2 . As to woodland holts there should not I think be allowed 
- .> «! 
■ 
blocks wader one cultivation, of nore than 5 .GCC acres without a 
9 \ * 
' ’ I 
break of abcut a quarter cf a mile woodland between,the land off*e©r 
could ate alar that smaller lets were pretested according tc pre¬ 
vailing wird 3 by belts cf leaa area. A hundred yards cr sc thick* 
v’*! 
The whcle scheme would have tc be adopted tc present holdings,the 
proposed 3 ystefc in the F»K«S, for this purpose consists it appears cf 
_ » • ' j 
'■ ■ ' r ' ■■ . ■ ■■■.':■ 
leaving belts cf two rsiles rubnlng across the country,this is too wide 
s * » K mt -c pLI *, M A> »•« I 
for Malacca,and could not be afforded but narrower belts could well be 
left to break up the country, *■' 
Para 3. Meted. • 
I presuite that there is no objection to ny utilizing such portions of: 
ny report as are interesting to Agriculturists in the Bulletin (ex- 
* a 
eluding of course strictly official remarks). There is a great interest 
taken new in the question cf catch-crops for rubber. 
i W t 
Isd* H.H*R.t/?/G 6 
Received 17th July 18C6* i 
I.Ke 
A j 
Para 2 the B cf 6 to draft a notice on the subject and 1 will 
request the lesident Councillor to give his views. 
As regard .3 his para 3 I think his view* on Zapicea being a catch 
crop which does no har*> tc rubber is a view which requires tc be sub- 
3 tantiated by analysis,! spoke to Mr.Bidley on the subject two days 
* ■ - 
• 1 
ago and he stated that he would have various soils analysed.I consider 
until the results cf these analysis has been obtained that it is set 
, 
desirable for the B of 0 to state to the public that it is his view 
as an expert that Tapioca as a catch, crop does not affect the growth 
X, r > jMSPtoct 
cf the rubber* 
3d* A*YCH££ 
U/7/C6 
I agree in the above ri mz*;e. Ti e Tapirca question is by nc nears 
concluded,and Mr.Ridley '3 view is too roseate. 
A . 
Intd. J.A. 12/7/06 
