9 



difficult to say, but there is no doubt that the insect is largely 

 responsible for it. Until such time as the pest is under control it will 

 be wise only to grow cane on any one field for two years. It may be 

 pointed out that the yield per feddan of third, fourth, and fifth year 

 cane is such that it is hardly profitable and making cane a two-year 

 crop would not be any great hardship to the cultivator. 



3. THE " TRASH " NOT TO BE USED IN THE FACTORIES AS FUEL. 



Attention has already been drawn to this. I would suggrsl 

 that if it is essential for the Company to use " trash " as a fuel that, 

 instead of transporting it loose, it might be compressed into bales. 

 Portable presses can be bought at a low figure and readily used in the 

 fields. This method would have the additional advantage that a 

 far greater weight of " trash " per truck could be transported. I do 

 not advise this method, but it would be preferable to the existing 

 practice. Now that the price of coal has fallen practically to pre-war 

 rates I see no reason why the use of coal should not be resumed. 



Another alternative is to grow Sessaban (Sesbania cegypliaca) 

 around the fields. Sessaban has quite a high calorific value, grows 

 moderately rapidly and requires no attention. At Armant it is 

 grown for use in the factory, and this is a practice that might well 

 be adopted more generally. 



4. THE LAND SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY CLEANED IMMEDIATELY 

 AFTER THE HARVEST. 



The present system is to remove the great majority of the " trash " 

 to the factories and villages and then to burn over the land. No 

 " trash " should be removed from the field ; tha whole should be 

 thoroughly burnt. This would account for a very high percentage 

 of the insect population and would remove one of the most favourable 

 methods of distribution. 



5. CANE SHOULD NOT BE GROWN ON CANE. 



During the war cane was frequently grown after cane on the 

 same land, and although it is not now so prevalent I have met with 

 many cases. Apart from any agricultural considerations it is a practice 

 which militates against the control of the pest by carrying on the 

 infection. It would be of very little value to plant clean " sets " 

 on land from which cane had only recently been removed, there would 

 always be sufficient infection, however, well the land had been cleaned, 

 to reinfect the new crop. 



