M.— AGRICULTURE 247 



our own long-term agricultural policy heed must be taken of every shred 

 of evidence on land deterioration that is available all the world over, for it 

 is patent that when the sum is totted up the total will far exceed what is 

 already only glaringly manifest. 



The immediate, and on all hands generally admitted, need of our 

 peoples is an abundance of fresh food. An abundance of fresh food is 

 not compatible with a superabundance of permanent grass. Since 

 permanent grass flows like the sea right up to the very doors of some of 

 our largest centres of population, such centres of population are auto- 

 matically denied an abundance of really fresh vegetables. 



I make no apology for this somewhat long, and in a sense non-agri- 

 cultural and at all events non-technical introduction, for it seems to me 

 imperative to stress our national needs, for it is these needs which should 

 govern our whole agricultural outlook and, therefore, should determine 

 all our systems of farming. To sum up so far, and on the strength of 

 the various considerations I have brought forward, I would say this. 

 What is demanded of our agriculture is, firstly, to maintain as large a 

 rural population as possible, for probably on a large and contented rural 

 population depends to a marked degree the increase of our population as 

 a whole. Secondly, to maintain as large an acreage as possible in a highly 

 fertile and always ploughable condition, and thirdly, so to conduct our 

 farming as to allow at all times, and in all places, for the absolute maximum 

 of flexibility in commodity production. 



Before further developing my argument I must endeavour to put ley- 

 farming in its proper perspective in relation to other systems of farming. 

 I must therefore, and as a further preliminary, attempt to define the 

 systems of farming as conducted in this country. 



My concern is to define the systems not in terms of commodity pro- 

 duction, but in terms {a) of their flexibility, {b) of their indebtedness to 

 imported feeding stuffs, (c) of their relation to the maximum needs of 

 the soil in the matter of maintenance and enhancement of soil fertility, 

 and {d) as to the amount of labour demanded. For if my major premises 

 are anything approaching to correct, these are the matters of supreme 

 national importance. My classification is, of course, amenable alike to 

 amplification and simplification, and I put it forward to-day quite tenta- 

 tively, and primarily to illustrate the principles which I consider absolutely 

 basic to any rational consideration of a long-term agricultural policy for 

 this country. Here is my classification.^ 



Arable Farming. — A small acreage of permanent grass — a few odd 

 corners, a couple of fields — may be conceded to even the arable farmer. 

 For the rest he must be presumed to take the plough around his whole 

 farm, and 



{a) work on a rotation of crops without any resort to the ley,^ or 



^ I first put forward this classification in an article, 'Agricultural Policy,' 

 appearing in The Fortnightly for March 1938. 



" A ley is a field sown down to grass and /or clovers, and is such that it is 

 designed to take a definite place in the rotation of crops. Leys are of two main 

 types : the one-year, or ' arable ' ley, and the ley of two or more years' duration. 

 Implicit in the idea of the ley is, however, the conception of ' due date ' : after 

 an appropriate, and within fairly narrow limitations, pre-defined, period it becomes 

 due to be ploughed up. 



