Evaluation of Abebe Bereda’s PhD Dissertation.ppt

For downloading.

1. Evaluation of Abebe Bereda’s PhD
Dissertation
By
Ameha Kebede (PhD),
Associate Prof. of Microbiology,
School of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Haramaya
University
February 16, 2018
1

2. Title of Dissertation
An
alysis of Small Holder Butter Value
C
hain and Quality at Different Critical
Control Points in
Selected Areas of the
E
thiopian Central Highlands

3. Aim of the Evaluation
•To improve the scientific merit of the dissertation
•To assess the originality and relevance of the work
•To examine that the dissertation meets the
requirements of the Postgraduate Program of
Haramaya University
•To shape up the dissertation
•To assess the competency of the candidate in the
selected field of study (PhD in Animal and Rangeland
Sciences)
3

4. Title
• Written as per the PGPD guideline
• However, it does not reflect all contents of the thesis
- Narrower in scope than the actual research output contained in
the document
Qn. Did you identify the CCPs? How?
– The identification of a critical control point is based on the CCP decision
tree
• Therefore, title needs slight modification
– The first step in the CCP decision tree is to determine whether any preventive measures exist for
this particular hazard. Nowhere in the document are the CCPs shown in the document
• Suggested title change:
Analysis of the Handling Practices and the Microbial Quality of
Small Holder Dairy Products along the Butter Value Chain in
Selected Areas of the Ethiopian Central Highlands

5. 5
A simplified diagram of the food production chain is shown below.
Schematic diagram of the human food chain

6. Relevance of the work
The study is relevant:
I.for ensuring food security among the small holder
farmers of central highlands of Ethiopia
II.because it plays an important role in improving
human health in central highlands of Ethiopia
III.to make improvement in dairy production
IV.b/s it provides valuable information concerning the
principal actors of dairy product value chain in
central highland Ethiopia
V.It reveals major problems associated with the
quality of dairy products
VI.contributes to enhance revenue generation in the
area

7. Format of the Dissertation
HU’s Postgraduate Program Directorate guideline on
thesis/PhD dissertation preparation indicates that
candidates must meet one of the following format
requirements:
1.Monograph
OR
2. Compilation of published/unpublished articles or
manuscripts
Abebe’s dissertation seems to combine both features
7

8. Components of the Dissertation
The dissertation consists of:
A.an abridged version of a monograph
B.4 appended papers
One “published” paper – but no evidence of
publication
Three manuscripts (all submitted for publication)
8

9. A.The monograph-like dissertation consists of General
Abstract and 8 sections
1.General Introduction
2.General Background
3. General Materials and Methods
4. Results and General Discussion
5. General Summary and Conclusions
6. Future Scopes for Study
7. References
8. Appendices
9

10. General Abstract
–Extracted from the abstracts of the 4 papers - So,
why not call it “summary of abstracts”?
–Well structured
–Too long (2 pages)
•needs to be reduced to one page as per the guideline of
PGPD
–Too many editorial corrections
• corrections shown in the document
– Contains information/data that are not found in any
of the papers (Ln 21 – 24)
– Wrong conclusion (Ln 6 from bottom)
10

11. 1. General Introduction
–Well organized
–Background information about the problem is shown
briefly
– The research gap is also indicated
–Few typographic corrections
–Objectives are SMART

11

12. 2. General Background
• This section seems to be the equivalent of “Literature
review” recommended by the PGPD
• Consists of all relevant information required in line
with the four specific objectives /Papers I-IV
• However, according to the guidelines of the PGPD,
background information is shown in the introduction
but not in the literature review.
• So, why not name this section “General Literature
Review”?
• Too many editorial corrections

13. •The materials and methods section is fairly written well but:
i. the map of the study area needs to be improved (p19)
- poor readability
- inappropriate caption
- study areas indicated in legend are not the same
as the study sites indicated in section 3.1 (p19)
ii. selection of study sites should have been random rather
than purposive
- the 8 purposively selected study sites are not representative
of the study area (i.e. central highlands of Ethiopia)
3. General Materials and Methods

14. 14
iii. method of sample size determination is not indicated!
Q1. How were the 320 smallholder farmers, 80
traders, 40 dairy shops, and 8 cooperatives fixed?)
iv. It is not clear whether the data collection tool was a
questionnaire or an interview
v. No distinction b/n individual small holder farmers and
households
Q2. Were the 320 respondents smallholder farmers
or households?
vi. The method employed for determining the sample
size of the dairy products (80 for each product, i.e.
raw milk, fermented milk, and butter) is not indicated

15. 15
vii. The method for the preparation of serial dilutions
of butter samples is not described separately (p22,
3
rd
para., ln 2-4; p)
viii. The method described for AMBC also lacks clarity
(p23, para 2, ln 1-3)
ix. Too many editorial corrections – see p24 – 26
4. Results and General Discussion
• Several editorial corrections throughout the section
• For consistency, the subheading should be rewritten as
“General Results and Discussion”
• In many places reference is made only to papers to
indicate the location of data but not to tables.
• See on P28, para. 1, Ln 2-5; p 29, para. 1, 2 & 3(Ln 4&5);
p30 para. 1; p32, para. 1&2; p33, para.1&2; p34, para.
1&3; p35, para. 3; p36, para. 2; p37, all para.; p38, para. 1;
p39 ]

16. 16

17. 17
8. Appendices
• There is only one Appendix consisting of papers and a list
showing the major areas of survey questionnaire
• Change “Appenices” to “Appendix”
Paper I:
Abebe Bereda, Zelalem Yilma, Mitiku Eshetu, Mohammed
Yousuf and Getenet (??). Socio-economic Characteristics of
Dairy Production in Selected Areas of The Ethiopian Central
Highlands. Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Health.
9(8): 193-203
• No evidence on whether the paper has been published or not
• References are not written as per the PGPD guideline
• Several editorial corrections beginning from the abstract all
the way to the conclusion
• Some statements need to be supported by data or references
e.g. p62, para. 1, last sentence; p68, last para., last line

18. 18
• The location of some data is not properly indicated in the
text – p70, ln 4; p71, para. 2; p75, 1
st
para., ln 3&4
• Lack of clarity in writing table captions – Table 3 (p67),
Table 4 (p69), Table 7(p74)
• The way the percentages are calculated are not clear e.g.
Table 4, Table 6, Table 7, Table 9
• No acknowledgement
Paper II: Smallholder Butter Value Chain Analysis in
Selected Areas of the Ethiopian Central Highlands
• Unpublished
• But written with good language command and few editorial
corrections
• The Abstract is fairly well organized
• The key words are too few

19. Paper III: Microbial Quality and Safety of Raw Cow’s Milk and
Traditional Fermented Milk (Irgo) in Selected Areas of the
Ethiopian Central Highlands
• Locations of some data are not shown e.g. p91, para. 2, ln
2 & ln 7; para. 3, ln 3-6; p94, para. 1-3; p95; p98, para. 1-3 ;
p99 , para. 2 & 3; p104, 2
nd
para. Ln 4-6; p119
• Error in the overall mean for children (p101, Table 3)
• Unpublished
• Abstract written with good language command and with
few editorial corrections
• However, the introduction and materials and methods
sections show serious editorial problems

20. 20
• No distinction is made b/n the following words and/or
phrases
- Study area and study site
- Questionnaire and interview
- Household and study participant
- Food poisoning and food infection (p130)
• The GLM model used for analysis of the microbial log counts

is not shown in the paper and the statistical results obtained
using the model are not shown along with the results
• The sub-heading “ Microbial properties of milk and
fermented milk (Irgo) should be changed into “The
Microbial Quality of raw milk and fermented milk (Irgo)
(p120)
• Microbial quality data are not shown for each independent
study site unlike the data for all other parameters (p120,
Table 4)
• Log cfu/ml cannot be the unit of measurement for all the data
contained in Table 4 (see the caption for Table 4)

21. Paper IV: Hygienic Practices and Quality along the Ethiopian
Traditional Butter (Kibe) Value Chain in Selected Areas of the
Central Highlands
•Unpublished
•Good Abstract but with some typographic corrections
•Key words – Not as per the PGPD guideline
•Very good introduction
•Materials and methods contains some procedures lacking
clarity e.g. the serial methods described for microbial
counts (AMBC, CC, YMC and LPBC)
•No data on:
• the plant species used by smallholder farmers as preservatives
(p145, para. 2)
•The materials used for wrapping butter
21

22. 22
• The sub-heading “Microbial properties of butter” should
be replaced by “The Microbial Quality of Butter”(p146)
• Log cfu/g is the unit of measurement for the microbial
counts and not for sample source (p146, Table 3)

23. Summary of the evaluation
23

24. Thank
You !
24