November 



[882.] 



THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 



379 



To the Editor of the Ceylon Observer. 

 PEELING CINCHONA BARK. 



September 12th, I8S2. 

 Dear Sir, — Now that Mr. Gore's ciuchou.t peeler 

 is being u.secl to a considerable extent, would some 

 of your readers who have bad it in use give the 

 public the benefit of their experience, with regard to 

 the quantity harvested per diem, by each cooly, or, 

 that is to saj', the number of pounds in all, that, say, 

 10 coolies could collect : some carrying the boughs, 

 etc. to the machine, and the rest peeling? — Your.s faith- 

 fully, KANIK. 



WHAT AILS OUR COFFEE TREES? 



September 5th, 1882. 

 Dear Sir, — In attempting to ascertain the reason of 

 the unproductiveness of coffee in Ceylon, apart from 

 leaf-disease, a writer, under the nom de plume of " W.," 

 leads us into a wide field of speculation. These specul- 

 ations have given rise to criticisms by several writers, 

 among which criticisms is a leader by your able pen, 

 guided by a miud stored with experience even greater 

 than that of "W." himself. [Not in regard to the 

 cultivcition of coffee ! — Ed.] 



The importance of the subject, I trust, will be a 

 suffioieut excuse for my apparent prepumption in enter- 

 ing the lists with such champions. When we consider 

 the issue at stake — when we consider that the cultiv- 

 ation or abaud' nnient of 250,000 acres (see your note 

 to my former letter) is to be eventually decided by the 

 continuance or disappearance of causes prejudici.tllj' 

 fatal — 1 think that it will be admitted that the subject 

 should receive full ventilation. In groping about for 

 "occult" or "inscrutable" causes, would it not be wise 

 to compare our coffee, not with other products, but with 

 the same product in other countries? Is it not a fact 

 that, wherever Hcmileia does not exist, as in the case 

 of Brazil, these other inscrutable evils do not a])pear 

 or have not the same effect, while we find that 

 short crops invariably and inevitably result from the 

 ravages of leaf- disease? 



I will go over " \V."'s line of argument. He begins 

 in his first letter thus : — "First: Because HemVeia was 

 hardly known or generally observed in 1871, when 

 the first general disaster to our crops occurred, there is 

 clear proof that adverse conditions had previously set 

 in, and that the fruit-bearing powers of our oi>ttee- 

 trees were already seriously impaired before HcmUeia 

 could have had any material or general influence." 

 In reply, I would say that, as it is admitted that the 

 disease appeared palpably in 1869 (Nietner, a careful 

 observer, had been familiar with it many years pre- 

 viously), it is but natural to suppose that its insidious 

 effects were felt by the coffee before it had reached a 

 very marked stage, or before its effects h.ad generally 

 attracted attention. I agree with "VV." as to the ad- 

 verse conditions existing previously to 1S71, but I 

 maintain that these were owing to leaf-disease. Put 

 a healthy man into a malarious district, and observe 

 the way the disease gradually saps his strength. He 

 may take more nourishing food, or even stimulants, 

 as he secretly feels the climate tell on him ; but slowly 

 and surely will the effects increase, even before his 

 outward appearance or bis general powers are much 

 affected. Would it be profitable to go groping wildly 

 as to why malaria should have that effect on man, as 

 to what other reasons could have been at work, when 

 doctors tell us that malaria is prejudicial to life and 

 health ? 



" Second ; Because the crop of 1876, one of the largest 

 of the decade, occurred when leaf-disease was said to 



have attained its utmost force, therefore it !.« proved 

 without doubt that there is a want of that sympathy 

 between the ravages of the pest and the unfruitfulness 

 of our cofFee-trees, which would necessarily exist 

 between cause and effect." Sol'tly. Make sure of 

 your premises first before misleading others by 

 twisted statements. In 1875, in the month of June, 

 you wrote "that, with a few exceptions, ieaf.disease 

 bas almost entirely disappeared, or has ceased to be 



a source of anxiety to the planter." Again you say: 



"There is every prospect in the .splendid appearance 

 of plantations all over the country of a succession 

 of good average ciopa to make amends f r paot defici- 

 encies The appearance in wocd and vegetation 



for next year is all that could be desired." "Where 

 does the point of the argument fit in as to sympathy 

 between the disease and short crops in the way of 

 cause and effect ? Then we find that in 1875 double 

 the amount of manure was cairied by the railway 

 than in 1871. W'ould that not infiuence matters? 

 We also find the rainfall more fairlv distributed ; 

 the dry districts getting more and the wet less. 

 Would that modify the virulence of the disease for 

 the time being? According to Ward, we have reason to 

 believe so. Then, because leaf-disease was very severely 

 felt in 1876, does that prove that the previous 

 mild attack had nothing to do with the big crop? 

 Because ihe man in the malarious district has over- 

 exerted himself, after feeling stronger cm account of 

 the season modifying the evil effects of malaria, and 

 bas a relap.«e of weakness in consequence, is it ab- 

 surd to believe that the malaria will not have a 

 greater effict on his weakened body or that it ar- 

 gues that malaria is not the immediate cause of 

 his illness ? Another reason for the large total of 

 crop in 1876 Would be that the larjie area of coffee 

 having ju.st come into hearing took advantage of the 

 fiivourable season to bear well and thus swelled the 

 total. 



"Third: Because coffee has not been the only pro- 

 duct in the island, or even in the world, to suffer, 

 therefore some wicir influence than that of Hemileia 

 has been in operation, not in Ceylon only, but over the 

 whole world." Is that not straining at a gnat and 

 swallowing a camel ? Leaf-disease, being purely a local 

 instead of a constitutional disease, caused direct 

 damage by loss of leaves, and indirect damage by 

 diminished crops, which again breeds fresh damage, 

 such as hampered operations in cull ivatiou and super- 

 intendence, absolutely necessary to make up for former 

 heavy cropping as well as to fight the constantly 

 recurring attacks of Htmildn ; till we are inclined 

 like "\V." to grope half-stunned for occult reasons. 

 Why roam abroad over the continent of India, why 

 fly with wings of fancy to the celestial kingdoms of 

 China, or w.nnder from Europe to the far west? 

 Verily this is swallowing the camel ; and what about 

 the gnat? Dr. Trinien. tells us what the gnat is. He 

 says: — "Cleared of many erroneous observations and 

 inferences, the ordinary life-history is now shown to 

 be of extreme simplicity." Ihe disease is simple ; but 

 the trouble arises when we come to its elTects and 

 its cure. Let me inform " W." that he will never hit 

 it off by referring to the agricultural history of the 

 globe, any more than the malariously affected man 

 will do himself any good by studying the Materia 

 Mcdica. 



•' Fourth. Because something affecting the fruit-bear- 

 ing power and stamina of our coffee trees had pre- 

 ceded and invited theattack of Hemileia is clearly 

 evidenced ; therefore it must be this som-ethine/ and 

 not Hemileia \hsit is the crtHse of infertility, and Hemi- 

 leia, being a fungus, preys upon coffee as a decaying 

 organism." Now it is not fair in .argument to make 

 use of, as a settled point, what has been brought for- 

 ward at an earlier stage on the same side, I think that 



