June  i,  1897.] 
THE  TROPICAL  AGRICULTURIST. 
PLUCKING,  PRUNING  AND 
PREPARATION  OF  TEA. 
(Continued  from  page  776. J 
REVIEW  OE  LETTERS  NO.  LIII  TO 
NO.  LX. 
In  Letter  No.  53,  “ R.P.”  from  Dimlmla  enter.s 
very  fullyinto  theseveral  questions  on  which  inform- 
ation is  (le.siderated— althousi',  in  a manner,  he 
ifrnores  tlie  suggestions  contained  in  our  circular.  He 
itenie.3  tliat  coarser  pluclcing  is  responsible  for  the 
fall  in  prices,  as  he  believes  that  more  care  is 
taken  now  to  secute  good  leaf  tlian  bn'merly  ; 
and  heroin  lie  diflers  from  “M.D.”  who  holds 
tliat  the  injurious  intluence  of  coar.se  plucking 
cannot  be  gainsaid.  Tliis  is  attested  by  the 
Colombo  Sales  List  which  disclose  sales  at  eight 
and  nine  cents  per  lb.  If  coarse  or  careless  pluck- 
ing is  not  responsible  for  such  figures,  the  fault 
must  be  in  the  factory  ; but  it  is  dillicult  to  see 
how  it  can  possibly  pay  to  pluck,  manufacture, 
pack  .and  trans])ort  te.as  wliich  fetch  .such  prices, 
even  if  we  t.ake  no  count  of  the  bad  nametlioy 
must  give  Ceylon  te.as,  .and  the  pressure  Ibey 
must  cause,  in  an  .already  over-snp])lied  m.arket : 
and  we  agree  in  the  drastic  proposals  of 
our  correspondent  in  respect  of  such  teas. 
“ Balangoda  ” is  not  inclined  to  hold  plucking, 
pruning  or  manuring  much  to  blame,  but 
tliinks  the  fall  in  prices  explic.able  by  the  larger 
area  of  low-grown  teas,  and  the  larger  quantit'os 
which  have  to  be  p.assed  tlirousrh  factories  which 
are  inadeejuate  and  imperfectly  equiiq)ed.  Rush 
of  le.af  and  insullicieiit  labour  aggravate  the 
mischief  ; and  these  he  holds  to  be  quite  .sulli- 
cient  to  account  for  the  fall.  “ (LB.K.”  from 
the  Central  Province  does  not  expressly  name 
coarse  plucking  : and  he  is  evidently  able  to  find 
an  explanation  for  the  fall  in  other  directions  ; 
and  tlie  m.ain  re.ason,  in  his  view,  is  insulliciently 
equipped  f.act.ories,  both  as  respects  machinery 
and  witherin'.''  accommodation.  He  instances  in- 
case of  estates  which  have,  by  manuring,  the 
creased  the  yield  per  acre  liy  200  to  250  lb,, 
and  yet  expect  the  factories  which  sufbeed  for 
the  smaller  quantity  to  be  equal  to  the  largely 
increased  output.  hile  quite  prepared  to  admit 
that  intelligent  supervision  is  very  necessary 
in  the  field,  he  insists  that  stilKcient  time  is 
not  spent  liy  Superintendents  in  the  factory, 
and  that  too  much  is  left  in  tlie  hands  of 
underpaid  native  teamakers.  If  the  “boss”  on 
an  estate  considers  factory  work  a matter  of 
subsidiary  importance,  and  visits  the  f.actory 
seldom,  and  even  then  Imrriedly.  it  is  not 
to  be  wondered  if  his  delegate  show  no 
inclination  to  magnify  his  ottice.  On  the  effect 
of  manuring,  as  on  the  ([uestion  of  coarse  pluck- 
ing, “M.D.”  and  “B.P.”  are  clearly  at  issue. 
The  latter  feels  no  doubt  that  artificial  manuies, 
while  increasing  the  (piantity,  has  an  evil  in- 
fluence on  the  quality — though  he  does  not  say 
in  wliat  respects  and  in  wh.at  manner;  but, 
inasmuch  as  quality  has  been  allected  where 
there  has  been  no  manuring,  he  u efuses  to  hold 
manuring  alone  responsible  for  deterioration. 
AVe  are  not  sure  that  it  would  not  be  more  logical 
to  .acquit  manuring  altogether  of  blame,  in  the 
absence  of  definite  evidence  of  the  haim  it  has 
done  or  can  do.  “M.D.”  takes  this  view  when 
he  argues  that  manuring,  if  only  the  proper 
substances  be  applied,  ought  to  improve  quality, 
reasoning  by  analogy.  The  flavour  of  fruits  is 
106 
known  to  be  improved  by  scientific  culture  ; if 
fruits,  why  not  Ie.af  ? (in  the  evil  effects  of 
severe  juuning  these  two  correspondents  are 
.agreed — “M.  D.”  declaring  it  to  be  a pernicious 
.system,  which,  however,  is  fast  dying  out ; while 
“•  B.  P.”  char.acterizes  the  practice  as  a f.atal  error 
which  has  done  as  mucli  to  bring  down  prices,  as 
anything  pr.actised  outside  the  factory.  On  the 
work  of  tlie  factoi'3'',  the  two  correspondents 
difler  .again — tlie  last-mentioned  denying  less 
attention  to  manufacture  ; while  “M.D.”  feels  that 
there  are  two  many  “meets”  and  distrectious 
to  allow  of  the  watchful  care  so  nece.ssary  in 
tea.  One  tiling  seems  clear  to  us  that  no  Super- 
intendent, who  does  not  subordinate  ease  and 
pleasure  to  work,  who  does  not  do  his  best  for  his 
employer  by  active  personal  supervision  of  both 
field  and  f.actory  work,  can  be  said  to  be  earn- 
ing his  salarjq  or  to  deserve  to  adv.ance  in 
his  i)rofe.s.sion.  I.arge  rollers  too,  do  not  turn  out 
as  fine  work  as  the  .smaller  ones  of  old  ; and 
“B.P.”  holds  the  proprietor,  rather  than  the 
Superintendent,  responsible  for  low  prices,  and 
sets  forth  quite  a catalogue  of  delinquencies,  in 
insutlicient  space  .and  machinery;  stingine.ss  in 
dealing  with  teamakers  ; cheap  and  insufficient 
management ; inaliility  of  A'.A.’s  to  give  young 
Huperiiitendents  practical  lessons  in  manufacture 
or  to  correct  their  errors  ; want  of  encourage- 
ment to  good  Superintendents.  Indirectly,  he 
hints  that  absenteeism  is  responsible  for  these 
blunders  ; and  that  .an  old  bush  cannot  give  .as 
good  te.a  as  a jmeng  bush. 
Of  the  next  four  letters  the  one  from  “W.B.J.” 
of  .Agrapatana  enters  most  fully  into  the  question.? 
propounded.  Like  “8.”  from  Rangal.a,  he  is  not 
inclined  to  acquit  coarse  plucking  of  responsibility  ; 
but  he  holds  that  it  is  chiefly  pr.actised  in  the 
low-country,  as,  at  higher  elevations,  the 
tendency  is  to  jiluck  even  finer  th.an  be- 
fore. On  the  other  hand,  “M.”  from  North 
M.atale  is  silent  on  ]dueking,  holds  over-pro- 
duction the  principal  ollender,  has  no  experience 
of  manuring  and  acquits  pruning  .and  the  factory, 
except  when  there  is  a rush  of  leaf  ; while  “W.  A.” 
frnm  Maskeiiya  expressh'  denies  the  evij  in- 
fluence of  coarser  plucking,  .as  all  gr.ades  have 
gone  down,  and  perhaps  the  finer  inost.  But 
suiely,  this  is  fallacious.  We  have  seen  that 
our  best  te.as  have  not  f.allcn  off  in  price 
appreciablv’,  that  some  maintain  their  old  prices, 
and  some  have  even  advanced  ; and  when  the 
plucking  is  co.arse,  c.an  it  be  s.aid  th.at  the  finer 
gr.ades  of  the  break  aie  not  also  afl'ected  ? It 
is  gratifying  to  have  from  the  same  correspond- 
ent, as  a result  of  a good  deal  of  experience, 
the  opinion  that  manuring  does  not  afi'ect  prices 
prejudicially,  while  severe  and  too  frequent 
pruning  does,  and  is  resorted  to  as  a simple 
method  of  incieasing  the  yield,  without  con- 
sidering the  slow  re]ilacement  of  the  lost  wood  • 
and  he  instances  Kandapol.a,  where  tea  is  allowed 
to  run  three  years  unpruned,  with  the  result  that 
prices  are  maintained.  “W.B.J.”  goes  even  further 
on  manuring,  and  holds  that  at  his  elevation  it 
.actually  improves  the  qualitjq  if  judiciously 
practised  ; but  he  thinks  severe  ]irunino'  less 
prevalent  than  it  used  to  be.  “ S.”  expects  to 
be  able  to  pronounce  more  confidently  on  the 
influence  of  manuring  on  flavour  ]'2  months 
hence  ; but  want  of  care  and  attention  has,  in 
his  oiunion,  a great  deal  to  do  with  poor  tea.s. 
“W.B.J.”  sh.arcs  the  batter  opinion;  and,  while 
admitting  that  the  rapid  increase  in  .acreage  has 
increased  the  number  of  factories,  he  doubts 
the  adequacy  of  the  accomniod.ation  supplietj. 
