4.7 Article

Effects of Hay, Baleage, and Soybean Hulls Waste Used as Supplemental Feeds on the Nutritional Profile of Grass-Finished Beef

期刊

FOODS
卷 11, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods11233856

关键词

cattle feed; conserved forages; fatty acids; grassland; meat quality; minerals; pasture; sustainability

资金

  1. Greenacres Foundation [G0488F]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the effects of supplemental feeds on the nutritional profile of grass-finished beef and found that different feeds had different impacts on the beef’s nutritional characteristics. Beef from cows fed with grass and hay had the most beneficial nutritional profile, while soybean hulls increased the n-6:n-3 ratio of the beef.
Grass-finished beef (GFB) has demonstrated wide nutritional variations with some GFB having a considerably higher n-6:n-3 ratio compared to grain-finished beef. To better understand these variations, the current study investigated the effects of commonly used supplemental feeds on the nutritional profile of GFB. This two-year study involved 117 steers randomly allocated to one of four diets: (1) grass+hay (G-HAY), (2) grass+baleage (G-BLG), (3) grass+soybean hulls (G-SH), and (4) baleage+soybean hulls in feedlot (BLG-SH). Feed samples were analyzed for their nutritional value, and beef samples underwent analysis for fatty acids (FAs), vitamin E, minerals, lipid oxidation, and shear force. FAs were measured by GC-MS, vitamin E was analyzed chromatographically, minerals were analyzed by ICP-MS, and lipid oxidation was measured via a thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) assay. G-SH beef had the highest n-6:n-3 ratio (p < 0.001), while BLG-SH beef contained less vitamin E (p < 0.001) and higher TBARS values (p < 0.001) compared to the other groups. G-HAY beef contained more long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated FAs compared to the other groups (p < 0.001). In conclusion, G-HAY beef had the most beneficial nutritional profile, while soybean hulls increased the n-6:n-3 ratio of beef.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据