An ethnoveterinary study of wild medicinal plants used by the Kyrgyz farmers

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

In their centuries-old nomadic life, since their livestock was the backbone of their lives, the Kyrgyz people used a variety of wild medicinal plants for ethnoveterinary practices. However, the plants used for the treatment of livestock ailments never have been recorded, except rarely in local publications. In this study, we present the HSHR (homemade single species herbal remedy reports), their methods of preparation and application, and the livestock ailments for which these remedies were used.

AIMS

The collect data from the five different high-altitude valleys of the Kyrgyz Republic on common HSHR used for the treatment of the livestock ailments and describe their preparation procedure, administration, and target animal species.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The plant species mentioned for ethnoveterinary use were collected from five different high-altitude valleys (pastures) in the Kyrgyz Republic during 2016 and 2018. Data were gathered with the help of dialog partners (experienced local shepherds, farmers and veterinarians) through semi-structured interviews. In total, 166 dialog partners were interviewed. The special characteristics of HSHR mentioned for ethnoveterinary use and practices were documented. Plant samples and voucher specimens were collected for taxonomic identification, and preserved for future reference.

RESULTS

A total of 2388 HSHR referred to 66 plant species mentioned for ethnoveterinary use belonging to 27 families and 49 genera. According to the data, species of the family Asteraceae were most frequently used HSHRs in the Kyrgyz ethnoveterinary practice (599 HSHR, 25%), followed by Polygonaceae (166 HSHR, 7%), Lamiaceae (141 HSHR, 6%), Ranunculaceae (121 HSHR, 5%), Nitrariaceae (119 HSHR, 4.9%), Apiaceae (113 HSHR, 4.7%), Cupressaceae (111 HSHR, 4.6%), Urticaceae (100 HSHR, 4.2%), Gentianaceae (92 HSHR, 3.8%), Amaranthaceae (87 HSHR, 3.6%). A total of 2785 UR (use reports) were collected for the 2388 HSHR. Infection diseases (572 UR, 20.5%), parasitic diseases (531 UR, 19%), gastrointestinal disorders (523 UR, 18.77%) and wounds (522 UR, 18.74%) were almost evenly reported indications. The largest number use reports (UR) were for cattle (967 UR, 34.7%) and horses (919 UR, 33%), followed by 607 UR (21.8%) for sheep and 292 UR (10.48%) for other domestic animals, including dogs (106 UR, 3.8%), goats (103 UR, 3.69%) and donkeys (83 UR, 2.98%).

CONCLUSION

In this study, we identified the folk ethnoveterinary knowledge of the HSHR used by the Kyrgyz farmers in their daily veterinary practice. All the characterized HSHR are of value to the local animal breeders. This knowledge has previously been limited to local shepherds, farmers and vets. Many of these need scientific confirmation using modern methods of phytochemistry and pharmacology.