C. B. Fergus, C.E.

Siligori, 17th December, 1882.

As to Steam-Ploughing on Tea Gardens.

Sir,—As promised, I give you a letter regarding the question as to whether steam-ploughing could be wholly or partially introduced as a substitute for manual labour in Tea gardens. I have been in communication with several of the leading makers of steam-ploughing machinery in England, but notably with Messrs. Howard, of Bedford, and Messrs. Barford and Perkins, of Peterborough. These gentlemen forwarded me their illustrated catalogues in duplicate, one set of which I sent to you.

The first question that ensues in regard to the subject is, “Would it pay, even if found feasible?”

In Assam, Cachar, Sylhet and other places, where labour is scarce, it is probable that the introduction of steam cultivation would be a great boon to the Tea planter. The first cost of a steam-ploughing apparatus with ropes, plough, and everything complete as in use in England on what is called the “single system,” that is, working with only one engine, is about £950. This is heavy, but as a much lighter cultivator would be used for Tea, I think the cost might be reduced to £800—say Rs. 10,000 on the garden. Under moderately favourable circumstances the machinery, making all allowances for native attendants, and the usual difficulties we have to encounter in India through their laziness and stupidity, should cultivate 800 to 1,000 acres per month of twenty working days. The remaining ten days might be occupied in the rains by taking the engine and gear from place to place where it might be required; for, as the expense of a steam-ploughing engine and apparatus would be too much for any concern, except a very large one, to bear, I suggest that two, three, or four gardens unite and purchase one. There need be no clashing or quarrelling about terms at the end of the season: each should pay his share of the cost of fuel, up-keep, wages, &c., according to the number of days it was on each garden. It would thus be to the interest of each manager to forward it on to the man whose turn was next, without delay. Remember, please, that in saying that it would cultivate so many acres in such a time, I mean that it would cultivate two ways—that is up and down and across. There would remain a little hand-hoeing, &c., round the inner part of the roots of the bushes, but not much, as the cultivator I would design would go partly underneath the laterals and still not hurt the roots, the outer lines being much shorter than the inner ones.

Now it is a simple matter to calculate, according to the rates of the district in which the reader may be, the comparative cost of cultivating 1,000 acres of Tea by hand and by the steam-plough. The plough would be worked for Tea by an 8-H. P. portable engine of any maker’s manufacture. Wages for one engineman, one cooly to cut wood, possibly one pair bullocks and cart-driver to bring barrels of water, two coolies to shift the anchors, and two more to assist them (possibly) in shifting the rope, added to the cost of fuel, and 15 per cent. per annum added for repairs and deterioration, seems to be the cost of working. This would be lessened by the rope and anchor-men and the woodcutter on the days when the plough was not at work. Add, however, the cost of elephants or bullocks to take the engine, &c., from garden to garden, and I think it will be found that the saving in expense would be very great on the side of the steam-plough as regards cooly labour.

Now, as to the feasibility of the scheme. It is difficult, without the aid of plates, to describe how steam-ploughing is done. The engine remains stationary at one corner of the field. Near it is a large double windlass, which, when the cultivator is at work, winds up the dragging rope with one barrel of the windlass, whilst from the other the rope is uncoiling, which will drag the plough down the next furrow. When the plough comes to the end of the furrow, two men, one at each end of the rope, shift the anchors, on which are the pulleys round which the rope runs: one furrow breadth forward the plough is double, one set of coulters and shears being at work, while the other set is tilted up in the air by the weight of a man who sits on and guides the plough. When the plough is to return it is not turned round, but the man simply tilts up into the air the set of ploughs that have done their work, and brings down the others. Of course ploughs like this would not do for Tea: a special cultivator would be needed. At the end of the furrow the motion of the windlass is reversed, and the drag rope becomes in its turn the following rope. In England there is an ingenious mechanical contrivance for shifting the anchors, which does away with two men, as it works automatically. Now the greatest difficulty in the whole matter, will be best explained to the reader in Messrs. Howard’s own language in their letter to me. They say:—

“The obstacle to the use of steam-ploughs through rows of bushes or trees is the practical difficulty of bringing the slack or following rope into position for following the implement back on its return journey. The rope cannot be lifted over the intervening row of bushes, and to employ draught animals to take the rope up the next alley between the bushes would add to the expense of the work, and would impede it.” They continue: “If it is important that the land be broken up to a depth of 9 inches, and the obstacles to effecting this by animal power are practically insuperable, the steam plough worked on the single system, with animals to convey the slack from end to end of the land, would probably be the most effectual and economical method of working.”

Now if this difficulty could be overcome (and I confess it is a rather formidable one), I quite believe that on fairly straight land, even if somewhat sloping, with straight rows of bushes, and the land clear of stumps, steam cultivation would be easy. On hill gardens, or gardens where the Tea is irregularly planted, on ground much traversed by nullahs or having stumps left in, the steam cultivator could not work. There may be some method of lifting the rope over the bushes. Coolies might be stationed at intervals along the row, and with the aid of a very light block and tackle might hoist long bights of the rope high enough to clear the bushes. The block and tackle would be fastened to the top of a light pole. One man would hold the pole while the other hove up, and (the pole being midway between the two rows) might incline it over till above the next row and then lower away. A strong 10 ft. bamboo, a pair of light wooden blocks, and an inch and a half Manilla rope, would be all that would be requisite. Other projects for effecting this may strike some of your readers, and what I want is, that those who may think the idea of steam-ploughing of any value should co-operate together to work it out in a practical form: I will give every assistance in my power.