Grace, Delia

Hai Hoang Tuan Ngo

Hang Le-Thi

Hung Nguyen-Viet

Lindahl, Johanna F.

Luong Nguyen-Thanh

Målqvist, M.

Phi Nguyen-Hong

Phuc Pham-Duc

Sinh Dang-Xuan

Trang Thi-Huyen Le

Unger, Fred

CGSpace

Better lives through livestockEffectiveness of light-touch intervention at small-scale slaughterhouses and traditional pork shops in VietnamHai Hoang Tuan Ngo¹,2,3, Sinh Dang-Xuan2, Mats Målqvist3, Luong Nguyen-Thanh3, Phuc Pham-Duc¹,4, Phi Nguyen-Hong1, Hang Le-Thi¹, Hung Nguyen-Viet2,5, Trang Thi-Huyen Le2, Delia Grace5,6, Johanna Lindahl2,3,7, Fred Unger2SafePork Conference, New Orleans, 15-17 May 2023¹ Center for Public Health and Ecosystem Research, Hanoi University of Public Health, Hanoi, Vietnam2 International Livestock Research Institute, Hanoi, Vietnam3 SWEDESD, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden 4 Institute of Environmental Health and Sustainable Development, Hanoi, Vietnam5 International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya6 Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Kent ME4 4TB, United Kingdom7 Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden21. Introduction and objective• Small-scale pork producers plays important role in Vietnam• High risk of microbial contamination in retailed pork• Necessary to identify low-cost and feasible interventions along pork value chain• Aim of this study:✓ Implement light-touch intervention at small-scale slaughterhouse and traditional pork shop✓ Assess the effectiveness of intervention in reducing microbial contamination3• Study sites: 4 provinces in the North of Vietnam• Participant recruitments:- Selection criteriao Slaughterhouse:❖Floor-based slaughtering, drainage system❖Ability to separate clean-dirty area❖Willingness to participateo Markets and pork shops❖Linked to selected slaughterhouse❖Specific area for animal sourced-food (only)❖Equipped with table, water supply system❖Having market management board2. MethodologyFigure 1: Study sites4Intervention package:• Slaughterhouse (n=10, investment: 300-1500$)o Stainless-steel grido Upgrade water systemo Food safety training• Pork shop (n=29, investment: ~35 $)o Hygiene tools: hand sanitation, sprayer, postero Selling tools: apron, cloths, cutting-boardo Food safety training2. MethodologyFigure 2: Slaughterhouse before and after interventionFigure 3: Pork shop before and after intervention52. MethodologyRound 2Round 1 Round 3Intervention implemented1st week 2nd week 3rd week 4th week 5th week 6th weekFigure 4: Sampling techniqueSampling method– Samples: • Slaughterhouse: total bacterial count (TBC)– Pig carcass (swab): 20 samples/round– Workers’ hand (swab): 14 samples/round– Floors (swab): 10 samples/round• Pork shops:– Pork (excision): 29 samples/round (Salmonella prevalence, TBC)– Vendor’s hand (swab): 29 samples/round (TBC)– Cutting board (swab): 29 samples/round (TBC)– Observe food safety practice– Timeline: 6 weeks with 3 rounds62. MethodologySample testing– Salmonella detection: ISO 6579:2017 (amend)– Salmonella concentration: 3-tube most probable number (MPN)– TBC: ISO 4833-2: 2013Data analysis– Salmonella prevalence: McNemar’s test– TBC: Wilcoxon signed rank test– Identify risk factors:• Univariate analysis• Multivariate analysis: – Linear mixed-effects models (for TBC in pig carcass and retailed pork)– Generalized linear mixed-effects models (for Salmonella presence in retailed pork)73. Result Slaughterhouses:– Most of slaughtered pigs sourced from local farm– Have 2-3 permanent labors, in addition to pork seller involved in slaughtering activities– Only few slaughterhouse use electric stunning– Number of pig slaughtered/day: 1-8 pigs/day29 Pork shops– Most vendors are female– One third of shops had person to help seller – Average sale volume: 43 kg/day– Transportation distance: 4 km (in ~12 minutes), most by motorbike Figure 5&6: Slaughterhouse worker and pork seller after intervention8Microbial analysisRound 1 (baseline) Round 2 (Follow up) Round 3 (End line)Slaughterhouse (TBC)Pig carcass (log10 CFU/cm2) 4.46 (3.48-6.64) 4.23 a (2.75-5.6) 4.37 (3.05-5.74)Floor (log10 CFU/cm2) 6.01 (5.38-7.06) 4.41a** (3.31-6.12) 4.61a* (2.87-7.12)Worker hand (log10 CFU/hand) 7.09 (5.33-8.54) 7.07 (4.57-8.65) 7.04 (5.83-8.85)Pork shop (TBC or Salmonella)Pork (log10 CFU/g) 5.47 (3.26-7.18) 5.34 (4.17-6.81) 5.36 (4.35-6.34)Cutting board (log10 CFU/cm2) 7.69 (5.87-10.31) 7.55 (5.75-8.94) 7.40 (6.20-9.38)Seller’s hand (log10 CFU/hand) 6.47 (3.41-8.33) 6.36 (4.77-8.38) 6.97 (4.73-8.33)Salmonella prevalence on pork 52% 28%b 24%b*, ** p-value: 0.05 and 0.01, respectively- compared to Round 1. a,b: Wilcoxon’s test and McNemar’s testFood safety practice Slaughterhouses and pork shops:– Improved in frequency of cleaning tools/surfaces3. Result• 41.6% of retailed pork meets Vietnamese standard for TBC (<5.7 log10 CFU/g)93. Result Factors associated with microbial contamination (Multivariable analysis)Variables Coefficient 95% CI p-valueSlaughterhouse (TBC)Workers wore boots while slaughtering -0.78 -1.33 –  -0.27 0.004Workers cleaned floors after slaughtering -0.49 -0.86 – -0.07 0.02Workers smoked cigarettes or ate while slaughtering 0.66 0.24 – 1.09 0.005Pork shop (TBC)Sellers cleaned knives while selling -0.38 -0.70 – -0.04 0.04Tables were covered with rough material that was difficult to clean 0.32 0.001 – 0.61 0.02Pork shop (Salmonella presence) Odds ratio 95% CI p-valueHaving helpers at shop 0.14 0.04 – 0.46 0.02Sellers wore aprons 0.17 0.05 – 0.51 0.02104. Discussion• 41.6% of retailed pork meets Vietnamese standard for TBC (<5.7 log10 CFU/g)• Salmonella prevalence at retail after intervention was reduce compared to before intervention• Improved food safety practices with provision of appropriate tools can reduce microbial contamination in pork 11Conclusions• Piloted light-touch intervention can make pork safer at traditional slaughter and retail• Important for success was the participatory approach and compliance of involved VC actors and stakeholders• Larger scale testing recommended to further consolidate results, e.g., current implemented• Consumers involvement required as incentive for changes and sustainabilityFigure 7: Vendors participated in the FS training/intervention12Acknowledgements• The SafePORK project was supported by ACIAR.• Partners: ✓ International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)✓ Hanoi University of Public Health✓ Vietnam National University of Agriculture ✓ National Institute of Animal Science, University of Sydney✓ Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry✓ National Institute of Veterinary Research.✓ Local authorities and value chain actorsTHANK YOU

Effectiveness of light-touch intervention at small-scale slaughterhouses and traditional pork shops in Vietnam

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/10568/130886/3/Presentation.pdf

Effectiveness of light-touch intervention at small-scale slaughterhouses and traditional pork shops in Vietnam

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CGSpace