## 3 Results  
Table 2 shows the results of measurements of physicochemical properties of the gates. A significant (\(p\leq 0.01\)) effect of the product formula on pH and color parameters was found. The control gate (CON) had a significantly higher pH value compared to the product with roe (R) and fish meat (F). The CON gate showed significantly the lowest lightness, and the lowest proportion of yellowish and hue among all products, while the proportion of redness was significantly higher. Pate R was significantly the brightest, the most yellow, and its color was significantly more saturated. The lightness and saturation of the color of the F product was similar to that of the CON gate, but it was characterized by the lowest redness. The partial replacement of pork meat with roe (pate R) resulted in a higher total color difference (\(\Delta\)E = 3.59) than the addition of fish muscle tissue (pate F; \(\Delta\)E = 2.22) compared to the CON gate. The basic chemical composition, calorific value, and NQI of the analyzed gates are presented in Table 3. The differences in raw material composition significantly (\(p\leq 0.01\)) affected the determined lipid and moisture contents of the gates. The R and F products contained significantly less fat and significantly more water than the CON product. Replacing part of pork meat with fish products resulted in significantly (\(p\leq 0.01\)) lower calorific value of pate R (by 15%) and pate F (by 20%) compared to the CON product. The values of the Nutritional Quality Index (NQI) for protein and fat did not differ significantly between the evaluated products, although higher NQI values for protein and lower values for fat were found in pates with fish raw materials. \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Päte} \\
**CON** & **R** & **F** \\ \hline pH & 6.67 \({}^{\text{ }}\)\(\pm\) 0.01 & 6.43 \({}^{\text{ }}\)\(\pm\) 0.01 & 6.63 \({}^{\text{ }}\)\(\pm\) 0.01 \\ L\({}^{*}\) & 61.27 \({}^{\text{ }}\)\(\pm\) 0.53 & 63.94 \({}^{\text{ }}\)\(\pm\) 0.30 & 62.18 \({}^{\text{ }}\)\(\pm\) 0.88 \\ a\({}^{*}\) & 5.94 \({}^{\text{ }}\)\(\pm\) 0.13 & 4.97 \({}^{\text{ }}\)\(\pm\) 0.13 & 4.11 \({}^{\text{ }}\)\(\pm\) 0.33 \\ b\({}^{*}\) & 11.70 \({}^{\text{ }}\)\(\pm\) 0.15 & 14.07 \({}^{\text{ }}\)\(\pm\) 0.05 & 12.65 \({}^{\text{ }}\)\(\pm\) 0.10 \\ C\({}^{*}\) & 13.12 \({}^{\text{ }}\)\(\pm\) 0.19 & 14.92 \({}^{\text{ }}\)\(\pm\) 0.09 & 13.30 \({}^{\text{ }}\)\(\pm\) 0.18 \\ h\({}^{\circ}\) & 63.13 \({}^{\text{ }}\)\(\pm\) 0.21 & 70.63 \({}^{\text{ }}\)\(\pm\) 0.42 & 72.12 \({}^{\text{ }}\)\(\pm\) 1.24 \\ \(\Delta\)E (vs. CON) & \(-\) & 3.59 & 2.22 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  Mean values in rows with different letters differ statistically significantly: \Table 4 shows the effect of the addition of fish raw materials on the distinguishing features of the profiled texture analysis of the evaluated pates. The F product was significantly (\(p\leq 0.01\)) the toughest, most gummy, and most chewy of all the products. The lowest values of these parameters were recorded in the R pate, but they did not differ significantly from those recorded in the control pate. No significant differences between the tested products were found in the case of springiness, cohesiveness, and adhesiveness. Figure 1 shows the effect of the addition of fish raw materials on the results of the organoleptic assessment of pates. Statistical analysis has confirmed the significant differences between products only in terms of three traits. Pates from the control group differed significantly from F pates in terms of their typical scent notes, i.e., meat (6.72 pts vs. 2.73 pts, \(p\leq 0.05\)) and fish (0.02 pts vs. 4.35 pts, \(p\leq 0.01\)). Moreover, the panelists found no fish flavor in CON samples compared to pates with roe (1.78 pts) or fish meat (3.55 pts). The highest overall score for structure and consistency was given to CON pate (7.8 pts), while R and F products were rated lower (6.5 pts and 6.3 pts respectively).