Abstract
Livestock production is under increasing scrutiny as a component of the food supply chain with a large impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Amidst growing calls to reduce industrial ruminant production, there is room to consider differences in meat quality and nutritional benefits of organic and/or pasture-based management systems. Access to forage, whether fresh or conserved, is a key influencing factor for meat fatty acid profile, and there is increasing evidence that pasture access is particularly beneficial for meat’s nutritional quality. These composition differences ultimately impact nutrient supply to consumers of conventional, organic and grass-fed meat. For this review, predicted fatty acid supply from three consumption scenarios were modelled: i. average UK population National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) (<128 g/week) red meat consumption, ii. red meat consumption suggested by the UK National Health Service (NHS) (<490 g/week) and iii. red meat consumption suggested by the Eat Lancet Report (<98 g/week). The results indicate average consumers would receive more of the beneficial fatty acids for human health (especially the essential omega-3, alpha-linolenic acid) from pasture-fed beef, produced either organically or conventionally.
Highlights
Consumer awareness of the environmental impacts of ruminant production has grown over the past two decades [1]
The naturally occurring trans fatty acid (TFA) found in meat may not be harmful [66] but due to the challenges of isolating TFAs and examining their direct effect on human health, the UK recommendation is no more than 2% of dietary energy intake should come from TFAs [67]; the evidence does not point towards ruminant-derived TFAs (VA) negatively impacting human health, and in particular, health benefits have been reported as a result of VA consumption [58]
The evidence suggests the fatty acid profile of beef meat produced under pasture-based diets has a more nutritionally desirable fatty acid profile than intensively and conventionally reared beef, and to a lesser extent, maybe even compared with organically reared beef
Summary
Consumer awareness of the environmental impacts of ruminant production has grown over the past two decades [1]. A 2020 Nature article analysing the external climate costs of food determined that external GHG costs are highest for both conventional and organic animal-based products (including eggs, poultry, ruminants and pork) compared to milk and plant-based foods [12]. Despite this grouping of all animal agriculture as ecologically unsustainable, there are clearly differences in environmental impact between production systems [5,13,14], especially when considering impacts beyond emissions, including biodiversity [13,15], soil health [13,16] and energy/land use [13]. This paper aims to review the current literature and explore whether organic and/or pasture-reared beef confers nutritional benefits over conventionally produced beef
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
