and Magazine of the Ceylon Agricultural Society. 



pointed out by Mr Petch. In tho lowoountry, 

 however, where decay is more rapid, we think 

 the balance of opinion is beyond all doubt 

 in favour of the beneficial results of burying 

 primings. We should very much like it, on tho 

 principle of Audi Alteram Partem, if any 

 planter, should such exist, who has been less 

 fortunate in his experience of burying primings 

 than those planters whose views have already 

 appeared, would come forward now and state 

 their views. 



THE BURIAL OF PRUNINGS.— I. 



Feb. 25th. 



Sir, — It occurs to me to enquire whether Mr. 

 Petch's letters on this subject are private or 

 official ? If the former, I suppose, like the rest 

 of us, he is entitled to his likes and dislikes ; 

 but if his communications are official, do you 

 not think that they would have much more 

 weight and authority if there was less flavour 

 of prejudice, and a greater disposition to deal 

 with both sides of the question ? 



We have heard all about the possible dis- 

 advantages, minimum of nitrogen in primings, 

 etc., etc., but will Mr. Petch deny that there 

 are any possible advantages in the burying of 

 prunings ? What about : (1) Humus or organic 

 matter, (2) Potash, (3) Eradication of pests, 

 (4) Improvement of the mechanical condition 

 of the soil, etc '? 



We have been told about : (1) in connection 

 with green manures by Mr. Petch's colleagues, 

 and re (3) I think Mr. Green advocated burying 

 in one of his recent circulars on shot-hole-borer? 



If our experts are going to contradict each 

 other, what are we to believe ? Many of our 

 leading practical and successful planters seem to 

 be of the opinion that, amongst other advantages 

 the burial of prunings with slag, etc., improves 

 both tho bush and the quality of its produce. 

 If there is anything in this opinion, and if Mr. 

 Petch's views influence us against it, it stands 

 to reason that such views are hardly in the best 

 interests of the industry as a whole.— I am, Sir, 



M. L. WILKINS. 



It 



Ireby, Norwood, Feb. 25th. 

 Sir, — I have read with the deepest interest 

 Mr. Petch's letter with reference to the burying 

 of tea prunings and Mr. Fraser's in reply. I 

 have carried out this so-called Eraser system for 

 many years upon low-country tea estates and 

 with the greatest possible benefit to the bushes 

 which, in every case, have improved in stamina, 

 and yield in a way I could never have believed. 

 The properties, which I have had the good for- 

 tune to control and work for many years, speak 

 for themselves. I remember them when they 

 were run down and I know them as they are now. 

 A continuity of artificial manuring and nothing 

 else eventually proved ineffective in keeping up 

 the bushes and the yield ; and I was driven to 

 work in organic matter into the land, with the 

 results so clearly described by Mr. Eraser. I 

 fealty cannot say what would have happened— 



1. If I had simply cut holes for burying 

 prunings, and filled them in again— minus the 

 prunings. 



2. If I had buried prunings only without 

 slag or potash. 



3. If 1 had applied slag and potash to tho 

 land without cutting holes or burying prunings. 



But I do know that if I had done nothing at 

 all, but applied artificial manure, I could not 

 have maintained in the low-country the vigour 

 of the bushes and the yield, and 1 say this 

 because I tried and I failed many years ago. This 

 is not a scientific letter, but is written to give 

 my practical working experience of cultivating 

 low-country tea for, I should say, 10 to 15 years. 



I venture, however, to re-echo Mr. Fraser's 

 pious hope ; and to state that if anybody will 

 come along and show me how I can achieve the 

 same or better results in a cheaper and more 

 effective maimer, I will throw Mr. Fraser and 

 all his works to the winds ! Until that day 

 comes, I am satisfied to continue working upon 

 the lines which years of experience have proved 

 to me are, so far as our present knowledge goes, 

 indisputably the best.— Yours faithfully, 



W. FORSYTHE. 



III. 



Feb. 20th. 



Dear Sir,— Eg Mr. Petch on the Burying 

 of Prunings :— r' At present those who advocate 

 the burial of prunings, because of the manu- 

 rial value, give no valid basis whatever for their 

 belief." I venture to refer to pages 108 and 109 

 in Carpenter's Vegetable Physiology, edited by 

 Edwin Lankester. From page 108 I take the 

 following :— " Nothing more, says a vine-grower 

 on the banks of the Rhine, is necessary for the 

 manure of a vineyard than the branches which 

 are cut from the vines themselves (printed in 

 italics). 



The other day I heard on excellent authority 

 that the late Mr. Wall frequently used your 

 correspondence column to advocate that the 

 vineyard system of burying prunings was a 

 type of cultivation eminently suited for the 

 Ceylon toa field.— I am, Sir, &c., 



A. G. C. 



IV. 



Lindula, Feb. 26th. 

 Dear Sir, — I would appear to he in good 

 company as to burying of piunings with Messrs. 

 Hughes and Petch. That correspondent, who 

 writes to the press rc vines and this style of 

 cultivation, has forgotten the Result, "Phyl- 

 loxera." Holes have to be cut to carry tea 

 prunings and they become rain catchers and 

 hence the beneficial results. Up here I can 

 prove it to the hilt by ocular demonstration, 

 where nothing but holing has been resorted to 

 and all prunings left on the surface. I have no 

 doubt white-ants in the lovvcountry eat them up 

 at once. In these districts we have no such 

 insects.— Yours, &c, 



E. R. WIGGIN, 



