## 4 Conclusions  
The texture of the meat samples was significantly influenced by both the type of meat and the applied treatment, with fat content (meat type) exerting a dominant effect. While cohesiveness and springiness did not exhibit significant variations, notable differences were observed in hardness and chewiness. Tenderloin samples, being denser and drier, were significantly harder and chewier than the more tender collar samples. The crusting treatment applied after cooking resulted in increased hardness and chewiness, attributed to the formation of an additional crust that occurred without softening during cooking. This treatment also significantly impacted the colour attributes of the samples. Specifically, samples crusted after cooking displayed substantial changes in colour, including increased darkness and redness, while samples crusted before cooking appeared more yellow. Treatment emerged as the most influential factor affecting cooking loss, pH, and water-holding capacity (WHC), alongside fat content.  
Consumer preferences were not significantly affected by either meat type or treatment, suggesting a wide range of preferences among untrained panellists. Nevertheless, samples crusted after cooking were generally favoured for their enhanced texture, taste, and overall sensory characteristics. This preference is likely due to the development of a crispier surface and intensified flavours resulting from the crust formation process.  
In conclusion, both the meat type and cooking treatment play significant roles in shaping the techno-functional and sensory attributes of meat. However, the treatment--particularly crusting after cooking--tended to enhance desirable qualities, such as texture. The findings of this study provide valuable insights for food producers, offering a better understanding of the effects of different crusting techniques on various meat types. These results have practical implications for the food industry and restaurants, guiding the formulation of ready-to-eat meat dishes and offering recommendations for meat product utilization.  
Since the samples were not minced or homogenized meat, the non-uniform distribution of fat and connective tissue in the mammalian muscles may have influenced the results. This effect was minimized by the large sample size. One limitation of the study was the limited opportunity to build the sensory panel. It is worth investigating using a panel of specific consumer segments to examine preference and a professional panel to examine sensory characteristics. In addition, it is worthwhile to investigate the effect of current experimental factors on the heterocyclic aromatic amine content of meat in a similar experimental design. It is important to mention that the results are applicable to industrial and kitchen technologies, but as described, they are only valid for the examined meat cuts of the examined pig variety.  
Conceptualization, T.C. and A.V.-T.; methodology, K.I.H.; validation, A.V.-T. and K.I.H.; formal analysis, I.M.H. and A.B.; investigation, B.B.B. and I.M.H.; resources, L.F.F.; data curation, T.C.; writing--original draft preparation, T.C.; writing--review and editing, G.H.; visualization, B.B.B.; supervision, G.H.; project administration, K.P.-H.; funding acquisition, L.F.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research received no external funding.  
Not applicable.  
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon request.  
This research is supported by the Doctorial School of Food Science and by the Institute of Food Science and Technology, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences. We are very thankful.  
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.