. il2 THE TftOPICAL 
t^ang eious. Now I think I know most of tlie 
/ertilisers useci and the quantities applieii, and 
in no case is ih^re, in iny opinion, an approaeii to 
ovei'foreiiig. Now, a-; more weij^jht may be s^iveri 
to this ^entlijiiiaii's wolds tlian ihey are entitled 
to, and holdiiis' the position he d los in one of the 
most successful tea eoiufianif o in C.ivlon — a suc- 
cess, as he would be tin first to ad mi!-, not in 
any sense owing to the exercise of special ac- 
quaintance with manurina; operations applied to 
tea — I cannot let his views pass unnufciced, es- 
pecially as he quoteJ, in suoport of thein, the 
authority of perhaps the greatest living scientist 
of the day -namelj'. Sir John Lawes, Bart., of 
liotliamsted. It is of the greatest importance 
that it be known that the ;,'eiit!eman I refer to 
has evidently niis'inderstood Sir John. I trust, 
therefore, you will bear with nie in givinu; you 
the facts regarding tliat, as wcil as my own 
opinions deriveil from a practical experience of 
40 years of agriculture in this oouutiy and in 
Ceylon. The diiector I refer to was telliny his 
shai'ehol lers and the world the policy he recom- 
mends in the cultivation of that company's 
gardens, and warning all and sundry against the 
iise of artificial manures, more especially sulphate 
of ammonia, a« being too forcing and exhausting. 
He winds up with the f<dlowing words . — "I Isave 
also consulted Sir John Lawes. who, you all know 
is a sreat authority on agricultural clieniistry and 
he deprecates the use of forcing manures, such as 
sulphate of ammonia, as being undesirable to use." 
Now, gentlemen, this rather astounded me, for 
I have kept myself all these years fairly in touch 
with the experiments made by Sir John Lawes 
and his coliaborateur at Kotiiamsted, and ap- 
plying what I had gathered from that source to 
tea eultivaiion, I felt that either the gentleman 
had not supplied Sir John with all tlie data which 
would be necessary for iiim to form an opinion as 
to what would be the most suitable manure for the 
tea plant, with wdiich he (Sir John) had probably 
no practical acquaintance, or what was even 
more likely, that Mr. had. misunderstood what 
liad been said to him. I wrote to Sir John to 
thatelTbCt, giving him all the information I could 
regardina' the tea i)laut, and I quoted the opinion 
whicii had been attributed to him in the aboTC- 
mentioned speech. 
SIR JOHN LAWES'S OPINION. 
It was as I had supposed, but his letter speaks 
for itself. It begins : — " I regret to find that Mr. 
has somehow mistaken my views in regard 
to the character of manures suitable to the tea 
plant. This is rather singular, as I told him 
that some very fine Peruvian guano, said to con- 
tain 8 to 10 per cent, of ammonia, had been im- 
ported, and I thought it would be a valuable 
manure for t'le tea plant. Except tobacco, I 
should think that the tea plant would require a 
greater abundance and more forcing manure than 
any other crop grown." There is more to the 
same efTect, but that, gentlemen, is Sir John's 
opinion. I would only add that the utmost care 
should be exercised by jdanters in obt.aining 
opinions from scientific authorities on points on 
-which, without all the data, it is impossible for 
them to arrive at a correct conclusion ; and when 
they do obtain it to be sure they understand it, 
otherwise, as in the case I mention, much iiarm 
jnay follow. If a scientist in agriculture, who 
never saw a tea bush growing or cultivated, were 
a«ked whether this or that manure would be too 
forcing or cau^e exhaustion in the long run, the 
AGRICULTURIST. [Aug. 1. 1900. 
answer would probably be : — " Yes," because he 
could only bring (o bear on the subject his know- 
ledge of v. hat those manures would do for a turnip, 
Vi-heat or hay crop ; but there is a great difference. 
A tea bush on your properties is prune I, or more 
correctly speaking, is cut acro.ss the harrl wood say, 
2 feet or less from the ground ; the next knifing it 
gels is 24 months after ! In the nieantinie it has 
thrown out shoots and grown np to a heiahi of 
5] feet and 1ns produced something like 4,0C0 lb. 
of succulent leaf per acre, wiiich, when mai'.ufac- 
tured, turns out 1,000 lb. of tea. Tlii>', gentlemen, 
is all that is removed from the soil — namely, 
500 lb. per acre per annum ; the bush before prun- 
ing has a mass of green leaf and stalk, as well as 
matured wood, which, when cut off, weighs not 
less than 5 lb. per bush, or a total per acre of 
20,000 lb , which, if dug into the soil, probably 
rpturns more plant food to the roots than ii-is 
been removed in crop, and for tiie l eason that the 
tea bush derives a great deal of its nourishment 
from the atmosphere, the larger proportion of 
which, a ong with that derived from the soil, 
being returned to it in prunings. There, gentle- 
men, is all the difference between the tea ami the 
hay, wheat and turnip cro|)s which are entirely 
removed frnin the soil, and to which if forcing 
manure only were applied the soil would cease to 
lespond. Tiie tea bush is not usually grown for 
its seed, which is, of couise, a greater strain than 
growing leaf only. Were it grown for seed pio- 
duut on, stimulating manures would have to be 
avoided. Tlie finest soil, whatever the altitude 
ab»ve sea level, produces in greatest abundance 
the highest class of ;ea — that is, ihe soil which 
contains in an available form for assimilation by 
the roots all the different ingredients requir-d 
for the plani's nourishment. If it is not there in 
its proper proportion or if any are wanting you 
will never get a healthy bush or a good tea. Place 
them v.ithio reach of the loots and you consti- 
tute a condition eve.a in poor soil which will give 
you a higher class of tea than your neighbour 
who does not. 
THE MAIN CAUSHS OF EXHAUSTION, 
You will naturally ask. Why require to add 
anything further than your prunings, since you 
say your tea crop doss not exhaust the soil ? 
Well, if ciopping were the only cause of exhaus- 
tion that might be pertinent, but there are two 
other sources vastly more impoverisliing than 
that of tiie removal of 500 lb. per animni of tea 
crop, and these are points which men, seeking 
aid from a scientist in this councry, should not 
overlook, these are — however well drained the 
field may be — the removal of the soil by the 
tropical showers falling on our steep hill-sides and 
carrying it to the rivers ; and even worse than 
that, t he washing in solution to the nearest drain 
of much of the food ingredients. It is a mistake 
to suppose that during the heaviest rain, even 
although wash is not apparent on the surface, it 
all sinks into the soil ; a great deal of it oozes 
below the surface — carrying, as I say, in solution, 
much p'ant food — to the nearest drain, especially 
where surface soil has been disturbed for manur- 
ing purposes. This can often be proved by the 
appearance of a saline deposit on the upper side or 
walls of the drain. Entirely ditTerent is the case 
in this country ; rarely, if ever, is soil washed 
away, and rain which falls on the comparatively 
flab fields finds its way to the subsoil drains, and 
carries little or nothing away in solution. In tea 
fields there is no such thing as a subsoil drain 
