## 3 Results and Discussion
### Sensory Evaluation  
The taste panel evaluation results for visible and olfactory traits are depicted in Figure 3. For raw mined meat products, no significant differences (\(p>0.05\)) were observed in any of the examined characteristics, although the samples from treatments HF4 and  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Treatment**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Significance**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-4}  & **HF0** & & **HF4** & **HF6** \\ \hline Cooking loss & 24.14 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 3.86 & 23.21 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 1.61 & 32.76 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.93 & *** \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{Texture profile} \\ \hline Hardness (N) & 25.81 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.02 & 38.86 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 5.95 & 34.97 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 5.66 & *** \\ Springiness & 0.73 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.65 \(\pm\) 0.19 & 0.67 \(\pm\) 0.16 & NS \\ Cohesiveness & 0.42 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.37 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.04 & * \\ Gumminess (N) & 10.80 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.26 & 15.18 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 4.79 & 13.03 \(\pm\) 3.31 & * \\ Chewiness (N) & 7.92 \(\pm\) 0.24 & 10.72 \(\pm\) 5.99 & 9.21 \(\pm\) 4.27 & NS \\ \hline NS = Non-significant; * = \(p<0.05\); *** = \(p<0.001\); Superscripts a and b differ at \(p<0.05\). & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 11: Cooking loss and texture profile of cooked minced meat products (mean values \(\pm\) SD).  
HF6 scored higher compared to the control samples (HF0). Except in regard to colour, the samples from all treatments scored above the acceptability limit (score = 4) for all the examined traits. Colour exceeded the acceptability limit for the treated samples (HF4 and HF6) and was lower for the control samples (HF0). With regard to the raw products, [PERSON] et al. [19] reported lower scores for appearance and colour but similar odour scores for pork patties with hempseed cake compared to the control ones. Similarly, for cooked samples, the addition of hemp flour did not significantly (\(p>0.05\)) affect the examined traits. [PERSON] et al. [18] reported higher colour intensity but lower colour uniformity values in cooked meat balls containing hemp cake in relation to the control samples. [PERSON] et al. [17] found that pork loaves with hemp flour scored lower in appearance in relation to control samples. The sensory evaluation results suggest that the addition of hemp flour and the subsequent differences in the overall appearance did not negatively affect consumer expectations for the products. The results of the sensory evaluation in relation to the results of instrumental colour measurement corroborate the opinion held by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [77] that there is a gap in understanding consumer perceptions of meat products when nitrite or nitrate is reduced or substituted with alternative ingredients. However, [PERSON] et al. [17] reported a significant increase in consumers' willingness to buy pork meat loaves after being informed about the presence of a healthy ingredient, despite low scores for sensory characteristics. The overall sensory evaluation of the samples shows that the incorporation of hemp flour into familiar products such as minced meat products would increase consumer acceptance, despite the impact of the greenish-brown colour of hemp flour [78] and the noticeable different colour of the cooked products (total colour difference values (\(\Delta E_{\text{Lab}}\)) > 10) (Figure 2) [79]. [PERSON] et al. [79] estimated that meat colour difference could be around a \(\Delta E_{\text{Lab}}\) value in the range of 2-6 for the human eye.  
Figure 3: Taste panel scores for raw (**a**) and cooked (**b**) minced meat products.