PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS OF EDIBLE CHICKEN GIBLETS

Assiut University web-site: www.aun.edu.eg

PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS OF EDIBLE CHICKEN GIBLETS

MOUSA MOHAMED¹; FARAG HANAA² and DEWEDAR RANIA²

¹ Department of Food Hygiene, Professor of Meat Hygiene, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Alexandria University.

² Department of Food Hygiene, Animal Health Research Institute, Damanhour Branch.

Received: 31 March 2017;       Accepted: 30 April 2017

INTRODUCTION

Poultry is a food that has been highly appreciated by man. It is an important, low cost, source of animal protein with low calories and cholesterol, rich in nutrients, phosphorus, other minerals, and B-complex vitamins (FAO 2010).

Chicken giblets contain amount of protein as other kinds of meat, and are a good source of vitamins as riboflavin, thiamine and ascorbic acid and minerals as sodium, potassium, calcium, iron, phosphorus, sulphur, chlorine and iodine (Mountney, 1966).

In small-scale slaughtering facilities, birds are slaughtered and then scalded in hot water. The carcasses are then plucked and eviscerated, mostly by hand. At evisceration, the vent is opened, the internal organsare removed, and the gizzard, liver and heart may be harvested. These edible organs can be contaminated through spillage of the contents of the intestines. After evisceration, they are often washed, which may contribute to the dissemination of bacteria on and among them (Arnold, 2007).

Corresponding author: Dr. FARAG HANAA

E-mail address: hanaasalama29@yahoo.com

Present address: Department of Food Hygiene, Animal Health Research Institute, Damanhour Branch

Enzymatic and chemical reactions are usually responsible for the initial loss of freshness, whereas microbial activity is responsible for the overspoilage which thereby establishes product shelf life (Gram, L. and Huss, H. H. 1996).

Chemical analysis of further processed chicken meat products is greatly varied, so, testing of the final products is a common practice in cooked and uncooked chicken meat products and giblets and applied to ensure the compliance of such products with the legal and composition of standards written on the label (Beckers, 1998).

Therefore, the microbial content of these products should be minimized for consumption (Carvalho et al., 2005). Processing of poultry products requires a severe microbiological quality control, considering they are one of the main sources of food borne infections.

Enterobacteriaceae family is a group of bacteria that is used to assess the general hygiene status of a food product (HPA, 2004). Where ever Salmonella was selected as the largest pathogenic microorganism because it is one of the most common causes of food poisoning, it present at varying frequencies on all types of poultry products (Rose et al., 2002).

Therefore, this study is designed to assess the contamination of Chilled Chicken Giblets by Enterobacteriaceae. Also, total staph. count and Staph.aureus counts, which are present on hand, mucous membrane and skin of man, birds and animals, are good indicators of poor personal hygiene, poor handling and temperature control (Rindhe et al., 2008).

Total bacterial, Enterobacteriaceae and fungal counts are considered as indices of quality, which give an idea about the hygienic measures during further processing and help in assessing the keeping quality of further processed chicken meat products (Aberle et al., 2001).

So the present study aimed to determine Public health hazard of chicken giblets. Determine the prevalence of Salmonella in chicken giblets and determination degree of spoilage and deterioration of these giblets through determination of TVN and TBA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Collection of samples: A total of 45 random samples of chicken giblets including (liver, heart and gizzard) classified into samples of each organ. (15 of each) were collected from chilled poultry shops at El Bohiera governorate, where the collected samples were transferred directly to the laboratory of Food Hygiene in complete aseptic conditions without delay to be subjected for sensory, chemical and microbiological examination.

1. Sensory evaluation: (Morr-Marry 1970): The sensory evaluation was carried out on the poultry giblets using semi-trained panelists. The panelists were explained about the nature of experiment without disclosing the identity of the samples. The sensory evaluation of giblets was performed at room temperature, using white light. They were requested to record their preferences for color, odor, texture and overall acceptability.

2. Chemical examination:

2.1. Determination of Total Volatile Nitrogen (TVN) (FAO, 1980): By using GERHARDT apparatus.

2.2. Determination of Thiobarbituric acid (TBA) (Kirk and Sawyers, 1991)

By using SPECTROPHTOMETER. (Spectrouv-vis double beam pc.) Scanning SPECTROPHTOMETER uvd- 2950.

3. Microbiological examination:

3.1. Preparation of samples: (APHA, 1992)

Ten grams of each samples were weighted aseptically into sterile homogenizer flask containing 90 ml of sterile peptone water 0.1%. The contents of the the homogenizer flask were homogenized for 2.5 minutes at 2000 rpm room temperature. Subsequent 10th fold serial dilution of the homogenate was prepared up to 10^-6 from the original dilution (1:10). The prepared dilutions were used for microbiological examination.

3.2. Procedures:

A.1.Determination of Mesophilic bacteria counts (ISO, 2007).

A.2.Determination of Enterobacteriaceae count (ISO, 2007).

A.3. Determination of Coliforms counts (ISO, 2007).

B. Isolation and identification of some pathogenic bacteria:

B.1.Isolation and identification of Salmonella (ISO, 2007).

B.2. Isolation and identification of Staph.aureus (ISO, 2007).

C. Mycological examination:

C.1. Determination of Mould and Yeast count (Cruickshank et al., 1975).

C.2. Isolation and identification of Mould and Yeast count (Raper and Fennel, 1965, Samson et al., 1976 and Refai, 1987).

RESULTS

Table 1: The percentage of normal, abnormal samples and the score of acceptability according to sensory examination based on color, odor and texture. (n=30)

Table 2: Statistical analytical results of TBA (mg malonaldehyde/kg sample) in examined chilled samples of liver, heart and gizzard. (n= 15 for each)

Means within the column followed by different letters showed high significant difference (P< 0.05).

Min= Minimum

Max.=Maximum

S^\=  Standerd error

Table 3: Statistical analytical results of TBA (mg malonaldehyde/kg sample) in examined chilled samples of liver, heart and gizzard. (n= 15 for each)

Means within the column followed by different letters showed high significant difference (P< 0.05).

Table 4: Statistical analytical results of Mesophilic bacterial count (cfu/g) in the examined chilled samples of chicken giblets (Liver, Heart and Gizzard) (n=15).

Means within a column showing no significant difference (P ≥ 0.05)

Table 5: Statistical analytical results of Enterobacteriaceae count (cfu/g) in the examined chilled samples of chicken giblets (Liver, Heart and Gizzard) (n=15).

Means within a column showing no significant difference (P ≥ 0.05)

Table 6: Statistical analytical results of Coliforms count (cfu/g) in the examined chilled samples of chicken giblets (Liver, Heart and Gizzard) (n=15).

Means within a column showing no significant difference (P ≥ 0.05)

Table 7: Incidence of Salmonella spp. isolated from the examined fresh and chilled samples of chicken giblets (Liver, Heart and Gizzard). (n=30).

Number of salmonella spp. incidence within the column showing no significant difference (p≥0.05)

Table 8: Incidence of Staph.aureus isolated from the examined fresh and chilled samples of chicken giblets (Liver, Heart and Gizzard) (n=30).

Number of Staph.aureus incidence within the column showing no significant difference (p≥0.05)

Table 9: Statistical analytical results of Mould count (cfu/g) in the examined chilled samples of chicken giblets (Liver, Heart and Gizzard) (n=15).

Means within a column showing no significant difference (P ≥ 0.05)

Table 10: Statistical analytical results of Yeast count (cfu/g) in the examined chilled samples of chicken giblets (Liver, Heart and Gizzard) (n=15).

Means within a column showing no significant difference (P ≥ 0.05)

Table 11: Incidence of identified Moulds and Yeasts isolated from the examined fresh and chilled samples of chicken giblets (Liver, Heart and Gizzard). (n=30).

= Minimum.Min.

Maximum=  Max.

S^\= Mean

DISCUSSION

During the last decade, the demand of ready to eat Chicken meat products and giblets has increased in Egyptian food markets and receive a real consumer preferability because they considered as quick easily prepared meat meals and solve the problem of shortage in fresh meat of high price which is not within the reach of large numbers of families with limited income. (Ibrahim et al., 2014).

1. Sensory results:

Appearance, taste, aroma, and texture of meat can generally produce a consumer’s decision to purchase meat. Flavor comprises mainly taste and aroma and involves in consumers’ meat purchasing behavior and preferences even before the meat is eaten (Sitz et al., 2005).

This examination illustrate the abnormalities in chicken giblets that appear on organs and seen by eye, smelled, and sensed by hand by means of physical examination. Table (1) showed that the percentage of normal, abnormal samples and the score of acceptability according to sensory examination based on color, odor and texture.

The results given in Table (1) revealed that the acceptable color in examined liver, heart and gizzard were 60%, 73% and 80%, respectively. The predominant color was the brownish color in examined organs as normal while yellowish, greenish, pale and presence of patches either hemorrhagic or white patches  considered as abnormal one.

The acceptable odor was recorded in 77%, 83% and 73% of examined liver, heart and gizzard samples, respectively. The lively fresh characteristic odor of organs considered as normal, while fecal, offensive or any change in odor considered abnormal one. The normal texture of liver was firm, the data showed that 80% of examined liver had normal consistency, while 70% of examined heart had normal consistency and 77% of examined gizzard, while abnormal texture of liver was friable, soft consistency of gizzard and abnormalities in heart were fibrinousprecarditis or soft texture. Also Table (1) showed that the abnormalities in color in liver, heart and gizzard were 40%, 27% and 20%, respectively. While abnormal odor were 23%, 17% and 27% in liver, heart and gizzard, respectively. And finally abnormal texture obtained were 20%, 30% and 23% in liver, heart and gizzard, respectively. The higher results were obtained by (Morshdy and Hafez, 1986), while lower results obtained by (Morshdy et al., 2015). Also it is obvious that 57%, 30%, 10% and 3% of examined liver samples, 80%, 17%, 3% and 0% of examined heart and 87%, 10%, 3% and 0% of examined gizzard samples have a score excellent, very good, medium and fair grades, respectively according to the quality system recommended by (Morr Marry 1970). According to these results examined samples were accepted organoleptically except 3% of examined liver samples which have fair score. These sensory factors of examination consider as indicators of spoilage which are noticeable on meat when bacterial numbers reached approximately 10^-7cfu/g (Nakagawa et al., 1999).

2. Chemical examination: 

2.1. Determination of Total volatile Nitrogen (TVN) value:

Regarding the results recorded in Table (2) TVN values (mg/100g) in examined chilled samples ranged from 12.40 to 13.70with a mean value of 13.33± 0.09 in Liver, in heart were ranged from 13.90 to 15.50 with a mean value of 14.61± 0.14 and in gizzard were ranged from 13.40 to 16.30 with a mean value of 14.87± 0.22, respectively.

There were high significant difference (p<0.05) between the examined chilled chicken giblets for TVN, while the examined samples were accepted according to (EOS, 2005) limits which should not exceed 30 mg/100gm in offals.

TVN could reflect important correlation between decomposition and meat products quality (Pearson, 1968). So increased percentage of TVN in meat products means increasing of decomposition. So table (2) show that all examined samples of chicken giblets were accepted according to (EOS, 2005) the TVN value reached more than 20/mg flesh, meat will be rejected, and edible offal should not exceed 30 mg/100g.

2.2. Determination of Thiobarbituric Acid (TBA) value:

Table (3) showed that, the Thiobarbituric acid value (mg malonaldehyde/kg sample) in chilled giblet samples were ranged from 0.54 to 0.90 with a mean value of 0.70 ± 0.03 in Liver, in Heart ranged from 0.41 to 0.94 with a mean value of 0.80± 0.03 and in Gizzard were ranged from 0.24 to 0.76 with a mean value of 0.45 ± 0.03, respectively.

There were high significant difference (p<0.05) between the examined chilled chicken giblets for TBA. While the examined samples were accepted according to (EOS, 2005) limits.

In table (3) showed that all examined chilled samples of chicken giblets were accepted based on their TBA content according to (EOS, 2005) which stated that the maximum permissible limit for TBA in edible offals should not exceed 0.9 mg malonaldehyde / kg of sample. While the results in this examined chilled samples showed that TBA values were higher in examined heart samples than examined liver and gizzard samples. This may be attributed to the fact that heart surrounded by fatty cap, (coronary fat) however gizzard and liver low fat content.

The TBA test has become the most widely used chemical method for assessing the extent of oxidative deterioration in meat products. (Tarladgis et al., 1960) and the rancid flavor is initially detected in meat between TBA values of 0.5 and 2.0 (Gray and Pearson, 1987).

TBA is a good indicator of the quality of meat. TBA value is widely used as an indicator for the assessment of degree of lipid oxidation (Raharjo and Sofos, 1993).

3. Microbiological examination:

3.1. Determination of mesophilic bacterial count (cfu/g):

Chicken giblets are considered as a vehicle of most reported food poisoning outbreaks. So it’s important to use the microbiological criteria to determine its acceptability for consumption. According to results showed in aerobic plate counts are acceptable measure of the general degree of bacterial contamination and the hygienic conditions of processing plants (Cohen et al., 2007).

Table (4) which indicated the mesophilic bacterial count (cfu/g) in the examined chilled samples varied from 2.80x10³ to 1.14 x10⁵ with a mean value of 3.40 x10⁴± 1.06 x10⁴ for liver, 1.00x10³ to 2.08 x10⁵ with a mean value of 4.28 x10⁴ ± 1.54 x10⁴ for heart and 1.70 x10³ to 1.36x10⁵ with a mean value of 4.63 x10⁴ ± 1.29 x10⁴ for gizzard.

From this results, there were no significant differences (P<0.05) of APC between examined chilled chicken giblets, and it was indicated that all examined chilled samples were in accordance with permissible limit of (EOS, 2005) in which the maximum permissible limit for APC of raw poultry parts and heat treated poultry meat products was 10⁵ and 10⁴cfu/g according to (EOS, 2005).

Nearly similar results were obtained (Oumokhtar, 2000) who revealed that the mean value of APC in chicken parts was 2.9 x 10⁴cfu/g. However, lower results in gizzards were obtained by (Mohamed et al., 2014) who reported that APC 1.3x10³cfu/g in gizzard. While higher results were obtained by (Saikia and Joshi, 2010) who mentioned that APC was 3 × 10⁶ in liver and 5 x 10⁵ in gizzard.

3.2. Determination of Enterobacteriaceae count (cfu/g):

It is evident from the results recorded in Table (5) that Enterobacteriaceae count (cfu/g) in the examined chilled chicken giblets ranged from 1.00x10³ to 8.10x10⁵ with a mean value of 2.37x10⁵± 8.78x10⁴ for liver, 2.00x10² to 1.31x10⁶ with a mean value of 1.39x10⁵ ± 9.18x10⁴ for heart and 3.10x10³ to 9.40x10⁵ with a mean value of 2.19x10⁵ ± 9.66x10⁴ for gizzard, respectively.

From this results, there were no significant differences (P<0.05) of Enterobacteriaceae between examined chilled offal samples, and results from Table (5) showed that all examined samples of chicken giblets were unaccepted based on their Enterobacteriaceae count according to (EC, 2007) which stated that the maximum permissible limit for Enterobacteriaceae count in chicken giblets should not exceed 3.17x10² cfu/g. Regarding to chicken giblets, no data available on higher results for Enterobacteriaceae count, while lower results obtained by (Saikia and Joshi, 2010) who mentioned that average of  Enterobacteriaceae count was 1 × 10⁴cfu/g in examined liver samples and was 2.3 x 10³ cfu/g in examined gizzard. And increase the average of Enterobacteriaceae count in this study may be as evidence of bad hygienic status of giblets either from processing or handling of workers.

3.3. Determination of Coliforms counts (cfu/g):

Coliform is a group of organisms is used as indicators for public hygiene. From the obtained results recorded in Table (6) it was clear that the Coliform count (cfu/g) in the examined chilled samples varied from 2.00x10² to 6.30x10⁵ with a mean value of 1.24x10⁵ ± 5.46x10⁴ for liver, 3.00x10² to 2.70x10⁵ with a mean value of 5.69x10⁴ ± 2.57x10⁴ for heart and 3.00x10² to 6.30x10⁵ with a mean value of  1.05x10⁵± 4.57x10⁴cfu/g for gizzard.

From this results, there were no significant differences (P<0.05) of Coliform count between examined chilled chicken giblets. According to the safe permissible limit obtained by (EOS, 2005) for Coliform count in chicken giblets (Not exceed 10² cfu/g), the obtained results of examined chicken giblets in this study were unaccepted with this limit.

It is evident that no similar data available to the results obtained in this study of Coliforms count, while  (Mohamed et al., 2014) reported that, there was no growth of Coliform in all examined gizzard burger samples with exception to fresh gizzards which contained few cells (≤ 10²).

Identification of Salmonella spp. in examined chilled and freshckicken giblet samples:

Although the incidence of Salmonellosis in that study have reduced but it still one of the major causes of out breaks of food poisoning. Table (7) showed that the incidence of the identified Salmonella spp. isolated from chilled and fresh giblet samples (Liver, Heart and Gizzard) was (5, 4 and 6) (16.67 %, 13.33 % and 20%), respectively.

There was no significant difference (p≥0.05) between chicken giblets for incidence of Salmonella spp.

Higher results of Salmonella spp. incidence in Giblets were obtained by (Molla and Mesfin, 2003) who reported a high level of Salmonella contamination, was found in chicken gizzard (41.1 %) and liver (34.5 %) followed by heart (23.7 %), and lower results obtained by (Chaiba Abdellah et al., 2008) who reported that Salmonella spp. contamination was found in chicken gizzard (13.88 %) and liver (11.11%). While very low result of salmonella spp. obtained by (Korashy and Mohamed 2012) was 5.8 % in total poultry giblets, and (Morshdy et al., 2015) who mention that salmonella in liver samples (10%) followed by gizzard and heart with percentage of (6.67%).

The prevalence of salmonellae on retail poultry carcasses remains a significant public health concern. Salmonellae are responsible for the majority of acute cases of human gastroenteritis (Mulder, 1995). Numerous strains of the salmonella's genus cause gastrointestinal illness worldwide, causing substantial morbidity, hospitalization and economic burden. The most common route of transmission of salmonellae is the fecal-oral route, where humans are infected from ingestion of the bacteria from contaminated food or water, or following direct or indirect contact with the feces of an infected human or animal. Common animal sources of Salmonellosis include poultry and other birds.

Identification of Staphylococcus aureus in examined chilled and fresh giblet samples:

Staph.aureus was causing food poisoning and if it grows in large numbers can leave toxins in the products. Also it lives on the skins of humans and animals and easily transferred to food products. Table (8) showed the incidence of identified Staph.aureus isolated from examined chilled and fresh chicken giblet samples (Liver, Heart, and Gizzard) and the positive Coagulase for Staph.aureus of the examined giblet samples was (2, 3 and 2) (6.67%, 10% and 6.67%), respectively.

There was no significant difference (p≥0.05) between offals for incidence of Staph.aureus. While the higher incidence of Staph.aureus may be due to very bad hygienic measures in many supermarkets (Hayes, 1992). Accordingly, Staph.aureus count can be taken as an indicator of sanitary conditions under which products were manufactured and handled (Potter, 2001). Staph.aureus enterotoxine are the predominant cause of gastrointestinal symptoms observed during intoxications. Staph.aureus is considered the third most important cause of disease in the world amongst the reported food borne illness (Tamarapu et al., 2001).

Determination of Mould counts (cfu/g):

Moulds and Yeasts may play an important role in food spoilage; some moulds can also produce mycotoxins that can be harmful to humans. In Table (9), illustrates the Moulds count (cfu/g) of examined chilled chicken giblets samples ranged from 1.00x10 to 3.60x10³ with a mean value of 4.60x10² ± 2.70 x10²  for liver, 1.00x10 to 5.40x10³ with a mean value of 7.18x10² ± 6.69x10²  for heart and 1.00x10 to 8.40x10³ with a mean value of 9.12x10² ± 8.32x10²cfu/g for gizzard.

From this results, there were no significant differences (P<0.05) of Mould count between examined chilled offal samples. It is evident that the average means of examined samples of edible offals were unaccepted based on Mould count according to (EOS, 2005) which stated that edible offals should be free from any fungal growth; this may be due to bad hygienic measures or handling by workers in contact with offals collection, while there are some separate samples, free from any fungal growth. No available data of Mould count similar to the data in the study, but higher results obtained by (Saikia and Joshi, 2010) who mentioned that average Mould count in liver was 1.3× 10⁴cfu/g, while mean value of Mould count in gizzard was zero, while lower results obtained by (Elkewaiey, 1997) who reported that average Mould count were 6.3x10, 5x 10 and 2.2x10 in liver, heart and gizzard, respectively.

Mould may grow over an extremely wide range of temperature. So, one find mould grows on particularly all food at almost any temperature under which foods are held. Besides, Mould can assist in the putrefactive processes and may produce toxic substances namely mycotoxins which are harmful to human and animals (Frazier and westhoff, 1983). Presence of Mould in the examined samples may be attributed to the fact that Mould need moisture to grow. So, they often found in environment as abattoir in which water is the base of the work (El- Shamy, 2011).

Determination of Yeast count (cfu/g):

It is evident from Table (10) that the Yeast count (cfu/g) of examined chilled samples ranged from 5.00x10 to 3.92 x 10⁴ with a mean value of 3.94x10³ ± 2.59x10³ for liver, 5.00x10 to 1.82x10⁴ with a mean value of 1.68x10³ ± 1.19x10³ for heart and 2.00x10 to 2.28x10⁴ with a mean value of 2.58x10³ ± 1.48x10³ cfu/g for gizzard.

It is evident that, there were no significant differences (P<0.05) of Yeast count between examined chilled offal samples. However the average Yeast count was unaccepted according to (EOS, 2005) which stated that edible offals should be free from fungal growth. No available data on Yeast count in chicken giblets and this increase in count of Yeast was attributed to moisture content and chilling factor which have important role in yeast contamination and growth. Nearly similar results obtained by (Elkewaiey, 1997) who reported that average results in liver, heart and gizzard were 3.1x10³, 1.8x10³ and 1.3x10³, respectively.

Identification of Mould and Yeast spp. in examined samples:

Table (11) showed that the incidence of identified Mould isolated from examined chilled and fresh chicken giblets (Liver, Heart, and Gizzard) were (26, 50 and 17) % for Penicillium spp., (10, 6 and 10 ) % for A.flavus, (17, 10 and 13) % for A.niger, (10, 6 and 33) % for Microsporum spp., (13, 0 and 0) % for Fusarium spp., (6, 13 and 0) % for A.ochrachious, (10, 13 and 10) % for alternaria, (0, 6 and 0) % for A.fumigatus, (0, 17 and 0) % for Cladosporium spp., (0, 0 and 17) % for Mucor spp. and (0, 0 and 6) % for Monilinia spp.

On the other hand, in Table (12) the incidence of identified Yeast isolated from examined chilled and fresh chicken giblets )liver, heart, and gizzard) were (70, 60 and 83) % for Candida albicans, (80, 63 and 60) % for Candida tropicalis, (33, 26and 20) % for Rhodotorulla spp., (17, 10 and 13) % for Trichosporum asahii, and  (20, 17 and 23) % for Cryptococcus neoformans.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The obtained results in this work, through the examined samples of chilled giblet samples (liver, heart and gizzard) were accepted organoleptically. For chemical examination, there were high significant differences (P<0.05) between the examined samples of chicken giblets for TVN and TBA. Moreover, all examined samples were accepted according to safe limit recommended by (EOS, 2005) for TVN and TBA. For bacteriological examination, examined chilled chicken giblets contaminated with a number of microorganism such as mesophilic bacteria, Enterobacteriaceae, Coliforms, Mould and Yeast, Staph.aureus and Salmonella spp. at different degree.

Therefore, to obtain chicken giblets (liver, heart and gizzard) with high quality to safeguard consumer's health, the following suggestions and recommendation should be taken into consideration:-

Inspection of chicken giblets: All poultry found in retail stores should be inspected by a state system which have standards equivalent to the federal government. At the time of slaughter each bird and its internal organs are inspected for signs of disease to ensure that the bird and giblets are free from visible signs of disease.

Handling of Giblets: Giblets packaged separately from poultry are kept cold during distribution to retail stores to prevent the growth of bacteria and to increase shelf life. Mixture of acetic acid and lactic acid “2.5 %” of each should be sprayed on poultry carcasses and giblets after evisceration to prevent pathogenic multiplication.

Safe cooking of giblets: chicken or turkey giblets are cooked by immersing in water for use in flavoring soups, gravies or poultry stuffing. Once cooked, the liver will become crumbly and the heart and gizzard will soften and become easy to shop. Cooked giblets should have a firm texture. Casseroles containing giblets should be cooked to 165 °F. Stuffing should also be cooked to 165 °F. Chicken giblets are commonly fried or broiled. Leftovers should be refrigerated within 2 hours.

REFERENCES

Aberle, E.D.; Forrest, J.C.; Gerrard, D.E. and Mills, E.W. (2001): Principles of Meat Science.4^th Ed. Kendall /Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, IA.

APHA (American Public Health Association) (1992): Compendium of methods for microbiological examination of Food. 3^rd Ed. Brothers, Ann, Arb.

Arnold, J.W. (2007): Bacterial contamination on rubber picker fingers before, during, and after processing. Poult. Sci., 86(12): 2671–2675.

Beckers, S.A. (1998): "More U.S. Consumers prefer chicken" Misset- World Poultry, 9: 20-21.

Carvalho, A.C.F.B.; Cortez, A.L.L.; Salotti, B.M.; Burger, K.P. and Vidal- Martins, A.M.C. (2005): Presence of Mesophilic, psychorophilic and Coliform microorganism in different samples of poultry products. Arquivos do Instituto Biologico (Sao Paulo), 3(72): 303-307. 24.

Chaiba, A.; Rhazi, F.F. and Chahlaoui, A. (2008): Occurrence of Salmonella in Chicken Carcasses and Giblets in Meknès-Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 7 (2): 231-233. ISSN 1680-5194.

Cohen, N.; Ennaji, H.; Bouchrif, B.; Hassar, M. and Karib, H. (2007): Comparative study of microbiological quality of raw poultry meat at various seasons and for different slaughtering processes in Casablanca (Morocco). J. Appl. Poul. Res., 16: 502-508.

Cruickshank, R.J.P.; Marino, B.P. and Swain, R.H.A. (1975): Medical Microbiology. 12^th Ed., Voluminous Churchill, Livingstone, London and New York.

EC"European Commission". (2007): Commission regulation (EC) No: 1441/2007 of 5 December 2007. ISO 21528-2.

El–Kewaiey, I. A. (1997): Microbial Status of Poultry giblets M.V.Sc. Alex. University.

EL-Shamy, R.H.M. (2011): Quality assurance of internal edible offal produced from food animals abattoirs in Alexandria. Ph. D. Vet. Sci. Thesis (Meat Hygiene) Fact. Vet. Med., Alexandria University.

EOS "Egyptian Organization for Standardization and Quality Control" (2005): For complete poultry carcass, poultry parts and raw poultry products and for heat treated poultry meat products (No. 1090-2005).

EOS "Egyptian Organization for Standardization and Quality Control" (2005): For complete poultry carcass, poultry parts and raw poultry products and for heat treated poultry meat products (No. 3493-2005).

FAO "Food and Agriculture Organization" (1980): Manual of food Quality control. FAO, United Nation, Rome, Italy.

FAO "Food and Agriculture Organization" (2010): Poultry Meat & Eggs. Investment Centre Division. Vialedelle Terme diCaracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.

Frazier, W.C. and Westhoff, D.C. (1983): Food microbiology 2^nd Ed. Tata McGrow-Hall Publishing Company Limited New Delhi.

Gram, L. and Huss, H.H. (1996): Microbiological spoilage of fish and fish products. International Journal of Food Microbiology.; 33:121–137. [Pub Med]

Gray, J.I. and Pearson, A.M. (1987): Rancidity and warmed-over flavor. In: Pearson A.M.; Dutson TR, editors. Advances in meat research. Vol. 3. NY, USA: Van Nostr and Company; pp. 221–269.

Hayes, P.R. (1992): Food Microbiology and Hygiene. 2^nd Ed. London and New York.

Ibrahim, M. Hemmat; Amany, M.S. and Mahmoud, S.S. (2014): Quality Evaluation of Some locally Manufactured Chicken, Meat Products Benha Veterinary Medical Journal, vol 26, NO. 2:143-149.

HPA "Health Protection Agency" - Corporate Plan 2004-2009. (April 2004). (2004): Available from: http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/ HPAweb File/HPAweb_C/1197021714519.

ISO "International Organization of Standardization" (2007):  Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs – General requirements and guidance for microbiological examinations. Ref. no. ISO 7218:2007(E)

Kirk, R.S. and Sawyers, R. (1991): Pearson’s Composition and analysis of foods. 9^th Ed. Logman, Scientific and technical London, UK.

Mohamed, E.; Abdelmageed, A.E.; Sulieman, H.O. and Abdalla, G.E.S. (2014): Effects of Incorporating Chicken's Gizzards and Abdominal Fat in the Quality of Burger Meat Product Journal of Microbiology Research 2014, 4(2): 68-71 DOI: 10.5923/j. microbiology. 20140402.04.

Molla, B. and Mesfin, A. (2003): A survey of salmonella contamination in chicken carcass and giblets in central Ethiopia. Revue. Méd. Vét., 154, 4:267-270.

Morr-Mary (1970): Introduction Food laboratory manual of food preparation and evaluation 2^nd Ed. Mac Millan publishing Co., Newyork. Goolrer. Mac, Millan publishing London.

Morshdy, A. and Hafez, A.E. (1986): Studies on freshly eviscerated chicken. Zagazig. Vet. J. XIV: 224-233.

Morshdy, A.D.; Abd El-Salam E.H.; Mohamed A.H. and Eman S.E. (2015): Hygienic Studies on Chicken Edible Offal’s. 2^nd Conference of Food Safety, Suez Canal University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Volume I August 2015 Page 161-167.

Mountney, G.J. (1966): Poultry Pro-ducts Technology. AVI, Westport, Connecticut.

Mulder R.W. (1995): Impact of transport and related stresses on the incidence and extent on human pathogens in pig meat and poultry. J. Food Safety. 15: 239- 246.

Korashy T. Nahla and Mohammed O. Gihan (2012): incidence of salmonellae in chilled chicken carcasses in retails port- said city, Assiut Vet. Med. J. Vol. 58 No. 134.               

Nakagawa, H.; Hoshikawa, R.; Iwata, T.; Iton, T. and Sakal, S. (1999): Survival and growth of meat bacteria under low temperature storage, Japanese J. Fd. Microbiol., 16(2):125-129. .

Oumokhtar, B. (2000): Qualite´ bacte´riologique de viandes, d’abats, de pre´parationscarne´esetd’ huıˆtrescommercialise´es a` Rabat. The`se de Doctorat National, Universite´ Chouaib Doukkali, Faculte´des Sciences, El Jadida, Morocco.

Pearson, D. (1968): Application of chemical methods for the assessment of beef quality. ІІ Methods related to protein breakdown. Journal of food Science and Agriculture, 19 (7):366.

Potter, N.N. (2001): Food Science. 3rd Ed., the AVI Publishing Co. Inc. New York, USA.

Raharjo, S. and Sofos, J.N. (1993): Methodology for measuring malonaldehyde as a product of lipid per oxidation in muscle tissues. J. Meat Sci., 35: 145- 169.

Raper, K. and Fennel, D.I. (1965): The Genus Asperigullus. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.

Refai, M. (1987): Isolation and identification of fungi. Fac. Vet. Med., Cairo University.

Rindhe, S.N.; Zanjad, P.N.; Doifode, V.K.; Siddique, A. and Mendhe, M.S. (2008): Assessment of microbial contamination of chicken products sold in Parbhani city”, Vet. World, vol. 1, pp. 208-210.

Rose, E.B.; Hill, E.W.; Umholtz, R.; Ransom, M.G. and James, O.W. (2002): Testing for salmonella in raw meat and poultry products collected at federally inspected Establishments in the United States, 1998 Through 2000. J. Food. Prot. 65 (6).937-947.

Saikia, P. and JoshI, S.R. (2010): Retail market poultry meats of North- East India- A microbiological survey for pathogenic contaminant. Res. J. Microbiol., 5(1): 36-43.

Samson, R.A.; Stolle, A. and Hadlok, R. (1976): Revision on subsection fasciculate of Penicillium and some allied species studies in Mycology No.11.

Sitz, B.M.; Calkins, C.R.; Feuz, D.M.; Umberger, W.J. and Eskridge, K.M. (2005): Consumer sensory acceptance and value of domestic, Canadian, and Australian grass-fed beef steaks. J. Anim. Sci.83: 2863-2868.

Tamarapu, S.; McKillip, J.L. and Drake, M. (2001): Development of a multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay for detection and differentiation of Staphylococcus aureus in dairy product. J. Food Prot., 64: 664-668.

Tarladgis, B.G.; Watts, B.M.; Younathan, M.T. and Dugan, L.Jr. (1960): A distillation method for the quantitative determination of malonaldehydein rancid foods. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 37:44-48.