385 



A little consideration will suffice to show that for the pioneer 

 and the planter with a moderate capital, some form of catch-crop 

 raising is indispensable. Years ago, Mr. Tan Chay Yan, of Malaccn, 

 planted rubber on an extensive scale in the midst of tapioca. At 

 that time, so little was known of the possibilities of Hevea that no 

 one would have ventured to clear four thousand acres and plant them 

 with Hevea on the clean-weeding system. Even the astute Chinese 

 of Malacca ridiculed the pioneer, but six years later they saw through 

 their folly, and wildly imitated what they had previously condemned. 

 It can safely be said that without the aid of Tapioca not 10% of the 

 rubber land of Malacca could have been brought into existence. It is 

 only necessary to mention the Malacca Rubber Plantations, Pegoh, 

 and Merlimau estates, among a host of others- In this connection I 

 like to mention the name of Sir Walter Egerton, to whom the Chinese 

 of Malacca are greatly indebted for sympathy and encouragement in 

 the early years of rubber planting. The colony owes to his foresight 

 and commonsense what success we have achieved in rubber cultiva- 

 tion in Malacca. I have purposely digressed a little in order to show 

 that agricultural critics are not always correct, especially when they 

 form opinions on mere theory. 



In a special article in the Straits Times of August l6th, IQIO, the 

 writer absolutely condemns pine-apples as a catch crop. "They 

 ought never to be interplanted " is his dictum. Now, it is clear he 

 was prejudiced against pine-apples because he believed "this form of 

 culture is a heavy drain upon the soil." But, curiously, he 'mentiopis 

 gambler and pepper as suitable catch-crops and apparently approved 

 of coffee. His reference to the Chinese planting tapioca as catch- 

 crop, "since the boom" is scarcely correct. In my opinion, pine- 

 apples constitute a very convenient, suitable and excellent catch-crop 

 under certain well-defined conditions. It is pure absurd nonsense all 

 this talk of a drain upon the soil. Every kind of growth is a drain 

 upon the soil. Perhaps clean weeding is as great a drain upon the 

 soil as anything that can be done to the land. It is the same with 

 coconuts. Cultivators remove everything and replace nothing and 

 then cry " coconuts must be heavily manured!" But a little know- 

 ledge is enough to show that if only copra is made and taken away — 

 we have removed from the plantation only a form of oil or hydro- 

 carbon, which the palm has manufactured from the water and the 

 carbonic acid gas — substances equally inexhaustible and abundant 

 both in the soil and the air. Likewise, in the case of pine-apples, the 

 fruit is mainly a mass of water and saccharine matter — the solid sub- 

 stance of the soil taken up being used chiefly to form the root-stock 

 and leaves. Comparatively speaking, weight per w^eight, we take 

 away much more from the soil in the case of gambler, pepper, coffee 

 theobroma, peas, beans, indigo, cardamoms and ginger than in the 

 case of pine-apples, bananas or tapioca. Therefore, provided we 

 restore back the ash containing parts of the plants such as the leaves, 

 trunks, and branches, we cannot be said to drain the land. 



