Journals / Dicle Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 2

Investigation of Microbiological Quality of Conventional (cage type) and Village Eggs Sold in Elazig

Elazığ İlinde Satışa Sunulan Konvansiyonel (kafes tipi) ve Köy Yumurtalarının Mikrobiyolojik Kalitesinin Araştırılması

Pages
97–102
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, the results revealed that the microbiological quality of the conventional eggs and eggshells were better when compared with the village egg and eggshells, and the Salmonella risk was lower in conventional eggs compared to village eggs.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, microbiological quality of conventional (commercial farm egg) and village eggs sold in Elazıg were examined during a year (between January 2018 and December 2018).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Each month, 12 village eggs and 12 conventional eggs were collected from public bazaars, grocery stores and markets.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, the results revealed that the microbiological quality of the conventional eggs and eggshells were better when compared with the village egg and eggshells, and the Salmonella risk was lower in conventional eggs compared to village eggs.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Enterobacteriaceae · Köy yumurtası · Konvansiyonel yumurta

Abstract

In this study, microbiological quality of conventional (commercial farm egg) and village eggs sold in Elazıg were examined during a year (between January 2018 and December 2018). Each month, 12 village eggs and 12 conventional eggs were collected from public bazaars, grocery stores and markets. In total, 144 conventional and 144 village eggs were collected during a year. Total number of Mesophilic Aerobic Bacteria (TMAB), Enterobacteriaceae and Salmonella spp. were investigated on the eggshells and in the content of eggs. While the average number of TMAB on the eggshells of the conventional eggs was 4.47 log10/eggshell, 5.15 log10/eggshell were found for the village eggs. The number of TMAB was 1.29 log10/ml and 1.14 log10/ml in the content of the eggs, respectively. The number of Enterobacteriaceae was 1.23 and 1.30 log10/eggshell on the conventional and village eggs, respectively. In the egg contents, these numbers were 0.71 and 0.70 log10/ml for the conventional and village eggs, respectively. The significant difference was found in TMAB numbers between the conventional and village eggshells, in point of the entire year results (p<0.05). There was no difference between the conventional and village eggshells in terms of the number of Enterobacteriaceae (p>0.05). In terms of Salmonella spp., statistical difference was not detected both eggshells and egg contents between conventional and village eggs (p>0.05). No Salmonella was detected in the egg contents of the conventional eggs. In conclusion, the results revealed that the microbiological quality of the conventional eggs and eggshells were better when compared with the village egg and eggshells, and the Salmonella risk was lower in conventional eggs compared to village eggs.

Özet

Bu çalışmada Elazığ piyasasında satılan konvansiyonel (ticari çiftlik) ve köy yumurtalarının mikrobiyolojik kalitesi, yıl boyunca incelenmiştir. Elazığ ilinde yumurtaların satışa sunulduğu halk pazarlarından, bakkal ve marketlerden her ay 12’şer adet olmak üzere bir yılda toplam 144 market ve 144 köy yumurtası toplanmıştır. Konvansiyonel ve köy yumurtalarının kabuk ve içlerindeki Toplam Mezofilik Aerofilik Bakteri (TMAB), Enterobacteriaceae sayısı ve Salmonella spp. varlığı incelenmiştir. Yıl boyunca incelenen 144 konvansiyonel yumurtanın kabuğunda ortalama TMAB sayısı 4,47 log10/kabuk, köy yumurtası kabuğunda ise 5,15 log10/kabuk bulunmuştur. Yumurta içlerinde ise TMAB sayısı sırasıyla 1,29 log10 kob/ml ve 1,14 log10 kob/ml bulunmuştur. Enterobacteriaceae sayıları konvansiyonel yumurta kabuğunda 1,23 log10/kabuk iken köy yumurtası kabuğunda 1,30 log10/kabuk bulunmuş, yumurta içeriklerinde ise sırasıyla 0,71 ve 0,70 log10 kob/ml olarak tespit edilmiştir. Tüm yıl bulgularında konvansiyonel ve köy yumurtalarında TMAB ortalaması kabuklar için anlamlı farklı bulunmuştur (p<0,05). Enterobacteriaceae sayıları bakımından konvansiyonel ve köy yumurtaları arasında fark bulunmamıştır (p>0,05). Salmonella spp. prevalansı konvansiyonel yumurta kabuğunda %0,69, köy yumurtası kabuklarında %1,39’unda, köy yumurtası içeriklerinde ise %0,69 olarak tespit edilmiştir. Konvansiyonel yumurta içeriklerinde Salmonella spp. bulunmamıştır. Köy yumurtalarında Salmonella spp. prevalansı konvansiyonel yumurtalara göre daha fazla bulunmuştur. Sonuç olarak, konvansiyonel yumurtaların ve yumurta kabuklarının mikrobiyolojik kalite açısından köy yumurtalarına kıyasla daha iyi olduğu ve Salmonella riskinin konvansiyonel yumurtalarda daha az olduğu görülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

İNCİLİ, G. K., DURMUŞOĞLU, H., GÜNGÖREN, A., İLHAK, O. İ. (2019). Investigation of Microbiological Quality of Conventional (cage type) and Village Eggs Sold in Elazig. Dicle Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 2, 97–102. https://ajindex.com/articles/150377

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Mine Y, D’Silva I. (2008). Bioactive Components in Egg White. (In) Egg bioscience and biotechnology. s. 141–184
  2. Açıkgöz Z, Önenç SS. (2006). Fonksiyonel Yumurta Üretimi. Hayvansal Üretim. 47: 36–46
  3. Çelik Y, Şengül T. (2001). Şanlıurfa ili kentsel alanında tüketicilerin yumurta tüketim düzeyleri ve tüketim alışkanlıklarının belirlenmesi. Hayvansal Üretim. 42(2): 53-62. 4. "Yumurta tavukçuluğu veri̇leri̇ 2017". Erişim: http://www.yum-bir.org/UserFiles/File/yumurta-veriler2017web.pdf/ Erişim Taihi: 02.04.2019
  4. Erol İ. (2007). Gıda Hijyeni ve Mikrobiyolojisi. Pozitif matbaacılık, Ankara
  5. Jones DR, Anderson KE, Guard JY. (2012). Prevalence of coliforms, Salmonella, Listeria, and Campylobacter associated with eggs and the environment of conventional cage and free-range egg production. Poult Sci. 91(5): 1195-1202
  6. Barrow PA, Lovell MA. (1991). Experimental infection of egg-laying hens with Salmonella Enteritidis phage type 4. Avian Pathol. 20.2: 335–348
  7. Messens W, Grijspeerdt K, Herman L. (2005). Eggshell penetration by Salmonella: a review. Worlds Poult Sci J. 61(1): 71–86
  8. Gantois I, Ducatelle R, Pasmans F, et al. (2009). Mechanisms of egg contamination by Salmonella Enteritidis. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 33(4): 718-738
  9. Aydın N, Akan M, Sareyyüpoğlu B, Tel OY. (2007). Bazı bakteriyel patojenlerin yumurta kabuğundan penetrasyonu. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi; 54: 39-42
  10. EFSA and ECDC. (2018). The European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food‐borne outbreaks in 2017. EFSA J. 16.12: e05500
  11. OzfoodNet Working Group. Foodborne disease in Australia: incidence, notifications and outbreaks. Communicable diseases intelligence quarterly report 2003; 27(2): 209-243
  12. Türk Gıda Kodeksi Mikrobiyolojik Kriterler Tebliği. Resmi Gazete Tarihi: 29.11.2011, Resmi Gazete Sayısı: 28157
  13. Türk Gıda Kodeksi Yumurta Tebliği. Resmi Gazete Tarihi: 20.12.2014, Resmi Gazete Sayısı: 29211
  14. Maturin L, Peeler JT. Chapter 3: Aerobic Plate Count, Bacteriological Analytical Manual. Erişim: https://www.fda.gov/food/foodscienceresearch/laboratorymethods/ucm063346.htm/ Erişim tarihi: 02.04.2019
  15. ISO 21528-2. Microbiology of food and animal feding stuffs — Horizontal methods for the detection and enumeration of Enterobacteriaceae
  16. Andrews WH, Hammack T. "Chapter 5: Salmonella, Bacteriological Analytical Manual. Erişim: https://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/LaboratoryMethods/ucm