Background: The EC Regulation for Organic Farming states that organic livestock should be treated preferably with phytotherapeutic products. In spite of the high importance of organic livestock in Europe, primarily ruminants, today almost no phytotherapeutic product is registered for livestock. Also, information regarding veterinary phytotherapy is rare. The aim of this paper is to find approaches to cope with health problems of organic ruminants in Europe on the basis of findings from the European ethnoveterinary medicine (EuEVM). Methods: A systematic review of ethno-biomedicinal papers was conducted with the aid of the Scopus database, and 75 papers, from European countries were analyzed regarding ethnoveterinary information. Results: A total of 590 plant species referring to 102 different plant families are reported to be used for animal treatment, with Asteraceae, Fabaceae and Lamiaceae being the most important families. The traditional use of some plant species (e.g. mallow, chamomile, wormwood) corresponds with findings from recent scientific literature. The large number of less studied plant species, such as white lupin as an antiparasitic herb, and Helleborus spp. as potential immunostimulatory agent, opens an interesting field for future research. Conclusions: In general, EuEVM provides interesting treatment approaches for gastrointestinal and dermatological disorders as well as parasitosis. Findings regarding disorders of female genital or respiratory tract are less consistent. Nevertheless, EuEVM offers a solid basis for stimulating research in veterinary phytotherapy in Europe with a perspective to solve animal health problems in organic or even nonorganic ruminant production.

BackgroundEthnoveterinary knowledge in Europe may play an important role as a basis for sustainable treatment options for livestock. Aims of our study were (a) to compare the ethnoveterinary practices of two culturally and sociodemographically different regions of Switzerland, (b) to compare results with earlier ethnoveterinary studies conducted in Switzerland and in adjacent Italian regions and, (c) to evaluate possible reasons for regional differences in European ethnoveterinary medicine.Methods25 interviews were conducted in 2014 in all Italian speaking regions (ItR) of Switzerland, and 31 interviews were held in five north-western German speaking Cantons (GeC). Semi-structured questionnaires were used to collect detailed information regarding plant species, mode of preparation, dosage, route of administration, category of use, origin of knowledge, frequency of use, and satisfaction with outcomes of the treatments.ResultsA total of 162 homemade remedies in ItR and 219 in GeC were reported, out of which 125 and 145, respectively, were reported to contain only one plant species (homemade single species herbal remedy report, HSHR). 44 ItR and 43 GeC plant species were reported to treat livestock, of which only a half were used in both regions. For each HSHR, we classified the treatment intention of all use reports (UR), leading to a total of 205 and 219 UR in ItR and GeC respectively. While cattle were the most often treated livestock species in both study regions, in ItR 40% of UR were administered to small ruminants. Main indications in both regions were gastrointestinal diseases and skin afflictions, but in ItR a high number of URs were reported as antiparasitics. URs were mainly handed down from the past generation, but in GeC the source of knowledge for 20% of URs were from courses. Regarding the used plant species, ItR showed a higher concordance with Swiss than Italian studies, but with some differences to all regions. A total of 22 (14 ItR; 8 GeC) plant species in this study have not been reported before in ethnoveterinary studies of Swiss and Italian alpine regions.ConclusionsItR and GeC, show differences and similarities with respect to their own ethnoveterinary practices and earlier Swiss and Italian ethnoveterinary studies. Linguistic, geographical, as well as social and farm-structural conditions influence the regional ethnoveterinary knowledge. However, political borders seem to be more important than language or geographical barriers.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13002-016-0106-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundGastrointestinal and respiratory diseases in calves and piglets lead to significant economic losses in livestock husbandry. A high morbidity has been reported for diarrhea (calves ≤ 35 %; piglets ≤ 50 %) and for respiratory diseases (calves ≤ 80 %; piglets ≤ 40 %). Despite a highly diverse etiology and pathophysiology of these diseases, treatment with antimicrobials is often the first-line therapy. Multi-antimicrobial resistance in pathogens results in international accordance to strengthen the research in novel treatment options. Medicinal plants bear a potential as alternative or additional treatment. Based on the versatile effects of their plant specific multi-component-compositions, medicinal plants can potentially act as ‘multi-target drugs’. Regarding the plurality of medicinal plants, the aim of this systematic review was to identify potential medicinal plant species for prevention and treatment of gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases and for modulation of the immune system and inflammation in calves and piglets.ResultsBased on nine initial sources including standard textbooks and European ethnoveterinary studies, a total of 223 medicinal plant species related to the treatment of gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases was identified. A defined search strategy was established using the PRISMA statement to evaluate 30 medicinal plant species starting from 20’000 peer-reviewed articles published in the last 20 years (1994–2014). This strategy led to 418 references (257 in vitro, 84 in vivo and 77 clinical trials, thereof 48 clinical trials in veterinary medicine) to evaluate effects of medicinal plants and their efficacy in detail. The findings indicate that the most promising candidates for gastrointestinal diseases are Allium sativum L., Mentha x piperita L. and Salvia officinalis L.; for diseases of the respiratory tract Echinacea purpurea (L.) MOENCH, Thymus vulgaris L. and Althea officinalis L. were found most promising, and Echinacea purpurea (L.) MOENCH, Camellia sinensis (L.) KUNTZE, Glycyrrhiza glabra L. and Origanum vulgare L. were identified as best candidates for modulation of the immune system and inflammation.ConclusionsSeveral medicinal plants bear a potential for novel treatment strategies for young livestock. There is a need for further research focused on gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases in calves and piglets, and the findings of this review provide a basis on plant selection for future studies.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12917-016-0714-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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 were skin alterations and sores, gastrointestinal and metabolic diseases as well as 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.

No abstract