The nutritional value of rotting meat is mostly in the amino acids in the proteins and the lipid components in the fat. Mineral components also remain. To the extent that these are still there, the nutrition is still there. And, as you imply, the part that has been recycled into insect (or bacterial) cells still has nutritional value. The loss in nutritional value (as distinct from the gain in toxic and disgust value) would be slight for dead meat in the conditions that are usually eaten by scavengers.
Darren Tanke wrote:
Colleagues, There was some discussion on the nutritional value of rotting/rotten meat and scavenging generally, which brought up some unresolved questions: 1. Nutritional value of rotting/rotted meat vs. fresh meat? Anyone have any thoughts on this? Have any studies been done on this issue? I'd be interested in getting copies of such papers if they exist. Someone here suggested that the rotting/rotted meat would be more nutritious due to the secondary ingestion of insect eggs, larvae (maggots), and adult insects. Another person thought rotten meat was more protein-rich but could not substantiate this claim.