Prevalence of Plastic and Hardware Foreign Bodies among Goats at Malawi Markets
Author:
Airs Paul M.1ORCID, Tinsley Jonathan H. I.1, Mvula Winchester2, Ventura-Cordero Javier1, Takahashi Taro3, Nalivata Patson2, van Wyk Jan A.4, Morgan Eric R.1ORCID, Safalaoh Andrews C. L.2
Affiliation:
1. Biological Sciences, Queen’s University of Belfast, 19 Chlorine Gardens, Belfast BT9 5DL, UK 2. Animal Science Department, Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR), Lilongwe P.O. Box 219, Malawi 3. Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Hillsborough, Co. Down, Northern Ireland BT16 6DR, UK 4. Department of Veterinary Tropical Diseases, University of Pretoria, Pretoria Private Bag X20, South Africa
Abstract
Smallholder goat production plays a major role in rural livelihoods and food security in Malawi, but suffers from drastic and unpredictable production losses. While goat production is closely linked to small-scale local markets for slaughter and butchering, the perspectives of butchers and their potential as a source of animal health information are largely untapped. Butchers can provide insights into goat health status at slaughter as well as issues that go unseen before slaughter, such as the presence of indigestible foreign bodies (IFBs). IFBs include solid materials such as plastics and hardware (metals, stones, and other hard objects) that cause foreign body syndrome and can lead to impaction, oedema, malnutrition, and death. To estimate the presence of IFBs, 150 market stand butchers were surveyed across five districts in Malawi, focusing on a distinction between hardware and single-use plastics, which are still widely present in Malawi despite bans on production. Most butchers found plastic IFBs (80.7%), with over half (56.7%) reporting plastic IFBs recently among the past five slaughters. Hardware IFBs were less common, reported by 45.3% of butchers. While some butchers commented on the impact of IFBs on meat quality metrics ex-post, the majority observed no differences. While butchers unanimously considered health to be an important characteristic when sourcing goats, 70.7% consider injury status to be less important or not important. Overall, this study highlights the issue of anthropogenic waste pollution on goat production in Malawi and demonstrates the potential for the surveillance of goat health at market.
Funder
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
Reference43 articles.
1. Tangible and Intangible Benefits of Local Goats Rearing in Smallholder Farms in Malawi;Kaumbata;Small Rumin. Res.,2020 2. Freeman, H.A. (2008). Livestock, Livelihoods, and Vulnerability in Lesotho, Malawi, and Zambia: Designing Livestock Interventions for Emergency Situations, ILRI (aka ILCA and ILRAD). 3. Chintsanya, N.C., Chinombo, D.O., Gondwe, T.N., Wanda, G., Mwenda, A.R.E., Banda, M.C., and Hami, J.C. (2004). Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources in the Sadc Region-Malawi. 4. Monau, P., Raphaka, K., Zvinorova-Chimboza, P., and Gondwe, T. (2020). Sustainable Utilization of Indigenous Goats in Southern Africa. Diversity, 12. 5. Gwiriri, L.C., Machekano, H., Cooke, A.S., Nyamukondiwa, C., Safalaoh, A., Ventura-Cordero, J., Airs, P., van Wyk, J., Nalivata, P., and Mvula, W. (2023). Ecological Interventions to Enhance Goat Health and Livelihood Outcomes in Rural Sub-Saharan African Communities.
|
|