Victor Abiodun Ojo¹ , Felicia Bola Adesokan² , Ayuk A. Nchor³ , Oladapo Olukoya Oduntan⁴

1 Department of Forestry and Wildlife, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, Nigeria
2 Department of Sustainable Forestry Mgt., Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria, Nigeria
3 Department of Forestry and Wildlife Mgt., University of Calabar, Nigeria
4 Department of Forestry and Wildlife Mgt., Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria
Author    Correspondence author
International Journal of Molecular Ecology and Conservation, 2016, Vol. 6, No. 2   doi: 10.5376/ijmec.2016.06.0002
Received: 24 Jul., 2016    Accepted: 08 Sep., 2016    Published: 12 Sep., 2016

This is an open access article published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Ojo V.A., Adesokan F.B., Nchor A.A. and Oduntan O.O., 2016, Comparative Advantages of Selected Bushmeats to Conventional Meat Types: A Review, International Journal of Molecular Ecology and Conservation, 6(2): 1-4 (doi: 10.5376/ijmec.2016.06.0002)

The need for qualitative animal protein in human diets cannot be over-emphasized; hence this study investigates comparative advantages of bushmeats to conventional meats of similar (taxonomical) breed. The study made use of secondary data from published articles on proximate composition of the selected bushmeats and conventional meat types. Conventional meats are generally higher in percentage moisture content except in Red River Hog (72.6%) as compared with Pig meat (Pork at 65.9%). Also percentage fat content is found to be higher in conventional meats except in the comparison of Bush buck (10.9%) with Sheep (Mutton at 2.9%). Investigations also show that bushmeats have comparative advantages of higher percentage protein and ash. In addition, bushmeats are higher in percentage calcium and iron content while conventional meats are higher in percentage energy and phosphorus content in all instances. Implications of these findings were discussed and policy recommendations made.

Wildlife nutrition; Human dimension; Wildlife extension; Food preference