Mayer Maria, Zbinden Mirjam, Vogl Christan R, Ivemeyer Silvia, Meier Beat, Amorena Michele, Maeschli Ariane, Hamburger Matthias, Walkenhorst Michael
Faculty of Bioscience and Agri-Food and Environment Technologies, University of Teramo, Teramo, Italy.
Department of Livestock Science, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Ackerstrasse 113, Postfach, CH-5070, Frick, Switzerland.
J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2017 Jan 3;13(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s13002-016-0106-y.
Ethnoveterinary knowledge in Europe may play an important role as a basis for sustainable treatment options for livestock. Aims of our study were (a) to compare the ethnoveterinary practices of two culturally and sociodemographically different regions of Switzerland, (b) to compare results with earlier ethnoveterinary studies conducted in Switzerland and in adjacent Italian regions and, (c) to evaluate possible reasons for regional differences in European ethnoveterinary medicine.
25 interviews were conducted in 2014 in all Italian speaking regions (ItR) of Switzerland, and 31 interviews were held in five north-western German speaking Cantons (GeC). Semi-structured questionnaires were used to collect detailed information regarding plant species, mode of preparation, dosage, route of administration, category of use, origin of knowledge, frequency of use, and satisfaction with outcomes of the treatments.
A total of 162 homemade remedies in ItR and 219 in GeC were reported, out of which 125 and 145, respectively, were reported to contain only one plant species (homemade single species herbal remedy report, HSHR). 44 ItR and 43 GeC plant species were reported to treat livestock, of which only a half were used in both regions. For each HSHR, we classified the treatment intention of all use reports (UR), leading to a total of 205 and 219 UR in ItR and GeC respectively. While cattle were the most often treated livestock species in both study regions, in ItR 40% of UR were administered to small ruminants. Main indications in both regions were gastrointestinal diseases and skin afflictions, but in ItR a high number of URs were reported as antiparasitics. URs were mainly handed down from the past generation, but in GeC the source of knowledge for 20% of URs were from courses. Regarding the used plant species, ItR showed a higher concordance with Swiss than Italian studies, but with some differences to all regions. A total of 22 (14 ItR; 8 GeC) plant species in this study have not been reported before in ethnoveterinary studies of Swiss and Italian alpine regions.
ItR and GeC, show differences and similarities with respect to their own ethnoveterinary practices and earlier Swiss and Italian ethnoveterinary studies. Linguistic, geographical, as well as social and farm-structural conditions influence the regional ethnoveterinary knowledge. However, political borders seem to be more important than language or geographical barriers.
欧洲的民族兽医学知识可能作为家畜可持续治疗方案的基础发挥重要作用。我们研究的目的是：（a）比较瑞士两个文化和社会人口统计学不同地区的民族兽医实践；（b）将结果与瑞士及相邻意大利地区早期的民族兽医学研究结果进行比较；（c）评估欧洲民族兽医学区域差异的可能原因。
2014年在瑞士所有意大利语区（ItR）进行了25次访谈，在五个德语区的西北州（GeC）进行了31次访谈。使用半结构化问卷收集有关植物种类、制备方式、剂量、给药途径、使用类别、知识来源、使用频率以及对治疗结果满意度的详细信息。
ItR地区共报告了162种自制疗法，GeC地区报告了219种，其中分别有125种和145种据报告仅含有一种植物种类（自制单一物种草药疗法报告，HSHR）。报告了44种ItR地区和43种GeC地区的植物用于治疗家畜，其中只有一半在两个地区都有使用。对于每份HSHR，我们对所有使用报告（UR）的治疗意图进行了分类，ItR地区和GeC地区分别共有205份和219份UR。虽然牛是两个研究地区最常治疗的家畜种类，但在ItR地区，40%的UR用于小反刍动物。两个地区的主要适应症都是胃肠道疾病和皮肤疾病，但在ItR地区，大量UR被报告用于抗寄生虫。UR主要是从上一代传承下来的，但在GeC地区，20%的UR知识来源是课程。关于所使用的植物种类，ItR地区与瑞士研究的一致性高于与意大利研究的一致性，但与所有地区都存在一些差异。本研究中共有22种（14种ItR地区；8种GeC地区）植物种类在瑞士和意大利阿尔卑斯地区的民族兽医学研究中未曾报道过。
ItR地区和GeC地区在其自身的民族兽医实践以及早期瑞士和意大利民族兽医学研究方面表现出差异和相似性。语言、地理以及社会和农场结构条件会影响区域民族兽医学知识。然而，政治边界似乎比语言或地理障碍更为重要。
