## 3 Result and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & **TAMC** & **TYMC** & **Coliforms** & **Escherichia coli** & **Salmonella spp.** & **_Listeria_ \\  & [**CFU**-**g**\({}^{-1}\)] & [**CFU**-**g**\({}^{-1}\)] & [**CFU**-**g**\({}^{-1}\)] & [**CFU**-**g**\({}^{-1}\)] & [**in** 25** **g**] & **[**in** 25** **g**]** \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{8}{c}{organic farming} \\ \hline
1.OF & \(2.5\times 10^{6}\) & \(1.0\times 10^{4}\) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times 10^{1}\) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times 10^{1}\) & ND & ND \\ \hline
2.OF & \(1.8\times 10^{7}\) & \(9.4\times 10^{4}\) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times 10^{1}\) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times 10^{1}\) & ND & ND \\ \hline
3.OF & \(9.5\times 10^{6}\) & \(6.0\times 10^{3}\) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times 10^{1}\) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times 10^{1}\) & ND & ND \\ \hline
4.OF & \(8.0\times 10^{5}\) & \(7.1\times 10^{3}\) & \(5.9\times 10^{3}\) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times 10^{1}\) & ND & ND \\ \hline
5.OF & \(5.2\times 10^{6}\) & \(8.8\times 10^{4}\) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times 10^{1}\) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times 10^{1}\) & ND & ND \\ \hline Mean1-5.OF & \(72\times 10^{5}\) & \(4.1\times 10^{4}\) & \(118.8\times 10^{1}\) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times 10^{1}\) & ND & ND \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{c}{conventional farming} \\ \hline
1.CF & \(7.4\times 10^{5}\) & \(1.9\times 10^{4}\) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times 10^{1}\) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times 10^{1}\) & ND & ND \\ \hline
2.CF & \(2.4\times 10^{6}\) & \(2.0\times 10^{4}\) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times 10^{1}\) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times 10^{1}\) & ND & ND \\ \hline
3.CF & \(2.2\times 10^{6}\) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times 10^{1}\) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times 10^{1}\) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times 10^{1}\) & ND & ND \\ \hline
4.CF & \(6.4\times 10^{5}\) & \(4.1\times 10^{2}\) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times 10^{1}\) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times 10^{1}\) & ND & ND \\ \hline
5.CF & \(7.8\times 10^{4}\) & \(1.5\times 10^{2}\) & \(1.5\times 10^{4}\) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times 10^{1}\) & ND & ND \\ \hline Mean1-5.CF & \(1.2\times 10^{5}\) & \(7.9\times 10^{3}\) & \(300.8\times 10^{1}\) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times 10^{1}\) & ND & ND \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Number of microorganisms in samples of dried milk thistle fruit from organic and conventional farming. raw material or the environment in which it is processed. TAMC (total aerobic mesophilic count), coliforms, and _E. coli_ are commonly determined [42]. In the present study, the number of TAMCs and the number of yeasts and molds in milk thistle fruits from the organic production system were almost six times higher than in products from conventional farming (Table 3). Fungi are considered as indicators used to assess the raw material quality, in particular in the context of its spoilage and forecasting the shelf life. In scientific publications, it is often emphasized that milk thistle fruits and dietary supplements produced on their basis are inhabited by fungi, including species that accumulate mycotoxins. Mycotoxins are a threat for both production systems [14; 43; 44]. Excluding the use of chemicals for plant protection in organic farming may lead to increased contamination of products with fungi that produce these toxic compounds. In the present study, milk thistle fruits were not tested for the presence of mycotoxinogenic species; however, such a situation cannot be ruled out [45]. Isolation of coliforms and _E. coli_, which occur in the digestive tracts of warm-blooded animals, from food samples indicates fecal contamination and the potential presence of pathogens. In the present study, coliforms were present in only one in five samples of fruit from both organic and conventional cultivation, while the raw material from the conventional system contained 2.5 times more bacteria of this group. It is believed that organic farms using natural fertilizers are more exposed to soil and raw material contamination with fecal bacteria, while we obtained the opposite relationship. The number of _Escherichia coli_ did not exceed the recommended limits in any fruit sample, and no pathogens of _Salmonella_ ssp. or _Listeria monocytogenes_ were found.