Available online at www.sciencedirect.com SCIENCE 80 (2008) 555–569 www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci Review A review of the growth, and of the carcass and meat quality characteristics of the one-humped (Camelus )

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

a Department of and Veterinary Sciences, College of Agricultural and Marine Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, P.O. Box 34 Al-Khoud, Muscat, Oman b 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 camel is a good source of meat especially in areas where the climate adversely affects the performance of other meat . 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 between regions, 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 after a career in work, racing or milk production. Camels reach live weights of about 650 kg at 7–8 years of age, and produce carcass weights ranging from 125 to 400 kg with dressing-out percentage values from 55% to 70%. Camel carcasses contain about 57% muscle, 26% bone and 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 has been 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 texture to . 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, , and shawarma to add value. Future research efforts need to focus on exploiting the potential of the camel as a source of meat through multidisplinary research into efficient production systems, and improved meat technology and marketing. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

Contents

1. Introduction ...... 556 2. Growth rate and live weight ...... 556 3. Carcass weight and dressing-out percentage ...... 559 4. Non-carcass components ...... 560 5. Carcass composition ...... 560 6. Meat composition ...... 562 7. Meat quality ...... 564 8. Nutritive value ...... 565 9. Meat processing...... 566

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

0309-1740/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.02.010 556 I.T. Kadim et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 555–569

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

1. Introduction The role of the camel as a meat producer is becoming more important due to the versatile role it plays rather than The family include two subfamilies: Cameli- as a symbol of social prestige, which was the role it used to nae (Old World Camelids) and Laminae (New World play but which has since greatly diminished (Dawood & Camelids). There are two species of camel within the genus Alkanhal, 1995). The common opinion towards camel Camelus. The Dromedary one-humped camel (Camelus meat as tough, coarse, watery and sweetish in taste com- dromedaries) is most widely distributed in the hot arid pared to from other animals may be partly attributed areas of the and , whereas the Bacterian to the fact that camel meat is usually a by-product of prim- two-humped camel (Camelus bacterianus) is found in parts itive traditional systems of production where it is mainly of and China (Dorman, 1986). Four species of obtained from old males and females that have become less the New World camelids are found in South America: the effective in there primary roles of providing transportation, ( guanacoe) and the vicuna ( vicu- milk, or as breeding females (Morton, 1984; Wilson, 1998). gna) are wild, whereas the (Lama glama) and the However, limited evidence suggests that quality character- (Lama pacos) are domesticated (Murray, 1989; istics of camel meat are not greatly different from beef if Skidmore, 2005). The Llama and Alpaca are mainly used animals are slaughtered at comparable ages (Elgasim, El- for meat and fibre production. The camel originated in Hag, & Elnawawi, 1987; Khatami, 1970; Knoess, 1977; North America and was domesticated by secondary Tandon et al., 1988). nomads around 4000 years ago in South Arabia primarily A camel carcass can provide a substantial amount of for transport and labour rather than as a producer of meat, meat for human consumption with certain parts of the car- milk or clothing (Wilson, 1984). The dromedary is more cass such as the hump and considered a delicacy that numerous than the and represents almost is favoured in Middle Eastern markets. Although the mar- 90% of the genus Camelus. Generally, there has been rela- keting systems for camel meat are not well organised, there tively little differentiation into specialised types in the cam- is evidence of a high demand for fresh camel meat and for els (Wilson, 1998). Camels are multipurpose animals with camel meat to be used in blended meat products even females used primarily as milk producers, the males for among societies not herding camels (Morton, 1984; Pe´rez transport or draught and both sexes providing meat as ter- et al., 2000; Shalash, 1979a). Camel meat could be a cheap tiary product. The genetic diversity and relationships option to meet the growing needs for meat in developing amongst the dromedary populations are poorly docu- countries especially for low income population groups mented. Phylogenetic analysis (micro-satellite loci) showed (El-Mossalami, Awad, Ibrahim, & Diab, 1996; Saparov that dromedary breeds can be classified according to coun- & Annageldiyev, 2005). However, camels are generally tries (Mburu et al., 2003). This chapter mainly reviews find- raised in less developed countries and research for improv- ings on meat production from the dromedary (henceforth ing their reproductive and productive characteristics has referred to as the ‘‘camel”), and when reference is made been limited (Skidmore, 2005). Little work has been pub- to the Bactrian this will be noted. There have been some lished on growth and body composition of the camel. How- attempts for crossing between the dromedary and Bactrian ever, some information is available in reviews by Ulmer, camels resulting in weak non-fertile offspring. Recently a Herrmann, and Fischer (2004), Kurtu (2004), Wilson successful attempt was made to cross the dromedary with (1984), and Farah and Fischer (2004). This chapter the Llama (Skidmore, 2005). attempts to highlight characteristics of growth and devel- The dromedary camel is one of the most important opment of the camel for meat production with special domestic animals in the arid and semi arid regions as it is emphasis on meat composition, meat quality and its nutri- equipped to produce high quality food at comparatively tive value for human consumption. low costs under extremely harsh environments (Knoess, 1977; Yagil, 1982; Yousif & Babiker, 1989). The camel 2. Growth rate and live weight has great tolerance to high temperatures, high solar radia- tion and water scarcity. It can survive well on sandy terrain Growth in body weight is the basis of meat production with poor vegetation and may chiefly consume feeds unuti- in domestic animals. There are many factors that influence lized by other domestic species (Shalah, 1983). Tandon, growth rate including breed, nutrition, sex and health. Bissa, and Khanna (1988) noted that the camel is likely Heredity is the main factor determining prenatal growth, to produce animal protein at a comparatively low cost in either directly via the genotype of the foetus or indirectly the arid zones based on feeds and fodder that are generally through the genotype of the dam (Shalash, 1978). Prenatal not utilized by other domestic species due to either their patterns of growth and development of the camel foetus is size or food habits. similar to that of (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 limited extensive systems depending mainly on rangeland grazing due to long gestations, low calving rates and long milk rather than on feedlots. The limited work carried out on feeding periods, especially under traditional systems. After improving camel nutrition demonstrated significant rela- a gestation periods of 13 months, a camel female usually tionships between daily gain and daily intake of concen- bears a single , and rarely twins. The new born camel trates for dromedary camels. Camels fed a diet with high walks within hours of birth, but remains close to its mother dietary protein and energy gained more weight (550 g/d) sometimes until maturity at five years of age (Bhargava, than non-supplemented camels fed only on mangroves Sharma, & Singh, 1965). (260 g/d) (Kamoun, 1995). The average birth weight of the dromedary camels is Generally the growth curve for camels follows a pattern about 35 kg (Wilson, 1978), but it varies widely between more or less similar to that of other farm animal species. regions, breeds and within the same breed. Reports on The average daily weight gain of Bikaneri camels according camel birth weights range between 27 and 39 kg, which is to Tandon et al. (1988) in different age groups is presented comparable with that of tropical cattle breeds. For in Fig. 1. According to this information average daily instance, reports of birth weights include 26–28 kg for growth rate gradually increased from 400 g/d in the 0–1 Somali camels (Field, 1979; Ouda, 1995; Simpkin, 1983); year group to a maximum of 720 g/d in the 7–8 years group 27 kg for Tunisian camels (Hammadi et al., 2001) and then declined to 300 g/d by 10–11 years of age. However, 39 kg for Indian camels (Bissa, 1996). the growth rates given should be considered as maximum The influence of sex on birth weight of the dromedary values as a growth rate of 300 g/day will result in a weight camel appears to be minimal (Ouda, 1995). Males gain of over 100 kg per year, which does not match the (38.2 kg) were slightly but not significantly heavier than change in body weights shown in Fig. 1 at ages of six years females (37.2 kg) in the study of Yagil (1985). Harmas, or more. The graph resembles the specific growth pattern in Shareha, Biala, and Abu-Shawachi (1990) also reported other farm animals with an inflection point where growth average birth weights of 36 and 34 kg for male and females, rate is at a maximum at about one year of age. This pattern respectively with no significant differences between sexes. is affected by many factors such as weaning age, season, No differences in body weight between sexes were observed and nutrition. up to two years by Ouda, Abui, and Woie (1992) or up to Pre and post-weaning growth rates have significant four years of age by Simpkin (1983). effects on final weights of camels. The pre-weaning growth The age of dam has a significant effect on birth weights. rate of the camel calf is affected by milk quantity and the The means of birth weights were 30.83 ± 0.76 kg for camels system of management (Babiker & Tibin, 1989). Tribal at the age of 5–6 years, 35.82 ± 0.56 kg for animals at the camel in grew at a rate of 222 g/day to 6 age of 7–10 years, 36.26 ± 0.68 kg for animal at the age months of age in dry years and at a rate of 655 g/day in of 11–15 years, and 35.46 ± 0.72 kg for animal at the age wet years (Field, 1979). Post-weaning growth rate depends of 15 years or more in the study of Harmas et al. (1990). mainly on husbandry practices and conditions of the vege- The geographical location affects camel birth weights, tation (Babiker & Tibin, 1989). It is partially determined by possibly due to genetic differences or nutritional factors the availability of browse throughout the year according to such as the availability of natural grazing which is the Wilson (1998). major feed source under traditional systems. For example, There are varying estimates of camel live weight in the in , the birth weight of the camel calves varied from literature. It is obvious that the weight of camels depends 26.3 to 51.2 kg, with a mean of 37.3 kg (Bhargava et al., on age, sex, feeding condition and general health of the ani- 1965). In Tunisia and Kenya calves were smaller (Her- mal (El-Amin, 1979). Camels attain maturity compara- trampf, 2004), weighing an average of 25.8 and 30.9 kg, tively slowly as indicated by the average body weights of respectively (Burgemeister, 1975), whereas Sudanese cam- camels in different age groups (Fig. 2), which show that els had birth weights between 30 and 40 kg (El-Amin, camels reach a maximum live weight of about 650 kg at 1979). The weight of the newborn camels in ran- 7–8 years of age. The graph resembles the sigmoid-shaped ged between 30 and 40 kg under normal and healthy condi- growth curve of other farm animals and matches the pat- tion (Central Australia Camel Industry Association, 1997). tern in Fig. 1 with an inflection point at 7–8 year group. Daily growth rates for camels also vary widely between Although there are no marked sex differences in live regions, breeds and within the same breed. Hammadi et al. weight earlier in life, males get heavier than females at (2001) reported camel body weights of 27, 48, 65, and 79 kg older ages. Mature male camels were heavier than females at birth, 30, 60 and 90 days of age, respectively, which indi- by 38% in the study of Kurtu (2004). Wilson (1978) cates a daily growth rate of 580 g/day between birth and 90 reported higher body weights for mature males (448 kg) days of age. Bissa (1996) reported average body weights of than females (414 kg) (Table 1). 39, 119 and 171 kg at birth, 90, and 180 days, respectively, Breed and type affect camel live-weight. Most breeds at for Indian camels indicating a daily growth rate of 733 g/d maturity weigh 450–550 kg with the heavy camel breeds between birth and 180 days. These growth rate values are weighing up to 660 kg when mature and in good condition lower than those commonly reported for cattle, but it (Hertrampf, 2004; Williamson & Payne, 1978; Wilson, should be noted that camels are normally raised under 1984). Wilson (1984) provided estimates of live weights of 558 I.T. Kadim et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 555–569

700 800

600 700

600 500 /d)

500 g 400 400 300 300 Body Weight (kg) Growth Rate ( 200 200

100 100

0 0 ) ) ) ) (6) 2) 3 (15 13 8 0( 3 4(14) 5 7( - -9(6 1( -2 (15) - -- 5--6(8) - 7- 8- 1 0--1(18) - 3- 4 6- 9--1 - 1 2--3 (11) 0- 1 Age in year (camel number)

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 National Research Centre on Camel (Tandon et al., 1988). The growth rates shown are indicative of the maximum achievable. They would lead to body weights considerably 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 generally increases with increasing weight (Abouheif et al., 1986). camels in different countries with the lightest live weights in man camels ranged between 439 and 489 kg (Keikin, 1976). camels (350–400 kg) and the heaviest live- Nutritional history and body condition have significant weight (660 kg) in Indian camels. In Australia, the weights effects on live-weight. Live weights of mature well-finished of mature camels ranged from 514 to 645 kg for males and male desert Saudi camels ranged between 359 and 512 kg 470 to 510 kg for females. Iranian camels at an age of five with an average of 475 kg (Babiker & Yousif (1987). How- years were ranged in weight from 340 to 430 kg (Khatami, ever, there are reports of extremely high body weights in 1970). There are also reports of varying camel body camels. For instance Herrmann & Fisher (2004) reported weights within the same region. Live weight in 4300 Turk- a range of live weights between 530 and 800 kg for eight I.T. Kadim et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 555–569 559

Table 1 Carcass weight and dressing-out percentage in dromedary camels Number/breed and sex Carcass weight (kg) Dressing-out References Remarks percentage 21 Sudanese males 231.3 ± 49.18 51.4 ± 2.88 Wilson (1978) Sex effects 39 Sudanese females 196.3 ± 24.94 47.4 ± 325 227 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 effect 52 Males 200–288.5 51.1–67.2 Yousif and Babiker Full and empty body weight (1989) effect 52.5–74.2 21 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 effect Male 231.3 51.4 Wilson (1998) Sex effects Female 196.3 47.4 11 Najdi males 148.6 ± 9.1 to 153.5 ± 8.3 48.7 ± 0.8–49.2 ± 0.73 Al-Owaimer (2000) Nutrition effects Majaheem and Harrah 119.5–132.5 52.1–56.1 Al-Ani (2004, chap. 6) Breed effects 88 Somalian males and 12 170.01 ± 20.49 to 50.65 ± 3.7– Kurtu (2004) Sex effects females 252.27 ± 26.58 54.03 ± 5.13 8 Somali  Rurkana males 302.1–414.8 47.5–58.4 Herrman and Fischer Body weight effects (2004) 8 Males 283.2 53.7 ± 3.26 Hertrampf (2004) Sex and region effect 8 Females 251.1 50.7 ± 4.67 24 African 231.1 53.7 ± 2.8 8 Asian 393.7 62.1 ± 12.7

Somali  Turkana castrated male camels. They attributed ess, 1977; Tandon et al., 1988) depending on sex, body con- the high live weight to the general condition of the camels, dition and breed. Males have higher dressing-out which was ranked as a very good without any external percentages than females, which varies between 51% and injuries. 54% for Ethiopian camels (Kurtu, 2004). Wilson (1978) reported an average dressing-out percentage of 48% in 3. Carcass weight and dressing-out percentage Sudanese camels with it being higher for males (51%) than females (47%). Babiker & Yousif (1987) reported dressing- Camels are a good potential source of meat as they yield out percentages of 54.4% for cold carcasses and 55.9% for reasonably heavy carcasses under inexpensive management hot carcasses in Male Sudanese camels. Higher values were systems. A wide range of carcass weights have been reported for both sexes by Yousif & Babiker (1989), (57% reported for camels, with the variation apparently due to and 63.8% dressing-out percentages, respectively). condition, sex, breed and age at slaughter. Camel carcass Congiu (1953) reported a 56.1% dressing-out percentage weight, which generally ranges between 125 and 400 kg, for males and 54.1% for female Somali camels. In Austra- increases with increasing bodyweight (Fig. 2) as expected. lian camels, the dressing-out percentage was 53% for 4- The average carcass weight was 168 kg in the study of year-old male camels and 48% for 7-year-old females (Cen- Abouheif, Basmaeil, & Bakkar (1986), but was much tral Australia Camel Industry Association, 1997). Herrman higher at 300–400 kg in Iranian camels (Khatami, 1970). & Fischer (2004) reported an average 53.6% dressing-out In Kenya, the average camel carcass weight was 290 kg percentage for castrated 7–10 years old Somali  Turkana (Bremaud, 1969). Following the trend in camel live weight under the same environmental condition, Kurtu (2004) reported that the Table 2 weight of male camel carcasses was greater than that of Weights of the carcass (including the hump) and non-carcass components carcasses from females by 48%, while Wilson (1978) plus the same items expressed as a percentage of empty live weight or as reported an average of 209 kg for Sudanese camel carcass percentage of empty live-weight of the camel (Wilson, 1978) weights, with males (231 kg) being heavier than females Weight (kg) % of empty live weight (196 kg). Higher values of 240 and 232 kg carcass weights Mean Range Mean Range of male and female camels, respectively, were reported Carcass wt 208.5 ± 38.7 141.0–310.0 60.7 ± 2.09 55.75–65.11 for this breed by Yousif & Babiker (1989). Hump 4.0 ± 4.3 0.0–20.0 1.1 ± 1.04 0.00–4.45 Dressing out percentage is an important measure of Heart + lungs 8.4 ± 1.13 6.5–10.5 2.5 ± 0.33 1.78–3.36 yield in meat animals, but it varies due to factors such as Liver 7.5 ± 1.45 4.5–11.0 2.2 ± 0.41 1.47–3.45 age, weight, fatness, dressing procedures, and degree of Head (skinned) 12.1 ± 1.81 8.0–16.5 3.6 ± 0.32 2.80–4.49 gut fills at slaughter (Table 2). In the camel dressing-out Feet 14.6 ± 2.25 10.5–19.5 4.3 ± 0.37 3.31–5.16 Hide 34.8 ± 6.11 22.5–47.0 10.2 ± 0.81 8.5–11.76 percentage varies from 55% to 70% (Kamoun, 1995; Kno- 560 I.T. Kadim et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 555–569 camels in Kenya. Further examples of factors affecting of the animal may be responsible for any variations camel dressing-out percentage are given in Table 1. between different studies. The camel body contained an The weight of hump, which is mainly composed of fat, average of about 4.2% offal (liver, heart and lungs). The may account for 8.6% of the carcass weight (Kamoun, non-carcass included the head (3.5%) and the feet (3.6%) 1995), and can affect dressing-out percentage (Table 1). and hide (8.6%) (Yousif & Babiker, 1989). Large fat animals in that study had a dressing-out percent- Al-Ani (2004, chap. 6) reported that camels had pro- age of 58% whereas relatively thin camels had a dressing- portionately heavier and lighter digestive tracts out percentage of 48%. The differences in dressing-out per- and head than cattle or sheep or . The larger kid- centage in the previous study may have been due to varia- ney, which was twice that of cattle and four times that tion body weight and fatness because the animals were fed of sheep, was possibly due to adaptation of the camel different quantity and quality rations. Although age has a to arid desert life. Camel kidneys have been estimated significant effect on carcass components with advantages to be up to 850 cc (Abdalla & Abdalla, 1979). Table 3 to slaughter camels at an early age, Abouheif, Basmaeil, shows the significant increase in body measurements with & Bakkar (1990a) found no significant differences in dress- increasing body weight that were observed by Abouheif ing-out percentages in 21 Najdi male camels slaughtered at et al. (1986). 8, 16 and 26 months of age. Dressing-out percentage values Yousif & Babiker (1989) found positive correlations in the camel are comparable to those reported for tropical between heart girth and liveweight (r = 0.67, P < 0.001). cattle (Mahgoub, Olvey, & Jeffrey, 1995a, 1995b) with the The depth of the camel hump was significantly correlated dromedary having a tendency for higher dressing-out per- with carcass fat and the hump fat weight had a high posi- centage than other cattle (Al-Ani, 2004, chap. 6). tive correlation (r = 0.97, P < 0.001) with carcass fat. The correlations of carcass weight and body measurements on 4. Non-carcass components 227 Najdi camels were higher than body weight and their measurements (Abouheif et al., 1986). They concluded that There is little data available on non-carcass components correlations of body weight and carcass weight with chest of the camel. Proportions of live weight as feet and hide are girth, hump girth, and hip girth were the highest amongst higher for the camel than for cattle, but the head is propor- all those studied (Table 4). tionately lower than cattle (Mahgoub et al., 1995a, Mah- goub, Olvey, & Jeffrey, 1995b). The latter difference is 5. Carcass composition most likely due to lack of horns in the camel. The head, hide and feet contributed 2.4%, 7.3% and 3.4% of live There is no standard cutting system for camel carcasses weight in the dromedary camels evaluated by Herrman & as there are for other meat animal species. Abouheif et al. Fischer (2004). Proportions of offal (edible non-carcass (1990a) divided the carcass side into forequarter and hind- components) are high in the camel (Table 2) and therefore, quarter by cutting between the 11th and 12th ribs. The they represent a very useful protein source in arid areas forequarter is usually divided into five wholesale cuts where the camel is mainly kept for meat. The relative pro- (neck, shoulder, brisket, rib and plate), while the hindquar- portions of body components indicated that the heaviest ter into three wholesale cuts (loin, flank, and leg). Fig. 3 component was the hide followed by intestines while the shows the general cutting procedures for eight wholesale lightest organ was the spleen followed by reproductive cuts. However, Herrmann & Fisher (2004) and Kamoun organs (Yousif & Babiker (1989). The liver weight was (2005) proposed a different method that gave the propor- lighter than values for Somali camel livers reported by tions of different cuts that are presented in Table 6 together Congiu (1953). The weights of head, liver, feet, hide and with those from a second study. The values from the two gut fill agreed with values reported by Wilson (1978) for studies are very similar. The largest cut of the carcass using the dromedary. Breed differences and the nutritional state this cutting procedure is the leg followed by the shoulder.

Table 3 Means ± SE of various body measurements for eight groups of Najdi male camels (Abouheif et al., 1986) Camel body wt (kg) Number Dimension (cm) Neck length Arm length Body length Leg length Chest girth Hump girth Hip girth 136–185 32 72.5 ± 1.3 33.5 ± 0.3 108.8 ± 0.8 39.5 ± 0.6 113.2 ± 1.2 134.9 ± 1.3 91.1 ± 0.9 186–235 50 76.5 ± 0.8 35.8 ± 0.5 116.8 ± 0.8 40.8 ± 0.4 122.3 ± 0.9 153.8 ± 1.1 99.0 ± 0.8 236–285 35 83.3 ± 1.1 38.8 ± 0.4 126.9 ± 1.3 43.1 ± 0.5 134.1 ± 1.0 167.7 ± 1.3 108.0 ± 0.9 286–335 33 94.9 ± 1.1 42.2 ± 0.6 137.4 ± 1.2 43.9 ± 0.6 144.4 ± 0.9 180.9 ± 1.2 116.8 ± 1.0 336–385 32 99.6 ± 1.3 44.1 ± 0.4 144.4 ± 1.4 46.3 ± 0.6 149.5 ± 1.3 188.9 ± 1.1 122.6 ± 0.9 386–435 19 105.6 ± 2.0 46.3 ± 0.5 151.8 ± 1.7 49.4 ± 1.0 158.1 ± 1.8 197.5 ± 2.2 127.9 ± 1.2 436–485 12 113.2 ± 2.2 48.9 ± 0.6 159.8 ± 3.0 46.3 ± 0.9 165.8 ± 2.6 209.0 ± 3.5 134.9 ± 1.4 486–535 14 116.9 ± 1.2 48.4 ± 0.7 169.5 ± 2.7 50.6 ± 1.0 176.4 ± 2.5 214.9 ± 3.1 138.2 ± 1.2 Average 227 89.3 ± 1.0 40.1 ± 0.4 132.1 ± 1.3 43.8 ± 0.3 138.3 ± 1.3 169.4 ± 1.6 111.2 ± 1.0 I.T. Kadim et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 555–569 561

Table 4 Table 5 Coefficients of correlationa between body weight, carcass weight and body Non-carcass components of dromedary camels over seven years old measurements (Abouheif et al., 1986) (Kurtu, 2004) Character BW CW NL AL BL LL CG HG Male (n = 88) ± SE Female (n = 12) ± SE Body weight (BW) Mean Range Mean Range Carcass weight 0.91 Live wt (kg) 465 ± 63.85 402–530 335.7 ± 42.2 293–378 (CW) Shoulder height 2.0 ± 0.13 1.8–2.23 1.6 ± 0.05 1.6–1.7 Neck length (NL) 0.82 0.89 (m) Arm length (AL) 0.81 0.86 0.86 Hump girth (m) 2.3 ± 0.15 2.0–2.50 2.2 ± 0.19 1.8–2.2 Body length (BL) 0.89 0.94 0.89 0.87 Thoracic girth (m) 2.1 ± 0.14 1.9–2.35 1.9 ± 0.02 1.9–1.9 Leg length (LL) 0.58 0.69 0.66 0.70 0.69 Neck wt (kg) 13.5 ± 3.51 10–17 10.3 ± 3.0 7.4–13.3 Chest girth (CG) 0.91 0.94 0.89 0.86 0.92 0.67 Hump wt (kg) 33.5 ± 7.74 25.8– 19.8 ± 5.8 14.0– Hump girth (HG) 0.90 0.95 0.85 0.82 0.92 0.95 0.93 41.36 25.0 Hip 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 significantly different (P < 0.01). The higher proportions of fat in the forequarter are mainly attributed to the hump fat. The hump fat accounted for 9% The forequarter is larger than the hindquarter with the of the carcass weight. The back and the leg contained latter being about two thirds of the former (Table 5). This 77.6% and 74.1% of muscle, respectively. is mainly due to the presence of the hump which comprises Males have higher forequarter:hindquarter ratios about 1–5% of live weight. Kurtu (2004) reported similar mainly due to higher proportions of neck and hump (Table figures for male and female camels (Table 6). Excluding 6). The forequarter:hindquarter ratio was 1.61% for males the hump (4.6%), the forequarter contributed 23.8% and 1.27% for females. Although, intact males during the whereas the hindquarter contributed 21.3% of live weight mating season stop growing and may even lose weight, in Somali  Turkana camels (Herrmann & Fisher, 2004). males are known to have more developed heads, necks In the same study, the forequarter, hind quarter, neck and shoulders; a necessary characteristic for competing and hump constituted 44.3%, 39.7%, 7.1% and 8.6% of males during the breeding season. the carcass. The forequarter, hindquarter, Longissimus An important characteristic of camel meat is its low fat dorsi muscle, neck and hump constitute the major edible content compared to many other meat species. However, parts of the carcass. The neck, being long, and usually sep- there are some reports of higher fat contents in camel car- arated from the carcass in the camel, contributed about 4% casses apparently depending on the feeding system. of live weight in the camel (Herrmann & Fisher, 2004). Kamoun (1995) reported that 269 kg dromedary male Abouheif, Basmaeil, & Bakkar (1990b) studied the lean% camel carcasses contained 57% muscle, 25.5% bone and in fore- and hind-quarters and in nine wholesale cuts of 16.9% fat. Wilson (1998) reported a proportion of 57% eight Najdi male camels slaughtered at three different ages muscle, 25.5% bone and 16.9% fat in average camel car- (8, 16 and 26 months) (Table 7). Carcass components are casses. The proportion of muscle in Sudanese camels was unevenly distributed within the carcass between the hind 56%, with 19% bone, and 13.7% fat, with a muscle:bone and fore quarters. Muscle, bone and fat components were ratio of 3.0 (Yousif & Babiker, 1989).The fact that camel 59.3%, 4.5% and 36.2% in the fore half and 66.5%, 14.9% meat contains less inter and intramuscular fat than other and 17.3% in the hind half, respectively (Kamoun, 1995). meat animals may be used in marketing strategies of camel

Fig. 3. A side of carcass showing the general position of the cuts using dotted lines. 562 I.T. Kadim et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 555–569

Table 6 Examples 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 Wilson (1978) (2004) Live weight (kg) 465 ± 63.85 (M) 530–800 426.2 ± 65.74 335.7 ± 42.2 (F) Carcass weight 309.7–414.8 208.5 ± 38.78 (kg) Hindquarter 47.3 ± 12.01 (M) 131.0–149.3 84.5 ± 14.53 36.0 ± 10.3 (F) Forequarter 76.0 ± 11.86 (M) 123.4–196.8 120.2 ± 22.21 45.9 ± 8.9 (F) Neck 13.5 ± 3.51 (M) 55.3–63.6 ± 3.1 8 22.0–25.0 10.3 ± 3.0 (F) Shoulder 57.7–62.5 ± 3.0 22 Brisket 47.6–62.9 ± 2.9 12 Rib 36.4–46.8 ± 3.4 8 Plate 35.2–50.0 ± 1.8 Loin 44.1–47.7 ± 1.6 9 Rump Flank 5 Leg 25 Remarks 7 years old Age effects 8–26 months Values as % of Eight dromedaries 60 Sudanese (18 animals) carcass dromedaries 88 male (M) and 12 Values % of the side females (F)

Table 7 1964). Sex is an important factor in determining carcass Muscle as a percentage of total muscle in different cuts from the camel yield in the camel. The total meat weight from male camels carcass (Elgasim & El-Hag, 1992) was higher than from females by 53% (Kurtu, 2004). As in Part of the body Mean (%) Range other farm animal species, females are fatter than males Hind legs 28 27–29 especially at older ages. Congiu (1953) reported 8.8% and Fore legs 22 21–23 20.5% carcass fat for male and female 10–12-year old Ribs and backbone 30 30–32 Somali camels. Neck 8 8 Hump fat 8 5–10 Other fat and tissue 4 3–4 6. Meat composition

Camel meat varies in composition according to breed meat (Dawood & Alkanhal, 1995). However, the intramus- type, age, sex, condition and site on the carcass. Water con- cular fat content of muscle is of some importance because it tent differs only slightly between species, while differences enhances the palatability traits such as flavor, juiciness and in fat content are more marked (Sales, 1995). Camel . contains 70–77% moisture (Al-Owaimer, 2000; Al-Sheddy, The proportion of muscle in the camel carcass is compa- Al-Dagal, & Bazaraa, 1999; Dawood & Alkanhal, 1995; rable to that of cattle (Babiker, 1984; Mahgoub et al., Kadim et al., 2006). These levels are higher than those in 1995a, 1995b; Preston & Willis, 1975) whereas carcass bone meat of other farm animal species (Table 8). It is also a is higher and therefore the muscle to bone ratio is lower for good source of protein containing about 20–23% (Al-Owai- camels (Babiker, 1984). This may be possibly attributed to mer, 2000; Kadim et al., 2006; Kilgour, 1986). This level is increased bone length. The muscle:bone ratio was 3.0 in similar to those in other farm animals, but lower than that Sudanese camels (Yousif & Babiker, 1989). Muscle distri- in the Llama (Table 8). These protein contents are similar bution varied according to the anatomical site on the car- to values reported by Dawood & Alkanhal (1995), but cass (Table 7). The highest proportions of muscle in the are lower than values reported by Elgasim & Alkanhal carcass were in the ribs and backbone, hind legs, fore legs (1992). This level of protein in camel meat makes it a good and the neck. source of high quality protein in arid and semi-arid regions. Age, sex, breed and the nutritional state influence body Chemical intramuscular fat levels in camel meat vary composition in the camel. Age has a significant effect on greatly. Al-Owaimer (2000) reported a value of 5.2% for carcass components with distinct advantages in slaughter- camel Longissimus dorsi. Kadim et al. (2006) reported a ing camels at an early age. Muscle content was highest mean chemical fat of 6.4% for camel Longissimus dorsi, for 2-year-old castrated camels. Hump fat represented which is comparable to the 7% reported by Dawood & 1.9% of the dressed carcass of the 24 month old and Alkanhal (1995). Shalash (1988), El-Faer, Rawdah, Attar, 5.19% of the carcass of 44-month-old camel (Kulaeva, & Dawson (1991), & Elgasim & Alkanhal (1992) reported I.T. Kadim et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 555–569 563

Table 8 increasing age while ash remained the same (Table 9). Comparison of camel meat with meat from other species These findings are in line with other reports for camel. In Species Moisture Protein Fat Ash Muscle general, meat from young camels (below 5 years) has less (%) (%) (%) (%) protein, fat and ash but higher moisture than older camels Camela 71.0 21.4 4.4 1.1 Longissimus (Yagil, 1982). Naser, El-Bahay, & Moursy (1965) studied Llama b 73.9 23.1 0.51 2.43 Longissimus c the effects of age, sex and location on camel meat compo- Alpaca 73.6 23.3 0.49 2.5 Longissimus sition. They reported average contents of protein, mois- Beefd 71.5 21.5 5.5 0.9 Longissimus Sheepe 68.9 21.0 8.5 1.2 Longissimus ture, fat and ash of 20.1%, 78.3%, 0.92% and 0.76%, Goatf 76.5 20.8 1.6 0.87 Longissimus respectively, in camels below 5 years. Camels at 5 years Broilerg 75.5 22.4 1.5 0.6 Pectoralis major or above had values of 22.0%, 76.2%, 1.01% and 0.86%, Duckh 76.8 21.0 1.68 1.0 Pectoralis major i respectively. Kamoun (1995) reported 77.7% moisture, Turkey 73.5 22.2 0.3 1.4 Pectoralis major 18.7% protein, 1.0% ash and 2.6% fat in camel meat. He a Kadim et al. (2006). b,c stated that after 3 years, intramuscular fat in the hump Cristofaneli et al. (2004). makes meat rich in fat resulting in (Kamoun, d Mills et al. (1992). e Sen et al. (2004). 1995). f Marinova et al. (2001). There are differences in the chemical composition of g Castellini et al. (2002). camel meat from various parts of the body (Shalash, h Baeza et al. (2002). i 1979a). Fat% is commonly higher in the than in Rosenvold et al. (2001). the thigh. Comparison between three different muscles of camel (Longissimus, Semitendinosus and Triceps brachii), slightly higher values, whereas Babiker & Yousif (1990) & revealed similarity in protein, moisture and fat content, Cristofaneli et al. (2004) reported lower values (0.50– but differences in ash content (Babiker & Yousif, 1990). 1.43%). However, the maximum value recorded for fat in Chemical composition of camel meat varied between the the study of Kadim et al. (2006) (10.5%) for camel between shoulder, topside and loin (Herrman & Fischer, 2004). 5 and 8 year-old, while 4.4% for 1–3 year-old, indicates that The shoulder and topside had the highest protein content the fat content of camel meat may increase with age. Ash (77–78%) and lowest fat (1.1%) whereas the loin had the content in camel meat, which ranges between 1.1% and lowest protein (73%) and highest fat content (6.6%). 1.5% (Al-Owaimer, 2000; Kadim et al., 2006), is within the The macro- and microelements contents reported by range of values reported for other farm animals (Table 8). Kadim et al. (2006) for the dromedary camel meat (Table Age has a significant effect on camel meat composition. 9) are within the range reported for camel meat elsewhere Kadim et al. (2006) reported that the chemical composition (El-Faer et al., 1991; Elgasim & Alkanhal, 1992). They of Longissimus dorsi muscle from three age groups of are also comparable to other red meats (beef, , and dromedary (Table 9) was comparable to that reported for lamb) (Greenfield, Kuo, Hutchison, & Wills, 1987; Elgasim the muscle from 5-year old dromedary camels (Hammam, & Alkanhal, 1992). Camel meat like other red meats con- Hidik, Sherif, & Yousef, 1962). The general trend was that tains high levels of potassium followed by phosphorus, moisture and protein decreased and fat increased with sodium, magnesium and calcium, respectively, plus smaller percentages of other elements. Similar findings were Table 9 reported by Dawood & Alkanhal (1995) & El-Faer et al. Effect of age on Longissimus dorsi muscle composition of 21 dromedary (1991) for Saudi one-humped camels. The mineral and vita- camels (seven per group) (Kadim et al., 2006) min content of muscles from camel shoulder (mg/100 g) Component Age (year) were: 6.5 calcium, 23.6 magnesium, 293 potassium, 58.2 1–3 3–5 5–8 sodium, 3.4 zinc, 2.1 , 0.2 copper, 0.12 thiamin, 0.18 Moisture (%) 71.7 71.0 70.3 riboflavin, 0.25 pyridoxine, and 0.61 a-tocopherol (Ulmer Protein (%) 22.7 20.9 20.5 et al., 2004). Calcium content of camel meat is higher than Fat (%) 4.4 7.0 8.3 that of beef which may partly explain the tight structure of Ash (%) 1.1 1.1 1.1 some cuts of camel meat. As for other species, mineral con- Calcium (mg/100 g) 13.7 18.6 29.6 tent of camel meat varied widely most probably because of Magnesium (mg/100 g) 36.8 41.4 43.6 Sodium (mg/100 g) 142 165 163 differences in sampling methods, sites in the carcass (Elga- Potassium (mg/100 g) 704 787 833 sim & Alkanhal, 1992) or to a wide variability between Phosphorus (mg/100 g) 373 437 499 individual animals. However, yet these may still reflect gen- Cadmium (mg/100 g) 0.012 0.013 0.015 uine species differences. Mineral and vitamin contents of Chromium (mg/100 g) 0.036 0.051 0.067 the camel meat varied according to the anatomical site Nickel (mg/100 g) 0.073 0.101 0.123 Lead (mg/100 g) 0.066 0.114 0.138 on the carcass according to the study off Herrmann & Cobalt (mg/100 g) 0.010 0.012 0.014 Fisher (2004). Molybdenum (mg/100 g) 0.102 0.126 0.144 The amino acid and inorganic mineral contents of camel Beryllium (mg/100 g) 0.012 0.019 0.024 meat are high compared to beef due to the lower levels of Vanadium (mg/100 g) 0.072 0.090 0.110 fat content in the meat of the dromedary (Alkanhal, 564 I.T. Kadim et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 555–569

1994; Elgasim et al., 1987; Kadim & Mahgoub, 2006; at 1–3 years of age is relatively rich in PUFA (18.6%) and Kurtu, 2004). its fat content (1.2–1.8%) is significantly low compared The edible meat tissue from camels also contains less with beef (4.0–8.0%) (Rawdah et al., 1994). cholesterol than beef or lamb (Table 10), which suggests Camel meat has a relatively low content of histidine, that camel meat is healthier, but measures of cholesterol tryptophane, valine, leucine and isoleucine; otherwise it is in comparable samples within the same laboratory are similar to that of lamb except for lower lysine content required to confirm this. The range of cholesterol values (Table 11), although it should be noted that these compar- that are available for meat is wide and often affected by die- isons were not made within the same laboratory. The tary factors, age, sex and analytical method used (Abu- amino acid composition of camel meat did not differ signif- Tarboush & Dawood, 1993; Kunsman, Collins, Field, & icantly by either type of cut or slaughter age (Dawood & Miller, 1981). Low levels of saturated fat in the diet are Alkanhal, 1995). According to Rice (1978) the amino acids important for avoiding atherosclerosis because of their content of meat protein is quite constant, regardless of the effect on plasma cholesterol levels (Stamler & Lilien Field, species or the type of cut from which the meat is obtained. 1970), and low intakes of saturated fatty acids and choles- The most abundant essential amino acids in camel meat terol are important for the control of obesity, and hyper- and other meats are lysine, leucine and arginine (Table cholesterolemia, and to decrease the risk of cancer 11). The tryptophane concentration was low in camel meat (Chizzolini, Zanardi, Dorigoni, & Ghidini, 1999). Health compared with values for other meats shown in Table 11. organizations recommended reductions in total fat intake, particularly saturated fatty acids and at the same time 7. Meat quality increasing the consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids. Recent research in this domain has focused on the nutri- Camel meat quality characteristics in general, are com- tional relevance of the n À 6/n À 3 polyunsaturated fatty parable to those of beef (Fischer, 1975; Kadim et al., acid ratio and conjugated linoleic acid in the human diet, 2006; Knoess, 1977; Leupold, 1968; Mukasa-Mugerwa, both of which are considered beneficial to human health, 1981; Shariatmadari & Kadivar, 2006a, 2006b). Camel due to anticarcinogenic, antiatherogenic and immune-mod- (2–4 year) and beef (2–3 year) longissimus muscle had ulating properties (Mulvihill, 2001). This renders the camel 6.98 and 6.45 shear value, 1.89 and 1.83 lm sarcomeres meat with its low fat and cholesterol content a healthy length, 21.3 and 34.79 cm2/g expressed juice, 31.69 and food. The monounsaturated fatty acids in camel meat 33.58L*, 16.18 and 18.19a* and 7.26 and 6.40b*, respec- account for almost one-third of the total fatty acids and tively (Kadim & Mahgoub, 2006). Camel meat is described are dominated by oleic (C18:1) followed by palmitoleic as raspberry red to dark brown in colour with a sweet taste (C16:1) acids (Rawdah, El-Faer, & Koreish, 1994). Ten dif- ferent polyunsaturated fatty acids have been identified in Table 11 camel meat. Linoleic acid (C18:2) is the principal polyun- Amino acid composition (g/16 g N) of meat from different species saturated fatty acid, accounting for two-thirds of the total, Species followed by arachidonic acid (C20:4). The ratio of the poly- a b c d e unsaturated fatty acids to saturated fatty acids (the P/S Camel buffalo Harp seal Beef Chicken ratio) was reported by Sinclair, Slattery, & O’Dea (1982) Essential amino acids to be 0.36 as compared with 0.22, 0.26 and 0.36 in beef, Lysine 8.45 9.7 8.72 9.12 8.96 Threnonine 4.4 4.75 4.53 4.64 4.16 mutton and meat, respectively. The percentage of Valine 5.16 4.51 5.8 5.28 4.8 polyunsaturated fatty acids in camel meat (18.6%) is within Methionine 2.41 4.51 1.64 2.72 2.40 the range reported for beef (8.8%) and buffalo (28.6%) and Isoleucine 5.23 1.31 4.58 5.12 4.64 (31.4%) (Sinclair et al., 1982). The ratio of linoleic acid Leucine 8.41 7.24 7.44 8.00 7.52 metabolites to linolenic acid metabolites in camel meat is Phenylalanine 4.24 4.23 4.57 4.48 4.48 Histidine 4.33 3.33 5.01 3.20 3.04 about 10.9 which is much higher than the ratio for cattle, sheep and goat (2.0, 2.4 and 2.8, respectively) (Sinclair Non-essential amino acids et al., 1982). Camel biceps femoris muscle from seven male Arginine 7.38 1.42 6.21 6.72 6.24 Aspartic acid 9.09 7.62 8.23 9.60 9.12 Serine 3.63 3.30 3.98 4.48 4.00 Glutamic acid 16.91 12.51 11.5 17.28 16.48 Table 10 Proline 5.39 3.60 3.89 5.12 4.16 Cholesterol content (mg/100 g edible portion) of meat from different species Glycine 5.95 4.50 4.47 5.60 4.82 Tyrosine 3.23 3.19 2.85 3.84 3.52 Species Cholesterol (mg/100 g) Reference Alanine 6.25 3.24 5.88 6.40 5.76 Camel 50 El-Magoli et al. (1973) Cystine 1.27 0.87 1.28 1.28 Kangaroo 56 Sinclair et al. (1982) Tryptophane 0.60 1.20 1.28 1.12 Harp seal 99 Shahidi and Synowiecki (1993) a Dawood and Alkanhal (1995). Ostrich 62 Sales (1996) b Ziauddin et al. (1994). Beef 59 Holland et al. (1991) c Shahidi and Synowiecki (1993). Chicken 57 Holland et al. (1991) d,e Paul and Southgate (1978). I.T. Kadim et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 555–569 565 due to the high glycogen content. The fat of the camel meat also shown that shear values increase with increasing animal is white (Leupold, 1968). Camel meat had a significantly age (Asghar & Pearson, 1980; Miller, Cross, & Crouse, 1987; lower level of sarcoplasmic proteins as a proportion of Purchas, Hartely, Yan, & Grant, 1997). Differences due to total proteins than beef in the study of Babiker & Tibin age may be related to changes in muscle structure and com- (1986). An increase in meat toughness and a reduction in position as animals mature, particularly in the connective tis- the palatability and quality are reported with increasing sue (Asghar & Pearson, 1980), This suggests that the increase age (Dahl & Hjort, 1979; El-Amin, 1979; Kadim et al., in shear force of older camels may be due to the nature and 2006). Results in Table 12 suggest that the optimum age quantity of connective tissue in the meat. for slaughtering camels is between one and three year of Meat from 6–8 years old camels was darker (lower L*) age (Kadim et al., 2006). and redder (higher a*) than that of 1–3 years camels in The ultimate pH of muscle is a major determinant of the study of Kadim et al. (2006), probably because of meat quality and is largely determined by the depletion higher concentrations of myoglobin.. Other factors affect- of glycogen and accumulation of lactic acid pre- and ing meat color include muscle fiber type, ultimate pH, post-slaughter. The range of the ultimate pH values of and cooling rate (Abril et al., 2001; Faustman & Cassens, dromedary camel meat ranged between 5.7 and 6.0 1990). Post-mortem protein degradation increases light (Al-Sheddy et al., 1999; Cristofaneli, Antonini, Torres, scattering properties of meat and thereby increase L*, a* Polidori, & Renieri, 2004; Kadim et al., 2006). Generally, and b* values (Offer, 1991). young animals tend to produce meat with a higher pH than Expressed juice is an important meat quality character- older animals due to lower levels of glycogen (Kannan, istic because of its influence on nutritional value, appear- Kouakou, Terrill, & Gelaye, 2003). The ultimate pH of ance and palatability. Kadim et al. (2006) reported that meat is influenced by many factors including pre-slaughter meat from camels slaughtered at 1–3 years had higher handling, post mortem treatments and muscle physiology expressed juice values than those slaughtered at 6–8 years (Marsh, 1977; Thompson, 2002), with low muscle glycogen of age, probably due to variations in fat content and bind- stores at slaughter preventing the development of a ing ability of meat. Miller, Staffle, & Zirkle (1968) showed desirable pH post mortem (Ashmore et al., 1973). that water-holding capacity decreased as fat levels Tenderness of meat is rated as the most important qual- increased due to an increase in the ratio of moisture to pro- ity attribute by the average consumer and appears to be tein. Similarly, Dawood (1995) reported that young camel sought at the expense of flavor or color (Lawrie, 1979). meat (8 month of age) had significantly higher expressed The amount of alkali-insoluble protein, the shear value juice than the meat from 26 month-old camels. The drom- and the diameter of the fibers are inversely proportional edary camel meat contains higher expressed juice than to the tenderness of the meat. The most marked difference other camelidae such as the llama and alpaca probably in meat quality characteristics between camel meat and because of the lower fat content (Cristofaneli et al., other is believed to be tenderness. Camels are usu- 2004). The volume of dromedary camel meat was reduced ally slaughtered at the end of their productive life (>10 by 44.3% and weight by 48.2% after boiling in water for years) which is the reason that camel meat is classified as 40 min (Kamoun, 1995). The drip loss of 18 camel meat a low quality meat. In Kenya, the average age for camels samples stored for 10 weeks at À20 °C ranged from 8.2% slaughtered was 14.5 years (Mukasa-Mugerwa, 1981). to 12.3% of the original weight of the meat (Dawood, Average shear force value of camel meat at 6–8 years was 1995). The amount of loss is probably related ultimate 48% and 40% higher than those of 1–3 and 3–5 years old, pH of the muscle, to the composition of muscle and to respectively (Kadim et al., 2006). A number of studies have the denaturation of proteins by the ionic strength of the extracellular fluid, and to oxidation of lipids which Table 12 decreases the solubility of proteins (Dyer & Dingle, 1967). Effect of age on some meat quality characteristics of the dromedary camel M. Longissimus thoracis (Kadim et al., 2006) 8. Nutritive value Age group (year) Significanta 1–3 3–5 5–8 Methods of improving the intake of nutrients is espe- Ultimate pH 5.91 5.84 5.71 * cially important in developing countries, and in this respect WB-Shear force value (N) 68.4 79.5 131.9 * the high content of protein and other nutrients in camel Sarcomere length (lm) 1.85 1.24 1.06 * meat means that it could provide a valuable complement Myofibrillar fragmentation index 80.99 73.3 60.4 * to low-protein diets particularly for vulnerable groups like (%) children and pregnant woman. The nutrient content of Expressed juice (cm2/g) 29.6 27.36 21.26 * Cooking loss (%) 26.06 23.72 22.42 * camel meat can be affected by age, sex, carcass weight, fat- Colour parameters ness, packaging and storage conditions, and time (Dawood L* (lightness 37.74 34.03 31.69 * & Alkanhal, 1995; Schweigert, 1987). a* (redness 13.37 13.82 16.18 * The concentrations of amino acids and inorganic miner- * b (yellowness) 6.09 6.78 7.26 NS als of camel meat are higher, with less fat and higher mois- a * P < 0.05, NS, not significant. ture content than in many beef products. The 566 I.T. Kadim et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 555–569 monounsaturated fatty acids in camel meat account for keep meat or meat products fresh for longer periods of time almost one-third of the total fatty acids and dominated in the tropics. One important technological problem in the by oleic followed by palmitoleic acid (Rawdah et al., processing of camel meat products results from the poor 1994). The ratio of the polyunsaturated chains to the satu- emulsifiability of camel fat. The production and storage rated ones is 0.36 as compared with 0.22, 0.26 and 0.36 in of meat products from camel meat utilizes basic technical beef, mutton and , respectively (Sinclair et al., facilities (Ulmer et al., 2004). 1982). The percentage of polyunsaturated fatty acids in Seasonal variations in climate should be taken into camel meat (18.6%) falls between those reported for the account in the manufacture of dried products. Drying of meat of beef (8.8%) and buffalo (28.6%) and deer (31.4%) camel meat is usually done by putting the meat on simple (Sinclair et al., 1982). The ratio of linoleic acid metabolites wire gratings in shady places in open air. The meat is usu- to linolenic acid metabolites in camel meat is about 10.9 ally cut into strips, then dry-slated or rubbed with a paste and this is much higher than the ratio found in the meat of spices and dried in the sun on straw mats. Dried prod- of cattle, sheep and goat (2.0, 2.4 and 2.8, respectively) ucts are frequently smoked over a fireplace, to improve (Sinclair et al., 1982). Moreover, camel meat is believed their flavor and microbiological stability. If the products by Somali and Indian people to have remedial effects for are not packaged, they must be stored in dry well aired as many as 13 different diseases, including hyperacidity, conditions. If the products are packaged, this must take hypertension, pneumonia and respiratory diseases and also place in vacuum-packed bags or in air-permeable handle- to be an aphrodisiac (Kurtu, 2004). Further research is protection packages. Sometimes the meat is then preserved needed to substantiate or disprove these beliefs. by putting the dried strips in clarified fat (Hartley, 1979). In climatic zones with high relative humidity, how- 9. Meat processing ever, it is not possible to dry meat in this way. Solar dryers or special drying chambers in which the relative humidity Processing of camel meat such drying, curing and smok- and temperature can be regulated are required (Salman, ing have taken place in Arabia for many years. Zegeye 2005). (1999) suggested that the acceptability of camel meat prod- Dry-salting process of the meat takes several days, since ucts increases with an increase in the duration of smoking, large pieces of meat are used. After the dry-salting, the and cooking, indicating that such products should meat is pressed for several days to remove water and give be fully processed to gain acceptability. Recently Austra- it an attractive shape. During the subsequent drying pro- lian processed camel meat has been accepted as an interna- cess, which usually takes place in the shade and involves tional traded meat product. It is now exported to Saudi air-drying, the pieces of meat are pressed again. The dried Arabia, throughout Asia, Canada, United States and Eur- muscle meat is then coated with a paste made from water, ope. Camel is available in carcass form or as fresh or frozen slat, garlic, fenugreek seeds, paprika and mustard, and vacuum-packed cuts. A product, from which dried again. The high protein content provides good caloric sufficient water has been removed by drying to make it value and is cheaper than sausages made from other meat. microbiologically stable without refrigeration, is also avail- Minced camel meat provides an excellent basis for vari- able (Ulmer et al., 2004). ous manufactured and cured forms of meat such as sau- Recently, more attention has been paid to the nutri- sages and pastrima. Sausages can form a highly tional value of camel meat, with the aim of creating addi- acceptable cooked camel meat and it has highly desirable tional value for various camel meat products (Ulmer features as a component. The prepared camel sau- et al., 2004). Thermal processing, curing and smoking are sage is similar in chemical composition to that of beef (Sha- the three most common methods used for camel meat pres- lash, 1979b). Advanced technology was used by Mansour ervation and processing (Kalalou, Faid, & Ahami, 2004; & Ahmed (2000) to process burger and sausages from Zegeye, 1999). As consumers may have different reactions camel meat. The products showed similar chemical compo- to products, overall acceptance must be determined by sen- sition to beef processed products, but the camel products sory evaluation. The acceptability of camel meat products were higher in moisture (73.6%) and ash (4.13%). The sen- increases with an increase in the duration of processing sory evaluation tests indicated that the camel burger gained (smoking, frying and cooking) indicating that the products higher scores in overall acceptability than the other prod- should be fully processed to gain maximum acceptability ucts. The authors concluded that the processing of camel (Mansour & Ahmed (2000). Generally, consumers are prej- meat increased the tenderness, taste and palatability of udiced against camel fresh unprocessed meat. If camel meat the products. Camel meat can be processed in similar ways could be converted into processed meat products such as to beef, producing similar products with similar burgers and sausages, it might be more acceptable to acceptability. domestics’ consumers. The range of traditional camel meat products is limited, 10. Conclusion and is characterized mainly by dried meat products, made by crude methods. Because of the climatic conditions and Camels are good potential meat producers especially in lack of cold storage facilities, it is virtually impossible to arid regions where other meat-producing animals do not I.T. Kadim et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 555–569 567 thrive. They grow well and yield carcasses of a comparable Babiker, S. A., & Yousif, K. H. (1990). Chemical composition and quality weight to beef cattle if optimal management conditions are of camel meat. Meat Science, 27, 283–287. provided. Camel meat is acceptable for human consump- Baeza, E., Dessay, C., Wacrenier, N., Marche, G., & listra, A. (2002). Effect of selection for improved body weight and composition on tion and in some communities it may replace meat from muscle and meat characteristics in Muscovt duck. British other animals. Reports that camel meat is less tender than Science, 43, 560–568. beef are probably due, at least in part, to the higher average Bhargava, K. K., Sharma, V. D., & Singh, M. A. (1965). A study of the animal age and/or to post-mortem carcass chilling condi- birth and body measurement of camels (Camelus dromedaries). Indian tions. Camel meat, especially from young animals, contains Journal of Veterinary Science and , 35, 358–362. Bissa, U. J. (1996). Early growth and its association with certain blood low fat with low cholesterol as well as being a good source parameters in different breeds of camel. M.V. Sc. thesis, Department of of amino acids and minerals. More research work in areas Animal Breeding and Genetics. College of Veterinary and Animal of meat production, technology, marketing, and social Science, Agricultural University, Bikaner. Camel Newslet- awareness is needed to exploit the potential of camels as ter, 12, 21–23. a source of meat 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). References Burgemeister, R. (1975). Elevage de chameaux en Afrique du Nord, 88. Castellini, C., Mugnai, C., & Dal Bosco, A. (2002). Effect of organic Abdalla, M. A., & Abdalla, O. (1979). Morphometric observations on production system on broiler carcass and meat quality. Meat Science, kidney of the camel, Camelus dromedarius. Journal of Anatomy, 129, 60, 219–225. 45–50. Central Australia Camel Industry Association (1997). In Camel Newsletter Abouheif, M. A., Basmaeil, S. M., & Bakkar, M. N. (1986). Estimation of (No. 13, pp. 52–58). The Central Australian Industry. body and carcass weights in Saudi Arabian Najdi male camels. Arab Chizzolini, R., Zanardi, E., Dorigoni, V., & Ghidini, S. (1999). Calorific Gulf Journal of Science Research, 4, 733–743. value and cholesterol content of normal and low-fat meat and meat Abouheif, M. A., Basmaeil, S. M., & Bakkar, M. N. (1990a). A standard products. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 10, 119–128. method for jointing camel carcasses with reference to the effect of Congiu, S. (1953). Dressing percentage, weight distribution and correla- slaughter age on carcass characteristics in Najadi Camels. I. Wholesale tions between different parts of the body in the Somali dromedary. cut weight. Asian–Australian Journal of Animal Science, 3, 97–102. Zootecnica Veterinaria, 8, 188–191. Abouheif, M. A., Basmaeil, S. M., & Bakkar, M. N. (1990b). A standard Cristofaneli, S., Antonini, M., Torres, D., Polidori, P., & Renieri, C. method for jointing camel carcasses with reference to the effect of (2004). Meat and carcass quality from Peruvian llama (Lama glama) slaughter age on carcass characteristics in Najadi Camels. II. Variation and alpaca (Lama pacos). Meat Science, 66, 589–593. in lean growth and distribution. Asian–Australian Journal of Animal Dahl, G. & Hjort, A. (1979). Dromedary in Africa and Science, 3, 155–159. Arabia. In Proceedings of the workshop on camels, Khartoum the Abril, M., Campo, M. M., Onenc, A., Sanudo, C., Alberti, P., & (pp. 447–458). Stockholm: International Foundation for Science. Negueruela, A. I. (2001). Beef colour evolution as a function of Dawood, A. (1995). Physical and Sensory characteristics of Najdi camel ultimate pH. Meat Science, 58, 69–78. meat. Meat Science, 39, 59–69. Abu-Tarboush, H. M., & Dawood, A. S. (1993). Cholesterol and fat Dawood, A., & Alkanhal, M. A. (1995). Nutrient composition of Najdi- contents of animal adipose tissues. Food Chemistry, 46, 89–93. Camel Meat. Meat Science, 39, 71–78. Al-Ani, F. K. (2004). Use and production of camels. In F. K. Al-Ani Dorman, A. E. (1986). Aspects of the husbandry and management of the (Ed.), Camel management and diseases (1st ed.) (pp. 91–114). Al-Sharq genus Camelus. In A. Higgins (Ed.), The camel in health and disease Printing Press. (pp. 3–20). London: Balliere Tindall. Alkanhal, A. (1994). Nutrient composition of Najdi camel meat. Meat Dyer, W. J., & Dingle, J. R. (1967). In G. Borgstrom (Ed.), . Science, 39, 71–78. New York: Academic Press. Al-Owaimer, A. N. (2000). Effect of dietary Halophyte Salicornia bigelovii El-Amin, F. M. (1979). The dromedary camel of the Sudan. In IFS Torr on carcass characteristics, minerals, fatty acids and amino acids symposium camels, Sudan (pp. 35–54). profile of camel meat. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 18, 185–192. El-Faer, M. Z., Rawdah, T. N., Attar, K. M., & Dawson, M. V. (1991). Al-Sheddy, I., Al-Dagal, M., & Bazaraa, W. A. (1999). Microbial and Mineral and proximate composition of the meat of the one-humped sensory quality of fresh camel meat treated with organic acid and/ camel (Camelus dromedaries). Food Chemistry, 42, 139–143. or bifidobacteria. Journal of Food Science, 64, 336–339. Elgasim, E. A., & Alkanhal, M. A. (1992). Proximate composition, amino Asghar, A., & Pearson, A. M. (1980). Influence of ante- and post-mortem acids and inorganic minerals content of Arabian camel meat: treatments upon muscle composition and meat quality. Advances in comparative study. Food Chemistry, 45, 1–4. Food Research, 26, 53–213. Elgasim, E. A., & El-Hag, G. A. (1992). characteristics of the Arabian Ashmore, C. R., Carroll, F., Doerr, J., Tompkins, G., Stokes, H., & camel. Camel News Letter(9), 20–24. Parker, W. (1973). Experimental prevention of dark-cutting meat. Elgasim, E. A., El-Hag, G. A., & Elnawawi, F. A. (1987). Quality Journal of Animal Science, 35, 33–36. attributes of camel meat. Second congress report, The Scientific Babiker, M. M. (1984). Abundance and economic potentials of camels in Council, King Fasil University, Alhash, KSA. the Sudan. Journal of Arid Environment, 7, 377. El-Magoli, S. B., Awad, A. A., & El-Wakeil, F. A. (1973). Intramuscular Babiker, S. A. & Tibin, I. M. (1989). A note on desert camel meat lipid chemistry of beef and camel Longissimus dorsi muscle. Egyptian production and characteristics. In Proceedings of the international Journal of Food Science, 1, 75–84. symposium on the development of animal resources in the Sudan (pp. El-Mossalami, E., Awad, Y., Ibrahim, A., & Diab, O. (1996). Major 116–120). chemical constituents of beef, buffalo and camel’s meat. Veterinary Babiker, S. A. & Yousif, K. H. (1987). Carcass yield and characteristics of Medical Journal, Giza, 44, 49–53. mature male camels of the Sudan. Annual report (pp. 120–124). Sudan: Farah, Z. & Fischer, A. (2004). Milk and Meat from the camel. Handbook Camel Research Unit, University of Khartoum. on products and processing. Vdt Hochschulverlag AG and der ETH Babiker, S. A., & Tibin, I. M. (1986). Comparative study of camel meat and Zurch, Zurich/Singen. beef (pp. 73–77). Sudan: Camel Research Unit, University of Faustman, C., & Cassens, R. G. (1990). The biochemical basis for Khartoum. discoloration in fresh meat: A review. Journal of Muscle Foods, 1, 217. 568 I.T. Kadim et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 555–569

Field, C. R. (1979). Camel growth and milk production in Marasabit Kulaeva, V. (1964). The production of the Bacterian camel. Animal district, Northern Kenya (pp: 215–240). IFS Prov. Rep. No. 6: Camels Breeding Abstract, 32. Int. Sci., Stockholm, Sweden. Kunsman, J. E., Collins, M. A., Field, R. A., & Miller, G. J. (1981). Fischer, H. (1975). Schaf, Zeigen-Wasserbuffel und Dromedarhaltung. In Cholesterol content of beef bone marrow and mechanically deboned Kon Kurreuz fat Runderhaltung. Beitrage III Veterinaragung, Ouaga- meat. Journal of Food Science, 46, 1785–1788. dougoa (pp. 1–16). Kurtu, M. Y. (2004). An assessment of the productivity for meat and Greenfield, H., Kuo, Y. L., Hutchison, G. I., & Wills, R. B. H. (1987). carcass yield of camel (Camelus dromedarious) and the consumption of Composition of Australian foods. 33: Lamb. Food Technology in camel meat in the Eastern region of . Tropical Animal Health Australia, 39, 202–207. and Production, 36, 65–76. Hammadi, M., Khorchani, T., Khaldi, G., Majdoub, A., Abdouli, H., Lawrie, R. A. (1979). Meat science (3rd ed.). Pergamon Press. Slimane, N., et al. (2001). Effect of diet supplementation on growth Leupold, J. (1968). An important animal domestic of the sub-tropics. and reproduction in camels under arid range conditions. Biotechnology Veterinary Blue Book, 15, 1–6. Agronomy Society Environment, 5, 69–72. Mahgoub, O., Olvey, F. H., & Jeffrey, D. C. (1995a). Growth and Hammam, M. A., Hidik, M. E., Sherif, I. H., & Yousef, M. H. (1962). composition of the Omani Dhofari cattle. 1, Body weight growth and Studies on camel meat. I. Chemical composition. Journal-Arab carcass composition. Asian–Australian Journal of Animal Science, 8, Veterinary Medical Association, 22, 391–396. 611–616. Harmas, S., Shareha, A., Biala, A., & Abu-Shawachi, H. (1990). Mahgoub, O., Olvey, F. H., & Jeffrey, D. C. (1995b). Growth and Investigation on growth measures of Magrib camel (Camelus dromed- composition of the Omani Dhofari cattle. 2, Distribution of carcass rius). Camel Newsletter, 7, 82 (abstract). tissues. Asian–Australian Journal of Animal Science, 8, 617–625. Hartley, J. B. (1979). Camels in the . (pp. 109–124). IFS Mansour, M. E., & Ahmed, S. M. (2000). Advanced technology in camel Prov. Rep. No. 6: Camels International Foundation Science, Stock- meat processing. The Camel Newsletter, 17, 27–29. holm, Sweden. Marinova, P., Banskalieva, V., Alexandrov, S., Tzvetkova, V., & Herrman, K. & Fischer, A. (2004). Method for hygienic slaughter of Stanchev, H. (2001). Carcass composition and meat quality of kids camels. In Z. Farah, A. Fisher (Eds.), Milk and meat from the camel. fed sunflower oil supplemented diet. Small Research, 42, Handbook on products and processing. (pp. 89–108). vdf Hochschul- 219–227. verlag AG an der ETH Zurich, Zurich/Singen. Marsh, B. B. (1977). The basis of tenderness in muscle foods. Journal of Herrmann, K., & Fisher, A. (2004). Methods for hygienic slaughter of Food Science, 42, 295–297. camels. In Z. Farah & A. Fisher (Eds.), Milk and meat from the camel. Mburu, D. N., Ochieng, G. W., Kuria, S. G., Jianlin, H., Kaufmann, B., Handbook on products and processing (pp. 89–135). Zurich, Switzer- Rege, J. E., et al. (2003). Genetic diversity and relationships of land: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. indigenous Kenyan camel (Camelus dromedarius) populations, impli- Hertrampf, J. W. (2004). The ‘‘ship of the desert” as a meat supplier. cations for their classification. Animal Genetic, 34, 26–32. Fleischwirtschaft, 84, 111–114. Miller, M. F., Cross, H. R., & Crouse, J. D. (1987). Effect of feeding Holland, B., Welch, A. A., Unwin, I. D., Buss, D. H., Paul, A. A. & regimen, breed and sex condition on carcass composition and feed Southgate, D. A. T. (1991). McCance and Widdowson’s the composition efficiency. Meat Science, 20, 39–50. of foods (5th and extended ed.). Bungay, Suffolk, UK: The Royal Miller, W. O., Staffle, R. L., & Zirkle, S. B. (1968). Factors, which Society of Chemsitry and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, influence the water-holding capacity of various types of meat. Food Richard Clay Ltd. Technology, 22, 1139. Kadim, I. T. & Mahgoub, O. (2006). Meat quality and composition of Mills, E. W., Comerford, J. W., Hollender, R., Harpster, H. W., House, Longissimus thoracis from Arabian camel (Camelus dromedaries) and B., & Henning, W. R. (1992). Meat composition and palatability of Omani beef: A comparative study. In First conference of the interna- Holstein and beef steers as influenced by forage type and protein tional society of camelids research and development (ISOCARD) (pp. source. Journal of Animal Science, 70, 2446–2451. 118). Al-Ain United Arab Emirates. Morton, R. H. (1984). Camels for meat and milk production in sub- Kadim, I. T., Mahgoub, O., Al-Marzooqi, W., Al-Zadgali, S., Annamali, Africa. Journal Science, 67, 1548–1553. K., & Mansour, M. H. (2006). Effects of age on composition and Mukasa-Mugerwa, E. (1981).The camel (Camelus dromedaries): A quality of muscle Longissimus thoracis of the Omani Arabian camel biographical review (pp. 147). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: International (Camelus dromedaries). Meat Science, 73, 619–625. Livestock Centre for Africa. Kalalou, I., Faid, M., & Ahami, T. A. (2004). Improving the quality of Mulvihill, B. (2001). Ruminant meat as a source of conjugated linoleic fermented camel sausage by controlling undesirable microorganisms acid (CLA) – Review. British Nutrition Foundation. Nutrition Bulletin, with selected lactic acid bacteria. International Journal of Agriculture 26, 295–299. and Biology, 3, 447–451. Murray, E. F. (1989). Medicine and surgery of south american camelids (pp. Kamoun, M. (1995). Dromedary meat: production, qualitative aspects 391). USA: Iowa State University Press. and acceptability for transformation. Option Mediterraneennes Serie B, Musa, B. E. (1969). A study of some aspects of reproduction in the female Etudes et Recherches, 13, 105–130. camel (Camelus dromedarious). M.V.Sc. thesis, University of Kamoun, M. (2005). Carcass and meat quality of dromedary camel. Khartoum. College of Agriculture, Poster: 7030, Mateur, Tunisia. Naser, S., El-Bahay, G., & Moursy, A. W. (1965). Studies on camel meat. Kannan, G., Kouakou, B., Terrill, T. H., & Gelaye, S. (2003). Endocrine, 1: The effect of age and sex on the component of camel meat. Journal of Blood metabolite and meat quality changes in goats as influenced by Arab Veterinary Medical Association, 25, 253–258. short-term, preslaughter stress. Journal of Animal Science, 81, Offer, G. (1991). Modeling of the formation of pale, soft and exudative 1499–1507. meat: effects of chilling regime and rate and extent of glycolysis. Meat Keikin, D. (1976). Camel breeding can be economical (Ru). Konevodstro I Science, 30, 157–184. Konnyi Sport 2, 12–13. Ouda, J. O. (1995). Camel calf survival and performance under varying Khatami, K. (1970). Camel meat: A new promising approach to the solution amounts of milk intake. Camel Newsletter, 11, 42–45. of meat and protein in the arid and semi-arid countries of the world. Ouda, J. O, Abui, J. O, & Woie, B. M. (1992). Production performance of Tehran: Ministry of Agriculture. Somali and Rendille camels and their crossbreds in Northern Kenya. Kilgour, O. F. G. (1986). Mastering nutrition (pp. 229–305). London: In All Africa conference on animal agriculture, November, Nairobi, Macmillan Education Ltd. Kenya. Knoess, K. H. (1977). The camel as a meat and milk camel. World Animal Paul, A. A. & Southgate, D. A. T. (1978). McCanve and Widdowson’s. The Review, 22, 39–44. composition of Foods (4th revised and extended ed. of MRC special I.T. Kadim et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 555–569 569

report No. 297). Amsterdam: Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Shalash, M. R. (1988). Provisional report (No. 6, pp. 285), International Press. Foundation for Science. Pe´rez, P., Maino, M., Guzma´n, R., Vaquero, A., Ko¨brich, C., & Pokniak, Shariatmadari, R. & Kadivar, M. (2006a). Post mortem aging and freezing J. (2000). Carcass characteristics of Ilamas (Lama glama) reared in of camel meat (a comparative study). In 52nd International congress of Central Chile. Small Ruminant Research, 37, 93–97. meat science and technology (pp. 673–674). Preston, T. R., & Willis, M. B. (1975). Beef production (2nd ed.). Oxford: Shariatmadari, R. & Kadivar, M. (2006b). Functional and ultrastructural Pergamon. properties of camel meat. In 52nd International congress of meat science Purchas, R. W., Hartely, D. G., Yan, X., & Grant, D. A. (1997). An and technology (pp. 675–676). evaluation of the growth performance, carcass characteristics, and Simpkin, S. P., (1983). The effects of disease as constraints to camel meat quality of Sahiwal Friesian cross . New Zealand Journal of production in Northern Kenya. In The integrated project in arid lands Agricultural Research, 40, 497–506. technical report E-7. Camel diseases and productivity in the arid lands of Rawdah, T. N., El-Faer, M. Z., & Koreish, S. A. (1994). Fatty acid Northern Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Educational, Scien- composition of the meat and fat of the one-humped camel (Camelus tific and Cultural Organization. dromedaries). Meat Science, 37, 149–155. Sinclair, A. J., Slattery, W. J., & O’Dea, K. (1982). The analysis of Rice, E. E. (1978). In J. F. Price & B. S. Schweigert (Eds.), The science of polyunsaturated fatty acids in meat by capillary gas–liquid chroma- meat and meat products (pp. 287–327). Westport, CT, USA: Food and tography. Journal of Science and Food Agriculture, 33, 771–776. Nutrition Press. Skidmore, J. A. (2005). Reproduction in dromedary camels: An update. Rosenvold, K., Petersen, J. S., Laerke, H. N., Jensen, S. K., Therkildsen, Animal Reproduction, 2, 161–171. M., Karlsson, A. H., et al. (2001). Muscle glycogen stores and meat Stamler, J., & Lilien Field, A. M. (1970). Circulation, 42, A-55. quality as affected by strategic finishing feeding of slaughter . Tandon, S. N., Bissa, U. K., & Khanna, N. D. (1988). Camel meat: Journal of Animal Science, 79, 382–391. Present status and future prospects. Annals of Arid Zone, 27, 23–28. Sales, J. (1995). Nutritional quality of meat from some alternative species. Thompson, J. (2002). Managing meat tenderness. Meat Science, 62, World Review of Animal Production, 30, 48–56. 295–308. Sales, J. (1996). Histological, biological, physiological and chemical Ulmer, K., Herrmann, K. & Fischer, A. (2004). Meat products from camel characteristics of different ostrich muscles. Journal of Science Food meat. In Z. Farah, A. Fischer (Eds.), Milk and meat from the camel Agriculture, 70, 109–114. (pp. 137–228). Vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zurich, ETH Salman, Z. M. S. (2005). Microbial and physico-chemical characteristics Zentrum, CH-8092 Zurich. of goat meat dried by different methods. Master thesis in Food Science, Williamson, G., & Payne, W. J. A. (1978). An introduction to animal Sultan Qaboos University. husbandry in the tropics. London: Longman. Saparov, G., & Annageldiyev, O. (2005). Meat Productivity of the camel Wilson, R. T. (1978). Studies on the livestock of Southern Darfur, Arvana breed and ways to increase it. In B. Faye & P. Esenov (Eds.), Sudan. V. Notes on camels. Tropical Animal Health and Production, Desertification Combat & Food Safety (pp. 211–214). IOS Press. 10, 19–25. Schweigert, B. S. (1987). The nutritional content and value of meat and Wilson, R. T. (1984). The camel. Essex, UK: Longman group Limited. meat products. In J. F. Price & B. S. Schweigert (Eds.), The science of Wilson, R. T. (1998). Camel. In: R. Costa (Ed.), The tropical agricultural meat and meat products (3rd ed.) (pp. 275). Westport, CT., USA: Food series. Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of & Nutrition Press. Inc. Edinburth. Sen, A. R., Santra, A., & Karim, S. A. (2004). Carcass yield, composition Yagil, R. (1982). Camels and . FAO Animal Production and and meat quality attribute of sheep and goat under semiarid Health. Publications Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of conditions. Meat Science, 66, 757–763. the United Nations. Via delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy Shahidi, F., & Synowiecki, J. (1993). Nutrient composition of mechan- (No. 26). ically separated and surimi-like . Food Chemistry, 47, 41–46. Yagil, R. (1985). The desert camel comparative physiological adaptation Shalah, M. R. (1983). The role of camels in overcoming world meat (vol. 5). Munchen, London: Verlag Karger Basal. shortage. Egyptian Journal of Veterinary Science, 20, 101–110. Yousif, O. K., & Babiker, S. A. (1989). The desert camel as meat animals. Shalash, M. R. (1978). Proceedings of the XIII international symposium of Meat Science, 26, 245–254. zootechnology, Milano. Zegeye, A. (1999). A note on the influence of heat treatment, salting and Shalash, M. R. (1979a). Effect of age on quality of camel meat. In First smoking on the acceptability of camel products. Meat Science, 53, workshop on camel. Khartoum International Foundation for Science. 217–219. Shalash, M. R. (1979b). Utilization of camel meat and milk in human Ziauddin, K. S., Mahendrakar, N. S., Rao, D. N., Ramesh, B. S., & nourishment. In Camels (pp. 285–307). IFS Prov. Rep. No. 6: Camels Amila, B. L. (1994). Observation on some chemical and physical International Foundation Science, Stockholm, Sweden. characteristics of buffalo meat. Meat Science, 37, 103–113.