AAVS_14_2_396-405

Introduction

In tropical Africa, particularly within rural communities, the use of ethnobotanical resources for healthcare is a practice that is deeply entrenched in tradition. In Benin, in extensive pastoral areas, rural livestock farmers employ this practice as a preventive and curative measure for gastrointestinal parasitic diseases, representing an alternative to the numerous conventional treatments that are often financially inaccessible and sporadically unavailable in rural areas. The risk of parasites is known to exacerbate in intensive system of livestock farming where animal density is continuously high than other livestock system. In this case, helminthiasis manifests clinically with the symptoms that affects health in cattle; while in poultry, coccidiosis is the most significant parasitic disease worldwide (Montout, 2023; Raynaud et al., 1974). In northern Benin, this situation poses a significant challenge to animal health and has a direct impact on livestock productivity, food security, and, almost crucially, the livelihoods of livestock farmers (Magassouba et al., 2007). Furthermore, there is documented evidence that certain botanical resources possess anthelmintic properties. However, this knowledge is being lost over generations. Within the spectrum of diverse ethnic groups, the domain of veterinary ethnomedicine applied to cattle is recognised as a particular expertise of the Fulani community (Bâ, 1994; Mathias-Mundy and McCorkle, 1989; Tamboura et al., 1998).

In Benin, the superiority of the Fulani ethnic group in terms of botanical knowledge in traditional veterinary medicine applied mainly to cattle has been confirmed in comparison to other ethnic groups, including the Adja, Bariba, Dendi, Fon, Ottamari, Yoa-Lokpa and Yoruba (Dassou et al., 2015). According to this study, the Fulani community has a wealth of knowledge about the medicinal properties of plants, including their applications and the diseases they can treat. Consequently, the Fulani people are regarded as the primary sources of knowledge for traditional veterinary ethnopharmacology.

The objective of the present study was to acquire documentation of alternative practices to modern medicine for the management of cattle and chicken digestive parasitic diseases among disadvantaged populations so that the preservation of indigenous knowledge was ensured. The study, conducted in the departments of Borgou and Alibori (located in northern Benin), was undertaken in three distinct phases. The initial phase of the study entailed the mapping of medicinal ethnobotanical resources within the designated study areas. The subsequent phase involved the execution of focused group discussions, while the final phase encompassed the administration of individual surveys. A rigorous and multifaceted methodology was used to gather valuable information on traditional practices for managing parasitic diseases, while contributing to the documentation and preservation of ancestral knowledge.

Materials and Methods

Study environment

This study was conducted in two departments of Benin, mainly in the municipalities of Tchaourou, Parakou, and N’dali (Borgou county) and in the municipality of Gogounou (Alibori county). The study municipalities are situated within two distinct agroecological zones, corresponding to the cotton-producing areas of northern and central Benin (Figure 1). The climate in this region is tropical, with a pronounced dry season extending from November to May and a rainy season occurring between June and September.

Materials

A tablecloth was used to represent the surface of the study area, and sculpted pieces were employed to illustrate the main environmental components. A digital camera was used for photographic documentation, and newspaper sheets were utilized for the preparation of herbarium specimens of the inventoried plants.

Methodology

Study design

The study was carried out in five sequential phases: (i) construction of interactive models, (ii) focus group discussions, (iii) ethnobotanical surveys, (iv) taxonomic identification, and (v) participatory prioritization of ethnobotanical resources.

Interactive model

Interactive models were developed for each study site following the guidelines of Larzilière et al. (2013). A total of 120 stakeholders (60 per municipality; 30 per village) participated, including livestock and agro-livestock farmers. Participant recruitment was conducted in collaboration with the National Association of Professional Ruminant Breeders’ Organizations (ANOPER) and the Territorial Agency for Agricultural Development (ATDA). The activity was conducted from 14 to 18 October 2024.

Focus group discussions

Focus group discussions were organized from 9 to 18 December 2024, applying ethnobiological data collection techniques as described by (Albuquerque et al., 2014). These discussions were designed to document local knowledge and practices regarding the use of plants in the management of digestive parasitic diseases.

Ethnobotanical survey

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with all targeted participants between 6 and 10 April 2025 in order to collect information on respondents’ profiles, their knowledge of digestive parasites in cattle and poultry, and ethnobotanical recipes used for parasite control. Prior to each interview, the objectives of the study as well as the exclusively scientific use of the data collected were clearly explained to the participants, and their free and informed consent was obtained. Participation in the study was voluntary. A non-random snowball sampling strategy (Houéhanou et al., 2016) was applied. With the assistance of ANOPER (National Association of Professional Organizations of Ruminant Breeders) and ATDA (Territorial Agency for Agricultural Development), an initial key informant was identified, after which referrals were used until no new participants could be identified.

Taxonomic identification

Plant species cited during the ethnobotanical survey were validated through field visits with local guides and experienced farmers (Albuquerque et al., 2014). Specimens were collected, preserved, and deposited at the National Herbarium of Benin, where taxonomic authentication was performed using the Analytical Flora of Benin (Akoègninou et al., 2006).

Participatory prioritization

Frequently cited plants and those with reported anthelmintic activity were subjected to participatory prioritization by community members from 1 to 6 June 2025. Evaluations were conducted by the scoring method in groups at the village level, considering two criteria: (i) availability (based on seasonal accessibility) and (ii) perceived effectiveness. Scores were compiled for each plant, and rankings were established accordingly.

Data analysis

Data from individual surveys and group discussions were entered, organized, and analyzed using Microsoft Excel software. The analysis relied exclusively on descriptive statistics. Respondents sociodemographic characteristics were summarized using frequencies and percentages. Similarly, clinical signs associated with gastrointestinal parasitic infections in cattle and poultry, as perceived by farmers, were described in terms of citation frequency.

Plant species used in the traditional treatment of gastrointestinal parasitic infections were analyzed using ethnobotanical indices, namely the relative frequency of citation (Fr) and use value (VUe), in order to identify the plants most commonly used by local communities.

Fr = n/N *100

Where; n= number of informants who cited the species and N total number of informants interviewed; N= total number of informants interviewed.

Vue=∑Ui /N

Where; Ui = number of ethnoveterinary uses of the species mentioned by informant ∑Ui = total number of uses cited for the species; N = total number of informants.

Plant use according to animal species (cattle and poultry), the plant parts employed (bark, leaves, roots, and other organs), and the methods of remedy preparation were examined descriptively.

Results

Interactive model

The interactive community models showed that botanical resources were randomly distributed across village territories, including forests, fields, and settlements (Figure 2). However, surveys of local communities highlighted a marked decline in the availability of plant species traditionally used in the management of gastrointestinal parasitic diseases. While these resources were previously abundant and readily accessible, they are now reported as increasingly scarce, raising concerns about their long-term sustainability and potential risk of extinction.

Discussion with farmers on traditional methods of controlling digestive parasites

Group interviews with livestock farmers on gastrointestinal parasite infestations and ethnoveterinary practices revealed substantial community knowledge regarding the diagnosis of digestive parasitic diseases and the plants used for their treatment. These discussions led to the identification of 144 participants for individual interviews. Analysis of sociodemographic characteristics of respondents showed that most participants (88%) had only basic literacy, while 12% had received formal education and just 1% had attended university. The sample was ethnically homogeneous, composed exclusively of Fulani community. Livestock farming was predominantly mixed (cattle and poultry), and the majority of respondents (90%) were adults over 30 years of age (Table 1).

Recognition of gastrointestinal parasites in cattle and poultry

Farmers reported a wide range of external clinical signs they considered associated with gastrointestinal parasite infestations, although perceptions varied among individuals. In cattle, weakness, weight loss, and anemia were consistently identified as the most reliable indicators of infestation, whereas in poultry, diarrhea followed by weakness was most frequently cited (Figure 3).

Table 1: Sociodemographic characteristics of respondents.

Variables	Terms and conditions	Effectif	%
Level of education of actors	Literacy	58	40
	None	69	48
	Primary	12	8
	Secondary	4	3
	University	1	1
Ethnicity	Peulh	100	100
Species raised	Cattle	11	6
	Cattle and Chickens	132	92
	Chickens	1	1
Age groups	15-30	15	10
	30-50	76	53
	50 and over	53	37
Religions	Christianity	39	27
Religions	Islam	105	73

Traditional practices for combating digestive parasitic infections

Several botanical species with presumed anthelmintic properties were identified as part of traditional practices for the control of gastrointestinal parasitic infections (Table 2). These plants constitute an essential component of local ethnoveterinary knowledge and represent potential candidates for further pharmacological validation and sustainable livestock health management.

Use of plants in traditional cattle and chicken care

Results show that farmers possess greater ethnoveterinary knowledge of botanical resources for cattle than for poultry in the management of digestive parasites. In practice, bark is the most frequently used plant part in antiparasitic treatments, followed by leaves and roots, whereas other organs are rarely employed (Figure 4).

Table 2: Medicinal plant species used in ethnoveterinary practices by Fulani herders for cattle and poultry, considered to possess probable anthelmintic activity (including plant parts used and preparation methods).

Familes	Scientific Name	Local name Peulh	FC cattle	FC poultry	Part used	Target animal species	Usage practices	Duration of use
Combretaceae	Anogeissus leiocarpa (DC.) Guill. and Perr.	Abangahi	0	1	Bark	Cattle	Pounded with salt	Frequently
Combretaceae	Anogeissus leiocarpa (DC.) Guill. and Perr.	Abangahi	0	1	Bark	Chicken	Maceration	Frequently
Liliaceae	Allium sativum L.	Ayu	0	3	Fruit/Root	Chicken	Maceration	Frequently
Anacardiaceae	Anacardium occidentale L.	Akajuhi	1	6	Bark	Cattle	Health food	1/day*3
Anacardiaceae	Anacardium occidentale L.	Akajuhi	1	6	Bark	Chicken	Maceration	Frequently
Polygalaceae	Securidaca longepedunculata Fresen.	Alalo	0	2	Root	Chicken	Maceration	Frequently
Fabaceae	Burkea africana Hook.	Aragerahi	1	0	Bark	Cattle	Infusion	1/day*3
Combretaceae	Pteleopsis suberosa Engl. and Diels	Kurukuraawo	4	4	Bark	Chicken	Maceration with potash	Frequently
Rubiaceae	Sarcocephalus latifolius (Sm.) EABruce	Bakurehi	2	0	Root/Leaves	Cattle	Infusion	1/day*2
Fabaceae	Pericopsis laxiflora (Benth. ex Baker) Meeuwen	Balebale	1	0	Root	Cattle	Infusion	1/day*3
Fabaceae	Pterocarpus erinaceus Fougère-Vill.	Banuhi	12	0	Bark	Cattle	Pounded with salt/Infusion	1/day*3
Fabaceae	Piliostigma thonningii (Schumach.) Milne-Redh.	Barakehi	2	2	Leaves	Cattle	Grinding	1/day*7
Fabaceae	Piliostigma thonningii (Schumach.) Milne-Redh.	Barakehi	2	2	Root	Chicken	Maceration	Frequently
Phyllanthaceae	Bridelia ferruginea Benth.	Bembemkuhi	2	0	Bark	Cattle	Maceration	1/day*7
Malvaceaea	Sterculia stipulata var. stipulée	Bokpoli	1	0	Bark	Cattle	Infusion	1/day*3
Lamiaceae	Ocimum gratissimum Forssk.	Bumbunoowa	0	2	Leaves	Chicken	Grinding	Frequently
Rubiaceae	Crossopteryx febrifuga (Afzel. ex G.Don) Benth.	Burdebehi	0	9	Bark	Cattle	Pounded with salt	Frequently
Rutaceae	Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck	Leemuhi	1	2	Leaves	Cattle	Grinding	2/Month
Rutaceae	Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck	Leemuhi	1	2	Fruit	Chicken	Grinding	2/Month
Rubiaceae	Gardénia ternifolia Schumach. and Thonn.	Digaali	1	0	Root	Cattle	Infusion	1/day*3
Bixaceae	Cochlospermum parvifolium Planch.	Jaruuji	1	0	Leaves	Cattle	Maceration	1/day*3
Combretaceae	Terminalia avicennioides Guill. and Perr.	Dooki	3	0	Root/Bark/ Leaves	Cattle	Infusion	Frequently
Annonaceae	Annona senegalensis Pers.	Dukuhi	1	1	Root/ Bark	Cattle	Infusion	1/day*7
Annonaceae	Annona senegalensis Pers.	Dukuhi	1	1	Root/ Bark	Chicken	Maceration	1/day*7
Fabaceae	Albizia glaberrima (Schumach. and Thonn.) Benth.	Esowanuhi	1	0	Leaves	Cattle	Pounded with salt	Frequently
Apocynaceae	Calotropis procera (Aiton) Dryand.	Bambamki	1	0	Root	Cattle	Infusion	1/day*3
Rubiaceae	Sarcocephalus latifolius (Sm.) EABruce	Gararowa	1	0	Root	Cattle	Infusion	2/day
Chrysobalanaceae	Maranthes polyandra (Benth.) Prance	Gorojehi	2	0	Bark	Cattle	Pounded with salt	Frequently
Combretaceae	Guiera senegalensis JFGmel.	Gelokehi	3	0	Leaves	Cattle	Pounded with salt	Frequently
Bignoniaceae	Kigelia africana (Lam.) Benth.	Jillijallahi	7	0	Bark	Cattle	Infusion/Pounded with salt	1/day*3
					Table continued on next page.....................
Familes	Scientific Name	Local name Peulh	FC cattle	FC poultry	Part used	Target animal species	Usage practices	Duration of use
Meliaceae	Khaya senegalensis (Desv.) A. Juss.	Kahi	111	52	Root	Cattle	Maceration	1/ Week *4
Meliaceae	Pseudocedrela kotschyi (Schweinf.)	Harerehi	16	1	Bark	Cattle	Pounded with salt	3/Month
Meliaceae	Pseudocedrela kotschyi (Schweinf.)	Harerehi	16	1	Bark	Chicken	Infusion/Maceration	Frequently
Solanaceae	Datura gigantea Huber	kom	2	0	Seed	Chicken	Maceration	Frequently
Fabaceae	Daniellia oliveri (Rolfe) Clapier. and Dalziel	Kallahi	12	0	Bark	Cattle	Pounded with salt	Frequently
Fabaceae	Daniellia oliveri (Rolfe) Clapier. and Dalziel	Kallahi	12	0	Bark	Chicken	Maceration	Frequently
Sapotaceae	Vitellaria paradoxa CFGaertn	Kaarehi	2	0	Bark	Cattle	Pounded with salt	Frequently
Combretaceae	Anogeissus leiocarpa (DC.) Guill. and Perr.	Kojoli	4	0	Root/Bark	Cattle	Pounded with salt	1/day*7
Combretaceae	Anogeissus leiocarpa (DC.) Guill. and Perr.	Kojoli	4	0	Leaves	Chicken	Maceration/ Infusion	Frequently
Fabacées	Prosopis africana (Guill. and Perr.) Taub.	Kohan	3	0	Bark	Cattle	Pounded with salt/ Infusion	4/Month
Fabaceae	Detarium microcarpum Guill. and Perr.	Konkehi	5	0	Seed	Cattle	Maceration	1/day*3
Fabaceae	Detarium microcarpum Guill. and Perr.	Konkehi	5	0	Seed	Chicken	Maceration	1/day*3
Rubiaceae	Mitragyna inermis (Willd.) Kuntze	Kooli	2	10	Root/Bark/ Leaves	Cattle	Pounded with salt	1/day*3
Rubiaceae	Mitragyna inermis (Willd.) Kuntze	Kooli	2	10	Bark	Chicken	Maceration/ Infusion	Frequently
Anacardiaceae	Mangifera indica L.	Mangohi	6	0	Leaves	Cattle	Grinding	Frequently
Moringaceae	Moringa oleifera Lam.	Moringa	0	1	Bark	Cattle	Pounded with salt/Infusion	3/Month
Mimosaceae	Parkia biglobosa Benth.	Narehi	0	1	Leaves	Chicken	Grinding	Frequently
Meliaceae	Azadirachta indica A.Juss.	Korobuhi	3	6	Bark	Cattle	Maceration	3/Month
Meliaceae	Azadirachta indica A.Juss.	Korobuhi	3	6	Bark	Chicken	Maceration	3/Month
Sapotaceae	Mimusops kummel Bruce ex A.DC.	Nyelbehi	8	0	Leaves	Chicken	Grinding/ Maceration	Frequently
Euphorbiaceae	Sapium grahamii Prain	Pampale	0	1	Bark	Cattle	Infusion	3/ Week
Caricaceae	Carica papaya L.	Karabosi	0	1	Leaves	Chicken	Maceration	Frequently
Fabaceae	Dichrostachys cinerea R.Vig.	Pattulehi	5	0	Leaves	Chicken	Grinding	Frequently
Solanaceae	Capsicum annuum L.	Nyeekuhi	2	5	Root/Bark/ Leaves	Cattle	Pounded with salt/ Infusion	Frequently
Moraceae	Ficus sur Forssk.	Rimata-beccehi	9	0	Leaves/Fruit	Cattle	Grinding	Frequently
Moraceae	Ficus sur Forssk.	Rimata-beccehi	9	0	Leaves/Fruit	Chicken	Maceration	Frequently
Rubiaceae	Crossopteryx febrifuga (Afzel. ex G.Don) Benth.	Rimatajigahi	6	0	Root/Bark/ Seed	Cattle	Pounded with salt	Frequently
Palmeae	Borassus aethiopum Mart.	Bandorahi	1	0	Bark	Cattle	Pounded with salt	Frequently
Opiliaceae	Opilia amentacea Wall.	Sakakokowa	6	0	Bark	Cattle	Pounded with salt	3/Month
Euphorbiaceae	Euphorbe unispina NEBr.	Sesera	0	1	Fruit	Chicken	Maceration	Frequently
Fabaceae	Pericopsis laxiflora (Benth. ex Baker) Meeuwen	Sorokuhi	8	13	Stem/ Bark	Cattle	Maceration	Frequently
Fabaceae	Pericopsis laxiflora (Benth. ex Baker) Meeuwen	Sorokuhi	8	13	Stem/ Bark	Chicken	Maceration	Frequently
Opiliaceae	Opilia amentacea Wall.	Sukasukawri	1	0	Leaves/Bark	Cattle	Pounded with salt	Frequently
Poaceae	Imperata cylindrica (L.) Raeusch.	Soyore	3	0	Leaves	Cattle	Pounded with salt	Frequently
					Table continued on next page.....................
Familes	Scientific Name	Local name Peulh	FC cattle	FC poultry	Part used	Target animal species	Usage practices	Duration of use
Solanaceae	Nicotiana tabacum L.	Taba	2	10	Leaves	Cattle	Grinding	1/day*3
Anacardiaceae	Lannea acida A.Rich.	Cami	1	1	Leaves	Cattle	Maceration	Frequently
Anacardiaceae	Lannea acida A.Rich.	Cami	1	1	Leaves	Chicken	Infusion	Frequently
Annonaceae	Hexalobus monopetalus (A.Rich.) Engl. and Diels	Tibakihi	1	1	Bark	Cattle	Maceration	Frequently
Annonaceae	Hexalobus monopetalus (A.Rich.) Engl. and Diels	Tibakihi	1	1	Bark	Chicken	Maceration	Frequently
Combretaceae	Terminalia laxiflora Engl.	Stemrehi	3	0	Bark	Cattle	Pounded with salt/Infusion	Frequently
Asteraceae	Vernonia amygdalina	Tuwawo	2	2	Leaves	Cattle	Pounded with salt	1/day*3
Myrtaceae	Eucalyptus globulus Labill.	Turare	1	0	Root	Cattle	Infusion	1/day*7
Fabaceae	Afzelia africana Sm.	Warnyahi	5	0	Root/Bark/ Leaves	Cattle	Infusion/ Maceration	1/day*3
Fabaceae	Cajanus cajan (L.) Huth	Otiili	2	2	Leaves	Cattle	Infusion/ Grinding	Frequently
Fabaceae	Cajanus cajan (L.) Huth	Otiili	2	2	Leaves	Chicken	Maceration	Frequently
Combretaceae	Guiera senegalensis JFGmel.	Yoloko	0	1	Leaves	Chicken	Grinding	Frequently
Loranthaceae	Agelanthus dodonaeifolius (DC.) Polhill and Wiens	Soto-karehi	1	0	Bark	Cattle	Infusion	Frequently

NB: FC Cattle: Frequency of citation of the plant for treating cattle; FC Poultry: Frequency of citation of the plant for treating poultry.

Recipe preparation techniques

For cattle, the most common preparation methods are infusion and crushing of plants mixed with salt before administration. In contrast, for poultry, maceration and subsequent grinding predominate (Figure 5).

Evaluation of plants used in cattle and chickens farming

Among the recorded species, the availability and perceived effectiveness of the most frequently cited plants were evaluated based on citation frequency by local stakeholders (Tables 3 and 4). Considering these two criteria, Khaya senegalensis (Desv.) A.Juss, Anogeissus leiocarpa (DC.) Guill. and Perr, and Azadirachta indica A.Juss emerged as the most relevant species for cattle, while Khaya senegalensis, Parkia biglobosa Benth, and Capsicum annuum L. were identified as the most pertinent for poultry, each obtaining a score ≥10/20.

Table 3: Results of the participatory assessment of the availability and perceived effectiveness of plants used to control digestive parasites in cattle by Fulani communities using the scoring method

Plants	Availability of the plant			Perceived effectiveness of the plant			OA
Plants	Tchaourou	Gogounou	Average	Tchaourou	Gogounou	Average	OA
Khaya senegalensis	10.50	11.20	10.85	17.80	18.70	18.25	14.55
Bridelia ferruginea	8.30	1.05	4.68	14.40	3.95	9.18	6.93
Pseudocedrela kotschyi	5.90	3.60	4.75	15.30	17.00	16.15	10.45
Detarium microcarpum	5.90	10.25	8.08	4.40	10.35	7.38	7.73
Azadirachta indica	8.45	11.15	9.80	10.85	12.25	11.55	10.68
Maranthes polyandra	6.30	7.55	6.93	6.55	13.55	10.05	8.49
Crossopteryx febrifuga	8.80	9.50	9.15	8.25	15.85	12.05	10.60
Anogeissus leiocarpa	12.85	10.90	11.88	13.95	9.35	11.65	11.76
Pteleopsis suberosa	3.35	0.00	1.68	5.00	0.00	2.50	2.09
Kigelia africana	4.25	3.05	3.65	14.10	13.70	13.90	8.78
Vitellaria paradoxa	7.85	5.00	6.43	4.60	7.05	5.83	6.13

NB: OA = Overall Average.

Table 4: Results of the participatory assessment of the availability and perceived effectiveness of plants used to control digestive parasites in chickens by Fulani communities using the scoring method

Plants	Availability of the plant			Perceived effectiveness of the plant			OA
Plants	Tchaourou	Gogounou	Average	Tchaourou	Gogounou	Average	OA
Khaya senegalensis	10.50	11.20	10.85	15.40	16.90	16.15	13.50
Euphorbia unispina	3.60	1.95	2.78	12.50	8.00	10.25	6.51
Pterocarpus erinaceus	5.40	5.20	5.30	2.60	10.85	6.73	6.01
Datura officinal	4.40	3.55	3.98	7.40	9.10	8.25	6.11
Nicotiana tabacum	7.90	2.15	5.03	11.90	9.25	10.58	7.80
Detarium microcarpum	5.90	10.25	8.08	4.40	13.50	8.95	8.51
Anacardium occidentale	15.75	9.10	12.43	9.45	8.00	8.73	10.58
Azadirachta indica	8.45	11.15	9.80	11.60	11.20	11.40	10.60
Parkia biglobosa	11.95	13.25	12.60	8.45	15.85	12.15	12.38
Capsicum annuum	8.15	10.05	9.10	12.60	15.15	13.88	11.49
Vitellaria paradoxa	6.25	8.60	7.43	8.65	8.25	8.45	7.94

NB: OA = Overall Average.

Discussion

The surveyed community’s sociodemographic profile mirrors that of traditional livestock farmers in the region, which could affect how ethnoveterinary knowledge is preserved and passed on. Village models revealed not only the availability but also the spatial distribution of medicinal plants used against gastrointestinal parasites. The interactive approach underscored a progressive scarcity of these resources, raising concerns about long-term extinction risks. This trend could be associated with agricultural expansion (cotton, yam), intensive livestock systems in northern Benin, uncontrolled logging, bush fires, and non-timber forest exploitation (Agbahungba et al., 2001). Their scattered distribution and the absence of domestication strategies further hinder conservation, although household gardens remain a promising option (Batcho et al., 2023; Sidi et al., 2017).

In traditional, low-input livestock production systems, empirical knowledge constitutes a key component in the diagnosis and management of parasitic diseases. Farmers consistently associated clinical manifestations such as weakness, weight loss, and anemia with parasitic infestations in cattle, observations that align with pathologies typically attributable to strongylosis and Haemonchus spp. infections. (Ali and Abdelaziz, 2021; Aouicha and Baroudi, 2021). In poultry, diarrhea and weakness were the predominant indicators, reflecting common Eimaria spp. infections (Avi et al., 2023). While non-specific, these observations form the practical basis for treatment decisions or veterinary consultation. These findings also reveal gaps in traditional knowledge for addressing routine challenges from gastrointestinal parasites. They underscore the need to elevate this knowledge on medicinal plants to a new level, necessitating further exploration to build a comprehensive database in Benin.

The ethnoveterinary knowledge base was notably more developed for cattle than for poultry, consistent with the prominent socio-economic role of cattle in Fulani communities (Chabi Toko, 2016). Participatory evaluation confirmed Khaya senegalensis as the most prominent species for both species, reflecting its already established antiparasitic activity (Chiezey et al., 2000; Noudèkè et al., 2017; Okpara et al., 2004). Bark and leaves were the most frequently used plant parts, likely due to their accessibility. Similar reliance on bark, leaves, and roots has been documented in other systems for small ruminants (Dassou et al., 2014; Degla et al., 2021; Garba et al., 2019). These results highlight the urgent need for conservation of the most intensively used medicinal species and, above all, emphasize the importance of scientific validation of the documented ethnoveterinary practices. Based on citation frequency, use consensus, and reported therapeutic indications, the most critical next step is the phytochemical screening of the most cited species, followed in order of priority by targeted in vitro bioassays, particularly anthelmintic and antimicrobial assays, and ultimately by controlled in vivo trials on the relevant animal species, with a view to the gradual and sustainable integration of these resources into veterinary practice.

Conclusion

This study underscores the pivotal role of veterinary phytotherapy in managing diseases affecting cattle and poultry, while also indicating a decline in the availability of several medicinal plant species, including Khaya senegalensis, which is currently subjected to considerable harvesting pressure. Ethnoveterinary knowledge was more developed for cattle, reflecting their socio-economic importance. Urgent actions are needed to conserve these resources, notably through domestication and cultivation, and to validate their pharmacological efficacy for integration into sustainable veterinary practices. In this context, priority domestication and agroforestry programs should focus on highly threatened and frequently cited species such as Khaya senegalensis, Anogeissus leiocarpa, and Parkia biglobosa, in order to ensure their long-term availability while supporting sustainable ethnoveterinary use.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Belgian Academy of Research and Higher Education (ARES) for funding this work.

Novelty Statement

This study is novel in that it documents the ethnoveterinary knowledge of the Fulani community in Benin and introduces an interactive mapping of the study localities, providing a realistic view of the availability and distribution of ethnobotanical resources across different zones. Furthermore, the participatory assessment guides the selection of the most effective and environmentally friendly botanical resources for parasite control.

Author’s Contribution

G-CAA, GCA, and DM participated in the design and planning of the work. G-CAA wrote the first draft of the manuscript. GCA, DM, JAD, HF, PKC, GGA, and SH-A participated in the critical revision of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the submission of this version for publication.

Generative AI and AI-assisted technology statement

The authors confirm that no generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were used in the preparation, writing, or editing of this manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

Agbahungba G, Sokpon N, Gaoué OG (2001). Situation des ressources génétiques forestières du Bénin. Atelier Sous-Régional FAOIPGRIICRAF Sur Conserv. Gest. L’utilisation Durable Mise En Valeur Ressour. Génétiques For. Zone Sahél. Ouagadougou 22-24 Sept 1998 Note Thématique Sur Ressour. Génétiques For. Doc. FGR F 12.

Akoègninou A, Van der Burg WJ, Van der Maesen LJG (2006). Flore Analytique du Bénin. J. Bot., 45: 81–82.

Albuquerque UP, Ramos MA, De Lucena RFP, Alencar NL (2014). Methods and techniques used to collect ethnobiological data. In: Albuquerque, U.P., Cruz Da Cunha, L.V.F., De Lucena, R.F.P., Alves, R.R.N. (Eds.), methods and techniques in ethnobiology and ethnoecology, springer protocols handbooks. Springer New York, New York, NY, pp. 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8636-7_2

Ali S, Abdelaziz AD (2021). États actuels des connaissances sur les strongyloses gastro intestinales chez les ovins (PhD Thesis). École Nationale Supérieure Vétérinaire.

Aouicha H, Baroudi DD (2021). Etude bibliographique sur l’haemonchose chez les ovins: Aspect épidémiologique, clinique, diagnostic et méthodes de lutte (PhD Thesis). École Nationale Supérieure Vétérinaire.

Avi R, Répérant JM, Bussière F, Silvestre A, Le Roux JF, Moreaud D, Gonzalez J (2023). La coccidiose chez les poulets domestiques: Revue sur les stratégies de prévention et de contrôle. INRAE Prod. Anim., 36: 7558. https://doi.org/10.20870/productions-animales.2023.36.4.7558

Bâ AS (1994). L’ethnomedecine veterinaire africaine.

Batcho IA, Ewédjè EEBK, Somanin RM, Ogan PE, Yédomonhan H (2023). Disponibilité des Plantes Aphrodisiaques dans les Jardins de Case et Forêt Classée de l’Ouémé-Boukou au Centre-Bénin.

Chabi Toko R (2016). Place de l’élevage bovin dans l’économie rurale des Peuls du Nord Bénin.

Chiezey NP, Gefu JO, Jagun AG, Abdu PA, Alawa CBI, Magaji SO, Adeyinka IA, Eduvie LO (2000). Evaluation of some Nigerian plants for anthelmintic activity in young cattle. In: Proceedings of an International Workshop on Ethnovet. Pract. Held Between, pp. 14–18.

Dassou GH, Adomou AC, Yédomonhan H, Ogni AC, Tossou GM, Dougnon JT, Akoègninou A (2015). Flore médicinale utilisée dans le traitement des maladies et symptômes animaux au Bénin. J. Anim. Plant Sci., 26: 4036–4057.

Dassou HG, Ogni CA, Yédomonhan H, Adomou AC, Tossou M, Dougnon JT, Akoègninou A (2014). Diversité, usages vétérinaires et vulnérabilité des plantes médicinales au Nord-Bénin. Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci., 8: 189–210. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v8i1.18

Degla LH, Olounlade PA, Lagnika L, Attindehou S, Amoussa AMO, Dansou CC, Konmy BSB, Azando EVB, Hounzangbe-Adote SM (2021). Ethnobotanical survey on medicinal plants traditionally used for treatment of intestinal parasitosis of animals and humans in Northern Benin. J. Med. Plants Res., 5: 466–478.

Garba ARI, Adakal H, Abasse T, Koudouvo K, Karim S, Akourki A, Gbeassor M, Mahamane S (2019). Etudes ethnobotaniques des plantes utilisées dans le traitement des parasitoses digestives des petits ruminants (ovins) dans le Sud-Ouest du Niger. Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci., 13: 1534–1546. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v13i3.26

Houéhanou DT, Assogbadjo AE, Chadare FJ, Zanvo S, Sinsin B (2016). Approches méthodologiques synthétisées des études d’ethnobotanique quantitative en milieu tropical. Ann. Sci. Agron., 20: 187–205.

Larzilière, A., Vermeulen, C., Dubiez, E., Yamba Yamba, T., Diowo, S., Mumbere, G., 2013. La maquette interactive, un outil novateur de participation. Bois For. Trop. 315.

Magassouba FB, Diallo A, Kouyaté M, Mara F, Mara O, Bangoura O, Camara A, Traoré S, Diallo AK, Zaoro M, Lamah K, Diallo S, Camara G, Traoré S, Kéita A, Camara MK, Barry R, Kéita S, Oularé K, Barry MS, Donzo M, Camara K, Toté K, Berghe DV, Totté J, Pieters L, Vlietinck AJ, Baldé AM (2007). Ethnobotanical survey and antibacterial activity of some plants used in Guinean traditional medicine. J. Ethnopharmacol., 114: 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2007.07.009

Mathias-Mundy E, McCorkle CM (1989). Ethnoveterinary medicine: An annotated bibliography. bibliographies in technology and social change. Technol. Soc. Change Programme.

Montout LA (2023). Etude de l’impact de la qualité de la complémentation protéique sur la réponse des caprins aux infestations par les nématodes gastro-intestinaux (phdthesis). Université des antilles (UA)- Site de Guadeloupe, FRA.

Noudèkè ND, Dotché I, Ahounou GS, Karim IYA, Farougou S (2017). Inventory of medicinal plants used in the treatment of diseases that limit milk production of cow in Benin. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res., 4: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5455/javar.2017.d183

Okpara JO, Anagor PO, Okpalia EJ, Abdullahi A, Ahmed MS (2004). The anthelmintic efficacy of medicinal herb extracts against gastrointestinal helminths of sheep. In: Rapport de La 9th Annual Conference of Animal Science Association of Nigeria (ASAN). pp. 13–16.

Raynaud JP, Laudren G, Jolivet G, William G, Brunault G, Leroy JC (1974). Interprétation épidémiologique des nématodoses gastro-intestinales bovines évoluant au pâturage sur animaux” traceurs”, In: Annales de Recherches Vétérinaires. pp. 115–145.

Sidi IYMS, Olounlade PA, Yaoitcha A, Dedehou VFGN, Alowanou GG, Azando EVB, Hounzangbe-Adote MS (2017). Principales espèces médicinales utilisées en médecine vétérinaire au Bénin: disponibilité et caractéristiques dendrométriques. Bull. Anim. Hlth. Prod. Afr., 65: 209–220.

Tamboura H, Kaboré H, Yaméogo SM (1998). Ethnomédecine vétérinaire et pharmacopée traditionnelle dans le plateau central du Burkina Faso: cas de la province du Passoré. BASE.