## 3 Results and Discussion
### Total Fat and Fatty Acid Profile of Amaranth Varieties
The omega 6 to omega 3 ratio was in the range of 54.90 to 68.63; the highest value was obtained for white amaranth, followed by brown amaranth. The ratio was much higher than that reported for most cereals, such as barley, oat, rice, sorghum and wheat ([PERSON] et al., 2017), maize, rye, buckwheat and quinoa ([PERSON] et al., 2017) which had an n6 to n3 ratio in the range of 6.0 to 32.7. Brown and red amaranth had a comparable n6 to n3 ratio with millet ([PERSON] et al., 2017). The PUFA:SFA ratio of amaranth was relatively higher than that of teff, especially the white and brown amaranth varieties, which fell under the recommended range (1.0-1.5) for a diet helping to reduce cardiovascular disease ([PERSON] et al., 2017). The thrombogenicity index (TI) of amaranth was between 0.65 to 0.70 (Table 5), and the lowest and highest values were obtained for the red and white variety, respectively. The atherogenicity index (AI) of amaranth was the same for all varieties (0.31). The TI  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Fatty Acids**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Amaranth Varieties**} \\ \cline{2-3}  & **White** & **Brown** & **Red** \\ \hline Dry matter & 89.23 \(\pm\) 0.07 b  & 88.83 \(\pm\) 0.11 a  & 88.87 \(\pm\) 0.14 a  \\ \hline Total fat (g/100 g DM) & 9.14 \(\pm\) 0.07 b  & 8.44 \(\pm\) 0.19 a  & 8.28 \(\pm\) 0.07 a  \\ \hline Fatty acid (mg/100 g DM) & 6110.69 \(\pm\) 785.92 a  & 5738.18 \(\pm\) 682.36 a  & 5409.38 \(\pm\) 433.79 a  \\ \hline Myistic (C14:0) & 0.25 \(\pm\) 0.03 a  & 0.25 \(\pm\) 0.03 a  & 0.37 \(\pm\) 0.02 b  \\ \hline Palmitic (C16:0) & 21.04 \(\pm\) 0.23 a  & 21.09 \(\pm\) 0.15 a  & 20.81 \(\pm\) 0.35 a  \\ \hline _Anteiso-hexadecanoic (C17:0 _anteiso_) & 0.34 \(\pm\) 0.03 ab  & 0.41 \(\pm\) 0.04 b  & 0.31 \(\pm\) 0.02 a  \\ \hline Margaric (C17:0) & 0.15 \(\pm\) 0.00 b  & 0.15 \(\pm\) 0.02 ab  & 0.13 \(\pm\) 0.01 a  \\ \hline _Iso-heptadecanoic (C2:0 _iso_) & 0.78 \(\pm\) 0.03 a  & 0.84 \(\pm\) 0.01 b  & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.01 c  \\ \hline Stearic (C18:0) & 3.50 \(\pm\) 0.17 b  & 3.27 \(\pm\) 0.10 b  & 2.43 \(\pm\) 0.23 a  \\ \hline _Anteiso-octadecanoic (C20:0 _iso_) & 0.13 \(\pm\) 0.10 a  & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.01 a  & 0.17 \(\pm\) 0.02 a  \\ \hline _Jon._ & 0.17 \(\pm\) 0.17 a  & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.05 ab  & 0.45 \(\pm\) 0.03 b  \\ \hline _Anteiso-eicosanoic (C21:0 _antieiso_) & 0.77 \(\pm\) 0.08 a  & 0.77 \(\pm\) 0.03 a  & 0.73 \(\pm\) 0.03 a  \\ \hline _Anteiso-eicosanoic (C22:0 _iso_) & \textless{0.1 a [FOOTNOTE:a]Footnote a: Results are presented as mean of triplicatesvalues of amaranth varieties were in accordance with those reported by [PERSON] et al. [32] for _Amarantthus hypomodriacus_ and _Amarantthus cruentus_ (0.65-0.71), but higher than that obtained for teff in the present study (Table 3), quinoa (0.2), oats (0.30-0.34) and buckwheat (0.52) [30,32]. On the other hand, the AI values of amaranth varieties were in agreement with those reported by [PERSON] et al. [32] for _Amarantthus cruentus_ (0.31), higher than oats (0.17-0.19) and sunflower (0.08), but lower than palm (0.97) and coconut oil (14.71) [30,32].