, the maximum value recorded for fat inthe study of Kadim et al. (2006) (10.5%) for camel between5 and 8 year-old, while 4.4% for 1–3 year-old, indicates thatthe fat content of camel meat may increase with age. Ashcontent in camel meat, which ranges between 1.1% and1.5% (Al-Owaimer, 2000; Kadim et al., 2006), is within therange of values reported for other farm animals (Table 8).

Age has a significant effect on camel meat composition.Kadim et al. (2006) reported that the chemical compositionof Longissimus dorsi muscle from three age groups ofdromedary (Table 9) was comparable to that reported forthe muscle from 5-year old dromedary camels (Hammam,Hidik, Sherif, & Yousef, 1962). The general trend was thatmoisture and protein decreased and fat increased with

Table 9Effect of age on Longissimus dorsi muscle composition of 21 dromedarycamels (seven per group) (Kadim et al., 2006)

Component Age (year)

1–3 3–5 5–8

Moisture (%) 71.7 71.0 70.3Protein (%) 22.7 20.9 20.5Fat (%) 4.4 7.0 8.3Ash (%) 1.1 1.1 1.1Calcium (mg/100 g) 13.7 18.6 29.6Magnesium (mg/100 g) 36.8 41.4 43.6Sodium (mg/100 g) 142 165 163Potassium (mg/100 g) 704 787 833Phosphorus (mg/100 g) 373 437 499Cadmium (mg/100 g) 0.012 0.013 0.015Chromium (mg/100 g) 0.036 0.051 0.067Nickel (mg/100 g) 0.073 0.101 0.123Lead (mg/100 g) 0.066 0.114 0.138Cobalt (mg/100 g) 0.010 0.012 0.014Molybdenum (mg/100 g) 0.102 0.126 0.144Beryllium (mg/100 g) 0.012 0.019 0.024Vanadium (mg/100 g) 0.072 0.090 0.110

increasing age while ash remained the same (Table 9).These findings are in line with other reports for camel. Ingeneral, meat from young camels (below 5 years) has lessprotein, fat and ash but higher moisture than older camels(Yagil, 1982). Naser, El-Bahay, & Moursy (1965) studiedthe effects of age, sex and location on camel meat compo-sition. They reported average contents of protein, mois-ture, fat and ash of 20.1%, 78.3%, 0.92% and 0.76%,respectively, in camels below 5 years. Camels at 5 yearsor above had values of 22.0%, 76.2%, 1.01% and 0.86%,respectively. Kamoun (1995) reported 77.7% moisture,18.7% protein, 1.0% ash and 2.6% fat in camel meat. Hestated that after 3 years, intramuscular fat in the humpmakes meat rich in fat resulting in marbled meat (Kamoun,1995).

There are differences in the chemical composition ofcamel meat from various parts of the body (Shalash,1979a). Fat% is commonly higher in the sternum than inthe thigh. Comparison between three different muscles ofcamel (Longissimus, Semitendinosus and Triceps brachii),revealed similarity in protein, moisture and fat content,but differences in ash content (Babiker & Yousif, 1990).Chemical composition of camel meat varied between theshoulder, topside and loin (Herrman & Fischer, 2004).The shoulder and topside had the highest protein content(77–78%) and lowest fat (1.1%) whereas the loin had thelowest protein (73%) and highest fat content (6.6%).

The macro- and microelements contents reported byKadim et al. (2006) for the dromedary camel meat (Table9) are within the range reported for camel meat elsewhere(El-Faer et al., 1991; Elgasim & Alkanhal, 1992). Theyare also comparable to other red meats (beef, veal, andlamb) (Greenfield, Kuo, Hutchison, & Wills, 1987; Elgasim& Alkanhal, 1992). Camel meat like other red meats con-tains high levels of potassium followed by phosphorus,sodium, magnesium and calcium, respectively, plus smallerpercentages of other elements. Similar findings werereported by Dawood & Alkanhal (1995) & El-Faer et al.(1991) for Saudi one-humped camels. The mineral and vita-min content of muscles from camel shoulder (mg/100 g)were: 6.5 calcium, 23.6 magnesium, 293 potassium, 58.2sodium, 3.4 zinc, 2.1 iron, 0.2 copper, 0.12 thiamin, 0.18riboflavin, 0.25 pyridoxine, and 0.61 a-tocopherol (Ulmeret al., 2004). Calcium content of camel meat is higher thanthat of beef which may partly explain the tight structure ofsome cuts of camel meat. As for other species, mineral con-tent of camel meat varied widely most probably because ofdifferences in sampling methods, sites in the carcass (Elga-sim & Alkanhal, 1992) or to a wide variability betweenindividual animals. However, yet these may still reflect gen-uine species differences. Mineral and vitamin contents ofthe camel meat varied according to the anatomical siteon the carcass according to the study off Herrmann &Fisher (2004).

The amino acid and inorganic mineral contents of camelmeat are high compared to beef due to the lower levels offat content in the meat of the dromedary (Alkanhal,

Table 11Amino acid composition (g/16 g N) of meat from different species

Species

Camela buffalob Harp sealc Beefd Chickene

Essential amino acids

Lysine 8.45 9.7 8.72 9.12 8.96Threnonine 4.4 4.75 4.53 4.64 4.16Valine 5.16 4.51 5.8 5.28 4.8Methionine 2.41 4.51 1.64 2.72 2.40Isoleucine 5.23 1.31 4.58 5.12 4.64Leucine 8.41 7.24 7.44 8.00 7.52Phenylalanine 4.24 4.23 4.57 4.48 4.48Histidine 4.33 3.33 5.01 3.20 3.04

Non-essential amino acids

Arginine 7.38 1.42 6.21 6.72 6.24Aspartic acid 9.09 7.62 8.23 9.60 9.12


1994; Elgasim et al., 1987; Kadim & Mahgoub, 2006;Kurtu, 2004).

The edible meat tissue from camels also contains lesscholesterol than beef or lamb (Table 10), which suggeststhat camel meat is healthier, but measures of cholesterolin comparable samples within the same laboratory arerequired to confirm this. The range of cholesterol valuesthat are available for meat is wide and often affected by die-tary factors, age, sex and analytical method used (Abu-Tarboush & Dawood, 1993; Kunsman, Collins, Field, &Miller, 1981). Low levels of saturated fat in the diet areimportant for avoiding atherosclerosis because of theireffect on plasma cholesterol levels (Stamler & Lilien Field,1970), and low intakes of saturated fatty acids and choles-terol are important for the control of obesity, and hyper-cholesterolemia, and to decrease the risk of cancer(Chizzolini, Zanardi, Dorigoni, & Ghidini, 1999). Healthorganizations recommended reductions in total fat intake,particularly saturated fatty acids and at the same timeincreasing the consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids.Recent research in this domain has focused on the nutri-tional relevance of the n � 6/n � 3 polyunsaturated fattyacid ratio and conjugated linoleic acid in the human diet,both of which are considered beneficial to human health,due to anticarcinogenic, antiatherogenic and immune-mod-ulating properties (Mulvihill, 2001). This renders the camelmeat with its low fat and cholesterol content a healthyfood. The monounsaturated fatty acids in camel meataccount for almost one-third of the total fatty acids andare dominated by oleic (C18:1) followed by palmitoleic(C16:1) acids (Rawdah, El-Faer, & Koreish, 1994). Ten dif-ferent polyunsaturated fatty acids have been identified incamel meat. Linoleic acid (C18:2) is the principal polyun-saturated fatty acid, accounting for two-thirds of the total,followed by arachidonic acid (C20:4). The ratio of the poly-unsaturated fatty acids to saturated fatty acids (the P/Sratio) was reported by Sinclair, Slattery, & O’Dea (1982)to be 0.36 as compared with 0.22, 0.26 and 0.36 in beef,mutton and goat meat, respectively. The percentage ofpolyunsaturated fatty acids in camel meat (18.6%) is withinthe range reported for beef (8.8%) and buffalo (28.6%) anddeer (31.4%) (Sinclair et al., 1982). The ratio of linoleic acidmetabolites to linolenic acid metabolites in camel meat isabout 10.9 which is much higher than the ratio for cattle,sheep and goat (2.0, 2.4 and 2.8, respectively) (Sinclairet al., 1982). Camel biceps femoris muscle from seven male

Table 10Cholesterol content (mg/100 g edible portion) of meat from differentspecies

Species Cholesterol (mg/100 g) Reference

Camel 50 El-Magoli et al. (1973)Kangaroo 56 Sinclair et al. (1982)Harp seal 99 Shahidi and Synowiecki (1993)Ostrich 62 Sales (1996)Beef 59 Holland et al. (1991)Chicken 57 Holland et al. (1991)

at 1–3 years of age is relatively rich in PUFA (18.6%) andits fat content (1.2–1.8%) is significantly low comparedwith beef (4.0–8.0%) (Rawdah et al., 1994).

Camel meat has a relatively low content of histidine,tryptophane, valine, leucine and isoleucine; otherwise it issimilar to that of lamb except for lower lysine content(Table 11), although it should be noted that these compar-isons were not made within the same laboratory. Theamino acid composition of camel meat did not differ signif-icantly by either type of cut or slaughter age (Dawood &Alkanhal, 1995). According to Rice (1978) the amino acidscontent of meat protein is quite constant, regardless of thespecies or the type of cut from which the meat is obtained.The most abundant essential amino acids in camel meatand other meats are lysine, leucine and arginine (Table11). The tryptophane concentration was low in camel meatcompared with values for other meats shown in Table 11.

7. Meat quality

Camel meat quality characteristics in general, are com-parable to those of beef (Fischer, 1975; Kadim et al.,2006; Knoess, 1977; Leupold, 1968; Mukasa-Mugerwa,1981; Shariatmadari & Kadivar, 2006a, 2006b). Camel(2–4 year) and beef (2–3 year) longissimus muscle had6.98 and 6.45 shear value, 1.89 and 1.83 lm sarcomereslength, 21.3 and 34.79 cm2/g expressed juice, 31.69 and33.58L*, 16.18 and 18.19a* and 7.26 and 6.40b*, respec-tively (Kadim & Mahgoub, 2006). Camel meat is describedas raspberry red to dark brown in colour with a sweet taste

Serine 3.63 3.30 3.98 4.48 4.00Glutamic acid 16.91 12.51 11.5 17.28 16.48Proline 5.39 3.60 3.89 5.12 4.16Glycine 5.95 4.50 4.47 5.60 4.82Tyrosine 3.23 3.19 2.85 3.84 3.52Alanine 6.25 3.24 5.88 6.40 5.76Cystine 1.27 0.87 1.28 1.28Tryptophane 0.60 1.20 1.28 1.12

a Dawood and Alkanhal (1995).b Ziauddin et al. (1994).c Shahidi and Synowiecki (1993).

d,e Paul and Southgate (1978).


due to the high glycogen content. The fat of the camel meatis white (Leupold, 1968). Camel meat had a significantlylower level of sarcoplasmic proteins as a proportion oftotal proteins than beef in the study of Babiker & Tibin(1986). An increase in meat toughness and a reduction inthe palatability and quality are reported with increasingage (Dahl & Hjort, 1979; El-Amin, 1979; Kadim et al.,2006). Results in Table 12 suggest that the optimum agefor slaughtering camels is between one and three year ofage (Kadim et al., 2006).

The ultimate pH of muscle is a major determinant ofmeat quality and is largely determined by the depletionof glycogen and accumulation of lactic acid pre- andpost-slaughter. The range of the ultimate pH values ofdromedary camel meat ranged between 5.7 and 6.0(Al-Sheddy et al., 1999; Cristofaneli, Antonini, Torres,Polidori, & Renieri, 2004; Kadim et al., 2006). Generally,young animals tend to produce meat with a higher pH thanolder animals due to lower levels of glycogen (Kannan,Kouakou, Terrill, & Gelaye, 2003). The ultimate pH ofmeat is influenced by many factors including pre-slaughterhandling, post mortem treatments and muscle physiology(Marsh, 1977; Thompson, 2002), with low muscle glycogenstores at slaughter preventing the development of adesirable pH post mortem (Ashmore et al., 1973).

Tenderness of meat is rated as the most important qual-ity attribute by the average consumer and appears to besought at the expense of flavor or color (Lawrie, 1979).The amount of alkali-insoluble protein, the shear valueand the diameter of the fibers are inversely proportionalto the tenderness of the meat. The most marked differencein meat quality characteristics between camel meat andother livestock is believed to be tenderness. Camels are usu-ally slaughtered at the end of their productive life (>10years) which is the reason that camel meat is classified asa low quality meat. In Kenya, the average age for camelsslaughtered was 14.5 years (Mukasa-Mugerwa, 1981).

Average shear force value of camel meat at 6–8 years was48% and 40% higher than those of 1–3 and 3–5 years old,respectively (Kadim et al., 2006). A number of studies have

Table 12Effect of age on some meat quality characteristics of the dromedary camelM. Longissimus thoracis (Kadim et al., 2006)

Age group (year) Significanta

1–3 3–5 5–8

Ultimate pH 5.91 5.84 5.71 *

WB-Shear force value (N) 68.4 79.5 131.9 *

Sarcomere length (lm) 1.85 1.24 1.06 *

Myofibrillar fragmentation index(%)

80.99 73.3 60.4 *

Expressed juice (cm2/g) 29.6 27.36 21.26 *

Cooking loss (%) 26.06 23.72 22.42 *

Colour parametersL* (lightness 37.74 34.03 31.69 *

a* (redness 13.37 13.82 16.18 *

b* (yellowness) 6.09 6.78 7.26 NS

a * P < 0.05, NS, not significant.

also shown that shear values increase with increasing animalage (Asghar & Pearson, 1980; Miller, Cross, & Crouse, 1987;Purchas, Hartely, Yan, & Grant, 1997). Differences due toage may be related to changes in muscle structure and com-position as animals mature, particularly in the connective tis-sue (Asghar & Pearson, 1980), This suggests that the increasein shear force of older camels may be due to the nature andquantity of connective tissue in the meat.

Meat from 6–8 years old camels was darker (lower L*)and redder (higher a*) than that of 1–3 years camels inthe study of Kadim et al. (2006), probably because ofhigher concentrations of myoglobin.. Other factors affect-ing meat color include muscle fiber type, ultimate pH,and cooling rate (Abril et al., 2001; Faustman & Cassens,1990). Post-mortem protein degradation increases lightscattering properties of meat and thereby increase L*, a*

and b* values (Offer, 1991).Expressed juice is an important meat quality character-

istic because of its influence on nutritional value, appear-ance and palatability. Kadim et al. (2006) reported thatmeat from camels slaughtered at 1–3 years had higherexpressed juice values than those slaughtered at 6–8 yearsof age, probably due to variations in fat content and bind-ing ability of meat. Miller, Staffle, & Zirkle (1968) showedthat water-holding capacity decreased as fat levelsincreased due to an increase in the ratio of moisture to pro-tein. Similarly, Dawood (1995) reported that young camelmeat (8 month of age) had significantly higher expressedjuice than the meat from 26 month-old camels. The drom-edary camel meat contains higher expressed juice thanother camelidae such as the llama and alpaca probablybecause of the lower fat content (Cristofaneli et al.,2004). The volume of dromedary camel meat was reducedby 44.3% and weight by 48.2% after boiling in water for40 min (Kamoun, 1995). The drip loss of 18 camel meatsamples stored for 10 weeks at �20 �C ranged from 8.2%to 12.3% of the original weight of the meat (Dawood,1995). The amount of loss is probably related ultimatepH of the muscle, to the composition of muscle and tothe denaturation of proteins by the ionic strength of theextracellular fluid, and to oxidation of lipids whichdecreases the solubility of proteins (Dyer & Dingle, 1967).

8. Nutritive value

Methods of improving the intake of nutrients is espe-cially important in developing countries, and in this respectthe high content of protein and other nutrients in camelmeat means that it could provide a valuable complementto low-protein diets particularly for vulnerable groups likechildren and pregnant woman. The nutrient content ofcamel meat can be affected by age, sex, carcass weight, fat-ness, packaging and storage conditions, and time (Dawood& Alkanhal, 1995; Schweigert, 1987).

The concentrations of amino acids and inorganic miner-als of camel meat are higher, with less fat and higher mois-ture content than in many beef products. The


monounsaturated fatty acids in camel meat account foralmost one-third of the total fatty acids and dominatedby oleic followed by palmitoleic acid (Rawdah et al.,1994). The ratio of the polyunsaturated chains to the satu-rated ones is 0.36 as compared with 0.22, 0.26 and 0.36 inbeef, mutton and goat meat, respectively (Sinclair et al.,1982). The percentage of polyunsaturated fatty acids incamel meat (18.6%) falls between those reported for themeat of beef (8.8%) and buffalo (28.6%) and deer (31.4%)(Sinclair et al., 1982). The ratio of linoleic acid metabolitesto linolenic acid metabolites in camel meat is about 10.9and this is much higher than the ratio found in the meatof cattle, sheep and goat (2.0, 2.4 and 2.8, respectively)(Sinclair et al., 1982). Moreover, camel meat is believedby Somali and Indian people to have remedial effects foras many as 13 different diseases, including hyperacidity,hypertension, pneumonia and respiratory diseases and alsoto be an aphrodisiac (Kurtu, 2004). Further research isneeded to substantiate or disprove these beliefs.

9. Meat processing

Processing of camel meat such drying, curing and smok-ing have taken place in Arabia for many years. Zegeye(1999) suggested that the acceptability of camel meat prod-ucts increases with an increase in the duration of smoking,frying and cooking, indicating that such products shouldbe fully processed to gain acceptability. Recently Austra-lian processed camel meat has been accepted as an interna-tional traded meat product. It is now exported to SaudiArabia, throughout Asia, Canada, United States and Eur-ope. Camel is available in carcass form or as fresh or frozenvacuum-packed cuts. A dried meat product, from whichsufficient water has been removed by drying to make itmicrobiologically stable without refrigeration, is also avail-able (Ulmer et al., 2004).

Recently, more attention has been paid to the nutri-tional value of camel meat, with the aim of creating addi-tional value for various camel meat products (Ulmeret al., 2004). Thermal processing, curing and smoking arethe three most common methods used for camel meat pres-ervation and processing (Kalalou, Faid, & Ahami, 2004;Zegeye, 1999). As consumers may have different reactionsto products, overall acceptance must be determined by sen-sory evaluation. The acceptability of camel meat productsincreases with an increase in the duration of processing(smoking, frying and cooking) indicating that the productsshould be fully processed to gain maximum acceptability(Mansour & Ahmed (2000). Generally, consumers are prej-udiced against camel fresh unprocessed meat. If camel meatcould be converted into processed meat products such asburgers and sausages, it might be more acceptable todomestics’ consumers.

The range of traditional camel meat products is limited,and is characterized mainly by dried meat products, madeby crude methods. Because of the climatic conditions andlack of cold storage facilities, it is virtually impossible to

keep meat or meat products fresh for longer periods of timein the tropics. One important technological problem in theprocessing of camel meat products results from the pooremulsifiability of camel fat. The production and storageof meat products from camel meat utilizes basic technicalfacilities (Ulmer et al., 2004).

Seasonal variations in climate should be taken intoaccount in the manufacture of dried products. Drying ofcamel meat is usually done by putting the meat on simplewire gratings in shady places in open air. The meat is usu-ally cut into strips, then dry-slated or rubbed with a pasteof spices and dried in the sun on straw mats. Dried prod-ucts are frequently smoked over a fireplace, to improvetheir flavor and microbiological stability. If the productsare not packaged, they must be stored in dry well airedconditions. If the products are packaged, this must takeplace in vacuum-packed bags or in air-permeable handle-protection packages. Sometimes the meat is then preservedby putting the dried strips in clarified butter fat (Hartley,1979). In climatic zones with high relative humidity, how-ever, it is not possible to dry meat in this way. Solar dryersor special drying chambers in which the relative humidityand temperature can be regulated are required (Salman,2005).

Dry-salting process of the meat takes several days, sincelarge pieces of meat are used. After the dry-salting, themeat is pressed for several days to remove water and giveit an attractive shape. During the subsequent drying pro-cess, which usually takes place in the shade and involvesair-drying, the pieces of meat are pressed again. The driedmuscle meat is then coated with a paste made from water,slat, garlic, fenugreek seeds, paprika and mustard, anddried again. The high protein content provides good caloricvalue and is cheaper than sausages made from other meat.

Minced camel meat provides an excellent basis for vari-ous manufactured and cured forms of meat such as sau-sages and pastrima. Sausages can form a highlyacceptable cooked camel meat and it has highly desirablefeatures as a sausage component. The prepared camel sau-sage is similar in chemical composition to that of beef (Sha-lash, 1979b). Advanced technology was used by Mansour& Ahmed (2000) to process burger and sausages fromcamel meat. The products showed similar chemical compo-sition to beef processed products, but the camel productswere higher in moisture (73.6%) and ash (4.13%). The sen-sory evaluation tests indicated that the camel burger gainedhigher scores in overall acceptability than the other prod-ucts. The authors concluded that the processing of camelmeat increased the tenderness, taste and palatability ofthe products. Camel meat can be processed in similar waysto beef, producing similar products with similaracceptability.

10. Conclusion

Camels are good potential meat producers especially inarid regions where other meat-producing animals do not


thrive. They grow well and yield carcasses of a comparableweight to beef cattle if optimal management conditions areprovided. Camel meat is acceptable for human consump-tion and in some communities it may replace meat fromother animals. Reports that camel meat is less tender thanbeef are probably due, at least in part, to the higher averageanimal age and/or to post-mortem carcass chilling condi-tions. Camel meat, especially from young animals, containslow fat with low cholesterol as well as being a good sourceof amino acids and minerals. More research work in areasof meat production, technology, marketing, and socialawareness is needed to exploit the potential of camels asa source of meat

References

Abdalla, M. A., & Abdalla, O. (1979). Morphometric observations onkidney of the camel, Camelus dromedarius. Journal of Anatomy, 129,45–50.

Abouheif, M. A., Basmaeil, S. M., & Bakkar, M. N. (1986). Estimation ofbody and carcass weights in Saudi Arabian Najdi male camels. Arab

Gulf Journal of Science Research, 4, 733–743.Abouheif, M. A., Basmaeil, S. M., & Bakkar, M. N. (1990a). A standard

method for jointing camel carcasses with reference to the effect ofslaughter age on carcass characteristics in Najadi Camels. I. Wholesalecut weight. Asian–Australian Journal of Animal Science, 3, 97–102.

Abouheif, M. A., Basmaeil, S. M., & Bakkar, M. N. (1990b). A standardmethod for jointing camel carcasses with reference to the effect ofslaughter age on carcass characteristics in Najadi Camels. II. Variationin lean growth and distribution. Asian–Australian Journal of Animal

Science, 3, 155–159.Abril, M., Campo, M. M., Onenc, A., Sanudo, C., Alberti, P., &

Negueruela, A. I. (2001). Beef colour evolution as a function ofultimate pH. Meat Science, 58, 69–78.

Abu-Tarboush, H. M., & Dawood, A. S. (1993). Cholesterol and fatcontents of animal adipose tissues. Food Chemistry, 46, 89–93.

Al-Ani, F. K. (2004). Use and production of camels. In F. K. Al-Ani(Ed.), Camel management and diseases (1st ed.) (pp. 91–114). Al-SharqPrinting Press.

Alkanhal, A. (1994). Nutrient composition of Najdi camel meat. Meat

Science, 39, 71–78.Al-Owaimer, A. N. (2000). Effect of dietary Halophyte Salicornia bigelovii

Torr on carcass characteristics, minerals, fatty acids and amino acidsprofile of camel meat. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 18, 185–192.

Al-Sheddy, I., Al-Dagal, M., & Bazaraa, W. A. (1999). Microbial andsensory quality of fresh camel meat treated with organic acid salts and/or bifidobacteria. Journal of Food Science, 64, 336–339.

Asghar, A., & Pearson, A. M. (1980). Influence of ante- and post-mortemtreatments upon muscle composition and meat quality. Advances in

Food Research, 26, 53–213.Ashmore, C. R., Carroll, F., Doerr, J., Tompkins, G., Stokes, H., &

Parker, W. (1973). Experimental prevention of dark-cutting meat.Journal of Animal Science, 35, 33–36.

Babiker, M. M. (1984). Abundance and economic potentials of camels inthe Sudan. Journal of Arid Environment, 7, 377.

Babiker, S. A. & Tibin, I. M. (1989). A note on desert camel meatproduction and characteristics. In Proceedings of the international

symposium on the development of animal resources in the Sudan (pp.116–120).

Babiker, S. A. & Yousif, K. H. (1987). Carcass yield and characteristics ofmature male camels of the Sudan. Annual report (pp. 120–124). Sudan:Camel Research Unit, University of Khartoum.

Babiker, S. A., & Tibin, I. M. (1986). Comparative study of camel meat and

beef (pp. 73–77). Sudan: Camel Research Unit, University ofKhartoum.

Babiker, S. A., & Yousif, K. H. (1990). Chemical composition and qualityof camel meat. Meat Science, 27, 283–287.

Baeza, E., Dessay, C., Wacrenier, N., Marche, G., & listra, A. (2002).Effect of selection for improved body weight and composition onmuscle and meat characteristics in Muscovt duck. British Poultry

Science, 43, 560–568.Bhargava, K. K., Sharma, V. D., & Singh, M. A. (1965). A study of the

birth and body measurement of camels (Camelus dromedaries). Indian

Journal of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, 35, 358–362.Bissa, U. J. (1996). Early growth and its association with certain blood

parameters in different breeds of camel. M.V. Sc. thesis, Department ofAnimal Breeding and Genetics. College of Veterinary and AnimalScience, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner. Camel Newslet-

ter, 12, 21–23.Bremaud, O. (1969). Notes sur lelevage camelin dans les district Nord del

la Republique du Kenya. Avril Maj-Juin, 1969. Rapport LEMVT,Maisons, Alfort (p. 105).

Burgemeister, R. (1975). Elevage de chameaux en Afrique du Nord, 88.Castellini, C., Mugnai, C., & Dal Bosco, A. (2002). Effect of organic

production system on broiler carcass and meat quality. Meat Science,

60, 219–225.Central Australia Camel Industry Association (1997). In Camel Newsletter

(No. 13, pp. 52–58). The Central Australian Industry.Chizzolini, R., Zanardi, E., Dorigoni, V., & Ghidini, S. (1999). Calorific

value and cholesterol content of normal and low-fat meat and meatproducts. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 10, 119–128.

Congiu, S. (1953). Dressing percentage, weight distribution and correla-tions between different parts of the body in the Somali dromedary.Zootecnica Veterinaria, 8, 188–191.

Cristofaneli, S., Antonini, M., Torres, D., Polidori, P., & Renieri, C.(2004). Meat and carcass quality from Peruvian llama (Lama glama)and alpaca (Lama pacos). Meat Science, 66, 589–593.

Dahl, G. & Hjort, A. (1979). Dromedary pastoralism in Africa andArabia. In Proceedings of the workshop on camels, Khartoum the Sudan

(pp. 447–458). Stockholm: International Foundation for Science.Dawood, A. (1995). Physical and Sensory characteristics of Najdi camel

meat. Meat Science, 39, 59–69.Dawood, A., & Alkanhal, M. A. (1995). Nutrient composition of Najdi-

Camel Meat. Meat Science, 39, 71–78.Dorman, A. E. (1986). Aspects of the husbandry and management of the

genus Camelus. In A. Higgins (Ed.), The camel in health and disease

(pp. 3–20). London: Balliere Tindall.Dyer, W. J., & Dingle, J. R. (1967). In G. Borgstrom (Ed.), Fish as food.

New York: Academic Press.El-Amin, F. M. (1979). The dromedary camel of the Sudan. In IFS

symposium camels, Sudan (pp. 35–54).El-Faer, M. Z., Rawdah, T. N., Attar, K. M., & Dawson, M. V. (1991).

Mineral and proximate composition of the meat of the one-humpedcamel (Camelus dromedaries). Food Chemistry, 42, 139–143.

Elgasim, E. A., & Alkanhal, M. A. (1992). Proximate composition, aminoacids and inorganic minerals content of Arabian camel meat:comparative study. Food Chemistry, 45, 1–4.

Elgasim, E. A., & El-Hag, G. A. (1992). characteristics of the Arabiancamel. Camel News Letter(9), 20–24.

Elgasim, E. A., El-Hag, G. A., & Elnawawi, F. A. (1987). Qualityattributes of camel meat. Second congress report, The ScientificCouncil, King Fasil University, Alhash, KSA.

El-Magoli, S. B., Awad, A. A., & El-Wakeil, F. A. (1973). Intramuscularlipid chemistry of beef and camel Longissimus dorsi muscle. Egyptian

Journal of Food Science, 1, 75–84.El-Mossalami, E., Awad, Y., Ibrahim, A., & Diab, O. (1996). Major

chemical constituents of beef, buffalo and camel’s meat. Veterinary

Medical Journal, Giza, 44, 49–53.Farah, Z. & Fischer, A. (2004). Milk and Meat from the camel. Handbook

on products and processing. Vdt Hochschulverlag AG and der ETHZurch, Zurich/Singen.

Faustman, C., & Cassens, R. G. (1990). The biochemical basis fordiscoloration in fresh meat: A review. Journal of Muscle Foods, 1, 217.


Field, C. R. (1979). Camel growth and milk production in Marasabit

district, Northern Kenya (pp: 215–240). IFS Prov. Rep. No. 6: CamelsInt. Sci., Stockholm, Sweden.

Fischer, H. (1975). Schaf, Zeigen-Wasserbuffel und Dromedarhaltung. InKon Kurreuz fat Runderhaltung. Beitrage III Veterinaragung, Ouaga-dougoa (pp. 1–16).

Greenfield, H., Kuo, Y. L., Hutchison, G. I., & Wills, R. B. H. (1987).Composition of Australian foods. 33: Lamb. Food Technology in

Australia, 39, 202–207.Hammadi, M., Khorchani, T., Khaldi, G., Majdoub, A., Abdouli, H.,

Slimane, N., et al. (2001). Effect of diet supplementation on growthand reproduction in camels under arid range conditions. Biotechnology

Agronomy Society Environment, 5, 69–72.Hammam, M. A., Hidik, M. E., Sherif, I. H., & Yousef, M. H. (1962).

Studies on camel meat. I. Chemical composition. Journal-Arab

Veterinary Medical Association, 22, 391–396.Harmas, S., Shareha, A., Biala, A., & Abu-Shawachi, H. (1990).

Investigation on growth measures of Magrib camel (Camelus dromed-

rius). Camel Newsletter, 7, 82 (abstract).Hartley, J. B. (1979). Camels in the horn of Africa. (pp. 109–124). IFS

Prov. Rep. No. 6: Camels International Foundation Science, Stock-holm, Sweden.

Herrman, K. & Fischer, A. (2004). Method for hygienic slaughter ofcamels. In Z. Farah, A. Fisher (Eds.), Milk and meat from the camel.

Handbook on products and processing. (pp. 89–108). vdf Hochschul-verlag AG an der ETH Zurich, Zurich/Singen.

Herrmann, K., & Fisher, A. (2004). Methods for hygienic slaughter ofcamels. In Z. Farah & A. Fisher (Eds.), Milk and meat from the camel.Handbook on products and processing (pp. 89–135). Zurich, Switzer-land: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

Hertrampf, J. W. (2004). The ‘‘ship of the desert” as a meat supplier.Fleischwirtschaft, 84, 111–114.

Holland, B., Welch, A. A., Unwin, I. D., Buss, D. H., Paul, A. A. &Southgate, D. A. T. (1991). McCance and Widdowson’s the composition

of foods (5th and extended ed.). Bungay, Suffolk, UK: The RoyalSociety of Chemsitry and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,Richard Clay Ltd.

Kadim, I. T. & Mahgoub, O. (2006). Meat quality and composition ofLongissimus thoracis from Arabian camel (Camelus dromedaries) andOmani beef: A comparative study. In First conference of the interna-

tional society of camelids research and development (ISOCARD) (pp.118). Al-Ain United Arab Emirates.

Kadim, I. T., Mahgoub, O., Al-Marzooqi, W., Al-Zadgali, S., Annamali,K., & Mansour, M. H. (2006). Effects of age on composition andquality of muscle Longissimus thoracis of the Omani Arabian camel(Camelus dromedaries). Meat Science, 73, 619–625.

Kalalou, I., Faid, M., & Ahami, T. A. (2004). Improving the quality offermented camel sausage by controlling undesirable microorganismswith selected lactic acid bacteria. International Journal of Agriculture

and Biology, 3, 447–451.Kamoun, M. (1995). Dromedary meat: production, qualitative aspects

and acceptability for transformation. Option Mediterraneennes Serie B,

Etudes et Recherches, 13, 105–130.Kamoun, M. (2005). Carcass and meat quality of dromedary camel.

College of Agriculture, Poster: 7030, Mateur, Tunisia.Kannan, G., Kouakou, B., Terrill, T. H., & Gelaye, S. (2003). Endocrine,

Blood metabolite and meat quality changes in goats as influenced byshort-term, preslaughter stress. Journal of Animal Science, 81,1499–1507.

Keikin, D. (1976). Camel breeding can be economical (Ru). Konevodstro IKonnyi Sport 2, 12–13.

Khatami, K. (1970). Camel meat: A new promising approach to the solution

of meat and protein in the arid and semi-arid countries of the world.Tehran: Ministry of Agriculture.

Kilgour, O. F. G. (1986). Mastering nutrition (pp. 229–305). London:Macmillan Education Ltd.

Knoess, K. H. (1977). The camel as a meat and milk camel. World Animal

Review, 22, 39–44.

Kulaeva, V. (1964). The production of the Bacterian camel. Animal

Breeding Abstract, 32.Kunsman, J. E., Collins, M. A., Field, R. A., & Miller, G. J. (1981).

Cholesterol content of beef bone marrow and mechanically debonedmeat. Journal of Food Science, 46, 1785–1788.

Kurtu, M. Y. (2004). An assessment of the productivity for meat andcarcass yield of camel (Camelus dromedarious) and the consumption ofcamel meat in the Eastern region of Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health

and Production, 36, 65–76.Lawrie, R. A. (1979). Meat science (3rd ed.). Pergamon Press.Leupold, J. (1968). An important animal domestic of the sub-tropics.

Veterinary Blue Book, 15, 1–6.Mahgoub, O., Olvey, F. H., & Jeffrey, D. C. (1995a). Growth and

composition of the Omani Dhofari cattle. 1, Body weight growth andcarcass composition. Asian–Australian Journal of Animal Science, 8,611–616.

Mahgoub, O., Olvey, F. H., & Jeffrey, D. C. (1995b). Growth andcomposition of the Omani Dhofari cattle. 2, Distribution of carcasstissues. Asian–Australian Journal of Animal Science, 8, 617–625.

Mansour, M. E., & Ahmed, S. M. (2000). Advanced technology in camelmeat processing. The Camel Newsletter, 17, 27–29.

Marinova, P., Banskalieva, V., Alexandrov, S., Tzvetkova, V., &Stanchev, H. (2001). Carcass composition and meat quality of kidsfed sunflower oil supplemented diet. Small Ruminant Research, 42,219–227.

Marsh, B. B. (1977). The basis of tenderness in muscle foods. Journal of

Food Science, 42, 295–297.Mburu, D. N., Ochieng, G. W., Kuria, S. G., Jianlin, H., Kaufmann, B.,

Rege, J. E., et al. (2003). Genetic diversity and relationships ofindigenous Kenyan camel (Camelus dromedarius) populations, impli-cations for their classification. Animal Genetic, 34, 26–32.

Miller, M. F., Cross, H. R., & Crouse, J. D. (1987). Effect of feedingregimen, breed and sex condition on carcass composition and feedefficiency. Meat Science, 20, 39–50.

Miller, W. O., Staffle, R. L., & Zirkle, S. B. (1968). Factors, whichinfluence the water-holding capacity of various types of meat. Food

Technology, 22, 1139.Mills, E. W., Comerford, J. W., Hollender, R., Harpster, H. W., House,

B., & Henning, W. R. (1992). Meat composition and palatability ofHolstein and beef steers as influenced by forage type and proteinsource. Journal of Animal Science, 70, 2446–2451.

Morton, R. H. (1984). Camels for meat and milk production in sub-Sahara Africa. Journal Dairy Science, 67, 1548–1553.

Mukasa-Mugerwa, E. (1981).The camel (Camelus dromedaries): A

biographical review (pp. 147). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: InternationalLivestock Centre for Africa.

Mulvihill, B. (2001). Ruminant meat as a source of conjugated linoleicacid (CLA) – Review. British Nutrition Foundation. Nutrition Bulletin,

26, 295–299.Murray, E. F. (1989). Medicine and surgery of south american camelids (pp.

391). USA: Iowa State University Press.Musa, B. E. (1969). A study of some aspects of reproduction in the female

camel (Camelus dromedarious). M.V.Sc. thesis, University ofKhartoum.

Naser, S., El-Bahay, G., & Moursy, A. W. (1965). Studies on camel meat.1: The effect of age and sex on the component of camel meat. Journal of

Arab Veterinary Medical Association, 25, 253–258.Offer, G. (1991). Modeling of the formation of pale, soft and exudative

meat: effects of chilling regime and rate and extent of glycolysis. Meat

Science, 30, 157–184.Ouda, J. O. (1995). Camel calf survival and performance under varying

amounts of milk intake. Camel Newsletter, 11, 42–45.Ouda, J. O, Abui, J. O, & Woie, B. M. (1992). Production performance of

Somali and Rendille camels and their crossbreds in Northern Kenya.In All Africa conference on animal agriculture, November, Nairobi,Kenya.

Paul, A. A. & Southgate, D. A. T. (1978). McCanve and Widdowson’s. The

composition of Foods (4th revised and extended ed. of MRC special


report No. 297). Amsterdam: Elsevier/North Holland BiomedicalPress.

Perez, P., Maino, M., Guzman, R., Vaquero, A., Kobrich, C., & Pokniak,J. (2000). Carcass characteristics of Ilamas (Lama glama) reared inCentral Chile. Small Ruminant Research, 37, 93–97.

Preston, T. R., & Willis, M. B. (1975). Beef production (2nd ed.). Oxford:Pergamon.

Purchas, R. W., Hartely, D. G., Yan, X., & Grant, D. A. (1997). Anevaluation of the growth performance, carcass characteristics, andmeat quality of Sahiwal Friesian cross bulls. New Zealand Journal of

Agricultural Research, 40, 497–506.Rawdah, T. N., El-Faer, M. Z., & Koreish, S. A. (1994). Fatty acid

composition of the meat and fat of the one-humped camel (Camelus

dromedaries). Meat Science, 37, 149–155.Rice, E. E. (1978). In J. F. Price & B. S. Schweigert (Eds.), The science of

meat and meat products (pp. 287–327). Westport, CT, USA: Food andNutrition Press.

Rosenvold, K., Petersen, J. S., Laerke, H. N., Jensen, S. K., Therkildsen,M., Karlsson, A. H., et al. (2001). Muscle glycogen stores and meatquality as affected by strategic finishing feeding of slaughter pigs.Journal of Animal Science, 79, 382–391.

Sales, J. (1995). Nutritional quality of meat from some alternative species.World Review of Animal Production, 30, 48–56.

Sales, J. (1996). Histological, biological, physiological and chemicalcharacteristics of different ostrich muscles. Journal of Science Food

Agriculture, 70, 109–114.Salman, Z. M. S. (2005). Microbial and physico-chemical characteristics

of goat meat dried by different methods. Master thesis in Food Science,Sultan Qaboos University.

Saparov, G., & Annageldiyev, O. (2005). Meat Productivity of the camelArvana breed and ways to increase it. In B. Faye & P. Esenov (Eds.),Desertification Combat & Food Safety (pp. 211–214). IOS Press.

Schweigert, B. S. (1987). The nutritional content and value of meat andmeat products. In J. F. Price & B. S. Schweigert (Eds.), The science of

meat and meat products (3rd ed.) (pp. 275). Westport, CT., USA: Food& Nutrition Press. Inc.

Sen, A. R., Santra, A., & Karim, S. A. (2004). Carcass yield, compositionand meat quality attribute of sheep and goat under semiaridconditions. Meat Science, 66, 757–763.

Shahidi, F., & Synowiecki, J. (1993). Nutrient composition of mechan-ically separated and surimi-like seal meat. Food Chemistry, 47, 41–46.

Shalah, M. R. (1983). The role of camels in overcoming world meatshortage. Egyptian Journal of Veterinary Science, 20, 101–110.

Shalash, M. R. (1978). Proceedings of the XIII international symposium of

zootechnology, Milano.Shalash, M. R. (1979a). Effect of age on quality of camel meat. In First

workshop on camel. Khartoum International Foundation for Science.Shalash, M. R. (1979b). Utilization of camel meat and milk in human

nourishment. In Camels (pp. 285–307). IFS Prov. Rep. No. 6: CamelsInternational Foundation Science, Stockholm, Sweden.

Shalash, M. R. (1988). Provisional report (No. 6, pp. 285), InternationalFoundation for Science.

Shariatmadari, R. & Kadivar, M. (2006a). Post mortem aging and freezingof camel meat (a comparative study). In 52nd International congress of

meat science and technology (pp. 673–674).Shariatmadari, R. & Kadivar, M. (2006b). Functional and ultrastructural

properties of camel meat. In 52nd International congress of meat science

and technology (pp. 675–676).Simpkin, S. P., (1983). The effects of disease as constraints to camel

production in Northern Kenya. In The integrated project in arid lands

technical report E-7. Camel diseases and productivity in the arid lands of

Northern Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Educational, Scien-tific and Cultural Organization.

Sinclair, A. J., Slattery, W. J., & O’Dea, K. (1982). The analysis ofpolyunsaturated fatty acids in meat by capillary gas–liquid chroma-tography. Journal of Science and Food Agriculture, 33, 771–776.

Skidmore, J. A. (2005). Reproduction in dromedary camels: An update.Animal Reproduction, 2, 161–171.

Stamler, J., & Lilien Field, A. M. (1970). Circulation, 42, A-55.Tandon, S. N., Bissa, U. K., & Khanna, N. D. (1988). Camel meat:

Present status and future prospects. Annals of Arid Zone, 27, 23–28.Thompson, J. (2002). Managing meat tenderness. Meat Science, 62,

295–308.Ulmer, K., Herrmann, K. & Fischer, A. (2004). Meat products from camel

meat. In Z. Farah, A. Fischer (Eds.), Milk and meat from the camel

(pp. 137–228). Vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zurich, ETHZentrum, CH-8092 Zurich.

Williamson, G., & Payne, W. J. A. (1978). An introduction to animal

husbandry in the tropics. London: Longman.Wilson, R. T. (1978). Studies on the livestock of Southern Darfur,

Sudan. V. Notes on camels. Tropical Animal Health and Production,

10, 19–25.Wilson, R. T. (1984). The camel. Essex, UK: Longman group Limited.Wilson, R. T. (1998). Camel. In: R. Costa (Ed.), The tropical agricultural

series. Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University ofEdinburth.

Yagil, R. (1982). Camels and camel milk. FAO Animal Production andHealth. Publications Division, Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations. Via delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy(No. 26).

Yagil, R. (1985). The desert camel comparative physiological adaptation

(vol. 5). Munchen, London: Verlag Karger Basal.Yousif, O. K., & Babiker, S. A. (1989). The desert camel as meat animals.

Meat Science, 26, 245–254.Zegeye, A. (1999). A note on the influence of heat treatment, salting and

smoking on the acceptability of camel products. Meat Science, 53,217–219.

Ziauddin, K. S., Mahendrakar, N. S., Rao, D. N., Ramesh, B. S., &Amila, B. L. (1994). Observation on some chemical and physicalcharacteristics of buffalo meat. Meat Science, 37, 103–113.

a review of the growth, and of the carcass and meat...

Documents