Plans of Farm Buildings. 
243 
' The opinions of competitors naturally differed considerably, 
more especially upon the following points : — 
Covered or open yards, and kind of roofing. 
Piggeries covered or open. 
Separate covered yards for manure. 
Wooden construction of buildings. 
Kind of fittings, whether wood, iron or concrete. 
Water supply direct to cattle in the byres. 
Cubic space per cow. 
Kind of paving materials generally. 
Portable or fixed engines. 
Provision for poultry. 
These, and other similar questions, were dealt with at great 
length in some of the reports. 
Some of the plans, though good in design, were evidently 
by men with little practical knowledge of farming, and many 
were extravagant and wasteful both in arrangement and 
construction. Several competitors did not comply with the 
conditions of the competition, and many made the mistake of 
showing an unsuitable position for the house and implement 
sheds, and badly placed piggeries. 
Twenty-three sets of plans, &c., were selected for final 
examination ; and, of these, seven only, according to the 
competitors’ own estimates, could be carried out at a cost of 
SI. per acre and under. On the other hand, there were several 
plans that might have come within the limit, had they not 
contained provision for more accommodation than was 
necessary for a farm of the size named in the conditions. 
As the descriptive statements sent in by the successful com- 
petitors are published at the end of this Report, it is unnecessary 
to give particulars in detail of the various designs. The Judges 
were of opinion that, whilst no set of plans was all that could 
be desired, the designs of “ Plough-share ” most nearly complied 
with the terms of the Competition, especially bearing in mind 
the paramount claims of economy. The accommodation shown 
would probably be sufficient for certain systems of farming, 
though some additional buildings might reasonably be required 
under alternative methods. In that case, an extension could 
easily be made without in any way disturbing the excellence 
of the design exhibited, which would provide adequate accom- 
modation for the largest head of stock the farm could possibly 
be expected to carry, and yet keep the cost well within the 
limit of 81 . per acre. 
The Judges commended the designs of “Churn,” “Tees,” 
and “ Comfoi’t and Economy,” on account of general excellence 
of design rather than suitability for a farm of the size and 
