Assessment of knowledge, attitudes, and food safety practices among market operators in the broiler chicken value chain in Southern Mozambique

1 Introduction

In many developing countries, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, chickens raised in the commercial production system are sold live or slaughtered in formal and informal markets in urban and peri-urban areas. In Mozambique, live chicken is distributed through markets and small restaurants through resellers, and smallholders also sell chicken directly to slaughterhouses. Some farmers have slaughterhouses and cold storage systems on their farms and supply already processed and frozen chicken to consumers (Pym, 2013). In the Southern Region of Mozambique, broiler chickens produced by smallholders are sold in urban or peri-urban markets where consumers can buy live or processed chicken. The informal processing of chicken has been reported in Burkina Faso, in which consumers purchase raw, slaughtered, and prepared chicken carcasses at the market and roadside outlets, and the chicken is also sold to restaurants and hotels (Assefa et al., 2023). Other studies in Nigeria, Ghana, and Kenya also reported the slaughter of chicken in markets and slaughterhouses under unacceptable sanitary conditions in terms of environmental sanitation and personal hygiene, which constitutes a danger to the health of consumers (Izunobi Charity et al., 2023; Omondi, 2022; Ovai et al., 2022).

A prior study indicated that chicken is the most consumed meat in Southern Africa. However, informal processing raises concerns due to the exposure of carcasses to contamination resulting from inadequate conditions in the processing chain, poor handling practices, and temperature abuse (Birgen et al., 2022). Pym (2013) indicates that the markets for live broilers exhibit suboptimal hygienic conditions and a deficiency of running water. Assefa et al. (2023) indicate that the informal food industry is predominant in Sub-Saharan Africa, characterized by inadequate standards and insufficient regulatory oversight, which adversely affects the sector. They argue that insufficient monitoring, particularly of animal-derived products, facilitates the spread of foodborne illnesses. Several studies have reported that poultry meat is associated with the presence of foodborne pathogens such as Campylobacter, Escherichia coli, Salmonella enteritidis, and Staphylococcus aureus, particularly under unhygienic processing conditions (Ahmed and Al-Mahmood, 2023; Cambaza dos Muchangos, 2012; Dikgole et al., 2022; Oloo, 2017; Zelalem et al., 2019). As outlined by Garsow et al. (2022), poultry processing begins with slaughter followed by scalding, plucking, evisceration, cutting and may also involve deboning and grinding. Individuals involved in poultry processing may encounter foodborne pathogens and zoonotic diseases, as poultry serves as a conducive environment for microbial proliferation.

In many African countries, there is a lack of adequate facilities for processing chicken in the markets. Slaughter facilities play a fundamental role in the prevention, detection, control and eradication of zoonotic, infectious and contagious animal diseases (Njoga et al., 2023; Nkosi et al., 2021). Many African countries lack sufficient facilities for chicken processing in the markets. According to Cambaza dos Muchangos (2012), during processing, the risk of diseases transmitted by food is linked to a lack of hygiene, the use of non-potable water, lack of hygiene during handling and processing and secondary contamination. Additionally, it has been reported that pathogens associated with the consumption of poultry meat may arise from infections of the live chicken or be introduced during or after slaughter. Christiana Cudjoe et al. (2022) points out that the lack of Good Hygiene Practices (GHP) is a source of infections and contamination by intestinal helminths, pathogenic bacteria and protozoa. During processing, carcasses can be contaminated when good practices are not observed due to fecal content, skin, utensils and equipment, the installation, handlers, the environment and contact between carcasses. Additionally, disease-causing pathogens can emerge at any stage of the chicken processing food chain; the slaughter and processing stages can introduce microbes into the processing area, the environment, work equipment and wash water (Assefa et al., 2023; Dikgole et al., 2022; Sallam et al., 2020).

According to Izunobi Charity et al. (2023), the problems of lack of hygiene and environmental sanitation in the processing chain in markets could be controlled through environmental health education involving meat processors. Additionally, Nkosi et al. (2021); Sallam et al. (2020), suggests the use of microbial hurdles technology that consists of decontaminating carcasses during slaughter through a combination of interventions, based on good hygiene practices, meat inspection, not slaughtering sick animals and introducing organic acids (lactic acid and acetic acid) in appropriate concentrations and pH on carcass and rapid chilling of carcasses.

At present, research data on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of broiler retail operators concerning food safety, hygienic practices, cross-contamination, zoonotic infections transmitted through meat during processing, and sanitary conditions in markets in the Southern Region of Mozambique is extremely limited. The objective of this study is to assess the food safety knowledge, attitudes, and practices of broiler operators in Southern Region of Mozambique. This study will facilitate decision-making to ensure the quality and safety of meat slaughtered and processed at markets in the Southern Region of Mozambique.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Study area

The research was conducted in the Southern Region of Mozambique, involving urban and peri-urban areas in three provinces: Maputo, Gaza, and Inhambane. These areas were selected due to their high concentration of poultry production and processing activities, which play a crucial role in local food safety and economic development (Bah and Gajigo, 2019).

2.2 Research design

A cross-sectional survey was carried out to assess the food safety knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of chicken broiler operators in urban and peri-urban areas of the Southern Region, Mozambique. A cross-sectional approach was selected because it allows for the collection of data at a single point in time, providing a snapshot of the current food safety KAP of operators (Teffo and Tabit, 2020). The study was conducted between October 2023 and April 2024.

2.3 Study population

The target sample size of broiler chicken operators was estimated using the Raosoft sample size calculator (Raosoft, 2012), following the methodological framework described by Chilawa et al. (2022). Due to the informal and unregulated nature of the wet markets in Southern Mozambique, an official registration database for chicken operators was unavailable. Consequently, based on preliminary field mapping across the eight selected retail markets, the total population of informal chicken operators was estimated to be approximately N = 170.

The minimum required sample size (n) was calculated to achieve a 95% confidence level (Z = 1.96) and a desirable margin of error (precision) of 5% (d = 0.05) (Equation 1). A conservative expected prevalence (P) of 50% was assumed to maximize the required sample size and ensure sufficient statistical power. The calculation, which incorporates the finite population correction (FPC) for small populations, is expressed as follows:

(1) n = N . Z2 . P . (1 − P)d2 . (N − 1) + Z2. P . (1− P)

Applying these parameters to our estimated population (N = 170) yielded a target sample size of 119 broiler chicken operators. A purposeful sampling method was subsequently used to recruit participants in the field, aiming to encompass all active operators who slaughter broiler chickens in the designated markets. Potential participants were identified and approached with the assistance of local market administrators and field assistants provided by the National Directorate of Animal Health. A total of 119 consenting operators were enrolled and interviewed, matching our statistically calculated target.

2.4 Sampling design

A multi-stage sampling approach was used to select the study sites and enroll the study population. First, using the official market registry provided by the National Directorate of Commerce, retail markets in Southern Mozambique were mapped to identify locations where live broiler chickens are both sold and slaughtered. A total of eight primary markets were purposefully selected based on their high daily processing volumes, representing the principal poultry retail hubs in the region. These eight selected markets are designated as M1 to M8 (Table 1).

Table 1. Characteristics and sanitary infrastructure of selected retail markets.

Classifications are based on municipal registration status and direct field observations during the sampling period.

The inclusion criterion for the selection of individual processing units was that the operators must actively slaughter and dress broiler chickens at a designated retail point within the chosen markets. While in many cases multiple operators shared a single slaughter point, the study successfully mapped and enrolled a final cohort of 119 consenting operators. The sampling frame comprised three distinct functional groups:

• Independent processors (n = 87): Operators who manage slaughtering broiler chickens independently.
• Processor workers (n = 22): Hired laborers employed in processing stalls where the establishment owner is actively involved in the daily operations.
• Live chicken sellers (n = 10): Traditional vendors primarily involved in live chicken retail who also perform on-site slaughtering services upon customer request.

2.5 Data collection tools

Data collection was executed using a combination of a structured questionnaire and an observational compliance checklist (Assefa et al., 2023). Structured questionnaire was designed to capture quantitative data on the operators’ socio-demographic profiles (age, gender, education level, experience) and their Food Safety Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP), hygiene protocols, and cross-contamination hazards. Observational checklist was utilized to record direct, non-participatory observations of sanitary conditions within the processing environments, focusing on water quality, equipment sanitation, waste management, hand hygiene, and cold chain maintenance. To ensure the validity, and reliability of the research instruments, a quality control protocol was implemented:

• Content validity: Prior to field deployment, the questionnaire and checklist were evaluated by a panel of food safety and public health experts from Sokoine University of Agriculture. This phase ensured that the questions were conceptually aligned with study objectives, culturally appropriate for the local context, and epidemiologically sound (Nkosi and Tabit, 2021).
• Pre-testing and reliability: The validated instruments were pre-tested with 10 active chicken operators who were not included in the final analysis. This pre-test served to verify that the questions were clear, unambiguous, and that the average time required to complete the interview was reasonable (Hilton, 2017). Based on feedback from the pilot test, necessary revisions were made to enhance the clarity and effectiveness of the data collection instruments.

2.6 Food safety knowledge, attitudes, and practices questionnaire

For the development of KAP, the methodology of previously published studies was adopted (Assefa et al., 2023; Izunobi Charity et al., 2023). The questionnaire included closed questions about sociodemographic characteristics, experience in chicken processing, and information on knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding good hygiene practices in chicken processing. The questionnaire was prepared in English using information obtained from similar studies (Assefa et al., 2023; Izunobi Charity et al., 2023). Then, the questionnaire was translated into Portuguese, and the interviews were carried out in Portuguese or in the mother tongues (Xitsonga, Xichangana and Xitswa), depending on the operator’s level of education. A total of 20 questions were designed to assess operators’ knowledge regarding hygiene and cross-contamination, 17 questions relating to knowledge of foodborne diseases and regulations. For operators’ attitudes, 22 questions were developed, and 46 questions, including multiple-choice questions, were used to verify good practices. The knowledge question with two “yes and no” answers was coded as 1 and 0 (yes = 1 and no = 0), the attitude questions with three answer options were coded as 2, 1 and 0 (2 = strongly agree, 1 = agree and 0 = disagree) for the part about good practices, the questions had three answer options (2 = always, 1 = sometimes, 0 = never). Therefore, KAP scores were converted to 100 points. A score <50 was considered a poor level, scores ranging from ≥50 to <75 were designated as medium, and scores ≥75 were considered a good level of knowledge, attitude, and hygiene practice in the processing of broiler chickens (Hossen et al., 2020). A simplified 3-point Likert scale was utilized to enhance data quality and response rates among informal retail operators with differing literacy levels. In low-resource environments, a 3-point scale reduces cognitive burden, weariness, and frustration for responders, while effectively mitigating the midpoint bias, the tendency to select a neutral alternative to avoid expressing definitive thoughts (Rokeman, 2024). Moreover, psychometric studies indicate that diminishing scale options from five to three does not substantially compromise the internal reliability (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha) or the construct validity of the cumulative attitudinal scores (Jacoby and Matell, 1971; Lehmann and Hulbert, 1972).

2.7 Ethical clearance

The Municipal Directorate of Markets and Fairs (Ref: number 84/2023) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security of Mozambique, through the National Directorate of Animal Health (Note: number 1635/SAECM/DAP/11/23), approved this study. Each participant granted verbal and informed consent before each interview after the operators were informed of the study’s goal. Participants were guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality during data processing.

2.8 Statistical data analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 27. Descriptive statistics summarized demographic characteristics and key variables. Chi-square tests assessed associations between categorical variables, and regression analysis evaluated factors influencing knowledge, attitudes, and food safety practices. Food safety and hygiene knowledge scores (0–100%) served as a continuous dependent variable. Multiple linear regression examined the effects of gender, age, marital status, education level, residence area, and food safety training attendance on knowledge scores. Categorical independent variables were converted into dummy variables, with education level treated as an ordinal variable coded by increasing attainment. Regression coefficients (β) and p-values were estimated, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to examine differences among groups as observed in the regression analysis. Results were presented in tables to facilitate interpretation and discussion.

3 Results

3.1 Socio-demographic characteristics of chicken retail operators

Table 2 shows informal chicken operator socio-demographics. The majority were female (57.1%), 50.4% were 20-40 years old, 52.9% were single but cohabiting, and 57.1% had secondary education. Chicken processing experience is varied, with 47.9% having 5-9 years. Most respondents (75.6%) resided in peri-urban areas, while 24.4% were urbanites. Additionally, 57.1% work full-time and 5% part-time. No chicken operator has a diploma, and 69.7% have not taken food safety training. Chicken processing is the main source of income for all responders.

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of informal chicken retail operators.

3.2 Monitoring food hygiene and facility characteristics among informal operators

Table 3 shows informal processor facility characteristics. Chicken processing is mostly conducted in permanent marketplaces (72.3%) and improvised shelters (27.7%). In the majority of markets, broiler chickens are stored in cages prior to processing; 76.5% are slaughtered following customer purchases from vendors and request on-site processing; 16% are processed under directives from market establishment owners instructing operators to slaughter; and 7.6% are sourced directly from poultry farmers by dual-role vendors, who keep the chicken in cages until a customer requests both purchase and processing. Most processing occurs in Maputo (75.6%), then Inhambane (12.6%) and Gaza (11.8%). The M5 (26.1%) and M2 (21.8%) were the main marketplaces, with smaller proportions operating in others, 92.4% lack electricity or solar energy, while 78.2% have water-filled toilets and 21.8% use open places for sanitation.

Table 3. Monitoring food hygiene and facility characteristics among informal operators.

M1 to M8 - Market.

3.3 Assessment of food safety and hygiene knowledge of chicken retail operators

Universal compliance was observed for essential measures such as handwashing with soap and water before and after work, alongside the appropriate cleaning and disinfection of instruments (Table 4). Notable differences in compliance were identified in specific practices; in Inhambane, 93.3% of individuals refrained from working while ill, a figure that was significantly different (χ2 = 22.636, p<0.001) from the 28.9% adherence observed in the Maputo market. Similarly, avoiding eating and drinking at work was observed more in Inhambane (80%) than in Maputo (22.2%), with a significant difference (χ2 = 20.618, p <0.001). Additionally, the low adherence to protective gear use and avoidance of processing with hand injuries highlights the need for providing affordable protective equipment and enforcing workplace health policies to enhance food safety. However, significant discrepancies were noted in preventing processed chicken from coming into contact with other surfaces, where adherence was highest in Maputo (73.3%) but absent in Gaza (0.0%), with a highly significant Chi-square value of 40.056 and a p-value of <0.001.

Table 4. The personal hygiene knowledge of chicken retail operators.

A- Washing hands before and after work, going to the toilet, touching hair and after touching nose with soap and water, B- Wearing apron, mask, gloves, boots and caps, C- Processing chickens with unprotected hands, D- Operator should avoid working when having flu, colds, cough and diarrhea, E- Workers should avoid touching their hair, nose and money after washing hands, F- Eating and drinking in the workplace, G- Proper cleaning, disinfection and handling of instruments, H- Worker cannot have long nails and make coloring, I- Processing with hand injury J- Processed chicken can come into contact with other foods, K- Separating chicken processing area and live chicken remains.

The impact of gender, age, education level, residence area, and training credentials on food safety and hygiene knowledge among chicken operators is presented in Table 5. The majority of chicken operators demonstrated good knowledge, particularly among males (68.6%), individuals aged 20–40 years (78.3%), and those with secondary school education (76.5%). Chi-square analysis revealed that significant differences in food safety knowledge categories were associated with education level (χ² = 9.096, p < 0.05) and participation in food safety training (χ² = 8.354, p < 0.05). Multiple linear regression analysis indicated that participation in formal food safety training is the most significant positive predictor of knowledge levels, with an unstandardized regression coefficient of β = 6.116 (p < 0.001). This signifies that, operators who participated in food safety training scored 6.12 percentage points higher on the knowledge assessment compared to their untrained counterparts. Additionally, marriage was determined to exert a substantial positive influence on knowledge metrics (β = 1.789, p < 0.05) relative to the reference categories. Other demographic variables, including gender (β = -1.416), age (β = 0.735), education level (β = 1.276), and residence area (β = 2.737) did not exhibit statistically significant independent predictive effects in the regression model (p ≥ 0.05).

Table 5. Effect of gender, age, education level, residence area, and training credentials on the food safety and hygiene knowledge of operators.

n, number of operators; SD, standard deviation. Range indicates the minimum and maximum knowledge score observed within each group. χ² = chi-square statistic for association. β = unstandardized regression coefficient. Significance levels are denoted by asterisks: for p < 0.05, *** for p <.001. The absence of asterisks denotes a non-significant result (p ≥.05).

3.4 Assessment of food safety and hygiene attitude of chicken retail operators

The attitudes of chicken operators toward food safety and hygiene practices across urban and peri-urban locations are presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Assessment of food safety and hygiene attitude of chicken operators.

n, Number of operators; X², Chi-square test statistic; p, Significance value.

3.4.1 Safe handling practices

Regarding the baseline awareness that good personal hygiene prevents foodborne illnesses, no significant regional variations were observed (X² = 0.011, p = 0.916), indicating that operators across different areas equally recognize this aspect. Significant differences were found (χ2 = 10.72, p = 0.001), with peri-urban operators showing higher agreement on the importance of hygiene and food safety training as compared to their urban counterparts. In terms of sanitation and environmental management during processing, significant differences were observed regarding water management and chemical interventions. Urban operators displayed a significantly higher positive attitude toward the decontamination of chicken carcasses utilizing chlorinated water or acetic acid (X² = 20.42, p < 0.001), and peri-urban operators showed significantly higher agreement regarding regular water exchange cycles after every five chickens processed (X² = 7.386, p = 0.007). No statistically significant regional differences were observed concerning the risk of using contaminated ice (X² = 3.705, p = 0.157) or the necessity of washing processing knives, tables, and basins with treated water (X² = 0.460, p = 0.498). Conversely, urban operators demonstrated significantly higher awareness regarding the maintenance of short, clean nails and regular hand hygiene practices (X² = 9.109, p = 0.011), as well as strict compliance with prohibiting personnel with cuts or open hand wounds from handling meat (X² = 14.64, p = 0.001). Attitudes regarding cold chain maintenance, waste disposal, and cross-contamination prevention varied heavily by sector. Urban operators demonstrated highly significant positive attitudes toward individual carcass packaging using safe materials (X² = 16.03, p < 0.001) and segregating chicken products from other food types during storage (X² = 16.44, p < 0.001). In contrast, peri-urban operators exhibited significantly higher positive compliance attitudes toward immediate, outside-market waste disposal (X² = 29.96, p < 0.001) and chemical treatment of scalding water prior to disposal (X² = 19.00, p < 0.001). These localized discrepancies likely reflect variations in infrastructural access, municipal regulatory enforcement, and differing exposures to structured operator training initiatives between urban and peri-urban market landscapes.

3.4.2 Use of protective clothing.com

Significant attitudinal variations were observed regarding personal protective equipment (PPE) and personal hygiene practices. Regarding the use of appropriate protective clothing such as aprons, masks, gloves, caps, and shoes, significant differences were observed between residence areas (X² = 38.39, p < 0.001), with peri-urban operators demonstrating considerably stronger agreement on its importance compared to urban operators. Similarly, attitudes toward safe slaughter and processing as part of professional responsibility showed significant regional differences (χ2 = 25.71, p < 0.001), with peri-urban operators expressing stronger agreement than their urban counterparts. The higher levels of awareness among peri-urban operators in both safe handling and protective clothing use may reflect better exposure to formal training and more stringent enforcement of food safety regulations compared to urban operators.

The impact of demographic factors such as gender, age, education level, residence area, and food safety training on chicken operators’ attitudes toward food safety and hygiene is summarized in Table 7. Categorical analysis via Chi-square tests recognized significant associations between attitude levels and both education level (χ² = 9.938, p < 0.05) and food safety training attendance (χ² = 6.77, p < 0.05). The regression analysis revealed that attaining a higher level of education significantly influenced operator attitudes; specifically, achieving high school education resulted in a significant negative unstandardized coefficient (β = -1.814, p < 0.05) compared to the baseline categories. Furthermore, participation in formal food safety training was recognized as a significant independent predictor of attitude variation (β = -3.19, p < 0.05). The negative coefficient corresponds with the observed descriptive means, indicating that operators who underwent training had a lower mean attitude score (55.30 ± 5.74) than their untrained counterparts (58.58 ± 4.90). No statistically significant independent predictive effects were detected for age (β = -0.703), gender (β = 0.181), marital status (β = 0.456), or geographic resident area (β = 1.281, p < 0.05).

Table 7. Effect of gender, age, education level, residence area, and training credentials on the food safety and hygiene attitude of chicken operators.

n, number of operators; SD, standard deviation. Range indicates the minimum and maximum attitude score observed within each group. χ² = chi-square statistic for association. β = unstandardized regression coefficient. Significance levels are denoted by asterisks: for p < 0.05, *** for p <.001. The absence of asterisks denotes a non-significant result (p ≥.05).

3.5 Assessment of food safety and hygiene practices of chicken retail operators

Table 8 illustrates the hygiene procedures of chicken operators in Maputo, Gaza, and Inhambane. A notable disparity was seen in handwashing practices prior to and following chicken processing (χ² = 7.353, p = 0.025). Regional variations in handwashing practices were observed, with significant discrepancies in responses before and after handling cash, hair, or body scratching (χ² = 7.817, p = 0.099). The study found significant differences in toilet soap and detergent accessibility (χ² = 78.126, p < 0.001), with Gaza having a 50% access rate compared to Maputo’s 4.40%. Provincial differences in work environment cleanliness and disinfection were found (χ² = 5.847, p = 0.054). More chicken operators (100%) in Inhambane participated in these practices than in Maputo (88.90%) and Gaza (71.40%). Results show a significant difference in workplace eating and drinking (χ² = 75.03, p < 0.001), with the highest prevalence (74.40%) among chicken operators in Maputo. Jewellery use during work was significantly higher in Maputo operators (43.30%), compared to lower rates in Inhambane and Gaza (χ² = 31.009, p < 0.001).

Table 8. Assessment of food safety and hygiene practices of chicken operators.

n, Number of operators; X², Chi-square test statistic; p, significance value.

Table 9 shows the relationship between operator food safety and hygiene practices and demographic factors such as gender, age, marital status, education level, residence area, and food safety training. Pearson’s Chi-square tests revealed significant associations between practice categories and marital status (χ² = 12.308, p < 0.05), education level (χ² = 9.046, p < 0.05), and geographic residence area (χ² = 8.607, p < 0.05). No significant associations were observed for gender and age (p ≥ 0.05). Multiple linear regression recorded, no socio-demographic indicators were statistically significant predictors (p ≥ 0.05) for continuous practice scores. The estimated regression coefficients were weak for all factors, including gender (β = 0.143), age (β = 0.735), married status (β = 0.031), high school education (β = -0.464), and residential area (β = 0.118). Significantly, attendance in formal food safety training exhibited no independent predictive influence on hygienic behaviors (β = -0.432, p ≥ 0.05), reflecting its non-significant bivariate correlation (χ2 = 0.877, p ≥ 0.05).

Table 9. Effect of gender, age, education level, residence area, training credentials on the food safety and hygiene practices of operators.

n, number of operators; SD, standard deviation. Range indicates the minimum and maximum practice scores observed within each group. χ² = chi-square statistic for association. β = unstandardized regression coefficient. Significance levels are denoted by asterisks: for p < 0.05, *** for p <.001. The absence of asterisks denotes a non-significant result (p ≥.05).

3.6 Hygienic practices in chicken retail processing

Table 10 presents the data about sanitary practices among informal chicken operators. A survey of 119 informal chicken operators indicates a significant disparity in hygiene practices. Consistent compliance is seen in essential hygienic practices: all participants disinfect equipment (78.2% through boiling), clean spaces by batch, wash carcasses after evisceration, and segregate critical processing phases. Significant food safety problems characterize the operational environment. Significant deficiencies encompass the complete lack of carcass disinfection post-washing and the absence of refrigeration facilities (100%). High-risk behaviors are widespread, with 31.1% of individuals engaging in the slaughter of diseased chickens. Additional issues include irregular scalding water changes (79.0% change occurring just daily), inconsistent initial cleaning methods, and insufficient wastewater disposal. Although fundamental hygiene practices are observed, these data reveal a processing environment lacking terminal disinfection, temperature regulation, and disease screening, which poses significant contamination risks, endangering public health and food safety.

Table 10. Hygienic practices in chicken processing.

3.7 Correlation between socio-demographic variables and KAP score of chicken operators

The relationships between various socio-demographic parameters and food safety-related factors, with a specific focus on food safety knowledge, attitude, and practices, are presented in Table 11. A significant negative correlation exists between gender and age (r = -0.306, p < 0.01), age and marital status (r = -0.217, p < 0.05), indicating that older individuals are less likely to be unmarried, living with a partner. A notable negative connection is shown between residential area and participation in food safety training (r = -0.374, p < 0.01), indicating that individuals residing in peri-urban regions are less inclined to attend such training. The positive correlation between hygiene knowledge and training (r = 0.269, p < 0.01) suggests that individuals who participated in food safety training generally possess superior knowledge regarding food safety and hygiene. A robust correlation exists between hygiene knowledge and hygiene behaviors (r = 0.282, p < 0.01), indicating that increased knowledge regarding food safety and cleanliness correlates with improved hygienic practices throughout processing. A negative association (r = -0.220, p < 0.05) was identified between knowledge and attitude, suggesting that those with greater knowledge of food safety may have a less favorable attitude toward food safety practices. The correlation between hygiene practices and hygiene mindset was negative (r = -0.218, p < 0.05). The inverse relationship between knowledge and attitude prompts intriguing inquiries on the necessity for educational programs to encompass both elements to enhance overall food safety practices.

Table 11. The correlation between different socio-demographic variables and KAP score of chicken operators.

MS, Marital Status; ED, Education Level; RA, Residence Area; AFST, Attended Food Safety Training; FSHK, food safety and hygiene knowledge; FSHA, food safety and hygiene attitude; FSHP, food safety and hygiene practices, **** -Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), *** -Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

4 Discussion

This study examined broiler chicken retail operators’ food safety and hygiene knowledge, attitudes, and practices from slaughter to delivery or sale in urban and peri-urban Southern Region of Mozambique marketplaces. Most operators were female (51.1%), 50.4% were aged 20-40, 52.9% were not married but lived with partners, 57.1% had secondary education, 47.9% had 5-9 years of chicken processing experience, 75.6% live in peri-urban areas, 57.1% process broilers full time, 92.4% did not have electricity or solar energy, and 78.2% had sanitary toilets with water. These findings situate the operators within the broader socio-economic context of Mozambique and similar developing nations, where high poverty and unemployment drive labor into vulnerable informal sectors (Bah and Gajigo, 2019). The demographic profile, particularly the predominance of women, younger adults, and peri-urban location, aligns with patterns observed in informal food systems across Africa, though with notable regional variations in gender distribution and age (Assefa et al., 2023; Izunobi Charity et al., 2023).

The universal lack of formal qualifications and training, coupled with the location of facilities in marketplaces, reflects a sector operating outside regulated frameworks. This is consistent with studies from Burkina Faso, where most processors lacked licenses and operated without inspection (Assefa et al., 2023). The strategic peri-urban placement of facilities, noted here and in studies from Kenya and Sri Lanka (Oloo, 2017; Ubeyratne et al., 2022), facilitates market access but often occurs without the infrastructure and oversight necessary to ensure food safety. In Sri Lanka chicken processing is also done at permanent locations in urban and semi-urban townships (Ubeyratne et al., 2022). This highlights a fundamental tension between livelihood necessity and public health regulation, underscoring that interventions must address both technical knowledge gaps and the structural informality of the sector.

Significantly, our multivariate predictive modeling isolated the independent drivers of this cognitive baseline. The regression model proved that formal food safety training is the driver of knowledge scores (β = 6.116, p < 0.001). This positive weight demonstrates that targeted structural training can overcome limitations associated with low baseline educational levels among value-chain operators. Alongside training, chicken processors must enhance consumer awareness by providing explicit guidelines for the safe handling of chicken meat (Emanowicz et al., 2021; Katiyo et al., 2019; Madjdian et al., 2024).

A notable presence of flies on the processed carcasses was observed during the interviews. Moreover, respondents indicated the presence of cockroaches, rats, cats, and dogs in the processing area at dusk, potentially promoting cross-contamination by pathogens such as E. coli, Salmonella, and Campylobacter. Studies conducted by Hessel et al. (2019); Mpundu et al. (2019) documented analogous instances, highlighting the presence of pests and flies in processing and sales areas, insufficient protective equipment, and the utilization of questionable water sources for washing carcasses as primary detrimental practices that may lead to cross-contamination in the chicken slaughter, sales, and consumption chains. Ubeyratne et al. (2022) argued that keeping many broilers in cages until slaughter, the reuse of dirty cages with feathers and chicken feces, the use of dirty drinkers, and the lack of freezing facilities provide conditions for the spread of pathogens such as Salmonella.

The current study demonstrated that participants are aware of soapy handwashing before and after food handling and bathroom use. Nearly half of the respondents thought chickens could be housed with other foods, but the majority (89.9%) of operators kept a barrier between the processing facility and the live broiler location. Similarly study by Assefa et al. (2023) reported that some operators wash their hands and knives after each chicken batch using tap or stored water, whereas others do so before and after slaughter. To control cross-contamination between live broilers and processed broilers, Ferdous et al. (2023); Rahman et al. (2020) propose that live broilers be confined in glass cages with separate ventilation. Good hygiene procedures, such as using an insect collector and avoiding contaminating the carcass with knives or clothing, must be followed throughout the processing chain to prevent cross-contamination of carcasses.

Operators assert that ice or a freezer is essential for maintaining the freshness of chickens post-processing, even in the absence of refrigeration equipment at the slaughter and processing facility. In Sri Lanka, processed poultry was not refrigerated before sale; nonetheless, 43.1% of vendors held unsold chicken in freezers overnight (Ubeyratne et al., 2022). Due to the hand-slaughtering of chickens without freezing or icing, bacterial levels may increase in the markets under investigation. According to Nkosi et al. (2021), chilling and freezing carcasses reduces germs on meat. The authors suggest for the use of lactic, acetic, and citric acids to reduce microorganisms. The Vietnamese slaughterhouses and cold chain systems were insufficient, and investments in biosecurity for broiler processing were reduced (Dien et al., 2023). Additionally, the current study revealed that all operators knew microorganisms can cause foodborne diseases and harm consumers and the economy; however, they were unfamiliar with the names of pathogenic bacteria responsible for such problems. Ahmed and Al-Mahmood (2023) argue that meat processors must understand food-borne diseases, temperature control, cross-contamination, and environmental sanitation.

The majority of operators (62.2%) did not possess the license to slaughter and process chickens in markets; none of the participants were part of the processors’ committee, while 61.3% did not receive inspection from the municipal council or animal health inspection. Furthermore, Atchala et al. (2025); Njoga et al. (2023) emphasize that slaughter facilities are crucial to preventing, detecting, controlling, and eliminating zoonotic, infectious, and contagious animal diseases. The authors highlighted that slaughter facilities must be registered for ante-mortem inspection, carcass inspection, safe meat processing, and storage. Monitoring and conducting surveillance programs are difficult without processor registration, making disease control at processing facilities challenging (Dien et al., 2023).

Most participants in this study showed a positive attitude toward personal hygiene and strongly agreed that hygiene training is essential to food safety. However, the majority disagreed on avoiding touching the face, hair and nose during processing and was widespread disagreement regarding abstain from processing with hand injuries. Ahmed and Al-Mahmood (2023); Bello et al. (2023) underscores that processors must be clean and hygienic including washing hands, removing jewelry and maintaining personal hygiene to produce clean and hygienic food products. Our findings revealed that operators lacked designated hand-washing areas, often using only water or soap brought from home. Additionally, many participants failed to maintain short fingernails, continued working while ill, and frequently consumed food and drinks within the processing zone. Similar results were reported by Birgen et al. (2022); Christiana Cudjoe et al. (2022); Gemeda et al. (2024); Odetokun et al. (2020) in that participants were unaware that a sick processor can transmit zoonotic disease agents to food and can spread to the processing environment.

Interestingly, our multiple linear regression model for attitudes revealed a significant negative predictive effect for higher level of education (B = -1.814, p < 0.05) and formal food safety training attendance (β = -3.19, p < 0.05). This negative trend, where trained handlers paradoxically registered lower self-reported attitude scores (55.30 ± 5.74) than untrained ones (58.58 ± 4.90), points toward a common behavioral phenomenon in food safety. As highlighted by Yammine and Karam (2020), formal training improves an operator’s internal awareness of essential biological risks, leading to more discerning, realistic, and risk-aware when self-reporting their workplace attitudes. Conversely, untrained operators exhibit an optimism bias or deceptive sense of security, leading to inflated self-reported attitude scores.

Our findings revealed that operators (52.9%) use treated water and detergent to wash equipment and utensils, 78.2% disinfect equipment and utensils with boiling water, 73.1% use treated water supplied by the public company, all participants confirm that they have water sufficient and of good quality for processing. Similar results of the current study, in Bangladesh, it was reported that the equipment was cleaned and disinfected with calcium hypochlorite, twice a day before and after work. The chickens in some places were washed with food-grade bleaching powder but others were washed with clean water, demonstrating an effort to ensure food safety (Ferdous et al., 2023). In addition, Assefa et al. (2023); Nkosi et al. (2021) recommend the use of low-residue detergents for consumer health, such as lactic acid, acetic acid, and trisodium phosphate sprays to destroy pathogens on surfaces, utensils, and meat because tap water alone does not eliminate microorganisms at an acceptable level. The results show that the respondents slaughter the chicken manually, 44% of the respondent’s slaughter around 71-100 chickens, all operators had an adequate infrastructure for safe slaughter. A similar study reported that slaughter, bleeding, scalding, and plucking were carried out manually, without observing good hygiene practices and without using appropriate equipment for the activity (Ubeyratne et al., 2022). The markets visited did not have hygienic slaughter facilities, which can lead to cross-contamination of carcasses, the working environment, and operators. Live chickens are kept in cages and frequently contaminate their surroundings with their own feces. Ubeyratne et al. (2022) assert that confining broilers in cages devoid of trays for feces retention poses a risk of cross-contamination due to the dispersion of droppings within the limited space.

In addition, the scalding water is changed at the end of the day and during the day they only add it when it runs out, they separate the slaughter place from the scalding and plucking area, which contributes to limiting contamination, 48.7% of operators do this plucking and evisceration manually while 5.9% use a machine for plucking but finishing is done manually, plucking and evisceration water is changed at the end of processing a batch. According to Madjdian et al. (2024); Ubeyratne et al. (2022), the quality and temperature of the scalding water, reusing the same water for scalding, washing the carcasses before and after evisceration can contribute to the spread of bacteria in the carcasses. Similar findings showed 33 chickens shared 25 L of scalding water (changed daily; 7 chickens scalded at once) at the same slaughter site, where plucking occurred on tables or wood; 23% of plucking waste was dumped in trash, streets, or markets (Assefa et al., 2023).

In contrast to the present study, Ferdous et al. (2023) employed a semi-automatic slaughter and processing system for broiler chickens, wherein chicken suspension, slaughter, evisceration, and packaging were performed manually, while weighing, stunning, scalding, plucking, and chilling were automated. As indicated by Assefa et al. (2023); Mpundu et al. (2019), washing multiple carcasses in the same bucket of water poses a risk of cross-contamination. Moreover, plucking may contaminate the operator’s hands, and when performed concurrently with evisceration, can transfer pathogens such as Salmonella, E. coli, and Campylobacter to the carcass. Furthermore, Ahmed and Al-Mahmood (2023); Ataya et al. (2024) reported that pathogenic bacteria represent the most significant food safety hazard in terms of both occurrence and the number of individuals affected. This risk is exacerbated by cross-contamination from food handlers, which constitutes the most frequent source of meat contamination during processing. The majority of operators failed to decontaminate carcasses; 87.4% employed plastic bag to prevent contamination by flies, repel pests, and shield the chickens with bowls or plastic coverings. Although 69.7% utilized garbage containers, a portion disposed of rubbish on-site. Furthermore, 31.1% of individuals butchered sick or dead chickens. The inadequate cleaning and sanitation of knife, utensils, and cutting boards, along with the improper disposal of untreated waste, can facilitate the transmission of pathogens (Biswas et al., 2024; Ubeyratne et al., 2022). Katiyo et al. (2019) argue that neglecting the cold chain for chicken meat can elevate the risk of pathogenic bacteria proliferating to hazardous levels, threatening public health.

In the present study, slaughter waste (scalding water, evisceration) was disposed of in drains (two markets), pits (three markets), or the processing area (three markets). Blood and feather waste was mostly discarded in public containers, with burial outside the market in two locations; offal was universally consumed. In contrast, Ubeyratne et al. (2022) reported that 63.42% of markets had government waste collection, 21.14% used waste for pig feed, 4.88% for landfills, 9.76% for septic tanks, and one for biogas. Assefa et al. (2023) noted that 92% of Burkina Faso processors slaughtered on bare earth, and improper disposal of blood occurred. Bist et al. (2024); Ubeyratne et al. (2022) recommend burial, incineration, biogas production, or treatment for pig feed, as inappropriate disposal risks spreading diseases like salmonellosis.

Our linear regression model for practices, indicated that neither demographics nor training qualifications exerted any statistically significant independent predictive effect on operational hygiene behaviors (p ≥ 0.05, with training resulting a weak β = -0.432). This absence of predictive weight underscores a significant knowledge-practice gap within these municipal markets (Kuboka, 2026; Viana et al., 2025). Due to 92.4% of these operators work without electricity and cold-chain systems, they are structurally limited. Even when formal training programs improve technical knowledge (β = 6.116), operators are physically blocked from translating that cognitive awareness into sanitary behavior due to insufficient access to running water, electricity, and refrigeration facilities. This underscores that educational interventions in Southern Mozambique must be paired with enhancements to physical marketplace infrastructure to attain significant public health improvements.

5 Conclusions

This study revealed that informal chicken operators in southern Mozambique operate without formal training, licenses, or refrigeration facilities, yet chicken processing constitutes their primary source of income. Although operators demonstrated moderate awareness of basic handwashing and equipment cleaning, significant gaps existed in critical food safety practices. Nearly one-third (31%) of operators slaughtered sick or dead chickens, 87% used plastic packaging, and none performed carcass decontamination or cold storage. Knowledge of foodborne pathogens was poor, and hazardous behaviors such as eating in processing areas, wearing jewelry, and working with hand injuries were common. Waste disposal practices were inadequate, with scalding water and offal discarded in drains, pits, or processing areas. A negative correlation between knowledge and attitude (r = -0.220, p < 0.05) suggests that awareness alone does not translate into positive food safety attitudes or practices. Collectively, these deficiencies pose serious risks of microbial contamination (e.g., Salmonella, E. coli, Campylobacter) and zoonotic disease transmission, threatening public health and food safety in urban and peri-urban markets. Governments should mandate food safety training and licensing for informal operators, conduct unannounced inspections, provide refrigeration and handwashing stations, and enforce proper slaughter waste disposal (burial, incineration, or animal feed) to prevent contamination.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Paul Lelovas, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece

Reviewed by: Ana Marquiza Quilicot, Visayas State University, Philippines

Ali AlKhatib, Lebanese International University - Saida Campus, Lebanon