背景:尽管人们普遍厌恶粪便和尿液,几个世纪以来,许多国家都在传统医学中使用动物排泄物,但是记录是分散的,很少有治疗用途得到准确的记录,而在目前出现的人畜共患病的背景下,这样的记录可能是主要的兴趣。
方法:在本研究中,我们调查了Xayaboury省mahouts的治疗用途,老挝PDR用大象的尿液和粪便以及甲虫(Heliocoprisdominus)从大象粪便中制成的育儿室。半结构化访谈是对大象饮食的mahouts进行的,健康问题和对疾病的反应,以及他们是否使用大象产品。通过与传统治疗师的访谈补充了数据。
结果:7名受访者报告说,在大象的民族兽医学护理中以及在糖尿病和中耳炎的情况下,使用大象尿液。25名受访者报告了大象粪便(EF)和大象粪甲虫育巢的治疗用途。主要适应症是胃肠道和皮肤问题。浸膏或汤剂可以饮用或在外部用作乳液。Mahouts将EF的治疗效果归因于其内容,其中包括大象饮食中许多物种的遗骸,他们认为这是药用的。
结论:这些用途的适应症与药理学和临床研究一致,这些研究强调了不同动物尿液和粪便的特性及其在体内测试的治疗潜力。大象粪便大丸剂的药用特性与动物治疗研究中记录的动物材料使用的罕见理由形成鲜明对比,它属于符号域。然而,许多研究强调了微生物群在生理过程中的重要作用,提出了EF的治疗作用的假设,通过重新平衡用户的微生物群。
结论:EF制剂的治疗用途尽管具有可能的治疗特性,但仍是人畜共患从大象传播到人类的潜在来源。在当前贸易全球化的背景下,这有利于人畜共患病的出现,并且与“一个健康”问题有关,进一步记录动物治疗方法以预防新出现的疾病变得至关重要。随着大象和当地相关的种族行为学知识受到威胁,记录它们是迫切需要为它们的保存做出贡献。
BACKGROUND: Despite a widespread aversion towards faeces and urine, animal excreta are used in traditional medicine in many countries since centuries, but records are scattered and few therapeutic uses have been accurately documented while in the current context of emerging zoonoses such records may be of major interest.
METHODS: In this study, we investigated the therapeutic uses that mahouts in Xayaboury province, Lao PDR make of elephant urine and faeces as well as of the brood chamber that beetles (Heliocopris dominus) fashion from elephant dung. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with mahouts on elephant diet, health problems and responses to disease, andwhether they use elephant products. Data were supplemented by interviews with traditional healers.
RESULTS: Seven respondents reported the use of elephant urine in ethnoveterinary care for elephants and in human medicine in
case of diabetes and otitis. 25 respondents reported therapeutic use of elephant faeces (EF) and elephant dung beetle brood chambers. The major indications are gastrointestinal and skin problems. Macerations or decoctions are drunk or used externally as a lotion. The mahouts attribute the therapeutic effectiveness of EFs to their content which includes the remains of many species from the elephant diet which they consider to be medicinal.
CONCLUSIONS: The indications of these uses are consistent with pharmacological and clinical studies highlighting the properties of different animals\' urine and faeces and their curative potential tested in vivo. The acknowledgement by the mahouts of medicinal properties of elephant faecal bolus contrasts with the rare justifications of animal material use recorded in zootherapeutic studies, which falls within the symbolic domain. However, numerous studies highlight the preponderant role of the microbiota in physiological processes, raising the hypothesis of a curative action of EF, by rebalancing the user\'s microbiota.
CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic uses of EF preparations despite their possible curative properties are a potential source of zoonotic transmission from elephants to humans. In the current context of globalisation of trade which favours the emergence of zoonoses and in relation with the issue of One Health, it becomes crucial to further document the zootherapeutic practices to prevent emerging diseases. As elephants and local related ethnoethological knowledge are threatened, documenting them is urgent to contribute to their preservation.