## 3 Results
### Microbiology  
The effect of high hydrostatic pressure treatment on the total viable anaerobic microbial count of the Large White swine and wild boar samples is shown in Figure 6.  
The preservative treatment performed at 200 MPa was able to reduce the total number of anaerobic microorganisms by two orders of magnitude, while the 300 MPa treatment resulted in a reduction of three orders of magnitude. The number of colony-forming units reached a \(10^{9}\) magnitude at the end of the experiment in the case of pork and a \(10^{8}\) magnitude in the game meat.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & & **Hardness (N)** & **Cohesiveness (-)** & **Springiness (mm)** & **Chewiness (mJ)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Day 14} & 0 MPa & 26.98 \(\pm\) 0.81\({}_{\rm a}\) & 0.71 \(\pm\) 0.02\({}_{\rm a}\) & 0.51 \(\pm\) 0.024\({}_{\rm a}\) & 9.59 \(\pm\) 0.38\({}_{\rm a}\) \\  & 150 MPa & 26.74 \(\pm\) 0.68\({}_{\rm a}\) & 0.65 \(\pm\) 0.018\({}_{\rm a}\) & 0.56 \(\pm\) 0.021\({}_{\rm a}\) & 9.69 \(\pm\) 0.36\({}_{\rm a}\) \\  & 200 MPa & 26.59 \(\pm\) 0.71\({}_{\rm a}\) & 0.6 \(\pm\) 0.022\({}_{\rm a}\) & 0.66 \(\pm\) 0.026\({}_{\rm a}\) & 9.01 \(\pm\) 0.35\({}_{\rm b}\) \\  & 250 MPa & 27.03 \(\pm\) 0.65\({}_{\rm a}\) & 0.73 \(\pm\) 0.024\({}_{\rm a}\) & 0.58 \(\pm\) 0.018\({}_{\rm a}\) & 9.32 \(\pm\) 0.42\({}_{\rm a}\) \\  & 300 MPa & 27.49 \(\pm\) 0.87\({}_{\rm a}\) & 0.8 \(\pm\) 0.026\({}_{\rm a}\) & 0.67 \(\pm\) 0.019\({}_{\rm a}\) & 9.74 \(\pm\) 0.44\({}_{\rm a}\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Day 21} & 0 MPa & 26.89 \(\pm\) 0.62\({}_{\rm a}\) & 0.74 \(\pm\) 0.034\({}_{\rm a}\) & 0.53 \(\pm\) 0.021\({}_{\rm a}\) & 9.66 \(\pm\) 0.34\({}_{\rm a}\) \\  & 150 MPa & 26.32 \(\pm\) 0.53\({}_{\rm a}\) & 0.69 \(\pm\) 0.031\({}_{\rm a}\) & 0.61 \(\pm\) 0.024\({}_{\rm a}\) & 9.75 \(\pm\) 0.38\({}_{\rm a}\) \\  & 200 MPa & 26.55 \(\pm\) 0.76\({}_{\rm a}\) & 0.65 \(\pm\) 0.028\({}_{\rm a}\) & 0.63 \(\pm\) 0.027\({}_{\rm a}\) & 9.46 \(\pm\) 0.32\({}_{\rm a}\) \\  & 250 MPa & 27.48 \(\pm\) 0.87\({}_{\rm a}\) & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.029\({}_{\rm a}\) & 0.57 \(\pm\) 0.019\({}_{\rm a}\) & 9.3 \(\pm\) 0.43\({}_{\rm a}\) \\  & 300 MPa & 27.87 \(\pm\) 0.67\({}_{\rm a}\) & 0.84 \(\pm\) 0.025\({}_{\rm a}\) & 0.67 \(\pm\) 0.025\({}_{\rm a}\) & 9.81 \(\pm\) 0.39\({}_{\rm a}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: _Cont._  
Figure 6: _Cont._  
The effect of high hydrostatic pressure treatment on the Enterobacteriaceae count of the Large White swine and wild boar samples is shown in Tables 9 and 10.  
The 200 MPa hydrostatic pressure could reduce the count by an order of magnitude in the case of both samples. Meats not treated with HHP resulted in a \(10^{3}\)-magnitude reduction regarding Enterobacteriaceae. The number of colony-forming units in the case of the preserved samples did not exceed 50/g.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Wild Boar**} \\ \hline  & **Day 0** & **Day 7** & **Day 14** & **Day 21** \\ \hline
0 MPa & 20 & 35 & 230 & 810 \\
150 MPa & 12 & 25 & 34 & 40 \\
200 MPa & 8 & 11 & 15 & 24 \\
250 MPa & 7 & 6 & 7 & 21 \\
300 MPa & 5 & 3 & 6 & 17 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 10: The effect of high hydrostatic pressure treatment on the Enterobacteriaceae count of wild boar samples.  
Figure 6: The effect of high hydrostatic pressure treatment on the total viable anaerobic microbial count of the Large White swine and wild boar samples. (**a**) Large White swine. (**b**) Wild boar.