## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Analysis of pH and Redox Potential  
The SL treatment, in which the _S. carnosus_ ATCC 51365 and _L. fermentum_ S8 were used for curing, was of the significantly (\(p<0.05\)) lowest pH (6.36) after production. The acidity of the C and M treatments was at a similar level (6.53-6.55) (Table 1). Similar differences between the treatments were found at four weeks of storage. Higher acidity of the SL treatment was most likely a result of meat saccharides fermentation caused by _L. fermentum_ S8 during the curing and production of lactic acid or other organic acids [13; 18; 23]. [PERSON] et al. [23] reported a decrease in the pH of cured raw sausages with _L. plantarum_ TN8 addition after five days of refrigerated storage (4 \({}^{\circ}\)C). After the first day of the storage of raw sausages, the authors showed no changes in pH, but the experimental model used did not assume heating the sausages, so the conditions for bacterial activity and acid production were different than in our experiment. Furthermore, different strains of lactic acid bacteria may have different rates of fermentation and acid production [13; 18]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Treatment** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Storage Time (Weeks)**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **0** & **4** & **8** \\ \hline pH & C & 6.53 \(\pm\)0.10 \({}^{\text{bB}}\) & 6.38 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{bA}}\) & 6.42 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{bAB}}\) \\  & M & 6.55 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{bB}}\) & 6.41 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{bA}}\) & 6.43 \(\pm\)0.08 \({}^{\text{bAB}}\) \\  & SL & 6.36 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{aB}}\) & 6.23 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{aA}}\) & 6.25\(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{aA}}\) \\ \hline redox (mV) & C & 235.2 \(\pm\) 5.1 \({}^{\text{aA}}\) & 253.3 \(\pm\) 3.9 \({}^{\text{aC}}\) & 246.5 \(\pm\) 6.2 \({}^{\text{aB}}\) \\  & M & 238.3 \(\pm\) 4.6 \({}^{\text{aA}}\) & 247.7 \(\pm\) 5.6 \({}^{\text{aB}}\) & 263.0 \(\pm\) 3.4 \({}^{\text{aC}}\) \\  & SL & 246.5 \(\pm\) 2.6 \({}^{\text{bA}}\) & 249.5 \(\pm\) 4.8 \({}^{\text{aB}}\) & 257.5 \(\pm\) 4.5 \({}^{\text{aA}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\text{aB}}\) Means within the same columns with different letters differ significantly (\(p<0.05\)); C\({}^{-}\)C contains within the same row with different letters differ significantly (\(p<0.05\)); C\({}^{-}\)control treatment with NaNO\({}_{2}\) in an amount of 100 mg/kg; M\({}^{-}\)treatment with NaNO\({}_{2}\) in an amount of 50 mg/kg; SL\({}^{-}\)treatment with NaNO\({}_{2}\) in an amount of 50 mg/kg and _L. fermentum_ S8 at about 10 \({}^{\text{c}}\) cfu/g and _S. carnosus_ ATCC 51365 at about 10\({}^{\text{c}}\) cfu/g.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Values of pH and oxidation-reduction potential (redox) of the model meat products (means \(\pm\) standard deviation). After four weeks of storage, a lower pH by 0.13 to 0.15 (\(p<0.05\)) was observed in all of the treatments (C, M, SL). After eight weeks of storage, the pH went slightly up by 0.2 to 0.4 units (Table 1). A similar decrease in the pH of the products during storage was reported by [PERSON] et al. [24] in cured pork pates and by [PERSON] et al. [25] in cured cooked pork sausage. The main factor that had an influence on pH decrease was the metabolic activity of environmental bacteria or LAB added to raw meat batter and CO2 production, which dissolves in the product after cooking and during storage, creating acid [24; 26]. A slight pH increase after eight weeks of storage could be the result of hydrolytic protein transformations that run in the heat treated product and microorganisms enzymes activity [27]. After production, the highest redox potential value (246.5 mV) was found in the SL treatment. The C and M treatments were of similar redox potential (235.2-238.3 mV). After four and eight weeks of storage, no significant differences were found in the redox potential between the variants (\(p>0.05\)). The dynamic of changes in the redox potential of the experimental treatments during storage was diverse.