Journal of Research in Veterinary Medicine
Research Article
PDF Zotero Mendeley EndNote BibTex Cite

Year 2021, Volume 40, Issue 1, 61 - 67, 19.08.2021

Seran TEMELLİ Ece ÇETİN Ahmet Gökhan COŞKUN Ayşegül ERTEKİN Ayşegül EYİGÖR

Abstract

References

  • 1-TGK. Türk Gıda Kodeksi. Mikrobiyolojik Kriterler Yönetmeliği. Resmî Gazete 29.12.2011-28157, 2011.
  • 2-TGK. Türk Gıda Kodeksi. Gıda Hijyeni Yönetmeliği. Resmî Gazete 17.12.2011-28145, 2011.
  • 3- McAfee AJ, McSorley EM, Cuskelly GJ, et al. Red meat consumption: An overview of the risks and benefits. Meat Sci. 2010; 84(1): 1-13.
  • 4- Smil V. Eating meat: Constants and changes. Glob Food Sec. 2014; 3(2): 67-71.
  • 5- Botez E, Nistor OV, Andronoiu DG, et al. Meat products reformulation: nutritional benefits and effects on human health. In “Functional food- Improve health through adequate food” Ed; M. Chavarri-Hueda Vol. 9. London (UK): Intech Open. 2017; 167-184.
  • 6- TGK. Türk Gıda Kodeksi Hayvansal Gıdalar için Özel Hijyen Kuralları Yönetmeliği. (2011) Resmi Gazete 27.12.2011-28155, 2011.
  • 7- Kırmızı Et Üretim İstatistikleri, IV. Çeyrek. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Kirmizi-Et-Uretim-Istatistikleri-IV.-Ceyrek:-Ekim-Aralik,-2019-33680. Erişim Tarihi: 04.01.2021
  • 8- TEPGE. (2020) TEPGE, Tarım Ürünleri Piyasaları, Dana Eti. Tarımsal Ekonomi ve Politika Geliştirme Enstitüsü. https://arastirma.tarimorman.gov.tr/tepge Erişim Tarihi: 04.01.2021
  • 9- Bacon RT, Belk KE, Sofos JN et al. Microbial populations on animal hides and beef carcasses at different stages of slaughter in plants employing multiple sequential interventions for decontamination. J Food Prot. 2000; 63: 1080-1086.
  • 10- Hill A, Brouwer A, Donaldson N et al. Arisk and benefit assessment for visual-only meat inspection of indoor and outdoor pigs in the United Kingdom. Food Control. 2013; 30: 255-264.
  • 11- Niyonzima E, Bora D, Ongol MP. Assessment of beef meat microbial contamination during skinning, dressing, transportation and marketing at a commercial abattoir in Kigali city, Rwanda. PJFS. 2013; 23: 133-138.
  • 12- Blagojevic B, Antic D. Assessment of potential contribution of official meat inspection and abattoir process hygiene to biological safety assurance of final beef and pork carcasses. Food Control. 2014; 36: 174-182.
  • 13- Milios KT, Drosinos EH, Zoiopoulos PE. Food Safety Management System validation and verification in meat industry: Carcass sampling methods for microbiological hygiene criteria–A review. Food Control. 2014; 43: 74-81.
  • 14- Camargo AC, Cossi MVC, Silva WPD, et al. (2019). Microbiological testing for the proper assessment of the hygiene status of beef carcasses. Microorganisms. 2019; 7(3): 86.
  • 15- Pierson MD, Zink DL, Smoot LM. Indicator microorganisms and microbiological criteria. In “Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers”, Third Edition. American Society of Microbiology. 2007; 69-85.
  • 16- Mousa MM, Ahmed AA, El-Shamy SY. Microbiological criteria of some meat products. Alex J Vet Sci. 2014; 42(1): 83-89. 17- Kukhtyn M, Salata V, Berhilevych O et al. Evaluation of storage methods of beef by microbiological and chemical indicators. Potr S J F Sci. 2020; 14: 602-611.
  • 18- Alvseike O, Røssvoll E, Røtterud OJ et al. Slaughter hygiene in European cattle and sheep abattoirs assessed by microbiological testing and hygiene performance rating. Food control. 2019; 101: 233-240.
  • 19- - Gallina S, Bianchi DM, Ru G et al. Microbiological recovery from bovine, swine, equine, and ovine carcasses: Comparison of excision, sponge and swab sampling methods. Food control. 2015; 50: 919-924.
  • 20- Hauge SJ, Nesbakken T, Moen B et al. The significance of clean and dirty animals for bacterial dynamics along the beef chain. J Food Microbiol. 2015; 214: 70-76.
  • 21- Milios KT, Drosinos EH, Zoiopoulos PE. Food Safety Management System validation and verification in meat industry: Carcass sampling methods for microbiological hygiene criteria–A review. Food Control. 2014; 43: 74-81.
  • 22- Røtterud OJ, Gravning GEN, Hauge SJ, Alvseike O. Hygiene performance rating-An auditing scheme for evaluation of slaughter hygiene. MethodsX. 2020; 7 100829 (cosubmitted with this article).
  • 23- Røssvoll E, Hauge SJ, Skjerve E et al. Experimental evaluation of performance of sampling techniques for microbiological quantification on carcass surfaces. Food Prot Trends. 2017; 37: 419-429.
  • 24- ISO. International Organization for Standardization. Microbiology of food and animal feding stuffs-Carcass sampling for microbiological analysis. ISO 17604:2003, Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
  • 25- Akoachere JFT, Tanih NF, Ndip LM, et al. Phenotypic characterization of Salmonella typhimurium isolates from food-animals and abattoir drains in Buea, Cameroon. JHPN. 2009; 27(5); 612.
  • 26- ISO. International Organization for Standardization. Microbiology of food and animal feding stuffs - Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs - preparation of test samples, initial suspension and decimal dilutions for microbiological examination Part 1. ISO 6887-1, First Edition 1999.02-15, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999.
  • 27- ISO. International Organization for Standardization. Microbiology of food and animal feding stuffs - Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs - preparation of test samples, initial suspension and decimal dilutions for microbiological examination Part 2. ISO 6887-2, First Edition 2003-07-15, Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
  • 28- ISO. International Organization for Standardization (2003). Microbiology of food and animal feding stuffs - Horizontal method for the enumeration of microorganisms - Colony-count technique at 30ºC. ISO 4833, Third Edition, 2003-02-01, Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
  • 29- ISO. International Organization for Standardization. Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs – Horizontal methods for the detection and enumeration of Enterobacteriaceae. ISO 21528-2, First Edition, 2004-08-15, Geneva, Switzerland, 2004.
  • 30- ISO. International Organization for Standardization (2002). Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs-horizontal method for the detection of Salmonella spp. ISO 6579, Fourth Edition, 2002-07-15, Geneva, Switzerland, 2002.
  • 31- Akınnıbosun FI, Imade OS. Hygiene assessment of the performance of food safety management system ımplemented by abattoirs in Edo State, Nigeria. JASEM. 2015; 19(3): 521-529.
  • 32- Sağır A. Kesim aşamalarına göre sığır karkaslarının mikrobiyolojik durumları. Adnan Menderes Ünversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Ensitüsü, Yüksek Lisans tezi, Aydın, 2016.
  • 33- Nyamakwere F, Muchenje V, Mushonga B et al. Assessment of Salmonella, Escherichia coli, Enterobacteriaceae and aerobic colony counts contaminatıon levels during the beef slaughter process. J Food Saf. 2016; 36(4): 548-556.
  • 34- Nastasijevic I, Tomasevic I, Smigic N et al. Hygiene assessment of Serbian meat establishments using different scoring systems. Food Control. 2016; 62: 193-200.
  • 35- Petruzzelli A, Osimani A, Pasquini M et al. (2016) Trends in the microbial contamination of bovine, ovine and swine carcasses in three small scale abattoirs in central Italy: A four year monitoring. Meat Sci. 2016; 111: 53-59.
  • 36- Kallem B. Bir kesimhanede kesimi yapılan kasaplık büyük baş (sığır) hayvanların temizlikleri ile karkasların mikrobiyel kontaminasyon düzeyleri arasındaki etkileşimin belirlenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi , Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Aydın; 2015.
  • 37- Omer MK, Hauge SJ, Østensvik Ø et al. Effects of hygienic treatments during slaughtering on microbial dynamics and contamination of sheep meat. Int J Food Microbiol. 2015; 194: 7-14.
  • 38- Dan SD, Mihaiu M, Lăpuşan A, et al. The evaluation of the pathogen germ load and configuration at the bovine carcasses destined for public consumption. Bulletin USAMV Veterinary Medicine. 2011; 68(2): 125-132.
  • 39- Hauge SJ, Røtterud OJ. Hygiene Performance Rating for slaughtering of cattle, sheep, and pigs. https://www.animalia.no/no/samfunn/mattrygghet2/hygienisk-regnskap/. Erişim tarihi: 12.01.2021.
  • 40- Martinez-Chavez L, Cabrera-Diaz E, Pérez-Montaño JA et al. Quantitative distribution of Salmonella spp. and Escherichia coli on beef carcasses and raw beef at retail establishments. Int J Food Microbiol. 2015; 210: 149-155.
  • 41- Matchawe C, Ndip LM, Zuliani A et al. factors influencing salmonella contamination and microbial load of beef carcass at the Yaoundé Slaughterhouse, Cameroon. J Food Eng. 2019; 9: 266-275.
  • 42- Tadesse G, Gebremedhin EZ. Prevalence of Salmonella in raw animal products in Ethiopia: a meta-analysis. BMC research notes. 2015; 8 (1): 163.
  • 43- Im MC, Seo KW, Bae DH et al. Bacterial quality and prevalence of foodborne pathogens in edible offal from slaughterhouses in Korea. J. Food Prot. 2016; 79(1): 163-168.
  • 44- Edris AM, Ibrahim HM, Gafer RW. Studies on Escherichia coli and Salmonellae in some edible of bovine carcasses. BVMJ. 2013; 25(2): 276-283.
  • 45- Keven F, Ay S. Çiğ ve Pişirilmiş Sakatatta Salmonella Kontaminasyonu. İnfeksiyon Dergisi. 2003; 17(2): 163-166.
  • 46- Kahraman T, Cetin O, Dumen E, Buyukunal SK. incidence of salmonella spp. and Listeria monocytogenes on equipment surfaces and personnel hands in meat plants. Revue Méd Vét. 2010; 161 (3): 108-13.
  • 47- Beyene T, Yibeltie H, Chebo B et al. (2016). Identification and antimicrobial susceptibility profile of salmonella isolated from selected dairy farms, abattoir and humans at Asella town, Ethiopia. J Vet Sci Technol. 2016; 7(3): 2-7.

Sığır Karkas ve Sakatatlarında Hijyen Profilinin Yasal Mevzuat Kriterleri ile Değerlendirilmesi

Year 2021, Volume 40, Issue 1, 61 - 67, 19.08.2021

Seran TEMELLİ Ece ÇETİN Ahmet Gökhan COŞKUN Ayşegül ERTEKİN Ayşegül EYİGÖR

Abstract

Çalışmada, kasaplık sığırların karkas ve sakatatlarının Türk Gıda Kodeksi (TGK) Mikrobiyolojik Kriterler Yönetmeliği1,2 Üretim Hijyeni Kriterleri gereklilikleri dahilinde mikrobiyolojik kalitesinin belirlenmesi hedeflendi. Bu amaç ile, Marmara Bölgesinde 2013-2015 yılları arasında, 3 kombina ve 1 mezbahadan toplam 400 adet örnek alındı. Alınan 100 adet karkas örneği, Aerobik Koloni Sayısı (AKS) ve Enterobacteriaceae sayısı (ES)’nın belirlenmesi ve Salmonella varlığı yönünden, her bir karkasa ait 300 adet yenilebilir sakatat (karaciğer, dalak ve böbrek) örneği ise Salmonella varlığı açısından, ilgili uluslararası standartlar olan ISO 4833-1:2003 (AKS), ISO 21528-2:2004 (ES) ve ISO 6579:2002 (Salmonella) kullanılarak analiz edildi. İncelenen karkas örneklerinde AKS, 3,0x102- 4,0x105 kob/cm2 aralığında olup ortalama 3,1 x 104 kob/cm2, ES ise 0,1 x 101- 8,5 x 102 kob/cm2 aralığında olup ortalama 1,9 x 102 kob/cm2 olarak bulundu. AKS ve ES sonuçlarının birbirinden bağımsız olarak ilgili yönetmeliğe göre değerlendirilmesi sonucunda, örneklerin AKS yönünden; %34’ü ‘Uygun’, %56’sı ‘Kabul Edilir’ ve %10’u ‘Uygun Değil’, ES yönünden de %57’si ‘Uygun’, %34’ü ‘Kabul Edilir’ ve %9’u ‘Uygun Değil’ olduğu tespit edildi. Sonuç olarak, sığır karkaslarının TGK Mikrobiyolojik Kriterler Yönetmeliği (2011)1,2 Üretim Hijyeni Kriterleri’ne göre AKS ve ES yönünden sırasıyla %90 ve %91 oranında olumlu, AKS ve ES sonuçları birlikte değerlendirildiğinde ise %84 oranında olumlu (‘Uygun’ ve ‘Kabul Edilir’) olduğu belirlendi. Ayrıca, incelenen karkas ile aynı karkasa ait yenilebilir sakatat örneklerinde Salmonella tespit edilmedi.

Keywords

Sığır, karkas, aerobik koloni, Enterobacteriaceae, Salmonella

References

  • 1-TGK. Türk Gıda Kodeksi. Mikrobiyolojik Kriterler Yönetmeliği. Resmî Gazete 29.12.2011-28157, 2011.
  • 2-TGK. Türk Gıda Kodeksi. Gıda Hijyeni Yönetmeliği. Resmî Gazete 17.12.2011-28145, 2011.
  • 3- McAfee AJ, McSorley EM, Cuskelly GJ, et al. Red meat consumption: An overview of the risks and benefits. Meat Sci. 2010; 84(1): 1-13.
  • 4- Smil V. Eating meat: Constants and changes. Glob Food Sec. 2014; 3(2): 67-71.
  • 5- Botez E, Nistor OV, Andronoiu DG, et al. Meat products reformulation: nutritional benefits and effects on human health. In “Functional food- Improve health through adequate food” Ed; M. Chavarri-Hueda Vol. 9. London (UK): Intech Open. 2017; 167-184.
  • 6- TGK. Türk Gıda Kodeksi Hayvansal Gıdalar için Özel Hijyen Kuralları Yönetmeliği. (2011) Resmi Gazete 27.12.2011-28155, 2011.
  • 7- Kırmızı Et Üretim İstatistikleri, IV. Çeyrek. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Kirmizi-Et-Uretim-Istatistikleri-IV.-Ceyrek:-Ekim-Aralik,-2019-33680. Erişim Tarihi: 04.01.2021
  • 8- TEPGE. (2020) TEPGE, Tarım Ürünleri Piyasaları, Dana Eti. Tarımsal Ekonomi ve Politika Geliştirme Enstitüsü. https://arastirma.tarimorman.gov.tr/tepge Erişim Tarihi: 04.01.2021
  • 9- Bacon RT, Belk KE, Sofos JN et al. Microbial populations on animal hides and beef carcasses at different stages of slaughter in plants employing multiple sequential interventions for decontamination. J Food Prot. 2000; 63: 1080-1086.
  • 10- Hill A, Brouwer A, Donaldson N et al. Arisk and benefit assessment for visual-only meat inspection of indoor and outdoor pigs in the United Kingdom. Food Control. 2013; 30: 255-264.
  • 11- Niyonzima E, Bora D, Ongol MP. Assessment of beef meat microbial contamination during skinning, dressing, transportation and marketing at a commercial abattoir in Kigali city, Rwanda. PJFS. 2013; 23: 133-138.
  • 12- Blagojevic B, Antic D. Assessment of potential contribution of official meat inspection and abattoir process hygiene to biological safety assurance of final beef and pork carcasses. Food Control. 2014; 36: 174-182.
  • 13- Milios KT, Drosinos EH, Zoiopoulos PE. Food Safety Management System validation and verification in meat industry: Carcass sampling methods for microbiological hygiene criteria–A review. Food Control. 2014; 43: 74-81.
  • 14- Camargo AC, Cossi MVC, Silva WPD, et al. (2019). Microbiological testing for the proper assessment of the hygiene status of beef carcasses. Microorganisms. 2019; 7(3): 86.
  • 15- Pierson MD, Zink DL, Smoot LM. Indicator microorganisms and microbiological criteria. In “Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers”, Third Edition. American Society of Microbiology. 2007; 69-85.
  • 16- Mousa MM, Ahmed AA, El-Shamy SY. Microbiological criteria of some meat products. Alex J Vet Sci. 2014; 42(1): 83-89. 17- Kukhtyn M, Salata V, Berhilevych O et al. Evaluation of storage methods of beef by microbiological and chemical indicators. Potr S J F Sci. 2020; 14: 602-611.
  • 18- Alvseike O, Røssvoll E, Røtterud OJ et al. Slaughter hygiene in European cattle and sheep abattoirs assessed by microbiological testing and hygiene performance rating. Food control. 2019; 101: 233-240.
  • 19- - Gallina S, Bianchi DM, Ru G et al. Microbiological recovery from bovine, swine, equine, and ovine carcasses: Comparison of excision, sponge and swab sampling methods. Food control. 2015; 50: 919-924.
  • 20- Hauge SJ, Nesbakken T, Moen B et al. The significance of clean and dirty animals for bacterial dynamics along the beef chain. J Food Microbiol. 2015; 214: 70-76.
  • 21- Milios KT, Drosinos EH, Zoiopoulos PE. Food Safety Management System validation and verification in meat industry: Carcass sampling methods for microbiological hygiene criteria–A review. Food Control. 2014; 43: 74-81.
  • 22- Røtterud OJ, Gravning GEN, Hauge SJ, Alvseike O. Hygiene performance rating-An auditing scheme for evaluation of slaughter hygiene. MethodsX. 2020; 7 100829 (cosubmitted with this article).
  • 23- Røssvoll E, Hauge SJ, Skjerve E et al. Experimental evaluation of performance of sampling techniques for microbiological quantification on carcass surfaces. Food Prot Trends. 2017; 37: 419-429.
  • 24- ISO. International Organization for Standardization. Microbiology of food and animal feding stuffs-Carcass sampling for microbiological analysis. ISO 17604:2003, Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
  • 25- Akoachere JFT, Tanih NF, Ndip LM, et al. Phenotypic characterization of Salmonella typhimurium isolates from food-animals and abattoir drains in Buea, Cameroon. JHPN. 2009; 27(5); 612.
  • 26- ISO. International Organization for Standardization. Microbiology of food and animal feding stuffs - Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs - preparation of test samples, initial suspension and decimal dilutions for microbiological examination Part 1. ISO 6887-1, First Edition 1999.02-15, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999.
  • 27- ISO. International Organization for Standardization. Microbiology of food and animal feding stuffs - Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs - preparation of test samples, initial suspension and decimal dilutions for microbiological examination Part 2. ISO 6887-2, First Edition 2003-07-15, Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
  • 28- ISO. International Organization for Standardization (2003). Microbiology of food and animal feding stuffs - Horizontal method for the enumeration of microorganisms - Colony-count technique at 30ºC. ISO 4833, Third Edition, 2003-02-01, Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
  • 29- ISO. International Organization for Standardization. Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs – Horizontal methods for the detection and enumeration of Enterobacteriaceae. ISO 21528-2, First Edition, 2004-08-15, Geneva, Switzerland, 2004.
  • 30- ISO. International Organization for Standardization (2002). Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs-horizontal method for the detection of Salmonella spp. ISO 6579, Fourth Edition, 2002-07-15, Geneva, Switzerland, 2002.
  • 31- Akınnıbosun FI, Imade OS. Hygiene assessment of the performance of food safety management system ımplemented by abattoirs in Edo State, Nigeria. JASEM. 2015; 19(3): 521-529.
  • 32- Sağır A. Kesim aşamalarına göre sığır karkaslarının mikrobiyolojik durumları. Adnan Menderes Ünversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Ensitüsü, Yüksek Lisans tezi, Aydın, 2016.
  • 33- Nyamakwere F, Muchenje V, Mushonga B et al. Assessment of Salmonella, Escherichia coli, Enterobacteriaceae and aerobic colony counts contaminatıon levels during the beef slaughter process. J Food Saf. 2016; 36(4): 548-556.
  • 34- Nastasijevic I, Tomasevic I, Smigic N et al. Hygiene assessment of Serbian meat establishments using different scoring systems. Food Control. 2016; 62: 193-200.
  • 35- Petruzzelli A, Osimani A, Pasquini M et al. (2016) Trends in the microbial contamination of bovine, ovine and swine carcasses in three small scale abattoirs in central Italy: A four year monitoring. Meat Sci. 2016; 111: 53-59.
  • 36- Kallem B. Bir kesimhanede kesimi yapılan kasaplık büyük baş (sığır) hayvanların temizlikleri ile karkasların mikrobiyel kontaminasyon düzeyleri arasındaki etkileşimin belirlenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi , Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Aydın; 2015.
  • 37- Omer MK, Hauge SJ, Østensvik Ø et al. Effects of hygienic treatments during slaughtering on microbial dynamics and contamination of sheep meat. Int J Food Microbiol. 2015; 194: 7-14.
  • 38- Dan SD, Mihaiu M, Lăpuşan A, et al. The evaluation of the pathogen germ load and configuration at the bovine carcasses destined for public consumption. Bulletin USAMV Veterinary Medicine. 2011; 68(2): 125-132.
  • 39- Hauge SJ, Røtterud OJ. Hygiene Performance Rating for slaughtering of cattle, sheep, and pigs. https://www.animalia.no/no/samfunn/mattrygghet2/hygienisk-regnskap/. Erişim tarihi: 12.01.2021.
  • 40- Martinez-Chavez L, Cabrera-Diaz E, Pérez-Montaño JA et al. Quantitative distribution of Salmonella spp. and Escherichia coli on beef carcasses and raw beef at retail establishments. Int J Food Microbiol. 2015; 210: 149-155.
  • 41- Matchawe C, Ndip LM, Zuliani A et al. factors influencing salmonella contamination and microbial load of beef carcass at the Yaoundé Slaughterhouse, Cameroon. J Food Eng. 2019; 9: 266-275.
  • 42- Tadesse G, Gebremedhin EZ. Prevalence of Salmonella in raw animal products in Ethiopia: a meta-analysis. BMC research notes. 2015; 8 (1): 163.
  • 43- Im MC, Seo KW, Bae DH et al. Bacterial quality and prevalence of foodborne pathogens in edible offal from slaughterhouses in Korea. J. Food Prot. 2016; 79(1): 163-168.
  • 44- Edris AM, Ibrahim HM, Gafer RW. Studies on Escherichia coli and Salmonellae in some edible of bovine carcasses. BVMJ. 2013; 25(2): 276-283.
  • 45- Keven F, Ay S. Çiğ ve Pişirilmiş Sakatatta Salmonella Kontaminasyonu. İnfeksiyon Dergisi. 2003; 17(2): 163-166.
  • 46- Kahraman T, Cetin O, Dumen E, Buyukunal SK. incidence of salmonella spp. and Listeria monocytogenes on equipment surfaces and personnel hands in meat plants. Revue Méd Vét. 2010; 161 (3): 108-13.
  • 47- Beyene T, Yibeltie H, Chebo B et al. (2016). Identification and antimicrobial susceptibility profile of salmonella isolated from selected dairy farms, abattoir and humans at Asella town, Ethiopia. J Vet Sci Technol. 2016; 7(3): 2-7.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Veterinary
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Seran TEMELLİ (Primary Author)
BESİN-GIDA HİJYENİ VE TEKNOLOJİSİ BÖLÜMÜ
0000-0002-8869-4929
Türkiye

Ece ÇETİN
TEKİRDAĞ NAMIK KEMAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, VETERİNER FAKÜLTESİ, GIDA HİJYENİ VE TEKNOLOJİSİ BÖLÜMÜ
0000-0002-8783-5507
Türkiye

Ahmet Gökhan COŞKUN
BESİN-GIDA HİJYENİ VE TEKNOLOJİSİ BÖLÜMÜ
0000-0002-5181-7577
Türkiye

Ayşegül ERTEKİN
BESİN-GIDA HİJYENİ VE TEKNOLOJİSİ BÖLÜMÜ
0000-0002-5121-2631
Türkiye

Ayşegül EYİGÖR
BESİN-GIDA HİJYENİ VE TEKNOLOJİSİ BÖLÜMÜ
0000-0002-2707-3117
Türkiye

Publication Date August 19, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021, Volume 40, Issue 1

Cite

Bibtex @research article { jrvm860107, journal = {Journal of Research in Veterinary Medicine}, issn = {}, eissn = {2667-6745}, address = {Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Gorukle-Bursa-Türkiye}, publisher = {Bursa Uludağ University}, year = {2021}, volume = {40}, pages = {61 - 67}, doi = {}, title = {Sığır Karkas ve Sakatatlarında Hijyen Profilinin Yasal Mevzuat Kriterleri ile Değerlendirilmesi}, key = {cite}, author = {Çetin, Ece and Ertekin, Ayşegül and Eyigör, Ayşegül} }
APA Temelli, S. , Çetin, E. , Coşkun, A. G. , Ertekin, A. & Eyigör, A. (2021). Sığır Karkas ve Sakatatlarında Hijyen Profilinin Yasal Mevzuat Kriterleri ile Değerlendirilmesi . Journal of Research in Veterinary Medicine , 40 (1) , 61-67 . Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jrvm/issue/64533/860107
MLA Temelli, S. , Çetin, E. , Coşkun, A. G. , Ertekin, A. , Eyigör, A. "Sığır Karkas ve Sakatatlarında Hijyen Profilinin Yasal Mevzuat Kriterleri ile Değerlendirilmesi" . Journal of Research in Veterinary Medicine 40 (2021 ): 61-67 <https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jrvm/issue/64533/860107>
Chicago Temelli, S. , Çetin, E. , Coşkun, A. G. , Ertekin, A. , Eyigör, A. "Sığır Karkas ve Sakatatlarında Hijyen Profilinin Yasal Mevzuat Kriterleri ile Değerlendirilmesi". Journal of Research in Veterinary Medicine 40 (2021 ): 61-67
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Sığır Karkas ve Sakatatlarında Hijyen Profilinin Yasal Mevzuat Kriterleri ile Değerlendirilmesi AU - Seran Temelli , Ece Çetin , Ahmet Gökhan Coşkun , Ayşegül Ertekin , Ayşegül Eyigör Y1 - 2021 PY - 2021 N1 - DO - T2 - Journal of Research in Veterinary Medicine JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 61 EP - 67 VL - 40 IS - 1 SN - -2667-6745 M3 - UR - Y2 - 2021 ER -
EndNote %0 Journal of Research in Veterinary Medicine Sığır Karkas ve Sakatatlarında Hijyen Profilinin Yasal Mevzuat Kriterleri ile Değerlendirilmesi %A Seran Temelli , Ece Çetin , Ahmet Gökhan Coşkun , Ayşegül Ertekin , Ayşegül Eyigör %T Sığır Karkas ve Sakatatlarında Hijyen Profilinin Yasal Mevzuat Kriterleri ile Değerlendirilmesi %D 2021 %J Journal of Research in Veterinary Medicine %P -2667-6745 %V 40 %N 1 %R %U
ISNAD Temelli, Seran , Çetin, Ece , Coşkun, Ahmet Gökhan , Ertekin, Ayşegül , Eyigör, Ayşegül . "Sığır Karkas ve Sakatatlarında Hijyen Profilinin Yasal Mevzuat Kriterleri ile Değerlendirilmesi". Journal of Research in Veterinary Medicine 40 / 1 (August 2021): 61-67 .
AMA Temelli S. , Çetin E. , Coşkun A. G. , Ertekin A. , Eyigör A. Sığır Karkas ve Sakatatlarında Hijyen Profilinin Yasal Mevzuat Kriterleri ile Değerlendirilmesi. J Res Vet Med. 2021; 40(1): 61-67.
Vancouver Temelli S. , Çetin E. , Coşkun A. G. , Ertekin A. , Eyigör A. Sığır Karkas ve Sakatatlarında Hijyen Profilinin Yasal Mevzuat Kriterleri ile Değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Research in Veterinary Medicine. 2021; 40(1): 61-67.
IEEE S. Temelli , E. Çetin , A. G. Coşkun , A. Ertekin and A. Eyigör , "Sığır Karkas ve Sakatatlarında Hijyen Profilinin Yasal Mevzuat Kriterleri ile Değerlendirilmesi", Journal of Research in Veterinary Medicine, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 61-67, Aug. 2021
 Download Cover Image