176 
In the south it is a little worse, and only a little, with no barns or shelter 
whatever. In a good winter, in the lee of fodder stacks, the protection of a for- 
est, or the dryest hummocks of a canebrake, the animal may seek the range in 
the spring in a medium condition. The attention of southern farmers is called 
to the urgent necessity for a better provision of forage for horses and cattle. 
The most disheartening reports of weakness and death from lack of nutrition 
have been received—in some instances of horses and mules dropping down 
exhausted in the furrows. 'Themillious lost by such indifference and inefficiency, 
in the sacrifice of flesh, health, and ability to fatten, are scarcely less than the 
heavy losses now incurred by actual disease. 
The eastern, the western, and northwestern States report, almost without 
exception, the successful wintering of cattle; a few exceptions are named in 
New York and Pennsylvania, and a larger number in Ohio. The following local 
notes include most of the counties reporting unfavorable condition: 
Salem, New York.—Poor from long and severe winter. 
Niagara, New York.—Fine during the winter, but continued “ dry weather 
and frosty nights are having a bad effect, and they do not look as well as they 
did.” 
Onondaga, New York.—Good ; attributed to “a better system of housing. 
Aman with any regard to Christianity or his pocket will not allow his cattle to 
range unprotected in open fields.” 
Erie, New York.—A little below the average. 
Western Maryland—As bad as in 1867. 
In Lunenburg, Lee, Albemarle, Gloucester, King William, and Tazewell 
counties, Virginia, “ poor condition” is reported; in Norfolk “ never worse.” 
In Harnett, Bertie, Cumberland, Cabarrus, Franklin, Sampson, Gates, Guil- 
ford, Camden, Onslow, Stanly, Caswell, Hertford and Jackson, North Carolina, 
the condition is placed below the average. 
In Lexington and Union districts, South Carolina, “ below the average.” 
In Georgia the counties reporting similarly are Columbia, Chattooga, Charl- 
ton, Merriwether, Glynn, Decatur, Tatnall, Johnson and Baker. 
Nassau, Florida—Poor. 
Clay, Alabama.—Poor. 
In Mississippi, Oktibbeha, Yazoo and Leake, poor. 
In Louisiana the parish of Avoyelles returns condition “very bad.” 
In Texas, Harris, Gillespie, Navarro, Dallas, Victoria, Lavacca, Hindman, 
Falls, Hunt and Prairie, below an average. 
ell, Arkansas—Poor but healthy. 
In Tennessee unfavorable returns come from Meigs, Bedford, Haywood, 
Shelby and Davidson. 
Henry, Kentucky.—Poor; drought injured winter grasses. 
Franklin, Kentucky.—Poorer than usual. 
Jefferson, West Virginia.—Poor. 
In Ohio the following counties return cattle as “ below the average,” “rather 
poor,” or “thin:” Seneca, Miami, Jefferson, Butler, Harrison, Fayette, Wash- 
ington, Madison, Highland, Coshocton, Athens, Hancock, Wayne, Ross, Shelby 
and Fairfield. 
Sanilac, Michigan —Not so good. 
Emmet, Michigan.—Poor. 
Waushara, Wisconsin —Very poor. 
Sheep are reported in far better condition than last year. Upon examination 
of returns of a greater portion of the counties of the several States, the follow- 
ing are the only named exceptions to the rule of general health. 
Maine.—Kennebee. 
New York.—Chautauque, Washington, Suffolk and Seneca. 
