






























East Afr. J. Biophys. Comput. Sci. (2023), Vol. 4, Issue. 1, 1-17 
 

 

 

 

*Corresponding author: 

  Email: Kyayejue@gmail.com   https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/eajbcs.v4i1.1S 

 
 

 

 

Juliet Kyayesimira1* and Florence Muheirwe2 
 

1Department of Biological Sciences, Kyambogo University, P.O. Box 1, Kyambogo, Kampala, Uganda 
2Valley University of Science and Technology, P. O Box 4, Bushenyi, Uganda. 

 
 

 

 

KEYWORDS:  

Beef;  

Handling practices; 

Meat safety; 

Consumer’s health; 

Uganda 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT 

Proper beef handling contributes to achieving sustainable develpment goals 3 (good 

health and well-being) and 12 (sustainable cnsumption and production patterns). This is 

because it ensures the safety of meat and consumers’ health. However, the meat sector is 

still  underdeveloped in most African countries. In addition, there is limited research 

addressing meat safety challenges. In Uganda particularly, in the recent past, there was  

whistle-blowing over contaminated beef on the market, indicating a  loophole in food 

safety. Despite this, studies focusing on beef handling practices have remained scanty. 

Thus, this study aimed to examine beef handling practices at the abattoirs and butcher 

shops in Uganda's Central, Western and Eastern regions. A mixed-methods approach was 

employed to collect data through a survey, in-depth interviews and on-site observations. 

Findings revealed that beef handling practices were poor at abattoirs and butcher shops 

and that most facilities for safety measures were lacking or inadequate. Only 3% of the 

respondents had cold room storage facilities, and meat spoilage was relatively high 

(85.3%). Appropriate knowledge of meat safety among abattoir and butcher operators was 

inadequate, contributing to low compliance with food safety guidelines. Inappropriate 

handling practices and poor handling facilities may put consumers at a health risk. The 

study recommends that responsible authorities should ensure compliance mechanisms and 

sensitization initiatives are prioritized. 

  

 

INTRODUCTION 

Food safety ensures proper food handling, 

including beef and is crucial for ensuring the 

good health of consumers. Proper beef handling 

refers particularly to the practices that prevent 

microbial contamination and spoilage of beef at 

all points along the meat value chain, from the 

abattoir to the dining table (Niyonzima et al., 

2013). It is noted that the unhygienic 

environment at both abattoirs and butcher shops 

(Bafanda et al., 2017) leads to unsafe meat due 

to microbial contamination. Poor handling of 

beef can result in the survival and multiplication 

of harmful microorganisms which grow on beef 

leading to beef spoilage (Rouger et al., 2017). 

Such meat is unsafe for consumption and may 

East African Journal of Biophysical and Computational Sciences 

Journal homepage : https://journals.hu.edu.et/hu-journals/index.php/eajbcs 
 

Hawassa University

College of Natural & Computational Sciences

Year 2021

Volume xx No xx

 

Beef handling Practices at Abattoirs and Butcher Shops in Uganda: Implications for Meat 

Safety and Health of Consumers 

 
Research article

mailto:Kyayejue@gmail.com
https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/eajbcs.v4i1.1S


East Afr. J. Biophys. Comput. Sci. (2023), Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-17 
 

2 

lead to food poisoning (Haileselassie et al., 

2013). This may contravene Sustainable 

Development Goal (SDG) number three, which 

focuses on good health and well-being of 

people. Additionally, suppose meat spoilage is 

high at butcher shops and abattoirs, fulfilment of 

the SDG 12 target of reduction of food waste at 

the retail and consumer levels to reduce food 

losses along production and supply chains may 

not be achieved (UNDP, 2015). Thus, 

appropriate handling of beef during and after 

slaughter is significant for fulfilling the SDGs. 

Poor food handling has been identified as one of 

the contributing factors to various ailments.  For 

instance, poor food handling contributes to 

foodborne disease outbreaks (Gorman et al., 

2002; Gilbert et al., 2007; PEH, 2008). Notably, 

microbial pathogens are responsible for most of 

the food borne disease burden in developing 

countries and cause 20%–40% of intestinal 

disorders (Grace, 2015). Food-borne illnesses 

manifest in ill health such as stomach upsets, 

diarrhoea, fever, vomiting, abdominal cramps, 

and dehydration to more severe illness and even 

death (Scallan et al., 2011; Thomas et al., 2013; 

Tegegne and Phyo, 2017; Yenealem et al., 

2020). In pregnant women, foodborne illness 

may result in complications such as 

miscarriages, premature births, maternal and 

neonatal sepsis, and infant mortality (Tam et al., 

2010). In this respect, promoting safe handling 

in the meat value chain contributes to food 

safety and is significant for the safe 

consumption of meat. 

Meat safety requirements and standards in most 

poor countries are below the desired status. For 

instance, at the abattoirs, meat may be dressed 

on the floor (Fearon et al., 2014), and there are 

no basic facilities like stunning, bleeding, 

evisceration, and cooling rooms (Haileselassie 

et al., 2013). After slaughter, meat is transported 

in open trucks and poorly packaged without 

regard to safety measures (Fearon et al., 2014) 

when delivered to butcher shops. At most 

butcher shops,  hand washing and water storage 

facilities may be lacking, inadequate, or 

inappropriate (Bogere and Baluka, 2014). In 

some premises, the meat is exposed to heat from 

the sun, which attracts dust and flies from the 

surrounding environment (Kyayesimira et al., 

2019). Worse still,  most people engaged in the 

meat production and processing value chain 

may not even be trained in hygienic procedures 

or meat technology (Akabanda et al., 2017). 

Therefore, such handlers may not implement 

measures they are unaware of or may not 

comprehend the significance of upholding the 

required standards.  

A considerable amount of literature has been 

published on the meat sector. These include; 

studies on microbiological quality and meat 

safety (Koutsoumanis and Taoukis, 2005; 

Niyonzima et al., 2013; Obeng et al., 2013; 

Kebede et al., 2014; Santos et al., 2017) and 

meat handling practices (Birhanu et al., 2017; 

Pal et al., 2018). These studies above have been 

conducted in different contexts and are content 

specific. For instance, Santo and colleagues’ 

study on butcher shops in Portugal cannot 

reflect the situation in developing countries 

because the food safety standards vary 

significantly. Although studies by; Kebede and 

colleagues in Ethiopia, Niyonzima in Kigali and 

Obeng in Ghana may represent the Sub-Saharan 

context, they do not holistically look at the 

practices in the meat value chain from slaughter 

houses to shops. Hence, studies on meat 

handling practices in Sub-Saharan Africa 

remain scanty. 



East Afr. J. Biophys. Comput. Sci. (2023), Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-17 
 

3 

Other scholars have studied meat hygiene and 

associated health hazards to consumers ( 

Chepkemoi et al., 2015; Bafanda et al., 2017; 

Wambui et al., 2017) and knowledge and 

practices of meat safety (Sulleyman et al., 

2018). Bafanda and colleagues (2017) focus on 

awareness among consumers, which may not 

change if meat handlers, who are the culprits, do 

not improve handling standards. Chepkemoi and 

colleagues (2015) focus on the sanitation of 

butcheries, while Wambui and colleagues focus 

on good hygiene in slaughterhouses. The two 

studies do not address the contamination that 

may occur both at slaughterhouses and butcher 

shops, putting consumers’ health at risk.  

In Uganda, studies on meat safety have also 

been conducted. Musoke et al (2016) examined 

meat inspection at slaughter to detect meat that 

may be unfit for home consumption for the 

prevention of zoonotic diseases. A study on the 

contamination of ready-to-eat meat in highway 

markets was also conducted (Bagumire and 

Karumuna, 2017). Compliance with post-

harvest handling practices of beef along the 

Meat Value Chain has been studied 

(Kyayesimira et al., 2019). However, these 

studies do not focus on beef handling practices 

at abattoirs and butcher shops and meat safety 

for consumers' health, which is the focus of the 

present study. 

In recent years, there has been an increasing 

amount of literature on meat, but few studies 

have been conducted in Uganda emphasising 

beef handling. Yet, in the year 2018, Uganda 

woke up to the news that meat in butcher shops 

had been contaminated with a chemical known 

as Formaldehyde, commonly found in hospitals 

to preserve dead bodies (Ssali, 2018). When 

sprayed over the meat, it was revealed that it 

keeps away the flies. Such premises attract 

customers who are lured into thinking that the 

butcher shop has high standards of hygienic 

conditions (Yiga, 2018). Such incidents 

revealed consumers' vulnerability to unsafe 

meat and meat products. Meat may appear 

appetizing or luring and may not be fit for 

human consumption. This may be due to 

contamination at either slaughterhouse before it 

reaches butcher shops. Improper meat handling 

practices contribute to making it unsafe for 

consumption. At any point of contamination, if 

such meat is consumed, it might contribute to 

health disorders of consumers. Therefore, the 

present study explored beef handling practices 

in the abattoirs and butcher shops in Uganda and 

implications for meat safety and consumers' 

health. 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 

Study sites 

The research was conducted in the districts of 

Mbarara, Kampala, and Mbale, situated in the 

Western, Central, and Eastern regions of 

Uganda, respectively. The three (3) districts 

were selected because they are the biggest 

destinations for cattle market, with Kampala 

district housing the biggest abattoir in the 

country, which slaughters 500-700 cattle daily 

(Thorell, 2014).  

Study design and data collection 

A cross-sectional study design was employed. A 

survey, in-depth interviews, and observations 

were conducted using a mixed methods 

approach. The study units were slaughterhouses 

and abattoirs and butcher shops. A total of 460 

respondents, comprising 105 respondents from 



East Afr. J. Biophys. Comput. Sci. (2023), Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-17 
 

4 

abattoirs and 355 from butcher shops, were 

selected from the three districts using simple 

random sampling. At each district, the 

department in charge of production provided the 

number of abattoirs and butcher shops. 

Respondents from abattoir and butcher shops 

were selected using the formula of Taro 

Yamane (1967), as indicated below 

 

where n=the sample size, population size 

(30156 for butcher shops and 142 abattoirs), e= 

the acceptable sampling error at a 95% 

confidence interval. 

This formula was chosen because proponents of 

this formula recommend that when one is 

studying a finite population, it is more 

appropriate (Adam, 2020; Singh et al, 2014). In 

this study, the finite population was respondents 

from abattoirs and butcher shops from the 3 

study districts. 

Respondents included abattoir operators, 

butchery owners, butchery operators, and 

butchers. Butchers are directly involved in 

slaughtering, transporting, and selling meat. 

They were selected to get views on the handling 

practices regarding the quality of meat, hygiene 

and safety measures and standards. Key 

informants (30) were purposively selected and 

distributed equally in all study districts. They 

included District Veterinary Officers (DVOs), 

meat inspectors, Uganda National Bureau of 

Standards (UNBS) staff and chairpersons of 

meat associations of butcher shops and 

abattoirs. These were interviewed to get 

perspectives on meat safety and compliance 

standards. The data was collected between June, 

2018 to January, 2019.  

Data collection methods 

An interview guide enabled information 

collection on food safety guidelines and 

standards awareness. It also facilitated the 

collection of information on whether the meat 

processing industry and value chain actors 

understood the consequences of their actions on 

the health of families and the community. 

Participants were interviewed at workplaces and 

given priority to serve clients. The interviews 

were conducted in the mornings, afternoons, and 

evenings depending on customer flow at the 

butcher shops. The research team did not want 

to disrupt the attendants from serving customers 

but focused on gaining the respondents' 

undivided attention for more information. At the 

abattoir, interviews were conducted in the 

mornings when slaughtering was usually done. 

The research team wanted to observe the 

processes and practices of meat handling as it 

was slaughtered and distributed to customers. 

The time frame of the interview schedule varied 

from one place to another but took more than 

one hour to two on average. The time taken to 

conduct interviews was long because of the 

disruptions when clients showed up, and the 

researcher would pause the session to enable the 

respondent to attend to the client first. 

Interviews were conducted in the predominant 

local languages of the respective study areas 

which were Runyankore in Mbarara, Lumasaba 

in Mbale and Luganda in Kampala, to allow the 

respondents to express themselves freely. 

Observation was also employed as a critical tool 

to establish the status of the butcher shops and 

abattoirs. In this exercise, the sense of smell and 



East Afr. J. Biophys. Comput. Sci. (2023), Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-17 
 

5 

vision were vital in establishing the hygiene of 

the business units operating as butcher shops 

and abattoirs. The researchers observed how 

customers were served the meat they had 

purchased. The processes of cutting meat, 

measuring and packaging for customers, 

chopping boards, the equipment used, the 

storage facilities, and the hygiene of the 

surroundings were observed. 

Some relevant documents were also reviewed to 

understand and comprehend the meat handling 

practices and their implication for consumers. 

Reviewed documents included the Sustainable 

Development Goals, the UNBS standards, the 

National Environment Management Authority 

(NEMA) regulations and other policy 

documents, as well as, regulatory guidelines. 

Data analysis  

All quantitative data, mainly generated from the 

questionnaire, were processed and analyzed 

using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences 

(SPSS) version 20 (IBM Corp. Armonk, NY: 

Released 2011) and Sigma plot Version 14. 

Frequencies and percentages were computed for 

meaningful interpretation of results presented in 

the form of tables in the results and discussion 

section. Qualitative data were analyzed using 

the thematic approach, where common themes 

were categorized, coded, and interpreted for 

meaning. These were used to complement data 

from in-depth interviews and document reviews.  

Research Ethical Considerations 

Before data collection, approval was obtained 

from the National Council for Science and 

Technology in Uganda to implement this 

research under the RELOAD research project 

Uganda (RELOAD/A0401UNSCST2012). At 

the University, approval was acquired from the 

Mbarara University of Science and Technology 

Research Ethics Cmmittee (MUST-REC). 

During data collection, participants were briefed 

about the aim of the research to seek consent 

and voluntary participation. This was done 

verbally, and a request to take pictures was 

made. Pictures taken and provided in this paper 

were taken from premises where respondents 

had consented verbally, and for those who were 

not willing, their concerns were respected. The 

pictures have been presented in blurred form to 

protect the participants’ identities. 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

Socio-demographic characteristics of 

respondents  

This study was interested in the levels of 

education and gender of respondents. The study 

presumed that education should influence better 

meat handling practices. Previous studies 

reported high education level was related to safe 

food handling (Karabudak et al., 2008; Jianu 

and Goleţ, 2014). Findings from the study 

(Table 1) revealed that most beef handlers at the 

abattoir and butcher shops had attained basic 

education. For instance, most abattoir operators 

had primary education (48.6%), while most 

butcher shop operators (46.2%) had acquired 

secondary education. Few of the respondents 

had no formal education. As this study reveals, 

there seems to be a basic literacy level among 

the meat industry operators. Similarly, in 

Malaysia, the majority of food handlers had 

primary and secondary level education (Rosnani 

et al., 2014). Contrary, in Ogun State of Nigeria, 

it was found that the majority of the handlers 

had low literacy levels of up to primary 



East Afr. J. Biophys. Comput. Sci. (2023), Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-17 
 

6 

education (Fasae and Bakare, 2016). These 

revelations suggest that the level of education of 

operators in the meat industry is low and could 

contribute to the unsafe handling of meat. 

Gender was thought pertinent to this study 

because men and women may have different 

ways of conduct. This may determine varying 

meat handling practices. This study revealed 

that men dominated the meat sector, as indicated 

in Table 1. This could be attributed to the 

masculine nature of the work at the abattoirs and 

butcher shops. The findings of this study are 

similar to those of other scholars (Abdeirazig et 

al., 2017; Kikulwe et al., 2018) who found 

males dominating several food value chain 

nodes compared to their female counterparts. 

Notably, in Nigeria, 100% of beef handlers were 

male (Fasae and Bakare, 2016). Given the 

findings, men seem to dominate in sectors 

where activities may be strenuous.  

 

Table- 1: Number of Respondents by Education and gender  

Variable Abattoir operators  Butcher shops operators  

No frmal Education  7 (6.7 %) 5 (1.4%) 

Primary Education 51 (48.6%) 154 (43.4%) 

Secndary Educatin 35 (33.3%) 164 (46.2%) 

Tertiary Educatin 7 (6.7%) 16 (4.5%) 

Graduate 5 (4.8%)  16 (4.5%) 

Male 103 (98.1%) 352 (99.2%) 

Female  2 (1.9%) 3 (0.8%) 

 

Meat handling practices at slaughterhouses 

and butcher shops  

Results from observations at abattoirs 

(slaughterhouses) showed that tools and 

carcasses were being handled unhygienically 

during and after the slaughter process, as shown 

in Plate 1.  

 

 

Plate 1: Unhygienic slaughter process: on floor slaughter (left) and unhygienic meat handling 

practices at a slaughterhouse (right) 



East Afr. J. Biophys. Comput. Sci. (2023), Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-17 
 

7 

It was noted that workers wore dirty and torn 

protective wear, kept knives in gumboots, and 

carried meat over clothes. Also, flaying and 

dressing were done on the dirty floor. Most 

slaughterhouses did not separate stunning rooms 

from other processes. The slaughterhouses in all 

the study districts had substandard facilities and  

lacked design requirements per the standard for 

the design and construction of slaughter areas 

(UNBS, 2017). This seems not to have 

improved since an earlier study in Uganda also 

confirmed similar flaying practices and dressing 

on the floor (Bogere and Baluka, 2014). A 

similar study in Northern Nigeria reported that 

slaughterhouses lacked basic structures leading 

to unsafe meat (Bello et al., 2015). 

In an interview with one of the officials from 

the meat inspection unit, it was further 

explained that, particularly in Mbarara and 

Mbale, the slaughterhouses were operating 

below the required standards, unlike in 

Kampala, where a few were complying. The 

official attributed this to the fact that the rate of 

compliance to standards in Kampala, a city, is 

higher than in urban areas in other regions. This 

study noted that in Mbale and Mbarara, there 

was one meat inspector per district, unlike in 

Kampala. This could probably explain the 

revelation from one of the key informants that 

there is slightly fair compliance to better meat 

handling practices in the city. However, from 

the observation in this study, there was no clear 

distinction in terms of compliance with proper 

meat handling in all the study areas. This seems 

to concur with the Ministry of Agriculture 

Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) report, 

which indicated that Uganda lacks better 

slaughter facilities that respect health, food 

safety, and environmental standards (MAAIF, 

2020). In line with the current findings, a study 

in Abiia and the Immo states of Nigeria revealed 

low compliance of meat handlers to best 

practices (Iro et al., 2017). In Kenya, 

slaughterhouse meat handlers were not washing 

their hands, and equipment handling practices 

were inadequate (Wambui et al., 2017). These 

revelations suggest that Uganda is not the only 

country that does not meet the desired handling 

practices at slaughterhouses.  

Regarding butchery structures (meat shops), 

findings revealed that most (96.6%) of beef 

sales in the study were made from kiosks with 

no cold rooms. Other beef sales were made in 

open structures, under the tree and a few 

butchers (3%) owned kiosks with cold rooms, as 

shown in Plate 2. .  

 

Plate 2: The meat shops common in the study 

areas showing meat displayed along the dusty 

roads 

 

Most of the butchery establishments (96.6%) 

lacked cooling facilities. It was observed that 

meat is displayed for sale, exposing it to dust 

and flies. When one of the respondents was 

probed about why meat was being displayed in 

the open, he had this to say, 



East Afr. J. Biophys. Comput. Sci. (2023), Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-17 
 

8 

‘…You may not attract potential clients if you 

do not display your meat. That is what everyone 

selling meat does in this area. When customers 

come, they move around as they check out the 

best and attractive meat before deciding to buy. 

If you do not display, nobody will know that you 

are selling meat, and they might think that your 

stock is finished….’ 

This study indicates that meat retailers have 

been accustomed to displaying meat, and 

customers are used to buying meat on display. 

This could be attributed to the ignorance of both 

parties on proper meat handling and food safety 

standards. It is acknowledged that informal 

butcheries are widespread in Uganda (Agriterra, 

2012). In this study, it was also observed that 

most butcheries lacked fly-proof windows or 

doors to prevent the entry of insects, and none 

had running water. A similar study in Kampala, 

Uganda, found that most butcheries lacked a 

standard fly screen and fly-proof window 

(Mirembe et al., 2015). This means the flies can 

transmit pathogens/microbes from one point of 

meat sale to another, leading to unhygienic 

situations. The close proximity of several 

butcheries and their practice of sharing 

weighing scales, stones, and cutting tools 

created a high risk of cross-contamination. If 

one piece of shared equipment became 

contaminated, it could potentially spread to all 

the participating businesses. 

Storage facilities and transportation of beef 

According to hygiene requirements for a 

butchery, a chilly environment for storage is a 

requirement for optimum meat safety. It was, 

therefore, significant for this study to examine 

storage facilities in the study area. Study 

findings revealed that slaughterhouses in 

Kampala had chillers but were lacking in the 

slaughterhouses in Mbarara and Mbale. Meat 

shops lacked cold storage facilities; daily meat 

for sale was stocked, but if all was not sold, it 

was left hanging in the facility. Butcheries 

lacked cold storage rooms because there was no 

power supply coupled with limited innovation 

on solar usage in refrigeration. In one of the 

discussions with the veterinary personnel, it was 

revealed that butcher operators in Mbarara and 

Mbale were reluctant to use cold storage rooms 

because the temperatures were not as high as in 

Kampala. This was also on the assumption that 

in places with cool temperatures, the spoilage 

rate and level of contamination may be below. 

In contrast, the contamination rates and levels 

are higher in the wet and rainy seasons 

(Bagumire and Karumuna, 2017). Another 

reason that was provided for not refrigerating 

meat was that customers consider refrigerated 

meat not to be fresh, as one respondent during 

the interviews noted: 

‘You see most customers when they come, 

especially in the morning, they want to see the 

meat dripping with blood, and they even caution 

you that…please do not give me any meat that 

stayed overnight…some even check to confirm it 

is not chilled.’ For that matter, I do not store 

meat in the chillers.  

In relation to this study, Agriterra (2012) 

reported that enormous roadside small-scaled 

butcheries in Kampala lacked refrigeration. The 

butchers preferred to buy meat in relatively 

small quantities that could be sold in one day. 

Agriterra further reveals that the butchery 

structures were not appropriate according to the 

Ugandan standard on hygienic requirements of 

butcheries (UNBS, 2007). In Kenya, Chepkemoi 

et al. (2015) noted that butcher shops in Nairobi 

and Isiolo counties stored meat by hanging it in 



East Afr. J. Biophys. Comput. Sci. (2023), Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-17 
 

9 

open spaces. Similarly,  a study in South Sudan 

noted that many meat-selling structures were 

open shelters and kiosks that left meat hanging 

in the open air (Aburi, 2012). These revelations 

portray poor storage conditions, which can 

accelerate microbial growth and hence quicken 

meat contamination. 

Transportation is another aspect that 

compromises the hygiene of meat and hence its 

safety. The conditions of transporting meat 

should provide adequate protection from 

contamination (Rani et al., 2017). This study 

aimed to understand how meat was transported, 

especially from slaughterhouses to butcheries. 

The results of the present study indicated that 

the majority (54%) of the carcass (beef) was 

transported by motorcycles, followed by 

bicycles (25%), and a few (1%) used wheel 

barrows or shoulder-to-shoulder logs. 

Motorcycles were not only popular in Uganda 

for transporting meat but also in Ghana, where 

the majority (93%) of the butcher men transport 

beef on bicycles, motorbikes, and motorized 

tricycles, popularly known as motor kings under 

very unhygienic conditions (Fearon et al., 

2014). This study also observed that sometimes 

meat was carried in sacs or polythene bags and 

would drip blood, attracting dust and flies along 

the way. This is unlike Kenya, where meat is 

mostly transported in metallic containers 

(Chepkemoi et al., 2015). In this study, 

motorcycles were also loaded with wooden 

boxes where beef is placed and then covered 

during transportation, but some were left open. 

In Kenya, Chepkemoi et al. (2015) noted that 

metallic boxes in which meat is transported are 

mainly closed. Covering meat is important 

because in cases where the boxes are left open, 

and meat is not wrapped, it may expose it to 

dust, flies, and other sorts of contamination. 

There are standards for transporting and 

handling meat at both the global and local 

levels. For instance, the code of hygienic 

practice for meat requires that it is handled, 

stored, and transported in a manner that will 

protect it from contamination and deterioration 

(CAC/RCP, 2005). The modes of transport of 

meat should maintain proper refrigeration 

temperatures at critical points such as loading 

and off-loading (Richardson et al., 2009). 

However, refrigeration is unavailable in some 

abattoirs and during transportation in 

developing countries (Aburi, 2012; Agriterra, 

2012; Chepkemoi et al., 2015; Rani et al., 

2017). Poor modes of transport like shoulder-to-

shoulder logs provide a conducive environment 

for contamination with and growth of some 

pathogenic and spoilage micro-organisms that 

would put consumers at risk.  

Occurrences of beef spoilage at butcher shops 

Beef spoilage could be common in facilities 

with poor storage and handling practices. Study 

results indicate that beef spoilage was common 

in butcheries. The kind of beef spoilage 

occurring at the slaughter included; bad odor, 

bruised meat, change of color, and rotting, 

among others, due to beef overstay at the point 

of sale. Over 85.3% of butchery operators 

reported beef spoilage, as in table 2.  

Meat handling practices at slaughterhouses 

and butcher shops  

Results from observations at abattoirs 

(slaughterhouses) showed that tools and 

carcasses were being handled unhygienically 

during and after the slaughter process, as shown 

in Plate 1.  

 



East Afr. J. Biophys. Comput. Sci. (2023), Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-17 
 

10 

Table 2:  Frequency of beef spoilage occurrence at Butcher shops 

    Mbarara Kampala Mbale Average 

% Occurrence of 

beef spoilage 

Yes 102(85.2%) 100 (75.5%) 97 (95.1%) 85.3 

No 18 (14.8%) 33 (24.5%) 5(4.9%) 14.7 

% Occurrence of 

beef spoilage 

Daily 37 (27.9%) 41(34.4%) 37 (36.3%) 32.8 

Weekly 52 (39.3%) 28 (22.9%) 33 (32.4%) 31.5 

Biweekly 4 (3.3%) 1 (0.5%) 2 (2.0%) 1.9 

Monthly 18 (13.2%) 18 (15.1%) 17 (16.7%) 15.0 

Occasionally 2 (1.6%) 3 (2.1%) 8 (7.8%) 3.9 

Not applicable 20 (14.8%) 30 (25%) 5 (4.9%) 14.9 

Type of spoilage 

incurred (%) 

Bad odor 20 (14.8%) 1 (1.0%) 13(12.7%) 9.5 

Meat changes color 4 (3.4%) 8 (6.7%) 7 (6.9%) 5.6 

Rots after some days 22 (16.4%) 9 (7.8%) 12 (11.8%) 12.0 

Bruised meat 2 (1.6%) 3 (2.1%) 3 (2.9%) 2.2 

Drip loss 20 (14.8%) 19 (15.6%) 14 (13.7%) 14.7 

Beef wastes 48 (36.1%) 51 (42.7%) 48 (47.1%) 41.9 

Not applicable 17 (13.1%) 29 (24.0%) 5 (4.9%) 14.0 

The fate of spoilt 

beef 

Given to dog owners for free 22 (16.4%) 10 (8.3%) 39 (38.2%) 21.0 

Thrown away 89 (67.2%) 62 (51.6%) 9 (8.8%) 42.5 

Sells it to clients for dogs 20 (14.8%) 48 (40.1%) 33 (32.4%) 29.1 

Takes it home for consumption 2 (1.6%) 0 (0%) 21 (20.6%) 7.4 

 

Daily, the average beef spoilage was reported at 

32.8% in the study areas. The respondents at the 

butcher shops indicated that, at times, beef that 

remains at the end of the day is left hanging in 

the retail premises because of a limited 

refrigeration system. Similarly, butcher shops in 

Nairobi and Isiolo Counties, Kenya, also store 

meat by hanging it in open spaces (Chepkemoi 

et al., 2015). In this study, meat sales are made 

near dusty roadsides, and the meat is displayed 

for customers by hanging it on the veranda 

(close to the road). This exposes meat to 

contamination, accelerating the rate at which 

meat may get spoilt. A study in Uganda found 

that enormous roadside small-scaled butcheries 

in Kampala lacked refrigeration (Agriterra, 

2012) and could accelerate beef spoilage. A 

previous pilot study in Uganda revealed that any 

balance of meat was either stored in the freezer 

or left hanging in the butchery. In contrast, the 

rest of the butcheries sold off the balance 

cheaply to avoid carry-over to another day 

(Kyayesimira et al., 2018). The beef left 

hanging in the butchery overnight is susceptible 

to microbial growth that quickens spoilage. 

This study revealed that meat not sold off is 

carried on to the next day, mixed with fresh 

stock and sold to unsuspecting customers. One 

of the attendants of a butcher shop (key 

informant) confirmed this practice by saying: 

‘Normally the meat that stays is very little and 

so to avoid making losses when a customer 

comes, we cut fresh meat and as we measure the 



East Afr. J. Biophys. Comput. Sci. (2023), Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-17 
 

11 

amount requested by the customer, we add on 

the meat of the previous day’. 

This practice is absurd since it lures consumers 

into thinking that the shops are selling fresh 

meat but instead, the meat is mixed with the 

previous stock, which may be spoilt. Mixing 

fresh stock with the previous one 

(unrefrigerated) may also contribute to the rate 

at which all stock may get spoilt.   

This study observed that meat tending to 

spoilage attracted many fly populations. It was 

also revealed that when the environment of the 

meat-selling premises is not hygienic,  it acts as 

fly breeding grounds that swim to butcher shops 

worsening the hygienic conditions of the 

premises and the meat. This situation could lead 

to a disease outbreak. As noted, in Thailand, 

there was a linkage between fly populations 

associated with disease outbreaks and cases of 

food-associated pathogens, for instance, Vibrio 

fluvialis, E. coli, Vibrio cholera and 

Campylobacter spp (Graczyk et al., 2001).  

It was in the interest of this study to find out 

where the spoilt beef was taken. Findings 

revealed that the fate of beef after spoilage was 

to throw it away, as was reported by 42.5% of 

respondents, 29.1% reported that the spoilt meat 

was sold to clients, while 7.4% mentioned that 

they took it home for consumption. When 

probed about it, the respondents claimed that 

despite the unpleasant odour, it may not pose a 

danger to consumers’ health if it is well cooked. 

The respondent's perspectives seem to concur 

with Bogere and Baluka (2014),who also noted 

that microorganisms might be destroyed if 

cooking is effectively conducted. However, in 

some households where raw meat is consumed, 

it could pose a health risk.  

Other respondents explained that spoilt meat is 

roasted first to eliminate the unpleasant odour, a 

delicacy in some households. These revelations 

indicate that operators lack adequate knowledge 

regarding food safety and its health 

implications.  

Meat inspection at slaughter and butcher 

shops 

Meat inspection is crucial in the meat industry 

because it ensures meat safety and hygiene. 

During the study, it was observed that there 

were no meat inspections taking place at the 

slaughter slabs. Instead, the inspection was 

observed being conducted at the 

slaughterhouses. This may not conform to 

effective monitoring principles, where every 

stage in the slaughtering process is critical for 

meat safety. Abattoir operators informed the 

study that meat inspectors are supposed to 

inspect the meat that is slaughtered before it is 

distributed to clients. At butcher shops, 

respondents revealed that the team from the 

district does inspections. However, there seems 

to be concerns that meat inspection in Uganda 

has been inadequate. For instance, Bogere and 

Baluka (2014) noted that the inspection of 

abattoirs and butcher shops by both the 

veterinary and public health inspectors had been 

insufficient. Thus, the meat safety and hygiene 

standards have deteriorated (Bogere and Baluka, 

2014). It should be noted that butcher’s shops 

act as links between the inspected and approved 

safe meat for consumption, and therefore, 

inspection in the whole meat value chain is 

crucial for ensuring meat safety (Waldman et 

al., 2020). 

At the slaughterhouses, it is a requirement to 

conduct ante mortem inspections. This study 

established that Kampala district had higher 


	EAJBCS__Volume_4_Issue_1_Article 1_ Juliet and Muheirwe_ Beef handling Practices at Abattoirs and Butcher Shops in Uganda.pdf (p.7-23)
	INTRODUCTION
	EXTENSION OF THE MODIFIED MODEL INTO AN OPTIMAL CONTROL
	Optimal protection and hospitalization using modified model
	Existence of an optimal control
	The Hamiltonian and optimality system

	Numerical simulations of optimal control problem
	Optimal control comparisons and strategies

	CONCLUSION
	INTRODUCTION
	INTRODUCTION
	INTRODUCTION
	EXTENSION OF THE MODIFIED MODEL INTO AN OPTIMAL CONTROL
	Optimal protection and hospitalization using modified model
	Existence of an optimal control
	The Hamiltonian and optimality system

	Numerical simulations of optimal control problem
	Optimal control comparisons and strategies

	CONCLUSION
	INTRODUCTION
	INTRODUCTION

