1920.] THE TRINIDAD CANE FARMING INDUSTRY. 5 



A notable atlvance since 1916 has been the sliding scale introducecl by 

 the Ste. IMadeleine Company and more general action on similar lines 

 would go far to remove the danger of possible friction later when affairs 

 are not so prosperous for all concerned as they are now. 



SECUKITY OF TENURE. 



Cane farmers are either proprietors or tenants, the latter mainly, I 

 think, annual tenants, usually undisturbed but with no actual guarantee 

 of continued possession. The former are safe, but the tenants are not 

 in a good agricultural position. Farmers are advised, and good would 

 result if they followed the advice, to practise rotation of crops, e.g. 

 ground provisions, beans and peas, young canes, plants, 1st, 2nd, and 

 3rd ratoons as shown on the demonstration plots of the Ste. Madeleine 

 Company, at Union Hall, Cedar Hill and Petit Morne estates. For this 

 more than an annual tenancy is desirable. I suggest for consideration 

 the encouragement of men who can take iip 10, 20, 50 or even 100 acres, 

 on leases of say at least 10 years with option of renewal at an agreed 

 figure. With larger holdings and greater security of tenure it would be 

 possible to effect many improvements which are now impossible. 



The farmer given such a lease should on his part agree to cultivate a 

 definite area of the land in canes, and to sell them to the estate from 

 which he holds the land on a sliding scale, based on division of proceeds 

 or other agreed system. He should be encouraged to feel that he is a 

 partner in the estate, and directly interested in the results it obtains. 

 If he grows more and better canes both he and the estate will make 

 more profit. 



Possibly the estates could lay out these holdings in definite blocks, 

 so that it would be possible to improve methods of transport, and save 

 much of the present appalling waste of time and labour of some districts, 

 also to get these blocks reaped on a pre-arranged plan and so better 

 regulate the delivery of canes to the factory, another constantly recur- 

 ring source of trouble and loss. With diviirion of proceeds it will be to the 

 farmers' interest to prevent any cause of loss to the estate, because part 

 of the loss also falls on him. 



IMPROVEMENT IN QUALITY OF FARMERS' CANES. 



With the small areas cultivated by our farmers improvement in 

 -quality is a very ditficult matter, as it is impracticable to buy on sugar 

 • content, as is done in some countries. The factory can, as at present 

 refuse certain notoriously poor canes. It might also be practicable to fix 

 the ordinary price based on division of proceeds, on the average farmers 

 canes, and to give a bonus per ton on superior canes when grown on a 

 sufficiently large scale to make such a course possible. The trouble 

 that payment for quality is impracticable because the individual farmers' 

 canes are so small in amount can, I suggest, best be remedied by the 

 means already indicated for the improvement of transport and better 

 organisation for delivery, namely the encouragement of cane farming 

 on a large scale. There must be an incentive to the farmer to produce 

 better canes, or why should he trouble to do so ? 



IMPROVEMENT IN FARMERS' YIELD. 

 So far my suggestions as to improvements have been mainly addressed 

 to the estates. In the matter of quantity of canes, yield per acre, the 

 burden lies on the farmer. 



