## 3 Results and Discussion
### Yoghurt Fatty Acid Composition and Nutritional Indices
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Treatment**} \\ \cline{2-6}
**Variable** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Control** \\ **(n = 4)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **UOP** \\ **(n = 4)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **POP** \\ **(n = 4)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **SEM** \\ **(n = 4)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Significance** \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Fatty acid} \\ \hline C4:0 & 0.93 & 0.93 & 0.96 & 0.014 & NS \\ C6:0 & 1.60 & 1.61 & 1.69 & 0.025 & NS \\ C8:0 & 2.27 & 2.27 & 2.36 & 0.036 & NS \\ C10:0 & 9.25 & 9.14 & 9.19 & 0.089 & NS \\ C12:0 & 6.43 b & 6.16 ab & 5.93 a & 0.075 & * \\ C13:0 & 1.23 a & 1.12 ab & 1.28 b & 0.026 & * \\ C14:0 & 14.11 & 14.55 & 13.68 & 0.216 & NS \\ C14:1 & 0.62 & 0.61 & 0.57 & 0.018 & NS \\ C15:0 & 1.27 b & 1.02 ab & 1.04 a & 0.027 & *** \\ C15:1 & 0.31 & 0.29 & 0.32 & 0.007 & NS \\ C16:0 & 29.98 & 30.83 & 30.27 & 0.388 & NS \\ C16:1 & 0.27 & 0.24 & 0.25 & 0.007 & NS \\ C17:0 & 0.63 & 0.58 & 0.59 & 0.012 & NS \\ C17:1 & 0.29 & 0.27 & 0.26 & 0.006 & NS \\ C18:0 & 5.93 & 6.10 & 6.43 & 0.171 & NS \\ C18:1 _trans_ & 0.42 & 0.45 & 0.42 & 0.022 & NS \\ C18:1 _trans_-11 (VA) & 0.84 b & 0.64 ab & 0.62 a & 0.034 & ** \\ C18:1 _cis-9_ & 17.39 & 17.46 & 18.19 & 0.343 & NS \\ C18:2 _n-6 trans_ & 0.29 & 0.27 & 0.24 & 0.010 & NS \\ C18:2 _n-6 cis_ & 4.06 & 3.80 & 3.99 & 0.056 & NS \\ C18:3 _n-3_ & 0.99 & 0.95 & 0.99 & 0.047 & NS \\ C18:2 _cis-9 trans-11_ (CLA) & 0.88 b & 0.71 ab & 0.72a & 0.023 & ** \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Lipid class} \\ \hline SFA 1 & 72.99 & 73.74 & 72.84 & 0.397 & NS \\ MUFA 2 & 20.15 & 19.96 & 20.63 & 0.331 & NS \\ PUFA 3 & 6.23 & 5.73 & 5.95 & 0.086 & NS \\ _n-3_ & 0.99 & 0.95 & 0.99 & 0.047 & NS \\ _n-6_ & 4.36 & 4.07 & 4.23 & 0.057 & NS \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* UOP = unprocessed orange peel; POP = processed orange peel; 1 = saturated fatty acids; 2 = monomusaturated fatty acids; 3 = polyunsaturated fatty acids;
* = \(p<0.05\); *
* = \(p<0.01\); *
* = \(p<0.001\); NS = non-significant; superscripts a, b differ at \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Yoghurt fatty acid composition (% of total identified fatty acids). few exceptions, such as the lower level of butyric acid (C4:0) or the higher level of CLA, observed in the yoghurt from our study. Additionally, in the present study, the levels of saturated fatty acids (SFA) and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) were higher than the values reported by [PERSON] et al. [68] in the previous study. However, [PERSON] et al. [25] reported a similar fatty acid profile in laboratory produced yoghurt overall. It is important to note that animal diet is the major parameter affecting the fatty acid composition of dairy products. The nutritional indices of yoghurt fat presented in Table 7 are key indicators of fat quality and their implications for healthy fat consumption. Across all indices--atheogenicity index (AI), thrombogenicity index (TI), hypocholesterolaemic-hypercholesterolraciantic ratio (h/H), health-promoting index (HPI), polyunsaturated to saturated fatty acid ratio (PUFA/SFA), and desirable fatty acids (DFA)--no significant differences (\(p>0.05\)) were observed among the groups. The AI and TI values were lower, whereas the h/H and DFA values were higher than the ones reported by [PERSON] et al. [74] for sheep milk yoghurt (2.95, 3.04, 0.56, and 37.99, respectively). Finally, the PUFA/SFA ratio was higher in all treatment groups than the value (0.056) reported by [PERSON] et al. [75]. The atherogenicity index (AI) and thrombogenicity index (TI), which reflect the potential risk of cardiovascular diseases, remained similar across all treatments, suggesting that incorporating orange peels either unprocessed or processed did not favourably or adversely affect both indices. Both indices exceeded the recommended value, as low values, preferably lower than three, are considered beneficial for human health [61].