September i, 1888.] THF. TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 
201 
OUE CINCHONA PLANTING INDUSTRY. 
Remembering how, for many years back, the 
estimates framed in connection with tho Ceylon 
cinchona industry, whether of planted area, trees 
available for barking, or of the resulting bark, 
have been uniformly demonstrated to be far wide 
of the mark in tho sense of being below actual 
results, it requires somo boldness, we consider, in 
tho face of past experience, to come forward after the 
old fashion and attack Ceylon cinchona statistics as 
exaggerated. Again and again, in years gone by, 
has the same story being told to us that the 
millions of treeB given in our Directory must be 
far above the actual number, as would be shown 
if that impossible thing— an actual census— were 
instituted. But how comes it then that the esti- 
mates of annual exports, based upon so much bark 
per tree from such totals, have been uniformly— 
and in some years so enormously — below the actual 
figures ? It may be said that this has been due 
not to the harvesting of crop from the growing 
trees, but to the large mortality and the need of 
bringing the whole bark of such trees, including root, 
to acc unt. But apart from the fact that the 
statistics of root bark do not bear out this view, 
as Messrs. C. & M. Woodhouse, of London, have 
shown, who is prepared at this moment to say 
that our estimates of future exports of bark from 
Ceylon— based on the total of our Directory returns 
of trees -are exaggerated ? Our contemporary very 
glibly attacks the totals for all the districts and 
with a show of wisdom, speaks of the harm done 
to the enterprise by sending our figures forth to 
the world. This is rather absurd, considering 
how exports and export estimates are regarded 
by men in the bark trade. But, the fact is that 
our contemporary should be the last to speak ; for 
his low estimates of exports— considerably below 
ours as a rule — have made the " Ceylon cin- 
chona bark estimates" to be utterly distrusted 
throughout Europe and epecially in the City of 
London. Nor is the current season likely to be 
an exception to this rule ; for with one month 
still to pass of the Beason, our shipments are 
already in exoes9 of the biggest local estimate and 
14 million lb. ahovo our contemporary's estimate 
in November last.* It behoves therefore any critic 
taking the whole country within his purview anrl 
endeavouring to make out a case for exaggeration, 
to speak with bated breath and with the utmost 
modesty. Somehow or other whatever be our 
estimates of tho acreago or the number of trees 
of cinchona growing in Ceylon, the export of bark 
in tho following season is always out of propor- 
tion, and in excess of such estimates ! Generalizing 
therefore from certain local district experience or 
from the discovery of a certain amount of error 
in the returns must be done very cautiously. 
At the same time we most fully accept and 
welcome tho criticism of planters, each for his 
own particular district or neighbourhood. Mr. Geo. 
Beck has ottered 0110 letter of criticism, in which 
however, he, without entering at all into de- 
tail, would reduce iho total number of cinchona 
trees, 2 years old and upwards in the whole Dim- 
bula district, from 6 millions to one million ! 
Now wo should like Mr. Beck with our Directory 
* The local " Times "'s estimnto of cinchona bark 
exports in November lint \v:m !»,f>nO,000 II). On October 
8th lb87, wo wroto in tho Obtrryer; —"With duo reserve 
we cstiiiinto n fall to 11 millions in tho scuaon on 
which we have entered:" but m deference to a cry 
about the cinchoiiR being all gone, led chiefly by Mr. 
JniucH Sinclair, wo reduced our estimnto in Decem- 
ber to 10,000,000 lb., and vet the actual shipments to 
3oth ultimo arc 11,040,809 lb, 
2Q 
before him to enter a little more into parti- 
culars as to the estates from which our returns are 
manifestly in excess. Of course, for the calculation 
of trees per acre, where only acreage was returned, we 
in the Observer of'lico are responsible, working as 
wo have done on a certain recognized rule. It is 
quite possible that our allowance of trees per acre 
is too liberal ; but there is this fact to be ex- 
plained to the contrary, that for the one district 
— Udapussellawa — in which the most careful reckon- 
ing, we believe, has been made by a local Planters' 
Committee, the result came out as given to us 
by Mr. Naftel, almost identical with our own cal- 
culation, based on returns of acreage and trees. 
But leaving aereage out of view, we have in the 
case of Dimbula a large number of proprietors 
or superintendents returning not the "acreage" 
under cinchona, but the "number of trees" over 
two years, each for his own place. What are we 
to do in such cases : accept Mr. Beck's sweeping 
condemnation or the individual returns? If our 
critio will refer to the Dimbula returns he will 
find a total of over 2| millions of trees in the 
entries made by the proprietors, agents or 
superintendents themselves. This is apart 
from 996 acres on other properties said to be 
covered with cinchona only, 4,842 acres oovered 
with coffee and cinchona, and 1,897 acres covered 
with tea and cinchona. Now even counting 600 
trees to the acre for cinchona alone and 250 trees 
when mixed with coffee and tea, we should get 
a total for Dimbula of over 44 million cinchona 
trees. We cannot possibly see, therefore, how we 
are to come down to Mr. Beck's " one million" of 
trees over two years old for all Dimbula. One 
rough mode of checking, might be afforded by 
contrasting Udapussellawa where (aB we have said) 
the return of 3 million trees has been very care- 
fully reckoned. How, we should ask, do these 
two districts compare in respect of growing cin- 
chona, in appearance? Has Dimbula in all its 
divisions — the Agrapatana and Lindula especially — 
fewer trees growing than Udapussellawa? We trow 
not. But we are open to conviction and correction, 
so Boon as it is shown that the individual estate 
returns of cinchona — for which not we, but the 
planters themselves are responsible— are much ex- 
aggerated. 
Very much more to the point than Mr. Beck's 
criticism on the Dimbula returns, is that afforded 
for Pussellawa by Mr. J. A. Roberts, to whom our 
apology is due for delay in publication. He does 
enter into | articulars for a series of estates, and 
wo give his letter prominence as follows : — 
" CINCHONA IN PUSSELLAWA. 
To tho Editor Ceylon Observer. 
Whyddou, Pussellawa, 20th August 1888. 
Dkak Siu, — I am in receipt of your Directory, 
for which I thank you. I see it contains more in- 
formation than ever, hut I only yet have had 
time to look up the subject that interests me most, 
i.e. cinchona. 
As your Directory is for two years, namoly 1887-88, 
it is impossible for mo to know to what date your 
figures are compiled. But, if you mean to say 
that thero aro at the preeent moment 35 million 
cinchona trees in the island over two years old, 
I am convinced you overstate the number con- 
siderably. 
For my own district of Pussellawa for instance, 
I see you put down 2,282,000. Now I am certain 
from my own observation and conversation with 
neighbours, that there is not more than ono quarter 
that number of trees in tho district. 
I enclose a list of tho estates which have cin- 
chonas, with tho number of troes which I estimate 
