 |
| Figure 1. The map of study area |
| Livestock Research for Rural Development 27 (10) 2015 | Guide for preparation of papers | LRRD Newsletter | Citation of this paper |
A study was conducted in the El Alia region, Ouargla (South-East of Algeria), to determine the dietary preference of camels (Camelus dromedaries) and the quality of forage preferred in the dry and wet seasons. Eight camels were randomly selected from one of four age and sex categories, adult males (AM), adult females (AF), young males (YM) and young females (YF), to measure time spent feeding on different plants.
The results indicated that Traganum nudatum and Anabasis articulata were the most preferred plants for (AM), (AF) and (YM) and (YF) respectively in the wet season. In the dry season Limoniastrum guyonianum was the most preferred plant for all camel categories. Chemical composition showed that the average dry matter (DM) content of the plants was 94%, while the crude protein (CP) ranged between 9 - 14% in DM. The crude fiber (CF) was in the range of 8 to 11% in DM. The organic matter (OM) ranged from 72.3 to 84.8 % in DM. Ash content was in the range of 15 to 27% in DM. The results show that the preferred plants studied have accepted levels of nutrients.
Key words: camel, natural habitat, pastoral herders, season, subsistence
Camels are the most capable animal species in utilizing marginal areas and in survival and production under harsh environmental conditions (Abbas and Tilley, 1990; Schwartz, 1992). Camels are a source of high-value meat and milk protein for the population in arid areas and also provide efficient services in agriculture, environmental-friendly transport and leisure (El Harrak et al 2011). Furthermore, camels provide important incomes for the people residing in the arid and semiarid areas.
In North Africa, breeding camels effectively contributes to the fight against desertification, the fight against poverty and the keep of the population in rural areas. In Algeria in particular, camels breeding contribute to food security related to the increase in livestock production, improvement of pastoralists living conditions, improvement of farmers income and conservation of biodiversity, it done by rational use of spontaneous fodder by camel herds.
Camels are adapted to the poor feeding conditions of deserts by selecting diets of high quality throughout all the seasons. These diets include plants with high digestibility (Rutagwenda et al 1989) and high crud protein content (Kamoun and Steinmetz 1995; El-Keblawy 2003). Camels generally graze on a broad spectrum of fodder plants, including thorny bushes, halophytes and aromatic species, usually avoided by other domestic herbivores (Iqbal and Khan 2001).
Methods based on direct feeding observations and measurement of time spent for species intakes at pasture seem to be more suitable for forage preferences studies. Moreover, it is necessary to understand the foraging behavior of dromedaries in order to predict their impact on the vegetation and their nutrient requirements. Furthermore, management and use of range plants in camel feeding systems require a good knowledge of their palatability and nutritive value. This study was conducted to determine the seasonal preference, species preferences, and ranking preference of the fore camel category in the wet and dry season and chemical composition of preferred species in El Alia region, South-East of Algeria.
The study site, El Alia is located in the arid Grand Erg Oriental Basin, at about 80 km north of Ouargla town, northeastern part of the Algerian Sahara (32° 41′ 51″ N, 5° 25′ 32″ E). This region is characterized by Aridity expressed through a permanent drought, irregular and scarce rainfall, in winter the temperature drops below 0°c while in summer it reaches 50°c, the period between July and August is the hottest, average rainfall varies between 30 and 50 mm/year. The combination of the low rainfall with an irregular pluviometric regime that knows large interannual variability is causing long periods of drought in this desert region (Chehma et al 2009). This supports the fact that it is precipitation, rather than temperature, which plays the role of limiting factor to the primary production in this ecological region.
The region of study is characterized by a variety of landscapes and geomorphological forms, include Ergs “large wind-swept sand dunes”, Regs “extensive gravel covered plains”, Dayas “shallow, seasonally inundated basins”, Wadis “ephemeral streams”, valleys, Hammadas “rocky plateaus” and Oases (Chehma 2006). The vegetation cover is discontinuous, sparse and very irregular. Plants use mainly places where water supply is a little less unfavourable than elsewhere (Ozenda 2004).
The main plant species of the region are, Alenda (Ephedra alata), Arta (Calligonum comosum), Retem (Retama retam), Adhide ( Euphorbia guyoniana), Ethel (Tamarix galica), Zita (Limoniastrum guyonianum) and Dhemran (Traganum nudatum), these species are widely available and highly preferred by ruminants (sheep, goats and camels) in its natural habitat.
In the study site, the camel is an important livestock; its role in the subsistence economy of the pastoralists is great, from its provision of milk, meat and has social and cultural importance to the pastoral herders.
|
| Figure 1. The map of study area |
Daily monitoring of camel herds in the course throughout the day has been set up in the region of El Alia (southeast of Algeria) during the period from October 2013 to July 2014. The whole herds were released on to the pastures from about 07.00 to 19.00 h daily during the study period. In order to determine plant food species preferences for camels, behavioral observations were used to record the frequency of feeding on different plant species.
Feed preferences in dry and wet seasons were assessed by direct observations (Buechner 1950; Schwartz 1988).
Eight camels were randomly selected from one of four age and sex categories, adult males (AM), adult females (AF), young males (YM) and young females (YF) were observed for 2 hours in dry and wet seasons. The time spent by each animal feeding on one plant was recorded; the plant species eaten were also noted.
The time period selected for the study was between 09.00 and 10.00 h and 14.00 and 15.00 h in the experimental period. During this time, one of the each category of camels was chosen randomly for a day-long data collection. The identification of plants was made with the help of the work of Quézel and Santa (1962), Ozenda (1991) and Chehma (2006). Samples of the plant most preferred by each of the four categories of animals were collected for chemical analysis.
 |
 |
|
Figure 2. Camel in the course during grazing |
|
 |
 |
| Figure 3. Types of course in the study area | |
The samples were dried for 48 h at 60°C, then were weighed and ground in a hammer mill, provided with a 1 mm pore size screen. The chemical analysis was performed according to the methods of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC 1990). Dry matter was determined by drying the samples at 105 °C overnight and ash by igniting the samples in a muffle furnace at 525 °C for 8 h. Nitrogen (N) content was measured by the Khjeldal method (AOAC 1990). CP was calculated as N X 6.25. Crude fiber was determined according to Van Soest and Wine (1967).
Different experimental groups (the time spent on each plant species by each category of animals, constituents and parameters) were compared with the Univariate ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s test for comparisons post hoc. A probability level of P≤0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. The SPSS software package (SPSS Ver. 15.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois) was used for all tests.
Forage preference of camels in the wet and dry season is presented in Table 1. Camel selected 32 and 24 plant species in the wet and dry season, respectively. The numbers of forage species preferred by the four camel categories (AM, AF, YM and YF) in dry season (24 species) were less than the number of plants preferred in the wet season (32 species). The results of study (Table 1) shows that camels diet is diverse and mainly based on perennial plants (32 species belonging to 15 families in wet season, 24 species belonging to 13 families in dry season). These results concurred with the reports of Slimani et al (2012), Rutagwenda et al (1989) and Faye and Tisserand (1988) indicating that camels consume very different species. Furthermore, Chehma et al (2012) reported that camel were able to graze more than 86% of potentially available plant species in its rangeland. El-Keblawy et al (2009) reported that camels are known to have a very wide range of dietary preferences. In addition, Elmi et al (1989) observed that in Central Somalia a total of 47 forage species composed 94% and 90% of the total diet of camel in dry and wet seasons, respectively. These various studies on the feeding behavior of the dromedary showed the greatest diversity of plants consumed by the dromedary, this confirms the results of this study.
The results indicate that camels select different plant species from one season to another. However, the plants preferred by camels during the wet season were significantly higher compared to those preferred during the dry season. This could be attributed to the increase in the available plants during wet season (chehma et al 2009, Slimani et al 2013). Schwartz and Dioli (1992) reported that camels are consistently able to select best qualities with minor differences between seasons. On average the time spent to grazing was 1.02 for (AM), 0.97 for (AF), 0.98 for (YM) and 0.97 for (YF) of the total feeding time in the wet season, however in the dry season the time spent to grazing was 0.94 for (AM), 0.98 for (AF), 1.00 for (YM) and 0.96 for (YF).
In the wet season, male camels (AM and YM) spent significantly more time for foraging than females (AF and YF). In the dry season (YM) spent significantly more time for feeding as compared to (AF) and (YF), but (YF) and (AF) spent significantly more time for feeding as compared to (AM). According to Iqbal (1999) and Chimsa et al (2013), the time spent by adult camel in grazing was relatively higher than the time spent by young camel. Generally the high time spent for foraging by Adult camel (AM and AF) compared to young camel (YM and YF) might be due to their experience and ability to browse diversified plants species (Chimsa et al 2013).
Dereje and Uden (2005) reported that in the dry season, YM and YF spent more time browsing than AM and AF. In the wet season, YF spent more time browsing as compared to AM, adult camels (AM and AF) spent more time on other activities, as compared to YM, AF spent more time on other activities than YF. He concluded that more time was devoted by the camels to browsing in the dry season, compared to the wet season. However, in the wet season, more time was spent walking, ruminating and on other activities, compared to the dry season.
In present study more time spent on grazing in the wet season compared to the dry season. However, the cooler climate throughout the day and availability and diversity of feed in wet season might favored the camels to spent more time in grazing compared to the dry season (Dereje and Uden 2005; Chimsa et al 2013).
|
Table 1. Plant species preferred by dromedary camels during the dry and wet seasons |
|||||
|
Species |
Family name |
AM |
AF |
YM |
YF |
|
Wet season |
|||||
|
Anabasis articulata |
Chenopodiaceae |
0,115 |
0,12 |
0,165 |
0,163 |
|
Agatophora alopecuroides |
Chenopodiaceae |
0,011 |
0,02 |
0,023 |
0,016 |
|
Astragalus gombo |
Fabaceae. |
0,024 |
0,019 |
0,018 |
0,019 |
|
Calligonum comosum |
Polygonaceae |
0,021 |
0,02 |
0,018 |
0,015 |
|
Cornulaca monacantha |
Chenopodiaceae |
0,056 |
0,015 |
0,031 |
0,015 |
|
Cynodon dactylon |
Poaceae |
0,005 |
0,021 |
0,016 |
0,01 |
|
Ephedra alata |
Ephedraceae |
0,028 |
0,035 |
0,024 |
0,019 |
|
Fagonia glutinosa |
Zygophyllaceæ |
0,016 |
0,019 |
0,018 |
0,028 |
|
Genista Saharae |
Fabaceae |
0,024 |
0,023 |
0,016 |
0,015 |
|
Helianthemum lippii |
Cistaceae |
0,028 |
0,019 |
0,021 |
0,02 |
|
Launaea glomerata |
Asteraceae |
0,01 |
0,019 |
0,02 |
0,029 |
|
Limoniastrum guyonianum |
Plumbaginaceae. |
0,016 |
0,01 |
0,006 |
0,014 |
|
Malcolmia aegyptiaca |
Brassicaceae |
0,021 |
0,015 |
0,019 |
0,02 |
|
Megastoma pusillum |
Boraginaceae |
0,016 |
0,011 |
0,01 |
0,016 |
|
Monsonia heliotropioides |
Geraniaceae |
0,051 |
0,016 |
0,03 |
0,028 |
|
Moltkiopsis ciliata |
Boraginaceae |
0,09 |
0,079 |
0,074 |
0,024 |
|
Neurada procumbens |
Neuradaceae |
0,015 |
0,024 |
0,021 |
0,03 |
|
Oudneya africana |
Brassicaceae |
0,024 |
0,029 |
0,026 |
0,034 |
|
Panicum turgidum |
Poaceae |
0,015 |
0,021 |
0,018 |
0,03 |
|
Plantago Ciliata |
Plantaginaceae. |
0,018 |
0,029 |
0,028 |
0,031 |
|
Randonia Africana |
Resedaceae |
0,009 |
0,014 |
0,018 |
0,029 |
|
Retama retam |
Fabaceae |
0,021 |
0,029 |
0,018 |
0,024 |
|
Salsola longifolia |
Chenopodiaceae |
0,051 |
0,056 |
0,055 |
0,04 |
|
Salsola tetragona |
Chenopodiaceae |
0,095 |
0,071 |
0,081 |
0,076 |
|
Savignya longistyla |
Brassicaceae |
0,018 |
0,013 |
0,013 |
0,015 |
|
Stipagrostis obtusa |
Poaceae |
0,013 |
0,018 |
0,011 |
0,018 |
|
Stipagrostis plumosa |
Poaceae |
0,015 |
0,011 |
0,025 |
0,018 |
|
Stipagrostis pungens |
Poaceae |
0,019 |
0,018 |
0,01 |
0,016 |
|
Suaeda fruticosa |
Chenopodiaceae |
0,011 |
0,01 |
0,019 |
0,024 |
|
Tamarix gallica |
Tamaricaceae |
0,013 |
0,015 |
0,016 |
0,008 |
|
Traganum nudatum |
Chenopodiaceae |
0,146 |
0,169 |
0,101 |
0,114 |
|
Zygophyllum album |
Zygophyllaceae |
0,005 |
0,008 |
0,013 |
0,014 |
|
Dry season |
|||||
|
Anabasis articulata |
Chenopodiaceae |
0,105 |
0,156 |
0,116 |
0,119 |
|
Agatophora alopecuroides |
Chenopodiaceae |
0,023 |
0,015 |
0,033 |
0,006 |
|
Calligonum comosum |
Polygonaceae |
0,01 |
0,006 |
0,016 |
0,009 |
|
Cornulaca monacantha |
Chenopodiaceae |
0,036 |
0,045 |
0,068 |
0,016 |
|
Ephedra alata |
Ephedraceae |
0,021 |
0,011 |
0,073 |
0,028 |
|
Fagonia glutinosa |
Zygophyllaceæ |
0,028 |
0,015 |
0,03 |
0,006 |
|
Genista Saharae |
Fabaceae |
0,038 |
0,005 |
0,009 |
0,026 |
|
Limoniastrum guyonianum |
Plombaginacese |
0,202 |
0,224 |
0,188 |
0,171 |
|
Malcolmia aegyptiaca |
Brassicaceae |
0,035 |
0,006 |
0,011 |
0,025 |
|
Monsonia heliotropioides |
Gaminées |
0,016 |
0,016 |
0,024 |
0,02 |
|
Moltkiopsis ciliata |
Boraginacees |
0,033 |
0,126 |
0,126 |
0,143 |
|
Neurada procumbens |
Neuradaceae |
0,021 |
0,02 |
0,009 |
0 |
|
Oudneya Africana |
Brassicaceae |
0,046 |
0,014 |
0,009 |
0,026 |
|
Panicum turgidum |
Poaceae |
0,011 |
0,023 |
0,003 |
0,005 |
|
Randonia Africana |
Resedaceae |
0,013 |
0,005 |
0,006 |
0,011 |
|
Retama retam |
Fabaceae |
0,018 |
0,01 |
0,007 |
0,029 |
|
Salsola longifolia |
Chenopodiaceae |
0,038 |
0,138 |
0,059 |
0,111 |
|
Salsola tetragona |
Chenopodiaceae |
0,038 |
0,059 |
0,073 |
0,061 |
|
Stipagrostis plumosa |
Poaceae |
0,011 |
0,01 |
0,009 |
0,007 |
|
Stipagrostis pungens |
Poaceae |
0,011 |
0,023 |
0,004 |
0,005 |
|
Suaeda fruticosa |
Chenopodiaceae |
0,011 |
0,009 |
0,005 |
0,006 |
|
Tamarix gallica |
Tamaricacéaes |
0,005 |
0,006 |
0,004 |
0,01 |
|
Traganum nudatum |
Chenopodiaceae |
0,138 |
0,021 |
0,104 |
0,104 |
|
Zygophyllum album |
Zygophyllaceae |
0,036 |
0,024 |
0,016 |
0,024 |
Forage species were classified according to the time spent for each plant species in four classes for the wet and dry seasons (Table 3). In the wet season Traganum nudatum (class A) was the most preferred plant for (AM) and (AF), however Anabasis articulata (class A) was the most preferred plant for (YM) and (YF), while in the dry season it was Limoniastrum guyonianum (class A) for all camel categories. The second preferred plants (class B) were Anabasis articulata for (AM) and (AF) and Traganum nudatum for (YM) and (YF) In the wet season, but during the dry season Traganum nudatum for (AM) Anabasis articulata for (AF), Moltkiopsis ciliate and Anabasis articulata for (YM) and Moltkiopsis ciliata was the second preferred plants (class B) for (YF). Plants preferred in the third category (class C) were Salsola tetragona, Moltkiopsis ciliata for AM, AF and YM and Salsola. tetragona for YM during the wet season. In the dry season Plants preferred were Anabasis articulate for AM, Salsola longifolia and Moltkiopsis ciliata for AF, Traganum nudatum for YM and Anabasis articulata, Salsola longifolia and Traganum nudatum for YF.
The order of preference for plant species changes depending on the availability or absence of feed resources. Longo et al (2007) reported that the diet of the camel is very affected by seasonal variations. This is due to the variation in the nutritional value of Saharan species which vary significantly depending on the season (Chehma and Youcef 2009).
Slimani et al (2012) reported that in the first class, representing winter, the preferred species are: Anabasis articulata, Genista saharae, Stipagrostis pungens and Traganum nudatum. In the second class, combining summer and autumn the camel prefers Heliathemum lipii, Launea mucronata, Phragmites australis, Pteranthus cloranthus, Stipagrostis obtusa and Zygophyllum album. For the third class, representing spring, the camel prefers three species that are Limoniastrum guyonianum, Moltkia ciliata and Oudneya africana respectively. These results were clearly confirmed the results of our study.
|
Table 2. Preferred Plant species classification for all camel categories |
||||
|
Classes |
AM |
AF |
YM |
YF |
|
Wet season |
||||
|
A |
Traganum nudatum |
Traganum nudatum |
Anabasis articulata |
Anabasis articulata |
|
B |
Anabasis articulata |
Anabasis articulata |
Traganum nudatum |
Traganum nudatum |
|
C |
Salsola. tetragona Moltkiopsis ciliata |
Moltkiopsis ciliata Salsola tetragona |
Salsola tetragona Moltkiopsis ciliata |
Salsola tetragona |
|
D |
Cornulaca monacantha Monsonia heliotropioides Salsola longifolia |
Salsola longifolia |
Salsola longifolia |
Salsola longifolia |
|
Dry season |
||||
|
A |
Limoniastrum guyonianum |
Limoniastrum guyonianum |
Limoniastrum guyonianum |
Limoniastrum guyonianum |
|
B |
Traganum nudatum |
Anabasis articulata |
Moltkiopsis ciliate Anabasis articulata |
Moltkiopsis ciliata |
|
C |
Anabasis articulata |
Salsola longifolia Moltkiopsis ciliata |
Traganum nudatum |
Anabasis articulata Salsola longifolia Traganum nudatum |
|
D |
Cornulaca monacantha Monsonia heliotropioides Salsola tetragona |
Salsola tetragona Cornulaca monacantha |
Ephedra alata Salsola tetragona Cornulaca monacantha Salsola longifolia |
Salsola tetragona |
|
E |
The rest of the plant species for 4 types of animals |
|||
The DM content of preferred forage species was similar for the three species, 94% in Traganum nudatum and Limoniastrum guyonianum and 93% in Anabasis articulata (Table 3).
|
Table 3. Mean chemical composition (% DM ± SD) of the three most preferred plants species |
|||
|
Plants species Class A |
Traganum nudatum |
Anabasis articulata |
Limoniastrum guyonianum |
|
DM |
94±2,42 |
93,3±2,6 |
94,53±4,53 |
|
Ash |
15,22±2,84 |
17,12±2,62 |
27,66±2,66 |
|
OM |
84,78±4,08 |
82,88±2,86 |
72,34±3,4 |
|
CP |
14±2,33 |
9,1±0,87 |
12,6±1,6 |
|
CF |
8±1,2 |
8,6±0,6 |
11,6±1,2 |
Ash value ranged from 15% DM in Traganum nudatum to 27% DM in Limoniastrum guyonianum. The ash content of Limoniastrum guyonianum was significantly higher than those for the other shrubs. According to El Shaer and Gihad (1994) the forage species with 14% ash had high palatability, this is in agrement with our observations.
The highest OM content was recorded for Traganum nudatum (84% DM) while Limoniastrum guyonianum recorded the least value (72% DM). There were significant differences among species in terms of OM. Similar variations in chemical composition have been reported bay Bouazza et al (2012); Bouallala et al (2011) and Chehma and Youcef (2009) for some fodder trees and shrubs of Algerian arid and semi-arid areas.
The minimum CP content (Table 2) was recorded for Anabasis articulata (9% DM) and the maximum CP was obtained with Traganum nudatum (14%). There were significant differences between CP contents of shrub species.
Our results show that the content of CP in preferred plants was greater than values observed for the same plant species collected from Algerian arid rangelands (Bouallala et al 2011; Chehma et al 2008; Longo et al 2007). The difference between these studies is possibly due to difference in stages of growth and the proportions of mature leaves and twigs in the samples. The CP content of the shrub species studied herein was always higher than the minimum level of 7-8% DM required for optimum rumen function and feed intake in ruminant livestock (Van Soest 1994). The CF content was similar for the two species Traganum nudatum and Anabasis articulate (8% DM) but significantly lower than the content of Limoniastrum guyonianum (11%). CF values are lower to those reported for other Algerian shrubs (Bouallala et al 2011; Chehma and Youcef 2009; Boufennara 2012; Mayouf and Arbouche 2015), the differences among all studies, probably because of the different proportions of foliage and twigs in the samples and the different phenological stages of the plants at sampling.
The chemical composition of plants pasture species was slightly similar in some halophytes from El Oued region southeast of Algeria (Medila et al 2015), for forages in arid areas of Egypt (Salem et al 2006), for forages from Turkey (Kamalak et al 2004). On the basis of chemical composition, the preferred forage species should offer important potential as protein and energy sources for camel herds of El Alia region.
Abbas B and Tilley P 1990 Pastoral management for protecting ecological balance in Halaib District, Red Sea Province, Sudan. Nomadic Peoples, 29: 77 – 86.
Abdurahman O A S and Bornstein S 1991 Diseases of camels (Camelus dromedarius) in Somalia and prospects for better health. Nomadic Peoples, 29: 104 –112.
AOAC 1990 Official Methods of Analysis, Association of Analytical Chemists. Arlington, VA.
Bouallala M, Chehma A and Bensetti M 2011 Chemical composition variability of main grazed plant by the dromedary in the South western of Algeria, Livestock Research for Rural Development, 23; http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd23/5/Boua23107.htm
Bouazza L, Bodas R, Boufennara S, Bousseboua H and Lopez S 2012 Nutritive evaluation of foliage from fodder trees and shrubs characteristic of Algerian arid and semi-arid areas. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 21:521-536.
Boufennara S, Lopez S, Bousseboua H, Bodas R and Bouazza L 2012 Chemical composition and digestibility of some browse plant species collected from Algerian arid rangelands. Span. J. Agric. Res. 10:88-98.
Buechner H K 1950 Life history, ecology and range use of the pronghorn antelope in Trans-Pecos, Texas. American Midland Naturalist, 43:257-354.
Chehma A 2006 Catalogue des plantes spontanées du Sahara septentrional algérien, éd. Dar El Houda Algérie, 146 p.
Chehma A, Bouzegag I et Chehma Y 2008 Productivité de la phytomasse éphémère des parcours camelins du Sahara septentrional algérien. Fourrages, 194, 253-256.
Chehma A et Youcef F 2009 Variations saisonnières des caractéristiques floristiques et de la composition chimique des parcours sahariens du sud est algérie, Sécheresse, 20, 4, 373- 381.
Chimsa M B, Mummed Y Y, Kurtu MY, Leta MU, Hassen A and Gemeda B S 2013 Forage preference of camel calves (Camelus dromedaries) in eastern Ethiopia. The Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 25, 5: 1236-1241.
Dereje M and Uden P 2005 The browsing dromedary Camel I. Behavior, plant preference and quality of forage selected. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 121: 297–308.
El Harrak M, Faye B and Bengoumi M 2011 Main pathologies of camels, breeding of camels, constraints, benefits and perspectives. The OIE Regional Conference for the Middle East, Beirut, Lebanon, 3–6 October 2011.
El-Keblawy A A 2003 Effect of protection from grazing on species diversity, abundance and productivity in two regions of Abu-Dhabi Emirate, UAE. in: Al-Sharhan, A.S, Wood.
El Shaer H M and Gihad E A 1994 Halophytes as animal feeds in Egyptian deserts (Ed: Squires, VR, Ayoub, AT). Halophytes as a resource for livestock and for rehabilitation of degraded lands, 281 - 284, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Faye B et Tisserand J L 1988 Problèmes de la détermination de la valeur alimentaire des fourrages prélevés par le dromadaire. In : Séminaire sur la digestion, la nutrition et l’alimentation du dromadaire. Série A, N°2 (Ouargla), 27 février- 1 mars, 1988, 61-65.
Iqbal A and Khan B B 2001 Feeding behaviour of camel. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Science. 38: 58-63.
Kamalak A, Canbolat O, Gurbuz Y, Ozay O, Ozkan C O and Sakarya M 2004 Chemical composition and in vitro gas production characteristics of several tannin containing tree leaves. Livestock Research for Rural Development, Vol. 16, Art. #44 . Retrieved April 21, 115, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd16/6/kama16044.htm.
Kamoun M and Steinmetz P 1995 Feeding behaviour, intake and digestion of the Camelus dromedarious at pasture. In : Tisserand J.-L. (ed.). Elevage et alimentation du dromadaire. Zaragoza : CIHEAM, p. 51-57. Options Méditerranéennes : Série B. Etudes et Recherches; n. 13). Séminaire du Projet CEE-DGXII TS2*0233-C (EDB), 1992/10/09-10, Douz (Tunisia). http://om.ciheam.org/om/pdf/b13/95605341.pdf.
Longo H F, Siboukeur O et Chehma A 2007 Aspects nutritionnels des pâturages les plus appréciés par Camelus dromedarius en Algérie, Cahiers Agriculture, 16, 6, 477-483.
Mayouf R and Arbouche F 2015 Seasonal variations in the chemical composition and nutritional characteristics of three pastoral species from Algerian arid rangelands. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 27, Article #42. Retrieved April 24, 2015, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd27/3/mayo27042.html.
Medila I, Adamou A, Arhab R and Hessini K 2015 Nutritional specificities of some halophytes, eaten by camel, native from Algerians salt ecosystems. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 27, Article #48. Retrieved April 24, 2015, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd27/3/medi27048.html.
Ozenda P 1991 Flore du Sahara. 3ème édition, complétée. CNRS, Paris, 662
Ozenda P 2004 Flore et végétation du Sahara. 3rd Edition. Ed. CNRS, Paris, 662 p
Quézel P et Santa S 1962 Nouvelles flores de l’Algérie et des régions désertiques méridionales. Ed. CNRS, Paris, 2 volume, 1170 p.
Rutagwanda T, Lechner-Doll M, Shwartz H J, Schullka w and Von Engelhardt W 1990 Dietary preference and degradability of forage on a semi-arid thornbush savannah hay indigenous ruminants, camels and donkeys. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 31: 179–192.
Salem A Z M, Salem M Z M, El-Adawy M M and Robinson P H 2006 Nutritive evaluations of some browse tree foliages during the dry season, secondary compounds, feed intake and in vivo digestibility in sheep and goats. Animal Feed Science and Technology.127, 251-267.
Schwartz H J 1988 Verbesserte Nutzung naturlicher Weiden in den Trockenzonen Africas durch Besatz mit gemischten Herden. In: Weniger J H (ed), Beispiele deutscher Agrarforschung in den Tropen und Subtropen. ICT (International Centre for Tropical Studies), Berlin, FR Germany. pp. 33-44.
Schwartz H J 1992 Productive performance and productivity of dromedaries (Camleus dromedarius). Animal Research and Development, 35: 86 – 98.
Schwartz H J and Dioli M 1992 The One-Humped Camel in Eastern Africa. A Pictorial Guide to Diseases, Health Care and Management. Varlag Josef-Margraf, Germany, ISBN: 9783823612186, 282 p.
Slimani N, Chehma A, Faye B et Huguenin J 2013 Régime et comportement alimentaire du dromadaire dans son milieu naturel désertique en Algérie. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 25, Article #213. Retrieved April 24, 2015, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd25/12/slim25213.html.
Van Soest P J and Wine G J 1967 Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant-cell-wall constituents. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 50:50-55.
Van Soest P J 1994 Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant, 2nd ed. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Wilson R T 1984 The Camel. Longman Group Ltd. Essex, U. K.
Received 7 May 2015; Accepted 4 August 2015; Published 1 October 2015