Information on ethnoveterinary knowledge is not widely documented despite the increased use of these alternative medicines in the control of chicken diseases (Amoia et al. 2021). Ethnoveterinary knowledge is passed to generations through verbal communications which are rarely converted into durable records (Yineger et al. 2007). Ethnoveterinary medicines have been attempted on various types of chicken diseases (Aremu & Lawal 2022). Ethnoveterinary medicine (EVM) are alternative to expensive or inaccessible extension services and synthetic drugs. Ethnoveterinary knowledge in Soroti, Teso sub-region has not been scientifically evaluated despite the claimed advantages of being cheap, organic, acceptable and sustainable (Byaruhanga et al. 2015). Every homestead in rural and peri-urban Soroti owns chicken. The dual-purpose indigenous chickens are kept on free range (Mwesigwa et al. 2015). This predisposes them to parasites and infectious conditions (Byaruhanga et al. 2017). These parasitic and infectious conditions lack effective control measures in the communities (Byaruhanga et al. 2017). This is even more challenging as some farmers transform from subsistence to commercial poultry farming (MAAIF 2019).

Knowledge of EVM is shared from ancestors through informal sharing and storytelling (Yineger et al. 2007). Usually, this knowledge is traded by specialised community members called herbalists. Herbalists have usually focused on human diseases, but animal disease herbalists are a recent trend in Uganda, and they are succinctly called chicken herbalists. The knowledge is usually presumptive including claims of many actions of particular plants. The attitudes are affected by the knowledge, beliefs and experiences of the chicken farmers. Although some people demonise the use of plant materials, it is widely used among even elite farmers as just drugs devoid of spiritual attachments. The spiritual attachment to the use of EVM is still practised by traditional users and most herbalists.

The study intended to document the ethnoveterinary knowledge for chicken disease control. The knowledge study model was used to underpin the adherence to the pragmatic and coherence theories of the use of ethnomedicine. The Pragmatic theory points out that the truth of EVM should be tested and based on utility. The theory connects facts to epistemic practices, commitments, assertions and scientific inquiry found out through prudent inquiries. The facts should withstand continuous critical examinations. The theory is an alternative to the coherence theory which is common in the EVM practice (Capps 2019). The Coherence theory points out that the truth is a property of propositions (bearers of truth values) that can be analysed in terms of the nature of truths (Young 2018). Knowledge data are the starting point for claim validation, phytochemical screening and metabolome separations for pharmacognosy of effective fraction candidates (Tlotlo, Mfengwana & Olivier 2022). Although some users have EVM as the only choice for the control of chicken diseases, some users have pragmatically tested the EVM and their choice is based on observed results.

Soroti district was selected because it has a high number of households that keep chicken and it is a commercial centre for local chicken in Uganda. Although related studies have been done in livestock and humans, no explicit study has been done on the use of EVM in chickens. Other users have started even packing and marketing the undocumented and obscure materials (Soroti District Production Department 2021).

This research purposed to consolidate data on EVM in control of chicken diseases and to document the ethnoveterinary knowledge, attitudes and practices in Soroti district, Eastern Uganda.

A cross-sectional design using a modified ethnography approach was followed using mixed methods of focus group discussions (FGDs) and Farmer questionnaires (Seele et al. 2021). Focus group discussions were used to inform the protocol for detailed farmer questionnaires. Mixed methods were chosen for the purposes of triangulating information from different sources and comparing different data sets for consistency. Chicken owners having the highest number of chickens were selected for participation in FGDs and questionnaires. Open-ended guiding tools were used to allow participants to express themselves explicitly. The approach was chosen such that actual themes for analysis are developed. Plant samples were collected with the participants’ consent during the survey. These were collected during and after interactions with participants. The samples were air-dried pending submission for taxonomic identification and giving of voucher numbers.

Four rural sub-counties with the highest number of households with chicken (Arapai, Katine, Gweri and Kamuda) were purposively selected (Soroti District Production Department 2021). Two of the urban sub-counties with the highest number of households with chicken (Northern Division and Western Division) were also purposively selected as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 (Soroti District Production Department 2021).

Sampling frames of lists of chicken farmers were developed from the sub-county production records. Two FGDs were held per sub-county, one in each parish as these were deemed sufficient to attain data saturation. Fifteen chicken owners per sub-county were purposely selected for questionnaires from the parishes that had not participated in FGDs.

Focus group discussions were conducted using guiding tools in the native ‘Ateso’ language. The Farmer questionnaires were also in native ‘Ateso’ and conducted with the help of an interpreter. The respondents consented to the recording of voices, videos and photography. The participants usually walked the research team around, showed the mentioned plants and made illustrations of the preparations. The qualitative data of FGDs were transcribed and translated by two different people proficient in native Ateso and English languages. Themes and codes were developed in QDA miner 6 and WordStat (PROVALIS). Data were retrieved into tables and used to make Table 1. Quantitative data were entered into MS spreadsheets and imported to Stata 14.2 (https://www.stata.com) and analysed using descriptive statistics.

Participants were identified using time of speaking (1st speaker, 2nd….), frequency of speaking (dominant speaker) and gender. All FGDs were video recorded for accuracy.

The commonest families listed against NCD were Euphorbiaceae, Amaryllidaceae, Mimosoideae, Poaceae, Rutaceae and Zingiberaceae (Table 1). The use of the family Euphorbiaceae in ethnoveterinary practice is in agreement with Abd-Alla et al. (2019) who used Jatropha curcas and Ricinus communis against NCD. Bulus and Zaro (2019) found garlic extracts (Amaryllidaceae) effective and Batiha et al. (2022) found the genus Acacia (Mimosoideae) effective against NCD. The use of the family Rutaceae in ethnoveterinary practice is in agreement with Nazhan, Majeed and Abd (2019) and those about Zingiberaceae are in agreement with Al-bawi and Rabee (2020). Abraham-Oyiguh et al. (2019) also found out that Cymbopogon citrus (Poaceae) were effective against NCD. The most mentioned families against coccidiosis were Aloeaceae, Caricaceae, Bignoniaceae, Meliaceae, Portulaceae, Rutaceae and Solanaceae. The use of the family Aloeaceae in ethnoveterinary practice is in agreement with Ahmad et al. (2020a) and the use of the family Caricaceae against coccidiosis is in agreement with Akhter et al. (2021). Onyiche et al. (2021) also affirm the actions of the Meliaceae against coccidiosis. The action of the family Rutaceae against coccidiosis is in agreement with Nazhan et al. (2019) and the action of the family Solanaceae against coccidiosis is in agreement with Ishaq et al. (2022). Papilionaceae was the most mentioned against cough, and this is in agreement with Ye et al. (2022) who worked on chicken. Poaceae was the most mentioned with genera against diarrhoea, and Vandebroek and Picking (2020) affirm the action of the family Poaceae against diarrhoea although their work was not in chicken. The families that were mentioned with genera against bacterial infections were Anacardiaceae, Annonaceae, Caesalpinioideae, Euphoribiaceae, Portulaceae and Samourabaceae. The use of the respective mentioned families in ethnoveterinary practice is in agreement with the experimental work of Calderón-Toledo et al. (2022), Da Silva et al. (2021), Ullah et al. (2021), Karunarathne et al. (2021), Egamberdieva et al. (2022) and Kilonzo and Munisi (2021). Meliaceae was mentioned against coryza, and this ethnoveterinary practice is in agreement with Jadeja et al. (2005). The mentioning of the family Meliaceae against fowl pox is in agreement with Singh and Tiwari (2021). The actions against ectoparasites of the families of Asteraceae, Meliaceae, Solanaceae and Sonanaceae are in agreement with the work of Lagat, Ng’wena and Mwaniki (2021), Abdel-Ghany et al. (2019) and Sahina and Esakkiammal (2022), respectively. The families of Moringaceae and Portulacaceae were mentioned to have actions against infectious bronchitis. However, Moringaceae and Portulacaceae only boost poultry immune systems according to Khan et al. (2021) and Khazdair et al. (2021), respectively.

Most of the chicken owners gave pragmatic responses regarding why they said that EVM are effective (Figure 9 to Figure 13), and this implies that farmers showed knowledge; it was deduced that informal training on ethnoveterinary medicine in chickens is useful and impactful. This concurs with Sodjinou et al. (2022). The FGDs of knowledge reflect an inclination towards the coherence theory of truth rather than pragmatism. Some participants just depend on the claims of other users as plausible. The responses implied an over-dependence on unproven claims in the use of EVM to control chicken diseases. Participants did not have standard doses of EVM in chicken. The methods of dose and regimen establishment predispose the chicken to risks as evidenced by the EVM’s adverse effects. Some farmers were knowledgeable of the adverse effects and could associate them with specific factors, predict the problem and propose solutions. Many of the participants were using EVM and knew others who were using EVM to treat chicken. The participants were satisfied with the action of EVM and were confident that EVMs are effective. The findings are in agreement with Bamidele et al. (2022) who found the participants agreeable with EVM. Ethnoveterinary medicine for treating chicken is acceptable possibly because they are usually cheap compared to conventional synthetic medicines (McGaw & Eloff 2008).

The use of wild sources which was a practice of the majority of the respondents is not sustainable because such sources wane because of destruction for agriculture and human settlement. The medicinal plants will get extinct with use unless a planting campaign is done. Knowledge is acquired mostly from neighbours and friends showing the role of informal sharing and relationship with peers in chicken disease control. Those who were not willing to share knowledge reflect the level of secrecy that is still in EVM practices in the protection of personal business, intellectual property and traditional norms. The human drugs that some participants confessed using treating chicken were amoxicillin, ampicillin, metronidazole, ampiclox, sodium hypochlorite, metronidazole and ciprofloxacin. They were stated to be used in treating cough, diarrhoea, NCD and coccidiosis. The use of human drug formulations in treating chicken can cause public health concerns and cascade to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in chickens and humans. The use of human drugs in chicken can also lead to rejection of the chicken products by the national food regulatory bodies and markets.

There is a need to test the claims put forward by farmers regarding the action of the plants against chicken diseases. Research institutions need to plausibly study the safety of these plants to guide the farmers on acceptable doses. The government and chicken stakeholders together with drug authorities ought to monitor the researches on the use of plant medicines in chicken and guide the scaling up together with the international partners. The approved plants and plant materials should be included in school curricula for learning ethnoveterinary knowledge. The World Organization of Animal Health (WOAH) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) need to support investigations of the use of plant medicines in chickens given their advantages of guiding pharmacognosy, use in organic farming and as alternatives to AMR organisms. There is an urgent need for a policy on use of plant medicines from the wild forest reserves. There is a need for setting up centres for the propagation of endangered species and domesticating essential wild species. There is a need for quality standards and labels for products of chicken use to protect users from fraud. However, the risks that the use of plant drugs could exacerbate AMR should be studied and quantified.

Ethnoveterinary medicines are useful in the search for alternative medicines to treat chicken diseases. The participants’ knowledge of EVM in chicken is insufficient and predisposes the chicken to possible adverse events. Although EVMs are acceptable and popular, the users are concerned about adverse effects. The practices are woven into the coherence theory and need to be tested based on the Bayesian theorem which gives a critical holistic evaluation. The research shows opportunities for alternative drugs and exposes the risks of EVM’s adverse drug events.