## 3 Results
### Cooking Loss, pH, WHC--Fattiness  
Another statistical analysis was conducted to examine the results of cooking loss (Figure 9), pH (Figure 10), and water-holding capacity (WHC) (Figure 11) in relation to fat content. This approach was used based on the expectation that these three techno-functional properties would be interrelated. Typically, the distance of the current pH from the isoelectric point is inversely related to water-holding capacity, as proteins at their isoelectric point acquire a neutral charge and are unable to retain their solvation shell [33]. Furthermore, it can be anticipated that higher cooking loss would correspond to lower moisture content in the samples. As the results indicate, the relationship between the dependent variables was not straightforward. However, among the independent variables, the treatment was found to be a significant determinant of the dependent variables. After checking the equality of error variances [Cooking loss: F(5,54) = 9.328, \(p<0.001\); pH: F(5,54) = 3.302, \(p=0.011\); WHC--fatiness: F(5,54) = 16.739, \(p<0.001\)] and the normality of residuals [Cooking loss: W(60) = 0.879, \(p<0.001\); pH: W(60) = 0.981, \(p=0.493\); WHC--fatiness: W(60) = 0.887, \(p<0.001\)], a MANOVA was carried out. The unexplained variance associated with meat type and fat content did not demonstrate a strong relationship [Wilks' lambda = 0.549, F(3,51) = 6.014, \(p=0.004\)]. However, the treatment showed a significant and strong effect on cooking loss, pH, and water-holding capacity (WHC) related to fat content of the samples [Wilks' lambda = 0.196, F(6,102) = 9.218, \(p<0.001\)]. The interaction between the two factors [Wilks' lambda = 0.442, F(6,102) = 3.703, \(p=0.005\)] also had a significant, though less dominant, effect. Therefore, the treatment was the most significant determinant. Figure 9: Cooking loss [g (100 g) \({}^{-1}\)] results of sample groups made from different meat parts with different fat contents (tenderloin—dry; collar—fatty) with different treatments (control without crust, crust creating before cooking, crust creating after cooking). Figure 11: WHC—fatfitiness [mm\({}^{2}\) g \({}^{-1}\)] results of sample groups made from different meat parts with different fat contents (tenderloin—dry; collar—fatty) with different treatments (control without crust, crust creating before cooking, crust creating after cooking). (The results of all the collar samples crusted after cooking were above the measurement range). Figure 10: pH [-] results of sample groups made from different meat parts with different fat contents (tenderloin—dry; collar—fatty) with different treatments (control without crust, crust creating before cooking, crust creating after cooking). According to the results of [PERSON]'s HSD post hoc test, the pH of sample groups without crust formation was significantly lower than that of the other sample groups (\(p=0.05\)). Although statistically significant, the pH of the samples without crust was, on average, 0.6% lower than that of the other samples. This may be attributed to the denaturation of proteins and the decomposition of organic acids during cooking. The small difference observed is likely due to a compound formed during the crust formation process. This change was nominally very small. The average pH of all samples was 6.08, the average pH of samples without a crust was 6.05, and the average pH of samples with a crust before or after cooking was 6.09. So, the pH of all samples was on the border of the neutral and acidic range with very little difference. In terms of WHC related to fat content, the samples crusted after cooking exhibited significantly higher values than the other sample groups, with an average value of 0.58 mm\({}^{2}\) g\({}^{-1}\) in the case of tenderloin and a value above the measuring range in the case of collar (\(p=0.05\)). This can be explained by the fact that the crust was formed on the samples using oil after cooking and the oil adhered to the surface of the meat.