and without that country, Dominica with 37.8% had the lowest proportion of its land area
 in farms. Trinidad and Tobago's figure of 41.7% was probably significantly influenced by
 the considerable areas held as mining leases.

 Using the 1960 census population figures, if we measure population density by relating
 population to total land, Barbados is by far the most densely populated area with .5 acre
 per capital, Grenada is next with .9 acre per capital, and the least populated areas are Do-
 minica with 3.3 acres per capital, and, on a different order of magnitude, British Guiana
 with 95.1 acres per capital. If, however, we measure population density in terms of land
 in farms, while Barbados is still the most densely populated, St. Vincent, Trinidad and
 Tobago, and St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla all appear to be more heavily populated than Grenada.
 In terms of crop land per capital, Dominica is the least densely populated, followed by
 British Guiana, Montserrat and Grenada, all in second place (Table 9c).

 These comparisons are of interest because they lead to the question of how far the to-
 tal land area in farms represents the total land area suitable for farming and how far the
 total land area in crops represents the total of land suitable for crops. In other words,
 how much of unused land is suitable for bringing into farm occupancy and how much land
 not now under crops could he used for crops?

 One would expect, in an area where land has been the main limiting factor, to find a fair-
 ly economic use of this resource. Only Barbados stands out as a model in this respect;
 in most other territories there is little doubt that some expansion could take place. Never-
 theless it is perfectly evident that such expansion, whether of total farm area or of total
 crop land must be of a marginal nature as compared with current totals; only in Dominica
 and British Guiana is significant expansion likely to be possible and this is unlikely to ex-
 ceed more than 20'" of the current totals within the period with which we are concerned.

 The figures in Table 9a indicate that a sizeable part (44% without British Guiana and 90%
with British Guiana) of the land area is not in farm occupation. In British Guiana this low
occupation ratio is of course related to the usual problems of developing a continental area
of tropical bush with low soil quality and poor drainage. In the island territories, however,
the reason for a fairly low occupancy is the rugged nature of the terrain. The island with
the lecst rugged land surface is Barbados and here the ratio of farm area to total area is
high. Dominica is by far the most rugged and, although there is more unused land poten-
tial in Dominica than in the other Lesser Antilles, this territory must always show a low
occupancy rate. The figures for Antigua are biased by the inclusion of Barbuda, a dry un-
cultivable island with a low population and fairly large land area. The Trinidad figures
are also biased by the inclusion of Tobago and by the high percentage of land tied up in oil
leases and in swampland. Nevertheless Antigua on its own and Trinidad do not have the
same problems of ruggedness that Jamaica, St. Vincent, Dominica, Grenada and to some
extent, St. l.ucia and Montserrat have. Grenada comes out rather well in all these compa-
risons since it appears to be, if anything, rather more rugged than St. Lucia and at least
as rugged as St. Vincent, but has a higher proportion of its land in crops. This fact may
have some significance in that it may indicate that not only Dominica but St. Lucia and St.
Vincent have more occupiable land than their topography would indicate. However, we
feel that such possible increases are small except in Dominica. We feel, moreover, that
higher prices for cash crops would not necessarily lead to cultivation of additional acreage
unless such additional acreages are as accessible and as simple to cultivate as those now