From what I can tell, there are no absolute values, only ratios.  
Grassland quality and composition varies by location and over time, and 
the animals are as varied as we are.  Hence only ratios make any sense 
of the variety (and omega 9 is also important).  It's the same with, 
say, chickens, etc.  Grass-fed beef and omnivorously fed fowl and deep 
sea fish, etc., are not scams, they are Nature's way - and that is what 
we are trying to emulate.  To my taste and sensibilities, there is 
little question of the superior quality of 100% grass-fed (+ organic) 
versus all the others; omnivorous chickens-ditto, etc.  The real danger 
to our diet are the other things given to non grass-fed beef (and the 
other animals) to keep them healthy on an unnatural diet and to make 
them grow bigger/faster.  And because I don't want to vicariously eat 
those things , that alone, for me, is the only information I need to 
make the 100% grass-fed decision.  But taste, health and experience over 
10+ years have sealed the deal for me.

Regards,

-=mark=-

Ev Convert wrote:
> Has anybody found a fairly detailed analysis of the nutritional 
> composition of grass-fed beef fat (preferably in raw fat, suet, 
> tallow, and pemmican forms)?  It seems like all the info I've seen 
> talks about omega3/6 ratios without talking about the absolute 
> values.  This makes me think that from a omega3/6 ratio standpoint, 
> grass-fed beef is a scam (although other reasons like taste, vitamin E 
> content, CLA content, lack of hormones may be more valid reasons).
>