12 Timehri. 
throughout a field, it is appalling to witness the amount of damage, and the 
quantity of supplying that has to be done, if indeed the crop can be established 
in any realsense. Failing thecane proper, the grubs can only feed onthe hard 
parts of the stump, and the plants must of necessity die back if there be prolonged 
feeding as in the case of young specimens, especially where there are several 
to a stump. 
The greatest drawback to any such system of flooding is that it means the 
destruction or driving out of all the various helps, such as ants and other pre- 
daceous and parasitic insects, lizards, ete., which would take part naturally in 
keeping down the numbers of these pests in all their stages, and the value of which 
is very considerably beyond what would commonly be imagined. Still, as the 
* field will already have been largely cleared of such helpful forms by the burning 
of the trash previous to the cutting of the canes (an unfortunate practice adopted 
locally owing to economic causes, of labour and expense), the drawback is hardly 
one of much force here, especially considering that any severe infestation indi- 
cates the weakness or insufficiency of any such natural help, which could scarcely 
be expected to be efficient under such conditions. 
It is certainly the case that the burning of the trash either before or after the 
fields are cut, will cause the destruction of many pests, and that on special ocea- 
sions it may be really advisable ; but, asa general practice, it is clearly injurious, 
not only in destroying the natural aids towards the control of pests, and thus 
preventing their development to an efficient degree, but mainly in that it is 
subversive of the best cultural requirement for maintaining the fertility of the 
soil and thus of the vigour and vitality of the cane. This constant destruction 
of what should be valuable and essential humus additions, might be defended if 
it were really efficacious against our main insect enemies ; but the most casual 
examination of burnt fields, shows that isit not, as indeed the condition to-day 
of the estates, after many years of burning, clearly proves. . Nor could it be 
otherwise, since the larve causing the damage are internal, and are thus 
protected from injury. 
However prevalent the flooding of fields may become, whether for ratoons or for 
replants, all such areas must continuously be subjected to the chance of re-infee- 
tion from other fields in the vicinity, whether in high or low canes, whether 
on the same estate, on an adjoining estate (that may be separated only by a 
narrow dam), or in a village cultivation ; and as natural helps will have been 
destroyed, such infection is likely to be of greatest effect. This certain infection 
from standing canes is one of the greatest drawbacks of the situation, and it is one 
that is almost impossible to deal with where, as is customary, the dry trash is left 
on the canes. This practice is largely conducive to insect development in this 
moist climate, and it becomes hopeless to lessen the infection of other fields 
by the “iant moth-borer, unless such fields be also flooded some weeks before the 
cutting of the canes. Were the fields cleared of trash, a very considerable degree 
of damage might be prevented by catching the moths throughout the whole 
period of the growth of the cane. 
The practice of leaving canes unstripped of the dry trash may be productive of 
increased returns, as is claimed, and as published experiments show, in other 
places (though even from these it appears to be inconclusive) ; but under the local” 
