Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27618998›Full record

ArticleJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2016

Local knowledge held by farmers in Eastern Tyrol (Austria) about the use of plants to maintain and improve animal health and welfare.

Christian R Vogl, Brigitte Vogl-Lukasser, Michael Walkenhorst

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Folk use of medicinal plants in Karst and Gorjanci, Slovenia.Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Christian R VoglWorking Group: Knowledge Systems and Innovation, Division of Organic Farming, Department for Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, Austria. christian.vogl@boku.ac.at.
Brigitte Vogl-LukasserWorking Group: Knowledge Systems and Innovation, Division of Organic Farming, Department for Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, Austria.
Michael WalkenhorstDepartement of Livestock Sciences, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Ackerstrasse 113, Frick, 5070, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe sustainable management of animal health and welfare is of increasing importance to consumers and a key topic in the organic farming movement. Few systematic studies have been undertaken investigating farmers' local knowledge related to this issue. Ethnoveterinary medicine (EVM) is a discipline focusing on local knowledge and folk methods in veterinary medicine, however most ethnoveterinarian studies primarily address the treatment of animal diseases. Very few studies have explored prophylactic methods.

methodsAn ethnoveterinary research project in Eastern Tyrol (Austria) was conducted in 2004 and 2005 to gather information about local knowledge of animal husbandry from 144 informants, with the emphasis on plants that maintain livestock health and welfare.

resultsInformants mentioned a total of 87 plants and 22 plant-based generic terms in the context of maintaining and improving livestock health and welfare. The most important preventive measures for maintaining and improving animal health and welfare were practices related to "fodder" and "feeding". In this category the plants mentioned could be grouped according to three different perceptions about their effect on animals: "Good or bad fodder", "Functional fodder" and "Fodder medicine". In addition to fodder, environmental management, the human-animal relationship, household remedies and cultural/religious activities were also mentioned. When asked about practices in the past that maintained animal health and well-being, interviewees mentioned, for example, the importance of the diversity of sources that used to be available to obtain feed and fodder.

conclusionsThe informants' approach that feeding is central to livestock welfare is in line with the standard scientific literature on animal health, including in organic farming. Various scientific studies into common fodder evaluate the nutritive and dietary value, efficiency and safety of fodder. Future studies also have to consider the evaluation of traditional, local fodder resources. In fact, the value of 'food as medicine' for humans in the context of local knowledge has been widely assessed, but the potential health benefits of fodder and nutraceuticals in local and traditional ethnoveterinary methods require further attention.

Indexed as

Animal WelfareFarmersPhytotherapyAnimalsAustriaCrops, AgriculturalFemaleHumansKnowledgeLivestockMaleNutritional SupportVeterinary MedicineAnimal feedAnimal husbandryEthnoveterinary medicineLocal knowledgeOrganic farmingPreventive veterinary medicineTraditional ecological knowledge

Identifiers

PMID27618998
PMCPMC5020533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.