ArticleJournal of animal science2026
Nutritional composition of beef: a comparison of commercial North American grass- and grain-finishing systems.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Beef's fatty acid and mineral profile is influenced by finishing diets, yet the nutritional variability within both grass- and grain-fed beef samples from commercial operations remains underexplored. Understanding potential differences is important for producers and consumers. This study profiled grass- and grain-fed beef from commercial North American producers and retailers, and evaluated relationships among grazing practices, forage quality, soil characteristics, and beef fatty acid and mineral composition. Beef samples (grass-fed, n = 253; grain-fed, n = 84), along with forage and soil samples where possible, were collected from 108 commercial producers and retailers. Fatty acids were analyzed using gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (GC-FID), and minerals were quantified using inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES). Statistical models evaluated differences and correlations between and within finishing practices using Welch's t-test and Pearson's correlation analysis. Grass-fed beef had a lower omega-6:3 ratio (2.14 vs. 8.28, P < 0.001) and higher concentrations of the fatty acids alpha-linolenic acid (ALA; 0.99 vs. 0.27%), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA; 0.28 vs. 0.07%), docosapentaenoic acid (DPA; 0.41 vs. 0.17%), conjugated linoleic acid (CLA; 0.49 vs. 0.31%), and the minerals calcium (9.26 vs. 3.08 mg/100 g), copper (0.253 vs. 0.129 mg/100 g), iron (2.29 vs. 1.92 mg/100 g), and selenium (0.012 vs. 0.002 mg/100 g) compared with grain-fed beef (all P < 0.05). However, considerable nutritional variation exists, particularly within grass-finished beef, with omega-6:3 ratios ranging from 0.62 to 11.45. Animals finished on biodiverse pastures exhibited fatty acid profiles characterized by higher omega-3 to total polyunsaturated FA content, resulting in a higher omega balance (r = 0.30, P = 0.02). However, some grass-fed samples, particularly several retail-purchased samples, displayed fatty acid compositions with relatively low omega-3 content, resulting in an omega balance similar to grain-fed beef. These findings highlight the need for clearer guidance on "grass-fed" management definitions and more transparent labeling that reflects measurable nutritional attributes, such as omega-3 content, omega-6:3 ratio, and/or omega balance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.