Next Article in Journal
Questionnaire-Based Survey Regarding the Rational Usage of Antimicrobial Agents in Food-Producing Animals in Romania
Previous Article in Journal
Late Gestation Maternal Nutrition Has a Stronger Impact on Offspring Liver Transcriptome than Full-Gestation Supplementation in Beef Cattle
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Veterinary Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 5
10.3390/vetsci12050407
vetsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

The Control of Gastrointestinal Parasites of Village Chickens in Africa Using Ethnoveterinary Intervention: A Systematic Review

by
Dikeledi Petunia Malatji
1,*,
Tondani Madeleine Ramantswana
2 and
Maphuti Betty Ledwaba
1
1
Department of Agriculture and Animal Health, College of Agriculture and Environmental Science, University of South Africa, Roodepoort 1709, South Africa
2
Agricultural Research Council, Biotechnology Platform, Onderstepoort, Pretoria 0110, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Vet. Sci. 2025, 12(5), 407; https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12050407 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 17 March 2025 / Revised: 17 April 2025 / Accepted: 23 April 2025 / Published: 26 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Veterinary Internal Medicine)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Simple Summary

In African rural communities, village chickens are essential for livelihood support, poverty alleviation, and food security. They are exposed to gastrointestinal parasites as a result of traditional farming methods. This review sought to document and analyze the indigenous veterinary interventions used by smallholder farmers in Africa to manage gastrointestinal parasite infections in village chickens. This review reveals that ethnoveterinary remedies such as Aloe spp., Carica papaya, Musa paradisiaca, and Venonia amygdalina are a common approach for small-scale farmers to manage gastrointestinal parasites. Leaves (48.8%) are the most widely used plant part among farmers, followed by bark and roots, tubers, and seeds and the preferred method of administrating these remedies is orally. Despite their widespread use, there is a lack of research on the effectiveness of these remedies in Africa, highlighting the need for further studies.

Abstract

Gastrointestinal parasites have been reported to have negative effects on chickens reared in rural areas in African countries. Hence, smallholder farmers use ethnoveterinary remedies to control these parasites in village chickens. This study used online databases (ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Google Scholar) to search, gather, and review articles published between January 1990 and June 2024 where ethnoveterinary intervention was considered to control gastrointestinal parasites, following PRISMA guidelines. A total of 540 articles were generated, and only 17 articles passed the screening process and were considered for further analysis. The findings of this review indicate that ethnoveterinary remedies are used by smallholder farmers to control gastrointestinal parasites such as Ascaridia galli, Capillaria spp., Choanotaenia infundibulum, Eimeria spp., Heterakis gallinarum, and Raillietina cesticillus in village chickens. Aloe spp., Carica papaya, Musa paradisiaca, and Venonia amygdalina were reported as the most-preferred medicines, and farmers utilized different plant parts ranging from leaves (48.8%), bark and roots (12.2%), tubers (7.3%), and seeds (4.9%). These remedies are administered per os, topically, and dermally. The current review successfully summarized ethnoveterinary intervention used by smallholder farmers to control gastrointestinal parasites in chickens found in African countries. Therefore, there is a need to investigate the efficacy of these identified ethnoveterinary medicines against gastrointestinal parasites in chickens.

1. Introduction

Village chickens play a vital role in the livelihood of farmers and their dependents in rural households and landless communities across African countries through poverty alleviation and food security [1,2,3]. However, these chickens are exposed to gastrointestinal parasites due to the nature of production systems practiced in these communities. These parasites result in high mortality rates due to contaminated water sources, feeds, and waste systems in the environment, which exposes chickens to intermediate hosts such as ants, earthworms, grasshoppers, and beetles that assist in spreading parasites [4]. These organisms can withstand harsh environmental conditions and furthermore serve as food for village chickens, making transmission of the infective stage of the parasite to chickens highly possible.
The control of these parasites is compromised by the absence of biosecurity measures and the limited resources for chicken management to avoid the transmission of parasites among individual chickens. However, there are several approaches that are being used to control gastrointestinal parasites, with anthelmintic chemicals being one of them. This control method is relatively costly, and the majority of smallholder farmers are not able to expend their meager income to buy them [5]. Furthermore, it is characterized by a widespread occurrence of drug resistance [6] and residual products that contaminate animal products. As a result, smallholder farmers resort to using ethnoveterinary remedies to control these parasites in village chickens [7,8,9]).
A study by Bizimana [10] reported that only a fraction of the information on ethnoveterinary medicines has been uncovered and documented because some farmers regard it as a family secret, while others view it as old-fashioned. However, different types of medicinal remedies have been reported to be used by smallholder farmers to control gastrointestinal parasites in livestock [7,8,9]. Furthermore, they use different forms of plants such as trees, herbs, and shrubs, and the plant parts that are used include seeds, roots, barks, flowers, bulbs, fibers, peels, stems, latex, and leaves [11].
However, these medicines are characterized by a lack of standardization of raw materials, non-existence of criteria for quality control, no standardized processing methods and dosage formulation, and their efficacy is not well known [12]. The main aim of this review was to explore the ethnoveterinary interventions practiced by smallholder farmers against gastrointestinal parasites in village chickens in Africa. Furthermore, this review highlights the plant parts and route used by stallholder farmers in Africa to administer ethnoveterinary remedies.

2. Materials and Methods

This review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A concept note was generated prior to the start of the review and served as the protocol throughout the process.

2.1. Literature Search Strategy

A total of three databases were used to conduct a systematic search of literature targeting articles published from January 1990 to June 2024. D.P.M., B.M.L., and T.M.R. searched the Science Direct, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases, respectively, using these keywords: “ethnoveterinary intervention”, “indigenous chickens”, “gastrointestinal parasites”, “Africa”, and “control measures”, following PRISMA guidelines [13]. During the publication search, keywords were used individually and the Boolean operators “NOT”, “AND”, and “OR” were used to combine keywords.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

All of the articles used in this study were screened and considered eligible if they met these criteria: (i) the study needed to be conducted in Africa, (ii) the articles were original research published between January 1990 and June 2024, (iii) gastrointestinal parasites of indigenous chickens were investigated, and (iv) the work reported on ethnoveterinary interventions used to control gastrointestinal parasites in chickens. Experimental studies, case studies, reviews, books, theses, and articles not written in English; that did not report on gastrointestinal parasites in indigenous chickens; that did not contribute towards answering the research questions; and that were published outside the 1990–2024 year limitation were excluded.

3. Results

3.1. Database Search Outcome

The search and pre-screening within the databases generated a total of 536 (Google Scholar = 211, PubMed = 185, and Science Direct = 140) articles (Figure 1). A total of 24 duplicate and 22 review articles were excluded before screening the titles and abstracts, which resulted in the exclusion of 436 additional articles that were not relevant for review. The full text of the remaining records (n = 58) was downloaded and screened for eligibility; hence, 41 articles were excluded and only 17 were deemed eligible for inclusion and further consideration in this review.

3.2. Data Extracted from the Included Studies

The included studies were from eight African countries, with most of them conducted in Ethiopia (n = 5), South Africa (n = 3), and Zimbabwe (n = 3). Moreover, two articles were conducted in Botswana, while only one article per country was included from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya Tanzania, and Zambia (Table 1). The studies employed various research instruments, which included structured questionnaires (SQ), semi-structured questionnaires (SSQ), and focus group discussions (FGD), and most studies used one method to collect the data. However, studies conducted by Muchadeyi et al. [14] and Matekaire and Bwakura [15] used a combination of SQ and FGD, while Tomeka et al. [16] used SQ and SSQ together. In the case of parasites, most studies indicated endo/internal parasites, gastrointestinal parasitic infections, or worms, while other studies specified parasite names, which included Ascaridia galli, Capillaria spp., Choanotaenia infundibulum, Eimeria spp., Heterakis gallinarum, and Raillietina cesticillus. These parasites were shown to be controlled through several ethnoveterinary interventions (Table 1), and various plant parts such as bark, bulbs, fruit, leaves, roots, seeds, stems, tubers, and/or whole plants were used and administered —either orally or topically. Bark, leaves, and roots were the most-used plant parts, while stems and whole plants were the least recorded.

3.3. Gastrointestinal Parasite Control Methods

A total of 43 ethnoveterinary medicines were reported among the included articles (Figure 2). Aloe spp., Musa paradisiaca, Carica papaya, Aloe ferox Mill, and Venonia amygdalina from the botanical families of Asphodelaceae, Musaceae, Caricaceae, Asphodelaceae, and Asteracea, respectively, were the most medicines/plants associated with the control of chicken gastrointestinal parasite. A total of 9.5% of medicines were recorded in two studies, while the majority of ethnoveterinary medicines (78.5%) were reported in a single study each.

3.4. Plant Parts Utilized to Control Gastrointestinal Parasites in Village Chickens

The reviewed articles showed that the majority of smallholder farmers predominantly used leaves (47.62%, 20/42), followed by bark and roots at 11.9% (5/42) each, tubers (7.1%, 3/42), and seeds and whole plants at 4.76% (2/42) each as traditional remedies (Figure 3). Remedies involving the whole plant (e.g, leaves, roots, stems, flowers, roots, and seeds); mixtures of leaves, fruit, and seeds; or combinations of leaves, roots, stems; and/or those where plant parts were not specified (NS) were less used, reflecting a lower preference or availability among smallholder farmers in Ethiopia.
The current review indicates that smallholder farmers across various African regions use different methods for administering ethnoveterinary remedies to control gastrointestinal parasites in village chickens. A substantial number of farmers from the reviewed studies prefer oral administration, which accounts for 70.6%. This was followed by topical applications to the skin or mucous membranes (11.8%) and routes that were not specified (11.8%). The simultaneous use of both oral and dermal methods was also reported but is the least preferred approach overall.

4. Discussion

Village chickens play a vital role in the livelihood of smallholder and backyard farmers, as well as in the broader community across African countries [25,28,29], as they provide animal protein, generate income, and fulfil various socio-cultural roles [25,28]. However, these chickens can become infected by gastrointestinal parasites, which severely impact their health and hinder advancements in smallholder poultry production and overall sector performance [29]. Smallholder farmers, especially in rural areas, often face challenges accessing veterinary services due to their limited availability and high cost [30]. Conventional Western drugs often fall short in managing these parasites, leading to farmers frequently relying on ethnoveterinary medicine [25]. The constant use of these synthetic remedies can be toxic to chickens [31] and/or cause resistance in the infecting strains [32]. Moreover, products from continuously treated chicken can have harmful implications on human health too [33]. Hence, Jamil et al. [30] indicated that there should be an increase in awareness of the beneficial antiparasitic capabilities of ethnoveterinary medicines.
The current review appraised 17 articles reporting on ethnoveterinary interventions against gastrointestinal parasites in village chickens in Africa. A lot of work on the use of ethnoveterinary remedies in Africa has previously been conducted; however, most research targeted ectoparasites [34,35,36], diseases in livestock in general [20,37], and human health conditions [38,39]; this is the reason for the limited number of articles included in this review. In addition, the studies that reported gastrointestinal parasites in chickens mostly targeted broilers, not indigenous chickens.
This study showed that a reasonable number of ethnoveterinary plants are used by smallholder farmers to control gastrointestinal parasites in village chickens. This might be due to the fact that most farmers, particularly resource-poor farmers in remote rural areas, have minimal access to veterinary services and medicinal drugs available on the market to control the diseases and parasites they may encounter [30]. The most reported plants include Aloe spp., Musa paradisiaca, Carica papaya, and Vernonia amygdalina. The beneficial uses of Aloe spp. have also been reported previously [40,41] and it has been shown to help in the treatment against multiple health conditions in livestock, including chickens. Aloe spp. is prevalent in the Eastern and Southern countries of Africa as it occurs in dry grassland regions [42]. The need to assess the best dosage for an efficient efficacy of Aloe spp. is necessary as it is evident with the number of reports that it is used to treat a wide range of health conditions.
Carica papaya is a very palatable perennial fruit, and the whole plant parts such as the bark, fruit, leaves, peels, pulp, seeds, and roots are known to have pharmacological uses to treat diseases. In humans, it has been reported to be used for the treatment of high blood pressure, digestive disorders, cancers, intestinal worms, colic, stomach cramps, and/or dyspepsia [43,44]. In animals, specifically chickens, it has been reported to be used for the treatment of Ascaridia galli parasites [45]. It has also been reported to be effective at promoting growth in chickens and for the control of coccidiosis [46] and internal parasites in general [18,19]. Previous studies [21,47] have also shown that Vernonia amygdalina is effective at treating these health conditions in chhicken. Other plants such as Musa paradisiaca [48] and Aloe spp. [17] have also been shown to be effective against Eimeria spp., which is responsible for coccidiosis.
The reviews also showed that the smallholder farmers preferred using plants and herbs because of their bioactive compounds, which include antioxidant, antimicrobial, antiparasitic, anti-diabetic, and anticancer effects, among others [30,49]. These properties are beneficial for maintaining health and generally have minimal adverse effects [30]. Plant preparations often included extracts from various parts of the plant, such as fruit, seeds, leaves, bark, stems, and roots [30]. Other studies [50,51] showed that farmers in different regions of Ethiopia indicated an overall of 45.8% preference for the use of leaves when preparing plant remedies; hence, this review also showed that leaves are the most commonly used plant parts for preparing remedies for chicken diseases (48.8%). Nguessan et al. [52] also indicated that the leaves of Annona senegalensis appeared to be more effective in the control of Strongyles and presumably Coccidia species in small ruminants, as compared with other parts of this plant. In addition, studies reviewed by Jamil et al. [30] indicated that onion, garlic, and mint are commonly used to treat parasitic gastrointestinal infections in animals and birds. Additionally, Suntebo [53] recorded that farmers in the Gamo Zone, Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples Region of Ethiopia commonly use ingredients such as ash, salt, garlic, lemon, butter, oil (fat), ginger, local plants, pepper, antibiotics like tetracycline, and Aloe Vera juice for treating diseases. These ingredients are mixed with water and administered to sick chickens [53].
This study shows that a high proportion (70.6%) of smallholder farmers prefer oral administration of remedies. The studies by Lulekal et al. [54] and Wodegebriel et al. [50] also corroborate that most medicinal plants are administered orally (82.6%). This is not surprising as some smallholder farmers do not have experience administering medicine via intravenous, intramuscular, and subcutaneous routes; hence, their preferred route is oral administration. Moreover, the oral route is preferred because of its ease of administration and many chickens can be medicated at the same time [55]. The route of administration is known to control the rate and extent of absorption of medicine; therefore, it is advisable to use the correct administration to avoid suboptimal medicinal effects [56]. It has previously been indicated that the effectiveness of ethnoveterinary plant extracts in the control of gastrointestinal parasites is mainly influenced by aspects such as the infecting parasite and its life stage, the part of the plant that was used, the route of administration, and the extract dose provided [57].
Previous studies have indicated that the increased awareness and the desire to use plant remedies resulted from drug resistance incidents occurring when using the synthetic drugs [58], as well as the accessibility and low toxicity of these ethnoveterinary plants [59]. Even though Al-Fifi [60] showed a lower survival rate for indigenous chickens with coccidiosis treated with leaf extracts of Azadiratcha indica, Carica papaya, and Vernonia amigdalina compared with those treated with coccidiostatic, the survival rate was still significantly higher than that of the control group.
The articles reviewed in this study had notable limitations. Specifically, some did not report the specific parasite species they targeted, the particular plant parts used, or the route of administration, which are crucial details for understanding ethnoveterinary interventions to treat parasites in chickens. This lack of information highlights the need for more detailed and rigorous study in this research focus area. While East Africa is known for its rich diversity of medicinal plants with antiparasitic properties, the majority of articles used in this study were from Southern Africa. This regional focus can provide valuable insights into the specific plant species and traditional practices used in that area to treat internal parasites. Studies from all African regions could contribute to a better understanding of the use of these plant-based remedies.

5. Conclusions

Gastrointestinal parasites such as Ascaridia galli, Capillaria spp., Choanotaenia infundibulum, Eimeria spp., Heterakis gallinarum, and Raillietina cesticillus are a problem in chickens reared in smallholder farming systems. The findings of this review indicate that smallholder farmers in African countries use ethnoveterinary medicines to control gastrointestinal parasites in indigenous chickens. They prefer using the leaves of plants like Aloe spp., Carica papaya, Musa paradisiaca, and Venonia amygdalina, which they administer orally. There is a dearth of information on the efficacy of these remedies in Africa; thus, there is a need for future studies to investigate and explore the usefulness of these control strategies against gastrointestinal parasites.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.P.M., T.M.R., and M.B.L.; Methodology, D.P.M., T.M.R., and M.B.L.; Software, D.P.M., T.M.R., and M.B.L.; Validation, D.P.M., T.M.R., and M.B.L.; Formal Analysis, D.P.M., T.M.R., and M.B.L.; Investigation, D.P.M., T.M.R., and M.B.L.; Resources, D.P.M., T.M.R., and M.B.L.; Data Curation, D.P.M., T.M.R., and M.B.L.; Writing – Original Draft Preparation, D.P.M., T.M.R., and M.B.L.; Writing – Review & Editing, D.P.M., T.M.R., and M.B.L.; Visualization, D.P.M., T.M.R., and M.B.L.; Supervision, D.P.M., T.M.R., and M.B.L.; Project Administration, D.P.M., T.M.R., and M.B.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research did not receive any funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the conclusions of this research are presented in a table and accompanying figures within this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Mack, S.; Hoffmann, D.; Otte, J. The contribution of poultry to rural development. World’s Poult. Sci. 2005, 61, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dolberg, F. Poultry Production for Livelihood Improvement and Poverty Alleviation; Poultry in the 21st Century; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2007; 26p. [Google Scholar]
  3. Lowder, S.K.; Skoet, J.; Raney, T. The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World Dev. 2016, 87, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Asumang, P.; Akoto Delali, J.; Wiafe, F.; Kamil, Z.; Iddrisu Balali, G.; Afua Dela Gobe, V.; Pinamang, G. Prevalence of gastrointestinal Parasites in local and exotic breeds of chickens in Pankrono–Kumasi, Ghana. J. Parasitol. Res. 2019, 2019, 5746515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Irum, S.; Ahmed, H.; Mukhtar, M.; Mushtaq, M.; Mirza, B.; Donskow-Łysoniewska, K.; Simsek, S. Anthelmintic activity of Artemisia vestita Wall ex DC. and Artemisia maritima L. against Haemonchus contortus from sheep. Vet. Parasitol. 2015, 212, 451–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jackson, F.; Miller, J. Alternative approaches to control—Quo vadit? Vet. Parasitol. 2006, 139, 371–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Gabanakgosi, K.; Moreki, J.C.; Nsoso, S.J.; Tsopito, C. Ethnoveterinary medicine usage in family chickens in the selected four villages of Botswana. J. Vet. Adv. Res. 2012, 2, 586–594. [Google Scholar]
  8. Malatji, D.P.; Tsotetsi, A.M.; Muchadeyi, F.C.; Van Marle-Koster, E. A description of village chicken production systems and prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites: Case studies in Limpopo and KwaZulu-Natal provinces of South Africa. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 2016, 83, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Syakalima, M.; Simuunza, M.; Zulu, V. Chicken diseases and their ethno-botanical treatments among the rural poor in southern Zambia, Africa. Livest. Res. Rural. Dev. 2017, 29. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bizimana, N. Traditional Veterinary Practice in Africa; Schriftreihe der GTZ, No 243; GTZ: Eschborn, Germany, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ali, R.; Rooman, M.; Mussarat, S.; Norin, S.; Ali, S.; Adnan, M.; Khan, S.N. A systematic review on comparative analysis, toxicology, and pharmacology of medicinal plants against Haemonchus contortus. Front. Pharmacol. 2021 12, 644027. [CrossRef]
  12. Sachan, A.K.; Vishnoi, G.; Kumar, R. Need of standardization of herbal medicines in modern era. Int. J. Phytomed. 2016, 8, 300–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Muchadeyi, F.C.; Sibanda, S.; Kusina, N.T.; Kusina, J.F.; Makuza, S.M. Village chicken flock dynamics and the contribution of chickens to household livelihoods in a smallholder farming area in Zimbabwe. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2005, 37, 333–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Matekaire, T.; Bwakura, T.M. Ethnoveterinary medicine: A potential alternative to orthodox animal health delivery in Zimbabwe. Int. J. Appl. Res. Vet. Med. 2004, 2, 269–273. [Google Scholar]
  16. Tomeka, T.O.; Mremi, R.; Machumu, A.K.; Sanya, J.; Kisingo, A.W. Ethnoveterinary plants used by tribal people in the Northern Tanzania. Res. Sq. 2020, posted. [Google Scholar]
  17. Moreki, J.; Poroga, B.; Dikeme, R.; Seabo, D. Ethnoveterinary medicine and health management in poultry in Southern and Western Districts, Botswana. Livest. Res. Rural. Dev. 2022, 107. [Google Scholar]
  18. Embeya, V.O.; Simbi, J.B.L.; Stévigny, C.; Vandenput, S.; Shongo, C.P.; Duez, P. Traditional plant-based remedies to control gastrointestinal disorders in livestock in the regions of Kamina and Kaniama (Katanga province, Democratic Republic of Congo). J. Ethnopharmacol. 2014, 153, 686–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chere, M.A. Major Health Constraints and Ethno-Vet Practices of Small-Scale and Backyard Chicken Production in Some Selected Regions of Ethiopia, in Veterinary Anatomy and Physiology; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hassen, A.; Muche, M.; Muasya, A.M.; Tsegay, B.A. Exploration of traditional plant-based medicines used for livestock ailments in northeastern Ethiopia. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2022, 146, 230–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Abrha, H.K.; Gerima, Y.G.E.W.; Gebreegziabher, S.T.B. Indigenous knowledge of local communities in utilization of ethnoveterinary medicinal plants and their conservation status in dess’a priority forest, North Eastern Escarpment of Ethiopia. Res. Sq. 2020, posted. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tekle, Y. Study on Ethno Veterinary Practices in Amaro Special District Southern Ethiopia. J. Med. Aromat. Plant Sci. 2015, 4, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Beyi, M.W. Ethnobotanical investigation of traditional medicinal plants in Dugda District, Oromia Regio. SM J. Med. Plant Stud. 2018, 2, 1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Muleke, C.I.; Ogali, I.; Amanya, P.; Mungube, E.O.; Bebe, O.B. Household Baseline Survey on Indigenous Chicken Production Characteristics and Constraints in Busia and Machakos Counties of Kenya. J. Sci. Res. Rep. 2022, 28, 49–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mwale, M.; Masika, P.J. Ethno-veterinary control of parasites, management and role of village chickens in rural households of Centane district in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. J. Sci. Res. Rep. 2009, 41, 1685–1693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Ndlovu, W.; Mudimeli, N.R.; Mwale, M.; Ndou, T.M.; Obadire, O.S.; Francis, J. Ethnoveterinary practices for indigenous poultry health management by smallholder farmers. In Herbs and Spices-New Advances; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gumbochuma, G.; Hamandishe, V.R.; Nyahangare, E.T.; Imbayarwo-Chikosi, V.E.; Ncube, S. Ethno veterinary practices for poultry and cattle in Zimbabwe: A case study of Takavarasha village. Sci. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 2, 355–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Desta, T.T. Indigenous village chicken production: A tool for poverty alleviation, the empowerment of women, and rural development. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2021, 53, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ouma, E.A.; Kankya, C.; Dione, M.; Kelly, T.; Enahoro, D.; Chiwanga, G.; Abukari, Y.; Msoffe, P.; Kayang, B.B.; Zhou, H. Poultry health constraints in smallholder village poultry systems in Northern Ghana and Central Tanzania. Front. Vet. Sci. 2023, 10, 1159331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jamil, M.; Aleem, M.T.; Shaukat, A.; Khan, A.; Mohsin, M.; Rehman, T.U.; Abbas, R.Z.; Saleemi, M.K.; Khatoon, A.; Babar, W.; et al. Medicinal plants as an alternative to control poultry parasitic diseases. Life 2022, 12, 449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sundar, S.B.; Harikrishnan, T.J.; Latha, B.R.; Sarath, G.; Kumar, C.T.S. 2017. Anticoccidial drug resistance in chicken coccidiosis and promising solutions: A review. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2007, 5, 1526–1529. [Google Scholar]
  32. Rahman, S.; Mohsin, M. The under-reported issue of antibiotic-resistance in food producing animals. Pak. Vet. J. 2019, 39, 323–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mund, M.D.; Khan, U.H.; Tahir, U.; Mustafa, B.E.; Fayyaz, A. Antimicrobial drug residues in poultry products and implications on public health: A review. Int. J. Food Prop. 2017, 20, 1433–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Moyo, S.; Masika, P.J.; Moyo, B. A survey of external parasites of free-range chickens and their ethno-veterinary control remedies used by resource-limited farmers in Eastern Cape, South Africa. Sci. J. Vet. Adv. 2015, 4, 13–20. [Google Scholar]
  35. Nyahangare, E.T.; Mvumi, B.M.; Mutibvu, T. Ethnoveterinary plants and practices used for ecto-parasite control in semi-arid smallholder farming areas of Zimbabwe. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2015, 11, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Nchu, F.; Nana, P.; Msalya, G.; Magano, S.R. Ethnoveterinary Practices for Control of Ticks in Africa. In Ethnoveterinary Medicine; McGaw, L., Abdalla, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dassou, G.H.; Ouachinou, J.M.; Adomou, A.C.; Yédomonhan, H.; Tossou, M.; Favi, A.; Djidohokpin, D.; Gbèdolo, E.; Akoègninou, A. Plant and natural product based homemade remedies for veterinary uses by the Peul community in Benin. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2020, 261, 113107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Di Giacomo, C.; Vanella, L.; Sorrenti, V.; Santangelo, R.; Barbagallo, I.; Calabrese, G.; Genovese, C.; Mastrojeni, S.; Ragusa, S.; Acquaviva, R. Effects of Tithonia diversifolia (Hemsl.) A. Gray extract on adipocyte differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0122320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gherbon, A.; Frandes, M.; Timar, R.; Nicula, M. Beneficial effects of Aloe ferox on lipid profile, blood pressure, and glycemic control in obese persons: A CONSORT-clinical study. Medicine 2021, 100, e28336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Aremu, A.O.; Lawal, I.O. An analysis of the ethnoveterinary medicinal uses of the genus Aloe L. for animal diseases in Africa. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2022, 147, 976–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Daniel, C. Potential Health Benefits of Aloe vera in Livestock: A Review. J. Appl. Vet. Sci. 2024, 9, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bachman, S.P.; Wilkin, P.; Reader, T.; Field, R.; Weber, O.; Nordal, I.; Demissew, S. Extinction risk and conservation gaps for Aloe (Asphodelaceae) in the Horn of Africa. Biodivers. Conserv. 2020, 29, 77–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ambougou, A.V. Apis mellifera and the melliferous plants of Gabon (Doctoral thesis). University of Paris 1991, 6, Paris. [Google Scholar]
  44. Aravind, G.; Debji, B.; Duraivel, S.; Harish, G. Traditional and Medicinal Uses of Carica papaya. J. Med. Plants Stud. 2013, 1, 7–15. [Google Scholar]
  45. Chota, A.; Sikasunge, C.S.; Phiri, A.M.; Musukwa, M.N.; Haazele, F.; Phiri, I.K. A comparative study of the efficacy of piperazine and Carica papaya for the control of helminth parasites in village chickens in Zambia. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2010, 42, 315–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Akhter, M.J.; Aziz, F.B.; Hasan, M.M.; Islam, R.; Parvez, M.M.M.; Sarkar, S.; Meher, M.M. Comparative effect of papaya (Carica papaya) leaves’ extract and Toltrazuril on growth performance, hematological parameter, and protozoal load in Sonali chickens infected by mixed Eimeria spp. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res. 2021, 8, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Eyong, E.E.J.; Endong, I.B.; Goudoungou, W. Evaluation of the coccidiocidal effects of Vernonia amygdalina and Aloe vera aqueous extracts on poultry in Bambili, North West, Cameroon. J. Vet. Med. Anim. Health 2024, 16, 12–25. [Google Scholar]
  48. Anosa, G.N.; Okoro, O.J. Anticoccidial activity of the methanolic extract of Musa paradisiaca root in chickens. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2011, 43, 245–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yusuf, K.; Bedada Woldemichael, H.; Meresa, D. Ethno veterinary approaches on control and treating parasitic diseases. J. Tradit. Complement. Integr. Med. 2024, 1, 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wodegebriel, Y.W.; Abebe, B.F.; Tamir, A. Medicinal plants used by farmers for treatment of major diseases of chicken in South Wollo zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia. Int. J. Adv. Res. Biol. Sci. 2018, 5, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Markos, S. Ethno Veterinary Medicine and Common Diseases of Chicken Producers in Western Zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. J. Agric. Ecol. 2019, 20, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Nguessan, C.B.; Koutouan, F.P.; Wandan, E.N.; Yapi, Y.M.; N’din, N.S.; Iritié, B.M. In vivo evaluation of the anthelmintic properties of aqueous extracts of Annona senegalensis. Pers. (Annonaceae) in Djallonké sheep. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2017, 32, 5111–5119. [Google Scholar]
  53. Suntebo, M.M. Assessment of chicken husbandry practices in selected districts of Gamo zone, Southern Nation Nationality and Peoples Region, Ethiopia. Int. J. Sci. Res. Arch. 2023, 8, 429–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lulekal, E.; Kelbessa, E.; Bekele, T.; Yineger, H. An ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants in Mana Angetu District, southeastern Ethiopia. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2008, 4, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Vermeulen, B.; De Backer, P.; Remon, J.P. Drug administration to poultry. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2002, 54, 795–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Toutain, P.L.; Bousquet-mélou, A. Bioavailability and its assessment. J. Vet. Pharmacol. Ther. 2004, 27, 455–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Degla, L.H.; Kuiseu, J.; Olounlade, P.A.; Attindehou, S.; Hounzangbe-Adote, M.S.; Edorh, P.A.; Lagnika, L. Use of medicinal plants as alternative for the control of intestinal parasitosis: Assessment and perspectives. Agrobiol. Rec. 2022, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Usman, J.G.; Usman, N.G.; Ayi, V.K.; Hannatu, A.M. Anticoccidial Resistance in Poultry: A Review. N. Y. Sci. J. 2011, 4, 102–109. [Google Scholar]
  59. Grandi, G.; Kramer, L.H.; Quarantelli, A.; Righi, F. Influence of Oregano essential oil (OEO) on prevalence and oocyst shedding dynamics of naturally acquired Eimeria spp. infection in replacement dairy heifers. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2016, 16, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Al-Fifi, Z. Effect of leaves extract of Carica papaya, Vernonia amigdalina and Azadiratcha indica on the coccidiosis in freerange chickens. Asian J. Anim. Sci. 2007, 1, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vetsci 12 00407 g001
Figure 1. An outline of the database search and screening processes, following the PRISMA guidelines.
Figure 1. An outline of the database search and screening processes, following the PRISMA guidelines.
Vetsci 12 00407 g001
Vetsci 12 00407 g002
Figure 2. Ethnoveterinary medicines/plants associated with the control of gastrointestinal parasites in chickens, highlighting the most cited plants and their frequency across the reviewed studies, with Carica papaya and Aloe spp. emerging as the most commonly used.
Figure 2. Ethnoveterinary medicines/plants associated with the control of gastrointestinal parasites in chickens, highlighting the most cited plants and their frequency across the reviewed studies, with Carica papaya and Aloe spp. emerging as the most commonly used.
Vetsci 12 00407 g002
Vetsci 12 00407 g003
Figure 3. Proportion of plant parts used for treatment of gastrointestinal parasites in chickens. The figure illustrates the frequency of use of various plant parts, with leaves being the most prevalent, followed by bark, roots, tubers and seeds.
Figure 3. Proportion of plant parts used for treatment of gastrointestinal parasites in chickens. The figure illustrates the frequency of use of various plant parts, with leaves being the most prevalent, followed by bark, roots, tubers and seeds.
Vetsci 12 00407 g003
Table 1. List and characteristics of 17 eligible articles included in the systematic review.
Table 1. List and characteristics of 17 eligible articles included in the systematic review.
CountryData Collection MethodsParasitesControl Method Plant Parts Route of AdministrationReference
BotswanaStructured questionnaireEimeria spp. (Coccidiosis)Aloe spp.
Aloe ferox Mill		LeavesOral[17]
BotswanaStructured questionnaireInternal parasites Salt and vinegarNSOral[7]
CongoSemi-structure interviewGastrointestinal parasitic infectionsBidens pilosa L.
Carica papaya L.
Chenopodium ambrosioides L.
Cucurbita moschata Duchesne exLam.
Euphorbia hirta L.
Senna alata (L.) Roxb
Tephrosia vogelii Hook.f.
Tithonia diversifolia (Hemsl.l.) A. Gray
Vitex thomasii De Wild		Leaves
Leaves
Leaves
Seeds
Whole plants
Roots
Leaves
Leaves
Roots		Oral[18]
EthiopiaStructured questionnaireInternal parasites Carica papayaLeavesf, fruit,
and seeds		Oral[19]
EthiopiaSemi-structured questionnaireInternal parasites Bersama abyssinica Fresen
Vernonia auriculifera Hiern		Leaves
Whole plants		Oral and dermal[20]
EthiopiaSemi-structured questionnaireInternal parasitesAgenia abyssinica (Bruce) J.F. Gmel Capsicum annuum L.
Rumex nepalensis Spreng
Vernonia amygdalina Del
Kalanchoe petitiana A. Rich		NSOral[21]
EthiopiaSemi-structured interviewInternal parasitesRumex abyssinicus Jacq.
Echinops hoehnelii Schweinf
Nicotiana tobacum L. (DB.9)		Tubers
Roots
Leaves		Topical
Topical
Oral		[22]
EthiopiaSemi-structure interviewInternal ParasiteDodoneaan gustifolia L.f. Shrub LeavesOral[23]
KenyaStructured questionnaireWormsAloe ferox
Aloe secundiflora		NSOral[24]
South AfricaStructured questionnaireInternal parasitesAloe ferox Mill
Agave sisalana Perrine ex Engelm,
Centella asiatica,
Xysmalobium undulatum L. R. (Br.)
Gunnera perpensa L.
Millettia grandis (E.Mey.) Skeels 		Leaves
Leaves
Tubers
Tuber
Leaves
Leaves		Oral[25]
South AfricaSemi-structure interviewChoanotaenia infundibulum, Raillietina cesticillusSorghum bicolourNSOral[26]
South AfricaSemi-structure interviewAscaridia galli, Heterakis gallinarum,
Capillaria spp., Choanotaenia infundibulum, Raillietina cesticillus
Eimeria spp. 		Aloe spp.
Allium sativum
Capsicum annuum		NSNS[8]
TanzaniaStructured and semi-structured interviewEndoparasitesTithonia diversifolia (Hemsl.) A. GrayLeavesOral[16]
ZambiaFocus Group discussionsWormsCassia Abbreviata/Singueana
Trema orientalis
Julbernardia globiflora
Terminalia sericea
Brachystegia longifolia		Bark
Bark
Bark
Bark
Bark		Oral[9]
ZimbabweQuestionnaire and Focus group discussionsParasitesAnnona stenophylla
Capsicum frutescene
Carica papaya
Euphobia matabelensis
Lippia javanica		Roots
Leaves
Seeds
Leaves
Leaves/roots/stems		NS[14]
ZimbabweQuestionnaireEimeria spp. (Coccidiosis)Aloe spp. LeavesOral[27]
ZimbabweSurveyWormsAloe spp.
Venonia amygdalina
Musa paradisiaca		Leaves
Leaves
Roots		Oral[15]
NS: Not specified.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Malatji, D.P.; Ramantswana, T.M.; Ledwaba, M.B. The Control of Gastrointestinal Parasites of Village Chickens in Africa Using Ethnoveterinary Intervention: A Systematic Review. Vet. Sci. 2025, 12, 407. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12050407

AMA Style

Malatji DP, Ramantswana TM, Ledwaba MB. The Control of Gastrointestinal Parasites of Village Chickens in Africa Using Ethnoveterinary Intervention: A Systematic Review. Veterinary Sciences. 2025; 12(5):407. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12050407

Chicago/Turabian Style

Malatji, Dikeledi Petunia, Tondani Madeleine Ramantswana, and Maphuti Betty Ledwaba. 2025. "The Control of Gastrointestinal Parasites of Village Chickens in Africa Using Ethnoveterinary Intervention: A Systematic Review" Veterinary Sciences 12, no. 5: 407. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12050407

APA Style

Malatji, D. P., Ramantswana, T. M., & Ledwaba, M. B. (2025). The Control of Gastrointestinal Parasites of Village Chickens in Africa Using Ethnoveterinary Intervention: A Systematic Review. Veterinary Sciences, 12(5), 407. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12050407

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop