KAMIE CULTIVATION IN PERAK. 109 



SiGLAP Estate, Singapore, 



15f/i March, 1897. 

 L. Wray, Jun., Esq., Perak. 



Dear Sir, 



I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 10th instant 

 enclosing a report on the prospects of ramie cultivation in Perak, which I 

 have read with great interest, and as jou invite observations on the 

 subject, I now venture to state my views. 



This country being the native habitat of ramie {Boehmeria tenacisshna) 

 the question of suitability of climate and soil may be considered as 

 answered. 



You, therefore, rightly say that the question resolves itself between 

 cost of production and value of the staple iu London. 



To narrow the question still farther, let us classify exactly the staple 

 which we have to deal with, for, in ramie, confusion of terms leads to 

 endless misapprehension. Ramie, up to the present, has reached Europe 

 in two forms, — first, ribbons, second, China -grass, the hand scraped 

 Chinese staple. Ribbons are the fibrous bai-k, free of the inner wood, 

 but with the gum and the outside pellicle on. They may be produced 

 either by hand stripping or by machines which split the stems open 

 and eject the inner wood, these machines should be called delignators, 

 not decorticators, for they leave the cortex untouched. According to the 

 quality of the work of the inachine these ribbons give fi-om 35 to 40 per 

 cent of their weight in drj', de - gummed filasse ; the dead weight of useless 

 matter ranges between 60 to 65 per cent. China -grass gives from 65 

 to 70 per cent of its weight in dry, de- gummed filasse; the dead weight 

 of useless matter ranges between 30 to 35 per cent. 



Kindly consider how this works out. But previously please bear in 

 mind tliat weight for weight China -grass occui^ies only 50 per cent of the 

 , space that ribbons do. Taking a de- gumming kier of a given capacity it 

 will only contain half the weight of ribbons to a given weight of China - 

 grass. Supposing then, a kier of a sufficient capacity to receive one ton 

 weight of China -grass, the same kier will receive only half a ton of 

 ribbons. If, therefore, you put in the ungumming kier one ton of China - 

 grass you will lose, as stated above, one half, or 750 pounds in weight ; and 

 the weight of dry de- gummed fibre obtained will be 1,<J90 pounds. If you 

 fill the same kier with ribbons you can only get in half a ton, or 1,120 

 pounds of ribbons, on which you lose two thirds, or 746 pounds; the 

 weight of dry degummed fibre obtained being 374 pounds. Note, that 

 in the two cases the amount of solvent employed must be the same or, if 

 anything, stronger in the case of ribbons. From repeated experiments in 

 France and in England the cost of de- gumming one ton of China -grass 

 has been found to be about .?40 (£4) per ton, or, allowing one third loss 

 of weight, $53 per ton of the de -gummed product. What cost $40 on one 

 ton of China -grass Mill cost (owing to ditTerence of weight for same 

 volume) $80 per ton on ribbons, and allowing two -thirds loss of weight, 

 §240 per ton of the de -gummed product. 



There lies the condemnation of ribbons, and the situation is hopeless, 

 because between the planter and the spinner there stands, of necessity, a 

 third party, viz., the de-gummcr. 



