# Instrumental and Sensory Analyses of Salami from Autochthonous and Conventional Pig Breeds
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Textural Properties  
The findings for textural properties assessed using Warner-Bratzler testing, TPA, and tensile testing are reported in Table 5. Considering the entire set of samples, MIL displayed remarkably different textural properties. Indeed, it exhibited the lowest values for all textural parameters. In contrast, FEL and CON revealed textural profiles comparable to those of the other 10 samples. In this context, since the conventional samples were selected according to their similarity to their Mora Romagnola counterparts, the results for textural properties will be discussed by considering the samples as pairs. CO1 and MO1 exhibited analogous values for almost all parameters. Similarly, only negligible dissimilarities (not displaying any clear trends) were observed when comparing the textural properties of CO4  
Figure 3: Projection of samples and variables (intensity and shades of red) on a plane (PCA). Samples from conventional breeds and Mora Romagnola samples are labeled in green and pink, respectively. Samples were coded as CO1 (conventional salami with small size), MO1 (Mora Romagnola salami with the same size as CO1), CO2 (conventional salami of “Nostrano” type), MO2 (Mora Romagnola salami similar to CO2), CO3 (conventional salami of “Cacciatore” type), MO3 (Mora Romagnola salami similar to CO3), CO4 (conventional salami obtained directly from a local producer), MO4 (Mora Romagnola salami similar to CO4), CO5 (conventional salami obtained directly from a local producer), MO5 (Mora Romagnola salami similar to CO5), CON (conventional salami of “Contadino” type), FEL (conventional salami of “Felino” (PGI) type), and MIL (conventional salami of “Milano” type). vs. MO4. The main differences were found between CO2 vs. MO2, CO3 vs. MO3, and CO5 vs. MO5. In detail, compared to their conventional counterparts (CO2 and CO3), significantly higher hardness and hardness-related parameters (chewiness and gumminess) were found in MO2 and MO3, which also exhibited increased cohesiveness. In addition, remarkably higher springiness and rupture force (+48%) were observed in MO2 compared to its conventional counterpart. Similarly, remarkably higher springiness (+16%) and chewiness (+40%) were observed in MO5 compared to its conventional counterpart. In addition, MO5 exhibited the highest breaking strength. These findings are in agreement with those obtained in a previous study performed by [PERSON] et al. (2013) [43], and clearly show that products exhibiting different textural properties are present on the market. Among the variables, both fermentation and aging period can influence the textural properties of dry-fermented sausages to a remarkable degree [43]. The higher values exhibited by samples CO5 and MO5 for all the parameters considered might be the result of a longer curing time which, as a direct consequence of a higher water loss through evaporation, may have resulted in the development of firmer sausages [44]. Indeed, hardness, chewiness, and gumminess were found to increase over the aging period as a consequence of protein coagulation at low pH values which, in turn, results in protein denaturation and reduces the water-holding ability of the meat, leading to a decrease in moisture content [43]. Additionally, even the starter  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **WB Shear** & **Hardness** & **Cohesiveness** & **Gumminess** & **Springiness** & **Chewiness** & **Rupture** & **Breaking Strength** \\
**CO1** & 33.55 \(\pm\) 14.32 & 226.61 \(\pm\) 28.45 & 2.71 \(\pm\) 0.20 & \begin{tabular}{c} 617.05 \(\pm\) \\ 108.89 \\ \end{tabular}  & 2.27 \(\pm\) 0.26 & \begin{tabular}{c} 1414.60 \(\pm\) 361.01 \\ 22.07 \\ \end{tabular}  & \ \begin{tabular}{c} 2.16 \(\pm\) 0.98 \\ 22.22 \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} 0.88 \(\pm\) 0.39 \\ 22.22 \\ \end{tabular}  \\
**CO2** & 33.65 \(\pm\) 9.61 & 201.11 \(\pm\) 24.33 & 2.07 \(\pm\) 0.08 & \begin{tabular}{c} 415.94 \(\pm\) \\ 168.73 \\ \end{tabular}  &