ArticlePloS one2025
Proximate composition of wild meats present in traditional food systems of the Brazilian Amazon.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Amazon region, renowned for its rich biodiversity, is home to indigenous and riverside populations that maintain an intrinsic relationship with the forest, playing a crucial role in the local ecological balance. The diet of this population, based on fish and wild meat, is essential for their food security, providing proteins and other fundamental nutrients. However, the nutritional composition of these meats remains under-researched, limiting the development of appropriate nutritional strategies and interventions. This study aimed to characterize the proximate composition of mammal, bird, and reptile wild meat consumed within the context of a traditional food system in the Brazilian Amazon. A total of 78 samples were collected, including 51 mammals, 18 birds, and 9 reptile samples, from the Tefé National Forest, and the Amanã and Mamirauá Sustainable Development Reserves. The muscle tissues of the samples were analyzed following the official methods of the Association of Official Analytical Collaboration. Differences between taxonomic classes were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by Dunn's test with Bonferroni adjustment (P < 0.05) for those species with three or more replicates. Across all samples, descriptive statistics showed that the mean protein contents were 22.27 (1,32), 23.47 (1.7), and 22.31 (1.3) g/100 g of meat for mammals, birds, and reptiles, respectively. The mean ash contents were 1.08 (0.11), 1.27 (0.1), and 1.08 (0.13) g/100 g of meat, while the lipid contents were 5.72 (1,72), 5.40 (1.58), and 4.03 (0.53) g/100 g of meat for the same groups. Additionally, results indicated that macronutrient and ash (p = 0.13) levels did not differ significantly among classes: lipids (p = 0.07164) and proteins (p = 0.3055). When comparing the meats of wild mammals, birds, and reptiles with domestic meats typically consumed in modern food systems, a nutritional similarity was observed, highlighting their importance as key nutrient sources, particularly proteins. The data obtained provide a foundation for further research and will serve as a basis for strategies aimed at promoting food and nutritional security, contributing to the reduction of maternal and child malnutrition in Amazonian communities. Furthermore, the novel quantification of the proximate composition of wild meats underscores their role as a strategic resource for promoting health in these populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.