## 3 Results and Discussion
### Influence of Heating Techniques on Mass Efficiency
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Sample Code**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Water Activity (a\({}_{\text{w}}\)) Mean Values \(n\) = 3**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Storage**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **Production Day** & **1 Day** & **2 Day** & **7 Days** \\ \hline D0 & \multicolumn{4}{c}{0.98 \(\pm\) 0.001} \\ \hline C-A & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.005 Aa & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.002 a & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.001 b & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.001 b \\ \hline C-B & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.002 ABa & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.001 a & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.001 a & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.001 a \\ \hline C-C & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.001 ABa & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.001 a & 0.96 \(\pm\) 0.001 d & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.001 b \\ \hline Ba-A & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.002 ABa & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.001 a & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.001 b & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.001 a \\ \hline Ba-B & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.002 Bb & 0.96 \(\pm\) 0.002 d & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.001 a & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.001 b \\ \hline F-A & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.001 Aa & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.001 a & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.001 b & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.001 a \\ \hline F-B & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.004 ABa & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.001 b & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.001 a & 0.96 \(\pm\) 0.001 d \\ \hline Br-A & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.002 ABa & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.002 a & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.001 b & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.001 c \\ \hline Br-B & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.001 ABa & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.001 b & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.001 b & 0.96 \(\pm\) 0.001 d \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Code designations as in Table 1. Different letters A and B in columns show the statistical difference (\(p<0.05\)) related to the impact of the heating group, while a, b, c... inverse the impact of storage time.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Water activity of culinary chicken breast samples. The sous-vide technique guarantees high mass efficiency (about 88.39%) of poultry culinary samples. Poultry samples (C-C) produced by the sous-vide technique differed significantly (\(p<0.001\)) in terms of yield from other culinary samples (Table 6). They were characterized by the highest efficiency, both immediately after preparation and after storage (Table 6). As described by [PERSON] et al. [7], the thermal treatment of fish and poultry carried out using the sous-vide technique allowed for reducing fat and mineral losses compared to classical cooking. During sous-vide cooking, the dishes lost only about 10% of the volume. The choice of heat treatment for the type of meat can lead to the right softness, juiciness, and yield. During the heating of meat raw materials, there are many physical and chemical changes, among which one of the most important is the loss of mass [36]. High heat treatment efficiency is a guarantee of the cost-effectiveness of production. Thanks to the possibility of combining different heating methods, e.g., frying and cooking and processing parameters carried out in the convection-steam oven or circulator, it is possible to shape the quality of the product, including its efficiency. In addition to technological factors, process efficiency is influenced by the type of raw material and its chemical composition, and the fragmentation of raw materials. Intensive fragmentation of the raw material during heat treatment promotes a high thermal leakage, as a large exposure of the meat surface increases the diffusion of cellular juice outside [37]. As [PERSON] et al. [38] described, cooking in a hermetically sealed package is characterized by a much higher humidity of the working environment, which contributes to a higher efficiency of the process. [PERSON] et al. [7] have shown that the use of sous-vide in the cooking process guarantees low losses of products. The storage time did not have a significant impact on the weight changes of products prepared by different heat methods, as confirmed by the statistical analysis (Table 6). As demonstrated by [PERSON] et al. [39] and [PERSON] et al. [40], the use of a higher heat treatment temperature affects the reduction in efficiency. In addition, the authors suggested that the temperature effect is correlated with the water content of the sample.