Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36867613›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Pre-slaughter, slaughter and post-slaughter practices of slaughterhouse workers in Southeast, Nigeria: Animal welfare, meat quality, food safety and public health implications.

Emmanuel O Njoga, Stanley U Ilo, Obichukwu C Nwobi, Onyinye S Onwumere-Idolor, Festus E Ajibo, Chinwe E Okoli, Ishmael F Jaja, James W Oguttu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Drivers of zoonoticOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Systematic review and meta-analysis ofOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Exploring the Impact of Traditional Practices onInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Assessment of DonkeyAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Emmanuel O NjogaDepartment of Veterinary Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria.ORCID 0000-0002-2333-7584
Stanley U IloDepartment of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria.
Obichukwu C NwobiDepartment of Veterinary Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria.
Onyinye S Onwumere-IdolorDepartment of Animal Production, Faculty of Agriculture, Delta State University of Science and Technology, Ozoro, Delta State, Nigeria.
Festus E AjiboDepartment of Animal Health and Production, Enugu State Polytechnic, Iwollo, Nigeria.
Chinwe E OkoliDepartment of Veterinary Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Abuja, Abuja, Nigeria.
Ishmael F JajaDepartment of Agriculture and Animal Health, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa.
James W OguttuDepartment of Agriculture and Animal Health, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-6810-4437
University of Nigeria · NGUniversity of South Africa · ZADelta State University · NGUniversity of Abuja · NG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPre-slaughter stress or the welfare condition of food-producing animals (FPAs) and the slaughter practices of slaughterhouse workers (SHWs) are critically important for the safety and quality of meats processed in slaughterhouses (SHs). Consequently, this study determined the pre-slaughter, slaughter, and post-slaughter (PSP) practices of SHWsin four SHs in Southeast, Nigeria; and discussed the impacts on meat quality and safety.

methodsThe PSP practices were determined by observation method. Additionally, a structured and validated closed-ended questionnaire was used to determine the knowledge of the SHWs on: the effects of poor welfare (preslaughter stress) on the quality and safety of meats produced, carcass/meat processing practices and modes of transmission of meat-borne zoonotic pathogens during carcass/meat processing. Finally, a systematic post-mortem inspection (PMI) was conducted on cattle, pigs and goats slaughtered, and economic losses accruable from condemned carcasses/meats were estimated.

resultsFood-producing animals were transported to the SHs or held in the lairage under inhumane conditions. A pig being conveyed to one of the SHs was seen gasping for air, as it was firmly tied on motorbike at the thoracic and abdominal regions. Fatigued cattle were forcefully dragged on the ground from the lairage to the killing floor. Cattle for slaughter were restrained, held in lateral recumbency and left groaning, due to extreme discomfort, for about one hour before slaughter. Stunning was not performed. Singed pig carcasses were dragged on the ground to the washing point. Although more than 50% of the respondents knew the modes of transmission of meat-borne zoonotic pathogens during meat processing, 71.3% of the SHWs processed carcasses on bare floor, 52.2% used same bowl of water to wash multiple carcasses while 72% did not wear personal protective equipment during meat/carcass processing. Processed meats were transported to meat shops in an unsanitary conditions, using open vans and tricycles. During the PMI, diseased carcasses/meats/organs were detected in 5.7% (83/1452), 2.1% (21/1006) and 0.8% (7/924) of the cattle, pig and goat carcasses inspected, respectively. Gross lesions pathognomonic of bovine tuberculosis, contagious bovine pleuro-pneumonia, fascioliasis and porcine cysticercosis were detected. Consequently, 391,089.2 kg of diseased meat/organs valued at 978 million Naira (235, 030 USD) were condemned. There were significant associations (p < 0.05) between educational level and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) during slaughterhouse operations and knowledge that FPAs can harbour zoonotic pathogens (p = < 0.001) transmissible during carcass processing. Similarly, significant association was observed between working experience and use of PPE; and between geographical location of the respondents and knowledge that zoonotic pathogens in animals are transmissible during carcass processing or via the food chain.

conclusionThe findings show that slaughter practices of SHWs have detrimental impacts on the quality and safety of meats processed for human consumption in Southeast, Nigeria. These findings underscore the need to: improve the welfare condition of slaughter-animals, mechanise abattoir operations, train and retrain the SHWs on hygienic carcass/meat processing practices. There is a need to adopt strict enforcement of food safety laws to promote meat quality, food safety and consequently promote the health of the public.

Indexed as

AbattoirsPublic HealthAnimalsAnimal WelfareCattleFood SafetyGoatsHumansNigeriaSwine

Identifiers

PMID36867613
PMCPMC9983863
OpenAlexW4323031841

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.