Jpn. J. Trop. Agr. 46(3) :136-142, 2002

Utilization of Plant Resources as Famine Foods in Northeast Thailand

Shulchi MIYAGAWA

Faculty of Agriculture, Gifu University 1-1 Yanagido, Gifu 501-1193, Japan

Abstract The frequency of utilization and distribution of famine foods were surveyed in 334 villages in Northeast Thailand where rice productivity is low and unstable because of rain-fed rice cultivation. Tubers of Dioscorea hispida Dennst., edible yams and taro were recorded in more than 70% villages in all. Also, one set of the three kinds of foods mentioned above was recorded in 57% of the villages using famine foods. The ratio of D. hispida utilization was comparatively low in the southern part of Northeast Thailand. Such regional differences should be further studied in terms of plant geographical distribution and people's taste. Frequency of utilization of seeds of bamboo, rice bran etc. was very low compared with that of the three major foods. Key words Famine foods, Northeast Thailand, Taro, Yam

東 北 タ イ の 救 荒 食 と し て の 植 物 利 用 宮 川 修 一 岐 阜 大 学 農 学 部 〒501-1193岐 阜 市 柳 戸1-1

要 約 天 水 依 存 の た め に 低 収 不 安 定 と さ れ る東 北 タ イの 稲 作 農 村334ヶ 村 に お い て,既 往 の 救 荒 食 の種 類 と分 布 を調 査 した.同 地 域 で も っ と も一 般 的 に利 用 され て き た の は,Dioscorea hispida Dennst,そ の他 の ヤ ム イ モ 類 な らび に タ ロ イモ で あ り,そ の 利 用 村 数 は い ず れ も70%以 上 で あ っ た.さ らに この3種 の 組 み合 わ せ は,救 荒 食 を 利 用 し た経 験 の あ る農 村 の57%で 得 られ た.こ れ 以 外 に タ ケ の種 子,米 ぬ か な ど が 見 ら れ た が,そ の 利 用 例 は 極 め て 希 で あ っ た.D.hispidaの 利 用 が 見 られ な い 村 は 東 北 タ イ 南 部 に 多 か っ た が,こ れ はD.hispidaの 分 布 の 差 に よ る もの か,あ るい は住 民 の 嗜 好 の 違 い に よ る も の か は 明 らか で ない. キ ー ワ ー ド 救 荒 食,タ ロ イモ,東 北 タ イ,ヤ ム イモ

relationship with rice cultivation in Northeast Introduction Thailand. Rice is a staple food in Northeast Thailand, Methods and Study sites but its yield is still low and year-to-year fluctuations have been large. In recent years, when rice is Interview surveys were carried out in 334 sometimes in short supply as a result of severe villages of Northeast Thailand during the period flooding or drought, the people have purchased from 1991 to 1994. The locations are shown in rice by using the money obtained from selling Fig. 1. Village headmen or elderly persons who vegetables, upland crops and animals, or from were familiar with the events of the past were off farm jobs in Bangkok and other cities3,8,14) asked about the use of three kinds of substitute However in the past, the people used to go to foods when rice harvest was far below the other provinces on oxcarts to obtain rice or they sufficiency level. At the same time, surveys migrated to settle and open new paddy fields were conducted on the present situation of rice after abandoning their home villages4). It is well cultivation, such as operating area of paddy field known that people in Northeast Thailand have per household, planted varieties, irrigation area, been utilizing a wide variety of plants, animals direct-seeded area and grain yield through and insects as foods5,15) Such resources have interviews. enable to support people when rice shortage Results and Discussion occurred, as described in folktales1). Presently, many kinds of useful plants with tuberous roots Distribution of famine foods can be seen in home gardens and forests6,11) Answers were obtained in 332 villages. The However, no studies have been carried out on use of famine foods was not mentioned in 36 the role of plant resources as famine foods in villages where the villagers had not experienced this region. The author aimed at providing a list famine, and also in 6 villages where the persons of famine foods by conducting village surveys, interviewed had left their villages to work due to and to analyze the geographical distribution and famine. Such villages appeared to be located Received Jun. 5, 2001 throughout Northeast Thailand, without any Accepted May 18, 2002 concentration in specific areas (Fig. 1). MIYAGAWA:Famine Foods in Northeast Thailand 137

Fig. 1 Distribution of villages surveyed and use of famine foods in Northeast Thailand.•œ

; villages using famine foods,•›; villages not using famine foods.

The frequency of appearance of foods is shown Table 1 Number of villages where a given plant in Table 1. All the foods except for black soil species or material was used as famine with honey consisted of plants or plant products, food and percentage to the total number of and not insects or animals were recorded. It is villages surveyed. easy to understand that plant resources are very important in rural life here. Dioscorea hispida Dennst. (local name,•gkloi•h) was mentioned with the highest frequency, followed by edible yams (Dioscorea spp.), whoes local name is•gman•h. Usually•gman•hrefers to many kinds of edible yams such as•gman sao

•h (D. alata L.),•gman bakhep•h(D, alata L.),•gman nok•h(D. burmanica Pramn et Burk.),•gman on

•h (D. daunanea Pramn et Burk.),•gman muesua•h(D. esculenta Burkill),•gman khao kam•h(D. kratica Pramn et Burk.),•gman saeng•h(D. spp.),•gman tin head•h(D, spp.),•gman huep•h(D. spp.),•gman puan •h (D, spp.) and•gman tin sang•h(D. spp.). Taro plants (Colocasia esculenta Schott, local name,•gphuak•h) were mentioned next to D. hispida and edible yams. These tubers were generally utilized. Eighteen kinds of foods were indicated in addition to D, hispida, edible yams and taro, but their frequency was very low. Yams were common plants in homegardens in Northeast Thailand but their planted area and production were much lower than those of chili or leaf 138 Jpn. J. Trop. Agr. 46 (3) 2002 vegetables that were grown for sale6). Parinari grown lowland and upland rice. It is well known anamense Hance is known as•gphok•hin the local that the tubers of D. hispida contain a toxic dialect. Pseudostem of banana and trunk of alkaloid, dioscorine, which can cause death papaya were also eaten, but their cooking when the tubers are eaten raw. Locally, the plant process could not be surveyed. Interestingly, is used to bait the jungle fowl. The tubers are the soil became a substitute food in case of rich in starch and can be detoxified by steeping famine. The properties of black soil are also thin slices in running water for 3 days11. Taro's unknown. The author observed that soil in a tubers are also rich in starch. Heating process is specific area of a paddy field was eaten as snack necessary prior to eating the tubers because in one village of Khon Kaen province, and soil they can cause mouth and throat irritation when cubes were sold in the market of Khon Kaen eaten raw11. Folktales of Northeast Thailand city. He also observed soil eating in several indicate that yams and taro are famine foods1. villages in northern Laos. Rice bran, banana pseudostem, pumpkin leaves, fruits of P. anamense, papaya tree trunk, black soil, wild rice, maize leaves are scarcely used by villagers2,9). Figures 2, 3 and 4 show the geographical distribution of the villages using D. hispida, edible yams and taro. It is obvious that Dioscorea plants were common foods in famine everywhere in Northeast Thailand. Taro was also a common food in lean years over Northeast Thailand, but its distribution was slightly smaller than that of Dioscorea plants. D. hispida is one of the main foods of tropical East Asia12). In Southeast Asia, tuber crops are used in large amounts by the people in Irian Jaya and the eastern part of the Philippine archipelago13). In contrast, people in the Indochina Peninsula have not utilized tuberous crops to a great extent, but have rather Fig. 3 Distribution of villages using edible yams. Symbols are the same as those in Fig. 1.

Fig. 2 Distribution of villages using Dioscorea hispida Dennst. Fig. 4 Distribution of villages using taro. Symbols are the same as those in Fig. 1. Symbols are the same as those in Fig. 1. MIYAGAWA:Famine Foods in Northeast Thailand 139

These crops seem to have been traditional food northern and east-central region (Fig. 6). The resources since older times. reasons for the difference in the patterns of Seeds of bamboo (Bambusa spp.) were eaten distribution among foods remain unclear. in fewer villages than the three tuber foods (Fig. Figure 7 shows the ratios of the villages 5). The villages where bamboo seeds were eaten using a famine food to the total number of were distributed in the eastern, central, western villages surveyed in every province. The three and northern regions of Northeast Thailand. major foods were evenly common among the Villages using rice bran were located in the provinces. In detail, the ratios of the villages

Fig. 5 Distribution of villages using seeds of bamboo. Fig. 6 Distribution of villages using rice bran. Symbols are the same as those in Fig. 1. Symbols are the same as those in Fig. 1.

Fig. 7 Ratio of frequency of famine foods in provinces of Northeast Thailand. 140 Jpn. J. Trop. Agr. 46 (3) 2002

using D. hispida seemed to be slightly lower in The villages using•gD. hispida + edible yams Bun Ram, Surin and Sisaket. Sakon Nakhon and + taro•h,•gD. hispida + edible yams•h,•gedible yams Nakhon Phanom were characterized by the + taro•hand D, hispida alone were distributed lowest famine rates according to the persons evenly all over Northeast Thailand (Fig. 8), interviewed. Rainfall in these two provinces is while the villages using•gedible yams + taro•hand higher than in other provinces of Northeast edible yams alone, or those which did not use D. Thailand10 Table 2 The number and percentage of villages Combination of famine foods classified by famine food combination More than one kind of foods was mentioned in almost all the villages surveyed. Table 2 shows the frequency of the food combinations, which occurred in more than one case. Here, the most frequent combinations were•gD. hispida + edible yams + taro•h, followed by•gD. hispida + edible yams•hand •gedible yams + taro•h. As shown in Table 1, D. hispida was the most common food during famine throughout Northeast Thailand. In Table 2, most of the combinations included D. hispida. Nine cases of D. hispida alone and 3 cases of edible yam alone were found. But there was no case of taro alone. In general, yam

growing requires deep and friable soil while taro can grow well in wet heavy soil12~. The growing environment of Northeast Thailand might be more favorable for Dioscorea plants than for taro.

Fig. 8 Distribution of combinations of three major tuber famine foods.•

; D. hispida + edible yams + taro,•› ; D. hispida + edible yams,•ž ; D. hispida + taro,•¢ ; D. hispida,•¡; Edible yams + taro,•œ; Edible yams,•£ ; Others, - ; No food. MIYAGAWA:Famine Foods in Northeast Thailand 141

Table 3 Differences in rice cultivation between villages using three major tuber famine foods.

* ; Significance of differences

hispida, were located in the southern part of the of rice direct seeding in the villages using taro area. was lower than that of the villages that did not use taro. A previous study showed that such a Relationship between famine foods and rice ratio was high in the provinces with highways cultivation where villagers can go easily to Bangkok or It is assumed that the geographical distribu- other cities to work7). The villages where taro tion of the famine foods used is affected not only was used might be located in more inconvenient by the original distribution of material plants but areas for traffic than the villages using yams. In also by human and agricultural factors. The other words, the frequency of use of edible yams relationship between the famine food distribution and taro may decrease when rice productivity and characteristics of rice cultivation relating to increases. Such a tendency might be more ethnicity (planting ratio of non-glutinous rice), pronounced for taro than for edible yams. productivity (irrigated area ratio, grain yield and Studies on plant resource utilization in average area of operating paddy field), and Northeast Thailand should be extended to the urbanization (area ratio of direct seeding) was field of historical process of utilization or analyzed (Table 3). paleoethnobotany, and to comparison with The planting ratio of non-glutinous rice in neighboring regions and countries. the villages using D. hispida was lower than the Acknowledgment villages that did not use D. hispida. The ratio was usually high in the southern provinces of The author thanks Ms. Nuawrat Pookratan, Northeast Thailand''. Thai-Korat and Khmer Mr. Thanon Khruadaeng, Mr. Somkiat Konchan peoples are the major inhabitants of those and Ms. Songsin Photchanachai for their assistance provinces and they prefer non-glutinous rice as in the interviews. He also thanks the National staple food. Thai-Lao people are dominant in Research Council of Thailand and Assoc. Prof. other provinces and they usually eat glutinous Kanha Bunpromma of Khon Kaen University for rice. Such differences may coincide with the their assistance during the research, as well as differences in D, hispida utilization shown in Dr. Nawata and Dr. Takeda of Kyoto University for Table 3 and Fig. 8. On the other hand, there plant species identification. were no differences between the villages in References other characteristics of rice cultivation. D. hispida has been used regardless of rice productivity 1. BUNTHAWI,K 1976 [translated by T. HosHINO 1980] and urbanization. Tohoku tai no ko. Imurabunkajigyousya (Tokyo) pp264. The ratio of irrigated area and grain yield in (in Japanese) the villages using edible yams and taro were 2. FUJITA,W. 2000 The relationship between man and lower than those in the villages where these crops nature in choice of foods materials: a case study in Northeast Thailand. Southeast Asian Studies 37: 556- are not used, suggesting that such villages are 587. (in Japanese with English summary) located in unfavorable areas for rice cultivation 3. FUNAHASHI,K 1990 Economic conditions of the village. like hilly areas and not floodplain. The area ratio In: Traditional structure and its change in Don Daeng 142 Jpn. J. Trop. Agr. 46 (3) 2002

village. (M. KUCHIBA ed.) Sobunsha (Tokyo) 145-199. rural development in Northeast Thailand. (FUKUI,

(in Japanese) H., Y. KAIDAand M. KUCHIBAeds.) Kyoto University 4. HAYASHI, Y. 1985 Don Daeng village in Northeast (Kyoto) 437-449. Thailand: Notes on emigrants settled in Mo Nua 10. PHIEN,H. H., A. ARBHABHIRAMAand A. SUNCHINDAH village, Udon Thani province. Southeast Asian Studies 1980 Distribution of monthly rainfall in Northeast

23: 280-294. (in Japanese with English summary) Thailand. Southeast Asian Studies 18:110-123.

5. KKU-FORD Project 1986 Natural food resources in 11. PONGPANGAN,S. and S. POOBRASERT1991 Edible and Northeast Thailand. Khon Kaen University (Khon poisonous plants in Thai forests. Samakhomwiteyasa Kaen) pp.77. henprathetthai (Bangkok) pp176. 6. MIYAGAWA, S. and S. KONCHAN 1990 Village homegar 12. PURSEGLOVE,J. W. 1975 Tropical crops monocotyle den cultivation in Northeast Thailand 1. Seasonal dons. Longman (London) pp607.

changes of cropping. Japan. J. Trop. Agr. 34: 235-242. 13. TAKAYA,K. 1985 Nature and Land use of Southeast

7. MIYAGAWA, S., Y. KONo, Y. NAGATA and E. NAWATA: Asia. Keisoshobo (Tokyo) 22-27. (In Japanese) Technical changes in rainfed rice cultivation in 14. TSUJII, H. 1985 Don Daeng village in Northeast

Northeast Thailand. Proceedings of international Thailand: An economic analysis of endogenous rural symposium•gWorld food security and crop produc economic evolution and its policy implications.

tion technologies for tomorrow•h169-172,1998. Southeast Asian Studies 23: 295-310. (in Japanese with

8. NAKADA, K. 1995 Surplus rice and seasonal labor English summary) migration: A case study at a village in Yasothon 15. WATANABE,H and R. SATRAWAHA1984 A list of edible

province, Northeast Thailand. Southeast Asian Studies insects sold at the public market in Khon Kaen, 32: 523-548. (in Japanese with English summary) Northeast Thailand. Southeast Asian Studies 22: 316- 9. NoMA, H. 1983 Diet and food resources. In: A rice 325.

growing village revisited: an integrated study of