Referring to the Census of 1879, (^"^ it is^probable that 

 our agricultural products have not varied greatly since then,) 

 we find that we produced 588,170 tons of hay, and about 80,000 

 tons of corn fodder, oat, wheat and barley straw, and if we call 

 these two-thirds as valuable as hay it will bring our available hay 

 up to 641,500 tons. 



We also produced 32,806 tons of corn, and 16,281 tons of 

 oats, and as they are of practically the same feeding value, 

 the whole may be stated as equivalent to 4,000 tons of corn 

 meal. It appears, then, that we have a surplus of some 225,000 

 tons of hay, and a deficit of 55,225 tons of corn meal, and 41,- 

 700 tons of cotton seed, or the equivalent of these in some other 

 grain. 



To get some idea of the money value represented by these 

 figures I have called the cost of hay, corn meal and cotton seed 

 $8.00, $20.00 and $25.00 per ton, respectively. On this basis 

 the following tabular statement is computed : 

 417,000 tons of hay, @ $8.00, equals $3,336,00 



104,250 tons of meal, @ 20.00, equals 2,085,00 



41,700 tons of cotton seed, @ 25.00, equals 1,042,500 



Total value of food required for 200 days, $6,463,500 



While the total of the hay, straw, corn fodder, corn and 

 oats produced amounts to $6,1 19,100 ; thus showing that we are 

 producing very nearly the amount of food that is required by 

 our live stock, exclusive of poultry and hogs. But to make this 

 fodder produce the best results it is necessary to exchange the 

 225,000 tons of hay for grain. Here is where a study of the 

 science of stock feeding may aid us in the practical work. I 

 have very little doubt but that better results might be obtained, 

 at less cost for food, if the rations fed were better proportioned. 

 A saving of even five per cent would amount to $323,175 in the 

 aggregate, and I believe much more than this may be saved. 



At the outset I wish to say, that the science of stock feed- 

 ing is the key to better practical work. It should go hand in hand 

 with the practice, pointing out possible improvements, and show- 

 ing the losses which many old methods entail. Science can 

 never take the place of practical knowledge, but it can point out 

 the methods which lead to success. True science and ^(?(?// prac- 

 tice never conflict ; if theory and practice lead to opposite conclu- 



4 



