A cross-sectional survey was carried out to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of backyard slaughtering, and to investigate associated risk factors in Hawassa and Yirgalem towns, Sidama Regional state, Ethiopia. Out of 288 respondents in both study areas, 215 (74.65%) and 70 (24.3%) had knowledge about zoonosis and food borne diseases, respectively. Moreover, the knowledge of respondents toward zoonosis significantly varies with educational occupation and income levels (p < 0.05). Thereby, respondents at college level and above, and those work in civil servant having salary above 3,500 birr average monthly income had more knowledge towards zoonosis. The knowledge of respondents towards health problems significantly associated with the towns (p < 0.05). The result reveals that 26.6% and 12% respondents from Hawassa town and Yirgalem, respectively, had knowledge about food borne diseases. The attitudes of respondents willing to use abattoir for sheep and goats had statistically significant association with education level, occupation, and average monthly income (p < 0.05). Respondents at college level and above (87.32% and 78.14%), civil servant (84.56%), and persons earning above 3,500 birr monthly income (85.42%) had more attitudes to use sheep and goats abattoir. Out of the total respondents, 59 (20%) work on slaughtering cattle and 229 (80%) are assigned on slaughtering sheep and goats at their backyards. The practices of respondents significantly associated with family responsibility, sex, religion and occupations (p < 0.05). The current study revealed that there are numerous gaps about knowledge, attitude and practices of the residents regarding to zoonotic disease and abattoir usage that will in turn predisposing them to various health problems mainly to animal origin food borne diseases and other zoonosis. Therefore, educating the wider community about the importance of legal places for slaughtering and the risks associated with the backyard slaughtering is recommended. Moreover, further research should be conducted to fill the research gap in other parts of the country.

Gelelcha L (2020) Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Backyard Slaughtering System in Hawassa and Yirgalem Towns, Sidama Regional State, Ethiopia. J Vet Med Res 7(4): 1193.

• Abattoir
• Attitude
• Backyard slaughtering
• Knowledge
• Hawassa
• Yirgalem

Backyard slaughtering is the illegally killing or slaughtering of the animals for meat consumption without considering the animal welfare and it contributes its own role on food born disease [1]. The practice of backyard slaughter and street meat sales are the principal sites for bacterial contamination of meat. The higher incidence of E. coli is associated with poor hygiene as backyard slaughtering and street meat sales practices are popular. In addition, the hygienic practices in the abattoir and butcher shops are not as to the expected level and this could also contribute to the higher incidence of the organism [2].

Protecting public health is the reason to regulate backyard slaughter. Several serious infectious diseases, including avian influenza, E. coli, and salmonella can be transmitted through livestock and poultry in particular. In light of this risk, cities have a range of regulatory options ranging from education to prohibition. Slaughtering animals at the home and on site in urban environments poses opportunities for pathogen transmission from infectious animals (either bovine or poultry) to the environment, humans, and other animals. The urban household environment is not well suited for containment of pathogens from the slaughtering of animals or birds, including viscera, blood, and feces, and in particular may draw wild and domesticated animals to the premises [3].

Ensuring food safety to protect public health remains a significant challenge in both developing and developed countries. Food borne diseases occur commonly in developing countries particularly in Africa because of the prevailing poor food handling and sanitation practices, inadequate food safety laws, weak regulatory systems, lack of financial resources to invest in safer equipment and lack of education for food-handlers [1]. Of the foods intended for humans, those of animal origin tend to be most hazardous unless the principles of food hygiene are employed [4].

Many emerging and re-emerging diseases of humans are caused by pathogens which originate from animals or products of animal origin. There are a number of zoonotic diseases that can be transmitted from animal to humans in various ways. Wide variety of animal species, both domestic and wild, acts as reservoirs for these pathogens, which may be viruses, bacteria or parasites [5]. Bacterial contamination of meat products are an unavoidable consequence of meat processing. Even if data regarding meat borne diseases in Ethiopia are extremely scarce, a few studies conducted in different parts of the country which shown the public health importance of several bacterial pathogens associated with foods of animal origin [6].

Abattoir provide information on the epidemiology of disease on livestock, to know to what extent the public is exposed to certain zoonotic disease and estimate the financial losses incurred through condemnation of affected organs and carcasses. Abattoir means a legal slaughter house designed for the purpose of killing animals, skinning, dressing and cutting up of carcass, wrapping for sale for human consumption with cooler and freezer storage and includes indoor confinement of animals while awaiting slaughter but, most people in Ethiopia do not use slaughter houses and they slaughter sheep and goats in their backyards due to traditional norms and lack of legislation [7-8].

However, round a research made on abattoir ends up in recommendation to protect backyard slaughtering which is a common practice in Ethiopia. It never been measured in terms of research why the society prefers backyard slaughtering and continue as a common practice other than rhetoric’s regarding abattoir slaughtering capacity and other issues. Therefore, the current study is designed with the objectives of assessing factors that forces the society to practice backyard slaughtering and to assess knowledge and attitudes of the community on the risks associated with backyard slaughtering

Description of Study Area

The study was conducted in representative areas of Yirgalem and Hawassa towns. The location of study areas is at 271 km south of Addis Ababa. Geographically, the Sidama Rigional state lies between 5°45’ and 6°45’ latitude, North and 38°21′ and 39°1′ East longitude. Sidama Regional state had a total population of 3,406,616 peoples of which the rural population accounts for 94.5% of the total inhabitants while urban population is about 5.5%. A total of 61,279 households were counted in the Sidama Regional state, which results in an average of 4.22 individuals to a household, and 57,469 housing units. The Sidama Regional state has an area of 6538.17 Km2 square kilometer with a population density of 451.83 persons per one square kilometer. The economy of the Sidama Regional state is primarily based on agricultural production mostly characteristically crop-livestock mixed farming system [9].

Study Design and Population

A cross-sectional study involving simple random sampling was conducted to assess KAPS in both Hawassa and Yirgalem town’s representatives (various stakeholders). Residents of cities and towns potentially involved in backyard slaughtering were main target groups including other individuals such as butchers, animal health professionals, community health workers, environmental health practitioners etc. Additionally, opinions of government officials from department of agriculture, health and city admistration were contacted.

Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

Since backyard slaughtering practices were unknown in the study areas, almost 75% of the study populations were assumed to be involved in slaughtering either small ruminants or cattle at least once a year during the festivity. The sample size was calculated according to the formula set by Thrusfield [10].

N = (Z2 ) Pexp (1-Pexp)/d2 where,

Z (1-α/2) = Confidence level corresponding to 95% CI and precision 5%.

N = sample size

Pexp = expected prevalence

D = desired absolute precision,

According to the above formula, the sample size was calculated to be 288 persons.

Data Collection Tools and Techniques

Semi-structured questionnaires were prepared in English and translated to Amharic language for both study sites to collect information on knowledge, attitude and practice. Interview were conducted through using questioner based on basic information of respondents such as addresses, sex, age, family size, responsibility in family, educational level, religion, and average monthly income level of the respondents. Then, the questionnaire addresses about respondents knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards abattoir and backyard slaughtering. The knowledge level of respondents was assessed about backyard slaughtering, zoonosis, health problems, animal origin, food borne diseases, abattoir uses and legality of meat when purchasing from butchers shop.

The questionnaires were also translated into local language of “Sidamigna” and pre-tested for clarity and cultural acceptability in the sub-city. During pre-testing, additional information was gathered and some of the questionnaires were modified. Questioner survey was to investigate on public knowledge, attitudes and practices with potential risk factors for backyard slaughtering practice. The attitudes of respondents were also assessed based on preferences of ways and reasons for preferring either backyard or abattoir, the willingness of respondents to use if sheep and goat abattoir is there, reasons for not to use abattoir services, suggestion for if there were facility of modern abattoir to serve community properly. The practices of the participants were assessed about types of animals to slaughter at their backyards, their decisions if there were problems/lesions on the organs, importance of kircha, and solutions to stop backyard slaughtering.

Ethical considerations

Prior to interviewing the respondents, the first and foremost are greeting the individuals and asking their willingness/ voluntary to respond the interview by introducing the aim of the study. Then, these were conducted by respecting their cultures, religions, traditions, beliefs and perspectives.

Data management and analysis

The collected data were entered in to Microsoft excel spreadsheet and then the data were transported to statistical software for analysis STATA (version 11.0). Descriptive and analytical methods were applied depending on the nature of data sets. Chi-Square testes were used to calculate significant differences among proportions of variables and associations between dependent and independent variables. In all calculation, 95% CI were computed and the 95% confidence level was used and results were considered significant at p < 0.05.

The current finding indicates the proportion of Taeniasis 146 (51%), typhoid 2 (0.7%), TB 28 (9.7%), Hydatidosis 4 (1.4%), anthrax 39 (13.5%), and other diseases 69 (24%) as indicated in Table 1 below.

The knowledge level of the respondents toward zoonosis based on study towns, family responsibility, sex, age, education level, higher education level in the family, religion, family size, occupation and average monthly income indicated in table 2. Education level, higher education level in family, average monthly income and occupation showed significant difference (p < 0.05) on the knowledge of respondents toward zoonosis.

The overall proportions of the respondents encountered by food borne diseases were 24.2%. The study revealed that 24 (8.3%) of respondents were encountered by milk and its product, 45 (15.6%) meat and its product and 1 (0.3%) fish and its product table 3.

The knowledge of respondents on health problems of animal origin with food borne diseases were assessed based on study towns, family responsibility, sex, age, education level, higher education level in the family, religion, family size, occupation and average monthly income. Among these variables, the towns had statistically significant difference (p <0.05) on the knowledge of the respondents towards health problems as indicated on table 4.

From survey result, the knowledge of the respondents towards legality of meat purchased from butcher shop was studied based on the study towns, family responsibility, sex, age, education, religion, family size, occupation and average monthly income. As indicated in table 5, there was no statistical difference (p ?0.05) at the knowledge of the respondents towards legality of meat purchased from butcher shop.

Attitudes of the respondents’ willing to slaughter sheep and goat in abattoir was studied on towns, family responsibility, sex, age, education level, higher education level in the family, religion, family size, occupation and average monthly income of the respondents. The significant association (p<0.05) was observed on education level, higher education level in family, occupation, and average monthly income (Table 6).

Attitudes of the respondents towards community abattoir use was studied based on towns, family responsibility, sex, age, education level, higher education level in the family, religion, family size, occupation and average monthly income as indicated in table 7. Statistically significant association (p < 0.05) was observed between community abattoir use and education.

Attitudes of the respondents to prefer abattoir or backyard slaughtering based on the study towns, family responsibility, sex, age, and education level, higher education level in the family, religion, family size, occupation and average monthly income indicated in table 8. The significant association was (p <0.05) observed between abattoir or backyard slaughtering and towns, education level, occupation and average monthly income.

he respondents’ slaughtering practices of cattle, sheep, and goat in their backyard distributed based in two study towns, family responsibility, sex, age, and education level, higher education level in the family, religion, family size, occupation and average monthly income indicated in table 9. The statistically significant association (p<0.05) was observed between slaughtering practices of cattle, sheep, and goat in their backyard with the family responsibility, sex, age, occupation and religion.

The knowledge proportions of the respondents about different types of zoonotic diseases are taeniasis 146 (51%), typhoid 2 (0.7%), TB 28 (9.7%), hydatidosis 4 (1.4%), anthrax 39 (13.5%), and other diseases 69 (24%). The wide range of information about taeniasis may be due to long time related consumption of raw meat and expansion of information about the effect of eating raw meat through media and locally available professionals from time to time. However, the awareness on taeniasis (51%) in the current study area was lower than the finding of Girmaet al. [11] who reported 89% in and around Addis Abebe. Lower level of awareness among the respondents about others zoonosis like typhoid and hydatidosis, may be due to lack of information about the diseases in the current study area. Awareness on hydatidosis in a current finding agrees with the finding of Tesfaye et al. [12] who reported 4% in Jimma.

The knowledge level of the respondents toward zoonosis based on study towns, family responsibility, sex, age, education level, higher education level in the family, religion, family size, occupation and average monthly income finding shows that the factors such as, education level, higher education level in family, average monthly income and occupation were showed significant difference (p < 0.05) on the knowledge of respondents toward zoonosis. This might be due to a clear cut information gap about health aspects in between well-educated and less educated individuals. Therefore, those individuals with better education could have better knowledge not only on zoonosis, but also other health aspects than less educated individuals from access and exposure differences towards different knowledge sources. There was statistically significance association (p < 0.05) between knowledge of the respondents about zoonosis and higher education level of the respondents in the family. Concerning the effect of education level of respondents on the knowledge of zoonosis; the education standard and level of a given family may have uniformly/invariably affect the knowledge level of the family members due to difference and purity of the information on zoonosis and this resembled that less educated family could have less knowledge about zoonosis [13].

The statistically significance association (p = 0.000) between knowledge of the respondents about zoonosis were seen in civil servants, who have better knowledge rather than others (i.e., private and farmers). This could be attributed to the difference in exposure towards information and specific knowledge about zoonosis with better access of civil servants than private and farmers. According to the current finding, the statistically significant (p = 0.000) association was seen between knowledge and average monthly income obtained by respondents (table 2). As the level of income increased, the knowledge also increased from the lowest to the highest income obtained. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that, individuals/respondents with low income had no knowledge on the zoonosis. However, the study showed the difference on the knowledge may or might be individuals with a better income seek a better product and services. This in turn could make them more experienced about the zoonosis and its consequence on their health concerns than those individuals with low income who may or might not keep themselves in touch with a better product and services.

The overall proportions of the respondents encountered by food borne diseases were 24.2%. The study revealed that 8.3% of respondents were encountered by milk and its product 15.6% meat and its product and 0.3% fish and its products. This might due to lack of easily perceiving information sources within the community and careless utilization of the animal origin product among the respondents. The knowledge of respondents on health problems of animal origin with food borne diseases were surveyed based on study towns, family responsibility, sex, age, education level, higher education level in the family, religion, family size, occupation and average monthly income. Among these variables, the towns had statistically significant difference (p <0.05) on the knowledge of the respondents towards health problems. This might be due to the difference of the duration of the town established, especially long period of Yirgalem town establishment which had most probably permanent residential (homogeneity) of peoples rather than short period establishment of Hawassa town, which had over flow of new people (diversified) those had different knowledge level (background, like educational, socio-economic and living style and religion), but in the Yirgalem, most of the people were permanent residents of city. In addition to the above significant result, the percentage summarized also revealed that the respondents encountered to the animal origin food borne disease were 50 (26.6%) and 12 (12%) in Hawassa and Yirgalem, respectively. The remaining percentage of the two towns’ shows the respondents were not encountered animal origin of food borne disease as they responded. But, this might be the respondent did not had enough knowledge about animal origin food borne disease either they sick/ill from by eating those food which slaughtered at backyard or not knew risk associated from it.

As shown in the table 4, the knowledge of the respondent at their educational level categorized was marginal with p-value 0.053. This means the knowledge of the respondents on health problem from diseased animal product of food borne disease, even if it was not properly significant with the p-value but, the percentage of the respondent indicated that the respondents with their education level were encountered with animal origin food borne disease as they had knowledge on those diseases. This insignificance tells us the respondents in both towns had no sufficient knowledge on the animal origin food borne diseases. The other study variables were not significant, this did not mean that they had no association on the knowledge level of those food borne diseases. From survey result, the knowledge of the respondents towards legality of meat purchased from butcher shop was studied based on the study towns, family responsibility, sex, age, education, religion, family size, occupation and average monthly income. As indicated on the finding above there was no statistical difference (p ?0.05) in the knowledge of the respondents towards legality of meat purchased from butcher shop. This may be due to having better knowledge could make the individuals to have broad mind, differentiate the legality of their actions and others. This could invariably affect the knowledge level about the legality of meat of the respondents having in mind that the better the educated, the better the chance to access the legality of meat.

Attitudes of the respondents to prefer abattoir or backyard slaughtering based on the study towns, family responsibility, sex, age, and education level, higher education level in the family, religion, family size, occupation and average monthly income indicated in table 8. The significant association was (p <0.05) observed between abattoir or backyard slaughtering and towns, education level, occupation and average monthly income. Almost all respondents knew the importance of abattoir and backyard slaughtering and responsibility in the family respondents knew what mean by abattoir. Among the respondents, 41.67% of them were husband, 44.10% of them were wife and 14.24% of them were children. Knowledge on importance of abattoir were evaluated to be 250 (86.8%), 1 (0.35%), and 37 (12.8%) at slaughtering place of cattle, shoats, and (cattle, shoats and poultry) respectively. This indicated that majority of respondents were well aware of abattoir even they had not served for slaughtering due to different factors that hinder them. From total respondents, 98.26% knew about backyard slaughtering. This study has encompassed study variables like town (places of residents), responsibility of the respondents within family member, sex, age, education level, high education level, religion, occupation, family size and monthly income on the attitude of backyard slaughtering. The two towns (Hawassa and Yirgalem) have/had shown no statistical significance (p ? 0.05) on the attitude of backyard slaughtering. This might be due to the relative nearness of the two towns that signifies the flow rate of information of the certain idea or issue within minimum period of time in between two towns. In addition to the above result, the percentage summary also revealed that the respondents willing to use abattoir for sheep and goats were 73.3% and 74.5% in Hawassa and Yirgalem respectively. The reaming possible percentage of the two towns responded their willingness to use backyard slaughtering for sheep and goats even if there would be abattoir.

As the finding reveals, the effect of family responsibility and towns has no statistical significant association (p ? 0.05) on the attitude of the respondents on backyard slaughtering in Hawassa and Yirgalem towns. Their corresponding percentages were also summarized with the respective result of husband, wife and children; 77%, 72% and 68% willing to use sheep and goats abattoir if there would be. The reaming percentage of each parent within the family responded not willing to use sheep and goats abattoir even if there would be. However, among the family members husband and wife responded with more in terms of their children. This could be due to the absence of wide gap of information on this issue within family. The relative degree of understanding of family case could be more pronounced with the husband and wife than children and this intern causes the children to be somewhat careless than their parents. As summarized under Table 6: the sex has no statistically significance difference (p ? 0.05) value on attitude of backyard slaughtering. Their percentage to use abattoir for both sexes showed relatively equal value (77.5% male and 69.3% female) among the respondents respectively. This might be due to equal access of information and almost similar mode of life within both towns between male and female respondents. However, male responded with more willingness to use abattoir may be due to their freely moving behavior and their low intension to cook in the house than female. In this study, age has no statistically significance difference (p?0.05) on the attitude of backyard slaughtering. From the table 6: the respondents with their age below 40 years willing to use abattoir were 75% and above 40 years willing to use abattoir were 71.2% and the remaining percentage were not use abattoir. However age did not show statistical significance association on the attitude of the backyard slaughtering. The respondents below 40 years responded their willingness to use sheep and goats abattoir than the respondents above 40 years. This slight difference might due the fact that age groups below 40 years may be more exposed to the current health information and technologies than those age groups above 40 years.

As the finding indicates (Table 6): education level revealed that there was strong statistically significance difference association (p = 0.000) on the attitude of respondents on backyard slaughtering in both towns of Hawassa and Yirgalem. The percentage of respondents willing to use sheep and goat abattoir were categorized with their education level (i.e., illiterate 37.5%, elementary 55.8%, high school 71.4%, college and above 87.3% ) and the remaining percentage of each group responded not willing to use abattoir whenever it is available. In addition within the family as the level of education increased the willingness of the family members to use abattoir increased from elementary 65.2%, high school 71.8%, college and above 78.1%. In a general sense as persons became more educated she/he would be more informed, modernized and prepared to capture knowledge to differentiate right and wrong, the merit and demerits of certain ideas, the positive or negative side of the things than from less educated. According to this study, as the education level of the family members at whole increased, the better willingness to use sheep and goat abattoir also increased according to the above result. The finding with statistical significance association of educational level on the attitude of respondents on backyard slaughtering could be the result of their understanding capacity of the respondents as much as their education level. This actually indicated that the better educated the better to willingness to use sheep and goat abattoir and the finding agrees with the similar report of Girmaet al [11].

In the current study area, religion has revealed strong statistical significant association (p = 0.00) between the attitude of respondents’ and backyards slaughtering. The percentage summary indicates Orthodox; Protestant and Muslim religious members willing to use sheep and goat abattoir were 72.34%, 81.6%, and 47.6%, respectively. The remaining percentage of each religion groups responded not to use abattoir where ever it was available. This difference of attitude on backyard slaughtering might be due to the religious issue tending to support the concept of using abattoir in common or individual matter of considering some forbidden procedures from each religion for their spiritual uniqueness. Therefore, Muslim religion respondents’ showed more tendency not to using sheep and goat abattoir, and 52.4% responded their willingness to use backyard slaughtering. This may signify that Muslim do not prefer to use abattoir due to their religious issue fearing that there might be the same place with Christian and similar procedure in the abattoir that their religion does not allow where there was no separate abattoir. The proportion of the respondents willing to use abattoir; civil servants, private, and farmers were 84.56%, 63.56% and 52.4% respectively. This might be due to more of civil servants are considered to be more educated than other groups which in turn signifies they are well informed about the health concerns and abattoir than other occupation groups. However, this does not mean some private were less educated and informed some civil servants about the importance of using abattoir.

As summarized under the Table 6, monthly income of the family showed significant difference (p = 0.004) on the attitude of the respondents. From the result summary of this study, the willingness of family members with average monthly income level of the respondents less than birr 1000 was 68.9%, birr 1001- 2500 was 83.2%, birr 2501-3500 was 83.3%, and above birr 3500 was 85.42%. The finding showed that, as much as average monthly income increased, the willingness to use abattoir increased slightly. This could be due to a person with a better income tends to have better life which in turn implies having better income enables the person to fulfill the service payments of the abattoir use. Then after, the person could have better chance of getting information about using the abattoir. The attitude of the respondents towards the community whether they always use abattoir or not showed statistically significant association (p < 0.05) in educational level and family size. This result indicated that the community with a better educational level might have better information about the importance of using abattoir than less educated community. On the other hand, as the family members increased (i.e., above 5 indicated increased willingness to use abattoir than less family size, i.e., below 5). This might be due to the reason that as the family size increases the quantity of meat consumption increase and the tendency to get different information availability meat from the abattoirs also increase.

Out of the total respondents of both towns (table 2), 211 respondents responded to use backyard slaughter and 77 respondents responded to use abattoir. From the current study finding, towns (p = 0.003), education level (p = 0.000), occupation (p = 0.000), average monthly income (p = 0.036) showed that statistically significant association (p < 0.05). The respondent in Hawassa town use abattoir more than respondent in Yirgalem town. This may be due to the difference in transport facility which is better in Hawassa than Yirgalem and there was also shortage of free land in Hawassa to use backyard slaughtering than Yirgalem. Other variables didn’t show statistically significant difference. This might be more related to the education level, better occupation, and average monthly income which invariably affect the usage of the abattoir directly.

• As the current finding indicates, there are numerous gaps of knowledge, attitudes, and practices of the residents regarding to backyard slaughtering and abattoir usages in the study area. Most of the respondents that practices backyard slaughtering did not know different consequences of health problem that caused by animal origin food borne diseases and didn’t know the importance of abattoir. There were limited abattoirs services in study sites and lack of available facilities and lack of awareness of the community/respondents towards zoonotic diseases. There were also lacks of supervision by concerned body when they practice backyard slaughtering, lack of enough veterinary public health professional advices regarding zoonosis and residents’ lack of paying attention to individuals, community and environmental healthcare/ sanitation. The culture and religious perspective as well as the price of slaughter also considered as the major constraints in the study area. The questionnaire survey on public clearly indicated that generally poor knowledge and attitude of the disease and its sources of infection and transmission way to prohibit the above risk factors which influence the society to practice backyard slaughtering and the overall health well being of the society. According to the study conducted, the following recommendations are forwarded;The municipal of the towns should expand the number of abattoir with adequate services and build modern abattoir for the society by considering economic level of the wider/larger community which gives inspected meat and protect the environmental pollution.

• The responsible body should coordinate with the community to prohibit backyard slaughtering system, even by assigning Supervision body during the especial festivity (“Kircha”) in which the slaughtering practices more frequent.

• Educating the wider community about the consequence and the transmission way of zoonotic diseases which transmitted through consuming uninspected meat and meat products that was slaughtered at their backyards.

1. WHO. Regional office for Africa “Developing and Maintaining Food Safety Control Systems for Africa Current Status and Prospects for Change”, Second FAO/WHO Global Forum of Food Safety Regulators. 2004; 12-14.

2. Enabulele S, Uraih N. Enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli 0157: H7 prevalence in meat and vegetables sold in Benin city, Nigeria. Afr J Microbiol Res. 2009; 3: 276-279.

3. Blecha J, Davis A. Distance, proximity, and freedom: Identifying conflicting priorities regarding urban backyard livestock slaughter. Geoforum. 2014; 57: 67-77.

4. Yousuf AHM, Ahmed MK, Yeasmin S, Ahsan N, Rahman MM, Islam MM. Prevalence of microbial load in shrimp, Penaeusmonodon and prawn, Macrobrachium rosenbergii from Bangladesh. World J Agricultural Sci. 2008; 4: 852-855.

5. Meron T. Study on the risk of human taeniasis and prevalenc of bovine cysticercosis in Jimma Town, South Western Oromia, DVM thesis Adis Ababa Univeristy, Debrezit, Ethiopia. 2012.

6. Jones R, Jonesa H, Hussein M, Monique Z, Gale B, John RT. Isolation of lactic acid bacteria with inhibitory activity against pathogens and spoilage organisms associated with fresh meat. Food Microbiol. 2008; 25: 228-234.

7. Nfia A, Alonge D. An Economic survey of abattoir data in fako division of southwest province, Cameroon (1978-1980): Bull Anim Hlth Prod. Afr. 1987; 38: 239-242.

8. Van longtestijn J. Integrated quality. Meat Safety: A new approach. Meat Focus Int. 1993; 2: 123-28.

9. CSA. Central Statistic Authority of Ethiopia. 2012.

10. Thrusfield M. Veterinary Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK: 2005; 183-192.

11. Girma S, Zewde G, Tafess K, Jibat T. Assessment of awareness on food borne zoonoses and its relation with veterinary public health services in and around Addis Ababa. Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology. 2012; 4: 48-51.

12. Tesfaye D, Fekede D, Tigre W, Regassa A, Fekadu A. Perception of the public on common zoonotic diseases in Jimma, southwestern Ethiopia. International Journal of Medicine and Medical Science. 2013; 5: 279- 285.

13. Stull JW, Peregrine AS, Sargeant JM, Weese JS. Household knowledge, attitudes and practices related to pet contact and associated zoonoses in Ontario, Canada. BMC Public Health. 2012; 12: 553.