K L
Ken
Love (Hawai
(H
(Hawai‘i
i‘ii – Farmer/Rancher
F
/R
h Grant)
G
t)
Project
j Number: SW07
S
SW07-034
034
Title:
Results:
Based
d on the
h fi
first planting,
l i
the
h following
f ll i is
i recommended
d d for
f Hawaii
ii growers:
Choosing the Best Figs for Hawaii
Principal Investigator:
Ken Love
P O Bo
P.O.
Box 1242
C pt i C
Captain
Cook,
k, HI 96704
(808) 323
323-2417
2417
(808) 323
323-2245
2245
k @
ken@mycoffee
[email protected]
net
Technical Advisor:
Kent Fleming
Extension Specialist
p
University
y of Hawai‘i
Hawai‘i-CES
CES Office
79 7381 Māmalahoa
79-7381
Mā l h H
Hwy.
y
K l k k , HI 96750
Kealakekua,
96750-7911
7911
(808) 989) 3416
(808) 322
322-4895
489
4895
fleming@hawaii edu
[email protected]
SARE Grant: $29,704
$29 704
The pproject
Th
j team hhad
d to choose
h
ffrom
among many varieties of figs for the
H
Hawai‘i
i‘i trials.
i l
Actions:
LSU G
Gold
ld is
i among
g the
h fi
figs
g recommended
d d ffor planting
pl i g iin
Hawai‘ii at all elevations
Hawai
elevations.
Narrowing
g the fig
g choices from the many
y thousands figs
g available entailed a trip
p to
the USDA germplasm
g
p
repository
p
y in Davis,
Davis, California,
California, to sample
p more than 100
figs
figs.
g The
They
y were
ere rated on horticultural
hortic lt ral and culinary
c linary values
al es according
g to USDA and
various
i
university
i
ity standards
t d d as well
ll as information
i f
ti the
th project
p j t team
t
gathered
g th d on
what
h t chefs
h f ppreferred
f
d in
i taste
t t andd texture.
t t
A are amongg the
Ants
h insects
i
that
h
like figs
figs.
Situation:
Hawai i s range of microclimates makes it possible to grow hundreds of different
Hawai‘i’s
crops
crops,
p all with varying
y g degrees
g
of pprofitability
y for farmers.
farmers The project
p j team
learned from a Western SARE Research and Education Grant ((12 Trees Project
Project,
j
SW03 055)) that figs
SW03-055)
g can be 10 times more profitable
p
than the area’s ppopular
p
Kona coffee
coffee,, depending
p
g on ele
elevation,
ation, irrigation
g
and ccultivar.
lti ar
Currentt choices
C
h i
in
i H
Hawai‘i
i‘i are li
limited
it d tto three
th cultivars,
lti
, white
hit kadota,
k d t , black
bl k
mission
i i andd brown
b
turkey.
t k y Having
H i g additional
dditi l cultivars,
lti
, which
hi h pproduce
d
att
diff
different
t times
ti
att different
diff
t elevations,
l ti , would
ld provide
p id farmers
f
with
ith more choices
h i
and
d greater
g t di
diversity.
ity
Th USDA germplasm
The
l
repository
it
att the
th University
U i
it off California
C lif i Davis
D i has
h more
than
h 130 fig
fi varieties
i i iin iits collection.
ll i Thi
This project
j proposes to grow severall off
those
h
varieties,
i i previously
i l unavailable
il bl in
i Hawai
Hawai‘i,
H
i‘ii, to determine
d
i how
h well
ll they
h
perform
f
at diff
different elevations
l
i
and
d environments
i
as well
ll as their
h i ddesirability
i bili
among chefs.
chefs
h f
There are ffour main
Th
i ttypes
yp off fi
figs
g – common,, S
San P
Pedro,
d ,S
Smyrna
y
andd Capri
C p i – some
off which
hi h require
q i a wasp
p ffor ppollination.
lli ti The
Th fi
firstt step
t p was tto fi
figure
g
which
hi h fi
fig
g
vvarieties
ieties would
wouldd bbe pollinated
polli tedd in
i Hawai‘i
H w i‘i without
without a fig
fig wasp
w sp andd w
whether
hethe oother
the
i
insects
found
f
d in
i Hawai
H
Hawai‘i
i‘ii andd not in
i California
C lif i could
ld serve as pollinators.
lli
This
Thi
required
i d growing
i out some off the
h fig
fi trees, which
hi h are ffairly
i l easy to cultivate
li
and
d
grow from
f
plantings,
l i
often
f fruiting
f i i within
i hi a year.
It was ffoundd that
h fi
figs ffrom cuttings
i
off the
h same tree planted
l
d iin diff
different llocations
i
and at different elevations took on totally different characteristics,
characteristics with figs from
cuttings of USDA repository trees fruiting much differently in Hawai
Hawai‘ii, some much
better and some much worse.
worse
As work has progressed,
progressed the project team received fig cuttings from other U
U.S.
S
locations which have been planted as part of the ongoing trials.
locations,
trials
To counter bird and wild chicken predation
predation, Mylar tape,
tape bird deterrents from Japan
and CDs have been hung from trees and protective wraps placed on the figs.
figs
Harvesting must be done every few days to beat the birds to the fruit.
fruit
A problem distinctive to Hawai
Hawai‘ii is VOG,
VOG or volcano emissions
emissions, which appears to
have a detrimental effect on the trees
trees, cutting sunlight and slowing growth
growth.
Another dozen varieties are being considered for inclusion
inclusion.
* Traditionally grown in Hawai
Hawai‘ii
** The
Th fig
fig is
i veryy good,
g d, but
b the
h tree grows
g
slowly
l ly andd produces
p d
poorly
p ly
*** The
Th tree
t produces
p d
well
ll bbutt the
th fig
fig is
i nott as good
g d as in
i California
C lif i
**** The fig is very good with high sugar,
sugar producing better than the parent tree in
California; recent USDA DNA tests show Rattlesnake Island and Capitola are the
same fig
fig.
Objectives:
1.. S
1
Sample
ple and
d rate
te ffor
o hhorticultural
o ticultu l and
d culinary
culi y vvalues
lues fi
figs
gs att the
the USDA
US
ggermplasm
p
repository
p
y in Davis
Davis, CA
2. Obtain and plant suitable varieties in Hawai
2
Hawai‘ii at four locations: Kona Pacific
Farmers Cooperative,
Cooperative University of Hawai
Hawai‘ii Experiment Station,
Station Love Family
F
Farms
and
d GS F
Farms.
3. Assess cultural ppractices
3
practices, ggrowth ppatterns
patterns, water requirements
q
and ppest
susceptibility of the various figs under differing elevations and environments
4 Test various
4.
i
non
non-chemical
chemical
h i l approaches
h to repell bi
birds
d and
d other
h pests
5 Determine
5.
D t
i which
hi h fi
figs
g ggrow bbestt and
d which
hi h are mostt desirable
d i bl amongg chefs
h f
6 Disseminate to ggrowers information about varieties and their cultural needs
6.
• Lower elevations with irrigation:
o
Black
l k Mission
i i
• Low
L to
t mid
id elevations:
l ti
Thi octopus
This
t
hhas bbeen
o
R ttl
Rattlesnake
k IIsland/Capitola****
l d/C pit l ****
effective at scaring
• All elevations:
bi d away ffrom fi
birds
figs.
o
Brown Turkey *
o
White Kadota *
o
UCR 187-25
187 25
o
E l
Excel
o
LSU G
Gold
ld
• Low to mid elevations (still under evaluation at upper elevations):
o
Osbourn Prolific
o
Flanders
o
White Texas
o
Ischi Bl
Ischia
Black
ck **
• Not
N t recommended
d d (l
((lack
k off ppollination
lli ti or pproved
d tto bbe S
San P
Pedro
d ttype):
yp )
o
Early Violet ***
o
Giant Amber
o
Marabout
o
Santa Cruz Dark
o
C li
Calimyrna
o
Zidi
• Not
N t recommended
d d ((p
(poor pperformance
f
att llow elevations)
l ti )
o
White Genoa
• Still being tested:
o
Archipel
o
Masui Dolphin
o
C
Carter
o
P
Panachee
h
o
Beall
o
Bournabat
A comparison
i
off a treet
ripened Excel fig with one
o
UCR 153-17
ripened
i
d commercially.
i ll
o
St. Jean
o
B isso e
Barnissotte
o
Y ll Neches
Yellow
N h
o
Vernino
o
Native de Argentile
o
Monstrueuse
o
UCR 184-15
184 15
o
Violette
i l
dde Bordeaux
d
o
C l de
Col
d Dame
D
The variety
Th
i t UCR 187
187-25,
25 recommended
d d
for all elevations
elevations, is the largest fig
fig.
Fi coveredd in
Figs
i dry-cleaning
d
l i bbags ttestt ffor
the impacts of VOG.
VOG
Potential
i Benefits:
fi
The
h figs
fi have
h
provedd to be
b in
i great demand
d
d by
b chefs
h f around
d the
h state
state, and
d
growers with producing trees are currently unable to meet demand.
demand Part of the
project is to try to balance supply and demand with buyers and collaborators.
collaborators
For more information
information, visit www.hawaiifruit.net/index-figs.html.
www hawaiifruit net/index-figs html