Research in Veterinary Science 92 (2012) 351–355

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Veterinary Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rvsc

Brucellosis in camels
Mayada Gwida a,b,⇑, Adel El-Gohary b, Falk Melzer a, Iahtasham Khan a, Uwe Rösler c, Heinrich Neubauer a
a
Friedrich-Loeffler Institut, Institute for Bacterial Infections and Zoonoses, Jena, Germany
b
Department of Hygiene and Zoonoses, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura 35516, Egypt
c
Freie Universität Berlin, Institute, of Animal and Environmental Hygiene, Berlin, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Camels are highly susceptible to brucellosis caused by Brucella melitensis and Brucella abortus. Difficulties
Received 13 August 2010 can arise in diagnosis of camel brucellosis, especially as this disease provokes only few clinical signs in
Accepted 3 May 2011 contrast to its clinical course in cattle. Because none of the commonly used serological test can be per-
ceived as a perfect test for Brucella diagnosis in camel and most serological tests used for camels have
been directly transposed from cattle without adequate validation, an incorrect diagnosis may occur when
Keywords: diagnosis is based on serology alone. Of imminent concern is the fact that brucellosis can be easily trans-
Brucellosis
mitted from animals or their products to humans mainly via milk. In many developing countries in the
Camels
Epidemiology
arid areas of Asia and Africa, camels are still the most important productive livestock for nomadic pop-
Public health importance ulations. Therefore, we reviewed the literatures on camel brucellosis to highlight the epidemiologic, eco-
nomic and public health impact of camel brucellosis as a basis for designing effective control strategies.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction communities in diverse ecozones throughout the world are

Camelids are members of the biological family Camelidae, came-
lids are classified in the suborder Tylopoda (pad-footed animals)
that represents with the suborders Suiformes (pig-like) and Rumi-
nantia (ruminants) the order Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates)
(Schwartz and Dioli, 1992). The family Camelidae is divided into
two genera: The genus camelus, old-world genus, includes two spe-
cies: Camelus dromedarius, the dromedary, one-humped or Arabian
camel; and the Camelus bactrianus, the bactrian or the two-humped
camel and the new world camels (genus Lama with the species L.
glama, L. guanicoe, L. pacos and genus Vicugna with the species V. vic-
ugna) (Wilson and Reeder, 2005). The habitat of the dromedary is
the dry hot zones of North Africa, Ethiopia, the Near East and West
Central Asia. Bactrian camel occupies the cold deserts of southern
areas of the former Soviet Union, Mongolia, East-Central Asia and
China (Wilson, 1984). The limeades exist in the cold heights of Latin
America. It is believed that the dromedary camel was first domesti-
cated in Southern Arabia (Zeuner, 1963) or in the Northern steppe
and deserts of Arabia (Bullet, 1975). The camel plays vital socio-
economic roles and supports the survival of millions of people in
the semi dry and arid zones of Asia and Africa. It has been found that
camels are the fit domestic animal during severe drought periods.
The camel not only survived such droughts, but continued produc-
ing and reproducing (Schwartz, 1992). Many pastoral groups and
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Hygiene and Zoonoses, Faculty of
Veterinary Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura 35516, Egypt.
E-mail address: mayadam_rah@yahoo.com (M. Gwida).
depending on camels for their livelihood. This dependence consists
of utilization of camel meat, milk, leather and wool, exportation of
live camels, uses as an important sport and tourism resource in the
Arabian Gulf countries and lastly the use of camels as animals for
packing, transport and riding (Wilson, 1984; Rollefson, 2000). In
their natural desert habitat where camels are usually raised partic-
ularly during the long dry season, camels are subjected to severe
stress conditions which render them susceptible to many diseases
and ailments (Abbas et al., 1993; Agab, 1993). Although camels
were considered in the past, and for a fairly long time, as resistant
to many disease causing factors (Zaki, 1948; Dalling et al., 1988),
it has been proved that they are susceptible, the same as other live-
stock or even more, to the common disease causing pathogens
affecting other animal species (Wilson 1984; Abbas and Tilley,
1990; Abbas and Agab, 2002).
Brucellosis is a serious zoonotic disease affecting man and all
domestic animals including camels. It is considered as one of the
great public health problem all over the world (Radostits et al.,
2007). However, camel brucellosis has not received proper atten-
tion from researchers and scientists. Brucellosis was reported in
camels as early as 1931 (Solonitsuin, 1949); since then, the disease
has been reported from all camel-keeping countries (Table 1). Cam-
els are not known to be primary hosts of Brucella, but they are sus-
ceptible to both B. abortus and B. melitensis (Cooper, 1991).
Consequently, the prevalence depends upon the infection rate in
primary hosts being in contact with them. Since Brucella species
were isolated from camels (Table 2), consumption of milk and meat
has led to a high number of human brucellosis cases and thus

0034-5288/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.rvsc.2011.05.002
352 M. Gwida et al. / Research in Veterinary Science 92 (2012) 351–355

Table 1
Summary of literature regarding the occurrence of antibodies to Brucella in camels.

Country Number Positive % Test References

Egypt 200 20.0 SAT (serum agglutination test) Zaki 1948
175 10.3 SAT Hamada et al. (1963)
780 23.3 TAT (tube agglutination test) Salem et al. (1990)
13.9 CFT (complement fixation test)
13.5 2 MET (mercaptoethanol test)
8.2 RBT (rose bengal test)
360 11.5 TAT, RBT Nada and Ahmed (1993)
500 7.0 RBT El-Sawalhy et al. (1996)
2.3 cELISA (competitive enzyme linked
immunosorbent assay)
592 1.0 STAT (standard tube agglutination test) Abou-Eisha (2000)
1.7 Card test
766 8.7 RBT Abdel Moghney (2004)
9.3 ELISA (enzyme linked iimmunosorbent assay)
340 7.4 CFT EL-Boshy et al. (2009)
Libya 967 4.1 RBT, SAT, CFT Gameel et al. (1993)
520 1.4 RBT Azwai et al. (2001)
1.2 SAT
3.0 cELISA
Sudan 740 4.9 RBT, SAT, CFT Abu-Damir (1984)
238 3.0 SAT Abbas et al. (1987)
38 84.2 RBT Agab et al. (1994)
64 0 SAT & TAT El-Ansary et al. (2001)
3274 7.8 RBT, SAT & CFT Musa and Shigidi (2001)
29 13.8 ? cELISA
10.3 ? RBT
3549 30.5 RBT Omer et al. (2007)
21 23.8 RBT & SAT Musa et al. (2008)
Ethiopia 1442 5.7 RBT Teshome et al. (2003)
Nigeria 232 1 RBT & SAT Okoh (1979)
329 11.4 (RBT, SAT, cELISA) Junaidu et al. (2006)
480 7.5 MSAT (microtitre serum agglutination test) Kudi et al. (1997)
Somalia 913 1.9 SAT Baumann and Zessin (1992)
0.3 CFT
1246 3.9 RBT Ghanem et al. (2009)
3.1 iELISA (indirect enzyme linked immunosorbent
assay)
Kenya 172 6.4 RBT, SAT Waghela et al. (1978)
12.2 CFT
Jordan 412 12.1 RBT, CFT Al-Majali et al. (2008)
640 14.2 RBT Dawood (2008)
Saudi Arabia 146 1.4 RBT Hashim et al. (1987)
2630 8 RBT, SPA (standard plate agglutination test) Radwan et al. (1992)
236 8 RBT Radwan et al. (1995)
98 7.1 RBT, SAT Hegazy et al. (2004)
859 1.86 RBT Alshaikh et al. (2007)
3.03 cELISA
Republic of Yemen 105 0.0 ELISA AL-Shamahy (1999)
Kuwait 698 14.8 RBT, CFT AL-Khalaf and EL-Khaladi (1989)
Abu Dhabi 392 1.0 RBT Afzal and Sakkir (1994)
1.5 SA (standard agglutination)
1794 5.8 ? (1990–1991) RBT Moustafa et al. (1998)
7899 0.1 ? (1995–1996) RBT Moustafa et al. (1998)
Iran 953 8.0 RBT, SAT, CFT, 2MET Zowghi and Ebadi (1988)
258 1.9 RBT, SAT, 2MET Khadjeh et al. (1999)
1123 10.5 RBT Ahmad and Nemat (2007)
Pakistan 81 2.5 STA Ajmal et al. (1989)
71 8.0 Straten et al. (1997)

serious public health concern has aroused (Kiel and Khan, 1989).
This high number can be farmers from nomadic areas believe that
raw camel milk has a curative effect on their digestive system.
The epidemiology of brucellosis in cattle and small ruminants at
different geographical areas has been investigated extensively. In
spite of its vital importance, studies on this disease in camels are
scarce due to the fact that camel production in remote area coin-
cides with poor infrastructure (Schwartz and Dioli, 1992). Difficul-
ties can arise in diagnosis of camel brucellosis, especially as this
disease provokes only few clinical signs in contrast to its clinical
course in cattle (Mousa et al., 1987). Therefore, we reviewed the lit-
erature on reports camel brucellosis to highlight epidemiology, eco-
nomic and public health impact of camel brucellosis as a basis for
designing effective control strategies.
2. Economic importance of camels
Camels play an important socio-economic role within the pas-
toral and agricultural system in dry and semi dry zones of Asia
and Africa. The camel possesses unique qualities which make it
superior to other domesticated animals in the hot and arid desert
ecosystems where they contribute to the desertification combat
and food security. Camels are also still an important means of
 M. Gwida et al. / Research in Veterinary Science 92 (2012) 351–355 353

Table 2
Brucella species isolated from camels.

Country Brucella species Organ culture References

Sudan Brucella melitensis biotype 3 Lymph nodes Agab et al. (1996)
Brucella melitensis biotype 3,6 Lymph node Musa et al. (2008)
Jordan Brucella melitensis biotype 3 Aborted fetuses, milk Dawood (2008)
Iran Brucella melitensis biotype 1 Lymph node Zowghi and Ebadi (1988)
Brucella melitensis biotype 1 Lymph node Khadjeh et al. (1999)
Kuwait Brucella abortus biotype 1 Foetal stomach contents Al-Khalaf and El Khaldi (1989)
Libya Brucella melitensis biotype 1 Milk, aborted foetus, vaginal swab Gameel et al. (1993)
Egypt Brucella melitensis biotype 3 Milk Abou-Eisha (2000)

draught and transport for pastoral societies (Schwartz and Dioli,
1992). They serve as a cheap source of power for drawing water
from wells, plowing and leveling land, working mini mills for oil
extraction (from oil seeds), grinding wheat, corn and other grains
and for crushing sugarcane, and pulling carts for the transportation
of goods as well as people (Yaqoob and Nawaz, 2007). Additionally,
camel milk is one of the most valuable food resources for nomads
in arid regions and increases the income of pastoralists. Camel milk
possesses superior storage life in comparison to cow milk due to its
high content of proteins having inhibitory effect on bacteria (Farah
et al., 2004). It was confirmed that camel milk has special medici-
nal properties, especially for dropsy, jaundice and conditions
affecting the lungs and spleen (Seifu, 2007). The positive effect of
camel milk on diabetic patients has been studied in India the con-
sumption of 0.5 l of camel milk per day, the insulin demand de-
creased in diabetic patients and glycaemia was better balanced
(Agrawal et al., 2005). In part of Ethiopia, camel milk is considered
to have an aphrodisiac effect (Knoess, 1984).
Besides milk, meat is one of the most important products from
camels. Yield and quality of the carcasses are comparable to other
livestock. However, camels are still not systemically bred for meat
production as they are considered too valuable for this production
type. Another important product is camel hair. It is one of the
world’s most expensive natural animal fibers. Camelids are appre-
ciated for the high quality of their wool (alpaca and Bactrian ca-
mel). Recently, the camel leather industry was better valorized in
relationship with the touristic activities. Camel hides are known
for their strength and durability. They are used by camel breeders,
but also for fashion accessories (Wernery, 2003). Other products
used are dung as fertilizer and as a source of fuel for pastoralists.
Bones are used for production of jewellery or bone-meal for fertil-
izing purposes (Rollefson, 2000). No doubt, camel can be a tool to
combat the future challenges of draught, environmental changes,
global warming and threats of new disease. Camel is the animal
of future, i.e. everlasting threat to the environment, global warm-
ing, creeping desertification and competition on feed and water re-
sources are the future challenges which can be beat by camel only.
Camel has a good potential as meat export. Camel meat is pro-
duced organically and is free of zoonotic diseases like mad cow dis-
ease, swine flu and avian influenza. Its physiology and special
features are therefore not only of a scientific interest, but are the
basic sustenance for people who live in marginal dry land areas
(Wardeh, 2004). The new trends to improve camel production
can occur through, intensification of camel production by the
development of modern dairy farms with high dairy potential lac-
tating camels and industrial milk processing (pasteurized milk,
cheese making, and modern packaging), or camel feed-lot with
intensification of the reproduction process; trials to diversify camel
production with increasing its use in agriculture activities, carting,
leisure (mainly for small camelids), increasing demand of camel
milk and meat for dietetic and medicinal purposes (Mehari et al.,
2007).
3. Public health importance of brucellosis
Human brucellosis is a potentially life-threatening multisystem
disease with a broad spectrum of nonspecific symptoms (Makis
et al., 2008). Brucellosis in humans is a major public health hazard
which affects social and economic development in various coun-
tries due to acute and chronic illness, physical incapacity and loss
of manpower (Corbel, 2006). Occupational acquired brucellosis is
of special concern for public health because of the high risk of
direct transmission from infected animals to persons being em-
ployed in animal husbandry. This exposed group includes slaugh-
ter men, dairymen, herdsmen and veterinary clinicians.
Herdsmen are at the highest risk. The occupational exposure is
high especially in countries where herding of animals is still tradi-
tional and unscientific (Straten et al., 1997). Camels’ milk is
increasingly becoming a delicacy, as in Arab nations camel milk
is consumed raw by camel keeper. Isolation of B. melitensis from
camels’ milk (Gameel et al., 1993) and seropositivity to B. abortus
and B. melitensis indicate that brucellosis is a hazard to public
health. Therefore, pasteurization is adequate for public health
assurance especially the pasteurization does not affect the chemi-
cal composition of camel milk Farah (1996).
Human infection due to Brucella from camels is known to occur
mostly through the consumption of raw milk (Kiel and Khan,
1989). Malta fever due to B. melitensis was diagnosed in 30% of
the camel handlers and milkers on large camel farm in Riyadh, Sau-
dia Arabia. The abortion rate in the farm reaching 12% and B. mel-
itensis biovars 1, 2 and 3 were isolated from aborted camel fetuses
Radwan et al. (1995). Therefore, there is a real need for cooperation
between public health officials and veterinary officers to reduce
the circulation of human brucellosis in endemic areas (Jelastopulu
et al., 2008).
4. Clinical signs
Camels of both species (C. dromedarius and C. bactrianus) are fre-
quently infected with Brucella organisms, especially when they are
in contact with infected large and small ruminants (Radwan et al.,
1992). Serological evidence for Brucella infection in camels has
been reported from Asia and Africa (Table 1). Non pregnant drom-
edaries experimentally infected with a field strain of B. abortus
developed only mild, transient clinical symptoms including re-
duced appetite, slight lameness and bilateral lacrimation (Abu Da-
mir et al., 1989). Orchitis and epididymitis have also been
associated with brucellosis caused by B. abortus and B. meletensis
(Tibary et al., 2006). Other conditions caused by the disease were
retention of placenta, placentitis, uterine infections, fetal death
and mummification, delayed maturity and infertility; it also caused
arthritis and hygroma (Ramadan et al., 1998; Tibary et al., 2006;
Ahmad and Nemat, 2007; Musa et al., 2008). As previously men-
tioned, abortion has been reported in pregnant camels and B. mel-
354 M. Gwida et al. / Research in Veterinary Science 92 (2012) 351–355
itensis was isolated from aborted foetuses, genital discharge, urine
and milk Radwan et al. (1995). Moreover, different biovars of B.
melitensis were isolated from camel milk (Radwan et al., 1992; Ga-
meel et al., 1993; Abou-Eisha, 2000; Hamdy and Amin, 2002)
which indicates that this organism is excreted through milk. How-
ever, the clinical signs were milder and the antibody concentra-
tions were lower in camels than in cattle (Musa et al., 1990).
5. Epidemiology of camel brucellosis
Brucellosis in animals causes tremendous economic losses due
to abortion, premature birth, decreased milk production, reduced
fertility and cross transmission to other animal species, the zoo-
notic potential of the disease in camels should not be overlooked.
Despite the advances made in surveillance and control, the preva-
lence of brucellosis is increasing in many developing countries due
to various sanitary, socioeconomic, and political factors (Pappas
et al., 2006). Brucellosis is caused by Gram negative coccobacilli
of the genus Brucella which are facultative intracellular. They can
survive within host cells causing a chronic disease that may persist
throughout the life time of the animal. Camels can be infected by B.
abortus and B. melitensis. The appearance of brucellosis depends on
the Brucella species being prevalent in other animals sharing their
habitat (cross transmission between species) and on the husbandry
system (Musa et al., 2008). A close contact between infected and
susceptible camels in a herd promotes the spread of diseases.
The camels are always herded together with sheep and goats and
to a lesser extent with cattle and they share the same watering
points and pastures, and so it is not surprising to find a higher
incidence of the disease among camels (Teshome et al., 2003).
The differences in the prevalence of camel brucellosis from differ-
ent countries may be attributed to varying husbandry and manage-
ment practices, the number of susceptible camels, the virulence of
the organisms, presence of reactor animals in the region, absence
of veterinary service, lack of awareness about the disease in camels
and continuous movement of infected camels into a susceptible ca-
mel herd (Radostits et al., 2007). Although parturition in she cam-
els is generally occurred in a laying or standing position without
extra help (Mugerwa, 1981), they may deliver or abort on the pas-
ture and the aborted material may spread over a wide area of the
pasture by stray dogs and foxes Teshome et al. (2003). Camels
may take up bacteria via the alimentary tract from contaminated
feed or water, via the respiratory system with contaminated dust
or droplets or via the genital system from infected semen (Kudi
et al., 1997).
Recently, Musa et al. (2008) reported higher prevalence of bru-
cellosis (23.8%) from camel kept mixed with ruminant species;
they suggested that cattle were the possible source of infection
for the camels as small ruminants were seronegative. Seropreva-
lence of camel brucellosis appear to follow two distinct patterns
a low prevalence below 5% in nomadic or extensively kept camels
and high prevalence 8–15% in camel kept intensively or semi
intensively (Abbas and Agab, 2002).The infection is caused by dif-
ferent biotypes of B. abortus and B. melitensis. Bitter (1986) exam-
ined 948 camels from different herds in eastern Sudan and
reported a prevalence of 16.5–32.3%. Musa (1995) examined 416
camels from seven herds from western Sudan owned by nomads
he found a 23.3% prevalence rate and concluded that camels
ranked second only to cattle in the rate of infection with brucello-
sis. Spread of brucellosis in camels depends on the Brucella species
prevalent in other animals sharing their habitat and on the
husbandry methods of the different species.
Several researchers have evaluated different serological tests
(RBT, CFT, Serum Agglutination Test (SAT), Indirect Enzyme Linked
Immunosorbent Assay (iELISA), Competitive Enzyme Linked
Immunosorbent Assay (cELISA), and Mercapto-ethanol test (2ME)
for the diagnosis of camel brucellosis (Azwai et al., 2001; Abdel
Moghney, 2004; Alshaikh et al., 2007). With the development of
commercial camel dairies in several countries, this disease should
be seriously considered because of its impact on human health.
Unfortunately, till now, there are no studies on vaccination or
eradication strategies of camel brucellosis (Tibary et al., 2006).
However, the options to control brucellosis included immuniza-
tion, testing and removal, and improving management practices
and movement control (WHO, 1997; Wernery and Kaaden 2002).
Control of camel brucellosis should suite the conditions of the par-
ticular country where camels are raised. Vaccination of uninfected
animals is generally considered the most effective and economical
means of protecting livestock against brucellosis. Consequently,
vaccination was performed on all negative reactors immediately
after the third serological testing, to avoid the possible presence
of carrier animals (Radwan et al., 1995). In most of the developing
countries by pastoralists, brucellosis prevalence is low. Thus con-
trol by herd immunization and vaccination of calves at 4 to
8 months of age is helpful using S19 or Rev 1 vaccinal strains
preceded by blood testing using the SAT or card test on the field.
Seropositive animals should be identified and subjected to
retesting. Additionally, test and slaughter policy can be followed
in countries where intensification is practiced (Abbas and Agab,
2002).
In conclusion, camels play an importance role in the epidemiol-
ogy of brucellosis; the possibility that brucellosis may spread from
camels, especially through milk and the lack of current and de-
tailed epidemiological study of the disease in camels strongly calls
for a reassessment of the prevalence of the disease. This will allow
an effective control program to be designed and serve as a baseline
for further research.
References
Abbas, B., Agab, H., 2002. A review of camel brucellosis. Preventive Veterinary
Medicine 55, 47–56.
Abbas, B., El Zubeir, A.E.A., Yassin, T.T.M., 1987. Survey for certain zoonotic diseases
in camels in Sudan. Revue de‘ Elevage et Medicine Veterinaire des Pays
Tropicaux 40, 231–233.
Abbas, B., Saint-Martin, G., Planchenauct, D., 1993. Constraints to camel production
in eastern Sudan: a survey of pastoralists conception. Sudan Journal of
Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry 32 (1), 31–41.
Abbas, B., Tilley, P., 1990. Pastoral management for protecting ecological balance in
Halaib District, Red Sea Province, Sudan. Nomadic Peoples 29, 77–86.
Abdel Moghney, F.R.A., 2004. A preliminary study on brucellosis on camels at Behira
province. Assuit University Bulletin Environmental Researche 7, 39–43.
Abou-Eisha, M.J., 2000. Brucellosis in camels and its relation to public health. Assiut
Veterinary Medicine Journal 44, 54–64.
Abu Damir, H., Kenyon, S.J., khalfalla, E.A., Idris, F.O., 1984. Brucella antibodies in
Sudanese camels. Tropical Animal Health and Production 16, 209–212.
Abu Damir, H., Tag Eldin, M.H., Kenyon, S.J., Idris, O.F., 1989. Isolation of B. abortus
from experimentally infected dromedary camels in Sudan: a preliminary report.
Veterinary Research Communications 13, 403–406.
Afzal, H., Sakkir, M., 1994. Survey of antibodies against various infectious disease
agents in racing camels in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Revue Scientifique
et Technique de l ‘ Office International des Epizooties 13, 787–792.
Agab, H., 1993. Epidemiology of Camel Diseases in Eastern Sudan with Emphasis on
Brucellosis. M.V.Sc. Thesis. University of Khartoum. pp. 172.
Agab, H., Abbas, B., Ahmed, H.J., Mamoun, I.E., 1996. First report on the isolation of B.
abortus biovar 3 from camels (Camelus dromedarius) in Sudan. Camel
Newsletters 12, 52–55.
Agab, H., Abbas, B., El Jack Ahmed, H., Maoun, I.E., 1994. First report on the isolation
of Brucella abortus biovar 3 from camel (Camelus dromedarius) in the Sudan.
Revue delevage et de medicine veterinarie des pays tropicaux 47, 361–363.
Agrawal, R.P., Beniwal, R., Sharma, S., Kochar, D.K., Tuteja, F.C., Ghori, S.K., Sahani,
M.S., 2005. Effect of raw camel milk in type 1 diabetic patients: 1 year
randomised study. Journal of Camel Practice Research 12 (1), 27–31.
Ahmad, R., Nemat, Z., 2007. Brucellosis of camels in Iran, Shahid Bahonar University
of Kerman. Iran, Copyright 2007 Priory Lodge Education, priory.com.
Ajmal, M., Ahmed, D.M., Arshad, M., 1989. Sero surveillance of brucellosis. Pakistan
Veterinary Journal 9, 115–117.
Al-Khalaf, S., El-Khaldi, A., 1989. Brucellosis of camels in Kuwait. Comparative
Immunology, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 12, 1–4.
 M. Gwida et al. / Research in Veterinary Science 92 (2012) 351–355
AL-Majali, M.A., AL-Qudah, M.K., AL-Tarazi, A.L.-Rawashdeh, F.O., 2008. Risk factors
associated with camel brucellosis in Jordan. Tropical Animal Health and
Production 40, 193–200.
Alshaikh, A.A.M., Al-Haidary, A., Aljumaah, R.S., Al-Korashi, M.M., ElNabi, G.R.A.,
Hussein, M.F., 2007. Camel brucellosis in Riyadh region, Saudai Arabia. Journal
of camel Practice and Research 14, 113–117.
AL-Shamahy, A.H., 1999. Seropositivity for brucellosis in a sample of animals in the
Republic of Yemen. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal 5, 1035–1041.
Azwai, S.M., Carter, S.D., Woldehiwet, Z., MacMillan, A., 2001. Camel brucellosis:
evaluation of field sera by conventional serological tests and ELISA. Journal of
Camel Practice and Research 8, 185–193.
Baumann, O.P.M., Zessin, H.K., 1992. Productivity and health of camels (camelus
dromedaries) in Somalia: association with trypanosomosis and brucellosis.
Tropical Animal Health and Production 24, 145–156.
Bitter, H. 1986. Disease resistance in dromedaries with particular reference to
Trypanosoma evansi infection. Inaugural Dissertation. Tierarztliche Hochschule,
Hannover, pp. 24–150.
Strunk, R.W., 1975. The Camel and the Wheel. Mass. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 327.
Cooper, C.W., 1991. The epidemiology of human brucellosis in a well defined urban
population in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 94, 416–
422.
Corbel, M. J., 2006. Brucellosis in humans and animals. World Health Organization.
Dalling, T., Robertson, A., Boddie, G., Spruell, J., 1988. Diseases of camels. In: The
International Encyclopedia of Veterinary Medicine. Edinburgh, U.K.; W. Green
and Son. pp. 585.
Dawood, A.H., 2008. Brucellosis in Camels (Camelus dromedorius) in the south
province of Jordan. American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3,
623–626.
El-Ansary, E.H., Hamad, B.R., Karom, G.O., 2001. Brucellosis among animals and
humans in contacts in eastern Sudan. Saudi Medical Journal 22, 577–579.
El-Boshy, M., Abbas, H., El-Khodery, S., Osman, S., 2009. Cytokine response and
clinicopathological findings in Brucella infected camels (Camelus dromedarius).
Veterinarni Medicina 54, 25–32.
El-Sawalhy, A.A., Montaser, A.M., Rizk, L.G., 1996. Diagnostic and biochemical
evaluation of camel brucellosis. Veterinary Medicine Journal Giza 44, 323–329.
Farah, Z., 1996. Camel milk properties and products SKAT. Swiss Centre for
Developments Cooperation in Technology and Management.
Farah, Z., Abdulkadir, O., Abdurahman, S.H., 2004. Milk and meat from the camel:
handbook on products and processing. Hochshuleverlag AG ander ETH Zürich,
15–28.
Gameel, M.A., Mohamed, O.S., Mustafa, A.A., Azwai, M.S., 1993. Prevalence of camel
brucellosis in Libya. Tropical Animal Health and Production 25, 91–93.
Ghanem, M.Y., El-Khodery, A.S., Saad, A.A., Abdelkader, H.A., Heybe, A., Musse, A.Y.,
2009. Seroprevalence of camel brucellosis (Camelus dromedarius) in Somaliland.
Tropical Animal Health and Production 41, 1779–1786.
Hamada, S., EL-Hidik, M., Sherif, I., EL-Sawale, H., Yousef, M., 1963. Serological
investigation on brucellosis in cattle, buffaloes and camels. Journal of Arabian
veterinary medical association 23, 173–178.
Hamdy, M.E.R., Amin, A.S., 2002. Detection of Brucella in the milk of infected cattle,
sheep, goats and camels by PCR. Veterinary Journal 163, 299–305.
Hashim, N.H., Galil, G.A., Hulaibi, M.A., Al-Saleem, E.M., 1987. The incidence of
brucellosis and species of Brucella organisms isolated from animals in Al Hasa,
Saudi Arabia. World Animal Review 61, 32–53.
Hegazy, A.A., EL Dughaym, A., Alaknah, M., Housawi, F.M.T., Hatem, M. E.M., 2004.
Studies on mastitis in female camel with special reference to brucellosis. Camel
Science 1, 96–102.
Jelastopulu, E., Bikas, C., Petropoulos, C., Leotsinidis, M., 2008. Incidence of human
brucellosis in a rural area in western Greece after the implementation of a
vaccination programme against animal brucellosis. BMC Public Health 8, 241.
Junaidu, A.U., Oboegbulem, S.I., Sharubutu, G.H., Daneji, A.I., 2006. Brucellosis in
camels (Camelus dromedaries) slaughtered in Sokoto, northwestern Nigeria.
Animal Production Research Advances 2, 158–160.
Khadjeh, G., Zowghi, E., Zarif, R.M., 1999. Incidence of brucellosis in one humped
camels of Boushehr, Iran. Archives of Razi Institute 50.
Kiel, F.W., Khan, M.Y., 1989. Brucellosis in Saudi Arabia. Social Science and Medicine
29, 999–1001.
Knoess, K.H., 1984. The milch dromedary. The Camelid; an all purpose animal. In:
Ross Cockrill, W. (Ed.), Proceedings of Khartoum workshop on Camels,
December 1979. Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 176–195.
Kudi, A.C., Kalla, D.J.U., Kudi, M.C., Kapio, G.I., 1997. Brucellosis in camels. Journal of
Arid Environments 37, 413–417.
Makis, A.C., Pappas, G., Galanakis, E., Haliasos, N., Siamopoulou, A., 2008. Brucellosis
in infant after familial outbreak. Emerging Infectious Diseases 14, 1319–1320.
Mehari, Y., Mekuriaw, Z., Gebru, G. 2007. Camel and camel product marketing in
Babilie and Kebribeyah woredas of the Jijiga zone, Somali region, Ethiopia.
Livestock Research for Rural Development 19 (4). Online publication:
www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd19/4/meha19058.htm.
Mousa, A.M. et al., 1987. Brucellosis in Kuwait. Transactions of the Royal Society of
Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 81 (6), 1020–1021.
Moustafa, T., Omer, A. E., Basyouni, M. S., EL-Badawi, S. A., 1998.Surveillance of
Brucella antibodies in camels of the eastern region of Abu Dhabi, united Arab
355
Emirates, Proceeding of the third annual meeting for animal production
under arid conditions, vol. 1:160-166Ó 1998 United Arab Emirates University.
Mugerwa, E.M., 1981. The camel (Camelus dromedarius): a bibliographical review.
Published by international livestock center for Africa, Addis Abbaba. Ethiopia.
Musa, M.T., Eisa, M.Z., M El Sanousi, M., Abdel Wahab, E.M., Perrett, L., 2008.
Brucellosis in Camels (Camelus dromedarius) in Darfur, Western Sudan. Journal
of Comparative Pathology 138, 151–155.
Musa, M.T., Jahans, K.L., Fadlalla, M.E., 1990. Clinical manifestations of brucellosis in
cattle of the Southern Darfur Province, Western Sudan. Journal of Comparative
Pathology 103, 95–99.
Musa, M.T., Shigidi, A.T., Fadlalla, M.E., 2001. Brucellosis in camels in intensive
Animal breeding areas of sudan. Implication in abortion and early-life
infections. Revue de‘ Elevage et Medicine Veterinaire des Pays Tropicaux 54,
11–15.
Musa, M.T. 1995. Brucellosis in Darfur States: the magnitude of the problem and
methods of diagnosis and control. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Khartoum, pp. 73–
98.
Nada, R.A., Ahmed, W.M., 1993. Investigations of brucellosis in some genital
abnormalities of she-camels (Camelus dromedaries). International Journal of
Animal Science 8, 37–40.
Okoh, J.E.A., 1979. A survey of brucellosis in camels in Kano, Nigeria. Tropical
Animal Health and Production 11, 213–214.
Omer, M.M., Abdelaziz, A.A., Abusalab, M.A.S., Ahmed, M.A., 2007. Survey of
brucellosis among sheep, Goats, Camels and Cattle in Kassala Area, Eastern
Sudan. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 6, 635–637.
Pappas, G., Papadimitriou, P., Akritidis, N., Christou, L., Tsianos, E.V., 2006. The
new global map of human brucellosis. Lancet Infectious Diseases 6,
91–99.
Radostits, W., Gay, C.C., Hinchcliff, K.W., Constable, P.D., 2007. Veterinary Medicine,
tenth ed. Elsevier Saunders, London, pp. 389–390.
Radwan, A.I., Bekairi, S.J., Prasad, P.V.S., 1992. Serological and bacteriological study
of brucellosis in camels in central Saudi Arabia. Revue Scientifique et Technique
de l Office International des Epizooties 11, 837–844.
Radwan, A.I., Bekairi, S.J., Mukayel, A.A., Albokmy, A.M., Prasad, P.V.S., Azar, F.N.,
Coloyan, E.R., 1995. Control of Brucella melitensis infection in large camel herd in
Saudi Arabia using antibiotherapy and vaccination with Rev.1 vaccine.
Revue Scientifique et Technique de l Office International des Epizooties 14,
719–732.
Ramadan, R., Hatem, E.M., Abdin Bey, R.M., 1998. Isolation of B. melitensis from
carpal hygroma in camels. Camel Practice and Research 5, 239–241.
Rollefson, K., 2000. The camel and human society. In: Gahlot, T.K. (Ed.), Selected
Topics on Camelids. The Camelid Publishers, Bikaner, India, pp. 1–17.
Salem, A.A., EL-Gibaly, M.S., Shawkat, E.M., Ibrahim, I.S., Nada, R.A., 1990. Some
studies on brucellosis in camels. Assiut Veterinary Medicine Journal 23, 139–
143.
Schwartz, H.J., 1992. Productive performance and productivity of dromedaries
(Camleus dromedarius). Animal Research and Development 35, 86–98.
Schwartz, H.J., Dioli, M., 1992. The one-humped camel in Eastern-Africa. Editions
Verlag, Weikersheim (Allemagne), pp. 282.
Seifua, E., 2007. Handling, preservation and utilization of camel milk and camel milk
products in Shinile and Jijiga Zones, eastern Ethiopia. Livestock Research for
Rural Development 19 (6).
Solonitsuin, M.O., 1949. Brucellosis in camels. Veterinarya, Moscow 26, 16–21.
Straten, V.M., Bercovich, Z., Rahman, U.Z., 1997. The diagnosis of brucellosis in
female camels (Camelus dromedaries) using the milk ring test and milk Elisa: a
pilot study. Journal of Camel Practice and Research 4, 165–168.
Teshome, H., Molla, B., Tibbo, M., 2003. A seroprevalence study of camel brucellosis
in three camel rearing regions of Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and
Production 35, 381–390.
Tibary, A., Fite, C., Anouassi, A., Sghiri, A., 2006. Infectious causes of reproductive
loss in camelids. Theriogenology 66, 633–647.
Waghela, S., Fazil, M.A., Gathuma, J.M., Kagunya, D.K., 1978. A serological survey of
Brucellosis in camels in north-eastern province of Kenya. Tropical Animal
Health and Production 10, 28–29.
Wardeh, F.M., 2004. Classification of the Dromedary Camels. J. Camel Science. 1, 1–
7.
Wernery, U., 2003. New observations on camels and their milk. Dar Al Fajr Printing
and Publishing, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Wernery, U., Kaaden, O.R., 2002. Infectious Diseases of Camelids. London, Blackwell
Wissenschafts-verlag. Berlin, pp. 99–116.
WHO, (World Health Organization). 1997, 1997. The Development of New,
Improved Brucellosis Vaccines: report of the WHO Meeting. WHO, Geneva.
Wilson, D.E., Reeder, D.M., 2005. Mammal species of the world, 3rd ed. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, USA.
Wilson, R.T., 1984. The Camel. Longman, New York, ISBN 0-582-77512-4.
Yaqoob, M., Nawaz, H., 2007. Potential of Pakistani camel for dairy and other uses.
Animal Science Journal 78, 467–475.
Zaki, R., 1948. Brucella infection among ewes, camels and pigs in Egypt. Journal of
Comparative Pathology 58, 145–151.
Zeuner, F.E., 1963. History of Domesticated Animals. Hutchinson, London.
Zowghi, E., Ebadi, E., 1988. Brucellosis in camels in Iran. Revue Scientifique et
Technique de l Office International des Epizooties 1988, 383–386.