# Changes in Water Holding Capacity and Shear Force in Fallow Deer Muscles during Ageing
## 3 Results
### Similarities between LTL and SM Muscles Aged for Different Times  
A cluster analysis showed similarities between LTL muscles aged for 288 h and 168 h and SM aged for 288 h (Figure 4). This suggests that SM muscles might acquire a similar quality (hydration properties, WBSF, cooking losses) to LTL if an appropriate ageing time is applied. On the other hand, LTL muscle aged only for 48 h was similar to SM ageing for 48 h and 168 h. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Attribute** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Muscle (M)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Ageing (A)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(p\)**-Value**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **SM** & **LTL** & **48 h** & **168 h** & **288 h** & **M** & **A** & **M \(\times\) A** \\ \hline Cooking loss & 13.21 \({}^{\circ}\)(0.67) & 12.72 \({}^{\circ}\)(0.42) & 11.43 \({}^{\circ}\)(0.43) & 13.52 \({}^{\circ}\)(0.63) & 14.88 \({}^{\circ}\)(0.63) & NS & ** & NS \\ Cooking loss & 28.27 \({}^{\circ}\)(0.96) & 29.21 \({}^{\circ}\)(0.44) & 29.97 \({}^{\circ}\)(0.50) & 27.73 \({}^{\circ}\)(1.18) & 27.78 \({}^{\circ}\)(1.16) & NS & NS & NS \\ Cooking loss & 37.46 \({}^{\circ}\)(1.26) & 37.27 \({}^{\circ}\)(1.20) & 33.13 \({}^{\circ}\)(0.69) & 39.27 \({}^{\circ}\)(1.41) & 42.24 \({}^{\circ}\)(0.86) & NS & ** & NS \\ Cooking loss & 39.51 \({}^{\circ}\)(1.12) & 40.50 \({}^{\circ}\)(1.11) & 36.40 \({}^{\circ}\)(0.77) & 41.12 \({}^{\circ}\)(1.15) & 44.66 \({}^{\circ}\)(0.92) & NS & *** & NS \\ Volume loss & 36.73 \({}^{\circ}\)(1.17) & 37.57 \({}^{\circ}\)(0.92) & 36.30 \({}^{\circ}\)(1.05) & 36.50 \({}^{\circ}\)(1.61) & 39.18 \({}^{\circ}\)(1.19) & NS & NS & NS \\ Volume loss & 37.75 \({}^{\circ}\)(0.87) & 40.00 \({}^{\circ}\)(1.12) & 38.42 \({}^{\circ}\)(1.15) & 37.80 \({}^{\circ}\)(1.28) & 40.68 \({}^{\circ}\)(1.29) & NS & NS & NS \\ WBSF cooked (N) & 49.42 \({}^{\circ}\)(2.33) & 34.56 \({}^{\circ}\)(2.39) & 48.28 \({}^{\circ}\)(2.53) & 41.29 \({}^{\circ}\)(4.32) & 32.62 \({}^{\circ}\)(2.73) & *** & ** & ** \\ WBSF roasted (N) & 49.80 \({}^{\circ}\)(2.10) & 33.62 \({}^{\circ}\)(2.61) & 49.82 \({}^{\circ}\)(2.49) & 40.56 \({}^{\circ}\)(3.70) & 29.89 \({}^{\circ}\)(2.60) & *** & *** & NS \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* SM—_animembrauss_ muscle; LTL—_longisimus thurachs et lumbram_ muscle; \({}^{\circ,\text{a,b}}\)—mean values with a common letter do not differ significantly between muscles; \({}^{\circ,\text{c,c,e}}\)—mean values with different letters differ significantly between ageing times; NS—non-significant differences; ** a difference significant at \(p<0.01\); *** a difference significant at \(p<0.001\).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: The effect of muscle and ageing on cooking and volume losses and Warner–Bratzler shear force (WBSF) in cooked and roasted fallow deer meat (mean values and standard error of the mean in brackets). Figure 4: Similarities between _semimembranosus_ (SM) and _longissimus thoracis et lumbarum_ (LTL) fallow deer muscles aged for a different time from 48 h to 288 h.  
Figure 3: Warner–Bratzler shear force (WBSF) in cooked and roasted _semimembranosus_ (SM) and _longissimus thoracis et lumbarum_ (LTL) muscles aged for 48 h, 168 h, and 288 h (a–d—mean values with different letters differ significantly at \(p<0.05\) in cooked muscles; u–z—mean values with different letters differ significantly at \(p<0.05\) in roasted muscles; vertical bars refer to the standard error of the mean).