November i, 1883.] 



THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 



3C.? 



COST OF TEA MANUFACTURE: HAND 



AND ^MACHINE MADE. 



The writer who signs " .\ii Old Coffee Stump " (page 

 353) notices the silence of planters in regard to Mr. 

 Northinore's calculations for planting tea amongst 

 coffee, and he attaches a certain significance to the 

 fact. But our experience is that occasionally accid- 

 ent or caprice seems to settle the amount of discus- 

 sion which may occur with regard to even more im- 

 portant matters. For instance, a gentleman whose 

 authority is high in matters affecting tea told us a 

 few days ago that Mr. Armstrong, first, and Mr. 

 Owen foUowuig him, had represented the saving in 

 the preparation of tea by machinery as compared 

 with hand manufacture by a sura wliich really represents 

 the total average cost of the manual process ! He 

 had also spoken to numerous tea planters, not poss- 

 essed of machinery, who all agreed that the average 

 cost of the preparation of tea by them was 

 about 5 or 6 cents per lb., but none cared to ques- 

 tion the sanguine estimates of the tea lecturers show- 

 ing that about an equivalent amount could be saved 

 by the use of machinery ! This is about the most 

 extraordinary case of reticence and the least justifi- 

 able we ever heard of. The question demands dis- 

 cussion and settlement How is the coinp,arison in- 

 stituted ? Is the capital cost of water-wheels, rollers, 

 driers and sifters counted from the first ? H so, of 

 course, the large savhig of cooly labour in rolling, 

 drying and sifting wUl oidy tell after a time, when 

 the machinery has by speedier, more certain, better 

 .and niofc: work " paid itself." That machinery secures 

 lietter and more equal work and saves much cooly 

 labour, night work, danger of burning tea and even 

 stores, is certain. How, therefore, are Messrs Arm- 

 strong and Owen shownr to have erred, in calculat- 

 ing, as the saving by machinery, a sum equal to the 

 full cost of manufacturing "by hand"? Wc " pau-^e 

 for a reply." 



TEA MACHINERY AND TEA MANUFACTURE: 

 THE PLUCKING OF BANGHY BUDS. 

 We should think tliat tea planters will have a 

 unique opportunity at the Calcutta Exhibition of 

 comparing most of the machinery in use, or offered 

 by inventors and engineers for use, in the preparation 

 of tea. Arrangements can probalily be made to ob- 

 lain supplies of tea leaves, kept fresh by means of 

 ice for the trials of the various machines Meantime 

 we are somewhat jiuzzled by a paragraph from the 

 Srotxman referring to macldnei-y constructed by Messrs. 

 Greig & Co., Edinburgh. They have uivented a 

 machine which, if it proves successful, will enable 

 planters to dispense with the large amount of hori- 

 zontal shelf space at present required for the process 

 of '"withering" the green leaves as plucked and 

 brought from the field. We believe we are right in 

 saying that on the proper completion of this proces 

 depends the final quality of the tea, no matter how 

 carefully the subsequent processes of rolling, " fer- 

 menting," firing, sifting and packing may be carried 

 out. Messrs. Greig &' Co. have invented a machine 

 47 



of combined di-um, fans, stove, pipes, iron chambers 



and liot air by means of which "the witlieriug and 

 drying process is carried on equally without firincr 

 the tea." The tea leaves, thus withered and dried, 

 are then placed in a cutting machine, " which cuts 

 the leaves into small square pieces of suitable length 

 to roll up for the market, and very mucli diniiuishes 

 the waste from broken tea and dust." VV hat do ex- 

 perts and brokers s.ay to this process, by which, 

 practically, the whole of the leaf and most of the 

 tips would be converted into ciif tea '! Looking at 

 the persistently higher prices realized by "broken 

 pekoe " over pekoe whicii is not broken, are there 

 not arguments in favour of Messrs. Greig & Co.'s 

 cutting process, especially if it causes a saving in 

 dust, now so trouljlesome a factor in tea preparation ? 

 The withered, dried and cut tea leaves are then 

 placed in bags to he rolled, Imt we see nothing 

 about fermenting and firing ? Perliaps, the tea, after 

 being rolled and fermented, is put bacli into tlie 

 ivithering and drying machine to be finally fired ? 

 The paragraph, however, passes on from the roller to 

 the sifter, for which too much is claimed. By means 

 of trays with different sized meshes, sifting machines 

 can divide tea into any number of sizes, but the 

 final sorting requu'es human intelligence. For in- 

 stance the top sieve in Messrs. Greig & Co.'s 

 machine cannot possiblj' discriminate red leaf from 

 black. What it does is to arrest all leaves beyond 

 the size of its meshes, and so with the succeeding 

 trays. Stalks and red leaf may have to be picked 

 out by hand, even from amongst the pekoe, although, 

 no doubt, in diminishing quantity as the size di- 

 minishes. The use of asbestos, plumbago, or mica pack- 

 ing, so as to dispense with oil. is, no doubt, a great 

 improvement in the case of a substance so delicately 

 sensitive and absorbent as tea. Personally we have 

 never seen tea rolled in bags, and in writing to Mr. 

 Owen about Messrs. Greig & Co 's roller we expressed 

 our fears lest the bags, saturated with the expressed 

 tea juice, should become filthy. and sour. Mr. Owen 

 responded thus : — 



"I used to think bags a drawback, but don't now, 

 after seeing Haworth's bag machine. If washed 

 daily, the bags seem quite clean and free from un- 

 pleasant smell. There is no spilling and no me.ss 

 from a bag roller, so that in some w.ays it is cleaner." 



The paragraph about Messrs. Greig & Co.'s machinery, 

 with intcrcstint; notices of the te.a mfichines from the 

 lndi(jo Planlirs' Oa::ilti; will lie found ou paue ."74 

 In reply to the statement, which we noticed, that 

 the saving represented by Messrs. Armstrong and 

 Owen as arising from the use of machinery was 

 ex.aggerated, Mr. Owen offers tlie following explan- 

 ation : — 



"The mistake your informant {Olixcrrcr, 11th inst ) 

 has fallen into is I think quite plain. Hand manufacture 

 is 10-5 per lb. (rolling &c. G'5, .sortiug &c. 4); machine 

 is 4-l(i (rolling &c. ■«(>, sortmg and j-p/(i m;/. where the 

 saving isper drier, S'.^iO). '5 or G cents per hand manu- 

 facture ' as quoted must exrlmle sifting, refiring and 

 packing, evidently, and hence has arisen his error. 

 The saving in all works by marhiiKry being equi- 

 valent, not to the totul of manual manufacture, but 

 the total cxdudintj the important works sorting, re- 

 firing, packing, coat of chests, lead, &e. , &c. The 

 ■gentleman ol high authority' ought to have been 

 more careful in his statements; as he puts it, the 

 cost of all band manuf;icturing, 6 or 6 cents, his 

 informants mu&t have dispatched their tea unsifted 

 in f.'imny bags ! Mr. Armstrong's figures are for 

 a water-wheel and full macbinery erected as capital 

 expniditure. That provided , the saving in hand-work 

 is 64 cents per lb. roughly or a toial cost of lO.S 

 [not 5 or G cents) against 4 IG" 



