Cited by 807Meat and Animal Product QualityRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFatty Acid Research and Health

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

Open access
Daley, Cynthia A, Abbott, Amber, Doyle, Patrick S, Nader, Glenn A, Larson, Stephanie·2010·Nutrition Journal

Abstract

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 can significantly improve the fatty acid (FA) composition and antioxidant content of beef, albeit with variable impacts on overall palatability. Grass-based diets have been shown to enhance total conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) (C18:2) isomers, trans vaccenic acid (TVA) (C18:1 t11), a precursor to CLA, and omega-3 (n-3) FAs on a g/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 as myristic (C14:0) and palmitic (C16:0) FAs. Several studies suggest that grass-based diets elevate precursors for Vitamin A and E, as well as cancer fighting antioxidants such as glutathione (GT) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity as compared to grain-fed contemporaries. Fat conscious consumers will also prefer the overall lower fat content of a grass-fed beef product. However, consumers should be aware that the differences in FA content will also give grass-fed beef a distinct grass flavor and unique cooking qualities that should be considered when making the transition from grain-fed beef. In addition, the fat from grass-finished beef may have a yellowish appearance from the elevated carotenoid content (precursor to Vitamin A). It is also noted that grain-fed beef consumers may achieve similar intakes of both n-3 and CLA through the consumption of higher fat grain-fed portions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1475-2891-9-10

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Intake of yogurt, but not milk, is consistently associated with lower incidence of diabetes; cheese intake also associates with lower diabetes risk in several although not all studies.

    “For example, intake of yogurt, but not milk, is consistently associated with lower incidence of diabetes; while intake of cheese, which has high calorie, fat, and saturated fat content, also associates with lower diabetes risk in several although not all studies.57, 179-184, 224, 226-228”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Daley, C. A., Abbott, A., Doyle, P. S., Nader, G. A., & Larson, S.
Affiliations
  • California State University, Chico (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Daley, Cynthia A
Venue
Nutrition Journal
Published
2010-03-10
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
10-10
ISSN
1475-2891 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2166531963
Cited by
807
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 57 · 2014: 53 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 35
FWCI
4.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nutrition Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Meat and Animal Product Quality
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Fatty Acid Research and Health
Keywords
grass-fed beef, grain-fed beef, fatty acid composition, conjugated linoleic acid, trans-vaccenic acid, omega-3 fatty acids, saturated fatty acids, stearic acid, vitamin A, vitamin E, antioxidants, glutathione, superoxide dismutase, carotenoids, beef palatability, cooking quality, dietary fat intake
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Feed, Antioxidants, Cattle, Edible Grain, Fatty Acids, Poaceae, Meat, Oleic Acids, Taste, Vitamin E, Fatty Acids, Omega-3, beta Carotene, Fatty Acids, Omega-6, Linoleic Acids, Conjugated

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review