## 3 Results and Discussion
### Fatty Acid Composition and Nutritional Indices
\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{4-5}  & **HF0** & **HF4** & **HF6** & \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Fatty acid} \\ \hline C10:0 & 0.10 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.09 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.09 \(\pm\) 0.01 & NS \\ C12:0 & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 0.25 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.21 \(\pm\) 0.06 & NS \\ C14:0 & 2.05 \(\pm\) 0.25 & 2.08 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 2.10 \(\pm\) 0.26 & NS \\ C14:1 & 0.39 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 0.42 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.12 & NS \\ C15:0 & 0.37 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 0.36 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.41 \(\pm\) 0.09 & NS \\ C15:1 & 0.17 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 0.17 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.17 \(\pm\) 0.04 & NS \\ C16:0 & 23.57 \(\pm\) 0.40 & 23.77 \(\pm\) 0.48 & 23.76 \(\pm\) 0.61 & NS \\ C16:1 & 2.20 \(\pm\) 0.21 & 2.43 \(\pm\) 0.18 & 2.27 \(\pm\) 0.08 & NS \\ C17:0 & 0.92 \(\pm\) 0.23 & 0.90 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 0.96 \(\pm\) 0.17 & NS \\ C17:1 & 0.46 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.49 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.47 \(\pm\) 0.03 & NS \\ C18:0 & 18.10 \(\pm\) 2.38 & 17.29 \(\pm\) 1.12 & 18.49 \(\pm\) 1.37 & NS \\ C18:1 _trans_ & 0.69 \(\pm\) 0.20 & 0.66 \(\pm\) 0.16 & 0.62 \(\pm\) 0.23 & NS \\ C18:1 _cis-9_ & 38.29 \(\pm\) 2.16 & 39.28 \(\pm\) 0.46 & 38.90 \(\pm\) 1.15 & NS \\ C18:1 _trans-11_ (VA) & 0.16 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.17 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.15 \(\pm\) 0.03 & NS \\ C18:2 _n-6 trans_ & 0.17 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.15 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.13 \(\pm\) 0.02 & NS \\ C18:2 _n-6 cis_ & 7.88 \(\pm\) 1.41 & 7.69 \(\pm\) 1.30 & 7.40 \(\pm\) 1.35 & NS \\ C18:3 _n-6_ & 0.15 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.17 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.18 \(\pm\) 0.04 & NS \\ C18:3 _n-3_ & 0.64 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 0.60 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.64 \(\pm\) 0.05 & NS \\ C18:2 _cis-9 trans-11_ (CLA) & 0.36 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 0.31 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.32 \(\pm\) 0.07 & NS \\ C21:0 & 0.60 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 0.57 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.55 \(\pm\) 0.07 & NS \\ C20:2 & 0.41 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.36 \(\pm\) 0.07 & NS \\ C20:3 _n-6_ & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.19 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.16 \(\pm\) 0.03 & \(\star\) \\ C20:4 _n-6_ & 0.56 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.49 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.42 \(\pm\) 0.09 & \(\star\) \\ C20:3 _n-3_ & 0.15 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.13 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.12 \(\pm\) 0.03 & NS \\ C22:0 & 0.16 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.12 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.10 \The Atherogenicity Index (AI) indicates the relationship between saturated fatty acids (SFA), such as lauric (C12:0), myristic (C14:0), and palmitic acid (C16:0), which are known to potentially promote atherosclerosis, and unsaturated fatty acids (UFA), recognised for their anti-atherogenic properties as they inhibit plaque formation and reduce levels of phospholipids, cholesterol, and esterified fatty acids. The Thrombogenicity Index (TI) assesses the clot-forming potential of fatty acids in blood vessels. Maintaining low values for both indices, preferably below 3 [56], is considered beneficial for human health. In the present study, the values for both the AI and TI remained below the recommended threshold and within the reported levels for beef [57], but they were lower than the reported levels for pork meat [58]. No significant differences (\(p>0.05\)) were observed in the hypocholesterolemomic to hypercholesterolemia (h/H) ratio among samples from the various treatments. The h/H ratio is used to depict the relationship between hypocholesterolemomic and hypercholesterolemia fatty acids, with higher values being considered desirable. [PERSON] et al. [17] also noted that the inclusion of hemp flour had no impact on nutritional indices, such as AI, TI, and h/H, in pork meat loaves. In this study, the batter of the minced meat products comprised equal proportions of beef and pork meat, thus it would not be appropriate to evaluate the studied product's lipid quality by comparing it to similar products made solely from either beef or pork meat.