Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 51, Issue 4, pp 1003–1007 | Cite as

Comparison of body weight estimation equations for camels (Camelus dromedarius)

  • Ismaïl BoujenaneEmail author
Short Communications


The objective of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy of six different equations for weight estimation of camels using body measurements as chest girth, height at withers, and hump girth in order to identify the most reliable equation for use in the field. The prediction equations that were compared were those of Boué Revue d’Élevage et de Médecine vétérinaire des Pays tropicaux 3 (1), 13–16, 1949; Graber Revue d’Élevage et de Médecine vétérinaire des Pays tropicaux, 19, 527–543, 1966; Wilson Tropical Animal Health and Production, 10, 19–25, 1978; Field Proceedings of the Khartoum workshop on camels V1, 209–230, 1979; Bucci et al. Indian Veterinary Journal, 61, 26–30, 1984; and Yagil A Handbook for Camel Breeding, 1994 noticed as BW1, BW2, BW3, BW4, BW5, and BW6, respectively. The dataset used for this evaluation is the one published by Boué Revue d’Élevage et de Médecine vétérinaire des Pays tropicaux 3 (1), 13–16, 1949. Range observed in predicted weight, mean prediction error (MPE), residual mean square (MSE), mean square prediction error (MSPE), coefficient of determination (CD), and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) were used to assess the different body weight prediction equations. Moreover, paired t tests were applied to compare the true weight and each of the six predicted weights. From the six prediction equations, range observed in predicted weights varied from 193 to 237 kg, MSE from 335.5 to 806.1, MPE from − 129.8 to 24.7 kg, MSPE from 329.4 to 17,617.1, CD from 0.753 to 0.867, and CCC from 0.162 to 0.928. BW4 presented the best prediction results, showing a low MSE, high CD and CCC, whereas BW3 yielded the least accurate estimate of body weight and had weak statistics. The study concluded that BW4 is the most reliable of all equations to estimate camel’s body weight, whereas BW3 is less reliable and its use must be discontinued.


Dromedary Body weight Body measurement Prediction equation Statistics 



The author thanks Bernard Faye, Elena Ciani, and Asma Kamili for providing him with some weight prediction formulas.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interests.


  1. Bengoumi M., Faulconnier Y., Tabarani A., Sghiri A., Faye B., Chilliard Y., 2005. Effects of feeding level on body weight, hump size, lipid content and adipocyte volume in the dromedary camel, Animal Research 54, 383–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bekele, B., 2015. Phenotypic characterization of camels and their production system in Yabello and Melka Soda districts, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia, M.Sc. Thesis, Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia, 70 pagesGoogle Scholar
  3. Boué, A., 1949. Essai de barymétrie chez le dromadaire Nord-africain, Revue d’Élevage et de Médecine vétérinaire des Pays tropicaux, 3 (1), 13–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bucci, T.J., Soliman, A.M., Botros, B.A.M., Kerkor, M.E., 1984. Abdominal circumference at the hump as an index of body weight in dromedary camels, Indian Veterinary Journal, 61, 26–30Google Scholar
  5. Faye, B., Bengoumi, M., Cleradin, A., Tabarani, A., Chilliard, Y., 2001. Body condition score in dromedary camel: A tool for management of reproduction, Emir. J. Agric. Sci., 13, 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Field, C.R., 1979. Camel growth and milk production in Marsabit district, Northern Kenya. In the camelid an all-purpose animal. Proceedings of the Khartoum workshop on camels, W.R. Cockrill (Ed.) Uppsala, Sweden, 1984 V1, 209–230Google Scholar
  7. Graber, M., 1966. Etudes dans certaines conditions africaines de l’action antiparasitaire de Thiabendazole sur divers helminthes des animaux domestiques. II. Dromadaire, Revue d’Élevage et de Médecine vétérinaire des Pays tropicaux, 19, 527–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kamili, A., Bengoumi, M., Faye, B., 2006. Assessment of body condition and body composition in camel by barymetric measurements, Journal of Camel Practice and Research, 13(1), 67–72Google Scholar
  9. Lin, L.I., 1989. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility, Biometrics, 45, 255–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Wilson, R.T., 1978. Studies on the livestock of southern Darfur. V. Notes on camels. Sudan, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 10, 19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Yagil, R., 1994. The Camel in Today’s World. A Handbook for Camel Breeding, Deutsche Welthungerhilfe, Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal Production and BiotechnologyInstitut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan IIRabatMorocco

Personalised recommendations