## 3 Results and Discussion
### Influence of Heating Techniques on Mass Efficiency  
Among the samples of poultry baked in heating group A, higher efficiency (about 80.00%) showed that samples prepared in the convection-steam oven (Ba-B) rather than the baked samples (68.85%) in the convection-steam oven without steam function (Ba-A) corresponded to the process conditions in the oven (Table 6). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample Code**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Water Content (\%) \(\pm\) SD, Average Values \(n\) = 3**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Storage**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Production Day** & **1 Day** & **2 Days** & **7 Days** \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Samples**} \\ \hline D0 & \multicolumn{4}{c}{56.60 \(\pm\) 0.12} \\ \hline C-A & 62.86 \(\pm\) 0.16 Ea & 62.51 \(\pm\) 0.31 a & 62.47 \(\pm\) 0.02 a & 62.73 \(\pm  
The baking process in the convection-steam oven was carried out with the use of steam, in a humid environment without causing excessive drying of the culinary sample. The use of hot air without humidification generated significantly higher losses, thus reducing the process efficiency. Frying in the convection-steam oven significantly affected the higher efficiency of the poultry sample F-B (70.59%) compared to the fried sample using the heating group A (F-A, 69.62%). Both the convection and steam oven and the frying pan were heated before the chicken breast fillet was fried in order not to cause excessive absorption of fat [35]. The samples of poultry stayed using a device from heating group A (Br-A, 75.76%) had a higher yield than the chicken breast fillet stewed in a convection-steam oven (Br-B, 70.00%). The use of short-term frying of poultry on each side created a coating on the surface of the product, and the suffocation in a small amount of water resulted in softening of meat tissues and absorption of water from the external environment, which resulted in a higher rate of process efficiency. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Sample Code**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Storage**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Production Day** & **1 Day** & **2 Days** & **7 Days** \\  & **[\%] \(\pm\) SD** & **[\%] \(\pm\) SD** & **[\%] \(\pm\) SD** & **[\%] \(\pm\) SD** \\ \hline C-A & 61.54 \(\pm\) 1.90 E & 60.00 \(\pm\) 3.56 a & 56.92 \(\pm\) 2.07 a & 56.92 \(\pm\) 2.07 a \\ \hline C-B & 78.95 \(\pm\) 4.19 B & 71.05 \(\pm\) 9.01 a & 71.05 \(\pm\) 9.01 a & 68.42 \(\pm\) 6.29 a \\ \hline C-C & 88.39 \(\pm\) 3.75 A & 87.10 \(\pm\) 4.38 a & 85.16 \(\pm\) 2.75 a & 85.16 \(\pm\) 2.75 a \\ \hline Ba-A & 68.85 \(\pm\) 5.86 D & 65.57 \(\pm\) 1.06 a & 63.93 \(\pm\) 1.37 a & 63.93 \(\pm\) 1.37 a \\ \hline Ba-B & 80.00 \(\pm\) 7.65 B & 72.50 \(\pm\) 2.06 a & 72.50 \(\pm\) 2.06 a & 72.50 \(\pm\) 2.06 a \\ \hline F-A & 69.62 \(\pm\) 8.42 C & 70.89 \(\pm\) 5.80 a & 70.89 \(\pm\) 5.80 a & 69.62 \(\pm\) 5.28 a \\ \hline F-B & 70.59 \(\pm\) 7.70 D & 64.71 \(\pm\) 3.85 a & 61.76 \(\pm\) 4.41 a & 61.76 \(\pm\) 4.41 a \\ \hline Br-A & 75.76 \(\pm\) 5.48 BC & 72.73 \(\pm\) 6.41 a & 72.73 \(\pm\) 6.41 a & 71.21 \(\pm\) 5.65 a \\ \hline Br-B & 70.00 \(\pm\) 8.75 D & 62.50 \(\pm\) 2.15 a & 62.50 \(\pm\) 2.15 a & 62.50 \(\pm\) 2.15 a \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Code designations as in Table 1. Different letters A, B, C... in columns show the statistical difference (\(p<0.05\)) related to the impact of the heating group, while a inverse the impact of storage time.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Yield of chicken breast fillet samples.