41 
If, however, on the other hand, trout culture is estab- 
lished on so firm a basis that those engaged in it may 
safely indulge in dissensions and that we may consider 
that the ultimate of possibilities has been developed, the 
writer has only to apologize to the trout culturists of the 
country for his temerity in approaching the subject. 
This brings the writer to the point which he desires 
especially to present for consideration. At the last 
meeting of the American Fisheries Society, there 
occurred some desultory discussion concerning the cost 
of rearing yearling trout, during which reference was 
made to certain methods of producing natural food for 
the purpose, now used in Europe. It was developed 
that but scant consideration had been given to the 
methods in question and that but little was known 
about them. Those who are sufficiently: interested in 
the subject will find much of value in three papers, here- 
with appended, from the Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Com- 
mission for 1887 (Vol. VII., pages 203 to 215), viz., 
“«Self-Producing Food for Young Fish,” by Frank H. 
Mason, Consul; ‘The Piscicuitural Establishment at 
“Gremaz (Ain), France,” by C. Raveret-Wattel, and 
“Report on the Piscicultural Establishment at Piedra, 
Aragon, Spain,” by F. Muntadas. 
Perhaps the only fishculturist in this country who has 
given attention to the production of natural food for 
young trout, or at least who has recorded the. same, is 
Mr. Charles G. Atkins of Maine, but his experiments 
appear to have been confined to the larvee of flies (other- 
wise maggots), but in a somewhat improved manner. 
‘The following items bearing on this question of natural 
food are taken from the report of the U. S. F. C. of 
1652,p.i'T OTM VIZ.: 
“Thus the Deutsche Frscheret Zettung, 1880, p. 25, 
maintains that by feeding trout on worms their weight 
can be increased in one year from three-fourths of a 
pound to two anda half pounds;” and “As regards feed- 
