On the first point there is no doubt at all. One lias only to turn 
over any old log, to see the countless feeding rubber rootlets that are 
gormandizing on the available collection of vegetable humus matter. 
Also memory still lives in regard to other agriculture, such as tea, 
coffee, etc., in which the best fields were always those that were most 
heavily timbered. 
In. rubber, however, we have to remember that decomposing 
or rotten timber is not only a hot-bed of infection but a nursery 
as well for the spread of fungoid diseases. Poria and ZJstulina , for 
instance, are among the principal agencies that cause decay. 
Further, by leaving undestroyed timber and stumps of the “ leranti,” 
“ merbau,” and “ kompas ” type, we are only offering homes for the 
development of gestroi and borers. 
What is the best way, then, of getting rid of one’s timber ? 
1 think, when opening up new land, we should adopt a “ double- 
felling” method, after the style of old Ceylon coffee planters, i.e., 
allow the clearing to grow, up again for a year after the first felling. 
Then re-fell and burn off. The result of this operation ensures a 
thoroughly clean burn and, in view of our present-day knowledge, it 
seems to me that, in the case of rubber, this is essentially what 
is required. 
As regards the second contention, mere up-rooting of small 
stumps does not present serious difficulty. Nor is it highly 
expensive. But to pull out and root the boles of large trees is 
costly and might run almost into any figure. In fact, to tackle 
really big stuff is financially prohibitive. 
What, then, is one to do ? In such cases, to my mind, there 
is ouly one practical course of action, viz,, isolate the bole by 
trenching (a distance of three feet is good enough) and if possible 
“ run ” any big lateral. 
As a rule, two years after the original burn will see most of the 
soft woods in a state when they can be “ fired,” and in another two 
to three years only the very hardest will remain. If then “firing” 
operations are taken in hand at the times mentioned and steadily 
kept up, no great initial expense should be incurred to secure 
satisfactory destruction. 
Now in regal’d to cost. Up to what point is one justified in 
incurring expenditure P There is only one way to answer this, and 
thht is to apply the “ will-it-pay ” test. Let us take the two 
principal items of estate costs, i.e., weeding and tapping. In my 
experience, there are few heavily- timbered fields that have cost less 
than $1.05 per acre per month (average) to weed during the first 
five years. Had they been free of timber, I should have put their 
cost at an average of 80 cents or less. This represents a saving 
of $15 per acre. 
