Images of Old Hawaiʻi

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Intensified Agricultural Systems

Intensified agricultural systems may be defined as those which involve either a significant reduction in fallow length (intensity of cropping) or the construction of permanent agronomic facilities that allow continuous cropping.

Archaeological, ethnohistoric and ethnographic information suggest these intensive systems may be classified into (1) those utilizing some form of water control for the continuous cropping of taro; (2) short-fallow, permanent field systems in dryland areas; and (3) arboriculture (the cultivation of trees and shrubs) associated with long-term storage of starch pastes.

Lo‘i Kalo (terraced pondfields)

A technological invention by Hawaiian Polynesians was the development of their extended stone-faced, terraced lo‘i (pondfields) and their accompanying ‘auwai (irrigation systems) for the intensive cultivation of wetland kalo (taro.) (Kelly)

Here, a water source such as a spring or stream is tapped and diverted to irrigate a set of artificially terraced or bunded, flooded fields. Such pondfield irrigation systems vary in scale and hydraulic complexity, ranging from small sets of 10 fields or less, to extensive valley-bottom complexes with hundreds of fields. (Kirch)

The irrigation ditches and pondfields were engineered to allow the cool water to circulate among the taro plants and from terrace to terrace, avoiding stagnation and overheating by the sun, which would rot the taro tubers.

Lt. King of Captain James Cook’s 1778 expedition noted, “… the inhabitants (of Kauai) far surpass all the neighboring islanders in the management of their plantations.”

“… these plantations were divided by deep and regular ditches; the fences were made with a neatness approaching to elegance, and the roads through them were thrown up and finished in a manner that would have done credit to any European engineer.”

In 1815, the explorer Kotzebue added to these descriptions by writing about the gardens and the artificial ponds that were scattered throughout the area:

“The luxuriant taro-fields, which might be properly called taro-lake, attracted my attention. Each of these consisted of about one hundred and sixty square feet, forms a regular square, and walled round with stones, like our basins.”

“This field or tank contained two feet of water, in whose slimy bottom the taro was planted, as it only grows in moist places. Each had two sluices. One to receive, and the other to let out, the water into the next field, whence it was carried farther.”

An acre of irrigated pondfields produced as much as five times the amount of taro as an acre of dryland cultivation. Over a period of several years, irrigated pondfields could be as much as 10 or 15 times more productive than unirrigated taro gardens, as dryland gardens need to lie fallow for greater lengths of time than irrigated gardens. (Kelly)

Dryland Field System

In dryland field systems, field boundaries were permanently demarcated and soil fertility was maintained through labor intensive mulching. Taro was planted in rotation with yams, sweet potato, bananas and other crops. This systematic cultivation of dryland crops in their appropriate vegetation zones are exemplified by the Field Systems in Kona, Kohala, Kaupō, Kalaupapa and Ka‘ū.

Crops were matched with their most compatible vegetation zones, trees had adequate spreading space, and double cropping was utilized where appropriate. (Kelly) Short-fallow dryland systems that were the most demanding of labor inputs. (Kirch)

Captain Charles Wilkes of the American Exploring Expedition, which visited Hawai‘i in 1840, noted: “… a mile back from the shore, the surface is covered with herbage, which maintains cattle, etc; and two miles in the interior there is sufficient moisture to keep up a constant verdure.”

“Here, in a belt half a mile wide, the bread-fruit is met with in abundance, and above this the taro is cultivated with success. At an elevation of between two and three thousand feet, and at the distance of five miles, the forest is first met with.” (Wilkes)

Farmers found, farmed and intensified production on lands that were poised between being too wet and too dry. Archaeological evidence of intensive cultivation of sweet potato and other dryland crops is extensive, including walls, terraces, mounds and other features.

The fields were typically oriented parallel to the elevation contours and the walls; sometimes these were made up of a grid of rain-fed plots, defined by low stone field walls built, in part, to shelter sweet potatoes and other crops from the wind.

Since the dryland technique was away from supplemental water sources, this was truly dryland agriculture. There was no evidence to level terraces as in irrigated pondfield systems (taro lo‘i,) and there was no evidence of water control features or channels; so the conclusion was the system was strictly rainfed.

Arboriculture (the cultivation of trees and shrubs)

‘Ulu (Breadfruit) was the primary Polynesian tree crop. It was a canoe crop – one of around 30 plants brought to the Hawaiian Islands by the Polynesians when they first arrived in Hawaiʻi.

“The bread-fruit trees thrive here, not in such abundance, but produce double the quantity of fruit they do on the rich plains of Otaheite.” (Captain James Cook, 1779)

“This tree, whose fruit is so useful, if not necessary, to the inhabitants of most of the islands of the South Seas, has been chiefly celebrated as a production of the Sandwich Islands; it is not confined to these alone, but is also found in all the countries bordering on the Pacific Ocean.” (Book of Trees, 1837)

The numerous clones of breadfruit with differing properties of yield, fruit characters, timing of harvest, and other aspects of morphology (leaf shape, etc.) provide a classic example of genetic innovation through selection.

Since breadfruit produces high yields in a short harvest period (usually two times per year), the crop generally cannot be completely consumed at the time of harvest.

In some parts of Polynesia and Micronesia, this problem was overcome by technological innovation of anaerobic fermentation and subterranean storage of the uncooked fruit in silos, where the fermented paste may be kept for periods of several years to be consumed as required. (Kirch)

This emphasis on storage also permitted the accumulation of large reserves, and control of these lay in the hands of the chiefly elite, who deployed these resources to political ends.

Thus, in Polynesian arboriculture we have an example of both genetic and technological innovation providing substantial opportunities for particular individuals within society to increase, concentrate, and gain control over surplus production, without the need for significantly increased labor inputs. (The inspiration (and much of the information) for this post came from research from Dr Marion Kelly and Dr Patrick Kirch.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook 

Follow Peter T Young on Google+ 

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn  

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

© 2017 Hoʻokuleana LLC

Na Mokupuni O Hawaii Nei-Kalama 1837
Na Mokupuni O Hawaii Nei-Kalama 1837

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Old-Young – Wet-Dry – East-West

“Agriculture was a matter of great importance in Hawai‘i, because by it a man obtained the means of supporting himself and his wife, his children, friends and domestic animals. It was associated, however, with the worship of idols.” (Malo)

“In the Hawaiian Islands agriculture was conducted differently on lands where there were streams of water and on dry lands. On lands supplied with running water agriculture was easy and could be carried on at all times …”

“… and the only reason for a scarcity of food among the people on such lands was idleness. Sometimes, however, the water-supply failed; but the drought did not last long.” (Malo)

All Polynesian societies descend from an ancestral culture which had first settled the western archipelagoes of Samoa and Tonga by about 1200 BC. Throughout this varied region, root-crop horticulture was transferred and adapted to local environmental conditions and challenges. (Kirch)

Most Polynesian archipelagoes have a volcanic ‘hot spot’ origin and, due to tectonic plate movement, islands increase in age as one progresses further from the hot spot of volcanic activity. The Hawaiian Islands illustrate this geological age progression, and associated opportunities for crop production.

The geographically older westerly islands (Kauai, O‘ahu, Molokai and west Maui) are more heavily weathered, with permanent stream flow and alluvium valleys, on which irrigation could be developed.

The agricultural emphasis was on taro irrigation, with shifting cultivation and other forms of dryland gardening providing a secondary role.

In the geologically younger islands to the east (east Maui and Hawai‘i), irrigation was only a minor contributor to subsistence production and highly labor-intensive, short-fallow dryland field systems predominated.

Most of the arable terrain is volcanically younger, lacking stream flow and prohibited the development of extensive irrigation works. Thus, irrigation systems in east Maui and Hawai‘i, while present in restricted areas, contributed in only minor.

Initial settlement was confined for the most part to the windward valley regions, with their more favorable ecological conditions (ample stream flow, higher rainfall, extensive alluvial soils.)

Later, there was a major expansion into leeward regions throughout the archipelago. The initial stages of this expansion focused on leeward valleys or around bays with rich marine resources.

By about AD 1400, settlements were moving into increasingly marginal environments, including the interiors of leeward valleys and the higher elevation slopes of the easterly islands.

It was a period of tremendous significance in Hawaiian history; during this time, (1) the population underwent a geometric rate of increase; (2) virtually all habitable and arable lands were occupied and territorially claimed; and (3) the territorial pattern of chiefdom (moku) and sub-chiefdom units (ahupua‘a) appears to have been established.

In addition, toward the end of this period the Hawaiian sociopolitical system was transformed from a simple, ancestral Polynesian chiefdom to a highly stratified society with virtual class differentiation between ali‘i (chiefs) and maka‘āinana (commoners.)

There were other differences in the political and religious structure of the eastern and western chiefdoms. In particular, the elaborate makahiki, or wet-season harvest ritual, as well as the emphasis accorded the cult of the war god Kū with its associated luakini temple ritual, was especially developed on Hawai‘i and Maui, less so on the westerly islands of O‘ahu and Kauai.

Of the four great Hawaiian gods (Lono, Kāne, Kanaloa and Kū,) Lono and Kane were both associated with agriculture, each showing different symbolic linkages, the one centered on Lono involving rainfall, sweet potato (and to a lesser extent dryland taro) and dryland cultivation, the other centered on Kāne involving flowing waters, taro and irrigation.

Lono was specifically the god of dryland cultivation and associated with “clouds bearing rain,” thunder, the sweet potato (the primary dryland crop,) the rise of Pleiades and the rainy season.

Kāne who was associated with pondfield irrigation of taro, running water (wai,) springs, fishponds, male procreative powers and irrigation. As noted by Handy & Pukui, “the family bowl of poi (starch staple made from taro) in the household was sacred to Haloa, who is Kāne, an ancestor in the line senior to man”.

“The control of agricultural production was one of the sources of power for the leasers if Hawaiian societies, societies which were among the most highly stratified in Polynesia at the time of European exploration.” (Tuggle)

The political formations and moves for territorial expansion just before ‘contact,’ show a pattern that corresponds closely to the fundamental differences in agricultural base. The aggressive, expansionist, Ku-cult centered chieftainships of Maui and Hawai‘i were precisely those polities most dependent upon intensified dryland field cultivation.

The frequent objects of their aggression were the western islands of Molokai, O‘ahu and Kauai, and their resource-rich centers of irrigation agriculture and fishpond aquaculture.

In these western islands, the possibilities for greater agricultural intensification remained substantial, despite high levels of population density, owing to the environmental conditions favoring irrigation.

The complex linkages between varied agricultural landscapes and the social relations of production – effectively, the ecological and cultural contrasts between ‘the wet and the dry’ – illustrate the role intensification played in the political evolution of chiefdom societies.

(The inspiration and information here is from Patrick Kirch’s book “The Wet and the Dry.” Maps are Natalie Kurashima’s Traditional Agriculture Maps.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook 

Follow Peter T Young on Google+ 

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn  

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

© 2017 Hoʻokuleana LLC

Statewide
Kauai
Oahu
Maui Nui
Hawaii

by Peter T Young 1 Comment

Future Farmers

Boys were leaving the farms.

The Smith-Hughes Vocational Education Act (1917) sought to “provide for the promotion of vocational education … in agriculture and the trades and industries”. Initially not available in Hawaiʻi, the provisions of the Act were extended to the Islands on March 10, 1924.

The law provided funding “for agricultural education that … is under public supervision or control; that the controlling purpose of such education shall be to fit for useful employment …”

“… that such education shall be of less than college grade and be designed to meet the needs of persons over fourteen years of age who have entered upon or who are preparing to enter upon the work of the farm or of the farm home”. (USDA)

Later, on the continent, Walter S Newman proposed forming an organization that offered farm boys “a greater opportunity for self-expression and for the development of leadership. In this way they will develop confidence in their own ability and pride in the fact that they are farm boys.”

In 1925, Newman and a few other Virginia Tech agricultural education teacher educators (Henry Groseclose, Harry Sanders, and Edmund Magill) spoke of forming agriculture classes for boys.

The idea was presented during an annual vocational rally in the state in April 1926, where it was met positively. The Future Farmers of Virginia was born. Two years later, the idea reached the national stage during the American Royal Livestock Show in Kansas City, Mo.

‘Manual education’ was not new in Hawaiʻi, especially agricultural training and hands on experience.

Instruction in elementary agriculture for boys and in homemaking for girls became a strong feature of public education under Richard Armstrong’s administration.

Armstrong was the second Minister of Public Instruction in Hawaiʻi (and often referred to as the father of American public education in Hawaiʻi.) His administration made very real contributions to education in agriculture in Hawaiʻi.

JE Higgins was appointed teacher of agriculture for the Honolulu schools in 1900. His work in 7 schools consisted mostly of growing vegetables, flowers, sorghum, sweet potatoes, strawberries, corn, carrots, and the beautification of the school grounds.

In 1908 an itinerant vocational instructor was appointed for each of the major island. The instruction was mainly prevocational and consisted, for the most part, of practical instruction in gardening. (History of Agricultural Education)

Back on the continent … in 1928, 33 students from 18 states gathered in Kansas City to form the Future Farmers of America.

Then, in the Islands … on December 28, 1928, delegates from seventeen island chapters met at Lahaina, Maui to draft the Territorial Constitution.

The following chapters were represented: Kona, McKinley, John M. Ross (Hakalau,) Maui, Lahainaluna, Laupāhoehoe, Haiku, Honokaa, Hilo Intermediate, Aiea, Pāhala, Makawao, James Dole (Leilehua,) Pahoa, Molokai, Kohala and Hilo High. WW Beers was the first Territorial Adviser of the Hawaiian Association Future Farmers of America.

On April 20, 1929, Charter Number 13 of the Future Farmers of America was issued to the Hawaiian Association. By winning the State association award in 1934, the Hawaiian Association became the outstanding association of the Future Farmer organization for that year.

In 1929, national blue and corn gold became the official colors of FFA. A year later, delegates adopted the official FFA Creed and by 1933 the familiar Official Dress of blue corduroy jackets was adopted.

Girls were restricted from the earliest forms of FFA membership by delegate vote at the 1930 national convention. It wasn’t until 1969 that females gained full FFA membership privileges (today, females represent more than 45 percent of FFA members and roughly half of all state leadership positions.)

Since 1928, millions of agriculture students have donned the official FFA jacket; all 50 states are currently chartered members of the national organization, representing 610,240 individual FFA members and 7,665 local chapters. It’s a testament to the power of common goals and the strong ideals of the FFA founders.

Their mission was to prepare future generations for the challenges of feeding a growing population. They taught us that agriculture is more than planting and harvesting – it’s a science, it’s a business and it’s an art. (FFA)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook 

Follow Peter T Young on Google+ 

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn  

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

© 2015 Hoʻokuleana LLC

Hawaii_FFA
Hawaii_FFA
Future_Farmers_FFA_U.S._Stamp
Future_Farmers_FFA_U.S._Stamp
FFA_logo
FFA_logo

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Hoʻokuleana LLC to Receive “Innovation in Sustaining Places” Award

We are proud and honored to report that we just received word that the American Planning Association – Hawaiʻi Chapter selected us to receive the “Innovation in Sustaining Places” award for a Master Plan we prepared for a private agricultural park on the Big Island.

This is our third APA-Hawaiʻi award in a row; in prior years, two of our other plans were given the “Environment/Preservation” awards.

According to APA-Hawaiʻi, the award “Recognizes examples of truly innovative best practices for sustaining places.  Submissions should show specific examples of how sustainability practices are being used in how places are planned, designed, built, used, and maintained at all scales and how place-based strategies are integrated in the broader discussion of sustainability. Areas of specific interest include energy use and efficiency, green infrastructure, resource conservation, transportation choices and impacts, compact development, density, diversity, revitalization, employment opportunities, and population impacts.”

We took a different approach in the preparation of the plan.  In addition to the conventional land use layout, we made specific management and operational recommendations.  These were made to help assure that agriculture (food) will be the focus, goals/commitments are being addressed and tenants/collaborators are on track to fulfill the mission and vision.

Ultimately, a goal is to meld Hawaiian traditional wisdom with modern sustainability concepts and take an integrated approach in the design and operation of the Ag Park, incorporating understanding and respect for the land, the surrounding community and the environment.

In addition to other approaches listed throughout the Master Plan, we sought to incorporate the following sustainability approaches: Mālama ‘Āina, Organic Farming Practices, Composting, and Beneficial, Effective and Indigenous Microorganisms.

The context in which the Master Plan was prepared, particularly in relation to the overall Agricultural Park management strategy, addressed strong and recurring themes of Tradition, Sustainability, Integrated Holistic Approach, Long‐term Timeframe, Cooperation and Collaboration, Diversity of Foods and Economic Viability.

While farmers claim to be notoriously independent, attempts are made at every stage of the development and operation of the Park to incorporate multiple uses/reuse of resources; this included demonstrating the benefit of allocating one farm’s “waste” to fill another farm’s “need.”  In a sense, the Ag Park management philosophy views the overall Agricultural Park more like an integrated farm, rather than an assemblage of independent, individual farms.

The goal and central theme of the plan is:  “Food from Kohala for Kohala.”

I’ll have some more on this, later, but am excited to share the great news we received at the end of this past week.  The award will be formally presented in September at the statewide Hawai‘i Congress of Planning Officials’ meeting.  The image illustrates some of the uses proposed within the Master Plan.

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

What Do We Do With Agricultural Land?

Hawai‘i State government has a long history of studying and evaluating land needed for agriculture.  Here’s a list of various State-initiated statewide agricultural land use studies:

Land Use Commission (1961)
In 1961, the State Legislature approved the first state land use law in the nation and formed the Land Use Commission (LUC.)  All lands in the State were then mapped into three categories – Urban, Agricultural and Conservation.  (Rural was added in 1963.)

The LUC is required by law to conduct comprehensive reviews of this mapping; however, the last review was done in 1992, twenty years ago.

Land Study Bureau (1972)
In 1972, the Land Study Bureau report was prepared by UH and it grouped soils into land types based on soil & productive capabilities (“A” (very good) to “E” (not suitable.))  It also produced several ‘Crop Productivity’ ratings for pineapple, sugar, vegetables, forage, grazing, orchard and timber.

Land Capability Classification (1972)
Also in 1972, UH and USDA produced a Land Capability Classification focusing on agricultural suitability limited by soil & climatic conditions.  Again, productivity estimates were only for limited crops, sugar, pine, pasture, woodland.  Eight Classes were identified, I – VIII (best to worse) with an effective cutoff to I, II & III.

Hawai‘i Constitutional Convention (1978)
In 1978, the Hawai‘i Constitutional Convention (and subsequent vote by the populace) amended the State Constitution adding ‘Agricultural Lands’ in Article 11, Section 3.

In part, the Constitution was amended by adding, “The State shall conserve and protect agricultural lands, promote diversified agriculture, increase agricultural self-sufficiency and assure the availability of agriculturally suitable lands.”

“Lands identified by the State as important agricultural lands needed to fulfill the purposes above shall not be reclassified by the State or rezoned by its political subdivisions without meeting the standards and criteria established by the legislature and approved by a two-thirds vote of the body responsible for the reclassification or rezoning action.”

Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) (1978)
In 1978, in response to the amendment to the Constitution, UH (through CTAHR,) State Ag and USDA conducted the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) analysis.

A range of factors were considered, including soils, climate, moisture supply, input use, etc and production-related factors were generalized.  Ultimately, 3 classes of important agricultural lands were identified: Prime, Unique and Other.

Land Evaluation & Site Assessment (LESA) (1986)
In 1986, a commission was formed and produced the Land Evaluation & Site Assessment (LESA) report. Standards & criteria for identifying important agricultural land were created and a numeric scoring system was incorporated into it.

There were three components, Agricultural production goals (market,) Land Evaluation (soils, topography, climate) and Site Assessment (physical factors, location, land use.)

So, how much land is identified as “very good,” “Class I, II or III,” “Prime” and/or “Important?”  Of the approximate 1.9-million acres of lands in the Agriculture district (under the LUC mapping,) the following is a breakdown of the “best” in each study:

• Land Study Bureau (1972) – 447,250-acres; 24% of Ag district
• Land Capability Classification (1972) – 381,610-Acres; 21% of Ag district
• ALISH (1978) – 846,360-acres; 46% of Ag district
• LESA (1986) – 759,540-acres; 41% of Ag district


While adequate land has been used and has been available for Hawai‘i’s historic export crops (primarily sugar and pineapple,) the fact that these agricultural ventures no longer exist in their historic scales calls into question the appropriateness of using these prior studies in evaluating today’s needs. 
In addition, from self-sufficiency, food security and sustainability contexts, I believe evaluation for protection of “good” land for agricultural use should initially focus on primarily staple food crops (for local consumption, not export.)
I continue to believe we need to have a frank discussion about what our needs are and start to take the necessary steps to ultimately realize our goal of food self-sufficiency. 
In that discussion, I think we also need to acknowledge that 100% food self-sufficiency – especially if we intend to continue to eat the wide range of foods we find in our grocery stores – is probably not practical. 
Look in a store near you, there are lots of things we like and choose to eat but cannot viably grow here.
The discussion also needs to identify truly-farmable land to be placed in the broad category of “Agricultural.”  Rather than have that category be part of the “catch all” for marginal lands as in past experience, it should include truly farmable land.
Right now almost half the state is designated “Agriculture” (about 1.93-million acres;) an almost equal amount is designated “Conservation” – less than 5% of the land area in the State is designated “Urban.”
Since the 1960s mapping where broad-brush strokes designated agricultural lands, communities have changed … a lot.
The State should look to the County General Plans and their local Community Development Plans as guides in evaluating various land uses.  (We also need to remember, farming is not limited to the agricultural district; you can farm in your urban backyard.)
Broad-based community planning efforts have identified urban centers and growth areas – lots of land presently in the State “Ag” designation are “Urban Expansion” areas (especially lots of the non-productive land adjoining growing communities;) these should be reclassified to urban, to be consistent with the more-recently approved community-based plans.
Once we have identified land that is truly appropriate for agriculture, then we need to note from that group land that is essential for Hawaii’s farming needs – the important agricultural land.
I know I have posted several prior messages on dealing with agricultural land.  I do so because I think it is an important subject.  I am not saying, ‘don’t build on Ag land’ – I am saying, let’s identify where it is viable, what we need and then work to protect it.
Prior mapping and studies were broad-brushed and based on export farming.  Some land presently mapped as “agricultural” is not practical Ag land; it should be designated something else.  (I was tempted to post prior mapping, but I really think the processes that developed them are no longer valid.)