Agricultural Sustainability and Open-Field Farming in England 241occurred about the autumn equinox, shortly before the autumn sowing of the suc-
ceeding corn crop. Consequently through the fallow year the field was cleared of
sufficient weeds to minimize competition for the limited nutrients available for the
future cultivated crops. The groundcover provided by the weeds limited the leach-
ing of nutrients and the erosion of the topsoil. It helped to recycle the nitrogen
fixed while the field was in pease. At the same time the field was rested from the
demands of a cropping routine, and provided an important source of feed for the
sheep, according to the local rules regarding stinting, which in turn provided dung.
Thus a neat cycle of nutrient renewal took place year upon year.
The open-field system had evolved in such a way as to be ecologically sustain-
able. The throughput of crops in the different rotations created a biologically
diverse system and the pease field compensated for any shortages of permanent
grass, or any tendency to acquire more land under cereal according to temporal
economic circumstances. The system minimized losses by maintaining ground
cover, and by using a variety of plants it kept nutrients within the system. Recy-
cling, through the actions of the sheep and their digestive system and their natural
tendency to tread in their waste, along with the ploughing in of anything left
uneaten by the animals, also helped with biodiversity. The principle of farming in
nature’s image was practised, and the successful integration of plants and animals
helped to ensure that the system remained viable across the centuries.
The impact of domestic forces
Seemingly therefore the open-field system was in harmony with sustainable eco-
logical principles while allowing for changes in emphasis at the margin that did
not upset the whole system. However, it did not operate in a vacuum. Economic
considerations and challenges to equity or fairness had the power to disrupt this
ecological balance. In particular there was the impact of large-scale changes in
society in general of which the individual villages formed a microcosm. For exam-
ple, changes in population had an impact on prices and the relative benefits of
concentrating on bread foods or the more varied diets offered by a mix of bread
and animal products. Yet it was possible for the flexibility of the open-field system
to react to such population pressures without initially disrupting what we have
described as a sustainable farming system based on open-field management.
From around 5.2 million in c. 1650, the population of England declined to
about 4.9 million in 1681, and recovered only slowly to reach 5.8 million by 1751.
Only in one half decade from 1681 to 1751 did numbers rise by more than
0.5 per cent per annum and in two half decades the population actually fell (1681–
1686 and 1726–1731). On the downturn or during times of relatively stable pop-
ulation the result was cheaper bread for consumers, but farmers found that their
incomes were squeezed, especially as corn bounties designed to encourage the
export of the grain surplus had only a marginal effect in propping up prices. Grain
prices fell steadily from a base of 100 in 1650 to 68 in the mid 1740s with obvious
implications for the level of farmers’ incomes. As we shall see later, they reacted by