The Roman agricultural system is dominated by Latifunda, large industrial farm complexes centres around extensive villas. These were usually owned by the nobility, and often a high proportion of the labour was carried out by slaves. The organisation of the Empire was such that these were frequently monoculture farms, specialised in the output of singular crops, much of which was often for export. The Roman's had introduced a variety of new crops and produce into the British Isles, and while individual farming had been commonplace, the Roman economy and successive recessions and food crises had largely allowed a wealthy elite to accumulate most of the land.

Post-Imperial agriculture is dictated by logistical necessity. No longer able to rely on trade imports, and with civil order increasingly parlous, it became increasingly necessary for communities to become self sufficient, at least within a much smaller trading radius. Large, monocrop fields were by-and-large divided into strips, which each farmer could work individually, albeit often with a common interest, as suggested by the communal plough teams attested in Domesday. Rents were most often paid in service, with tenant farmers providing a certain amount of hours of labour on their lord's fields, in return for their own land and its produce. One of the most important changes was the introduction of a crop rotation system to counter the effects of the soil degradation caused by intensive Roman agriculture. This was originally a two-field system which allowed soil to recover, but evolved by the 8th century into a three-field system of rotation in which one field was used to grow cereals, another legumes such as peas, lentils and beans to fix nitrates in the soil, and the third left fallow to graze livestock and thus fertilise the ground. This system allowed for multiple crops at the same time as a general rise in harvest gain while improving soil health at the same time.

Domesday Book provides some evidence as to the size of fields. Anglo-Saxon land measurements frequently take the form of 'hides', which are very roughly about 120 acres, although this could vary wildly according to the crops or livestock grown and the productivity of the land, as the 'hide' seems to be based more on a level of production rather than a definite land measurement. A 'ploughland' in Domesday perhaps correlates with a 'hide' at 120 acres - nominally it suggests the area capable of being turned by a plough-team in one day - but a long and extensive debate has raged for decades as to whether the 'ploughland' is a measurement of convenience, a tax unit, or some kind of odd compromise. You can read a summation of the debate here that may be enlightening, or may indeed be even more confusing. Matters are not helped by different land measurements being used throughout Early Medieval England. Carucates are a common measurement, which correlates roughly with a 'ploughland'. In Kent, sulungs are a popular measurement which is particularly hard to translate. The majority of farmers wouldn't come close to a hide, of course. Around 40% of the general population at Domesday were 'villagers' or 'villanus' (not to be confused with later villeins) - the middling tenant farmers who in some areas made up over two thirds of the population. On average, a 'villager' household might work about a quarter of a hide, some 30 acres likely spread over several fields. The second-largest group, 'smallholders' (or in parts of the South-West, 'cottagers') - some 30% of the population may have held around 5 acres and perhaps had a stake in a communal plough team, but had a more borderline existence, likely with far less opportunity to grow surplus crops. These were at least a step above the 'freedmen', the lowest tier of the peasantry. These individuals likely worked their lord's land and were entirely subsistence farmers with no surplus, but at least weren't slaves. Various Anglo-Saxon legal codes contain provisions for widowed mothers, orphans and the illegitimate children of owner-slave relationships which suggests that these individuals may have formed this tier: the more fringe members of a community who are at least provided for, if not luxuriantly.

At the wealthier end of the spectrum, Freemen (around 14%) of the population often worked little more land than their tenant neighbours at around 30 acres, but owned their holdings outright and were free of the dues of service.