Glenn Nader

A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef

Growing consumer interest in grass-fed beef products has raised a number of questions with regard to the perceived differences in nutritional quality between grass-fed and grain-fed cattle. Research spanning three decades suggests that grass-based diets can significantly improve the fatty acid (FA) composition and antioxidant content of beef, albeit with variable impacts on overall palatability. Grass-based diets have been shown to enhance total conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) (C18:2) isomers, trans vaccenic acid (TVA) (C18:1 t11), a precursor to CLA, and omega-3 (n-3) FAs on a g/g fat basis. While the overall concentration of total SFAs is not different between feeding regimens, grass-finished beef tends toward a higher proportion of cholesterol neutral stearic FA (C18:0), and less cholesterol-elevating SFAs such as myristic (C14:0) and palmitic (C16:0) FAs. Several studies suggest that grass-based diets elevate precursors for Vitamin A and E, as well as cancer fighting antioxidants such as glutathione (GT) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity as compared to grain-fed contemporaries. Fat conscious consumers will also prefer the overall lower fat content of a grass-fed beef product. However, consumers should be aware that the differences in FA content will also give grass-fed beef a distinct grass flavor and unique cooking qualities that should be considered when making the transition from grain-fed beef. In addition, the fat from grass-finished beef may have a yellowish appearance from the elevated carotenoid content (precursor to Vitamin A). It is also noted that grain-fed beef consumers may achieve similar intakes of both n-3 and CLA through the consumption of higher fat grain-fed portions.

Integrating prescribed burning and clopyralid for the management of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis)

Abstract Prescribed burning and the herbicide clopyralid are very effective tools for the management of yellow starthistle. However, repeated use of either can be impractical or can present other problems. The potential solution is the development of an effective integrated weed management strategy using a combination of the two approaches. In small plot studies (0.2 ha), we tested one of five possible treatments: (1) untreated control, (2) 2 consecutive yr of clopyralid (0.105 kg ha−1), (3) 2 consecutive yr of prescribed summer burning, (4) first-year clopyralid followed by second-year prescribed burning, and (5) first-year prescribed burning followed by second-year clopyralid. Treatments were made in 1999 and 2000 at three study sites in California (San Benito, Yuba, and Siskiyou counties). In 2001, the year following the final treatment, 2 consecutive yr of clopyralid or first-year burning followed by second-year clopyralid consistently reduced yellow starthistle cover in the following year by 92 to 100%. However, at the Yuba site, clopyralid alone increased medusahead and ripgut brome cover. Although 2 consecutive yr of burning was effective in Yuba, very high levels of starthistle infestation in San Benito were not completely burned in the second year because of the lack of available consumable fuel. Clopyralid treatment the first year followed by prescribed burning in the second year stimulated yellow starthistle germination and did not reduce the infestation. In a large-scale study conducted at two sites (13 and 81 ha) in southern Monterey County, we used a first-year burn followed by either 2 yr of clopyralid (0.158 kg ha−1) or a single year of clopyralid (0.210 kg ha−1) and a subsequent burn. Results were in close agreement with those found in the small-scale studies. In the year following the final treatment, control of yellow starthistle was greater than 99% when the burn was followed by 2 yr of clopyralid. In contrast, when a prescribed burn was used in the last year of the program, the level of control was not as good, probably because of the increased germination of the remaining soil seedbank. These results indicate that a first-year prescribed burn followed by a second-year clopyralid treatment can provide consistently good control of yellow starthistle, as well as reduced levels of noxious annual grasses, including medusahead and ripgut brome. Nomenclature:u2003Medusahead, Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski ELYCM; ripgut brome, Bromus diandrus Roth BRODI; yellow starthistle, Centaurea solstitialis L. CENSO.

Coping with Drought on California Rangelands

On the Ground Rangeland livestock producers were among the first agricultural communities affected by Californias multiyear drought. Rancher surveys and in-person interviews have identified key strategies for coping with and adapting to drought. Increasing flexibility, resource valuation, and information sharing are important components of building adaptive capacity. Web-based communication systems have provided new tools for peer-to-peer learning, public education, and extending knowledge to larger audiences. Insights from managers experiences are important for adaptation planning to enhance resilience of rangeland social-ecological systems to climate stresses.

Save water or save wildlife? Water use and conservation in the central Sierran foothill oak woodlands of California, USA

This project was funded as part of the NSF Coupled Human Natural Systems Program, Project Award Number 1115069, Wetlands in a Working Landscape, with Professor Steve Beissinger as Principal Investigator. J.L. Oviedo’s involvement in this study was also funded by the Salvador de Madariaga program (grant number PRX16/00452) of the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports.