Future Farmers

Boys were leaving the farms. In 1928, 33 students from 18 states gathered in Kansas City to form the 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.

Click HERE for the full post and more images.

Ancient Agricultural Production Intensification

According the research and reporting by noted archaeologists, there were three main technological advances resulting in food production intensification in pre-contact Hawai‘i: (a) walled fishponds, (b) terraced pondfields with their irrigation systems and (c) systematic dry-land field cultivation organized by vegetation zones.

Walled Fishponds

The Hawaiian walled fishpond stands as a technological achievement unmatched elsewhere in island Oceania.  Hawaiians built rock-walled enclosures in near shore waters, to raise fish for their communities and families.  It is believed these were first built around the fifteenth century.

Only in Hawaiʻi was there such an intensive effort to utilize practically every body of water, from seashore to upland forests, as a source of food, for either agriculture or aquaculture.

The ancient Hawaiian fishpond is a sophisticated land and ocean resource management technique.  Utilizing raw materials such as rocks, corals, vines and woods, the Hawaiians created great walls (kuapā) and gates (mākāhā) for these fishponds.

The general term for a fishpond is loko (pond), or more specifically, loko iʻa (fishpond).  Loko iʻa were used for the fattening and storing of fish for food and also as a source for kapu (forbidden) fish.

The cultivation of fish took place in Hawaiian agricultural pondfields as well as in specialized fresh and brackish water fishponds. Walled, brackish-water fishponds were usually constructed on the reef along the shore and one or more mākāhā.

Samuel M. Kamakau points out that “one can see that they were built as government projects by chiefs, for it was a very big task to build one, (and) commoners could not have done it (singly, or without co-ordination.)” Chiefs had the power to command a labor force large enough to transport the tons of rock required and to construct such great walls.

In 1848, when King Kamehameha III pronounced the Great Māhele, or land distribution, Hawaiian fishponds were considered private property.  This was confirmed in subsequent Court cases that noted “titles to fishponds are recognized to the same extent and in the same manner as rights recognized in fast land.”

Lo‘i Kalo (terraced pondfields)

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

The terraces were irrigated with water brought in ditches from springs and streams high in the valleys, allowing extensive areas of the valleys to be cultivated. 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.

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 thin irrigated gardens.

In addition, walled pondfields not only produce taro, but were also used to raise an additional source of food, freshwater fish: primarily the Hawaiian goby (‘o‘opu nakea) and certain kinds of shrimp (‘opae.)

Captain George Vancouver visited O‘ahu in 1792 and wrote about the taro gardens in tine Waikīkī-Kapahulu-Mo‘ili‘ili-Manana complex that he observed:
“Our guides led us to the northward through the village [Waikiki], to an exceedingly well-made causeway, about twelve feet broad, with a ditch on each side.  This opened to our view a spacious plain…the major part appeared divided into fields of irregular shape and figure, which were separated from each other by low stone walls, and were in a very high state of cultivation.”

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.”

Dryland Field System

The third form of subsistence intensification involved the systematic cultivation of dryland crops in their appropriate vegetation zones as exemplified by the Field Systems in Kona, Kohala, Kaupō and Kalaupapa (Ka‘ū reportedly also has a field system.)

Cultivation of the soil in Kona was characterized by a variety of non-irrigated root and tree crops grown for subsistence, each farmer having gardens in one or more vegetation zones. Each crop was cultivated in the zone in which it grew best.

Reverend William Ellis described the area behind Kailua town in Kona above the breadfruit and mountain apple trees as, “The path now lay through a beautiful part of the country, quite a garden compared with that through which they had passed on first leaving the town.”

“It was generally divided into small fields, about fifteen rods square fenced with low stone walls, built with fragments of lava gathered from the surface of the enclosures. These fields were planted with bananas, sweet potatoes, mountain taro, paper mulberry plants, melons, and sugar-cane, which flourished luxuriantly in every direction.”

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.

The inspiration (and much of the information) for this post came from research from Dr. Marion Kelly.  The image is a portion of an 1893 map prepared by Wall showing pondfields and fish ponds in Waikīkī (note, the "rice fields" used to be taro loʻi.)  In addition, I have added other images in a folder of like name in the Photos section on my Facebook page.

http://www.facebook.com/peter.t.young.hawaii

© 2012 Hoʻokuleana LLC

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.

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.)

Don Francisco de Paula Marin (Manini)

Don Francisco de Paula Marin (known to the Hawaiian as “Manini”) was a Spaniard who arrived in the Hawaiian Islands in 1793 or 1794 (at about the age of 20.)  Manini’s nickname appears to be the closest way that the Hawaiians could pronounce his name.

His knowledge of Western military weapons brought him to the attention of Kamehameha, who was engaged in the conquest of O‘ahu.  Marin almost immediately became a trusted advisor to Kamehameha I.

Marin spoke four languages (he arrived fluent in Spanish, French and English, and learned Hawaiian) and was employed by Kamehameha as Interpreter, Bookkeeper and part time Physician (although he had no formal medical training, he had some basic medical knowledge.)  He also served as purchasing agent for the arms that proved decisive to Kamehameha’s victory of the Battle of Nu‘uanu (1795.)

Kamehameha granted Marin a couple acres of land Ewa of the King’s compound on the Honolulu waterfront (near Nu‘uanu Stream.)

Marin then proceeded over the next several years to erect the first stone house built in Hawai‘i on the property, pre-fabricated wooden houses imported from New England, a cut coral breakwater wall, a wharf, storehouses, bullock pen and stone perimeter fencing. 

Kamehameha also rewarded him with large tracts of land, including Ford Island in Pearl Harbor, which Marin used to raise cattle. 

He was known for his interest in plant collecting and brought in a wide variety of new plants to Hawai‘i.  His gardens were filled with trees, vines and shrubs.

He turned this hobby into a “ship supply” business and provided fresh fruits and vegetables to the crews of ships docked at Honolulu Harbor.

Marin was responsible for introducing and cultivating many of the plants commonly associated with the Islands.  To name only a few, here are some of the plants he introduced and/or cultivated in Hawai‘i: pineapple, coffee, avocado, mango and grape vines.

He also successfully cultivated and raised oranges, figs, roses, beans, melons, turnips, tobacco, wheat, barley, cloves, tomatoes, saffron and cherries.

Marin also planted lots of potatoes, yams, breadfruit, melons, cabbage, onions, celery, and garlic, as well as wheat, rice and Indian corn.  He made castor oil, soap, molasses, pickles, sugar, butter, cigars, coconut oil, candles and hay.

Hawai‘i's first accommodations for transients were established sometime after 1810, when Marin “opened his home and table to visitors on a commercial basis ... Closely arranged around the Marin home were the grass houses of his workers and the ‘guest houses’ of the ship captains who boarded with him while their vessels were in port.”

He fermented the first wine in Hawai‘i and distilled brandy.  He also made rum from sugarcane and brewed beer, all of which he sold at his boarding house-saloon near the waterfront.

Marin Street near Honolulu Harbor was named for him and the Marin Tower, built in 1994, occupies the site of his boarding house.

His “New Vineyard” grapevines were located Waikiki side of Nu‘uanu Stream and makai of Vineyard Street; when a road was cut through its mauka boundary, it became known as Vineyard Street.

In April of 1819, Marin was summoned to the Big Island of Hawai‘i to assist Kamehameha, who had become ill.  Marin was not able to improve the condition of Kamehameha, and on May 8, 1819, King Kamehameha I died.

Marin died in Honolulu on October 30, 1837.

Marin’s contributions are best noted by Robert C. Wyllie, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, when addressing the Royal Agricultural Society of Hawai‘i in 1850, saying:

“From the brief accounts of the life and works of the don in 1809 to 1820, few of you will doubt that most of the present wealth of these islands is owing to the seeds, roots and plants introduced by Francisco de Paula Marin, and to whom the Hawaiian people are so greatly indebted.”

How Much Land Do We Need To Be Food Self-Sufficient?

Given the recent and on-going conversations on food “self-sufficiency” and “sustainability,” in trying to answer the above question, I first looked to existing State plans to see the estimates and computations noted there.

To my surprise, there is no detail in the Hawaii 2050 Plan (the State’s most recent long-range planning document) that quantifies how much land is needed for food self-sufficiency.

While it does use “happy words” (as I describe its text) generalizing that we need to do this or that; however, no roadmap to get there or measures of success are included.

I then did an internet investigation into the matter to see if ‘rules of thumb’ or other standards could apply.  The evidence is variable.

As noted by the graphic used here, some suggest, at a self-subsistence level, a family of four can live off of approximately 2-acres of land.

Extend that to the Hawai‘i’s existing defacto population of about 1.5-million people, we need about 750,000-acres of land to feed everyone.  (Of course, there are economies of scale when moving from individual family subsistence production to commercial scale production, so this number is inflated.)

(By the way, de facto population is defined as the number of persons physically present in an area, regardless of military status or usual place of residence.  It includes visitors present but excludes residents temporarily absent, both calculated as an average daily census.)

The 750K acres for 1.5M people conflicts with a report on feeding the people in the city of Detroit.  In that report, Detroit’s 5.4-million people would require only 164,250-acres to feed everyone there, per year.

Extrapolating that to Hawai‘i’s 1.5-million de facto population that means, under the Detroit analysis, Hawai‘i only needs about 45,625-acres of farmland to feed the State.  Hmmm.

Another study on Costa Rica “Quantifying Sustainable Development: The Future of Tropical Economies” suggests that it takes about 495,000-acres of land to feed 1.2- to 1.6-million people.

Of course, all of these estimates do not include the significant dietary supplement we are able to use in Hawai‘i by harvesting seafood from the surrounding ocean.

Nor does it include opportunities that concentrated farming offer, like aquaponics, hydroponics, intensive grazing, etc.

So, while we talk about food “self-sufficiency” and “sustainability” what are we doing about it?

Lately, I think the only ‘action’ has been talk – folks go to a meeting, talk, then they prepare a plan.  They meet again, and talk some more.  Then everyone goes away satisfied that they are ‘doing’ something (until the next happy words meeting.)

Presently, the State designates about 1.9-million acres as “Agriculture.” The USDA reports Hawai‘i’s total farm acreage is 1.1-million acres of land.

And, of course, you can farm lands that are not designated ‘agriculture;’ meaning, a lot more land is available for food production from lands under other land use classifications (including everyone’s own backyard.)

 

Given that, should we all feel comfortable there will be food for us in the future?

Not quite.

I think it is about time we 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 and sustainability.

The world is changing in lots of ways - we cannot blindly go along with business as usual (with just happy words) in addressing this important and critical need.