73° 



THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 



[March i, 1883. 



most effectively. True, more time was consumed, but 

 this ought to be of couiparatively less impoitanoe to 

 producing a thoroughly good article. In these days 

 of keen competition in the London market, it is 

 considered innjerative that the cost of productinu shall 

 be reduced to the lowest point, and hence, under the 

 spur of necessity, certain machinery has been invented, 

 and on accouut of the labour-saviny properties of this 

 machinery, it is iu use in most large factories. Where 

 the apparatus is contiued to rolling or to withering 

 green leaf, we are couviuc d that the employment of 

 niaohincry is advantageous, iilthough we prefer hand- 

 rolled tea, but when it is brought into the service of 

 performing the finishing tiring, we enter our protest. 

 There is a point beyond which we do not think it 

 good economy to go, iu the use of machinery. The 

 great advantages accuring from the use of drying 

 machinery are many, but, are entirely cnntined t > the 

 quantity of work performed. When it comes to be 

 a question of quality, we luok on the old dholes as 

 immeasurably superioi-. We are prepared to hear 

 that it would be practically impossible, to have 

 sufficient space in . which to fire off the immense 

 quantities now produced on some gardens, but if we 

 are to retain our good name for the keeping quali- 

 ties of our teas, we must iind the space and the 

 necessury apparatus somehow. We consider the di v"'!,' 

 machines do their work t"o quickly, and while the 

 tea so dried has all the appearance of being thoroughly 

 finished, there does not exist any doubt iu our mind, 

 that for all thai:, it is not dried as it ought to be. 

 The piocesa is got through so rapidly, that the in- 

 sensible moisture in the interior of the rolled leaf 

 is not properly exhausted, and this we conceive is 

 the principal cause of Indian tea not keeping. In 

 an early number of this juuroal, we referred to the 

 well-kuown instance of a small lot of tea having 

 been entirely overlooked in Darjeeling, and which, 

 after several years, during which time it had been 

 unoared for in a gudiwn, was found to have improved 

 so much in quality, that a marvellous amount of 

 competition was induced when it was oftei'ed for sale. 

 Such a thing would be an impossibility with machine- 

 dried tea. We all know that if a thoroughly crisp 

 toast be wanted, the bread mui;t be toast d slowly 

 and gradually, and that we can have one made ia 

 half the time by holding it close the fire: the latter, 

 however, not being crisp throughout, although to all 

 appearance it may b; so. The necessary apparatus 

 for dholf drying is not costly, but the space required 

 is extensive. We consider, however, that the cost 

 of extra tiiing-roome would l.>e more than recovered 

 from the increased value of the tea in the first year. 

 We are not arguing against change, and recommend- 

 ing a return to the old system, bec.iuse it is the 

 old system, but because we meconvinced it is absidutely 

 necessary, to prevent us losing the ground iu the 

 United Kingdom which we have had so much trouble 

 iu building up — Indijjo Planters' Gazette 



DIVI-DIVI IN INDIA. 



TO THE EDITOR FRIEND OF INDIA AND STATESMAN. 



Sir, — Some seven mouths ago, the 'Statesman published a 

 few observations — reproduced iu the Indian Agr'tcidturist 

 of the 1st July last — regarding Divi-divi. Seedlings were 

 recommended to be planted ICi feet apart each w.ay, giviner 

 therefore 170 trees to an acre. After seven years an average 

 production of -) tons per acre of a probable nett value of 

 K350 was coniideutly promised, and even an outturn of 

 10 tons was Ukely not to be uncommon. 



As previously to tlie ai>pearance of those observations, I 

 had seen instructions from a very higli atithority, directing 

 that I'ivi-divi trees be planted 6 feet apart each way, so 

 as to give 1,210 trees to an acre, which tliemselves would 

 proh.ably yieltl from 1 to 3 tons, I cut out the observations 

 in the StiiteinMii, and sent them, through an official channel, 



to the gentleman who had issued the instructions just 

 mentioned. He courteously answered as follows; — 



" 2. Without better certified information in connection 

 with the plantations to which the Statesman article refers 

 it would be useless attempting to reconcile the discrepancies 

 between this and the notes I sent to you. They are, as 

 you observe, very considerable, but the article conflicts even 

 more severely with many natural facts, from which it appears 

 certain that the writer has not had the advantage of a 

 practical acquaintance with the subject." 



"3. Taking the article as it comes, we see that the 

 writer in the first place finds fault with the ' Madras con- 

 temporary' for speakiug of the Tamarind am! Divi-divi 3lS 

 being somewhat like each other. He says they bear no 

 resemblance whatever ' except in the form of the leaf,' but 

 that the Divi-divi and the common babool are barely dis- 

 tinguishable. 



" 4. In all this the Madras author is right, and his critic 

 wrong. From the sample of Divi-divi sent under separate 

 cover you will see that tamarind is not at all unhke it 

 while the above prints show the leaves to be altogether, 

 dissimilar. 



"5. The Divi-dim leaf is large and unequally hipinnate. 

 while that of the tamarind is only pinnate or ouce di\ided. 

 The babool, like the Diti-divi, has a hipinnate leaf, but is 

 e(juallt/ or abriiptli/ pinnated, the leaflets having very littJe 

 blade. The three trees under comparison are uo more like 

 each other iu general appearance than are most other mem- 

 bers of the same family and tribe, and could never be con- 

 founded on careful examination. 



**6. The article states that cattle do not eat the Divi-divi; 

 but, as a fact, they are particularly fond of it, so also are 

 sheep, and I notice that my shepherds systematically carry 

 all the suckers and other prunings into the folds as fodder 

 for the flocks. 



"7. The tree is described as very small when young, but 

 under cultivation it grows into a fine big tree. One in the 

 Collector's garden at Dharwar measures about 4 feet round 

 the trunk and covers a eonsideracle area. 



"8. Having had a good deal to do with the propag.ation 

 and distribution of this plant, I think it is certain I should 

 have heard before of the extensive and systematically 

 worked plantations spoken of iu this article had they existed, 

 audit Hen tons is not an uncommon outturn' the article 

 necessarily occupies a position either in the export 

 or local market, which is not the case so far as I am 

 aware. 



"9. On the whole I am incUued to believe that the 

 writer is coufusiug tiie Divi-divi with some other kind of 

 tree. If, however, his facts are as genuine as they pretend 

 to be, his statements are entitled to much respect; for 

 my own part I should hesitate quoting such figures as an 

 inducement to planters; mech mischief and disappoint- 

 ment is continually being caused iu connection with almost 

 every new industry by the rash representations of enthusiasts 

 that it becomes a duty of experimental institutions in 

 summing up the results of tentative trials, to under ra- 

 ther than ort^r-estimate wherever actual ones cannot be 

 obtained." 



Divi-divi plants being naturally semi-procumbent for a 

 number of years, the same high authority, recommended 

 that they should be planted in threes, to admit of their 

 being plaited together to form one suitable trunk. 1,210 

 groups of 3 plants each would therefore give 3,630 trees 

 to an acre. Supposing that grouping served only to keep 

 trees .straight, and that the yield of a group ultimately be 

 not more than that of a fully grown isolated tree, still, 

 the observation in the Statesman really referred to Divi-divi. 

 The exact number of seedlings to be planted on an acre 

 remains unsettled. A distance of 6 feet each way between 

 them seems hardly sufficient for trees said to attain a 

 height of 30 feet and a trunk-diameter of about 16 inches. 

 On the other hand, if 3 tons be a probable average yield 

 per acre, it looks easier fur 1,210 trees than for 170 to 

 give 6,7201b weight of dry pods. With the first number, 

 the yield of each tree would require to be 5Jlb only; 

 with the second, as much as 39^. 



Which is it? The question is an important oue. A 

 very few who had embarked in such a kind of cultivation, 

 and found out after seveu years they had gone the wrong 

 way to it, would be able to begin again. 



Britisu Bubmah. 



