Potentials of camel production in Babilie and Kebribeyah woredas of the Jijiga Zone, Somali Region, Ethiopia

Yohannes Mehari, Zeleke Mekuriaw* and Getachew Gebru*

Addis Ababa, P.O.Box 62824, Ethiopia
yohanmehari@yahoo.com
*Haramaya University, P.O.Box 138, Dre-Dawa, Ethiopia
zeleke_mekuriaw@yahoo.co.uk
*Global Livestock CRSP Pastoral Risk Management Project Utah state University, Department of Environment and Society,
Logan USA c/o ILRI-Ethiopia, Addis Ababa
g.gebru@cgiar.org

Abstract

The study was conducted from July 2005 to January 2006 in Babilie and Kebribeyah woredas, Jijiga Zone of the Somali Regional State with the objective of identifying the production potential of camel in the study areas. The method of data collection employed was a single visit formal survey. The biological and social variables considered were milk production, body weight, and draught power of camel. The data was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 12.

In the present study, the majority of respondents (67.5 and 65% for Babilie and Kebribeyah, respectively) indicated the lactation length of camels to be 12 months. There was no significance difference (p>0.05) across woredas for frequency of milking for mid and late stages of lactation, in wet season. However, significantly difference (p <0.05) in milking frequency in early stages of lactation and in dry season was recorded.

There was highly significant difference (p<0.01) for estimated mean daily milk yield between the two woredas at an early stage of lactation. In general, the mean daily milk yield was higher during the wet season than the dry season for both woredas.

The mean linear body measurement for male and female camels was compared. The data revealed that abdominal girth, chest girth in front of breast pad and chest girth behind breast pad were not significant (p>0.05) but there was significant difference (p<0.05) in height between sexes.

The regular and occasional type of work of camels in the study area was packing, transportation, ploughing and traction. The existence of a wealth of indigenous knowledge for treating different Human and animal diseases was identified in this study.

Key word: Camel, camel meat, camel milk, camel power, potentials of camel

Introduction

The camel (Camelus dromedaries) is an important livestock species uniquely adapted to hot arid environments. It is most numerous in the arid areas of Africa, particularly in the arid lowlands of Eastern Africa namely, Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti. Approximately 11.5 million animals in this region represent over 80% of the African and two thirds of the world's camel population (Schwartz 1992).. With increasing human population pressure and declining per capita production of food in Africa, there is an urgent need to develop previously marginal resources, such as the semi-arid and arid rangelands, and to optimize their utilization through appropriate livestock production systems of which camel production is certainly the most suitable one (Schwartz 1992).

The major ethnic groups owning camels in Ethiopia are the Beja, Rashaida, Afar, Somali and Borana (Workneh 2002). However, despite its significant contribution to the livelihood of the pastoralist society who does have little alternative mode of production system, up until recently the camel is one of the neglected domestic livestock by scientific community in Ethiopia (Yesihak and Bekele 2003).

Despite all its ecological advantages, the camel will continue to loose importance, unless solutions are found for turning camel breeding into an activity profitable enough to sustain livelihoods. The camel represents something of an orphan commodity that neither animal scientists and veterinarians nor wildlife conservationists feel responsible for. This situation has to change. Furthermore, the stigma that has come to be associated with camel breeding as a backward activity has to be removed. Unless young people perceive camel breeding as a livelihood option that generates a certain minimum income, there is no way that the camel can be saved, except in a zoo (Kohler-Rollefson 2004).

In spite of the great ecological and economical value of the camel production little is known about cons and pros of its production compared to that of other domestic animals. Previous works conducted on camels are more concentrated on diseases, reproductive physiology and characterization. The information on camel production and its contribution to herders especially in eastern Ethiopia is inadequate. This study is, therefore, initiated to bridge the information gap on camel sub sector in reference to Jijiga zone.
 

Materials and methods

The survey was conducted in Jijiga Zone of the Somali Regional State. The Somali Regional State, which forms part of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, is situated in the eastern part of the country. The field wok was undertaken from July 2005 to January 2006. Both primary and secondary data were collected. Primary data sources were the household heads and key informants during group discussion in the respective woredas whereas the secondary data were collected from different concerned line ministries

The sampling procedure was purposive sampling because strictly random sampling procedure might not be possible due to mobile, scattered and less accessible nature of pastoral communities (Tezera 1998). The household heads were selected based on camel possessions and willingness to be part of the survey. Forty camel herders from Babilie and sixty camel herders from Kebribeyah woredas were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. For conducting the field survey, five enumerators and two supervisors who have the knowledge about the area and well acquainted with the culture and can speak local language were recruited and "trained" on the methods of data collection and contents of the interview.

The method of data collection employed was a single visit formal survey (ILCA 1990). Herd average milk production of camels, in the selected households, was recorded based on parity, stage of lactation, season, and age of camels. Body weight of camels was estimated from linear body measurement. For this purpose, 45 male and 33 non-pregnant female camels for Babilie woreda; and 66 male and 33 non-pregnant female camels from Kebribeyah woreda (totaling 177 mature camels) were measured using measuring tape. During body measurement, the type of camel under consideration was registered. Accordingly, based on the information from the respondents, twelve camel types, from seven clans (Grie, Midgan, Issak, Ogaden Rerhirsguled, Sheriff, and Abskul), namely; Ogaden, Issa very short, Issa short, Issa medium, Issa tall, Hamer-asie, Edema, Ayuun, Ageweyine, White and red mixed, Key, and Aydin camels were measured. Weight of camels was estimated from linear body measurements according to Yagil (1994).

The following equation was used for the body weight estimation:

Y = SH (m)* TG (m)* HG (m)*50

Where:

Y = The weight in kg

SH (m) = The height of the shoulder in meter

TG (m) = The chest girth behind the chest pad in meter

HG (m) = The abdominal girth over the highest part of the hump in meter

Camels have multiple function and purposes, including riding, as pack animals, as draught power source in agriculture. Consequently, estimation of economic significance of the various forms of employment poses difficulty (Schwartz and Walsh 1992). In this study, attempts were made to assess the regular and occasional duties of camel as pack animal.

The data were analyzed using the computer software SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) version 12.  Mean of milking frequency for stages of lactation and season, estimated milk yield for stages of lactation and season, linear body measurement and body weight of camels were computed. ANOVA was run for milking frequency in different stages of lactation and season, milk yield for stages of lactation and season, linear body measurement. Means plots for height of camels were also computed.
 

Result and discussion

Potentials of camel production

The production potential of the camel has received lamentably little attention. There are five main areas where camels can contribute: these are milk and meat production, work power and hair and hides by-products (El Amin 1984).

Milk production

In the present study, the majority of respondents (67.5 and 65% for Babilie and Kebribeyah, respectively) indicated the lactation length of camels to be 12 months (Figure 1).

This finding is fairly in agreement with the previous finding of Farah (1996) who found out 9 to 18 months and that of Tezera (1998) who indicated 13 and 15 months for Shinlie and Jijiga camels, respectively. The lactation length recorded in the present study is, however, shorter than the one, which was reported by Schwartz and Walsh (1992), who indicated it to be 15 to 18 months. In fact, shorter lactation lengths than the value of the present finding are also reported by Alemayehu (2001), which is 6 to 8 months for Afar and Kereyu camels of Ethiopia respectively. This variation might have been emanated from breed/type and agro-ecological differences.

Artificial control of lactation length is practiced more in Kebribeyah than in Babilie. According to respondents, lactation length is shortened when feed for calf is plenty or to safeguard the she camel. At the same time, lactation length is prolonged to prevent pregnancy and then to maintain milk production for family consumption as well as to safeguard the camel calf. This finding is in agreement with Ahmed (2002) who stated that the lactation length varies depending on the management decision of the owners.

The mean milking frequency for Babilie was 3.47 per day at early stage of lactation, constantly decreasing and reaching to 2.33 at late stage of lactation. Whereas, in Kebribeyah 2.92 per day at early stage of lactation, increased to 3.18 at the mid lactation and finally reaching to 2.45 at late stage of lactation. Even though there was a difference in increment and decrement for wet and dry seasons, respectively, milk frequency was higher during wet season than during dry season for both woredas (Table 1) that is, a milking frequency of 3.01 per day during the wet season and 2.78 during dry season, respectively for Babilie woreda. Similarly, for Kebribeyah there was a milking frequency of 3.23 and 2.29 per day for wet and dry seasons, respectively. This finding is in agreement with Ahmed (2002) who stated that the gel-lab sub type was milked on average 3.61 times daily, irrespective of herd size.

There was no significance difference (p>0.05) across woredas for frequency of milking for mid and late stages of lactation. Similarly, there was no difference (p>0.05) between woredas in milking frequency during wet season. However, significantly difference (p <0.05) in milking frequency in early stages of lactation was recorded. There was a significant difference (p <0.05) across woredas in milking frequency during the dry season. The difference in milking frequency between the two woredas was the consequence of water problems during dry season in Kebribeyah than Babilie.

According to herders the estimated mean daily milk yield during early stages of lactation was 6.41 and 5.01 liters for Babilie and Kebribeyah respectively. The estimated daily milk yield during the mid stage of lactation was 5.00 and 5.12 liters for Babilie and Kebribeyah, respectively. The estimated mean daily milk yield at late stage of lactation found to be 3.20 and 3.19 liters for Babilie and Kebribeyah, respectively. Similarly, the estimated daily milk yield in Babilie was 5.64 and 4.18 liters for wet and dry season, respectively. Whereas, in Kebribeyah it found to be 5.73 and 3.58 liters in wet and dry season, respectively. There was highly significant difference (p<0.01) for estimated mean daily milk yield between the two woredas at an early stage of lactation. The prevailing water problem in Kebribeyah, especially during dry season, may affect the higher milk yield potential of the first phase of early stages of lactation. On the other hand, there was no significance difference (p>0.05) for mid and late stages of lactations.

In general, the mean daily milk yield was higher during the wet season than the dry season for both woredas. This finding is in agreement with Zeleke (1998) who stated that, the average daily milk offtake was higher during wet season than during dry season.

Mature body weight

For body measurement, 45 male and 33 female camels from Babilie and 66 male and 33 female camels from Kebribeyah were considered. Twelve camel types were considered in the study, and the classification of the camel types was made by respondents. These camel types belong to seven clans, namely, Grie, Midgan, Issak, Ogaden, Rerhirsguled, Sheriff, and Abskul. Totally 177 camels were measured.

The mean linear body measurement for male and female camels was compared. The data revealed that abdominal girth, chest girth in front of breast pad and chest girth behind breast pad were not significant (p>0.05) but there was significant difference (p<0.05) in height between sexes. The means plots indicated that the mean height of males were greater than females. This finding is in agreement with that of Dioli et al (1992) who stated that there is quite distinctive sexual dimorphism in camels, the male camel is usually taller and of heavier built than the female.

The heart girth, height at withers and body weight and length of a camel are positively correlated with power output and draught force. The draught force generated by a camel ranges from 17 - 22% of bodyweight (Raghvendar et al 2003). The mean linear body measurement of camels was compared with age. It was found that abdominal girth, chest girth in front of breast pad, and height was not significantly different (p > 0.05) between different age groups of camels but chest girth behind breast pad was significant (p< 0.05). The means plots indicate that the peak measurement of the chest girth behind breast pad reached maximum at the age of 13 years and the lower measurement was at the age of 18 years. Camels may have higher potential of draught power at the age of 13.

The mean weight of camels for Babilie woreda was 435.23 and 377.96 kg for male and female, respectively, whereas in Kebribeyah it was found to be 407 and 401.70 kg for male and female, respectively. This finding is in agreement with Schwartz and Walsh (1992) who stated that adult live weight reaches approximately 320 to 750 kg. The present value is lower than that of Tezera (1998) who reported as the mean calculated live weight for adult male and female camels to be 486 and 427 kg for Jijiga, respectively but higher than those reported for Shinlie (384 kg and 326 for male and female, respectively) by the same author. The variation may be due to difference in camel types.

Meat production

A survey on camel meat productivity and consumption conducted in Jijiga and Harar towns by Kurtu (2004) indicated that, the dressing percentage of eastern Ethiopia camels found to be 54.03±5.13 for male camels and 50.65±3.70 for female camels. Meat production potential of a camel found to be (230.02 - 240.28 kg) for male and (187.74 - 195.14 kg) for female in Babilie, respectively, whereas in Kebribeyah it was found to be (214.77 - 225.03 kg) for male and (199.76 - 207.16 kg) for female respectively.

Unlike other parts of Ethiopia, there was no preference of sex of a particular animal for slaughtering purpose especially for cattle, sheep and goat. The reason for slaughtering was festival, wedding, mourning, physical damage of the animal, for preying and arrival of guests. This finding concurred with the observation of Mohamed (1993), Ahmed (2002), Kaufmann and Binder (2002) and Farah et al (2004), which stated that camel meat consumption in pastoralists is occasional.

Based on 52.9 and 23.5% of respondents from Babilie, preserved camel meat stayed un spoiled and safe for consumption after five and ten years, respectively. Whereas 50 and 33.3% of respondents in Kebribeyah reported that it stayed unspoiled and safe for consumption after many years and one year, respectively. This finding is in conformity with the findings of Tezera (1998) who stated that olobe can be consumed safely for more than one year in Jijiga. Contrary to the present finding, Ahmed (2002) reported as olobe can be preserved for three to six months in Afder. The variation may be due to difference in method of preparation of olobe. In Afder olobe is prepared in low fire where as in Kebribeyah and Babilie it is well-done.

Draught power

The regular and occasional type of work of camels in the study area was packing, transportation, ploughing and traction. The regular type of work for camels in Kebribeyah was transportation, packing, ploughing and traction in their order of importance, whereas in Babilie the order of importance (Table 2) is packing, transportation, traction and ploughing.

From the data we can draw a conclusion that ploughing using camels is more common in Kebribeyah than in Babilie. A saying in Kebribeyah, "a camel is a tractor", indicats its greater power for ploughing a land. According to key informants, both in Babilie and Kebribeyah, a camel can plough 0.5 hectare of land per day.

In India, camel power to plough 0.5 hectare is found (Bhakat et al 2003) to be almost the same as that of bullock (1.12±0.32 day vs. 1.23±0.37 day). A single camel could also plough a hectare of land in 20 hours (Mukasa-Mugerwa 1981; Wilson 1984).

According to respondents (75% in Babilie and 82% in Kebribeyah) packing is a regular work for entire male. This finding is in agreement with those of Wilson (1998), Schwartz and Walsh (1992), Melaku and Feseha (2001) and Raza et al (2004) who reported that different items are regularly transported on back of camels. Similarly, transportation is a regular work for entire male (42% and 87% of the respondents in Babilie and Kebribeyah, respectively) followed by castrate and female camels. This finding again concurs with those of Alemayehu (2001), Ahmed (2002) and Workneh (2002) who reported that camels are used as animal of transport in the most inhospitable areas of the world. According to key informants a camel on average can carry a load of 200 and 250 kg in Babilie and Kebribeyah, respectively.

In Kebribeyah, female camels were not used for regular or occasional works whereas in Babilie both sexes were used for regular and occasional works. This implies that Kebribeyah respondents reserve female camels for milk production only. Respondents from Kebribeyah were more dependent on camel power than Babilie due to the fact that Babilie has access to modern means of transportation because the main road from Harar to Jijiga bisect it; there are more numbers of cattle and donkey as alternative animal power in Babilie than Kebribeyah (Table 3).

Traditional medicinal value of camel

Pastoralists have indigenous knowledge in treating their animals and themselves. Due to the fact that they are living at periphery and very remote area where social services are in scarce or even absence, pastoralists depend on traditional remedies. Camel milk, meat and urine are among the materials used as traditional medicines.

Camel milk therapy

Respondents (97.5 and 85% for Babilie and Kebribeyah, respectively) recognize the medicinal value of camel milk. This finding is in agreement with those of Yagil (1982), Knoes et al (1986), Tezera (1998) and Alemayehu (2001) who stated that in all camel rearing countries, the breeders are convinced that camel milk has special medicinal properties, especially for dropsy, jaundice and conditions affecting the lungs and spleen.

Respondents from Babilie indicated the medicinal value of camel milk for gastritis (17.5%), asthmatics (7.5%), stomach discomfort (2.5%), HIV (7.5%), hamot (kar) (12.5%), tuberculosis (12.5%), fever (2.5%), urinary problems (5%) and hepatitis (2.5%). Respondents in Kebribeyah indicated the medicinal value of camel milk for jaundice (18.33%), common cold (1.67%), dearbeh ("diarrhea") (1.67%), daarta ("nausea") (1.67%) and diabetics (1.67%). Respondents in both woredas in common indicated the medicinal value of camel milk for constipation (7.5, 41.67%), Jaundice (15, 6.67%), for Babilie and Kebribeyah, respectively. This finding is in conformity with those of Yagil (1994) and Konuspayeva and Faye (2004) who reported the medicinal value of camel milk for cirrhosis of the liver, rickets, constipation, asthma and anaemia.

For corresponding diseases there are traditional ways of treatment and for some diseases even dosages were indicated.

Camel meat therapy

Despite the fact that camel meat is more preferred than beef, mutton or chevon in both study woredas, due to its bigger size and higher value, slaughtering camel is not common. Most respondents (70 and 56.67% for Babilie and Kebribeyah, respectively) recognize the medicinal value of camel meat. According to respondents camel meat is important for treating fracture, asthmatics, HIV, tuberculosis, draft (birdbeshita), and gastritis at least in one of the study woredas. This finding is in agreement with Kurtu (2004) who stated that camel meat is claimed by the Somali people to have a remedial effect for at least 13 different kinds of diseases, including hyperacidity, hypertension, pneumonia and respiratory diseases and also to be an aphrodisiac.

Camel urine therapy

Camel urine for having traditional medicinal value is known only by 35 and 63.33% of respondents in Babilie and Kebribeyah, respectively. According to these respondents, it is useful for treating scabies, ekek, Jaundice and some other diseases with corresponding treatment procedures.
 

Conclusion

• The camel is one of the most important livestock for pastoralist livelihood as much as their blood circulation. With out camel it is difficult to overcome the prevailing harsh environmental conditions of the arid and semiarid areas. From camel nothing drops, its milk, meat, hide, hair, urine, feaces, draught power, walking capital and prestige are the major importance of camel.

• Longer shelf life of traditionally preserved meat under prevailing environmental conditions of arid and semiarid areas is a fertile background for food security.

• Not using female camels for regular or occasional work, and possession of higher number of females in Kebribeyah than Babilie, shows the relative importance of camels as dairy and draught animal for Kebribeyah and Babilie, respectively.
   

Reference

Ahmed M 2002 Study on practices and problems of camel production in Afder zone of Somali national regional state, Ethiopia. An MSc. Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University 148p.

Alemayehu G 2001 Breeding program and evaluation of semen characteristics of camels in the central rift valley of Ethiopia. An MSc. Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University 67p.

Bhakat Champak, Chaturvedi D and Sahani M S 2003 An economic study of the use of draught camels and bullocks in farming in the Thar desert. Draught Animal News (DAN) No. 39 December 2003. Center for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh. pp 19-24.

Dioli M, Schwartz H J and Stimmelmaryr R 1992 Management and Handling of the Camel. In: Schwartz H J and Dioli M 1992 (Editors). The One-Humped Camel (Camelus dromedaries) in Eastern Africa: a pictorial guide to diseases, health care, and management. Verlag Josef, Scientific Books D- 6992 Weikersheim Federal Republic of Germany. pp. 62-154.

El Amin F M 1984 The dromedary of the Sudan. The camelid all purpose animal Volume I. Proceeding of the Khartum Workshop on Camels, December 1979. Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, Uppsala 1984. pp. 36 - 49.

Farah Z 1996 Camel Milk Properties (SKAT). Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ETH-Zentrum, LFO, CH-8092 Zurich. pp.67.

Farah K O, Nyariki D M, Ngugi R K, Noor I M and Guliye A Y 2004 The Somali and the camel: Ecology, management and economics. Kamla-raj 2004 Anthropologist, 6(1):45.

ILCA (International Livestock Center for Africa) 1990 Livestock marketing. ILCA working paper 1, Livestock systems research manual volume1. International Livestock Center for Africa, December 1990, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp.203 - 229

Kaufmann B A and Binder C 2002 Production Aims and Functions of Camels in Kenyan Pastoral Systems. In: Hulsebusch C G and Kaufmann B A 2002 (Editors). Camel Breeds and Breeding in Northern Kenya, an account of Local Camel Breeds of Northern Kenya and Camel Breeding Management of Turkana, Rendille, Gabra and Somali Pastoralists. Kenyan Agricultural Institute (KARI), Nairobi, Kenya. pp.15-28

Knoess K H, Makhundum A J, Rafiq M and Hafeez M 1986 Milk production potential of the dromedary, with special reference to the province of Punjab, Pakistan. World Animal Review a Quarterly Journal on Animal Health, Production and Products no. 57, 1986.World Animal Review Nos 54 - 60, 1985 - 86. pp. 11-21

Kohler-Rollefson Ilse 2004 The camel in Rajasthan: Agricultural diversity under threat. Saving the Camel and Peoples' Livelihoods Building a Multi stockholder Platform for the Conservation of the Camel in Rajasthan, International conference, 23-25 November 2004, Sadri, Rajasthan, India. pp.6-18

Konuspayeva Guakhar and Faye B 2004 A better knowledge of milk quality parameters: A preliminary step for improving the camel milk market opportunity in a transition economy- the case of Kazakhstan. Saving the Camel and Peoples' Livelihoods Building a Multi stockholder Platform for the Conservation of the Camel in Rajasthan, International conference, 23-25 November 2004, Sadri, Rajasthan, India. pp. 28-36.

Kurtu M Y 2004 An assessment of the productivity for meat and carcass yield of camels (Camelus dromedaries) and the consumption of camel meat in the eastern region of Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production 36 (2004) 65-76.

Melaku T and Fesha G 2001 A study on the productivity and diseases of camel in Eastern Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production 33 (2001) 265-274.

Mohamed H A 1993 Traditional Practices of Camel Husbandry and Management in Somalia. The Multipurpose Camel: Interdisciplinary Studies on Pastoral Production in Somalia. EPOS, Research Programme on Environmental Policy and Society Department of Social and Geography, Uppsala University, Sweden. pp.123-140.

Mukasa-Mugerwa 1981 The Camel (Camelus dromedarius): A Bibliographical Review. ILCA Monograph 5. International Livestock Center for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Raghvendar S, Rai A K and Sahani M S 2003 The performance capabilities of camels in arid and semiarid region of India. Draught Animal News (DAN) No. 38 June 2003. Center for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh. pp. 19-22.

Raza H R S, Gondal K Z and Arshad I 2004 Use of Camel as Draught Animal in Pakistan. Draught Animal News (DAN) No. 40 June 2004. Center for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh. pp. 33-39.

Schwartz H J 1992 The Camel (Camelus dromedarius) in Eastern Africa. In: Schwartz H.J and Dioli M 1992 (Editors). The One-Humped Camel (Camelus dromedaries) in Eastern Africa: a pictorial guide to diseases, health care, and management. Verlag Josef, Scientific Books D- 6992 Weikersheim Federal Republic of Germany. pp. 1-7

Schwartz H J and Walsh M G H 1992 The Productive Potential of the Camel. In: Schwartz H J and Dioli M 1992 (Editors). The One-Humped Camel (Camelus dromedaries) in Eastern Africa: a pictorial guide to diseases, health care, and management. Verlag Josef, Scientific Books D- 6992 Weikersheim Federal Republic of Germany. pp. 30-61

Tezera G 1998 Characterization of camel husbandry practices and camel milk and meat utilization in Jijiga and Shnlie zone, Somali region. An MSc. Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University 145p.

Wilson R T 1984 Productivity. The Camel. Longman House Burnt Mill, Harlow, Essex, UK. pp. 153-172.

Wilson R T 1998 Productivity. Camels. The Tropical Agriculturalist, CTA, the Netherlands. pp.108-126.

Workneh N 2002 Socio-economic importance of camel in Ethiopia: An overview. A paper presented on the international workshop on Camel Research and Development: Formulating a Research Agenda for the Next Decade, Wad Medani, Sudan, 9-12, 2002.

Yagil R 1982 Camels and Camel Milk. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 26. Italy, Rome 1982 http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6528E/X6528E00.htm

Yagil R 1994 The Camel in Todays World, A hand Book on Camel Management. Germany-Israel Fund for Research and International Development and Deutsche Welthungerhilfe, Bonn, July 1994. pp.74

Yesihak Y and Bekele T 2003 Growth pattern of one humped camel (Camelus Dromedarius). Proceeding of the 11^th Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP) held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, August 28 - 30, 2003. pp.157-165.

Zeleke M 1998 Productivity, reproductivity and health monitoring study on camel at Errer valley, Ethiopia. An MSc. Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University 98p.

Received 31 December 2006; Accepted 23 February 2007; Published 2 April 2007

Go to top