n = number of samples; 2NS - not significant (p ≥0.05); *: Statistical significance at the level of p <0.05; **: Statistical significance at thelevel of p<0.01; ***: Statistical significance at the level of p<0.001; Content of SFA, MUFA, PUFA; a-cMeans within a row with differentsuperscripts differ (p<0.05).Total MUFA to SFA ratios of the MLLT differed significantly (p < 0.001), with a higher MUFA/SFA ratio for theMangalitsa pigs, compared to that of the SL pigs.Genotype significantly affected total SFA content in MLLT (p < 0.001), with SL producing higher levels thanMangalitsa pigs. The average value of SFA (43.37%) in SL pigs was higher than in WM and SBM pigs (Table 1).SL pigs showed higher PUFA content in MLLT than Mangalitsa pigs. These differences were mainly produced byhigher total n-6 PUFA content in MLLT of SL pigs (p < 0.001). However, SBM had a higher level of total n-3 PUFA(p < 0.001) than SL and WM pigs. These led to significantly lower n-6/n-3 ratios in MLLT of SBM pigs (p < 0.001).It is clear that the housing system and/or diet of Mangalitsa pigs can significantly affect this ratio. For example,Parunovićet al.3 found that the free-range Mangalitsa pigs showed a higher PUFA content in the MLLT than pigsreared indoors and fed conventionally. These differences were produced mainly by an almost four times higher totaln-3 PUFA content in the MLLT of the free-range pigs (p < 0.001), and also by slightly higher levels of total n-6
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..