Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33800319›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Assessment of Hygienic Practices in Beef Cattle Slaughterhouses and Retail Shops in Bishoftu, Ethiopia: Implications for Public Health.

Fanta D Gutema, Getahun E Agga, Reta D Abdi, Alemnesh Jufare, Luc Duchateau, Lieven De Zutter, Sarah Gabriël

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Occurrence of microplastics in edible tissues of livestock (cow and sheep).Environmental science and pollution research international · 2024
    Article
  13. Multidrug-ResistantVeterinary sciences · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Behaviour ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Fanta D GutemaDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology and Veterinary Public Health, College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa 1000, Ethiopia.
Getahun E AggaFood Animal Environmental Systems Research Unit, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bowling Green, KY 42101, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9903-5283
Reta D AbdiDepartment of Veterinary Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Long Island University, Greenvale, NY 11548, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5660-7720
Alemnesh JufareDepartment of Animal Health, Alage Agricultural Technical Vocational Educational Training College, Ziway 1000, Ethiopia.
Luc DuchateauDepartment of Nutrition, Genetics and Ethology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.
Lieven De ZutterDepartment of Veterinary Public Health and Food Safety, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-2675-6271
Sarah GabriëlDepartment of Veterinary Public Health and Food Safety, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-2523-233X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the potential drivers of microbial meat contamination along the entire meat supply chain is needed to identify targets for interventions to reduce the number of meatborne bacterial outbreaks. We assessed the hygienic practices in cattle slaughterhouses (28 employees) and retail shops (127 employees) through face-to-face interviews and direct personal observations. At the slaughterhouses, stunning, de-hiding and evisceration in vertical position, carcass washing and separate storage of offal were the identified good practices. Lack of hot water baths, absence of a chilling room, infrequent hand washing, insufficiently trained staff and irregular medical check-up were practices that lead to unhygienic handling of carcasses. At the retail shops, cleaning equipment using soap and hot water (81%), storing unsold meat in refrigerators (92%), concrete floors and white painted walls and ceilings were good practices. Adjacently displaying offal and meat (39%), lack of a cold chain, wrapping meat with plastic bags and newspapers, using a plastic or wooden cutting board (57%), infrequent washing of equipment and floors, and inadequately trained employees were practices that could result in unhygienic handling of beef. Our study identified unhygienic practices both at the slaughterhouses and retail shops that can predispose the public to meatborne infections, which could be improved through training and implementation of quality control systems.

Indexed as

AbattoirsPublic HealthAnimalsCattleEthiopiaFood MicrobiologyHygieneMeatbeefBishoftuhygienic practicespublic healthretail shopsslaughterhouses

Identifiers

PMID33800319
PMCPMC7967449

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.