Dataset Information

A metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable Nutrition Facts panels.

ABSTRACT: A new generation of plant-based meat alternatives-formulated to mimic the taste and nutritional composition of red meat-have attracted considerable consumer interest, research attention, and media coverage. This has raised questions of whether plant-based meat alternatives represent proper nutritional replacements to animal meat. The goal of our study was to use untargeted metabolomics to provide an in-depth comparison of the metabolite profiles a popular plant-based meat alternative (n = 18) and grass-fed ground beef (n = 18) matched for serving size (113 g) and fat content (14 g). Despite apparent similarities based on Nutrition Facts panels, our metabolomics analysis found that metabolite abundances between the plant-based meat alternative and grass-fed ground beef differed by 90% (171 out of 190 profiled metabolites; false discovery rate adjusted p < 0.05). Several metabolites were found either exclusively (22 metabolites) or in greater quantities in beef (51 metabolites) (all, p < 0.05). Nutrients such as docosahexaenoic acid (ω-3), niacinamide (vitamin B3), glucosamine, hydroxyproline and the anti-oxidants allantoin, anserine, cysteamine, spermine, and squalene were amongst those only found in beef. Several other metabolites were found exclusively (31 metabolites) or in greater quantities (67 metabolites) in the plant-based meat alternative (all, p < 0.05). Ascorbate (vitamin C), phytosterols, and several phenolic anti-oxidants such as loganin, sulfurol, syringic acid, tyrosol, and vanillic acid were amongst those only found in the plant-based meat alternative. Large differences in metabolites within various nutrient classes (e.g., amino acids, dipeptides, vitamins, phenols, tocopherols, and fatty acids) with physiological, anti-inflammatory, and/or immunomodulatory roles indicate that these products should not be viewed as truly nutritionally interchangeable, but could be viewed as complementary in terms of provided nutrients. The new information we provide is important for making informed decisions by consumers and health professionals. It cannot be determined from our data if either source is healthier to consume.

SUBMITTER: van Vliet S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8257669 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Beef represents a major diet component and one of the major sources of protein in human. The beef industry in the United States is currently undergoing changes and is facing increased demands especially for natural grass-fed beef. The grass-fed beef obtained their nutrients directly from pastures, which contained limited assimilable energy but abundant amount of fiber. On the contrary, the grain-fed steers received a grain-based regime that served as an efficient source of high-digestible energy. Lately, ruminant animals have been accused to be a substantial contributor for the green house effect. Therefore, the concerns from environmentalism, animal welfare and public health have driven consumers to choose grass-fed beef. Rumen is one of the key workshops to digest forage constituting a critical step to supply enough nutrients for animals' growth and production. We hypothesize that rumen may function differently in grass- and grain-fed regimes. The objective of this study was to find the differentially expressed genes in the ruminal wall of grass-fed and grain-fed steers, and then explore the potential biopathways. In this study, the RNA Sequencing (RNA-Seq) method was used to measure the gene expression level in the ruminal wall. The total number of reads per sample ranged from 24,697,373 to 36,714,704. The analysis detected 342 differentially expressed genes between ruminal wall samples of animals raised under different regimens. The Fisher's exact test performed in the Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) software found 16 significant molecular networks. Additionally, 13 significantly enriched pathways were identified, most of which were related to cell development and biosynthesis. Our analysis demonstrated that most of the pathways enriched with the differentially expressed genes were related to cell development and biosynthesis. Our results provided valuable insights into the molecular mechanisms resulting in the phenotype difference between grass-fed and grain-fed cattle.

Project description:Between increasing public concerns over climate change and heightened interest of niche market beef on social media, the demand for grass-fed beef has increased considerably. However, the demand increase for grass-fed beef has raised many producers' and consumers' concerns regarding product quality, economic viability, and environmental impacts that have thus far gone unanswered. Therefore, using a holistic approach, we investigated the performance, carcass quality, financial outcomes, and environmental impacts of four grass-fed and grain-fed beef systems currently being performed by ranchers in California. The treatments included 1) steers stocked on pasture and feedyard finished for 128 d (CON); 2) steers grass-fed for 20 mo (GF20); 3) steers grass-fed for 20 mo with a 45-d grain finish (GR45); and 4) steers grass-fed for 25 mo (GF25). The data were analyzed using a mixed model procedure in R with differences between treatments determined by Tukey HSD. Using carcass and performance data from these systems, a weaning-to-harvest life cycle assessment was developed in the Scalable, Process-based, Agronomically Responsive Cropping Systems model framework, to determine global warming potential (GWP), consumable water use, energy, smog, and land occupation footprints. Final body weight varied significantly between treatments (P < 0.001) with the CON cattle finishing at 632 kg, followed by GF25 at 570 kg, GR45 at 551 kg, and GF20 478 kg. Dressing percentage differed significantly between all treatments (P < 0.001). The DP was 61.8% for CON followed by GR45 at 57.5%, GF25 at 53.4%, and GF20 had the lowest DP of 50.3%. Marbling scores were significantly greater for CON compared to all other treatments (P < 0.001) with CON marbling score averaging 421 (low-choice ≥ 400). Breakeven costs with harvesting and marketing for the CON, GF20, GR45, and GF25 were $6.01, $8.98, $8.02, and $8.33 per kg hot carcass weight (HCW), respectively. The GWP for the CON, GF20, GR45, and GF25 were 4.79, 6.74, 6.65, and 8.31 CO2e/kg HCW, respectively. Water consumptive use for CON, GF20, GR45, and GF25 were 933, 465, 678, and 1,250 L/kg HCW, respectively. Energy use for CON, GF20, GR45, and GF25 were 18.7, 7.65, 13.8, and 8.85 MJ/kg HCW, respectively. Our results indicated that grass-fed beef systems differ in both animal performance and carcass quality resulting in environmental and economic sustainability trade-offs with no system having absolute superiority.

Project description:Beef represents a major diet component and one of the major sources of protein in human. The beef industry in the United States is currently undergoing changes and is facing increased demands especially for natural grass-fed beef. The grass-fed beef obtained their nutrients directly from pastures, which contained limited assimilable energy but abundant amount of fiber. On the contrary, the grain-fed steers received a grain-based regime that served as an efficient source of high-digestible energy. Lately, ruminant animals have been accused to be a substantial contributor for the green house effect. Therefore, the concerns from environmentalism, animal welfare and public health have driven consumers to choose grass-fed beef. Rumen is one of the key workshops to digest forage constituting a critical step to supply enough nutrients for animals’ growth and production. We hypothesize that rumen may function differently in grass- and grain-fed regimes. The objective of this study was to find the differentially expressed genes in the ruminal wall of grass-fed and grain-fed steers, and then explore the potential biopathways. In this study, the RNA Sequencing (RNA-Seq) method was used to measure the gene expression level in the ruminal wall. The total number of reads per sample ranged from 24,697,373 to 36,714,704. The analysis detected 342 differentially expressed genes between ruminal wall samples of animals raised under different regimens. The Fisher’s exact test performed in the Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) software found 16 significant molecular networks. Additionally, 13 significantly enriched pathways were identified, most of which were related to cell development and biosynthesis. Our analysis demonstrated that most of the pathways enriched with the differentially expressed genes were related to cell development and biosynthesis. Our results provided valuable insights into the molecular mechanisms resulting in the phenotype difference between grass-fed and grain-fed cattle.

Dataset Information

A metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable Nutrition Facts panels.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets