Carnes de Animales Sudamericanos

Meat Science 80 (2008) 570–581

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Meat Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate/meatsc i

Review

A review of the nutritional content and technological parametersof indigenous sources of meat in South America

A. Saadoun a,b,*, M.C. Cabrera a,c

a Sección Fisiología and Nutrición, Facultad de Ciencias, Calle Igua 4225, CP11400 Montevideo, Uruguayb Departamento Básico de Medicina, Unidad Asociada de la Facultad de Ciencias, Hospital de Clínicas, Avda Italia s/n Montevideo, Uruguayc Laboratorio de Nutrición y Ciencia de los Alimentos, Facultad de Agronomía. Avda Garzon 780, CP12900 Montevideo, Uruguay

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 17 September 2007Received in revised form 20 March 2008Accepted 20 March 2008

Keywords:Native speciesSouth americaMeat sourcesIndigenous meat

0309-1740/$ - see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.03.027

* Corresponding author. Address: Sección Fisiología5258617.

E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Saadou

a b s t r a c t

Meat yields, proximate compositions, fatty acids compositions and technological parameters arereviewed for species which might be further developed as indigenous sources of meat in South America.These include the alpaca (Lama pacos), capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris), guanaco (Lama guanicoe),llama (Lama glama), nutria (Myocastor coypus), collared peccary (Tayassu tajacu), greater rhea (Rhea amer-icana), lesser rhea (Rhea pennata), yacare (Caiman crocodilus yacare), tegu lizard (Tupinambis merianae)and green iguana (Iguana iguana).

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5712. Native animals species used as meat sources in South America. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572

2.1. Capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572
2.1.1. Yield of carcass and proximate composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5722.1.2. Fatty acid composition of meat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573
2.2. Nutria (Myocastor coypus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573
2.2.1. Yield of carcass and proximate composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5732.2.2. Fatty acids composition of meat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573
2.3. Guanaco (Lama guanicoe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574
2.4. Alpaca (Lama pacos) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574
2.5. Llama (Lama glama). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574
2.6. Collared peccary (Tayassu tajacu) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575
2.7. Greater rhea (Rhea americana) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576
ll rights reserved.

and Nutrición, Facultad de Ciencias, Calle Igua 4225, CP11400 Montevideo, Uruguay. Tel.: +598 2 5258619; fax: +598 2

n).

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03091740

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci

Table 1Live we

Animal

Alpaca

Capyban = 1

Guanacn = 7

Gonzal(200

LlamaChileChilePeru

Nutria*Nutria*Peccary

n = 1

GreaterArgenn = 9

Argenn = 9

Argenn = 3

Urugn = n

Lessern = 5

Tegu lin = 1

Yacare

Data w

A. Saadoun, M.C. Cabrera / Meat Science 80 (2008) 570–581 571

2.8. Lesser rhea (Pterocnemia pennata) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576
2.9. Yacare (Caiman crocodilus yacare) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577
2.10. Tegu lizard (Tupinambis merianae) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577
2.10.1. Yield of carcass and proximate composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5772.10.2. Fatty acids composition of meat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577
2.11. Green iguana (Iguana iguana) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578
2.11.1. Yield of carcass and proximate composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5782.11.2. Fatty acids composition of meat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578
3. Minerals composition of indigenous meat consumed in South America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5784. Fatty acids indices related to human health and South American indigenous meats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5785. Technological parameters of meat from native animals from South America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5806. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580

1. Introduction

In certain rural areas of South America, wild meat can be an eas-ily accessible, cheap and significant source of animal protein (Rao &McGowan, 2002). The use of indigenous meats may also be associ-ated with the commercial trade of different products as, for exam-ple, skin from the yacare (Caiman crocodilus yacare), fur from thenutria (Myocastor coypus) and feathers from the rhea (Rhea ameri-cana). Thus, in many cases, meat may be a by-product rather thanthe main product (Mares & Ojeda, 1984).

The indiscriminate use of wildlife resources is unacceptable andpolicies are needed for a legal, sustainable and ethical developmentof the commercial trade in products from native animals species

ight, carcass yield and weight of edible organs of some South American indigenou

s Live weight(kg)

Carcass weight(kg)

Yields ofCarcass (%)

Yield of meat(%/LBW)

# n = 40 46.07 ± 2.23 24.4 ± 1.53 55.7 ± 0.84 n/a

ra #

344.2 ± 0.98 n/a 51.5 ± 0.33 n/a

o #

0101.2 ± 12.52 59.58 ± 7.75 58.88 ± 2.47

ez et al.4)

# n = 5 100.6 ± 19.4 56.2 ± 11.2 55.8 ± 1.9 n/a$ n = 5 104.6 ± 22.6 56.7 ± 12.2 54.2 ± 1.2 n/a# n = 20 63.2 ± 2.92 31.2 ± 1.93 52.4 ± 1.06 n/a

# n = 4 5.95 ± 0.68 3.34 ± 0.56 56.2 ± 0.80 31.7 ± 0.92$ n = 4 4.79 ± 0.26 2.65 ± 0.13 55.4 ± 0.8 31.0 ± 2.58#

617.1 – n/a 59.5 – 29.7 –

rheatina # 27.3 ± 2.94 17.6 ± 2.35 64.1 ± 2.43 40.7 ± 2.92

tina $ 24.1 ± 2.94 15.0 ± 2.35 62.3 ± 2.43 38.3 ± 2.92

tina # 24.3 ± 3.78 15.4 ± 3.01 63.5 – 38.8 –

uay #

/a21.4 – 12.7 – 59.6 – 38.5 –

Rhea # 25.1 ± 2.14 15.0 ± 1.36 59.6 – 39.7 –

zard #

24.23 ± 0.70 2.17 ± 0.36 51.4 ± 1.34 n/a

# n = 5 19.4 – 11.55 – 59.5 – 48.4 –

ere mean ± SD (* ± SEM). n/a = unavailable or not reported. – = SD or SEM unavai

(Marie, 2006; Mauro, 2002; Mourão, Campos, & Coutinho, 1996).In the last decade, the number of farms developed specifically toproduce native species has increased substantially in South Amer-ica. The main objective of these farms is to produce meat and prod-ucts for local markets. But international interest in new and exoticmeats exists, and South American farmers see this as a new com-mercial possibility (Uhart & Milano, 2002). Another possible collat-eral benefit of the farm rearing of native animal species in SouthAmerica could be a reduction of hunting pressures on wild animals,although this aspect is still controversial (Bulte & Damania, 2005).

Scientific information on yields, meat quality and nutritionalcontents is required if farmers are to promote indigenous meatin both local and international markets. But this information is

s animals

Heart weight(kg)

Liver weight(kg)

Kidney weight(kg)

References

0.38 ± 0.02 0.89 ± 0.05 0.08 ± 0.02 Cristofanelli et al.(2004, 2005)

n/a n/a n/a Gonzalez (1995)

32.9 ± 2.50 0.89 ± 0.19 2.08 ± 0.17 0.28 ± 0.02

0.50 ± 0.1 1.6 ± 0.2 0.2 ± 0.0 Perez et al. (2000)0.3 ± 0.1 2.0 ± 0.5 0.3 ± 0.1 Perez et al. (2000)0.44 ± 0.02 1.07 ± 0.07 0.10 ± 0.03 Cristofanelli et al.

(2004, 2005)n/a n/a n/a Cabrera et al. (2007)n/a n/a n/a Cabrera et al. (2007)n/a n/a n/a Nildo da Silva et al.

(2002)

0.31 ± 0.05 n/a n/a Garriz et al. (2003)

0,24 ± 0.05 n/a n/a Garriz et al. (2003)

0.29 ± 0.04 0.45 ± 0.02 n/a Sales et al. (1997)

0.28 – 0.43 – 0.10 – INAC (2003)

0.28 ± 0.04 0.57 ± 0.06 n/a Sales et al. (1997)

n/a n/a n/a Basso et al. (2004)

n/a n/a n/a Romanelli and deFelicio (1999)

lable or not reported.

Table 2Proximate composition of meat from South American indigenous animals

Animals Moisture (%) Proteins (%) Total lipids (%) Cholesterol (mg/100 g) Ash (%) References

Alpaca # n = 40 73.64 ± 1.66 23.33 ± 0.69 0.49 ± 0.01 51.14 ± 2.01 2.54 ± 0.20 Cristofanelli et al. (2004)Capybara # n = 13 75.57a ± 0.20 21.95a ± 0.60 1.75a ± 0.15 26.99a ± 2.92 1.05a ± 0.02 Oda, Bressan, Cardoso, et al. (2004)Capybara $ n = 7 76.17a ± 0.27 22.26a ± 0.50 0.98b ± 0.19 29.21a ± 4.01 1.12a ± 0.03 Oda, Bressan, Cardoso, et al. (2004)Guanaco # n = 70 73.9 – 20.9 – 1.0 – 27.2 1.1 – Gonzalez et al. (2003, 2004)Llama

Chile # n = 5 67.2 ± 3.4 21.8 ± 3.1 10.1 ± 3.0 n/a 1.0 ± 0.3 Perez et al. (2000)Chile $ n = 5 69.7 ± 5.8 19.9 ± 1.7 9.3 ± 4.9 n/a 1.0 ± 0.2 Perez et al. (2000)Peru # n = 20 73.94 ± 1.87 23.12 ± 0.88 0.51 ± 0.01 56.29 ± 2.89 2.43 ± 0.25 Cristofanelli et al. (2004)

Nutria*# n = 5 73.75 ± 4.85 20.95 ± 0.31 1.59 ± 0.18 71.15 ± 2.20 n/a Saadoun et al. (2006)

Nutria*$ n = 5 72,76 ± 7.49 21.46 ± 1.44 1.70 ± 0.24 72.05 ± 1.45 n/a Saadoun et al. (2006)

Peccary # n = 16 71.21 – 19.57 – 7.96 – 48.8 – 0.81 – Nildo da Silva et al. (2002), Freire et al. (2000)Greater rhea # n = 3 73.25 ± 1.49 n/a 1.17 ± 0.49 59.0 ± 6.80 n/a Sales et al. (1999)Lesser rhea # n = 5 74.15 ± 1.33 n/a 1.29 ± 0.64 55.0 ± 7.1 n/a Sales et al. (1999)Yacare # n = 5 75.23 ± 2.18 18.43 ± 1.03 5.32 ± 0.83 85.48 ± 5.80 1.08 ± 0.06 Romanelli and de Felicio (1999)Tegu lizard # n = 9 72.0 ± 0.7 23.6 ± 0.7 4.0 ± 1.3 18.2 ± 5.8 1.2 ± 0.2 Caldironi and Manes (2006)Iguana n = 20 74.7 ± 0.3 20.8 ± 0.36 3.49 ± 0.12 n/a 1.18 ± 0.3 De Moreno et al. (2000)

Data were mean ± SD (* = ±SEM). n/a = data unavailable or not reported. – = SD or SEM unavailable or not reported. For capybara, within the columns, different letters showsignificant differences between males and females (P < 0.05).

Table 3Proximate composition of some Brazilian commercial meat cuts of capybara (from Oda, Bressan, de Freitas, et al., 2004)

Cuts Moisture (%) Proteins (%) Total lipids (%) Cholesterol (mg/100 g) Ash (%)

Loin 75.1a ± 0.28 22.62a ± 0,42 0.83a ± 0.32 33.61a ± 3.12 0.92a ± 0.07Rib Rack 75.1a ± 0.28 22.05a ± 0.42 1.18a ± 0.32 31.36a ± 3.12 0.83a ± 0.07Belly 76.0b ± 0.28 21.29a ± 0.42 1.25a ± 0.32 30.0a ± 3.12 0.89a ± 0.07Shoulder 77.0c ± 0.28 21.48a ± 0.42 0.60a ± 0.32 17.7b ± 3.12 0.94a ± 0.07Hind leg 75.9b ± 0.28 22.45a ± 0.42 0.36a ± 0.32 26.1a ± 3.12 0.93a ± 0.07

Data are Mean ± SD. n = 5 (males and females mixed) and mean live body weight of 63.8 kg. Within the columns, different letters show significant differences between thecuts (P < 0.05).

Table 4Fatty acids (% of total fatty acids) of meat of male and female capybara (Hydrochoerushydrochaeris) and guanaco (Lama guanicoe)

Fattyacids

Capybara # Capybara $ GuanacoLongissimus dorsi

GuanacoSemimembranosus

14:0 3.93 ± 0.33 3.35 ± 0.31 2.7* 3.2*

16:0 29.8 ± 1.17 29.35 ± 1.10 19.6 23.118:0 5.60 ± 0.42 7.53 ± 0.39 25.4 26.018:1n9 28.05 ± 1.58 25.73 ± 1.49 30.6 26.718:2n6 18.97 ± 1.53 19.41 ± 1.44 8.9 9.318:3n3 5.06 ± 0.47 4.87 ± 0.49 3.5 4.520:4n6 3.00 ± 0.85 3.89 ± 0.89 n/a n/a20:5n3 0.45 ± 0.12 0.52 ± 0.12 n/a n/a22:6n3 0.16 ± 0.03 0.20 ± 0.03 n/a n/aSFA 38.76 39.78 47.7 52.3MUFA 30.83 27.17 30.6 26.7PUFA 28.27 29.88 12.4 13.8Total

n-622.6 23.99 8.9 9.3

Totaln3

5.67 5.59 3.5 4.5

n-6/n-3 3.98 4.29 2.54 2.07

n/a = Data unavailable or not reported. * = SD or SEM not reported. Data for capy-bara were from Longissimus dorsi muscle of 20 animals with an average live bodyweight of 45.7 kg. (Oda, Bressan, Cardoso, et al., 2004). Data for guanaco (Gonzalezet al., 2004), 70 males from south of Chile were used. SFA = Saturated fatty acids,MUFA = Monounsaturated fatty acids, PUFA = Polyunsaturated fatty acids.

572 A. Saadoun, M.C. Cabrera / Meat Science 80 (2008) 570–581

scattered and sparse. This review gathers the available informationfor easy access and identifies where further research is required.

2. Native animals species used as meat sources in SouthAmerica

In South America, there are many wild animals that might besuitable for farm rearing, but some of them are endangered species,

and they first need to be protected (IUCN, 2004). Therefore, this re-view is restricted to animals where experimental or commercialrearing in South America has already been initiated and wherethere are no issues with depletion of endangered species.

2.1. Capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris)

The capybara is the world’s largest rodent and inhabits the envi-rons of rivers and swamps from Venezuela, Brazil, Uruguay, north-east of Argentina and Paraguay (FAO, 1996). Capybaras are easilydomesticated and, in a natural environment, they are gregariousand live in family groups. In South America, the products obtainedfrom capybara are meat and hides for gloves, belts, leather jacketsand handbags. These products are both used locally and exported.The live weight of the capybara is around 25 kg at one year of ageand >40 kg at 2 years. The female capybaras have two births eachyear, after 5 months of gestation, with a mean litter size of 3.8newborn per birth (Alvarez & Kravetz, 2006).

2.1.1. Yield of carcass and proximate compositionThe data presented in Table 1 show that with a body weight of

44.2 kg, the carcass yield in capybara is 51.5% (Gonzalez, 1995).Although the capybara is one of the most studied South Americannative mammals, no published studies on the yield of retail cuts oron the relative weights of edible organs were found in the scientificliterature.

The proximate composition of capybara meat is quite wellknown (Table 2). The level of protein is similar in males and fe-males (Oda, Bressan, Cardoso, et al., 2004). For commercial cuts(Table 3), the protein levels in loin, rib rack, belly, shoulder andhind leg are similar showing values between 21.29% and 22.62%.In the report of Girardi et al. (2005), the levels of protein foundin the loins of young capybaras (live weight 20 kg) reared with


and without access to a pond, were 20.9% and 21.4%, respectively.Thus, differences in live weight may explain the differences be-tween these two investigations. For total lipids (Table 2), the cap-ybara meat has low levels in both, males and females (Oda,Bressan, Cardoso, et al., 2004). In the report of Oda, Bressan, de Fre-itas, et al. (2004), the total lipids were similar in the loin, rib rack,belly, shoulder and hind leg (Table 3). The lipid level in the loin islow when compared with results presented by Girardi et al. (2005)who found 1.81% and 2.26% in capybaras reared with and without apond, respectively. The differences between the two studies can beexplained not only by the age of the animals, but probably also byother factors such differences in nutrition and analytical methodol-ogy. In the report of Girardi et al. (2005) the young capybarasshowed more elevated levels of cholesterol in the loin when com-pared to the older capybaras reported by Oda, Bressan, de Freitas,et al. (2004). These differences might have a physiological basis(age of animals), or might be caused by methodological differences,as previously proposed for the total lipid composition of capybarameat. Further investigations on the chemical composition of capy-bara meat are necessary for a better understanding of this aspect.

2.1.2. Fatty acid composition of meatNo gender differences in the fatty acids of the Longissimus dorsi

muscle capybara with a live body weight of 45.7 kg were noted. Inmales and females, the saturated fatty acids (SFA) determined inthe Longissimus dorsi muscle by Oda, Bressan, Cardoso, et al.(2004) were 38.8% and 39.8% of total fatty acids, respectively (Ta-ble 4). This level of SFA is the lowest of the indigenous mammalspresented in Table 5. When the level of monounsaturated fattyacids (MUFA) is considered, capybara meat can be ranked as oneof the lowest from the native animals discussed in the present re-

Table 5Fatty acids indices related to human health in indigenous meat and usual meatconsumed in South America

Meat S(%)

M(%)

P(%)

M + P(%)

P:S S:M S:(M + P)

Capybara # 38.8 30.8 28.3 59.1 0.72 1.25 0.65Capybara $ 39.8 27.2 29.9 57.0 0.75 1.46 0.65Greater rhea # 32.8 26.8 39.7 66.5 1.21 1.22 0.49Guanaco # 47.7 30.6 15.8 46.4 0.33 1.55 1.03Llama # 47.4 37.8 5.38 43.2 0.11 1.25 1.10Lesser rhea # 33.3 32.2 33.6 65.8 1.00 1.03 0.51Nutria # 40.0 32.4 27.6 60.0 0.69 1.23 0.66Nutria $ 40.9 33.0 26.0 59.0 0.63 1.24 0.69Tegu lizard # 23.8 50.9 26.0 76.9 1.09 0.47 0.31Recommended indicesa 20–

2545–55

25–30

70–85

0.40–1.00

0.40–0.45

0.25–0.30

Beef pasture (Realiniet al., 2004)

49.1 41.0 10.0 50.9 0.20 1.20 0.96

Beef concentrate(Realini et al., 2004)

47.6 46.4 6.0 52.4 0.13 1.03 0.91

Breast chickens (Ruleet al., 2002)

34.7 40.7 24.6 65.3 0.71 0.85 0.53

Pig outdoor (Nilzenet al., 2001)

35.0 47.7 14.2 61.9 0.40 0.73 0.56

Pig indoor (Nilzen et al.,2001)

36.9 48.2 12.4 60.6 0.34 0.76 0.61

Sheep pasture (Santos-Silva et al., 2002)

44.9 40.1 15.0 55.1 0.33 1.12 0.81

Sheep concentrate(Santos-Silva et al.,2002)

44.6 42.7 12.7 55.4 0.28 1.04 0.80

S = saturated fatty acids, M = monounsaturated fatty acids, P = polyunsaturatedfatty acids. The indices were calculated from precedent tables corresponding ateach animal for indigenous meat. Data for llama were means from intact llamapresented in Table 7. Data for guanaco were from the Longissimus dorsi (Table 4).

a Based on an ingested level of fat between 30% and 35% of total energy intake indiet (German & Dillard, 2004; Grundy, 1997; Kris-Etherton, 1999; Ramirez et al.,2005; Simopoulos, 1999, 2001; Wolfram, 2003).

view. In males and females, the level of MUFA is 30.8% and 27.2%,respectively (Table 5). When the polyunsaturated fatty acids(PUFA) are considered, the data show that capybara meat contains28.3% and 29.9% of PUFA in males and females, respectively (Table4). The level of PUFA in capybara meat is one of the highest com-pared with the other animals presented in Table 5.

2.2. Nutria (Myocastor coypus)

Nutria or coypu are also rodents that inhabit the southern partof South America. Male nutrias are heavier than females, and a wildadult specimen can weigh between 5 kg and 10 kg in a favorablehabitat. The wild nutria lives in freshwater, marshes and lagoonswith abundant emerging vegetation. Nutria have been reared insemi-captivity since the 1920s, and nowadays in South America,nutria are reared in farms using an intensive system of production.The gestation duration is between 128 and 138 days with an aver-age of 2.5 l per year, and between 4 and 6 offspring by litter. Theobtained products are principally pelt and meat (FAO, 1996; NAP,1991).

2.2.1. Yield of carcass and proximate compositionCabrera, del Puerto, Olivero, Otero, and Saadoun (2007) evaluated

nutrias produced in an intensive farm system in South America thatwere slaughtered between 5 and 8 months of age. The live weight ofnutria was 5.95 kg and 4.79 kg in males and females, respectively(Table 1). After slaughtering, the carcass weight differed signifi-cantly between males and females (3.34 kg and 2.65 kg, respec-tively). However, the yield of carcass (as % of live weight) did notdiffer significantly between genders. Gender also had no influenceon yield (as % of live body weight) of meat (Table 1). In another reportusing nutria slaughtered at 14 months of age, the animals showed ahigher yield of meat (33.6% and 32.4% in males and females, respec-tively) (Cabrera et al., 2007; Faverin, Corva, & Hozbor, 2002). The dif-ferences in slaughtering age of nutria between the two studiesprobably accounts for the different yields of meat. However, in acommercial intensive farm system, rearing nutria for meat and furproduction over 14 months is not advised due to economic reasons.

The proximate composition of meat (average from pectoralmuscles and thigh muscles) from nutria slaughtered at 5 monthsof age showed no significant differences in the level of protein be-tween males and females (Table 2; Saadoun, Cabrera, & Castellucio,2006). In the same study, the level of total lipids was 1.59% and1.70%, in males and females, respectively. The total cholesterolcontent in nutria meat did not differ significantly between malesand females (Table 2). In a more recent report using nutria slaugh-tered at 8 months of age (Cabrera et al., 2007), the levels of protein(average from pectoral muscles and thigh muscles composition),lipids and cholesterol were similar to the study of Saadoun et al.(2006).

2.2.2. Fatty acids composition of meatFatty acid compositions were determined in pectoral muscles

(superficial and deep pectoral muscles) and thigh muscles (all ma-jor muscles are included) in males and females nutria reared inten-sively (Saadoun et al., 2006). In thigh muscles, there aresignificantly more SFA, MUFA and PUFA in females. For the pectoralmuscles, the females show significantly higher SFA and PUFA con-tents and similar MUFA to the males (Table 6). The pectoral muscleof nutria considered in the study of Saadoun et al. (2006) had nodetectable amounts of Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA, 20:5n3),whereas the level of Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA, 22:6n3) washigher in females. Also, as presented in Table 6, the thigh musclesshow more EPA in females than in males. DHA was only detected inthe thigh muscle of male nutria.

Table 6Fatty acids (mg/100 g of wet tissue) of meat in nutria (Myocastor coypus) reared inUruguay (Saadoun et al., 2006)

Fattyacids

Pectoralismuscles #

Pectoralismuscles $

Thighmuscles #

Thighmuscles$

14:0 40.67 ± 5.05a 63.55 ± 13.24b 13.85 ± 1.45a 31.04 ± 1.98b16:0 251.7 ± 31.3a 381.0 ± 79.4b 185.0 ± 19.5a 326.8 ± 20.8b18:0 96.5 ± 12.0a 119.0 ± 24.8a 113.3 ± 11.9a 165.3 ± 10.5b18:1n9 280.6 ± 34.9a 340.2 ± 70.9a 127.5 ± 13.4a 222.2 ± 14.1b18:2n6 244.7 ± 30.4a 311.7 ± 64.9a 170.7 ± 17.9a 239.9 ± 15.3b18:3n3 nd nd nd 2.66 ± 0.1720:4n6 20.1 ± 2.50a 38.9 ± 8.09b 34.36 ± 3.60a 42.8 ± 2.72b20:5n3 nd nd 1.98 ± 0.21a 3.29 ± 0.21b22:6n3 0.89 ± 0.11a 1.29 ± 0.27b 2.68 ± 0.28 a ndSFA 433.2 ± 53.8a 573.8 ± 119.5b 331.8 ± 59.8a 532.0 ± 33.9bMUFA 429.2 ± 53.3a 492.5 ± 186.3a 215.7 ± 22.9a 403.3

2 ± 5.7bPUFA 284.6 ± 35.2a 395.7 ± 85.7b 238.3 ± 25.0a 311.7 ± 19.8bTotal n-6 274.4 ± 34.1a 367.6 ± 76.6b 217.0 ± 22.7a 290.0 ± 18.5bTotal n3 6.24 ± 0.77a 9.20 ± 1.90b 12.9 ± 1.4a 10.0 ± 0.65bn-6/n-3 44.0 40.0 16.8 29.0

Data are means ± SEM from 5 males and 5 females with a live body weight of5.95 kg and 4.79 kg, respectively. (Saadoun et al., 2006). nd = not detected. For thesame muscle, different letters show significant differences between males andfemales (P < 0.05).SFA = Saturated fatty acids, MUFA = Monounsaturated fatty acids, PUFA = Polyun-

saturated fatty acids.


When compared to the other animals (Table 5), nutria meatshows a SFA level similar to capybara (around of 40%). The level ofMUFA is high in comparison with the native animals reported here,whilst the level of PUFA is one of the lowest presented (Table 5).

2.3. Guanaco (Lama guanicoe)

The guanaco is a wild camelid, widely distributed in SouthAmerica from the Tierra del Fuego to the Andean areas of northernPeru and Bolivia, covering most of Argentina and Chile. There aresome farms in Chile and Argentina which have initiated operations,to produce fiber and meat from guanaco (Campero, 2005). The ges-tation period in guanaco is between 345 and 360 days, giving birthto a litter of one newborn (FAO, 1996).

2.3.1. Yield of carcass and proximate compositionThe live weight of the male guanaco is around 100 kg as pre-

sented in Table 1, from the report of Gonzalez et al. (2003). Inthe same report, the yield of meat and the weight of some edibleorgans were determined.

The proximate composition of guanaco meat (Table 2; Gonzalez,Smulders, Paulsen, Skewes, & Konig, 2004) shows a reduced levelof lipids (1.0%) in comparison with the other native animals re-ported here. Gonzalez et al. (2003) reported 27.2 mg cholesterol/100 g of wet tissue for this species. This is a very low level of cho-lesterol in the meat. For comparison, the levels of cholesterol incamel meat are between 42 and 47 mg/100 g of wet tissue (RIRDC,2007). Therefore, the guanaco shows, if confirmed, the lowest levelof cholesterol in meat in comparison with the other farm rearedcamelids. These results can be explained probably by factors suchdifferences in nutrition and analytical methodology.

2.3.2. Fatty acids composition of meatThe analysis of fatty acids in the Longissimus dorsi and the Semi-

membranosus muscles shows a high level of SFA in the two muscles(Table 4). Although there are more saturated fatty acids in theSemimembranosus muscle than in the Longissimus dorsi, the authorsdid not test the statistical significance between the two muscles(Gonzalez et al., 2004). The proportion of SFA in the two muscles(Table 4) is of the same order as those found in camel meat and

in beef produced in South America (Realini, Duckett, Brito, DallaRizza, & De Mattos, 2004). The most abundant SFA in the two mus-cles were palmitic acid and the stearic acid. The two fatty acids arepresent in similar levels in the two muscles. This observation isalso in accord with the data presented by RIRDC (2007) in camel(Camelus dromedaries).

For the MUFA, the most representative in guanaco meat is oleicacid (Table 4), which is present in the two muscles considered inthe investigation (Gonzalez et al., 2004). These levels are slightlylower than those observed in other camelids (Table 5), includingthe domestic camel (RIRDC, 2007). The ratio of MUFA found in gua-naco meat seems to be similar to that of the capybara and slightlyreduced compared to the other indigenous meats. However, this le-vel is the lowest when compared with the meat usually consumedin South America (Table 5).

The principal PUFA in guanaco meat are linoleic acid and thelinolenic acid (Gonzalez et al., 2004). The level of the n-3 fatty acidsmaybe slightly underestimated because the data for other n-3 fattyacids, such EPA and DHA, are omitted in their report. The data indi-cates that guanaco meat has a level of PUFA similar to pork and tobeef produced on pasture (Table 5). The n-6/n-3 ratio for the gua-naco meat was 2.54 and 2.07 for the Longissimus dorsi and Semi-membranosus, respectively. In camel (Camelus dromedaries), thisratio was between 3 and 3.74 (RIRDC, 2007).

2.4. Alpaca (Lama pacos)

Alpaca, one of the domestic South American camelids, lives inthe Andes zone of Peru, Bolivia and Chile in altitudes between2800 and 5000 m. The products obtained from Alpaca are fiberand meat (Arestegui, 2005). The female alpaca have a gestationperiod between 336 and 349 days giving birth to a litter of one(Davis, Dodds, Moore, & Bruce, 1997).

2.4.1. Yield of carcass and proximate compositionCristofanelli, Antonini, Torres, Polidori, and Renieri (2004,

2005), evaluated the carcass characteristic of Peruvian male alpa-cas weighing 46.07 kg at a slaughter age of 25 months (Table 1).The proximate composition of alpaca meat (Longissimus dorsi mus-cle) showed high levels of proteins when compared to that re-ported for Chilean alpaca and the other indigenous meatspresented here (Table 2). Similarly, the level of lipids encounteredin the same muscle is very low in comparison to the meats nor-mally consumed in South America (Table 5). This interesting lowlevel of lipids in the meat of alpaca needs to be confirmed in fur-ther investigations. The level of cholesterol in the Longissimus dorsimuscle was low (56 mg/100 g meat) in comparison to the othermeats (Table 2).

2.4.2. Fatty acids composition of meatNo data on the fatty acid composition of Alpaca meat could be

sourced in the scientific literature.

2.5. Llama (Lama glama)

The llama, the most common of the Andean camelids, has beendomesticated, 4000-5000 years ago, by the Incas for traction andfor its meat (Campero, 2005; Marcus, Sommer, & Glew, 1999).The llama has an average live weight between 80 and 115 kg andits habitat is located, similar to that of the other Andean camelids,between 2800 and 5000 m of altitude in Peru, Bolivia, Chile andArgentina (Campero, 2005). The consumption of llama meat is tra-ditional in the Andeans region, especially in Bolivia. The futuredevelopment of llama meat is promising, and it has been exportedas an exotic meat (Campero, 2005). After a gestation period

Table 7Fatty acids (% of total fatty acids) of meat in llama (Lama glama) reared in Argentinaand Peru

Fattyacids

LlamaNeuquena(Castrated)

LlamaNeuquena(Intact)

Llama BuenosAiresa

Llama Perub

14:0 3.57 3.11 2.44 4.09 ± 1.0916:0 24.23 23.0 22.03 24.78 ± 2.0118:0 14.80 19.63 21.53 35.75 ± 4.1118:1n9 34.1 33.13 30.67 ±4.1118:2n6 3.61a 3.11b 2.28 3.13 ± 0.8618:3n3 1.06 0.86 0.53 0.82 ± 0.1720:4n6 0.24 0.28 1.78 1.78 ± 0.2920:5n3 n/a n/a n/a n/a22:6n3 n/a n/a n/a n/aSFA 42.6 45.74 46.0 50.34MUFA 39.32 37.0 34.08 42.48PUFA* 5.01 4.35 4.61 7.18Total

n-63.85a 3.39b 3.98 4.91

Totaln3

1.16 0.96 0.63 0.83

n-6/n-3

3.31 3.53 6.32 5.95

Data are the mean ± SD. n/a = Data unavailable or not reported.Means with different letters between intact and castrated llama from Neuquen are

significantly different based on a multi-range Duncan’s test.a The Longissimus dorsi muscle of males llama (n = 6) were used. There were no

SD or SEM (Coates & Ayerza, 2004). The animals were from commercial farms intwo different localities, Neuquen and Buenos Aires (Argentina).

b The Longissimus dorsi muscles were from animals (n = 20) reared in Andeanhighlands in Peru (Polidori, Renieri, et al., 2007).* Total n-3 and n-6 fatty acids were calculated from data in the present table.


between 342 and 345 days the female llama gives birth to oneoffspring.

2.5.1. Yield of carcass and proximate compositionThe data concerning live weight and yield of carcass are pre-

sented in Table 1. The results are of two experiments carried outin two different countries, Chile and Peru (Cristofanelli et al.,2004, 2005; Perez et al., 2000). In both experiments the animalswere reared and fed on pasture in an extensive system. In the workof Perez et al. (2000) carried out in Chile, the animals were olderthan 3 years and had a live body weight of 100.6 kg and 104.6 kgin males and females, respectively. The weight and the yield of car-cass obtained in the same report were 56.2 kg and 55.8%, respec-tively, for males and 56.7 kg and 54.2%, respectively for females(Table 1). No data for yield of meat were presented in the reportof Perez et al. (2000). In the same report, the weights of heart, liverand kidney were presented (Table 1). In the second report carriedout in Peru (Cristofanelli et al., 2004, 2005), the llamas were25 month-old males, and had a live weight of 63.2 kg with a car-cass weight and a yield of carcass of 31.2 kg and 52.4%, respectively(Table 1).

The differences between the two reports can probably be ex-plained by the different ages of the animals. However in the reportof Perez et al. (2000), another experiment with younger animals(9–12 months-old, data not showed in the present review) is alsoreported. For those animals, the live body weights were 104.4 kgand 67.6 kg in males and females, respectively. These resultsshowed important differences compared with the live weight ofanimals used in the experiment of Cristofanelli et al. (2004). Theindividual variability during growing in llama may explain the ob-served differences between the two experiments. Another possibleexplanation for the observed live body weight differences can bedue to the differences in the quality of food offered to the animals,in the two different countries.

The protein levels in the meat of llama (Table 2) reared in Chilewere 21.8% and 19.9% in males and females, respectively (Perezet al., 2000). The animals from Peru (Cristofanelli et al., 2004,2005) showed a slightly more elevated protein (23.12%) level.The level of lipids in meat observed in llama reared in Chile (Perezet al., 2000) were higher in males and females, compared with theresults obtained by Cristofanelli et al. (2004, 2005) with animalsreared in Peru. These different results are probably associated withthe fact that Cristofanelli et al. (2004) extracted the lipids from theLongissimus dorsi muscle, whereas Perez et al. (2000) extracted thelipids from muscles and fat grounded and mixed as specified inthe materials and methods section of their report. If confirmed,the data obtained by Cristofanelli et al. (2004, 2005) rank both, lla-ma and alpaca described previously, as the leaner meat comparedwith other indigenous meats presented in the present work. Thislow level of lipids in meat from the llama and alpaca would be ofgreat importance in the promotion of these kinds of meat. Conse-quently, these contradictory results on lipid contents in llama meatbetween the works of Perez et al. (2000) and Cristofanelli et al.(2004) need to be clarified by further investigation.

2.5.2. Fatty acids composition of meatThe fatty acid data presented in Table 7 were obtained from the

report of (Coates & Ayerza, 2004), using castrated and intact llamasreared in the province of Neuquen (Argentina), and intact llamasfrom the province of Buenos Aires (Argentina), and from Peru pre-sented in the report of Polidori, Renieri, Antonini, Passamonti, andPucciarelli (2007).

The proportion of saturated fatty acids in llama (Coates & Ayer-za, 2004; Polidori, Renieri, et al., 2007), can be considered as one ofthe most elevated after the guanaco (Table 5). For comparison, incamel meat, the levels of SFA are between 47.7% and 59.7% (RIRDC,

2007). For the MUFA, the level observed in llama meat is one of thehighest in native animals (Table 5), and that can compensate thenegative effect of the saturated fatty acids in the human healthconcerns (German & Dillard, 2004; Simopoulos, 1999). The levelof PUFA registered in the llama meat is presented in Table 7. Thislevel is very low in comparison to the other indigenous meats con-sidered in the present work (Table 5). Although the total of PUFAwere low, the ratio between the n-6 and n-3 fatty acids (Table 7)are in compliance with the recommended ratio for human con-sumption (Simopoulos, 1999). In camel, the levels of polyunsatu-rated fatty acids in meat are between 6.1% and 14.7% (RIRDC,2007), depending of the considered muscle analyzed. The castratedllama shows more linoleic acid that the intact llama. Although thelinolenic acid is higher in castrated llamas, this is not significant(Table 7). No EPA and DHA values were noted in the reports fromArgentina (Coates & Ayerza, 2004) or Peru (Polidori, Renieri,et al., 2007).

2.6. Collared peccary (Tayassu tajacu)

The peccary is a gregarious mammal found in tropical and sub-tropical areas of South America. Two species are widely distributedin South America, White-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari) and Col-lared peccary (Tayassu tajacu). Wild adult have an average weightof 30 kg for White-lipped peccary and 20 kg for Collared peccary.However, only the Collared peccary has been used for farming,probably because of the aggressive temperament, and the lowreproduction capacity observed in the White-lipped peccary. Theobtained products are mainly meat but sometimes the skin is alsoutilized (NAP, 1991). The gestation period lasts an average of145 days, twice per year, with a litter of 2–4 newborns (FAO, 1996).

2.6.1. Yield of carcass and proximate compositionIn the report of Nildo da Silva, Pedrosa Pinheiro, Bezerra Neto,

and Paula Braga (2002), the males used in the experiment were cas-trated and showed a live weight of 17.1 kg, with a yield of carcass of59.6%, and a yield of meat of 29.7% of the live body weight (Table 1).


No data concerning the weight of edible organs in peccary wereencountered in the scientific literature.

All data on proteins and lipids were obtained for castratedmales (Table 2). Castrated males had 19.57% of total protein and7.96% total lipids in meat (Nildo da Silva et al., 2002).

The level of cholesterol presented in Table 2 was obtained fromintact (Freire, Beserra, Pinheiro, Nogueira, & Carraro, 2000). Galvez,Arbaiza, Carcelen, and Lucas (1999) noted levels of protein and lip-ids in meat of 21.4% and 1.07%, respectively in adult peccary rearedin Peru. The differences between the two reports can be explainedby the type of samples used in the two reports. Whilst in the workrealized by Nildo da Silva et al. (2002), the meat samples wereobtained after mixing different muscles, including the attachedadipose tissue. In the experiment of Galvez et al. (1999), the sam-ples were obtained from dissected muscles without the attachedadipose tissue. More investigations are necessary to characterizethis very promising native animal in South America.

2.6.2. Fatty acids composition of meatThe data concerning the composition of fatty acids of peccary

meat is presented in the Table 8 (Freire et al., 2000). Unfortunately,the authors showed only the range of the levels for the different fattyacids detected in the meat. The SFA show a range between 21.58%and 24.00% for palmitic acid, and 10.59% and 10.77% for stearic acid.The MUFA, mainly oleic acid, range between 28.37% and 37.77% (Ta-ble 8). The PUFA detected in the meat of peccary are represented bylinoleic acid (13.86% and 22.33%) and linolenic acid (0.26% and0.67%). No data were recorded for any of the other PUFA.

The limited data presented for the meat of peccary is from only tworeports, and needs to be confirmed with more informative studies.

2.7. Greater rhea (Rhea americana)

Greater rhea is a large flightless bird native to South Americaand which inhabits extended areas in Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay,Southern Brazil and Uruguay. The products from greater rhea areeggs, meat, feathers and oil (FAO, 1996). The great rhea produces,

Table 8Fatty acids (% of total fatty acids) in meat of tegu lizard (Tupinambis merianae), greaterrhea (Rhea americana), lesser rhea (Pterocnemia pennata) and peccary (Tayassu tajacu)

Fatty acids Tegu lizarda Greaterb Rhea Lesserb Rhea Peccaryc

14:0 0.15 ± 0.02 n/a n/a 1.08–1.3716:0 18.49 ± 1.77 19.0 ± 1.01 a 22.8 ± 2.76 b 21.58–24.0018:0 5.14 ± 0.46 13.9 ± 1.41 a 10.5 ± 1.65 b 10.59–10.7718:1n9 42.77 ± 3.94 25.9 ± 1.75 a 29.5 ± 3.25 b 28.37–37.7718:2n6 22.66 ± 1.20 28.0 ± 0.64 a 23.3 ± 3.33 b 13.86–22.3318:3n3 1.33 ± 0.20 1.0 ± 0.38 a 4.6 ± 3.00 b 0.26–0.6720:4n6 0.51 ± 0.05 10.0 ± 1.80 a 5.0 ± 1.42 b 1.76–3.120:5n3 0.11 ± 0.02 0.7 ± 0.18 a 0.8 ± 0.24 a n/a22:6n3 0.02 ± 0.01 n/a n/a n/aSFA 23.78 32.8 ± 0.52 a 33.3 ± 1.96 a 33.25–36.14MUFA 50.87 26.8 ± 1.79 a 32.2 ± 1.96 b 31.07–41.87PUFA 25.99 39.7 ± 1.68 a 33.6 ± 4.41 b 15.88–26.10Total n-6 23.38 38.0 28.3 15.62–25.43Total n-3 1.53 1.70 5.40 0.26–0.67n-6/n-3 15.3 22.3 5.24 37.9–60.0

a Data are means ± SD in male Tegu lizard (n = 9) with an average live bodyweight of 2700 g, born and reared in captivity at the Faculty of Agronomy Tucuman,Argentina (Caldironi & Manes, 2006).

b Data are means ± SD for greater rhea (n = 3) and lesser rhea (n = 5) reared incommercial farms in Argentina. The muscle used for the assay were a mix of illio-fibularis, iliotibialis lateralis, femorotibialis medius, iliotibialis cranialis, gastrocnemiuspars externa For rheas, different letters show significant differences (P < 0.05)between the two species (Sales et al., 1999).

c Data were from male (n = 4) and female (n = 4) peccary reared on a farm inBrazil (Freire et al., 2000).. SFA = Saturated fatty acids, MUFA = Monounsaturatedfatty acids, PUFA = Polyunsaturated fatty acids. n/a = data unavailable or notreported.

under captive conditions, an average of 40 eggs per year with ahatchability of 60% (Navarro & Martella, 2002). The incubationtime is between 38 and 42 days.

2.7.1. Yield of carcass and proximate compositionGreater rhea males and females of greater rhea from Argentina

weigh 27.3 kg and 24.1 kg, respectively at 18 months of age (Garrizet al., 2003). Sales et al. (1997), noted that 12 month-old greaterrhea males weighed 24.3 kg. The weights of the carcasses, the car-cass yields, the meat yield, and the weight of some edible organsare presented in Table 1.

Data on the proximal composition of great rhea meat is limited.Sales et al. (1997) noted that the greater rhea have 1.17% lipids and59.0 mg cholesterol/100 g of wet meat (Table 2). No data on aboutthe protein level in greater rhea meat were available in the scien-tific literature. On the contrary, data on ostrich and emu, the othertwo ratites reared for meat; are more easily encountered in the sci-entific literature. The meat of ostrich and emu seems to have a rel-atively high level of protein as presented for birds reared inAustralia (RIRDC, 2007). In the same report, the results show a lipidlevel in emu meat of 1.5–1.8% and between 0.7% and 1.4% inostrich. In another report by Horbañczuk et al. (1998), the differentsubspecies of ostrich (Red Neck and Blue Necks) show a level of lip-ids in meat of 1.28–1.54%. These low levels of lipids in ostrich andemu are in the same order as those observed in greater rhea rearedin South America and presented here. Also, the levels of cholesterolin meat registered in greater rhea are in the same order as thoseregistered in ostrich (53–54 mg/100 g of wet tissue) and emu(50–54 mg/100 g of wet tissue); RIRDC (2007). In the report of Hor-bañczuk et al. (1998), the different subspecies of ostrich show amuscle cholesterol level of meat between 63.04 and 68.38 mg/100 g of wet tissue.

2.7.2. Fatty acids composition of meatThe meat of greater rhea shows (Table 8) a level of SFA of 32.8%,

26.8% MUFA (mainly the oleic acid) and 39.7% of PUFA (Sales et al.,1999).

The level of SFA in greater rhea is in the same order, or slightlylower, than in ostrich and emu. The levels of SFA observed in theseratites were between 32.7% and 37.9%. For the MUFA, the level ob-served in greater rhea is much lower than the 37–39.4% in ostrich,and around of 40% in emu (Horbañczuk et al., 1998; Arestegui,2005). For the PUFA, the level observed in greater rhea is muchhigher than the 23–30% in ostrich, and 21.4–23.4% in emu (RIRDC,2007; Horbañczuk et al., 1998). The level of PUFA in greater rhea ishigher than that found in the other meats consumed in SouthAmerica (Table 5).

2.8. Lesser rhea (Pterocnemia pennata)

Lesser rhea inhabits the Patagonian area of Argentina andSouthern regions of Chile. There are also two subspecies, whichneed to be protected, Pterocnemia pennata garleppi located in theAndean area at an altitude between 3000 and 4000 m in thenorth-west of Argentina, south-west of Bolivia and southern Peru(Cajal, 1988), and Pterocnemia pennata tarapacensis which inhabitsNorthern Chile. The rearing of lesser rhea is conducted in somecommercial farms in the Argentinean Patagonia (Sales et al.,1999). The obtained products from lesser rhea are eggs, meat,feathers and oil. The lesser rhea produces, under captive condi-tions, an average of 24 eggs per year with a hatchability of 51%(Navarro & Martella, 2002).

2.8.1. Yield of carcass and proximate compositionThe lesser rheas used in the experiment of Sales et al. (1997)

were 11–12 month-old, obtained from farms in Argentina. The live

Table 9Meat yield and proximate composition of edible cuts meat of yacare (Caimancrocodilus yacare) reared in Brazil (Romanelli et al., 2002)

Cuts Feeta Trunkb Tailc

YieldTotal weight (kg) 1.28 ± 0.24 7.09 ± 0.80 3.18 ± 0.39Meat (kg) 1.02 0 ± .21 5.51 0 ± .64 2.87 ± 0.38%* 79.68 77.72 90.25Bones weight (kg) 0.26 ± 0.05 1.58 ± 0.27 0.31 ± 0.01%* 20.32 22.38 9.75

CompositionMoisture (%) 75.4 ± 0.68 75.6 ± 0.79 74.7 ± 0.56Proteins (%) 19.4 ± 0.23 18.4 ± 0.48 18.5 ± 0.57Total Lipids (%) 4.9 ± 0.29 5.05 ± 0.78 5.36 ± 0.36Collagen (mg/g) 18.3 ± 0.37 17.8 ± 0.36 18.8± 0.82Ash (%) 1.00± 0.04 1.05 ± 0.06 1.03 ± 0.08

Data are mean ± SD of 5 males yacare between 16.5 kg and 20.9 kg of live bodyweight born and reared in captivity (Pantanal, Brazil).

a Debonned meat from posterior and anterior feet.b Total meat from flank of the trunk of the animals. Visible fat and cartilage were

not included.c Total meat from the muscle of tail.

* Respect to the corresponding cut.


body weights were 25.1 kg and the weight and yield of carcasseswere 15.0 kg and 59.6%, respectively. In the same report, theauthors found that the yield of meat in relation to the live bodyweight was 39.7% (Table 1). The weight of some edible organs isalso presented in Table 1.

The proximate composition of meat from lesser rhea is pre-sented in Table 2 and shows that the total lipids were 1.29%. Thelevel of cholesterol in the meat of lesser rhea was 55.0 mg/100 gof tissue (Sales et al., 1999) and is similar to that in greater rhea(Table 2), ostrich and emu (RIRDC, 2007). There is not publisheddata about the level of protein in lesser rhea.

2.8.2. Fatty acids composition of meatThe level of SFA is one of the lowest compared to other indige-

nous meats (Table 5), and is similar to that for greater rhea (Table8). The level of SFA registered in lesser rhea is slightly lower to thatof the ostrich and emu (Horbañczuk et al., 1998; RIRDC, 2007). TheMUFA level was significantly (Sales et al., 1999) more elevated (Ta-ble 8) in the lesser rhea than in the greater rhea. In comparison tothe ostrich and emu, the levels of MUFA in lesser rhea is slightlylower, whilst the level of PUFA were significantly (Sales et al.,1999) more reduced in the lesser rhea than in the greater rhea.However, these levels remain higher than that of the ostrich andemu (Horbañczuk et al., 1998; RIRDC, 2007; Sales, 1998). As pro-posed for greater rhea, the high levels of PUFA observed in lesserrhea, in comparison to the Australian and the African ratites, wouldbe an advantage in the promoting of this kind of meat for rhea pro-ducers in South America.

2.9. Yacare (Caiman crocodilus yacare)

The yacare inhabits Bolivia, Paraguay and the north-east ofArgentina, the southwest of Brazil and the northwest of Uruguay.There are some commercial farms producing yacare principallyfor its leather and meat, which is often offered salted to the con-sumers. The yacare takes six years to reach sexual maturity. Thefemale builds a nest, and lays two twice per year, an average num-ber of 29. The duration of incubation is between 65 and 84 days(FAO, 1996; NAP, 1991).

2.9.1. Yield of carcass and proximate compositionThe males yacare used in the work of Romanelli & de Felicio

(1999) had a live body weight of 19.4 kg and the weight and yieldof carcasses were 11.55 kg and 59.5%, respectively. In the same re-port, the proportion of different parts of body in the yacare (aftertotal bleeding) with a live body weight between 16.5 and 20.9 kgwere 10.48% for the head, 11.19% for the viscera, 17.57% for theskin and 1.39% for the feet. The remaining 59.4% were representedby the carcass which is used in the meat industry. The yield of meatcalculated from the report of Romanelli & de Felicio (1999) were48.4%, one of the highest compared to the other native animalspresented here (Table 1).

The commercial carcass of the yacare is divided into the trunk,feet and tail, the last being highly valued by consumers. The yieldsof meat from the tail were 90.25% whilst the feet and the trunkshowed a meat yield of 79.68% and 77.72%, respectively (Table9). Table 9 presents data on the weight and the proportions ofbones for each one of the three cuts of the carcass of yacare.

Table 2 presents the proximate composition obtained from amixture of the meat from the trunk and the tail, and indicates lev-els of 18.43% for proteins, 5.32% for lipids and 85.48 mg choles-terol/100 g (Table 2). In other reptilians reared for meat, such ascrocodiles (Crocodylus porosus) farmed in Australia, the levels ofprotein in the meat are slightly more elevated (22% versus18.43%) and the levels of lipids are much lower (1.9% versus5.32%) compared to the levels presented for yacare in the present

review (RIRDC, 2007). However, in Nile crocodiles (Crocodylus nil-oticus) the levels of lipids in meat are 6.23%, a proportion whichis close to the results observed in yacare (Hoffman, Fisher, & Sales,2000). Further investigations are needed to explain these differ-ences between the yacare and the crocodile (Crocodylus porosus)reared in Australia.

2.9.2. Fatty acids composition of meatIn our knowledge, no data are published about the fatty acids

composition of yacare’s meat produced in South America.

2.10. Tegu lizard (Tupinambis merianae)

Tegu is a large South American lizard which inhabits the southof Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. Tegu are used for their skin, meatand, sometimes, as pets. Wild Tegu is active only during the hotsummer (Andrade, Sanders, Milsom, & Abe, 2004). This behaviormakes their farming difficult. However, there are some attemptsto produce Tegu from farms in Argentina. The female builds a nestand lay 30–46 eggs. The duration of incubation is between 60 and70 days (Basso et al., 2004; Caldironi & Manes, 2006; González, DeCaro, & Vieites, 1999).

2.10.1. Yield of carcass and proximate compositionThe live body weight of farmed tegu was 4.23 kg, and after the

slaughtering the obtained carcass weight was 2.17 kg with a yieldof 51.4% (Table 1; Basso et al., 2004). The proximate composition oftegu meat from animals with a live body weight of 2.7 kg and aweight of carcass of 1.57 kg (Caldironi & Manes, 2006), indicate23.6% proteins one of the most elevated levels presented in Table 2.

The different cuts with commercial use indicated in the reportof Caldironi & Manes (2006) are the back (also called loin), legand tail. In Table 10 the proximate composition of these commer-cial cuts offered to the consumers are depicted. The level of choles-terol in tegu meat shows a very low value and this ranks the teguas one of the animals, used in meat production, with the lowest le-vel of cholesterol. This result needs to be confirmed in futureinvestigations.

2.10.2. Fatty acids composition of meatThe level of SFA in tegu meat shows a level of 23.78% (Table 8),

the lowest compared to the other meats presented in Table 5. Fur-thermore, the level of MUFA found in tegu meat shows a very

Table 10Proximal meat composition of edible cuts of tegu lizard (Tupinambis merianae) fromCaldironi and Manes (2006)

Cuts Moisture (%) Proteins (%) Total lipids (%) Cholesterol(mg/g)

Ash (%)

Loin 71.2 ± 2.9 23.2 ± 0.6 5.5 ± 1.1 24.8 ± 4.8 1.1 ± 0.2Lega 72.3 ± 4.0 24.1 ± 0.7 3.2 ± 1.0 14.2 ± 4.1 1.3 ± 0.3Tailb 72.6 ± 1.8 23.5 ± 0.7 3.4 ± 1.8 15.5 ± 1.0 1.2 ± 0.2

Data are means ± SD from 9 males Tegu lizard with an average live body weight of2700 g born and reared in captivity (Faculty of Agronomy Tucumán, Argentina).

a Debonned meat from posterior feet.b Total meat from the muscle of tail.

Table 11Minerals content (mg/100 g) of wet meat in llama, alpaca and iguana

Minerals Llama (n = 20) Alpaca (n = 30) Iguana (n = 20)

Calcium 11.6 ± 3.31a 8.79 ± 2.21b 10.14 ± 0.4Magnesium 28.4 ± 7.11a 23.1 ± 5.43a 21.91 ± 0.54Potassium 447.1 ± 69.5a 411.7 ± 80.1b 266.1 ± 13.18Phosphorus 379.4 ± 67.7a 338.1 ± 58.9b 217.0 ± 6.97Sodium 105.6 ± 33.1a 91.8 ± 22.7b 89.31 ± 2.60Zinc 4.44 ± 0.81a 3.87 ± 0.93a 2.53 ± 0.06Iron 3.26 ± 0.71a 3.03 ± 0.89a 1.93 ± 0.09Copper n/a n/a 0.22 ± 0.02Manganese n/a n/a 0.046 ± 0.0025

Data for llama and alpaca, are means ± SEM (Polidori, Antonini, et al., 2007). Sig-nificant differences in minerals content of meat (Longissimus dorsi) between llamaand alpaca were indicated by different letters (P < 0.05). For iguana, data (meatcarcass mixture) are means ± SD (De Moreno et al., 2000). n/a = data unavailable ornot reported.


interesting level of 50.9%, the most elevated proportion in compar-ison to the other indigenous meats presented (Table 5). The PUFAshow a level of 26.0% in tegu meat, which is similar to some otherindigenous meats such as nutria and capybara (Table 5).

2.11. Green iguana (Iguana iguana)

Green iguana or iguana inhabits Peru, Venezuela, Paraguay andthe north of Argentina. An adult male iguana can weigh between 2and 4 kg, and an adult female between 2 kg and 2.6 kg. The prod-ucts obtained from iguana are the meat and skin. Sometimes, theiguana is reared as pet in South America. The females lay a clutchof 14–76 eggs in a communal nesting site. The incubation period isof 3 months (FAO, 1996; NAP, 1991).

2.11.1. Yield of carcass and proximate compositionTo our knowledge, there is not any scientific and trustworthy

data about the yield of carcass and meat for iguana reared and pro-duced in South America. However, in the work of De Moreno et al.(2000), the proximate composition were presented and showedthat the moisture of meat iguana was 74.7%, the level of protein20.8%, the lipids showed a level of 3.49% and the ash a level of1.18%. No published data about the cholesterol level in iguanameat could be sourced.

2.11.2. Fatty acids composition of meatNo information about the fatty acids composition of the iguana

meat produced in South America could be sourced.

3. Minerals composition of indigenous meat consumed inSouth America

There is very limited data concerning the minerals compositionof the indigenous meats produced and consumed in South Amer-ica. Published data of llama, alpaca and iguana meats are reportedin Table 11 (De Moreno et al., 2000; Polidori, Antonini, Torres,Beghelli, & Renieri, 2007). The animals were all reared in SouthAmerica. The data were from the Longissimus dorsi muscle in llamaand alpaca, and from a mixture of carcass meat for the iguana.

The levels of calcium, sodium and magnesium in the meat aresimilar in llama, alpaca and iguana. The level of potassium, zinc,phosphorus and iron in the meat of llama, and alpaca are more ele-vated than in iguana (Table 11).

4. Fatty acids indices related to human health and SouthAmerican indigenous meats

Meat is a valuable source of some fatty acids with potential ben-efits in preventing cardiovascular diseases in human (Lunn & The-obald, 2006; Simopoulos, 2001; Williamson, Foster, Scanner, &Buttriss, 2005).

In Table 5, data on the fatty acids and the indices associatedwith them, of the indigenous meats are presented. The correspond-

ing data for the usual meat, consumed in South America (i.e. beef,lamb, pig and chickens) are also presented. Data about the optimalindices associated with the fatty acids linked to human health, andaccepted today as a result of numerous investigations and reportsare also indicated (German & Dillard, 2004; Grundy, 1997;Kris-Etherton, 1999; Lunn & Theobald, 2006; Ramirez et al.,2005; Simopoulos, 1999, 2001; Williamson et al., 2005; Wolfram,2003).

In comparison to the recommended indices, the tegu lizardseems to be the one which has the best indices related to thehealth parameters presented (Table 5). Three indices presentedin Table 5 are important and should be considered first for a goodevaluation of the lipids composition of meat (Lunn & Theobald,2006; Williamson et al., 2005). The first is the level of SFA (20–25% are recommended). Only the tegu meat is in accord with thisrecommendation. However, an order can be established, from themost reduced level of saturated fatty acids to the more elevated:tegu < greater rhea < lesser rhea < capybara < nutria < llama <gua-naco. The second parameter is the level of MUFA (recommended45–55%) and the indigenous meats presented here can be orderedas following tegu > llama > nutria > lesser rhea > guanaco > capy-bara > greater rhea. The third parameter, probably the most impor-tant of the three, is the ratio between the PUFA and the SFA (P:S inTable 5). Most of the indigenous meats presented in the present re-view are in accord with the recommended level (between 0.40 and0.45), and only the guanaco and the llama had levels below the rec-ommended indices (Table 5). When the P:S ratio was evaluated forthe usual meat consumed (Table 5), the results show that onlychickens and pigs reared-outdoor were in accord with the recom-mended P:S indices. Also, it is interesting to remark that the gua-naco and the llama show a P:S ratio similar to the ratio observedfor beef and sheep, two other ruminants usually consumed inSouth America (Table 5).

5. Technological parameters of meat from native animals fromSouth America

All indigenous meats produced in South America, and presentedhere, have a great commercial potential to be introduced not onlyto the local market, but also in the international market as new orexotic meat. To be successful, these new markets, the indigenousmeats have to respond to the meat quality parameters, advisedfor usual meat so as to ensure the consumer satisfaction.

The non-nutritional parameters most often considered as meatquality indicators, are physicochemical and include, for example,the ultimate pH, the drip loss, the water holding capacity (WHC),the color of meat, the cooking loss and the tenderness. There isother more specific and complementary indicators such as myofi-bril deterioration, sarcomere length, marbling and fat content, or

Table 12Some technological parameters (means ± SD) of Longissimus dorsi muscle in capybara (n = 28) reared in South America (Bressan et al., 2004)

pH post-mortem Meat color Other parameters

Time (h) # $ # $ # $

2 6.30 ± 0.20 6.27 ± 0.23 L* 35.02 ± 3.13 33.3 ± 3.74 WHC (%) 49.0 ± 5.00 45.0 ± 5.005 6.31 ± 0.20 6.27 ± 0.21 a* 9.88 ± 2.30 11.89 ± 2.99 CL (%) 31.28 ± 2.68 33.60 ± 3.358 6.28 ± 0.17 6.23 ± 0.22 b* 1.85 ± 1.65 1.60 ± 1.81 SF (N) 50.9 ± 6.67 51.2 ± 5.7824 6.02 ± 0.17 6.00 ± 0.17

WHC = Water holding capacity. CL = Cooking loss. SF = Shear force as AMSA (1978).

Table 13Some technological parameters (means ± SD) of meat* in llama and alpaca reared inSouth America

Time post-mortem (h) Alpaca (n = 40) Llama (n = 20)

pHa

1 6.86 ± 0.04 6.85 ± 0.056 6.64 ± 0.03 6.62 ± 0.03

12 6.04 ± 0.02 6.06 ± 0.0224 5.57 ± 0.02 5.60 ± 0.0148 5.56 ± 0.01 5.57 ± 0.0172 5.56 ± 0.01 5.55 ± 0.01

WHC (%)a

1 49.09 ± 2.08 50.53 ± 2.146 49.18 ± 2.01 48.61 ± 2.11

12 49.30 ± 2.51 49.78 ± 3.0824 51.17 ± 3.01 50.68 ± 2.7448 52.80 ± 2.77 49.60 ± 2.6172 53.76 ± 4.11 49.78 ± 2.23

(days) Alpaca (n = 8) Llama (n = 8)

Shear forceb (kg/cm2)2 6.06 ± 0.61 6.56 ± 0.737 4.15 ± 0.23 4.78 ± 0.36

a Cristofanelli et al. (2004, 2005).b Polidori, Antonini, et al. (2007).

* Longissimus dorsi. Shear force unit = kg/cm2. WHC = water holding capacity.

Table 15pH post-mortem in the Longissimus dorsi muscle of yacare (Caiman crocodilus yacare)reared in Brazil

Time (h) pH post-mortem

0 6.712 6.424 6.236 5.840 5.648 5.6

Data extracted from Fig. 1 of the report of Taboga et al. (2003).


the connective tissue type (Aaslyng, 2002; Lawrie, 1998; Swatland,2002). However, the final evaluator of meat quality is the con-sumer. Therefore the sensorial evaluation of indigenous meat hasto be included as another quality parameter.

The studies on the technological aptitude and qualitative char-acteristics of meat obtained from native animals from South Amer-ica are incipient. However, some information was available in thescientific literature.

For capybara, data on the post-mortem pH, meat color andsome other parameters as the water holding capacity, the cookingloss and the shear-force of meat are presented in Table 12.

For llama and alpaca data concerning some technologicalparameters (pH post-mortem, WHC and shear-force) published byCristofanelli et al. (2004, 2005) and Polidori, Antonini, et al.

Table 14pH post-mortem (means ± SD) in different muscles of greater and lesser rhea reared in Sou

Time (h) Greater rhea (n = 3) muscles

Gastrocnemius pars externa Iliofibularis Iliotibialis latera

pH post-mortem0.5 6.20 ± 0.26 5.99 ± 0.31 6.29 ± 0.132.0 5.68 ± 0.59 5.97 ± 0.37 6.16 ± 0.033.5 5.83 ± 0.10 5.80 ± 0.09 5.72 ± 0.146.5 6.01 ± 0.20 5.73 ± 0.03 5.83 ± 0.148.5 5.85 ± 0.01 5.73 ± 0.05 5.82 ± 0.1424.0 5.99 ± 0.17 5.76 ± 0.04 5.95 ± 0.12

(2007) are presented in Table 13. The WHC in llama and alpacawas measured by Cristofanelli et al. (2004, 2005), at different timespost-mortem and no significant differences between the two spe-cies were noted (Table 13).

For greater and lesser rhea, the data, reported by Sales et al.(1998), concerned the evolution of post-mortem pH in differentmuscles (Table 14). There were no significant differences betweenthe studied muscles in the greater rhea.

For yacare, the evolution of the post-mortem pH was determinedby Taboga, Romanelli, Felisbino, & Borges (2003). The data for pH,presented in Table 15, has been extracted from Fig. 1 in the reportof Taboga et al. (2003).

There is other data for yacare, concerning the salting of meat asa method of conservation (Lopes Filho, Romanelli, Barboza, Gabas,& Telis-Romero, 2002; Telis, Romanelli, Gabas, & Telis-Romero,2003). These methods are often preferred by farmers because thesalting process is relatively simple, has a low cost, and can be real-ized in distant and hard to access farms. To determine the mostfavorable conditions to obtain an optimum salting of yacare meat,Telis et al. (2003) evaluated the sodium chloride diffusion kineticsin the meat of yacare produced in Brazil. The main results showthat the salting process of yacare meat is influenced principallyby the initial brine concentration and to a lesser extent by the tem-perature during salting and the muscle/brine ratio (Fig. 1). The salteffective diffusion coefficients are in a range between 0.47 � 10�10

and 9.62 � 10�10 m2/s as documented in the report of Telis et al.(2003).

th America (Sales et al., 1998)

Lesser rhea (n = 5) muscles

lis Gastrocnemius pars externa Iliofibularis Iliotibialis lateralis

6.69 ± 0.04 5.97 ± 0.05 6.54 ± 0.396.50 ± 0.33 5.70 ± 0.12 6.37 ± 0.266.36 ± 0.19 5.82 ± 0.11 6.38 ± 0.146.07 ± 0.13 5.80 ± 0.12 6.07 ± 0.236.04 ± 0.07 5.84 ± 0.08 5.99 ± 0.096.03 ± 0.18 5.82 ± 0.09 6.07 ± 0.13

Effe

ctiv

e di

ffusi

vity

x 1

0-10

(m2 /

s)

Initial brine concentration (% w/w)

B/M 3

15 %20 %25 %

0

2

4

6

8

10

Effe

ctiv

e di

ffusi

vity

x 1

0-10

(m2 /

s)

0

2

4

6

8

10

B/M 4

Temperature during salting10 ºC 15 ºC 20 ºCEf

fect

ive

diffu

sivi

ty x

10-

10 (m

2 /s)

0

2

4

6

8

10

B/M 5

Fig. 1. Effective diffusivity at different brine/muscle ratio (B/M n) and temperatureduring salting of yacare meat (Caiman crocodilus yacare). From the report of Teliset al. (2003).


6. Conclusion

The nutritional characteristics of the meat from South Americannative species presented here, show interesting aspects in compar-ison to the usual meat consumed in South America. When relatedto the human health parameters, shows that this kind of meat canbe favorably accepted by the consumers not only in South America,but also in other countries outside the region. Most of the meatsfrom the native species presented have a low level of lipids andcholesterol, and often show a beneficial relationship between thedifferent fatty acids. Also, the human health parameters of indige-nous meat can be favorably compared to the usual meat consumedin South America. The technological transformation of this kind ofmeat can open a new and very promising market. This approachcan strongly help the major development of these valuable prod-ucts. There are limited, but interesting attempts, in the technolog-ical transformation of meat products in capybara, yacare andnutria.

The rational and sustainable farming and use of meat from na-tive species, shows a very important potential to be considered inthe economical development of many countries in South America.As shown in the present work, numerous native species (most ofthem presented here) have been subject to limited scientific inves-

tigations, and showed good possibilities to be farmed andexploited to produce meat responding to the local, as well as theinternational market, interested by native or exotic meat and by-products.

There is a big challenge for the scientists in South America toinvestigate the native species not only in aspects related to the eco-logical protection, but also in the rational productive aspect. Thisapproach will be very useful economically for many communitiesin South America.

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful to Zulma Alicia Saadoun for Englishrevision.

References

Aaslyng, M. D. (2002). Quality indicators for raw meat. In J. Kerry, J. Kerry, & D.Ledward (Eds.), Meat processing improving quality (pp. 157–174). Cambridge,England: Woodhead Publ. Ltd.

Alvarez, M. R., & Kravetz, F. O. (2006). Reproductive performance of capybaras(Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) in captivity under different management systemsin Argentina. Animal Research, 55, 153–164.

AMSA (1978). Guidelines for cookery and sensory evaluation of meat. Chicago, IL:American Meat Science Association.

Andrade, D. V., Sanders, C., Milsom, W. K., & Abe, A. S. (2004). Overwintering in tegulizards. In B. M. Barnes & H. V. Carey (Eds.), Life in the cold evolution, mechanisms,adaptation, and application. Twelfth international hibernation symposiumbiological papers of the University of Alaska number 27 (pp. 339–348).Fairbanks, Alaska: Institute of Artic Biology, University of Alaska.

Arestegui, D. (2005). Alpaca and vicuña: General perspectives. In Proceedings of theICAR/FAO seminar ICAR technical series no. 11 (pp. 31–36). Sousse, Tunisia.

Basso, C. P., Garriz, C., Vieites, C. M., Acerbi, M., Perez Camargo, G. M., & Gonzalez, O.M. (2004). Rendimientos de canales de lagartos (Tupinambis merinae) criados encautiverio. Archivos de Zootecnia, 53, 345–348.

Bressan, M. C., Jardim, N. S., Perez, J. R. O., Thomazini, M., Lemos, A. L. S., Oda, S. H. I.,et al. (2004). Influencia do sexo e faixas de peso ao abate nas caracteristicasfisico-quimicas da carne de capivara. Ciencia e tecnología de Alimentos, Campinas,24, 357–362.

Bulte, E. H., & Damania, R. (2005). An economic assessment of wildlife farming andconservation. Conservation Biology, 4, 1222–1233.

Cabrera, M. C., del Puerto, M., Olivero, R., Otero, E., & Saadoun, A. (2007). Growth,yield of carcass and biochemical composition of meat and fat in nutria(Myocastor coypus) reared in an intensive production system. Meat Science, 76,366–376.

Cajal, J. L. (1988). The lesser rhea in the Argentinian Puna region: Present situation.Biological Conservation, 45, 81–91.

Caldironi, H. A., & Manes, M. E. (2006). Proximate composition, fatty acids andcholesterol content of meat cuts from tegu lizard Tupinambis merianae. Journalof Food Composition and Analysis, 19, 711–714.

Campero, J. R. (2005). Lama (Lama glama L.) and Guanaco (Lama guanicoe M.):General perspective. In Proceedings of the ICAR/FAO seminar ICAR Technical seriesno. 11 (pp. 11–18). Sousse, Tunisia.

Coates, W., & Ayerza, R. (2004). Fatty acid composition of llama muscle and internalfat in two Argentinian herds. Small Ruminant Research, 52, 231–238.

Cristofanelli, S., Antonini, A., Torres, D., Polidori, P., & Renieri, C. (2004). Meat andcarcass quality from Peruvian llama (lama glama) and alpaca (Lama pacos). MeatScience, 66, 589–593.

Cristofanelli, S., Antonini, A., Torres, D., Polidori, P., & Renieri, C. (2005). Carcasscharacteristics of Peruvian llama (Lama glama) and alpaca (Lama pacos) rearedin the Andean highlands. Small Ruminant Research, 58, 219–222.

Davis, G. H., Dodds, K. G., Moore, G. H., & Bruce, G. D. (1997). Seasonal effects ongestation length and birth weight in alpacas. Animal Reproduction Science, 46,297–303.

De Moreno, L. A., Vidal, A., Huerta-Sanchez, D., Navas, Y., Uzcategui-Bracho, S., &Huerta-Leiden, N. (2000). Análisis comparativo proximal y de minerales entrecarnes de iguana, pollo y res. Archivos Latinoamericanos de Nutricion, 50,409–415.

FAO (1996). Wildlife utilization in Latin America: Current situation and prospects forsustainable management. Conservation Guide 25. Rome: FAO.

Faverin, C., Corva, P. M., & Hozbor, F. A. (2002). Slaughter traits of adult coypusgrown in captivity. Journal of Agricultural Science, 138, 115–120.

Freire, K. R., Beserra, F. J., Pinheiro, M. J. P., Nogueira, C. M., & Carraro, F. (2000).Efeito do sexo e da castrac�ao no perfil de acidos graxos e teor de cholesterol dacarne de cateto (Tayassu tajacu). XVII Congresso Brasileiro de Ciencia e tecnologíade Alimentos, 2, 5243.

Galvez, H., Arbaiza, T., Carcelen, F. & Lucas, O. (1999). Valor nutritivo de las carnesde sajino (Tayassu tajacu), venado colorado (Mazama americana), majaz (Agoutipaca) y motelo (Geochelone denticulada). Revista de Investigaciones Veterinariasdel Peru, 10. <http://sisbib.unmsm.edu.pe/bVrevistas/veterinaria/v10_n1/indice.htm>.

http://sisbib.unmsm.edu.pe/bVrevistas/veterinaria/v10_n1/indice.htm

http://sisbib.unmsm.edu.pe/bVrevistas/veterinaria/v10_n1/indice.htm


Garriz, C. A., Urioste, M., Delarada, S., Della Croce, M., Isequilla, J. & Albera, H. (2003).Ñandúes argentinos (Rhea americana). II – composición corporal y calidad deres. Primer congreso Latinoamericano de Rheacultura. Buenos Aires, Argentina.

German, J. B., & Dillard, C. J. (2004). Saturated fats: What dietary intake? AmericanJournal of Clinical Nutrition, 80, 550–559.

Girardi, F., Cardozo, R. M., de Souza, V. L. F., de Moraes, G. V., dos Santos, C. R.,Visentainer, J. V., et al. (2005). Proximate composition and fatty acid profile ofsemi confined young capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris hydrochaeris L.1766)meat. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 18, 647–654.

Gonzalez, E. (1995). El capibara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaerus) Estado actual de suproducción. Rome: FAO. <http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/V4590S/V4590S00.htm>.

González, O. M., De Caro, A. E. J., & Vieites, C. M. (1999). Conducción zootécnica delTupinambis teguixin y análisis económico de la actividad. Archívos de Zootecnía,48, 343–346.

Gonzalez, F., Paulsen, P., Smulders, F. J. M., Skewes, O., Polsterer-Heindl, E., & Konig,H. E. (2003). Exotics for the meat counter. Specialist cutting of traditional jointsof guanaco meat. Fleischwirtschaft, 83(10), 32–37.

Gonzalez, F., Smulders, F. J. M., Paulsen, P., Skewes, O., & Konig, H. E. (2004).Anatomical investigations on meat cuts of guanacos (Lama guanicoe, Muller,1776) and chemical composition of selected muscles. Wiener TierarztlicheMonatsschrift, 91, 77–84.

Grundy, S. M. (1997). What is the desirable ratio of saturated, polyunsaturated, andmonounsaturated fatty acids in the diet. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,66(suppl), 988S–990S.

Hoffman, L. C., Fisher, P. P., & Sales, J. (2000). Carcass and meat characteristics of thenile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,80, 390–396.

Horbañczuk, J., Sales, J., Celeda, T., Konecka, A., Zieba, G., & Kawka, P. (1998).Cholesterol content and fatty acid composition of ostrich meat as influenced bysubspecies. Meat Science, 50, 385–388.

INAC. (2003). Manual de cortes de ñandú (Rhea americana) y subproductos.Montevideo: Instituto Nacional de Carne, Ed.

IUCN. (2004). Red list of threatened species. A global species assessment. GlandSwitzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Kris-Etherton, P. M. (1999). AHA science advisory: Monounsaturated fatty acids andrisk of cardiovascular disease. Journal of Nutrition, 129, 2280–2284.

Lawrie, R. A. (1998). Lawrie’s meat science. Cambridge, England: Woodhead Publ.Ltd..

Lopes Filho, J. F., Romanelli, P. F., Barboza, S. H. R., Gabas, A. L., & Telis-Romero, J.(2002). Sorption isotherms of alligator’s meat (Caiman crocodilus yacare). Journalof Food Engineering, 52, 201–206.

Lunn, J., & Theobald, H. E. (2006). The health effects of dietary unsaturated fattyacids. Nutrition Bulletin, 31, 178–224.

Marcus, J., Sommer, J. D., & Glew, C. P. (1999). Fish and mammals in the economy ofan ancient Peruvian kingdom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,96, 6564–6570.

Mares, M. A., & Ojeda, R. A. (1984). Faunal commercialization and conservation inSouth America. Bioscience, 34, 580–584.

Marie, M. (2006). Ethics: The new challenge for animal agriculture. Livestock Science,103, 203–207.

Mauro, R. (2002). Estudos faunisticos na Embrapa Pantanal. Archivos de Zootecnia,51, 175–185.

Mourão, G., Campos, Z., & Coutinho, M. (1996). Size structure of illegally harvestedand surviving caiman Caiman crocodilus yacare in Pantanal, Brazil. BiologicalConservation, 75, 261–265.

NAP (1991). Microlivestock. Little-known small animals with a promising economicfuture. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Navarro, J. L., & Martella, M. B. (2002). Reproductivity and raising of Greater Rhea(Rhea americana) and Lesser Rhea (Pterocnemia pennata): A review. Archiv furGefflugelkunde, 66, 124–132.

Nildo da Silva, F., Pedrosa Pinheiro, M. J., Bezerra Neto, F., & Paula Braga, A. (2002).Caracteristicas da carcac�a e analise quimico-bromatologica da carne de catetos(Tayassu tajacu) submetidos a quatro niveis de proteina bruta em condic�oes decativeiro. Caatinga, 15, 57–60.

Nilzen, V., Babol, J., Dutta, P. C., Lundeheim, N., Enfalt, A. C., & Lundström, K. (2001).Free range rearing of pigs with access to pasture grazing-effect on fatty acidcomposition and lipids oxidation products. Meat Science, 58, 267–275.

Oda, S. H. I., Bressan, M. C., Cardoso, M. G., de Freitas, R. T. F., Miguel, G. Z., Faria, P. B.,et al. (2004). Efeitos dos metodos de abate e sexo na composic�ao centesimal,perfil de acidos graxos e cholesterol da carne de capivaras. Ciencia e Tecnologíade Alimentos, Campinas, 24, 236–242.

Oda, S. H. I., Bressan, M. C., de Freitas, R. T. F., Miguel, G. Z., Vieira, J. O., Faria, P. B.,et al. (2004). Composic�ao centesimal e teor de colesterol dos cortes comerciaisde capibara (Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris L., 1766). Ciencia e Agrotecnologia, Lavras,28, 1344–1351.

Perez, P., Maino, M., Guzman, R., Vaquero, C., Kobrich, C., & Pokniak, J. (2000).Carcass characteristics of llamas (Lama glama) reared in central Chile. SmallRuminant Research, 37, 93–97.

Polidori, P., Antonini, M., Torres, D., Beghelli, D., & Renieri, C. (2007). Tendernessevaluation and minerals levels of llama (Lama glama) and alpaca (Lama pacos)meat. Meat Science, 77, 599–601.

Polidori, P., Renieri, C., Antonini, M., Passamonti, P., & Pucciarelli, F. (2007). Meatfatty acid composition of llama (Lama glama) reared in the Andean highlands.Meat Science, 75, 356–358.

Ramirez, J. A., Diaz, I., Pla, M., Gil, M., Blasco, A., & Oliver, M. A. (2005). Fatty acidcomposition of leg meat and perirenal fat of rabbits selected by growth rate.Food Chemistry, 90, 251–256.

Rao, M., & McGowan, P. J. K. (2002). Wild-meat use, food security, livelihoods, andconservation. Conservation Biology, 16, 580–583.

Realini, C. E., Duckett, S. K., Brito, G. W., Dalla Rizza, M., & De Mattos, D. (2004).Effect of pasture vs. concentrate feeding with or without antioxidants oncarcass characteristics, fatty acid composition, and quality of Uruguayan beef.Meat Science, 66, 567–577.

RIRDC. (2007). Composition of new meats, analyses and nutrient composition ofinnovative meat industries. Rural Industries Research and DevelopmentCorporation Publication No. 07/036, Australia.

Romanelli, P. F., Caseri, R., & Lopes Filho, J. F. (2002). Processamento da carne dojacare do pantanal (Caiman crocodilus yacare). Ciencia e Tecnología de Alimentos,Campinas, 22, 70–75.

Romanelli, P. F., & de Felicio, P. E. (1999). Jacare do Pantanal (Caiman crocodilusyacare): Rendimientos de abate e composic�ao da carne. Higiene Alimentar, 13,11–15.

Rule, D. C., Broughton, K. S., Shellito, S. M., & Maiorano, G. (2002). Comparison ofmuscle fatty acid profiles and cholesterol concentrations of bison, beef cattle,elk, and chicken. Journal of Animal Science, 80, 1202–1211.

Saadoun, A., Cabrera, M. C., & Castellucio, P. (2006). Fatty acids, cholesterol andprotein content of nutria (Myocastor coypus) meat from an intensive productionsystem in Uruguay. Meat Science, 72, 778–784.

Sales, J. (1998). Fatty acid composition and cholesterol content of different ostrichmuscles. Meat Science, 49, 489–492.

Sales, J., Navarro, J. L., Bellis, L., Manero, A., Lizurume, M., & Martella, M. B.(1997). Carcass and component yields of rheas. British Poultry Science, 38,378–380.

Sales, J., Navarro, J. L., Bellis, L., Manero, A., Lizurume, M., & Martella, M. B. (1998).Post Mortem pH decline as influenced by species in different rhea muscles. TheVeterinary Journal, 155, 209–211.

Sales, J., Navarro, J. L., Martella, M. B., Lizurume, M. E., Manero, A., Bellis, L., et al.(1999). Cholesterol content and fatty acid composition of rhea meat. MeatScience, 53, 73–75.

Santos-Silva, J., Bessa, R. J. B., & Santos-Silva, F. (2002). Effect of genotype, feedingsystem and slaughter weight on the quality of light lambs II. Fatty acidcomposition of meat. Livestock Production Science, 77, 187–194.

Simopoulos, A. (1999). Essential fatty acids in health and chronic disease. AmericanJournal of Clinical Nutrition, 70, 560S–569S.

Simopoulos, A. P. (2001). N-3 fatty acids and human health: Defining strategies forpublic policy. Lipids, 36, S83–S89.

Swatland, H. J. (2002). On-line monitoring of meat quality. In J. Kerry, J. Kerry, & D.Ledward (Eds.), Meat processing, improving quality (pp. 193–212). Cambridge,England: Woodhead Publ. Ltd..

Taboga, S. R., Romanelli, P. F., Felisbino, S. L., & Borges, L. (2003). Acompanhamentodas alteracoes post-mortem (Glicolise) no músculo do Jacare do Pantanal(Caiman crocodilus yacare). Ciencia e tecnología de Alimentos, Campinas, 23,23–27.

Telis, V. R. N., Romanelli, P. F., Gabas, A. L., & Telis-Romero, J. (2003). Salting kineticsand salt diffusivities in farmed Pantanal caiman muscle. Pesquisa AgropecuáriaBrasileira, 38, 529–535.

Uhart, M., & Milano, F. (2002). Multiple species production systems. Reversingunderdevelopment and nonsustainability in Latin America. Annals of The NewYork Academy of Sciences, 969, 20–23.

Williamson, C. S., Foster, R. K., Scanner, S. A., & Buttriss, J. L. (2005). Red meat in thediet. Nutrition Bulletin, 30, 323–355.

Wolfram, G. (2003). Dietary fatty acids and coronary heart disease. European Journalof Medical Research, 8, 321–324.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/V4590S/V4590S00.htm

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/V4590S/V4590S00.htm

Documents

Carnes de Animales Sudamericanos