“We just considered it [Rift Valley Fever virus] to be over there”: A qualitative study exploring urban perspectives for disease introduction

Study Design

We carried out a comparative qualitative study between two urban study sites in Kenya in August and September 2021 (Figure 1). A total of ten focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted to understand the consensus of groups that we considered to be at high-risk for RVFV in urban settings: slaughterhouse affiliates and livestock owners. To triangulate data from each respective slaughterhouse, veterinarians who were meat inspectors responded to in-depth interviews (IDIs) on their perception of risk, experience containing RVFV, and predictions for urban outbreak responses.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 1: Study design at sites in Kenya

Figure acronyms: LO: Livestock owners; SH: slaughterhouse; FGD: focus group discussion; IDI; in-depth interview Base map: https://africaopendata.org/dataset/kenya-counties-shapefile

Study Objectives

This study’s main objective was to explore potential pathways of urban RVFV introduction and human exposure from the perspective of those most involved in livestock. Our five specific study objectives are presented in Table 1. Question guides were created to ensure full coverage of the study objectives and homogeneity between the study sites. The guides were piloted with smaller groups (3-5 participants) from adjacent towns to gather baseline information and inform probing techniques for the moderator.

Socio-cultural dimensions

Analysis focused on themes that were relevant to the study objectives and eight prominent themes (1-8) emerged from the qualitative data. Key messages under each theme have been presented and notable quotations direct from the participants are organized under each theme.

Theme 1: Social and economic value of urban livestock

Livestock and their products were referred to as urban business opportunities, but they still retained personal sentiment. The sale of animal products paid children’s’ school fees and other daily expenses, while selling livestock was reserved for financial hardships or to offer as dowry for marriage. At least five women in one of the Kisumu livestock owners’ groups and all in the SSTs group regarded that the ability to personally generate income brought them pride. The slaughterhouse workers also expressed pride in providing safe protein to their communities.

The SSTs demonstrated that all animal parts can be used for income generation including the heads, hooves, and blood. Both SSTs groups noted that their products provided customers with a less expensive protein source. Blood that was less fresh could be sold to farmers as feed for pigs (West SSTs) and poultry (all SSTs). All slaughterhouse sales were conducted as private business and the Ukunda slaughterhouse groups highlighted the businessperson who purchased the live animal at market would lose their money if a carcass was condemned.

“I have also educated my children through it, so I see it has helped me. My husband had passed on and I was left with them. So, these heads have helped me educate them [my children] …and I am now left the little I get I eat” – Kisumu SST R3

One major socioeconomic benefit of slaughterhouses mentioned by all four slaughterhouse groups was the reduction in community livestock theft due to the requirement for an official stamp on all marketed meat.

“These slaughterhouses have helped in so many ways, cattle theft is very low because when you steal an animal after slaughtering, it isn’t stamped. You’ll have to explain where you got the animal, so even the thieves fear and so it helps the livestock owners too” – Ukunda SH2 R5

Theme 2: Connecting human health and animal product consumption

Fresh milk and blood were animal products reported to be linked to human health. Local fresh milk was preferred, particularly for children and babies, because of concerns for chemicals in commercially packed milk. Trust in fresh foreign milk that arrived from surrounding regions was lower than local milk, as they believed the foreign milk had chemicals, adulterants, and water as this was the only way to compete with commercial milk prices.

Among dairy owning livestock owners, it was understood that boiling milk was important for health, but local fresh milk was still sold un-boiled, and it was to be decided by the consumer to boil the milk or not. At least two participants agreed with this and added that some people drink milk direct from the cow and they do not have any health consequences, so therefore, “the dangers are higher than the truth.” However, most participants in the livestock owners’ group recognized milk could cause disease and a commonly known consequence of raw milk consumption was diarrhea. Fresh milk was not just for food but also used as medicine, and tuberculosis (TB), burns, HIV, and arthritis were specifically mentioned to be treated with fresh milk.

Fresh, raw blood was also consumed as a cure for health problems in Kisumu. The slaughterhouse workers shared that blood was collected in plastic jugs and sold to the SSTs who confirmed to purchase these products. The meat inspector veterinarian from this slaughterhouse also affirmed this exchange and recognized that because the blood was pooled from multiple animals it was difficult to remove any if a contributing animal to the pool was condemned. Direct consumption of raw blood from the slaughterhouse was only noted in Kisumu. We did not confirm if the participant’s remark regarding doctors suggesting this practice was in reference to conventional doctors or traditional doctors.

“You know blood from an animal is normally warm, then they drink it, the following day they come as well and might go even for a week and then he regains blood quickly that is what the doctor says. He is just someone who has been directed by a doctor that go and drink raw and direct milk from a cow.” – Kisumu SSTs R3

“People believe that that blood boosts their immunity. When they go to the hospital, they are told, especially pregnant mothers, to take blood from the slaughter.” – Vet 3

Theme 3: Nutritional demands and livestock movement

Non-local livestock entered urban center for three main reasons: additions to urban herds, arrival at the slaughterhouse to meet the high urban demand for ASFs, or as situational grazers that would arrive and graze for a given time before returning to their origin. Major drivers of livestock movement into urban centers were related to urban nutritional demands of humans and animals. We confirmed animals and animal products must be sourced from distant locations to meet the high demand from the urban population for ASFs. Meanwhile, urban livestock were reported to have limited grazing areas and/or affordable zero-grazing feed options which meant they either had to be grazed along the peri-urban periphery of the city or to scavenge locally on market vegetable waste. Opportunity to mix with local urban animals, either directly or within vector flight range, was noted for slaughterhouse arrivals and situational grazers. Animals that arrive at the slaughterhouse are not slaughtered immediately on arrival and instead holding times were dependent on the orders received by the butcheries. Both Ukunda and Kisumu slaughterhouse workers noted that animals in the holding area never “ran out” as they were always replaced with new arrivals. In Ukunda, holding time was up to one month and the animals primarily walked to the slaughterhouse overnight, even if their origin was more than 200 kilometers away. Animals in holding grazed around the slaughterhouse grounds while they recovered from their transport either on foot or in a lorry. Milk was also a commodity that entered the urban centers in large quantities to meet human nutritional demands. In Kisumu milk was noted to specifically arrive from Eldoret and Nandi. In Ukunda, milk came from nearby Shimba Hills, Lunga Lunga, and Tanzania. Milk was reported to quickly sell out as the demand for fresh milk from consumers is very high.

“We first keep them, then slaughter them one by one, depending on the orders we get. We can buy two cows and slaughter on the same day. In short, we keep the cows here for a period of one week to a month depending on the orders.” – Ukunda SH1 R1

The situational grazers arrived near to the urban sites from far away when there is drought at their home. This practice was more common on the coast of Kenya near to Ukunda when large herds were reported to arrive when they did not have grass available at their respective homes in Kajiado and Garissa counties (two RVFV hotspots in Kenya).

“They stay here until rains start, and they call back home and ask if the rains are there or not. If they are told rains are there, they go back but when they are told the situation is the same, they stay here.” – Ukunda LO2 R4

“I think before December we will receive those visitors. For example, I watched the news yesterday and I found out that in Northeastern its dry to an extent that the cows are dying, so when there is no food, they start coming down here.” – Ukunda LO2 R6

Urban livestock roaming was a common practice primarily due to feed scarcity. Approximately half of all livestock owners at both sites reported to release their animals daily near to marketplaces for scavenging on vegetable scraps as this was deemed necessary for animals to meet their daily nutritional needs. Two participants noted that despite this, their animals struggled to maintain adequate nutrition. There were additional challenges associated with roaming including being detained by police, poisoning, neighbors abusing animals with knives, dog attacks, snake bites, and consumption of plastic bags. Livestock theft was not noted to be a major concern of this practice.

“You can see our cows feeding but they are not strong. The strength we give our cows is by releasing them to struggle through the road to eat people’s kales along the road and to eat garbage that has been pushed together so that they get satisfied.” – Ukunda LO1 R3

Theme 4: Veterinarian involvement in slaughter and consumption preferences

Overall, preferences for slaughtering and decisions for meat consumption were highly focused on the presence of the meat inspector veterinarian and his/her post-mortem examination. Trust in the veterinarian was said to overpower any personal opinions and their “final word” was mentioned by all slaughterhouse groups when prompted to discuss food safety. Groups repeatedly assured the moderator that all meat products are inspected, affirming that if the veterinarian had examined a product, then it must be safe for consumption.

The veterinarian’s post-mortem examination, rather than live animal examination, was seen as important as this was the best way to determine if an animal was sick. Mixed responses were received for the best time to call the veterinarian in the case of a suspected sick live animal. If slaughterhouse workers noted any signs of sickness, the animal was either slaughtered for post-mortem examination or the veterinarian was called immediately to examine the live animal. A slaughterhouse worker from Kisumu shared that if an animal arrived at the slaughterhouse and they had been sold it was hit by a car, they preferred to slaughter it quickly to determine if any part of the meat was salvageable. The SSTs who had no direct interaction with the meat inspector, also perceived their products (the heads) to be free of disease since the veterinarian had examined them.

“I don’t think there is any risk because the meat is inspected by a doctor. It is confirmed that its healthy, so I don’t feel at any risk”-Ukunda SSTs R2

“When they are bought, we just slaughter them if they have been hit [by a car]. If it was at [nearby rural town], they would have been treated, but here, the medicine is the knife. We involve the vet after we have slaughtered to check the meat.”-Ukunda SH1 R2

However, animals were sometimes treated for illness before slaughter and all four IDI respondents reported that every urban slaughtered animal receives an antemortem examination the day before, and they were to report to the slaughterhouse for emergencies to determine safety for slaughter if an animal arrival sick or injured. It was also mentioned in Ukunda that if the treatment was with antibiotics, a withdraw period of two weeks was observed.

“We have a doctor here who also inspects the animals. He does inspection before we slaughter. So, if it is not okay, he will say that it is supposed to be treated first or it should be returned, it’s not okay. So that also is their work.” -Kisumu SH4 R6

Theme 5: Information-focused determinants of risk differential

FGD participants were generally aware that diseases could be transmitted from animals to humans and stated the name of several zoonotic pathogens including anthrax (KSMLO4), bilharzia (KSMLO3), and tetanus (KSM SSTs). The Ukunda SSTs knew they were at risk for zoonotic disease but said that “there is no business which has no risks,” and that even the fire for cooking the products was a health risk for them. The Kisumu SSTs recognized that the slaughterman could become infected with an animal disease by inhaling the “hot blood” from the animal and concluded that while they do have some contact with the blood and animal products, the slaughterhouse workers were touching the animals more, so they were at higher risk. When risk was compared among the slaughterhouse workers groups, both sites identified the slaughterman to be at the highest risk but noted that indeed everyone touches the blood.

The perceived occupational risk of slaughterhouse workers was heavily focused on hygiene which nearly all participants determined to be superior to rural areas because of running water availability. However, one participant in a Kisumu livestock owners group felt that urban populations were at higher risk because of congestion and air pollution.

Slaughterhouse workers could recognize diseases in live animals and explained that examining live animals was important at point of purchase in marketplaces. The animal’s hair and eyes were examined, and other general signs of sickness were related to the animals’ ability to walk, drink water, and eat normally. Post-mortem, slaughterhouse workers could sometimes determine when certain parts of the animal would be condemned even before the vet arrives, but they had to wait for their instruction and oversight. The slaughterhouse workers commonly recognized bruised meat, medication injection sites, parasites in organs and in the intestines, and abnormal livers, knowing these portions would be condemned.

“You find the hairs have stood on end. It is difficult to know if it’s the liver that is bad or what, and it’s just there, and later when you slaughter it you find that the liver is bad.” – Kisumu SH3 R1

“There are sick animals at the market, you have to check the health of the animals, some cows can’t even stand, yet we buy and put in the car. When you are at the market it’s hard to know. – Ukunda SH1 R1

In addition to disease transmission from animals to humans, participants from four out of ten groups connected vectors as a means of infection and explained abundance to be associated with weather and breeding sites. Flies and mosquitoes were said to be more numerous near to places livestock are kept and they were also concerned about tsetse flies and ticks. In Ukunda, one livestock owner participant recognized that if a tick bites another animal and then bites you and your animal that you could get the same disease. Additionally, livestock owners noted that when mosquitoes bite animals they also get malaria. A participant in Kisumu explained that since animals do not sleep under mosquito nets, animals are more at risk of disease transmission from vectors.

“Local people can be bitten by mosquitoes; mosquitoes could have bitten an animal then it comes and bites you and leaves you with some diseases it got from somewhere.” – Kisumu SH4 R5

When knowledge sharing was discussed, consensus was reached for wanting more training and demonstrations as fear filled gaps in knowledge. Groups specifically asked to understand transmission pathways, methods of prevention, and disease names so they could determine their risk. Slaughterhouse workers were worried that they touch the blood with their bare hands, but the inspector used a hook. Anthrax was specifically mentioned in Kisumu as one of the biggest fears and the slaughtermen knew not to slaughter if they saw abnormal bleeding in a live animal. One slaughterhouse worker in Kisumu suggested more collaboration between the meat inspector and the slaughterhouse workers to determine if it was safe to slaughter an animal. The veterinarians reported that they were dedicated to public health and the wellbeing of the slaughterhouse workers, but the slaughterhouse workers had low motivation to learn about the diseases and were focused on business.

“I have an opinion, if it’s possible, people like us, make us learn so that we know all the diseases because we just keep cows and only the meat inspector knows the diseases”-Ukunda SH2 R6

“My worry is that, during the process I don’t know what kind of diseases I am exposed to and when it’s a disease that can be transmitted in the blood then we play with blood every day.” – Ukunda SH1 R7

Theme 6: Vulnerable regulations

Regulations in place to protect public health were reported to be vulnerable to violations, particularly around meat certification and slaughtering of sick animals. The slaughterhouse workers group firmly affirmed that it was illegal for any dead animals to enter the slaughterhouse premises. However, at least two participants in the livestock owners group anecdotally described that in recent years, these requirements have been circumvented when meat from sick or dead animals is mis-marketed and mixed in with an officially approved animal. They also stated that these individuals who slaughter sick animals outside of the official system and may have options for receiving fake or corrupt stamps of approval on their meat. One of the main drivers for corruption in meat certification was explained to be the huge financial loss to the owner of the animal. This was noted by the livestock owners’ group in Kisumu rather than by any group at the slaughterhouses.

In the case of an official veterinary meat inspector condemning part or all a carcass, this process has significant oversight by these professionals. In all four IDIs, participants highlighted the importance of strict follow up during the condemnation process and all shared at least one personal story of a community members becoming sick or dying after eating meat that was purchased through a regulatory loophole and therefore, they are strict with follow-up. Notably, one of the meat inspectors from Kisumu revealed that blood is one potential product that can bypass the condemnation process because it is usually pooled early with many other animals and distributed before the inspection occurs.

Vulnerabilities were also present in animal movement restrictions. Data from an Ukunda IDI explained the process for requesting a movement permit and that during high-risk times issuing movement permits was suspended. However, they recognized animals do indeed still move at night undetected or use “short cuts.” In Kisumu, an IDI participant added that while there was an official inspection point at border control with Tanzania, people moved their animals through an unofficial corridor or traveled at night. At the slaughterhouse, movement restrictions were understood to stop disease introduction and they were motivated to comply with regulations because they understood that if the disease arrived, slaughter bans would further affect their livelihoods.

“It might not even be the veterinary’s stamp, the butchery people also have their own rubber stamps, and you will find that after the veterinary has stamped theirs on one part of the animal they then stamp on the other pieces or parts and mix with the other pieces.” – Kisumu LO3 R8

“There are those who imagine losing a whole cow, they then make a deal with the slaughter guys, they are then given something little then the cow is taken to the slaughter and slaughtered.” – Kisumu LO3 R10

Theme 7: Experience-focused determinants of risk

At least one participant from all FGDs shared an experience with a zoonotic disease control measure, and this contributed to the groups’ self-assessment of risk. At the household level, three livestock owners’ shared practices for reducing mosquitoes around their animals including draining stagnant water and burning branches to create smoke. Livestock owners also shared experience with animal movement restrictions and reactive vaccination.

In urban slaughterhouses, gumboots and a clean laboratory coat were required for work every day and when asked to comment on safety, participants regarded their work uniform to be important in risk reduction. At both sites, the older slaughterhouse workers (>50 years), remembered previously when there were less regulations for slaughtering and believed that the new measures do indeed reduce risk. Slaughterhouse workers also mentioned that their quarterly occupational health checks, included deworming and typhoid vaccinations, are an important component in occupational safety. The slaughterhouse in Kisumu also had some restrictions for animals entering from far away not being able to graze normally with the other animals. At least five slaughterhouse workers recalled animal movement restrictions “nearly closing the meat sector” which greatly impacted their livelihoods. Groups recalled foot and mouth disease outbreaks to be (the most common cause for movement restrictions.

“So, you know when they bring the cattle here, we don’t know the problems they have, so when the animals go to graze out there, they mix with the local animals. So, when they mix there, if they have diseases it is transmitted to the others.” – Kisumu SH3 R1

For RVFV specifically, at least one person in each of the slaughterhouse workers and livestock owners recalled a RVFV outbreak. In Ukunda, the livestock owners noted that during the last outbreak, RVFV was present in the county, but was not seen as an urban threat. One of the meat inspectors confirmed this and expressed frustration for the lack of One Health approaches to RVFV outbreaks, sharing that in the last outbreak, cooperation from the human health sector was low until the first human case was detected in the County Hospital. The majority of FGD participants who knew about RVFV understood it to be a serious disease for livestock and reported that RVFV health messaging focused on avoiding meat and milk consumption, particularly if these products were sourced from the Rift Valley region of Kenya. Most recently, during the 2018 outbreak in Siaya (Western Kenya), three participants in the Kisumu livestock owners group recalled milk that had arrived in the center of town, from the Rift Valley Region, had been poured into the streets after the ban was announced. Another livestock owner in Kisumu, began to fear RVFV when a human in Siaya became infected. An SST in Kisumu also recalled this outbreak and added that everyone feared eating meat at that time. In Kisumu city, at least three livestock owners recalled reactive vaccination of their urban livestock.

A slaughterhouse worker in Kisumu noted that he was never told how to identify an animal that was infected with RVFV over the course of the outbreak, and instead heard about it on the radio. Only one slaughterhouse worker in Ukunda thought he had previously seen signs of RVFV in animals and reported that in 2010 there were numerous deaths in cattle with blood-tinged mucus draining from the nose, though this was never confirmed to be RVFV. For those that had not experienced, RVFV specifically commonly confused it with other fevers and diseases, especially when the other disease has “fever” in the name. East Coast Fever and Yellow Fever were specifically mentioned. Slaughterhouse workers pointed out that when you see something abnormal in the carcass it is challenging to know exactly what disease it is. Other participants didn’t know the disease but attempted to understand the connection with RVFV with the Rift Valley region of Kenya.

“Yeah when the announcement came up about RVF, even I can say the milk from Nandi was everywhere here in Kisumu but when the news came up, it’s even hard to get…People just stopped taking the milk so the meat you can’t know because you don’t know where the butchery owner gets their meat from or where they bought it but when it comes to milk many people stopped buying. Most of the people shifted to the processed milk.” – Kisumu LO3 R10

Theme 8: Rift Valley Fever human vaccination perceptions

When asked about the potential to be vaccinated against Rift Valley Fever, participants requested more information about the disease and ingredients in the vaccine before they would accept an injection. There was consensus agreement that vaccines worked to prevent diseases and people would be willing to accept a vaccine if they understood their risk. In the slaughterhouse, they were keen to be vaccinated, with some requesting vaccination the same day, because they feared high consequence diseases such as Rift Valley Fever. In Ukunda, livestock owner willingness to be vaccinated was linked to understanding that the livestock community was at higher risk.

“It’s a must I know, what will this vaccine do to me, and what is RVF? After knowing what RVF is, I might agree but before that I would not accept the vaccine.” – Kisumu SH3 R7

“So, if you bring that vaccine, do you vaccinate everyone in the homestead or just those who graze or look after the animals because if it can affect me? It can also affect my children and the family. So how you go about it is the most important thing” – Kisumu LO3 R10

While there was indeed a high acceptance rate, barriers for accepting vaccination were also noted. The main barriers were a lack of a perceived immediate threat, fear of long-term side effects, and confusion with livestock vaccinations. The livestock owners in Ukunda believed that there should be sick animals in their area before they were to accept a vaccination themselves. More hesitancy was present in Ukunda compared to Kisumu as livestock owners were concerned that they would personally receive a cattle injection. A livestock owner in Ukunda said it would be impossible to get people to accept an injection before the disease arrives in their area. In Ukunda, one woman expressed concern the vaccination could cause infertility and all groups wanted to know the potential negative consequences of receiving a vaccine.

“Without seeing the disease even if you say you are going to pay me to be vaccinated, still I won’t accept unless the animals here are sick and can transmit to humans” – Ukunda LO1 R1

“Cows, maybe their immunity is higher than that of human beings, so the vaccine that would be administered to cow is it the same as the one that would be administered to me? Are we going to run in the same line as that? The same injection for cows is the same as my injection?” – Kisumu LO4 R4