Caiap. IIv BY M. DE CHATEAU-VIEUX. 217 



** It will be right to fee now what the fame extent of land might 

 poflibly have produced, if it had been cultivated in the old way. 

 This can indeed only be gueffed at, and I chufe therein to favour 

 the old hufbandry. According to the general run of this year's crops^ 

 thefe three farms would have produced at moft about 95000 or 

 ■J 00000 pounds of wheat ; which would confequently have been 

 3 12 1 8 pounds fliort of what they yielded in the new hufbandry, 



" This way of ftating the account of the produce of both methods, 

 IS a fair one. The faving in the feed is alivays to be reckoned. But I 

 have perceived, by the queftions which feveral perfons have aflced 

 me with regard to accounts thus ftated, that they were not rightly 

 underllood. I fliall therefore throw them into another form.which 

 has been thought clearer, but of which the refults will ftill be the 

 fame. 



" We will reckon only the real and adtual produce, and then fub- 

 ftradt the feed : the remainder will confequently be the neat produce, 



NEW METHOD. 



'Total produce . . . . , 108 160 lb. 



To be deducted for the feed . . . 147421b. 



Neat produce . • 934181b. 



OLD METHOD. 



Total produce . , , . 1 00000 lb. 



To be deduSted for the feed . . , 378001b. 



Neat produce; , . 62200 lb. 



<f 



Therefore the new method produced more than the 7 , ^ 8 lb 

 old would have done. . . . I ^ 



Proof ... 934181b. 



" Which refult is the fame as that of the other comparifon. 



•^ " Are not fuch advantages well worthy the attention of every one 

 concerned in hufbandry ? 



Ff EX- 



