582 Report on the Farm-Prize Competition of 1886. 
After our second inspection, it was apparent enough who the 
first-prize winners in Classes I. and II. would be ; but the merits 
of the others, after the above elimination, approximated so 
closely, that another examination with careful deliberation was 
necessary before we could draft any of them, and award the prizes 
to the others. It affords the Judges pleasure, however, to be 
able to say that, though they considered the defeated competitors 
fairly enough beaten, they were not by any means disgraced ; 
and that the arable management of Mr. Joseph Smith, Walnut 
Tree Farm; Mr. Henry Smith, Long Melton; and Mr. Edwin J. 
Durrant, of Wimbotsham, was very excellent, and reflected much 
credit on them respectively. 
I must now insert the list of prizes which were offered by the 
Norwich Local Committee for the best managed farms in the 
counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, with the conditions attached to 
their entry, and the points which the Judges were to consider 
in making their awards. 
The prizes were for four classes of different sized farms, viz. : 
Class I. — For the best-managed Arable and Grass Farm exceeding 550 acres, 
100?. ; for the second best, 50?. 
Class II. — For the best-managed Arable and Grass Farm of 250, and not 
exceeding 550 acres, 75?. ; for the second best, 25?. 
Class III. — For the best-managed Arable and Grass Farm above 100 acresy 
and not exceeding 250 acres, 50?. ; for the second best, 25?. 
Class IV. — For the best-managed Arable and Grass Farm, not exceeding 
100 acres in extent, 25?. ; for the second best, 10?. 
The competition in all classes was limited to tenant farmers 
paying a bo7id fide rent for at least three-fourths of the land in 
their occupation, the whole of which was to be entered on the 
Certificate of Entry. 
The Judges were instructed to take into full consideration 
any special advantage one competitor might have over another ; 
and to withhold prizes in the absence of sufficient merit in any 
of the competing farms. 
In arriving at their decisions they were also instructed 
especially to consider : — 
1. General management with a view to profit. 
2. Productiveness of crops. 
3. Quality and suitability of live-stock, 
-t. Management of grass land. 
5. State of gates, fences, roads, and general neatness. 
6. Mode of book-keeping followed (if any). 
7. Management of the dairy and dairy produce, if dairying is pursued. 
The annexed Schedule gives full particulars of the Farms 
entered, together with the Awards of the Judges, (Sec. 
