Zoopharmacognosy is a word that is not easy to pronounce at first. But the question behind it is simple, and fascinating to me: can animals sometimes choose plants or other natural substances that help them deal with health problems?<\/p>\n
I have watched my dogs for years and often wondered how little choice we actually leave them. The owner decides what they eat, where they go and what they sniff. Caroline Ingraham’s approach to animal self-selection made me ask whether some of those choices could be left to the dog. At the same time, I do not want to turn the opposite extreme into a new rule: \u201cThe dog always knows best.\u201d Animal instincts and the ability to avoid toxic or spoiled things are not infallible.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Zoopharmacognosy broadly refers to possible self-medicating behaviour in animals: seeking out, eating or using substances found in their surroundings in ways that reduce the effects of pathogens, parasites or other harmful factors. Researchers have described the use of plants by apes, birds and other animals and its possible links to health.<\/p>\n
The word comes from Greek roots referring to animals, medicinal substances and knowledge. But it does not mean every mouthful of a plant is medicine. An animal may eat plants for nutrition, taste, learned experience, curiosity or other reasons. To claim self-medication, we would need convincing links between an illness, a particular choice and a subsequent measurable change.<\/p>\n
This distinction is central to the topic’s credibility. If we skip the question \u201cwhat does the animal’s behaviour actually show?\u201d, zoopharmacognosy soon becomes a story in which every canine preference is interpreted as a diagnosis.<\/p>\n
Some of the best-known examples come from chimpanzees. In certain populations, sick individuals have been observed eating the bitter pith of a plant or swallowing whole rough leaves they would not normally choose as food. Researchers have suggested that some plant compounds may affect parasites and the rough surface of leaves could help remove parasites mechanically from the gut. More recent research has also examined the possible antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties of these plants.<\/p>\n
These observations are fascinating, but watching wild animals is not the same as conducting a controlled treatment trial. Finding parasite eggs after leaf swallowing may support a hypothesis, yet does not prove that the plant itself eliminated the parasites. We need to ask whether the animal was previously ill, whether it selected the plant more often than usual, and whether recovery was actually related to that behaviour.<\/p>\n
Similar hypotheses have been proposed for geophagy, the eating of soil or clay. Possible explanations include obtaining minerals, soothing digestive irritation or binding certain substances in the gut. None of this means a pet dog’s soil eating is definitive evidence of a mineral deficiency or that soil is a safe treatment for digestive upset. Soil may contain parasites, fertilisers, pesticides and other hazards.<\/p>\n
Grass eating is a good example of how easily our own interpretation can take over. People often say that dogs eat grass to make themselves vomit. Research does not suggest this is the reason for most grass-eating episodes.<\/p>\n
In a 2008 survey by Sueda, Hart and Cliff, plant eating was reported in many otherwise healthy dogs. In the larger survey, only a small proportion were frequently unwell beforehand, and vomiting did not follow most episodes. This was a study based on owners’ observations, not a controlled experiment measuring dogs’ intentions. It cannot explain every dog’s motivation, but it weakens the assertion that eating grass always indicates nausea or an attempt to induce vomiting.<\/p>\n
A dog may also choose grass simply because it likes the texture or taste. Occasional grass eating in an otherwise healthy dog is not necessarily concerning. If it accompanies repeated vomiting, diarrhoea, pain or a sudden change in behaviour, the cause needs investigating. We have written more about this in our article Why do dogs eat grass?<\/em><\/p>\n Caroline Ingraham is known for developing a form of animal self-selection called applied zoopharmacognosy. Its aim is to let an animal explore different plant substances in a controlled environment, observe its scent preferences and body language, and allow it to move away. Choice, voluntary participation and the animal’s reactions are central to the method.<\/p>\n I find the principle of never forcing a dog to consume something very valuable. Voluntary choice can reveal preferences and enrich an animal’s life. The next claim is much stronger, however: that a dog can identify its exact illness and the correct dose of a herbal remedy by smell. Convincing clinical evidence for this in dogs is lacking. A scent preference may provide information, but is neither a laboratory test nor a safety check.<\/p>\n Applied zoopharmacognosy uses various medicinal plants, herbal extracts and essential oils. Animal choice is at the centre of Ingraham’s approach: different substances are introduced and the animal’s interest or avoidance is observed.<\/p>\n With essential oils, an animal may be introduced to closed bottles<\/strong>, because dogs have an exceptionally sensitive sense of smell. We can observe which scents make the dog pause, which it sniffs for longer, and which it moves away from. The animal must be free to decide whether to explore a scent and must always be able to leave.<\/p>\n Examples of plants and extracts discussed in applied zoopharmacognosy or herbal practice include:<\/p>\n These are examples from integrative practice, not proof that every listed plant treats the corresponding condition in dogs. Traditional use, laboratory activity and clinically demonstrated effects in dogs are different things.<\/p>\n For safety, both the form of a plant and how it is used matter. Arnica may cause poisoning when swallowed, while comfrey contains pyrrolizidine alkaloids that can damage the liver. Furocoumarins in certain bergamot essential oils can cause phototoxic skin reactions when applied to skin followed by UV exposure. Sniffing a closed bottle is not the same as applying or swallowing concentrated oil.<\/p>\n Essential oils deserve particular caution. Concentrated oils can be absorbed through the skin and mucous membranes and may cause poisoning if swallowed. The Merck Veterinary Manual warns against applying concentrated oils directly to pets and notes that some oils are especially hazardous. This does not mean all scents are dangerous or that Ingraham’s approach is worthless. It means the owner’s role is to remove obvious hazards before offering choices. Wanting to sniff something does not establish that it is safe to eat or apply to the skin.<\/p>\n For me, the most telling examples have been small everyday choices. When I occasionally offered my dogs bread with p\u00e2t\u00e9, they licked off the p\u00e2t\u00e9 and left the bread. They showed little interest in sausage pastries or French fries. From a burger, they preferred the meat patty to the bun. When I put raw food, dry food and wet food into separate bowls, they usually chose the raw food first.<\/p>\n These observations are real and interesting to me. If a dog normally fed a raw diet rushes straight to the bowl of kibble, it is worth asking why. Is the smell or taste of the dry food attracting it, or could something be missing from its everyday diet? Food choices may give valuable clues about a dog’s needs, but we should watch its behaviour and try to understand the reasons rather than draw final conclusions from one moment.<\/p>\n Scent, previous experiences, habits, texture and many other factors affect preferences. Nutritional balance must be evaluated from the composition of the diet and the dog’s health, not a single preference test.<\/p>\n I also remember Oscar eating soil a few times one summer. Later, while we were dealing with his skin problems and a staphylococcal infection, I wondered if the behaviour might have been connected to how he felt. I cannot establish that retrospectively. It remains an observation and a question about one dog’s behaviour, not proof that soil treated his bacterial problem.<\/p>\n I have previously described not always taking away badly spoiled meat my dogs found outdoors, sometimes even meat with maggots. That is not a recommendation for everyone: spoiled meat can contain bacteria, toxins and other contamination a dog may not recognise by smell. Trusting an animal does not mean permitting every dangerous experiment.<\/p>\n I have been fortunate that my dogs have never chewed toxic plants in the garden, even as puppies. It would be easy to conclude they simply recognised the danger, but such a generalisation would go too far. Cases of poisoning from plants, medicines and food show that dogs do not always avoid harmful substances. A poisonous plant may be attractive to a dog or end up in its mouth during play.<\/p>\n So I would distinguish two things: dogs may be very capable of making choices, but owners still need to offer a safe range of options. When choosing plants for a garden, check their safety, especially if you have curious puppies. The ASPCA’s toxic and non-toxic plant list is a useful practical resource.<\/p>\n Even if we do not yet fully understand the mechanisms of self-medication, zoopharmacognosy offers one valuable idea: allow the dog to choose more often among options already checked for safety. Perhaps it prefers one scent trail over another on a walk, one dog-safe treat over another, or simply needs the opportunity to walk away from an offer.<\/p>\n We also do this at FendaF when dogs are allowed to choose their own food or treats. I would not call it an allergy test or evidence that the dog can identify the biologically perfect diet for itself. It does show preferences and gives the animal some say. Known allergenic proteins must, of course, be removed from the options before a dog with a diagnosed food allergy is invited to choose.<\/p>\nCaroline Ingraham and applied zoopharmacognosy<\/h2>\n
Plants, essential oils and other extracts<\/h2>\n
\n
What did I notice with Ossu and Faddu?<\/h2>\n
Can dogs avoid poisonous plants?<\/h2>\n
How can we safely give dogs more choice?<\/h2>\n