Ethnoveterinary knowledge of farmers in bilingual regions of Switzerland - is there potential to extend veterinary options to reduce antimicrobial use?

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: In the pre-antibiotic era, a broad spectrum of medicinal plants was used to treat livestock. This knowledge was neglected in European veterinary medicine for decades but kept alive by farmers. Emergence of multidrug resistant bacterial strains requires a severely restricted use of antibiotics in veterinary medicine. We conducted a survey on the ethnoveterinary knowledge of farmers in the bilingual (French and German speaking) Western region of Switzerland, namely the cantons of Fribourg, Neuchâtel and Jura, and in the French speaking part of the canton of Bern. AIM OF THE STUDY: To find out whether differences exist in plants used by farmers in French speaking and bilingual regions of Switzerland as compared to our earlier studies conducted in Switzerland. Additional focus was on plants that are used in diseases which commonly are treated with antimicrobials, on plants used in skin afflictions, and on plants used in animal species such as horses, for which the range of veterinary medicinal products is limited. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted in 2015 semistructured interviews with 62 dialog partners, mainly cattle keeping farmers but also 18 horse keeping farmers. Of these, 41 were native French (FNS) and 21 native German speakers (GNS). Detailed information about homemade herbal remedies (plant species, plant part, manufacturing process) and the corresponding use reports (target animal species, category of use, route of administration, dosage, source of knowledge, frequency of use, last time of use and farmers satisfaction) were collected. RESULTS: A total of 345 homemade remedies were reported, of which 240 contained only one plant species (Homemade Single Species Herbal Remedy Reports; HSHR). A total of 289 use reports (UR) were mentioned for the 240 HSHR, and they comprised 77 plant species belonging to 41 botanical families. Of these, 35 plant species were solely reported from FNS, 20 from GNS, and 22 from both. Taking into account earlier ethnoveterinary studies conducted in Switzerland only 10 (FNS) and 6 (GNS) plant species connected with 7% of FNS and GNS UR respectively were "unique" to the respective language group. The majority of the UR (219) was for treatment of cattle, while 38 UR were intended to treat horses. The most UR were for treatment of gastrointestinal and skin diseases. The most frequently mentioned plants were Linum usitatissimum L., Coffea L., Matricaria chamomilla L., Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze, and Quercus robur L. for gastrointestinal diseases, and Calendula officinalis L., Hypericum perforatum L. and Sanicula europaea L. for skin afflictions. CONCLUSION: No clear differences were found between the medicinal plants used by French native speakers and German native speakers. Several of the reported plants seem to be justified to widen the spectrum of veterinary therapeutic options in gastrointestinal and dermatological disorders in cattle and horses, and to reduce, at least to a certain degree, the need for antibiotic treatments. Our findings may help to strengthen the role of medicinal plants in veterinary research and practice, and to consider them as a further measure in official strategies for lowering the use of antibiotics.

Ethnoveterinary contemporary knowledge of farmers in pre-alpine and alpine regions of the Swiss cantons of Bern and Lucerne compared to ancient and recent literature - Is there a tradition?

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: The term "traditional" is well established in European (human) medicine and even appears in recent European regulations on herbal medicinal products connected to a simplified registration. In contrast, a scientific discussion of a Traditional European Veterinary Herbal Medicine is still lacking in spite of a rising interest, in herbal medicine for animals in particular of veterinarians. There is only limited systematic ethnoveterinary research in Europe, with exception of the Mediterranean region, Switzerland and Austria. We conducted a survey on the ethnoveterinary knowledge of farmers in the pre-alpine and alpine regions of the Swiss cantons of Bern and Lucerne. We compared the findings with earlier studies conducted in Switzerland and with recent and past human and veterinary medicinal literature. AIM OF THE STUDY: We wanted to know to what extent (dependent to different definition of the term "traditional") the ethnoveterinary knowledge of Swiss farmers could be considered as "traditional" in a European veterinary medicinal context. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Semistructured interviews with 44 dialog partners, mainly smallholder cattle farmers, were conducted in 2014. Detailed information about homemade herbal remedies (plant species, plant part, manufacturing process) and the corresponding use reports (target animal species, category of use, route of administration, dosage, source of knowledge, frequency of use, last time of use and farmers satisfaction) were collected. To compare our data with literature, one German book of veterinary pharmacology published in 1900, one typescript of Swiss lectures in veterinary pharmacology from 1944, four books of veterinary herbal medicine published between 1984 and 2016, and one recent publication comparing current Swiss (human) ethnomedicinal plant knowledge with modern and past literature were analyzed. RESULTS: Information on a total of 315 homemade remedies containing one single plant species (homemade single species herbal remedy reports, HSHR) was collected from participating farmers. These HSHR were prepared from 83 plant species belonging to 46 botanical families. Plants of the families Asteraceae, Lamiaceae and Rosaceae were most frequently used. Matricaria recutita L., Calendula officinalis L., Quercus robur L., Thymus vulgaris L. and Symphytum officinale L. were the most frequently documented species. A total of 404 use reports (UR) were gathered for the 315 HSHR. The largest number of UR was for treatments of gastrointestinal disorders and metabolic dysfunctions, followed by skin alterations and sores. For more than half of the UR the source of knowledge was family, ancestors and friends, and for approximately one quarter the information was from courses and other educational events. For nearly 90% of the UR farmers mentioned at least one use during the last 10 years, and in more than 50% of the UR the last use was within the past year. Compared with recent and past literature and depending on different definitions of the term "traditional" as used for human medicine, between 43% and 84% of all 83 and between 57% and 100% of the most often mentioned 21 plant species show a "traditional" European veterinary use. CONCLUSION: For the treatment of their animals farmers in the pre-alpine and alpine regions of the Swiss cantons of Bern and Lucerne mostly used plants which have a track record as medicinal herbs in Europe over several centuries. Almost half of the plant species had specific veterinary uses for about 120 years and even more for at least 30 years. The majority of the plant species thus fulfill the criteria of "traditional" according to several definitions and even more up to a certain degree the criteria of "traditional use" as defined in European regulations for human medicinal products. Ethnoveterinary research combined with data from historical sources may serve as a sound foundation for the development and definition of a Traditional European Veterinary Herbal Medicine maybe even with regard to the recent discussion about a simplified registration for Traditional Herbal Veterinary Medicinal Products.

Swiss ethnoveterinary knowledge on medicinal plants - a within-country comparison of Italian speaking regions with north-western German speaking regions.

BACKGROUND: Ethnoveterinary knowledge in Europe may play an important role as a basis for sustainable treatment options for livestock. Aims of our study were (a) to compare the ethnoveterinary practices of two culturally and sociodemographically different regions of Switzerland, (b) to compare results with earlier ethnoveterinary studies conducted in Switzerland and in adjacent Italian regions and, (c) to evaluate possible reasons for regional differences in European ethnoveterinary medicine. METHODS: 25 interviews were conducted in 2014 in all Italian speaking regions (ItR) of Switzerland, and 31 interviews were held in five north-western German speaking Cantons (GeC). Semi-structured questionnaires were used to collect detailed information regarding plant species, mode of preparation, dosage, route of administration, category of use, origin of knowledge, frequency of use, and satisfaction with outcomes of the treatments. RESULTS: A total of 162 homemade remedies in ItR and 219 in GeC were reported, out of which 125 and 145, respectively, were reported to contain only one plant species (homemade single species herbal remedy report, HSHR). 44 ItR and 43 GeC plant species were reported to treat livestock, of which only a half were used in both regions. For each HSHR, we classified the treatment intention of all use reports (UR), leading to a total of 205 and 219 UR in ItR and GeC respectively. While cattle were the most often treated livestock species in both study regions, in ItR 40% of UR were administered to small ruminants. Main indications in both regions were gastrointestinal diseases and skin afflictions, but in ItR a high number of URs were reported as antiparasitics. URs were mainly handed down from the past generation, but in GeC the source of knowledge for 20% of URs were from courses. Regarding the used plant species, ItR showed a higher concordance with Swiss than Italian studies, but with some differences to all regions. A total of 22 (14 ItR; 8 GeC) plant species in this study have not been reported before in ethnoveterinary studies of Swiss and Italian alpine regions. CONCLUSIONS: ItR and GeC, show differences and similarities with respect to their own ethnoveterinary practices and earlier Swiss and Italian ethnoveterinary studies. Linguistic, geographical, as well as social and farm-structural conditions influence the regional ethnoveterinary knowledge. However, political borders seem to be more important than language or geographical barriers.