Presentation by Velma Kivali, Ian Dohoo, Sinh Dang-Xuan, Uwe Rösler, Lordrick Alinaitwe, James Bugeza, Denis Mugizi, Clovice Kankya, Kristina Roesel and Elizabeth Anne Jessie Cook at the SafePork Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 15–17 May 2023.

1. Better lives through livestock
Microbial contamination at slaughter and retail points of the
pork value chain in Uganda
SafePork Conference
New Orleans, Louisiana, 15–17 May 2023
Velma Kivali1,2, Ian Dohoo4, Sinh Dang-Xuan1, Uwe Rösler2, Lordrick Alinaitwe1, James
Bugeza1, Denis Mugizi1 , Clovice Kankya3, Kristina Roesel1 and Elizabeth Anne Jessie Cook1
1International Livestock Research Institute, 2Freie Universität Berlin, 3Makerere University, 4 University of Prince Edward Island

2. 2
Outline
 Background
 Materials and methods
 Findings
 Conclusions

3. 3
Unsafe foods remains a global health
concern
Animal source foods most implicated
Bacterial pathogens among leading
causes of FBDs
Background/1
(Havelaar et al., 2015, Thomas et al., 2020, WHO 2020)

4. 4
Background/2
Source: FAO stats (2017) Africa Sustainable Livestock 2050 , country brief Uganda

5. 5
Background/3
Roesel et al 2019

6. 6
Aim?
 Determine contamination levels with total bacterial count (TBC) in samples
at slaughter and retail points of the pork value chain in selected districts in
Uganda
 Establish the association between contamination levels with infrastructure,
pork handling and hygiene practices*

7. 7
Study design
Single slaughter unit value chain
Multiple slaughter units value chain
Repeat cross- sectional study design
Map of Uganda highlighting the study sites

8. 8
Data collection
1. Microbial analysis
2. Observational tool

9. 9
Microbial analysis
No Sample type TBCs (n= 1233) NTS (n= 1535)
1 Water sample 137 137
2 Floor swab 137 137
3 Carcass swab 151 151
4 Hand swab at slaughter 147 147
5 Raw pork 151 151
6 Chopping surface 151 151
7 Hand swab retail 148 148
8 Cooked pork 151 151
9 Vegetables (kachumbari) 60 60
10 Mesenteric lymph node - 151
11 Faecal sample - 151

10. 10
Descriptive results/1
Slaughter facility infrastructure
Single slaughter unit , n=1 Multiple slaughter units , n=15
Frequency Frequency %
Roof 1 No roof 15 100
Sides 1 No walls 15 100
Floor 1 Concrete 8 53.33
Wooden 6 40
Iron sheet 1 6.67
Electricity 1 No electricity 15 100
Water availability
1 Tap water 15 100
Tap + stream 1 6.67
Latrine 1 Yes 12 80
No 3 20
Drainage
Drainage type
1
1
Yes 7 46.67
No 8 53.33
Open 4 57.14
Closed 3 42.86
Handwashing station 0 0

11. 11
Descriptive results/2
Retail facilities
Pork from single slaughter facility, n=35 Pork from multiple slaughter facilities, n=27
Mode of transport
Carried by hand
Motorbike
Frequency %
0
35 100
Frequency %
20 74
7 26
Dis from slaughter
<10km
>10km
26 74.29
9 25.71
25 92.59
2 7.41
Chopping surface
Wooden
Other
34 97.14
1 2.86
26 96.30
1 3.70
Kitchen cloth
Yes
No
22 62.86
13 37.14
5 18.52
22 81.48
Separate raw & cooked
Yes
No
20 57.14
15 42.86
13 48.15
14 51.85

12. 12
Pork handling and hygiene practices
1 4
3
2
5 6 7

13. 13
Total bacteria counts
Sample type Average LogCFU
Water 3.484
Floor swab 5.107
Hand swab slaughter 7.962
Carcass swab 5.522
Raw pork 5.694
Hand swab retail 7.149
Chopping surface 6.079
Cooked pork 3.377
Vegetables 4.020

14. 14
Salmonella

15. 15
Conclusion
Is pork safe?
What does this mean?

16. 16
Work in progress
Salmonella characterization
Statistical analysis

17. 17
Acknowledgements

18. THANK YOU

19. THANK YOU