462 ' Report upon the Liverpool Prize-Farm Competition 
for although at this period the scars on the mucous membranes 
were very obvious, the animals had already begun to feed and 
ruminate naturally. 
On the sixth day of the disease in the animal last experimented 
on, hay, soaked with discharge collected from the mouth, was 
given to two other healthy animals (the two three-year-olds), 
without any effect. It is interesting to notice that although the 
stableman who was employed in attending on the diseased 
animals had charge at the same time of four healthy ones, none 
of them were affected. 
In order to obtain information as to the risk of communica- 
tion of foot-and-mouth disease by litter removed from infected 
sheds, the bullock No. IV. was littered for eight days (i.e. the 
whole time of their illness) with the straw removed twice-a-day 
from Nos. I., II. and III., but it did not show any signs of 
infection. 
The promptitude with which the same animal was attacked 
several weeks after, when fed with soaked hay, proved that this 
immunity was not dependent on insusceptibility. Finally, the 
two remaining animals not used in previous experiments were 
littered in a similar manner with the straw removed from 
No. IV. during the whole time of its illness, but again without 
effect. 
XXIV. — Report upon the Liverpool Prize-Farm Competition in 
Lancashire, Cheshire, and North Wales, 1877 — Arable Farms. 
By SAMUEL D. Shirriff, Saltcoats, Drem. 
In connection with the Royal Agricultural Society's Show, held 
at Liverpool last July, the Liverpool Local Committee offered 
prizes for the best-managed farms in Lancashire, Cheshire, 
Denbighshire, Flintshire, and the Isle of Man. The Judges of 
the competing farms were appointed by the Society, and this 
Report is a record of the grounds upon which the Judges gave 
their awards in the classes of arable farms in the above-mentioned 
English and Welsh counties. The publication of the report on 
the Isle of Man competition is unavoidably deferred until the 
next number of the ' Journal.' The competition was a large one, 
twenty-one farms being entered, classified thus : — 
Class 1. — For the best-managed arable farm of 150 acres and upwards 
in extent, having at least two-thirds of its area under rotation of cropping, 
501. 
Class 2. — For thebest-mannged arable farm of above 80 acres in extent and 
under 150 acres, having at least two-thirds of its area under rotation of crop- 
ping. First, 40/. Second, 201. 
Class 3. — For the best-managed arable farm above 40 acres and under 80 
