Learning from animals? shared plant use between Lua herders and water buffalo in Northern Thailand.

By Nicolas Lainé, Kim Fooyontphanich, Suthee Janyasuthiwong & Phattaravee Prommanut 

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-026-00875-8

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13002-026-00875-8

Background : How do animal feeding behaviors influence the development of local human and animal pharmacopeias? This question is explored through the study of herders’ knowledge of medicinal plants and their care practices for domestic animals, informed by observations of animals. This study aims to highlight the shared medicinal knowledge between the Lua people and water buffalos in Northern Thailand through their overlapping use of natural resources. By examining the intersection of human ethnomedicine and animal self-medication, it investigates local human and veterinary practices, buffalo grazing behavior, and plant selection.

Materials and methods : 18 Lua herders were interviewed at Ban Huay Phan (Nan Province, Thailand). Interviews focused on the buffalo’ diet, health problems, plant items they consume in particular physiological or pathological contexts and the local ethnoveterinary treatments provided to them. For each plant mentioned, the part of the plant consumed and mode of preparation and administration if used by humans were recorded. Species samples were collected and later identified by specialists at the Bangkok Herbarium (BBH).

Results : 59 species were recorded as being consumed by buffalos and being part of animal diet throughout the year. Samples were collected during forest outings with herders both in the village and in grazing areas. According to interviewed herders, the consumption of certain plants improves the health of the animal even though they could not specifically address which one and/or for which affection. We consulted existing literature and found that many plant species included in the buffalo diet have reported bioactive properties in the scientific literature, which are compatible with herders’ interpretations of some feeding events as health-related, without implying goal-oriented medicinal intent. In addition, 20 of the 59 species included in the Buffalo Plant Database (BPD) are also reported by Lua households as part of their local medicinal repertoire. Similarly all the plants uses by the Lua as ethnoveterinary preparation are part of the BPD.

Conclusion : Herders’ use and evaluation of certain plants are sometimes framed in relation to their observations of buffalo feeding sequences, particularly in a context of relocation and exposure to unfamiliar lowland resources. These convergences do not demonstrate intentional self-medication by buffalo nor a linear transfer of knowledge from animals to humans. Rather, they suggest that sustained interspecies cohabitation and attention to animal behavior can contribute to how practices in both household ethnomedicine and ethnoveterinary care are interpreted, tested, and adjusted in changing environmental settings. Further research combining ethnography, veterinary science, and phytochemical analysis could clarify these dynamics and inform conservation and sustainable farming.