Municipal Live markets, Slaughterhouses and Waste Systems in Developing Countries, final report feb 2009

WORLD BANK STUDY - CONTRACT 7142400

GLOBAL STUDY OF LIVESTOCK MARKETS, SLAUGHTERHOUSES

AND RELATED WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

FINAL REPORT

February 2009

in�association�with�

Nippon Koei in association with Global Study of Livestock Markets, Slaughterhouses ProAnd Associates Australia and Related Waste Management Systems

Final Report

WORLD BANK STUDY - CONTRACT 7142400

GLOBAL STUDY OF LIVESTOCK MARKETS, SLAUGHTERHOUSES


FINAL REPORT

February 2009


Final Report ES - 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Introduction

(a) Background

Solid waste management, and to a lesser extent wastewater management, has been given a relatively high priority in developing countries over the past 15-20 years, often with great success. However, one particular area of neglect has been wastes generated by urban livestock markets, slaughterhouses, and related facilities. In developing countries these are typically municipal facilities that are often old, in poor condition, and operating well beyond their original design capacity. If not appropriately treated and disposed, wastes from such facilities pose a high risk to public health and the environment.

Due to population growth, urbanization, and increased per capita demand for meat products, livestock and poultry production is projected to grow four times faster in developing countries than in high-income countries, with growth in pork and poultry more than twice the growth in the production of ruminate meat. Figure 1 shows the historical and projected meat production in developed and developing countries for the period 1980 to 2030. Between 1980 and 2004 the consumption of meat and poultry in developing countries increased three-fold, see Figure 2. Nevertheless, it is estimated that 800 million people worldwide still suffer chronic under-nutrition and hunger; thus, the growth in livestock and poultry production is expected to continue to escalate with a resulting increase in the quantity of livestock wastes generated.

Approximately 675 million rural poor are sustained by livestock-related income or ownership; however, large-scale production is now responsible for most of the growth in livestock and poultry production and rural small holders have seen little benefit. Large-scale intensive livestock production is growing at six-times the annual growth of grazing production and the majority of this growth is around urban areas, where demand is greatest and infrastructure and resources are available for the distribution of animal products and by-products.

In addition to the settlement of large-scale livestock production close to urban areas, there is often extensive informal rearing of domestic animals and birds in peri-urban households and urban slums. This situation is unregulated and a potential source of disease and its spread. It is estimated that more than 60% of all human infectious diseases originate from animal sources and, in the past two decades, 75% of all emerging human diseases originated from livestock (Cointreau, 2007). Recent diseases that have been widely reported include SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), avian influenza, encephalopathy from mad cow disease, West Nile, Lyme disease, and Ebola. There is a growing recognition that animal health is very closely linked to human health and, as yet, these emerging diseases remain incurable. Exposure to livestock and particularly livestock wastes, therefore, provides conditions for emerging diseases and the vectors

Figure 2 – World Meat Consumption (Source FAO)

Figure 1 – World Meat Production (Source FAO)


Final Report ES - 2

needed for the transmission of disease. In addition the globalization of trade and ease of travel only exacerbate this situation. This paper describes the main fieldwork findings with respect to urban livestock and slaughter wastes and their potential implications on public health and the environment. Proposed outline solutions are also discussed.

(b) The Study

The study is was undertaken for the World Bank, through a Japan country-tied fund, to identify what livestock and slaughter wastes are generated in developing countries and how they are treated and/or disposed. The main aim of the Study is to develop global guidance for potential Bank interventions in the livestock market and slaughter sector. The main objectives of the Study are to:

x Gather data on livestock markets, municipal slaughter facilities (abattoirs), meat processing, and related systems of waste management;

x Examine the prevalence, handling, treatment, disposal, and recycling of wastes;

x Collect and examine available data on related bio-security and food safety issues;

x Identify and report on the problems and needs of the facilities; and

x Identify appropriate technical options to develop guidance for use by municipalities.

The main issues pertinent to the Study comprise the following:

x Waste generation, treatment, and disposal.

x Physical infrastructure.

x Animal welfare.

x Cultural and religious issues.

x Disease and disease control.

x Animal feeds and use of antibiotics.

Of particular interest, is the re-use and recycling of animal wastes; a business that can often be as large as the slaughter business itself, and yet is unregulated in developing countries.

(c) Data Collection

Whilst much data is available for the livestock sector in general, few data have been recorded about the livestock and slaughter wastes generated, nor the methods for treatment and disposal of such wastes. This lack of published data has made the collection of new primary data essential and a main task of the Study. As such, the Study included country reconnaissance visits to five developing countries to collect data first hand from actual facilities in order to bridge this huge knowledge gap. The countries were selected from five of the World Bank’s six geographical regions and one major city was selected in each for the collection of primary data. Selection criteria for the reconnaissance visits included, amongst other items, the following:

x Two countries to be Muslim or have a large Muslim population.

x Both middle and low-income countries are to be represented.

x Each selected city must be the capital or another large city.

Whilst this methodology does not provide a fully representative profile for each country, let alone a profile of each region, it does provide sufficient opportunity to identify and highlight the main practices and areas of concern in developing countries within a fixed study budget.

The country reconnaissance visits included meetings with national government agencies (for agriculture, animal production, animal health, public health, and the environment) and local authorities responsible for municipal facilities and services. The main focus for data collection, however, was on field visits to facilities where the wastes are generated, treated, and/or disposed. Such facilities comprised livestock markets, slaughterhouses, meat processing plants, and waste treatment and disposal facilities. To complete the picture, visits to public markets, supermarkets, and retail butchers where also undertaken. Due to the


Final Report ES - 3

sensitive nature of the report material the countries and locations visited must remain confidential, as requested by the World Bank.

2. Livestock and Slaughter Wastes

The definition of livestock and slaughter wastes can vary based on the perspective of the industry in question, the country involved, and local cultural and religious practices. For example, the slaughter and meat processing industries utilize many parts of the animal, not just the meat, and as such all parts of the animal that can be used are considered by-products and not wastes. In fact, within this industry, the processing and sale of these “by-products” are essential for commercial viability and reducing the quantity of waste for final disposal. Animal products, therefore, only become a waste if they have no commercial value or incur a cost to the business; hence, it is difficult to establish an exact definition.

For the purposes of this Study, however, a simpler waste management perspective has been employed, with livestock and slaughter wastes being defined as any product that is not the meat tissue. Thus bones, hides, hooves, horns, and the multitude of offal products are also considered as wastes, even though they are often consumed, re-used, or recycled in various ways. Based on this definition of slaughter waste typically accounts for 45 to 60% of an animal’s weight, as illustrated in Table 1 for each of the main species farmed for consumption.

Table 1 – Typical Quantity of Waste per Species (Source: ProAnd Associates Australia Pty Ltd)

* Estimated because normally sold as a carcass (bone-in).

3. Main Fieldwork Findings

(a) General

The following general observations were made which can have a significant impact on the quantity of waste generated and how it is disposed; these are common to all of the developing countries visited:

x There is a general consumer preference for ‘fresh’ meat (i.e. no refrigeration or cold-chain) purchased at local markets or butcher shops each morning. The practice of buying freshly slaughtered meat and edible offal for cooking and consumption the same day currently negates the need for refrigeration.

x In contrast to high-income countries, edible offal products are in high demand, whether as expensive delicacies or simply as a source of low-cost protein for those that cannot afford meat products.

x There is generally a high incidence of informal slaughter; either at household level (mainly poultry and small-stock) or illegally by local retail butchers (small-stock and large ruminants). This presents a significant problem for the local authorities with respect to the control of waste, public health, and disease. It also reduces the income of the municipal slaughter facilities.

x Poultry suppliers have been most successful at intensification of slaughter and processing activities and the establishment of modern slaughter facilities. However, live poultry is still preferred in most developing countries, whether slaughtered at the public market or at household level.

(b) Waste Management

The main findings relating to the management of livestock and slaughter wastes are:

x The high incidence of informal and illegal slaughtering results in many livestock and slaughter

Species Weight (kg) Carcass (%)

Meat (%) Waste (kg)

Cattle 350 55 40 210.0 Pig 70 72 55 31.5 Sheep/Goat 30 47 40* 18.0 Poultry 2 66 56* 0.88


Final Report ES - 4

wastes products being dumped illegally or disposed with municipal wastes resulting in public health risks and increasing the number of scavenging animals.

x The proportion of wastes re-used or recycled is generally high because almost every item has a financial value, due to low processing costs and low-incomes. This means that little waste is actually disposed to the formal waste management sector. Processing and treatment of these wastes, however, is a major concern with respect to public health, environmental pollution, and occupational health and safety; see Photos 1 and 2.

x There is little, if any, treatment of wastewater or contaminated stormwater runoff at livestock markets or slaughterhouses. Liquid wastes are typically discharged untreated to drains and local watercourses irrespective of other water users downstream, often affecting the urban poor who may use the water for bathing, washing clothes, cooking, and even drinking.

x Although blood is potentially a valuable commodity produced during the slaughter process, there is often no market demand or cultural/religious beliefs may prevent its collection. In other circumstances, however, poor slaughtering facilities and lack of process control prevent the effective collection of blood. Therefore, blood is often wasted to drains and local watercourses contaminating them with high organic load and providing a vector for disease, see Photo 3.

Photo 1 – Processing of cattle slaughter wastes on the floor of a slaughter facility.

Photo 2 – Processing of goat heads and feet in very poor and unsanitary working

Photo 4 – Emergency slaughter waste dumped in the road outside the

Photo 3 – Blood, unborn calves, and other slaughter wastes discharging to the public


Final Report ES - 5

x Unwanted animal wastes are often disposed at municipal disposal sites. These sites are typically open dumpsites with few facilities, where municipal staff, waste-pickers, and scavenging animals are in abundance and are directly exposed to animal wastes, see Photos 4 and 5. The sites have no facilities for hazardous or special wastes and present significant disease risks. In some cases unwanted animal wastes are dumped in the street, see Photo 6.

x Large quantities of animal manure and poultry litter are used as fertilizer without any composting process, providing potential routes for disease spread through crops.

x Biogas production and composting are not commonplace in urban areas because there is generally no local demand for the gas and space for composting is very limited. Also, the supply of biogas and compost products to rural customers from the city is not financially viable due to high transport costs.

(c) Conditions at Municipal Livestock Markets and Slaughterhouses

The main findings at municipal facilities are as follows:

x Most municipal slaughterhouses and many urban livestock markets are located in densely populated urban areas, creating nuisance in terms of traffic congestion, odours, and pollution (noise, air, and water). Slaughterhouses typically operate during the night and noise can be a significant problem.

x Vehicular access at most livestock markets and slaughterhouses is very poor, with little or no parking and limited loading / unloading space. This creates severe congestion in some cases, stressing livestock further.

x Security of sites, particularly slaughterhouses, can be wholly inadequate allowing access to many non-facility personnel, stray animals, and even children who are directly exposed to animal wastes and provide uncontrolled vectors for livestock related diseases. The private sector is generally much stricter.

x Physical infrastructure at urban markets and slaughterhouse is typically old and in need of urgent rehabilitation. Infrastructure and equipment at municipal slaughterhouses, in particular, are very poor and in many cases new facilities may be the only option for medium to long-term solutions, see Photos 7 and 8.

x Hygiene and sanitation facilities are poor or non-existent at livestock markets and slaughterhouses and open defecation is practiced in and around these facilities by staff of the facilities, visitors, and the general public.

x Utility services are inadequate and, as such, water supply and lighting are poor; hot water is rarely provided and slaughter utensils are not properly cleaned and sterilized.

Photo 5 – Putrefying slaughter waste disposed at a municipal dumpsite amidst

Photo 6 – Cattle scavenging amongst municipal solid waste and animal wastes at


Final Report ES - 6

x Occupational health and safety is given a low priority and at slaughterhouses, in particular, safety equipment and protective clothing are inadequate and in most cases non-existent. Given the poor conditions at these facilities and the current working practices, it is believed that minor accidents and possibly more serious accidents occur on a regular basis.

x There is little or no formal training of workers or professional staff at slaughter facilities; so existing, and often inappropriate, working practices remain unchanged.

x Slaughter facilities and working procedures are often poor and obsolete; although the workers themselves are often highly-skilled.

x Process control at slaughterhouses is inadequate, with most municipal facilities operating on a batch slaughter system with many activities taking place at the same location with no proper separation of clean and dirty areas; hence contamination of carcasses is commonplace, see Photos 9 and 10.

x Ante and post mortem inspections by veterinary staff or trained meat inspectors are typically non-existent and, where inspection is carried out, it is inadequate and hampered by poor lighting conditions. This creates a significant food safety risk, as meat from diseased animals can easily be distributed for human consumption.

x Municipal slaughter facilities are typically old and operating significantly over capacity, with little if any space for upgrading or expansion. Reduction of the thriving informal sector in some countries is unlikely to materialize without significant changes and new facilities to provide the additional capacity needed.

Photo 7 – Front of a pig slaughterhouse showing poor physical infrastructure.

Photo 8 – Rear of the same pig slaughterhouse.

Photo 10 – Batch slaughter of cattle with other animals in close proximity

Photo 9 – Overcrowded goat slaughterhouse during slaughtering (batch slaughter)


Final Report ES - 7

x Slaughterhouses often only work one-shift to satisfy the market demand for “fresh” un-refrigerated meat each morning. Many facilities operate only 5-days per week to suit local religious and cultural practices.

x Slaughter waste material is most often sold to third parties for processing or rendering; although in some countries the edible offal accompanies the carcass from the slaughterhouse to the owner/butcher.

x Handling and transport of edible and inedible offal products are generally poor and contamination of edible material is normal.

(d) Animal Welfare

Typical findings from the reconnaissance visits include the following:

x Animal welfare at all facilities requires significant improvement, with major changes to transport, treatment, and facilities needed.

x Livestock are often not watered, even on long journeys, arriving at markets and slaughterhouses dehydrated, in poor physical condition, and severely stressed. A high proportion of “downers” (collapsed animals) were observed at some livestock markets and slaughterhouses, see Photos 11 and 12.

x Loading and unloading facilities at markets are often poor or non-existent and thus livestock can be injured easily as they are man-handled off trucks.

x Livestock are often tied and left without food and water at markets; and control by herders is usually with sticks with which they hit or sometimes beat the animals.

x Livestock are often already severely stressed as they make there way to slaughter. This is exacerbated by entrances to slaughter areas that are dark, narrow, slippery, and often up inclines. It is not natural for animals to enter such spaces; therefore, it is not unusual for the animals to be forced in and often animals panic and become injured in the process.

x Stunning and slaughter practices vary, but all are inadequate in terms of animal welfare and worker safety. Where stunning is used, the methods employed, for cattle in particular, often only paralyze the animal, rather than rendering it unconscious. This leaves the animal in serious pain and distress until the slaughter cut is made, which is often not carried out immediately.

x In the majority of slaughterhouses visited, batch slaughtering is practiced and animals are in close proximity to others being slaughtered and in distress; from stunning through to decapitation, skinning, and evisceration. This practice can be extremely stressful to the animals.

Photo 11 – Animal collapsed after unloading, severely stressed and dehydrated.

Photo 12 – Emaciated animal, unable to walk, for emergency slaughter.


Final Report ES - 8

(e) Cultural and Religious Issues

Observations during the reconnaissance visits included the following:

x Differing interpretations were seen between Muslim countries with respect to the handling and physical condition of animals for slaughter.

x Interpretations of halal slaughter practices differed, of which some are detrimental to animal welfare.

x In some Muslim countries blood is collected, yet in others it is disposed to the drainage system.

x Some countries operate slaughterhouses everyday whilst others operate only five days per week, mainly for religious reasons.

x Home slaughter is normal practice in some countries and is almost universal for certain holidays, festivals, and other special occasions.

(f) Related Issues

The Study has identified several areas which can have a significant impact on livestock wastes but are beyond the main scope of the Study; these include:

x Disease and Disease Control: Lack of planning, coordination, and regulation by governments is evident, leaving developing countries in a poor position to cope if a major disease outbreak occurs. As a result, the disposal of diseased animal carcasses during disease outbreaks is a very significant waste management issue, posing very serious public health and disease spread.

x Animal Feeds and Antibiotic Use: More intensive farming of animals is evident and as such the use of animal feeds and supplements is increasing. A significant area of concern, however, is the increasing and unregulated use of growth promoters and the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in animal production. Residuals contained in livestock wastes are therefore becoming a significant area of concern.

x Institutional Issues: Although legislation is often in place, poor regulation, enforcement, and corruption are commonplace resulting in an extensive informal / illegal slaughtering sector (up to 80% in one country visited).

4. Development of Solutions

To improve the existing livestock and slaughter waste situation in developing countries there are a number of key areas that need to be addressed. These will require improvement and often significant changes, not only to physical infrastructure for waste management facilities but also to working practices, facility management, regulations, and enforcement. It is important, therefore, to adopt a holistic approach to solving current animal waste related problems and to consider cost effective and appropriate technologies and practices that will be sustainable into the future.

Core areas that the Study addresses with respect to improving the environment and public health are:

x Waste management;

x Physical infrastructure and processes;

x Animal welfare; and

x Cultural and religious practices.

Other related, but non-core study areas, such as disease control; legislation, regulation, and enforcement; and capacity building and institutional strengthening, where significant deficiencies have been identified by the Study, will require additional funding and studies to identify appropriate solutions and interventions.


Final Report ES - 9

(a) Waste Management

Due to the potential risks associated with livestock and slaughter wastes, appropriate handling, treatment, and disposal are essential; not dissimilar to the disposal of hospital pathogenic waste, which can be very costly. In contrast to hospital wastes, market and slaughter wastes are generated in much greater volumes and economically viable methods must be considered for the disposal of diseased animals, pathogenic material, and other unwanted animal wastes, all of which pose serious public health concerns. In high-income countries, there are numerous categories of animal wastes that must be disposed according to their disease risk. Some high-risk wastes infected with BSE will require high-temperature incineration, whilst other low-risk materials can be rendered to produce animal feeds and pet food. All of this, however, requires strict regulation, effective veterinary inspection, high capital and operational expenditure, and the availability of technology and capability; none of which are readily available in developing countries.

For developing countries, with limited capacity and funds, it is important to consider local conditions very carefully and identify key areas for specific and targeted improvements aimed at minimizing the quantities of waste generated that require collection and off-site disposal. Waste minimization and management solutions being considered include:

Livestock Markets

x Improve facilities for the collection of animal waste (dung) and reducing pollution of local watercourses through the provision of appropriate hard-standing areas and drainage.

x Encourage waste collection and re-use, e.g. dung cakes for fuel, composting, and fertilizer.

Slaughterhouses

x Encourage the collection and processing of blood, to remove it from waste systems.

x Improve collection facilities for animal wastes, in particular for blood and stomach contents.

x Improve storage areas for solid wastes.

x Improve wastewater collection systems and introduce appropriate treatment technologies that are not dependent on chemicals and expensive electro-mechanical equipment.

x Formalize and regulate the slaughter waste re-use and recycling sector to improve occupational health and safety, public health, and minimize waste quantities for disposal.

x Provide simple education and awareness training for all related industries with respect to waste, disease, and disease risks.

Waste Collection and Disposal

x Improve solid waste disposal facilities with separate areas for livestock/slaughter wastes.

x Formalize existing waste picking activities at disposal sites and improve site fencing/security.

x Encourage the use of composting techniques for livestock and slaughter wastes.

(b) Physical Infrastructure and processes

Conditions at municipal livestock markets and slaughterhouses in developing countries can vary considerably but, in general, physical infrastructure is old and in need of urgent rehabilitation and in many cases replacement. This is particularly the case with municipal slaughterhouses where lack of investment over the past 25-30 years coupled with high population growth over the same period has resulted in facilities that are obsolete and unable to process the number of animals demanded by the market. Dense urbanization around many livestock markets and slaughterhouses now prevents their expansion / improvement and focuses the community on their activities. Private slaughter facilities, on the other hand, are generally located outside urban areas and are often modern and hygienic. These typically service export or niche markets, however, as they are unable to compete on price for the mass market.


Final Report ES - 10

Solutions currently being considered for physical infrastructure and process improvements include:

Livestock Markets

x Improve drainage and provide catch-pits or interceptors for collecting solid material.

x Provide appropriate water and sanitation facilities, including health awareness training.

Slaughterhouses

x Improve physical infrastructure, utility services, and provide appropriate levels of equipment and training to allow more new and more hygienic conditions to be maintained.

x Provide areas for the essential separation of “clean” and “dirty” processes.

x Provide new and/or improved areas for the re-use and recycling of slaughter wastes.

(c) Animal Welfare

The welfare of animals is a very important issue and everything possible should be done to ensure that animals are handled, transported, protected from the elements, and watered from farm until slaughter. Good animal welfare is rewarded with healthy animals, less disease, and ultimately better quality meat. Poor animal welfare, on the other hand, results in the opposite as is primarily the case in developing countries, though some fare better than others. Although little published data is currently available, recent evidence suggests that, in addition to poor quality meat, diseased animals stressed prior to and during slaughter produce pathogen levels at least 10 times the normal level and possibly more. This is a significant issue for disease control and public health, especially in developing countries where many diseases are endemic and occupational health and safety and control of wastes in slaughterhouses is very poor.

Improvements currently being considered for animal welfare include:

x Improve animal welfare through education and training coupled with physical infrastructure improvements to reduce stress on livestock.

x Improve pre-slaughter stunning and slaughter practices.

x Strengthen veterinary services/meat inspection and introduce more widespread use of ante and post mortem inspection at slaughterhouses.

(d) Cultural and Religious Practices

Cultural and religious practices vary from country to country and can have a significant effect on issues such as animal welfare, stunning and slaughtering, and animal wastes. Some proposals include:

x Improve animal welfare and slaughter practices through education and training.

x Reduce and eventually eradicate informal slaughtering through public awareness campaigns, improved legislation, and strengthening inspection and regulation.

x Improve efficiency of existing slaughterhouses by extending operating hours and introducing refrigeration. Requires a change in perception of what is considered “fresh meat” through public awareness campaigns.

5. Conclusions

The overriding conclusion from the Study is that livestock and slaughter wastes represent a very significant risk to public health and the environment. The current situation in developing countries provides ideal conditions for the emergence of new diseases, particularly those that can be transmitted from animals to humans. The increased movement of people and animals, through the globalization of trade and travel, also provides an ideal vector for the rapid spread of disease, as we have seen in recent years with SARS and avian influenza.

The livestock and slaughter waste sectors area are multi-faceted and cannot be considered simply as a waste problem in isolation. Other factors such as animal welfare, veterinary services, physical infrastructure,



hygiene and sanitation, cultural and religious practices, regulation, and institutional capacity need to be carefully considered. The re-use and recycling of slaughter wastes, in particular, is a very important area where interventions may prove to be useful in controlling and reducing waste quantities and for bringing it into the formal sector. However, the businesses in this sector are very cost sensitive and too much interference could render them unviable, with the resulting social and environmental consequences.

The complex relationship between all of the issues mentioned above requires a holistic approach that addresses the waste management problems through a combination of improvements, rather than interventions targeting specific areas in isolation.

6. Recommendations for Further Study / Action

With respect to infrastructure improvements, another World Bank study has recently commenced a review of the existing infrastructure conditions based on the findings and data gathered during this study, entitled “Global Study on Reconstruction of Public Live Market, Slaughter and Meat Processing Facilities, including Related Cost Recovery and Economic Instruments” also funded through a JCTF grant. Recommendations on appropriate improvements to facilities and cost estimates for case study countries will be developed that can be applied on a global scale to plan and implement appropriate interventions. This is the next step on the way to potential implementation of improvements to livestock markets, slaughterhouses, and related facilities.

In the meantime, however, worldwide awareness needs to be spread, particularly with international funding / financing agencies and most importantly with developing country members, through dissemination of appropriate knowledge, tools, and materials to the appropriate government departments in each of the member countries that could promote the implementation of initiatives at national and municipal level.

The World Bank is already embarking on a number of international workshops to raise awareness of this very important issue, with the aim of forming a global alliance of institutions; as the present study has shown, meaningful improvements will only be achieved when all the many issues and fields are addressed holistically, both in terms of technical approach and common budgets. Several institutions have been involved in separate aspects of study identified within the present report (for example animal welfare, disease) and many already have some excellent results, guidelines and so forth. However, taken independently they lack the punch, gravitas, and foresight to address all issues for the common good. The joining of forces between these agencies and institutions will be beneficial to all ends.

The alliance outlined above would be of particular benefit in dealing with the softer issues such as operational procedures and management, institutional reorganisation, and economic instruments.

Facility, municipality and government-level recommendations have been provided throughout the report, and are summarised above, and these considerations should be adopted during future upgrade works. Below is a summary of areas requiring further study, potentially as distinct project preparation studies or pilot projects.

The following further investigations, studies, and pilot projects are recommended in order to determine appropriate follow-on actions and fill some of the gaps in knowledge that have been identified by this study:

x Government structures with respect to enhancement of services and collaboration in the areas of animal welfare, veterinary services, public health, food safety, and disease control.

x Veterinary practices and meat inspection services appropriate for developing countries, including training materials.

x Animal welfare appropriate to developing countries, including training materials.

x Stunning and slaughter practices appropriate for developing countries, including training materials and home slaughter.

x Financial management of municipal livestock markets and slaughterhouses; how to improve financial sustainability and the role of the private sector.

x The informal sector and its complex interactions with the formal sector, cultural issues, and government policy.



x Professionalisation of the sector, and in particular the workers; through the creation of associations using an adaptation of the SWM model already developed by the World Bank.

x Public awareness programmes covering such issues as food hygiene and safety, animal welfare, safe and humane slaughter. Some of these could be accommodated with or linked to existing water, sanitation, and waste initiatives and could even be introduced at junior school level.

x Pilot projects for rehabilitation / reconstruction of livestock markets, slaughterhouses, and related infrastructure and services specifically for developing countries. This should include the development of generic plans and designs (or design parameters) for small, medium, and large municipal facilities, which can be applied to suit the varying local conditions in developing countries.

x Safe disposal methods for livestock and slaughter wastes in developing countries.

x The use of antimicrobials and feed additives in developing countries, including the prevalence and use of illegal or unregulated substances.

x The impact of livestock wastes discharged to aquaculture and its relevance to human and animal health, food safety, and disease control.

x Investigations into opportunities and constraints related to Carbon finance.

x Study of existing information gaps, such as:

o Facility finances.

o Actual prevalence of disease.

o Livestock market management issues.

o Basic working guidelines

x Development of model tender documents for encouragement of private sector involvement.

x Promotion of the public good issues associated with good practice within the slaughter industry.

x Development of a website devoted to the Global Alliance For Humane Sustainability.


Final Report (i)

GLOBAL STUDY OF

LIVESTOCK MARKETS, SLAUGHTERHOUSES


FINAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

1. Introduction.......................................................................................................1

1.1 Study Rationale and Objectives..............................................................................................1 1.2 Purpose of this Report ..........................................................................................................2 1.3 Background to the Study.......................................................................................................2

1.3.1 Overview .....................................................................................................................2 1.3.2 Human Diseases and Animal Sources .............................................................................4 1.3.3 Livestock Markets .........................................................................................................5 1.3.4 Slaughter Facilities........................................................................................................5 1.3.5 Livestock and Slaughter Wastes .....................................................................................6

1.4 Main Study Issues ................................................................................................................6 1.4.1 Waste Generation and Management ...............................................................................6 1.4.2 Animal Welfare.............................................................................................................6 1.4.3 Epidemiology and Disease Control..................................................................................7 1.4.4 Facility Infrastructure ....................................................................................................9 1.4.5 Animal Feeds and Use of Antibiotics ...............................................................................9 1.4.6 Cultural and Religious Issues .........................................................................................9 1.4.7 Environmental Issues ..................................................................................................11 1.4.8 Institutional Issues .....................................................................................................12

1.5 Stakeholders ......................................................................................................................12

2. Livestock and Slaughter Wastes......................................................................13

2.1 Definitions .........................................................................................................................13 2.2 Waste Products ..................................................................................................................13

3. Methodology for Data Collection .....................................................................17

3.1 Country and City Selection ..................................................................................................17 3.2 Survey Instruments ............................................................................................................17 3.3 The Study Team.................................................................................................................18 3.4 Country Reconnaissance Visits .............................................................................................19 3.5 Facilities Surveyed ..............................................................................................................22 3.6 Collection of Additional Data on Infrastructure ......................................................................22 3.7 Difficulties Experienced During Country Reconnaissance Visits ................................................22

4. Brief Country Overviews..................................................................................24

4.1 Low-Income Country 1 (East Asia and Pacific).......................................................................24


Final Report (ii)

4.2 Low-Income Country 2 (South Asia) .....................................................................................24 4.3 Low-Income Country 3 (Africa) ............................................................................................24 4.4 Middle-Income Country 1 (Middle East and North Africa)........................................................25 4.5 Middle Income Country 2 (Latin America and Caribbean) .......................................................25 4.6 Summary of Main Fieldwork Findings....................................................................................25

5. Waste Management .........................................................................................26

5.1 General .............................................................................................................................26 5.2 Overview of Municipal Solid Waste Management ...................................................................26

5.2.1 Low-Income Country 1 (East Asia and Pacific)...............................................................26 5.2.2 Low-Income Country 2 (South Asia) .............................................................................27 5.2.3 Low-Income Country 3 (Africa) ....................................................................................30 5.2.4 Middle-Income Country 1 (Middle East and North Africa)................................................33 5.2.5 Middle-Income Country 2 (Latin America and Caribbean) ...............................................35

5.3 Overview of Municipal Wastewater Management ...................................................................37 5.4 Overview of Wastes from the Livestock and Slaughter Sector .................................................39

5.4.1 Low-Income Country 1 (East Asia and Pacific)...............................................................39 5.4.2 Low-Income Country 2 (South Asia) .............................................................................41 5.4.3 Low-Income Country 3 (Africa) ....................................................................................44 5.4.4 Middle-Income Country 1 (Middle East and North Africa)................................................45 5.4.5 Middle-Income Country 2 (Latin America and Caribbean) ...............................................46

5.5 Wastes by Facility Type.......................................................................................................47 5.5.1 Livestock Market Wastes .............................................................................................47 5.5.2 Slaughterhouse Wastes ...............................................................................................52 5.5.3 Meat Processing Wastes ..............................................................................................65 5.5.4 Public Market Wastes ..................................................................................................65 5.5.5 Retail Sector Wastes ...................................................................................................67

5.6 Estimate of Slaughter Waste Quantities ................................................................................68 5.7 Summary and Discussion of Issues.......................................................................................70

6. Infrastructure and Services.............................................................................73

6.1 Introduction to Issues.........................................................................................................73 6.2 General Findings.................................................................................................................73 6.3 Livestock Markets ...............................................................................................................74

6.3.1 Location and Access....................................................................................................74 6.3.2 Infrastructure and Services..........................................................................................77

6.4 Slaughterhouses.................................................................................................................86 6.4.1 Location and Access....................................................................................................86 6.4.2 Infrastructure and Services..........................................................................................91

6.5 Public Markets.................................................................................................................. 115 6.6 Analysis of Infrastructure Issues ........................................................................................117

7. Operational Issues at Facilities .....................................................................119

7.1 Livestock Markets .............................................................................................................120 7.1.1 General....................................................................................................................120 7.1.2 Hygiene and Sanitation .............................................................................................121 7.1.3 Occupational Health and Safety ................................................................................. 122 7.1.4 Disease Risks ...........................................................................................................123

7.2 Slaughterhouses...............................................................................................................124


Final Report (iii)

7.2.1 Overview of Slaughter Operations .............................................................................. 124 7.2.2 Roles and Relationships.............................................................................................125 7.2.3 Hygiene and Sanitation .............................................................................................127 7.2.4 Process Control ........................................................................................................130 7.2.5 Fifth-Quarter Processing............................................................................................ 132 7.2.6 Occupational Health and Safety ................................................................................. 133 7.2.7 Disease Risks ...........................................................................................................133

7.3 Meat Processing Facilities ..................................................................................................135 7.3.1 Hygiene and Sanitation .............................................................................................135 7.3.2 Disease Risks ...........................................................................................................136

7.4 Public Markets.................................................................................................................. 136 7.4.1 General....................................................................................................................136 7.4.2 Hygiene, Sanitation, and Safety ................................................................................. 137 7.4.3 Disease Risks ...........................................................................................................137

7.5 Retail Sector .................................................................................................................... 138 7.5.1 General....................................................................................................................138 7.5.2 Hygiene, Sanitation, and Safety ................................................................................. 138 7.5.3 Disease Risks ...........................................................................................................139

7.6 Informal Sector ................................................................................................................139 7.6.1 General....................................................................................................................139 7.6.2 Hygiene, Sanitation, and Safety ................................................................................. 140 7.6.3 Disease Risks ...........................................................................................................141

7.7 Summary and Analysis of Operational Issues ...................................................................... 141

8. Animal Welfare and Transportation...............................................................145

8.1 Background...................................................................................................................... 145 8.2 Transportation .................................................................................................................147 8.3 Livestock Markets .............................................................................................................152 8.4 Slaughterhouses...............................................................................................................156

8.4.1 General....................................................................................................................156 8.4.2 Summary .................................................................................................................160

8.5 Public Markets.................................................................................................................. 162 8.6 Retail Butchers ................................................................................................................. 163 8.7 Informal Sector ................................................................................................................163 8.8 Sugggested Actions for Animal Welfare Improvement .......................................................... 164

9. Epidemiology, Disease Control and Public Health .........................................166

9.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 166 9.2 Overview of Epidemiology and Relevant Techniques ............................................................ 169

9.2.1 General....................................................................................................................169 9.2.2 Understanding Disease Causes and Transmission ........................................................ 170 9.2.3 Investigating Causes of Disease ................................................................................. 171 9.2.4 Measuring Disease Levels .......................................................................................... 171 9.2.5 Disease Monitoring and Surveillance...........................................................................171 9.2.6 Evaluating Costs of Disease and Disease Control ......................................................... 171 9.2.7 Developing Control Strategies .................................................................................... 172 9.2.8 Monitoring Efficiency of Control Strategies. ................................................................. 172

9.3 Disease Control Mechanisms..............................................................................................172 9.3.1 Fundamental Principles of Disease Control .................................................................. 172 9.3.2 Limiting Disease Spread ............................................................................................ 173 9.3.3 Endemic Disease Control and Outbreak Prevention ...................................................... 174


Final Report (iv)

9.3.4 Waste Management .................................................................................................. 175 9.3.5 Interactive Control Mechanisms ................................................................................. 176

9.4 Diseases Identified, Their Importance, and Global Distribution ............................................. 176 9.5 Effectiveness of Disease Control, Monitoring, and Surveillance Techniques ............................ 177

9.5.1 General....................................................................................................................177 9.5.2 Disease Identification and Reporting .......................................................................... 177 9.5.3 On-Farm Activities ....................................................................................................181 9.5.4 Market Activities .......................................................................................................182 9.5.5 Market Hygiene ........................................................................................................183 9.5.6 Slaughterhouse Activities...........................................................................................183 9.5.7 Public Markets ..........................................................................................................185 9.5.8 Retail Outlets ...........................................................................................................185 9.5.9 Supermarkets...........................................................................................................186 9.5.10 Informal Sector ........................................................................................................186 9.5.11 Waste Management .................................................................................................. 187

9.6 Public Health Issues..........................................................................................................188 9.7 Summary......................................................................................................................... 189

10. Environmental Issues ....................................................................................191

10.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 191 10.2 In-Country Status and Observations ................................................................................... 191

10.2.1 Background..............................................................................................................191 10.2.2 Solid Wastes ............................................................................................................192 10.2.3 Liquid Wastes...........................................................................................................194

10.3 Summary of Impacts and Issues ........................................................................................ 195 10.3.1 Solid Wastes ............................................................................................................195 10.3.2 Liquid Wastes...........................................................................................................196 10.3.3 Impact of Religious Considerations............................................................................. 196 10.3.4 Potential solutions ....................................................................................................197 10.3.5 The Environmental trade-off ......................................................................................198

11. Feed Additives and Anti-Microbials ...............................................................199

11.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 199 11.2 Agents of Concern ............................................................................................................199 11.3 Accidental Contamination ..................................................................................................201 11.4 Mechanisms for Control.....................................................................................................201 11.5 Regional Observations ...................................................................................................... 201

12. Technical Options...........................................................................................203

12.1 General ........................................................................................................................... 203 12.2 Overview of Livestock Markets in High-Income Countries ..................................................... 203 12.3 Overview of Meat Plant Waste Management in High-Income Countries.................................. 204

12.3.1 Legislation ...............................................................................................................204 12.3.2 Waste Products, Treatment, and Disposal ................................................................... 205 12.3.3 Seldom Used Technologies ........................................................................................222

12.4 Technical Options for Developing countries ......................................................................... 222 12.4.1 Overview .................................................................................................................222 12.4.2 Waste Treatment and Disposal ..................................................................................224 12.4.3 Technical Options by Facility Type.............................................................................. 226

12.5 Planning and Implementation ............................................................................................ 230


Final Report (v)

13. Institutional Issues and Financial & Economic Situation..............................233

13.1 Institutional Issues ...........................................................................................................233 13.1.1 Government Issues...................................................................................................233 13.1.2 Animal Health...........................................................................................................234 13.1.3 Devolution ...............................................................................................................234 13.1.4 Local Government Issues........................................................................................... 235 13.1.5 Informal Slaughter....................................................................................................235

13.2 Finance and Economics .....................................................................................................235 13.2.1 Background..............................................................................................................235 13.2.2 The Economics of Meat Quality and Disease................................................................ 236 13.2.3 Municipal Livestock Market and Slaughter Fees ........................................................... 236 13.2.4 Meat and Offal Prices ................................................................................................237 13.2.5 Financial and Economic Analyses................................................................................ 238 13.2.6 Economic Instruments and Benefitting from the Solid Waste Management Experience .... 238

14. Conclusions and Recommendations ..............................................................242

14.1 Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 242 14.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................247

14.2.1 General Recommendations ........................................................................................247 14.2.2 Recommendations for Further Study / Action .............................................................. 252


Final Report (vi)

List of Tables

Table 2.1 – Typical Wastes Generated by the Livestock Markets.....................................................13 Table 2.2 – Typical Wastes Generated by Slaughterhouses ............................................................14 Table 3.1 – Schedule of Country Visits .........................................................................................19 Table 3.2 – Fieldwork Responsibility Matrix...................................................................................20 Table 5.1 – Poultry Slaughter Wastes (Low-Income Country 1) ......................................................52 Table 5.2 – Pig Slaughter Wastes (Low-Income Country 1) ............................................................53 Table 5.3 – Cattle Slaughter Wastes (Low-Income Country 1) ........................................................53 Table 5.4 – Poultry Slaughter Wastes (Low-Income Country 2) ......................................................54 Table 5.5 – Ruminant Slaughter Wastes (Low-Income Country 2)...................................................54 Table 5.6 – Ruminant Slaughter Wastes (Low-Income Country 3)...................................................55 Table 5.7 – Pig Slaughter Wastes (Low-Income Country 3) ............................................................56 Table 5.8 – Breakdown of Waste Products as Percentage of Live Weight - Poultry ...........................69 Table 5.9 – Breakdown of Waste Products as Percentage of Live Weight – Sheep and Goats ............69 Table 5.10 – Breakdown of Waste Products as Percentage of Live Weight– Cattle .............................70 Table 5.11 – Breakdown of Waste Products as Percentage of Live Weight - Pigs................................70 Table 5.12 – Present Slaughter and Livestock Waste Related CDM Projects.......................................71 Table 7.1 – Number of Facilities Visited by Country ..................................................................... 119 Table 7.2 - Estimated Size of Informal Slaughter Sector .............................................................. 140 Table 8.1 – Level of Welfare Score............................................................................................. 146 Table 8.2 – Transportation Techniques ......................................................................................148 Table 8.3 – General Animal Handling Techniques ........................................................................ 148 Table 8.4 – Transportation Problems Identified...........................................................................151 Table 8.5 – Market Techniques and Facilities .............................................................................. 153 Table 8.6 – Market Problems Identified ......................................................................................155 Table 8.7 – Slaughterhouse Design and Facilities ........................................................................ 157 Table 8.8 – Slaughterhouse Practices Affecting Welfare of Poultry ................................................ 157 Table 8.9 – Slaughterhouse Practices Affecting Welfare of Pigs ....................................................158 Table 8.10 – Slaughterhouse Practices Affecting Welfare of Cattle.................................................. 159 Table 8.11 – Slaughterhouse Practices Affecting Welfare of Sheep and Goats.................................. 160 Table 8.12 – Suggested Actions to Enable Improvements in Animal Welfare.................................... 165 Table 9.1 – Criteria for Diseases to be included in OIE List for a given country .............................. 167 Table 9.2 – OIE List of Diseases ................................................................................................ 168 Table 9.3 – Confirmed and Suspected Cases of Livestock Diseases of the Different Regions............ 178 Table 9.4 – Summary of Hygiene and Disease Control Efficiency .................................................. 189 Table 12.1 - Indicative Blood Protein Meal Revenue ..................................................................... 206 Table 12.2 – Composting Cost Examples for Three Operators in Michigan, USA (US units)................ 210 Table 12.3 – Typical High-Income and Developing Country Disposal Routes.................................... 211 Table 12.4 – Alternative Processes for Rendering Certain Waste Products ....................................... 212 Table 12.5 – Typical Business Structures for Rendering in High-Income Countries ........................... 214 Table 12.6 – Indicative Capital Costs for Rendering Plants in High-Income Countries ....................... 214 Table 12.7 – Indicative Rendered Product Revenue....................................................................... 215 Table 12.8 – Common Wastewater Treatment Systems ................................................................. 219 Table 12.9 – Indicative Australian Water/Wastewater Costs........................................................... 220


Final Report (vii)

Table 12.10 – Indicative Wastewater Costs .................................................................................... 220 Table 12.11 – Summary of Most Used Technologies in High-Income Countries.................................. 221 Table 12.12 – Improvements for Livestock Markets ........................................................................ 227 Table 12.13 – Improvements for Slaughterhouses .......................................................................... 228 Table 12.14 – Categories for Selection of Slaughterhouses Upgrading .............................................. 231 Table 13.1 – Comparison of Typical Municipal Market and Slaughter Fees ....................................... 237 Table 13.2 – Initial Observations of Costs Items, Actions, and Potential Benefits ............................. 239


Final Report (viii)

List of Figures Figure 1.1 – World Meat Production 1980 – 2030...............................................................................3 Figure 1.2 – World Meat Consumption 1980 – 2030 ...........................................................................3 Figure 2.1 – Diagram of Typical Slaughterhouse Inputs, Processes, and Outputs in High-Income

Countries ...................................................................................................................16 Figure 3.1 – Study Organisation Chart.............................................................................................18 Figure 5.1 – Small Quantities of Animal Wastes Collected by MSWM Company at Pig

Slaughterhouse...........................................................................................................27 Figure 5.2 – Solid Waste Strewn Across a Large Urban Area (Dairy Cattle Colony) adjacent to

Municipal Waste Collection Vehicles..............................................................................27 Figure 5.3 – Cattle Bathing in Waste Contaminated Water Amongst Piles of Solid Waste .....................28 Figure 5.4 – Collection of Cattle Manure for Distribution to Local Farms .............................................28 Figure 5.5 – Typical Photos at Main City Dumpsite Showing Scavenging and Animal Wastes ................29 Figure 5.6 – Municipal and Animal Wastes Only a Few Hundred Metres from the Main City

Dumpsite ...................................................................................................................29 Figure 5.7 – Modern Composting Plant Adjacent to the Main City Dumpsite........................................30 Figure 5.8 – Waste-Pickers Scavenging for Metal Products at Dumpsite..............................................31 Figure 5.9 – Waste-Pickers Scavenging ‘Fresh’ Waste at the Dumpsite (left) and One Picker

Carrying a Scavenged Carcass Leg (right) .....................................................................31 Figure 5.10 – Poisoned Stray Dogs Outside the Main Livestock Market Destined for Disposal at the

Dumpsite ...................................................................................................................32 Figure 5.11 – Slaughter Waste from Main Slaughterhouse Arriving at the Dumpsite ..............................32 Figure 5.12 – Cattle Grazing amongst slaughter waste at Dumpsite (left) and Leachate Running

into the Road Below the Dumpsite (right) .....................................................................34 Figure 5.13 – First Completed Cell (left) and the Future MRF (right) at New Sanitary Landfill .................34 Figure 5.14 – Sheep and Goats Scavenging Food from Illegally Dumped MSW......................................35 Figure 5.15 – Operational Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant .......................................................38 Figure 5.16 – Crude Screening of Wastewater from Private Slaughterhouse .........................................38 Figure 5.17 – Evidence of Open Defecation at Drainage Canal Adjacent to Slaughterhouse....................41 Figure 5.18 – On-Site Facility for Open Defecation at a Slaughterhouse (left) and the Channel to

which it Discharges (right)...........................................................................................41 Figure 5.19 – Cattle Truck Wastes Dumped adjacent to the Local River ...............................................42 Figure 5.20 – Fifth-Quarter Wastes Being Collected from the Slaughterhouse Drain ..............................42 Figure 5.21 – Collection of Blood from Open Drains at the Cattle Slaughterhouse .................................43 Figure 5.23 – Recycled Slaughter Products at a Slaughterhouse ..........................................................47 Figure 5.24 – Disposal of Poultry Wastes to Fish Ponds, Either Directly (left) or Via Market Drainage

(right)........................................................................................................................48 Figure 5.25 – Removal of dead birds (left) and animal wastes in truck (right).......................................48 Figure 5.26 – Drainage channel upstream (left) and alongside (right) Urban Poultry Market ..................49 Figure 5.27 – Manure and Bedding Waste .........................................................................................49 Figure 5.28 – Emergency Slaughter Waste in the Street Outside the Slaughterhouse ............................50 Figure 5.29 – Typical Informal Market for Sheep and Goats ................................................................50 Figure 5.30 – Litter and Animal and Human Wastes at Livestock Markets.............................................51 Figure 5.31 – Slaughter Waste Piled Outside Local Slaughterhouses ....................................................57 Figure 5.32 – Poor SWM Practices at Local Slaughterhouse.................................................................58 Figure 5.33 – Stockpiled Hides and the Incinerator ............................................................................59


Final Report (ix)

Figure 5.34 – White Offal Collection (left) and Incinerator (right) ........................................................60 Figure 5.35 – Slaughter Waste Storage cage (left) and Liquid Waste Screening (right) at a

Processing Facility.......................................................................................................61 Figure 5.36 – Ruminant Waste at a Dumpsite (left), Rendering at a Slaughterhouse (centre) and

Dogs Scavenging by the outlet from a Slaughterhouse (right).........................................62 Figure 5.37 – Collection of Feathers after Slaughter (left), and Storage of Chicken Viscera Prior to

Collection (right).........................................................................................................64 Figure 5.38 – Informal Sheep Slaughter, Municipality-Provided Drums, River Disposal, and Dogs

Scavenging (left) and a Hydatid Cyst Found on the Ground (right) ..................................64 Figure 5.39 – Slaughtering of Poultry at Public Market (left) and Adjacent Fish Ponds Where Waste

is Discharged..............................................................................................................66 Figure 5.40 – Blood from Retail Market Seeps Under Other Stalls (left), Market Waste Collection

Point at a Fifth-Quarter Market (centre), and the Interior of the Central Market (right).................................................................................................................................66

Table 5.8 – Breakdown of Waste Products as Percentage of Live Weight - Poultry .............................69 Table 5.9 – Breakdown of Waste Products as Percentage of Live Weight – Sheep and Goats ..............69 Table 5.10 – Breakdown of Waste Products as Percentage of Live Weight– Cattle ...............................70 Table 5.11 – Breakdown of Waste Products as Percentage of Live Weight - Pigs..................................70 Table 5.12 – Present Slaughter and Livestock Waste Related CDM Projects.........................................71 Figure 6.1 – Narrow Access Road to and through the Poultry Market .................................................74 Figure 6.2 – Poor Quality and Congested Access Road to the Main Cattle Market ................................75 Figure 6.3 – Location of the Poultry Market in Car Park of Market Building .........................................75 Figure 6.4 – Access to the Main Market (top left) and to Three Peri-Urban Markets .............................76 Figure 6.5 – Control Check Point at the Poultry Market and Spraying of Arriving Poultry ......................77 Figure 6.6 – Typical Structures at the Poultry Market........................................................................78 Figure 6.7 – Main Ruminant Market on Old Dumpsite .......................................................................79 Figure 6.8 – Poultry Market and Market Building (slaughtering) .........................................................79 Figure 6.9 – Electrical Installation at the Main Poultry Market............................................................80 Figure 6.10 – Main Livestock Market .................................................................................................81 Figure 6.11 – Peri-Urban Livestock Market 1......................................................................................81 Figure 6.12 – Peri-Urban Livestock Market 2......................................................................................81 Figure 6.13 – Peri-Urban Livestock Market 3.....................................................................................82 Figure 6.14 – Outlet for Drainage at Main Market (left) and Covered Drain at One Peri-Urban

Market (right).............................................................................................................82 Figure 6.15 – Outlet for Drainage at Peri-Urban Market (left) and Area Reserved for a Retention

Pond at Another (right) ...............................................................................................83 Figure 6.16 – Examples of Livestock Market Layouts from Middle Income Country 1 .............................83 Figure 6.17 – Very Basic Infrastructure Typical of Livestock Markets in Middle Income Country 1...........84 Figure 6.18 – Differing standards of infrastructure and layout observed in Middle Income Country 2

.................................................................................................................................85 Figure 6.19 – Typical Access Roads to a Pig Slaughterhouse ...............................................................86 Figure 6.20 – Cattle Slaughterhouse Location (left) and Narrow Access for Cattle from the Street

(right)........................................................................................................................87 Figure 6.21 – Poor Condition of Road and Congestion at the Main Ruminant Slaughterhouse.................88 Figure 6.22 – Access Roads to the Two Small Ruminant Slaughterhouses ............................................88 Figure 6.23 – Poor Access to the Poultry Slaughter ............................................................................89 Figure 6.24 – Excellent Access Arrangement at Private Facilities..........................................................90


Final Report (x)

Figure 6.25 – Security Measures (or Lack Thereof) at the Facilities ......................................................91 Figure 6.26 – Fifth-Quarter Processing in Front of Slaughter Units and Typical Unit Layout ....................92 Figure 6.27 – Processing Units at the Larger Pig Slaughterhouse and Typical Unit Layout......................92 Figure 6.28 – Processing Units at Urban Poultry Slaughterhouse / Market ............................................92 Figure 6.29 – Modern Poultry Slaughter Line .....................................................................................93 Figure 6.30 – Cattle Slaughterhouse Processing Area (left) and Holding Area (right) .............................93 Figure 6.31 – Modern Private Pig Slaughter Facilities (left) and Evisceration Room (right)......................94 Figure 6.32 – Typical Buildings at Smaller Pig Slaughterhouse.............................................................94 Figure 6.33 – Typical Building at Large Pig Slaughterhouse (left) and Fifth-Quarter Processing Area

(right)........................................................................................................................94 Figure 6.34 – Main Cattle Slaughterhouse (Exterior and Interior).........................................................96 Figure 6.35 – Main Sheep and Goat Slaughterhouse (Empty and During Operation)..............................96 Figure 6.36 – Older Local Slaughterhouse for Cattle (left) and Sheep/Goats (right) ...............................97 Figure 6.37 – Newer Local Slaughterhouse for Cattle (left) and Sheep/Goats (right) .............................97 Figure 6.38 – Main Poultry Slaughter / Market - Slaughtering and Processing at Rear............................98 Figure 6.39 – Main Poultry Slaughter / Market - Typical unit (left) and Retail at the Front (right) ...........98 Figure 6.40 – Roof and Floor in Poor Condition at Older Local Slaughterhouse......................................99 Figure 6.41 – Yards, Lairage, and Abattoir Building at Peri-Urban Municipal Slaughterhouse ................ 101 Figure 6.42 – Main Municipal Slaughterhouse Facilities 1 .................................................................. 102 Figure 6.43 – Main Municipal Slaughterhouse Facilities 2 .................................................................. 103 Figure 6.44 – Private Ruminant Slaughterhouse............................................................................... 104 Figure 6.45 – Rear Access Road at the Main Municipal Slaughterhouse .............................................. 105 Figure 6.46 – Small Municipal Slaughterhouse Site and Discharge to Local Creek................................ 106 Figure 6.47 – Electric Saws Used at the Main Slaughterhouse, in the European Hall (left) and the

Non-religious Hall (right) ........................................................................................... 106 Figure 6.48 – Typical Motorised Lifting Equipment at Main Slaughterhouse Non-Religious Hall (left)

and the Small Municipal Slaughterhouse (right) ...........................................................107 Figure 6.49 – Simple Interior Layouts at Local Slaughterhouses in Middle-Income Country 1 ............... 108 Figure 6.50 – Municipal Slaughterhouse Site Layout in Middle-Income Country 1 ................................ 108 Figure 6.51 – Layout Plan for Modern Slaughterhouse in City 2 of Middle-Income Country 1................ 109 Figure 6.52 – Older Local Slaughterhouse (left) and City 2 Slaughterhouse (right) .............................. 109 Figure 6.53 – The City 1 Municipal Slaughterhouse Internal Infrastructure ......................................... 110 Figure 6.54 – The City 2 Municipal Slaughterhouse External Infrastructure......................................... 110 Figure 6.55 – Slaughter Equipment in City 1 (left) and City 2 (right) Slaughterhouses ......................... 111 Figure 6.56 – Layouts of Small Chicken Slaughterhouses .................................................................. 112 Figure 6.57 – Typical Slaughterhouse Drainage ............................................................................... 113 Figure 6.58 – Slaughterhouse Interior (left) and Construction of New Wing (right).............................. 114 Figure 6.59 – Exterior and Interior of a Municipal Slaughterhouse ..................................................... 114 Figure 6.60 – Cattle Lairage at a Modern Private Facility and at a Municipal Facility ............................ 115 Figure 6.61 – Typical Buildings Public Market 1 (East Asia and Pacific)............................................... 116 Figure 6.62 – Typical Buildings at Public Market 2 (East Asia and Pacific) ........................................... 116 Figure 6.63 – Typical Stalls at Public Markets (Middle East and North Africa) ...................................... 117 Figure 7.1 - Drainage Conditions at African Livestock Markets......................................................... 122 Figure 7.2 – Example Pathway and Relationships ........................................................................... 125


Final Report (xi)

Figure 7.3 – Poor Hygiene Conditions: Municipal Abattoirs in Africa and North Africa following Wash-down Operations .............................................................................................128

Figure 7.4 – Dressing Operations on Slaughterhouse Floor in Africa and MENA ................................. 129 Figure 7.5 – Hygiene and Cleanliness Levels at a Municipal Facility (left) and at a Modern Private

Facility (right) in the LAC region................................................................................. 130 Figure 7.6 – Inadequate Poultry Slaughter and Processing Facilities................................................. 131 Figure 7.7 – Slaughter Waste Adjacent to On-Floor Fifth-Quarter Preparation and in Public Area

Adjacent to Slaughterhouses in MENA Region.............................................................. 134 Figure 7.8 – High Standards at Low Volume Red Meat Processing Facilities in the LAC and MENA

Regions ...................................................................................................................135 Figure 7.9 – Informal Small-Stock Markets in Africa........................................................................ 140 Figure 7.10 – Informal Slaughter Carried Out by Youths in North Africa ............................................. 141 Figure 8.1 - Transport of Cattle in South Asia................................................................................ 149 Figure 8.2 - Transport of Poultry and Goats in South Asia............................................................... 149 Figure 8.3 - Typical Transport for Poultry in South-East Asia...........................................................149 Figure 8.4 - Typical Livestock Transport in Africa........................................................................... 150 Figure 8.5 - Loading / Unloading Facilities at a Livestock Market in Africa ........................................ 150 Figure 8.6 - Head-Leg Hobble (left) & Hobbled Chickens & Turkeys (right) ...................................... 150 Figure 8.7 - Sheep Lifted by One Leg (Left) and Manhandling Cattle (Right) .................................... 152 Figure 8.8 - Unloading of Cattle at a Market in South Asia .............................................................. 152 Figure 8.9 - Results of Ill-Fitting Harness (left) and Poor Condition in Harness (right) ....................... 152 Figure 8.10 - Livestock handling at a Livestock Market in North Africa............................................... 153 Figure 8.11 - Chickens Stacked in Cages Next to the Transport Vehicle (left) and the Unloading of

Cattle at a Market (right) in South America ................................................................. 154

Figure 8.13 - Head Tether, Horn Damage (left) and Poor Handling of Goat kids (right)....................... 154 Figure 8.14 – Slaughter Case Study A ............................................................................................. 161 Figure 8.15 – Slaughter Case Study B ............................................................................................. 162 Figure 10.1 – Wastes at a Cattle Market in South Asia...................................................................... 192 Figure 10.2 – Wastes Collected for Disposal at Smaller Slaughterhouses ............................................ 193 Figure 10.3 – Poor Solid Waste Management Leading to Environmental and Public health Concerns.

...............................................................................................................................193 Figure 10.4 – Failure to Treat Liquid Wastes Prior to Discharge Causing Environmental Impacts and

Additional Cleanup Work ........................................................................................... 194 Figure 12.1 – Rendered Co-Product Price Trends (in AU$/tonne)....................................................... 207 Figure 12.2 - Processing/Disposal Options for Rendering Raw Material .............................................. 213 Figure 12.3 – Impact on Rendering Sector of BSE Category 1 and 2 Wastes....................................... 213 Figure 12.4 – Rendering Plant Operating Costs in High-Income Countries (AU$)................................. 215 Figure 12.5 – Overall Logic Decision Tree........................................................................................ 217 Figure 12.6 – Appropriate Disposal Route Decision Tree ................................................................... 218 Figure 12.7 – Flowchart for Selection of Upgrading Category ............................................................ 232


Final Report (xii)

ACRONYMS

AFD Agence France de Developpement ASPCA American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

BCCDC British Columbia Centre for Disease Control

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

BSE Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

CBPP Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia

CDM Clean Development Mechanism CJD Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

CWF Compassion in World Farming

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMS Environmental Management System EU European Union

FMD Foot and Mouth Disease

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

GPS Global Positioning System

HACCP Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points

HGPs Hormonal Growth Promotants HPAI Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza

HSA Humane Slaughter Association

IFC International Finance Corporation

JCTF Japan Country-Tied Fund

KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau

LAC Latin America & Caribbean MENA Middle East & North Africa

MM Metropolitan Municipality

MRF Materials Recovery Facility

MRL Maximum Residue Level

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

NEC National Environmental Council NVS National Veterinary Service

OIE World Organisation for Animal Health

PVS Performance of Veterinary Services

SARS Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

SOP Standard Operating Procedures

SRM Specific Risk Material SWM Solid Waste Management

TOR Terms of Reference

TSE Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy

WASA Water and Sewerage Authority

http://www.bccdc.org/


Final Report Page 1 of 253

GLOBAL STUDY OF

LIVESTOCK MARKETS, SLAUGHTERHOUSES


FINAL REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 STUDY RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

In June 2007, Nippon Koei Co. Ltd. was contracted to undertake a study for the World Bank entitled “Livestock and Slaughter Waste Management”, under a Japan Country-Tied Fund (JCTF) grant, hereinafter referred to as “the Study”. The purpose of the Study was to investigate the prevailing conditions with respect to livestock and slaughter wastes in developing countries (both low and middle-income countries). Five member countries were selected for the Study; one in each of the World Bank’s geographical regions, excepting the Europe and Central Asia region.

To provide additional expertise in the livestock and meat processing sector, the services of ProAnd Associates Australia Pty. Ltd. were engaged as a sub-consultant in accordance with the terms of the JCTF grant.

The principal rationale for the Study is the World Bank’s recognition that the private investment and cooperation that was expected to have developed in the livestock and slaughter sector over the past 25 years has not taken place, following the World Bank’s departure from the sector some at that time. As a result many developing countries have grossly outdated, decrepit and overloaded facilities, which have seen little investment or improvement over this period. This has created far-reaching impacts in terms of waste management, public health, animal welfare, and disease. The present study has the overall aim, therefore, of providing a snapshot of the magnitude of the problems, and setting in motion the steps necessary to address the issues on the ground.

Based on the Terms of Reference (TOR) the primary objectives of the Study are to:

x Gather data on livestock markets, municipal slaughter facilities (abattoirs), meat processing, and related systems of waste management;

x Examine the prevalence, handling, treatment, disposal, and recycling of wastes;

x Collect and examine available data on related bio-security and food safety issues;

x Identify and report on the problems and needs of the facilities; and

x Identify appropriate technical options to develop guidance for municipalities.

The main focus of the Study was originally waste management and all work pertaining to slaughtering or livestock issues was to be related to the safe management of wastes only. However, as identified during the course of the Study and as described in this report, the issues involving livestock and slaughter wastes are more complex and multi-faceted and often cannot easily be delineated. A major concern of the Study was also the protection of human health, particularly in relation to the recycling of wastes for animal feeds.

In addition, the Study was to focus on the assessment of options for municipal facilities only. During the study, however, it was found that the private slaughter sector had a significant presence in some countries and, as such, the impact of this could not be ignored. Furthermore, the informal sector was considered potentially too large and elusive to be covered within the scope of the Study and thus was generally excluded. It is appreciated, however, that there are often close links between the informal sector and municipal facilities and thus the Study addressed those situations where waste is re-used / recycled; such as where waste recyclers obtain their materials from municipal facilities and the informal disposal of animal hides.



Outputs from the Study also included the collection of professional-grade raw video footage, where possible, from each of the countries visited. This footage, for a proposed Bank video production, includes interviews with stakeholders and footage of facilities and associated operations. Hand-held video footage and extensive photography taken by the Study Team would provide raw data for an additional study entitled “Global Study on Reconstruction of Public Live Market, Slaughter and Meat Processing Facilities, including Related Cost Recovery and Economic Instruments” also through a JCTF grant.

1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

The purpose of this report is to present the findings of the Study and provide a basis for the selection of appropriate technical options for the treatment and disposal of livestock and slaughterhouse wastes in developing countries. The report is based primarily on the findings of the Study Team during its visits to the five selected member countries, as contained in the Interim Report (January 2008); however a certain amount of discussion is contained herein, backed up where possible by citations from published literature. The report is arranged as follows:

¾ Chapter 1 – Introduction

¾ Chapter 2 – Livestock and Slaughter Wastes

¾ Chapter 3 – Methodology for Data Collection

¾ Chapter 4 – Brief Country Overviews

¾ Chapter 5 – Waste Management

¾ Chapter 6 – Infrastructure and Services

¾ Chapter 7 – Operational Issues at Facilities

¾ Chapter 8 – Animal Welfare and Transportation

¾ Chapter 9 – Epidemiology, Disease Control and Public Health

¾ Chapter 10 – Environmental Issues

¾ Chapter 11 – Feed Additives and Anti-Microbials

¾ Chapter 12 – Technical Options

¾ Chapter 13 – Institutional Issues and Financial & Economic Situation

¾ Chapter 14 – Conclusions and Recommendations

Given the large amount of data collected during the field visits, and the study as a whole, and to maintain clarity and ease of reference the report has been compiled using figures, tables, bullet points, and photographs as much as possible.

Whilst this report cannot provide solutions to specific site or country conditions, its purpose is to provide a summary of issues and findings, and more importantly direction on the most appropriate courses of action in the selection of technical options and their implementation.

1.3 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

1.3.1 Overview

Solid waste management, and to a lesser extent wastewater management, has been given a relatively high priority in developing countries over the past 15-20 years, often with great success. However, one particular area of neglect has been wastes generated by urban livestock markets, slaughterhouses, and related facilities. In developing countries these are typically municipal facilities that are often old, in poor condition, and operating well beyond their original design capacity. If not appropriately treated and disposed, wastes from such facilities pose a high risk to public health and the environment.

Due to population growth, urbanization, and increased per capita demand for meat products, livestock and poultry production is projected to grow four times faster in developing countries than in high-income countries, with growth in pork and poultry more than twice the growth in the production of ruminate meat.



Figure 1.1 overleaf shows the historical and projected meat production in developed and developing countries for the period 1980 to 2030. Between 1980 and 2004 the consumption of meat and poultry in developing countries increased three-fold, see Figure 1.2 below. Nevertheless, it is estimated that 800 million people worldwide still suffer chronic under-nutrition and hunger; thus, the growth in livestock and poultry production is expected to continue to escalate with a resulting increase in the quantity of livestock wastes generated.

Figure 1.1 – World Meat Production 1980 – 2030

Figure 1.2 – World Meat Consumption 1980 – 2030



Approximately 675 million rural poor are sustained by livestock-related income or ownership; however, large-scale production is now responsible for most of the growth in livestock and poultry production and rural small holders have seen little benefit. Large-scale intensive livestock production is growing at six-times the annual growth of grazing production and the majority of this growth is around urban areas, where demand is greatest and infrastructure and resources are available for the distribution of animal products and by-products.

1.3.2 Human Diseases and Animal Sources

In addition to the settlement of large-scale livestock production close to urban areas, there is often extensive informal rearing of domestic animals and birds in peri-urban households and urban slums. This situation is unregulated and a potential source of disease and its spread. It is estimated that more than 60% of all human infectious diseases originate from animal sources and, in the past two decades, 75% of all emerging human diseases originated from livestock (Cointreau, 2007). Recent diseases that have been widely reported include SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), avian influenza, encephalopathy from mad cow disease, West Nile, Lyme disease, and Ebola. There is a growing recognition that animal health is very closely linked to human health and, as yet, these emerging diseases remain incurable. Exposure to livestock and particularly livestock wastes, therefore, provides conditions for emerging diseases and the vectors needed for the transmission of disease. In addition the globalization of trade and ease of travel only exacerbate this situation.

Globalisation of trade and travel mean that a person crosses an international boundary every 25 seconds and millions of animals are traded live, or as meat products, each year. As populations increase and human development activities change traditional habitats there is less ecological containment of species and thus animals that were never previously in contact are now increasingly exposed to new species and their diseases, thus new vectors for transmission of disease are being created.

In the case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), the disease agent is a prion protein and as such cannot be treated using antibiotics. These prions are resistant to any treatment other than incineration and have lead to the banning of animal body parts that contain prions from recycling for animal feed or soil amendment application to grazing lands.

Aside from human infections related to animals, there has been a huge toll of animal disease on livestock. Millions of cattle have been culled due to foot-and-mouth disease and hundreds of millions of poultry culled due to the highly pathogenic avian influenza1. Loss of livelihood has been significant for these and other diseases, including Newcastle, swine fever, bovine tuberculosis, and rabbit hemorrhagic fever. Such losses have a particularly detrimental effect in developing countries, where compensation from government or elsewhere is lacking.

Some of the new disease pathogens are particularly hardy and able to survive in the environment for extended periods of time. The virus of highly pathogenic avian influenza which has already lead to the death of over 220 million birds world-wide is able to live in cool moist soils for days and possibly weeks, and in cool lake water for months. Once infected, birds excrete the virus for several weeks, unless they die before. Asymptomatic birds, such as wild ducks that are the reservoir host, shed the virus even though they show no signs of infection.

There is significantly more availability and human use of antibiotics throughout the world, with discharges to sewers and waste disposal sites increasing the presence of such substances in the environment. Increased intensive livestock production widely uses antibiotics and direct discharge of blood and excreta to the environment exists in many developing countries. Inadequate control over waste from slaughter and dead carcass disposal allows wild animals to forage directly on meat that contains antibiotics. More than 70% of the solid waste in developing countries is discharged to open dumps where foraging birds, dogs, cats,

1 HSA comments (Feb 2009) - The mass culling of infectious livestock presents serious animal welfare problem, particularly where humane methods of mass disposal are not readily available, as is the case in developing countries. For countries where the main method of killing animals is slaughter without pre-stunning, welfare in disease control situations may be further compromised due to economic restrictions.



rodents, and domestic livestock are normally present.

Waste pickers typically work at these open disposal sites, taking home food for their domestic animals (and sometimes for themselves), as well as looking for secondary materials to sell for recycling. There are as few as a couple of dozen waste pickers at some sites, and over 10,000 at others. These are the poorest of the poor, vulnerable to a wide range of diseases, human parasites, diarrhoeas, respiratory distress, elevated lead and other heavy metal levels in blood, and subject to contact with livestock manures and disposed animal wastes that can cause human diseases.

1.3.3 Livestock Markets

Municipalities in developing countries are commonly responsible for livestock markets. The livestock produce at these markets usually includes farmed animals (including ruminants, small stock, and poultry), and captured wild or bush animals. Often animals of different species and from different origins are kept together, with poultry frequently densely stacked from the floor up in baskets. Animals that are not sold are commonly taken back to their place of origin at the end of the day and mixed with the livestock kept at the owners’ premises. Livestock markets, therefore, create a mixing bowl for many species that normally would not come into contact, and for diseases to spread to species that have no resistance. It is through livestock markets that SARS was widely spread, with bats infecting the civet cat and raccoon dog (both of which are farmed in East Asia), and these animals infecting other species. While some of the animals sold in livestock markets are also slaughtered there, some customers prefer to do the slaughtering themselves at home. The livestock manure, bedding, and slaughter wastes from livestock markets are typically disposed of to municipal waste bins and hauled to open dumps, along with other wastes – given that many livestock vendors are in the same general public market as produce vendors, foodstuff vendors, and general retail vendors.

1.3.4 Slaughter Facilities

In developing countries, slaughter management and control over slaughter waste is typically the responsibility of municipalities. Licensed slaughterers use these facilities and pay fees for their use. Because it is understood that slaughtering might proceed outside the facilities if the fees are not acceptable to the slaughterers, they often cover only a portion of the facility costs. While there was a desire and expectation that the private sector would invest in slaughter facilities over the past 25 years, this has not become the reality, in part because of the limited revenues, in part because of the lack of a regulatory framework that minimized private sector investment risk, and in part because of risks in any municipal contract venture in countries where political intervention in contracting is common.

In many of the developing world’s poorest cities, slaughter facilities are often more than 50 years old and are badly in need of repair and reconstruction, if not replacement. Even where more modern facilities are present, these are often poorly designed, constructed, and maintained and can even be misused. The handling of livestock often involves inhumane treatment, such as crowded tie-ups, heat stress and lack of water during holding, pathways of access to slaughter points that cause the animal to panic, and abuse from the handlers who use wooden prods and other brutal methods to move the animals forward. There is often no clean running water for each slaughterer, whilst daily drainage, waste removal, and cleaning are poor. The municipalities usually have too little budget to maintain sanitary conditions and to enforce municipal ordinances for animal husbandry, veterinarian, slaughtering, and general public health.

In cities where cost recovery enables more modern facilities, more mechanised technologies may actually decrease the segregation of various body parts and thus increase the potential for more materials to be cross-contaminated during slaughtering activities, if the animal is diseased. Only the facilities associated directly with trade to high-income countries with strong laws and monitoring, such as the EU provides in its farm-to-fork program, is their likely to be careful waste segregation for disease control that matches current knowledge of how animal diseases are transmitted.

Many of the slaughter facilities in developing countries do not have any specific meat processing facilities, although some basic butchering may occur on the floor or on a table in the slaughtering area. There are often no facilities for rendering animal waste materials that are not suitable for human consumption. It is common that informal sector waste gatherers pay a small fee for the rights to take the animal waste materials and process them as they like into animal feed. Ruminate heads and spinal materials are included



in this informal sector recycling and there is no veterinary involvement or inspection.

1.3.5 Livestock and Slaughter Wastes

In developing countries, most waste from slaughtering facilities, as well as from informal livestock providers, public live markets, and from home slaughtering is typically either recycled into animal feed, or discharged to open dumps. The cooking temperatures used by the informal sector recyclers are not considered adequate for destruction of all disease agents, particularly for the protein prions that cause transmissible spongiform encephalopathies such as mad cow disease.

Excreta and urine-contaminated litter from livestock production farms are typically stored in unlined holding ponds and surrounding horticulture farmers are usually allowed to take whatever amount they want, often at no cost. Some pathogens are hardy and may re-infect grazing animals, which is why pig waste is frequently not taken by farmers concerned about the Trichinosis parasite. To date, chicken excreta has been most desired by farmers for land application; however the hardiness of the H5N1 virus should lead to severe restrictions on land application of untreated chicken excreta in the future, especially if more poultry becomes resistant to developing systems. There are livestock holding pens at livestock markets and slaughter facilities and some of the manure and bedding from these holding pens is taken to open dumps operated by municipalities, but some is allowed to be taken by farmers to their agriculture lands.

Environmental and health regulation in developing countries is limited and resources are inadequate to stay abreast of the rapidly growing developments in zoonotic diseases. Veterinary services for inspection of livestock production, live markets, and slaughter are very meagre and thus appropriate monitoring and regulation is not possible.

1.4 MAIN STUDY ISSUES

This section of the report provides a general introduction to the main study issues under examination throughout the Study. Further detail on each individual issue is provided in later chapters.

1.4.1 Waste Generation and Management

The worldwide trend of increasing meat consumption is having a significant effect on the generation of livestock related wastes at: (1) farm level where livestock production is increasing the amount of urine and faeces, (2) livestock markets where contaminated bedding adds to the urine and faeces, and (3) slaughterhouses where the increased throughput of animals is increasing the animal waste products to be disposed. The latter two instances are those of particular relevance to this study as often they are located within urban areas or peri-urban areas of major cities; many of these facilities being municipal.

This study therefore addresses, inter alia, the key questions of how much livestock and slaughter waste is generated, what it comprises, what and how wastes are re-used or recycled, and how non-value wastes are treated and disposed of. For the purposes of the Study, livestock and slaughter wastes are defined as any product that is not the muscle tissue; thus bones, hides, hooves, horns, and offal products are considered as wastes (refer to Chapter 2).

1.4.2 Animal Welfare

Animal welfare in developing countries is often poor due to lack of awareness, knowledge, facilities, and funds; there are also cultural differences in different countries and regions that can exacerbate this problem. Improving animal welfare has a positive effect not only on the health of the livestock, but also on the quality of animal products (Smith et al, 2001; Gottardo et al, 2003), the safety of workers, and a reduction in the prevalence of disease (Brown-Brandl, 2008). An additional bonus is the potential reduction in animal waste, due to a reduction in dead stock, sick animals, and pathological waste; all of which provide potential avenues for pollution and disease transfer. The Study, therefore, includes identification of animal welfare problems based on observations from the field visits.



1.4.3 Epidemiology and Disease Control

(a) Epidemiology

Epidemiology is the study of factors that affect the level of health and disease in populations. It is a biological science that has focus from the organism level upwards towards the population. This is in contrast to disciplines such as pathology whose focus is from the whole organism down towards the microscopic level. Epidemiology studies how and why disease can enter, persist, and transmit in a population.

Epidemiology has become the cornerstone of public health research as it provides the methods for identifying and quantifying risk factors for disease and for evaluating the impact of various interventions and controls. Veterinary epidemiology and medical epidemiology have similar objectives except that veterinary epidemiology can also be applied to identifying factors that influence the productivity of animals. Veterinary and medical epidemiology practices and practitioners are essential to identify and control zoonotic diseases.

(b) Zoonotic Diseases and Zoonoses

A zoonosis is an infective disease that can be transferred from animals to humans. Zoonotic diseases generally exist naturally in the animal population but can be transmitted to humans under certain circumstances resulting in disease in humans. There are many zoonotic diseases, and many more are emerging. These include diseases that are capable of direct transmission between animals and humans (e.g. via nasal secretions) and those capable of indirect transmission to humans (e.g. via inanimate objects such as contaminated water).

The contamination of (human) food obtained from animals (e.g. meat, milk, and eggs) with disease causing agents, such as salmonella, represents a special form of zoonoses. These zoonotic diseases are a major factor in this study. Some important zoonotic diseases include:

x Parasites (including protozoa, such as giardia, and helminths, such as tapeworm).

x Viruses (e.g. avian influenza, including H5N1).

x Bacteria (e.g. brucellosis, salmonellosis, and some forms of tuberculosis).

x Fungi (e.g. ringworm).

x Prions (e.g. BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease).

(c) Limiting Disease Spread – Zoonotic and Animal disease

Animal disease outbreaks are a potential threat to human wellbeing. Whilst not resulting directly in disease as a zoonotic infection may, the subsequent loss of income and the reduction in animal protein availability as a result of animal disease outbreaks can produce suffering. The necessity to undertake mass slaughter of cattle in Botswana due to the outbreak of the cattle disease Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP) resulted in increased rates of malnutrition in children under-five years as a result of reduced milk and meat consumption (Boonstra et al. 2001).

The marketing and processing of animals provides a mechanism for disease to spread and is especially true for cities where the scale of these activities is great. The necessity to collect and aggregate animals for sale at live markets provides great opportunity for animal diseases to spread and then be disseminated throughout the farming population. The focus of live animals and potential animal buyers provides an opportunity for spread of zoonotic diseases.

The processing of animals at slaughterhouses and the subsequent handling and dispersal of meat products and slaughterhouse waste materials provides opportunity for the spread of animal diseases and for zoonoses. There are many risks for human disease exposure arising from slaughterhouses and thus the selection of animals and slaughtering, processing, handling, and distribution animal products can facilitate the movement of disease from the animal population to the human population.

Waste from slaughterhouses is in many respects the last link in a complex chain of events that can move disease from animals to humans. The pathway can include: inappropriate transport and holding of animals



prior to slaughter, selection of diseased animals for slaughter, unhygienic slaughter practices, inadequate meat inspection processes, inappropriate meat handling and distribution, and unsatisfactory plant and worker hygiene practices. The animal waste products from a slaughterhouse represent the major link back to the farmed and wild animal populations (as slaughtered animals do not return to farming districts). Suitable waste processing and disposal practices from these facilities are therefore essential to limit the risk of animal and human disease outbreaks, as well as to limit environmental damage from inadequate processing and disposal.

Waste from livestock markets has similar importance to that from slaughterhouses. Whilst these wastes are generally less significant than those from slaughterhouses, the aggregation of animals can result in significant build up of organic waste. The handling, processing, and distribution of these wastes can result in the spread of animal and zoonotic diseases in a similar manner to slaughterhouse wastes. In some ways, this risk is greater than that for slaughterhouses because live markets usually involve a two-way movement of live animals (into and away from the market). The movement of live animals is a major method of dissemination of animal disease.

(d) Principles of Veterinary Control of Animal and Zoonotic Diseases

Effective animal disease control requires effective government animal health departments. Effective food-borne disease control also requires an operative animal health department, but also effective human and environmental government health departments and effective linkages between these departments and private enterprise.

Outbreak Detection and Control Principles Surveillance

The primary objective of animal health authorities is to detect and eradicate animal disease as early as possible when an outbreak occurs. There are many components to most early-warning and detection systems, including:

1. Suitable and effective legislation controlling animal ownership, movement, and trade. In general, the legislation should be supported by producers and consumers to ensure maximum compliance. Legislation breaches need to be effectively detected and prosecuted to ensure high compliance.

2. Effective disease control programs, adequate resources, and sufficient well-trained personnel to undertake the required functions. This generally requires effective epidemiology, laboratory, animal health, and outbreak response components within the department of agriculture.

3. Property (farm) and animal identification systems. It is essential to know where animals are being held, where they may be moved to, and how owners can be contacted if an outbreak is to be prevented early.

4. A programme of regular population sampling and testing for disease. This is essential to detect disease outbreaks early and to monitor the population for changes in risk factors for outbreaks. Testing and sampling of animals at live markets may be a component, as are pre- and post-mortem inspection of animals at slaughterhouses. The testing of animal products for residues represents a peculiarly veterinary use of epidemiology – detecting the ‘disease’ of product contamination.

In order to function effectively, these systems depend upon an effective government animal health system that operates and can liaise with private enterprise in an effective and timely manner.

Endemic Disease Control and Outbreak Prevention

Endemic diseases are those diseases that naturally maintain themselves in a population. These ever-present diseases can produce outbreaks in animals and in humans if the factors that promote the spread and dissemination of pathogens are present. The major endemic diseases of relevance to this Study include naturally occurring diseases with oral transmission routes to the human populace, often through contact with animal waste products. These diseases produce illness in humans following consumption of contaminated meat and offal products.

Such diseases include agents with complex lifecycles that require consumption of intermediate stages (in meat and other products) to complete (and produce disease) and agents that can contaminate meat



products, multiply, and produce disease in consumers. Cysticercosis is an example of a complex lifecycle disease and E Coli O157 is an example of a product-contamination disease. Both can result in disease when contaminated meat is consumed by humans.

Control of these diseases is based upon identifying and limiting risk. This includes pre- and post-mortem meat inspection (to prevent the inclusion of diseased animals in the human food chain), sample testing and monitoring, and the conduct of good meat processing and handling practices (including slaughter, sectioning, storage, and distribution).

The control of food-borne diseases is therefore the combined responsibility of animal health services, human health services, environmental health services, and private enterprise. This complex mix can make the effective delivery of services extremely difficult, particularly where regulation is poor and adequate monetary and experienced human resources are not available.

1.4.4 Facility Infrastructure

The survey and assessment of facility infrastructure and its condition, together with process control and equipment, is not a primary task of this Study and as such will not be covered in any detail in this report. However, as the collection of basic data through observation, available drawings, photographs, and video footage was undertaken by the Study Team (to be used at a later date) a summary of the Study Team’s main observations is included for in this report for completeness.

The detailed assessment of the data collected during this study pertaining to facility infrastructure is being undertaken under a separate World Bank study entitled “Global Study on Reconstruction of Public Live Market, Slaughter and Meat Processing Facilities”.

1.4.5 Animal Feeds and Use of Antibiotics

The Study included the collection of available data on animal feeds and their constituents and the antibiotics in general use within the livestock sector in each of the study countries.

Particularly (but not exclusively) common in large scale livestock rearing is the addition of various undesirable substances to animal feed which promote growth, increase disease resistance, kill parasites or simply reduce feed costs. These potentially harmful additives are commonly in the form of antibiotics (as prophylaxis), heavy metals and reprocessed animal waste, and are often sold under misleading brand names in order to mask the real contents from farmers and consumers alike. Dosages are generally uncontrolled (exceeded) due to lack of knowledge and understanding by the farmers and poor advice from the suppliers. Their effects and impacts include:

x Concentration within the animal tissues, food chain and environment.

x Increased resistance of bacteria to antibiotics.

x Damage to those consuming contaminated meat (e.g. arsenic, frequently found in chicken meat, causes cancer).

x Animal welfare issues.

It is only in recent years that high-income countries have begun to outlaw many of these substances; however, meat imports from abroad generally remain untested.

1.4.6 Cultural and Religious Issues

Cultural and religious beliefs and practices can have a significant impact on the generation of animal wastes for disposal. Some religions deem a number of animal species and certain animal products as unclean and not fit or lawful for consumption. As such, these often valuable animal products are disposed of as waste to local drainage and watercourses or with municipal solid waste.

Many developing countries also have cultures that promote ritual slaughter (often in the home), and at certain religious holidays and other special occasions when large numbers of animals are slaughtered at home or in the street generating large quantities of animal wastes. Because of the putrescible nature of



these wastes, and their sheer volume, they cannot be efficiently collected and processed; as such, they are wasted to the nearest point of disposal, legal or not, creating public health issues and attracting vermin and scavengers.

Home slaughter is in many locations tolerated by the authorities and is not seen as serious an issue as ‘illegal’ slaughter, whereby retail butchers slaughter on their premises or nearby on a regular basis for sale to the general public, instead of using an official slaughterhouse. Meat and other products from illegally slaughtered animals are then sold to the general public.

In addition to the scenarios above, cultural and religious beliefs and practices, such as those in Islamic countries, can have considerable implications for waste management operations in the slaughter and meat processing business, as well as several other important aspects of the industry, such as slaughter techniques (and therefore equipment and infrastructure design), consumer demand, animal welfare, hygiene, and epidemiology.

Islam is spread across the globe and as such Islamic slaughter practices are of great significance to this study. Whilst there are many other important religions and cultures with differing customs and practices Islamic regulations are considered to be the most relevant to this study and as such some basic background information on Islamic slaughter is provided below.

Haram literally means “forbidden” and the word is applied to both foods (such as pork and wine) and conduct or actions (such as adultery) that are forbidden by Islam, and which should be avoided by all Muslims.

There is much ongoing discussion between Islamic scholars over the status of many types of food and drink; certain species, such as pork, are explicitly forbidden as haram in the Qu’ran, whereas some species, such as horse, are not explicitly classified as haram, and are said by some to be halal and others as makruh . This is a third classification, neither halal nor haram, and literally meaning “hated.” In common with the term haram, makruh is applied to both foods and actions and to those which should be avoided but are not punishable if eaten or carried out.

Whether or not a certain piece of meat is halal or haram depends on a combination of factors including animal species and butchery techniques. A halal animal species can be rendered haram through bad slaughter or hygiene practices, just as a haram species slaughtered in accordance with Islam will remain haram. Some general guidelines include:

x The species of animal must be condoned by Islam as halal – pigs are haram, as are carrion eaters such as crabs and crocodiles, and a whole host of other species.

x Pre-slaughter conditions:

o Animals must be treated in such a way that they are not injured, stressed, or excited before slaughter; therefore, transport vehicles must be well-designed, drivers must be careful, and animals must be well-rested after travel to the slaughterhouse.

o All handling must be gentle, meaning no electric prods, metal rods, or knives should be used as goads.

o Animals awaiting slaughter should be kept in suitable clean housing with plenty of space and shade.

o Starving for long periods before slaughter is haram.

o Water should be provided until just before slaughter.

x Slaughter conditions and methods, which are clearly defined in Islam:

o Gentle restraint only should be employed.

o The slaughterer must be an adult man and sane (not all Muslims require the slaughterer to be Muslim).



o An animal should not see other animals being slaughtered.

o The animal must not see the knife being sharpened before it is slaughtered.

o Animals must be correctly positioned (facing Mecca is an optional extra for some – dying humans are turned to Mecca so they can pray one last time).

o The knife must be long enough for the required incision (4 times the width of the neck) and the blade free from blemishes;

o Animals must be alive (heart beating) when the cut is made. Contrary to popular belief, stunning is not forbidden in Islam providing that the basic halal criteria are observed.

o The slaughterer must make the invocation as he makes the cut (Bism’Allah, Allah al Akbar - “In the name of God, God is the greatest”).

o The incision must be made with a single to-and-fro cut without lifting the blade, through the front of the neck cutting through the trachea and oesophagus plus the carotid arteries and jugular veins. The spinal cord must not be severed until the animal is dead.

x Post-slaughter:

o As much blood as possible must be removed from the carcass.

o Good hygiene must be maintained during preparation of the carcass.

o No unlawful products must be used in the preparation of halal meat or products.

o Processing should start when the heart has stopped beating and the animal is dead.

o The knife should be cleaned and re-sharpened (if necessary) between every slaughter.

If any of the above criteria are not adhered to, the meat should be considered haram and, as such, not consumed by a Muslim except in situations requiring it for survival.

Eid al-Adha (known as Eid el-Kibir in North Africa) is a Muslim feast day that celebrates Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son Ishmael (not Isaac, as per the Bible). Every family traditionally sacrifices a sheep on this day, with the senior male family members performing the slaughter and butchery. This yearly celebration means that a large amount of un-inspected meat is consumed across the Muslim world on that day, and much uncontrolled animal waste enters the municipal stream and is available for scavenging.

1.4.7 Environmental Issues

In addition to the environmental issues discussed above (such as human health, noise, concentration of drugs in the food chain, and cultural issues) chemical and biological pollution of the physical environment should also be considered. In the context of the present study, slaughter and livestock wastes can be responsible for inter alia the following:

x De-oxygenation of water courses due to high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) loads and subsequent secondary impacts such as loss of aquatic ecology.

x Emission of greenhouse gases such as methane from manure and paunch content decomposition.

x Fats, hair, and other solids can cause blockages of public sewerage systems (with consequent environmental health issues), and encourage rats and other disease vectors.

x Accumulation of feed additives in the food chain / environment.

x Odours.

x Atmospheric pollution arising from poorly maintained or old incinerators and open burning of animal wastes.



1.4.8 Institutional Issues

Safeguarding countries and cities against the often complex issues touched on above is not possible without direct involvement of national and local governments, municipalities, and other institutions. Their ability to operate effectively, with adequate coordination between and within institutions, is a critical means of managing the interrelated issues of human and animal health, the environment, and waste management. A conscientious authority, working in close cooperation with other agencies as well as local stakeholders, and free from the burdens of corruption or apathy, can do a lot to manage operations and promote safe and effective market slaughter and waste management operations. Conversely a corrupt apathetic and ill-organised system of governance will have the opposite effect, at best maintaining the status-quo.

1.5 STAKEHOLDERS

The administrative systems for regulation, management, and control of the livestock and slaughter businesses can vary considerably between countries; hence, the number and role of stakeholders can vary. In some countries, the number of parties involved can be high and the interaction between these very complex, often leaving gaps in areas of responsibility.

In general, the following parties are typically key stakeholders:

x Government ministries for animal health, human health, livestock production, agriculture, environment, and food safety who are generally responsible for setting policy.

x Local government departments mainly responsible for implementation of policy and regulation of activities.

x The municipality responsible for the ownership and operation of facilities (livestock markets and slaughterhouses) and/or regulation of private facilities within its boundaries.

x Livestock owners.

x Middlemen active at markets that provide buyers and sellers with various dealing and transaction services.

x Market workers.

x Butchers (and flayers) are essential to the meat market. In some countries, they control the business from purchase at markets through to selling at retail; however, this can often result in negative results for both the industry and the public.

x Slaughterhouse workers and middlemen.

x Fifth-quarter processors and middlemen.

x Buyers (retail and consumers).

x Waste collection and disposal operators (municipal and/or private).

x The general public / consumer.



2. LIVESTOCK AND SLAUGHTER WASTES

2.1 DEFINITIONS

The definition of livestock and slaughter wastes can vary based on the perspective of the industry in question, the country involved, and local cultural and religious practices. For example, the slaughter and meat processing industries utilise many parts of the animal, not just the meat, and as such all parts of the animal that can be used are usually considered by-products and not wastes. In fact, within this industry, processing and/or sale of these “by-products” is essential for commercial viability and waste reduction. Animal products, therefore, only become a waste if they have no commercial value or represent a cost to the business; hence, it is difficult to establish an exact definition that is applicable in all scenarios.

For the purposes of this Study, however, a simpler waste management perspective shall be employed and livestock and slaughter wastes are defined as any product that is not the muscle tissue. Thus bones, hides, hooves, horns, and the multitude of offal products are all considered as wastes (or fifth-quarter, see below), even though they are often consumed or utilised in various ways.

The following are some useful terms that have been adopted and used throughout this report with respect to the slaughter industry:

x Fifth-quarter – Following the slaughter of large animals at a slaughterhouse the carcass is often cut into four pieces (quartered) for ease of handling and transport, thus any non-carcass material, including offal, is often called “the fifth-quarter” by those in the industry. This term is can be used for all of the livestock waste products (including the bones) from slaughterhouses and thus is very appropriate for use in this report.

x Small-stock - The term ‘small-stock’ typically refers to small ruminants such as sheep and goats; however, in some countries, it may also refer to other species traded and slaughtered locally.

x Rendering - Rendering is the process of using high temperature and pressure to convert whole animal and poultry carcasses or their by-products to safe, nutritional, and economically valuable products. The process comprises a combination of mixing, cooking, pressurising, fat melting, water evaporation, and microbial and enzyme inactivation.

x Seizure or seized product - Seizure, or seized product, refers to those animal products that are deemed unfit for human or animal consumption and must be destroyed. This is identified during the post mortem inspection when the carcass and internal organs are checked for abnormalities / disease.

x Informal slaughter – this refers to any slaughtering conducted outside of an officially recognised slaughterhouse or municipal facility. In many developing countries, home slaughter is widespread and is accepted by the authorities; illegal slaughter being generally considered as slaughtering undertaken by local butchers for sale to the populace.

2.2 WASTE PRODUCTS

Waste products typically generated by livestock markets and slaughterhouses are listed in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 respectively.

Table 2.1 – Typical Wastes Generated by the Livestock Markets

Waste Product Notes Manure (Dung) Animal feeds Including packing materials. Bedding Wash-water and runoff May contain disinfectants or other chemicals, if used. Wastewater From toilets, kitchen, canteen, etc. Municipal solid waste General organic and inorganic wastes. Dead stock Slaughter wastes If slaughtering is practised on-site



Table 2.2 – Typical Wastes Generated by Slaughterhouses

Species Waste Product Notes Poultry Blood

Feathers

Head

Feet

Bones

Giblets

Thoracic Offal (pluck) Comprised of oesophagus, trachea, lungs.

Intestines Including contents.

Trim

Sheep and Goats Blood

Skin/hides

Head Skull, tongue, brain, etc.

Horns

Feet / Hooves

Thoracic offal (pluck) Heart, lungs, trachea, liver, etc.

Abdominal offal Stomachs, runners, intestines, etc (including contents).

Fat and trimmings

Cattle Blood

Hide

Head Skull, tongue, brain, etc.

Horns

Feet / Hooves

Thoracic offal (pluck) Heart, lungs, trachea, liver, etc. (including contents).

Abdominal offal Stomachs, runners, intestines, etc. (including contents).

Fat and trimmings

Pigs Blood

Hair

Head Typically with the carcass (half or whole).

Feet/trotters Typically with the carcass (half or whole).

Thoracic offal (pluck) Heart, Lungs, trachea, liver, etc. (including contents).

Abdominal offal Stomachs, runners, intestines, etc. (including contents).

Fat and trimmings

General Wash-water and runoff May contain disinfectants or other chemicals as well as solids.

Wastewater From toilets, kitchen, canteen, etc.

Municipal solid waste General organic and inorganic wastes.

Condemned products

Dead Stock Ashes from incinerator Manure / bedding Compost

Dead on arrival at the slaughterhouse or in lairage

Although the livestock and meat sector is generally well documented in each country, the majority of available data and literature on livestock slaughtering pertains to the final product (the carcass or meat) with little or no data on offal and waste products. The fifth-quarter is rarely wasted in developing countries, but is often ignored in official data as it is frequently “lost” to the recycling or informal sectors. Fifth-quarter processing is generally unregulated in developing countries, with the exception of the edible offal in some countries only, and as such is a potential source of pollution and disease vector.



To illustrate what wastes are generated at slaughterhouses, Figure 2.1 overleaf shows the typical situation in high-income countries. Note that on the right-hand-side wastes and products outputs are differentiated; for this Study, however, all items on the right are classed as wastes with the exception of the “packed meat products” at the bottom.

Not only is the Study concerned with the types of wastes generated but also how they are handled, managed, utilised and ultimately disposed of; hence observations were also needed at meat processing facilities, final waste disposal facilities (solid and liquid), and public wet markets. To present as clear a picture as possible regarding waste products, related facilities such as retail butchers and supermarkets were also visited, where time and permission allowed.

In each country, every effort was made to visit all major livestock, slaughter, and related facilities to observe, identify, and record each and every waste stream from such facilities to provide a complete picture of the waste products, where they go, and how they are used, recycled, or treated. Field visits were therefore required during both the operational periods and non-operational periods of each facility, where time and permission allowed. For slaughterhouses this typically involved visits between 1.00 a.m. and 6 a.m. to observe slaughtering and waste generation, followed by daytime visits to observe the buildings, physical infrastructure, and cleaning and disposal operations.



L ive s to c k H o ld in g A re a

E v is c e ra t io n , S p l it t in g , T r im m in g

B o n in g & F a b r ic a t io n

W h ite O f fa l & R u n n e r

P ro c e s s in g

D re s s in g (H e a d , h o o f , h id e /s k in re m o va l )

S tu n n in g & B le e d in g

E d ib le O f fa l P ro c e s s in g

M e a t P ro d u c t P a c k in g

C a rc a s e C h il l in g

W A T E R & C L E A N IN G C H E M IC A L S

P A C K A G IN G M A T E R IA L S

L IV E S T O C K

IN P U T S P R O C E S S E S W A S T E S G E N E R A T E D

P R O D U C T O U T P U T S

P A C K E D M E A T P R O D U C T S

P A C K E D E D IB L E O F F A L `

R E N D E R IN G R A W M A T E R IA L

W A S T E W A T E R `

O R G A N IC W A S T E

S A L T E D S K IN S

M A N U R E

B L O O D

C L E A N IN G

C L E A N IN G

H E A D S H O O V E S H O R N S

S K IN S

C L E A N IN G

F A T T R IM M IN G S

F A T & B O N E

C L E A N IN G

C L E A N IN G

C L E A N IN G

C L E A N IN G

R U N N E R C O N T E N T S S T O M A C H S & T R IM M IN G S

T R IM M IN G S

In s p e c tio n

P A T H O L O G IC A L W A S T E

P A C K A G IN G W A S T E

P A C K A G IN G W A S T E

H id e /S k in T r im m in g S a lt in gS A L T

P r im a ry W a s te w a te r

T re a tm e n t

T R IM M IN G S

Figure 2.1 – Diagram of Typical Slaughterhouse Inputs, Processes, and Outputs in High-Income Countries

Source: ProAnd Associates



3. METHODOLOGY FOR DATA COLLECTION

3.1 COUNTRY AND CITY SELECTION

One country was selected from five of the Bank’s six regions and one target city was selected from each country; with the exception of one country, where the proximity of the two main cities provided the opportunity to gather data from two cities that were known to offer different problems.

Whilst this methodology does not provide a fully representative profile of each country, let alone a representative profile of each region, it does provide sufficient opportunity to identify and highlight the main practices and areas of concern in developing countries and within the fixed study budget.

To provide appropriate coverage, diversification, and data for the Study the following basic criteria were used for the selection of the five countries and corresponding cities:

x Bank’s preliminary list of countries.

x Two of the five countries should have a large or significant Muslim population.

x Capital or other larger city.

x Combination of middle and low-income countries.

x Previous experience of the two firms and Study Team.

x Potential availability of data.

Following discussions with the Study Team and understanding the objectives of the Study, the selected countries and cities were determined and agreed with the World Bank and included three low-income countries (in East Asia, South Asia, and Africa) and two middle-income countries (in North Africa and South America).

3.2 SURVEY INSTRUMENTS

The design and development of appropriate survey instruments for the country reconnaissance visits was essential to ensure quality and consistency during the data collection exercise, as these would ultimately determine the technical options developed and the outputs of the Final Report.

The overall design/management of the survey instruments was tasked to the Project Manager, with detailed technical knowledge and contributions coming from the other Study Team members (veterinary epidemiologist, livestock and meat processing expert, and agricultural economist). The instruments were based on typical practices used in developed countries to ensure that an appropriate and standardised comparison could be made between the selected “developing” countries and typical international standards.

The drafts were then circulated to the Study Team and the World Bank before being finalised for the first country reconnaissance visit. Their use in the first country visit provided an opportunity to check the assumptions made and test the survey instruments to ensure that the specific requirements of the Study were incorporated into the final version of the survey instruments for the remaining four countries.

The survey instruments / reconnaissance checklists used cover the following main areas:

x Government and municipal officials.

x Livestock markets.

x Public markets.

x Slaughterhouses.

x Meat processing facilities.

x Waste collection and disposal.

Although the survey instruments were comprehensive, they were not applicable to all situations and thus



additional ad hoc instruments were developed to suit local conditions during the country reconnaissance visits as required.

3.3 THE STUDY TEAM

To undertake the country reconnaissance visits within the tight schedule two survey teams were required, each covering the four main disciplines (environment, livestock and meat processing, veterinary, and economic). Local consultants were also engaged as needed to provide local knowledge and technical assistance, local contacts, and translation services. Figure 3.1 below illustrates the general organisation chart for the Study Team and its coordination links; although ultimately some changes were made between the teams to accommodate timing of visits and the availability of personnel.

Figure 3.1 – Study Organisation Chart

WORLD BANK Solid Waste Management Advisor

S. Cointreau

PROJECT MANAGER Michael White

NATIONAL / LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

WORLD BANK RESIDENT MISSIONS

PROJECT DIRECTOR Paul Driver

TEAM 1

Low-Income Country 1 Low-Income Country 2 Low-Income Country 3

Sanitary / Environmental EngineerMichael White

Veterinary Epidemiologist Richard Shephard

Livestock Production and Meat Processing Expert

Jon Marlow / Winifred Perkins

Agricultural Micro-Economist Andrew Lambert / Sim Hasker

TEAM 2

Middle-Income Country 1 Middle-Income Country 2

Sanitary / Environmental Engineer Pirran Driver

Veterinary Epidemiologist Nigel Brown

Livestock Production and Meat Processing Expert

Charles Ellis

Agricultural Micro-Economist Sim Hasker

Formal Link

Coordination Link

Local Consultants Local Consultants



3.4 COUNTRY RECONNAISSANCE VISITS

The country reconnaissance visits focussed primarily on the collection of primary data using the survey instruments described earlier. The activities covered under this task included the following:

(i) Pre-visit planning and initial coordination with the local World Bank offices.

(ii) Where possible, an initial meeting with local World Bank officers, to obtain relevant information and necessary correspondence to adhere to local protocols for meetings, visits to facilities, and photography / filming.

(iii) Initial meetings with city government officials to firstly introduce the Study objectives and gain their support and assistance; and secondly, to collect data on facilities and their locations, local practices, and to obtain any necessary permission for facility visits and photography / filming.

(iv) Surveys to collect primary data on existing facilities to identify the waste products produced, the recycling of wastes, and the locations and methods of disposal. Facilities generally included: livestock markets, public markets, slaughterhouses, and meat processing facilities. Other facilities found to be of particular relevance to the Study were also investigated. The survey instruments / reconnaissance checklists were used to ensure completeness and compatibility of the data collection task by the two teams and across all five study countries.

(v) Identification of links for animal-to-human diseases relating to livestock handling and slaughter wastes.

(vi) Collection of relevant data (primary and secondary) on chemical residuals used in animal feeds and anti-microbial substances in meat products that could be detrimental to human consumption; although it was found that few data were available.

(vii) Identification and collection of other related and available secondary data, including economic and financial data, where available to the Study Team.

(viii) Collection of basic data on the condition of facilities and related infrastructure, including drawings (if readily available) and photographic / video footage, where possible.

(ix) Engagement and management of a local media / film company to capture professional footage of stakeholder interviews and facilities for a proposed Bank video production.

Table 3.1 provides a schedule of the country reconnaissance visits undertaken by the Study Team.

Table 3.1 – Schedule of Country Visits

Visit Location Region Dates

1 Low-income country 1 East Asia and Pacific July 23 – August 10, 2007

2 Low-income country 2 South Asia August 18 – September 06, 2007

3 Low-income country 3 Africa September 29 – October 19, 2007

4 Middle-income country 1 Middle East and North Africa

August 17 – September 07, 2007

5 Middle-income country 2 Latin America and Caribbean

September 22 – October 11, 2007

A simple responsibility matrix is included in Table 3.2 overleaf indicating the primary responsibilities for each of the fieldwork tasks as identified in the TOR relating to each of the Study Team disciplines.



Table 3.2 – Fieldwork Responsibility Matrix

Item Task From TOR Environmental / Sanitary Engineer

Veterinary Epidemiologist

Livestock and Meat Processing

Expert

Agricultural Micro-Economist

1

Examine the municipal live market, slaughter, meat processing and related livestock and slaughter waste management practices in at least one large city of the 5 selected countries, including practices that address the special requirements of Muslim or other religious/cultural groups for slaughter, recycling of animal by-products and slaughter waste management.

Waste management Live markets Slaughter, meat

processing

2 Provide available information on the livestock suppliers to urban live markets and public slaughter facilities, indicating their size and income level.

Review live market literature

3 Examine the slaughterer fees charged and the level of cost recovery they provide for existing facilities. Collection of data Collection of data

and analysis

4 Examine slaughterer willingness and ability to pay for improved municipal slaughter conditions that address local markets (versus trade markets).

Collection of data Collection of data and analysis

5

Provide comparative country data on intensive livestock (large scale) production facilities and dedicated slaughter and rendering facilities that qualify to sell to high-grade local supermarkets or export to OECD countries.

Livestock Slaughter & rendering

6

Describe the waste materials from live market, holding pen, slaughter and meat processing that are likely to be discharged to final disposal, including clandestine dumps, official open dumps, blood ponds, treatment works, rendering plants, and any recycling systems.

Live market & holding pens

Slaughter & rendering

7 Note any provision of materials to informal sector waste recyclers, and discuss any processing they provide prior to recycling, particularly for animal feed recycling.

Recycling Live market & holding pens,

mortalities

Slaughter & meat processing

8 Further note the portion of waste, if any, which is discharged to official sanitary landfills, compost facilities, anaerobic digesters, or waste incinerators.

Waste disposal facilities

Proportions from live markets

Proportions from processing



9

Describe the typical disposal practices for dead animals, including road kills, dead pets, dead animals from routine urban poultry or domestic livestock rearing, as well as any carcass management practices from recent or ongoing animal disease outbreaks.

Handling of general dead stock

Animal disease outbreak

management

10

Describe the general flow of all materials to recycling/resource recovery, including recycling of hides and hoofs, but it is understood that there would be no focus on reviewing the processing and environmental issues of recycling (e.g. tanning) that does not have primary biosecurity impact potential.

All materials, e.g. hide trimmings,

face pieces, heads, etc.

11

Describe the disposal conditions, including the activities of human waste pickers and the materials that they recover for recycling, particularly noting the recovery of wastes for potential animal feed and any land application of certain materials, because of the bio-security issues related to disease containment.

Waste picker activity, transport

security

Product loss at slaughter &

processing to public

12

Describe the presence of animals and birds at the disposal sites, including domestic livestock, dogs, and rats. Survey local officials and dumpsite workers for disease incidences that have occurred in the vicinity of the dumpsites and believed locally to be potentially connected to these sites.

Non human waste picker activity,

transport security

Human disease outbreak incidents

13

Describe the parties involved, including the slaughterers, veterinarians, and informal sector waste collectors and recyclers, and describe the nature of the agreements for access to use and recycling of livestock and slaughter wastes.

Livestock wastes (both directions) Slaughter wastes

14

Describe the oversight involved in controlling the disposal of diseased animals and animal by-products, including raising possible issues of corruption to supervisory officials, veterinarians, and slaughter waste staff.

All to Report

15

Conduct filming of interviews with key people being interviewed for purposes of a planned documentary to be put together by the World Bank. All raw footage will be provided to the Bank for their editing. Questions to be asked will be provided by the Bank, and the firm will also add questions. Ideally, moderate level local film crews with microphone and shoulder held video camera would conduct this work under subcontract. The film format is to be informal and mostly shot outdoors, along the lines with the following film on waste management in Ghana that is posted on the Bank’s solid waste website.

Organisation and management



3.5 FACILITIES SURVEYED

Although the Study TOR state that only municipal facilities should be included within the scope of the Study, it was found that in many cities there is either a combination of municipal and private facilities or a complete absence of municipal facilities altogether. Neglecting the private sector, however, would have omitted parts of the local livestock and slaughter waste management sector intrinsic to the subject matter and the Study. Therefore, to ensure that the Study addresses the salient issues in each city and to enable suitable comparisons between them, the definition of municipal facilities was amended to include private sector facilities falling within the municipality / city boundary or within the peri-urban areas adjacent to the city. In some instances, other facilities were visited outside of these areas, where such facilities were found to have a possible link to the livestock products supplying the city.

Where possible, and available, the following facilities (or a sample of them when too numerous) were visited during the visits to each city:

x Farms and rearing/production facilities (e.g. feedlots and feed mills).


x Slaughterhouses.

x Meat processing facilities.

x Solid waste management facilities.

x Wastewater treatment facilities.

x Retail butchers.

x Supermarkets.

Numerous other related facilities were also visited on an ad hoc basis and as time permitted. Most facilities, in particular the slaughterhouses, were visited on more than one occasion to view the facilities during operation (often during the night) and then again to view during non-operational periods during the daytime. An example survey instrument and other example data are included in Appendix B.

3.6 COLLECTION OF ADDITIONAL DATA ON INFRASTRUCTURE

During the course of the country visits, the Study Team took photographs of waste management activities and facilities in the selected cities, to provide the Bank with some context for the collected data and the analyses undertaken. In addition, and in accordance with the revised TOR, the Study Team also collected video footage and photographic records of market and slaughterhouse facilities to enable additional assessment of facilities and physical infrastructure to be undertaken under a subsequent study.

To facilitate ease of location of facilities in each city, handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) devices were used. The coordinates collected were used to locate the facilities in satellite imagery using GoogleEarth software; thus enabling facility layouts, dimensions, and environs to be examined at a later date in combination with the abovementioned photographic and videographic information.

3.7 DIFFICULTIES EXPERIENCED DURING COUNTRY RECONNAISSANCE VISITS

When in the field it swiftly became clear that, in all countries, livestock and slaughter waste management is an element of a much wider chain, with all aspects inextricably linked. Studying waste and waste management issues in isolation would have been a little short-sighted and as such we extended our investigations beyond the Terms of Reference to ensure that we could provide as comprehensive a picture as was possible within the given timeframe. On the whole, the country reconnaissance visits went very well, but some general difficulties experienced included:

x Drawings and design details for facilities were to be collected; however, these were rarely available in any of the countries and it was difficult to obtain copies even if they were. Often new proposals for markets and slaughterhouses were at the final stages of being developed but information could not be released as the plans had not been officially approved.

x In general, few data are available concerning livestock and slaughter wastes and typically data are limited to slaughter numbers and weights only.



Country specific issues are covered below:

Low-Income Country 1

x The municipal slaughter sector is practically non-existent, meaning that the Study Team was reliant on the generosity or otherwise of the private slaughterhouses and processing facilities. Through our local consultants, the Team was able to find and gain access to many of these facilities; which, if they had been municipal facilities, may not have been accessible in the time available.

x In general, private facilities and business owners were unwilling to divulge financial information or documentation to the Team, as they were suspicious of our motives; this was not unexpected however.

x Time constraints and procedural difficulties led to the Study Team being unable to obtain the necessary permissions for official interviews with government officials on camera and the professional video footage of facilities. The media company secured for the filming could not work without a valid permit, thus no professional filming could be undertaken during the visit. Video footage using the Study Team’s handheld video camera was possible, however.

x It was difficult to arrange meetings with some government departments and in particular with the agency responsible for municipal solid waste management, with whom the Study Team met only on the penultimate day of the country visit. This meeting proved useful, but we were unable to meet with technical staff and were not able to obtain permission to enter any of their facilities.

Low-Income Countries 2 and 3

x There were no significant difficulties to report and access to municipal facilities and government officials was relatively straightforward.

Middle Income Country 1

x The bureaucratic culture prevalent meant that government officials were sometimes reluctant to cooperate with the Study Team, particularly where there was confusion of areas of responsibility.

x Few data are available and information is guarded very closely and as such it was difficult to obtain.

x Both municipal and private facilities were reluctant to share financial information.

x Confusion between government departments often resulted in visits being cancelled or disrupted, and the Study Team was sometimes followed by local police/security.

x Gaining permission to undertake the professional filming was particularly challenging, requiring many meetings to organise the necessary permissions. Filming was curtailed at some locations.

Middle Income Country 2

x The bureaucratic nature of government meant that much time was wasted prior to and during the visit writing letters and attempting to gain access to facilities.

x Decentralised government and the cumbersome arrangement of departments made understanding the system difficult and often there was confusion with data.

x The municipal slaughter sector is practically non-existent, meaning that the Study Team was reliant on the generosity or otherwise of the private slaughterhouses and processing facilities.

x Only a handful of private operators cooperated with the Study Team and few private facilities granted permission to photograph or video. Only one private facility showed the team drawings of their facility, however no photographs were permitted. Private facilities were also unwilling to divulge financial information.

x Waste management is generally handled by private companies, who were generally unwilling to cooperate with the Study Team.

x No government officials were willing to be interviewed on video.

x Many illegal dumps were reputed to be very dangerous, where armed gangs and other dangers were reported, and the Study Team was advised not to visit such locations.



4. BRIEF COUNTRY OVERVIEWS

The following overviews provide some scene-setting information on the general preferences and meat industry-related conditions found in the study countries. These initial descriptions are followed with summaries of fieldwork findings, prior to detailed examination of individual issues in subsequent chapters.

4.1 LOW-INCOME COUNTRY 1 (EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC)

There are generally no cultural and religious barriers that dictate what species can be slaughtered and eaten. Dogs in particular are a delicacy and many non-livestock species are eaten throughout the country, a practice which in the past has been the cause of the spread of diseases such as SARS.

The livestock and slaughter industry, however, focuses on pigs, poultry, cattle, and fresh meat purchased daily from markets is the preference of the populace. The serious outbreak of avian influenza that occurred in 2002-03 had a severe impact on the poultry sector and how it is viewed by the consumers; since then, pork has been the main meat source, although poultry has made a significant comeback through the government’s active intervention to control the disease. Isolated incidences of avian influenza still occur but swift action by the government has helped maintain the consumers’ confidence in poultry.

The slaughter business makes very effective use of the entire animal for one purpose or another, predominantly due to the fact that labour is inexpensive and that there is a ready market for both edible and inedible offal and all “waste” products, excepting the wash-water. Often edible offal can be more expensive than the meat itself.

It is popular to use the raw blood of animals for various culinary dishes, but since the recent avian influenza outbreak much of the population now avoids raw poultry blood.

4.2 LOW-INCOME COUNTRY 2 (SOUTH ASIA)

It is estimated that some 96% of the population is Muslim and as such all livestock and slaughter issues are based on religious requirements, thus halal meat products are demanded almost entirely.

Similar to the other countries covered by this Study, consumer demand is primarily for fresh non-refrigerated meat; although there is a very small but growing demand for higher quality meats produced using modern slaughtering techniques with cold-chain. All ruminants are typically slaughtered from early evening and/or overnight to ensure fresh products early morning and official slaughter is only five days per week.

Although illegal, there is still a vibrant informal slaughter sector for ruminants, predominantly sheep and goats.

Mutton (sheep and goats) is the preferred source of ruminant meat and as a consequence is often double the price of beef. Buffalo is the main animal used for beef products; cattle traditionally being reserved for milk production, and slaughtered once they have served this purpose. Camel meat is eaten but is less popular than in the past.

Poultry consumption is almost entirely of chicken and provides the staple meat diet of most. Native chicken is much preferred over factory-produced chicken but comes at a higher price.

4.3 LOW-INCOME COUNTRY 3 (AFRICA)

The livestock and slaughter industry is conducted in accordance with the requirements of the two main religions of Christian Orthodox and Muslim, and their corresponding religious festivals. In fact, the main slaughterhouse has three different slaughter halls to reflect this; one Orthodox Christian, one Muslim, and one non-religious hall. Wednesday and Friday are non-meat (or fasting) days.

Pork is not consumed by the two main religious groups; therefore the pig industry is very small, being reserved primarily for foreigners and mainly through supermarket outlets.



There is a cultural tradition of household slaughter and also for fresh meat purchased daily, without refrigeration. Household slaughter is mainly restricted to poultry, goats, and sheep; although cattle are also slaughtered at household level for specific holidays and important family and religious celebrations.

4.4 MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRY 1 (MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA)

The population is believed to be more than 98% Muslim; therefore, demand is almost entirely for halal meat products and offal products are highly regarded, whilst blood is generally not used at all.

Similar to many developing countries, the consumers’ preference is for fresh non-refrigerated meat purchased from local butchers and markets or alternatively slaughtered at household level. Sheep and goat meat is mostly preferred, in addition to freshly killed chicken. This situation, and the desire for the use of traditional slaughtering techniques, results in a rampant and unregulated informal slaughter sector.

Modern slaughter facilities are not always suited to the local culture; for example, owners often like to watch the slaughter of their animals. The result is that it has been and will continue to be difficult to adopt new slaughtering techniques.

In general, the populace of the capital city has a more European preference to meat cuts, due mainly to the large number of expats present.

4.5 MIDDLE INCOME COUNTRY 2 (LATIN AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN)

There exists a diverse mixture of cultures and more than 90% of the population is Christian, with some 89% being Roman Catholic.

Due to its topography, there is very little pasture land and thus most ruminant supply is predominantly from feedlots. Bulls are much preferred to other types of cattle and gravid hens, freshly killed, are the preferred form of poultry. Traditional practices of eating Guinea pig, llama, and alpaca are typical in the mountains.

During colonial rule local slaves were only permitted to eat offal; this is the likely reason that offal products, and particularly the heart, are still highly regarded.

Previous political troubles caused destruction of private farms and capital investments in the foothills, where sheep rearing was concentrated. Therefore, little mutton is now eaten in the city, and a large informal sheep slaughter sector exists, though mainly outside of the capital.

4.6 SUMMARY OF MAIN FIELDWORK FINDINGS

Based on the data obtained from and observations made in each of the five study countries, the main study findings from the Interim Report are summarised in tabular form in Appendix C, covering the main headings below, which are described in greater detail in the subsequent chapters of this report:


x Slaughterhouses.

x Meat Processing.

x Public markets.

x Retail outlets and supermarkets.

x Waste management.

x Animal health.

x Disease epidemiology.



5. WASTE MANAGEMENT

5.1 GENERAL

In general, waste management practices in developing countries are poor, in terms of both municipal solid waste (MSW) and municipal wastewater. Although not specifically included in the Study, municipal solid waste management and wastewater facilities were investigated by the Study Team to ascertain if livestock waste products are being collected and disposed of with, or alongside, municipal wastes. If so, this may have a significant impact on animal and human health and, in particular, on the health of waste industry workers and the less privileged members of society who earn a living from waste-picking. Additional aims of the investigations into waste management were to identify any environmental concerns resulting from the disposal of slaughter wastes, to collect data on transport methods, security, disposal costs and responsibilities.

Given that municipalities are often the only organisations involved in large scale waste collection, treatment, and disposal in developing countries, it was important to observe their services and practices because, in the short to medium-term, they may be the only capable bodies available to potentially accommodate the treatment and disposal of livestock and slaughterhouse wastes. An overview of the current waste management situation in the Study countries is therefore included below covering municipal solid waste, municipal wastewater, and livestock and slaughter waste, presented on a country-by-country basis for each. This is followed by an overview of waste and waste handling by facility type. A table summarising the main wastes generated and their disposal / re-use in each study country is included in Appendix D.

5.2 OVERVIEW OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

In all countries visited, it was generally found that the collection and transportation of municipal solid waste was adequate and although many improvements could be made facilities were of a reasonable standard. In fact, in some countries visited (e.g. in Africa and East Asia) significant improvements had been made in expanding the service and the streets and public areas were generally free from municipal solid waste. A brief summary of the MSW situation in each of the countries visited is included below.

5.2.1 Low-Income Country 1 (East Asia and Pacific)

Municipal solid waste management is the responsibility of a state-owned company operating solid waste management services throughout the city. In recent years, much progress has been made in the collection and disposal of solid waste with regular collection, quality of vehicles and equipment, and investment into management and training. This commitment has resulted in effective and appropriate methods being implemented and the provision of an efficient and regular collection service throughout the city; primarily through the use of pushcarts for local collection and modern compaction trucks.

Although collection has improved significantly, disposal of solid waste is still a problem, with the city still relying on two managed landfill sites. The main disposal site is a sanitary landfill established in 1999 and is the repository for almost all of the city’s waste. An older ‘managed’ landfill (not sanitary) receives the remainder of the city’s solid waste. No access was granted to any either of these facilities, but it was stated that animal wastes are not collected / disposed by the company as these are mostly re-used or recycled by others. Limited collection of animal wastes was observed, however, at one of the pig slaughterhouses remaining pig hair was being collected along with some carcass trimmings and other general municipal waste, see Figure 5.1 overleaf.

There are currently a number of interventions in place, from various funding sources, one being a JICA-funded pilot project into waste reduction, re-use, and recycling aimed at reducing the impact of the city’s growing solid waste generation. Pilot projects are located at the two operational landfill sites mentioned above.



Figure 5.1 – Small Quantities of Animal Wastes Collected by MSWM Company at Pig Slaughterhouse

5.2.2 Low-Income Country 2 (South Asia)

The collection and management of solid wastes is a municipal function and each town is responsible for the collection of solid waste and its transport by truck for final disposal at the available city-owned and operated dumpsites; there are no sanitary landfills. There are three official dumpsites serving the city (together with a number of informal dumpsites); the largest of these being located on a bank of the main river, resulting in significant pollution of this watercourse. Small informal dumpsites can also be found at various locations across the city.

To address the growing solid waste disposal needs of the city, three new sanitary landfill sites and a transfer station are planned and use of the existing dumpsites will be terminated once these are in operation.

In general, solid waste collection activities appear to be working reasonably well in most parts of the city as there little solid waste was observed in the urban areas. In some peri-urban areas, however, collection is poor and solid waste, together with livestock waste, is a significant problem. At one location in particular, this was observed even adjacent to the municipality’s waste collection vehicles, see Figure 5.2 below. In the same area, cattle were bathing in contaminated runoff water, see Figure 5.3 overleaf, and the whole area drained to a large pond used for bathing large numbers of cattle. This large cattle colony produces large quantities of manure, which is collected by local farmers for spreading on crops without any prior treatment, see Figure 5.4 overleaf.

Figure 5.2 – Solid Waste Strewn Across a Large Urban Area (Dairy Cattle Colony) adjacent to Municipal Waste Collection Vehicles



Figure 5.3 – Cattle Bathing in Waste Contaminated Water Amongst Piles of Solid Waste

Figure 5.4 – Collection of Cattle Manure for Distribution to Local Farms

Since waste collection is generally good for most of the urban areas final disposal of waste is the main issue. The main official dumpsite was visited by the Study Team; it serves six of the nine towns of the City and accepts some solid waste from other sources. During the rainy season, some of the solid waste bound for this dumpsite is diverted to a large informal dumpsite on a bank of the main river due to access difficulties at the existing site. It is assumed that this situation also occurs at the other dumpsites.

Approximately 50 to 60 permanent waste pickers operate at the main dumpsite, although none live at the site itself. Small numbers of dogs, cattle, and goats also scavenge at the site. The site was established in 1994 and only has capacity for another year or two, if the current finished ground level is maintained. The site has no lining and is simply an open dumpsite, although filling is controlled as is access to the site for vehicles. There is no security fence and it is located alongside a trunk road that is still under construction. Facilities include two small offices and a weighbridge at the entrance to the site, alongside the new road. Typical photos of the site are shown in Figure 5.5 below, where waste pickers can be seen in operation (yellow bags contain clinical wastes) and there is evidence of livestock market wastes in the form of bedding and manure.



Figure 5.5 – Typical Photos at Main City Dumpsite Showing Scavenging and Animal Wastes

All of the municipal dumpsites operate seven days per week and have no tipping fee, yet significant illegal dumping still continues and can be seen only a few hundred metres from the dumpsite itself, see Figure 5.6.

Figure 5.6 – Municipal and Animal Wastes Only a Few Hundred Metres from the Main City Dumpsite

A private company has its modern composting plant located adjacent to the main city dumpsite and it receives deliveries of appropriate wastes from the dumpsite, particularly those containing higher volumes of organic material. One truck per day (five days out of seven) of animal waste is received at the composting plant from one small slaughterhouse, as well as cattle dung from local livestock markets. The company has



an agreement with the city government to accept 500-1,000 tonnes of waste per day, delivered free, with 10% of the profit being paid to the City; however, after 2.5 years no money has been received by the City. The design capacity of the plant is 500-1,000 tonnes/day, but due to limitations in capacity from both sides only 200-300 tonnes/day has been achieved. An expansion plan to increase the site area from 28,000 m2 to 60,000 m2 is ongoing and expected to be implemented in 2008. Figure 5.7 shows a sorting area (left) and composting activities (right) at the composting plant.

Figure 5.7 – Modern Composting Plant Adjacent to the Main City Dumpsite

5.2.3 Low-Income Country 3 (Africa)

The collection and disposal of solid waste is the primary responsibility of the City Administration. Solid waste collection and transport to disposal is undertaken at sub-city level using a total of approximately 70 trucks, mostly of the roll-arm type. There are ten sub-cities and collection is free for residents and small businesses. In addition, there are five small private waste companies currently operating a total of 17 trucks that generally collect from larger enterprises, hospitals, and hotels.

For municipal solid waste, collection bins / skips are located around the City to serve local communities and small businesses, whom take their own waste to these bins; although it was observed that collection is also made on a door-to-door basis in some areas by private operators using pushcarts collecting from small businesses, such as butcher shops. In general, the City appears to be reasonably well kept and is generally free from uncontrolled waste dumping. Whilst travelling around the city, there was little evidence of solid waste in the streets; only a lack of communal bins / skips was observed as many bins were overflowing. Many people leave their bags of waste adjacent to the skips, allowing the informal sector to flourish (i.e. animal scavengers and waste-pickers). Overall, the solid waste collection service seemed to be working reasonably well, and there are plans to improve this to keep up with the city’s expansion, through further privatisation of the collection services.

A single open dumpsite is managed by the City Administration and is the only official repository for final disposal of solid waste and all municipal waste collected by the sub-cities is deposited there. To encourage disposal at this location and avoid illegal dumping, there are no dumping fees charged to the private sector. Illegal dumping does still occur, however; most likely to reduce fuel / transport costs.

There is estimated to be approximately 500 waste-pickers operating at the dumpsite, all of which live close to the facility. However, there are three distinct groups of waste-pickers:

x A small number of organised groups operating in the older parts of the dumpsite, close to the office, collecting mainly metal products. They use shovels to dig holes up to two metres deep to locate their products, share tasks, and share the profits once sold. These are generally young men from outside the City and operate in groups of 7 to 10, see Figure 5.8 overleaf.

x Individual or small groups of waste-pickers that operate in the ‘fresh’ dumping area and await each and every delivery of waste as it is discharged from the trucks. In addition to scavenging for plastics, metals, etc., they also scavenge for food and can sometimes be seen taking away parts of dumped



carcasses, see Figure 5.9. These scavengers are mainly women, children, and older people; although there is also a contingent of young men who can become aggressive (security guards were required for a second visit to the site).

x A small number of individual waste pickers that scavenge what they can from the whole of the site.

Figure 5.8 – Waste-Pickers Scavenging for Metal Products at Dumpsite

Figure 5.9 – Waste-Pickers Scavenging ‘Fresh’ Waste at the Dumpsite (left) and One Picker Carrying a Scavenged Carcass Leg (right)

The waste arriving at the site is said to be 80% organic and there is evidence of animal wastes, bones, skulls, feet, etc. from both small and large ruminants across the site. It is reported that dead animals are dumped at the site, including dogs and donkeys, but no freshly dumped animals were visible during the Team’s visits. The City has a severe problem with stray dogs (and rabies) and often cracks-down, poisoning large numbers of stray dogs2 (see Figure 5.10 overleaf) and disposing of them at the dump site; although it was reported

2 HSA Comments (Feb 2009) – Poisoning is likely to present a significant risk to the health of local people (especially children), livestock, and wildlife that also share these areas; it is also unlikely to be a humane killing method. Advice should be sought from appropriate animal welfare organisations on this issue.



that in such instances, the carcasses were typically dumped in a pit, burned, and covered at the site.

The dumpsite is unfenced, although there is some security provided for the site workers, which number about 26. Within the Sanitation Department there are a total of 46 staff in three teams: transport, solid waste, and landfill. The main issues with the current facility are:

x Unhygienic conditions.

x Pollution (soil, water, and air).

x Lack of machinery (four bulldozers, two awaiting repair).

Figure 5.10 – Poisoned Stray Dogs Outside the Main Livestock Market Destined for Disposal at the Dumpsite

x Dumping of industrial and hospital wastes.

x Dumping of animal wastes (including one skip per day of rotting material from the main municipal slaughterhouse, see Figure 5.11 below).

x The site becomes too wet during the rainy season.

x No cell system or proper covering / capping of dumped material.

x Human and animal (mainly dogs and goats) scavengers at the site.

x A lack of skills and capacity within the agency.

Figure 5.11 – Slaughter Waste from Main Slaughterhouse Arriving at the Dumpsite



There are detailed plans for a new 78 hectare sanitary landfill to be constructed, although funding for construction is still an issue. The work was previously funded through the development agency of the French government (AFD) and design and draft drawings are comprehensive. It is estimated that the current dumpsite will be operated for another five years and will then be converted to a sorting, recycling, and composting facility.

5.2.4 Middle-Income Country 1 (Middle East and North Africa)

Lack of good waste management is acknowledged as being a serious environmental problem, and the country is far behind its North African neighbours in terms of modern and effective solid waste management. However, it was accepted that the lack of proper waste management collection and disposal systems was contributing to the prevention of development of the country as a whole, and in recent years a number of nationally and internationally funded waste management projects and initiatives have been implemented. Whilst some of these projects relate to physical infrastructure, the most important development has been the encouragement of private sector involvement and investment.

Currently around 95% of the country’s Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is disposed of to open dumps. Whilst scavenging both at dumpsites and in the city MSW containers is common, no formal recycling industry exists at present; recyclables are generally sold by scavengers to dealers who then export most materials for re-processing abroad. There are currently no special disposal sites or methods for the country’s medical, industrial, and hazardous wastes, and these, in addition to most wastes from the meat processing sector, are disposed of into MSW dumps.

A waste management law has recently been passed, the key articles of which are as follows:

x Polluter/producer pays, and is responsible for SWM in accordance with subsequent articles.

x With the exception of vegetable matter, all open burning of wastes is prohibited.

x Preparation of a national waste management master plan, with each region being held to prepare regional master plans.

x Agricultural wastes and inert industrial wastes may not be disposed of with MSW, other than following a detailed analysis of the materials in question.

x Hazardous wastes may only be disposed of in specially designated facilities according to the hazardous wastes disposal master plan.

x Medical and pathological wastes may only be disposed of in specially designated facilities according to the hazardous wastes disposal master plan.

x Import and export of wastes is prohibited.

x Fines and custodial sentences for infractions to the law.

Evidence on the ground suggests that little implementation or abiding by the law occurs. Two cities were visited by the Study Team in this country and brief summaries for each are as follows:

City 1

Since 2001, MSW collection has been carried out by six private companies, each of whom has a seven-year contract for a particular area of the city. These companies make daily collections and are paid by the City according to the mass of solid waste delivered to the city dump. The collection system appears to be working reasonably well and the City is very pleased with the decision to involve the private sector.

Currently all waste collected and formally disposed of ends up at the city dump, some 10 km south of the city centre. This facility, which is also operated by a private company on behalf of the City, represents a severe environmental concern in many aspects; hundreds of animals of various species graze on the wastes, many unprotected human scavengers sift through the site, which has been observed to contain slaughter wastes, dead pets and stock, medical waste, and hazardous wastes. The leachate generated by the dump is black in colour, grossly offensive in odour and it runs in an open culvert through the village in which the pickers live. Beyond the waste-pickers’ village, the leachate is discharged directly into the adjacent river at a very high rate, and is clearly causing enormous environmental impact, as it appears to have a very high Biological



Oxygen Demand (BOD) of somewhere in the region of 12,000, see Figure 5.12.

Figure 5.12 – Cattle Grazing amongst slaughter waste at Dumpsite (left) and Leachate Running into the Road Below the Dumpsite (right)

Fortunately, this dump is soon to be closed, and the construction of a sanitary landfill some 10 km or so to the south west, is almost complete. The operators of the existing dump will also be operating the new landfill, and it was encouraging that they will be providing the pickers currently operating at dumpsite with a dedicated materials recovery facility (MRF), equipped with sanitation facilities, in which to continue their business in a far safer and more efficient environment than they presently do. In addition to the MRF (see Figure 5.13 below), the new landfill will be completely fenced and secured, and will be equipped with a leachate collection and treatment system, a rainwater collection system, offices, maintenance workshops, and a recyclables storage yard.

Figure 5.13 – First Completed Cell (left) and the Future MRF (right) at New Sanitary Landfill

The new landfill will not accept all types of waste, as the current facility does; however, the authorities have an increasingly urgent issue in that they have yet to decide how these special wastes will be disposed. The Study Team learnt of plans to establish a national centre for toxic waste disposal, possibly in cooperation with German funding via KfW, but the latest details on this are unfortunately unknown.

Once the new landfill is operational, the City plans to implement a post-closure plan for the dumpsite, understood to comprise of capping, gas collection and flaring, leachate collection and treatment, and landscaping.



City 2

The Study Team was not granted a meeting to discuss the waste management situation in the City. A proposed visit to the City’s landfill was not granted, and as a result, the background to the solid waste management situation in the City provided below is based on local observations, a meeting with a private waste collection and disposal company operating locally, and through discussions with the local consultants that formed a part of the Study Team.

City 2 is less affluent and more densely populated than City 1 above, and an immediately obvious difference between the two cities in terms of solid waste management is street cleanliness. Whereas City 1 is reasonably well kept, with streets cleaned from time to time and with frequent MSW collections, the streets of City 2 are strewn with litter and municipal waste, and any pockets of unused land or wasteland have become illegal dumping sites where animals scavenge for food (see Figure 5.14). Although not evident to the visitor, there has apparently been a recent drive to clean up the streets of the City, understood to be driven by the desire to increase tourism.

Figure 5.14 – Sheep and Goats Scavenging Food from Illegally Dumped MSW

As urbanization continues the solid waste management pressures are worsening. The City, which is responsible for waste collection and disposal in the area, has awarded concessions to private companies for the collection of MSW in much the same manner as City 1; however, the coverage and setup of these contracts is unknown.

The vast majority of the City’s 3,000 or so tonnes per day of solid waste are disposed of at the City’s landfill, which is, according to all reports, a similarly poor site as the City 1 dumpsite described above, with uncontrolled access by pickers and scavengers, animals grazing on the wastes, and uncontrolled discharge of leachate causing contamination of local water bodies. It is understood that plans exist to replace the dump with a sanitary landfill; however, these plans could not be confirmed by the Study Team.

Medical, industrial, and hazardous wastes are all understood to be predominantly disposed of at the dumpsite with the MSW.

5.2.5 Middle-Income Country 2 (Latin America and Caribbean)

The waste management policy and systems of the city visited are complex, due in principal to the cumbersome institutional setup prevalent in the country; a relic of earlier devolution. SWM policy in the country is set out in the General Solid Waste Law which, inter alia, sets out responsibilities and stipulates that:

x Setting policy and standards with respect to SWM is the responsibility of the National Environmental Council (NEC).

x The NEC is also responsible for coordination of those bodies responsible for implementation of the laws (see below) and for the promotion of integrated SWM plans.



x The Environmental Health Directorate within the Ministry of Health, is responsible for regulating technical and sanitary aspects of solid waste management, and approving environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for new facilities (although all EIAs and site selection for landfills are also understood to be approved by the Ministry of Agriculture).

x Within the Ministry of Health, the Basic Sanitation Unit is responsible for registering MSW operators, and providing an inspection service for the City’s many illegal uncontrolled dumps, declaring hazardous zones in a state of emergency to municipalities as necessary.

x Actual SWM services are the responsibility of individual municipalities, who must also develop and implement SWM strategies and ensure a decent level of street cleaning.

x Municipalities must approve all SWM infrastructure.

x Dangerous wastes are defined as those that have a detrimental effect to either human health or the environment.

x All producers of dangerous wastes must employ a dedicated SWM contractor that has been approved by the Ministry of Health.

x The dumping of MSW in unmanaged dumps is illegal.

Each of the City’s 43 municipalities is responsible for providing solid waste management services to its inhabitants; however, the individual municipalities are overseen by the Metropolitan Municipality (MM). Whilst the individual municipalities are free to decide to some extent on their budgets, collection and disposal methods, and numbers of workers, the MM develops regulations, issues authorisations and permits, and also acts as a policing body with the power to fine municipalities for contraventions.

The principal disposal technique is to use open (illegal) dumps, managed landfills, or sanitary landfills. The number of sanitary landfills varies according to source, and is generally said to be five; however, a reliable source suggested that in fact only one landfill serving the city is actually sanitary. This was confirmed by the Study Team to some degree in visiting a landfill that was claimed to be sanitary, which was a well managed landfill but would not qualify to be called sanitary in the common acceptance of the word.

In addition to the main five landfills, of which two are owned and operated by the MM and three are owned and operated by private waste management firms, the City is host to many open dumps, large (of which around 25 exist) and small. Whilst municipalities are, in theory, held to the waste management law and are obliged to dispose of their waste at one of the landfills, the Study Team observed municipal collection vehicles dumping waste at informal dump sites and pig colonies on more than one occasion, and it is widely accepted that some of the poorer municipalities cannot afford to dispose of their wastes properly. One municipality visited has a privately operated landfill within the municipality; however, they cannot afford to dispose of their wastes at the landfill.

Despite the legislation, no overall solid waste strategy or master plan is understood to exist for the City, and with Municipalities having free reign over where they dispose of their wastes, and with partial private sector involvement, the system is far from efficient in terms of transport, with many municipalities disposing of their waste in each other’s municipality instead of disposing of their waste to the nearest controlled dump or landfill.

Around 50% of the City’s MSW remains uncollected, principally in the poorer municipalities. In these areas, waste is generally disposed of by residents in illegal dumps, where there are no security controls and which are usually frequented by scavengers, many of whom keep pigs on the site, feeding them on organic wastes.

The City’s landfills and dumps all accept slaughter wastes, and the one landfill visited by the team has a set fee for slaughterhouse waste tipping of US$10 per tonne, and provided confirmation that slaughter waste is received there daily. Contracts and financial arrangements vary between municipalities; however, the MM currently pays US$3 per tonne for MSW disposal.

Whilst all five sanitary landfills in the area will accept medical and slaughter wastes, there apparently exists a dedicated facility for disposal of industrial and hazardous wastes some 60 km from the City. The tipping fee at this facility is US$200 per tonne for hazardous wastes.



According to the MM:

x The National Environment Council is responsible for slaughterhouse waste;

x The Ministry of Health is responsible for medical waste; and

x The Ministry for Production is responsible for Industrial waste.

As previously mentioned, the MM has the capacity to sanction other municipalities if they fail to meet their SWM obligations or are caught dumping illegally. The MM has its own policing division, consisting of 20 officers, and around 300-500 fines per year of US$2,000 are issued.

If a municipality is seen to be grossly neglecting its responsibilities for SWM, MM has the power to relieve the municipality in question of its responsibility and associated funds.

5.3 OVERVIEW OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT

Municipal wastewater collection and disposal is poor to very poor in all countries visited, and these are summarised for each country below:

Low-Income Country 1 (East Asia and Pacific)

Municipal wastewater mainly comprises domestic sewage, industrial wastewater, and septage. A state owned company is responsible for the collection and treatment of these wastes, but at present very little of these wastes are collected and treated, with most finding their way directly into the local drainage and river system. In 2003, it was estimated that only 4% (18,410 m3/day from a total of 458,000 m3/day) of these wastes were being treated. Ongoing urban upgrading and drainage projects will improve this situation over the next 5-10 years and will provide collection systems and treatment plants for a large proportion of the city.

Low-Income Country 2 (South Asia)

The Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA) is responsible for the overall collection and disposal of liquid wastes in the City, in conjunction with each town. There is little wastewater collection across the City and there are no treatment facilities for either municipal or industrial waste. All wastewater discharges to the City’s drainage system and into the watercourses in and around the City.

According to the Study Team’s findings here are few qualified staff at WASA and capacity is very weak; however, a World Bank assisted urban development project is in progress that is assessing the appropriate departments and how they can be improved.

Low-Income Country 3 (Africa)

Liquid wastes are the responsibility of the Water and Sewerage Authority (WSA). Only about 3% of the City is served by a sewerage system, the remainder using either septic tanks or more commonly latrines that are emptied by both WSA and private vacuum tankers.

Trunk sewer lines are not widespread and the sewage collection system covers only the centre of the City, but there are plans to extend the system starting in 2008; however, no information was available for the Study Team. Access to services depends on location; if in the city, it may be possible to connect to the sewerage system, if not vacuum truck is the only solution, collecting from either septic tanks or more commonly latrines. The main municipal slaughterhouse is close to the sewerage system but is not connected to it.

WSA trucks provide the collection service for individual households, government facilities, hospitals, and educational facilities; all private enterprises, however, are served by the private sector. The WSA has 18 trucks and are planning to purchase another 20 in the near future. The private sector comprises 20 trucks operated by ten small firms.

The cost of emptying latrines is US$8 for a residential household and US$20 from other institutions by WSA trucks; in contrast private firms charge approximately US$20. Expansion of the truck collection system is



also planned for the private sector, with the government offering incentives to encourage the private sector and reduce illegal dumping, by fixing the treatment charge at approximately US$2 / truck and offering tax-free spare parts for vehicles.

There are two wastewater treatment plants, only one of which is currently operational due to new road construction works which are restricting access to the other. The main wastewater treatment plant accepts all of the flows from the sewerage system in the City by gravity flow. The main wastes treated, however, are the contents of latrines brought to the plant each day by vacuum tanker and seasonally from septic tanks.

Both treatment plants use lagoon systems and when operational are reported to operate very effectively, mainly due to actual biological loading being only about half of the design loading. The current treatment capacity of the operational plant (Figure 5.15) is 7.5 MLD and the site area is 177 hectares; average retention period is 30 days, this being 12.7 days in a facultative pond, 5.9 days in a maturation pond, then 5.9 days in each of two polishing ponds. Average influent BOD5 is 180 mg/l (plant design is 350 mg/l) and an effluent BOD5 of 21 mg/l. During the dry season there are four anaerobic ponds, which accept septage from septic tanks, for pre-treatment prior to treatment in the main ponds. Drying beds are also available at the site for use during the dry season. In contrast, the second treatment plant has only facultative, maturation, and polishing ponds.

Figure 5.15 – Operational Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant

No livestock or slaughter wastes are treated at the main treatment plant; however, even though not fully operational, the second plant accepts 3 to 4 tanker loads per day from the waste storage tank at a privately owned slaughterhouse; comprising mainly wash-down water and blood with a minimum amount of solids. This waste is screened using very crude screens before discharging into the ponds, see Figure 5.16.

Figure 5.16 – Crude Screening of Wastewater from Private Slaughterhouse



Middle-Income Country 1 (Middle East and North Africa)

The sewerage system of City 1 is very basic and also in a poor state of repair. There are no separate stormwater and sewage collection systems, and currently all of the City’s wastewater (estimated at 1.43 m3/sec or 124 MLD) is discharged untreated to the sea via numerous coastal outfalls. As with the MSW collection and disposal, the City has contracted a private company to rehabilitate, upgrade, and extend the sewerage and stormwater systems over the next thirty years, and part of the project includes the installation of wastewater treatment plants, the suppression of the coastal outfalls, and the construction of a sea outfall.

As the Study Team were not granted permission to visit any sites in City 2, by the local authority, the wastewater collection and treatment systems cannot be described.

Middle-Income Country 2 (Latin America and Caribbean)

The responsibility for liquid wastes in the country is more complicated than for solid waste, with different agencies assuming different functions according to an unusual model. The waste water collection and treatment system is operated by a state-owned company that has some degree of control over what they accept into their sewers, and carry out some basic analyses of slaughterhouse effluent, but at the moment the standards used are reasonably lax, with no biological parameters, and control and punishment of contraventions rare.

At the present time, however, only 12% of the City’s domestic residences have connections to a reticulated sewerage system, but there are plans to lift this to 25% in the future. Much of the present industrial effluent that finds its way into the sewers is merely subjected to coarse screening, if any, and then discharged via sea outfalls. Most of the wastewater streams from slaughterhouses and live markets contain heavy microbial loads and this deficiency in the legislation both hampers control of potentially dangerous discharges from these sites and reduces priority for control by the Ministry of Health.

As the Study Team were not granted permission to visit any sites by the local authorities, the wastewater collection and treatment systems cannot be described further.

5.4 OVERVIEW OF WASTES FROM THE LIVESTOCK AND SLAUGHTER SECTOR

Wastes from the livestock and slaughter sector are many and in each of the countries visited there were many similarities, particularly with respect to the re-use and recycling of a large proportion of the animal wastes. However, there are significant differences in some areas, such as the collection and use of blood and the handling of paunch wastes and hides. An overview of handling of these wastes is detailed in the sections below for each of the five countries visited.

5.4.1 Low-Income Country 1 (East Asia and Pacific)

Solid Wastes

Due to the extensive recycling of waste products (fifth-quarter) that occurs in the city, there is little waste that is actually disposed to the municipal waste systems. From the Study Team’s observations and discussions with facility operators, veterinarians, and other industry stakeholders, solid wastes emanating from legitimate urban livestock and slaughter facilities are negligible and comprise only limited floor sweepings and some mixed garbage.

Using an arbitrary definition that “products” are those items that attract revenue and that waste attracts a cost to be disposed, then it can generally be stated that solid waste from the live market, slaughter, and retail sectors are relatively small and principally consists of dung and intestinal contents. In general, all animal tissue products from the slaughter of livestock are considered edible or useful, and as a consequence, they have a value; this includes blood in either raw or coagulated form. Small quantities of soft tissue may not pass into edible consumption; however, these are utilised as supplementary feeds for poultry or fish ponds.

Solid waste is further minimised as intestinal contents often generate a neutral revenue/cost position, or even a small revenue position, as they are considered satisfactory feedstock to support fish pond farming



activity through the supply of nutrients to the ponds.

Possibly the second largest waste component is cooked bones, as these are generally disposed to the municipal waste collection system. This falls outside the scope of this study, however, as such waste is generated by the consumer rather than the slaughter sector. Whilst beef animals are fully boned at the slaughter site, the bones continue to have a value for the preparation of soup stock for use with noodle dishes and are sold on to restaurants and consumers for this purpose. It is believed that bones may even be collected from larger restaurants for further use/processing, although this could not be confirmed.

Liquid Wastes

The main waste stream from slaughterhouses is in liquid form, which comprises wash water, small amounts of spilt blood, and very small amounts of organic material. In urban areas, this wastewater is discharged directly to the local drainage system and subsequently ends up in the local rivers mixed with the municipal wastewater. In peri-urban areas, this wastewater is discharged to farmland or more often to local fish ponds.

Liquid waste from the slaughter sector is relatively lightly contaminated as blood, which is a major contributor to organic load, is largely recovered as an edible product. There is very little use of hot water and therefore oil and grease levels will be low as there is insufficient temperature to entrain fats from the carcass in the wastewater stream.

The major component of organic load in the wastewater is spilled blood and intestinal material resulting from product washing and from surface wash-down operations. The wastewater from processing was observed to pass to three disposal routes:

(i) Directly into pond systems where the nutrients are considered valuable for the production of fish;

(ii) Directly to market garden applications where the nutrients provide valuable fertiliser; and

(iii) Directly into the local drainage system.

The only wastewater treatment unit observed in operation was a simple ‘settling’ tank at the one of the pig slaughterhouses. In essence this tank was being utilised to recover solids for utilisation in fish ponds, the contents being primarily pig hair, blood, and very small amounts of trimmings.

In general, therefore, it would be considered that the quantity of water and the level of organic contamination will be relatively low and, therefore, from an environmental perspective the impact is small. The potential for disease vectors via fish or via produce from market gardens is considered to have potentially greater human impact than the direct impact of organic load on the environment.

Perhaps the greatest concern observed at the slaughter sites was the uncontrolled disposal of human waste due to inadequate sanitation facilities at the sites. Open defecation was observed at some sites, see Figure 5.17 overleaf. Within the actual sites themselves, the human waste from open defecation appeared to be able to be entrained in the facility’s wastewater and therefore also pass directly to fish ponds, market gardens, open drains, or sewers without any treatment; see Figure 5.18 overleaf. It is considered that there is potential for human disease vectors due to this scenario and that, as a priority, properly sanitation amenities should be considered for all slaughter and meat processing sites.



Figure 5.17 – Evidence of Open Defecation at Drainage Canal Adjacent to Slaughterhouse

Figure 5.18 – On-Site Facility for Open Defecation at a Slaughterhouse (left) and the Channel to which it Discharges (right)

5.4.2 Low-Income Country 2 (South Asia)

Solid Wastes

The largest volume of solid waste generated by the meat products sector appears to be from the livestock market facilities where significant volumes of dung, contaminated straw, and bedding are generated. The straw and bedding is utilised in the live animal transport trucks and at the market this waste material appears to be dumped almost at random anywhere from where the animals are unloaded to alongside the open channel near the market. Truck ingress and egress from the market site is extremely difficult and it appears that when a truck gets stuck in the traffic this becomes an opportunity to offload the waste material. The Municipality cleans the area up on a weekly basis and transports the solid material to an open dumpsite site near the river.



Figure 5.19 – Cattle Truck Wastes Dumped adjacent to the Local River

While there appears to be significant volumes of waste material being generated at the slaughter facilities, the appearance is somewhat misleading as many of the piles of material are intended for food, fat recovery, or poultry meal production. One ‘fifth-quarter’ employee was situated at the main drain of the goat slaughterhouse to recover pieces of animal tissue coming down the drain, for sale to poultry meal manufacturers, see Figure 5.20. The most significant solid waste material generated at the slaughter facility is the stomach contents of the cattle, buffalo, sheep, and goats and the complete small intestines of the buffalo (which are difficult to empty and therefore the intestine is difficult to recover).

Figure 5.20 – Fifth-Quarter Wastes Being Collected from the Slaughterhouse Drain

Whilst the level of recovery of all livestock wastes for use as food, fat recovery, or poultry feed is very high at the large slaughter facilities, it was observed that the volumes of material wasted to disposal at the two smaller slaughterhouses were higher. This was due to lower economies of scale, on one hand, and the lack of skills to recover some material (e.g. omasum – a portion of the stomach) on the other. Where these



materials were not being recovered for edible purposes they were often being downgraded to fat recovery or poultry meal raw material.

Whilst the owners of the livestock at slaughter are many, as each animal is owned by the retailer or wholesaler at this stage, the more “exotic” animal waste materials recovered, such as intestines, omasum, bladder, etc., find their way back to a small number of traders via a range of intermediaries. These intermediaries often provide upfront finance to the people who recover the items in order to secure supply. It was observed that while many people were involved in these activities, the finance stream acted to make the supply chains work reasonably efficiently.

Whilst hair and wool is often generated during the processing of feet and heads, due to the local scalding and de-hairing processes, it appears that all the feet and heads are singed and recycled, therefore resulting in no solid waste of this type going to disposal.

A small portion of the solid waste from the live markets (straw) and the cattle and mutton slaughter activity (stomach contents) is rerouted to a private composting site adjacent to the main municipal solid waste dumpsite. The composting operation is very selective, however, regarding the material it will accept, to ensure the quality of its product.

Solid waste from the poultry sector is generally small in volume but dominated by material from the live bird transport vehicles themselves, e.g. dead stock, feathers, bedding, etc. All of the solid waste from the slaughter of poultry was being collected by the local poultry meal manufacturers.

A significant proportion of the fat rendering and poultry meal production is performed using extremely basic technology in local warehouses in the area surrounding the main municipal slaughterhouse. Some waste material results from these processes; in particular we were advised that solid residues from the recovery of the fat is disposed to landfill, i.e. a municipal or illegal dumpsite, though this could not be confirmed. It is assumed that these volumes would be small and reasonably inert as they are cooked at boiling point to drive off the moisture and release the fat.

The retail sector does not appear to generate any solid waste material from livestock, it is all sold.

The livestock market and slaughterhouse solid wastes are collected on a regular basis (daily at the slaughterhouse; weekly at the livestock market) and transported for disposal at a landfill site (local dumpsite). Any pathological waste is reported to be pit burnt with kerosene, though this was not evident at any of the slaughterhouse sites.

Liquid Wastes

The most important contaminant of meat sector wastewater is blood due to its very high organic and nutrient loading potential. At the main cattle slaughterhouse, rudimentary efforts were in place to recover the blood and remove it from the wastewater stream, see Figure 5.21.

Figure 5.21 – Collection of Blood from Open Drains at the Cattle Slaughterhouse



An entrepreneur had set up a system where the main blood collection drains were sandbagged and the raw blood collected from the drain into tubs and tanks for transport to a nearby cooking kettle. At the cooking kettle the blood was coagulated and cooked until much of the water had evaporated. The resulting coagulant was then spread in the open air to dry further. The resulting meal was being used as an animal (mostly poultry) feed ingredient. Due to the lower volumes available, this practice was not in place at the smaller slaughterhouses, or for the sheep and goat slaughter, and the full volume of blood at these sites was entrained in the wastewater.

The second largest organic load in the wastewater is the liquid portion draining from the intestinal contents. These contaminants do not have an extremely high BOD load, like blood, but are high in suspended solids and nutrients (particularly phosphorous). All slaughter wastewater appeared to discharge to waterways via the municipal drainage systems. The contaminants entrained from slaughter operations would contribute to the generation of anoxic conditions due to BOD load and to eutrophication due to nutrient load. Improved recovery and utilisation of blood would reduce the impacts considerably.

An unsightly impact of direct flow to open waterways, is that large waste components often become entrained in the wastewater and are very obvious once they appear in the waterway. While there does not appear to be great amounts of waste lost in this manner, a simple screening system would eliminate its occurrence and would recover recyclable waste that is likely to be acceptable as raw material for poultry feed manufacturers.

The other sources of liquid waste from the meat products sector are:

x Contaminated stormwater, particularly from the extensive live market areas: and

x Wash-down water from retail operations.

5.4.3 Low-Income Country 3 (Africa)

Solid Wastes

Solid waste from the slaughtering sector is generally confined to bones, paunch material, and large intestines. There was not observed to be the same imperative to wrestle value from every part of the carcass as was observed in other countries (such as the other two low-income countries), possibly because of the populace’s clear preference for meat (i.e. non-offal) products. Overall, there is little livestock waste disposed of at the municipal facilities, particularly since the enterprise has commenced a series of initiatives in the past three years to develop some other revenue streams from wastes to supplement the slaughter fees.

At the processing site, solid wastes falls into the following main categories:

x Heads.

x Inedible offal.

x Hides/skins.

x Spines/ long bones.

x Hooves.

x Horns.

x Tails.

At the retail level too, it was observed that there was little material wasted. The main spinous process (protrusions composed of ligament, cartilage and other dense bone-like matter protecting the spinal cord) is removed from the beef carcass at the slaughterhouse. Brisket and rib cuts are normally boned-out at retail level and there is virtually no trimming of meat muscle. Some stores seem to follow European cutting guidelines, but this is not common. The small amount of waste generated at retail level is either sold as pet food in plastic bags or, if beyond sale, disposed of with the municipal waste collection system via hand-carts which are brought around by the city workers, or sometimes the private sector, periodically through the day. The cart contents are brought to a central point in each neighbourhood and collected by the City sanitation



vehicles. Waste from the retail sector generally comprises unsold product including bones and a small amount of peripheral and paper waste.

Waste from the informal slaughtering of livestock is likely to be similar to the above, but is difficult to quantify. These wastes are likely to find their way into the municipal solid waste and /or illegal dumping. The sheer size of the informal slaughtering sector makes this a significant issue.

Liquid Wastes

Liquid wastes from the livestock markets are mainly generated during the rainy season, when the dung from livestock cannot be collected and is washed into the local watercourses with the site runoff.

Liquid waste from the slaughtering sector is heavily contaminated with organic material and invariably has a high BOD because of the content of blood disposed with the wash-down water. The wastewater produced is mostly untreated and is discharged to local watercourses, with the exception of the one private slaughterhouse which holds wastewater in a storage tank, the contents of which are transported daily to a municipal wastewater treatment plant (lagoon system), see Figure 5.16 earlier in this section. Blood is not saved in either the formal or informal sector, with the exception of the small pig slaughtering operation and the cattle slaughter at the main municipal slaughterhouse, where the blood is retrieved for pharmaceutical use once per week, mainly for a long-term tsetse fly eradication programme, see Figure 5.22. Most other wastes from the beef and sheep carcasses are either considered edible or are processed into revenue-earning items.

Figure 5.22 – Collection of Pig Blood for Pharmaceutical Use

At retail level, liquid waste is minimal and comprises only water used for wash-down or cleaning. Many shops lack chillers or refrigerators that require cleaning, nor is it common practice for tiled areas or floors to be scrubbed daily. As a result, any liquid waste from the butcher shop sector would be regarded as inconsequential.

5.4.4 Middle-Income Country 1 (Middle East and North Africa)

Solid Wastes

Solid waste from the slaughter and processing sector is generally confined to:

x Inspection seizure (condemned material).

x Some bone.

x Horns.

x Paunch material.

x Foetuses.



x Feathers.

x Some white offal.

x Large intestines.

Blood is considered as waste in all sectors and is not even retrieved for uses other than consumption, but is simply washed away with water to the local drainage system or nearest watercourse, where present. All other items have a market and are consumed.

Unlike the majority of countries in the Study, many of the non-edible items mentioned above are truly considered as wastes, and are not recycled or rendered into other products but are simply disposed of in a variety of methods.

Whilst the country is renowned for its tanning industry, due to a change in national legislation part-tanned sheep and cattle hides are no longer competitive on the international market and thus are increasingly becoming a waste product that is stockpiled or disposed of to dumpsites.

At the retail level very little waste was observed, and consisted principally of bone. Vendors order their meat shrewdly so as to avoid excesses, but supermarkets inevitably have some expired product, which is often returned to origin for disposal. Scraps, trimmings, and some bones are commonly sold for use as pet foods.

Liquid wastes

Liquid waste from the processing sector is heavily contaminated with organic material and invariably has a high BOD because of the content of blood disposed with the wash-down water to the local drainage system or nearest watercourse.

At retail level, liquid waste is minimal and only comprises water used in wash-down or cleaning. Many shops lack chillers or refrigerators (which would require cleaning), and it is not common practice for tiled areas or floors to be scrubbed daily. As a result of the above, any liquid waste from the retail sector is regarded as inconsequential and is disposed of to the local drainage system.

5.4.5 Middle-Income Country 2 (Latin America and Caribbean)

Solid Wastes

The meat products sector in the city produces little livestock waste requiring disposal, as the vast majority of wastes from the processes are recycled in some way, either on site by the slaughterhouse or processor, or by dedicated companies producing one or two products.

Livestock wastes from the industry that are generally recycled are as follows:

x Feathers.

x Viscera.

x Some white offal.

x Trimmings / screenings.

x Rumen contents.

x Pork blood.

x Fat.

Figure 5.23 overleaf shows recycled slaughter wastes at one slaughterhouse.



Figure 5.23 – Recycled Slaughter Products at a Slaughterhouse

Wastes from the industry that are generally for disposal comprise:

x Cattle Blood.

x Veterinary inspection seizures.

x Horns.

x Hooves.

x Wash water.

At the retail level, despite seemingly excessive trimming of cuts, very little waste was observed for disposal, and there appears to be a ready market for the cheaper cuts and trimmings for use in stocks and as a flavouring agent. Vendors order their meat shrewdly so as to avoid excesses, but supermarkets inevitably have some expired product, which is generally simply disposed of to the main MSW collection.

Liquid Wastes

Liquid waste from the processing sector is often heavily contaminated with organic material despite the collection and use of some blood and is generally disposed of to local watercourses.

At retail level, conditions are similar for Middle-Income Country 1 and any liquid waste from the retail sector is regarded as inconsequential and of low concentration so is discharged to the local drainage system.

5.5 WASTES BY FACILITY TYPE

5.5.1 Livestock Market Wastes

(a) Low-Income Country 1 (East Asia and Pacific)

There are few livestock markets close to the Study City and the markets in and around the city are primarily for poultry; all of which are required to be outside the city limits, since avian influenza became a serious problem, around 2003. At one market, however, live piglets (2.5 months old) are traded every three days or so, compared to the daily trade of poultry. Livestock market wastes are therefore related mainly to poultry with some pig waste.

Waste management at the poultry live markets visited comprises only the discharge of wash-down water and a little split blood into adjacent fish ponds, in addition to any small trimmings and bird droppings that could not be sold. There is no formal collection of waste materials and each stall owner looks after the upkeep of their own area and wastes produced. Bird droppings are mostly trodden into dirt floors, but where there are paved they are washed away into the local drainage system and fish ponds. Where there is sufficient material to be collected, this is disposed to the local fish ponds (see Figure 5.24).



Figure 5.24 – Disposal of Poultry Wastes to Fish Ponds, Either Directly (left) or Via Market Drainage (right)

At the pig market, manure only (no bedding or feed) from about 200 pigs per session is collected and used as crop fertiliser. Small biogas plants are currently being trialled in certain parts of the country for the treatment of pig wastes at farms and small villages, which may be applied countrywide if found to be successful.

(b) Low-Income Country 2 (South Asia)

Poultry

The major solid waste material from the urban poultry market is dead birds. Each consignment of birds is held for a short period (without food, water, or bedding) and therefore manure, bedding, and other solid waste is not significant. The variable mortality rate meant that many dead birds were removed from the trucks; these were collected by the market association and sold for rendering, see Figure 5.25 below. Individual slaughterers/traders sell their waste to renderers under contracts.

Figure 5.25 – Removal of dead birds (left) and animal wastes in truck (right)



At the rear of the urban poultry market, where the poultry slaughter takes place, wash-down water is the only liquid waste produced; and it drains to the municipal open drainage channel at the rear of building. This channel contains much municipal solid waste from the surrounding area; little waste comes from the market itself and there appeared to be no evidence of carcasses, dead birds, or other poultry products in the channel during several site visits; see Figure 5.26.

Figure 5.26 – Drainage channel upstream (left) and alongside (right) Urban Poultry Market

Cattle, Buffalo, Sheep, and Goats

Manure and bedding from trucks are left in-situ at the main market, see Figure 5.27, although once a week it is reported that the excess waste bedding is collected for disposal at a municipal dumpsite at the edge of the city. The site appears to be an old dumpsite and is still in operation, although unofficially. No active recycling of organic material is practised besides the odd truck driver placing recycled bedding in trucks when opportunistic back-loads of livestock were secured.

Figure 5.27 – Manure and Bedding Waste

Fallen stock appear to have one of two fates; if still alive, immediate (emergency) slaughtering at the associated slaughterhouse (and introduction into the human food chain), or if dead, removal to nearby renderers for processing. Emergency slaughter is most common and the results can be seen outside the main cattle slaughterhouse where wastes are simply dumped in the street, see Figure 5.28 overleaf.



Figure 5.28 – Emergency Slaughter Waste in the Street Outside the Slaughterhouse

(c) Low-Income Country 3 (Africa)

Poultry

There are no formal live poultry markets in the city and live birds are sold at the public markets only for slaughter at home, waste therefore becomes a domestic solid waste and is covered by the MSW system.

Sheep and Goats

Sheep and goat manure is scattered wherever they graze at the many small informal markets around the city, see Figure 5.29, and wherever they are kept at the formal markets. Yard sweepings are used as fertiliser if collected from the stone floors at the formal markets; however, quantities are low as there is little feed or bedding available at the markets.

Figure 5.29 – Typical Informal Market for Sheep and Goats

During the rainy season, manure waste is washed away untreated with runoff at the formal markets and into local watercourses, causing significant problems with water pollution. At one market visited there is no outfall point to a local watercourse and thus a holding pond at the lowest part of the site is reportedly being constructed; however, the capacity of the storage pond is unlikely to be adequate and polluted water will still escape from the site during the rainy season.

Cattle

Cattle manure is collected, dried, and used for fuel pats during the dry season at the formal markets. There is little feed or bedding used at the markets or on the trucks used for transporting the animals. Dead stock is minimal and taken away for disposal, if encountered; but this is reportedly infrequent. Manure waste and



polluted runoff during the rainy season at the formal markets is the same for sheep and goats above.

Pigs

There is no formal or informal live market for pigs in the city; marketing is conducted at the farm or wholesale at the point of slaughter, i.e. at the main municipal slaughterhouse.

(d) Middle-Income Country 1 (Middle East and North Africa)

Municipalities are responsible for the operation of municipal live markets and slaughterhouses, and receive fees from vendors. In return, municipalities should be providing at least some basic forms of facilities and services, including cleaning and waste management.

All live markets visited were strewn with litter and other wastes (see Figure 5.30), and cleaning services are clearly not provided; any reduction in wastes is believed to be through scavenging. Some markets had skips provided, but these appeared not to be emptied with any regularity.

Meetings with officials suggested that cleaning of live markets and removal of wastes occur on the day following the market; however, a visit to one such market on a non-market day showed that no cleaning of the site had taken place, and no solid waste collection had been made. The municipality, therefore, appeared more interested in collecting fees that providing any service to the market, as the Study Team was approached very swiftly and asked to leave the site by officials from the Ministry of the Interior.

Figure 5.30 – Litter and Animal and Human Wastes at Livestock Markets

No dead stock and stray animals were seen at any of the livestock markets, and all reports suggested that animals are taken to slaughter as soon as a terminal illness is suspected. Dead stray animals are presumed to be simply left to decompose along with the other wastes in the markets.

The waste management issue of most concern with respect to live markets is that the livestock markets are always accompanied by an associated slaughterhouse, and as discussed below, waste management is as equally neglected for these facilities as it is for the livestock markets. The inevitable result is that slaughter wastes, both solid and liquid, overflow into the live market (and general market) areas, representing a very real danger to public health.

It should be noted that access to the live poultry wholesalers was not granted and therefore no comment can be made with respect to their operation.

(e) Middle-Income Country 2 (Latin America and Caribbean)

Manure collection at livestock markets is generally not formally organised but almost certainly occurs through scavenging for fertiliser and fuel. At one market there are apparently volunteers that collect waste, though this was not observed during the visit by the Study Team.



The lack of rainfall means that there is little runoff to stormwater collection systems, but more importantly the low rainfall means that most droppings dry out very rapidly and are either removed or are broken up and dispersed. The marketplaces are large and of open gravel, and most stock are ruminants on rough feed so the pats are small, firm and dry, and do not represent a serious threat unlike the faeces of other species. Municipal bins are the main end point for market and other sweepings.

It appears that any animal showing disease or debilitation is rushed to slaughter meaning that dead (i.e. non-slaughtered) stock is rare, and there are no special procedures for dealing with this type of waste.

With respect to poultry markets, the droppings are regularly swept up and removed in sacks by a private company that uses it as fertilizer locally. Drainage is only provided in the slaughter area of the market.

Birds that are dead on arrival (roughly 1%) are removed by the truck driver to the central depot where an agent for the supplying farm can tally the mortalities and the market supply docket with the supply docket from the farm of origin. This system prevents the truck driver from stealing birds for personal sale or consumption, but it must be said that this constitutes an unnecessary risk for the spread of disease, particularly given that the depots house many live birds.

5.5.2 Slaughterhouse Wastes


The main slaughter wastes and their disposal routes, re-use, or recycling are described in Tables 5.1 to 5.3 below. Sheep and goat meat are not popular and thus there is no official slaughter facilities for these livestock; it is likely that the slaughter of such animals is undertaken at household level and mainly in rural areas.

Table 5.1 – Poultry Slaughter Wastes (Low-Income Country 1)

Waste Description

Blood

Blood is mostly collected for edible purposes. While it is eaten raw in some instances (there is a belief that duck-blood provides health benefits) it is usually coagulated and cooked to provide a rich nutrient food source.

Feathers

Feathers are generally recovered, separated into soft and hard feathers, dried under nets and reportedly sold to Chinese traders.

Thoracic offal

Thoracic offal is mostly considered edible, any unwanted items or trimmings are sold either as pet food or for fish feed.

Intestinal Offal

Much of the intestinal offal is considered edible, any unwanted items or trimmings are sold either as pet food or for fish feed.

Intestinal contents can also be recovered and utilised as fish feed.

Wastewater

In general the waste-water is only lightly contaminated with organic material as almost all organic material from the slaughter of poultry has a value and is recovered.

Waste-water from the larger formal slaughter sector flows either to sewer or to open drainage canals.

Wastewater from the smaller slaughter sector located at markets, etc. generally flows in nearby fish ponds and is considered a valuable nutrient source for these ponds.

Other

Other small quantities of solid waste material can be disposed in a number of ways. It is understood that:

- generally this solid waste source can be disposed into fish ponds;

- it is sometimes buried (with or without lime); and

- it is sometimes pit burnt.

Pathological waste gathered by veterinary authorities is either buried with lime or pit burnt.



Table 5.2 – Pig Slaughter Wastes (Low-Income Country 1)

Waste Description

Blood Blood is mostly collected for edible purposes. In most instances it is coagulated and cooked to provide a rich nutrient food source.

Hair Pig hair is gathered from the floor of the slaughter areas and is disposed into carts for collection and discharge to landfill with the municipal waste. However, at one slaughterhouse pig hair was collected from the wastewater using a small interceptor / sedimentation tank and used by a local farmer.

Thoracic offal Thoracic offal is mostly considered edible, any unwanted items or trimmings are sold either as pet food or for fish feed.

Intestinal Offal Much of the intestinal offal is considered edible, any unwanted items or trimmings are sold either as pet food or for fish feed.

Intestinal contents are recovered and utilised as fish feed.

Wastewater In general the wastewater is only lightly contaminated with organic material as almost all organic material from the slaughter process has a value and is recovered.

Wastewater from the larger formal slaughter sector flows either to fish ponds, market gardens or to open drainage canals. The only pre-treatment system observed was a sedimentation tank, as mentioned above, where solids were being recovered to be sold as fish feed to a local farmer.

Other Same as for poultry above.

Table 5.3 – Cattle Slaughter Wastes (Low-Income Country 1)

Waste Description

Blood Blood is mostly collected for edible purposes. It is coagulated and cooked to provide a rich nutrient food source.

Hide The hide is recovered and sold to the hide trading sector where it often passes through a number of intermediaries as the volumes are increased in order to accumulate a tradable package. At some early stage in this process the hides are salted but this does not occur at the slaughter locations.

Thoracic offal Same as for pigs above.

Intestinal Offal Much of the intestinal offal is considered edible, any unwanted items or trimmings are sold either as pet food or for fish feed.

Intestinal contents are recovered, placed in plastic containers and collected by local farmers for use as fertiliser or fish feed.

Bone All bone is sold to customers to be utilised in the preparation of soup stock for use with noodle dishes.

Wastewater In general the wastewater is only lightly contaminated with organic material as almost all organic material has a value and is recovered.

Wastewater from the formal slaughter sector was observed to flow directly into an open drainage canal without any pre-treatment.

Other Same as for poultry above.


Tables 6.4 to 6.5 provide a brief summary of the slaughter wastes from poultry and ruminants (cattle/buffalo, sheep, and goats). Being a Muslim country, there was no pig slaughter.



Table 5.4 – Poultry Slaughter Wastes (Low-Income Country 2)

Waste Description

Blood Absorbed into the feathers and disposed with the feathers and skin to poultry meal manufacturers.

Feathers Disposed with the skin to poultry meal manufacturers.

Thoracic offal Mostly recovered as edible and material that is not is disposed to the poultry meal manufacturers.

Intestinal Offal Disposed to poultry meal manufacturers.

Wastewater Disposed to sewer but observed to be reasonably low in organic content due to the above mentioned blood recovery process.

Other Feet are sold as edible for the production of soup stock/bouillon and heads are disposed to poultry meal manufacturers.

Dead stock, etc. Disposed to poultry meal manufacturers.

Table 5.5 – Ruminant Slaughter Wastes (Low-Income Country 2)

Waste Description

Blood In the main municipal slaughterhouse the blood is collected in a sandbagged blood drain and recovered in tubs and drums for transfer to a nearby coagulation and drying facility. It is estimated that probably 70-80% of blood is recovered in this way.

At the smaller slaughterhouses blood is not recovered and it flows with the wastewater directly into the discharge system.

Hide Recovered and disposed in fresh/green form to intermediaries who accumulate the hides and transfer them to larger operators with warehouses where the hides are preserved by stack salting.

Thoracic offal Most of the thoracic offal is edible, lung material is often sold in small packs for feeding to birds (crows), waste material from larger slaughter operations is recovered and sent for manufacture into poultry meal. In smaller operations, any waste material is disposed to landfill via a waste skip and arm-roll truck.

Intestinal Offal Most intestinal offal is recovered, particularly the stomachs and intestines. Buffalo small intestines are disposed to landfill as they are impossible to flush of intestinal material.

Intestinal offal that is able to be cleaned is either utilised for edible purposes or as raw material for poultry feed manufacture.

Stomach contents are allowed to drain and the solid portion is loaded into a rubbish skip for disposal to landfill.

Intestinal contents are generally flushed into the wastewater and disposed through the drainage system.

Bone Beef in is generally sold bone-in. If boning is performed (e.g. by supermarkets) then the bones are often provided to low wages employees as an in-kind bonus.

Some flat bones are separated for delivery to gelatine manufacturing plants.

For sheep and goats, carcass sold bone-in.

Wastewater Wastewater is disposed directly to the receiving canal or river without any treatment at all, not even any primary screening.

Dead stock, etc. Sometimes delivered to the zoo as animal feed otherwise incinerated.




Poultry slaughter is typically conducted at household level and as such is outside the scope of the Study. Any wastes from poultry will therefore be disposed of with household wastes and by the local MSW services.

Wastes from the formal slaughter of cattle, sheep, and goats are briefly described in Table 5.6.

Table 5.6 – Ruminant Slaughter Wastes (Low-Income Country 3)

Waste Description

Blood All blood at the main slaughterhouse mixes with wastewater and goes to the on-site sewerage system. There is no possibility of retrofitting a collection process in any of the halls as there is no elevated crush and insufficient height to install a bleed area. In the Christian hall there is a tiled bleed area which was abandoned some years ago. The small-stock lines in all halls also dispose of blood to sewer. However, on a Tuesday, after the pig slaughter, the ALERT project team collect blood for the tsetse fly eradication programme.

Blood at the small municipal slaughterhouse also goes to sewer.

At a privately-owned slaughterhouse blood can be collected over a bleed trough and sent to a tank for separate removal, but there is currently no market for the product so it is disposed with the wash-down water.

Hides / skins Hides are rinsed and shipped to tannery for processing. They are not salted prior to despatch. Rinse water goes to the site sewer / drainage system.

Thoracic offal The viscera are removed without tying off the gut or oesophagus; it is normal at all sites for red offal to be contaminated with ingesta. The liver, lungs, and other red offal are indexed with the carcase for inspection, marked with the same ID as the carcase and shipped with the beef sides.

Rejected product is either burnt or sent to rendering.

Intestinal Offal The paunch material is dumped to wastewater. In the Muslim hall at the main municipal slaughterhouse this takes place in a low concrete sink. In the main Christian hall, there is a separate room with a hole cut through the concrete slab to the basement. A small crate runs on a pulley between the two floors to enable a better rinse of the paunch before it is sent back upstairs to the main floor to be shipped to the butcher with the beef sides.

At the small municipal and private slaughterhouses the paunches are rinsed in a separate room and sent with the carcasses to the butcher.

Bone Carcasses are shipped bone-in with the exception of the spinous process. In all three halls the spinous process is removed by pole-axe and sent to rendering.

Wastewater All wastewater from the municipal slaughterhouses goes to the on-site sewerage / drainage system that discharges to the local river. A modern treatment plant does exist at the larger facility but is bypassed, as the facility cannot afford the chemicals required.

At the private facility, the wastewater discharges with other quantities to a storage tank where it is pumped out daily to a tanker for transportation and disposal at a municipal wastewater treatment facility.

Dead stock, etc.

Livestock which die in the holding yards of the main municipal slaughterhouse are likely disposed of in the scrubland adjoining the riverbank. The birdlife and wildlife are effective treatment systems for these instances. At all times there are up to 50 vultures perched on the roofs of the abattoir buildings at all municipal abattoir sites.

Because the population is predominantly Orthodox Christian and Muslim, pork is not widely consumed and is therefore limited to a small percentage of the local population and visitors/foreigners. All official pig slaughtering in the municipality is conducted at the main municipal slaughterhouse. The pig slaughter is



scheduled on a weekly basis (Tuesday morning) and normally comprises only 30-50 animals at a time. Slaughtering of the pigs is conducted on a separate level of the facility to ensure there is no cross traffic with product coming from the Muslim and Orthodox Christian slaughter halls.

Pigs are processed skin on and hair is removed by hand following scalding and further singed with blow torches. Pork bodies are split in two by pole-axe and are shipped head on. Waste products for pigs are described in Table 5.7.

Table 5.7 – Pig Slaughter Wastes (Low-Income Country 3)

Waste Description

Blood Currently blood from the pig slaughter line is collected for use in a sterile tsetse fly breeding programme.

The collection system is extremely efficient and on the day of the visit was observed to be collecting in the order of 90% of the blood.

The remaining portion (or all blood when the collection process is not in operation) mixes with other wastewater.

Hair Following scalding the hair is removed by knife shave and collected under the stand. The material is discarded with general waste to the Municipality dumpsite.

Thoracic offal This is removed after splitting and hung in sequence (more or less) with the pork bodies to enable inspection. It is then despatched with the sides to the butcher shop or wholesaler.

Intestinal Offal No weasand clips are used. Upon evisceration the gut offal is dropped onto the floor. The labourers then retrieve it to rinse out runners which are tied in bundles and shipped with the carcass. The balance of the intestinal material is sent to rendering.

Wastewater All wastewater from the pig line goes to the sewerage system. There is a save-all grill on some of the drains but a quantity of material from evisceration goes to sewer as well.

Dead stock, etc.

Animals that die before slaughter would likely be processed anyway and the carcass presented for inspection by the veterinarian. Dead stock from the holding area would be incinerated on site.

Treatment / Disposal

All of the formal slaughter facilities in the city deal with solid and liquid waste in similar ways, with the exception of the private slaughterhouse which has special arrangements for disposal of liquid waste as described above. Inedible product is disposed of either to on-site sewers, to a specific end-use, or to rendering at the rendering facility of the main municipal slaughterhouse.

There was no provision made in the design of the municipal facilities for blood to be retained, consequently it is mixed with the wastewater from processing. At the main facility, this material joins other liquid waste collected in the site’s basic drainage system and is discharged into the adjacent river. Approximately two years ago a wastewater treatment plant was constructed at the site, 70% donor funded; however, this has ceased operation due to the cost of the chemicals required for operation. At the small municipal slaughterhouse, blood mixes with wastewater and is sent into the nearby creek which is also part of the same river system.

Effluent from the private slaughterhouse is collected and held in a concrete storage tank which is pumped out several times daily and transported by tanker about 15 km to one of the city’s two wastewater treatment sites.

Solid waste at the main municipal facility is handled by the plant’s rendering system which was renovated approximately five years ago. The system comprises two batch cookers each with a capacity of six tonnes and outputs from the process are meat and bone meal and tallow. The enterprise is in the process of developing markets for each of these products although this has been hindered by the feed bans introduced subsequent to the BSE crisis in the 1990s. It currently markets meat and bone meal to poultry growers and to horticulture companies, whilst tallow is sold to local soap makers. The enterprise has also introduced glue



production (from hooves); gelatine manufacture; and has taken shares in the fertiliser company which uses meat meal and meat and bone meal.

The rendering system processes spinous processes; bones that are not included in shipments to butcher shops; emptied paunches and intestinal matter; heads, and inedible offal and other material. The rendering plant reportedly takes similar materials from the other slaughterhouses.

From observations at the municipal dumpsite one full arm-roll container of slaughter wastes is received each day from the main municipal slaughterhouse.

At the private slaughterhouse market demand has also been identified for the following products, with consequent effort to develop viable markets: swisher hair (tails); selected horns (ceremonial use); horn tip and sexual organs (herbal and oriental medicine); neatsfoot oil, and raw bone.


Whilst the waste management with respect to the different slaughterhouse types are described below, two general overriding observations can summarise the slaughterhouse waste management sector:

x No edible body parts are wasted, and indeed many parts that in other countries might be considered as waste to be disposed are considered as delicacies. The exception to this rule is of course blood, which is not consumed for religious reasons.

x The concept of recycling slaughter wastes is totally unheard of and no rendering occurs anywhere in the study area.

Local slaughterhouses

The management of wastes at the local slaughterhouses, attached to each livestock market, is regrettably nothing short of appalling. The collection and separation of solid wastes at the processing level is poor; all wastes are generally either brushed, swept, or barrowed out of the slaughterhouse, and are dumped in an area within open public access, sometimes right in the main market area, see Figure 5.31. Inspection of these piles of waste revealed paunch manures, non-term foetuses, intestines, horns, hooves, blood, and other pathological type wastes, refer to Figure 5.32 overleaf.

Figure 5.31 – Slaughter Waste Piled Outside Local Slaughterhouses

Within the slaughter halls there are no solid waste separation bins; in fact there are no containers at all for wastes, which are strewn on the floor and picked up following the butchery. Most rural slaughter halls have rudimentary drainage systems, but these lead to soakaways or the municipal sewers without any form of treatment. With no screening and collection of blood, the organic load of this liquid waste must be considerable, and of course pathogenic risks are high, particularly when the liquid runs to soakaways. There is effectively no control over the epidemiology of most diseases because the waste recycles into the environment untreated where livestock and scavengers are exposed.



Figure 5.32 – Poor SWM Practices at Local Slaughterhouse

As mentioned above, large piles of slaughter waste are present in the vicinity of the slaughter hall and these are open for both human and animal scavenging. In addition to the main pile of waste in the “designated” area, all facilities were surrounded by historical and fresh evidence of poor waste management; with many horns, bones, feathers, and bits of fur being observed.

Poultry and rabbit waste was allowed to lie where it fell at the site of sale and/or slaughter and was being scavenged by dogs and egrets even during the market.

Whilst evidence suggested that slaughter wastes were not collected on a weekly basis, the majority of these wastes must be removed periodically, as the piles were large and in some cases aged, but were not enormous and ancient. Furthermore, and in common with reports received in the field, slaughter wastes were observed at the local dumpsite, confirming that when these wastes are collected, they are disposed of to an open dump, again with public and animal access.

Whilst the scavengers on the local dumpsite may not actually remove the slaughter wastes or regard them as having any value (although some reports suggested that they do indeed remove these wastes for feeding to pets or adding to sausages), their very presence in amongst the other municipal wastes being sorted through by the poorly protected workers represents a significant health risk to the workers, and an epidemiological risk to all in the region.

Responses to questions on the fate of pathological wastes varied, but included:

x Placement in a pit at the back of the slaughter hall.

x Placement in a pit and doused with an accelerant then burnt – this was queried due to the enormous amounts of propellant likely to be required, and lack of oxygen supply in a pit.

x Placement in a pit and doused with whitewash or creosote.

x Dousing with whitewash or creosote then ejection to the main slaughter waste pile.

Municipal Slaughterhouses – City 1

Standards of waste management at municipal slaughterhouses are variable, but are in general better than at the local slaughterhouses.

Solid wastes from slaughtering, such as white offal and horns, are collected in heaps, much like at the local facilities. At one facility visited, these wastes were barrowed outside to a skip across the road from the slaughterhouse in an area of open public access adjacent to the main road (much was also scattered on the ground around this skip). It is understood that the skip is collected by the municipality or their contractors and transported to the local dumpsite for final disposal.

Liquid wastes are not treated or screened and are discharged directly into the sea via drains cut through the rock and opening at the foot of the cliffs some 150 m from the slaughterhouse. These discharges are often



located close to beaches and enter coastal flows, posing potential health risks to both human and local fish populations.

In contrast, another slaughterhouse’s solid waste management is much better. At the processing level wastes are separated and placed in differently identified plastic bins, the destiny of which is as follows:

x White offal such as bladders, gall bladders and colons etc are incinerated;

x Pathological waste and inspection seizures are incinerated;

x Rumen contents, holding pen bedding and manure are “composted” on site (see below);

x Blood and other liquid wastes are discharged untreated and unscreened to the municipal sewers, which in turn discharge directly to the sea within several hundred metres.

It should be noted that the on-site incinerator is extremely old and though functional is not of a standard that could be described as acceptable in terms of emissions (based on visual inspection and the fact that incineration only occurs at night, so as to avoid complaints from local residents). However, regardless of emissions, the incineration of the slaughterhouse’s most dangerous wastes must surely be preferable to ejection to an area of public access or transport to the local dumpsite, as described above.

The composting that was reported to occur on site is extremely basic, and essentially involved the storage of paunch manures in piles outside the lairage. It should be noted that the piles appeared to be extremely small given the throughput of animals at the facility. The Study Team queried this but were assured that all rumen contents were indeed composted on site.

Further note should be made with respect to cattle hides. As mentioned elsewhere in this report, a recent change in regulation has had a detrimental effect on the domestic tanning industry. As a result, the slaughterhouse can no longer find a buyer, or even someone prepared to remove the hides at no charge, and so the slaughterhouse is currently stockpiling its hides (see Figure 5.33).

Figure 5.33 – Stockpiled Hides and the Incinerator

Municipal Slaughterhouses - City 2

The main slaughterhouse at City 2 has some excellent waste management systems in place; however it is not without fault, and is not making full use of the available facilities.

The different types of solid waste are collected during the process in different containers according to their disposal method, which in summary are as follows:

x Trimmings and pathological and inspection seizures are collected in steel bins and incinerated on-site;

x Rumen contents are collected by a dedicated system and pumped to a drying area; and

x Blood and wash-water are collected in a series of liquid drainage channels and are then pumped to



the on-site wastewater treatment plant.

An on-site multi-chamber rotary-type incinerator is of a reasonable design and is capable of reaching high combustion temperatures and residence times. It has a 400 kg capacity per cycle, and is capable of running two cycles per hour. The incinerator treats roughly 3-4 tonnes of waste per day, and the resulting ash is sent to landfill.

Prior to incineration the pathological wastes should be dyed blue to prevent workers from scavenging; however, this appeared only to be observed to occur when the Study Team’s presence was known in advance. The same lack of standards applies to the incinerator operators, who were well-protected when visited officially, but not so well-protected during a separate less formal visit, see Figure 5.34.

Figure 5.34 – White Offal Collection (left) and Incinerator (right)

The slaughterhouse’s wastewater treatment plant can pre-treat to a high standard if required to do so. At the present time, the operators readily admit that waste is treated to a minimal standard due to the extra costs involved in treating to a higher level (with greater use of poly-electrolytes and other forms of flocculation, coagulation, and aeration).

Paunch manures are held on site in a dewatering bay, however for unknown reasons the operators have not been able to find a buyer for the desiccated product and at present it is disposed of to landfill. The supernatant generated from dewatering the paunch manure is directed back to the wastewater treatment plant for processing. Truck wash-down facilities at this site were also directed to the plant.

It should be noted that whilst blood is mixed with wastewater and subsequently treated, the slaughterhouse is actually equipped with a blood collection and drying system; however, due to a lack of market for the dried blood, presumed to be due to the Muslim aversion for the product, there is no market for it and hence the equipment remains unused, thus a valuable commodity is lost and the costs of treating liquid effluent are increased.

Animal mortality during transport and holding is apparently rare (16 cattle are reported to have died since operation began in 2002); however, when it does occur, it reported that a full autopsy is carried out prior to incineration of the entire carcass.

“Live” Chicken Shops

As explained in earlier reports, this country has a preference for customer-selected animals, slaughtered before the client so as to guarantee freshness. The only wastes from these concerns are the intestines and feathers; all other body parts such as the offal, head, feet and crops are provided with the bird to the customer. The intestines and feathers are simply ejected to MSW containers and are then sent to the local dumpsite, where they are evident in considerable quantities. Blood and wash-water goes directly to municipal sewers in all cases.



Industrial Poultry Processors

The large commercial poultry slaughterhouses and processing facilities visited by the Study Team were observed to keep reasonably good waste management practices on-site; however, their off-site responsibilities were drawn into question by team observations and also by the manager of one the plant’s private waste collection companies.

In terms of process controls, both facilities visited had dedicated waste collection bins at all work stations and separation of different items by employees was good. Both companies contract a private operator to remove their solid slaughter wastes, which can be upwards of 8 tonnes of material per day. These wastes are generally composed of feathers, guts, and trimmings, and in one facility blood is used (dedicated blood collection and storage system). At the second facility the blood from their process was simply discharged to the municipal network following screening. In both cases, the facilities had either secure cages or holding tanks for the safe storage of wastes prior to collection, see Figure 5.35.

Figure 5.35 – Slaughter Waste Storage cage (left) and Liquid Waste Screening (right) at a Processing Facility

The slaughter wastes collected by private companies from these large commercial poultry plants is disposed in one of two ways, depending on the quality of the company used and the price paid:

x Disposal with no pre-treatment to landfill;

x Illegal dumping of the waste alongside roads and on fields/in culverts.

Veterinary inspection failures and birds that die during transport or holding are disposed of in a variety of manners. One facility incinerated these items, along with product returns, in their antiquated on-site incinerator, whilst the second facility visited simply minced the offending organ or bird, and then sent it to the solid waste holding tank. Both facilities had rudimentary treatment of their liquid wastes prior to ejection to the municipal systems, essentially consisting of mechanical screens.


As with all other aspects in this section, the degree of safety and proficiency in terms of waste control and management varies greatly according to the facility type.

Large Ruminants and Pigs

The larger slaughterhouses for large ruminants and pigs all have reasonably good waste control systems in place at their facility. Whilst wastes are collected in individual containers used for specific purposes only (for example pathological waste, trimmings, etc.) these containers are generally poorly labelled, emptied less frequently, and the storage areas are less secure than the modern poultry plants (as described below).

In the municipal facilities, which are all situated alongside rivers, waste control systems are very basic, with a simple plastic container being used for the storage of pathological wastes prior to their removal. Most



other body parts have a ready market in these poor areas, so only a small amount of trimmings are ejected, generally with the wastewater. Hooves and horns are either placed in the pathological waste bin if there is space, or alternatively they are discharged to the river, where dogs wait at slaughter times.

In general terms the management of solid wastes from the larger meat processing operations in the city is of a reasonably good standard; however, the systems varied at the two facilities visited. Waste flows observed were as follows:

x Both slaughterhouses had private companies collecting the following wastes (usually paying for the privilege):

o Hides (although in some instances of low volume customers, these accompany the carcass);

o Rumen contents, which are composted (see below); and

o Pig blood, which is made into products for human consumption.

x Both companies disposed of their beef blood and wash water in the same way; both are discharged to the municipal sewers following removal of gross solids via screens.

x One slaughterhouse sends any bone and fat waste to a private company for reprocessing, whilst trimmings and inedible offal are simply send to landfill. In the case of this slaughterhouse, pathological waste is incinerated on site using an antiquated incinerator.

x At another slaughterhouse, all biological wastes other than blood are rendered on site; tallow (fats) is first removed and sold to a food company for use in ice creams and chocolate, then the residues are further rendered to pet food, along with any pathological wastes.

One private composting company collects all rumen contents and some sludges in the City, processing roughly 5,000 tonnes per month into its product. The process takes 90 days to complete and is a first in the city.

Whilst the Study Team attempted to visit the external companies dealing with much of the city’s slaughter wastes, little success was encountered; however, it is understood that the majority of these processors use high temperature rendering equipment.

Figure 5.36 – Ruminant Waste at a Dumpsite (left), Rendering at a Slaughterhouse (centre) and Dogs Scavenging by the outlet from a Slaughterhouse (right)

Municipal facilities occasionally have small and invariably ancient incinerators on site; however, in reality all solid wastes that are not ejected with wash-water end up on municipal dumps, where they are occasionally incinerated at low temperatures.

In the smaller regional and village slaughterhouses, the volume of animals processed and the distance from



a contract renderer precludes rendering as a disposal option. In these cases the solid wastes from animal processing are directed to a local low-order landfill. It is suspected that some of the visceral material may find its way into swill feeding operations for pigs, although this was not verified directly.

Poultry

The modern privately owned poultry plant was again the most impressive in terms of waste control and management. All wastes are separated in the slaughter and butchery area, with pathological wastes going to one colour bin (which is regularly emptied), whilst trimmings go to another and feathers to another.

With respect to recycling and disposal, the following operations occur:

x Feathers and viscera are sent for processing to meal and fertiliser by a private firm.

x Trimmings are used as ingredients for processed foods such as sausages and nuggets.

x Blood is collected in large vats and is taken by a private firm. The end use is unknown, but one suspects it may end up being swill fed to pigs.

x Office wastes such as paper and plastic are segregated on site and then collected by a private contractor, presumably for re-sale or re-processing.

x Wastewater passes through a primary settling tank before being discharged to primary gross solids removal, sedimentation, and then to an aerated lagoon fitted with 30 hp surface aerator, followed finally by a polishing pond prior to discharge for adjoining landholders to use.

x Mortalities are composted on site along with material from gardens in grounds:

o The cycle is 120 days.

o On inspection the process was odorous and obviously in imbalance – possibly needing pH adjustment.

o The firm have undertaken a study comparing composting costs versus gas incineration and composting was far less expensive.

o Composted material is used within gardens / lawns in the slaughterhouse grounds.

x Heads are removed after skinning and are apparently rendered on site, however this operation was not seen, and nor is the final use of the rendered product known.

x After fleshing off, the remnant carcasses are ground up for use in pet food by a separate private company.

x Heart, liver, lungs, and gizzard are packed in plastic bag within the body cavity of the processed birds and are supplied to the purchaser. In the case of jointed birds, the pluck goes to the process facility and is included in the recipe for sausages and other products.

At the small-scale poultry slaughterhouses, waste control is also fairly simple in that the customer receives the entire bird, minus the feathers and usually the viscera. Feathers are simply left in piles around the plucking station to be collected once slaughtering ends. Viscera and blood are stored in a variety of plastic containers on site, and these are collected at the end of the day’s slaughter session (see Figure 5.37 overleaf).

There is a vibrant and very alarming industry based on the supply of offal wastes from enterprises such as the poultry processors at the chicken market and slaughterhouses. The viscera and blood from operations such as this, and almost certainly similar wastes from other informal sector slaughterhouses, finds a ready market for the swill feeding of pigs at a variety of pig colonies, tenant farms, and illegal dumps. Huge volumes of viscera are generated in the city every day, and all of it is thought to be sold for swill feed. The majority of the viscera is cooked prior to feeding to pigs; however, a minor proportion is fed raw, which is a serious avian influenza risk.



Figure 5.37 – Collection of Feathers after Slaughter (left), and Storage of Chicken Viscera Prior to Collection (right)

One female trader was known as the “Pig Queen” because she seemed to have cornered a large portion of the market, collecting viscera, skins, head and feet as well as poultry blood for direct supply to urban pig producers. Until recently, this material was fed raw to pigs. This is an extremely dangerous risk factor for emergence of pathogenic influenza as mixing of pathogenic avian influenza viruses with human virus in the pig, resulting in pathogenic human forms of the virus is possible.

Other Animals

The informal slaughtering site at one market was observed to have waste collection drums on site, understood to be provided by the municipality (with blatant disregard for the proper facilities being provided at the local slaughterhouse); however, it was also observed that these were only used by some; the remainder threw the slaughter wastes, which included hydatid cysts, into the nearby river, downstream of the slaughter area where dogs were observed to be scavenging; refer to Figure 5.38.

Figure 5.38 – Informal Sheep Slaughter, Municipality-Provided Drums, River Disposal, and Dogs Scavenging (left) and a Hydatid Cyst Found on the Ground (right)

Liquid Wastes

As has already been covered, liquid waste management in the meat processing sector in the Study City ranges from basic treatment, prior to discharge, to no treatment at all. In the case of the larger slaughterhouses, there is some effort made towards primary screening of the waste liquid stream prior to passing to the municipal sewer, but the systems that were observed are now grossly inadequate to handle the current volume of material. The operator that manages the sewage collection and treatment in the City dictates the discharge levels that the plant should comply with in terms of organic strength, suspended



solids, temperature and pH. The frequency of checking by the regulator was not determined, but in-house analysis is undertaken regularly by the operator.

In the smaller municipal slaughterhouses, the wastewater from processing merely undergoes very basic physical or gravimetric solids separation prior to discharge to the nearest water course. In these cases, there is reliance on not exceeding the assimilative capacity of the receiving waters, not out of environmental concern but public health concerns. Contaminated water may remain pathologically active for some considerable distance from the point of entry to the water course.

Blood and trimmings at municipal facilities as well as some level of contaminated meat and offal are washed down via a floor drain through a basic basket sieve and into the river situated near the plant. At the point of discharge into the river, the local dogs congregate and were observed to feed on the solid waste from the drain.

5.5.3 Meat Processing Wastes

Meat processing plants in the three low-income countries visited are not common, but where they were found they exist primarily in the private sector serving small niche market products, such as cooked meats, western-style meat cuts, sausages and the like for supply to high-class supermarkets, restaurants, and hotels. The processing facilities typically have high-quality imported equipment and observe international standards of hygiene, worker safety, and product control generally using a cold-chain. Wastes from the facilities visited where generally small in quantity and mainly comprise wash-down water and packaging; solid waste was either incinerated on-site (rudimentary facilities) or collected with the MSW. Liquid wastes are discharged to local water courses after simple sedimentation or screening.

In middle-income country 1, some boning plants were present in which control over hygiene is excellent, with staff wearing special clothing including hair-nets and face masks, and stainless steel and polystyrene equipment is used. There are protocols in place to maintain cleanliness, and the cold chain is always observed. Staff have access to good toilet and wash facilities, and wash-down was observed to be of the highest quality. Both facilities visited are very particular about their suppliers, and one of the two has its own farm / feedlot for the supply of meat to the boning room; although only 20% of their animals end up at the facility, the remainder being sold to butchers as split carcasses. Work practices are in both cases excellent, with well trained staff operating in good lighting conditions in a chilled atmosphere. The larger of the two facilities visited, with a current production of 25 tonnes of product per week, is the only facility visited during the country visit to be accredited to the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) system. Whilst standards of hygiene and work practice were observed to be excellent, off-site waste management practices were not so good, but in keeping with the general methods and practices encountered in the study area; essentially both facilities ejected their solid wastes (almost entirely composed of bone, and estimated to be roughly 30% of the input weight) to a municipal solid waste container for disposal to the local dump. Liquid wastes, which are essentially wash-water and chemicals (the blood having been drained at slaughter) are discharged directly to the municipal sewers.

5.5.4 Public Market Wastes

Livestock and slaughtering were generally not a part of public markets in low-income countries 2 and 3, so related waste issues were ignored. In the three other countries, however, the following was observed:


Live poultry and fish are commonplace at local public markets and occasionally pigs can also be seen. Slaughtering and processing of the animals is carried out on the floor at the market stalls, see Figure 5.39 overleaf.

Liquid wastes are washed into covered drainage channels and discharge untreated to nearby fish ponds or the local drainage system without treatment. However, the wastewater is quite dilute as blood and other waste products are bagged and sold with the carcass, if slaughtered.



Figure 5.39 – Slaughtering of Poultry at Public Market (left) and Adjacent Fish Ponds Where Waste is Discharged

Solid waste in public markets is mainly organic and is cleaned-up and collected into bins after each market day by the market management. The stored market solid waste is collected daily by the local urban environment company for transport and disposal to landfill.


As previously explained, waste management from the retail sections of the rural markets is extremely poor, though it should be noted that the majority of the waste is generated at the slaughter stage; once a carcass is delivered to a butcher, there is very little waste.

Blood from butchers’ stalls was seen draining away under other stalls and in several cases these stalls were laid out on mats on the ground and not on raised tables, see Figure 5.40 below.

Figure 5.40 – Blood from Retail Market Seeps Under Other Stalls (left), Market Waste Collection Point at a Fifth-Quarter Market (centre), and the Interior of the Central Market

(right)

Waste management in the urban markets is an improvement over the rural markets, and generally wastes are collected and disposed of to dump/landfill daily.




In the case of small retail market operators selling freshly killed birds, viscera and feathers are either thrown to the market’s municipal collection (which would end up at a dump of some description) or sold on as swill feed and meal input, depending on the vendor’s volume of sales. Blood is generally disposed of to waste, either via drains or in case of smaller operators such as street retailers, to municipal dumpsters.

Butchers selling prepared meats of all types generate next to no waste, as every part of the animal has a market. Dedicated offal sellers specialise in one form or another of offal or by-product, and these range from those selling prime offal such as ox hearts down to those selling cleaned bones for use in stock or soup making.

5.5.5 Retail Sector Wastes

Retail sector wastes are minimal and generally comprise meat trimmings, bones, deteriorated product, poultry slaughter waste (where practised), and wash-down water. A brief description of the situation in each country is discussed below:


Wastes disposed of directly by the retail sector are collected from the street and disposed to landfill by the local MSW company on a daily basis. Wash-down water is discharged to the local drainage system and watercourses without treatment.

Low-Income Country 2 (South Asia)

Waste is not significant at retail outlets and it is understood that bones and meat trimmings are sold to customers. Fat trimmings may be sold to fat recovery processors, and non-fatty tissue may be disposed to poultry feed manufacturers. Only small quantities of solid waste would be expected from this source.

With respect to deteriorated product, this is usually discounted to get a sale, or if the facilities are available it may be frozen down for sale at a later date.

Wash-down water is discharged to the local drainage system and watercourses without treatment.

Low-Income Country 3 (Africa)

The spinous processes are removed at the slaughterhouse, which means that retail butchers are dealing with malleable sides which can then be easily quartered. Bones are disposed of either as bone-in product; as pet food; or to waste collection performed by privately-owned handcarts through the various districts. This system was observed to be working reasonably well as the streets were relatively free of waste.

Beef product in the meat industry is very lean and so there is little trim to be disposed of; any small quantities of trimmings are either sold as pet food or collected by private firms using handcarts for disposal with the MSW.

Carcasses are delivered to retailers fresh from the slaughterhouse each working day and, in general, the operator will be turning over product as quickly as possible to minimise the potential for deteriorated product. Where deteriorated product has to be disposed of, it is collected each working day by small local enterprises using handcarts, and is disposed of with MSW.


Red meat is considered as a luxury due to its price in relation to average salaries and, as a result, there is always a willing purchaser for cheaper cuts, scraps, and offal; all of which can be used for soups and stews and at the very minimum as a flavouring agent if not present in sufficient quantities to act as a protein source.

As sales of boned and portioned European-style cuts only form a small part of the market, most retailers



have little in the way of bone waste, most of which is passed on to the consumer. Of the bones that are generated during the butchery process, much are sold on for use in stocks, and some is even sold to craftsmen practising marketry.

In terms of collection and disposal, most retail facilities visited report the same methods, as follows:

x All meat trimmings, bone and other solid wastes are disposed of to the municipal waste stream, and are collected by either a private collection company (generally for the larger outlets) or the municipal collection (which itself is frequently carried out by private companies operating on behalf of the municipalities).

x Supermarkets generally have a higher volume of meat wastes due principally to meat that reaches its sell-by date (local butchers tend to use up old meats in burgers and sausages, and in some cases adjoining fast-food outlets). In an attempt to prevent scavenging of the outdated meats once they reach the bins, collection vehicles or dumpsites, supermarkets generally treat the meat wastes with bleaches and other cleaning / disinfection agents prior to ejection to municipal containers.

x Liquid wastes, essentially consisting of wash-down water (with the exception of the live chicken shops, which also contain blood), were without exception discharged directly to the municipal sewers.


All retail facilities are understood to dispose of their wastes, including meat wastes, to municipal collection and disposal. No pre-treatment of returned or expired meat products is known to occur, which could encourage scavenging on dumps or landfills.

At one informal pig rearing operation visited, it was discovered that the chicken carcasses being fed to the pigs originated from the butchery of one of the two leading supermarket chains, which came as surprising and worrying news, considering the otherwise good standards at those supermarkets.

5.6 ESTIMATE OF SLAUGHTER WASTE QUANTITIES

To provide a preliminary estimate of the types and quantities of slaughter wastes produced in each city, it is necessary to develop some standard figures relating to the live weight of the average animals. Thus, typical breakdowns of the main animal items, in terms of percentage of live weight, have been developed for poultry, sheep and goats, cattle, and pigs; these are included in Tables 5.8 to 5.11 respectively. Using the figures in these tables, it is possible to roughly estimate the quantity of each waste item in each of the six cities visited.

Appendix E contains a preliminary estimate of the formal and informal sector wastes, city by city. Table E.1 contains estimates of the animals slaughtered in both the formal and informal sectors based on data gathered during the field visits. Whilst Table E.2 contains the preliminary estimates of the formal and informal sector wastes, city by city, calculated from the data in tables 5.8 to 5.11 and table E.1.

From the figures in Table E.2 it can be seen that the informal sector is very large in some cases and represents a major problem in the control, collection, and disposal of slaughter wastes in particular. These figures are indicative only and serve only to roughly quantify the amount of waste produced per week so as to put the slaughter waste situation into some perspective.



Table 5.8 – Breakdown of Waste Products as Percentage of Live Weight - Poultry

Item Percentage of Live Weight

Range Typical

Carcass Weight - 66.0

Feathers 4.0 – 5.0 4.5

Blood 4.0 – 5.0 5.0

Giblets 5.0 5.0

Pluck 5.0 5.0

Intestines 4.0 4.0

Head 3.0 – 4.0 3.5

Feet 5.0 – 6.0 5.5

Trim 1.0 – 2.0 1.5

Table 5.9 – Breakdown of Waste Products as Percentage of Live Weight – Sheep and Goats


Range Typical

Carcass Weight 45.0 – 48.0 47.0

Head 3.5 – 4.0 4.0

Feet 1.5 – 2.0 1.5

Skin 6.0 – 8.0 7.0

Blood 4.0 – 5.0 4.5

Pluck

(Thoracic Offal) 2.5 – 3.0 3.0

Intestines

(Abdominal Offal) 9.0 – 10.0 10.0

Stomach and Intestinal Contents 15.0 – 20.0 19.0

Other Pieces & Trimmings 1.0 - 1.5 1.0

Horns 3.0 – 5.0 3.0



Table 5.10 – Breakdown of Waste Products as Percentage of Live Weight– Cattle


Indicative weight (kg)

Live weight 100.0 350.0

Carcass weight 55.0 192.5

Blood 5.0 17.5

Head 4.0 14

Hide 8.0 28

Feet 3.0 10.5

Edible Offal 3.5 12.25

White offal (total) 8.5 29.75

Stomach & Intestinal Contents 13.0 45.5

Meat 40.0 140

Fat & Trimmings 5.0 17.5

Bones 10.0 35

Wastewater

(approx 200-400 litres/head) -

-

Table 5.11 – Breakdown of Waste Products as Percentage of Live Weight - Pigs

Item Typical Percentage of Live Weight

Indicative Weight (kg)

Live weight 100.0 95

Carcass weight 72.0 68.4

Blood 5.0 4.75

Hair 0.5 0.48

Edible Offal 6.5 6.18

White offal (total) 5.0 4.75

Stomach & Intestinal Contents 11.0 10.45

Meat 55.0 52.25

Fat & Trimmings 6.0 5.70

Bones 11.0 10.45

5.7 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF ISSUES

The overriding observations of the Study Team with respect to Municipal Solid Waste Management and its relationship with livestock and slaughter wastes is that whilst municipalities and other SWM operators are now beginning to recognise the importance of good MSW management, they do not make any special considerations for slaughter and livestock-related wastes, usually not even recognising that they may be of a high-risk category. Many years of focus on SWM improvements by development and funding agencies have initiated considerable improvements in waste management in the Study Cities, and where facilities, funds and institutions are still considerably lacking in this regard; there is at least acknowledgement of the



need to improve the situation, and an understanding of the basic issues. The same cannot be said with regards to livestock market and slaughter wastes, and in essence this observation summarises the situation on the ground that the World Bank is presently attempting to address; the dangers associated with animal wastes are much neglected and is an area requiring further study and immediate action.

Along with medical wastes, slaughterhouse wastes are surely some of the most dangerous to arrive at disposal sites. As noted above, most if not all of the MSW disposal sites visited by the Study Team accepted livestock-related wastes (and other animal wastes, for example poisoned strays), and most were also host to scavenging humans, livestock, and other animals. Whilst it is unrealistic to expect the disposal arrangements to be improved in the short term, immediate action to prevent livestock grazing on wastes, and the involvement of children in the waste picking activities, could see immediate improvements in the frequencies of zoonoses, and would have additional peripheral benefits, for example a reduction in livestock mortalities due to ingestion of plastic.

Legislation regarding the treatment of special wastes is not commonplace; however, where legislation does exist, it is largely either ignored or used as a means of generating income through payments and bribes. Improvement of the legislative systems in the Study Countries is undoubtedly needed; however, this should not become part of the “first steps” due to general lack of government desire or capacity to enforce laws. Aside from the enormous challenges with regards to capacity to enforce legislation, it should be noted that as a general rule, enforcement and penalisation is only an effective means of control when the majority is working inside the law; at present there is clearly a majority outside the law, requiring incentives and real desire for change to get the majority inside the system. Only then will enforcement become a truly viable option.

Awareness-raising within municipalities, government agencies, and facility operators is a good first step. However, perhaps the simplest way to initiate some action on the ground, is to relate the issues directly to income and expenditure; for instance, if a manager’s attention is drawn to the indirect expense involved with dealing with these wastes, and the lost income through not valorising them, perhaps a shift away from the present indifference could begin to be made. In addition to the intrinsic value of some of the waste products if recycled, possibilities for the value in terms of carbon offsets should be examined. Several animal waste-related projects do currently exist within Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and these projects are now generating considerable incomes for their operators, whilst reducing local impacts arising from the mismanagement of livestock and slaughter wastes. There are clearly considerable administration and set-up costs associated with the approval and operation of CDM projects, and an avenue for further study in this area should include possibilities for cooperatives/cooperation and funding for project set up and methodology approval. Table 5.12 lists some of the present CDM projects that are benefiting from carbon finance for funding improvements and providing supplemental income to operators. This subject will be developed in a follow-on study.

Table 5.12 – Present Slaughter and Livestock Waste Related CDM Projects

Country Project Description

Argentina Granja Tres Arroyos Methane Avoidance in Slaughterhouse Effluents Project

Brazil Slaughterhouse Effluent Treatment – Andradina Unit

Brazil Slaughterhouse Wastewater Aerobic Treatment – Goiânia Unit

Brazil Fuel oil to animal tallow switching at Companhia de Fiação e Tecidos Santo Antônio

China Animal Manure Management System (AMMS) GHG mitigation, Shandong Minhe Livestock

Malaysia Methane Recovery by Bio-digestion of Animal Waste from Slaughterhouse in Ulu Selangor.



Waste management from retail sites is clearly a problem. Whilst the issues may appear minor in comparison to the more serious issues of neglect and mismanagement occurring at the generation and disposal stages, the number of people coming into contact with these wastes is relatively low. Wastes generated and poorly dealt with by retailers, whether shops or markets, have the potential to affect far larger numbers of people.

These linkages between retail-level slaughter and processing waste management are, in the opinion of the Study Team, downplayed and public health authorities have no more interest in the issue than they calculate the risks associated with, for example, the swill feeding of pigs as noted earlier in this sections. Whilst some of the lack of interest is no doubt due to apathy, lack of awareness is also rife on the dangers of poor waste management and food safety at the retail level is rife. No figures generally exist for the incidence or causes of food poisoning cases, further masking issues. Consumers should not have to be exposed to the unnecessary dangers that they are frequently exposed to; however, due to prolonged exposure to the current conditions, a general acceptance of the situation as “normal” arises. Some of the Study Countries are already planning, and undertaking, public awareness programmes to promote food safety issues and the benefits of official slaughtering, but this will take time to filter through the system. In the meantime, facilities will need to be upgraded and expanded to actually achieve good food safety standards and earn the trust of the consumers.



6. INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES

6.1 INTRODUCTION TO ISSUES

Many of the problems perceived during the field visits could be attributed to the considerable impacts of the informal sector and corruption, and the lack of good practice, training, awareness, government involvement or capability, and off-site waste management, and it is beyond argument that the above areas require urgent attention. The complexity of the overall situation cannot be highlighted enough, and the close connection between all issues was a major finding of the field visits and a common theme in all countries.

At a more basic level, however, is one of the principal problems that the Study sought to investigate; the status of market and slaughter infrastructure and services with respect to waste management in the study countries.

Safe sale, slaughter, and preparation of animals with due care given to welfare, meat quality, hygiene, public health, epidemiology and zoonosis is not generally possible without adequate physical infrastructure and services with which to ensure effective removal of wastes from working areas, public areas, sale pens, etc. This can be achieved in a variety of ways but is always assisted by good infrastructure design, function, and maintenance plus the availability of reliable water, power, and drainage systems. BCCDC (2007) suggests that “Edible and inedible areas must be physically and operationally separate” and that “meat products should, therefore, proceed progressively through cleaner areas of the operation.”

Washdown and cleaning are also part of the waste management process and these processes are facilitated by good infrastructure and utility services.

In undertaking the field visits, the team visited a large number of facilities of varying designs, ages, and capacities, and were looking in particular for the presence (and if present; state of repair) or lack of the following:

x Access roads, parking, despatch arrangements, etc.

x Unloading and loading facilities for livestock.

x Provision of shade/shelter/cover from rain, sun, scavengers, etc.

x Provision of on-site waste collection areas and equipment.

x Process equipment.

x Availability, cleanliness and temperature of water.

x Availability of cleaning chemicals.

x Considerations given to areas harbouring bacteria (eg curving of joints, tiling, etc).

x Adequate lighting.

x Design and construction of interior surfaces.

x Drains, screens, water treatment, disposal, etc.

x Segregation issues; public/workers, food/animals/wastes, etc.

x Provision of ventilation and refrigeration.

6.2 GENERAL FINDINGS

Livestock market and slaughterhouse infrastructure were observed by the Study Team to be generally of a higher standard in the two middle-income countries than the lower income countries; however, it should be noted that this comparison is relative; frequently the conditions observed in the middle-income countries were atrocious, and the physical infrastructure non-existent. The private sector facilities in these countries were, however, an exception, with export-level standards found at some facilities.

Often the infrastructure and general conditions in the low-income countries are very poor due to age and the lack of maintenance and investment; whilst their locations, in densely populated urban areas, exacerbated



the situation due to poor access and loading / unloading facilities, overcrowding, and poor sanitation.

The following sections briefly describe and illustrate the conditions found at livestock markets and slaughterhouses in the five countries visited. In addition, the conditions at municipal public markets have been described for low-income country 1, as on-site slaughtering is commonly practised at these facilities, particularly for poultry.

6.3 LIVESTOCK MARKETS

6.3.1 Location and Access


Within the city and the peri-urban areas, livestock markets are generally limited to poultry and all are located outside of the city limits. The main poultry market serving the city is located in a semi-rural area approximately 25 km south and 1 km east of the main highway. It is basically a small single road village that trades in poultry (chicken and duck), and is located adjacent to a large fish pond and local farms. Although the market is located only 1 km from the main highway the access road is narrow and in poor condition, only small trucks, cars, and motorcycles can use the road, see Figure 6.1. During the rainy season, access is likely to be compromised.

Figure 6.1 – Narrow Access Road to and through the Poultry Market

In contrast, there is an urban poultry market located on the north side of the main river where poultry is traded and there is a specialised slaughter area. The market section is relatively small compared the slaughter area, so been included under the slaughterhouse section of this chapter. Access is via main highways so transport connections are good.

Another livestock market is located in a rural area 20 km directly east of the city straddling both sides of a through road. The access road is narrow and under reconstruction by the LGU; it mostly suitable for small vehicles and motorcycles (the main mode of local transport).


The City’s main livestock market is the major market for both large and small ruminants in the city and is located close to the city’s main municipal slaughterhouse, which serves to attract the large-scale trade in livestock. The large ruminant market is located on an old dumpsite which still appears to operate unofficially, with some limited and uncontrolled open dumping taking place. It is located adjacent to a large drainage canal and has a single access road, on the other side of which is the slaughterhouse and a large fifth-quarter processing industry located in local warehouses. The market is also close to an intersection on a national highway and has been almost entirely encroached upon by residential urban development. The smaller, but no less busy, small ruminant section is located along the main road on the opposite side of the slaughterhouse.



The access road to the market, in particular to the large ruminant market, is very poor, muddy, and extremely congested, there are no stock handling facilities such as pens nor loading/unloading ramps; see Figure 6.2. There is only one-way in and out of the market and parking is extremely limited; the average truck spends up to six hours or so getting in and out of the market. In wet weather the situation becomes much worse and trucks often get stuck in the mud. Access to the small-ruminant section, however, is better as it is located along a main road.

Figure 6.2 – Poor Quality and Congested Access Road to the Main Cattle Market

The city’s main poultry market is essentially the small car park servicing the public poultry market facility, located on a busy road in an urban setting, see Figure 6.3. This is simply a strip of bitumen where small trucks can park, birds can be unloaded and reloaded onto other vehicles for transport elsewhere or slaughtered at the market. Access to the market is good, but it is now very congested due to the number of trucks greatly outweighing the space available. When established in 1994 the average number trucks using the market per day was 25; today, this number is nearer to 150 yet there has been no capacity added.

Figure 6.3 – Location of the Poultry Market in Car Park of Market Building


The city’s largest market is located in the heart of the city and surrounded by industrial and residential areas. It comprises a 20,000 m2 market area bounded in part by the main river, which receives all the runoff from the market. When it was established in 1958, the site was well-removed from the city centre but it is now both constricted by, and the cause of, congestion in the surrounding maze of roads.

The other formal livestock markets are located in less-built up areas on the outskirts of the city, but are also under threat of urban encroachment and are serviced by unsealed access roads with poor or non-existent unloading facilities.



Access for animals is poor at all sites. The access area into the main market is always congested and always muddy in the wet season because of the high number of truck movements into a relatively small area. In the dry season dust and faecal matter are readily dispersed onto all surfaces and humans. Access roads to the peri-urban markets vary from bad to reasonable as can be seen in Figure 6.4 below.

Figure 6.4 – Access to the Main Market (top left) and to Three Peri-Urban Markets

Proper loading ramps can be observed at some sites (see Chapter 8) but are often lacking at others where workers push together a mix of trash and earth to get animals on and off transport. Where The natural slope at some sites assists in this difficult task. The main livestock market, however, does have reasonable loading ramps but the number of ramps is inadequate for the number of vehicles using the facility causing much congestion.


The two cities visited have no urban livestock markets; their meat demands are met through two basic mechanisms:

x Long-distance transport of livestock from agricultural areas to the slaughterhouses.

x The system of large livestock markets, rural slaughterhouses, and retail markets that operate in each of the smaller towns surrounding the cities.

The Study Team was, therefore, only able only to examine the second of the above mechanisms with any detail, and as such visited three (and attempted to visit five) of these semi-rural live markets that supply meat directly to the cities, whether in the form of meat for the city butchers or livestock for the city slaughterhouses.

The livestock markets are generally located in a semi-rural setting on the edge of town, and as such access



is usually good, with bitumen roads leading more or less to the entrance of most markets. Parking is usually reasonably well managed, if a little chaotic, by private concerns who, legally or illegally, have rights to a certain number of spaces.


There are three main locations for livestock markets that supply the city which is spread over a geographically large area and has many market centres operating within it. The main poultry market area is located near the centre of the city, whereas in the regional areas, many smaller livestock markets exist. These may be in conjunction with general markets selling a variety of other goods or as discrete livestock markets selling either a variety of stock or one single species such as cattle or pigs.

As with any livestock market, the mix of stock offered will be largely dependent on the climatic variables in operation at any one particular time, thus during dry periods it would be expected that a larger number of store stock would be on offer and in good season a greater number of finished stock.

The city is currently implementing, as a staged development, a proposal to combine all the markets in the city area into one complex on a site of some 69 hectares. This will include a state of the art slaughterhouse with final completion projected to occur in 2011. The focus of the development of this market and meat processing precinct is to assist in driving many of the substandard markets and processing plants out of business.

Markets are generally located on or near well formed and reasonably maintained bitumen roads. In some cases, adequate space exists within market / selling complex to allow large rigid body cattle trucks to manoeuvre rather than relying on access from public roads. In the smaller regional markets, the condition of the roads is not as good and within the market area it is usually merely gravel or compacted dirt.

Parking within any of the markets appears virtually non-existent for all but vendors or officials of the market. The result of this tends to be that parking around the market area can tend to become reasonably short in supply and in some cases somewhat chaotic. No live market visited imposed any kind of restrictions on human or animal access.

6.3.2 Infrastructure and Services


Layout

There is no formal layout or market infrastructure for the poultry market, it straddles the narrow road both sides between houses and alongside the large fish ponds. A control check point is located approximately 150 metres before the market, refer to Figure 6.5.

Figure 6.5 – Control Check Point at the Poultry Market and Spraying of Arriving Poultry



At another public market there are eight stalls for the trading of piglets within a separate area. The stalls are small, only about three metres square and have a concrete floor; the rest if the area is dirt floor only. There is a communal selling section and kitchen. The poultry section is divided into individual stalls in a separate area of the market with dirt floor and the only permanent buildings are for small businesses selling hardware, preserved foods, and other goods and services.

Infrastructure

No formal drainage system exists at any of the livestock markets and they typically drain by gravity to adjacent fish ponds and fields or to local irrigation channels.

There are no formal market buildings at the poultry market, only basic enclosures and temporary covered areas close to the stall owners’ houses, see Figure 6.6 below. Permanent buildings could be seen at the pig market, however, but these were for small retail and service businesses and not for the livestock areas, where only makeshift buildings were present.

Figure 6.6 – Typical Structures at the Poultry Market

Utility Services

All activities are conducted outside in daylight, so there is no requirement for lighting. Any utilities required at the poultry market come directly from the stall owner’s houses; however, running water was observed at the pig market.


Layout

There is no formal layout at the main ruminant market for cattle as it is located on an old dumpsite. Old waste cells that have been filled present dangers to both animals and humans as they have not been capped, thus water stays trapped with the dumped material, which presents a significant danger to animals and humans alike. Reports from locals confirm that both animals and people have fallen victim to these “hidden” dangers, and some deaths have occurred in the past. In addition, there is clear evidence of the dumping of clinical wastes at the site, in and around where traders and animals operate. There are many complaints from the local residents, but until new facilities are constructed the status quo will be maintained.

Similarly at the small-ruminant market, there is no formal layout but conditions are a little better for the sheep and goats and temporary market stalls and pens are evident.

The poultry market also has no formal layout or facilities, simply using the small car park at the front of the market building.



Infrastructure

Drainage at the main ruminant market is non-existent and water is soaked up by the existing waste dumped on the site and filling up the exiting cells were waste was dumped. The site is close to a large drainage canal providing an outlet for any surface runoff. There are no buildings associated with the main ruminant market and there is no shelter from the sun in summer and rain in the wet season. The ground surface is either dirt or dumped material and becomes boggy when wet, see Figure 6.7 below. Walled holding areas are located nearby, which are available for keeping stock for up to five days, but these are not specifically part of the market and owners charge for the services, but water and feed is provided.

Figure 6.7 – Main Ruminant Market on Old Dumpsite

At the small ruminant section of the market the site is higher than the road so drains more easily into the municipal drainage system. The small ruminant market does have some small structures for shelter and holding areas but these are very simple and could only be described as temporary.

The poultry market site, being essentially a car park, has effective drainage that discharges into the municipal drainage system at the front of the building, see Figure 6.8. The market has no buildings, the large main market building adjacent is for market stalls and slaughtering only.

Figure 6.8 – Poultry Market and Market Building (slaughtering)

Utility Services

Both of the ruminant markets and the poultry market are wholly outside and operate only during daylight hours, therefore no lighting is necessary; although within the main market building adjacent to the poultry market, lighting is present, but well below standards that would normally be expected.



There is no running water or electricity associated with ruminant markets. A single toilet block is associated with the slaughterhouse and rendering area, but evidence of open defecation and urination suggest that this is not sufficient.

At the poultry market, water is available via the main market building but it is impossible to use the hoses and taps when the market is in operation due to the severe congestion. The main building appears to have adequate power, although power facilities were observed to need to attention, see Figure 6.9 below. Live bird traders cannot access any of these facilities, which are reserved for the wholesale / retail market operators.

Figure 6.9 – Electrical Installation at the Main Poultry Market


Layout

Each livestock market comprises a large enclosure into which all the stock are placed following arrival. There is no penning of different batches of animals; each group is segregated from others by the efforts of their herders. There is generally an ancillary pen to isolate ailing livestock which offers a modicum of shade. Construction materials vary from market to market, but all have reasonably good fencing and rails. One market is conspicuous for its heavy use of bamboo and other wooden poles which have sharp and jagged edges, a hazard for both staff and livestock.

Most stock at the markets remain un-tethered and are kept in check by their herders. Troublesome animals are tethered to a heavy rock or to a fence. There is poor provision of water and no shade for stock.

All markets have good perimeter walls / fencing with one having a heavy stone wall around three sides. Access for stock is controlled, but the public can access the market freely. This is important because local people come to collect cattle manure and other detritus from the site. The cow pats are dried and sold as fuel whilst other solid waste able to be salvaged from the site is removed. Typical photographs of the markets are included in Figures 6.10 to 6.13 overleaf.



Figure 6.10 – Main Livestock Market

Figure 6.11 – Peri-Urban Livestock Market 1





Infrastructure

The livestock markets are all located on relatively steep slopes and thus are provided with a good gradient for drainage. In general, the water courses at the bottom of the slope are used for the discharge of runoff from the sites, with the exception of one. This is only mitigated by the fact that the sites are cleared of animal waste by the locals as fuel during the dry season.

The main market is only partially paved with stone, carried out only recently, but will not be completely covered due to the fact that the market may move in the near future. Although paved in stone cobbles the enclosures at the peri-urban markets, in particular, can become extremely muddy after rain, mainly due to the amount of animal dung that accrues on the site. At one peri-urban market the ground surface is again mostly paved but appears to suffer less in terms of mud and dung accrual, which improves drainage considerably. The wet season is short but intense and improved drainage at these facilities would assist in better presentation of stock at slaughter.

Figures 6.14 and 6.15 overleaf illustrate the drainage outlet conditions at each of the livestock markets. It can be seen at one market, Figure 6.15 (right), that there is no channel or piped outlet, since there is no suitable watercourse downstream; the unpaved area is planned to be made into a retention area for runoff.

Figure 6.14 – Outlet for Drainage at Main Market (left) and Covered Drain at One Peri-Urban Market (right)



Figure 6.15 – Outlet for Drainage at Peri-Urban Market (left) and Area Reserved for a Retention Pond at Another (right)

In addition each market has an office where the Urban Agriculture Department (UAD) staff collect market fees, issue receipts and keep simple records of livestock numbers at the market. There is generally a latrine for workers and very basic shelter for a limited number of herders. All of these facilities are at a very basic and rudimentary level, with only the simplest shelter provided for the UAD officer(s) that monitors market data.

Utility Services

All markets are outdoors and thus lighting is not required. There is power to the market offices and presumably a telephone connection, although most people appear to be in possession of mobile telephones. None of these markets permit on-site slaughter or food stalls. Each market has a water supply but there is in general a paucity of water troughs for stock.


Layout

The overall layouts of the market and slaughterhouse complexes followed a generally homogenous theme of livestock market adjoined to slaughterhouse adjoined to retail market; however, in terms of the layout of the specific live markets taken in isolation, there is not a great deal to report. This is due to the fact that without exception the live markets were simply open, bare wasteland or field, with no scales, rails, sanitary facilities, unloading facilities, offices, or any other infrastructure. At best these areas were part-fenced or walled, with tents erected around the showground providing food and drinks. Figure 6.16 below shows satellite imagery of typical layouts.

Figure 6.16 – Examples of Livestock Market Layouts from Middle Income Country 1



The Red Meat Association has established one “model” livestock market where the animals are tethered to a central rail and the owners can stand nearby while the prospective purchasers inspect the livestock and agree or not on a price with the assistance of electronic scales if need be. Unfortunately, this model was obstructed by some influential buyers as these facilities generally favour the producer. This situation also provides municipalities with a good excuse why they should not invest in providing facilities at their markets.

Infrastructure

As described elsewhere in this report, the livestock markets generally had no drainage facilities whatsoever. Occasionally shallow culverts had been dug, but these were in general poorly maintained, full of litter and other wastes, and in any case simply drained to an area alongside the market. One market was visited following a brief rainstorm, and conditions were reasonably muddy in the livestock market area.

None of the livestock markets visited in the study area had a single permanent building on site, see Figure 6.17. Some of the markets had makeshift tents selling food to the many farmers, dealers, and butchers present.

Figure 6.17 – Very Basic Infrastructure Typical of Livestock Markets in Middle Income Country 1

Utility Services

Despite frequently commencing in the early hours of the morning when still dark, none of the livestock markets visited had any form of lighting provided. One can only assume that vehicle headlights are employed as much as possible. None of the livestock markets visited had any form of running water available.


Layout

The layout of the various markets varies widely. In the more formalised and regulated markets, the stock are held in well designed and maintained yards or pens3. A number of different producers’ cattle may be

3 HSA comments (Feb 2009) – Separation facilities, such as penning or tethering of livestock, are a good method because it keeps stock in one place and reduces the need for owners to constantly be rounding-up their animals or trying to keep other animals away. Such facilities are also likely to reduce bruising and damage caused by sticks, animals will not need to be hobbled, and mixing of social and transport groups will be avoided (lessening disease spread risk, aggression, and injury). Simple methods of shelter from direct sunlight and rain for livestock and owners alike is also advocated.



located in the one yard or pen with differentiation being attained by paint markings on the stock. In these cases the prospective purchasers are able to walk through the stock and examine them in detail if they require but usually all inspection is done from the aisle/road outside the pens.

A loading race and small holding yard was present at this market to facilitate loading following sale. Scales for weighing of stock were also available at the market4.

In the regional markets the system tends to be much more informal with animals loosely held in groups by various means, such as tethering and horn tying. There are no formal areas but rather a large open space which one would imagine has historically been used for the purpose of stock selling.

Trading occurs on open ground with little in the way of facilities. The presence of regulatory authorities is inconsistent; a few stations had government officers undertaking (incomplete) movement certification and truck disinfection duties. The basic model was open ground near to a large centre with reasonable heavy vehicle access. The only regular feature was the presence of undulating ground and mounds of dirt to assist in loading and unloading of stock. Some sites had a truck cleaning area, and one had an informal slaughter operation nearby. No sites have drainage systems as the rainfall is low and the market is dispersed, resulting in little dung concentration in areas. These sites generally had no running water or electricity.

The feedlot supply market was more formal. A truck weighbridge allowed purchase on a live weight basis. Amenities included toilets and kitchen facilities. Traders may house cattle temporarily in pens for a fee as required. These markets serve to distribute cattle bought into the feedlot hub to individual feedlots and the distances to destination from this site is small.

The poultry live market comprised of walled rectangular area, with a small office and sanitary block inside the entrance. Beyond that lies the main sale area and each agent has a small wooden stall. On the eastward end of the market is the suite of nine small slaughterhouses.

Figure 6.18 – Differing standards of infrastructure and layout observed in Middle Income Country 2

It should be noted that this livestock market is not the only market in the area; the entire street is bordered by poultry supply warehouses, small (illegal) slaughterhouses, food vendors and so forth.

4 HSA comments (Feb 2009) – Depending on the type of scales used, animals may find the use of scales aversive, particularly if they have to be forced into a crush-type device. Factors such as dead-ends and unsteady floors may cause animals to baulk and require coercion to enter. Weighbridges installed as part of a race offer a good solution, as often used in high-income countries; however, the cost may be prohibitive in developing countries and weighing the carcass after slaughter may be an alternative.



Infrastructure

The larger markets have compacted gravel surfaces that in general would appear to drain towards stormwater collection systems or a nearby river; however it should be noted that, as previously mentioned, the rainfall in the city and its environs is very low and drainage is therefore a low priority. One poultry market does have a drainage system; however this exists only on the slaughterhouse side of the market.

The principal live markets in another region had no buildings, whether for facilities or offices. The only structures on site were the makeshift semi-permanent stalls of some of the retail vendors.

The feedlot supply market had a large brick barn building attached to it, in which feed and manure were stored. The feedlot / market area was surrounded by a wooden structure comprising fencing and shade, with concrete feeding troughs running alongside.

Utility Services

No live market had any form of power or lighting other than one poultry market, which had power, lighting, cold running water, and a small office and sanitary block.

6.4 SLAUGHTERHOUSES

6.4.1 Location and Access


Both pig slaughterhouses visited by the Study Team are located within the city boundary in growing residential areas and create excessive noise during their operations overnight; odour problems are also a nuisance for nearby residents. The facilities have been advised by city authorities that they will need to relocate to peri-urban areas by 2010, but no formal plans had been made. Access roads to both pig slaughterhouses, whilst hard surfaced, can generally be considered in poor repair and described as rudimentary with potholes and are muddy in wet conditions. The access roads are also narrow and the streets often congested at peak times, see Figure 6.19 below.

Figure 6.19 – Typical Access Roads to a Pig Slaughterhouse

The urban poultry slaughter site is incorporated into a wholesale market area in an industrial / commercial zone on the north side of the city. The site can be considered appropriate as it has easy access to the city and with minimal impact on residents or other urban activity. Roads and access to the poultry slaughter site are very good, from trunk roads that service the city. There is some endeavour dedicated to site security with both veterinary and security surveillance at the entry gate.



There is also a poultry slaughter site located in essentially a rural area with little impact on surrounding activities, but this is small. The access road is from the main road and, whilst hard surfaced, is basic and in need of repair.

There are approximately seven private cattle slaughterhouses (all small family businesses), these can all be considered backyard, as they are essentially located at the rear of residences in densely populated residential and commercial areas. One such slaughterhouse was visited (the others reported to be similar) and access to the slaughter area is about 50 metres down a narrow alleyway approximately 1 metre wide. Although quite an efficient operation, neighbours must be impacted by noise, light, and odour particularly as slaughter operations occur typically between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m. seven days a week. No direction had been given, at the time of the visit, for this operation to be relocated outside of the city boundaries; the fact that the cattle slaughter operations are much smaller (typically 10 – 15 head per night) and less intrusive than the pig slaughtering may be one reason for this. The slaughterhouse is located off the main city road and access to the facility for live cattle and despatch of finished products is via a narrow public alleyway, which is inadequate for both delivery of the animals and for the despatch of products by motorcycle, the only motorised transport that can fit down the alley; refer to Figure 6.20 below.

Figure 6.20 – Cattle Slaughterhouse Location (left) and Narrow Access for Cattle from the Street (right)

A modern private pig slaughter and meat processing facility is located 25 km southeast of the city in a rural / industrial setting, far from residential areas and with little impact on the local environs. Although located some way outside the city, roads to the site are paved and in good condition. Access to the site is directly from the public road and within the site there is good vehicular access to all parts of the site, as would be expected in a modern facility.


The city’s main slaughterhouse (large and small ruminants) is located in a built-up area adjacent to the large and small ruminant markets (one either side) and close to an open drainage canal. The poor internal road network in the immediate area makes vehicular access to the facilities very difficult; surrounding city roads, however, are generally good. Due to development pressures and the inadequacy of the current location it is intended to relocate this facility to a peri-urban area; however, no appropriate date has yet been set for this. Access to the slaughterhouse is completely inadequate, as it is too narrow, very crowded, and doesn’t allow for any vehicular parking. Once slaughtering commences it is almost impossible to reach the slaughterhouse by car, and is difficult even on foot due to the sheer number of people and animals. The access roads are inadequately maintained and in very poor condition with missing and broken access covers to the drainage system. Finished products are physically carried off the site to waiting vehicles (carts or three-wheeled vehicles) which are the cause of much of the congestion, see Figure 6.21 overleaf.



Figure 6.21 – Poor Condition of Road and Congestion at the Main Ruminant Slaughterhouse

A feet and head processing facility is located near the gate of the main large ruminant slaughterhouse, whist the blood processing facility is located alongside the small ruminant slaughterhouse. The other livestock waste processing facilities are housed in warehouses in various locations around the same area. Access roads to the waste recycling / processing facilities are narrow and inadequate and are restricted further by the same problems as for the slaughterhouse described above.

Two smaller ruminant slaughterhouses are also located in the city serving more localised needs. The first is located in a built-up commercial / residential area on the northern banks of the main river, where access is difficult as the roads are narrow and not ideal for trucks; but in and around the slaughterhouse the area is relatively clear and there is no market. It appeared that the only access was through a built up residential area.

The second small ruminant slaughterhouse is located in a residential street in the middle of a densely populated residential area, where access is very difficult, and many residents complain about the facility being located there. Access to the facility is by way of narrow suburban streets and is inappropriate for an animal slaughter operation. See Figure 6.22 below.

Figure 6.22 – Access Roads to the Two Small Ruminant Slaughterhouses

The main poultry slaughter facility is located in a suburban area not far from the centre of the city and is contained in a large market type building off a good quality road. Access is good, being located just off the main road; however, access around the slaughter area at the back of the market building is very poor. See Figure 6.23 below.



Figure 6.23 – Poor Access to the Poultry Slaughter


The city’s main municipal slaughterhouse, is located in the centre of the city and is situated about 200 m from the main livestock market. It occupies a large area bounded on one side by a small river, which accepts the effluent and runoff from the whole site. The three peri-urban slaughterhouses are located outside of the city, as follows:

x A small municipal abattoir is located in the south of the city, approximately 15 km from the city centre, and distributes to customers mainly in that area.

x A medium size private slaughterhouse is located approximately 12 km northwest of the city, and is situated along a main highway. The facility distributes both locally and within the city itself.

x A small private sheep/goat slaughterhouse is located approximately 11 km south of the city, off the main highway, and distributes mainly to local customers.

Road access to all of the slaughter sites is good and via sealed roads. Access to all sites is strictly controlled using high walls, gated entrances, and security; gates are normally closed at all times only being opened for the entry and exit of vehicles and personnel.


The locations of the rural slaughterhouses are discussed elsewhere in this document, and are exactly as per the livestock markets. Approach roads are usually of adequate quality, however parking is invariably troublesome.

Municipal slaughterhouse facilities are generally situated within the cities. The older facilities, generally constructed under French rule at the turn of the 20th century, are predominantly situated right in the city centre.

Plans exist to replace the various municipal slaughterhouses in City 1 with one central modern slaughterhouse, under private funds. The current situation with respect to this new slaughterhouse is unknown, though Gulf states’ funding of North African developments is understood to be in a fragile situation.

The private poultry slaughter and processors visited are all located to the south west of City 2 and have good access and security, see Figure 6.24.



Figure 6.24 – Excellent Access Arrangement at Private Facilities

Public access to the slaughter halls varied greatly according to the type of facility:

x The rural slaughterhouses generally had totally free access, or in some cases were guarded very poorly by police. The Study Team had some problems in gaining access to certain facilities, but this is thought only to be down to the unusual situation of foreigners wanting to view such a place; it is assumed that local residents would have free access.

x The municipal facilities at City 1 were both walled and gated, and both had guards overseeing access. It is not clear how strict the entry protocols are, as it is assumed that the majority of people admitted without showing passes are well known to the guards.

x The slaughterhouse in City 2 had slightly better controls over those entering and exiting the plant; however, unsurprisingly it was the private poultry slaughterhouses that had the tightest controls in terms of access.

x Private poultry slaughter and processing facilities had far higher security levels than municipally run facilities, and these facilities also had far fewer movements.


The three main locations for slaughterhouses serving the city are:

x City centre for small poultry facilities and private pig and cattle (and some sheep) slaughterhouses;

x An area away from the city for private pig and cattle facilities;

x An area away from the city for large poultry processors.

The large private slaughterhouses that are located within the city were once located outside the city boundaries; however, the considerable growth that has occurred over the past 50 years has resulted in the facilities being surrounded on all sides by other industry and housing.

An unknown number of small poultry slaughter operations exist, two of which were visited by the Study Team. One is located along a street of poultry facilities whilst the other is located in the basement of a retail market.

Slaughter facilities have developed in the traditional pig / cattle areas due to the proximity to the feedlot zone, which reduces transport costs.

As the commercial poultry facilities are large and modern, they are located outside of the main cities where land is inexpensive, pressures are less, and the rearing farms that supply the birds and feeds are closer.

The management of one of the municipal facilities, constructed in the 1950’s, intends to construct a new slaughterhouse at a more remote site from the town than the present location. Basic site preparation has reportedly begun but has been postponed indefinitely due to funding issues involving the government and



the relevant aid organisation.

In terms of security, the following slaughterhouse types had perimeter walls, guarded gates and restricted access:

x All private red meat and pig slaughterhouses.

x All private commercial poultry facilities.

Small poultry slaughterhouses, whilst having some degree of control of access at market entrances, were effectively open to all, and the municipal slaughterhouses had no restrictions to access whatsoever, see Figure 6.25 overleaf.

Public access to the slaughterhouses varied greatly according to the type of facility. In terms of ease of access for workers and transport, all facilities other than municipal slaughterhouses were served by bituminous roads of good to reasonable quality; however, it should be noted that access to the private slaughterhouses can be time consuming due to the heavy levels of traffic congestion encountered in the city.

Figure 6.25 – Security Measures (or Lack Thereof) at the Facilities

6.4.2 Infrastructure and Services


Layout

At both of the pig slaughterhouses, the buildings consist of a number of similar processing units, each unit having a livestock holding pen at the back and a processing area in the front. There is a water tub and a solid fuel heating hearth (for hot water for scalding) installed in the processing area of the units. Processing of the pigs often spills over onto the concrete apron at the front of the units. Fifth-quarter processing is performed at the front of the main units in the case of the one facility and at dedicated spaces a little removed and opposite from the slaughter area at the other. Refer to Figures 6.26 and 6.27 below.

Both pig slaughterhouses are located adjacent to ponds and / or water courses for site drainage and wastewater disposal; the former discharging to a large adjacent city drainage channel.



Figure 6.26 – Fifth-Quarter Processing in Front of Slaughter Units and Typical Unit Layout

Figure 6.27 – Processing Units at the Larger Pig Slaughterhouse and Typical Unit Layout

The urban poultry slaughter facilities consist of two mirror image buildings containing a number of similar processing units. The processing units have a sticking and plucking area at the back and dressing and evisceration area in the building with a finished product counter at the front. The area provided for sticking and slaughter is inadequate and as a result plucking occurs in the dressing area and finished product spills out of the front of the processing units onto portable tables. Refer to Figure 6.28 below. This poultry slaughter is located next to fish ponds that receive site drainage and wastewater.

Figure 6.28 – Processing Units at Urban Poultry Slaughterhouse / Market



A modern poultry processing chain is installed at a private slaughterhouse in the city and the line is separated into sticking, scalding, plucking, dressing, and evisceration areas, see Figure 6.29 overleaf. There is also an area after the slaughter process which is used to inspect and stamp the carcasses and to package the product if required by the customer. A refrigerated room is also installed; however, this was not operating and did not contain any product at the time of the visit. At this facility, there is a nearby pond system which is used for the disposal of wastewater and site drainage.

Figure 6.29 – Modern Poultry Slaughter Line

The cattle slaughterhouse visited by the Study Team, although small, is separated into four distinct areas: holding stalls where cattle are held prior to slaughter, an area for emptying the stomach contents, a slaughter and dressing area, and an area dedicated to boning and recovery of boneless meat. This layout was reported to be typical of the others in the city. Refer to Figure 6.30 below. Site drainage and wastewater from the slaughter facilities discharges to the covered public drainage which runs along the adjacent alleyway and into the large city drainage channel running parallel to the main road.

Figure 6.30 – Cattle Slaughterhouse Processing Area (left) and Holding Area (right)

Outside of the City there is a modern privately-owned German-designed slaughterhouse and meat processing facility producing a variety of pork products. The site is large with a perimeter wall, is fully paved, and well laid out with adequate parking and a logical design for the offices, slaughterhouse, meat processing, refrigeration, water and wastewater treatment plants, etc. See Figure 6.31 overleaf. Site drainage is good within the facility and drains discharge to adjacent opens channels. The facility has its own water and wastewater treatment facilities.



Figure 6.31 – Modern Private Pig Slaughter Facilities (left) and Evisceration Room (right)

Infrastructure

The buildings at the pig slaughterhouses comprise concrete floors with concrete columns and walls and a corrugated steel roof supported by a structural steel framework. The processing operations are all open to the ambient environment at the front. The buildings suffer from broken and rusting roofs and general deterioration in general, not helped by the smoke accumulation within the building from the solid fuel water heating hearth, heavy usage, and poor maintenance. Figures 6.32 and 6.33 below illustrate the condition of the buildings at both facilities.

Figure 6.32 – Typical Buildings at Smaller Pig Slaughterhouse

Figure 6.33 – Typical Building at Large Pig Slaughterhouse (left) and Fifth-Quarter Processing Area (right)



Whilst the buildings at the urban poultry slaughter facility are inadequately sized, particularly in the sticking/plucking areas at the rear, the buildings are generally in a sound condition. A degree of wear and tear is evident as it seems that there is little attention paid to regular maintenance of the floors, walls, and working surfaces. The processing units are open to the environment at both the front and rear.

The building at the private poultry slaughter line is in good condition, reflecting reasonably recent construction and low utilisation of the facility. There was evidence of detergent / sanitiser being used and this would assist in keeping the floor, walls, and working surfaces in sound condition.

At the cattle slaughterhouse, the building is generally robust and in sound condition as one would expect of a family-owned business. However, it does need some attention to basic maintenance of floors, walls, and working surfaces (the wooden surfaces, where present should be avoided in a preference for impermeable more easily cleaned surfaces, such as PVC cutting boards).

At the private pig slaughterhouse and meat processing plant, the buildings are of modern concrete construction and purpose-built to house the modern slaughter and processing facilities. Inside, the buildings are well designed and have painted finishes in the offices, whilst there is an abundance of ceramic tiles and stainless steel within the slaughter and meat processing sections. The modern slaughter chain in operation is in excellent condition and operates one 8-hour shift five days per week, although double shifts will be possible when demand increases. All slaughter and processing equipment is high quality and in excellent condition.

The mechanical process equipment at the private poultry slaughter facility is in good working order, but is grossly under-utilised due to lack of demand; consumer preference is for live poultry slaughtered at market.

Utility Services

Lighting at both pig slaughterhouses is essential due to processing predominantly occurring in the early hours of the morning; however, lighting is very limited and the intensity is extremely poor. Water at both sites appeared to be in adequate supply; no on-site disinfection was performed, however, and at one site the majority of the water was sourced from local groundwater, which given its environs may not be potable.

At the urban poultry slaughter facility, processing is conducted during daylight hours, and with the open nature of the building there is little need for comprehensive lighting, although the slaughter and evisceration areas at the rear of each unit are dark as they are covered by makeshift canopies. Facility water is sourced from the town supply system and is potable but not re-chlorinated for the process.

The modern poultry slaughter line is located in a semi-rural area and thus uses groundwater; there are facilities for chlorination but it is not clear if they were being used. The facility is purpose-built for poultry and the lighting has been installed to fit with this system and thus can be considered adequate.

At the cattle slaughterhouse, the lighting can only be described as barely adequate for the complex slaughtering and boning tasks being performed. Being located in town, municipal water and power supplies are available.

Lighting at the private pig slaughter facility is purpose built and has been installed to complement each part of the facility. The facilities have a good power supply and their own purpose built water supply and wastewater treatment facilities.


Layout

The main slaughterhouse is divided into two independent facilities, one for large ruminants (cattle, buffalo, camels) and small ruminants (sheep and goat). The two facilities are separated by a concrete wall and the perimeters of both facilities are completely walled with steel gates at the entrance / exit. All persons and livestock enter in a single gate for each facility and all persons and finished products exit at the same gate; although entry for small-ruminants is often via a small side gate as a control measure. At both facilities, the slaughter hall comprises two open-side slaughter buildings each of a similar size and layout. Each slaughter



business (flayer) has a location in the slaughter-hall where he conducts his operation; stomachs and intestines are removed from the building for opening and cleaning on an open-air concrete apron. Both facilities are illustrated in Figures 6.34 and 6.35 below.

Figure 6.34 – Main Cattle Slaughterhouse (Exterior and Interior)

Figure 6.35 – Main Sheep and Goat Slaughterhouse (Empty and During Operation)

The feet and head processing facility at the main ruminant slaughterhouse comprises a series of ground levels baths in which the raw material and singed product is scrubbed and cleaned. At the southern end there are three open gas furnaces in which the heads and feet are placed for a short period to singe off any hair or wool.

The blood processing facility has at one end of the site a rudimentary building which contains a large hearth heated kettle in which the blood is coagulated and partially dried. The rest of the site is simply an open yard where the coagulant is air dried prior to being bagged and sold. Other product processing facilities are generally located in small residential plots with rudimentary buildings.

There are two separate slaughter halls for small and large ruminants at the older of the two local slaughterhouses. The slaughter halls are simply open-areas fitted with overhead beams from which carcasses can be suspended, see Figure 6.36 overleaf.



Figure 6.36 – Older Local Slaughterhouse for Cattle (left) and Sheep/Goats (right)

The newer of the two local slaughterhouse is relatively small and has a cattle slaughter area, a small ruminant slaughter area, an offal processing area, and a skinning area, all in one compact building, see Figure 6.37 below. The skinning area had originally been intended to be a refrigerated space but equipment has not been installed. The facility had been re-built as a low-cost test model for slaughterhouses in the city.

Figure 6.37 – Newer Local Slaughterhouse for Cattle (left) and Sheep/Goats (right)5

At the large urban poultry market, the poultry slaughter facility comprises individual businesses (some 50 altogether) housed within the larger market complex, and laid out in a whole variety of ways. In general, it was observed that slaughter of the poultry was conducted outside at the back of the processing area and the carcasses were then brought inside for skinning and evisceration, which was all conducted within the same area. The front area of each stall was used for retail selling. Various piles of product and wastes, including dressed carcasses, skin/feathers/blood, giblets and viscera accumulated on the floor as processing progressed. Refer to Figures 6.38 and 6.39 overleaf for photographs.

5 HSA comments (Feb 2009) – It is clear from Figure 6.37, and from other figures in the report, that non-slip flooring is absent where either people or livestock are present and is a key factor for animal and human safety in slaughterhouses. For livestock in particular, slips and falls contribute to stress and may cause animals to become excitable and nervous, making them difficult to handle and therefore dangerous to the workers. The presence of water, urine, blood, and body fluids from the carcasses make the floors very slippery and produce one of the most common welfare issues within markets and slaughterhouses. Appropriate non-slip flooring should therefore be a primary factor in the design of new or upgrading of existing facilities.



Figure 6.38 – Main Poultry Slaughter / Market - Slaughtering and Processing at Rear

Figure 6.39 – Main Poultry Slaughter / Market - Typical unit (left) and Retail at the Front (right)

Infrastructure

Drainage within all of the facilities is generally good, draining into the city drainage system or local drainage channels. The city drainage system, however, needs attention at some sites and in particular in the main ruminant slaughterhouse area.

Buildings at the main ruminant slaughterhouse are of the open-sided portal frame type with concrete flooring fitted with open drain lines and concrete tiles. Considering their age (more than 40 years old for some) and the harsh working conditions, the buildings and associated facilities are in relatively good condition. However, due to the existing layout and size of the buildings it may be difficult to upgrade these, unless the throughput of livestock is cut drastically, since there is no available space for appropriate expansion. Buildings at the associated feet & head, blood, and other product processing facilities at are rudimentary and most of them are in need of significant repairs and maintenance.



Similarly, at the older local slaughterhouse open portal frame buildings with tiled floors and open drains are in use, but at this facility the buildings are generally in poor condition, especially the roof and floors; see Figure 6.40 below.

Figure 6.40 – Roof and Floor in Poor Condition at Older Local Slaughterhouse

The newer local slaughterhouse is a much smaller facility, designed in-house by the town veterinarian to try an alternative layout and working methods. It is built on the same small site as the previous facility, so is very restricted in terms of space and capacity. The facility is essentially contained in one integrated concrete building which is inconspicuous as a slaughterhouse. The cattle slaughtering area is in sound condition with tiled walls whilst other areas including mutton slaughter and offal and skinning areas, were in poorer condition reflecting their greater use. The building had been fitted with a toilet for all to use, which was not observed at the other sites.

At the main poultry slaughterhouse, the overall market building is in poor repair and considerable effort would be required to bring the building back to a satisfactory retail standard, let alone a food processing standard. Some of the processing areas were, however, themselves in reasonable condition and it was obvious that some processors were maintaining their facility in order to access the more demanding parts of the retail and food service markets.

All of the above facilities used rudimentary equipment and manual labour for all of the tasks, as follows:

x At the main ruminant slaughterhouse, equipment is minimal and limited to rudimentary pulleys to assist in the lifting of the carcass onto the dressing rail. It is a similar situation at the older local facility, which had no process equipment but for some very rudimentary rope hoists for lifting the carcass. At the newer slaughterhouse a small improvement had been made with the introduction of block and tackle devices to hoist beef carcasses and overhead fans had been installed.

x At the poultry slaughter facility, five of the slaughter businesses had purchased and operated small scale scalding and plucking equipment. This equipment is used for less than 5% of the production of these companies and is specifically used for niche markets such as Chinese restaurants that require the skins to be left on. None of the other businesses had any equipment apart from tables, benches, and tubs.

x The feet & head processing facility operated ground level water baths and gas fired furnaces. A solid fuel fired open vat kettle for coagulating and partial drying was used at the blood processing facility; whilst equipment at the other product processing facilities varies from nothing for air drying of products (except a hanging system) to solid fuel fired open kettles for fat recovery operations. Water from the water baths discharges to the local drainage system.



Utility Services

Lighting at the facilities can be summarised as follows:

x Main ruminant slaughterhouse - variable, being almost adequate at the periphery of the building due to day light intensity, but completely inadequate in the centre of the building.

x Older local slaughterhouse - none installed, all work was conducted by day light.

x Newer local slaughterhouse - some rudimentary fluorescent lighting had been installed, but the ceiling had also been penetrated to allow access of day light, without which it would be inadequate.

x Poultry slaughter facility - the level of lighting was dependent on the business and in some cases was adequate and in other almost non-existent.

x Feet & head processing - none as all processing was essentially performed in the open air during daylight hours.

x Blood processing facility – none.

x Other product processing – none.

The basic condition of utilities can be summarised as follows:

x Main ruminant slaughterhouse – power supply adequate for current needs. Water supplied from boreholes both directly to usage points and via a large overhead storage tank. The tank provides good water pressure but the water is not chlorinated.

x Older local slaughterhouse – power supply adequate for current needs and water from city water supply.

x Newer local slaughterhouse – power supply adequate and city water supply utilised.

x Poultry slaughter facility – utilises city water supply, but plumbing and electrical services need attention.

x Feet and head processing - utilises groundwater, electrical power supply minimal.

x Blood processing facility – no water or electricity used.

x Other product processing – main usage is water for washing, little electricity used.

Planned Improvements by the City:

Based on information gained during the Study Team’s visit there is a plan to close the main livestock markets, slaughterhouses, and associated facilities and move to a new site. An outline of the proposal is as follows:

x Abandon the current site and move the markets and slaughterhouses to a new 42 hectare block of land in the peri-urban area.

x The new site is planned to be an integrated meat sector complex including livestock markets and slaughtering for cattle, sheep, goats, poultry, and fish; each having their own separate facilities.

x The site will also include a livestock waste processing facility run by the private sector (as is done now) and will incorporate provision of utility services and the treatment and disposal of wastewater.

x It is likely that the facility will need to be phased, with cattle being the priority followed by sheep and goats, and finally poultry and others.

x Improved technologies, process control, and disease control will be given a high priority.

The proposal is still in the early stages of development and will need to be carefully developed in order to efficiently incorporate all the planned activities and supply the necessary resources, including labour. Funds have already been spent on the proposed project to secure the site and to construct a perimeter wall, access road, drains, and a 3 metre wide tree barrier around the site. Further funding is being allocated for the next stage of the project and the city government is pushing the project.



Unfortunately, the Study Team thought that the proposals were being rushed through and that the opportunity to plan and implement an appropriate integrated facility for the next 50 years may be lost in the “political” rush to complete.

At the poultry market, the poultry association wished to see incorporated into the above project the following, and intimated that funds may be available from their side to assist with:

x The construction of new higher quality roads.

x Improvements to building and site drainage installations.

x The construction of cold storage at the site to assist with managing variations in supply and demand.

x Improvements to facilities for the handling of raw material destined for poultry meal.


Layout

The four sites visited by the Study Team comprise a mix of site layouts which are indicative of the age and size of the facilities.

The peri-urban municipal slaughterhouses is in essence a simple slaughter slab around which a building has been erected. There is a narrow race leading from the cattle enclosure onto a small cramped area where up to four animals are stuck and bled at a time. Workers operate two to a team to stick, bleed, remove heads, and shackle each beast. There is a side area for head crushing (manual) and a paunch room. Carcasses are loaded onto trucks through a narrow gate. The images in Figure 6.41 below provide an overview of the layout at the facility.

Figure 6.41 – Yards, Lairage, and Abattoir Building at Peri-Urban Municipal Slaughterhouse



In contrast, the main municipal slaughterhouse has a much more structured layout and comprises a complex of cattle and small stock yards; three cattle / small-stock slaughter halls (Orthodox Christian, Muslim, and Non-religious) which are connected in a series of corridors and alleyways to each other and to a small chiller (for detained carcasses); a wide load-out area. A pig slaughter hall is also present in a separate area. Some of these areas are illustrated in Figure 6.42 below.

Figure 6.42 – Main Municipal Slaughterhouse Facilities 1

Lairage (top left), Christian Slaughter Hall (top right), Muslim Slaughter Hall (centre left), Non-religious Slaughter Hall (centre right), Pig Slaughter Hall (bottom left), and Loading /

Despatch Area (bottom right)



At the lower level of the slaughterhouse is found the rendering department, skins and hides area, glue factory, pet food factory, and ancillary services including the boiler room and storage. This area also houses the deodorising unit for the rendering operation. There is also a 2-year old wastewater treatment system situated at the rear of the plant which is currently not operational due to high operating costs, mainly the cost of chemicals. Some of these points are illustrated in Figure 6.43 below.

Figure 6.43 – Main Municipal Slaughterhouse Facilities 2

Rendering (top left), Deodorising Plant (top right), Skins and Hides (centre left), Glue Plant (centre right), Pet Food Plant (bottom left), and Meat Meal Plant (bottom right)

The private ruminant slaughterhouse is located out of the city and incorporates cattle yards; slaughtering; drying sheds for selected offal; and dwellings of some of the workers at the plant. This facility has a lower



level where basic head-crushing and paunch rinsing takes place, as shown in Figure 6.44 below.

Figure 6.44 – Private Ruminant Slaughterhouse

Lairage (top left), Slaughterhouse Building (top right), Slaughter Hall (centre left & right), Offal Drying Sheds (bottom left & right)

The small ruminant slaughterhouse is a private facility that consists of a modern steel portal frame building that has been adapted to include a simple processing line for small stock, mainly goats. The facilities are on a single level and have a viewing area for customers and management. No photography was allowed at this facility.



Infrastructure

In the case of the main municipal slaughterhouse, the on-site drainage is old but operates effectively and the whole site appears to be well drained; although at the back of the rendering plant there is only a dirt road that is often muddy and unacceptable given the quality of the rest of the site infrastructure and the road’s usage, see Figure 6.45.

Figure 6.45 – Rear Access Road at the Main Municipal Slaughterhouse

Drainage from the slaughterhouse site discharges to the adjacent river along with the process wastewater (treatment plant no longer operating). Liquids that are discharged to the river therefore include all plant processing and wash-down effluent in addition to stormwater runoff, tallow wash-off, manure, and urine from the yards, etc. There are save-all grates installed at various points throughout the plant but these are often haphazard and large items of offal or carcass trim or fat regularly enter the drainage system.

The main buildings at this slaughterhouse are very solid and are generally in good condition despite being some 50 years old; suggesting good initial build quality and maintenance. There have been a number of modifications carried out over the years and these, although often crude, appear to work well. The age and complexity of the main slaughter halls and split-level processing will make the facility difficult and costly to modify and upgrade to modern standards.

At the small municipal slaughterhouse there is no formal drainage system and the mostly grassed site slopes to the rear of the site to a local creek where stormwater runoff can discharge freely; see Figure 6.46 overleaf. However, all process water from the facility also discharges to the creek after passing through a small sedimentation tank. The sedimentation tank is in a state of disrepair and thus process water passes through with only large solids (mainly stomach contents) being caught. The buildings at this facility are relatively small and simple; condition is average. There appears to be sufficient space at the site for additional buildings and/or modification to the existing facilities.

The private ruminant slaughterhouse site is mostly paved and the drainage system appeared to work effectively. The facility is required to retain its processing effluent for removal and disposal at a municipal wastewater treatment plant; however, site drainage goes to the adjoining creek system, including rainwater, cattle yard wash-down, and other liquids generated outside the plant processes. The buildings at this private facility are only 2-3 years old and in good condition, although a few minor modifications could improve the facilities and process control further.

At the private small ruminant slaughterhouse, drainage is to a series of local drainage channels which discharge into a local creek. Process water discharges into an underground septic tank. This facility is not custom-built but is a modern portal frame building with simple internal modifications for the slaughter of small-stock only. The facility is private and will likely be moved in the near future as the business expands.



Figure 6.46 – Small Municipal Slaughterhouse Site and Discharge to Local Creek.

Slaughter and processing rails were manually operated at all abattoirs and all facilities except the small private slaughterhouse, used electric saws for brisket removal (see Figure 6.47 below). Apart from the isolated use of electric saws, all processing tasks are undertaken by hand, including opening of the thoracic cavity at the sternum and splitting the carcass into halves along the spinous process.

Figure 6.47 – Electric Saws Used at the Main Slaughterhouse, in the European Hall (left) and the Non-religious Hall (right)

Floor dressing is undertaken for part of the slaughter process at both municipal slaughterhouses. In general, shackling procedures are performed manually through block and pulley; although for cattle (and pigs at the municipal facility) motorised lifting equipment was used for raising the carcasses to the rails; see Figure 6.48 overleaf.

At all cattle facilities carcasses are taken to boneless side stage only, before being despatched to butchers around the city; the same is done for pigs.

Red and white offal processing is rudimentary at all facilities and relies only on hoses with little or no trimming of items occurring. Paunch handling comprises emptying the paunch contents into a sink or well, rinsing with running water, then despatch.



Figure 6.48 – Typical Motorised Lifting Equipment at Main Slaughterhouse Non-Religious Hall (left) and the Small Municipal Slaughterhouse (right)

Utility Services

In all of the slaughterhouses lighting was very poor and substantially below the typical lighting standards required in modern facilities. The only possible exception to this was at the newer private facility, during the short period before sunset, when the room was well lit but with contrasting and shadowy light; however, most of the slaughter and processing occurred after this period.6

The poor lighting makes it difficult to detect and minimise or eliminate carcass contamination; identify abscesses and abnormalities; and properly tie off intestinal content and viscera. In a modern processing setting, regulations are enforced regarding lighting (in Lux); however, this is clearly impractical in the current settings. The subsequent strain for workers and the poor hygiene and dressing outcomes is a direct result of substandard lighting.

Electricity was available at all slaughter and process areas. The only occasion on which other power sources were observed was in the blowtorch used in de-hairing pig carcasses.

Water was available to all sites in adequate quantity. In each room at the large municipal and private slaughterhouses there were sufficient water connections to enable hygienic processes to occur; however, the absence of stop-pressure hoses, rinse valves, and hot water connections severely restricted the ability of the enterprises to use water as a cleaning and hygiene measure. Strategic rather than copious use of water should be the objective in the slaughter and processing sequence.


Layout

The layouts of the local slaughterhouses are generally very simple, with a central slaughter hall (or halls) and some form of concreted area outside where processing of fifth-quarter items takes place. In some cases there concrete working areas were situated behind the slaughterhouse and hence in relative seclusion whereas at other sites they were located in front of the facilities in areas of open access. The layouts of the municipal slaughterhouse vary, but are usually slightly more complex than the local slaughterhouses. These facilities, were walled, with open areas for waste storage, lairage, despatch, etc., and a number of separate buildings or rooms housing the slaughter and processing areas, and office.

6 HSA comments (Feb 2009) – Poor lighting is evident at most of the facilities identified in this report and it is important that lighting should produce a diffuse amount of light across the area and not cause shadows or dark spots, particularly in raceways or areas that animals are required to move through, as contrasting light conditions often cause animals to baulk. Whilst lighting may be useful for staff, careful consideration should be given as to where lights should be placed and the type of lighting installed to ensure it does not create animal handling problems.



The large municipal slaughterhouse in City 2 has a modern layout including all areas that would be expected of a modern European facility; including separate wastewater treatment plant, generator sets, cooling facilities, incineration facilities, and a sizeable set of slaughter halls; see Figures 6.49 to 6.51 below. The layout of the slaughter halls is such that they are above the offal processing sections, and as staff on the upper level removed items such as hides, heads and plucks, these are dropped down chutes into the offal preparation area below.

Figure 6.49 – Simple Interior Layouts at Local Slaughterhouses in Middle-Income Country 1

Figure 6.50 – Municipal Slaughterhouse Site Layout in Middle-Income Country 1

The layouts of the large-scale private chicken slaughter facilities both consisted of landscaped enclosed compounds, with a central main building taking up most of the site. In the central main building were two lines; one for the slaughter and preparation of fresh cuts of meat, and the other for the preparation of cooked charcuterie items such as hams and sausages. These two lines were, in both cases, separated to a greater extent, in theory removing the risk of cross contamination between raw and cooked products. Both facilities also had a number of outbuildings housing stores, treatment facilities, and offices. Unfortunately internal photography was not permitted.



Figure 6.51 – Layout Plan for Modern Slaughterhouse in City 2 of Middle-Income Country 1

Infrastructure

The rural slaughterhouses and municipal slaughterhouses ware all constructed of blocks/bricks, concrete and steel, with concrete flooring and basic drainage channels and grates (usually blocked with material); however, they are all very basic in terms of architecture and features, and were without exception in a poor state of repair, see Figure 6.52. All are at least of 50 years old.

The rural slaughterhouses have only very basic process equipment; each slaughterer or butcher has his own set of knives, and each workstation is equipped with a hook setup to lift the carcasses above the floor. Lighting, flooring, access to water and safety equipment are all inadequate.

Figure 6.52 – Older Local Slaughterhouse (left) and City 2 Slaughterhouse (right)

The City 1 municipal slaughterhouse is of similar construction as the local slaughterhouses, however is far more extensive, with dedicated preparation rooms, chillers, loading bays, lairage and so forth. Figure 6.53 overleaf shows examples of the infrastructure. Whilst old and outdated, and in some aspects in poor repair, the facility is at least visibly maintained to some degree, and it is obvious that they have a reasonable cleaning regime and repaint frequently.



The City 1 municipal slaughterhouse also has little in the way of process equipment; however, it is far better equipped than the rural facilities attached to the markets. Despite all equipment being very aged, the facility has at its disposal the following:

x On-floor slaughter and dressing with a hoist used for final hide removal and evisceration.

x Rail system for (manually) pushing carcasses about the entire facility.

x Hoses for wash-down.

x Sinks and scrubbing boards for offal preparation.

x Hooks for drying of offal and sheep carcasses.

x Cold rooms and fridges for 24 hanging of beef carcasses.

Figure 6.53 – The City 1 Municipal Slaughterhouse Internal Infrastructure

The City 2 municipal slaughterhouse, Figure 6.54, whose construction was completed in 1997, is in a far better state of repair than other slaughterhouses visited in the study area, as would be expected. Buildings are constructed using a variety of techniques, but steel frames, and concrete block or lightweight corrugated studwork are employed widely. Roofing is either flat and felted, or angular and made of corrugated steel.

Figure 6.54 – The City 2 Municipal Slaughterhouse External Infrastructure

The slaughterhouse is a modern facility with a large array of powered equipment. Whilst the equipment is all under a decade old, in some cases the maintenance is below standard and general conditions are perhaps below the level that they should be. Equipment present onsite includes:



x A modern mechanised small-stock inverted slaughter and dressing chain including stunning pen, shoulder and final pullers and independent viscera conveyor.

x A modern mechanised on-rail beef dressing chain with rotating knocking box, hide puller and rise and fall platforms.

x The equipment is not maintained as well as it should be nor always used as intended.

The modern poultry facilities in the City 1 slaughterhouse, in common with the municipal slaughterhouse in City 2, are all relatively new, and are reasonably well constructed and maintained. These have modern stainless steel lines and all the relevant equipment such as scalding tanks, plucking machines, pneumatic shears for clipping feet and heads, pressure hoses, refrigerators, freezers, packaging machines, pressure cookers, smokers and more. The condition of the equipment is generally good, see Figure 6.55 overleaf.

Figure 6.55 – Slaughter Equipment in City 1 (left) and City 2 (right) Slaughterhouses

Utility Services

In all slaughterhouses other than City 2 and the large volume poultry facilities, lighting conditions are inadequate for safe work, good cleaning, and importantly good inspection of carcasses.

As with all other items in this section, it is the modern private poultry plants and the City 2 slaughterhouse that have access to the most types and reliability in terms of utilities. They have all the usual utilities provided, plus in addition some have their own well with in-house water treatment, back-up generator sets and other such auxiliary equipment. At the other end of the spectrum, the tueries do not usually even have a reliable cold water supply.


Layout

The layouts of the two large private red meat and pig slaughterhouses located in the City are very different. They both had one important common aspect, in that both plants had grown historically with the consequent problems that this brings when old and new parts of the plant are merged. In both cases, chain lines were used and both were planning or undergoing considerable extensions or renovations within the constraints of their urban sites.

The general layout of all small poultry facilities was the same, see Figure 6.56 overleaf, consisting of:

x A small rectangular room, generally with poor lighting.



x A line of bleeding cones7 along one wall.

x A scalding area consisting of a few makeshift pots with gas stoves underneath.

x A plucking area, including feather storage.

x A table for evisceration and subsequent processing.

x An area of barrels for collection of viscera.

Figure 6.56 – Layouts of Small Chicken Slaughterhouses

The more modern poultry processing facility has the ability to process both chicken and turkeys. It is a chain line type system with a very typical design, similar to those encountered in other countries where the birds are processed as follows:

x Receipt in crates at one end of the factory.

x Removal from the crates, and placing onto the chain using the legs.

x Stunning.

x Cutting and bleeding.

x Scalding.

x Plucking.

x Evisceration.

x Head and leg removal.

x Packing (including re-uniting giblet, pluck and lights).

x Cryo-vac bagged, and tank dip frozen then into blast chillers.

x Product then sent to cold store for loading.

x Sectioning and further processed product is also produced at the plant.

Whilst not serving the City but the general area, the municipal slaughterhouses should be mentioned as a comparison to other facilities. These were very antiquated buildings consisting of just one or two rooms equipped with very little in the way of facilities and operating on a floor and hook/gambel system. The

7 HAS comments (Feb 2009) – Bleeding cones for poultry are a very useful piece of equipment providing a secure form of restraint at the time of stunning and slaughter, and allow staff to work alone if necessary. The bird is maintained upside down allowing the birds to be left to bleed in the cone, by gravity, until they have lost consciousness or died, before further processing takes place. The proper use of bleeding cones should therefore be encouraged; however, birds should not be restrained in cones until the moment that the slaughterman is ready to stun or bleed the bird, because inversion is aversive to poultry.



lairage is always adjoined the slaughter room, into where cattle were led and slaughtered, and where all other processing takes place. Dressed carcasses were taken out through the same door the stock had entered through.

Infrastructure

Both of the large private slaughterhouses in the City had basic liquid collection and treatment systems, consisting of simply settling and / or screening. The systems were antiquated and inadequate; however, with a lax control of effluent on the part of the government, the facilities are not under any pressure to improve or renew their systems. The facility owners should be commended, however, for their future plans to upgrade these facilities despite the apparent lack of enforcement.

The small poultry slaughter facilities both have rudimentary liquid drainage systems consisting of sunken channels covered with gratings. These channels run directly into the municipal system with no removal of gross solids, and must cause untold problems in the sewers. Figure 6.57 shows typical slaughterhouse drainage as observed by the Study Team.

Figure 6.57 – Typical Slaughterhouse Drainage

The modern poultry processing plant collected its processing liquid wastes and treated them using a dedicated biological treatment plant. In comparison, all municipal facilities had a similar drainage systems; essentially a short culvert or enclosed box section leading directly to the nearby river, with no treatment prior to discharge.

The informal sheep slaughter operation observed by the Study Team was situated on the banks of a river, and any liquid waste was simply ejected to the river.

The two main city slaughterhouses visited both had a mix of old and new buildings. This type of building mix is common where historical growth has occurred. In both cases, the general standard of the building was good and construction was underway at both sites to introduce new production units of some form. Construction techniques varied depending on purpose, and comprised bricks and mortar, steel frame with cladding, or wooden cabin. Refer to Figure 6.58 below.



Figure 6.58 – Slaughterhouse Interior (left) and Construction of New Wing (right)

In comparison, the slaughter buildings at another slaughterhouse could best be described as temporary structures only, consisting of simple low walls with flat roofs provided on columns, creating shade but permitting ventilation also.

Another facility was a thoroughly modern plant in every sense of the word; buildings are in good to excellent condition, well maintained and in a landscaped and maintained garden environment.

The municipal slaughterhouses visited were aged and in poor to very poor condition. Construction was of stone and brick and in traditional style, with corrugated iron roofing. There is clearly little budget available to maintain the facilities as they were old and decrepit. Some basic attempts to patch up the walls and repaint were, however, observed. Refer to Figures 6.59 (below) and 6.60 overleaf.

Figure 6.59 – Exterior and Interior of a Municipal Slaughterhouse

Both of the main city slaughterhouses visited have reasonably good processing equipment. The standard of equipment at one was better than that present at the other, particularly in relation to offal handling, tripe preparation, and fifth-quarter preparation. The main processing chains, while not up to the standard expected in a modern export facility, are nonetheless of a good standard, particularly in comparison to many facilities visited for the present study. There are modern items of equipment installed and in use such as rotary knives and hide pullers, with more equipment awaiting installation, on order or planned for the future. Maintenance appears to be of a reasonable level with items such as knife sterilisers are in use and functioning correctly. One facility is extending is refrigeration capacity, which currently stands at 1,000 cattle, 1,800 pigs, and 450 sheep.



Figure 6.60 – Cattle Lairage at a Modern Private Facility and at a Municipal Facility

The modern poultry plant’s equipment is described above, but is essentially an off the shelf modern facility, operating to export standards.

The small urban poultry slaughter operations had basic equipment essentially consisting of bleeding cones, tables and workbenches, hoses, and scalding pots, whilst the municipal equipment consisted solely of a hook and gambel system, plus a sink and workbench.

Some larger informal facilities are understood to exist in the area, and these presumably have some form of basic equipment. The sheep slaughter operation relies solely on floor slaughter and preparation, with knives and bowls being the only available equipment.

Utility Services

In all slaughterhouses, other than those in the city itself and the large volume poultry facilities, lighting conditions are inadequate for safe work, good cleaning, and importantly good inspection of carcasses. It must be said that the lighting observed at the one plant, while adequate was not up to an acceptable standard for a plant in a high-income country.

The larger red meat processing plants have access to a full range of utilities included self generated steam in the case of on of the main facilities. Similarly, one of the poultry plants has good utility services connected, and all the above have their own wells and water treatment facilities, in addition to being connected to the municipal supply. In contrast, others have only basic services with hot water being generated by bottled gas at each processing stall. The regional slaughterhouses have running only cold water and very basic electric lighting.

6.5 PUBLIC MARKETS

Location and Layout

In Low-Income Country 1 and Middle-Income Country 1, it is common to find slaughtering activities (mainly poultry) at municipal urban markets and hence reference to these public markets have been included in the infrastructure section. The markets are typically located in or near to towns in order to service the local town population. They are generally associated with a localised pond system to handle any waste or storm water from the site.

Vehicular access to the public markets varies significantly according to the location of the market. A market in an older town may have poor roads in the area, while one located in a more recently developed area may have good standard road access and even some motorcycle/car parking available.

The markets are generally laid out in a series of stalls with particular areas dedicated to meat retailing operations, fish, poultry, fruit and vegetables, and other non-food items. The poultry and meat retail stalls tend to be of similar size and are all registered with the market operator. In the poultry and meat retailing



stalls area there is generally some reticulated water supply to assist with cleaning procedures.

Infrastructure and Services

In Low-Income Country 1, market buildings typically comprise a concrete floor with a roof supported by exposed steel roof trusses supported from a grid of concrete columns. The roofs are of corrugated steel and the buildings have open sides, with only walls at the entrance; see Figures 6.61 and 6.62 below. Generally, lighting in these public markets is poor; however, it was observed that meat stalls are often on the periphery of the market where daylight generally has more impact. The markets are generally supplied with a municipal water supply and adequate power. Peri-urban public markets are generally supplied with groundwater and power.

Public markets in Middle-Income Country 1 are very rudimentary and have few if any facilities for water, power, or drainage. Stalls are makeshift and wastes are discharged onto a dirt floor, including blood and wash-water which seep into the ground and/or flow elsewhere with gravity, see Figure 6.63 overleaf.

Site drainage at all municipal public markets in Middle-Income Country 2 was generally good, utilising a network of covered drains and reasonable gradients to keep the concrete floors dry and free from ponding. Sanitary facilities are available at the sites to provide toilets and washing facilities for the market workers.

Figure 6.61 – Typical Buildings Public Market 1 (East Asia and Pacific)

Figure 6.62 – Typical Buildings at Public Market 2 (East Asia and Pacific)



Figure 6.63 – Typical Stalls at Public Markets (Middle East and North Africa)

6.6 ANALYSIS OF INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES

It is clear that other than for a small number of notable exceptions, the infrastructure and services in place at most live market, slaughter, processing and retail facilities in the Study countries are woefully inadequate, and are a cause for serious concern, having impacts on all aspects of concern in this study. Most facilities are located in areas of urban encroachment, with poor access, parking, and security. Open areas and buildings are poorly designed (if designed at all), over capacity, too old, and inadequately maintained. Wastes are generally cleared from the slaughter area/floor as they have some value; however, due to the general state of disrepair and the poor cleaning equipment, hygiene is abysmal and much of the waste material would be contaminated.

At both markets and slaughterhouses, poor infrastructure layout (for example flooring, pens, and races) has lead to poor welfare practices, with subsequent concerns for meat quality and disease risks (Brown-Brandl 2008). Lack of adequate lighting is extremely common, and the inevitable result of this is an increase in accidents due to both worker error and the welfare issues associated with poor lighting (e.g. manhandling of animals scared of the dark). Poor lighting also severely affects the inspection of carcasses, if undertaken at all.

Equipment, whether modern or traditional, was frequently neglected, ineffective or broken, and many items originally intended to assist the process and prevent disease spread are actually assisting spread and cross-contamination.

With the situation as dire as described above, it is perhaps difficult to discern which elements need addressing first, and how. In order to do so, an appreciation of the interactions between the infrastructure, political, and instrumental solutions, as well as of capacity building, training, and awareness-raising is required.

At recent meetings held by the World Bank in Paris presenting the Study, it became clear that whilst some participants (in general those that had witnessed similar facilities) appreciated the extent to which infrastructure and services are lacking, there is a general opinion that the wealth of guidelines and handbooks that exist are applicable to the developing world. Whilst the principles contained within these guidelines and handbooks, which are in general intended for application in the setting of modern facilities, remain valid, the vast majority of the information is simply irrelevant in the context of most slaughterhouses in the developing world.

Heinz (2008) is in general an exception to the above statement; however, whilst it recognises the dire situation on the ground in many countries, it remains somewhat optimistic about the solutions offered in some places. Heinz recommends that “The first and strongest recommendation for improving the abattoir sector is to replace the booth-slaughter (and batch) system for bovines and small ruminants that are still widely practised in medium-sized and larger facilities with the more hygienic and easier to supervise line-slaughter system”. The present study found that whilst Heinz is clearly quite correct in his recommendation, in many cases even the provision of basic hoist and booth slaughter facilities would often



be a considerable improvement over the existing systems currently in operation in many places.

As mentioned earlier in this report, another World Bank study is currently ongoing focussing on the reconstruction of public live market, slaughterhouses, and meat processing facilities. This Study will look into infrastructure in more detail, utilising the findings of Heinz (2008) and other relevant publications plus the wider findings of this Study.



7. OPERATIONAL ISSUES AT FACILITIES

The preceding chapter examined the status of the “hard” issues of physical infrastructure and services; these are critical causes of the current situation in developing countries and are also key to any future improvements. Improvements to infrastructure and services, however, need to be sustainable and practicable, and due consideration has to be given to the operational issues that accompany any upgrades. Indeed, in addition to the aim of establishing how improved operational issues could assist with establishing sustainable solutions (and conversely how poor operations could cause new projects to fail), a major aim of this avenue of investigation was to assess whether investment in improvements to operational issues could at this stage offer more value for money than engineering solutions.

The previous chapter reviewed the Study Team’s findings in regard to the physical infrastructure and disposal of wastes at livestock markets and slaughter and processing facilities. Several of the factors identified, such as drainage, access to services like electricity and clean water supplies, and lighting, have a significant follow-on impact in these facilities in an operational sense.

This section of the report provides information on the activities and operations at the livestock markets, the slaughter centres and further processing sites inspected during the in-country stage of the project. Table 7.1 provides details on the numbers and types of facilities visited in each country.

Table 7.1 – Number of Facilities Visited by Country

Low-Income Country Middle-Income Country Facility Type

1 2 3 1 2 Total

Livestock Markets / Public Markets 5 3 6 5 6 25

Slaughter Facilities 8 5 5 6 8 32

Meat Processing Sites 2 2 1 5 2 12

Retail Outlets 3 3 5 5 5 21

The project covers several regions with marked differences in cultures, protein preferences, religious slaughter requirements and other factors. Many similarities emerged, however, among the five markets in regard to operations and particularly regarding hygiene and disease risk. This chapter uses three categories to present information in order to examine what occurs at these sites along the supply chain from live animal to retail sale and how conditions and outcomes might be improved. These categories are:

x Health and hygiene.

x Occupational health and safety.

x Disease risks.

The critical issues identified along the supply chain are the overwhelming paucity of:

x Basic sanitation for workers.

x Access to cleaning equipment and products.

x Training in simple hygiene and cleaning.

x Supervision by trained personnel as part of a larger hygiene regime.

x Hygienic clothing and equipment for workers.

x Appropriate equipment for handling livestock and processing livestock products.

At several of the sites visited, enterprise owners and employees worked efficiently and exerted great effort to recover value wherever possible. The details in this section of the report are provided in order to objectively describe what has been observed rather than to offer criticism of the countries, their facilities, or



the workers themselves. The wide range of waste recovery tasks seen at these sites attests as much to initiative as to the difficulties of the tasks performed.


7.1.1 General

The first stage in the livestock processing chain is the livestock markets. Chapter 8 (Animal Welfare and Transportation) addresses several aspects of livestock welfare at these sites; however, from an operational standpoint, the markets visited were observed to be poorly equipped; old and in poor repair; devoid of basic facilities for workers and buyers, e.g. shade, shelter, lavatories; chronically dirty and poorly-drained; and places where workers’ health and well-being are often compromised. Many of the sites were under pressure from urban encroachment and, whilst administrative authorities referred to plans for improved sites outside of the cities, budgetary and other factors suggest these plans might not come to fruition in the near future or may be deficient in some areas if built.

Various business models were found at these livestock markets, with middlemen and butchers being pivotal to the operations of markets in the North African and Asian regions. In contrast, greater levels of direct selling were understood to occur in some of the markets visited in South America and Africa. The formal markets are organised by municipal or other local authorities which control the venue and charge vendors a fee (normally on a per head basis) for placement of livestock therein.

Livestock in the municipal markets are drawn from rural areas in addition to stock that are raised in the city and surrounding areas. A feature of most of the cities visited was the constant presence of livestock in small holdings throughout the city environs, kept in gardens, lanes, on grassy roadsides, traffic circles or vacant pieces of land. These animals often represent the wealth of households and can be quickly converted into income. In the African and North African market examples, informal livestock markets are very popular with citizens who keep their stock in built-up areas as they are conveniently located and have a lower or nil fee compared to formal markets. Growers from the countryside often bring their animals on foot to the municipal markets to sell stock and buy replacement animals. Wholesalers provide the majority of livestock in the formal markets. The roads leading into and out of towns are regularly full of vehicles carrying cattle, goats and crates of poultry.

It was suggested in several centres that the emergence of the new, industrial style of farm for poultry or pork production will serve to bypass the traditional markets, particularly as urban encroachment makes it harder for these markets to function8. Direct marketing will likely become more important where new enterprises are taking shape, but for smallholders the physical market – either formal or informal - currently represents the most expedient means to convert livestock into cash and for butchers to source animals for slaughter.

Markets are organised around the species being sold: cattle and small-stock in outdoor enclosures; separate areas for poultry, sometimes under cover, where killing and processing of the bird might also take place. In North Africa, Africa and Asia, the poultry markets are usually integrated into general public markets that sell a range of other merchandise which may include other livestock and fish. Haggling, waiting for buyers, new livestock arriving, and attempts to keep animal lots separate: all of these activities were seen occurring at these sites. While many of the facilities visited are run by the local municipal authority, with a few city workers in place to take market fees and occasionally a vet to examine doubtful livestock, there are also a high number of informal markets being conducted in most of the centres visited.

8 HSA comments (Feb 2009) – Important observation and raises the question as to whether any species of livestock should be taken to market because, generally speaking, livestock markets are not good for animal welfare and can present a significant risk for disease spread. Transport and handling stresses, particularly in hot climates, often severely compromise animal welfare and can play an effective role in reducing the quality of meat produced from slaughter stock. Whilst this HSA comment is true, there are other significant issues to be considered in developing countries, such as small producers and the local cultural aspects of livestock markets in the community, which cannot be covered under the scope of this report.



The following general observations were made during the field visits:

x Most livestock suppliers to markets are traders who purchase animals from farmers or other traders and provide them for sale to markets.

x Direct selling by owners is also common but tends to occur more in the informal markets.

x The large number of traders present in several of the markets restricts the capacity of middlemen to fix prices. These traders provide a key logistical service by bringing product to consumers.

x New, large industrial farms producing pigs or poultry might affect, over time, the number of animals going through the live markets but for the present these facilities are well-entrenched and, owing to budgetary issues, most will not be re-located despite the age and disrepair of the premises.

x In most markets, sales are conducted on a per head basis: scales for weighing animals were rarely in evidence.

7.1.2 Hygiene and Sanitation

(a) Poultry Markets

Several of the cities visited have large, separate marketing centres for poultry where live birds are sold. These are generally located at a distance from the cattle and small-stock markets. Typically, these markets are held under cover and are populated by upwards of 50 individual stallholders who may offer slaughter and evisceration services on the spot. In the African and North African cities, poultry and mammals are found for sale on adjacent areas of the same market. These stallholders may not have access to running water for cleaning stalls, for hand washing or to enable hygienic processing of birds. Instead, operators need to go some distance to a water tank or common stand-pipe to find water and carry it back to the stall. In turn, there is no running water for cleaning the stalls or walkways at these markets: that is only done from the general runoff from other operations, in addition to scavenging dogs and vermin that patrol the premises after hours.

Poultry arrive at these markets in cages, nets, or tethered by the legs and hanging from a hook. The majority of poultry are transported using small trucks and modified pick-ups. Poultry coming from industrial farms are sometimes moved in slightly improved, modified trucks.

Handling of poultry across East Asia is generally part of the purchase process; it disturbs and stresses the birds9 and increases the risk of disease being spread through contaminated hands of traders. Removing waste is at the discretion of the stall holder and most leave waste where it falls. Typically these premises are very crowded with human, vehicle and trader traffic and cleaning is a low priority for stall holders and market supervisors. Animal handling generally occurs on the ground which leads to significant dust and aerosol pollution problems, even where there is a concrete or solid floor surface. As noted earlier, there is often a large number of dead birds at these markets and these litter the floor until some level of waste cleanup is undertaken. In some of the poultry markets of South East Asia, stall sweepings are retained and removed by the stall holder for feeding to fish in adjacent fish ponds but this is not a feature elsewhere.

Virtually all the sites lack sanitation facilities for workers or customers and washing of hands is a rare sight.

(b) Livestock Markets for Ruminants

Most of the ruminant markets are located on bare earth, with one in South Asia located on old dumpsite, where drainage is a constant problem and contributes to the high level of filth and contamination. Paved surfaces in these facilities are rare, as are drainage arrangements. The wet season in most of these markets is extreme which means the animal enclosures are difficult or impossible to access. Faeces mix with mud and waste into a quagmire which contaminates vehicles, animals, traders and workers, increasing the risk of disease spread. Where the climate is drier, airborne dirt is normally an issue and contributes to dust and

9 HSA comments (Feb 2009) – Repeated handling of poultry by potential buyers is likely to disturb and stress birds, particularly if handling is rough. Poultry find inversion aversive and uncomfortable.



dung covering nearby surfaces. The images in Figure 7.1 are fairly typical of what the project team observed. Only about 25% of the markets visited had latrines for workers’ use. Overall, hygiene and sanitation facilities at municipal sites are poor or absent: no water supply, no proper drainage, no toilets or hand-washing facilities and no areas for cleaning vehicles. As a result of this, urination and defecation take place in the open-air adjacent to walls and other objects, with human waste scattered as widely as animal waste in some instances. The situation described above represents a real danger to both animal and human health, and with just several basic improvements, huge reductions in disease spread could be achieved.

Figure 7.1 - Drainage Conditions at African Livestock Markets

With regard to the presence of pests and vermin at the live markets, rats, egrets, feral dogs and cats were all seen in daylight scavenging wastes at various sites. Access to the live markets is generally open, with little in the way of walls or fences. Vermin and strays are often chased away from stalls by vendors within the poultry sections of live markets, although some butchers were seen to toss scraps to animals, but little attention is given to them elsewhere. Obviously the lack of cleaning and any form of waste management on these sites does little to discourage the presence of scavenging animals, which are presumed to be present in greater numbers once the markets close at the end of the trading day.

7.1.3 Occupational Health and Safety

There were a number of areas of concern in regard to workers’ health and safety at a wide cross-section of the livestock markets visited. Virtually all of these concerns stem from the lack of resources available in the countries overall, but they are especially noticeable in the live markets due to the large number of animals, the ongoing presence of excrement, and the unfettered access to the livestock areas by the general public.

Countries visited with separate poultry markets present their own set of worker safety challenges because such facilities are often located in densely populated areas and often feature live birds alongside slaughtering and processing of birds. Access to the markets is also very open and dead birds are often found in among areas where live birds are being sold, with subsequent concerns for disease risk. In markets where there is a mixture of mammals and birds in the same market, the problems seem to be less intense and the birds are kept under transient shade such as awnings which allow for greater ventilation.

Specific areas of concern with regard to poultry markets in terms of workers’ well-being are as follows:

x Animal handling regularly occurs on the ground with ensuing dust and aerosol pollution problems.

x In the specialist poultry markets, there are some workers who wear simple masks to protect the mouth and nose, but around the world, most do not.

x Few stalls were observed to have electricity.

x Few stalls have running water.

x Few stalls are covered, exposing workers to direct sun and/or rain.

x Handling without gloves is common practice.



x The practise of capturing the blood from freshly stunned animals means high risk exposure to blood-borne pathogens.

x Hand and implement washing was not common and many traders did not wash hands before handling or eating food.

x In many market settings, children assisting at the stalls are exposed to the poor sanitation arrangements.

In the ruminant areas, the major risks to workers’ health and wellbeing is the loading and unloading areas. Suitable ramps are practically non-existent in these places, leaving workers to struggle in loading or unloading heavy animals off makeshift vehicles on uneven surfaces with poor drainage. The simple placement of concrete ramps would do much to assist worker safety.

7.1.4 Disease Risks

The movement of animals and people to and from markets can cover wide geographical areas. Markets therefore represent a major risk for spread of disease from animals to man and for propagating outbreaks of many diseases as the traders and consumers disperse.

Only a handful of live markets inspected had in place any comprehensive cleaning system to reduce disease risk. For the most part, many practices at these markets suggested a high degree of disease risk, including the mixing of live animals with carcases for sale which is a major risk factor in the spread of food-borne diseases.

Direct transmission pathways (oral, respiratory, etc.) are those where transmission is between an infected animal and an uninfected animal. In all markets, the Study Team found that likely pathways followed a specific pattern. The transmission and spread of disease is facilitated because of an aggregation of animals from multiple sources; animals are held in close proximity; and animals are under market and transport stresses, as discussed in Chapter 8 (Welfare and Transportation). Animals may also be housed in improvised cages and pens (or tethered) and often stalls are in enclosed sites.

Furthermore, animal handling facilities are rudimentary and the trading process often involves extensive handling of animals by potential buyers in the presence of significant numbers of members of the public.

The one-way movement of animals from market to slaughterhouse which is characteristic of some market systems serves to reduce the risk of direct spread of disease since most animals are destined for immediate slaughter and are therefore unlikely to propagate infection. This is true for some large urban markets, but may not be wholly applicable for poultry. For example, in the South East Asian country visited, many markets are surrounded by pond systems that also contain farmed poultry (especially ducks) and contact with a non-terminal bird is possible if not probable. These non-terminal birds may subsequently be traded and moved elsewhere and, as presented elsewhere in the report, there is no means of tracing these animals’ movements.

Large urban centres can potentially act as animal disease ‘sinks’. Most animals from peri-urban regions (and beyond) gravitate towards urban markets and are traded for the purpose of slaughter (as opposed to farmer-to-farmer trade), which generally results in a one-way and terminal movement of disease. Farm-to-farm trade tends to be more important in spreading and maintaining animal disease in the population. Peri-urban and rural markets, where farm-to-farm trade is more likely, will provide greater risk of disease dissemination than urban slaughter-based markets.

Indirect transmission pathways occur where contact by an uninfected animal is with infected material and/or infected intermediate vectors. Similar issues are involved as with direct transmission but additional pathways for disease spread in this fashion can be summarised as follows:

x The movement of wastewater from livestock market sites directly onto fields that may be used for crops or grazing represents a risk factor for spread of disease. Urban animals may represent potent reservoirs of infection and may become an important issue should eradication programmes for disease be implemented.

x In South East Asia organic solid wastes from markets are sometimes removed and fed to fish in



adjacent ponds. This practice probably provides potent processing of pathogens (as few pathogens are adapted for both warm-blooded and cold-blooded hosts). However, fish ponds attract aquatic birds and the feeding of poultry waste to fish represents a major risk factor for the spread of HPAI and is thus a major concern for this single disease alone. These ponds are often interconnected with waterways and fields (especially during fish harvest) and this can provide a pathway for pathogens to access their host species. A recent study has examined the disease linkages between humans, ducks and rice farming in Thailand (Gilbert et al. 2008); patterns were formed using statistical analyses that suggest HPAI outbreak risk to be associated with duck abundance, human population, and rice cropping intensity, and not as previously though, to chicken numbers.

x Handling of livestock as part of the purchase process is typical and this extensive contact, with birds especially, increases the level of pathogens in the air, the ground and on the skin of humans. Of particular relevance is a South East Asian practice in which vendors massage a bird’s crop to empty it prior to purchase.

As discussed, whilst the movement of animals at these markets is mostly one-way and terminal, the movement of people in markets is more complex. Livestock and public markets therefore represent a major risk for the spread of disease from animals to humans and, for many diseases, the likelihood of propagating outbreaks once the market ends and traders and consumers disperse into the city.

7.2 SLAUGHTERHOUSES

7.2.1 Overview of Slaughter Operations

The Study Team visited a wide range of slaughterhouses processing buffalo, cattle, sheep, goats, horses, camels, pigs and poultry. This section summarises the operations of these enterprises to establish the main areas of concern and to provide a guide as to what is routine in the handling and management of livestock processing wastes and other relevant activities. In Chapter 10, the report addresses the important issues of waste and environmental management.

Hours of operation for the slaughterhouses varied across the project and were set in response to the requirements of the follow-on stage in the supply chain. In the hottest and most humid countries, slaughter activities were well underway by 2.00am in order to provide fresh product to the wet markets and public markets by daybreak. The public markets, in turn, aim to have product sold and the area cleared before noon. Facilities in other regions, by contrast, sometimes commence slaughtering late in the afternoon and continue to midnight and beyond, when the product is loaded into trucks for distribution to retail butchers all over the city in the early morning hours.

In virtually all cases, lighting in these facilities is very poor which has a direct impact on workers’ operations from the slaughter point, through evisceration and quartering, to product load-out. It also prevents effective meat inspection.

It is during the above stages that contamination, e.g. faecal matter or grime from dirty processing equipment or contact with the equally dirty floor, fails to be observed and is thus carried through to the next stage of processing or consumption. Moreover, contaminated matter is often spread onto carcasses, viscera and workers through the misuse of hoses which splatter faeces, ingesta, and dirt over nearby surfaces.

Virtually all of the municipal facilities visited operate in what amounts to an open-air environment, i.e. lack of an enclosed building envelope to restrict the influx of birds, dirt, flies, and other airborne matter. Only a few of the facilities accessed during the visit had temperature control on the slaughter floor and very few municipal facilities provided routine refrigeration for carcasses/sides prior to load-out. The current emphasis in the local market for fresh product, to be consumed in a short time frame, means that the lack of refrigeration is not a major issue provided basic hygiene, sanitation, and operating principles are followed.

Livestock are slaughtered in slaughterhouses, and often illegally by retail butchers at private premises. They are subject to only limited official control by the municipality staff. Many slaughterhouses, except those in the provincial centres, consist of simple sheds with limited or no water supply or electricity. Floors are often damaged, drainage is poor, and cleaning and maintenance virtually non-existent with no, or inadequate, holding facilities for the stock.



7.2.2 Roles and Relationships

A major factor that the Study Team determined as affecting the operation of slaughterhouses and other facilities was the individual or group interpersonal dynamics prevalent in a given sector, facility or country. The influence or weakness of a given group of people could have a considerable impact on operational efficiency, processes, and other areas of the industry, including power to lobby government, offer bribes and incentives, or threaten disruption. In some locations, the interactions between different groups could have more influential effects than institutional relationships and dynamics.

The roles and relationships at slaughterhouses differed considerably between countries as well as facility type. The commercial web therefore varied from place to place, with different numbers of middlemen, job descriptions, payment arrangements, and so forth. These intricacies were described in detail in the interim data report; however, as they disclose too much information on the locations in question, these descriptions have been omitted from this report and Figure 7.2 shows one example.

Figure 7.2 – Example Pathway and Relationships

It is difficult to describe these important different roles and relationships in general terms, however some of the key roles encountered are described below, followed by the main variations between locations.

The Butcher

In most of the countries visited, the butcher is an essential component of the whole meat supply chain as in

Intermediary Dealers

Breeders / Farmers

Chevillards/ slaughterers

Municipal Markets

Rural Slaughterhouses

Urban Slaughterhouses

Informal slaughter and sale

Urban Butchers Rural Butchers

Consumers

Transport Specialist






general it is he who:

x Attends the live market to select and purchase animals.

x Holds the animals in go-downs until required to be slaughtered.

x Organises delivery to the slaughterhouse, payment of any fee, and negotiates with the flayer to slaughter and dress the animals.

x Negotiates with a whole variety of by-product intermediaries to sell hides, skins, and other fifth quarter items.

x Conducts the preparation and sale process to the end customer.

Thus, the butcher is critical to the supply system and has an extremely important role, not restricted to the purchase and retail of meat, as is more common in developed countries. In the Study countries the butcher often owns the animal at slaughter, and due to their large numbers and loose associations, they can often wield considerable influence over slaughterhouse operators, whether private or government owned. Areas noted through observation and interview in which butchers can have considerable impacts include:

x Pricing for livestock and meat products.

x Livestock market facilities and design.

x Slaughterhouse design, operation and access arrangements.

x Despatch arrangements.

x Waste recycling.

In addition to the above, the very usage of slaughter facilities is to some extent down to the powers of the butcher; where the informal sector is rife, it is usually due mainly to butchers. Conversely, in some locations the butcher is the driving force behind ensuring quality and high standards throughout the process chain.

The Veterinarian

The role/status of the veterinarian is a key issue with respect to some of the findings of the present Study. Their presence, absence, powers, and capability have an enormous impact on the quality and safety of food and the content of waste for disposal. Furthermore they represent the government’s interest in a slaughterhouse, whether public or private, and as such should have the power to make a difference to the standards, though all too often they are sidelined or paid off.

The role of the veterinarian is usually reasonably well defined, consisting in most facilities of ante mortem and post mortem inspections. Unfortunately these inspections are cursory at the very least, due to apathy, understaffing, or pay-offs. In some locations, the role of the veterinarian was actually in dispute by the authorities and operators alike.

It was clear that in most countries visited, the veterinarian was in a weak position, not least from a physical point of view in that they are usually the sole representative heavily outnumbered by employees of other institutions and companies. They are often working on tight budgets, for low salaries, and are heavily pressurised by both the workload and other groups within the workplace. The support from the relevant ministry is usually inadequate, and can further encourage lax standards. This is clearly a very undesirable situation considering the vital importance that veterinarians should offer in animal disease detection, animal welfare, food safety, and public health and the role should be a key target of future work in the sector.

The Meat inspector

The meat inspectors were notable in many facilities in the Study countries due to their absence; the concept of a shared role between inspectors and veterinarians was not present. In high-income countries with modern facilities, veterinarians are responsible for ensuring animal welfare standards, and for detecting animal disease and preventing its spread; whilst meat inspectors are trained purely to inspect carcasses and identify any that are diseased or otherwise inedible. The common misconception appears to exist in developing countries that solely the veterinarian is able to inspect the meat, whereas in reality a trained and devoted meat inspector could most likely do a better job than a veterinarian, whilst releasing the



veterinarian to concentrate on live animals (and dying animals at point of slaughter) and disease prevention and control.

The Slaughterman

Slaughtermen are usually untrained workers that are highly skilled in knife-work, but do not have the technical knowledge or background to perform their tasks with due consideration to animal welfare and food safety issues. They are generally reasonably poorly paid, and are under the employment of the butchers, or where the slaughtermen are directly employed by the facility, butchers generally have a strong influence over the slaughtermen.

The Worker

Workers might include, inter alia, porters, fifth-quarter processors, cleaners, and security guards. This category of slaughterhouse employee is the most numerous in absolute terms, but the least powerful overall. No associations are generally formed by the workers (often due to them being prevented or outlawed by government or employers) and as such their combined powers (for example the power of striking, or the powers to “professionalise”) are not present. Low salaries and poor education exposes the Worker to a weakness for bribes and bad practice, as well as to more disease risks than other classes of employee.

The Manager

The role of the Manager is very important, and the Study Team’s observations suggest that in terms of numbers this position is critical; one person has the ability to push for high standards, improvement and change, or alternatively to fall into the status quo, taking bribes, being apathetic and so on. This particularly applies to municipally run facilities where the Manager’s salary does not necessarily rely on quality of the operation but purely on the numbers of throughput to the facility, or indeed his salary may be removed from targets and incentives.

Regional differences

The above descriptions apply only to roles within the slaughterhouse – there are myriad other roles that further studies should examine, for example the influence of supermarkets, the roles of legislators, local authority workers, the police, and so forth.

A major observation of the Study Team was that in all locations and regardless of the local intricacies of the relationships between stakeholders (including those internal to facilities), there are large gaps in terms of job descriptions, responsibilities, and powers. In some locations, different government services are responsible for different areas of meat production, and in one location, the point at which the responsibility transferred was unclear and in dispute. There is therefore a need to define desirable roles, responsibilities and relationships both internally to facilities (for example the relationship between veterinary inspectors and butchers) and across the sector (for example the relationship between veterinary service and public health service).


Levels of hygiene and sanitation in most slaughterhouses were poor. Walls, floors, ceilings, rails and other equipment often showed evidence of blood, faeces, staining, and grime. The general level of decay in the buildings added to the overall sub-standard appearance of many sites.

Few plants seemed to have in place a comprehensive cleaning programme even if staff agreed on the need for such a programme. There were exceptions where staff were seen scrubbing or hosing specific areas near to the project team, possibly to put on appearances, but overall the state of many slaughter and processing areas was very poor. At several sites the costs of cleaning chemicals and equipment was cited as reasons for poor hygiene standards, see Figure 7.3 overleaf.



Figure 7.3 – Poor Hygiene Conditions: Municipal Abattoirs in Africa and North Africa following Wash-down Operations

The lack of suitable slaughtering facilities and unsatisfactory slaughtering techniques cause considerable losses in meat as well as invaluable by-products such as blood, offal, hides, and skins. Animals can be slaughtered in places which are polluted with blood, intestinal contents, and contaminated effluent and the product is not protected against insects, vermin and germs. Meat produced under such conditions can easily become a source of bacterial infection and food poisoning particularly in summer months. In the absence of inspection, meat from sick or parasite-infected animals may well be a vector for spreading diseases, affecting humans as well as animals.

In addition, waste products being misused can become a source of problems instead of being an asset. In this study, however, it was found that in larger slaughter facilities there are often sufficient economies of scale to recover many of the waste products that become problematic in smaller operations. It was also observed that whilst smaller slaughter operations are appropriate to ensure localisation of meat supply, this does not generally comply with the principle of economies of scale in relation to the recovery and processing of animal waste products. In larger operations, it is economically viable to recover by-product material that would otherwise create localised problems associated with handling and disposal, thereby producing environmental impacts including odour generation, and water and land pollution.

A further key concern is the amount of processing that occurs on the floor. There often are no rails or hoists: if present they often are not used to lift the carcasses up off the floor for dressing. It is acknowledged that the interior surface of an animal’s hide, is sterile and could conceivably be used as a work surface for carcass dressing; however, it is far from ideal and relies completely on the operator directing the tasks away from the carcass and using rinse water in an equally careful fashion to ensure there is no further contamination to the carcass surface. There are rarely any special facilities for handling edible offal, so the floor is used extensively, see Figure 7.4 overleaf.

Knife sterilisers are occasionally in evidence; however, they often do not function properly and are insufficiently employed. Sterilisers for slaughtering equipment, if present, are usually empty of hot water and there is little hand washing during processing. Attempts to wash down during processing are invariably with hoses, adding to the problem with increased volumes of dirty water, splashing and further contamination with grime and ingesta.

Where veterinary inspection was undertaken, its value was often questionable; the ability of veterinary inspectors to detect disease and to deal satisfactorily with diseased organs and condemned carcasses was poor, often due to inadequate lighting and sometimes training. However, it was noted that due to poor awareness of health and hygiene issues, in examining carcasses for diseases with visible symptoms, they were likely to be spreading invisible pathogens from carcass to carcass, somewhat offsetting the benefits derived from the detection of diseases.



Figure 7.4 – Dressing Operations on Slaughterhouse Floor in Africa and MENA

Vermin and pest control is a problem at most sites. Scavenger dogs likely keep vermin numbers at bay overall but the presence of leaking drainage systems and uncontrolled access to buildings suggests that they are an ongoing presence. At one market site where poultry and rabbit were being sold and slaughtered on the spot, poultry and rabbit waste was allowed to lie where it fell and was being scavenged by dogs and egrets even during the market.

The survey record made by the team during the visit to a slaughterhouse in North Africa provides a summary of the situation:

Hygiene and sanitation are generally of a very low standard indeed in the [group of facilities], which frequently have no running cold water, no hot water, no toilet or hand-washing facilities for workers, rudimentary drainage, poor lighting, and poor waste collection and ejection. Staff receive little or no hygiene training, and are only skilled in butchery using basic equipment. Aggravating the situation is the fact that these local slaughter plants are situated in the centre of bustling markets, with little or no control over access to the facilities. The workers are of course doing the best to their abilities given their level of training and knowledge, and given the equipment and facilities available; however, the levels of hygiene are a serious concern. Cleaning was observed at one [site] and consisted of physical scraping of blood and tissues but no use of detergents, etc. Drains are not thoroughly cleansed and rotting material was attached to the grilles when they were lifted.

Some Notable Exceptions:

There were exceptions to the general findings above and it is useful to present details about these sites. One slaughterhouse in North Africa met very high standards with respect to sanitation and hygiene facilities, equipment and practices. It has a dedicated cleaning team overseeing an external private cleaning company and proper cleaning down with chemicals takes place daily. Toilet, hand-washing, and showering facilities are provided for staff and the disinfection of footwear is obligatory prior to entry to facilities. The whole abattoir is well-kept and maintained. Staff at this facility receive hygiene training and are more aware about the related issues than in other slaughterhouses. This facility is applying for ISO 22,000, and staff were clearly aware of hygiene, sanitation, and disease spread issues.

In certain cases, the modern chain poultry slaughterhouses were a level above the municipal slaughterhouses and chicken vendors in the public markets. Toilet, hand-washing, and showering facilities were provided for staff, and the disinfecting of footwear is obligatory prior to entry to facilities. Cleaning down was reasonably thorough, and staff practices, clothing and equipment were good. A major operator



in South America with a series of investments in the poultry industry operates all facilities to such a high standard that it exports product to Japan. The bio-security procedures at all sites visited, including the feed mill, were exceptionally well run. Worker hygiene there is also of a reasonable order and there is an active worker education programme in place which includes training and safety induction. In the slaughter and boning rooms of one slaughterhouse, staff wore face masks and hygienic clothing (see Figure 7.5), and had clearly been well-trained in carrying out their work in a hygienic fashion.

Figure 7.5 – Hygiene and Cleanliness Levels at a Municipal Facility (left) and at a Modern Private Facility (right) in the LAC region

The hygiene in a different poultry slaughterhouse was also of a high standard. The company is aware of the risks associated with poor hygiene and their farms and slaughterhouse have high levels of bio-security. Birds were processed under good hygiene and lighting conditions with excellent process control measures in place. The process control procedures were evident throughout the plant’s operation and suggest that the risk of contamination through meat waste or cross-contamination is likely to be minimal.

The small-scale chicken processing sector in Latin America, by contrast, often has significant potential for cross-contamination, with no control of diseased material being attempted. Worker hygiene practices at all the market processors visited were of a very poor standard, and no training exists, other than for basic knife-work and butchery skills. The availability of hot water was almost nil as the water made available was generally heavily contaminated from previous use during the plucking process. A basic sanitation block was available on site at one of the facilities; however, washing is not obligatory, and due to the costs, is not usually carried out by workers.

Close by to the slaughter booths, food is prepared in amongst a mixture of dressed carcases and live birds; clearly a health risk. In this setting, the standards of slaughterhouse waste control were poor or nil and with a low level of worker hygiene and work practices. In all cases there was perceived to be an extremely high risk of contamination and cross-contamination occurring through live animal, carcass, and waste handling.

7.2.4 Process Control

The details presented above emphasise the attention given in several plants to process control and put into stark contrast what occurs (or does not occur) at many other sites. Aside from poor hygiene due to poor dressing technique, poor lighting, poor trimming, the presence of ingesta, dung and general dirt, the risk of contamination and cross contamination was identified as being extremely high due to several other factors. Live animals are regularly brought through the slaughter floor at many locations for processing, past carcasses that are undergoing the dressing process. This is a high source of potential contamination.

In the busiest slaughterhouses the lack of process control results from the simultaneous processing of large numbers of animals by a large number of workers, making any considered observation of the slaughtering process impossible. In less hectic settings, where time pressures are presumably less but space restrictions are high, there was still observed a lack of order and care about the sequence of processing and related tasks.



The simultaneous processing results in:

x Mixing live animals with carcasses.

x High levels of cross contamination from blood, faeces, ingesta, and wash-down water.

x Difficulty in moving the products resulting from slaughter to areas where they will be further processed.

x Live animals being delivered to the slaughter site immediately before slaughter and carcasses being removed almost immediately after dressing has been completed.

x Uncontrolled product and people movement.

As a case in point, the poultry slaughter facilities at a South East Asian city consist of two mirror image buildings containing a number of similar processing units. The units have a sticking and de-feathering area at the back and dressing and evisceration area in the building with a finished product counter at the front. The area provided for sticking and slaughter is inadequate: as a result, de-feathering occurs in the dressing area and finished product spills out of the front of the processing units onto portable tables, see Figure 7.6.

Figure 7.6 – Inadequate Poultry Slaughter and Processing Facilities

By contrast, in the same city, a poultry facility uses a modern poultry processing chain on which the line is separated into sticking, scalding, plucking, dressing, and evisceration areas. There is also an area after the slaughter process which is used to inspect and stamp the carcasses and to package the product if required by the customer. Similarly, a small cattle slaughterhouse processing around 12-15 head per day is separated into four distinct areas: holding stalls where cattle are held prior to slaughter; an area for emptying the stomach contents; a slaughter and dressing area; and an area dedicated to boning and recovery of boneless meat, as shown earlier in Figure 6.32.

The following relating to working practices are suggested:

x Encouragement of off-floor slaughter and dressing practises.

x Provision of dedicated offal treatment facilities (again, off the floor).

x Encouragement of use of protective equipment and clothing.

x Provision of disinfectant for equipment and clothing.

x Provision of basic worker facilities (e.g. toilets, water, and washing facilities).

x Provision of adequate lighting.



While there are many other issues to be addressed including personal hygiene, clothing, and sanitary practices of the workers, it is considered that the greatest risk comes from the uncontrolled nature of the process inherent in large numbers of butchers each supplying a small number of animals to a large number of slaughterers, and the processing of large numbers of animals simultaneously.

A scenario that would significantly improve this situation in some settings would be to convert the butchers’ operation to purchasing carcasses rather than live animals, and the implementation of a degree of process control on the slaughtering operations.

7.2.5 Fifth-Quarter Processing

The wide range of livestock waste products, aside from hide and edible offal, that the Study Team observed being recovered and processed confirms the importance of the fifth-quarter products in the total revenue derived from the animal.

While there appears to be significant volumes of waste material being generated in slaughter facilities, the appearance is misleading. Many of the piles of material exhibited in the photographs from various sites are, in fact, intended for edible use, fat recovery, or poultry meal production. In fact, one of the fifth-quarter workers at a major South Asian slaughterhouse positions himself at the main drain in order to recover pieces of animal tissue coming down the drain for sale to poultry meal manufacturers.

The most significant solid waste material generated at the slaughter facility is the stomach contents of the cattle, buffalo, sheep, and goats and the complete small intestines of the buffalo which are difficult to empty and therefore the intestine is difficult to recover. Much of the animal tissue that is recovered, such as intestines, omasum, bladder, etc. finds its way back to a small number of traders via a range of intermediaries. These intermediaries often provide upfront finance to the people who recover the items in order that supply is secured.

Whilst there are high levels of recovery of all animal tissues for use as edible fat recovery or poultry feed at the large slaughter facilities, it was observed that the volumes of material wasted at some of the smaller facilities were higher. This was due to lower economies of scale on one hand and the lack of skills to recover some material (e.g. omasum – a portion of the fore-stomach) on the other hand. Where these materials were not being recovered for edible purposes they were often downgraded to fat recovery or poultry meal raw material.

Other facilities used a series of ground-level baths in which the raw material and singed product is scrubbed and cleaned. Alternatively they may use open gas furnaces in which the heads and feet are placed for a short period to singe of any hair or wool. The team in North Africa also saw a large blowtorch being used to burn face pieces and hair off the collected heads and feet.

A significant proportion of the fat rendering and poultry meal production is performed using extremely basic technology in local warehouses and workshops in the area surrounding the major municipal slaughterhouses.

Blood processing for food is regarded as ‘haram’ (forbidden under Islam); however, it was observed to occur in at least one of the Study Countries. Other markets dispose of the blood through the normal wastewater system, untreated, where it often creates environmental problems downstream. Facilities which save blood normally use a covered space to position equipment such as a large hearth-heated kettle in which the blood is coagulated and partially dried. The rest of the site is simply a large open yard where the coagulant is air dried prior to being bagged and sold. Other product processing facilities are generally located in smaller buildings with specific focus, e.g. bone cleaning, stomachs, edible offal, etc.

The Quran makes no prohibitions of the usage of blood for non-food purposes; indeed other aspects of Islam, such as the prohibition on wastage and an active awareness of environmental issues suggest that it is favourable in God’s eyes to make use of blood for non-food purposes rather than allow it to become an environmental burden (Bagader et al, 1994). Awareness of these issues is frequently poor, as the aversion to blood in the food context overpowers reasoning in others.



7.2.6 Occupational Health and Safety

There were numerous areas of concern regarding worker health and safety at most of the slaughterhouses visited, many of them linked to the age and poor condition of the building and equipment. The relevant sections of the IFC guidelines in regard to occupational health and safety focus on:

x Physical hazards such as falls from slippery surfaces – The guidelines recommend installation of suitable non-slip flooring, handrails, and elimination of greasy surfaces on floors and stairs.

x Injuries and cuts from use of machines, knives, saw, and tools – The guidelines recommend development of training systems to guide workers in use of cutting equipment, provision and installation of safety devices and personal protection equipment like metallic gloves and suitably heavy-duty aprons to avert knife injuries.

x Strain from handling live animals, carcasses and heavy material loads – The guidelines recommend training workers in proper live animal handling methods including use of structures and equipment to handle and restrain animals and the use of devices to assist in moving loads.

Other issues relate to the introduction of new plant and equipment for which workers have received no training. In a North African facility visited, for example, there have been a high number of accidents which reportedly have resulted from lack of training for a group of employees recruited from an old slaughterhouse site (which used a hook and booth system) to work in a new facility (operating on a chain system). The latter system relies on hydraulic machinery to which these workers had difficulty adapting, underlining the need for appropriate training for unskilled or semi-skilled workers.

Poor lighting in many plants is a further cause of worker injury, as identified earlier in this report.

The use of street clothes at work in slaughterhouses was noted at many establishments as a health risk because it means that workers carry home with them the detritus collected in their daily tasks which is neither healthy for them nor safe for the wider community, including their families. Likewise, concepts of personal hygiene, cleaning equipment between the processing of each carcass or after a contamination event are normally absent.

The team could not find any references providing information on accident records in developing country slaughterhouses. This data may exist in some locations, but is not published; elsewhere (including all informal arrangements) there is no information, however accidents are said to be very common. Good infrastructure, equipment, facilities, and training improvements could substantially cut injury numbers.

7.2.7 Disease Risks

Work practices amongst veterinarians are below standard, perhaps due to disillusionment as a result of lack of investment on behalf of the municipalities, and a lack of good support from the relevant department (not to mention the low numbers of veterinary staff assigned). Where there are veterinarians or technical staff present, practices are often only marginally better than where they were not present.

There were few controls over the spread of infection by people, animal vectors and fomites (inanimate objects that are capable of transmitting infectious organisms) in most of the slaughterhouses visited by the Study Team. Only a handful of these sites had systems in place to prevent other animals including dogs, birds and other scavengers from entering the processing areas.

Waste in the vicinity of the slaughter halls (see Figure 5.31 earlier and Figure 7.7 overleaf) are open for both human and animal scavenging. In addition to the main pile of waste in the “designated” area, plants are often surrounded by historical and fresh evidence of poor waste management; with many horns, bones, feathers, and bits of fur being observed and available for scavenging.



Figure 7.7 – Slaughter Waste Adjacent to On-Floor Fifth-Quarter Preparation and in Public Area Adjacent to Slaughterhouses in MENA Region

It is strongly recommended that the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) carries out an evaluation of the Performance of Veterinary Services as an essential component of any recommendations which suggest modifying the structure of activities of Veterinary Services. This organisation has an established mechanism to perform such a review on a standardised basis carried out by accredited veterinary specialists. The OIE PVS (Evaluation of Performance of Veterinary Services) Tool is designed “to assist veterinary services to establish their current level of performance, to identify gaps and weaknesses regarding their ability to comply with OIE international standards, to form a shared vision with stakeholders (including the private sector) and to establish priorities and carry out strategic initiatives.”

The PVS assesses veterinary services against four fundamental components:

x Human, physical and financial resources.

x Technical authority and capability to address current and new issues.

x Sustained interaction with stakeholders.

x Ability to access markets through compliance with existing standards and the implementation of new disciplines.

OIE will provide a specialist report that covers every aspect of service activity. The mechanisms used in formulating the evaluation and report are well-described on the OIE web-site but, importantly, provide an invaluable insight into the ability of a Service to handle work which requires inter-disciplinary and inter-organisational collaboration, both of which are essential for safe handling and disposal of livestock waste but which are clearly identified as being significant weaknesses in all regions visited.

In short, the OIE Performance of Veterinary Services evaluation will allow a more complete reappraisal and subsequent upgrading of services leading to enhanced provision of animal health control mechanisms.

As will be examined in more detail in Chapter 9 (Epidemiology and Disease Control), there is a vibrant and very alarming industry in the South American city which is based on the supply of offal wastes from poultry markets, slaughterhouses, and further processors. The viscera and blood from operations such as this, and likely similar wastes from other informal slaughter facilities, find a ready market as swill feed for pigs at pig colonies, tenant farms, and illegal dumps. Significant volumes of viscera are generated in the city every day, and all of it is thought to be sold for swill feed.

The efficacy of cooking in destroying pathogens like viruses and parasitic cysts will vary depending on the duration of the cooking cycle. It is an extremely dangerous practice, as mixing of pathogenic avian influenza viruses with human viruses in the pig can potentially result in pathogenic human forms of the virus.

Veterinary inspection failures and birds that die during transport or at the market are disposed of in a variety of means. Some facilities incinerate these items (often in antiquated on-site incinerators), whilst others send the material to a solid waste holding tank (sometimes minced, mostly whole) where it is held and



degraded prior to disposal to formal, and occasionally informal, dumpsites.

The major observations made with respect to disease risks by the Study Team at the slaughter facilities can be listed as follows:

x Municipal slaughter facilities are old, manually operated, over capacity, and located near to watercourses or drainage channels for easy disposal of wastewater (now unacceptable), since few facilities have wastewater treatment systems.

x Standards of management are poor.

x In general, relatively small quantities of solid waste are produced due to the extensive recovery of offal and many animal parts, including bones, gut contents, offal, and other items.

x Blood is sometimes recognised as a valuable by-product and effort is made to recover and process it, although in each country there are instances where it is discharged to wastewater and local watercourses without treatment.

x Ante and post mortem inspection is limited by human resources, equipment, facilities and lighting.

x Training needs to be improved to ensure that only safe meat products reach the consumer.

7.3 MEAT PROCESSING FACILITIES


Meat processing in this context comprises those operations subsequent to the evisceration and carcass dressing. It can include boning of carcasses and quarters, band-sawing of small-stock carcasses into smaller primal and individual steaks/chops, etc.; or further along the supply chain, the manufacture of sausages, smallgoods, and similar products. In high-income countries these activities are fairly complex and there are numerous enterprises performing these tasks at an intermediate stage between the slaughterhouse and wholesaling to retail butchers/supermarkets. By contrast, in developing countries, this intermediate stage is largely missing and the carcass breakdown tasks are undertaken at the popular wet markets or by neighbourhood butchers immediately prior to sale to the consumer.

The Study Team visited a relatively small number of red meat processing operations because there are so few of these businesses compared to the number of markets and slaughterhouses and they operate almost entirely in the private sector serving small niche markets. These businesses only handle a very small percentage of the total red meat traded and most often do not welcome visitors onto their premises. In the major city visited in North Africa, for example, the Study Team was informed that there were only five businesses which could be classified as meat processing plants and that in total they handled less than 10% of total meat traded in the market. It should be noted that this market share is gradually increasing, however legislation and unscrupulous traders are hampering the growth of this sector.

Figure 7.8 – High Standards at Low Volume Red Meat Processing Facilities in the LAC and MENA Regions



The standards were high at the facilities visited, due principally to the niche market that is currently served by such operations; operators are effectively selling high quality cuts to a small base of discerning and wealthy clientele, and as such standards are maintained as cost is not such as an issue, whereas reputation is.

In contrast to the status of red meat processors described above, poultry processing appears to be more widespread, with the emergence in several of the countries visited of integrated processors which control the breeding, slaughter and processing of birds on a large scale. One such processor in processor in the LAC region currently exports product to Japan, which provides an indication of its standards; the Study Team visited several of its facilities, and by way of example the firm’s feed mill was a state of the art operation with top class process control and of a superior nature than many mills found in developed nations.

The emergence of large private modern poultry processors in Muslim countries is attributed to the lucrative nature of selling cheap processed meat that has been bulked out with other ingredients, as well as these poultry products filling a gap due to the absence of pork products, which are more traditionally used for onward processing in non-Muslim countries.

7.3.2 Disease Risks

The biggest disease concern at the processing level pertains to the very poor standards of hygiene in the raw material supplied to the processor from the slaughterhouse, and to some extent subsequent poor handling within the facility. As discussed earlier, the standards of production in most slaughterhouses is very low and most show clear evidence of hygiene standards indicating that carcasses will be presented for processing with dangerously high levels of faecal contamination.

Bacteriological monitoring is not widely practised in any of the processing facilities, so there is rarely baseline data about bacterial contamination. This situation is slowly changing, with some private operators planning on-site laboratories. Subsequent work procedures do little to reassure that vast amounts of undesirable, high risk material will not be passed on in the product. Mechanisms such as vacuum-packing boned joints will do little other than seal-in contamination with the risk that inadequate cold-chain management further along the chain will allow for more-dangerous health risks to arise, such as the proliferation of toxins.

7.4 PUBLIC MARKETS

7.4.1 General

Public markets comprise municipally-controlled venues or premises where licensed vendors pay the market authority a fee to be allowed to sell perishable and/or general produce to consumers. Public markets are patronised by consumers and are distinct from livestock markets which are mostly patronised by butchers and wholesalers.

The public market sector can include live animals (poultry, rabbit, Guinea pigs, sometimes dogs, etc.) for home slaughter; live animals for slaughter and dressing immediately at the same site; and can also include meat sourced from slaughterhouses. It normally involves a product checking function of some kind by the local authorities and as a result most meat products supplied through the public retail markets would be expected to be sourced from the formal slaughter sector. This is however often not the case.

At the public retail markets, the meat product retailers operate in a similar business structure to other retailers, such that:

x Product is sourced via the slaughter sector.

x Product is brought to the stalls in the early hours of the morning, typically by 6.00am.

x There is a high potential for microbial growth due to product being displayed a ambient temperature in the open air with the opportunity for environmental contamination.

x Sales are conducted during the day with the intention of having all product typically sold by noon.

x There appears to be little solid waste at this level as all incoming products are sold to customers.



7.4.2 Hygiene, Sanitation, and Safety

It was observed at many of the public markets that there is generally a wide cross-section of market stalls, with open access to the public and very limited or no facilities for waste disposal, hand washing and sanitation.

Hygiene and sanitation was poor at nearly all of the public markets. A minimum level of hygiene and, in many cases, a sub-standard level, was observed at these venues. Dead poultry was often seen on the floor of the market stalls which sell live poultry, with dead stock disposal presumed to be directed to the general market waste at the end of the day. Scavenging dogs were also in evidence in the market environs and rodents/vermin are presumed to be nearby, too, although the presence of dogs and cats in some centres might keep their numbers at bay. There were no specific hygiene procedures in place for meat deliveries at any markets visited: product arrived through many means including trolleys, motorcycles, un-refrigerated trucks, boxes, and carts.

Work practices at the urban retail markets were much as indicated elsewhere in the report: poor awareness of contamination issues, disease control, fomites, or epidemiology and little thought towards waste management. At public markets there is no protective equipment or clothing used. Workers arrive, work and return home in the same clothes, taking with them the dirt and grime of their tasks in the marketplace. Poultry is handled often and hand-washing is not readily performed. It was common to see the same slaughtering equipment being used on successive animals with no cleaning between uses10.

In terms of occupational health and safety, there is little or no protective equipment provided for workers and washing facilities at public markets with processing, display surfaces and instruments being inadequate. Food stall areas are kept reasonably tidy, but there is no evidence of good hygiene practice.

7.4.3 Disease Risks

Infection transfer from animals to humans at markets can be facilitated by the:

x Lack of use of protective clothing and equipment by stall holders.

x Use of the floor for the majority of animal marketing and sale. Crouching workers amongst animals on dirt floors are exposed to aerosol contact with pathogens and with dust.

x Poor wash-down and decontamination practices and the rare use of disinfectants on site, implements, and workers’ clothing.

x Continual use of facilities resulting in no regular site maintenance and hygiene.

x Lack of formal training (including personal hygiene) by workers.

Public markets offer the same risks as specifically livestock markets. The absence of any controls does little or nothing to alter the risk for the population. It seems likely that many of the animals on sale at these markets have originated from other sources and are probably in a circulating population that move from one sale-site to the next until they are bought.

Public market wash-down often drains away locally which raises potential risk of contamination of crops for human or animal consumption, e.g. to nearby pond systems. Liquid wastes are also washed into covered drainage channels and can be discharged untreated to the local surface drainage system without treatment or, where they occur, into nearby fish ponds

The extensive handling of animals for sale is normal practice. Poultry generally have their crop contents expelled onto the ground by the purchaser before weighing. This is a high risk practice and places the

10 HSA comments (Feb 2009) – Poorly cleaned or maintained equipment will become unsuitable for the job and could lead to suffering of the animals during slaughter.



purchaser, trader, and other animals at significant risk of infection11.

7.5 RETAIL SECTOR

7.5.1 General

The meat retail sector in the cities visited is diverse, covering basic shops through to modern meat display cases in supermarkets. There is also a significant demand emerging from the food service sector which is understood to be supplied from retail butchers’ “back door.”

It is reported that in one of the Study cities there are around 2,200 retail outlets and that around 500 of these have reasonable facilities (cleanable surfaces in reasonable to good condition). Some of the better outlets may have some refrigeration in the form of a chest freezer, where product not sold on the day of slaughter can be frozen.

There is little apparent official control of this sector in most of the country settings and it is expected that the majority of meat product sourced through the informal sector is actually retailed through retail outlets because it is cheaper when it comes from the informal market.

Some details provided regarding supply of meat products into a supermarket chain in South East Asia suggest the following:

x Meat products are sourced fresh from the formal slaughter sector.

x The products are placed in a refrigerated environment (e.g. a refrigerated transport vehicle).

x The vehicle transports the products to the supermarket outlet.

x The products are further processed and displayed for sale in a refrigerated environment.

This process establishes a rudimentary cold chain for the products, however:

x The fresh product is likely to carry a significant bacterial load prior to entry to the refrigerated space.

x The temperature reduction regime in transport vehicles would be expected to be uncontrolled so that bacterial loads have the opportunity to increase significantly during transport, handling, processing, and retail display.

In certain markets it is the supermarkets that are seen to be leading the way in terms of work practices. Whilst those working at smaller retail outlets serving local communities may be highly skilled in knife-work and traditional butchery techniques, most are left wanting in terms of working practices related to welfare, cleanliness, meat hygiene, and waste management.

Meat products in supermarkets are displayed in refrigerated cabinets with shelf life indicated. As is standard practice in supermarkets worldwide, as any item nears the end of its shelf life, the price is discounted in order to move the product and keep wastage to a minimum.


As with many other aspects of this study, hygiene and sanitation conditions varied considerably according to the type of retail establishment in question. Supermarkets and high-end butchers generally had acceptable levels of cleanliness, equipment, and facilities. Middle-level butchers had acceptable levels of cleanliness and sanitation, and had refrigerated store rooms; however, some equipment was old and ill-maintained and meats were not always kept in the refrigerators, often being placed on workbenches or hung on hooks in the open air.

Butcher shops often showed a variable range of hygiene standards, from acceptable to poor, with only a few

11 HSA comments (Feb 2009) – Birds are likely to feel discomfort and possibly pain from this practice and as such this practice should be discouraged for animal welfare and well as hygiene reasons.



outstanding high-end butchers having good hygiene and sanitation practices. One high-end butcher selling “exclusive” products, was proud of his operation; however, as he handed out a combination of raw sausage and cooked charcuterie samples to the Study Team, any hygiene training was forgotten as boards and knives were mixed and hands remained unwashed.

Meat handling and hygiene procedures in most of the butchers’ shops visited were of an average to reasonable standard. Much of the meat on display is at ambient temperature, with few shops having refrigerated display cases. As a general statement, the more affluent the district in which the butcher’s shop is located, the better the meat handling, display, storage and hygiene procedures.

Basic hand-washing facilities were observed at some but by no means all of the retail butcher shops visited during the study visits. It was apparent from product hanging in one African butchery, that faecal matter and other dirt had been left on the meat particularly around the shin, neck, and brisket areas; most likely as a result of dragging on the floor of the delivery van.

Fresh meat outlets are mostly traditional meat shops, open to the atmosphere and dust with meat hanging exposed to elements; although the better butcher shops are glass-fronted. Official inspection is infrequent and suffers from lack of personnel and enforcement of any standards; corruption is also thought to be common place.

At the top end of the retail stores and in the supermarket sector of two regions, it was observed that these outlets were adopting good practices and were demonstrating presentation in accordance with good modern retail standards.

In terms of occupational safety, workers in supermarkets were observed to be clothed appropriately and following generally sound work practices. In retail butcher’s shops, however, there was little evidence of any worker protection at most locations.

7.5.3 Disease Risks

Waste is not significant at retail outlets and it is understood that bones and meat trimmings are either sold to customers or retained by supermarket staff as a ‘bonus.’ Fat trimmings may be sold to fat recovery processors, and non-fatty tissue may be disposed of to poultry feed manufacturers. Only small quantities of solid waste would be expected from this source, which would find their way into the municipal solid waste.

7.6 INFORMAL SECTOR

7.6.1 General

The informal sector can be found at various locations around the cities. A research study by the relevant municipal authority in an African city found that it operates in parks, parking lots, bush-land, behind butchers’ shops, and in private gardens. In some locations the sector is a thriving and organised industry, whereas in others is it an ad hoc means to an end.

Due to a general lack of access to the operation of the sector, the present Study was not able to make observations of the operational issues of most informal practices, however occasional observations were made, and secondary information was collected.

A variety of different styles of informal slaughter operation exists; typical “facilities” including:

x Organised slaughterhouses operating in backstreet-style secrecy with no regulation

x Butcher shops and market stalls with a killing area, providing meat for the stall or shop

x An area in a neighbourhood (for example a patch by a river) where owners bring their animals and slaughter them themselves

x A similar area as above but where a slaughterer performs the kill for a small fee

Operators offer slaughtering and dressing services without the need to pay the full municipal or similar fee. They exist for a number of reasons; for instance, there may be no available spaces at the public market,



patrons may not wish to pay market fees, or may want to have their new purchases killed just for their household. More organised ventures are able to maximise their returns by avoiding fees, plus the slaughter of sick or poor quality animals is also possible.

Table 7.2 provides data on the estimated size of the informal slaughter market in the study cities. These figures are based on a combination of secondary information and calculations performed by the Study Team based on per capita meat consumptions, populations, and official slaughter figures. Advice was provided in one city in South Asia that a team of nine veterinarians had prosecuted almost 1,700 retailers over an 18-month period and seized some 13,000kg of meat, indicating that informal slaughter and retailing operates at a significant level.

Table 7.2 - Estimated Size of Informal Slaughter Sector

Informal Sector as Estimated Share of Total Slaughter Market

Low-Income Country Middle-Income Country

1 2 3 1 2

n/a 30 % 70 % 30 % 10%

The informal sector is prevalent and in many places quite open, with informal markets (see Figure 7.9) and slaughter operations operating throughout the cities. It was explained that, in order to promote better food safety and minimise disease risk, the main slaughterhouse in the African country visited regularly reduces or waives its slaughter fee for householders who bring their small-stock for slaughter there. A different slant on the same initiative is taken by one of the slaughterhouses in the city visited in the LAC region; whilst an animal health certification system is in place, the operators will not refuse uncertified animals, most likely reared on dumpsites, as they acknowledge that by refusing the animals they will be exasperating the informal slaughter problems in the city (or are using this argument as a defence for their actions).

Figure 7.9 – Informal Small-Stock Markets in Africa


In terms of operational issues, the present report can only summarise those operations observed. The issue of informal slaughter is very delicate, and clearly a difficult area to study with any certainty. Although the very best standards are more or less unachievable with informal slaughter, the team did observe that in some cases a well-performed informal slaughter can be preferable to a poorly performed formal slaughter, from a number of perspectives, including sanitation, hygiene, disease risks and notably, animal welfare.

Hygiene and sanitation issues are normally a low order of priority at informal markets or slaughter areas; invariably there is no access to running water to assist with carcass dressing and waste is fed to local dogs or thrown into surrounding vegetation or watercourses. These practises need to be put into perspective,



however, as whilst it is undeniable that some informal operations are conducted in abhorrent conditions, if one compares the informal slaughter scene in Figure 7.10 with a similar formal slaughter scene from the same country (e.g. Figure 6.49) the informal conditions are undeniably more hygienic and sanitary.

Figure 7.10 – Informal Slaughter Carried Out by Youths in North Africa

The most obvious issue that is noticeable from the above figure is that the slaughter is openly being conducted by children, under the watchful eye of their father. This is clearly an undesirable situation, however it is not known whether this practice is more prevalent in informal circles than it is within the formal sector.

7.6.3 Disease Risks

Unlike with hygiene, the disease risks at the informal level are undeniably higher, despite several interesting peculiarities mentioned below. The major health and safety risk identified for workers through the informal market is the risk of contracting an illness as a result of unknowingly processing diseased carcasses.

The major disease risk for the public is that a diseased carcass is processed and distributed at household level. Secondly, scavenger dogs or vermin may consume diseased material from the site of the informal market or slaughter area. Moreover, the informal markets lack access to a veterinarian who can provide some form of check on the health and soundness of the carcass. This is particularly accentuated with informal operations that have a high throughput of animals; those butchers slaughtering one or two head per day do not share the same disease risks that a larger operation does, as the missing of animals and workers is far less pronounced and the risks associated with poor practice (e.g. failure to sterilise a knife between cuts) is less pronounced.

7.7 SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF OPERATIONAL ISSUES

It is clear that whilst there is considerable malpractice and lack of capacity to operate in an acceptable manner at the level of livestock markets, operational practices are worse, more widespread, and have potential to create more harm, in the slaughterhouses. The conclusion above that in some instances an informal slaughter is preferable to a formal slaughter due to the operational problems at many municipal slaughterhouses shows just how bad the situation has become in some locations.

In the two middle-income countries visited, the leverage of premium retailers and supermarkets on the private sector slaughterhouse operation was notable; their demands for high standards and consistent products was leading to competition between facilities to upgrade and improve their operations in order to secure high value contracts. In some ways these improvements are linked to consumer awareness and re-education; if the public can be made to understand the reality of modern food hygiene issues, they might



be encouraged to change their buying habits, which in turn encourages change within the industry. A simple example of mistaken public attitudes is widespread mistrust for pre-packaged, and a strong preference for freshly slaughtered birds. Whilst in theory it is desirable to have the freshest meat possible, particularly in warm climates, this factor should not be the only consideration – far better to eat a day-old chicken that has been slaughtered and prepared correctly, and chilled until sale, than to buy a poorly slaughtered fresh bird that is contaminated due to malpractice. Clearly in the poorest of countries such changes to public attitude are not feasible, however in countries where the transition to modern techniques and retailers is occurring, the entrepreneurs spearheading the changes should be encouraged and not viewed with mistrust.

Relevant sections of the IFC Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines (Meat Processing) provide technical reference points with general and industry specific examples of Good International Industry Practice (GIIP). They indicate the performance levels and measures that are generally considered to be achievable in new facilities by existing technology at reasonable costs. Pertinent sections of the IFC guidelines in regard to slaughterhouse operations are presented below to assist in understanding what is considered acceptable procedure and approach in developed industries’ operations and where there may be shortfalls or gaps in the country examples at hand.

The first factor identified by the IFC guidelines relates to treatment of Specific Risk Material (SRM) which is “tissues in cattle that contain the agent that may transmit bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE), or scrapie disease if reprocessed into animal feed. The human disease, Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), may result from human consumption of products from animals infected with BSE”. The IFC guidelines recognise that these materials may become incorporated in meat products destined for human consumption and recommends they be separated from carcasses and not directed to rendering or by-products processing. They should instead be incinerated under a suitable time/temperature regime and disposed of outside the food chain for animals and humans.

The second factor relates to handling and treatment of reprocessable solid animal waste items. The IFC Guidelines recommend that facility operators:

x Avoid processing of waste materials for same species feeding.

x Use bones, trim, scraps, hooves, horns and other detritus (not otherwise used beneficially for the production of stable meals, for example, bone meal) in-house or sell to third parties.

x Clean stomachs for use as food, feed, or pet food.

x Clean intestines for use as food or sausage casings.

x Recover fat from cut-offs, intestines and hides for use as animal feed, if collected in relatively pure form. Tallow can alternatively be used as a bio-fuel or for soap amongst other uses.

x Remove mucosa from small pig casings (the mucous membrane of the small intestine) rather than disposing in the wastewater stream. Environmental breakdown of mucosa has a high biochemical oxygen demand and has applications in the pharmaceutical industry for manufacturing heparin. Alternatively, mucosa may be digested anaerobically to produce bio-gas.

x Collect and compost stomach and intestinal contents and manure (preferably removed in “dry” form without mixing into the effluent and provided it does not come from diseased animals) for use as compost or other agricultural application.

The third relevant factor identified is food safety impacts and management. These should guide how plants are operated, how materials are recovered, handled and processed and how the products are delivered or disposed. Relevant guidelines are:

x Meat processing should be performed according to internationally recognized food safety standards consistent with the principles and practice of HACCP and Codex Alimentarius.

x Respect “clean” and “dirty” zoning, designed in accordance with HACCP prerequisites (e.g. sanitary standard operating procedures) as discussed below.

x Ensure the cooling chain is unbroken for sensitive products requiring refrigeration.

x Facilitate tracing of like animal parts, so that all materials from carcasses detained by veterinary



inspection can be removed.

x Ensure animal traceability systems continue to track products once released into commerce.

x Ensure efficient veterinary inspection, including examination of medical certificates (e.g. verification markings, tagging) for the animals.

The IFC guidelines, in effect, provide broad objectives for enterprises to consider and work towards and incorporate into their operations current concepts about food safety, animal and product traceability and disease control. It is considered fair that, in the developed setting, local or small-scale plants would have good prospects of conceiving of the need for, and achieving, these targets. These guidelines form the basis for the observations made about conditions in the slaughter sector and meat processing sector of the countries visited.

As earlier described in the report, the condition of municipal buildings and facilities in the study cities are poor to very poor. At these municipal sites, the project team observed the many inherent difficulties for operators and workers to achieve anything approaching the IFC guidelines reviewed above, and it is clear from the descriptions and photos above that at present, most guidelines and handbooks (many others exist) are so far ahead in the context of the facilities visited that they become almost useless.

The present poor operational standards are due to a combination of factors including but not limited to:

x Inadequate access to personal hygiene facilities.

x Inadequate access to good lighting and water supplies.

x Inadequate access to consumables such as cleaning chemicals.

x Wholesale lack of training of workers in sale, slaughter, dressing, food safety and basic hygiene issues.

x Lack of awareness of issues on behalf of management and ministries alike.

x Very poor plant management and maintenance of standards.

x Profit-focussed facilities, or as is more common with municipal facilities, the opposite, i.e. widespread indifference and lack of pride in one’s work.

x Consistently poor process control without separation of clean and dirty areas.

x Misuse or lack of use of the few services and facilities available that might assist the process;

x Chronic filth in some centres due to apathy or ignorance about hygiene.

x Over-worked facilities such that no genuine cleaning regime has been introduced.

x Incorrect understanding of or disregard for religious and cultural issues.

x Misinformation; differences between what officials think or say is occurring on the ground, and what is actually occurring.

A major finding of the study, therefore, is that whilst facilities and infrastructure are clearly overloaded, decrepit and unsuitable; operational issues are at least as important as infrastructure issues. Providing upgrades and new infrastructure will only be a sustainable proposition in the target countries if accompanied by a considerable drive to improve operational and working practices at all levels. Such changes will only be plausible with considerable cooperation from national governments, as in order for operational issues to change, management and ministry workers will also have to improve their understanding of issues and delivery of services, as well as offering their full support to the changes being made on the ground.

It appears that there is no one root of the problem, and that the gravity of different issues vary somewhat from location to location.

Possible non-infrastructure-related strategies to consider for further study and development in follow on studies include:

x Preparation of realistic basic guidelines designed to accompany basic facilities.



x Awareness raising: animal welfare, child labour, hygiene, religious and environment, and for politicians, managers, workers and the public.

x Preparation of job descriptions, with regular reviews.

x Training programmes, e.g. training of vets/meat inspectors in hygiene issues.

x Monitoring and review for cleanliness, disease incidence, and accidents.

x Review of veterinary services, using the OIE PVS tool (a rare incidence of an existing tool or guideline that is directly applicable to developing country settings).

x Creation of other review/improvement tools for work areas other than veterinary services (based on the format of the PVS tool)

x Health screening and free healthcare for workers.

x Increased support for veterinary services.

x Incentive and penalisation issues.

x Economic instruments.

x Encouragement of private sector.

x Creation of professional associations, with the aim of improving workers’ attitudes and providing them with a value; leading to bottom up development for information sharing, self imposed standards, workshops, exhibitions, cooperatives etc.

x Application of existing Bank methodologies from the solid waste sector, for example social surveying, segregation of user charges, and municipal finance.

x Development of promotional materials to raise awareness within funding agencies and other international institutions.

x Pooling of knowledge and funds between international agencies and institutions; much expertise, data, and sources exist, however it exists as fragments and needs bringing together to a focussed common goal.

Note that some of the above suggestions only apply to larger municipal facilities and are already verging on the unfeasible in the context of most developing country settings.

As noted in the introduction, the examination of operational issues was aimed at assessing whether investment in improvements to operational issues could at this stage offer more value for money than engineering solutions. The conclusion is that a combination of low to medium level infrastructure and operational changes implemented together are likely to offer the most cost effective, immediate and sustainable improvements, and “soft” operational matters should be addressed hand in hand with harder infrastructure-related improvements.

A difficult area to tackle that has an indirect effect on operational issues within slaughterhouses is the informal sector; without the formal facilities being on a “level playing field” they are reluctant or unable to improve their operations, as most improvements require investment, which would only serve to increase their price and lower competitiveness. Furthermore in many places the already low standards encountered at formal facilities are considered to be much better than the informal sector’s operational standards, and hence an element of the desire for constant improvement is removed.



8. ANIMAL WELFARE AND TRANSPORTATION

8.1 BACKGROUND

The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) considers animal welfare to be a complex, multi-faceted public policy issue that includes important scientific, ethical, economical and political dimensions. IFC Guidance Note – Animal Welfare in Livestock Operations (2006) indicates that OIE is giving priority to welfare in transportation, humane slaughter, and culling for disease control purposes.

Two IFC Guides provide informative case studies of the economic benefits of improving animal welfare in livestock production systems, supported by the rapidly expanding volume of scientific literature which provides necessary evidence to endorse increased activity in this area, apart from any moral or ethical considerations (IFC, 2006).

Essentially, good animal welfare can be considered as “looking after the best interests of the animals under your care at the current level of human knowledge” (Ewbank, R. 1999); in other words, the level of animal welfare reflects the standards of animal husbandry and stockmanship practiced. Consequently poor husbandry and/or procedures result in low standards of animal welfare.

The IFC Guidance Note cited above refers to the ‘Five Freedoms’ as ideal states for acceptable animal welfare, based on the belief that the welfare of an animal includes its physical and mental state, implying both fitness and a sense of well-being, and that animals kept by man should be protected from unnecessary suffering. These five freedoms provide a logical and comprehensive framework to analyse animal welfare and are widely endorsed as the five pillars of animal welfare (Edwards, J.D. 2004).

1. Freedom from Hunger and Thirst – achieved by ready access to fresh water and a regulardiet to maintain full health and vigour;

2. Freedom from Discomfort – achieved by providing appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area, and by allowing animals to range free (i.e. without being shackled or hobbled);

3. Freedom from Pain, Injury, and Disease – achieved by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment;

4. Freedom to express normal behaviour – achieved by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal’s own kind; and

5. Freedom from Fear and Distress – achieved by ensuring conditions and treatment that avoid physical and mental suffering.

Every living animal faces a wide range of different challenges every day and these place the animal under ‘stress’. Livestock respond to stress in their environment with a mixture of physiological, biochemical and behavioural mechanisms, which include increased hormone release (e.g. adrenaline, corticosteroids, glucagon, prolactin, and vasopressin). These hormonal changes increase metabolic rate, as well as having other effects on the body, including behavioural changes.

In physiological terms, these natural responses help animals to adapt to new conditions and, if the level of stress is not very great, recovery to normal affects the animal very little so it can continue to live a healthy and productive life. However, as the level of stress, or its duration, increases, so does the effect on the body to the point where ‘distressed’ animals may show obvious signs; these have a biological cost to the animal and can be harmful to it.

Long-term chronic animal welfare problems can lead to major public health problems. Continued production of the various hormones associated with stress changes the activity of the secreting glands and upsets the normal functioning of the body resulting in lower productivity and resistance to infection (Appleby & Hughes, 1997).



Hormonally-mediated, the levels of glycogen in the muscle are lowered by stress and this reduces both the eating quality and the keeping quality of meat. The concomitant change in meat colour is easily seen in a slaughterhouse causes dissatisfaction among butchers and consumers. (Andriessen, 2004).

The importance of lowered immunity is a significant concept in terms of disease epidemiology but, in essence, there is more likelihood of disease occurring in animals with lowered immunity because stressed animals are less able to resist the challenge of pathogens. At the same time, animals affected by some diseases are more likely to excrete larger amounts of infectious organisms to infect people or other animals. Classic examples include bovine mastitis (infection in the mammary gland) (Hungerford, 1990).

It is important to recognise that animals which have become habituated to a particular lifestyle and handling technique may not find certain situations as stressful as animals reared or managed in an entirely different system. For example, a camel reared entirely in an empty, arid landscape will be much more stressed when required to enter a slaughterhouse than one that has been used as beast of burden in a city for several years.

Agricultural practices observed in this study commonly subject animals and birds to multiple stresses at the same time. Combinations include dehydration, starvation, physical cruelty, long-distance transportation, overcrowding, heat stress, mental stress (watching other animals killed close to them12), slippery flooring, badly designed housing, poorly maintained equipment, excess noise, and poor lighting. In reality, many of the worst examples of welfare occur at critical times just prior to slaughter, or in markets where the potential for disease dissemination is at its most dangerous.

At the current level of knowledge, there are no direct measures of animal welfare; a variety of indicators are used instead, some of these being more subjective than others. For simplicity, the level of welfare observed in the various facilities is indicated in several tables of this report with a simple objective score. This score, as detailed in Table 8.1, reflects the inherent suitability of the technique or practice within that society and attempts to acknowledge different needs for different categories of stock. The scale is intended only as an approximate guide since it will be appreciated that the way in which techniques and facilities are used reflects the final analysis of animal welfare. For example, overstocking the best transporter in the world with unsuitable livestock can create an animal welfare catastrophe.

Table 8.1 – Level of Welfare Score

Rating Description/Scale

0 Inhumane

1 Causes severe physiological distress or carries a high risk of injury

2 Ready potential to cause severe welfare problems

3 Currently best option available

The public health and productivity significances of animal welfare may be summarised as follows:

x Reduced immunity leading to:

o Increased levels of disease.

o Increased severity of disease.

12 HSA comments (Feb 2009) – Scientific research has shown that there is no evidence to suggest that animals are distressed by witnessing another being stunned and slaughtered (Anil et al, 1997) and in the UK welfare at slaughter legislation has been amended to take account of this. EU slaughterhouses have been adapted to prevent having to separate live animals from those being slaughtered and bled, thus allowing streamlining of operations at modern slaughterhouses. However, research does show that many animals react negatively when they are isolated from their conspecifics. The main issue is that animals will react negatively to seeing another animal in distress, which is the case at many developing country slaughterhouses where facilities and animal welfare are poor.



o Increased carcase contamination.

o Increased meat wastage.

x Reduced muscle glycogen level – leading to reduced meat-quality, including maintaining quality.

x Increased spoilage of meat due to tissue damage.

x Reduced farmer income.

x Increased human disease.

To advance national standards of animal welfare requires activity by the government veterinary service. All countries visited are members of the OIE and yet none of them have a formal animal welfare unit, no formal regulations covering animal welfare and all significantly contravened the OIE animal welfare guidelines in many different ways. This report does not enumerate all of them but will highlight some of the poorer examples.

No country had any formal mechanism to assess, monitor or control animal welfare during transportation, sale or slaughter, either through official veterinary services or mediated by an animal welfare society. Several countries did have either national (e.g. South Asia) or international welfare societies (e.g. North Africa and Africa) active to varying extents but these were more involved with draught animals, dogs and cats. In addition, no country had any formal animal welfare training mechanism for those working with livestock.

8.2 TRANSPORTATION

Very large numbers of cattle, sheep, goats, and equines in all urban locations were moved between farms and sites such as markets and abattoirs by walking. This reflects the widespread and routine daily droving of animals in search of feed, a behaviour pattern widely practised by backyard producers around their homes, as well as their use for draught power. As most animals are handled this way since birth they are very tractable and easily managed among traffic and dense accumulations of people who are themselves well-versed in the necessary behaviour. There were, however, widespread observations of unnecessary cruelty towards animals with respect to the use of goads, excessive work demands on animals, and animals working while affected with diseases and injuries which should have prevented their use.

There was general official acceptance of this mechanism of moving livestock, although one authority in Africa was considering the introduction of regulations to prevent any movement of livestock on roads except vehicular. In many locations it is normal to find unaccompanied livestock grazing road side verges, lying on traffic islands and, from time to time, being involved in road accidents.

As a result of the abundance of free-roaming animals, the distribution of excrement is very wide and, while it maybe considered a natural fertiliser, it also ensures dissemination of any disease-causing organisms or chemicals in the animals, and when dry, a pathogenic component of dust.

In all countries vehicular transportation techniques are also widely used and these vary from the purpose-built transporter designed specifically for a particular species through to makeshift restraint and use of a convenient vehicle.

In general, modern purpose-built livestock transporters were used by intensive pig and poultry enterprises involved in an integrated system where the different facilities possessed adequate infrastructure to accommodate them. Most public and private facilities possessed little or nothing in the way of infrastructure supporting specialist transportation and so a plethora of diverse transportation techniques were found during the study.

Table 8.2 overleaf indicates transportation techniques used in different regions of the world and a reference is given for subsequent photographs where available. Many of these techniques could be acceptable if they were utilised with consideration but violent handling and inappropriate stocking densities drastically reduce the incidence of desirable outcomes.

An assessment of general handling techniques is included in Table 8.3 overleaf.



Table 8.2 – Transportation Techniques

Transportation Species Welfare Score Frequency Regions

Purpose-built livestock transporter. C, S, Po 3 Rare All

Multi-deck rigs. P 3 Rare LAC

Modified open truck, see Figures 8.1 & 8.2. C, Ca, S, P, Po 2 Common All

Modified pick-ups, see Figure 8.1 (right). All 2 Common All

Makeshift vehicles without adequate modification or unloading ramp, see Figures 8.1 & 8.2 (right).

All 1 Common All

1 to 3 pigs on the back of motorcycles. P 1 Common EAP

Tethered and hanging, transported on motorcycles. Po 0 Common All

Tethered and hanging, carried by pedestrians (more than a few metres). Po 0 Common All

In rigid containers on motorcycles, see Figure 8.3. Po 3 Common

EAP, A, MENA, LAC

In rigid containers stacked on vehicles. Po, R 2 Common All

In collapsible bags. Po, R 2 Common EAP Key C= cattle and buffalo, Ca = camel, S = sheep and goat, P =pig, Po = poultry, R = rabbits SA = South Asia, EAP = East Asia & Pacific, A = Africa, MENA = Middle East & North Africa, LAC = Latin America & Caribbean

Table 8.3 – General Animal Handling Techniques

Handling Techniques Species Welfare Score Frequency Regions

Well-designed unloading ramps, see Figures 8.4 & 8.5.

All 3 Uncommon All

Dragging or lifting by one leg, see Figures 8.7 (left) & 8.13 (right).

C, S 1 Common All

Manhandling onto and off trucks, see Figures 8.7 (right) & 8.12.

C, Ca, S, H 1 Common All

Trucks with unloading ramps. C, Ca, S 3 Rare All

Snout snares (restraints). P 2 Common EAP

Plastic or wire crates, see Figure 8.2 & 8.3. Po 3 Common EAP, MENA, LAC

Head ropes or collars, see Figure 8.6. C, Ca, S, H 2 Common All

Electric goads13. P 2 Rare LAC Key C= cattle and buffalo, Ca = camel, S = sheep and goat, P =pig, Po = poultry, R = rabbits, H = Horse SA = South Asia, EAP = East Asia & Pacific, A = Africa, MENA = Middle East & North Africa, LAC = Latin America & Caribbean

13 HSA comments (Feb 2009) – Currently electric goads are rare in low-income countries due to their expense. However, with increasing development and copying of market products, it is likely that their prevalence will increase. Training in improved stockmanship, animal handling, and facility design is a better solution; the use of goads should be a last resort.



Figure 8.1 - Transport of Cattle in South Asia

Figure 8.2 - Transport of Poultry and Goats in South Asia

Figure 8.3 - Typical Transport for Poultry in South-East Asia



Figure 8.4 - Typical Livestock Transport in Africa

Figure 8.5 - Loading / Unloading Facilities14 at a Livestock Market in Africa

Figure 8.6 - Head-Leg Hobble (left) & Hobbled Chickens & Turkeys (right)

14 HSA comments (Feb 2009) – The use of raised unloading platforms is encouraging. A further improvement could be the provision of a longer level run-off before the slope begins and to have solid sides to the fences to prevent animals being distracted from moving forward.



Problems observed and identified with respect to transportation in the countries visited are included in Table 8.4 below.

Table 8.4 – Transportation Problems Identified

Transportation problems Significance Welfare Score

Vehicles not properly designed or modified for the job of transporting livestock with no ramp.

Slipping, injury and no safe way of loading or unloading stock.

2

Long journeys in inappropriate vehicles without shade and other facilities (up to 72 hours for stock coming from remote regions in one country).

x Severe stress

x Physical damage

x Illness

1

Bad congestion and lack of facilities at the market slows the unloading and re-loading of stock, see Figure 8.8.

x Severe stress

x Physical damage

2

Stock tethered to sides of truck to prevent movement during transport, see Figure 8.1.

Animal cannot lower head to ground - reduces ability to balance.

2

Abuse of donkeys, mules, and horses used for transport by goads and whips, see Figure 8.9 (left).

x Severe stress

x Physical damage

0

Overloading of draught animals. x Severe stress

x Physical damage

0

Poorly fitting and ill-kept harnesses for draught animals, see Figure 8.9 (right).

x Severe stress

x Physical damage

1

Many draught animals unfit to work due to lameness and poor body condition, see Figure 8.9 (left).

Many end-up slaughtered for human consumption or abandoned as waste.

0

Mixing of species and classes of stock for journeys is common.

Risks of injury. 2

Poultry transport and sale procedures mean that cages are often stacked for days at a time.

Birds on lower levels are constantly defecated on from above.

1

Handling of poultry crates is very rough. x Damage to crates and livestock.

x Unnecessary stress to the animals.

1

Bad driving technique. High risk of injury. 2

In this study it was observed that a large percentage of the vehicles currently used for transportation of livestock have not been specifically built for the purpose. They have been inadequately adapted and lack essential features for safe and humane livestock haulage, most importantly devoid of a suitable ramp for loading and unloading.

Cleaning and hygiene of vehicles was of a very low standard with severe disease implications and driver skills are generally poor for livestock haulage with no specialist training available.

The apparent absence of any national legislation or guidelines covering livestock transportation, vehicular requirements and duration of voyages is compounded by an almost total absence of any official recognition of a problem. Cruelty to draught animals seemed subject to little official control and most attempts to effect change were instigated by voluntary groups relying on financial donations. Consequently, there is no activity evident to effect improvements in line with the OIE guidelines, nor any attempt to remedy even rudimentary faults.



Figure 8.7 - Sheep Lifted by One Leg (Left) and Manhandling Cattle (Right)

Figure 8.8 - Unloading of Cattle at a Market in South Asia

Figure 8.9 - Results of Ill-Fitting Harness (left) and Poor Condition in Harness (right)


Throughout the Study countries, livestock markets are conducted with animal owners, traders, and buyers haggling individually over prices rather than a common auction. The most common scenario was a weekly market although some permanent markets did exist which typically operated five days per week, particularly the larger markets supplying the slaughterhouses. Table 8.5 identifies techniques and facilities identified during the Study.



Table 8.5 – Market Techniques and Facilities

Techniques and Facilities Species Welfare Score Frequency Regions

Handling and Movement

High-quality unloading ramps, see Figures 8.4 & 8.5. C, Ca, S, P 3 Rare All

Manhandling onto and off trucks, see Figures 8.7 (right) & 8.12 (left). C, Ca, S, P 1 Common All

Goaded with sticks, see Figure 8.12 (right). C 2 Common EAP, A,

MENA

Sheep lifted to top of 3-tier truck by one fore-leg, see Figure 8.7 (left). S 0 Quite

common A, MENA, SA, NA

Snout snares (restraints). P 2 Common LAC

Dragging by ropes. C, S 2 Common All

Restraint

Restrained in a pen. P 3 Quite common EAP, LAC

Restrained in containers (small or collapsible cages), see Figures 8.2 and 8.11. Po 3 Common EAP, A,

MENA

Livestock roam and mix with other owner’s stock, see Figure 8.12 (right). C, Ca, S 2 Common All

Hobbled, see Figures 8.6 & 8.10. C, Ca, S, H, Po 2 Common All

Tethered to a rail or post, Figure 8.13. C 2 Common LAC

Tethered to a peg in the ground. S 2 Common EAP

Tethered by the snout. P 1 Common EAP

Tethered by the leg to a peg. P 2 Common LAC Key C= cattle and buffalo, Ca = camel, S = sheep and goat, P =pig, Po = poultry, R = rabbits, H = horse SA = South Asia, EAP = East Asia & Pacific, A = Africa, MENA = Middle East & North Africa, LAC = Latin America & Caribbean

Figure 8.10 - Livestock handling at a Livestock Market in North Africa



Figure 8.11 - Chickens Stacked in Cages Next to the Transport Vehicle (left) and the Unloading of Cattle at a Market (right) in South America

Figure 8.12 - Backstreet Slaughter of Pig (left) and Sticks used in the Market (right)

Figure 8.13 - Head Tether, Horn Damage (left) and Poor Handling of Goat kids (right)

In general, large mammals in all countries were kept in an open area without shade, often hobbled; poultry were either kept in pens or cages or were hobbled and left to lie on the ground, usually under some form of shade. The supply of food and water was variable. Some markets supply water through communal troughs, as in Africa, but others allow individuals to supply food and water, sometimes though a local micro-business. Some African markets had a rental facility for animals to stay several days in pens with owners responsible for feed and water, while in other centres, e.g. North Africa, all animals arrived and left the same day only returning for the next week’s market. Some of these issues are identified and described in Table 8.6.



Table 8.6 – Market Problems Identified

Market Problems Species Regions Significance Welfare Score

No food provided. C, S, Ca, H R, Po

EAP, A, MENA, LAC

Starvation. 2

Little or no water provided. C, S, P, R, Po, R, H

EAP, MENA, LAC

Dehydration. 1

Little or no shade for stock. C, S, Ca, H All Potential heat stress. 1

Heat stress. Ca, S EAP Potentially fatal. 1

Purchasers frequently empty a bird’s crop before purchase (by holding the bird upside down and milking the throat region).

Po EAP Crop content is significant means of spreading infective material to other birds or humans.

2

Animals bought by weight; therefore much handling that can become very rough in crowded facilities.

Po EAP Severe stress causes mortalities. 1

Livestock stay in market until sold. C, Ca, S, H All Often stay is prolonged for old and

thin stock. 2

Absence of loading / unloading ramps.

C, Ca, S, H All Injury and stress (both animals

and people). 1

Earthen ramps, mounds or banks are only sometimes constructed.

C, Ca, S, H All

Difficult for workers and animals; wear away; collapse in rainy season; poor conformity to truck height.

2

Very few trucks carry planks for a make-shift ramp.

C, Ca, S, H

A, MENA, LAC

Animals have to jump or be man-handled off trucks. 2

Access roads routinely churned up by year-round traffic. A

Sealed roads reduce dust in markets and mud/manure on stock arriving at slaughter point.

2

Water troughs present but dry A Thirst. 1

Animals not tied up and mix in communal yards. C A, LAC

much hitting of animals with sticks as handlers regroup their stock or force others away.

1

Many animals in very poor physical condition.

C, Ca, S, H

SA, A, MENA, LAC

Could be poor nutrition, parasitism or other disease. 1

Many animals with deformed lower limbs.

C, S, Ca, H

A, MENA, SA Repeated over-tight hobbling. 1

Many pigs are examined by potential buyers to test for the presence of cysticercosis (a tapeworm disease).

P LAC

Animals are manhandled to the ground. Mouth is forced open with a stick to prevent biting while tongue felt to detect cysts. This causes obvious distress to pigs.

1

Sheep lifted to top of 3- tier truck by one fore-leg. S A, MENA,

SA Severe risk of injury. 0

Key C= cattle and buffalo, Ca = camel, S = sheep and goat, P =pig, Po = poultry, R = rabbit, H = horse SA = South Asia, EAP = East Asia & Pacific, A = Africa, MENA = Middle East & North Africa, LAC = Latin America & Caribbean



Traditional markets result in large numbers of animals, especially the less saleable ones, generally spending many hours in the open-air, in unshaded areas. Here they are not usually fed and often have no access to water.

Animals arrive in markets after travelling varying distances, from a few minutes through to the extreme case of 78 hours (South America). All countries have their own livestock movement patterns due to the distribution of livestock in the country, along with human populations and import and export locations. The size and importance of individual markets is influenced by their location within these patterns and, as a result, livestock markets, with few exceptions, occupied traditional sites.

The weakness of official control in markets is highlighted by the often shared management responsibilities between Ministry and Municipality. It is a common observation that neither party is comfortable in the partnership, each heavily critical of the other’s role. The end result is that markets tend to be severely neglected in critical areas such as maintenance, cleaning and the provision of adequate amenities for large accumulations of people and roads for the heavy vehicular traffic.

8.4 SLAUGHTERHOUSES

8.4.1 General

The slaughter of animals is an enterprise that engenders a significant amount of emotion. There are various religious and cultural requirements covering this event when producing meat for human consumption. For instance, many Muslims require that exsanguination is achieved without pre-slaughter stunning, citing their religious interpretations, which vary between schools of Islam and also by location.

In most high-income countries pre-slaughter stunning is normal practice and is in most cases mandatory for all livestock slaughtering, whether religious practices are required to be observed or not, mainly due to the need to meet high animal welfare standards. In these countries, however, facilities of a very high standard, practices and conditions are strictly regulated, and funds are available to meet the high processing costs which are simply passed onto the consumers, who themselves demand high quality meat. In fact, much of the market is controlled by the supermarket sector which often requires standards in excess of national standards.

Despite the fact that pre-slaughter stunning is normally practised in the high-income non-Islamic countries, scientific research in different species has, so far, returned equivocal results about the welfare of animals slaughtered with and without stunning15. The results of mainstream research, such as that by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), suggest that stunning prior to slaughter is the most humane method and that slaughter without pre-stunning can place undue pain and discomfort on the animal. Other research and experience, such as that by Dr. Temple Grandin, does not generally disagree with this, but it does suggests that the level of pain during slaughter without pre-stunning (using a Halal cut for instance) is minimal provided that the procedure is performed correctly and in the right conditions.

Various methods are available that can render livestock insensible, but the level of pain or distress caused by different combinations can be difficult to quantify. This being said, some of the slaughter practices and conditions observed during the field visits undertaken as part of this study certainly require modification if they are to meet even basic animal welfare standards. The Study Team observed slaughtering both with and without stunning and in various standards of facilities; and, whilst properly performed pre-slaughter stunning worked well, when performed poorly the results could be worse than properly performed slaughter without pre-stunning. However, slaughter practices and conditions can vary widely even in the same city.

In this study, the absence of stunning, per se, is not identified as cruelty but the complete slaughter process of restraint, incision, and handling to the point of death is analysed along with ancillary features relating to animal welfare, so as to view the whole slaughter scene rather than individual elements. Table 8.7 provides a brief summary of the slaughterhouse design and facilities observed during the field visits.

15 CWF comments (Oct 2008) – Compassion in World Farming (CWF) is not in agreement with this statement and strongly recommends the pre-slaughter stunning of all livestock.



Table 8.7 – Slaughterhouse Design and Facilities

Region Red Meat Slaughter Poultry Slaughter

East Asia & Pacific

Relatively new slaughterhouses but facilities serving the general populace are very poor.

A couple of good modern private facilities, but difficulties in maintain competitiveness.

Facilities serving the general populace are generally very poor.

Good modern private facility in operation, but difficulties in maintaining competitiveness.

South Asia Old facilities with inefficient design features and lacking elements essential for humane slaughter.

Mostly old facilities that are now significantly over capacity.

Africa Municipal plants are old, poorly designed and lack elements essential for humane slaughter.

New private facility for local market has better design but still lacking in some areas.

A few modern private facilities exist for meat export.

Mostly backyard / home slaughter.

Some private slaughterhouses.

Middle East & North Africa

Very old facilities with inadequate design for humane slaughter.

A new slaughterhouse exists but is used inefficiently and with low throughput.

Mostly backyard slaughter.

Some private poultry facilities with improved standards.

Latin America & Caribbean

Municipal plants are old with poor design.

Private plants are ageing but undergoing renovation and expansion.

Back-yard slaughter widespread.

Tables 8.8, 8.9, 8.10, and 8.11 below briefly describe slaughterhouse practices that were observed during the field trips that affect the welfare of poultry, pigs, cattle, and sheep & goats respectively.

Table 8.8 – Slaughterhouse Practices Affecting Welfare of Poultry

Practice Welfare Score Region

Birds held and transported in cages 2 EAP, MENA, A, LAC

Animals are held down manually and slaughtered without stunning, often by untrained vendors.

2 EAP, MENA, A

Holding-pens generally equipped with water trough but birds can see others die.

2 MENA

Modern mechanised facility 3 MENA Key

SA = South Asia, EAP = East Asia & Pacific, A = Africa, MENA = Middle East & North Africa, LAC = Latin America & Caribbean



Table 8.9 – Slaughterhouse Practices Affecting Welfare of Pigs


Dragged from holding yards, slaughtered without stunning with other pigs watching.

0 EAP

Electrically stunned one at a time in a stunning-box, before sticking, and bleeding with no other able to see.

3 EAP

Poorly organised procedures in the pig processing line. 2 SA

Overnight lairage generally covered and concrete floored. 2 LAC

Adequate covered lairage (prevents exposure to direct sunlight).

In one slaughterhouse, facilities available to stun pigs prior to bleeding; however, the batch that was being slaughtered during the Study Team’s visit was not stunned as the client had specified not to.

Pigs often moved into slaughter area using force (many seemed aware of their fate, possibly smelling blood and hearing other pigs).

2 LAC

Stunned with electric tongs in a large pen with many other pigs, giving ineffective technique.16

1 A

Key


16 HAS comments (Feb 2009) – Group stunning systems for pigs are successful in many high-income countries and have good welfare. Animals are maintained in their social groups and are handled quietly and calmly by the slaughtermen. The stunning and slaughter equipment is suitable for the job and applied correctly. If group stunning pen systems appear to be failing, it is likely that the number of pigs is too large or too small, the stunning equipment is inappropriate, and the staff are not sufficiently trained.



Table 8.10 – Slaughterhouse Practices Affecting Welfare of Cattle


Cattle led into area with carcasses. Stunned with a mallet blow (sledgehammer) to the back of the poll, followed by several blows to top of head when lying17. This causes the animal to be paralysed (for protection of staff) before administering the stunning blows. Incision when stunned.

1 EAP

Live animals led among dead carcasses. Leg-roped and toppled. Slaughtered without stunning.18

1 SA, MENA

Repeatedly struck with sticks to effect movement, causing unnecessary pain and injury.

1 SA, A, MENA

Livestock holding yards widely devoid of shade, see Figure 8.16. 2 All Water withheld prior to slaughter. 2 A, MENA Mixing animals prior to slaughter leads to extensive bruising, especially with large horns, see Figure 8.9 .

1 A, MENA

Use of spinal stab for immobilisation, paralyses the animal but it is still conscious.19

1 SA, A, LAC

Significant delay between use of spinal stab and severing throat; animal unable to breath so suffocates.

0 SA, A

Inaccurate spinal stab technique requires several attempts, causing pain to the animal.

1 SA, A, LAC

Lack of restraint at slaughter makes slaughter difficult and causes more discomfort to the animal.

0 SA, A, MENA, LAC

Slaughtered and butchered by individual teams using a ‘booth’ system. Cattle watch other animals being slaughtered / in distress.

1 MENA, A

Brought to ground physically causing discomfort to the animal. 2 MENA Outdoor lairage for 12 to 24+ hours, with feed and water supplied. 2 LAC Effective ante-mortem programmes, certification required for acceptance. Proper loading and unloading ramps at major plants.

2 LAC

Producers often process their own animals in the smaller municipal slaughterhouses. Slaughterhouses small and quiet. Animals led to lairage and slaughter by their owners.

2 LAC

Key


17 HSA comments (Feb 2009) – After paralysing the animal with the first blow, it is likely that the successive blows to the head for stunning are not in the correct place for an effective stun. In addition, the mallet design is likely to be wrong for the job. This is not an ideal method for stunning, particularly given that the animals are not adequately restrained to help control their movement. A captive bolt gun would drastically reduce the risk of a failed stun. HSA publications should be considered for further advice on effective and humane slaughter methods. 18 HSA comments (Feb 2009) – Although the welfare of animals slaughtered without prior stunning is not good, if this practice is carried out under controlled conditions (e.g. using an ASPCA-type pen) with trained and skilled slaughtermen the animals would certainly suffer less than they do currently with poor equipment/restraint and poorly trained staff. 19 CWF comment (Oct 2008) – This practice is so harmful to welfare that a welfare score of zero is justified, if it is performed poorly.



Table 8.11 – Slaughterhouse Practices Affecting Welfare of Sheep and Goats


Frequently dragged by one hind leg to slaughter or to rejoin a group causing pain and discomfort to the animal.

0 MENA

See other animals being slaughtered and possibly in distress. 1 SA, EAP

Suspending small-stock by one hind leg before cutting the throat. 0 SA Key


8.4.2 Summary

The major finding with respect to animal welfare was that, with very few individual exceptions, the management of slaughterhouses was unable to achieve acceptable standards of animal welfare or disease control for public health requirements. The reasons for this abject failure are complex but reflect the absence of strong direction from national leaders and the inadequate structure of relevant authorities to integrate the diverse features of an effective system. The paucity of legislation, standards, and guidelines created or applied was remarkable. No non-export slaughterhouse in any country was able to provide a single document which gave formal instruction of required hygiene or welfare standards.

Very poor standards of knowledge and skill were on frequent display in all parts of most facilities. Generally low standards of veterinary inspection and supervision were compounded by weak pay scales, lack of motivation, and professional pride. It was frequently identified that inspectors were paid less money than some butchers and it was strongly suspected that pecuniary packages influenced some official decisions. Lacking formal training and accreditation mechanisms, manual workers used techniques passed on informally which persisted in the absence of effective quality controls. Livestock handling practices were generally aggressive and ill-refined, leading to reduction in productivity and creating animal welfare concerns. Partly, these were due to routine techniques inherent to national husbandry practices (e.g. wanton use of sticks); however, many were aggravated by design flaws.

Facilities were generally of poor design, in the light of modern knowledge, but these failings were compounded by the absence of crucial features which could have been introduced except for the long-standing neglect and failure to re-invest; and, again, the absence of senior personnel with adequate specialist knowledge to correct fundamental flaws and ensure that any changes made are optimal improvements (see Figure 8.14 - Case Study A overleaf 20, 21, 22). Small shaded lairage pens, narrower passageways, improved lighting, curved races, and control of animal vision at critical points were common requirements.

20 HSA comments (Feb 2009) – Dark entries to restraint boxes or races (Case Study A) are common problems that lead to animals baulking and refusing to move forward. Diffuse lighting will help. Boxes that appear to be a dead end are also likely to stop livestock from entering, as will be the case if people are visible at the front of the box. A small opening in the end of the box that looks like a way out will help. 21 HSA comments (Feb 2009) – Floor slaughtering (Case Study A) is a significant welfare issue. Ideally animals should not be restrained upside down. Where upright restraint is not possible, an animal’s head should be presented such that the neck is completely accessible for the incision. However, various problems with floor slaughter that hinder the slaughter cut and bleeding may cause pain and suffering to the animal and as such this method is not good practice. 22 HSA comments (Feb 2009) – Where animals are not stunned before slaughter, once the cut has been made the animal should ideally not be moved until it has irreversibly lost consciousness, to prevent further suffering and pain at the wound site. Where bodies are not hung upside down the rate of blood loss may be slower and if bodies are piled up they may occlude the wound and prolong time to loss of consciousness. Although bodies being piled up is not ideal, care should be taken not to shackle or hang sheep before they have become unconscious as any shackles or meat hooks are likely to cause more pain. Restraint boxes designed to keep the animal upright but maintain an open wound until consciousness is lost are perhaps the best solution here.



Figure 8.14 – Slaughter Case Study A

The slaughterhouse has modern design, equipment, and facilities suitable for using techniques to reduce animal handling and minimise stresses, such as animals seeing others being slaughtered. Its potential for excellence far exceeds all other slaughterhouses in the country; however, it still leaves much to be desired in terms of animal welfare.

On the cattle line, a rotating slaughter-box is in use, but the design of the drafting race is not ideal. Handlers have to prod and force the cattle along against their will, causing stress, bruising, and damage to the meat. Upon arrival at the rotating box, the already-stressed cattle are reluctant to enter because it is dark inside. In response, the animals often attempt to turn or rise, causing further stress and bruising as a welfare concern and human safety issue.

On the sheep slaughter line, the drafting race and rotating box (which serve to guide the animal to the slaughterer with minimum stress) are completely bypassed, see Photo below. Animals are led into the slaughter area in batches (according to ownership) and manually dragged in front of the Imam for slaughter. The animals are piled on top of each other as they bleed and are hung on the moving-line as hooks become available. By not using the designed method, sheep are again able to see others slaughtered, can see the knives being sharpened, and are manhandled prior to slaughter. All the above, of course, renders the carcasses haram, however they are sold on as halal.

Case Study A – 10 year–old Slaughterhouse in North Africa Provided with EU Support

Reasons given for this ‘modification’ included the rotating-box being broken and the control box system being too slow. However, subsequent discussions with the maintenance engineer revealed that the box was in fact working. Clearly the chain line is the limiting factor in terms of speed, thus there is no point in slaughtering a batch of animals swiftly, when restricted by the speed of the chain downstream, solely in order to hang the animal for bleeding and subsequent processing. The whole process needs to be slowed down to ensure animal welfare is maintained.

Within this country, meat production is a source of much revenue; butchers wield great social influence and are able to significantly alter the success or failure of ventures such as slaughterhouses. This facility sat idle for four years after construction because of local resistance and now operates at a very small fraction of its potential output. Meanwhile the city’s informal sector has become rampant and is estimated to be more significant than the formal sector.

The reasons for welfare concerns on these two slaughter lines are therefore:

x Cattle - managers unable to identify or correct weak basic design, bad lighting, and faulty handling skills.

x Sheep - managers unable to effectively control the work practices of butchers.



In some countries, the absence of stunning and/or the use of primitive and inefficient stunning techniques (South East Asia and South Asia) merely reflects the lack of control by authorities over the quality of work practices. In Africa, cattle were immobilised by sectioning the spinal cord prior to severing the neck, frequently with several minutes’ delay between the two operations. Whilst this technique is not approved by the OIE, its unsuitability is aggravated by unnecessary delays which leave a fully sensible but quadriplegic animal suffocating on the ground because it is unable to breathe.

The widespread inadequacy of restraint at stunning or slaughter significantly reduces the efficiency of the technique, dramatically increasing the level of stress on an animal, and allowing increased brutality and associated safety problems for the workers themselves. Similarly, the ability of one animal to see another is totally avoidable and design faults could be easily corrected with little expense.

In many developing countries, animals are accepted for slaughter even though they are sick or injured, so as to minimise the financial loss to the owner. Such practices demonstrate the often ineffectiveness of veterinary inspection with resulting impacts on public health and waste, see Figure 8.15 - Case Study B.

Figure 8.15 – Slaughter Case Study B

8.5 PUBLIC MARKETS

In general, the only live animals destined as food products which are held at public retail markets are poultry (chicken and ducks), rabbits and fish. In some countries (e.g. South East Asia) this practice is banned in the city but still occurs in the peri-urban areas; elsewhere there appeared to be no limitations. Handling techniques of birds are reported to be the same countrywide and frequently live transport containers/restraints leave much to be desired in animal welfare terms, when birds are crammed in with little opportunity for movement.

Standards of livestock and facilities are variable, stallholders generally providing some form of bedding and water to the birds (e.g. North Africa). Levels of official control by veterinary or municipal staff are generally

Sick and injured animals, including those collapsed, unable to walk and severely stressed, were being transported to municipal slaughterhouses (see photos) for slaughter to minimise financial loss for owners. After emergency slaughter at one facility, it was standard practice to throw all the unwanted material over the wall into the adjacent road, a significant volume without operators on-site to process the fifth-quarter items.

Case Study B – Emergency Slaughter of Cattle in South Asia

With effective meat inspection, many of these animals would be condemned before slaughter and the remainder would have significant pathological lesions requiring condemnation of rejected organs, meat or whole carcasses at post-mortem. The dumping of the fifth-quarter material reflects the lack of effective control by authorities over slaughterhouse practices, including waste management and meat inspection posing a major public health threat.



very low, and where present often only apply to larger facilities (e.g. those handling more than 500 birds in North Africa).

8.6 RETAIL BUTCHERS

Some butchers offer live chickens for sale plus a slaughter and dressing service, although many live chickens are taken home by customers for slaughter and preparation. In some cultures (e.g. Africa and North Africa) red meat butchers retain live animals on-site for slaughter on the premises, as well as providing meat slaughtered and inspected in approved abattoirs. Primitive conditions usually exist but the low throughput usually has a positive effect on welfare status.

Although claiming inspection of licensed premises by public health authorities, the practical reality is that the international paucity of both inspectors and meaningful legislation (plus the absence of supporting standards or guidelines) renders this claim meaningless. Many approved facilities lack suitable sanitation and work practices (e.g. North Africa and Africa).

8.7 INFORMAL SECTOR

Informal slaughter is practised in every country visited with tacit acceptance by the authorities even though it constitutes a very significant threat to public health and animal welfare. The scale of the problem varied between countries but it was commonly identified that, even in major cities, significant proportions of both red and white meat were produced illegally (approximately 80% of small-stock in one African city). In South East Asia, some enterprises (cattle) were working completely outside the control of authorities breaking many of the guidelines recommended for hygienic and human production of meat for human consumption.

Investigation in all countries recognised that official attempts to control informal slaughter were corrupt, negligible or non-existent because of the magnitude of the problem and the complexity of the issues involved. It was a common finding that meat slaughtered in backyards was distributed among several households, thus creating a whole network for disease spread.

Several official veterinarians in Africa and North Africa stated that they preferred to use private slaughtermen for the home slaughter of their own cattle and sheep on festive occasions; citing the appalling conditions in some municipal abattoirs as the reason they maintained personal control over the procedure.

Muslims require sacrifice of animals on certain specific days of the year (examples in North Africa and South Asia), so vast numbers are slaughtered informally in homes and streets because of the inability of slaughterhouses to meet demand. This accepted form of informal slaughter creates an immense amount of discarded waste at a time of public holidays so all official work ceases. The usually meagre control mechanism is therefore totally overwhelmed when it resumes activity and the associated health conditions are extremely poor.

Illicit slaughter in primitive conditions and without stunning is central to many lives in poverty. A widely cited reason for the popularity of informal slaughter is the lowered price of meat, the convenience, and in some societies (e.g. Africa and North Africa) the social prestige of having your own animal slaughtered so that friends and neighbours can participate in the social occasion. The advantages of disease control in the formal system are not recognised (perhaps because, in reality, there often is none).

It was also calculated that existing slaughter capacity in official slaughterhouses would be inadequate to maintain meat supplies if informal slaughter were suddenly stopped. However, it is the magnitude of the problem in some cases which is disturbing.

Many lay people suggest that there is merit in domestic slaughtering, suggesting that the more personal nature of handling animals in familiar surroundings with greater care on technique and hygiene provides for a better end-product. The argument is proposed that an experienced and careful butcher will remove pathogenic material and effect delivery of a wholesome carcase. The abysmal standards of meat inspection and hygiene in most municipal abattoirs are cited to support these views. The reality, however, is different and from an animal welfare perspective, domestic slaughter may provide those advantages to individual animals. But, when informal slaughter is a major commercial business, then welfare standards plummet.



More critically, however, the levels of disease are so high in many areas that only high-quality inspection to remove and incinerate infective material will have a meaningful impact on disease control. The absence of effective waste control in the domestic situation simply creates more foci of pathogens, effectively enhancing disease transmission.

It should be emphasised that ‘Freedom from Disease’ is an important component of animal welfare. The only solution must remain development of high-quality facilities operated by skilled staff working to strict standards for all livestock slaughter.

Perceptions of ‘quality’ vary widely but the traditional perspective remained that wet, still-quivering meat is preferable to anything that is older and drying out. Given the climate, well-hung tender meat has never been a classical feature of any culture visited; meat is consumed raw (Africa) or cooked and eaten on the same day as slaughter or purchase. The absence of recognisable cuts of meat, with separation of specific muscles, in all study countries and the acceptance of hunks of meat, often roughly diced, negates the need for some butcher skills as understood in high-income countries.

Many ‘traditional practices’ related to meat and livestock production are unsatisfactory in terms of animal welfare and/or public health, although they continue to be observed by many societies. Governments are often loathe to curtail even the most abhorrent of these because of the risk of unleashing a backlash of public discontent.

Probably the single most important factor acting against effective control of this sector is the financial involvement of influential members of society who are unwilling to forego their position. Improvements to the current situation will require significant investment that will, inevitably, be reflected in increased cost of meat to the consumer, which is often unacceptable from a political perspective. Reducing the informal sector will require a long-term strategy that includes development of an alternative slaughter and meat production mechanism with adequate production, plus an effective (and probably unpopular) control of illicit activities. This will require intervention by strong government policies applied by committed and effective officials. There was little evidence of either of these throughout the study, although the need to change was generally accepted with high-level officials.

From a practical perspective, the challenge comes in providing the right type of facility and practices to meet public requirements. It was perfectly clear during every visit that various communities had different needs and that few of the facilities currently in use come close to providing what is needed. This is one reason why the informal sector is so buoyant. The Study Team considered many workable alternatives in different countries, all founded on the premise that individual problems require individual solutions.

8.8 SUGGGESTED ACTIONS FOR ANIMAL WELFARE IMPROVEMENT

Table 8.12 summarises the Study Team’s suggested actions to enable improvements in animal welfare to be realised in developing countries.



Table 8.12 – Suggested Actions to Enable Improvements in Animal Welfare

General

x Create meaningful national legislation supported by regulations, guidelines and penalties.

x Create national Animal Welfare sections within Ministry of Agriculture (or equivalent) to develop national strategy for establishing welfare standards, application, staff education, and public awareness.

x Establish animal welfare training, initially to motivate veterinarians and officials in its concepts.

Transport

x Establish written national standards and guidelines with transport police assistance.

x Develop inspection skills in veterinary staff and police.

x Institute driver training and accreditation working towards compulsory licensing for livestock hauliers.

Livestock Markets

x Develop minimum standards for livestock markets covering all species and to include roads, ramps, shade water supply, and cleaning.

x Assess all existing markets with a checklist based on standards and throughput.

x Develop training programmes for livestock market staff with respect to good animal welfare, including practical training.

x Develop master plan for market refurbishment and enhanced collaboration between relevant authorities.

Slaughterhouses

x Establish written standards and guidelines or all slaughterhouse activities.

x Develop training programmes on new standards for all slaughterhouse managers and veterinarians.

x Develop training programmes for slaughterhouse staff with respect to good animal welfare, stunning and slaughtering practices, and hygiene and disease risks. Training should be practical and appropriate to the level of staff.

x Institute public awareness campaign about public health issues.

x Institute a regular (at least quarterly) inspection of all slaughterhouses using a checklist based on national standards. Issue recommendations for action and re-inspect for compliance.

x Develop a master plan for abattoir refurbishment and/or replacement in-line with national policies and projections and inspection.

x Initiate upgrades in critical areas linked with staff training and inspection reports.

x Review salary structure of veterinary staff.

x Institute butcher training and accreditation working towards compulsory licensing for all butchers.

x Investigate national options for by-product re-cycling.

x Inaugurate practical options to replace informal slaughter before attempting to control the latter.

Informal Slaughter

x Urge governments to recognise the reality and magnitude of the problems.

x Investigate mechanisms to reduce cost of private slaughter at small through-put local slaughterhouses, e.g. take by-products instead of cash payment, allow owners to watch their own animal along the process through a transparent wall.

x Reduce waste in the streets, investigate ways of recycling waste (e.g. bones) with micro-business collectors.

x Increase production capacity of well-managed hygiene and efficient slaughterhouses.

x Increase capacity of inspectorate to police and enforce meat production regulations.



9. EPIDEMIOLOGY, DISEASE CONTROL AND PUBLIC HEALTH

9.1 INTRODUCTION

The health of livestock is of major significance to the human population in several ways and livestock waste is a crucial factor in the equation. Many infections cause disease in both animals and humans but even when only livestock are directly affected there can still be an immense indirect effect on humans. At a simple level, the subsequent reduced productivity, loss of income and the reduction in animal protein availability as a result of animal disease outbreaks can produce suffering to an owner and his family.

More indirectly, the absence or reduced strength of draught power can have an immediate impact on agricultural productivity when ploughing cannot be completed at the optimal time; this leads to a whole season of reduced growth and a poor harvest, a common finding with outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). The mass slaughter of cattle in Botswana due to the outbreak of the cattle disease rinderpest resulted in increased rates of malnutrition in children under five years of age as a result of reduced milk and meat consumption (Boonstra et al., 2001).

Many infectious diseases affecting animals or humans, including some which affect both (zoonoses), are spread between hosts by injudicious contact with body waste and secretions. Consuming food of animal origin such as meat, milk, and eggs that have been inadequately inspected or tested to detect the indications of its health risk, is another major factor in human disease.

Zoonotic diseases are a major factor in this study. Zoonotic diseases commonly cause problems in animal populations but can be transmitted to humans under certain circumstances, e.g. brucellosis, salmonellosis, and ringworm. Conversely there are some diseases of humans which can cause spread to livestock, e.g. tuberculosis. Not surprisingly, many known zoonoses affect a range of different species; for a variety of reasons, novel ones are emerging and these are frequently viral (e.g. avian influenza).

Livestock waste was earlier identified as a major source of significant problems in all countries of the world, with potential effects on other animals, people, wildlife and the environment, as well as the economic disadvantage of under-utilising valuable commodities. Pathological effects are not only due to the toxicity of biological waste products, such as faeces and urine, but other dangerous components include chemicals or pathogenic organisms in all body tissues and products including milk, gynaecological tissues, saliva, and blood.

The following list (which is not exhaustive) introduces examples of causes of infection which may cause public health concerns as well as disease among animals:

x Parasites - including enteric protozoa (e.g. giardia), blood-parasites (e.g. trypanosomes and babesia), helminths (e.g. tapeworms and trichinella), and arachnids (e.g. ticks and mites);

x Viruses - e.g. avian influenza, including H5N1, and FMD;

x Bacteria - e.g. brucella, salmonella, mycobacteria;

x Fungi - e.g. ringworm; and

x Prions - causing diseases such as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), Scrapie and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD).

The World Animal Health Organisation (OIE) currently carries a list of 88 major diseases using specific criteria for the inclusion of a disease in their ‘OIE List’ which provides a classification for diseases with major international and public health significance, see Table 9.1 overleaf. This disease grouping is recognized world-wide and provides an indication of a country’s health status with respect to these diseases that is widely used in the international trade of livestock and animal-products.

However, there are also many other infections which are not on this list but still have a very significant impact on both human health and livestock productivity and performance. These include a diverse collection of parasitic diseases and non-specific infections.



Table 9.1 – Criteria for Diseases to be included in OIE List for a given country

Basic Criteria Parameter

International Spread

Has international spread been proven on three or more occasions?

Are more than three countries with populations of susceptible animals free of the disease or facing impending freedom?

Do OIE annual reports indicate that a significant number of countries with susceptible populations have reported absence of the disease for several consecutive years?

Zoonotic Potential Has natural transmission to humans been proven?

Is human infection associated with severe consequences? (death or prolonged illness)

Significant Spread within Naïve Populations

Does the disease exhibit significant mortality at the level of a country or zone?

Does the disease exhibit significant morbidity at the level of a country or zone?

Emerging Diseases Are there apparent zoonotic properties or is there rapid spread?

The complete OIE List of 88 infections or infestations, including those diseases affecting lagomorphs and bees, is shown in Table 9.2 overleaf.

Membership of OIE requires application of its guidelines by member states; those relating to disease are shown below (quoted directly from their Terrestrial Code 2007):

1. Notification from the Delegate of the country by telegram, fax or e-mail, within 24 hours, of any of the following events:

a. first occurrence of a listed disease and/or infection in a country, a zone or a compartment;

b. re-occurrence of a listed disease and/or infection in a country, a zone or a compartment following a report declared the outbreak ended;

c. first occurrence of a new strain of a pathogen of an OIE listed disease in a country, a zone or a compartment;

d. a sudden and unexpected increase in the distribution, incidence, morbidity or mortality of a listed disease prevalent within a country, a zone or a compartment;

e. an emerging disease with significant morbidity or mortality, or zoonotic potential;

f. evidence of change in the epidemiology of a listed disease (including host range, pathogenicity, strain) in particular if there is a zoonotic impact;

2. Weekly reports by telegram, fax or e-mail subsequent to a notification under point 1 above, to provide further information on the evolution of an incident which justified urgent notification; these reports should continue until the situation has been resolved through either the disease being eradicated or it becoming endemic so that six-monthly reporting under point 3 will satisfy the obligation of the country to the OIE; in any case, a final report on the incident should be submitted;

3. A six-monthly report on the absence or presence, and evolution of diseases listed by the OIE and information of epidemiological significance to other countries;

4. An annual report concerning any other information of significance to other countries.

To comply with these requirements, veterinary services therefore require effective field and diagnostic components to identify infection and confirm clinical diagnoses or suspicions.

http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.1.1.htm#terme_zone_region


http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.1.1.htm#terme_notification

http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.1.1.htm#terme_maladie_de_la_liste_de_l_oie

http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.1.1.htm#terme_infection


http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.1.1.htm#terme_compartiment


http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.1.1.htm#terme_infection



http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.1.1.htm#terme_foyer_de_maladie







http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.1.1.htm#terme_maladie_emergente







Table 9.2 – OIE List of Diseases

DISEASES INCLUDED IN THE OIE LIST - 88

Multiple Species Diseases - 18 Cattle diseases - 15 Sheep and Goat Diseases - 11 Anthrax Aujeszky's disease Bluetongue Brucellosis (Brucella abortus) Brucellosis (Brucella melitensis) Brucellosis (Brucella suis) Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever Echinococcosis/hydatidosis Foot and mouth disease Heartwater Japanese encephalitis Leptospirosis New world screwworm (Cochliomyia hominivorax) Old world screwworm (Chrysomya bezziana) Paratuberculosis Q fever Rabies Rift Valley fever Rinderpest Trichinellosis Tularemia Vesicular stomatitis West Nile fever.

Bovine anaplasmosis Bovine babesiosis Bovine genital campylobacteriosis Bovine spongiform encephalopathy Bovine tuberculosis Bovine viral diarrhoea Contagious bovine pleuropneumonia Enzootic bovine leukosis Haemorrhagic septicaemia Infectious bovine rhinotracheitis/infectious pustular vulvovaginitis Lumpy skin disease Malignant catarrhal fever (Wildebeest only) Theileriosis Trichomonosis Trypanosomosis (tsetse-transmitted)

Caprine arthritis/encephalitis Contagious agalactia Contagious caprine pleuropneumonia Enzootic abortion of ewes (ovine chlamydiosis) Maedi–visna Nairobi sheep disease Ovine epididymitis (Brucella ovis) Peste des petits ruminants Salmonellosis (S. abortusovis) Scrapie Sheep pox and goat pox.

Equine Diseases - 13 Swine Diseases - 7 Avian Diseases - 14 African horse sickness Contagious equine metritis Dourine Equine encephalomyelitis (Eastern) Equine encephalomyelitis (Western) Equine infectious anaemia Equine influenza Equine piroplasmosis Equine rhinopneumonitis Equine viral arteritis Glanders Surra (Trypanosoma evansi) Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis.

African swine fever Classical swine fever Nipah virus encephalitis Porcine cysticercosis Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome Swine vesicular disease Transmissible gastroenteritis.

Avian chlamydiosis Avian infectious bronchitis Avian infectious laryngotracheitis Avian mycoplasmosis (Mycoplasma gallisepticum) Avian mycoplasmosis (Mycoplasma synoviae) Duck virus hepatitis Fowl cholera Fowl typhoid Highly pathogenic avian influenza in birds and low pathogenicity notifiable avian influenza in poultry Infectious bursal disease (Gumboro disease) Marek's disease Newcastle disease Pullorum disease Turkey rhinotracheitis.

Lagomorph Diseases - 2 Bee Diseases - 6 Other Diseases - 2 Myxomatosis Rabbit haemorrhagic disease

Acarapisosis of honey bees American foulbrood of honey bees European foulbrood of honey bees Small hive beetle infestation (Aethina tumida) Tropilaelaps infestation of honey bees Varroosis of honey bees.

Camelpox Leishmaniosis



The OIE list may therefore be considered to contain ‘International Notifiable Diseases’. Some countries use this list for their own list of legally Notifiable Diseases whilst others compile their own list. Regardless of the list used, a country would normally be expected to require application of strict control measures to control their Notifiable Disease, these being ones they would wish to control because of their severity with respect to human and/or animal health and their obligations for international trade. In the absence of effective control measures, the disease would be expected to spread and continue to cause major problems.

The normal way to enforce control measures is by application of necessary legal instruments and these would require anyone who suspects a Notifiable Disease to inform the authorities, while the responsibility of the controlling organisation is to enforce the control measures. Many countries would support pre-emptive, control measures of some diseases by compensation to livestock owners.

Within this study, a large percentage of the public in each country was ignorant of the many ways in which diseases can be spread. It is highly likely that many of them have no idea of the infectious nature of disease, still believing it to be the result of divine intervention. Regardless of this speculation, a country’s population, and also its visitors, rely on the specialists of government services to provide effective control mechanisms to protect them. The public health consequences of ineffective public health control systems can have very severe personal and national implications, imposing great financial burdens on health services and reducing the productivity of the livestock industries.

A wide variety of diseases was identified during the study and observations made about the effectiveness of government services, their understanding of the complexities of disease, the efficiency of animal waste management and the overall level of disease control.

9.2 OVERVIEW OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND RELEVANT TECHNIQUES

9.2.1 General

Epidemiology is the study of the health status of populations (Toma et al., 1999a). It investigates how and why disease can enter, persist and spread in a population, looking at all the factors affecting levels of health and disease, including limitations to productivity. It is a biological science that functions as a diagnostic discipline for populations in a manner similar to clinical medicine and pathology (in its broadest sense) in individual animals.

From a methodological perspective there are three fundamental activities – descriptive, analytic and experimental. While theoretical epidemiology is increasingly developing the use of mathematical, computer-based models, these are highly dependent on the quality of information used in their elaboration and are consequently of limited use in developing countries. The practical nature of most problems studied makes economics a strong ally in the management of health in populations.

Epidemiology has become the cornerstone of effective public health services because it provides mechanisms for identifying and quantifying risk factors for disease and for evaluating the impact of various interventions and controls. Veterinary epidemiology and medical epidemiology have similar objectives and practices so close collaboration between organisations employing these different disciplines is required to identify and control zoonotic diseases effectively.

The paramount requirement of any effective National Veterinary Service (NVS), therefore, is to be able to provide effective epidemiological activities that are closely integrated with every aspect of its work (Toma et al., 1999b).

The essential features of epidemiological activity may be summarised as follows:

x Understanding disease causes and transmission;

x Investigating causes of disease;

x Screening for disease;

x Measuring disease levels;

x Disease monitoring and surveillance;



x Evaluating costs of disease and disease control;

x Developing control strategies; and

x Monitoring efficiency of control strategies.

In many ways, an epidemiology unit within the NVS would co-ordinate the activities of several existing departments, none of which can achieve their maximum potential without collaboration with other sections of the disease control community. Staffed with well-trained veterinary epidemiologists and supported by adequate resources to enable them to obtain reliable data, this unit should assemble and interpret relevant information based on a thorough understanding of the features of livestock diseases plus close, working collaborations with organisations handling similar areas as well as the specialists of their own organisation from different departments. Unfortunately, weak communications skills and a perverse territorial nature plague many scientific agencies and create grey areas of inactivity where critical weaknesses prevail.

9.2.2 Understanding Disease Causes and Transmission

Disease in livestock is rarely due to a single entity. Modern concepts of livestock disease acknowledge that there are multiple influences on expression of disease depending on the inter-relationship between the host, the environment and the causal agent.

The diversity of disease causing organisms and their modes of transmission are immense. While a simple pathogen may spread from a diseased animal to a healthy one by a single method (e.g. contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP) spreads by cough droplets infecting an animal close-by), direct transmission may exist over greater distances (e.g. FMD virus in aerosols may become caught in the wind, enter the stratosphere and travel several hundred miles before descending onto a host-rich area and infecting susceptible animals). More complex diseases may require several different species of host for a pathogen to complete its life cycle e.g. tapeworms, such as that causing hydatidosis, or the liver flukes of ruminants. Some disease organisms cannot spread directly from one host to another but require a vector, such as an insect, to transmit it, e.g. trypanosomiasis or bluetongue, and tick-borne diseases, such as babesiasis and theileriosis.

As indicated earlier, different pathogens can be spread in all bodily fluids and products and this has a major influence on the spread to particular groups of susceptible animals. Animals living in close proximity are especially affected by diseases spread in faeces (salmonella), saliva (FMD), aerosol droplets (CBPP and by direct contact (mange). Transmission of some diseases to newborn can occur in utero (BVD) or through infected milk (brucellosis). Some of the parasites with a multi-host lifecycle depend on infectious stages of the life–cycle leaving one host in faeces (liver fluke) to infect grazing livestock or else consumption of one phase (e.g. an infected cadaver) by a carnivorous host, e.g. dog as in the case of hydatidosis.

Biology is rarely simple, however, and the majority of diseases are spread by a variety of different mechanisms. An important component of epidemiology is, therefore, a thorough understanding about modes of transmission between animals in their natural surroundings, the survival of pathogens outside a host and the development of disease within animals or man. Diverse but pertinent examples include:

x Anthrax, which naturally forms a spore which can survive in the soil in excess of a century.

x Clostridial organisms and spores, which are essentially ubiquitous and are often commensal in the gut of healthy individuals; given the right conditions in the host they can create a pathogenic effect by rapid proliferation and release of lethal toxins.

x Pasteurella bacteria , which are a component of the normal flora of the mammalian respiratory tract where they live without causing problems; however, reduced host immunity by stress or a concomitant infection with a virus can allow the bacteria to multiply in vast numbers and cause an overwhelming infection (haemorrhagic septicaemia, IBR / IBVV).

Important features such as the ability of an animal to resist infection by virtue of the level of its immunity (either natural or acquired after birth), its nutritional status (deficiency of assorted dietary components including energy, protein and minerals) and the stresses of applied husbandry techniques (e.g. long-distance transportation or the added damage to lung tissue from atmospheric ammonia in dirty, airless housing or the proximity of susceptible stock to infectious organisms in overcrowded and filthy earth covered yards) must be clearly understood to provide a clear picture of the aetiology of disease within a



country.

9.2.3 Investigating Causes of Disease

While the causes of disease are very often multifaceted, accurate diagnosis of organisms involved is essential. This requires field staff able to collect the right samples and deliver them to the laboratory in a way that will not cause deterioration or loss of diagnostic value plus accurate and reliable laboratory diagnosis to an adequate level of specificity. Within developing countries this combination can be a severe challenge but is fundamental to the success of the whole veterinary service.

Examples of essential analyses include the feed and water eaten by livestock as well as the products derived from them. The transmission of invisible disease-causing agents (including microbes, chemicals, toxins, heavy metals and radiation) cannot be prevented by visual inspection alone. Appropriate laboratory analysis must be performed at a level that will allow significant levels of contamination to be identified. The relevant sampling technique (number and frequency of samples) can be readily calculated using statistical analyses. It therefore requires an active policy decision to carry out testing not only in abattoirs and dairies, but also at sources of animal feed, import quarantine stations, in the pastures and on-farms and an environmental testing program that monitors waterways, atmosphere and herbage for all relevant pollutants that can have an influence on human and animal health. Unfortunately, there was little evidence of any integrated programs identified during the field study for the present project.

9.2.4 Measuring Disease Levels

Identifying a single case of a particular disease is of very little value when considering the national or regional livestock population and is only of merit within a herd when the epidemiology of that disease is understood. For a veterinary service, it is essential to measure levels of disease within a specified population. This may be reflected as a percentage of a herd or flock affected with a production disease (e.g. bovine brucellosis in a dairy herd) or a national figure of the number of cases of a notifiable disease (e.g. rabies). This requires a much more determined effort to obtain accurate data and samples than an occasional sampling of ‘sick animals’.

Obviously it then becomes essential to ensure that the methods of recording and sample collection are standardised and that all cases of a disease like rabies are reported. This will require development of standard operating procedures (SOP) which must be religiously applied and should be under-pinned by a legal framework. Coincident with measuring disease levels should be a regular and accurate measure of livestock numbers to enable proportions and rates of disease to be determined.

9.2.5 Disease Monitoring and Surveillance

Because ad hoc collection of samples will invariably give a very poor reflection of the occurrence of diseases in a country or region, strategic testing using appropriate diagnostic techniques is much more effective and should be routinely applied.

Creating a programme for general monitoring and surveillance of diseases with special interest requires that senior management identifies its aims and objectives and provides resources for long enough to provide meaningful results. There must be a co-ordination between sample collection and laboratory activity that also takes in account the requirements of other demands on the laboratory service.

Monitoring generally refers to passive collection systems which tend to be a component of routine data collection (e.g. a programme to collect samples for antibiotic residues in a slaughterhouse) while Surveillance tends to be more active and refers to continuous collection of data referring to a small number of specified diseases. Data collected is useless if it is not analysed effectively.

9.2.6 Evaluating Costs of Disease and Disease Control

Achieving meaningful results in this area of activity only becomes a possibility when the data used for calculations has a significant degree of accuracy. Levels of disease, based on accurate diagnostic rates from meaningful monitoring and surveillance programmes, plus reliable information on productivity levels, conception and mortality rates plus off-take, can then be used with real costs to approximate likely costs of



both existing diseases as well as any control measures applied. The results are needed to allow decision-makers to select policy options with respect to the relative merits of alterative control programmes.

9.2.7 Developing Control Strategies

Controlling different livestock diseases will require a variety of strategies which recognise the specific features of each disease, the complexities and potential regional variations around the country and the limitations imposed by livestock owners and their willingness or ability to comply with ideal recommendations.

When many diseases exist within a particular country with limited resources, it is important to identify specific targets for achievement. Compiling realistic, written strategies can be a complex issue requiring top-quality personnel and intense collaboration between specialists of many different disciplines.

The way to achieve these objectives is to establish a series of milestones to be achieved along the way, which mark stages that have to be satisfactorily completed in order for the final target to be reached.

9.2.8 Monitoring Efficiency of Control Strategies.

Possibly the most important component of both a Veterinary Service and an Epidemiology Unit is the mechanism used to monitor their own activities. It is essential to check that recommendations and strategies are both followed and proving successful however this can often be best achieved by using independent assessors.

The ability to monitor performance and evaluate the results of the findings is a pre-requisite to an efficient unit that can successfully adapt in the face of unexpected challenges. Unexpected results may be the first indication of a new factor coming into the equation or they may be the result of weaknesses in the original design. Both require urgent attention.

9.3 DISEASE CONTROL MECHANISMS

9.3.1 Fundamental Principles of Disease Control

The primary objective of animal health authorities is to detect and control animal disease, preferably early in an outbreak. There are many components to this system including:

1. Legislation

Suitable and effective legislation is required to establish the mandate for disease control and to empower officials acting in the pursuance of their duties. Within this legal framework should be the diversity of instruments covering the whole spectrum of activity, such as controlling animal ownership, movement, slaughterhouse activity, Notifiable Diseases, market and transportation requirements, animal welfare standards and many others. In general, the legislation should be supported by producers and consumers to ensure maximum compliance. Legislation breaches need to be effectively detected and prosecuted to ensure high compliance.

2. Disease Control Programmes

Effective disease control programmes require adequate resources including sufficient well-trained personnel to undertake the required functions. As discussed earlier, effective epidemiology, laboratory, animal health and outbreak response components within the department of agriculture are essential along with effective linkages to human and environmental government health departments and private enterprise.

Relevant techniques rely heavily on a multi-pronged approach once suitable points in the epidemiological pattern of a particular disease have been elucidated in a particular country. Fundamental control techniques include preventive vaccination programmes (FMD, clostridiosis), regular testing schedules (brucellosis and tuberculosis), removal of infected animals (brucellosis and tuberculosis), improving animal husbandry protocols (parasites, injury,



malnutrition) and training (all diseases).

Certain features may be shared by different programmes and such common strategic activities should be co-ordinated to ensure maximum positive benefit. For instance:

x High standards of hygiene associated with all slaughterhouses will support control of a wide range of infectious and contagious diseases affecting livestock and man, like parasitisms, brucellosis, and tuberculosis, as well as reducing non-specific contaminations of meat and meat products that will only have human health significance.

x Vaccination against multiple diseases at the same time.

3. Property (Farm) and Animal Identification Systems.

It is essential to know animal distribution patterns, origins, destinations, movement history and owner contact details. It is also important to evaluate vaccination status and coverage.

Since one animal looks much like another, permanent livestock identification systems are invaluable but must be accompanied by effective data recording and analysis. Modern, computer-based livestock identification systems are now in existence.

4. Disease Monitoring and Surveillance

Routine population sampling and disease testing is essential for early disease detection and to monitor livestock for changes in risk factors relating to disease outbreaks. Potential components include testing and sampling at live markets, pre- and post-mortem inspection in slaughterhouses, testing animal products for residues (detecting for the ‘disease’ of product contamination) and surveys of livestock in the regions.

These components revolve around an effective government animal health system that operates and liaises with the livestock industry and private enterprise in an effective and timely manner.

9.3.2 Limiting Disease Spread

The marketing and processing of animals provides significant opportunities for disease to spread. This is especially true in cities where the scale of these activities is great. The necessity to collect and aggregate animals for sale at live markets allows animal diseases to spread and then be disseminated throughout the farming population. The focus of live animals and potential animal buyers provides an opportunity for spread of zoonotic diseases. Good design and management of markets is therefore vital to minimise the risks.

Similarly, processing animals at slaughterhouses and the subsequent handling and dispersal of meat products and slaughterhouse waste materials provide many opportunities for the spread of animal diseases and zoonoses. There are risks for disease exposure both for staff and subsequent consumers, as well as those handling waste and by–products.

In many respects, slaughterhouse activity and waste control are crucial strands in the complex web of events that can move disease from animals to humans. The network can include:

x Inappropriate transport to slaughterhouses.

x Stressful handing of animals prior to slaughter.

x Selection of diseased animals for slaughter (sometimes deliberately to minimise loss).

x Unhygienic slaughter practices.

x Inadequate meat inspection processes.

x Inappropriate meat handling and distribution.

x Unsatisfactory plant and worker hygiene practices.



x Inappropriate waste disposal techniques.

Waste products from dead animals actually represent the major link back to farmed and wild animal populations. Suitable waste processing and disposal practices from slaughterhouses and from fallen stock on farms are therefore essential to limit the risk of animal and human disease outbreaks, as well as to limit environmental damage from inadequate processing and disposal. With an efficient waste control system, the amount of pathogenic material leaving a secure facility and posing a threat to people or livestock should be minimal. Separation of high-risk material for incineration should be a routine procedure.

Livestock markets produce waste with similar importance to that from slaughterhouses. Whilst these wastes are generally restricted to urine and faeces with some gynaecological discharges relevant in the spread of some diseases (e.g. brucellosis) there should be minimal amounts of tissues such as meat or blood. The aggregation of animals can result in significant build up of organic waste and its handling, processing and distribution can result in the spread of animal and zoonotic diseases back into rural areas.

An important difference between the two facilities, however, is that while live animals enter slaughterhouses, only dead tissue should leave. Conversely, livestock markets involve a two-way movement of live animals (into and away from the market). This therefore brings large numbers of animals into to close contact with each other as well as the many people who examine them before purchase. This scenario patently allows pathogens to be brought into the marketplace in animals, both those showing clinical disease and those carrying the infectious organism but either partly recovered or not yet showing signs of ill-health. Other sources of contamination include people and fomites, such as their clothing and vehicles.

It is evident that animals arrive in markets from one place and leave for another. Distances travelled can be considerable and this places significant stresses on animals, increasing their susceptibility to disease, so it is not surprising that many animals may contract disease here, especially if they stay on-site for several days (e.g. Africa and South Asia). The movement of live animals subsequent to market is critical to the dissemination of animal disease.

Control mechanisms in both these facilities should therefore recognise the fundamental concepts of all disease control which are to ensure that maximum hygiene operates at all time, with safe and sanitary facilities for surroundings and transportation. Early identification and appropriate handling of diseased animals and others which might prove a threat to other individuals plus an accurate knowledge of source and destination of livestock are essential epidemiological concepts. Application of these principles requires high-quality management with an effective record-keeping system, supported by legislation, routine maintenance and refurbishment to ensure that standards are maintained to protect the livestock owner and his animals.

9.3.3 Endemic Disease Control and Outbreak Prevention

Endemic diseases are those which naturally maintain themselves in a population. These ever-present diseases can produce disease outbreaks in animals and in humans if factors are present that promote the spread and dissemination of pathogens. The major endemic diseases of relevance to this Study include naturally-occurring diseases with oral transmission routes to the human populace, often through contact with animal waste products. These diseases produce illness in man following consumption of contaminated livestock products (meat, offal, milk) or inadvertently by low standards of personal hygiene (failure to wash hands before eating, absence of protective clothing for work, clothing soiled with livestock waste and pathogens).

Many of the diseases on the OIE List are endemic in countries visited through the region. Examples include tuberculosis, ecchinococcosis, FMD, rabies, trichinellosis, anthrax and brucellosis. Other endemic diseases include parasites with complex lifecycles that require a host to consume an intermediate stage in meat or other tissue for disease development, e.g. cysticercosis, or where stages in the life-cycle are spread after leaving one host, e.g. larvae of enteric parasites voided in faeces. Other pathogens can contaminate meat products, multiply, and produce disease in consumers, e.g. E Coli O157.

Control of these diseases is based upon identifying and limiting the risk of spread. Mechanisms include, among many:



x Identification of affected stock using appropriate tests.

x Separation of infected stock and their appropriate handling, including recommended or compulsory slaughter.

x Increasing immunity to infection by the use of vaccinations.

x Compensation to encourage owners to remove affected stock and maintain closed herds of uninfected animal.

x Raising standards of hygiene.

x Enforcing strict control of animal movements.

Achieving any of these requires concerted effort within a framework of a strategic plan that encourages involvement by livestock owners as well as requiring efficiency on the part of professional veterinary staff. Leading such an embracing requires an enthusiastic leadership that will develop teams with the correct skills.

Because most endemic diseases are well-known and of global importance, standard procedures have long been established to protect human health; slaughterhouse activity is a case in point:

x Ante-mortem inspection is designed to prevent the inclusion of diseased animals in the human food chain. At this stage suspect animals should be either rejected completely or subjected to delayed slaughter to protect other healthy animals.

x Post-mortem inspection following established protocols should allow unsuitable parts of a carcase, offals or even the whole carcase to be rejected as unfit for human consumption on visual inspection, and for the condemned material to be incinerated.

x Selected samples should be tested for specific health safety concerns, e.g. all pig carcases for Trichinella worms or suspect injection sites for antibiotic residues.

x Routine monitoring protocols should be adopted for bacterial contamination of carcasses as well as critical elements of the processing system, such as water purity and the cleanliness of work surfaces after cleaning.

x The conduct of good meat processing and handling practices along the production chain from arrival, lairage, slaughter, dressing, storage and distribution should be routinely monitored using HACCP principles.

x Disposal of all slaughterhouse waste should be carried out efficiently and with full recognition of its dangerous potential. Waste disposal is widely neglected in developing countries and left as a menial task to staff ignorant of, and normally unprotected from, its pathogenic effects. In reality, biological waste should be considered a valuable by-product which can make a valuable contribution to livestock profitability if it is handled appropriately.

9.3.4 Waste Management

Fundamental to effective disease control is effective disposal of infective material to prevent it causing further problems to humans or animals, including environmental concerns. The absence of good waste collection and its exposure to other animals at many sites increases the risk of animal-to-animal and zoonotic spread. Vermin are an important consideration in this context. It is an important concept that breaking down carcasses can aid the spread of disease with poor meat inspection and pathogenic waste disposal. It exposes internal organs and pathogenic material to a greater number of potential spread mechanisms while an entire, decomposing carcass rapidly destroys pathogens by creating the wrong environment for their survival.

In this context, uncontrolled access of animals to waste tips, dumped corpses and other sites with animal waste provides no break in the cycle of infection and dramatically increases the opportunity for direct transmission of infection. The unsafe recycling of livestock waste or by-products for use within animal-production systems (e.g. feeding of tallow, blood, bone meal or feather meal) has a similar potential. Examples of disease spread in this fashion include BSE, bird flu, salmonellosis, anthrax, ecchinococcosis, cysticercosis, and duck plague.



Of special importance is the common practice of feeding pigs with swill (home-made mixtures of animal and vegetable material to hand) from diverse sources in the community. FMD is commonly spread in this way when sick animals unfit for human consumption are recycled to save money or ineffective meat inspection allows infective material into the human food chain from which stale and rejected items are re-introduced back into the livestock production system with disastrous effects.

Efficient control of access to all livestock waste should therefore be a pre-requisite for any control programme or mechanism, based on the strong likelihood that all of it will contain pathogenic material. Even with good fencing, animal populations around the sites of waste accumulation are the most likely to become infected so enhanced monitoring of their health status is required.

It is worth making a comment here about the positive value of livestock waste to the environment. The plant fibre of excreta is of major importance to the humus structure of soil and affects its fertility for crop growth, water retention and other agricultural characteristics. In some places much excreta is recycled as fertiliser but elsewhere, often in the same country, other social groups use it as a fuel and so the soil becomes increasingly devoid of humus, a contributor to desertification. There are mechanisms, such as composting, which significantly improve the safety of the waste before it is re-cycled but about which most farmers appear ignorant.

The nutritional value of animal carcasses to some species of wildlife has been well documented around the world, although much of this has come to light as a result of the adverse effects brought about by contamination with disease or chemical agents. During this Study, several slaughterhouses (e.g. in Africa), were identified with a deliberate policy of despatching waste, including condemned material, to a rural location for vultures, hyena and other animal species, but which would also allow access to feral and roaming dogs, a natural mechanism for completing the epidemiological cycle of disease transmission. In North Africa, a fresh carcass was observed by the Study Team over several days, it was initially dumped in a watercourse (itself a problem) and was serially devoured by mammals and birds, inevitably allowing transmission of several diseases in the process.

Disposal of waste creates a common problem. There are rarely effective systems in place for removal – dogs, birds and vermin are attracted with the potential for disease transmission. In Africa, rabies is commonly introduced to urban human and canine populations by hyena attracted to livestock waste, for example.

9.3.5 Interactive Control Mechanisms

As the foregoing overview indicates, effective control of food-borne diseases should be the combined responsibility of animal health, human health and environmental health services along with private enterprises. It requires strong application of solid management principles towards a series of well-defined goals with good communication between the various agencies involved in providing the necessary service.

This complex collaboration makes effective delivery of public health extremely difficult, particularly where good regulation, adequate monetary reward and experienced human resources are not available.

9.4 DISEASES IDENTIFIED, THEIR IMPORTANCE, AND GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION

Table 9.3 overleaf has been compiled from official national data and that submitted by countries visited to OIE. This is not a complete list of every diagnosis made but focuses on those reported by countries. It is important to note that many other diseases are so common in a country (endemic) that reporting them officially is meaningless.

Analysis of Table 9.3 reveals that only 39 of the 48 diseases listed in it feature in the OIE List (88 diseases). Salmonellosis is a slight anomaly because certain strains of the bacteria are on the OIE List but official reports tend to record Salmonella of any strain.

Reliable disease diagnosis is achieved in most cases from clinical examination followed by laboratory confirmation through submission of samples for appropriate tests. Study Team members strongly suspected that several OIE List diseases existed within the countries under study that had not been reported to OIE in contravention of obligations. This belief comes as a result of personal knowledge or discussions



during the study, although no testing was carried out to confirm or refute these suspicions. This anomaly suggests that the veterinary services were defective in their responsibilities, failing to use the correct detection mechanisms.

A large number of common livestock diseases were identified during the Study consisting of significant numbers of parasitic and clostridial problems, as well as diverse infections that are of significant importance in individual cases but are not the major herd or flock problems of some of the major epizootics. It was impossible to quantify such cases with symptoms as diverse as death, abscesses, lameness and diarrhoea. However, observation of livestock in all regions during the Study clearly indicated that very large numbers of animals were living under standards of hygiene that would probably lead to future disease related to those conditions. Clinical disease was observed in a significant percentage of stock leading to major production loss, although the cause of disease was not determined. Not all disease is caused by infectious organisms: nutritional inadequacies such as starvation or mineral deficiency, for instance, can be a major source of loss.

Probably the most important (and un-quantified) disease of many regions was that due to the ingestion of indigestible waste, such as plastic. Team veterinarians have direct experience of the severe complications of livestock ingesting such material, the main cause of problems being physical obstruction of intestinal tracts with reduced food intake, digestion and potential death. Injury from assorted waste can vary from penetrating wounds that become infected through to constricted blood circulation and movement.

Throughout the study it was noted that very few local personnel showed much awareness of the problems of waste as a source of disease or suffering for livestock or wildlife.

9.5 EFFECTIVENESS OF DISEASE CONTROL, MONITORING, AND SURVEILLANCE TECHNIQUES

9.5.1 General

Livestock disease control in all countries was not well managed or regulated, despite the best intentions of some within the relevant ministries and institutions. Veterinary Services were poorly supplied in terms of manpower and other resources and were unable to provide adequate control across their jurisdictions.

Decision makers did not appear to recognise the importance of public health issues and the linkages with other areas of the country’s economic activities. This was widely reflected in the populace which showed many signs of ignorance on matters such as waste management, public health, hygiene or medical and education services.

In the face of this generalised tendency, the veterinary staff attempting to achieve disease control face an extremely challenging task, frequently hindered by heavy bureaucracy. The situation in North Africa was typical; where municipal staff had the capability to implement change but appeared to have neither professional nor personal interest in disease control.

In all countries, raising standards of disease control was not accorded the national importance it deserves because the political superstructure rarely ranked these issues among its priorities, and as result, disease levels are significantly greater than they could or should be. Human disease control suffers from similar problems to that of animal diseases and a common finding seems to be the paucity of adequate control measures founded on basic epidemiological principles which would clearly identify the close link between human and livestock health.

9.5.2 Disease Identification and Reporting

It is well-recognised globally and within OIE that there is significant under-reporting of disease by National Veterinary Services, however the OIE has no mechanism to enforce application of its guidelines in this or any other area of activity. The results included in Table 9.3, earlier in this text, confirm this tendency when the presence of notifiable diseases in all regions was well-known but the distribution of disease and location of outbreaks is not available from the OIE World Animal Health Information Database (WAHID) - Version: 1.0 (http://www.oie.int/wahid-prod/public.php?page=home).

http://www.oie.int/wahid-prod/public.php?page=home



Table 9.3 – Confirmed and Suspected Cases of Livestock Diseases of the Different Regions

Disease EAP SA A MENA LAC Zoonosis Waste Notes

Multiple Species

Anthrax n o p q r Spores last > 100 years

Aujesky’s disease r Multiple species affected, waste a major source

Bluetongue o p q Vector spread

Brucellosis - bovine (B. abortus) n 1 o 1 p q r Widespread and serious

disease in people Brucellosis - porcine (B. suis) n r Risk to workers

Brucellosis - caprine / ovine (B. melitensis)

n/a p q r Major problem

Ecchinococcosis (hydatidosis) p q r Human disease is aberrant

life-cycle of parasite Foot and mouth disease (FMD) n o p q r Major importance

Leptospirosis n o p q r Major risk to animal workers

Rabies n o p q r Waste attracts infected animals

Salmonellosis ~ p4 q Major importance

Sarcocystis � n o r Life-cycle in different species

Trypanosomosis (tsetse-transmitted and Surra – T. evansi)

n o

r 1 Vector spread

Vesicular stomatitis � r ? Resembles FMD

Cattle (including buffalo)

Bovine babesiosis p q Vector spread, Species specific

Bovine cysticercosis � n 1 o 1 p q r Life-cycle in different species

Bovine tuberculosis n 1 o 1 p q r Widespread and serious disease

Contagious bovine pleruopneum-onia o p Species specific

Haemorrhagic septicaemia o p Pasteurella multocida

IBR / IPVV 8 q Respiratory infection if browsing waste

Lumpy skin disease p Insect vector

Malignant Catarrhal fever 2004 2004 ? Domestic cattle and wild

species

Rinderpest � o 2 Eradicated worldwide

Theileriosis n 1 o 1 1996 q Vector-spread

Small Ruminants

Contagious caprine pleuropneumia o p Species specific

Maedi Visna 2005 -

Ovine chlamydiosis p5 2004 Not notifiable - probably under reported



Disease EAP SA A MENA LAC Zoonosis Waste Notes

Peste des petits ruminants o p Highly contagious

Pulmonary � Adenomatosis n/a Generally spreads to young

animals Sheep pox and goat pox n o p q Mainly respiratory and insect

spread

Poultry

Avian infectious bronchitis n o 2001 q r 6 Respiratory spread in

contaminated housing Duck virus enteritis (Duck plague) � n o q r 6 Oral infection

Fowl cholera n o p q r 6 Respiratory spread in contaminated housing

Fowl typhoid n o p q r 6 Major infection

Highly pathogenic avian influenza n o 1983 Ongoing major pandemic

Infectious bursal disease (Gumboro’) n o p q r 6 Perhaps 90% case mortality

Newcastle disease n o 1986 1986 Major constraint to global poultry production

Pullorum disease n o p q r 6 Bacteria survive in environment

Swine

Classical swine fever n r Swill feeding

Porcine cysticercosis n r Human-pig tapeworm

Porcine Reproductive Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS)

n Currently localised distribution

Trichinosis � n p r Associated with free-ranging and swill-feeding pigs

Equines

African Horse Sickness

p Vector-borne

Equine Influenza p q Species-specific, respiratory disease

Equine Viral Arteritis

q Mainly respiratory and venereal infection

Horse mange � q Usually direct contact

Others

Leishmaniasis p3 q Vector spread

Camel Pox p q Species specific

Key: = not zoonosis; = zoonosis; = highly significant; = some importance; = minimal importance; ? = unknown importance.

Notes: 1 = Suspected (not confirmed); 2= provisionally free; 3 = no clinical cases identified; 4 = no S. abortus-ovis but S. pullorum and bovine salmonellosis identified; 5 = no data, undetermined incidence.;6 = disease likely to be present; 7 = rare but occasionally identified; 8 = Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis / Infectious Pustular Vulvo-vaginitis;

Sources - Table 9.3 has been compiled from official national data and that submitted by countries visited to OIE, the world animal health organisation. These are recorded in the World Animal Health Information Database (WAHID) http://www.oie.int/wahid-prod/public.php?page=home



Potential reasons for the inaccuracy of reporting are many, including poor clerical activity, but relate, essentially, to the weakness of resources available at all levels. It was very evident in all countries that there was inadequate skilled manpower for the necessary work and very often a paucity of technical resources. Much of this could be due to lack of finances but there also appeared to be significant weaknesses in the management structures and the use of available resources.

There was generally inadequate availability of meaningful records but those available suggested that the number and pattern of samples submitted to veterinary laboratories in all countries was of limited value in assisting decision-makers to develop effective strategies.

Many of the important diseases of the world exist in countries with low-levels of clinical disease and infrequent large-scale outbreaks. However, in the absence of effective monitoring and surveillance techniques by routine testing protocols of statistically significant numbers of stock in different parts of the country, an erroneous conclusion is frequently made that a particular disease is absent. The truism “If you don’t look for it, you won’t find it - so it’s not there” seemed to be alive and well in the countries visited by the Study Team.

Inefficient attempts at control may mask the signs and even complicate the scenario. For instance, vaccination in some easily accessible regions can reduce the local incidence but leave the disease cycling in other more remote areas. Reduction of vaccination levels with complacency increases the susceptibility of stock and re-introduction of the pathogen allows a resurgence of severe disease, potentially with worse consequences than a low-level incidence. The country visited in South America showed signs of a similar affliction; the country is attempting to become categorised as FMD-free yet many experts believe the disease to be cycling through the small percentage of unvaccinated animals; hence the absence of disease reports among vaccinated stock should not be confused with freedom of the disease.

In facilities such as slaughterhouses, where valuable monitoring and surveillance could be carried out on large numbers of animals and with correspondingly valuable data collection parameters, little was actually being done. For example, trichinosis is a potentially fatal zoonosis with a known epidemiology of eating infected pig meat. The diagnostic test is a simple microscopic examination of a small sample of muscle that can be performed in a few minutes in the abattoir - direct visualisation of the parasite allows simple adjudication about suitability for human consumption. Nowhere was this test routinely carried out on all or even any pigs, despite a known high incidence of the parasite; and many slaughterhouses handling pigs did not even possess the necessary equipment.

It was apparent that significant funds had been dedicated to expensive and complicated diagnostic and research equipment in many of the laboratories visited (although pertinent observation and questions suggested that much of it was under-utilised) while less glamorous, more basic but potentially more valuable, technology (such as a trichinoscope for slaughterhouse diagnosis of trichinosis) is unobtainable due to various constraints.

Very weak communication between different organisations that should have been working towards a common goal was clearly identified as a major problem, especially between veterinary and medical public health sections, but also between Ministry and Municipality when covering disease control issues such as waste management in markets and slaughterhouses, as cited earlier.

Unfortunately, this poor communication also extended into different sections of the same services with weak line-management contributing to ineffectual delivery. In most regions, geographical sub-division of veterinary duties exacerbated problems and, in general, there was very little effective collaboration or meaningful control of livestock movement that would assist disease control or limit the spread of pathogens in livestock waste. It frequently appeared that the decentralisation of resources in a country was more concerned with political status than achieving enhanced results by discriminate location of facilities or staff.

A more focussed study on the performance of the full spectrum of work carried out by National Veterinary Services would readily identify more weaknesses and this is strongly recommended. However, in the context of disease control through animal waste, the Study revealed that the absence of well-defined objectives or any effective strategy to achieve improvements from the very low standards of veterinary public health that currently exist in all regions was compounded by the absence of adequate legislation,



established standards or working guidelines. So weak was official control that, in many situations, the value of work being carried out was reduced to a meaningless level, achieving nothing to significantly benefit public health.

In all regions the need for a high-quality epidemiology unit within the veterinary services is sorely needed. In this study, no evidence of such a unit functioning along the lines indicated in the previous section was identified. There seemed to be a dearth of officers with adequate mastery of their discipline and significant weaknesses in the efficiency of their management.

9.5.3 On-Farm Activities

The traditional farm in all countries visited was a melting-pot for potential disease spread. Living in close proximity and in rudimentary conditions (sometimes in the same buildings) were assorted combinations of humans, including children, with ruminants (large and small), pigs, equids, dogs, cats, poultry (chickens, ducks and geese) as well as vermin. Herding and grazing practices invariably meant that there was little isolation of individual herds or flocks and therefore major opportunities for disease transmission on communal land with livestock wastes from other animals widely distributed.

Encouragingly, more intensive enterprises were identified with improved bio-security to keep out dangerous pathogens. These were most likely to involve poultry and pigs (several poultry properties in North Africa were visited with tight security but others applied measures that were fundamentally flawed).

There was little evidence of any official extension service activity to raise standards of production, livestock health or increase public awareness of important issues. Some industry-based organisations were providing some advice to their members (e.g. poultry associations in North Africa). The over-riding impression in all countries was of systems drifting along in subsistence.

Ruminants

The general absence of a livestock identification scheme or routine movement controls in all countries does not allow for tracing or limiting outbreaks, identifying stock at risk or ensuring that the required vaccination levels are achieved.

Farmers encountered by the Study Team were generally ignorant of disease epidemiology, resulting in inappropriate handling of livestock waste, diseased animals and carcases. Infected animals, whether identified as such or ignored, remain a source of infection to healthy stock and, carcasses of on-farm deaths were often left exposed to scavengers in the open air. Routine preventative health procedures were frequently ignored for assorted reasons.

Faeces were generally either used as a fertiliser (with very little evidence of composting or other techniques to reduce infectivity) or removed from the production system by burning as a fuel. In both cases, owners often created income from this by-product by selling any excess to their own requirements.

Poultry

Essentially household and small flocks are subjected to no controls anywhere in the world and, if infected, could provide a ready source of infection to other birds, people and wildlife. Larger commercial flocks are becoming increasingly controlled by modern legislation and benchmarks are being set by private companies investing in the sector through their international advisors who are aware of the need for high performance.

Many of these improvements, however, are done on an ad hoc basis in response to the perceived market, and are not as a response to official policy. In fact, it was frequently bemoaned that official veterinarians were ill-equipped to deal with high-quality production systems and frequently caused major problems because of this. For example, the Study Team received several accusations of ‘Ministry vets’ spreading disease because of poor hygiene on official visits.

The benefits of poultry rearing in controlled health environments is rapidly lost if the birds enter the general system. The risk for human outbreaks of diseases such as salmonella and campylobacter is great and increasing. The use of antibiotics in production in smaller, non-export orientated poultry producers is



generally unknown but the lack of an effective residue testing programme almost certainly results in no adherence to drug use and withhold periods with mass exposure of the population to antibiotics and growth promoters.

9.5.4 Market Activities

The transmission and spread of disease is facilitated at livestock markets by aggregation of animals from multiple sources (including cross-border trading) with animals held in close proximity and under stress from transportation and the unfamiliar surroundings of the market. Animal handling facilities are rudimentary and the trading process often involves extensive handling of animals by potential buyers.

Uncontrolled and free mixing of animals in markets lends itself to disease spread: communal water troughs, accumulation of wastes and sometimes stays of up to five days duration provide ideal conditions. Whilst many of the animals are taken for direct slaughter, there is significant trade of live animals (all species) that move to a new location, sometimes in a different country (e.g. South Asia and South America). It was evident in all countries visited that some markets were more likely to be providing stock for slaughter while others were preponderantly for sale to traders and other farmers for movement to other locations. Many animals especially small-stock (goats and sheep) are traded at informal markets, aggravating problems of disease spread.

Although animals are required to have a ‘health certificate’ at markets in several countries, this appears to generally be a futile, clerical exercise, given the lack of testing in regions and the lack of control of animal movements, except, purportedly, in times of very severe disease outbreak.

The level of veterinary inspection of animals entering markets, potentially a valuable tool to control the spread of disease from infected to healthy stock, varied between nil and very little. The opportunity to carry-out routine vaccination or surveillance policies did not appear to be taken in any study site.

Several countries, but not all, carried out a basic recording of livestock numbers and some even recorded carrier details; however, these generally seemed more related to recouping fees rather than as an effective monitoring programme for disease control and surveillance. The general absence of a livestock identification system meant that any records were based on verbal history which is notoriously unreliable.

Essentially there was no effective control of livestock movement observed, although several authorities claimed to be able to clamp down if the need arose. Staff in some places seemed to have a reasonable interpretation of the dynamics of livestock movement but even the best would be unable to accurately track any potential outbreaks with reasonable consistency.

Although widespread, the aberrant behaviour of livestock handlers and deficiencies of market infrastructure was rarely a significant feature of veterinary complaint. Officials seemed unaware of the need for shade, paucity of drinking troughs (cited by one commentator as a safety measure against the risk of disease spread via drooled saliva) and the logistical and injury problems due to overcrowding. A more charitable observation is that they had once tried to effect important changes but had been persistently thwarted and were now so demoralised as to accept the status quo.

Noteworthy in all regions were the traditional opportunities for disease spread: raw milk was sold in many markets posing a significant risk spreading diseases, such as tuberculosis and brucellosis in unpasteurised or unsterilised product without even the token presence of any public health officials, warning advice or staff collecting samples to ensure customer safety.

In terms of indirect transmission pathways, some animal vectors were identified at livestock markets. In some places, flies were present in large numbers; a potent source of spread for food poisoning organisms. Their absence during visits was deemed to reflect prevailing weather conditions rather than effective control by authorities, to judge by the other features of most markets. Dogs pose a serious threat in the event of a rabies outbreak and it is likely that they are carriers of salmonellae and other intestinal pathogens, including the parasite that causes hydatidosis. In the LAC city visited, hydatidosis was a very common problem for human health, encouraged by the mixing of humans, dogs and sheep (and llamas), and the widespread lack of veterinary inspection. In the African city visited, rabies is a particular problem and period culling of stray dogs is practiced; they are often seen around livestock and public markets.



Poultry

Slaughter at the point of sale is a normal occurrence but some birds are taken away for home slaughter, perhaps after several days, which allows further disease spread. More importantly, however, a regular network of local markets suggests that the same birds will be moved around a region until sold.

Vermin

In many countries markets were community affairs where animals, vegetables and other commodities were sold within the same overall location. The presence of other species in the market – rats, dogs, birds, and local ruminants - scavenging after the end of the market, due mainly to the lack of cleaning and waste management procedures, increases the risks of disease spread. These urban animals may represent potent reservoirs of infection and may become very important should eradication programmes for disease be implemented. There was frequently no active policy of reducing dog populations.

9.5.5 Market Hygiene

The general absence of any marketplace cleaning or provision of sanitation facilities for people or vehicles represents the phenomenon observed in all regions that there appears to be no awareness amongst traders, operators or the public of the various mechanisms of disease spread, as well as a negligence on the part of the controlling authorities. Rarely is solid effluent removed from markets except by scavengers who use it for fuel (e.g. Africa); waste removal in the form of dead birds (South Asia and North Africa) was observed in the study as being by scavenging animals but there was also frequent visual evidence of inedible, un-removed tissue.

Climatological influences will create local variations, e.g. desiccation by heat and high ultraviolet exposure will reduce pathogen load, while waste dumped on wet or absorbent ground provides a reservoir for infection that may persist for long periods, especially in cooler and wetter periods.

The lack of running water and general lack of concern with respect to hand-washing, laundering of clothes, and other acts of human hygiene and cleanliness facilitates the transfer of zoonotic diseases such as salmonellosis and hydatidosis to man.

Many stalls operate on the ground where the dust levels are highest. This provides for a very high risk of respiratory transmission of zoonotic pathogens (such as avian influenza H5N1 and C. Burnetti or Q fever).

During the dry months animal wastes may be collected, dried, and use for fuel; however, during the wet season this operation cannot be undertaken and provides a potential risk for infection, as well as environmental contamination by the sluicing action of rain.

Evidence of clinical waste from local hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies at the main ruminant market area (waste tip) in South Asia indicated additional and unnecessary disease risks for animals and humans.

9.5.6 Slaughterhouse Activities

The standard of veterinary activity in most slaughterhouses was widely noteworthy as being substantially ineffectual. Examples can be cited in each region where veterinarians were allowing animals to be slaughtered in ways totally unacceptable to public health needs (livestock unfit for human consumption entering the food-chain in all regions) and national requirements (e.g. tacit acceptance of widespread illicit slaughter in all regions), animal welfare principles (e.g. cervical stabbing with prolonged delay before bleeding - Africa), Halal religious requirements (cruel handling and animals able to see other animals being slaughtered – North Africa, Africa, South Asia).

The systems for ensuring adequate hygiene and waste disposal in all regions were usually significantly deficient – facilities commonly antiquated and in poor repair with inadequate water supplies for cleanliness. Where physical conditions were better, there was commonly no support from authorities to promote their uptake by the wider community.

An absence of meaningful veterinary control over basic hygiene was noted in almost all slaughterhouses.



Despite visible contamination of meat with faecal material (a potent source of pathogenic organisms) or handling practices during preparation there was no apparent designation of such product being unfit for human consumption. Trimming of such contamination, changes to handling practices, or modifying structures to prevent the problem were nowhere evident. Part of this problem was due to the very weak collaboration between the different organisations involved in different aspects of the production system. In one example discussed during the project, vets identified problems but could not effect change because funding came from a different body (a municipality) that was not prepared to outlay the necessary finance.

Nowhere was there any meaningful attempt to institute any training of either veterinary or lay staff. There seemed to be little or no evidence of availability of modern, basic guides which would assist professional staff to achieve high standards, e.g. FAO, 2004 & Andriessen, 2004. In fact, it appeared that most veterinary staff had little access to the latest international veterinary standards and little guidance on how to obtain this.

The systems for ensuring adequate hygiene and waste disposal in all regions were usually significantly deficient: facilities are commonly antiquated and in poor repair with inadequate water supplies for cleanliness. Where physical conditions were better, there was commonly no support from authorities to promote their uptake by the wider community or even actual adverse activity (e.g. North Africa).

Nowhere was there any meaningful attempt to institute any training of either veterinary or lay staff. Possible underlying reasons for the low standards are discussed elsewhere; however this study was unable to identify any realistic prospect of significant improvement in any of the countries visited.

Specific observations with respect to different slaughterhouses are provided below, however, general observations applying to most facilities include:

x Widespread lack of use of protective clothing / equipment by slaughterhouse workers.

x Widespread use of the floor for the majority of slaughtering, dressing and processing (carcasses become contaminated from debris and waste water while crouching workers are more exposed to aerosol contact with pathogens from the carcase or waste).

x Wash-down and decontamination practices are very poor, disinfectants are rarely used on plant or equipment.

x Level of regular site maintenance is generally low.

x Formal training (including personal hygiene) of slaughterhouse workers is minimal.

x Offal handling practices and distribution without inspection or connection to carcase inspection provides a high risk of exposure to gut pathogens, including intestinal tuberculosis.

x Staff are exposed to major zoonotic pathogens, including tuberculosis, leptospirosis, brucellosis, salmonellosis, E coli, campylobacter and Q fever, with little knowledge or protection.

x Workers commonly hold knives with their teeth and use it to slaughter, dress and open the gut which creates a significant risk of personal infection and pathogen spread e.g. salmonella, campylobacter and E. Coli O157.

x Expulsion of blood and other animal wastes into open drains or waterways.

At the lowest level of official slaughterhouse visited in North Africa, South Asia, and South East Asia it would be difficult to obtain lower standards. The constructions are ancient, devoid of adequate light and water ensuring that carcasses are produced with inadequate hygiene precautions and with waste material being dumped varying distances away from the slaughterhouse but with no restrictions to access for waiting disease carriers and vectors. In other countries, standards were slightly better but far from ideal.

Liquid wastes were invariably discharged without treatment, frequently into the local sewerage system or to local open drains before soaking away into farm land or discharging into water courses. On-site water treatment facilities were very rare and several coastal facilities in North Africa discharged directly into the sea, posing a direct threat of infection to fish and shell-fish collected near the outfalls (which were eagerly harvested by local fishermen). It should, of course, be noted that the many thousands of litres of raw human sewage also discharged are likely to be far more dangerous to human health than the relatively small



amounts of slaughter waste.

Hides and offal are invariably poorly inspected, leaving the slaughterhouses with apparently no control over container or vehicle. Since much offal is eaten in poorer countries this is a high-risk material and should be handled appropriately; invariably, it was not.

9.5.7 Public Markets

Given the widespread and high levels of illicit meat preparation in all countries, subject to no official inspection and only rudimentary control of suitability by formally untrained butchers, such meat will be a source of infection to people, as well as other animals if recycling of material is allowed, e.g. in swill-feeding to pigs or other animals.

Infection transfer from animals to man at public markets is facilitated by:

x Lack of protective clothing / equipment by stall holders.

x Dusty ground of all marketplaces.

x Use of the ground for the majority of animal marketing and waste disposal.

x Poor wash-down and decontamination practices with minimal or nil use of soap or disinfectants on hands, site, implements and workers’ clothing.

x Lack of regular site maintenance and cleaning.

x Lack of formal training (including personal hygiene) for workers.

x Extensive handling of animals for sale.

x Absence of effective meat inspection.

x Meat prepared un-hygienically remains a threat to public health during subsequent handling.

x Meat generally lacks refrigeration within the correct time and temperature.

x Dust and flies settling on exposed meat pose serious threats to consumers.

Markets often trade for long periods and food sellers are usually interspersed amongst animal traders. Hand-washing before eating was rarely observed.

9.5.8 Retail Outlets

Infection transfer from animals to man in retail outlets, including restaurants, is widely facilitated by the following rudimentary practices:

x Traditional practices (e.g. North Africa) of selling intestines with contents still present enabling potential contact with pathogens during cleansing at home, e.g. enteric tuberculosis.

x Inadequate waste collection services.

x Absence of officially-controlled standards or any type of outlet inspection service.

x Lack of hand-washing facilities in outlets.

x Lack of protective clothing / equipment by staff handling meat with poor wash down and decontamination practices.

x Lack of formal training (including personal hygiene) by workers.

x Unhygienic surroundings for meat sale or food prepared e.g. significant aerosol and dust problems, including dust and flies settling.

x Many outlets retail both inspected and un-inspected meat, often mixing the two together (frequently repeated observation, e.g. in North Africa).

x Meat not prepared hygienically remains a threat to public health during handling.

x Absence of refrigeration with correct temperature and time combinations.



x Weak vermin control with rats and cockroaches often present.

Health inspection of outlets supplying food of human origin is totally inadequate. Africa exemplified this with a maximum of only three inspectors provided per sub-city of 350 butcher shops, the same inspectors also having to inspect restaurants, hotels, and other food outlets in their jurisdiction. In this country, it was identified that, despite brucellosis and tuberculosis being well-recognised problems and both of them being spread to people through milk, much of the milk on sale was un-sterilised or un-pasteurised. Here it was also reported (but not confirmed by testing) that some commercial products did not comply with their label specifications, and no action was taken to correct this health deficit by authorities aware of the issue.

The nature of the meat trade is such that some butchers may adopt unscrupulous practices which endanger human health in order to maximise their profits. The lack of formal inspection allows the potential for pathogenic material to be used, perhaps disguised in preparing mince, kebabs, and other processed items. Many shops are open to the atmosphere with evident contamination by dust and flies plus rapid maturation of carcasses and offal due to the lack of refrigeration.

9.5.9 Supermarkets

In general, modern supermarkets are relatively few in number in the cities visited and consequently the training of staff and health requirements for facilities are rarely enforced by national requirements: there seems to be a tacit understanding that they are an improvement on traditional vendors and so are often subjected to less rigorous inspection. On the other hand, these facilities generally achieve good or reasonable standards. The open presentation of chilled meats and butchery areas does appear to reduce health risks to people until supermarket waste returns to join other urban waste and threatens both urban ruminants and carnivores.

Infection transfer from animals to man via supermarkets is facilitated by the following concerns:

x Absence of officially-controlled standards;

x Poor waste storage and despatch, allowing humans animals to scavenge freely;

x Absence of effective inspection service; and

x Weak vermin control in buildings.

There is a strong likelihood that high-risk material and trim is not wasted but converted into a less-visible commodity such as mince, sausages, etc. This would tend to reduce the risk of spread back to other animals but would increase the risk of zoonotic spread because the shorter times and lower temperatures of cooking of these products would have less effect on pathogens.

Whilst hygiene conditions in the retail outlets and markets in the South American country were generally somewhat lower than international standards, they exceeded those in other study countries. The supermarket sector in particular was far more advanced than other study countries and, in general, their good standards, requirements and guidelines with respect to suppliers, slaughter and butchery techniques and meat hygiene represent good disease control and low risks. Very worrying, however, were reports that one such supermarket was supplying the informal swill-feeding sector with chicken carcasses.

9.5.10 Informal Sector

In all regions, the widespread slaughter and sale of red meat and poultry which is not subject to veterinary controls or inspection is condoned by authorities to a degree which suggests that the practice is sanctioned at senior levels, despite the resulting loss of revenue to municipalities from low slaughter numbers in municipal facilities.

The financial advantages of having no hygiene controls makes this style of meat supply more entrenched in societies where the poor want to spend as little as possible on food while the meat sellers (along with those who receive financial benefit from assisting their continued activities) maximise their profit while reducing their expenses.

The risks of disease spread is very significant in this sector since the people actively involved have no health



or hygiene training and little understanding of the concepts of disease spread. The waste from this sector is a very important factor in the maintenance of disease. It was repeatedly identified that a successful illicit sector was severely demoralising to those attempting to compete on the open market with the extra cost of official slaughter and inspection fees. The distinct and logical impression was that the informal sector was contributing to a lowering of standards in official mechanisms to reduce expenditure in food safety measures. Many examples were noted of licensed traders supplementing their legitimate business with meat from more risky, informal sources.

9.5.11 Waste Management

Very weak management of animal waste in most locations visited by the team poses a significant threat of both animal–to-animal and animal-to-human disease spread. With few exceptions, control of livestock diseases and zoonoses could be dramatically improved by application of a few basic principles.

Of particular concern was the general finding of human urine and faeces routinely voided wherever convenient, including public places. Not only does this actively spread pathogens but it also indicates the total lack of adequate facilities supplied by Municipal authorities.

Similarly the widespread wastes of all types that litters urban and rural environments of some countries with inadequate attempts to provide even a rudimentary collection mechanism seems to reflect official attitudes to fundamental public health. The disease threats may be summarised by observing that the vermin and scavengers attracted by fodder among this waste will be disseminating pathogens of the worst type in their own waste organisms well-adapted to survival in the detritus of dense, human conurbation and causing the major epidemics of society; plague, influenzas, tuberculosis, cholera, and many others.

On-site rendering facilities to increase utilization of by-products - tallow, glue, meat and bone meals etc. - were occasionally found (e.g. Africa and S America). The cost of fuel for the rendering processes is an issue but should be able to be cost effective with correct management.

Incineration of pathogenic material was rarely observed at abattoirs. Several premises were seen with modern incinerators that appeared not to have been used since installation; whilst others were rudimentary or decrepit. However, it was common for officials to indicate that they had a mechanism to deliver condemnations to a central facility, but the recipient was unable to confirm their arrival (e.g. North Africa).

In general, slaughterhouse waste, including condemned material, was transported to municipal waste tips, usually after exposure in public, where it frequently joined hospital and other human clinical waste (e.g. Africa, North Africa, South Asia). Informal slaughter provides a considerable amount of waste in all regions, which is handled as domestic waste and subject to the normal high level of scavenging in the streets by feral and domestic animals.

It was common to find people and domestic animals scavenging waste sites and for any livestock to become an integral component of the food-chain with no special precautions. Some authorities did provide vaccinations for ‘official scavengers’ (e.g. North Africa) which also supplied transportation to bring pickers from their villages.

The risk of disease transmission from livestock wastes is particularly high when organic wastes are fed to pigs, as identified in most city studies. The feeding of poultry waste direct to pigs is a major risk factor for pandemic human disease development and this issue should be high on the agenda of public and animal health authorities’ waste management policies.

Major waste-management factors influencing the present high risk of disease spread include:

x Weak national waste control strategies (all sectors) with inadequate legislation.

x Lack of co-ordination, often antagonism, between different organisations involved in waste control.

x Lack of high-level desire or support for controlling meat sector wastes.

x Poor investment in applying standards by municipalities, including use of collected revenue.

x Significant financial advantages for individuals and authorities to maintain the status quo.



x Almost total absence of facilities for effectively disposing of dangerous animal wastes (this also applies to medical and other hazardous or pathogenic wastes).

x No knackery facility for dead animals despite large mortality rates on farms and road-kill.

x Dumping sites not protected from scavengers and often actively encouraged.

x Inadequate veterinary staffing in slaughterhouses.

x Inadequate training of official staff.

x Inadequate understanding of disease and disease spread by a public with no concept of waste management or hygiene issues.

Across the regions, individuals within the waste control system were at heightened risk of infection and yet effective health and safety controls were rarely put in place by relevant authorities. Regrettably, the reality is that waste management in all regions generally exhibits conditions redolent of some of the most serious epidemics and pandemics of human history.

Within different countries the team observed assorted attempts to ameliorate waste problems; however, several common weaknesses were noted:

x Apparent lack of overall analysis of the whole waste sector.

x Development of a disposal strategy without allowing for special wastes.

x Inadequate control of existing waste management services.

x Inadequate staff specialisation and knowledge.

x Corruption in the selection of inappropriate sites for new facilities and in other decision making.

x Reluctance to invest revenues solely in waste management.

x Inefficient delivery of waste to required site.

In North Africa, there was virtually uncontrolled opportunity for pathogens to spread in the farms, livestock markets and at the vast majority of slaughterhouses. One modern city abattoir with the highest overall standards, including waste control, was being deliberately oppressed by some in authority; its quality facilities and practices neglected in favour of medieval squalor across the rest of the city.

9.6 PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES

The main public health issues are discussed Animal wastes that are used for edible products or otherwise do pose a potential risk, depending upon how they are handled, cooked, and otherwise utilised. The use of some wastes as fish food, pet food and as fertiliser may have health risks associated with a number of diseases.

The general lack of facilities combined with poor application of hygiene and disinfection principles are compounded by the extensive open contact with animals and produce by sellers and buyers, therefore representing a significant risk of spread of disease to humans

Non-treatment of solid and liquid waste from these sites combined with recycling into agricultural pursuits (crops, fish, etc.) provides a mechanism to amplify and disseminate infectious disease events. This is especially true for faecal-oral transmission pathogens such as camplylobacter and salmonella.

The existing city dumpsites do not have any appropriate methods for dealing with industrial or livestock wastes and thus they are simply dumped and buried with the municipal waste. Occasionally a dumpsite is able to offload some of its incoming wastes to an adjacent composting organisation. In a number of locations is was advised that new landfill sites were being planned for the near future and these would be sanitary landfills, complete with waste sorting facilities and the ability to treat industrial wastes.

The existing dumpsites do not have any security fencing and, as such, scavengers are tolerated on the site, human and animal. Animals present at illegal dumpsites include horses, donkeys, cattle, sheep, goats, dogs, and birds. Rats and mice and other wildlife were not observed but are sure to be present at the sites.



As urbanization continues the population in the large cities is increasing, and with it the solid waste management pressures are worsening. It was observed that, in a number of cities, concessions had been awarded to private companies for the collection of municipal solid waste; however, the coverage and setup of these contracts is unknown.

9.7 SUMMARY

The levels of disease control efficiency identified throughout this project were depressingly poor and are summarised in Table 9.4, as observed during field visits. It should be noted that these results are intended to reflect facilities visited rather than national standards.

Table 9.4 – Summary of Hygiene and Disease Control Efficiency

Farm Abattoir Red White Region

S C Markets

M P I M P I

National Vaccination Programmes

ID LMC Urban Health

EAP

SA

A

MENA

FMD, rabies, sheep pox, and

clostridia Tb compensation

LAC

Key:

S = Small-holding; C = Commercial; M = Municipal; P = Private; I = Informal, ID = National Livestock Identification Programme; LMC = Livestock Movement Controls

= Good; = Mediocre; = Poor; = a range between mediocre and poor The repeated observations during this study were that fundamental disease control was not being achieved because of weaknesses at every level of disease control structures within the country. These were due to:

x Absence of national standards and official policies at the central level;

x Poor collaboration between different organizations, agencies and even departments;

x Poor understanding and knowledge of achievable standards at the level of practical management;

x Inadequate technology, maintenance or refurbishment;

x Lack of adequate practical skills among field staff; and

x Deficiencies in knowledge.

The overall standards of animal health control could be significantly improved but will require a major reassessment of national policy and the structure of services.

It is strongly recommended that OIE carry out a review of the Performance of National Veterinary Services. The OIE has an established mechanism to perform this on a standardised basis and it will provide a specialist report that covers every aspect of service activity. This will allow a more complete reappraisal and subsequent upgrading of services which might lead to enhanced provision of animal health control mechanisms.

Even in this country-limited study, it was clearly evident that the deficiencies in livestock and slaughter waste management which exist cannot be corrected overnight. Effective upgrades will take several years and require application of solid policies that cross existing political structures. In making this observation, the team acknowledges the difficulties of surmounting political structures with existing hierarchies and allegiances but believes that the current failings are of such a serious nature that only their serious and significant overhaul, endorsed at the highest level within the nation, will effect worthwhile changes in a



highly visible and potentially catastrophic weakness in public health.

Because waste control involves the activities of different components of several different organisations, it is difficult to make specific recommendations other than the need for increased collaboration and a complete review in each country. Such a formal analysis of its waste control mechanisms should be actively co-sponsored by the different organisations involved. There is currently no objective mechanism within which to make such an assessment. Compilation of such a format could be developed as a result of this project.



10. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

10.1 INTRODUCTION

The present chapter discusses some of the environmental issues observed, and potential solutions to those issues. The section discusses only the issues that have impacts on the physical, chemical, and biological environment, as many issues traditionally studied under the banner of “environment”, such as Public Health, Hygiene, Occupational Safety, and Cultural and Social issues, have already been discussed earlier in the document.

Furthermore, as the present chapter is a later chapter of the report, it is inevitable that certain observations regarding environmental impacts have already been noted under earlier headings and where issues are cross-cutting (e.g. under “Waste Management” – Chapter 5).

When the Study commenced, the issue of the effects of solid and liquid slaughter and market wastes on the environment was expected to be a key focus, however as the study progressed, it became clear that whilst certain aspects of the in country status were of concern from an environmental perspective (see subsequent sections below), in general these issues were relatively minor in comparison to other issues.

The major environmental impacts were not found to be at the retail or final disposal levels but at the point of generation, i.e. livestock markets and slaughterhouses, where wastes were in general very poorly dealt with, causing contamination of soils and water with heavy metals, hormones, bacteria, viruses, and BOD.

Where attempts were being made to improve the situation, misguided techniques could sometimes aggravate the situation,

Unlike for many of the issues touched on by the Study, there is a wealth of literature covering environmental related issues with respect to livestock, and to some extent, its slaughter and processing. Unfortunately, much of the literature resource and guidelines presently available are either designed for use in modern, developed country slaughterhouses, or are simply unrealistic about the ability of facilities in the developing world to achieve the standards described. The guidelines are therefore largely redundant, other than for the general principles contained therein.

There is therefore clearly a need to develop guidelines for basic upgrades and basic environmental management to replace the existing high-reaching standards.

10.2 IN-COUNTRY STATUS AND OBSERVATIONS

10.2.1 Background

Many of the countries visited had environmental and public health legislation and regulations in place that reflect the desires of international environmental guidelines. However it is clear from visiting the livestock markets, slaughter, and meat processing facilities, and waste disposal facilities that these are regulations in name only and that in practice they are either ignored or only superficially implemented. This is considered to be due to a myriad of reasons, including lack of institutional support, but in large measure a reflection of the lack of resources devoted to improvement of environmental issues, particularly at the Municipal level, where both slaughter and waste disposal facilities suffer from chronic lack of investment, planning, maintenance, staffing, utilities, and knowledge.

It is also apparent that in a number of locations that apathy, poorly coordinated regulation and enforcement, corruption and poor training of the staff involved are all major contributors to the current status of lack of compliance with good environmental management practice.

As already noted above, many environment-related observations have already been noted elsewhere in this document and the following summary of observations is therefore as streamlined as possible, only repeating items where they are of considerable importance. It is hoped that by this stage in the report the reader will already have an appreciation of the major environmental issues surrounding the topic, and of the major observations of the Study Team.



10.2.2 Solid Wastes

The following observations relevant to the environmental impact of solid slaughter wastes were noted by the Study Team in the target Cities:

x Very high proportions of animal tissue resulting from the slaughter process have value as edible products, with a high proportion of the remainder recovered for use as fish-food, pet food, swill feeding, or rendering. This is a considerable contrast with developed countries, where proportions of animal tissue going to rendering are much higher.

x In some countries, stomach and intestinal contents are recovered and sold as fish feed and are considered good nutrient sources for fish ponds. While the returns are small, a number of operators and officials considered this disposal of intestinal material as a public service, i.e. it removed the product from the disposal chain and assisted small fish farmers.

x In other countries the stomach and intestinal contents do not have an outlet and they are disposed of in either legal or illegal open landfill or dump sites, or are flushed into water courses; the material is only occasionally composted.

x Feathers and hides are generally recovered and sold (exceptions include N. Africa), however even in countries that recycle these items, an un-quantified portion are disposed of, including feathers that are not dried, and deteriorated trimmings off hides.

x Due to the extensive use of offal and a wide variety of other products derived from animals, the quantities of solid waste that are produced and actually wasted by the livestock markets and slaughtering businesses are relatively small in volume, and are largely insignificant within the auspices of large metropolitan areas. Whatever wastes need to be disposed of are typically collected with the municipal solid waste collection and are disposed of to landfill or dumpsites. The environmental impact at final disposal is minimal compared to the large volumes of organic and other materials contained in the municipal waste, however as a result of animal and human scavengers, the public health impact is considerable. Occasionally it is apparent that the waste material is disposed of to informal dump sites or simply in ditches, roadsides or rivers, and this is more problematic.

x Exceptions to the above, in terms of volume, include bedding material from livestock markets and the solid portion of stomach and intestinal contents. While these materials are relatively benign from an environmental point of view, they carry high bacterial loadings from faecal and gut material which are likely to lead to public health challenges unless handled and disposed of correctly.

x Some of the animal wastes from livestock markets are collected for use as a fuel or are disposed of to dumpsites; however, these final usages are rare. More commonly, manure and bedding at livestock markets remains on site and is trodden in by livestock and people, disposed of to nearby watercourses, or left in a central open dumping area (see Figures 10.1 and 10.2 below).

Figure 10.1 – Wastes at a Cattle Market in South Asia



Figure 10.2 – Wastes Collected for Disposal at Smaller Slaughterhouses

x There is a substantial amount of illegal slaughter within all jurisdictions visited, particularly of small-stock, and it is expected that a good proportion of the inedible waste from these activities finds its way into the municipal solid waste stream or worse, is ejected to public areas or watercourses. While the volume is small, the concern is the nature of the material; in one study city hydatid cysts were observed strewn on the ground near an informal slaughter area, with both children and dogs roaming the area.

x Municipal bins are generally the main on-site end-point for market rubbish and other sweepings from the market areas; however they are clearly rarely collected. The bins or dumping areas described above are usually unsecure, often contain slaughter waste from formal or informal slaughter in the market environs, and are therefore open to scavenging.

x In non-Muslim countries, swill feeding of pigs on municipal solid waste and slaughter wastes was commonplace.

x The presence in some cities of slaughter houses at the same site as live markets is problematic.

x With respect to the poultry markets, droppings are regularly removed and used locally as a fertilizer.

Figure 10.3 – Poor Solid Waste Management Leading to Environmental and Public health Concerns.

x Poultry that are dead on arrival at markets are removed and either sent to rendering or buried in a nearby formal or informal dumpsite. A remarkable and worrying exception to the above is in the LAC country, where dead birds are returned to the depot so as to prevent driver or handler deceptions.

x At the retail level, solid wastes are negligible, composed principally of bone and any unsold product; disposal is without exception to municipal containers.

x On-site disposal or deterrent options employed at some locations, such as open burning using



propellants, dousing condemned material with whitewash or other chemicals can cause local point-source pollution.

x Poorly maintained and old incineration equipment is causing environmental issues in some locations.

10.2.3 Liquid Wastes

The following observations relevant to the environmental impact of liquid slaughter wastes were noted by the Study Team in the target Cities:

x Whilst solid wastes from slaughter facilities were generally relatively low in volume, liquid wastes were in general very voluminous, other than at locations lacking in process water.

x Whilst solid wastes were sometimes disposed of in an acceptable manner, liquid wastes rarely received anything more than rudimentary primary treatment at best.

x The vast majority of liquid wastes are extremely high in BOD, and are simply discharged to local watercourses, open ditches, fields, and even into public areas such as marketplaces adjacent to slaughter facilities.

x Some of the facilities visited made no effort whatsoever to recover blood or rumen contents in order to maximise valorisation and/or protect the aquatic environment. This was particularly true of one of the Muslim countries visited, however in sharp contrast to a second.

x In one country where a public/private partnership had installed a modern European-style facility, local market conditions and preferences, and lack of funds meant that the following liquid waste treatment systems were not functioning properly (or at all):

o Rumen content drying system o Blood collection system o Wastewater treatment system

Figure 10.4 – Failure to Treat Liquid Wastes Prior to Discharge Causing Environmental Impacts and Additional Cleanup Work

x Urban sites not close to a watercourse generally discharged their effluents to the municipal sewerage system.

x Most cities had no wastewater treatment and thus any liquid wastes discharged to sewers ended up in the aquatic environment.

x Those cities having partial coverage of wastewater treatment were overloaded, acknowledged the harm that liquid slaughter wastes were causing to their infrastructure and processes, but lacked the capacity to remedy the situation or obtain compensation.

x Discharge of liquid wastes with high solid contents (or fats that solidify upon cooling) clogs sewers and encourages vermin and scavengers.

x In low rainfall areas there is little runoff to storm-water collection systems, but more importantly the low rainfall means that most droppings dry out very rapidly and are either removed or are broken up



and dispersed.

x In higher rainfall areas drainage arrangements are still poor, and the state of the markets quickly deteriorate during rainfall events and become hazardous to animals and market operators. Run-off from the markets is, in most cases, completely uncontrolled. There is a need for proper animal handling facilities and hardstand at almost all the livestock markets visited, as well as proper run-off drainage systems.

x An unsightly impact of direct flow to open waterways is that large components of the carcass or trim often become entrained in the wastewater and are very obvious once they appear in the waterway. While there does not appear to be great amounts of product lost in this manner, a simple screening system would eliminate its occurrence and would recover product that is likely to be acceptable as raw material for the poultry feed manufacturers.

x Despite the widespread failure to capitalise on the valuable liquid wastes from slaughter operations, whilst safeguarding the local environment, isolated observations of ingenuity were encouraging; in one country, an entrepreneur had set up a system where the main blood collection drains were sandbagged and the raw blood collected from the drain into tubs and tanks for transport to a nearby cooking kettle. At the cooking kettle the blood was coagulated and cooked until much of the water had evaporated. The resulting solids were then spread in the open air to dry further. The final blood meal was used as an animal (mostly poultry) feed ingredient.

10.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND ISSUES

10.3.1 Solid Wastes

As has been described above, the basic effects of the dumping of relatively small amounts of organic waste into the environment of the Study cities is relatively minor in comparison to other solid waste issues, and in comparison to slaughter liquid wastes. The principal concern with the dumping of slaughter and livestock related wastes in areas that are accessible to workers, the public, and other wild and domestic animals is the public health and zoonosis issue, which is described in full in Chapter 9. Despite the relatively benign effects of solid waste on the environment, the following issues, whilst already covered to a greater or lesser extent in other relevant chapters of this report, deserve a mention:

x It is considered that solid waste (i.e. intestinal contents) will become a greater challenge as the size of the slaughter facility increases because it will be more difficult to find outlets that can handle the larger volumes.

x The solid waste contains contaminated and possibly diseased animal tissue which is highly putrescible and as a consequence has the potential to lead to environmental (especially odour) and public health concerns due to the presence of animal and human scavengers on disposal sites,

x Large volumes of methane are presently released from anaerobic decomposition of solid (and liquid) slaughter and market waste. Whilst these emissions do not cause localised environmental impacts, methane is 21 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and its widespread release due to poor disposal arrangements is contributing to global environmental degradation.

x Due to questionable feed compositions, manures and solid slaughter wastes can have high levels of arsenicals and other heavy metals (including copper, zinc, cobalt, selenium and manganese (FAO, 2006)), antibiotics, and hormones. A study in China showed levels of arsenic of up to 119.0 mg/kg (Li & Chen, 2005).

x This issue is discussed in Chapter 11, however it should be noted that in addition to the human health issue, residues in livestock and slaughter waste can become concentrated in the environment, and can be recycled into the food chain, and leached out into the aquatic environment.

x Application of manures to human crops and fish ponds, results in build-up and food chain uptake of these persistent constituents, as well as an environmental climate for development of increasing antibiotic resistance in disease micro-organisms.

x Loehr (1978) showed that Salmonella dublin and S. typhimurium can survive in soils for 110 to 160 days.

x As already noted, the discharge of liquid wastes with high solid contents (or fats that solidify upon cooling) clogs sewers and encourages vermin and scavengers.



x The failure to address the solids in liquid wastes, and the failure to properly clear market and slaughterhouse areas of solid waste causes local environmental problems in the form of odours and visual pollution.

10.3.2 Liquid Wastes

Discharging liquid waste from slaughterhouses and live markets to fishponds, crops, and drainage channels without treatment is a highly questionable practice. In terms of purely environmental damage, therefore, the issue of liquid waste disposal is of far greater concern than that of solid waste, particularly considering the observations of the Study Team.

The most important animal origin contaminant of meat sector wastewater is blood, due to its very high organic and nutrient loading potential. This high Total Organic Carbon (TOC) leads to a high BOD which then starves aquatic life in receiving waters of oxygen.

Pure blood has around 150,000 to 200,000 mg per litre BOD, domestic wastewater has a BOD of around 300 mg/l, and a BOD of around 25mg is an acceptable European standard. It is therefore clear that the removal of blood prior to its entry into the wastewater stream is critical for environmental protection, and should be one of the first issues addressed during upgrading of municipal facilities. Where blood is flushed into the effluent system, the wastewater from the processing of 1 tonne of red meat is 5 kg BOD, requiring a massive 200,000 litres of water to bring it below the standard (de Haan et al. 1997).

Rudimentary efforts were occasionally observed to recover the blood and remove it from the wastewater stream but more often than not it is discharged.

The second biggest organic load in the wastewater is the liquid portion draining from the intestinal contents. These contaminants do not have such a high BOD load as blood but are particularly high in suspended solids and nutrients (particularly phosphorous). Slaughter wastewater appears to almost always eventually end up in waterways via the municipal drainage systems. Contaminants entrained from slaughter operations contribute to the generation of anoxic conditions due to BOD load and to eutrophication due to nutrient load.

In some locations the blood from slaughter operations was discharged to open areas or fields. In these locations the relatively high saline content of blood would over time cause the soils to lose productivity.

Whilst the present section of the report should strictly be focussed on waste related environmental impacts,

due to the nature of the work, other areas of the Study scope have been broadened so in the interests of completeness, a very brief summary of additional environmental concerns noted during the Study is provided below. These minor environmental impacts should also be considered when drawing up plans for further studies and subsequent guidelines.

x Air pollution resulting from old and poorly maintained incinerators; this was a considerable issue at some locations.

x Visual pollution due to failure to adequately hide slaughter operations and equipment from sight of the public.

x Dust issues as a result of a lack of paving at livestock markets and in lairage

10.3.3 Impact of Religious Considerations

Practices resulting from religious considerations such as the slaughter during the Eid al-Adha, and the haram status of blood, increase the impacts of the sector on the environment considerably. These considerations must, of course, be respected but in general the present disposal techniques are far from acceptable, and could be greatly improved whilst still respecting religious requirements.

The greatest impact present in the sector is the prohibition on the consumption of blood. The result of this prohibition is that in some locations, virtually all the blood from all animals eventually finds its way into the ecosystem. Of all the sites visited only one showed any willingness to address this problem by having a wastewater treatment system that also treated collected blood. Blood is the greatest contributor to the organic loading of wastewater generated by a slaughterhouse and in modern plants it is the first priority to



remove this substance from a waste stream by collection from the bleed out area before it becomes part of the waste water.

It should be noted that blood is also a valuable resource after it is dried down and it need not be used as a foodstuff as it is in some countries; it can be used in many products, for example organic fertilisers.

If a system could be introduced that was acceptable to the Islamic faith that would allow blood capture and drying down at least to a point where it could be used in conjunction with, for example, rendered bone paste as an enhancer for use in composting wastes with high carbon levels, then a major source of environmental contamination which is presently causing problems would become an asset. Apart from the environmental benefits in removing the blood from the waste water stream, there would also be considerable economic benefits in terms of saving costs of synthetic fertilisers.

As discharge criteria are tightened by regulatory bodies, whether to sewers or watercourses (which will inevitably happen as sewer operators seek to recoup costs for upgrading sewers and stormwater collection and treatment) the removal of a major organic pollutant would have considerable cost implications on the running of a plant.

It is interesting to note that environmental protection is actually promoted by Islam, which teaches that mankind is the steward of nature (which is owned by God) and should protect it and manage it sustainably, and in the interests of all people as well as all species.

It would be greatly beneficial if Islamic countries could look beyond their aversion to blood as a foodstuff, and realise that not only is a resource being wasted and the environment polluted, it is actually just as obligatory upon them to preserve the environment as it is for them to avoid eating blood. In this regard it is perhaps timely to introduce a slightly controversial but common observation; it was noticed that whilst the Survey Team has minimal knowledge of Islam, the general level of knowledge of Islamic principles with regards to slaughter and environmental protection in the Study Countries was low.

10.3.4 Potential solutions

A number of international organisations have published environmental guidelines for the livestock and meat processing sector. Most of these documents refer to “good” or “best” practice outcomes for the environment, and occupational and public health and safety, and provide detailed information on how best to manage modern slaughterhouses and processing facilities with respect to environmental and public health concerns.

Relevant texts identified by the Study Team include:

x IFC Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Poultry Production.

x IFC Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Meat Processing.

x EU Guidance note on Blood Collection and Storage at Slaughterhouses

x EU Guidance note on the Disposal Of Animal By-Products And Catering Waste

x EU Guidance note on the Loading And Unloading Of Animal By-Products

x IPPC Best Available Techniques in the Slaughter and Animal By-products industries

x Abattoirs Code of Good Practice - Critical Design, Operational and Equipment Guidelines for Licensed Abattoirs (Canadian Food Protection Service)

x USEPA Operational Guidelines for Abattoirs/Slaughterhouses

x USEPA Effluent Guidelines for Meat and Poultry Products (MPP)

x Guidance for the Slaughtering of Animals (Cattle, Sheep and Pigs) Sector (UK Environment Agency)

Whilst highly informative, technically sound, and very aspiration, the above texts and guidelines are, in the opinion of the Study Team, aimed slightly too high for most developing country settings. The principles remain the same, however the accepted standards and technical options are often simply unrealistic. It is hoped that guidelines for basic upgrades and basic environmental management to replace the existing



high-reaching standards will be developed.

The potential technical options for solving the environmental issues outlined above are to be the subject of a further study, however some preliminary recommendations are provided below:

x Study past case studies, for example the World Bank Serbia Danube River Enterprise Pollution Control Project which addressed the environmental impacts of slaughterhouse waste via investment in Slaughterhouse separation and disposal of waste according to EU Animal By-products Directive category.

x Invest in basic blood capture systems and primary wastewater treatment (Screens can remove 10 - 15 % of the organic load).

x Improve on site storage arrangements for solid waste, so as to reduce odours, and discourage vermin and scavengers.

x Promote changes to feed composition so as to reduce build up of contaminants in the terrestrial and aquatic environments

x Consider biodigestion, composting, and other methods of reducing methane emissions

x Consider the above in the framework of the CDM mechanism; obtaining carbon finance could be a useful source of income.

x Promote acceptance of the issues as Public goods.

x Promote good understanding of religious requirements.

10.3.5 The Environmental trade-off

A fascinating trade-off should be noted at this juncture. The purpose of the present Study and report is to promote awareness and increase the knowledge base on the many issues requiring attention in the livestock, slaughter, and meat processing industry in developing countries.

Whilst addressing some of the issues will have a positive environmental impact, it should be noted that global impacts due to the modernisation of the sector are staggering, and in modernising more and more facilities, net negative environmental impacts will show a marked increase. Improvements in the following areas will all have a detrimental secondary impact on the global environment, mainly due to carbon emissions:

x Improved waste collection frequencies and methods

x Increased rendering, recycling, and processing of waste materials

x Increased availability of hot (and cold) water, and improvements to washdown regimes

x Improved lighting

x Increased refrigeration

The benefits of implementing the above measures clearly dramatically outweigh the impacts, and are not to be discouraged on environmental grounds, but in the interests of a holistic consideration of the issues, they are mentioned above for interest.



11. FEED ADDITIVES AND ANTI-MICROBIALS

11.1 INTRODUCTION

In the past few years, consumers in developed countries have expressed increasing concern about the purity and safety of the food and liquids they consume. This has coincided with an increased awareness of the issues involved and incidents that highlight potential problems In developing countries, where concerns are more typically about the source and price of the next meal, social awareness of food safety is generally lower. However, that does not mean that the risks from food additives are reduced as producers use diverse methods to try and increase their productivity.

Harmful or potentially harmful additives find their way into the food chain via one or more of the following mechanisms:

x Contaminants may be naturally present in the environment (e.g. fungal and bacterial toxins) in which feed crops are grown or on which animals are grazing (animals’ drinking water may also be contaminated).

x Contaminants may be present in the environment due to human activity (e.g. agricultural pesticides or heavy metals).

x Contaminants may be introduced to live animals (e.g. feed additives and therapeutic drugs).

x Contaminants may be added to food during processing (e.g. food colourings and preservatives).

The level of residues in food products should be very low. Toxic levels are known for most agents and maximum acceptable residue levels have been identified for most. However, there is widespread concern that continual exposure over a long period of time to low residue concentration may have cumulative adverse effects. There is also the potential for interaction between different chemicals as they are metabolised in the body, again providing a cumulative or synergistic effect that may even exceed the sum of individual toxicology.

‘Biological magnification’ is the process by which low levels of harmful substances present in the environment may cause no ill-effect in animals low in the food web but are concentrated as animals higher up a particular food chain eat repeated minute doses which may accumulate to toxic levels.

Different acceptable levels for contaminants, residues and additives in food have been identified by different authorities and, while the Codex Alimentarius Commission has worked to harmonise national standards, there still remains considerable variation in accepted limits.

The level established in a particular country is, of course, only important if there are efficient enforcement and monitoring protocols in place. There must be adequate legislative restraints in place under which authorities involved in public health can monitor environmental levels of potential toxins, control their addition to diet or administration in other ways and provide top-quality assessment of levels in food. Enough samples must be collected from the correct distribution of sources to provide for realistic assessment of the chemical levels in livestock and poultry at all stages of the production chain including the time of slaughter as well as the food produced from them.

11.2 AGENTS OF CONCERN

Agent types that can be present in slaughter and animal wastes and are of concern in biological systems are detailed below:

x Pesticides;

x Herbicides;

x Antibiotics;

x Growth promotants/ hormones;

x Food additives; and



x ‘Natural’ Chemicals

If they are used correctly, the accumulation of the above agents in livestock and food can be prevented or limited. However, the reality is that high levels are commonly identified following chemical abuse and incorrect application, such as the wrong dilution rates of concentrates, deliberate overdosing for ‘increased’ effect, incorrect timing of crop harvest or slaughter after the last application of a particular chemical, mixing of different chemicals and multiple other causes. This may either be deliberate or performed in ignorance by untrained workers.

Pesticides

Pesticides are used to destroy, repel or control harmful or troublesome animals, plants or microbes, these chemicals are valuable tools for enhancing agricultural productivity. They may create problems by their accumulation in the tissues of livestock, especially muscle, fat and bones, in excess of defined residue limits. Some residues are highly stable in manufactured meat product and readily cause problems in consumers.

There are two broad categories of pesticide; inorganic and organic. The former are generally stable, not bio-degradable and commonly derived from arsenic, copper, lead, mercury copper or sulphur. While many have been replaced by organic compounds in developed countries, their lower cost and accessibility mean they are still widely used in developing countries.

Organic compounds may be either synthetic or naturally-occurring compounds (often from plants).

Herbicides

Weed-killers are used increasingly widely and their efficacy increased by novel compounds and mixtures. Factors such as wind-drift plus uncontrolled grazing or sale of harvested haulm are well-known causes of clinical livestock poisoning or elevated tissue residue levels.

Antibiotics

Antibiotics are used both to control clinical disease and to limit the effects of sub-clinical infection, many commonly used livestock antibiotics are the same as those used in human medicine. From a biological perspective many of the antibiotics are chemically-related and factors such as resistance is also reflected in similar reduced efficacy in ‘relatives’.

Growth Promotants / Hormones

Although some antibiotics are used to increase growth, this category is usually reserved for Hormonal Growth Promotants (HGPs). These are chemicals which mimic the growth-stimulating effects of the male and female hormones, testosterone and oestrogen. The hormones themselves are banned worldwide as growth promotants, because of similar effects being passed on to consumers, however synthetic chemicals are available which leave no residues in livestock and these are normally applied as implants in the base of the ear.

Food Additives

The major additives during meat processing are bulking agents, colouring agents, stabilisers, salt and nitrites. The permitted concentrations should be strictly controlled and monitored during production and at the point of sale to ensure human safety. In some countries, there is a legal requirement for accurate labelling of all ingredients and additives with permitted ingredients and concentrations being specified in national food standards.

The addition of contaminants to a food requires high levels of quality control to ensure that safe levels of addition are not breached.

Nitrites are commonly used in meat processing to give a pink colour to meat and are an inhibitor of certain bacteria. However, nitrites have been liked to cancer while levels above 200 ppm can be toxic.



Natural Chemicals

Various chemicals may be found naturally in livestock feeds, including plant poisons, mycotoxins, and heavy metals. Their presence can generally be related to adverse conditions during growth, harvesting or storage; for instance, the presence of weeds growing among crops or the development of moulds during damp storage. Efficient monitoring of conditions at every phase of the production chain should be in place to prevent transmission of the problem towards the consumer.

11.3 ACCIDENTAL CONTAMINATION

To ensure that food is produced in a clean and hygienic environment, a range of chemicals is, or should be, used for facility cleaning; including detergents, sanitizers, oils, hand soaps, pest poisons and insecticides. Prevention of accidental contamination of either food product or the environment with the above requires strict control over storage and usage.

A potentially important source of accidental contamination can be related to environmental pollution. Poor control of the disposal of chemical wastes (or wastes which include chemicals) can lead to contamination of livestock from grazing contaminated pastures or drinking polluted water. In this context, effluent from waste tips and discarded chemical containers can allow water courses to become affected either by virtue of the release of chemicals or because containers act as reservoirs for meagre precipitation but then become a critical source of contamination for animals drinking the water contained in them.

11.4 MECHANISMS FOR CONTROL

Given the diversity of potential sources for chemical contamination of livestock, national mechanisms should be in place to control access to potentially dangerous compounds, as well as monitoring the safety of products at strategic sites along the food production chain. These should be in place for domestic consumption as well as exported food stuffs.

Given the disparate nature of agriculture across countries, national strategies would be expected to vary, however, fundamental components should include:

x Licensing of approved chemicals for use in agriculture;

x Recommended application rates;

x National maximum tissue residue levels;

x Drug Withhold Periods (the time between last application and use for food (e.g. plants as livestock fodder or livestock products (meat or milk) for human consumption);

x Containment of known environmental contamination;

x Approved and monitored use of feed additives;

x Control of on-farm chemical use;

x Routine surveillance for residues in livestock feeds, abattoirs, processing plants and dairies; and

x Penalties for contravention.

11.5 REGIONAL OBSERVATIONS

The Study included the collection of available data on animal feeds plus their constituents as well as the antibiotics in general use within the livestock sector in each of the countries visited.

Local feed suppliers were visited, where available and willing, with the intent of identifying and recording what feeds are used and their ingredients. Few data were available and some companies were very guarded about their products. Where possible, constituents were identified via photographs of bags, company literature or discussions with feed company representatives. It was understood that the use of antibiotics in animal feeds was widely significant and increasing; often illegally and with little knowledge of appropriate dosing.

Whilst the sample size was effectively very small, it seems that in general the smaller producers are simply



not knowledgeable enough to use feed additives, nor even to produce suitable feed mixes using the natural materials at their disposal. Medium sized facilities were the most likely to indulge in the usage of feed additives, whereas some of the larger export orientated facilities followed strict guidelines and feed regimes.

Therapeutic drugs were commonly supplied by veterinary pharmacies where a veterinarian would sell across the counter for animals not seen; no register of drugs distributed was maintained nor was any mechanism for disposal of used containers, syringes, needles, etc. Such a system obviously allows all the worst aspects of drug misuse to thrive and increases the potential for unsafe levels of chemical to be present in slaughtered livestock and poultry.

None of the countries visited had an effective chemical control mechanism covering the whole supply chain and few had any meaningful monitoring programmes.

For example, in the South East Asia country, the safety aspects of meat products depend on a certificate issued at the farm which attests to the health status of the animal but based on no testing or sampling procedures. After the animal has received its original certificate it appears that the live animal or derived meat products are given only cursory inspection. A document prepared as a consequence of this certificate follows the meat product through the supply chain to the retailer. Meat supplied and processed in compliance with the system is also marked with an official government stamp so that it is easily recognisable at the retail level. This system provides little or no control over chemical residues in food products.

In South Asia, animals receive a cursory live inspection on entry to the slaughter facility and this live inspection is considered sufficient to declare the product as safe. Most rejections from slaughter are reported to be due to animals being pregnant and therefore considered useful; only very small numbers are thought to be rejected due to disease or injury. High levels of toxic residues, with food additives, pesticides, and antibiotics surpassing the maximum residue levels (MRLs) allowed in domestic or international markets have been identified as a problem needing attention.

In Africa, there have been no regulations compiled as required under ministerial proclamation and, as a result, there is no standardisation of work. Compounding this is the vast amount of home slaughter that reportedly occurs for sheep, goats and cattle. Chemical testing, including for antibiotic residues, is not routinely carried out in slaughterhouses. Although some testing of milk for residues was witnessed, it was reported that not all treatment plants performed the necessary testing and that suppliers knew which processor would accept milk that others might reject. In fact, rejected milk was returned to the vendor and was generally acknowledged to then move to the next processor. Interestingly, some milk products are sold as pasteurised when the authorities know it is not and yet sale is still permitted. Apparently chemicals, including formaldehyde, are added in processing to extend shelf-life.

In North Africa, apathy, poor regulation and enforcement, corruption and generally poor training of the staff involved in the various levels of livestock production and processing are all widespread. The only testing for chemicals carried out was for products being exported into the EU, when EU standards were applied. For this reason a small amount of testing had been carried out on fish and casings (sheep intestines), although it was noticeable that it was the intestines and not other sheep tissues that were tested. The frequency of testing was minimal with the ministry explaining that it lacked resources and technical ability. A top-quality feedmill visited indicated no use of antibiotics and controlled coccidiostat formulation in their feedstuffs; however, they indicated that some of their competitors had different standards.

In South America, similar weak control existed. The use of antibiotics in production at smaller, non-export orientated pig and poultry producers is unknown but the lack of an effective residue testing programme almost certainly results in no adherence to drug use and withhold periods with mass exposure of the population to antibiotics and growth promoters.

As a result of the Study, therefore, the indications are very strong that there is a significant potential for chemical abuse in all regions. The almost complete absence of any meaningful data covering the extent of the problems suggests that this is another area of public health significance in which the authorities are currently inactive. This seems to be another example where the absence of known cases reflects lack of diagnosis rather than an absence of the problem.



12. TECHNICAL OPTIONS

12.1 GENERAL

This section considers the treatment and disposal of wastes from livestock and slaughtering facilities in high-income countries and their potential application for developing countries.

In most high-income countries, the majority of facilities (whether livestock markets, slaughterhouses, or meat processing facilities) are located outside of urban areas and well away from the public eye, particularly in the case of slaughterhouses which are predominantly in the private sector and keep a low public profile. This is quite different from the typical developing country scenario, where large municipal facilities still exist in an urban setting, often with public access (low-income countries); even private slaughterhouses can be found in urban areas, although their profile is lower and security tighter. The considerable difference in the infrastructure, utilities, and operating conditions in developing countries and their urban locations renders many of the typical high-income country waste management methods inappropriate, at least in the short to medium-term.

Both middle-income and low-income countries are currently planning or are in the process of implementing projects for sanitary landfills for MSW, but their situation with regard to the disposal of urban livestock and slaughter wastes is not being specifically addressed. Given the limitations for expansion and upgrading at existing urban livestock markets and slaughterhouses, for waste management areas in particular, providing dedicated areas for the disposal of “special wastes” at proposed MSW disposal facilities may be an appropriate solution prior to the relocation and construction of new markets and slaughterhouses outside of the city.

The situation with respect to livestock markets in high-income countries is not directly relevant to urban markets in developing countries; however, it has been outlined in section 12.2 below for consistency. The waste management requirements in high-income countries for slaughterhouses and meat processing facilities are similar and are described together (as meat plants) in more detail in section 12.3. Technical options for livestock markets, slaughterhouses, and related facilities are described in Section 12.4, which considers not only the waste management options, but more importantly the improvements to existing infrastructure, operations, health and hygiene, and institutional capacity that are required.

12.2 OVERVIEW OF LIVESTOCK MARKETS IN HIGH-INCOME COUNTRIES

In high-income countries, as gate-to-plate supply chains become more entrenched in the retail sector and there is more grain-finishing and contract feeding of cattle, there has been an increase in direct sales of livestock which reduces or eliminates the volume of animals going through sale yards. However, to many producers, livestock markets still represent one of the best methods for them to turn-off livestock and find the value of their animals. Consequently, in Australia for example, there is now underway a high level of upgrading existing markets and construction of new livestock buying centres. The markets are generally located on the fringe of rural regional centres where transport and environmental factors are somewhat easier to manage. It is important to note that these centres draw not only slaughter stock, but are also important sources of feeder stock to go into feedlots for fattening.

Livestock marketing centres in developed settings are under increasing pressure to comply with stricter environmental, animal welfare, and occupational health and safety regulations. All centres require approved loading/unloading equipment and structures, which will likely incorporate an animal identification system e.g. RFID tags; shade for ill or injured stock; suitable holding pens for sales process along with suitable ingress/egress for stock into the pens; access to running water at several points on the site; access to drinking water for stock; sanitation facilities for staff and visitors to the yards; appropriate surfaces (e.g. grooved concrete bases) to minimise dust, mud and to aid in drainage; provision to clear organic and inorganic waste from the site. Livestock selling centres would need to operate under a licence or agreement with the relevant environmental protection agency for the area to address the above points. Organic waste at the site, such as manure, is usually captured by wash-down procedures each day and directed to a series of holding or treatment ponds/lagoons near the site. In turn these will generally feed into an a nearby irrigation/dispersal system. Because the markets are relatively near to settlements, these arrangements are regulated. On the other hand, livestock are generally kept at the market for no more than 12-18 hours and



the market may only hold one-two sales per week; hence, quantities of organic waste therefore will not be large at most sites.

In extensive farming systems in high-income countries, animal manure typically stays where it falls with the exception of a small percentage (less than 3%) of farms that may collect dung for marketing to local horticulture/market gardens. Feedlots, however, are major producers of cattle manure and obviously need to incorporate waste management into their environmental plans, including factors such as drainage, erosion, irrigation, soil degradation, etc. It is common for feedlot enterprises to have supply arrangements with composting/landscaping supplies companies for efficient disposal of this valuable organic waste for which there is a ready industrial and domestic (household) demand for products.

Generally farms in high-income countries do not have to comply with wastewater consent arrangements unless they are undertaking a water-intensive process, e.g. at feed lots or where stock are raised in a covered shed, etc. Almost without exception, however, livestock markets would need to comply with requirements issued by an environmental authority with respect to their wastewater discharge, as would feedlots and other types of value adding operations.

12.3 OVERVIEW OF MEAT PLANT WASTE MANAGEMENT IN HIGH-INCOME COUNTRIES

12.3.1 Legislation

In high-income countries, legislative controls at meat plants are typically administered through environmental licences and resource consents, typically covering wastewater discharge, odour and noise nuisance, stack emissions from boilers, stormwater management, and solid waste management. From time to time, due to environmental pressures in water catchments or air sheds, authorities introduce stricter conditions.

It is difficult to predict trends in specific legislative requirements since it varies from region to region depending on the particular environmental sensitivities and political priorities at the time. Some of the possible areas of change are as follows:

x A move towards industry self-regulation. To this end, environmental authorities are encouraging industries to adopt self-regulatory tools such as industry codes of practice.

x Stricter wastewater discharge standards may come into force in catchments experiencing pollution pressures, for nutrients in particular. This may necessitate upgrades to treatment capacity or at-source reduction in pollutant loads.

x Solid waste management is an area that may see the introduction of new requirements in the future. Some regions are considering the requirement for licensed manufacturing plants to develop and implement waste minimisation/cleaner production eco-efficiency plans and to demonstrate reduction in the amount of waste generated.

x Tighter boiler emissions limits, particularly suspended particulate matter, can and have been introduced from time to time, requiring the upgrade of older boilers, particularly coal boilers. This is more likely to occur in urban areas with greater air quality pressures.

Some of the overseas legislation issues that have been identified as potential challenges for the meat processing sector include:

x Restrictions on the disposal of waste organic solids due to BSE concerns.

x The requirement to disinfect wastewater prior to discharge.

x Increasing emphasis on eco-efficiency.

x Carbon/Greenhouse gas taxation regimes.

In some markets, particularly Europe, increasing consumer awareness is being reflected in requirements, particularly by large retailers, for manufacturers to demonstrate sound environmental performance. This can include the requirement for manufacturers to have an Environmental Management System (EMS) in place that is certified to the International Standard ISO 14001. This has begun to be required for some meat processors supplying large European supermarket chains.



12.3.2 Waste Products, Treatment, and Disposal

(a) Bedding & Manure

Meat processing facilities in high-income countries are in almost entirely operated to hold animals in yards for not much more than the minimum requirement for ante-mortem inspection. As a result, the meat processing facilities do not generate any significant quantities of waste bedding material.

Manure that results from the holding of cattle and pigs at meat processing facilities is typically removed from the yards and incorporated in the wash-down wastewater stream. This stockyard wastewater often passes through a screen and/or settling tank system to remove solids prior to the liquid portion being discharged to the integrated wastewater system. Solids from the screens and settling ponds are spread onto agricultural land, either directly or after accumulation for a period in a stockpile. The stockpile is generally not configured to provide any formal composting procedure.

Sheep and goats are often held in elevated yards at processing plants in order to reduce water consumption in the form of wash-down water. Manure (and urine) from the sheep and goats falls through the open grid floor of the elevated yards and accumulates in a layer under the yards. The accumulated solid waste is removed by mechanical means (generally using of a small ‘bobcat-type’ excavator) and despatched for disposal onto agricultural land. It is not uncommon for this material to be sold to end-users, thereby generating revenue for the meat processing operation, or to be removed by end-users at no cost. The value of the manure is generally related to the transport distance between source and land application.

Poultry litter (manure and bedding) volumes after the intensive production operations are generally small. These volumes can be incorporated into the intensive production shed waste and disposed in a similar manner. Disposal commonly involves land-spreading, which in the EU requires application within 12-24 hours to arable land that can be easily cultivated. Other disposal techniques include combustion, composting, and drying and commonly involve third party operations. The viability of third party operations depends on the distance between source and use and these often handle a variety of feedstock materials.

Where bedding is recovered from transport vehicles or is used in the holding yards it is common to collect this into a skip for transport off-site for spreading on agricultural land, or less commonly for composting in windrows. Depending on the location of the meat processing facility other options for bedding and other solid waste from holding yards include:

x Heat generation in thermal processes including incineration, gasification, pyrolysis.

x Utilisation in biogas generation plants.

(b) Blood

Overview

Blood resulting from meat processing operations in high-income countries can be recovered and processed as either an edible or inedible product. All slaughter operations collect blood and either process it on-site or deliver it to a third party for processing. Whilst blood can produce valuable by-products it is also very important to remove this stream from the wastewater system due to its potential to significantly increase organic and nutrient loads of the facility wastewater. Blood degrades very quickly, particularly in hot climates, and transport to third party processing facilities is limited by collection and transport times. Whilst there are a number of potential short-term preservation methods available, the only technique used to any significant extent is refrigeration in a stirred tank.

The Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in the UK has produced a document titled “Guidance on Blood Collection and Storage at Slaughterhouses from 1st May 2003”. This document addresses problems associated with the collection and disposal of blood from smaller slaughter operations that, under the EU Animal By-Products Regulations, require certain by-products to be treated before disposal.



Edible Blood products

Edible blood is collected hygienically, often using a ‘cannula knife’ in a dedicated bleeding area to drain the blood into a suitable receptacle. The whole blood is then typically centrifuged into plasma and haemoglobin fractions prior to further processing and spray drying or flake freezing is used to produce edible blood protein fractions. Some fractions are used as human edible products and others may be downgraded to animal feed proteins. Edible blood is not collected in circumstances where Halal processing occurs due to contamination of the whole blood with ingesta, resulting from the application of the Halal ritual slaughter procedure. Only very small quantities of whole blood produced in high-income countries are used for edible products such as “blood sausage”.

Inedible Blood Products

Inedible blood is collected in troughs via appropriately designed floor drainage systems in centralised bleeding areas. Particular attention is generally paid to optimise blood recovery, due to the BOD and nutrient impact resulting from blood lost to the wastewater system. The whole blood collected in this manner is processed into a high protein (approx 80%) animal feed component by either:

x Direct drying from whole blood (e.g. batch or spray drying); or

x Steam coagulation followed by solid/liquid separation and drying of the solid fraction usually through the use of a hot air drier (rotary kiln or pneumatic conveyor).

Direct drying results in reduced contamination of wastewater, but higher energy consumption as the water component of the whole blood needs to be all evaporated. In contrast, coagulation and drying results in higher loss of protein to wastewater but significantly reduces energy consumption.

In high-income countries, most blood from cattle, sheep, pig, and poultry processing is recovered and processed into an animal protein feed component. Blood is used as a valuable component particularly providing available lysine (an essential amino acid) for use in feed formulations for pig and poultry diets. A major driver for improved blood recovery in high-income countries is the need to reduce the environmental impact of meat processing operations. As energy costs increase, there is concern that blood processing costs (even with the coagulation/drying process) may become higher than the revenue generated from the resulting product.

Blood protein meal availability has not been seriously impacted by controls associated with BSE. Most blood in BSE areas is converted into a blood protein meal and allowed to be used in animal feed formulations. Blood from animals suspected or proved to have BSE is excluded however.

Blood protein meal (bloodmeal) prices reflect global protein values. Figure 12.1 overleaf illustrates the trend in bloodmeal prices in recent years (in AU$) and the values convert to a US$ range between US$500-750/tonne. Indicative blood protein meal revenues are included in Table 12.1 below.

Table 12.1 - Indicative Blood Protein Meal Revenue

Indicative Revenues (US$/head) Species Blood Yield

(litres/head) Low High

Cattle 15-20 1.80-2.40 2.40-3.20

Sheep & Goats 1.5-2.5 0.18-0.24 0.30-0.40

Pigs 4-5 0.50-0.65 0.60-0.80

Poultry 0.1-0.2 0.012-0.016 0.024-0.032

Source: ProAnd Associates Industry Data

The minimum daily availability of raw blood required for the installation of dedicated blood drying systems is in the region of 5,000 litres/day (equivalent to daily kill levels of around 350 cattle/day, 2,500 sheep/day, 1,500 pigs/day, or 50,000 poultry/day). This volume of blood would produce approximately 800kg/day of



blood protein meal. In circumstances where blood volumes are low, an alternative approach is to combine the blood (either in whole blood form or more commonly in coagulated solid form) into the raw material stream to be directed to a rendering process. Blood added into the raw material stream improves the value of the resultant protein meal due to an increase in the protein content.

A blood coagulation and drying system requires various items of equipment including:

x Blood collection tank

x Transfer pump

x In-line steam coagulator

x Decanting centrifuge

x Solids collection bin

x Solids Drier

x Mill

Figure 12.1 – Rendered Co-Product Price Trends (in AU$/tonne)

Economic Overview for Inedible Blood

A system to handle 5,000 litres/day would be expected to cost in the order of US$ 250,000 - 300,000 to purchase and install. Revenue generated would be in the region of US$100,000/annum and the energy consumption for the system would be in the region of 15,000 - 20,000 therms/annum (439,500 – 586,000 kWh/annum).

(c) Stomach & Intestinal Contents

Stomach Contents

Stomach contents from cattle, sheep and goats are generally separated in a dedicated process step. This process step involves either dry-dumping (where most of the contents are separated without the inclusion of supplementary water) or wet-dumping (contents and wash-water are combined).

Ideally dry-dumped stomach contents (solid and liquid portion) would be processed into a final product (perhaps by inclusion with a supplementary dry waste that absorbs some of the moisture). More commonly,



however, the dry-dumped stomach contents are processed through a screw press; the liquid portion passes to the wastewater system; while the solid portion is accumulated, composted, and eventually spread on agricultural land.

The liquid stream from wet dumping operations commonly passes through a screen system (often a static wedge wire screen with aperture range 0.5-3mm) where solids are removed. The liquid stream passes to the wastewater treatment system and the solid portion is accumulated in a collection bin and transferred to either a rudimentary or sophisticated composting system prior to being spread on agricultural land. The solid stream is often composted in static windrow systems with maturation periods in excess of six months.

Problems encountered with these systems include:

x Inadequate design/operation of screening systems leading to poor separation of liquid and solid phases,

x High phosphorous content in liquid phase continues to be incorporated in the wastewater stream, and

x Inadequate composting leading to lack of deactivation of weed seeds and subsequent problems on the land spread sites. This factor also impacts on the potential for use of the material in composting businesses with more sophisticated end-users (e.g. gardens, golf courses, landscaping, etc).

Vermiculture technology has also been applied to the utilisation of stomach contents but has met with a limited degree of success.

Intestinal Contents

Intestinal contents fall into two categories; those that result from the recovery of intestinal products such as casings and those that result from cleaning intestinal raw material which passes to rendering.

When intestinal tract is recovered for items such as casings, the tract is carefully flushed. The resulting wash-water containing the flushed intestinal contents generally passes directly into the main waste-water stream. Intestinal tract material is very fine and unable to be separated with common screen filtration systems.

When stomach and intestinal tract are handled as rendering raw material, it is common to clean these items by passing them through cutter/size reduction machinery and then through a rotating tumbler where the contents are removed with the applied wash-water. These systems often involve warm/hot water and result in incorporation of fats in the wastewater stream. The resulting wastewater stream can be screened separately or combined with other wastewater streams prior to screening. The screening systems used are commonly a rotating wedge-wire screen with aperture size 1-3mm, fitted with a cleaning cycle. Solids recovered from the screening operation can in some instances be recycled as rendering raw material; however, the solids need to be fresh and the rendering system needs to be capable of handling the material.

In some low-temperature rendering operations the whole stomach and/or intestinal tract (including contents) can be utilised as raw material for rendering since the physical separation of the liquid and solid phases means the impact on energy consumption is less, and the system does not fix colour in the resultant tallow compared to dry rendering systems.

Composting – Stomach and Intestinal Tract Contents

Comments on composting are included here as the most common use of composting in the meat processing sector in high-income countries is for the handling of stomach and intestinal tract material. Much of the on-site composting is conducted in a rudimentary form where the solid material is simply stacked in static windrows for a minimum period of 6 months prior to land spreading on agricultural land.

Of course it is also common to supply raw material to larger composting operations that are processing a variety of feed-stock. These operations will include static and turned windrows, forced aeration and a variety of closed vessel systems.



Composting – Combination of Raw Material

Composting can also be used for a range of meat processing sector materials and is particularly an option for smaller operations where it is uneconomic to either install rendering equipment or to attract a contract renderer to collect the material.

A combination dry/wet composting system has been developed in Australia that is able to compost the full range of slaughterhouse waste material and dead stock. This system is explained in Meat Technology Update 02/5 – October 2002 – “Composting of slaughterhouse waste material and dead stock”.

In 2002/2003, the European Union laid down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption and subsequently DEFRA in the UK produced a document titled “Guidance on the Treatment in Approved Composting or Biogas Plants of Animal By-products and Catering Waste”. Whilst the document provides advice on the exclusion of BSE Specific Risk Material (Category 1) and BSE High Risk (Category 2) animal by-products from composting and biogas systems, it also provides guidelines on composting requirements. The guidelines essentially require the following:

x Composting must take place in an approved closed vessel system (this may include a compliant housed windrow system);

x A minimum feedstock particle size of 12mm;

x Demonstration of treatment at a minimum of 70oC for 1 hour (external heat allowed if required); and

x Compliance with hygiene and plant management requirements.

The characteristics of a range of raw material from the livestock and meat processing sector are provided in FSA Fact-Sheet No. 2 April 2003, “Raw Materials for Composting”.

Cost Information

Minimum capital costs for screen systems are in the order of:

x Static Wedge wire Screen – up to 500 litres/minute – US$15,000-20,000

x Rotating Wedge Wire Screen – up to 1,000 litres/minute - US$25,000-35,000

Operating costs for the screens are minimal.

Examples of composting costs are provided in the following Table 12.2 overleaf.

Nippon Koei in association with Global Study of Livestock Markets, Slaughterhouses ProAnd Associates Australia and Waste Management Systems


Table 12.2 – Composting Cost Examples for Three Operators in Michigan, USA (US units)

Item Jones Farm Meats, Saranac Department of Public Works, Mackinac Island

City of Ann Arbor

Materials composted Meat processing by-products and animal bedding Commercial, residential, industrial and farm organics

Commercial, residential, institutional organics

Technology Aerated static pile Aerated static pile Outdoor turned-windrows Service level Local farms Seasonal commercial, residential and industrial

populations Commercial, residential and institutional populations

Organic Material Composted

Ƈ meat processing by-products (bones, fat, feet, skulls, organs, wash-water solids).

Ƈ dairy farm animal bedding.

Ƈ MSW; Restaurant and hotel food prep and plate scrapings.

Ƈ yard trimmings. Ƈ biosolids. Ƈ manure. Ƈ animal bedding.

Ƈ Restaurant and Cafeteria food prep scraps. Ƈ Residential fruit and vegetable produce waste. Ƈ yard trimmings.

Capital cost $52,202 $600,000 $600,000 for 11-acre site in 1993; $900,000 in equipment over 15 years; $875,000 for 17-acre site in 2006

Site Size/Capacity N/A N/A 28 acres / 35,000 tons Start-up Date 2004 1992 1980 on initial 10-acre site Collection cost $0/tonne $2/tonne N/A Revenue N/A N/A $14/tonne Processing cost $13/tonne $25/tonne $52/tonne Disposal fee diverted $32/tonne $13/tonne $10.25/tonne Diversion 780 tonnes/year 5 tonnes/day 58 tonnes/day Equipment Grinder, Telescoping Loader Grinder, Telescoping Loader Grinder, Loader, Star screener, Scarab, Turner, 22

cubic yard flatbed Container N/A Varies Wheeled carts, 96-gallon toters, yard waste kraft

bags, loose bulk leaves Vehicles N/A Varies N/A Funding Mechanism Start-up grant, then self-funded. All transportation costs by the user. All transportation costs by the user. Compost sales N/A; used on-farm only. $10/cubic yard $10 - $20/cubic yard Finished compost 700 cubic yards 1,000 – 3,000 cubic yards 16,000 cubic yards

(Source – Michigan Food Waste Utilisation Program Profiles – May 2007)



(d) Renderable Materials

General

In high-income countries, there are a number of organic products resulting from the meat processing sector that have little value as saleable items per se. However, this is not the case in most developing countries as there is a need for protein and there is a low cost associated with the recovery and preparation of edible items. Examples of different disposal routes are provided in the following Table 12.3.

Table 12.3 – Typical High-Income and Developing Country Disposal Routes

Item High Income Country Developing Country

Slaughter Operations

Blood Converted into an animal feed protein.

Small quantity used for the production of edible blood protein fractions.

Collected and coagulated for direct human consumption, or disposed of to sewers and watercourses

In Islamic countries, there is a greater problem as blood is haram and there are several interpretations as to acceptable uses.

Slaughter-floor bone-in items (heads, hooves/feet, etc)

Converted into animal feed protein and tallow in rendering systems.

All these products are considered valuable contributors of protein and fat for human consumption. Bones are boiled to produce stocks.

Offal items such as lung, spleen, etc

Used as pet food both in wet (canned) form and as dry products (after rendering into a protein meal).

All of these products are either considered edible or have some use or value.

Stomach and intestines

A number of items are recovered as edible generally for export markets.

Difficult to handle and low return products are directed to rendering raw material.

All considered as edible after appropriate flushing and washing.

Tissue and fat trimmings

All directed to rendering. All considered to be edible, or used as pet food

Approximate volumes of raw material for rendering

x Cattle - 75-100kg/head

x Sheep/Goats – 4-8kg/head

x Pigs – 2-10kg/head

x Poultry – 0.2-0.5kg/head

x Cattle – 0-5kg/head



x Poultry – 0-.2kg/head

Boning Operations

Fat & Bone No value as direct edible items, so all product directed to rendering.

About 20% carcass weight is bone and 10-15% fat (cattle).

Fat is seen as a valuable dietary contribution in generally low energy dietary intakes.

Bone provides a valuable raw material for the provision of soup stocks (mixed with noodles, rice and in wet cooked dishes) as a contribution to dietary intakes.

Approximate volumes of raw material for rendering

x Cattle - 60-100kg/head

x Sheep/Goats – 0-7.5kg/head


x Poultry – 0-0.4kg/head

x Cattle – 0kg/head

x Sheep/Goats – 0kg/head

x Pigs – 0kg/head

x Poultry – 0kg/head

Total Rendering Raw Material Available

Total Available x Cattle - 135-200kg/head



x Poultry – 0.2-1kg/head

x Cattle – 0-5kg/head



x Poultry – 0-0.2kg/head



When comparing the high-income country environment with the developing country environment it is very clear that the volumes of raw material available for rendering are of very different orders of magnitude (high-income countries may produce up to 50 times the raw material for rendering compared to developing countries). This fact has a significant impact on the relationship between volumes of animals processed and the viability of rendering operations. While a rendering plant may be able to be economically justified for a 250 cattle/day operation in a high-income country, the developing country may need to process as many as 10,000 cattle/day to demonstrate the same economic benefit.

While most meat processing operations direct all waste products to rendering, there are some alternative processes that are employed or required, see Table 12.4.

Table 12.4 – Alternative Processes for Rendering Certain Waste Products

Waste Material Process

Fatty material Fatty material, including intestinal and kidney fat deposits and fat trimmed during the boning process, can be processed into edible and/or inedible fats in a relatively simple melt and separate system. This process is sometimes employed in high-income countries to produce an edible or high quality fat product.

Bone Bone can be processed in a low temperature rendering system to produce bone chip for gelatine production.

Feathers & Pig Hair In order to reduce the fibre content in the resultant meal, it is common for feathers and pig hair to be processed through a pressure cycle to hydrolyze the proteins and allow the fibre to be broken down during milling. Similarly a chemical hydrolysing system may be used to reduce wool fibre in rendered sheep products.

The Impact of BSE

As a result of the incidence of BSE, many countries have introduced controls over the use of animal sourced protein. In principle, this involves a ban on feeding ruminants with animal protein derived from ruminants.

In many countries, Specific Risk Material (SRM) is removed from the food chain and in circumstances of low BSE risk this material is directed to rendering operations. Where BSE risk is established (particularly in Europe) there are a number of controls in place that impact on the rendering sector:

x All material is required to be rendered to comply with time temperature requirements as outlined in Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament - 3 October 2002.

x Raw material for rendering is divided into three categories:

o Category 1 – Specific Risk Material (SRM)

o Category 2 – Potential risk containing material (eg dead stock)

o Category 3 – Fit for human consumption

The processing and disposal options for the three categories of raw material are outlined in Figure 12.2 overleaf.



Figure 12.2 - Processing/Disposal Options for Rendering Raw Material

The important impact on the rendering sector is that protein meal derived from rendering raw material that is, or contains, Category 1 or 2 items must be disposed to incineration, this dramatically impacts on the value of the rendered products as can be seen the Figure 12.3.

Figure 12.3 – Impact on Rendering Sector of BSE Category 1 and 2 Wastes

Rendering Business Operations

All renderable raw material is organic and therefore highly putrescible and as a consequence it is highly desirable to minimise the time between production of the raw material and entry into the rendering process. It is also imperative that the waste organic material is handled in a manner that is environmentally acceptable and complies with the appropriate regulations. Disposal of this material into landfill operations for example is not acceptable in many high-income countries.

The above factors, in addition to colder climatic conditions allowing longer holding times, have lead to very different business structures in high-income countries, see Table 12.5 overleaf.

CATEGORY



Table 12.5 – Typical Business Structures for Rendering in High-Income Countries

Region Characteristics

Europe Most rendering operations are owned by third parties, who purchase raw material from meat processors and transport the raw material to large independent dedicated rendering operations. This business structure is assisted by relatively intense meat processing density in combination with relatively low production volumes. In addition, the colder climatic conditions in Northern Europe allow longer holding/transport times for raw material before odour problems arise.

North America There is a spread of both independent renderers and rendering plants integrated with meat processing operations. Where there is more intense meat processing density with smaller volume operations (e.g. California and Eastern US), there is more independent rendering. In the Mid-West, however, it is more common to have large meat processing plants with fully integrated rendering operations.

Australasia With the exception of operations in the main cities, that have access to a range of raw material, almost all rendering operations are integrated with meat processing operations.

Economic Indicators

Indicative capital costs for rendering plants in high-income countries are provided in Table 12.6.

Table 12.6 – Indicative Capital Costs for Rendering Plants in High-Income Countries

Capacity (tonne/hour)

Principal Equipment Capital Cost Range (US$ million)

0.6-0.8 Batch cooker, press, small tallow centrifuge, meal mill 0.8-1.5

3-4 Continuous dry rendering cooker, screw presses, tallow polishing, meal milling and storage bins

3.0-5.0

5 Continuous dry rendering cooker, screw presses, tallow polishing, meal milling and storage bins

4.0-6.0

10 Low temperature wet rendering with solid liquid separation and a direct fired kiln fryer, tallow polishing, meal milling and storage (can include an evaporator to recycle solids in the separated liquid stream).

6.0-9.0

Source: ProAnd Associates – Industry Data

A recent survey of Australian rendering plants (2007) found that overall operating costs for rendering plants were in the range AU$130 - AU$265 (average AU$210 or US$168) per tonne of finished product produced. The main variation in costs was found to be the energy cost, due to the type of fuel used; sawdust/woodchip fired boiler being low-cost and delivered gas-fired boiler being high-cost).

Figure 12.4 overleaf provides an indication of the range of rendering plant operating costs for the major cost items. Labour cost varies from AU$19 - 58/tonne of product (average AU$38 or US$20); Repairs & Maintenance AU$43 - 63/ tonne of product (average AU$53 or US$42): Interest and Depreciation AU$40 - 65/ tonne of product (average AU$52 or US$42): Energy AU$23 - 115/ tonne of product (average AU$69 or US$55). US$ figures based on an exchange rate of AU$0.80 to US$1.00.



Source: ProAnd Associates – Rendering Model Prepared for Meat & Livestock Australia

Figure 12.4 – Rendering Plant Operating Costs in High-Income Countries (AU$)

The prices for tallow, previously mentioned in Table 12.1, varied between AU$400 and AU$800/tonne (average AU$600 or US$480) during the period 2004 - 2007 and meat meal prices varied between AU$350 – 500/tonne (average AU$425 or US$340). Even at the highest indicative operating cost (AU$265/tonne or US$212/tonne finished product), there is a good profit margin for rendering. However, this does not take into account the value of the raw rendering material or the cost of transport, if required. Raw rendering material commonly has an ex-works value around AU$50-100/tonne or US$40-80/tonne (indicative prices from third party renderers) whilst transport costs will vary according to distance travelled.

Table 12.7 below provides a table of indicative revenues generated on a per head basis from the sale of rendered products.

Table 12.7 – Indicative Rendered Product Revenue

Indicative Revenues AU$/head (US$/head) Species Yield

(Kg/head) Low High

Cattle 50-80 20-30 (16-24) 35-50 (28-40)

Sheep & Goats 2-6 0.80-1.20 (0.64-0.96) 2.40-3.60 (1.92-2.88)

Pigs 1-10 0.40-0.60 (0.32-0.48) 4.00-6.00 (3.20-4.80)

Poultry 0.1-0.4 0.04-0.06 (0.032-0.048) 0.16-0.24 (0.128-0.192)

Source: ProAnd Associates – Industry Data

(e) Wastewater

Overview

Discharge limitations and costs for wastewater disposal vary hugely depending on the disposal route. Slaughterhouses discharging treated wastewater to municipal sewerage systems can often face the greatest limitations and costs. Most water authorities currently charge on the basis of the organic load (BOD and COD) and volumetric load. However, for some catchments, additional charges for nutrient loads (nitrogen



and phosphorous) are often included or expected to be introduced in the future.

Full cost recovery charging has not generally been applied to sewer discharge; however, this situation is changing. Local authorities and water boards, especially those in metropolitan areas, are in the process of formulating charging systems that will progressively increase wastewater discharge fees on a polluter-pays basis until full cost recovery is achieved.

Processing facilities producing irrigation wastewater do not generally incur direct charges, and quality standards are controlled through site-specific conditions. Provided facilities can continue to demonstrate the sustainability of irrigation then this is unlikely to change.

Facilities discharging to waterways do not incur direct charges but are typically required to treat their wastewater on-site to meet discharge standards dictated by the water quality objectives of the receiving waters. Effluent discharge standards are likely to become progressively more stringent as a result of scarcer water resources and increasing population pressures; therefore, the costs and complexity of on-site wastewater treatment will increase.

In summary, for meat processing operations in high-income countries:

x Those discharging to sewers are most likely to see increases in wastewater discharge costs.

x Those discharging to waterways are most likely to be affected by tightening discharge limits.

x In both cases, costs for water treatment will increase in order to meet the tighter standards or to reduce discharge costs.

Inevitably some blood, fat, manure, meat, paunch and detergents enter the wastewater streams at meat processing plants. These wastes contribute to the key constituents:

x Organics - comprising BOD, COD, suspended solids (SS), oil, and grease are generally biodegradable. If the wastewater is not managed well its degradation by bacteria can cause odours.

x Nutrients - Nitrogen (in organic, ammonia, and oxidised forms) and Phosphorous (typically in the form of organic P or phosphate) are essential nutrients for living organisms. Slaughterhouse effluent contains high levels of both and the degree of treatment required depends on the final disposal route. River disposal requires almost complete removal of both; however, only partial reductions in nutrients may be required for land application since they are beneficial for crop growth in sustainable loads.

x Micro-organisms - A wide variety of micro-organisms are present in untreated slaughterhouse wastewater, including potentially pathogenic micro-organisms from animal manure and paunch contents. Many are harmless and assist wastewater treatment.

x Chemicals - Mainly result from the extensive cleaning and disinfection of the slaughter facilities on a daily basis; however, concentrations are generally low, and are unlikely to harm wastewater treatment processes.

x pH - Is typically neutral and temperatures can vary from cool to hot, depending on location. High temperatures (greater than 38°C) can enable fats to liquefy and pass through, rather than being removed by primary treatment.

x Toxic compounds and heavy metals - Meat processing wastewater contains negligible amounts of either of these pollutants.

Owing to its composition, slaughterhouse wastewater is very amenable to biological treatment.

Figure 12.5 overleaf provides a typical overall logic decision tree for normal practice in determining wastewater treatment options for meat processing plants in a high-income country, whilst the decision tree in Figure 12.6 can be used for determining an appropriate disposal route. Three further decisions trees are included in Appendix F to determine appropriate treatment processes for discharges to irrigation, sewers, and watercourses.



Figure 12.5 – Overall Logic Decision Tree

START

Determine the most appropriate disposal route

Determine effluent quality that must be achieved

Select treatment system to suit the disposal route

Calculate the approximate capacity of the treatment process (s)

Determine wastewater load

Determine capital & operating cost of selected processes

Proceed to concept design of system

Conduct detailed design, equipment selection and detailed cost estimates (not included in this study)

Can the wastewater load be reduced?

Should alternative treatment systems be considered?

Are costs acceptable?

Consider alternative treatment system

Consider alternative disposal system

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO



Figure 12.6 – Appropriate Disposal Route Decision Tree

START

Consider water usage and costs

Estimate quantity able to be used for non-potable

purposes

Does this represent significant savings or

environmental benefit?

YES

NO

Is total reuse feasible?

Does wastewater have a TDS<1000

and SAR<6?

Is enough land suitable for irrigation

available?

Is a site available for wet weather storage?

Are nutrient and organic loads acceptable?

Is it possible to connect to local sewer system?

Are there major environmental or

community constraints that preclude surface water disposal?

Are sewer charges cost effective and does the effluent

quality meet the limit

Calculate headworks and on-going sewer charges

based on effluent strength and volume

Is the risk acceptable?

YES YES

Consider partial reuse Irrigation can be

considered as the most likely disposal route

Disposal to sewer can be considered as the most likely route for disposal

Disposal to surface water may be considered

Total reuse should be considered

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES YES

YES

NO

NO

NO NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO



Wastewater Treatment Options

The following Table 12.8 provides a summary of common treatment options chosen by meat processing plants in high-income countries for the treatment of wastewater.

Table 12.8 – Common Wastewater Treatment Systems

Process Description

Static and vibrating Screen

Screening removes the solid material from the wastewater. The liquid is separated from the solids by gravity, water action and mechanical forces.

Rotary screen Rotary screens are rotating cylindrical wedge-wire screens. Effluent typically enters in the centre, with solids discharged at one end.

Screw press Combines a screen with screw auger to produce dewatered solid discharge.

Hydrocyclones Uses centrifugal force to separate solids or fats in a conical separator with no moving parts.

Save-all A save-all is a tank that allows floatable material to rise to top of the tank and settleable solids to sink and operates in a similar manner to a septic tank incorporating baffles.

Dissolved air flotation (DAF)

Wastewater is pressurised then saturated with air, as the pressure is released the air forms fine bubbles and solids and fat are floated and removed. Chemicals can be added to assist the process.

Primary Treatment

Induced air flotation (IAF)

Similar to DAF, but with IAF the bubbles are created by using a pump or venturi system producing larger bubbles.

Anaerobic pond Achieves microbial breakdown of organic material mainly to gas in absence of oxygen. Ponds are typically more then 3 metres deep and often covered.

Aerated pond Achieves microbial breakdown of organic material under aerobic conditions. Air is provided mechanically, generally using surface aerators and ponds are typically less than 2.5 metres deep.

Facultative ponds Combine anaerobic and aerobic breakdown of organic material and are typically 1.2 – 2.0 metres deep.

Maturation pond Shallow ponds typically less than 0.9m deep, which are highly aerobic and generally provide some disinfection for removal of pathogens.

Activated sludge An intensified aerated pond operates by recycling sludge to maintain high bacteria levels. Either continuous flow (using a clarifier at the end) or intermittent (SBR) forms.

Biological nutrient removal

Refers to use of intermittent activated sludge type aerobic treatment systems tuned to remove nutrients

Biological Treatment

Wetlands A complex system consisting of plants in a shallow soil matrix. Alternative to maturation ponds.

Chlorination Chlorination involves adding either chlorine gas or sodium hypochlorite solution into the water to provide some disinfection.

Tertiary Treatment

Ultraviolet irradiation Wastewater is exposed to ultraviolet rays provide some disinfection.



Wastewater Treatment Costs

Table 12.9 provides some indicative costs of water supply and wastewater treatment costs in the Australian meat industry.

Table 12.9 – Indicative Australian Water/Wastewater Costs

Source of Water and Cost in AU$/m3 (US$/m3) Item

Town Water Town Water Borehole or Dam Water

Wastewater treatment and disposal method

Wastewater treated to a high standard and

discharged to sewer

Wastewater treated to a high standard and

discharged to waterway

Wastewater treated to a minimal standard and

irrigated

Water pumping N/A N/A $0.05

Water pre-treatment N/A N/A $0.30

Wastewater treatment $0.75 $0.75 $0.20

Wastewater pumping $0.05 $0.05 $0.05

Wastewater discharge $0.40 N/A N/A

Total Wastewater Cost $1.20 (0.96) $0.80 (0.64) $0.60 (0.48)

Purchase cost of water $0.75 $0.75 N/A

Total Cost $1.95 (1.56) $1.55 (1.24) $0.60 (0.48)

(Source: Eco-Efficiency Manual for Meat Processing - Meat and Livestock Australia Ltd, 2002)

Table 12.9 indicates that wastewater treatment costs vary between AU$0.60-1.20/m3 (average AU$0.90 or US$0.72). On the basis of indicative wastewater consumption levels it is considered that the cost range for wastewater treatment for various species in high-income countries is in the order of those provided in Table 12.10 below.

Table 12.10 – Indicative Wastewater Costs

Wastewater Treatment Cost AU$/head (US$/head) Species Water Consumption (litres/head)

Low High

Cattle 2,000-3,000 1.20-1.80 (0.96-1.44) 2.40-3.60 (1.92-2.88)

Sheep & Goats 200-300 0.12-0.18 (0.096-0.144) 0.24-0.36 (0.192-0.288)

Pigs 400-500 0.24-0.30 (0.192-0.24) 0.50-0.60 (0.40-0.48)

Poultry 10-15 0.006-0.009 (0.005-0.007) 0.012-0.018 (0.010-0.144)

Source: ProAnd Associates – Industry Data & Costs from Error! Reference source not found.

(f) Packaging Waste

In high income countries meat processing plants commonly also conduct boning processes and package the meat products into plastic wraps (either film or barrier bags) and place the product in cartons. In these circumstances there is a volume of plastic and carton waste produced. Commonly these products are separated with cardboard waste being recycled and plastic waste disposed to landfill with other on-plant garbage.

(g) Summary

A summary of the above typical wastes and their typical treatment methods is included in Table 12.11 overleaf.



Table 12.11 – Summary of Most Used Technologies in High-Income Countries

Treatment & Disposal (or Use) Typical Unit Costs Waste Product

Method Reason

Revenue

Capital O & M

Advantages / Disadvantages Other Comments

Bedding and manure Solids recovered from yard waste and combined with stomach and intestinal contents and composted and land-spread.

Only small volumes of solid waste are generated at market and meat processing plants in high-income countries as transit times at both facilities are very short.

Minimal.

Can generate some revenue where larger volumes of solid material can be accumulated (e.g. elevated sheep yards)

Minimal. Minimal. Combined with stomach and intestinal contents minimises additional capital and operating expenses.

Bedding and manure are also increasingly being used in thermal processes as a fuel for combustion, gasification, pyrolysis, etc.; however, this is mostly from intensive animal production rather than markets or meat processing facilities

Blood

(assuming a volume of 5,000l/day, 240 days/year)

Coagulation and drying. Production of blood protein meal for pig and poultry feed formulations.

Reduction in contamination load in wastewater.

Indicative US$/head:

Cattle 1.8-3.2

Sheep 0.2-0.4

Pigs 0.5-0.8

Poultry 0.012-0.032

Minimum of $US250,000

$US30,000-100,000, depending on fuel source and labour cost.

Makes a significant contribution to reduction of organic and nutrient load in meat processing wastewater.

Reduces BOD and nutrient removal in wastewater which can incur considerable capital and operating expenses.

Can cause odour problems.

Becoming less attractive as energy costs rise.

Blood collected from animals that are not Halal slaughtered can be recovered for edible purposes.

Whilst the liquid portion flows to wastewater after coagulation and separation and contributes to wastewater contamination levels, full evaporation of the liquid portion is generally uneconomic.

Stomach and intestinal contents

Composting and land-spreading.

Composted to stabilise and control disease and parasites.

Land-spreading on agricultural land to distribute nutrient load

Generally zero Mechanical handling equipment, approx. $US100,000

$US30,000-50,000

Fuel, labour, and maintenance.

Assists in the control of disease and parasites.

Allows nutrients to be distributed across broad acreage.

Provides soil conditioning supplement.

Can require environmental approval of the composting site.

Often conducted in a simple static windrow within the confines of the overall meat processing complex.

Renderable material A variety of wet and dry rendering processes are used to generate tallow and dried animal protein.

The production of tallow and protein meal is economically viable.


Cattle 20-50

Sheep 0.80-3.60

Pigs 0.40-6.00

Poultry 0.04-0.24

US$0.6-9.0 million

See discussion.

Indicative US$US200/tonne finished product.

See discussion.

Rendering is an important recycling process that removes potentially obnoxious organic material from the environment.

As energy costs increase rendering is becoming less viable.

Revenues are significantly reduced if animal protein has to be incinerated (e.g. BSE requirement). In these circumstances the revenue for the animal protein is minimal (assuming Category 3 material earns revenue and Category 1 & 2 incur disposal costs).

Revenues can also be significantly impacted when raw material is sold to a third party renderer and significant transport costs are incurred.

Wastewater Wastewater treatment process highly dependent on disposal route (irrigation, sewer, surface water).

Wastewater must be treated to comply with environmental or trade waste discharge requirements.

Zero Simple primary treatment may only cost $US 100,000’s, while complex tertiary treatment systems can cost $US10’s millions.


Cattle 1.20-3.60

Sheep 0.12-0.36

Pigs 0.24-0.60

Poultry 0.006-0.018

Packaging waste Recycled where appropriate.

Zero Minimal Minimal



12.3.3 Seldom Used Technologies

There are a number of waste treatment and disposal technologies that are seldom used for meat processing wastes in high-income countries, principally due to difficulties associated with meeting environmental requirements, these are:

(a) Burial

Approval for burial of meat processing waste material is generally difficult to obtain; however, exceptions may be allowed for circumstances such as in the event of processing equipment failure or in order to control an outbreak of disease in the animal population. Even in these circumstances there are often strict requirements in place regarding the site, construction, and operation of the burial pit.

(b) Incineration

Independent dedicated incineration of meat processing waste is seldom practiced due to strict environmental compliance requirements for the operation and management of incinerators, and due to the large capital and operating cost implications. The exception is of course in circumstances where BSE material is required to be incinerated. Incineration of potential BSE material not only needs to comply with environmental requirements but also with the requirement to be held at 850oC for at least 2 seconds. This incineration process incurs considerable expense associated with the disposal of the potential BSE infected material. Pyre & Pit burning are not acceptable as common practice but would likely be employed in circumstances where there was a significant animal disease outbreak.

12.4 TECHNICAL OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

12.4.1 Overview

In most developing countries, the management of livestock and slaughter wastes at all levels is very poor and this was evident from the Study Team’s visits to the five study countries. Whilst municipal solid waste collection, transfer, and disposal systems in urban areas have often seen significant investment and improvement in the past 10-15 years, no investment has been applied specifically to the management of animal wastes; which, when not re-used or recycled, are typically dumped illegally, washed into watercourses, or combined with municipal solid waste. This situation results in significant public health, disease, and environmental risks.

Current waste management practices for livestock and slaughter wastes in developing countries are significantly different to those now used in high-income countries; however, they are often not dissimilar to the practices of these countries some 70-80 years ago. The livestock, slaughter, and waste management businesses have changed considerably in high-income countries over this period and high-tech treatment and rendering methods are now commonplace. The main reasons for the development of improved treatment and disposal methods in these countries have been the progressive intensification of the livestock and slaughter industries, the high-cost of labour, and that laws and regulations have become much more stringent with respect to animal welfare, disease, food safety, and environmental protection.

A significant cultural change has also taken place in high-income countries, which has had a direct impact on the quantities of animal wastes requiring treatment and disposal. Over the past 50 years or so, a gradual shift away from edible offal products by consumers, in favour of meat, has relegated most offal products to the production of pet and other animal foods. The increased demand for meat products has also resulted in more livestock being farmed and slaughtered, increasing the quantities of animal wastes generated; both through greater numbers and an increased quantity of waste per animal. Many slaughter wastes in high-income countries no longer have a value individually and thus are now only suitable for rendering.

In contrast, developing countries have not yet made this cultural shift and there is still high demand for animal wastes for use as edible products for humans (as low-cost proteins or as “delicacies”) or animal feeds. In general, there also exists a high demand for the non-edible wastes, which have value as individual products due to very low processing costs (i.e. cheap labour market and unsophisticated technologies). Thus, the quantity of waste with no commercial value that require disposal is much lower; and in some countries this can be negligible.



In general, the processing / treatment practices for livestock and slaughter wastes employed in high-income countries, as described earlier in this chapter, are currently unsuitable for the majority of developing countries for one or more of the following reasons:

x Low local demand for processed products.

x Low labour costs.

x Demand for livestock and slaughter wastes is high in most cases.

x High capital and operating costs for modern processing / rendering plants.

x High process complexity versus the skills available locally for maintenance and operation.

x High energy requirements – both cost and availability.

x High water requirements – both cost and availability.

A strategy for livestock and slaughter waste management in developing countries must therefore initially focus on how to reduce the impact of these wastes on the environment and public health; through waste reduction, improved waste collection and handling, and appropriate treatment technologies. For most part, this can be achieved through the improvement of four key areas:

x Infrastructure and services – to provide the required facilities for the separation, storage, despatch and collection of wastes through the upgrading of livestock markets and slaughterhouses, or the provision of new facilities where this is not possible. Technologies appropriate to each specific location must be adopted to ensure local acceptance and sustainability;

x Health and hygiene awareness – to provide knowledge to both the industry and the general public on the importance of these issues, particularly relating to animal wastes and disease;

x Training in the operation and management of facilities – to provide appropriate training of the workforce in the livestock, slaughter, and waste management industries, so as to ensure understanding and the sustainability of any infrastructure or process interventions; and

x Institutional knowledge and capacity, and political will – to provide an appropriate framework and knowledge base to enable the improvements to be introduced.

In most high-income countries, slaughterhouses fall predominantly within the private sector, controlled by strict government regulations and standards. These private facilities are regulated by government veterinarians and meat inspectors to ensure that animal welfare and disease protocols are followed and the wholesomeness and safety of the animal products are maintained. More often than not, however, food safety and animal welfare standards are being driven by large national and international supermarkets and other food companies demand products that meet standards well in excess of the governments’. Such businesses now control most of the market and dictate many of the required food safety and animal standards. Unfortunately, this is not yet the case in developing countries where the private sector is small and generally provides higher quality animal products, either to local niche markets (supermarkets, hotels, restaurants, etc.) or for export.

In the short to medium-term, the development of the supermarket business to the levels seen in high-income countries will not be possible in developing countries because their primary need is to provide affordable meat products for the local populace, normally without refrigeration. Low profit margins and the risk of political intervention on prices makes investment difficult and thus it is an unattractive market for the private sector. Therefore, to improve the situation in developing countries investment needs to be focussed on facilities for, and regulation of, the municipal livestock and slaughter sector.

Some developing countries already have an established private livestock and slaughter sector; however, livestock markets and slaughterhouses in these countries often have very poor facilities and little in the way of real regulation, even where government regulations exist. It is in these countries that animal welfare, sanitation and hygiene, and disease control are often at their worst; though mainly due to ignorance and lack of access to funds for investment. In such circumstances, it is difficult to see how significant improvements can be made as many businesses are small, earning a living through providing low-cost products in high volume and with limited technology. The ability of these businesses to make the necessary improvements will need government assistance which could take the form of fiscal incentives and possibly



public-private partnerships; however, improved standards and stricter government regulation will be needed to ensure the illegal sector does not flourish, a situation that has been observed in a number of the countries visited.

12.4.2 Waste Treatment and Disposal

As discussed previously, the treatment and disposal methods for livestock wastes practiced in high-income countries are not realistically feasible for developing countries at the current time and as such appropriate treatment methods need to be identified that will be both technically and economically appropriate.

Based on the findings and observations of the Study Team, livestock waste products are already substantially re-used or recycled in many developing countries, reducing the amount of waste material requiring disposal. However, the current methods for treating and disposing of these wastes are very poor and are in almost all cases unacceptable, in terms of both public health and environmental pollution.

The main areas of concern are regarding livestock wastes from:


x Slaughterhouses.

x Fifth-quarter processing.

x Public markets (where livestock are sold and/or slaughtered).

x The informal slaughter sector.

Other waste producers, such as meat processing plants, retail outlets, and restaurants have a livestock waste footprint; however, it is usually very small and relatively inert in comparison to the above. Meat processing plants (for processed meats) are generally private sector operations that are well managed; whilst restaurants and the retail sector produce small quantities and are generally well catered for by the local MSW operations.

Some general discussion of potential treatment options for livestock markets and slaughterhouses (including fifth-quarter processing) in developing countries follows. Conditions vary so much between countries and types of facilities that treatment solutions need to be tailored to each individual facility / location and follow or be incorporated with the potentially more urgent infrastructure and capacity improvements.

(a) Livestock Markets

With the exception of small quantities of municipal-type solid waste, livestock market wastes mainly generate organic waste in the form of bedding, feed, manure/dung, and dead or sick stock. In many countries, the dung is collected in the dry season for re-use as fuel and is an acceptable practice that often brings a small income stream. However, in the wet season it can become difficult to collect and gets washed into the ground and local watercourses without treatment. This is unacceptable practice in terms of environmental pollution and public health and may have serious consequences for users of the watercourses downstream. In addition, the potential for the spread of disease is high. Wet season runoff, particularly for paved market sites where runoff is rapid and more highly contaminated, must be intercepted and/or treated.

Given the conditions on most sites and the funds likely to be available the following could be considered for liquid wastes in the wet season:

x Drainage improvements to provide improved runoff collection, including cut-off drains to isolate the site, allowing it to control its own discharges.

x Interceptor / storage tank or pond to retain peak flows and offer some retention of settleable solids and floating matter, which could be periodically removed and taken off-site for appropriate disposal. Outflow from the tank or pond could be controlled before discharge to further treatment or direct to local drains and watercourses (with reduced BOD, solids, and floating matter). This may be more suitable for paved sites where runoff rates are high. Depending on the site conditions the discharge could be treated at the site via lagoons or through soakaways.

x Paved sites with porous / permeable surfacing that allow the runoff to drain into the ground; this



requires high-permeability soils, however.

For solid wastes the following could be considered:

x Where manure / dung is not utilised in the dry season, this could be collected and used, along with other organic waste such as bedding, for composting, either on or off-site.

x Biogas production is an option, particularly where pig waste is involved, that could provide the market with some useable gas. Simple plants can be adopted for this, but there are few markets for pigs, which tend to be sold direct from the farm in the countries / cities visited.

x A local knackery system could be adopted for the disposal of dead or sick stock, alternatively natural composting could be used on or off-site for the same purpose.

x Other non-organic wastes (small quantities) could be incinerated on-site or collected by the local MSW management services, depending obviously on location.

x In some countries (notably North Africa) the livestock markets are further suffering due to the close proximity of associated slaughter facilities.

(b) Slaughterhouses

Slaughterhouses by their very nature generate the largest quantities of waste and are the most polluting of the facility types visited. Whilst the wastes generated are almost entirely organic, they are also highly concentrated and can easily carry and spread disease to animals and humans; control of these wastes is therefore extremely important. In developing countries, many of the wastes are re-used or recycled and even the most unlikely of wastes can have a purpose and a value, thus quantities of waste for actual disposal can be low.

Fifth-quarter processing is carried out either on site or by third parties off site in specialist facilities. The fifth-quarter materials, together with condemned pathological waste, are potentially the most dangerous if not appropriately disposed of.

The most common disposal methods for treatment and disposal of the “unwanted” waste materials in high-income countries are incineration (pathological waste) and rendering; the latter allowing the materials to be processed and re-used. Because large-scale rendering is expensive in terms of capital and operational costs (mainly energy) it is not a realistic option for developing countries; moreover, after traditional fifth-quarter processing there is little left to render. The idea of small-scale rendering was however considered a possibility for some of the cities visited; a mobile rendering plant on a trailer could conceivably be driven to all slaughterhouses, markets and farms in the area, providing a local market for the processed product were created.

The following lower-cost options could be considered for improving the waste treatment and disposal situation in developing countries:

x Provision of slaughterhouse improvements to allow the safe and hygienic collection and storage of blood, stomach contents, and intestinal contents for sale or separate treatment. This will significantly reduce the BOD concentration of the process water and may even result in a small income or cost-neutral scenario. Once these wastes (or potential products) are incorporated into the process water the cost of treatment escalates rapidly.

x Anaerobic ponds could be employed for treatment of liquid wastes, which could be followed in series with other waste stabilisation ponds (facultative and maturation ponds) providing further treatment / polishing. The latter, however, will require a relatively large area of land to provide adequate retention times; not something that is readily available at most urban slaughterhouses but could be employed at new sites.

x Fifth-quarter processing is often rudimentary using large quantities of labour and wash-water. Whilst the resulting “dilute” wastewater is likely to be relatively low in contaminants, it will require treatment prior to discharge into a watercourse. Treatment using waste stabilisation ponds could be considered, but as mentioned above land is required for this. Alternatively, the wastewater could be discharged to the municipal sewerage system, if available; wastewater treatment facilities were not common, however, even for the municipal sewage.



x Natural composting could be employed to safely treat solid wastes and dispose of pathological waste and dead stock, provided sufficient land area could be provided. Composting should also provide adequate treatment for the eradication of prions, which is not achievable with anaerobic ponds.

x Off-site treatment of solid wastes could be achieved at sanitary landfills, provided treatment for special wastes is provided for, in a separate and controlled area of the site.

12.4.3 Technical Options by Facility Type

(a) General

The conditions at the facilities visited by the Study Team, in particular livestock markets and slaughterhouses, are generally poor and many possess only very basic infrastructure and services; hygiene, health, and waste management are therefore not given much priority. Whilst the safe management of waste is the primary concern of this study, it is difficult to improve the situation without tackling the more fundamental problems first; by addressing these, better sanitation and waste management practices will naturally result in any case. In terms of the management of livestock and slaughter wastes, the main focus is to provide improvements that will minimise the quantity wasted and provide low-cost and appropriate methods for safe collection, re-use, recycling, and disposal. The application of expensive and/or complex technologies for waste treatment will not be appropriate in the short to medium-term.

Typical unit costs for technical options are difficult to assess within the scope of this study due the varying conditions of the facilities and costs within each country visited, not to mention the multitude of countries not visited. The main costs are likely to be for infrastructure, equipment, and land. In addition, the availability and cost of water and power in each country can have a significant effect on the improvements that can be potentially employed. With the large increases in the cost of water and power that have occurred in recent years, the viability of treatment methods such as rendering of livestock wastes and incineration, in developing countries, is likely to be low; and, whilst many of the waste products have a commercial value, rendering of waste is for most part unnecessary.

The following sub-sections address the main technical options likely to be needed, based on field observations by the Study Team; these are not fully comprehensive or detailed because there are too many unknowns at this stage. To assess the level of costs involved for the technical options, a “cost level” has been included, from low to very high, as an indication of the relative cost.

More detailed options and costs will be undertaken as part of a complimentary World Bank study “Global Study on Reconstruction of Public Live Market, Slaughter and Meat Processing Facilities” that commenced in May 2008 and will utilise the detailed data and experience collected during this study.

(b) Livestock Markets

As previously described in this report, conditions and facilities at livestock markets can vary considerably; the most noticeable deficiencies for all are poor access and infrastructure, poor animal welfare, and lack of appropriate facilities for holding stock, conducting sales, veterinary inspections and the management of wastes. The main technical options to improve livestock markets are included in Table 12.12 overleaf.



Table 12.12 – Improvements for Livestock Markets

Item Technical Option Components Improved Cost Level

1 Install or provide potable water supply. Health and hygiene / Disease control / Infrastructure

Low - medium

2 Install or improve sanitation facilities such as latrines for market personnel and users.

Health and hygiene / Disease control / Infrastructure / Waste management

Low

3 Provision of water supply for animals, e.g. water troughs.

Animal welfare Low

4 Training in hygiene and health awareness and improved animal handling.

Animal welfare / Occupational health and safety / Disease control

Low

5 Install or improve loading and unloading facilities for animals and worker safety.

Animal welfare / Occupational health and safety / Infrastructure

Low - medium

6 Install or improve livestock holding pens/stalls to improve safety of animals and workers and provide covered areas to protect from the elements.


Medium - high

7 Improve market floor in the livestock holding areas to aid waste collection and cleaning and to minimise slippery surfaces.

Animal welfare / Occupational health and safety / Infrastructure / Waste management

High

8 Improve solid waste collection facilities and provide appropriate on-site storage, including appropriate facilities and equipment to collect and hold dung for processing into fuel.

Waste management / Disease control

Low

9 Install or improve runoff collection and drainage system, including interceptor tank to collect solid and floating material.

Waste management / Infrastructure

Medium - high

10 Provide or improve perimeter fencing and security to prohibit public access and unwanted animals, such as dogs.

Security / Health monitoring / Infrastructure / Disease control

Medium

11 Improve traffic management, access roads, and parking areas.

Infrastructure Low - high

12 Improve veterinary inspection facilities and provide stricter enforcement of veterinary regulations.

Animal welfare / Disease control Low

13 Establish a knackery system for the effective disposal of dead stock or livestock that needs to be destroyed. This could be a private business.

Disease control / Waste management

Low

14 Establish a composting system for organic wastes. Waste management Low - medium

(c) Slaughterhouses

Most municipal and some private facilities visited by the Study Team are beyond significant upgrading for the medium to long-term due to: being already overcapacity, their urban location, very poor infrastructure condition, lack of expansion options, poor access and unloading facilities, and limited options for waste management.

At sites where expansion is possible, the opportunity exists to improve and upgrade the facilities whilst maintaining current operations provided planning regulations will allow. For other sites, however, it may be possible to upgrade with a reduction in capacity, but will require new alternative facilities to share the load. It may be appropriate for these to be converted in to local small-medium capacity slaughterhouses to serve the local community, in particular where the informal sector is large, and the facility could offer a legal and more hygienic low-cost alternative.

Most slaughterhouses do not operate around the clock nor everyday (typically 5 days), as they produce meat or carcasses for fresh markets and retail butchers before a certain time with no refrigeration; thus, only one shift is possible. To make the facilities more productive and increase capacity would need refrigeration



somewhere in the chain, preferably at the retail level. Refrigeration would allow a slaughterhouse to operate for longer periods, or more than one shift, as it would not be limited by time; however, this change would require acceptance by the consumer and a change in operational procedures at the slaughterhouse. It may also impact on cultural and religious practices in some countries.

Table 12.13 contains a list of potential improvements that could be made to slaughterhouses based on the Team’s observations during the country visits.

Table 12.13 – Improvements for Slaughterhouses

Item Potential Improvements Components Improved Cost Level

1 Improve potable water supply to enable improved cleaning and cleanliness.

Health and hygiene / Disease control / Infrastructure

Low - medium

2 Install or improve sanitation facilities such as latrines for slaughterhouse personnel.

Health and hygiene / Disease control / Infrastructure / Waste management

Low - medium

3 Provide protective clothing and on-site laundry or slaughterhouse personnel. Alternatively an off-site laundry service could be used.

Health and hygiene / Disease control

Medium

4 Install or improve loading and unloading facilities for animals and worker safety.


Low - medium

5 Provide or improve perimeter fencing and security to prohibit public access and unwanted animals such as dogs.

Security / Health monitoring / Infrastructure / Disease control

Medium - high

6 Install vermin traps along perimeter fencing and at other key locations

Health and hygiene / Disease control /

Low

7 Improve holding areas (lairage) to provide safer facilities for livestock and handlers.


Low - medium

8 Improve entry to the slaughter area for livestock, e.g. lighting, no steep slopes, no-slip flooring, etc.

Animal Welfare / Infrastructure Medium – very high

9 Provide for single entry of animals for stunning / slaughter.


Low - medium

10 Introduce or improve stunning area and stunning practices to compliment items 6 and 7.

Animal welfare / Occupational health and safety

Medium

11 Improve slaughtering practices and introduce slaughter line rather than batch slaughtering.

Occupational health and safety / Infrastructure

Medium

12 Install or upgrade simple rail-system for carcasses to encourage off-floor processing.

Health and hygiene / Occupational health and safety / Infrastructure

Medium

13 Incorporation of a sanitary bleeding area for blood collection.

Health and hygiene / waste management

Low - medium

14 Provide hot water supply and cleansing equipment. Health and hygiene / Occupational health and safety

Medium

15 Improve floor surfaces (sanitary / no slip), where needed.

Health and hygiene / Occupational health and safety / Infrastructure

Medium

16 Provide physical separation of main process areas, including separation for stomach cleaning and offal products. Requires internal infrastructure improvements to separate areas for slaughter, skinning, evisceration, etc.

Health and hygiene / Disease control / Occupational health and safety / Infrastructure

Medium - very high

17 Improve walls surfaces – repair, replace, or install tiling or other more sanitary surfaces.

Health and hygiene / Disease control / Infrastructure

Low - medium

18 Improve lighting for slaughter workers and meat inspectors.

Health and hygiene / Disease control / Occupational health and safety

Low - medium



Item Potential Improvements Components Improved Cost Level

19 Internal drainage to improve wash-water collection. Health and hygiene / Occupational health and safety / Waste management / Infrastructure

Medium

20 Improve facilities for solid waste collection and storage, for example provision of segregation bins and a secure storage area)

Health and hygiene / Occupational health and safety / Waste management / Infrastructure

Low - medium

21 Separation of external / internal drainage systems to ensure stormwater runoff and wastewater remain separate.

Health and hygiene / Occupational health and safety / Waste management / Infrastructure

Low - medium

22 Provide on-site wastewater treatment or storage on-site with off-site treatment.

Waste management / Infrastructure

Medium - very high

23 Provide refrigeration & cold-chain; initially for niche market with provision for extension.

Health and hygiene / Infrastructure

High

24 Provide separate facilities for preparation of fifth-quarter products or storage & collection facilities for these wastes to be treated by third parties.

Health and hygiene / Waste management / Infrastructure

Medium - high

25 Provide rendering facilities, but only if there is a ready or potential market identified.

Health and hygiene / Waste management / Infrastructure

Very high

26 Provide incinerator for the appropriate disposal of pathological waste.

Health and hygiene / Occupational health and safety / Disease control

Medium – very high

27 Provide facilities for separation and collection of dead stock and pathological waste from site for composting or other treatment.

Health and hygiene / Occupational health and safety / Disease control

Medium - high

28 Establish a composting system for organic wastes. Waste management Low - medium

(d) Meat Processing Facilities

Meat processing facilities are almost entirely within the private sector and appeared to generally operate well and to higher standards than municipally-owned facilities, primarily serving small niche markets as described earlier in this report. As such, it is not expected that funding for improvements would be available to the owners, unless this could be through the IFC or similar agency. However, it may be possible to assist private companies by offering financial incentives, such as grants or tax-breaks on new equipment and facility upgrades that:

x Improve public health and food safety;

x Improve animal welfare (when on-site slaughtering is practised);

x Improve waste management and reduce environmental pollution; and

x Assist in the control of disease.

Many of these private sector operations were, for obvious reasons, guarded about their facilities, products, and practices and therefore were unwilling to share much information with the Study Team. Therefore, it is not possible in this report to detail any proposed upgrading of this type of facility. From a waste management perspective, however, meat processing facilities will need to be considered carefully together with slaughterhouses regarding the control of animal derived wastes.

(e) Public Markets

Municipal public markets are not strictly covered under this Study, but since the sale and slaughter of livestock (predominantly poultry), was observed at public markets in low-income country 1 and middle-income country 1, it is assumed that this may occur in other countries not visited by the Study Team. Indeed, this practice is known to occur in other countries in East Asia.



In terms of potential improvement options, the best action would be for the government / municipality to ban the sale and slaughter of live animals at municipal public markets, or at least the latter. This would remove any potential risks associated with livestock wastes and reduce the need for special treatment of slaughter wastes in the future. Of course, if the sale of livestock continues the potential for disease spread will still be present, particularly through poultry. In the meantime, or if this is not acceptable, the following could be considered as potential improvements to the markets.

x Provide physical separation of live animals and slaughtering from the other public market activities.

x Provide separation of animal holding areas from slaughtering, appropriate veterinary inspection of live animals, and improved holding areas.

x Formalise the livestock slaughtering and introduce a small fee, whilst providing appropriate facilities for the slaughtering area and its staff.

x Provide appropriate protective clothing and equipment, utility services, drainage, and waste separate waste collection facilities for the slaughter area and its personnel to ensure hygienic conditions are maintained.

x Improve solid waste storage and collection facilities to minimise scavenging opportunities.

x Discourage informal livestock traders from operating around the public market and close-down informal (or moving) markets.

(f) Retail Sector

Whilst the retail sector was not included in the original scope of the study, the findings of the Study Team have identified a major area of concern for livestock and slaughter wastes. In many, developing countries the retail butcher is often responsible for a significant quantity of informal or illegal slaughter in urban areas with no responsibility for the control of slaughter waste products. The only interest of the butchers is profit and thus only meat and fifth-quarter products of any saleable value of are interest; all other waste products are disposed either through illegal dumping or with the municipal solid and liquid waste management services. Not only is this potentially a considerable uncontrolled waste problem in some countries, but other equally serious issues are of concern such as animal welfare, disease control, public health, and food safety. Through the lack of veterinary/meat inspection and possibly unsanitary conditions and inadequate facilities, there are substantial risks to the public through the consumption of meat and offal products from informal and illegal sources. Whilst legislation and regulations typically exists in most countries to prohibit illegal slaughtering, the municipality is almost always unable to control the situation due to lack of funds and resources, corruption, and the sheer number of retail butcher shops. The only solution is to reduce the amount of illegal and informal slaughtering through investment in more regulatory resources supported by raising awareness with the consumers / public on the health risks associated with purchasing products from such establishments. One other concern, however, is that the current capacity of the existing municipal and formal private slaughterhouses is often too small to cater with any increase and therefore the expansion and/or provision of new slaughter facilities is also needed.

The supermarket sector is typically well operated and more conscious of its responsibilities. They normally receive meat or carcasses from formal slaughterhouses and their waste products are minimal and certainly suitable for disposal through the normal municipal waste management channels.

12.5 PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION

Upgrading of existing facilities or the building of new ones, if appropriate, will need to be conceived and carried out differently for every facility and location and will need much data to be collected before this can be planned effectively and implemented in a manner that will ensure its success and sustainability. For upgrading and expansion of facilities data will be required on numerous items such as, but not limited to:

x Location and surrounding land-use.

x Condition and layout of existing infrastructure.

x Existing and planned capacity (could be reduced to accommodate improvements).

x Vehicular access.



x Space available for expansion.

x Alternative or temporary facilities to be used whilst constructing improvements works.

x Available utilities services, such as water and power.

x Drainage and waste / sanitation systems, if any.

x Locations for on-site waste collection and treatment or the need for off-site facilities.

x Current market / slaughterhouse work practices including: health and hygiene, disease control, veterinary inspection, slaughtering, security, animal welfare, etc.

x Cultural and religious practices relating to slaughtering and animal waste products.

x Local market demand and prices for animal waste products.

x Local market prices for meat and carcasses.

x Ability and willingness of the consumers to pay for improved and more hygienic meat products as this could have a significant impact on the extent and success of any improvements.

x Willingness of the existing workforce and associated businesses to accept changes to established working practices.

x Willingness of the government agencies and local municipalities to promote and implement the necessary changes.

The data needed and sensitivities surrounding the livestock, slaughter, and animal waste businesses makes any changes potentially very difficult, whilst costs and increases in product prices will be a significant factor.

To provide a general framework from which to work to initially identify what type of facility may be needed, six categories have been identified for slaughterhouses based on the above. The categories range from minor modifications up to new export quality (FMD-free) facilities, such as those required by the EU. The six categories are contained in Table 12.14 below. Most developing countries will fall into categories 1 to 3 initially, but some middle-income countries may have facilities capable of becoming category 4 or 5. A simple flowchart to assist in the selection of the appropriate category of upgrading has been developed and is shown in Figure 12.7 overleaf.

Table 12.14 – Categories for Selection of Slaughterhouses Upgrading

Category Description

1 Minor modifications feasible

2 Upgrading and expansion feasible

3 New facility – low to medium technology based on improved local practices

(ideally with potential to be expanded / upgraded to a category 4 facility in the future)

4 New facility – higher technology (internationally recognised standards for domestic market)

5 New facility – export quality (non-FMD free)

6 New facility – export quality (FMD free)

Similar flowcharts could be developed to assist municipalities in selecting appropriate upgrading categories for livestock markets and, if more detailed, for determining the most appropriate upgrades for municipal livestock markets, slaughterhouses, waste management, and related facilities. This may be one way of maintaining a consistent approach across all countries irrespective of their location and without the need to have too much detailed data on individual facilities. It is important for the municipality to be able to quickly develop a consistent upgrading strategy for its facilities, enabling detail to be added later when it becomes available. It is anticipated that such flowcharts will be developed further under the related study entitled “Global Study on Reconstruction of Public Live Market, Slaughter and Meat Processing Facilities, including Related Cost Recovery and Economic Instruments” also funded through a JCTF grant.



Figure 12.7 – Flowchart for Selection of Upgrading Category

Are there any upgrading

plans for the facility?

Will the facility be closed or relocated in

next 5 years?

Is limited upgrading feasible?

Yes

No

No

Yes

Review and assess applicability of existing

plans.

Assess facility and/or operations for potential short-term upgrading.

Yes

No Plan new facilities for medium to long-term

needs.

Do the existing plans meet the

observed facility needs?

Yes

No

Continue with existing planning initiatives.

Is the facility located in a ‘sensitive’

urban area?

Is land available at the

facility for expansion?

Assess facility and its environs.

Will upgrading be feasible on environmental

grounds?

Will upgrading be feasible on socio-political

grounds?

Yes

No

Relocate and plan new facilities for medium to

long-term needs

Yes

START

Yes

No

Review and assess potential access improvements.

Is existing vehicle access appropriate for

the facility?

Can access be improved to allow facility expansion?

Assess facility capacity and infrastructure

conditions.

No

Yes Yes

Can adequate access be

provided via upgrading?

No No

Yes

Upgrade access to the facility.

Plan upgrading with reduced capacity or a change in operations.

Are facility improvements feasible at a

lower capacity?

Upgrade and expand facility for medium and

long-term needs.

Upgrade facility and improve operations and

process control.

Plan relocation to new facility as medium-term

goal.

No

Yes

No

Yes

CATEGORY 1 or 2

CATEGORY 4

Are current slaughtering practices of a

good standard?

CATEGORY 3

No

Yes

CATEGORY 2

NoAre existing

facilities in very poor condition?

Provide minor upgrading for short-term only.

Yes

No

CATEGORY 1

CATEGORY 2

Can expansion be large and long-term?

CATEGORY 2

CATEGORY 3 or 4

No

Yes



13. INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND FINANCIAL & ECONOMIC SITUATION

13.1 INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

As introduced in section 1.4.8 and as is also evident from the observations in preceding chapters, the institutional arrangements (or lack thereof) in place in the Study cities have a considerable impact upon the status of local livestock and meat industry operations, as well as upon wider issues such as disease control.

The extent of influence that institutional matters have over the management of facilities, waste management, investment of fees, legislation and so forth was found to be far-reaching. Furthermore, the local status in this regard was found to be far more significant than expected; whilst change can be driven from “bottom up”, without a radical change in attitude and agenda of governing bodies, many of the more practical infrastructure-related upgrades proposed in the present Study could be compromised. The provision of safe meat is considered to be a public good, and as such should be given considerably more priority on government agendas than at present.

13.1.1 Government Issues

In general, disease detection, monitoring and control systems at the institutional level in the countries visited are deficient in the following areas:

x Insufficient resources to establish an epidemiological network covering disease surveillance and reporting to international standards.

x Absence of clear policies and strategies for animal health in general and for contagious disease in particular.

x Devolution of political authority to district level makes animal health control difficult: disease reporting and administrative channels do not coincide with enforcement of departmental policies.

x Lack of awareness among livestock owners of the importance of reporting disease.

x No or little obligation and incentive for veterinarians and veterinary assistants to report disease in their job description.

x Inadequate feedback from provincial or national laboratories/authorities on submitted samples and reports by the field staff.

x District diagnostic laboratories are non-functional.

x Poor interaction between extension and research wings of the animal health and livestock production divisions.

x Disease information from the private sector, especially from poultry, is not valued or included in data collection.

x No apparent desire from the national authorities for effective disease surveillance systems.

x No established Federal Epidemiology Unit.

The major implication is that, whilst there are animal disease spread risks arising from less than optimal treatment and disposal of livestock-derived waste from sale yards and slaughterhouses, the gains from improvements to this area are unlikely to be great (or sustainable) given the deficiencies in animal health management by government. Resulting human health advantages may be different (the functionality of the Ministries of Health was in general not examined).

It is apparent that there is very little contact between the Ministries of Agriculture and Ministries of Health on zoonoses and waste control, or other areas where there should be overlap of responsibility. The overriding response from those interviewed is that there is an inefficient mechanism with inadequate service and training, and shortage of manpower and equipment. However, analysis of the responses actually indicates there may be a more severe problem.

Records that were observed did not appear to reflect reality and are essentially failing in serving their



purpose. Records are generally intended to demonstrate an effective control of animal disease but the reality is that the programmes are often funded by third parties and are in general uncoordinated so that the effectiveness of the overall programmes is extremely difficult to demonstrate or assess.

There seems to be no indication that injection of funds alone will solve the problems, since the attitude of lethargy pervades every aspect of the service delivery at Federal, State, and local authority level.

Several interviewees indicated an increasing misuse of funds that is currently creeping into the programmes. This may reflect a situation where the use of aid money has actually assisted in segmenting the effective delivery of co-ordinated animal health services.

It is perhaps pertinent to report that cross-referencing of observations and verbal information throughout the visits indicate that despite official confirmation that assorted tests and observations are completed by official animal health staff, there are many occasions where work is not done but certificates are signed off.

Essentially there seems to be little effort made to ensure that jobs are done effectively. Relatively few of the staff are actually committed to working and the funding mechanism often seems to be related to agency funding for projects. This means that fundamental services are not supported and the staff involved are not able to get access to the benefits of specific projects. Good staff are reassigned to new projects and lesser staff are filling other roles.

MISINFORMATION problems are common place, for instance there is often a clear disparity between what officials think or say is happening on the ground, and what is actually happening.

Ministerial proclamations for specific issues such as meat inspection and food health or animal health services in general indicate the need for regulations; however, there seems to be a total absence of these regulations governing work and specific situations, so this provides a let-out for staff who do not want to make decisions. There seems to be a paucity of leadership resulting in general lethargy and inefficiency in the service delivery.

It was abundantly clear that the veterinarians who worked in slaughterhouses were not supported by an adequate superstructure of senior management who assisted them by producing national guidelines for hygienic meat production (comparable to, for instance, The Australian Standard for the Hygienic Production and Transportation of Meat and Meat Products for Human Production, CSIRO Publishing, Australia, ISBN 0-643-067647). There seemed to be no mechanism for routine appraisal of standards within national slaughterhouses, i.e. no regular visits by senior inspectors to monitor quality of work or make recommendations for change. Essentially, there seemed no desire to effect improvement at the top level and several veterinarians admitted to having lost their own impetus for change under the weight of lethargy from above.

13.1.2 Animal Health

The Federal Ministries of Agriculture are generally responsible for trans-boundary diseases and international legislation whilst Local Authorities and Municipalities have responsibility for animal health at the local level. There is often a lack of communication between the different services and thus the disease control mechanisms are inefficient or non-existent. National animal health laboratories are often in place but these are generally inadequately resourced.

The proposed resumption in some countries of the addition of meat and bone meal to feedstuffs is a worrying situation since the absence of BSE is based on a presumption that reporting is accurate, whereas the reality is that the reporting is in general far from accurate. In practice, testing is not likely to have been adequately rigorous and cleaning of mills between batches during feed preparation will be neither scrutinised nor scrupulous, thus increasing the risk of a disease outbreak spread through food, as in the UK.

13.1.3 Devolution

In some countries there has been a process of devolution of government power to local government and this has resulted in the fragmentation of federal departments. The devolution of the civil service authority to the districts level sets the district up as the key service delivery unit. For this to be effective, each district must



have autonomy to regulate spending and gather taxes and to make decisions that are independent of higher levels of government.

This district autonomy, whilst very effective for delivery and management of local services, is ineffective for coordination and delivery of services for national programmes. For example, controlling important infectious animal disease requires a coordinated approach and therefore the majority of countries assign this task to higher levels of government than the local service. The risks associated with devolution include increased scope for corruption, and differences in focus, activity, methodology or timing between districts which all serve to decrease effectiveness of activity.

13.1.4 Local Government Issues

Local livestock markets are often established by municipal and local authorities but the right to manage the market can be let by tender to a contractor who collects the market fees. Under this system the collection of fees often takes priority over the provision of services and amenities to market users. Stock brought to the local market by flock owners or by small traders, who have made purchases locally, is sold un-graded and un-weighed, and generally on an age and condition basis. The stock often passes through the hands of one or more intermediaries who are essentially brokers, before purchase by the wholesale or retail butchers for slaughter.

Similarly the formal slaughter sector is generally represented by facilities owned by local authorities who charge fees on a per head basis, again often collected by a contractor. The animals entering the slaughter facility are owned by the wholesale meat trader or retailer who pays the slaughter fee, and in some cases, may also pay a fee to the slaughterer / flayer who provides the slaughtering and dressing services. In the latter situation the flayers collect fees from the wholesaler and retailers and do not make any payment to the Local Authority owner of the slaughter facility.

13.1.5 Informal Slaughter

It was reported by the authorities in most of the countries visited that the overall situation with respect to control of meat products is far from satisfactory and that significant quantities of un-inspected (and unstamped if required) meat is being sold daily via informal slaughter and delivery systems. Mutton constitutes the major portion of the informal meat delivery as it is easier to conduct informal slaughter of these small animals. The quantities of informally slaughtered meat can constitute a significant percentage of the total mutton consumed.

Lack of capacity, poor location of slaughter facilities, shortage of technical staff, and un-controlled market supply chains have all been cited as the major causes of the unauthorized slaughter and unchecked sale of uninspected meat.

13.2 FINANCE AND ECONOMICS

13.2.1 Background

In all of the countries visited, it was clear that financial constraints are preventing the development of the livestock and slaughter businesses, particularly at municipal facilities where little money is seen to be expended on facilities and related infrastructure, some of which are more than 50 years old.

The study confirmed that contrary to past expectations, there has been little formal private interest in the slaughter and processing sector in most developing countries, with few modern plants having been installed in recent years. Existing facilities are therefore a mixture of small private concerns (formal and informal) and larger but decrepit municipal facilities. Another obvious trend thought to be driven by economic policy, or lack thereof, is that in the few instances where modern private facilities have been installed, these are generally concerned with the poultry industry.

In general, the private slaughterhouses appear more successfully operated and have significantly better facilities than those owned by municipalities; due mainly to better management, more financial independence, and the ability to choose their own marketplace; such as the niche markets they have entered. Municipal facilities, on the other hand, are allowed little financial independence and are responsible



for supplying safe and wholesome meat to the general population, often at prices influenced by political considerations rather than market forces. Financial leakage is widespread at municipal facilities; a phenomenon that does not normally occur at private facilities, where profits are usually re-invested. Corruption is another likely source of poor performance, but is difficult to identify.

The Study Team did not have great deal of success in obtaining financial data and information for municipal markets and slaughterhouses; however, it was more than could be gained from the privately run facilities, which were very guarded about their financial data being scrutinised.

13.2.2 The Economics of Meat Quality and Disease

From a production perspective, such common problems as injury will lead to significant loss of income due to bruised meat and poor quality hides. Secondary complications commonly arise such as infections, haemorrhage, death, or abortion and these exacerbate the problems. At present these losses are considered minimal by business owners, however studies (IFC, 2006) have shown that these losses can be considerable. Therefore if these losses could be quantified and communicated, conditions might improve; if farmers and slaughterhouse owners who are apathetic to all other reasons for improvement see a clear financial incentive for change in practices, they are likely to follow those incentives.

Economic assessments should be an integral component of many epidemiological investigations, complementary to the biological perspective (Howe, 1992). The importance of financial evaluation in intensive livestock enterprises has been partly responsible for the increased application of economic techniques to animal disease control at farm, national, and international levels since the late 1960s when the principles were first outlined (Thrusfield, 1995). An overview of the cost of disease and its control is provided by Toma et al.

The relationship between resources providing the inputs to production and the goods and services that make-up the output is called a ‘production function’, e.g. converting animal feed into body protein. Disease impairs this process of transforming feed, reducing its efficiency and causing both technical and economic problems. Disease is therefore a negative input with a downward shifting causing lower output for given inputs. From this simple discussion, it is evident that the economic cost of disease can be measured as the sum of output losses and control expenditures. These costs often go far beyond the simple financial loss of production or reduced efficiency of feed conversion; they include control expenditures, cost of agricultural labour, and destruction of pathogenic material as well as costs associated with human disease and lost manpower in the workforce.

The presence of certain diseases among farm livestock in a country may be a barrier to international trade, especially into the more lucrative markets which value food safety and with attempts to liberalise world trade through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

Control of animal diseases is of particular national importance because of the need to justify budgets in both the private and public sectors. With rising incomes and changing social values, interest is becoming more focussed on features such as the relative importance of agricultural output. In some countries, not just the western world, livestock production is of declining importance and the economic justification of animal disease is questioned more closely. However there is also a widening of perspective away from a relatively narrow view of the cost of disease in farm livestock to include animal welfare, diseases of companion animals, the qualitative aspects of food production, and the costs associated with human disease.

The diversity of these areas in which livestock disease can have a serious impact on national economy indicate the vital need for comprehensive understanding of the different influences on both the causes and effects of all animal diseases. The epidemiological skills necessary for this constitute an important component of public health. Consequently, it is essential for all those involved with decision-making to ensure that they are adequately provided with comprehensive epidemiological advice. Because of its significant influence on public good in many different areas, disease control should not be left to the private sector but should be controlled by a well-informed and effective public agency.

13.2.3 Municipal Livestock Market and Slaughter Fees

Fees and taxes collected at municipal livestock markets and slaughterhouses are typically low compared to



the value of the live animal or carcass and fifth-quarter materials, but can vary significantly from country to country. For example, Table 13.1 illustrates the difference in municipal market and slaughter fees for cattle and sheep / goats in two of the low-income countries visited by the Study Team.

Table 13.1 – Comparison of Typical Municipal Market and Slaughter Fees

Facility & Species Fees in Country A Fees in Country B

(US$ equivalent) (US$ equivalent) Livestock Market

Cattle 1.50 1.10 Sheep / goats 0.33 0.11

Slaughterhouse Cattle 0.33 7.78 (private) / 16.56 (butcher)Sheep / goats 0.16 2.36

In Country B, the slaughter fees are considerably higher than in Country A and are much higher again for formal butchers; this is the likely reason why both home slaughter and illegal slaughtering by butchers is so prevalent in this country (reportedly up to 80% of the total slaughter). However, even at this elevated level the fees for country B are still low compared to the cost of the animal, and for cattle in particular.

The fees detailed in Table 13.1, although low, do provide a significant income to the facilities (or often simply to municipalities as these fees are not reinvested), yet very little money is spent on upkeep or improvements, in country A particularly. No formal cost figures were supplied, but based on available data, the Study Team has estimated the margins after operational expenses for the livestock markets to be US$350,000 and US$110,000 per annum for Country A and Country B respectively; and for the slaughterhouses US$200,000 and US$220,000 per annum. Based on the Study Team’s observations these margins do not find their way back to the facilities themselves for enhanced maintenance, training, or facility improvements and expansion. Instead, these funds are assumed to be re-allocated to other municipal functions, although no details were available.

Given the situation described above, which is all too common with municipal facilities, it is difficult to see how any significant improvements can be made without dramatic intervention at all levels; and more importantly, how urgently required new facilities can be funded without intervention from provincial or national government.

13.2.4 Meat and Offal Prices

Pressure on meat and offal prices is a function of increasing demand within the domestic economy, and a combination of increasing population, urbanisation, and the increased spending power of the population. It was not unusual to find that prices had increased considerably in recent years and these were approaching parity with export prices in some countries. Another worry for some of the local markets was the potentially lower cost of imported meat from countries such as Brazil and pending agreements with the World Trade Organisation.

An additional cost element to pay for improvements in slaughter, veterinarian, waste management, and health and hygiene practices, is therefore unlikely to be welcomed, especially when incomes are in general diminishing in relation to rapidly rising food prices. The developing world is full of modern slaughterhouses that have never been used, or quickly gone out of business, because the local butchers or consumers were not prepared to pay the extra costs of improved hygiene and other practices and the local systems and regulations were not able to eliminate the informal sector. This was evident in a number of countries visited and was stated as the main obstacle for expansion of the private sector, particularly for ruminants and pigs.

For the majority of consumers, who operate on a tight budget, waste management is considered a low priority, as is health and hygiene, especially if these consumers have not had any discernable problems directly related to the meat products that they currently purchase, and are note aware of the associated dangers. The benefits offered via increased meat and offal prices to pay for improved facilities and better hygiene are often difficult for the general populace to understand, and absorb. The risk in introducing



regulations is that, unless strict regulation is observed, more informal and backstreet slaughter will occur, possibly making the situation worse. Making consumers aware of the benefits of improved hygiene and better quality meat and the associated higher costs must therefore be communicated before, or in parallel with, any planned measures for installation of new modern slaughter facilities.

13.2.5 Financial and Economic Analyses

Whilst the prices of meat and offal products, power, water, and the like were obtained in each country and are suitable for use in the development of financial and economic analyses, they are very location-specific. Given the fact that, at this stage, specific technical options have not been recommended (rather, potential options that could be used) it is not possible to undertake any form of rational analyses. Furthermore, as locations are currently remaining anonymous, direct analysis or comparison is deemed unnecessary. For the analyses to have any degree of relevance, appropriate cost estimates will need to be established.

Based on the data available to date, outline cost estimates cannot be made because the recommended technical options are extremely difficult to assess, being primarily infrastructure and capacity building improvements that are specific to each and every facility and location. Until specific case studies are investigated, e.g. under the recently commenced and associated World Bank Study “Global Study on Reconstruction of Public Live Market, Slaughterhouse, and Meat Processing Facilities”, it is unrealistic to progress the financial and economic analyses. Such analyses will therefore be undertaken under the abovementioned reconstruction study, when cost estimates will be available and economic instruments will be reviewed.

Whilst cost estimates should be relatively straightforward to calculate on a case study basis, other important questions to bear in mind for the analyses include:

x How should public health benefits be measured?

x What economic strategies should be adopted for different locations?

x How to incorporate the very different social, cultural, religious, political, financial, and economic conditions into the analyses?

x How to make the analyses appropriate for a global study?

x How to assess the benefits of potential reduction in disease risks?

x How to assess cost-recovery for municipal facilities, with the potential for political control of future commodity prices?

x How to potentially encourage and assist the private sector, where a dominant force, to participate in supplying meat for the general population?

Table 13.2 overleaf is a list of the costs of the current poor situation, what might be done about it, the cost elements involved, and the potential benefits.

13.2.6 Economic Instruments and Benefitting from the Solid Waste Management Experience

In the environmental economics and policy literature, the term economic instrument is generally understood to refer to a policy, tool or action which has the purpose of affecting the behaviour of economic agents by changing their financial incentives in order to improve the cost-effectiveness of environmental protection efforts (IADB, 2003).

The World Bank, as well as a number of other international agencies, has amassed considerable experience over recent years in the overall management of solid waste programs. As conditions of their investment in infrastructure related solutions to the developing world’s MSW problems, the Bank has insisted upon institutional reform, and the use of economic instruments as a catalyst for change. Furthermore, in many settings, economic instruments and other novel solutions can be more effective at instigating a change in attitude and behaviour than simple infrastructure improvements.



Table 13.2 – Initial Observations of Costs Items, Actions, and Potential Benefits

Process Stage Industry Costs Indications Action needed to remedy Cost components Benefit

Poor animal health regime. Deaths.

Low Fertility.

Typical symptoms.

Poor feed conversion.

Low reproduction.

Vaccination and reporting.

Extension of advice.

Quality drugs and vaccines.

Awareness raising / training

Institutional reform.

Trained personnel.

Drugs & vaccines.

Logistics.

More animals.

Better animals.

Clean animals.

Poor nutrition. Lack of /poorly finished animals.

Poor condition of most stock.

Availability of animal feed.

Increased use of feedlots.

Availability of minerals.

Knowledge of feed mixes & nutrition

Trained personnel.

Nutrition extension.

Feed varieties.

Logistics.

Better animals.

Better efficiency.

More profit.

Livestock Production

Poor animal welfare. Wounds.

Lameness.

Signs of stress

Extension of advice.

Legislation.

Extension programs.

Personnel.

Logistics.

Happier animals.

Better quality meat.

More work.

Less unsightly.

Marketing Not significant. Good quality animals are able to make it to slaughter in spite of scant / poor facilities.

Workplace health and safety.

Injuries recorded.

Absenteeism.

Life expectancy.

Disease incidence.

Improved practices.

Better equipment.

Better facilities.

Regulation of current law.

Infrastructure.

Equipment.

Training.


Less staff needed.

Healthy staff.

Less downtime.

Cleaner product.

Public health. Life expectancy of consumers.

Disease incidence in consumers.

Residues in meat.

Contaminated meat.

Legislation.

Regulation.

Enforcement.

Legislation review.


Address cultural issues.

National health.

Output.

Welfare.

Budget..

Livestock Processing

Animal health. Condemnations. Legislation. Legislation review. Sales revenue up.



Process Stage Industry Costs Indications Action needed to remedy Cost components Benefit

Reduced carcass quality. Regulation.

Enforcement.

Awareness Raising


Waste disposal down.

Wasted by-products. By-products not collected.

By-products inefficiently collected.

By-products contaminated.

Alert to market options.

Improve hygiene.

Facilities and equipment.

Market study.

Training.

Infrastructure.

Sales revenue up.

Waste disposal down.

Environmental risk reduced.

Reduced quality of output. Low quality products. Improve raw materials.

Improve handling.

Premium for quality.

Vaccines & drugs.

Extension.

Training.

Sales revenue up.

Imports down.

Operational efficiency. Poor work practices.

Operating time.

Cost of production.

Improve work practices.

Improve facilities.

Training.

Infrastructure.

Operating costs down.

Quality maintained.

Loss of export earnings. Product not acceptable due to:

x facilities

x procedures

x disease

Eradicate disease.

Upgrade procedures.

Vaccines & drugs.

Extension.

Training.

Infrastructure.


FX increased.

Animal welfare. Lameness.

Sickness.

Cruelty.

Legislation.

Regulation.

Enforcement.

Extension programs.

Personnel.

Logistics.

Happier animals.

More work.

Less unsightly.



In earlier chapters of this report, it was determined that in order to solve the present problems associated with livestock and slaughter wastes, sweeping changes are required not just to infrastructure, but to public, governmental and professional opinion, understanding and behaviour, as well as to the technical and economic management of individual facilities, and local and national government.

It is also clear from the disturbing findings of the study that the proper management of slaughterhouses and livestock markets represents a public good; failure to do so results in adverse effects on public health, the environment, and the economy.

In view of the above, and due to the close parallels between common MSWM problems and those presently encountered, is recommended that as part of the drive to improve on the present situation, the expertise, experience, and lessons learned by the Bank and others over past years in the MSW field is reviewed and benefitted from. Many of the institutional and economic schemes employed over recent years are applicable to the management of municipal slaughter facilities, either directly, or with some modification, and this opportunity should not be overlooked.

Economic instruments (and the institutional reforms that often accompany them) thought likely to be successful in catalysing change in the slaughter and processing industry include:

x Inter-municipal agreements so as to benefit from economies of scale.

x “Taker pay agreements”; whereby companies/municipalities must pay for proper waste disposal even if they do not dump at agreed sites. This instrument aims to eliminate illicit dumping to avoid tipping fees, and to prevent transport companies dumping at start of journey.

x Segregation of user charges; In addition to benefitting the facilities and users themselves, this instrument restores confidence in the private sector in that they can then trust the city (therefore more willing to enter into partnerships etc).

x Presumptive taxes, based on presumed levels of liquid and solid waste production; proof that a facility is recycling or segregating more of its wastes earns it a reduction from the standard rates.

x Carbon funding; this is discussed elsewhere in the present report, however the considerable funds available via the CDM, and often administered by the World Bank, could be huge incentives to improve systems.

Further recommendations relating to economics that make use of the existing experience are:

x The Bank taking a key role as “honest broker” during public private partnership discussions.

x Application of initiatives designed to organise the informal waste recycling sector to the informal meat waste sector.

x Application of Bank and other institutions’ SWM-related municipal finance and government expertise to the livestock and meat processing sector, acknowledging the issues as Public Good.

x Increase in transparency of financial management and investment, improve investment ratios, and encourage private investment.



14. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

14.1 CONCLUSIONS

It is clear that there are many problems associated with livestock markets, slaughterhouses, and related facilities in developing countries and that these potentially have a significant impact on both human and animal health, not to mention the local and wider environment. The technical and financial capacity of developing country governments (and in some cases political will) to make the necessary changes is limited and there is often confusion between “competing” government departments creating critical gaps in responsibility affecting disease control and food safety in particular.

Increasing pressure on the livestock and slaughter industry to meet the demands of growing population is particularly acute at municipal slaughterhouses where facilities and practices are often found to have remained unchanged for more 50 years in some instances; whose current throughput is way beyond their original design capacity. Lack of investment and appropriate planning, and the encroachment of urbanisation has often left facilities in the “wrong” location and with no possibilities for expansion or effective improvement. Waste management has, therefore, become a serious problem, together with other environmental factors such as noise, odour, inappropriate operating hours, and traffic congestion.

The informal sector has prospered over the same period, with little regulation and sometimes aided by corruption. In some of the study countries, this has become a very serious issue, particularly in an urban environment, and the informal sector can sometimes be significantly larger than the formal sector. Waste management in the formal livestock markets, and more importantly in formal slaughterhouses, although not ideal is at least controlled in some way; mainly due to the worth of the various animal wastes. In contrast, the informal sector is completely unregulated and non-edible wastes are often disposed illegally or are thrown away with the MSW; there is also no veterinary inspection to help safeguard food safety issues.

In view of the magnitude of the problems which exist, it would seem that a new approach to overcoming them is required in developing countries.

Countries with long established public services have steadily advanced their resources – technical, man-power, financial and skills-base – while developing countries have been unable to maintain the same impetus for diverse reasons. The weakness of collaboration between adjacent organisations has been highlighted during this project and the grey areas thus created exemplify this form of waste.

A novel paradigm seems to be required that will lead to effective application of resources in the field and the control of waste and the health hazards which accrue from it. There are very strong indications that a total re-appraisal of the way disease control is carried out in developing countries is needed. National Veterinary Services have a limited ability to be effective across all the disciplines in which livestock disease is a significant component. Fragmentation of these by political subdivision is further exacerbating problems. The significant weaknesses of Livestock Waste disposal are of major importance in their own right but are also an indicator of more fundamental problems.

Visits to many facilities revealed the presence of much sophisticated equipment but inadequate resources to capitalise on its presence or provide meaningful information to progress viable improvements for the public good. There seemed to be too many grey areas between the activities of different groups within parent organisations as well as poor inter-agency collaboration. One disturbing and recurring feature that prompts the suggestion of a new approach was the identification of unused resources (varying between land-rovers, water treatment plant and slurry-ponds) that were lying unused. Potential reasons were that the project for which they were acquired terminated, leaving the holder with inadequate funds to continue their use, or else they were too costly to run and thus a white elephant.

The supply of inappropriate or unusable technology should be a major indictment on the relevant donors.

The duplication of work by different projects, from a varied assortment of donors working in isolation from each other, plus the unsuitable nature of ‘donations’ seems strangely reminiscent of the lack of collaboration between departments and organisations in developing countries. However, the underlying political and social motives of donors mitigates against a simple mechanism for integrating their activities, despite the



potential for greatly enhanced positive responses among developing countries.

At the moment, Waste Management would appear to have no central co-ordinating agency acting to provide advice to developing countries on the disposal of livestock waste. It is also a core function that can have significant impact on carbon credits and in which some meaningful advances in appropriate technology can be made.

One aspect of a new paradigm could be the establishment of a unit within World Bank which will provide assessment and recommendations in this field as well as holding basic guidelines for control measures, environmental monitoring procedures, international results and develop liaisons with various groups active in the world. In the respect of epidemiology and disease control, there could be a similar Epidemiology Unit that would provide advice and support to co-ordinate activities in collaboration with FAO and incorporate Animal Welfare as an integral part of the epidemiology of livestock diseases which it undoubtedly is.

Epidemiology is thus the core discipline of any livestock waste control strategy to ensure that all potential avenues of disease spread are prevented and all sources of waste are treated with the relevant degree of safety. Applying Epidemiology and Risk Analysis, together, will allow specialist teams to prioritise activities and develop meaningful international strategies. Given the importance of many transboundary diseases and the benefits of integrated international efforts to control them, there is much to be recommended in developing waste control measures on an international or regional basis. Not least because it enables development of socially compatible disposal mechanisms or commercial interests in reclaiming by-products.

Like ‘Livestock Waste,’ Animal Welfare is a vague discipline that falls into a ‘grey area’ between different organisations and is without a specific a specific leader to effect the necessary changes. The absence of effective animal welfare leadership among the public authorities in all countries visited is an important factor that should be corrected with urgency.

Change is certainly possible, and in some areas, such as waste management practices, it is already underway at some locations. With focus on the some key areas, minimal work could have a considerable beneficial effect on the improvement of conditions within the industry, with the resulting improvement in public health that these improvements would bring.

Brief conclusions regarding livestock markets, slaughterhouses, waste management, disease control and animal health are discussed below.

(a) General

x There is a general consumer preference for ‘fresh’ meat (no refrigeration or cold-chain) purchased at local markets or butcher shops each morning. This practice of buying freshly slaughtered meat and edible offal for cooking and consumption the same day currently negates the need for refrigeration.

x Despite the above preference, a move towards pre-packed, chilled, and processed meat products was observed in the middle income countries.

x Although hygiene and sanitation are poor and contamination of the meat from various sources is always present, disease is not commonplace because meat is generally purchased fresh each morning, then well-cooked and consumed the same day. However, in Africa in particular, raw meat is often eaten as a delicacy and in East Asia raw blood is consumed, including duck blood; these practices pose significant health and disease risks.

x Supermarkets demanding higher standards represent only a fraction of the meat demand, however this retail sector is growing steadily.

x In contrast to high-income countries, edible offal products are in high demand, whether as expensive delicacies or simply as a source of low-cost protein for those that cannot afford meat products.

x In all countries there is a high incidence of informal slaughter undertaken at household level (mainly poultry and small-stock) or illegally by local retail butchers (small-stock and large ruminants).

Poultry suppliers have been most successful at intensification of activities and the establishment of modern



slaughter activities.

(b) Livestock Markets

In general, livestock markets appear to be managed and operated reasonably well, given the local conditions, but are lacking infrastructure, utility services, and waste management systems. Improvements could include:

x Tightening up on informal markets, so that all trading takes place at formal market sites.

x Improvement of loading / unloading facilities.

x Introduction of more covered / shaded areas to protect livestock from the elements.

x Introduction of better facilities for patrons, e.g. water and toilets.

x Increased veterinary inspection of livestock entering markets and introduce records of livestock movements and disease status.

x Ideally there should be separation of stock, but given that animals can stay for five days that is probably inappropriate in some locations; however, an increase in the use of pens would help.

x Installation of rails, to which animals could be tied, would reduce movement and thus wanton aggression; however, this could only be achieved by having welfare inspectors to clamp down on offenders and introducing rails may potentially create other welfare issue with injury, etc.

x Improvement of drainage facilities to provide better collection and treatment of contaminated runoff before discharge from the sites.

x Improvement of facilities for the collection, storage, and potential treatment of solid wastes, including dead stock, etc.

It should be noted, that some municipalities are currently failing in their responsibility to maintain live markets adequately. It would be futile to implement the above actions, therefore, without devising a method of holding municipalities to their obligations whilst accommodating local culture.

(c) Slaughterhouses

The slaughterhouses for most centres can be briefly summarised as follows:

x Most municipal slaughterhouses are located in densely populated urban areas creating nuisance in terms of traffic congestion and pollution (noise, air, and water).

x Hygiene and sanitation practices are generally poor, with open defecation practised at many.

x Security of sites can be wholly inadequate allowing access to many non-facility personnel and stray animals. The private sector is much stricter, in most cases.

x Process control at slaughterhouses is generally poor, with most operating on a batch system with many activities taking place at the same location with minimal separation; hence contamination is commonplace.

x Most municipal slaughter facilities are typically old and operating significantly over capacity, with little if any space for upgrading or expansion. It is therefore impossible to expand facilities to reduce the thriving informal sector in some countries, without establishing new slaughterhouses to share the burden.

x Slaughterhouses often only work one-shift to satisfy the market demand for “fresh” unrefrigerated meat in the morning and only 5-days per week to suit local religious and cultural practices. Increasing the operational capacity is possible but only if refrigeration is accepted.

x Fifth-quarter material is often sold to a third party processor; although is some countries the edible offal leave the slaughterhouse with the carcass for sale by the owner/butcher.

x Infrastructure is typically old and in need of refurbishment; in many cases new facilities may be the only option. Modern hygienic slaughterhouses can only be found at small private export or niche market operations, where higher incomes can sustain the higher operating costs.



x Utility services are inadequate and, as such, water supply and lighting are poor; hot water is rarely provided and utensils are not properly cleaned and sterilised.

x Occupational health and safety is a very low priority; safety equipment and clothing in slaughterhouses, are poor and in many circumstances non-existent. Given the conditions in such facilities and the working practices it is believed that minor accidents and possibly more serious accidents occur on a regular basis.

x There is little or no formal training of workers or professional staff at slaughter facilities, so existing practices remain unchanged.

x Slaughter facilities and working procedures are generally poor (although workers are often highly-skilled).

x Slaughter facilities are old, manually operated, unhygienic, grossly over capacity, and located near to watercourses or drainage channels for easy disposal of wastewater. Such disposal is unacceptable and is often illegal; however, there are currently no alternatives for these facilities.

x In general, although the quantities of wastes produced are high, only relatively small quantities of solid waste and low-concentration wastewaters are actually disposed, solely due to the extensive recovery of blood, offal, and all animal parts. However, this is not always the case for the smaller facilities, which cannot take advantage of the economies of scale and thus have no demand for some of the fifth-quarter materials; hence they dispose a higher proportion of their wastes.

x Ante and post mortem inspection is cursory at best and needs to be improved to ensure that only safe meat products reach the consumer.

x Lack of awareness, training and resources, is affecting working practices and customer preferences

x Lack of institutional support and political will is frequently hampering any localised attempts at amelioration.

x Hygienic processing standards are generally poor and need to be addressed, but this will need a significant investment in appropriate infrastructure and training. There is an opportunity to improve current conditions, as many slaughter operations are likely to relocate outside of the urban areas over the next five years or so. It is important, therefore, that the new facilities are located and constructed appropriately and not simply be a minor improvement at a larger scale in a different location.

x Although there appeared to be no documentary evidence or accident reporting, it is believed that due to the lack of protective equipment, prevalence of sharp tools, overcrowding, and wet/slippery floors the frequency of minor accidents (cuts, bruises, and falls) is likely to be relatively high; whilst more severe incidents are likely to be well above average when comparing with high-income countries.

x Vehicular access at most livestock markets and slaughterhouses is very poor with little or no parking and limited loading / unloading space. This creates severe congestion in some cases stressing livestock and wasting much time.

(d) Waste Management

Waste management facilities and practices at almost all sites is poor, although there are a few exceptions.

x The high incidence of informal and/or illegal slaughtering results in many livestock and slaughter wastes products being dumped illegally and/or disposed with municipal wastes.

x The proportion of wastes re-used or recycled is very high because almost every item has a financial value due to low processing costs, particularly in low-income countries. The result is that relatively little waste is actually disposed of to the formal waste management sector; processing and treatment of these wastes, however, is a concern with respect to public health and worker safety.

x Large quantities of animal manure and poultry litter are used as fertiliser without any composting process, creating potential routes for disease spread.

x There is little if any treatment of wastewater or contaminated runoff, which is typically discharged untreated to drains and local watercourses.



x Although blood is potentially a valuable commodity, there is often no market demand for it, or cultural/religious beliefs hinder its collection and use; in other circumstances poor infrastructure facilities and process control prevent effective collection. Blood is often wasted to drains and local water courses providing potential disease risks and added pollution through its high organic loading.

x Biogas production and composting are not common because there is generally no local demand for the by-products in large urban areas; transport costs to supply potential rural customers make the products not financial viable. Lack of water to produce a slurry from animal dung/manure is also a factor.

x Animal wastes are often dumped, both legally and illegally, at municipal disposal sites (typically managed dumpsites) where workers, waste-pickers, and scavenging animals are found in abundance; these sites have no facilities for hazardous or special wastes. Illegal dumping can also be observed and can be widespread.

(e) Disease Control and Animal Health

x Restructuring of the government agencies responsible for animal health, public health and the environment, or at least the implementation of cooperation programmes.

x Provision at all markets and slaughterhouses of basic and easily understood information on the major diseases that can be transmitted as part of the livestock sale and slaughtering processes, such as hydatidosis and cystercicosis, as well as easily understood instructions for prevention and identification.

x Instigation of a method of animal tracking that is effective and allows full traceability, this could initially be based upon a tail tagging system for animals being moved with the regulator being the controller and issuer of the tags. An initial basis for a system such as this already exists in some countries through livestock movement certificates.

x Review of certification practices for vaccination, identification, transport, and post mortem so as to ensure the desired results are obtained; only to be attempted once a functional tracking system is in place, however.

x Stronger political will to deal with the illegal livestock production industry in all its stages. This cannot be achieved with legislation alone, and will also require that greater efficiencies of production and cost reductions be achieved within the formal aspects of livestock production.

x Increasing the number of agricultural extension staff in rural areas that have an impact on the meat production cycle in the city. Obvious areas would include feedlots, animal nutrition, home slaughtering and butchering, and animal handling. It is apparent that a good infrastructure and knowledge base often exists in these fields, but it is equally apparent that the knowledge is not being disseminated effectively.

(f) Animal Welfare

x Animal welfare at all facilities requires significant improvement, with major changes to treatment and facilities needed in some cases.

x Livestock are often not watered or fed, even on long journeys, arriving at markets and slaughterhouses dehydrated and in poor condition. Many “downers” can be seen at some locations.

x Transport vehicles are usually not designed for or suited to the transport of livestock.

x Loading and unloading facilities at markets are often poor or non-existent and thus livestock can be injured easily as they are man-handled off trucks.

x Livestock are often tied and left without food and water at markets; control by herders is usually with sticks.

x Livestock are often severely stressed as they enter many of the dark slaughter facilities before being subjected to batch slaughtering.

x Stunning and slaughter practices vary but all are poor in terms of animal welfare and worker safety.

x In many cases, other animals are in close proximity to others being slaughtered, from stunning through to skinning, evisceration, and decapitation.



(g) Institutional

x Legislation for the livestock, slaughter, and food-related industries is often in place, but regulation and enforcement are generally very poor due to inadequate resources, poor coordination, blurred lines of communication between government departments, and corruption.

x Lack of government planning, coordination, and regulation is evident with respect to disease control, leaving countries in a poor position to cope if a major disease outbreak occurs.

x Corruption / control of the markets and slaughtering business in some countries is preventing improvement of facilities and working practices. There is often reluctance to change, particularly amongst slaughterhouse workers.

x An extensive informal / illegal slaughtering sector (up to 80% in one country visited) remains unchecked in most countries, encouraged by lack of enforcement, corruption, and cultural and religious practices.

(h) Financial / Economic

x Low-elasticity of prices discourages and often restricts development of the private sector for the mass market. Small niche markets slaughterhouses and meat processing facilities providing more hygienic and higher quality products are often the only private sector operations.

x Income earned at municipal livestock markets and slaughterhouses is not re-invested, as they are often run-down and lack funds to even operate effectively. Margins between income and operating costs, estimated by the Study Team, suggest that this money is diverted to other municipal functions.

x The significant informal sector tolerated in most developing countries reduces the potential income of livestock markets and slaughterhouses (both municipal and private), restricting expansion of these legal businesses. Corruption and lack of enforcement resources exacerbates the problem.

x Due to religious and cultural beliefs and/or a lack of awareness or equipment, many valuable slaughter wastes, such as blood and inedible offal, are currently sent to disposal when they could be generating a significant income. The other impact of this is increased pollution and cost by having to dispose of these wastes.

14.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

14.2.1 General Recommendations

Due to the nature of the present report, a variety of detailed technical recommendations are contained within the relevant chapters; below is a summary of the main recommendations provided for the different technical aspects studied. The following are items that need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, many of which could be undertaken at relatively low cost, but require training, stakeholder engagement, and most importantly political will.

(a) Livestock Markets

x Improvement of livestock market infrastructure and facilities to provide better conditions for the workers and animals and improve the safety of both.

x Improvement of transport23, access and unloading facilities to improve animal welfare and transport efficiency.

x Improvement of hygiene and sanitation at markets.

x Improvement of market management and control of waste products.

23 HSA comments (Feb 2009) – Where traders bring the stock to market (or slaughter) in inappropriate vehicles the local authorities should be informed and a notice given that the trader must invest in an appropriate vehicle. However, it is acknowledged that this type of system will take a long time to implement and take effect in low-income countries. In the meantime, a range of simple loading/unloading bays could be provided that would be suitable for most vehicles received.



x Provision of hygiene, sanitation, and disease education for municipal staff, market operators, workers, and traders.

x Improvement of animal welfare practices through knowledge and education, through training of staff and the use of posters.

x Improvement of and expand veterinary inspection services.

x Stricter enforcement of veterinary regulations.

x Improvement of security to prohibit public access.

x Improvement of traffic management.

(b) Slaughterhouses

With respect to slaughter facilities, substantial upgrading or reconstruction is urgently needed at all but the best private facilities; but in the meantime suggestions relating to the improvement of current working practices include:

x Encouragement of off-floor slaughter practises.

x Encouragement of use of protective equipment and clothing.

x Provision of disinfectant for equipment and clothing.

x Provision of improved worker facilities (e.g. toilets, water, and washing facilities).

x Provision of adequate lighting.

x Training of workers in hygiene and sanitation.

x Capacity building to enhance veterinary / meat inspection.

x Due to poor knowledge of the slaughtering sector by Government officials (central & local) it is essential for them to visit and thoroughly investigate current circumstances in order to plan interventions in the sector.

x Interventions need to include programs to address infrastructure, technical, operational and environmental issues with a view to providing wholesome and safe products in an environmentally acceptable way.

x Programs to build capacity to control the sector (both formal and informal) are likely to be required for any successful intervention.

x These interventions will need to be appropriate to the individual locations and circumstances.

Simple interventions that will make a difference at slaughterhouses may include:

x Animal Welfare

o Separation of animals awaiting slaughter from the slaughter activities.

o Improvement of loading and unloading facilities.

o Provision of a tilting ‘knocking box’ or a simpler version to improve stunning.24

24 HSA comments (Feb 2009) – Animals find inversion a particularly aversive experience. Research has shown that cattle in rotating restraint boxes struggle vigorously and make escape attempts when these boxes are used and rotated, making a bad situation (slaughter without pre-stunning) a lot worse. Where the box is not designed properly, the animal may right itself, sustain an injury, and prevent effective stunning or slaughter. There is also then a risk to the safety of the staff. Rotating slaughter boxes are not considered to be humane methods of restraint for livestock and the HSA strongly advises against their use. Restraint boxes are a good idea for all species, but particularly cattle which can be dangerous to people. Only restraint boxes that maintain the animal in an upright position are acceptable for welfare. Compassion in World Farming (comments, Oct 2008) shared the same opinion; however, Grandin (1998) suggests that a properly designed rotating box is acceptable. The ASPCA restraint pen is designed for slaughter without pre-stunning, providing an accurate and effective transverse cut.



o Provision of an ASPCA restraint pen for slaughter without pre-stunning.25

o Consider and implement alternative and more humane stunning techniques.26

x Hygiene and Sanitation

o Encouragement of off-the-floor slaughter practices.

o Provision of sanitary facilities for workers, plus health and hygiene training.

o Provision of protective clothing and laundry services.

o Provision of mobile pressurized water cleaning devices.

o Use of sanitisers / disinfectants.

x Process Control

o Separation of sticking, dressing, and evisceration areas.

o Provision of adequate lighting, particularly for carcass / meat inspection.

o Capacity building to commence or enhance veterinary / meat inspection.

o Improved collection and handling of fifth-quarter material.

x Blood

o Separate the collection and handling of blood.

o Adopt sanitary systems for blood treatment that comply with local religious and cultural sensitivities.

x Wastewater

o Simple screening of effluent to remove large solids.

o Separation from site drainage system.

x Solid Waste

o Cease disposal of slaughter wastes to landfill / dumpsites unless these facilities have been designed to accommodate them.

o Re-use and recycle all wastes possible on-site or through third party vendors.

o Installation of simplified degradation systems (e.g. composting, digestion, wet rendering).

(c) Waste Management

The following general recommendations are made with respect to waste management:

x Radical overhaul of existing laxity in waste storage and collection and cleaning of sites where animal waste is created.

x Creation of enforcement capability to all authorities to be penalised for neglecting their

25 HSA comments (Feb 2009) – The ASPCA restraint pen does not invert the animal and improves welfare. It is designed specifically for slaughter without pre-stunning and provides for an accurate and effective transverse cut by incorporating a chin lift. The chin lift also ensures that the wound remains open and clear to prevent blocking of the carotid arteries and to maintain a profuse flow of blood so that the animal loses consciousness as quickly as possible. Smaller pens are also available for calves and sheep. Installation of such boxes is strongly recommended in place of tilting or rotating boxes.

26 HSA comments (Feb 2009) – The HSA strongly agrees that pre-slaughter stunning of livestock should be encouraged everywhere, including in developing countries and where cultural and religious practices currently prohibit it. To encourage the use of stunning, educational materials (available from HSA and other similar organizations) should be disseminated to demonstrate how stunning works and why it is a humane practice. Where some groups cannot be convinced of the benefits of pre-slaughter stunning, attempts could be made to put post-slaughter stunning in place to improve animal welfare by reducing the time to loss of consciousness.



responsibilities for ensuring cleaning, waste collection, and disposal services are carried out to a required level;

x Removal of all domestic livestock from waste disposal sites and erection of stock-proof fences.

x Increasing of responsibilities of private operators with respect to scavengers by requiring in their contracts that they provide sanitary facilities and protective clothing as a minimum.

x Investigation into the possibility of formalising the recycling industry.

x Formation of knackery services27 to recycle animal waste into fertiliser. Promotion of this service would need to include a system to compensate the animal’s owner for their loss and to keep the injured or diseased animal from entering the slaughter / food chain.

x Creation of a public awareness campaign to motivate farmers and others to sell material to knackers.

x Prevent illegal dumping of slaughter wastes, by either education or giving a value to these wastes.

x Improvement to site selection techniques and strategic planning within the waste management sector so as to avoid problems with respect to efficient operation and disposal of special wastes.

x Increase emphasis on control of vermin by monitoring mandatory rodent control.

x Improvement in slaughter waste handling techniques, particularly with respect to veterinary inspection failures.

x Introduction of a system of health monitoring to ensure that diseases in general and certain zoonoses in particular are actually reduced.

(d) Solid Waste:

x Reduction in quantity for disposal at livestock markets by improving facilities to allow easy collection of livestock and related wastes.

x Reduction in quantity for disposal at slaughterhouses by improving the collection and processing of fifth-quarter material.

x Installation of fencing and security at existing landfill / dumpsites to control human and animal access.

x Formalisation of waste-picking activities and provide simple sanitary facilities, protective clothing, and health and hygiene education.

x Establishment of separate area for animal wastes on existing disposal sites, if possible.

x Acceleration of plans for new sanitary landfill sites and close existing dumpsites.

x Establishment of composting plants close to landfill sites to produce a fertiliser (must have ready market, however).

(e) Liquid Waste:

x Improvements to existing livestock markets to allow the capture and control of contaminated run-off.

x Provision of sanitary facilities at markets to eliminate open defecation and improve general hygiene and health conditions.

x Assessment of the potential impacts of discharging market and slaughter wastes to fish ponds.

x Improvement to slaughterhouse process control and provide facilities to reduce the organic loading of the process water through the collection of blood and the control of intestinal contents.

27 HSA comments (Feb 2009) – In addition to dealing with dead livestock, knackermen could be trained by the municipality to provide a call-out service to slaughter injured or sick stock. Such animals should not be transported or driven to slaughterhouses, because their welfare will be severely compromised. The knackermen could be provided with humane stunning equipment to dispatch these animals.



x Provision of facilities for the holding and treatment of process water at slaughterhouses prior to discharge to watercourses.

x Provision of technical assistance and training to support the design and construction of new markets and slaughterhouses that will improve the environment and public health.

(f) Disease Control

x Installation of simple systems for removal and isolation of solid waste material from livestock markets.

x Improvements to sanitation arrangements at livestock markets and slaughtering plants

x Improvements in worker hygiene (practices & protective clothing)

x Improvement of monitoring and response systems for worker disease (and injuries)

x Provision of secure containers for removal of pathogenic material.

x Improvement of supply chain management (e.g. product transport in enclosed containers/vehicles - preferably refrigerated)

x Development and implementation of appropriate technology (small and medium scale) for stabilisation of pathogenic and other solid waste.

x Improved and appropriate resourcing of veterinary services to improve the application of hygiene and health standards.

x Improvement of inter-disciplinary collaboration to enhance the management of disease issues.

x Strengthening of Veterinary Services with a view to enhancing public health as well as animal health.

x Improvement of monitoring and control systems to address the use of therapeutics & feed supplements.

x Improvement of monitoring and control systems to trace livestock movement.

(g) Institutional

x Encouragement of Inter-Municipal agreements

x Application of existing Bank methodologies from the solid waste sector, for example social surveying, organisation of the informal sector, etc.

x Reorganisation of Ministerial responsibilities with respect to animal health and food safety, or the initiation of external units.

x Attempt to eradicate the corruption that encourages the informal slaughter and meat sector.

x Implementation of national education campaigns.

(h) Financial / Economic

x Obligation of municipalities to spend fees collected at live markets and slaughterhouses on the provision, upgrading, and maintenance of the same facilities.

x The Bank taking a key role as “honest broker” during public private partnership discussions.

x Application of initiatives designed to organise the informal waste recycling sector to the informal meat waste sector.

x Application of Bank and other institutions’ SWM-related municipal finance and government expertise to the livestock and meat processing sector, acknowledging the issues as Public Good.

x Increase in transparency of financial management and investment, improve investment ratios, and encourage private investment.

x Adopt or adapt existing economic instruments proven to work for Municipal Solid Waste Management

x Acceptance of / education in the rendering of slaughter wastes (including blood) as an



environmentally, financially, and sanitary benefit. However, the market for such products must be established and encouraged.

14.2.2 Recommendations for Further Study / Action

With respect to infrastructure improvements, another World Bank study has recently commenced a review of the existing infrastructure conditions based on the findings and data gathered during this study, entitled “Global Study on Reconstruction of Public Live Market, Slaughter and Meat Processing Facilities, including Related Cost Recovery and Economic Instruments” also funded through a JCTF grant. Recommendations on appropriate improvements to facilities and cost estimates for case study countries will be developed that can be applied on a global scale to plan and implement appropriate interventions. This is the next step on the way to potential implementation of improvements to livestock markets, slaughterhouses, and related facilities.

In the meantime, however, worldwide awareness needs to be spread, particularly with international funding / financing agencies and most importantly with developing country members, through dissemination of appropriate knowledge, tools, and materials to the appropriate government departments in each of the member countries that could promote the implementation of initiatives at national and municipal level.

The World Bank is already embarking on a number of international workshops to raise awareness of this very important issue, with the aim of forming a global alliance of institutions; as the present study has shown, meaningful improvements will only be achieved when all the many issues and fields are addressed holistically, both in terms of technical approach and common budgets. Several institutions have been involved in separate aspects of study identified within the present report (for example animal welfare, disease) and many already have some excellent results, guidelines and so forth. However, taken independently they lack the punch, gravitas, and foresight to address all issues for the common good. The joining of forces between these agencies and institutions will be beneficial to all ends.

The alliance outlined above would be of particular benefit in dealing with the softer issues such as operational procedures and management, institutional reorganisation, and economic instruments.

Facility, municipality and government-level recommendations have been provided throughout the report, and are summarised above, and these considerations should be adopted during future upgrade works. Below is a summary of areas requiring further study, potentially as distinct project preparation studies or pilot projects.

The following further investigations, studies, and pilot projects are recommended in order to determine appropriate follow-on actions and fill some of the gaps in knowledge that have been identified by this study:

x Government structures with respect to enhancement of services and collaboration in the areas of animal welfare, veterinary services, public health, food safety, and disease control.

x Veterinary practices and meat inspection services appropriate for developing countries, including training materials.

x Animal welfare appropriate to developing countries, including training materials.

x Stunning and slaughter practices appropriate for developing countries, including training materials and home slaughter.

x Financial management of municipal livestock markets and slaughterhouses; how to improve financial sustainability and the role of the private sector.

x The informal sector and its complex interactions with the formal sector, cultural issues, and government policy.

x Professionalisation of the sector, and in particular the workers; through the creation of associations using an adaptation of the SWM model already developed by the World Bank.

x Public awareness programmes covering such issues as food hygiene and safety, animal welfare, safe and humane slaughter. Some of these could be accommodated with or linked to existing water, sanitation, and waste initiatives and could even be introduced at junior school level.



x Pilot projects for rehabilitation / reconstruction of livestock markets, slaughterhouses, and related infrastructure and services specifically for developing countries. This should include the development of generic plans and designs (or design parameters) for small, medium, and large municipal facilities, which can be applied to suit the varying local conditions in developing countries.

x Safe disposal methods for livestock and slaughter wastes in developing countries.

x The use of antimicrobials and feed additives in developing countries, including the prevalence and use of illegal or unregulated substances.

x The impact of livestock wastes discharged to aquaculture and its relevance to human and animal health, food safety, and disease control.

x Investigations into opportunities and constraints related to Carbon finance.

x Study of existing information gaps, such as:

o Facility finances.

o Actual prevalence of disease.

o Livestock market management issues.

o Basic working guidelines

x Development of model tender documents for encouragement of private sector involvement.

x Promotion of the public good issues associated with good practice within the slaughter industry.

x Development of a website devoted to the Global Alliance For Humane Sustainability.

It is sincerely hoped that the present study will assist with promotion of the recognition that slaughter waste management, food safety, the environment and human health are public goods issues, and that this often ignored subject requires urgent attention through global cooperation.

The next steps are not easy, as the topics and issues cover a multitude of sectors. Any solutions must therefore be based on a participatory approach, covering both bottom-up and top-down issues, and ideally need to be low-tech on the ground but novel at the level of governance.

The World Bank, primarily through the efforts and enthusiasm of Sandra Cointreau, should be commended for its first steps along the road to improvement, and it is hoped that other agencies will be keen to join the GLOBAL ALLIANCE FOR HUMANE SUSTAINABILITY which is currently being developed.


Final Report A.1

APPENDIX A

REFERENCES


Final Report A.2

REFERENCES

PUBLICATIONS

Andriessen, (2004). “Meat Safety, Quality and Veterinary Public Health in Australia”. Powerhouse Press, Peterhead, Australia. ISBN 0646 – 30939 – 0).

Anil, M.H., McKinstry, J.L., Field, M., and Rodway, R.G., (1997). “Lack of Evidence for Stress being Caused tp Pigs by Witnessing the Slaughter of Conspecifics”. Animal Welfare 6 (1): 3 - 8.

Appleby M.C. and Hughes B.O., (1997). “Management and Welfare of Farm Animals”. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

“Australian Standard for the Hygienic Production and Transportation of Meat and Meat Products for Human Production”, (2007). CSIRO Publishing, Australia, ISBN 0-643-067647.

Bagader, A., El Chirazi, Al, Glayand, M. Samarrai, M., (1994). “Environmental Protection in Islam”. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper no. 20.

Bailey, G.D., B.A. Vantelow et al., (2003). "A study of the food borne pathogens Campylobacter, Listeria and Yersinia, in faeces from slaughter-age cattle and sheep in Australia" . Commun Dis Intell 27)2): 249-57.

Boonstra E, Lindbaek M, Fidzani B, Bruusgaard D., (2001). “Cattle eradication and malnutrition in under-five’s: a natural experiment in Botswana (Public Health Nutrition”. 4(4):877-882)

British Columbia Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC). (2007). “Abattoirs code of good practice: Critical Design, Operational and Equipment Guidelines for Licensed Abattoirs”.

Brown-Brandl, T. Berry, E. Wells, J. Arthur, T. Nienaber J., (2008). “The impact of stress level on fecal bacteria and pathogen shedding in feedlot cattle”. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan.

Cointreau S., (2007). “Draft Discussion Paper on Livestock Waste Management Issues”. Unpublished, World Bank, Washington.

David Wallinga, (2006). “Playing chicken- avoiding arsenic in your meat”. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

de Haan, C., Steinfeld, H., Blackburn, H., (1997). “Livestock & the environment: Finding a balance”. Report of Study by the Commission of the European Communities, the World Bank and the governments of Denmark, France, Germany, The Netherlands, United Kingdom and The United States of America for FAO.

Edwards, J.D., (2004). “The Role of the Veterinarian in Animal Welfare – a Global Perspective” in Proceedings of Global Conference on Animal Welfare: an OIE perspective, OIE Paris, France. Pp 27-32.

EU Guidance note on Blood Collection and Storage at Slaughterhouses, (2003).

EU Guidance note on the Disposal of Animal By-Products And Catering Waste, (2003).

EU Guidance note on the Loading and Unloading of Animal By-Products, (2003).

Ewbank, R., (1999). “Management and Welfare of Farm Animals”. UFAW UK. ISBN 1-900639-00-1 pp1-2.

FAO Editorial Production and Design Group Publishing Management Service, (2004). “Good Practices for the Meat Industry”. FAO, Rome.

FAO, (2005), Livestock Policy Brief 01, Responding to the Livestock Revolution – the Case for Livestock Public Policies, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

Gottardo, F., Ricci, R., Fregolent, G., Ravarotto, L., Cozzi, G., (2003). “Welfare and meat quality of beef cattle housed on two types of floors with the same space allowance”. Italian Journal of Animal Science. 2003, Vol. 2; Issue 4, Pages 243-254. Avenue Media, Italy.

Heinz, G., (2008). “Abattoir Development: Options and Designs for Hygienic Small and Medium-sized Abattoirs”. Animal Production and Health Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, 2008

Howe, K.S., (1992). “Epidemiologists’ view of economics - an economist’s reply”. Society for Veterinary


Final Report A.3

Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Denary Proceedings, Edinburgh 1-3 April 1992 Ed. Thrusfield M.V. pp 60-71).

Hungerford, T.G., (1990). “Diseases of Livestock” . McGraw-Hill, Sydney. ISBN-07-452563-8.

IFC Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Poultry Production, (2007).

IFC Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Meat Processing, (2007).

IFC Guidance Note, (2006). “Animal Welfare in Livestock Operations”. International Finance Corporation / World Bank Group Washington, USA.

IFC Quick Note. “Creating Business Opportunity through Improved Animal Welfare”. International Finance Corporation / World Bank Group Washington, USA.

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Reference Document on “Best Available Techniques in the Slaughterhouses and Animal By-products Industries”. November 2003 (EU).

Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), Regional Policy Dialogue Study Series, (2003). “Economic Instruments for Solid Waste Management: Global Review and Applications for Latin America and the Caribbean”. Integration and Regional Programs Department Sustainable Development Department.

LI Yan-Xia, CHEN Tong-Bin, (2005). “Concentrations of additive arsenic in Beijing pig feeds and the residues in pig manure”. Resources, conservation and recycling vol. 45, no4, pp. 356-367 [12 page(s) (article)] (1 p.1/2)

Loehr, R. C., (1978). “Hazardous solid waste from agriculture”. Environmental Health Perspectives, vol 27, pp 261-273.

Russell, J.B., Diez-Gonzalez, F., and Jarvis G.N., (2000). "Potential Effect on Cattle Diets and the Transmission of Pathogenic Escherichia Coli to Humans". Microbes Infect 2, no, 1 45-53.

Shui-Jen Chen, Ming-Cheng Hung, Kuo-Lin Huang, (2004): “Emission of heavy metals from animal carcass incinerators in Taiwan”. Wen-Ing Hwang Chemosphere 55 1197–1205.

Smith, G.C., Grandin, T., Friend, T., Lay, D., Swanson, J., (2004). “Effect of Transport on Meat Quality and Animal Welfare of Cattle, Pigs, Sheep, Horses, Deer, and Poultry” . Kansas State University December, 2004.

Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M. de Haan, C., (2006). “Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options”. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy.

Toma, B. et al., (1999a). “Dictionary of Veterinary Epidemiology”. Iowa State University Press, Ames. ISBN 0-8138-2639-X. p 88.

Toma, B. et al., (1999b). “Applied Veterinary Epidemiology”. AEEMA, 7, Avenue de General de Gaulle, 94704 Maisons Alfort, France. ISBN 92-9044-487-8. pp 5-6.

Thrusfield, M., (1995). “Veterinary Epidemiology”. Blackwell Science. ISBN 0-63204851-4. p313)

Verheijen, L., Wiersema D., Hulshoff L., Pol J., (1996).“The Environmental Impact Of The Animal Product Processing Industries”. De Wit International Agriculture Centre Wageningen, the Netherlands for FAO.

World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). “Tool for the Evaluation of Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS)”. Third edition, 2008.


Final Report A.4

WEBSITES

Codex Alimentarius: http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp

FAO slaughter guidelines: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/T0279E/T0279E00.htm

OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code 2007: http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/Mcode/en_sommaire.htm

USEPA Effluent Guidelines for Meat and Poultry Products (MPP) http://www.epa.gov/guide/mpp/

World Animal Health Information Database (WAHID): http://www.oie.int/wahid-prod/public.php?page=home

World Bank webpage for present study workshop: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTURBANDEVELOPMENT/0,,contentMDK:21681764~menuPK:2644039~pagePK:64020865~piPK:51164185~theSitePK:337178,00.html

World Bank Livestock, Slaughter Waste and Carcass Disposal resources: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTURBANDEVELOPMENT/EXTUSWM/0,,contentMDK:20239437~menuPK:463861~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:463841,00.html#livestock10

http://www.halalfoodauthority.co.uk/slaughter_procedures.htm

http://www.haccpalliance.org/sub/index.html

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/T0279E/T0279E00.htm

http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/Mcode/en_sommaire.htm

http://www.epa.gov/guide/mpp/

http://www.oie.int/wahid-prod/public.php?page=home

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTURBANDEVELOPMENT/0,,contentMDK:21681764~menuPK:2644039~pagePK:64020865~piPK:51164185~theSitePK:337178,00.html

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTURBANDEVELOPMENT/0,,contentMDK:21681764~menuPK:2644039~pagePK:64020865~piPK:51164185~theSitePK:337178,00.html

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTURBANDEVELOPMENT/EXTUSWM/0,,contentMDK:20239437~menuPK:463861~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:463841,00.html#livestock10

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTURBANDEVELOPMENT/EXTUSWM/0,,contentMDK:20239437~menuPK:463861~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:463841,00.html#livestock10

http://www.halalfoodauthority.co.uk/slaughter_procedures.htm

http://www.haccpalliance.org/sub/index.html


Final Report B.1

APPENDIX B

EXAMPLE SURVEY INSTRUMENTS AND OTHER DATA FROM FIELD VISTS


Final Report B.2

APPENDIX B:

EXAMPLE SURVEY INSTRUMENTS, TRADING CHAIN ANALYSES, AND OTHER EXAMPLE DATA FROM FIELD SURVEY VISITS

Due to the requirement to protect the identities of the study countries, publication of the highly detailed data contained in the Interim Report is not possible. As a consequence, a large compendium of data used by the Study Team in order to draw conclusions and make recommendations cannot be provided in the present report.

This Appendix presents some sample data reporting and analysis to demonstrate the level of detail achieved during the field visits and subsequent analysis.

Whilst the country-specific data remains too sensitive for general publication, it is hoped that the work will nevertheless be made available for use in further studies and research, on an upon-request basis.

Please contact Sandra Cointreau at the World Bank for further information.


Final Report B.3

EXAMPLE SURVEY INSTRUMENT (Note: Image is deliberately unclear to protect location details)


Final Report B.4

HOUSEHOLDERFARM

INFORMALMARKET

URBANMARKET

COMMERCIALFARM

PR

OD

UC

TIO

NTR

ANSP

OR

T M

OVE

ME

NT

TOS

LAU

GH

TER

HO

US

E

CO

NV

ER

SIO

NO

F LI

VE N

IMAL

TO M

EA

T P

RO

DU

CTS

TRAN

SPO

RT

OF

MEA

T &

MEA

T PR

OD

UC

TS T

O M

ARKE

TR

ETAI

L

HOUSEHOLDER SLAUGHTER

FORMALSLAUGHTER BY

FLAYERS IN TMA FACILITIES

WHOLESALEMEAT

TRADER

MARKET STALL

STREETSTALL

SUPERMARKET

FOOD SERVICE

DIR

ECT

PR

OD

UC

ER

PRO

DU

CER

OR

LIV

ESTO

CK

TRAD

ERW

HO

LESA

LE M

EAT

TRAD

ER O

R R

ETAI

LER

PU

RC

HAS

ES

LIVE

AN

D H

AS T

HE

ANIM

AL P

RO

CES

SED

RET

AILE

R

PHYS

ICA

L M

OVE

MEN

T FR

OM

FA

RM

TO

CO

NSU

MER

OW

NER

SHIP

IN S

UPP

LY C

HA

IN

LIVE ANIMAL FLOWMEAT FLOW5TH QTR FLOW

HOUSEHOLDERFARM

INFORMALMARKET

URBANMARKET

COMMERCIALFARM

PR

OD

UC

TIO

NTR

ANSP

OR

T M

OVE

ME

NT

TOS

LAU

GH

TER

HO

US

E

CO

NV

ER

SIO

NO

F LI

VE N

IMAL

TO M

EA

T P

RO

DU

CTS

TRAN

SPO

RT

OF

MEA

T &

MEA

T PR

OD

UC

TS T

O M

ARKE

TR

ETAI

L

HOUSEHOLDER SLAUGHTER

FORMALSLAUGHTER BY

FLAYERS IN TMA FACILITIES

WHOLESALEMEAT

TRADER

MARKET STALL

STREETSTALL

SUPERMARKET

FOOD SERVICE

DIR

ECT

PR

OD

UC

ER

PRO

DU

CER

OR

LIV

ESTO

CK

TRAD

ERW

HO

LESA

LE M

EAT

TRAD

ER O

R R

ETAI

LER

PU

RC

HAS

ES

LIVE

AN

D H

AS T

HE

ANIM

AL P

RO

CES

SED

RET

AILE

R

PHYS

ICA

L M

OVE

MEN

T FR

OM

FA

RM

TO

CO

NSU

MER

OW

NER

SHIP

IN S

UPP

LY C

HA

IN

LIVE ANIMAL FLOWMEAT FLOW5TH QTR FLOW

EXAMPLE LIVESTOCK TRADING CHAIN


Final Report B.5

EXAMPLE INSTITUTION MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE CHART


Final Report B.6

A. Example: Weekly Figures for Beef and Mutton Slaughter in Country X

Slaughterhouse Buffalo & Cattle Goats & Sheep

Location 1 793 24,742

Location 2 203 305

Location 3 56 753

Total 1,052 25,800

B. Example: Retail Prices for Offal Products in Country Y

Offal Product Beef (xxx/kg)

Pork (xxx/kg)

Head 20,000 30,000

Feet 20,000 20,000

Heart 40,000 20,000

Liver 5,000 80,000

Kidney 5,000 13,000

Spleen 5,000 70,000

Lung 5,000 5,000

Oesophagus 5,000 10,00

Tongue 20,000 60,000

Blood 2,000 5,000

Stomach 40,000 70,000

Small intestines - 40,000

Large intestines - 5,000

Uterus - 100,000

Bung - 10,000

Fat - 20,000

Tail 50,000 4,000

Head – skin / meat 40,000 30,000

Table C– Example: Livestock Population in Country Z

Animal Population

Cattle 2,728,800

Sheep 17,026,300

Goat 5,358,600

Chickens 38,000,000

Equines Unknown

Camels 172,867

Pigs Unknown


Final Report C.1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY OF MAIN FACILITY ISSUES

IN THE STUDY CITIES

Nippon Koei in association with Global Study on Livestock Markets, Slaughterhouses ProAnd Associates Australia and Related Waste Management Systems

Final Report C.2

Appendix C - Summary and Comparison of Main Issues (Positive and Negative) for Facilities in the Study Cities (Shaded cells are not applicable)

Countries 1 to 5 Item

Low-Income Country 1 (EAP)

Low-Income Country 2 (SA)

Low-Income Country 3 (A)

Middle-Income Country 1 (MENA)

Middle-Income Country 2 (SAC)

Livestock Markets Positive: x No livestock markets within the city. x Little waste produced and generally

purchased or disposed to adjacent fish ponds.

x Some veterinary inspection and certification.

x Animals are exposed to people so control is relatively easy.

x Close to slaughterhouses.

x In general, market infrastructure is in good condition, with stone floors at most markets.

x Security is generally good. x Livestock waste collected for fuel during

the dry season.

x Some animals are in good condition suggesting good treatment at some locations.

x Good space and potential for upgrade.

x Low rainfall. x Poultry generally well reared. x Some water available. x Other basic facilities for animals and

people are sometimes available.

Negative: x Poultry market (poultry village) facilities very poor.

x Sanitation and hygiene practices are poor.

x Veterinary inspection and monitoring limited.

x Access roads poor, although main highways generally good.

x Many informal traders operating outside or close to the market.

x Very poor access and markets very congested.

x No proper loading / unloading facilities. x Few, if any, facilities for animals or

people. x No shade or cover. x Surrounded by urban development. x Markets generally located on waste

ground, the main cattle market being located on an open dumpsite.

x No security. x Little or no veterinary inspection. x Many animals in poor condition.

x Vehicular access is poor. x Loading and unloading facilities are poor. x Steep gradients are good for drainage

but combined with animal wastes will be very slippery during the rainy season.

x Lack of collection and treatment of runoff during the rainy season.

x No sale facilities, e.g. scales or rails. x No welfare facilities, e.g. ramps or water

troughs. x No sanitation facilities, e.g. toilet and

hand-washing. x Waste management and cleaning is

poor. x No movement control or reporting. x No disease inspection. x Split responsibility between MoI and MoA

is failing.

x Hydatids common and not properly tested for.

x Poor welfare and hygiene facilities, however, better than nil.

x Central government control is poor. x Municipal control is poor. x Frequent national and international

movements of animals presents risks for potential disease spread.

Slaughterhouses Positive: x In 2010 the government will move all slaughter facilities out of the city to more appropriate areas and into more modern facilities.

x Private sector facilities only, no municipal slaughterhouses.

x Almost zero solid waste from the animals (everything is consumed); recycling sector very active.

x Private meat processing company facilities and practices are very good, but it operates in a niche market for pork products, representing only 2-3% of Hanoi’s supply.

x Main facilities in good condition, despite their age and very heavy usage; although, one smaller slaughterhouse is in need of some general repair and upgrading.

x Presence of veterinary officers at all facilities.

x Skilled workers.

x Municipal abattoirs generally have good facilities, although somewhat old.

x Given the conditions and old facilities, the level of management and quality control at municipal abattoirs is good, at the main abattoir in particular.

x Rendering of waste products undertaken at the main abattoir is producing reasonable income.

x Private abattoirs are being promoted and one of these is a good model, although some small process / facility improvements could make things much better.

x Commercial poultry plants have good hygiene standards.

x Casablanca slaughterhouse has good standards.

x At other facilities, some are doing, well given conditions.

x Commercial poultry plants are world class.

x Private red meat slaughterhouses have good conditions generally and are striving to improve.

x Municipal slaughterhouses are basic, but at least help prevent informal slaughter.

x Good levels of recycling and rendering of slaughter waste.

x In general, good treatment of seized (condemned) material at slaughterhouses.

Negative: x All main facilities poorly located and surrounded by urban areas.

x In general, animals appeared to be in good condition.

x Facilities are poor, particularly for pigs and poultry.

x Poor sanitation and hygiene. x No protective equipment for workers. x Modern pig slaughterhouse not in use. x Low demand for modern poultry-line

products. x Poor regulation and veterinary

inspection; no effective ante and post mortem inspection.

x No effective treatment for wastewater from slaughterhouses.

x Very poor lighting.

x Municipal facilities are old and not conducive to modern slaughtering techniques.

x Facilities are extremely congested and most activities carried out on the floor.

x Sanitation and hygiene practices are poor.

x Collection of blood (cattle) and intestines (sheep and goat) from drains by hand is a serious health risk.

x No protective equipment or clothing used, not even footwear in most cases.

x Animals being slaughtered and dressed constantly in front of others.

x Veterinary inspection is present at municipal facilities but inspection by some vets is limited.

x No post mortem inspection. x Slaughter of pregnant and very sick

animals observed. x Evidence of corruption observed /

discussed.

x Some slaughter and carcass dressing carried out of the floor at municipal facilities.

x Post mortem inspection needs improvement.

x Lighting conditions are poor. x Formal training of abattoir staff needed,

particularly if the four planned abattoirs are built.

x Good space and potential for upgrade. x Informal slaughter at household level

and illegal slaughter by butchers is rampant, particularly for poultry and smalls-stock.

x Commercial poultry plants have comparatively poor WM practices.

x Slaughter wastes are considerable due to lack of recycling or rendering.

x Blood waste is an important issue; also linked to halal slaughter methods, which were not generally observed.

x Split responsibility between MoI and MoA is failing.

x MoA has too few vets. x Generally questionable treatment of

seizure. x Informal slaughter is very widespread

and policing is corrupt. x Waste management is on the whole very

poor and represents a real danger. x Veterinary inspection generally

inadequate.

x Poor government involvement and regulation.

x Smaller poultry slaughterhouses have bad conditions.

x Chicken viscera swill feeding is dangerous and widespread.

x Informal rearing and slaughter is widespread.

x Informal slaughter is widespread, and in some cases encouraged by municipalities.


Final Report C.3







Meat Processing Positive: x Private meat processing company has excellent modern slaughtering and meat processing facilities for pork products.

x Good facilities at small private sausage factory.

x Very good standards in the large poultry processing plants, which have a large market share.

x Very good standards in the private boning companies.

x Very good standards in the large poultry processing plants, which have a large market share.

x Supermarkets have central processing facilities with good practice and products.

x Many by-products are used.

Negative: x Limited market for the high-cost products.

x Only one facility and very little demand for their products other than supermarkets.

x Sector not maximising use of by-products.

x Legislation is holding back development of smaller companies.

x Supermarkets have central processing facilities with good practice and products.

x Many by-products are used.

Public Markets Positive: x Market facilities generally good and appear to operate well under the local communes.

x Market wastes collected by a single government-owned company.

x Market facilities generally good and appear to operate well under the local communes.

x Steep slopes ensure good drainage. x Market wastes collected by MSW

services. x Chickens sold live in separate area but no

slaughtering.

x Historical facilities steeped in tradition and producing some good products.

x Generally acceptable standards. x Good buildings, services and utilities

provided by municipality.

Negative: x Market facilities include live poultry that is traded and/or slaughtered at the market, with little or no control with respect to disease.

x Wastewater discharges to fish ponds.

x No control or inspection of animals for sale.

x On the same sites as live markets and slaughterhouses.

x Chicken vendors in amongst other stalls. x Facilities poor (MoI responsibility). x Waste management poor.

x Imitation of big brands is a worry and is commonplace.

Retail Outlets & Superrmarkets

Positive: x Retail shops (market stalls) sell fresh meat products and mostly sold out by mid-morning and typically consumed within the same day, reducing risk of spoiled meat.

x Supermarket sector with good equipment and practices starting to grow.

x Retail butchers supply ‘fresh’ meat to the general public (no refrigeration).

x Supermarkets generally have good facilities and source their meat from private abattoirs outside of the City.

x Good hygiene and sanitation at supermarkets.

x Retail butchers supply ‘fresh’ meat to the general public and some have refrigeration.

x Some of the better butcher shops have good hygiene practices.

x Good hygiene and sanitation at supermarkets.

x Due to large % of chicken sales being live vendors, presumably population has good immunity against more common illnesses.

x Standards of waste management, hygiene, etc are good at the supermarkets.

x Good standards in most high and middle end butchers.

x Supermarkets are driving change in terms of meat quality and hygiene standards, in turn causing slaughter conditions to improve.

x Most shops have reasonable hygiene levels.

x Very little meat waste from the sector.

Negative: x Hygiene and facilities at retail outlets poor.

x Low demand for supermarket products, although growing slowly.

x Retail butchers responsible for much of the illegal slaughter / informal sector.

x No control or inspection of animals slaughtered at retail butchers.

x Poor sanitation and hygiene at retail butchers.

x Retail butchers responsible for much of the illegal slaughter / informal sector.

x Many retail butcher shops are open to the road with no glass frontage.

x Little control and no inspection of animals slaughtered at retail butchers.

x Poor sanitation and hygiene at many retail butchers.

x Live chicken shops are a worry. x Informal sector is a big concern; mixing

of meats in butcher shops. x Freshness more important to people than

hygiene, slaughter or provenance.

x Imitation of big brands is a worry and is commonplace.

x One supermarket found to be supplying informal sector with poultry waste.

x Informal sector is believed to be considerable.

Waste Management Positive: x Good collection and transport for municipal solid waste throughout the city.

x Urban infrastructure projects are expanding the sanitation and sewerage facilities in the city.

x Good collection and transport in most city locations and coverage expanding.

x WB financed project assisting with planning of solid waste for the City and other infrastructure.

x Good collection and transport in most city locations and coverage expanding.

x Private sector being encouraged. x No tipping fees at the municipal

dumpsite, to encourage private sector to dump legally.

x Planning and design for new sanitary landfill well advanced.

x Two wastewater treatment plants in good condition and running below capacity.

x City centre sewerage system to be expanded.

x New sanitary landfill almost complete. x Private sector involvement is working

well. x Sewerage and WWT upgrade underway. x Local clean-up project is a good sign for

the future.

x Much of the city’s waste goes to a controlled dump or sanitary landfill.

x Very little slaughter waste is produced due to good (generally) use of by-products.


Final Report C.4







Waste Management Negative: x Landfill sites not sanitary-type, but improvements are being made at newest site.

x Liquid waste collection very poor and pollution of watercourses and drainage canals is very bad due to limited sanitation / sewerage facilities in the City.

x Dumpsite and general disposal facilities are poor and clinical wastes disposed with MSW and livestock wastes.

x Many waste-pickers and animal scavengers at the unfenced site.

x Much illegal dumping can be seen on the outskirts of the City, even around locations where MSW vehicles and equipment are stored.

x Liquid waste treatment none existent and disposal to local watercourses.

x Only one official disposal site for the City. x Dumpsite and general disposal facilities

are poor and livestock wastes disposed with MSW.

x No fencing to the site and access is uncontrolled.

x Many waste-pickers and animal scavengers, some of the former can be aggressive.

x Liquid wastes from abattoirs and markets are not collected and discharge directly to local watercourses.

x New landfill will not accept slaughter or dangerous wastes, but no alternative exists.

x Both cities’ dumps currently atrocious. x Post closure of landfill sites is a worry. x Most slaughter waste not scavenged

ends up on dump, where human and animals scavenge.

x Slaughter wastes are considerable due to lack of recycling or rendering.

x Unscrupulous private slaughter waste contractors.

x Institutional system is overly complex and hampers good WM.

x Poor municipalities are not subsidised and hence are forced into illegal dumping.

x Illegal dumps, in association with many pigs, are commonplace.

x Liquid waste disposal is poor with governance and institutional control totally unsatisfactory.

Animal Health Positive: x Animals generally appear to be in good condition.

x Most animals appear to be in reasonable condition.

x Most animals appear to be in reasonable condition.

x Some animals are in good condition.

x Vaccination programme appears to be working.

x Large companies have excellent controls and healthy animals (pigs and poultry).

Negative: x Poor treatment of animals, especially pigs and poultry.

x Often animals are not stunned (poultry and pigs) prior to slaughter.

x Pigs can see others killed in same holding pen.

x Stunning of cattle poor using sledgehammer.

x Local transport of animals poor.

x Although many animals appear to be healthy there is a high proportion in a stressed condition from travelling, etc.

x Poor facilities for animals at the markets. x Main cattle market located on a

dumpsite.

x Poor treatment of animals. x Transport of animals poor. x Stunning method for large ruminants is

not ideal. x Animals can see others killed.

x Poor animal health on dumpsites. x Poor animal welfare at livestock markets

and elsewhere. x Poor transport arrangements.

x Certification programme is not working as designed.

x Poor transport conditions and long journeys.

x Hydatidsosis and cystercicosis are rampant.

Disease Epidemiology

Positive: x Disease spread is limited because animals are brought into the city for terminal slaughter, not trading.

x Because of history with avian influenza, strict controls in place for poultry; live birds not allowed into the City limits.

x Plans in place to prohibit all live animals in the city by 2010, similar to the controls on poultry.

x Ante mortem inspection, but limited in scope.

x Approximately 70% of animals brought into the City for terminal slaughter.

x Certification in operation for animals brought into the City.

x Blood from cattle and pigs used for Tsetse fly eradication programme (collected from main abattoir on Tuesday only).

x Plans to introduce a tagging and traceability system.

x Vaccination programme appears to be working.

x Good database in existence.

Negative: x Insufficient resources and systems currently in place to control and track animals.

x Poultry markets outside of the city have very limited control of disease, although tighter controls are taking effect and response to outbreaks is generally good.

x Many animals traded at market are destined for the north of the country and Afghanistan contributing to the potential spread of disease.

x No disease control measures at the markets and limited at the slaughterhouse.

x No post mortem inspection.

x Approximately 30% of animals are traded and can be moved elsewhere inside or outside of the City with little or no control, creating a potential disease problem.

x Certification at markets is only for animals from outside the City.

x Live markets have no controls. x Highly pathogenic waste is left in

slaughter / market places for scavenging by many species.

x Vets in charge of food hygiene at sardine canning factories, but too few available to inspect meat at slaughterhouses. Likely the result of low salaries at the slaughterhouses.

x Database is poorly managed, so useless in case of an outbreak.

x Swill feeding of pigs with slaughter waste is a serious viral pandemic danger.


Final Report D.1

APPENDIX D

SUMMARY OF MAIN WASTES GENERATED

AND THEIR DISPOSAL / REUSE

IN THE STUDY COUNTRIES


Final Report D.2

Appendix D - Summary of Main Wastes and their Disposal / Reuse for the Five Study Countries (Shaded cells are not applicable)

Country Item






Livestock Markets Manure: x Poultry only – disposed to fish ponds. x Left where it falls (ruminants) and

sweeped-up and disposed with municipal solid waste (poultry).

x Collected and dried out for fuel in dry season, but washed away with runoff into local watercourses during wet season.

x Scavenged for fertiliser or left in situ. x Scavenged and wind dispersal.

Feed: x NA: Little or no feed provided. x NA: Little or no feed provided. x NA: Little or no feed provided. x NA: no feed provided. x NA: little feed provided. Bedding x NA: Little or no bedding provided. x Used material thrown off trucks when

unloaded and reportedly collected daily, although some is not.

x NA: Little or no bedding provided. x NA: no bedding provided. x NA: no bedding provided.

Wash-down water: x NA: No wash-down conducted. x NA: No wash-down conducted. x NA: No wash-down conducted. x NA: no wash-down conducted. x Some truck wash-down: water to river. Other: x NA. x NA. x NA. x NA. x NA.

Slaughterhouses – Cattle Blood x Collected for sale / consumption. x Collected for drying and fertiliser

production. x Disposed with wastewater, although

collected each Tuesday from Orthodox slaughter hall at main abattoir for use in Tsetse fly eradication programme.

x City 1: to sea. x City 2: to WWTP then sewer. x Tueries: sewer or surface.

x To sewers.

Head x Sold as edible. x Sold as edible. x Fleshed and remainder rendered. x City 1: skin and horns to MSW, rest to butcher.

x City 2: skin and horns to incinerator, rest to butcher.

x Tueries: skin and horns to market waste point and possibly dump, rest to butchers.

x To butchers or fleshed and remainder rendered.

Hide x Sold to dealer / tannery after cleaning. x Sold to dealer / tannery after cleaning. x Sold to dealer / tannery after cleaning. x City 1: storage on site. x City 2: to tanneries. x Tueries: generally to dump.

x To tanneries.

Feet and Hooves x Sold for cleaning and consumption. x Sold for cleaning and consumption. x To processing of glue. x To offal dealer/vendor in all cases. x Kept by slaughterhouse for sale or rendering, or sold separately by dealer.

Edible Offal x Processed on-site and sold to offal dealer / market.

x With carcass to owner (butcher). x With carcass to butcher. x To offal dealer/vendor in all cases. x To offal dealer/vendor in all cases.

Inedible offal x Sold to offal dealer. x Sold to offal dealer. x Rendering or drainage system. x To public skip then dump (tueries) or to incinerator.

x Rendered or incinerated or to dump.

Stomach & Intestinal Contents x Stomach sold to offal dealer. x Stomach contents placed in plastic

containers and collected free of charge by local farmer.

x Stomach to butcher with carcass. x Stomach contents.

x Stomach to butcher with carcass. x Stomach contents to drainage system.

x City 1: Stomach to offal dealer/vendor, intestinal contents to “compost”.

x City 2: Stomach to offal dealer/vendor, intestinal contents to desiccators then dump.

x Tueries: Stomach to offal dealer/vendor, contents to dump.

x Stomach generally sold to dealers, and contents to one company for compost production.

Fat & Trimmings x Sold as fish or pet food. x To butcher. x x Generally to offal dealers. x Rendered or to offal dealers. Bones x Sold to restaurants to make soup broth. x Carcasses despatched bone-in. x Carcasses despatched bone-in. x NA: none produced. x NA: none produced. Wash-down water x To municipal drainage system and into

local watercourse / drainage canal without treatment.

x To municipal drainage system and into local watercourse / drainage canal without treatment.

x Discharged to local watercourse without treatment.

x City 1: to sea. x City 2: to WWTP then sewer. x Tueries: sewer or surface.

x Basic treatment then sewer.

Other: x NA. x Waste from emergency kill dumped in the street.

x Seizure to incinerator in the cities and to pit for Tueries.

x Seizure to incinerator or rendered.

Slaughterhouses – Sheep & Goats Head x Generally processed with feet. x Carcass despatched head-on. x To offal dealer/vendor in all cases. x With carcass or sold separately. Feet x Generally processed with heads. x To dumpsite. x To offal dealer/vendor in all cases. x With carcass or sold separately. Skin x To local tanneries. x To local tanneries. x City 1: to tanneries.

x City 2: to tanneries. x Tueries: to tanneries.

x Unknown.

Blood x To drain and local watercourse. x To drain and local watercourse. x City 1: to sea. x City 2: to WWTP then sewer. x Tueries: sewer or surface.

x To river or sewer.

Pluck (Thoracic Offal) x With carcass. x With carcass. x To offal dealer/vendor in all cases. x To offal dealer/vendor or sold by owner.


Final Report D.3

Country Item






Intestines (Abdominal Offal) x To offal dealer / processor. x To drain and local watercourse. x City 1: part to export, part to incinerator. x City 2: part to offal dealers, part to

incinerator. x Tueries: with head.

x To offal dealer/vendor or sold by owner.

Stomach and Intestinal Contents x Stomach to offal dealer / processor. x Contents to drain and local watercourse.

x Contents to drain and local watercourse. x City 1: part to offal dealers, part to “compost”.

x City 2: Stomach to offal dealer/vendor, intestinal contents to desiccators then dump.

x Tueries: Stomach to offal dealer/vendor, contents to dump.

x Stomach to offal dealer/vendor or sold by owner.

x Contents unknown.

Other Pieces & Trimmings x NA. x NA. x NA. x In one location, hydatid cysts to ground or river.

Horns x To dealer for processing. x To dealer for processing. x City 1: with head. x City 2: with head. x Tueries: with head.

x Unknown.

Wash-down water x To drain and local watercourse. x To drain and local watercourse. x City 1: to sea. x City 2: to WWTP then sewer. x Tueries: sewer or surface.

x To river or sewer.

Other: x NA. x Seizure to incinerator. x Seizure to incinerator in the cities and to pit for Tueries.

x Seizure to rendering or incinerator.

Slaughterhouses - Pigs Blood x Collected for processing / consumption

and sold. Spillage (small) to drain and local ponds.

x Collected for Tsetse fly eradication programme. Spillage to internal drainage system discharging to local watercourse.

x City 2: to WWTP then sewer. x To sewer or processed for sausage, etc.

Hair x Part collected and part municipal waste. x Municipal waste or incineration. x City 2: to incinerator. x Dump or rendering. Edible Offal x Washed and processed on-site for sale

at market. x With pig carcass. x City 2: with carcass. x To offal dealer or sold separately by

slaughterhouse. Inedible offal x Washed and processed on-site for sale. x Rendering or drainage system. x City 2: incinerated. x Edible: to offal dealer or sold separately

by slaughterhouse. x Inedible: to dump, incinerator or

rendering. Stomach & Intestinal Contents x To drainage system / sedimentation

tank (larger facility only). x To drainage system. x City 2: incinerated. x Stomach generally sold to dealers, and

contents to private company for compost production.

Fat & Trimmings x With carcass. x With carcass. x NA: none produced. x NA: none produced. Bones x With carcass. x With carcass. x NA: none produced. x NA: none produced. Wash-down water x To drain and local ponds. x To on-site drainage system and to local

watercourse. x City 2: to WWTP then sewer. x Basic treatment then sewer.

Other: x Seizure (rare) incinerated and buried at site.

x Seizure to incinerator. x City 2: Seizure to incinerator . x Seizure to incinerator or rendered.

Slaughterhouses - Poultry Feathers x Plucked and sold to trader. x With skin for rendering. x Small retail: MSW or market waste area.

x Large commercial: dump. x Small retail: dealer or MSW. x Small slaughter: specialist co for meal. x Large commercial: specialist company for

meal. Blood x With bird. x Soaked into feathers – rendering. x Small retail: sewer or surface.

x Large commercial: sewer or dump. x Small retail: pig feed or sewer. x Small slaughter: pig feed. x Large commercial: specialist company for

meal. Giblets x With bird. x With bird. x Small retail: with bird.

x Large commercial: with bird or for processing.

x Small retail: with bird. x Small slaughter: with bird. x Large commercial: with bird or for

processing. Pluck x With bird. x With bird. x Small retail: with bird.

x Large commercial: with bird or for processing.

x Small retail: with bird. x Small slaughter: with bird. x Large commercial: with bird or for

processing.


Final Report D.4

Country Item






Intestines x Fish food. x Animal feed. x Small retail: MSW or market waste area. x Large commercial: dump.

x Small retail: pig feed or MSW. x Slaughter: pig feed. x Large commercial: specialist company for

meal. Head x With bird. x With bird. x Small retail: with bird.

x Large commercial: dump. x Small retail: with bird. x Small slaughter: with bird. x Large commercial: specialist company for

meal. Feet x With bird. x With bird. x Small retail: with bird or MSW or market

waste area. x Large commercial: dump or processing.

x Small retail: with bird. x Small slaughter: with bird. x Large commercial: specialist company for

meal. Trim x To fish ponds. x To adjacent watercourse / open drain or

with MSW. x Small retail: MSW or market waste area.

x Large commercial: dump or processing. x Unknown.

Wash-down water x To fish ponds. x To adjacent watercourse / open drain. x Small retail: sewer or surface. x Large commercial: Basic treatment then

sewer.

x Small retail: sewer. x Small slaughter: sewer. x Large commercial: treatment then sewer.

Other: x NA x NA x NA. x NA. Meat Processing x Private company has own treatment

plant. x One small facility making sausages –

on-site incinerator. x To dump. x Poultry: to specialist company or pig feed.

x Other: to specialist company or dump. Public Markets x With market waste to MSW dump. x To market waste area, then possibly to

dump. x Generally with MSW.

Retail Outlets & Supermarkets x With MSW. x With MSW. x With MSW. x Retail to MSW, supermarkets add chemicals prior to MSW disposal.

x With MSW.

Waste Management x NA: No access gained to waste disposal, but it is understood that any waste collected from slaughterhouses and markets is disposed with MSW with no special treatment.

x Livestock and slaughter wastes not used by the recycling and offal processing sector are dumped at the open dumpsite, along with manure and bedding from the market and trucks. Most of this organic material is, however, diverted to the adjacent private and expanding composting plant.

x The single open municipal dumpsite accepts livestock and slaughter solid wastes from municipal slaughterhouses, including hooves, horns, skins, and other organic wastes that are not utilised.

x Observations at the site suggest that bones, feet, and other products are also dumped; these likely coming from illegal and informal slaughter via the MSW.

Slaughter / meat waste to MSW system includes: x Feathers, viscera, dead stock, dead pets,

outdated product, some seizure, rumen contents, horns, hooves and bones.

x Disposal (if legal) is currently on the two dumpsites, both of which have terrible conditions, including many animals of different species, human pickers, and open leachate discharge.

x Only a small proportion of meat and slaughter waste goes to formal disposal, which is generally in a good controlled dump or sanitary landfill.

x The waste issue is not the disposal method of the waste, but the inappropriate usage of by-products in the informal sector.


Final Report E.1

APPENDIX E

ESTIMATE OF SLAUGHTER WASTES GENERATED

BY SPECIES IN THE STUDY COUNTRIES


Final Report E.2

Appendix E.1 - Formal and Informal Slaughter Estimates by Species for the Countries Visited




Middle-Income Country 1 (MENA) City A

Middle-Income Country 1 (MENA) City B


Item

Formal Informal Formal Informal Formal Informal Formal Informal Formal Informal Formal Informal

Cattle 1,050 0 2,452 1,000 4,450 8,900 900 99 5 2450 0 5,728 0 7

Sheep and goats 25,800 17,500 2,250 45,000 5,400 600 5 10,500 15,750 6 2,183 100 8

Pigs 10,570 11,900 1 40 0 60 0 9,572 1,914 9

Poultry 236,250 78,750 2 0 750,000 3 0 168,270 4 279,520 14,710 657,693 34,615 2,246,154 10 0

1. Household level businesses outside of city, supplying local markets. 2. Assumed to be 25% home slaughter. 3. Based on 300 T/day and chickens of 2kg live weight. 4. Based on 5 kg/capita-year (2kg for Low-Income Country 3 in 2005), a population of 3.5 million, and 2kg live weight. 5. Based on estimate provided by Manager of Veterinary services. 6. Based on an estimate of 60% of the total. 7. Estimated to be very small, therefore assumed to be nil. 8. Best estimates based on various verbal discussions. 9. Assumed to be 20% of the formal sector. 10. Based on 29.2 kg/capita-year, a population of 8 million, and 2kg live weight.


Final Report E.3

Appendix E.2 - Estimate of Slaughter Waste Products by Species for the Countries Visited

Indicative Weights of Slaughter Wastes

Weight Low-Income Country 1 (EAP)



Middle-Income Country 1 (MENA) - City A

Middle-Income Country 1 (MENA) - City B


Item

(% of L.W.)

Sector

(kg/animal) (T/week) (kg/animal) (T/week) (kg/animal) (T/week) (kg/animal) (T/week) (kg/animal) (T/week) (kg/animal) (T/week) Slaughter – Cattle Typical Live Weight 300 350 300 500 500 380 Typical Carcass Weight 55.0 165.0 192.5 165.0 275.0 275.0 209.0 Typical Meat Weight 40.0 120.0 140.0 120.0 200.0 200.0 152.0 Blood 5.0 Formal: 15.00 15.75 17.50 42.91 15.00 66.75 25.00 22.50 25.00 61.25 19.00 108.83 Informal: 15.00 0.00 17.50 17.50 15.00 133.50 25.00 2.48 25.00 0.00 19.00 0.00 Head 4.0 Formal: 12.00 12.60 14.00 34.33 12.00 53.40 20.00 18.00 20.00 49.00 15.20 87.07 Informal: 12.00 0.00 14.00 14.00 12.00 106.80 20.00 1.98 20.00 0.00 15.20 0.00 Hide 8.0 Formal: 24.00 25.20 28.00 68.66 24.00 106.80 40.00 36.00 40.00 98.00 30.40 174.13 Informal: 24.00 0.00 28.00 28.00 24.00 213.60 40.00 3.96 40.00 0.00 30.40 0.00 Feet 3.0 Formal: 9.00 9.45 10.50 25.75 9.00 40.05 15.00 13.50 15.00 36.75 11.40 65.30 Informal: 9.00 0.00 10.50 10.50 9.00 80.10 15.00 1.49 15.00 0.00 11.40 0.00 Edible Offal 3.5 Formal: 10.50 11.03 12.25 30.04 10.50 46.73 17.50 15.75 17.50 42.88 13.30 76.18 Informal: 10.50 0.00 12.25 12.25 10.50 93.45 17.50 1.73 17.50 0.00 13.30 0.00 White offal (total) 8.5 Formal: 25.50 26.78 29.75 72.95 25.50 113.48 42.50 38.25 42.50 104.13 32.30 185.01 Informal: 25.50 0.00 29.75 29.75 25.50 226.95 42.50 4.21 42.50 0.00 32.30 0.00 Stomach & Intestinal Contents 13.0 Formal: 39.00 40.95 45.50 111.57 39.00 173.55 65.00 58.50 65.00 159.25 49.40 282.96 Informal: 39.00 0.00 45.50 45.50 39.00 347.10 65.00 6.44 65.00 0.00 49.40 0.00 Fat & Trimmings 5.0 Formal: 15.00 15.75 17.50 42.91 15.00 66.75 25.00 22.50 25.00 61.25 19.00 108.83 Informal: 15.00 0.00 17.50 17.50 15.00 133.50 25.00 2.48 25.00 0.00 19.00 0.00 Bones 10.0 Formal: 30.00 31.50 35.00 85.82 30.00 133.50 50.00 45.00 50.00 122.50 38.00 217.66 Informal: 30.00 0.00 35.00 35.00 30.00 267.00 50.00 4.95 50.00 0.00 38.00 0.00 Total - Cattle 100.0 Formal: 189.00 514.92 801.00 270.00 735.00 1305.98 Informal: 0.00 210.00 1602.00 29.70 0.00 0.00 Slaughter - Sheep & Goats Typical Live Weight (kg) 0 32 30 30 30 28 Typical Carcass Weight (%) 47.0 0.0 15.0 14.1 14.1 14.1 13.2 Typical Meat Weight (%) - Head 4.0 Formal: 0.00 0.00 1.28 33.02 1.20 2.70 1.20 6.48 1.20 12.60 1.12 2.44 Informal: 0.00 0.00 1.28 22.40 1.20 54.00 1.20 0.72 1.20 18.90 1.12 0.11 Feet 1.5 Formal: 0.00 0.00 0.48 12.38 0.45 1.01 0.45 2.43 0.45 4.73 0.42 0.92 Informal: 0.00 0.00 0.48 8.40 0.45 20.25 0.45 0.27 0.45 7.09 0.42 0.04 Skin 7.0 Formal: 0.00 0.00 2.24 57.79 2.10 4.73 2.10 11.34 2.10 22.05 1.96 4.28 Informal: 0.00 0.00 2.24 39.20 2.10 94.50 2.10 1.26 2.10 33.08 1.96 0.20 Blood 4.5 Formal: 0.00 0.00 1.44 37.15 1.35 3.04 1.35 7.29 1.35 14.18 1.26 2.75 Informal: 0.00 0.00 1.44 25.20 1.35 60.75 1.35 0.81 1.35 21.26 1.26 0.13 Pluck (Thoracic Offal) 3.0 Formal: 0.00 0.00 0.96 24.77 0.90 2.03 0.90 4.86 0.90 9.45 0.84 1.83 Informal: 0.00 0.00 0.96 16.80 0.90 40.50 0.90 0.54 0.90 14.18 0.84 0.08 Intestines (Abdominal Offal) 10.0 Formal: 0.00 0.00 3.20 82.56 3.00 6.75 3.00 16.20 3.00 31.50 2.80 6.11 Informal: 0.00 0.00 3.20 56.00 3.00 135.00 3.00 1.80 3.00 47.25 2.80 0.28

19.0 Formal: 0.00 0.00 6.08 156.86 5.70 12.83 5.70 30.78 5.70 59.85 5.32 11.61 Stomach and Intestinal Contents

Informal: 0.00 0.00 6.08 106.40 5.70 256.50 5.70 3.42 5.70 89.78 5.32 0.53 Other Pieces & Trimmings 1.0 Formal: 0.00 0.00 0.32 8.26 0.30 0.68 0.30 1.62 0.30 3.15 0.28 0.61 Informal: 0.00 0.00 0.32 5.60 0.30 13.50 0.30 0.18 0.30 4.73 0.28 0.03 Horns 3.0 Formal: 0.00 0.00 0.96 24.77 0.90 2.03 0.90 4.86 0.90 9.45 0.84 1.83 Informal: 0.00 0.00 0.96 16.80 0.90 40.50 0.90 0.54 0.90 14.18 0.84 0.08 Total - Sheep and Goats 100.0 Formal: 0.00 437.57 35.78 85.86 166.95 32.40 Informal: 0.00 296.80 715.50 9.54 250.43 1.48


Final Report E.4

Indicative Weights of Slaughter Wastes

Weight Low-Income Country 1 (EAP)



Middle-Income Country 1 (MENA) - City A

Middle-Income Country 1 (MENA) - City B


Item

(% of L.W.)

Sector

(kg/animal) (T/week) (kg/animal) (T/week) (kg/animal) (T/week) (kg/animal) (T/week) (kg/animal) (T/week) (kg/animal) (T/week) Slaughter - Pigs Typical Live Weight 70 0 70 0 70 90 Typical Carcass Weight 72.0 50.4 0.0 50.4 0.0 50.4 64.8 Typical Meat Weight 55.0 38.5 0.0 38.5 0.0 38.5 49.5 Blood 5.0 Formal: 3.50 37.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 0.14 0.00 0.00 3.50 0.21 4.50 43.07 Informal: 3.50 41.65 0.00 0.00 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 0.00 4.50 8.61 Hair 0.5 Formal: 0.35 3.70 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.02 0.45 4.31 Informal: 0.35 4.17 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.45 0.86 Edible Offal 6.5 Formal: 4.55 48.09 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.18 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.27 5.85 56.00 Informal: 4.55 54.15 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.00 5.85 11.20 White offal (total) 5.0 Formal: 3.50 37.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 0.14 0.00 0.00 3.50 0.21 4.50 43.07 Informal: 3.50 41.65 0.00 0.00 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 0.00 4.50 8.61 Stomach & Intestinal Contents 11.0 Formal: 7.70 81.39 0.00 0.00 7.70 0.31 0.00 0.00 7.70 0.46 9.90 94.76 Informal: 7.70 91.63 0.00 0.00 7.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.70 0.00 9.90 18.95 Fat & Trimmings 6.0 Formal: 4.20 44.39 0.00 0.00 4.20 0.17 0.00 0.00 4.20 0.25 5.40 51.69 Informal: 4.20 49.98 0.00 0.00 4.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.20 0.00 5.40 10.34 Bones 11.0 Formal: 7.70 81.39 0.00 0.00 7.70 0.31 0.00 0.00 7.70 0.46 9.90 94.76 Informal: 7.70 91.63 0.00 0.00 7.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.70 0.00 9.90 18.95 Total - Pigs 100.0 Formal: 332.96 0.00 1.26 0.00 1.89 387.67 Informal: 374.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.53 Slaughter - Poultry Typical Live Weight 2 2 2 2 2 2 Typical Carcass Weight 66.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 Typical Meat Weight - Feathers 4.5 Formal: 0.09 21.26 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.09 25.16 0.09 59.19 0.09 202.15 Informal: 0.09 7.09 0.09 67.50 0.09 15.14 0.09 1.32 0.09 3.12 0.09 0.00 Blood 5.0 Formal: 0.10 23.63 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 27.95 0.10 65.77 0.10 224.62 Informal: 0.10 7.88 0.10 75.00 0.10 16.83 0.10 1.47 0.10 3.46 0.10 0.00 Giblets 5.0 Formal: 0.10 23.63 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 27.95 0.10 65.77 0.10 224.62 Informal: 0.10 7.88 0.10 75.00 0.10 16.83 0.10 1.47 0.10 3.46 0.10 0.00 Pluck 5.0 Formal: 0.10 23.63 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 27.95 0.10 65.77 0.10 224.62 Informal: 0.10 7.88 0.10 75.00 0.10 16.83 0.10 1.47 0.10 3.46 0.10 0.00 Intestines 4.0 Formal: 0.08 18.90 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 22.36 0.08 52.62 0.08 179.69 Informal: 0.08 6.30 0.08 60.00 0.08 13.46 0.08 1.18 0.08 2.77 0.08 0.00 Head 3.5 Formal: 0.07 16.54 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 19.57 0.07 46.04 0.07 157.23 Informal: 0.07 5.51 0.07 52.50 0.07 11.78 0.07 1.03 0.07 2.42 0.07 0.00 Feet 5.5 Formal: 0.11 25.99 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 30.75 0.11 72.35 0.11 247.08 Informal: 0.11 8.66 0.11 82.50 0.11 18.51 0.11 1.62 0.11 3.81 0.11 0.00 Trim 1.5 Formal: 0.03 7.09 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 8.39 0.03 19.73 0.03 67.38 Informal: 0.03 2.36 0.03 22.50 0.03 5.05 0.03 0.44 0.03 1.04 0.03 0.00 Total - Poultry 100.0 Formal: 160.65 0.00 0.00 190.07 447.23 1527.38 Informal: 53.55 510.00 114.42 10.00 23.54 0.00


Final Report F.1

APPENDIX F

DECISION TREES FOR WASTE DISCHARGES TO

IRRIGATION, SEWERS, AND WATERCOURSES


Final Report F.2

Appendix F.1 - Decision Tree for Treatment Processes for Irrigation Discharge

NO

PROCESSING WASTES

Screening

Saveall

Add chemicals to biological process

High rate activated sludge or SBR

Winter storage/storage for reuse

YES

NO

Is space limited?

Is TN removal required or is space limited?

Is energy use a concern?

Is TP removal required?

Disposal to irrigation

PAUNCH & YARD WASTES

Screening

IAF or DAF


Anaerobic lagoon with SBR

Covered anaerobic lagoon with SBR

Is TP removal required?

Is odour release a concern?

Anaerobic lagoon plus aerated or facultative lagoon

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

May bypass to secondary treatment

Paunch & Yard wastewater may be separated


Final Report F.3

Appendix F.2 - Decision Tree for Treatment Processes for Sewer Discharge


NO

PROCESSING WASTES

Screening

Saveall

High rate activated sludge, trickling filter or SBR

Anaerobic lagoon

YES

NO

Is space limited?

Are discharge quality and costs for discharge to sewer acceptable?

Disposal to sewer


Screening

IAF or DAF with or without chemical addition


Covered anaerobic lagoon

Is odour release a concern?

Aerated or facultative lagoon

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

Disposal to sewer

Is space limited and/or DBO /nitrogen removal required?

Is phosphorous removal required?



Final Report F.4

Appendix F.3 - Decision Tree for Treatment Processes for Surface Water Discharge

PROCESSING WASTES

Screening

Saveall

DAF or IAF (with chemicals) and Filtration

Ultraviolet Irradiation or Ozonation

YES Is space limited?

Disposal to surface waters


Screening

IAF or DAF with or without chemical addition

Maturation Lagoons followed by DAF or IAF

Is space limited?

NO

NO

NO

YES


SBR or Anaerobic Lagoon with SBR

Add chemicals to SBR Design SBR for biological P removal

TP<1mg/L TP<5mg/L TP<10mg/L


News & Politics

Municipal Live markets, Slaughterhouses and Waste Systems in Developing Countries, final report feb 2009