May i, 1900.] THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 
779 
To the Editor. 
THE CHEMISTRY OF COCONUT 
CULTIVATION. 
Sir, — Mr. Cochran's contributions to the 
literature of agriculture are always of interest 
and prolit. His last deliverance is no exception 
to the rule. 
As regards Manuriuf;, we are to a gieat extent 
gropinw in the dark. The fact and fif^ures placed 
before us by Mr, Cochran are decided steps 
towards the goal of scientific manuring. More, 
and of iniporUnce, remains to be done. We 
want a coniplere analysis of al! parts of the tree. 
Mr. Cochran gives us analyses of copra, husks, 
shells, milk and pasturage, but he has omittecl 
the leaves, very important organs that play the 
part, both of lungs and stomach. A good head of 
leaves is of great importance to the tree, to 
assimilate the food taken up by the roots. What 
is of great importance and should be borne in 
mind, is that the mineral constituents of the 
leaves are richer in fertilizing matter than any 
other single product of the tree. According to 
the analysis of Lepine, the leaves have less 
chloride of sodium and potash than only the husks, 
and have over 5-6ths of phosphate of lime, of 
the total quantity in every other part of the 
tree. And they have more lime than every 
other part of the tree. This will demonstrate the 
importance of manuring, not only for crop but 
for leaves. 
It will be interesting to compare the mineral 
matter removed by the soil by 80 nuts per tree 
per annum according to Messrs. Lepine and 
Cochran. It is necessary to bear in mind that 
the latter gentleman's analysis includes only 
every part of the nut, while those of Mons. 
Lepine are of every part of the tree. The figures 
are in round numbers without decimals ; — 
LEPINE. 
lb. 
Chloride of Sodium . . . . 100 
Potash .. .. ..734 
Phosphate of Lime . . . . 300 
Salts of Lime . . . . . . 262 
COCHRAN. 
lb. 
Potash .. .. ..101 
Phosphoric Acid .. .. ..18 
Chloride of Sodium (previous analysis of) 1 
Lime .. „ ,, '97 
According to Lepine all parts of the nut 
remove in mineral matter by 80 nuts : — 
lb. 
Chloride of Sodium . . . . 48 
Salt of Potash .. .. ..530 
Phosphate of Lime . . . . 27 
Salts of Lime . . . . . . 116 
This is a great deal higher than Mr. Cochran's 
analysis. 
However if, as I maintain, we must, tnanure 
for the proper growth of the tree and for the 
production of nuts, the manure we apply must 
be on the basis of Lepine's analysis. But the 
question will naturally arise, can Lepine's ana- 
lysis be accepted as absolutely trustworthy 
and correct ? In July 1897, Mr. Cochran had 
occasion to analyse the husk of a coconut. The 
result proved so divergent from Lepine's ana- 
lysis as tabulated by Davidson, that he felt com- 
9? 
pelled to impugn its correctness, or attribute 
the difference to the difference in the soil on 
which the trees grew. Mr. Davidson himself is 
not inclined to place absolute reliance on Lepine's 
analysis. 
Mr. Cochran will be adding greatly to the 
obligation under which coconut planters are to 
him, if he will add to his analysis of the whole 
coconut, Lepine's analysis of the other parts of the 
tree a.id suggest a mixture sufficient co meet the 
annual drain on the mineral constituents of the 
soil. The mixtuie suggested by Mr. Davidson, 
to replace the mineral matter removed by 75 trees 
yielding 80 nuts per tree per annum is :— 
lb. 
Salt .. ... 25 
Wood ashes ... 240 
Bonea . . . . 45 
Lime .. .. 15 
Mr. Jardine's mixture which provides for organic 
matter as well, per acre, is 
lb. 
Castor cake . . . . 900 
Bone dust .. ..300 
Wood ashes.. .. 900 
or the half of that for one year. This mixture 
errs on the side of liberality. It will be interest- 
ing to now compare the mineral constituents re- 
moved by 75 trees yielding ¥0 nuts per annum as 
given by Lepine, with the mineral constituents 
returned to the soil by Mr. Jardine's mixture : — 
LEPINE. lb. 
Salt .. ,.100 
Potash .. .. 734 
Phosphate of lime . . 300 
Salts of lime . . 262 
JARDINE. 
Potash .. ..874 
Phosphoric acid . . 51 
The number of cattle that 100 acres of coconut 
land can support in full health and feed depends on 
many circumstances — climate, soil, age of tree 
&c. A wet climate and a rich heavy soil will 
of necessity produce more pasturage than a light 
soil in a dry climate. Grass grows more luxuri- 
antly, sometimes too luxuriantly, on a young plan- 
tation than on one whose leaves shade the soil and 
whose roots are in full occupation of it. On an old 
plantation on soil with body, there i.«. an even 
sward; on alight, sandy soil the grass seems to 
grow in individual blades and in tufts. Under 
these circumstances, it is not safe to fix the 
number of cattle that 100 acres of coconut land 
can keep in food. I am inclined to think that 
on old plantations with average soil, t^J» acres 
for each head of cattle is fair ; and on light 
sandy soil, where pasturage is scant, four acres 
fer each head of cattle. So with the weight of 
grass per head of cattle per day. It is dependent 
on circumstances. I think 50 lb, of grass per head 
per day a high average and exceptional. 
Since the above was written 1 have read with 
much interest and profit Mr. Jardine's letter. 
My experience is one with Mr. Jardine's of the 
value of the droppings of cattle tethered to trees 
at night. The cattle were only grazed on very 
poor pasturage and their droppings were dug in 
without the addition of the bones, castor-cake 
and ashes, Mr. Jardine rigiitly suggest.^, and the 
results were most encouraging— in fact better than 
the results of applying otiier manures. The trees 
had a head of dark green leaves and gave good 
crops foi two j^ears and the color of the leaves 
did not change to a yellow as is usual during a 
period of drought. I think the chief value of 
