See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270072199

Agronomic Profile of the Corporate Sector Tea Plantations in Sri Lanka

Technical Report · March 2011

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.3492.2566

CITATIONS READS
2 841

3 authors:

Samansiri B.A.D Janaka C K Rajasinghe

Tea Research Institute Sri Lanka Tea Research Institute Sri Lanka
12 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Janaka Mahindapala
Tea Research Institute Sri Lanka
15 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Part of a project View project

Corporate sector census on adoption of cultural practices in Sri Lanka View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Samansiri B.A.D on 28 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Agronomic Profile of the Corporate Sector Tea
Plantations in Sri Lanka

Digital compilation: B.A.D. Samansiri/Head, Advisory & Extension Division

Agronomic Profile of the Corporate Sector
Tea Plantations in Sri Lanka

A Diagnostic Study in the Corporate Sector Tea Plantations

B A D Samansiri
J C K Rajasinghe
K G J P Mahindapala

Advisory and Extension Division

Tea Research Institute of Sri Lanka
March 2011
 Research Team of the Diagnostic Survey

B A D Samansiri Head, Advisory and Extension Division

J C K Rajasinghe Senior Advisory Officer
K D Dahanayake Senior Advisory Officer
M K S L D Amaratunga Senior Advisory Officer
J P Mahindapala Advisory Officer
T G N Mahinda Advisory Officer
S P Rathnayake Advisory Officer
K R W B Kahandawa Advisory Officer
H J M De Silva Extension Officer
H Jayaweera Extension Officer
M A H Nishanthi Extension Officer
C J Liyanarachchi Extension Officer
A L R U Kumara Extension Officer
V G A Vishvajith Extension Officer

Advisory and Extension Division

Tea Research Institute of Sri Lanka
 Agronomic Profile of the Corporate Tea Plantations in Sri Lanka

A diagnostic Survey in the Corporate Sector in Sri Lanka

CONTENTS

FOREWORD vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

Chapter 1
Land Use, Age Profile and Productivity of the Corporate Tea Sector

INTRODUCTION 6
1.1 LAND USE PATTERN 6
1.2 LAND USE IN ELEVATION RANGES 8
1.3 CATEGORIZATION OF MATURE TEA EXTENTS 11
1.3.1 Categorization by Elevation Ranges 11
1.3.2 Categorization under Administrative Districts 12
1.3.3 Categorization by Planting Districts 12
1.3.4 Categorization of Tea extents under Regional Plantation Companies 12
1.3.5 Categorization of Tea Extents under Agro Ecological Regions (AER) 12
1.3.6 Area under Different Crops in AERs 15
1.3.7 Mature Tea Extents under AERs 17
1.3.8 Categorization of Tea under Different Soil Series 18

1.4 PRODUCTIVITY OF TEA 18

1.4.1 Productivity in the Elevation Ranges 19
1.4.2 Tea Extents in Different Yield Slabs 19
1.4.3 Productivity of Tea under Age Groups 20
1.4.4 Productivity of Seedling Tea in Elevation Ranges 20
1.4.5 Productivity of VP Tea in Elevation Ranges 20
1.4.6 Productivity of VP and Seedling Tea under AERs 21
1.4.7 Productivity Slabs of Seedling Tea under AERs 22
1.4.8 Productivity Slabs of VP Tea under AERs 23
1.4.9 Productivity under Different Soil Series 24

1.5 AGE CATEGORY OF TEA 25

1.6 REPLANTING IN THE CORPORATE SECTOR 26

Chapter 2
Nursery Management

INTRODUCTION 30
2.1 REGIONAL PROFILE OF VP TEA NURSERIES 30
2.2 NURSERY CAPACITY AND PRICE OF A NURSERY PLANT IN EACH RPC 30
2.3 AVAILABILITY OF SEPARATE MOTHER BUSH AREAS FOR TAKING CUTTINGS 30
2.4 SOURCE OF CUTTINGS 31
2.5 NURSERY SITE 32
2.6 NURSERY SHADE 33

2.7 DETAILS ON NURSERY BAGS, SOIL USED 34

2.7.1 Size of the Nursery Bag Used 34
2.7.2 Sealing the Bottom of the Bag 35
2.7.3 Source of Nursery Soil 35
2.7.4 Soil Used in Nurseries 35
2.7.5 Use of Soil Shed to Store Nursery Soil 35
2.7.6 Testing Soil pH Before Using for Nursery Work 36
2.7.7 Actions Taken if the Soil pH was Low 36
2.7.8 Actions Taken if the Soil pH was High 36
2.8 WATERING ASPECTS IN the NURSERY 37
2.9 NURSERY FUMIGATION 38
2.9.1 Fumigation of Soil 38
2.9.2 Fumigation Method Adopted 38
2.9.3 Rates of Fumigants Used 38
2.9.4 Fumigation of Nursery Bed 39
2.9.5 The Process of Nursery Bed Fumigation 39
2.9.6 Availability of Separate Area for Soil Fumigation 39
2.10 FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDE USE 39
2.10.1 Type of Fertilizer Use in the Nursery 39
2.10.2 Application of Zinc Sulphate to the Nursery 40
2.10.3 Use of Foliar Nutrients to the Nursery 40
2.10.4 Use of Chemicals to Manage Pests and Diseases in the Nursery 40
2.10.5 Managing Mites in the Nursery 40
2.10.6 Control of Tea Tortrix in the Nursery 41
2.10.7 Control of Blister Blight in the Nursery 41
2.11 PREPARING PLANTS FOR PLANTING IN FIELD 42
2.11.1 Restacking of Plants 42
2.11.2 Frequency of Restacking 42
2.11.3 Encourage Lateral Spread 42
2.11.4 Hardening-off of Nursery Plants 42
2.12 SOIL SUBSTITUTES 43
2.12.1 Use of soil substitute in the nursery 43
2.12.2 Reasons for Using Soil Substitute in the Nursery 43
2.12.3 Type of Soil Substitute Used 43
2.13 GENERAL ASPECTS OF THE NURSERY 44
2.13.1 Fate of the Over-grown Plants 44
2.13.2 Purpose of Raising Plants in the Nursery 44
2.13.3 Quality of the Nursery Site and the Selling Price of Plants 44
2.13.4 Sizes of the Nursery Bag and the Selling Price of Plants 44
 Chapter 3
New Clearings

INTRODUCTION 46
3.1 METHOD OF SELECTING LAND FOR REPLANTING 46
3.2 FATE OF UNSUITABLE LAND SECTIONS OF THE FIELD 46
3.3 METHOD OF UPROOTING OLD TEA 47
3.4 LAND PREPARATION FOR REPLANTING 47
3.5 METHOD OF REMOVAL OF OLD SHADE TREES 47
3.6 REHABILITATION OF FIELDS BEFORE REPLANTING 48
3.7 REASONS FOR NOT REHABILITATING 48
3.8 MONTH OF PLANTING THE REHABILITATION GRASS 48
3.9 NUMBER OF GRASS LOPPING PER YEAR 49
3.10 APPLICATION OF FERTILIZER FOR REHABILITATION GRASSES 49
3.11 MONTH OF PLANTING TEA IN DIFFERENT REGIONS 50
3.12 CORRECTNESS OF DIMENSIONS OF PLANTING HOLE 50
3.13 MATERIALS INCORPORATED TO PLANTING HOLE 50
3.14 SOURCE OF PLANTS FOR LAST COMPLETED REPLANTING PROGRAMME 51
3.15 TYPE OF PLANTS USED FOR REPLANTING 51
3.16 PLANT SPACING 51
3.17 REASONS FOR ADOPTING SPACING OTHER THAN 2 FT X 4 FT 52
3.18 METHODS ADOPTED TO BRING YOUNG TEA INTO BEARING 52

Chapter 4
Fertilizer and Fertility-related Cultivation Practices

INTRODUCTION 53
4.1 APPLICATION OF DOLOMITE 53
4.2 FERTILIZER APPLICATION FOR IMMATURE TEA 54
4.3 FERTILIZER APPLICATION FOR MATURE TEA 55
4.4 COMMON NUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES FOUND IN MATURE TEA FIELDS 57
4.5 APPLICATION OF ORGANIC MATTER TO TEA FIELDS 58
4.6 USE OF PRE-PRUNE AND POST-PRUNE FERTILIZER MIXTURES 58
4.7 USE OF ZINC SULPHATE 58

Chapter 5
Harvesting of Tea

INTRODUCTION 59
5.1 HARVESTING OR PLUCKING STANDARDS 59
5.2 TRI SELECTIVE TEA HARVESTER (SHEAR) 59
5.3 PLUCKING BASKETS 62
5.4 WORKER DEPLOYMENT FOR PLUCKING 62

Chapter 6
Pruning Tea and Related Cultivation Practices

6.1 LENGTH OF PRUNING CYCLES AND PRODUCTIVITY 64

6.2 FORWARD PRUNING PROGRAMME 66
6.3 STYLE OF PRUNING 66
6.4 PRE-PRUNING OPERATIONS 68
6.5 TIME OF PRUNING (MONTH OF THE YEAR) 68
6.6 POST-PRUNING OPERATIONS 71
Chapter 7
Shade Management

INTRODUCTION 72
7.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF SHADE DURING LAST FIVE YEARS PERIOD 72
7.2 TIME OF ESTABLISHING SHADE WHEN REPLANTING 72
7.3 PLANTING SPACING OF HIGH SHADE 72
7.4 LOPPING OF MEDIUM SHADE 73
Chapter 8
Weed Management

INTRODUCTION 74
8.1 WEED MANAGEMENT IN YOUNG TEA FIELDS 74
8.2 WEED MANAGEMENT IN MATURE TEA FIELDS 75

Chapter 9
Pest & Disease Management

INTRODUCTION 76
9.1 PESTS OF TEA 76
9.2 DISEASES OF TEA 80
9.3 NEMATODES OF TEA 82

Chapter 10
Information Availability

INTRODUCTION 84
10.1 RANKING INFORMATION SOURCES ON AVAILABILITY 84
10.2 FREQUENCY OF RECEIVING OF INFORMATION 85

APPENDICES

Appendix I: Categorization of Tea Estates of the Regional Plantation 86

Companies in Sri Lanka

Appendix II: Agro-Ecological Regions found in the Tea growing 94

Regions in Sri Lanka

Appendix III: Planting Districts in Sri Lanka 98

Appendix IV: Soil Series found in Tea Growing Regions in Sri Lanka 99
 FOREWORD

I take great pleasure in writing the foreword for this valuable and insightful report.

For many decades tea has been the mainstay of Sri Lanka‟s economy. However, productivity has
never been sufficiently optimized to expected levels despite the introduction of improved tea cultivars
and technology. When compared to productivity levels of major tea producing countries – Sri Lankan
tea productivity levels are low.

National planners, policy makers and scientists have made and continue to make serious efforts to
improve productivity in order to improve earnings/returns as well as to reduce the cost of production
through improved throughputs. Due to limited access to up-to-date and reliable information it has
often been difficult to envisage or speculate on the direction in which the tea industry could be
expected to take in the future.

This study is a diagnostic census of all tea fields in the 307 corporate sector tea-growing estates and
has resulted in an in-depth analysis of technical achievements and short-comings experienced on
estates and illustrates important issues faced by the tea industry with regard to productivity.

A key outcome of this and previous studies is evidence that the replanting rate in the corporate sector
as a whole is very low. As a national priority we should aspire to improve on the replanting rate.

The results of this census provide important and helpful insights to scientists, national planners and
policy makers to help achieve anticipated bench-marks for enhanced productivity.

More importantly the outcome of this study will prompt action to address issues in order to uplift tea
productivity to match levels and bring Sri Lanka up to par with major tea producing countries both in
the long and short term.

Dr. I Sarath B Abeysinghe

Director
Tea Research Institute of Sri Lanka
 Acknowledgements

We highly appreciate the encouragements given by Dr. S S B D G Jayawardena, Chairman and

the members of the Tea Research Board and the Chairman and the members of the
Consultative Committee on Advisory Services and Estates, to make the study a successWe
are grateful to Dr. I S B Abeysinghe, Director, TRI and Dr. L S K Hettiarachchi, Deputy Director
Research (Production) for providing the permission and necessary facilities for conducting this study.

We are also highly grateful to Mr. R K Nathaniel, for his guidance from the planning stage of this
study, final editing of the manuscript and writing the comprehensive executive summary for this
document. His valuable comments were very constructive in finalizing the document.

Thanks are also due to Mr. Malin Gunathilake, Secretary General of Planters‟ Association and all the
CEOs of Regional Plantations Companies for giving us the permission to collect necessary information
from their plantations for this study. The Managers, Superintendents, Assistant Managers and the
other staff members of all RPC tea estates are highly appreciated for spending their valuable time to
share their experience on the matters related to the adoption of TRI recommendation in their
plantations and also providing necessary information for this exercise.

We must be grateful to all the Heads of the Divisions, OICs and other staff members of TRI , for
their interaction with us and in offering all the necessary help and co-operation

The Research Team of this study must be highly recognized for their untiring effort taken to collect,
tabulate and analyze the information, besides their busy routine Advisory activities in the division.
We are also thankful to Dr. G P Gunaratne, Head, Soils and Plant Nutrition Division, Ms. M A H
Nishanthi, Extension Officer, Dr. V S Sidhakaran, Senior Advisory Officer, Ms. T U S Peiris,
Biometrician, TRI for their valuable comments given in analyzing and presenting the data.

Thanks are also due to Mr. Chamara Nishnsala of the Uva Extension Centre, Passara, for assisting
the team in data collection and Ms. C S K Kiribathgoda, Advisory Division for typing the necessary
documents. A special thank is due to Mr. K P H Liyanage, Publications/Publicity Officer, TRI, for his
valuable suggestions given on the manuscript and for page-setting the final document within a very
short period of time.
Authors
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Towards undertaking an effective development planning in the corporate tea sector as a whole,
particularly on a long-term basis, it is necessary for the national planners and policy makers to have
ready access to up-to-date and reliable information, on the direction in which the industry could be
expected to go in the near future. Such information was first made available in the 2002 study on
“The Agricultural Profile of the Corporate Sector”, which covered only the aspects of productivity and
aging of tea in relation to long-term sustainability. Scant attention was paid to operational
agricultural aspects which has a significant bearing on productivity and profitability in today‟s
inflationary environment.

This “Diagnostic Census” was undertaken to update the available data and also cover all possible
agricultural practices adopted by all tea estates under the 20 Regional Plantation Companies (RPC).
Also quantified was the perception of estate management staff on major technical issues related to
field activities and channels of flow of technical information.

MAJOR FINDINGS

TEA AREA
The land area covered by the 307 tea estates in the 20 RPCs was 170,395.7 ha of which 69.6%
(118,587.3 ha) was cultivated. Tea comprised of 79,372 ha (66.9% of total cultivated area).
Agarapatana Plantations Ltd managed the largest proportion of mature tea extent (8.7% covering
6,606.4 ha) in the RPCs, and also has the largest percent of seedling tea (11.8%). The least proportion
of tea was in Kegalle Plantations Ltd (1.7% covering 1,320 ha) also having the least proportion of VP
tea (2.1%). Maskeliya Plantations Ltd. was seen to manage the largest proportion of VP tea extent
(7.8% covering 2,897 ha).

As much as 94.9% of the total seedling tea extent and 82.2% of the total VP tea extent are located in
three administrative districts of Nuwara Eliya, Badulla and Ratnapura. The highest percent of mature
tea is found in Dimbula planting district (16.6%), followed by Badulla (13.1%) and Dickoya (13.0%).
Dimbula has 47 estates, followed by Dickoya with 33, and Badulla and Ratnapura with 29 each. The
highest percent of VP tea extent is found in Dimbula planting district (17.8%) followed by Dickoya
(15.9%) and Badulla (8.5%).

The total tea area as at 2008 (79,372 ha), had shrunk by 2.7% when compared to the data collected
in 2002 (81,591 ha). Seedling tea decreased (by 8.1%) while VP tea increased (by 2 %), though Low
country region reported a reduction of VP extent (by 1.6%). The highest reduction in seedling tea
(4.6%) was in the Up country, followed by Uva (1.7%). In VP tea in bearing, the RPC estates had
49.3% in 2008 as compared to 46.7% in 2002, whilst in seedling tea it was 50.7% in 2008 as against
53.3% in 2002. Areas under rubber (14.5%) and oil palm (1.6%) had increased by 3.0% and 36.0%,
respectively, as compared to 2002.

Out of the total tea area in bearing (75,541.4 ha, which is 95.2%of the total tea area), 53.9% is in the
Up country 27.2% in Uva, 16.8% in Low country and 7.1% in Mid country. Of this VP occupies 73.0%
in Low country, 63.0% in Mid country, 49.9% in Up country and 30.5% in Uva. The Low country
region had large extents (35.1%of total land) under forest, scrub lands, uncultivated and other
unspecified land use categories. Land use in the RPC tea estates were also analyzed on the basis of
Administrative, and tea planting districts, Agro-ecological Regions and soil series (types).
REPLANTING
A gradual decline in overall replanting rates was seen, in all regions, starting from 1991 (from 1.46%
or 1,129 ha in 1986-1990), to end up at 0.42% (226 ha) of the planted tea area per annum over the
last two years (2006-2008). The lowest overall average replanting rate was 0.14% (in 1956-1960),
while the highest was 1.46% (in 1986-1990).

Investigating further, it was observed that over the past 5 decades (1956-2008) of commercial
replanting, the average annual replanting rate was only 0.97% (746.3 ha being replanted, on the
average, per year out of 78,330.5 ha of averaged tea extent). To achieve the conventionally accepted
norm of 2% annual replanting in the corporate sector, the extent replanted annually should have
been an average of 1,567 ha per annum. What is most disturbing is that the net area the 307 RPC
estates failed to replant, to achieve the annual norm of 2% from 1991-2005 is a total of 23,500 ha
which would have all been in full bearing by 2008, and given an annual incremental crop of about 58
m kg made tea per year, at a modest yield of 2,500 kg per ha.

PRODUCTIVITY OF TEA
About 79% of the seedling tea yielded less than 1,300 kg per ha per annum, of which 11.3% (totaling
4,334.9 ha) yielded even less than 700 kg, while 0.3% yielded more than 2,500 kg per ha. In VP tea,
65.4% of the area (24,360 ha) yielded above 1,600 kg per ha per annum, while 17.9% (6,659 ha)
yielded below 1,300 kg. About 75.7% of the seedling tea in the Up country, 81.5% in Uva, 82.4% in
Mid country and 89.3% in the Low country produced less than 1,300 kg per ha per annum. The
overall productivity of VP tea was relatively high in the Up country (at a yield per ha (YPH) of 2,070
kg), while in the Low country, only VP fields in the early ages (up to 20 years) were more productive
at a YPH above 1,900 kg. VP fields in the Up country achieved their highest productivity level at 21-
30 years, whereas, in Uva and Mid country it was at 31-40 years. The highest overall average
productivity of VP tea fields in the corporate sector was achieved at the age group of 31-40 years. The
declining trend of VP tea yields started at the age of 20 years in the Low country, at 40 years in Mid
country and Uva, and at 30 years in Up country regions.

About 19.7% of VP tea in the Up country, 8.1% in Uva, 10.2% in Mid country and 8.8% in the Low
country yielded more than 2,500 kg per ha per annum. There was a significant extent of VP tea in
Low country (19.2%) producing less than 1,000 kg per ha, while in Up country, Uva and Mid country,
1.3%, 5.5%, and 11.1% respectively fell into the same yield slab. Productivity was also analyzed under
Agro-ecological Regions and soil series (types).

FUELWOOD/TIMBER PLANTING
The land area under fuelwood/timber was 11.2% of total land area and 16.1% of total cultivated area.
This was 0.55% less than the extent reported in 2002. Mid country had the highest area of
fuelwood/timber (30.1% of cultivated area) and Low country had the lowest (11.0% of cultivated area).
Uva and Up country had 22.8% and13.7% of the cultivated area under fuelwood/timber.

NURSERY MANAGEMENT
The average nursery carried plants (averaging 48,946 per nursery) adequate to replant 4 ha per
annum. The average cost of raising a nursery plant was Rs 14.12, ranging from Rs 12.43 to Rs 20.00
among RPCs. Most nursery practices were undertaken in a satisfactory manner, though there were
some shortcomings; with less than 40% of the estates not having their own mother bushes for
obtaining cuttings, and as many as 77% of the nurseries not having sedimentation tanks. Though
73% fumigated their nursery soil, using appropriate chemicals, 34% did not use correct rates, and a
further 71% did not fumigate the nursery beds. Nursery fertilizer use was good, pests and diseases
were controlled well and restacking and bush formation practices were being regularly done.

NEW CLEARINGS
Fields for replanting were largely selected with the help of TRI Advisory staff or estate management
staff. Old tea was mainly uprooted manually, and almost all areas deep forked with removal of all
roots before planting grass, while only 60% ring-barked shade trees before felling. Many lopped the
grass only once and estates rarely applied any grass fertilizer. Planting holes were inappropriate in
42% of the estates, and most used bag plants from their own nurseries or from other estates. Only
50% used the conventional spacing of 120 cm x 60 cm (4 ft by 2 ft), while others either planted much
closely or in double hedge rows. Young tea was almost exclusively brought into bearing with a cut
across.

FERTILIZER USE
Dolomite was applied to mature tea by almost all estates, after testing soil pH and basing the quantity
to be applied on it, with 50% applying it before pruning. Fertilizer application to young tea was
appropriate, but only 40% applied TRI recommended mixtures. The amount of fertilizer to be applied
for mature tea was fairly evenly based on potential yield, replacement basis or on a combination of
both, but rarely was it based on site-specific recommendations. A third of the estates applied organic
matter and used special pre- prune mixtures

HARVESTING OF TEA
About 85% of the estates maintained a medium standard of plucking (60-75% good leaf) in all
elevations, on an average of 6-8 day rounds. Only 16% adopted shear harvesting regularly, while 44%
tried it at least once. Many used shears to overcome heavy cropping and labor shortage. More estates
used shears in Uva, followed by Up country, Mid country and Low country. Only 1% used the TRI
innovative basket with many using polysacks or cane baskets. Even with an efficient system of
harvesting, shears have not become adequately popular to overcome worker shortage and the ever
increasing worker wages.

PRUNING
Pruning was largely done at 36 months in Low country and Mid country. However, the better VP fields
in Mid country were pruned in 4 years. In the Up country and Uva regions, the majority pruned on
four year cycles. About 76% of the respondents followed a forward pruning programme. Many adopted
lung pruning (80%) as it ensured better recovery. Root starch levels were tested by 35%, while 40%
rested fields before pruning, and almost all estates undertook bush sanitation after pruning. Only
10% undertook the burying of prunings and 34% forked their fields after pruning.

SHADE MANAGEMENT
About 27% of the respondents had not established any shade at all in new clearings, while the others
established shade at the correct time, when rehabilitation grass was planted. However, a majority
adopted incorrect planting distances, as their final thinning out was not done properly. Many lopped
their shade two times a year, even though 3 lops were possible.

WEED MANAGEMENT
A majority adopted hand weeding in young tea but some combined it with the use of chemicals such
as Paraquat (46%) and Glyphosate (39%). Only 5% thatched their young clearings. In mature tea
fields, almost all undertook chemical weed management as the major weed control method, using
Glyphosate predominantly, except in pruned fields, at appropriate rates. Most estates gave only 1-2
 applications per year, adhering strictly to TRI recommendations on herbicide usage towards
minimizing chemical residues in made tea.

PEST MANAGEMENT
Shot-hole Borer was the most serious tea pest (71%) in Sri Lanka while Tea Tortrix and mites ranked
as the 2nd (45%) and 3rd (45%). Low country live wood termite ranked as 4th (20%) and scavenging
termite, Up country live wood termite, white grub and nettle grub ranked as 5 th (5%), 6th(4%),7th
(2%)and 8th (1%) respectively. Shot-hole Borer was severe in all regions, except Up country where
Tortrix was ranked the most serious pest.

Estimation of infestation level of Shot-hole Borer to decide on the need to spray was not undertaken
by 44% of respondents. Of those who did it, only 13% sought TRI assistance. Only 6% of the estates
resorted to chemical control of Shot-hole Borer using the only recommended safe chemical, Lebycide.
Only 5% of estates had ever used pheromone traps in tea fields to monitor Tortrix population, while
22% of respondents were unaware of this.

DISEASE MANAGEMENT
Blister blight ranked as the most serious disease in all regions, followed by Macrophoma canker,
primarily serious in the Low country, and wood rot in Low country, Up country and Uva. Surprisingly
Red root disease (Poria) which was at one time known as the most dangerous disease in tea
plantations has now become a disease of the least importance due to effective TRI intervention. To
control Blister blight, 83% used copper fungicides as opposed to 17% using systemic fungicides.

NEMATODES IN TEA
Many estates (51%) reported no nematode symptoms in their nurseries. About 19% have contacted
the TRI about the problem. In the field, about 56% reported no nematode symptoms, while 24% have
contacted the TRI about suspected nematode problems. About 7% of the estates had no idea about
the symptoms of nematode infestation.

INFORMATION AVAILABILITY
Managers of the corporate sector estates get their required information from company higher officials
while TRI officials were their second choice. Most estates contacted Company higher officials at a
frequency of 1-2 months, while TRI officials were generally contacted at a frequency of 3-6 months.
Brokering firms were contacted in parallel at 1-2 months. Estates also contacted Managers of
Neighboring estates at a frequency of 1-2 months.

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
 REPLANTING: With only 49.3% VP tea as at present, replanting needs to be accelerated. The
current annual rate is 0.42% (878 ha) of tea area when 2% (1,566.6 ha) has been the conventional
norm. The following details on replanting emanate from this study:
 SENILE TEA: It is estimated that 7,380 ha needs to be replanted on age criteria alone [VP
tea over 30 yrs in LC (34.8% or 3,152 ha), over 40 yrs in UC (11.3% or 2,272 ha), MC (23.8%
or 799 ha) & Uva (18.4% or 1157 ha)]
 UNECONOMIC TEA: Estimation indicates that 18,808 ha is uneconomic to maintain
[yielding less than 1,000 kg: VP 2,600 ha (or 7% of VP area); seedling: 16,208 ha (42.3%of
seedling area)]
 AREA AVAILABLE FOR REPLANTING/DIVERSIFICATION: Some areas may be double
counted, above, and giving allowance for that, perhaps an estimated 40-60% area (10,000-
 15,000 ha) may possibly have soils suited for replanting. A minimum rate of 2% replanting
should be instituted on each estate using the recently released promising TRI cultivars.

 MODERATE YIELDING BUT NEAR UNECONOMIC TEA: There is 4,059 ha (10.9%) of VP tea and
14,164 ha (37.0%) of OST yielding 1,001-1,300 kg, bordering uneconomic levels. Institute good
agricultural practices (GAP) to revitalize them.
 UNECONOMIC TEA: Diversify uneconomic tea on each estate/region to achieve near 8,000 ha
(10%of tea area) of total but suitable fuelwood to realize the objective of self-sufficiency in
individual factory fuel needs.
 UNCULTIVATED LAND: There is much uncultivated land (14,288 ha or 8.4% total area) which
should be evaluated and put to any appropriate economic use.
 FOREST/SCRUB LANDS: These (12,569.7 ha or 7.4% total area of all tea lands) should also be
evaluated and consolidated for economic/environmental returns.
 FUELWOOD/TIMBER: These (19,074 ha) should also be evaluated and consolidated separately.
 NURSERY/FIELD PRACTICES: Shortcomings in nursery management and field practices like
new clearing work, fertilizer use, harvesting, pruning, shade management and pest/disease
control which were highlighted earlier should all be rectified to suit TRI recommendations. TRI
should follow up the gaps in knowledge.
 ACCESS TO INFORMATION BY MANAGERS: The frequency of contacting TRI is inadequate. The
estate Management personnel should not only get in touch with TRI staff when faced with
problems, but must also arrange to spend a full day at the TRI, at least once a year, to familiarize
themselves of current research developments.

JUSTIFICATION
With a considerable extent of uneconomic tea, with rapidly declining yields, it is a cause for alarm to
the country in general and the industry in particular, and hence a concerted effort needs to be taken,
as a matter of the highest priority, to revitalize it. The overall corporate sector productivity for 2008
was 1,483 kg, with VP tea at 1,888 kg and seedling tea at 1,089 kg, being about the lowest levels of
productivity among tea producing countries.

Replanting should be spruced up, by order, to achieve a minimum 3% rate on each estate, which
should be enhanced to 4% wherever possible, particularly with the economic age of VP not being
much more than 30 years in most regions. It is only then that the sector could at least offset senile
and economically unproductive tea as they reach such a stage.

What is alarming is the abysmally low productivity of VP tea. Only in the Up country does it average
just over 2,000 kg while in the other regions it is below 1800 kg. What is of more concern is that
7.0% (2,600 ha) of the total VP area producing less than 1,000 kg per ha. A further 10.9% (4,059 ha)
VP produces 1,001-1,300 kg The highest priority needs to be given to improve productivity of the
latter yield class through implementation of good agricultural practices, being largely uneconomic to
maintain under the present productivity level.
 Chapter 1

LAND USE, AGE PROFILE AND PRODUCTIVITY OF THE CORPORATE TEA SECTOR

INTRODUCTION
This report is the outcome of the “Agricultural Census” undertaken by the staff of the Advisory &
Extension Services of the TRI, covering all the 307 tea estates managed by the 20 Regional Plantation
Companies. The Census was conducted from August 2007 to December 2008.

Basically, the field-wise average yields in the last completed cycle, length of pruning cycles of each
field, the amounts of nitrogen applied in the pruning cycle and agricultural practices adopted by all
RPC estates were collected for this study. The perception of the estate management staff on major
technical issues related to field activities and channels of flow of technical information to the estate,
frequency of their contact with the respective information sources, etc., were also gathered for this
study.

1.1 LAND USE PATTERN

The total area of tea lands under estates in the 20 RPCs were covered in the study and this was
170,395.7 hectare. Their pattern of land use is as shown below:

Table 1.1.1: Total Land Use in the Corporate Sector

Land Use Extent (ha) %
Land under cultivation 118,587.3 69.6
Forest/scrub lands 12,569.7 7.4
Buildings/Gardens 11,549.3 6.8
Uncultivated 14,287.8 8.4
Unspecified 13,401.6 7.9
Total 170,395.7 100.0

It is evident that 69.6% (118,587.3 ha) of the total land area of RPC estates are under some form of
cultivation and that 7.4% was under forest/scrubland, while a further 6.8% was under
buildings/gardens and 8.4% remained uncultivated. About 7.9% of the total land was also seen to be
assigned to other unspecified uses.

Table 1.1.2: Total Cultivated Area

Land Use Extent (ha) %
Tea 79,372.3 66.9
Rubber 17,190.4 14.5
Coconut 846.5 0.7
EAC*/Fruits 194.6 0.2
Oil Palm 1,909.5 1.6
Fuel Wood/Timber 19,074.2 16.1

Total 118,587.3 100.0

* Export Agriculture Crops
All tea-related land use occupies 66.9% of the total land area which was about 2.7% less than the
area under tea cultivation reported in 2002 (81,591.15 ha.). The land area covered in combined fuel
wood/timber was 16.1% which was 106.6 hectare (0.55%) less than the extent reported in 2002
under this category. The areas under rubber (14.5%) and oil palm cultivation (1.6%) have increased
by 3.0% and 36.0%, respectively, when comparing with the extents in 2002.

Table 1.1.3: Area under Tea Cultivation

Land Use Extent (ha) %

Seedling Tea 38,313.7 50.7

VP Tea 37,227.7 49.3
Tea in Bearing 75,541.4 100.0 95.2
Immature VP 1,579.8 2.0
Rehabilitation Grass 1,209.3 1.5
Nurseries 285.5 0.4
Thatch banks 756.3 1.0
Total 79,372.3 100.0

Table 1.1.3 indicates that the area in bearing comprises of 95.2% of the total tea extent. About 50.7%
of the tea in bearing is under seedling tea while 49.3% is under VP. Immature tea extent (tea area
below 4 years of age) is reported as 2% of the total tea extent, while a further 1.5% is under
rehabilitation grasses. Almost 1% of the total tea area is kept under thatch banks.

Table 1.1.4: Overall Land Use in the Corporate Sector

Land Use Extent (Ha) %
VP 37,227.7 21.8
Seedling 38,313.7 22.5
Immature VP 1,579.8 0.9
Rehabilitation Grass 1,209.3 0.7
Nurseries 285.5 0.2

Thatch Banks 756.3 0.4

Rubber 17,190.4 10.1

Coconut 846.5 0.5

Oil Palm 1,909.5 1.1

EAC*/Fruits 194.6 0.1

Fuel Wood/Timber 19,074.2 11.2

Forest/scrub lands 12,569.7 7.4

Buildings/Gardens 11,549.3 6.8

Uncultivated 14,287.8 8.4

Unspecified 13,401.6 7.9

Total 170,395.7 100.0

* Export Agriculture Crops
The above Table shows the overall land use in tea plantations of the corporate sector (which is derived
from Tables 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3). On an overall basis, 21.8% of the total land area is under VP tea while
22.5% is under seedling tea. Immature tea extent is only 0.9% of the total land area and 0.7% is
under rehabilitation grasses. Combined fuelwood and timber area is 11.2% of the total land area. Out
of the total land area in the 20 RPCs, it is significant to note that a considerable proportion is under
rubber (10.1%) and oil palm (1.1%). Rubber and oil palm extents were only 9.74% and 0.82%
respectively, of the total land area, in 2002.

However, only 46.26% of the total land in the corporate sector is found to be directly under tea.

1.2 LAND USE IN ELEVATION RANGES

The following section describes the land use pattern of RPC plantations categorized under different
elevation ranges where tea is grown. Low country is defined as lands from sea level up to 600m amsl,
Mid country from 600m to 1200m amsl (wet zone), Uva also from 600m to 1200m amsl (semi-dry
zone), and Up country (above 1200m amsl).

Table 1.2.1: General Land use in Elevation Ranges

Land Use Tea Growing Region
Up Uva Mid Low TOTAL %
Country Country Country
Extent (ha) 60,431.9 38,365.5 11,215.1 60,383.2
Land under cultivation 78.2 72.2 69.3 59.4 118,587.3 69.6
Forest/scrub lands 5.6 7.7 3.4 9.8 12,569.7 7.4
Buildings/Gardens 8.0 6.6 7.7 5.5 11,549.3 6.8
Uncultivated 5.0 6.0 10.3 12.9 14,287.8 8.4
Unspecified 3.2 7.6 9.4 12.4 13,401.6 7.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 170,395.7 100.0

As shown in the Table 1.2.1, the largest percent of cultivated land, about 78.2%, is in the Up country
with the Low country having the least, at 59.4%. However, the Low country region had large extents
of land under forest, scrub lands, uncultivated and other unspecified land use categories.

Table 1.2.2: Cultivated Area in Elevation Ranges.

Land Use Tea Growing Region
Up Uva Mid Low TOTAL %
Country Country Country
Extent (ha) 47,252.2 27,693.4 7,766.8 35,874.9
Tea 86.2 74.2 69.5 35.4 79,372.3 66.9
Rubber 0.0 3.0 0.4 45.5 17,190.4 14.5
Coconut 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 846.5 0.7
EAC*/Fruits 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 194.6 0.2
Oil Palm 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 1,909.5 1.6
Fuel Wood/Timber 13.7 22.8 30.1 11.0 19,074.2 16.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 118,587.3 100.0
* Export Agriculture Crops
The Up country region has the highest proportion of tea in cultivation, at 86.2%, and the lowest is in
the Low country, at only 35.4%. Rubber occupying 45.5% of the area under cultivation has become
the major crop of economic significance in the Low country. In addition, Low country has 5.3% of oil
palm and 2.4% of coconut areas.

The highest extent under fuel wood/timber cultivation can be seen in the Mid country region (30.1%),
and the lowest (11.0%) in the Low country.

Table 1.2.3: Tea Cultivation in Elevation Ranges

Land Use Tea Growing Region
Up Country Uva Mid Low TOTAL %
Country Country
Extent (ha) 40,735.8 20,539.1 5,400.0 12,697.4
Tea in bearing 95.0 97.1 95.3 92.6 75,541.4 95.2
Immature VP 1.9 1.0 2.1 3.8 1,579.8 2.0

Rehabilitation Grass 1.6 1.1 0.8 2.3 1,209.3 1.5

Nurseries 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.7 285.5 0.4

Thatch bank 1.2 0.5 1.4 0.6 756.3 1.0
Total Tea 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 79,372.3 100.0

It is seen from the Table 1.2.3 that on the average, the area in bearing comprises 95.2% of the total
tea area, with the highest being in the Uva, at 97.1% and the lowest in the Low country, at 92.6%. In
the case of immature tea, including the area under rehabilitation grasses, the Low country has the
highest, whereas, Uva has the lowest percent of immature tea and Mid country has the lowest percent
of area under rehabilitation grasses.

Table 1.2.4: Mature Tea in Bearing in Elevation Ranges

Land Use Tea Growing Region
Up Uva Mid Low TOTAL %
Country Country Country
Tea in bearing 38,687.8 19,948.0 5,144.3 11,761.4
Seedling 50.1 69.5 37.0 27.0 38,313.7 50.7
VP 49.9 30.5 63.0 73.0 37,227.7 49.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 75,541.4 100.0

Though the Up country has the largest extent of tea in bearing, Low country has the highest
percentage of VP tea (73%) while the Uva has the lowest (30.5%).

Table 1.2.5 shows the overall land use in tea plantations in the different elevation ranges (which is
derived from Tables 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4). On an overall basis, the highest land area in Low country
estates was under Rubber cultivation, at 27.0% of the total extent. VP tea occupied only 14.2% while
seedling tea occupied 5.3% of the total extent in the Low country. It was also seen that 3.2% of the
total area in the Low country was under oil palm cultivation.
Table 1.2.5: Overall Land Use in Elevation Ranges
Land Use Tea Growing Region
Up Uva Mid Low TOTAL %
Country Country Country
Extent (ha) 60,431.9 38,365.5 11,215.1 60,383.2
VP 32.0 15.9 28.9 14.2 37,227.7 21.8
Seedling 32.1 36.1 17.0 5.3 38,313.7 22.5
Immature VP 1.3 0.5 1.0 0.8 1,579.8 0.9

Rehabilitation Grass 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.5 1,209.3 0.7

Nurseries 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 285.6 0.2

Thatch Banks 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.1 756.3 0.4
Rubber 0.0 2.2 0.3 27.0 17,190.4 10.1
Coconut 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 846.5 0.5
Oil Palm 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 1,909.5 1.1
EAC*/Fruits 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 194.5 0.1
Fuel Wood/Timber 10.7 16.4 20.8 6.5 19,074.1 11.2
Forest/scrub lands 5.5 7.7 3.4 9.8 12,569.8 7.4
Buildings/Gardens 8.0 6.6 7.7 5.5 11,549.3 6.8
Uncultivated 5.0 6.0 10.2 12.9 14,287.7 8.4
Unspecified 3.2 7.6 9.4 12.4 13,401.7 7.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 170,395.7 100.0
* Export Agriculture Crops

In the Mid country, the largest extent, of 28.9%, was under VP tea, while 17.0% was under seedling
tea. A considerable extent of the total lands in the Mid country (20.8%) was seen to be cultivated with
fuel wood and timber.

In the Uva region, the largest extent, of 36.1%, was under seedling tea while 15.9% was under VP tea.
About, 16.4% of the total extent was being kept under fuel wood/timber cultivation in the Uva region
also.

Almost similar extents in the Up country region are under VP tea (32.0%) and seedling tea (32.1%),
while 10.7% area is under fuel wood/ timber cultivation.

The total tea extent in bearing reported in 2002 was 78,189 ha, while it was 75,541.4 ha in 2008.
This is a 3.4% reduction in the bearing tea extent.

Further, it was revealed that the reduction of seedling extent from 2002 to 2008 was 8.1%, with the
highest reduction (4.6%) being reported in the Up country region, followed by Uva (1.7%) It was also
found that although there was a 2.0% increase in total VP tea extent, the Low country region reported
a reduction of VP extent by 1.6%.
Table 1.2.6: Comparison of Tea Area in Bearing in 2002 and 2008
Region Seedling Tea Extent in bearing VP Tea Extent in bearing Total Tea Extent in bearing
(ha.) (ha) (ha)
Year Year % Year Year % Year 2002 Year %
2002 2008 change 2002 2008 change 2008 change
Up 21,281.0 19,375.4 -4.6 18,311.0 19,312.4 2.7 39,592.0 38,687.8 -1.2
Country
Uva 14,548.0 13,854.7 -1.7 5,829.0 6,093.3 0.7 20,377.0 19,948.0 -0.5
Mid 2,210.0 1,902.4 -0.7 3,192.0 3,241.9 0.1 5,402.0 5,144.3 -0.3
Country
Low 3,656.0 3,181.2 -1.1 9,162.0 8,580.1 -1.6 12,818.0 11,761.3 -1.4
Country
Total 41,695.0 38,313.7 -8.1 36,494.0 37,227.7 2.0 78,189.0 75,541.4 -3.4

1.3 CATEGORIZATION OF MATURE TEA EXTENTS

Towards taking crucial and far reaching policy decisions for sound land use planning. it is necessary
to identify the distribution of mature tea lands under different categories. These could be based on
elevation, administrative districts, planting districts, plantation companies, agro-ecological regions
and even soil series.

1.3.1. Categorization by Elevation Ranges

As indicated earlier, the most common and simple categorization of estates in the tea plantation
sector, is based on the elevation from sea level and rainfall pattern, as Low country, Mid country,
Uva and Up Country.

Table 1.3.1: Number of Estates and Mature Tea extents in Elevation Ranges
Region No. of Seedling VP Total
Estates
Extent % Extent % Extent %
Up Country 131 19,375.4 50.6 19,312.4 51.9 38,687.8 51.2
Uva 62 13,854.7 36.2 6,093.3 16.4 19,948.0 26.4
Mid Country 21 1,902.4 5.0 3,241.9 8.7 5,144.3 6.8
Low Country 93 3,181.2 8.3 8,580.1 23.0 11,761.4 15.6
Total 307 38,313.7 100.0 37,227.7 100.0 75,541.4 100.0

From the Table 1.3.1 it is seen that much of the mature tea lands of RPCs (51.2%) is found in the Up
country region and the least (6.8%) is found in the Mid country region. The highest number of tea
estates (131) is found in the Up country region, followed by the Low country region (93).

1.3.2. Categorization by Administrative Districts

All the corporate sector plantations are distributed among eight administrative districts in the
country. A majority of the plantations are concentrated in the Nuwara Eliya administrative district
followed by the Badulla and Ratnapura districts. As much as 94.85% of the total seedling extent and
82.16% of the total VP tea extent in the country are located in the above three administrative
districts.
Table 1.3.2: Number of Estates and Mature Tea Extents under Administrative Districts
Administrative No. of Seedling VP Total
Districts Estates Extent % Extent % Extent %
Nuwara Eliya 131 18,867.5 49.2 19,818.5 53.2 38,686.0 51.2
Badulla 66 14,672.7 38.3 6,247.6 16.8 20,920.3 27.7
Ratnapura 41 2,801.7 7.3 4,520.0 12.1 7,321.7 9.7
Kandy 17 1,592.3 4.2 2,581.4 6.9 4,173.7 5.5
Matara 13 314.4 0.8 1,650.5 4.4 1,965.0 2.6
Kegalle 18 15.2 0.0 1,143.1 3.1 1,158.4 1.5
Galle 11 - - 760.1 2.0 760.1 1.0
Kalutara 10 49.8 0.1 506.5 1.4 556.3 0.7
Total 307 38,313.7 100.0 37,227.7 100.0 75,541.4 100.0

1.3.3. Categorization by Planting Districts

In the early 1930s, the Planters‟ Association of Ceylon established a concept, based on elevation and
rainfall patterns, whereby 52 planting districts were carved out to cover the 3 plantation crops of tea,
rubber and coconut. Although, the exact boundaries of planting districts are not clear, they appear to
coincide mostly with the present Agro Ecological Regions in the country. There are 29 planting
districts, where at least one corporate sector tea plantation is found.

As shown in the above Table, the highest percent of mature tea is found in the Dimbula planting
district (16.6%), followed by Badulla (13.1%) and Dickoya (13.0%). The largest number of estates is in
Dimbula (47), followed by Dickoya (33), Badulla (29) and Ratnapura (29). The highest percent of VP
tea extent is found in Dimbula district (17.8%) followed by Dickoya (15.9%) and Badulla (8.5%).

1.3.4. Categorization of Tea extents under Regional Plantation Companies

When the Regional Plantation Companies (RPCs) were established in 1992, the managements of
almost all the state-owned plantations were handed over to them. In all, there are 20 RPCs handling
the tea growing estates.

From the Table 1.3.4 it is seen that Agarapatana Plantations Ltd manages the largest proportion of
mature tea extent (8.7%) in the country, and also has the largest percent of seedling tea extent
(11.84%). However, Maskeliya Plantations Ltd. manages the largest proportion of VP tea extent (7.8%).

1.3.5. Categorization of Tea extents Under Agro Ecological Regions (AER)

Agro Ecological Regions (AERs) are the areas demarcated on the basis of elevation, rainfall, rainfall
distribution, terrain, soil type etc. The area where the corporate sector tea plantations are distributed
has been divided into 23 AERs based on the specified ecological characteristics. The basic features of
AER categorization are the rainfall categories viz; Dry zone , Intermediate zone and Wet zone and
elevation categories viz; Low country (from mean sea level to 300m), Mid country (from 300m to
600m) and Up country (above 600m).

Traditionally, the tea sector also used these three elevation categories but their definition Low country
varied from mean sea level to 600m, Mid country from 600m to 1200m and Up country above 1200m.
Some confusion arises as a result of differences of the elevation categories in the two systems.
Therefore, there seems to be a need to re-categorize the estates, which are now under the traditional
elevation category system to the AER system of categorization, with advantage.

The Table 1.3.5 shows a matrix of all plantations categorized under above two categories (Traditional
system horizontally and AER system vertically), along with the total mature tea extent under each
AER.
According to the AER categorization, WU2a has the largest number of plantations and the highest
percent of mature tea extent in the corporate tea sector.

Table 1.3.3: Number of Estates and Mature Tea Extents under Planting Districts
Planting Number of Seedling VP Total
District Estate Extent % Extent % Extent %
Dimbula 47 5,908.3 15.4 6,607.2 17.8 12,515.4 16.6
Badulla 29 6,715.8 17.5 3,178.7 8.5 9,894.5 13.1
Dickoya 33 3,908.4 10.2 5,908.4 15.9 9,816.8 13.0
Udapussallawa 15 3,628.7 9.5 1,111.4 3.0 4,740.2 6.3
Ratnapura 29 1,466.2 3.8 3,027.6 8.1 4,493.9 5.9
Maskeliya 15 1,757.6 4.6 2,735.3 7.4 4,492.9 5.9
Haputale 15 3,412.4 8.9 1,046.1 2.8 4,458.5 5.9
Madulsima 9 1,648.1 4.3 919.7 2.5 2,567.8 3.4
Pussella 11 1,031.8 2.7 1,512.3 4.1 2,544.1 3.4
Passara 6 1,680.8 4.4 712.4 1.9 2,393.1 3.2
Balangoda 9 973.9 2.5 1,261.6 3.4 2,235.5 3.0
Maturata 7 1,413.8 3.7 538.9 1.5 1,952.7 2.6
Morawakkorale 9 354.9 0.9 1,530.7 4.1 1,885.6 2.5
Pundaluoya 4 1,065.0 2.8 669.2 1.8 1,734.2 2.3
Nuwara Eliya 5 850.3 2.2 710.3 1.9 1,560.5 2.1
Kotmale 5 522.0 1.4 785.3 2.1 1,307.3 1.7
Ramboda 3 508.4 1.3 692.4 1.9 1,200.8 1.6
Kalanivalley 16 15.2 0.0 983.2 2.6 998.4 1.3
Galle 12 11.3 0.0 856.2 2.3 867.5 1.1
Dolosbage 3 171.6 0.5 626.8 1.7 798.4 1.1
New Galway 3 397.6 1.0 236.5 0.6 634.1 0.8
Kalutara 10 49.8 0.1 506.5 1.4 556.3 0.7
Kelleboke 1 202.6 0.5 202.9 0.5 405.4 0.5
Rakwana 2 272.1 0.7 65.7 0.2 337.8 0.4
Rangala 1 197.2 0.5 128.9 0.4 326.1 0.4
Hewaheta 1 88.5 0.2 179.8 0.5 268.3 0.4
Matara 4 37.7 0.1 188.7 0.5 226.4 0.3
Alagalla 1 23.6 0.1 145.4 0.4 169.0 0.2
Kegalle 2 - - 159.9 0.4 159.9 0.2
Total 307 38,313.7 100 37,227.7 100 75,541.4 100
Table 1.3.4: Number of Estates and Mature Tea Extents under RPCs
RPC No. of Seedling VP Total
Estates Extent % Extent % Extent %
Agarapatana Pl. 21 4,537.9 11.8 2,068.5 5.6 6,606.4 8.7
Maskeliya Pl. 19 2,859.1 7.5 2,897.0 7.8 5,756.1 7.6
Hapugastenne Pl. 18 2,794.2 7.3 2,355.5 6.3 5,149.7 6.8
Balangoda Pl. 21 2,947.4 7.7 2,144.6 5.8 5,092.0 6.7
Malwattevalley Pl. 16 3,432.0 9.0 1,608.9 4.3 5,040.9 6.7
Maturata Pl. 19 2,997.8 7.8 1,886.4 5.1 4,884.2 6.5
Watawala Pl. 17 1,624.0 4.2 2,618.1 7.0 4,242.1 5.6
Bogawantalawa Pl. 17 1,568.6 4.1 2,338.2 6.3 3,906.8 5.2
Kelani Valley Pl. 23 1,489.4 3.9 2,445.0 6.6 3,934.3 5.2
Kahawatte Pl. 16 1,516.9 4.0 2,363.5 6.4 3,880.5 5.1
Madulsima Pl. 12 2,248.5 5.9 1,614.6 4.3 3,863.0 5.1
Talawakelle Pl. 17 1,497.4 3.9 2,297.9 6.2 3,795.4 5.0
Udapussellawa Pl. 11 2,216.6 5.8 1,374.7 3.7 3,591.4 4.8
Pussellawa Pl. 15 1,149.5 3.0 1,655.9 4.5 2,805.5 3.7
Elpitiya Pl. 11 1,097.4 2.9 1,600.2 4.3 2,697.7 3.6
Namunukula Pl. 15 1,556.4 4.1 1,041.5 2.8 2,597.9 3.4
Kotagala Pl. 14 432.3 1.1 2,086.2 5.6 2,518.4 3.3
Horana Pl. 10 973.9 2.5 1,341.6 3.6 2,315.5 3.1
Agalawate Pl. 8 556.4 1.5 987.4 2.7 1,543.8 2.0
Kegalle Pl. 7 818 2.1 502.0 1.4 1,320.0 1.7
Total 307 38,313.7 100 37,227.7 100 75,541.4 100

It can be seen that there is one estate in the Uva region and four estates in the Low country region
within the IM2a category. In IU2 category, 17 estates are found in Up country region and the balance
6 estates in the Uva region. Similarly, the estates in IU3e are also distributed between Up country
and Uva. Estates in WM2a and WU2b are distributed between Up and Mid country. Out of 15 estates
found in WM1a region, 14 estates are in the Low country and one estate is found in the Up country.

Almost 93% of the total tea area in bearing is represented by 14 AERs, of which WU2a alone
represents 21.8% of total tea area in bearing, followed by IU3c (12.5%) and WU2b (11.6%).
Table 1.3.5: Number of Estates Under AERs
AER Number of Estates Mature Tea %
Up Uva Mid Low Total Extent
Country Country Country
WU2a 59 59 16,440.2 21.8
IU3c 28 28 9,429.7 12.5
WU2b 17 11 28 8,742.5 11.6
IU2 17 6 23 6,930.0 9.2
WU1 22 22 6,328.3 8.4
WL2a 27 27 3,191.5 4.2
IU3b 10 10 2,911.4 3.9
WM1b 11 11 2,749.6 3.6
WM1a 1 14 15 2,621.8 3.5
IM1a 5 5 2,369.4 3.1
WL1a 34 34 2,361.9 3.1
WU3 9 9 2,357.8 3.1
IU3e 4 4 8 1,940.0 2.6
WM2a 2 4 6 1,654.5 2.2
IU3a 4 4 1,320.5 1.7
IM2a 1 4 5 1,186.5 1.6
IM2b 3 3 823.9 1.1
IM3c 2 2 731.5 1.0
WM2b 3 3 620.2 0.8
IU3d 1 1 390.0 0.5
WM3b 1 1 268.3 0.4
WL2b 2 2 159.9 0.2
WL1b 1 1 12.1 0.0
Total 131 62 21 93 307 75,541.4 100.0

1.3.6. Area under Different Crops in AERs

The Table 1.3.6 shows the percent extent of tea and other crops in each Agro-Ecological Region.

Out of the total agricultural area, the highest percent under tea (91.2%) is found in WU3. The balance
area is under natural vegetation, and not under any other crop. It is evident that out of all the agro
ecological regions, five AERs (four in Low country region -WL1a, WL1b, WL2a, and WL2b - and one in
Mid country region - WM1a) are seen to have less than 40% of the area under tea cultivation. The
highest percent of rubber and other crops (81.4%) is found in WL1b, whereas the highest percentage
of timber and fuel wood cultivations (34.6%) is found in IM2b region.
Table 1.3.6: Mature Tea Extents and Other Crops under AERs
AER Extent (ha) Tea1 Other Fuel/Timber Forest/scrub
crops2 %
% % % %
WU3 2,777.1 91.2 - 3.1 5.6 100
WU2a 20,734.7 83.8 0 11.7 4.6 100
IM3c 939.5 82.9 - 13.2 3.9 100
IU3e 2,432.5 81.9 1.1 11.2 5.7 100
IU2 9,205.4 77.3 - 15.3 7.4 100
WU1 8,784.2 76.8 0.4 14 8.8 100
WU2b 12,445.7 73.6 0.2 19.4 6.7 100
IM1a 3,284.5 73.2 4 19.1 3.7 100
IU3a 1,922.5 71.5 0.5 24.5 3.5 100
IU3b 4,513.4 68.3 - 16.4 15.3 100
IU3c 14,550.6 66.5 4 20.3 9.2 100
IU3d 597.6 65.4 - 12.3 22.2 100
WM3b 444.7 61.2 - 23 15.8 100
WM2a 3,069.4 57.3 - 40 2.8 100
WM2b 1,130.8 57.2 0.5 32.6 9.7 100
IM2b 1,467.4 56.2 6.5 34.6 2.7 100
WM1b 5,595.8 51.1 12.3 9.3 27.3 100
IM2a 2,428.1 50.2 4 23.6 22.3 100
WM1a 7,323.8 38.8 18.5 11.1 31.8 100
WL2a 12,016.5 28.7 58.4 7.7 5.2 100
WL2b 772.4 21.3 78.5 0.2 - 100
WL1a 14,363.7 18.8 63.9 8.2 9.2 100
WL1b 362.3 3.3 81.4 13.7 1.6 100
Total 131,157.2 79,372.3 20,141.0 19,074.2 12,569.7
% 60.5 15.4 14.5 9.6 100

1. Mature tea, Immature Tea, Rehabilitation grasses, Nursery & thatch bank
2. Rubber, Coconut, Export Agriculture Crop, Fruits and Oil palm

1.3.7. Mature Tea Extents under AERs

As shown in the Table 1.3.7, two AERs (WL2b WL1b) are having 100% VP, though their total tea
extent is very small. The next highest percent of VP tea is found in WM2b followed by WL1a and
WM1a regions. The highest percent of seedling tea is found in IU3a region.
Table 1.3.7: Mature Tea Extents under AERs
AER Tea Extents in bearing VP tea % Seedling tea % %
(ha)
WL2b 159.9 100 0 100
WL1b 12.1 100 0 100
WM2b 620.2 90.6 9.4 100
WL1a 2,361.9 89.4 10.7 100
WM1a 2,621.8 87.5 12.5 100
WL2a 3,191.5 71.9 28.1 100
WM3b 268.3 67 33 100
WU1 6,328.3 62.5 37.5 100
WM2a 1,654.5 60.2 39.8 100
WM1b 2,749.6 55.6 44.5 100
WU2a 16,440.2 55 45 100
WU2b 8,742.5 52.8 47.2 100
WU3 2,357.8 47.6 52.4 100
IM3c 731.5 45.4 54.7 100
IM2b 823 42.2 57.8 100
IM2a 1,186.5 40.4 59.6 100
IM1a 2,369.4 32.2 67.8 100
IU3c 9,429.7 31.5 68.5 100
IU2 6,930.0 27 73 100
IU3b 2,911.4 26.4 73.6 100
IU3e 1,940.0 25.8 74.3 100
IU3d 390 21.4 78.6 100
IU3a 1,320.5 18.2 81.8 100
Total 75,541.4 49.3 50.7 100

1.3.8. Categorization of Tea under Different Soil Series

According to the studies done by Soil Science Association of Sri Lanka, soils in wet and intermediate
zones have been categorized in to 85 Groups. Among them, 20 soil groups can be identified in tea
growing areas in the wet and intermediate zones.

As shown in the Table 1.3.8, the more prominent types of soils series found in tea growing regions are
Mattakelle Series, Maskeliya/Mattakelle/Lithosols Complex, Badulla/ Mahawaletenna Complex,
Malaboda/Pallegoda/Dodangoda Homagama Complex, Kandy/Galigamuwa/Lithosole Complex, and
Ragala Series. It can be noted that 194 estates out of 307 comprises of the above six soil groups. The
bulk of VP tea is grown in the Maskeliya/Mattakelle/Lithosols Complex soil series, whereas the bulk
of seedling tea is grown in Badulla/Mahawaletenna Complex soil series.
Table 1.3.8: Number of Estates and Mature Tea Extent under Soil Series
Soil Series No. of Seedling Tea VP Tea Total
Estate Extent % Extent % Extent %
Maskeliya/Mattakelle/Lithosols 43 5,472.8 14.3 7,583.7 20.4 13,056.5 17.3
Complex
Mattakelle Series 43 5,896.9 15.4 6,617.7 17.8 12,514.5 16.6
Badulla/ Mahawaletenna Complex 33 8,055.6 21.0 3,550.8 9.5 11,606.4 15.4
Malaboda/Pallegoda/Dodangoda 32 2,269.0 5.9 4,351.1 11.7 6,620.1 8.8
Homagama Complex
Kandy/Galigamuwa/Lithosole 23 2,404.5 6.3 3,674.6 9.9 6,079.1 8.0
Complex
Ragala Series 20 4,348.5 11.4 1,342.1 3.6 5,690.6 7.5
Bandarawela Series 16 3,585.6 9.4 1,263.3 3.4 4,848.8 6.4
Nuwara Eliya/Horton Lithosols 16 2,326.3 6.1 1,901.6 5.1 4,227.9 5.6
Complex
Malaboda/Weddagala/Pallegoda 18 707.8 1.9 1,933.6 5.2 2,641.4 3.5
Lithosols Complex
Badulla/ Lithosol Complex 9 1,591.1 4.2 934.1 2.5 2,525.2 3.3
Malaboda/Lithosols Complex 4 406.4 1.1 610.9 1.6 1,017.3 1.3
Malaboda/Weddagala/Homagama 3 437.4 1.1 422.9 1.1 860.3 1.1
Complex
Galigamuwa/Homagama Complex 15 8.6 0 776.9 2.1 785.5 1.0
Dodangoda/Agalawatte/Gampaha 11 91.6 0.2 554.7 1.5 646.3 0.9
Complex
Akurana/Kiribathkumubura 2 226.2 0.6 348.2 0.9 574.4 0.8
Assocoation
Dodangoda Boralu Complex 8 16.3 0 604.9 1.6 621.2 0.8
Rikillagaskada Series 2 469.3 1.2 168.8 0.5 638.1 0.8
Pallegoda/Dodangoda/Gampaha 7 0 0 382.8 1.0 382.8 0.5
Assocoation
Mawanella/Kandy/Kiribathkumbura 1 0 0 187.7 0.5 187.7 0.2
Complex
Malaboda/Pallegoda Asssocoation 1 0 0 17.4 0.1 17.4 0
Total 307 38,313.7 100 37,227.7 100 75,541.4 100

1.4 PRODUCTIVITY OF TEA

This study attempted to analyze the productivity distribution of estates in the corporate sector by
collecting average yields of the last completed pruning cycle in mature tea fields of all estates. This
has been undertaken separately for VP and Seedling tea in different regions, the details of which are
given in the Table below.

The average productivity of a completed pruning cycle of seedling and VP tea fields were recorded as
1089 and 1888 kg MT per hectare per annum, respectively, whereas the weighted average
productivity for all the corporate sector estates was 1,483 kg MT per hectare per annum.
1.4.1. Productivity in the Elevation Ranges
Up country region has recorded the highest productivity of both VP and seedling tea. The lowest
productivity of VP tea was recorded in Uva region (1690 kg MT per hectare per annum) while the
lowest productivity of seedling tea was recorded as 875 kg MT per hectare per annum in the Low
country.

Table 1.4.1: Average Productivity of Seedling and VP Tea in the Elevation Ranges
Type of Tea Productivity (kg of MT ha-1 yr-1) Average

Region Up Country Uva Mid Country Low

Country
Seedling Tea 1,184 1,011 989 875 1,089
VP Tea 2,070 1,690 1,799 1,693 1,888
Weighted Average 1,626 1,218 1,499 1,472 1,483

1.4.2. Tea Extents in Different Yield Slabs

A majority of seedling tea areas (79%) yield less than 1300 kg per hectare per annum, of which
11.3% of the area yields even less than 700 kg (totaling 4,334.86 ha.). If the soil conditions in such
uneconomic areas are not suited for replanting with tea, then these areas should be diversified away
from tea to improve the overall productivity of tea lands. Surprisingly, there is only 0.3% seedling
extent yielding more than 2500 kg per hectare per annum.

Table 1.4.2: VP and Seedling Tea extents in Different Yield Slabs

Productivity Slab (kg of Seedling Tea VP Tea
MT ha-1 yr-1) Extent (ha.) % Extent (ha.) %

Less than 400 539.9 1.4 139.9 0.4

401-700 3,795.0 9.9 684.8 1.8
701-1000 11,872.6 31.0 1,775.5 4.8
1001-1300 14,164.0 37.0 4,058.9 10.9
1301-1600 5,195.4 13.6 6,208.4 16.7
1601-1900 2,084.6 5.4 7,234.9 19.4
1901-2200 441.6 1.2 6,433.3 17.3
2201-2500 132.3 0.4 5,322.4 14.3
2501-3000 57.9 0.2 3,999.8 10.7
More than 3000 30.6 0.1 1,369.8 3.7
Total 38,313.7 100.0 37,227.7 100.0

In VP tea, 65.4% of the area falls within the broad category of above 1600 kg, of which the largest
extent (19.4%) is seen in the narrower yield slab of 1601-1900 kg. What is of more concern in VP tea
areas is that 6.99% (2,600 ha) of the total VP area produces less than 1000 kg per ha. The highest
priority should be given to improve productivity of these lands through implementation of good
agricultural practices, as these areas are largely uneconomic to maintain under the present
productivity level.

1.4.3. Productivity of VP Tea under Age Groups

The Table below shows the productivity levels of VP tea under varying age categories in different
elevation ranges.

Table 1.4.3: Productivity of VP Tea under Different Age Groups

Age Average productivity (kg of MT ha-1 yr-1)

Region Up Country Uva Mid Country Low Country Average

6-10 yrs 1,930 1,474 1,794 2,012 1,877
11- 20 yrs 2,049 1,610 1,809 1,926 1,931
21 -30 yrs 2,138 1,684 1,816 1,577 1,891
31 -40 yrs 2,095 1,807 1,860 1,567 1,907
41 - 50 yrs 2,002 1,770 1,729 1,431 1,761
More than 50 yrs 1,717 1,696 1,165 1,479 1,466
Average 2,070 1,690 1,799 1,693 1,888

It is evident that the overall productivity of VP tea is relatively high in the Up country region, while in
the Low country region only VP fields in the early ages are more productive. VP fields in the Up
country regions are seen to achieve their highest productivity level at the age of 21-30 years, whereas,
in Uva and Mid country it is at the age of 31-40 years. However, the productivity pattern in the Low
country seems to differ vastly from that of the other regions. Under normal conditions in the Low
country, harvesting of newly planted tea commences at the age of 2 ½ - 3 years from planting. Such
fields maintain their highest productivity levels during a 20 year period and start declining thereafter
to a productivity level of about 1500 kg.

The highest average productivity of VP tea fields in the corporate sector is achieved at the age group of
31-40 Years.

The above Table shows that the declining trend of VP tea yield starts at the age of 20 years in the Low
country, at around 40 years in Mid country and Uva, and at around 30 years in Up country regions.
These figures clearly indicate that, there would be a considerable yield decline in the Low country,
unless a concerted effort is taken to revitalize the VP extent in Low country region.

1.4.4. Productivity of Seedling Tea in Elevation Ranges

A majority of seedling tea extent in the Up country region (75.7%) yields less than 1300 kg per
hectare per annum. Yet it is seen that 2.4% of the extent in this region, produces more than 1900 kg
per hectare per annum. In Uva, 81.8% of the area produces less than 1300 kg per hectare per
annum, whereas in Mid country the area with productivity less than 1300 kg per hectare per annum,
is 82.4%. In the Low country a greater extent (89.2%) of seedling tea is seen to produce less than
1300 kg per hectare per annum.
1.4.5. Productivity of VP Tea in Elevation Ranges
In the Up country region, 19.7% of the VP extent produces more than 2500 kg per hectare per
annum, while in Uva, Mid country and Low country, the extents with productivity exceeding 2500 kg
are 8.1%, 10.2%, and 8.8%, respectively.

Table 1.4.4: Productivity of Seedling Tea under Different Elevation Ranges

Productivity Up Country Uva Mid Country Low Country Total
slabs (kg of 19,375.4 13,854.7 1,902.4 3,181.2 Extent %
MT ha-1 yr-1)
% % % %

<400 0 2.0 6.0 4.5 539.9 1.4

401-700 0.0 16.7 22.9 31.5 3,795.0 9.9
701-1000 26.5 35.6 31.4 37.9 11,872.6 31.0
1001-1300 49.2 27.2 22.1 15.4 14,164.0 37.0
1301-1600 15.3 12.6 13.1 7.8 5,195.4 13.6
1601-1900 6.6 4.8 4.0 2.5 2,084.6 5.4
1901-2200 1.6 0.8 0.5 0.5 441.6 1.2
2201-2500 0.6 0.2 0 0 132.3 0.3
2501-3000 0.2 0.1 0 0 57.9 0.2
>3000 0.1 0.1 0 0 30.6 0.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 38,313.7 100.0

Table 1.4.5: Productivity of VP Tea under Different Elevation Ranges

Productivity Up Country Uva Mid Country Low Country Total
slabs (kg of 19,312.4 6,093.3 3,241.9 8,580.1 Extent %
MT ha-1 yr-1)
% % % %
<400 0 0.1 1.6 139.9 0.4
401-700 0 0.6 3.1 6.3 684.8 1.8
701-1000 1.3 4.9 7.9 11.3 1,775.5 4.8
1001-1300 6.8 14.7 12.8 16.6 4,058.9 10.9
1301-1600 13.3 24.6 16.6 18.6 6,208.4 16.7
1601-1900 20.2 23.9 20.8 13.9 7,234.9 19.4
1901-2200 19.6 15.3 17.7 13.3 6,433.3 17.3
2201-2500 19.1 8.0 11.0 9.6 5,322.4 14.3
2501-3000 14.9 6.4 7.4 5.9 3,999.8 10.7
>3000 4.8 1.7 2.8 2.9 1,369.8 3.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 37,227.7 100.0

It is important to note that there is a significant percent of VP tea in Low country (19.2%) producing
less than 1000 kg per hectare, while the extents falling into the same yield slab are 1.3%, 5.5%, and
11.1% respectively in Up country, Uva and Mid country.
1.4.6. Productivity of VP and Seedling Tea under AERs
The highest productivity in VP fields is evident in WU3, followed by IM3c, WU2a, WM3b, WU1, and
WU2b. However, both IM3c and WM3b regions represent only 1.4% of the total tea area in bearing.
The balance four high productive regions (WU3, WU2a, WU1, and WU2b) represent 44.83% of the
total area. Average productivity of VP tea of more than 2000 kg per hectare per annum is reported
only in WU3, IM3c, WU2a, IM3b and WU1. As indicated earlier, high productive seedling tea fields
were found in WM3b, IU3e, WU2a, IU3a, WU3 and WU2b regions. Details are given in the Table 1.4.6.

Table 1.4.6: Productivity of VP and Seedling Tea under AERs

AER Productivity (kg of MT ha-1 yr-1) Tea Extent in bearing (ha.)

VP Seedling
WU3 2,228 1,186 2,357.8
IM3c 2,201 1,129 731.5
WU2a 2,168 1,196 16,440.2
WM3b 2,137 1,571 268.3
WU1 2,023 1,134 6,328.3
WU2b 1,965 1,158 8,742.5
WL2b 1,956 0 159.9
IM2a 1,844 949 1,186.5
IU3b 1,822 1,094 2,911.4
IU3d 1,740 1,057 390.0
IU3a 1,739 1,194 1,320.5
WM1a 1,721 1,116 2,621.8
IU3c 1,705 1,013 9,429.7
WM1b 1,663 804 2,749.6
IU2 1,660 1,002 6,930.0
WL1a 1,660 969 2,361.9
IU3e 1,642 1,236 1,940.0
WM2a 1,605 735 1,654.5
WL1b 1,605 0 12.1
IM2b 1,594 738 823.9
IM1a 1,566 924 2,369.4
WM2b 1,530 956 620.2
WL2a 1,522 836 3,191.5
Total 1,888 1,089 75,541.4

1.4.7. Productivity Slabs of Seedling Tea under AERs

All fields were slotted into 3 yield slabs of less than 1000, 1001-2500 and more than 2500 kg per
hectare per annum, separately for seedling and VP tea. More than 50% of seedling fields in IM1a,
IM2b, IM2a, IU3c, WL1a, WL2a, WM1a WM1b, WM2a and WM2b were seen to produce less than
1000 kg per hectare per annum. All the seedling tea fields (only 88.5 ha.) in WM3b produce 1000-
2500 kg per ha per annum. In WU2a, where the largest seedling tea extent of 76.7% is found,
produced 1000-2500 kg per ha per annum. Nevertheless, in IU3c where the second largest seedling
tea extent of 59.7% is found, it produced less than 1000 kg per hectare per annum.

Table 1.4.7: Productivity Slabs of Seedling Tea under AERs

AER Productivity (kg of MT ha-1 yr-1) Total Extent
Less than 1000 1001-2500 More than 2500 (ha.)
16,677.3 21,528.4 107.9 38,313.7
% % %
IU3a 29.3 67.9 2.8 1,079.4
WU3 19.3 79.6 1.1 1,236.5
WU2b 30.7 68.7 0.6 4,126.5
WU1 30.6 69.2 0.2 2,372.4
WU2a 23.1 76.7 0.2 7,392.2
IM1a 60.5 39.5 0 1,606.9
IM2a 51.5 48.5 0 707.5
IM2b 73.6 26.4 0 476.2
IM3c 33.9 66.1 0 399.6
IU3b 49.4 50.6 0 2,143.3
IU3c 59.2 40.8 0 6,463.9
IU3d 28.4 71.6 0 306.6
IU3e 17.1 82.9 0 1,440.4
WL1a 59.7 40.3 0 251.5
WL2a 78.5 21.5 0 897.1
WM1a 51.6 48.4 0 327.6
WM1b 81.6 18.4 0 1,222.3
WM2a 81.4 18.6 0 658.7
WM2b 81.2 18.9 0 58.3
WM3b 0 100 0 88.5
IU2 47.6 52.4 0 5,058.3
WL1b 0 0 0 0.0
WL2b 0 0 0 0.0
% 43.5 56.2 0.3 100.0

1.4.8. Productivity Slabs of VP Tea under AERs

More than 20% of VP tea extents yielding above 2500 kg per ha per annum were found in IM3c, WU3,
WU1, WM3b and WU2a regions. However, both IM3c and WM3b regions have only 510.75 hectares of
VP tea. A significant proportion of VP tea extent in WM2b and WL2a regions were seen to be yielding
less than 1000 kg per hectare per annum. Majority of the extents in WU2a, WU2b, WU1 and IU3c
regions where larger extents of VP tea are seen, produced 1000 - 2500 kg per hectare per annum.
Table 1.4.8: Productivity Slabs of VP Tea under AERs
AER Productivity (kg of MT ha-1 yr-1) Total Extent
Less than 1000 1001-2500 More than 2500 (ha.)

2,440.0 28,604.1 6,183.7 37,227.7

% % %
IM3c 2.2 66.6 31.2 331.5
WU3 0.7 71.5 27.8 1121.1
WU1 3.8 71.5 24.8 3956.1
WM3b 0 78.2 21.8 179.8
WU2a 0.2 79.1 20.7 9048.0
WL2b 0 81.2 18.8 159.9
WU2b 4.1 78.7 17.3 4616.0
IU3b 1.9 84.4 13.7 767.9
IM2a 7.6 79.1 13.4 479.4
WL1a 16.6 71.0 12.4 2110.4
WM1a 12.4 75.8 11.8 2294.5
IU3c 8.0 81.2 10.8 2966.2
IM2b 11.3 78.5 10.2 347.4
IU3a 5.7 85.3 9.0 240.4
IU3d 0 92.5 7.5 85.4
WM1b 9.1 85.9 5.1 1527.1
WM2b 29.3 65.7 5.0 561.8
WL2a 26.0 69.4 4.6 2294.2
IU2 2.6 93.0 4.3 1871.3
IM1a 4.0 92.1 3.9 762.4
IU3e 2.5 95.5 2.0 499.5
WM2a 11.6 87.5 0.9 995.6
WL1b 0 100 0 12.1
% 6.55 76.83 16.61 100

1.4.9. Productivity under Different Soil Series

The highest productivity of VP tea is recorded in Malaboda/Lithosols Complex and Mattakelle series
whereas the highest productivity of seedling tea is recorded in Galigamuwa/Homagama Complex and
Mattakelle series.

Mattakelle Series comprises of 14% of the total number of estates, whereas Malaboda/Lithosols
Complex and Galigamuwa/Homagama Complex comprises of 4% and 15% of the total number of
estates, respectively.
Table 1.4.9: Number of Estates and Productivity of Seedling and VP Tea under Different Soil
Series
Soil Series Number Productivity (kg of MT ha-1 yr-1)
of estates Seedling tea VP tea
Malaboda/Lithosols Complex 4 1,100 2,257
Mattakelle Series 43 1,222 2,227
Nuwara Eliya/Horton Lithosols Complex 16 1,138 2,098
Akurana/Kiribathkumubura Assocoation 2 1,181 2,053
Maskeliya/Mattakelle/Lithosols Complex 43 1,183 2,008
Bandarawela Series 16 1,199 1,778
Kandy/Galigamuwa/Lithosole Complex 23 966 1,775
Rikillagaskada Series 2 1,092 1,765
Galigamuwa/Homagama Complex 15 1,598 1,745
Badulla/ Mahawaletenna Complex 33 959 1,685
Dodangoda Boralu Complex 8 854 1,681
Malaboda/Pallegoda/Dodangoda Homagama Complex 32 934 1,661
Ragala Series 20 1,133 1,655
Dodangoda/Agalawatte/Gampaha Complex 11 818 1,635
Pallegoda/Dodangoda/Gampaha Asso. 7 1,616
Malaboda/Weddagala/Pallegoda Lithosols Complex 18 925 1,615
Badulla/ Lithosol Complex 9 803 1,611
Mawanella/Kandy/Kiribathkumbura Com. 1 1,534
Malaboda/Weddagala/Homagama Complex 3 687 1,465
Malaboda/Pallegoda Asssocoation 1 1,333
Average 307 1,089 1,888

1.5 AGE CATEGORY OF TEA

Towards predicting the sustainability of tea productivity in the corporate sector, this study attempted
to analyze the age of all the tea fields. However, only the VP fields were considered for this
investigation, as accurate records of planting years of seedling tea fields were not available in most of
the plantations.

Table 1.5.1: Extent of VP Tea in the Age Categories

Age category VP tea Extent (ha) %
Less than 4 Years 1,302.3 3.4
5-10 Years 3,004.3 7.7
11-20 Years 8,093.8 20.9
21-30 Years 10,972.4 28.3
31-40 Years 9,812.4 25.3
41-50 Years 5,478.2 14.1
>50 Years 144.1 0.4
Total 38,807.5 100.0
The Table 1.5.1 indicates that, in the present study, 49.1% fell in the age category of 11 – 30 years, as
compared to 57.3% in the study which was undertake in the year 2002. That which fell into the age
category of 31-40 years was 25.3% which was almost similar in both studies. The category above 40
years was 14.5% now while it was only 5.6% in 2002. It is important to note that only 11.1% of all VP
tea was below 10 years, while that exceeding the age of 50 years was 0.4% in this study.

Table 1.5.2: VP Tea Extent under Age Categories in Regions

Age Up Country Uva Mid Country Low Country Total
Extent (ha) 20,103.1 6,290.5 3,355.1 9,058.9 38,807.5
% % % % %
<4 Years 2.9 2.5 2.2 5.4 3.4
5-10 Years 7.8 6.9 3.9 9.8 7.7
11-20 Years 22.4 20.0 16.5 19.9 20.9
21-30 Years 29.8 22.1 25.4 30.2 28.3
31-40 Years 25.9 30.0 27.7 19.7 25.3
41-50 Years 11.2 17.6 22.5 14.9 14.1
>50 Years 0.1 0.8 1.8 0.2 0.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

As seen from the Table 1.5.2, VP tea of more than 20 year in the Low country region is about 65%. In
the Up country, 37.2% of the total extent is more than 30 years old. In Mid country and Uva 24.3%
and 18.4%, respectively, of the total extent is more than 40 years old.

Table 1.4.3, discussed earlier, indicated that the declining trend of VP tea yield started at the age of
20 years in the Low country (65% being as old), at around 40 years in Mid country (24.3% being as
old) and Uva (18.4% being as old), and at around 30 years in Up country (37.2% being as old). These
figures clearly indicate that, there would be considerable extents of uneconomic tea with rapidly
declining yield to worry the industry as a whole. The future of tea in the Low country, in particular, is
alarming unless a concerted effort is taken to revitalize the VP extents.

In Agro ecological regions of IM3c, IU3a, WM3b, IM1a, and IU2 more than 50% of the VP extents are
older than 30 years. A high percent of young tea (less than 4 years) was seen in IU3a WL1a, WL2a
and IU3d regions. In the four main AERs, which represents 50% of the total VP tea extent in the
country (WU1, WU2a, WU2b, WU3), it is seen that 37 - 41% of the VP extents are more than 30 years
old.

1.6 REPLANTING IN THE CORPORATE SECTOR

With the introduction of VP tea cultivars in the 1950‟s, the plantations commenced replacing their old
seedling teas with improved VP tea. The Government introduced the Tea Replanting Subsidy Scheme
in 1958, which targeted replanting of at least 2% of the total tea extent annually (Anon, 1973).

This study attempted to investigate the rates of replanting undertaken in different regions in each
year.

Commercial level of replanting has gone on for approximately 5 decades (1956- 2008). During this
period, the average annual rate of replanting in the corporate tea sector has been only 0.97% (746.3
ha. being replanted, on the average, per year out of the total tea extent of 78,330.5 ha). In the
corporate sector, the area replanted should be an average of 1,566.6 hectare each year, if one is
expected to achieve the norm of 2% rate of replanting each year.

The highest rate of replanting that has been achieved during 1986- 1990 was 1.46%. Since then the
rate of replanting has begun to drop to the present rate of replanting which is 0.42%.

The extent of replanting undertaken by the Tea sector in different elevation ranges is given in the
Table 1.6.2.

Table 1.5.3: VP Tea Extent under Age Categories in Agro-Ecological Regions

AER Age Category Mature and Immature
Less than 5-10 yrs 11-20 21-30 yrs More than VP Extent (ha.)
4 yrs yrs 30 yrs
Total %
% % % % % 38758.7
IM3c 4 1.9 10.9 13.3 69.9 365.5 100
IU3a 9.3 4.7 6.4 21.9 57.7 271 100
WM3b 3 3.4 10.9 26.3 56.4 182.8 100
IM1a 1.1 8.4 16.8 19.5 54.3 788.4 100
IU2 3.7 6.7 19.6 16.8 53.3 1,968.5 100
IU3c 1.1 5.3 23.3 21.7 48.6 3,006.3 100
IU3e 2.5 4.9 19.1 25.2 48.5 529 100
IM2b 1 3.5 18.7 30.9 45.9 347.6 100
IU3b 4 13.5 15 21.6 45.9 834.3 100
IM2a 2.8 4.9 11.9 35.3 45.1 478.3 100
WM1b 2.4 1.7 18.6 32.5 44.7 1,575.3 100
WM1a 3.9 5.7 13.5 32.8 44 2,389.3 100
WU3 3.3 8.4 24.9 22 41.4 1,181.7 100
WU1 2.4 7.2 21.4 30.2 38.9 4,049.8 100
WM2a 1.7 2.8 23.1 34.8 37.7 1,011.2 100
WM2b 0.8 8.3 18.8 34.7 37.4 569.3 100
WU2b 2.3 7.7 24 30.1 35.9 4,759.0 100
WU2a 3 8.3 21.7 32.4 34.6 9,470.6 100
WL2a 5.4 12.2 22.7 28.6 31.2 2,402.6 100
IU3d 5.7 42.3 15 10.7 26.4 85.4 100
WL1a 8.9 17.9 25.1 25.6 22.5 2,317.8 100
WL2b 1.3 19.7 31.8 35.5 11.7 162.9 100
WL1b 0 0 0 100 0 12.1 100
Table 1.6.1: Rate of Replanting in the Corporate Sector
Period Total Replanted Average annual replanted Annual Replanting as % of
Extent (ha.) extent (ha.) corporate sector tea extent**
1956 - 1960 553.51 110.70 0.14
1961 - 1965 2,579.82 515.96 0.67
1966 - 1970 4,869.90 973.98 1.26
1971 - 1975 5,081.38 1,016.28 1.32
1976 - 1980 4,420.40 884.08 1.15
1981 - 1985 5,484.58 1,096.92 1.42
1986 - 1990 5,644.95 1,128.99 1.46
1991 - 1995 3,955.38 791.08 1.03
1996 - 2000 3,208.38 641.68 0.83
2001 - 2005 2,131.23 426.25 0.55
2006 - 2008 877.95 225.98 0.42
Total/Average 38,807.48 746.30 0.97
* Assuming the number of estate is 307 throughout the period
** For the purpose of this analysis, the total tea ha is assumed to have been almost the same over
the period.

Table 1.6.2: Rates of Replanting in Elevation Ranges

Period Rate of Replanting Overall
Up Uva Mid Low Total %
Country Country Country Replanted
Extent (ha.)
1956-1960 0.06 0.14 0.40 0.31 553.51 0.14
1961-1965 0.45 0.60 1.51 1.08 2,579.82 0.67
1966-1970 1.24 0.82 2.30 1.59 4,869.90 1.26
1971-1975 1.45 0.96 1.58 1.35 5,081.38 1.32
1976-1980 1.16 0.79 1.48 1.53 4,420.40 1.15
1981-1985 1.63 0.60 1.60 2.03 5,484.58 1.42
1986-1990 1.45 0.83 1.36 2.60 5,644.95 1.46
1991-1995 1.17 0.58 0.88 1.37 3,955.38 1.03
1996-2000 0.84 0.53 0.93 1.27 3,208.38 0.83
2001-2005 0.54 0.26 0.31 1.19 2,131.23 0.55
2006-2008 0.33 0.20 0.37 0.82 877.95 0.42
Total/Average 0.98 0.60 1.21 1.42 38,807.48 0.97

Total Area under tea: 78,330.5 Ha. (Seedling, VP, Immature tea, lands under rehabilitation)
* For the purpose of this analysis, the total tea extent is assumed to have been almost the same over
the period

From the Table 1.6.2, it is evident that the overall average replanting rate achieved for the last few
decade is less than 2%. However, it is gratifying to note that the Low country region has achieved
1.42% average replanting rate, while Mid country, Up country and Uva have achived 1.21%, 0.98%
and 0.60% average replanting rates, respectively, while the overall average replanting rate, in the
corporate sector, from 1956-2008 was 0.97%.

The lowest average replanting rate seen in the regions in any of the periods was in the Up country
region at 0.06% (in 1956-1960), followed by Uva region with 0.14% (also in 1956-1960), Mid country
region with 0.31% (in 2001-2005) and Low country region also with 0.31% (in 1956-1960). The lowest
overall average replanting rate in the corporate sector was 0.14% (in 1956-1960).

The highest average replanting rate seen in the regions in any of the periods was in the Low country
region at 2.60% (in 1986-1990), followed by Mid country with 2.30% (in 1966-1970), UP country
region with 1.63% (in 1981-1985) and Uva region with 0.96% (in 1971-1975). The highest overall
average replanting rate in the corporate sector was 1.46% (in 1986-1990).

There has been a gradual drop in the overall replanting rate in the corporate sector over the past few
years, commencing from 1991, to end up at 0.42% in the last two years. The same trend is also seen
in all the regions.
 Chapter 2

Nursery Management

INTRODUCTION

Successful tea cultivation depends mainly on the quality of the nursery plants, which are the starting
material for any tea planting programme. Health and vigour of nursery plants play an important role
in bringing about the expected results once they are planted out in the field. It was in the early 1950-
60s that the TRI mastered the techniques of vegetative propagation that led to a guaranteed near
100% success rate in nurseries. This knowledge base was constantly being improved with later
findings which empowered the growers with the ability of raising pest and disease free plants which
were able to grow well. Through this diagnostic census, the TRI Advisory Staff attempted to assess the
status-quo of nurseries in the corporate tea sector with a view to identifying knowledge gaps, that
were yet commonly seen, and thereby giving an effective feedback to the research domain with such
problems that need rational and urgent answers.

Information on various aspects of nursery management was collected by making visits to individual
nurseries, accompanied by the Assistant Manager or the person in-charge of the nursery.

2.1. REGIONAL PROFILE OF VP TEA NURSERIES

According to the data collected during the diagnostic census, the highest number of nursery plants
was raised in the Up country where the average nursery capacity per estate was approximately
61,919 plants. This number is adequate to replant about 5 ha.

Table 2.1: Nursery capacities in different regions

Region Nursery Capacity Average Nursery Capacity/estate
Low Country 3,712,356 39,918
Mid Country 1,040,000 47,273
Up Country 8,049,434 61,919
Uva 2,224,510 35,879
Total 15,026,300 48,946

Though the second highest nursery capacity was recorded in the Low country, yet when the average
nursery capacity per estate was considered, Mid country emerged as the second, beating the Low
country, where each estate could replant about 4 ha per year.

2.2. NURSERY CAPACITY AND PRICE OF A NURSERY PLANT IN EACH RPC

The largest collective nursery capacity was recorded in Talawakelle Plantations followed by Maskeliya,
Udupussellawa and Agarapatana Plantations, while the lowest was recorded in Namunukula
Plantations. RPCs having larger collective nursery capacity had a majority of their estates located in
the Up country.

Average price of a nursery plant was highest in Malwatta Plantations at Rs.20.00 per plant, followed
by Hapugastenne and Watawala with Rs.15.80 and Rs.15.00 respectively.
2.3. AVAILABILITY OF SEPARATE MOTHER BUSH AREAS FOR TAKING CUTTINGS

It was apparent that nearly 61% estates had their own mother bush areas to take the required
number of cuttings for raising their requirements of nursery plants. Only 39% of the estates
depended on outside sources for their requirement of cuttings.

Table 2.2: Nursery capacities of different Regional Plantations Companies

RPC No of Nursery plants Average Nursery Average price of a

raised in 2008 plants /estate Nursery Plants (Rs)
Agalawatte Plantations 462,200 57,775 13.00
Agarapatina Plantations 1,032,000 49,143 14.86
Balangoda Plantations 984,350 46,874 13.64
Bogawanthalawa Plantations 900,000 52,941 12.50
Elpitiya Plantations 398,950 36,268 14.50
Hapugastenne Plantations 787,000 43,722 15.80
Horan Plantations 525,000 52,500 12.43
Kahawatte Plantations 420,000 26,250 14.00
Kalanivally Plantations 956,500 41,587 13.63
Kegalle Plantations 235,000 33,571 13.50
Kotagala Plantations 648,800 46,343 13.67
Madulsima Plantations 985,000 82,083 12.50
Malwattevally Plantations 200,000 12,500 20.00
Maskeliya Plantations 1,352,730 71,196 14.00
Maturata Plantations 765,294 40,279 14.33
Namunukula Plantations 118,500 7,900 15.00
Pussallawa Plantations 650,000 43,333 14.38
Talawakelle Plantations 1,864,770 109,692 14.33
Udapussellawa Plantations 1,041,000 94,636 11.75
Watawala Plantations 699,206 41,130 15.00
Total 15,026,300 48,946 14.12

Table 2.3: Availability of mother bush in the estate

Response No. of estates %
Mother bushes available 93 61
No mother bushes 59 39
Total 152 100
2.4. SOURCE OF CUTTINGS
Only 45% of the estates made use of cuttings from their own mother bushes for multiplication
purposes, while 32% of the estates depended on the TRI for their requirement of planting materials.

Table 2.4: sources of cuttings

Nurseries No: of Responses %
(No of Nurseries = 152)
Estate Mother bushes 99 45
TRI 70 32
Normal pruned fields 37 17
Other estates 13 4
Total 219* 100
* Multiple responses

About 17% obtained their requirements of planting material from pruned fields on their estate while
4% of the estates obtained their requirements from other estates.
2.5. NURSERY SITE
In all, 152 nurseries were surveyed, with some estates having more than one nursery. Each nursery
was considered an independent respondent.

Flat or gently sloping nursery sites with no apparent limitations were considered to be good. Part
flat/gently sloping nursery sites with other limitations were considered average, while poorly drained
nursery sites with more than one other limitation was considered as poor.

Table 2.5.1: condition of the nursery sites

Condition Of Nursery No: of Responses %
Good 123 81
Average 27 18
Poor 2 1
Total 152 100

More than 80% of the sites selected for nursery work were good and around 18% sites could be
described as average. It appears that the overall adoption level of TRI recommendations on nursery
site selection is very high.

2.5.2: Accessibility of Nurseries

Centrally located nurseries were rated good, and remotely located ones were rated average.

Table 2.5.2: Accessibility of nurseries

Accessibility No: of Responses %
Good 129 85
Average 23 15
Total 152 100

A majority of the nurseries were rated good as they were located in convenient places closer to an
approach road and therefore supervision was easy. Transportation of plants to fields was also
considered convenient.
2.5.3. Construction of Nursery Beds
Nursery beds of a desirable size, oriented in the appropriate direction and with adequate drainage
facilities were considered good. Those with one good attribute and the others being inadequate were
considered average, while those with all attributes being inadequate were considered poor.

Table 2.5.3: Condition of nursery beds

Nursery beds No: of Responses %
Good 121 80
Average 26 17
Poor 5 3
Total 152 100

About 80% of the nurseries had properly constructed raised beds and were observed to closely follow
TRI recommendations.

2. 5.4. Height of Nursery Beds

Nursery beds which were more than 6 inches (15 cm) in height above the footpath were considered to
be good, while those between 3-6 inches (7.5 – 15 cm) were considered average, and those beds which
were not raised at all were ranked as poor.

Table 2.5.4: Height of nursery beds

Nursery height No: of Responses Percentage
Good 66 43
Average 55 36
Poor 31 21
Total 152 100

It was observed that the height of the nursery beds in about 43% of nurseries was around six inches
(15 cm), which is the standard level recommended by the TRI. About 36% were average while 20% of
the nurseries had not given due attention to this aspect and were ranked poor.

2.6. NURSERY SHADE

2.6.1. Condition of Nursery Shade
Nurseries where shading materials used were according to specifications were rated good. When the
material was partially to specifications it was rated average, and when they were not up to
specifications, as poor.

Table 2.6.1: Condition of the shade

Shade No: of Responses %
Good 82 54
Average 46 30
Poor 24 16
Total 152 100

Shade provided to nurseries was in excellent conditions in 54% of the nurseries visited while in about
30% of the nurseries it was average in condition. Considering all the estate nurseries as a whole,
adoption level of shade management in nurseries could be described as satisfactory.
2.6.2. High Shade Materials Used
Only 53 respondents had high shade nurseries. About 52% of those having high shade nurseries have
used Bracken fern as shading material while 25% and 17% used coir matting and nylon nettings
respectively.

Very few estates have used other cheaper and locally available materials such as cadjan and live
shade.

Table 2.6.2: Shade materials used

Shade Materials No: of Responses %
Coir matting 13 25
Nylon nettings 9 17
Bracken fern 28 52
Other (Cadjans, live shade) 3 6
Total 53 100

2.6.3. Quality of High Shade Material Used

Those nurseries using standard material were rated good, those using average type of materials as
satisfactory and those using sub-standard material, as poor.

Quality of high shade provided, rated by the materials used, was up to the expected standard in
about 92% of the nurseries having high shade while around 8% used poor quality materials to
provide high shade.

Table 2.6.3: Quality of high shade materials used

Quality of High Shade No: of Responses %
Good 28 59
Satisfactory 16 33
Poor 4 8
Total 48 100

2.6.4. Low Shade Materials Used

Respondents having low shade were 128. Those who used low shade materials to provide shade in
nurseries have used Bracken fern extensively while very few estates have opted for coir matting.

Table 2.6.4: Low shade materials used

Low Shade Materials No: of Responses %
Coir matting 4 3
Bracken fern 123 96
Mana 1 1
Total 128 100

2.6.5. Quality of Low Shade Material Used

Nurseries that were properly shaded were ranked as good, those with average shade maintenance as
satisfactory, while those with sub-standard shading as unsatisfactory.
Table 2.6.5: Quality of low shade materials used
Quality of low shade No: of Responses %
Good 92 72
Satisfactory 31 24
Poor 5 4
Total 128 100

Almost all the nurseries that used low shade to raise nursery plants have done it satisfactorily with
around 96% nurseries showing a high standard. It was only around 4% of low shade nurseries which
performed poorly.

2.7. DETAILS ON NURSERY BAGS, AND SOIL USED

2.7.1. Size of the Nursery Bag Used
There were 189 respondents (multiple responses) for the bag size used. It was apparent that the
majority of nurseries (46%) have used 5” X 9” or bigger nursery bags to raise plants.

Table 2.7.1: Size of the nursery bag used

Size No: of Responses %
No. of Nurseries = 152)
4” width x 6” height 2 1
4” width x 7” height 2 1
4” width x 8” height 5 3
4” width x 9" height 16 8
5” width x 6” height 5 3
5” width x 8” height 17 9
5” width x 9” height 86 46
6” width x 8” height 24 13
6” width x 9” height 32 17
Total 189 100
* Multiple responses
This could be sited as a one factor responsible for high % success achieved in estate sector new
clearings.

2.7.2. Sealing the Bottom of the Bag

As per TRI recommendation, a vast majority of nurseries surveyed has opted to keep both top and
bottom ends open in the nursery bags used.

Table 2.7.2: Condition of the bottom of the bag

Condition No: of Responses Valid Percent
No. of Nurseries = 152
Sealed bottom 12 8
Open bottom 140 92
Total 152 100

2.7.3. Source of Nursery Soil

From the gathered data of 180 respondents (multiple responses), jungle soil has been used in 34% of
the nurseries while 30 % reported collecting soil from a rehabilitated area. A further 19% of the
estates have collected soil from Patna areas while others have used soil from abandoned tea lands
and soil bank of tea fields.

Table 2.7.3: Source of nursery soil

Source of soil No: of Responses* %
(No of Nurseries = 152)
Rehabilitated area 54 30
Abandoned tea field 14 8
Soil banks of a field 16 9
Patna land 34 19
Jungle 62 34
Total 180 100
* Multiple responses

2.7.4. Soil Used in Nurseries

When the soil used was of a desirable texture, it was rated as good, and when moderate in texture as
average, and when clayey in texture, as poor.

Table 2.7.4: Quality of the nursery soil

Texture of Nursery soil No: of Responses %

Good 111 73
Average 39 26
Poor 2 1
Total 152 100

Soil selected for nursery work was extremely good in about 73% of the nurseries, while attention paid
to soil selection was average in around 26% of the nurseries. Very few estates were seen to have
selected unsuitable soil for nursery work.

2.7.5. Use of Soil Shed to Store Nursery Soil

Majority of estate nurseries (53%) do not use sheds specifically erected for the purpose of storing soil,
while around 47% estates have soil sheds in nursery premises to store soil.

Table 2.7.5: Use of soil shed

Soil shed availability No: of Responses %
Soil shed available 71 47
No soil shed 81 53
Total 152 100

This condition could cause difficulties to estates in completing nursery work according to the nursery
calendar.

2.7.6. Testing Soil pH before Using for Nursery Work

Nearly 76% of the estates got their soil tested for pH before using it for nursery work while around
24% estate have not bothered to get the soil analyzed.
Table 2.7.6: Testing of soil pH
Testing soil pH No: of Responses %
Test pH value 116 76
Do not test pH 36 24
Total 152 100

2.7.7. Action Taken When the Soil pH was Low

As much as 58% of the estates do not use soils with low pH for nursery work, but selected more
suitable soil from elsewhere. About 16% had not encountered a situation where the soil pH was low,
and hence did not respond.

Table 2.7.7: Action taken to correct low soil pH

Action when pH is low No: of Responses %
Do not use them 67 58
Use them 3 3
Mix dolomite 26 22
Mix wood ash 2 2
No response 18 16
Total 116 100

About 22% estates mixed Dolomite with soils of low pH and then used it for nursery work. Since
Dolomite use is not a foolproof method that could be used to increase pH in nursery soil in a short
period of time, it is doubtful whether any desirable effects were realized at all in such nurseries using
this method.

2.7.8. Action Taken When the Soil pH was High

Nearly 76% of the estates do not use soils with high pH for nursery work, but selected more suitable
soil from elsewhere. However, 7% used the high pH soil after storing it for some time in a heap, while
5% used it any way. About 12% had not encountered a situation where the soil pH was low, and
hence did not respond.

No one was interested in adopting recommended chemical means of using either Sulphur or
Aluminum Sulphate to reduce soil pH, either through ignorance or anticipated high cost.

Table 2.7.8: Action taken to correct high soil pH

Action when pH is high No: of Responses %

Do not use them 88 76

Use them 6 5
Mix Aluminum Sulphate 0 0

Mix SulphUur 0 0
Make a heap and keep for some time 8 7

No response 14 12
Total 116 100
2.8. WATERING ASPECTS IN THE NURSERY
Absolute care is required in the use of water in the nurseries for watering plants, in respect to source
of water, time of watering and amounts given. Plants could be adversely affected when either less or
excess water is given.

2.8.1. Drainage in the Nursery Site

Where drains were constructed adequately, nurseries were ranked as good, and when inadequate, as
average. When no drains were present they were ranked as poor.

Table 2.8.1: Drainage condition of nursery site

Nursery drainage No: of Responses %
Good 100 66
Average 42 28
Poor 10 6
Total 152 100

In a majority of estate nurseries, adequate steps had been taken to improve drainage with properly
constructed drains while only a handful of estates seemed to have ignored the importance of having a
proper drainage system in place.

2.8.2. Source of Water for Nursery

Nearly 86% estates have used natural/stream water for their nurseries. Others have used tap and
well water for watering.

Table 2.8.2: Source of water

Source of water No: of Responses %
Natural/stream 130 86
Tap water 9 6
Well water 13 8
Total 152 100

It has to, however, be kept in mind that those who were using stream water run a risk of bringing in
Nematode infestation through the water source they use, many of which may flow through infested
tea fields. Therefore, the use of sedimentation tanks for nursery watering is essential.

2.8.3. Use of Sedimentation Tanks

Although the TRI recommends the establishment of sedimentation tanks as a routine in all
nurseries, adoption level of this important process was alarmingly low
Table 2.8.3: Use of sedimentation tanks
Sedimentation tanks No: of Responses %
Use the sedimentation tanks 35 23
No sedimentation tanks 117 77
Total 152 100

Since a majority of estates make use of stream water for purposes of watering nurseries, the absence
of sedimentation tanks poses a great threat in terms of Nematode infestation that could take place
through the use of contaminated irrigation water.
2.9. NURSERY FUMIGATION
2.9.1. Fumigation of Soil
Since the nursery is a focal point from where Nematode infestation could spread to hitherto un-
infested areas, urgent attention should be paid to remedy the situation by fumigating all soil used for
nursery work, along with the nursery bed surface.

Table 2.9.1: Fumigation of Nursery soil

Fumigation of soil No: of Responses %
Fumigate 110 73
Not fumigate 42 27
Total 152 100

Although 73% of the estates have fumigated their soil before being used for nurseries, much long-
term harm could be done by the 27% who do not carry out this important operation.

2.9.2. Fumigation Method Adopted

About 27% responded that they do not fumigate nursery soil/beds as they considered it not
necessary for the particular area where the nursery is located.

Table 2.9.2: Method of fumigation adopted

Method of fumigation No. of estates %
Methyl Bromide 0 0
Basamid 86 57
Metham Sodium 22 14
Soil substitute 2 1
Not fumigate 42 27
Total 152 100

It is encouraging to note that none of the estates used Methyl Bromide, a banned item now, for
fumigating nursery soils. Out of the estates who undertook soil fumigation, about 57% opted for
Basamid as a means of soil fumigation, while 14% used Metham Sodium for the purpose. Only a
couple of estates have used soil substitutes to control nematodes in their nurseries.

2.9.3. Rates of Fumigants Used

Many seemed to have been not aware of the recommended dosage or frequency of fumigant use.

Table 2.9.3: Rate of fumigation used

Rate of fumigant No: of Responses %
Correct 73 66
Not correct 37 34
Total 110 100
Although the estates have used Basamid for soil fumigation, only 66% has used the correct dosage
while others used either high or low dosages.

2.9.4. Fumigation of the Nursery Bed

If the soil is fumigated but the nursery bed is not, the full benefit of soil fumigation will not be
realized.
Table 2.9.4: Fumigation of the nursery bed
Bed fumigation No: of Responses %
Fumigating the bed 32 29
Not fumigating 78 71
Total 108 100

It appeared that around 71% of the estates have not fumigated the nursery beds.

2.9.5. The Process of Nursery Bed Fumigation

It was reported that 69% estates followed the fumigation process correctly in respect of rates of
fumigant and method, while others were not bothered to undertake fumigation in the proper manner.

Table 2.9.5: Process of nursery bed fumigations

Process of fumigation No: of Responses %
Correct 22 69
Not correct 10 31
Total 32 100

There is, therefore, an urgent need to educate the estates who do not follow the TRI recommended
process of nursery bed fumigation.

2.9.6. Availability of Separate Area for Soil Fumigation

About 60% of the estate nurseries who practiced fumigation had a separate place to undertake soil
fumigation while 7% used the nursery bed itself to fumigate soil. About 32% did not have a separate
place for soil fumigation.

Table 2.9.6: Availability of separate area for soil fumigation

Area for fumigation No: of Responses %
Available an area for fumigation 65 60
Use the nursery beds 8 7
No area for fumigation 35 32
Total 108 100

2.10. FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDE USE

2.10.1. Type of Fertilizer Used in the Nursery
All estates adopted the TRI recommendations in respect of fertilizer use in the nursery, which is
encouraging.

Table 2.10.1: Type of fertilizer used in the nursery

Fertilizer type No: of Responses* %
(No of Nurseries = 152)
T 65 152 83
Urea 29 17
Total 181 100
* multiple responses

About 83% of the estates used T 65 mixture only for the nurseries while 17% of estates used Urea
along with T 65 for their nurseries.
2.10.2. Application of Zinc Sulphate to the Nursery
The use of Zinc Sulphate in tea nurseries could be considered as very satisfactory.

Table 2.10.2: Application of zinc sulphate

Zinc application No: of Responses %
Apply 135 89
Do not apply 17 11
Total 152 100

Percentage adoption of Zinc Sulphate use in tea nursery was about 89%.

2.10.3. Use of Foliar Nutrients in the Nursery

About half the nurseries had used no foliar nutrients for the nursery.

Table 2.10.3: Use of foliar nutrients

Use of foliar nutrients No: of Responses %
Do not use any foliar nutrients 76 50
Maxicrops 37 24
Urea 29 19
Other (Vouxal, Multiplex, Crop master, Green miracle) 10 7
Total 152 100

About 24% of the estates have used Maxicrop while a further 19% used Urea as a foliar nutrient.
About 7% of estates used various other products as foliar fertilizer.

2.10.4. Use of Chemicals to Manage Pests and Diseases in the Nursery

Use of chemicals to control pest and diseases in their tea nurseries has been very common.

Table 2.10.4: Use of chemicals to manage pest and diseases

Use of chemicals No: of Responses %
(Number of Nurseries = 149)
Use chemicals 128 86
Do not use chemicals 21 14
Total 149 100

About 86% of the estates have used chemicals to control pest and diseases in their tea nurseries
while 14% estates have not used any chemicals at all to control pest and diseases in the nurseries.

2.10.5. Managing Mites in the Nursery

Sulphur containing acaricides have been largely used to control mites in nurseries.

Table 2.10.5: Managing mite pest in the nursery

Managing Mites No: of Responses %
(No. of Nurseries using Acaricides = 128)
Sulphur containing acaricides 122 92
Omite 11 8
Total 133* 100
*multiple responses
Around 92% of the estates have used Sulphur containing acaricides and only 8% estates have chosen
Omite to control mites in nurseries.

2.10.6. Control of Tea Tortrix in the Nursery

About 13% of the nurseries have not encountered any Totrix problems. Out of the balance, only 22%
used chemicals to control Totrix in the nursery.

Table 2.10.6: Control of Tea Tortrix in the nursery

Tortrix No: of Responses %
No Tortrix problem 20 13
Do not use chemical 98 65
Use chemicals 34 22
Total 152 100

In areas where Tea Tortrix attack is prevalent, seasonally, 18% of the respondents used Mimic to
control the pest in nurseries while 9% opted for Atabron.

Table 2.10.7: Use of chemicals to control Tea Tortrix

Chemical use for Tortrix No: of Responses %
(No. of Nurseries using chemicals for Tortrix = 34)
Mimic 24 67
Atabron 12 33
Total 36* 100
* multiple responses

2.10.8. Control of Blister Blight in the Nursery

Regular occurrence of Blister Blight was reported by 33% of the respondents only.

Table 2.10.8: Control of Blister Blight in the nursery

Blister Blight No: of Responses * %
(No. of nurseries = 152)
No Blister in the nurseries 50 33
Use Chemicals and other materials 102 67
Total 152 100
*Multiple responses

Blister blight is kept under control largely by the use of copper fungicides. Some have used more than
one chemical whereby the total number of responses is higher than the number of nurseries
responding.

Table 2.10.9: Type of chemicals used to control Blister Blight

Response No. of estates* %
(No. of nurseries adopting chemical control of Blister Blight = 102)
Copper fungicides 106 85
Systemic fungicides 15 12
Other (ash, soap water, urea) 4 3
Total 125 100
*multiple responses
About 85% of the estates used Copper fungicides and 12% used systemic fungicides to control Blister
blight in the nursery. A few estates, however, used other non-conventional materials such as ash,
soap, water and urea to control the disease.

2.11. PREPARING PLANTS FOR PLANTING IN FIELD

Getting plants ready for planting out in the field, necessitates restacking of plants according to their
rate of growth, adopting measures to encourage lateral spread, and finally hardening of plants to
withstand rigorous field conditions.

2.11.1. Restacking of Plants

It was encouraging to note that all estate sector nurseries practiced restacking as a routine nursery
operation.

Table 2.11.1: Restacking of nursery plants

Restacking No: of Responses %
Restacking done 152 100.0
No restacking 0
Total 152

2.11.2. Frequency of Restacking

As recommended by the TRI, all the estates have done restacking at least once during the nursery
period which could be described as a very satisfactory situation.

Table 2.11.2: Frequency of restacking

Frequency of restacking No: of Responses %
One 46 30
Two 67 44
Three 33 22
Four 6 4
Total 152 100

About 44% of the estates undertook this operation twice in the nursery while, another 22% of the
estates have undertaken restacking 3 times. Very few estates have done restacking 4 times.

2.11.3. Encouraging Lateral Spread

If no attention is paid towards promoting vigorous growth with some branch initiation, before field
planting, the plants will be tall and single stemmed, and could suffer wind damage after planting out
in the field.

Table 2.11.3: Encouraging the lateral spread

Lateral spread No: of Responses %
Encourage lateral spread 147 97
Not practiced lateral spread 5 3
Total 152 100.0

Almost all the estates used practices recommended by TRI to encourage lateral spread of branches in
the nursery.
2.11.4. Hardening–off of Nursery Plants
It was apparent that 96% of the estates adopted hardening-off of nursery plants which could be
considered as a very satisfactory situation.

Table 2.11.4: Hardening-off nursery plants

Hardening off No: of Responses %
Done 146 96
Not done 6 4
Total 152 100

It was observed that only 4% of the nurseries ignored this operation.

2.12. SOIL SUBSTITUTES

2.12.1. Use of Soil Substitutes in the Nursery
Soil suited for successful nursery work is becoming somewhat limited, and estates are looking for
appropriately useful soil substitutes.

Table 2.12.1: Use of soil substitutes in the nursery

Response No. of estates %

Use the soil substitute 26 17

Do not use soil substitute 117 77
Not aware 9 6
Total 152 100

It was found that about 17% of the estate nurseries have used soil substitute for raising nursery
plants.

2.12.2. Reasons for Using Soil Substitutes in the Nursery

Whilst some estates use soil substitutes as suited soil is scarce, there are some who use it because
they perceive that it gives better growth of plants.

Table 2.12.2: Reasons for using soil substitutes

Reason for not using soil substitute No: of Responses* %
(No. of Nurseries using soil substitutes =26)
No soil available 21 55
To reduce the cost 1 3
Growth is good 16 42
Total 38 100
*multiple responses

Some have used more than one reason whereby the total number of responses is higher than the
number of nurseries using soil substitutes. Out of the total users of soil substitute, 55% have done it
as soil was a scarce input while 42% have done it as they have noticed a good growth, when soil
substitutes were used.
2.12.3. Type of Soil Substitute Used

Table 2.12.3: Type of soil substitutes used

Soil substitute used No: of Responses * %
(No. of Nurseries using soil substitutes =26)
Coir dust 3 11
Tea waste 17 61
Paddy husk 8 28
Total 28 100
* Multiple responses
Majority of estate nurseries, where soil substitutes were used, largely used tea waste while paddy
husk and coir dust were used only in a few places.

2.13. GENERAL ASPECTS OF THE NURSERY

Some general observations made are as follows:

2.13.1. Fate of the Over-grown Plants

Over-grown plants are either transferred into jumbo poly bags and allowed to grow bigger to be used
as infills, or sold to outsiders or otherwise discarded.

Table 2.13.1: Fate of over-grown plants

Fate of overgrown-plants No: of Responses %
Discard 56 37
Sell 17 11
Use for infilling 13 9
Transfer to jumbo bags and use to infilling 66 43
Total 152 100

In 43% of the estate nurseries overgrown plants were transferred to jumbo bags for infilling purpose
while 37 % estates have chosen to discard them. Another 11% estates have sold the plants and only a
few estates used them for immediate infilling purposes.

2.13.2. Purpose of Raising Plants in the Nursery

About 69% of the estates raised plants for their own use while 31% estates used to sell plants from
their nurseries.

Table 2.13.2: Purpose of Raising Plants in the Nursery

Purpose of raising plants No: of Responses * %
(No. of Nurseries = 152)
For Selling 67 31
Own use 149 69
Total 216 100
*multiple responses

2.13.3. Quality of the Nursery Plants and their Selling Price of Plants
About 81% of the estates produced good plants while another 18% produced average type of plants in
their respective nurseries. Only 1% produced poor type of plants. This could be considered as a very
satisfactory situation. There does not seem to be a direct relationship between the quality of the plant
and the selling price.

Table 2.13.3: Quality of the Nursery Plants and their Selling Price of Plants
Plant quality No: of Responses % Average selling price
Good 123 81 14.00
Average 27 18 15.00
Poor 2 1 13.00
Total 152 100

2.13.4. Sizes of the Nursery Bag and the Selling Price of Plants

The price a plant fetches seems to depend on the size of the bag used to grow it.

Table 2.13.4: Sizes of the Nursery Bag and the Selling Price of Plants
Size No: of Responses % Average selling price
4” diameter x height less than 8” 9 6 12.00
4” x 9" 6 4 15.00
5” x 6” 5 3 15.00
5” x 8” 7 5 15.00
5” x 9” 86 57 18.00
6” x 8” 7 5 18.00
6” x 9” 32 21 20.00
Total 152 100
* There were multiple responses for bag sizes, but only the highest value was considered for this
table.

About 57% of the estates adopted TRI recommendations and used 5” X 9” polythene bags for raising
tea plants in the nursery and such plants have been sold at a reasonable price.
 CHAPTER 3
New Clearings

INTRODUCTION
Obtaining optimized productivity from a mature new clearing depends mainly on the quality of the
land selected, soil preparation methods adopted and the initial planting and nurturing systems in the
new clearing. Health and vigour of the developing tea plants in the new clearing play an important
role in bringing about the expected results at maturity. Data was collected on many aspects of new
clearing work from all the estates in this diagnostic census, and these are discussed below.

3.1 METHOD OF SELECTING LAND FOR REPLANTING

Most estates prefer to get the advise of the TRI in selecting the most appropriate land for their annual
replanting programme or for a period of years on a forward programme.

Table 3.1: Method of land selection

Method of Land selection No: of Responses %

(No. of Estates undertaking Replanting = 250)

No replanting undertaken 57 16
Estate management 113 32
Estate Field Staff 8 2
Company Management 18 5
TRI Advisory Staff 156 44
Total 352* 100
*multiple responses

Land selection for replanting in 44% of the estate has been done in consultation with the Advisory
Staff of the TRI, while 39% of estates have had their lands for replanting selected by either their
company management, estate management or field staff, without seeking the assistance of the TRI.

3.2 FATE OF UNSUITABLE LAND SECTIONS OF THE FIELD

Land unsuited for tea planting could be put to other less profitable uses.

Table 3.2: Fate of unsuitable selection of lands

Options No: of Responses %

Plant tea 0 0
Plant grasses 60 24
Plant other crops 43 17
Plant timber trees 122 49
Leave without uprooting tea 18 7
Leave without uprooting tea and plant timber trees 7 3
Total 250 100

About 49% of the land which was found to be unsuitable for tea was converted into timber clearings,
while another 24% of such land was converted into grass clearings. About 17% of the estates opted
for planting other crops in areas where tea cannot be planted. Another 10% of the estates kept such
land without uprooting the old seedling tea.

3.3 METHOD OF UPROOTING OLD TEA

Estates may use manual or mechanical means for uprooting old tea, but ensuring that the least
amount of soil disturbance and loss is permitted, is most important.

Table 3.3: Method of uprooting old tea

Method No: of Responses %

Manual 154 62
Using winch 0 0
Using back hoe 88 35
Manual and using back- hoe 8 3
Total 250 100

About 62% estates employed manual labour for uprooting old tea fields while 35% of the estates have
used backhoes for the operation. Another 3% of the estate opted for both manual and mechanical
methods for uprooting.

3.4 LAND PREPARATION FOR REPLANTING

Many of the estates follow the recommended method of deep forking and removing all roots. Those
who do not do so, are exposing their new plantings to possible Nematode infestation coming from the
old existing roots which act as a reservoir for Nematodes.

Table 3.4: Methods followed in land preparation

Method No: of Responses %
Deep forking 223 89
Uprooting and only cleaning the land 27 11
Total 250 100

About 89% of the estates undertook the practice of deep forking as a means of preparing land while
11% of the estates did only cleaning after uprooting.

3.5 METHOD OF REMOVAL OF OLD SHADE TREES

The finer details of the recommended practice of ring-barking shade trees well ahead of removal, and
allowing the root reserves to be depleted, do not appear to be well understood.

Table 3.5: Method of removal of old shade trees

Method No: of Responses %
Ring-bark in advance and remove after some times 149 60

Cut down without ring barking 16 6

Ring-bark and remove soon 51 20
Uproot 34 14
Total 250 100
About 60% of the estates, where replanting was undertaken, ring-barked the shade trees in advance
and remove them after some time, while 20% removed trees immediately after ring-barking, which
defeats the purpose of ring-barking. About 6% of the estates had cut down shade trees without ring
barking and another 14% practiced the method of directly uprooting entire shade trees with roots
intact.

3.6 REHABILITATION OF FIELDS BEFORE REPLANTING

Tea being a perennial crop, it exists on the land for many decades before being considered for
uprooting for replanting. Therefore, to give the soil a rest, and also starve disease organisms and pest
in the soil, a period of two years of rehabilitation under a grass is followed.

Table 3.6: Rehabilitation of fields

Options No: of Responses %

Rehabilitate 229 92
Not rehabilitated 21 8
Total 250 100

It was observed that 92% of the estates adopted TRI recommended soil rehabilitation prior to
replanting while another 8% opted for direct planting.

3.7 REASONS FOR NOT REHABILITATING

Varied reasons were given for not undertaking the important operation of rehabilitation before
replanting.

Table 3.7: Reasons for not rehabilitating

Reasons No: of Responses %

Costly operation 17 35
Time consuming 21 43
Not necessary 1 2
Add compost to planting hole 9 18
Grow potato 1 2
Total 49 100

All the estates which were not rehabilitating before replanting said that operation was time
consuming and besides that 35% commented that it was a costly operation. About 18% of the estates
that practiced direct planting, added compost into the planting holes as a substitute for rehabilitation
while 2% did planted direct without rehabilitating as they thought it was not necessary. Still another
2% of the estates opted for growing Potatoes prior to planting tea as a method of soil rehabilitation.

3.8 MONTH OF PLANTING THE REHABILITATION GRASS

There appeared to be no specific month for this purpose, though it is recommended that the time
should be so synchronized that the grass remains in the field for a full 2 years from land preparation
to planting the young tea.
Table 3.8: Months of planting rehabilitation grasses
Month No: of Responses %
(No. of Estates undertaking Replanting = 250)
January 141 57
May 25 10
June 22 9
April 16 6
October 13 5
November 12 5
July 8 3
September 7 3
March 3 1
December 1 0
Total 248* 100
* Multiple responses

Grass planting was undertaken in estates in almost every month except December, though the
highest number of estates opted to do it in January.

3.9 NUMBER OF GRASS LOPPING PER YEAR

About 97% of the estates lopped grass at least once a year out of which 58% had done it twice a year.
It was also reported that about 3% of the estates did not undertake any lopping at all.

Table 3.9: Number of grass loppings

Number No: of Responses %
None 6 3
One 64 28
Two 132 58
Three 26 11
Four 1 0
Total 229 100

3.10 APPLICATION OF FERTILIZER FOR REHABILITATION GRASSES

Contrary to the TRI recommendations, almost all the estates had not used any fertilizer at all for the
grass during the rehabilitation period. As a result, the growth of grass would have been relatively
poor, thereby diminishing the benefits accrued through rehabilitation.

Table 3.10: Application of fertilizer for rehabilitation grasses

Option No: of Responses %
Applied 1 0.4
Not applied 228 99.6
Total 229 100
About 99.6% estates had not used any fertilizer at all for the grass during the rehabilitation period.
3.11 MONTH OF PLANTING TEA IN DIFFERENT REGIONS
According to recommendations, the major planting season for the wet zone is from May-July, that is
in the South-west monsoon. For the semi-dry zone (Uva) the major planting season is in the North-
east monsoon.

Table 3.11: Months of planting tea in different regions

Month Low* (Wet) Mid* Up* Uva* Total*
(Wet) (Wet) (Semi-dry)
(N = No. of Responses)
N % N % N % N % N %
January 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1
February 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
March 6 5 0 0 0 0 6 2
April 17 15 0 5 3 0 22 6
May 27 25 2 14 59 30 1 2 89 25
June 38 35 9 64 56 28 1 2 81 22
July 1 1 0 33 17 0 57 16
August 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
September 3 3 3 21 5 2 8 13 15 4
October 12 11 0 21 11 49 79 62 17
November 6 5 0 13 6 2 7 21 6
December 0 0 0 4 2 0 4 1
Total 110 100 14 100 198 100 61 100 359 100
*multiple responses

About 35% of Low country estates and 64% of Mid country estates had selected June as the major
month of planting. A further 30% and 28% of Up country estates had selected May and June months
respectively as the best period for planting tea. As recommended by the TRI, 79% of Uva estates
undertook planting mainly in the month of October.

3.12 CORRECTNESS OF THE DIMENSIONS OF PLANTING HOLES

Only 57% of estates adopted TRI recommendations and followed correctly the given dimensions, while
42% of the estates followed different sizes of planting holes. Trench planting was undertaken by 1% of
the respondents.

Table 3.12: Correctness of the dimensions of planting holes

Correctness No: of Responses %
Correct 130 57
Incorrect 97 42
Trenches 2 1
Total 229 100
3.13 MATERIALS INCORPORATED INTO PLANTING HOLES
Some estates adopted practices which are not recommended by the TRI

About 44% of the estates used Curator in planting holes when tea was planted while 31% used
compost. There were instances of using both Compost as well as Curator in planting holes. A further
11%, 3% and 5% of estates had incorporated T200, Dolomite and ERP respectively into the soil in
planting holes.

Table 3.13: Materials incorporated into planting holes

Materials No. of responses %
(No. of Estates undertaking Replanting = 250)
Compost 79 31
Curator 113 44
Nemacur 12 5
Suscon 1 0
T 200 29 11
Dolomite 8 3
ERP 14 5
Total 256* 100
*multiple responses

3.14 SOURCE OF PLANTS FOR LAST COMPLETED REPLANTING PROGRAMME

About 72% of the estates had used their own plants for replanting while 24% had obtained plants
from other estates. It was reported that they rarely purchased plants from other nurseries or from the
TRI.

Table 3.14: Sources of plants

Source No: of responses %
(No. of Estates undertaking Replanting = 250)
Own Plants 213 72
From other estates 71 24
From other nurseries 8 3
From TRI 4 1
Total 296* 100
*multiple responses
3.15 TYPE OF PLANTS USED FOR REPLANTING
About 97% of the estates used bag plants with open bottom for replanting while only 3% had opted
for bag plants with sealed bottoms.

Table 3.15: Type of plants used for replanting

Type No: of responses %

Bag plants 221 97

Bag plants – bottom sealed 8 3
Total 229 100

3.16 PLANTING SPACING

The conventional spacing of 2 ft X 4 ft gives a theoretical plant stand of 12,500 per ha, which is
considered ideal under our conditions. Any closer spacing would increase plant density and would
generally tend to increase competition between plants, particularly for soil moisture during periods of
drought stress.

Table 3.16: Planting spacing used

Planting spacing No: of responses %

(No. of Estates undertaking Replanting = 250)

2 ft x 4 ft 124 50
2 ft x 3.5 ft 85 35
1.5 ft x 3.5 ft 10 4
Double hedge rows 27 11
Total 246* 100
*multiple responses

About 50% of the estates adopted TRI recommended spacing of 2 ft X 4 ft in planting tea while
another 35% had planted closer at 2 ft X 3.5 ft as the spacing. About 11% of the estates had gone one
step further and used double hedge rows when undertaking planting. Having double hedge rows
would be beneficial if estates look forward to mechanizing major cultural operations such as plucking
etc in the future.

3.17 REASONS FOR ADOPTING SPACING OTHER THAN 2 FT X 4 FT

Closer spacing could be advantageously done for low spreading estate cultivars but not for the more
popular wide jat TRI cultivars.

Table 3.17: Reasons for adopting different spacing

Reasons No: of Responses %
To increase the bush density 101 82
To cover the soil soon 12 10
Company policy 2 2
For mechanical harvesting 4 3
Other 4 3
Total 123 100
Almost 82% of the estates that used closer spacing, have done so to increase bush density while
another 10% of the estates have done it to attain an early soil cover.

3.18 METHODS ADOPTED TO BRING YOUNG TEA INTO BEARING

Almost 93% of the estates used cut across as a means of bringing young plants into bearing, which
could be considered as a good practice, while only 2% of the estates practiced bending and pegging as
the method of bringing into bearing. About 4% had tried a combination of two methods in the new
clearings.

Table 3.18: Methods of bringing into bearing

Method No: of Responses %
Cut across 213 93
Bending and pegging (BP) 5 2
Combination of Cut across & BP 10 4
Braking benches 1 0
Total 229 100
 Chapter 4

Fertilizer and Fertility-related Cultivation Practices

INTRODUCTION

Studying the levels of adoption of TRI recommendations, fertilizer and fertilizer-related practices was
one of the main objectives. The levels of adoption on the use of dolomite in mature tea fields and
related practices, use of different fertilizer mixtures and the reasons for deviating from the TRI
recommended fertilizer mixtures, the basis for calculating the nitrogen requirement for mature tea
etc. were studied in this diagnostic census.

4.1. APPLICATION OF DOLOMITE

TRI Recommendations for applying Dolomite specifies that it be applied at different rates, for all
mature tea fields based on the soil pH level in the particular fields, The time of application is
preferably before commencing pruning.

Table 4.1.1 Application of Dolomite for Mature Tea Fields

Cultivation Practice No: of Responses %
Apply Dolomite 301 98
Do not apply Dolomite 6 2
Total 307 100

As shown in the Table 4.1.1, 98% of the respondents have reported that they generally apply dolomite
to mature fields.

Table 4.1.2 Knowledge about the Necessity for Applying Dolomite

Reason for applying Dolomite No: of Responses %
To correct pH 264 86
To provide Mg 9 3
To correct pH & to provide Mg 34 11
Total 307 100

While 86% of the total respondents knew that dolomite is applied to ameliorate soil pH, about 3% was
of the opinion that dolomite was applied to provide Magnesium nutrient to the plant through soil
absorption. Only 11% of the respondents indicated that dolomite is applied to ameliorate pH and also
to provide Mg nutrient, which is the main reasons behind the application of Dolomite.

Though the respondents were not completely aware of the reasons for dolomite application, it does
not appear to have an impact on the adoption levels of dolomite application which can be rated as
very high.
Table 4.1.3: Time of Dolomite Application
Time of Dolomite applications No: of Responses %

Before pruning 151 49

After pruning 68 22
Before and Mid cycle 47 15
Before or After pruning 27 9
Other 14 5
Total 307 100

In order to derive the maximum benefits of applying dolomite, the TRI recommends that it be applied
a few days before commencing of pruning. Only 49% respondents applied dolomite exactly at the
correct time. Meanwhile, about 15% of the respondents applied dolomite before pruning along with an
additional application being given in the mid cycle. This is not recommended by the TRI under normal
circumstances.

Table 4.1.4: Analyzing Soil pH Before Applying Dolomite

Analyzing soil pH No: of Responses %

Analyze soil pH 284 93

Not analyzing soil pH 23 7
Total 307 100

On inquiring whether the respondents did check soil pH values before applying dolomite, 93% replied
that they got the soil analyzed for pH values which is considered as a good practice.

Table 4.1.5: Basis for Calculating the Quantity of Dolomite to be applied

Basis for Dolomite applications No: of Responses %
Based on the pH values 249 81
At a fixed rate 52 17
On yield basis 6 2
Total 307 100

Dolomite applications have to be done based on the pH values of the field soil. Though 93% of
respondents indicated that they get the soil pH levels checked before pruning a field, only 81%
seemed to follow the basis of pH value in calculating the amount of dolomite to be applied. The others
had not utilized the analytical information to their advantage. Further, 17% indicated that they apply
dolomite at a fixed rate for every tea field, while all others applied dolomite based on the yields of the
particular field.

4.2. FERTILIZER APPLICATION FOR IMMATURE TEA

TRI recommendations stipulate that T 200 fertilizer mixture be applied for the young tea fields in the
first and second years after planting.
Table 4.2.1: Applying Fertilizer to Young Tea Fields (1 - 2 yrs from Planting)
Fertilizer mixture No: of Responses %
T 200 182 79
T 250 42 18
Others 5 2
Total 229 100

The findings of this study revealed that only 79% of the respondents followed TRI recommendations.
The rest seemed to use fertilizer mixtures of different compositions. About 18% of the respondents
reported that they used T 250 mixture which is similar to T 200, but contains a higher proportion of
Magnesium and Potassium.

TRI recommendations stipulate that T 750 fertilizer mixture be used for young tea field after the third
year until the first formative pruning. The source of nitrogen in this mixture is Sulphate of Ammonia.

Table 4.2.2: Applying Fertilizer from the Third Year up to the First Formative Pruning
Fertilizer mixture No: of Responses %
T 750 186 81
T 800 24 10
T 200 6 3
U 200 8 3
Others 5 2
Total 229 100

It was revealed in this study that almost 81% of the estates applied T 750 fertilizer mixture for such
fields. The rest of the estates used different fertilizer mixtures such as T800, where the Magnesium
and Potassium levels have been increased, T200 mixture which is recommended for the first and
second years after planting and U 200 mixture which contains Urea as the source of nitrogen.

4.3. FERTILIZER APPLICATION FOR MATURE TEA

TRI has introduced a new system of fertilizer application for both mature VP and seedling tea fields
with six different fertilizer mixtures based on the differences in soil nutrient levels in different tea
growing regions. This new system replaced the use of U 709 mixture recommended for mature VP tea
fields across all tea planting regions.

Table 4.3.1: Application of Fertilizer to Mature Tea

Fertilizer mixture No: of Responses %

TRI Fertilizer mixtures 124 40

U 709 134 44
U 300 8 3
UT 901 21 7
U 606 12 4
Other 4 2
Total 305 100
According to the Table 4.3.1, while 40% of the respondents followed the fertilizer system
recommended by the TRI, the rest used different fertilizer mixtures. About 44% of the estates do not
follow TRI fertilizer recommendations, but continued to use U 709 which is the old fertilizer
recommendation made by the TRI. Interestingly, two estates did not use any chemical fertilizer at all,
but provided the entire nutrient requirements through organic sources. About 21 estates (which is
7%) reported that they use UT 901 fertilizer mixture for their mature tea fields.

Table 4.3.2: Reasons for Not Applying TRI Recommended Fertilizer Mixtures
Reason for not applying No: of Responses %

Company policy 158 88

Decided by the Estate 5 3
More Expensive 2 1
No crop responses 15 8
Total 180 100

Out of the 180 estates, who did not follow the TRI recommended fertilizer mixtures, 158 estates
(which is 88% of the total) stated that the company has decided to deviate from TRI recommendation
for various reasons, About 3% has decided to use fertilizer mixtures other than the mixtures
recommended by TRI for economic and other technical reasons.

Table 4.3.3: Application of Urea Along with Basal Fertilizer Mixtures Recommended by TRI
Application of Urea No: of Responses %
Apply Urea 53 43
Not applying Urea 59 47
Not aware 13 10
Total 125 100

According to the Table 4.3.3, only 43% of estates apply urea along with the basal fertilizer mixtures
for their mature tea fields in plucking. About 47% of the respondents reported that they do not apply
urea to supplement the nitrogen given by the basal fertilizer mixture. About 10% of the respondents
did not give an answer to this question as they may not be aware of the necessity to supplement the
nitrogen given by the basal fertilizer mixture with additional plain urea.

Table 4.3.4: Reasons for not Applying Urea

Reasons for not applying Urea No: of Responses %

No fields yielding above 2500 kg/yr/ha 22 37

Company policy 21 36
Practical difficulties 3 5
No significant results 3 5
Extra cost 10 17
Total 59 100

Table 4.3.4 shows the reasons for estates that follow the TRI fertilizer recommendations, not applying
Urea. About 37% had reported that there was no necessity to apply plain urea as they did not have
mature tea fields yielding more than 2500 kg of MT/yr/ha. As reported by 36% of respondents, the
company has restricted using plain urea along with TRI fertilizer mixtures. Almost 17% had the
perception that applying Urea was an additional cost. The rest had reported that there were practical
difficulties in applying Urea, and „no significant results‟ were achieved by applying urea.

Table 4.3.5: VP and Seedling Fields Requiring Supplementary Urea, Based on Their Productivity
Yield levels VP fields Seedling fields
(kg of MT/ha/yr) No of fields % No. %
Less than 2500 6,780 84 7,363 99.7
More than 2500 1,305 16 23 0.3
Total 8,085 100 7,386 100

Table 4.3.5 shows the percent of fields where the productivity levels exceeded 2500 kg of MT/ha/yr
which is the yield level beyond which nitrogen supplement with plain urea, needs to be given. This
information indicates that only approximately 16% of the VP fields had a yield ability suitable for
receiving extra nitrogen as plain Urea, and among seedling fields, only 0.3% were appropriate to
receive supplementary nitrogen as plain urea, as per the TRI fertilizer system.

Table 4.3.6: Method of Calculating the Amounts of Mature Tea Fertilizer

Method of calculating the amount of fertilizer No: of Responses %

On the basis of potential yields 65 21

On the replacement basis 98 32
On potential & replacement basis 133 44
Other 9 3
Total 305 100

As shown in the Table 4.3.6, about 44% of the respondents reported that they calculate the required
amount of nitrogen to be applied to mature tea fields based on their potential yields and applied them
on a replacement basis. A further 21% calculated the nitrogen requirement on the basis of potential
yield only, while 32% used the nitrogen replacement ratio to supply the amount of nitrogen removed
by way of crop.

Table 4.3.7: Application of Fertilizer Based on the Availability of Soil Nutrients (Site-specific
Fertilizer Application)
Implementation the System of Site-specific No: of Responses %
Fertilizer application
Implemented 19 6
Not implemented 286 94
Total 305 100

Out of 305 respondents, 94% reported that they do not follow the system of Site-specific Fertilizer
application. Only 19 estates (6%) reported that they implement Site-specific Fertilizer application in
varying degrees in their mature fields, as at the end of 2008.
Table 4.3.8: Extent of Mature VP fields where the System of Site-specific Fertilizer Application
was implemented as at end 2008
Extent category No. of Responses %
< 10 ha 11 61
10- 50 ha 5 28
51- 100 ha 1 6
> 100 ha 1 6
Total 18 100

As shown in the Table 4.3.8, out of 18 estates where site-specific fertilizer application system was
implemented, 61% of estates have implemented it in VP fields less than 10 hectare in extent. There
were only two estates where the new system had been implemented in areas of more than 50 hectare
in extent.

4.4. COMMON NUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES FOUND IN MATURE TEA FIELDS

The most common nutrient deficiency symptom reported in the study was nitrogen deficiency followed
by Magnesium deficiency. There were six estates where Sulphur deficiency symptoms were reported
and a further seven estates where Manganese (Mn) deficiency symptoms were reported.

Table 4.4: Common nutrient deficiencies in mature tea

Nutrient deficiency No: of Responses %

(No. of Estates = 307)

No deficiencies 99 29
Nitrogen (N) 133 39
Magnesium (Mg) 95 27
Sulphur (S) 6 2
Zinc (Zn) 5 1
Manganese (Mn) 7 2
Total 345* 100
*multiple responses

4.5. APPLICATION OF ORGANIC MATTER TO TEA FIELDS

The application of any form of organic matter to tea fields during the pruning cycle was considered for
this study, and it was found that only 38% estates have attempted to apply at least one application of
organic matter even to few fields.

Table 4.5: Application of organic matter to tea fields

Application of organic matter No. of Responses %

Apply 118 38
Not apply 189 62
Total 307 100
4.6. USE OF PRE-PRUNE AND POST-PRUNE FERTILIZER MIXTURES
Although, a majority (86%) of the estates did not use any special fertilizer mixtures before pruning
(pre-prune mixture), 14% had used one or more special fertilizer mixtures for fields due for pruning.
U 300 and U 360 were widely used as post-prune mixtures which are relatively high in potassium.
The use of pre- and post-prune mixtures is not recommended by the TRI.

Table 4.6: Use of pre-prune and post-prune fertilizer mixtures

Pre-prune mixture Percentage Post-prune mixture %
No special mixture 86 No special mixture 75
U 300 8 U 300 16
U 360 1 U 360 7
U 877 4 U 877 1
T 548 1 Other 1
Total 100 Total 100

4.7. USE OF ZINC SULPHATE

According to the data given in the Table 4.7, application of Zinc Sulphate is satisfactory in the
corporate sector.

Table 4.7: Use of zinc sulphate

Zinc Sulphate No: of Responses %
Use Zinc Sulphate 267 87
Do not spray Zinc Sulphate 40 13
Total 307 100
 Chapter 5

Harvesting of Tea

INTRODUCTION
Harvesting is a process of picking of suitable raw material from the tea bushes for the purpose of
manufacturing the end product. It is the most labour intensive field operation in tea cultivation,
using up to 70% of all labour on an estate. The tender tea shoots are harvested at varying intervals
depending on their rate of growth. The method of harvesting tea shoots is termed as plucking. The
implementation of a proper plucking policy reduces the cost of production, improves quality of the end
product and maintains the sustainable growth of tea bushes. It is therefore important to study the
various dimension of harvesting, worker utilization for plucking and related issues.

5.1. HARVESTING OR PLUCKING STANDARDS

In order to produce good quality tea, harvested shoots should have only 2-3 tender leaves that are free of
physical damage. They are considered as standard shoots or as good leaf for manufacturing purposes.

The standard of plucking is determined by the size or degree of maturity of the harvested shoots. There
are three plucking standards viz., fine, medium and coarse. When shoots with two leaves and a bud are
harvested, it is called fine plucking. If the harvested shoots consist of 3 leaves, it is considered as
medium plucking. Coarse plucking implies the removal of shoots with more than 3 leaves and or coarse
leaves. The overall standard of plucking in the corporate sector was seen to be good.

Table 5.1.1: Plucking Standards in the Corporate Sector

Plucking Standard (good leaf %) No: of Responses %

More than 75% 25 8

60- 75% 260 85
Less than 60% 22 7
Total 307 100

From the Table 5.1.1, it is seen that about 85% of the estates maintained an average or medium
standard of plucking, in the range of 60%- 75% good leaf.

Normally plucking rounds are about 6-8 days at high elevations and 4-5 days at low elevations. In a
proper harvesting policy, there should be a logical balance between plucking round and plucking
standard in order to secure a high yield and good quality of the end product.

In this study it was observed that a medium standard of plucking was the obvious choice of estates,
irrespective of region, in order to strike a fair balance between quality and productivity.

According to the Table 5.1.2, the adoption percentage of medium level plucking within the sector
shows a constant pattern (over 80%) and it does not vary with the region.
5.2. TRI SELECTIVE TEA HARVESTER (SHEAR)

To address certain labour related issues i.e. labour shortage and attitude problems, the TRI had
introduced a manually operated harvesting device known as TRI selective Tea Harvester (Shear) in the
late 1990s. Because of its usefulness, a range of awareness programmes, skill development
programmes and extension campaigns were conducted by the TRI in the plantation sector to
popularize the shear among workers.

Table 5.1.2: Plucking Standard in Different Regions

Region Plucking Standard Total
Above 75% 60-75% Below 60%

Low Country No: 4 80 9 93

% 4% 86% 10% 100%
Mid Country No: 4 18 0 22
% 18% 82% 0% 100%
Up Country No: 12 109 9 130
% 9% 84% 7% 100%
Uva No: 5 53 4 62
% 8% 86% 7% 100%
Total No: 25 260 22 307
% 8% 85% 7% 100%

Table 5.2.1: Current Adoption Level of Shears in the Corporate Sector

Adoption of shear No. of Responses %

Shears are being used 49 16

Not using 258 84
Total 307 100

Evaluations made in this study indicated that currently only a very small percent of the estates (16%)
used the TRI Tea Harvester (Shear). Though a shortage of workers/skilled workers was one of the
serious problems of high magnitude facing the managers, the low adoption of shear harvesting has to
be considered seriously by both research and extension staff of the TRI.

Table 5.2.2: Use of TRI Tea Harvester (Shear) at least once

Use of Shear No: of Responses %
Used 135 44
Never Used 172 56
Total 307 100

The Table 5.2.2 shows that about 44% of the estates have used the shear at least once. The
cumulative adoption level on the use of shear over a period of time has dropped by 63.5% and it is
now at a very low level. This scenario further indicates that even the innovators or early adaptors
have given up this technology for some reason. According to the Roger‟s model, when the context of
alternative innovation is not introduced, cumulative adoption would not be dropped if the innovation
is fully adopted to the requirement of the end users. Therefore, this important feedback should be
taken into serious consideration by the researchers.

In this study, those estate managers who had never used a shear, as well as those who had given up
using the shear were asked to indicate the reason(s) for their decision. The Table below gives a
summarized version of their views.

About 46% of the Managers have mentioned that this innovative operation was not necessary and this
contradicts their basic problem of worker shortage. However the reason „not necessary‟ may be linked
to the absence of a severe labour shortage or insufficient capability of this particular tool to solve the
labour shortage. Nevertheless, it is worthy of note that 50% of estate managers directly pointed to the
lack of technical feasibility of the innovation for its low adoption.

Table 5.2.3: Reasons given by Estate Managers for Low Adoption Rate of Shear Harvesting
Reason No: of Responses %

Not necessary 118 46

Not convenient/not suitable 26 10

Pluckers do not like it 35 14

Not available 13 5
Not effective 33 13
Not effective /pluckers do not like it 33 13

Total 258 100

Table 5.2.4: Time of Using the Shear

Time of Using Shear No: of Responses %

During Cropping months 17 35

No specific period 4 8
During cropping months and during labor 25 51
shortage
Other 3 6
Total 49 100

The information given in the above Table, reveals that the purpose of using the shear by even the few
estates which used the particular device was to handle their labour scarcity during cropping months.

Although, labour shortage is more severe in Low country estates (Jayakody et al), it is evident from
the Table below that shear usage was relatively higher in Up country and Uva estates. This again
tends to indicate that the shear is not a fully efficient tool to handle the labour shortage in Low
country estates.
Table 5.2.5: Current Use of Shears in Different Regions
Region Using of plucking shear Total
Using Not Using
Low Country N 2 91 93
% 2% 98% 100%
Mid Country N 3 19 22
% 14% 86% 100%
Up Country N 26 104 130
% 20% 80% 100%
Uva N 18 44 62
% 29% 71% 100%
Total N 49 258 307
% 16% 84% 100%

Also, the highest rate of resistance towards shear harvesting was recorded in Low-country estates
which are known to suffer labour problems.

Table 5.2.6: Use of Shears in Different Regions even once

Response Use of Shears in Regions
Low Country Mid Country Up Country Uva
Used 17 15 65 38
18% 68% 50% 61%
Never Used 75 7 65 24
82% 32% 50% 39%
Total 92 22 130 62
100% 100% 100% 100%

The Table 5.2.6 shows that there were a large number of estates in the Low country (82%) which had
never used the shears. This fact should be considered seriously by the researchers. One possible
reason would have been that early majority, late majority and late adopters in the adoption curve
need to see the success in others, and in the context of Up country estates rejecting the innovation,
the Low country estates may have shown less enthusiasm to put into practice shear harvesting.

5.3. PLUCKING BASKETS

Usually the pluckers tend to collect the harvested leaf into different type of containers. The historical
and conventional receptacle used was the plucking baskets made of cane strips woven together and
supported by a strap that passes over the head. These baskets create a strain on the neck muscle
and the pluckers end the working day with a nagging headache. To avoid this, many pluckers use
other types of containers some of which are listed in the Table below.
Table 5.3.1: Type of Plucking Baskets in Common Use
Type of Plucking Baskets No: of Responses %

(No. of Estates = 307)

TRI innovative basket 5 1
Polysacks 161 38
Cane baskets 175 41
Plastic baskets 7 2
Nylon Bags 38 9
Dalu Sarongs 36 9
Total 422* 100
* multiple responses

A majority of the estates used unaccepted baskets to collect the harvested shoots and these have a
possibility of causing damages to the harvested leaf. Despite the ergonomic issues associated with the
cane baskets, 41% estates used such baskets. Though the TRI put out an ergonomically designed
light-weight metal plucking basket, this has not been popularized sufficiently in the estate sector and
hence the adoption level is even less than that of the plastic basket introduced by a private company.

5.4. WORKER DEPLOYMENT FOR PLUCKING

Majority of the estates deploy 9 -10 labours to harvest the crop in one hectare of mature VP tea at a
single round as shown in the Table below. The number of workers required to harvest a unit area of
tea is fairly sensitive to land productivity as it is evident that workers have to reach more number of
plucking points for optimized plucker productivity.

Table 5.4.1: Worker Deployment for Plucking in VP fields

Level of Labor Use %

Low (less than 9) 27%

Average (9 – 10 ) 44%
High (more than 10) 29%
Total 100%

Most estate managers tend to force the workers to bring in more green leaf so that their cost of
production of made tea could be kept at manageable levels. A plucking norm is fixed by each manager
for each field on a plucking round, based on growth patterns and quantity of flush on the bushes.
Anyone bringing in more crop than the stipulated norm is paid an extra rate for each additional kg.
Some managers go to the extent of giving incentives, over and above the over-kilo payment to
pluckers who bring in relatively more crop.
 Chapter 6

Pruning and Related Cultivation Practices

INTRODUCTION
The main objectives of pruning tea bushes are to reduce the height, stimulate vegetative growth and
maintain the health of the tea bush. After some years of plucking, the height of the bush rises with
the retention of mature leaves at the level of the plucking table, resulting in the bush becoming too
high for convenient plucking. Therefore, it becomes necessary to reduce the height of the bush once
in every 2-5 years of harvesting, depending on the rate of growth.

Pruning can be considered as the second most important cultivation practice, after plucking, which
could have a long term impact on sustainability and the productivity of tea fields. TRI has made
several recommendations on the length of pruning cycle, pruning height and the pruning style for the
different elevation ranges.

Through this study it was attempted to investigate the present status of pruning practices adopted in
all mature tea fields in the 307 estates in the corporate sector. The length of the last completed
pruning cycle, productivity of fields, the other practices related to pruning adopted by the estates etc
were collected in order to study the level of adoption of TRI recommendations.

6.1. LENGTH OF PRUNING CYCLES AND PRODUCTIVITY

The recommended length of the pruning cycle varies with different elevation ranges. Optimum length
of pruning cycles for different elevation ranges have been established through long-term experiments
conducted by the TRI, over the years. It was seen that some of the estate have deviated from TRI
recommendation, due to various reasons, such as age of tea, labor scarcity, change in climatic
conditions, type of manufacturing etc. An attempt was made to study the differences in pruning
lengths of the last completed pruning cycle and, the extent of tea pruned under different pruning
cycle lengths. Average cycle productivity achieved in different pruning cycles under the different
elevation ranges and AERs were also studied.

It was seen that a large extent of mature VP tea fields in the Low country have been pruned in 30 – 42
months (36 months) which is the recommended length of pruning cycle for VP tea fields in the Low
country. However, the highest productivity has been recorded in fields which have been pruned from
24–28 months. The productivity recorded on three year cycles is slightly lower than the above
productivity level.

In the Mid country region, similar to the Low country, the largest extent of VP fields were pruned on
three year cycles. Nevertheless, TRI recommendation for Mid country VP tea fields is pruning on cycle
lengths of four years. However, the highest productivity in Mid country VP fields was recorded on
three year cycle lengths.

Although, the TRI recommend pruning cycle lengths for the Up country VP fields is 5 years, this
study revealed that the majority of Up country VP tea fields have been pruned in 43 - 53 months (4
year pruning cycle). However, the VP fields which had extended pruning cycle lengths (more than 65
months) recorded the highest productivity. The reason for this could be due to the type of harvesting
in such fields, at the expense of bush health, plucking table etc. The second largest extent has been
pruned on 5 years pruning cycles.
A bulk of the VP tea fields in Uva region have been pruned on four year cycles which is in keeping
with the recommendations made by the TRI for Uva region.

Table 6.1.1: Pruning Cycle Lengths and Productivity of VP Tea

Region Pruning Cycle (months) Extent (Ha) Average Productivity

Low Country Less than 18 33.96 1104
18-29 483.23 1797
30-42 6926.85 1714
43-53 478.94 1625
54-65 19.76 1500
Mid Country Less than 18 54.67 1364
18-29 895.27 1690
30-42 2111.25 1880
43-53 342.60 1765
54-65 3.00 1359
Up Country 18-29 5.5 1978
30-42 2082.89 2015
43-53 9738.74 2077
54-65 5991.14 2056
More than 65 536.10 2168
Uva 18-29 38.87 1415
30-42 762.93 1580
43-53 4356.22 1729
54-65 761.04 1717
More than 65

The Table 6.1.2 shows the seedling tea extents under different pruning cycles lengths, and the effect
of cycles lengths on productivity of these fields in different elevation ranges.
Table 6.1.2: Pruning Cycle Lengths and Productivity of Seedling Tea in Elevation Ranges

Region Pruning Cycle (months) Extent (Ha) Average Productivity

Low Country Less than 18
18-29 47.98 998
30-42 2637.43 873
43-53 373.12 806
54-65 4.65 673
Mid Country Less than 18 18.50 1019
18-29 114.08 1076
30-42 1466.78 949
43-53 385.19 1066
54-65 13.70 1110
Up Country 18-29 174.75 1105
30-42 6652.69 1165
43-53 9354.75 1203
54-65 1961.24 1158
More than 65 166.38 1097
Uva 18-29 115.65 705
30-42 5613.26 960
43-53 6549.39 1057
54-65 819.47 980
More than 65 100.63 872

Although the highest productivity in the Low country is reported in the seedling fields which have
been pruned on two year cycles, the majority of fields on Low country estates have been pruned on
three years cycles.

In Mid country, the majority of seedling fields have been pruned on three years cycles. However, the
productivity of such fields has been reported as the lowest, the reason for which needs to be
investigated.

In Up country, the majority of seedling fields have been pruned, as recommended by the TRI, on four
year cycles, the highest productivity is also reported in fields pruned on four year cycles.

In the Uva region, the majority of seedlings fields have been pruned, as recommended by the TRI, on
four year cycles, and the highest productivity has also been recorded in fields on four year cycles.
However, an appreciably large extent has also been pruned on three year cycles.

6.2. FORWARD PRUNING PROGRAMME

In order to minimize annual fluctuation of harvest (crop) of the estate, it is very necessary to embark on a
balanced pruning programme, i.e. to prune equal proportions (extent) of fields of each category every
year. Towards achieving this, the first step is to draw up a proper forward pruning programme, which
would greatly help in planning and executing the pruning in a proper manner.
Table 6.2.1: Implementation Level of a Forward Pruning Programme

Pruning Programme No: of Responses %

Follow a pruning programme 233 76
Do not follow pruning programme 74 24
Total 307 100

This study revealed that about 76% of the respondents follow a forward pruning programme to decide
the extent to be pruned in a particular year and decide the year of pruning of a particular field on the
estate. The other 24% do not seem to be following a planned pruning programme on the estate.

A well planned forward pruning programme is essential to arrive at the decision of the extent to be
pruned and the appropriate time of pruning.

Table 6.2.2: Planning the Extent to be pruned each Year and the Time of Pruning
Pruning practice No: of Responses %
Fixed pruning cycle 58 78
labor availability 8 12
Percentage of total extent 4 5
the budget 3 4
estimated yield 1 1
Total 74 100

The Table 6.2.2 shows a majority of estates, 78%, seem to be following a fixed pruning cycle for each
field while 12% consider the availability of labour on the estate before deciding on the extent to be
pruned, in a particular year. Meanwhile, about 5% of the total estates pruned their fields on a basis of
a fix percent of the total tea extent in bearing.

6.3. STYLE OF PRUNING

To decide on the best style of pruning to be adopted one must consider the vigour of the bush.
Generally pruning of weak bushes frequently, without leaving adequate lungs, results in more deaths
due to inadequacy of root reserves for better recovery. Lung pruning and cut-across prunings are
milder than clean pruning, which leaves no foliage on the bush. Some estates indicated specifically
that they adopted extra cleaning while undertaking lung pruning to remove dead wood and sections
with pest and diseases damages and wood-rot.

Data on the normal pruning styles adopted in most of the VP fields over the last 5-year period, was
gathered from the estates, are indicated in the Table below.

Table 6.3.1: Style of Pruning Adopted

Item No: of Responses %
Lungs pruning at 18- 22 inches 243 79
Cut-across pruning at 20 -22 inches 22 7
Lungs pruning with cleaning 21 7
Without leaving lungs (Clean pruning) at 16 -20 inches 15 5
Lungs pruning without cleaning/ Cut-across pruning 6 2
Total 307 100
The majority, 79.4%, reported that they undertake lung pruning as the main style of pruning in VP
fields, whereas 7% reported that they follow lung pruning with extra cleaning of the bushes. A further
7% mainly followed cut-across pruning in their fields. Six estates reported that they followed both
lung pruning and cut-across pruning equally in their VP fields, depending on the specific situation
encountered.

Table 6.3.2: Reasons for Adopting Lung Pruning as the Main Method
Reasons No: of Responses* %
Fast recovery after pruning 156 47
Assured recovery 143 43
Company policy 20 6
Labor availability 2 1
More convenient 8 2
Cleaning possible 5 1
Total 334 100
* Multiple responses

About, 47% reported that they selected lung pruning on account of its fast recovery and 43% reported
that it was for the assured recovery achieved after pruning, while a further 6% of the estates selected
lung pruning as a policy.

Table 6.3.3: Reasons for adopting Cut-across Pruning as the Main Method
Reason No: of Responses %
Company policy 9 41
Fast recovery 8 36
Convenience 3 14
Assured recovery 1 5
On labor availability 1 5
Total 22 100
* Multiple responses

As shown above, 41%, out of 22 estates adopted the cut-across method, and had selected it as a
matter of policy, while 36% had selected it due to the fast recovery they have experienced with cut-
across pruning.

6.4. PRE-PRUNING OPERATIONS

Fast recovery after pruning, health of tea bushes and the sustainability of productivity in the long-run
are highly influenced by the adoption of pre-pruning practices recommended by the TRI. One of them
is testing root starch levels in the field which are due for pruning, and basing the decision on the
results of root starch levels, which is a prudent practice, as recovery is directly related to the level of
root reserves.
Table 6.4.1: Testing of Root Starch Levels before Pruning
Root Starch No: of Responses %
Testing roots starch 108 35
Not testing root starch 199 65
Total 307 100.0

As shown in the Table 6.4.1, only 35% of the estates tested root starch reserves in the fields that are
due for pruning.

Table 6.4.2: Resting of Fields Before Pruning

Resting Fields No: of Responses %

Resting the fields 119 39

Not resting the fields 178 58
No response 10 3
Total 307 100

In order to replenish the starch reserves lost through plucking and to maintain a satisfactory level of
reserves over and above the critical level required for satisfactory recovery, resting before pruning is
important. But as seen in the Table 4.6.2, only 39% of the estates reported that they rested the fields,
at least for a few weeks before commencing pruning.

6.5. TIME OF PRUNING (month of the year)

Time of pruning is considered one of the most important decisions to be taken before pruning. In
principle, the pruning is best done before the main monsoon rains but after receiving a few inter-
monsoonal showers, when adequate soil moisture is available, to ensure fast recovery and minimize
the scorching of bark due to sudden exposure to direct sun light. Accordingly, the TRI has established
the best months for pruning in different elevation ranges. However, due to various reasons such as
the differences in climatic conditions in different AERs found within the elevation ranges, labor
availability in the region, as an escape strategy for some pest and disease problems, i.e. Blister Blight,
Shot-hole Borer, and also to manage rush crops during the inter-monsoon period, the estates tend to
deviate from the recommended pruning time in some regions. The information gathered in this study
on the pruning time are presented on the basis of elevation ranges and the AERs to study the
suitability of such pruning time and the possible risks, if any, by pruning tea fields during those
months.

According to the Table 6.5.1, the majority of estates (79%) prune their fields during March to June, of
which 55% estates prune their fields during April/May which is the best period for pruning tea in the
regions which receive the South-West monsoon rains.
Table 6.5.1: Time of Pruning (month of the year)
Month No: of % Average Productivity
Responses Kg MT/ha/yr
Jan/Feb 11 4 1724
March/April 49 16 1794
April/May 168 55 1965
May/June 26 8 1895
Sept/Oct 22 7 1648
Oct/Nov 15 5 1693
Nov/Dec 5 2 1472
Dec/Jan. 11 4 1865
Total 307 100

The estates that prune their fields during April/May have shown the highest average productivity
level (1965 kg MT/ha/yr), followed by the fields pruned during May/June.

Table 6.5.2: Time of Pruning in Elevation Ranges

Months Up Country Uva Mid Country Low Country Total
No. of % No. of % No. of % No. of % No. of %
Estates Estates Estates Estates Estates
Jan/Feb 0 9 15 2 9 0 11 4
March/April 30 23 8 13 1 5 10 11 49 16
April/May 99 76 4 6 16 73 49 53 168 55
May/June 1 1 0 3 14 22 24 26 8
Sept/Oct 0 22 35 0 0 22 7
Oct/Nov 0 3 5 0 12 13 15 5
Nov/Dec 0 5 8 0 0 5 2
Dec/Jan. 0 11 18 0 0 11 4
Total 130 100 62 100 22 100 93 100 307 100

The Table 6.5.2 shows the breakdown of pruning time for different elevation ranges. In Uva region,
pruning is distributed throughout the year, except in a few dry months. Also 35% of the total estates
in Uva region prune their fields during September/October which is the best period for pruning tea
fields, as recommended by the TRI for that region. Another 33% of estates in that region prune their
fields during December/February, at the tail end of North-East monsoon rain period to prevent or
minimize Blister Blight damage in pruned fields.

In Mid country, 87% of estates prune their fields during April to June which is the period
recommended by the TRI for Mid country estates. Two estates in IM3c reported that they prune their
field early January while, one estate in WM3b pruned its fields in March/April.

Majority of estates (88%) in the Low country pruned their fields during March to June of which 53%
prune them during April/May which is the best period for pruning fields in the Low Country.
However, there were 13% of estates in Low country which pruned their fields during
October/November, probably, to avoid the labor scarcity that would take place mainly during the
months of April/May.

As depicted in the two Tables, 6.5.1 and 6.5.2, on a national basis, 79% of estates prune their fields
during March-June of which 55% prune their fields in April/May.

Table 6.5.3: Time of Pruning in Agro Ecological Ranges (AER)

AER Jan/ March April/ May/ Sept/ Oct/ Nov/ Dec/ Total
Feb /April May June Oct Nov Dec Jan. Estates %

% % % % % % % %
IM1a 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 40 5 100
IM2a 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 17 6 100
IM2b 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 33 3 100
IM3c 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100
IU2 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 22 23 100
IU3a 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 4 100
IU3b 0 0 20 0 80 0 0 0 10 100
IU3c 25 28 0 0 36 11 0 0 28 100
IU3d 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 1 100
IU3e 25 0 37 13 0 0 0 25 8 100
WL1a 0 23 77 0 0 0 0 0 35 100
WL2a 0 7 52 41 0 0 0 0 27 100
WL2b 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 2 100
WM1a 0 0 56 44 0 0 0 0 16 100
WM1b 0 0 0 25 0 75 0 0 8 100
WM2a 0 20 60 20 0 0 0 0 5 100
WM2b 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 3 100
WM3b 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100
WU1 0 70 26 0 0 4 0 0 23 100
WU2a 0 15 85 0 0 0 0 0 59 100
WU2b 0 21 72 7 0 0 0 0 28 100
WU3 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 9 100
Total 4 16 55 8 7 5 2 4 307 100

The Table 6.5.3 shows the time of pruning in different Agro Ecological Regions. All the estates (14) in
IU3d, WM2b WM3b and WU3 regions prune their field only during April/May and all the estates in
WL2b range during May/June. All the estates coming under IU3a region prune their fields during
September/October.

Pruning of the fields in 28 estates in IU3c region stretches over January to April and September to
November whereas pruning in the estates of IU3e region stretches over December to February and
March to June. The climatic conditions prevailing in these regions should be favorable to prune the
fields in all those months. These conditions indicate that a generalized or broad-based
recommendation on the time of pruning would not be fair, as climatic conditions prevailing in
different agro ecological regions are different.

It was found that the cleaning of bushes in a majority of fields can be rated as good to satisfactory,
when the Extension staff who carried out the study observed the level of cleaning of dead-wood and
pest damaged branches, brushwood, moss and ferns in recently pruned VP tea field.

Table 6.5.4: Cleaning of Bushes After Pruning (Bush Sanitation)

Bush Sanitation No: of Responses %
Satisfactory 179 59
Good 111 36
Poor 17 5
Total 307 100

6.6. POST-PRUNING OPERATIONS

Table 6.6.1: Undertaking the Burying of Prunings

Response No. of Estates %

Burying of prunings 31 10

Not burying 276 90

Total 307 100

As shown in the Table 6.5.1, it was found that only 10% of the estates reported that they bury the
prunings in fairly significant extent of fields to improve the soil fertility.

Table 6.6.2: Bringing in to Bearing Operation

Practice No: of Responses %
Tipping 188 61
Plucking- in 119 39
Total 307 100

TRI recommends the practice of tipping for bringing pruned fields into plucking. However, some
estates follow the practice of plucking-in, by commencing the bringing in to bearing operation early.
According to the Table 6.6.2, 61% of the respondents reported that they followed the practice of
tipping which is the one recommended by the TRI.

Table 6.6.3: Forking of Fields

Forking No: of Responses %
Not forking 202 66
Forking of fields 105 34
Total 307 100

In the guidelines given by the TRI, it is recommended that the fields be forked, at the time of bringing
the fields into bearing, to improve soil aeration, in fields where the burying of prunings was not
undertaken. It was found that only 34% of the estates undertook this good agricultural practice, due
to some reason or the other. The estates which undertook forking showed a high average productivity.
 Chapter 7

Shade Management

INTRODUCTION
The natural habitat of tea is assumed to be the forest areas, and hence planting of shade trees has
been associated with tea cultivation from its inception. At pruning time, the absence of shade could
expose the bark of the tea bushes to sun scorch. Over several pruning cycles, bark scorching gets
aggravated and this could result in a reduction in bud break, weakening of the bush, wood rot,
reduction in crop and death of bushes during a drought. In the Low country, Gliricidia shade trees, in
addition to providing shade to tea has also been found to be a suitable diversionary host for the
swarming Low country live wood termite which attack tea.

There are two types of shade trees and they are medium and high shade trees. The selection of a
suitable type of shade tree depends on the elevation and the growth characteristics of the tree
species. The establishment of shade trees in new clearings should be done early, during planting of
the rehabilitation grass, so that there is adequate shade when the young tea is planted out in the
field.

7.1. ESTABLISHMENT OF SHADE DURING LAST FIVE-YEAR PERIOD

Table 7.1: Establishment of shade

Shade trees No: of Responses %
Establish Shade 223 73
Did not establish shade 84 27
Total 307 100

In this study, about 27% of the respondents had not established any shade for the last five year
period. Though the number is small, the extent of tea that could be affected is significant. In addition
to establishing shade trees during replanting, they are required to be established after pruning to
replace the overgrown or dead shade trees.

7.2. TIME OF ESTABLISHING SHADE WHEN REPLANTING

Table 7.2: Time of establishing shade

Time of establishment No: of Responses %

At the time of grass planting 278 91

At the time of tea planting 29 9
Total 307 100

Data on time of establishment of high shade trees in a replanting field were also collected as shown
above. It was revealed that the majority of estates established shade trees at the correct time when
rehabilitation grasses are planted. This would ensure the proper shade status at the time of planting
of tea.
7.3. PLANT SPACING OF HIGH SHADE
When undertaking replanting, a majority of estates were seen to plant high shade at the correct
spacing. However, many of them had not taken measures to thin out shade trees and adjust the
recommended final spacing to meet required standards and, therefore, adoption level of the final
spacing of the high shade was poor than that of the initial stage.

Table 7.3: Plant spacing of high shade

Option Initial spacing Final spacing
No: of Responses % No: of Responses %
Correct spacing 209 68 23 7
Incorrect spacing 98 32 284 93
Total 307 100 307 100

7.4. LOPPING OF MEDIUM SHADE

A majority of the estates that had medium shade, largely at lower elevations, undertook two annual
loppings. Even though estates in the Low country could have adopted a third lopping, only 20 estates
were seen to have done it.

Table 7.4 Lopping of medium shades

Number of lopping per year No: of Responses %
One 39 14
Two 211 78
Three 20 7
Total 270 100
 Chapter 8

Weed Management

INTRODUCTION

Different kinds of weed management methods are practiced in tea plantations. They can broadly be
classified as manual weeding, chemical weeding, cultural methods of weeding and mechanical
methods. Suitability of these methods would depend on the growth stage of tea. Chemical weeding is
not suitable for use in the early stage of young tea. Generally some of the mechanical method such as
use of Mammoty and sorandy are not recommended in standing tea due to soil erosion. This study,
therefore, considered it important to examine the various weed management practices adopted in tea
plantations, particularly in relation to the different growth stage of tea.

8.1. WEED MANAGEMENT IN YOUNG TEA FIELDS

Weed growth is the greatest in young tea soon after planting, as soil in inter-row spaces is fully
exposed. Unless adequate weed control is adopted then, optimal establishment of young tea will be
hampered. Manual weed is common in young tea, but should be carefully carried out to avoid damage
to the collar of the plants. Use of herbicides in young tea must also be carefully done to avoid damage
to young green branches through spray drift. A desirable method of weed control is by mulching the
inter-row spaces by using grass loppings.

Table 8.1.1: Different Weed Management Practices in Young Tea

Method No: of Responses %

(No. of Estates involved = 229)

Manual weeding (Hand weeding) 229 84

Chemical weeding 26 9
Mulching (Thatching) 15 5
Mechanical (Mammoty) 4 1
Total 274* 100
* multiple responses

According to the Table 8.1.1, 84% of all respondentss having young tea fields, practiced hand weeding
only, without using any agrochemicals, which is the ideal method of weed management for the
particular situation. However, it was seen that all estates did undertake at least one round of hand
weeding in their young tea. Another good practice recommended for young clearings is thatching, but
the adoption rate of this particular good practice was not seen to be high.

About 9% of the respondents used chemical methods of weed control along with hand weeding. It
was encouraging to note that, out of the 274 respondents studied, only 4 used mammoties.
Table 8.1.2: Use of Herbicides in Young Tea Fields
Herbicides in young tea No: of Responses %
Glyphosate 18 39
Paraquat 21 46
Other (Diuron, 2 4 D, MCPA etc.) 7 15
Total 46* 100
* multiple responses

Although use of chemical for weed control is less, in young tea fields, most popular herbicide used
was seen to be Paraquat with 46% respondents using it exclusively followed by Glyphosate at 39%.
Though these respondents reported the use of Paraquat and Glyphosate largely, some of them also
gave at least one application of the other herbicide.

8.2. WEED MANAGEMENT IN MATURE TEA FIELDS

Table 8.2.1: Use of Herbicide in Mature Tea Fields

Herbicides in mature tea No: of Responses %
No chemical use 2 1
Glyphosate 291 84
Paraquat 34 10
Other (Diuron, 2 4 D, MCPA etc) 17 5

Total 344* 100

* multiple responses

The pattern of herbicide use changes completely where mature tea fields are concerned. Table 4.2.2
reveals that chemical weed management is the major weed control method in mature tea fields of
corporate sector estates. Estates that do not use herbicide are very low as 1%. Among chemicals, the
use of Glyphosate is predominant and this is in par with the Glyphosate usage pattern in
smallholding according to the survey carried out in 2006. Except in a few instances, such as pruned
fields and fields recovering from stress conditions, the restricted use of Glyphosate for mature tea
fields is not against TRI recommendation.

Table 8.2.2 shows that, 94% of the estate applied the correct dosage of herbicides for mature tea.

Table 8.2.2: Rates of Herbicide Use in Mature Tea Fields

Rates of use No: of Responses %

Correct 288 94
Incorrect 17 6
Total 305 100
Table 8.2.3: Frequency of Herbicide Use in Mature Tea Fields
Frequency of herbicide Use No: of Responses %
One application per year 114 37
Two applications per year 176 58
Three applications per year 14 5
More than 3 applications per year 1 0
Total 305 100

According to the Table 8.23, about 95% of the estates adhered to the recommended number of
application per year. Field and laboratory experiments carried out by TRI, confirms that the made tea
is generally free from chemical residues, if TRI recommendations on herbicide usage are strictly
adhered to.
 Chapter 9

Pest and Disease Management

INTRODUCTION
The concept of pest control has changed over the years from one of pure pesticide approach to a more
rational and limited use of pesticides. With naturally occurring biological control mechanisms being
given prominence over the use of pesticides, research has been geared to the development of planned
complementary use of different strategies of pest control such as biological control, selection of
narrow spectrum insecticides to supplement the action of natural enemies and cultural methods of
control. An integrated approach to the management of tea pests has become more accepted, in recent
times, whereby preventive measures and surveillance methods are adopted before-hand than await
the pest to reach the crop to control it. Such an integrated approach, with a rational and limited use
of pesticides, reduces the use of pesticides and thus costs, and more importantly avoids the
dislocation of naturally occurring biological control mechanisms. Above all residue limits stipulated
by the buyers are now relatively easy to maintain.

There are many insect and mite pests which are very widely distributed in tea, some in small
numbers and others reaching damaging levels and these are regarded as serious pests. Many pests
are kept under natural control by parasites, predators and pathogen. Some are seasonal pests, and
occur during specified seasons (e.g. dry weather) under certain agro-climates.

9.1. PESTS OF TEA

Table 9.1.1: Severity of Pest Attack in Tea in Sri Lanka

Pest Severe Average Less Total

N % N % N % N %
Shot-hole Borer 207 71% 42 14% 44 15% 293 100

Tea Tortrix 137 45% 54 17% 116 38% 307 100

Mite 128 45% 51 18% 107 37% 286 100

Low Country Live 61 20% 12 4% 234 76% 307 100

Wood Termite
Up Country Live 14 5% 10 3% 283 92% 307 100
Wood Termite
Scavenging Termite 10 4% 44 15% 232 81% 286 100
White Grub 5 2% 12 4% 268 94% 285 100
Nettle Grub 1 0 8 3 278 97% 287 100
N= No. of responses

In this study, 71% of the estates ranked Shot-hole Borer as the most severe and serious pest while
14% and 15% of the estates ranked it as an average and less damaging pest respectively. About 45%
estates ranked Tea Tortrix as a severe pest while 17% and 38% estates ranked this pest as average
and a less damaging pest respectively.

As shown in table 9.1.2, according to the severity of attack Shot-hole Borer ranked as the most
serious pest in tea plantations in Sri Lanka while Tea Tortrix and mites ranked as the 2 nd and 3rd
most serious. Low country live wood termite was ranked as 4th and scavenging termite, Up country
live wood termite, white grub and nettle grub were ranked as 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th respectively.

Table 9.1.2: Severity Ranking of Pest Attacks in the Corporate Tea Sector
Pest attack Weighted average Rank

Shot-hole Borer 191 1

Tea Tortrix 133 2
Mites 120 3
Low Country Live-wood Termite 55 4
Scavenging Termite 18 5
Up Country Live-wood Termite 13 6
White Grub 5 7
Nettle Grub 1 8

The intensity of severity of the reported pests is as shown below:

SHB> TT > MITES > LCLWT > SCAVENGING TERMITE > UCLWT > WG > NG

Table 9.1.3: Severity Ranking of Pest in Different Tea Growing Regions

Rank All regions Low Mid Up Uva
1 SHB SHB SHB TT SHB
2 TT LCLWT TT SHB MITES
3 MITES MITES MITES MITES TT
4 LCLWT S.TERMITES S.TERMITES UCLWT NG
5 S. TERMITES TT WG WG WG
6 UCLWT WG UCLWT S.TERMITES S.TERMITES

Shot-hole Borer has been ranked as the number one pest in all tea growing areas, except in Up
Country. In the Up country, Tea Tortrix was ranked as the number one pest. According to the
ranking, apart from Shot-hole Borer, Low country live wood termite (LCLWT), Mite, Scavenging
termite, Tea Tortrix, and White grub were ranked as 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th pest respectively in Low
country.

In Mid country tea estates Shot-hole Borer was ranked as the number one pest and Tea Tortrix,
Mites, Scavenging termite, White grub and UCLWT were ranked as number 2 nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th
respectively.

Tea Totrix was ranked as the number one pest in the Up country and 2 nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th ranks were
given to Shot-hole Borer, Mites, UCLWT, WG and Scavenging Termites respectively.
Table 9.1.4: Severity of Major Pest Attacks in Low Country Region
Pest Severity Total
Severe Average Less
SHB N 68 4 12 84
% 81% 5% 14% 100%
LCLWT N 61 12 20 93
% 66% 13% 21% 100%
Mites N 22 13 49 84
% 27% 15% 58% 100%
N= No. of responses
In Uva region Shot-hole Borer was ranked as the number one pest while Mite, TT, Nettle grub, white
grub and Scavenging termites were ranked 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th respectively according to the
severity of damage.

Shot-hole Borer was identified as the most severe pest in the Low country followed by the Low
country live wood termite and Mites.

Table 9.1.5: Severity of Major Pest Attacks in the Mid Country Region
Pest Severity Total
Severe Average Less
SHB N 17 3 1 21
% 81% 14% 5% 100%
TT N 11 2 9 22
% 50% 9% 40% 100%
MITES N 5 11 4 20
% 25% 55% 20% 100%
N= No. of responses

The Table 9.1.5 indicates that 81% of the estates considered Shot-hole Borer as a severe pest, while
14% thought it was average. Another 5% considered it as less severe. About 50% of the estates
considered Tea Tortrix attack as severe, while 9% of the estates ranked it as average and another 40%
thought it was less severe. In the case of Mite, 55% of the estates considered it as average, 25%
ranked it as severe and 20% less severe.

Table 9.1.6: Severity of Major Pest Attacks in the Up Country Region

Pest Severity Total
Severe Average Less
TT N 106 13 11 130
% 82% 10% 8% 100%
SHB N 72 24 31 127
% 57% 19% 24% 100%
MITES N 48 22 52 122
% 39% 19% 42% 100%

About 82% estates considered Tea Tortrix attack as severe while 10% thought it was average. Another
8% considered it as less severe. About 57% of the estates considered Shot-hole Borer attack as
severe, 19% estates ranked it as average and another 24% thought it was less severe. In the case of
Mite attack, 42% of estates considered it as less severe, 39% ranked it as severe and 19%as average.
Table 9.1.7: Severity of Major Pest Attacks in the Uva Region
PEST-UVA Severity Total
severe average Less
(N = No. of Responses)
SHB N 50 11 0 61
% 82% 18% 0 100%
MITES N 53 5 2 60
% 89% 8% 3% 100%
TT N 16 37 9 62
% 26% 60% 14% 100%

About 82% of the estates considered Shot-hole Borer attack as severe, 18%estates ranked it as
average. In the case of Mite attack, 89% of estates considered it as severe, 8% as average and 3%
ranked it as less severe. About 60% of the estates considered Tea Tortrix attack as average while 26%
ranked it as severe. Another 14% considered it as less severe.

Table 9.1.8: Shot-hole Borer Attack in Young Tea Fields

Observation No: of Responses %

SHB attacks were observed 135 44

No SHB attack were observed 171 56
Total 306 100

About 56% of the estates observed no Shot-hole Borer attack in young tea fields while 44% estates
did experience Shot-hole Borer attacks in young tea.

Table 9.1.9: Estimating the Level of SHB Infestation in Mature Tea

Response No: of Responses %

Do not undertake checking the infestation levels 135 44

Check infestation levels by the estate staff 63 21
Seek the assistance from TRI 41 13
Estimate based on Plucker‟s observations 65 21
Total 304 100

It was revealed that though Shot-hole Borer attack was found to be the number one concern of
estates, 44% of estates did not undertake the checking of infestation level while 21% estates assigned
this operation to estate staff. Another 21% estates estimated Shot-hole Borer attacks based on visual
observations made by pluckers, and only 13% estates sought assistance from the TRI.
Table 9.1.10: Use of Pesticides in Tea Fields
Pest Pesticide No: of Responses %
SHB Lebycide 18 6

TT & Other Caterpillars Atabron 114 30

Mimic 262 70
Sub Total 376* 100

Mites Sulphur 218 69

Omite 98 31
Sub Total 316* 100
*Multiple responses

Only 6% of the estates resorted to chemical control of Shot-hole Borer using the only recommended
chemical, Lebycide. About 30% of the estates used Atabron and 70% used Mimic as the major
chemical to control Tea Tortrix, even though a few estates would have given one spray of the other
chemical also. A majority of estates, however, preferred Mimic to Atabron in controlling Tea Tortrix.
About 69% of the estates use Sulphur, while 31% use Omite to control mites.

Table 9.1.11: Use of Pheromone Traps in Tea Fields

Response No: of Responses %
Using Pheromone traps 14 5
Not using Pheromone traps 225 73
Not aware 68 22
Total 307 100

Only 5% of estates had ever used pheromone traps in tea fields to monitor Tea Tortrix population,
while 22% of respondents were not aware of this technique.

9.2. DISEASES OF TEA

Table 9.2.1: Diseases That Could Result in Significant Crop Loss

Disease Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Weighted Rank on severity
Average
Blister Blight 214 87 0 272 1
Macrophoma 35 36 5 61 2
Wood rot 0 0 4 1 3

When asked about the most damaging disease of tea, a majority of the respondents indicated that
Blister Blight was the number one disease followed by Macrophoma and Wood rot.
Table 9.2.2: Severity Ranking of Diseases
Disease Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Weighted Rank on severity
Average
Blister Blight 243 13 3 253 1
Wood rot 16 103 13 89 2
Macrophoma 6 19 23 26 3
Phomopsis 13 13 2 22 4
Red root disease 0 14 1 10 5
Hypoxilon 1 0 5 3 6

Generally, Blister Blight leaf disease became the number one disease that inflicted economic damage
to tea. Wood rot and Macrophoma canker ranked as the 2 nd and 3rd economically important diseases
respectively. Phomopsis, Red Root disease (Poria) and Hypoxilon ranked as number 4th, 5th and 6th
respectively based on the perception of estate managers.

Table 9.2.3: Severity Ranking of Diseases Resulting in Significant Crop Loss, in Different Tea
Growing Regions
Rank All regions Low Mid Up Uva
1 Blister Blight BB BB BB BB
2 Macrophoma Macro WR WR WR
3 Wood rot WR Phom. Phom. Phom.

BB = Blister Blight, Macro = Macrophoma, WR = Wood rot, Phom. = Phomopsis

Blister Blight leaf disease has been identified as the disease that inflicts the highest crop loss in the
tea plantations of Sri Lanka. Canker and wood rot were ranked as the second and third economically
important diseases respectively.

Table 9.2.4: Severity Ranking of Diseases in Different Tea Growing Regions

Rank All regions Low Mid Up Uva
1 Blister Blight BB BB BB BB
2 Wood rot WR Phom. WR WR
3 Macrophoma Macro WR Phomopsis Phomopsis
4 Phomopsis WRD RRD RRD RRD
5 Red root D Black B BRD

It is apparent that Blister Blight was the most severe disease in all tea growing areas. In the Mid
country, where stem canker caused by Phomopsis was identified as the second important disease, all
other regions said that wood rot was the second important disease. Canker caused by Macrophoma
has been identified as the next important disease affecting Low country while in Up country and Uva
it was canker caused by Phomopsis. It is interesting to note that Red root disease (Poria), which was
at one time known as the most dangerous disease in tea plantations has now become a disease of the
least importance mainly because of the effective interventions of TRI.
Table 9.2.5: Severity Ranking of the Months of Disease Occurrences, in Different Tea Growing
Regions
Rank All regions Low Mid Up Uva
1 June December May June November
2 November January October July December
3 May February November May October
4 July August April October April
5 December March December November
6 October June June December

Blister Blight leaf disease, which has been ranked as the most economically important disease in tea
plantations in Sri Lanka, affects Low country tea severely in December while its severity in the Mid
country is in May, and in the Up country in June and in Uva tea plantations in November.

9.2.6: Months of Severe Blister Blight Occurrence

Month Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Weighted Rank on

Average severity
June 80 7 5 86 1
November 71 0 0 71 2
May 57 2 9 61 3
July 48 6 0 52 4
December 47 4 1 50 5
October 30 2 0 31 6
January 19 3 9 24 7
August 14 10 0 21 8
March 17 1 6 20 9
February 19 1 1 20 10

Irrespective of the region, Blister Blight attack was very severe during June, followed by November,
May and July in almost all the tea growing regions.

Table 9.2.7: Use of Fungicides in Tea Fields

Fungicides No: of Responses %

(No: of estates = 306)

Copper fungicides 254 83

Systemic fungicides 183 60

* Multiple responses

Of the 306 estate studied, 83% of the estates indicated that they primarily used Copper fungicides for
controlling fungal diseases, while a further 60% said that they used systemic fungicides. It is evident
that many estates work between these two fungicides and hence there is no clear cut demarcation on
the exclusivity of use of these two chemicals

9.3. NEMATODES OF TEA

Nematode damage in tea has been widespread in recent years particularly in the Up country, mostly
at elevations ranging from 1200 to 1700m. It is a perennial pest attacking both young and old plants
and thus is a problem in tea nurseries, new clearings as well as mature fields. Young tea suffers
badly when affected by nematodes, which often occurs because the tea was planted in previously
infected areas where the uprooting had been poor and soil rehabilitation inadequate. Prevention of
infestation in nursery plants as well elimination in the field before planting tea is absolutely essential,
as control measures in infected fields are ineffective and expensive.

Table 9.3.1: Nematode infestation in Nurseries

Response No: of Responses %
No symptoms of nematode infestation 79 51
Sampling was done by the estate 43 28
Inform the TRI 30 19
Not aware of Symptoms 3 2
Total 155 100

It was reported that 51% of the estates had not seen any symptom of nematode infestation in the
nursery while 28% of estates sampled their respective nurseries for nematodes analysis. Another 19%
of estates have done the correct thing by informing the TRI about the problem. A few estates had no
idea about the symptoms of nematode infestation.

Table 9.3.2: Nematode Infestation in Tea Fields

Response No: of Responses %
No symptoms of nematode infestation 173 56
Inform the TRI 73 24
Sampling was done by the estate 39
13
Not aware of Symptoms 22 7
Total 307 100

About 56% of the estates have not seen any nematode symptoms in tea fields, while 24% of the
estates had informed the TRI about suspected symptoms of nematode infestation noticed by them in
tea fields. A further 13% of the estates sampled their tea fields to ascertain the level of nematode
infestation. However the striking factor is that about 7% of the estates had no idea about the
symptoms of nematode infestation.
 Chapter 10

Information Availability

INTRODUCTION
Any commercial enterprise in the modern world is driven by state of the art Information Technology,
Quality management practices and organized training towards learning the updated research
applications. Even when managing a tea plantation, the information age has made all workers to be
knowledge-based workers, since labour cost constitutes a major portion of the total cost of production
of tea. Therefore, managers are responsible in establishing a favourable climate in which workers are
motivated to become efficient personnel to the production system.

10.1. RANKING INFORMATION SOURCES ON AVAILABILITY

Managers of the corporate sector estates get their required information from different sources to solve
their various problems on tea cultivation, manufacturing and marketing. In this study, the managers
were asked to give their preferences (rank the sources) with regard to the selected potential
information sources, which were identified during the pretesting stage of this study. During
tabulation of the data, weightage was given up to the 1 st three ranks and finally total weighted value
was obtained and is presented in the Table 10.1.1.

Table 10.1: Information Sources in the Plantation Sector

No Information source 1st Rank 2nd Rank 3rd Rank Total
weighted
N Weighted N Weighted N Weighted
value
1 Company higher 259 777 28 56 8 8 841
officials
2 TRI officials 19 57 129 258 72 72 387
3 Brokering firms 12 36 48 96 86 86 218
4 Managers of 6 18 61 122 64 64 204
Neighboring Estate
5 Visiting Agent 3 9 19 38 37 37 84
6 Agro-chemical 2 6 2 4 10 10 20
agents/dealers
7 Private consultants 1 3 5 10 3 3 16
8 TSHDA officials 1 3 2 4 3 3 10

The Table 10.1.1 reveals that the estates mostly received information from company higher officials
while TRI officials were their second choice. It is appreciated that estate mangers are supposed to be
supplied with certain items of essential information related to procedures, financial and policy
matters by their company superiors. Therefore it is evident that upward and downward
organizational communication takes the top rank. As the information sought from the TRI is purely
on technical aspects, it can be considered that the TRI is the main technical information provider to
the plantation sector of Sri Lanka. However, there were reported instances in this study, where the
information provided by the TRI had contradicted the information provided by company higher
officials and at such times the estate managers were obliged to accept the information given by their
governing authority, though reluctantly at times.
When inquired for the reason for not following a certain research-backed technology, especially
fertilizer recommendations, most of the managers sighted the reason as „company policy‟. Moreover,
it was clear that the managers had comparatively less faith on other information sources except
Brokering firms. TSHDA had the least importance as a source of information provider for the
plantation sector which is understandable as this organization is not a stake holder of the corporate
sector estates.

10.2. FREQUENCY OF RECEIVING OF INFORMATION

The Table 10.2.1 gives details on how frequently the estates contact the different information
providers.

Table 10.2: Frequency of contacting for information

Sources of Rank Frequency
Information
Once/ 1-2 Once/3-6 Once/6-12 Never Total
month months months
N % N % N % N % N %
Company higher 1 271 93.1 19 6.5 1 0.3 0 0.0 291 100.0
officials
TRI officials 2 58 20.0 198 68.3 33 11.4 1 0.3 290 100.0

Brokering firms 3 151 71.2 46 21.7 10 4.7 5 2.4 212 100.0

Managers of 4 130 57.5 71 31.4 24 10.6 1 0.4 226 100.0
Neighboring
Estate
Visiting Agent 5 16 11.2 93 65.0 24 16.8 10 7.0 143 100.0

It is seen that the frequency of receiving information is dependent on the information source. The
estates very frequently (6-12 times per year) receive information from a source such as company
higher officials and brokering firms. Nevertheless, a majority of the estate contact the TRI about 2 to
4 times per year. This is understandable, because need for non technical information arises very
frequently and thus estates have to contact relevant bodies more often, whereas demand for
technical information does not arises as frequently for various reasons.
 Appendix I

Categorization of Tea Estates of the Regional Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka

Region Estate RPC AER 1 Planting Dist. 2 Soil Sd Ext. VP ext.

Group 3 (ha) (ha)
LOW Agarsland Balangoda Pl. WM1b Balangoda 27 0.00 78.81
LOW Aighburth Hapugastenne Pl. WM1b Rakwana 29 193.10 50.21
LOW Akuressa Namunukula Pl. WL2a Matara 9 0.00 47.46
LOW Alupolla Hapugastenne Pl. WM1a Ratnapura 27 19.00 217.15
LOW Andapana Maturata Pl. WL2a Matara 9 5.00 32.50
LOW Anhettigama Bogawantalawa Pl. WL1a Kalani Vally 16 0.00 21.05
LOW Anningkande Maturata Pl. WM1a Morawakkorale 29 30.50 137.50
LOW Baddegama Namunukula Pl. WL2a Galle 10 0.00 35.25
LOW Balangoda Balangoda Pl. WM1b Balangoda 27 203.25 266.00
LOW Beverley Maturata Pl. WM1a Morawak korale 29 46.50 68.25
LOW Cecilton Balangoda Pl. IM2a Balangoda 27 135.75 103.05
LOW Citrus Namunukula Pl. WL2a Galle 10 0.00 18.50
LOW Deniyaya Talawakelle Pl. WM1a Morawak korale 29 24.05 123.17
LOW Deviturai Elpitiya Pl. WL2a Galle 9 0.00 117.34
LOW Diddenipotha Maturata Pl. WM1b Morawak korale 29 57.00 218.81
LOW Doloswella Agalawatte Pl. WL1a Ratnapura 29 14.00 118.95
LOW Dumbara Horana Pl. WL1a Ratnapura 11 41.75 55.25
LOW Ederapolla Kelani Valley Pl. WL1a Kalani Vally 27 6.65 30.14
LOW Eduragalla Kotagala Pl. WL1a Kalutara 11 0.00 21.82
LOW Ekkeralle Kahawatte Pl. WL2a Ratnapura 27 49.19 91.24
LOW Endane Kahawatte Pl. WL2a Ratnapura 27 227.12 192.54
LOW Enselwatte Maturata Pl. WM1a Morawak korale 29 13.00 407.00
LOW Galatura Balangoda Pl. WL1a Ratnapura 27 4.44 4.42
LOW Galbode Hapugastenne Pl. WL1a Ratnapura 27 5.25 99.00
LOW Gikiiyanakande Kotagala Pl. WL1a Kalutara 11 4.00 56.24
LOW Gulugahakanda Elpitiya Pl. WL2a Galle 10 0.00 68.73
LOW Halgolle Kelani Valley Pl. WM1a Kalani Vally 27 0.00 275.06
LOW Handford Talawakelle Pl. WM1a Morawak korale 29 0.00 65.57
LOW Hapugastenne Hapugastenne Pl. WL1a Ratnapura 27 49.00 468.50
LOW Hatherleigh Hapugastenne Pl. WM1b Ratnapura 28 175.25 207.63
LOW Hayes Maturata Pl. WM1a Morawak korale 29 89.50 168.00
LOW Hedigalla Kotagala Pl. WL1a Kalutara 11 0.00 8.42
LOW Hemingford Pussellawa Pl. WL1a Ratnapura 27 0.00 103.55
LOW Homadola Watawala Pl. WL2a Galle 10 0.00 68.83
LOW Houpe Kahawatte Pl. WL2a Ratnapura 27 177.44 130.27
Region Estate RPC AER 1 Planting Dist. 2 Soil Sd Ext. VP ext.
Group 3 (ha) (ha)
LOW Hulandawa Namunukula Pl. WL2a Galle 9 11.32 99.15
LOW Hunuwella Kahawatte Pl. WL2a Ratnapura 27 61.01 103.27
LOW Indola Talawakelle Pl. WL2a Morawak korale 29 24.77 78.60
LOW Kalupahana Kelani Valley Pl. WM1a Kalani Vally 16 0.00 91.40
LOW Katandola Elpitiya Pl. WL2a Galle 10 0.00 77.47
LOW Kelani Kelani Valley Pl. WM1a Kalani Vally 16 0.00 29.70
LOW Keragala Pussellawa Pl. WL1a Ratnapura 27 0.00 80.45
LOW Kiriporuwa Kelani Valley Pl. WL1a Kalani Vally 16 4.13 45.16
LOW Kiruwanaganga Talawakelle Pl. WM1a Morawak korale 29 69.56 348.76
LOW Kitulgala Kelani Valley Pl. WM1a Kalani Vally 16 0.00 51.56
LOW Lankaberiya Maturata Pl. WM1b Rakwana 29 79.00 18.50
LOW Lellopitiya Hapugastenne Pl. WL2a Ratnapura 27 0.00 38.74
LOW Lelwala Elpitiya Pl. WL2a Galle 9 0.00 68.81
LOW Madampe Hapugastenne Pl. WM1b Ratnapura 28 150.28 104.23
LOW Mahawale Balangoda Pl. WL1a Ratnapura 29 0.00 1.75
LOW Maliboda Bogawantalawa Pl. WM1a Kalani Vally 16 0.00 126.41
LOW Meddakanda Balangoda Pl. IM2a Balangoda 27 23.00 218.90
LOW Millakande Horana Pl. WL1a Kalutara 11 0.00 131.01
LOW Miriswatte Namunukula Pl. WL1a Kalutara 11 0.00 26.50
LOW Miyanawita Bogawantalawa Pl. WL1a Kalani Vally 16 4.46 139.15
LOW Mohamedi Agalawatte Pl. WL1a Kalutara 11 0.00 36.53
LOW Moragalla Talawakelle Pl. WL2a Galle 10 0.00 100.75
LOW Mutwagalla Balangoda Pl. WL1a Ratnapura 27 0.00 39.70
LOW Niriella Agalawatte Pl. WL1a Ratnapura 29 3.00 32.68
LOW Non Pareil Balangoda Pl. IM2a Balangoda 27 250.50 8.50
LOW Noori Bogawantalawa Pl. WL1a Kalani Vally 16 0.00 71.52
LOW Noragalla Agalawatte Pl. WL1a Ratnapura 29 12.43 65.76
LOW Opatha Kahawatte Pl. WL2a Ratnapura 27 36.20 176.55
LOW Palmgarden Balangoda Pl. WL1a Ratnapura 29 0.00 19.81
LOW Pambegama Pussellawa Pl. WL1a Ratnapura 27 38.00 153.50
LOW Panawatte Kelani Valley Pl. WL1a Kalani Vally 16 0.00 31.99
LOW Parambe Kegalle Pl. WL2b Kegalle 16 0.00 30.58
LOW Pelawatte Namunukula Pl. WL1a Kalutara 11 41.59 123.21
LOW Pelmadulla Kahawatte Pl. WL2a Ratnapura 27 86.55 132.02
LOW Pettiagalla Balangoda Pl. WM1b Balangoda 27 160.00 105.00
LOW Poronuwa Kahawatte Pl. WL2a Ratnapura 27 60.55 84.79
LOW Rasagalla Balangoda Pl. WM1b Balangoda 27 0.00 326.06
LOW Rayigam Kotagala Pl. WL1a Kalutara 11 0.00 84.45
LOW Rilhena Kahawatte Pl. WL2a Ratnapura 27 74.36 103.04
LOW Rye /Wikiliya Balangoda Pl. IM2a Balangoda 27 108.90 120.60
Region Estate RPC AER 1 Planting Dist. 2 Soil Sd Ext. VP ext.
Group 3 (ha) (ha)
LOW Sapumalkande Bogawantalawa Pl. WL1a Kalani V 27 0.00 77.68
LOW Sirikandura Namunukula Pl. WL1b Kalutara 11 0.00 12.07
LOW Siriniwasa Pussellawa Pl. WL1a Kalani Vally 12 0.00 17.40
LOW Springwood Hapugastenne Pl. WM1b Ratnapura 28 111.90 152.53
LOW Talangaha Watawala Pl. WL2a Galle 9 0.00 98.39
LOW Talgaswella Elpitiya Pl. WL2a Galle 9 0.00 107.29
LOW Tennahena Namunukula Pl. WL2a Matara 29 32.74 67.54
LOW Udapola Bogawantalawa Pl. WL1a Kalani Vally 16 0.00 8.50
LOW Urumiwella Kelani Valley Pl. WL1a Kalani Vally 16 0.00 18.08
LOW Vogan Kotagala Pl. WL1a Kalutara 11 4.21 48.25
LOW Walaboda Balangoda Pl. WM1b Balangoda 27 92.50 48.00
LOW Walpita Namunukula Pl. WL2a Galle 10 0.00 48.38
LOW Watapota Agalawatte Pl. WL1a Ratnapura 29 18.63 49.03
LOW We Oya Kelani Valley Pl. WM1a Kalani Vally 16 0.00 25.12
LOW Wellandura Kahawatte Pl. WL2a Ratnapura 27 50.89 173.42
LOW Wevila Tea Balangoda Pl. WL1a Ratnapura 16 0.00 18.55
LOW Wilpita Maturata Pl. WL2a Matara 9 0.00 53.50
LOW Yataderiya Kegalle Pl. WL2b Kegalle 16 0.00 132.35
MC Barcaple Kahawatte Pl. WM2a Kotmale 19 100.39 129.93
MC Beaumont Pussellawa Pl. WU2b Pussellawa 19 10.80 101.75
MC Craighead Kahawatte Pl. WM2a Dolosbage 19 136.85 210.38
MC Delta Pussellawa Pl. WU2b Pussellawa 19 182.50 124.50
MC Dotel Oya Kegalle Pl. WM2b Dolosbage 17 0.00 189.69
MC Duckwari Udapussellawa Pl. IM3c Rangala 19 197.21 139.51
MC Galamuduna Kahawatte Pl. WM2b Dolosbage 19 34.77 228.73
MC Geragama, Pussellawa Pl. WM2b Alagalla 20 23.63 150.87
MC Helbodde Pussellawa Pl. WU2b Pussellawa 19 123.00 214.50
MC Imboolpittia Kahawatte Pl. WM2a Kotmale 19 48.75 150.75
MC Kaloogalla Pussellawa Pl. WU2b Pussellawa 19 120.75 48.25
MC Madulkelle Udapussellawa Pl. IM3c Kellebokke 20 202.55 226.85
MC Melfort Pussellawa Pl. WU2b Pussellawa 19 83.00 77.25
MC Mooloya Pussellawa Pl. WM3b Hewaheta 19 88.50 182.75
MC Nayapane Elpitiya Pl. WU2b Pussellawa 19 5.00 261.60
MC New Peacock Elpitiya Pl. WU2b Pussellawa 19 27.42 267.34
MC Rothschild Pussellawa Pl. WU2b Pussellawa 19 151.25 198.75
MC Sanquhar Pussellawa Pl. WU2b Pussellawa 19 79.28 29.72
MC Sogama Pussellawa Pl. WU2b Pussellawa 19 100.50 139.50
MC Stellenberg Pussellawa Pl. WU2b Pussellawa 19 148.30 108.28
MC Westhall Kahawatte Pl. WM2a Kotmale 19 37.91 174.18
UC Abbotsleigh Watawala Pl. WU1 Dickoya 25 160.69 147.69
Region Estate RPC AER 1 Planting Dist. 2 Soil Sd Ext. VP ext.
Group 3 (ha) (ha)
UC Agrakande Watawala Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 91.25 89.00
UC Albion Agrapatna Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 276.59 171.75
UC Allagolla Kegalle Pl. IU3e Udapussallawa 37 128.52 43.01
UC Alma Maturata Pl. IU2 Maturata 37 284.25 27.50
UC Alnwick Udapussellawa Pl. IU2 Udapussallawa 25a 195.00 83.31
UC Alton Horana Pl. WU1 Maskeliya 23 119.85 145.22
UC Annfield Kelani Valley Pl. WU2a Dickoya 25 111.00 179.50
UC Balmoral Agrapatna Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 177.17 150.57
UC Bambrakelly Horana Pl. WU2a Dimbula 25 196.75 213.75
UC Battalgalla Kelani Valley Pl. WU2a Dickoya 25 52.00 124.75
UC Bearwell Talawakelle Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 140.84 183.40
UC Blairlomond Udapussellawa Pl. IU2 Udapussallawa 25a 274.25 100.00
UC Blinkbonnie Kelani Valley Pl. WU2a Dickoya 25 84.16 60.78
UC Bogahawatte Kotagala Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 57.00 98.50
UC Bogawana Bogawantalawa Pl. WU2b Dickoya 25 209.75 182.25
UC Bogawant Bogawantalawa Pl. WU2b Dickoya 25 142.89 164.38
UC Bramley Maturata Pl. IU2 Maturata 37 124.96 29.54
UC Brookside Udapussellawa Pl. IU2 Udapussallawa 22 222.35 112.99
UC Brownlow Maskeliya Pl. WU1 Maskeliya 25 66.09 85.46
UC Brunswick Maskeliya Pl. WU1 Maskeliya 25 229.13 292.60
UC Calsay Talawakelle Pl. WU2a Dimbula 22 80.30 103.25
UC Campion Bogawantalawa Pl. WU2b Dickoya 27 146.94 191.08
UC Carolina Watawala Pl. WU1 Dickoya 25 43.80 184.66
Chrystler's
UC Farm Kotagala Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 0.00 116.00
UC Clarendon Talawakelle Pl. WU2a Dimbula 22 72.60 72.94
UC Concordia Udapussellawa Pl. WU3 Udapussallawa 22 132.79 179.08
UC Court Lodge Udapussellawa Pl. WU3 Nuwara Eliya 22 157.37 153.43
UC Craigie Lea Kotagala Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 60.00 169.00
UC Delmar Udapussellawa Pl. IU2 Udapussallawa 22 306.98 149.80
UC Dessford Talawakelle Pl. WU2a Dimbula 22 126.05 188.24
UC Dickoya Watawala Pl. WU2a Dickoya 25 186.12 263.43
UC Diyagama East Agrapatna Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 293.72 55.25
UC Diyagama West Agrapatna Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 429.51 213.15
UC Drayton Kotagala Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 31.75 399.25
UC Dunsinane Elpitiya Pl. WU2b Pundaluoya 25 489.75 97.50
UC Edinburgh Kelani Valley Pl. WU3 Dimbula 22 80.76 73.37
UC Eildon Hall Horana Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 44.60 84.92
UC Fairlawn Horana Pl. WU1 Maskeliya 23 164.50 186.85
UC Ferham Maskeliya Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 120.95 112.75
Region Estate RPC AER 1 Planting Dist. 2 Soil Sd Ext. VP ext.
Group 3 (ha) (ha)
UC Fernlands Elpitiya Pl. WU2b Pundaluoya 23 217.50 167.58
UC Fetteres Bogawantalawa Pl. WU2b Dickoya 25 120.50 126.25
UC Fordyce Kelani Valley Pl. WU2a Dickoya 25 89.00 173.50
UC Frotoft Agalawatte Pl. WU2b Ramboda 19 227.51 323.35
UC Gamapha Kegalle Pl. IU3e Udapussallawa 37 158.47 51.17
UC Glasgow Agrapatna Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 151.44 170.77
UC Glassaugh Kelani Valley Pl. WU3 Dimbula 22 71.35 102.23
UC Glentilt Maskeliya Pl. WU1 Maskeliya 25 94.69 203.89
UC Glenugie Maskeliya Pl. WU1 Maskeliya 25 47.55 196.95
UC Gonapitiya Maturata Pl. IU2 Maturata 37 304.25 110.75
UC Gordon Udapussellawa Pl. IU2 Udapussallawa 22 185.10 73.00
UC Gouravilla Horana Pl. WU1 Maskeliya 26 89.00 211.15
UC Great Western Talawakelle Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 195.80 226.00
UC Hapugastenne Maskeliya Pl. WU1 Maskeliya 25 40.46 108.03
UC Hauteville Agrapatna Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 259.00 218.25
UC Henfold Watawala Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 236.05 185.75
UC High Forest Maturata Pl. IU2 Maturata 37 251.75 165.75
UC Holmwood Agrapatna Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 128.48 72.15
UC Holyrood Talawakelle Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 185.89 146.34
UC Ingestre Kelani Valley Pl. WU2a Dickoya 25 44.50 382.60
UC Invery Kelani Valley Pl. WU2a Dickoya 25 98.43 105.98
UC Kabaragalla Maturata Pl. IU2 Maturata 37 100.00 77.75
UC Kataboola Kahawatte Pl. WM2a Kotmale 19 209.72 212.72
UC Kelliewatte Kotagala Pl. WU2a Dimbula 19 10.24 74.94
UC Kenilworth Watawala Pl. WM1a Dickoya 25 35.50 259.86
UC Kew Madulsima Pl. WU2a Dickoya 25 151.08 187.12
UC Kirklees Kegalle Pl. IU3e Udapussallawa 37 220.93 22.38
UC Kirkoswald Madulsima Pl. WU2a Dickoya 25 282.40 240.59
UC Kotiyagalla Bogawantalawa Pl. WU2b Dickoya 27 202.50 284.45
UC Labookellie Agalawatte Pl. WU2a Ramboda 19 84.52 225.99
UC Laxapana Maskeliya Pl. WU1 Maskeliya 25 166.90 231.40
UC Lethenty Bogawantalawa Pl. WU2b Dickoya 25 39.26 154.14
UC Liddesdale Maturata Pl. IU2 Udapussallawa 37 402.00 58.00
UC Lippakelle Watawala Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 14.25 58.00
UC Logie Talawakelle Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 105.31 121.39
UC Loinorn Bogawantalawa Pl. WU2b Dickoya 25 154.00 185.50
UC Lonach Watawala Pl. WU1 Dickoya 25 71.00 65.50
UC Luckyland Kegalle Pl. IU3e Udapussallawa 37 310.09 67.26
UC Maha Uva Maturata Pl. IU2 Udapussallawa 37 264.50 66.50
UC Mahacoodagalla Maturata Pl. IU2 Maturata 37 121.11 68.05
Region Estate RPC AER 1 Planting Dist. 2 Soil Sd Ext. VP ext.
Group 3 (ha) (ha)
UC Mahanilu Horana Pl. WU1 Maskeliya 26 102.92 80.69
UC Mattakelle Talawakelle Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 48.23 202.04
UC Maturata Maturata Pl. IU2 Maturata 37 227.50 76.50
UC Mayfield Kotagala Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 0.00 262.25
UC Meddecombra Elpitiya Pl. WU2b Pundaluoya 23 227.50 246.25
UC Mocha Maskeliya Pl. WU1 Maskeliya 25 129.48 170.58
UC Moray Maskeliya Pl. WU1 Maskeliya 25 149.38 243.25
UC Mount Vernon Kotagala Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 105.05 279.07
UC Mousakelle Maskeliya Pl. WU1 Maskeliya 25 85.85 230.50
UC New Portmore Agrapatna Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 118.58 58.08
UC Norwood Bogawantalawa Pl. WU2b Dickoya 25 147.09 242.13
UC Nuwara Eliya Kelani Valley Pl. WU3 Nuwara Eliya 22 0.00 183.65
UC Oliphant Kelani Valley Pl. WU3 Nuwara Eliya 22 202.07 32.50
UC Osborne Bogawantalawa Pl. WU2b Dickoya 25 74.90 191.20
UC Ouvahkel Watawala Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 129.12 36.30
UC Palmerston Talawakelle Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 43.00 114.86
UC Park Udapussellawa Pl. WU3 Nuwara Eliya 22 112.29 214.41
UC Pedro Kelani Valley Pl. WU3 Nuwara Eliya 22 378.52 162.19
UC Poyston Bogawantalawa Pl. WU2a Dickoya 25 112.30 105.93
UC Queensberry Kahawatte Pl. WM2a Kotmale 25 125.24 134.02
UC Radella Talawakelle Pl. WU2a Dimbula 22 96.58 154.99
UC Ragalla Maturata Pl. IU2 Udapussallawa 37 393.75 99.75
UC Robgill Kelani Valley Pl. WU2a Dickoya 25 86.17 133.11
UC Sandrigham Agrapatna Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 133.43 52.88
UC Shannon Watawala Pl. WU1 Dickoya 25 32.19 167.34
UC Sheen Elpitiya Pl. WU2b Pundaluoya 26 130.25 180.25
UC Somerset Talawakelle Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 128.63 182.42
UC St.Clair Maskeliya Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 135.41 160.71
UC St.Leonards Maturata Pl. IU2 Udapussallawa 37 203.25 57.25
UC Stockholm Horana Pl. WU1 Maskeliya 26 84.25 150.05
UC Stonycliff Kotagala Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 65.00 275.50
UC Strathdon Watawala Pl. WU1 Dickoya 25 167.64 234.34
UC Strathspey Maskeliya Pl. WU1 Maskeliya 25 187.58 295.31
UC Talawakelle Maskeliya Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 67.43 223.82
UC Tangakelle Watawala Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 212.96 87.83
UC Theresia Madulsima Pl. WU2a Dickoya 25 180.96 164.00
UC Tillicoultry Horana Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 130.25 141.75
UC Tillyrie Kelani Valley Pl. WU2a Dickoya 25 79.50 124.50
UC Torrington Agrapatna Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 156.00 110.37
UC Troup Maskeliya Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 69.26 138.69
Region Estate RPC AER 1 Planting Dist. 2 Soil Sd Ext. VP ext.
Group 3 (ha) (ha)
UC Uda-Radella Kelani Valley Pl. WU3 Dimbula 22 101.14 81.10
UC Vellai Oya Watawala Pl. WU1 Dickoya 25 46.00 325.50
UC Venture Madulsima Pl. WU2b Dickoya 25 153.98 126.36
UC Waldemar Udapussellawa Pl. IU2 Udapussallawa 37 230.75 45.00
UC Waltrim Watawala Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 104.25 305.25
UC Wanarajah Bogawantalawa Pl. WU2b Dickoya 25 214.00 178.00
UC Wattegodde Talawakelle Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 155.80 145.20
UC Waverley Agrapatna Pl. WU2a Dimbula 23 270.50 89.65
UC Weddemulla Agalawatte Pl. WU2b Ramboda 19 196.35 149.66
UC Wigton Watawala Pl. WU1 Dickoya 25 93.15 112.45
UC Yuillefield Kotagala Pl. WU2a Dickoya 23 95.00 280.75
Uva Adawatte Hapugastenne Pl. IM2b Madulsima 35 79.01 96.93
Uva Aislaby MalwattePl. IU3c Badulla 36 266.48 69.92
Uva Ampitakande Maskeliya Pl. IU3a Haputale 34 302.50 96.37
Uva Attampitiya MalwattePl. IU3c Badulla 34 224.96 85.33
Uva Batawatte Madulsima Pl. IU2 Badulla 35 146.81 111.01
Uva Beauvis Agrapatna Pl. IU3b Haputale 36 266.61 41.75
Uva Cannavarella Namunukula Pl. IU3c Passara 34 437.69 55.96
Uva Chelsea MalwattePl. IU3c Badulla 36 124.72 33.82
Uva Cocogalla Madulsima Pl. IU2 Madulsima 35 111.79 70.41
Uva Craig Maskeliya Pl. IU3a Haputale 34 252.46 37.46
Uva Cullen Balangoda Pl. IM1a Badulla 34 113.20 61.00
Uva Dambatenne Agrapatna Pl. IU3b Haputale 36 119.80 282.80
Uva Dammeria A Hapugastenne Pl. IU3c Passara 34 105.64 90.67
Uva Dammeria B Hapugastenne Pl. IU3c Passara 34 367.16 100.06
Uva Demodera Hapugastenne Pl. IU3c Badulla 34 327.50 230.29
Uva Dickwella MalwattePl. IU3c Badulla 36 383.04 124.71
Uva Downside MalwattePl. IU3e New Galway 37 148.09 106.42
Uva Dyraaba MalwattePl. IU3e Badulla 37 224.81 108.68
Uva El Teb Madulsima Pl. IU3c Passara 34 161.26 265.22
Uva Galloola Madulsima Pl. IU2 Madulsima 35 114.28 35.83
Uva Glen Alpin Balangoda Pl. IM1a Badulla 34 299.75 93.66
Uva Glennanore Agrapatna Pl. IU3b Haputale 36 325.43 49.85
Uva Gonakelle Namunukula Pl. IU3c Passara 34 284.15 151.25
Uva Gonamatawa Agrapatna Pl. IU3b Haputale 36 151.07 74.00
Uva Gowerakelle Balangoda Pl. IU3c Badulla 34 188.52 20.49
Uva Haputale Agrapatna Pl. IU3b Haputale 36 201.10 157.40
Uva Hindagala Namunukula Pl. IU3c Badulla 34 270.90 182.09
Uva Hopton Hapugastenne Pl. IM2b Madulsima 35 193.28 154.22
Uva Hugoland MalwattePl. IU3e New Galway 37 73.85 34.15
Region Estate RPC AER 1 Planting Dist. 2 Soil Sd Ext. VP ext.
Group 3 (ha) (ha)
Uva Kahagalle Agrapatna Pl. IU3b Haputale 36 267.75 43.47
Uva Kandahena Namunukula Pl. IU3c Badulla 34 141.75 75.50
Uva Kinellan Namunukula Pl. IU3c Badulla 34 63.83 50.69
Uva Koslanda Maskeliya Pl. IM2a Haputale 34 188.96 37.62
Uva Leangahawella Maskeliya Pl. IU3a Haputale 34 157.79 48.05
Uva Ledgerwatte MalwattePl. IU3c Badulla 34 177.25 137.75
Uva Mahadowa Madulsima Pl. IU2 Madulsima 35 339.15 152.35
Uva Nahavilla Hapugastenne Pl. IU3c Badulla 34 139.55 25.36
Uva Nayabedde Agrapatna Pl. IU3b Haputale 36 226.25 104.00
Uva Neluwa MalwattePl. IU3c Badulla 36 193.94 66.42
Uva Newburgh Hapugastenne Pl. IU3c Badulla 34 184.55 71.67
Uva Oakwell Agrapatna Pl. IU3b Haputale 36 9.00 6.50
Uva Oodoowerre Hapugastenne Pl. IU3c Badulla 34 221.07 142.45
Uva Pingarawa Namunukula Pl. IU3c Badulla 34 272.47 105.51
Uva Pita Ratmalie Agrapatna Pl. IU3b Haputale 34 286.20 71.65
Uva Poonagalla Maskeliya Pl. IU3a Haputale 34 367.21 89.15
Uva Queenstown MalwattePl. IU3c Badulla 34 88.39 228.40
Uva Roeberry Madulsima Pl. IM1a Madulsima 35 352.15 142.68
Uva Rookatenne Hapugastenne Pl. IU3c Badulla 34 268.89 118.51
Uva Sarnia MalwattePl. IU3c Badulla 34 362.80 148.49
Uva Shawlands Hapugastenne Pl. IM2b Madulsima 34 203.79 96.64
Uva Spring Valley Balangoda Pl. IM1a Badulla 34 455.95 159.68
Uva St James MalwattePl. IU3c Badulla 36 179.70 119.55
Uva Telbedde Balangoda Pl. IM1a Badulla 34 385.89 314.44
Uva Udaveriya Agrapatna Pl. IU3b Haputale 36 290.28 5.31
Uva Unugalla MalwattePl. IU3c Badulla 34 227.85 98.75
Uva Ury Balangoda Pl. IU3c Passara 34 324.85 72.30
Uva Uva Highlands MalwattePl. IU3c Badulla 36 273.75 69.25
Uva Uvakelle Madulsima Pl. IU2 Madulsima 35 124.40 59.43
Uva Verellapatana Madulsima Pl. IU2 Madulsima 35 130.20 141.37
Uva Warwick MalwattePl. IU3d Badulla 36 306.63 84.37
Uva Welimada MalwattePl. IU3e New Galway 37 175.70 95.90
Uva Wewesse Balangoda Pl. IU3c Badulla 34 200.87 85.53

1 See the Appendix 2 2 See the Appendix 3 3 See the Appendix 4

 Appendix II

Agro-Ecological Regions found in the Tea growing Regions in Sri Lanka

WU1: Wet Up-country regions with 75%

expectancy of more than 3,100 mm annual
rainfall. Land Use: Tea, Forest plantations,
Natural Forest, Terrain: Mountainous, steeply
dissected, hilly & rolling

WU2a: Wet Up-country regions with 75%

expectancy of more than 2,400 mm annual
rainfall. Land Use: Tea, Forest plantations,
Terrain: Steeply dissected, hilly & rolling.

WU2b: Wet Up-country regions with 75%

expectancy of more than 2,200 mm annual
rainfall. Land Use: Tea, Forest plantations,
Vegetables, Terrain: Mountainous, steeply
dissected, hilly & rolling,

WU3: Wet Up-country regions with 75%

expectancy of more than 1,800 mm annual
rainfall. Land Use: Tea, Vegetables, Pasture,
Home gardens, Terrain: Forest plantations, Hilly
& rolling,

WM1a: Wet Mid-country regions with 75%

expectancy of more than 3,300 mm annual
rainfall. Land Use: Tea, Natural forest, Terrain:
Mountainous, steeply dissected, hilly & rolling.
WM1b: Wet Mid-country regions with 75%
expectancy of more than 2,900 mm annual. Land
Use: Tea, Natural forest, Mixed home gardens,
Terrain: Steeply dissected, hilly & rolling,

WM2a: Wet Mid-country regions with 75%

expectancy of more than 2,200 mm annual
rainfall. Land Use: Tea, Mixed home gardens,
Export Agricultural Crops, Natural forest, Paddy,
Terrain: Steeply dissected, hilly & rolling,

WM2b: Wet Mid-country regions with 75%

expectancy of more than 1,800 mm annual
rainfall. Land Use: Mixed home gardens, Paddy,
Export Agricultural Crops, Tea Terrain: Steep,
hilly & rolling,

WM3b: Wet Mid-country regions with 75%

expectancy of more than 1,400 mm annual
rainfall. Land Use: Mixed home gardens, Export
Agricultural Crops, Tea, Vegetables, Paddy,
Terrain: Hilly, rolling, undulating & steep,

WL1a: Wet Low-country regions with 75%

expectancy of more than 3,200 mm annual
rainfall. Land Use: Tea, Rubber, Mixed home
gardens, Paddy, Export agricultural Crops
(Cinnamon) Terrain: Rolling, undulating & hilly

WL1b: Wet Low-country regions with 75%

expectancy of more than 2,800 mm annual
rainfall. Land Use: Rubber, Mixed home gardens,
Paddy, Terrain: Undulating & rolling.
WL2a: Wet Low-country regions with 75%
expectancy of more than 2,400 mm annual
rainfall. Land Use: Rubber, Tea, Coconut, Mixed
home gardens, Paddy, Export Agricultural Crops,
Rolling, Terrain: undulating and flat,

WL2b: Wet Low-country regions with 75%

expectancy of more than 2,200 mm annual
rainfall. Land Use: Rubber, Coconut, Mixed
home gardens, Paddy, Terrain: Steepy dissected,
rolling & undulating,

WL3: Wet Low-country regions with 75%

expectancy of more than 1,700 mm annual
rainfall. Land Use: Coconut, Fruit Crops, Mixed
home gardens, Paddy, Terrain: Rolling &
undulating

IU2: Intermediate Up-country regions with 75%

expectancy of more than 2,100 mm annual
rainfall. Land Use: Tea, Vegetables, Mixed home
gardens, Natural forest, Terrain: Mountainous,
steeply dissected, hilly & rolling,

IU3a: Intermediate Up-country regions with 75%

expectancy of more than 1,900 mm annual
rainfall. Land Use: Tea, Forest plantations,
Terrain: Steeply dissected, hilly & rolling,

IU3b: Intermediate Up-country regions with 75%

expectancy of 1,700 mm annual rainfall. Land
Use: Tea, Natural forest, Forest plantations,
Terrain: Mountainous, steeply dissected, hilly,

IU3c: Intermediate Up-country regions with 75%

expectancy of 1,600 mm annual rainfall. Land
Use: Tea, Vegetables, Paddy, Terrain: Steeply
dissected, hilly & rolling,
 IU3d: Intermediate Up-country regions with 75%
expectancy of 1,300 mm annual rainfall. Land
Use: Tea, Vegetables, Forest plantations, Natural
forest, Terrain: Steep, hilly & rolling,

IU3e: Intermediate Up-country regions with 75%

expectancy of more than 1,400 mm annual. Land
Use: Tea, Vegetables, paddy, Mixed home
gardens, Terrain: Steep dissected, hilly & rolling,

IM1a: Intermediate Mid-country regions with

75% expectancy of more than 2,000 mm annual
rainfall. Land Use: Tea, Vegetables, Mixed home
gardens, paddy, Forest Plantations, Terrain:
Very steep & hilly

IM2a: Intermediate Mid-country regions with

75% expectancy of more than 1,800 mm annual
rainfall Land Use: Export Agriculture Crops,
Mixed home gardens, Tea, Vegetables, Terrain:
Steep, hilly & rolling,

IM2b: Intermediate Mid-country regions with

75% expectancy of 1,600 mm annual rainfall.
Land Use: Natural forest, Mixed home gardens,
Paddy, Tea, Vegetables, Terrain: Very steep, hilly
& rolling,

IM3c: Intermediate Mid-country regions with

75% expectancy of more than 1,100 mm annual
rainfall. Land Use: Vegetables, Tea, Mixed home
gardens, export Agricultural Crops, Terrain:
Steeply dissected, hilly rolling,

Adopted from Map of the Agro Ecological Regions of Sri Lanka, 2003, Dr B.V.R
Punyawardena, Mr T.M.J. Bamdara, Mr M.A.K Munasinghe and Mr Nimal Jayaratna
Banda, Natural Resources Management Centre, Department of Agriculture.
 Appendix III
Planting Districts in Sri Lanka

The Ceylon Planters Association introduced a geographically oriented subdivision of Sri Lanka‟s areas
of plantation agriculture into 55 planting districts.

Adopted from Humbel R, 1991 (Tea Area Changes in Sri Lanka)

 Appendix IV

Soil Series found in Tea Growing Regions in Sri Lanka

SSSSL* Soil Map Soil Series in the Wet zone

Reference No.
9 Dodangoda Boralu Complex
10 Pallegoda-Dodangoda-Gampaha Assocoation
11 Dodangoda-Agalawatte-Gampaha Complex
12 Malaboda-Pallegoda Asssocoation
16 Galigamuwa – Homagama Complex
17 Mawanella-Kandy-Kiribathkumbura Complex
19 Kandy-Galigamuwa-Lithosole Complex
20 Akurana-Kiribathkumubura Assocoation
22 Nuwara Eliya - Horton Lithosols Complex
23 Mattakelle Series
25 Maskeliya - Mattakelle - Lithosols Complex
26 Malaboda - Lithosols Complex
27 Malaboda - Pallegoda - Dodangoda Homagama Complex
28 Malaboda - Weddagala Homagama Complex
29 Malaboda - Weddagala – Pallegoda Lithosols Complex

Soil Series in the Intermediate zone

25a Rikillagaskada Series
33 Walimada Lithosols Complex
34 Badulla- Mahawaletenna Complex
35 Badulla- Lithosol Complex
36 Bandarawela Series
37 Ragala Series

* Soil Science Society of Sri Lanka

Reference:

Map of Distribution of Benchmark Soils in the Wet zone of Sri Lanka, in The Soils of Wet Zone of Sri
Lanka, 1999 Edited by R.B. Mapa, S. Somasiri and S. Nagarajah, Soil Science Society of Sri Lanka.
Map of Distribution of Benchmark Soils in the Intermediate zone of Sri Lanka, in The Soils of Wet
Zone of Sri Lanka, 1999 Edited by R.B. Mapa, S. Somasiri and S. Nagarajah, Soil Science Society of
Sri Lanka.

Digital compilation: B.A.D. Samansiri /Head, Advisory & Extension Division

View publication stats