Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

MEAT
SCIENCE
Meat 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 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, 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 dromedary camel is a good source of meat especially in areas where the climate adversely affects the performance of other meat
animals. 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 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 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: isam@squ.edu.om (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 family Camelidae include two subfamilies: Cameli-
nae (Old World Camelids) and Laminae (New World
Camelids). There are two species of camel within the genus
Camelus. The Dromedary one-humped camel (Camelus
dromedaries) is most widely distributed in the hot arid
areas of the Middle East and Africa, whereas the Bacterian
two-humped camel (Camelus bacterianus) is found in parts
of central Asia and China (Dorman, 1986). Four species of
the New World camelids are found in South America: the
guanaco (Lama guanacoe) and the vicuna (Vicugna vicu-
gna) are wild, whereas the llama (Lama glama) and the
alpaca (Lama pacos) are domesticated (Murray, 1989;
Skidmore, 2005). The Llama and Alpaca are mainly used
for meat and fibre production. The camel originated in
North America and was domesticated by secondary
nomads around 4000 years ago in South Arabia primarily
for transport and labour rather than as a producer of meat,
milk or clothing (Wilson, 1984). The dromedary is more
numerous than the Bactrian camel and represents almost
90% 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 with
females used primarily as milk producers, the males for
transport or draught and both sexes providing meat as ter-
tiary product. The genetic diversity and relationships
amongst the dromedary populations are poorly docu-
mented. Phylogenetic analysis (micro-satellite loci) showed
that 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 (henceforth
referred to as the ‘‘camel”), and when reference is made
to the Bactrian this will be noted. There have been some
attempts for crossing between the dromedary and Bactrian
camels resulting in weak non-fertile offspring. Recently a
successful attempt was made to cross the dromedary with
the Llama (Skidmore, 2005).
The dromedary camel is one of the most important
domestic animals in the arid and semi arid regions as it is
equipped to produce high quality food at comparatively
low costs under extremely harsh environments (Knoess,
1977; Yagil, 1982; Yousif & Babiker, 1989). The camel
has great tolerance to high temperatures, high solar radia-
tion and water scarcity. It can survive well on sandy terrain
with 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 likely
to produce animal protein at a comparatively low cost in
the arid zones based on feeds and fodder that are generally
not utilized by other domestic species due to either their
size or food habits.
The role of the camel as a meat producer is becoming
more important due to the versatile role it plays rather than
as a symbol of social prestige, which was the role it used to
play but which has since greatly diminished (Dawood &
Alkanhal, 1995). The common opinion towards camel
meat as tough, coarse, watery and sweetish in taste com-
pared to meats from other animals may be partly attributed
to the fact that camel meat is usually a by-product of prim-
itive traditional systems of production where it is mainly
obtained from old males and females that have become less
effective 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 if
animals 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 of
meat for human consumption with certain parts of the car-
cass such as the hump and liver considered a delicacy that
is favoured in Middle Eastern markets. Although the mar-
keting systems for camel meat are not well organised, there
is evidence of a high demand for fresh camel meat and for
camel meat to be used in blended meat products even
among societies not herding camels (Morton, 1984; Pérez
et al., 2000; Shalash, 1979a). Camel meat could be a cheap
option to meet the growing needs for meat in developing
countries especially for low income population groups
(El-Mossalami, Awad, Ibrahim, & Diab, 1996; Saparov
& Annageldiyev, 2005). However, camels are generally
raised in less developed countries and research for improv-
ing their reproductive and productive characteristics has
been 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 chapter
attempts to highlight characteristics of growth and devel-
opment of the camel for meat production with special
emphasis 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 production
in domestic animals. There are many factors that influence
growth rate including breed, nutrition, sex and health.
Heredity is the main factor determining prenatal growth,
either directly via the genotype of the foetus or indirectly
through the genotype of the dam (Shalash, 1978). Prenatal
patterns of growth and development of the camel foetus is
similar to that of cattle (Musa, 1969). However, the lifetime
 I.T. Kadim et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 555–569
output of meat for breeding female camels is often limited
due to long gestations, low calving rates and long milk
feeding periods, especially under traditional systems. After
a gestation periods of 13 months, a camel female usually
bears a single calf, and rarely twins. The new born camel
walks within hours of birth, but remains close to its mother
sometimes until maturity at five years of age (Bhargava,
Sharma, & Singh, 1965).
The average birth weight of the dromedary camels is
about 35 kg (Wilson, 1978), but it varies widely between
regions, breeds and within the same breed. Reports on
camel birth weights range between 27 and 39 kg, which is
comparable with that of tropical cattle breeds. For
instance, reports of birth weights include 26–28 kg for
Somali camels (Field, 1979; Ouda, 1995; Simpkin, 1983);
27 kg for Tunisian camels (Hammadi et al., 2001) and
39 kg for Indian camels (Bissa, 1996).
The influence of sex on birth weight of the dromedary
camel appears to be minimal (Ouda, 1995). Males
(38.2 kg) were slightly but not significantly heavier than
females (37.2 kg) in the study of Yagil (1985). Harmas,
Shareha, Biala, and Abu-Shawachi (1990) also reported
average 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 observed
up to two years by Ouda, Abui, and Woie (1992) or up to
four 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 camels
at the age of 5–6 years, 35.82 ± 0.56 kg for animals at the
age of 7–10 years, 36.26 ± 0.68 kg for animal at the age
of 11–15 years, and 35.46 ± 0.72 kg for animal at the age
of 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 factors
such as the availability of natural grazing which is the
major feed source under traditional systems. For example,
in India, the birth weight of the camel calves varied from
26.3 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 between
regions, breeds and within the same breed. Hammadi et al.
(2001) reported camel body weights of 27, 48, 65, and 79 kg
at birth, 30, 60 and 90 days of age, respectively, which indi-
cates a daily growth rate of 580 g/day between birth and 90
days of age. Bissa (1996) reported average body weights of
39, 119 and 171 kg at birth, 90, and 180 days, respectively,
for Indian camels indicating a daily growth rate of 733 g/d
between birth and 180 days. These growth rate values are
lower than those commonly reported for cattle, but it
should be noted that camels are normally raised under
557
extensive systems depending mainly on rangeland grazing
rather than on feedlots. The limited work carried out on
improving camel nutrition demonstrated significant rela-
tionships between daily gain and daily intake of concen-
trates for dromedary camels. Camels fed a diet with high
dietary 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 pattern
more or less similar to that of other farm animal species.
The average daily weight gain of Bikaneri camels according
to Tandon et al. (1988) in different age groups is presented
in Fig. 1. According to this information average daily
growth rate gradually increased from 400 g/d in the 0–1
year group to a maximum of 720 g/d in the 7–8 years group
then declined to 300 g/d by 10–11 years of age. However,
the growth rates given should be considered as maximum
values as a growth rate of 300 g/day will result in a weight
gain of over 100 kg per year, which does not match the
change in body weights shown in Fig. 1 at ages of six years
or more. The graph resembles the specific growth pattern in
other farm animals with an inflection point where growth
rate is at a maximum at about one year of age. This pattern
is affected by many factors such as weaning age, season,
and nutrition.
Pre and post-weaning growth rates have significant
effects on final weights of camels. The pre-weaning growth
rate of the camel calf is affected by milk quantity and the
system of management (Babiker & Tibin, 1989). Tribal
camel calves in Kenya grew at a rate of 222 g/day to 6
months of age in dry years and at a rate of 655 g/day in
wet years (Field, 1979). Post-weaning growth rate depends
mainly on husbandry practices and conditions of the vege-
tation (Babiker & Tibin, 1989). It is partially determined by
the availability of browse throughout the year according to
Wilson (1998).
There are varying estimates of camel live weight in the
literature. It is obvious that the weight of camels depends
on 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 of
camels in different age groups (Fig. 2), which show that
camels reach a maximum live weight of about 650 kg at
7–8 years of age. The graph resembles the sigmoid-shaped
growth 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 live
weight earlier in life, males get heavier than females at
older ages. Mature male camels were heavier than females
by 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 at
maturity weigh 450–550 kg with the heavy camel breeds
weighing 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
558 I.T. Kadim et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 555–569

700 800

600 700

600
500

Growth Rate (g/d)

Body Weight (kg)
500
400
400
300
300

200
200

100 100

0 0
8)

2)
)

)
)

)
)
5)

1)

(8

(6

33
4

(6
(1

0(
(1

(1

(1

(1

(1
-6

-9
-8

1(
-1

-1
-4

-5

-7
2

-3

5-

7-

8-

-1
-
0-

3-

6-

9-
4-
2-
1-

-
10
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
Somalia desert camels (350–400 kg) and the heaviest live-
weight (660 kg) in Indian camels. In Australia, the weights
of mature camels ranged from 514 to 645 kg for males and
470 to 510 kg for females. Iranian camels at an age of five
years were ranged in weight from 340 to 430 kg (Khatami,
1970). There are also reports of varying camel body
weights 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 significant
effects on live-weight. Live weights of mature well-finished
male desert Saudi camels ranged between 359 and 512 kg
with an average of 475 kg (Babiker & Yousif (1987). How-
ever, there are reports of extremely high body weights in
camels. For instance Herrmann & Fisher (2004) reported
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
Feet 14.6 ± 2.25 10.5–19.5 4.3 ± 0.37 3.31–5.16
gut fills at slaughter (Table 2). In the camel dressing-out 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
camel 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 fed
different quantity and quality rations. Although age has a
significant effect on carcass components with advantages
to 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 at
8, 16 and 26 months of age. Dressing-out percentage values
in the camel are comparable to those reported for tropical
cattle (Mahgoub, Olvey, & Jeffrey, 1995a, 1995b) with the
dromedary 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 components
of the camel. Proportions of live weight as feet and hide are
higher 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 is
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
weight in the dromedary camels evaluated by Herrman &
Fischer (2004). Proportions of offal (edible non-carcass
components) are high in the camel (Table 2) and therefore,
they represent a very useful protein source in arid areas
where the camel is mainly kept for meat. The relative pro-
portions of body components indicated that the heaviest
component was the hide followed by intestines while the
lightest organ was the spleen followed by reproductive
organs (Yousif & Babiker (1989). The liver weight was
lighter than values for Somali camel livers reported by
Congiu (1953). The weights of head, liver, feet, hide and
gut fill agreed with values reported by Wilson (1978) for
the dromedary. Breed differences and the nutritional state
of the animal may be responsible for any variations
between different studies. The camel body contained an
average of about 4.2% offal (liver, heart and lungs). The
non-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 tracts
and head than cattle or sheep or goats. The larger kid-
ney, which was twice that of cattle and four times that
of sheep, was possibly due to adaptation of the camel
to arid desert life. Camel kidneys have been estimated
to be up to 850 cc (Abdalla & Abdalla, 1979). Table 3
shows the significant increase in body measurements with
increasing body weight that were observed by Abouheif
et al. (1986).
Yousif & Babiker (1989) found positive correlations
between heart girth and liveweight (r = 0.67, P < 0.001).
The depth of the camel hump was significantly correlated
with carcass fat and the hump fat weight had a high posi-
tive correlation (r = 0.97, P < 0.001) with carcass fat. The
correlations of carcass weight and body measurements on
227 Najdi camels were higher than body weight and their
measurements (Abouheif et al., 1986). They concluded that
correlations of body weight and carcass weight with chest
girth, hump girth, and hip girth were the highest amongst
all those studied (Table 4).
5. Carcass composition
There is no standard cutting system for camel carcasses
as 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. The
forequarter 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. 3
shows the general cutting procedures for eight wholesale
cuts. 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 together
with those from a second study. The values from the two
studies are very similar. The largest cut of the carcass using
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-
cular fat content of muscle is of some importance because it
enhances the palatability traits such as flavor, juiciness and
tenderness.
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 bone
is higher and therefore the muscle to bone ratio is lower for
camels (Babiker, 1984). This may be possibly attributed to
increased bone length. The muscle:bone ratio was 3.0 in
Sudanese 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 the
carcass were in the ribs and backbone, hind legs, fore legs
and the neck.
Age, sex, breed and the nutritional state influence body
composition in the camel. Age has a significant effect on
carcass components with distinct advantages in slaughter-
ing camels at an early age. Muscle content was highest
for 2-year-old castrated camels. Hump fat represented
1.9% of the dressed carcass of the 24 month old and
5.19% of the carcass of 44-month-old camel (Kulaeva,
type, age, sex, condition and site on the carcass. Water con-
tent differs only slightly between species, while differences
in fat content are more marked (Sales, 1995). Camel meat
contains 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 in
meat of other farm animal species (Table 8). It is also a
good source of protein containing about 20–23% (Al-Owai-
mer, 2000; Kadim et al., 2006; Kilgour, 1986). This level is
similar to those in other farm animals, but lower than that
in the Llama (Table 8). These protein contents are similar
to values reported by Dawood & Alkanhal (1995), but
are lower than values reported by Elgasim & Alkanhal
(1992). This level of protein in camel meat makes it a good
source of high quality protein in arid and semi-arid regions.
Chemical intramuscular fat levels in camel meat vary
greatly. Al-Owaimer (2000) reported a value of 5.2% for
camel Longissimus dorsi. Kadim et al. (2006) reported a
mean 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
 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 the effects of age, sex and location on camel meat compo-
Alpacac 73.6 23.3 0.49 2.5 Longissimus
Beefd 71.5 21.5 5.5 0.9 Longissimus
sition. They reported average contents of protein, mois-
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 respectively. Kamoun (1995) reported 77.7% moisture,
Turkeyi 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). stated that after 3 years, intramuscular fat in the hump
b,c
Cristofaneli et al. (2004).
d
Mills et al. (1992).
makes meat rich in fat resulting in marbled meat (Kamoun,
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). 1979a). Fat% is commonly higher in the sternum than in
i
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, veal, 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 iron, 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 6/n 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-
unsaturated fatty acids to saturated fatty acids (the P/S Camela buffalob Harp sealc Beefd Chickene
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 goat 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
deer (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
Arginine 7.38 1.42 6.21 6.72 6.24
et al., 1982). Camel biceps femoris muscle from seven male
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
is white (Leupold, 1968). Camel meat had a significantly
lower level of sarcoplasmic proteins as a proportion of
total proteins than beef in the study of Babiker & Tibin
(1986). An increase in meat toughness and a reduction in
the palatability and quality are reported with increasing
age (Dahl & Hjort, 1979; El-Amin, 1979; Kadim et al.,
2006). Results in Table 12 suggest that the optimum age
for slaughtering camels is between one and three year of
age (Kadim et al., 2006).
The ultimate pH of muscle is a major determinant of
meat quality and is largely determined by the depletion
of glycogen and accumulation of lactic acid pre- and
post-slaughter. The range of the ultimate pH values of
dromedary 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 than
older animals due to lower levels of glycogen (Kannan,
Kouakou, Terrill, & Gelaye, 2003). The ultimate pH of
meat is influenced by many factors including pre-slaughter
handling, post mortem treatments and muscle physiology
(Marsh, 1977; Thompson, 2002), with low muscle glycogen
stores at slaughter preventing the development of a
desirable 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 be
sought at the expense of flavor or color (Lawrie, 1979).
The amount of alkali-insoluble protein, the shear value
and the diameter of the fibers are inversely proportional
to the tenderness of the meat. The most marked difference
in meat quality characteristics between camel meat and
other livestock is believed to be tenderness. Camels are usu-
ally slaughtered at the end of their productive life (>10
years) which is the reason that camel meat is classified as
a low quality meat. In Kenya, the average age for camels
slaughtered was 14.5 years (Mukasa-Mugerwa, 1981).
Average shear force value of camel meat at 6–8 years was
48% and 40% higher than those of 1–3 and 3–5 years old,
respectively (Kadim et al., 2006). A number of studies have
Table 12
Effect of age on some meat quality characteristics of the dromedary camel
M. Longissimus thoracis (Kadim et al., 2006)
Age group (year)
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
also shown that shear values increase with increasing animal
age (Asghar & Pearson, 1980; Miller, Cross, & Crouse, 1987;
Purchas, Hartely, Yan, & Grant, 1997). Differences due to
age 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 increase
in shear force of older camels may be due to the nature and
quantity 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 in
the study of Kadim et al. (2006), probably because of
higher 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 light
scattering 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 that
meat from camels slaughtered at 1–3 years had higher
expressed juice values than those slaughtered at 6–8 years
of age, probably due to variations in fat content and bind-
ing ability of meat. Miller, Staffle, & Zirkle (1968) showed
that water-holding capacity decreased as fat levels
increased due to an increase in the ratio of moisture to pro-
tein. Similarly, Dawood (1995) reported that young camel
meat (8 month of age) had significantly higher expressed
juice than the meat from 26 month-old camels. The drom-
edary camel meat contains higher expressed juice than
other camelidae such as the llama and alpaca probably
because of the lower fat content (Cristofaneli et al.,
2004). The volume of dromedary camel meat was reduced
by 44.3% and weight by 48.2% after boiling in water for
40 min (Kamoun, 1995). The drip loss of 18 camel meat
samples 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 ultimate
pH of the muscle, to the composition of muscle and to
the denaturation of proteins by the ionic strength of the
extracellular fluid, and to oxidation of lipids which
decreases the solubility of proteins (Dyer & Dingle, 1967).
8. Nutritive value
Significanta
Methods of improving the intake of nutrients is espe-
* cially important in developing countries, and in this respect
* the high content of protein and other nutrients in camel
*
meat means that it could provide a valuable complement
*
to low-protein diets particularly for vulnerable groups like
children and pregnant woman. The nutrient content of
*

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
almost one-third of the total fatty acids and dominated
by 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 in
beef, mutton and goat meat, respectively (Sinclair et al.,
1982). The percentage of polyunsaturated fatty acids in
camel meat (18.6%) falls between those reported for the
meat of beef (8.8%) and buffalo (28.6%) and deer (31.4%)
(Sinclair et al., 1982). The ratio of linoleic acid metabolites
to linolenic acid metabolites in camel meat is about 10.9
and this is much higher than the ratio found in the meat
of cattle, sheep and goat (2.0, 2.4 and 2.8, respectively)
(Sinclair et al., 1982). Moreover, camel meat is believed
by Somali and Indian people to have remedial effects for
as many as 13 different diseases, including hyperacidity,
hypertension, pneumonia and respiratory diseases and also
to be an aphrodisiac (Kurtu, 2004). Further research is
needed 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 should
be 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 Saudi
Arabia, throughout Asia, Canada, United States and Eur-
ope. Camel is available in carcass form or as fresh or frozen
vacuum-packed cuts. A dried meat product, from which
sufficient water has been removed by drying to make it
microbiologically 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 (Ulmer
et al., 2004). Thermal processing, curing and smoking are
the three most common methods used for camel meat pres-
ervation and processing (Kalalou, Faid, & Ahami, 2004;
Zegeye, 1999). As consumers may have different reactions
to products, overall acceptance must be determined by sen-
sory evaluation. The acceptability of camel meat products
increases with an increase in the duration of processing
(smoking, frying and cooking) indicating that the products
should be fully processed to gain maximum acceptability
(Mansour & Ahmed (2000). Generally, consumers are prej-
udiced against camel fresh unprocessed meat. If camel meat
could be converted into processed meat products such as
burgers and sausages, it might be more acceptable to
domestics’ consumers.
The range of traditional camel meat products is limited,
and is characterized mainly by dried meat products, made
by crude methods. Because of the climatic conditions and
lack of cold storage facilities, it is virtually impossible to
keep meat or meat products fresh for longer periods of time
in the tropics. One important technological problem in the
processing of camel meat products results from the poor
emulsifiability of camel fat. The production and storage
of meat products from camel meat utilizes basic technical
facilities (Ulmer et al., 2004).
Seasonal variations in climate should be taken into
account in the manufacture of dried products. Drying of
camel meat is usually done by putting the meat on simple
wire gratings in shady places in open air. The meat is usu-
ally cut into strips, then dry-slated or rubbed with a paste
of spices and dried in the sun on straw mats. Dried prod-
ucts are frequently smoked over a fireplace, to improve
their flavor and microbiological stability. If the products
are not packaged, they must be stored in dry well aired
conditions. If the products are packaged, this must take
place in vacuum-packed bags or in air-permeable handle-
protection packages. Sometimes the meat is then preserved
by 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 dryers
or special drying chambers in which the relative humidity
and temperature can be regulated are required (Salman,
2005).
Dry-salting process of the meat takes several days, since
large pieces of meat are used. After the dry-salting, the
meat is pressed for several days to remove water and give
it an attractive shape. During the subsequent drying pro-
cess, which usually takes place in the shade and involves
air-drying, the pieces of meat are pressed again. The dried
muscle meat is then coated with a paste made from water,
slat, garlic, fenugreek seeds, paprika and mustard, and
dried again. The high protein content provides good caloric
value 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 highly
acceptable cooked camel meat and it has highly desirable
features 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 from
camel meat. The products showed similar chemical compo-
sition to beef processed products, but the camel products
were higher in moisture (73.6%) and ash (4.13%). The sen-
sory evaluation tests indicated that the camel burger gained
higher scores in overall acceptability than the other prod-
ucts. The authors concluded that the processing of camel
meat increased the tenderness, taste and palatability of
the products. Camel meat can be processed in similar ways
to beef, producing similar products with similar
acceptability.
10. Conclusion
Camels are good potential meat producers especially in
arid regions where other meat-producing animals do not
 I.T. Kadim et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 555–569
thrive. They grow well and yield carcasses of a comparable
weight to beef cattle if optimal management conditions are
provided. Camel meat is acceptable for human consump-
tion and in some communities it may replace meat from
other animals. Reports that camel meat is less tender than
beef are probably due, at least in part, to the higher average
animal age and/or to post-mortem carcass chilling condi-
tions. Camel meat, especially from young animals, contains
low fat with low cholesterol as well as being a good source
of amino acids and minerals. More research work in areas
of meat production, technology, marketing, and social
awareness is needed to exploit the potential of camels as
a source of meat
References
Abdalla, M. A., & Abdalla, O. (1979). Morphometric observations on
kidney of the camel, Camelus dromedarius. Journal of Anatomy, 129,
45–50.
Abouheif, M. A., Basmaeil, S. M., & Bakkar, M. N. (1986). Estimation of
body 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 of
slaughter age on carcass characteristics in Najadi Camels. I. Wholesale
cut weight. Asian–Australian Journal of Animal Science, 3, 97–102.
Abouheif, M. A., Basmaeil, S. M., & Bakkar, M. N. (1990b). A standard
method for jointing camel carcasses with reference to the effect of
slaughter age on carcass characteristics in Najadi Camels. II. Variation
in 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 of
ultimate pH. Meat Science, 58, 69–78.
Abu-Tarboush, H. M., & Dawood, A. S. (1993). Cholesterol and fat
contents 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-Sharq
Printing 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 acids
profile of camel meat. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 18, 185–192.
Al-Sheddy, I., Al-Dagal, M., & Bazaraa, W. A. (1999). Microbial and
sensory 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-mortem
treatments 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 in
the Sudan. Journal of Arid Environment, 7, 377.
Babiker, S. A. & Tibin, I. M. (1989). A note on desert camel meat
production 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 of
mature 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 of
Khartoum.
567
Babiker, S. A., & Yousif, K. H. (1990). Chemical composition and quality
of 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 on
muscle 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 of
Animal Breeding and Genetics. College of Veterinary and Animal
Science, 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 meat
products. 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 and
Arabia. 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-humped
camel (Camelus dromedaries). Food Chemistry, 42, 139–143.
Elgasim, E. A., & Alkanhal, M. A. (1992). Proximate composition, amino
acids 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 Arabian
camel. Camel News Letter(9), 20–24.
Elgasim, E. A., El-Hag, G. A., & Elnawawi, F. A. (1987). Quality
attributes of camel meat. Second congress report, The Scientific
Council, King Fasil University, Alhash, KSA.
El-Magoli, S. B., Awad, A. A., & El-Wakeil, F. A. (1973). Intramuscular
lipid 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 ETH
Zurch, Zurich/Singen.
Faustman, C., & Cassens, R. G. (1990). The biochemical basis for
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
district, Northern Kenya (pp: 215–240). IFS Prov. Rep. No. 6: Camels
Int. Sci., Stockholm, Sweden.
Fischer, H. (1975). Schaf, Zeigen-Wasserbuffel und Dromedarhaltung. In
Kon 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 growth
and 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 of
camels. 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 of
camels. 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 Royal
Society of Chemsitry and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,
Richard Clay Ltd.
Kadim, I. T. & Mahgoub, O. (2006). Meat quality and composition of
Longissimus thoracis from Arabian camel (Camelus dromedaries) and
Omani 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 and
quality 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 of
fermented camel sausage by controlling undesirable microorganisms
with 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 by
short-term, preslaughter stress. Journal of Animal Science, 81,
1499–1507.
Keikin, D. (1976). Camel breeding can be economical (Ru). Konevodstro I
Konnyi 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 deboned
meat. Journal of Food Science, 46, 1785–1788.
Kurtu, M. Y. (2004). An assessment of the productivity for meat and
carcass yield of camel (Camelus dromedarious) and the consumption of
camel 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 and
carcass composition. Asian–Australian Journal of Animal Science, 8,
611–616.
Mahgoub, O., Olvey, F. H., & Jeffrey, D. C. (1995b). Growth and
composition of the Omani Dhofari cattle. 2, Distribution of carcass
tissues. Asian–Australian Journal of Animal Science, 8, 617–625.
Mansour, M. E., & Ahmed, S. M. (2000). Advanced technology in camel
meat processing. The Camel Newsletter, 17, 27–29.
Marinova, P., Banskalieva, V., Alexandrov, S., Tzvetkova, V., &
Stanchev, H. (2001). Carcass composition and meat quality of kids
fed 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 of
indigenous 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 feeding
regimen, breed and sex condition on carcass composition and feed
efficiency. Meat Science, 20, 39–50.
Miller, W. O., Staffle, R. L., & Zirkle, S. B. (1968). Factors, which
influence 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 of
Holstein and beef steers as influenced by forage type and protein
source. 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: International
Livestock Centre for Africa.
Mulvihill, B. (2001). Ruminant meat as a source of conjugated linoleic
acid (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 of
Khartoum.
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
 I.T. Kadim et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 555–569
report No. 297). Amsterdam: Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical
Press.
Pérez, P., Maino, M., Guzmán, R., Vaquero, A., Köbrich, C., & Pokniak,
J. (2000). Carcass characteristics of Ilamas (Lama glama) reared in
Central 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). An
evaluation of the growth performance, carcass characteristics, and
meat 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 and
Nutrition Press.
Rosenvold, K., Petersen, J. S., Laerke, H. N., Jensen, S. K., Therkildsen,
M., Karlsson, A. H., et al. (2001). Muscle glycogen stores and meat
quality 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 chemical
characteristics 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 camel
Arvana 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 and
meat 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, composition
and meat quality attribute of sheep and goat under semiarid
conditions. 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 meat
shortage. 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: Camels
International Foundation Science, Stockholm, Sweden.
569
Shalash, M. R. (1988). Provisional report (No. 6, pp. 285), International
Foundation for Science.
Shariatmadari, R. & Kadivar, M. (2006a). Post mortem aging and freezing
of 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 of
polyunsaturated 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, ETH
Zentrum, 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 of
Edinburth.
Yagil, R. (1982). Camels and camel milk. FAO Animal Production and
Health. Publications Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of
the 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 physical
characteristics of buffalo meat. Meat Science, 37, 103–113.