Content uploaded by Donna-Mareè Cawthorn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Donna-Mareè Cawthorn on Mar 19, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Key words: bushmeat, nutritional composition, protein, proximate com-
position, wildlife
Introduction
One of the greatest challenges facing the human race today is
how to feed an ever-increasing population while simultaneous-
ly ensuring the sustainable use and conservation of the world’s
natural resources and biodiversity (Cooper, 1995). It is currently
estimated that more than 925 million people across the globe
(>13.6%) are chronically undernourished (FAO, 2011), and their
severe defi ciencies in both protein and energy typically manifest
as syndromes such as kwashiorkor and marasmus. Famine and
malnutrition are particularly pronounced in the developing world
and of the aforementioned total, more than 50% of these under-
nourished individuals reside in Asia and the Pacifi c, and more than
25% inhabit sub-Saharan Africa (FAO, 2011).
It is well established that most of the land available for live-
stock production has already been exploited, and with the excep-
tion of forest clearing (such as in the rain forests), there is little
potential for future expansion (Hoffman, 2008). As a result, do-
mestic animal species, on which very high hopes have been placed
hitherto, have continued to fail in meeting existing demands for meat, let
alone to maintain pace with human population growth (Cooper, 1995).
The capacity of most countries to import food to fulfi ll their protein re-
quirements is often limited due to the global scarcity in meat supply, the
associated foreign exchange burden, and the low disposable incomes of
many of their citizens (Asibey, 1974; Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1997). Thus, the
quest to produce more protein has led the scientifi c community to attempt
to improve the productivity of existing domestic species, for instance
through improved nutrition, genetic selection, and better management
procedures (Hoffman, 2008). Attention has also been focused on assess-
ing whether ‘new’ or unconventional animal species could be better suited
for commercial utilization in terms of their size, husbandary requirements,
and constitution (Conroy and Gaigher, 1982). A further strategy has been
to promote the farming or harvesting of those species which are abundant,
including agricultural pests, which could represent valuable food sources
(Cooper, 1995; Jori et al., 1995).
Nevertheless, with the escalating demand for animal protein and the
high prices associated with such products, it has been inevitable that the
inhabitants of many regions of the world have become increasingly reli-
ant on the harvesting of local wildlife species for subsistence (Redhead
and Boelen, 1990; Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1997). Although humans have hunted
wildlife for over 100,000 years, consumption has increased considerably
over the past few decades (Milner-Gulland and Bennett, 2003). Recent
© Hoffman and Cawthorn
doi:10.2527/af.2012-0061
Figure 1. Locals smoking elephant in Cameroon (source: Andre de Georges).
What is the role and contribution of
meat from wildlife in providing high
quality protein for consumption?
L.C. Hoffman and D.-M.Cawthorn
Department of Animal Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1 Stellenbosch, 7602, South Africa
Implications
• An overview is presented on the global human usage of uncon-
ventional animal species (ungulates, rodents, rabbits and hares,
kangaroos, reptiles and bats) derived either from wild harvesting
or farming
• The nutritional value of these species is discussed, focusing on
their potential to contribute to food security and to address the
protein requirements of a growing population.
• The challenges and opportunities arising from the commercial use
of these animals are highlighted, as are the problems faced with
overexploitation of certain wild species.
• Of the species addressed, the rodents appear to present great po-
tential for becoming large commercial commodities for food use.
40 Animal Frontiers
reports estimate that wild meat harvest in Central Africa is now in the
order of 3.4 million tons per annum (Wilkie and Carpenter, 1999; Fa et
al., 2001).
Wild sources of animal protein embrace the entire animal kingdom.
Hundreds of species, belonging to 236 genera, may be consumed by peo-
ple in Africa. The term ‘bushmeat’ is frequently used to describe the meat
from any terrestrial wild animal that is killed for subsistence or commer-
cial purposes (Milner-Gulland and Bennett, 2003), with species typically
including large mammals, primates, antelope, frogs, snakes, rodents, bats,
and even insects and termites. The elephant (Figure 1) or hippopotamus
(Figure 2) may provide food for an entire community, smaller antelope
may feed a family, while a rat (Figure 3) or lizard may quell the hunger
of an individual. Alternatively, these species are often sold on the road
side or at local markets to supply a much needed source of cash revenue
(Redhead and Boelen, 1990).
From an extensive review on the magnitude of bushmeat exploitation
and consumption (Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1997), it is clear that this contributes
between 20% and 90% of the animal protein eaten in many regions of
Africa. In the Amazon region of Latin America, bushmeat consumption
by indigenous communities is estimated to be between 35.8 and 191.6
kg/capita/year (SCBD, 2011). Bushmeat is generally consumed as fresh
meat, or it is smoked, salted, or dried (biltong; Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1997).
A number of studies focusing on the nutritional value of bushmeat have
demonstrated that this is equivalent or even superior to that from domestic
livestock species, providing high concentrations of protein (16 to 55%),
readily assimilable amino acids, as well as vitamins and minerals. Besides
the contribution of protein, the provision of calories from bushmeat can-
not be overlooked and while the meat of many wild animals is low in fat,
some species such as rats and porcupines are prized for their fatty consis-
tencies (Redhead and Boelen, 1990; Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1997).
In spite of the contribution of wildlife to human nutrition, there is
growing concern on the impact on biodiversity loss due to the removal of
these animals. There is also mounting evidence to suggest that unsustain-
able rates of extraction are resulting in the depletion of many wild species
(Bowen-Jones and Pendry, 1999; Robinson and Bennett, 2000; Milner-
Gulland and Bennett, 2003). This situation is exacerbated by the fact that
international and domestic commercial and often illegal trade in bush-
meat and other parts of wild animals is increasing and is largely outpacing
legitimate subsistence hunting (SCBD, 2011). Notably, the catastrophic
declines of primates and other wildlife in central Africa, as well as the
extermination of species such as the Pigmy Hippopotamus (Choeropsis
liberiansis) and Manatee (Trichechus senegalensis) in Ghana, have come
into the spotlight (Asibey, 1974; Fa et al., 1995).
This review aims to highlight the contribution that selected wild or
exotic animal species make in the lives and diets of both rural and urban
populations across the world. While invertebrates and birds are undoubt-
edly locally signifi cant dietary items, the larger vertebrates constitute
the majority of the terrestrial wild animal biomass consumed by humans
(SCBD, 2011), and thus the former animal types will not be addressed in
depth.
Ungulates
Antelope
Sub-Saharan African ecosystems support a diverse range of wild ungu-
late species (hoofed animals), of which the more than 70 antelope species
are particulary prized natural resources. Antelope not only represent a key
component of the fauna which attracts game-viewing tourists to national
parks and reserves, but they also provide an important source of protein
for human consumption, as well as other valuable products such as skins
and trophies (Ledger et al., 1967; East, 1999).
The meat from antelope in Africa (hereafter referred to as ‘game meat’,
while venison will be used to describe meat from game animals harvested
Figure 2. Hippopotami being slaughtered in Zambia during an offi cial cropping
activity.
Figure 3. Children cooking rats (source: Andre de Georges).
October 2012, Vol. 2, No. 4 41
elsewhere) has long been consumed by locals from different ethnic groups
and is an important component of the bushmeat harvest (East, 1999). In
additon, tourists frequently enjoy eating game meat as part of the ‘African
experience’ and the meat is also exported (Hoffman et al., 2003; 2005).
At present, the large majority of African antelope that are harvested for
export originate from wild animals that roam in large enclosures owned
by private landowners or state-owned nature reserves. The antelope har-
vested commercially are mainly the springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis;
>80%), blesbok (Damaliscus pygargus phillipsi) and kudu (Tragelaphus
strepsiceros; Figure 4), while the blue wildebeest (Connochaetes tau-
rinus), impala (Aepyceros melampus), and gemsbok (Oryx gazelle) are
exported in smaller numbers (Hoffman and Wiklund, 2006). The duiker
(subfamily Cephalophinae), particularly the 17 species of forest duiker
(Cephalophus spp.), are most commonly targeted in the local bushmeat
harvest and trade (Barnett, 2000; Hoffman, 2008; Figure 5).
Although credible information on the proximate compostion of many
African ungulate species is lacking in the scientifi c literature, the review
of Hoffman and Wiklund (2006) and the data presented in Table 1 clearly
indicate that the meat from these species can be considered highly nutri-
tious and a valuable source of protein (ca. 17.4 to 25.7%). The meat is
also low in fat (generally <2.5%, with the exception of blesbok; Table 1),
which concurs with previous reports citing fat contents of less than 3% for
game meat species (Von la Chevallerie, 1972; Onyango et al., 1998). The
meat is also reported to possess desirable polyunsaturated:saturated and
omega-6:omega-3 fatty acid ratios (Hoffman and Wiklund, 2006).
Some antelope species, such as duikers, are assumed to be fairly resil-
ient to subsistence hunting pressure in areas with low population densities.
Nonetheless, this situation can change rapidly when human populations
increase. Commercial hunting to provide antelope meat to urban centers
can hastily deplete wildlife populations even in areas where settlements
are sparse (Fa et al., 1995; East, 1999). In addition, antelope populations
are adversely affected by illegal hunting for meat, as has been witnessed
in world-famous parks such as Serengeti (Sinclair and Arcese, 1995), or
when hunting occurs outside of protected areas.
Cervids
Deer are ruminant mammals belonging to the family Cervidae. Al-
though deer species are commonly farmed using extensive to intensive
production systems (Hoffman and Wiklund, 2006), the hunting of wild
deer remains a popular practice in many parts of Europe, North America,
and Australia (Milner et al., 2006; Burbaitė and Csányi, 2009; Sharp and
Wollscheid, 2009). Of those cervid species farmed in Europe, the fallow
deer (Dama dama) and the red deer (Cervus elaphus; Figure 6) are the
most common. Deer production is also a well-established industry in New
Zealand, where red deer comprise about 85% of the total farmed deer. The
most common cervid species farmed in the United States and Canada are
the elk or wapiti (Cervus canadensis), fallow deer, sika deer (Cervus nip-
pon), the axis deer or chital (Axis axis), and the white-tailed deer (Odocoi-
leus virginianus; Hoffman and Wiklund, 2006). Although most deer in
Australia are wild, a growing number of animals are now being managed
extensively under the so called Property-Based Game Management Plans
(Hall and Gill, 2005) and deer farming for venison is performed only by a
small number of farmers in New South Wales and Victoria.
Reindeer and caribou, comprising different sub-species of Rangifer
tarandus, are found throughout the Northern Hemisphere and comprise
an integral part of the diets of many locals in these areas (Rincker et al.,
2006). Although wild herds of reindeer exist and are hunted in parts of
Russia and Norway, throughout most of their range, reindeer are semi-
domesticated (Quinlan, 2004; Hummel and Ray, 2008). The domestica-
tion of reindeer by nomadic tribes is thought to date back 3,000 years
and subsequently spread across northern Eurasia, where the raising and
herding of reindeer is still practiced today (Nowak and Walker, 1999).
The number of semi-domesticated reindeer (R. t. tarandus) in the world
Figure 4. Kudu bull with impala in the background.
42 Animal Frontiers
has been estimated at 3 million, with most of these living in herds and
ranging freely (Nowak and Walker, 1999; Wiklund and Malmfors, 2004).
The main purpose of reindeer herding is economic, providing meat, hides,
and velvet antler.
In contrast to reindeer, none of the larger caribou sub-species (R. t.
granti, R. t. caribou, R. t. groenlandicus, and R. t. pearyi) which inhabit
the tundra, boreal forests and southern mountainous regions of North
America have ever been domesticated (Clutton-Brock, 1999; Nowak and
Walker, 1999; Miller, 2003). Rather, caribou have traditionally been hunt-
ed by Arctic and Subarctic native people and these are still widely har-
vested from the wild for their meat and other products in Alaska, Canada,
and Greenland (Miller, 2003). The total number of caribou in North Amer-
ica has been approximated at 2.3 to 3.0 million (Ferguson and Gauthier,
1992), while more recent estimates indicate that numbers have potentially
increased to around 4.0 million (Miller, 2003). About 20% of this total is
found in Alaska, where up to 20,000 wild caribou are harvested annually
for food (Rincker et al., 2006). Caribou also serve as an important food
source in Canada, where the wild harvest is valued at $100 million per
year (Hummel and Ray, 2008).
Venison is renowned for its high protein content (>20%) and low mus-
cle lipid content (<3.0%; Table 1), with the values for these components
closely resembling those reported for game meat. Higher fat values have,
however, been reported by Kay et al. (1981) for red deer (4.5%) and by
Sampels et al. (2005) for female reindeer (4.2%; data not shown), where
such phenomena are particularly noted when the animals have been fi n-
ished on pelleted diets.
Camelids
Camelids belong to the family Camelidae, which includes the genera
Camelus (including true camel species), Lama (including the guanaco and
Ilama), and Vicugna (including the vicuña and alpaca; Saadoun and Ca-
brera, 2008). The term ‘camel’ is, nonetheless, often used broadly to de-
scribe all of the aforementioned camel-like animals. Within the true camel
species, the one-humped dromedary (Camelus dromedarius) account for
over 90% of all the camels found, while the two-humped Bactrian camel
(Camelus bacterium) represent the remainder (Elgasim and Alkanhal,
1992).
Of the approximately 15 million camels in the world, around 80% are
found in Africa. Since camels typically occur in harsh environments, their
meat is of value in the dry seasons when beef is in short supply (Hoffman,
2008). However, the demand for camel meat generally exceeds supply
and the meat from young stock is particularly sought. In eastern Ethiopia,
camel meat is considered to be of high quality and is socially acceptable
(Kurtu, 2004). In comparison with other red meats from domestic species,
dromedary meat has been found to contain more moisture, less fat, less
ash, and similar protein contents (Table 1; Elgasim and Alkanhal, 1992;
Dawood and Alkanhal, 1995).
Of the genera Lama and Vicugna, the llama (Llama glama) and alpaca
(Vicugna pacos) are domesticated, while the guanaco (Lama guanicoe)
and vicuña (Vicugna vicugna) are mostly wild. The nutritional composi-
tions of the llama, alpaca, and guanaco have recently been reviewed by
Saadoun and Cabrera (2008). The llama is the most common of the An-
dean camelids and has been used for its meat for centuries by the Incas
and inhabitants in the Andeans region (Marcus et al., 1999). The alpaca,
found in Peru, Bolivia, and Chile, is produced mainly for its meat and
fi ber. The meat from both the llama and alpaca appear to represent nu-
tritious food sources, providing high levels of protein (>23%) compared
with the values derived from most common domesticated animal species
and fat content (0.5%) that is generally less than the latter (Table 1). The
guanaco is widely distributed in South America, where it is utilized for its
meat and fi ber (Saadoun and Cabrera, 2008). The protein content derived
from the meat of this species appears somewhat less than that from the
llama and alpaca, but is comparable with that from domesticated animal
species (Table 1). On the other hand, the fat content of guanaco meat is
slightly greater than that of the llama and alpaca, but still less than that in
the meat of domesticated species (Table 1).
Rodents
Rodentia comprise the largest order of mammals in the world and in-
clude more than 30 families, 480 genera and over 2,200 species (Wilson
and Reeder, 2005). The fi ve main families within the order are Muridae
(rats and mice; representing ca. 66% of all rodent taxa), Echimyidae (spiny
rats), Heteromyidae (pocket mice and kangaroo rats), Dipodidae (jerboas
and jumping mice) and Sciuridae (squirrels; Vaughan et al., 2011). Rep-
resentatives of the Rodentia thrive in the wild in almost all regions across
the globe. Their success is mainly attributed to their capacity to survive on
diverse diets, short gestation periods, early sexual maturity and large litter
Figure 5. Bushmeat—smoked duiker (source: Andre de Georges). Figure 6. Farmed red deer in New Zealand.
October 2012, Vol. 2, No. 4 43
Table 1. The proximate composition (g/100g wet weight basis) of the meat of some wildlife species consumed around the world compared
with domestic livestock species. Values are for raw meat unless otherwise specified.
Animal species Sample analyzed Moisture Protein Fat Ash Reference
n g/100g g/100g g/100g g/100g
Ungulates, African species
Springbok Antidorcas marsupialis Muscle (9th-10th-11th rib), males 5 75.30 17.40 2.50 4.20 Van Zyl and Ferreira, 2004.
Blesbok Damaliscus dorcas phillipsi Muscle (9th-10th-11th rib), males 4 71.10 19.30 4.60 4.00 Van Zyl and Ferreira, 2004.
Kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros M longissimus dorsi, male 7 75.66 22.77 1.48 1.22 Hoffman et al., 2009.
Kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros M longissimus dorsi, female 14 75.77 22.25 1.49 1.19 Hoffman et al., 2009.
Impala Aepyceros melampu M longissimus dorsi, male 11 74.96 22.63 2.06 1.22 Hoffman et al., 2009.
Impala Aepyceros melampu M longissimus dorsi, female 7 74.01 23.07 2.40 1.16 Hoffman et al., 2009.
Red hartebeest Alcelaphus buselaphus caama M longissimus dorsi, male 13 75.00 23.30 0.60 1.20 Hoffman et al., 2010.
Oryx Oryx beisa Loin muscle 2 76.60 20.30 0.20 1.10 Onyango et al., 1998.
Common duiker Sylvicapra grimmia M longissimus dorsi muscle 10 71.40 25.70 2.12 1.29 Hoffman and Ferreira, 2004.
Zebra Equus burchellii Loin muscle 2 75.20 22.80 0.30 1.50 Onyango et al., 1998.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ungulates, Cervidae
Red deer Cervus elaphus M longissimus dorsi muscle 10 76.90 21.70 0.60 1.11 Zomborszky et al., 1996
Fallow deer Dama dama M longissimus dorsi muscle 10 74.90 22.00 2.50 1.08 Zomborszky et al., 1996
Roe deer Capreolus capreolus M longissimus dorsi muscle 10 74.80 23.00 1.70 1.15 Zomborszky et al., 1996
Reindeer Rangifer tarandus M longissimus dorsi muscle 11 71.80 23.60 2.80 1.10 Wiklund et al., 2008.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ungulates, Camelids
Camel Camelus dromedarius Supraspinatus muscle 52 75.60 21.70 1.42 1.20 Babiker annd Yousif, 1990.
Camel Camelus dromedarius Mean of leg and loin 6 77.20 19.30 2.60 0.90 Elgasim and Alkanhal, 1992.
Llama Llama glama Longissimus thoracis et lumborum 20 73.90 23.10 0.50 2.40 Cristofanelli et al., 2004.
Alpaca Vicugna pacos 40 73.60 23.30 0.50 2.50 Cristofanelli et al., 2004
Guanaco Lama guanicoe 70 73.90 20.90 1.00 1.10 Gonzalez et al., 2003; 2004.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodentia
African giant rat Cricetomys gambianus Muscle 65.40 20.10 11.40 2.00 Oyarekua and Ketiku, 2010.
Greater cane rat Thryonomys swinderianus Muscle (smoked) 52.00 28.00 16.80 2.90 Malaisse and Parent, 1982.
Smith's bush/tree squirrel Paraxerus cepapi Muscle 74.30 21.00 3.20 1.50 Malaisse and Parent, 1982.
Kaiser's rock rat Aethomys kaiseri Muscle 73.10 19.10 3.00 2.00 Malaisse and Parent, 1982.
Brush-furred rat Lophuromys fl avopunctatus Muscle 66.70 27.50 2.90 2.60 Malaisse and Parent, 1982.
Swamp rat Pelomys fallax Muscle 75.10 19.90 2.80 1.80 Malaisse and Parent, 1982.
Dasysmys spp. Muscle 71.70 21.00 4.00 2.00 Malaisse and Parent, 1982.
Praomys spp. Muscle 70.00 19.80 7.00 2.00 Malaisse and Parent, 1982.
Common mole rat Cryptomys hottentotus Muscle 69.20 16.60 9.90 1.80 Malaisse and Parent, 1982.
Pouched mouse Saccostomus campestris Muscle 68.40 19.00 10.20 2.20 Malaisse and Parent, 1982.
*ns = not specifi ed continued on next page
44 Animal Frontiers
Table 1. Continued
Animal species Sample analyzed Moisture Protein Fat Ash Reference
n g/100g g/100g g/100g g/100g
Cape Porcupine Hystrix africae-australis Muscle (smoked) 48.00 45.80 41.00 1.70 Malaisse and Parent, 1982.
Capybara Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris Loin, 9 months old 18 74.40 20.90 1.81 1.18 Girardi et al., 2005.
Capybara Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris Muscle, males 13 75.57 21.95 1.75 1.05 Oda et al., 2004.
Capybara Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris Muscle, females 7 76.17 22.26 0.98 1.12 Oda et al., 2004.
Nutria/coypu Myocastor coypus Muscle, wild-caught 42 75.70 22.10 1.30 0.99 Tulley et al., 2000
Nutria/coypu Myocastor coypus Muscle, farmed males 5 73.75 20.95 1.59 ns* Saadoun et al., 2006.
Nutria/coypu Myocastor coypus Muscle, farmed females 5 72.76 21.46 1.70 ns* Saadoun et al., 2006.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leporidae
Rabbit, wild Muscle 75.00 21.50 1.05 1.15 CNF, 2010.
Rabbit, farmed Muscle 72.82 20.05 5.55 0.72 CNF, 2010.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Macropodidae
Kangaroo Macropus spp. Muscle 75.50 20.30 0.80 1.20 NUTTAB, 2010.
Reptilia, turtles
Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Muscle 77.05 - 82.0 15.7 - 19.0 0.65 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.17 Olmedo and Farnés, 2004
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Muscle 80.07 17.75 1.11 0.87 Olmedo and Farnés, 2004
Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Muscle 78.12 - 81.4 16.0 - 20.0 0.4 - 1.0 0.97 - 1.2 Olmedo and Farnés, 2004
Snapping turtle Macrochelys temminckii Muscle 83.00 15.80 0.20 1.00 Ockerman and Basu, 2009.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snake 75.0 - 85.4 11.8 - 14.4 0.4 - 3.2 1.1 - 1.4 Ockerman and Basu, 2009.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reptilia, lizards
Iguana Iguana spp. Muscle 20 74.70 20.80 3.49 1.18 De Moreno et al., 2000.
Argentine giant tegu Tupinambis merianae Muscle 9 72.00 23.60 4.00 1.20 Caldironi and Manes, 2006.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reptilia, crocodiles and alligators
Nile crocodile Crocodylus niloticus Muscle 7 71.64 22.08 6.23 0.51 Hoffman et al., 2000.
Saltwater crocodile Crocodylus porosus Muscle 75.50 21.40 2.10 0.96 Mitchell et al. 1995.
Yacare Caiman crocodilus yacare Muscle 5 75.23 18.43 5.32 1.08 Romanelli and Felicio, 1999.
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis Muscle 65.70 29.10 2.90 1.50 Debyser and Zwart. 1991.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domesticated species
Cow (beef) Bos. spp M longissimus dorsi, without fat 3 74.84 20.83 1.61 1.04 Moreira et al., 2003.
Cow (beef) Bos. Spp M longissimus dorsi, with fat 3 67.01 19.22 9.78 0.92 Moreira et al., 2003.
Sheep (lamb) Ovis aries Mean of shoulder, leg and loin 12 71.53 18.27 9.03 2.88 Schönfeldt et al., 2011.
Sheep (mutton) Ovis aries Mean of shoulder, leg and loin 3 73.83 20.43 8.98 1.19 Schönfeldt et al., 2011.
Goat Capra aegagrus hircus Muscle 30 75.99 18 2.51 1.38 Arain et al., 2010.
Domestic pig Sus scrofa domesticus M longissimus dorsi muscle 10 75.51 21.79 2.02 0.99 Kim et al., 2008.
*ns = not specifi ed
October 2012, Vol. 2, No. 4 45
sizes, all of which make them ideal meat producers. Consequently, many
cultures have taken advantage of rodents as food sources and at least 89
species serve as prized items in the diets of locals (Fiedler, 1990). These
are targeted since they are easy to catch and are generally not encom-
passed by game laws.
The rodents are a favored protein source in the tropics, and particu-
larly in rural areas of western and southern Africa, where large animals
are often in limited supply (Redhead and Boelen, 1990). Rodent species
supply between 20 to 90% of the total animal protein consumed by rural
West Africans (Oyarekua and Ketiku, 2010). Hoffman (2008) suggested
that among the various wildlife species that could be exploited by man,
rodents exhibit the greatest promise in becoming large commercial com-
modities due to their increased reproductive rates and simple husbandry
requirements. Besides supplying valuable protein, the meat of rodents
also contains essential amino acids which are required in the human diet
(Fiedler, 1990).
Guinea pigs
The guinea pig (Cavia porcellus) has been a staple meat source for
some of the poorest inhabitants in the Andes for over 3,000 years and
20,000 tons of meat (64 million edible carcasses) is produced from this
species annually (Kyle, 1994). Farm-raised guinea pigs reportedly have
a dressing percentage of around 65%. Although limited data exist on the
nutritional value of this species, the meat is considered to be an excellent
nutrient source (Fiedler, 1990), containing ca. 21% protein and 8% fat
(Nuwanyakpa et al., 1997).
Rats
The giant rat (Cricetomys gambianus) and cane rats or grasscutters
(Thryonomys swinderianus and Thryonomys gregorianus) are commonly
hunted for food in Africa, where they serve as the most important bush-
meat species in terms of both volume of trade and preference (Ntiamo-
Baidu, 1997; Odebode et al., 2011; Figure 7). These species are regarded
as pests on many crops and have proven to be well adapted to exploitation
due to their high reproductive rates (Jeffrey, 1977; Martin 1983).
Giant rats attain average weights of 1.2 to 1.3 kg and the meat is con-
sidered both desirable and of a high nutritional value (Oyarekua and Ke-
tiku, 2010; Table 1). It has been reported that the giant rat is consumed by
the majority of rural and urban inhabitants in Nigeria (Ajayi and Olawoye,
1974).
Cane rats can grow up to 13 kg and are among the largest rodents spe-
cies (Odebode et al., 2011). Approximately 80 million cane rats are hunted
per year in western Africa, with an equivalent of 300,000 metric tons of
meat. In spite of this high level of exploitation, cane rats are by no means
endangered, and the numbers are actually increasing in Africa (Jori et al.,
1995). The species is desired for domestication since, in comparison with
most small livestock species, it is culturally better accepted, has a greater
carcass yield (ca. 65%) and a superior nutritional value (Table 1; Jori et
al., 1995; Odebode et al., 2011).
Both the giant rat and cane rats are frequently marketed along road
sides and in local marketplaces, where they fetch relatively high prices
(Redhead and Boelen, 1990). Rat meat is reported to be sweet, with a
taste comparable with that of pork, chicken, or rabbit meat (Deutsch and
Murakhver, 2012).
Barbequed or grilled rice-fi eld rats (Rattus argentiventer) are also an
everyday protein source for people in Thailand and Southeast Asia. Hunts
in Thailand can yield up to 20,000 grilled rice-fi eld rats at a time (Hauck et
al., 1959). Other rat species are consumed in China, Vietnam, and in Paris
during times of food shortages (Deutsch and Murakhver, 2012).
Porcupines
The brush-tailed porcupine (Atherurus africanus) is a rodent species
that occurs predominantly in the forests of equatorial Africa. It has an
average body weight of 3 kg and is a widely hunted and favoured protein
source for both rural and urban populations in Cameroon, Congo, Gabon,
and Nigeria (Jori et al., 1998). In these regions, brush-tailed porcupine
meat frequently fetches higher prices than that from domestic or other
game species. It is the most abundant and popular bushmeat species sold
in Gabon (together with the blue duiker, Cephalophus monticola), report-
edly accounts for ca. 19% of the total species sold by the road side in
Bendel State in Nigeria and represents about 10% of the animals con-
sumed in urban centres such as Kisangani, Democratic Republic of Congo
(Martin, 1983; Colyn et al., 1987). As a result of its popularity and market
price, the meat of the brush-tailed porcupine is more frequently sold as a
source of income than it is consumed by the family of the hunter (Jori et
al., 1998).
The Cape or South African Porcupine (Hystrix africaeaustralis) is an-
other hystricomorph rodent that is widely used as a food source through-
out southern Africa. The damage this species causes to crops, as well as
Figure 7. A hunter with a cane rat in the Buzi district of Mozambique
(source: Ton Rulkens).
46 Animal Frontiers
its favourable nutritional profi le and high protein content (Table 1), means
that the species is actively targeted by hunting, snaring, and trapping in
many agricultural areas in this region (van Aarde, 1998).
Other rodents from Africa
A number of other rodents commonly eaten in many parts of Africa
include bush squirrels (Paraxerus spp.), African dormice (Graphiurus
spp.), bushveld gerbil (Gerbilliscus leucogaster), water rat (Dasymys
spp.), brush-furred Rat (Lophuromys fl avopunctatus), Kaiser’s rock rat
(Aethomys kaiseri), pouched mouse (Saccostomus campestris), Creek
Groove-toothed Swamp Rat (Pelomys fallax), and the common mole rat
(Cryptomys hottentotus; Redhead and Boelen, 1990). All of these species
contribute fairly high levels of protein (≥19%, with the exception of the
mole rat: 16.6%) to the diets of local inhabitants, and have fat contents
ranging from 2.8 to 10.2% (Table 1)
Native Rodents from South America
Four types of rodents have been identifi ed as having production poten-
tial in Latin America, namely the capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris),
paca (Cuniculus spp.), agouti (Dasyprocta spp.), and the nutria or coypu
(Myocastor coypus; FAO, 1996). Although limited data have been pub-
lished on the nutrient composition of some of these species, that informa-
tion which is available (Table 1) indicates that they can be considered as
high-protein food sources. The capybara is the largest of the Rodentia spe-
cies, with adults typically achieving weights of 35 to 66 kg. It is thought
to have been domesticated in Brazil as early as 1565 A.D. and licensed
ranches in Venezuela harvest about 85,000 capybara per year (Gonzales-
Jimenez, 1977; Fiedler, 1990). Harvest rates of 40% may occur for capy-
bara without population depletion, and the net cash return per hectare is
almost three times greater for this species than for cattle. Federico and
Canziani (2005) have also proposed a model for the sustainable harvest-
ing of capybara from the wild. Capybara meat is considered to be very
tasty. However, most recipes for its preparation necessitate the removal of
excess fat by sequential stages of boiling in fresh water (Fielder, 1990).
In Columbia and Venezuela, capybara meat is traditionally processed by
salting and drying.
Of the closely-related pacas and agoutis, the former produces more
meat and sells at higher prices than the latter. The paca is principally
viewed as a luxury food item by locals in Guyana, Mexico, Trinidad, and
Nicaragua due to its favourable taste and high fat content (Fielder, 1990).
Although nutria (or coypu) are native to South America, they also oc-
cur today in parts of Europe, Asia and North America, where they may
be farmed commercially. Nutria are relatively large semi-aquatic rodents
(adult weights of 5 to 9 kg), which dress out at ca. 52% of their live body
weights. Saadoun and Cabrera (2008) reviewed the factors infl uencing the
nutritional composition of nutria meat. The meat of wild-caught species
contains ca. 22.1% protein, 1.3% fat, and 36 mg/100 g (wet tissue) choles-
terol (Tulley et al., 2000; Table 1), while farmed species contain slightly
lower protein (20.95 to 21.46%), higher fat (1.59 to 1.7%) and cholesterol
levels (70.1 to 72.7 mg/100 g wet tissue; Table 1), likely due to differences
in dietary intake (Saadoun et al., 2006). The marketing of nutria meat has
shown varied success in the past. Fresh, frozen, and processed coypu meat
products are, however, now appearing on commercial markets in Uruguay
(Saadoun et al., 2006).
Rabbits and Hares
Rabbits and hares are plentiful in many regions across the globe and
form a part of the diets of many human cultures (Wilson and Reeder,
2005). Over 60 species are documented within the family Leporidae, with
all hare species belonging to the genus Lepus and rabbits belonging to
eight different genera. Native species of rabbits and hares occur through-
out America, Europe, Africa, and Asia (Lebas et al., 1997; Deutsch and
Murakhver, 2012).
Figure 8. Rabbits being sold in a public market place in Padova, Italy.
October 2012, Vol. 2, No. 4 47
Rabbits have been utilized as a food source by man since 1500 B.C. and
are currently an important food meat in Europe, South and North America,
and certain parts of the Middle East (Linseisen et al., 2003; Deutsch and
Murakhver, 2012). When utilised for food, rabbits can be hunted in the
wild or they are also systematically bred today for meat in many parts
of the world, including in several European countries, the United States,
China, and Africa (Lebas et al., 1997; Gillespie and Flanders, 2009). Par-
ticularly in developing countries, rabbit breeding is recognized to have
signifi cant potential for supplying high-value protein and for improving
food security (FAO, 2001). Since rabbits adapt to a wide variety of envi-
ronmental conditions, have fast reproduction and growth rates, and high
feed conversion effi ciencies, they are considered good meat producers. A
female rabbit may produce up to 80 kg of meat per annum (>3,000% of
its own weight; Lebas et al., 1997; FAO; 2001). The Californian and New
Zealand White are the leading commercial breeds, with a high ratio of
muscle for their size.
Fresh rabbit meat is sold nowadays in the butcheries and markets
of some countries (Figure 8), while some supermarkets also sell frozen
rabbit meat. Recent reviews on the composition of rabbit meat by sev-
eral authors (Combes, 2004; Dalle Zotte, 2004; Combes and Dalle Zotte,
2005; Hernández and Gondret, 2006) have demonstrated that this has a
favorable nutritional value when compared to meat from other domestic
animal species. Rabbit meat is rich in protein of a high-biological value,
characterized by increased essential amino acids (Dalle Zotte, 2004). Fur-
thermore, the meat is generally low in calories, fat (although this varies
depending on the cut), and cholesterol, while it supplies a valuable source
of bioavailable micronutrients (Pla et al., 2004; Hernández and Gondret,
2006). Meat derived from wild rabbits and hares is generally leaner than
that from their domesticated counterparts. Typically, the meat is incorpo-
rated into stews or is prepared as slow-cooked roasts, where fat is added
(Deutsch and Murakhver, 2012).
Kangaroos
Kangaroos are marsupial species within the family Macropodidae,
which also includes wallabies, wallaroos, tree-kangaroos, forest walla-
bies, and pademelons. Kangaroos are endemic to Australia and their meat
and skins have contributed to the survival of the aboriginal people in this
region for tens of thousands of years (Braddick, 2002).
While Australian legislation prohibits the hunting of many of the ca.
50 macropod species, the three largest kangaroo species are particularly
abundant in rural regions of Australia and are considered as pests due to
their competition with cattle and sheep for pasture resources (Caughley
et al., 2009). Consequently, a number of Australian states have concluded
that kangaroos can be sustainably harvested commercially, albeit under
stringent regulatory control (Prescott-Allen et al., 1996). Quota systems
govern the maximum number of kangaroos that may be harvested from
the wild and the animals are only permitted to be killed for commercial
use by licensed hunters.
Kangaroo production under intensive conditions is currently limited,
mainly since the market for kangaroo meat and skins can be adequately
supplied by the existing rangeland harvesting (hunting; Braddick, 2002;
Caughley et al., 2009). The species that are most commonly harvested for
commercial use include the red kangaroo (Macropus rufus), western grey
kangaroo (M. fuliginosus), eastern grey kangaroo (M. giganteus), and
common wallaroo or euro (M. robustus), with the former three species
comprising about 90% of the commercial harvest (Prescott-Allen et al.,
1996). Kangaroo meat has a specialty market in Australia and is sold in
restaurants and retail outlets in this country (Prescott-Allen et al., 1996).
However, ca. 70% of the Australian kangaroo harvest is currently export-
ed, supplying more than 55 countries worldwide. Kangaroo meat has a
strong fl avor, is high in protein, iron, and zinc, while being relatively low
in fat (ca. 2%) and cholesterol (Braddick, 2002; Deutsch and Murakhver,
2012).=
Reptiles
Reptiles have long served as an important protein source for human
populations in many regions of the world, other than in Europe and North
America, where consumption is comparatively less (Klemens and Thor-
bjarnarson, 1995; Fitzgerald et al., 2004). Since reptiles generally have
low energy requirements and high rates of reproduction, they may occur
at high densities and biomass levels, making them ideal candidates for
human exploitation for food. The meat of reptile species typically shares
similar compositional characteristics with that from invertebrates, being
high in moisture, with modest amounts of protein and reduced fat content
(Southgate, 1991; Table 1). In certain areas of the world, the consumption
of reptile meat is interwoven with specifi c cultural and medicinal beliefs
(Klemens and Thorbjarnarson, 1995). Whereas many different species
may be consumed by humans, extensive consumption and commercial-
ization of the meat is only found in certain regions. Of all the reptiles, the
turtles have been the most severely exploited by humans for food, a situa-
tion which has been directly attributed to the precarious conservation state
of many of these species (Klemens and Thorbjarnarson, 1995).
Turtles
Turtles have been consumed as a protein source for centuries and ex-
ist on every continent of the world, except Antarctica. Of the more than
300 turtle species, almost all are edible. Snapping turtles (Table 1) are
the main turtle species consumed in the United States (Deutsch and Mu-
rakhver, 2012). While the soup made from the alligator snapping turtle
(Macrochelys temminckii) is considered to be a delicacy, this species is
now endangered in several states in America, and is listed as a threatened
species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN;
van Dijk et al., 2011).
Sea turtles have traditionally provided a subsistence source of food
for many indigenous tribes on the coast of Mexico, while the green turtle
(Chelonia myda) has served as the primary form of animal protein for
the Seri Indians along the Sonoron coastline (Caldwell, 1963; Delgado
and Nichols, 2005). These marine reptiles contribute high-quality protein
(Table 1), essential micronutrients and B-vitamins in the diet (Olmedo and
Farnés, 2004). The over-exploitation of sea turtles by whalers in the mid-
19th century, the rise in popularity of turtle meat in the United Kingdom
and the increased harvesting for turtle leather and shells led to the col-
lapse of numerous sea turtle populations by the late 1900s (Delgado and
Nichols, 2005; Mancini and Koch, 2009). Today, all seven species of sea
turtles are listed on the IUCN Red List of Endangered Species as either
“endangered” or “critically endangered”. In some countries, threatened
turtle species have been afforded complete protection by law, while legis-
lation is incomplete or out-dated in others. Nevertheless, even in countries
where legislation regulating the harvest and trade of sea turtles exist, most
regions are confronted with a large latent market for turtle meat and op-
48 Animal Frontiers
portunistic take and illegal turtle trade has been documented (Fleming,
2001; Mancini and Koch, 2009). There is also growing evidence that sea
turtle consumption may be harmful to human health due to environmen-
tal contaminants, biotoxins, parasites, bacteria, and viruses (Senko et al.,
2009).
Snakes
While snakes are commonly consumed by many Asian locals and ab-
origines in Australia, their consumption as a source of animal protein is
believed to have originated in China. Today, up to 4,000 tons of snake
meat are served annually in China, where this reptile’s meat is commonly
served in restaurants in cities such as Shanghai, Foshan, and Yangshuo
(Deutsch and Murakhver, 2012). Locals in these regions like snake meat
due to tradition, its medicinal value, and taste, and also favour it for its
nutritive value (Table 1).
Snakes are commonly hunted for bushmeat in numerous rural com-
munities in West African regions. Snakes such as pythons and boas move
slowly, and are easily hunted for their meat. Venomous types, such as the
puff adder (Bitis spp.), are regarded as a delicacy in South Africa and the
commercially-valuable rattlesnakes are commonly eaten and traded in the
Chihuahuan Desert (Fitzgerald et al., 2004). Of major concern, however,
is the overexploitation of some venomous snakes for their meat (often
also for their skins and leather or for medicinal purposes). A prominent
example of the latter applies to the Western diamond-backed rattlesnake,
which is primarily traded for its meat, with over 2,000 kg of the meat be-
ing exported over a 6-year period examined (Fitzgerald et al., 2004).
Lizards
Comprising over 5,000 different species, lizards of the order Squa-
mata represent the largest group of living reptiles worldwide. Lizards are
remarkably adept at dispersing and adapting to new areas and have suc-
cessfully occupied all regions of the world, with the exception of Antarc-
tica (McDiarmid et al., 2012). Species diversity is, however, greatest in
tropical and sub-tropical Africa and Asia, followed closely by Australia.
Common edible lizards include iguanas (Iguana spp.), tegus (Tupinambis
spp.), monitor lizards (Varanus spp.), geckos (infraorder Gekkota), and
to a lesser extent worm lizards (sub-order Amphisbaenia; Deutsch and
Murakhver, 2012).
Iguanas are found in Central America, Mexico, Africa, and the Carib-
bean, where they are used for both their meat and skins (Saadoun and
Cabrera, 2008). Although it is known that adult specimens can weigh up
to 6 kg, limited reliable information is available on the carcass yields ob-
tained from the reptile. The meat is relatively high in protein (Table 1) and
has a fat content of ca. 3.5%, while no data can currently be sourced on its
cholesterol content (Saadoun and Cabrera, 2008).
Tegus are large South American lizards that have traditionally been
utilized by aboriginal people as a source of protein, fat, and leather. Al-
though these species may frequently be taken from the wild, there have
been some attempts to produce tegus on farms in Argentina. Farmed tegus
acquire live body weights of ca. 4.23 kg and the carcass yield averages
51.4% (Saadoun and Cabrera, 2008). Compared with other reptile spe-
cies, the tegu can be considered to be high in protein (ca. 23.6%, Table
1). The fat content of the meat averages 4.0%. However, this varies with
anatomical position from 3.4% (tail) to 5.5% (loin; Caldironi and Manes,
2006). In addition, tegu meat appears to be lower in cholesterol (ca. 18.2
mg/100g) than most other animal protein sources. Overexploitation of
tegus for their skins over the last decades has led to these species being
listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade of Endan-
gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES; Mieres and Fitzgerald,
2006). Monitor lizards fi ll a similar ecological niche in Africa, Asia, and
Australia as the tegus do in South America. The meat of monitor lizards
is considered to be an aphrodisiac in some regions of the world (Roth and
Merz, 1997).
Crocodiles and Alligators
Crocodilians (Figure 9) have been hunted by man for centuries for
their meat and skins (Roth and Merz, 1997). Today, however, the utiliza-
tion of crocodilians for subsistence purposes is limited. Whereas the meat
is relished in some societies, it is generally consumed as a by-product of
the skin trade (Hoffman, 2008). In particular, crocodile meat is considered
a delicacy in Australia, South Africa, Thailand, Ethiopia, Cuba, and in
regions of the United States. Crocodile meat is white and fi rm, with a fl a-
vour lying between chicken, veal, and fi sh (Huchzermeyer, 2003).
The overexploitation of crocodilian species for their skins and meat
during the 1950s and 1960s resulted in the decimation of many wild popu-
lations. All populations of the Nile or common crocodile (Crocodylus ni-
loticus) were consequently listed in Appendix I by CITES in
1975, although a number of African countries successfully
transformed their national C. niloticus populations from
Appendix I to Appendix II by 2004. Most wild harvesting
of the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) was
banned in the late 1960s after the species was hunted to near
extinction in the 1950s and 1960s, particularly in Louisiana
and Florida (Miller, 2005). Protected from hunting, alliga-
tor populations recovered dramatically by 1975 and many
states reopened limited alligator harvesting in conjunction
with conservative management systems (Parker, 2012).
As early as 1995, Revol suggested that the farming of
C. niloticus for skins and meat would have a positive effect
on the conservation of this species in the wild. Crocodylus
niloticus has been ranched in Zimbabwe since 1963 and lu-
crative farming operations also exist for this species today
in South Africa. In Australia, two crocodile species (Croco-
dylus porosus and Crocodylus johnstoni) are also farmed for
Figure 9. The Nile crocodile found in warm fresh water bodies throughout Africa.
October 2012, Vol. 2, No. 4 49
their skins and meat (Hoffman et al., 2000). The increasing demand for
alligator meat and hides created a booming business for alligator farming
in the 1980s, particularly in Florida, Texas, Louisiana, and Georgia, where
approximately 400,000 kg of alligator meat is produced annually (Spriger
and Holley, 2012). Some commercial farms in central South America now
also produce the yacare (Caiman yacare), an alligatorid crocodilian spe-
cies, for its meat, which is normally consumed salted (Saadoun and Ca-
brera, 2008).
Carcass and meat yields of 65% and 30 to 40%, respectively, can gen-
erally be expected for crocodilians. However, differences may occur with
species, gender, and size (Huchzermeyer, 2003). Crocodile meat is high
in protein (Table 1), low in fat (with an approximately equal proportion
of saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fatty acids) and has a
relatively low cholesterol content (Mitchell et al., 1995; Huchzermeyer,
2003). The tail portion generally has the largest intermuscular fat deposits.
The protein content of C. niloticus, C. porosus and A. mississippiensis has
been shown to be higher than that of the yacare, while the fat content of
the latter is comparable to C. niloticus, but greater than that of C. porosus
and A. mississippiensis (Table 1).
Bats
Bats, comprising more than 1200 species in the order Chiroptera, rep-
resent about 20% of all classifi ed mammal species worldwide (Tudge,
2000). Bats have been eaten by humans in the tropics for hundreds of
years (Deutsch and Murakhver, 2012). However, comprehensive data on
the chemical and nutritional composition of their meat is currently limited
to non-existent. Fruit bats or fl ying foxes (Pteropus spp.; Figure 10) are
extensively harvested and consumed throughout Asia, the Pacifi c Islands,
and certain Western Indian Ocean islands (Mickleburgh et al., 2009). Bat
hunting is also widely reported in western Africa, where the largest fruit
bat (Eidolon helvum) is the preferred food source. Insectivorous bat spe-
cies are also consumed, especially in Asia.
In spite of their widespread use as animal protein sources, bats are
long-lived species and their low reproductive rates make them vulner-
able to overexploitation when harvested extensively for bushmeat. Since
bats are similar to primates in terms of several life-history characteristics,
they can be severely impacted by bushmeat trade, and declines of several
species have already been documented (Jenkins and Racey, 2008; Mick-
leburgh et al., 2009). Numerous bat species are also threatened by factors
such as habitat loss, which, when combined with hunting can further aug-
ment their vulnerability. The global status of bats has been reviewed for
old world bats (Mickleburgh et al., 1992) and for all other bats (Hutson
et al., 2001). Evidence has also emerged to highlight the negative impacts
that hunting and bushmeat trade are having on bat populations in the Pa-
cifi c Islands and South-East Asia (Mickleburgh et al., 2002), as well as in
Madagascar (Jenkins and Racey, 2008). Recent research on emergent viral
diseases in bats, particularly the discovery of asymptomatic Ebola virus
infections in three species of pteropodids in West Africa, has elevated con-
cerns that the consumption of these mammals may transmit such diseases
(Messenger et al., 2003; Leroy et al., 2005; Breed et al., 2006).
Conclusion
A variety of different wildlife species (Figure 11) inevitably remain a
cheap source of protein for many population groups, particularly in the
developing world, and as such contribute substantially to food security
in these regions. When traded, these resources can further provide cash
revenue where few alternative sources of income exist. In addition, wild
animals can also serve as important contributors to national economies
through tourism and the sale of wild animal products.
Nonetheless, the excessive harvesting of wild animals for meat and
the concomitant declines in many species presents a major threat both to
biodiversity and to those people whose livelihoods critically depend on
them. If wildlife species are to survive and be utilised in the future, an ef-
fective means must be found to reconcile the requirements of the animals
with those of the people. While poverty alleviation has been advocated by
some as a means of minimizing the human reliance on wild meat species,
adequate local or foreign aid often fails to reach those who need it most,
and its role in solving this crisis will depend on how the aid is allocated
Figure 10. A large fruit bat consuming a banana. Figure 11. A monkey being grilled in the village of Kong, Cameroon
(source: Andre de George).
50 Animal Frontiers
and who benefi ts from it. Other key means that have been proposed to
tackle the wild meat crisis include the institution of protected areas, as
well as quotas or complete bans on the harvesting and trade of certain
species. However, without the availability or provision of alternative food
sources, the poor will certainly bear the brunt of such restrictions. One
strategy to address the former requirement is to better utilise marginal or
sub-marginal lands by stocking animals that are adapted to harsh condi-
tions, as has been applied for certain game animals in Africa. Mini-live-
stock breeding and farming of smaller species (e.g. rodents like cane rats,
giant rats, and porcupines) for backyard family production has also been
suggested as a means of increasing food security.
The challenges in facing this crisis, however, remain plentiful and will
likely only be overcome using long-term, integrated efforts combining
the aforementioned approaches, educating hunters, traders, and consum-
ers and involving government, non-profi t organizations, and the private
sector. Indeed, there is no simple solution for achieving the twin goals of
feeding the human population and conserving wildlife across t he globe.
Literature Cited
Ajayi, S. S., and O. O. Olawoye. 1974. Some indications of the social acceptance
of the African giant rat (Crycetomys gambianus) in southern Nigeria. Niger. J.
Forest. 4:36–41.
Arain, M. A., M. Khaskheli, I. R. Rajput, S. Faraz, S. Rao, M. Umer, and K. Devra-
jani. 2010. Effect of slaughtering age on chemical composition of goat meat.
Paki. J. Nutr. 9:404–408.
Asibey, E. O. A. 1974. Wildlife as a source of protein in Africa South of the Sahara.
Biological Conserv. 6:32–39.
Babiker, S. A., and O. K. Yousif. 1990. Chemical composition and quality of camel
meat. Meat Sci. 27:283–287.
Barnett, R. 2000. Food for thought: The utilization of wild meat in Eastern and
Southern Africa. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Nairobi, Kenya.
Bowen-Jones, E., and S. Pendry. 1999. The threat to primates and other mammals
from the bushmeat trade in Africa, and how this threat could be diminished.
Oryx 33:233–246.
Braddick, L. 2002. Marketplace demand for kangaroo meat consumption in West-
ern Australia: A sustainability issue. Honours Thesis, Murdoch University.
Breed, A. C., H. E. Field, J. H. Epstein, and P. Daszak. 2006. Emerging Henipavirus
and fl ying foxes–Conservation and management perspectives. Biol. Conserv.
131:211–220.
Burbaitė, L., and S. Csányi. 2009. Roe deer population and harvest changes in
Europe. Est. J. Ecol. 58:169–180.
Caldironi, H. A., and M. E. Manes. 2006. Proximate composition, fatty acids and
cholesterol content of meat cuts from tegu lizard Tupinambis merianae. J. Food
Comp. Anal. 19:711–714.
Caldwell, D. K. 1963. The sea turtle fi shery of Baja California, Mexico. Calif. Fish
Game 49:140–151.
Caughley, G., N. Shepherd, and J. Short. 2009. Kangaroos, their ecology and man-
agement in the sheep rangelands of Australia. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Clutton-Brock, J. 1999. A natural history of domesticated mammals. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
CNF (Canadian Nutrient Files). 2010. The Canadian Nutrient File. Accessed
August 2, 2012. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/fi che-nutri-data/cnf_
aboutus-aproposdenous_fcen-eng.php.
Colyn, M., A. Dudu, and M. Mbaelele. 1987. Data on small and medium scale
game utilisation in the rainforest in Zaire. Pages 109–14 in Proc. Int. Symp.
Wildl. Utilis. Afr. Zimbabwe.
Combes, S. 2004. Valeur nutritionnelle de la viande de lapin. INRA Prod. Anim.,
17:373–383.
Combes S., and A. Dalle Zotte. 2005. La viande de lapin: valeur nutritionnelle et
particularités technologiques. Page 167 in Proc. 11èmes Journées Recherche
Cunicole. Paris, France.
Conroy, A. M., and I. G. Gaigher. 1982. Venison, aquaculture and ostrich meat
production: Action 2003. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 12:219–233.
Cooper, J. E. 1995. Wildlife species for sustainable food production. Biodiversity
and Conserv. 4:215–219.
Cristofanelli, S., A. Antonini, D. Torres, P. Polidori, and C Renieri. 2004. Meat and
carcass quality from Peruvian llama (Lama glama) and alpaca (Lama pacos).
Meat Sci. 66:589–593.
Dalle Zotte, A. 2004. Dietary advantages: Rabbit must tame consumers. Viandes et
Produits Carnés 23:161–167.
Dawood, A. A., and M. A. Alkanhal. 1995. Nutrient composition of Najdi-camel
meat. Meat Sci. 39:71–78.
Delgado, S., and W. J. Nichols. 2005. Saving sea turtles from the ground up: Awak-
ening sea turtle conservation in northwestern Mexico. Marit. Stud. 4:89–104.
Debyser, I. W. J., and P. Zwart. 1991. Review of the most important diseases in Cro-
codylia which possibly interfere with human health. Vlaams Diergeneeskundig
Tijdschrift 60:164–169.
De Moreno, L. A., A. Vidal, D. Huerta-Sanchez, Y. Navas, S. Uzcategui-Bracho,
and N. Huerta-Leiden. 2000. Análisis comparativo proximal y de minerales
entre carnes de iguana, pollo y res. Archivos Latinoamericanos de Nutricion.
50:409–415.
Deutsch, J., and N. Murakhver. 2012. They eat that? A cultural encyclopedia of
weird and exotic food from around the world. ABC-CLIO. Santa Barbara, Cali-
fornia.
East, R. 1999. African Antelope Database 1998. IUCN/SSC Antelope Specialist
Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Elgasim, E. A., and M. A. Alkanhal. 1992. Proximate composition, amino acids
and inorganic mineral content of Arabian camel meat: Comparative study. Food
Chem. 45:1–4.
Fa, J. E., J. Juste, J. Perez del Val, and J. Castroviejo. 1995. Impact of market
hunting on mammal species in Equatorial Guinea. Conserv. Biol. 9:1107–1115.
Fa, J. E., C. A. Peres, and J. Meeuwig. 2001. Bushmeat exploitation in tropical
forests: an intercontinental comparison. Conserv. Biol. 16:232–237.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1996. Wildlife
utilization in Latin America: Current situation and prospects for sustainable
management. FAO Conservation guide 25. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2001. FOA recog-
nizes the increasingly important role of rabbit breeding: Global rabbit produc-
tion exceeds 1 million tonnes. Press release 01/57. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2011. The state of
food insecurity in the world 2011: How does international price volatility affect
domestic economies and food security. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Federico, P., and G. A. Canziani. 2005. Modeling the population dynamics of capy-
bara Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris: A fi rst step towards a management plan. Ecol.
Model. 186:111–121.
Ferguson, M. A. D., and L. Gauthier. 1992. Status and trends of Rangifer tarandus
and Ovibos moschatus populations in Canada. Rangifer 12:127–141.
Fiedler, L. A. 1990. Rodents as a food source. Pages 49–155 in Proc. 14th Vert. Pest
Conference., Sacramento, California.
Fitzgerald, L. A., C. W. Painter, A. Reuter, and C. Hoover. 2004. Collection, trade,
and regulation of reptiles and amphibians of the Chihuahuan Desert ecoregion.
TRAFFIC North America. WWF, Washington D.C., USA.
Fleming, E. H. 2001. Swimming against the tide: Recent surveys of exploitation,
trade, and management of marine turtles in the northern Caribbean. TRAFFIC
North America, Washington, D.C.
Gillespie, J. R., and B. B. Flanders. 2009. Modern livestock and poultry production.
Delmar Cengage Learning, Australia.
Gonzalez, F., P. Paulsen, F. J. M. Smulders, O. Skewes, E. Polsterer-Heindl, and H.
E. Konig. 2003. Exotics for the meat counter. Specialist cutting of traditional
joints of guanaco meat. Fleischwirtschaft 83:32–37.
Gonzalez, F., F. J. M. Smulders, P. Paulsen, O. Skewes, and Konig, H. E. 2004.
Anatomical investigations on meat cuts of guanacos (Lama guanicoe, Muller,
1776) and chemical composition of selected muscles. Wiener Tierarztliche
Monatsschrift 91:77–84.
Gonzales-Jimenez, E. 1977. The capybara: An indigenous source of meat in tropi-
cal America. World Anim. Rev. FAO. 21:24–30.
Hall, G. P., and K. P. Gill. 2005. Management of wild deer in Australia. J. Wildl.
Manag. 69:837–844.
October 2012, Vol. 2, No. 4 51
Hauck, H. M., J. R. Hanks, and S. Sudsaneh. 1959. Food habits in a Siamese vil-
lage. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 35:1143–1148.
Hernández, P., and F. Gondret. 2006. Rabbit meat quality. Page 269 in Recent ad-
vances in rabbit sciences. L. Maertens, and P. Coudert, eds. ILVO, Merelbeke,
Belgium.
Hoffman, L. C. 2008. The yield and nutritional value of meat from African ungu-
lates, camelidae, rodents, ratites and reptiles. Meat Sci. 80:94–100.
Hoffman, L. C., K. Crafford, M. Muller, and D. W. Schutte. 2003. Perceptions and
consumption of gamemeat by a group of tourists visiting South Africa. S. Afr.
J. Wildl. Res. 33, 125–130.
Hoffman, L. C., and A. V. Ferreira. 2004. Chemical composition of two muscles of
the common duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia). J. Sci. Food Agric. 84:1541–1544.
Hoffman, L. C., P. P. Fisher, and J. Sales. 2000. Carcass and meat characteristics of
the Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus). J. Sci. Food Agric. 80:1–7.
Hoffman, L. C., A. C. Mostert, M. Kidd, and L. L. Laubscher. 2009. Meat quality
of kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros) and impala (Aepyceros melampus): Carcass
yield, physical quality and chemical composition of kudu and impala Longis-
simus dorsi muscle as affected by gender and age. Meat Sci. 83:788–795.
Hoffman, L. C., M. Muller, D. W. Schutte, F. J. Calitz, and K. Crafford. 2005. Con-
sumer expectations, perceptions and purchasing of South African game meat.
S. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 35:33–42.
Hoffman, L. C., K. Smit, and N. Muller. 2010. Chemical characteristics of red
hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus caama) meat. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 40:221–
228.
Hoffman, L. C., and E. Wiklund. 2006. Game and venison–Meat for the modern
consumer. Meat Sci. 74:197–208.
Huchzermeyer, F. W. 2003. Crocodiles: Biology, husbandry and diseases. CABI
Publishing, Wallingford.
Hummel, M., and J. C. Ray. 2008. Caribou and the North: A shared future. Dundurn
Press, Toronto, Canada.
Hutson, A. M., S. P. Mickleburgh, and P. A. Racey. 2001. Microchiropteran bats.
Global status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Jeffrey, S. 1977. How Liberia uses its wildlife. Oryx 14:168–173.
Jenkins, R. K. B., and P. A. Racey. 2008. Bats as bushmeat in Madagascar. Mada-
gascar Conserv. Devel. 3:22–30.
Jori, F., M. Lopez-Beajar, and P. Houben. 1998. The biology and use of the African
brush-tailed porcupine (Atherurus africanus, Gray, 1842) as a food animal. A
review. Biodivers. Conserv. 7:1417–1426.
Jori, F., G.A. Mensah, and E. Adjanohoun. 1995. Grasscutter production: An ex-
ample of a rational exploitation of wildlife. Biodivers. Conserv. 4:257–265.
Kay, R. N. B., G. A. M. Sharman, W. J. Hamilton, E. D. Goodall, K. Pennie, and
A. G. P. Coutts. 1981. Carcass characteristics of young red deer farmed on hill
pasture. J. Agric. Sci. 96:79–87.
Kim, J. H., P. N. Seong, S. H. Cho, B. Y. Park, K. H. Hah, L. H. Yu, D. G. Lim,
I. H. Hwang D. H. Kim, J. M. Lee, and C. N. Ahn. 2008. Characterization
of nutritional value for twenty-one pork muscles Asian-Austral J. Anim. Sci.
21:138–143.
Klemens, M. W., and T.B. Thorbjarnarson. 1995. Reptiles as a food resource. Bio-
divers. Conserv. 4:281–298.
Kurtu, M. Y. 2004. An assessment of the productivity for meat and the carcass yield
of camels (Camelus dromedarius) and of the consumption of camel meat in the
eastern region of Ethiopia. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 36:65–76.
Kyle, R. 1994. New species for meat production. J. Agric. Sci. 1323:1–8.
Lebas, F. P. Coudert, H. de Rochambeau, and R. G. Thébault. 1997. The rabbit–
Husbandry, health and production. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Ledger, H. P., R. Sachs, and N. S. Smith. 1967. Wildlife and food production.
World Rev. Anim. Prod. 3:13–36.
Leroy, E. M., B. Kumulungui, X. Pourrut, P. Rouquet, A. Hassanin, P. Yaba, A.
Délicat, J. T. Paweska, J. P. Gonzalez, and R. Swanepoel. 2005. Fruit bats as
reservoir of Ebola virus. Nature. 438:575–576.
Linseisen, J., E. Kesse, and M. Slimani. 2003. Meat consumption in Europe – Re-
sults from the EPIC study. Nutrition and lifestyle: opportunities for cancer pre-
vention. Page 211 in Proc. Eur. Conf. Nutr. Cancer. Lyon, France.
Mancini, A., and V. Koch. 2009. Sea turtle consumption and black market trade in
Baja California Sur, Mexico. Endangered Species Res. 7:1–10.
Marcus, J., J. D. Sommer, and C. P. Glew. 1999. Fish and mammals in the economy
of an ancient Peruvian kingdom. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 96:6564–6570.
Malaisse, F. and G. Parent. 1982. Rodents of the Miombo woodland area. A nutri-
tional and ecological approach. Ecol. Food Nutr. 11:211–216.
Martin, G. H. G. 1983. Bushmeat in Nigeria as a natural resource with environmen-
tal implications. Environ. Conserv. 10:125–131.
McDiarmid, R.W., M. S. Foster, C. Guyer, J. Whitfi eld Gibbons, and N. Chernoff.
2012. Reptile biodiversity: standard methods for inventory and monitoring.
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Messenger, S. L., C. E. Rupprecht, J. D. Smith. 2003. Bats, emerging virus infec-
tions and the rabies paradigm. Pages 622–679 in Bat Ecology. T. H. Kunz and
M. B. Fenton, eds. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.
Mickleburgh, S.P., A. M. Hutson, and P. A. Racey. 1992. Old world fruit bats. An
action plan for their conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Mickleburgh, S.P., A. M. Hutson, and P. A. Racey. 2002. A review of the global
conservation status of bats. Oryx 36:18–34.
Mickleburgh, S., K. Waylen, and P. Racey. 2009. Bats as bushmeat: a global review.
Oryx 43:217–234.
Mieres, M., and L. A. Fitzgerald. 2006. Monitoring and managing the harvest of
tegu lizards in Paraguay. J. Wildl. Manag. 70:1723–1734.
Miller, F. L. 2003. Caribou (Rangifer tarandus). Page 965 in Wild mammals of the
North America: Biology, Management and Conservation. G. A. Feldhamer, B.
C. Thompson, J.A. Chapman, eds. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,
Maryland.
Miller, G. T. 2005. Environmental science: Working with the earth. Thomson
Brooks/Cole, Belmont.
Milner, J. S., C. Bonenfant, A. Mysterud, J. M. Gaillard, S. Csányi, and N. C. St-
renseth. 2006. Temporal and spatial development of red deer harvesting in Eu-
rope: biological and cultural factors. J. Appl. Ecol. 43:721–734.
Milner-Gulland, E. J., and E. L. Bennett. 2003. Wild meat: the bigger picture.
Trends Ecol. Evol. 18:351–357.
Mitchell, G. E., A. W. Reed, and D. B. Houlihan. 1995. Composition of crocodile
meat (Crocodylus porosus and Crocodylus johnstoni). Food Aus. 47:221–224.
Moreira, F. B, N. E. de Souza, M. Matsushita, I. N. do Prado, and W. G. do Nasci-
mento. 2003. Evaluation of carcass characteristics and meat chemical composi-
tion of Bos indicus and Bos indicus x Bos taurus crossbred steers fi nished in
pasture systems. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 46:609–616.
Nowak, R. M., and E. P. Walker. 1999. Walker’s mammals of the World. John Hop-
kins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y. 1997. Wildlife and food security in Africa. FAO Conservation
Guide 33. FAO, Rome, Italy.
NUTTAB. 2010. Nutrient data tables, Food Standard Australia New Zea-
land (FSANZ). Accessed Aug. 2, 2012. http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/
consumerinformation/nuttab2010/.
Nuwanyakpa, M., S. D. Lukefahr, D. Gudahl, and J. D. Ngoupayou. 1997. The
current stage and future prospects of guinea pig production under smallholder
conditions in West Africa. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 9. Accessed Aug. 2, 2012.
http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd9/5/gp951.htm.
Ockerman, H. W., and L. Basu, 2009. Undomesticated food animals hunted and
used for food. In Agricultural Sciences. Vol. 1. UNESCO-EOLSS, Paris.
Oda, S. H. I., M. C. Bressan, M. G. Cardoso, R. T. F. de Freitas, G. Z. Miguel, P. B.
Faria., J. O. Vieira, A. C. C. Pisa, and T. V. Savian. 2004. Efeitos dos metodos
de abate e sexo na composição centesimal, perfi l de acidos graxos e cholesterol
da carne de capivaras. Ciencia e Tecnología de Alimentos 24:236–242.
Odebode, A. V., F. Awe, O. O. Famuyide, O. Adebayo, O. B. Ojo, and G. Daniel.
2011. Households’ consumption patterns of grasscutter (Thryonomys swind-
erianus) meat within Ibadan Metropolis, Oyo State, Nigeria. Cont. J. Food Sci.
Technol. 5:49–57.
Olmedo, G. G., and O. C. Farnés. 2004. Research report: Cultural, social and nu-
tritional value of sea turtles in Cuba. Universidad de la Habana. WWF, Wash-
ington D.C., USA.
Onyango, C. A., M. Izumimoto, and P. M. Kutima. 1998. Comparison of some
physical and chemical properties of selected game meats. Meat Sci. 49:117–
125.
Oyarekua, M. A., and A. O. Ketiku. 2010. The nutrient composition of the African
Rat. Adv. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2:318–324.
Parker, R. O. 2012. Aquaculture science. Delmar Cengage Learning, New York,
USA.
52 Animal Frontiers
Pla M., M. Pascual, and B. Ariño. 2004. Protein, fat and moisture content of retail
cuts of rabbit meat evaluated with the NIRS methodology. World Rabbit Sci.
12:149–158.
Prescott-Allen, R., C. Prescott-Allen, IUCN Specialist Group on Sustainable Use
of Wild Species. 1996. Assessing the sustainability of uses of wild species: case
studies and initial assessment procedure. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Quinlan, S. E. 2004. Caribou. Carolrhoda Books, Minneapolis.
Redhead, J. F., and M. Boelen. 1990. Utilization of tropical foods: compendium on
technological and nutritional aspects of processing and utilization of tropical
foods, both animal and plant, for purposes of training and fi eld reference. FAO,
Rome, Italy.
Revol, B. 1995. Crocodile farming and conservation, the example of Zimbabwe.
Biodiversity Conserv. 4:299–305.
Rincker, P. J., P. J. Bechtel, G. Finstadt, R. G. C. Van Buuren, J. Killefer, and F. K.
McKeith. 2006. Similarities and differences in composition and selected sen-
sory attributes of reindeer, caribou and beef. J. Muscle Foods 17:65–78.
Robinson, J. G., and E. L. Bennett. 2000. Hunting for sustainability in tropical
Forests. Columbia University Press, New York, USA.
Romanelli, P. F., and P. E. Felicio. 1999. Jacare do Pantanal (Caiman crocodilus
yacare): Rendimientos de abate e composic_ao da carne. Higiene Alimentar.
13:11–15.
Roth, H. H., and G. Merz. 1997. Wildlife resources: a global account of economic
use. Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Saadoun, A., and M. C. Cabrera. 2008. A review of the nutritional content and tech-
nological parameters of indigenous sources of meat in South America. Meat
Sci. 80:570–581.
Saadoun, A., M. C. Cabrera, and P. Castellucio. 2006. Fatty acids, cholesterol and
protein content of nutria (Myocastor coypus) meat from an intensive production
system in Uruguay. Meat Sci. 72:778–784.
Sampels, S., J. Pickova, and E. Wiklund. 2005. Infl uence of production system, age
and sex on carcass parameters and some biochemical meat quality characteris-
tics of reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus L.). Rangifer. 25:85–96.
SCBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity). 2011. Livelihood
alternatives for the unsustainable use of bushmeat. Report prepared for the CBD
Bushmeat Liaison Group. Technical Series No. 60. SCBD, Montreal, Canada.
Schönfeldt, H. C., S. M. van Heerden, J. Sainsbury, and N. Gibson. 2001. Nutrient
content of uncooked and cooked meat from South African classes A2 lamb and
C2 mutton. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 41:141–145.
Senko, J., Nichols, Ross, and Willcox. 2009. To eat or not to eat an endangered
species: views of local residents and physicians on the safety of sea turtle con-
sumption in northwestern Mexico. Ecohealth. 6:584–95.
Sharp, R., and K. U. Wollscheid. 2009. An overview of recreational hunting in
North America, Europe and Australia. Page 25 in Recreational Hunting, Con-
servation and Rural Livelihoods, B. Dickson, J. Hutton and W. M. Adams, eds.
Blackwell Publishing, West Sussex, UK.
Sinclair, A. R. E., and P. Arcese. 1995. Serengeti II: Dynamics, management, and
conservation of an ecosystem. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and Lon-
don.
Southgate, D. A. T. 1991. Nature and variability of human food consumption. Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. 334:281–288.
Spriger, J. T., and D. Holley. 2012. An introduction to zoology: investigating the
animal world. Jones and Bartlett Learning, Burlington, Mass.
Tudge, C. 2000. The variety of life: a survey and a celebration of all the creatures
that have ever lived. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Tulley, R. T., F. M. Malekian, J. C. Rood, M. B. Lamb, C. M. Champagne, S. M.
Redmann Jr., R. Patrick, N. Kinler, and C. T. Raby. 2000. Analysis of the nutri-
tional content of Myocastor coypus. J. Food Comp. Anal. 13:117–125.
van Aarde, R. 1998. An ecological perspective of reproduction in the Cape Porcu-
pine. Trans. R. Soc. S. Afr. 53:237–243.
van Dijk, P. P., J. B. Inverson, H. B. Shaffer, R. Bour, and A. G. J. Rhodin. 2011. Tur-
tles of the world, 2011 update: annotated checklist of taxonomy, synonymy, dis-
tribution and conservation status. Chelonian Res. Monogr. 5:165–242.
Van Zyl, L., and A. V. Ferreira. 2004. Physical and chemical carcass composition of
springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis), blesbok (Damaliscus dorcas phillipsi) and
impala (Aepyceros melampus). Small Rum. Res. 53:103–109.
Vaughan, T. A., J. M. Ryan, and N. J. Czaplewski. 2011. Mammology, 5 ed. Jones
and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, Mass.
Von la Chevallerie, M. 1972. Meat quality of seven wild ungulate species. S. Afr.
J. Anim. Sci. 2:101–103.
Wiklund, E., G. Finstad, L. Johansson, G. Aguiar, and P. J. Bechtel. 2008. Carcass
composition and yield of Alaskan reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) steers
and effects of electrical stimulation applied during fi eld slaughter on meat qual-
ity. Meat Sci. 78:185–193.
Wiklund, E., and G. Malmfors. 2004. The effects of pre-slaughter handling on rein-
deer meat quality–A review. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 72:1N–6N.
Wilkie, D. S., and J. F. Carpenter. 1999. Bushmeat hunting in the Congo Basin:
an assessment of impacts and options for mitigation. Biodiversity Conserv.
8:927–955.
Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder. 2005. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxo-
nomic and Geographic Reference. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,
USA.
Zomborszky, Z., G. Szentmihalyi, I. Sarudi, P. Horn, and C. S. Szabo. 1996. Nutri-
ent composition of muscles in deer and boar. J. Food Sci. 61:625–627.
About the Authors
Louw Hoffman was born on a cattle and
pig ranch in Zimbabwe. He studied animal
sciences at Stellenbosch University. Af-
ter completing his masters degree on pig
meat quality attributes, he was employed
as a researcher in aquaculture at Limpopo
University. While there, he completed his
Ph.D. on the meat quality of the catfi sh.
He spent eight years doing extensive re-
search on fi sh production with a strong
emphasis on fi sh meat. Thereafter, he was
employed as an academic and researcher
at Stellenbosch University in the meat
science discipline. Louw has published more 150 scientifi c peer-reviewed
research articles in national and international journals, and 46 M.Sc. and 10
Ph.D. students have already completed their scientifi c investigations under
his supervision. His special research interest is in exotic meat (game and
ostrich). He describes himself as a frustrated farmer who has no farm and is
therefore an academic and researcher.
Correspondence: lch@sun.ac.za
Donna Cawthorn obtained her B.Sc. and
M.Sc. degrees in food science (cum laude)
at Stellenbosch University (US) in South
Africa in 2005 and 2007, respectively,
where after she completed a Ph.D. degree
in food science, focused on the establish-
ment of molecular methods for the identi-
fi cation of South African fi sh species. Her
interest in meat science led her to join the
Department of Animal Sciences (US) as a
Claude Leon post-doctoral fellow in 2012.
Her current work includes DNA-based
detection of adulteration in commercial
meat products. Donna has published over 10 papers in peer-reviewed jour-
nals and has presented over 50 oral presentations on her work.
October 2012, Vol. 2, No. 4 53
