{"paper_id":"4279eba8-db51-4cbc-9afb-3de18d94fe2f","body_text":"Targeted selective supplementation with local plants sustainably improves goat health and decreases anthelmintic drug need on Malawi smallholdings | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Targeted selective supplementation with local plants sustainably improves goat health and decreases anthelmintic drug need on Malawi smallholdings Javier Ventura-Cordero, Paul M. Airs, Andrews C. L. Safalaoh, and 11 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6235021/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 15 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Locally available botanical resources offer low-cost nature-based solutions to control gastrointestinal nematodes among resource-poor goat smallholdings. To evaluate the impact of botanical resources with veterinary tools for GIN monitoring, a smallholder-led targeted selective treatment (TST) regime was trialled in rural Malawi. TST was performed using the Five Point Check© (FPC) to monitor goat health and provide interventions to goats with health scores indicative of GIN disease. Half the participants formed the plant-TST group, where ‘borderline’ or ‘sick’ goats were supplemented with 250 g per day of Commiphora africana , Ficus ingens , or Gmelina arborea for five days. Supplementation species were selected based on local awareness, availability, and anthelmintic activity. The control-TST group performed the FPC but performed feeding as normal. For both groups, ‘sick’ goats were provided anthelmintic, with GIN infections confirmed by faecal egg counts. The FPC-TST approach supported goat health, minimising misdiagnosis and ‘missed’ diagnosis of GINs. Plant-TST reduced anthelmintic need by 54% compared to control-TST, enhanced GIN clearance, and improved recovery time in sick goats. Plant-TST also reduced the harvesting of experimental plants by 86-97% compared to whole-herd approaches. These findings demonstrate the potential of integrative nature-based approaches for empowering farmers and enhancing smallholding resilience in low-resource areas. Biological sciences/Zoology/Animal behaviour Biological sciences/Ecology/Forestry nature-based solutions climate change adaptation nutraceuticals small ruminants targeted selective treatment Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Goat smallholdings provide climate-resilient security in the face of crop failure and economic instability and act as a buffer against food insecurity 1 – 3 . However, goats suffer from a combination of parasitic disease burdens and nutritional feed gaps, leading to unsustainable losses 1 , 4 , 5 . In Malawi, seasonal nutritional feed gaps can be exacerbated by tethering goats during the growing season to avoid crop destruction, but when forage and browse plants are most abundant 6 – 8 . The practice of tethering limits time and space for grazing and browsing and can leave goats malnourished and at risk of parasitic disease 9 – 11 , not least because the provision of veterinary care is insufficient relative to the number of animals and smallholders 12 . While crops dominate rural economies, the loss of even a single goat to disease can have a devastating effect on a household’s financial security, which in turn can impact access to services such as education and healthcare 6 , 7 . Mitigating threats to goat husbandry is challenging; however, the control of gastrointestinal nematodes (GINs) is critical because these infections account for significant livestock production losses and are exacerbated in warmer regions and by poor nutrition 13 . Although the knowledge and awareness of GINs are low in rural Malawi, goat diseases are considered a primary limitation for production. Smallholdings affected by goat diseases are also more likely to suffer from food insecurity 6 . Controlling GINs in goats and promoting goat health is therefore an essential component of generating resilience within subsistence agriculture systems in food-insecure regions. Reliance on anthelmintics for GIN control in resource-poor areas, such as central Malawi, is therefore neither practical nor affordable for smallholders. Numerous solutions have been proposed to sustainably control GINs in ruminants in low-resource rural settings while minimizing the spread of anthelmintic resistance (AR). Targeted Selective Treatment (TST) is a precision farming approach appropriate for smallholder farms, whereby individual animals are treated based on thresholds, such as health changes or production loss 14 , 15 . A TST scheme based on the Five Point Check© (FPC) has been devised as a low-resource method for farmers to quantify five signs of parasitic disease in sheep and goats 16 . Using the FPC under a TST scheme can reduce anthelmintic use by 36–97% compared to whole herd treatment, while providing significant socio-economic, ecological, and production benefits 17 . However, there is limited data demonstrating the utilise of this approach when integrated with local practices or nature-based solutions. Forages are an essential component of goat production in Southern Africa and, if integrated effectively, can improve goat production and resilience, including in rural Malawi 4 , 18 . In Malawi, smallholders often provide a variety of local forages as supplements to tethered goats and numerous ethnoveterinary remedies for goat ailments 6 . Since awareness and use of beneficial forage exist as part of the culture of animal management in rural Malawi, there is potential to promote sustainable means of utilizing natural resources as nature-based solutions. Although the principle of TST is well established, the targeting of feed supplementation by beneficial plants is yet to be resolved in smallholder settings 19 . Moreover, the potential gains from combining naturally available forages and anthelmintic treatment in a targeted way remain unexamined, but could transform the ability of smallholder farmers in Africa and elsewhere to apply self-reliant solutions to changing animal health constraints and hence enhance resilience to climate change. We hypothesized that local plants may have nutraceutical properties and that, when applied in a TST approach, may improve goat health and reduce the negative impacts of GINs. This study aimed to determine whether targeted supplementation with locally available bioactive plants can support parasite management in goats on smallholder farms in Malawi. Results Parasite infections and goat health Throughout the study, 3050 FPCs were performed with 2625 faecal samples analysed by FEC. FPC, FAMACHA, and BCS were the most prevalent indicators of poor goat health, present in 86.8% of borderline goat scores and 98.9% of sick goat scores, whereas dag (scour) was present in 18.4% of sick goats (Supplementary Fig. S1 ). The relationship between goat health (as measured by the FPC) and GIN burden was assessed using a GLMM performed on raw data (Supplementary Table S1 ). Overall, GINs were prevalent, with an average of 453 EPG among ‘healthy’ goats, although this varied substantially between individuals and across seasons. The FPC approach effectively estimated goats in need of anthelmintic interventions, with sick goats yielding significantly higher FECs than did borderline status goats (Supplementary Table S1 ). Goats in ‘borderline’ condition also had significantly higher FECs than healthy goats when looking at FAMACHA and BCS indicators. Specifically, differences were found between FAMACHA scores of 2 vs. 3 (mean 383 vs. 623 EPG, respectively, p < 0.001), as well as between goats with a BCS of 1.5 vs 2, 2.5, and 3 (p < 0.001). Parasite infections under TST regimes Among the TST regimens, the median FEC was 275 EPG for plant-TST and 200 EPG for control-TST pre-anthelmintic intervention. When needed, anthelminthic interventions were effective, reducing the median FEC to 0 EPG in both groups two weeks after treatment (Supplementary Fig. S2, Wilcoxon, df = 1, p = 0.001). However, the impact of anthelmintic treatments differed between the groups, with the plant-TST group outperforming the control-TST group. At the group level, the plant-TST group had a mean FEC of 3010 EPG at the time of drug treatment, which reduced to 85 EPG two weeks after treatment, a reduction of 97.2%. Comparatively, the control TST group showed a reduction of 85.7% (1178 to 168 EPG). When accounting for goats that had a non-zero EPG FEC at the time of treatment, the mean reduction following treatment was 94.8% (SD 17.2) in the plant-TST group compared with 84.0% (SD 28.3) in the control-TST group (one-tailed t = 1.748, p = 0.043). Anthelmintic clearance should ideally achieve > 95% reduction in FEC to minimize the risk of AR. Plant-TST improved the likelihood of reaching this benchmark with a > 95% decrease in FEC achieved in a significantly higher proportion of goats compared to control-TST (16/18 compared with 23/38, Χ 2 = 4.933, 1 df, p = 0.026). Seasonal shifts in goat health and GIN burdens under TST regimes November to April is regarded as austral summer and characterized as the rainy season in southern Malawi (Table 1 , Supplementary Fig. S3), with the highest rainfall recorded in February and the driest months from June to September. The GIN burden was strongly seasonal, with a lower FEC during the dry season and peaks in February during the rainy season (Figure. S3, Table 1 , Supplementary Table S1 ; p < 0.001). The same pattern was observed for goat weight, with goats losing weight during the rainy season, likely a result of restricting goat diets owing to tethering combined with increased GIN burdens (Supplementary Table S2). Despite seasonal pressures, interventions were needed during both the rainy and dry seasons, but the need for interventions was low (Table 1 ). Table 1 Seasonal parasite pressure over the study period under Plant TST (N = 96 goats) and Control-TST (N = 101 goats) regimes. Study Month Rainfall mm (Av + SD) Strongyle Faecal Egg Counts (Av + SD) Control-TST group Plant-TST group FPCs* Anthelmintic † FPCs* Anthelmintic † Supplemented † N % n % n % 1 Jan 10.3 (4.1) 1926 (1977) 21 4 19.0 22 2 9.1 10 45.5 2 Feb 7.5 (10.4) 2672 (3156) 101 4 4.0 96 8 8.3 50 52.1 3 Mar 1.2 (3.2) 1795 (2584) 146 12 8.2 104 5 4.8 40 38.5 4 Apr 0.2 (1) 1128 (1489) 99 2 2.0 134 1 0.7 15 11.2 5 May 0.3 (1.4) 281 (379) 93 0 0.0 104 0 0.0 7 6.7 6 Jun 0 (0.1) 158 (193) 91 1 1.1 74 1 1.4 3 4.1 7 Jul 0 (0.2) 124 (166) 118 2 1.7 112 2 1.8 7 6.3 8 Aug 0 (0) 64 (80) 112 2 1.8 92 0 0.0 2 2.2 9 Sep 0 (0) 103 (135) 150 4 2.7 105 1 1.0 5 4.8 10 Oct 0.8 (2.6) 219 (237) 110 2 1.8 124 1 0.8 5 4.0 11 Nov 0.1 (0.4) 452 (875) 115 3 2.6 93 5 5.4 9 9.7 12 Dec 6.3 (7.2) 316 (499) 125 6 4.8 154 2 1.3 16 10.4 13 Jan 8.8 (12.3) 847 (1391) 157 12 7.6 122 2 1.6 13 10.7 14 Feb 13.6 (21.4) 1357 (1780) 116 7 6.0 107 2 1.9 14 13.1 15 Mar 1.3 (1.5) 2205 (2680) 27 2 7.4 27 0 0.0 3 11.1 Average 105.4 4.2 4.7 98.0 2.1 2.5 13.3 15.3 Totals 1581 63 4.0 1470 32 2.2 199 13.5 * Number of Five Point Checks (FPCs) administered to individual goats. Av = average; SD = standard deviation † Individual goats provided anthelmintic or plant supplementation according to field farmer and veterinary assistant’s decisions. During the dry season, goats predominantly showed a healthy FAMACHA score of 1–2 (90–98% of scores taken from May to October) and BCS ≥ 2 (Supplementary Fig. S4). The highest proportion of ‘sick’ goats with a BCS of 1 were registered in the first three months of the study during the rainy season. Nasal discharge scores and dag (faecal staining consequent to scour = diarrhoea) varied throughout sampling points, but peaked at the beginning of the study in the plant-TST group prior to interventions (Supplementary Fig. S4). The presence of submandibular oedema (bottle jaw) was rarely reported in either regime, with only one case in each group (control-TST 1/1582, plant-TST 1/1471) (Supplementary Fig. S4). Over the course of the study, there was a gradual decrease in the number of goats requiring anthelmintic interventions in both groups, which can be seen across months (Supplementary Fig. S4), as well as when stratified to individual goat visits (Supplementary Fig. S5). Under both TST regimes, the second rainy season resulted in more goats defined as healthy by FPC, despite the seasonal increase in GINs. Plant-TST improves on goat health and minimises anthelmintic need Plant-TST experimental plants utilized for supplementation showed good nutritional profiles across the study area (see section S2.1, Supplementary Table S3). Principally, providing experimental plants to borderline and sick goats reduced the need for anthelmintic interventions compared with control-TST (plant-TST = 2.18% of FPCs vs. control-TST = 3.99%, X 2 = 7.6823, df = 1, p = 0.005577, Table 1 ). This reduction in the need for anthelmintics was associated with a reduced likelihood of poor body condition scores among plant-TST goats (BCS = 1, X 2 = 9.8906, df = 1, p = 0.001661). Plant-TST goats were also classified as marginally healthy more often than control-TST goats (median = 86.93% for control-TST vs. 90.45% for plant-TST, Χ 2 = 3.2017, df = 1, p = 0.074). Under both TST schemes, it was clear that most of the goats were sufficiently healthy most of the time (Fig. 1 a-b). While control-TST goats spent longer periods in ill health compared to the plant-TST group (Fig. 1 a), almost no goats failed to register as ‘healthy’ over at least one visit and demonstrated the capacity for Indigenous goats to improve in health score when provided interventions (Fig. 1 b). The distribution of sick goats was spread across smallholders in both groups, with many smallholders not requiring any anthelmintic interventions for the entire study period (see Section S2.2). Improvements in plant-TST were due to supplementation provided to borderline goats. Under plant-TST, most borderline status goats receiving supplementation improved (47.37%) or stabilized (45.39%), with only 7.24% worsening health conditions while receiving targeted plant supplementation (Fig. 1 c). Of the 7.24% of goats that worsened from a ‘borderline’ to ‘sick’ condition, 46.15% immediately returned to a healthy state. Comparatively, in the control-TST group, treatments were significantly less effective, resulting in 29.55% of individuals failing to improve (Fig. 1 c, Χ-squared = 7.581, df = 1, p = 0.005). Failure of anthelmintics to improve goat health conditions under control-TST resulted in more goats receiving multiple anthelmintic doses (Fig. 1 d), and some required consecutive treatments (Fig. 1 e). Because 100% of the plant-TST goats improved following treatment with anthelmintics, no consecutive treatments were needed. TST monitoring maximises precision and minimises resource needs The resource use and accuracy of anthelmintic treatments were compared to simulated whole-group targeted treatments (TT) and annual whole-herd treatment strategies (Supplementary Table S4). For any given time point, whole group treatments would result in 86–100% of anthelmintic doses wasted on non-sick individuals (average 94.9%, SD 4.5). A single annual whole-herd intervention would, at best, treat 21.9% of sick goats in the same year (March 2020). A TT scheme based on pooled FEC thresholds of 500, 1000, or 2000 EPG would result in an 189–804% increase in anthelmintic use with 92.2–92.6% of doses provided to non-sick individuals, while missing 37.6–85.9% of sick individuals when FECs were low (Supplementary Table S4). When looking at botanical resource use, only 199/1471 visits (13.5%) resulted in supplementation, with the majority provided to goats in borderline condition (167/199, 83.9%). The need for supplementation was also highest during the rainy season (Table 1 ). Of the 58.3% of goats receiving supplementation at least once, experimental plants were provided for an average of 2.9 out of 17.6 visits (16.9%). In toto 248.8 kg of plant material was harvested over 399 days from 23 farms. An average plant harvest of 2.7 kg per goat, 27.1 g per smallholder per day, or 6.8 g per goat per day was recorded (Tables 2 and S5). Supplementing all goats over the study period would have required 9576 kg of plant material (a 3850% increase). Whole group treatments over the study period following the same supplementation regime (5-day periods checked every 2 weeks) would require 3420 kg of plant material (1374% increase), or 35.6 kg per goat. A hypothetical TT supplementation regime limited to the rainy season (November – April) when GINs burdens are highest would require 1851 kg of plant material (744% increase), or 19.28 kg per goat. Limiting plant use to TST under FPC massively reduced the botanical resources required while supporting goat health. Table 2 Supplementation across plant-TST smallholdings (extended in Supplementary Table S5). Visits Events* Goats ( n ) Harvest (kg) Harvest per goat (kg) Harvest per visit (kg) Average harvest per day (g) Average per goat per day (g) Commiphora africana 363 77 18 96.3 5.3 0.265 48.2 14.0 Ficus ingens 927 89 63 111.3 1.8 0.120 18.6 4.4 Gmelina arborea 400 33 15 41.3 2.8 0.103 34.5 6.9 Total 1471 199 96 248.8 2.6 0.169 27.1 6.8 Average per smallholder 73.5 8.7 4.2 10.8 2.7 0.194 SD 36.1 6.9 1.3 8.6 2.4 0.147 21.6 6.0 Min 10 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Max 174 26 8 32.5 8.8 0.490 81.5 21.9 * Number of times individual goats were provided with supplementation, according to field decisions. Plant species impact under plant-TST Comparison across plant species revealed no differences in the frequency of F. ingens and G. arborea use, but an increased use of C. africana (Table 2 , Supplementary Fig. S6) (X 2 = 40.121, df = 2, p-value = 1.94e-09). Conversely, C. africana showed the most favourable nutritional profile among the experimental plants (Supplementary Table S3). The majority of C. africana needs came from three farms with > 50 visits each, two in Chinkhowe and one in Mazinga (Supplementary Table S5). For all experimental plants, most harvesting occurred at the start of the study and during the second rainy season (Supplementary Fig. S6). To assess whether applying plant-TST delayed the need for anthelmintics, Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed using the first instance of anthelmintic intervention as the end event (Supplementary Fig. S7). Curves showed a tendency for plant supplementation to delay the need for initial anthelmintic treatment, but this was not statistically significant (p > 0.05) (Supplementary Fig. S7). Similarly, no significant difference in survival to treatment was found by Kaplan-Meier analysis according to the number of plant interventions offered (Supplementary Fig. S7). Of the experimental species tested, F. ingens showed the best performance: after 225 days, time-to-first drug treatment probability was higher for F. ingens (87%) than C. africana (74%) and G. arborea (59%) (Supplementary Fig. S7, p = 0.039). Effect of TST regimes on productive performance Nasal discharge, FAMACHA, BCS, health status, lactation, sampling month, age, and location all influenced goat weight (Supplementary Table S2). Goats with a FAMACHA score of 2 were significantly heavier than goats with a FAMACHA score of 3 (31.7 vs 31.0 kg, p = 0.019). Animals with a BCS of 1.5 (28.7 kg) were lighter than animals with a BCS of 2 (29.6 kg, p = 0.005). However, there was no significant difference in weight between animals treated with BCS 1 and 1.5. In addition, pregnant goats were heavier than lactating and non-lactating goats (Supplementary Table S2; p = 0.001). From July (dry season) to December (beginning of rainy season), the highest BW was 32.0 to 32.9 kg, respectively. No significant differences in BW were found according to health status, although there was a tendency for sick animals to be lighter (30.1 kg BW) than those with healthy (31.0 kg BW) or borderline status (31.0 kg BW, p = 0.09). Animals in Mkwinda were significantly heavier than goats from Mazinga and Kamchezera but not from Chinkhowe. The goats included in the trial, which were all adults, maintained their BW, showing negligible BW changes over the study of -6, -5, -4, and − 11 g BW for Mazinga, Chinkhowe, Kamchezera, and Mkwinda, respectively. During the study period, 122 children were born: 31 in Chinkhowe, 27 in Kamchezera, 30 in Mazinga, and 34 in Mkwinda. There was no difference in kid birth weight between plant-TST and TST groups, 2.93 and 2.96 kg BW at birth, respectively (p > 0.05). Likewise, there was no difference in children’s BWC from birth to the end of the study between TST-Plant and Control-TST 54 vs. 52 g DWG, respectively (p > 0.05). Therefore, at the aggregate level, goats performed similarly between plant-TST and control-TST groups, signalling that TST is an effective means of improving productivity by reducing GIN burden and that plant-TST can produce the same impact on goat performance with less anthelmintic use. Finally, there were some cases of unexplained goat death in both groups (as necropsies were not possible). Both TST regimes reduced the proportion of goat deaths when compared to a survey of the year prior in the study area (Supplementary Table S4, Χ 2 = 14.072, df = 2, p = 0.00088). In the plant-TST group 11/12 goats that died were ‘healthy’ status prior to death compared to 2/11 for control-TST (Supplementary Table S6). As such, plant TST deaths may not have been attributable to health or the GIN burden. Discussion This study aimed to determine whether targeted supplementation with locally available bioactive plants can support parasite management in goats on smallholder farms in Malawi, where income is largely dependent on agricultural exports and subsistence crops 20 , 21 but goats provide a vital buffer against food insecurity. Goat diseases were managed through low-resource veterinary practices and locally available bioactive plants as no-cost nature-based solutions. Although many studies have investigated how plants can improve the health status of small ruminants directly and/or indirectly 22 – 24 , little has been reported on the application of local plant resources as potential nutraceuticals in a targeted manner using participatory farmer-led approaches. In doing so, this study aimed to improve goat health while reducing the need for anthelmintic drug treatment in resource-poor environments. Effects of plant-TST on goat health High GIN pressure and limited access to forage prevent goats from selectively browsing to combat GIN infection 25 . Experimental plants were selected with potential nutraceutical benefits that can enhance livestock health using existing ethnobotanical knowledge and ‘cut and carry’ livestock management practices. The potential nutraceutical value of local plant resources was evaluated based on the extra nutrient supply (protein and energy) and, in some cases, specialized plant secondary metabolites with proven activity against helminth infections 19 , 26 . Ample potential candidate beneficial plants exist in Malawi, and a survey of local smallholders resulted in three candidate tree species ( C. africana, F. ingens , and G. arborea ) being selected for inclusion in the plant-TST supplementation. The use of these species under plant-TST resulted in 74% of goats not requiring anthelmintic intervention. Goats that required anthelmintic intervention more consistently and immediately improved in health compared to control-TST with anthelmintic alone (Fig. 1 c-e), with health improvement being associated with greater reductions in parasite load following treatment. The improved response to anthelmintic treatment in goats offered plant supplementation suggests a synergistic effect on GIN infection. This agrees with recent in vitro studies showing synergistic effects between anthelmintic and plant secondary metabolites (PSM), improving the efficacy of drugs 27 , 28 . Therefore, there is a possibility that PSM enhance the effect of albendazole anthelmintic in goats. However, care is warranted when choosing the plant and anthelmintic drug combination, as previously feeding sainfoin ( Onobrychis viciifolia ) pellets reduced parasite clearance in combination with ivermectin 29 . The fact that no such inhibitory effect was observed here supports the use of the chosen plants in combination with anthelmintics when needed. The lack of detectable effects of plant supplementation on FEC prior to anthelmintic treatment suggests that their positive effects on health cannot be ascribed to direct effects against the parasites; rather, they are generally supportive of health. The experimental plants used in this study showed a good nutritional profile with a high crude protein content (> 15%, see Supplementary Table S3). A major effect of GIN infection is protein loss, as such a supplemental supply of crude protein in the diet via experimental plant supplementation could compensate for this loss and additionally increase postprandial amino acid supply to bolster the immune system 30 , leading to a positive effect on body condition and, in growing animals, live weight gain 31 , subsequently increasing resilience to biotic stress 32 . Plant supplements did not delay the requirement for anthelmintic treatment when assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis, and multiple rounds of supplementation did not delay the first treatment. However, goats offered F. ingens were significantly more likely to delay the need for drug intervention than G. arborea and C. africana . Because F. ingens is readily available during the rainy season, it could be particularly helpful when a high GIN infection intensity is expected. However, F. ingens contained the lowest crude protein content of the experimental plants; therefore, its impact may be the result of PSMs, overall nutritional value, or physical properties of F. ingens in the gut. For instance, F. ingens was noticeably higher in fibres and may have had a lower digestibility, increasing roughage. Although targeted plant supplementation did not reduce or delay the need for a first anthelmintic treatment, the overall anthelmintic requirement to maintain good health was reduced in goats subjected to plant-TST compared to control-TST. The plant-TST regime enhanced goat health and lowered the number of single and repeated anthelmintic treatments needed (Fig. 1 ) we well as enhancing parasitological responses to treatment (Supplementary Fig. S2) but plant supplementation alone did not reduce FEC or delay time until initial anthelmintic treatment. Together, these results suggest that plants have the capacity to enhance host resilience to GIN infections through physiological and/or immunological means, but more research is needed to determine the mechanisms of these effects and to further enhance their application. Finally, deaths were noted in both the control-TST (10.9%) and plant-TST (12.5%) groups (Supplementary Fig. S5, Supplementary Table S6). Due to the nature of the study being in a rural area and with bi-weekly checks, the cause of death could not be determined accurately for most goats. However, predation is a known issue in the area and is second only to disease in smallholders’ perceived limitations in keeping goats 6 . Additionally, plastic and other anthropogenic pollution is frequently observed in the intestinal tracts of goats brought to slaughter throughout Malawi, including in the study area 33 . Such pollution can cause lethal effects and lesions 34 . Because death was predominantly not observed following a decline in goat health, we can assume that the TST regimens prevented death due to GINs. Plant-TST may also prevent malnutrition-related death. Effects of plant-TST on productive performance The body weights recorded during our experiment at the four locations were similar to those previously reported by Banda et al. 35 . Adult male and female Malawian goats typically weigh 45 ± 6.0 kg and 32 ± 5.9 kg for males and females, respectively. A seasonal pattern in BW was observed during the sampling months, where the rainy season negatively affected goat weight through a combination of tethering to prevent crop destruction and GIN pressure 36 . Tethering drastically reduces feed resources because goats are likely to lose weight even when GIN pressures are low 37 . Farmers could take advantage of this knowledge and prepare for this period by accumulating hay or seed plants with an optimal nutritional profile, which can be utilized alongside the FPC to target goats based on performance and health. A direct effect on the birth weight of kids was not detected following beneficial plant supplementation of the dams. However, birthweight was higher than previously reported, at 1.9 ± 0.53 and 1.8 ± 0.48 kg for kid males and females, respectively 38 . With no untreated group included for ethical reasons, anthelmintic interventions may have improved goat performance across the board in all four villages, as was found with the TST application in Botswana 17 . Higher childbirth weights compared with other local studies might alternatively be a result of the crossbreeding of goats and associated hybrid vigour. Karau and Banda 38 reported higher kid birth weight and BWC in dams of Saanen × local breeds than in pure local breeds. Notwithstanding the lack of a detectable performance advantage at the village level when goats were offered targeted plant supplementation in addition to TST with anthelmintics, no negative effects were observed, and anthelmintic input costs were reduced. Effects of plant-based intervention on parasite infection Based on a study by Huttner et al. 39 helminthiasis, specifically infections caused by Haemonchus spp., is a major factor leading to goat and sheep mortality in Malawi. H. contortus is dominant in the study area, accounting for 51.3% of the nemabiome sequencing reads 40 . In general, parasite burdens are skewed towards the most heavily infected individuals 41 , 42 . Consequently, targeted interventions can be used to suppress onward parasite transmission when determined by the GIN load (as inferred from faecal egg density) or from the FPC (particularly the FAMACHA score). The FEC analyses showed that animals with FAMACHA 3 had a significantly higher egg load than those with FAMACHA 2. However, such differences did not occur between other scores (e.g., FAMACHA 4 and 458 EPG). This was possibly due to the inherent variability of the FEC in the animals, and the fact that FAMACHA indicates a combination of parasite load and an individual animal’s resilience to the effects of infection. Goats with > 1.5 BCS had a low FEC, suggesting that BCS is a good indicator of the GIN burden in goats. BCS is an indirect measurement of body reserves 43 , indicating that thin animals struggled to resist parasitic infections due to a malnourished state. However, a low BCS may be a consequence of impaired metabolism, supplying resources to repair the internal damage caused by GIN 30 . Other studies have also identified the use of BCS to identify small ruminants with high FEC 44 . When designing and implementing TST programs, especially in circumstances where diagnostic capabilities are limited, it is important to consider multiple measures and factors (e.g., BCS). Such factors include but are not limited to season, weather, and other health indicators. The increase in FECs coincided with the start of the rainy season. This response appeared to be independent of the physiological status of animals. GIN epidemiology is driven by climatic conditions, especially H. contortus , which is considered the main GIN in small ruminants 45 . This seasonal effect can lead to the build-up of infective larvae that are released en masse onto pastures under the right conditions, as has been observed elsewhere under tropical conditions for sheep and goats 46 . Finally, it was expected that sick goats would show a high infection rate. The lack of discernible reductions in FEC from plant supplementation alone suggests that its epidemiological impact will be limited unless combined with direct antiparasitic effects, such as additional anthelmintic interventions or selective breeding of parasite-resistant animals. Albendazole effectiveness was tested in both TST regimes and both showed a significant reduction in FEC, although this was enhanced following plant supplementation. This finding emphasizes the potential of using plants as supplements along with strictly targeted drug administration to achieve better health outcomes and more sustainable anthelmintic use. Botanical resources as nature-based solutions Ethnoveterinary medicines are a widely used low-cost and sustainable method of controlling parasites and diseases worldwide 47 . However, the use of ethnoveterinary medicines has been poorly documented. A recent study identified that ~ 80% of known plants used for cattle ailments in South Africa are yet to be assessed in a biological or veterinary context 48 . In the study area, available plants, such as forage and browse, were identified through smallholder surveys, local plant identification, and chemical analyses 8 . Of the experimental plants F. ingens and G. arborea were tested against H. contortus and adult GINs from cattle, respectively 49 , 50 . Co mmiphora spp. have been used to treat diarrhoea and tick wounds in goats 51 , 52 . This is the first report assessing the nutraceutical properties of F. ingens, G. arborea and Co mmiphora spp. in goats using farmer-led approaches, and the findings suggest that they can play an important role in parasite management. However, much more work is needed to gain a better picture of ethnoveterinary knowledge and botanical natural resources to fully realize the potential sustainability of small ruminant health in rural and low-resource settings. Minimizing costs and input requirements is critical for implementing sustainable GIN control in low-resource areas. Given that 66% of control-TST and 74% of plant-TST goats never required anthelmintics, any group-level treatment would inadvertently waste anthelmintics and reduce the refugia of susceptible GINs in healthy goats or goats with subclinical infections 15 , 53 . Group-level treatment estimates showed a dramatic increase in anthelmintic and botanical resource use but were less accurate (Supplementary Table S5). Group-level and even individual treatments based on FECs in these settings would be wasteful and inaccurate, as healthy goats can have high FECs in the rainy season, while a low-level infection can be clinically significant when individuals are malnourished (see Supplementary Table S4). The balancing act between seasonal nutritional feed gaps and GIN burdens is exactly why monitoring approaches such as FPC are required in smallholder settings. Critically, the TST aims to minimize the over-harvesting or wasteful harvesting of botanical natural resources. Protecting the existing biodiversity of beneficial botanical natural resources is essential for sustainable nature-based solutions, but work is needed to delineate the value and care of natural resources. Through TST, it was found that plant harvesting was minimal and had significant health impacts (see Section 3.5). Through TST, plant harvesting was reduced by 97.4% compared to the continual whole group treatments, 92.72% compared to the periodic whole group treatments (5-day periods every 14-days), and 86.55% compared to the seasonal period for all treatment groups. As a result, TST prevents overharvesting and targets plant use for individuals in need, while preventing overharvesting to feed individuals in good health. Limitations and future outlook The main limitation of the study was the lack of an ‘no intervention’ group. This decision was made because the disease impacts of GINs and malnutrition are well documented, and a lack of intervention would cause undue burdens and food security impacts on the study participants. Another limitation was the inability to track the nutritional uptake and movement of individual goats over time; therefore, the possible effects of other dietary elements were masked. However, because this is an applied study on real farm settings in remote areas, the goal was to demonstrate the integration of nature-based veterinary practices to limit GINs with local and low-resource practices performed by smallholders. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the hidden value of local practices and natural resources that can enhance the resilience of farming when integrated with veterinary techniques, such as TST. As a short-term study, it was not possible to monitor how smallholders managed using the TST and FPC scores after the study ended. As an improvement in the general health status of goats, plant-TST could be spread to other farmers in the region, but the time and resources to promote and assess its use at scale were limited. Future research should aim to determine long-term improvements in food security as a result of improved livestock management; however, both retrospective analyses of existing interventions and longer-term efforts to disseminate knowledge and tools that enable sustainable livestock practices in low-resource settings are needed. These data highlight the need for tools that empower farmers to detect declining health throughout the year in individual goats, to prevent unnecessary losses due to GINs and malnutrition in smallholdings. Our results show that nature-based solutions using local plant resources, including F. ingens, G. arborea , and Co mmiphora species, can improve the productive performance of goats and reduce the need for antiparasitic treatment when applied in a farmer-led TST program utilizing FPC. The selective feeding of these plants reduced the need for drug intervention by 54% relative to TST using anthelmintic drugs alone, while reducing plant use by up to 97.4%. Providing beneficial plant supplements helped goats avoid consecutive drug interventions, which facilitated the refugia of drug-susceptible GINs and reduced the financial and environmental costs associated with drug use. Materials and methods Study design The study was initiated through surveys to identify goat management practices, beneficial plant use, and the socioeconomic impacts of smallholdings (Fig. 2 a). An analysis of goat management practices, plant use, and the livelihood impacts of goat smallholdings in the study area has been published elsewhere 6 . Molecular confirmation of GIN disease burden and identification of widespread Haemonchus contortus and Trichostrongylus colubriformis infections have also been previously reported in the study cohort 40 . Further details relating to the study area, recruitment, and baseline data collection are provided in the Supplementary Materials. The prevailing climate in the study area is wet tropical with an annual average temperature of 20.7°C and rainfall from 1000 to 1500 mm 54 . Precipitation, minimum, and maximum temperature data were obtained from January 2020 to March 2021 from the NOAA/ESRL Physical Sciences Laboratory website ( http://psl.noaa.gov/ ). Participating farmers were split into TST groups by village (Fig. 2 b) using the simple random sampling (\"randbetween” function, Microsoft Excel®) and provided training and background relating to GINs and goat health monitoring using the FPC alongside the TST concept. Whole village areas were allocated to one TST regime to minimise confusion and deviation from the intervention protocol arising from communication between farmers within villages. An initial 43 smallholders were recruited from Kamchezera (13 farmers, 58 adult goats, 29.13 ± 5.86 kg body weight (BW)), Mkwinda (8 farmers, 43 adult goats, 30.89 ± 5.90 kg BW), Chinkhowe (10 farmers, 41 adult goats, 28.59 ± 5.11 kg BW), and Mazinga (12 farmers, 55 adult goats, 30.28 ± 6.01 kg BW). A total of 197 Indigenous breed goats (194 females and three males) aged > one year up to > four years of age belonging to smallholders were included with age, breed, physiological status, initial weight, and sex recorded at the start of the study; details are provided in the Supplementary Materials and data. All goats included in this study were provided with ear tags for identification. Ethics declarations The study was conducted following the research ethics procedures of the Animal Science Department of the LUANAR sub-Ethics Committee Surveys and data collection included in the study and the manner of collecting survey responses were reviewed and approved by the Animal Science Department Ethics Committee at the Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR), (approval no. ANS/2018/5) on August 16, 2019, and seconded by the Ethical Review Board of Rothamsted Research. Informed consent for study participation on site of data collected was performed prior to survey collection with the objectives of the study explained. All participants were informed that they were free to leave the study at any time and consent was obtained through signatures for literate participants or verbally declared in the presence of LUANAR team members for illiterate participants. Authors declare they complied with the ARRIVE guidelines. Informed consent for publication Each participant was interviewed individually in their own language by a translator providing a written consent form that detailed the right to leave at any time, the right for destruction of information, confidentiality of information, consent to participate and consent to publish (see Supplementary Materials for an example consent form). All subjects involved consent to publish the information and images. All information about methodology, procedures and sampling moments was explained, and any questions were responded to. Accordance statement for human study All methods were performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Health monitoring and Targeted Selective Treatment (TST) To apply the TST (Fig. 2 b), a treatment decision chart was designed based on the FPC scores of individual goats (Fig. 2 c). Individual ‘sick’ goats with any score of FAMACHA ≥ 4, Dag score ≥ 4, body condition score (BCS) ≤ 1, or jaw score = 1 (submandibular oedema) indicative of seriously failing health were treated by trained staff with anthelminthic using albendazole (Albendex 100, Alfavet®, Kenya) at a dose of 10 mg/kg of BW administered orally. Two TST regimens were followed, divided by location (Fig. 2 b). The control TST (n = 101 goats) group included Kamchezera and Mkwinda, where TST was performed with anthelmintics alone. Goats in the control-TST group were fed a basal diet (grazing + supplement feed) and did not receive additional supplementation with experimental plants. The plant-TST group (n = 96) included Chinkhowe and Mazinga farmers, who followed the same system but were instructed to provide additional supplementation with specified local experimental plants (Fig. 3 ). Plant-TST was provided to goats in both ‘sick’ (in addition to anthelmintic) and ‘borderline’ health conditions with FPC scores, including FAMACHA = 3, Dag score = 3, or BCS = 1.5, and plant-TST supplementation was offered in addition to the basal diet (grazing + supplementary feeds normally offered). During the first visit, branches of each selected experimental plant species were harvested, and ~ 250 g was weighed on a fresh basis in plastic containers (Fig. 3 c). Farmers used containers to estimate the number of branches needed for each animal during the TST. Supplemented goats received ~ 250 g of experimental plants daily for at least five consecutive days following FPC scoring (Fig. 3 d). Further details are provided in the supplemental material. Goats that received anthelmintic treatment or plant supplementation were marked with a plastic tie around the lower leg, and a faecal sample was collected. Afterward, the samples were stored in a refrigerated box at 4°C for transport to the laboratory. Faecal nematode egg counts (FECs) were performed on each individual sample collected during FPC scoring, using the McMaster method to estimate egg density (eggs per gram of faeces, EPG). The multiplication factor was 50 per egg 55 . Experimental plant selection For botanical nature-based solutions to be effective, resources used must be sufficiently abundant and accessible, with AH activity, nutritious and beneficial to goat health, readily identifiable, and ideally utilised as part of existing cultural practices of animal management. To identify plant species which fit these criteria, a survey was carried out in Mkwinda where respondents (N = 48) were asked to “name 5 readily available (frequent) and 5 less available plants in the area where the goats graze” for both ‘rainy’ and ‘dry/grazing’ seasons (Fig. 3 a). Responses were collected as part of a wider socio-economic survey 6 in which farmers detailed the use of local botanical resources to supplement goat health; however, the question above was separated from the published analysis and is presented here due to its relevance to the study. Commiphora africana (A. Rich) Engl. (common name = Kakhobo or African Myrrh), Ficus ingens Miq (Mtawa) and Gmelina arborea Roxb (Malayna) were selected for their current use by smallholders, size, year-round availability, and ease of identification. Plant samples were collected monthly in plastic bags for identification in the herbarium performed by Winchester Mvula. Chemical analysis of forages and browsing across the study area were also analysed to identify G. arborea , C. africana , and F. ingens to provide sufficient protein and nutrition with minimal variation in nutrient quality between seasons and locations 8 . These species also have no reported toxicity, and their anthelmintic activity has been shown to vary from Commiphora. spp 56 , G. arborea 57 , and F. ingens 58 so these plants are considered bioactive. All methods involving plants were performed following the IUCN Policy Statement on Research Involving Species at Risk of Extinction. Individual experimental trees selected for plant-TST were identified alongside the research staff and individual smallholders in the plant-TST group (Fig. 3 b). Each smallholder was instructed to harvest a set amount of plant-TST supplementation from a single specified tree for the duration of the study and to provide it only to goats receiving plant-TST treatment (Fig. 3 c-d). The experimental tree selection did not change for any smallholder at any time throughout the study. Statistical analyses & data presentation Collected data were collated into Microsoft Excel® with all analyses and graphical statistics performed using R software version 4.1.3 (2022-03-10). The details are provided in the Supplementary Materials. The code and raw data are available at: https://github.com/PaulAirs/Malawi_GIN_Targeted_selective_supplementation . No animals were excluded from the statistical analysis. Declarations Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge Dr. Aranzazu Louro-Lopez for their assistance and guidance on nutritional analysis. We are also grateful for help from the staff at Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR), animal health officers, and participating farmers, who were critically dependent on their work. Discussions within the EU Cooperation in Science and Technology network (CA16230, COMBAR), especially with Hervé Hoste, Felipe Torres-Acosta, Thomas Terrill, and Stig Thamsborg, helped to develop the methodology. Funding This work was supported by the United Kingdom Research and Innovation (UKRI) through the Global Challenges Research Fund (grant number BB/S014748/1, 2018). For open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version. Author contribution statement J.V.C., P.M.A. and E.R.M. wrote the original manuscript, P.M.A. prepared the figures, J.V.C., P.M.A., W.M., A.C.L.S., E.R.M., A.S.C., P.W., L.C.G., H.M., C.N., M.R.F.L., T.T., J.V.W., and P.C.N. were involved in the sampling. M.R.F.L., T.T., E.R.M., and J.V.W. were involved in conceptualising the study. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Additional information Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Data availability All anonymized raw data and codes for data analyses are available at https://github.com/PaulAirs/Malawi_GIN_Targeted_selective_supplementation. References Lu, C. D. The role of goats in the world: Society, science, and sustainability. Small Ruminant Research 227 , 107056 (2023). Monau, P., Raphaka, K., Zvinorova-Chimboza, P. & Gondwe, T. Sustainable Utilization of Indigenous Goats in Southern Africa. Diversity (Basel) 12 , (2020). Nair, M. R. R. et al. Goat as the ideal climate-resilient animal model in tropical environment: revisiting advantages over other livestock species. Int J Biometeorol 65 , 2229–2240 (2021). Cooke, A. S. et al. The Nutritional Feed Gap: A Review of Seasonal Variation in Ruminant Forage Availability and Quality in Southern Africa. Available at SSRN 4673336 (2023). Fitzpatrick, J. L. Global food security: The impact of veterinary parasites and parasitologists. Vet Parasitol 195 , 233–248 (2013). Airs, P. M. et al. Goat health and management for improved smallholders’ livelihoods in central Malawi – A socioeconomic analysis of rural households. Small Ruminant Research 229 , 107114 (2023). Kaumbata, W. et al. Tangible and intangible benefits of local goats rearing in smallholder farms in Malawi. Small Ruminant Research 187 , 106095 (2020). Cooke, A. S. et al. Seasonal dynamics of forage nutrition in smallholder goat production systems in Malawi. Afr J Range Forage Sci 1–10 (2024) doi:10.2989/10220119.2024.2428295. Dahm, J. R. et al. Risk factors associated with Ctenocephalides felis flea infestation of peri-urban goats: a neglected parasite in an under-appreciated host. Trop Anim Health Prod 53 , 181 (2021). Nampanzira, D. K., Kabasa, J. D., Nalule, S. A., Nakalembe, I. & Tabuti, J. R. S. Characterization of the goat feeding system among rural small holder farmers in the semi-arid regions of Uganda. Springerplus 4 , 1–8 (2015). Faftine, O., Muir, J. P. & Massaete, E. Dry season supplementation of goats tethered on range supplemented with cowpea or groundnut residues with or without fresh leucaena leaves. Anim Feed Sci Technol 76 , 1–8 (1998). Leahy, E. et al. Proof of concept of faecal egg nematode counting as a practical means of veterinary engagement with planned livestock health management in a lower income country. Ir Vet J 70 , 16 (2017). Oliveira Santos, F., Ponce Morais Cerqueira, A., Branco, A., José Moreira Batatinha, M. & Borges Botura, M. Anthelmintic activity of plants against gastrointestinal nematodes of goats: a review. Parasitology 146 , 1233–1246 (2019). van Wyk, J. A., Hoste, H., Kaplan, R. M. & Besier, R. B. Targeted selective treatment for worm management—How do we sell rational programs to farmers? Vet Parasitol 139 , 336–346 (2006). Greer, A. W., Van Wyk, J. A., Hamie, J. C., Byaruhanga, C. & Kenyon, F. Refugia-Based Strategies for Parasite Control in Livestock. Veterinary Clinics: Food Animal Practice 36 , 31–43 (2020). Bath, G. F. & van Wyk, J. A. The Five Point Check© for targeted selective treatment of internal parasites in small ruminants. Small Ruminant Research 86 , 6–13 (2009). Walker, J. G. et al. Mixed methods evaluation of targeted selective anthelmintic treatment by resource-poor smallholder goat farmers in Botswana. Vet Parasitol 214 , 80–88 (2015). Cooke, A. S. et al. Opportunities to improve goat production and food security in Botswana through forage nutrition and the use of supplemental feeds. Food Secur 16 , 607–622 (2024). Méndez-Ortiz, F. A. et al. Gymnopodium floribundum fodder as a model for the in vivo evaluation of nutraceutical value against Haemonchus contortus . Trop Anim Health Prod 51 , 1591–1599 (2019). Mkwambisi, D. D., Fraser, E. D. G. & Dougill, A. J. Urban agriculture and poverty reduction: Evaluating how food production in cities contributes to food security, employment and income in Malawi. J Int Dev 23 , 181–203 (2011). Lencucha, R. et al. Shifting from tobacco growing to alternatives in Malawi? A qualitative analysis of policy and perspectives. Health Policy Plan 35 , 810–818 (2020). Hoste, H., Torres-Acosta, J. F. J. & Aguilar-Caballero, A. J. Nutrition-parasite interactions in goats: Is immunoregulation involved in the control of gastrointestinal nematodes? Parasite Immunol 30 , 79–88 (2008). Torres-Acosta, J. F. J. et al. Nutritional manipulation of sheep and goats for the control of gastrointestinal nematodes under hot humid and subhumid tropical conditions. Small Ruminant Research 103 , 28–40 (2012). Hoste, H. et al. Interactions between nutrition and infections with Haemonchus contortus and related gastrointestinal nematodes in small ruminants. Adv Parasitol 93 , 239–351 (2016). Ventura-Cordero, J., González-Pech, P. G., Torres-Acosta, J. F. J., Tun-Garrido, J. & Sandoval-Castro, C. A. Sheep and goat browsing a tropical deciduous forest during the rainy season: why does similar plant species consumption result in different nutrient intake? Anim Prod Sci 59 , 66–72 (2019). Hoste, H. et al. Tannin containing legumes as a model for nutraceuticals against digestive parasites in livestock. Vet Parasitol 212 , 5–17 (2015). Silva, C. R. et al. Combination of synthetic anthelmintics and monoterpenes: Assessment of efficacy, and ultrastructural and biophysical properties of Haemonchus contortus using atomic force microscopy. Vet Parasitol 290 , 109345 (2021). Miró, M. V. et al. Combination of bioactive phytochemicals and synthetic anthelmintics: In vivo and in vitro assessment of the albendazole-thymol association. Vet Parasitol 281 , 109121 (2020). Gaudin, E. et al. Efficacy of sainfoin ( Onobrychis viciifolia ) pellets against multiresistant Haemonchus contortus and interaction with oral ivermectin: Implications for on-farm control. Vet Parasitol 227 , 122–129 (2016). Coop, R. L. & Kyriazakis, I. Influence of host nutrition on the development and consequences of nematode parasitism in ruminants. Trends Parasitol 17 , 325–330 (2001). Méndez-Ortiz, F. A., Sandoval-Castro, C. A., Ventura-Cordero, J., Sarmiento-Franco, L. A. & Torres-Acosta, J. F. J. Condensed tannin intake and sheep performance: A meta-analysis on voluntary intake and live weight change. Anim Feed Sci Technol 245 , 67–76 (2018). Marie-Magdeleine, C. et al. Evaluation of nutraceutical properties of Leucaena leucocephala leaf pellets fed to goat kids infected with Haemonchus contortus. BMC Vet Res 16 , 280 (2020). Airs, P. M. et al. Prevalence of Plastic and Hardware Foreign Bodies among Goats at Malawi Markets. Animals 14 , (2024). Priyanka, M. & Dey, S. Ruminal impaction due to plastic materials-An increasing threat to ruminants and its impact on human health in developing countries. Vet World 11 , 1307 (2018). Banda, J. W., Ayoade, J. A., Karua, S. K. & Kamwanja, L. A. The local Malawi goat. World Animal Review (1993). Nandolo, W. et al. Identification of breeding objectives in communitybased goat breeding programmes in Malawi. Acta Agric Slov Supplement , 103–108 (2016). Faftine, O., Muir, J. P. & Massaete, E. Dry season supplementation of goats tethered on range supplemented with cowpea or groundnut residues with or without fresh leucaena leaves. Anim Feed Sci Technol 76 , 1–8 (1998). Karaua, S. K. & Banda, J. W. Dairy goat breeding in Malawi:Gestation lenght, birthweights and growth of the indigenous Malawi goats and their Saanen crosses. in Proceedings of the First Bienniel Conference of the African Small Ruminant Research Network (eds. Lebbie, R. B. & Reynolds, L.) 453–459 (International Livestock Centre for Africa, Nairobi, 1992). Huttner, K., Leidl, K., Pfeiffer, D. U., Kasambara, D. & Jere, F. B. D. The effect of a community-based animal health service programme on livestock mortality, off-take and selected husbandry applications A field study in northern Malawi. Livest Prod Sci 72 , 263–278 (2001). Airs, P. M. et al. Low-cost molecular methods to characterise gastrointestinal nematode co-infections of goats in Africa. Parasit Vectors 16 , 216 (2023). Lester, H. E. et al. Anthelmintic efficacy against cyathostomins in horses in Southern England. Vet Parasitol 197 , 189–196 (2013). Sargison, N. D. et al. Conjunctival mucous membrane colour as an indicator for the targeted selective treatment of haemonchosis and of the general health status of peri-urban smallholder goats in southern Malawi. Prev Vet Med 186 , (2021). Honhold, N., Petit, H. & Halliwell, W. Condition scoring scheme for small east african goats in Zimbabwe. Trop Anim Health Prod 21 , 121–127 (1989). Soto-Barrientos, N. et al. Comparing body condition score and FAMACHA© to identify hair-sheep ewes with high faecal egg counts of gastrointestinal nematodes in farms under hot tropical conditions. Small Ruminant Research 167 , 92–99 (2018). Bolajoko, M.-B. et al. The basic reproduction quotient (Q0) as a potential spatial predictor of the seasonality of ovine haemonchosis. Geospat Health 9 , 333–350 (2015). Jaimez-Rodríguez, P. R. et al. The worm burden of tracer kids and lambs browsing heterogeneous vegetation is influenced by strata harvested and not total dry matter intake or plant life form. Trop Anim Health Prod 51 , 2243–2251 (2019). Ndlela, S. Z., Mkwanazi, M. v & Chimonyo, M. Characterisation of the indigenous knowledge used for gastrointestinal nematode control in smallholder farming areas of KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa. BMC Vet Res 18 , (2021). Chakale, M. V, Mwanza, M. & Aremu, A. O. Ethnoveterinary Knowledge and Biological Evaluation of Plants Used for Mitigating Cattle Diseases: A Critical Insight Into the Trends and Patterns in South Africa. Front Vet Sci 8 , (2021). Ahmed, M., Laing, M. D. & Nsahlai, I. v. In vitro anthelmintic activity of crude extracts of selected medicinal plants against Haemonchus contortus from sheep. J Helminthol 87 , 174–179 (2013). Amin, M., Mostofa, M., Hoque, M. & Sayed, M. In vitro anthelmintic efficacy of some indigenous medicinal plants against gastrointestinal nematodes of cattle. Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University 7 , 57–61 (2009). McGaw, L. J. & Abdalla, M. A. Ethnoveterinary Medicine: Present and Future Concepts . Ethnoveterinary Medicine: Present and Future Concepts (Springer International Publishing, 2019). doi:10.1007/978-3-030-32270-0. Bussmann, R. W., Paniagua-Zambrana, N. Y. & Njoroge, G. N. Commiphora africana (A. Rich.) Engl. Commiphora rostrata Engl. Commiphora schimperi (O. Bern.) Engl. Burseraceae. in Ethnobotany of the Mountain Regions of Africa 331–335 (2021). doi:10.1007/978-3-030-38386-2_48. van Wyk, J. A., Hoste, H., Kaplan, R. M. & Besier, R. B. Targeted selective treatment for worm management—How do we sell rational programs to farmers? Vet Parasitol 139 , 336–346 (2006). Gondwe, T. N. P. & Wollny, C. B. A. Traditional breeding systems in smallholder rural poultry in Malawi. in 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production 1–3 (2002). Bauer, B. U. et al. Comparison of the FLOTAC technique with the McMaster method and the Baermann technique to determine counts of Dictyocaulus eckerti L1 and strongylid eggs in faeces of red deer ( Cervus elaphus ). Parasitol Res 107 , 555–560 (2010). Nimbeshaho, F. et al. Antimycobacterial activities, cytotoxicity and phytochemical screening of extracts for three medicinal plants growing in Kenya. Journal of Medicinal Plants Research 14 , 129–143 (2020). Amin, M. R., Mostofa, M., Hoque, M. E. & Sayed, M. A. In vitro anthelmintic efficacy of some indigenous medicinal plants against gastrointestinal nematodes of cattle. Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University 7 , 57–61 (1970). Ahmed, M., Laing, M. D. & Nsahlai, I. V. In vitro anthelmintic activity of crude extracts of selected medicinal plants against Haemonchus contortus from sheep. J Helminthol 87 , 174–179 (2012). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files 2025MalawiTSTSupplementalMaterialPMAScirep.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 16 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 15 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 24 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 16 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 23 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 23 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 23 Jun, 2025 Reviews received at journal 10 Apr, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Apr, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Apr, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 02 Apr, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 02 Apr, 2025 Editor invited by journal 26 Mar, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 26 Mar, 2025 First submitted to journal 15 Mar, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {\"props\":{\"pageProps\":{\"initialData\":{\"identity\":\"rs-6235021\",\"acceptedTermsAndConditions\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"archivedVersions\":[],\"articleType\":\"Article\",\"associatedPublications\":[],\"authors\":[{\"id\":441290691,\"identity\":\"4320f53b-95ef-4fb1-96c0-8bf2c67fc77f\",\"order_by\":0,\"name\":\"Javier Ventura-Cordero\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Queen's University Belfast\",\"correspondingAuthor\":true,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Javier\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Ventura-Cordero\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":441290695,\"identity\":\"f67853d5-ffa0-4d09-9ce4-6dffcad40c45\",\"order_by\":1,\"name\":\"Paul M. Airs\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Queen's University Belfast\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Paul\",\"middleName\":\"M.\",\"lastName\":\"Airs\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":441290697,\"identity\":\"801c792d-2cbb-4126-b6f3-725fc324f12d\",\"order_by\":2,\"name\":\"Andrews C. L. Safalaoh\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Andrews\",\"middleName\":\"C. L.\",\"lastName\":\"Safalaoh\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":441290698,\"identity\":\"aa0ad73b-541a-49e5-a8f1-30abc24b5d4d\",\"order_by\":3,\"name\":\"Winchester Mvula\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Winchester\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Mvula\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":441290700,\"identity\":\"7037c402-dffd-4ced-acfb-a583f5d3604e\",\"order_by\":4,\"name\":\"Andrew S. Cooke\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Rothamsted Research\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Andrew\",\"middleName\":\"S.\",\"lastName\":\"Cooke\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":441290701,\"identity\":\"1cf63ea1-49e2-4916-a790-7ecaac7f9b37\",\"order_by\":5,\"name\":\"Lovemore C. Gwiriri\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Rothamsted Research\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Lovemore\",\"middleName\":\"C.\",\"lastName\":\"Gwiriri\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":441290702,\"identity\":\"ec315cce-6f8e-4a5e-b3f0-d9e565363c3f\",\"order_by\":6,\"name\":\"Honest Machekano\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Botswana International University of Science and Technology\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Honest\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Machekano\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":441290703,\"identity\":\"b0920415-d54c-433b-8d92-11d9786d8f6e\",\"order_by\":7,\"name\":\"Paul Wagstaff\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Gorta Self Help Africa\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Paul\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Wagstaff\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":441290704,\"identity\":\"27079e65-199a-4b8c-9525-7b39d5253144\",\"order_by\":8,\"name\":\"Casper Nyamukondiwa\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Botswana International University of Science and Technology\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Casper\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Nyamukondiwa\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":441290705,\"identity\":\"4b7b2e48-a38e-431f-b3e7-3545a532c7f9\",\"order_by\":9,\"name\":\"Michael R. F. Lee\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Harper Adams University\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Michael\",\"middleName\":\"R. F.\",\"lastName\":\"Lee\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":441290706,\"identity\":\"7145f748-c3fd-4f3c-b717-c34afa40b5bc\",\"order_by\":10,\"name\":\"Taro Takahashi\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Rothamsted Research\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Taro\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Takahashi\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":441290707,\"identity\":\"3f6771e1-c5f1-463b-a54f-80d8294d7abd\",\"order_by\":11,\"name\":\"Jan van Wyk\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"University of Pretoria\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Jan\",\"middleName\":\"van\",\"lastName\":\"Wyk\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":441290708,\"identity\":\"c6a6263a-0f47-42b8-b9af-1bc32f0c4cff\",\"order_by\":12,\"name\":\"Patson C. Nalivata\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Patson\",\"middleName\":\"C.\",\"lastName\":\"Nalivata\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":441290709,\"identity\":\"7e2fec6a-a0b6-447f-939b-17bb8afb9aba\",\"order_by\":13,\"name\":\"Eric R. Morgan\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Queen's University Belfast\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Eric\",\"middleName\":\"R.\",\"lastName\":\"Morgan\",\"suffix\":\"\"}],\"badges\":[],\"createdAt\":\"2025-03-15 23:23:12\",\"currentVersionCode\":1,\"declarations\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6235021/v1\",\"doiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6235021/v1\",\"draftVersion\":[],\"editorialEvents\":[],\"editorialNote\":\"\",\"failedWorkflow\":false,\"files\":[{\"id\":82073395,\"identity\":\"2d649516-0cec-4417-b145-6f54870fe7f8\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-05-06 13:28:50\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"Figure 1\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":219454,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eGoat health scores under TST regimes (a) Proportion of visits whereby goats were classified as sick based on treatment decisions. (b) Health statuses experienced by individual goats over the study period. (c) Proportion of goat health statuses following interventions, including plant supplementation and/or anthelmintic drug interventions (letters indicate statistical significance, p=0.005). (d-e) Anthelmintic interventions provided to individual sick goats, with (d) the total number of doses provided and (e) goats treated over consecutive visits. For parts a-b counts were made for goats with ≥3 visits (control-TST = 96 goats over 1571 visits, plant-TST = 86 goats over 1457 visits), for parts c-e all goats were included (control-TST = 101 goats, plant-TST = 96 goats).\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"1.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6235021/v1/fbf45611eabf7d71b6af1fd1.png\"},{\"id\":82073397,\"identity\":\"6ff6ef2b-dd2c-4ed7-b24c-4a968f57c2a1\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-05-06 13:28:50\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":2,\"title\":\"Figure 2\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":750463,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eStudy design and targeted selective treatment (TST) regimes.\\u003cstrong\\u003e \\u003c/strong\\u003e(a) Experimental design to assess the impact of TST across two groups, one with anthelmintic intervention only (control-TST) and one with plant supplementation in addition to anthelmintics (plant-TST). FEC= faecal worm egg count, FPC= Five Point Check©. (b) Malawi study area and TST group intervention definitions as detailed in part (N = smallholdings included per village). (c) Five Point Check© treatment decision chart with thresholds set for TST interventions with plant supplementation (leaf symbol) and anthelmintics (syringe symbol). * Nasal discharge sufficient when combined with other treatments, or in extreme cases.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"2.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6235021/v1/c7837b7e0ecfbb19fa6e63b6.png\"},{\"id\":82073400,\"identity\":\"7ff07887-0a00-4acc-9e0a-42ffe1d7f664\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-05-06 13:28:50\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":3,\"title\":\"Figure 3\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":876431,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eSelection and implementation of plant-TST experimental beneficial plants.\\u003cstrong\\u003e \\u003c/strong\\u003e(a) Proportional use (percent of respondents feeding to goats) and seasonal availability of plants used for goat nutrition in the study area (N=48 responses, plants shown have \\u0026gt;5 mentions across respondents). Highlighted are the three species selected for plant-TST with representative images. NA = not applicable. (b-d) representative images of plant identification and use for supplementation including (b) \\u003cem\\u003eF. ingens \\u003c/em\\u003etree next to participating farmer household, (c) weight determination of supplementation in plastic containers provided to farmers, and (d) example tethered goat provided with \\u003cem\\u003eG. arborea\\u003c/em\\u003e leaves\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"3.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6235021/v1/4092313a48425d5e3d115818.png\"},{\"id\":82075564,\"identity\":\"7b70ae7a-cb8a-4953-a1d9-2788cfce9db2\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-05-06 13:44:51\",\"extension\":\"pdf\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"manuscript-pdf\",\"size\":3320204,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"manuscript.pdf\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6235021/v1/64d3c18d-cf5d-40f5-b2e1-fc4e466d450c.pdf\"},{\"id\":82073406,\"identity\":\"0f32c90e-4def-4443-8e16-60a26b988a47\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-05-06 13:28:50\",\"extension\":\"docx\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"supplement\",\"size\":2873891,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"2025MalawiTSTSupplementalMaterialPMAScirep.docx\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6235021/v1/34f18fb5de233527ecc59cf1.docx\"}],\"financialInterests\":\"No competing interests reported.\",\"formattedTitle\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eTargeted selective supplementation with local plants sustainably improves goat health and decreases anthelmintic drug need on Malawi smallholdings\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"fulltext\":[{\"header\":\"Introduction\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eGoat smallholdings provide climate-resilient security in the face of crop failure and economic instability and act as a buffer against food insecurity \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\\\"CR2\\\" citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u0026ndash;\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR3\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. However, goats suffer from a combination of parasitic disease burdens and nutritional feed gaps, leading to unsustainable losses \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e,\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR4\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e4\\u003c/span\\u003e,\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR5\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. In Malawi, seasonal nutritional feed gaps can be exacerbated by tethering goats during the growing season to avoid crop destruction, but when forage and browse plants are most abundant \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\\\"CR7\\\" citationid=\\\"CR6\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e6\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u0026ndash;\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR8\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e8\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. The practice of tethering limits time and space for grazing and browsing and can leave goats malnourished and at risk of parasitic disease \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\\\"CR10\\\" citationid=\\\"CR9\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e9\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u0026ndash;\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR11\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e11\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e, not least because the provision of veterinary care is insufficient relative to the number of animals and smallholders \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR12\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e12\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. While crops dominate rural economies, the loss of even a single goat to disease can have a devastating effect on a household\\u0026rsquo;s financial security, which in turn can impact access to services such as education and healthcare \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR6\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e6\\u003c/span\\u003e,\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR7\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e7\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMitigating threats to goat husbandry is challenging; however, the control of gastrointestinal nematodes (GINs) is critical because these infections account for significant livestock production losses and are exacerbated in warmer regions and by poor nutrition \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR13\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e13\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Although the knowledge and awareness of GINs are low in rural Malawi, goat diseases are considered a primary limitation for production. Smallholdings affected by goat diseases are also more likely to suffer from food insecurity \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR6\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e6\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Controlling GINs in goats and promoting goat health is therefore an essential component of generating resilience within subsistence agriculture systems in food-insecure regions.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eReliance on anthelmintics for GIN control in resource-poor areas, such as central Malawi, is therefore neither practical nor affordable for smallholders. Numerous solutions have been proposed to sustainably control GINs in ruminants in low-resource rural settings while minimizing the spread of anthelmintic resistance (AR). Targeted Selective Treatment (TST) is a precision farming approach appropriate for smallholder farms, whereby individual animals are treated based on thresholds, such as health changes or production loss \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR14\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e14\\u003c/span\\u003e,\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR15\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e15\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. A TST scheme based on the Five Point Check\\u0026copy; (FPC) has been devised as a low-resource method for farmers to quantify five signs of parasitic disease in sheep and goats \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR16\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e16\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Using the FPC under a TST scheme can reduce anthelmintic use by 36\\u0026ndash;97% compared to whole herd treatment, while providing significant socio-economic, ecological, and production benefits \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR17\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e17\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. However, there is limited data demonstrating the utilise of this approach when integrated with local practices or nature-based solutions. Forages are an essential component of goat production in Southern Africa and, if integrated effectively, can improve goat production and resilience, including in rural Malawi \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR4\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e4\\u003c/span\\u003e,\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR18\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e18\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. In Malawi, smallholders often provide a variety of local forages as supplements to tethered goats and numerous ethnoveterinary remedies for goat ailments \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR6\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e6\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSince awareness and use of beneficial forage exist as part of the culture of animal management in rural Malawi, there is potential to promote sustainable means of utilizing natural resources as nature-based solutions. Although the principle of TST is well established, the targeting of feed supplementation by beneficial plants is yet to be resolved in smallholder settings \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR19\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e19\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Moreover, the potential gains from combining naturally available forages and anthelmintic treatment in a targeted way remain unexamined, but could transform the ability of smallholder farmers in Africa and elsewhere to apply self-reliant solutions to changing animal health constraints and hence enhance resilience to climate change. We hypothesized that local plants may have nutraceutical properties and that, when applied in a TST approach, may improve goat health and reduce the negative impacts of GINs. This study aimed to determine whether targeted supplementation with locally available bioactive plants can support parasite management in goats on smallholder farms in Malawi.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Results\",\"content\":\"\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec3\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003ch2\\u003eParasite infections and goat health\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eThroughout the study, 3050 FPCs were performed with 2625 faecal samples analysed by FEC. FPC, FAMACHA, and BCS were the most prevalent indicators of poor goat health, present in 86.8% of borderline goat scores and 98.9% of sick goat scores, whereas dag (scour) was present in 18.4% of sick goats (Supplementary Fig. \\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003eS1\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eThe relationship between goat health (as measured by the FPC) and GIN burden was assessed using a GLMM performed on raw data (Supplementary Table \\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003eS1\\u003c/span\\u003e). Overall, GINs were prevalent, with an average of 453 EPG among \\u0026lsquo;healthy\\u0026rsquo; goats, although this varied substantially between individuals and across seasons. The FPC approach effectively estimated goats in need of anthelmintic interventions, with sick goats yielding significantly higher FECs than did borderline status goats (Supplementary Table \\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003eS1\\u003c/span\\u003e). Goats in \\u0026lsquo;borderline\\u0026rsquo; condition also had significantly higher FECs than healthy goats when looking at FAMACHA and BCS indicators. Specifically, differences were found between FAMACHA scores of 2 vs. 3 (mean 383 vs. 623 EPG, respectively, p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.001), as well as between goats with a BCS of 1.5 vs 2, 2.5, and 3 (p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.001).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eParasite infections under TST regimes\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAmong the TST regimens, the median FEC was 275 EPG for plant-TST and 200 EPG for control-TST pre-anthelmintic intervention. When needed, anthelminthic interventions were effective, reducing the median FEC to 0 EPG in both groups two weeks after treatment (Supplementary Fig. S2, Wilcoxon, df\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1, p\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.001). However, the impact of anthelmintic treatments differed between the groups, with the plant-TST group outperforming the control-TST group.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAt the group level, the plant-TST group had a mean FEC of 3010 EPG at the time of drug treatment, which reduced to 85 EPG two weeks after treatment, a reduction of 97.2%. Comparatively, the control TST group showed a reduction of 85.7% (1178 to 168 EPG). When accounting for goats that had a non-zero EPG FEC at the time of treatment, the mean reduction following treatment was 94.8% (SD 17.2) in the plant-TST group compared with 84.0% (SD 28.3) in the control-TST group (one-tailed t\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1.748, p\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.043).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAnthelmintic clearance should ideally achieve\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026gt;\\u0026thinsp;95% reduction in FEC to minimize the risk of AR. Plant-TST improved the likelihood of reaching this benchmark with a\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026gt;\\u0026thinsp;95% decrease in FEC achieved in a significantly higher proportion of goats compared to control-TST (16/18 compared with 23/38, \\u0026Chi;\\u003csup\\u003e2\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;4.933, 1 df, p\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.026).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eSeasonal shifts in goat health and GIN burdens under TST regimes\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eNovember to April is regarded as austral summer and characterized as the rainy season in southern Malawi (Table \\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e, Supplementary Fig. S3), with the highest rainfall recorded in February and the driest months from June to September. The GIN burden was strongly seasonal, with a lower FEC during the dry season and peaks in February during the rainy season (Figure. S3, Table \\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e, Supplementary Table \\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003eS1\\u003c/span\\u003e; p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.001). The same pattern was observed for goat weight, with goats losing weight during the rainy season, likely a result of restricting goat diets owing to tethering combined with increased GIN burdens (Supplementary Table S2). Despite seasonal pressures, interventions were needed during both the rainy and dry seasons, but the need for interventions was low (Table \\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003ctable id=\\\"Tab1\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 1\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eSeasonal parasite pressure over the study period under Plant TST (N\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;96 goats) and Control-TST (N\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;101 goats) regimes.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/div\\u003e\\n \\u003c/caption\\u003e\\n \\u003cthead\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eStudy\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMonth\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/th\\u003e\\n \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eRainfall mm\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e(Av\\u0026thinsp;+\\u0026thinsp;SD)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/th\\u003e\\n \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eStrongyle Faecal Egg Counts\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e(Av\\u0026thinsp;+\\u0026thinsp;SD)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/th\\u003e\\n \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eControl-TST group\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/th\\u003e\\n \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003ePlant-TST group\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/th\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" rowspan=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eFPCs*\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/th\\u003e\\n \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eAnthelmintic\\u003csup\\u003e\\u0026dagger;\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/th\\u003e\\n \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" rowspan=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eFPCs*\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/th\\u003e\\n \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eAnthelmintic\\u003csup\\u003e\\u0026dagger;\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/th\\u003e\\n \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eSupplemented\\u003csup\\u003e\\u0026dagger;\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/th\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003c/thead\\u003e\\n \\u003ctbody\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eN\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003en\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003en\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1 Jan\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e10.3 (4.1)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1926 (1977)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e21\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e19.0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e22\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e9.1\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e10\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e45.5\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2 Feb\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e7.5 (10.4)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2672 (3156)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e101\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4.0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e96\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e8\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e8.3\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e50\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e52.1\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e3 Mar\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1.2 (3.2)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1795 (2584)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e146\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e12\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e8.2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e104\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e5\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4.8\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e40\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e38.5\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4 Apr\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0.2 (1)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1128 (1489)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e99\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2.0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e134\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0.7\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e15\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e11.2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e5 May\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0.3 (1.4)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e281 (379)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0.0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e104\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0.0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e7\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6.7\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6 Jun\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0 (0.1)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e158 (193)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e91\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1.1\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e74\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1.4\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e3\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4.1\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e7 Jul\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0 (0.2)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e124 (166)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e118\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1.7\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e112\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1.8\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e7\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6.3\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e8 Aug\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0 (0)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e64 (80)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e112\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1.8\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e92\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0.0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2.2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e9 Sep\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0 (0)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e103 (135)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e150\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2.7\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e105\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1.0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e5\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4.8\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e10 Oct\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0.8 (2.6)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e219 (237)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e110\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1.8\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e124\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0.8\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e5\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4.0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e11 Nov\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0.1 (0.4)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e452 (875)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e115\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e3\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2.6\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e5\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e5.4\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e9\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e9.7\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e12 Dec\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6.3 (7.2)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e316 (499)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e125\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4.8\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e154\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1.3\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e16\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e10.4\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e13 Jan\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e8.8 (12.3)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e847 (1391)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e157\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e12\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e7.6\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e122\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1.6\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e13\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e10.7\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e14 Feb\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e13.6 (21.4)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1357 (1780)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e116\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e7\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6.0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e107\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1.9\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e14\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e13.1\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e15 Mar\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1.3 (1.5)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2205 (2680)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e27\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e7.4\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e27\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0.0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e3\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e11.1\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eAverage\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e105.4\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e4.2\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e4.7\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e98.0\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e2.1\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e2.5\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e13.3\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e15.3\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eTotals\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e1581\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e63\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e4.0\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e1470\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e32\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e2.2\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e199\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e13.5\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tbody\\u003e\\n \\u003c/table\\u003e\\n\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e* Number of Five Point Checks (FPCs) administered to individual goats. Av\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;average; SD\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;standard deviation\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026dagger; Individual goats provided anthelmintic or plant supplementation according to field farmer and veterinary assistant\\u0026rsquo;s decisions.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eDuring the dry season, goats predominantly showed a healthy FAMACHA score of 1\\u0026ndash;2 (90\\u0026ndash;98% of scores taken from May to October) and BCS\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026ge;\\u0026thinsp;2 (Supplementary Fig. S4). The highest proportion of \\u0026lsquo;sick\\u0026rsquo; goats with a BCS of 1 were registered in the first three months of the study during the rainy season. Nasal discharge scores and dag (faecal staining consequent to scour\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;diarrhoea) varied throughout sampling points, but peaked at the beginning of the study in the plant-TST group prior to interventions (Supplementary Fig. S4). The presence of submandibular oedema (bottle jaw) was rarely reported in either regime, with only one case in each group (control-TST 1/1582, plant-TST 1/1471) (Supplementary Fig. S4).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eOver the course of the study, there was a gradual decrease in the number of goats requiring anthelmintic interventions in both groups, which can be seen across months (Supplementary Fig. S4), as well as when stratified to individual goat visits (Supplementary Fig. S5). Under both TST regimes, the second rainy season resulted in more goats defined as healthy by FPC, despite the seasonal increase in GINs.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003ePlant-TST improves on goat health and minimises anthelmintic need\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003ePlant-TST experimental plants utilized for supplementation showed good nutritional profiles across the study area (see section S2.1, Supplementary Table S3). Principally, providing experimental plants to borderline and sick goats reduced the need for anthelmintic interventions compared with control-TST (plant-TST\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;2.18% of FPCs vs. control-TST\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;3.99%, X\\u003csup\\u003e2\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;7.6823, df\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1, p\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.005577, Table \\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e). This reduction in the need for anthelmintics was associated with a reduced likelihood of poor body condition scores among plant-TST goats (BCS\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1, X\\u003csup\\u003e2\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;9.8906, df\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1, p\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.001661). Plant-TST goats were also classified as marginally healthy more often than control-TST goats (median\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;86.93% for control-TST vs. 90.45% for plant-TST, \\u0026Chi;\\u003csup\\u003e2\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;3.2017, df\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1, p\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.074).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eUnder both TST schemes, it was clear that most of the goats were sufficiently healthy most of the time (Fig. \\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003ea-b). While control-TST goats spent longer periods in ill health compared to the plant-TST group (Fig. \\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003ea), almost no goats failed to register as \\u0026lsquo;healthy\\u0026rsquo; over at least one visit and demonstrated the capacity for Indigenous goats to improve in health score when provided interventions (Fig. \\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003eb). The distribution of sick goats was spread across smallholders in both groups, with many smallholders not requiring any anthelmintic interventions for the entire study period (see Section S2.2).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eImprovements in plant-TST were due to supplementation provided to borderline goats. Under plant-TST, most borderline status goats receiving supplementation improved (47.37%) or stabilized (45.39%), with only 7.24% worsening health conditions while receiving targeted plant supplementation (Fig. \\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003ec). Of the 7.24% of goats that worsened from a \\u0026lsquo;borderline\\u0026rsquo; to \\u0026lsquo;sick\\u0026rsquo; condition, 46.15% immediately returned to a healthy state. Comparatively, in the control-TST group, treatments were significantly less effective, resulting in 29.55% of individuals failing to improve (Fig. \\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003ec, \\u0026Chi;-squared\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;7.581, df\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1, p\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.005).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFailure of anthelmintics to improve goat health conditions under control-TST resulted in more goats receiving multiple anthelmintic doses (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003ed), and some required consecutive treatments (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003ee). Because 100% of the plant-TST goats improved following treatment with anthelmintics, no consecutive treatments were needed.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eTST monitoring maximises precision and minimises resource needs\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe resource use and accuracy of anthelmintic treatments were compared to simulated whole-group targeted treatments (TT) and annual whole-herd treatment strategies (Supplementary Table S4). For any given time point, whole group treatments would result in 86\\u0026ndash;100% of anthelmintic doses wasted on non-sick individuals (average 94.9%, SD 4.5). A single annual whole-herd intervention would, at best, treat 21.9% of sick goats in the same year (March 2020). A TT scheme based on pooled FEC thresholds of 500, 1000, or 2000 EPG would result in an 189\\u0026ndash;804% increase in anthelmintic use with 92.2\\u0026ndash;92.6% of doses provided to non-sick individuals, while missing 37.6\\u0026ndash;85.9% of sick individuals when FECs were low (Supplementary Table S4).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eWhen looking at botanical resource use, only 199/1471 visits (13.5%) resulted in supplementation, with the majority provided to goats in borderline condition (167/199, 83.9%). The need for supplementation was also highest during the rainy season (Table \\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e). Of the 58.3% of goats receiving supplementation at least once, experimental plants were provided for an average of 2.9 out of 17.6 visits (16.9%). \\u003cem\\u003eIn toto\\u003c/em\\u003e 248.8 kg of plant material was harvested over 399 days from 23 farms. An average plant harvest of 2.7 kg per goat, 27.1 g per smallholder per day, or 6.8 g per goat per day was recorded (Tables \\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e and S5).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eSupplementing all goats over the study period would have required 9576 kg of plant material (a 3850% increase). Whole group treatments over the study period following the same supplementation regime (5-day periods checked every 2 weeks) would require 3420 kg of plant material (1374% increase), or 35.6 kg per goat. A hypothetical TT supplementation regime limited to the rainy season (November \\u0026ndash; April) when GINs burdens are highest would require 1851 kg of plant material (744% increase), or 19.28 kg per goat. Limiting plant use to TST under FPC massively reduced the botanical resources required while supporting goat health.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003ctable id=\\\"Tab2\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 2\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eSupplementation across plant-TST smallholdings (extended in Supplementary Table S5).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/div\\u003e\\n \\u003c/caption\\u003e\\n \\u003cthead\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/th\\u003e\\n \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eVisits\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/th\\u003e\\n \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eEvents*\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/th\\u003e\\n \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eGoats (\\u003cem\\u003en\\u003c/em\\u003e)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/th\\u003e\\n \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eHarvest (kg)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/th\\u003e\\n \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eHarvest per goat (kg)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/th\\u003e\\n \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eHarvest per visit (kg)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/th\\u003e\\n \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eAverage harvest per day (g)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/th\\u003e\\n \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eAverage per goat per day (g)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/th\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003c/thead\\u003e\\n \\u003ctbody\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eCommiphora africana\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e363\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e77\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e18\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e96.3\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e5.3\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0.265\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e48.2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e14.0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eFicus ingens\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e927\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e89\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e63\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e111.3\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1.8\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0.120\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e18.6\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4.4\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eGmelina arborea\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e400\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e33\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e15\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e41.3\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2.8\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0.103\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e34.5\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6.9\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eTotal\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e1471\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e199\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e96\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e248.8\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e2.6\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e0.169\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e27.1\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e6.8\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAverage per smallholder\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e73.5\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e8.7\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e4.2\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e10.8\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e2.7\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e0.194\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eSD\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e36.1\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6.9\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1.3\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e8.6\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2.4\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0.147\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e21.6\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6.0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMin\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e10\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0.0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0.0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0.0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0.0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0.0\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMax\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e174\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e26\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e8\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e32.5\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e8.8\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e0.490\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e81.5\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e21.9\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tbody\\u003e\\n \\u003c/table\\u003e\\n\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e* Number of times individual goats were provided with supplementation, according to field decisions.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec8\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003ch2\\u003ePlant species impact under plant-TST\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eComparison across plant species revealed no differences in the frequency of \\u003cem\\u003eF. ingens\\u003c/em\\u003e and \\u003cem\\u003eG. arborea\\u003c/em\\u003e use, but an increased use of \\u003cem\\u003eC. africana\\u003c/em\\u003e (Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e, Supplementary Fig. S6) (X\\u003csup\\u003e2\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;40.121, df\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;2, p-value\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1.94e-09). Conversely, \\u003cem\\u003eC. africana\\u003c/em\\u003e showed the most favourable nutritional profile among the experimental plants (Supplementary Table S3). The majority of \\u003cem\\u003eC. africana\\u003c/em\\u003e needs came from three farms with \\u0026gt;\\u0026thinsp;50 visits each, two in Chinkhowe and one in Mazinga (Supplementary Table S5). For all experimental plants, most harvesting occurred at the start of the study and during the second rainy season (Supplementary Fig. S6).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eTo assess whether applying plant-TST delayed the need for anthelmintics, Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed using the first instance of anthelmintic intervention as the end event (Supplementary Fig. S7). Curves showed a tendency for plant supplementation to delay the need for initial anthelmintic treatment, but this was not statistically significant (p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026gt;\\u0026thinsp;0.05) (Supplementary Fig. S7). Similarly, no significant difference in survival to treatment was found by Kaplan-Meier analysis according to the number of plant interventions offered (Supplementary Fig. S7). Of the experimental species tested, \\u003cem\\u003eF. ingens\\u003c/em\\u003e showed the best performance: after 225 days, time-to-first drug treatment probability was higher for \\u003cem\\u003eF. ingens\\u003c/em\\u003e (87%) than \\u003cem\\u003eC. africana\\u003c/em\\u003e (74%) and \\u003cem\\u003eG. arborea\\u003c/em\\u003e (59%) (Supplementary Fig. S7, p\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.039).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eEffect of TST regimes on productive performance\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eNasal discharge, FAMACHA, BCS, health status, lactation, sampling month, age, and location all influenced goat weight (Supplementary Table S2). Goats with a FAMACHA score of 2 were significantly heavier than goats with a FAMACHA score of 3 (31.7 vs 31.0 kg, p\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.019). Animals with a BCS of 1.5 (28.7 kg) were lighter than animals with a BCS of 2 (29.6 kg, p\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.005). However, there was no significant difference in weight between animals treated with BCS 1 and 1.5. In addition, pregnant goats were heavier than lactating and non-lactating goats (Supplementary Table S2; p\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.001).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFrom July (dry season) to December (beginning of rainy season), the highest BW was 32.0 to 32.9 kg, respectively. No significant differences in BW were found according to health status, although there was a tendency for sick animals to be lighter (30.1 kg BW) than those with healthy (31.0 kg BW) or borderline status (31.0 kg BW, p\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.09).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAnimals in Mkwinda were significantly heavier than goats from Mazinga and Kamchezera but not from Chinkhowe. The goats included in the trial, which were all adults, maintained their BW, showing negligible BW changes over the study of -6, -5, -4, and \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;11 g BW for Mazinga, Chinkhowe, Kamchezera, and Mkwinda, respectively.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eDuring the study period, 122 children were born: 31 in Chinkhowe, 27 in Kamchezera, 30 in Mazinga, and 34 in Mkwinda. There was no difference in kid birth weight between plant-TST and TST groups, 2.93 and 2.96 kg BW at birth, respectively (p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026gt;\\u0026thinsp;0.05). Likewise, there was no difference in children\\u0026rsquo;s BWC from birth to the end of the study between TST-Plant and Control-TST 54 vs. 52 g DWG, respectively (p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026gt;\\u0026thinsp;0.05). Therefore, at the aggregate level, goats performed similarly between plant-TST and control-TST groups, signalling that TST is an effective means of improving productivity by reducing GIN burden and that plant-TST can produce the same impact on goat performance with less anthelmintic use.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFinally, there were some cases of unexplained goat death in both groups (as necropsies were not possible). Both TST regimes reduced the proportion of goat deaths when compared to a survey of the year prior in the study area (Supplementary Table S4, \\u0026Chi;\\u003csup\\u003e2\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;14.072, df\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;2, p\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.00088). In the plant-TST group 11/12 goats that died were \\u0026lsquo;healthy\\u0026rsquo; status prior to death compared to 2/11 for control-TST (Supplementary Table S6). As such, plant TST deaths may not have been attributable to health or the GIN burden.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Discussion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThis study aimed to determine whether targeted supplementation with locally available bioactive plants can support parasite management in goats on smallholder farms in Malawi, where income is largely dependent on agricultural exports and subsistence crops \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR20\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e20\\u003c/span\\u003e,\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR21\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e21\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e but goats provide a vital buffer against food insecurity. Goat diseases were managed through low-resource veterinary practices and locally available bioactive plants as no-cost nature-based solutions.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAlthough many studies have investigated how plants can improve the health status of small ruminants directly and/or indirectly \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\\\"CR23\\\" citationid=\\\"CR22\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e22\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u0026ndash;\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR24\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e24\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e, little has been reported on the application of local plant resources as potential nutraceuticals in a targeted manner using participatory farmer-led approaches. In doing so, this study aimed to improve goat health while reducing the need for anthelmintic drug treatment in resource-poor environments.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec11\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eEffects of plant-TST on goat health\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHigh GIN pressure and limited access to forage prevent goats from selectively browsing to combat GIN infection \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR25\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e25\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Experimental plants were selected with potential nutraceutical benefits that can enhance livestock health using existing ethnobotanical knowledge and \\u0026lsquo;cut and carry\\u0026rsquo; livestock management practices. The potential nutraceutical value of local plant resources was evaluated based on the extra nutrient supply (protein and energy) and, in some cases, specialized plant secondary metabolites with proven activity against helminth infections \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR19\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e19\\u003c/span\\u003e,\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR26\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e26\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAmple potential candidate beneficial plants exist in Malawi, and a survey of local smallholders resulted in three candidate tree species (\\u003cem\\u003eC. africana, F. ingens\\u003c/em\\u003e, and \\u003cem\\u003eG. arborea\\u003c/em\\u003e) being selected for inclusion in the plant-TST supplementation. The use of these species under plant-TST resulted in 74% of goats not requiring anthelmintic intervention. Goats that required anthelmintic intervention more consistently and immediately improved in health compared to control-TST with anthelmintic alone (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003ec-e), with health improvement being associated with greater reductions in parasite load following treatment.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe improved response to anthelmintic treatment in goats offered plant supplementation suggests a synergistic effect on GIN infection. This agrees with recent \\u003cem\\u003ein vitro\\u003c/em\\u003e studies showing synergistic effects between anthelmintic and plant secondary metabolites (PSM), improving the efficacy of drugs\\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR27\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e27\\u003c/span\\u003e,\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR28\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e28\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Therefore, there is a possibility that PSM enhance the effect of albendazole anthelmintic in goats. However, care is warranted when choosing the plant and anthelmintic drug combination, as previously feeding sainfoin (\\u003cem\\u003eOnobrychis viciifolia\\u003c/em\\u003e) pellets reduced parasite clearance in combination with ivermectin\\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e29\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. The fact that no such inhibitory effect was observed here supports the use of the chosen plants in combination with anthelmintics when needed.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe lack of detectable effects of plant supplementation on FEC prior to anthelmintic treatment suggests that their positive effects on health cannot be ascribed to direct effects against the parasites; rather, they are generally supportive of health. The experimental plants used in this study showed a good nutritional profile with a high crude protein content (\\u0026gt;\\u0026thinsp;15%, see Supplementary Table S3). A major effect of GIN infection is protein loss, as such a supplemental supply of crude protein in the diet via experimental plant supplementation could compensate for this loss and additionally increase postprandial amino acid supply to bolster the immune system \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR30\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e30\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e, leading to a positive effect on body condition and, in growing animals, live weight gain \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR31\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e31\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e, subsequently increasing resilience to biotic stress \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR32\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e32\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePlant supplements did not delay the requirement for anthelmintic treatment when assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis, and multiple rounds of supplementation did not delay the first treatment. However, goats offered \\u003cem\\u003eF. ingens\\u003c/em\\u003e were significantly more likely to delay the need for drug intervention than \\u003cem\\u003eG. arborea\\u003c/em\\u003e and \\u003cem\\u003eC. africana\\u003c/em\\u003e. Because \\u003cem\\u003eF. ingens\\u003c/em\\u003e is readily available during the rainy season, it could be particularly helpful when a high GIN infection intensity is expected. However, \\u003cem\\u003eF. ingens\\u003c/em\\u003e contained the lowest crude protein content of the experimental plants; therefore, its impact may be the result of PSMs, overall nutritional value, or physical properties of \\u003cem\\u003eF. ingens\\u003c/em\\u003e in the gut. For instance, \\u003cem\\u003eF. ingens\\u003c/em\\u003e was noticeably higher in fibres and may have had a lower digestibility, increasing roughage. Although targeted plant supplementation did not reduce or delay the need for a first anthelmintic treatment, the overall anthelmintic requirement to maintain good health was reduced in goats subjected to plant-TST compared to control-TST.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe plant-TST regime enhanced goat health and lowered the number of single and repeated anthelmintic treatments needed (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e) we well as enhancing parasitological responses to treatment (Supplementary Fig. S2) but plant supplementation alone did not reduce FEC or delay time until initial anthelmintic treatment. Together, these results suggest that plants have the capacity to enhance host resilience to GIN infections through physiological and/or immunological means, but more research is needed to determine the mechanisms of these effects and to further enhance their application.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFinally, deaths were noted in both the control-TST (10.9%) and plant-TST (12.5%) groups (Supplementary Fig. S5, Supplementary Table S6). Due to the nature of the study being in a rural area and with bi-weekly checks, the cause of death could not be determined accurately for most goats. However, predation is a known issue in the area and is second only to disease in smallholders\\u0026rsquo; perceived limitations in keeping goats \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR6\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e6\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Additionally, plastic and other anthropogenic pollution is frequently observed in the intestinal tracts of goats brought to slaughter throughout Malawi, including in the study area \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR33\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e33\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Such pollution can cause lethal effects and lesions \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR34\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e34\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Because death was predominantly not observed following a decline in goat health, we can assume that the TST regimens prevented death due to GINs. Plant-TST may also prevent malnutrition-related death.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec12\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eEffects of plant-TST on productive performance\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe body weights recorded during our experiment at the four locations were similar to those previously reported by Banda et al. \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR35\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e35\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Adult male and female Malawian goats typically weigh 45\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;6.0 kg and 32\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;5.9 kg for males and females, respectively. A seasonal pattern in BW was observed during the sampling months, where the rainy season negatively affected goat weight through a combination of tethering to prevent crop destruction and GIN pressure \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR36\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e36\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Tethering drastically reduces feed resources because goats are likely to lose weight even when GIN pressures are low \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR37\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e37\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Farmers could take advantage of this knowledge and prepare for this period by accumulating hay or seed plants with an optimal nutritional profile, which can be utilized alongside the FPC to target goats based on performance and health.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eA direct effect on the birth weight of kids was not detected following beneficial plant supplementation of the dams. However, birthweight was higher than previously reported, at 1.9\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;0.53 and 1.8\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;0.48 kg for kid males and females, respectively \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR38\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e38\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. With no untreated group included for ethical reasons, anthelmintic interventions may have improved goat performance across the board in all four villages, as was found with the TST application in Botswana \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR17\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e17\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Higher childbirth weights compared with other local studies might alternatively be a result of the crossbreeding of goats and associated hybrid vigour. Karau and Banda \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR38\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e38\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e reported higher kid birth weight and BWC in dams of Saanen \\u0026times; local breeds than in pure local breeds.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eNotwithstanding the lack of a detectable performance advantage at the village level when goats were offered targeted plant supplementation in addition to TST with anthelmintics, no negative effects were observed, and anthelmintic input costs were reduced.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec13\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eEffects of plant-based intervention on parasite infection\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBased on a study by Huttner et al. \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR39\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e39\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003ehelminthiasis, specifically infections caused by \\u003cem\\u003eHaemonchus\\u003c/em\\u003e spp., is a major factor leading to goat and sheep mortality in Malawi. \\u003cem\\u003eH. contortus\\u003c/em\\u003e is dominant in the study area, accounting for 51.3% of the nemabiome sequencing reads \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR40\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e40\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. In general, parasite burdens are skewed towards the most heavily infected individuals\\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR41\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e41\\u003c/span\\u003e,\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR42\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e42\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Consequently, targeted interventions can be used to suppress onward parasite transmission when determined by the GIN load (as inferred from faecal egg density) or from the FPC (particularly the FAMACHA score).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe FEC analyses showed that animals with FAMACHA 3 had a significantly higher egg load than those with FAMACHA 2. However, such differences did not occur between other scores (e.g., FAMACHA 4 and 458 EPG). This was possibly due to the inherent variability of the FEC in the animals, and the fact that FAMACHA indicates a combination of parasite load and an individual animal\\u0026rsquo;s resilience to the effects of infection.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGoats with \\u0026gt;\\u0026thinsp;1.5 BCS had a low FEC, suggesting that BCS is a good indicator of the GIN burden in goats. BCS is an indirect measurement of body reserves \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR43\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e43\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e, indicating that thin animals struggled to resist parasitic infections due to a malnourished state. However, a low BCS may be a consequence of impaired metabolism, supplying resources to repair the internal damage caused by GIN \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR30\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e30\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Other studies have also identified the use of BCS to identify small ruminants with high FEC\\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR44\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e44\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. When designing and implementing TST programs, especially in circumstances where diagnostic capabilities are limited, it is important to consider multiple measures and factors (e.g., BCS). Such factors include but are not limited to season, weather, and other health indicators.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe increase in FECs coincided with the start of the rainy season. This response appeared to be independent of the physiological status of animals. GIN epidemiology is driven by climatic conditions, especially \\u003cem\\u003eH. contortus\\u003c/em\\u003e, which is considered the main GIN in small ruminants \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR45\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e45\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. This seasonal effect can lead to the build-up of infective larvae that are released \\u003cem\\u003een masse\\u003c/em\\u003e onto pastures under the right conditions, as has been observed elsewhere under tropical conditions for sheep and goats \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR46\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e46\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFinally, it was expected that sick goats would show a high infection rate. The lack of discernible reductions in FEC from plant supplementation alone suggests that its epidemiological impact will be limited unless combined with direct antiparasitic effects, such as additional anthelmintic interventions or selective breeding of parasite-resistant animals.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAlbendazole effectiveness was tested in both TST regimes and both showed a significant reduction in FEC, although this was enhanced following plant supplementation. This finding emphasizes the potential of using plants as supplements along with strictly targeted drug administration to achieve better health outcomes and more sustainable anthelmintic use.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec14\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eBotanical resources as nature-based solutions\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEthnoveterinary medicines are a widely used low-cost and sustainable method of controlling parasites and diseases worldwide \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR47\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e47\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. However, the use of ethnoveterinary medicines has been poorly documented. A recent study identified that ~\\u0026thinsp;80% of known plants used for cattle ailments in South Africa are yet to be assessed in a biological or veterinary context \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR48\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e48\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. In the study area, available plants, such as forage and browse, were identified through smallholder surveys, local plant identification, and chemical analyses \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR8\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e8\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOf the experimental plants \\u003cem\\u003eF. ingens\\u003c/em\\u003e and \\u003cem\\u003eG. arborea\\u003c/em\\u003e were tested against \\u003cem\\u003eH. contortus\\u003c/em\\u003e and adult GINs from cattle, respectively \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR49\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e49\\u003c/span\\u003e,\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR50\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e50\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Co\\u003cem\\u003emmiphora\\u003c/em\\u003e spp. have been used to treat diarrhoea and tick wounds in goats \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR51\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e51\\u003c/span\\u003e,\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR52\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e52\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. This is the first report assessing the nutraceutical properties of \\u003cem\\u003eF. ingens, G. arborea and\\u003c/em\\u003e Co\\u003cem\\u003emmiphora\\u003c/em\\u003e spp. in goats using farmer-led approaches, and the findings suggest that they can play an important role in parasite management. However, much more work is needed to gain a better picture of ethnoveterinary knowledge and botanical natural resources to fully realize the potential sustainability of small ruminant health in rural and low-resource settings.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMinimizing costs and input requirements is critical for implementing sustainable GIN control in low-resource areas. Given that 66% of control-TST and 74% of plant-TST goats never required anthelmintics, any group-level treatment would inadvertently waste anthelmintics and reduce the refugia of susceptible GINs in healthy goats or goats with subclinical infections \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR15\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e15\\u003c/span\\u003e,\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR53\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e53\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Group-level treatment estimates showed a dramatic increase in anthelmintic and botanical resource use but were less accurate (Supplementary Table S5). Group-level and even individual treatments based on FECs in these settings would be wasteful and inaccurate, as healthy goats can have high FECs in the rainy season, while a low-level infection can be clinically significant when individuals are malnourished (see Supplementary Table S4). The balancing act between seasonal nutritional feed gaps and GIN burdens is exactly why monitoring approaches such as FPC are required in smallholder settings.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCritically, the TST aims to minimize the over-harvesting or wasteful harvesting of botanical natural resources. Protecting the existing biodiversity of beneficial botanical natural resources is essential for sustainable nature-based solutions, but work is needed to delineate the value and care of natural resources. Through TST, it was found that plant harvesting was minimal and had significant health impacts (see Section 3.5). Through TST, plant harvesting was reduced by 97.4% compared to the continual whole group treatments, 92.72% compared to the periodic whole group treatments (5-day periods every 14-days), and 86.55% compared to the seasonal period for all treatment groups. As a result, TST prevents overharvesting and targets plant use for individuals in need, while preventing overharvesting to feed individuals in good health.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec15\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eLimitations and future outlook\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe main limitation of the study was the lack of an \\u0026lsquo;no intervention\\u0026rsquo; group. This decision was made because the disease impacts of GINs and malnutrition are well documented, and a lack of intervention would cause undue burdens and food security impacts on the study participants. Another limitation was the inability to track the nutritional uptake and movement of individual goats over time; therefore, the possible effects of other dietary elements were masked. However, because this is an applied study on real farm settings in remote areas, the goal was to demonstrate the integration of nature-based veterinary practices to limit GINs with local and low-resource practices performed by smallholders.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e The aim of this study was to demonstrate the hidden value of local practices and natural resources that can enhance the resilience of farming when integrated with veterinary techniques, such as TST. As a short-term study, it was not possible to monitor how smallholders managed using the TST and FPC scores after the study ended. As an improvement in the general health status of goats, plant-TST could be spread to other farmers in the region, but the time and resources to promote and assess its use at scale were limited.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFuture research should aim to determine long-term improvements in food security as a result of improved livestock management; however, both retrospective analyses of existing interventions and longer-term efforts to disseminate knowledge and tools that enable sustainable livestock practices in low-resource settings are needed.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThese data highlight the need for tools that empower farmers to detect declining health throughout the year in individual goats, to prevent unnecessary losses due to GINs and malnutrition in smallholdings. Our results show that nature-based solutions using local plant resources, including \\u003cem\\u003eF. ingens, G. arborea\\u003c/em\\u003e, and Co\\u003cem\\u003emmiphora\\u003c/em\\u003e species, can improve the productive performance of goats and reduce the need for antiparasitic treatment when applied in a farmer-led TST program utilizing FPC. The selective feeding of these plants reduced the need for drug intervention by 54% relative to TST using anthelmintic drugs alone, while reducing plant use by up to 97.4%. Providing beneficial plant supplements helped goats avoid consecutive drug interventions, which facilitated the refugia of drug-susceptible GINs and reduced the financial and environmental costs associated with drug use.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Materials and methods\",\"content\":\"\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec17\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003ch2\\u003eStudy design\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eThe study was initiated through surveys to identify goat management practices, beneficial plant use, and the socioeconomic impacts of smallholdings (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003ea). An analysis of goat management practices, plant use, and the livelihood impacts of goat smallholdings in the study area has been published elsewhere \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e6\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Molecular confirmation of GIN disease burden and identification of widespread \\u003cem\\u003eHaemonchus contortus\\u003c/em\\u003e and \\u003cem\\u003eTrichostrongylus colubriformis\\u003c/em\\u003e infections have also been previously reported in the study cohort \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e40\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Further details relating to the study area, recruitment, and baseline data collection are provided in the Supplementary Materials.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eThe prevailing climate in the study area is wet tropical with an annual average temperature of 20.7\\u0026deg;C and rainfall from 1000 to 1500 mm \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e54\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Precipitation, minimum, and maximum temperature data were obtained from January 2020 to March 2021 from the NOAA/ESRL Physical Sciences Laboratory website (\\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttp://psl.noaa.gov/\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eParticipating farmers were split into TST groups by village (Fig. \\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003eb) using the simple random sampling (\\u0026quot;randbetween\\u0026rdquo; function, Microsoft Excel\\u0026reg;) and provided training and background relating to GINs and goat health monitoring using the FPC alongside the TST concept. Whole village areas were allocated to one TST regime to minimise confusion and deviation from the intervention protocol arising from communication between farmers within villages. An initial 43 smallholders were recruited from Kamchezera (13 farmers, 58 adult goats, 29.13\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;5.86 kg body weight (BW)), Mkwinda (8 farmers, 43 adult goats, 30.89\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;5.90 kg BW), Chinkhowe (10 farmers, 41 adult goats, 28.59\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;5.11 kg BW), and Mazinga (12 farmers, 55 adult goats, 30.28\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;6.01 kg BW). A total of 197 Indigenous breed goats (194 females and three males) aged\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026gt;\\u0026thinsp;one year up to \\u0026gt;\\u0026thinsp;four years of age belonging to smallholders were included with age, breed, physiological status, initial weight, and sex recorded at the start of the study; details are provided in the Supplementary Materials and data. All goats included in this study were provided with ear tags for identification.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec18\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003ch2\\u003eEthics declarations\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eThe study was conducted following the research ethics procedures of the Animal Science Department of the LUANAR sub-Ethics Committee Surveys and data collection included in the study and the manner of collecting survey responses were reviewed and approved by the Animal Science Department Ethics Committee at the Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR), (approval no. ANS/2018/5) on August 16, 2019, and seconded by the Ethical Review Board of Rothamsted Research. Informed consent for study participation on site of data collected was performed prior to survey collection with the objectives of the study explained. All participants were informed that they were free to leave the study at any time and consent was obtained through signatures for literate participants or verbally declared in the presence of LUANAR team members for illiterate participants. Authors declare they complied with the ARRIVE guidelines.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eInformed consent\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003efor publication\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eEach participant was interviewed individually in their own language by a translator providing a written consent form that detailed the right to leave at any time, the right for destruction of information, confidentiality of information, consent to participate and consent to publish (see Supplementary Materials for an example consent form). All subjects involved consent to publish the information and images. All information about methodology, procedures and sampling moments was explained, and any questions were responded to.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec19\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003ch2\\u003eAccordance statement for human study\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eAll methods were performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec20\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003ch2\\u003eHealth monitoring and Targeted Selective Treatment (TST)\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eTo apply the TST (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003eb), a treatment decision chart was designed based on the FPC scores of individual goats (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003ec). Individual \\u0026lsquo;sick\\u0026rsquo; goats with any score of FAMACHA\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026ge;\\u0026thinsp;4, Dag score\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026ge;\\u0026thinsp;4, body condition score (BCS)\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026le;\\u0026thinsp;1, or jaw score\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1 (submandibular oedema) indicative of seriously failing health were treated by trained staff with anthelminthic using albendazole (Albendex 100, Alfavet\\u0026reg;, Kenya) at a dose of 10 mg/kg of BW administered orally. Two TST regimens were followed, divided by location (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003eb). The control TST (n\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;101 goats) group included Kamchezera and Mkwinda, where TST was performed with anthelmintics alone. Goats in the control-TST group were fed a basal diet (grazing\\u0026thinsp;+\\u0026thinsp;supplement feed) and did not receive additional supplementation with experimental plants.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eThe plant-TST group (n\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;96) included Chinkhowe and Mazinga farmers, who followed the same system but were instructed to provide additional supplementation with specified local experimental plants (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e). Plant-TST was provided to goats in both \\u0026lsquo;sick\\u0026rsquo; (in addition to anthelmintic) and \\u0026lsquo;borderline\\u0026rsquo; health conditions with FPC scores, including FAMACHA\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;3, Dag score\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;3, or BCS\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1.5, and plant-TST supplementation was offered in addition to the basal diet (grazing\\u0026thinsp;+\\u0026thinsp;supplementary feeds normally offered). During the first visit, branches of each selected experimental plant species were harvested, and ~\\u0026thinsp;250 g was weighed on a fresh basis in plastic containers (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003ec). Farmers used containers to estimate the number of branches needed for each animal during the TST. Supplemented goats received\\u0026thinsp;~\\u0026thinsp;250 g of experimental plants daily for at least five consecutive days following FPC scoring (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003ed). Further details are provided in the supplemental material.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eGoats that received anthelmintic treatment or plant supplementation were marked with a plastic tie around the lower leg, and a faecal sample was collected. Afterward, the samples were stored in a refrigerated box at 4\\u0026deg;C for transport to the laboratory. Faecal nematode egg counts (FECs) were performed on each individual sample collected during FPC scoring, using the McMaster method to estimate egg density (eggs per gram of faeces, EPG). The multiplication factor was 50 per egg \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e55\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec21\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003ch2\\u003eExperimental plant selection\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eFor botanical nature-based solutions to be effective, resources used must be sufficiently abundant and accessible, with AH activity, nutritious and beneficial to goat health, readily identifiable, and ideally utilised as part of existing cultural practices of animal management. To identify plant species which fit these criteria, a survey was carried out in Mkwinda where respondents (N\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;48) were asked to \\u0026ldquo;name 5 readily available (frequent) and 5 less available plants in the area where the goats graze\\u0026rdquo; for both \\u0026lsquo;rainy\\u0026rsquo; and \\u0026lsquo;dry/grazing\\u0026rsquo; seasons (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003ea). Responses were collected as part of a wider socio-economic survey \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e6\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e in which farmers detailed the use of local botanical resources to supplement goat health; however, the question above was separated from the published analysis and is presented here due to its relevance to the study.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eCommiphora africana\\u003c/em\\u003e (A. Rich) Engl. (common name\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;Kakhobo or African Myrrh), \\u003cem\\u003eFicus ingens\\u003c/em\\u003e Miq (Mtawa) and \\u003cem\\u003eGmelina arborea\\u003c/em\\u003e Roxb (Malayna) were selected for their current use by smallholders, size, year-round availability, and ease of identification. Plant samples were collected monthly in plastic bags for identification in the herbarium performed by Winchester Mvula. Chemical analysis of forages and browsing across the study area were also analysed to identify \\u003cem\\u003eG. arborea\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003eC. africana\\u003c/em\\u003e, and \\u003cem\\u003eF. ingens\\u003c/em\\u003e to provide sufficient protein and nutrition with minimal variation in nutrient quality between seasons and locations \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e8\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. These species also have no reported toxicity, and their anthelmintic activity has been shown to vary from \\u003cem\\u003eCommiphora. spp\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e56\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003eG. arborea\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e57\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e, and \\u003cem\\u003eF. ingens\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e58\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e so these plants are considered bioactive. All methods involving plants were performed following the IUCN Policy Statement on Research Involving Species at Risk of Extinction.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eIndividual experimental trees selected for plant-TST were identified alongside the research staff and individual smallholders in the plant-TST group (Fig. \\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003eb). Each smallholder was instructed to harvest a set amount of plant-TST supplementation from a single specified tree for the duration of the study and to provide it only to goats receiving plant-TST treatment (Fig. \\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003ec-d). The experimental tree selection did not change for any smallholder at any time throughout the study.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec22\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003ch2\\u003eStatistical analyses \\u0026amp; data presentation\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eCollected data were collated into Microsoft Excel\\u0026reg; with all analyses and graphical statistics performed using R software version 4.1.3 (2022-03-10). The details are provided in the Supplementary Materials. The code and raw data are available at: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://github.com/PaulAirs/Malawi_GIN_Targeted_selective_supplementation\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e. No animals were excluded from the statistical analysis.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Declarations\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAcknowledgments\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eWe would like to acknowledge Dr. Aranzazu Louro-Lopez for their assistance and guidance on nutritional analysis. We are also grateful for help from the staff at\\u0026nbsp;Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR), animal health officers, and participating farmers, who were critically dependent on their work. Discussions within the EU Cooperation in Science and Technology network (CA16230, COMBAR), especially with Herv\\u0026eacute; Hoste, Felipe Torres-Acosta, Thomas Terrill, and Stig Thamsborg, helped to develop the methodology.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eFunding\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis work was supported by the United Kingdom Research and Innovation (UKRI) through the Global Challenges Research Fund (grant number BB/S014748/1, 2018). For open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAuthor contribution statement\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eJ.V.C., P.M.A. and E.R.M. wrote the original manuscript, P.M.A. prepared the figures, J.V.C., P.M.A., W.M., A.C.L.S., E.R.M., A.S.C., P.W., L.C.G., H.M., C.N., M.R.F.L., T.T., J.V.W., and P.C.N. were involved in the sampling. M.R.F.L., T.T., E.R.M., and J.V.W. were involved in conceptualising the study. All authors reviewed the manuscript.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAdditional information\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eCompeting interests\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eData availability\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAll anonymized raw data and codes for data analyses are available at https://github.com/PaulAirs/Malawi_GIN_Targeted_selective_supplementation.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"References\",\"content\":\"\\u003col\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLu, C. D. The role of goats in the world: Society, science, and sustainability. \\u003cem\\u003eSmall Ruminant Research\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e227\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 107056 (2023).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMonau, P., Raphaka, K., Zvinorova-Chimboza, P. \\u0026amp; Gondwe, T. Sustainable Utilization of Indigenous Goats in Southern Africa. \\u003cem\\u003eDiversity (Basel)\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e12\\u003c/strong\\u003e, (2020).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eNair, M. R. R. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Goat as the ideal climate-resilient animal model in tropical environment: revisiting advantages over other livestock species. \\u003cem\\u003eInt J Biometeorol\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e65\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 2229\\u0026ndash;2240 (2021).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eCooke, A. S. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e The Nutritional Feed Gap: A Review of Seasonal Variation in Ruminant Forage Availability and Quality in Southern Africa. \\u003cem\\u003eAvailable at SSRN 4673336\\u003c/em\\u003e (2023).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eFitzpatrick, J. L. Global food security: The impact of veterinary parasites and parasitologists. \\u003cem\\u003eVet Parasitol\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e195\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 233\\u0026ndash;248 (2013).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAirs, P. M. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Goat health and management for improved smallholders\\u0026rsquo; livelihoods in central Malawi \\u0026ndash; A socioeconomic analysis of rural households. \\u003cem\\u003eSmall Ruminant Research\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e229\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 107114 (2023).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKaumbata, W. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Tangible and intangible benefits of local goats rearing in smallholder farms in Malawi. \\u003cem\\u003eSmall Ruminant Research\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e187\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 106095 (2020).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eCooke, A. S. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Seasonal dynamics of forage nutrition in smallholder goat production systems in Malawi. \\u003cem\\u003eAfr J Range Forage Sci\\u003c/em\\u003e 1\\u0026ndash;10 (2024) doi:10.2989/10220119.2024.2428295.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eDahm, J. R. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Risk factors associated with Ctenocephalides felis flea infestation of peri-urban goats: a neglected parasite in an under-appreciated host. \\u003cem\\u003eTrop Anim Health Prod\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e53\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 181 (2021).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eNampanzira, D. K., Kabasa, J. D., Nalule, S. A., Nakalembe, I. \\u0026amp; Tabuti, J. R. S. Characterization of the goat feeding system among rural small holder farmers in the semi-arid regions of Uganda. \\u003cem\\u003eSpringerplus\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e4\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 1\\u0026ndash;8 (2015).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eFaftine, O., Muir, J. P. \\u0026amp; Massaete, E. Dry season supplementation of goats tethered on range supplemented with cowpea or groundnut residues with or without fresh leucaena leaves. \\u003cem\\u003eAnim Feed Sci Technol\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e76\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 1\\u0026ndash;8 (1998).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLeahy, E. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Proof of concept of faecal egg nematode counting as a practical means of veterinary engagement with planned livestock health management in a lower income country. \\u003cem\\u003eIr Vet J\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e70\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 16 (2017).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eOliveira Santos, F., Ponce Morais Cerqueira, A., Branco, A., Jos\\u0026eacute; Moreira Batatinha, M. \\u0026amp; Borges Botura, M. Anthelmintic activity of plants against gastrointestinal nematodes of goats: a review. \\u003cem\\u003eParasitology\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e146\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 1233\\u0026ndash;1246 (2019).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003evan Wyk, J. A., Hoste, H., Kaplan, R. M. \\u0026amp; Besier, R. B. Targeted selective treatment for worm management\\u0026mdash;How do we sell rational programs to farmers? \\u003cem\\u003eVet Parasitol\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e139\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 336\\u0026ndash;346 (2006).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGreer, A. W., Van Wyk, J. A., Hamie, J. C., Byaruhanga, C. \\u0026amp; Kenyon, F. Refugia-Based Strategies for Parasite Control in Livestock. \\u003cem\\u003eVeterinary Clinics: Food Animal Practice\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e36\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 31\\u0026ndash;43 (2020).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBath, G. F. \\u0026amp; van Wyk, J. A. The Five Point Check\\u0026copy; for targeted selective treatment of internal parasites in small ruminants. \\u003cem\\u003eSmall Ruminant Research\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e86\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 6\\u0026ndash;13 (2009).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eWalker, J. G. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Mixed methods evaluation of targeted selective anthelmintic treatment by resource-poor smallholder goat farmers in Botswana. \\u003cem\\u003eVet Parasitol\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e214\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 80\\u0026ndash;88 (2015).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eCooke, A. S. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Opportunities to improve goat production and food security in Botswana through forage nutrition and the use of supplemental feeds. \\u003cem\\u003eFood Secur\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e16\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 607\\u0026ndash;622 (2024).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eM\\u0026eacute;ndez-Ortiz, F. A. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cem\\u003eGymnopodium floribundum\\u003c/em\\u003e fodder as a model for the \\u003cem\\u003ein vivo\\u003c/em\\u003e evaluation of nutraceutical value against \\u003cem\\u003eHaemonchus contortus\\u003c/em\\u003e. \\u003cem\\u003eTrop Anim Health Prod\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e51\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 1591\\u0026ndash;1599 (2019).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMkwambisi, D. D., Fraser, E. D. G. \\u0026amp; Dougill, A. J. Urban agriculture and poverty reduction: Evaluating how food production in cities contributes to food security, employment and income in Malawi. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Int Dev\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e23\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 181\\u0026ndash;203 (2011).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLencucha, R. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Shifting from tobacco growing to alternatives in Malawi? A qualitative analysis of policy and perspectives. \\u003cem\\u003eHealth Policy Plan\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e35\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 810\\u0026ndash;818 (2020).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHoste, H., Torres-Acosta, J. F. J. \\u0026amp; Aguilar-Caballero, A. J. Nutrition-parasite interactions in goats: Is immunoregulation involved in the control of gastrointestinal nematodes? \\u003cem\\u003eParasite Immunol\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e30\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 79\\u0026ndash;88 (2008).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eTorres-Acosta, J. F. J. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Nutritional manipulation of sheep and goats for the control of gastrointestinal nematodes under hot humid and subhumid tropical conditions. \\u003cem\\u003eSmall Ruminant Research\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e103\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 28\\u0026ndash;40 (2012).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHoste, H. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Interactions between nutrition and infections with \\u003cem\\u003eHaemonchus contortus\\u003c/em\\u003e and related gastrointestinal nematodes in small ruminants. \\u003cem\\u003eAdv Parasitol\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e93\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 239\\u0026ndash;351 (2016).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eVentura-Cordero, J., Gonz\\u0026aacute;lez-Pech, P. G., Torres-Acosta, J. F. J., Tun-Garrido, J. \\u0026amp; Sandoval-Castro, C. A. Sheep and goat browsing a tropical deciduous forest during the rainy season: why does similar plant species consumption result in different nutrient intake? \\u003cem\\u003eAnim Prod Sci\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e59\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 66\\u0026ndash;72 (2019).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHoste, H. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Tannin containing legumes as a model for nutraceuticals against digestive parasites in livestock. \\u003cem\\u003eVet Parasitol\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e212\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 5\\u0026ndash;17 (2015).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSilva, C. R. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Combination of synthetic anthelmintics and monoterpenes: Assessment of efficacy, and ultrastructural and biophysical properties of Haemonchus contortus using atomic force microscopy. \\u003cem\\u003eVet Parasitol\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e290\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 109345 (2021).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMir\\u0026oacute;, M. V. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Combination of bioactive phytochemicals and synthetic anthelmintics: In vivo and in vitro assessment of the albendazole-thymol association. \\u003cem\\u003eVet Parasitol\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e281\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 109121 (2020).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGaudin, E. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Efficacy of sainfoin (\\u003cem\\u003eOnobrychis viciifolia\\u003c/em\\u003e) pellets against multiresistant \\u003cem\\u003eHaemonchus contortus\\u003c/em\\u003e and interaction with oral ivermectin: Implications for on-farm control. \\u003cem\\u003eVet Parasitol\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e227\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 122\\u0026ndash;129 (2016).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eCoop, R. L. \\u0026amp; Kyriazakis, I. Influence of host nutrition on the development and consequences of nematode parasitism in ruminants. \\u003cem\\u003eTrends Parasitol\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e17\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 325\\u0026ndash;330 (2001).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eM\\u0026eacute;ndez-Ortiz, F. A., Sandoval-Castro, C. A., Ventura-Cordero, J., Sarmiento-Franco, L. A. \\u0026amp; Torres-Acosta, J. F. J. Condensed tannin intake and sheep performance: A meta-analysis on voluntary intake and live weight change. \\u003cem\\u003eAnim Feed Sci Technol\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e245\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 67\\u0026ndash;76 (2018).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMarie-Magdeleine, C. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Evaluation of nutraceutical properties of Leucaena leucocephala leaf pellets fed to goat kids infected with Haemonchus contortus. \\u003cem\\u003eBMC Vet Res\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e16\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 280 (2020).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAirs, P. M. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Prevalence of Plastic and Hardware Foreign Bodies among Goats at Malawi Markets. \\u003cem\\u003eAnimals\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e14\\u003c/strong\\u003e, (2024).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003ePriyanka, M. \\u0026amp; Dey, S. Ruminal impaction due to plastic materials-An increasing threat to ruminants and its impact on human health in developing countries. \\u003cem\\u003eVet World\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e11\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 1307 (2018).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBanda, J. W., Ayoade, J. A., Karua, S. K. \\u0026amp; Kamwanja, L. A. The local Malawi goat. \\u003cem\\u003eWorld Animal Review\\u003c/em\\u003e (1993).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eNandolo, W. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Identification of breeding objectives in communitybased goat breeding programmes in Malawi. \\u003cem\\u003eActa Agric Slov\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eSupplement\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 103\\u0026ndash;108 (2016).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eFaftine, O., Muir, J. P. \\u0026amp; Massaete, E. Dry season supplementation of goats tethered on range supplemented with cowpea or groundnut residues with or without fresh leucaena leaves. \\u003cem\\u003eAnim Feed Sci Technol\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e76\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 1\\u0026ndash;8 (1998).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKaraua, S. K. \\u0026amp; Banda, J. W. Dairy goat breeding in Malawi:Gestation lenght, birthweights and growth of the indigenous Malawi goats and their Saanen crosses. in \\u003cem\\u003eProceedings of the First Bienniel Conference of the African Small Ruminant Research Network\\u003c/em\\u003e (eds. Lebbie, R. B. \\u0026amp; Reynolds, L.) 453\\u0026ndash;459 (International Livestock Centre for Africa, Nairobi, 1992).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHuttner, K., Leidl, K., Pfeiffer, D. U., Kasambara, D. \\u0026amp; Jere, F. B. D. The effect of a community-based animal health service programme on livestock mortality, off-take and selected husbandry applications A field study in northern Malawi. \\u003cem\\u003eLivest Prod Sci\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e72\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 263\\u0026ndash;278 (2001).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAirs, P. M. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Low-cost molecular methods to characterise gastrointestinal nematode co-infections of goats in Africa. \\u003cem\\u003eParasit Vectors\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e16\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 216 (2023).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLester, H. E. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Anthelmintic efficacy against cyathostomins in horses in Southern England. \\u003cem\\u003eVet Parasitol\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e197\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 189\\u0026ndash;196 (2013).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSargison, N. D. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Conjunctival mucous membrane colour as an indicator for the targeted selective treatment of haemonchosis and of the general health status of peri-urban smallholder goats in southern Malawi. \\u003cem\\u003ePrev Vet Med\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e186\\u003c/strong\\u003e, (2021).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHonhold, N., Petit, H. \\u0026amp; Halliwell, W. Condition scoring scheme for small east african goats in Zimbabwe. \\u003cem\\u003eTrop Anim Health Prod\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e21\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 121\\u0026ndash;127 (1989).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSoto-Barrientos, N. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Comparing body condition score and FAMACHA\\u0026copy; to identify hair-sheep ewes with high faecal egg counts of gastrointestinal nematodes in farms under hot tropical conditions. \\u003cem\\u003eSmall Ruminant Research\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e167\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 92\\u0026ndash;99 (2018).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBolajoko, M.-B. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e The basic reproduction quotient (Q0) as a potential spatial predictor of the seasonality of ovine haemonchosis. \\u003cem\\u003eGeospat Health\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e9\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 333\\u0026ndash;350 (2015).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eJaimez-Rodr\\u0026iacute;guez, P. R. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e The worm burden of tracer kids and lambs browsing heterogeneous vegetation is influenced by strata harvested and not total dry matter intake or plant life form. \\u003cem\\u003eTrop Anim Health Prod\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e51\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 2243\\u0026ndash;2251 (2019).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eNdlela, S. Z., Mkwanazi, M. v \\u0026amp; Chimonyo, M. Characterisation of the indigenous knowledge used for gastrointestinal nematode control in smallholder farming areas of KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa. \\u003cem\\u003eBMC Vet Res\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e18\\u003c/strong\\u003e, (2021).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eChakale, M. V, Mwanza, M. \\u0026amp; Aremu, A. O. Ethnoveterinary Knowledge and Biological Evaluation of Plants Used for Mitigating Cattle Diseases: A Critical Insight Into the Trends and Patterns in South Africa. \\u003cem\\u003eFront Vet Sci\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e8\\u003c/strong\\u003e, (2021).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAhmed, M., Laing, M. D. \\u0026amp; Nsahlai, I. v. In vitro anthelmintic activity of crude extracts of selected medicinal plants against Haemonchus contortus from sheep. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Helminthol\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e87\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 174\\u0026ndash;179 (2013).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAmin, M., Mostofa, M., Hoque, M. \\u0026amp; Sayed, M. In vitro anthelmintic efficacy of some indigenous medicinal plants against gastrointestinal nematodes of cattle. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e7\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 57\\u0026ndash;61 (2009).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMcGaw, L. J. \\u0026amp; Abdalla, M. A. \\u003cem\\u003eEthnoveterinary Medicine: Present and Future Concepts\\u003c/em\\u003e. \\u003cem\\u003eEthnoveterinary Medicine: Present and Future Concepts\\u003c/em\\u003e (Springer International Publishing, 2019). doi:10.1007/978-3-030-32270-0.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBussmann, R. W., Paniagua-Zambrana, N. Y. \\u0026amp; Njoroge, G. N. Commiphora africana (A. Rich.) Engl. Commiphora rostrata Engl. Commiphora schimperi (O. Bern.) Engl. Burseraceae. in \\u003cem\\u003eEthnobotany of the Mountain Regions of Africa\\u003c/em\\u003e 331\\u0026ndash;335 (2021). doi:10.1007/978-3-030-38386-2_48.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003evan Wyk, J. A., Hoste, H., Kaplan, R. M. \\u0026amp; Besier, R. B. Targeted selective treatment for worm management\\u0026mdash;How do we sell rational programs to farmers? \\u003cem\\u003eVet Parasitol\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e139\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 336\\u0026ndash;346 (2006).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGondwe, T. N. P. \\u0026amp; Wollny, C. B. A. Traditional breeding systems in smallholder rural poultry in Malawi. in \\u003cem\\u003e7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production\\u003c/em\\u003e 1\\u0026ndash;3 (2002).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBauer, B. U. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Comparison of the FLOTAC technique with the McMaster method and the Baermann technique to determine counts of \\u003cem\\u003eDictyocaulus eckerti\\u003c/em\\u003e L1 and strongylid eggs in faeces of red deer (\\u003cem\\u003eCervus elaphus\\u003c/em\\u003e). \\u003cem\\u003eParasitol Res\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e107\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 555\\u0026ndash;560 (2010).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eNimbeshaho, F. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Antimycobacterial activities, cytotoxicity and phytochemical screening of extracts for three medicinal plants growing in Kenya. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Medicinal Plants Research\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e14\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 129\\u0026ndash;143 (2020).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAmin, M. R., Mostofa, M., Hoque, M. E. \\u0026amp; Sayed, M. A. In vitro anthelmintic efficacy of some indigenous medicinal plants against gastrointestinal nematodes of cattle. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e7\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 57\\u0026ndash;61 (1970).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAhmed, M., Laing, M. D. \\u0026amp; Nsahlai, I. V. \\u003cem\\u003eIn vitro\\u003c/em\\u003e anthelmintic activity of crude extracts of selected medicinal plants against \\u003cem\\u003eHaemonchus contortus\\u003c/em\\u003e from sheep. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Helminthol\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e87\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 174\\u0026ndash;179 (2012).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003c/ol\\u003e\"}],\"fulltextSource\":\"\",\"fullText\":\"\",\"funders\":[],\"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow\":false,\"hasManuscriptDocX\":true,\"hasOptedInToPreprint\":true,\"hasPassedJournalQc\":\"\",\"hasAnyPriority\":false,\"hideJournal\":false,\"highlight\":\"\",\"institution\":\"\",\"isAcceptedByJournal\":false,\"isAuthorSuppliedPdf\":false,\"isDeskRejected\":\"\",\"isHiddenFromSearch\":false,\"isInQc\":false,\"isInWorkflow\":false,\"isPdf\":false,\"isPdfUpToDate\":true,\"isWithdrawnOrRetracted\":false,\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"scientific-reports\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"externalIdentity\":\"scirep\",\"sideBox\":\"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"\",\"title\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"twitterHandle\":\"\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":true,\"editorialSystem\":\"stoa\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"inReviewEnabled\":true,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true},\"keywords\":\"nature-based solutions, climate change adaptation, nutraceuticals, small ruminants, targeted selective treatment\",\"lastPublishedDoi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6235021/v1\",\"lastPublishedDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6235021/v1\",\"license\":{\"name\":\"CC BY 4.0\",\"url\":\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\"},\"manuscriptAbstract\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eLocally available botanical resources offer low-cost nature-based solutions to control gastrointestinal nematodes among resource-poor goat smallholdings. To evaluate the impact of botanical resources with veterinary tools for GIN monitoring, a smallholder-led targeted selective treatment (TST) regime was trialled in rural Malawi. TST was performed using the Five Point Check© (FPC) to monitor goat health and provide interventions to goats with health scores indicative of GIN disease. Half the participants formed the plant-TST group, where ‘borderline’ or ‘sick’ goats were supplemented with 250 g per day of \\u003cem\\u003eCommiphora africana\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003eFicus ingens\\u003c/em\\u003e, or \\u003cem\\u003eGmelina arborea \\u003c/em\\u003efor five days. Supplementation species were selected based on local awareness, availability, and anthelmintic activity. The control-TST group performed the FPC but performed feeding as normal. For both groups, ‘sick’ goats were provided anthelmintic, with GIN infections confirmed by faecal egg counts. The FPC-TST approach supported goat health, minimising misdiagnosis and ‘missed’ diagnosis of GINs. Plant-TST reduced anthelmintic need by 54% compared to control-TST, enhanced GIN clearance, and improved recovery time in sick goats. Plant-TST also reduced the harvesting of experimental plants by 86-97% compared to whole-herd approaches. These findings demonstrate the potential of integrative nature-based approaches for empowering farmers and enhancing smallholding resilience in low-resource areas.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"manuscriptTitle\":\"Targeted selective supplementation with local plants sustainably improves goat health and decreases anthelmintic drug need on Malawi smallholdings\",\"msid\":\"\",\"msnumber\":\"\",\"nonDraftVersions\":[{\"code\":1,\"date\":\"2025-05-06 13:28:45\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6235021/v1\",\"editorialEvents\":[{\"type\":\"communityComments\",\"content\":0},{\"type\":\"decision\",\"content\":\"Revision requested\",\"date\":\"2025-09-16T09:24:16+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-09-15T18:06:05+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"40571314591282917545154107616836388775\",\"date\":\"2025-08-24T14:09:31+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-07-16T06:37:56+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"270215179327387726667200817381266896412\",\"date\":\"2025-06-23T13:46:49+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"335107550088860522181190863007617256927\",\"date\":\"2025-06-23T12:41:47+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"99926099499515135364444783623352010019\",\"date\":\"2025-06-23T11:28:48+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-04-10T16:38:18+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"65957981523317863867820043758823138565\",\"date\":\"2025-04-09T07:27:48+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"86400322059142046463021137696934600331\",\"date\":\"2025-04-02T17:46:14+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewersInvited\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-04-02T16:25:59+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorAssigned\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-04-02T09:29:26+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvited\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-03-26T20:14:56+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"checksComplete\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-03-26T06:27:42+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"submitted\",\"content\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"date\":\"2025-03-15T23:20:47+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"}],\"status\":\"published\",\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"scientific-reports\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"externalIdentity\":\"scirep\",\"sideBox\":\"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"\",\"title\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"twitterHandle\":\"\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":true,\"editorialSystem\":\"stoa\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"inReviewEnabled\":true,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true}}],\"origin\":\"\",\"ownerIdentity\":\"8e6f4dee-3e00-42cc-89fd-ad40c6ee04c9\",\"owner\":[],\"postedDate\":\"May 6th, 2025\",\"published\":true,\"recentEditorialEvents\":[],\"rejectedJournal\":[],\"revision\":\"\",\"amendment\":\"\",\"status\":\"under-review\",\"subjectAreas\":[{\"id\":47616175,\"name\":\"Biological sciences/Zoology/Animal behaviour\"},{\"id\":47616176,\"name\":\"Biological sciences/Ecology/Forestry\"}],\"tags\":[],\"updatedAt\":\"2026-02-12T10:38:31+00:00\",\"versionOfRecord\":[],\"versionCreatedAt\":\"2025-05-06 13:28:45\",\"video\":\"\",\"vorDoi\":\"\",\"vorDoiUrl\":\"\",\"workflowStages\":[]},\"version\":\"v1\",\"identity\":\"rs-6235021\",\"journalConfig\":\"researchsquare\"},\"__N_SSP\":true},\"page\":\"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]\",\"query\":{\"redirect\":\"/article/rs-6235021\",\"identity\":\"rs-6235021\",\"version\":[\"v1\"]},\"buildId\":\"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7\",\"isFallback\":false,\"isExperimentalCompile\":false,\"dynamicIds\":[84888],\"gssp\":true,\"scriptLoader\":[]}","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}