310 



THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 



[October i, 1882, 



Probably the result most generally believed, and 

 most frequently reitemted, as atributable to the 

 so-called denudation of forests, is deficient ruhfall. 

 Whenever a failure in the rainfall hiippens, it is 

 straightway laid to this account ; imd even i-hould it 

 follow upon a period of exces^ive rain (which is left 

 to account for itsi-lf as hest it may) I he felling ot 

 the forests is denounced by almost common consent ! 

 Yet, what a strange inversion of cause and effect, 

 or jumbling of them togetner, is here involved ! 

 Either the forests brin{! the rain, or the rain brings 

 the forests. Which is it ? If rain preci-ded the forests 

 then it needs them not. We mayiut them down. 

 Rain came at tirst without their invitation, and can 

 remain without their aid. But, if the forests pre- 

 ceded the rain, and drew the reluctant waters from the 

 firmament, then the forests originally grew without the 

 heaven-born element, which fell sitperflaous, a puzzle 

 to manliiiid. In this connexion ii might be asked what 

 has brought us this year's ceaseless downpour ? If the 

 fore.-ts have anything to do with it, there would 

 seem to be ttill enough left (f them, and to spare. 



But the question for u» in this discussion is to ascert- 

 ain whetlier denuiatiun (improperly so-eallfd) of the 

 forests can in any way have contributed to the 

 infertility of wbich we are seekins the origin. 



There is certainly no evidence afforded by our ex- 

 perience in this i'land. that the conversion of the 

 forests to the cultivation of useful productB has been 

 injurious either to the health of man or the growth 

 of vegetation. So far as our knowlpdge avails us, 

 the replenishing of the land, with fruit-bearing, use- 

 ful vet(etation in place of that which was useless 

 and malarious has proved an unmitigated ble.ssin;;. 

 Theorists may speculate upon consequences of their own 

 imagining ; but the facts of our knowledge, the evid 

 ence of our experience is ihat here, as elsewhere, 

 man has done well to subdue and replenish the 

 earth. If any injurinus consequences have followed 

 the progress of this work, it is more reasonable to 

 a'tribute it to the unwitting breach of some law we 

 have failed to recognize, than to indulge in specul. 

 dtions that impugn the wisdmi and goodness of (iod- 

 Wlien the Israelites to k posS' ssion of the promised 

 land, aud neglected to tirst .niv< out tlie Cauaiinites 

 they suffeied bitterly for tlieir disobedience of that 

 part of the divine commanr'. In like manner, we 

 may sufT' r if, in obiying one law, we oveilook an- 

 other. If, therefore, it could he provtd that we have 

 suffered by clearinir so much forest, it would behov- 

 us rather to search for laws we may have b'oken. thnu 

 to assume tliat our misf rtune is due to our having 

 obeyed the dictates of the reason and oidinanc- of 

 God. In fact, the whole aim of our di-cu*8in:i what 

 ails our coffee trees is to dispel the illusions and 

 speculations which have so long diverted our attention, 

 and stood between us and the truth regnrdini; the orii;in 

 of our misfortune. Instead of resting satisfied with 

 Bpeculativu causes, which prove, on examination, to 

 be wholly irrelevant, or utterly insufficient, we should 

 boldly cast them aside, and clear the way for efforts 

 of a more logical and practical nature. 



Already, in discussing "abnormal seasons," it has 

 been shown that whatever may have been of abnormal 

 character in the seasons of the last decade, there 

 is no correspondence between the phenomena of in- 

 fertility aud those of season. We need not therefore 

 further discuss the question of fore t clearing in it' 

 supposed relation to the seasons. Since the letter 

 on that subject wis published some valuable con- 

 tributions in regard to season huve appeared, I hese 

 will be reviewed hereafiei-, when this correspondence 

 closes. In the meantime, it may be pointed out that 

 evidence which would prove a change of seasons for 

 20 yeasr past has no relation to results exclusively 

 confined to the last ten 1 



The only practical and reliable test which our 

 pest experience affords ua the means of applying in 

 order to determine tlie actual effect the felling of our 

 forests may have had on the loss of the fruit-bear- 

 ina power of our coffee trees seems to me to be, by 

 referring to those estatfs, or groups of estates ot 

 which some yet remain, where the surrounding in- 

 digenous jungle continues almost intact Whatever ill 

 results overclearance may be capable of producing, 

 its effects should be minimized if not wholly absent, 

 in the estates so situated. Looking, then, to these 

 outliers, far removed from extensive forest "denud- 

 ation," and still enjoying whatever advantage the proxim- 

 ity of predominant forest may possess, do we find 

 tbcm exempt from the evil of infertility, either wholly 

 or in any apjjreciable degree ? Or have they shared to 

 its full extent the common misfortune? The answer 

 is conclusive. Neither the numerous small plots of 

 native coffee, which are eaibedded in overwhelming 

 tracts of larger growth, nor yet the more extensive 

 fields of cultivated coffee, which are still surrounded 

 by in dis^enous jungles, afford any evidence in favour 

 of the idea, that the evil we deplore, either origin- 

 ated by, or has any direct relation to, the felling of 

 our forests. Possibly the extensive and sweeping 

 clearance of jungle in the young districts may have 

 favoured, or even originated, the attacks of r)rub, from 

 which they have suffered so much ; but it is no part 

 of our task to trace the origin of grub, as it has been 

 shown to have no relevimcy to our discussion. 

 SufBcient is it for our purpose to show thai the 

 clearance of our forests, whether directly by its own 

 influence, or indirectly ohrough its supposed effect on 

 season, cannot have originated the universal loss of 

 fruit-bearing power of our coffee trees. Our misfort- 

 uu'j neither synchronizes with such clearance of for- 

 est, nor has any recognizable relation therewith, 

 either direct or consequential. W. 



COFFEE-PLANTING IN THE BAMBOO DIS- 

 TRICTS OF COORG. 



Amatty, Coorg, 7th Aug. 1882. 

 De.\k Sik, — In my letter of 29th June, which you 

 were good enough to publish, and also to notice 

 editorially, I regret that there was one paragraph — 

 beginning, " In the bamboo districts," &c. — whicy 

 hardly expresses what was meant. I intended to sail 

 that, notwithstanding the great drawbacks caused by 

 the dry climate of the bamboo districts, planters 

 preferred casting in thc'r lot in them. But, finding 

 from experience that coffee cultivation w-ould not 

 pay without having it gro^vn under sliade, this was 

 made a sine qua non, aud hence shading was studied 

 closely and treated with great attention. It was 

 found easier to grow the suitable shade in the bamboo 

 districts than in the forest. Consequently land in the 

 foiTuer went up in value, while, in the latter, the 

 demand ceased altogether. Another slight mistake 

 I notice, too; instead of a considerable srries. of ex- 

 perience, &o., please read period. — Yours faithfully, 

 A BAMBOO PLANTER. 



CAPT. COX'S WYNAAD LEDGERS. 



Cherambadi, Aug. 17th, 1882. 

 De,\k Sir, — I must apologize for not sooner giving 

 you the information asked for in your footnote to 

 my letter of the 10th ultimo, regarding the age of 

 the trees, bark analyses of which I sent you. .Six 

 of them were planted in the field in 1874, thus 

 making them eight years old now. The remaining 

 one, No. 6, yielduig 7 '20 crys. sul. quinine, (j a 

 six-year old tree. At the same age, it may shew 

 as good results as the others. — Yours faithfully, 



PERCY GUARD, 



