## 3 Results and Discussion
### Effect of Breed and Finishing Diet on Fatty Acids Profile
These results could be considered more favorable in comparison with those obtained in previous studies [13; 18; 20; 30; 31] (3.70-15.56). In contrast, other authors obtained lower values than ours from GM, GM \(\times\) HB or GM \(\times\) BU foals [7; 9; 33; 43]. However, it is worth mentioning that outcomes derived by the \(n\)-6/\(n\)-3 ratio should not be considered alone. Concerning the PUFA/SFA ratio, in line with aforementioned data, JN had a greater ratio than BU (0.47 _vs._ 0.40, respectively), complying with recommendations for this ratio (>0.4) [48]. Nonetheless, these outcomes are slightly below those found in literature [46] (0.48-1.15). On the other hand, statistical analysis indicated that TI, AI and h/H indices were unaffected by breed, with results reporting similar values in both breeds (a mean of 0.88, 0.74 and 1.51, respectively). According to the recommendations, TI and AI indices should be as low as possible [41], while h/H should be high [42]. Our outcomes are in agreement with the range of values observed in previous studies [7; 20; 34; 45; 49], 0.47-1.39 for TI, 0.50-1.00 for AI, and 1.09-2.26 for h/H. Thus, considering our outcomes, JN groups suggested to produce a meat with a healthy fatty acids profile. The distinct fatty acid distribution in intramuscular fat from BU and JN foals could be related to various factors. Among them, a hypothesis could be that these breeds have different endogenous enzymatic activities (desaturase and elongase enzymes) [48]. Another possible explanation could be related with the de novo synthesis of fatty acids, which are correlated with the fat deposition. This phenomenon determines that the high fat deposition can be due to a higher de novo synthesis, which is characterized by the synthesis of both SFA or MUFA, while samples with low fat contents imply higher direct deposition of fatty acids from the diet (in this case, PUFAs). This fact agrees with our results and explains the differences between both foal breeds, since BU presenting higher MUFA also had the highest amount of fat (5.01%; data not shown), while JN with higher PUFAs content had the lowest amounts of fat (3.79%; data not shown). In addition, the lipid profile displayed to be highly affected by the type of finishing diet. Literature confirmed that the dietary treatments could be responsible for significant changes in the fatty acid composition of foal meat [7; 9; 33; 34; 43]. As aforementioned, the intramuscular fat of animals from D1 and D2 groups presented MUFAs as the most abundant fraction, followed by SFAs and then PUFAs. Nevertheless, significant differences were found between the two dietary treatments. The D1 group reported the highest (\(p<0.01\)) values of SFAs compared to the D2 group (33.89 _vs._ 32.04 g/100 g of fat, respectively), mainly influenced by palmitic (C16:0) (\(p<0.05\)), stearic (C18:0) (\(p<0.01\)) and mi artistic (C14:0) (\(p<0.001\)) acids, resulting to be the most plentiful SFAs in this group, in descending order (C16:0 \(<\) C18:0 \(<\) C14:0). This trend is consistent with data published in literature [2], where C16:0 resulted to be the predominant fatty acid. Moreover, our SFA amounts are in accordance with values reported in previous studies about horse meat [46]. Considering MUFA contents, also in this case, D1 foals presented greater (\(p<0.001\)) values than D2 ones (39.06 _vs._ 33.80 g/100 g of fat, respectively), probably due to their higher (\(p<0.001\)) C18:1\(n\)-9 contents. These values disagree with data showed in literature [2], since our outcomes are above those usually reported in most of studies in horses managed under semi-extensive systems. On the other hand, the \"predominance\" of D1 groups reflected the fatty acids profile of feeds administered to animals (Table 1). In fact, silage, the main component of D2, reported the lowest content of MUFA, about tenfold less than those in D1. On the other hand, D2 foals recorded higher (\(p<0.01\)) PUFA values compared to the D1 group (15.51 _vs._ 13.41 g/100 g of fat, respectively).