Economics of ethnoveterinary medicine
Evelyn Mathias, October 2001
Up to now, the literature offers little data on the economic impact of
promoting ethnoveterinary medicine. There are some indications that the
use of ethnoveterinary medicine can have economic advantages.
 |
Plant preparations that livestock keepers can prepare themselves from
crude materials will cost them less than buying the same mixture
ready-to-use, but the latter may be much cheaper than equivalent
allopathic alternatives. In Sri Lanka a locally processed herbal
wound-powder was found to be as effective as Negasunt®, but cost 80-90%
less (Anjaria 1996). |
|
Commercial herbal products may not be in all cases the cheaper
alternative. Karanji oil, an Indian treatment for mange that could be
used instead of Butox®, is difficult to get in some parts of Rajasthan,
and when it is available, is more expensive than Butox® (Köhler-Rollefson
2001, pers. com.). |
|
If commercial herbal drugs are exported to other countries, they may
there become nearly as expensive as other imported allopathic drugs (RDP
1994, pers. com.). |
|
Scientific research and farmer experiments in Trinidad and Tobago found
that adding preparations from plants such as aloe and Momordica
charantia to the drinking water can improve the productivity and
profitability of flocks of broilers. Other sources also state that
effective local plant medicines can reduce both household and project
expenditures on commercial drugs (Lans 2001). |
Conclusions: ethnoveterinary medicine can make an economic difference,
but its cost-effectiveness varies, and depends on many different
factors. In-depth studies are needed to determine how the economic
potential of ethnoveterinary medicine can be best utilised. The example
from Trinidad and Tobago highlights that the usefulness is not
restricted to smallholders and resource-poor farmers, but also applies
to intensive production units.
<<Back Next>> |
