July i, 1884.] 



THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST, 



69 



-♦--- 



To the Editor of the Ceylon Observer. 

 QUESTIONS ON VEGETABLE LIFE. 

 23rd May 1884. 



Deak Sir, — Will you kindly allow me to make use 

 of your widely-read paper to obtain answers to several 

 questions that have lately been puzzling me? 



1. Ground-nuts. — How are the pods formed under- 

 ground? I h>ive several of these plants which I have 

 been carefully watching day by day, marking each bios- 

 Bom as it appears and dies off. None of these blos- 

 soms appear to leave any seed-vessel ; both flower and 

 flov\er stalk wither away : but after a few days, from 

 the same joint from which the flower sprung appears 

 a small white or reddish point, which grows in length 

 and has the appearance of an aerial rootlet. This 

 root (or fruit-stalk ?) is armed with a hard sheath 

 and pushos its way into the soil. I have frequently 

 examined it in section, with a pocket lens, but can 

 find no sign of an embryo seed or structure of fruit. 

 Yet it is on these underground stalks that the fruit 

 afterwards appears. 



2. Pineapples. — What is the reason that the core 

 of my pineapples frequently splits from the base to 

 about the centre where the fissure enlarges laterally 

 and is filled with a watery fluid ? I used to blame 

 the excessive rain, but the recent three months' drought 

 has in no wise remedied the evil, although the plants 

 themselves were almost dried up. Have either wine 

 or sugar ever been manufactured from the juice of the 

 pineapple? ["Pineapple rum" is famous. — Ed.] 



3. How may white-ants be destroyed in a flower 

 and vegetable garden ? They find their way to the 

 roots of any plants that take their fancy, and eat off 

 the tender bark or the stock and rootlets, soon kill- 

 ing the plant. I find them particularly partial to plants 

 of the potato family — also sunflower (Helianthus) and 

 everlastings (Heliehrysum), I have tried phenyle oil 

 with little success as it does not appear to kUl the 

 ants but is fatal to the plants, although used as 

 per directions on the bottle. I no. ice that several of 

 the large species of the true ants prey upon the term- 

 ites whenever they find them in the open. — Yours 

 truly, AMATEUR. 



BEES AND THE COFFEE BLOSSOM. 



Uva, 26th May 1884. 



Dear Sir, — The absence of bees during the coffee- 

 blossoming seasons has been commented upon for 

 some years past. I observe that they have come 

 back in force this season, and would be glad to 

 know if this has been the case in other districts ? 

 Can it be that the seasons are changing or is it that 

 tlie bees are now finding their accustomed food ? — 

 Yours truly, MORE LIGHT. 



[Worthy of "Swaddy" 's attention. — Ed.] 



ClliCHoiA HARVESTING. 



27th May 1884. 

 Dear Sir ■ — I venture to offer a few remarks on 

 this subject, consequent on my reading the report 

 of the sub-committee on cinchona, appointed by the 

 Dimbula P. A. I must begin by requesting your 

 readers not to consider the tables given below as what 

 cinchona may yield per acre, but solely as a means 

 of comparing the merits of the shaving ami coppicing 

 processes. It is necessary for this purpose to explain 

 first that I make the following assumptions : — I begin 

 with 1,200 trees (not an acre or acres) and I assume that 

 they will die oil' 111 about the prop rtions given (I need 

 not say that in unsuitable laud and climate the pro- 

 portions will be much greater) ; that the original leak 

 analyses 1 80 sulphate of quinine and the renewed gives 



350 per cent ; that the cost of harvesting, covering 

 and delivering is 12 cents per dry lb., and the price 

 per unit stands at 25 cents. Further, I assuoie that 

 succirubra is the tree planted. 



Table A. — Shaving. 



op fl a 



a o " 



a" 5 £ « 



a -a &'3 



3- £> 



It must be evident that the most important point is 

 the quantity of quinine produced in a given time, as 

 upon that hangs the value of the bark. From table 

 A it may be seen that at the end of the tenth year 

 100 97 lb. of quinine is obtained (in the bark) costing 

 about R3'62. From table B (deducting branch bark), 

 10-45 lb. quinine is got, costing about R3'58, while 

 each table shows a Belling price of almost exactly R25 

 per lb. quinine (in the bark). Therefore, cmterin paribus, 

 the system adopted in B is more remunerative than 

 that adopted in A, but very slightly so, and I think 

 that if the branch and original bark to wh'ch atten- 

 tion is called in the remarks column were added there 

 would scarcely be any difference between the two 

 systems in point of profits. Turning to table C, we 

 see that 82-59 lb. quinine (in the bark) is obtained at 

 a cost (deducting branch' bark) of P.3'22 per lb., while 

 the sale price (deducting branch) shows R25 per lb., 

 so that, cateris paribus, this shows a better return 

 during the ten years than the system adopted either 

 in A or B. 



If, again, the cost of harvesting &c. be deducted 

 from the sale proceeds, table A, at the end of the 

 tenth year shows a profit of... R2,160'89 



table B R2.250-73 



table C Rl.807-04 



rt To this should be added the value of branch bark from an- 

 nual prunings, say U75 profit, as \> ell us for some origioal !>ark, 

 as the trees are shaved gr;ulually higher and higher, say R250. 

 Hark (mm dying trees omitted. 



6 Costing 8 cents to harvest, as there is no covering this inn.-: 

 branch 6 cents. 



r Costing 8e as there is do covering; branoh at 6c cost, and 



,/ Cost 8c as th»re is no covering ; branch at 6c, and 76 sale. 



