BookPDF Available

Hawaiian Breadfruit: Ethnobotany, Nutrition, and Human Ecology

September 2018

Authors:

Brien Meilleur

French National Centre for Scientific Research

Nutrient density comparisons between breadfruit and taro. (See text for explanation.)

…

Figures - uploaded by Brien Meilleur

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Brien Meilleur

Content may be subject to copyright.

Hawaiian

Breadfruit

Ethnobotany, Nutrition,

and Human Ecology

Brien A. Meilleur

Richard R. Jones

C. Alan Titchenal

Alvin S. Huang

Hawaiian

Breadfruit

Ethnobotany, Nutrition,

and Human Ecology

Hawaiian

Breadfruit

Ethnobotany, Nutrition,

and Human Ecology

Brien A. Meilleur

Richard R. Jones

C. Alan Titchenal

Alvin S. Huang

Honolulu, Hawai‘i

College of Tropical Agriculture

and Human Resources

University of Hawai‘i at Ma¯noa

University of Hawai‘i at Mänoa

In memory of Lois A. and Sherwood R.H. Greenwell

For information, contact:

CTAHR Publications and Information Office

3050 Maile Way, Honolulu, HI 96822

808-956-7036

808-956-5966 (fax)

ctahrpub@hawaii.edu

www.ctahr.hawaii.edu

Printed by (to be filled in by streamline creative)

ISBN 1-929325-17-7

Contents

Botany .......................................................................................................................... 2

Agroecology ................................................................................................................. 4

Breadfruit locations in Hawai‘i ............................................................................. 4

Growing conditions ............................................................................................... 6

Soils................................................................................................................ 8

Phenology ...................................................................................................... 9

Historical Aspects of Hawaiian Breadfruit ............................................................ 12

Traditional oral history ........................................................................................ 13

Hawaiian beliefs, sayings, and legends about breadfruit .................................... 14

Breadfruit introduction, early arboriculture, and plantations .............................. 15

Breadfruit and political implications ................................................................... 17

Recent times ........................................................................................................ 18

The Ethnobotany of Breadfruit in Hawai‘i ............................................................ 18

Material culture ................................................................................................... 19

Construction ................................................................................................. 19

Domestic applications .................................................................................. 19

Specialized uses ........................................................................................... 21

Medicine .............................................................................................................. 21

Procurement of protein, fat, and other animal products ...................................... 22

Role in the human diet ........................................................................................ 23

Preparation of breadfruit as food......................................................................... 26

Food preservation ................................................................................................ 27

Food Value of Hawaiian Breadfruit ........................................................................ 28

Methods of breadfruit sample preparation and analysis...................................... 31

Overall nutritional contribution to Hawaiians..................................................... 35

Seasonality, Reproduction, and Yield ..................................................................... 40

Seasonality .......................................................................................................... 40

Reproduction and longevity ................................................................................ 42

Yield .................................................................................................................... 42

Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 47

Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................... 49

Appendix: Historical Citations of Breadfruit Occurrence

on the Main Islands of the Hawaiian Archipelago .............................................. 51

References.................................................................................................................. 55

Hawaiian Breadfruit 1

he breadfruit tree, known throughout the Hawaiian

archipelago as ‘ulu, occupied an important multi-

dimensional niche in ancient Hawaiian culture. This majestic,

spreading tree figured prominently in Hawaiian spiritual life, was

employed in a range of material applications, and served as a

ready source of food and medicine. Bread-

fruit trees were common features of the

landscape around villages and work sites and

were also cultivated in large, well tended

groves, both before and for some time after

the arrival of Captain Cook in 1778. Today

‘ulu is, on the whole, relatively uncommon

as a food in Hawai‘i. Although its wood is

still sometimes used for carving, its practical

uses today are substantially fewer than in

earlier times. Nevertheless, breadfruit trees

are still found throughout Hawai‘i,

particularly in rural locations and in the

remnants of ancient plantations.

In the following pages we summarize some of the available

ethnographic and ethnohistorical information about the Hawaiian

breadfruit tree, situate its occurrence in Hawai‘i, evaluate its

importance in ancient Hawaiian economy and human ecology,

and add a modern nutritional assessment of the fruit. Our purpose

is to address questions of its significance in ancient Hawai‘i,

especially as a crop for food and animal feed, and to stimulate

renewed interest in ‘ulu as a culturally appropriate component of

Hawaiian landscapes and as a healthful and easily produced food.

The trees that once shaded many Hawaiian homes and work sites

could do so again throughout the islands, providing nutritious,

inexpensive, and easily prepared food for many months of the

year.

Hawaiian Breadfruit

Ethnobotany, Nutrition, and Human Ecology

Breadfruit trees were

common features of

the landscape around

villages and work

sites and were also

cultivated in large,

well tended groves,

both before and for

some time after the

arrival of Captain

Cook in 1778.

2Hawaiian Breadfruit

Botany

Edible species of the paleotropical (Old World Tropical) genus

Artocarpus, a member of the mulberry family (Moraceae), are

believed to have originated in Indo-Malaysia, western Melanesia,

and the Philippines,(11, 12, 56, 111) although some authors believe their

presence in the Philippines may have resulted from a more recent

introduction.(103, 120) According to French ethnobotanist Jacques

Barrau, three of the perhaps 50 species of breadfruit were

domesticated, with “the crop [then having] been fairly profoundly

modified in cultivation.” (13, p. 201) Many-seeded and seedless

cultivated varieties (cultivars) are known. Seeded varieties are

diploid (2n = 56), while seedless ones are triploid (2n = 84).(102)

The breadfruit, known to botanists as Artocarpus altilis

(Parkinson) Fosb., is a large, sterile tree with monoecious flowers

and edible fruits; the Hawaiian type is most likely of hybrid origin.

The species was first described

to the Western world in the

accounts of the Spanish explorer

Mendaña, following his visit to

the Marquesas Islands in 1595.(49)

Breadfruit is distributed through-

out Oceania, and in Polynesia it

is absent only on Easter Island

and in New Zealand and the

Chatham Islands. Its seedlessness

is believed to have originated in

Polynesia,(101, 111) with the number

of cultivars increasing noticeably

as one moves from the western to the eastern Polynesian

archipelagoes. The infraspecific diversity of breadfruit varieties

in Polynesia is especially marked in the Marquesas and the Society

Islands (presently French Polynesia), where scores of clones—

perhaps even hundreds(86)—were once cultivated.(46, 102) In Hawai‘i,

only one prehistoric seedless variety is known.(51, 107)

The trunk of the breadfruit tree can attain a diameter of 2

feet (60 cm) or more. It is often straight in its lower portion,

usually branching at 10–15 feet (3–5 m) above ground level. Its

lower branches spread horizontally before curving upward and

usually are much longer than the upper branches. As a result, its

In ancient times in

Hawai‘i, breadfruit

trees would have

dominated every

other type of

cultivated vegeta-

tion in most areas

used for habitation

and agriculture.

Hawaiian Breadfruit 3

horizontal branches may break under even moderate winds. The

mature tree forms a dome-shaped canopy reaching a height of

35–50 feet (10–15 m) and is capable of providing considerable

shade. In ancient times in Hawai‘i, breadfruit trees would have

dominated every other type of cultivated vegetation in most areas

used for habitation and agriculture.

The wood of the tree is yellow and turns dark brown when

exposed to air. It is relatively soft and light but elastic, with an

open, course grain, and is said by some authors to be termite

resistant,(75, p. 39) although others claim otherwise.(74) The

young bark is clear green, turning gray with age. The

salmon-red inner bark is milky and fibrous. Mature leaves

are leathery, dark green on their upper surface with paler

green undersides, 12–36 inches (30–100 cm) long,

sometimes deeply incised, and attached to the branches

by short, thick petioles.

The tree generally begins to bear its oval or spheroid

fruits at 5–7 years of age. In Hawai‘i, the fruit enlarges to

a diameter of 3–8 inches (8–20 cm), is seedless, and

individuals weigh up to around 10 pounds (4 kg). Observers in

Polynesia have put the range of fruit weight at between 1 and 5

pounds (0.5–2 kg). Others have variously stated that fruits weigh

anywhere from 1 to 5 kg, or between 2 and 11 pounds. When one

of us weighed 10 “typical” fruits from each of two trees in West

Hawai‘i, one located at around 600 m elevation and the other at

about 300 m, the fruits averaged just over 3 pounds. Some of the

variation in fruit weight reported in the literature may be

attributable to the age of the tree, because as the tree ages, the

fruits get smaller.(96)

Each fruit is composed of between 1500 and 2000 flowers

fused into an organ technically called a syncarp. The fruits are

bright green when young, turn brown when partially ripe, and

then turn a rich yellowish-brown when thoroughly ripe. The pulp

(fruit flesh) is white in young fruit but becomes creamy yellow

in mature fruit; the pulp surrounds a tough core that, like the

skin, is removed before consumption. Throughout Oceania,

breadfruit trees are estimated to produce from 50 to 150 fruits

per year,(11) although yields of up to 700 fruits per year have been

noted.(101)

The fruits are bright

green when young,

turn brown when

partially ripe, and

then turn a rich

yellowish-brown

when thoroughly

ripe.

4Hawaiian Breadfruit

Agroecology

Breadfruit locations in Hawai‘i

Breadfruit trees are found where they were planted by man, or

within root-spreading distance of those trees. Under favorable

conditions, ‘ulu freely self-propagates from root shoots, and such

“starts” will coexist with and eventually replace the parent trees.

Unless removed, damaged, or out-competed by other vegetation,

breadfruit trees can self-propagate indefinitely.

Many breadfruit

trees can still be found today on all the main islands between 1000

and 2000 feet (300–600 m) elevation in both windward and

leeward settings. But a survey of breadfruit trees presently existing

in Hawai‘i would not provide a reliable picture of the extent of

‘ulu in the islands in ancient times; for that, we have pieced together

a patchwork of information drawn from various literature sources.

When Europeans arrived in Hawai‘i, breadfruit trees were

observed growing either individually or in groups of a few

together near habitations,(75) or in extensive orchard-like

plantations either near or sometimes at some distance from

inhabited areas.(32, 82) Upon entering the agricultural zone above

Kealakekua Bay on Hawai‘i in December 1778, the HMS

Discovery surgeon David Samwell noted only a few houses within

the plantations there.(14, p. 1166) Similar approaches to breadfruit

cultivation (scattered versus intensely planted) have been noted

in Samoa.(102) Both planting strategies were described many times

in Hawai‘i during the 19th century.(3, 19, 38, 123) On Hawai‘i, in

particular, the two ways of growing breadfruit have been linked

to windward versus leeward geographical and cultural variables.

For example, according to archeologist T. Stell Newman, in the

windward regions of the island of Hawai‘i the

“...settlement pattern is characterized by scattered fields

or gardens with scattered small villages or family

habitations...generally less intensive cultivation of

available land...[while on the leeward side are

found]...massive field systems in contradistinction to the

scattered fields of the windward type. The West Kohala

system, for example, measures about two by thirteen

miles while the Kona system measures about three by

eighteen miles....” (90, p. 6)

A survey of

breadfruit trees

presently existing

in Hawaii would

not provide a

reliable picture of

the extent of ‘ulu

in the islands

in ancient times.

Hawaiian Breadfruit 5

It was these West Hawai‘i (leeward) field systems and their

associated breadfruit plantations that fascinated early visitors to

Hawai‘i in the late 1700s and early 1800s. In 1793, for example,

surgeon-naturalist Archibald Menzies of the HMS Discovery

“...entered [the Kona] breadfruit plantations, the trees of

which were a good distance apart, so as to give room to

their boughs to spread out vigorously on all sides

....

”

(82, p.74)

Again, in 1794, Menzies and company

“...commenced [their] march [uphill from Kealakekua

Bay] with a slow pace, exposed to the scorching heat of

the meridian sun, over a dreary barren track of a gradual

ascent, consisting of little else than rugged porous lava

and volcanic dregs, for about three miles, when [they]

entered the bread fruit plantations whose spreading trees

with beautiful foliage were scattered about that distance

from the shore along the side of the mountain as far as

[they] could see on both sides.”

Charles Wilkes, leader of the American Exploring Expedition

in 1840, located this same breadfruit plantation 2 miles (3.2 km)

back from the Kona coastline, where “...in a belt half a mile wide,

the breadfruit is met with in abundance....”(123, p. 95) This zone was

referred to “in the native land claim records of the mid-nineteenth

century as the kalu‘ulu or maloko‘ulu.”(69, p. 186) Our review of land

claims from three West Hawai‘i ahupua‘a (Holualoa, Keauhou,

and Ke‘ei) indicated extensive reference to kaluulu and ‘ulu, with

all evidence pointing to these words as the terms applied to the

breadfruit zone within what is now called the Kona Field System

(discussed in detail on pp. 43–46).

Summarized in Appendix Tables A-1 to A-4 (see pp. 51–54)

are historical observations or accounts of breadfruit on the main

Hawaiian islands of Hawai‘i (Table A-1); Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau

(Table A-2); Maui, Läna‘i, and Moloka‘i (Table A-3); and O‘ahu

(Table A-4). Each table includes citations of literature that refer

to what might be either “scattered sites,” “plantation sites,” or

“legendary sites.” We relied mostly on documented descriptions

of 18th- and 19th-century Euro-American visitors and on other

miscellaneous reports, many of which include brief ethnohistorical

The West Hawai‘i

field systems and

their associated

breadfruit planta-

tions fascinated

early visitors to

Hawai‘i.

6Hawaiian Breadfruit

statements, some of which provided insights into traditional

Hawaiian agriculture. Our distinction of the planting patterns

described, between individual trees (“scattered sites”) and many

trees in groves (“plantation sites”), is fairly well justified in some

cases. However, the citations often lacked detailed information,

and in many instances we used considerable license in our

classification. Thus the information presented in the tables is only

suggestive of what actually may have existed.

Under “scattered sites” we group what appear to be examples

of one or a few trees, possibly representing cases of breadfruit

trees grown in proximity to house lots or work sites. These

references might indicate trees planted and managed by individual

households who were the direct beneficiaries of the trees and

their products. Such trees would provide readily available fruits

and other useful items, as well as shade and play areas for children.

Under “plantations” we group those references that appear

to indicate multiple, adjacent trees unlikely to have been self-

propagated from a single parent tree. Much more so than in the

case of individual trees, these trees appear to have been planted,

managed, and their fruits consumed through the organizational

mechanisms of a complex political economy. While in some cases

we employ considerable subjectivity in concluding that a

concentration of trees is being described, writers sometimes

simplified our task by employing terms such as “groves,”

“plantations,” or “orchards.” (10, 33, 82)

Under “legendary sites” are found references to breadfruit

locations in published accounts or summaries of Hawaiian myths

and legends. Many of these sites were also recorded in the ethno-

historical literature, highlighting the intersection of Hawaiian

mythology with physical reality and, on some occasions, the

empirical basis of traditional oral history.

Each site is presented as cited in abbreviated form (e.g.,

“innumerable plantations”) along with actual or approximate dates

of observation (e.g., “in 1779” or “early 1800s”), and the

bibliographic reference.

Growing conditions

The widespread distribution of breadfruit in old Hawai‘i, as

evident from the literature cited in the Appendix tables, testifies

to the presence of highly suitable growing conditions in a range

of ecological zones on the main islands. As we have seen,

Breadfruit

arboriculture was

by no means

restricted to

windward settings

in Hawai‘i, or to

lowland areas.

Hawaiian Breadfruit 7

breadfruit arboriculture was by no means restricted to windward

versus leeward settings in Hawai‘i or to such lowland areas as

are described, for example, as the principal breadfruit zones of

the Society Islands. In February 1793, Menzies compared the

upland breadfruit groves of West Hawai‘i with the lowland

plantings of Tahiti:

“Higher up along the verge of the woods...we...entered

their breadfruit plantations...here the size of the trees,

the luxuriancy of their crop and foliage, sufficiently show

that they thrive equally well on an elevated situ-

ation...which was not the case in the crowded groves of

Tahiti, where we found them always planted in the plains

along the sea side....” (82, p. 74–76)

Likewise, in August 1819, French botanist Charles

Gaudichaud of the ship Uranie observed breadfruit growing at

higher elevations (above1000 ft [300 m]) in or near Hawaiian

villages where “...all necessary conditions for vegetation:

excellent soil and a super-abundance of warmth and humidity...”

were found. He further observed “...habitations bordering the

virgin forests...shaded by...artocarpus [breadfruit]...and near

them...all the useful vegetables previously observed along the

border of the sea...irrigated by thousands of little streams....”(113, p.

8–9) Prehistorian Peter Bellwood similarly describes breadfruit trees

thriving at elevations well above sea level on Hawai‘i:

“At Lapakahi, [Kohala District of Hawai‘i]...from about

1400 [A.D.]...ethnohistorical accounts indicate the

cultivation of...breadfruit...in sheltered spots...found on

higher inland slopes where rainfall was sufficient for

cultivation.” (18, p. 107)

Whether found near sea level or at higher elevations,

Hawaiian breadfruit groves appear to have been situated in areas

with deeper, well drained soils, adequate moisture supplied by

rainfall or groundwater, and direct sunlight during most of the

day. Intolerance of saline soils ensures that most varieties do better

when grown some distance from zones having ocean spray or

groundwater salinity.(108) It is not surprising, then, that in a Pacific-

wide context a positive correlation was found between breadfruit

8Hawaiian Breadfruit

presence and an adequate water regime,(93) for if subjected to

insufficient moisture, the fruits will fall before reaching maturity.(30,

96) This may be due, in part, to shallow root systems that gather

the plants’ water requirements mostly from the surface soil.(74)

Scientific descriptions of optimal breadfruit growing conditions

highlight these same criteria: adequate water regime, good soil

and drainage, freedom from shade, and year-round warmth and

humidity.(75, 96, 101) Nevertheless, some breadfruit trees are observed

to grow in conditions of salinity or drought elsewhere in Oceania,

and it is possible that varieties had been selected for such

tolerances.(24, 86)

Soils

We have mentioned that Gaudichaud found breadfruit soils at

higher elevations in Hawai‘i to be “excellent,” and the Reverend

William Ellis noted that the soil in breadfruit groves “...was

entirely covered with a rich mold, formed by decaying vegetation

and the decomposed lava.”(33, p. 27–28) A somewhat more technical

understanding of the relationship between soil types and breadfruit

is obtained by comparing the locations of plantation sites in the

Appendix tables with soil maps constructed for the Hawaiian

Islands by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.(117) This agency

used a 10-order soil classification system, and four of the orders

are found to cover over half of the state. These soil orders—

Histosols, Inceptisols, Oxisols, and Mollisols—dominate the areas

where the breadfruit concentrations noted in our tables were found

in Hawai‘i.

Histosols and Inceptisols cover about 40 percent of the state

and are largely confined to the island of Hawai‘i. These two orders

represent the substrate for all of the breadfruit locations cited for

that island. Histosols occur on geologically young, forested lands

and are characterized by a relatively thin layer (2–8 inches [5–20

cm]) of organic material over lava rock. Inceptisols develop

mostly from the layers of volcanic ash that cover much of Hawai‘i

and East Maui.(8) The third order, Oxisols, constitutes the substrate

of all cited breadfruit locations on Kaua‘i and, on Maui, the

locations in Keka‘a and the central valley. Oxisols dominate

relatively flat lands at lower elevations on the geologically older

islands and possess “...exceptional resistance to physical

deterioration under intensive mechanized agriculture....” (8, p. 47)

They supported the state’s formerly extensive pineapple and

Optimal breadfruit

growing conditions

include an

adequate water

regime, good soil

and drainage,

freedom from

shade, and year-

round warmth and

humidity.

Hawaiian Breadfruit 9

sugarcane plantations, of which those currently in the central

valley of Maui are a remnant. The fourth soil order, Mollisols,

represents the substrate of the breadfruit locations on O‘ahu and

in the Lahaina region of Maui. Mollisols are “...well-drained,

relatively young soils that develop on coral, lava, or alluvium.

They occur in moderately dry areas of the islands and are generally

rich in plant nutrients.” (8, p. 47)

While these descriptions are based on soil surveys conducted

in the mid-20th century, they generally agree with the cursory

observations of soils made by early Euro-American visitors to

Hawai‘i. On the island of Hawai‘i, breadfruit plantations

flourished on once-forested lava substrates with relatively thin

layers of organic material and volcanic ash. Elsewhere, they

thrived on geologically older and deeper soils rich in plant

nutrients and highly resistant to deterioration.

Phenology

As we have seen, breadfruit was cultivated at various elevations

in prehistoric Hawai‘i, from sea level to the lower border of the

native forest, which we estimate to have been located, depending

on the extent of clearing, at up to about 2600 ft (800 m) above

sea level.(3, p. 143)

We have found only a few statements about moisture regimes

associated with Hawaiian breadfruit plantations. For example,

archeologist Patrick Kirch found that in West Hawai‘i

“...[breadfruit] arboricultural intensification (e.g. in field systems)

was limited to Kona because the lower rainfall at [the] Lalamilo

and Kohala [field systems to the north] was below the ecological

tolerance of the tree.” (69, p. 189)

Water availability for a representative sample of breadfruit

plantations can be estimated from rainfall statistics published by

the State of Hawai‘i.(41) These provide median annual rainfall data

for a 67-year period (1916–1983) from rain gauge measurements

throughout Hawai‘i. For our purposes, estimated median annual

rainfall data were obtained from sites situated in or near known

breadfruit-growing locations on the four main islands (taken from

the Appendix tables). Elevations and average minimum and

maximum temperatures for the rain gauge sites were also obtained.

This information is summarized in Table 1.

Despite variations in data on rainfall, elevation, and tem-

perature found at known breadfruit sites within and among islands,

On the island of

Hawai‘i, breadfruit

plantations

flourished on once-

forested lava

substrates with

relatively thin

layers of organic

material and

volcanic ash.

10 Hawaiian Breadfruit

Rainfall Elevation Temperature

range median range median range median

Hawai‘i 40 –145 inches 59 inches 30 –1500 ft 1050 ft 60 –82°F72

°F

1000 –3700 mm 1500 mm 9 – 475 m 320 m 16 –28°C22

°C

Kaua‘i 47–67 inches 51 inches 85 –230 ft 184 ft 66 –80°F73

°F

1200 –1700 mm 1300 mm 26 –70 m 56 m 19–27°C23

°C

Maui 14–35 inches 28 inches 10–400 ft 236 ft 65–86°F73

°F

350–890 mm 700 mm 3 –122 m 72 m 18 –30°C23

°C

O‘ahu 45 –60 inches 52 inches 20–200 ft 177 ft 69–82°F75

°F

1150 –1500 mm 1325 mm 6 – 61 m 54 m 21–28°C24

°C

Table 1. Summary of rainfall, elevation, and annual temperature ranges and medians at Hawaiian breadfruit

plantation sites.

Hawaiian Breadfruit 11

medians of the data from island to island correspond with the

breadfruit plant’s basic requirements, as outlined above, with the

exception of the Maui plantation sites. There, the groves,

especially around Lahaina, receive substantially less rainfall than

those on the other islands, well below the 60–100 inches (1524–

2540 mm) of annual rainfall determined to produce optimum

breadfruit growth.(101) In comparison, Puna plantation sites are

characterized by a median annual rainfall of 145 inches (3683

mm). Nonetheless, breadfruit thrived in the Lahaina region,

apparently because of the many streams traversing the Lahaina

plain, the area’s well known high water table,(124) and the Mollisol

substrate, which ensured adequate drainage. The availability of

groundwater near Lahaina has been noted:

“Southward along the coast from the ali‘i settlement

were a number of areas where dispersed populations

grew taro, sweetpotato, breadfruit and coconut on slopes

below and in the sides of valleys which had streams with

constant flow.” (46, p. 492)

With the exception of West Hawai‘i, where breadfruit groves

were found up to perhaps 2000–2600 ft (600–800 m) above sea

level,(69) most concentrated breadfruit arboriculture in Hawai‘i was

confined to below 650 ft (200 m) (see Table 1). West Hawai‘i’s

tableland topography between 1000 and 2000 ft (300–600 m)

elevation and its summer orographic rainfall pattern are unique in

the archipelago

(40)

and most likely contributed to the transformation

of the native mesic forest there into an enormous upland zone of

very productive agricultural land which was organized from early

times into what is now called the Kona Field System.

(3, 65, 70)

The temperature data for plantation sites show no unexpected

discrepancies, with the median annual temperatures of all

locations, summarized in Table 1, falling within the optimum

range of 70–90°F (21–32°C).(101) Maui has the warmest locations,

which were also the lowest and driest. Sites on Hawai‘i were the

highest and coolest, and also the wettest.

Of the climatic and physical elements, it can be argued that

adequate rainfall and a relatively flat, open topography with good

drainage at an elevation below 600 m were the most important

criteria for the installation of breadfruit plantations in Hawai‘i,

where variability in temperature is small within general lowland

The Kona Field

System was an

enormous upland

zone of very pro-

ductive agricultural

land organized from

early times.

12 Hawaiian Breadfruit

(below 2000 ft [600 m]) elevational gradients, and where micro-

climatic differences are largely attributable to precipitation

gradients.(41) In general, adequate rainfall, or in some cases

groundwater supply, combined with fertile, well drained lowland

soils or upland tableland soils and tropical temperatures to provide

Hawaiian planters with many desirable locations to grow

breadfruit. The number and, in several notable instances, the extent

and density of the plantations within the archipelago testify to

the degree to which Hawaiians recognized and exploited these

conditions.

Historical Aspects

of Hawaiian Breadfruit

Hawaiian oral history, archaeology, eth-

nography, ethnohistory, and studies of

breadfruit horticulture permit us to

reconstruct aspects of breadfruit’s history

and human ecological significance in

ancient and early post-Cook Hawai‘i (after

1778). For example, a review of the

evidence allows the conclusion that the

plant could only have come to Hawai‘i

through human agency. Given that the

Hawaiian breadfruit is sterile, and that mature trees were found

in the islands by the first Euro-American visitors, no other

explanation is possible. But where did the plant come from?

The traditional presence of the specific Hawaiian cultivated

variety of breadfruit has been documented in several other

Polynesian archipelagos.(102) In Samoa, for example, the Hawaiian

cultivar is called ulu e‘a. There, as in the Cook Islands, the

Marquesas, and the Society Islands, where it is variously known

as ulu maoi, maohi, maori, or maore (all of which are Polynesian

variants of the Hawaiian term maoli, meaning native, indigenous,

genuine, or real[98]), it is one of scores of breadfruit cultivars grown.

On the Polynesian outlier of Anuta, it is called maore. According

to breadfruit expert Diane Ragone, in each of these islands the

Hawaiian type is “recognized as one of the oldest [breadfruit]

The specifics of time

and place of

breadfruit’s actual

implantation in

Hawai‘i are

unknown.

Hawaiian Breadfruit 13

cultivars.” (103, p. 206) Horticulturist G. P. Wilder describes this variety

(maohi) in Tahiti as “...the commonest of all the breadfruit

[varieties]...[with a]...flavor very agreeable.” (122, p. 44) Similarly,

Tahitian scholar Teuira Henry calls the ‘uru-ma‘ohi of Tahiti “the

most common and a very good kind.” (50, p. 41) Ragone concluded

that “its widespread distribution and antiquity suggest that this

may be one of the earliest, if not the original, seedless triploid

cultivar.” (102, p. 120)

‘Ulu was one of the many edible plants transported to Hawai‘i

on the Polynesian colonizing voyages, perhaps via a transport

technology similar to that described for open-ocean movement

of breadfruit in the Caroline Islands, where

“the rooted cultivars were wrapped in well rotted

coconut husk fiber...the whole thing...wrapped in dried

leaves...then a coconut basket is woven around the entire

sucker.” (108, p. 44)

However, it is unknown if breadfruit’s introduction to Hawai‘i

was early or late, or if it resulted from a single colonization event

or occurred several times over a long period. Sustained prehistoric

Eastern Polynesian intercourse with Hawai‘i has yet to be

convincingly demonstrated,(31) and the specifics of time and place

of breadfruit’s actual implantation in Hawai‘i are unknown.

Legendary evidence suggests several spots where breadfruit may

have been introduced.

Traditional oral history

Hawaiian mythology scholar Martha Beckwith noted that legends

take rational or mythical (non-rational) turns regarding the origin

of breadfruit.(17, p. 97) The rational legendary explanations point to

breadfruit as being physically transported to Hawai‘i, possibly

from Samoa or Tahiti. In one such version, the voyage was made

by Kaha‘i, with Hawaiian breadfruit appearing to come either

from Upolo in Tahiti or the Samoan group.(44, 112) Once in Hawai‘i,

breadfruit was said to have been first planted either at Pu‘uloa in

Kohala on Hawai‘i,(17) at Pu‘uloa on O‘ahu,(37, 44, 64) or at Kualoa on

O‘ahu.(22, 29, 89)

Taking forms intermediate between rational and mythical

accounts, other legends tell of fishermen from Pu‘uloa who were

blown off course to the “traveling island of plenty” of the gods

Once in Hawai‘i,

breadfruit was said

to have been

planted either at

Pu‘uloa in Kohala

on Hawai‘i or at

Pu‘uloa or Kualoa

on O‘ahu.

14 Hawaiian Breadfruit

Käne and Kanaloa, from whence they brought breadfruit back to

Hawai‘i.(16, p. 16) The goddess Haumea, hearing of this, visited the

trees and then scattered breadfruit throughout the islands.(37)

In mythical legendary explanations, breadfruit trees origi-

nated from human body parts, from dead people, or from divine

intervention.(17) One of these legends describes a man from

Ka‘awaloa in Kona on Hawai‘i who told his children that a

breadfruit tree would grow at the door of their house after his

death. His hair and hands would be the roots, his legs the branches,

and his testicles the fruit. Gods from Waipi‘o on Hawai‘i, not

knowing this, cooked and ate the fruit, but when told that the

fruits were from a dead man’s testes, they vomited from Kona to

Waipi‘o, spreading breadfruit throughout the western and northern

parts of the island.(17, 37) Another account relates that the god Kü

bid farewell to his earthly wife during a famine and disappeared

into the ground. From there a breadfruit tree grew, providing fruit

for his wife and child.(17) Another narrative tells of a man named

Ulu who died of hunger. His family buried his body near a spring.

During the night, a breadfruit tree grew from the spot, producing

fruits that provided for them.(17, 37) In another variant, Abraham

Fornander related an account of the creation of the first man that

implicates breadfruit:

“After Kumu Honua was created and placed upon his

land, Kane conferred with him and his wife and

established laws for them, and the law was called ‘laau’

(tree). The words of Kane are not fully reported in the

legend; but it was afterwards thought that the tree was

the breadfruit-tree (‘ulu) and that it grew at Honokohau,

in North Kona, Hawaii; that it sprung from Kane...and

that its fruits have been bitter or sour from that day to

this.” (37, p. 268)

Hawaiian beliefs, sayings, and legends

about breadfruit

According to Hawaiian scholars Mary Kawena Pukui(44) and

Martha Beckwith,(17) Hawaiians recognized male and female forms

of breadfruit, as they did in many other plants. These sexual

concepts do not correspond to those recognized in scientific

botany. The sexual distinction in breadfruit involves the

recognition of “normal,” erect plants as male versus stunted or

Hawaiian Breadfruit 15

“bushlike” plants as female.(17, 118) Examples of female breadfruit

plants were found on Ni‘ihau. Their so-called “stunted” nature

there may result from their reported cultivation in cavities and

sinkholes(121) and this, when combined with their being little fresh

water on that island, may possibly have resulted in the impression

that the trees hugged the ground.(97)

Upright breadfruit trees were viewed as kinolau, or instances

of the “myriad bodies” of Kü,(46) one of the four major Hawaiian

gods. Certainly, this belief accounts in part for the association

between Kü and breadfruit in traditional origin accounts. The

“bushlike” or so-called female breadfruit plants were closely

associated with “the mysterious form-changing goddess

Haumea...,” mother of Kü and patron of childbirth.(16, 54, 64, 118) In

several Hawaiian legends Haumea took breadfruit form,(17) and in

at least one instance it is said that Haumea “entered a breadfruit

tree in her supernatural form.”(54) Breadfruit was also sacred to

Käne,(18) the Hawaiian deity responsible for introducing cultivated

plants. Narratives exist in which an altar decoration or offering

to Laka (goddess of hula) was made from breadfruit(29) and in

which its role in the annual makahiki festival is described.(77)

Breadfruit also figures in many accounts of transition

between life and death(89) and in those depicting the moment at

which a departed soul becomes either a respected ancestral spirit

(aumakua) or a perpetually drifting and unaffiliated one—these

latter concepts perhaps drawing somewhat from Christian beliefs

of the afterlife.(37, 62, 66) Funeral wreathes are sometimes made from

breadfruit leaves.(89)

Given its important place in Hawaiian cosmology and its

elaborate and eclectic material role (discussed below), it is not

surprising that breadfruit was a common component in Hawaiian

proverbs, riddles, aphorisms, and adages involving aspects of

traditional Hawaiian life and expressions of cultural values. There

are several excellent compendia of these sayings.(46, 58, 97)

Breadfruit introduction, early arboriculture,

and plantations

Differences in oral histories related to breadfruit prevent well

founded conclusions about the provenance of the Hawaiian

breadfruit, especially since the lone Hawaiian cultivar was

traditionally present in several Polynesian island groups, including

the Marquesas and the Society archipelagos, both of which are

Upright breadfruit

trees were viewed

as kinolau of

Kü...“bushlike” or

so-called female

plants are closely

associated with

“the mysterious

form-changing

goddess

Haumea...,”

mother of Kü

and patron of

childbirth.

16 Hawaiian Breadfruit

candidates as points of departure for the Polynesian colonizers

of Hawai‘i. It bears noting that the “rational” legendary accounts

support the scientific explanation that the plant reached Hawai‘i

through human agency, possibly to be grown first on O‘ahu or

Hawai‘i.

Regardless of the provenance and the date of introduction of

breadfruit, the elaboration of Hawaiian sayings, origin accounts,

and legends involving the tree reflects a longstanding association,

both metaphorical and material, between breadfruit and

Hawaiians. This point seems to be confirmed by the cultural

association between ‘ulu fruit and the uniquely Hawaiian ‘ulu

maika bowling stones, the innovation of which is dated to what

is called the “mid-Developmental Period,” A.D. 600–1100, by

archaeologist Patrick Kirch.(70) He believes that the maika bowling

game was invented then, and because ‘ulu is linked to the game

conceptually,(77) it suggests the possibility that breadfruit was

present in Hawai‘i before 1100 A.D. Other archaeologists

including Melinda Allen support the hypothesis of a later

introduction based on a reading of oral history and physical

evidence, and in consideration of “the relatively minor importance

of breadfruit in Hawaiian economy...” (3, p. 147) which, she claims, is

consistent with a later introduction.

Polynesian colonizers of Hawai‘i probably first planted

breadfruit cuttings near their habitations. Elsewhere in Polynesia,

people have planted breadfruit trees near their homes for each

newborn, both metaphorically and sometimes in reality, in order

to ensure the child a life-long food supply.(30, 45) However, by at

least the late 18th century, individual plantings of breadfruit near

habitations had been complemented in Hawai‘i by massive

plantations, some of which covered many square kilometers, and

these plantations were, in all likelihood, managed by complex

political hierarchies.

The information compiled in the Appendix tables provides

some sense of where breadfruit was traditionally grown in

Hawai‘i. But what made these observations of breadfruit trees so

worthy of recording? Certainly, several 18th- and 19th-century

Euro-American visitors and settlers were impressed by the extent

and the organization of the breadfruit groves,

(19, 33, 82)

the best example

of which is the Kona Field System. Many early ethnohistorical

accounts are so strongly worded that some later writers have

referred to this plantation as a veritable forest of breadfruit.

(46, 65, 106, 109)

Hawaiian Breadfruit 17

The size and maturity of the breadfruit trees in the groves

noted by late 18th and early 19th century observers, and their

association with the sophisticated understory horticulture

characteristic of the Kona Field System,(82) indicate that large-

scale breadfruit arboriculture and clonal crop polyculture

involving taro, sweetpotato, banana, sugarcane, and other

domesticated crops were flourishing in Hawai‘i well before the

arrival of non-Polynesians. Indeed, many of the groves are

referenced in Hawaiian legends, confirming the antiquity and the

importance of breadfruit at these sites long before they were

recorded by Euro-Americans.(17, 37, 99, 105)

There is also evidence that some plantations may have been

developed after European contact. In 1779, for example, David

Samwell noted that Läna‘i was generally barren, and he was told

by the “Indians” that no plantains or breadfruit were grown on

the island.(14, p. 1220) However, over a century later, breadfruit groves

were found on the east coast of Läna‘i, opposite Maui.(34) This

apparent change may be related to transformations in the use of

space similar to those described at Anahulu, O‘ahu.(71) There, a

process of agricultural intensification that included the creation

of breadfruit groves occurred following a massive historical

Hawaiian population movement that was motivated by the

political and military ambitions of Kamehameha I in the early

19th century.

Breadfruit and political implications

In contrast to the scattered plantings of breadfruit trees near house

sites, intensive breadfruit arboriculture had important political

underpinnings in Hawai‘i. Breadfruit groves constituted a resource

management option that was functionally similar to intensive

wetland taro cultivation and to large-scale pisciculture, all of

which were driven in large measure by political-militaristic

competition, chiefly glorification, and the associated requirement

of feeding large human populations upon which the chiefly power

bases resided.(69) In noting that the major breadfruit groves

generally cut across boundaries of ahupua‘a, the traditional

political-economic unit, many observers believe that this

agricultural pattern was an outgrowth of some form of central

planning and organized implementation.(3, 28, 65, 69) A similar pattern

has been noted in the Marquesas Islands, where “individuals

owned trees in the vicinity of their houses and chiefs owned

18 Hawaiian Breadfruit

plantations....”(44, p. 182) Given the extent and the apparent

productivity of the Kona Field System (discussed further on pp.

43–46), and that of the other West Hawai‘i field systems in Kohala

and Waimea,(70) it is no surprise that a West Hawai‘i chiefly line

eventually achieved military supremacy and paramount status

within the Hawaiian archipelago.(69)

Recent times

By the late 1800s and early 1900s, many of the heavily planted

breadfruit groves had been seriously fragmented or destroyed,

(44, 48)

mostly as a result of depopulation, land-use changes,(76) and

associated forces of cultural decline that led to shifts in food

availability and dietary preferences. By 1926, University of

Hawai‘i horticulturist Willis Pope wrote that “...there are no

breadfruit orchards anywhere....” (96, p. 10) Nevertheless, isolated trees

near homes or work sites can still be found throughout Hawai‘i,

and remnants of the Kona Field System

plantation are visible from the air.

The Ethnobotany of

Breadfruit in Hawai‘i

The breadfruit tree was of great practical value

to Hawaiians. In everyday life, the wood and

sap were used in construction; the bark, root,

and milky sap were employed in medicine;

and the bark, wood, sap, and leaves had many common household

applications. The sap and fruit were used in bird-capturing and

fishing activities. The wood was commonly carved to produce

domestic and ritual goods, sporting gear, and game pieces. The

fruit was prepared in a variety of ways for human and animal

consumption. As a foodstuff, it was a regular item in ceremonial

offerings, tribute, trade, and taxation. Whether it was used as a

raw material or as a final product, Hawaiians employed nearly

every part of the breadfruit tree.(44) Today the breadfruit design is

popular in Hawaiian quilts and other art forms, including tattoo.

The material aspects of Hawaiian breadfruit ethnobotany are

summarized in the following sections.

Hawaiian Breadfruit 19

Material culture

Construction

The wood of the breadfruit tree was commonly used by ancient

Hawaiians in building and to a lesser degree in canoe construction.

Door frames(6, 63, 77) and house timbers(75) were made from breadfruit

wood, as were the seats, decking, and paddles of canoes.(52, 74)

Damaged canoes were repaired with this light wood. Sometimes

entire hulls were constructed from ‘ulu logs, but it is generally

thought that these were much less common than canoes built of

koa (Acacia koa), the preferred wood,(52, 77) and use of breadfruit

wood may actually have been confined mostly to small inshore

craft and training canoes for children. Older trees that had ceased

to produce well were probably the ones most often taken for these

uses.(103)

The milky sap of the tree was employed as glue and caulking

in canoes, buildings, and musical instruments.(21, 52, 75) In Samoa,

the Hawaiian breadfruit called ulu e‘a was believed to produce

the best sap for these purposes.(103)

Domestic applications

Objects made from parts of the breadfruit tree were common in

the Hawaiian domestic economy. The inner bark of young

breadfruit branches was used to make kapa (tapa, or bark cloth)

for clothing and other household applications.(14, 46, 77) Hawaiian

historian Samuel Kamakau claimed that “...the first tapas made

from plants were made from pö‘ulu (the tender shoots of the

breadfruit tree)...” and that “...later, wauke [Broussonetia

papyrifera] was obtained,” (63, p. 109) but it is generally felt that

breadfruit tapa was not as soft or durable as tapa made from wauke

(paper mulberry), the preferred natural resource.(46, 81) The male

‘ulu flower is said to produce a yellowish dye.(20, 21)

The easily worked but fairly durable wood of the breadfruit

tree was also employed to construct smaller household or cere-

monial objects such as bowls,

(57)

poi boards, drums, and implements

used in sports and other physical activities. Five of the 49 pahu in

the Bishop Museum drum collection were judged to have been

carved from breadfruit.

(60)

Like several of the lighter Hawaiian

woods, breadfruit was used to make surfboards.

(29, 73)

In the late

1800s, the English traveler Isabella Bird observed “surf-bathing”

and described the “wave sliding boards” as “... a tough plank

shaped like a coffin lid, about two feet broad, and from six to nine

Today the breadfruit

design is popular in

Hawaiian quilts and

other art forms,

including tattoo.

20 Hawaiian Breadfruit

feet long, well oiled and cared for...made of the erythrina [wiliwili],

or the breadfruit tree.”

(19, p. 69)

Breadfruit wood was also used to

construct sleds for racing down hillsides.

(37)

As with canoe repairs,

breadfruit wood was used to patch many smaller wooden objects.

(21)

The emory-textured leaf served as a fine “sandpaper” for

finishing all sorts of woodwork and objects used in body

decoration such as kukui nut (Aleurites molucanna) lei.(52) As with

canoes and their parts, bowls made from Hawaiian hardwoods

like koa and kou (Cordia subcordata) were progressively

smoothed with natural abrasives, first with coral or pumice and

eventually with breadfruit leaves.(29, 57, 77) The leaf sheathes served

as extra-fine sandpaper for delicate work.

Breadfruit was closely associated with the Hawaiian game

of ‘ulu maika, which was described as a favorite of Kamehameha

I.(37) Players hurled or bowled a bi-convex stone disc called ‘ulu

along a course where accuracy and distance were objectives and

betting was common. Half-grown breadfruits may have been

originally used in this game,(77) much as they were found to have

been used in Samoa,(21) thus lending the name of the plant to the

spherical stone used later.

The breadfruit tree itself served in other important ways that

have not been well recognized in studies of Hawaiian human

ecology. One poorly appreciated “application” was the shade from

the tropical sun provided by breadfruit foliage. This shade was a

desirable attribute of the tree in inhabited areas and was often

remarked upon by early visitors.(5, 33) During a visit to Waimanu

Valley, O‘ahu, in 1873, Isabella Bird saw “...some very pretty

grass houses, under the shade of the most magnificent bread-

fruit trees....” (19, p. 139) Similarly, at Pa‘ula on Hawai‘i, Handy and

Handy noted that

“...there were also breadfruit trees, sweet-potato

plantations, and many kukui and kou trees. People from

the beaches liked to rest in the shade of those trees,

cooking breadfruit, roasting kukui nuts, and preparing

pandanus leaves for mat making.”(46, p. 603)

Within heavily cultivated areas of dryland taro, sweetpotato,

or other annually cropped plants where most if not all natural

overstory vegetation had been removed, intense midday sun can

become not only uncomfortable for humans but can reduce

Like several of the

lighter Hawaiian

woods, breadfruit

was used to make

surfboards.

Hawaiian Breadfruit 21

agricultural production. Hawaiians were known to have made fires

on exceptionally dry, hot days to produce smoke, thereby

attempting to protect their crops from the sun’s burning rays.

(63, p. 25)

Early Euro-American observers saw sweetpotato and paper

mulberry

(82, p. 75)

growing within breadfruit groves, sometimes along

with mountain apple (Syzygium malaccense)

(33, p. 32)

and banana.

(14, p. 521)

The tree does not appear to have been limited to the kalu-‘ulu

(breadfruit) zone when grown in the Kona Field System, having

also been

planted to some extent in the ‘äpa‘a zone, where taro

and sweetpotato horticulture dominated.

(76)

It is probable that one

feature of breadfruit’s presence within these zones of intense

cropping activity was to supply a measure of shade to the other

cultivated plants grown there, as well as to the people tending them.

Other under-appreciated uses of breadfruit in domestic life

were its role as firewood and in play. Its wood was sometimes

used as fuel,(37) and there are several 19th century accounts of

Hawaiian children singing or chanting from perches in breadfruit

trees high above the ground.(54, p. 29)

Medicine

Hawaiians used the bark, buds, fruit, and roots of the breadfruit

tree medicinally, but the milky sap appears to be the part of the

tree most frequently employed in medicinal preparations.

Hawaiians used the roots of the breadfruit tree as a

purgative.(75, 107) A remedy for “impure blood” was said to involve

breadfruit bark pounded with flowers or bark from six plants and

then cooked in coconut milk.(59) The bark was employed as a

bandage or cast to set bone fractures,(43) and a treatment for thrush

involving breadfruit leaf buds has been described.(46)

Breadfruit sap was applied externally to combat skin

eruptions.(47) These were considered by several observers to have

been one of the most common afflictions of early Hawaiians and

possibly were linked to overconsumption of salt.(92) Sap was mixed

with lama (Diospyros species) wood ashes for ulcers and sores

around the mouth.(59) Other combinations involving breadfruit sap

were prepared with kukui (Aleurites molucanna) and, in post-

Cook times, papaya (Carica papaya) and tobacco ashes to hasten

the healing of deep cuts, wounds, sores, and unspecified “skin

diseases.”(59) Breadfruit sap served to fill and “repair” damaged

teeth, and mixed into a paste with fern fronds, it was applied to

fever blisters until scabs formed.(79)

Breadfruit shade

was a desirable

attribute of the tree

in inhabited areas

and was often

remarked upon by

early visitors.

22 Hawaiian Breadfruit

The fruits were common ingredients in a multitude of

“medical treatments” involving other plants.(43, 59) It is claimed that

breadfruit leaves “had special powers” to treat various disorders

when placed under sleeping mats.(43, p. 24) The phytochemical bases

for many of these medicinal applications were summarized by

Ragone,(104, p. 37) thereby demonstrating the efficacy of

breadfruit-derived treatments in many traditional

therapeutical uses.

Procurement of protein, fat, and other

animal products

The fruit of ‘ulu was an important fodder for domestic

pigs(29, 96) and dogs(115) in Hawai‘i, as it was elsewhere in

Oceania,(102) and it is still commonly fed to pigs. Both

animals were produced in large numbers by Hawaiians

as articles of food, tribute, and trade.(22, 33, 115) Pigs were

especially important in ritual(69) and, after Cook’s arrival,

were highly prized by visiting ships seeking non-

perishable provisions.(14, 33, 115) Dogs were consumed in

traditional ritual and aristocratic feasting as well as in

everyday life,(16, 21) sometimes in large numbers,(32, p. 247) and it is

probable that dog consumption among Hawaiians increased in

the post-Cook period as the foreigners’ demand for pigs drew

down those stocks.(115, p. 8)

The intensive production of breadfruit and other plant foods

apparently allowed a steady supply of pigs and dogs for

consumption, gift-giving, tribute, and taxation in ancient times

and in the early post-Cook period in Hawai‘i. After the arrival of

explorers, whalers, and merchants, the wide availability of bread-

fruit permitted Hawaiians to offer it to honored guests and to

exchange it for desired trade items. Cook’s ships and those that

immediately followed them were well supplied, through gift-

giving and trade, with pigs and plant foods that commonly

included breadfruit.(14, pp. 1081, 1151, 1188, 1219, 1221) Exchange was not new to

Hawaiians; like other agricultural products, breadfruit was already

commonly traded within traditional Hawaiian society among

fishermen and farmers, the latter exchanging agricultural products

for marine resources.(63, 123)

Specialized uses

Like other Polynesians, Hawaiians once caught and variously

Breadfruit leaves

“had special

powers” to treat

various disorders

when placed under

sleeping mats.

Hawaiian Breadfruit 23

used many species of endemic forest birds and hole-nesting

pelagic birds. One of the principal capture techniques involved

smearing sap of breadfruit and other plants onto long poles and

then placing these sticky traps where forest birds congregated in

trees or directly into the nesting holes of pelagic birds.(14, 37, 77)

Boiling the sap may have been part of the glue preparation

process.(5) Feathers from captured forest birds were used to make

chiefly capes and other regalia, and the birds commonly were

consumed afterwards.(77, p. 37) The use of wild birds as food after

their capture was a common practice throughout Polynesia.

(46, 63, 66, 80)

The ripe fruits of ‘ulu placed in baskets were used by

Hawaiian fishermen to entice fish, especially kala (Naso species),

into fishtraps.(63) As chum, breadfruit was also employed to fatten

fish and to attract a broad range of species into areas where baited

hooks and nets had been placed.(67)

Uses of breadfruit as animal fodder, as an item of exchange

for fish, as a bird lime, and as a fish bait can be viewed collectively

as mechanisms by which a raw agricultural product was trans-

formed into or used to procure less abundant and highly valued

protein, fat, and other animal products during ancient and early

historical times. Successful breadfruit arboriculture and related

success in animal husbandry contributed to higher living standards

among the common people and enhanced prestige among the

chiefs, for, as Hawaiian scholar David Malo put it, pigs and dogs

“were sources of wealth...and in great demand....” (77, p. 78)

Role in the human diet

During repeated visits to the main islands in 1778 and 1779, Cook’s

ships always found “breadfruit [to be] in great plenty.”

(14, p. 1221)

Approximately 50 years later, during the first half of the 19th

century, Malo again recorded that “the ulu or breadfruit is very

much used as a food by the natives.” (77, p. 43) By the 1920s, however,

heavy breadfruit consumption had become a thing of the past,

with the 1921 Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station annual

report stating “the fruit of [breadfruit] was once extensively used

for food by the Hawaiians.” (48, p. 21)

These and other accounts of breadfruit’s important food role,

the apparent ease with which it was obtained by early visitors,

and its common use as pig and dog fodder and fish food and bait

all seem to combine to indicate that breadfruit occupied a very

significant economic position during the late Hawaiian pre-Cook

Intensive produc-

tion of breadfruit

and other plant

foods apparently

allowed a steady

supply of pigs and

dogs for consump-

tion, gift-giving,

tribute, and

taxation.

24 Hawaiian Breadfruit

and early post-Cook periods. Nevertheless, at least one of the

early European experiences with breadfruit in Hawai‘i was less

than satisfactory. In the 1804 Russian expedition to Hawai‘i, Yuri

Lisianski found the breadfruit quality to be poor(10, p. 34) and also

indicated difficulty in obtaining the fruits. On the surface, this

account seems to contradict other evidence suggesting that

Hawaiian breadfruit was abundant and of high quality.

Nevertheless, this apparent incongruity may perhaps be explained

by considering known features of Hawaiian breadfruit maturation

and physical requirements.

Hawaiian breadfruit trees mostly produce from mid-summer

to late fall, doing best in well watered, deeper soils with good

drainage at some distance from saline conditions. The two sites

at which the Russians describe breadfruit in Hawai‘i, near Hikiau

Heiau in Kealakekua Bay and at Ka‘awaloa just north of there,

and the timing of their visits in early to mid-June, would seem to

ensure under normal conditions that the Russian experience with

Hawaiian breadfruit would be one of the poorest of any of the

early European visitors. Indeed, when considering the timing of

the visits at the start of the fruiting season, that rainfall at

Ka‘awaloa and Kealakekua Bay is one of the lowest in Hawai‘i,(8)

and that the light soils (at Ka‘awaloa) and the proximity to the

ocean (at both sites) would be similarly unfavorable to breadfruit

culture, we may understand why “Lisianski and his men were

not impressed by the...breadfruit trees...[that] were [there] in poor

condition.” (10, p. 139) It is also worth considering the possible effects

of drought that year, as serious rainfall deficiency occurs

somewhere in Hawai‘i every 21 years, on average.(46, 69)

With the exception of a second less-well documented critical

remark,(83, p. 4) the other early descriptions of Hawaiian breadfruit

that we surveyed portray it as an important component of the

traditional diet, as a plant readily supplied to visitors when

available, and as a common fodder for domesticated animals.(7, 19,

33, 38, 72, 82, 100, 113)

Despite the preponderance of evidence demonstrating a very

substantial role for breadfruit in the traditional Hawaiian economy

and diet, none of the evidence we reviewed places the crop in a

paramount position as the human staple, as it was, for example,

in the Marquesas Islands. Describing Hawaiian foods of the early

1820s, William Ellis stated that

Early descriptions

of Hawaiian

breadfruit portray it

as an important

component of the

traditional diet, as a

plant readily

supplied to visitors

when available, and

as a common fodder

for domesticated

animals...

Hawaiian Breadfruit 25

“The natives subsist principally on the roots of the arum

esculentum, which they call taro, on the convolvulus

batatas, or sweetpotato, called by them uara, and uhi,

or yam. The principal indigenous fruits are the uru, or

breadfruit; the niu, or cocoa-nut; the maia, or plantain;

the ohia, a species of eugenia; and the strawberry and

raspberry.”(33, p. 25)

Ellis’ placement of breadfruit in a non-staple though important

subsistence position in the Hawaiian food hierarchy is particularly

useful because it was made by a person who had in the early 19th

century visited other Polynesian archipelagos where breadfruit

production and consumption predominated in the agricultural

systems.

Later writers are less subtle than Ellis in their assessments

of the breadfruit’s alimentary status in traditional Hawai‘i.

Explorer and eclectic natural historian Joseph Rock, for example,

claimed that “...in Hawaii the breadfruit has not played a very

important part in the household..., as it did...in the South Seas.”(107,

p. 117) Others, like botanist Elbert Little and forester Roger Skolmen,

stated rather unequivocally that it “was not an important food...

probably because the Hawaiians had not introduced good

varieties,”(74, p. 98) even though, as we mentioned earlier, the

Hawaiian cultivar is consistently viewed elsewhere as a superior

variety. The botanist Degener says that “...as an article of food,

the breadfruit was not of much importance in Hawaii.” (29, p. 129; see also

51, 83, 95)

Fortunately, these negative appraisals of breadfruit in Hawai‘i

by 20th century writers having little or no first-hand experience

with traditional Hawaiian lifeways have been balanced by more

nuanced modern descriptions that we feel are more in line with

the comments of earlier Hawaiian and Euro-American observers.

While well known Bishop Musuem ethnographers E.S. Craighill

Handy and Elizabeth Green Handy generally placed breadfruit

in a secondary alimentary position in Hawai‘i, they nevertheless

recognized regional variation in production and consumption:

“...except in Puna, Hawai‘i, breadfruit was wholly secondary to

taro and sweetpotato as a staple.” (46, p. 151) On Läna‘i, archeologist

Kenneth Emory noted that “...the sweet potato was the staple,

although taro, yams, and breadfruit were important supplementary

items of diet.”(34, p. 520)

...but by the 1920s,

heavy breadfruit

consumption had

become a thing of

the past.

26 Hawaiian Breadfruit

Explanations proposed to account for the secondary agri-

cultural and alimentary importance of breadfruit in Hawai‘i, when

compared to other Polynesian archipelagoes where breadfruit was

the staple, have ranged from cultural preferences to physical

environmental differences. Most authors promote this second

explanation(1, p. 20; 46, p. 73) claiming, for example, that the Marquesans,

Samoans, and Tahitians produced an agroecological response

favoring breadfruit over taro because of topographic and climatic

factors that made large-scale irrigated taro agriculture more

difficult there when compared to Hawaiian conditions. Despite

such ecological-geographical assertions, Handy also saw cultural

factors at work, noting that “...Hawaiians consider [breadfruit]

inferior in taste and in nutritional value and...because it produces

much gas....”(44, p. 189; 83) Indeed, as we will see further on, preference

for taro in Hawai‘i was probably at least in part culturally

determined, for breadfruit is nutritionally equivalent to taro, and

when considering vitamin and mineral content, it may even be

somewhat superior to taro in overall food value.

Preparation of breadfruit as food

The fruits were picked by hand or knocked off the tree using

long wooden poles (lou), to be caught in a net or by a person

waiting below.(21, 44) Breadfruit can be prepared and consumed in a

number of ways. Baking in earth ovens (imu) or broiling over

hot coals and preparation as poi ‘ulu were common. Roasted

breadfruit is mentioned as a principal dietary element of certain

traditional specialists such as kükini (runners). While in training,

it is claimed that kükini were denied poi and heavy foods, being

permitted fowl and vegetables, and especially roasted taro,

sweetpotato, and breadfruit.(77) It is generally believed that

breadfruit was not kapu (forbidden) to women.(2, p. 36)

Breadfruit was also prepared as a yellowish poi in Hawai‘i,

much in the same way that taro poi was prepared,(95) with the

degree of fermentation corresponding to individual taste. Some

people preferred breadfruit poi because it was said to be “sweeter”

than taro poi, while others preferred taro and breadfruit poi

mixtures.(77) Whether eaten directly after baking, or transformed

into poi, fairly small quantities were most likely prepared and

consumed within a few days. The fruit was also transformed into

piele ‘ulu (or piepiele ‘ulu), a pudding of coconut milk and

breadfruit cooked in earth ovens, or into pepeie‘e, a hardened

Hawaiian Breadfruit 27

version of the latter involving much

the same preparation but with more

coconut milk added. Once dried, it

could be consumed over several

months.(22, 46, 73) Hawaiian historian

David Malo(77, p. 21, 43) considered poi

‘ulu and pepeie‘e to be “delicious.”

More recently, people have

taken to boiling breadfruit or frying

it in butter. As a modern foodstuff,

breadfruit’s importance jumped

during World War II in many of the more remote and less well

provisioned areas of Hawai‘i. The latex from a scored trunk or

branch was traditionally chewed by children(46, p. 154) and, after the

introduction of sugar and mint and other aromatic plants, these

were added to the latex as flavor enhancers. Today, many

nontraditional edible breadfruit products are being developed,

ranging from chips to flour to freeze-dried derivatives.(104, p. 27)

While many people in Hawai‘i with access to breadfruit trees

still enjoy eating breadfruit, some reject the taste.(48, p. 21) The

following account of breadfruit as food by one Hawaiian (W. S.

Lokai) in the early 20th century exemplifies the less-than-

unanimous appreciation of the fruit:

“Breadfruit was of three kinds. 1. The rat-eaten

breadfruit; the reason it was so called was on account

of the holes made by rats. 2. The wind-stricken fruit; it

was so called because of its exposure to the wind at all

times. 3. The soggy fruit; so called because the inside

or pulp was water-soaked, lumpy and tough when

eaten.” (37, p. 678)

Food preservation

Long-term preservation of breadfruit through an anaerobic

fermentation process involving intense acidification was practiced

on many of the Pacific archipelagoes where the tree was grown.(9,

27, 95, 108) This practice is generally viewed as a cultural response to

lean times resulting from chronic drought or disruption of agri-

cultural production by warfare.(27) Despite the fact that breadfruit

spoils quickly once harvested,(103) and ensilage of the fruits in large

subterranean pits was a major cultural feature of the Marquesas

Breadfruit is

nutritionally

equivalent to taro,

and when consider-

ing vitamin and

mineral content,

it may even be

somewhat superior

to taro in overall

food value.

28 Hawaiian Breadfruit

and Samoa, Hawaiians do not appear to have practiced this

preservation technology. The earliest Euro-American visitors to

Hawai‘i do not mention breadfruit preservation of any sort, nor

is the practice of fermentation in pits supported to any extent by

the archaeological record. Nonetheless, one early 19th century

observation suggestive of pit ensilage was made during the visit

by the Kruzenstern-Lisianski expedition to O‘ahu in 1804 by

Fedor Shemelin, who found breadfruit to have been placed in a

hole “for two months when not quite ripe.”(10, p. 139) However,

evidence suggests that this may have been a fairly recent

innovation at the time it was recorded, for Cook and King claim

to have shown Hawaiians how to preserve breadfruit in this

manner in 1778.(103, p. 211) Small pits possibly used for food storage

were also described by archeologist Roger Green at Makaha on

O‘ahu, but he concluded “it is unlikely that [they] were used for

[breadfruit] preservation.” (42, p. 70)

Food Value of Hawaiian Breadfruit

In the following section we present a nutritional assessment

of Hawaiian breadfruit. First, we summarize (Table 2) a

series of nutritional analyses reported from 1917 through

1976. These provide a background and comparative base

for results obtained during the course of our study.

The sampling design for the analyses presented in

Tables 3–6 (pp. 32–35) was adopted to assess overall

nutritional quality of the Hawaiian breadfruit cultivar as

well as quantitative differences in food value between breadfruits

from geographically and climatologically distinct areas within the

state of Hawai‘i. Two distinct sites were sampled, one in a leeward

upland area of the island of Hawai‘i, and the other in a windward

coastal location. Both sites are known to have produced abundant

breadfruit in ancient times. Fruits chosen appeared ripe but not so

overripe as to make handling difficult. Each fruit was beginning

to ooze gum and was mottled but still firm, although not brick-

hard to the touch.

Fruits from the windward location were gathered

from breadfruit trees within Hilo city limits (~50 ft [15 m]

elevation). Fruits from the leeward site were collected from trees

in the Keauhou area of Kona (600–700 ft [180–210 m] elevation).

Hawaiian Breadfruit 29

Reference 1 2 3 4 5

Preparation – Baked Baked Boiled

–

Calorie count – – – 119 / 134 –

Carbohydrate 25% 27.82% – 29.3 / 31.7 g “high”

Fat – 0.31% – 0.3 / 0.3 g –

Protein – 1.34% – 1.3 / 1.4 g –

Fiber 4% 1.50% – – –

Calcium – 0.022% – 21 / 24 mg “fair”

Phosphorus – 0.062% – 59 / 67 mg “fair-good”

Iron – – – 0.4 / 0.4 mg “poor”

Vitamin A – “fair” “poor” 0 / 26 IU “poor”

Vitamin C – “poor” “fair” 10 / 10 mg “fair”

Thiamin – – “fair” 122 / 109 mg –

Riboflavin – – – 58 / 56 mg –

Niacin – – – 0.7 / 1.3 mg –

Ash – 1.23% – – –

Water 25–30% 67.80% – – –

– information not provided

References and sample information

1. MacCaughey (ref. 75, p. 43), citing

Hawaiian Planters’ Monthly

13:315 (1894); unspecified amount of breadfruit.

2. Miller (ref. 83, p. 5), unspecified amount of Hawaiian

‘ulu

mixed with an unspecified Samoan variety.

3. Miller and Bazore (ref. 84, p. 19), qualitative summary re: Hawaiian

‘ulu.

4. Miller and Branthoover (ref. 85, p. 5).

100 g “green, mature, cooked” breadfruit;

100 g “ripe, cooked” breadfruit.

Na Lima Kokua

(ref. 87, p. 3), qualitative summary re: Hawaiian

‘ulu.

Table 2. Older nutritional data on Hawaiian ‘

ulu.

30 Hawaiian Breadfruit

At each location, two fruits were gathered from each of three

trees. The fruits were harvested in early December, 1991, and

prepared within two days of harvest. We tested four samples from

each location (eight samples total): raw fruit, baked fruit, poi

made from the baked fruit, and fermented poi‘ulu. Details of the

experimental methods are given on page 31.

Each prepared sample was analyzed in triplicate for water,

protein, fat, available carbohydrate (starch and sugar), dietary

fiber, ash, 10 minerals, and 6 vitamins. Values presented in Tables

3–5 show the means of the three analyses for each of the four

breadfruit preparation methods: raw, baked, poi, and fermented

poi. Energy content of Hawaiian breadfruit was calculated from

the protein, fat, and carbohydrate contents using standard formulas

that account for the average digestibility of fruits.(119)

The enzymatic/gravimetric method can quantify dietary fiber

by separating it from other carbohydrates such as starch. Con-

sequently, in starch-rich foods like breadfruit, the enzymatic/

gravimetric method generally yields lower but more accurate

dietary fiber results. Our dietary fiber analyses resulted in

significantly lower values for breadfruit than those published in

USDA Nutrient Database SR-17(116) for an unspecified breadfruit

cultivar (see Table 3).

Data for soluble and insoluble fiber composition also are

presented in Table 6. To our knowledge, these are the only values

currently available for these fractions of dietary fiber in breadfruit,

and we recently published them in the Journal of Food Com-

position and Analysis.(53)

Mineral content is presented in Table 4. Values for water-

soluble vitamins (vitamin C, thiamin, riboflavin, and niacin) and

two fat-soluble vitamins, (A and E) are presented in Table 5.

Comparison of data from the Hilo and Kona breadfruits

reveals some differences between the two locations. The Kona

raw breadfruit samples had higher water content, possibly due to

differences in the climate or soil but more likely due to the Kona

breadfruit sample being slightly less ripe than the Hilo sample,

as suggested by the Kona sample’s lower starch/sugar content

(total available carbohydrate) (Table 3). Comparison of results

for baked and poi samples showed very similar water and

carbohydrate contents for both the Hilo and Kona fruits, possibly

indicating greater uniformity in ripeness.

Ash and individual mineral values were generally higher in

Hawaiian Breadfruit 31

Methods of breadfruit sample preparation

and analysis

Raw fruit samples: one of the two fruits from each of the

three trees at each location was selected by flipping a coin.

These fruits were sliced in half, the cores and skins were re-

moved, and the pulp was cut into 1-inch cubes. Equal num-

bers of cubes from each of the three fruits were mashed to-

gether in a bowl. One cup of this mashed fruit was placed in

a triple-layered freezer bag, labeled, and frozen.

Cooked samples: the six fruits remaining after sampling

the raw fruit, three from each location, were baked uncov-

ered and whole in a standard oven at 250°F (121°C) for six

hours, roughly simulating the traditional Hawaiian slow-cook-

ing process in an underground oven (imu). After being cooled

to room temperature, each fruit was cut in half, and the core

was removed. The cooked pulp was cut into 1-inch (3-cm)

cubes. Equal numbers of cubes from each of the three cooked

fruit samples were mashed together in a bowl.

Crushed mixtures from each of the three baked fruit

samples were divided into three portions, one each for the

baked fruit sample, the poi sample, and the fermented poi

sample. The two portions for the baked samples were then

bagged, labeled, and frozen.

Poi was made by adding equal amounts of commercial

bottled water to the baked, mashed fruit pulp and pounding it

to pudding consistency. The fresh poi‘ulu was then frozen.

The remaining freshly prepared poi‘ulu samples were put in

bowls, covered with cheesecloth, left to ferment at room tem-

perature for 36 hours, and then frozen.

Chemical analyses were done at the College of Tropical

Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawai‘i at

Mänoa. Total dietary fiber was measured by the enzymatic/

gravimetric method that was recently adopted as the standard

method for dietary fiber analysis by the Association of Offi-

cial Analytical Chemists (AOAC). Mineral content was ana-

lyzed by inductively coupled plasma (ICP). Water-soluble

vitamins (vitamin C, thiamin, riboflavin, and niacin) were ana-

lyzed by high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC). Two

fat-soluble vitamins, vitamin A and vitamin E, were measured

by standard AOAC methods.

32 Hawaiian Breadfruit

Table 3. Breadfruit nutrient composition (per 100-g sample) and comparative values from various sources.

Starch and Dietary

Water Energy Protein Fat sugar fiber

Sample (g) (kcal) (g) (g) (g) (g)

Raw breadfruit

Hilo 67.6 112 1.4 0.3 29.2 0.9

Kona 79.4 68 0.8 0.3 17.5 0.8

Mean 73.5 90 1.1 0.3 23.4 0.9

Baked breadfruit

Hilo 66.5 115 1.3 0.2 30.2 0.9

Kona 67.2 112 0.6 0.2 29.9 0.9

Mean 66.9 113 0.9 0.2 30.1 0.9

Breadfruit poi

Hilo 86.9 45 0.5 0.1 11.8 0.4

Kona 83.2 57 0.3 0.1 15.4 0.4

Mean 85.1 51 0.4 0.1 13.6 0.4

Fermented breadfruit poi

Hilo 87.1 45 0.5 0.1 11.7 0.3

Kona 81.6 64 0.3 0.1 17.1 0.3

Mean 84.4 54 0.4 0.1 14.4 0.3

Raw breadfruit* 70.7 103 1.1 0.2 22.2 4.9

Taro, cooked* 63.8 142 0.5 0.1 34.6 5.1

*USDA Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 17, 2004.

Hawaiian Breadfruit 33

Ash Ca P Mg Na K Fe Zn Cu Mn B

Sample (g) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg)

Raw breadfruit

Hilo 0.72 19.8 29.7 26.4 4.2 224 0.33 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.50

Kona 1.16 36.0 26.0 41.1 10.4 354 0.46 0.10 0.06 0.04 0.54

Mean 0.94 27.9 27.9 33.8 7.3 289 0.40 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.52

Baked breadfruit

Hilo 0.85 26.4 32.1 23.1 4.9 283 0.52 0.17 0.10 0.07 0.51

Kona 1.15 23.2 26.4 46.2 6.6 339 0.36 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.72

Mean 1.00 24.8 29.3 34.7 5.8 311 0.44 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.62

Breadfruit poi

Hilo 0.30 12.6 11.7 10.4 1.4 83 0.26 0.12 0.05 0.03 0.21

Kona 0.58 8.5 13.6 23.8 3.3 172 0.33 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.44

Mean 0.44 10.6 12.7 17.1 2.4 128 0.30 0.14 0.04 0.03 0.33

Fermented breadfruit poi

Hilo 0.32 11.7 13.0 10.3 1.4 88 0.20 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.22

Kona 0.56 9.2 14.4 23.9 3.5 175 0.34 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.39

Mean 0.44 10.5 13.7 17.1 2.5 132 0.27 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.31

Raw breadfruit* 0.93 17.0 30.0 25.0 2.0 490 0.54 0.12 0.08 0.06

Taro, cooked* 0.97 18.0 76.0 30.3 15.0 484 0.72 0.27 0.20

*USDA Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 17, 2004.

Table 4. Breadfruit nutrient composition (per 100-g sample) and comparative values from various sources.

34 Hawaiian Breadfruit

Table 5. Breadfruit nutrient composition (per 100-g sample) and comparative values from various sources.

Vit A Vit C Thiamine Riboflavin Niacin Vit E Vit B6 Folacin Vit B12 Panto-

RE B1 B2 B3 aTE thenate

Sample (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (µg) (µg) (mg)

Raw breadfruit

Hilo – 18.2 0.31 0.09 1.6 – 0

Kona – 23.3 0.25 0.11 1.8 – 0

Mean – 20.8 0.28 0.10 1.7 – 0

Baked breadfruit

Hilo – 15.4 0.19 0.07 1.6 – 0

Kona – 14.1 0.22 0.10 1.9 – 0

Mean – 14.8 0.21 0.09 1.8 – 0

Breadfruit poi

Hilo – 5.7 0.07 0.03 0.6 – 0

Kona – 7.2 0.09 0.03 0.9 – 0

Mean – 6.5 0.08 0.03 0.8 – 0

Fermented poi

Hilo – 6.3 0.07 0.01 0.8 – 0

Kona – 6.8 0.06 – 1.2 – 0

Mean – 6.6 0.07 0.01 1.0 – 0

Raw breadfruit* 429.0 0.11 0.03 0.9 0.1 0.1 14 0 0.46

Taro, cooked* 05.0 0.11 0.03 0.51 0.44 0.33 19 0 0.34

RE: Retinol Equivalents; aTE: alpha Tocopherol Equivalents. A dash (–) indicates that only a trace of the nutrient was found; because these very

small amounts are at the limits of analytical reliability and are not of nutritional significance, no value is reported. A blank space indicates that no

analysis was conducted. *USDA Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 17, 2004.

Hawaiian Breadfruit 35

Table 6. Breadfruit nutrient composition (per 100-g sample): soluble and insoluble dietary fiber contents of Hawai‘i -

grown breadfruit and taro.

Dietary fiber (g)

Sample Soluble Insoluble Soluble / insoluble Total fiber (g)

Raw breadfruit

Hilo 0.12 0.74 0.16 0.86

Kona 0.18 0.66 0.27 0.84

Mean 0.15 0.70 0.21 0.85

Raw taro

‘Lehua’ 1.3 2.30 0.57 3.6

‘Bun long’ 0.8 3.00 0.27 3.8

Dasheen 2.36 2.05 1.15 4.41

Mean 1.49 2.45 0.66 3.94

Breadfruit poi

Hilo 0.05 0.32 0.16 0.37

Kona 0.06 0.37 0.16 0.43

Mean 0.06 0.35 0.16 0.40

Average fresh taro poi 1.18 1.93 0.61 3.11

Dietary fiber values for taro are from analyses done in the laboratory of Alvin Huang, University of Hawai‘i.

36 Hawaiian Breadfruit

the Kona raw breadfruit sample than in the Hilo sample. Total

ash was also higher in the Kona baked sample. Two minerals for

which breadfruit is a good source, magnesium and potassium, are

both significantly higher in the Kona raw and baked samples. It is

possible that soil mineral content, growing conditions, fruit

ripeness, or some other variable influenced some of the differences

observed between the two locations. Additional sampling would

be necessary to draw conclusions about the significance of the

locational differences in nutrient composition, but the present data

serve to suggest the potential variability that might be expected.

For comparison, the breadfruit nutrient data from USDA

Nutrient Database SR-17(116) are presented in Tables 3–5. This

standard reference is the most common nutrient database used

by nutritionists and in modern nutrient analysis software. Like

most sources of nutrient data, this reference does not specify the

variety of breadfruit analyzed or the provenance of the samples

analyzed. Some earlier sources of nutrient data that specified

“Hawaiian” breadfruit (Table 2) were limited in scope, probably

relying on older and less precise analytical techniques. It is rarely

clear which breadfruit variety was tested; in some cases it may

not have been the Hawaiian cultivated variety at all.(83)

With some minor differences, our nutrient values for raw

breadfruit are similar to those published in USDA SR-17(116). This

can be seen by comparing the means of nutrient content values

for the Hilo and Kona raw breadfruit samples with the USDA

breadfruit values (Tables 3–5). Using the mean of the nutrient

values for the two locations provides the most current nutrient

values representative of raw Hawaiian breadfruit as commonly

selected for cooking in the firm-ripe state.

Our analysis also included the trace elements manganese and

boron, which only recently have been demonstrated to be

important in human nutrition. Breadfruit provides a liberal amount

of boron relative to the current intake recommendation of about

1 mg/day,(90) but it is not a good source of manganese given the

recommendation for about 2 mg/day.(55)

The slow, low-temperature baking of Hawaiian breadfruit

results in substantial loss of vitamin C and thiamin. Vitamin C is

reduced by about 30 percent and thiamin by 25 percent. The

addition of water in preparing breadfruit poi reduces the

concentration of nutrients by about half due to simple dilution.

Fermentation at ambient temperatures for 36 hours had little effect

Hawaiian Breadfruit 37

on the nutrient content of the breadfruit poi except for depleting

riboflavin.

Assuming, as we have, that taro was the preferred Hawaiian

staple, breadfruit would have been consumed secondarily on a

daily basis and either commonly or periodically in place of taro

when the taro supply was limited or breadfruit was abundant.

Nutritionally, breadfruit is a very adequate substitute for taro.(53)

Carbohydrate is the primary source of food energy in both foods,

with protein being low and fat very low. Comparison of raw or

baked breadfruit with taro in similar states illustrates substantial

similarity of the macronutrient composition of these two Hawaiian

foods (Table 3). Breadfruit is a fair to good source of dietary

fiber. However, taro contains four to five times as much total

dietary fiber as breadfruit, and taro also contains a higher

proportion of soluble fiber (Table 6). Although nutrition science

is only beginning to understand the importance of these two types

of dietary fiber, it has been demonstrated that a higher intake of

soluble dietary fiber may lower blood cholesterol levels.(4)

One way to evaluate the nutrient contribution of any food is

to see what nutrient requirements would be met if a person ate

nothing but that food to meet energy needs. Figure 1 illustrates

this for a woman eating 2000 calories of baked Hawaiian

breadfruit daily (and cooked taro, for comparison). This hypo-

thetical consumption of breadfruit as a staple would contribute

significant amounts of several minerals and vitamins to the diet,

especially magnesium, potassium, thiamin, niacin, vitamin C, and

fair amounts of riboflavin. Other nutrients are present in

substantially lower quantities. Most of the B vitamins are higher

in breadfruit than in taro, although vitamin B-6 is an exception.

Vitamin C is much higher in breadfruit, while mineral levels are

nearly equivalent in the two foods. Our analysis detected only

trace amounts of vitamin A, while others have reported small

amounts.(40) Our sampling procedures did not include the breadfruit

skin, and any significant amount of vitamin A may be located

there.

Looking at Figure 1, one might conclude that breadfruit is

nutritionally superior to taro. Depending on the nutrients of most

concern, this could be considered true if the fruit of breadfruit

and the corm of taro alone are compared. However, our

comparison does not include the taro leaf, which also was

frequently consumed. Taro leaf is a very good source of vitamin

Assuming that taro

was the preferred

Hawaiian staple,

breadfruit would

have been con-

sumed secondarily

on a daily basis and

either commonly or

periodically in

place of taro when

the taro supply was

limited or bread-

fruit was abundant.

38 Hawaiian Breadfruit

050

100 150 200 250 300 350

Energy

Protein

Carbohydrate

Fat

Fiber

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-6

Folacin

Pantothenate

Vit C

Vit A

VIT E

Calcium

Copper

Iron

Magnesium

Phosphorus

Potassium

Sodium

Zinc

Figure 1. Nutrient density comparisons between breadfruit and taro. (See text for explanation.)

Percent of recommended intake

(below the limit of detection)

Taro Breadfruit

Hawaiian Breadfruit 39

A and folacin and a good source of vitamin C. The comparison

of breadfruit with taro in Figure 1 shows that both staples have

their nutritional strengths and weaknesses. One substitutes well

for the other, and both contribute important nutrients when they

serve as major sources of energy in a total dietary pattern. For

instance, in considering the dietary habits of contemporary

Hawaiian and other Polynesian peoples, some researchers(111) have

concluded that breadfruit is nutritionally superior to the common

staples rice and potato. Although the nutritional superiority of

breadfruit relative to white rice is supportable, the comparison

with brown rice or potato is debatable. As is the case for breadfruit

and taro, these other starchy staple foods each have their

nutritional strengths and weaknesses, with each filling a similar

niche in an overall dietary pattern.

Overall nutritional contribution to Hawaiians

The nutrition data show that breadfruit could easily have served

as the major staple in the Hawaiian dietary pattern. Nutritionally,

it substitutes well for taro. Nevertheless, it seems that taro was

the usual staple in the Hawaiian diet, although it also appears

that considerable variation in both taro and breadfruit production

and consumption existed within the archipelago; the physical and

possibly cultural variables affecting this variation are poorly

understood. One could guess that the substantial production of

breadfruit in upland Kona was related to a need there for foods

higher in protein or fat, perhaps due to the reduced availability of

fish at elevations some distance from the sea. Although breadfruit

is low in protein and fat, its production in Kona and other upland

sites contributed to raising pigs and dogs for consumption and to

obtaining fish through exchange with coastal inhabitants, thereby

converting the vegetal resource into other needed nutrients.

Breadfruit was thus transformed into animals that could be utilized

in upland settings to satisfy normal dietary protein and fat

requirements. It could also be “banked” there in the form of

animals that could be consumed when taro, breadfruit, and other

vegetable sources were in short supply.

Comparison of

breadfruit with taro

shows that both

staples have their

nutritional strengths

and weaknesses.

One substitutes well

for the other, and

both contribute

important nutrients

when they serve as

major sources of

energy in a total

dietary pattern.

40 Hawaiian Breadfruit

Seasonality, Reproduction,

and Yield

Given the differences noted in the historical record and the

variability in assessments both of the agricultural abundance of

breadfruit and its dietary importance in Hawai‘i, ranging from

limited cultivation and marginal importance in the diet to widely

cultivated and substantial in the diet, we investigated features of

Hawaiian breadfruit seasonality, reproduction, and yield to see

what this information could add to our knowledge of breadfruit’s

importance in ancient Hawai‘i.

Seasonality

In comparing the single Hawaiian breadfruit variety to the many

cultivars found elsewhere in Polynesia and throughout the South

Pacific, many writers have attributed a relatively short fruiting

season to the Hawaiian breadfruit: May–June through August.(51,

75, 89, 107) However, much evidence contradicts this claim. For

example, despite generally similar conclusions on seasonality,

botanist Vaughn MacCaughey also recognized “...some variation...

at different elevations and on the different islands,”

(75, p. 42)

as did

botanist Marie Neal in noting that “a small crop is borne in

winter.”

(89, p. 303)

Furthermore, University of Hawai‘i nutritionist

Carey Miller was able to obtain “...breadfruit from the first of

September until the last of December...” with it becoming

“difficult to obtain...during January and February.”(83, p. 5) In

contrast, tropical fruit specialist Julia Morton stated, “Breadfruits

are most abundant in Hawaiian markets off and on from July to

February.” (86, p. 56)

Similarly, Captain James Cook was able to obtain “plenty of...

breadfruit...” on January 19, 1778, upon arrival at Kaua‘i,(14, p. 1081)

and he again obtained “a large quantity of breadfruit...” on

December 2 and 3, 1778, from Moloka‘i and Hawai‘i, as he did

from windward Hawai‘i on December 21.(14, p. 1152, 1154) Following

his death on February 14, 1779, breadfruit was offered by

Hawaiians as a “peace offering” on at least two occasions at

Kealakekua Bay, on February 19 and 20,(14, p. 1214) and it was

presented to Cook’s ships for trade between Maui and Läna‘i on

February 24.(14, p. 1219) Given that the fruits do not keep for more

Breadfruit was

transformed into

animals that

could satisfy

normal dietary

protein and fat

requirements, and

it thus could be

“banked” and

consumed when

other vegetable

sources were in

short supply.

Hawaiian Breadfruit 41

than a few days after being gathered,(103, p. 207) breadfruit thus appears

to have been readily available in most of the archipelago well

into the winter months, at least at that time. University of Hawai‘i

horticulturist Willis Pope also described a longer fruiting season

that is more consistent with the descriptions found in Samwell’s

journal, the tree producing for “...about eight months of each

year.” (96, p. 10)

While our study of breadfruit has not investigated seasonality

through direct observation, it is likely that differences in

availability are attributable at least in part to year-to-year

fluctuations in production and to locality-dependant factors, as

ethnographers E. S. Craighill and Elizabeth Green Handy

concluded when they stated that they “...were told that in Puna in

a good year, breadfruit may be eaten for eight months of the year,

beginning with May. Elsewhere five months is the usual period,

from May to September.” (46, p. 152)

Moreover, few of the statements we found on seasonality

draw a clear distinction between peak-season and low-season

availability, a common phenomenon in many parts of Hawai‘i

where breadfruit is grown. Our observations on Hawai‘i indicate

that Hawaiian breadfruit is available for more than just the summer

months. The fruits harvested for the nutritional analyses we did

were taken from trees in East and West Hawai‘i in early December

1991. The three mature trees found at the Amy B. H. Greenwell

Ethnobotanical Garden in Captain Cook on Hawai‘i (1500 ft [450

m] elevation) usually fruit copiously for about six months each

year (July–August through November–December), but fruits

could often be found as well during a second, smaller fruiting

period in the winter.

We should also recognize that the Hawaiian chiefs on the

larger islands would have been able to draw upon breadfruit trees

growing over a range of elevations from sea level to perhaps

2000–2600 ft (600–800 m), with fruits from trees at the higher

sites ripening later. If we consider the elevation-related differences

in flowering and maturation and peak- and low-season production,

an 8-month to even 10-month period of breadfruit availability

might easily be possible, and especially so for the political and

ceremonial needs that could not in all likelihood have been met

if fruits were drawn from a single locality. The situation in Tahiti

was comparable.(36, p. 188; 50, p. 40)

“...in Puna in a

good year,

breadfruit may be

eaten for eight

months of the year,

beginning with

May.”

42 Hawaiian Breadfruit

Reproduction and longevity

As elsewhere in Polynesia,(44, 101) in Hawai‘i breadfruit trees are

propagated from root cuttings or root shoots,(46) sometimes after

“wounding” surface roots to stimulate shoot production.

According to Handy, breadfruit is referred to in Hawaiian as ‘ai

kämeha‘i, or “food (ai) that reproduces itself ‘by the will of the

gods,’ that is, by sprouting.” (44, p. 187)

Referring collectively to the many breadfruit varieties grown

throughout southeastern Polynesia and Micronesia, French

ethnobotanist Jacques Barrau noted that transplanted root cuttings

will reach fruit-bearing age in about five or six years.(11, p. 120)

Although the trees are capable of several hundred years

longevity,(101) it is more often stated that they remain at peak fruiting

capacity for between 35 and 60 years under good conditions.

(2, 94, 96)

Yield

Highly variable statements have been made about breadfruit yields

in Hawai‘i. On the one hand, Stewart “found yields [to be] very

partial...at any season” during 1823–25,(83, p. 4) much as the Russian

Shemelin had found in 1804. On the other hand, Captain Cook,

having observed breadfruit production elsewhere in Polynesia,

was impressed by breadfruit productivity in Hawai‘i, for “when

he visited Kauai [he] noticed that breadfruit thrives here, not in

such abundance, but produces double the quantity of fruit they

do on the plains of Otaheite.” (46, p. 153) David Samwell similarly noted

that Hawai‘i, Maui, and Kaua‘i produced “the breadfruit in great

plenty,” and he was told that O‘ahu also “produces plenty of

breadfruit.” (14, p. 1221)

To assist resolution of the yield issue, we have attempted to

estimate breadfruit yields in ancient Hawai‘i. While we could

not determine the exact extent of area planted to breadfruit, the

density and uniformity of the plantings, nor the average yearly

production per tree at some representative point in Hawaiian

history, the preliminary calculations that we present below suggest

that breadfruit production in traditional Hawai‘i must have been

very sizable indeed.

Although there are many ethnohistorical records of traditional

Hawaiian land management and resource use prior to 1850, at a

time when Hawaiian agriculture was still flourishing,(76) most lack

the detail needed to make explicit calculations. However, two

eyewitness accounts from this period have been critical to our

Breadfruit is

referred to in

Hawaiian as ‘ai

kämeha‘i, or

“food (ai) that

reproduces itself

‘by the will of the

gods,’ that is, by

sprouting.”

Hawaiian Breadfruit 43

estimates. In the first, Archibald Menzies, surgeon-naturalist

during Captain Vancouver’s visit to Kealakekua Bay in 1794,

describes breadfruit trees growing in the Kona Field System

behind the bay:

“We commenced our march with a slow pace...for about

three miles, when we entered the bread fruit plantations

whose spreading trees with beautiful foliage were

scattered about that distance from the shore along the

side of the mountain as far as we could see on both

sides.” (82, p. 74)

Some 50 years later, during the 1840–41 visit of the United

States Exploring Expedition, Charles Wilkes described the same

groves:

“Two miles back from the coast...in a belt a half a mile

wide, the breadfruit is met with in abundance, and above

this the taro is cultivated with success.”(123, p. 95)

These two accounts have permitted us to estimate the size and

the yield of the breadfruit zone within the Kona Field System

and, by extrapolation, to generate a rough estimate of breadfruit

production in traditional Hawai‘i. But first, for context, we

summarize what is known about the configuration of the Kona

Field System.

The core of the Kona Field System extended makai (from

the sea) to mauka (toward the mountain) for perhaps 5 miles

behind Kealakekua Bay, between Honaunau to the south and what

is now Kailua-Kona to the north, a distance of about 18 miles.

While Ross Cordy(25, p. 258)

claims that by the end of the 18

century

the system “extended from above Keähole Point south to the

border with Ka‘ü district,” a distance of approximately 43 miles,

we are unsure of breadfruit planting densities at these northern

and southern extremities, and we use the more widely accepted

18 mile extension to calculate our breadfruit yields. For our

purposes, the system was thus approximately 3 miles (4.8 km)

wide by 18 miles (29 km) long,(65) totaling about 34,500 acres or

140 km2. Viewing it from makai to mauka (that is, looking uphill),

it was composed of a kula or “coastal plain” zone, a kalu-‘ulu or

breadfruit zone, an ‘äpa‘a zone, and an ‘ama‘u or tree fern

The core of the

Kona Field System

extended makai to

mauka for perhaps

five miles behind

Kealakekua Bay.

44 Hawaiian Breadfruit

(Sadleria) zone. The kula zone, mostly dry and rocky, consisted

of scattered plantings of sweetpotato and paper mulberry, the kalu-

‘ulu was dominated by breadfruit trees and complimented with

understory plantings, the ‘äpa‘a zone was densely planted to

dryland taro, sweetpotato, and sugarcane, and the ‘ama‘u zone

was planted intermittently to banana and other crops. Based on

these descriptions and more recent statements,(3) it is evident that

the breadfruit belt occupied only a part of the Kona Field System.

Consider now Menzies’ statement that breadfruit plantations

within the Kona Field System “were scattered...along the side of

the mountain as far as we could see on both sides,”(82, p. 74) and

Wilkes’ claim that breadfruit formed “a belt half a mile wide”

above Kealakekua Bay.(123, p. 95) If we accept that Menzies’ obser-

vation was made from approximately a midpoint in the Kona

Field System’s north–south extension in 1794, we can estimate

the size of the kalu-‘ulu to be about

⁄

mile (0.8 km) wide by 18

miles (29 km) long, totaling about 5750 acres (23 km2), or about

one-sixth of the area of the whole system. We can now link this

estimate of the size of the Kona Field System’s kalu-‘ulu zone

with information on numbers of trees planted per surface area,

on fruit yield per tree, and on fruit weight.

We begin with Pope’s statement that “...a conservative

estimate. . .indicates that an acre will yield about 12 tons of fruit

[per year in Hawai‘i]...” and that trees were typically spaced about

40 feet (12.2 m) apart, resulting in a plantation of about 25 trees

per acre.(96, p. 10; 49, p. 68) Using Pope’s acreage yield estimates, the kalu-

‘ulu zone of the Kona Field System would have produced

approximately 69,000 tons of breadfruit per year. However, if

we focus rather on Pope’s planting density figure per acre of 25

trees and multiply this number by conservative estimates of single-

tree yields made by Barrau and others (see p. 3) of between 50

and 150 (average 100) fruits per mature tree per year, and then

by fruit weight variously estimated at between 1 and 10 pounds

(average 5 lb/fruit), we conclude that the Kona Field System’s

breadfruit zone may have been planted to around 144,000 trees,

producing about 6.25 tons per acre or around 36,000 tons of fruit

per year. We could also use Ragone’s lower estimate of between

1 and 5 pounds per fruit (average 2.5 lb/fruit), or our 1991 figure

of 3.2 lb average fruit weight, to conclude that about 18,000 or

23,000 tons respectively would have been produced each year in

the breadfruit zone of the Kona Field System.

Hawaiian Breadfruit 45

Even though other breadfruit groves existed in Hawai‘i, such

as in Puna and Hilo on Hawai‘i and Lahaina on Maui, and perhaps

also to some extent in the other West Hawai‘i field systems of

Kohala and Lälämilo-Waimea, and individual holdings were

numerous and widely scattered throughout the archipelago (see

the Appendix, pp. 57–60), we did not attempt to calculate the

extent of these combined sites, as their dimensions are largely

unknown. Nevertheless, in order to establish a rough estimate

for archipelago-wide breadfruit production, it seemed right to

multiply our estimate of the kalu-‘ulu annual breadfruit yield by

some factor commensurate with the combined production of

breadfruit trees located in the other plantations, in the ‘äpa‘a zone

of the Kona Field System and presumably at its northern and

southern extremities as described by Cordy, and in the many

individual holdings throughout the archipelago. For example, if

we multiply the 36,000 ton mid-range estimate of annual kalu-

‘ulu breadfruit yield by 2, we achieve a conservative archipelago-

wide production estimate of 72,000 tons; if we multiply by 3, we

reach 108,000 tons. Whichever may be more accurate, we felt it

was fair to conclude that breadfruit production in Hawai‘i in a

“normal” year in the late 18th century may well have reached

between 50,000 and 100,000 tons, of which more than 83 percent

would have been usable as food.(96, p. 17)

We conclude that

the Kona Field

System’s breadfruit

zone may have been

planted to around

144,000 trees,

producing about

6.25 tons per acre

or around 36,000

tons of fruit per

year.

46 Hawaiian Breadfruit

Some people may feel that our planting density and uni-

formity and weight assumptions for the breadfruit zone of the

Kona Field System are unrealistic, and there is evidence to support

this.(3) Given that any number of topographic or phenologic

impediments to planting breadfruit uniformly within the kalu-

‘ulu zone would mean fewer trees per acre than the figure of 25

that we used, we might assume accordingly that yields would

have been lower than our optimal figures indicate, whichever

average fruit weight was employed in our calculations. Issues

such as drought, volcanic activity, and other natural phenomena

that would periodically reduce yield have also been raised,(3) as

has the issue of warfare in West Hawai‘i, where breadfruit trees

would have been periodically damaged or destroyed,(76, p. 25) a

situation that is better known and documented in Central

Polynesia.

All of these factors—fruit weight, seasonal fluctuations,

warfare, and climatic and edaphic differences among and within

islands—would need to be assessed more thoroughly in order to

achieve a comprehensive assessment of breadfruit yield in ancient

Hawai‘i. Nevertheless, and despite the likelihood of geographic

and other irregularities that could lead to fluctuations in planting

density and annual yield, whichever of our estimates of kalu-

‘ulu plantation extent, planting density, or fruit weight we choose

to link with Langsdorff’s statement based on Marquesan breadfruit

consumption that “...one or two...trees are sufficient to support a

man the whole year round,”(46, p. 187) which equates to 12.5–25 people

per acre planted to breadfruit, or with Sturtevant’s assessment

that 1 acre (planted to 27 trees) is “sufficient for the support of

from ten to twelve people during the eight months of fruit-

bearing,”(49, p. 68) our analysis still shows that total breadfruit yields

were massive in ancient Hawai‘i, possibly capable of feeding

from 75,000 to several hundred thousand people annually. This

conclusion is consistent with other evidence that points to the

ready availability of breadfruit for food, gift, and trade in early

post-Cook Hawai‘i during all but a few months of the year, and

to the production of surpluses that permitted breadfruit to be used

regularly as animal fodder.

Observers of Hawaiian demography believe that the

prehistoric population of Hawai‘i was either peaking or slightly

declining in the late 1700s,(70, 109, 112) at about the time that Euro-

American visitors were first viewing breadfruit and the other

Our analysis

shows that total

breadfruit yields

were massive in

ancient Hawai‘i.

Hawaiian Breadfruit 47

Hawaiian crops. It is thus not surprising that “at the time of the

coming of the first European explorers the breadfruit was plentiful

around the native settlements and villages on all the islands; more

plentiful than it had been at any subsequent period.”(75, p. 37) On a

related issue, we found no evidence to contradict the statement

by Handy and Handy that “...Hawai‘i probably produced most,

Kaua‘i came second, Maui third, and O‘ahu fourth.”(46, p. 448)

According to Kirch, the events and processes leading to this

flourishing situation can be dated to around 1200 A.D., when

“...rapid development of large, densely settled populations...and

the expansion and intensification of both irrigation and dryland

field systems. . .”(70, p. 233) have been recognized in the archaeological

record. Our summaries of breadfruit tree sites, uses, densities,

and productivity strongly suggest that breadfruit played a major

part in this evolution, contrary to the recent conclusions of some

scholars.(3, p. 147; 25, p. 37)

Conclusions

After reviewing the biological aspects and the agro-ecological

features of breadfruit arboriculture in traditional Hawai‘i, we

described breadfruit’s position in Hawaiian mythology and

material culture, demonstrating that breadfruit was substantially

implicated in a wide range of Hawaiian oral traditions and

everyday activities. Its large-scale cultivation in groves had

significant political overtones. We also provided suggestive

evidence that the shade provided by breadfruit trees, the fish and

other animal products obtained through exchange with its fruits,

and the fodder provided by its fruits in animal husbandry and in

pisciculture were three significant aspects of traditional Hawaiian

political economy that have been largely overlooked in

assessments of breadfruit’s importance in Hawai‘i. Breadfruit was

also a commonly consumed food item, and we showed that its

food value matched or exceeded that of taro within a

comprehensive Hawaiian dietary pattern.

Our estimates of breadfruit yields point to the likelihood that

breadfruit was grown on a massive scale in Hawai‘i during the

traditional period for food, being capable alone of sustaining

between 75,000 to several hundred thousand people annually.

“At the time of the

coming of the first

European explorers

the breadfruit was

plentiful around the

native settlements

and villages on all

the islands; more

plentiful than it had

been at any

subsequent period.”

48 Hawaiian Breadfruit

Nevertheless, its human alimentary contribution by island or

district appears to have varied substantially and to have been both

direct and indirect, in part due to poorly understood physical and

possibly cultural variables. It is worth noting that breadfruit

plantations were unevenly distributed throughout the archipelago

(Appendix tables), as were Hawaiian populations,(26) but the

relationship between concentrations of breadfruit arboriculture

and human population densities remains unstudied. It would be a

useful exercise to establish the correspondence between these

two variables while also taking into account other aspects of

traditional Hawaiian economy, such as important locations of

wetland and dryland taro cultivation and pisciculture.

We also saw that breadfruit plantation density and extent

varied between windward and leeward settings, at least on the

larger islands, and that plantation locations on all the main islands

appeared to be near major villages and village clusters. Hilo, Kona,

and Puna on Hawai‘i, Wailua on Kaua‘i, Lahaina on Maui, and

Waimänalo on O‘ahu were heavily populated in the late pre-Cook

period, at the time that intensive breadfruit arboriculture was

practiced nearby. It is an unlikely coincidence that the largest of

the Hawaiian field systems, the Kona Field System, was located

in the district described by William Ellis in 1822 “as the most

populous of the six great divisions of Hawaii [island].”(33, p. 186)

Presumably, the groves observed by early Euro-American visitors

had been originally planted to provision the people who had settled

in these areas, along with their domesticated animals. It was

possibly between 1600 and 1800 A.D., the period when the most

intensive development of the field systems occurred, that both

human populations and breadfruit plantations within these areas

began to develop substantially through mutually interacting

pressures: human numbers in response to the growing availability

of breadfruit and other resources, and breadfruit groves in response

to the increasing need for more food and fodder, both occurring

through a process mediated by competition among chiefs.

All the evidence we reviewed, whether for our ethnobotanical

treatment or for our nutritional and yield analyses, underscores

the inaccuracy of consigning breadfruit to a minor role in

traditional Hawaiian human ecology. This beautiful, productive

tree has an ongoing role to play in the Hawaiian lifestyle, and we

hope our work contributes to an expansion of its presence in

Hawaiian landscapes.

All the evidence we

reviewed, whether

for our ethnobotan-

ical treatment or

for our nutritional

and yield analyses,

underscores the

inaccuracy of

consigning bread-

fruit to a minor

role in traditional

Hawaiian human

ecology.

Hawaiian Breadfruit 49

Acknowledgments

Kealakekua Ranch Ltd. generously provided grants to the Amy

B.H. Greenwell Ethnobotanical Garden, Bishop Museum, to

undertake the research for and drafting of this study, and to the

College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, Univer-

sity of Hawai‘i at Mänoa, to assist in its publication.

The drawing on page 45, by Persis Thurston, was provided

by the Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society Library. The ‘ulu

quilt pattern image reproduced on page 1 and elsewhere was pro-

vided by the Kona Historical Society. Dietrich Varez kindly

allowed us to use his block-cut images, reproduced on pages 12,

27, and elsewhere.

Many other institutions and people provided valuable sup-

port. We would like to thank the Bishop Museum Library; the

UH Center, West Hawai‘i Library; and the Kona Historical Soci-

ety for helping us obtain bibliographic references and difficult-

to-find documents. We would also like to thank Pat Bacon, Jean

Greenwell, Terry Hunt, Kana‘e Keawe, Alexandre Meilleur,

Peter Van Dyke, and especially late Sherwood Greenwell for

collaboration and support.

50 Hawaiian Breadfruit

52 Hawaiian Breadfruit

Legendary sites

Hilo, “the breadfruit of Piihonua” (37, p. 278)

South Hilo/Waiäkea, “a...tree laden with fruit” (99, p. 219-220)

North Kona, “breadfruit from the uplands of Hu‘ehu‘e” (99, p. 52–53)

Puna, “lowlands of Ko‘oko‘olau,” and “the low hanging breadfruit trees

of Kalapana...the breadfruit trees of Malama” (37, p. 248, 256)

Uluka‘a, “a mythical land...with breadfruit” (105, p. 19–31)

Waipi‘o Valley, “a breadfruit grove...beside the falls of Hi‘ilawe” (17,

p. 36)

Table 2. Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau.

Kaua‘i

Scattered sites

Ha‘ikü ahupua‘a, “old trees [in] kuleana,” prehistoric (46, p. 427)

Moloa‘a, “a few old trees,” in 1935 (46, p. 422)

Näwiliwili River, “a few old trees,” in 1935 (44, p. 67)

Pä‘ä ahupua‘a, “planted in the gulches,” prehistoric (46, p. 427)

Waimea Village, “few trees,” in 1778 (46, p. 409)

Plantations

Anahola, “many breadfruit trees...according to Keahi Luahine,” pre-

historic (44, p. 189)

Kapa‘a/Wailua, “cultivated in quantity,” prehistoric (46, p. 269)

Upper Wailua, “extensively planted,” prehistoric (46, p. 284)

Wailua River, “abundance of trees,” prehistoric (46, p. 425)

Waimea to Wailua, “extensive plantings noted...by early voyagers” (44,

p. 189)

Waipake Stream, “a number of old...trees,” in 1935 (46, p. 422)

Ni‘ihau

Scattered sites

Ni‘ihau, “in large cracks and cavities...moist sinkholes” no date (121,

p. 24, 80)

Hawaiian Breadfruit 53

Table 3. Maui, La¯ na‘i, and Moloka‘i.

Maui

Scattered sites

Lahaina, “cottage smoke among the branches,” in 1823 (33, p. 76–77)

South Lahaina, “grew in valleys,” prehistoric (46, p. 492)

East Maui, “old breadfruit trees,” no date (Hämäkua, Ko‘olau,

Honomanü, Wailua nui, Nahiku, Häna, Wailua, Kïpahulu,

Kukui‘ula... 46, p. 153)

Plantations

Central Valley, “much breadfruit,” prehistoric (Olowalu, Waikapü,

Wailuku, Waihe‘e, Waiehu...46, p. 153)

Keka‘a, “a famous grove,” prehistoric (46, p. 491)

Lahaina, “groups of trees...down close to the sea,” in 1825 (5, p. 103)

Lahaina, “the trees of Kauheana,” prehistoric (46, p. 494)

Lahaina, [contained] “fine trees forty years ago as any I have seen in

Samoa or Fiji,” around 1840s, (44, p. 190)

Near Lahaina, “double rows of breadfruit,” in 1819 (46, p. 493)

Lele (Lahaina), “the breadfruit grove of Lele, from one end to the other

of Lahaina,” 1812 (54, p. 106, 109)

S. shores of W. Maui, “second only to Puna,” no date (44, p. 190)

Legendary sites

Lahaina, “southwest of Lahaina Fort...the breadfruit trees of Kauheana,”

(37, p. 542)

Läna‘i

Plantations

East coast opposite Maui, “breadfruit groves,” late 1800s (34, p. 48)

Läna‘i, “much breadfruit...planted,” no date (44, p. 190)

Moloka‘i

“No trees seen” in 1779 by Samwell (14, p. 1220)

Scattered sites

Southeast end, “tree was cultivated,” no date (46, p. 153)

Plantations

Hälawa Valley, “grove on south side of valley,” 1990s (39)

54 Hawaiian Breadfruit

Table 4. O‘ahu.

Scattered sites

Anahulu Valley, “associated with habitation,” prehistoric (68, p. 7)

Honolulu, “breadfruit...seen among the cultivated grounds,” in 1825

(5, p. 122)

Köloa Stream, “trees at...old homesites,” in 1953 (46, p. 461)

Kualoa, “the first trees to Hawai‘i,” prehistoric (89, p. 302–304)

Moanalua River, “bank of a salt lake,” in 1815 (46, p. 474)

Pearl River, “houses shaded by foliage,” in 1831 (100, p. 63)

Waimea Valley, “house sites,” late 1800s (46, p. 464)

Plantations

Coast of Wai‘anae Mountains, no date (44, p. 190)

Kahana Valley, “trees in the valley,” prehistoric (46, p. 445)

Southerly side, “breadfruit was planted,” no date (Wailupe, Waikïkï,

Kalihi, ‘Ewa...46, p. 153)

Waimänalo District, “was filled with trees,” in 1847 (46, p. 459)

Windward coast inland, “in sheltered places,” no date (Waialua, Waimea,

Kahuku, Lä‘ie, Punalu‘u, Kahana, Käne‘ohe, Kailua, Waimänalo...

(46, p. 153)

Legendary sites

Moanalua Gardens, “a breadfruit tree from which the ghosts of the dead

leaped into the underworld” (89, p. 303).

Hawaiian Breadfruit 55

References

1. Abbott, I. 1982. The ethnobotany of the Hawaiian taro. Native Plant-

ers 1:17–22.

2. ____ 1992. La‘au Hawai‘i: Traditional Hawaiian Uses of Plants.

Honolulu, Bishop Museum Press.

3. Allen, M. 2001. Gardens of Lono. Honolulu, Bishop Museum Press.

4. Anderson, J., and N. Gustafson. 1988. Hypocholes-terolemic ef-

fects of oat and bean products. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 48(suppl.):749–

753.

5. Anonymous. 1826. Voyages of HMS Blonde to the Sandwich Is-

lands in the Years 1824–1825. London, John Murray.

6. Apple, R. 1971. The Hawaiian Thatched House. Honolulu, Island

Heritage Press.

7. Arago, J. 1823. Narrative of a Voyage Round the World...During

the Years 1817...1820. vol. 1. London, Treuttel and Wurtz.

8. Armstrong, R. 1983. Atlas of Hawaii. Honolulu, Univ. of Hawaii

Press.

9. Atchley, J., and P. Cox. 1985. Breadfruit fermentation in Micronesia.

Econ. Bot. 39:326–335.

10. Barratt, G. 1987. The Russian Discovery of Hawai‘i. Honolulu,

Editions Ltd.

11. Barrau, J. 1957. L’arbre à pain en Océanie. J. d’Agric. Trop. et Bot.

Appliquée 4(3–4):117–123.

12. ____ 1961. Subsistence Agriculture in Polynesia and Micronesia.

Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 223.

13. ____ 1976. Breadfruit and relatives. In: N. Simmonds (ed.), Evolu-

tion of Crop Plants. London, Longman.

14. Beaglehole, J. (ed.). 1967. The Journals of Captain James Cook on

his Voyages of Discovery, III: The Voyage of the Resolution and

Discovery 1776–1780. part 2. London, Cambridge Univ. Press for

the Hakluyt Society.

15. Beckley, E. 1883. Hawaiian Fisheries and Methods of Fishing.

Honolulu, Advertiser Press.

16. Beckwith, M. 1951. The Kumulipo: A Hawaiian Creation Chant.

Honolulu, Univ. of Hawaii Press.

17. ____ 1976 (1940). Hawaiian Mythology. Honolulu, Univ. of Ha-

waii Press.

18. Bellwood, P. 1987. The Polynesians—Prehistory of an Island People.

London, Thames and Hudson Ltd.

19. Bird, I. 1974 (1875). Six Months in the Sandwich Islands. Rutland,

Vermont, Charles Tuttle Co.

20.Brigham, W. 1911. Ka Hana Kapa. The Making of Bark-cloth

in Hawaii. Mem. of the Bishop Museum 3.

56 Hawaiian Breadfruit

21. Buck, P. 1957. Arts and Crafts of Hawaii. Honolulu, Bishop Mu-

seum Press.

22. ____ 1959. Vikings of the Pacific. Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press.

23. Cheever, H. 1850. The Island World of the Pacific. New York, Harper.

24. Coenan, J., and J. Barrau. 1961. The breadfruit tree in Micronesia.

S. Pacific Bulletin 11:37–39, 65–67.

25. Cordy, R. 2000. Exalted Sits the Chief. Honolulu, Mutual Publish-

ing.

26. Coulter, J. 1931. Population and Utilization of Land and Sea in

Hawaii, 1853. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 88.

27. Cox, P. 1980. Two Samoan technologies for breadfruit and banana

preservation. Econ. Bot. 34(2):181–185.

28. Cuddihy, L., and C. Stone. 1990. Alteration of Native Hawaiian

Vegetation. Honolulu, Univ. of Hawaii, Cooperative National Park

Resources Studies Unit.

29. Degener, O. 1975 (1930). Plants of Hawaii National Park Illustra-

tive of Plants and Customs of the South Seas. Ann Arbor, Mich.,

Braun-Brumfield, Inc.

30. Dening, G. 1980. Islands and Beaches: Discourse on a Silent Land.

Marquesas 1774-1880. Honolulu, Univ. of Hawaii Press.

31. Dye, T. 1989. Tale of two cultures: traditional historical and ar-

chaeological interpretations of Hawaiian prehistory. Bishop Mu-

seum Occasional Papers 29:3–22.

32. Ellis, W. 1825. Journal of a Tour Around Hawaii. Boston, Crocker

and Brewster.

33. ____ 1969 (1822). Polynesian Researches—Hawaii. Rutland, Ver-

mont, Charles Tuttle Co.

34. Emory, K. 1969 (1924). The Island of Lana‘i: a Survey of Native

Culture. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 12.

35. ESHA Research. 1992. The Food Processor Nutrition Software, Plus

version 5. Salem, Oregon.

36. Feldon, E. 1981. Early Tahiti as the Explorers Saw It, 1767–1797.

Tucson, Univ. of Arizona Press.

37. Fornander, A. (T. Thrum, ed.) 1916–20. Hawaiian Antiquities and

Folk-lore. vols. 4–6. Memoirs of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum.

38. de Freycinet, L. 1978. Hawaii in 1819: a narrative account by Louis

Claude Desaulses de Freycinet. E. Wiswell, (trans.), M. Kelly (ed.),

Pacific Anthrop. Records 26.

39. Garnett, W. Personal communication.

40. Gebhardt, S., R. Cutrufelli, and R. Matthews. 1982. Composition of

Foods—Fruits and Fruit Juices. Agricultural Handbook 8–9, Hu-

man Nutrition Information Service, USDA, Washington, D.C.

41. Giambelluca, T., M. Nullet, and T. Schroeder. 1986. Rainfall Atlas

of Hawai‘i. Honolulu, Dept. of Land and Natural Resources.

Hawaiian Breadfruit 57

42. Green, R. 1980. Makaha Before 1880 A.D. Honolulu, Bishop Mu-

seum Press.

43. Gutmanis, J. 1976. Kahuna La‘au Lapa‘au. Aiea, Hawaii, Island

Heritage.

44. Handy, E.S. 1940. The Hawaiian Planter—Volume 1. Bernice P.

Bishop Museum Bulletin 161.

45. ____ 1986 (1923). The Native Culture in the Marquesas. Bernice P.

Bishop Museum Bulletin 9.

46. ____, and E.G. Handy. 1972. Native Planters in Old Hawaii. Bernice

P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233.

47. Handy, E.S., M. Pukui, and K. Livermore. 1934. Outline of Hawai-

ian Physical Therapeutics. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 126.

48. Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station. 1921. Annual Report. U.S.

Gov’t. Printing Office, Washinton, D.C.

49. Hedrick, U.P. (ed.). 1972. Sturtevant’s Edible Plants of the World.

New York, Dover Pubs, Inc.

50. Henry, T. 1985. (1928). Ancient Tahiti. Bernice P. Bishop Museum

Bulletin 48.

51. Hillebrand, W. 1981 (1888). Flora of the Hawaiian Islands.

Monticello, New York, Ulbrecht and Cramer.

52. Holmes, T. 1981. The Hawaiian Canoe. Honolulu, Editions Lim-

ited.

53. Huang, A., C.A. Titchenal, and B. Meilleur. 2000. Nutrient compo-

sition of taro corms and breadfruit. J. Food Composition and Analysis

13:859–864.

54. Ii, J.P. 1959. Fragments of Hawaiian History. M. Pukui (trans.), D.

Barrere (ed.), Honolulu, Bishop Museum Press.

55. Institute of Medicine (Food and Nutrition Board). 2001. Dietary

Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron, Chro-

mium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Sili-

con, Vanadium, and Zinc. Washington, D.C., National Academy

Press.

56. Jarrett, F. 1959. Studies in Artocarpus and allied genera. III. A revi-

sion of Artocarpus subgenus Artocarpus. J. Arnold Arboretum

40:327–368.

57. Jenkins, I. 1989. The Hawaiian Calabash. Honolulu, Editions Ltd.

58. Judd, H. 1930. Hawaiian Proverbs and Riddles. Bernice P. Bishop

Museum Bulletin 77.

59. Kaaiakamanu, D., and J. Akina. 1922. Hawaiian Herbs of Medici-

nal Value. A. Akana (trans.), Honolulu, Territorial Board of Health.

60. Kaeppler, A. 1980. Pahu and Puniu: An Exhibition of Hawaiian

Drums. Honolulu, Bernice P. Bishop Museum.

61. Kamakau, S. 1961. Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. Honolulu,

Kamehameha Schools Press.

58 Hawaiian Breadfruit

62. ____ 1964. Ka po‘e kahiko: The People of Old. Honolulu, Bishop

Museum Press.

63. ____ 1976. The Works of the People of Old: Na hana a ka po‘e

kahiko. M. Pukui (trans.), D. Barrere (ed.), Honolulu, Bishop Mu-

seum Press.

64. ____ 1991. Tales and Traditions of the People of Old. No Mo‘olelo

a Ka Po‘e Kahiko. M. Pukui (trans.), D. Barrere (ed.), Honolulu,

Bishop Museum Press.

65. Kelly, M. 1983. Na mala o Kona: Gardens of Kona. Bernice P.

Bishop Museum Report 83-2.

66. Kepelino’s Traditions of Hawaii. Beckwith, M. (ed.), Bernice P.

Bishop Museum Bulletin 95.

67. Kikuchi, W. 1973. Hawaiian aquacultural system. PhD dissertation,

Univ. of Arizona.

68. Kirch, P. 1979. Late Prehistoric and Early Historic Settlement-Sub-

sistence Systems in the Anahulu Valley, O‘ahu. Bernice P. Bishop

Museum Report 79-2.

69. ____ 1984. The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge,

Cambridge Univ. Press.

70. ____ 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks. Honolulu, Univ. of

Hawaii Press.

71. ____ 1992. The Archaeology of History. vol. 2 of Anahulu: The

Anthropology of History in the Kingdom of Hawaii. P. Kirch and M.

Sahlins. Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press.

72. von Kotzebue, O. 1821. A Voyage of Discovery into the South Sea

and Bering Straits...in the Years 1815–1818. 3 vols. London,

Longman, Hurst.

73. Krauss, B. 1974. Ethnobotany of the Hawaiians. Lyon Arboretum

Lecture 5, Honolulu.

74. Little, E., and R. Skolmen. 1989. Common Forest Trees of Hawaii.

Agriculture Handbook no. 679, USDA, Washington D.C.

75. MacCaughey, V. 1917. The genus Artocarpus in the Hawaiian Is-

lands. Torreya 17(3):33–48.

76. Major, M. 2001. An agricultural history of Kealakekua. In: M. Allen

(ed.), Gardens of Lono. Honolulu, Bishop Museum Press, pp. 23-

46.

77. Malo, D. 1951 (1898). Hawaiian Antiquities. N. Emerson (trans.).

Honolulu, Bishop Museum Press.

78. Matsunaga, P. 1983. Periods of rainfall and associated drought re-

ports on the island of Hawaii. MA thesis, Univ. of Hawaii, Hono-

lulu.

79. McBride, L. 1975. Practical Folk Medicine of Hawaii. Hilo, The

Petroglyth Press.

Hawaiian Breadfruit 59

80. Meilleur, B. 1996. Forests and Polynesian adaptations. In: L. Sponsel

et al. (eds.), Tropical Deforestation: The Human Dimension. New

York, Columbia Univ. Press, pp. 76–94.

81. ____, M.-A. Maigret, and R. Manshardt. 1997. Hala and wauke in

Hawai‘i. Bishop Museum Bulletin in Anthropology 7.

82. Menzies, A. 1920. Hawaii Nei 128 Years Ago. Honolulu, New Free-

dom Press, W.F. Wilson (ed.).

83. Miller, C. 1929. Food values of breadfruit, taro leaves, coconut,

and sugar cane. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 64.

84. ____, and K. Bazore. 1945. Fruits of Hawaii, Description, Nutri-

tive Value and Use. Hawaii Agri. Exp. Sta. Bulletin 96.

85. ____, and B. Branthoover. 1957. Nutritive Values of Some Hawaii

Foods in Household Units and Common Measures. Hawaii Agric.

Exp. Sta. Circ. 52.

86. Morton, J. 1987. Breadfruit. In: J. Morton, Fruits of Warm Climates,

distributed by Creative Resource Systems, Inc., Winterville, N.C.

pp. 5–58

87. Na Lima Kokua. 1976. Breadfuit (Ulu): Uses and Recipes. Lawai,

Hawaii, Pacific Tropical Botanical Garden.

88. National Research Council. 1989. Recommended Dietary Allow-

ances. 10th edition. Washington D.C., National Academy Press.

89. Neal, M. 1965. In Gardens of Hawaii. Bernice P. Bishop Museum

Bulletin 50.

90. Newman, T. 1970. Hawaiian fishing and farming on the island of

Hawa‘ii in A.D. 1778. PhD dissertation, Univ. of Hawaii.

91. Nielsen, F. 1992. Facts and fallacies about boron. Nutrition Today

27:6–12.

92. Norton, S. 1992. Salt consumption in ancient Polynesia. Perspec-

tives in Biology and Medicine 35(2):160–181.

93. Oliver, D. 1989. Oceania—The Native Cultures of Australia and

the Pacific Islands. vol. 1. Honolulu, Univ. of Hawaii Press.

94. Petard, P. 1986. Quelques Plantes Utiles de Polynésie Française.

Papeete, Tahiti, Editions Haere Po No Tahiti, Ra‘au Tahiti.

95. Pollock, N. 1984. Breadfruit fermentation practices in Oceania. Bull.

de la Société des Océanistes 40(79):151–164.

96. Pope, W. 1923–1926. The breadfruit: a study of the origin, history,

nomenclature, description, propagation, composition, uses and ef-

fort to preserve valuable varieties. Thesis, vol. 2, section 2, Hawaii

Agricultural Experiment Station.

97. Pukui, M. (trans.). 1983. ‘Olelo no‘eau. Honolulu, Bishop Museum

Press.

98. _____, and S. Elbert. 1986. Hawaiian Dictionary. Honolulu, Univ.

of Hawaii Press.

60 Hawaiian Breadfruit

99. ____, S. Elbert, and E. Mookini. 1974. Place Names in Hawai‘i.

Honolulu, Univ. of Hawaii Press.

100. Pultz, M.-A. (ed.). 1981. A Botanist’s Visit to O‘ahu in 1831. Press

Pacifica, Ltd.

101. Purseglove, J. 1968. Tropical Crops: Dicotyledons. London,

Longmans.

102. Ragone, D. 1991a. Collection, establishment, and evaluation of a

germplasm collection of Pacific Island breadfruit. PhD disserta-

tion, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa.

103. ____ 1991b. Ethnobotany of breadfruit in Polynesia. In: P. Cox

and S. Banack (eds.), Islands, Plants, and Polynesians. Dioscorides

Press, pp. 203–220.

104.____ 1997. Breadfruit: Artocarpus altilis (Parkinson)

Fosberg.

Promoting the conservation and use of underutilized and neglected

crops. 10. Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research/

Gatersleben and International Plant Genetic Resources Institute,

Rome, Italy. 77 pp.

105. Rice, W. 1923. Hawaiian Legends. Bernice P. Bishop Museum

Bulletin 3.

106. Riley, T. 1982. Where taro is king. In: Native Planters: Ho‘okupu

Kalo, J. Kennedy (ed.), vol. 1, no. 1, Honolulu.

107. Rock, J. 1974 (1913). The Indigenous Trees of the Hawaiian Is-

lands. Lawai, Hawaii, Pacific Tropical Botanical Garden.

108. Schattenburg, P. 1976. Food and cultivar preservation in

Micronesian voyaging. Misc. Working Papers, Pacific Islands Pro-

gram 1:25–53, Univ. of Hawaii.

109. Schilt, R. 1984. Subsistence and conflict in Kona, Hawai‘i. Bernice

P. Bishop Museum Report 84-1:3–10.

110. Schmitt, R.C. 1978. Demographic Statistics of Hawaii: 1778–1965.

Honolulu, Univ. of Hawaii Press.

111. Smith, N., J. Williams, D. Plucknett, and J. Talbot. 1992. Tropical

Forests and Their Crops. Ithica, NY, Cornell Univ. Press.

112. Stannard, D. 1989. Before the Horror: The Population of Hawai‘i

on the Eve of Western Contact. Honolulu, Social Science Research

Inst., Univ. of Hawaii.

113. St. John, H., and M. Titcomb. 1983. The vegetation of the Sand-

wich Islands as seen by Charles Gaudichaud in 1819. Occ. Papers

of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum 25:1–16.

114. Thrum, T. 1908. Thrum’s Hawaiian Annual. Honolulu.

115. Titcomb, M. 1969. Dog and Man in the Ancient Pacific with Spe-

cial Attention to Hawaii. Honolulu, Bishop Museum Special Pub.

59.

116. USDA, Agricultural Research Service. 2004. USDA Nutrient Da-

tabase for Standard Reference, Release 17. Nutrient Data Labora-

tory Home Page, http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp.

Hawaiian Breadfruit 61

117. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1960. Soil Classification: A Com-

prehensive System. 7

Approximation. Washington, D.C.

118. Valeri, V. 1985. Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritual and Society in An-

cient Hawaii. Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press.

119. Watt, B., and A. Merrill. 1963. Composition of Foods. Agriculture

Handbook No. 8, USDA, Washington, D.C.

120. Wester, P. 1921. The food plants of the Philippines. The Philip-

pines Agri. Review 14(3):211–384.

121. Wichman, J., and H. St. John. 1990. A Chronicle and Flora of

Ni‘ihau. Lawai, Hawaii, National Tropical Botanical Garden.

122. Wilder, G. 1971 (1928). The Breadfruit of Tahiti. Bernice P. Bishop

Museum Bulletin 50.

123. Wilkes, C. 1845. Narrative of the United States Exploring Expe-

dition...1838–1842. 5 vols., Philadelphia, Lea and Blanchard.

124. Wong, W. Personal communication.

View publication statsView publication stats

The Response of Breadfruit Nutrition to Local Climate and Soil: A Review

Article

Feb 2020

Breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis) has been promoted as an underutilized crop with tremendous potential to address global hunger and transform agricultural practices in the tropics. While traditionally confined to Oceania, breadfruit has been spread throughout the global tropics in the 250 years, with a significant increase in distribution and production over the last 20–30 years, bringing the crop into a vast array of growing conditions. We apply a systematic protocol to 33 previous studies representing 41 locations to explore the effect of abiotic environmental factors on nutritive aspects of breadfruit in three categories: proximate analyses, micro- and macro-nutrients, and vitamins. In applying linear and multi-variate regressions, data suggests that the abiotic factors play a strong role in the nutritive value of the crop and that each category of nutrition responds differently to the environment. In general, proximate analyses were most responsive to average annual precipitation, while vitamin concentrations respond to both climate and soil parameters; micro- and macro-nutrients show little correlation to climate or soils. We present findings in the context of previous research on abiotic influence of food nutrition.

Agroforestry Distribution and Contributions in Ancient Hawaiian Agriculture

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2024
HUM ECOL

Agriculture is one of the most fundamental ways in which human societies interact with the environment. The form and function of agriculture have important socio-political implications in terms of yields, labor requirements, variability and resilience, and elite control. Hawai‘i has been used as a model system for the discussion of coupled human and natural systems, and how the uneven distribution of agricultural opportunities has manifested in the political ecology. However, consideration of agriculture has emphasized forms with physical infrastructure documented through archaeology and have not included arboricultural forms that were extensive among Pacific Islands. We leverage existing, independent data sets to build and validate spatial models of two intensities of arboriculture across the Hawaiian archipelago: Agroforestry and Novel Forest. Model validation demonstrates good accuracy that includes both expected and unexpected sources of errors. Results of the models demonstrate that arboricultural techniques accounted for ~70% of the agricultural potential by area and ~40% of the agricultural potential by yield. Unlike existing agricultural forms modeled, such as flooded wetland terrace cultivation and rainfed field production, which have strong distributional patterns based on the age of the islands, arboricultural potential is well distributed across all the islands. The extent, distribution, and characteristics of arboricultural methods provide important augmentation of the current narrative of production dynamics and distribution, and the political ecology, of pre-contact Hawai‘i.

Determining Allometry and Carbon Sequestration Potential of Breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis) as a Climate-Smart Staple in Hawai‘i

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2023

Breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis) is an underutilized Pacific tree crop that has been highlighted as having substantial potential to contribute to global food security and climate-smart agriculture, including adaptation to and mitigation of climate change. To explore the carbon sequestration potential of breadfruit production, we characterize tree volume, wood density, carbon density, foliar biomass, and growth rates of breadfruit in Hawai‘i. Strong relationships to trunk or branch diameter were displayed for wood density (r2 0.81), carbon density (r2 0.87), and foliar biomass (r2 0.91), which were combined to generate an allometric prediction of tree volume (r2 0.98) based on tree diameter at breast height. Growth rates, as measured by diameter at breast height, were well predicted over time when trees were classified by habitat suitability. We extrapolate potential breadfruit growth and carbon sequestration in above-ground biomass to the landscape scale over time. This study shows that breadfruit is on the low end of broadleaf tropical trees in moist and wet environments, but in an orchard can be expected to sequester ~69.1 tons of carbon per hectare in its above-ground biomass over a 20-year period.

Evaluation of Storage Stability of Cookies made from Breadfruit Flour

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2021

Cookies are consumed as a snack, ready-to-eat and convenient food. The utilization of composite flour in the development of cookies is replacing wheat flour thereby enhancing the quality of the product. But, the quality assessment of cookies made with composite flour is greatly influenced by storage conditions. Therefore, the present research was conducted to evaluate the storage stability of wheat-breadfruit incorporated cookies. Cookies were prepared from wheat flour and breadfruit flour in different combinations. Based on the nutritional and sensory properties of freshly prepared cookies, the three best treatments were selected along with the control for the shelf-life evaluation and packed in aluminium laminated foil and stored under the conditions of 30 ± 1 • C temperature and 75-80% RH. Quality evaluation was done at two weeks intervals for 12 weeks of the storage period. Among the treatments, cookies prepared from 40% breadfruit flour contained 4.97% of moisture, 2.62% of ash, 9.46% of protein, 1.51% of fibre and 16.46% of fat content after 12 weeks. According to the sensory analysis, there were significant differences (p<0.05) among the treatments in terms of colour, taste, texture, aroma and overall acceptability. Microbial counts were within the acceptable range up to the entire storage period. Therefore, based on the nutritional, organoleptic and microbial qualities, the cookies produced with 40% of breadfruit flour was the best treatment compared to other combinations at the end of 12 weeks storage period.

Nutritional and antinutritional composition of raw, boiled and roasted African Breadfruit

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2020

08035794568 dupe_2a@yahoo.com NUTRITIONAL AND ANTINUTRITITIONAL COMPOSITION OF RAW, BOILED AND ROASTED AFRICAN BREADFRUIT (ARTOCARPUS ALTILIS) PULP ABSTRACT New food preparation methods are emerging and their effect on nutritional composition of food is unknown. This study assessed changes in nutrient and anti-nutrient composition of Artocarpus Altilis pulp prepared by boiling and conventional oven roasting. Fresh, matured African breadfruits were peeled, washed and divided into three equal portions; raw, boiled and roasted. The pulp samples were analyzed for moisture and dried at 45°C for two days. All samples were milled into flour of particle size 1mm mesh and analyzed in triplicates for nutritional and anti-nutritional composition using standard methods. Moisture was higher in boiled (78.76±0.21%) than roasted samples (68.26±0.9%). Crude protein was better preserved by boiling (5.91±0.0%) than roasting (5.69±0.0%), roasting (0.67±0.06%) conserves fat better than boiling (0.63±0.06%). Mineral loss was higher in roasted than boiled samples for calcium (-13.51vs-7.7), sodium (-22.7vs-13.5), zinc (-27.6vs-11.8), iron (-46.0vs-6.0) and phosphorus (-11.4vs-3.8). Thiamin content reduced from 1.53±0.03 mg/100g (raw) to 1.29±0.03mg/100g (boiled) and 0.87±0.02mg/100g (roasted). Niacin content reduced by 19.6% with boiling and 43.8% with roasting. There was a significant decrease (P<0.05) in anti-nutritional composition of the samples. Boiling and roasting reduced phytate content from 16.57±0.21mg/100g to 15.73±0.15mg/100g and 13.53±0.25mg/100g in boiled and roasted samples respectively. Tannins reduced from the 4.63±0.15mg/100g to 3.50±0.20mg/100g (boiled) and 1.7±0.20mg/100g (roasted) and oxalates also had similar losses with boiling and roasting. Saponins content reduced from 73.33±2.52mg/100g to 66.33±1.53mg/100g and 29.67±2.52mg/100g, in boiled and roasted samples respectively. Boiling of African breadfruit pulp better preserved all nutrients except fat, but less effective in reducing anti-nutrients compared to conventional oven roasting.

Cultivation potential projections of breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis) under climate change scenarios using an empirically validated suitability model calibrated in Hawai’i

Article

Full-text available

May 2020
PLOS ONE

Humanity faces significant challenges to agriculture and human nutrition, and changes in climate are predicted to make such challenges greater in the future. Neglected and underutilized crops may play a role in mitigating and addressing such challenges. Breadfruit is a long-lived tree crop that is a nutritious, carbohydrate-rich staple, which is a priority crop in this regard. A fuzzy-set modeling approach was applied, refined, and validated for breadfruit to determine its current and future potential productivity. Hawai’i was used as a model system, with over 1,200 naturalized trees utilized to calibrate a habitat suitability model and 56 producer sites used to validate the model. The parameters were then applied globally on 17 global climate models at the RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 global climate projections for 2070. Overall, breadfruit suitability increases in area and in quality, with larger increases occurring in the RCP 8.5 projection. Current producing regions largely remain unchanged in both projections, indicating relative stability of production potential in current growing regions. Breadfruit, and other tropical indigenous food crops present strong opportunities for cultivation and food security risk management strategies moving forward.

Hawaiian seascapes and landscapes: reconstructing elements of a Polynesian ecological knowledge system

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2019
J POLYNESIAN SOC

Brien Meilleur

PLANT-PARASITIC NEMATODES ASSOCIATED WITH BREADFRUIT, ARTOCARPUS ALTILIS, IN HAWAIʻI http://journals.fcla.edu/nematropica/article/view/107829

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2019
NEMATROPICA

Twenty-five breadfruit plantings on the islands of Kaua'i, Maui, and O'ahu were surveyed for plant-parasitic nematodes. Soil and breadfruit root samples were collected from plantings in residences, parks, schools, botanical gardens, and breadfruit orchards. Soil samples were processed by elutriation and centrifugation for nematode extraction. Roots were subjected to mist chamber extraction for 7 days. Seven different genera of plant-parasitic nematodes (Helicotylenchus, Meloidogyne, Mesocriconema, Paratylenchus, Pratylenchus, Rotylenchulus, and Tylenchorhynchus) and one unidentified taxon in Heteroderidae were found. Helicotylenchus dihystera, Rotylenchulus reniformis, Paratylenchus sp., Pratylenchus coffeae, Meloidogyne spp., and a Heteroderid were found on all islands surveyed. Helicotylenchus dihystera was the most frequent species encountered, occurring at 68% of sites surveyed and was the most widespread plant-parasitic nematode of breadfruit on Kaua'i. On Maui, H. dihystera, R. reniformis, and P. coffeae were found in 40% of the samples collected. Paratylenchus was the most common plant-parasitic nematode to the island of O'ahu and was detected in 86% of the samples. Meloidogyne spp. were found in 43% of breadfruit sites on Oah'u, and 23% and 20% of that on Kaua'i and Maui, respectively, but in low abundance on all islands. Soil samples yielded Mesocriconema at sites on Kaua'i and O'ahu, and Tylenchorhynchus on O'ahu. Plant-parasitic nematodes were absent from 12% of the locations surveyed. An unidentified nematode in the Heteroderidae was detected in samples from each island, all from botanical gardens.