## 3 Results and Discussion
### Chemical Composition
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Roasted** & **Grilled** & **Fried** & **Microwaved** & **SEM** & **T** & **FxT** \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Moisture (\%)**} & & & & & & \\ \hline Chestnut & 58.24 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 60.89 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 54.58 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 53.41 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.903 & ** & ns \\ Commercial feed & 60.50 & 62.46 & 59.45 & 58.96 & 0.542 & ns & ns \\ SEM & 0.828 & 0.730 & 1.145 & 1.260 & & & \\ F & ns & ns & * & * & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Intramuscular**} & & & & & & \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Fat (\%)**} & & & & & & \\ \hline Chestnut & 6.08 & 4.22 & 6.82 & 7.69 & 0.524 & ns & ns \\ Commercial feed & 2.67 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.68 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.07 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 2.83 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.904 & ** & ns \\ SEM & 0.785 & 0.360 & 0.516 & 0.971 & & & \\ F & * & * & ** & ** & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Protein (\%)**} & & & & & & \\ \hline Chestnut & 32.92 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 32.06 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 36.33 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 36.07 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.580 & ** & ns \\ Commercial feed & 34.14 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 32.40 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 34.00 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 35.99 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.447 & * & ns \\ SEM & 0.548 & 0.566 & 0.752 & 0.528 & & & \\ F & ns & ns & ns & ns & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Ash (\%)**} & & & & & & \\ \hline Chestnut & 1.66 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.59 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.79 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.63 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.026 & * & ns \\ Commercial feed & 1.83 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 1.61 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.75 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 1.70 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 0.026 & * & ns \\ SEM & 0.039 & 0.019 & 0.032 & 0.036 & & & \\ F & * & ns & ns & ns & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{SEM: Standard error of the mean. F: significantly different values as influenced by feeding: * (\(P<0.05\)); ** (\(P<0.01\)): *** (\(P<0.01\)): *** (\(P<0.01\)): *** (\(P<0.05\)) varied among the treatments. As occurs in CH} \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{* (\(P<0.05\)); ** (\(P<0.01\)); *** (\(P<0.001\)): ns: no significant difference. *\({}^{\infty}\) Means within the same row not followed by the same letter differ significantly (influence of cooking method) (\(P<0.05\)).} & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Effects of the inclusion of chestnut in the finishing diet and of cooking methods on chemical composition of Celta pig Biceps femoris muscle. the percentage of moisture was the same for diets, displaying the lowest values in the microwave cooking (53.41 and 58.96% for CH and CF, respectively) and the highest percentages in the grilled treatment (60.89% for CH and 62.46% for CF). This fact is due to microwaved samples presenting the highest cooking losses, while grilled showed the lowest cooking loss values. The same behaviour was reported by other authors, who found in foal meat that the samples treated with a microwave had significantly higher cooking loss values [14; 15; 16]. The same authors also reported that grilled samples had the lowest cooking losses, while the other treatments (fried and roasted) presented intermediate values. Nevertheless, the meat with the highest moisture content obtained the lowest percentages for the protein and ash. In this way, the grilled samples displayed a percentage of protein of 32.06 and 32.40% for CH and CF, respectively, and an ash content value of 1.59% for CH and of 1.61% for CF samples. On its behalf, microwaved samples, which showed a lower moisture value, displayed the highest content of protein from CF slices (35.99%) and the second highest percentage in case of CF slices (36.07%). This fact could be due to the effect of the concentration of the compounds because of water loss. Finally, the ash content was higher in fried samples (1.79%) for CH pigs and roasted (1.83%) for CF pigs.