HAWAIIAN SUGAR CANE RAT CONTROL METHODS AND PROBLEMS

The problem of rats in our Hawaiian sugar cane fields has been with us for a long time. Early records tell of heavy damage at various times on all the islands where sugar cane is grown. Many methods were tried to control these rats. Trapping was once used as a control measure, a bounty was used for a time, gangs of dogs were trained to catch the rats as the cane was harvested. Many kinds of baits and poisons were used. All of these methods were of some value as long as labor was cheap. Our present day problem started when the labor costs started up and the sugar industry shifted to long cropping. Until World War II cane was an annual crop. After the war it was shifted to a two year crop, three years in some places. Depending on variety, location, and soil we raise 90 to 130 tons of sugar cane per acre, which produces 7 to 15 tons of sugar per acre for a two year crop. This sugar brings about $135 dollars per ton. This tonnage of cane is a thick tangle of vegetation. The cane grows erect for almost a year, as it continues to grow it bends over at the base. This allows the stalk to rest on the ground or on other stalks of cane as it continues to grow. These stalks form a tangled mat of stalks and dead leaves that may be two feet thick at the time of harvest. At the same time the leafy growing portion of the stalk will be sticking up out of the mat of cane ten feet in the air. Some of these individual stalks may be 30 feet long and still growing at the time of harvest. All this makes it very hard to get through a cane field as it is one long, prolonged stumble over and through the cane. It is in this mat of cane that our three species of rats live. Two species are familiar to most people in the pest control field. Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus. In the latter species we include both the black rat and the alexandrine rats, their habits seem to be the same in Hawaii. Our third rat is the Polynesian rat, Rattus exlans, locally called the Hawaiian rat. This is a small rat, the average length head to tip of tail is nine inches and the average body weight is 65 grams. It has dark brownish fur like the alexandrine rats, and a grey belly. It is found in Indonesia, on most of the islands of Oceania and in New Zealand. All three rats live in our cane fields and the brushy and forested portions of our islands. The norway and alexandrine rats are found in and around the villages and farms, the Polynesian rat is only found in the fields and waste areas. The actual amount of damage done by rats is small, but destruction they cause is large. The rats gnaw through the rind of the cane stalk and eat the soft juicy and sweet tissues inside. They will hollow out one to several nodes per stalk attacked. The effect to the cane stalk is like ringing a tree. After this attack the stalk above the chewed portion usually dies, and sometimes the lower portion too. If the rat does not eat through the stalk the cane stalk could go on living and producing sugar at a reduced rate. Generally an injured stalk does not last long. Disease and souring organisms get in the injury and kill the stalk. And if this isn't enough, some insects are attracted to the injured stalk and will sometimes bore in and kill it. An injured stalk of cane doesn't have much of a chance. A rat may only gnaw out six inches of a 30 foot stalk and the whole stalk will die. If the rat only destroyed what he ate we could ignore them but they cause the death of too much cane. This dead, dying, and souring cane cause several direct and indirect tosses. First we lose the sugar that the cane would have produced. We harvest all of our cane mechanically so we haul the dead and souring cane to the mill where we have to grind it with our good cane and the bad cane reduces the purity of the sugar juices we squeeze from the cane. Rats reduce our income and run up our overhead.

Pissing Glass and the Body Crass: Adaptations of the Scatological in Théophile

Examination of scatological motifs in Théophile de Viau’s (1590-1626) libertine, or ‘cabaret’ poetry is important in terms of how the scatological contributes to the depiction of the Early Modern body in the French lyric.1 This essay does not examine Théophile’s portrait of the body strictly in terms of the ‘Baroque’ or the ‘neo-Classical.’ Rather, it argues that the scatological context in which he situates the body (either his, or those of others), reflects a keen sensibility of the body representative of the transition between these two eras. Théophile reinforces what Bernard Beugnot terms the body’s inherent ‘eloquence’ (17), or what Patrick Dandrey describes as an innate ‘textuality’ in what the body ‘writes’ (31), and how it discloses meaning. The poet’s scatological lyric, much of which was published in the Pamasse Satyrique of 1622, projects a different view of the body’s ‘eloquence’ by depicting a certain realism and honesty about the body as well as the pleasure and suffering it experiences. This Baroque realism, which derives from a sense of the grotesque and the salacious, finds itself in conflict with the Classical body which is frequently characterized as elegant, adorned, and ‘domesticated’ (Beugnot 25). Théophile’s private body is completely exposed, and, unlike the public body of the court, does not rely on masking and pretension to define itself. Mitchell Greenberg contends that the body in late sixteenth-century and early seventeenth-century French literature is often depicted in a chaotic manner because, ‘the French body politic was rent by tumultuous religious and social upheavals’ (62).2 While one could argue that Théophile’s portraits of a syphilis-ridden narrators are more a reflection of his personal agony rather than that of France as a whole, what emerges in Théophile is an emphasis on the movement, if not decomposition of the body.3 Given Théophile’s public persona and the satirical dimension of his work, it is difficult to imagine that the degeneration he portrays is limited only to his individual experience. On a collective level, Théophile reflects what Greenberg calls ‘a continued, if skewed apprehension of the world in both its physical and metaphysical dimensions’(62–3) typical of the era. To a large extent, the body Théophile depicts is a scatological body, one whose deterioration takes the form of waste, disease, and evacuation as represented in both the private and public domain. Of course, one could cast aside any serious reading of Théophile’s libertine verse, and virtually all of scatological literature for that matter, as an immature indulgence in the prurient. Nonetheless, it was for his dissolute behavior and his scatological poetry that Théophile was imprisoned and condemned to death. Consequently, this part of his work merits serious consideration in terms of the personal and poetic (if not occasionally political) statement it represents. With the exception of Claire Gaudiani’s outstanding critical edition of Théophile’s cabaret lyric, there exist no extensive studies of the poet’s libertine œuvre.4 Clearly however, these poems should be taken seriously with respect to their philosophical and aesthetic import. As a consequence, the objective becomes that of enhancing the reader’s understanding of the lyric contexts in which Théophile’s scatological offerings situate themselves. Structurally, the reader sees how the poet’s libertine ceuvre is just that — an integrated work in which the various components correspond to one another to set forth a number of approaches from which the texts are to be read. These points of view are not always consistent, and Théophile cannot be thought of as writing in a sequential manner along the lines of devotional Baroque poets such as Jean de La Ceppède and Jean de Sponde. However, there is a tendency not to read these poems in their vulgar totality, and to overlook the formal and substantive unity in this category of Théophile’s work. The poet’s resistance to poetic and cultural standards takes a profane, if not pornographic form because it seeks to disgust and arouse while denigrating the self, the lyric other, and the reader. Théophile’s pornography makes no distinction between the erotic and scatological. The poet conflates sex and shit because they present a double form of protest to artistic and social decency while titillating and attacking the reader’s sensibilities. Examination of the repugnant gives way to a cathartic experience which yields an understanding of, if not ironic delight in, one’s own filthy nature.