Better lives through livestock
Knowledge, attitude and practice of food handlers
towards chicken hygiene and food safety in chicken
restaurants in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
Biruk Alemu Gemeda1, Ayalew Assefa1, Michel Dione1, Guy Ilboudo1, Valerie Lallogo1, Delia Grace1,2
and Theodore J.D. Knight-Jones1
1International Livestock Research Institute
2Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich
2nd Pan-African Poultry Conference, Lomé, Togo, 16–18 May 2023

2
Outline
 Introduction
 Methodology
 Results and discussion
 Conclusion

3
Introduction
Local poultry as a driver of socio-economic development in Burkina Faso
• Traditional production represents over 98% of the poultry produced.
• Playing a key role as dietary protein source and providing a source of
income for many chicken producers.
• Chicken is the primary animal-source food consumed in street
restaurants in Burkina Faso.
• At least 80,000 chickens are consumed in Ouagadougou every day.
• Chicken demand and production are projected to increase by 302% in
2050.

4
Introduction
Food-borne diseases will likely increase with increase in production
• Poor hygienic conditions in chicken preparation in most street restaurants
• Disease burden associated with poultry meat consumption for
Campylobacter and non-typhoidal Salmonella in 2017: 42,600 DALYs in
2017; 400,000 persons (1/50) sick; 600 persons (1/30,000) died
• Food handlers seem to be a major source and means of food
contamination, particularly in ready-to-eat food, such as that served in
restaurants (Ncube et al. 2020).
• This study aims to understand the existing chicken restaurant hygiene and
the perception of food handlers towards food hygiene and safety in
Ouagadougou.

5
Cross-sectional study to access food
safety knowledge, attitude and
practice (KAP) of food handlers.
• All chicken restaurants were
mapped through a census in the
city: 622
• 100 cooked outlets randomly
selected
Methodology – Study area and sampling

6
• Questionnaire designed in electronic format
• Data collected by 5 trained enumerators through cell phone
using Open Data Kit (ODK) for 1 month (June 2021)
• Individual interview: 60 minutes
Methodology – Data collection

7
 Data exported from ODK server to MS Excel and cleaned,
checked and prepared for analysis
 Findings summarized by descriptive statistics using means with
standard deviations and proportions were calculated
 Results presented in tables and graphs with some illustrative
photos
Methodology – Data management and analysis

8
Results Live chicken
Slaughtering
bleeding
Scalding
Plucking
Evisceration
Personal,
facility
and
workplace
Preparation and cooking
Food
safety
perception
and
knowledge
Carcasses
Chicken préparation graph

9
Results – background information
Background Category N %
Gender Male 93 93
Female 7 7
Type of outlet Restaurant with no permanent building 73 41
Restaurant with permanent building 36 25
Other (Hangar without seat) 1 1
Food safety training Yes 11 11
No 89 89
Type of dish they
serve
Grilled/braised chicken 54 54
Flamed chicken 15 15
Roasted chicken 12 12
Oven baked backed chicken 5 5
Other (Chicken soup, garlic chicken, flesh chicken etc) 14 14
Inspection by
authorities
Yes 53 53
No 47 47
Chicken being grilled/braised

10
 Most of the vendors slaughter on site
 They have 1 or 2 live chicken suppliers
 Chickens are kept for 1.4 days before slaughter
Results – Live chicken source and management
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Have another enterprise slaughter their…
Onsite slaughter
Use disinfectant to clean pen/cage
Purchase chicken carcass
Yes No
Live chicken management practices Live chicken in cage

11
 Half of vendors take carcasses from live
chicken markets
 They use plastic bags and sacks (60%) to
transport carcasses at ambient temperature
 Carcasses are kept for 2.5 hours before
cooking.
 Only 19% and 14 % of them keep chicken
carcasses in refrigerators and freezers,
respectively.
Results – Carcass sources and management Freezer
14%
Refrigerator
19%
Ambient
tempera
ture
67%
Carcass keeping
Carcass transport in a plastic sack

12
Bleeding surface made of bare earth (80%), cement and ceramics
Results – Slaughtering/bleeding process
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Feed chickens before slaughter
Slaughter birds for immediate
consumption
Slaughtering sick birds
Washing surface after bleeding with
water
Washing the surface after every
slaughtering batch
Yes No
Slaughtering practices
Blood collected in directly on the soil

13
Results – Scalding and plucking process
Slaughtering practices Yes No
N % N %
Change scald water for every slaughter batch 32 80 8 20
Changing scald water after slaughter batch 23 57.5 17 42.5
Wash scalding surface with only water 17 42.5 23 57.5
Plucking materials

14
Results – Evisceration
Questions Response category N %
Evisceration places Table 29 72.5
Container/bowl 10 25
Other 1 2.5
Detergent to clean
evisceration surface
Soap 13 56.5
Soap and other 1 4.4
Soap, disinfectant-detergent and sanitizer 1 4.4
disinfectant 6 26.1
disinfectant-detergent and sanitizer 1 4.4
sanitiser 1 4.35
Wood
67%
Plastic
22%
Metal
3%
Other
8%
Evisceration practices

15
Results – Chicken preparation and cooking
Questions Response N %
Timing when they wash
chicken preparation
surface
Start of shift 33 33.33
Start of shift and end of shift 38 38.38
Start of shift, end of shift and during shift between dishes 16 16.16
Start of shift and during shift between dishes 1 1.01
End of shift 3 3.03
During shift between dishes 2 2.02
Other 6 6.06
Detergents used to clean
chicken preparation
surface
Soap 48 64.86
Soap and disinfectant-detergent 5 6.75
Soap, disinfectant-detergent and sanitizer 1 1.35
Disinfectant-detergent 17 22.97
Other 3 4.05
Timing: 50 minutes

16
Results – Chicken preparation and cooking
Metal
24%
Plastic
15%
Wood
45%
Tarpaulin
5%
Other
(Ceramics)
11%
Preparation surface

17
Results – Facility hygiene
 Animals in contact with preparation surfaces in 27% of cases with no attempt to control
them (22%)
 Most of outlets use private toilets of which 27% seem inadequate and 20% are without
washing water
 Most people use private toilets near their restaurants and private toilets far from their
restaurants
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Animal contact with food preparation surfaces
Fly control
Adequacy of toilet
Measure taken to control animals
Pay for toilet
Water availability
Yes No

18
Results – Personal hygiene and workplace
Hygienic practices at the restaurants
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Hands wash before cooking
Hands wash with soap or disinfectant
Food prepared separately from slaughter
Knife washed in fresh, clean water
The same knife is used for all stages of slaughter
The person who slaughters the chicken also prepare food
Use only water to wash hands (without soap or disinfectent)
Use only water to wash knife (without soap or disinfectent)
Wash hands with fresh, clean water
Wash carcass with water after slaughter
Wear the same clothes for slaughtering and preparing the food
Yes No

19
Results – Food safety perception and knowledge
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Cleanliness and hygiene is important to your customers
when choosing where to eat
Customer complains about the food
Customers pay more for food from a place that
improved food safety
Heard about becoming sick from eating chicken
The temperature the food is kept at is important for
food safety
Water quality and cleanliness important for food safety
Yes No

20
Results – Food safety perception and knowledge
Cost
40%
Taste
23%
Quality
16%
Hygiene
4%
Others
17%
 Customers are more concerned about the cost and the taste than hygiene
Most common customer complaints

21
Conclusion
 Hygienic practice is relatively poor in chicken restaurants in Ouagadougou
due to economic incapability and poor perceptions of the importance of
food safety to the public.
 Restaurant workers have no training experience and authorities do not
regularly inspect their workplaces.
 Respondents had wrong perceptions and knowledge in most of the
knowledge and perception measuring items used.
 Respondents did not believe that consumers would pay more if they
improved the safety practices in their restaurants.
 To bring change and ensure chicken safety, an integrated approach of
interventions should be provided.
 Studies on consumer perceptions, chicken microbial status and foodborne
disease quantification are recommended.

THANK YOU
Acknowledgments

THANK YOU
Thank you