Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0882.013 2006-2008 Working to Preserve Taro: Opposition to Senate Bill 958 and House Bill 704 I i tR. . x: • This legislation hijacks ongoing talks with the Hawaiian Community on how to preserve Taro while remaining sensitive to cultural issues. • This legislation hamstrings the development of potentially effective tools for farmers to combat existing and unforeseen biological threats to Taro production. • If these bills are allowed to pass, Hawaii would become a leader in anti-science legislation. cam„,. 88a. I3 Ref. To, hheN~ ' / Ret Dose JANU4 2 Groschkg, the fiatire of' worldwide (~qriclllfllre ill Hinvaii BIOTECH TARO RESEARCH ISSUE Bills banning genetic engineering of taro were introduced in 2007. Senate Bill 958 and House Bill 704 call for moratoriums on all testing, propagating, cultivating, growing and raising genetically engineered taro. POSITION The Hawaii Crop Improvement Association (HCIA) opposes SB 958 and HB 704. Important First Steps: Dialogue with Hawaiian Community In 2005, the University of Hawai'i agreed that genetic engineering research on Hawaiian taro would not proceed until discussions with the Hawaiian community were completed. At that time, the university worked with Ali'i Sir William D. Souza of the Royal Order of Kamehameha I to develop a process that balances the university's values relating to free inquiry and respect for indigenous knowledge, beliefs, and practices. HCIA respects the cultural meaning of Hawaiian taro and firmly believes that the Hawaiian community must lead the discussion of the future of Hawaiian taro and Hawaiian taro research and education programs. HCIA strongly supports the Department of Agriculture's lead in convening taro stakeholders, under the auspices of SCR 206, to ensure meaningful discussion about the preservation and protection of taro. We believe that continuation of dialogue is necessary to arrive at real solutions for Hawaiian taro cultivation. Risk of Devastation Requires All Tools in Toolbox A wide variety of pests have caused the decline of Hawaiian taro varieties from more than 400 in the early 1900s to fewer than 60 today. Invasive species and diseases such as the taro leaf blight and Alomae/Bobone virus have wiped out taro production in Samoa and the Solomon islands. Because Hawaii is an international port and imports 20 percent of the taro, invasive species and diseases could find their way here and severely impact the taro industry. The destruction to the native wiliwili trees is an example of what could happen to the taro plants in Hawaii. Taro could benefit from the use of all plant-breeding technologies, including biotechnology, if that is acceptable to the Hawaiian cultural community. Individual farmers should have the right to choose the crops they prefer to grow, using the production methods that best fit their farming needs - whether that's organic, conventional or genetic engineering practices. The tools of biotechnology have been chosen by farmers in the US and around the world, and have been proven safe and compatible with other farming methods. Global Implications Inherent in Extreme Agenda Mandating a moratorium on genetic research will erode Hawaii's image and reputation as a center for science and technology innovation and will restrict growth and investment. Diversification of Hawaii's economy is critical to the future of our state. The biotechnology industry contributes to Hawaii's ability to remain economically competitive, provide rewarding careers for our people, and preserve Hawaii's special environment and quality of life. HCIA believes that this legislation is simply an attempt to hijack legitimate cultural concerns by people with a broader philosophical and anti-scientific agenda. Proponents have said: "Hopefully this moratorium will lead to not only a BAN on GMO taro, but ALL GMOs in Hawaii and elsewhere. " Extreme mainland anti-GMO activists are not interested in preserving kalo, but are using Hawaiian cultural concerns to further their own global agenda. 91-1012 Kahi'uka St. director@hciaonline.com Honolulu, HI 96706 www.hciaonline.com U N I V E R S I T Y OF H A W A 1 ` 1 A T M A N O A College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources Office of the Dean and Director Taro Research and Genetic Engineering of Hawaiian Taro May 24, 2005 The College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR) at the University of Hawaii at Manna has a long history of working with taro growers to improve taro varieties, increase disease resistance, and help solve their pressing production problems. Since 1902, serious fungal diseases have threatened the viability of commercial taro production in Hawaii (publication number 2 from the Agricultural Experiment Station dealt with this issue). Leaf blight has played a significant role in reducing taro diversity, as the number of named Hawaiian varieties has declined from over 400 in the early 1900s to fewer than 60 today. Soft corm rots and pocket rot often cause losses of 50 percent or more. In seeking solutions to these and other challenges faced by taro growers, the college has been open to assessing the effectiveness of all technologies and practices, including genetic engineering. Some groups within the Hawaiian community have expressed concerns about the genetic engineering of Hawaiian taro varieties. One of our responsibilities as a land-grant institution is to be engaged with our many stakeholders, including Hawaiians and taro growers. Within this context, the university is working with Ali i Sir William D. Souza of the Royal Order of Kamehameha I to develop a process that will balance the university's values relating to free, inquiry and respect for indigenous knowledge, beliefs, and practices. One item of discussion is the creation of a forum to promote dialog on, for example, the types of Hawaiian taro research that will raise cultural concerns in the Hawaiian community. The organization and format of this forum/research review board, composed primarily of Native Hawaiians, are being discussed; we expect that it will be established sometime this summer. We have encountered perceptions in the community that CTAHR's taro research focuses entirely on genetic engineering and that the college sells or gives away genetically engineered taro huli. These perceptions are incorrect. For more than a century, CTAHR has refined sustainable management practices and used classical breeding techniques to produce improved taro cultivars. This work continues to yield promising results. The college has also pursued two taro genetic engineering research projects. The first project sought to develop a method for introducing disease-resistant genes from rice into Chinese ('Bun Long'), Hawaiian ('Maui Lehua'), and Samoan ('Niue') taro varieties. The research was successful only with the Chinese taro variety. The second, current project seeks to incorporate into the Chinese taro variety other disease-resistance genes from grapevine and wheat for increased fungal disease resistance. This second project is still in the laboratory phase. No genetically engineered taro plants have been released or grown in the field. They are absolutely not being sold or donated to anyone. The CTAHR scientists currently involved in genetic engineering research on taro have no plans to modify Hawaiian taro varieties. In keeping with our commitment to engage with our stakeholders and be sensitive to the cultural significance of taro, CTAHR will not initiate genetic engineering research on Hawaiian taro varieties until the forum/research review board to discuss the cultural aspects of this research is convened and all aspects of the research are discussed. Andrew G. Hashimoto Dean and Director Kalo Production is in serious decline 16 - 14 N 12 C O = 10 E 8 rn v 6 • C ~ 7 O 4 a 2 • 0 Date 1948 1953 1980 lU6? 2005 DATE 1650 1900 111-t 1 2006 CULTIVATED 20,000 1,300 920 360 ACRES IN KALO .s Biological Threats to Kalo Production • Kalo Leaf Blight - fungal disease introduced in 1920s - devastating losses to many Hawaiian varieties, resulting in permanent loss - production losses of over 30% annually • Pocket Rot - fungal disease introduced in 1990s - farm losses of over 50% on Kauai - significant reason for reduced production today • Apple Snail introduced in 1989 for the restaurant trade - found its way into all the kalo wetland production areas - accounts for losses in excess of 50% if not controlled • Other Pests - aphids A'F b d_ F ®9 ¢i I; µ v 'd rt{ e log W W - w J~ ib Q~~ 0c D Q W ~Wq ~ TM y F N--- om: Cooperative Extension Service Sustainable Agriculture College of Tropical Agriculture and Human (Resources February 2007 University of Hawal'I at Menoa SA -1 * ( F4 Y ~ ~ ~ 4 f~ a. Hawaiian Kalo, Past and Future John J. Cho,' Roy M. Yamakawa,2 and James Hollyer3 Departments of 'Plant and Environmental Protection Sciences and 'Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences, and 3the Agricultural Development in the American Pacific project Taro, Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott, called kalo years ago in the Solomon Islands.(35) Evidence from the in Hawaiian, is one of the oldest cultivated fields of biogeography and plant genetics indicates that crops (1.41)Amemberoftheplant familyAraceae, taro domestication may have occurred independently in which comprises at least 100 genera and more than 1500 different areas long before people first moved into species, taro is a major staple in the diets of people Polynesia. This movement likely began in about 1600 to around the Pacific and is the world's fourteenth most- 1200 BC, when long-distance voyaging canoes were de- consumed vegetable!") veloped and taro was taken further east into Fiji and west- ern Polynesia (Samoa and Tonga), then into eastern Movement of taro Into Polynesia Polynesia with the movement of migrating voyagers to Cytological and archaeological studies indicate that taro the Cook, Society, and Marquesas Islands around 800 to probably originated in the Indo-Malaysian Peninsula 90o AD,(8, 17, 18, 29, 31, 56, 57) over 50,000 years ago!") Taro may have been grown for thousands of years in Southeast Asia and the west- Taro arrives in Hawaii em Pacific islands, including New Guinea, as archaeo- Around 900 to 1000 AD, a rapid colonization of all of logical evidence indicates human use of the plants 28,000 Polynesia occurred that included the discovery and settle- Photo: Hanalei Valley, Kaua'i, a major center of flooded kalo production. Published by the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR) and issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Andrew G. Hashimoto, Director/Dean, Coopwa&s Extension Service/CTAHR, University of Harrell at Mores, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822. An equal opportunlty/affirmative action institution providing programs and services to the people of Hawaii without regard to race, sex, age, religion, color, national origin, enter", disability, marital status, arrest and court record, sexual orientation, or satus as a covered veteran. CTAHR publications can be found on the Web site <hltplAV .ctahr.hawail.eduaraepubs>. UH-CTAHR Hawaiian Kalo, Past and Future SA-1 - Feb. 2007 mentofHawai'i.t2,s.4,s,29.54,56,57)Archaeological evidence v suggests that kalo, banana, breadfruit, coconut, moun- tain apple, sugarcane, and yam were among the foods introduced to the islands by Polynesians, most likely in multiple arrivals. The Hawaiian staff of life The early Hawaiians planted kalo in marshes near the mouths of rivers. Over years of progressive expansion of kalo lo`i (flooded taro patches) up slopes and along rivers, kalo cultivation in Hawaii reached a unique level of engineering sophistication!", 31) As a food crop, kalo played an important role in the diet of the Hawaiian people (92) In places like Kona, where conditions for its cultivation were not optimal, other crops, including breadfruit in the moist uplands and sweetpotato in the drier lowlands, were significant, but taro remained the favored food (89, aI To Hawaiians, growing kalo was not merely an activ- ity of food production but was strongly bound to their culture and beliefs about creation. According to one leg- end about creation, sexual union between the god- beings Wakea (male) and Papa (female) first formed the islands. Their union produced a child named Haloa-naka, who did not survive and was buried. From the child's The Hawaiian kalo cultivar'Ula'ula Poni was also the source body grew the first kalo plant. The next child, named of a red dye for kapa (tape) cloth. Haloa, became the first human to live in the islands, and from him the Hawaiian people descended. Thus, some Nutritional value believe that the kalo plant, arising from the prior-born Kalo starch is one of the most nutritious, easily digested child, is superior to and more sacred than man. The foods.(") Kalo corms are high in carbohydrate in the form younger Haloa would respect and care for the elder of starch and low in fat and protein, similar to many brother and in return would receive sustenance and nour- other root crops. The starch is 98.8 percent digestible, a ishment.(21.26,38) quality attributed to its granule size, which is a tenth Because kalo was a principal food source for most that of potato, making it ideal for people with digestive early Hawaiians, it had great social importance. Certain difficulties. The corm is an excellent source of potas- kalo cultivars had ceremonial significance and were used sium (higher than banana), carbohydrate for energy, and as offerings to the gods; others, such as the red cultivars fiber. When eaten regularly, kalo corm provides a good Lehua and Pi'i ali'i, were reserved to be eaten only by source of calcium and iron. Kalo leaves eaten as a veg- the chiefs (ali`i); and some, including those with low etable (called ld`au in Hawaiian) are excellent sources acridity such as Lauloa and Haokea, were used for me- of provitamin A carotenoids, calcium, fiber, and vita- dicinal purposes in healing.(20• 21) The Hawaiian concept rains C and B2 (riboflavin), and they also contain vita- of family, 'ohana, is derived from the word 'oha, the ax- min B, (thiamin) (40.42.50) illary shoots of kalo that sprout from the main corm, the Kalo, like other plants in its family, is considered poi- makua. Huli, cut from the tops of makua and 'oha, are sonous because its tissues contain an acrid component; then used for replanting to regenerate the cycle of kalo thorough steaming or boiling eliminates this and allows production.(20, 21) it to be eaten. 2 UH-CTAHR Hawaiian Kalo, Past and Future SA-1 - Feb. 2007 tion, areas under its cultivation covered more than 20,000 acres (about 31 square miles) over six islands.o0' 1 r~, I Decline of kalo production Since the early to mid-1800s, following the arrival of Captain Cook and the subsequent immigration of non- Polynesians, kalo cultivation and the demand for kalo t has markedly declined, and many of the ceremonial, me- I dicinal, and upland kalo cultivars became neglected and were lost. The reduction in kalo cultivation can be at- tributed to a variety of causes, including the following: • Diseases introduced with the arrival of foreigners dra- matically reduced the Hawaiian population, which affected both the supply of and demand for kalo.00• "91 f • Much agricultural knowledge was lost with the pass- ing of Hawaiian elders as a result of natural causes or the new diseases.(4"") • Alternative foods arrived, and starches such as rice, grown in flooded areas formerly used for kalo, and imported wheat supplanted kalo, sweetpotato, and 1 breadfruit as dietary carbohydrate sources. s f • Beginning around 1819, many Hawaiians were di- I rected to the harvest of sandalwood, which left kalo crops poorly attended.t't • The breaking of the kapu system after 1820 allowed ' Hawaiians more individual freedoms, including be- ing allowed to eat the kalo previously reserved for 5i ali' i and to undertake other means of obtaining suste- i nance than working in the lo'i (1"1 W r + • After the Great Mahele of 1848, some Hawaiians ,~5`dltce)'S~A ~1a - - walked away from traditional lands to pursue other opportunities, some rented out their lands, and some were forced off the land by those who had been granted it or who used the court system to acquire it92• 141 Expansion of kalo production In Hawaii • Extensive subsistence kalo production by Hawaiians Early settlers probably brought only a few varieties (cul- in small lo'i was replaced by intensive commercial tivars) of kalo. During the early years of colonization, production in larger, rice-paddy-shaped kalo patches production was mainly confined to the wet, windward patterned on the agricultural styles of immigrant farm- sides of the islands. As the population increased, people ers from Asia, who began farming the available agri- spread throughout the island chain, again mainly on wet cultural land."', 12) windward sides, and kalo still was mostly grown under • Many kalo lands were converted to produce other flooded conditions. From 1100 to 1650 AD, the Hawaiian crops (mostly sugarcane grown by plantation compa- population expanded to over 400,000 people,'30, 49, 56) and nies, but also rice grown by immigrant farmers), or in settlements were dispersed throughout windward zones some cases to housing!", '2,19) of all islands and extended into dry leeward valleys and • Plantations used the courts to acquire rights to the coasts.'30, 3j It is estimated that at the peak of kalo produc- water that had fed lo' i.t601 3 UH-CTAHR Hawaiian Kalo, Past and Future SA-1 - Feb. 2007 In 1900, it was estimated that about 1280 acres were being used for kalo production."45) By 1907, rice had a~ become a major crop, occupying about 10,000 acres."" At that time, farmers of Chinese ethnicity were growing t' about half the kalo crop and milling 80 percent of the lirod poi. By 1937, the major kalo growers were Japanese.att With the outbreak of World War II in 1941, demand for kalo declined and production dropped to 920 acres."23HwaG' Today, less than 400 acres of kalo are planted. The l+eftt Co ' crop is dominated by just a few of the most productive cultivars: Maui Lehua (the major one) and Moi for pot 31tgd2 and the Chinese cultivar Bun Long for lu'au and chips Maui Lehua, a high-yielding cultivar, was selected in the 1960s and has largely replaced the once-dominant com- mercial cultivar, Lehua Maoli (also called Kauai Lehua). 992 Today's kalo production under flooded conditions 0~[996P r , i occurs in four major river valleys. Hanalei on Kauai accounts for approximately two-thirds of the kalo pro ICrt~bN( etedt! duced in Hawai'i annually, while the remaining third is M grown in Waipio, on the Hamakua coast of Hawaii, and in Keanae and Wailua on Maui. Flooded kalo can also be found in several smaller areas on Kauai and Maui (Waihe'e Valley). About three-fourths of the flooded kalo grown is made into poi. the first systematic study of Hawaiian kalo cultivars, As early as 1900, agricultural researchers noted that MacCaughey and Emersod", 31) suggested that about half pests and diseases were adversely affecting kalo pro- of the named cultivars were duplicates. They concluded duction in Hawaii. The second bulletin of the federally that there may have been only 150 to 175 unique culti- funded Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station, titled vars, many of which either were not widely grown or had "The Root Rot of Taro," was published in 1902,07] with been selected for their adaptation to the upland condi- a condensed version translated into Hawaiian published tions of leeward growing areas. the following year."4e) The appearance of additional new A major effort was made between 1928 and 1935 by pests in recent decades has further reduced kalo pro- agricultural scientists at the University of Hawaians Col- ductivity and made it more difficult for growers to make lege of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (UH- a profit. The new problems include taro leaf blight CTAHR) to collect, characterize, and preserve kalo cul- (caused by Phytophthora colocasiae), pocket rot of kalo tivars grown in Hawaii before they were lost. They col- corms, apple snail, taro root aphid, and root-knot nema- lected 200 named cultivars, many of which were dupli- tode. Very little resistance to these pest problems is found cates; only 84 distinct types could be identified. These in Hawaiian kalo cultivars, included 69 derived from native Hawaiian plants, 10 from the South Pacific, 3 from Japan, and 1 from China. Preservation of Hawaiian kalo oultivars The cultivars could be separated into eight morpho- During a period of intense agricultural activity lasting logical groups based upon distinct features.(") These several hundred years, necessitated by the expanding groups represented a significant reduction from the 27 population, Hawaiians may have accumulated over 300 groups previously recognized in the 1880 Hawaiian Al- kalo cultivars"22> from selected natural mutations,"12> ad- manac and Annual, which included 'Apuwai, Haokea, ditional importations from other islands, and, possibly, Kai, Mana, Hapu'upu'u, Ipulono, Lauloa, Mahaha, Le- deliberate breeding!2L") In the early 1900s, in perhaps hua, Pualu, Poni, Knmii, Nchu, Uahiapele, Mamauea, 4 UH-CTAHR Hawaiian Kalo, Past and Future SA-1 - Feb. 2007 Lola, Naua, `Apowale,'Elepaio, Makohi, Makoko, Piko, and taste, and thus far nothing looks outstanding.(") Nawao, Kd'oho, Ualehu or He'ualehu, Kani'o, and In 1995, Dr. Eduardo Trujillo and his colleagues0l,11) Manini. Important groups lost included `Ahe, Eulu, and made crosses between a Hawaiian commercial cultivar, Lau. Further, cultivars within each group have also been Maui Lehua (the standard poi kalo grown in Hawai`i), lost. For example, older Hawaiians recognized at least and a Palauan cultivar, Ngeruuch, resistant to taro leaf five cultivars in the groups Pi'i ali`i and `Apuwai, but blight (TLB). Two hundred hybrids were generated from the UH effort collected only one in each group.0', 54) this cross, and three TLB-resistant hybrids were selected. Some cultivars that were collected were the major ones One of these (cultivar Pa'lehua) matured earlier and had grown for food, but many, such as Lauloa Keokeo, which twice the yield potential of Maui Lehua, suggesting it was used to treat pulmonary aliments, had medicinal, as apossible replacement forMaui L.ehua.Unfortunately, cultural, and ceremonial significance to Hawaiians554) subsequent field trials, particularly in Hanalei under Haokea was used as an offering to the gods, and its ld'au wetland conditions, found Pa'lehua to be susceptible to was highly prized by the kahuna. Pi'i ali'i, meaning as- corm rots, probably caused by a Pythium pathogen. cending from the ali'i, is one of the oldest cultivars and Currently, only a few Hanalei growers produce small was held in high esteem by the chiefs. Uahiapele, mean- amounts of Pa'lehua, and it is cultivated by a few grow- ing smoke of Pele due to the smoky appearance of its ers on O'ahu,(s') but the commercial potential of this hy- leaves, was prized for medicinal purposes and as an of- brid is uncertain. fering to the gods. In 1998, another cultivar improvement program( was For over 70 years, UH-CTAHR has been preserving initiated by one of the authors (Cho) to improve com- these valuable cultivars in a living collection at the Kaua'i mercial kalo cultivars through traditional breeding; the Agricultural Research Center; the collection has served goals are to increase resistance to pests such as TLB and as a source for many plantings around the state. How- aphids, increase plant vigor and yield, and develop new ever, the security of the collection has often been com- cultivars that will be attractive for the restaurant and land- promised. hi 1992, only 70 of the original 84 remained in scaping trades. hi this program, Hawaiian kalo cultivars the center's nursery. After Hurricane Iniki in 1993, feral are being used to provide desirable corm color, low acrid- pigs consumed and eliminated an additional 10 cultivars, ity, soft-rot tolerance, early maturation, and attractive leaf and they caused further damage to the collection in 2005. color. Although there are many Hawaiian kalo cultivars, A decline in UH-CTAHR's budget during the past couple their genetic background is similar, which makes them of decades poses a more serious threat to the collection. susceptible to the same pests and diseases. This limits Appropriate maintenance of this important collection will their usefulness in contributing genetic variation for re- require an infusion of funding and a long-term strategy sistance in a breeding program.0-'• 11) Therefore, culti- for preservation of these heirloom materials for future vars from India and Southeast Asia, the genetic home generations. and area of greatest genetic diversity for kalo, are being used to broaden the genetic base and contribute increased Kalo breeding for the future pest resistance and yield. Since at least 1936, UH-CTAHR scientists have used Introduced cultivars from Micronesia, Palau, Indo- classical plant breeding techniques, such as may have nesia, Papua New Guinea, Thailand, and Nepal are be- been practiced by ancient Hawaiians, to try to improve ing used to increase resistance to TLB. Cultivars from commercial kalo cultivars, stem the decline in produc- Micronesia and Indonesia are being used to increase lion, and stabilize the kalo industry.(n• n) In 1988, Dr. aphid tolerance!') The breeding strategy seeks to com- Ramon de la Pena(15. 11) made further attempts to breed bine different sources of pest resistance to increase dura- cultivars with higher yields and pest resistance. Several bility of the resistance. This requires at least two breed- hybrids were generated in this program, and one hybrid, ing cycles that together involve about 6 to 8 years of called 50 Baby, is grown today in small amounts, pri- crossing, evaluation, and selection. The technique uses marily for home use. Most of the other hybrids from traditional cross-pollination between a Hawaiian culti- that program are only recently being evaluated for yield var and introduced cultivars. 5 UH-CTAHR Hawaiian Kalo, Past and Future SA-1 -Feb. 2007 Harvest from a single mature plant ('ohana) of UH-CTAHR Kalo grower Clarence Kanoa stands in a planting of a new hybrid BC99-6 grown for 12 months in Hanalei on a commercial hybrid kalo (BC99-7) from the CTAHR breeding program; the wetland kalo farm. Average yield per'ohana of BC99-6 was shorter plants in the background are Maui Lehua, planted at 13 lb on one farm and 12.7 lb on a second farm, compared to the same time. 5.8 Ito and 9 Ito at the two farms, respectively, for the industry standard, Maui Lehua. Huli for replanting are at right. In the first breeding cycle, crosses are made between commercial cultivars and introduced ones. The result- ing hybrids are evaluated for desirable horticultural traits, and the best (elite) hybrids are selected for the next cycle. Two crossbreeding approaches are employed. One is to cross commercial kalo with TLB-resistant wild types from Thailand and Papua New Guinea. In this effort, additional breeding (modified backcrossing) is needed to produce elite hybrids. This requires at least four years. The second is to cross commercial kalo with TLB-resis- ' tant kalo from Palau0l, 52) and Micronesia. In this effort, elite types can be selected in the first year. Kupuna on Oahu taste-testing poi from new kalo hybrids. Many of the elite hybrids selected in the first cycle are more pest resistant and productive than the industry parable in taste and color. Two commercial poi millers standard cultivars, and commercial growers could grow have used the new kalo hybrids for commercial produc- some of these hybrids profitably. The CTAHR program tion of poi. Currently, there are ongoing grower distri- has been successful in selecting elite hybrids with com- butions of the three hybrids to growers interested in mercial potential through a close working relationship evaluating them for suitability at different farm loca- between CTAHR's research and extension personnel and tions on Kauai, Maui, Hawai'i, and Moloka'i. Further kalo farmers and processors. Accordingly, after four adoption of these hybrids by more growers will result in years of on-farm evaluations, Hanalei wetland kalo a substantial increase in kalo production. grower-cooperators have selected three elite hybrids (BC99-6,BC99-7, and BC99-9) for commercial produc- The proof is in the poi tion. The three hybrids have greater tolerance to taro In the second breeding cycle, two to three sources of TLB leaf blight and pocket rot and yield about 30 percent resistance are combined by making crosses between elite more than the industry standards, to which they are corn- hybrids. As in the first breeding cycle, the resulting by- 6 UH-CTAHR Hawaiian Kalo, Past and Future SA-1 - Feb. 2007 brids are evaluated for desirable horticultural traits, and 5. Carson, M.T. 2005. A radiocarbon dating synthesis for Kauai. the best of them are selected for the final cycle, where In: M.T. Carson and M.W. Graves (eds.), Na mea kahiko o Kauai: crosses are made with elite aphid-tolerant hybrids. Final- ogyArchaeological studies in Kauai. Society for Hawaiian Archae-p.1 1-32. cYcle crosses from this ro ram continue to generate 6. Cho, , Special Publication no. 2., Honolulu. the future. P g ho, J.J. 2003. Breeding Hawaiian taros for r the Third possible additional hybrids for the kalo industry. International Taro Symposium. Nadi, Fiji. www.spc.org.nc/cis/ Several promising elite candidates from the latest tarosym/TuoSym%20CD/Papers/BreedingHawaiianTaros- fmal-cycle crosses have already been identified, and their JohnCho.pdf. 7. Cho, J.J. 2003. Breeding Hawaiian taros for the future. www potential tole in commercial kalo cultivation is being .ctahr.hawaii.edu/GMO/documents/Breeding HawaiianTaros- evaluated. The true measure of success for the CTAHR JohnCho.pdf#search=cho%20taro. kalo breeding program is the acceptability and adoption 8. Coates, D.J., D.E. Yen, and P.M. Gaffey. 1988. Chromosome of these new hybrids by the industry (kalo growers and variation in taro, Colocasia esculenta: Implications for the ori- poimillers) and, ultimately, Hawai`is kalo corm, luau, gm in the Pacific. Cytologia 53:551-560. 9. Coleson, J.L., and R.H. Miller. 2005. Antibiosis and antixenosis and poi consumers. to Aphis gossypii Glover (Homoptera: Aphididae) in taro, Colocasia esculenta (L.). J. Economic Entomology 98:996-1006. Acknowledgments 10. Coulter, J.W. 1931. Population and utlization of land and sea in The authors would like to thank Hanalei growers Rodney Hawaii. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Bull. 88. 33 pp. 11. Coulter, J.W. 1933. Land utilization in the Hawaiian islands. Haraguchi, Clarence Kanoa, and in particular Christine Univ. of Hawaii, Res. Publ. no. 8, Honolulu. 140 pp. Kobayashi and Demi Rivera, and Wayne Tanji; Keanae 12. Coulter, J.W., and C.K. Chun. 1937. Chinese rice farmers in growers Isaac and Gladys Kanoa; and Waihee grower Les Hawaii. Univ. of Hawaii Bull. vol. 16, no. 5.70 p. Nakama for allowing us to conduct on-farm trials, for their 13. Crawford, David. 1937. Hawaii's crop parade. Advertiser Pub- ]fishing insightful discussions and assistance in evaluating and se- co. Ltd., Honolulu. 305 p. 14. Daws, G. 1994. Shoal of time: A history of the Hawaiians [s- lecting elite kalo hybrids, and for the many hours of mak- lands. Univ. of Hawai'i Press, Honolulu. ing, tasting, and consuming large quantities of poi. We are 15. de Is Pena, R.S. 1990. Development of new taro varieties through grateful to Eric Enomoto of HPC, Inc. for his willingness breeding, In: J.R. Hollyer and D.M. Sato (eds.), Proceedings, to evaluate our hybrids for poi quality. We would like to Taking Taro into the 1990s: ATaro Conference. Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Re- acknowledge the assistance of staff at the UH CTAHR sources, Research Extension Series 114. p. 32-36. agricultural research centers on Maui and Kaua'i. We re- 16.delaPena, R.S.1992.TheUniversity ofHawaii taro germplasm ceived helpful review and assistance from Dale Evans (UH nursery and breeding program. Univ. of Hawai'i at Manoa, Col- CTAHR), David Lovell (RCUH), Hugh (`Buttons') Lovell, lege of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, Research Extension Grahame Jackson, Patrick Kirch Series 136. p. 7-9. (University of Califor- 17. Golson, J. 1971. Lapita ware and its transformations. In: R.C. nia, Berkeley), Terry Hunt (UH Manoa), Isabella Abbott Green and M, Kelly (eds.), Studies in Oceanic culture history. (UH Manoa), Peter Mathews (National Museum of Eth- Dept. of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. nology, Japan), and Eileen Herring (UH Manoa). We grate- Pacific Anthropological Records 12(2):67-76. fully acknowledge partial financial support from the UH 18. Green, R.C. 1979. Lapita. In: J. Jennings (ed.), The prehistory of Polynesia. Millwood Press, Wellington, NZ. p. 27-60. Office of the Vice President for Research. 19. Group 70 International, Inc., D. McGregor, and Cultural Sur- veys Hawaii, Inc. 1995. Kalo kanu o ka aina-A cultural land- Literature cited scape study of Keanae and Wailuanui, Island of Maui. Maui 1. Abbott, L1982.TheethnobotanyofHawaiian taro. Native plant- Planning Department and Maui County Cultural Resources ers = Ho'okupu kalo. [Honolulu:] Native Planters 1 (1):17-22. Commission. 2. Athens, J.S. 1997. Hawaiian native lowland vegetation in pre- 20. Handy, E.S.C. 1940. The Hawaiian planter; Vol. I, His plants, history. In: RV. Kirch and T.L. Hunt (eds.), Historical ecology methods and areas of cultivation. Bernice P. Bishop Museum, in the Pacific Islands. Yale Univ. Press. p. 248-270. Honolulu. Bull. 161. 3. Athens, J.S., H.D. Tuggle, J.V. Ward, and D. Welch. 2002. Veg- 21. Handy, E.S.C., and E.G. Handy, 1972. Native planters in Ha- etation change, avifaunal extinctions, and Polynesian impacts waii: Their life, lore, and environment. Bernice P. Bishop Mu- in prehistoric Hawaii. Archaeology in Oceania 37:57-78. seum, Honolulu. Bull. 233. 4. Burney, L.P. and D.A. Burney. 2003. Charcoal stratigraphies 22. Hawai'i Agricultural Experiment Station. Annual Reports, 1937, for Kauai and the timing of human arrival. Pacific Science 57: 1938. Taro investigations. Univ. of Hawaii, Honolulu. 211-226. 23. Hawai'i Agricultural Statistics Service. Spreadsheet of histori- cal data on taro production. Hawai'i Department of Agriculture, 7 UH-CTAHR Hawaiian Kalo, Past and Future SA-1 - Feb. 2007 Honolulu. (Unpublished.) 45. Smith, J. 1902. Annual report of the Hawaii Agricultural Ex- 24. Hunt, T.L., and C.P. Lipo. 2006. Late colonization of Easter Is- periment Station, 1901. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office land. Science 311:1603-1606. of Experiment Stations, Washington, DC. p. 361-379. 25. Irwin, S.V., P. Kaufusi, K. Banks, R. de Is Pena, and J.J. Cho. 46. Schmitt, R. 1977. Historical statistics of Hawaii. Univ. of 1998. Molecular characterization of taro (Colocasia esculenta) Hawai'i, Honolulu. using RAPD markers. Euphytica 99:183-189. 47. Sedgwick, T.F. 1902. The root rot of taro. Hawaii Agricultural 26. Kepelino.1932. Kepelino's traditions of Hawaii. M. W. Beckwith Experiment Station. Bull. 2.21 p. (ed.), Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Bull. 95. 48. Sedgwick, T.F. 1903. Hoao no ke pale ana i ka pala o ke kalo. 27. Kikuta, K., L.D. Whitney, and G.K. Parris. 1939. Seeds and seed- Hawai'i Agricultural Experiment Station, Press Bull. 4. 1 p. hugs of the taro, Colocasia esculenta. American J. Botany 49. Stannard, D. 1989. Before the horror: The population of Hawaii 25(3):186-188. on the eve of Western contact. Univ. of Hawa'i Press, Honolulu. 28. Kirch, P.Y.1978.The Lapitoid period in West Polynesia. 1. Field 50. Sunell, L.A., and J. Arditti.1983. Physiology and phytochemis- Archeology 5:1-13. try. In: J.-K. Wang (ed.), Taro: A review of Colocasia esculenta 29. Kirch, P.V. 1981. Lapitoid settlements of Futuna and Alofl, West- and its potentials. Univ. of Hawai'i Press, Honolulu. p. 34-139. em Polynesia. Archeology in Oceania. 51. Trujillo, E.E. 1996. Taro leaf blight research in the American 30. Kirch, P.V. 1985. Feathered gods and fishhooks. Univ. of Hawai'i Pacific. Agricultural Development in the American Pacific, Bull. Press, Honolulu. 1. p. 1-3. 31. Kirch, P.V. 2000. On the roads of the winds: An archaeological 52. Trujillo, E.E., T.D. Menezies, C.G. Cavaletto, R. Shimabuku, history of the Pacific Islands before European contact. Univ. of and S.K. Fukuda. 2002. Promising new taro cultivars with re- California Press, Berkeley. sistance to taro leaf blight; Pa'lehua, Pa'akala, and Pauakea. 32. Krauss, B. 1993. Plants in Hawaiian culture. Univ. of Hawai'i Univ. of Hawai'i at Manoa, College of Tropical Agriculture and Press, Honolulu. Human Resources, publication NPH-7.4 p, www.ctahr.hawaii. 33. Langworthy, C.F., and H.J. Deuel. 1992. Digestibility of raw edu/oc/freepubs/Pdf/NPH-7.pdf rice, arrow-root, canna, cassava, taro, tree-fern, and potato 53. White,l.P., and J.F. O'Connell. 1982. A prehistory of Australia, starches. 1. Biological Chemistry 52:251-261. New Guinea and Sahul. Academic Press, Sydney. 34. Lebot, V., and K.M. Aradhya. 1991. Isozyme variation in taro 54. Whiney, L.D., F.A.I. Bowers, and M. Takahashi. 1939. Taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott) from Asia and Oceania. varieties in Hawaii. Univ. of Hawai'i, Hawai'iAgricultural Ex- Euphytica 56:55-66. periment Station, Bull. no. 84. 35. Loy, T.H., M. Spriggs, and S. Wickler. 1992. Direct evidence 55. Yen, D.E., and Wheeler, J.M., 1968. Introduction of taro into for human use of plants 28,000 years ago: Starch residues on the Pacific: The indications of the chromosome numbers. Eth- stone artefacts from the northern Solomon Islands. Antiquity nology 7:259-267. 66:898-912. 56. Patrick V. Kirsch, personal communication, 2006. 36. MacCaughey, V., and J.S. Emerson. 1913. The kalo of Hawaii. 57. Terry L. Hunt, personal communication, 2006. Hawaiian Forester and Agriculturalist 10:186-193, 225-231, 58. Susan Miyasaka, UH-CTAHR, personal communication, 2006. 280-288,315-323,349-358,371-375. 59. Jan Sugano, UH-CTAHR, personal communication, 2006. 37. MacCaughey, V., and J.S. Emerson. 1914. The kalo of Hawaii. 60. Isabella Abbott, UH, personal communication, 2007. Hawaiian Forester and Agriculturalist 11:17-23, 44-51, 111- 122,201-216. Additional references 38. Malo, D. 1922. Hawaiian antiquities. N.B. Emerson (trans.). Following are selected, recent publications about taro from UH- Bemice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Spec. Pub. 2. CTAHR. Some are available at www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/freepubs. 39. Meilleur, B., R. Jones, C.A. Titchenal, and A. Huang. 2004. Ha- waiian breadfruit: Ethnobotany, nutrition, and human ecology. DeFrank, J. 1995. Azolla for weed control in wetland taro produc- Univ. ofHawai'iatManoa,College ofTtopicalAgriculture and Lion. [Video.] Human Resources. 61 p. Hollyer, J., et al. 1997. Taro, mauka to makai; A taro production and 40. Payne, J.H., G.J. Ley, and G. Akan. 1941. Processing and chemi- business guide for Hawai'i growers. 112 p. cal investigations of taro. Univ. of Hawai'i, Hawai iAgric. Exp. Hollyer, J., et al. 2000. Processing taro chips. 2 p. Sta. Bull. 86. Miyasaka, S.C., et al. 2001. Impact of organic inputs on taro pro- 41. Plucknett, D.L. 1983. Taxonomy of the genus Colocasia. In: J: duction and returns. 4 p. K. Wang (ed.), Taro: A review of Colocasia esculenta and its Miyasaka, S.C., et al. 2002. Nutrient deficiencies and excesses in potentials. Univ. of Hawai'i Press, Honolulu. p. 14-19. taro. 14 p. 42. Potgieter, M. 1940. Taro (Colocasia esculenta) as a food. J. Amer. Sato, D.M., et al. 1997. Taro root aphid. 2 p. Dietetic Assoc. 16:536-540. Silva, LA., et al. 1998. Interim fertilizer recommendations for wet 43. Rooke, T.C.B. 1855. Report on the sweet potatoe (Convolvulus (flooded) taro. 2 p. batata). Transactions, Royal Hawaiian Agricultural Society vol. Ooka, J. 1997 (reprinted). Taro diseases: A guide for field identifica- 2, no. 2, Honolulu. tion. 14 p. 44. Royal Hawaiian Agricultural Society. 1850-1856. Transactions. Uchida, J.Y., et al. 2002. Improvements in taro culture and reduction Govt. Press, Honolulu. in disease levels. 4 p. [Discusses pocket rot.] 8 Update on Genetic Engineering of Chinese Taro (variety Bun long) for Increased Disease Resistance Susan C. Miyasaka Dec. 14, 2006 Why do we need to increase disease resistance in taro? Hawaii is no longer the isolated island chain that it once was. Today, we have ships and airplanes arriving from places around the world, and unfortunately, they bring new diseases and pests. Phytophthora leaf blight reached our islands during the 1910's and probably caused losses of many traditional taro varieties. At one time, there were 343 named taro varieties in Hawaii', but less than 84 remain today. Many probably were lost due to introduced diseases and pests. Taro yields in Hawaii have been declining over the past 50 years, with the lowest production since 1946 recorded in 2005 (htty//the honoluluadvertiser com/articleJ2006/Feb/02/bz/FP602020320.htm1). in addition to the overall decrease in taro production (which partly is due to decreased acreage in production), yield on a per acre basis has declined also (figure below is based on the Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture). Much of the recent sharp decreases in yield are due to diseases and pests, such as Phytophthora leaf blight, Pythium corm rots, pocket rot, and apple snails. 28000 Kauai Taro Yields 26000- (D 24000- 22000- 20000 a 18000 m 16000 14000 12000 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year E.S. Craighill Handy, 1940, The Hawaiian Planter, Vol. I, Bishop Museum Bulletin 161. 1 Phytophthora leaf blight Pythium corm rot Why utilize genetic engineering (GE) of taro to increase disease resistance? Conventional breeding of taro is being conducted at the University of Hawaii, and new hybrids have been developed with increased resistance to Phytophthora leaf blight. However, under weather conditions suitable for this disease organism, this resistance can break down. The taro variety shown above with leaf blight is one of the new hybrids conventionally bred for greater disease resistance. Genetic engineering offers the possibility of increased disease resistance beyond the level found within the taro germplasm. And, the taro variety remains the same genetically except for the few new genes engineered into it. The greatest success of genetic engineering of crops for increased disease resistance has been to improve viral disease resistance in plant species without any known natural resistance. For example, genetic engineering of papaya for resistance to Papaya ringspot virus has helped to save the papaya industry in Hawaii. The Alomae-Bobone viral complex is found in the Solomon Islands today, where it has wiped out 96% of the native taro varieties there and decreased taro production by 95%. Hawaiian taro varieties were tested in the Solomon Islands and all were found to 2 be susceptible to this virus complex2.The insect vector required to transmit this virus complex is found in Hawaii. Imagine if that virus reaches Hawaii - what would it do to our taro production? Alomae, a lethal viral disease of taro, is spread by taro planthoppers. In the Solomon Islands, "it is by no means certain that the crop [taro] can be reinstated to its former abundance and usage. Its day may have gone forever, as has happened in many parts of coastal Melanesia."3 Could this viral disease decimate taro production in Hawaii in the future? Is the movement of genes across species unnatural? No. Conventional breeding of plants and animals have moved genes across species for specific purposes, such as increased hardiness. For example, mules are the offspring of a female horse and a male donkey. And triticale is a hybrid of wheat and rye. In addition, all organisms, including humans, carry genes inserted from different species. For example, all humans carry genes that have been incorporated from viral infections. The bacterium Agrobacterium tumefasciens transfers its DNA (genetic material) into woody or herbaceous plants and causes crown gall disease. In our project, we are utilizing this naturally occurring bacterium to transfer disease resistance genes into Chinese taro. What is the progress of our project on genetic engineering of Chinese taro to increase disease resistance? Three disease resistance genes have been transferred into Chinese taro variety Bun long: 1. Oxalate oxidase gene from wheat; 2. Chitinase gene from rice; and 2 S. Pacific Commission„ 1978, Advisory Leaflet. Kastom Gaden Association, Solomon Islands, 2005., People on the Edge, www.terracircle.org.au. 3 3. Stilbene synthase gene from grapevine. Each disease-resistance gene was transferred separately into callus (undifferentiated tissue) of variety Bun long in tissue-culture. Then, we manipulated plant hormones to produce shoots and then whole plants from the callus. Taro calli (undifferentiated tissue) Taro plandets in tissue-culture Do these disease resistance genes help Chinese taro resist pathogens? Yes, in preliminary tests using small, tissue-cultured plants. Untransformed Chinese taro (NT) Chinese taro transformed with oxalate infected with Phytophthora colocasiae at oxidase gene (g5) shows complete arrest 12 days after inoculation. Note plant is of Phytophthora colocasiae without any almost dead. diseased lesions spreading to the leaves. 4 Chinese taro transformed with an oxalate oxidase gene completely arrested the spread of the pathogen Phytophthora colocasiae which is the organism responsible for leaf blight. in comparison, untransformed Chinese taro was almost dead at 12 days after inoculation with the pathogen. Other preliminary tests showed that Chinese taro transformed with an oxalate oxidase gene or a chitinase gene slowed the spread of the fungal pathogen Sclerotium rolfsii but the disease eventually killed the plants. How do the products of these disease resistance genes work? Oxalate oxidase catalyzes the breakdown of oxalate to produce hydrogen peroxide which inhibits growth of pathogens. Remember the hydrogen peroxide your mother used to cleanse your skinned knees? Chitin is a hard, semitransparent material that's found in the cell walls of some fungi and molds. Chitinases degrade the chitin found in the cell wall of fungal pathogens, causing the fungi to die. Stilbene synthase catalyzes the production of resveratrol, a compound that is found naturally in grapes and peanuts. Resveratrol stops the growth of fungal pathogens. Could these disease-resistance genes accidentally move from GE Chinese taro? Not likely. First, Chinese taro variety Bun long rarely flowers under the environmental conditions of Hawaii. Second, traditional Hawaiian taro varieties rarely produce viable seed in Hawaii without human intervention. Taro breeders must manually move the pollen from one taro flower to another flower when its female part is ready because the insect that naturally pollinates taro flowers is not found here. Also, since taro is vegetatively propagated, it would be easy to maintain traditional taro varieties without a high risk of accidental transfer of disease-resistance genes from GE Chinese taro. How might these disease-resistance genes affect the nutrition of taro? The health risk of GE food is so low that after more than 10 years of experience, GE crops have been grown on more than a billion acres and been consumed by millions of humans without a single negative health issue 4. The federal government requires intensive testing of genetically engineered crops for possible health and environmental hazards prior to approval. The official position of the American Dietetic Association is that "Agricultural and food biotechnology can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, and food distribution, and environmental and waste management"'. Did you know that if you eat cheese made in the United States, almost certainly you are eating the product of a genetically modified organism? The anti-microbial compounds produced in GE Bun long should have little negative effect on its nutrition. For example, oxalate oxidase possibly might improve the 4 International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, 2006, Brief No. 34-2005. 5 Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Feb. 2006, p. 285-293. 5 digestibility of taro, because it breaks down oxalate, a known anti-nutritive compound that contributes to the `itchiness' of taro. Chitinases should have little effect on humans when consumed, because chitins are found in true fungi and insects but not in plants or mammals. Resveratrol is found in the skin of red grapes and it might improve the nutrition of GE Chinese taro due to its anti-cancer, anti-viral, and anti-inflammatory effects. Of course, prior to any potential commercialization of GE Chinese taro, federal government regulations require intensive food safety tests. What are the plans for GE Chinese taro when this proiect terminates? The early results for increased disease resistance of GE Chinese taro appear promising, but much more research is needed. Obviously, researchers cannot state that GE Chinese taro is more disease resistant without testing plants in the greenhouse and ultimately in the field. In addition, the federal government would require tests of GE Chinese taro for food safety and environmental concerns prior to commercialization. This federally funded project on genetic engineering of Chinese taro for increased hardiness will run out of funds in early 2007. As a result of the current controversy about genetic engineering and taro, it isn't likely that future funding will be available without support from the taro industry and/or consumers in Hawaii. Without further funding, the GE Chinese taro lines either must be discarded or sent to other cooperators in the world who are willing to conduct further tests. We will lose the opportunity in Hawaii to test these promising lines for increased disease resistance. This brief summary presents the scientific facts about potential benefits such as increased hardiness of GE Chinese taro and an evaluation of possible risks. You, as taro consumers, need to weigh the possible risks against potential benefits of GE Chinese taro. Ask yourselves what risks are acceptable to ensure that taro is here for future generations to enjoy? 6