Evaluation of three types of rainguards

Chan W.H., . and Abdul Rahman Haji Othman, . and Chow K.C., . and Toh C.W., . and Lim P.H.P., . Evaluation of three types of rainguards. pp. 523-535. ISSN 0126-575X

Three types of rainguards were evaluated to compare their effectiveness over time. The economics of one type of rainguard and their possible role in minimising incidence of three dryness through regularisation of tapping frequency and minimisation of recovery tapping were also evaluated. The results showed that where there was monkey damage Ebor eaves exhibited the least leakage among the rainguards. RRIMGUD and AA rainguards both aluminium based rainguards suffered marked damage from monkeys. Where monkey damage was absent AA rainguards were as effective as Ebor eaves. RRIMGUD was poorest. In the trial evaluating the economics of using AA rainguards rainguard areas suffered a loss of 95.35 (Malaysian dollar) per ha over ten months as a result of premature loss of protection from rain due to monkey damage to the rainguards. Tappers were also unwilling to turn up for work in rainguard areas on days where the balance of the estate which was not fitted rainguards could not be tapped due to rain interference. Although the above trial showed AA rainguards to be uneconomic in that situation longer periods of protection against rain interference exceeding one year afforded by Ebor eaves and AA rainguards in some other situations and the ability to persuade tappers to turn out for work by the management may well reverse the position. Observations elsewhere have indicated other rainguards to be economically beneficial. Tasks where recovery tapping was undertaken and which had 10 per cent more tappings mainly carried out on a d/1 frequently showed higher tree dryness than non-recovery tapping tasks. This finding however appears unrelated to the role of rainguards in minimising tree dryness in the above exercise.

Full text available from:

Abstract

Three types of rainguards were evaluated to compare their effectiveness over time. The economics of one type of rainguard and their possible role in minimising incidence of three dryness through regularisation of tapping frequency and minimisation of recovery tapping were also evaluated. The results showed that where there was monkey damage Ebor eaves exhibited the least leakage among the rainguards. RRIMGUD and AA rainguards both aluminium based rainguards suffered marked damage from monkeys. Where monkey damage was absent AA rainguards were as effective as Ebor eaves. RRIMGUD was poorest. In the trial evaluating the economics of using AA rainguards rainguard areas suffered a loss of 95.35 (Malaysian dollar) per ha over ten months as a result of premature loss of protection from rain due to monkey damage to the rainguards. Tappers were also unwilling to turn up for work in rainguard areas on days where the balance of the estate which was not fitted rainguards could not be tapped due to rain interference. Although the above trial showed AA rainguards to be uneconomic in that situation longer periods of protection against rain interference exceeding one year afforded by Ebor eaves and AA rainguards in some other situations and the ability to persuade tappers to turn out for work by the management may well reverse the position. Observations elsewhere have indicated other rainguards to be economically beneficial. Tasks where recovery tapping was undertaken and which had 10 per cent more tappings mainly carried out on a d/1 frequently showed higher tree dryness than non-recovery tapping tasks. This finding however appears unrelated to the role of rainguards in minimising tree dryness in the above exercise.

[error in script]

Item Type:	Article
Additional Information:	12 tables; 7 ref. Summary (En)
AGROVOC Term:	PLANTACIONES
AGROVOC Term:	RESINACION
AGROVOC Term:	LLUVIA
AGROVOC Term:	EQUIPO/ ENSAYO DE MAQUINAS
Depositing User:	Ms. Norfaezah Khomsan
Last Modified:	24 Apr 2025 05:55
URI:	http://webagris.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/19989

Actions (login required)

View Item