770 
THE  TROPICAL  AGRICULTURIST. 
[May  I,  1897. 
PRIjNING.  plucking  and  PPvE- 
IPAHATION  UP  TEA  : 
REVIEW  Oi'’  LETTERS  XNIX  TO  XXXVI. 
riio  muiiLsr  of  letters  which  have  readied  us 
on  the  a’lovc  siihject,  and  tlie  necessity  of  pul)- 
I'.shing  tliem  as  fast  as  the  exigencies  of  space 
l)ennii,  impose  on  ns  tlie  obligation  of  [lassing 
them  iii  review  befo'c  th  ;y  become  state,  and 
emphasizing  the  points  in  them  which  merit 
attention.  We  now  come  to  tlie  letters 
commencing  from  No.  29.  Of  (lie  letters 
which  appeared  on  the  former  date,  three  deny 
coarser  plucking  and  its  responsibility  for  the  fall 
in  jirice — “Planter”  from  Maskeliya,  “J.”  and 
“Jd”  ; but  they  admit  that  shortness  of  labour 
tells  on  the  ([uality  of  the  leaf  ji'iicked,  and 
thereby  on  the  tea  manufactured  with  the  result 
that  prices  are  all'ected.  Rut  does  not  coarse 
))1  licking  become  a necessity  when  an  estate  can 
be  comji.assed  only  once  in  12  to  lb  days  instead 
of  7 to  8 ? There  seems  to  be  a consensus  of 
opinion  in  favour  of  letting  ji.art  of  an  estate 
go  nujilncked  when  labour  is  scarce,  rather  than 
ilelay  pluckingand  damage  the  outturn  of  tea ; but 
jiractice  seems  to  diller  from  iirecept,  if  nob 
invariably,  in  the  majority  of  cases  ; for  wher- 
ever shortness  of  labour  is  felt,  it  snpjdics  an 
explanation  of  delayed  plucking  and  inferior  out- 
turn. The  fourth  correspoident  — “ E.H.  R.  ” from 
Dikoya— exjiressly  admits  coarser  plucking,  and 
iinds  the  explantatiou  for  it  in  the  tendency  otmost 
estates  to  study  the  yield  per  acre,  rather  than 
the  price  per  lb.  Rut  what  is  meant  by  yield  ? 
Is  it  gross  yield  in  lb.  of  tea  manufactured  ? 
Or  net  yield  in  jirolits  ? If  the  latter,  our  cor- 
respondence columns  show  that  doubt  is  felt  by 
experienced  iilantcrs  if  the  larger  gross  yield 
yieaus  a larger  income.  If  it  docs  not,  and  if 
* means  even  only  the  same  income — the  a<l- 
vantage  of  more  restricted  ]ducking  is  obvious 
on  the  ground  of  a lessened  demand  for  labour, 
and  smaller  exports  which  might  induce  keneer 
competition  and  belter  prices. 
On  the  question  of  manuring  there  is  no  ap- 
])reciab!e  difl'erence  of  opinion  between  the  abeve- 
named  for  corresimndeuts.  “ Planter,”  while 
holding  that  manuring  docs  affect  the  tea  to  a 
certain  extent,  believes  that  the  leaf  of  bad 
jat  is  improved  in  soltucss  ; and  the  evil 
effects  of  manure  arc  neutralized  by  the  produc- 
tion of  a better  leaf  for  manipulation.  “E.H.  R.” 
believes  that  ma  Hiring  can  do  harm  only  if 
there  is  not  labour  enough  to  an  estate  to  cojie 
with  the  'leavier  Mush  "it  induces.  Given  (he 
labour,  inquoYcd  luiecs  .should  follow  increased 
Drops,  “d.  ” has  little  experience  of  manuring  ; 
and  “ D,”  denies  that  manuring  does  harm  ; 
but  fre({uent  jiruning,  the  last-mentioned  con- 
dreiss,  the  chief  factor  in  deterioration.  “J.” 
shares  that  view  to  a certain  extent,  as  it  is 
months  before  the  effects  of  heavy  luuning  wear 
away;  and  so  does  “Planter;”  but  “ Pblf.R.” 
does  not  quite  concede  the  evil.  It  is  an  opera- 
tion which  becomes  necessary  sooner  or  later, 
and  matters  can  be  so  arranged  that  only  a 
small  part  of  the  estate  need  be^  subjected  to 
drastic  pruning  in  one  ycr.  The  bulk  of 
the  leaf  wouhl  thus  be  uuaH'ected  ; V'ut  if  the 
weak  and  insipid  leaf  of  the  heavily  pruned 
bushes  .arc  not  manufactured  apart,  they  must* 
even  to  a small  extent,  affect  the  bulk.  All 
four  correspondents  are  .agreed  on  the  defici- 
encies of  the  I'actory,  whefher  as  rei'ards  accom- 
modation for  w'itheiing,  or  attention  to  details,  “.f.” 
feels  certain  that  better  teas  could  be  turned  out 
more  attention,  as  some  planters  “ scarcely 
look  .at  the  leaf  in  the  baskets,  and  certainly 
do  not  overburden  the  factory  with  their 
pre.sence.”  The  duties  and  responsibilities  of  a 
tea  planter  who  really  seeks  to  do  his  best  are 
far  from  light ; but  the  temptation  to  leave  too 
much  to  subordinates,  and  afterwards  to  believe 
that  it  can  do  no  harm,  should  be  resisted, 
“E.  H.R.”  while  a.sserting  the  scanty  withering 
.accommodation  in  most  factories  puts  aside  in- 
sufiicient  supervision,  as  the  man  who  neglects 
indoor  work  will  neglect  outdoor  work  as  well, 
and  will  not  keep  his  place  long.  But  is  Nemesis 
always  unerring?  And  until  the  evil  is  reme- 
died, is  not  the  mischief  widesjireading?  “Planter” 
.asserts  ihat  in  75  per  cent  of  bactories,  wither- 
ing space  is  insuflicient,  and  althoiu'h  bad  jat, 
climate  and  soil  cannot  compete  wdth  good,  jus- 
tice cannot  be  done  to  the  best  leaf  without 
the  needful  accommodation.  The  feeling  seems 
very  strong  and  very  general  that  it  is  a false 
economy^  which  denies  withering  space  to  factorie-s. 
The  subsequent  letters  show  similar  diver- 
gence of  statement  on  plucking  ; for,  where- 
as “R.  R.”  from  Teldeniya  and  “ V.A.”  deny 
that  there  is  much,  if  any,  change  in 
])hmking,  or  that  it  explains  lower  prices, 
“J.J.”  from  Dimbula  has  no  doubt  that  coarser 
plucking  has  much  to  do  with  lower  prices, 
and  “ \V.  N.”  generally  agrees  with  him.  The 
leaning  is  towards  record  yields  per  acre  ; 
and  w'hen  the  Visiting  Agent  says  a certain 
field  must  give  so  many  lb.  per  acre,  the 
fSuperintendent  ceases  to  be  a free  agent.  The 
last-mentioned  correspondent  regards  proprietary 
jilanters  the  chief  on'emlers,  as  tliey  fancy  coarse 
plucking,  while  superintendents  generally  pay 
greater  attention  to  plucking  than  before. 
Having  had  no  experience  of  manuring,  he 
cannot  speak  of  its  effects  ; but  the  three  other 
writers  acquit  it  of  all  blame.  “ J.  J.”  justi- 
fies his  verdict  by  the  dictum  that  the  healthier 
a bush  is,  the  better  should  be  its  leaf  ; 
“ R.  B.”  .asks  pertinently  whether  judicious 
manuring  can  do  harm  to  any  cultivation  or 
crop,  and  whether  an  answer  in  the  affirmative 
would  not  be  tantamount  to  upholding  the 
superiority  of  exhausted  soils  ; while  “V.  A.,” 
conceding  that  manuring  m.ay  at  first  give  lighter 
leaf,  holds  that  with  tlie  improvement  in 
wood,  the  leaf  must  improve  in  three  or  four 
moutlis.  Severe  iiruning  is  unequivocally  condem- 
ned by  three  of  the  writers,  and  the  fourth  saj\s 
that  it  is  resorted  to  only  after  three  primings 
or  so.  d’here  is,  of  course,  a difference  in  practice 
between  up  and  low  country  estates — the  intervals 
on  the  former  being  three  yetirs,  while  the 
latter  prune  every  year  or  eighteen  months.  On 
the  question  of  preparation,  too,  the  difl'erence  is 
as  tliree  to  one.  Three  of  the  correspondents 
deny  less  attention  in  the  factory,  and  jdead 
the  helplessness  of  the  factory  to  produce  good 
tea  from  weak  sapless  leaf,  but  the  fourth  ques- 
tions due  care  and  attention  on  the  part  cf 
superintendents,  who  leave  too  much  to  tea- 
makers  who  get  shack  in  the  absence  of  frequent 
visits.  The  evil  influence  of  shortness  of  labonr 
in  inducing  irregular  plucking,  is;  .admitteil  eaen 
by  those  whose  labour  force  is  sufficient  Jfor  all 
wants ; but  overproduction  is  regarded  as  the 
]>rincipal  factor  by  men  who  may  differ  on 
other  points.  Some  hold  that  teas  vary  with  the 
seasons  and  a uniform  quality  is  innHissiblc 
throughout  the  year;  others  believe  that  age  anil 
.absence  of  rest  account  for  much  of  the  deteri- 
oration which  is  inevitable,  (fwicre.— Can  science 
do  nothing  to  check  this  deterioration  I 
