DECEMBER, 60/ 



That tliere is a complexity in this mode of ar- 

 ranging the accompts of live stock, is beyond doubt ; 

 but after the greatest attention that I have been 

 able to give it, I see no mode of simplifying it. Sub- 

 mit to the rules here laid down, and you have the 

 atisfaction of all the accuracy that is attainable ; but 

 in any other method it will remain unknown, whe- 

 ther the profit o^ the loss belong to the land, or to 

 the stock that feeds upon it. 



I am clear this method will be rejected by those 

 \vho only read this paper in a common, transitory 

 'manner, without studiously examining all the points 

 on which the arrangement depends ; but, to such 

 as will reflect on what they read, and give the due 

 attention, I have little doubt but the method \viJl 

 appear satisfactory. 



When so much profit is actually made, to divide 

 it by a weekly accompt to the fields that fed the 

 stock, is making an easy calculation, with full data 

 before you : but to charge the stock with so much 

 per week for feeding certain fields, when you do not 

 know but the accompt of stock may be loss, not 

 profit, is calculating without any better data than 

 mere supposition. 



Such are, I apprehend, the principal difficulties iti 

 keeping the accompts of a farm. I do not offer the 

 mode as one that obviates all objections : I do not 

 conceive it possible to obviate all ; but I think that 

 fewer sources of inaccuracy will be found in it than 

 in any other. 



WOODS. 



