## 3 Results and Discussion
### Oxidative Stability of Groin, Jovl, and Trimming Shoulder Fats
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Oxidation Induction Time (min)**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **100**\({}^{\circ}\)C & **120**\({}^{\circ}\)C & **140**\({}^{\circ}\)C \\ \hline GF\_L & 108.46 \(\pm\) 1.03 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 25.24 \(\pm\) 0.89 \({}^{\mathrm{e}}\) & 6.06 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) \\ \hline GF\_D & 108.56 \(\pm\) 2.07 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 25.59 \(\pm\) 1.13 \({}^{\mathrm{e}}\) & 5.92 \(\pm\) 1.28 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) \\ \hline JF\_L & 89.05 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 21.76 \(\pm\) 1.42 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 4.04 \(\pm\) 0.47 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ \hline JF\_D & 91.65 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 20.70 \(\pm\) 0.76 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 5.29 \(\pm\) 0.29 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ \hline TSF\_L & 103.70 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) & 23.63 \(\pm\) 0.51 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 5.92 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) \\ \hline TSF\_D & 91.49 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 23.01 \(\pm\) 0.95 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) & 5.31 \(\pm\) 0.63 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ \hline \hline GF\_L—groin fat (liquid feed); GF\_D—groin fat (dry feed); JF\_L—jowl fat (liquid feed); JF\_D—jowl fat (dry feed); TSF\_L—trimming shoulder fat (liquid feed); TSF\_D—trimming shoulder fat (dry feed). Values represent means \(\pm\) standard deviations. Data denoted by the same lowercase letters are not statistically different (\(\alpha\) = 0.05) in terms of oxidative stability at a certain temperature. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Induction time of pork fat oxidation at 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 120 \({}^{\circ}\)C, and 140 \({}^{\circ}\)C.  
and trimming shoulder at all three test temperatures. However, in groin fat, no statistically significant differences were found in the induction time of fat oxidation. Comparing the oxidation induction time, it can be concluded that the pork fat extracted from groin was characterized by the best oxidative stability, which could be influenced by the highest SFA content, while the jowl fat, with the lowest SFA content, was the least oxidatively stable. In the case of trimming shoulder fat at all three test temperatures (100 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 120 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 140 \({}^{\circ}\)C), the fats of pigs fed a liquid diet presented better oxidative stability than the fats of dry-fed pigs. In the context of the obtained results, the oxidation is a complex reaction which results in many new products. Hydroperoxides, the quite unstable primary oxidation compounds, are formed during the induction period in the earlier stages of oxidative degradation [35; 36]. In the advanced stages of oxidation, they can be easily transformed to secondary oxidation products. These secondary products--originating from rearrangements in monomeric products; from decomposition into lower-mass products, such as aldehydes, alcohols, and hydrocarbons; or from polymerization (dimers and oligomers) [37; 38]--can be formed at different temperatures and can affect the oxidative stability of fats. Moreover, oxidative stability is significantly influenced by the presence of pro- and antioxidant substances in the diet. There is still a need to conduct more detailed studies on topics including the influence of the above-mentioned aspects on the oxidative stability of groin, jowl, and trimming shoulder fats.