Evaluation of sanitary conditions and meat handling practices in retail chevon meat shops using FSSAI hygiene rating system

Introduction

India hosts 535.8 million livestock population and 148.8 million Goats, indicating a 4.64 percent increase in livestock and a 10.14 per cent increase in goat population compared to the previous census (DAHD, 2019). According to the statistical yearbook of FAO (2025), India holds the fourth position globally in total meat production. Reaching to 10.50 million tonnes, reflecting a 2.46% increase, which rose the per capita meat availability to 7.39 Kg/Annum (BAHS 2025). India is one of the countries where customers prefer chevon to other meat types. Goat contributes 15% of the country's total meat production (BAHS 2025). During 2024-25, the nation exported 11,581.07 MT of sheep and goat meat to other countries, earning $84.94 million. The principal exporting nations (2024-25) were UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman (APEDA, 2025). Although goat meat contributes to long-term food security and possesses health benefits (Ivanovi´c et al., 2016) [12] , several industry-related issues need to be addressed, especially in developed countries. The Food Safety and Standards Regulations (2011), part 4 of Schedule 4, governs meat safety in India. It aims to promote meat safety and the safety of animal products, regulate the importation and exportation of meat, and establish meat safety within India. However, despite regulations, India has poor food handling and sanitation practices, possibly due to a lack of financial resources to invest in food safety and a lack of education and training for food handlers (Tessema et al., 2014) [19] . Butchers are unaware of various health hazards arising due to inadequate infrastructure and sanitary practices (Tagar & Ahmed, 2021) [18] . Retail meat shops are the largest source of contamination, and the workers who do not follow sanitary practices contaminate the meat while handling resulting in early spoilage due to microorganisms (Jyoti et al., 2019) [13] . Contamination can occur during processing, contact with equipment, contact with food handlers and exposure to other environmental sources (Wardhana et al., 2021) [25] . Meat hygiene refers to a set of activities that need the implementation of specific standards, codes of practice, and regulatory action by the regulatory body to ensure the safety of the meat for consumers to eat. At different stages of production, processing, and transportation, slaughter and meat processing equipment, and the environment, hygiene regulations must be followed along with developing adequate personal hygiene activity among food handlers. (Bhandari R et al., 2022 and Thornton L. N. 1966) [5,20] . Moreover, the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of meat handlers regarding food safety are a major source of concern. Therefore, addressing the hygienic status of meat production and distribution is crucial; as such, information will be beneficial in designing any preventive strategies and control measures. It also serves as baseline data for related research. With the above motives, this study was planned to evaluate the status of design and facilities, control of the operation, maintenance and sanitation, personal hygiene, training and record keeping and waste disposal of retail chevon meat shops in Nagpur city, Maharashtra state of India.

Materials and Methods

The study was conducted in Nagpur, the sub-capital city of Maharashtra state, India during September 2023 to February 2024. For the study, Nagpur city was categorized into five different zones, and quota sampling was conducted to have a sample size of 100 retail chevon/goat meat shops. Meat shops were selected by proportionate random sampling method, and among 100 retail meat shops, 20 shops each were selected from each zone, i.e. East, West, North, South and Central Nagpur city. A hygiene rating assessment checklist (FSSAI) was used for the survey through personal dialogues with the butchers. A hygiene rating assessment checklist was based assessment of retail shops for compliance with food hygiene and safety procedures and standard, followed by the verification by physical inspection. Each of the domains consists of specific observations, and each of the observations was scored in a quantising from 0 to 4. The overall lowest score (below 40) is considered non-compliance, the average score (41-60) means needs improvement and the highest score (61-80 and above) is considered compliance satisfactory/exemplary.

The questionnaire included 35 variables, which were in English. Still, during the interview, the researcher explained them in the local languages of the retail shop owner or butcher, i.e., Hindi and Marathi. The questionnaire included details about retail meat shop registration and design facilities, control of the operation, maintenance & sanitation, personal hygiene, training and record keeping, and waste disposal of retail goat meat shop. The primary data collection tools were photography, interviews, visual observations, and questionnaires. After explaining the purpose of the study and verbal consent from the retail meat shop owner for using the data for research, a personal interview was conducted with the owner or butcher of the retail meat shop. The data obtained through survey forms were grouped and presented as percentages. [16] , who reported 74.4% of meat shops had formally registered with local authorities.

Results and Discussion

Design and facilities

The details of the design and facilities status of Chevon meat shops in Nagpur city have been presented in Table 2. It was documented that 95.0% of Chevon shops had separate provision for the slaughter of different species, which help control cross-contamination during processing. Table 4.2 indicated that 71.0% of shops had space for lairage; which corroborate the findings of Bafanda et al., (2017) [3] , who reported the availability of lairage facilities at most of the meat shops in the Jammu district. The internal structure and fittings were such that they prevent the entry of dirt, dust, and pests into the shop. Moreover, 76.0% of Chevon shops indicated compliance with FSSAI norms concerning internal structure and fittings. These findings align with Khanal and Poudel's (2017) [14] report, highlighting the temporary and partial construction of 50% of butcher shops in Chitwan, Nepal.

As far as impervious, non-slippery, easy-to-clean floors are concerned, 71.0% of Chevon shops complied with FSSAI norm, which was supported by Santos et al., (2017) [17] who reported 63% of butcher shops maintaining clean floors in Portugal. Results indicated that 44.0% of meat shops had compliance regarding walls paved with glazed tiles (at least 1 meter in height), as it will be accessible for cleaning and washing purposes. Bafanda et al., (2017) [3] , reported similar results where they found that the walls & flooring in most of the meat shops in the Jammu district were in a poor state. 74.0% of the shops need improvement regarding Windows and other openings fitted with an insect-proof screen. The results aligned with the studies conducted by Jyoti et al., (2019) [13] where 44.44% of meat shops in Guwahati City employed with glass windows to prevent flies. The doors of Chevon shops need to be smooth with non-absorbent surfaces, close-fitted and self-closing. However, only 6.0% of Chevon shops in Nagpur city complied with this FSSAI norm. [16] , who reported sufficient lighting and ventilation in 80.6% of poultry meat shops. There were inadequate personnel hygiene facilities, including adequate toilets, hand washing facilities and changing rooms in most Chevon shops (86.0%), Bafanda et al., (2017) [3] observed analogous findings in their study, revealing a deficiency in essential amenities across meat shops in the Jammu district. It was found that only 12.0% of Chevon meat shops had a proper supply of clean, potable water with pressure hosepipes and hot water. Most Chevon shops (88.0%) do not have hot water (82 o C) facilities for daily cleaning/sterilizing equipment. The results comply with those (Upadhyaya and Ghimire, 2020) [22] , who reported availability of water in 94.74% of meat shops.

Control of operation at Chevon Shops

It was observed from the table 3 that 55% of shop owners are procuring live animals from goat farms, which are disease-free by visual examination and perform practices like segregating and separating animals suspected of infectious diseases. [16] also reported similar findings, stating that 83.0% of butchers procured live poultry birds from the poultry market. However, it is noteworthy that none of the shops in Nagpur performs stunning operations, as they lack the necessary equipment and machinery. About 95.0% perform dressing of the carcasses on suitable hoists, which complies with the FSSAI norm. Bhandari et al.

(2022) [6] found that most retail meat shops overhang the carcasses for the whole day and sell their meat, reported similar results. Knives should be made of stainless steel and sterilized before use about 96.0% of Chevon shops in Nagpur comply with norms. In contrast to this Adzitey et al., (2011) [1] reported that 35% of the butchery operators wiped butchery utensils with pieces of cloth, and 10% used hot water with soap in Ghana. The results indicated that 79.0% of Chevon shops from Nagpur did not have wellequipped chilling/freezing facilities for meat storage, Upadhyaya and Ghimire (2018) [26] , reported nonavailability of refrigerators in 78.95% of butcher shops in Bhutwal.

Sanitation, maintenance & waste disposal

The data on maintenance and sanitation at a Chevon shop in Nagpur has been presented in Table 4. It shows that 74.0% www.extensionjournal.com of Chevon shops had facilities to wash their floors daily with disinfectant, complying with the FSSAI norm. These findings agreed with Bhattarai et al., (2017) [6] , who reported that 74.12% of the shops used water and soap for cleaning.

Only 2% of Chevon shops had regular pest control activity, which is crucial in controlling the zoonotic transfer of pathogens from animals to foods. [15] and Ghana & Reddy et al., (2019) [23] , who reported the presence of flies and insects at 35.0% and 65.38% of meat shops, respectively. About 65.0% of Chevon shops had proper drainage systems fitted with traps and screens. They generally put condemned carcasses, skin, offal or waste tissues and trimmings together in gunny bags, and sold to fisherman to use as fish feed. These results are supported by the findings of Mundhe et al., (2022) [16] , wherein 87.5% of poultry meat shops do not have sufficient space to separate and store condemned carcasses. None of the Chevon shops was found to adhere to the practice of reusing processed waste material to create animal byproducts. These results were in contrast with the findings of Waghmare et al., (2022) [24] , who reported that 61.02% of butcher shops utilized local facilities provided by municipal bodies for disposing of slaughter waste.

Personal Hygiene of workers/butchers at the Chevon shop:

The analysed data on the personal hygiene of workers/butchers at the Chevon shop in Nagpur city has been depicted in Table 5. It was observed that 98.0% of meat handlers in Nagpur city do not have medical health certificate/vaccination certificate against infectious diseases. The results agreed with the findings of Chepkemoi et al., (2015) [7] , who reported that 94% and 88% of meat handlers in Nairobi and Isiolo counties did not have medical certificates. The study indicated that 100% of meat handlers did not have any open wounds, burns, or skin infections. However, the results were in contrast to Reddy et al., (2019) [23] , who reported that 15.38% of meat handlers had open cuts on the hands and legs. It was found that the meat handlers from 90% of Chevon shops have maintained personal hygiene, like regularly trimming their nails and hair and had proper shave, which complied with the FSSAI norms. In contrast, Tagar and Ahmed (2021) [18] reported that only 8% of butchers from meat shops had trimmed nails in Hyderabad and Jamshoro, Pakistan. As per norms, meat handlers should wear clean protective clothing, including a mask or hair net, and should refrain from wearing personal items such as watches, rings, and loose jewellery. However, the study indicated that, 49% of meat handlers were wearing jewellery and watches, and some were either not wearing masks or hair caps or were wearing unclean clothing, which needs to be improved to comply with the FSSAI norm. Non-wearing of protective clothing, hair cap, gloves, footwear, etc., were also reported by Haileselassie et al., (2013) [11] , Chepkemoi et al., (2015) [7] , Tuneer and Madhavi (2015) [21] , Upadhyaya and Ghimire (2018) [26] , Jyoti et al., (2019) [13] .

Training and Record-keeping

The data analysed on the training and record keeping at the Chevon shop in Nagpur city has been depicted in Table 6. None of the meat shops performs Internal / External audits regularly. Moreover, 98% of meat shops did not have a compelling mechanism for redressing consumer complaints. It was found that the butchers in 99% of Chevon shops did www.extensionjournal.com not undergo training in basic hygiene and practices to be followed during the slaughtering of animals and meat handling. The results agreed with Waghmare et al., (2022) [24] and Joyti et al., (2019) [13] , who reported that 77.12 % of meat handlers in Maharashtra and 63.89 % of meat handlers in Guwahati city had not acquired any formal training regarding meat hygiene and handling practices. The data recorded by this study indicated that there was no proper documentation regarding the source of animals and shelf life of the products. Concenco et al., (2018) [8] , also reported about improper documentation and records in butcher shops in Navirai, Brazil.

Overall Grading of Chevon Shops in Nagpur City

Based on the scores obtained the Chevon shops in various domains like design and facilities, control of the operation, maintenance and sanitation, as well as training and record keeping as per the hygiene rating checklist of FSSAI, the meat shops were graded as A+, A, B and C (Table 7). The study indicated that none of the Chevon shops Nagpur were graded A+ (Compliance exemplar). Only 2.0% of Chevon meat shops had satisfactory compliance (Grade A) in the city. In all, 54.0% of Chevon meat shops in Nagpur city were in grade B, which needed improvement. 44.0% of Chevon meat shops in Nagpur city do not comply with FSSAI norms and were graded as 'C' and need serious attention to improve the quality of meat sold from these shops.

Conclusion

The retail Goat meat sector contributes to employment and income generation and helps to achieve nutritional security.

The present investigation and study concluded that there is a need for improvement in most Chevon meat shops in Nagpur city regarding design and facilities, control of the operation, maintenance and sanitation, as well as training, record keeping and personal hygiene of meat handlers of Chevon meat shops. Regular monitoring and strict vigilance of Chevon meat shops from regulatory bodies are needed. Formal education for meat handlers is an essential factor in promoting hygienic practices, thereby improving the quality standard of Chevon meat shops. The information gained from the study can be utilized to formulate essential safety measures to improve the quality of meat; hence, overall upgradation in this unorganized sector is essential for the food safety.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementsThe authors gratefully acknowledge the authorities of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and Nagpur Veterinary College, Nagpur, for permitting this study.

References

1. APEDA. Annual Report 2024-25. Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Agency, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, New Delhi. https://agriexchange.apeda.gov.in/indexp/Product_descr iption_32headChart.aspx?gcode=0402.
2. Bafanda RA, Khandi SA, Choudhary F. A Study on the Evaluation of Physical Facilities (Infrastructures) and Processing Operational Units of Major Slaughterhouses and Meat Retail Shops in Jammu Districts of Jammu and Kashmir. Asian J Agric Ext Econ Sociol. 2017;18(2):1-13. https://doi.org/10.9734/AJAEES/2017/35203.
3. BAHS. Basic Animal Husbandry Statistics, Dept. Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Min. Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Govt. India, New Delhi, India. 2025.
4. Bhandari R, Singh AK, Bhatt PR, Timalsina A, Bhandari R, et al. Factors associated with meat hygiene practices among meat-handlers in Metropolitan City of Kathmandu, Nepal. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2022;2(11):e0001181. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0001181.
5. Bhattarai J, Badhu A, Shah T, Niraula SR. Meat Hygiene Practices among Meat Sellers in Dharan Municipality of Eastern Nepal. Birat J Health Sci. 2017;2(2):184-90.
6. Chepkemoi S, Lamuka PO, Abong GO, Matofari J. Sanitation and hygiene meat handling practices in small and medium enterprise butcheries in Kenya -Case Study of Nairobi and Isiolo Counties. Int J Food Safety. 2015;17:64-74.
7. Concenco FIGR, Silva GN, Concenço SE, Nora L. Hygienic Conditions in Butcher Shops at the City of Navirai, Brazil -An applied case study. J Agric Sci (Toronto). 2018;10(8):321-7.
8. Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying. 20th Livestock Census-2019: All India report. Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India. Available from: https://dahd.nic.in.
9. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Statistical Yearbook 2025. FAO. https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/fao-s-statisticalyearbook-2025-goes-live--highlights-the-impact-ofdisasters-on-agriculture-and-cost-of-healthy-/en.
10. Haileselassie M, Taddele H, Adhana K, Kalayou S. Food safety knowledge and practices of abattoir and butchery shops and the microbial profile of meat in Mekelle City, Ethiopia. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed. 2013;3(5):407-12.
11. Ivanović S, Pavlović I, Pisinov B. The quality of goat meat and its impact on human health. Biotechnol Anim Husbandry. 2016;32(2):111-22.
12. Jyoti PC, Hussain P, Sonowal S, Bora DP, Razibuddin AH, Baruah A. Assessment of bacteriological load of meat contact surfaces and practices of butcher shop workers. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2019;8(1):1839-47.
13. Khanal G, Poudel S. Factors associated with meat safety knowledge and practices among butchers of Ratnanagar Municipality, Chitwan, Nepal: A crosssectional study. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2017;29(8):683-91.
14. Mensah P, Yeboah-Manu D, Owusu-Darko K, Ablordey A. Street foods in Accra, Ghana: How safe are they? Bull World Health Organ. 2002;80(7):546-54.
15. Rathod K, Mundhe BL, Badhe SR. Hygiene Status and Meat Handling Practices in Retail Poultry Meat Shops of Nagpur City of Maharashtra. J Meat Sci. 2022;17(2):15-21.
16. Santos A, Margarida F, Cardoso, Eduarda N. Meat Safety: An evaluation of Portuguese Butcher Shops. J Food Prot. 2017;80(7):1159-66.
17. Tagar S, Ahmed N. Assessment of hygiene status of poultry slaughtering facilities and meat handling practices of butchers by using a hygiene assessment tool. J Food Safety Hyg. 2021;7(1):38-51.
18. Tessema AG, Gelaye KA, Chercos DH. Factors affecting food handling practices among food handlers of Dangila town food and drink establishments, North West Ethiopia. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1-5.
19. Tuneer K, Madhavi T. A comparative study of the hygienic status of butchers and identify bacteria among the slaughters of meat, chicken and fish markets of Jagdalpur city, Chhattisgarh. Int Res J Biol Sci. 2015;4(1):16-24.
20. Upadhayaya M, Ghimire B. Survey on Good Hygiene Practices in Retail Meat Shops in Butwal Municipality, Nepal. Nepalese Vet J. 2020;35:110-21.
21. Venkata Sesha Reddy C, Sujitha B, Maheswara Reddy D, Vani S. Awareness and practices followed by the butchers in hygienic meat production chain in YSR Kadapa district of Andhra Pradesh. Pharma Innov. 2019;8(10):140-45.
22. Waghamare RN, Londhe SV, Ajabe SS, Khobe VV, Deshmukh V. Marketing Skills and Sanitary Status of Retail Meat Shops in relation to Butchers' Educational Background in Maharashtra. Indian J Ext Educ. 2022;58(2):129-34.
23. Wardhana DK, Haskito AEP, Purnama MTE, Safitri DA, Annisa S. Detection of microbial contamination in chicken meat from local markets in Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia. Vet World. 2021;14(12):3138.
24. Upadhyay MK, Yadav P, Shukla A, Srivastava S. Utilizing the potential of microorganisms for managing arsenic contamination: a feasible and sustainable approach. Frontiers in Environmental Science. 2018 May 7;6:24.