Implementation and drawbacks of caponization in a hillside village in northern Thailand

T Masuno

National Museum of Ethnology, 10-1 Senri Expo Park, Suita, Osaka 565-8511, Japan
masuno_takashi@goo.jp

Abstract

Caponization, or the castration of roosters, creates the possibility of added commercial value, meaning that such chickens may contribute to household cash income. The objectives of this research were to clarify the status of the implementation of caponization, which is a form of folk knowledge, in a hillside village in northern Thailand, and to discuss the possibility of the widespread use of caponization by showing its merits and drawbacks. Caponization is a form of folk knowledge possessed by villagers. The village had nine people able to carry out caponization, including six women. They were aged from their forties to their sixties. Members of younger generations had not learned the caponization procedure. With the exception of one woman, they had stopped conducting caponization after the early 2000s. The merits of caponization include fatter and tastier chickens, as well as the fact that it stops roosters chasing hens. The drawbacks of caponization include high mortality after surgery and the difficulty of caponizing large roosters. There is a high possibility that since the introduction of fighting cocks into the village during the late 1990s, their large body size has meant that the traditional caponization method can no longer be used. Reduction of mortality by introducing veterinary information about caponization, and generating and finding new demand for caponized chickens will be key to the widespread use of caponization.

Key words: capon, chicken castration, folk knowledge, Mien, veterinary service

Introduction

Caponization, or the castration of roosters, is a technique that makes the flesh of old birds more succulent and tender in veterinary science. There are two methods of castrating roosters, surgical castration and chemical castration (Payne and Wilson 1999). Castrated roosters, or capons, are called chapons in French and are regarded as a delicacy in France. In Japan, where attention has focused on this perception as a delicacy, an evaluation of the effects of caponization on chicks was started to encourage the broad use of caponization (Sasaki and Deguchi 1994). Recently published technical guides and review papers about small-scale chicken production, however, have not mentioned caponization at all (Sonaiya and Swan 2004; Haitook 2006). Although caponization does not seem to be very popular, there are some peoples in Thailand that maintain caponization techniques as a form of folk knowledge.

Small-scale chicken production has been carried out for many years in rural areas of Thailand (Suntraporn 1980; Chantalakhana and Skunmun 2002; Haitook 2006; Masuno 2008). Broiler chickens have become common in Thailand in the past few decades, but native chickens still dominate small-scale chicken raising in rural areas (Haitook et al 2003). Native chicken is still an important meat in these rural areas. Jaturasitha et al (2008) have evaluated the characteristics of the meat of chicken indigenous to northern Thailand. It is said that Thai people prefer native chicken to broiler chicken because they have a preference for chewy chicken meat (Wattanachant et al 2005). Small-scale chicken production is attracting attention as a local economic activity in rural areas not only in Thailand (Haitook 2006), but also worldwide (Sonaiya and Swan 2004). In Thailand, there is an obvious demand for native chicken meat（Haitook et al 200．It is possible that caponization may add new commercial value to chickens, and that such caponized chicken could contribute to household cash income.

The objectives of this research were to clarify the status of the implementation of caponization, which is a form of folk knowledge, in a hillside village in northern Thailand, and to discuss the possibility of the widespread use of caponization by showing its merits and drawbacks.

Materials and methods 

Study area

This study took place in Pha Daeng Village, located 950 m above sea level in Phayao Province, northern Thailand (19°28'05.N, 100°28'14.E). The village is located in the watershed area of the Ing River, a branch of the Mekong River. Its population in August 2007 was about 130 people in 21 households. Villagers are Mien (Yao), an ethnic minority group in Thailand that originates from South China. The village is about one hour’s journey from the nearest town, Chiang Kham. Many villagers subsist on agriculture on the hillsides. They grow upland rice for subsistence and hybrid maize for sale, cultivating an average 7.5 ha per household of agricultural fields in 2005 (Masuno and Ikeya 2008). Some villagers, especially young people, go to work outside the village, including the industrial area around Bangkok.

Chicken production in the study village

In the study village, chickens, pigs, dogs, cats, cattle, and ducks are raised (Table 1).

All households raise chickens, with an average of 12.2 adult chickens per household. They raise roughly six kinds of chicken: local chickens (native chickens), decoy chickens, black-boned chickens, fighting cocks, and bantams (Table 2).

There are also folk classifications of chickens in the Mien language. Fighting cocks were first introduced to the village in the late 1990s. All chickens were free range during the day. Many of the chickens slept in a chicken house at night, but some slept on tree branches. They were free to mate during the daytime. The villagers raise chickens primarily for consumption during rituals, and so far chickens have not contributed to household cash income (Masuno 2008).

Livestock castration in the village

Six kinds of livestock are raised in the village (Table 1). The villagers castrate chicken and pigs. The villagers also know how to castrate cattle and dogs, but they do not usually do this. Ducks and cats are not castrated. The word for caponization is im che chedwi in the Mien language, where im means “castrate,” che means “chicken,” and chedwi means “testicle.” The word for capon is che kong im in the Mien language, where che kong means “rooster,” im means “castrated.” The caponization procedure is described later in this paper.

In the case of pigs, the castration of male pigs is referred to as im tung chedwi in the Mien language, where tung means “pig.” The villagers castrate almost all male pigs, leaving a few pigs that are used as sires, within one month of birth.

Data collection

I stayed in the study village from March 2005 to April 2006, excluding May 2005, and conducted direct observation of chicken raising in the village. In November 2005 I conducted interviews with all households in the village, asking about their chicken breeds, the number of chickens of each breed, and the folk classification of chickens in the Mien language.

In August 2007, I conducted interviews with all households about the status of caponization. I identified those people with the skill to castrate chickens (“caponization technicians”), and asked them all about the merits and drawbacks of chicken castration as well as when they last carried out a castration.

The description of the Mien language bases on Lombard (1968).

Results 

Caponization procedure in the study village

The caponization procedure shall first be described, from a direct observation made on August 19, 2005.

One female caponization technician (F 6 in the Tables 3-5) and her husband (Mr. A), who are residents of the study village, conducted caponization. The date was August 19, 2005, and the time from 10:11 to 10:44 a.m. Mr. A did not have the ability to perform caponization, so he served as an assistant to F 6. The caponization was conducted in front of their house.

Their three adult roosters were the subjects of the caponization. Those chickens had a simple red comb, and their wing feathers were mainly dark brown (Photo 1). Mr. A regarded them as local chickens.

The instruments they used for caponization surgery were a razor, a needle and thread, powdered aspirin, and water. The razor was new. The needle and thread were those usually used for embroidery. The water was river water, which was usually drunk by humans. Aspirin was sold as a headache cure for humans at drugstores in town.

The caponization procedure was as follows. Firstly, F 6 and Mr. A sat facing each other on small chairs. Next, F 6 held the chicken’s body between her legs and Mr. A grabbed its legs to reveal its anus. F 6 plucked the area around the chicken’s anus. She then made an incision just below the anus by using a razor (Photo 2).

After that, she brought the chicken to her right side. She then stuck the finger of her left hand into the incision, and extracted the testicles with her finger (Photo 3). Finally, she stitched up the incision (Photo 4) and sprinkled it with aspirin.

The same procedure was repeated for the other two roosters. The removed testicles were sautéed and eaten by F 6 and Mr. A at lunch.

The instruments used in caponization surgery were ordinary household goods. Apart from aspirin, no medication was used. In Case 1, caponization took a total of 33 minutes, an average of 11 minutes per fowl.

Numbers and characteristics of caponization technicians

In August 2007, there were nine technicians who could operate chicken castration in the study village (Table 3).

Three were male (M 1–3) and six were female (F 1–6). These nine technicians belonged to different households. Both the male and female technicians were aged from their forties to their sixties. All of them told me that they learned the caponization technique by direct observation of the operation being carried out by others. Two caponization technicians told me that the technician needs long fingers to extract the testicles, so not everyone is suited for performing caponization.

The villagers have raised chickens for many years. Interviews with all households revealed that some households had conducted caponization, while others had never conducted caponization in the 1980s.

Many of the villagers cannot perform caponization, and almost none of them have any experience of the operation. But at least three villagers had tried to conduct caponization themselves. As the chickens caponized by these three villagers subsequently died, they told me that they were unable to carry out the operation.

With the exception of F 6, the last period in which technicians had conducted caponization was from the early 1990s to the early 2000s (Table 3). In August 2005, there were only three caponized chickens in the village. All three chickens had been caponized as described above. F 6 was the last person to continue caponization in 2005. No villagers had conducted caponization since August 2005 until November 2008.

Merits of caponization

The merits of caponization cited by technicians include chickens becoming fatter and heavier, their meat becoming tastier, fattier, and more tender, and the fact that roosters stop chasing hens (Table 4).

Eight out of the nine technicians mentioned that chickens get fatter after caponization. Becoming fatter, becoming heavier, and meat becoming fattier seemed to be similar in meaning. Three technicians mentioned that chickens become tasty. Some villagers who were unable to perform caponization mentioned the fact that roosters stop fighting each other and that it is easier to raise roosters and hens together, as a merit of caponization. 

Drawbacks of caponization

There are three main drawbacks of caponization (Table 5).

The first is high mortality after caponization. Not all chickens survive the surgical operation. F 1 explained to me that two out of seven or eight fowls will die after caponization surgery.

The second drawback is that chickens of the fighting cock type cannot be caponized by using the villagers’ technique. This is because fighting cocks have a larger body size than do the local chickens that have been raised in the village for many years. The caponization technicians said that the roosters’ bodies were too big for them to be able to extract the testicles. Their fingers cannot reach the testicles inside the chicken’s body if the chicken is large. The caponization technicians also mentioned that the testicles of fighting cocks are smaller than those of the local chickens in the village, making it difficult for them to find the testicles with their fingers.  

The third drawback, mentioned by two caponization technicians, is that they raise only a small number of roosters. Two other technicians cited the small number of chickens as posing a restriction on caponization. These seem to be similar in meaning.

In addition, one technician said to me that chickens taste bad after caponization because they become fat, so she does not want to conduct caponization. This seemed to be a matter of personal taste.

Discussion

Transmission of caponization procedure as folk knowledge

There were caponization technicians of both sexes, but a greater number were female. This means that caponization as an occupation is not limited to one sex. The nine technicians lived in nine different households out of a total of 21 households in the study village. It is therefore easy for villagers who cannot perform caponization to ask a caponization technician. It can be said that the study village had a sufficient number of technicians to conduct caponization in 2007.

The usual methods of caponization are surgical castration and chemical castration (Payne and Wilson 1999). The villagers of the study village, however, do not know about the method of chemical castration, and are only aware of the surgical method. In the common veterinary method of caponization, an incision is made on either side of the body and the testicles removed (Payne and Wilson 1999). In the study village, however, they do not know about this method and use a different procedure, making an incision near the anus and removing the testicles with a finger.

The caponization technicians are all aged over 40. There are no members of younger generations who can perform caponization. It is thus possible that the younger generation will not inherit the method of caponization. In addition, eight out of the nine technicians did not conduct caponization in 2005. In contrast to their practice with chickens, the villagers castrated almost all their male pigs (Masuno and Nakai 2009). This difference mainly arose from the different meat characteristics of chickens and pigs. Villagers said that if they did not castrate male pigs, they would not be suitable for eating because their flesh smelled bad and did not taste good. In the case of chickens, however, the villagers had no hesitation in eating the meat of uncaponized roosters. Caponization seems to be a dying form of folk knowledge in the study village.

From the veterinary standpoint, caponization is a technique that makes the flesh of old birds more succulent and tender (Payne and Wilson 1999). The present research shows that the villagers tended to regard caponized chicken as tastier than uncaponized chicken. As a merit of caponization, some villagers pointed out that chickens grow bigger and gain weight. The villagers seemed to consider size and weight as more important indicators of chickens than their taste. Some villagers also mentioned that roosters became easier to manage after caponization. They regarded caponization as a method of flock management.

Overcoming the drawbacks of caponization

This study has revealed that there are three main drawbacks to caponization. The first, and most serious, is the high mortality after caponization. Villagers require techniques for increasing the survival rate after surgery. To continue performing caponization, they need to learn the commonly used caponization methods. One of these is surgical castration in which the incision is made not near the anus but on either side of the body. In this study, the only medication used by villagers was aspirin, and no antiseptic was used. Villagers have little veterinary knowledge, not only about chickens but also other livestock. If the villagers could receive some proper advice from veterinary specialists, the present situation could be improved. Another possible method is chemical castration, which would diminish the risk of surgery.

The second drawback is the difficulty in castrating fighting-cock-type chickens. To improve the villagers’ livelihoods, the government provided fighting cocks to the study village free of charge in 1998 and 1999, and the villagers started raising this breed. Villagers said to me that before 1998 no one raised fighting cocks in the village. After their introduction, the traditional caponization method could not be applied to these large roosters. In 2005, fighting-cock-type chickens accounted for about 24% of the chickens raised in the village (Figure 1).

The chickens are free to mate during the daytime so it is difficult for villagers to avoid cross breeding between different varieties (Masuno 2008). This makes it highly possible that the body size of chickens raised in the village has increased. Cross breeding between fighting cocks and local chickens has resulted in an increasing number of fighting-cock-type chickens. This study thus shows that the introduction of this new breed has helped destroy the traditional caponization method as a form of folk knowledge in the village.

The third drawback is that villagers do not think they raise sufficient chickens to allow caponization. No data are available on the number of chickens raised in the past. It is interesting, however, that some villagers feel the number of chickens raised before the 1990s was larger than the number in 2007. Also, two caponization technicians said that they do not perform caponization because of the small number of chickens. For these two technicians at least, if they had more chickens, they would restart caponization.

In the early 1960s, a project to raise caponized chickens was attempted in Srisaket Province, northeastern Thailand (Frank 1965). The villagers of Uthumpornpisai District in Srisaket Province were unaccustomed to caponization. The experience gained from this project indicated that owners of chickens were unwilling to sell them to be caponized by others. In contrast, the villagers in the present study were accustomed to caponization and able to perform it themselves. So the barrier to the popularization, or re-popularization, of caponization in the study village seems to be lower than that in Srisaket Province in the 1960s.

Identifying demand from outside the village for caponized chicken

It is known that some Thai consumers have acquired a preference for the taste of meat from native chickens (Wattanachant et al 2005). In addition, there is an obvious demand for native chicken meat in Thailand, especially in urban centers (Haitook et al 2003). In Japan, taste experiments revealed that panelists tended to prefer caponized broilers to intact controls (Sasaki and Deguchi 1994). It is possible that caponization may add new commercial value to chickens, and that caponization could encourage the sale of chickens from the village.

In the past few decades, Thailand has accomplished dramatic improvements not only in its economy but also in terms of people’s livelihood. The demand from the Thai people for quality food is increasing. In addition, northern Thailand is becoming an important tourist area, and major cities such as Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai welcome many tourists from overseas and are the site of many resort hotels. Caponized chicken is regarded as a delicacy in some countries. It is quite likely that new demand for caponized chicken may arise not only from local Thai people but also from overseas tourists.

Conclusions 

• Caponization is a form of folk knowledge in the study village. Within the village population of about 130 people there are nine caponization technicians, including six females. They are aged from their forties to their sixties. Members of younger generations have not learned the caponization procedure. With the exception of one female, they have stopped performing caponization since the early 2000s.

  
  

• The merits of caponization include chickens becoming fatter and tastier and roosters stopping chasing hens. The drawbacks of caponization include the high mortality after surgery and the difficulty of caponizing large roosters. There is a high possibility that since the introduction of fighting cocks into the village in the late 1990s, the traditional caponization method could not be applied because of their large body size.

  
  

• Caponization may add new commercial value to chickens, and caponized chickens could contribute to household cash income. The keys to the widespread use of caponization are the reduction of mortality by introducing veterinary information and the generation and identification of new demand for caponized chicken.

Acknowledgements 

I thank the villagers of Pha Daeng for their help with my field research. This research was conducted as a part of the Human-Chicken Multi-Relationships Research (HCMR) Project.

References 

Chantalakhana C and Skunmun P 2002 Sustainable Smallholder Animal Systems in the Tropics Kasetsart University Press, Bangkok.

Frank W S 1965 Evaluation of Caponized Chicken Raising Project in Amphur Uthumpornpisai, Srisaket Imprint USOM/Social Development Division, Bangkok.

Haitook T, Tawfik E, and Zöbisch M. 2003 Options for Native Chicken Production in Northeastern Thailand. Proceedings of Deutscher Tropentag 2003.  Online. Retrieved August 13, 2009 from, http://www.tropentag.de/2003/abstracts/full/166.pdf

Haitook T 2006 Study on Chicken Meat Production for Small-scale Farmers in Northeast Thailand. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics Supplement 87:1-178  http://www.upress.uni-kassel.de/online/frei/978-3-89958-238-3.volltext.frei.pdf

Jaturasitha S, Srikanchai T, Kreuzer M and Wicke M 2008 Differences in Carcass and Meat Characteristics between Chicken indigenous to Northern Thailand (Black-Boned and Thai native) and imported extensive breeds (Bresse and Rhode Island Red). Poultry Science 87:160-169

Lombard S J (compiled) 1968 Yao - English Dictionary. Cornell University, New York.

Masuno T 2006 Folk Taxonomy of Chicken by Yao (Mien) in Northern Thailand. Report of the Society of Domestic Fowl Studies 7:20-24 (In Japanese).

Masuno T 2008 Chicken Consumption at a Mountain Village in Northern Thailand. Livestock Research for Rural Development Volume 20, Article #37. Retrieved March 14, 2009, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/3/masu20037.htm

Masuno T and Ikeya K 2008 Fallow Period and Transition in Shifting Cultivation in Northern Thailand Detected by Surveys of Households and Fields. Tropical Agriculture and Development 52:74-81 http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsta/52/3/74/_pdf

Masuno T and Nakai S 2009 Pig husbandry. In: Akimichi T editor. An Illustrated Eco-history of Mekong River Basin. White Lotus, Bangkok. pp55-58.

Payne W and Wilson R T editors 1999 An Introduction to Animal Husbandry in the Tropics 5th edition. Blackwell Science, Malden.

Sasaki K and Deguchi Y 1994 Effects of Caponization on Broiler Chicks. Bulletin of the Mie Agricultural Research Center 22:63-67. (In Japanese with English summary). http://www.mate.pref.mie.jp/marc/KENHO/NO22/kenpo_22_08_p63_tori.pdf

Sonaiya E B and Swan S E J 2004 Small-Scale Poultry Production: Technical Guide. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5169e/y5169e00.htm

Suntraporn R N P 1980 Animal Genetic Resources in Thailand. In: Society for the Advancement of Breeding Researches in Asia and Oceania edition. Animal genetic resources in Asia and Oceania: proceedings of a workshop of the Society for the Advancement of Breeding Researches in Asia and Oceania, held at University of Tsukuba, Sept. 3-7, 1979. Tropical Agriculture Research Center, Ibaraki. pp385-414.

Wattanachant S, Benjakul S and Ledward D A 2005 Microstructure and Thermal Characteristics of Thai Indigenous and Broiler Chicken Muscles. Poultry Science 84:328-336

Received 14 March 2009; Accepted 7 May 2009; Published 1 September 2009

Go to top