38 



On the first point there is no doubt at all. One has only to turn 

 over any old log, to see the countless feeding rubber rootlets that are 

 gormandizing on the available collection of vegetable humus matter. 

 Also memory still lives in regard to other agriculture, such as tea, 

 coffee, etc., in which the best fields were always those that were most 

 heavily timbered. 



In i-ubber, however, we have to remember that decomposing 

 or rotten timber is not only a hot-bed of infection but a nursery 

 as well for the spi-ead of fungoid diseases. Porta and Ustulina, for 

 instance, are among the principal agencies that cause decay. 

 Further, by leaving undestroyed timber and stumps of the " meranti," 

 " merbau," and " kompas " type, we are only offering homes for the 

 development of gestroi and borers. 



What is the best way, then, of getting rid of one's timber ? 



I think, when opening up new land, we should adopt a " double- 

 felling" method, after the style of old Ceylon coffee planters, i.e., 

 allow the clearing to grow up again for a year after the first felling. 

 Then re-fell and bum off. The result of this operation ensures a 

 thoroughly clean burn and, in view of our present-day knowledge, it 

 seems to me that, in the case of rubber, this is essentially what 

 is requii'ed. 



As regards the second contention, mere up-rooting of small 

 stumps does not present serious difficulty. Nor is it highly 

 expensive. But to pull out and root the boles of large trees is 

 costly and might run almost into any figure. In fact, to tackle 

 really big stuff is financially prohibitive. 



Wha£, then, is one to do ? In such cases, to my mind, there 

 is only one practical course of action, viz., isolate the bole by 

 trenching (a distance of three feet is good enough) and if possible 

 " run " any big lateral. 



As a rule, two years after the original burn will see most of the 

 soft woods in a state when they can be " fired," and in another two 

 to three years only the very hardest will remain. If then "firing" 

 operations are taken in hand at the times mentioned and steadily 

 kept up, no great initial expense should be incuiTed to secure 

 satisfactory destruction. 



Now in regard to cost. Up to Avhat point is one justified in 

 incurring expenditure ? There is only one way to answer this, and 

 that is to apply the " will-it-pay " test. Let us take the two 

 principal items of estate costs, i.e., weeding and tapping. In my 

 experience, thei'e are few heavily-timbered fields that have cost less 

 than $1.05 per acre per month (average) to weed during the first 

 five years. Had they been free of timber, I should have put their 

 cost at an average of 80 cents or less. This represents a saving 

 of $15 per acre. 



