## 3 Results
### Fatty Acid Profile and Lipid Quality Indicators
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Day** & **P1** & **P2** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**F1 vs. P2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Day 1 vs. Day 10**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Interaction**} \\ \cline{5-10}  & **P1** & **P2** & **F-Value** & **\(p\)-Value** & **F-Value** & **\(p\)-Value** & **F-Value** & **\(p\)-Value** \\ \hline TBARS & 1 & \(0.57\pm 0.05\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & \(0.51\pm 0.02\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & & & & & \\
[mg MDA kg\({}^{-1}\)] & 10 & \(0.91\pm 0.13\)\({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & \(0.76\pm 0.07\)\({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 1.22 & 0.274 & 147.8 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.98 & 0.326 \\ \hline Total heme pigments & 1 & \(84.25\pm 6.43\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & \(82.82\pm 8.85\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & & & & & \\
[mg kg\({}^{-1}\)] & 10 & \(83.84\pm 9.69\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & \(86.43\pm 10.55\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & & & & & \\ \hline pH & 1 & \(6.14\pm 0.11\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & \(5.95\pm 0.12\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(a_{w}\)} & 10 & \(6.23\pm 0.09\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & \(6.14\pm 0.17\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(a_{w}\)} & 1 & \(0.979\pm 0.004\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & \(0.987\pm 0.007\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & 10 & \(0.992\pm 0.005\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & \(0.998\pm 0.005\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{L\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\)} & 1 & \(48.97\pm 3.55\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & \(46.95\pm 4.83\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & 10 & \(46.21\pm 3.88\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & \(48.05\pm 3.68\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{a\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\)} & 1 & \(7.89\pm 1.09\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & \(7.79\pm 2.43\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & 10 & \(7.41\pm 2.82\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & \(6.56\pm 2.87\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{b\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\)} & 1 & \(11.13\pm 1.49\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & \(9.92\pm 1.77\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & 10 & \(10.05\pm 1.48\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & \(10.42\pm 3.00\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(h^{\mathrm{a}}\)} & 1 & \(13.69\pm 1.37\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & \(12.74\pm 2.38\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & 10 & \(12.59\pm 2.70\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & \(12.41\pm 3.82\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{C\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\)} & 1 & \(54.51\pm 5.19\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & \(52.25\pm 8.30\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & 10 & \(54.72\pm 7.20\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & \(58.12\pm 7.71\)\({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* P1—control sample; P2—sample supplemented with wild garlic. \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{b}}\) Values with different letters are significantly different at \(p\leq 0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Basic technological parameters of turkey thigh muscles. garlic (P2) were determined by a significantly higher sum of PUFAs than muscles from P1. As far as PUFA is concerned, the highest proportion was recorded for C18:2 n\(-\)6 (average 23.160-28.479%), C22:2 n\(-\)6 (average 0.235-0.140%), and C22:6 n\(-\)3 (average 0.163-0.085%). This muscles obtained from birds supplemented with wild garlic were characterized by a significantly higher proportion of C18:2 n-6 compared to the muscles from the control group. Considering the value of lipid indicators in the turkey thigh muscle, there was a significant effect of feeding on n\(-\)6/n\(-\)3, UFA/SFA, PUFA/SFA, atherogenicity index (AI), and thrombogenicity index (TI). The samples from group P2 were characterized by significantly higher values of n\(-\)6/n\(-\)3, UFA/SFA, and PUFA/SFA, as well as lower AI and TI lipid quality indicators compared to samples from group P1.