\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Effects of Antimicrobial Application of Greencop-Pro1, Greencop-Pro2 and Nano-Aq on Chick Quality in the Incubation Period of Japanese Quail (Coturnix Coturnix Japonica)},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2020 2020-01-15 (revised: 15 Year 2020 15 January 2020)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2020 2020-01-15}
\title{Effects of Antimicrobial Application of Greencop-Pro1, Greencop-Pro2 and Nano-Aq on Chick Quality in the Incubation Period of Japanese Quail (Coturnix Coturnix Japonica)}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Emre  Aydemir}

             \affil[1]{  Akdeniz University}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 11 December 2019 Accepted: 3 January 2020 Published: 15 January 2020}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


World-wide poultry production is increasing day by day. One of the problems encountered in poultry production is disinfection. There are many microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites in the incubators. These microorganisms have negative effects such as the incubation of eggs incubated in the embryonic period, low chick weight, and poor chick quality. These effects lead to significant economic losses in commercial production. There are many disinfection applications to prevent these economic losses. In this study, the effects of antimicrobials on Japanese quail eggs in the embryonic period were investigated. The study control group consists of the 4th group as Greencop-Pro1, Greencop-Pro2 and Nano-Aq. There are 100 eggs for each group and 400 eggs for recurrence.In the study, a total of 1200 Japanese quails were used for 3 recurrences. For each antimicrobial 1 liter, 25 mg / kg x 5 was diluted to 25 mg / kg.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{chick quality, antimicrobial, greencop-pro1, greencop-pro2, nano-aq.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
ue to the developments in poultry farmingworldwide, poultry meat production has increased significantly in the last 30 years. When world meat production is examinedtoday, 37.27\% of the production amount is provided from chicken, whilepork meat is produced by 36.52\%, cattle meat by 21.69\% and ovine meat by 4.51\%  {\ref (FAO, 2018)}. While the total amount of meat producedwas330.5milliontons in 2018, FAO announcedthat the total amount of meat will reach 357.5 milliontons in 2025, it is estimatedthat the amount of poultry meat will have the highest share in this production share. In particular, in the world chicken meat production in the United States, Brazil, China, European Union, India, Russia, Mexico, Argentina, Turkey, Thailand, Indonesia is located in the first row (USDA-FAS 2018). In addition to chicken meat production worldwide, the consumption of small species such as turkey, goose, duck, partridge and quail has increased significantly in recent years.It occurs in various problems with the increase in production significantly. These problemsincludepoorcleaning of the incubator, tools and equipment \hyperref[b1]{(Avens et al., 1974;},;  {\ref Brake and Sheldon, 1991)}.There are various microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites on them. The medium in the embryo has the necessary conditions for the growth of microorganisms. Under unfavorable conditions during incubation, embryo development is prevented. Accordingly, it has negative effects on chick quality, embryonic deaths, growth and development. In addition, economic losses increase due to losses \hyperref[b17]{(Sacco et al., 1989;}\hyperref[b18]{Scott and} {\ref Swetnam, 1993, Reid et al., 1961)}. To providedisinfection during the incubation period; materials such as fumigation, UV light, spray, various organicacids, vinegar, antimicrobial and antibacterial are used.  {\ref (Adler et al. 1979;}\hyperref[b0]{Arhienbuwa et al. 1980;} {\ref Kuhl, 1989;}\hyperref[b13]{Proudfoot et al., 1985;}\hyperref[b17]{Sacco et al., 1989;}.Preventing the formation of microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites in incubation causesboth the decrease in embryonic mortality rate and the increase of chick quality \hyperref[b18]{(Scott and Swetnam, 1993;}\hyperref[b17]{Sacco et al. 1989;}\hyperref[b16]{Reid et al. 1961}). 
\section[{a) Some Studies Done Worldwide}]{a) Some Studies Done Worldwide}\par
It was for Fren and Sheldon, (1990) to apply different doses of couverternar ammonium (1.05\% and 3\%) to eggs obtained from flocks of five different ages (32, 36, 42, 46, 62 weeks).In the study,  stated that the application of couverternar ammonium increased hatching efficiency by 6\% in eggs. In a study using turkey derived eggs used as model animal, \hyperref[b17]{Sacco et al. (1989)} observed the effects of quaternary ammonium compounds and formalin fumigation on shell antimicrobial activity, efficacy and embryonic survival. \hyperref[b17]{Sacco et al. (1989)} stated that embryonic viability of the group in which the application of couverternar ammonium was applied in 2 trials differed statistically (P <0.05).They also reported that there was no significant difference in antimicrobial activities in the third trial group.In a study by \hyperref[b19]{Shahein and Sedeek (2014)}, they observed the effects of 7\% and 14\% propolis, 0.5\% and 0.7\% thyme essential oil, 70\% ethyl alcohol, formaldehyde and control group.In the study, the number of chicks obtained from 14\% propolis application was higher than the other groups; reported that embryonic mortality rates were at least 7\% and 14\% in propolis-treated groups. In the study where Japanese quail was used as a model animal, \hyperref[b7]{Fouad et al. (2018)} used garlic oil as a disinfectant. In the study, they observed that the application of 1ml / liter and 2ml / liter of garlic oil solution was significantly higher in hatching efficiency, chick weight, and chick length compared to the control group (P <0.05). \hyperref[b6]{Fouad et al. (2019)} in their study, they observed the differences between the control group and the hatching efficiency of the vinegar applied in 3 different doses (1.25\%, 2.5 and 5) as disinfectant. In the study, they stated that the vinegar they applied as a spray was statistically more embryo weight, chick weight and length (P <0.05).In a similar study, \hyperref[b9]{Manwar et al. (2012)} reported that vinegar application increased chick weight. In another similar study, they stated that the application of vinegar as disinfectant has effects on embryo development, egg weight, gas exchange, metabolism and development  {\ref (Paganelli et al., 1978;}\hyperref[b14]{Rahn et al., 1979}\hyperref[b15]{, Rahn and Ar, 1980}\hyperref[b4]{and Burton and Tullet, 1983)}.In a study by \hyperref[b5]{Debes and Basyony (2011)}, they examined the effects of thyme (Origanum vulgarel) and ginger (Zingiber officinale) oil on White Leghorn and Matrouh chicken eggs. When the incubation efficiency was examined in the study, 86.45\% in the control group, 89.46\% in formaldehyde, 87.08\% in alcohol group, 94.40\% in thyme oil, they stated that it was 93.66\% in ginger oil and 94.96 ± 0.266\% in thyme and ginger mixture. They also reported that the application of thyme and ginger oil reduced embryo mortality, increased chick weight and had a positive effect on performance. \hyperref[b8]{Batkowska et al. (2018)} used red grapefruit juice as a disinfectant for Japanese quail eggs. First group control group in the study, group 2 formaldehyde and KMnO4 and red grapefruit juice was applied to the third group. In the study results, they stated that using red grapefruit juice as a disinfectant had no effect. In their study, \hyperref[b10]{Marlina et al. (2017)} used three different amounts (25\%, 50\%, 75\%) as antibacterial disinfection of guava leaf water. In the study results, they stated that the use of 75\% guava leaf water decreased the total number of bacteria by 89.53\%. 
\section[{b) Determination of Chick Quality}]{b) Determination of Chick Quality}\par
A quality chick shouldpossess the characteristics of optimum development during incubation, high survival, good growth after emergence, and efficiency in accordance with standards. The eyes of a quality chick thatcomes out of the incubation and driesshould be bright, without anydeformity or wound in the body, the belly is completelyclosed, the yellow is completelyremoved, and it is free from the membrane and shell residues. This chicks should be able to give a reaction, thereshould be no edema, lesion or similarswelling in the body, it shouldreact to externalsounds or different stimuli, be awake and activelyrelated to itsenvironment  {\ref (Tona et al., 2005)}.Considering all these features, chicks are divided into different classes according to physical features  {\ref (Tona et al., 2004} {\ref (Tona et al., , 2003a} {\ref (Tona et al., , 2003b} {\ref (Tona et al., , 2001))}. 
\section[{c) Tona Score Method}]{c) Tona Score Method}\par
The general activity and appearance of chicks of a day old age that has justhatched and dried out the tonna score, the presence and amount of yellowresidue, the condition of the eyes, navel area and legs, the presence and quantity of hered membranes, ?t is a qualitative method that is evaluated over 100 pointsconsidering the egg yolk withdrawal criteria.The quality criteriondecreases for an abnormality in eachcriterionconsidered. Also performance, efficiency, etc. It helps to estimate the criteria (Tona et al. 2003).\par
Table1.1: Criteria for Determining Chick Quality in Tona Score Method 
\section[{Quality criterion Determination Conditions Score}]{Quality criterion Determination Conditions Score}\par
Activity Activity is assessed by laying the chick on itsback to determine how quickly it returned to itsfeet. A quick spring back on to its feet was regarded as good, but trailing back on to its feet or remaining on its back was assessed as weak. 
\section[{6-0 Down and appearance}]{6-0 Down and appearance}\par
The chick body wasexamined for dryness and cleanness. It wasregarded as normal if it is dry and clean. If it is wet or dirty or boththen it is not good.\par
10-8-0 
\section[{Retracted yolk}]{Retracted yolk}\par
The chick was put on itsbackobliquely on the handpalmuntil abdominal movement totally stopped. The height of its abdomen wasestimated.\par
The consistency of the abdomen to touch was then estimated. If the height of abdomen was estimated to be higher and harder to touchthan normal, then yolk retracted was regarded as large and consistent.\par
16-12-8-4-0 
\section[{Eyes}]{Eyes}\par
The chick was put on the legs, and its eyes were observed. The state of brightness and wideness of the gape of the eyelids were estimated.\par
16-8-0 
\section[{Legs}]{Legs}\par
The chick was put on itsfeet to determine if it remaine dupright well. The toes were examined for their conformation. If the chick remaine dupright with difficulty, articulations of the knees were examined to detect signs of inflammation or redness or both. 
\section[{16-8-0}]{16-8-0}\par
Navel area Navel and surrounding are as were examined for closure of the navel and its coloration. If the colorwas different from the skin color of the chick, then it was regarded as bad.\par
12-8-4-0\par
Remaining membrane Observation of the navel area allowed estimation of the size of any remaining membrane. The size of any remaining membrane was classified as very large, large, or small.\par
12-6-0\par
Remaining yolk Observation of the navel area allowed estimation of the size of any remaining yolk. The size of any remaining yolk was classified as very large, large, or small. 12-0  {\ref Tona et.al., 2003)}.(\par
II. 
\section[{Material and Method}]{Material and Method}\par
In the study, 4 experiment groups, Greencop-Pro1, Greencop-Pro2, Nano-Aq and controlgroup were used. A separate incubator was used for each trial group. A total of 400 Japanese quail eggs, 100 of which were included in each incubator, were placed. A total of 1200 Japanese quail eggs were used, 400 for each recurrence. Greencop-Pro1, Greencop-Pro2 and Nano-Aq used antimicrobially in the study were systematically adjusted by automated sprays during the incubation period. For each antimicrobial 1 liter, 25 mg / kg was diluted in the amount of 25 mg / kg x 5. In the study, the chick quality obtained from each incubator was determined using the Tona Score method. In addition, the incubation efficiency was examined for eachgroup. In addition, the total number of chicks obtained from the eggs laid for each incubator was also examined.\par
For the variables that meet the parametric test assumptions for the statistical analysis of the data obtained from the study, it was revealed whether there is a difference between the variance analysis technique and the experiment groups at the level of 5\% significance. All statistical analyzes were done using SPSS statistical software. Variance analysis technique for variables has been demonstrated with anova test whether there is a difference between experiment groups and 5\% significance level. Duncan and Tukey multiple comparison tests were conducted for the parametric test to determine which group or groups originated from the differences. For non-parametric groups, Games Howell test test was applied. 
\section[{III.}]{III.} 
\section[{Results}]{Results}\par
In the study, when the incubation efficiencies were examined in the first recurrence Greencop-Pro1 84\%, Greencop-Pro2 91\%, Nano-Aq 97\% and control group 87\% determined to be.In the secondrecurrence, it wasobservedthat the incubation efficiencywas 90\%, 86\%, 94\% and 83\% in the same order. In the thirdrecurrence, 85\%, 87\%, 96\% and 86\% were determined in the same order. In the study, it was found that the highest incubation efficiency among the groupswas in the group with Nano-Aq antimicrobial application (Table1.1.). When recurrence group average was examined, it wasfound as 89.75, 88.25 and 88.5. Of these mean values, Nano-Aq antimicrobial applied group was estimated to have a statistically significant difference in hatching efficiency (Table  {\ref 1}.1.).\par
In the second recurrence, it wasobservedthat the incubation efficiencywas 90\%, 86\%, 94\% and 83\% in the same order.In the third recurrence, 85\%, 87\%, 96\% and 86\% were determined in the same order.In the study, it wasfoundthat the highest incubation efficiency among the groups was in the group with Nano-Aq antimicrobial application (Table1.1.). When recurrences group average was examined, it wasfound as 89.75, 88.25 and 88.5. Of these mean values, Nano-Aq antimicrobial applied group was estimated to have a statistically significant difference in hatching efficiency (Table  {\ref 1} When the results obtained in the study are analyzed, Nano-Aq antimicrobial application group; Tona Score score was higher than other groups. Nano-Aq antimicrobial administration has affected the chick quality positively in the incubation period. When the total number of chicks hatched from the egg was examined, it was observed that the incubation efficiency of the group with Nano-Aq antimicrobial application was highest.\par
IV. 
\section[{Conclusions}]{Conclusions}\par
In the study, when the incubation efficiency was examined for Greencop-Pro1, Greencop-Pro2, Nano-Aq and antimicrobial applications, it was observed that Nano-Aq antimicrobial application increased the incubation efficiency in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd recurrences. In the study, when eggs were examined after incubation, it was found that early and late embryonic deaths were highest in the control group. When the chick quality was examined in the study, the lowest (93.27, 93.27, 92.42) value in all three recurrences belonged to the control group; the highest (99.85, 99.2, 98.6) value was found to be in the group with Nano-Aq application. Chick quality defects; The foot problem was observed that the navel area was not closed and the yellow sac was not pulled in. The group with the most effective results in Greencop-Pro1, Greencop-Pro2, Nano-Aq and antimicrobial applications applied in the study was determined as the group that applied Nano-Aq.\par
Nano-Aq content feature is bacteria, virus, fungus and parasite. The effective feature of Greencop-Pro1 content is bacteria. The effective feature of Greencop-Pro2 content is on mushrooms. Since the applied antimictobials are commercial products, content information Ertu?rul ARPAÇ belongs to. 
\section[{Thanks}]{Thanks}\par
During the working period Professor, whoshared all his experience and knowledge with me.  \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.4927377892030848\textwidth}P{0.005462724935732648\textwidth}P{0.036053984575835474\textwidth}P{0.08958868894601542\textwidth}P{0.043701799485861184\textwidth}P{0.03496143958868894\textwidth}P{0.06555269922879177\textwidth}P{0.08194087403598971\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{7}{l}{Tablo 1.1: Number of chicks obtained from Greencop-Pro1 Greencop-Pro2 Nano-Aq and Control Groups}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Greencop-\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Greencop-Pro2 Nano-Aq}\tabcellsep Control\tabcellsep Groupsmean\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Pro1\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Group\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1st recurrence\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Number of eggs\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 100\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Number of chicks}\tabcellsep 84\tabcellsep 91\tabcellsep 97\tabcellsep 87\tabcellsep 89.75\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 2 strecurrence\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Number of eggs\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 100\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Number of chicks}\tabcellsep 90\tabcellsep 86\tabcellsep 94\tabcellsep 83\tabcellsep 88.25\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 3 strecurrence\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Number of eggs\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 100\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Number of chicks}\tabcellsep 85\tabcellsep 87\tabcellsep 96\tabcellsep 86\tabcellsep 88.5\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{When the chick quality for the first recurrence}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{was examined in the study, Greencop-Pro1 Greencop-}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Pro2 Nano-Greencop-Pro1 Greencop-Pro2 1st recurrence Nano-Aq Tona Skor Mean 93.6 97.29 99.85 2 strecurrence Tona Skor Mean 95.15 93.86 99.2 3 strecurrence}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Control Group 93.27 92.42}\tabcellsep Groupsmean 93.86 95.15\tabcellsep Volume XX Issue III Version I\\
Mean Tona Skor\tabcellsep 96.68\tabcellsep 95.27\tabcellsep 98.6\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 93.86\tabcellsep 96.01\tabcellsep ( D D D C D )\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Medical Research\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Global Journal of\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{© 2020 Global Journals} 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Paganelli]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		\textit{},  		 			C Paganelli 		.  		 	 
\bibitem[Proudfoot et al. ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		\textit{},  		 			F G Proudfoot 		,  		 			D M Nash 		,  		 			H W Huian 		.  	 	 		\textit{Poultry Science}  		1985. 64 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Marlina et al. ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		\textit{},  		 			E T Marlina 		,  		 			Y A Hidayati 		,  		 			. A Tb 		,  		 			E Kurnani 		,  		 			K N Harlia1 		.  		2017.  	 	 (Rahmah Effectiveness of Guava Leaves Juice as Antibacterial in Poultry Egg Incubator Disinfection) 
\bibitem[Burton and Tullet ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘A comparison of the effect of eggshell porosity on the respiration and growth of domestic fowl, duck and turkey embryos’.  		 			Burton 		,  		 			S G Tullet 		.  	 	 		\textit{Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology}  		1983. 75 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Arhienbuwa et al. ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘A method of surveillance for bacteria on the shell of turkey eggs’.  		 			F E Arhienbuwa 		,  		 			E Adler 		,  		 			A D Wiggins 		.  	 	 		\textit{Poultry Science}  		1980. 59 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Whistler and Sheldon ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		‘Bacterial activity, eggshell conductance and hatchability effects of ozone versus formaldehyde disinfection’.  		 			P E Whistler 		,  		 			B W Sheldon 		.  	 	 		\textit{Poultry Science}  		1989. 68 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Whistler and Sheldon ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		‘Bactericidal activity, eggshell conductance and hatchability effects of ozone versus formaldehyde disinfectants’.  		 			P E Whistler 		,  		 			B W Sheldon 		.  	 	 		\textit{Poultry Science}  		1989. 68 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Brake and Sheldon ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		‘Effect of a Quaternary ammonium sanitizer for hatching eggs on their contamination, permeability, water loss, and hatchability’.  		 			J Brake 		,  		 			B W Sheldon 		.  	 	 		\textit{Poultry Science}  		1990. 69 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Manwar et al. ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘Effect of different sources of drinking water and commercially treated water on the performance of broiler chicken’.  		 			S J Manwar 		,  		 			S P Awandkar 		,  		 			V K Munde 		,  		 			V S Waskar 		.  	 	 		\textit{Indian Journal of Poultry Science}  		2012. 47 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Avens et al. ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		‘Effect of filtering air in a click hatchery on airbone pathogenic microorganism’.  		 			J S Avens 		,  		 			C L Qarles 		,  		 			D L Fagerberg 		.  	 	 		\textit{Poultry Science}  		1974. 54 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Sacco et al. ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		‘Effect of hatching egg sanitizers on embryonic survival and hatchability of turkey eggs from different lines and on egg shell bacterial populations’.  		 			R E Sacco 		,  		 			P A Renner 		,  		 			K E Nestor 		,  		 			Y M Saif 		,  		 			R N Dearth 		.  	 	 		\textit{Poultry Science}  		1989. 68  (9)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Brake and Sheldon ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		‘Effect of quarternar ammonium sanitizer for hatching eggs on their contamination, permeability, water loss and hatchability’.  		 			J Brake 		,  		 			B W Sheldon 		.  	 	 		\textit{Poultry Science}  		1990. 69 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Fouad and Abdelfattah ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘Effect Of Spraying Hatching Eggs By Different Levels Of Vinegar On Embryological Development, Hatchability And Physiological Performance Of Dandarwi Chicks’.  		 			W Fouad 		,  		 			M G Abdelfattah 		,  		 			Abdelnabi 		,  		 			M 		.  	 	 		\textit{Egyptian Poultry Science Journal}  		2019. 39  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Reid et al. ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		‘Embryo and baby chicks mortality and morbidity induced by a strain of Escherichia coli’.  		 			W M Reid 		,  		 			T A Maag 		,  		 			F M Boyd 		,  		 			A L Kleckner 		,  		 			S C Schmittle 		.  	 	 		\textit{Poultry Science}  		1961. 40 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Batkowska et al. ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘Evaluation of Grapefruit Juice (Citrus paradisi) as an Alternative Disinfectant for Hatching Eggs Pakistan’.  		 			Justyna Batkowska 		,  		 			Lukasz Wlazlo 		,  		 			Kamil Drabik 		,  		 			Bozena Nowakowicz-Debek 		,  		 			I A Karrar 		,  		 			Magdalena Al-Shammari 		,  		 			Gryzinska 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal Zooloji}  		2018. 50  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rahn and Ar ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘Gas exchange of the avian egg: time, structure and function’.  		 			H; Rahn 		,  		 			A Ar 		.  	 	 		\textit{American Zoologist}  		1980. 20 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Greencop-Pro2 and Nano-Aq on Chick Quality in the Incubation Period of Japanese Quail]{b22}\label{b22} 	 	 	 		\textit{Greencop-Pro2 and Nano-Aq on Chick Quality in the Incubation Period of Japanese Quail},  		Effects of Antimicrobial Application of Greencop-Pro1  		Coturnix Coturnix Japonica.  	 
\bibitem[Rahn and Paganelli ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		‘How bird eggs breathe’.  		 			H Rahn 		,  		 			A R A Paganelli 		,  		 			CV 		.  	 	 		\textit{Scientific American}  		1979. 240 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Fouad et al. ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		‘Influence Of Spraying Garlic Oil On Embryonic Development, Hatchability, Physiological Parameters, Post-Hatch Chick Growth And Bacterial Contamination Of Fertile Quail Eggs’.  		 			W Fouad 		,  		 			S Mohamed 		,  		 			H A H Abdel-Hafez 		.  	 	 		\textit{Egyptian Poultry Science Journal}  		2018. 38  (3)  p. .  	 	 (Abd El-Halim) 
\bibitem[Shahein and Sedeek ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		‘Role of Spreying Hatching Eggs with natural disinfectants on hatching characteristics and eggshell bacterial counts’.  		 			E H A Shahein 		,  		 			E K Sedeek 		.  	 	 		\textit{Egyptian Poultry Science Journal}  		2014. 34 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Scott and Swetnam ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		‘Screening sanitizing agents and methods of application for hatching eggs. I. Environmental and User Friendliness’.  		 			T A Scott 		,  		 			C Swetnam 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Applied Poultry Research}  		1993.  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ackerman and Rahn (ed.) ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		\textit{The avian egg: In vitro condutances to oxygen, carbon dioxide, and water vapor in late development},  		 			R A Ackerman 		,  		 			H Rahn 		.  		Piiper J (ed.)  		1978. Berlin: Springer Verlag. p. .  	 	 (Respiratory function in birds, adult and embryonic) 
\bibitem[Debes and Basyony ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		‘The Use Of Oregano (Or?ganum Vulgare L) And G?nger (Z?ng?berOff?c?nale) O?ls As Alternat?ve Hatch?ng Egg D?s?nfectant Versus Formaldhyde Fum?gat?on In Leghorn And Matrouh Eggs’.  		 			A Debes 		,  		 			M Basyony 		.  	 	 		\textit{Egyptian Poultry Science Journal}  		2011. 31  (4)  p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
