101 
The cost for food was taken. I did not commence two 
years ago to keep track of this, but I simply took the 
beef liver bill; and of course you know, and every other 
fishculturist knows, that for the first two or three or four 
months, at least a. half of that is wasted. I did not, as 
brother Mather says, weigh this food; I simply took the 
bills; that is the way I arrived at what it cost. Then 
the amount of labor was as I have given you. If my 
men were called off, down went the pencil, so much time 
on the fry, and it was the actual time in regard to it. 
There is one point in regard to yearlings that I wish 
to state as near as I can. It is possible that some of the 
U. S. Commission men can help bear me out in this. 
Two years ago last August, I think it was, there were 
80,000 yearlings—they were well-grown fish—were taken 
to the Yellowstone Park by the U. S. Fish Commission. 
As I understand to-day from very good authority, the 
Yellowstone Park streams and lakes are well stocked 
with trout; and they did not have the trout there before. 
It is well stocked with good fish. 
Mr. Pace—I think they have succeeded so well that 
they have very young fish there also. 
Mr. Ctark—Good results from yearling planting. On 
the basis of what those fish cost me, there would be 
probably $800. and you count the expense of getting 
them on the ground, and the men’s time that distributed 
them, and all that, probably would be $400. more, some- 
thing like that, I can’t give vou accurate figures. Mr. 
Mather says a hundred fry can be raised for less money 
than it costs to raise one-year old trout. 1 have not 
figured that out; it would seem as though that is not 
right, but I have not figured it out. 
Mr. Bowman—There are some facts that these gen- 
tlemen can all agree upon. It certainly is a great 
benefit to plant either fry or yearlings. I think it is a 
conceded fact by everybody that yearlings are better than 
fry. It is a simple question of which can be produced 
