Home  ›  Does Beef Made in Different Places Have Same Nutrient Contents

Does Beef Made in Different Places Have Same Nutrient Contents

Written By Monday 30 May 2022 Add Comment Edit
  • Review
  • Open up Access
  • Published:

A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef

Nutrition Journal book 9, Commodity number:10 (2010) Cite this article

  • 250k Accesses

  • 454 Citations

  • 980 Altmetric

  • Metrics details

Abstruse

Growing consumer interest in grass-fed beef products has raised a number of questions with regard to the perceived differences in nutritional quality between grass-fed and grain-fed cattle. Research spanning three decades suggests that grass-based diets tin significantly improve the fat acid (FA) limerick and antioxidant content of beefiness, albeit with variable impacts on overall palatability. Grass-based diets have been shown to enhance total conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) (C18:ii) isomers, trans vaccenic acrid (TVA) (C18:1 t11), a precursor to CLA, and omega-3 (n-3) FAs on a chiliad/g fat basis. While the overall concentration of total SFAs is not different between feeding regimens, grass-finished beef tends toward a higher proportion of cholesterol neutral stearic FA (C18:0), and less cholesterol-elevating SFAs such every bit myristic (C14:0) and palmitic (C16:0) FAs. Several studies suggest that grass-based diets elevate precursors for Vitamin A and E, likewise as cancer fighting antioxidants such as glutathione (GT) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity as compared to grain-fed contemporaries. Fat conscious consumers volition besides prefer the overall lower fat content of a grass-fed beef production. However, consumers should exist enlightened that the differences in FA content will also give grass-fed beefiness a distinct grass flavor and unique cooking qualities that should exist considered when making the transition from grain-fed beef. In add-on, the fatty from grass-finished beef may take a yellowish appearance from the elevated carotenoid content (precursor to Vitamin A). It is also noted that grain-fed beefiness consumers may accomplish like intakes of both n-3 and CLA through the consumption of higher fat grain-fed portions.

Peer Review reports

Review Contents

  1. 1.

    Introduction

  2. 2.

    Fat acrid profile in grass-fed beefiness

  3. 3.

    Impact of grass-finishing on omega-iii fatty acids

  4. 4.

    Bear on of grass-finishing on conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and trans-vaccenic acid (TVA)

  5. 5.

    Touch on of grass-finishing on β-carotenes/carotenoids

  6. 6.

    Affect of grass-finishing on α-tocopherol

  7. seven.

    Impact of grass-finishing on GT & SOD activeness

  8. eight.

    Bear on of grass-finishing on flavor and palatability

  9. 9.

    Conclusion

  10. 10.

    References

Introduction

There is considerable support amidst the nutritional communities for the diet-eye (lipid) hypothesis, the idea that an imbalance of dietary cholesterol and fats are the principal crusade of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular illness (CVD) [1]. Health professionals world-wide recommend a reduction in the overall consumption of SFAs, trans-fatty acids (TAs) and cholesterol, while emphasizing the demand to increase intake of n-iii polyunsaturated fats [one, 2]. Such broad sweeping nutritional recommendations with regard to fat consumption are largely due to epidemiologic studies showing strong positive correlations betwixt intake of SFA and the incidence of CVD, a condition believed to result from the concomitant rising in serum low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol as SFA intake increases [three, four]. For instance, it is generally accepted that for every 1% increase in energy from SFA, LDL cholesterol levels reportedly increase by 1.3 to 1.vii mg/dL (0.034 to 0.044 mmol/L) [five–7].

Broad promotion of this correlative data spurred an anti-SFA entrada that reduced consumption of dietary fats, including most animal proteins such as meat, dairy products and eggs over the last 3 decades [eight], indicted on their relatively loftier SFA and cholesterol content. Nevertheless, more recent lipid research would suggest that not all SFAs take the same bear upon on serum cholesterol. For instance, lauric acid (C12:0) and myristic acrid (C14:0), have a greater total cholesterol raising effect than palmitic acrid (C16:0), whereas stearic acid (C18:0) has a neutral effect on the concentration of total serum cholesterol, including no credible impact on either LDL or HDL. Lauric acid increases full serum cholesterol, although information technology as well decreases the ratio of full cholesterol:HDL because of a preferential increase in HDL cholesterol [5, 7, 9]. Thus, the individual fatty acid profiles tend to exist more than instructive than broad lipid classifications with respect to subsequent impacts on serum cholesterol, and should therefore exist considered when making dietary recommendations for the prevention of CVD.

Conspicuously the lipid hypothesis has had broad sweeping impacts; not simply on the way nosotros eat, merely also on the way food is produced on-subcontract. Indeed, changes in animal breeding and genetics have resulted in an overall leaner beefiness product[10]. Preliminary test of diets containing today's leaner beef has shown a reduction in serum cholesterol, provided that beefiness consumption is express to a iii ounce portion devoid of all external fatty [11]. O'Dea's work was the showtime of several studies to show today'southward leaner beef products can reduce plasma LDL concentrations in both normal and hyper-cholesterolemic subjects, theoretically reducing chance of CVD [12–15].

Beyond changes in genetics, some producers take also altered their feeding practices whereby reducing or eliminating grain from the ruminant diet, producing a product referred to equally "grass-fed" or "grass-finished". Historically, nearly of the beef produced until the 1940'south was from cattle finished on grass. During the 1950's, considerable inquiry was washed to improve the efficiency of beef production, giving nascency to the feedlot industry where loftier energy grains are fed to cattle as means to subtract days on feed and improve marbling (intramuscular fatty: Imf). In add-on, U.S. consumers have grown accepted to the gustatory modality of grain-fed beef, more often than not preferring the flavor and overall palatability afforded by the higher free energy grain ration[16]. However, changes in consumer demand, coupled with new research on the effect of feed on nutrient content, have a number of producers returning to the pastoral approach to beef production despite the inherent inefficiencies.

Research spanning iii decades suggests that grass-but diets can significantly alter the fatty acrid composition and improve the overall antioxidant content of beef. Information technology is the intent of this review, to synthesize and summarize the information currently available to substantiate an enhanced nutrient claim for grass-fed beef products as well as to discuss the effects these specific nutrients accept on man health.

Review of fatty acid profiles in grass-fed beefiness

Red meat, regardless of feeding regimen, is food dense and regarded equally an of import source of essential amino acids, vitamins A, B6, B12, D, E, and minerals, including iron, zinc and selenium [17, 18]. Along with these important nutrients, meat consumers also ingest a number of fats which are an important source of energy and facilitate the absorption of fatty-soluble vitamins including A, D, East and K. According to the ADA, animal fats contribute approximately threescore% of the SFA in the American nutrition, near of which are palmitic acid (C16:0) and stearic acrid (C18:0). Stearic acid has been shown to have no internet impact on serum cholesterol concentrations in humans[17, nineteen]. In improver, 30% of the FA content in conventionally produced beefiness is composed of oleic acrid (C18:1) [20], a monounsaturated FA (MUFA) that elicits a cholesterol-lowering outcome among other healthful attributes including a reduced take chances of stroke and a significant subtract in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure in susceptible populations [21].

Be that as it may, changes in finishing diets of conventional cattle can alter the lipid profile in such a way as to improve upon this nutritional package. Although there are genetic, historic period related and gender differences among the various meat producing species with respect to lipid profiles and ratios, the issue of animal nutrition is quite significant [22]. Regardless of the genetic makeup, gender, age, species or geographic location, direct contrasts betwixt grass and grain rations consistently demonstrate significant differences in the overall fatty acid profile and antioxidant content plant in the lipid depots and body tissues [22–24].

Table i summarizes the saturated fatty acrid analysis for a number of studies whose objectives were to contrast the lipid profiles of cattle fed either a grain or grass diets [25–31]. This table is express to those studies utilizing the longissimus dorsi (loin eye), thereby standardizing the contrasts to similar cuts within the carcass and limits the comparisons to cattle between 20 and thirty months of age. Unfortunately, not all studies report data in like units of measure (i.eastward., g/thousand of fat acid), so straight comparisons between studies are non possible.

Table 1 Comparison of mean saturated fatty acid composition (expressed as mg/thou of fat acid or as a % of total lipid) between grass-fed and grain-fed cattle.

Full size tabular array

Tabular array i reports that grass finished cattle are typically lower in total fat as compared to grain-fed contemporaries. Interestingly, there is no consistent difference in total SFA content between these ii feeding regimens. Those SFA'southward considered to be more than detrimental to serum cholesterol levels, i.e., myristic (C14:0) and palmitic (C16:0), were college in grain-fed beef as compared to grass-fed contemporaries in 60% of the studies reviewed. Grass finished meat contains elevated concentrations of stearic acid (C18:0), the only saturated fatty acid with a net neutral affect on serum cholesterol. Thus, grass finished beef tends to produce a more favorable SFA composition although petty is known of how grass-finished beef would ultimately impact serum cholesterol levels in hyper-cholesterolemic patients as compared to a grain-fed beef.

Like SFA intake, dietary cholesterol consumption has also get an important consequence to consumers. Interestingly, beef'southward cholesterol content is similar to other meats (beefiness 73; pork 79; lamb 85; chicken 76; and turkey 83 mg/100 g) [32], and tin therefore exist used interchangeably with white meats to reduce serum cholesterol levels in hyper-cholesterolemic individuals[11, 33]. Studies have shown that breed, nutrition and sex do non bear on the cholesterol concentration of bovine skeletal muscle, rather cholesterol content is highly correlated to IMF concentrations[34]. Every bit IMF levels ascent, so goes cholesterol concentrations per gram of tissue [35]. Because pasture raised beefiness is lower in overall fat [24–27, 30], specially with respect to marbling or International monetary fund [26, 36], it would seem to follow that grass-finished beef would be lower in overall cholesterol content although the data is very express. Garcia et al (2008) report forty.iii and 45.viii grams of cholesterol/100 grams of tissue in pastured and grain-fed steers, respectively (P < 0.001) [24].

Interestingly, grain-fed beef consistently produces higher concentrations of MUFAs equally compared to grass-fed beef, which include FAs such as oleic acid (C18:i cis-9), the primary MUFA in beefiness. A number of epidemiological studies comparing disease rates in different countries have suggested an inverse clan betwixt MUFA intake and bloodshed rates to CVD [3, 21]. Fifty-fifty so, grass-fed beef provides a higher concentration of TVA (C18:ane televen), an important MUFA for de novo synthesis of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA: C18:ii c-nine, t-11), a stiff anti-carcinogen that is synthesized within the body tissues [37]. Specific information relative to the health benefits of CLA and its biochemistry volition be detailed later.

The important polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in conventional beef are linoleic acid (C18:2), alpha-linolenic acrid (C18:3), described as the essential FAs, and the long-concatenation fatty acids including arachidonic acid (C20:4), eicosapentaenoic acrid (C20:five), docosanpetaenoic acrid (C22:v) and docosahexaenoic acrid (C22:six) [38]. The significance of nutrition on fatty acrid composition is clearly demonstrated when profiles are examined by omega six (n-6) and omega three (n-3) families. Table 2 shows no significant change to the overall concentration of n-6 FAs between feeding regimens, although grass-fed beef consistently shows a higher concentrations of n-3 FAs every bit compared to grain-fed contemporaries, creating a more favorable northward-6:n-3 ratio. There are a number of studies that report positive effects of improved northward-three intake on CVD and other health related issues discussed in more particular in the next section.

Tabular array 2 Comparison of mean polyunsatured fatty acid limerick (expressed as mg/thousand of fatty acid or equally a % of full lipid) between grass-fed and grain-fed cattle.

Full size table

Review of Omega-iii: Omega-half dozen fatty acid content in grass-fed beefiness

There are two essential fatty acids (EFAs) in homo nutrition: α-linolenic acid (αLA), an omega-three fat acid; and linoleic acrid (LA), an omega-half-dozen fat acid. The human body cannot synthesize essential fatty acids, yet they are critical to man health; for this reason, EFAs must be obtained from food. Both αLA and LA are polyunsaturated and serve equally precursors of other of import compounds. For instance, αLA is the precursor for the omega-3 pathway. Likewise, LA is the parent fatty acid in the omega-six pathway. Omega-three (northward-three) and omega-half dozen (n-6) fatty acids are two separate distinct families, however they are synthesized by some of the same enzymes; specifically, delta-v-desaturase and delta-6-desaturase. Backlog of one family unit of FAs tin can interfere with the metabolism of the other, reducing its incorporation into tissue lipids and altering their overall biological effects [39]. Figure 1 depicts a schematic of n-vi and n-3 metabolism and elongation within the torso [xl].

Figure ane
figure 1

Linoleic (C18:2n-6) and α-Linolenic (C18:3n-3) Acid metabolism and elongation. (Adapted from Simopoulos et al., 1991)

Full size epitome

A healthy diet should consist of roughly one to iv times more omega-6 fatty acids than omega-3 fatty acids. The typical American nutrition tends to comprise 11 to 30 times more omega -6 fatty acids than omega -3, a phenomenon that has been hypothesized equally a pregnant factor in the ascent rate of inflammatory disorders in the Usa[xl]. Table 2 shows pregnant differences in north-6:n-iii ratios between grass-fed and grain-fed beef, with and overall average of 1.53 and 7.65 for grass-fed and grain-fed, respectively, for all studies reported in this review.

The major types of omega-3 fatty acids used by the body include: α-linolenic acid (C18:3n-3, αLA), eicosapentaenoic acrid (C20:5n-3, EPA), docosapentaenoic acid (C22:5n-3, DPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (C22:6n-iii, DHA). Once eaten, the body converts αLA to EPA, DPA and DHA, albeit at low efficiency. Studies more often than not concur that whole body conversion of αLA to DHA is beneath 5% in humans, the majority of these long-chain FAs are consumed in the diet [41].

The omega-three fatty acids were outset discovered in the early 1970's when Danish physicians observed that Greenland Eskimos had an uncommonly low incidence of heart affliction and arthritis despite the fact that they consumed a diet loftier in fat. These early studies established fish as a rich source of n-3 fatty acids. More recent research has established that EPA and DHA play a crucial role in the prevention of atherosclerosis, centre assail, depression and cancer [40, 42]. In addition, omega-3 consumption reduced the inflammation acquired by rheumatoid arthritis [43, 44].

The human brain has a high requirement for DHA; low DHA levels have been linked to low brain serotonin levels, which are connected to an increased tendency for depression and suicide. Several studies have established a correlation between depression levels of omega -3 fat acids and depression. High consumption of omega-3 FAs is typically associated with a lower incidence of depression, a decreased prevalence of age-related memory loss and a lower risk of developing Alzheimer'south disease [45–51].

The National Institutes of Health has published recommended daily intakes of FAs; specific recommendations include 650 mg of EPA and DHA, 2.22 g/day of αLA and 4.44 grand/day of LA. Even so, the Institute of Medicine has recommended DRI (dietary reference intake) for LA (omega-6) at 12 to 17 grand and αLA (omega-3) at one.1 to 1.vi g for adult women and men, respectively. Although seafood is the major dietary source of n-3 fatty acids, a recent fatty acid intake survey indicated that cherry-red meat also serves every bit a significant source of n-3 fatty acids for some populations [52].

Sinclair and co-workers were the commencement to testify that beef consumption increased serum concentrations of a number of due north-3 fatty acids including, EPA, DPA and DHA in humans [xl]. Too, at that place are a number of studies that have been conducted with livestock which written report similar findings, i.e., animals that swallow rations loftier in precursor lipids produce a meat product higher in the essential fatty acids [53, 54]. For instance, cattle fed primarily grass significantly increased the omega-3 content of the meat and also produced a more favorable omega-half dozen to omega-3 ratio than grain-fed beef [46, 55–57].

Tabular array two shows the effect of ration on polyunsaturated fat acid composition from a number of recent studies that contrast grass-based rations to conventional grain feeding regimens [24–28, 30, 31]. Grass-based diets resulted in significantly higher levels of omega-3 inside the lipid fraction of the meat, while omega-half-dozen levels were left unchanged. In fact, equally the concentration of grain is increased in the grass-based nutrition, the concentration of northward-iii FAs decreases in a linear fashion. Grass-finished beef consistently produces a higher concentration of n-3 FAs (without effecting n-6 FA content), resulting in a more favorable northward-6:n-3 ratio.

The amount of total lipid (fatty) found in a serving of meat is highly dependent upon the feeding regimen as demonstrated in Tables 1 and ii. Fat volition too vary past cut, as not all locations of the carcass volition deposit fat to the same degree. Genetics besides play a role in lipid metabolism creating meaning breed effects. Even and then, the effect of feeding regimen is a very powerful determinant of fatty acid composition.

Review of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and transvaccenic acid (TVA) in grass-fed beef

Conjugated linoleic acids brand up a group of polyunsaturated FAs found in meat and milk from ruminant animals and exist every bit a general mixture of conjugated isomers of LA. Of the many isomers identified, the cis-9, trans-11 CLA isomer (as well referred to as rumenic acrid or RA) accounts for up to fourscore-90% of the total CLA in ruminant products [58]. Naturally occurring CLAs originate from two sources: bacterial isomerization and/or biohydrogenation of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) in the rumen and the desaturation of trans-fatty acids in the adipose tissue and mammary gland [59, 60].

Microbial biohydrogenation of LA and αLA by an anaerobic rumen bacterium Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens is highly dependent on rumen pH [61]. Grain consumption decreases rumen pH, reducing B. fibrisolven activity, conversely grass-based diets provide for a more than favorable rumen surround for subsequent bacterial synthesis [62]. Rumen pH may help to explain the credible differences in CLA content between grain and grass-finished meat products (see Table 2). De novo synthesis of CLA from 11t-C18:one TVA has been documented in rodents, dairy cows and humans. Studies suggest a linear increase in CLA synthesis every bit the TVA content of the diet increased in man subjects [63]. The rate of conversion of TVA to CLA has been estimated to range from 5 to 12% in rodents to xix to xxx% in humans[64]. True dietary intake of CLA should therefore consider native 9c11t-C18:2 (bodily CLA) too as the 11t-C18:1 (potential CLA) content of foods [65, 66]. Effigy 2 portrays de novo synthesis pathways of CLA from TVA [37].

Figure ii
figure 2

De novo synthesis of CLA from 11t-C18:1 vaccenic acid. (Adapted from Bauman et al., 1999)

Full size image

Natural augmentation of CLA c9t11 and TVA within the lipid fraction of beef products can exist accomplished through diets rich in grass and lush dark-green forages. While precursors can exist found in both grains and lush green forages, grass-fed ruminant species take been shown to produce 2 to three times more than CLA than ruminants fed in confinement on loftier grain diets, largely due to a more favorable rumen pH [34, 56, 57, 67] (see Tabular array two).

The impact of feeding practices becomes even more axiomatic in lite of recent reports from Canada which suggests a shift in the predominate trans C18:1 isomer in grain-fed beef. Dugan et al (2007) reported that the major trans isomer in beef produced from a 73% barley grain diet is 10t-18:i (ii.xiii% of total lipid) rather than 11t-18:one (TVA) (0.77% of total lipid), a finding that is not particularly favorable considering the information that would support a negative touch of 10t-eighteen:ane on LDL cholesterol and CVD [68, 69].

Over the past two decades numerous studies have shown pregnant health benefits attributable to the deportment of CLA, every bit demonstrated by experimental beast models, including actions to reduce carcinogenesis, atherosclerosis, and onset of diabetes [70–72]. Conjugated linoleic acid has too been reported to modulate trunk composition by reducing the aggregating of adipose tissue in a multifariousness of species including mice, rats, pigs, and now humans [73–76]. These changes in body composition occur at ultra high doses of CLA, dosages that tin can only be attained through synthetic supplementation that may also produce ill side-effects, such as gastrointestinal upset, adverse changes to glucose/insulin metabolism and compromised liver part [77–81]. A number of fantabulous reviews on CLA and human health tin be found in the literature [61, 82–84].

Optimal dietary intake remains to be established for CLA. It has been hypothesized that 95 mg CLA/day is plenty to show positive furnishings in the reduction of chest cancer in women utilizing epidemiological data linking increased milk consumption with reduced chest cancer[85]. Ha et al. (1989) published a much more conservative estimate stating that 3 g/day CLA is required to promote human health benefits[86]. Ritzenthaler et al. (2001) estimated CLA intakes of 620 mg/mean solar day for men and 441 mg/day for women are necessary for cancer prevention[87]. Patently, all these values represent rough estimates and are mainly based on extrapolated animal data. What is clear is that we as a population do not consume enough CLA in our diets to take a significant impact on cancer prevention or suppression. Reports indicate that Americans consume betwixt 150 to 200 mg/24-hour interval, Germans consumer slightly more betwixt 300 to 400 mg/mean solar day[87], and the Australians seem to be closer to the optimum concentration at 500 to k mg/day co-ordinate to Parodi (1994) [88].

Review of pro-Vitamin A/β-carotene in grass-fed meat

Carotenoids are a family unit of compounds that are synthesized by higher plants every bit natural institute pigments. Xanthophylls, carotene and lycopene are responsible for yellow, orange and red coloring, respectively. Ruminants on loftier forage rations laissez passer a portion of the ingested carotenoids into the milk and trunk fatty in a manner that has even so to be fully elucidated. Cattle produced under extensive grass-based product systems generally take carcass fatty which is more xanthous than their concentrate-fed counterparts acquired past carotenoids from the lush green forages. Although yellowish carcass fat is negatively regarded in many countries around the world, information technology is also associated with a healthier fatty acrid profile and a higher antioxidant content [89].

Found species, harvest methods, and season, all have pregnant impacts on the carotenoid content of forage. In the process of making silage, haylage or hay, as much every bit fourscore% of the carotenoid content is destroyed [90]. Further, significant seasonal shifts occur in carotenoid content attributable to the seasonal nature of found growth.

Carotenes (mainly β-carotene) are precursors of retinol (Vitamin A), a critical fat-soluble vitamin that is important for normal vision, bone growth, reproduction, jail cell partition, and jail cell differentiation [91]. Specifically, it is responsible for maintaining the surface lining of the eyes and also the lining of the respiratory, urinary, and abdominal tracts. The overall integrity of peel and mucous membranes is maintained by vitamin A, creating a bulwark to bacterial and viral infection [xv, 92]. In addition, vitamin A is involved in the regulation of allowed function by supporting the production and office of white claret cells [12, 13].

The current recommended intake of vitamin A is 3,000 to 5,000 IU for men and 2,300 to four,000 IU for women [93], respectively, which is equivalent to 900 to 1500 μg (micrograms) (Note: DRI as reported by the Found of Medicine for non-significant/not-lactating adult females is 700 μg/mean solar day and males is 900 μg/twenty-four hours or two,300 - 3,000 I U (bold conversion of three.33 IU/μg). While there is no RDA (Required Daily Allowance) for β-carotene or other pro-vitamin A carotenoids, the Found of Medicine suggests consuming three mg of β-carotene daily to maintain plasma β-carotene in the range associated with normal function and a lowered take a chance of chronic diseases (NIH: Part of Dietary Supplements).

The effects of grass feeding on beta-carotene content of beefiness was described by Descalzo et al. (2005) who constitute pasture-fed steers incorporated significantly higher amounts of beta-carotene into muscle tissues as compared to grain-fed animals [94]. Concentrations were 0.45 μg/g and 0.06 μg/g for beef from pasture and grain-fed cattle respectively, demonstrating a 7 fold increase in β-carotene levels for grass-fed beef over the grain-fed contemporaries. Similar information has been reported previously, presumably due to the high β-carotene content of fresh grasses as compared to cereal grains[38, 55, 95–97]. (run into Table 3)

Table three Comparison of mean β-carotene vitamin content in fresh beef from grass-fed and grain-fed cattle.

Full size table

Review of Vitamin Eastward/α-tocopherol in grass-fed beefiness

Vitamin Due east is too a fat-soluble vitamin that exists in eight different isoforms with powerful antioxidant activity, the most active being α-tocopherol [98]. Numerous studies accept shown that cattle finished on pasture produce college levels of α-tocopherol in the final meat product than cattle fed high concentrate diets[23, 28, 94, 97, 99–101] (see Table 4).

Tabular array 4 Comparison of mean α-tocopherol vitamin content in fresh beef from grass-fed and grain-fed cattle.

Full size table

Antioxidants such as vitamin East protect cells against the effects of free radicals. Costless radicals are potentially dissentious past-products of metabolism that may contribute to the development of chronic diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular illness.

Preliminary inquiry shows vitamin E supplementation may help prevent or delay coronary heart illness [102–105]. Vitamin E may besides block the germination of nitrosamines, which are carcinogens formed in the tum from nitrates consumed in the nutrition. It may also protect against the development of cancers by enhancing allowed role [106]. In add-on to the cancer fighting effects, there are some observational studies that found lens clarity (a diagnostic tool for cataracts) was better in patients who regularly used vitamin E [107, 108]. The current recommended intake of vitamin E is 22 IU (natural source) or 33 IU (synthetic source) for men and women [93, 109], respectively, which is equivalent to 15 milligrams by weight.

The concentration of natural α-tocopherol (vitamin E) found in grain-fed beef ranged betwixt 0.75 to ii.92 μg/g of muscle whereas pasture-fed beef ranges from 2.1 to 7.73 μg/k of tissue depending on the blazon of forage made available to the animals (Table 4). Grass finishing increases α-tocopherol levels three-fold over grain-fed beefiness and places grass-fed beefiness well inside range of the muscle α-tocopherol levels needed to extend the shelf-life of retail beef (3 to 4 μg α-tocopherol/gram tissue) [110]. Vitamin Eastward (α-tocopherol) acts postal service-mortem to delay oxidative deterioration of the meat; a procedure by which myoglobin is converted into dark-brown metmyoglobin, producing a darkened, brown appearance to the meat. In a study where grass-fed and grain-fed beefiness were directly compared, the brilliant red color associated with oxymyoglobin was retained longer in the retail brandish in the grass-fed group, even idea the grass-fed meat contains a higher concentration of more oxidizable n-iii PUFA. The authors concluded that the antioxidants in grass probably acquired college tissue levels of vitamin Due east in grazed animals with benefits of lower lipid oxidation and amend color memory despite the greater potential for lipid oxidation[111].

Review of antioxidant enzyme content in grass-fed beef

Glutathione (GT), is a relatively new protein identified in foods. It is a tripeptide composed of cysteine, glutamic acid and glycine and functions as an antioxidant primarily equally a component of the enzyme organization containing GT oxidase and reductase. Within the cell, GT has the capability of quenching complimentary radicals (like hydrogen peroxide), thus protecting the cell from oxidized lipids or proteins and forestall damage to DNA. GT and its associated enzymes are institute in well-nigh all plant and fauna tissue and is readily absorbed in the small-scale intestine[112].

Although our noesis of GT content in foods is notwithstanding somewhat limited, dairy products, eggs, apples, beans, and rice contain very lilliputian GT (< three.3 mg/100 one thousand). In dissimilarity, fresh vegetables (e.g., asparagus 28.3 mg/100 g) and freshly cooked meats, such every bit ham and beef (23.3 mg/100 g and 17.v mg/100 thousand, respectively), are high in GT [113].

Because GT compounds are elevated in lush green forages, grass-fed beef is specially high in GT as compared to grain-fed contemporaries. Descalzo et al. (2007) reported a significant increment in GT molar concentrations in grass-fed beef [114]. In improver, grass-fed samples were also higher in superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT) activity than beef from grain-fed animals[115]. Superoxide dismutase and catalase are coupled enzymes that work together as powerful antioxidants, SOD scavenges superoxide anions by forming hydrogen peroxide and True cat then decomposes the hydrogen peroxide to H2O and O2. Grass but diets better the oxidative enzyme concentration in beef, protecting the musculus lipids against oxidation as well equally providing the beefiness consumer with an boosted source of antioxidant compounds.

Bug related to flavor and palatability of grass-fed beef

Maintaining the more favorable lipid profile in grass-fed beef requires a high per centum of lush fresh forage or grass in the ration. The higher the concentration of fresh green forages, the higher the αLA precursor that will be bachelor for CLA and north-three synthesis [53, 54]. Fresh pasture forages have 10 to 12 times more than C18:iii than cereal grains [116]. Stale or cured forages, such every bit hay, will have a slightly lower corporeality of precursor for CLA and n-3 synthesis. Shifting diets to cereal grains will cause a significant change in the FA profile and antioxidant content inside thirty days of transition [57].

Because grass-finishing alters the biochemistry of the beef, aroma and flavor will likewise exist affected. These attributes are directly linked to the chemical makeup of the concluding production. In a written report comparing the flavor compounds between cooked grass-fed and grain-fed beef, the grass-fed beefiness contained higher concentrations of diterpenoids, derivatives of chlorophyll call phyt-ane-ene and phyt-2-ene, that changed both the flavor and aroma of the cooked product [117]. Others have identified a "greenish" odor from cooked grass-fed meat associated with hexanals derived from oleic and αLA FAs. In contrast to the "greenish" odor, grain-fed beef was described as possessing a "soapy" odour, presumably from the octanals formed from LA that is found in high concentration in grains [118]. Grass-fed beef consumers can wait a different flavor and scent to their steaks as they cook on the grill. Likewise, because of the lower lipid content and loftier concentration of PUFAs, cooking time will be reduced. For an exhaustive expect at the effect of meat compounds on flavor, see Calkins and Hodgen (2007) [119].

With respect to palatability, grass-fed beef has historically been less well accepted in markets where grain-fed products predominant. For example, in a study where British lambs fed grass and Spanish lambs fed milk and concentrates were assessed by British and Spanish taste panels, both found the British lamb to have a college odor and flavor intensity. Withal, the British console preferred the flavor and overall eating quality of the grass-fed lamb, the Spanish panel much preferred the Spanish fed lamb [120]. Likewise, the U.S. is well known for producing corn-fed beef, taste panels and consumers who are more familiar with the gustatory modality of corn-fed beef seem to adopt it too [16]. An individual usually comes to prefer the foods they grew up eating, making consumer sensory panels more than of an art than scientific discipline [36]. Trained taste panels, i.e., persons specifically trained to evaluate sensory characteristics in beefiness, establish grass-fed beef less palatable than grain-fed beef in flavor and tenderness [119, 121].

Conclusion

Research spanning three decades supports the argument that grass-fed beef (on a m/1000 fatty basis), has a more than desirable SFA lipid contour (more C18:0 cholesterol neutral SFA and less C14:0 & C16:0 cholesterol elevating SFAs) every bit compared to grain-fed beef. Grass-finished beefiness is also higher in total CLA (C18:2) isomers, TVA (C18:1 t11) and n-3 FAs on a g/one thousand fat basis. This results in a meliorate northward-half dozen:n-iii ratio that is preferred by the nutritional customs. Grass-fed beef is besides college in precursors for Vitamin A and E and cancer fighting antioxidants such as GT and SOD activeness as compared to grain-fed contemporaries.

Grass-fed beef tends to be lower in overall fat content, an important consideration for those consumers interested in decreasing overall fat consumption. Because of these differences in FA content, grass-fed beef as well possesses a distinct grass flavor and unique cooking qualities that should be considered when making the transition from grain-fed beef. To maximize the favorable lipid profile and to guarantee the elevated antioxidant content, animals should be finished on 100% grass or pasture-based diets.

Grain-fed beef consumers may achieve similar intakes of both n-3 and CLA through consumption of higher fatty portions with higher overall palatability scores. A number of clinical studies have shown that today's lean beef, regardless of feeding strategy, tin be used interchangeably with fish or skinless chicken to reduce serum cholesterol levels in hypercholesterolemic patients.

Abbreviations

c:

cis

t:

trans

FA:

fatty acrid

SFA:

saturated fatty acid

PUFA:

polyunsaturated fat acid

MUFA:

monounsaturated fatty acid

CLA:

conjugated linoleic acrid

TVA:

trans-vaccenic acid

EPA:

eicosapentaenoic acid

DPA:

docosapentaenoic acrid

DHA:

docosahexaenoic acid

GT:

glutathione

SOD:

superoxide dismutase

True cat:

catalase.

References

  1. Griel AE, Kris-Etherton PM: Beyond saturated fat: The importance of the dietary fatty acid profile on cardiovascular affliction. Nutrition Reviews. 2006, 64 (5): 257-62. x.1111/j.1753-4887.2006.tb00208.x.

    PubMed  Google Scholar

  2. Kris-Etherton PM, Innis South: Dietary Fat Acids -- Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada. American Dietetic Association Position Report. Periodical of the American Dietetic Association. 2007, 107 (9): 1599-1611. Ref Type: Report

    CAS  Google Scholar

  3. Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, Rimm Eastward, Colditz GA, Rosner BA, Hennekins CH, Willett WC: Dietary fatty intake and the chance of coronary middle disease in women. New England Journal of Medicine. 1997, 337: 1491-9. 10.1056/NEJM199711203372102.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  4. Posner BM, Cobb JL, Belanger AJ, Cupples LA, D'Agostino RB, Stokes J: Dietary lipid predictors of coronary middle disease in men. The Framingham Study. Athenaeum of Internal Medicine. 1991, 151: 1181-seven. 10.1001/archinte.151.6.1181.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  5. Mensink RP, Katan MB: Effect of dietary fatty acids on serum lipids and lipoproteins. Arteriosclerosis Thrombosis Vascular Biology. 1992, 12: 911-9.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  6. Keys A: Coronary middle illness in 7 countries. Circulation. 1970, 41 (ane): 211-

    Google Scholar

  7. Mensink RP, Zock PL, Kester Advertising, Katan MB: Effects of dietary fat acids and carbohydrates on the ratio of serum total HDL cholesterol and on serum lipids and apolipoproteins: A meta-analysis of sixty controlled trials. American Periodical of Clinical Nutrition. 2003, 77: 1146-55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  8. Putnam J, Allshouse J, Scott-Kantor L: U.S. per capita nutrient supply trends: More calories, refined carbohydrates, and fats. Food Review. 2002, 25 (3): two-15.

    Google Scholar

  9. Kris-Etherton PMYS: Individual fatty acrid effects on plasma lipids and lipoproteins. Human studies. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1997, 65 (suppl.five): 1628S-44S.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  10. Higgs JD: The irresolute nature of red meat: 20 years improving nutritional quality. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 2000, xi: 85-95. ten.1016/S0924-2244(00)00055-8.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  11. O'Dea K, Traianedes K, Chisholm G, Leyden H, Sinclair AJ: Cholesterol-lowering effect of a low-fat diet containing lean beef is reversed by the addition of beef fat. American Journal of Clinical Diet. 1990, 52: 491-4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar

  12. Beauchesne-Rondeau E, Gascon A, Bergeron J, Jacques H: Plasma lipids and lipoproteins in hypercholesterolemic men fed a lipid-lowering diet containing lean beef, lean fish, or poultry. American Journal of Clinical Diet. 2003, 77 (3): 587-93.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  13. Melanson Thousand, Gootman J, Myrdal A, Kline G, Rippe JM: Weight loss and full lipid profile changes in overweight women consuming beef or craven equally the primary protein source. Nutrition. 2003, nineteen: 409-14. 10.1016/S0899-9007(02)01080-8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  14. Denke MA: Role of beef and beef tallow, an enriched source of stearic acid, in a cholesterol-lowering nutrition. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1994, 60: 1044S-9S.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  15. Smith DR, Woods R, Tseng S, Smith SB: Increased beefiness consumption increases lipoprotein A-I only not serum cholesterol of mildly hypercholesterolemic men with different levels of habitual beef intake. Experimental Biological Medicine. 2002, 227 (iv): 266-75.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  16. Wood JD, Richardson RI, Nute GR, Fisher AV, Campo MM, Kasapidou E, Sheard PR, Enser M: Effects of fatty acids on meat quality: review. Meat Science. 2003, 66: 21-32. 10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00022-6.

    Google Scholar

  17. Williamson CS, Foster RK, Stanner SA, Buttriss JL: Red meat in the diet. British Diet Foundation. Nutrition Bulletin. 2005, 30: 323-335. 10.1111/j.1467-3010.2005.00525.x. Ref Type: Report

    Google Scholar

  18. Biesalski HK: Meat as a component of a healthy diet - are there any risks or benefits if meat is avoided?. Meat Science. 2005, 70 (3): 509-24. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.07.017.

    PubMed  Google Scholar

  19. Yu South, Derr J, Etherton TD, Kris-Etherton PM: Plasma cholesterol-predictive equations demonstrate that stearic acrid is neutral and monosaturated fatty acids are hypocholesterolemic. American Journal of Clinical Diet. 1995, 61: 1129-39.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  20. Whetsell MS, Rayburn EB, Lozier JD: Human Health Effects of Fat Acids in Beefiness. 2003, Fact Sheet: W Virgina University & U.S.D.A. Agriculture Enquiry Service. Extension Service West Virginia University, Ref Type: Electronic Citation

    Google Scholar

  21. Kris-Etherton PM: Monounsaturated fat acids and gamble of cardiovascular affliction. Circulation. 1999, 100: 1253-

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  22. DeSmet S, Raes Yard, Demeyer D: Meat fatty acid composition as affected by fatness and genetic factors: a review. Animal Research. 2004, 53: 81-98. 10.1051/animres:2004003.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  23. De la Fuente J, Diaz MT, Alvarez I, Oliver MA, Font i Furnols Thou, Sanudo C, Campo MM, Montossi F, Nute GR, Caneque V: Fatty acrid and vitamin East composition of intramuscular fatty in cattle reared in different production systems. Meat Science. 2009, 82: 331-7. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.02.002.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  24. Garcia PT, Pensel NA, Sancho AM, Latimori NJ, Kloster AM, Amigone MA, Casal JJ: Beefiness lipids in relation to animal breed and nutrition in Argentine republic. Meat Scientific discipline. 2008, 79: 500-eight. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.x.019.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  25. Alfaia CPM, Alves SP, Martins SIV, Costa ASH, Fontes CMGA, Lemos JPC, Bessa RJB, Prates JAM: Effect of feeding system on intramuscular fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acrid isomers of beef cattle, with emphasis on their nutritional value and discriminatory ability. Food Chemistry. 2009, 114: 939-46. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.10.041.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  26. Leheska JM, Thompson LD, Howe JC, Hentges E, Boyce J, Brooks JC, Shriver B, Hoover L, Miller MF: Effects of conventional and grass-feeding systems on the nutrient limerick of beef. Journal Creature Science. 2008, 86: 3575-85. 10.2527/jas.2007-0565.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  27. Nuernberg K, Dannenberger D, Nuernberg One thousand, Ender Chiliad, Voigt J, Scollan ND, Forest JD, Nute GR, Richardson RI: Effect of a grass-based and a concentrate feeding organization on meat quality characteristics and fat acid composition of longissimus muscle in different cattle breeds. Livestock Production Science. 2005, 94: 137-47. 10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.xi.036.

    Google Scholar

  28. Realini CE, Duckett SK, Brito GW, Rizza Physician, De Mattos D: Effect of pasture vs. concentrate feeding with or without antioxidants on carcass characteristics, fatty acid composition, and quality of Uruguayan beef. Meat Science. 2004, 66: 567-77. 10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00160-8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  29. Warren HE, Enser Grand, Richardson I, Wood JD, Scollan ND: Effect of breed and diet on total lipid and selected shelf-life parameters in beef muscle. Proceedings of British Club of animal science. 2003, 23-

    Google Scholar

  30. Ponnampalam EN, Mann NJ, Sinclair AJ: Effect of feeding systems on omega-three fatty acids, conjugated linoleic acid and trans fatty acids in Australian beef cuts, potential impact on man wellness. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2006, 15 (1): 21-9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  31. Descalzo A, Insani EM, Biolatto A, Sancho AM, Garcia PT, Pensel NA: Influence of pasture or grain-based diets supplemented with vitamin E on antioxidant/oxidative balance of Argentine beef. Meat Scientific discipline. 2005, 70: 35-44. ten.1016/j.meatsci.2004.eleven.018.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  32. Wheeler TL, Davis GW, Stoecker BJ, Harmon CJ: Cholesterol concentrations of longissimus muscle, subcutaneous fatty and serum of two beefiness cattle brood types. Journal of Animal Science. 1987, 65: 1531-7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  33. Smith DR, Wood R, Tseng S, Smith SB: Increased beef consumption increases apolipoprotein A-1 but not serum cholesterol of mildly hypercholesterolemic men with different levels of habitual beef intake. Experimental Biological Medicine. 2002, 227 (iv): 266-75.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  34. Rule DC, Broughton KS, Shellito SM, Maiorano Thousand: Comparison of muscle fatty acid profiles and cholesterol concentrations of bison, cattle, elk and chicken. Journal Animal Scientific discipline. 2002, 80: 1202-11.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  35. Alfaia CPM, Castro MLF, Martins SIV, Portugal APV, Alves SPA, Fontes CMGA: Influence of slaughter flavor and muscle type on faty acid composition, conjugated linoleic acid isomeric distribution and nutritional quality of intramuscular fat in Arouquesa-PDO veal. Meat Scientific discipline. 2007, 76: 787-95. x.1016/j.meatsci.2007.02.023.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  36. Sitz BM, Calkins CR, Feuz DM, Umberger WJ, Eskridge KM: Consumer sensory acceptance and value of domestic, Canadian, and Australian grass-fed beefiness steaks. Periodical of Animal Scientific discipline. 2005, 83: 2863-eight.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  37. Bauman DE, Lock AL: Conjugated linoleic acid: biosynthesis and nutritional significance. Flim-flam and McSweeney. Avant-garde Dairy Chemistry. 2006, Springer, New York, 93-136. Ref Type: Serial (Volume, Monograph), 3, 2

  38. Enser M, Hallett KG, Hewett B, Fursey GAJ, Wood JD, Harrington Yard: Fatty acid content and limerick of United kingdom beef and lamb muscle in relation to product system and implications for human diet. Meat Science. 1998, 49 (3): 329-41. 10.1016/S0309-1740(97)00144-seven.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  39. Ruxton CHS, Reed SC, Simpson JA, Millington KJ: The wellness benefits of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids: a review of the testify. The Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics. 2004, 17: 449-59. ten.1111/j.1365-277X.2004.00552.ten.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  40. Simopoulos A: Omega-3 fat acids in wellness and disease and in growth and development. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1991, 54: 438-63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  41. Thomas BJ: Efficiency of conversion of alpha-linolenic acrid to long chain n-3 fatty acids in human being. Current Stance in Clincal Diet and Metabolic Care. 2002, five (2): 127-32. 10.1097/00075197-200203000-00002.

    Google Scholar

  42. Connor WE: Importance of n-3 fatty acids in wellness and disease. American Periodical of Clinical Diet. 2000, 71: 171S-5S.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  43. Kremer JM, Lawrence DA, Jubiz W, Galli C, Simopoulos AP: Unlike doses of fish -oil fatty acid ingestion in active rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective study of clinical and immunological parameters. Dietary Omega-3 and Omega-vi fatty acids: biological effects and nutritional essentiality. 1989, New York: Plenum Press

    Google Scholar

  44. DiGiacomo RA, Kremer JM, Shah DM: Fish-oil dietary supplementation in patients with Raynaud's Phenomenon: A double-blind, controlled, prospective report. The American Journal of Medicine. 1989, 86: 158-64. 10.1016/0002-9343(89)90261-1.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  45. Kalmijn South: Dietary fatty intake and the run a risk of incident dementia in the Rotterdam Study. Annals of Neurology. 1997, 42 (5): 776-82. 10.1002/ana.410420514.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  46. Yehuda Southward, Rabinovtz S, Carasso RL, Mostofsky DI: Essential fatty acids grooming (SR-3) improves Alzheimer's patient's quality of life. International Periodical of Neuroscience. 1996, 87 (three-4): 141-nine. ten.3109/00207459609070833.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  47. Hibbeln JR: Fish oil consumption and major low. The Lancet. 1998, 351: 1213-ten.1016/S0140-6736(05)79168-vi. (April 18 1998)

    CAS  Google Scholar

  48. Hibbeln JR, Salem North: Dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids and low: when cholesterol does not satisfy. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1995, 62: one-9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  49. Stoll AL, et al: Omega 3 fatty acids in bipolar disorder. Archives of Full general Psychiatry. 1999, 56: 407-12-415-xvi

    Google Scholar

  50. Calabrese JR, Rapport DJ, Shleton MD: Fish oils and bipolar disorder. Archives of Full general Psychiatry. 1999, 56: 413-4. ten.1001/archpsyc.56.five.413.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  51. Laugharne JDE: Fat acids and schizophrenia. Lipids. 1996, 31: S163-S165. ten.1007/BF02637070.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  52. Sinclair AJ, Johnson L, O'Dea Grand, Holman RT: Diets rich in lean beef increase arachidonic acrid and long-chain omega three polyunsaturated fatty acid levels in plasma phospholipids. Lipids. 1994, 29 (v): 337-43. 10.1007/BF02537187.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  53. Raes K, DeSmet S, Demeyer D: Upshot of dietary fat acids on incorporation of long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid in lamb, beef and pork meat: a review. Animal Feed Scientific discipline and Technology. 2004, 113: 199-221. ten.1016/j.anifeedsci.2003.09.001.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  54. Marmer WN, Maxwell RJ, Williams JE: Effects of dietary regimen and tissue site on bovine fatty acid profiles. Periodical Fauna Science. 1984, 59: 109-21.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  55. Wood JD, Enser G: Factors influencing fatty acids in meat and the role of antioxidants in improving meat quality. British Journal of Diet. 1997, 78: S49-S60. 10.1079/BJN19970134.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  56. French P, Stanton C, Lawless F, O'Riordan EG, Monahan FJ, Caffery PJ, Moloney AP: Fatty acid composition, including conjugated linoleic acid of intramuscular fat from steers offered grazed grass, grass silage or concentrate-based diets. Journal Beast Science. 2000, 78: 2849-55.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  57. Duckett SK, Wagner DG, Yates LD, Dolezal HG, May SG: Furnishings of fourth dimension on feed on beefiness nutrient composition. Journal Brute Science. 1993, 71: 2079-88.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  58. Nuernberg K, Nuernberg Thou, Ender K, Lorenz S, Winkler K, Rickert R, Steinhart H: Omega-3 fat acids and conjugated linoleic acids of longissimus musculus in beef cattle. European Periodical of Lipid Science Technology. 2002, 104: 463-71. 10.1002/1438-9312(200208)104:eight<463::Assistance-EJLT463>3.0.CO;2-U.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  59. Griinari JM, Corl BA, Lacy SH, Chouinard PY, Nurmela KV, Bauman DE: Conjugated linoleic acid is synthesized endogenoulsy in lactating dairy cows past delta-nine desaturase. Journal of Nutrition. 2000, 130: 2285-91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  60. Sehat N, Rickert RR, Mossoba MM, Dramer JKG, Yurawecz MP, Roach JAG, Adlof RO, Morehouse KM, Fritsche J, Eulitz KD, Steinhart H, Ku Grand: Improved separation of conjugated fatty acid methyl esters by silver ion-high-performance liquid chromatography. Lipids. 1999, 34: 407-thirteen. ten.1007/s11745-999-0379-3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  61. Pariza MW, Park Y, Cook ME: Mechanisms of activeness of conjugated linoleic acid: prove and speculation. Proceedings for the Guild of Experimental Biology and Medicine. 2000, 32: 853-eight.

    Google Scholar

  62. Bessa RJB, Santos-Silva J, Ribeiro JMR, Portugal AV: Reticulo-rumen biohydrogenation and the enrichment of ruminant edible products with linoleic acid conjugated isomers. Livestock Production Science. 2000, 63: 201-11. 10.1016/S0301-6226(99)00117-7.

    Google Scholar

  63. Turpeinen AM, Mutanen Chiliad, Aro ASI, Basu SPD, Griinar JM: Bioconversion of vaccenic acrid to conjugated linoleic acid in humans. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2002, 76: 504-10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  64. Turpeinen AM, Mautanen M, Aro A, Salminen I, Basu S, Palmquist DL: Bioconversion of vaccenic acid to conjugated linoleic acid in humans. American Periodical of Clinical Nutrition. 2002, 76: 504-10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  65. Turpeinen AM, Mautanen M, Aro A, Salminen I, Basu South, Palmquist DL: Bioconversion of vaccenic acid to conjugated linoleic acid in humans. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2002, 76: 504-ten.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  66. Adlof RO, Duval Due south, Emken EA: Biosynthesis of conjugated linoleic acrid in humans. Lipids. 2000, 35: 131-5. 10.1007/BF02664761.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  67. Mandell IB, Gullett JG, Buchanan-Smith JG, Campbell CP: Effects of diet and slaughter endpoint on carcass composition and beef quality in Charolais cross steers fed alfalfa silage and (or) high concentrate diets. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 1997, 77: 403-14.

    Google Scholar

  68. Dugan MER, Rollan DC, Aalhus JL, Aldai N, Kramer JKG: Subcutaneous fat composition of youthful and mature Canadian beef: accent on private conjugated linoleic acid and trans-eighteen:1 isomers. Canadian Periodical of Creature Science. 2008, 88: 591-9.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  69. Hodgson JM, Wahlqvist ML, Boxall JA, Balazs ND: Platelet trans fatty acids in relation to angiographically assessed coronary artery disease. Atherosclerosis. 1996, 120: 147-54. 10.1016/0021-9150(95)05696-3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  70. IP C, Scimeca JA, Thompson HJ: Conjugated linoleic acid. Cancer Supplement. 1994, 74 (3): 1050-4.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  71. Kritchevsky D, Tepper SA, Wright Southward, Tso P, Czarnecki SK: Influence of conjugated linoleic acrid (CLA) on establishment and progression of atherosclerosis in rabbits. Periodical American Collection of Diet. 2000, 19 (4): 472S-7S.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  72. Steinhart H, Rickert R, Winkler Yard: Identification and analysis of conjugated linoleic acid isomers (CLA). European Journal of Medicine. 1996, 20 (viii): 370-2.

    Google Scholar

  73. Dugan MER, Aalhus JL, Jeremiah LE, Kramer JKG, Schaefer AL: The effects of feeding conjugated linoleic acrid on subsequent port quality. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 1999, 79: 45-51.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  74. Park Y, Albright KJ, Liu W, Storkson JM, Cook ME, Pariza MW: Effect of conjugated linoleic acid on body limerick in mice. Lipids. 1997, 32: 853-eight. 10.1007/s11745-997-0109-x.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  75. Sisk M, Hausman D, Martin R, Azain M: Dietary conjugated linoleic acrid reduces adiposity in lean merely not obese Zucker rats. Periodical of Nutrition. 2001, 131: 1668-74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  76. Smedman A, Vessby B: Conjugated linoleic acrid supplementation in humans - Metabolic effects. Journal of Diet. 2001, 36: 773-81.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  77. Tsuboyama-Kasaoka N, Takahashi One thousand, Tanemura K, Kim HJ, Tange T, Okuyama H, Kasai M, Ikemoto SS, Ezaki O: Conjugated linoleic acid supplementation reduces adipose tissue by apoptosis and develops lipodystrophy in mice. Diabetes. 2000, 49: 1534-42. 10.2337/diabetes.49.9.1534.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  78. Clement L, Poirier H, Niot I, Bocher V, Guerre-Millo 1000, Krief B, Staels B, Besnard P: Dietary trans-10, cis-12 conjugated linoleic acid induces hyperinsulemia and fat liver in the mouse. Journal of Lipid Research. 2002, 43: 1400-9. 10.1194/jlr.M20008-JLR200.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  79. Roche HM, Noone Eastward, Sewter C, McBennett S, Roughshod D, Gibney MJ, O'Rahilly S, Vidal-Plug AJ: Isomer-dependent metabolic effects of conjugated linoleic acid: insights from molecular markers sterol regulatory element-binding protein 1c and LXR alpha. Diabetes. 2002, 51: 2037-44. x.2337/diabetes.51.7.2037.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  80. Riserus U, Arner P, Brismar Chiliad, Vessby B: Treatment with dietary trans 10 cis 12 conjugated linoleic acrid causes isomer specific insulin resistance in obese men with the metabolic syndrome. Diabetes Intendance. 2002, 25: 1516-21. ten.2337/diacare.25.9.1516.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  81. Delany JP, Blohm F, Truett AA, Scimeca JA, Due west DB: Conjugated linoleic acid rapidly reduces body fat content in mice without affecting energy intake. American Journal of Physiology. 1999, 276 (4 pt two): R1172-R1179.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  82. Kelley DS, Simon VA, Taylor PC, Rudolph IL, Benito P: Dietary supplementation with conjugated linoleic acrid increased its concentration in human being peripheral blood mononuclear cells, but did not alter their function. Lipids. 2001, 36: 669-74. 10.1007/s11745-001-0771-z.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  83. Whigham LD, Cook ME, Atkinson RL: Conjugated linoleic acrid: Implications for human wellness. Pharmacological Enquiry. 2000, 42 (6): 503-10. 10.1006/phrs.2000.0735.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  84. Schmid A, Collomb M, Sieber R, Bee G: Conjugated linoleic acid in meat and meat products. A review Meat Science. 2006, 73: 29-41. x.1016/j.meatsci.2005.ten.010.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  85. Knekt P, Jarvinen R, Seppanen R, Pukkala Eastward, Aromaa A: Intake of dairy products and the risk of breast cancer. British Journal of Cancer. 1996, 73: 687-91.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

  86. Ha YL, Grimm NK, Pariza MW: Newly recognized anticarcinogenic fat acids: identification and quantification in natural and processed cheese. Periodical of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 1989, 37: 75-81. 10.1021/jf00085a018.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  87. Ritzenthaler KL, McGuire MK, Falen R, Shultz TD, Dasgupta Northward, McGuire MA: Estimation of conjugated linoleic acid intake by written dietary assessment methodologies underestimates actual intake evaluated by food indistinguishable methodology. Journal of Nutrition. 2001, 131: 1548-54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  88. Parodi Pw: Conjugated linoleic acid: an anticarcinogenic fatty acid nowadays in milk fat (review). Australian Journal of Dairy Technology. 1994, 49 (2): 93-7.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  89. Dunne PG, Monahan FJ, O'Mara FP, Moloney AP: Colour of bovine subcutaneous adipose tissue: A review of contributory factors, associations with carcass and meat quality and its potential utility in authentication of dietary history. Meat Science. 2009, 81 (ane): 28-45. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.06.013.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  90. Chauveau-Duriot B, Thomas D, Portelli J, Doreau 1000: Carotenoids content in forages: variation during conservation. Renc Rech Ruminants. 2005, 12: 117-

    Google Scholar

  91. Scott LW, Dunn JK, Pownell HJ, Brauchi DJ, McMann MC, Herd JA, Harris KB, Savell JW, Cross 60 minutes, Gotto AM: Furnishings of beefiness and chicken consumption on plasma lipid levels in hypercholesterolemic men. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1994, 154 (11): 1261-seven. 10.1001/archinte.154.11.1261.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  92. Hunninghake DB, Maki KC, Kwiterovick PO, Davidson MH, Dicklin MR, Kafonek SD: Incorporation of lean cerise meat National Cholesterol Education Program Step I nutrition: a long-term, randomized clinical trial in gratis-living persons with hypercholesterolemic. Journal of American Colleges of Nutrition. 2000, 19 (3): 351-sixty.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  93. National Institute of Health Clinical Nutrition Eye: Facts about dietary supplements: Vitamin A and Carotenoids. 2002, Ref Blazon: Pamphlet

    Google Scholar

  94. Descalzo AM, Insani EM, Biolatto A, Sancho AM, Garcia PT, Pensel NA, Josifovich JA: Influence of pasture or grain-based diets supplemented with vitamin E on antioxidant/oxidative residuum of Argentine beef. Journal of Meat Science. 2005, seventy: 35-44. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.11.018.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  95. Simonne AH, Green NR, Bransby DI: Consumer acceptability and beta-carotene content of beef equally related to cattle finishing diets. Journal of Food Science. 1996, 61: 1254-6. x.1111/j.1365-2621.1996.tb10973.10.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  96. Duckett SK, Pratt SL, Pavan Eastward: Corn oil or corn grain supplementation to stters grazing endophyte-free alpine fescue. II. Furnishings on subcutaneous fatty acrid content and lipogenic cistron expression. Periodical of Animal Science. 2009, 87: 1120-eight. 10.2527/jas.2008-1420.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  97. Yang A, Brewster MJ, Lanari MC, Tume RK: Effect of vitamin E supplementation on alpha-tocopherol and beta-carotene concentrations in tissues from pasture and grain-fed cattle. Meat Science. 2002, 60 (1): 35-forty. 10.1016/S0309-1740(01)00102-4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  98. Pryor WA: Vitamin E and Carotenoid Abstracts- 1994 Studies of Lipid-Soluble Antioxidants. Vitamin E Research and Information Services. 1996

    Google Scholar

  99. Arnold RN, Scheller Northward, Arp KK, Williams SC, Beuge DR, Schaefer DM: Effect of long or short-term feeding of alfa-tocopherol acetate to Holstein and crossbred beef steers on performance, carcass characteristics, and beef colour stability. Journal Animal Science. 1992, 70: 3055-65.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  100. Descalzo AM, Sancho AM: A review of natural antioxidants and their effects on oxidative status, odor and quality of fresh beefiness in Argentina. Meat Scientific discipline. 2008, 79: 423-36. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.12.006.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  101. Insani EM, Eyherabide A, Grigioni G, Sancho AM, Pensel NA, Descalzo AM: Oxidative stability and its relationship with natural antioxidants during refrigerated retail display of beef produced in Argentina. Meat Science. 2008, 79: 444-52. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.10.017.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  102. Lonn EM, Yusuf S: Is there a role for antioxidant vitamins in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases? An update on epidemiological and clinical trials data. Cancer Journal of Cardiology. 1997, xiii: 957-65.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  103. Jialal I, Fuller CJ: Consequence of vitamin E, vitamin C and beta-carotene on LDL oxidation and atherosclerosis. Canadian Journal of Cardiology. 1995, 11 (supplemental G): 97G-103G.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  104. Stampfer MJ, Hennekens CH, Manson JE, Colditz GA, Rosner B, Willett WC: Vitamin E consumption and the gamble of coronary disease in women. New England Journal of Medicine. 1993, 328 (1444): 1449-

    Google Scholar

  105. Knekt P, Reunanen A, Jarvinen R, Seppanen R, Heliovaara K, Aromaa A: Antioxidant vitamin intake and coronary bloodshed in a longitudinal population study. American Periodical of Epidemiology. 1994, 139: 1180-nine.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  106. Weitberg AB, Corvese D: Effects of vitamin E and beta-carotene on DNA strand breakage induced by tobacco-specific nitrosamines and stimulated human phagocytes. Periodical of Experimental Cancer Inquiry. 1997, 16: 11-four.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  107. Leske MC, Chylack LT, He Q, Wu SY, Schoenfeld E, Friend J, Wolfe J: Antioxidant vitamins and nuclear opacities: The longitudinal study of cataract. Ophthalmology. 1998, 105: 831-half dozen. 10.1016/S0161-6420(98)95021-vii.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  108. Teikari JM, Virtamo J, Rautalahi M, Palmgren J, Liestro M, Heinonen OP: Long-term supplementation with alpha-tocopherol and beta-carotene and age-related cataract. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica. 1997, 75: 634-40. x.1111/j.1600-0420.1997.tb00620.10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  109. Dietary guidelines Advisory Committee, Agricultural Enquiry Service United States Section of Agriculture USDA: Report of the dietary guidelines advisory commission on the dietary guidelines for Americans. Dietary guidelines Informational Commission. 2000, Ref Type: Hearing

    Google Scholar

  110. McClure EK, Belk KE, Scanga JA, Smith GC: Determination of appropriate Vitamin E supplementation levels and assistants times to ensure acceptable muscle tissue alpha-tocopherol concentration in cattle destined for the Nolan Ryan tender-anile beef program. Brute Sciences Enquiry Study. 2002, The Section of Fauna Sciences, Colorado Country Academy, Ref Type: Report

    Google Scholar

  111. Yang A, Lanari MC, Brewster MJ, Tume RK: Lipid stability and meat colour of beef from pasture and grain-fed cattle with or without vitamin E supplement. Meat Science. 2002, 60: 41-fifty. x.1016/S0309-1740(01)00103-6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  112. Valencia Eastward, Marin A, Hardy G: Glutathione - Nutritional and Pharmacological Viewpoints: Part 2. Nutraceuticals. 2001, 17: 485-6.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  113. Valencia E, Marin A, Hardy Chiliad: Glutathione - Nutritional and Pharmacologic Viewpoints: Office IV. Nutraceuticals. 2001, 17: 783-4.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  114. Descalzo AM, Rossetti L, Grigioni G, Irurueta M, Sancho AM, Carrete J, Pensel NA: Antioxidant status and odor contour in fresh beef from pasture or grain-fed cattle. Meat Science. 2007, 75: 299-307. x.1016/j.meatsci.2006.07.015.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  115. Gatellier P, Mercier Y, Renerre M: Effect of diet finishing mode (pasture or mixed diet) on antioxidant status of Charolais bovine meat. Meat Science. 2004, 67: 385-94. ten.1016/j.meatsci.2003.11.009.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  116. French P, O'Riordan EG, Monahan FJ, Caffery PJ, Moloney AP: Fatty acid composition of intra-muscular tricylglycerols of steers fed autumn grass and concentrates. Livestock Product Science. 2003, 81: 307-17. 10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00253-1.

    Google Scholar

  117. Elmore JS, Warren HE, Mottram DS, Scollan ND, Enser K, Richardson RI: A comparison of the odour volatiles and fatty acrid compositions of grilled beef muscle from Aberdeen Angus and Holstein-Friesian steers fed deits based on silage or concentrates. Meat Science. 2006, 68: 27-33. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.01.010.

    Google Scholar

  118. Lorenz S, Buettner A, Ender 1000, Nuernberg G, Papstein HJ, Schieberle P: Influence of keeping system on the fatty acid composition in the longissimus muscle of bulls and odorants formed afterward pressure-cooking. European Food Enquiry and Engineering. 2002, 214: 112-8. x.1007/s00217-001-0427-4.

    CAS  Google Scholar

  119. Calkins CR, Hodgen JM: A fresh look at meat flavour. Meat Science. 2007, 77: 63-80. x.1016/j.meatsci.2007.04.016.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  120. Sanudo C, Enser ME, Campo MM, Nute GR, Maria Yard, Sierra I, Woods JD: Fatty acid composition and sensory characteristics of lamb carcasses from Great britain and Spain. Meat Science. 2000, 54: 339-46. 10.1016/S0309-1740(99)00108-four.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  121. Killinger KM, Calkins CR, Umberger WJ, Feuz DM, Eskridge KM: A comparison of consumer sensory acceptance and value of domestic beefiness steaks and steaks form a branded, Argentine beef programme. Journal Animal Scientific discipline. 2004, 82: 3302-7.

    CAS  Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to admit Grace Berryhill for her help with the figures, tables and editorial contributions to this manuscript.

Author data

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Agriculture, California State University, Chico, CA, U.s.

    Cynthia A Daley, Amber Abbott & Patrick S Doyle

  2. University of California Cooperative Extension Service, Davis, CA, Us

    Glenn A Nader & Stephanie Larson

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cynthia A Daley.

Boosted data

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

CAD was responsible for the literature review, completed nigh of the primary writing, created the manuscript and worked through the submission process; AA conducted the literature search, organized the articles according to category, completed some of the primary writing and served as editor; SPD conducted a portion of the literature review and served equally editor for the manuscript; GAN conducted a portion of the literature review and served equally editor for the manuscript; SL conducted a portion o the literature review and served as editor for the manuscript. All authors read and approved the terminal manuscript.

Authors' original submitted files for images

Rights and permissions

This commodity is published nether license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed nether the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/two.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in whatever medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this commodity

Daley, C.A., Abbott, A., Doyle, P.South. et al. A review of fatty acrid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beefiness. Nutr J 9, x (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2891-9-10

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2891-9-10

Keywords

  • Conjugated Linoleic Acid
  • Conjugated Linoleic Acid Isomer
  • Antioxidant Content
  • Total Conjugated Linoleic Acid
  • Conjugated Linoleic Acid C9t11

garzaindesur.blogspot.com

Source: https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-9-10

0 Response to "Does Beef Made in Different Places Have Same Nutrient Contents"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel