I found the following article today and thought it would be of interest:-

http://www.scopemed.org/?mno=21492

"Abstract Six apparently healthy Borno white bucks weighing 15± 1.6 kg and aged 1.3± 0.3 years were used for this study. Two and half (2.5) ml Purit® (chlorhexidine gluconate 0.3% B.P W/V and cetrimide 3.0% B.P W/V CAPL Lagos) were

injected bilaterally into the caudae of each epididymis following sedation with xylazine hydrochloride. The pre- study scrotal circumference was 20.1±1.5cm; Significant decrease in scrotal circumference (P<0.01) 15.8±1.6cm

occurred 35 days post-injection. There was no significant difference (P>0.05) between pre-injection semen volume 0.6±2.1ml and 24 hour post-injection semen volume 0.3±1.4cm. Subsequently, only few drops could be collected

and from day 20 post- injection, no semen ejaculate could be collected from all the six bucks. Azoospermia was noted from day 16 post-injection with 0% motile cells, 95% dead cells and 25-60% abnormal sperm cells. From this

study, Purit® (chlorhexidine gluconate B.P 0.3% W/V and cetrimide B.P 3.0% W/V) can be used as an effective

chemical castration agent in small ruminants"

Chlorhexidine works by destroying bacterial cell membranes. So, looks like in concentration about 6 times more than the one available in the pharmacy, it affects human cells as well.

Interesting...

I was trying to find availability of Purit® no luck.

jcat (imported) wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2013 2:57 pm I was trying to find availability of Purit® no luck.

Chlorhexidine is over the counter (but anything more concentrated than 0.05% is exotic). A rather well know antiseptic here.

As for the second component - never heard of it.

Ok, on one more thought - I wonder, why the injection went into epididymis, and not into the body of the testicle?

After reading the article, I now see, that it speaks about sterilization, not castration. At least, testosterone levels are not discussed in the article (from the quick glance).

fhunter wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2013 3:22 pm Ok, on one more thought - I wonder, why the injection went into epididymis, and not into the body of the testicle?

Yes, I have read somewhere that injection to the epididymis is very painful, and in this study they used anaesthetic and the bucks also experienced pyrexia (fever/chills)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epididymis provides some insight.

The epididymis can be divided into three main regions:

The head (Caput). The head of the epididymis receives spermatozoa via the efferent ducts of the mediastinum of the testis. It is characterized histologically by a thin myoepithelium. The concentration of the sperm here is dilute.

The body (Corpus)

The tail (Cauda). This has a thicker myoepithelium than the head region, as it is involved in absorbing fluid to make the sperm more concentrated.

Therefore injection to the lower Cauda, as in this study stops ejaculation.

fhunter wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2013 3:22 pm After reading the article, I now see, that it speaks about sterilization, not castration. At least, testosterone levels are not discussed in the article (from the quick glance).

It is confusing as the article uses castration and sterilisation throughout. Clearly it accomplishes the latter, but it also causes testicular atrophy:

"From the second week the

scrotal circumference started decreasing though not significantly (P>0.05).However, there was a

significant decrease (P<0.01) in the scrotal circumference 15.8±1.6cm at day 35 post-injection

compared with the pre-injection value of 20.1±1.5

cm"

This was quoted on another forum:-

http://www.ajol.info/index.php/sokjvs/a ... 9895/79350

An interesting article with all the detail.