## 3 Results and Discussion
### Detection of DNA of Species in Beef Sausages
Regarding industrial sausages (n = 43), it turns out that 15 of them (34.8%) contained only beef DNA, while 28 (65.2%) contained DNA of other species. Of the 28 samples that contained other species DNA, chicken DNA was detected in 23 (82.14%). In comparison, mutation DNA was detected in three samples (10.71%) (two samples contained beef and one sample also contained chicken DNA), and two samples (7.14%) tested positive for turkey DNA (both samples in beef sausages which also contained chicken DNA). Regarding the homemade beef sausages (n = 25), it turns out that 17 (68%) contained beef DNA, while 8 (32%) contained DNA from other species. Of the eight samples, seven of them (87.5%) contained chicken DNA, while one sample (13.5%) contained mutton DNA. Of all the beef sausage samples that tested positive for the presence of DNA from other species (n = 36), 28 of them belonged to industrial sausages, and of these, 15, or 41.66%, were declared, compared to 13 samples, or 46.42%, which were not declared. On the other hand, although 8 samples of traditional beef sausage tested positive for the presence of DNA from other species, none of those samples contained any detectable amount of those species. The results of sausage analysis, using the Chipron LCD Array Analysis System, show that 36 out of 68 samples, or 52.94%, tested positive for the DNA of other species, indicating the potential intentional addition of meat from other species. The presence of poultry DNA (45.55%) is a reference to deliberate addition since, from an economic point of view, it is more profitable to add meat of cheaper species. When it comes to the presence of mutton DNA (4.41%), which has a higher price than beef itself, this does not surprise us since, in some parts of Kosovo, mutton meat is added to beef sausage to improve its sensory properties. The high presence of poultry DNA in beef sausage, for economic reasons, will be the ongoing focus of our work. Compared to works by other authors, these values are somewhat lower than a study focusing on the substitution of meat species in Poland, which found that 60% of the foods analyzed contained an undeclared ingredient or the substitution of an expensive ingredient with a cheaper option [25], and that 17 (60%) of 28 beef sausages contained added poultry. Their results showed that 112 (78.3%) samples were mislabeled, attributed to the false declaration of species and/or presence of undeclared meat species [26]. On the other hand, our results are higher than those of other authors, such as beef sausages containing 33% chicken meat [27], where the results indicate that 15 (14.7%) of the total samples were found to contain undeclared species, with poultry meat detected in 7 (21.8%) and 2 (6.06%) of 32 salami and 33 sausage samples, respectively [28]. In another study, undeclared animal species were detected in 27% of the meat products tested [29]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l} \hline
**Category** & **Industrial** & & **Traditional** & & **Total** & \\ \hline  & **n** & **\%** & **n** & **\%** & **n** & **\%** \\ \hline Sample distribution & 43 & 63.23\% & 25 & 36.76\% & 68 & 100\% \\ Samples with only beef DNA & 15 & 34.88\% & 17 & 68.00\% & 32 & 47.05\% \\ Samples with DNA of other species & 28 & 65.12\% & 8 & 32.00\% & 36 & 52.94\% \\ Containing chicken DNA & 23 & 82.14\% & 7 & 87.50\% & * & 31 & 45.55\% \\ Containing mutton DNA & 3 & 10.71\% & 1 & 12.50\% & 3 & 4.41\% \\ Containing turkey DNA & 2 & 7.14\% & 0 & 0.00\% & 2 & 2.94\% \\ Containing DNA of other species ** & 0 & 0.00\% & 0 & 0.00\% & 0 & 0.00\% \\ Declared the added species meat & 15 & 41.60\% & 0 & 100.00\% & 15 & 41.46\% \\ Did not declare the added species meat & 13 & 46.42\% & 8 & 100.00\% & 21 & 58.33\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* Percentages in rows for chicken, mutton, and turkey DNA are calculated within the subgroup of samples with other species DNA; ** No DNA from other mammalian (e.g., pig, horse, goat) or bird species (e.g., duck, goose, pheasant) was detected in any sample.  
\end{table}