## 4 Results and Overview
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Poultry Pates**} \\ \hline  & **Group I** & **Group II** & **Group III** & **Group IV** \\ \hline pH & 6.42 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 6.40 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 6.41 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 6.40 \(\pm\) 0.01 \\ \hline Cooking yield (\%) & 90.03 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 4.24 & 93.29 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 3.20 & 92.52 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 2.44 & 93.58 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 3.35 \\ \hline Colour cross-section: & & & & \\ L*—lightness & 65.75 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 2.35 & 67.10 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 2.43 & 69.19 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 2.00 & 68.09 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 3.49 \\ a*—redness & 3.99 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.22 & 3.05 \(\pm\) 0.20 & 2.58 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.51 & 2.64 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.13 \\ b*—yellowness & 15.03 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.68 & 17.18 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.73 & 16.96 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 1.12 & 17.20 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.58 \\ \hline Texture parameters: & & & & \\ Warner–Bratzler shear & 6.58 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 1.15 & 8.16 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.27 & 10.30 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.66 & 9.10 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.56 \\ \hline Texture profile analysis & & & & \\ (TPA): & & & & \\ Hardness (N) & 4.18 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.98 & 5.30 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.78 & 6.90 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.96 & 5.36 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.86 \\ Springiness (mm) & 1.50 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.52 & 1.62 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.48 & 2.12 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.50 & 1.80 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.44 \\ Gumminess & 1.01 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.46 & 1.48 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.42 & 1.68 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\)0.56 & 1.55 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.58 \\ Chewiness (mJ) & 1.51 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.52 & 2.30 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.48 & 3.50 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.50 & 2.79 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.73 \\ \hline Total number of & & & & \\ bacteria (log cfu/g) & 2.35 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.39 & 1.91 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.20 & 1.96 \(\pm\) 0.19 & 1.88 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.19 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Explanations: Group I—wheat roll 24%; group II—hemp seeds 8%, amaranth 10%, golden flaxseed 6%; group III—hemp seeds 8%, amaranth 6%, golden flaxseed 10%; Group IV—hemp seeds, amaranth, golden flaxseed each in 8%; \({}^{\text{a}}\)\({}^{\text{b}}\)\({}^{\text{b}}\)\({}^{\text{b}}\)\({}^{\text{b}}\)\({}^{\text{c}}\)—values in rows with different letters differ significantly, \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Effect of the addition of hemp seeds, amaranth and golden flaxseed on the physical characteristics and total number of bacteria of poultry patés (\(\pi\pm\) s). towards yellow. Lower (\(p<0.05\)) saturation of the red colour compared to the control group was noted in group III with a share of 10% of flax, 6% of amaranth and 8% of hep seeds, and in group IV with 8% of all the seed additives (Table 2). Similar results of an increase in the brightness and saturation of the yellow colour and reduction of the red colour saturation of beef cutlets with the addition of 5% golden flaxseed seeds and 5% of flaxseed flour were obtained by [PERSON] et al. [11]. The addition of golden flaxseeds and by-products from these seeds were obtained earlier in studies by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [32]. Colour changes resulting from the fact that the flavonoids present in flaxseeds react with proteins [34] to form active pro-oxidative isomers, which result in the oxidation of myoglobin or metmyoglobin [35]. In a study by [PERSON] et al. [13], the colour parameters of pork gates changed depending on the hepp ingredient used. The addition of hulled hepp seeds did not significantly affect the brightness (L*) of the final product or its degree of saturation towards yellow, but it had an influence on the degree of saturation of the colour towards red (a*). In the work by [PERSON] et al. [19], the colour of the content of earned meat was assessed after adding ground raw and expanded amaranth seeds.