Seioage Farm Competition, 1879. 
3 
itself would not give any great return per acre. When, how- 
ever, the gross returns per head of the population contributing 
to the sewers are considered, then Leamington comes out in ^ 
more favourable light ; but here again the large acreage abso- 
lutely increases this amount beyond its true value. It should 
be remarked that a large area of ordinary agricultural land 
attached to a sewage farm does not always add to the profit of 
the undertaking. This will be clearly seen from an examina- 
tion of the accounts of the Reading Sewage Farm, which has a 
larger proportion of unirrigated to irrigated land than any other 
farm which we examined ; and yet the undertaking has always 
been carried on at a loss if a reasonable amount of rent is 
charged for the land. At Croydon, it is shown that in the 
year ending 25th March, 1879, there was a loss of 14Z. 5s. l^d. 
per acre, the gross returns per acre having only reached 
10?. Is. Wd. per acre as against 17Z. 12s. W^d. per acre in the 
previous year, and as against a loss of 6Z. 7s. Sfrf. per acre in 
that year, which was the largest amount lost in any year up to 
that period on this farm. 
There is also a very considerable difference in regard to the 
physical properties of the soil on the several farms. This is 
very distinctly shown by experiments which have been made 
upon the absorbing properties of the soils collected from the 
different farms which are given in the table on page 4. 
It should be borne in mind, in considering this table, that 
the less absorbent the soil is, the more readily will it act as a 
filter. This is clearly shown by the results when we take a 
case like Doncaster (No. 13), where there is no surface-effluent, 
and very little subsoil-effluent flowing from the land. It is con- 
firmed again by the light sandy soils of Leamington (No. 18), 
and also by the fact that samples Nos. 11 and 12 from Croydon 
are taken from a field which is noted for disposing of large 
volumes of sewage. The subsoil of this field possesses great 
filtration poAvers, but little capacity for absorption. 
We are happy to report that in every case we received from 
the several competitors all the assistance and information which 
were necessary in forming our judgment of the merits of each 
farm. 
In adjudicating the order of merit of the several farms, we 
took into consideration the instructions given to us, viz. : — 
1. General management with a view to profit. 
2. Productiveness of crops. 
3. Goodness and suitability of stock (where there were any). 
4. Management of grass-land. 
5. State of carriers, gates, fences, roads, and general neatness. 
6. Mode of book-keeping followed. 
B 2 
