Septembei; 1, 1911.] 



THE INDIA RUBBER WORLD 



483 



"PARA VERSUS CEYLON." 



/^XE of the principal factors in estimating the future of rub- 

 ^^ ber, is the prospective increase in the Oriental supply. In 

 his interesting review of tlie subject (in the Portuguese Ian- 

 gauge), "Para Versus Ceylao," Senhor J. A. Mendes, of Para, 

 has grouped a number of statistical returns ; extending the 

 scope of his observations so as to include the Asiatic yield in 

 general. 



world's PRODUCTION' AND CONSUMPTION. 



Taking the natural starting point, tlie record of the world's 

 production and consumption during the tlve years preceding 

 1910, the followinij rcmilt i'^ ^hown : 



bearing of the figures below is not affected; as embracing the 

 aggregate exports of rubber from Ceylon, Malay States, Sumatra, 

 Java, India, etc. 



1905. 

 1906. 

 1907. 

 1908. 

 1909. 



Tons. 

 145 

 510 

 1,010 

 1,800 

 3,600 



Cultivated "IIeve.\ Br.^siliensis" at the E.kferiment Gardens, Para 



Production Consumption 



tons. tons. 



ie05 69,507 65,727 



1906 67,918 71,671 



1907 68,646 64,628 



1S08 67,031 67,081 



1909 69,372 70,075 



Production and consumption thus kept on about a level dur- 

 ing this quinquennial period. 



Calling the annual production for 1909, 70,000 tons, its sources 

 are shown to be approximately : 



Tons. 



South America 40,000 



Central America, etc 12,800 



Ceylon, Malay States, etc 6,500 



Africa 10,700 



1910 (estimated) 8,000 



The gradual increase recorded for the more recent years, is 

 the direct result of the development of planting. This view of 

 the case is supported by the statement that there are now in 

 the Malay States and Ceylon, over 600,000 

 acres, planted with more than 21,000,000 Hevea 

 trees, almost in a productive condition; to the 

 relative maturity of part of which is due the 

 augmented figure of rubber exports. 



future of the asi.\tic rubber supply. 

 Passing from the field of statistical record to 

 that of estimate, it is not surprising to find 

 divergence of views as to the increase to be 

 looked for within the next four or five years in 

 Asiatic exports, while the general prospect of 

 a larger Eastern yield does not seem to have 

 been questioned. Two pertinent estimates are 

 ijuoted in this connection to Senhor Mendes, that 

 of Mr. Rutherford (a gentleman largely inter- 

 ested in Eastern plantations) being to the fol- 

 lowing effect : 



Tons. 



1911 8,100 



1912 12,100 



1913 17,040 



1914 22,670 



1915 27,300 



1916 35,620 



Far in excess of these figures is the anticipa- 

 tion expressed by Sir John Anderson (when 

 High Commissioner of the Federated Malay 

 States), that by 1916, the Asiatic production 

 would aniL unt to 70.(XX) tons; that being, it will be noticed, just the 

 amount of the world's yield in 1909. Applying the last named 

 estimate to a forecast of the year 1915-1916, and contrasting the 

 result thus anticipated, with the record for 1909, the following 

 comparison is established : 



Production Estimate 

 1909 tons. 19 151/916 tons. 



South America 40.000 43,780 



Orient 6,500 71,940 



Africa, Central America, etc 23,500 26,522 



Total tons. 



70,000 



While a normal or moderate degree of increase might be 

 witnessed from other sources, Senhor Mendes gives prominence to 

 that anticipated from Asia. 



ASIATIC EXPORTS OF ilUBBER. 



( , Although the 1909 amount quoted is somewhat less than that 

 already shown in the general summary, the general statistical 



Total tons 70,000 142,242 



EstiiTiated increase of product, 72,242 tons. 



COJLPARISON OF BR.^ZILIAN AND ASIATIC QUALITIES. 



■While the question at issue has been mainly treated from a 

 statistical point of view, an interesting and lengthy quotation 

 from a recent article in the "Bulletin de I'Association des Plan- 

 teurs de Caoutchouc,'' gives impartial prominence to a comparison 

 drawn between the two classes of rubber. It points out that 

 there is no chemical reason for preferring one or the other; 

 both being of the same botanical family and produced under 

 climatic conditions of a similar character. Moreover, it is 

 added, there is no more diflFerence between them than may be 

 found between the products of different regions of the same 

 country. 



