Working through CDLI ATFs recently, I noticed that the project had only a partial transliteration, and an incorrect copy online of ASJ 9, 251 28, a neo-Sumerian feed-and-seed account from Girsu published by D. Snell (1987) and partially edited by T. Gomi (1997: 36), so I decided to take a moment to correct them. One thing led to another in this text, in particular to the strange and very exacting calculations of “5/6 fodder,” where we are more accustomed to the conventional fraction of 1/2 employed in Ur III agricultural texts (the common seeding rate of 300 sila₃ per bur₃ supplemented by 150 sila₃ of plough-oxen fodder, etc.). While 5/6 fodder appears attested thus far only in this and one other text (ASJ 11, 142 BM 106112), and while the precision of the grain calculations both for furrows based on the “one seed-grain per two fingers” rule (=30 sila₃ per furrow and bur₃) and for their corresponding oxen fodder reaches down to the level of 1/360 of a sila₃ (for which see my notes and translation here), the really interesting passage in the two, in bold below, is the clear example of ugu₂ ba-a-gar ... zi-ga being posted to sag nig₂-gur₁₁-ra, as has been demonstrated by Maekawa (1988: 53-54 [and see Englund 1990: 72 n. 242]; in the present examples, sag nig₂-gur₁₁-ra is implicit following the grain totals in obv. ll. 6 and 16-18, respectively), but in accounting transactions so complex as to defy convincing comparison. In beautifully simple terms, the first of our present accounts, dealing with the office of the oxen manager Ur-mes, records within its credits (ša₃-bi-ta ... zi-ga) section a sum of “1 gur 4 barig 1 ban₂ barley, set to the debit section of of Ipa'e('s account)” (rev. 5); this sum of barley is then recorded in the debits (sag nig₂-gur₁₁-ra) section of the second account, dealing with the affairs of this same Ipa'e: “1 gur 4 barig 1 ban₂ from Urmes” (obv. 12). We may thus with confidence date the second text to the same year as the first, that is, to Šu-Suen 4. By stating that this forcefully logical instance of Ur III credits-and-debits organization was also recognized, and correctly analyzed by Maekawa in his treatment of BM 106112 (Maekawa 1989: 143), I note again how fundamental that scholar's contributions to 3rd millennium Babylonian history have been; it does, however, require our close attention to appreciate them in his many table-laden publications of British Museum texts.