This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
While not promoting wild animal consumption, this study acknowledges its crucial role for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC) worldwide, making comprehensive nutritional data essential for informed dietary assessments and policy decisions. Employing advanced data imputation techniques to address data gaps ethically, this systematic review, following PRISMA guidelines, analyzed 20 peer-reviewed articles and one grey literature document. We focused on the nutritional composition of wild meat from 26 species across mammals, birds, and reptiles. We assessed 10 key nutrients, revealing significant variations. Notably, bird muscle tissue did not demonstrate statistically higher iron concentrations than previously recognized in mammalian muscle (p < 0.05), challenging established nutritional understanding of red and white meat. Reptile muscles contained 60% more iron than mammalian muscles, while bird muscles showed 200% higher potassium and omega-6 fatty acid levels compared to mammals (p < 0.01). Mammalian muscles exhibited the highest zinc content among taxonomic classes. As in the case of non-wild animals, viscera consistently showed higher mineral concentrations than muscle tissues across all species. These findings enhance understanding of wild meat's nutritional value, contributing vital data to food composition databases and supporting evidence-based policy decisions for communities reliant on these resources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Medeiros et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: