## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Samples (n = 12)** & **Time 0** & **Time 1** & **Time 2** \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**pH Value**} \\ \hline Control LOINS & 5.69 \({}^{\text{dB}}\pm 0.06\) & 5.42 \({}^{\text{CA}}\pm 0.14\) & 5.47 \({}^{\text{AA}}\pm 0.14\) \\ Control SAUSAGES & 5.50 \({}^{\text{dB}}\pm 0.07\) & 5.39 \({}^{\text{CA}}\pm 0.06\) & 5.35 \({}^{\text{CA}}\pm 0.05\) \\ Probiotic LOINS & 4.96 \({}^{\text{B}}\pm 0.06\) & 5.01 \({}^{\text{b}}\pm 0.02\) & 4.91 \({}^{\text{BA}}\pm 0.03\) \\ Probiotic SAUSAGES & 4.90 \({}^{\text{AB}}\pm 0.03\) & 4.69 \({}^{\text{AA}}\pm 0.06\) & 4.66 \({}^{\text{AA}}\pm 0.07\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**ORP (mV)**} \\ \hline Control LOINS & 305.70 \({}^{\text{AB}}\pm\) & 294.90 \({}^{\text{AB}}\pm 9.39\) & 276.00 \({}^{\text{AA}}\pm 5.65\) \\ Control SAUSAGES & 380.30 \({}^{\text{dB}}\pm 4.15\) & 348.20 \({}^{\text{BA}}\pm 6.21\) & 350.10 \({}^{\text{CA}}\pm 3.99\) \\ Probiotic LOINS & 316.30 \({}^{\text{GC}}\pm 1.92\) & 285.80 \({}^{\text{AB}}\pm 3.44\) & 275.70 \({}^{\text{AB}}\pm 9.43\) \\ Probiotic SAUSAGES & 300.60 \({}^{\text{BA}}\pm 3.70\) & 341.50 \({}^{\text{b}}\pm 9.29\) & 327.70 \({}^{\text{DB}}\pm 7.70\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**TBARS (mg TDA kg-1)**} \\ \hline Control LOINS & 0.42 \({}^{\text{AA}}\pm 0.11\) & 0.67 \({}^{\text{BB}}\pm 0.16\) & 0.47 \({}^{\text{AA}}\pm 0.08\) \\ Control SAUSAGES & 0.90 \({}^{\text{BA}}\pm 0.12\) & 1.13 \({}^{\text{GB}}\pm 0.08\) & 1.32 \({}^{\text{bC}}\pm 0.07\) \\ Probiotic LOINS & 1.34 \({}^{\text{GB}}\pm 0.04\) & 0.48 \({}^{\text{AA}}\pm 0.05\) & 0.46 \({}^{\text{AA}}\pm 0.02\) \\ Probiotic SAUSAGES & 1.51 \({}^{\text{GB}}\pm 0.16\) & 0.50 \({}^{\text{AA}}\pm 0.10\) & 0.49 \({}^{\text{AA}}\pm 0.03\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Explanatory notes: Data are expressed as the mean \(\pm\) SD of n = samples. Means in the same column followed by different lowercase letters represent significant differences (\(p<0.05\)). Means in the same row followed by different uppercase letters represent significant differences (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Physicochemical quality of dry fermented pork loins and sausages after production (time 0) and also after 6 (time 1) and 12 (time 2) weeks of storage. belong to compounds resulting from proteolysis [22]. In contrast, differences in fat on the surface of meat mean that the drying process is non-uniform and leads to differences between the muscles and, thus, to the inhibition or excessive growth of microorganisms [4; 29]. The next difficulty is associated with determining the presence of the minimum number of probiotics per gram of a product (6.0 log cfu g\({}^{-1}\)) [17; 21]. In the conducted research, the presence of the added probiotic strain LOCK900 in the study meat products was proven. The purpose was to confirm the presence of added probiotic bacteria, as well as to check the effectiveness of the used production technology, enabling the development of LOCK900 in two kinds of the raw meat matrix (minced and nonminced). The genetic identification was carried out in the finished product immediately after ripening (time 0) and after 12 weeks of storage (time 2). The research methodology consisted of comparing the obtained PCR reaction products for the control sample (pure culture of the strain LOCK900) with the amplification products of the genetic material of LAB isolated from the tested dry fermented pork lions and sausages. After the meat ripening process, the similarity of the LAB colony DNA material isolated from the study products to the DNA of a pure culture of the probiotic strain LOCK900 was demonstrated. The identification of lactic acid bacteria in meat products was previously carried out using phenotypic methods, e.g., API 50 CH tests (bioMerieux, USA) [30; 31]. The results obtained in this way are not always satisfactory, and the identification concerns the bacterial species, not the strain [31].