## 3 Results  
### Texture  
After evaluating the equality of error variances [Hardness: F(5,54) = 1.368, \(p\) = 0.251; Cohesiveness: F(5,54) = 1.010, \(p\) = 0.421; Springiness: F(5,54) = 0.667, \(p\) = 0.650; Chewiness: F(5,54) = 1.926, \(p\) = 0.105] and the normality of residuals [Hardness: W(60) = 0.954, \(p\) = 0.023; Cohesiveness: W(60) = 0.974, \(p\) = 0.231; Springiness: W(60) = 0.960, \(p\) = 0.044; Chewiness: W(60) = 0.922, \(p\) = 0.001], a MANOVA was performed. Given that meat samples are biological materials with unevenly distributed adipose and connective tissues, the texture measurements exhibited a considerable degree of variability. Despite this, the analysis of unexplained variance revealed that both meat type and, consequently, the fat (and connective tissue) content [Wilks' lambda = 0.322, F(4,51) = 12.245, \(p\) < 0.001] and the treatment [Wilks' lambda = 0.386, F(8, 102) = 3.127, \(p\) < 0.001] exerted significant effects on the texture properties of the samples. Additionally, the interaction between these two factors [Wilks' lambda = 0.367, F(8,102) = 3.009, \(p\) < 0.001] was also statistically significant, albeit with a lesser degree of influence. The meat type and, consequently, the fat content had the most significant effect. Based on the results of the Tukey post hoc test, no significant differences were found in cohesiveness and springiness with respect to the treatment (\(p\) = 0.05). However, for hardness, samples crusted after cooking exhibited an average 33% higher value compared to the other samples. This difference in hardness resulted in a 37% increase in chewiness for the samples crusted after cooking, which was statistically significant (\(p\) = 0.05). No significant differences were observed in cohesiveness and springiness according to meat type; however, significant differences were found in the hardness and chewiness between tenderloin and collar samples (\(p\) = 0.05). Tenderloin samples were, on average, 53% harder and 40% more chewy than collar samples. This difference was expected, as tenderloin is a drier and denser cut of meat. In contrast, sliced collar contains several smaller pieces of meat encircled by fat, resulting in a more tender and softer texture. This distinction was clearly measurable in the experiment. The results can be explained by the fact that unlike in the tenderloin, the high amount of fatty tissue that permeated the collar resulted in a less chewy texture with a lower hardness. A tenderloin is basically a muscle without fatty tissue. The method chosen for the treatment ensured that it did not dry out, yet it was clearly harder. In the case of tenderloin, the crust creation after cooking created a hard layer on the surface of the meat, which accounts for a larger proportion of the total sample size than in the case of collar. This explains the very high hardness of the sample. A previous study also measured higher hardness and chewiness in lean meat compared to adipose tissue [30]. Grilled (crusted) meats also showed increased chewiness compared to meat prepared without crusting (cooking sous-vide) in a previous study [31]. Since chewiness is the multiplication of hardness, cohesiveness, and springiness, as well as hardness being four orders of magnitude higher than the other two variables, it is easy to explain why chewiness increases with hardness. The hardness is increased mainly by the heat denaturation of meat proteins and water loss in the areas below the crust. Considering the Wilks' lambda values obtained from the statistical analyses, it is clear that both meat type and total fat content influenced the experimental results. The strongest effect was observed in the texture results, and for texture, the effect of meat type was greater than that of the treatment when the Wilks' lambda was below 0.5. Texture parameters are shown in Figures 1-4.