Rethinking the sustainability assessment of grass-fed beef: a holistic systematic review
- 1Department of Animal Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, 7600 South Africa
- 2Africa Centre for Inclusive Health Management, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, 7600 South Africa
- 3Department of Agricultural Economics, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, 7600 South Africa
Abstract
Consumer demand for grass-fed beef (GFB) is increasing due to its perceived advantages in food safety, healthfulness, animal welfare, and environmental stewardship, yet its sustainability remains contested. This PRISMA-guided systematic review synthesised evidence from 141 studies identified through Web of Science, Scopus, AGRICOLA, and supplementary grey-literature sources to evaluate GFB production, meat quality, and sustainability, and to provide actionable insights for future research, market governance, and policy. The currently inconsistent evidence is insufficient to confirm the sustainability of GFB. Although GFB can offer desirable quality attributes, including leaner carcasses, greater proportions of omega-3 and conjugated linoleic fatty acids, and elevated antioxidant levels, its darker colour and variable tenderness may affect consumer acceptance. Environmentally, reduced grain inputs and greater pasture biodiversity may promote ecological stewardship, but methane emissions and higher land requirements may offset these gains unless adaptive grazing and carbon sequestration are appropriately incorporated. Socially, animal welfare can be enhanced through regenerative grazing practices but can also be compromised when animals are exposed to adverse weather and parasites. Economic performance depends on productivity, certification costs, price premiums, and market access. Despite their growing social relevance, animal welfare, traceability, authenticity, and certification remain insufficiently integrated into sustainability assessments. Overall, the current evidence is fragmented and dominated by farmgate economic and greenhouse gas metrics. Multidimensional, value-chain-based, and context-sensitive sustainability assessment frameworks are proposed to guide credible standards, targeted incentives, and market development.
Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-026-05471-2.
Related
- Cognitive Assessment Tools Developed or Adapted for Indigenous Populations in North America, South America, and Oceania: A Systematic Review
- Environmental Sustainability Assessment of Miscanthus through Life Cycle Analysis: Variability and Case Studies
- Cattle production, water resources, and sustainability: a review of current knowledge and future directions.
- Food sustainability and sovereignty in tension: An integrated assessment of nutritional, environmental, and self-sufficiency dimensions in the French food supply
- Reusable and single-use endoscopes: infection prevention and sustainability considerations - a narrative review.
BibTeX
@article{mazungunye2026rethinking,
title = {{Rethinking the sustainability assessment of grass-fed beef: a holistic systematic review}},
author = {Panashe Paul Mazungunye and Munyaradzi Saruchera and Shepherd Mudavanhu and Kennedy Dzama and Cletos Mapiye},
journal = {Tropical Animal Health and Production},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.1007/s11250-026-05471-2},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-026-05471-2},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Rethinking the sustainability assessment of grass-fed beef: a holistic systematic review
AU - Panashe Paul Mazungunye
AU - Munyaradzi Saruchera
AU - Shepherd Mudavanhu
AU - Kennedy Dzama
AU - Cletos Mapiye
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/04
JO - Tropical Animal Health and Production
DO - 10.1007/s11250-026-05471-2
UR - https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-026-05471-2
AB - Consumer demand for grass-fed beef (GFB) is increasing due to its perceived advantages in food safety, healthfulness, animal welfare, and environmental stewardship, yet its sustainability remains contested. This PRISMA-guided systematic review synthesised evidence from 141 studies identified through Web of Science, Scopus, AGRICOLA, and supplementary grey-literature sources to evaluate GFB production, meat quality, and sustainability, and to provide actionable insights for future research, market governance, and policy. The currently inconsistent evidence is insufficient to confirm the sustainability of GFB. Although GFB can offer desirable quality attributes, including leaner carcasses, greater proportions of omega-3 and conjugated linoleic fatty acids, and elevated antioxidant levels, its darker colour and variable tenderness may affect consumer acceptance. Environmentally, reduced grain inputs and greater pasture biodiversity may promote ecological stewardship, but methane emissions and higher land requirements may offset these gains unless adaptive grazing and carbon sequestration are appropriately incorporated. Socially, animal welfare can be enhanced through regenerative grazing practices but can also be compromised when animals are exposed to adverse weather and parasites. Economic performance depends on productivity, certification costs, price premiums, and market access. Despite their growing social relevance, animal welfare, traceability, authenticity, and certification remain insufficiently integrated into sustainability assessments. Overall, the current evidence is fragmented and dominated by farmgate economic and greenhouse gas metrics. Multidimensional, value-chain-based, and context-sensitive sustainability assessment frameworks are proposed to guide credible standards, targeted incentives, and market development. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-026-05471-2.
SN - 0049-4747
SN - 1573-7438
ER -