The JEs lead with nourishment. I don't think it confuses. The xrefs don't seem to add anything.

@@ -16,3 +15,0 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="1624300">栄養分</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="1624300">栄養分</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="1174040">栄養素</xref>
@@ -19,0 +17 @@
+<gloss>nourishment</gloss>

sankoku: 栄養となる成分. 
daijs: 栄養となる成分。
daijs(滋養分): 飲食物に含まれている、身体の栄養となる成分。栄養分。

Eijiro is overwhelmingly "nutrient"
https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=養分

Reverso is overwhelmingly "nutrient".
https://context.reverso.net/translation/japanese-english/養分

These are all "nutrient" in English(most of the time):
栄養素	1261921	72.0%
栄養分	265091	15.1%
養分	197392	11.3%
滋養分	3046	0.2%
Slightly different...
栄養物	23578	1.3%
滋養物	1108	0.1%

Variations on "nutritious" ("having nutrients"):
養分のある	220	2.7%
栄養分のある	363	4.5%
栄養素のある	155	1.9%
養分がある	296	3.6%
栄養分がある	850	10.4%
栄養素がある	2103	25.8%
滋養のある	3163	38.9%
滋養がある	886	10.9%
滋養分がある	24	0.3%
滋養分のある	40	0.5%

The term 成分 used by the kokugos seems to suggest "nutrient" pretty strongly to begin with.

There are unfortunately a few terms that all gloss as "nutrient":
栄養素
栄養分　滋養分(dated)　養分

The nuances vary a bit, it really appears the English glosses are all the same, i.e. "nutrient".  

eijiro basically sticks to "nutrient" for 50+ glosses, with only a few contextually morphed into "nutrition", "nutritious", or "nourishment" with specific contexts.  For "nourishment" contexts, "nutrient" can always be used instead.  reverso is the same, almost entirely "nutrient".

This example from eijiro is a certainly a good translation:
傷んだ肌に栄養分を与える
nourish damaged skin

But I think adding "nourishment" to this entry, or "nutrition", just confuses the term.

@@ -16 +16,2 @@
-<gloss>nourishment</gloss>
+<xref type="see" seq="1624300">栄養分</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="1174040">栄養素</xref>