## 3 Results and Discussion
### Colour Parameters
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Roasted** & **Grilled** & **Fried** & **Microwaved** & **SEM** & **T** & **FXT** \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{l}{**Color parameters**} \\ \hline
**Lightness (L*)** & & & & & & \\ \hline Chestnut & 49.97 b  & 51.13 b  & 34.89 a  & 51.22 b  & 1.663 & *** & ns \\ Commercial feed & 49.25 b  & 52.32 b  & 40.96 a  & 51.33 b  & 1.125 & *** & ns \\ SEM & 1.113 & 0.824 & 1.611 & 0.981 & & & \\ F & ns & ns & ns & ns & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{l}{**Redness (a*)**} \\ \hline Chestnut & 7.15 b  & 6.31 a,b  & 9.34 c  & 5.89 a  & 0.333 & *** & ns \\ Commercial feed & 7.52 a  & 6.39 a  & 10.32 b  & 6.34 a  & 0.404 & *** & ns \\ SEM & 0.298 & 0.260 & 0.416 & 0.224 & & & \\ F & ns & ns & ns & ns & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{l}{**Yellowness (b*)**} \\ \hline Chestnut & 18.95 & 17.54 & 15.81 & 16.87 & 0.460 & ns & * \\ Commercial feed & 18.63 b,c  & 17.53 a,b  & 19.63 c  & 17.40 a  & 0.263 & ** & \\ SEM & 0.242 & 0.175 & 0.924 & 0.431 & & & \\ F & ns & ns & * & ns & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{l}{**Water holding capacity**} \\ \hline
**Cooking loss (%)** & & & & & & \\ \hline Chestnut & 39.34 b  & 35.90 a  & 42.93 c  & 45.43 c  & 0.911 & *** & ns \\ Commercial feed & 35.02 a  & 33.46 a  & 37.55 a,b  & 40.66 b  & 0.973 & * & ns \\ SEM & 1.048 & 1.235 & 1.364 & 0.981 & & & \\ F & * & ns & * & ** & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{l}{**Textural parameters**} \\ \hline
**Shear force (N)** & & & & & \\ \hline Chestnut & 73.95 & 73.50 & 81.18 & 77.09 & 2.893 & ns & ns \\ Commercial feed & 86.92 & 71.43 & 80.90 & 77.57 & 3.672 & ns & \\ SEM & 5.816 & 3.892 & 5.892 & 2.044 & & & \\ F & ns & ns & ns & ns & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{l}{In relation to the value of redness (a*), there was a decrease in this parameter in all culinary treatments with respect to uncooked _Biceps femoris_ muscle, where an a* value of 18.1 was found [33]. More specifically, frying was the method that provided the highest value for both diets (9.34 for CH and 10.32 for CF slices) followed by roasted (7.15 and 7.52 for CH and CF slices, respectively), grilled (6.31 for CH and 6.39 for CF samples) and microwaved (5.89 and 6.34 for CH and CF samples, respectively). In general terms, these facts agree with those obtained by others who observed that cooking increased the L* value while generating a loss of redness (a*) in foal [34] and beef meat [35]. More concretely, [PERSON] et al. [34] observed a similar trend to our study, since they reported a lower L* value for fried foal meat with respect to roasted, grilled or microwaved samples. Simultaneously, [PERSON] et al. [34] obtained the highest a* values for fried foal meat, while the lowest were for microwaved meat, as in our work. Finally, the value of yellowness (b*) increased with the cooking treatments (15.8-19.6), in comparison with the raw _Biceps femoris_ muscle (13.1) [33]. In this case, only the CH pigs showed significant differences among cooking treatments. The highest values were obtained for roasted (18.95) and grilled (17.54), being the lowest for frying (15.81). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Roasted** & **Grilled** & **Fried** & **Microwaved** & **SEM** & **T** & **FXT** \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{l}{**Color parameters**} \\ \hline
**Lightness (L*)** & & & & \\ \hline Chestnut & 49.97 b  & 51.13 b  & 34.89 a  & 51.22 b  & 1.663 & *** & ns \\ Commercial feed & 49.25 b  & 52.32 b  & 40.96 a  & 51.33 b  & 1.125 & *** & ns \\ SEM & 1.113 & 0.824 & 1.611 & 0.981 & & & \\ F & ns & ns & ns & ns & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{l}{**Redness (a*)**} \\ \hline Chestnut & 7.15 b  & 6.31 a,b  & 9.34 c [FONOTE:c]Footnote b: footnotemark: [ENDFOOTNOTE] & 5.89 a  & 0.333 & *** & ns \\ Commercial feed & 7.52 a  & 6.39 a  & 10.32 b  & 6.34 a  & 0.404 & *** & ns \\ SEM & 0.298 & 0.260 & 0.416 & 0.224 & & & \\ F & ns & ns & ns & ns & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{l}{**Yellowness (b*)**} \\ \hline Chestnut & 18.9