1 6 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF 



absorbed the umbilical sac. So the cost is the only thing to consider. This was 

 discussed at a meeting of the American Fisheries Society, and as no figures were 

 produced to show the actual cost of rearing yearling fish, Mr. Frank Clark, Superin- 

 tendent of the Northville Station of the United States Fish Commission, promised to 

 investigate the subject and give the result at a subsequent meeting. We quote 

 from Mr. Clark's report: "One of the arguments introduced against the work of 

 rearing yearling fish was the expense, some thinking the outlay would be so much 

 greater than in the case of planting fry ; others that the trout accustomed to liver 

 would not adapt themselves to other food. I promised to give some facts and figures 

 relating to the expense of rearing trout to the age of one year at the Northville 

 Station. It must be borne in mind that the food used at this station for feeding fry is 

 wholly beef's liver bought from the slaughter-houses in Detroit, and shipped by- 

 express to Northville. For the years 1890 and 1891 we reared and distributed 250,000 

 yearlings, about one-half of them being lake trout and requiring at least one-half more 

 food than brook, Von Behr (this is the brown trout), or Loch Leven trout. The cost of 

 the food for this lot of fish was $740, making the cost per thousand $2.95. The cost 

 for labor, based on actual trial, was $600, or $2.40 per thousand. In addition to this 

 amount there should be added $3 per thousand for expressage, draying and superin- 

 tendence, making a total cost, when ready for distribution, of $8.35 per thousand, or 

 less than one cent for yearling fish ; and with facilities for rearing four times as many, 

 the cost as to labor would be much less per thousand. 



" Not only are the arguments from figures strongly in favor of yearling plantings, 

 but those drawn from well-known facts also speak with no uncertain sound ; for 

 instance, the condition of fry when planted is such that they must have food at once 

 or they perish; while on the other hand, the yearlings are in a condition to go with- 

 out food for a considerable length of time. Also one of the greatest losses suffered in 

 planting fry is their being devoured by larger fish, which loss in planting yearlings we 

 do not find as great. To test this difference I placed 100 fry in a tank eight feet long, 

 two feet deep, and eighteen inches wide, containing twelve yearlings. In another tank 

 of same dimensions, I placed twelve yearlings with six three-year-old trout; this, for 

 the purpose of noting how soon each would disappear as prey. The fry were all 

 gone in six hours, while in the tank where yearlings were with three-year-olds, 

 only two were gone the second day. Remember, please, that our argument rests 

 upon actual experience and not theory." 



Another argument against yearlings is that they do not bear transportation as well 

 as fry ; but Mr. Clark demonstrates that in the transportation of 80,000 yearlings the 

 loss was about two per cent., and that over fifty per cent, of the loss was owing to an 

 accident which ordinarily would not occur. Last October this Commission planted in 



