Back to Basics:

Grass-fed, natural, organic,
hormone- and antibiotic-free

by Ron Torell, University of Nevada Cooperative Extension Livestock Specialist

As a beef producer, did the title of this article catch your attention? It gets my blood flowing for several reasons.

Grass-fed beef: Is it healthier than grain-fed beef?
Is there an advantage to consuming grass-fed beef over feedlot beef? It depends on what the consumer is looking for.

Grass-fed beef is typically leaner than feedlot beef, which is not a bad approach to an improved diet. Claims made relative to the fat composition of grass-fed beef have not been accurately presented. A major claim relative to fat composition is that grass-fed beef contains more omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids and more conjugated linoleic acid (CLA).

When we measure fat composition we use a process to extract the fat from the lean to develop a "pool" of fat to test. Within the pool are omega-3, omega-6, CLA and other saturated fatty acids occurring in varying proportions. When one component decreases, another increases in proportion to the total amount of fat present. Within the fat extracted from a sample of grass-fed beef, we would expect to see a greater proportion of omega-3 fatty acid, as this type represents a high proportion of the fat in grass. However, grass is not a rich source of fat, so the amount consumed will not be very great.

Further, once trimmed of excess fat, grass-fed beef is expected to be quite lean, meaning the meat will not have much fat, either. So if we compare the "percentage" of omega-3 in grass-fed and feedlot beef, the grass-fed would be five times greater. If we compare the "actual amount" consumed in an 8-ounce (oz.) steak from both carcasses, the omega-3 in the grass-fed sample is only two times greater. While the amount consumed is greater in grass-fed beef, it isn't phenomenally greater as claimed.

CLA is perhaps more important to emphasize when developing rations in either grass-fed or feedlot diets since it will likely have the most far-reaching health benefits. CLA enters the diet as a plant-based fat. It is then converted by the ruminant animal from an "unsaturated" to a "saturated" fatty acid through a number of steps before entering the small intestine to be absorbed and used by the animal. Fortunately, during this conversion some of the intact CLA enters the small intestine and is absorbed. The intermediate fatty acid can also enter the small intestine and be absorbed. This intermediate form, when it enters the fat cells and/or mammary tissue is converted back to CLA. The important thing to remember is that CLA is a fat-associated product and just like omega-3, if the meat is lean there will not be much CLA consumed.

Overall, grass-fed beef should provide consumers with a lean product and with residual fat that contains omega-3 and CLA fatty acids. And it certainly will contribute to a diet designed to be low in calories and rich in high-quality protein with associated vitamins and minerals. A group of beef researchers have come together with the goal of increasing the concentration of omega-3 and CLA rather than just increasing the proportions of these fatty acids.

— Written by Dan Rule, University of Wyoming professor of animal science

— Edited by C. Kim Chapman, Utah State University Extension animal scientist

First, all cattle are grass-fed! That's what beef producers do — raise cattle on grass. Second, practically all cattle are raised in harmony with Mother Nature in a natural setting, harvesting organic material. Third, no cattle are hormone-free. Essentially, the same measurable levels of hormones are present in all cattle, implanted or not.

Fourth, antibiotics have a profound effect on the health and well-being of the animal and the profitability of our operations. Following label directions and judiciously using antibiotics has no ill effect on human health. Lastly, the title of this article implies that any animal not marketed under the above criteria is less wholesome and inferior to those animals that are. The grass-fed industry has used these claims to promote itself to a significant extent. (See "Grass-fed beef: Is it healthier than grain-fed beef?")

A growing niche

Growing at alarming rates are the grass-fed, natural, organic and no-added hormone markets. Direct and name-brand marketing of these products is building momentum and will probably continue to do so. Premiums are being paid for cattle that fit into these niches.

This tells me that perception in the eye of some consumers takes priority to science and common sense. Some consumers want a product with a story behind it and are willing to pay for that story. Are you willing to produce that product for a premium, shouldering the associated extra cost of production?

There is a huge difference between "grass-fed" and "pasture-finished" beef. If not produced properly, grass-fed beef will frequently leave consumers with an unsatisfactory eating experience. If not properly produced, quality grades of grass-fed beef are often Standard, with little marbling or fat cover. The fat that is present is yellow in color, not the pearl-white fat to which today's consumers are accustomed.

Properly done pasture-finishing will take cattle to an end point of Select or low-Choice quality grades, similar to feedlot finishing. Both of these quality grades are acceptable by consumers. To accomplish these goals under pasture-finishing conditions, cattle need to gain at least 2 pounds (lb.) per day for the final 70 to 90 days of the feeding period. Many of our Western pastures are not capable of accomplishing these required gains. Our good feed generally runs out in midsummer, just when cattle need that extra push to deposit that intramuscular fat.

In order to reach the Select or low-Choice quality grades on grass, a smaller-framed, earlier-maturing animal with the genetic propensity to deposit intramuscular fat or marbling is required. These types of cattle are generally going to be the more moderate-framed English breeds (Hereford, Angus or Shorthorn) with little or no influence from later-maturing Continental breeds (Charolais, Simmental or Limousin).

Natural vs. organic

"Natural" should not be confused with "organic." Animals qualified as organic, among other requirements, must be fed 100% certified organic feed. There is a lengthy and involved process to do that. The organic market is growing; however, there is significant expense and documentation in producing products for this market.

Most companies define natural as a "never-ever" product. Cattle have "never-ever" been administered ionophores, antibiotics in any form, hormones or animal byproduct feeds. Many natural name-brand products are traceable back to a particular ranch with specific environmental and animal care criteria attached.

The two leading video auction companies both offer "Certified Natural" as a marketing option. Those natural programs specify many of the above criteria and require an accompanied certificate signed by the seller. The programs have been very successful, fetching good premiums for sellers.

Without third-party audited verification, I question whether buyers always get what they pay for. I have personally witnessed cattle loaded onto the truck that were treated with antibiotics in midsummer for respiratory disease and pinkeye. Those cattle were misrepresented and were sold as "Certified Natural." This becomes an integrity issue on the seller's part.

Opportunity or buzzwords?

So where is this article leading? The beef industry is entering a new phase of production that will offer new marketing opportunities. Branded and specialty markets will require a third-party verification source, not just a signed affidavit.

As much as these specialty markets and buzzwords irritate me, there is opportunity to capitalize on this growing market. Not all beef producers have what it takes to chase these markets, nor is the market large enough for all of us to participate. When one eliminates ionophores, antibiotics and implants, and keeps the necessary auditable records to verify their management practices, the sacrifices may not be worth the gain.

Call it my stubborn nature or the fact that I am scientific-minded, wanting research to lead my decisions. I hesitate to participate in specialty or niche markets that infer that beef sold through regular channels is less wholesome than what is sold through branded and specialty premium markets. By doing so I would be ignoring scientific facts. In my mind, I would be conceding that the use of antibiotics, ionophores and implants is bad, and I would be adding to the fallacy.

I encourage those who want to pursue these premium markets to do their homework prior to entering into an agreement. If you do your homework and have the resources to participate, there are certainly premiums to be had. Keep in mind, however, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

As always, if you would like to discuss these articles or simply would like to talk cows do not hesitate to contact me at 775-738-1721 or at torellr@unce.unr.edu.