Food Protection Trends - July/August 2022 - 311

TABLE 5. Compliance of the establishment design and construction of slaughter
requirement
Basis for Score Allocation
Subcategories
Safety of location
Hygienic conditions of washroom
Hygiene friendliness of washroom
Stunning/bleeding and dressing area separation
Scalding/defeathering and dressing area separation
Durability and cleanable nature of slabs for dressing
Special disposable system for offal and other
animal parts
N = 11
to preclude cross-contamination. However, most of these
washrooms needed minor to major improvement where in
some locations there were no hand washing stations inside
the facility. Of the washrooms, 45.5% could be managed
with minor improvement, yet the other 54.5% required
major improvement. Again, because of poor sanitation, most
washroom facilities had a strong stench emanating from
the facility. Although the facilities did not meet required
standards, the processors understood the need to practice
good personal hygiene. This is in line with observations made
by Ovai et al. (12) among LBM operators.
Of the 11 sites audited, 6 (54%) had wooden platforms
covered with plastic sheets for defeathering and dressing of
birds (Figures 3 and 4), which was a major noncompliance.
This is because tiny plastic pieces could contaminate the
chicken. Of the three sites graded noncompliant, two of
them had wooden slabs without plastic covers or covers of
any material. The wood was difficult to clean and thus likely
to accumulate microbiological hazards easily. The last used
plastic bowls that were not adequately cleaned, increasing
the chances of hazard accumulation in the bowl and thus
meriting a critical noncompliance. In most industrial
processing plants, stainless steel or ceramic tiles are used
in making the work surfaces for the processing of the meat,
because they are easy to clean and durable. A wooden slab
with plastic covering could be considered a less expensive
option, except that during dressing, the knife may make
incisions in the plastic cover. These openings in the plastic
will give water access to surfaces beneath the plastic sheet,
which would eventually support microbial growth and serve
as harborage. The plastic itself could be considered a food
safety and health risk, considering that pieces of it could end
up in the meat as a physical hazard, which can result in an
adverse effect on consumers' health (Figures 3 and 4).
Water hygiene and temperature control
Although processors used potable water in their operations,
some processing steps involving the use of water require critical
attention and corrective action. The most vulnerable steps
in poultry meat processing that are likely to result in cross-contamination
include scalding, defeathering, and evisceration
(6), all of which include the use of water. It was observed that
the water in the scalding tank was reused for multiple birds,
and these were often heavily soiled. This was because the scalding
water was not frequently changed in most (81.9%) of the
audited facilities. In some places (9.1%), the same water was
used throughout the day; others changed it when it was dirty
(Table 6). " Dirty " is a subjective indicator and thus difficult
to measure. Such practices expose the meat to a high risk of
cross-contamination even though the water may be hot. Only
one operator changed scalding tank water relatively frequently.
The temperature of the scalding water varied greatly
across all facilities. Even within the same facility, there were
variations among processors. Some of them allowed the
water to be very hot, some even at boiling temperatures,
whereas other did the scalding at just-warm temperatures
between 50°C to 70°C. This was because the temperature
of the scalding water had not been standardized with regard
to the breed of chicken produced in Ghana and thus was
less likely to be monitored. Some processors relied on their
experience in monitoring the temperature of the scalding
water in the tank, which despite varying greatly continued to
be the practice.
Process control
In relation to SOPs, most (91.9%) LBM operators did
not have their SOPs documented. As a result, activities such
as bleeding methods, scalding temperatures and duration,
singeing, washing, and packaging differed from one processor
July/August Food Protection Trends 311
2 (18.2)
8 (72.8)
5 (45.5)
1 (9.1)
5 (45.5)
3 (27.3)
5 (45.5)
3 (27.3)
1 (9.1)
n (%)
Compliant Minor Deviation Major Deviation Noncompliant
5 (45.5)
1 (9.1)
5 (45.5)
6 (54.5)
6 (54.6)
10 (90.9)
1 (9.1)
6 (54.6)
3 (27.3)
1 (9.1)
Food Protection Trends - July/August 2022

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