Food Protection Trends - July/August 2022 - 309

TABLE 4. Compliance of the hygiene of the primary production environment requirement
(N = 11)
Basis for Score Allocation
Subcategories
Hygiene of establishment location
Storage position of chemicals or cleaning reagents
Structure (control of cross-contamination)
Structure (coop-to-bird ratio)
Source of water
Disposal of process waste (offal, etc.)
Frequency of cleaning
10 (90.9)
4 (32.4)
11 (100)
8 (72.8)
2 (18.2)
It was encouraging to know that most feed found on the
market was branded, was mostly produced by local industrialand
cottage-level feed producers, and thus could be traced
back to the producers. Although the feed did not come with
a certificate of analysis or usage instructions, processors and
retailors said they preferred specific brands because of their
product quality and consistency. Nevertheless, there were no
measured indicators of feed quality and safety and no records
to indicate inspection of feed and poor storage conditions
of feed that can promote mold growth. About half (45.5%)
of the auditees were rated unsatisfactory in this category.
Another 45.5% were rated as having major noncompliance
issues. The auditees did not know the content of the feed they
were giving to the birds, including the basic ingredient and
chemical additives and their possible effects on the birds. At
best, visual inspection was done by some traders to ensure
the feed did not contain foreign materials that could be
injurious to the birds.
According to code of hygienic practices (4), there should
be a good partnership between all stakeholders in production
and the users of the feed to ensure the farmer and traders get
the requisite training on use of the feed, its benefits, the risks,
and feedback from the users to the producers. Some live bird
traders had antibiotics that they formulate into the birds'
drinking water. According to them, it helps the birds grow
bigger. According to Hughes and Heritage (8), antibiotics are
meant to fight off bacterial infections. However, in livestock
farming, antibiotics are also used as growth promoters. They
are administered in low, subtherapeutic doses, which is one
of the major factors responsible for emerging antimicrobial
resistance issues.
Hygiene of the primary production environment
CAC/RCP 58-2005 forbids undertaking primary
production under unhygienic conditions that could lead
to unacceptable levels of foodborne hazards. The auditees
6 (54.6)
1 (9.1)
9 (81.9)
7 (63.7)
3 (27.2)
6 (54.6)
n (%)
Compliant Minor Deviation Major Deviation Noncompliant
3 (27.2)
1 (9.1)
1 (9.1)
1 (9.1)
1 (9.1)
1 (9.1)
2 (18.2)
showed a positive attitude and practice in this regard. The
hygienic conditions of 90.9% were satisfactory, because they
had a relatively clean working environment, whereas the
hygienic conditions of work were poor for 9.1% (Table 2).
Chemicals and cleaning reagents were stored away from
the birds such that potential contact with feed is unlikely.
The live bird traders also understood the need to avoid
overcrowding in holding cages. On average, a cage of
about 5 × 5 m2
housed about 250 to 350 birds (Table 4).
Overcrowding may result in the accumulation of heat, which
may compromise the welfare of the birds. They stand at
higher risk of spreading diseases and infections, cannibalism,
and ultimately death (13).
In addition, all processors used potable water in the
dressing of the bird and all other activities. Using clean
water for processing reduces risk of contamination. Again,
the means of waste disposal was largely reassuring. Offal of
processed carcasses and feathers are kept separately in plastic
bags and collected by either registered waste collectors or
informal waste collectors who take it the main dump sites
closest to the markets. In some instances, the offal is collected
by dog owners to be processed as feed.
Frequency and thoroughness of cleaning were inadequate.
The processors were observed to mostly wipe contact
surfaces such as tables with a sponge or polyurethane foam
soaked with water. Consequently, the accumulation of
microbiological hazards and the subsequent formation of
biofilm on these surfaces are significant risk factors for the
cross-contamination of meat.
Presentation of the animal for slaughter
Another category in which the auditees performed
poorly was the presentation of the animal for slaughter.
It was observed that 6 of the 11 facilities audited were
unsatisfactory, whereas the remaining 5 facilities needed
major improvements in their practices (Table 2). In relation
July/August Food Protection Trends 309
Food Protection Trends - July/August 2022

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - July/August 2022
