Vortrag M. Walkenhorst Teil 1 2014-1 - Schaette

Transcrição

Original Article · Originalarbeit
Forsch Komplementmed 2012;19:125–136
DOI: 10.1159/000339336
Published online: June 20, 2012
Traditional Use of Herbal Remedies in Livestock
by Farmers in 3 Swiss Cantons (Aargau, Zurich,
Schaffhausen)
Kathrin Schmida Silvia Ivemeyerb Christian Voglc Franziska Klarerd
Beat Meierd Matthias Hamburgera Michael Walkenhorstb
a
Institute of Pharmacentical Biology, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Basel,
Research Group ‘Animal Health Division’, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Frick, Switzerland
c
Division of Organic Farming, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences,
Vienna, Austria
d
Unit of Phytopharmacy, Institute of Biotechnology, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Wädenswil, Switzerland
b
Keywords
Ethnoveterinary medicine · Medicinal plants · Organic agriculture ·
Switzerland · Aargau, Zurich, Schaffhausen
Schlüsselwörter
Ethnoveterinärmedizin · Arzneipflanzen · Biologischer Landbau ·
Schweiz · Aargau, Zürich, Schaffhausen
Summary
Background: This study investigated the extent of traditional knowledge and use of homemade herbal remedies for livestock by farmers in 3 Swiss cantons (Aargau, Zurich, Schaffhausen). The study
focused on organic farms. Methods: At 21 farms, 24 farmers aged
36–83 years were interviewed with a semi-structured, detailed
questionnaire. For each homemade herbal remedy, the plant species, mode of preparation, source of knowledge, and application
were gathered. Satisfaction of the farmers with the application was
estimated with the aid of a visual analogue scale. Results: Information on a total of 165 homemade remedies was collected of which
123 contained a single plant species only (homemade mono-species herbal remedies, HMHR). The 123 HMHR were selected for this
paper. They corresponded to 150 different applications and originated from 43 plant species from 30 families. Plants belonging to
the families of Asteraceae, Lamiaceae, and Apiaceae were used
most frequently. The single most applied species were Matricaria
recutita L., Calendula officinalis L., Symphytum officinale L., and
Coffea arabica L. For each formulation, 1–4 different applications
were mentioned, most of them for cattle. The main applications
are related to a) skin alterations and sores, b) gastrointestinal and
metabolic diseases as well as c) infertility and diseases of the female genitalia. Approximately half of the applications were used
during the last 12 months prior to the interview. Conclusion: This
study shows that HMHR are used by Swiss farmers for the treatment of different livestock diseases. In general, the farmers were
satisfied with the outcome of the applications.
Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund: Diese Studie untersucht, inwieweit traditionelles Erfahrungswissen über Arzneipflanzenanwendungen beim Nutztier auf
landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben dreier Schweizer Kantone (Aargau,
Zürich, Schaffhausen) vorhanden ist und angewendet wird. Im Studienfokus lagen Biobetriebe. Methoden: In 21 Betrieben wurden 24
Landwirtinnen und Landwirte im Alter von 36 bis 83 Jahren anhand
eines semistrukturierten, detaillierten Fragenkatalogs befragt. Für
jede genannte Rezeptur wurden Informationen zu Pflanze, Herstellungsprozess, Wissensursprung und Anwendung dokumentiert. Ihre
Zufriedenheit mit der Wirkung bewerteten die Landwirtinnen und
Landwirte anhand einer visuellen Analogskala (VAS). Ergebnisse:
Insgesamt wurden 165 Rezepturen erfasst. Davon enthielten 123
Rezepturen als Bestandteil je eine einzelne Pflanzenart. Nur diese
123 Rezepturen und ihre insgesamt 150 Anwendungen wurden
näher betrachtet. Insgesamt 43 Pflanzenarten aus 30 Familien
kamen zum Einsatz. Die Pflanzenfamilien Asteracae, Lamiaceae und
Apiaceae waren am häufigsten in den Rezepturen vertreten. Die
Pflanzenarten Matricaria recutita L., Calendula officinalis L., Symphytum officinale L. und Coffea arabica L. wurden am häufigsten
angewendet. Für jede Rezeptur wurden bis zu 4 verschiedene Anwendungen, überwiegend für Rinder, beschrieben. Die häufigsten
Anwendungsgebiete waren a) Hautveränderungen und Wunden,
b) Erkrankungen des Magen-Darm-Trakts und Stoffwechselstörungen sowie c) Fruchtbarkeitsstörungen und Erkrankungen der weiblichen Genitale. Rund die Hälfte der Rezepturen wurde während der
letzten 12 Monate vor dem Erhebungsdatum angewendet. Basierend auf der Auswertung der VAS zeigten sich die Landwirtinnen
und Landwirte mit dem Ergebnis der Anwendung zufrieden.
Schlussfolgerung: Diese Studie zeigt, dass pflanzliche Rezepturen
von Schweizer Landwirtinnen und Landwirten zur Behandlung ihrer
Nutztiere mit großer Zufriedenheit eingesetzt werden.
© 2012 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg
1661-4119/12/0193-0125$38.00/0
Fax +49 761 4 52 07 14
[email protected]
www.karger.com
Accessible online at:
www.karger.com/fok
Michael Walkenhorst
Forschungsinstitut für Biologischen Landbau
Ackerstrasse, Postfach, 5070 Frick, Switzerland
Tel. +41 62 865 72-86, Fax -73
[email protected]
Introduction
Methods
Ethnoveterinary research is defined as ‘the systematic investigation and application of folk veterinary knowledge, theory
and practice’ [1]. The World Health Organisation defines the
use of traditional medicine as ‘the sum total of knowledge,
skills and practices based on the theories, beliefs and experiences indigenous to different cultures that are used to maintain health, as well as to prevent, diagnose, improve or treat
physical and mental illnesses’ [2]. In former times, knowledge
on medicinal plants was passed down from generation to generation. In modern societies such as those of Western Europe, traditional knowledge is in danger of disappearing [3].
Most ethnoveterinary surveys on the preparation and utilization of herbal remedies have been conducted in Africa, Asia,
and Latin America [4]. In these countries, access to conventional drugs is more difficult, and they are hence dependent
on the use of homemade preparations [5]. Nonetheless, in
Europe, particularly in Mediterranean regions and in specific
areas of Austria, surveys on the usage of traditional medicinal plants to treat livestock have been conducted [6–15].
However, in Switzerland, no comparative surveys regarding
the use of homemade herbal remedies by Swiss farmers have
been carried out, except for 1 survey in Safiental, a region of
the Canton Graubünden with approximately 1,000 inhabitants [16].
The European Council Regulations on Organic Farming
(nos. 834/2007 and 889/2008) and the Swiss Regulation of
Organic Agriculture require a preference to veterinary complementary medicine, such as the use of phytotherapeutic
products, for the treatment of livestock diseases. Chemically
synthesized allopathic veterinary medicinal products including antibiotics should only be used under strict conditions
[17, 18]. However, the required treatment of certain animal
species with veterinary complementary medicines is hampered by for example the limited number of such substances
commercially available and registered in the Swiss ‘Tierarzneimittelkompendium’ (veterinary formulary) [19]. Therefore, organic farmers in particular use homemade herbal
remedies to treat their animals, which are often based on
traditional formulations handed down over generations.
There is an increasing consumers’ demand for high-quality
animal food products with no or limited use of pharmaceuticals produced on a chemical or biotechnological basis [4].
The aim of this paper is to analyze the current knowledge
and usage of medicinal plants by farmers in the 3 Swiss cantons of Aargau, Zurich, and Schaffhausen with the main focus
on organic farms. We want to compare our results with ethnoveterinary literature from Europe to differentiate between
regional specialities and supraregional equalities, as well as
with the pharmacological literature, gaining a first impression
of the potential efficacy of homemade herbal remedies.
Study Region
The survey was conducted in 3 of 26 Swiss cantons, namely Aargau, Zurich, and Schaffhausen. The 3 contiguous cantons have a common border to Germany in the north and are situated between 8°04‘–8°65‘E
and 47°34’–47°71’N. They cover an area of 3,431 km2 with a total population of 2.1 million. The altitude varies between 330 and 1,292 m above
sea level. The average annual temperature is 8.6 °C, and annual precipitation averages 1,021 mm. In 2009, there were a total of 8,567 farms in
the 3 cantons. In Zurich 318 out of 4,028 (8%), in Aargau 204 out of
3,864 (5.5%), and in Schaffhausen 20 out of 675 (3%) were organic
farms. Of the 542 organic farms, 410 kept cattle (75.6%) and 55 kept
pigs (10.1%) [20].
126
Farm Sampling Method
All organic farmers of the 3 cantons were invited by letter to participate
in the project. 7 farmers responded spontaneously. The 40 farmers from
Aargau, Zurich, and Schaffhausen of the Organic Dairy Farm Research
Network (ODRN; Research Institute of Organic Agriculture) as well as
the 14 members (2010) of the Workgroups of Complementary Medicine
in Zurich and Schaffhausen (WGCM) were contacted and invited by telephone, which lead to 9 participants. A further 5 dialog partners could be
found with the snowball sampling method [21] through reactions to the
letter or information provided by farmers of the ODNR and WGCM. All
dialog partners met the following criteria: 1) naming of at least 3 homemade herbal remedies during the first contact via telephone; 2) willingness to talk about their knowledge and to communicate it to a third party;
3) inclusion of respondents irrespective of farm type (organic or integrated production), or sex and age of the interviewee.
Farms and Farmers
A total of 21 interviews with 24 farmers were carried out. At 3 farms,
couples were interviewed together upon request of the respondents, and
the answers per couple were merged into 1 interview. The interview sample comprised 12 women and 12 men between the age of 36 and 83 years
(53 ± 13 years) from 17 organic farms and 4 farms with integrated production. 12 interviews were held in canton Aargau, 8 in Zurich, and 1 in
Schaffhausen. There were a total of 20 cattle farms of which 13 were dairy
farms and 7 suckler cow husbandries. 1 horse range was included. In addition, 12 of the farms had laying hens, 6 had pigs, 5 had horses and sheep,
and 2 grew broilers. The dairy farms had between 10 and 120 cattle. The
smallest suckler cow husbandry had just 1, and the biggest 50 cattle. The
agricultural production land, together with the rotation farming area, was
between 5 and 138 ha.
Interview Structure
At the beginning of the interview, the respondents were asked to give
written consent for the recording of the subsequent dialogue (recorded
with OLYMPUS WS 200S Digital Voice Recorder, Olympus Imaging
Europa GmbH, Dortmund, Germany). The recordings were not transcribed but served as a backup source in the case of uncertainties in the
data analysis of each interview. The interviews were structured into
3 parts: 1) general information about the farm; 2) semi-structured conversation-guide based on different verbalizations of 7 ‘free listing’ questions [21, 22]; and 3) questionnaire to get differentiated information
about the specific homemade herbal remedies and their application and
administration. An entire interview took between 1.5 and 3.5 h. The
aim of the ‘free listing’ part was to generate an informal and pleasant
atmosphere for the farmers where they could talk freely. Furthermore,
this part was done to obtain first information about medicinal plants
and formulations known by the farmers. The first 2 parts together usually took 30–60 min. The third part of the interview was a questionnaire
about farm-specific homemade remedies with 1 or more applications as
Schmid/Ivemeyer/Vogl/Klarer/Meier/
Hamburger/Walkenhorst
applied by the farmers, containing either pre-coded or free answer possibilities. All data was subsequently entered into a Microsoft Access
database [23].
Remedies and Applications
The German name of the plant was asked and, if necessary, pictures or
books were used to define the botanical name. Information on the manufacturing process of the homemade herbal remedies was gathered, including the extraction process and the type of ointment. The manufacturing
processes were not witnessed personally. The application of every remedy
was asked. The respondent could give a free answer which was coded in
categories of use. Route and frequency of administration and duration of
the therapy were further registered issues. Daily dosages of oral administrations were determined by weighing the medicinal plants on site. If this
was not possible, the weight of daily dosages was estimated by assessment
of the administered volume of a herb and subsequent weighing, or by personal assessments by the farmers. The daily dosage was calculated for all
medicinal plants for which more than 2 applications for oral administration were reported. To achieve a common basis for comparison between
different species including humans, daily dosages were normalized by taking into account the different weight of the species by conversion of all
dosages in dosage per kilogram metabolic body weight (MBW = body
weight0.75) [24] according to the following formula:
daily dose
per administration (g) × repetition per day
(kgg ) = drug dose metabolic
body weight (kg )
0,75
0,75
MBW was calculated with the following live weight: an adult cow or horse
with 650 kg (MBW = 128.7 kg0.75), a calf with 75 kg (MBW = 25.5 kg0.75), a
young pig with 15 kg (MBW = 7.6 kg0.75), a hen with 1 kg (MBW =
1 kg0.75), and a human with 65 kg (MBW = 22.9 kg0.75). If the respondents
used the same daily oral dosage for calves and adult cattle, values for both
age brackets were calculated. The sources of knowledge for homemade
herbal remedies were gathered as well as the frequency of use and the
date of the last use. Satisfaction with each application of homemade
herbal remedies was assessed with a visual analogue scale (VAS) as a
practical, reliable, and valid measurement [25]. In this study, this refers
always to the farmer who mentioned the formulation with the corresponding application, and was estimated by the farmer when a homemade
herbal remedy had been used twice or more. Respondents could decide
on a scale of 100 mm between the endpoints ‘no effect’ (0 mm) and ‘very
good effect’ (100 mm). For each category of use, the arithmetic mean and
standard error of the VAS values were determined.
Results
In total, 165 homemade remedies were mentioned and described by the interview partners. This number includes 123
homemade mono-species herbal remedies (HMHR) with only
1 plant species each with or without extraction, 11 homemade
composed herbal remedies with a maximum of 12 plant species, and 31 homemade remedies without plant species but
containing 1 or more natural products such as curds, honey,
vinegar, salt, or cod liver oil. The interview partners characterized between 2 and 14 homemade remedies per farm
(mean 7.9 ± 3.2) and mentioned between 1 and 4 different
applications for each homemade remedy (mean 1.2 ± 0.5).
The homemade herbal remedies included a total of 65 plant
species belonging to 42 families.
Homemade Herbal Remedies for Swiss
Livestock
Ingredients and Formulation of 123 HMHR
In this paper, we present only the 123 HMHR which included
a total of 43 plant species belonging to 30 families and were
used to treat cattle, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, hens, and cats.
The 3 plant families mentioned in most HMHR were Asteraceae (27, 22.0%), Lamiaceae (13, 10.7%), and Apiaceae (10,
8.1%) (table 1). The most widely used plant species was Matricaria recutita L. used in 14 of the 123 HMHR (11.4%), followed by Calendula officinalis L., Symphytum officinale L.,
and Coffea arabica L. (each with 9 HMHR, 7.3%) (table 1).
Different plant parts were used in the HMHR with seeds and
fruit being the most common category (33 HMHR, 26.8%),
followed by flowers, whole plants without roots (herb), leaves,
roots, and twigs. Dried herbals drugs were used in 48.8% of
the HMHR, while fresh plants were either administered directly or further processed in 43.1% of the HMHR. 6 commercial products were used in 10 HMHR (8.1%): Kamillosan® (MEDA Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Bad Homburg,
Germany), WELEDA Arnica Tincture® (Weleda AG, Arlesheim, Switzerland), WELEDA Calendula Tincture®
(Weleda), thyme oil, eucalyptus oil, and NJP Liniment® (Casa
Verde Naturprodukte Vertriebs GmbH, Dortmund, Germany; including oil of Mentha arvensis L. var. piperascens).
Besides the 6 directly used commercial products (4.8%), in
35 HMHR (28.5%) fresh or dried plant parts were directly
used without further formulation or extraction. As solvent for
extraction, water was used in 52 HMHR (42.3%), mainly for
external or oral administration. These aqueous extractions
were mainly (45 HMHR) infusions, and in 7 HMHR decoctions. Extraction with alcohol (schnapps) at room temperature was used in 14 HMHR (11.4%). The used schnapps contained between 40 and 90% ethanol. Further extraction with
oil or fat at room temperature was reported in 8 HMHR
(6.5%), and extraction with lipids at elevated temperature
was described in 7 HMHR (5.7%). 1 HMHR was extracted
with cider vinegar (0.8%) (table 1). A total of 12 ointments
were prepared from 5 fresh or dried medicinal plant species.
Beeswax was used as ointment base in 8 cases, whereas in 4
formulations the ointment base served directly as extractant.
Applications of the 123 HMHR
A total of 150 applications were named for the 123 HMHR.
The main areas of application were 1) skin alteration and
sores, 2) gastrointestinal diseases and metabolic dysfunction,
3) infertility and diseases of the female genitalia, 4) mastitis,
5) internal injuries, and 6) respiratory tract diseases (table
2). The most frequently named plant for the treatment of
skin alterations and sores was Matricaria recutita L. (18 applications), followed by Calendula officinalis L. (9 applications) and Rhamnus catharticus L. (7 applications). For the
treatment of gastrointestinal diseases and metabolic dysfunc-
127
128
Table 1. Extraction procedures employed on 21 farms to prepare 123 HMHR used for 150 applications in 3 Swiss cantons (Aargau, Zurich, Schaffhausen) and routes of administration
Botanic family
(plant species for
that family)
Plant species with
≥ 3 named HMHR
(remedies)
Mentioned on-farm extraction procedures, frequency of mentioned 123 HMHR
Routes of administration, frequency of mentioned 150 applications
none
external
water
infusion
Asteraceae (5)
Lamiaceae (6)
Apiaceae (3)
Malvaceae (2)
Boraginaceae (1)
all
Matricaria recutita L. (14)
Matricariae flos (13)
Matricariae herba (1)
Calendula officinalis L. (9)
Calendulae flos (7)
Calendulae herba (2)
othera (4)
all
Thymus vulgaris L. (6)
Thymi herba (4)
Thymi folium (2)
Lavendula angustifolia Mill.
(3)
Lavendulae flos (3)
otherb (4)
6
11
4f
9
oil/fat
room
temperature
room
temperature
heated up
2
4
4
intact
skin
3
internal
altered or
sore skin
inhalation
1
2
1g
1h
1
1
2
5
5
2
2i
2
2
9
18f
5
1
3
all (4)
Malva sylvestris L. (3)
Malvae folium (1)
Malvae herba (2)
Otherd (1)
7
1g
1
3
2
1
1
1j
1
9
1
4
1
intrauterine
treatment of
housing
environment
1
2
3h
1i
2l
j
4
oral
26
1
all
Carum carvi L. (5)
Carvi fructus (5)
Foeniculum vulgare Mill. (4)
Foeniculi fructus (4)
otherc (1)
Symphytum officinale L. (9)
Symphyti folium (3)
Symphyti radix (6)
decoction
alcohol
2
6
1i
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
9
5
4
1
1
4
1
2
2
2
1
1
3
4
2
1
7
1
1
Table 1 continued on next page.
Livestock
Table 1. Continued
Botanic family
(plant species for
that family)
Plant species with
≥ 3 named HMHR
(remedies)
none
external
water
infusion
Rubiaceae (1)
Rhamnaceae (1)
Linaceae (1)
Hypericaceae (1)
Cupressaceae (1)
Pinaceae (1)
Coffea arabica L. (9)
Coffeae semen (9)
1
Rhamnus catharticus L. (6)
Rhamni herba (6)
6
Linum usitatissimum L. (6)
Lini semen (6)
1
Urticaceae (1)
Brassicaceae (1)
Other (16)
Total (43)
oil/fat
room
temperature
room
temperature
1
2
4
2
1
intrauterine
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
oral
6
1
Urtica dioica L. (3)
Urticae herba (3)
2
1
3
1
5
3
16 other plant species (17)
inhalation
1
1
3
e
altered or
sore skin
2
Solanum tuberosum L. (3)
Solani radix (3)
Brassica napus L. (3)
Rapae oleum (3)
intact
skin
treatment of
housing
environment
9
3
1
Thuja occidentalis L. (3)
Thujae occidentalis herba (3)
Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. (3)
Piceae herba (2)
Piceae resina (1)
heated up
internal
8
Hypericum perforatum L. (4)
Hyperici flos (3)
Hyperici herba (1)
Polygonaceae (1) Rumex obtusifolius L. (3)
Rumicis folium (1)
Rumicis semen (1)
Rumicis radix cum herba (1)
Solanaceae (1)
decoction
alcohol
1
k
8
5
41
45
7
3
1
15
8
7
1
4
4
25
44
1
1
k
13
2
68
3
129
Arnica montana L., Artemisia absinthium L., Taraxacum officinale Web. ex. Wigg.
Oreganum majorana L., Mentha arvensis L. var. piperascens, Origanum vulgare L., Salvia officinalis L.
c
Sanicula europaea L.
d
Tilia cordata Mill.
e
Allium cepa L. (Amaryllidaceae), Humulus lupulus L. (Cannabaceae), Quercus robur L.(Fagaceae), Geranium robertianum L. (Geraniaceae), Jugulans regia L. ( Juglandaceae), Myristica Fragans
Houtt. (Myristicaceae), Eucalyptus globolus Labill. (Myrtaceae), Chelidonium majus L. (Papaveraceae), Plantago lanceolata L. (Plantaginaceae), Avena sativa L. (Poaceae), Filipendula ulmaria (L.)
Maxim (Rosaceae), Euphrasia officinalis L. (Scrophulariaceae), Camelia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze (Theaceae), Tropaeolum majus L. (Tropaeolaceae), Vitis vinifera L. (Vitaceae), Aloe vera (L.)
Burm.f. (Xanthorrhoeaceae).
f
Kamillosan Liquidum used in 4 remedies for 9 applications.
g
Weleda Calendula Tincture used in 1 remedy for 1 application.
h
Weleda Arnica Tincture used in 1 remedy for 1 application.
i
Thyme oil used in 2 remedies for 1 application each.
j
NPJ Liniment (containing Mentha arvensis L. var. piperascens) used in 1 remedy for 1 application.
k
Eucalyptus oil used in 1 remedy for 1 application.
l
1 extraction with cider vinegar.
b
a
inhalation
room
temperature
room
temperature
infusion
decoction
alcohol
water
oil/fat
heated up
intact
skin
altered or
sore skin
internal
oral
intrauterine
external
none
treatment of
housing
environment
Plant species with
≥ 3 named HMHR
(remedies)
Botanic family
(plant species for
that family)
Table 1. Continued
130
tions, Matricaria recutita L. (6 applications) and Coffea arabica L. (8 applications, 6 times in addition to schnapps) were
used. For treatment of infertility, the farmers most often
used Thuja occidentalis L. (3 applications). The HMHR were
mostly used to treat cattle (118 applications, 78.7%), followed by horses (20 applications, 13.3%) and other animals
(12 applications, 8.0%). Oral administration was most frequently used (68 applications, 45.3%) (table 1), e.g. for the
treatment of diarrhea, stomach trouble, indigestion, cough,
pneumonia, or uterine inflammation. For oral administration, the plant was often applied directly or as an extract
made with water or alcohol. Orally administrated HMHR
were either added to the feedstuff or applied by enforced
administration. External administration on altered and sore
skin, claws, hooves, and eyes was used in 44 applications
(29.3%). For treatment of wounds, farmers used HMHR as
baths, washes or compresses, or simply as a direct application of the oil or ointment to the lesion. For treatment of
irritated eyes, the respondents used washouts with water
extractions. Administration on intact skin was reported in
25 applications (16.7%) to treat internal injuries like pulled
or hardened muscles, contusions, sprains, and swellings, or
as repeller against ectoparasites. Usually, the farmers rubbed
oil or ointment formulation on the affected body parts. 3 applications were intrauterine administrations, either to prevent inflammation or for cleaning the uterus after calving. 2
applications were used for inhalation (table 2). A special administration is linked to the use of Rhamnus catharticus L. to
treat cattle ringworm. The twigs were not administered or
applied onto the animals but were hung up in the stable for 8
weeks up to 1 year. In 4 applications, the farmers used
Rhamnus catharticus L. therapeutically and in 3 applications
prophylactically (table 2). The applications were used in 72
cases (48.0%) during the last 12 months and in 15 cases
(10.0%) in the last few days preceding the interviews. The
HMHR were used in pure form in most applications. 52 applications (34.7%) were used in combination with other
homemade or homeopathic remedies. The use of 25 applications (16.7%) was, in the case of aggravation, combined with
veterinary treatments, mainly for rehydration during diarrhea therapy. More than half of the applications were employed by the respondents more than 10 times (83 applications, 55.3%), 51 applications between 2 and 10 times
(34.0%), and 16 applications less than 2 times (10.7%). The
knowledge on the use of these applications was obtained
from the forefathers (57 applications, 38.0%), books (29 applications, 19.3%), own experience (20 applications, 13.3%),
friends (14 applications, 9.3%), and other sources such as
newspapers (30 applications, 20.0%). With the help of a
VAS, the degree of satisfaction with the 123 applications in
which the HMHR were applied 2 or more times was evaluated for the pure use. Overall, the farmers were satisfied
with the efficacy of their plant preparations (fig. 1).
Table 2. 150 applications (total) of 123 HMHR used on 21 farms in 3 Swiss cantons (Aargau, Zurich, Schaffhausen)
Livestock
Plant species with ≥ 3 named HMHR
(remedies)
Categories of use
All species of Asteraceae (27)
Matricariae flos (13)
Matricariae herba (1)
Calendulae flos (7)
Calendulae herba (2)
Othera (4)
28
8
18h
5
1
All species of Lamiaceae (13)
Thymus vulgaris L. (6)
Thymi herba (4)
Thymi folium (2)
Lavendula angustifolia Mill.(3)
Lavendulae flos (3)
Otherb (4)
All species of Apiaceae (10)
Carum carvi L. (5)
Carvi fructus (5)
Foeniculum vulgare Mill. (4)
Foeniculi fructus (4)
Otherc (1)
All species of Malvaceae (4)
Malva sylvestris L. (3)
Malvae folium (1)
Malvae herba (2)
Otherd (1)
Symphyti folium (3)
Symphyti radix (6)
skin
alterations
and sores
Target animal species
gastrointestinal
and
metabolic
disorders
7
2i
1j
2
2
1
infertility
and
diseases of
female
genitals
mastitis
internal
injuries
respiratory
tract
diseases
2
28
2
1
1
7
1l
2
6
1i
5j
1
9
5
1
14
6
4
2
3
3
5
4k
2
1
1
3l
3
2
5
5
4
4
1
2
1
1
5
4
2
2
1
1
1
8
131
2
7a
38
24
23
1
9
7
2
5
10
5
5
4
4
1
1
Lini semen (6)
8
10
2
2
7
2
other
Total
different
applications
9
1
Rhamnus catharticus L. (6)
Rhamni herba (6)
2
3k
2
1
Coffeae semen (9)
horse
g
1
2
1
1
cattle
16h
1
1
other
f
5
1
1
5
1
10
3
7
3
5
1
8
1
9
9
6
1
7
7
5
2
7
7
1
Table 2. Continued
132
Plant species with ≥ 3 named HMHR
(remedies)
Hyperici flos (3)
Hyperici herba (1)
Categories of use
skin
alterations
and sores
gastrointestinal
and
metabolic
disorders
Rumex obtusifolius L. (3)
Rumicis folium (1)
Rumicis semen (1)
Rumicis radix cum herba (1)
otherf
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
6
4
3
5
57
39
13
8
m
13
4
2
1
4
18
10
10
118
5
4
1
1
3
3
3
2
1
4
1
1
2
4
4
3
2
otherg
1
1
1
horse
1
1
1
1
1
1
cattle
3
1
2
1
Total (123)
respiratory
tract
diseases
1
e
a
internal
injuries
2
Solanum tuberosum L. (3)
Solani radix (3)
Urticae herba (3)
Rapae oleum (3)
mastitis
2
Thuja occidentalis L. (3)
Thujae occidentalis herba (3)
Piceae herba (2)
Piceae resina (1)
infertility
and
diseases of
female
genitals
Total
different
applications
m
1
2
1
3
20
5
5
5
5
21
12
150
Arnica montana L., Artemisia absinthium L., Taraxacum officinale Web. ex. Wigg.
Oreganum majorana L., Mentha arvensis L. var. piperascens, Origanum vulgare L., Salvia officinalis L.
c
Sanicula europaea L.
d
Tilia cordata Mill.
e
Allium cepa L. (Amaryllidaceae), Humulus lupulus L. (Cannabaceae), Quercus robur L.(Fagaceae), Geranium robertianum L. (Geraniaceae), Jugulans regia L. ( Juglandaceae), Myristica Fragans
Houtt. (Myristicaceae), Eucalyptus globolus Labill. (Myrtaceae), Chelidonium majus L. (Papaveraceae), Plantago lanceolata L. (Plantaginaceae), Avena sativa L. (Poaceae), Filipendula ulmaria (L.)
Maxim (Rosaceae), Euphrasia officinalis L. (Scrophulariaceae), Camelia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze (Theaceae), Tropaeolum majus L. (Tropaeolaceae), Vitis vinifera L. (Vitaceae), Aloe vera (L.)
Burm.f. (Xanthorrhoeaceae).
f
Parasites and general strengthening.
g
Goats, sheep, pigs, cats.
h
Kamillosan Liquidum used in 4 remedies for 9 applications.
i
Weleda Calendula Tincture used in 1 remedy for 1 application.
j
Weleda Arnica Tincture used in 1 remedy for 1 application.
k
Thyme oil used in 2 remedies for 1 application each.
l
NPJ Liniment (containing Mentha arvensis L. var. piperascens) used in 1 remedy for 1 application.
m
Eucalyptus oil used in 1 remedy for 1 application.
b
Livestock
Table 3. Daily dosage in plant equivalent per kg metabolic body weight (g/kg0.75) of HMHR used for oral administration on 21 farms in 3 Swiss cantons (Aargau, Zurich, Schaffhausen)
Plant species with ≥ 3
HMHR with an
ascertainable oral daily
dose
Matricaria recutita L.
Matricariae flos
Matricariae herba
Daily dose, g/kg0.75
calf (75 kg)
cow (650 kg)
0.12, 0.16, 0.35, 0.47, 0.63
0.03
0.004
Thymus vulgaris L.
Thymi herba
Thymi folium
0.39, 11.77
0.08
Carum carvi L.
Carvi fructus
0.24, 0.63, 0.75, 2.35, 3.77
0.05, 0.14
Foeniculum vulgare Mill.
Foeniculi fructus
0.11, 0.18, 0.31, 0.50
0.1
Coffea arabica L.
Coffeae semen
Linum usitatissimum L.
Lini semen
0.05, 0.11, 0.14, 0.18, 0.21, 0.72, 1.11
1.90, 2.00, 2.24, 7.85
0.40
Thuja occidentalis L.
Thujae occidentalis herba
0,006, 0.006, 0.02
Solanum tuberosum L.
Solani radix
7.77, 7.77, 38.84
Urtica dioica L.
Urticae herba
a
Hens and pigs.
Calves.
c
Cattle.
d
Horses.
e
Hens.
f
Pigs.
g
Ponepal et al. [36]; calves: subcutaneous injections.
n.a. = Not applicable.
b
foal (75 kg)
4.66
0.67
horse (650 kg)
other
a
Arithmetic
mean
and standard
deviation
Converted
animal dose,
g/kg0.75
[27]
Converted
humane daily
dose, g/kg0.75
[28]
0.22 ± 0.24
0.2–0.4
0.4–0.5
2.47 ± 5.20
0.08–0.4
0.1–0.3
1.13 ± 1.40
0.2–0.4
0.07–0.3
0.24 ± 0.17
0.2–0.4
0.2–0.3
0.37 ± 0.37
0.05g
n.a.
2.92 ± 2.82
1.0–2.0b, 0.4–1.6c,
0.4–0.8d
0.70
0.01 ± 0.009
n.a.
n.a.
18.12 ± 17.94
n.a.
n.a.
2.39 ± 2.66
0.2–0.4c, 0.1–0.3d,
3.0–10.0e, 1.3–2.6f
0.4–0.7
0.0009
0.13
0.62
0.16
e
0.002 ,
4.72f
133
bica L. In Austria as well as in Swiss Safiental, Arnica montana L. was more often used than in our study. This may be
ascribed to the fact that these surveys focused on the alpine
regions where Arnica grows naturally and thus is known better to local farmers [6, 9, 11, 16]. In Austria and Switzerland,
the most widely used herbal drugs were employed for similar
indications. In our survey, we recorded more frequent usage
of fruits from the family of Apiaceae, such as cumin and caraway, for treating gastrointestinal disorders than reported in
the Austrian studies [6, 9, 11–13]. The 8 most relevant medicinal plants which were used for more than 4 homemade herbal
remedies each are briefly discussed in the following with a
focus on categories of use and dosage in the case of orally administrated applications.
Fig. 1. Degree of satisfaction of farmers with the outcome of the 123 applications used twice or more, as estimated on a 100 mm VAS (arithmetic
mean and standard error; numbers in brackets indicate the frequency
with which application was mentioned).
Discussion
The present study was the first survey on the knowledge and
use of homemade herbal remedies by farmers in the Northern
part of Switzerland. Organic farms were chosen as focus
group because we supposed that these farms may need to be
knowledgeable about herbal remedies which is the required
treatment method according to the Swiss Organic Regulation
[18]. The farms producing according to integrated production,
which were obtained by the snowball sampling method, [21]
also feature traditional knowledge although the results cannot
be considered as representative. However, the chosen sampling method is common in studies gathering information on
traditional knowledge [6, 9, 11–13, 16]. The farmers used
homemade herbal remedies as first measure to treat mild or
moderate diseases. The dosages assessed in the interviews
have to be considered as approximations. However, this enabled us to compare them with dose recommendations in the
literature (table 3). Such comparisons have not been reported
in similar surveys from other European countries [9–16]. The
range of reported dosages was wide. This may be explained by
the high therapeutic index of most herbal drugs. The success
estimations on VAS by the interviewed farmers was certainly
subjective, but was a general indicator for their degree of satisfaction with the results of their treatments. The majority of
documented applications were for cattle. This can be attributed to the fact that 95% of the participating farms kept dairy
or suckler cows. In the organic farms of the investigated area,
cattle were the most important farm animal species [20]. In
the 3 investigated cantons, as well as in different Austrian regions and in Swiss Safiental, the farmers most frequently used
Matricaria recutita L., Calendula officinalis L., and Coffea ara-
134
Chamomile Flowerheads (Matricaria recutita L.,
Matricariae flos)
Chamomile was administered internally and externally and
used to treat gastrointestinal diseases and skin alterations
and sores. These findings are in line with ethnoveterinary
studies in Swiss Safiental, Austria, and Western Spain [6, 7, 9,
11–13, 16]. However, use of chamomile was not documented
in surveys in Catalonia and Tuscany [8, 26]. The treatment of
gastrointestinal disorders, metabolic dysfunctions, and skin
alterations and sores is also described in veterinary medicine
[27], and is supported by in vitro and in vivo pharmacological
studies on major constituents [28] and chamomile extracts
[29, 30]. Dosages described for oral administration were, on
average, comparable to recommendations for veterinary use
[27], and in the range of human doses (table 3) [28]. Kamillosan was the only commercial chamomile product that was
used as ingredient in several formulations. It is also used by
the Department for Livestock of the Veterinary Clinic Zurich for the treatment of sores and in inhalations against
pneumonia (table 3) (Prof. Dr. Ueli Braun, Zurich, Personal
Communication) .
Thyme (Thymus vulgaris L., Thymi herba)
Thyme was used by the interviewed farmers to treat ailments
of the respiratory tract, gastrointestinal disorders, and metabolic dysfunctions. Farmers in Catalonia use a herbal tea from
thyme for treating diarrhoea in calves [8] whereas in Swiss
Safiental it is mainly used to treat respiratory tract diseases
and to prepare udder ointments [16]. In contrast, no use of
thyme has been documented in Austria [6, 9, 11, 13]. In veterinary medicine, thyme preparations are recommended for gastrointestinal diseases, metabolic dysfunctions, and respiratory
tract disorders [27]. Thymol and carvacrol are the major
constituents of the essential oil [28, 29]; the bronchodilating
properties have been demonstrated with isolated tracheas of
guinea pigs [31]. 2 of the 3 daily oral doses recorded in our
survey were in the recommended range for oral administrations for humans and animals (table 3) [27, 28], 1 dosage was
20 times higher.
Linseed (Linum usitatissimum L., Lini semen)
Linseed was administered orally for gastrointestinal disorders, as reported also from Austria and Italy [6, 9, 11, 26]. In
addition, farmers in our study used linseed as a poultice for
internal injuries. Similar use has been documented in several
regions of Austria [9, 13]. Linseed contains mucilaginous
polysaccharides which produce a protective and soothing
layer on skin and mucous membranes. In veterinary medicine, linseed is used as a mild laxative given either as mucilage or as whole seeds [27]. The dosages administered by the
interviewed farmers corresponded with the recommended
dosage per kilogram MBW for animals and humans (table 3)
[27, 28].
Caraway (Carum carvi L., Carvi fructus)
Caraway was orally administered to treat gastrointestinal disorders and metabolic dysfunctions. No usage of caraway fruit
has been documented in surveys conducted in Austria, Italy,
and Spain [6–9, 11, 13] but some applications are documented
for Swiss Safiental [16]. Veterinary medicine recommends
caraway in disorders of the gastrointestinal tract [27]. The essential oil facilitates digestion and has antibacterial and antimycotic properties [32]. Extracts have been shown to exert a
spasmolytic effect on smooth muscle cells of guinea pigs [33].
On average, the dosages used by the interviewed farmers
were comparatively high (table 3) [27, 28].
Stinging Nettle Herb (Urtica dioica L., Urticae herba)
Stinging nettle was administered as a restorative remedy and
was the only herbal drug applied to treat 4 different animal
species. In Tuscany, Catalonia, and Northwest Spain, as well
as in Swiss Safiental, stinging nettle is reportedly used as restorative remedy and as an anti-inflammatory [7, 8, 26]. No
usage of stinging nettle has been documented in Austria [6, 9,
11, 13]. In veterinary medicine, stinging nettle is recommended to increase urinary flow during bacterial and inflammatory diseases of the urinary tract, and as adjuvant treatment in rheumatic complaints. Stinging nettle herb shows
mild antihypertensive, analgesic, local anaesthetic, antiphlogistic, antirheumatic, and diuretic properties [27, 28]. On average, the dosages reported by the farmers were higher for pigs
and cattle and lower for hens than recommended in veterinary and human medicine; however, doses given to horses
were comparable to recommended veterinary and human
dosages (table 3).
Coffee (Coffea arabica L.)
The farmers brewed coffee to treat gastrointestinal disorders,
metabolic dysfunctions, infertility, and diseases of the female
genitalia. In 7 homemade herbal remedies they added
schnapps to the coffee. In Austria and Swiss Safiental, the application of coffee, with or without schnapps, was documented
for similar traditional uses [6, 9, 11, 16]. Coffee beans contain
purine alkaloids, mainly caffeine, and theophylline as a minor
Livestock
by-product. Coffee extract can be used to alleviate mental and
physical fatigue [34]. In a randomized placebo-controlled,
double-blind study, a subcutaneous injection of 10 ml coffee
preparation accelerated recovery from diarrhea in 30% of
newborn calves (table 3) [35]. For all coffee preparations, the
dosages administered by the farmers were higher than used in
the placebo-controlled study, probably due to the different
routes of administration [35].
Marigold Flowers (Calendula officinalis L., Calendulae flos)
Ointments, tinctures, and infusions prepared from marigold
flowers were used to treat wounds and teat lesions. These administrations were also documented in Austria and Swiss
Safiental; marigold infusions were also given to treat indigestion [11, 16]. The antibacterial, antifungal, immunostimulant,
and wound healing properties of marigold are exploited in
veterinary medicine in the topical treatment of lacerations,
contusions, and slow-healing wounds [27].
Comfrey (Symphytum officinale L., Symphyti radix,
Symphyti herba)
The farmers prepared ointments and tinctures from comfrey
roots, or used the leaves directly to treat sprains, contusions,
swollen joints, or indigestion. Comparable results were found
in Swiss Safiental [16]. No usage of comfrey has been documented in Austria [6, 9, 11]. In veterinary medicine, comfrey
is used in topical application to treat contusions, sprains, and
pulled muscles [27]. Allantoine and hydroxycinnamic acid derivatives are considered to be responsible for the analgesic,
antiphlogistic properties of comfrey [29].
Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus catharticus L.)
The farmers used branches of Rhamnus catharticus L. against
cattle ringworm. This kind of treatment has only been documented in Switzerland. Despite lacking scientific data and the
fact that the herbs were not administered or applied to the
animals but hung up in the stable, this type of use seems to be
common, and the farmers were highly satisfied with the results of the treatment.
Conclusion
The investigated farmers in the Northern part of Switzerland
administered a variety of homemade herbal remedies mainly
based on plants from the families of Asteraceae, Lamiaceae,
and Apiaceae. With few exceptions, categories of use and dosages were comparable with the available literature. In general, the farmers were satisfied with the outcome of the applications. Further studies in other regions of Europe should be
carried out to get a closer view on traditional knowledge and
use of homemade herbal remedies.
135
Acknowledgement
Disclosure Statement
The authors sincerely thank the organic advisory services of the cantons
Zurich, Schaffhausen and Aargau, the ‘Schweizerische Medizinische
Gesellschaft für Phytotherapie’ (SMGP), the Paul Schiller Foundation,
the Bristol Foundation (both in Zurich), and the PlantaVet GmbH for
financial support of the study.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1 McCorkle CM: An introduction to ethnoveterinary
research and development. J Ethnobiol 1986;6:129–
149.
2 WHO: Traditional Medicine. Fact sheet no. 134,
2008. www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs134/en.
3 Anyinam C: Ecology and ethnomedicine: exploring
links between current environmental crisis and indigenous medical practices. Soc Sci Med 1995;40:
321–329.
4 Pieroni A, Howard P, Volpato G, Santoro RF:
Natural remedies and nutraceuticals used in ethnoveterinary practices in Inland Southern Italy.
Vet Res Commun 2004;28:55–80.
5 Maphosa V, Masika PJ: Ethnoveterinary uses of
medicinal plants: a survey of plants used in the ethnoveterinary control of gastro-intestinal parasites
of goats in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Pharm Biol 2010;48:697–702.
6 Bizaj M: Lokales Wissen von Osttiroler Bäuerinnen und Bauern über Pflanzen und Hausmittel zur
Gesunderhaltung und Krankheitsbehandlung ihrer
Tiere und die Bedeutung für den biologischen
Landbau. Diplomarbeit an der Universität für
Bodenkultur Wien, Institut für ökologischen Landbau, Department für Nachhaltige Agrarsysteme,
2005.
7 Blanco E, Macia MJ, Morales R: Medicinal and
veterinary plants of El Caurel (Galicia, Northwest
Spain). J Ethnopharmacol 1999;65:113–124.
8 Bonet MA, Vallès J: Ethnobotany of Montseny
biosphere reserve (Catalonia, Iberian Peninsula):
plants used in veterinary medicine. J Ethnopharmacol 2007;110:130–147.
9 Grabowski M: «Meisterwurz und Aderlass». Anwendung und Wandel des ethnoveterinärmedizinischen Wissens im Grossen Walsertal/Voralberg
unter Hervorhebung der pflanzlichen Hausmittel
und des religiösen Brauchtums. Diplomarbeit an
der Universität Wien, 2010.
10 Pieroni A, Guisti ME, de Pasquale C, Lenzarini C,
Censorii E, Gonzales-Tejero M, Sanchez-Rojas C,
Ramiro-Gutierrez J, Skoula M, Johnson C, Sarpaki
A, Della A, Paraskeva-Hadijchambi D, Hadjichambis A, Hmamouchi M, El-Jorhi S, El-Demerdash M, El-Zayat M, Al-Shahaby O, Houmani Z,
Scherazed M: Circum-Mediterranean cultural heritage and medicinal plant uses in traditional animal
healthcare: a field survey in eight selected areas
within the RUBIA project. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed
2006;2:16.
136
11 Rudolph G: Lokales Erfahrungswissen von Biobäuerinnen und Biobauern in der West- und Südsteiermark über den Einsatz von Pflanzenarten
und Hausmitteln in der Tierheilkunde im Vergleich zum Erfahrungswissen von Landwirten in
den nördlichen gemässigten Klimazonen. Diplomarbeit an der Universität für Bodenkultur Wien,
Institut für ökologischen Landbau, Department für
Nachhaltige Agrarsysteme, 2008.
12 Schunko C, Vogl CR: Organic farmers use of wild
food plants and fungi in a hilly area in Styria (Austria). J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2010;6:17.
13 Vogl-Lukasser B, Vogl CR, Bizaj M, Grassner S,
Bertsch C: Lokales Erfahrungswissen über Pflanzenarten aus Wildsammlung mit Verwendung in
der Fütterung und als Hausmittel in der Volksheilkunde bei landwirtschaftlichen Nutztieren in Osttirol, Projekt gefördert vom Land Tirol und dem
Lebensministerium (BM:LFUW), 2006. www.nas.
boku.ac.at/fileadmin/_/H93/H933/Personen/
Vogl/1272_VOGL_Wildsammlung03042006.pdf.
14 Vogl-Lukasser B, Vogl CR, Bizaj M, Grasser S:
Tierheilkunde mit Hausmitteln. Freiland J 2006;3:
10–11.
15 Scherrer AM, Motti R, Weckerle CS: Traditional
plant use in the areas of Monte Vesole and Ascea,
Cilento National Park (Campania, Southern Italy).
J Ethnopharmacol 2005;97:129–143.
16 Joos B: Lokales Wissen über Gesundheit und
Krankheit des Viehs in Graubünden. Diplomarbeit
an der Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, Institut
für Ökologischen Landbau, Department für Nachhaltige Agrarsysteme, 2010.
17 Council Regulation (EC) no. 834/2007 on Organic
Production and Labelling of Organic Products.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do
?uri=OJ:L:2007:189:0001:0023:EN:PDF.
18 Verordnung über die biologische Landwirtschaft
und die Kennzeichnung biologisch produzierter
Erzeugnisse und Lebensmittel. Stand 1.1.2011. Artikel 16. www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/910_18/index.html.
19 Tierarzneimittelkompendium der Schweiz. wwwvetpharm.uzh.ch/perldocs/index_t.htm.
20 Schweizer Bauernverband. www.sbv-usp.ch/de/
statistik.
21 Bernard HR: Research Methods in Anthropology
– Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, ed 4.
Walnut Creek, CA, Altamira Press, 2006.
22 Weller SC, Romney AK: Systematic Data Collection – Qualitative Research Methods Series, volume 10. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications,
1988, pp 9–20.
23 Microsoft Access database (version 2010). http://
office.microsoft.com/en-us/access/.
24 Löscher W, Ungemach FR, Kroker R: Grundlagen
der Pharmakotherapie bei Haus- und Nutztieren,
2. Auflage. Berlin, Paul Parey, 1994, S. 400–401.
25 Zealley AK, Aitken RCB: Measurement of Mood.
Proc R Soc Med 1969;62:993–996.
26 Uncini Manganelli RE, Camangi F, Tomei PE: Curing animals with plants: traditional usage in Tuscany (Italy). J Ethnopharmacol 2001;78:171–191.
27 Reichling J, Gachnian-Mirtscheva R, Frater-Schröder M, Saller R, Di Carlo A, Widmaier W: Heilpflanzenkunde für Tierärzte. Berlin, Springer, 2005.
28 ESCOP Monographs, ed 2, completely revised and
expanded. Stuttgart, Thieme, 2003.
29 Wichtl M: Teedrogen und Phytopharmaka – ein
Handbuch für die Praxis auf wissenschaftlicher
Grundlage, 5. Auflage. Stuttgart, Wissenschaftliche
Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, 2009.
30 Cemek M, Yilmaz E, Büyükokuroglu ME: Protective effect of Matricaria chamomilla on ethanolinduced acute gastric mucosal injury in rats. Pharm
Biol 2010;48:757–763.
31 Boskabady MH, Aslani MR, Kiani S: Relexant
effect of Thymus vulgaris on guinea-pig tracheal
chains and its possible mechanism(s). Phytother
Res 2006;20:28–33.
32 Hawrelak JA, Cattley T, Myers SP: Essential oils in
the treatment of intestinal dysbiosis: a preliminary
in vitro study. Altern Med Rev 2009;14:4.
33 Al-Essa MK, Shafagoj YA, Mohammed FI, Afifi
FU: Relaxant effect of ethanol extract of Carum
carvi on dispersed intestinal smooth muscle cells of
the guinea pig. Pharm Biol 2010;48:76–80.
34 Hiller K, Melzig MF: Die große Enzyklopädie der
Arzneipflanzen und Drogen, genehmigte Sonderausgabe. Erfstadt, Area, 2006.
35 Ponepal V, Spielberger U, Riedel-Caspari G,
Schmidt FW: Use of a Coffea arabica tosta extract
for the prevention and therapy of polyfactorial infectious diseases in newborn calves. Dtsch Tierarztl
Wochenschr 1996;103:390–394.
JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY
AND ETHNOMEDICINE
Ethnoveterinary herbal remedies used by farmers
in four north-eastern Swiss cantons (St. Gallen,
Thurgau, Appenzell Innerrhoden and Appenzell
Ausserrhoden)
Disler et al.
Disler et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2014, 10:32
http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/10/1/32
RESEARCH
JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY
AND ETHNOMEDICINE
Open Access
Ethnoveterinary herbal remedies used by farmers
in four north-eastern Swiss cantons (St. Gallen,
Thurgau, Appenzell Innerrhoden and Appenzell
Ausserrhoden)
Monika Disler1, Silvia Ivemeyer2, Matthias Hamburger1, Christian R Vogl3, Anja Tesic4, Franziska Klarer5,
Beat Meier5 and Michael Walkenhorst2*
Abstract
Background: Very few ethnoveterinary surveys have been conducted in central Europe. However, traditional
knowledge on the use of medicinal plants might be an option for future concepts in treatment of livestock
diseases. Therefore the aim of this study was to document and analyse the traditional knowledge and use of
homemade herbal remedies for livestock by farmers in four Swiss cantons.
Methods: Research was conducted in 2012. Fifty farmers on 38 farms were interviewed with the aid of
semistructured interviews. Detailed information about the plants used and their mode of preparation were
documented as well as dosage, route of administration, category of use, origin of knowledge, frequency of use, and
satisfaction with the treatment.
Results: In total, 490 homemade remedies were collected. Out of these, 315 homemade remedies contained only
one plant species (homemade single species herbal remedies, HSHR), which are presented in this paper. Seventy six
species from 44 botanical families were mentioned. The most HSHR were quoted for the families of Asteraceae,
Polygonaceae and Urticaceae. The plant species with the highest number of HSHRs were Matricaria recutita L.,
Calendula officinalis L., Rumex obtusifolius L. and Urtica dioica L. For each HSHR, one to eight different applications
were enumerated. A total of 428 applications were documented, the majority of which were used to treat cattle.
The main applications were in treatment of skin afflictions and sores, followed by gastrointestinal disorders and
metabolic dysfunctions. Topical administration was most frequently used, followed by oral administration. In nearly
half of the cases the knowledge on preparing and using herbal remedies was from forefathers and relatives. More
than one third of the applications were used more than ten times during the last five years, and in about sixty
percent of the cases, the last application was during the last year preceding the interviews.
Conclusions: Traditional knowledge of farmers about the use of medicinal plants to treat livestock exists in
north-eastern Switzerland. Homemade herbal remedies based on this knowledge are being used. The interviewed
farmers were satisfied with the outcome of the applications.
Keywords: Ethnoveterinary, Herbal remedies, Switzerland (St. Gallen, Thurgau, Appenzell Innerrhoden,
Appenzell Ausserrhoden), Farmers
* Correspondence: [email protected]
2
Departement of Livestock Science, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture,
Ackerstrasse 113, Postfach, CH-5070 Frick, Switzerland
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© 2014 Disler et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain
Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article,
unless otherwise stated.
Page 2 of 22
Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund: Aus weiten Teilen Mitteleuropas fehlen bisher Angaben zur Ethnoveterinärmedizin. Andererseits birgt
das traditionelle Erfahrungswissen zu Pflanzen und deren Anwendungen ein grosses Potential für zukünftige
Behandlungsstrategien für Nutztierkrankheiten. Ziel dieser Studie war daher die Erfassung und Auswertung des
traditionellen Erfahrungswissens zu pflanzlichen Hausmitteln und deren Anwendungen bei Nutztieren auf
landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben in vier nordöstlichen Schweizer Kantonen (St. Gallen, Thurgau, Appenzell Innerrhoden
und Appenzell Ausserrhoden).
Methoden: Von Anfang März bis Ende April 2012 wurden 50 Landwirtinnen und Landwirte auf 38 Betrieben
anhand eines semistrukturierten Fragenkatalogs interviewt. Für jede genannte Rezeptur wurden detaillierte
Informationen zu den verwendeten Pflanzen und zur Herstellung dokumentiert, darüber hinaus für deren
Anwendungsgebiete die Dosierung, Verabreichungsart, Anwendung, Wissensursprung, Einsatzhäufigkeit und die
Zufriedenheit mit dem Ergebnis der Therapie.
Resultate: Insgesamt wurden 490 Rezepturen erfasst. Davon enthielten 315 Rezepturen je nur eine einzelne
Pflanzenart. Ausschliesslich diese Rezepturen wurden in die Auswertung einbezogen. Sechsundsiebzig verschiedene
Pflanzenarten aus 44 Pflanzenfamilien wurden hierfür verwendet. Die Pflanzenfamilien Asteraceae, Polygonaceae und
Urticaceae waren am häufigsten vertreten. Die meistgenannten Pflanzenarten waren Matricaria recutita L., Calendula
officinalis L., Rumex obtusifolius L. und Urtica dioica L. Für jede Rezeptur wurden bis zu acht verschiedene
Anwendungen, insgesamt 428 überwiegend für Rinder, beschrieben. Die meistgenannten Anwendungsgebiete
waren Hautveränderungen und Wunden, sowie Erkrankungen des Magen-Darm-Traktes und Stoffwechselstörungen.
Am häufigsten wurden topische Verabreichungen genannt, gefolgt von den oralen Verabreichungen. Das Wissen
über die Herstellung und Verwendung der Rezepturen stammt fast zur Hälfte von Vorfahren und Verwandten. Mehr
als ein Drittel der Anwendungen wurde während der letzten fünf Jahre zehnmal und häufiger benutzt. Die letzte
Anwendung erfolgte in rund sechzig Prozent der Fälle innerhalb der letzten zwölf Monate.
Schlussfolgerung: Das traditionelle Erfahrungswissen über pflanzliche Hausmittel und deren Anwendungen bei
Nutztieren ist in der nordöstlichen Schweiz vorhanden. Die auf diesem Erfahrungswissen basierenden pflanzlichen
Rezepturen werden nach wie vor angewendet. Die pflanzlichen Rezepturen werden mit grosser Zufriedenheit zur
Behandlung von Nutztieren eingesetzt.
Background
Ethnoveterinary research is defined as the “systematic
investigation and application of veterinary folk knowledge, theory and practise” [1]. In recent years, ethnoveterinary studies have been conducted mainly in Africa,
Asia, and in Central America [2]. In developing countries, animal health care is often based on the use of
self-made preparations, particularly when access to western veterinary products is difficult or too expensive for
the local farmer [3]. Few ethnoveterinary studies on
herbal remedies have been conducted in Europe, and
surveys have been published for Spain [4-7], the overall
mediterranian region [8], Italy [9-11] and Austria [12-15].
Two ethnoveterinary studies have been recently carried
out in Switzerland, one in three cantons of the centralnorthern part [16], and the second in a valley (Safiental) of
the canton of Graubünden [17].
Traditional medicine is defined by the World Health
Organization as “the sum total of the knowledge, skills,
and practices based on the theories, beliefs and experiences indigenous to different cultures, whether explicable
or not, used in the maintenance of health as well as in
the prevention, diagnosis, improvement or treatment of
physical and mental illness” [18]. Other authors specify a
tradition as the transmission of knowledge over at least
three generations, whereas the life span of a generation is
not generally defined and varies widely [19]. The traditional knowledge of use of medicinal plants which was
transmitted from generation to generation is recently in
imminent danger of disappearing [20]. Hence, traditional
knowledge might be an option for future concepts in
treatment of livestock diseases and, for this reason,
should be documented before it gets lost.
European Council and Swiss regulations of organic agriculture emphasize the use of “phytotherapeutic products”,
“homeopathy”, and “micronutrients” for the treatment
of livestock diseases. “Chemically synthesised allopathic
veterinary medicinal products including antibiotics”
may be used where necessary, but only within strict limitations [21,22]. A total of eleven veterinary medicinal
products with herbal ingredients are currently available
in Switzerland [23], among these only three products
with pure plant ingredients are available [24]. Only few
years ago a substantially higher number of herbal
veterinary medicinal products were available [23].
Hence, organic farmers have few other choices than
using their own herbal remedies.
The aim of this research was to document the veterinary usage of plants by farmers in the four neighbouring Swiss cantons of St. Gallen, Thurgau, Appenzell
Innerrhoden and Appenzell Ausserrhoden. The focus
was on establishing a list of medicinal plants used in
homemade remedies, on the preparation of remedies,
their uses, and estimation of the amounts of medicinal
plant in the final product. The results were compared with
other ethnoveterinary studies that have been conducted in
Switzerland and in Europe.
Methods
The methodology of the study was according to the previous project ‘Traditional use of herbal remedies in livestock by organic farmers in three Swiss cantons (Aargau,
Zurich, Schaffhausen)” [16].
Study area
The study area included the four cantons of St. Gallen,
Thurgau, Appenzell Innerrhoden and Appenzell Ausserrhoden,
which are situated in the north-east of Switzerland. The
four neighbouring cantons are in part adjacent to the
region covered by the previous project [16]. The research area is located between 8°4’ and 9°4’ E and 46°5’
and 47°4’ N, and the altitude varies between 370 m and
3247 m above sea level [25]. At a mean altitude of
595 m above sea level the average annual temperature
is 7.9° Celsius. The average annual precipitation ranges
between 1000 and 1900 millimetres [26,27]. The research area covers a region of 3432 km2, and has approximately 800’000 inhabitants [28].
There were a total of 8887 farms in the four cantons.
In St. Gallen 386 (8.4%) out of 4592 farms, in Thurgau
241 (8.2%) out of 2947, in Appenzell Innerrhoden 22
(4.2%) out of 534, and in Appenzell Ausserrhoden 111
(13.6%) out of 814 were organic farms. As the most frequently animal species 6528 (73.5%) out of those 8887
farms kept cattle, 4254 (47.9%) poultry, and 1606 (18.1%)
kept pigs [29].
Dialogue partners
Different methods were used to recruit dialogue partners. In a first step a letter with detailed information
about the project was sent to all organic farmers in
the research area. A broader population was informed
about the research through publications in the local
agricultural press. Furthermore, the project was presented at two farmers’ meetings on complementary
medicine. Persons contacted were asked to support
the project, either as dialogue partners, or as informants
(without own knowledge regarding herbal remedies)
Page 3 of 22
providing information on other farmers according to
the snowball sampling method [30]. The contacts of
the informants are leading to further dialogue partners (Figure 1).
Twelve farmers spontaneously agreed to become dialogue partners. All farmers in the study area that belonged
to the organic dairy farm research network of the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Frick were contacted by phone and asked to support the project. Four
additional dialogue partners were recruited by this contact. In addition, all 69 farmers of several supraregional
working groups on complementary medicine in the study
area were invited by phone. Six farmers could be recruited
by this approach. Finally, snowball sampling [30] through
several informants led to recruitment of additional 16
interview partners (Figure 1).
The following criteria had to be fulfilled by the farmers
to qualify as a dialog partner:
– The farm had to be in the research area.
– The dialogue partner had to nominate at least three
different applications of homemade remedies or
medical plants.
– The dialogue partner had to agree sharing his/
her knowledge to the research team, for analysis
and publication of the data in an anonymized
form.
A total of 38 interviews were conducted between the
beginning of March and the end of April 2012. In most
cases dialogue partners were interviewed alone. On nine
farms one and on one farm three further persons (all
family members) asissts the dialogue partner for the
interview. As a consequence the information comes
from 50 farmers, or members of the farmers’ family. The
answers given by persons assisting the dialogue partner
were added to the data of the dialogue partner and not
analysed separately. For example, if during an interview
a member of the farmer’s family named a homemade
remedy, which was applied on the same farm by him/
her, the answers were combined with the interview of
the main dialog partner.
A total of 29 women (58%) and 21 men (42%) with an
age between 30 and 81 (55 ± 13) years served as dialogue
partners or assisting persons. Twenty-two interviews
were held in the canton of St. Gallen, nine in Thurgau,
two in Appenzell Innerrhoden, and five in Appenzell
Ausserrhoden. All farmers, but also the persons assisting
the main dialogue partner, were active in animal care on
at least one farm. This could be their own farm or, for
example, the farm of their descendants. In addition,
some of dialogue partners provided their advice to other
farmers, or they served as herdsmen on alpine pasture
holdings during the summer months.
Page 4 of 22
Figure 1 Snowball sampling. DP = dialogue partners; blue = DP from St. Gallen; green = DP from Thurgau; red = DP from Appenzell Innerrhoden
and Appenzell Ausserrhoden; grey = supraregional working groups and informants; I = informants; (i) = integrated production (non-organic farms);
(o) = organic farms; N = all farmers operating in this canton.
Farms
Data collection and analysis
The altitude of the location of the farms in the research area varied considerably, as the 38 farms were
located between 440 m and 1200 m above sea level.
Fourteen farms were below 600 m, 13 between 600 m
and 900 m, and eleven on an altitude above 900 m.
The sample comprised 17 organic and 21 non-organic
farms. All farms kept cattle. Thirty six were dairy
farms and two were suckler cow husbandries. In
addition, 13 farms kept hens, twelve farms had pigs,
twelve farms goats, eight farms sheep and five farms
horses. The dairy farms kept between seven and 40
cows, the suckler cow farms between 16 and 21 cows.
On three farms the agricultural area was between six
and ten hectars, on eleven farms between eleven and
15 hectares, on 16 farms between 16 and 25 hectares,
and on eight farms the agricultural area was more
than 25 hectares.
The dialogue partners were asked to give a written
agreement for recording the interview and to use the
data for analysis and for publication in an anonymized
form. The records were not transcribed, but secured for
later reference (recorded by OLYMPUS WS 200S Digital
Voice Recorder, Olympus Imaging Europa GmbH,
Hamburg, Germany). During the face-to-face interviews,
the answers were noted on questionnaire forms, and complemented with the audio records. Final data were entered
into a database [31].
The interviews were subdivided into three parts: 1) general information about the farm; 2) a semi-structured part
constisting of seven “free listing” questions [32]; 3) a structured part with pre-coded and free answer questions to
gain detailed information about the specific homemade
remedies and their uses. The duration of the interviews
was between 1.5 and 4.0 hours.
After documentation of some general structural data
of the farm like livestock species or farm size (part one
of the interview), first impressions of the farmers’ knowledge about plants and formulations were collected in
the “free listing” part (part two of the interview). This
part of the interview also served to create a casual and
pleasant athmosphere. The third part of the interview
focused on specific homemade remedies. Depending on
the particular question the respondent had pre-coded
and free answer possibilities. Plants collected from the
wild or cultivated in home gardens were identified with
the aid of the standard taxonomic reference “Flora
Helvetica” [33]. Herbal drugs and extracts from commercial sources were identified with the aid of their
package leaflet, or were assumed to be correctly delivered by the pharmacies. Whenever possible, a photographic documentation of the dried plants or their more
or less processed products was made. It was not possible
to collect herbarium voucher specimens during the interviews, since they were conducted in early spring.
However, it was possible to collect from July to September
2012 a total of 16 herbarium voucher specimens on 10
farms. These specimens included 10 plant species collected in the wild. Herbarium voucher specimens were
dried, labelled and deposited at the botanical repository of
the University of Zurich and the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology Zurich (Botanischer Garten, Zollikerstrasse
107, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland).
The dialogue partners were asked for information on
the manufacturing processes for their homemade herbal
remedies. Details such as source of the herbal material,
and procedures for extraction and preparation of the finished product were documented. Whenever possible, the
amount of plant used was determined on site with the
aid of a scale (Mettler P1000N, Mettler- Toledo GmbH,
Greifensee, Switzerland), in order to calculate concentrations in g dry plant equivalent per 100 g of finished
product. This could be conducted either with plants
from the dialog partner, or with a collection of herbal
material of Pharmacopoeia quality [34] purchased by
pharmacy. If this was not possible, dosages were estimated by assessment of the administered volume of a
herb and subsequent weighing.
The reported uses for each remedy were recorded.
The respondent could give a free answer which was
afterwards coded into categories of use according to the
anatomical therapeutic chemical classification system for
veterinary medicinal products ATCvet [35]. Route and
frequency of administration, and mean duration of treatment were also recorded. The routes of administration
were classified into external, internal, and treatment of
housing environment. External administration was defined
as administration onto intact skin, and altereted or sore
skin, respectively. If the preparation was administered into
Page 5 of 22
a body orifice (oral, intravaginal/intrauterine administration, inhalation) it was classified as internal administration. Treatment of environment or stable was defined as
treatment to improve animal health, but without direct
contact to the animal itself.
The daily dosage of medicinal plant (dry plant equivalent) was calculated for all prepratations that were administered orally. For a comparison between different species
(including human), daily dosages were normalized by a
conversion of all dosages into dosage per kilogram metabolic bodyweight (MBW = bodyweight0.75) [36]. The following formula was used:
daily dose
!
g
kg 0:75
"
drug dose per administration ðg Þ
$ repetition per day
¼
metabolic bodyweight ðkg 0:75 Þ
ð1Þ
Live weight of animals were taken from Table 1 [37,38].
For topically administered preparations, the concentration in g drug equivalent per 100 g of finished product
was calculated.
Furthermore, the origin of knowledge for homemade
remedies was documented, as well as the interview partners’ estimate on the frequency of use during the last
five years, and the date of the last use. Also, information
whether remedies were administered solely or in combination with other therapies was recorded.
To evaluate the satisfaction with the outcome of the
application, a visual analog scale (VAS) was used [39]. A
scale of 100 mm was used, with “no effect” corresponding to 0 mm, and “very good effect” to 100 mm. Mean
and standard deviation of the VAS were calculated for
each category of use.
In a second phase of the study, data were compared
with the results from earlier ethnoveterinary studies in
Table 1 Metabolic body weight of different species based
on estimated average body weights [37,38]
Species
Weight
Metabolic bodyweight (MBW)
Adult cattle
650 kg
128.7 kg0.75
Calf
75 kg
25.5 kg0.75
Pig
200 kg
53.2 kg0.75
Young pig
15 kg
7.6 kg0.75
Donkey
200 kg
53.2 kg0.75
Goat
50 kg
18.8 kg0.75
Medium-sized dog
25 kg
11.2 kg0.75
Young sheep
20 kg
9.5 kg0.75
Rabbit
3 kg
2.3 kg0.75
Hen
1 kg
1.0 kg0.75
Rat
0.175 kg
0.3 kg0.75
Human
65 kg
22.9 kg0.75
other parts of Switzerland [16,17], in Austria [12-15], Italy
[2,9,11], and in Spain [4-7].
Definitions
Homemade remedy
We defined as one homemade remedy a description of a
preparation from one dialogue partner containing one
ore more plants, plant parts or other natural compounds
more or less processed to a finished product: [dialogue
partner] × [plant species or other natural compounds] ×
[plant part] × [manufacturing process to the finished
product].
Application
We sampled only homemade remedies which were
intended to be administered to an animal in case of a disease or as a preventive measure. Therefore one homemade remedy was connected to one or more applications.
We defined as one application the description of the use
of one homemade remedy as combination of the category
of use (for example skin alterations and sores), the specification of use (for example an open wound or a skin infection), the intended animal species, the age classification of
the intended animal and the administration procedure:
[homemade remedy] × [category of use] × [specification
of use] × [animal species] × [animal age classification] ×
[administration procedure].
Results
The dialog partners listed between four and 28 homemade remedies each (mean 12.9 ± 5.4) and mentioned
between one and eight different applications for each
homemade remedy (mean 1.3 ± 0.7). This led to a total
of 490 homemade remedies. Ninety-four plant species
belonging to 50 plant families were mentioned. Thirtytwo out of the 490 homemade remedies included homemade complex herbal remedies containing two to nine
plant species, 143 homemade remedies without plant
species but containing one or more natural products like
curds, eggs, honey, lard, pure alcohol, propolis, red wine,
salt, soft soap or vinegar, and 315 homemade remedies
(including 19 based on commercial extracts) containg
only one plant species (homemade single species herbal
remedies, HSHR).
Composition and manufacturing process of the 315 HSHR
Only the 315 homemade HSHR (see Additional file 1)
were analysed in detail. They contained 67 different plant
species belonging to 44 families. Plants belonging to the
Asteraceae were the most frequently reported uses (73
HSHR, 23.2%), followed by Polygonaceae (21 HSHR, 6.7%)
and Urticaceae (21 HSHR, 6.7%). The species with the
highest number of reports were Matricaria recutita L.
(26 HSHR, 8.3%), Calendula officinalis L. (24 HSHR,
Page 6 of 22
7.6%), Rumex obtusifolius L. (21 HSHR, 6.7%), and Urtica
dioica L. (21 HSHR, 6.7%) (Table 2).
The most commonly used plant parts were flowers (75
HSHR, 23.8%). Herbs (aerial parts of a herbaceous plant,
without roots) were used in 66 HSHR (21.0%), followed
by fruits, seeds and berries (45 HSHR, 14.3%) and leaves
(41 HSHR, 13.0%). Other plant parts, such as twigs,
roots, barks, whole plants, and plant excretions such as
resins were mentioned (Table 2). In 150 HSHR (47.6%)
wild-harvested plants were used, while commercial drugs
and cultivated plants were used in 97 HSHR (30.8%) and
68 HSHR (21.6%), respectively.
Fresh plants were used in 58.4% HSHR, and dried plants
in 35.6% of the HSHR. In 19 HSHR (6.0%), commercial
products, such as Kamillosan® (MEDA Pharma GmbH,
Wangen-Brüttisellen; Switzerland), NPJ Liniment® (Casa
Verde GmbH, Dortmund, Germany) and OPIFIX® (Multiforsa AG, Auw, Switzerland) (both containing Mentha
canadensis L.), Pelargonium Spray (containing Pelargonium
sidoides DC; Alpinamed AG, Freidorf, Switzerland), and
various products manufactured and marketed by local
pharmacies (eg. tea tree oil, thyme oil, and various products of arnica, calendula, comfrey, common tormentill,
goldenrod, and St John’s wort oil) were used. Preparations
containing one of these commercial products are assigned
to the remedies prepared without extraction (Table 2), because no extraction was carried out on the farm.
Beside these 19 commercial products (6.0%), additional 86
HSHR (27.3%) contained plants that were processed to the
final remedy without any extraction step being performed.
Such remedies served mainly for oral administration, topical
treatment of injuries, or treatment of animal housing.
Collard (Brassica oleracea L.), comfrey (Symphytum
officinale L.), beetroot (Beta vulgaris), and broad-leaved
dock (Rumex obtusifolius L.), for example, were directly
applied onto intact skin for the treatment of injuries
like inflamed joints. In 126 HSHR (40.0%) extraction
was done with water (including one extraction with milk,
containing garlic). These HSHRs were mainly for oral or
external administration. Ninety two out of these 126 extracts were infusions, 30 decoctions, and four macerations
(extraction at ambient temperature). In 62 HSHR (19.7%)
the farmers used oil or fat as extracting agent, mainly for
external administration. In 40 of these 62 HSHR extraction was carried out at ambient temperature, and in 22
cases elevated temperature was used. Maceration with alcohol was mentioned in 22 HSHR (7.0%) (Table 2).
A total of 49 HSHR (15.6%) were ointments, and all of
them were prepared from fresh plant material. The
plants used in these ointments included Calendula
officinalis L. (flos; 11), Rumex obtusifolius L. (folium;
11), Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. (resina; 6), Geranium
robertianum L.s.str. (herba; 4), Symphytum officinale L.
(radix; 4), Malva neglecta Wallr. (herba; 3), Arnica
Botanical family
Plant species with ≥ 3 named HSHR
(Number of
named plant
species in this
family)
(Numbers indicate the frequency of
mentioned 315 HSHR)
Asteraceae (11)
All asteraceae (73)
On farm extraction procedure (Numbers indicate the frequency of mentioned 315 HSHR)
None
Water
Room temperature
Alcohol
Infusion
11
33
2a
22
4b
2
Decoction
Oil/Fat
Room temperature
Room temperature
Heated up
12
13
4
Matricaria recutita L. (26) [vs]
Flos (26)
2
Flos and flos sine calice (24)
6
8
5
1
1
2
4
Arnica montana L. (8)
Flos (8)
2c
Senecio ovatus Willd. (4)
Herba (4)
4
Senecio alpinus (L.) Scop (3) [vs]
Herba (3)
Others1 (8)
Polygonaceae (1)
3
3d
2
Rumex obtusifolius L. (21) [vs]
Radix (4)
Folium (16)
4
3
Herba cum radice (1)
Urticaceae (1)
Malvaceae (3)
Table 2 Extraction procedure to prepare the 315 homemade single species herbal remedies (HSHR)
6
7
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
Urtica dioica L. (21) [vs]
Herba (21)
11
All Malvaceae (19)
1
10
1
10
4
Malva neglecta Wallr. (13) [vs]
Herba (12)
1
Flos (1)
8
1
Tilia cordata Mill. (5)
Cortex (5)
1
4
Others2 (1)
1
Rubiaceae (1)
Semen (16)
16
Boraginaceae (1)
Symphytum officinale L. (15) [vs]
5e
Folium (2)
2
4
Page 7 of 22
Radix (13)
Rosaceae (7)
All Rosaceae (15)
11
1
2
1
2
1
Crataegus laevigata (Poir.) DC. (4)
Herba (4)
4
Potentilla erecta (L.) Raeusch. (4) [vs]
Rhizoma (4)
1f
Prunus spinosa L. (3)
Pinaceae (2)
Herba (3)
3
Others3 (4)
3
All Pinaceae (13)
7
1
6
Hypericaceae (1)
Linaceae (1)
Lamiaceae (4)
Herba (5)
5
Resina (7)
1
Others4 (1)
1
Hypericum perforatum L. (12) [vs]
Flos (12)
2g
6
10
Semen (11)
2
All Lamiaceae (9)
6
2
2h
1
Folium (3)
2
1
Others5 (3)
2i
Table 2 Extraction procedure to prepare the 315 homemade single species herbal remedies (HSHR) (Continued)
9
1
Mentha canadensis L. (3)
Folium (3)
Salvia officinalis L. (3)
Apiaceae (4)
1
All Apiaceae (8)
5
2
1
2
1
Carum carvi L. (3)
Fructus (3)
Sanicula europaea L. (3)
Brassicaceae (3)
Herba (3)
2
Others6 (2)
2
All Brassicaceae (8)
7
1
1
Brassica oleracea L. (4)
Folium (4)
4
Oleum (3)
Others7 (1)
3
1
Page 8 of 22
Geraniaceae (2)
All Geraniaceae(8)
3
1
3
1
Herba (7)
2
1
3
1
Others8 (1)
1k
All Liliaceae (6)
4
2
2
2§
Geranium robertianum L.s.str. (7) [vs]
Amaryllidaceae (2)
Allium sativum L. (4)
Bulbus (4)
9
Others (2)
Theaceae (1)
2
Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze (6)
Folium (6)
Adoxaceae (1)
Sambucus nigra L. (5)
Herba (5)
Fagaceae (1)
4
1
Quercus robur L. (5)
Cortex (5)
Aquifoliaceae (1)
6
1
4
Ilex aquifolium L. (4)
Herba (3)
3
Folium (1)
Poaceae (1)
Avena sativa L.s.str. (3)
Rhamnaceae (1)
Rhamnus cathartica L. (3)
Others10 (26)
26 other plant species (34) [vs]
Fructus (3)
Herba (3)
Total (76)
Table 2 Extraction procedure to prepare the 315 homemade single species herbal remedies (HSHR) (Continued)
1
1
2
3
181
105
4
7
2
3
3
1
92
30
22
40
22
Page 9 of 22
[vs]: voucher specimens available, voucher numbers are visible in the Additional file 1.
1
Arnica chamissonis Less. (2), Solidago virgaurea L. (2), Achillea millefolium L. (1), Helianthus annuus L. (1), Tanacetum vulgare L. (1), Tanacetum parthenium (L.) Sch. Bip. (1); 2Althaea officinalis L. (1); 3Alchemilla vulgaris L.
Agg. (1), Rubus idaeus L. (1), Malus domestica Borkh. (1), Prunus domestica L. (1); 4Abies alba Mill. (1); 5Lavandula angustifolia Mill. (2), Thymus vulgaris L. (1); 6Petroselinum crispum (Mill.) Fuss (1), Foeniculum vulgare Mill.
(1); 7Capsella bursa- pastoris (L.) Medik (1); 8Pelargonium sidoides DC (1); 9Allium cepa L. (2); 10Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris Conditiva group (1) (Amaranthaceae); Dryopteris filix-mas (L.) Schott (1) (Aspidiaceae); Betula
pendula Roth (1) (Betulaceae); Cannabis sativa L. (1) (Cannabaceae); Chenopodium bonus-henricus L. (1) (Chenopodiaceae); Juniperus communis L.s.str. (2) (Cupressaceae); Thuja occidentalis L. (2) (Cupressaceae);
Equisetum arvense L. (1) (Equisetaceae); Vaccinium myrtillus L. (2) (Ericaceae); Anthyllis vulneraria L.s.str. (1) (Fabaceae); Gentiana lutea L. (1) (Gentianaceae); Juglans regia L. (1) (Juglandaceae); Cinnamomum verum J.Presl
(1) (Lauraceae); Lycopodium clavatum L. (1) (Lycopodiaceae); Myristica fragrans Houtt. (2) (Myristicaceae); Melaleuca alternifolia Maiden&Betche ex Cheel (2) (Myrtaceae); Fraxinus excelsior L. (2), Olea europaea L. (1)
(Oleaceae); Pedicularis verticillata L. (1) (Orobanchaceae); Euphrasia officinalis L. (1), Plantago lanceolata L. (2) (Plantaginaceae); Citrus x limon (L.) Burm.f. (1) (Rutaceae); Salix caprea L. (1) (Salicaceae); Quassia amara L. (1)
(Simaroubaceae); Solanum tuberosum L. (2) (Solanaceae); Tropaeolum majus L. (1) (Tropaeolaceae).
a
Kamillosan® Liquidum used in two remedies; bCalendula tincture (pharmacy) used in one remedy; Calendula ointment (pharmacy) used in three remedies; cArnica oil (pharmacy) used in one remedy; Arnica ointment
(pharmacy) used in one remedy; dGoldenrod ointment (pharmacy) used in one remedy; eComfrey emulsion (pharmacy) used in one remedy; fCommon tormentil tincture (pharmacy) used in one remedy; gSt John's
wort oil (pharmacy) used in two remedies; hNPJ Liniment® and OPIFIX® (both containing Mentha arvensis L. var. piperascens) used in two remedies; iThyme oil used in one remedy; kPelargonium Spray® used in one
remedy; lTea Tree oil used in two remedies.
§ one extraction with milk.
montana L. (flos; 2), Matricaria recutita L. (flos; 2),
Solanum tuberosum L. (potato peelings; 2), Juniperus
communis L. (herba; 1), Solidago virgaurea L.s.str. (herba;
1), Hypericum perforatum L. (flos; 1) or Chenopodium
bonus-henricus L. (folium; 1). The most frequently used
ointment base was bees’ wax (38 HSHR). In six cases the
ointment base (lard and milking grease, a kind of vaseline)
served directly as extractant. Other animal fats and vegetable oils were also used as ointment base.
In 96 HSHR (30.5%) it was possible to estimate the
amount of plant used in the remedies directly on the
farm. This was done either with plant material provided
by the interview partners (80 HSHR, 25.4%), or with the
aid of plant samples from our collection of herbal drugs
(16 HSHR, 5.1%). In 107 cases (34.0%) the weight was
estimated by assessment of the administered volume of a
plant and subsequent weighing. In additional 112 cases
(35.5%) it was not possible to determine the weight of
the plants used.
Categories of use of the 428 applications of the 315 HSHR
In total, 428 applications (see Additional file 1) were mentioned for the 315 HSHR to treat cattle, goats, horses,
pigs, rabbits, hens, donkeys, sheep and dogs. The most
frequently reported uses were for treatment of skin alteration and sores (182 applications, 42.5%), gastrointestinal
disorders and metabolic dysfunction (94 applications,
22.0%), treatment of the musculoskeletal system (incl.
hematoma in the connective tissue) (37 applications,
8.6%), infertility and diseases of female genitals (36
applications, 8.4%), mastitis (18 applications, 4.2%), respiratory tract diseases (14 applications, 3.3%), and others
(47 applications, 11.0%; treatment of parasitic diseases, behaviour and sensory organs, and general strengthening)
(Table 3).
Calendula officinalis L. (42 applications), Malva neglecta
Wallr. (21 applications), Matricaria recutita L. (15 applications), Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. (resin; 15 applications),
and Hypericum perforatum L. (14 applications) were the
most frequently used plants for treatment of skin afflictions and sores. The highest number of uses for treatment
of gastrointestinal disorders and metabolic dysfunctions
was listed for Coffea arabica L. (17 applications, always
in conjunction with schnaps), Matricaria recutita L. (13
applications) and Linum usitatissimum L. (10 applications). For treatment of injuries of the musculoskeletal
system (incl. hematoma of connective tissue) Symphytum officinale L. (12 applications), Rumex obtusifolius L.
(7 applications) and Arnica montana L. (5 applications)
were most often mentioned. Urtica dioica L. (9 applications), Matricaria recutita L. (5 applications) and Tilia
cordata Mill. (5 applications) were most frequently
mentioned for treatment of infertility and diseases of female genitals (Table 3).
Page 10 of 22
Ointments containing Rumex obtusifolus L. (6 applications) and Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. (3 applications) were
most frequently mentioned in the treatment of mastitis,
and Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. (6 applications) was most
often mentioned for treatment of respiratory tract diseases
(Table 3).
Out of 428 applications 359 were for treatment of cattle
(83.9%), and 32 applications (7.5%) were used for other
animal species. No specific animal species were mentioned
for 37 applications (8.6%) all for the treatment of skin afflications and sores (Table 3).
Route of administration of the 428 applications of the
315 HSHR
More than half of all administrations were external,
mainly on altered and sore skin including claws, hooves,
navels and conjunctiva (164 applications, 38.3%). For
these treatments the farmers used the preparations as a
bath, compress, wash, or simply as a direct application
of the fresh plants or oils, ointments and tinctures
thereof. Administration on intact skin was reported in
71 applications (16.6%), mainly to treat internal injuries
like pulled muscles, contusions, sprains, swellings and
tensions, mastitis or as repellent against ectoparasites.
Some farmers reported that they rubbed the calves’ small
of the back with an oil or ointment to treat inflammations of the navel (Table 3).
Oral administration of HSHR was reported for 159 applications (37.1%), mainly to treat diarrhoea, stomach
trouble, indigestions, flatulence, cough, infertility, and
diseases of female genitals (including the cleaning of the
uterus after calving), or for general strengthening. Orally
HSHR were either added to the feedstuff or constrained
oral applicated. A total of 11 applications (2.6%) were
intravaginal/ intrauterine, to prevent or treat an inflammation of the uterus, or for cleaning the uterus after
calving. Two preparations (0.5%) were used for inhalative purposes to treat ailments of the respiratory tract
(Table 3).
A total of 21 preparations (4.9%) were used in the stable
and surrounding area, without direct contact to the animal itself: To combat cattle ringworm, twigs of Crataegus
laevigata (Poir.) DC., Prunus spinosa L., Rhamnus cathartica L. or Ilex aquifolium L. were suspended in the stable
for several weeks. The farmers used these both as a
prophylactic and therapeutic measure. Other treatments
of housing environments were used as measures to prevent flu, or as repellent for parasites (Table 3).
Further information regarding applications
For all applications, the date of their last use was queried. More than 60% of the applications have been used
within the last year preceding the interviews. More than
a year ago, but within the last ten years, additional 114
(Numbers indicate the frequency of mentioned applications, 428 applications are mentioned totally)
Botanical family
(Number of
named plant
species in this
family)
Plant species with ≥ 3 named
HSHR (Number of named
remedies are given in brackets)
Asteraceae (11)
All Asteraceae (73)
Routes of administration
External
Categories of use
Total
different
Treatment
applications
of housing
IH IU
Skin Gast Infe Mast Musc Resp Others11 Cattle No spec. Others12
environment
Internal
I
A
OR
13
77
17
5
79
16
6
17a
13
4
15a
13
5
4b
39b
1
1
42b
1
1
5c
5
5
5
3
1
6
4
92
15
5
112
1
31a
2
1
34
1
35b
7b
3
45
5c
6c
4
10
5
3
2
5
3
3
Flos (26)
Arnica montana L. (8)
Flos (8)
Senecio ovatus Willd. (4)
Herba (4)
Senecio alpinus (L.) Scop (3)
Herba (3)
1
Others (8)
Polygonaceae (1)
4
d
d
8
3
9
2
1
3
1
3
Folium (16)
18
8
Herba cum radice (1)
3
14
1
4
9
2
15
6
7
4
2
21
4
3
1
2
26
1
2
Herba (21)
Malvaceae (3)
1
3
d
Rumex obtusifolius L. (21)
Radix (4)
Urticaceae (1)
d
Table 3 428 applications of 315 homemade herbal remedies containing a single herb (HSHR): routes of administration, categories of use, and target animal
species
All Malvaceae (19)
1
28
2
1
23
4
1
21
21
1
1
1
23
8
9
5
10
17
1
11
29
1
26
1
2
29
1
19
1
2
22
Malva neglecta Wallr. (13)
Herba (12)
Flos (1)
1
1
Tilia cordata Mill. (5)
Cortex (5)
Others2 (1)
4
1
1
5
1
5
5
1
1
Page 11 of 22
Rubiaceae (1)
Semen (16)
Boraginaceae (1)
Rosaceae (7)
18
17
1
16
2
18
Radix (13)
10e
Folium (2)
3
4
4
1
9e
3
All Rosaceae (15)
10
7
7
4
4
5
2
3
9e
5
1
1
16
14
1
3
1
17
Crataegus laevigata (Poir.) DC. (4)
Herba (4)
4
4
5f
5
3
3
Potentilla erecta (L.) Raeusch. (4)
5f
Rhizoma (4)
4f
1
Prunus spinosa L. (3)
Herba (3)
3
3
5
Others (4)
Pinaceae (2)
All Pinaceae (13)
3
5
14
1
7
2
15
3
2
4
6
2
25
4
1
5
1
1
5
26
Herba (5)
Resina (7)
5
5
14
Others4 (1)
Hypericaceae (1)
Lamiaceae (4)
15
3
2
1
19
1
5
1
20
1
1
Flos (12)
Linaceae (1)
1
species (Continued)
7g
12g
14g
2
2
1
4g
17g
4
21
Semen (11)
1
All Lamiaceae(9)
3
12
1
5
1
1
10
2
2
2
1
3
2
1
2
2h
1h
2
1
14
2
10
14
1
1
12
Mentha canadensis L. (3)
Folium (3)
3h
2
5h
5
Salvia officinalis L. (3)
Folium (3)
Others5 (3)
3
1
1
1i
2
1
1
1
1i
2
2
3i
1
1
3
4
Page 12 of 22
Apiaceae (4)
All Apiaceae (8)
2
5
1
2
4
2
8
8
3
3
1
3
3
1
2
2
Carum carvi L. (3)
Fructus (3)
3
3
Sanicula europaea L. (3)
Herba (3)
2
Others6 (2)
Brassicaceae (3)
All Brassicaceae (8)
1
2
2
3
4
2
3
1
1
1
3
4
2
2
2
9
1
10
4
1
5
Brassica oleracea L. (4)
Folium (4)
3
2
Oleum (3)
Others7 (1)
Geraniaceae(2)
2
1
2
1
All Geraniaceae (8)
6
4
6
2
3
6
2
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
8
1
1
10
7
1
1
9
1
Geranium robertianum L.s.str. (7)
Herba (7)
6
Others8 (1)
Amaryllidaceae (2) All Liliaceae (6)
1k
1
4
1
3
1
1k
1
1
1
1
1k
species (Continued)
1
5
4
2
6
4
2
2
4
1
2
Allium sativum L. (4)
Bulbus (4)
Others9 (2)
Theaceae (1)
1
Folium (6)
Adoxaceae (1)
7
6
1
7
5
4
1
5
5
3
1
5
5
3
3
2
2
Quercus robur L. (5)
Cortex (5)
Aquifoliaceae (1)
7
Sambucus nigra L. (5)
Herba (5)
Fagaceae (1)
2
Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze (6)
1
3
1
1
Ilex aquifolium L. (4)
Herba (3)
Folium (1)
3
2
2
1
2
Page 13 of 22
Poaceae (1)
Avena sativa L.s.str. (3)
Fructus (3)
Rhamnaceae (1)
1
2
1
Herba (3)
Others
10
(26)
Total (76)
1
1
3
3
Rhamnus cathartica L. (3)
l
5
10
71
164 159
18
2
11
3
3
l
l
3
l
3
l
l
6
8
9
3
4
3
1
11
34
3
2
39
21
182
94
36
18
37
14
47
359
37
32
428
I – intact skin; A – alterated or sore skin; OR – oral; IH – inhalation; IU – intravaginal/intrauterine; Skin – skin afflictions and sores; Gast – gastrointestinal disorders and metabolic dysfunctions; Infe – Infertility and
diseases of female genitals; Mast – Mastitis; Musc – Musculoskeletal system (including hematomas in the connective tissue; Resp – diseases of the respiratory tract; No spec. – no specification of the animal species
(external administration).
1
Arnica chamissonis Less. (2), Solidago virgaurea L. (2), Achillea millefolium L. (1), Helianthus annuus L. (1), Tanacetum vulgare L. (1), Tanacetum parthenium (L.) Sch. Bip.(1); 2Althaea officinalis L. (1); 3Alchemilla vulgaris L.
Agg. (1), Rubus idaeus L. (1), Malus domestica Borkh.(1), Prunus domestica L. (1); 4Abies alba Mill. (1); 5Lavandula angustifolia Mill. (2), Thymus vulgaris L. (1); 6Petroselinum crispum (Mill.) Fuss (1), Foeniculum vulgare Mill.
(1); 7Capsella bursa- pastoris (L.) Medik (1); 8Pelargonium sidoides DC (1); 9Allium cepa L. (2); 10Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris Conditiva group (1) (Amaranthaceae); Dryopteris filix-mas (L.) Schott (1) (Aspidiaceae); Betula
pendula Roth (1) (Betulaceae); Cannabis sativa L. (1) (Cannabaceae); Chenopodium bonuscphenricus L. (1) (Chenopodiaceae); Juniperus communis L.s.str. (2) (Cupressaceae); Thuja occidentalis L. (2) (Cupressaceae);
Equisetum arvense L. (1) (Equisetaceae); Vaccinium myrtillus L. (2) (Ericaceae); Anthyllis vulneraria L.s.str. (1) (Fabaceae); Gentiana lutea L. (1) (Gentianaceae); Juglans regia L. (1) (Juglandaceae); Cinnamomum verum J.Presl
(1) (Lauraceae); Lycopodium clavatum L. (1) (Lycopodiaceae); Myristica fragrans Houtt. (2) (Myristicaceae); Melaleuca alternifolia Maiden&Betche ex Cheel (2) (Myrtaceae); Fraxinus excelsior L. (2), Olea europaea L. (1)
(Oleaceae); Pedicularis verticillata L. (1) (Orobanchaceae); Euphrasia officinalis L. (1), Plantago lanceolata L. (2) (Plantaginaceae); Citrus x limon (L.) Burm.f. (1) (Rutaceae); Salix caprea L. (1) (Salicaceae); Quassia amara L. (1)
(Simaroubaceae); Solanum tuberosum L. (2) (Solanaceae); Tropaeolum majus L. (1) (Tropaeolaceae); 11parasites, general strengthening, behaviour, sensory organs, varia; 12horses, pigs, donkeys, goats, sheep, dogs, hens, rabbits.
a
Kamillosan® Liquidum used for two applications; bCalendula tincture (pharmacy) used for two applications, calendula unguent (pharmacy) used for five applications; cArnica oil (pharmacy) used for one application,
arnica ointment (pharmacy) used for one application; dGoldenrod unguent (pharmacy) used for three applications; eComfrey emulsion (pharmacy) used for one application; fCommon tormentil tincture (pharmacy)
used for one application, gSt John's wort oil (pharmacy) used for four applications; hNPJ Liniment® and OPIFIX® (both containing Mentha arvensis L. var. piperascens) used for three applications; 1Thyme oil used for
one application; kPelargonium Spray® used for one application;1Tea Tree oil used for two applications.
species (Continued)
Page 14 of 22
applications (26.6%) had been used. In 53 cases (12.4%)
the last applications was more than ten years ago or
only heared of by the dialog partners. Additionally, we
enquired about the frequency of use within the last
five years. About one third of all preparations (160;
37.4%) had been used by the farmers more than ten
times, and 69 applications (16.1%) between six and
nine times during the last five years. A total of 77
(18.0%) had been used between two and five times,
and 122 applications (28.5%) had been employed less
than two times.
In 272 applications (63.5%) the farmers used the HSHR
without other accompanying therapies. A total of 156 applications (36.5%) were used in combination with other
herbal remedies or homeopathic preparations: three quarters of these HSHR were always used in combination,
whereas for the remaining cases a combination with other
preparations depended on the specific condition of the
animal to be treated. In wound care the combination of
two HSHR was common. A typical treatment consisted of
cleaning of the wound with one HSHR, and subsequent
application of a second HSHR, such as an ointment. If the
condition of the animal further deteriorated during treatment, the farmers called a veterinarian.
In 48.6% of cases (208 applications) the knowledge on
the use of the applications was obtained from ancestors
and relatives. Information obtained from friends accounted
for additional 77 uses (18.0%). In 58 cases (13.6%) knowledge was acquired through own practical experience. In
other cases knowledge was obtained from attending
courses (51 applications, 11.9%), from books and journals
(13 applications, 3.0%), and others sources (20 applications, 4.7%).
The degree of satisfaction of users with the outcome
of their treatments could be recorded for a total of 397
applications (Figure 2). In 31 cases it was not possible
to assess the degree of satisfaction, e.g. if the last use of
a remedy had been long time ago. An average VAS
value of over 80 mm represents a high degree of
satisfaction.
Discussion
We collected here for the first time detailed information
regarding the knowledge and use of homemade herbal
remedies in four cantons located in north-eastern
Switzerland (St. Gallen, Thurgau, Appenzell Innerrhoden
and Appenzell Ausserrhoden).
The methodology used in an earlier survey conducted
in a different part of Switzerland [16] was also applied
in this study and, again, proved to be suitable. A focus
on organic farms was appropriate, since “phytotherapeutic […] products” are one of the preferred methods
for the treatment of livestock diseases [21], but on the
opposite only very few herbal medicinal products are
Page 15 of 22
approved for veterinary purposes [23]. For these reasons
organic farmers may be more motivated to prepare their
own herbal remedies than non-organic. Thanks to public presentations of the project and to snowball sampling [30] non-organic farmers could also be recruited
as interview partners. Interviews were conducted on 17
out of a total of 760 (2.2%) organic farms, and on 21 out
of 8127 (0.3%) non-organic farms in the research area.
As expected, organic farms were overrepresented in the
study, due the approaches used for recruitment of interview partners. The percentage of organic farms participating in this study was comparable with that in an
earlier survey [16].
The snowball sampling method is commonly used in
ethnoveterinary research [12-17,40]. However, the farms
included may not be representative for all farms of the
region to be studied.
Interviews were conducted in March and April, in
order to avoid farmers’ work peaks during summer. A
disadvantage of the timing was that plant material was
not available, except when farmers kept dried plant material. However some voucher specimen could be generated during the following summer.
According to the research in Aargau, Zurich and
Schaffhausen [16] this survey determines the dosage
and concentration of the used plant, which are not
documented elsewhere. This enables to make a comparison with literature regarding recommended dose
and concentration respectively (Tables 4 and 5). There
was a wide range of dosages and concentrations reported. The high therapeutic index of most herbal
drugs may be one explanation. The therapeutic index
describes the span of dosage between first therapeutic
effects and first toxic effects. As larger the span is as
less is the risk compared to the potential therapeutic
profit.
About 49% of the applications are based on the knowledge of ancestors and relatives which represents a transmission over at least two generations. To document the
transmission over more than these both generations as
proposed by some authors [19] assumes that the dialogue partner at the moment of the interview still
knows, the origin of the knowledge of his ancestor
which will be not often the case. The use of a visual
analogue scale (VAS) to estimate satisfaction of farmers
with the outcome of their treatments certainly gave only
subjective results, and not an objective assessment of
therapeutic success. However, the generally high degree
of satisfaction became obvious, and was in accord with
observations in the earlier study [16].
Matricaria recutita L. and Calendula officinalis L.
were the most frequently used plants. This finding
was in accord with earlier surveys conducted in
Switzerland and Austria [13-17]. Likewise, Coffea
Page 16 of 22
0
20
40
60
80
100
Skin alterations and sores, all (178)
SG (110)
TG (33)
AI /AR (35)
Gastrointestinal disorders and metabolic dysfunction (91)
SG (50)
TG (17)
AI/AR (24)
Infertility and diseases of female genitals, all (30)
SG (22)
TG (1)
AI/AR (7)
Mastitis, all (18)
SG (12)
TG (3)
AI/AR (3)
Musculoskeletal system, all (35)
SG (26)
TG (5)
AI/AR (4)
Respiratory tract, all (12)
SG (7)
TG (3)
AI/AR (2)
Others, all (33)
SG (22)
TG (9)
AI/AR (2)
Total, all (397)
SG (249)
TG (71)
AI/AR (77)
Figure 2 Degree of satisfaction of users with their treatment outcome based on a Visual Analogue Scale (mm VAS), mean
value and the standard deviation of the VAS are represented. SG = St. Gallen, TG = Thurgau, AI/AR = Appenzell Innerrhoden and
Appenzell Ausserrhoden.
arabica L., Hypericum perforatum L., Linum usitatissimum L., Symphytum officinale L. and Urtica dioica L.
were among the frequently used plants in these surveys
[13-17]. In contrast, use of Arnica montana L. was more
often reported in our study than in the previous survey
conducted in Aargau, Zurich and Schaffhausen [16]. Arnica grows naturally in the alpine regions and is likely
better known and accessible to local farmers. An even
higher number of uses of arnica was reported from
Safiental and Austria [14,15,17]. Rumex obtusifolius L.,
Geranium robertianum L.s.str. and Camellia sinensis (L.)
Kuntze were often mentioned in our survey, but were
much less used in central-northern Switzerland [16].
Malva neglecta L., and resin from Picea abies (L.) H.
Karst. were mentioned several times by farmers, and
were also frequently used by farmers of Safiental [17]. In
contrast, remedies based on plants of the Apiaceae and
Lamiaceae families were less frequently reported in the
present study than in the survey carried out in centralnorthern Switzerland [16].
The order of the most frequently mentioned categories
of use was the same in our survey as in the previous
study. However, the percentage of administration on altered and sore skin was more often reported, and oral
administrations were less frequently documented in our
survey [16].
The ten most often mentioned medicinal plants are
discussed in the following sections. The dosage in case
of oral administrated applications, respectively the concentrations of topical administrated applications as well
as the categories of use are focused.
Chamomile flowers (Matricaria recutita L., Matricariae flos)
Chamomile was administered internally and externally
to treat gastrointestinal diseases, skin afflictions and
sores, and infertility and diseases of female genitals.
Chamomile was previously documented in ethnoveterinary surveys from Switzerland, Austria, southern Italy,
and western Spain [2,8,9,12-17]. In the majority of cases
it was used to treat gastrointestinal diseases and skin
Plant species with ≥ 3
reported HSHR and
documented dosage
Daily dose [g/kg0.75]
Calf (75 kg)
Cattle (650 kg)
(MWB = 25.5 kg0.75) (MBW = 128.7 kg0.75)
Others1
Determined daily dose
Converted animal daily Converted human
[g/kg0.75] in Aargau, Zurich
Arithmetic mean
daily dose [g/kg0.75]
dose [g/kg0.75]
and
Schaffhausen
(median; minimum
(Reichling et al. [41])
(ESCOP [42])
(arithmetic mean) [16]
value- maximum value)
0.04, 0.06, 0.06, 0.07,
Coffea arabica L.
Semen (18)
0.04
0.09, 0.13, 0.19, 0.19,
0.31, 0.31, 0.45, 0.45,
0.112,1.583
0.35
0.37
(0.19; 0.04-1.58)
-
-
0.51, 0.71, 1.06
0.19-0.397
0.02, 0.02, 0.03, 0.10,
Urtica dioica L.
Herba (18)
0.55, 2.21
0.16, 0.22, 0.22, 0.26,
0.064, 0.535, 0.796,
0.905, 1.054
0.49
2.39
(0.26; 0.02-2.21)
0.39-0.988
0.35-0.52
0.19-0.384
0.26, 0.43, 0.96
0.12, 0.16,
Flos(13)
0.16, 0.35,
0.47, 0.53, 0.68,
1.12
0.17, 1.94
0.22
(0.53; 0.12-5.88)
0.19-0.39
0.39-0.52
0.79,1.32,
Table 4 Daily dosage in dry plant equivalent per kg metabolic body weight (g/kg0.75) of homemade single species herbal remedies (HSHR) used in orally
administered preparations
2.00, 5.88
0.39-1.557
4.41, 4.41,
0.62, 0.78, 1.57, 1.62,
Linum usitatissimum L.
Semen (12)
5.12, 10.97,
Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze
Folium (7)
0.12, 0.53, 0.56,
Potentilla erecta (L.) Raeusch.
Rhizoma (4)
0.004, 0.004
Allium sativum L.
Bulbus (3)
1.76
Carum carvi L.
Fructus (3)
3.15
0.11, 0.14
Geranium robertianum L.s.str.
Herba (3)
0.001
0.02, 0.11
Rumex obtusifolius L.
Radix (3)
0.82, 1.18, 3.15
5.16
2.92
(4.21; 0.62-15.69)
15.69
0.98-1.968
0.66
1.62, 7.78, 7.78
0.189
0.62, 0.71, 1.74
0.64
-
(0.56; 0.12-1.74)
0.14
0.11, 0.44
-
(0.06; 0.004-0.44)
0.1010, 1.5010
1.12
(1.50; 0.10-1.76)
1.13
(0.14; 0.11-3.15)
0.04
(0.02; 0.001-0.11)
(1.18; 0.82-3.15)
1
hens, pigs, dogs, rabbit, sheeps, goats and donkeys, 2young sheep, 3rabbits, 4pigs, 5goats, 6donkeys, 7cattle, 8calves, 9dogs,
(Camellia sinensis) [50].
10
hens,
11
rats,
12
0.16-0.317
0.20-0.598
-
-
0.16-0.23
0.09-0.17
1.13
0.19-0.39
0.07-0.26
-
-
-
-
-
-
Besra et al.: Antidiarrhoeal Activity of Hot Water Extract of Black Tea
Page 17 of 22
1.72
1.67-6.6711, 12
Recommended concentration g dry plant equivalent
in 100 g finished product [41,42,48,49]
g dry plant equivalent in 100 g finished product
Plant species with ≥ 3 HSHR
and documented dosage
Extractionwith
water
Extraction with
alcohol
Extraction with
oil/fat
Arithmetic mean
(median; minimum
value - maximum value)
Extraction with
water
0.10, 0.20
0.01, 0.03, 0.34,
0.38, 0.43, 0.91, 2.33
1.52, 1.73, 1.76, 1.82,
Extraction with
oil/fat
50.001 [42]
0.28, 0.34, 0.50, 1.22,
Calendula officinalis L.
Extraction with
alcohol
1.10
(0.91; 0.01-3.27)
0.67-1.33 [42]
20.002 [42]
1.00-5.003 [42]
1.82, 1.87, 2.22, 3.27
1.52, 1.52,
1.75, 1.82,
Rumex obtusifolius L.
Folium (13)
1.98, 2.00,
2.33, 2.77,
4.31
(2.33; 1.52-20.00)
-
-
-
5.00- 10.004 [41]
-
5.005 [49] 11.004[48]
0.5 [42]
-
-
-
-
up to 17.5 [42]
-
-
-
2.0 [42]
10.00-33.33 [42]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.08, 3.59,
3.64, 10.00, 20.00
0.62, 0.66,
0.76, 1.43,
Hypericum perforatum L.
Flos (10)
1.49, 1.89,
1.96, 2.00,
1.58
(1.69; 0.62-3.00)
Table 5 Concentration of medicinal plants in homemade single species herbal remedies (HSHR) in preparations for topical use
2.00, 3.00
Flos (10)
0.04, 0.18, 0.23,
0.37, 0.40, 0.40,
0.85, 5.00
Symphytum officinale L.
Radix (8)
3.51, 4.26, 4.43, 8.33
Malva neglecta Wallr.
Herba (6)
0.20, 0.40, 0.40, 0.80
Flos (1)
0.10
Arnica montana L.
Flos (6)
2.12, 5.65
1.82, 3.45, 6.35, 6.67
1.82, 1.82
0.90, 0.91, 1.14,
1.96, 2.33
10.00
0.71, 0.74, 0.90, 0.94
Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.
Resina (4)
3.53, 12.93, 27.27, 31.75
1
40% ethanol, 290% ethanol, 3semi-solid preparations, 4herb, 5flowering twigs.
4.85
(4.35; 1.82-8.33)
0.79
(0.40; 0.10-1.82)
2.87
(1.55; 0.90-10.00)
0.82
(0.82; 0.71-0.94)
18.87
(20.10; 3.53- 31.75)
Page 18 of 22
Geranium robertianum L.s.str.
Herba (4)
1.52
(0.40; 0.04- 5.65)
afflictions, but also the treatment of infertility and diseases of female genitals have been reported [13,15]. Ethnoveterinary use of chamomile was not documented in
surveys conducted in Catalonia, Andalusia, Galicia and
Tuscany [5-7,11]. Chamaemelum nobile L., which can
be considered as the Mediterranean equivalent of Matricaria recutita L., has been used in Navarra, eastern Spain
as an orally administered infusion to treat bloating of ruminants in spring and other diseases [4].
In veterinary medicine the use of chamomile has been
reported in the treatment of gastrointestinal disorders,
metabolic dysfunction, and skin afflictions and sores [41].
These uses are supported by in vitro and in vivo pharmacological studies [42,43]. In our survey, daily dosages for
oral administration reported by farmers were in average
higher than the recommended veterinary daily doses [41]
and the human daily doses [42]. In addition, the daily dosages were also higher than the mentioned daily doses in
the previous survey in central-northern Switzerland [16]
(Table 4). The concentrations used in formulations for
topical treatment were, in average, higher than the recommended concentration [42] (Table 5).
Marigold flowers (Calendula officinalis L., Calendulae flos)
The farmers prepared tinctures, oils, ointments and infusions from marigold flowers, and these preparations were
mostly used to treat skin afflictions and sores. These uses
correspond with those documented in surveys conducted
in other parts of Switzerland and in Austria [13,14,16,17].
Use of marigold preparations was mentioned at least
once in the treatment of gastrointestinal disorders, diseases of female genitals, and injuries of the musculoskeletal system. Treatment of gastrointestinal disorders, and
injuries of the musculoskeletal system has also been documented in Austria [13]. Use in the treatment of wounds
has been described in veterinary medicine [41]. These
uses are supported by findings from in vitro and in vivo
pharmacological studies [42,44,45].
In topical treatment with lipophilic products (extraction
with oil or fat) the dosage of herbal drug was within the
range recommended by the literature [42]. Within contrast, the concentration of marigold preparations obtained
by acqueous or alcoholic extraction were lower than recommended by the ESCOP monograph [42] (Table 5).
Page 19 of 22
system. The interview partners highlighted the cooling
effect of the leaves, which they considered particularly
favourable in case of inflammations.
Earlier surveys conducted in Austria and other areas
of Switzerland reported the use of broad-leaved dock as
a treatment for diarrhoea, or as ointments for injuries
[12,14,16,17]. Use of other Rumex species has been documented in Catalonia, Tuscany and Austria [7,11,12].
The calculated average daily dose for oral application of dry
plant equivalent was 1.7 g/kg0.75 (Metabolic Body Weight;
MBW), and the concentration in ointments for topical use
was 4.3 g dry plant equivalent/100 g finished product (Tables 4
and 5). No dose recommendations for broad-leaved dock
could be found in monographs or in scientific literature.
Stinging nettle (Urtica dioica L.)
The herb of stinging nettle was orally administered either directly, or as an infusion. Uses were reported in
cattle, goats, pigs and donkeys. It was thus the only
herbal drug used to treat four different animal species.
This is in line with the findings of an earlier study [16].
Stinging nettle herb was used in cases of infertility, diseases
of female genitals, gastrointestinal disorders, metabolic dysfunction, and for general strengthening. In one case stinging
nettle was applied externally for treatment of altered or sore
skin. Stinging nettle is widely used in Europe, since ethnoveterinary reports documented this herb also in other parts of
Switzerland, in Spain, Italy, and Austria [2,4-7,11,13-17].
Veterinary medicine recommends the internal use of stinging nettle herb to increase urinary flow during bacterial and
inflammatory diseases, and as an orally or externally administered adjuvant treatment in rheumatic ailments. Stinging
nettle herb reportedly shows antihypertensive, analgesic,
local anesthetic, antiphlogistic, antirheumatic and diuretic
properties [41,42].
The average oral dosages reported by our interview
partners were slightly higher for cattle and pigs than the
recommended dose, and were comparable to recommended veterinary doses for calves [41,42] (Table 4). Compared to the daily doses documented in Aargau, Zurich and
Schaffhausen (2.4 g/kg0.75 (MBW)) [16], lower average
doses were used by farmers in our survey (0.5 g/kg0.75
(MBW)) (Table 4).
Coffee beans (Coffea arabica L.)
Broad-leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius L.)
Decoctions prepared from roots of broad-leaved dock
were orally administered for treatment of gastrointestinal disorders, and externally for skin afflictions and
sores. Gastrointestinal disorders were also treated by administration of the entire plant with attached roots.
Leaves were used, either by direct application onto skin,
or after processing to an ointment, to treat skin afflictions
and sores, mastitis, and injuries of the musculoskeletal
An infusion of toasted coffee beans (coffee) was always
administered orally and in combination with schnaps to
treat gastrointestinal disorders, metabolic dysfunction,
infertility, and diseases of female genitals. In other studies in Switzerland and Austria coffee with, but also
without schnaps, has been documented for similar traditional uses [13-17].
The daily dosage of dry plant with an arithmetic mean
of 0.4 g/kg0.75 (MBW) is in a comparable range with the
daily dosage found in a previous survey conducted in
Switzerland [16] (Table 4).
Comfrey (Symphytum officinale L.)
Preparations made from comfrey root were externally
applied in case of injuries of the musculoskeletal system,
skin afflictions, and sores and mastitis. Roots were either
used freshly crushed, or as extracts prepared with alcohol, oil or fat. Leaves were applied directly onto skin to
treat injuries of the musculoskeletal system.
Comparable uses have been previously reported from
Switzerland and Austria [13-17]. Phytoveterinarian literature recommends topical use of comfrey preparations
for treatment of contusions, sprains, and pulled muscles
[41,42]. The documented concentrations in g dry plant
equivalent per 100 g finished product were lower than the
recommended concentration in literature [42] (Table 5).
Common Mallow (Malva neglecta Wallr.)
Common mallow was mostly used as an infusion, but maceration in water, oil or fat were occasionally also mentioned. It was mainly applied for treatment of altered or
sore skin, in particular abscesses of claws and, in one case,
for treatment of injuries of the musculoskeletal system.
No formulations had been documented from a survey in
central-northern Switzerland [16], but treatment of abscesses and wounds had been reported from Safiental,
Austria, and northern Spain [4,13,15,17]. In Austria common mallow infusions were also administered orally to
treat gastrointestinal disorders [15].
A mean concentration of 0.8 g dry plant equivalent/
100 g finished product was calculated. No recommended
concentration in literature was found (Table 5).
St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum L.)
Farmers prepared oils and ointments with St. John’s
wort. The interview partners used only flowers, and this
was in accord with reports from Safiental and Austria
[15,17]. Preparations were used for treatment of skin afflictions and sores, and these uses had also been reported from others parts of Switzerland, Austria, Italy
and Spain [4,6,7,9,11,13-17]. Treatments of diseases of
female genitals, mastitis, and injuries at the musculoskeletal system were also mentioned by our interview
partners, albeit less frequently. Treatment of mastitis
and injuries at the musculoskeletal system was previously documented from other parts of Switzerland and
from Austria [13,16,17].
St. John’s wort shows antidepressant, antibacterial,
antiviral, antiproliferative, and anti-inflammatory properties, and the oil is recommended to treat wounds [41].
The wound- healing activity is supported by in vivo
pharmacological studies [46,47]. St. John’s wort contains
naphthodianthrons, flavonoids and tannins [41].
Page 20 of 22
In literature mainly preparations of the flowering herb
and not only of the pure flowers are documented [41].
The flowers of Hypericum perforatum L. contain a
higher percentage of the component Hyperforin, which
shows antibiotic activities than the herb [48] or probably
also than the blossoming St John’s wort tips [49]. This
could explain the difference in the concentration compared
with the literature (Table 5).
Common spruce (Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.)
Twigs of common spruce were directly fed to calves to
treat or prevent cough and pneumonia.
Ointments prepared from resin were used to treat skin
afflictions and sores, mastitis, and respiratory tract diseases. To treat cough or pneumonia in calves, farmers
rubbed ointment onto the chest of sick animals. Use of
twigs of common spruce for treatment of respiratory
tract diseases, and of resin to treat wounds has been
presviously reported from other parts of Switzerland,
and from Austria [13,14,16,17].
A mean concentration of 18.9 g dry plant equivalent/
100 g finished product was documented (Table 5). No literature of recommended concentration of the resin was found.
Linseeds (Linum usitatissimum L.)
Linseeds were either used directly, or as infusions and decoctions. They were administered orally against gastrointestinal disorders, infertility, diseases of female genitals,
and for general strengthening. Intravaginal/intrauterine
administration was mentioned to treat inflammation of
the uterus. Externally applied infusions and decoctions
were used to treat injuries of the musculoskeletal system.
Similar uses of linseed have been reported from Safiental,
Austria, and Tuscany [11,13-15,17].
Linseeds contain mucilaginous polysaccharides which
produce a protective and soothing layer on skin and mucous membranes. In veterinary medicine, linseeds are
used as a mild laxative [41].
The dosages administered by the farmers interviewed
in our study were higher than those reported in other
surveys, or recommended daily dosages in veterinary
medicine [16,41,42] (Table 4).
Conclusions
Farmers in north-eastern Switzerland possess traditional
knowledge on medicinal plants and their uses in the
treatment of livestock. We documented in our survey a
wide spectrum of plant species, preparations, and uses.
A considerable part of the documented remedies and their
applications is in accordance with established pharmacological effects. Compared to ethnoveterinary studies previously conducted in other parts of Switzerland, and in
Austria, similar plants and uses were found, but also
additional plants and uses could be documented. The
interviewed farmers were mostly satisfied with the outcome of their applications.
A continued documentation of traditional knowledge
in other parts of Switzerland and Europe is needed.
Page 21 of 22
7.
8.
Additional file
Additional file 1: List of remedies and their applications.
Ethnoveterinary herbal remedies used by farmers in four north-eastern
Swiss cantons (St. Gallen, Thurgau, Appenzell Innerrhoden and Appenzell
Ausserrhoden).
Abbreviation
HSHR: Homemade single species herbal remedies.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Authors' contributions
MD conducted all interviews of the project, entered the results into the
database, performed the data analysis, and drafted the manuscript. Together
with CV and BM, MW and FK designed the research strategy. SI created and
took care of the project database. AT collected, processed and labeled the
voucher specimens. MH, MW, CV, SI, FK and BM critically revised the
manuscript for scientific content, and MH did the final language check. All
authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
We thank all interview partners for generously sharing their knowledge
about traditional animal health care. Financial support of the study by the
organic advisory services of the cantons of Aargau and St. Gallen, the
organic farmers associations “Bio Ostschweiz”, “Bio-Ring Appenzellerland”,
and “Bio Fürstentum Liechtenstein”, the “Schweizerische Medizinische
Gesellschaft für Phytotherapie” (www.smgp.ch), the Bristol Stiftung (Zurich)
and the Paul Schiller Foundation (Zurich) are gratefully acknowledged, as
well as Homöopharm AG, Oensingen, for the provision of herbal drugs. We
thank Anne Isensee for preparing the Additional file 1.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Author details
1
Institute of Pharmaceutical Biology, Departement of Pharmaceutical
Sciences, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 2Departement of Livestock
Science, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Ackerstrasse 113, Postfach,
CH-5070 Frick, Switzerland. 3Division of Organic Farming, Department of
Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life
Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, Austria. 4Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 5Unit of Phytopharmacy, Institute of
Biotechnology, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Wädenswil, Switzerland.
20.
Received: 11 October 2013 Accepted: 21 March 2014
Published: 31 March 2014
21.
References
1. McCorkle CM: An Introduction to ethnoveterinary research and
development. J Ethnobiol 1986, 6:129–149.
2. Pieroni A, Howard P, Volpato G, Santoro RF: Natural remedies and
nutraceuticals used in ethnoveterinary practices in inland southern Italy.
Vet Res Commun 2004, 28:55–80.
3. Nyamanga P, Suda C, Aagaard-Hansen J: The socio-cultural context and
practical implications of ethnoveterinary medical pluralism in western
Kenya. Agric Hum Values 2008, 25:513–527.
4. Akerreta S, Calvo MI, Cavero RY: Ethnoveterinary knowledge in Navarra
(Iberian Peninsula). J Ethnopharmacol 2010, 130:369–378.
5. Benítez G, González-Tejero MR, Molero-Mesa J: Knowledge of ethnoveterinary
medicine in the Province of Granada, Andalusia, Spain. J Ethnopharmacol
2012, 139:429–439.
6. Blanco E, Macı́a MJ, Morales R: Medicinal and veterinary plants of El
Caurel (Galicia, northwest Spain). J Ethnopharmacol 1999, 65:113–124.
18.
19.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Bonet MÀ, Vallès J: Ethnobotany of Montseny biosphere reserve
(Catalonia, Iberian Peninsula): plants used in veterinary medicine.
J Ethnopharmacol 2007, 110:130–147.
Pieroni A, Giusti ME, de Pasquale C, Lenzarini C, Censorii E, Gonzales-Tejero MR,
Sanchez-Rojas CP, Ramiro-Gutierrez JM, Skoula M, Johnson C, Sarpaki A,
Della A, Paraskeva-Hadijchambi D, Hadjichambis A, Hmamouchi M, El-Jorhi S,
El-Demerdash M, El-Zayat M, Al-Shahaby O, Houmani Z, Scherazed M:
Circum-Mediterranean cultural heritage and medicinal plant uses in
traditional animal healthcare: a field survey in eight selected areas within
the RUBIA project. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2006, 2:1–16.
Scherrer AM, Motti R, Weckerle CS: Traditional plant use in the areas of
Monte Vesole and Ascea, Cilento National Park (Campania, Southern
Italy). J Ethnopharmacol 2005, 97:129–143.
Viegi L, Pieroni A, Guarrera PM, Vangelisti R: A review of plants used in folk
veterinary medicine in Italy as basis for a databank. J Ethnopharmacol
2003, 89:221–244.
Uncini Manganelli RE, Camangi F, Tomei PE: Curing animals with plants:
traditional usage in Tuscany (Italy). J Ethnopharmacol 2001, 78:171–191.
Schunko C, Vogl CR: Organic farmers use of wild food plants and fungi in
a hilly area in Styria (Austria). Journal of Ethnobiolology and Ethnomedicine
2010, 6:1–17.
Grabowski M: "Meisterwurz und Aderlass" Anwendung und Wandel des
ethnoveterinärmedizinischen Wissens im Grossen Walsertal/Voralberg
unter Hervorhebung der pflanzlichen Hausmittel und des religiösen
Brauchtums. In Diplomarbeit. Universität für Bodenkultur, Institut für
ökologischen Landbau: Departement für Nachhaltige Agrarsysteme; 2010.
Rudolph G: Lokales Erfahrungswissen von Biobäuerinnen und Biobauern
in der West- und Südsteiermark über den Einsatz von Pflanzenarten und
Hausmitteln in der Tierheilkunde im Vergleich zum Erfahrungswissen
von Landwirten in den nördlich gemässigten Klimazonen. In
Diplomarbeit. Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, Institut für ökologischen
Landbau: Departement für Nachhaltige Agrarsysteme; 2008.
Vogl-Lukasser B, Vogl CR, Bizaj M, Grasser S, Bertsch C: Lokales
Erfahrungswissen über Pflanzenarten aus Wildsammlung mit
Verwendung in der Fütterung und als Hausmittel in der Volksheilkunde
bei landwirtschaftlichen Nutztieren in Osttirol. In Endbericht. Universität
für Bodenkultur Wien, Institut für ökologischen Landbau: Departement für
Nachhaltige Agrarsysteme; 2006.
Schmid K, Ivemeyer S, Hamburger M, Vogl C, Klarer F, Meier B, Walkenhorst M:
Traditional use of herbal remedies in livestock by farmers in three Swiss
cantons (Aargau, Zurich and Schaffhausen). Forschende Komplementärmedizin
2012, 19:125–136.
Joos B: Lokales Wissen über Gesundheit und Krankheit des Viehs in
Graubünden. In Diplomarbeit. Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, Institut für
ökologischen Landbau: Departement für Nachhaltige Agrarsysteme; 2010.
WHO: Traditional medicine; 2012 [http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/
traditional/definitions/en/]
Helmstädter A, Staiger C, Traditionelle Anwendung: Eine Betrachtung zu
pflanzlichen Arzneimitteln aus pharmaziehistorischer Sicht. Forschende
Komplementärmedizin 2012, 19:93–98.
Anyniam C: Ecology and ethnomedicine: exploring links between current
environmental crisis and indigenous medical practices. Soc Sci Med 1995,
40:321–329.
Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft: Verordnung über die biologische
Landwirtschaft und die Kennzeichnung biologisch produzierter Erzeugnisse und
Lebensmittel; 2012. [http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/9/910.18.de.pdf]; Artikel 16.
(5.6.2012).
Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling
of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC). In [http://eur-lex.europa.
eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:189:0001:0023:EN:PDF];
Article 14 (e) (ii). (5.6.2012).
Klarer F, Häsler S, Marusic- Bubenhofer R, Meier B: Zulassungen pflanzlicher
Tierarzneimittel in der Schweiz 1924–2011. Zeitschrift für Phytotherapie 2012,
33(Suppl.1):19–20. Documentation under [http://www.lsfm.zhaw.ch/?
id=14419#108663]
Tierarzneimittel Kompendium der Schweiz. In [http://www.vetpharm.uzh.
ch/perldocs/index_t.htm]; (19.06.2012).
Swiss map. In [http://map.geo.admin.ch/]; (23.5.2012).
Schädler B, Weingartner R: Komponenten des natürlichen
Wasserhaushaltes 1961–1990. In Hydrologischer Atlas der Schweiz HADES,
Volume Tafel 6.3. Edited by (BAFU) BfS. Bern; 2002.
27. Bundesamt für Meteorologie und Klimatologie MeteoSchweiz:
Standardnormwerte 1961–1990: Lufttemperatur 2m. In
[www.meteoschweiz.admin.ch./web/de/klima/klima_schweiz]; (23.5.2012).
28. Bundesamt für Statistik. In [http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/
regionen/regionalportraets.html] (23.5.2012).
29. Schweizer Bauernverband. In [http://www.sbv-usp.ch/de/statistik/]; (24.1.2012).
30. Bernhard HR: Research Methods in Anthropology- Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. 4th edition. Walnut Creek, USA: Altamira Press; 2006.
31. Database SEP: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Microsoft Access (version; 2010.
32. Weller SC, Romney AK: Systematic Data Collection- Qualitative Research
Methods Series, Volume 10. California: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1988.
33. Lauber K, Wagner G: Flora Helvetica. 4. Auflage. Bern- Stuttgart- Wien: Haupt
Verlag; 2007.
34. European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines and HealthCare EDQM:
European Pharmacopoeia. 7th edition; 2012.
35. Tierarzneimittel Kompendium der Schweiz: ATCvet Code. In [http://www.
vetpharm.uzh.ch/tak/atcvet.htm]; (20.6.2012).
36. Ungemach FR: Umrechnung von Humandosierungen für Tiere. In
Grundlagen der Pharmakotherapie bei Haus- und Nutztieren. 2. Auflage. Edited
by Löscher W, Ungemach FR, Kroker R. Berlin und Hamburg: Verlag Paul
Parey; 1994:400–401.
37. Sambraus HH: Atlas der Nutztierrassen, 250 Rassen in Wort und Bild. 5th
edition. Stuttgart: Ulmer; 1996.
38. Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft: Verordnung über landwirtschaftliche Begriffe
und die Anerkennung von Betriebsformen (Landwirtschaftliche Begriffsverordnung,
LBV). [www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/9/910.91.de.pdf]; (5.6.2012).
39. Zealley AK, Aitken RCB: Measurement of mood. Proc R Soc Med 1969,
62:993–996.
40. Maphosa V, Masika PJ: Ethnoveterinary uses of medicinal plants: a survey
of plants used in the ethnoveterinary control of gastro-intestinal
parasites of goats in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Pharm Biol
2010, 48:697–702.
41. Reichling J, Gachnian- Mirtscheva R, Frater- Schröder M, Saller R, Rabinovich MI,
Widmaier W: Heilpflanzenkunde für die Veterinärparxis. Heidelberg: Springer
Verlag; 2008.
42. ESCOP - The Scientific Foundation for Herbal Medicinal Products: ESCOP
Monographs, completely revised and expanded. 2nd edition. Stuttgart:
Georg Thieme Verlag; 2003.
43. Cemek M, Yilmaz E, Buyukokuroglu ME: Protective effect of Matricaria
chamomilla on ethanol-induced acute gastric mucosal injury in rats.
Pharm Biol 2010, 48:757–763.
44. Patrick KFM, Kumar S, Edwardson PAD, Hutchinson JJ: Induction of
vascularisation by an aqueous extract of the flowers of Calendula
officinalis L. the European marigold. Phytomedicine 1996, 3:11–18.
45. Fronza M, Heinzmann B, Hamburger M, Laufer S, Merfort I: Determination
of the wound healing effect of Calendula extracts using the scratch
assay with 3 T3 fibroblasts. J Ethnopharmacol 2009, 126:463–467.
46. Oztürk N, Korkmaz S, Oztürk Y: Wound-healing activity of St. John's Wort
(Hypericum perforatum L.) on chicken embryonic fibroblasts.
J Ethnopharmacol 2007, 111:33–39.
47. Süntar IP, Akkol EK, Yılmazer D, Baykal T, Kırmızıbekmez H, Alper M, Yeşilada E:
Investigations on the in vivo wound healing potential of Hypericum
perforatum L. J Ethnopharmacol 2010, 127:468–477.
48. Umek A, Kreft S, Kartnig T, Heydel B: Quantitative phytochemical analyses of
six hypericum species growing in Slovenia. Planta Med 1999, 65:388–390.
49. Meier B: Herbal medicinal products of St John’s Wort: manufacturing and
quality control. In Medicinal and Aromatic Plants – Industrial Profiles, Volume
Volume Genus Hypericum. Edited by Ernst E. London, New York: Taylor&Francis;
2003:106–136.
50. Besra SE, Gomes A, Ganguly DK, Vedasiromoni JR: Antidiarrhoeal activity of hot
water extract of black tea (Camellia sinensis). Phytother Res 2003, 17:380–384.
Page 22 of 22
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and take full advantage of:
• Convenient online submission
doi:10.1186/1746-4269-10-32
Cite this article as: Disler et al.: Ethnoveterinary herbal remedies used
by farmers in four north-eastern Swiss cantons (St. Gallen, Thurgau,
Appenzell Innerrhoden and Appenzell Ausserrhoden). Journal of
Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2014 10:32.
• Thorough peer review
• No space constraints or color figure charges
• Immediate publication on acceptance
• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar
• Research which is freely available for redistribution
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit
List of remedies and their applications
Ethnoveterinary herbal remedies used by farmers in four north-eastern Swiss cantons (St. Gallen, Thurgau, Appenzell Innerrhoden and Appenzell
Ausserrhoden)
Onelineinthefollowingtablerepresentsoneapplication:[dialoguepartner]x[plantspecies]x[plantpart]x[manufacturingprocesstothefinishedproduct]x[categoryofuse]x[specificationofuse]x
[animalspecies]x[animalageclassification]x[administrationprocedure].The[specificationofuse]isnotincludedintheadditionalfile1forspacereasons.Thisexplainsidenticallines.
Listofabbreviations
General:
na=informationnotavailable
Origin:
bo=bought/crudedrug
bo*=bought/commercialextractsandfinishedproducts
cu=cultivated
wh=wildharvesting
vsno:NumberofHerbariumvoucher
Extractionprocedureonfarm:
none
alcohol:(rt)=roomtemperature
(et)=elevatedtemperature
milk:(rt)=roomtemperature
oil/fat:(rt)=roomtemperature
water:(rt)=roomtemperature
(dec)=decoction
(inf)=infusion
Administration
exal=externaladministration,alteredorsoreskin
(epicutan)
(konj)=konjuntival
exin=externaladministration,intactskin
(epicutan)
(konj)=konjunktival
int=internaladministration
(nasal)
(oral)
(vaut)=intravaginal/intrauterine
tohe=treatmentofhousingenvironment
Plantpart:
bar=bark
exc=excretions
flo=flowersandinflorescenses
fsb=fruits,seeds,berries
her=wholeplantswithoutroots(herb)
lea=leaves
pet=petals
rob=root/bulb
twb=twigs,branches
wpr=wholeplantswithroots
Categoriesofuse:
behav=behaviour
gastr=gastrointestinaldisordersandmetabolicdysfunctions
infer=infertilityanddiseasesoffemalegenitals
mast=mastitis
musc=musculoskeletalsystem
para=parasites
resp=respiratorytractdiseases
sens=sensoryorgan
skin=skinalterationsandsores
streng=generalstrengthening
varia=variousindications
0.75
Dailydosage[g/kg ]
inplantequivalentperkgmetabolicbodyweight[g/kg0.75];
usedinformulationsfororaladministrationonly;
RN=Recipenumber(startswith202)
DP=Dialogpartner(startswith30)
Animaltreated:
nsas=nospecificationoftheanimalspecies(external
administration)
Conc[g/100g]
Concentration[gdrugin100gfinishedproduct];usedin
formulationsfortopicaltreatmentandintravaginal/intrauterine
administration;
da=directlyadministeredwithoutextraction,external
administration
Ver=Verificationofdosage
ew=estimatedweightbyassessementofthevolumeand
subsequentweighing
od=originaldrugweightedonͲsite
rd=referencedrugweightedonͲsite
Botanicalfamily
Plantspecies
RecipenamedesignatedbyDP
Plant
part
Origin
Adoxaceae
Sambucusnigra L.
twb
Amaranthaceae
Betavulgarissubsp.vulgaris
(conditivaͲgroup)
Alliumcepa L.
Holderstaude
Holderstaude
Holderstaude
Holderstaude
Holundertee
Randenwickel
Zwiebeln
Zwiebeln
Knoblauch
Knoblauch
KnoblauchͲWasser
Knoblauch
Kümmeltee
Kümmeltee
Kümmeltee
Fencheltee
PeterliͲTee
SarnikelͲTinktur
SanikelͲTee
SarnikelͲTee
Palmentee
Palmentee
Stechpalme
Stechlaub
Stechpalme
Farn
SchafgarbenͲTee
SchafgarbenͲTee
Arnikatinktur
Arnikasalbe
Arnikasalbe
Arnikabalsam
Arnikaöl
Arnikaschnaps
Arnikatinktur
Arnikatinktur
Arnikatinktur
Arnikaschnaps
Arnikatinktur
Arnikatinktur
Arnikasalbe
Amaryllidaceae
Alliumsativum L.
Apiaceae
Carumcarvi L.
Foeniculumvulgare Mill.
Petroselinumcrispum (Mill.)Fuss
Saniculaeuropaea L.
Aquifoliaceae
Aspidiaceae
Asteraceae
Ilexaquifolium L.
DryopterisfilixͲmas L.(Schott)
Achilleamillefolium L.
Arnicachamissonis Less.
Arnicamontana L.
Categoriesof
use
Animaltreated
Administration
Dailydosage Conc
[g/kg0.75]
[g/100g]
Ver
RN
DP
wh
Extraction
procedureon
farm
none
gastr
cattle
int(oral)
rob
cu
water(inf)
none
infer
musc
cattle
cattle
int(oral)
exin(epicutan)
na
na
na
na
0.02
na
na
na
na
ew
na
705
704
582
264
426
269
47
46
65
34
61
35
rob
cu
none
rob
bo
fsb
cu
bo
milk(rt)
none
water(rt)
none
water(dec)
resp
streng
para
para
para
para
gastr
fsb
her
her
wh
bo
cu
wh
water(inf)
water(inf)
water(inf)
alcohol(rt)
water(inf)
lea
wh
water(dec)
gastr
gastr
infer
skin
infer
skin
resp
twb
wh
none
para
calf
cattle
calf
hen
cattle,calf
hen
calf
cattle
cattle
calf
cattle
cattle,calf
cattle
cattle
calf
cattle
calf
her
flo
wh
bo
none
water(inf)
para
gastr
flo
cu
alcohol(rt)
oil/fat(rt)
skin
skin
cattle,calf
calf
cattle
cattle
cattle,calf
int(nasal)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
exin(epicutan)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
exal(epicutan)
int(vaut)
exal(epicutan)
int(oral)
int(oral)
tohe
tohe
tohe
tohe
int(oral)
int(oral)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
flo
bo*
none
musc
cattle,calf
exin(epicutan)
wh
alcohol(rt)
musc
cattle
nsas
cattle
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
cattle,calf
nsas
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
nsas
exin(epicutan)
na
ew
od
ew
ew
ew
od
rd
rd
rd
ew
od
na
od
ew
ew
na
na
na
na
od
od
ew
ew
ew
na
na
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
od
281
302
548
318
610
312
675
544
429
321
342
278
209
279
679
679
282
358
454
364
701
701
569
570
570
297
617
542
638
391
391
655
341
341
639
36
39
73
40
54
39
48
73
61
43
45
36
30
36
48
48
36
46
66
51
47
47
68
68
68
37
54
73
52
57
57
51
45
45
52
skin
oil/fat(rt)
musc
da
na
1.63
1.76
1.5
na
0.15
0.1
3.15
0.14
0.11
0.59
0.03
0.01
na
0.1
0.01
0.01
tohe
tohe
tohe
tohe
0.53
0.19
tohe
tohe
tohe
tohe
0.23
2
2
na
na
2.33
0.9
1.14
1.14
0.91
1.96
1.96
10
Botanicalfamily
Plantspecies
Plant
part
Origin
Asteraceae
Calendulaofficinalis L.
Ringelblumensalbe
Calendulasalbe
Calendulasalbe
Calendulatinktur
Calendulatinktur
Ringelblumensalbe
Ringelblumensalbe
Ringelblumentinktur
Calendulatinktur
Ringelblumentinktur
Ringelblumenschnaps
Ringelblumentinktur
Ringelblumentinktur
Ringelblumentinktur
Calendulatinktur
Ringelblumenschnaps
Ringelblumentinktur
Ringelblumentinktur
Ringelblumentinktur
Ringelblumentinktur
Ringelblumensalbe
Ringelblumensalbe
Ringelblumensalbe
Ringelblumensalbe
Ringelblumensalbe
Ringelblumensalbe
Ringelblumensalbe
Ringelblumensalbe
Ringelblumensalbe
Ringelblumensalbe
Ringelblumenöl
Ringelblumensalbe
Ringelblumensalbe
Ringelblumensalbe
Ringelblumentee
Ringelblumensalbe
Ringelblumensalbe
Ringelblumensalbe
Ringelblumensalbe
Ringelblumentee
Ringelblumentee
Ringelblumentee
Ringelblumentee
Ringelblumentee
Ringelblumentee
flo
bo*
Extraction
procedureon
farm
none
cu
alcohol(rt)
oil/fat(et)
oil/fat(rt)
pet
cu
Categoriesof
use
Animaltreated
Administration
skin
calf
cattle
exin(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
nsas
cattle
calf
exal(epicutan)
int(vaut)
exal(epicutan)
cattle
exal(epicutan)
cattle,calf
exal(epicutan)
cattle
cattle,calf
exin(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
nsas
nsas
cattle
exin(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
cattle,calf
exal(epicutan)
nsas
exal(epicutan)
nsas
cattle
cattle,calf
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
horse
calf
cattle
exal(epicutan)
int(oral)
exal(epicutan)
horse
nsas
rabbit
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
infer
skin
skin
musc
skin
water(inf)
oil/fat(rt)
skin
skin
water(inf)
gastr
skin
Dailydosage Conc
[g/kg0.75]
[g/100g]
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
2.5
0.38
0.34
0.91
0.03
0.34
0.43
2.33
0.91
0.01
0.01
0.34
0.34
0.28
1.82
0.28
0.28
3.27
1.73
1.82
1.82
0.34
0.34
2.22
1.87
0.5
1.52
0.1
1.22
1.76
1.22
1.22
0.71
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Ver
RN
DP
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
od
ew
ew
od
ew
od
od
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
rd
rd
rd
rd
rd
rd
597
690
690
691
691
410
410
367
672
219
654
277
219
496
672
654
367
367
219
219
220
436
220
220
274
344
374
374
276
276
607
394
587
448
389
320
563
320
320
319
319
319
319
319
319
58
46
46
46
46
60
60
54
48
32
51
36
32
72
48
51
54
54
32
32
32
62
32
32
35
45
56
56
36
36
54
57
59
66
59
43
68
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
Botanicalfamily
Plantspecies
Plant
part
Origin
Asteraceae
Helianthusannuus L.
Speiseöl
Speiseöl
Speiseöl
Kamillentee
Kamillentee
Kamillentee
Kamillentee
Kamillentee
Kamillentee
Kamillentee
Kamillenspülung
Kamillenspülung
Kamillentee
KamillenteemitSoda
Kamillentee
SchmierseifeundKamillenbad
Kamillenabsud
Kamillentee
Kamillentee
Kamillosan®
Kamillosan®
Kamillencreme
Kamillensalbe
Kamillencreme
Kamillensalbe
Kamillentee
Kamillentee
Kamillentee
Kamillentee
Kamillentee
Kamillentee
Kamillentee
Kamillentee
Kamillentee
Kamillentee
Kamillentee
Kamillentee
AlpenkreuzkrautͲTee
AlpenkreuzkrautͲTee
Buzlentee
fsb
bo
Extraction
procedureon
farm
none
flo
bo
water(inf)
Matricariarecutita L.(vsno:71204)
Matricariarecutita L.(vsno:71204)
Senecioalpinus (L.)
Scop(vsno:71219)
Categoriesof
use
Animaltreated
Administration
mast
para
skin
gastr
cattle
cattle,calf
cattle,calf
calf
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
int(oral)
infer
cattle
cattle
int(oral)
int(vaut)
younggoat
cattle
cattle,calf
exal(konj)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
sens
skin
bo*
none
skin
nsas
calf
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
cu
oil/fat(rt)
skin
calf
exal(epicutan)
cattle,calf
exal(epicutan)
gastr
calf
int(oral)
infer
skin
cattle
cattle
calf
cattle
int(oral)
int(vaut)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
int(oral)
exal(epicutan)
water(inf)
wh
water(inf)
skin
na
bo
water(inf)
gastr
cattle
nsas
calf
her
wh
water(inf)
skin
cattle
Dailydosage Conc
[g/kg0.75]
[g/100g]
na
na
na
5.88
0.79
0.35
0.16
0.53
0.16
1.94
0.75
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.4
0.04
5
0.37
0.4
na
na
2.12
5.65
2.12
5.65
0.12
2
0.47
0.17
0.85
0.18
0.85
0.4
0.23
0.23
0.68
1.32
na
na
na
Ver
RN
DP
na
na
na
od
od
od
od
ew
ew
od
od
ew
rd
od
od
od
od
ew
od
na
na
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
rd
od
od
rd
od
rd
rd
rd
rd
od
od
na
na
na
202
202
202
380
697
674
651
535
512
380
652
549
206
604
495
545
381
564
495
354
257
661
660
661
660
397
290
585
350
290
659
290
445
428
428
335
335
492
472
419
30
30
30
56
47
48
51
73
71
56
51
73
30
58
72
73
56
68
72
46
34
50
50
50
50
57
37
65
45
37
50
37
64
61
61
44
44
67
69
60
Botanicalfamily
Plantspecies
Plant
part
Origin
Asteraceae
Senecioovatus Willd.
HeidnischWundkraut
HeidnischWundkraut
HeidnischWundkraut
HeidnischWundkrautͲTee
HeidnischWundkraut
HeidnischWundkrautͲSalbe
Goldrutencreme
Goldrutencreme
Mutterkraut
RainfarnͲTee
BirkenrindenͲTee
Beinwell
Beinwell
Wallwurz
WallwurzͲEmulsion
BeinwellͲTinktur
BeinwellͲSalbe
WallwurzͲSalbe
WallwurzͲSalbe
WallwurzͲSalbe
BeinwellͲTinktur
BeinwellͲTinktur
WallwurzͲSchnaps
BeinwellͲTinktur
Beinwell
Wallwurz
Wallwurz
Beinwell
Rapsöl&Schnaps
Rapsöl&Schnaps
Rapsöl
Schwefelblüten&Rapsöl
Kabisblatt
Kohl
Kohl
Kohl
Kohl
HirtentäschliͲTee
her
her
Solidagovirgaurea L.s.str.
Betulaceae
Boraginaceae
Brassicaceae
Tanacetumparthenium (L.)Sch.Bip.
Tanacetumvulgare L.
Betulapendula Roth
Symphytumofficinale L.
(vsͲno:71205)
Brassicanapus L.
Brassicaoleracea L.
CapsellabursaͲpastoris (L.)Medik
Categoriesof
use
Animaltreated
Administration
cu
wh
Extraction
procedureon
farm
water(inf)
water(inf)
skin
skin
nsas
cattle,calf
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
bo*
none
skin
nsas
cattle
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
wh
oil/fat(rt)
skin
cattle,calf
cattle
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
her
her
bar
lea
cu
wh
bo
cu
none
water(inf)
water(dec)
none
varia
para
infer
musc
rob
wh
bo*
cu
none
none
alcohol(rt)
oil/fat(et)
musc
musc
skin
musc
skin
musc
rabbit
cattle,calf
cattle
cattle,calf
goat
nsas
cattle,calf
calf
nsas
nsas
cattle
cattle,calf
cattle
cattle
int(oral)
exin(epicutan)
int(oral)
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
skin
nsas
cattle
cattle,calf
nsas
nsas
calf
cattle
calf
cattle,calf
cattle
cattle,calf
cattle
exal(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
int(oral)
int(oral)
exin(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
varia
nsas
cattle
exal(epicutan)
int(oral)
oil/fat(rt)
wh
fsb
lea
her
bo
cu
wh
alcohol(rt)
mast
musc
none
skin
musc
none
skin
gastr
none
para
skin
musc
water(rt)
Dailydosage Conc
[g/kg0.75]
[g/100g]
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
da
da
da
na
4.43
6.35
6.67
1.82
3.45
8.33
8.33
3.51
4.26
da
da
da
da
7.84
0.78
da
da
da
da
da
da
da
0.05
Ver
RN
DP
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
od
od
od
od
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
na
na
na
na
od
od
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
rd
640
425
382
680
425
646
646
646
663
663
331
458
601
261
261
592
222
517
352
633
383
562
270
270
657
581
706
656
591
580
602
602
283
702
271
658
658
265
634
489
52
61
56
48
61
51
51
51
50
50
43
66
58
34
34
59
32
71
45
52
56
68
35
35
51
65
47
51
59
65
58
58
36
47
35
51
51
34
52
67
Botanicalfamily
Plantspecies
Plant
part
Origin
Cannabaceae
Chenopodiaceae
Cupressaceae
Cannabissativa L.
ChenopodiumbonusͲhenricus L.
Juniperuscommunis L.s.str
Futterhanf
Wundsalbe
Wacholdersalbe
Wacholdersalbe
Wachholder
Wachholder
ThujaͲTee
ThujaͲTee
KatzenschwanzͲTee
Heidelbeersaft
HeidelbeerstaudenͲTee
Wundklee
Eichenrindenpulver
Eichenrindentee
Eichenrindentee
Eichenrindentee
Eichenrinde
Enzianschnaps
Storchenschnabel
Storchenschnabelsalbe
Storchenschnabeltinktur
Storchenschnabel
Storchenschnabelcreme
Pelargo®
her
lea
twb
bo
wh
wh
Thujaoccidentalis L.
Equisetaceae
Ericaceae
Equisetumarvense L.
Vacciniummyrtillus L.
Fabaceae
Anthyllisvulneraria L.s.str.
Gentianaceae
Geraniaceae
Gentianalutea L.
Geraniumrobertianum L.s.str.
(vsno:71213,71220)
Pelargoniumsidoides DC
twb
her
fsb
twb
flo
bar
rob
her
rob
cu
wh
wh
wh
wh
wh
bo
wh
wh
bo
cu
wh
bo*
Extraction
procedureon
farm
none
oil/fat(rt)
alcohol(rt)
alcohol(rt)
none
Categoriesof
use
Animaltreated
Administration
Dailydosage Conc
[g/kg0.75]
[g/100g]
Ver
RN
DP
streng
skin
mast
musc
streng
cattle
nsas
cattle
cattle
cattle,calf
int(oral)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
tohe
na
water(inf)
water(inf)
water(inf)
water(dec)
water(dec)
water(inf)
none
water(dec)
infer
infer
gastr
gastr
gastr
skin
gastr
gastr
alcohol(rt)
none
oil/fat(rt)
alcohol(rt)
none
oil/fat(et)
infer
skin
gastr
infer
skin
behav
infer
skin
cattle
cattle
calf
calf
calf
cattle
calf
calf
cattle
cattle
cattle
calf
cattle
nsas
cattle
cattle
cattle,calf
cattle
cattle,calf
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
exal(epicutan)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(vaut)
exal(epicutan)
int(oral)
int(oral)
exal(epicutan)
int(oral)
int(oral)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
none
resp
dog
calf
exal(epicutan)
int(oral)
na
na
na
na
na
na
ew
na
ew
na
ew
na
od
rd
od
od
na
ew
od
ew
ew
rd
od
ew
ew
ew
ew
na
650
456
395
395
453
453
409
558
642
511
681
431
372
474
405
678
444
476
465
451
396
641
516
568
568
568
328
254
51
66
57
57
66
66
57
73
52
71
48
61
55
69
57
48
64
69
69
66
57
52
71
68
68
68
43
34
tohe
tohe
0.01
na
0.07
na
0.47
na
na
na
tohe
tohe
na
0.78
0.08
0.05
0.8
na
0.03
0.11
0.9
0.001
0.02
0.94
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.71
na
Botanicalfamily
Plantspecies
Plant
part
Origin
Hypericaceae
Hypericumperforatum L.
(vsno:71202,71216,71223)
JohanniskrautͲÖl
Johannisöl
Johannisöl
Johannisöl
Johannisöl
Johannisöl
Johannisöl
Johannisöl
Johannissalbe
Johannisöl
Johannisöl
Johannisöl
Johannisöl
Johannisöl
Johannistinktur
JohanniskrautinOlivenöl
JohanniskrautͲÖl
Johannisöl
JohanniskrautͲÖl
Johannisöl
Johannistinktur
Nussbaumblätter
Lavendelsträusschen
Lavendelöl
Lavendelöl
NPJLiniment®
OPIFIX®
OPIFIX®
Pfefferminztee
Pfefferminztee
Salbei
Salbei
Salbeitee
ätherischesÖlThymian
Zimt
flo
bo*
Extraction
procedureon
farm
none
cu
oil/fat(rt)
Juglandaceae
Lamiaceae
Juglansregia L.
Lavandulaangustifolia Mill.
Menthacanadensis L.
Salviaofficinalis L.
Lauraceae
Thymusvulgaris L.
Cinnamomumverum J.Presl
wh
oil/fat(rt)
Categoriesof
use
Animaltreated
Administration
musc
skin
cattle
calf
infer
musc
skin
cattle
cattle
nsas
calf
cattle
exin(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
int(vaut)
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
cattle,calf
exal(epicutan)
cattle
cattle
cattle
nsas
cattle
int(vaut)
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
cattle,calf
exal(epicutan)
calf
nsas
cattle,calf
cattle,calf
cattle
tohe
tohe
exal(epicutan)
tohe
exin(epicutan)
infer
mast
musc
skin
lea
her
wh
cu
none
none
oil/fat(rt)
lea
bo*
none
para
para
skin
streng
mast
na
bo
water(inf)
musc
gastr
cattle
calf
exin(epicutan)
int(oral)
lea
cu
none
lea
her
bar
cu
bo*
bo
water(inf)
none
none
resp
skin
gastr
resp
gastr
calf
rabbit
calf
calf
calf
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(nasal)
int(oral)
Dailydosage Conc
[g/kg0.75]
[g/100g]
tohe
tohe
tohe
0.62
1.24
0.02
na
0.02
na
0.24
na
na
na
na
0.76
1.49
0.76
2
0.66
2
2
2
3
3
1.89
1.43
1.96
3
1.96
0.62
1.89
tohe
tohe
9.09
tohe
na
na
na
Ver
RN
DP
na
na
na
na
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
od
od
od
ew
ew
ew
od
ew
ew
ew
na
na
ew
ew
na
na
na
od
od
ew
na
ew
na
ew
497
596
596
596
387
346
387
612
390
612
612
376
518
518
427
262
481
518
481
590
427
653
332
613
613
296
339
339
334
334
285
329
636
253
553
72
58
58
58
57
45
57
54
57
54
54
56
71
71
61
34
69
71
69
59
61
51
43
54
54
37
44
44
44
44
36
43
52
34
73
Botanicalfamily
Plantspecies
Plant
part
Origin
Linaceae
Linumusitatissimum L.
Leinsamen
Leinsamen
Leinsamenschleim
Leinsamenschleim
Leinsamenschleim
Leinsamentee
Leinsamen
Leinsamenmus
Leinsamenschleim
Leinsamenschleim
Leinsamenschleim
Leinsamenschleimspülung
Leinsamenschleim
Bärlapp
Eibischblätter
Chäslichrut
Chäslichrut
Malventee
Malventee
ChäslichrutͲSalbe
ChäslichrutͲSalbe
ChäslichrutͲSalbe
Chäslichrut
ChäslichrutͲTee
ChäslichrutͲsalbe
ChäslichrutͲSalbe
ChäslichrutͲBad
ChäslichrutͲTee
Chäslichrut
Chäslichrut
ChäslichrutͲTee
ChäslichrutͲBad
ChäslichrutͲBad
ChäslichrutͲBad
ChäslichrutͲTee
ChäslichrutͲTee
ChäslichrutͲTee
Lindenbast
Lindenbast
LindenbastͲTee
LindenrindenͲTee
Lindenbast
Muskatnuss
Muskatnuss
fsb
bo
Lycopodiaceae
Malvaceae
Lycopodiumclavatum L.
Althaeaofficinalis L.
MalvaneglectaWallr. (vsno:71212)
Tiliacordata Mill.
Myristicaceae
Myristicafragrans Houtt.
Extraction
procedureon
farm
none
water(dec)
her
lea
flo
her
wh
wh
wh
bo
cu
wh
fsb
Animaltreated
Administration
Dailydosage Conc
[g/kg0.75]
[g/100g]
Ver
RN
DP
infer
streng
gastr
cattle
cattle
calf
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
cattle
int(oral)
0.62
1.57
4.21
4.21
15.69
10.97
0.78
7.78
7.78
1.62
1.62
cattle
cattle
cattle,calf
cattle
cattle,calf
cattle
cattle
horse
cattle
int(vaut)
exin(epicutan)
tohe
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
cattle,calf
cattle
cattle,calf
cattle,calf
cattle
calf
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
cattle
exal(epicutan)
cattle,calf
horse
cattle
nsas
cattle
cattle
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(vaut)
int(oral)
ew
od
rd
rd
od
od
od
od
od
rd
rd
rd
od
na
na
ew
rd
od
od
od
od
na
na
od
od
od
na
na
od
od
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
od
od
na
na
na
ew
ew
599
309
584
584
527
214
508
379
700
584
584
242
310
204
392
430
499
323
323
375
375
566
662
565
434
434
433
696
298
298
696
433
433
217
696
635
635
373
414
600
677
252
408
236
58
39
65
65
70
31
71
56
47
65
65
33
39
30
57
61
72
43
43
56
56
68
50
68
62
62
62
47
37
37
47
62
62
31
47
52
52
55
60
58
48
33
57
33
none
water(inf)
water(inf)
water(inf)
water(inf)
water(inf)
oil/fat(rt)
infer
musc
musc
skin
skin
skin
skin
skin
skin
water(inf)
skin
oil/fat(et)
oil/fat(et)
water(inf)
musc
skin
skin
water(rt)
bar
Categoriesof
use
bo
none
water(dec)
skin
skin
infer
infer
wh
water(dec)
infer
cattle
bo
none
gastr
cattle
tohe
2.22
20
tohe
na
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
1.82
1.82
na
na
0.4
1.82
1.82
na
na
0.8
0.8
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
0.19
0.13
na
na
na
0.05
0.05
Botanicalfamily
Plantspecies
Plant
part
Origin
Myrtaceae
Melaleucaalternifolia
Maiden&BetcheexCheel
Teebaumöl
Teebaumöl
Teebaumöl
Eschenlaub
Esche
OlivenölundEigelb
LäusekrautͲTee
WeisstannenͲÄste
Harzsalbe
Harzsalbe
Harzsalbe
Tannenharz
Harzsalbe
Harzsalbe
Harzsalbe
Harzsalbe
Harzsalbe
Harzsalbe
Harzsalbe
Harzsalbe
Harzsalbe
Harzsalbe
Harzsalbe
Harzsalbe
Harzsalbe
Harzsalbe
Harzsalbe
RottannenͲÄste
RottannenͲZweige
Tannenäste
Tannenäste
RottannenͲÄste
Augentrost
Spitzwegerich
SpitzwegerichͲÖl
Haferschleimsuppe
Hafer
Haferwickel
lea
bo*
Oleaceae
Fraxinusexcelsior L.
Orobanchaceae
Pinaceae
Oleaeuropaea L.
Pedicularisverticillata L.
Abiesalba Mill.
Piceaabies (L.)H.Karst.
Plantaginaceae
Poaceae
Euphrasiaofficinalis L.
Plantagolanceolata L.(vsno:71211)
Avenasativa L.s.str.
na
lea
twb
fsb
her
twb
exc
Extraction
procedureon
farm
none
bo*
wh
wh
bo
wh
wh
bo
none
none
none
none
water(inf)
none
oil/fat(et)
wh
none
oil/fat(et)
Categoriesof
use
Animaltreated
Administration
skin
streng
mast
para
streng
mast
para
streng
mast
resp
skin
skin
mast
nsas
nsas
cattle
calf
cattle
cattle
cattle,calf
cattle,calf
cattle
calf
cattle
cattle,calf
cattle
exal(epicutan)
tohe
exin(epicutan)
int(oral)
int(oral)
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
int(oral)
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
resp
skin
calf
calf
cattle
exin(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
cattle,calf
int(oral)
exal(epicutan)
twb
wh
none
resp
nsas
calf
exal(epicutan)
int(oral)
her
lea
wh
wh
fsb
bo
cu
water(inf)
none
oil/fat(rt)
water(dec)
none
water(dec)
streng
sens
resp
mast
gastr
streng
resp
cattle,calf
cattle,calf
calf
cattle
calf
cattle
calf
int(oral)
exal(konj)
int(oral)
exin(epicutan)
int(oral)
int(oral)
exin(epicutan)
Dailydosage Conc
[g/kg0.75]
[g/100g]
tohe
na
tohe
na
na
na
da
na
na
na
na
na
da
3.53
27.27
27.27
27.27
3.53
27.27
27.27
31.75
na
na
na
27.27
27.27
12.93
31.75
na
na
na
na
na
1
0.12
0.32
5.6
0.31
na
Ver
RN
DP
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
od
od
od
od
od
od
od
od
na
na
na
od
od
od
od
na
na
na
na
na
od
ew
ew
ew
ew
na
255
255
340
473
463
406
459
683
377
377
377
478
515
432
432
432
515
432
432
343
432
480
480
432
432
393
343
645
288
484
440
682
461
280
326
503
227
266
34
34
44
69
66
57
66
48
56
56
56
69
71
62
62
62
71
62
62
45
62
69
69
62
62
57
45
51
36
69
62
48
66
36
43
72
33
34
Botanicalfamily
Plantspecies
Plant
part
Origin
Polygonaceae
Rumexobtusifolius L.
(vsno:71208,71218)
Blacke
Blacke
Blacke
Blacke
Blackensalbe
Blackensalbe
Blackensalbe
Blackensalbe
Blackensalbe
Blackensalbe
Blackensalbe
Blackensalbe
Blackensalbe
Blackensalbe
Blackensalbe
Blackensalbe
Blackensalbe
Blackensalbe
Blackensalbe
Blackensalbe
Blackensalbe
Blackensalbe
Blackensalbe
Blackenöl
Blackensalbe
Blackensalbe
BlackenwurzelͲTee
BlackenwurzelͲTee
BlackenwurzelͲTee
Blackentee
Blackentee
Blackentee
Kreuzdorn
Kreuzdorn
Kreuzdorn
FrauenmänteliͲTee
FrauenmänteliͲTee
Weissdorn
Weissdorn
Weissdorn
Weissdorn
Apfel
lea
wh
Rhamnaceae
Rhamnuscathartica L.
Rosaceae
Alchemillavulgaris L.Agg.
Crataeguslaevigata (Poiret)DC.
Malusdomesticus Borkh.
Extraction
procedureon
farm
none
Categoriesof
use
Animaltreated
Administration
musc
cattle,calf
goat
horse
nsas
cattle
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
cattle
cattle,calf
cattle
cattle,calf
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
nsas
cattle
cattle
exal(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
musc
cattle
cattle,calf
exin(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
skin
varia
cattle
cattle,calf
nsas
cattle
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
exin(epicutan)
skin
oil/fat(et)
mast
musc
skin
oil/fat(rt)
varia
mast
rob
wh
water(dec)
gastr
calf
int(oral)
wpr
wh
water(inf)
skin
gastr
twb
wh
none
skin
cattle,calf
calf
youngpig
cattle,calf
exal(epicutan)
int(oral)
int(oral)
tohe
her
wh
water(inf)
infer
cattle
int(oral)
twb
wh
none
skin
cattle,calf
tohe
fruits
cu
none
gastr
cattle
int(oral)
Dailydosage Conc
[g/kg0.75]
[g/100g]
da
da
da
da
3.64
1.82
3.08
20
3.08
2.77
3.59
1.82
2.77
3.64
10
1.98
1.52
1.98
1.52
1.52
1.75
1.52
10
2.33
2
1.98
0.82
1.18
3.15
0.73
0.78
1.32
tohe
tohe
tohe
0.03
0.03
tohe
tohe
tohe
tohe
na
tohe
tohe
tohe
tohe
tohe
tohe
tohe
Ver
RN
DP
na
na
na
na
od
od
od
od
od
od
ew
od
od
od
od
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
od
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
od
ew
ew
ew
na
na
na
ew
ew
na
na
na
na
na
260
260
325
424
514
435
215
403
215
275
648
435
275
514
631
561
483
561
483
460
324
483
631
614
611
561
348
207
355
583
423
423
468
359
286
488
488
504
466
314
287
233
34
34
43
61
71
62
31
57
31
35
51
62
35
71
52
68
69
68
69
66
43
69
52
54
54
68
45
30
46
65
61
61
69
46
36
67
67
72
69
39
36
33
Botanicalfamily
Plantspecies
Plant
part
Origin
Rosaceae
Potentillaerecta (L.)Raeusch.
(vsno:71201)
BlutwurzͲTinktur
Blutwurz
BlutwurzͲTee
BlutwurzͲTinktur
BlutwurzͲTinktur
Zwetschgensteine
Schwarzdorn
Schwarzdorn
Schwarzdorn
Himbeerstauden
KaffeeͲSchnaps
KaffeeͲSchnaps
KaffeeͲSchnaps
KaffeeͲSchnaps
KaffeeͲSchnaps
KaffeeͲSchnaps
KaffeeͲSchnaps
KaffeeͲSchnaps
KaffeeͲSchnaps
KaffeeͲSchnaps
KaffeeͲSchnaps
KaffeeͲSchnaps
KaffeeͲSchnaps
KaffeeͲSchnaps
KaffeeͲSchnaps
schwarzerKaffee
KaffeeͲSchnaps
KaffeeͲSchnaps
Zitronensaft
Salweidenzweige
Fliegenholz
Kartoffelsalbe
Kartoffelsalbe
Kartoffelsalbe
Kartoffelsalbe
Schwarztee
Schwarztee
Schwarztee
Schwarztee
Schwarztee
Schwarztee
Schwarztee
Kapuzinerkresse
na
rob
bo*
bo
Extraction
procedureon
farm
none
water(dec)
wh
alcohol(rt)
fsb
twb
cu
wh
twb
fsb
wh
bo
Prunusdomestica L.
Prunusspinosa L.
Rubiaceae
Rutaceae
Salicaceae
Simaroubaceae
Solanaceae
Rubusidaeus L.
Coffea L.
Citrusxlimon (L.)Burm.f.
Salixcaprea L.
Quassiaamara L.
Solanumtuberosum L.
Theaceae
Camelliasinensis (L.)Kuntze
Tropaeolaceae
Tropaeolummajus L.
fsb
twb
bar
rob
bo
wh
bo
cu
Categoriesof
use
Animaltreated
Administration
Dailydosage Conc
[g/kg0.75]
[g/100g]
Ver
RN
DP
gastr
gastr
calf
cattle
int(oral)
int(oral)
none
none
gastr
streng
para
skin
calf
calf
pig
cattle,calf
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
tohe
none
water(inf)
streng
gastr
cattle
calf
cattle
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
exal(epicutan)
exal(epicutan)
na
0.11
0.44
0.004
0.004
na
tohe
tohe
tohe
na
0.04
0.45
0.51
0.06
1.06
0.13
0.09
0.71
0.07
0.19
0.19
0.04
0.45
0.31
0.31
1.58
0.11
0.06
0.47
na
na
od
od
ew
ew
na
na
na
na
na
ew
od
ew
ew
ew
od
rd
ew
od
od
od
od
od
od
od
od
ew
od
od
na
na
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
rd
od
ew
ew
od
od
na
224
507
213
477
477
250
586
556
467
462
593
684
578
573
543
519
500
494
439
413
413
398
360
303
294
317
593
211
416
235
315
401
401
402
402
536
446
404
336
322
273
273
330
32
71
31
69
69
33
65
73
69
66
59
46
65
68
73
71
72
70
62
60
60
57
47
39
37
40
59
30
60
33
40
57
57
57
57
73
64
57
44
43
35
35
43
none
none
alcohol(rt)
oil/fat(et)
infer
gastr
gastr
skin
skin
rabbit
youngsheep
cattle
calf
cattle
donkey
cattle
oil/fat(rt)
skin
cattle
exal(epicutan)
lea
bo
water(inf)
gastr
calf
int(oral)
flo
wh
none
streng
dog
horse
int(oral)
int(oral)
tohe
tohe
tohe
na
5
5
1.72
1.72
0.53
0.56
0.12
1.74
0.71
0.62
0.18
na
Botanicalfamily
Plantspecies
Plant
part
Origin
Urticaceae
Urticadioica L.
(vsno:71209,71210,71217)
Brennnessel
Brennnessel
Brennnessel
Brennnessel
Brennnessel
Brennnessel
Brennnessel
Brennnessel
Brennnessel
Brennnessel
Brennnessel
Brennnessel
Brennnessel
Brennnessel
Brennnessel
Brennnesseln
BrennnesselͲTee
BrennnesselͲTee
BrennnesselͲTee
BrennnesselͲTee
Brennnessel
BrennnesselͲTee
BrennnesselͲTee
BrennnesselͲTee
BrennnesselͲTee
BrennnesselͲTee
BrennnesselͲTee
BrennnesselͲTee
BrennnesselͲTee
her
wh
Extraction
procedureon
farm
none
water(inf)
Categoriesof
use
Animaltreated
Administration
Dailydosage Conc
[g/kg0.75]
[g/100g]
Ver
RN
DP
behav
gastr
infer
pig
cattle
donkey
goat
sheep
cattle
skin
streng
donkey
cattle
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
goat
int(oral)
hen
horse
cattle
calf
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
int(oral)
cattle
int(oral)
infer
cattle
int(oral)
skin
streng
goat
pig
nsas
cattle
int(oral)
int(oral)
exal(epicutan)
int(oral)
1.05
na
0.79
na
na
0.02
0.03
na
na
na
na
0.9
na
na
na
0.26
0.55
2.21
0.22
0.96
0.16
0.1
0.02
0.22
0.26
0.53
0.06
ew
na
ew
na
na
ew
ew
na
na
na
na
ew
na
na
na
ew
ew
ew
ew
od
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
ew
399
238
316
365
365
447
216
316
485
347
258
411
258
347
258
649
630
388
630
386
498
259
575
531
363
259
575
422
595
57
33
40
52
52
65
31
40
69
45
34
61
34
45
34
51
52
58
52
56
72
34
65
73
50
34
65
61
58
Varia
gastr
0.24
0.43

Vortrag M. Walkenhorst Teil 1 2014-1 - Schaette

Transcrição

Documentos relacionados

OG Animal Genetic Resources

A comparison of three cattle temperament assessment

behaviour of the cow and calf at calving and its relationship to the

About Billy the Kid - Mittelschulvorbereitung Englisch

Competitiveness of beef farming in Rio Grande do Sul

FEATURE - Nashornmutter rettet ihr Kalb aus dem Schlamm

Reading 23

Julian Barnard A Guide to the Bach Flower Remedies

Jeff Dailey | CEO Farmers Group, Inc. | Zurich Insurance Group Ltd

Dynamics of Cattle Production in Brazil