40 
THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. [July 1. 190L 
it certainly is not, it is quite possible planters will 
regret the universal adoption of it. Incidentally, it 
occnj;s to me to ask whnt would a larga inajoiity 
of estates have doue i£, iasti-nd of Caraocas, there 
had oiigina'ily been planted Forastero ? There can 
be little doubt thalj the wonderful bearing qualities 
of Caracoas have done for coooa in this canker cri.-is 
what P'orastero, as known at present, can never do. 
There is, however, good reason to suppose that many 
varieties of Forastei^o hybrid-!, besides being hardier 
(a fact which has not baen indisputably established) 
are quite as remunerative as Caracoas. but they 
have yet to be sorted out and this has not been 
done. Moreover their great irregularity of form 
largely augments the difficulty of their cultivation, 
and it is well-known that Forastero suckers act in 
a very different and fa'- more irresponsible manner 
from Cara'jcas suckers. To grow a fine bush 
from a felled Forastero tree is infinitely more difficult 
than from a Caracoas tree, so that it almost seems that 
suckers, if grown at all, were better started during the 
new oleariug stage, and it has yet to be proved that 
suckers on new clearings, however carefully tended, do 
no.t increase the non-bearing period a full year, or even 
two. 
The question of growing suckers, then, is a much 
deeper one than on the surface appears. In the latest 
stage they are untrustworthy, and as canker generally 
attacks the oldest trees first and worst, it would be 
well if, at the age of, say, ten or twelve years, all fields 
were planted up again, especially as cocoa planting is 
not an expensive item, and this system would be an 
excellent preventive against at any rate the spreading 
of canker, for we could well afford to cut out the old 
trees for the sake of the new ones. But a tree at ten or 
twelve years of age is at its prime — just the time when 
the most successful bush may be grown ; the growing 
of it into a bush at this age in the event of canker 
making its appearance does not, however, obviate the 
necessity of supplying up. 
Remains, then, the question whether planters are 
willing to start suckers on new clearings. I confess to 
a great reluctance on this point. and, in view of what 
may be done in the way of planting up afresh and 
cutting out later, the matter scarcely seems worth as 
much consideration, except as a counter to canker, as 
whether Caraccas should not again be planted up 
rather than Forastero. 
Gentlemen, it has been said, and said truly, that the 
wisest minds are open to doubt ; and I would point out 
that there is even more doubt in the cultivation of 
Forastero than in that of Caraccas, about which latter 
we certainly ought to know more. Whatever advant- 
age Forastero can legitimately claim at this present 
over Caraccas, it is almo'st entirely speculative ; for not 
even greater immunity to canker has been proved. Yet 
I am willing to cede this point, considering all things, 
and in ceding it I will quote against it height, twice and 
three times the yield, plus as near total immunity from 
canker as may be obtained by cutting out at a suitable 
age in favour of a younger and more vigorous tree. 
With regard, then, to what is going on around 
us, I mean the almost universal adoption of 
Forastero, I would ask you to decide, if possible, 
upon something definite. I would ask you to 
weigh carefully all the pros and cons, and to 
judge whether Caraccas has indeed merited the dis- 
grace heaped upon it. It has done us more good than 
ill. Whether canker has come to stay or not, it will 
not do, however, to be unprepared for it ; but neither 
is it advisable to deceive ourselves into thinking that 
sucker-growing on old trees is effectual counter-policy. 
I have tried to point out that as a makeshift it 
passes muster, but that it cannot obviate the neces- 
sity of eventual supplying up. And I know of too 
many instances to the contrary to be convinced that 
Hucker-growing on new-clearings is satisfactory. There 
cttD be little doubt that they delay crop, and there 
can be no doubt at all that, should the tree be attacked 
by htlopiUisi it; iiaffera mors through being killed back 
from six extremities than one. To carry the idea a 
liitle further is to introduce a possible absurdity, bat 
it-is worth noting that the abundance of extra flush 
may even be regarded as the finest attraction for 
hel'jpeltis that human ingenuity could invent. 
So that, except as a mukeibif: against canker, I 
hav« no good thing to say for sucker-cultivation — 
least of all for Forastero-suckers which, after abusing 
every confidence and baffling every hope, not seldom 
remain to delude the trustful superintendent into 
apologising for them in the name of experiment. 
On the other hand, and iu conclusion, I have heard 
it mooted (I believe in connection with Samoa) that 
suckers on new clearings actually induce the tree to 
bear earlier ! I dc not know what truth there is in 
this, but we do know it is contrary to all cocoa plan- 
ters' experience in Ceylon, and I am inclined rather 
to .be content with those ills we have, and to make 
the best of them, than fly to others we may end by 
regretting even more. 
The Future of "Coffee"— was thus sketched 
by Messrs. I. A. Kueker and Bencraft (on May 
16th). On July 9th. 1900, we wrote about as fol- 
lows t-" The 1899-190U Brazil crop at fir.st was said 
to be probably the largest ever grown (1897-98 
crop was 10,461,000 bags), and half way through 
It was still estimated at 9,750,000 to 10,000,000 
bags. It turned out 8,971,000 bags, or at least 
1,500,000 bags short of the originaridea. On th« 
same day we wrote that the general belief was 
that the 1900-1901 Brazil crop would be smaller 
than tiie 1899-1900 crop. Estimates varied from 
7,250,000 to 9,000,000 bags, about the mean ap- 
pealing a reasonable figure. The 1900-1901 crop 
is turning out at least 10,500,000 bags, or over 
2,000,000 bags larger than the mean figure. If 
under ordinary circumstances estimates are falla- 
cious, are obey likely to be less so under the condi- 
tions now current ? Bears argue -.—{a) That the 
visible supply will be the largest ever known ou 
August 1st, next, for that period of the year, and 
at least 1,000,000 bags heavier than that on 
August 1st, 1900. (b) That we shall then be facing 
a Brazil crop of ,11,000,000 to 12,000,000 bags, (c) 
That the sterling value, say 30s for g.a. Santos, 
is 5s 6d above the lowest point some two years 
ago. id) That the currency value in Santos is of 
no importance to the consumer, and that, even if it 
were, in the early eighties 3,000 reis were current 
against 4,000 reis now. As regards (a) let us as^ 
sume that the visible supply on August 1st next 
is 1,500,000 bags instead of 1,000,000 bags larger 
than a year ago. The figures will then read :— 
1901 1900 1899 
August 1st ... 430,000 340,000 399,000 tons 
or an increase at the rate of 15,000 tons per annum 
since 1899, which is not very appalling, and hardly 
justifies all we hear about the enormous over-pro- 
duction. (6) Here Bears argue as if the crop 
were already harvested and secured ; above, we 
have shown how erroneous estimates are. (c) 
The value of this statement of fact can only be 
gauged in conjunction with (d). We have seen 
it stated by a statistician that the equivalent, now, 
of 3.000 reis in the early eighties is near 5,000 reis', 
but, however that may be, 30s combined with 4,100 
reis is a different tale to243 6d combined with 5,800 
reis. The important point is, does 4,000 reis pay 
the planting community as a whole, or does it not? 
Time will determine these problems, and the posi- 
tion is undoubtedly one which may lead up to 
aurpriies." 
