Next Article in Journal
A Prototype Mechatronic Device for Upper Limb Rehabilitation and Analysis of Its Functionality
Previous Article in Journal
Improved Liquefaction Hazard Assessment via Deep Feature Extraction and Stacked Ensemble Learning on Microtremor Data
Previous Article in Special Issue
Investigation of Salt and Water Diffusion During Dry Salting, Wet Curing, and Ultrasonic Wet Curing
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 12
10.3390/app15126612
Due to scheduled maintenance work on our database systems, there may be short service disruptions on this website between 10:00 and 11:00 CEST on June 14th.
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Determination of Intrinsic Sodium in Grass-Fed Bonsmara (Bos taurus indicus) Meat

by
Elphus J. Mkhwebane
*,
Ingrid M. Mokgobu
,
Davies V. Nkosi
and
Johan L. Bekker
Department of Environmental Health, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria 0001, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(12), 6612; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126612
Submission received: 1 May 2025 / Revised: 6 June 2025 / Accepted: 10 June 2025 / Published: 12 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Meat Quality and Processing)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
There is a view that grass-fed beef has human health benefits coupled with better quality attributes. Yet, organic sodium in grass-fed beef remains elusive and overlooked in meat processing. This study aims to determine intrinsic sodium and saline mineral in grass-fed meat derived from Bonsmara (B. indicus) cattle that have been feeding on grass pea (Lathyrus sativus) for 18–20 months. A total of 70 (N = 70) samples from topside, silverside, thin flank, 80/20, and 60/40 trimmings were collected from seven carcasses. The samples were digested and tested using a validated ICP-OES. The results showed that the range of intrinsic sodium (mg/100 g) in grass-fed beef is 45–83, whereas in topsides = 49–74, silversides = 54–67, thin flanks = 62–83, 80/20 trimmings = 58–70 and 60/40 trimmings are 45–64. The results suggest that there is no significant difference of intrinsic sodium in similar cuts (p > 0.005), while it was significantly different (p < 0.0001) when all samples were considered. There were contrasting correlations of inherent grass-fed beef saline minerals (K, Mg, Ca and Cu) and intrinsic sodium concentrations in different meat cuts. Therefore, intrinsic sodium in raw grass-fed beef is higher than previously estimated. Consequently, intrinsic sodium must be considered in processed meat formulation concepts for the sake of consumer health.

1. Introduction

Globally, grass-fed beef is regarded as a healthier beef option due to its health and quality characteristics preferred by red meat enthusiasts [1]. Over the past three decades, grass-fed beef has gained popularity, and its distribution has increased in developed economies worldwide [2]. Klopatek et al. [3] emphasized that the increase in the grass-fed meat trade globally was estimated at 15% in 2021. This demand has led to the emergence of cattle-grass-fed farms for meat animals and, subsequently, the production of grass-fed beef derivatives [4]. The consumption of grass-fed beef and meat derivatives has increased due to the perceived health benefits [5]. It is believed that grass-fed beef contains organic minerals that are essential for human health benefits, as well as for enhancing the palatability and appeal of the meat [6].
Natural minerals in cattle are generally formed in various physiological systems of the animal, such as muscles, bones, and cartilage [7]. Rossi et al. [8] highlighted that grass-fed beef benefits are associated with optimal amounts of natural elements in beef, such as sodium, potassium, and magnesium. The physicochemical composition of beef can enhance lower levels of fatty acids, high oleic acid, and higher levels of carotenoids and antioxidants, which are beneficial to human health [9]. The popularity of grass-fed beef has the potential to be an anti-carcinogen, prevent cholesterol, and control liver and cardiovascular conditions [10]. The high nutritional benefits of grass-fed beef have also been widely reported by scholars around the world [11].
The nutritional content of grass-fed meat may be influenced by the type of feed used for the animals [12]. Equally, grass feeding practices may result in undesirably higher trace elements in foliage-fed meat animals [13]. Higher than required levels of trace elements can be caused by contaminated vegetation of grazing pastures by activities such as land and water pollution [14]. While trace elements such as sodium, potassium, and magnesium in beef may be beneficial for the human body, higher than required quantities can be detrimental to consumers’ health [15]. Continuous consumption of a diet with high contents of copper, phosphorus, and magnesium may cause adverse health effects for consumers over a long period of consumption [16]. Complications, kidney disorders, osteoporosis, and immune system imbalance can be associated with the consumption of higher than recommended traces of inherent minerals in beef [17].
Food safety watchdogs around the world have raised concerns over unprecedented emerging diseases emanating from dietary trace elements, which have resulted in the emergence of adverse health effects in populations [18]. Higher than required sodium, magnesium, and copper are associated with multiple human health dietary diseases that affect vital internal organs [19,20]. Essential macro elements are required by the human body for proper functioning and are obtained from meat. Excessively low or high concentrations can cause detrimental health effects to humans [21,22,23]. Beef contains concentration levels of macro and micro trace elements that influence safety and quality [24]. It is essential that meat animal feeding and animal husbandry practices are designed to attain a balance of the level of residual macro elements in beef for both quality and meat safety [23]. Vital human organs such as the brain, stomach, heart, kidneys, and lungs can be badly affected by imbalanced concentration levels of trace elements when meat and beef in particular is consumed [25,26,27].

Rationale of the Study

This study aims to investigate the intrinsic sodium and trace minerals in grass-fed Bonsmara (B. indicus) meat cuts, commonly used for cooking and in processed products. The cattle were fed grass pea (Lathyrus sativus) for a period of 19–22 months as part of the feeding regime. Bonsmara cattle are a native South African crossbreed with medium-sized meat cuts and good beef quality traits that were innovated in South Africa in the mid-1900s [28]. It is a breed that yields prime beef cuts due to its coarseness, muscle marbling, and lean subcutaneous fat that is suitable for use as fresh meat (retail cuts) and for use in processed beef products [29]. Intrinsic sodium and trace elements with saline characteristics ((potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), and calcium (Ca)) have been touted as driving factors for beef meat salinity [16,30]. Copper (Cu) is the only microelement with saline tributes that was tested in all respective meat cuts. Although copper is a microelement, it has a higher salinity influence than raw beef [20,31].
There is a dilemma of an unknown concentration level of intrinsic sodium in raw beef [32]. This study hypothesizes that the intrinsic sodium in grass-fed meat cuts is higher in grass-fed beef than was previously estimated. Additionally, we suggest that the intrinsic sodium content in different cuts varies and that the saline minerals inherent in grass-fed beef are present at a lower concentration compared to the intrinsic sodium.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

This study was conducted at an approved grass-fed cattle farm and slaughter facility located in the Northern region of Gauteng Province in South Africa. The cattle were slaughtered by adhering to approved animal humane slaughter, dressing, inspection and carcass chilling processes done under the supervision of an independent veterinary inspector.

2.2. Sampling Process and Sites

This study targeted beef cuts ordinarily used in processed beef products. As such, sampling sites included topside (Gluteus medius), silverside (Vastus lateralis), thin flank (Rectus abdominis), and 80/20 (80% meat, 20% fat ratio) and 60/40 trimmings from respective carcasses for this investigation. Trimmings were formulated using various cuts of beef and fat to form a composite batch of meat and fat. Figure 1 illustrates the study’s schematic process flow, as developed during the investigation period.
Meat samples were taken after carcass pH measurement (between the loin ribs of the high quarter) and temperature (measured on the inner side of the thickest part of the round using a probe thermometer) of randomly selected grass-fed carcasses. Samples were taken from both sides of the randomly selected and overnight chilled carcasses that comprised topside (n = 14), silverside (n = 14), thin flank (n = 14), 80/20 trimmings (n = 14), and 60/40 trimmings (n = 14) of meat and fat collected in different parts of the respective carcasses. The samples were hygienically collected from carcasses and placed into uniquely marked, sealable plastic bags that were traceable to the respective carcasses. Additional individual carcass information, such as animal gender, age, and fat classification, was recorded for each sample. Samples were subsequently transported in cooler boxes with ice packs that maintained a temperature of 5–8 °C until delivery to the laboratory and stored frozen (−18 °C) until preparation.

2.3. Sample Preparation and Digestion

In preparation for acid digestion, the samples were thawed at room temperature for approximately 45 min until the outer layer of the meat was soft and then cut into cubes separately. Each sample was individually ground using a six-blade tabletop blender (Sinbo, Snatcher, Johannesburg, South Africa), operating at 150 revolutions per minute for 30–40 s until a homogeneous paste was achieved for each sample. A subsample of approximately 100 g was scooped from the blender into a 100 mL sealable plastic bottle and labeled with the corresponding unique numbers, as sampled from the carcasses. Samples were digested using the South African legislated microwave heat digestion method OM-AOAC-2011.14 without alterations, as asserted by AOAC [34].
The samples were tested in duplicate using a validated Avio 560 Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometry (ICP-OES) (Avio, PerkinElmer, Waltham, MA, USA). The ICP-OES was validated using a NIST ox liver Standard Reference Material (SRM®) 1577c (Gaithersburg, MD, USA), with an expiration date of 1 October 2028 [35]. The SRM complied with the AOAC International Standard Method Performance Requirement (SMPR®). The precision for the minerals, with a repeatability range of 2.3–3.8% and a method reproducibility range of 6.1–12.4% (RSDR), was achieved. The analysis method met the SMPR® criteria even for low-level trace elements in biological samples. The validation method demonstrated the linearity of the equipment calibration, limit of detection (LOD), selectivity, and trueness, as well as the precision of the ICP-OES.

2.4. Data Analysis

The data of differences in concentrations were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Genstat 64-bit Release 22.1, 2021 revision (VSNi, Hemel Hempstead, UK) software assisted by a proficient statistician. Recorded values were considered significantly different when the probability value was p < 0.05 and not significant when p > 0.05, with a 95% confidence level (CL). The data generated, including fundamental analysis of frequencies, differences, cross-tabulations, and figures, were compiled and compared to present the findings of the investigation.

2.5. Ethical Statement

The ethics approval for this study was obtained from the Faculty of Science Research Animal Ethics Committee (AREC) at Tshwane University of Technology (Ref. AREC202204002). The meat used for this study was obtained from cattle slaughtered for commercial purposes at a registered abattoir.

3. Results

The meat samples used in this investigation were taken from carcasses with a medium lean-to-fat ratio, which was less than 24 months old. The measured carcass pH ranged from 6.3 to 6.7, taken after overnight chilling and the carcass temperature measured at 5 ± 2 °C. The overall results of the investigation suggest that intrinsic sodium concentrations in meat cuts are mostly not significantly different (p > 0.05). Furthermore, the salinity of meat can be influenced by minerals such as potassium, magnesium, calcium, and copper.

3.1. Intrinsic Sodium in Different Meat Cuts Used in Processed Beef Products

The study’s results are presented in Table 1 and Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4. From the results, it is evident that intrinsic sodium concentrations in different carcass positions are significantly different (p < 0.05) when overall samples were considered, while intrinsic sodium concentrations in similar carcass positions are not significantly different (p > 0.05) across all samples and intrinsic sodium concentrations in individual similar carcass positions have a 75–95% correlation. Additionally, the saline minerals tested (K, Mg, Ca, and Cu) exhibit contrasting correlations with intrinsic sodium, with no notable pattern. Inherent mineral concentrations in raw grass-fed beef are at noticeable levels, with K higher concentration levels in all meat cuts. Table 1 provides a summary of the collective intrinsic sodium concentrations in various meat cuts, along with their respective statistical values.
According to Table 1, the intrinsic sodium concentrations in various positions are statistically different (p < 0.0001). The results show the lowest intrinsic sodium content of 45.8 mg/100 g in T60/40 and the highest of 82.5 mg/100 g in Tf. Up to 95.6% (67/70) of samples with higher intrinsic sodium concentration values were in thin flank, while the lowest concentration was found in T60/40. Figure 2a presents the statistical analysis of sodium concentration at carcass positions, and Figure 2b provides the overall correlation of sodium concentrations across all samples from different carcass positions that made up the cuts.

3.2. Correlation of Sodium Concentrations in Different Meat Cuts

Depicted in Figure 2a,b are intrinsic sodium concentrations in separate carcass positions. Although a strong correlation exists between the intrinsic sodium content of different meat cuts, noticeable outliers are observed for Ts, Tf, and T60/40 concentration values. Cuts that are whole muscle, Ts (59.6 mg/100 g) and Ss (59.2 mg/100 g), have intrinsic sodium, which shows a strong correlation, suggesting that the intrinsic sodium in topside and silverside meat is closely related. In contrast, Tf has the highest but positive intrinsic sodium coefficient mean (82.5 mg/100 g) of all samples. Furthermore, intrinsic sodium in T80/20 trimmings is higher when directly compared to T60/40 trimmings meat samples.
Evident in Figure 2a is T60/40 meat that has the lowest intrinsic sodium mean (51.7 mg/100 g) across all carcass meat cuts. The overall intrinsic sodium correlation represented in Figure 2b indicates that intrinsic sodium values are significantly different (p < 0.0001) as the values are not linear. However, there are minimal intrinsic sodium outliers. Figure 2 illustrates the trends and patterns of intrinsic Na with saline trace elements in beef samples.

3.3. Intrinsic Saline Minerals in Different Carcass Meat Cuts

Intrinsic saline mineral concentration patterns vary as deposits in different grass-fed carcass meat cuts. It is, however, evident that the K concentration is significantly higher compared to the other minerals in all carcass meat cuts. Overall, intrinsic sodium trends suggest that different mineral concentration levels exist in various carcass positions, which have varying correlations with intrinsic sodium in respective meat cuts. Figure 3 depicts intrinsic sodium and saline minerals in different beef cuts in relation to saline minerals.
Figure 3 illustrates concentration means with standard deviation (SD) of K = 363.9 mg/100 g (150.3), Mg = 23.7 mg/100 g (19.8), Ca = 6.1 mg/100 g (3.7), and Cu = 65.0 mg/100 g (51.3) in comparison to the intrinsic sodium mean of 61.2 mg/100 g (20.4). Strikingly, Ca featured in low concentrations across all meat cuts. Figure 4 illustrates the relationship between intrinsic saline minerals and intrinsic sodium in different beef cuts used in processed meats.
The relationship between Mg and K concentration is illustrated in Figure 4a,b, where a strong positive correlation is observed, with no outlying intrinsic sodium concentration values. Figure 4c,d illustrate the correlation regressions for Cu and Ca, which exhibit widely spread values with multiple outlying points across the meat cuts. Thus, the results of this investigation provide insight into the discussion points regarding the comparability and unpredictability of traces of intrinsic sodium and saline minerals inherent in grass-fed beef.

4. Discussion

Animal gender, age, meat temperature, and pH did not affect the intrinsic sodium and mineral concentration patterns in the selected cuts. This is supported by Patel et al. [36] that animal gender has no bearing in beef mineral meat prolife. However, the intrinsic sodium concentration in T60/40 (formulated with a 60% meat and 40% fat ratio) is lower than in whole muscles. This was consistent in all samples of different carcasses. This suggests that fat influences the level of intrinsic sodium in grass-fed beef. This finding contrasts with a study by Farionik et al. [37], which found no significant influence of fat on beef minerals. While intrinsic sodium in whole muscle Ts and Ss showed no statistical difference when compared, the intrinsic sodium was higher across all Tf meat samples. Similarly, Majeed et al. [38] highlighted the influence of organic minerals on the physiologically active muscles of beef animals.
However, low-fat content in meat and processed meats is ordinarily encouraged for the sake of consumer health [39]. This outcome creates an impasse when the higher fat content in meat is the result of low intrinsic sodium and mineral deposits. This, therefore, is a balanced combination approach to the fat and meat mix ratio for processed beef product formulation. Although meat quality and safety are enhanced by lower concentrations of organic minerals, it is not known whether or not they are desirable to the human body [40]. Both meat quality and safety are crucial for consumer health when consumed over an extended period [41]. Importantly, the level of physiological deposit of mineral composition in beef that has a direct bearing on human health cannot be taken lightly or overlooked. This study acknowledges the results by Holman et al. [42], that essential minerals (of which sodium is part) in ruminal meat animals were lower than most documented predictions. From this investigation, it is evident that whole muscle meat cuts have higher intrinsic sodium than physiologically unrecognizable meat mixes such as trimmings. Furthermore, this study revealed that the salinity of raw beef can be influenced not only by intrinsic sodium but also by saline minerals naturally occurring in beef, such as K, Mg, Ca, and Cu. For human safety, it is, therefore, vital to consider that high levels of minerals such as potassium and copper can result in kidney defects, high blood pressure, cardiac conditions, and irregular growth patterns in infants [43,44]. Yang et al. [45] concluded that minerals with saline characteristics are generally in lower concentration in grass-fed beef. Conversely, the investigation found that similar trace elements are in noticeably higher concentrations in grass-fed beef than predicted. Therefore, the results of this investigation revealed a correlation between the physicochemical properties of intrinsic sodium and the tested macro-elements in different carcass meat cuts.

4.1. Intrinsic Sodium in Grass-Fed Beef Meat Used in Processed Beef Products

Amid global consumer demand for grass-fed beef, an exponential increase in grass-fed processed meat demand has proportionally increased [46]. There has been a consensus among scholars that the growing demand for processed meats is due to the perceived health benefits of grass-fed meat [47]. Commonly produced grass-fed processed meats in South Africa include boerewors, beef patties, drywors, and biltong [3]. This is also in line with the conclusion by Wang et al. [48] that the increase in the global trade of grass-fed beef is associated with a premium price for processed beef products. Processed meats contribute more than 60% of the average human’s daily dietary sodium intake [20].
Of concern is the fact that most processed beef product formulation concepts overlook the intrinsic sodium that is naturally present in beef. The summary of intrinsic sodium concentrations in grass-fed beef cuts used in processed meats are provided in Table 1. From Table 1, it is evident that intrinsic sodium concentrations in beef cuts used in processed meats from similar carcass positions are not significantly different (p > 0.05). However, when all 70 samples are collated, intrinsic sodium concentrations are significantly different (p < 0.0001). In support of this outcome, a study by Apaoblaza et al. [49] found different mineral concentrations in various beef muscles. The difference in intrinsic sodium concentration in carcass positions is associated with fat and physiochemical formation such as muscle activity and the feeding regime of livestock [50]. Similarly, the results of this investigation align with those of Santana et al. [51], who concluded that animal gender does not influence the deposition of natural minerals in non-lactating beef. Therefore, it was not surprising that this investigation found no patterns in the intrinsic sodium and saline mineral content resulting from the animal’s gender. However, a distinct pattern of intrinsic sodium concentrations was observed in whole muscle meat and the set of trimmings. For instance, the highest intrinsic sodium (82.5 mg/100 g) was found in Tf whole muscles across all cuts, and the lowest was in T60/40 (45.8 mg/100 g). This demonstrates that samples commuted with higher fat percentages have lower levels of intrinsic sodium. As Hinton et al. [52] highlighted, a higher fat or lower meat ratio has the potential to affect the quality and palatability of processed meat. A lower intrinsic sodium concentration in higher fat ratio meat composition in grass-fed animals is a novel discovery of this investigation. Furthermore, the investigation revealed that the mean intrinsic sodium concentration is 61.2 mg/100 g when all beef cuts are considered. Consequently, intrinsic sodium is a crucial factor in reducing sodium in processed beef products. It must be noted that there are no existing mandatory or voluntary benchmarks for intrinsic sodium content in grass-fed beef or beef in general. However, a study by Rosa et al. [53] estimated 19–21 mg/100 g of organic sodium in raw ground beef made from whole muscle beef, while Patel et al. [36] estimated 43.6 mg/100 g of organic sodium in grain-fed beef. These results signify significantly low-sodium concentration prediction as compared to the findings of this study.
Gagaoua et al. [54] emphasized that the mineral composition of beef is not extensively studied. Therefore, with grass-fed beef regarded as a healthier meat option, it was pivotal to determine the level of intrinsic sodium in beef cuts used in processed grass-fed beef products. Accordingly, the level of intrinsic sodium concentration obtained during this investigation should not be overlooked when formulating beef-processed meat products.

4.2. Profile of Intrinsic Sodium in Grass-Fed Beef Meat Cuts

High-quality beef cuts are commonly used in the manufacturing of processed beef products [55]. In a comparison of the two meat types used in processed meats, whole muscle cuts (Ts, Ss, and Tf) and mixed meat bits (T80/20) and (60/40) investigated in this study, the intrinsic sodium content in the two meat types differed significantly (p < 0.0001). Factors such as physicochemical status, hygiene, and storage conditions of the products influence the quality and safety of processed beef products [56]. Intrinsic sodium in grass-fed beef is an element that remains elusive. Figure 2a shows that there are different intrinsic sodium concentrations in grass-fed meat cuts Ts, Ss, Tf, T80/20, and T60/40 used in processed beef and intrinsic sodium concentration in meat cuts relationship shown in Figure 2b differ significantly (p < 0.0001), even with the evident positive regression pattern. This is consistent with the conclusion by Circuncisão et al. [57] that mineral deposits in beef differ physiologically. Despite the strong correlation between similar beef carcass positions and statistical differences in intrinsic sodium in grass-fed beef cuts, the values are scattered with minimal outliers.
This indicates that beef carcass cuts exhibit a strong correlation with intrinsic sodium concentrations across all meat types. The highest levels of intrinsic sodium are in whole muscle cuts, with Tf exhibiting the highest mean concentration of 71.9 mg/100 g, followed by Ts at 59.6 mg/100 g, and Ss cuts at 59.2 mg/100 g. Holman et al. [42] further confirmed that active beef muscles contain unaccounted deposits of inherent minerals, which are estimated to be in higher quantities. This was supported by Lopes et al. [58], who stated that the physiological accumulation of minerals in ruminants is associated with animal feed and mobility for open-field grazing herds. It was, therefore, not surprising that Ts, Ss and Tf contained higher intrinsic sodium means compared to the respective two sets of trimmings. Strangely, trimmings with a higher fat ratio (T60/40) have the lowest intrinsic sodium mean of 51.7 mg/100 g, whereas T80/20 trimmings have a mean of 63.5 mg/100 g across all samples.
The difference in intrinsic sodium in trimmings could be attributed to lower mineral deposits in fat. The relationship between intrinsic sodium and high fat content in meat trimmings warrants further investigation in future studies. Trimmings are physiologically unrecognizable offcuts, consisting of sub-primal meat pieces from various areas of the carcass [59]. It is, therefore, an important finding that will guide processed meat formulation concepts. Furthermore, it suggests that intrinsic sodium levels vary across carcass positions and that trimmings have a direct impact on the quality of processed meat and consumer health in the long-term. As such, it is essential to consider all the key factors that contribute to the total sodium content in grass-fed beef products and processed meats in general. This is in line with a study by Nogalski et al. [60] that showed minerals in certain beef loins were statistically different from those in rib muscles of similar carcasses. In addition, Wang et al. [61] emphasized that physicochemical traits, such as fatty acid and protein composition, differ in beef muscles.

4.3. Minerals with Saline Properties Inherent in Grass-Fed Beef in Relation to Intrinsic Sodium

Raw grass-fed beef contains organic minerals that are characterized by their high salinity content. [62]. Saline minerals in beef are associated with the flock grazing vegetation in pastures, direct feed, and the type of animals’ drinking water sources [63]. Figure 3 illustrates traces of saline minerals that were found in grass-fed beef tested with related intrinsic sodium patterns across all meat cuts. The study targeted K, Mg, Ca, and Cu due to their prominent natural occurrences in beef, which are mostly macro-elements. The highest concentration of K (400.4 mg/100 g) was in Tf, while Cu features prominently in Ss (79.3 mg/100 g) and T60/40 (68.2 mg/100 g). Ca and Mg accounted for the lowest concentrations among the meat cuts. Similarly, a study by Pistón et al. [64] highlighted that copper and calcium are knowingly saline and they can be forthrightly traceable in raw beef. However, a study by Klopatek et al. [3] concluded that K and Ca concentrations are at low levels in grain-fed beef; conversely, the results of this study showed that K has the highest concentration across all beef sample positions. Scholars recommend potassium as an adequate sodium substitute in meat processing [43]. However, higher than required potassium in a human diet may cause adverse health effects such as renal disorders and kidney failure [65]. This further supports the advantages of consuming grass-fed beef and its perceived health benefits. It was not surprising that K, Cu, and Mg were detected in notably higher concentrations in selected meat cuts, as the herd was grazing on open grasslands. Ordinarily, K and Cu are standard in overly dried-stored vegetation and grass bales [66].
Across all meat cuts, K was found to have the highest concentration mean of 363.9 mg/100 g). According to Eger et al. [67], potassium contains a low ratio of salinity, although it is found in higher concentrations in meat and other food commodities. However, a higher residual Cu concentration in the diet can somewhat pose a risk to consumer health, such as skin reactions, particularly when traces are present in higher doses [68]. Na, K, Mg, and Ca are macro elements that are essential in a human diet [41]. It is against this backdrop that beef is regarded as a critical source of Mg for the physiological functioning of the human body [69]. Cashman et al. [19] emphasized that Mg and K emanating from red meat can be traceable to the point of consumption.
Figure 4a,b indicate that potassium and magnesium concentrations correlate well with Na across the different cuts, while Figure 4c,d show that Ca and Cu correlate loosely with Na with outliers across the meat cuts. This suggests a difference in trace element concentration deposition in different carcass positions and related beef cuts, which could be useful in the profiling of different meat cuts for processed meat formulation. This suggests that intrinsic sodium is directly proportional to muscle deposits of K and Mg but not consistent with Ca and Cu. Therefore, it suggests that higher concentrations of other trace elements can influence intrinsic sodium. Although the correlation between intrinsic sodium and saline minerals appears to be more complex than was previously indicated, it may be useful in determining intrinsic sodium in raw beef. Figure 4c,d provide an even more complex correlation of intrinsic Na when compared to Ca and Cu in grass-fed beef cuts. Therefore, Cu and Ca concentrations are not predictable variables of intrinsic sodium that can be traced in grass-fed beef cuts. Furthermore, in samples where copper and potassium are at the highest concentration, intrinsic sodium is also high. Shewal [70] further elaborated, saying that macro elements inherent in beef are present in low concentrations. Regarding raw beef, policymakers and processed meat producers must exercise caution to ensure consumer safety in the context of subsequent sodium reduction interventions.

4.4. Limitations of the Study

Although other grass types used in cattle grazing and cattle breeds may provide similar characteristics in grass-fed beef, this study was not a comparative study in nature. It focused solely on Bonsmara grazing and feeding on grass peas, which were slaughtered in one region for commercial purposes.

5. Conclusions

Given the hype and perceived health benefits of grass-fed beef, intrinsic sodium and saline minerals are to be considered in the control of sodium in processed beef products. Although there are no existing intrinsic sodium benchmarks for raw beef, the findings of this study will help profile intrinsic sodium in commonly used beef cuts in processed meat. Moreover, as it is evident that whole muscle beef cuts have higher levels of intrinsic sodium than previously estimated, the profile of beef cuts and processed meat formulation interventions can be used in the production of low sodium processed meats. This is important for consumer health and the reduction of dietary sodium-related health effects. Considering that the intrinsic sodium in raw grass-fed beef carcasses is 61.2 mg/100 g, accounting for a potential 13–17% of the total sodium in processed beef products, it can be concluded that the intrinsic sodium concentration in grass-fed beef cuts differs, essentially answering the objectives of the investigation. Furthermore, intrinsic sodium in physiologically similar beef cuts have similar intrinsic sodium concentration and contain noticeable levels of saline minerals inherent in beef.
For consumer health considerations, it is worth noting that this study found traces of K and Cu in grass-fed beef to be significantly higher than the levels of intrinsic sodium. Future studies should explore and measure the impact of intrinsic sodium on other parts of the beef carcasses that may also be used as fresh-cut meat, such as mincemeat, and for making processed meats. Additionally, the use of salt by consumers, in conjunction with the higher intrinsic sodium concentration than previously estimated, and the related health impacts should be examined. Consequently, the concentration levels of intrinsic sodium in beef cuts should not be overlooked when developing guidelines for processed meat formulations to produce high-quality and safe beef products that meet recommended total sodium benchmarks. In consideration of consumer health and the rising sodium-related diseases globally, it is crucial that meat safety, as influenced by intrinsic minerals, is not overlooked by meat processors. The intrinsic sodium content in other beef cuts, as well as in different meats and fat ratios, should be further studied.

Author Contributions

E.J.M.: conducted the original research as part of a Doctoral degree in Environmental Health and conceptualized the manuscript. I.M.M.: conducted supervision and visualization. Conceptualization, software support, data curation, editing, and funding acquisition were performed by D.V.N.: Methodology and technical advisory was performed by J.L.B.: Laboratory analysis and method validation were conducted by RTR. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded and supported by AgriSETA of South Africa (Grant number BC24TT43).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical approved for this study was obtained from Animal Research Ethics Committee of registered in South Africa with the National Health Research Ethics Council (AREC-010411-009) and allocated reference number (AREC202204002).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed at the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express sincere gratitude and appreciation to the Agricultural Sector Education Training Authority (AgriSETA), Agricultural Research Council (ARC), Tshwane University of Technology (TUT) Department of Environmental Health, Stellenbosch University Central Analytical Facility (CAF), and VGL Dimensions my employer, for financial support and time allocation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ahmad, R.S.; Imran, A.; Hussain, M.B. Nutritional composition of meat. Meat Sci. Nutr. 2018, 61, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Capper, J.L. Is the grass always greener? Comparing the environmental impact of conventional, natural and grass-fed beef production systems. Animals 2012, 2, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Klopatek, S.C.; Marvinney, E.; Duarte, T.; Kendall, A.; Yang, X.; Oltjen, J.W. Grass-fed vs. grain-fed beef systems: Performance, economic, and environmental trade-offs. J. Anim. Sci. 2022, 100, skab374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hayek, M.N.; Garrett, R.D. Nationwide shift to grass-fed beef requires larger cattle population. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 084005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Patel, N.; Bergamaschi, M.; Magro, L.; Petrini, A.; Bittante, G. Relationships of a detailed mineral profile of meat with animal performance and beef quality. Animals 2019, 9, 1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Arthington, J.D.; Ranches, J. Trace mineral nutrition of grazing beef cattle. Animals 2021, 11, 2767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Baj, J.; Flieger, W.; Teresiński, G.; Buszewicz, G.; Sitarz, R.; Forma, A.; Karakuła, K.; Maciejewski, R. Magnesium, calcium, potassium, sodium, phosphorus, selenium, zinc, and chromium levels in alcohol use disorder: A review. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 1901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rossi, C.A.S.; Grossi, S.; Compiani, R.; Baldi, G.; Agovino, M.; Rossi, L. Effects of different mineral supplementation programs on beef cattle serum Se, Zn, Cu, Mn concentration, health, growth performance and meat quality. Large Anim. Rev. 2020, 26, 57–64. [Google Scholar]
  9. Barcenilla, C.; Álvarez-Ordóñez, A.; López, M.; Alvseike, O.; Prieto, M. Microbiological safety and shelf-life of low-salt meat products—A Review. Foods 2022, 11, 2331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nogoy, K.M.C.; Sun, B.; Shin, S.; Lee, Y.; Li, X.Z.; Choi, S.H.; Park, S. Fatty acid composition of grain-and grass-fed beef and their nutritional value and health implication. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2022, 42, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Smith, S.B.; Gotoh, T.; Greenwood, P.L. Current Situation and Future Prospects for Global Beef Production: An Overview of the Special Issue. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 31, 927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Khan, M.I.; Jo, C.; Tariq, M.R. Meat flavor precursors and factors influencing flavor precursors—A systematic review. Meat Sci. 2015, 110, 278–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jurado-Guerra, P.; Velázquez-Martínez, M.; Sánchez-Gutiérrez, R.A.; Álvarez-Holguín, A.; Domínguez-Martínez, P.A.; Gutiérrez-Luna, R.; Garza-Cedillo, R.D.; Luna-Luna, M.; Chávez-Ruiz, M.G. The grasslands and scrublands of arid and semi-arid zones of Mexico: Current status, challenges and perspectives. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu. 2021, 12, 261–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Korish, M.A.; Attia, Y.A. Evaluation of heavy metal content in feed, litter, meat, meat products, liver, and table eggs of chickens. Animals 2020, 10, 727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Juárez, M.; Lam, S.; Bohrer, B.M.; Dugan, M.E.; Vahmani, P.; Aalhus, J.; Juárez, A.; López-Campos, O.; Prieto, N.; Segura, J. Enhancing the nutritional value of red meat through genetic and feeding strategies. Foods 2021, 10, 872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sánchez, D.; Marti, S.; Verdú, M.; González, J.; Font-i-Furnols, M.; Devant, M. Characterization of three different Mediterranean beef fattening systems: Performance, behavior, and carcass and meat quality. Animals 2022, 12, 1960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rinklebe, J.; Antoniadis, V.; Shaheen, S.M.; Rosche, O.; Altermann, M. Health risk assessment of potentially toxic elements in soils along the Central Elbe River, Germany. Environ. Int. 2019, 126, 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shi, Y.; Zou, Y.; Shen, Z.; Xiong, Y.; Zhang, W.; Liu, C.; Chen, S. Trace elements, PPARs, and metabolic syndrome. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 2612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cashman, K.D.; Hayes, A. Red meat’s role in addressing ‘nutrients of public health concern’. Meat Sci. 2017, 132, 196–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mkhwebane, E.; Bekker, J.; Mokgalaka-Fleischmann, N.S. Sodium reduction in processed foods, including processed meats, in Africa: A systemic review. Afr. J. Food Agric. Nutr. Dev. 2023, 23, 22730–22750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ding, Z.; Li, Y.; Sun, Q.; Zhang, H. Trace elements in soils and selected agricultural plants in the Tongling mining area of China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lescinsky, H.; Afshin, A.; Ashbaugh, C.; Bisignano, C.; Brauer, M.; Ferrara, G.; Hay, S.I.; He, J.; Iannucci, V.; Marczak, L.B. Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: A burden of proof study. Nat. Med. 2022, 28, 2075–2082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Grosso, G.; La Vignera, S.; Condorelli, R.A.; Godos, J.; Marventano, S.; Tieri, M.; Ghelfi, F.; Titta, L.; Lafranconi, A.; Gambera, A. Total, red and processed meat consumption and human health: An umbrella review of observational studies. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 73, 726–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Moraes, E.H.B.K.d.; Paulino, M.F.; Moraes, K.A.K.d.; Valadares Filho, S.d.C.; Lazzarini, I.; Monnerat, J.P.I.d.S.; Couto, V.R.M.; Souza, M.G.d. Macro mineral requirements by grazing zebu bovines. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2012, 41, 392–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ghaffari, H.; Grant, S.C.; Petzold, L.R.; Harrington, M.G. Regulation of CSF and brain tissue sodium levels by the blood-CSF and blood-brain barriers during migraine. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 2020, 14, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Xu, P.; Luo, S.; Song, J.; Dai, Z.; Li, D.; Wu, C. Effect of sodium alginate-based hydrogel loaded with lutein on gut microbiota and inflammatory response in DSS-induced colitis mice. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2023, 12, 2428–2439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ali, A.A.H. Overview of the vital roles of macro minerals in the human body. J. Trace Elem. Miner. 2023, 4, 100076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Brand, T.S.; Terblanche, I.; Van der Merwe, D.A.; Jordaan, J.; Dreyer, O. Predicting the growth and feed intake of Bonsmara cattle on forage based rearing systems. Res. Sq. 2021. preprint. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Theron, H. The Bonsmara: Selection for meat quality. Dié Rooi Ras. 2022, 6, 61–85. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-vp_rooi-v6-n2-a16 (accessed on 16 April 2025).
  30. Macharáčková, B.; Saláková, A.; Bogdanovičová, K.; Haruštiaková, D.; Kameník, J. Changes in the concentrations of selected mineral elements in pork meat after sous-vide cooking. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2021, 96, 103752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kryzhova, Y.; Slobodianiuk, N.; Moskalenko, I. Application of modern technologies to improve the quality of sausage products. Anim. Sci. Food Technol. 2023, 14, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yoo, Y.; Bae, S.M.; Jeong, J.Y. Zinc Protoporphyrin IX in Meat and Meat Products: Formation, Application, and Future Perspectives—A review. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2025, 45, 663–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nkosi, D.V.; Bekker, J.L.; Hoffman, L.C. Toxic metals in meat contributed by helicopter and rifle thoracic killing of game meat animals. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. AOAC. Analytical Method for Testing of Trace Elements in Foods; AOAC International: Rockville, MD, USA, 2023. Available online: https://www.aoac.org/ (accessed on 16 March 2025).
  35. NIST-SRM®-1577c-2018; Bovine liver Standard Reference Materials. NIST: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2018. Available online: http://www.nist.gov/srm (accessed on 22 February 2025).
  36. Patel, N.; Bergamaschi, M.; Cagnin, M.; Bittante, G. Exploration of the effect of farm, breed, sex and animal on detailed mineral profile of beef and their latent explanatory factors. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 55, 1046–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Farionik, T.; Yaremchuk, O.; Razanova, O.; Ohorodnichuk, G.; Holubenko, T.; Glavatchuk, V. Effects of mineral supplementation on qualitative beef parameters. Regul. Mech. Biosyst. 2023, 14, 64–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Majeed, T.; Maqbool, N.; Sajad, A.; Aijaz, T.; Khan, Z.S. Meat as a functional food for health. In Functional Foods; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2023; pp. 177–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Domínguez, R.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Pateiro, M.; Munekata, P.E.; Alves dos Santos, B.; Basso Pinton, M.; Cichoski, A.J.; Bastianello Campagnol, P.C. Main animal fat replacers for the manufacture of healthy processed meat products. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2024, 64, 2513–2532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, R.; Wei, M.; Zhou, J.; Yang, Z.; Xiao, M.; Du, L.; Bao, M.; Ju, J.; Dong, C.; Zheng, Y. Effects of organic trace minerals chelated with oligosaccharides on growth performance, blood parameters, slaughter performance and meat quality in sheep. Front. Vet. Sci. 2024, 11, 1366314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Al-Fartusie, F.S.; Mohssan, S.N. Essential trace elements and their vital roles in the human body. Indian J. Adv. Chem. Sci. 2017, 5, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Holman, B.W.; Hayes, R.C.; Newell, M.T.; Refshauge, G.; McGrath, S.R.; Fowler, S.M.; Shanley, A.R.; Hopkins, D.L. The quality and mineral composition of the longissimus lumborum and semimembranosus muscles from lambs fed perennial or annual wheat forage with or without lucerne. Meat Sci. 2021, 180, 108564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Frassetto, L.A.; Goas, A.; Gannon, R.; Lanham-New, S.A.; Lambert, H. Potassium. Adv. Nutr. 2023, 14, 1237–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nouri-Majd, S.; Ebrahimzadeh, A.; Mousavi, S.M.; Zargarzadeh, N.; Eslami, M.; Santos, H.O.; Taghizadeh, M.; Milajerdi, A. Higher intake of dietary magnesium is inversely associated with COVID-19 severity and symptoms in hospitalized patients: A cross-sectional study. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 873162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yang, S.; Ma, X.; Huang, Y.; Lin, B.; Zhang, L.; Miao, S.; Zheng, B.; Deng, K. Comprehensive Effects of Potassium Lactate, Calcium Ascorbate and Magnesium Chloride as Alternative Salts on Physicochemical Properties, Sensory Characteristics and Volatile Compounds in Low-Sodium Marinated Beef. Foods 2024, 13, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. van Vliet, S.; Bain, J.R.; Muehlbauer, M.J.; Provenza, F.D.; Kronberg, S.L.; Pieper, C.F.; Huffman, K.M. A metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable Nutrition Facts panels. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 13828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Lim, K.H.; Hu, W.; Nayga, R.M. Consumer Preference for Grass-Fed Beef. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2021, 46, 447–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, Y.; Isengildina-Massa, O.; Stewart, S. US grass-fed beef premiums. Agribusiness 2023, 39, 664–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Apaoblaza, A.; Gerrard, S.D.; Matarneh, S.K.; Wicks, J.C.; Kirkpatrick, L.; England, E.M.; Scheffler, T.L.; Duckett, S.K.; Shi, H.; Silva, S.L.; et al. Muscle from grass-and grain-fed cattle differs energetically. Meat Sci. 2020, 161, 107996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Matarneh, S.K.; Scheffler, T.L.; Gerrard, D.E. The conversion of muscle to meat. In Lawrie’s Meat Science; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2023; pp. 159–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Santana, E.O.; Silva, R.R.; Simionato, J.I.; Trindade Júnior, G.; Lins, T.O.D.A.; da Costa, G.D.; Mesquita, B.M.D.C.; Alba, H.D.; de Carvalho, G.G. Sex effect on the fatty acid profile and chemical composition of meat from beef cattle fed a whole shelled corn diet. Arch. Anim. Breed. 2023, 66, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hinton, J.H.; Legako, J.F.; Vierck, K.R.; Engle, T.E.; Brooks, J.C.; Belk, K.E.; Woerner, D.R. Muscle Source Influences Ground Beef Quality. Meat Muscle Biol. 2024, 8, 17751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rosa, M.S.d.C.; Pinto-e-Silva, M.E.M.; Simoni, N.K. Can umami taste be an adequate tool for reducing sodium in food preparations? Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 56, 5315–5324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gagaoua, M.; Duffy, G.; Álvarez García, C.; Burgess, C.; Hamill, R.; Crofton, E.C.; Botinestean, C.; Ferragina, A.; Cafferky, J.; Mullen, A.M. Current research and emerging tools to improve fresh red meat quality. Ir. J. Agric. Food Res. 2022, 61, 147–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Thangavelu, K.P.; Kerry, J.P.; Tiwari, B.K.; McDonnell, C.K. Novel processing technologies and ingredient strategies for the reduction of phosphate additives in processed meat. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 94, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Meng, X.; Wu, D.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, H.; Wu, P.; Xu, Z.; Gao, Z.; Mintah, B.K.; Dabbour, M. An overview of factors affecting the quality of beef meatballs: Processing and preservation. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 10, 1961–1974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Circuncisão, A.R.; Catarino, M.D.; Cardoso, S.M.; Silva, A.M. Minerals from macroalgae origin: Health benefits and risks for consumers. Mar. Drugs 2018, 16, 400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lopes, M.M.; Brito, T.R.; Lage, J.F.; Costa, T.C.; Fontes, M.M.d.S.; Serão, N.V.L.; Mendes, T.A.d.O.; Reis, R.A.; Veroneze, R.; e Silva, F.F. Proteomic analysis of liver from finishing beef cattle supplemented with a rumen-protected B-vitamin blend and hydroxy trace minerals. Animals 2021, 11, 1934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Kerth, C.R.; Harbison, A.L.; Smith, S.B.; Miller, R.K. Consumer sensory evaluation, fatty acid composition, and shelf-life of ground beef with subcutaneous fat trimmings from different carcass locations. Meat Sci. 2015, 104, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Nogalski, Z.; Pogorzelska-Przybyłek, P.; Sobczuk-Szul, M.; Nogalska, A.; Modzelewska-Kapituła, M.; Purwin, C. Carcass characteristics and meat quality of bulls and steers slaughtered at two different ages. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 17, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Hu, R.; Peng, Q.; Xue, B.; Wang, L. Comparison of carcass characteristics and meat quality between Simmental crossbred cattle, cattle-yaks and Xuanhan yellow cattle. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2021, 101, 3927–3932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Statham, T.E. From Pasture to Plate: Striking an Omega Balance Between Grass-Fed and Grain-Fed Beef Ribeyes-Fatty Acid Composition, Minerals, Soil and Forage Analysis. Master’s Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. El-Dars, F.M.; Abou-Arab, A.A.; Mansor, A.A.; Ali, O.I. A Comparative Evaluation of Some Heavy and Trace Elements in Canned Tuna and Processed Meat in the Egyptian Local Market. Curr. Sci. Int. 2022, 11, 108–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Pistón, M.; Suárez, A.; Bühl, V.; Tissot, F.; Silva, J.; Panizzolo, L. Influence of cooking processes on Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, and Zn levels in beef cuts. J. Food Compost. Anal. 2020, 94, 103624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. McLean, R.M.; Wang, N.X. Potassium. Adv. Food Nutr. Res. 2021, 96, 89–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Vidal, V.A.; Paglarini, C.S.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Munekata, P.E.; Pollonio, M.A. Salted meat products: Nutritional characteristics, processing and strategies for sodium reduction. Food Rev. Int. 2023, 39, 2183–2202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Eger, M.; Kern, E.; Carvalho, S.; Carvalho, P.; Genova, J.; Grando, M. Influence of graded level of salt and maturation times on quality traits of beef and pork sun-dried meat: A test pilot. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2022, 52, 134–141. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-sajas_v52_n2_a2 (accessed on 22 April 2025).
  68. Groff-Urayama, P.M.; Cruvinel, J.M.; Oura, C.Y.; Dos Santos, T.S.; de Lima-Krenchinski, F.K.; Batistioli, J.S.; Rodrigues, P.A.; Augusto, K.V.; Han, Y.; Sartori, J.R. Sources and levels of copper and manganese supplementation influence performance, carcass traits, meat quality, tissue mineral content, and ileal absorption of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. J. 2023, 102, 102–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Menezes, E.A.; Oliveira, A.F.; França, C.J.; Souza, G.B.; Nogueira, A.R.A. Bioaccessibility of Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, Zn, and crude protein in beef, pork and chicken after thermal processing. Food Chem. 2018, 240, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Shewal, A.S.; Shaltout, F.; Gerges, T. Impact of some organic acids their salts on microbial quality shelf life of beef. Assiut Vet. Med. J. 2018, 64, 164–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 15 06612 g001
Figure 1. Study schematic diagram process flow developed during the period of the study adapted from Nkosi et al. [33].
Figure 1. Study schematic diagram process flow developed during the period of the study adapted from Nkosi et al. [33].
Applsci 15 06612 g001
Applsci 15 06612 g002
Figure 2. (a) Sodium concentration per meat type; (b) intrinsic Na correlation per sample type.
Figure 2. (a) Sodium concentration per meat type; (b) intrinsic Na correlation per sample type.
Applsci 15 06612 g002
Applsci 15 06612 g003
Figure 3. Intrinsic sodium and saline minerals in different beef cuts in relation to saline minerals.
Figure 3. Intrinsic sodium and saline minerals in different beef cuts in relation to saline minerals.
Applsci 15 06612 g003
Applsci 15 06612 g004
Figure 4. (a–d) Correlation of saline minerals and intrinsic Na in different grass-fed carcass meat cuts.
Figure 4. (a–d) Correlation of saline minerals and intrinsic Na in different grass-fed carcass meat cuts.
Applsci 15 06612 g004
Table 1. Sodium concentrations in collective samples taken from different carcass positions.
Table 1. Sodium concentrations in collective samples taken from different carcass positions.
Intrinsic Sodium (mg/100 g)
Raw Meat Sample TypesNo. of SamplesDfRangeMean (SD)p-Value
Ts (n)141349–7459.6 (7.1)0.4019
Ss (n)141354–6759.2 (5.6)0.2251
Tf (n)141362–8371.9 (5.8)0.2309
T80/20 (n)141358–7063.5 (3.8)0.7349
T60/40 (n)141345–6451.7 (5.9)0.5492
Overall carcass (N)706945–8361.2 (20.4)<0.0001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mkhwebane, E.J.; Mokgobu, I.M.; Nkosi, D.V.; Bekker, J.L. Determination of Intrinsic Sodium in Grass-Fed Bonsmara (Bos taurus indicus) Meat. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 6612. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126612

AMA Style

Mkhwebane EJ, Mokgobu IM, Nkosi DV, Bekker JL. Determination of Intrinsic Sodium in Grass-Fed Bonsmara (Bos taurus indicus) Meat. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(12):6612. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126612

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mkhwebane, Elphus J., Ingrid M. Mokgobu, Davies V. Nkosi, and Johan L. Bekker. 2025. "Determination of Intrinsic Sodium in Grass-Fed Bonsmara (Bos taurus indicus) Meat" Applied Sciences 15, no. 12: 6612. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126612

APA Style

Mkhwebane, E. J., Mokgobu, I. M., Nkosi, D. V., & Bekker, J. L. (2025). Determination of Intrinsic Sodium in Grass-Fed Bonsmara (Bos taurus indicus) Meat. Applied Sciences, 15(12), 6612. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126612

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop