YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
January 1970, Vol. I, No. 1
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
THE POWER OF ENVIRONMENT
"Environmental factors exert a directive development on
the effect of all human characteristics, in health as well as
disease. The body and mind are shaped early in life by the
environment" (Dr. Rene Dubos, Science Journal, Oct. 1969).
Man is not ignorant of this concept, but he lives as if he
is unaware of it! Environmental influences DO have a major effect
in shaping every one of us. A clearer picture of the extent and
power of environment can be given by first examining its effects
on other living forms.
ORGANISMS "ATTUNED" TO SURROUNDINGS
"Clearly one of man's fundamental aims is to seek means
of reconciling the individual to the environment and there is
constant interplay between the two. The basis of the attachment,
it would seem, lies in the minerals of the rocks. These, released
by weathering and the acid secretions by organic life, find their
way into the soil and thence into the roots, stems and leaves of
plants. The metabolism of an animal (or human) feeding on the
plants becomes "attuned" to a particular mineral complex, which
then becomes essential to the animal's health. This fact is known
to most farmers. Calves for instance, have an inherited
attunement to the herbage of their own farm through their
mother's blood.
"This also instills immunity to local diseases and if
moved to another farm (with a distinctly different environment),
special care has to be taken to protect them and build up their
strength as they are prone to fall victims to disease-causing
factors for which they are physiologically unprepared.
"Stability, or 'rhythmical repetition of environmental
conditions is essential if plant or animal (or human) species are
to thrive. A herd which remains on the same farm from generation
to generation can be seen to acquire recognizable characteristics
derived from its environment'" ("The Inviolable Hills", R. A. D.
J. Hart, p.117).
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES IN LIVESTOCK
Specific evidence to validate this is found in an 1865
Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, on the breeding and
management of sheep:
"The training, the character and history of any race of
animals, the influence that situation, climate, and soil as well
as management exert on the appearance, constitution, and
disposition must not be overlooked ... SO GREAT is the effect of
climate and soil, that the fine flavour of the Southdown (a
squat, meaty, short-wooled breed of sheep) may be changed in time
to a coarse, tallowy meat of the Leicester, or other long-wooled
sheep. Nor will the flesh alone be interfered with, but the wool
and every other feature will be assimilated to those of the
natives of the different localities.
"... A remarkable case in point occurred in France some
years ago, when I sent some Leicester sheep to a French farmer
lbs. each, the rams 14 lbs. each. These sheep being managed after
the fashion of the Normans, the wool grew less every year, and
that of their progeny still lighter. In six years they clipped
only 3 lbs. of very bad wool; the fourth generation became
long-legged, their bodies differing from the original stock, but
'resembling the native bred Norman sheep, with which they had not
relationship'" (Journal of the Royal Agric. Society, T. Ellman,
1865, p. 406-407). (Emphasis ours.)
Without doubt, NUTRITION is one of the most powerful
environmental factors -- as Sir John Hammond proved in a series
of bovine experiments at Cambridge between 1945 and 1955. Batches
of calves from BEEF, DUAL-PURPOSE, and DAIRY breeds were reared
on different planes of nutrition. Before being slaughtered at two
to three years of age, the cattle were compared for growth rate,
conformation, meatiness etc ....
"The conclusion which is of most permanent value is
that a HIGH LEVEL of nutrition and consequent rate of gain in
calf-hood leads to the FULL development of the hindquarters and
loin so desirable in the animal DESTINED FOR BEEF PRODUCTION.
"Conversely, a LOW level of nutrition results in an
animal with POORLY developed hindquarters and little second
thigh, in fact a 'DAIRY' type of beast" ("In Search of Beef", Dr.
Allan Fraser, p. 118).
This work of Hammond's indicates that the traditional
conformation difference between DAIRY cattle and BEEF cattle is
more the result of FEEDING differences (ENVIRONMENTAL) and less
the result of BREEDING differences (GENETICAL) than most
cattlemen have imagined!
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANTS
Luther Burbank, (one of the leading plant breeders of all
time) claimed that this is equally true in plants:
"Here, then, was one of my lessons from Nature -- that
different environments produce plants of the same family that are
SO widely DIFFERENT that even the BOTANISTS want to PUT THEM INTO
SEPARATE CLASSIFICATIONS and yet they are THE SAME PLANTS
IDENTICALLY. Their only differences were the pure result of
environment and expressed themselves physically, in varying
shades, shapes, sizes and so on without being in the least
different in their actual make-up or heredity" ("Harvest of the
Years", by L. Burbank, p. 92).
Some time ago, members of our Agricultural Research
Programme had the privilege of visiting one of the leading
rose-breeders in England. He verified that a rose of the same
strain and variety grown in Aberdeen, Scotland would be
noticeably different in appearance if grown in Surrey or Kent.
Again the difference would be due to soil and climatic
differences, NOT GENETICS!
ENVIRONMENT AND FRUIT
"Environmental factors, however, such as climate, soil
type, or disease attacks may modify the appearance of the plant
or the flowers or fruit produced so that differences can appear
even though no genetic change has occurred. Bartlett pears grown
in California produce, in many years, round, apple shaped fruits,
but the same variety grown in Washington and Oregon produces
fruits that are relatively long and narrow, a difference due to
climatic factors" ("Plant Propagation Principles and Practices",
by Hartman and Jester, p. 159).
Practically every Englishman is familiar with the peculiar
flavour of Cox's Orange Pippin, England's best-known apple
variety. But is a Cox always a Cox? An Englishman who recently
began a fruit farm in Spain is not so sure:
"In this climate, Cox is disappointing...It turns out
to be a completely different apple. For one thing the distinctive
Cox flavour is entirely absent. For another, here (in Spain) it
ripens much earlier and has to be gathered at the end of August,
otherwise it goes soft and rots on the tree.
"Furthermore, it doesn't keep at all well ..." ("The
Grower", July 1, 1972, p. 27).
Such is the power of different environments to produce
DIFFERENT 'plant-types' from the SAME genetic starting point!
ENVIRONMENT AND SEEDS
That the environment, with particular reference to soil
fertility, can alter the quality of seeds is also proven by work
in India:
"A very important observation made in the course of
investigation at Coimbatore is the effect of CATTLE MANURE on the
quality of the seed. Viswa Nath and Suryanarayana have shown that
manuring the PARENT crop influences the resulting SEED in regard
to its capacity for subsequent crop production.
"McCarrison carried out animal nutrition experiments
with the identical grains employed by Viswa Nath and
Suryanarayana in their plot experiments and found that, as in the
case of seed vitality, the grain from the cattle manure plot
possessed HIGHER nutritive value than the grain from either the
UNMANURED plot or the MINERAL-MANURED plot. He attributed the
better nutritive value to the higher 'VITAMIN content of the
grain'.
"The effect of organic matter on the nutritive value of
SEEDS has received striking confirmation from the work of
Rowlands and Wilkinson who compared the effect on rats, of grain
seeds grown without manure and those grown on soil to which an
extract of pig manure had been added. Although CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
REVEALED LITTLE IF ANY difference in composition between the two
crops, the difference in NUTRITIVE VALUE was MARKEDLY in favour
of the seeds grown with traces of manure extract" ("Biochemistry
of Nitrogen Conservation", Gilbert Fowler, 1934, pp. 226, 227).
In his book "Soil Fertility and Animal Health", Dr. Wm. A.
Albrecht, Professor Emeritus of Soils at the University of
Missouri verified that seed wheat was of LOWER quality when grown
continuously with nothing returned than when grown continuously
with six tons of BARNYARD MANURE returned annually.
"Tests of the seedling vigour of grains from these
plots by Dr. R. L. Fox reported that of the Wheat seeds grown
with no soil treatment only 42% showed emergence of seedlings,
but where organic matter as barnyard manure had been going back
annually, 75% of the seeds had their seedlings emerge to
represent that high degree of survival of the species in the next
crop" ("Soil Fertility and Animal Health", Dr. Wm. A. Albrecht,
p. 129).
Notice how Dr. Albrecht summed up his lifetime's
investigations into this subject:
"There is no escape by ascribing the trouble to the
plant's or animal's pedigree, or to their line of breeding. The
spermatozoa, the ova, the chromosomes, and the genes are all
highly specific proteins. The genes, therefore, may suffer
deficiencies too. Such are losses of transmissible characters via
losses of protein characters. Yet the gene, too, struggles to
keep the stream of its own life flowing which may mean
accumulated losses, all originating via nutrition as feed and
therefore VIA THE SOIL FERTILITY. The pedigree of the plant does
NOT guarantee the quality of the crop as feed for our animals (or
ourselves). ONLY A FERTILE SOIL DOES THAT"' (Ibid, p. 52).
Herein lies the clue to understanding why new varieties
break down!
ENVIRONMENT AND HUMANS
With this background material on the power of environment to
mould and shape plants, animals and seeds, let us now examine the
extent to which each and every one of us HAS BEEN, IS NOW, and
SHALL BE shaped by our surroundings!
"Differences in environment make a difference in the
kind of people we become. Psychologists believe that environment
affects the intelligence more than it does the physical
characteristics; that it affects the educational achievement
still more, and that it affects the personality most of all"
("Psychology for Living", Herbert Sorenson. New York, 1961, p.
16-17).
Notice also what Dr. Rene Dubos states:
"Jets and world-wide television have not altered the
fact that ROCKY HILLS, ALLUVIAL PLAINS, FAMILY FARMSTEADS and
HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS, foster DIFFERENT kinds of people.
"Let me emphasise again that the radical changes in
growth, health, and behavior that result from life in the
urbanized, technologically controlled environment are NOT caused
by genetic disturbances. In practically all cases, the CHANGES
represent responses of the human organism to ENVIRONMENTAL
stimuli ...."
"Crowding, regimented life, environmental pollution,
and disturbances of the fundamental biological rhythms are
aspects of life which are common to all highly technicized and
urbanized societies, rich and poor. These influences elicit from
the human organism responses which are emerging the physical,
mental and social disorders commonly called "DISEASES OF
CIVILIZATION". These responses impress a characteristic stamp on
modern life. They account for the fact that Emerson noted -- we
resemble our contemporaries even more than our progenitors.
"All thoughtful persons worry about the future of
children who will have to spend their lives under the absurd
social and environmental conditions we are thoughtlessly
creating; even more disturbing is the fact that the physical and
mental characteristics of mankind are being shaped now by dirty
skies and cluttered streets, anonymous high rises and amorphous
urban sprawl, social attitudes which are more concerned with
things than men.
"The environment men create ... becomes a mirror that
reflects their civilization; more important it constitutes a book
in which is written the formula of life that they communicate to
others and transmit to succeeding generations. The
characteristics of the ENVIRONMENT are therefore of importance
not only because they affect the comfort and quality of
present-day life, but even MORE because THEY CONDITION THE
DEVELOPMENT OF YOUNG PEOPLE and thereby SOCIETY.
"While the total environment certainly affects the way
men feel and behave, more importantly it conditions the KIND of
persons their DESCENDANTS will BECOME, because all environmental
factors have their MOST profound and LASTING EFFECTS when they
impinge on the YOUNG organism during the early stages of its
development.
"Most educational and social systems also try to force
the young into traditional patterns through environmental
manipulations, and despite appearances they largely succeed.
Americans, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans, Italians or Spaniards
acquire their national characteristics because they are shaped
during early life by their buildings, educational systems and
ways of life. But such shaping need not be only for the
preservation of the past. It can be oriented toward the future.
"The Israeli Kibbutz has demonstrated that a systematic
programme of child-rearing can, in a single generation, give to
children a healthy and vigorous personality entirely different
from that of their parents" ("So Human An Animal", Dr. Rene
Dubos, pp. ix, xi, 56, 85, 171, 172).
We have quoted ostensively from Dubos, not because he is the
only authority who makes this point, but rather because he has
chosen to say it in terms that have so much meaning for
Ambassador College and its worldwide Extension Programme.
Dubos goes on to again stress the importance of optimum
child-rearing:
"Environmental studies in animals have revealed that
severe nutritional deprivations or imbalances during the prenatal
or early postnatal period, will interfere with the normal
development of the brain and of learning ability.
"In man also, malnutrition occurring at a critical time
appears to handicap mental development almost irreversibly.
"It is probable that biological and mental
characteristics can be strongly affected while the processes of
organization are actively going on (while the child is still
young). As the organism achieves its organization it becomes
increasingly resistant to change. Hence the crucial importance of
the EARLY environment.
"In the past, RURAL life presented favorable conditions
for the mental development of children because it exposed them to
an immense VARIETY of stimuli -- those from nature, those from
the very diverse activities on the farm, and especially those
from the chores in which they were expected to participate.
During recent years, the non-urban environment has become poorer
in stimuli even on the farm and particularly in many suburbs.
From the point of view of mental and emotional development, some
of the children brought up in WEALTHY suburbs may be among those
MOST severely deprived of stimulating sensory input.
Paradoxically their environment may be more deficient in creative
stimuli than that of certain country and city children ....
"All too often, modern housing developments give the
impression of being merely DISPOSABLE CUBICLES for DISPENSABLE
PEOPLE. Children growing up in them are likely to be so
handicapped as to become mentally handicapped and emotionally
crippled. This however is not a defect inherent in urban life; it
is only the consequence of a kind of city planning unconcerned
with the mental needs of human beings.
"By acting on the child during his formative stages,
the ENVIRONMENT thus shapes him BIOLOGICALLY and MENTALLY,
thereby influencing what he will become and how he will function
as an adult. For this reason environmental planning plays a key
role in enabling human beings to realize their potentialities"
("Human Environment", Dr. Rene Dubos, 1969, pp. 79, 80).
THE AMBASSADOR COLLEGE ENVIRONMENT
This vital power of environment to change and affect man,
animals, and plants has been largely overlooked in the past. But
an awareness of its importance is slowly polarizing the thinking
of leading men -- but few have stressed the importance of right
environment MORE than AMBASSADOR COLLEGE.
The physical plant of the college (gardens, buildings,
furniture etc.) is carefully designed to have the maximum
beneficial effect on the students (who are still at a relatively
impressionable age). A student is encouraged to organize his
college life to include the maximum of upgrading experiences --
study, work, dancing, sports, dating, speaking, travel, etc.
An optimum diet is provided to enable the student to
function at his best while in college and to become familiar with
the advantages of maintaining that standard of nutrition after he
leaves college. A good environment is many more things than we
can enumerate here, but producing it and maintaining it boils
down to OBEDIENCE to God's laws. A bad environment is the result
of DISOBEDIENCE to the laws of God.
The scientific evidence quoted earlier proves that a bad
environment will degenerate SHEEP, PLANTS, SEEDS and most of all
HUMANS -- with LASTING effects to MANY generations! But
conversely a GOOD environment (i.e. obedience to God's laws),
will build up degenerated humans, plants, animals etc. and these
up-grading effects carry through to succeeding generations. This
then makes an understanding of the power of environment an
important addition to every Christian's overall understanding.
Soil, climate and plants form the very foundation of man's
living environment. These powerful factors have always been part
of God's plan, in fact some of the actual tools He has used in
building FAMILIES, TRIBES AND NATIONS. In our next issue we hope
to demonstrate this in some detail, relative to those God has
called His "PECULIAR" people!
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
February 1970, Vol. I, No. 2,
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
THE NUTRITION GAP
"Once the grip of the roots of trees and grass had
gone, there was nothing to bind the loose earth. Millions of tons
of soil were swept down the great rivers, raising their beds.
Thus began the grim story of China's floods that until recently
have brought death and disaster to millions and caused some of
this earth's greatest catastrophes, basically man-made.
"It has been estimated that some 670 million acres of
China's forests were cut down in what has been termed one of the
greatest acts of ecological stupidity in the history of mankind.
"The earth of China has through history been trodden by
eleven to twelve billion people, with an enormous wear and tear
of its vegetation cover and land surface; but even worse, there
has been a gradual accumulation of parasites. In man's footsteps
a massive deployment of bacteria, fungi, worms and insects has
taken place.
"Disease has been spread through the night-soil, and as
a result the Chinese scene early becomes dominated by intestinal
worms. Their eggs are spread by the billions everywhere. They are
in the dust that swirls in clouds, and from this source alone the
people of China are bombarded by billions of helminthian eggs.
The weight of liver parasites in the aggregate of Chinese bodies
has been estimated to be equivalent to the weight of two million
Chinese. These liver parasites are responsible for many a yellow
complexion, and more than one-fifth of the population is reported
to have its liver seriously damaged by cirrhosis, chiefly caused
by protein deficiencies in the daily diet but frequently
aggravated by these marauders. This is the grim truth concerning
a society that once lost its ecological balance and never was
capable of restoring it."("The Hungry Planet", by Borgstrom, pp.
99, 100.)
Here we have more than 20% of humanity concentrated in one
single nation, cursed with sickness, poverty and disease! Such
conditions have been reproduced down through successive
generations. And every time it has come from the chain-reacting
effects of soil destruction and diet deficiency!
China is not alone! NUTRITIONAL bankruptcy and imbalance
daily afflicts and enfeebles the bodies and minds of millions
around the world. But the 400 million who today make up the
modern Israelite nations enjoy an unbelievably superior level of
nutrition!
Why does this vast nutrition gap exist? Just HOW big IS it?
HAS it been historically IMPORTANT? The answers to such questions
can only be touched upon in the space available, but they should
prove most enlightening.
HIGH QUALITY PROTEIN--KEY TO NUTRITION
"PROTEIN SHORTAGE: THE MOST SERIOUS THREAT TO HUMAN
NUTRITION .... It is more than a coincidence that, during recent
decades, protein deficiency diseases have come to prevail in most
continents and must be regarded as the chief nutritional
deficiency of the world.
"The PROTEIN INTAKE, be it plant or animal protein,
remains the MOST RELIABLE way of MEASURING NUTRITIONAL
STANDARD ...
"In his food, MAN NEEDS PROTEIN -- the living substrate
of the cell's protoplasm -- and in addition his protein intake
has to satisfy VERY NARROW SPECIFICATIONS as to molecular
structure ... ANIMAL PROTEIN IS BETTER QUALIFIED to provide
building stones FOR MAN'S BODY PROTEIN. In other words, its
structure is better suited for the particular nutritional
requirements of man. The so-called amino-gram, meaning the amino
acids, lies CLOSER TO MAN'S SPECIFICATIONS than is the case for
most plant proteins. ANIMAL PROTEIN IS READILY DIGESTIBLE in
man's gastric system, while PLANT PROTEIN IS ENCASED WITHIN AN
IMPENETRABLE CELL WALL, the breakdown of which requires elaborate
processing such as milling, fermentation, toasting, etc.
"... the world's privileged, about 450 million people,
dispose of the lion's share of this (animal) protein" ("The
Hungry Planet" by George Borgstrom, pp. 46, 27, 41-43).
The food problem of the world revolves around the shortage
of animal protein, not around a shortage of plant protein or
calories. The figures in the following chart have been specially
combined from FAO reports ("The State of Food and Agriculture",
1968, Annex Table 8A, 8C). They illustrate simply, yet
dramatically, twentieth century fulfillment of God's promise to
the Patriarchs -- Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Gen. 17:2, 26:4,
28:14). The chart breaks down the average diet into commodities,
showing comparative per capita consumption between the ISRAELITE
and NON-ISRAELITE nations.
Notice that the problem is NOT a shortage of CALORIES. The
NON-Israelite countries actually consume MORE of the HIGH-CALORIE
foods such as cereal grains, starches, etc. It is not just a
PROTEIN shortage either. NON-Israelites actually consume MORE
NON-animal protein than the privileged Israelites. ANIMAL PROTEIN
is their acute shortage!!
Here is where the Israelite peoples have the large end of
the stick. They have access to the very foods that are NECESSARY
to build alert, sharp minds and vigorous healthy bodies. (Their
advantage would be even greater if they did not also consume so
much sugar and fat more than the GENTILES.) The chart below
illustrates one way that God has made the Israelites the leading
people. He understands the importance of protein -- ANIMAL
PROTEIN -- and has made it readily available by repeatedly
placing His people in the most fertile areas.
(That figures for China are not available for inclusion with
the non-Israelites increases the disparity between the two groups
on the chart! After all, China represents 23% of mankind and we
have already seen that it is a nation repeatedly hemmed in by
famine and historically restricted in its intake of animal
protein.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GRAMS OF FOOD AVAILABLE PER PERSON PER DAY
Food ISRAELITE NON-ISRAELITE ISRAELITE ADVANTAGE
Eggs 37 grams 12 grams 208% more eggs
Milk 602 203 195% more milk
Meat 199 70 184% more meat
Fish 24 12 100% more fish
Sugars and 121 66 83% more sugar
sweets
Vegetables 208 162 28% more vegetables
Fats and Oils 59 48 23% more fat
Fruit 164 202 19% less fruit
Cereals 238 326 27% less cereals
Potatoes and 203 303 27% less starches
starchy foods
GRAMS OF PROTEIN AVAILABLE PER PERSON PER DAY
Animal protein 58 grams 23 grams 150% MORE ANIMAL
PROTEIN
Plant protein 30 46 37% LESS PLANT
PROTEIN
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANIMAL PROTEIN
All animal protein is not the same. God makes this clear in
Lev. 11 and Deut. 14. It is significant that in Deut. 14 God also
refers to His "... PECULIAR people".
It is only as His people have followed after the ways of the
Gentiles that they have turned to the consumption of UNCLEAN
animal protein and -- as David said -- "Let their table become a
snare before them" (Psa. 69:22).
SOIL -- FUNDAMENTAL TO ISRAEL'S BLESSINGS!
As God promised the Patriarchs, He has undoubtedly
distributed the lion's share of the earth's nutritional blessings
to the Israelites.
That there are today TWICE as many Chinese as Israelites
does NOT negate God's promises to greatly "multiply" Israel -- it
UNDERLINES the Israelite advantages expressed in the accompanying
charts!!
Paul Paddock, world-travelled soil scientist pointed to this
nutritional abundance when he wrote:
"After every two or three years of work in the
undeveloped world, I return home to my native Iowa [in the
heartland of the United States]. Each time I am amazed again at
the incredible richness of the landscape there. No place in all
the world matches the agricultural wealth of the Middle West, a
thousand miles and more of deep, rich, level terrain and stable
climate. In contrast, the areas I know in Asia, Latin America and
Africa usually contain only a few square miles of useless land,
plus a climate that is a gamble. And sometimes an entire nation
has no good land at all." ("Famine", 1975, by Wm. and Paul
Paddock, 1967, Preface).
Add to this the soil area of Canada, Britain, New Zealand,
Australia and South Africa. It makes a relatively rich and vast
total! A truly fantastic blessing upon the sons of Joseph
(Ephraim and Manasseh). It is a basic truth that SOIL FERTILITY
determines a nation's level of nutrition and its nutrition
determines the level of the nation!! Russell Lord's comment --
"THE FINAL CROP OF ANY LAND IS PEOPLE AND THE SPIRIT OF THE
PEOPLE" ("The Care of the Earth", p. 23) is well illustrated in
the following chart.
Notice that Israelites eat FOUR times more ANIMAL PROTEIN
than Arabs and TEN times more than the Nigerians!!!
God tells us that He sets the bounds of the nations (Deut.
32:7-14). His chosen people have been repeatedly blessed with the
"fat" places of the earth. Adam and Eve were placed in a perfect
environment (Gen. 2:8, 1:31). Noah was placed in what was the
FERTILE CRESCENT, (Gen. 9:1, 7) Abraham, Isaac and Jacob always
dwelt in the fertile areas of the Middle East (Gen. 13:2, 15,
17-18). The original Israelites prospered and multiplied under
Joseph in Goshen, the richest of all the land of Egypt (Gen.
47:6). While later generations under Joshua re-entered the
fantastically fertile "LAND OF MILK AND HONEY" (Numbers 13:23,
27)!
ONLY GOD HAS BEEN FAITHFUL!
God intended the Israelites to be the world's leading people
-- living examples of the tremendous physical blessings God gives
to those who OBEY His laws. We have seen the operation of natural
law, how a people strategically placed in the fertile areas of
the earth are provided a diet of top quality plant and animal
protein. Israel of course has stubbornly refused to be all that
God intended. Fertile soil has been their national heritage but
they have repeatedly destroyed the quality of their environment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RATIO OF TOTAL PROTEIN TO ANIMAL PROTEIN INTAKE
NATION AVERAGE DAILY INTAKE TOTAL ANIMAL PROTEIN
Syria 69.3 grams 10.3 grams
Egypt 80.1 11.8
Israel (including Arabs) 87.8 40.9
U.K. 88.0 53.3
U.S.A. 93.8 66.7
Nigeria 59.3 5.3
(The State of Food and Agriculture, 1968, Annex Table 8C)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As a family of nations we are turning more and more to
UNCLEAN food and to the perversion of clean food. Can you believe
that your next sizzling steak may well have been raised on a diet
of 25% POULTRY DUNG??? What a filthy abomination! But it's a
fact!
The nutrition gap between Israel and the Gentiles results
not from OUR OBEDIENCE, but God's faithfulness in honouring His
promise to the Patriarchs.
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
March 1970, Vol. I, No. 3
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
OUR PLUNDERED PALATE!
"Ralph Nader, consumer crusader, said yesterday that
from 40 to 100 PER CENT OF ALL CHICKENS RAISED IN THE UNITED
STATES ARE CANCEROUS!
"Mr. Nader told delegates to the annual Southeastern
Poultry and Egg Association a disease identified as avian
leukosis has reached 'epidemic proportions' in chicken flocks
throughout America. Little time and money is being spent to
research the leukosis virus, and almost NOTHING IS BEING DONE TO
ELIMINATE IT, he said.
"Mr. Nader said while there is no indication the
disease can be transferred to man, there is no real proof it
cannot either" (International Herald Tribune, Jan. 30, 1970).
Emphasis ours throughout.
This report and many like it mentioning animal disease,
antibiotics, hormone residues, etc. are causing considerable
alarm. Many housewives genuinely seeking the best diet for their
families wonder if meat eating is worth the risk! One alternative
rocketing into public favour is the new SYNTHETIC FOOD.
"Your Living Environment" now brings you a panorama of the
synthetic food trend, with its underlying meaning. Here are
answers to such questions as ... What are synthetic foods? How
are they made? What do they contain? How likely are you to come
in contact with them? Do they taste different? Are they
acceptable to the public? What is the real reason for their
"invention"?
Such questions need an answer. You might also discover that
your own natural revulsion to the concept of synthetic food is
not half as strong as you thought it was!
If consumers are willing to look closely into modern methods
of producing animal protein, they will find all kinds of
REPULSIVE situations. So first let's examine some of these before
actually moving into synthetics.
Can you imagine, for example -- "Thirty-one tons of diseased
poultry were condemned in a town in a year. [How many slipped
through the net?]
"Twenty-eight percent [the lowest estimate we've seen]
of barley beef animals -- where your steaks come from -- suffer
from liver abscesses. How many still reach your table" (Evening
Post, June 8, 1966)?
Agriculture is described as -- "... an industry that has
virtually written its own rules."
"In the great rush to provide Britain's stomachs with
150 million chickens and 1,246 million dozen eggs a year, along
with barley beef, pale veal and instant pork, few appear to have
asked: 'Do we know what we are actually eating'" (Evening Post,
June 9, 1966)?
The following quote sums up the whole matter --
"... in a world where your chicken meat costs 1/5d a
pound to produce and sells at 1/5 1/2d per pound, money means
everything" (Evening Post, June 13, 1966).
Yes, a real problem exists, but what will degenerate mankind
do when they realize they are being fed a diet of sick animals,
filled with drugs? They will look for SUBSTITUTES of course!
After all, how many reports on cancerous chickens,
liver-abscessed steers and mastitis/brucellosis infected dairy
cows can you take before you turn away to a diet of CLEAN, SWEET,
HYGIENICALLY-PREPARED SUBSTITUTE PROTEIN?
MEATLESS MEAT
In a recent speech to the Oxford Farming Conference, Dr.
Magnus Pyke, of the Glenochil Research Station, Menstrie,
Clackmannanshire, gave this quick rundown of the new meatless
meat industry:
"The American food combine, General Mills, has ALREADY
overcome all the main difficulties in producing what they called
'a new meat-like ingredient for convenience foods'.
"Protein from any source -- soya bean meal popularly
used -- was extracted with alkali and refined until a bland
tasteless solution was obtained. This was dispersed into what the
Americans called 'DOPE' and then extruded into a coagulating bath
where the protein dope was converted into fine fibres in the way
that nylon fibres were produced.
"By using spinnerets with different sized holes, fibres
of varying coarseness could be produced and by stretching them
under varying conditions -- the resulting product could be made
as tough as wirewool or as a sloppy mush.
"After the fibre has been produced it was passed
through a bath of fat and another of flavoring -- beef, mutton,
chicken, pork, bacon or fish. It was then wound up into hanks,
twisted into plaits and cut across the grain. It finished up as
slices, rashers, or mince or it could be ground up to make
sausages, meat loaf, or rissoles.
"The process has already gone a long way. In 1967 the
turnover of a small pilot factory was about two million dollars
but a much bigger plant was being built ... by 1975 a production
programme of 2000 million dollars was forecast" (Farmers Weekly,
Jan. 9, 1970).
INSTANT MEAT
"The process allowed the operator to sit at his control
panel and by a touch of the appropriate button, produce PORK AND
VEAL, HEAVILY SMOKED HAM, COD OR SALMON, OR EVEN TOUGH OLD
PHEASANT OR TENDER YOUNG SQUAB.
"The product is NOT primarily INTENDED FOR THE
IMPOVERISHED populations of under-developed countries; rather it
is FINDING FAVOUR IN the RESTAURANTS and FIVE-STAR HOTELS of the
West" (Ibid).
Isn't it amazing?! Now consider the ease of future BACON
production --
"Bacon slices are simulated by randomly laying down
spun soy-protein fibres together with an edible binder. Some
layers are red coloured to simulate lean meat. Others are
colourless to represent fat" (Food Engineering, Nov. 1969, pp.
72-75).
PLASTIC BONES
"MOST of the artificial products are made from the
SOYABEAN, but WHEAT, YEAST EXTRACTS, ALGAE, and even the LEAVES
of trees are now being investigated. The final product, in some
cases, tastes, looks and smells so much like the real thing that
even TRAINED FOOD TESTERS have been fooled.
"So far, the list of available meat substitutes
includes ham, sausage, frankfurters, fried chicken, turkey,
steaks, meat loaf and gravy mix" (Farmers Weekly, Aug. 12, 1969).
THE DEMISE OF THE COW
Not only is meat being synthesized, so is that other vital
source of animal protein -- MILK!
"Britain's first STOCKLESS DAIRY UNIT ... has gone
commercial. Sales of MACHINE-MADE milk increased by 30 per cent
last year and export markets included, of all places, New Zealand
and Holland.
"The Company ... started producing synthetic milk in
1964 and tested it on the London Market.
"Now output for the liquid market is equivalent to
nearly 600 gallons a week of NATURAL milk, and the product is
used in a range of manufactured products including chocolate,
fudge and pease pudding.
"A SYNTHETIC CREAM is almost at the production stage
and the company is also considering a SYNTHETIC CHEESE.
"The diluted product contains approximately 3.25 per
cent vegetable protein, the same percentage of vegetable fat and
just under 2 per cent sugar.
"Dr. Franklin (who developed the synthetic milk
process), is experimenting with a wide range of vegetable
materials, with particular emphasis on waste from food crops.
"The process we have developed can produce 'milk' from
a very wide range of vegetable matter. We have even made
acceptable 'milk' from BRACKEN" (Farmers Weekly, Feb. 14, 1969).
THE END OF COWS' MILK!!
How strong is this challenge from SYNTHETIC MILK? More than
we might expect. Michael Leybourn, Deputy editor of Britain's
leading farm magazine, shocked producers of cows' milk a few
weeks ago --
"I WOULD FORECAST THAT THERE WILL BE LITTLE LIQUID MILK
SOLD IN BRITAIN IN TEN YEARS' TIME,' he said.
"He gave the milk-from-the-cow industry in Britain a
maximum of another twenty years, though this might be erring on
the GENEROUS side" (Farmers Weekly, Jan. 9, 1970).
He continued by telling the dairymen, (straight to their
face, if you please) that they need to GET RID OF THEIR COWS and
start producing grass for the synthetic industry before big
commercial interests move in and do it for them! That must have
sounded like heresy to dairymen -- cutting your own throat is
tough advice for anyone to take, even if someone else is
threatening to do it for you!!
However this letter to The Editor makes it a
chocolate-coated pill for the farmer to swallow --
"Sir, -- It may be a short-sighted policy by ...
British Dairy Farmers to buck the growth of vegetable plantmilks
and for that matter the side-by-side growth of TEXTURED VEGETABLE
PROTEIN (TVP).
"No farmer produces milk for the fun of getting the
milk cheque -- it is mostly a matter of survival and a gruelling
year for most. With the wider use of vegetable proteins a more
agreeable life is in the offering. Practically any kind of plant
material can be utilized, from beet-tops and potato haulms to
wheat and beans. The forward-looking farmer should be looking for
ways of jumping on the new bandwagon, not seeking ways of up-
ending it.
"Among the advantages of producing plant milks and
vegetable proteins are: ... Complete freedom from the disease
hazards which are inseparable from milk and meat [the very point
that is going to turn MILLIONS toward synthetic foods]; no vet
bills, no destruction of herds, no Argentine problem [Foot and
Mouth disease]. No milking schedules. No early morning
deliveries, already becoming a major problem. Tins of plantmilk
and protein will keep for months.
"The health benefit would be enormous, as these new
foods can be ADJUSTED with cheap vitamin and mineral supplements
to meet any dietetic need. The MILK can be exactly like a human
mother's milk for babies, [Will it? That's what the CHEMICAL
FERTILIZER INDUSTRY says about its synthetic food for plants
too].
"... Food scientists have realized that to pass a
nutrient through the stomach of a cow is an uneconomic process,
for as little as 5 per cent may come back from cattle in the form
of food. The return from pigs and poultry is perhaps up to 15 per
cent, but even if it were 50 per cent it would still be 50 per
cent WASTEFUL.
"The cow economy is on its way out. The RABDF [Royal
Assoc. of British Dairy Farmers] is assuming the same stupid
posture as those who opposed the weaving mill and steam engine.
It is not helping but hindering our food producers" (Geoffrey L.
Rudd, Farmers Weekly, Feb. 13, 1970).
THE VEGETARIAN WALK-OVER!
On the surface, the case for SYNTHETIC food sounds good, but
the implications of such a trend are diabolical!! Do you want to
be a vegetarian in a nation turned vegetarian? Mr. Rudd, the
author of the above is one -- in fact he is the General Secretary
of THE VEGETARIAN SOCIETY.
On the other hand, to the anti-vegetarian, synthetic animal
protein of vegetable origin is being made to appear to be a
fantastic breakthrough! Man's hopes are being raised that he will
now be able to move down the biotic pyramid and thus ESCAPE the
human penalty of having to eat his own disease-ridden
factory-farm-animals!
This is not only typical escapist reasoning, it is also an
absolute FALLACY!! Instead of getting AWAY from his whole slew of
problems man would be simply moving NEARER to the SOURCE! There
are FOUR links in the basic food-chain:
If we drop ANIMALS out of the human food chain, that means
MAN must move sideways, in the direction of PLANTS and SOIL. But
we need reminding that any such FOOD-REVOLUTION will come
unstuck! Why? Because DEPLETED SOIL and DISEASED PLANTS are the
most basic causes of the sick animals which we are now advised to
drop from our diet!
HOW "INEFFICIENT" ARE ANIMALS?
The relative inefficiency of ANIMALS vs. PLANTS in food
production, has often been stated as the MAIN reason for dropping
animal protein from man's diet. We are told such a small
percentage of plant matter reaches the dinner table when it comes
via animal products, that human survival in an expanding world
demands that we drop the animal link from the food chain.
Now let us pinpoint the weakness in this argument. One
writer quoted earlier, stated that even if 50% of plant matter
was converted to animal products, the 50% would still be WASTED!
Right there is the crucial point -- that percentage of
"WASTED" plant matter! WHAT HAPPENS TO IT? That is the
fundamental question the food expert and the vegetarian never
ask.
Under a correct system of land management this "WASTE" goes
right back into the soil! Today that means nothing to most
people. Under-valuing farmyard manure is a point where even
farmers go wrong, especially in modern agricultural practice. The
percentage of organic matter (and it is far more than 50%) that
animals return direct to the soil is NOT "wasted". It is in fact
the very LIFE-BLOOD of soil productivity!
Where man has ignored this law, we now have deserts to prove
he was wrong. Where he is bringing in chemical substitutes for
ORGANIC MATTER, NATURAL soil productivity is falling to desert
levels! That is proven by man's fear to discontinue artificial
fertilizers once he gets started.
This means that true productivity from soil actually depends
upon the RE-CYCLING of plant nutrients via so-called "WASTE"
plant matter. However, plant residues can't be expected to offset
the MINERALS and PROTEIN NITROGEN sent off the farm annually in
the form of food. Most of these nutrients NEVER get back into the
soil which produced them, so without some EXTERNAL INPUTS the
system would slowly grind to a halt! In the organic system these
"EXTERNAL INPUTS" come in the form of NITROGEN from the
atmosphere, (via legumes) and MINERALS from inorganic soil
particles (via organic decomposition). Then, true productivity
originates in the soil and every square yard must ultimately
produce its own fertility! Soil can do this under the organic
system, especially with man's co-operation. Under this system
Nitrogen and mineral inputs are free, but man must return a large
part of his production to the soil in order to get these INPUTS
and continuing high productivity.
Only an ANIMAL-based agriculture is ideally suited to the
provision of large quantities of organic matter from previous
production. It now becomes clear that the "INEFFICIENCY" for
which ruminants are condemned is in reality the fulcrum or
pivotal point of man's food supply!
Under God's system of balanced and diversified natural
agriculture, we DON'T have to choose between CEREAL and ANIMAL
production. It is not a matter of which is the most "efficient".
One makes the other POSSIBLE and LOGICAL!
Intelligent use of pasture-raised animals gives a SURPLUS of
soil fertility (through their so-called "INEFFICIENCY"). This can
and should logically be channelled off in the form of CROP
production. Notice that under the really efficient system, it is
ANIMALS that make CROPS possible, NOT external inputs of CHEMICAL
FERTILIZERS!
MEASURING FOOD PRODUCTION
If under the organic system we take the available nutrients
in any soil and divide them into UNITS, (nitrogen e.g.)
"EFFICIENCY" will then not depend on PRODUCTION PER ACRE, but on
something more basic. It will depend on the rate of re-cycling
organic matter as plant food, or to put it another way, THE RATE
OF TURNOVER OF NUTRIENT UNITS in the soil. This is a true measure
of "EFFICIENCY". It also determines "PRODUCTION PER ACRE" and is
at the same time a guarantee of FOOD QUALITY!
Anyone in the business world can understand the economic
implications of the word "TURNOVER". Apply it to UNITS OF SOIL
NUTRIENTS in food production and you have the answer to the
ANIMAL-INEFFICIENCY argument, as follows:
Chemically fertilized cereal grain is one of man's principal
crops. It usually gives just one crop per year and the nutrients
contained in it make a complete cycle only ONCE during its
PRODUCTION and CONSUMPTION! As the crop has to feed the consumer
through the following year it means that these nutrients can be
re-cycled on average only once every 18 months.
Contrast that recycling rate with those nutrient units
allegedly "WASTED" via the digestive tract of the ruminant.
Under good rainfall conditions RUMINANTS will re-cycle the
great bulk of plant nutrients, (90%) via a fertile soil at least
SEVEN times for every ONE cycle under GRAIN production!
"RE-CYCLING OF NUTRIENTS" and "RATE OF TURNOVER" are
subjects incompatible with CHEMICAL agriculture, (because the
latter depends on EXTERNAL inputs) SO they never come up for
discussion.
In today's chemical agriculture, "PRODUCTION PER ACRE"
measures only QUANTITY! And that is no measure of TRUE EFFICIENCY
in food production. (How can "QUANTITY" be a yardstick for
SUCCESS when costs like soil damage and nutritional deficiencies
are ignored)? PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS -- BEWARE!
"PER ACRE PRODUCTION" may he a convenient measure for
Accountants, Economists and Bankers in an industrialized society,
but Agriculture is not JUST an "INDUSTRY". It is a WAY OF LIFE!
And it perpetuates itself ONLY through sound environmental
management! Not until the late '60's was INDUSTRY finally
manacled to the rear of the Environmental Bandwaggon! Only now is
industry painfully experiencing its first ecological thought.
The standards of industrially-based chemical agriculture
just don't fit God's LAWS of soil management. The solution is to
change "INDUSTRY". No one has enough power to do it right now, so
instead "AGRICULTURE" is being modified to fit the industrial
concept!
So we see animal-based agriculture threatened from without
-- by the FERTILIZER and SYNTHETIC FOOD industries and from
within by the FACTORY FARMING industry. But DON'T abandon protein
production!
April 1970, Vol. I, No. 4,
AMBASSADOR COLLEGE (UK)
Agriculture Department
(Reprinted and Updated 1973)
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY -- MIRACLE OR MYTH?
"The U.S. farmer has created history's agricultural
miracle. Three million farmers supply the needs of the 200
million people in the nation with so much left over that one
fourth of the land output is exported. The U.S. Farmer's ability
to produce has become the envy of the world" (Top Op, August
1969, pp. 16 and 64).
"The U.S. farmer today produces enough to feed and
clothe himself and 41 others at home and abroad" ("The Farm
Index", February 1969, pp. 14-17).
"The increase since 1945 in productivity per man in
[British] agriculture is more than DOUBLE that in the
manufacturing industry as a whole ... and is even considerably
greater than in the chemical and allied industries, which are
well-known for their efficiency" ("Modern Agriculture and Rural
Planning", John Weller, p. 293, The Architectural Press, London
1967).
Similar statements attesting to the ever increasing
productivity and efficiency of agriculture appear regularly in
the mass media. Much is made of the astounding statistic that one
MODERN farmer can feed 40-50 people, while his crude 1910
counterpart could feed only SIX.
WAS GRANDFATHER THAT BACKWARD?
Most people accept these astounding statistics at face
value, thus happily agreeing that the mechanized farmer of the
70's is some 700 per cent more efficient than his grandfather.
Nothing could be further from the truth!
In this issue of "Your Living Environment" we aim to not
only substantiate that comment, but to go even further and prove
that productivity wise, 60 years of mechanization and
technological PROGRESS has left the individual farmer back
precisely where he was at the beginning of the century. We know
that sounds incredible, but that is why you need to read on!
Dr. Georg Borgstrom, world-famous food scientist, was asked
by Ambassador College interviewers what he thought of the
statement that ONE FARMER NOW FEEDS 45 OTHER PEOPLE. His answer
was straightforward and dogmatic --
"It's entirely false. Very few farmers in America feed
themselves."
Dr. Borgstrom elaborated on the agricultural productivity
MYTH in an article that appeared in the Michigan Farmer early in
1966:
"You can't compare a farmer of 1900 with a farmer
today. They are not the same kind of animal. In 1900 [or even
1910] he butchered animals, delivered meat and milk to the
cities, churned butter, salted meat, made sausages, farmed with
horses for which he produced his own feed, made his own machines,
baked bread, made all his own repairs, and built his own
buildings.
"Today all these things are being done outside of the
farm. Besides about 6.5 million farmers [in 1966] actually
producing food for the country, you have more than 22 million
people building roads to bring things to the farms, making
machinery, processing and delivering farm products and bringing
food and farm products to the farms, not to speak of all the
various categories of salesman.
"If you divide this number (22.5 + 6.5) into the 195
million population of 1965 you can see that it takes in relative
terms nearly the same number of people to feed America today that
it did in 1900 or 1910."
AGRI-BUSINESS -- THE INVISIBLE FOOD PRODUCERS
In 1910 farms were tiny, self-contained food factories,
producing not only food, but also their own needs in fertilizer,
seeds, machinery, fuel, homes, buildings, recreation, transport,
clothes, roads, etc. Whatever the farmer produced could be truly
regarded as the results of his own energies and efforts.
Not so today! Produce from the farm of the 1970's is no more
the result of the individual farmer's effort than a new car is
the product of the man fitting steering wheels on the assembly
line! Both farmer and car worker are vital, but nevertheless are
only small cogs in a huge complicated production system.
In food production most of man's effort comes not under the
old heading called FARMING but under AGRI-BUSINESS.
"Agri-business is the whole business of producing and
marketing food, not just growing it on farms. It has three main
branches: supplying things to the farm (tractors, fuel,
machinery, seeds, sprays, fertilizers, and so on); the actual
farming; and getting the products onto the consumer's plate
(processing, storing, transport, packaging, and distribution).
The importance of the middle stage, the actual growing of the
food, has been waning, while the before and after stages have
waxed. Fifty years ago, the American farmer's slice of the whole
cheese was fifty-four per cent. Today [1965] it is down to
seventeen per cent and still dwindling; for every man working on
the land, two are employed on off-the-farm activities. Although
in Britain we spend less than Americans on processing, packaging
and distributing our food, Mr. Sykes [Geoffrey Sykes, noted
agricultural farmer economist] estimates £75 out of every £100
worth of agri-business to be spent off, not on, the farm. The
trend continues" ("Brave New Victuals", Elspeth Huxley, p.37).
If you have observed that the figures and estimates of the
extent and scope of AGRI-BUSINESS appear to vary from different
sources, you're right. AGRI-BUSINESS is so large, so vast, and so
integrated into the fabric of our total social-industrial system
that it is difficult to precisely define where the activities of
PRIMARY and SECONDARY industries begin and end. Different
authorities have various definitions for the limits of
AGRI-BUSINESS. In addition, the situation varies from country to
country, and from year to year. But it is an indisputable fact
that the modern farmer is only a tiny part of a huge and complex
system.
The present American Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz,
underlined the point in the USDA Year-book, as far back as 1960:
"The modern farm operator is much less self-sufficient
than his father was. He buys many goods and services needed in
his production that father produced on his farm. In a very real
sense, HE ASSEMBLES 'PACKAGES OF TECHNOLOGY' that have been put
together by others on a custom basis. For example he buys his
tractors and petroleum, whereas his father produced horses and
oats. Think for a moment of the technology that goes into the
modern feed bag, with its careful blending of proteins,
antibiotics, minerals, and hormones, as contrasted with the ear
corn and a little tankage put out for the hogs in his
grandfather's day ....
"A large share of their operating expenses goes for
items that their grandfathers produced on the farm himself, but
that the modern farmers 'hire' someone else to produce for
them .....
"Countless steps in the processing of food and fibre
that once were done on the farm have long since moved to the
city."
A generation ago, farmers were producing most of their own
fuel, power and fertilizer, but now industry is furnishing
farmers each year with:
6.5 MILLION TONS OF FINISHED STEEL
(More than is used for a year's car output)
45 MILLION TONS OF CHEMICAL MATERIALS
(About five times the amount they used in 1935)
18 MILLION GALLONS OF CRUDE PETROLEUM
(More than is used by any other industry)
285 MILLION POUNDS OF RAW RUBBER
(Enough to make tyres for 6 million automobiles)
22 BILLION KILOWATT HOURS OF ELECTRICITY
(More than enough to serve the cities of Chicago, Baltimore and
Houston for a whole year)" (Yearbook of Agriculture, Power to
Produce, 1960, pp. 381, 382).
It is difficult for the mind to grasp quantities of this
size, and bear in mind that those figures don't account for the
astronomical increase of the last ten to fifteen years! It is
even more difficult to visualize the amount of TIME and PERSONNEL
needed to supply these annual 'inputs' to agriculture. Take
fertilizer for instance:
"For the United States the quantity required [annually]
exceeds SEVENTY MILLION tons. This corresponds to SIX gigantic
freight trains of forty-ton cars, EACH SPANNING THE ENTIRE
CONTINENT from New York to San Francisco [3,500 miles]. To
organize the delivery of all these car-loads carrying lime and
fertilizers constitutes a major task" ("The Hungry Planet", Dr.
Georg Borgstrom, Collier-MacMillan, London, 1967, p. 435).
AGRICULTURE -- NOW DEPENDENT UPON INDUSTRY
So great and so sweeping have been the changes in the system
of food production that agriculture has now become shackled to
industry and can no longer function without its aid. The editor
of a leading British farm magazine put it this way:
"During the last century and a half it [agriculture]
has had to become more and more reliant upon external supplies of
the tools of its trade. In fertilizers it has become dependent
upon the phosphates of North Africa, the potashes of Germany. It
looks to the industrial chemist for the means of protection
against crop diseases and insect pests. Most of all, its machines
and implements are the products of factories, skilled
technicians, and trained designers; and the sources of its power
-- petrol, paraffin, and diesel oil are brought from overseas.
The output of the British farm is, therefore, by no means all a
clear addition to the national wealth. A thousand urban man hours
have gone into each tractor, and the tractor has been designed
and tooled for at a cost of more than one million pounds
sterling. Before the tractor can move an inch, wells have had to
be bored in Kuwait or Texas, the oil shipped and refined and
transported to the farm. For the corrugated iron or asbestos that
have replaced the local timber or village-made bricks for the
farm buildings, the sheep netting that is substituted for natural
hedges, the grass seeds from New Zealand that take the place of
the sweepings of the hay barns, the teat cups of the milking
machines that come from the rubber trees of Malaya to take the
place of the horny hand of the dairyman, British farming has to
depend upon national and international industry and commerce.
"Indeed, the greater the output of the farm, the more
external aid there has to go into it" ("Society and the Land",
Robert Trow Smith, The Cresset Press Ltd., London, 1953 p. 235).
That was written TWENTY years ago! How much more applicable
to agriculture today!!
When we come closer to today, we find that:
"Fred H. Tschirley, of the US Department of Agriculture
quoted a 1971 American survey which put the total cost of
research and development of a new pesticide at around £2.3m" (Big
Farm Management, January 1973, p. 25).
HOW MANY FOOD PRODUCERS?
It would be interesting to discover how many people really
ARE engaged in food production today. Exact statistics on this
are, as was stated earlier, an impossibility. However, one
agricultural authority, Louis B. Bromfield, estimated that:
"As high as 50 percent and more of our population
derives its income, wages, and purchasing power directly or
indirectly from an agricultural base" ("From My Experience",
Louis Bromfield, pp. 282, 283).
Noted farm economist, Carl H. Wilken, said:
"More than one half of our labor force is engaged in
processing and distributing the products of agriculture"
("Unforgiven", Charles Walters Jr., 1971, p.27).
In 1970, the United States' work force was about 74,000,000.
If, as Bromfield and Wilken estimate, over 50% of our work force
works for agriculture (food production), then over 37 million
workers are toiling to feed 200 million people. Divide the first
figure into the second and we find that one man is feeding only
FIVE to SIX people -- in the specialized days of 1970.
It is not uncommon for us to pick up the newspaper and read
such quotes as:
"AGRICULTURE, the United Kingdom's largest single
industry has a gross output of £2,500 million and expenditure of
£1,300 million!!!" ("The Sunday Times," May 10, 1972).
But we seldom grasp the magnitude of these figures and even
more important, the implications they have for industry and the
rest of society. The charts on the previous page should help the
reader to understand that most of the nation's food producers live
not in the COUNTRY, but in the CITY! You may now begin to realize
that most of the labour that produces our daily bread takes place
not in the FIELD, but in the FACTORY, the MILL, the MINE and the
LABORATORY!
(NOTE: To view the charts mentioned above, see the file 700415.TIF
in the Images\Ag directory.)
An inescapable thought after examining the above facts is
that man might do well to question some of his stupendous
OFF-THE-FARM efforts to produce basic needs! Take for example the
chemical fertilizer industry -- Borgstrom is quoted as stating:
"You know, it takes the amount of energy you get from
burning five tons of coal to make one ton of nitrogen fertilizer.
Including the energy cost of irrigation, transporting the
fertilizers and so on, you actually have to put more energy in
than you get out in increased food" (Observer Review, March 5,
1972).
We do not present the facts assembled in this issue of "Your
Living Environment" for the purpose of implying that we would all
be better off back under that comparatively simple,
rural-orientated society of 1900/1910.
We do, however, hope that if you are a farmer we have helped
you to assess your true productivity in clearer perspective. And
if, on the other hand, you are a city person, we hope that you
now have a better appreciation of your dependence upon your
nation's agriculture. We say this hoping that you don't think you
left agriculture behind, when you or some ancestor finally
"ABANDONED" the farm!
May 1970, Vol. I, No. 5
AMBASSADOR COLLEGE (UK)
Agriculture Department
(Reprinted and Updated 1973)
GENETIC ENGINEERING -- COMPLEX PATH TO FAILURE
Today plant diseases destroy one-fifth of all food produced
in the world!
"Bent over a microscope, armed with minuscule
manipulators, Roy U. Schenk, a crew-cut bio-chemist at the
University of Wisconsin, spends many hours each week guiding two
ghostly plant cells in an attempt to fuse them. So far, he has
tried to unite only cells from the same species, but his ultimate
aim is nothing less than fusion of different species, to create
plants that never existed before ... The eventual results, he
hopes, will be plants engineered to have extraordinary resistance
to disease and insects, plants so high in protein content that
they will produce the nutritional equivalent of steaks on the
stalk" (Fortune, April 1969, p. 127).
By careful manipulation of genes and chromosomes, many plant
geneticists are striving to produce the ultimate -- plants strong
ENOUGH TO OVERCOME DISEASE. Will plant breeders succeed? Can they
genetically engineer the 'SUPER-SEED', the living dynamo of
vitality that will produce seedlings resistant to all attacks by
plant disease?
Press releases often say they can. Unfortunately they are
dead wrong! This edition of "Your Living Environment" will show
the real CAUSE of plant disease and WHY plant breeders can NEVER
genetically engineer disease-resistant varieties that will last.
ALL professional men inevitably view their own work as one
of great importance to the world. But few believe this more
thoroughly than plant geneticists.
Seldom has any group of men taken so much power unto
themselves and yet remained as innocent as babes in the eyes of
human society! Geneticists have elected to bail the food producer
out of very real trouble. Man's food supply is at stake and
whether 3500 million humans know it or not, the geneticist has
moved in to RE-ENGINEER that part of God's creation which
directly sustains human life!
The scale of this genetic experimentation is little
realized, but it has enormous financial backing! Recently the
sales director of a British seed company told a group of growers:
"... the total investment necessary to get a hybrid
variety on to the market could exceed £1 million" (Farmers
Weekly, Feb. 20, 1970).
A staggering figure in itself, but multiply it worldwide by
the rapidly increasing number of replacement varieties being
"released" every year! Would you believe that this director was
warning British seed breeders to spend MORE money developing
cereal hybrids or face being squeezed out of the market by the
Americans?
BRITISH PLANT BREEDING -- SUCCESS OR FAILURE
Few countries have devoted more money, material and effort
to plant breeding than Great Britain. Years of devoted effort
have been expended in a running battle with disease. But has
lasting success been achieved? Have the genetic manipulations of
professional seed breeders given lasting success? The farmer
ought to know, so let him speak:
"All is far from being well in the cornfields of
England; [WHEAT, BARLEY AND OATS ARE COLLECTIVELY CALLED CORN IN
BRITAIN] FROM EVERY SIDE there is TALK OF REDUCED YIELDS CAUSED
BY DISEASE, spread of wild oats and black grass ..." (Farmers
Weekly, December 29, 1967, p 35).
"At present new varieties of cereal grains [THE PRIDE
AND JOY OF ENGLAND'S PLANT BREEDERS] are not achieving their
disease resistance potential and were UNSATISFACTORY relative to
older varieties once they were on the market" (Farmer and
Stockbreeder, Nov. 11, 1969).
"Some of the newer barley varieties have succumbed
rapidly to new races of the disease when under large-scale
cultivation" (Farmer and Stockbreeder, Feb. 24, 1970).
"Experience has shown that NO variety can be relied
upon to remain resistant for many years" (Farmer and
Stockbreeder, April 30, 1968).
Many more quotes could be given to prove that a veritable
disease explosion is occurring in the world's grain fields --
nearly all of which have been planted with genetically engineered
"superseeds". These seeds have all been widely proclaimed as
RESISTANT to the very diseases with which they are now plagued.
Any ideas that our self-appointed plant-engineers are on the
verge of a break-through and need only a little more time is an
illusion that must be shattered.
PROOF VIA SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
It is now just on three years since this particular issue of
"Your Living Environment" was first printed, so it is most
interesting to look at subsequent results of plant breeding. Put
another way, one might say that this REPRINTED issue is in part,
a progress report on the contents of the 1970 original issue.
That which we wrote then would have been totally
unacceptable in most scientific circles. That which we write now
will also be unacceptable to those same people. The important
thing then is to assemble the facts and let them speak. That way
you can draw your own conclusions.
Within months of our original article, CORN BLIGHT swept
through the American maize industry. And amid the subsequent
soul-searching came such international news headlines as:
"CORN CROP DAMAGE SPURS QUESTIONS Obeyer HYBRIDS"
"Starting with corn, the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) is taking a hard look at the genetic vulnerability of this
nation's food crops. [THAT MEANS A NUMBER OF CROPS ARE IN
TROUBLE, NOT JUST MAIZE.]
"And the question is whether seed hybridization, and
the genetic tampering it implies, may at some point subject
entire crops to unexpected disaster. ['DISASTER' is no
exaggeration! IN SOME STATES THE NO. 1 FOOD CROP OF AMERICA WAS
SLASHED BY 50% AND THE TOTAL ESTIMATED LOSS WAS 700 MILLION
BUSHELS!]
"The question now before the panel is whether wide use
of hybrid strains of seed corn may not be producing a genetic
uniformity that could subject an entire U.S. food crop to
destruction via a single new pathogen.
"The hybrid strains of certain corn seed ... carry the
so-called Texas male-sterile (TMS) cytoplasm .... the TMS genetic
base corn is highly vulnerable to a mutant fungus form,
helminthosporium.
"Seed corn, it appears, has a much narrower genetic
base than previously believed. By upsetting the genetic
composition of seed corn ... the seed's resistance to the fungus
seems to have been impaired.
"This particular group has no authority to go into the
broader subject of genetic engineering as it may affect,
beneficially or adversely, mice or men.
"But the experience with hybrid types of corn suggests
that any plans to alter the genes of higher forms of life require
extensive exploration before anything is done in the new
scientific realm" (The Christian Science Monitor, Thursday, March
18, 1971). A recent report states that:
"South Africa still imports seed potatoes from abroad
at a cost of R 850,000 annually but every effort is being made to
produce adequate supplies of certified seed locally ...
"But there remains one big nigger in the wood pile --
the source of virus diseases which can reduce the crop by up to
50 per cent ...
"The Chief Inspector responsible for the potato seed
certification scheme, has appealed to seed potato growers to get
to know these diseases as speedily as possible and to take
timeous precautions against them!" (South African Farmers Weekly,
Jan. 7, 1972).
One wonders if it would not be more appropriate for this
gentleman and the South African potato growers to become more
concerned about the real cause of these disease problems. From
this report it looks as though it could be worth at least
R850,000 per year to their industry, plus the annual value of
disease losses on commercial production! Eventually they will
have to realise that NO amount of PLANT BREEDING, INSECTICIDES
AND SYSTEMIC FUNGICIDES will remove the cause of these expensive
problems. This is indicated later in the article where it
continues by stating:
"About a year or two ago, it was assumed that complete
control over virus diseases in seed potatoes would be achieved,
but results of the past two seasons have again given cause for
alarm" (ibid.).
And may we predict that they will CONTINUE to give "CAUSE
FOR ALARM"!
The latest evidence we can present is a retrospective view
of Britain's last grain harvest and the commentary is devastating
when viewed against the earlier claims of plant breeders.
"WHAT ELSE CAN WE TRY?"
That was a recent headline in the British farming press to
an article on the latest problems facing its grain industry. It
sounds more like a plea made in desperation than the lead-in to a
success story. It continues:
"Our yields of barley have been declining, our average
is hardly 23 cwt an acre. We cannot afford to let it go lower.
What else can we try?" (Farmers Weekly, Nov. 3, 1972, p. 84.)
WHY PLANT GENETICISTS HAVE FAILED!
New VARIETIES released by modern plant breeders usually meet
with initial success. Over the long-term however, they FAIL! That
is proved by today's accelerating variety replacement. At the
same time remember that the geneticist has brought our plants and
animals to almost the same point that man himself reached
immediately prior to the FLOOD! With such a record, isn't it
futile and dangerous to believe that genetically engineered
super-seeds spell success?
You may still not fully perceive the long-term DANGER! I
don't think we in this Department do either. But the 'FUTILITY'
of the geneticists' work will be better understood once we see
WHY food producers experience increasing failure of NEW plant
varieties.
There is a very simple reason for these failures. Among
others, Albrecht and Howard, (two eminent agricultural scientists
working independently and on different continents) discovered, or
perhaps RE-DISCOVERED the real CAUSE of plant break-down.
Sir Albert Howard (who was knighted for his agricultural
research of more than 25 years in India) pinpointed the basic
CAUSE and PURPOSE of plant disease. He states that:
"It was observed in the course of these studies that
the maintenance of soil fertility is the real basis of health and
disease .... Insects and fungi are not the real cause of plant
diseases but only attack unsuitable varieties or crops
imperfectly grown. Their true role is that of censors for
pointing out the crops that are imperfectly nourished and so
keeping our agriculture up to the mark.
"... the diseased crop is quietly but effectively
labelled (by rust, smut, mildew, root-rot or insect attack) prior
to removal for the manufacture of humus ...
"Mother earth has provided a vast organization for
indicating the inefficient crop. Where the soil is infertile,
where an unsuitable variety is being grown, nature at once
registers her disapproval through her Censors Department. In
conventional language of today the crop is attacked by disease.
"In recent years, another form of disease -- known as
virus disease has been appearing. When the cell contents of
affected plants are examined, the proteins exhibit definite
abnormalities, thereby suggesting that the work of the green leaf
is not effective" (An Agricultural Testament, Sir Albert Howard,
pp. 39, 156, 161).
Dr. Wm. Albrecht (Prof. Emeritus of Soils at the
Missouri Experimental Station), with over sixty years of
practical experience in crops and soils agrees with Howard when
he states:
"Much reliance is put on the belief that by selecting
and propagating certain plants of a crop we can eventually find
those which TOLERATE 'diseases' like smut, rust, foot-rot and
others. Much is said about 'BREEDING RESISTANT CROPS' or those
which will 'TOLERATE' such troubles. We fail to see the 'germ'
diseases as attacks by those invading foreign proteins [VIRUSES,
BACTERIA OR FUNGAL ORGANISMS] ... in their struggle to get their
necessary proteins ... We fail to see that immune plants are
those getting enough soil fertility support for creating their
own protective proteins or antibiotics ...
"Any hope that we might 'BREED plants to TOLERATE
DISEASE' is a vain hope when it is NOT DRUGS, NOT POISONS, but
SOIL FERTILITY which protected the virgin crops ... of nearly
'perfect' plants.
"If deficient plant nutrition, especially with regard
to proteins, brings on diseases and pests as Nature testifies
then to believe that we could 'breed' for such resistance is the
equivalent of believing that we could 'breed' a plant to tolerate
starvation" (Soil Fertility and Animal Health, Dr. Wm. Albrecht,
p. 193).
In effect modern plant breeders are engaged in the losing
battle of providing food producers with a constant succession of
'new' varieties. How could they win anyway when it takes fifteen
years to establish a new variety and only three years for farmers
to destroy it on low fertility soil?
Properly interpreted, plant breeders are merely attempting
to patch up MISTAKES IN SOIL MANAGEMENT. And all their talk about
'miracle' grains is merely bragging about the size of their
PATCHES.
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
June 1970, Vol. I, No. 6
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
(Reprinted & Updated June
1973)
HEDGEROWS -- LUXURY OR NECESSITY?
"England's green and pleasant land is changing.
Gradually miles of hedgerows, sanctuaries of much bird life, are
being torn out and sacrificed to the cause of greater efficiency
down on the farm ....
"In an age of new thinking and mechanization,
picturebook Britain is changing. Arable farming just will not
allow farmers to hold onto 'A FOSSILIZED 18TH CENTURY LANDSCAPE'
complete with countless trees and thousands of miles of boundary
hedgerows.
"Critics say that 'GRUBBING OUT' of trees and hedges
affects the wildlife that lives there and that this process aids
soil erosion. They quote occasional dust storms which have lifted
tons of topsoil and seeds" (Christian Science Monitor, p. 3,
April, 1969).
Few issues have been more controversial than the destruction
of England's renowned hedges. On one side, the conservationists
accuse the farmer of sacrificing beauty and harmony for the sake
of mercenary gain. Farmers counter by arguing that the hedges
must go if they are to eke out enough money to support
themselves.
As a farmer said: "IF THE NATURE-LOVER WANTS TO SEE HEDGES
THEN HE SHOULD PAY FOR THEM -- to the farmer who must construct
and maintain them."
Who is right? How costly are hedgerows? Do they best serve
our ecological needs? Believe it or not, there is a way to please
BOTH the farmer AND the conservationist -- to the betterment of
both. That is what we want to show you in this issue of "Your
Living Environment."
Are Hedgerows Natural?
Many conservationists erroneously believe that the
destruction of hedges constitutes a departure from 'NATURE'. The
natural order of England is not hedges and fields at all -- IT IS
TREES!
"The ancient writer who referred to a squirrel being
able to cross the country from the Severn to the Wash [Wales to
the North Sea] without ever touching the ground, knew England
before men had interfered with the balance of nature" (The
Agricultural Merchant, October, 1968).
"Most hedges were planted between 100 and 150 years
ago" (Brave New Victuals, Elspeth Huxley, p. 137). Surprising
though it may be!
It is clear from these historical notes that hedges are NOT
part of England's original 'NATURAL ORDER'. They are very much a
result of the hand of man. Nothing DEMANDS that they should
remain part of the English landscape. So we can now consider them
on their own merit.
Benefits!
What do they add to the country ECONOMICALLY, AESTHETICALLY
AND ECOLOGICALLY?
As the conservationists point out, hedges have played a
significant role. They lessen the danger of wind erosion, serve
as shelter for livestock and moderate the climate by breaking the
sweep of the wind. To a limited extent they also serve as living
fences, though in many cases their effectiveness in this regard
is of doubtful value.
They do serve to break up the prairie-like monotony of vast
stretches of modern arable farmland. It is claimed that:
"Hedges in parts of northern Europe have been proved to
reduce the evaporation of moisture from the soil to an amount
equal to one-third of the annual rainfall, which may be one
reason why those protecting corn in a district of
Schleswig-Holstein were found to increase grain yields by as much
as 20 per cent. Is it purely coincidence that in areas of East
Anglia removal of hedgerows has been followed by an urgent call
for more costly irrigation schemes" (Tomorrow's Countryside,
Garth Christian, p. 27).
Drawbacks!
Against these advantages for hedges must be balanced their
very real disadvantages. One farmer listed these:
"1. Land gained from the removal of hedges and ditches ...
is equivalent to one acre of every mile run. In this case, sixty
acres were gained for cropping, worth perhaps £15,000, or with
interest at six per cent, £900 per year.
"2. No hedge trimming required.
"3. No ditch maintenance.
"4. Larger fields reduce the need for internal roads
[releasing more acreage for crop production].
"5. Increased machinery efficiency, with reduced idle
turning-time because of awkward corners" (Modern Agriculture and
Rural Planning, John Weller, pp. 261, 269).
Note the strong words from an author who is concerned for
the quality of our environment:
"The economic usefulness of hedges is mainly over. The
high cost of labour, electric fences, the need to exploit every
acre, all these combine to make most hedges not merely useless,
but a liability" ("Brave New Victuals", Elspeth Huxley, p. 137).
Environmental Heresy!
It looks like a case of ECONOMICS versus BEAUTY -- but can't
we have BOTH?
MOST HEDGEROWS IN ENGLAND COULD BE REMOVED WITHOUT HURTING
THE LANDSCAPE! Heresy??
No -- not if they are replaced by trees, shelterbelts and
thickets. That would be advantageous to conservationists,
sightseers and farmers a like!
Caborn sums up the situation when he states:
"The sacrifice of land is often a deterrent to planting
shelterbelts. But over a large part of the countryside, old
hedges occupy more space than would be needed for well-planned
shelterbelts and generally never repay the cost of trimming. On
stock farms they provide useful shelter and shade but the ever
widening gaps, common in hedges that have been allowed too much
rein, reduce their efficiency. Mechanized crop farming requires
larger fields and fewer hedges but opening up the landscape to
meet this need means increasing the wind problem. This is where
windbreaks could be incorporated while still providing a better
farm layout to suit modern trends" ("Shelter belts and Windbreaks",
J. M. Caborn, p. 68).
Trees and small thickets serve even more effectively than
hedges in moderating the climate, softening the landscape and
breaking up the otherwise barren monotony of large arable fields.
Famous British geographer, Sir Dudley Stamp rules out
another common objection:
"Provided that farmers who remove hedges take the
trouble to plant fresh woodlands and coppice, Sir Dudley saw no
reason the present trend back to large open fields should have
any damaging effect on wildlife" ("Farmers Weekly", November 7,
1969).
Additional trees would be a tremendous boon to the national
economy in a few years time:
"Today £1,250,000 of wood and timber products enter our
ports EACH DAY" ("Tomorrow's Countryside", Garth Christian, p. 50).
"We import over 90 per cent of our timber ... our
consumption is expected to double by the year 2000 .... Britain
has only about 4 1/2 million acres of woods supplying 9 per cent
of our needs. That is a smaller proportion ... than most other
Western European countries" ("Daily Telegraph Magazine", December
12, 1969).
Timber Monoculture -- A Mistake
The Forestry Commission has been trying to correct the
nation's timber shortage by planting huge tracts of land in the
uplands of England and Scotland to conifers. Their effort is
admirable, but the overall effect on the landscape is ABOMINABLE!
Regimented, dark, dreary, dripping forests are a clear case of
timber monoculture -- an ecological nightmare! However, the
nation should be grateful -- this approach is now changing.
For farm improvement, windbreaks and shelterbelts of
multiple species can form the basis of a revised type of
management. Because exposed arable areas can be quite severely
affected by wind, successful establishment of windbreaks could
benefit many cropping programs.
On HILL-FARMS, the same policy may permit the introduction
of less hardy, hut more productive breeds of livestock and higher
survival percentages in new-born lambs. There can also be
economic advantages in earlier calving and lambing.
The value of trees in the vicinity of watering points is
often not well enough appreciated. They offer cheap protection
against wind and sun for livestock. It has been shown that
shelter promotes the general well-being of farm animals --
reflecting this benefit in the form of better MILK, BEEF, MUTTON
and WOOL production.
Shelter-belt Density
The density of a windbreak is of considerable importance. If
it is too THIN, it will obviously have little slowing effect on
the wind. If it contains GAPS, or lacks low level branches it can
have the effect of actually INCREASING the wind speed through a
funneling action.
Where the timber barrier is too DENSE it will divert the
whole force of the wind OVER the tree tops. A concentration of
pressure occurs and the wind is sucked back down to its normal
level within a short distance behind the windbreak. This allows
the wind to resume its unhindered progress and greatly reduces
the area being sheltered. In the case of cereals, the eddying
effect can be strong enough to flatten considerable areas of crop
in the advanced stages of growth.
The ideal windbreak should be spelt -- WINDBRAKE! It should
filter the wind, allowing a percentage to pass right on through
the trees, but at REDUCED speed. This prevents leeward eddying of
the air volume that has been forced over the top. The above
diagram illustrates the principle referred to. It should also be
noted that the LOWEST wind speed is recorded some little distance
AWAY from the leeward side of the break (a down-wind distance of
two to four times the height of the shelter belt).
(Note: To view the chart titled "EFFECT OF (A) MODERATELY PENETRABLE
& (B) DENSE WINDBREAKS" see the file 700623.TIF in the Images\Ag
directory.)
Maximum protection lies in the number and distribution of
shelterbelts. NOT in their WIDTH! Some feel WIDE timber belts
best dissipate wind force, but this is not so. Within a few
hundred yards it will be blowing just as hard as ever down near
ground level. This underlines the relative ineffectiveness of the
average low-trimmed HEDGE!
A semi-permeable shelterbelt offers effective protection
over a distance of approximately 5H on the WINDWARD side and 20H
on the LEEWARD side (H represents the HEIGHT of the shelterbelt).
This means that every mile-run of 30 feet-high shelterbelt will
protect approximately 90 acres of land from two directions. Using
shelterbelts one chain wide would leave about 90% of the total
acreage available for other farming purposes. It is claimed that
at least 5% of the farm area can be planted with windbreaks
WITHOUT incurring a net crop loss.
Accepted espacements are, according to some authorities 12
feet in the rows and 15 feet between rows for most species. Where
there is a second row, trees should not be planted directly
opposite those of the first row. With three rows or more,
a triangular planting pattern offers effective density and
efficiency. Windbreaks of more than two rows are best planted up
with the tallest species in the centre row.
(Note: To view the chart titled "(Manx-leg shelterbelt for multi-
directional protection of livestock)", see the file 700624.TIF
in the Images\Ag directory.)
A Manx-leg layout presents an interesting and effective
shape for planting in centre field. It should be noted that the
diagram above illustrates how shelterbelts of this shape give
animals wind protection through a full 360ø sweep of the
compass:
Tree-Farming
Ecological benefits from correctly managed shelterbelts can
totally change the whole environment for the farmer, his family,
his livestock and of course his bank balance!
Timber should be farmed as a regular crop by every landowner
and figure in his annual income. Labour demand for harvesting a
regular timber crop comes in the winter and therefore fits
conveniently into most farm work-programmes. Under this system,
every landowner would play his part in supplying the world's
lumber requirements.
Pfeiffer may have summed the situation up better than he
realized when he wrote:
"Today we very closely approach the border of the
lowest possible conditions permitting life. Healing and
maintenance of the landscape leads to the best possible
biological and economic conditions, and besides this, stimulate a
sense for beauty and help develop CHARACTER. A feeling of
responsibility towards the earth carries with it a capacity for
building the future of the human race.
"As in all spheres of practical life, preaching and
lecturing help little, deed and example accomplish everything"
(The Earth's Face, E. Pfeiffer, p. 122).
Ambassador College Forestry
This is one of the reasons why Ambassador College is taking
its first steps in what will ultimately develop into a
globe-encircling project. Our Department of Agriculture is now
starting its first afforestation work. It is being done in
consultation with the British Forestry Commission and local
bodies in the Hertfordshire area. Planting commenced this spring,
along our new farm roads and around the boundaries of some
fields.
We are not just ringing areas with an old hedge, but rather
planting and fencing planned forestry belts, filled with lush
pastures that will be a credit to the community. Furthermore, it
is intended as these areas develop, to stock them with suitable
types of game. Overall, we wish to create an environment
surrounding the inner College campus that will be enjoyable and
filled with interest.
Coming up now is access to many additional acres of former
gravel pits. As these pits are excavated and then back-filled
with garbage from the London area we can reclaim them for
agricultural purposes. Part of that reclamation programme will
include beautifying and effective shelterbelts.
There are literally hundreds of these badly blighted areas
in every ADVANCED country, so we are having a chance to make a
useful contribution to today's anti-pollution programme and to
sorely needed knowledge for the soon coming WORLD TOMORROW!
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
AMBASSADOR RESEARCH INTO SOIL MANAGEMENT
It is now almost three years since the beginning of our
Agriculture Department. Its main job, (in conjunction with Big
Sandy) is to research proper management of the environment in
which God has placed mankind.
FOOD PRODUCTION is of prime importance in this research
programme -- first, because our immediate survival depends upon
it -- and furthermore, because wrong methods of producing that
food have exercised the most powerful of all destructive
influences upon the environment of man through 6,000 years!
Coupled with Big Sandy, we have the unique distinction of
being the ONLY Agricultural Research Centre in the world whose
work is entirely based upon the understanding and application of
God's laws!
And in this issue of our "Research News", we want to tell
you a success story about soil management. It concerns work we
have done here at Bricket Wood and tested in the 'vegetable
section' of The Agriculture Programme.
Bricket Wood Trials
It was the prior work and partial understanding of two or
three other people that triggered us off in the specific
direction of "top-cover experimentation".
Many local inhabitants have been intrigued by what they have
seen over the fence as they drive past our Vegetable Section. And
according to reports that filter in, human reaction ranges all
the way from enthusiastic expectation, through cynical
skepticism, to outright sour condemnation!
One man who works near Ambassador College has made quite a
habit of eating his lunch in his parked car opposite our
Vegetable Section. This enables him to see what we are doing and
he openly admits to being fascinated!
Contrast this man's interest with the attitude of those who
will maintain that millions through many milleniums have
understood THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANT MATTER IN SOIL MANAGEMENT. The
fact is that the whole earth is deeply scarred with evidence to
the contrary! Regardless of his understanding -- man's actions
have always tended to destroy his immediate environment --
Viscount Townsend, Robert Bakewell and Jethro Tull not
withstanding!!
Bring Back That Top-Cover!
We don't think there is much future in chipping and hoeing
weeds in order to keep the ground bare. That allows it to dry out
and need watering, which in turn grows more weeds, for the next
hoeing, and so on!
In the Vegetable Section of our Agriculture Programme we are
now growing much of the produce, (used by the College Catering
Department) through a heavy layer of straw mulch. So far we have
experimented with different times and rates of application --
according to the various crops being raised.
The first effect we noticed with this covering of organic
matter showed up BEFORE crops were even planted. It tends to
maintain soil moisture and temperatures at a relatively constant
level. And that means ideal conditions for millions of living
organisms in the soil.
The treated ground literally came alive. Earthworms appear
to have quadrupled over-night! Between the rows of soft-fruits we
put over six inches of straw in February. This was expected to
last well into next year, however in only THREE MONTHS the
earthworm population had mixed 50% of our organic soil blanket
INTO the soil! In some places they were depositing their castings
on top of the straw layer.
These worms literally did the ploughing job for us in a
manner and speed that surpasses anything we had ever seen! Our
soil under the mulch became loose, black, highly water absorbant
and very fertile! (Now we are in the process of harvesting a
record-breaking crop of large raspberries, in a year when dry
weather has pushed their price to astronomical levels).
Since the soil is so loose and fertile under the mulch,
there will be no need for laborious seedbed preparation. Next
planting season we will simply draw back the straw and plant the
seeds in the moist soil underneath. Tedious digging and raking
have been eliminated!
Lower Costs -- Through Labour-Saving
The job of growing potatoes is even simpler. We just plant
them on top of the level unprepared ground, but under the layer
of organic material. No digging is required. The potato being a
strong plant, forces its way through the mulch to the sunlight.
Harvesting is equally simple and advantageous. Since the
seed potato was planted on top of the soil, that is just where
the new crop of tubers will be located -- UNDER the straw, but ON
TOP of the soil!! You simply part the straw to collect the
potatoes.
Since the soil is protected from frost, planting can be done
three to four weeks earlier than on the conventional old
bare-ground, hilling system.
Not only can planting be done early, but the mulch
application also. We covered almost two acres in preparation for
the College potato crop back in the middle of last winter. At
that time labour was plentiful because outside jobs were strictly
limited. This is just one more point to show how the system
dove-tails with other work.
It also favours better year-round use of available labour,
because (as has been pointed out) the action of the deep layer of
mulch virtually eliminates weeding and hoeing. These two jobs are
tiring, back-breaking, repetitive and bite deeply into spring and
summer man-power, just when it is needed in every area of the
garden at once!
A Long Wet Winter
By the time our potatoes were planted at the end of winter,
the curiosity of many was fully roused and then followed weeks of
anxious waiting. WE were not unduly anxious, but others were.
During this time, well-intentioned people even consoled us over
the great big mistake we had made in the potato area!
They still don't know -- but we had already proved the
system on a small scale the previous year!
However, the way the season worked out this year, others'
potatoes were up and away, while our field continued to look like
an inert soggy mass of dead straw. And that's about what it was
too! But with a drier late winter the situation would have been
very different.
You see, the higher soil temperature under the mulch would
normally cause plant growth to begin earlier than it does on near
frozen, bare, windswept ground.
Drought Strikes!
Anyway our little old "spuds" finally began to poke their
noses up through the straw and it was not long before the weather
in England took a dramatic turn in the opposite direction.
It came out HOT AND DRY! And I mean weeks and weeks of
dryness! Crop producers around the nation soon began to cry about
drought slashing some yields by more than 50%. But it was then
that our heavily mulched potatoes began to come into their own.
When others were parched -- ours had ample soil moisture.
Some of our own vegetable crops are still on the old BARE
GROUND SYSTEM and also outside the scope of our very limited
water supply. After four weeks of continuous hot dry weather
these had not only stopped growing, they were deteriorating
rapidly like everyone elses.
Protection Pays Off!
By this time the whole of the verdant Bricket Wood Campus
was burning up rapidly! But visitors were just dumbfounded on
stepping through into our areas with a heavy top-cover. Here they
could not believe the way plants were growing vigorously in
adequate soil moisture. No shortage of plant nutrients either!
Chemical fertilizers, artificial stimulants and hormone weed
killers have no place in a God-planned system of soil management.
Every day the dry weather continues, our plants on protected
soil go further ahead, while those on bare ground stagnate or
deteriorate.
It is worth noting that plants on the BARE-GROUND system
with the best chance of surviving drought are those that make
enough top-growth to cover the soil around them before the dry
weather starts. Their shade ensures their own survival by
reducing evaporation of precious soil moisture.
That in itself ought to tell the keen observer something
about the all-important role of ORGANIC SOIL-PROTECTION!
Top-cover -- A Natural Phenomenon
Protecting soil with a covering blanket of plant material is
nothing new. We did not discover it! And neither did anyone else!
It is a God-given law that has been staring man in the face since
CREATION!
Walk into any forest that has been undisturbed for a number
of years. There you will find that the forest floor is COMPLETELY
COVERED in a deep mulch layer of leaves and twigs. The bottom of
this protective layer is being continuously decomposed by
billions of live soil organisms to feed the trees.
A similar thing also exists on the good grasslands of the
plains. Every well-established healthy pasture has a layer of
dead grass on the surface that feeds the plants growing through
it.
Soil is meant to be covered and it is high-time for man to
wake-up to the fact that BARE GROUND IS NOT A NATURAL OR
DESIRABLE PHENOMENON.
Life-cycle In Man's Hands
The only bare areas in most productive climates are rendered
that way by human action! And only by self-deception has man been
able to ignore the fact that since CREATION, God's system ALWAYS
works toward covering bare soil.
Plants are specifically designed to supply a YEARLY
topdressing of organic cover to the soil around their own roots.
Take away that ANNUAL MULCHING and you smash the cycle of life
ALL LIFE -- NOT JUST PLANT LIFE!!
First to disappear are the soil organisms, (the agents of
decomposition.) When they die the soil dies. Then the supply of
available plant nutrients ceases. Therefore surface-rooting
plants disappear and finally the deep-rooting ones die-out too.
Because no animal can survive on this now barren, windswept
plain, man himself has to hurry off over the horizon, before he
too is overtaken by starvation and death! It's as simple as that
to destroy God's creation!
A New Understanding
The Agriculture Department in Bricket Wood has felt sure for
TWO YEARS that it understood the real purpose behind the one
great over-riding agricultural law that God instituted to protect
man's environment. That is the SABBATICAL YEAR! And at that time
we were in the middle of observing it ourselves.
We believed it was primarily to give a TEMPORARY BOOST TO
THE ALL-IMPORTANT LEVEL OF ORGANIC RESIDUES IN THE SOIL.
Now as the story just told shows, we have for the past year
also been attaching great importance to the level of organic
matter ON-TOP of the soil. But only NOW, during the preparation
of this report, has "the penny dropped." This is the true purpose
of the YEAR OF REST!
How blind we are! With the SABBATICAL YEAR, God is obviously
confronting man with a visual reminder after every six years.
Though we have not been able to see it, He is rubbing our nose in
the fact that we need to KEEP A PERMANENT PROTECTIVE BLANKET OF
VEGETATION OVER EVERY PART OF THE EARTH FOR WHICH WE ARE
INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE!!
As for the old point about putting organic residues back
INTO the soil -- that is automatically accomplished by living
organisms, if only we provide the vital protective layer for the
TOP of the soil.
In the past we have been so pre-occupied with the very
important need to get large quantities of plant material back
INTO our ground, that we failed to see that KEEPING THE SOIL
COVERED IS THE GREAT OVER-RIDING LESSON OF GOD'S SABBATICAL YEAR!
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
CAN MAN AFFORD TO FARM GOD'S WAY TODAY?
If agriculture isn't your livelihood, this question may be
somewhat academic and even surprising from a converted person. It
will therefore be helpful to establish just WHY such a question
would be asked, because it is -- and very frequently!
Preceding this question are a host of others, unasked
perhaps, but in the farmer's mind; for example: Do you appreciate
what drastic changes are involved? Systems of agriculture -- how
many are there? What are the answers to the farmer's finance
problems? Must the farmer question EVERY aspect of food
production? Surely we won't make much progress in agriculture
until the millennium?
A change to God's way is quite dramatic -- EVEN IN FARMING!
In fact the whole process of agricultural change is a physical
parallel with the spiritual upheaval that sweeps over every
individual called into God's Church.
Field Ministers are now finding that some farmer Church
Members are making insufficient effort to radically change their
approach to applying God's agricultural laws. In this issue of
the Research News we hope to answer points they may raise, show
success is possible and spotlight some current economic
fallacies.
Unfortunately most food producers among God's people find
out all too slowly and expensively, that almost every true
agricultural principle is the exact opposite of their own
life-long belief and practice!
So deeply ingrained is this error within our being that many
a farmer to whom the basic Bible doctrines were no problem --
suddenly finds himself confronted with a real test of obedience!
But many people give up the work of a lifetime to obey God,
so why should ANY farmer be surprised if he has to RE-STRUCTURE
his agriculture and RE-EDUCATE his mind?
Many Questions -- Yet All Have Answers!
Most farmers fear for their financial survival when
confronted with this change from one system to another!
It is discouraging to see how often this concern overshadows
man's desire to equip himself with the necessary theory and
practical working experience of the new system!
This lack of drive to re-educate oneself often reflects
uneasy hidden doubts (even natural ones) in the mind of the
farmer about the merits of the methods he is taking on. But the
more he doubts, the less chance he has for success. Doubt has
that uncomfortable habit of quickly turning into concrete belief!
And that will set the seal of failure on any undertaking!!
If only our desire toward God's law and putting it into
practise could match the undying faith in the blundering and
endless experimentation of man! The methods man has developed are
legion, but let us now divide them into a few simple categories:
Agriculture's Three Basic Systems
I. THE OLD WRONG WAY -- human greed, breaking natural laws
and paying the penalty by being driven out to yet another area,
leaving a desert behind.
II. THE NEW WRONG WAY -- the same human greed, breaking the
same natural laws, but with the messiah of
Science-falsely-so-called, telling man that he can stay put and
in effect, continue law-breaking. (Part of its appeal is that man
now has nowhere to move to).
III. GOD'S RIGHT WAY -- obedience to LAW, (the only truly
SCIENTIFIC approach), knowledge that our environment is His
Creation, understanding of relevant laws that make it work and
the wisdom to express grateful thanks for the abundance it gives,
rather than make ridiculous demands upon it!
Two Basic Problems -- But No Solutions!
Everyone believes Western agriculture is faced with two
basic problems, (and both of them are 'economic'):
A. RISING COSTS
B. STATIC OR FALLING INCOME, (in relation to other sectors
of the particular national economy).
Farmers have for years been accustomed to hearing their
national leaders urge them to: CUT COSTS and INCREASE
PRODUCTIVITY. But in most 'advanced' countries, food producers
have done more in these directions than any other section of the
community.
Is it not therefore ironic that food producers who have
learnt to run faster and faster during the past twenty years,
have at best succeeded in standing still? At worst, (and this is
the great majority) they have lost ground financially, in spite
of all their efforts.
So much for the 'EXPERTS' and the great 'NEW WRONG WAY' of
modern agriculture. Farming is now in its worst financial state
since the disaster of the 1930's!
Attempts to cut costs and increase production have BOTH
tended to lead the agriculturalist AWAY from success rather than
TO IT! Both have encouraged him to mechanise. Both have
encouraged him to specialize. And the cost of mechanizing has
intensified his need to specialize -- the beginning of a vicious
and profitless cycle.
Along with this has come a costly high pressure programme
for producing HIGH-YIELDING breeds of seeds, plants, and animals,
NEW MANAGEMENT techniques and a MORE RAPID TURN-AROUND of crops
and animals.
Result? Take Britain for example, her agriculture is now the
most mechanized in the world, COSTS have been kept DOWN more than
in any other industry and PRODUCTION is at an ALL-TIME HIGH. This
looks like a true success story!
Unfortunately it is not! Farmers are desperate, angry and
near bankrupt. Returns are at their LOWEST for almost forty
years. They can't afford replacement machinery and fertilizer.
And while the nation announces an unemployment figure of 570,000
for July, labour is still drifting away from agriculture! The
nation can afford to pay 570,000 people every week to do NOTHING,
but agriculture is now so sick that it can't pay for EITHER
LABOUR OR MACHINERY.
So in spite of cost cutting, increased production and little
gimmicks like 'subsidies', the farmer is in worse trouble than
ever!
The farmer has tied himself to a dumb financial machine
which refuses to recognize any limit to: A. INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
and B. CONSUMER PURCHASING POWER. Instead, the financial machine
should be tied to the legal limits of agricultural production,
which were determined by God at Creation.
This impossible predicament of man has been well expressed
in the statement that one half of his economy depends upon
continuous expansion while the other can survive only in a state
of delicate equilibrium!
Pursue Truth With Determination!
Man's 'NEW WRONG SYSTEM' of agriculture has no more chance
of success than the 'OLD WRONG WAY'! Every single practise,
(ancient or modern) must be treated as suspect until proven
otherwise.
No cherished method of the past or present is sacrosanct.
Stubborn retention of just one of these strongly held beliefs,
(and farmers don't give up their ideas easily) can overthrow any
man during that critical change-over period to the right system.
Our Agriculture Department would have made little progress
had it not been willing to sustain its challenge against any
farming practise. We have had to repeatedly fight the human
tendency, (and we still do) to abandon new ideas that are under
trial. Often they lack only A MAN WITH THE DETERMINATION TO MAKE
THEM SUCCEED. A significant point for any who would follow GOD'S
WAY, in a world that is following ITS OWN.
Remember that in going God's way, man has to swim only
against the ideas of men. But that challenge is just tough enough
for you to need God's help in order to succeed.
Seven Points Toward Success!
1. LAND PRICES: The biggest anomaly in British agriculture
-- land prices at a record high, while farm profits on invested
capital are at a 30 year low! Farmers have an unfortunate history
of confusing the value of land with its market price. Land value
must be governed by what it will produce. Today's discrepancy in
these figures is spelling doom for thousands of modern farmers!
Our people can capitalize on the secret of soil-building by
selling all or some of their over-valued land and buy-in
elsewhere. This will be land considered unsuitable by the
majority, but we DO have the secret of soil building!
Today most land-users are in the business of DESTROYING soil
fertility. We know we are to be in the business of BUILDING IT
UP, we know how, so why not capitalize on this knowledge!
2. THE RIGHT SYSTEM: Even if a farmer can't put himself out
of the 'Red' and into the 'Black' by land selling, he should stop
destroying his environment and begin building it up.
Farmers will not escape all the penalties for past
law-breaking, but God's way of agriculture would bring them to
grips with the real CAUSE of their problems. British Agriculture
for example, claims the immediate need of £140m to avoid
disaster! This could be saved many times over, if it stopped
treating the SYMPTOMS of self-compounding and self-created
problems. (Every Agricultural Show indicates the depth of the
farmers' involvement with those who live by having their hand in
his pocket.)
3. QUALITY PAYS DIVIDENDS: All growers today are advised by
the 'experts' that their only chance lies in specialized
production! Result -- mass production of a single item, crudely
dumped onto world market through some system of bureaucratically
controlled bulk-pooling. Here, quality is measured by the lowest
common denominator. This type of PRODUCTION and MARKETING are
BOTH wrong, but let them go ahead anyway!
Once we start following the right system of agriculture, all
our produce will be HIGH QUALITY. Our people should therefore
specialize on their MARKET, NOT on the line of production. If we
stand or fall by the quality of our produce, we can be identified
by the purchaser who will pay a premium for the quality he
receives. He will even expect to and will also return again and
again.
4. OUTSIDE CONTRACTING: Those who abandon monoculture are
often left with excess labour and large, expensive, unsalable and
(many times) unpaid-for machinery. These can often be hired out
to others in the local area at a profit, because they lack the
cash for permanent labour and new machinery.
5. ACQUIRE NEW SKILLS: Most farmers who take a part-time or
full-time job, have trouble getting one that pays well, (once
again -- because of specialization). Those who can, should
acquire some specialized skills that will help them sell
themselves to a local expanding industry.
6. VERTICALLY INTEGRATE: A high-sounding term for cutting
out the middle men. Milk prices in Britain for example, in the
past 15 years have risen by less than 40% for the producer, but
by MORE than 80% to the consumer!! Quite a margin to cash in on.
(The farmers' town and factory contacts could blossom into
customers for direct selling of farm produce).
7. ENTER THE HOLIDAY INDUSTRY: The tourist trade can be
tapped via bed and breakfast accommodation and land with beauty
but low productivity is ideal for picnic and camp-site
development. All these are avenues for direct food sales too,
through a roadside stall!
Keep Your Eye On That Vital Long-term Goal!
Yes, man CAN AFFORD TO FARM GOD'S WAY TODAY! In fact right
agriculture is just like obeying the TITHING LAWS -- regardless
of any anxiety or difficulty, we simply can't afford not to obey!
Every true member of God's Church has proved (in many cases, to
his own amazement) that the tithing laws really work. But how
many have ever stopped to consider that God actually gives FAR
MORE detailed promises and dire warnings in The Bible concerning
agriculture? (Lev. 25, and 26. Deut. 7, 14 and 28.) They too,
must be heeded!
Most of these fantastic physical blessings and terrible
punishments we tend to chalk-up against much wider and more
general issues. But aren't we kidding ourselves that: A. God
blessed nations and individuals with prosperity and abundance
without requiring their agricultural obedience and B. That He
would CONTINUE to pour out agricultural blessings on people who
are knowingly breaking agricultural laws? Wrong!! LAW-BREAKING
ALWAYS BRINGS PENALTIES!
Remember too, man's food production is highly vulnerable and
under attack from Satan in his efforts to destroy this world!
Therefore some will have to get out of farming, but for the time
being the majority CAN continue -- KEEPING ONE POINT IN MIND:
The poorest peasant will enter God's Kingdom IF he is
keeping God's laws, while many king size farmers perish! (See
Mat.13:40-43)
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
September 1970, Vol. I, No.
9
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
WHY -- THE LAND-SABBATH?
The law of the land-sabbath is not new to most students of
the Bible, but many questions we receive in the Agriculture
Department indicate that it is only vaguely understood.
These questions demand answers and in our efforts to find
them we have been forced to embark on a rather searching study of
this particular part of God's law. It has been most rewarding and
in this edition of "Your Living Environment" we want to re-state
some old conclusions and give additional information on this
somewhat enigmatic law. We don't put them forward to you as
"final", but promise that you will find them interesting and
stimulating.
Did God Neglect Agricultural Instruction?
Most converted farmers read the Bible with one eye always
searching for instruction from God about food production. Imagine
their chagrin when, having read through the entire Bible, they
discover that God's specific instructions to food producers
appear to be little more than a few notes on firstlings, a few
verses on mingled seed, the land-sabbath and the jubilee!
Beyond these points God appears to have considered it
unnecessary to offer anything very much in the way of specific
guidelines for producing man's most important physical commodity
-- FOOD!
But is that really the situation? Why would the all-wise
Creator God choose, in writing the Bible, to be so specific and
detailed about such things as sacrifices for example and so
seemingly nebulous about agriculture?
God wasn't nebulous at all. In fact, He did give man
agricultural guidance, but he gave it in such a way that it could
not be neglected by an obedient nation! God did not have to
expound principles of food production in the Bible. His law of
the land sabbath appears to do the job for Him. It forces the
people in an obedient nation to learn the following points by
virtue of sheer economic necessity:
1. That they needed a cheap and effective source of feed for
their meat-producing animals, (but NOT GRAIN)!
2. How to prevent soil erosion and the formation of deserts,
(the curse of modern Palestine).
3. How to avoid water pollution.
4. How to overcome the problem of huge grain surpluses.
5. To know what constitutes a logical approach to laying out
cities, towns, villages and farms.
6. The true value of long-term highly mechanized farming.
7. The general implications of protein quantity and quality
in a good diet for both animals and humans.
8. That factory-farming won't work -- economically.
9. What would be an efficient system of producing and
marketing vegetables, fruit, milk, meat and eggs.
10. The importance of livestock in any permanent system of
agriculture.
11. That soil fertility cannot be maintained without a
regular return of organic matter to the land and that ultimately
each acre must be the source of its own fertility.
12. That there is a definite limit to the amount each acre
can produce and that this level will be reached only if man is
prepared to limit the amount he takes for his own purposes.
That may appear to be reading rather much into one single
law of God!! If so, then read on and see for yourself.
Understanding God's Laws
As Mr. Armstrong has often said, the best way to discover
the purpose and meaning of any of God's laws is to put the
particular law into action in your own life. He has repeatedly
mentioned that he and his wife had to keep the annual festivals
for many years in total faith before they were able to discern
the true purpose of the annual Holydays!
The same principle seems to apply to the Sabbatical Year.
Only by keeping it can we learn the meaning, the intent and the
full importance of God's command to man to rest his land, etc,
every SEVEN years.
Ambassador College in Bricket Wood has done this, (22 years
ago). But many of you however, have not had such an opportunity.
Imagination will therefore be required as we walk through a land
sabbath on paper, to help you consider its implications for
individuals and whole nations in the near future!
What The Land-sabbath Involves
The main details were covered in the April, 1969, "Good
News". Briefly however, the land-sabbath imposes the following
conditions every seventh year:
1. No grain may be harvested for commercial purposes.
2. No crops may be sown specifically for harvesting.
3. No vineyards, or orchards may be pruned.
4. No fruit, vegetables, or grain may be stored.
5. No hay, or winter fodder may be collected in barns.
6. No fresh fruit, or vegetables would be available for
sale.
7. Pasturing cattle, sheep and poultry is NOT restricted.
Some of The Implications
Visualize yourself now as an adult male with a wife and
three children. The Civil Government of your country has made the
Sabbatical Year part of the enforced law of the land as God
intended. Your responsibility is to provide food, clothes,
shelter and a good way of life for your family. The provision of
clothes, shelter, fuel and recreational amenities would be
unaffected by the Sabbatical Year. But what about FOOD?
Every SEVENTH year one could expect a temporary shortage of
certain basic commodities, even if there had been a surplus the
previous year, (as Lev. 25:22 indicates).
MILK and EGGS would be even more plentiful than normal,
because under God's civil government the Sabbatical Year applies
to ALL food producers in the same year -- Lev. 25:9-10. This type
of production is in fact encouraged -- and at the specific
expense of commercial crops, (Lev. 25:7).
GRAIN could be available to all, because it stores easily
and MEAT would also be plentiful.
VEGETABLES and FRUIT would be a different matter!
Undoubtedly some could and would be stored by either drying,
freezing, or bottling. But it would be extremely difficult, if
not impossible to effect national bulk storage, sufficient to
last at least a year, (until the next harvest season). Even if it
could be done, the cost would be high and the food much less
nutritious and less enjoyable than fresh fruit and vegetables.
The ONLY families, (other than the poor and the travelers,
Ex. 23:11,12) who could have fresh produce would be those who
have their OWN orchards and gardens! For them, fresh fruit and
vegetables WOULD be available in season.
During the strawberry season of the Seventh Year for
example, those people who have been growing THEIR OWN PLANTS
would be able to have fresh berries right through the strawberry
season. God does not approve of storing these away, but He does
approve of eating them FRESH, that is while they are in season,
(Lev. 25:6).
This could mean that only a portion of the total
strawberries would be used and the rest would return to the soil,
but people WOULD have fresh fruit. A big incentive to grow your
OWN strawberries.
The same principle would apply to all berry, stone, pome and
citrus fruits. Notice the incentive for DIVERSIFICATION. This
would lengthen seasonal production of fresh fruit available to
each SELF-SUPPORTING family.
Amazing isn't it? God, by giving Israel the land-sabbath
law, appears to have made it far more profitable for each family
to produce their own fruit and vegetables than rely on the
efforts of someone else!
God's Sabbatical Year makes it economically and
nutritionally unattractive to rely on a few specialist producers
selling to millions of non-producing consumers, (like we have
today)!
Maybe everyone won't be producing their own in the future,
but the only system that harmonizes with the land-sabbath is
simply one of self-sufficiency in fruit and vegetables via
home-grown production!
Under God's system, there would be NO local green-grocers
operating anywhere in the nation during the year of rest. The law
would prevent anyone selling produce to a green-grocer during
this time, but people can have a FREE supply direct from their
OWN garden, (Lev. 25:6). Even here God has seen the necessity of
forestalling human nature. Many people, left to their own
devices, would plant a garden ONLY in the SEVENTH YEAR and buy
their requirements from someone else during the other six years!!
But in order to have any garden produce in the SEVENTH Year a
family must have a garden in at least the sixth year too! God
makes this mandatory by limiting the available produce to that
which volunteers in the Seventh Year. You can quickly appreciate
that volunteer growth in vegetables COMES only where they have
been planted in a previous year! (That cleverly rules out
vegetable retailers in the SIXTH year!)
Volunteer Growth
A properly managed garden will have a surprising amount of
vegetables that will volunteer in the seventh year. Ambassador
College is perfecting a method of potato-growing that, among
other benefits, enables a family to have fresh potatoes from July
to December with no digging, weeding or seeding. A similar system
for carrots, cabbages, sprouts and other vegetables is being
tested.
Benefits of Obedience
Therefore the Sabbatical Year benefits the family as
follows:
1. Consumption of animal protein is encouraged by making it
the most plentiful food every Seventh Year.
2. By forcing man to be self-sufficient God is encouraging
us to dwell under our own vine and fig tree. (Mic. 4:4)
3. Being the source of produce, the garden keeps the family
together and occupied at least every sixth and seventh year.
Though more work than most city dwellers are used to, benefits
for adults, children, the local community and the entire nation
are undeniable.
Consider some of the national benefits:
1. The land-sabbath discriminates severely against
landowners who rely on CROPS for their income. Our modern
animal-less farms would be totally out of business every seventh
year, while those who pasture stock would be unaffected!
Growing of crops is all right, but if not strictly limited
it becomes man's most lethal weapon for soil destruction! This
single God-given law hedges the obedient nations about with
protection for its most precious physical commodity -- FERTILE
SOIL.
2. Today's system of marketing produce would be uneconomic.
The nation's MARKET-GARDENERS would be totally out of business in
both the sixth and seventh years of every seven year cycle.
GREEN-GROCERS would be out too in the seventh year and limited to
sales of fruit during the sixth and ORCHARDISTS would have no
income in the seventh!
3. As today's miles and miles of monotonous grain fields
become a memory, more cattle, sheep and poultry will be bred.
4. Huge and embarrassing grain surpluses would also cease
because monoculture would be discouraged.
5. Less bare ground through reduced cultivation would
greatly decrease the hazards of erosion and desert formation.
Land well covered with grass is nearly immune to damage from wind
and water. In a world that is observing the land sabbath no
man-made deserts like the Sahara would occur, (other than by
over-grazing with livestock).
6. Factory farming would be ruled out through a lack of
cheap grain. GRASS would be the cheapest and best feed, (and it
probably is, even today). Regular years of rest would raise soil
fertility and grass quality would improve to the point where
protein supplements of grain would be UNNECESSARY.
7. The ramifications of increased SOIL FERTILITY could be
easily traced, (if space permitted) through plant, animal and
human HEALTH. This fact alone would save every modern Western
nation millions of pounds annually for pharmaceuticals, chemical
sprays and dusting agents.
In conclusion then it is obvious that in the Sabbatical
Year, God gave Israel a VAST amount of agricultural and
environmental guidance. Indeed, had the Israelites kept this law,
it is difficult to see how they could have AVOIDED health and
prosperity.
The land-sabbath appears to be one of the most rejected of
all laws by Israel of old, right from the very beginning. But we
hope that this report helps to show how vital it will be for a
FUTURE Israel to avoid the same mistake!!
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
GRAIN -- A DANGER TO MAN!
Today the world agrees that the solution to it food crisis
lies in grain production! Prodigious sums of money, talent and
resources are devoted to producing more and more grain. Why don't
nations and international organizations devote their time and
money to increasing the world's production of animal protein? The
way to achieve this is simple -- by expanding the total area of
improved pastures and raising soil fertility!
Instead, world agriculture moves consistently in the
OPPOSITE direction -- toward even greater dependence upon GRAIN.
Why? Because men make one simple false assumption -- that an acre
of GRAIN equals more food than the meat of milk from an acre of
GRASS!
From this issue of "Your Living Environment" you will see
that a STARVING world is producing TOO MUCH grain and that such a
policy is opposite to the way mankind should be going. We present
evidence to show that basing world agriculture on grain
production is a serious threat to man's food, health, environment
and financial interests. In the past, the trend toward grain
production may have been almost unintentional. But today it is
foremost in the minds of the most influential international food
planners -- yet it endangers our very survival!
So what? Everything "endangers our very survival" today!
True. This is just one more threat, but it is one that few people
know about. And Ambassador Agricultural Research now brings your
this information, we believe, for the first time ever!
Food Value Per Acre -- Grain or Grass?
If only man would get his priorities right he would believe
that an acre of land produces more nutritional value under GRASS
that under grain.
The following table and comments prepared by Dr. K.L.
Blaxter, (Director of the world-renowned Rowett Research
Institute, Aberdeen) proves this:
HUMAN FOOD OUTPUT MILK CEREAL
PER HECTARE PRODUCTION PRODUCTION
(2.47 ACRES)
Dry matter kg. 1420 Milk solids 3557.5 flour
Calories Mcal 8512.5 14,585
Protein kg. 397.5 460
Lipid kg. 455 42.5
Lysine kg. 31.8 10
Threonine kg. 18.8 9.3
Thiamin g. 4 2.8
Riboflavin g. 17 2.5
Nicotinic acid g. 6.8 30.3
Calcium kg. 107.5 5
Phosphorus kg. 85 35
The milk production figures are based on grassland
yielding 11,045 lbs dry matter converted to 9,312 lbs. milk per
acre. The cereal production is based on wheat yielding 40.5 cwt
(75 bushels) per acre, with 15 percent moisture content.
"The results show that the calorific yield is much greater
when good land is used to grow bread grains rather than to
produce milk. At least 50% more biologically useful calories can
be obtained from the cereal crop in terms of flour yield than
from the milk produced. This is the ONLY major nutrient however,
in which the cereal crop excels. Intensive milk production and
wheat growing produce similar amounts of protein. These proteins
however, differ markedly in nutritive value for man. Direct
experiment with man shows that the biological value of wheat
flour proteins is 41, while that of milk proteins is 74. The
difference stems from the deficiency of wheat proteins, and
indeed all cereal grain proteins, in the amino acids lysine and
to a lesser extent threonine. The yield per hectare from dairy
production of lysine and threonine are three times and twice
those from cereal production. With the exception of nicotinic
acid, yields of vitamins of the B complex group are greater for
dairy production than for cereal production and so, quite
obviously are yields of calcium and phosphorus (vital for strong
bones and health)" (Science Journal, May 1968, pages 55-56).
The table proves beyond a shadow of doubt that a hectare of
grass, producing milk, yield far more of the proteins and
minerals so badly needed by the hungry nations that does a
hectare of grain!
Dr. Blaxter based his calculations on a wheat yield of 75
bushels per acre. He couldn't be accused of exaggeration. Had he
used the average yields of major producers like Russia, the
U.S.A. and Canada, his chart would have been different. Their
yields are less than HALF the figure he used and that would have
weighted the table even MORE heavily in favour of GRASSLAND food
production as the best way to feed mankind a balanced diet!
How Much Grain Does Man Produce?
You and I may accept Dr. Blaxter's table, but can a starving
world take a chance and institute a massive swing to producing
animal protein? Perhaps not, IF we are SHORT of grain! However,
look at the latest figures:
The 1970 "Stateman's Yearbook" records that in 1967, the
total world-wide production of rice, wheat, maize, oats and
barley was just over 1,000 million metric tons. A figure like
that does not mean anything unless we know how many people it
will feed for a year.
How Much Grain Does Man Need?
Nutrition books tell us that the average person in the
Western world eats about 200 lbs of grain annually. That means
one metric ton (2,205 lbs.) would feed approximately eleven
people per year.
Therefore, 1,000 million metric tons would feed 11 billion
people. World population is now said to be 3.5 billion, so in
1967 the world's farmers produced more than THREE TIMES the total
annual grain needs of mankind!
Rough figures perhaps, but they leave plenty of margin for
error. And more important, they bring into perspective man's
frantic efforts to breed new grain varieties, to build more
fertilizer factories, to manufacture more and bigger farm
machinery and to bring more pasture-land under the plough!
Man On A Grain Diet
Every nutrition expert has said as some time or other that
LACK OF PROTEIN is mankind's most acute food problem. And many
admit that they really mean -- ANIMAL protein! (Those who don't,
need only refer to Lev. 11).
Grain does not satisfy man's real need for high quality
protein. Only meat, cheese and eggs can do that! The high grain
diet of the world's masses provides only VEGETABLE protein. It is
a protein of poor quality too where you have the usual
combination of low soil fertility and artificial fertilizers!
Where Does All The Grain Go?
If man could not and should not eat more than ONE THIRD of
today's total grain production, where is all the rest going? The
following grain consumption figures for the year 1969/1970 are
supplied by The Ministry of Agriculture. They provide and
interesting answer:
Total consumption of all grain in the U.K... 22,250,000 tons
" " " " " by humans.... 7,950,000 "
" " by animals in the U.K..... 13,350,000 "
Grain for export, seeds, etc................ 950,000 "
(Farmer & Stockbreeder, December 9, 1969, page 85)
So! TWO-THIRDS of Britain's grain is consumed by ANIMALS!!
The same pattern of grain usage exists in most other developed
countries that are themselves large producers of grain. Britain
even feeds two-thirds of its grain to animals in spite of the
fact that she has to spend around £200 million annually on wheat
IMPORTS!
Millions of livestock around the world are not fed GRASS, or
HAY, which are the materials their digestive tract is designed to
handle. Instead, much of our animal protein is today produced by
feeding large quantities of LOW-QUALITY GRAIN. With present
farming methods there is no shortage of this kind of grain! In
fact we wonder if North American and U.K. cattle are raised to
produce beef, or to consume embarrassing surplus, cheap, low-
quality grain!!
Grain-fed Animals -- Why?
The fact that cattle can be successfully brought to suitable
slaughter condition WITHOUT grain-feeding is regarded by American
Agriculture as a RECENT discovery. Even today, few people over
there know about it!
Hi. W. Staten, in his book "Grasses & Grassland" has shocked
a lot of people. He writes: "Cattle fed on good pastures will
produce milk or beef at about one fourth to one fifth of the cost
of dry-feeding (through the use of grain plus a certain amount of
hay or straw)." (p. 19)
Elsewhere he continues: "Total digestible nutrients produced
by green pastures cost about ONE FIFTH as much as those produced
by general cereal crops. Kansas reports that the cost of
producing corn and oats to be SIX to SEVEN TIMES THAT OF
PRODUCING PASTURES, and other states find comparable feeding
costs."
"Cows turned onto good pastures from the best dry-lot
feeding maintain or INCREASE their milk flow." (p. 63, 73)
Sufficient evidence here to make us wonder if our modern
ideas on the production of animal protein need revising! It is a
pity that Professor Staten does not go on and show the other side
of the "dud" coin -- a high grain diet tears up the digestive
tract of ruminants by pH levels 100 TIMES more acid than those
eating grass. Livers become abscessed and are condemned as UNFIT
FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION, but if the BODIES they service can walk
into the slaughterhouse, then they are sure to make it onto your
dinner plate!!
Excess Grain Production Effects Soil Too!
Today these misguided world-wide demands for grain have
stimulated the conversion of millions of acres from grassland and
forest to crop production. As the following comment testifies, it
is these grainfield that are largely responsible for the world's
biggest agricultural curse -- SOIL EROSION:
"Data from the Soil Conservation Experimental Station
at Bethany, Missouri, show that corn (maize) growing continuously
would allow 50.93 tons of soil to leave the field annually, but a
good kentucky bluegrass sod would lose only 0.16 tons of soil."
(Ibid, p. 8)
Another unhappy result from excessive grain production is
now rearing its head in England -- yes, even in England -- the
total breakdown of SOIL STRUCTURE! The seriousness of this
situation was the subject of an alarming report presented
recently to The British Ministry of Agriculture by one of its
chief advisors. Thousands of acres of land in England have been
so abused by over-cultivation, heavy machinery and continuous
arable farming that not even grass can be profitably grown on
them for years to come!
How Much Grain-land For One Man?
Have you ever wondered how much land it takes to grow enough
grain for one man? Would you guess -- 50 acres, or perhaps 10, or
5, or maybe even 1 little acre? One acre of land of average
fertility will produce 2,000 lbs of grain. We assumed earlier
that 200 lbs of grain per year would take care of a man's needs
in this direction. Therefore one acre would feed TEN people with
200 lbs each!
Calculated at the rate of England's average wheat yield per
acre, the College Gymnasium floor area would provide the grain
needs of a family of FOUR people!! In other words a family would
easily supply its own needs from a large garden. Imagine the
fantastic change in man's environment world-wide if most of the
grain production was moved into the family garden and brought
under correct soil management!
Given a little more land, the average family would also be
able to graze three or four ruminants and thereby be self-
sufficient in animal protein too! So the danger to man and beast
from millions of acres of featureless, badly managed, wrongly
used and deteriorating grain-land would quietly pass away.
Man may finally come to understand that both his nutrition
and his environment would be a whole lot better off with fewer
"Egyptians" and more "servants" who can truthfully say that they
"... have been keepers of cattle from our youth ..." (Gen.
46:34).
It is the DIET of the average man and many animals that
should be views as an "abomination, NOT the occupation of sound
husbandry!!
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
November 1970, Vol. I, No.
11
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
PLANT BREEDING -- GOD'S WAY!
A recent news report on Cambridge Plant Breeding Station
stated that a new, £250,000 BUILDING had just been opened! The
reader couldn't help but gather that this huge expense was well
justified by the fruits that will follow the automatic expansion
that this building will allow.
The same report went on to state that PRIOR to the opening
of this building, the Station's operating expenses were some
£400,000 PER YEAR! Quite a sum to spend ANNUALLY, just to breed a
supply of "disease-resistant" plants to replace the "disease
resistant" ones they bred only three or four years earlier! This
is but ONE of many such costly institutions around the world! But
regardless of how low a value anyone may place on their work,
their recent worldwide impact is undeniable!!
Who hasn't heard of "the Green Revolution"? "REVOLUTION" is
most appropriate, because it is already producing agronomic
anarchy and confusion! Suddenly we are told that man has made a
colossal genetic break-through in a bid to hold-off famine.
But even before that label "green revolution" was coined, a
previous Research News brought you a report entitled -- "Genetic
Engineering -- Complex Path to Failure". It aimed to invalidate
the claims made by these influential and brilliant scientists. It
showed that they are setting the character and the pace for
PANDEMONIUM in the plant kingdom!
Having given you that report showing why the work of the
geneticist is doomed to utter failure, it is now a real pleasure
to be able to follow-up with news of a break-through in our own
understanding. Within this last week it has suddenly become clear
how God has employed the simplest device, ever since Creation, as
a natural means of plant-breeding!
But first let us re-cap a little on man's own efforts. The
most topical is of course the recent Blight attack that swept
through the hybrid corn industry from one end of America to the
other. Millions of bushels were wiped out almost over-night and
panic ensued on the Chicago grain market.
Slowly the world is learning of the hushed-up Asian
dissatisfaction over IR8 "Miracle-rice". At this moment of
writing we have on Campus a Colombo-Plan expert who has come
direct from twenty months of work in Pakistan. He has given a
first-hand report on the failure of new high-yielding wheat
varieties in that country. To this sad record of failure in
modern plant-breeding must be added the continuous breakdown of
new cereal varieties in EVERY Western country!
What Is The Answer?
The old music hall joke in England would have you believe
that "the answerrrr lies in the soillll". However in this case,
an answer that we have found appears to lie in a far more
despised object -- the common and lowly DUNG-PAT of an old cow!
We think you will find that this new understanding makes the
multi-million pound efforts of "miracle" plant-breeding
geneticists an expensive tragedy!
To millions of people the common animal dung-pat is
collected and treasured as the only source of fuel. This one
practice is sufficient to account for the poverty of their soil!
To many millions of modern Western farmers and their highly
trained scientific advisors, the same animal dung-pat has become
a BARRIER to economic progress! And to some it has even become a
distressing source of environmental pollution!!
Dung-pats -- An Economic Barrier?
Have you ever noticed the numerous grassy lumps and bumps in
a pasture when you have been driving down the road, or walking
across an unploughed field? Perhaps you have wondered why they
are there and what causes them?
If you examine the ground you will find that every one of
them is centred on a dung-pat, or a urine patch. Their cause is
due to TWO factors. First, these areas persist in giving-off an
odour that is offensive to cattle, so the animals assiduously
avoid grazing the plants growing on these spots. Secondly, the
unusually high concentration of organic matter stimulates these
particular plants to put out more growth than the surrounding
areas.
You may think that these lumpy patches look untidy. So does
the stock man, but his main displeasure lies in the fact that his
animals persistently refuse to graze this rank growth!
Dairy farmers in Western countries are notorious for
squeezing large numbers of cattle into tiny pastures. (It is said
of some that their big boots are used to push the last cow into
the pasture to get the gate shut!!)
Economics is always at the back of such practices but as
usual there is an over-riding law of diminishing returns. As man
increases the stocking rate, he also increases the number of dung
pats and urine-patches per acre. Finally, the total area of
unpalatable and unacceptable grazing exceeds the rest!
That level of grazing is somewhat dryly described in
farmers' parlance as "heavy-stocking". Scientific advisors call
it "intensive-grazing". Call it what you like, but it still
confronts the financially-oppressed farmer as an economic barrier
to further progress.
Preventing Pasture Contamination
Farmers don't give up easily, so now under the guidance of
their advisors many have completely REMOVED their animals from
the pastures! How's that for a system to get rid of the dung pat
problem, or "pasture-contamination" as it is called?
Then the farmer gets out his field-mower, cuts his pastures
regularly and carts all the green plant-matter to animal feeding
troughs. This system is mistakenly hailed as an economic
breakthrough by the men in GRASSLAND RESEARCH! It is identified
by the very "mod" term -- "Zero-Grazing-Management". That name is
much more descriptive of the system than most of its
practitioners have yet realised!
There is quite likely to be nothing that upsets a cattleman
more than to see half of his expensive, high-producing pasture
trampled down, urinated on and excreted upon, even by his OWN
cattle. So, cutting and carting grass under the "zero-grazing"
system enables him to gather EVERY blade of grass. And that can
be just another point at which he goes wrong.
More To Dung-pats Than Meets The Eye!
Who would think that a little old dung-pat could present man
with so many problems! This may be the first time that you have
ever wondered WHY God designed animals to operate as they do. It
is a question that has been pondered many times and we now have a
very good answer!
Yes, God DID create cattle with a waste-disposal system that
leaves pastures strewn and fouled-up with dung-pats. But it now
also appears that this is also one way in which He anticipated
Plant-Geneticists by almost 6,000 years!
Each blob of animal manure on the landscape represents the
ultimate in concentrated plant residues. They are able to produce
the maximum biological action, both IN THEMSELVES and IN THE SOIL
under the dung-pats.
At certain stages each year the animals start dropping pats
that are impregnated with seeds from a variety of plant species.
It is most important to note that these species are NOT
necessarily representative of the pasture in which the animal is
grazing. But it WILL represent the diet that has been
INSTINCTIVELY SELECTED by the individual animal! This is vitally
important and quite miraculous!! The animals are not only
RE-SEEDING your pasture, they are actually CHOOSING the species
that they prefer for their own health on that particular soil!
Furthermore, if the pasture is not over-grazed, they are even
selecting certain individual plants within a single species! (Few
people realise that a cow is a better judge of pasture and hay
quality than ANY cattleman!)
God Produces "Super" Seeds
Wherever the climate allows pasture reproduction to take
place through the setting of seeds, specie selection by grazing
animals reaches its maximum effect. (That is providing man does
not interfere in a wrong way.)
It is also easy to appreciate that plants growing in dung
pats will be the BEST NOURISHED and MOST VIGOROUS in the pasture
They will therefore set seed containing the highest amount of
protein and the highest viability for future germination.
Consider what would happen if there was no odour to the
dung-pats! These plants would always be the most attractive to
the shrewd old cow throughout their entire growing life. They
would be the first grazed and the most heavily grazed! That would
reduce their seed-setting chances to almost nil. The WEAKEST
plants and the poorest species would then be left to dominate and
pasture quality would quickly deteriorate.
God fore-stalled this problem and even reversed the process
naturally, by the simple device of giving dung-pats an odour that
repels the cattle. That means grazing animals spend the whole
growing season EYING the best pasture, but EATING only the SECOND
BEST. (This appears to be a rather intriguing example of ONE
INSTINCT overcoming another INSTINCT!)
"Super" Seeds For Entire Pasture
Plant growth virtually stops at the end of the season (the
annuals die) and so grazing becomes scarce as the plants mature
and go to seed. At this time protein concentrates in the seed
heads and just then the offensive odour diminishes in the dung
pats. If the owner has been able to judge his management
correctly, the non-contaminated areas will have been grazed
heavily enough to ensure that the majority of seeds for NEXT
YEAR'S PASTURE will come from the "super" plants grown in the
dung-pats!
"Super" Plants FROM "Super" Seeds!
Only AFTER the dung odour diminishes, will cattle suddenly
begin grazing these lumpy areas of the pasture. Many "super"
seeds will scatter out and re-seed the entire field. Others are
eaten by the cattle and end-up back in dung-pats. Here they will
germinate and grow into NEXT YEAR'S "SUPER" PLANTS. So the cycle
will go on repeating itself to produce seeds for PASTURES and
seeds for further SEED-PRODUCTION!
Special Seed PROTECTION!
In a hot climate where new seeds may have to lie for months
in a dung-pat waiting for rain -- the intricately-designed
process above could break down. But here again God has supplied
BUILT-IN protection.
Manure from animals on green feed contains enough moisture
to germinate most of the seeds impregnated in the dung-pats, when
combined with the intense heat of the sun. But then the manure
would quickly dry-out, thus killing the young plants. Well, it
doesn't happen that way!
Stock on dry feed always drink extra water to compensate for
the lack of moisture in their rations, but for some reason their
dung will still be relatively dry. That enables the sun to
quickly dry the animal manure before the seeds germinate!
In this way the seeds are protected from a quick death, and
when the rains finally come at the end of summer, the dried pats
are soaked with water and the "super" seeds germinate in safety.
God Can Do Anything Better ...!!
Next time you drive by a pasture that has been grazed
unevenly into rank-looking, dark green lumps and bumps, you can
reflect very knowingly on what has been going on. You will now
understand that you are in fact looking at a series of God-
created, natural, miniature PLANT BREEDING STATIONS!
No expensive, sprawling, clumsy, man-made counterpart has
ever bred plants equal in quality and disease-resistance to these
that God turns out automatically! Truly, "God hath chosen the
foolish things of the world to confound the wise ..."(I Cor.
1:27) when He chose an odoriferous dung-pat to confound the
world's geneticists!!
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
December 1970, Vol. I, No.
12
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT -- IS IT BEST?
The initial shockwave of the ecological revolution has
rolled over most of the literate world. A new wave of thinkers
has sprung up in its wake -- THE NATURALISTS. To this special
breed of social critic and philosopher, technology is tantamount
to sin. Only the natural, the undisturbed, the untouched is
acceptable. Indicative of this new mentality is the furor
presently raging over industry's plan to stretch hundreds of
miles of oil pipeline across the untouched wilderness of Alaska.
Industry stands firm. Development must not be thwarted, nor
progress impeded. The naturalists, casting themselves as valiant
defenders of our dying national heritage, have zealously attacked
the developers as greedy, grasping, soulless exploiters!
Thus the "PRESERVATIONIST" versus "DEVELOPER" battle rages,
and not only about pipelines. Cattle breeding, orchard culture,
land management and even egg production have inspired contention.
Who is right? Both sides have certain merits, but are the
naturalists correct every time they condemn man for tampering
with his environment? How does God view our insatiable desire to
change the land in which we live? How NATURAL should our approach
be to agriculture and environment? This Research News should help
you to better understand MAN'S PROPER ROLE IN HIS NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT.
MAN -- The Spoiler!
The point cannot be too strongly made that man has managed
to besmirch, pollute, desecrate and destroy nearly everything he
had touched. Indeed, total mismanagement of our environment has
been a dominant theme throughout all of history. A solution must
be found to this suicidal course of action. But does that
solution lie in leaving our surroundings in their most natural
state?
NO, IT DECIDEDLY DOES NOT!! Mismanagement must be replaced,
not with NO-MANAGEMENT, but with correct, law-abiding management!
How "Natural" Was The Garden of Eden?
Have you ever wondered why God did not create the earth as
one huge garden for Adam and his descendants? Gen. 2:8 tells us
that God planted a garden eastward IN Eden. Therefore the rest of
Eden must have differed noticeably from the garden.
The land of Nod, (to which Cain was sent in Gen. 4:16) must
also have been noticeably different from either the garden of
God, or Eden. Why did they differ? And how? And for what reason?
God must have had a purpose for it.
Gen. 2:15 reveals that one of Adam's most important jobs was
the management of his environment, (dressing and keeping the
garden in which he lived). Yes, the garden of Eden needed careful
and regular management by Adam and his family to maintain its
fullest beauty and productivity. God created the garden dependent
upon human effort to maintain it at maximum potential. This means
that a properly MANAGED section of God's earth must be superior
to any "NATURAL" area!
Could it be that Eden and Nod were inferior to the garden in
beauty and productivity, (inferior, not in created potential, but
in development of that potential)? Was the garden of God to be
the prototype, the model after which the rest of Eden, Nod and
the remainder of the earth were to be fashioned? Did God, by
planting the garden for Adam not act as the first LANDSCAPE-
DEVELOPER and at the same time provide mankind with an example of
a model environment?
Our Creator must have realised that Adam and his descendants
would need many opportunities to develop THEIR God-given
managerial and creative abilities. Would not the task of shaping,
fashioning and developing the whole earth to its fullest
potential be the ideal fulfillment of this human need? That was
"job-enrichment" par excellence!
Gen. 1:28 underlines environmental development as our God-
given occupation. The all-wise Creator commanded man to have
domination over the earth. He told man to "subdue" it. The Hebrew
actually implies -- "conquering". The garden of Eden showed Adam
HOW the earth was to be subdued and conquered. But Adam rebelled
and lost access to God's model environment. Thus he rejected both
the physical example and the spiritual mind to follow it.
The establishment of a physical example of God's right way
is a common tool of our Creator. Is not this a basic purpose of
Ambassador College? Students spend four years in the Ambassador
atmosphere, in constant association with God's standards of
environment, including food, dress, recreation, thought, speaking
etc. After four years in God's "GARDEN OF EDUCATION" they
graduate -- to carry the Ambassador way into all parts of the
earth!
Likewise must it have been intended with the garden of Eden
to "graduate" sons of Adam to carry God's style of environmental
development to all parts of the globe.
Man CAN Improve The "Natural"
Have you ever seen a precious diamond in the rough? Few
people would even recognize a rough diamond, let alone wear one!
Yet the Bible speaks of diamonds and precious stones as items of
supreme beauty. But they do not take on this beauty until AFTER
the hand of the jeweller has cut, polished and set them. The
jeweller however, does not CREATE this potential for beauty, he
merely develops it to the best of his ability.
The same is true of fruit. An apple seedling allowed to
develop without human guidance will become a dense mass of
branches and foliage with fruit that will be small and
unattractive. Regularly pruned and dunged, the result would be
very different. Every leaf of a properly managed tree receives
the maximum amount of sunlight and every piece of fruit receives
a correct balance of soil nutrients. This results in an abundance
of large, tasty fruit -- year after year. Thus a managed fruit
tree is far superior to a NATURAL one.
Poultry are another example. A hen will normally lay about
20 eggs and then stop and hatch them out. However, if the eggs
are gathered each day she will produce some 200 eggs in a year,
and without undue stress. Again this demonstrates how a few
simple actions by man can develop natural capacity to a high
degree.
CATTLE UNDER "NATURAL" CONDITIONS!
Over 600 years ago the owner of a large Scottish estate on
the English border enclosed a portion of his property with a
seven mile long stone wall. By chance, or choice, this wall
surrounded a herd of wild white cattle -- descendants of wild
cattle that reportedly roamed northern England during Caesar's
reign. For 600 years this particular herd has been isolated in
their huge enclosure. They remained outside the domain of man,
mating among themselves and feeding from the natural grasses of
the partially timbered estate.
How do these NATURAL cattle compare with their modern
counterparts, such as the Angus, Hereford and Shorthorn? MOST
UNFAVORABLY! A personal inspection of this famous Chillingham
herd some three years ago was most revealing. These cattle are so
vicious that they will allow no human to touch or handle them.
Even the Ranger was most careful to stay within easy reach of
protective fences! The average cow calves only every third year
instead of annually. The cattle are small, with carcases that
rate extremely low for production of valuable meat. Though tasty,
their meat is not superior to that from a regular grass-fed
beast. Milk production is very poor and though these animals are
extremely hardy, their longevity does not surpass that of other
breeds. The degeneration of these cattle is largely explained by
some of the environmental deterioration that can be seen at
Rothamsted.
The Rothamsted Experiment
Located only ten miles north of Bricket Wood is The
Rothamsted Experimental Station, (the oldest agricultural
research station in the world). A long-term experiment there,
called the "Broadbalk Wilderness", proves how land can rapidly
lose its productivity through lack of human management.
"At the harvest of 1882 a half acre strip of the standing
wheat crop on land unmanured for many years was enclosed by a
fence at the end of the Broadbalk field and was not cultivated.
The wheat was left to compete with weeds, and after only four
years, the few stunted plants found were barely recognizable as
cultivated wheat. Since then, the weeds have completely taken
possession. One-half of the area has been left untouched; it is
now, (88 years later) woodland of mature trees over sixty feet
high, and the leading species are hawthorn, oak, ash and
sycamore. The ground is covered with ivy .... dog's mercury,
violet and blackberry ...
"The other half has been cleared of bushes annually to
open-ground vegetation to develop ...
"In 1957 the grubbed section was divided into two parts. The
northern part ... was left unchanged, and the remainder was mown
several times each growing season and the produce removed with
the idea of encouraging the grasses. This management was
continued for three years ... Starting in March, 1960, sheep were
put in to graze whenever the growth was sufficient. By 1962,
perennial rye-grass and white clover (the two pasture species
that dominate the most productive pastures in England) had
appeared and they are still increasing ..." (Rothamsted Report,
1965)
God Desires Land To Be INHABITED
While informing the Israelites that He would drive out the
Canaanites for them, God added this most enlightening point: "I
will not drive them out from before you in one year; lest the
land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against
you.
"By little and little will I drive them from before you,
until you be increased and inherit the land". (Ex. 23:29,30)
God obviously felt that even Canaanite rule over His
Promised Land was more acceptable than no people there at all!
Had the Israelites remained faithful, He would undoubtedly have
given them further instructions toward developing the land to its
fullest potential -- without polluting the environment.
Unfortunately, such was not to be the case.
Needed -- A New Garden Of Eden
Today, some 3,500 years later, we are still in trouble
because of failure to manage our environment. 1970 was declared
to be European Conservation Year. Throughout the past eleven
months, world leaders, dignitaries, and scientists have held a
continual round of conferences and discussions -- attempting to
define man's proper role in his environment.
Sadly enough, none thought to seek the Bible for guidance.
And equally sad, the year is now over, with the world very little
closer to any lasting solutions.
What is badly needed is a working model of a properly
developed environment based on an understanding of God's Law. If
this was available, mankind might see some light in the deepening
darkness settling over our ecological problems. World leaders
might begin to believe that it IS possible for man to live
prosperously without destroying his surroundings.
European Conservation Year produced no such plan or model!
But Ambassador College is doing so. Bricket Wood and Texas
campuses are already moving in this direction. Years of planning
and work are involved -- but, as our new booklet "Environmental
Research" shows, the initial steps have already been taken.
Through its two-campus Agriculture Programme, Ambassador
College is now laying the foundations for a new prototype Garden
of Eden!
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
January-February 1971, Vol. II,
Nos. 1-2
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
THE STORY OF THE MICRO-ORGANIC CYCLE
At the Conference of 1967 a most exciting paper was
presented from Big Sandy, on restoring soil fertility. It
involved the use of lignite, diatomaceous earth and bacteria
culture. Soon the attention of thousands was focused on this
idea. It even triggered off an Agriculture Programme in Bricket
Wood, whose head was privileged to spend six months on the Texas
campus absorbing the interesting details.
Arriving back in England, all fired-up with new knowledge,
we suddenly found ourselves facing a blank wall! Weeks of frantic
activity revealed that not ONE of these three basic materials was
readily available anywhere near Hertfordshire!!
The nearest lignite was in Devon, and on the Isle of Wight.
The only diatomaceous earth appeared to be either some low-grade
material over in Northern Ireland, or that up in a Westmorland
lake UNDER FORTY FEET OF WATER! (It took research in the
geological section of The British Museum to reveal even these
dismal bits of information.) Then learning that it is illegal to
import soil bacteria came as the final blow!
To set up an agriculture programme like that at Big Sandy,
without any of their three basic materials, posed quite a
problem. In this issue of "Your Living Environment" you are going
to see how we finally achieved the same results by a totally
different method. You will also see just how this unwelcome
situation rubbed our noses in a great deal of NEW understanding.
It was new and exciting to us then. It will STILL be new to most
of you today!
A Sabbatical Year For Bricket Wood
The beginning of the Agriculture Programme in England just
happened to coincide with the seventh year after the founding of
Ambassador College in Bricket Wood, by Mr. Armstrong. So we
STARTED our programme with a SABBATICAL YEAR. Few in this age
have ever observed a year of rest, but imagine our surprise to
find ourselves so involved, in our very FIRST year of operation!
We were happy about the idea, but in some ways it looked
like a rather rough start. This was because we mentally
approached our "STRANGE" observance as most other people do on
their first occasion. We thought it was a kind of PENALTY to be
paid as the price of maintaining soil fertility! HOW WRONG WE
WERE!!
Keeping -- Brings Understanding
Had we not kept God's year of rest it is quite likely that
we would still be without vital understanding on the functioning
of the most important law of food production.
Centred on the return of organic residues to the soil, this
law focuses specifically on the contribution of ruminants. Man
has relied on barnyard manure through many millenniums. Though
often neglected, this source of soil fertility fell into utter
disrepute only after man's end-time introduction of chemical
fertilizers.
There are many treatments to overcome the effects of soil
infertility. Many are NATURAL. Some are totally UNNATURAL! But
finally it became clear to us that the SABBATICAL YEAR depicts
man's ONLY 'permanent' system of agriculture!! We should all
remember that the supply of Chilean nitrate, North African rock
phosphate and German potash is neither inexhaustible or secure.
If God be our Designer, Creator and Sustainer, there must be
another basis for the production of healthy plants. The year of
rest taught us that in the ultimate analysis, man must depend on
a system of soil management in which every square yard is able to
supply its OWN fertility! In other words, when everybody is
managing his soil correctly EVERYONE will NOT be able to dig a
hole for minerals in his neighbour's hillside. And NO-ONE will be
able to run down the road to beg, borrow, or steal his
neighbour's straw or autumn leaves.
Why The Emphasis On Ruminants?
Observing the SABBATICAL YEAR soon indicated that commercial
crop production is totally ruled out at the very time when meat,
milk and wool production is most encouraged. Livestock harvest
plants from the land just like a modern mechanical hay baler, but
there are two differences. The animals return a lot of waste
products to the soil and they also trample many plants underfoot.
If these are the two main differences between the cow and the
baler in relation to soil, the key to the SABBATICAL YEAR must be
the RETURN OF ORGANIC MATTER to the land.
The next key involves an understanding of RUMINANT
DIGESTION, (cattle, sheep and goats, etc.). Unlike man and most
animals, they have FOUR stomachs. The fourth and largest is
called the rumen. In cattle it has a capacity up to sixty
gallons!
The rumen, the second stomach and the third, contain no
digestive juices. Instead, microorganisms multiply into billions
and digest the grass and hay eaten by the animal. That's right --
ruminants don't digest their food intake! They merely gather it
for bacteria who do the breakdown and are then digested
themselves. Thus the ruminant feeds the bacteria and the bacteria
become food for the ruminant.
As these rumen bacteria are fundamental to digestion, we
reasoned that they must also have a very significant effect on
organic matter that is returned to the soil in the form of dung.
But how could a layman determine this for sure? How could we even
know for sure if any passed out in the dung?
Bacteria-charged Manure
A simple test can be made by taking a sample of common
grass. Divide it and put it in two glass containers, then add a
small amount of fresh cow manure to one jar and leave them both
in a warm atmosphere for a few days. One can soon discern, even
with the naked eye that decomposition is much more rapid in the
presence of manure. The difference was so great that the grass in
one container had almost decomposed before the other one had
changed at all.
Microscopic inspection revealed very little life where there
was no decomposition. However at the same power under the
microscope, the 'bugs' were working furiously in their millions
in the 'dung-contaminated' sample. They appeared to be crowding
each other out of the container and the grass was nearly
decomposed!
It then took very little reflection to realize that when
people built a compost heap, the best known ACTIVATOR and the
most commonly used is ANIMAL MANURE -- especially that from
ruminants. An ACTIVATOR is just a primer for bacterial action, so
one might well expect the waste-products of a bacterial digester,
(the ruminant) to be the obvious choice for rapid plant
decomposition.
So much for the manure that goes into manmade compost heaps,
but what about that which is spread around naturally by grazing
animals in a pasture? Surely plant decomposition is just as
important under these conditions! Of course it is. Even more so.
A billion times more decomposition is stimulated every day under
these natural conditions than has taken place in all of the
little compost heaps that man has ever constructed in 6,000
years. (Why do people get so fanatical about compost heaps?) It
was about this time that compost heaps began to fall into
balanced perspective. They have a place, but it just does not
make sense for man to gather and transport all available plant
matter to one point, compost it and then cart it all back again
to spread over the same area! (When man learns to handle his soil
and animals correctly the ORGANIC-FANATIC may not feel he has to
raise such pious hands at the loss of certain city refuse.)
The Role of Animal Residues
Now the picture was becoming clear. Most who have preached
the return of animal manure to the land, did so for its own sake.
In other words its value has always been based on the amount of
actual plant material turned back into the soil. However it
should be better appreciated that a mature beast will return less
than six tons of manure to an acre of average pasture land per
year. Ten to twenty tons is more like the dressing needed to have
a worthwhile effect.
This surely puts animal manure in a different perspective!
And yet the Sabbatical Year shows what great stress God places on
the RETURN OF MANURE FROM RUMINANTS TO THE SOIL. We therefore
submit that the MOST important role of farmyard manure is to
constantly RE-INOCULATE THE SOIL WITH MICRO-ORGANISMS! Its value
as humus however, is no way diminished. But on the other hand,
readers will appreciate that God would NOT give man a soil system
lacking self-replenishing sources of bacteria.
After all -- without microbial life, SOIL is nothing! And
without soil, there is NO LIFE of any kind! MANURE IS FIRST, A
NATURAL MEDIUM FOR RETURNING SPECIAL 'BUGS' TO THE SOIL!! When we
came to understand this concept (2 1/2 years ago), its pure
simplicity of operation and efficiency was just overwhelming!
(The rumen may make them more SPECIAL than we realise!)
Plant Bacteria
Thinking our way backwards, the next step towards further
understanding was taken by mentally going back into the rumen.
There, amidst all that churning bacteria and fermentation one had
to contemplate the possibility of disaster. No greater
catastrophe could happen to a RUMEN than ingesting a substance
that would kill ALL of its MICROBIAL content!
Everything would come to a disastrous halt! And the animal
would quickly die! You may rightly say this would be an uncommon
occurrence, but severe fluctuations could occur quite often. And
remember that billions of organisms are constantly passing into
other stomachs to be digested. Not to mention those we have just
discussed that find themselves back in the soil via animal
manure. So there is a natural and continuous depletion. Unless
this is counterbalanced, disaster would quickly overtake even the
healthiest ruminant!
It would therefore be unreasonable to assume that there is
not a constant replenishing source of rumen bacteria, to guard
against such a possibility. Why, of course! The TWO GLASS JARS
mentioned earlier!! Even the grass sample without ANY dung added,
was decomposing, so WHERE did the microbes come from?
A little microscope work will very clearly show that plant
leaves and stalks carry their OWN population of tiny organisms.
That means that every time a cow or a sheep or a goat swallows a
mouthful of grass, their rumen is re-inoculated with 'bugs'.
Anyone knows that the air around us is charged with
bacteria. We breathe them in all the time, BUT it is NOT
generally realised that PLANT BACTERIA are in a direct film-like
contact with the leaf surface. Their association is such that
they are not even washed off by heavy rain, so this filmy
environment makes them quite distinct from atmospheric bacteria.
Once again we are confronted with a beautifully designed and
simple process. Such a commonplace thing should not be new to us.
Then we might reflect on this interesting question: are the
changing leaves of autumn anything more than the obvious onset of
DECOMPOSITION by PLANT BACTERIA? You have seen this process EVERY
year of your life, but have you ever thought of this meaning
before? (What a fulfillment of Rom. 1:20!)
Soil Bacteria
If all plants are covered with a thin film of bacteria, it
is only logical to ask -- do these microbes originate in the
atmosphere, or in the soil? Our enquiries (shown in more detail
at the end of this "Research News") indicate that they come from
the SOIL!
Some even come from the very SEED that produced the plant.
Believe it or not, ALL healthy seeds are covered with bacteria.
The conditions that produce germination, (moisture and heat) also
cause the bacteria to multiply and cover the leaves of the plant
as it grows out from the soil. Any farmer experienced in planting
legumes will know the value of bacteria on seeds. (Most seed
companies issue special bacteria cultures with their various
legume seeds to inoculate the plant roots. This is done as a
precaution against these bacteria being absent in the soil. They
often are absent in soil environments that have been abused and
mismanaged.)
What you have been given is a series of very interesting
BITS of information, as we came to understand them here in
Bricket Wood two and a half years ago. They probably sound very
simple and their common connection has been partially established
in the telling of this story. But be assured -- neither their
simplicity nor their connection was obvious at the BEGINNING of
this research! Coming to this understanding was a LONG, SLOW
PROCESS! As always, when one comes to understand something for
the first time you look back and think how obvious it should have
been from the very beginning.
You have guessed it by now -- in this story we have worked
our way through a complete FIVE-STAGE CYCLE:
1. Bacteria from the SOIL and from SEEDS in the soil, cover
the surface of PLANTS as they grow up out of the ground.
2. ANIMALS take in plant matter for their continuing food
needs and the associated PLANT and SOIL bacteria repeatedly
re-inoculate the rumen.
3. Inside the RUMEN, bacteria multiply fantastically as they
decompose the plant matter. They then pass down the alimentary
tract and provide the bacterial PROTEIN needs of the animal.
4. RUMEN bacteria that escape digestion are returned to the
pasture in farmyard MANURE.
5. DUNG bacteria multiply as they decompose the organic
material in which they find themselves and re-enter the SOIL,
along with the humus they have created. And so the whole cycle is
repeated over and over. That's why WE named it: M.O.C. or
Micro-organic Cycle.
Only NOW can we begin to understand the full significance of
MIXED farming and why LIVESTOCK are the key to any permanent
system of agriculture. The M.O.C. can be broken at any point, but
this is extremely unlikely so long as the soil has a REGULAR (but
not necessarily permanent) association with ruminants.
(NOTE: To view the chart titled "The Micro-Organic Cycle",
see the file 710104.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)
Confirmation from Other Sources
Coming to these conclusions and such understanding was a
gigantic break-through. It was this foundation of fundamental
knowledge that enabled us to proceed with the Bricket Wood
Agriculture Programme, in spite of the total absence of the three
basic materials used in Big Sandy.
What we now call "The Micro-organic Cycle" was understood
ONLY because we were shown the specific importance of RUMINANTS
in relation to SOIL FERTILITY. And we focused in on the role of
ruminants ONLY because our programme started out observing a
SABBATICAL YEAR! Conversely, understanding the vital part played
by the ruminant in soil fertility, meant that we also understood
the SABBATICAL YEAR better than EVER before!
As soon as this point in our research was reached there was
a great sense of urgency to press on and CONFIRM our new beliefs
and opinions. This could have been done by long and costly
research, but we possessed neither the TECHNIQUE, the EQUIPMENT
nor the MONEY. The only other way open to us was to dig into the
writings of other researchers.
At first this did not seem like a very attractive
proposition. But limited success came quickly and we plunged
deeply into previously unknown material with mounting excitement.
Those which follow are brief sample excerpts that sent us wild
with delight. They do not appear necessarily in the order in
which they were located:
As the Bible triggered it all, it should therefore come
first -- God's Word tells us that:
"... the seventh year shall be ... a sabbath for the
Lord: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.
"... And the sabbath of the land shall be meat for ...
thy cattle and for the beast that are in thy land ... " (Lev.
25:4,6 & 7).
"... These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all
the beasts that are on the earth.
"Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven footed and
cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat." (Lev.
11:2-3).
"Wherefore ye shall do my statutes, and keep my
judgments, and do them;
"... And the land shall yield her fruit, and ye shall
eat your fill, and dwell therein in safety" (Lev. 25:18-19).
Let us now however, make a complete circuit of the M.O.C.
through quotes from the works of famous scientists:
How Many Microbes in Soil?
"... it is clear that big variations often occur in the
soil population between areas which are separated by only 20-50
cm.
"... The bacterial numbers vary most, soils with a pH
greater than 6.0 usually have counts by dilution methods of ten
million or more. In soil with a low pH, however, the numbers may
be very much less and in acid podzols the count may be less than
a million per gram." ("Micro-Organisms In The Soil", by Alan
Burges, p.66-67.)
Two interesting side comments here -- FIRST, it is a well
known fact that organic matter exercises a high buffering
capacity in soil AGAINST the action of acid substances. SECONDLY,
it is widely accepted that artificial fertilizers have a general
tendency to LOWER soil pH.
It thus becomes obvious, in the light of the above quote,
just what man can expect both when he fails to return ORGANIC
MATTER to the soil and when he substitutes regular applications
of CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS. SOIL MICROBE POPULATIONS WILL DECREASE.
Bacteria On Seeds
"Seeds have on their surface, (and partly also inside)
numerous micro-organisms and ... seed-born bacteria can pass onto
the roots (Rempe, 1951)." ("Ecology of Soil Bacteria", p. 386.)
Plant Bacteria
"Various organisms are growing in the slimy bacterial layer
that is characteristic of the epidermis of green plants"
("Textbook of Agricultural Bacteriology", p. 150).
"... in a germ-free environment ... the particular bacteria
attached to the seed multiply rapidly and cover the whole plant
with an almost continuous thin slimy layer of bacteria. The slime
not only prevents them being washed off by heavy rains, but also
helps to preserve a sufficient amount of moisture even during
periods of drought. Besides dew, small amounts of sap excreted by
the plants are available to the bacteria.
"... all growing plants are covered by an almost continuous
layer of bacteria specifically adapted to their habitat" (ibid.
p. 149).
"Under natural conditions, plants such as grasses have
nothing comparable to leaf-fall in the way that a deciduous tree
such as oak or beech has; instead, the leaf tissue and stem dies
in situ and under damp conditions a major part of the
decomposition occurs while the tissue is still attached to the
plant. Webster (1956, 1957) has shown that ... primary
saprophytes ... advance up the stem as the new leaves unfold, and
different saprophytic fungi are associated with different nodes.
Comparable results were obtained by Frankland, (1966)". ("Ecology
of Soil Bacteria", p. 483).
Hay Bacteria
"When grass is made into hay, part of the bacteria will die,
but slime production and spore formation enable many of them to
remain alive although in a dormant state.
"... Unfavorable weather, however, stimulates unavoidably
the growth of bacteria and molds and their destructive activities
become sometimes very marked especially when clover or alfalfa is
made into hay.
"... The so-called hay bacillus can be easily brought to
good development if hay is placed in water and the mixture boiled
for a few minutes. After a few days the liquid is covered with a
whitish film characteristic of these organisms" (ibid. p. 152,
153).
Now we see that even HAY retains bacteria on it! Notice also
the way in which these tests confirm our results in the
previously mentioned "GLASS CONTAINERS".
Furthermore it is interesting to note from the above quotes
that MOISTURE and WARMTH are precisely the conditions the rumen
provides when plants and accompanying microbes are ingested! If
the presence of legumes stimulates bacterial decomposition
OUTSIDE the rumen, they would surely aid animal digestion on the
INSIDE. (Today animal feeds have an acute LACK of legumes, yet
legumes are our BEST source of high quality vegetable protein.
Other related effects are that legumes don't grow well on poor
soils and neither do livestock!)
Rumen Bacteria
"In herbivorous animals such as cattle and sheep, the
compound stomach appears to be ... a compartment in the
alimentary canal where fibrous foods may be held to undergo a
soaking and 'fermentation' before passing on through the canal.
The rumen, or first compartment, is very large in the adult
animal and may hold up to 50 or 60 gallons of soft food material.
"... The rumen, reticulum and omasum are non-glandular
and thus do not produce acid or digestive juices. Because
proteolytic enzymes and hydrochloric acid are absent, they do,
however, provide excellent compartments for the growth of many
types of micro-organisms -- both bacteria and protozoa -- that
are taken in together with the food.
"... Thus the ruminant is provided with a variety of
proteins derived from the bodies of micro-organisms. On passing
into the true stomach and into the intestines, these organisms --
which have multiplied in the rumen, recticulum and omasum -- are
digested, and their bodies serve as a source of food protein.
Several of the B vitamins are also synthesized in the rumen."
("Introduction to Livestock Production", by H. H. Cole, pp
457-458.)
Manure Bacteria
"The solid excrements of animals are made up of partly
decomposed food residues and of the bacteria that cause their
decomposition ... calculated on the basis of fresh weight the
number of living cells would approximate 20,000 to 40,000
millions per gram." ("Textbook of Agricultural Bacteriology",
p.222.)
"Regular additions of a source of decomposable organic
matter, such as farmyard manure [added to soil] appears to
increase ... the [microbial] ... population.
"An example of this effect is given by the comparison
of the micro flora on the unmannered plot on the Broadbalk Field
at Rothamsted with the adjacent plot which has received 14 tons
per acre of farmyard manure in most years since 1843 ... manure
has doubled the humus content of the soil and almost doubled the
total cell count; however, the number of protozoa has increased
fivefold," ("Ecology of Soil Bacteria", Liverpool University
Press, pp.78-79.)
Bacterial Research -- Complicated!
"... The bacterial cell as a biological unit is
wonderfully equipped to cope with the continuously changing
environment" (ibid. pp.370-372.)
"One of the things that emerges ... is that measuring
the activity of micro-organisms is a very complicated problem.
The closer you come to a soil system, the more complicated it
becomes. This is not a new idea, but it is an idea that is worth
recalling. It is good for the soul, good for the data and good
for the interpretation of that data.
"The fact that the bacterial cell generally produces
more vitamins than needed for its own metabolism and excretes the
excess into its environment is of considerable ecological
importance. This holds not only for the soil ecosystem ... "
("Ecology of Soil Bacteria", p.123).
Bacteria Can Acquire Characteristics
"... If one considers the period for which animals and
plants have existed on this planet and the great numbers of
disease-producing microbes that must have thus gained entrance
into the soil, one can only wonder that the soil harbors so few
bacteria capable of causing infectious diseases in man and
animals" ("Hylife With The Microbes", by Selman Waksman, p.19).
Professor Waksman may well have done much more than "WONDER"
about this fact! If just changing the ENVIRONMENT turns a
PATHOGEN into a NON-PATHOGEN, it would seem that man has been
ignoring a very obvious solution to many problems. Do you
comprehend the implications of this simple statement? If such an
idea ever became popular, the ramifications for our medical and
veterinary professions could be quite shattering, not to mention
the 'LEGITIMATE' drug industry!
Here is another quote from a different source that could
also stir unusual thoughts in the minds of some readers:
"Grass, hay and straw contain almost regularly ...
bacilli related to B. tuberculosis. Some of them have been
explicitly named 'grass bacilli' or 'timothy bacilli'. When found
in milk, butter and cheese, they have been repeatedly mistaken
for true tubercle bacilli. In their typical form they are not
pathogenic for men, but their virulence can be increased and
their general character may be so changed experimentally that
they assume practically all the features of the tubercle
bacillus" ("Textbook of Agricultural Bacteriology", pp. 151-152).
Is this author making the same point as Waksman, only in
reverse? It would certainly appear so! We quite understand that
some of these quotations are pretty radical stuff and not easy to
accept, especially by those who have been educated to classify
bacteria as either GOOD or BAD. (Anyway, perhaps we will come to
see that the whole system of bacterial classification needs to be
thrown into the melting-pot.)
Consider the following quote on species definition -- it is
not taken from some obscure little axe-grinding tract, but rather
from an expensive full report on the 1967 international symposium
of the world's leading bacteriologists:
"Dr. Gordon ... defined species in a way which
horrified me a little. It really boiled down to this -- 'A
species is what a competent taxonomist says is a species, i.e.
that the newly isolated strains, the old one in the culture
collection and any old thing we think is this same organism
constitutes a species ... Those of you who know me, know that I
do not believe in species" (Dr. S. T. Cowan, National Public
Health Laboratories, Colindale. "Ecology of Soil Bacteria", pp.
370-372).
The fore-going quotes are just a selection from the material
we now have. It will be seen how each one supports a part of the
whole (which we named "The Micro-organic Cycle"). All we did was
make a mental connection between the individual parts. Scientific
specialists had worked on each one, but had not assembled them as
a complete and meaningful picture!
Soil, plant and rumen bacteriologists work in totally
different knowledge compartments and evidence indicates that they
have little contact. That rare specialist who does step outside
his own field is still at a disadvantage. Why? Well for one
reason, he knows NOTHING of the SABBATICAL YEAR! Therefore he
will not understand HOW, or WHY ruminants are the keystone
upholding fertility in the soil, for all mankind!
It is now three YEARS since we first understood and named
the M.O.C., but our knowledge is still increasing on this
subject, e.g. it is less than three MONTHS since our latest
additional knowledge was added on the role of dung pats in seed
production and pasture management (see "Plant Breeding -- God's
Way" in Vol. I No. 11). These new facts dovetail completely with
all our earlier understanding on the inseparable tie-up between
the SABBATICAL YEAR, LIVESTOCK, BACTERIA and SOIL FERTILITY.
You can now see how circumstances have worked out the
initial difficulties facing the Bricket Wood Agriculture
Programme and at the same time uncovered fantastic new knowledge!
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
March 1971, Vol. II, No 3
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
THE ROAD TO MOROCCO 1971!
by Colin Sutcliffe
Since the days of Joshua, (1400 BC) people have been
arriving in North Africa -- some by sea, some walked and many
RAN, hotly pursued from the east by their enemies. Bob Hope and
Bing Crosby came by camel! But for us it was the jet-age and Air
Maroc!! A contradiction no doubt, in a land of the camel, the
donkey and the mule, but this was just the first of many
contradictions.
For example, a professor of history and a lecturer in
agronomy would seem to have little in common, especially in this
environment as we, together with our wives (just one each)
stepped out of our Caravelle onto the edge of the Sahara. Dr.
Martin's purpose was to study at first-hand the people and
history of North Africa. Mine was to learn about its agriculture
and ecology -- past and present. And we ended up learning how
closely connected they are.
Thickly-populated Europe, with its most 'advanced'
civilization in all history, has this sprawling gigantic
vacant-lot at its front door. In a world bursting with
over-population, North Africa is one of the largest
under-populated areas on earth. It is in one of the two most
favoured climatic zones, yet paradoxically CLIMATE has driven out
all but its last human remnants! Here's what we found.
CASABLANCA
Two thousand miles of touring in Morocco lay ahead of us and
here we were at Casablanca Airport. Its topography was like any
airport, but on the bus ride into the city it soon became
apparent that we were on a vast, flat, brown coastal plain.
Darkness overtook us before we reached the city named for its
white houses. But not before we got a glimpse of the snow-covered
Atlas mountains 100 miles away to the south. Even at that
distance they were high enough above the flat horizon to impress
the traveler setting foot for the first time on the great
continent of Africa.
Here we were on the edge of a continent so large that one
may travel 4,000 miles overland before reaching the East Coast
and the Indian Ocean! And 5,000 miles to far-off Cape Town! You
soon realized that it was not just the flatness of this land that
gave one a sense of spaciousness, but its lack of vegetation.
Then suddenly in the fading light we sighted our first tree!
A tree of Africa? No! That corner of Africa is almost without
trees. This sizeable eucalypt was the first of many we were to
see that have been transported from the other hemisphere in a
valiant attempt to escape the penalties of man's past. Though
millions have been planted (and thousands have died), they are
not a drop in the bucket.
Many mistakenly think that trees are the solution to the
problems of North Africa. Some trees, yes, as shelter belts, but
top-cover at GROUND-LEVEL is what is needed and it will never be
achieved unless every goat is either slaughtered or put on a
lead. Camels, donkeys, cattle and sheep must also be controlled
by effective grazing management.
TO MARRAKECH
From Casablanca we headed south across that wide and
featureless, but fertile coastal plain to Marrakech, at the foot
of the Atlas mountains. The plain is so flat and by contrast the
Atlas are so high and magnificent, that they form an almost
unreal snow-covered backdrop to the city. No wonder Churchill was
fascinated by this rare oasis/alpine combination. Its huge
date-bearing palms stand right in the shadow of the formidable,
thirty-foot high, square, castellated, red mud walls!
Inside, Marrakech is a curious combination. French-inspired
boulevards are fringed on either side by rows of fruit-laden
orange trees growing right out of the pavement. Then comes the
dark, narrow, winding streets filled with a sea of black faces,
dogs and swirling dust. Add to that one naked and highly
vulnerable little Combi-van trying to nudge a path through this
reluctantly writhing mass of jalahbahed (Arab dress) humanity.
(NOTE: To view a map titled "North Africa", see the file
710308.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)
A WESTERN-TYPE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE
On the way back we had called at an Agricultural College
where we conversed (by interpreter) with the Director and a
number of his assistants, took some photos and hurriedly observed
some of their outstanding successes.
All credit for Moroccan attempts at imitating Western
agriculture must go to the French. The irrigated results would be
a spectacular success in any environment, but they are doubly-so
in this great, wide, brown land. Lush Israeli-like citrus groves
are surrounded by high protective walls of green cypress and
eucalyptus. The ring of defence against the hot desert winds is
completed by a wide row of dead African box thorn cuttings piled
two to three feet high around the perimeter. This material looks
and acts like a barbed-wire military entanglement. Its deadly
two-inch long thorns exclude both man and beast, as well as the
sand-blasting effects of the winds at ground level.
Irrigation, mechanical equipment, artificial fertilizers,
chemical sprays and 'improved' imported plant species make this
all too rare and impressive show possible. North Africa is
millions of acres and millions of people. The former in dire need
of development, the latter in crying need of right education.
Throughout the entire trip we endured the painful and
saddening experience of watching hundreds of miles of these
people resigned to the borderline of poverty and beggary.
Wherever we looked they could be seen moving slowly across our
barren horizon, seemingly numbed like a drought-stricken dumb
animal. One wondered if generations of unequal struggle against a
slowly deteriorating environment had not produced this dull kind
of resignation.
Even more distressing was the thought that the only ray of
hope being held out to these poor people is the exported mistakes
of THE WEST! We stumble blindly under the intoxication of science
and technology from one crisis to the next. And yet even while
the WEST is in the very act of plunging over the cliff of
environmental destruction, we glibly wave the green light for
3,000 million souls to follow us!!
CROSSING THE HIGH ATLAS!
From Marrakech we soon left the barren yet fertile red plain
behind us and headed up into the snow of the High Atlas towering
13,000 feet above us! As we kept climbing toward the 6,500 foot
"Tizi n test" pass, the breath-taking beauty of the scenery and
the hazards of the route increased in equal proportions. Car
access to the south through the snow-covered mountains is
possible through two passes. Both of these had been closed until
the morning of our departure from Marrakech by the same blizzards
that trapped 10,000 motorists on the roads of southern France
four days earlier.
THE SOUS VALLEY AND AGADIR
Our journey on to Agadir (of earthquake fame some 10 years
ago) was through rock-strewn desolation and land almost devoid of
vegetation. However, as throughout our whole trip, we were seldom
out of sight of some lonely Arab figure perched high on the
mountain or somewhere out across the distant plain with his
donkey and little flock. The general rule seemed to be a
confusing mixture of 20 black goats and 10 shaggy little sheep
that were either black, white or brownspotted.
Both kinds of animals appear to nibble their way across the
barren desert. When they reach a scrubby thorn-laden argon tree
the sheep stand on their hind legs and trim its lower branches.
At the same time the goats perform the seemingly impossible
circus-like task of climbing the trees if they are even slightly
bent in any direction. To claim that we saw as many as seven
black goats eating their way out onto the thin branches of one
tree, may be too much for the reader. We did not confine
ourselves to Moroccan underground water. The local wine is very
pleasant, but we still have photographic evidence of these
flinty-hard, cloven-footed little beasts perched in the argon
branches as we looked out over the great valley of the Sous.
Though Morocco is now barren and desert, we were surprised
at our own ignorance of the fact that it is by no means just
camels and moving sand! On the contrary, most of the land we saw
has enormous agricultural potential -- potential that could be
partially fulfilled if the existing goat population were
transformed -- perhaps into RAINDROPS! Millions of now desolate
acres are limestone or volcanic in origin. And either of these
soils will arouse the keen interest of an agriculturalist,
regardless of where they are found around the world.
PEOPLE ARE FUNNY!
It was sowing time, yet the inactivity of the vast majority
of Moroccan farmers was puzzling, to say the least! Their tiny
plots of land are designated only by an occasional little pile of
stones. The pattern of their single furrow ploughs is at least
2,000 years old and they harness every odd combination of cow,
donkey, camel, horse and mule. A smart young fellow could dig up
more soil in a day with the toe of his boot than these rare
combinations do.
Most amazing is the fact that these people appear to go out
for only a haphazard scratch around in one corner of their little
plot. Why? The Westerner would be out there rushing around
cultivating every square inch, plus some of his neighbour's if he
could get his hands on it! The answer comes slowly and as a great
shock to the Western mind. These people have different standards
to us. If they need only two bags of grain -- why cultivate and
sow an area that is going to produce ten? To them it just means
more work, harvesting!
Keeping ahead of the Joneses causes most of us to rush
around in circles getting ulcers through grasping at every
material possession we can lay our hands on. If he could see the
Western farmer, no doubt the North African would think that we
are crazy. The truth is that both approaches are wrong, but it is
also interesting to note that the North African is not destroying
his environment as fast as we are in the West!
GOULIMENE AND FOUME EL HASSANE
Leaving the coast, we pushed on south over the lower end of
the Anti Atlas to Goulimene which is on an even flatter and more
desolate fertile plain than Agadir. From here we made a desperate
spring-busting, back-jerking sortie out into the real desert. You
may think that is what you have been reading about and we too
thought that was what we had been seeing. That was until we
struck out for the remote military outpost of Foume el Hassane.
Still very little sand, but gigantic gibber plains with fantastic
3,000 foot sedimentary escarpments towering overhead. As the
plume of dust trailed out behind us for 20 miles at a stretch, we
must have looked like a tiny lonely bug crossing the surface of
the moon.
Foume el Hassane is mostly a small military outpost near the
border of the Spanish Sahara. Dr. Martin 'callously' dragged us
out into this cruel wilderness where it rains at least once every
five years. These dying oases are the last vestiges of human
occupation, clinging by their finger nails, through blinding
sandstorms and terrible searing heat. But we found elephants,
cattle, rhinos and many other animals scattered across the
hillsides! Who knows how long they had been there? But, there
they were, deeply etched into the shimmering rocks by some
unknown artist. Presumably he had not come all the way from Ghana
or the Congo to record his ecological experiences in the middle
of this desolation! In those arid surroundings we concluded along
with many others before us, that we were viewing environmental
destruction on the grand scale. The ecological gap between the
implied environment of the rock engraver and today was mentally
unbridgeable!
FIGHTING THE LOCUSTS!
Back in Agadir we inspected the largest Locust Control
Centre in the world. True, the COMPETITION in locust control
centres is neither numerous nor very strong, but the rows and
rows of trucks and Landrovers and great heavy tankers were
evidence that this was a gigantic operation. Between the tankers
and chemical storage vats the place looked like a mini-refinery!
The spare parts in the vehicle maintenance depot alone are worth
£200,000!
The Director was kind enough to give us an interview without
any appointment and gave us a graphic, map-illustrated
description of their work. It is now done largely by air and
ranges over a desert of 3,000,000 square miles! Every few years
enormous clouds of locusts sweep in from the desert, East Africa
or Arabia and they are attacked from the ground and from the air
with poisonous chemicals. Coping with the Sahara alone means an
area as big as America!
Though expected in 1970 they did not come and experts are
now puzzled as they sit waiting and planning and probing and
patrolling. They are uncertain about the next attack, but they
are ready. To keep their hand in, they last year slaughtered two
million olive-eating starlings and ten million grain-eating
sparrows that invaded Morocco from Europe! Parathion is used on
the birds and DDT/BHC on the locusts.
UP THE SOUS AND OVER THE ANTI ATLAS
We then travelled back up the Sous valley to Taroundant
where we spent the night in a Pasha's palace that had been
converted into a hotel. It gave us an idea of the opulence which
has surrounded a tiny minority. The grandeur was made even more
impressive because it so far outranked the utter simplicity of
everything else. We drove day after day seeing only clusters of
simple red mud houses, children and palm trees, in otherwise
total desolation. Generally these oases were located at frequent
intervals along sizeable dry river-beds. The Massa, the Sous and
the Draa were exceptions -- this was the cool season and they
were running strongly.
From Taroundant we took the road to Ouarzazate, (pronounced
wuzazzat) which meant that we crossed over the Anti Atlas near
their junction with the High Atlas. For miles we were on a 5,000
foot barren plateau. On this section we had snow-covered
mountains on both sides -- to the south some were 7,000 feet high
and to the north they rose to above 13,000 feet!
WILY MOUNTAIN MEN
At the top of the pass we came upon two Berber shepherds, a
little boy, the usual herd of sheep and goats, plus two mules
towing a reluctant, skinny, pot-bellied jersey calf! The boy was
driving the flock, the men were riding the mules and the calf
looked as though he was having his neck stretched. We talked at
length to one of the men (going through both interpreters every
time). Cattle in North Africa are at a terrible nutritional
disadvantage because of competition from sheep and goats.
Everywhere the cattle looked like drought-stricken jerseys, but
my senses were really jolted when told that this 'thin and weedy
beast' was not a CALF at all. By his size he should have been
only 5 months old, one might have guessed 20 months because of
obvious severe malnutrition. But he was in fact THREE YEARS old!!
Value? We thought about £5, but the owner insisted it was
£25! However, if you could see the terrain over which they had
travelled for days before we met them on this high mountain pass,
you might conclude that he had earned this amount twice over!
Above the snow line looked like the Himalayas and below it (where
we were), resembled Mount Sinai!!
All food for the mules and the 'calf' was stuffed into two
double-sided woven saddle pouches. It was mostly pulverized
barley straw plus a few handfuls of first quality legume hay. Our
inquisitive chance inspection of these feed pouches drove an
important point home very forcibly. Here was one of the most
backward peasants in the world. And he was squeezing a living out
of one of its most inhospitable environments. His 'western'
counterparts are by comparison environmental millionaires, but
one look into those pouches showed that he understood MORE than
they do about protein quality in animal feeding!! And equally
important -- he was putting his understanding into practice.
We tested his knowledge even further by asking in a serious
manner how old his mule would be when it reproduced. He smiled
and shot back an instant reply to the interpreter that if this
beast ever reproduced itself, IT WOULD BE THE END OF THE WORLD!
Then we all laughed together, not at the fact that these hybrids
are against God's law, but because we understood each other very
well!
BACK OVER THE HIGH ATLAS
After crossing the High Atlas we then had to climb the
Middle Atlas range. From here to the ancient city of Fez we
passed through some of the richest volcanic soil you would ever
hope to see. Old volcanic craters were everywhere and many
'recent' lava flows. We passed through a snowfield where Dr.
Martin got photos of people ski-ing down the outside of one of
these volcanic craters.
In this area many of the mountain slopes are covered by
natural forests of beautiful Atlas cedars. Then the run down into
Fez, Meknes, Rabat and back to Casablanca was across a fertile
plain, enjoying a higher rainfall than the land in the south.
BENI MELLAL ORANGE GROVES
Once back in Casablanca, we drove to the productive Beni
Mellal district. There we enjoyed the fine hospitality of Nearjim
Said on his 250 acre citrus grove. This was one of his two farms
and its appearance told us that this very friendly and humble man
must be among the top agriculturalists in North Africa. As an
important grower's representative on the Moroccan Orange Export
Authority he set a fine example. His beautiful 15-foot-high trees
were loaded with fruit and well manured from the animals of
farmers with less understanding. Disease is not a problem on this
farm and he hasn't sprayed in four years.
On the way back to the coast we called at Kouribga where we
inspected a small part of Morocco's biggest industry -- rock
phosphate. Output has skyrocketed the nation into first place as
a world exporter of this fertilizer. Between 1967 and 1970
production has jumped from 3 million tons to more than 10
million!
DRASTIC CHANGES IN NORTH AFRICA
North Africa is a huge chunk of misused real estate that has
played a much more important role in history than most people
realise. Less than 3,000 years ago it must have looked like the
garden in Eden. Its soil and climate must have been a veritable
paradise! What happened? Did a climate change destroy the
vegetation or did the disappearance of vegetation produce the
climate change, or did MAN destroy the vegetation, thereby
bringing on the climate change himself? Who knows?
Three things we DO know! Now that the vegetation is gone,
the climate makes natural plant restoration difficult! Secondly,
the harshness of the climate enables sheep and goats to have a
destructive power disproportionate to their numbers! And thirdly
we know from many historical references and rock carvings that
much of North Africa once had a vastly different eco-system!
The following quotes attest to this: " ... The whole country
from Cartage [modern Tunis] to the Pillars [Gibraltar] is full of
wild beasts, as is also the whole of the interior of Libia"
(Strabo Bk. 2.5.33 c. 64 - 22 BC).
"Sallee [near Rabat] ... is beset by herds of elephants ...
Mt. Atlas ... the side facing towards the coast ...is shaded by
dense woods and watered by gushing springs, on the side facing
Africa ... fruits of all kinds spring up of their own accord with
such luxuriance that pleasure never lacks satisfaction. (Extracts
from Pliny, Bk.V. 5-7 c. 23 - 79 AD).
"Among the cultivated plants are hard high protein wheat ...
The gardens yield almost all the species of pulse known in Europe
Oats grow spontaneously ... " (Universal Geography, Bk.LXIV.
1823).
Yes, we found North Africa, including Algeria and Tunisia to
be a very different place today, but what enormous potential! In
the future, when the great deserts bloom again, none will do so
more rapidly, or more effectively than the massive sub-continent
of Northern Africa. Once again it will be enormously productive!
Only then will generations of misery, resulting from law-breaking
and destruction give way to millions of HEALTHY, JOYFUL families,
living in ABUNDANCE!
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
April 1971, Vol. II, No. 4
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
IS THIS THE ORCHARD OF THE FUTURE?
"Forty-eight thousand apple trees to the acre is about
as far removed from the traditional image of the English orchard
as it is possible to imagine.
"That countryside showpiece of mature trees groaning
with the yellow, red and green fruits in autumn and a mass of
blossom in the spring is being given a KNOCKOUT blow by the
orcharding experts of Britain and THE WORLD'S LARGEST cider
manufacturers.
"In their concept of the orchard of the future, the
nearest parallel will be the rows of tomato plants of the big
growers.
"Apple trees will be A SINGLE YARD-HIGH STEM, with
growth artificially inhibited and carrying a few pounds of apples
close to the stem. Planted perhaps A FOOT OR TWO APART they will
not need the traditional shaking to collect the fruit.
"A machine will crop the rows, cutting the lot, stem
and all, a few inches from the ground and collect the apples as
casually as the pea-picking machines for the frozen food
factories.
"At the experimental orchards of H. P. Bulmer Ltd.,
just a mile outside Hereford, a section is planted at the 48,000
trees to the acre density. It compares dramatically with acres
planted at the present 'intensive' level of 600 to the acre."
(Daily Telegraph, 6/11/70)
Does this fit your concept of the orchard of the future?
Will the tree that provides the apple-a-day for your children
twenty years from now be only a single stem, three feet high?
Man's desire to manipulate the environment to his own greedy ends
knows no limit.
The Bricket Wood Agriculture and Environmental Research
Programme recently launched its own experiment in fruit
production. And as you might have guessed, our approach is the
exact opposite to that described above. This edition of "Your
Living Environment" outlines our experiment for the reader. It
will also explain WHY our approach differs so radically, both
from that which you have seen quoted from "The Daily Telegraph"
and that of the average orchard.
A Step Towards The Ideal System
Our Research Programme has been given the task of providing
answers, both on paper and in practice, to the world's
food-production problems. After four years of study, we feel that
the system of the future is beginning to take shape, in our minds
and now on the campus here in England.
Understanding the full implications of the land sabbath law
(as mentioned in detail in an earlier edition of this "Research
News") appears to be the vital key.
Work in fruit production at Bricket Wood is yet another
exciting experimental step towards a model-farm environment for
"The World Tomorrow".
What is that ideal model? Basically it consists of small
family farms, producing a diversified managed abundance!! This is
neither as idealistic or uneconomic as you might imagine. Even
today a few tiny communities in central Switzerland parallel this
ideal.
The average farm in these Swiss communities is about 20
acres. On this small area, the family manages to produce an
amazing amount of beef, milk, cheese, butter, eggs, poultry,
vegetables, honey, a wide range of fruit and perhaps some wool as
well.
Since the unit is small and family operated, little need
exists for sophisticated machinery. Every inch of soil is well
utilized. Fence-rows, for example, which in England would
normally be allowed to run to weeds, produce a surfeit of
soft-fruit and perennial vegetables. Apple and pear trees in the
cattle pastures provide fruit, plus shade and shelter for the
cattle. And the cattle, in turn, provide fertilizer for next
year's crops.
Forest trees, such as oak and beech, line the borders and
fill the waste corners, providing fuel and lumber. Nothing is
left to chance. Every square foot of soil and every plant has its
purpose and a place in the overall system. The entire unit exudes
an air of beauty, lushness and abundance.
We feel that Bricket Wood's new experiment in fruit
production is a major step forward. And it emulates many of the
Swiss good points.
The Ambassador Way
Did you notice in the opening quote that "ARTIFICIAL GROWTH
INHIBITORS" are being used to produce a single-stemmed tree only
three feet tall? This typifies so much of what man chooses to
label SCIENTIFIC "PROGRESS". For twenty-five years, commercial
and private growers have used elaborate grafting systems and
special dwarfing root stocks to produce ever smaller trees.
It is not exaggerating to say that the average apple tree
now being planted will seldom grow to more than ten feet. These
are known as "dwarfs" among orchardists and the first branch may
start only two feet from the ground. Not quite like the
"standard" fruit trees that were common even a decade or two ago,
are they? And not like the trees recently planted at Ambassador
College.
Yes, we are taking steps in the OPPOSITE direction to this
trend toward "dwarfism"! To ensure that our trees will be TALL
and WIDE, we have used "standards" and a method of training that
allows the trees to attain their maximum size (either on their
own root stock, or if not available, on a root stock as near the
parent tree-type as possible). These trees have since been
carefully pruned so that the lowest branches will still be high
enough to escape the depredations of grazing cattle.
The Daily Telegraph also mentioned that the average density
in modern "intensive" orchards is 600 trees per acre -- as
opposed to 48,000 in the Bulmer experimental orchard! But
Ambassador College has not planted its trees at 600 to the acre.
No! Not even 60 per acre! Would you believe -- TWO TREES per
acre?
That's right! And it means that the 150 or so trees planted
this winter are lightly sprinkled over some 75 acres of our
present farm. Nearly every cattle pasture adjacent to the campus
now has a few trees of some species -- be they apple, cherry,
pear, plum, or peach. At the time of writing, every young tree
has been mulched with farmyard manure and straw. Special guards
are being erected to protect each young tree from cattle and
rabbits.
But our experiment does not stop there. Raspberries,
blackberries and gooseberries have been planted beside many of
our fences. The rails will provide support for these plants,
where necessary. A surfeit of soft-fruit should attract many more
birds and other wildlife.
Young grapevines have been included in the project, though
their eventual success may be limited by the English climate.
Even rhubarb and asparagus crowns have been planted in protected
areas of certain fence-lines.
As each of these species begins to blossom and fruit, the
College Farm should acquire an air of lushness, beauty and
abundance -- so fitting to God's total way of life!
A Drawback In Pasture Management?
An old objection that will come quickly to mind is the one
of operating machinery in amongst the trees! This problem cannot
be eliminated except by abandoning the system. The trees have
been laid out in a way that will cause minimal difficulties. It
should also be remembered that we have that kind of machinery in
a pasture for no more than ONE WEEK per year. And we have all the
BENEFITS for 52 weeks per year!
Shortage of land is a common cry among farmers today, but
this system allows every farm the benefits of its own orchard
without setting ANY land aside for it. Grass grows right up to
the base of our kind of fruit tree and with land at £300 per acre
-- who wouldn't maneuver around two trees per acre?
Insects And Dazzles Problems
One advantage from spreading the trees and vines so thinly
is that it minimizes the risk of insect and disease attack. It is
well-known that monoculture ENCOURAGES predatory insects and
disease. (Vast acreages of barley, or wheat are an open
invitation to epidemics of cereal diseases such as stem-rust,
leaf-spot etc. ) Huge peach orchards are usually accompanied by
equally huge populations of PEACH-BORERS. High density apple
orchards usually have an equally high density of coddling moths
and red spider mites.
Spreading our trees around will enable us to avoid most of
the danger so inherent in the typical monoculture system. By
making it easier for natural enemies to control codling moths,
for example, we do away with any need for chemicals pesticides!
Variety Creates Interest And Beauty
Other advantages of the diversified approach are less
tangible than the first, but equally vital. For several decades
specialized farming has been destroying the countryside's
interest and beauty. Hedgerows and stately trees disappear before
advancing bulldozers and whining power-saws. Even small orchards
are grubbed from existence in deference to larger, more
"efficient" and more monotonous fruit plantations. Once beautiful
green pastures are replaced by miles of barren, drab, dull-brown
cultivation.
Near-sterile prairies of barley, wheat, potatoes, or sugar
beet have swallowed up the former peaceful, diversified pattern
of animal-centred mixed farming. No longer are fine animals the
focal point of Britain's agriculture and the British landscape.
They are rapidly being replaced by computer-selected mongrels
which are pushed into barns, feed-lots and battery-cages.
Though it may be in the interest of the consumer that he
does not see modern animal production and reproduction --
monotonous landscape is a principal by-product of today's system.
Not so at Bricket Wood! We do have pastures, but more than
that, they don't just consist of grass and unpainted rails. Young
cherry and apple trees now break the uninviting square lines of
buildings. The stark relief of fences will soon be mellowed by
soft-fruit vines entwining themselves on the rails. Rhubarb and
asparagus are now turning waste corners into lush productive
assets. Pear, plum and peach trees will erase the sterile look of
open fields. Red, roan and white shorthorn cows with little
calves will soon be grazing among young blossoming trees.
Ambassador College agriculture is transforming the
farm-landscape of the future from monotony to interest, from
dullness to beauty and from sterile hybridization to an Eden-like
garden!
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
WHAT'S BEHIND THE FOOD CATASTROPHE?
We have heard many times how knowledge has doubled in the
last ten years. And also that troubles too have doubled! Of all
these troubles -- what do you think is the BIGGEST problem?
Would you say -- the HYDROGEN BOMB! Maybe POLLUTION! Or
perhaps FOOD is the biggest problem confronting mankind? It is
certainly one of man's most fundamental problems!
From the day we are born -- WE NEED FOOD! If we don't get it
WE DIE! It's as simple as that. And if we DO get food -- many
still die, (prematurely) because of its LOW QUALITY!
Regardless of whether we live in the UNDER-fed, or OVER-fed
part of the world, millions of us die through UNDER-nourishment
each year. Most die through lack of QUANTITY, but also many
through lack of QUALITY in their food. Both stem from a single
cause -- STARVATION! One just happens to be more subtle and less
obvious than the other.
What is the Problem?
Why is man failing to supply himself with enough food of
sufficient quality to avoid the premature and agonizing death of
millions? Is it just too many hungry mouths? Too few acres?
Insufficient machines? The breaking of some simple law? Or not
enough scientific knowledge?
This issue of "Your Living Environment" will take you right
to the trunk of the tree and answer this question for you. In the
process you will see that humanity is perhaps closer to
nutritional catastrophe than you have imagined. First let's look
at some recent news quotes showing a cross-section of the
difficulties that are piling up against those who produce your
food:
Widespread Disease In Cattle!
"Mastitis [a disease that produces thick pussy-looking
clots in the cow's udder and destroys all or part of her
milk-producing ability] loses us up to £35 million a year ... in
272 herds surveyed, every cow in herds over 80 strong had some
degree of clinical mastitis" (Farmer's Weekly, Nov. 1970).
"... It is unlikely that there is a single dairyman in
Britain who, with his hand on his heart, can claim never to have
seen the tell-tale clots ... And it is suggested that a
badly-infected herd may be losing up to 200 gallons of milk a
cow" [per year] (Farmer's Weekly, Oct. 1970).
Poultry Are Even WORSE!
Britain's fowl pest plague worsens! "Last week the total
number of outbreaks reached 3,600 -- the highest ever recorded in
Britain since statistics began in 1947.
"It is estimated that about 14.5 million broilers, 9.5
million layers and 1.7 million turkeys have so far been affected
by the disease. Financial loss is put at more than £10 million
due to mortality and lost production" (Farmer & Stockbreeder,
Jan. 1971).
Plants Fare No Better!
"Little by little, the misplaced aura of magic invested
in that misused bit of phraseology 'the green revolution' is
wearing thin" (Ceres, July-Aug. 1970, p. 45).
"Dr. Norman Ernest Borlaugh, the agriculturalist who
won the Nobel Peace Prize for helping to foster the so-called
'green revolution' of hybrid crops, may instead have opened a
Pandora's box of pestilence, famine and social disruption.
"Many agricultural experts now believe that the green
revolution is in fact a myth and that continued extensive use of
hybrid seeds will have devastating social and scientific
repercussions" (Paragould Daily, Arkansas, Dec. 11, 1970).
DISASTER -- for America's No. 1 agricultural product:
"The devastating southern leaf blight disease, which
already has wiped out 50 per cent of the South's corn [maize]
crop this year, has reached epidemic stage in many other areas.
"The corn blight organism has been with us 50 years ... but
since it is so widespread this year, we suspect something else is
in operation" (UPI Release, Aug. 18, 1970).
THE CAUSE -- Whatever Could It Be??
These problems are the scourge of man in his herculean
efforts to feed himself and we have just lightly touched on a
fraction of them. Can you imagine, for example -- "AT A
CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE FUNGAL PATHOGENS CONSUME OVER ONE THIRD OF
ALL THE CROPS PRODUCED" (Science Journal, Aug. 1970).
That's QUITE an admission!!!
Are there many causes for these multiple problems, or can
they be traced back to just one simple underlying fact? In spite
of our knowledge explosion, (especially in SCIENCE and
TECHNOLOGY) man is still blind to the truth about his
agriculture. As knowledge increases, we might well expect
problems to decrease. Never before have so much science and
technology been applied to the business of food production, as
today. Yet never before have problems loomed so large over the
agricultural industry as a whole!
We must therefore conclude that there is no correlation
between problem-solving and our knowledge explosion. "Science"
just does NOT have the answer for the world's food producers. It
seems unable to focus an ecological view of the environment now
being destroyed. Could it be that farmers and scientists alike --
REFUSE TO FACE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS??
Our Environment And Its Inter-dependent Parts
There exists a tight inter-relationship between all the
major segments of our God-created environment. Below we have
diagrammatically represented the parts of that system, of which
God said: "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, and
subdue it and have DOMINION ..." (Gen. 1:28).
(NOTE: To view a chart titled "THE ECOLOGICAL PYRAMID", see the file
710518.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)
The quality expected of that rulership and "DOMINION" is
expressed in Gen. 2:15 -" ... God took Adam and put him into the
garden of Eden to dress it and keep it."
Our whole approach to this beautifully designed ecological
system is bound up in those two words: "dress" and "keep". The
Creation is for the service of MAN, but these two words give us
the key to man's approach: "to dress" means that we should be
bound to that Creation in a grateful attitude of service and
dedication. And "to keep" means that we should guard, protect and
preserve our environment -- just as parents would their own
children.
It is true -- the environment is for OUR service, but the
more WE serve IT and hedge it about with loving care -- the more
IT will serve US! Contrast this kind of approach with the news
quotes given earlier in this article!
A Plan For Destruction
Instead of learning from his daily disasters -- man shrugs
his shoulders, saying in effect: "WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD PROBLEMS AND
DISEASE IS INEVITABLE ANYWAY!" BUT IT IS NOT INEVITABLE!
That pyramid can help us understand ecology by appreciating
the inter-dependence of each segment. Looking at it closely, one
can conclude that the entire structure contains only ONE
NON-ESSENTIAL UNIT -- MAN! Knock out any one of the other
integral parts of this biotic pyramid and the entire physical
system would collapse. We never pause to reflect that MAN could
be removed and yet the environment would continue right on
without him.
When you put man in this kind of perspective it makes one
think that we ought to exercise a little caution and discretion.
After all, WHY should the only NON-ESSENTIAL part threaten the
continued operation of the WHOLE!
Man appears to be bent on destruction, if that is what is
"necessary" to achieve his own GREEDY ends. We live in a
God-designed and created environment, but humanity is filled with
a carnal mind which is hostile to the laws of Almighty God (Rom.
8:7).
Secondly -- man is not alone and unaided in the job of
destruction he is doing. Right now Satan, who is the god of this
world (II Cor. 4:4) is plotting and scheming with everything in
his power. He aims to thwart the 7,000-year plan of our Creator.
To do this he must destroy man -- the focal point of that plan.
Because the ecological pyramid sustains man, EVERY physical
section of it is under attack. NONE has been overlooked! But
Satan is cleverly working with the most insignificant unit of all
-- THE LIVING SOIL, as contrasted with dead, inert earth.
What Is Soil?
A fertile soil is 90% INORGANIC. Under the microscope, even
the finest of these rock particles (that's what they are) look
like the smashed remains of a pile of broken bottles. The other
10% (or thereabouts) is "waste" organic matter. It is of
vegetable and animal origin and ideally is in every stage of
decomposition. Ultimately it becomes what is called HUMUS.
What Are The Facts About Humus?
1. It provides a buffering action against acidity, thereby
retaining a favorable environment for earthworms and other
organisms involved in organic decomposition.
2. It preserves the essential crumb-structure, thus
preventing soil compaction and also erosion by wind and water.
3. It aids water absorption, moisture retention, temperature
control, drainage and the release of inorganic nutrients.
One of the world's leading authorities on soil micro-biology
states that: "The importance of humus in human economy seldom
receives sufficient emphasis. Suffice to say that it probably
represents THE MOST IMPORTANT SOURCE OF HUMAN WEALTH ON THIS
PLANET" [Emphasis ours] ("Humus", by Selman Waksman, p. 414).
A man knighted by a past British Government for his work on
organic agriculture, writes as follows:
"Nature has provided a marvellous piece of machinery
for conferring disease-resistance on the crop. This machinery is
only active in soil rich in humus; it is inactive or absent in
infertile land and in similar soils fertilized with chemicals"
("An Agricultural Testament" by Sir Albert Howard, p. 167).
Elsewhere the same authority states:
"I have several times seen my oxen rubbing noses with
foot-and-mouth cases. Nothing happened. The healthy well-fed
animals reacted to this disease exactly as suitable varieties of
crops, when properly grown, did to insect and fungus pests -- no
infection took place.
" ... Nothing was done in the way of prevention beyond
good farming methods and the building up of a fertile soil"
(ibid, pp. 162-163).
The organic 10% is the basic key to the ecological
structure. WITHOUT it, the earthworms and other organisms of
decomposition disappear from the soil. WITHOUT organic
decomposition, soil texture is destroyed and plant nutrients
become unavailable. WITHOUT a balanced and continuous supply of
nutrients, the entire plant kingdom is threatened with disease
and starvation!
WITHOUT healthy plants, the herbivora of the animal kingdom
and man are threatened with disease and starvation. And WITHOUT a
diet of healthy animals, both carnivora and man are doomed!
The Collapse Of Our Environment
Are not these the exact conditions facing mankind at THIS
moment in time? Yes, they certainly are and the cause is the same
too. Look at the following quote:
"An official inquiry into the health of farmland soils
has found that in parts of England and Wales the fertility and
structure of the soil have broken down to 'dangerous
proportions.' In the most critical areas ... the deterioration
has gone so far that arable farming will probably have to be
abandoned. The survey reveals that the organic content of these
heavy clay soils is often as low as THREE PER CENT ... " (The
London Observer, Aug. 30, 1970).
Do you see the fearful implication? There are many ways in
which our society can be destroyed, but one of them is by the
simple and seemingly innocent device of lowering the ORGANIC
content of the earth's food-producing soil.
If Satan can only induce man to remove that vital 10% of
organic matter, the ecological pyramid will COLLAPSE -- this
planet will then be agriculturally as dead and inert as the MOON!
Man Misses The Connection!
LACK OF HUMUS IS THE KEY TO THE PROBLEMS OF FOOD PRODUCTION!
Huge manmade deserts attest to the fact that EVERY
civilization has depleted that vital organic content of the soil.
Today the agro-chemical industry is a lethal facade, hiding the
falling humus levels in a smoke-screen of low quality, high
production! The fact that this produce is NUTRITIONAL JUNK --
phases neither farmer nor consumer. Stealthily, soil destruction
takes over!
On the other hand, research at Ambassador College is daily
improving our ecological understanding. God promises a return to
Garden of Eden conditions (Ezek. 36:33-35). And then HUMUS
REPLACEMENT will again assume its proper importance. Obedience to
this law will go far to eliminating: SOIL DESTRUCTION, MAN-MADE
DESERTS and DISEASE in all life forms! Meanwhile, robbing soil of
its organic 10% continues to undermine our entire ecological
structure!
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
June 1971, VOL. II, No. 6
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
GRASS THE SOURCE OF HUMUS!
"It is an old saying that any fool can farm, and this
was almost the truth when farming consisted chiefly in reducing
the fertility of new, rich land secured at practically no cost
from a generous government. But to restore depleted soils to high
productive power is no fool's job, for it requires mental as well
as muscular energy ..." ("The Farm That Won't Wear Out", by Cyril
G. Hopkins, 1913)
Restoring DEPLETED SOILS TO HIGH PRODUCTIVE POWER revolves
around the return of organic residues. By microbial
decomposition, these residues become that small percentage of the
total soil-mass we call humus. In the last issue of "Your Living
Environment", we elaborated on the vital role of humus and the
insidious threat its stealthy disappearance poses to mankind --
via the ecological pyramid.
Now let's look at PASTURE -- man's No. 1 source of humus!
You probably take grass very much for granted, but pastures of
HIGH quality are a RARITY. "Quality" takes the form of
GRASS/LEGUME mixtures. The best pastures do not occur naturally.
THEY MUST BE CREATED -- and maintained -- BY SKILLFUL
MANAGEMENT!!!
What is grass? Where does it come from? What is its purpose?
The grass/legume mixture is man's MOST IMPORTANT "CROP". And
while LIVESTOCK are its link with man -- livestock are also the
link from this "crop" back to HUMUS in the soil!
If humus is the end-product of death -- GRASS must be the
beginning product of life!! Grass is the raw material of life! It
is the carrier of nutrients for animal and human survival! And it
is the great combiner of the organic and inorganic in our living
environment!
God's Word On Grass
Now a reminder of where grass comes from:
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the
herb yielding seed ..." (Gen. 1:11).
"... if you shall hearken diligently unto my
commandments ... I will give you grass in thy fields for thy
cattle, that you mayest eat and be full" (Deut. 11:13-15).
"He watereth the hills ... He causeth the grass to grow
for the cattle and herb for the service of man: that he may bring
forth food out of the earth" (Psa. 104:13,14).
Grass -- And Its Purpose
The purpose of grass is to provide vegetable and animal
protein for man. It is a vital part of God's Creation -- of which
God said:
"Let them have dominion over ... all the earth ... I
have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of
all the earth, and ... to you it shall be for meat. And to every
beast of the earth ... every green herb for meat" (Gen. 1:26-30).
Yes, God was as much the Creator of "GRASS" as He was the
Creator of everything else. Along with trees, grass is the means
by which He CLOTHES the earth. Dense pasture moderates the
extreme cold and heat and can virtually eliminate soil erosion.
By slowing-down the run-off from rain it also increases water-
absorption by soil.
The beautiful simplicity of the system is that its good
effects trigger other benefits. Increased grass production per
acre means more grazing for animals, and also more raw material
for humus formation. Increased organic residues mean rapid
multiplication of earthworms and soil micro-organisms. That
speeds up nutrient recycling via decomposition and effects the
further release of NEW minerals from inorganic soil.
Better Quality And More Quantity!
A number of end-results spring from these chain-reactions --
for example, such favorable conditions for plant production
ultimately modify ALL SPECIES, (plant, animal and man) in that
particular environment!! As mineral and protein content rise,
plants become leafier and less stemmy. This means that there is
more tonnage per acre and each mouthful goes further!
Another modification to plant species is that their "NORMAL"
growing-season can be extended -- at BOTH ends too! Most pastures
are low in production. And one reason is that they are slow off
the mark in early spring. They tend to be stemmy and run quickly
to seed at the first sign of dry, warm weather. In other words,
production starts LATE and finishes EARLY.
Fertile soil is a well-known precursor of agricultural
abundance, but perhaps you can now see more of the marvellous
inter-play of other forces involved. It is a superbly designed
system. Obedience to ONE simple law (the return of organic
residues) triggers off a beneficial chain reaction through soil,
plants and animals -- culminating in man himself!!
The "Grass-crop" Manager
To be an effective manager of "grass-crop" production -- man
must be a balanced agriculturalist -- understanding soil
fertility, pasture species, climate, cash-crops and livestock.
His dual-purpose in grass-production is to provide food for
livestock and fertility for limited grain growing.
He must understand his environment and that GRASSLAND is
simply a stage of ecological succession. In Britain, pasture is
the natural successor to the ARABLE phase, then follows
domination by such plants as tall-grasses, heather, rushes,
bracken and other roughage. The next stage of the natural
reversion is LOW-FOREST and then follows HIGH-FOREST -- the
natural climax.
Controlling this situation reduces most landowners to
fighting a running battle with "nature". But a skilled grass-crop
manager works cleverly to maintain his acreage, at a level of
productivity superior to all other phases of the natural
succession.
Clarification Of Grassland
Grasslands may be conveniently divided into two categories
-- CULTIVATED and UNCULTIVATED. The latter, in Britain, comprises
hill grazing and other rough areas, all easily identified by the
plant species they support and by the proportions in which they
co-exist. Dwarf forms of white clover, birds foot, trefoil, with
bent and fescue, usually make up the best rough grazing.
Two or three less productive divisions can be made, each one
graduated towards rougher and coarser predominating species.
These progress from those already mentioned through reedgrass,
oatgrass, sedges, brome, heather, mosses, bracken, bilberry and
rushes.
On the other hand -- CULTIVATED grass divides into two
types: LEYS and PERMANENT grassland. Ley is a term that refers to
seed mixtures sown after cultivation. An area sown for a period
of less than four years, before turning it back into arable, is
termed a SHORT LEY. LONG LEYS are areas treated in a similar way,
but left under pasture from four to fifteen years.
Why Are Leys More Productive?
The term PERMANENT GRASSLAND is applied to leys of more than
ten to fifteen years and also areas NEVER sown under cultivation.
It is generally assumed that leys are FAR more productive than
permanent grass. This is one reason why many pasture "experts"
advocate taking "the plough" over the whole farm every few years!
Most of them believe that ley-farming produces more grass and
some even admit healthier grain-crops too!
The latter is undoubtedly TRUE! (The pity is that more don't
believe it, in this age of grain monoculture.) And who would
dispute the wisdom of using the grain-crop to periodically
cash-in on accumulated grassland fertility!
But why should LEYS be more productive grasswise? We would
suggest that ley production is superior to permanent grassland
ONLY because the latter suffers from inferior management. Leys
are usually more heavily dressed with fertilizer and often
contain more legumes than the average permanent pasture. But the
vital difference appears to lie in the WEAKNESS of grassland
management, rather than in the strength of ley productivity!!
This conclusion is supported by one authority who states:
"On soils of extremely high natural fertility and where
knowledgeable management has been applied, the ley may look like,
and also behave as a ley over a whole period of several decades.
For example, some of the most renowned cattle-feeding pastures in
to seventy years and still retain the general attributes of a
young ley." ("The Grass Crop", by William Davies, p. 56).
What ARE "the general attributes of a young ley"? They are
high-level production of QUALITY feed over an EXTENDED growing
season. And there will be no ingress of weed-types or "mat"
formation, normally associated with old grassland.
The same author continues elsewhere:
"Many of the superb old pastures of Leicestershire and
of the Romney Marsh will have been down to grass for sixty or
more years and, in fact, may never have been explicitly sown out
to grass" (ibid., p. 74).
These top-quality PERMANENT PASTURES are based on white
clover and perennial ryegrass and apparently PRODUCE AS MUCH AS
ANY LEY!!
Substitute Skill For Leys!
We must surely revise our ideas on the relative merits of
LEYS and permanent grass. If well managed permanent grass can be
as productive as the expensive short-term ley, then perhaps we
don't have to regularly put "the plough" over the whole farm!
Less grain crops, fewer leys and more permanent pasture
would encourage every farmer to STUDY GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT! Are
many short-term leys not an expensive cover-up for ignorance or
mistakes in permanent grass management and therefore a substitute
for SKILL?
Grain vs. Grass!
If grass is better than grain for animals, then much of the
world's grainland could profitably be turned back to pasture. It
would take time to re-build the lost soil fertility that
grain-men are going to have to re-build anyway. But they would
face it more willingly if they understood that quality grass is
better for animals and for their land too!
Grain-feeding is not the problem, but rather the amount fed,
and high grain-feeding has been in vogue for so long and is so
wide-spread in America that one author writes:
"The relation between good grass and beef is becoming
clear to farmers and ranchers who in the last five or six years
have discovered that finished beef can be produced on grass."
("Grasses & Grassland Farming", by H.W. Staten, p. 13, 1952).
This "DISCOVERY" must have been a fairly well kept secret --
because grain feeding has INCREASED! Britain too is now not far
behind America. If grain is plentiful, that's what men will feed,
regardless of whether you like to eat sick animals that have made
it to the slaughter-house just in time!! Years have now been
spent researching liver breakdown in cattle, but the problem
would end if only the farmer would grow MORE GRASS and LESS
GRAIN!
Is Animal Protein A Luxury?
Added to the grass/grain issue is a new "school of thought".
Because of famine and the population explosion, men in high
places now seriously question all animal feeding! To them, animal
protein is a Western LUXURY that we must do without.
Experts make out a convincing case against domestic
ruminants, (specified for man by God). Animals, it is said, are
so "INEFFICIENT" at turning plants into animal protein that
millions more people could live if we all become VEGETARIANS!
Many say the world will soon not tolerate funneling precious
plants into beef and mutton production.
Who can disagree? There IS an answer and to say the least --
in a world in which FAO has just spent SIX YEARS and SIX MILLION
DOLLARS on its "Indicative World Plan" to prevent famine -- the
point is of more than academic importance!
Plant foods in a TOP-QUALITY pasture can be re-cycled back
through the soil at a faster rate by animals than by any common
agricultural CROP!!
"If we think of the unit of plant food in such a
habitat, that unit would proceed from soil through plant and
animal and back again to soil within a period of perhaps a very
few DAYS and, at most, a period of weeks.
"By contrast, if that same unit of plant food were
taken up by a cereal crop and passed into the animal fed indoors,
it would find its way into the dung and would, in fact, have
taken at least 12 MONTHS to complete a cycle from soil back to
soil. In contrast again that same unit of plant food on poor and
under-stocked grass where roughage accumulates year after year,
might take MANY A YEAR to complete its full cycle ... The
high-quality grazing ley, therefore, makes it possible that ...
plant food is used to the maximum ... much as in business, a
quick turnover" (ibid., p. 170). [Emphasis ours]
This system with such a potentially rapid turn-around of
plant nutrients is the one that technological MAN has, in his
ignorance, labelled "INEFFICIENT". If he kept God's Sabbatical
Year and understood its importance, he would then know WHY
animals have been so designed!
Man has missed the point. Animals were deliberately designed
"INEFFICIENT". They were meant to return most of their food
intake direct to the soil, because it is on this very fact that
ALL AGRICULTURAL soil fertility depends. The increase in
fertility that can occur in land turned from GRAIN to GRASS
production is a direct measure of this INEFFICIENCY.
Applying this principle world-wide would do far more to
prevent famine than anything man has yet planned! Just take
Britain as an example -- any country with an import bill for half
of its food and one million in the dole-queue might ease two
burdens at once, by assisting some back in the direction of
agriculture!
Ridiculous? Most would say so because we are told farmers
already have insufficient acreage. But if top quality GRASS is
the basis of sound agriculture, the following statistics bear
thinking about: 1966 -- ARABLE LAND -- 18 million acres.
PERMANENT GRASS -- 12 million acres. ROUGH GRAZING -- 17 million
acres. (Encyc. Britt., 1970)
Out of 47 million acres of agricultural land, 12 million
might be ample for ARABLE farming -- leaving a MINIMUM of 20 to
30 MILLION ACRES for development into first and second grade
pastures! Figures for 1938 show that only 1.6% of Britain's
permanent grass, even excluding rough grazings, was first class.
("The Grass Crop", by W. Davies, p. 70)
We live in a world that believes "ANY FOOL CAN FARM" -- but
this is as contemptuous of the design in God's earthly ecological
complex as thinking that any fool can conduct a full symphony
orchestra! It now seems as though prior to contact with God's
Work we were agriculturally "barely able to read music" -- let
alone conduct "the grassland symphony".
We hope that The Department of Agriculture and Environmental
Research at Ambassador College is now at least learning the
"SCORE".
Imagine the future when the whole earth is re-grassed and
under the control of multiple millions of men correctly trained
in environmental management!
July 1971, VOL. II, No. 7
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
GOOD! -- YOU'RE STARTING A GARDEN!!
"As the result of a recent speech in Spokesman's Club a
number of people have secured garden plots (Council-owned land
that is rented out for vegetable production at a nominal sum to
interested families living in Britain's congested cities). And on
this land they are commencing to grow some of their own food."
This information was communicated to the Department of
Agriculture and Environmental Research at Ambassador College,
Bricket Wood, a few days ago. It was some of the most refreshing
news in a long time! Why?
Because the average family in our SOPHISTICATED Western
World has become so specialized that it has lost all the crafts
and simple skills which were common in the not so distant past.
Today the mass of Western humanity has even lost the knowledge of
how to produce its own food!
Most of us would literally starve to death if confronted
with the problem of feeding ourselves. Not because we lack the
land on which to do it -- but simply because WE NO LONGER KNOW
HOW!!
Knowing that many in God's Church ARE interested in growing
some of their own food, (as indicated in the above quote) -- this
issue of "Your Living Environment" brings you some helpful points
on family-vegetable production.
First let us have a look at some of the pitfalls to be
avoided.
If Satan has his counterfeits -- his churches, his priests
his healing, his art, his music, etc; then why not HIS
AGRICULTURE? If he has his methods of food production, then why
not his priests of agriculture, expounding false methods of soil,
plant and animal management.
You know that Satan aims to bring man to a physical self
destruction; to end our physical existence before God turns man
into Spirit. Should we not therefore understand by what laws we
continue to live, in this physical environment?
Satan has blinded this world on ENVIRONMENTAL-MANAGEMENT,
just as he has blinded it on the very god it worships. And as in
religion, so in agriculture -- he has something for everyone. You
can carelessly partake of CHEMICALLY GROWN foodless-food. Now you
can get SYNTHETIC food. Alternatively you may become a FANATIC
about food. There must be at least 100 variants of the latter --
some even linked with "religion" -- should one desire it! Satan
has something for everyone.
Man can even practise a form of food production that looks
indistinguishable from God's way. It is called "Organic Farming".
Does that surprise you? It probably DOES, but it shouldn't. Is
Satan not smart enough to counterfeit God's right way in infinite
detail? Yes he is and that includes AGRICULTURE!!
In the past we have been exposed only to Satan's system and
we know that it takes years of teaching and exposure to God's way
through The Bible, to throw off the influence of this world. But
in food production and environmental management most of us act as
though we can pick up a few rough guidelines more or less by
accident! IMPOSSIBLE!!
Why -- even those working directly in God's Agriculture
Programme take years to completely throw off in-grained false
concepts, so where does this leave you?
The transforming of one's mind in this aspect of life is
just as much a miracle as understanding the right principles of
child-rearing, marriage, finance or those showing which is God's
true Church. Though the process of change is a miracle, it
requires TEACHING, STUDY and TIME to learn God's way in
Agriculture! But most of all it requires the attitude indicated
in Matt. 18:3.
Beginning God's Way
Most of our initial efforts to produce food God's way will
be full of commendable zeal, but if that zeal is misguided it
will surely be followed by disillusionment! Our opening quotation
could have included a fact that tiro gardeners are launching
themselves into vegetable production on 90 X 30 FEET STRIPS OF
GROUND!! Perhaps we can save you much discouragement by showing
you how to go about it on a much smaller scale.
A garden of that size will feed not just your family, but
also HALF THE NEIGHBORHOOD! Better to see the refreshing results
of a small well-managed area, than become a backache ridden slave
to a large wilderness.
A Council allotment of 90 x 30 is probably five times bigger
than the beginner should start with. That raises the question --
"What do I do with the remainder?" That is not only (as they say)
A GOOD QUESTION, but in its answer lies the whole key to your
success. And not only your success as a gardener, but your
success in learning how to correctly manage a tiny portion of
this planet. Come to think of it, THAT'S QUITE A CHALLENGE. If
you and your family can properly manage a plot 90 x 30, then
you're qualified to manage a far larger area! (Think how many
less deserts AND slums there would be, if every man had to meet
this qualification early in life.)
Beginning a garden is like painting your house, or
redecorating a room -- everyone makes the same impulsive mistake.
Has there ever been an amateur house-painter with the strength of
character to keep his brush out of the paint-pot until AFTER he
has done the work of preparation? Some experienced men perhaps,
but NEVER a beginner!!
"New-born" gardeners are of the same breed' We always want
to charge in and get on with the "brush work" -- in other words,
get something planted so we can see it growing. And what is the
result? IN HOUSE DECORATION, the new paint flakes off in six
months, we blame the brand of paint and find that the second time
around is twice as hard! IN GARDENING -- bugs and disease take
over, we blame the system (we didn't follow) and have to start
again by building fertility on poverty-stricken soil!
How do these beginners get started? We have recently heard
of some not-so-robust types, moving-in on their 90' strip of
weeds with a LITTLE garden-fork and a LOT of enthusiasm. Digging
your way on a 30' front, through 90' of couch-infested clay, is
no picnic! One can hardly imagine a less favorable introduction
to home-grown vegetable production. And chances of success may be
equally unfavorable!
Bashing each clod to death with the back of the fork and
shaking the weeds free, is really going-at-it the hard way!
Some Broad Principles
You have been treated to a sample of the methods by which
many people go forth to do battle with "NATURE" (Knowing that
nature is a euphemism for God, is it less than symbolic that a
three-pronged fork for this battle?) Well that's just the
misguided system of this world, but we hope that we have
something better to offer God's people. Our efforts should be
aimed at working WITH God's Creation and His laws governing food
production. That's what this Department is all about.
We can help you to a new understanding and knowledge of
environmental management that will produce real satisfaction and
rich rewards. However, regardless of the TEACHING, INSTRUCTION
and INFORMATION you receive -- you will need much PRACTICAL
EXPERIENCE. Don't blame the system when success does not come
first time! Don't quit and don't "cut-and-run" for the cover of
familiar old bad habits when your confidence is tried.
Vegetable production is a form of ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT!!
And that should be our No.1 goal in gardening. Too many are
interested only in what they can GET from the soil. They GIVE
little or NOTHING back!
Don't become a SOIL-ROBBER. If you do, you will be in a
battle from start to finish. CULTIVATION is difficult, WEEDS
become more persistent, MOISTURE is "never" right, DISEASE
threatens constantly and PESTS multiply in profusion!
On the other hand, BUILDING soil-fertility, then guarding it
and managing it, calls for real skill, but the results are
worthwhile and bring great satisfaction.
Under such a benevolent eye, abundant and nutritious produce
is an automatic blessing. That such rich rewards come easily,
must seem quite unfair to "chemical" gardeners who find
themselves fighting -- SOIL-STRUCTURE, DRAINAGE, WEEDS, DISEASE
and "BUGS". Remember also that they end up producing NUTRITIONAL
JUNK!!
No one SEEKS a fight against the ravages of bugs and
disease, or a struggle to either retain or get rid of moisture,
or a battle against unyielding clay and persistent weeds. Yet it
seems ironic that man will always gravitate away from the very
system that will bring him everything he most desires.
Key To Success
You will have gathered by now that SOIL PREPARATION is the
great key to your success in any garden venture. This subject
can't be covered in the space we have available, but here are a
number of brief points for your consideration:
A. DON'T waste your time trying to grow vegetables in low
fertility soil! Raising the level of fertility should be your
FIRST task if you want to establish a successful garden. This
point is so vital that many would be wise to continue BUYING
vegetables -- for a year, if necessary, while you take care of
the problem!
Generally there will have been some build-up of soil
fertility from the plant and root residues on your plot of land.
However, if you insist on getting a small area started quickly, a
soil test will give you an idea of the condition of your ground.
An enquiry at any office of the Ministry of Agriculture, a
farmer's organization, a grain merchant, or a plant nursery will
give you information on where you can get a soil test done for a
few shillings.
If the soil is not in a balanced state, you can take a few
simple steps to bring this about. Soil lacking organic residues
is "unbalanced" and will usually be in what is described as an
ACID condition. In rare instances (such as chalk and limestone
areas) it may be alkaline. Most vegetables do best in conditions
chemically near neutral.
The pH scale is a set of numerical values which indicate how
far a soil is one way or the other from "7" (neutral). Readings
ABOVE 7 indicate degrees of alkalinity and BELOW 7 show acidity.
The addition of ground limestone will neutralize acidity. Whoever
tests your soil will give you a fairly accurate guide on
quantities, otherwise we can advise you.
B. To control undesirable "weed" growth on any new area you
wish to incorporate in your garden, the grass should be cut down
and let decompose where it falls. Immediately after cutting, the
whole area should be given a heavy dressing of farmyard manure or
compost and straw.
This thick layer of organic matter has a number of
beneficial effects:
1. Preserves an even soil temperature all year round.
2. Reduces evaporation under dry, hot and windy conditions.
3. In wet weather it absorbs large quantities of moisture,
thereby reducing the chances of water-logging and soil erosion.
4. Its buffering effect on acid soils helps correct pH.
5. Ensures a rapid build-up of micro-organisms.
6. Moisture and temperature control promotes rapid organic
decomposition by microbes and earthworms.
7. Reduces sunlight preventing unwanted "weed" growth.
C. If you have bare ground and completely lack access to
organic residues, sow in season, a cereal/legume mixture. Then
mow it every time it reaches 3" to 6" in height and leave the
clippings spread evenly over the entire area. (Remember, too many
clippings at any one time will kill the plants you are relying on
to produce more "green manure".)
Don't assume that you can continue growing healthy plants
year after year, simply by adding MORE STRAW. Our researches
indicate that on its own, STRAW will eventually unbalance the C/N
(carbon-nitrogen) ratio.
As the proportion of carbon rises relative to available
nitrogen, the rate of micro-organic decomposition decreases. This
slower turn-around of plant nutrients reduces rate of growth.
Then, outright deficiencies develop and finally disease and pest
attacks take over.
D. Whatever tillage you decide to do should be confined to
the top 4" of the soil and any action that buries organic
residues should be definitely avoided. The old practice of
"digging the manure well-in" is NOT recommended. It slows down
the decomposition and puts much of the plant food out of reach of
surface rooted species.
These points are the foundation of your future success in
soil management, so they are worth taking some time and trouble
over.
We can do no more than whet your appetite now, but this
Dept. has other material available. It includes some seven
directly related articles. Though brief in themselves, they will
take the reader a stage further. The first six cover the
following subjects:
1. The effects of chemical fertilizers.
2. The effects of organic fertilizers.
3. Sources of minerals for plants.
4. Nitrogen availability.
5. Soil destruction.
6. Conquering plant disease.
The seventh article deals briefly with twelve specific
points of gardening mechanics, including Tithing and The
Sabbatical Year.
If you are interested, we CAN help you. And remember,
whether you have a window-box in inner London or 2,000 square
miles in Outer Mongolia -- the same principles apply. Success
will depend upon diligent application of God's Law!
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
August 1971, Vol. II, No. 8
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
BRITAIN -- STUD FARM OF THE WORLD -- WHY?
What do the names Hereford, Durham, Devon, Angus, Ayrshire,
Jersey and Guernsey, mean to you? What about Hampshire, Dorset,
Suffolk, Cheviot, Shropshire, Leicester, Southdown, Romney Marsh
and Lincoln? To most people they are merely geographic locations
in the British Isles. But to animal breeders these names
represent the heart and core of the international livestock
industry!
Now quite obviously these cattle and sheep have derived
their breed names from the area in which they originated. But not
so obvious is why the tiny British Isles should be responsible
for originating and developing so many of the world's major
breeds of livestock. Why have not an equal number of Dutch,
French, German, Italian, Russian or Spanish breeds become as
popular?
Also why should the leading livestock breeders of the
Western World find it necessary to regularly import high-quality
cattle and sheep from the British Isles -- long after colonial
influence has ended? Surely the verdant grasslands of America,
Argentina, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa are
capable of producing even BETTER animals than tiny fog-bound
Britain. But judging by the annual trek of overseas buyers back
to Britain's top livestock shows and sales, this is not the case!
Indeed, the reducing or dispersal sale of a famous British cattle
stud has been known to attract more overseas buyers than local
ones. And every year, nearly all the top priced animals of
Britain are EXPORTED!
But why? Why has Britain been so long regarded as the STUD
FARM OF THE WORLD? This issue of the Research News probes the
development, and the influence of British livestock to find the
answer -- an answer that heralds the need for major revisions of
our thinking about the "laws" of genetics and animal breeding.
Why British Animals Conquered The "Colonies"
British livestock spread around the world as the British
Empire grew. British settlers encountered vast untapped
grasslands at every turn. To exploit these areas they naturally
IMPORTED their own improved breeds of animals. Like the
Patriarchs and the Israelites, the British have been dedicated
breeders of livestock and have taken them wherever they have gone
themselves, (as in Genesis 12:5, 13:1-5, 31:18, 46:6 and Exodus
12:38).
Soon the Jerseys, the Herefords, the Angus and the
Shorthorned cattle from Durham had spread across most of the
world's temperate grassland. So too had the sheep of Leicester,
Dorset, Hampshire, the South Downs and Romney Marsh. And every
farm was stocked with horses from the Clyde, or Suffolk and
Shetland. Later on every ranch and race-track owed a debt to the
original breeders of English thoroughbreds!
But as the imported animals reproduced, the transplanted
British stock men and their descendants in America, Argentina,
Australia, Canada, the Falkland Islands, New Zealand, and South
Africa noticed a strange phenomenon. Their animals began to
CHANGE, without any introduction of outside blood!
A former Professor of Agriculture at Aberdeen University has
correctly observed that:
"The Shorthorn, particularly in the Argentine ... TENDS TO
LOSE TYPE; that it tends to grow MORE LEGGY AND RANGY IN
SUCCEEDING GENERATIONS, LOSING thereby the low-set, blocky and
massive beef confirmation of the original breed, and that this
deterioration can be checked by returning to the breed's original
home for fresh stock and that it can be prevented in NO OTHER
WAY." ("Beef Cattle Husbandry", p. 59, Dr. Allan Fraser).
Emphasis ours throughout.
This is not a unique opinion. It is virtually the unanimous
observation of generations of pedigree stock breeders! And has
its expression in the multiple millions they have spent at
British livestock auctions!
All breeds of imported livestock are affected to some degree
and it is for this reason that most top breeders return to this
country to buy animals. Different environments produce different
changes in the same breed type. It may take a few generations to
become obvious -- BUT THEY DO CHANGE!
All these changes are not necessarily bad, but because the
pedigree breeders' fixed mental image permits little variation,
most changes are regarded as undesirable. They may or may not
hinder the animal's meat or milk producing ability, but the rigid
Herd Book system does not allow the stud breeder to ignore these
variations.
What causes these changes? And more important -- why is it
that only imported cattle and sheep from BRITAIN correct the
deterioration? There is no reason to assume that the new blood
carries better genes than the original importations. Yet it is
indisputable that fresh blood imported from the United Kingdom
will bring the stock back toward their original type.
Why? Are environmental effects heritable after all --
despite the teachings of modern geneticists? It would seem that
most established overseas breeders are actually purchasing LIVE
IN-BUILT BRITISH ENVIRONMENT in their subsequent importations!
CHANGES -- NOT ONLY INTERNATIONAL
Environmental differences change breed types even within a
nation. For example:
"Hampshires, (sheep) found in the Eastern section of the
United States tend to be somewhat shorter of leg, lighter in
colour and to have a little more wool on their faces than those
found in the West ... Breeders have LONG observed that if Western
type sheep are moved to the East, or vice versa, with in a
generation or two, the type seems to assume the characteristics
of sheep native to the area." ("Modern Breeds of Livestock", p.
431, H. M. Briggs)
WHAT CAUSES THESE CHANGES?
These examples appear to indicate a build-up of
environmental effects over generations as distinct from genetic
changes. Yet those effects of environment are not new facts.
Breeders have understood this overall principle for more than a
century, as the following quote proves:
"Local circumstances -- such as the quality of the soil and
the peculiarities of climate -- influence the development of
these animals; and thereby we have local breeds established
especially suited to certain districts... Thus, where the soil is
luxuriant we have large native breeds; where the land is hilly,
we have smaller and more active animals;" ("Journal of The Royal
Agricultural Society", p. 262, Vol. XXII, 1865. Henry Tanner,
M.R.A.C.)
This concept -- that an animal, a plant, or even a human,
will -- over a period of generations in the same area, tend to
assume the characteristics of the local native genera is most
intriguing. If correct, it would explain why British livestock
change type when sent overseas. And also why pedigree livestock
breeders, addicted to a particular breed type, have found it
necessary to continually import more livestock from the United
Kingdom.
DOES ENVIRONMENT EQUAL BREED TYPE?
A Yorkshire farmer recently observed that -- "If you feed
Jerseys and rear them in the North, they tend to grow larger,"
("Farmer's Weekly", U.K., p. 24, May 2, 1969).
Jersey is basically an island of ROCK with a THIN layer of
soil and a very favorable climate. Its perennially low plane of
nutrition has produced a small, fine-boned breed of cattle. Put
that same small animal in Yorkshire, a county with many acres,
high in inherent fertility, and the breed type becomes larger.
It is from this very Yorkshire-Durham area that the
Shorthorn breed originated. These cattle came from the fertile
valley of the Tees and HAVE BEEN one of our breeds of greatest
size. Interestingly enough, these same Tees water Shorthorns have
been the basis for the Lincoln Red breed. As the name indicates,
the cattle were produced in the county of Lincolnshire -- which
encompasses some of the "strongest", most robust soils in the
British Isles. Is it any wonder that the Lincoln Red cattle are
perhaps the biggest breed in England at this time?
The same is true of sheep. As Tanner indicated, it must be
more than coincidence that the chalky Sussex hills just south of
London, with their light, but fertile soils would produce the
smallest breed of sheep, the Southdown. On the other hand, the
large sheep breeds, such as the Hampshire, Suffolk, Oxford,
Lincoln and Leicester come from the deep fertile soil areas.
In fact, it is not too difficult to trace this same
relationship between soil, climate, breed size, conformation,
meat value, wool type, etc., in nearly every breed of domestic
livestock.
Humans Too!
Dr. Allan Fraser even suggests that it might be applicable
to humans also. In his later book, "Animal Husbandry Heresies",
p. 79, he offers a possible example:
"In the Scottish clan system, there is abundant contemporary
evidence to show that while the stature of the common clansman
was severely stunted, the gentlemen of the clan were particularly
well grown. {No doubt the gentlemen attributed their superior
physique to their gentility (or noble genes) rather that to
access to a better diet for several generations}." ("Animal
Husbandry Heresies", p. 79 Dr. Allan Fraser)
Do we need to state that there is a limit to the effects of
environment? We are not implying that environment will turn a
black pygmy into a six-foot 'great' Dane! Neither will any number
of generations turn a black Shetland Pony into a white
Clydesdale!
HANDLING ENVIRONMENT
Though environment has affected men, animals and plants, it
is possible to SELECT for or against these effects. This, man has
done to a marked degree in plants and animals (with varying
degrees of success). But should we not question the wisdom of
repeatedly crossing the oceans to purchase specimens selected
against a different environmental background? Once we have the
bloodlines located in ANOTHER environment, would it not be more
reasonable to either ACCEPT what that environment produces, or
MODIFY THE ENVIRONMENT?
Britain's role as Stud-master to the world has long been
that of selecting for particular characteristics against the
background of her own micro-environments like Herefordshire,
Hampshire, etc. The results have been exported throughout the
nation and overseas, but NOW the future of the Stud industry is
seriously challenged. How? First by the massive increase in
commercial CROSS-BREEDING and secondly by the increased capacity
of a single bull to beget calves through artificial insemination!
Add to this the fact that the "flood-gates" are now open
into Europe and more British livestock breeders than ever are
turning their backs on the historic nucleus of their own
industry. These men, (especially cattle breeders) are currently
scrambling over each other to import French and Swiss livestock.
Are not the British themselves now doing exactly what their
ex-colonial areas and Argentina have done for generations? Why?
Is our environment not capable of producing the qualities that we
are now importing from Europe?
The only way to prove this is to demonstrate that the
illusive qualities of the Continental cattle, (principally
Charolais and Simmental) HAVE previously EXISTED in Britain.
What are those qualities, when were they evident in British
cattle and how did we come to lose them? First let's take the
French Charolais -- what do they have? Nothing except their old
fashioned English shorthorn bloodlines and the kind of human
selection that has allowed the environment to naturally produce
large-framed and heavy-boned animals. (Of course this can be done
ONLY if the environment will permit it). But many British cattle
had this quality at one time -- ESPECIALLY THE SHORTHORN BREED.
At that time they were the most numerous in Britain and in fact
the whole world! How ironic that BRITAIN should now be BUYING
instead of SELLING cattle. And doubly ironic that our suppliers
are those considered to be backward European "peasants".
THE LATEST TREND -- IN BRITAIN'S ANIMAL INDUSTRY
Now the trend is toward the Swiss Simmental breed -- so what
have they got? SOMETHING that British breeders abandoned even
EARLIER than "size" and "bone". THEY ARE DUAL-PURPOSE ANIMALS!
Simmental cattle, (regardless of what British buyers may be doing
with them) have a unique ability to fill the joint role of dairy
cow and beef producer -- WITHOUT ANY CROSS-BREEDING! They have
this capacity to a degree that has not been seen by most of the
world-wide British-based cattle industry for 50 YEARS!
Few YOUNG men have ever seen it, but the British Shorthorn
HAD this dual-purpose quality above ALL the other breeds in this
country. That was one of the important reasons that made them THE
MOST POPULAR BREED IN THE WORLD. In little more than 50 years the
highly specialized Friesian totally supplanted the Shorthorn in
the dairy industry. And in less time, the more fashionable Angus
and Hereford supplanted the Shorthorn in the beef industry.
Today the Scotch Beef Shorthorn is a miniaturized version of
its ancestors, but the breed has "missed the boat" because the
industry is already moving back toward the old-fashioned type.
The Simmental fulfills that demand NOW. It will take TIME to
rebuild the Beef Shorthorn. They have not only lost their size,
but also their milking ability! These changes were not the result
of environment, but rather John Bull's personal selection.
John Bull has continued as Stud Master to the world because
his "sons" were convinced that Britains livestock were the BEST
in the world! As long as this conviction remained, they believed
they must return to their homeland for regular replacements.
These new animals were necessary ONLY because the "colonial"
environment was different.
This continuous stream of replacement animals was necessary
only because John Bull's own offspring could not, or would not
duplicate the environment of Britain. Where it is SIMILAR changes
in the livestock were slow and limited. Where environmental
differences were PRONOUNCED changes were more rapid and dramatic.
We have indicated big changes took place in various breeds
of stock WITHIN Britain, but these were mainly due to human
selection. Nevertheless even these changes were faithfully copied
overseas. In other words Britain has long dictated fashion in
animals, just as Paris has in clothes!
NOW -- AT AMBASSADOR COLLEGE
In Bricket Wood, the Shorthorn was selected for the
Agriculture Programme four years ago. It seemed to lend itself
better for breeding back to a DUAL-PURPOSE type, without the
confusion of crossbreeding (Lev. 19:19). We were unwittingly
ahead of the current trend.
We have been mating a Beef Shorthorn bull with our Dairy
Shorthorn cows and allowing them to suckle their own calves. Now
OUR environment is having its effect on these calves. But
Hertfordshire's gravelly land is a far cry from the original
Teeswater environment of the Shorthorn (back in the days when it
was ONE breed, not two). Can you see now why there has never been
a Hertfordshire breed of cattle, or sheep and why we are so
insistent on building soil fertility?
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
September 1971, Vol. II, No.
9
Ambassador College (UK)
DWELL IN THE BEST OF THE LAND!
"And God said ... let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; .... And said let the earth
bring forth tender grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit
tree yielding fruit after his kind ..." (Gen.1:9-11).
"And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and
there He put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground
made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the
sight and good for food" (Gen. 2:8-9).
This is a short outline of the creation of man's
environment. It is but the briefest description of a stupendous
miracle -- the details of which are still puzzling man after
nearly 6,000 years! We unthinkingly pass over the unbelievable
detail that is implied in these few words. Just look for example,
at the staggering complexity of soil formation, with a vast array
of minerals coming from the basic rock strata. Hundreds of
biological, chemical and mechanical inter-actions go to make them
available to plants!
These truly wonderful processes can operate only through
that one medium -- SOIL. And in this issue of "Your Living
Environment" we want to focus on the importance God has attached
to SOIL down through the history of man.
It is true, "MAN" is the focal point of God's physical
creation on this planet, NOT "soil". However we might profitably
reflect for a while on the vital role of "SOIL" as it is such a
basic part of our environment. This highly variable and yet
precious commodity must have figured very largely in the over-all
7,000 year plan of God.
MAN'S ATTITUDE TO SOIL
First let us briefly see how soil has "figured" in MAN'S
approach to his environment and destiny. Is it exaggerating to
say that the English language more than hints at human contempt
for this God-given blessing? We customarily speak of treating
someone, or being treated -- "LIKE DIRT". Then there is also the
frequently used expression -- "COMMON AS DIRT".
Is the analogy not valid? Is there anything physical for
which man has shown more contempt than the soil sustaining his
very existence?
Have you ever contrasted this attitude with man's idolatrous
worship of such things as -- the sun, the moon, the stars,
animals, insects and possibly even plants? But is there any
record of man having worshipped soil? We don't know of any,
though there is probably an exception somewhere. Soil has
generally been treated "LIKE DIRT" -- thrashed, abused and
depleted! It has been scorched, burned, plundered, powdered,
stomped and exposed to rain, floods, wind and every conceivable
human neglect!
What has been the result? MAN has always paid a terrible
PRICE! for this law-breaking, through a lowered environment and
inferior health. No man should become a "soil-worshipper" but he
could well afford to get his relationship with the soil in a
right perspective!!
The only chance man has of ever getting anything in right
perspective is by looking to God. So let us now see something of
the value our Creator attaches to this BASIC INGREDIENT OF ALL
LIVING MATTER.
TO "DRESS" and "KEEP"
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground ...
(Gen.2:7). "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast
of the field, and every fowl of the air" (Gen.2:19).
God need not have formed His physical living creation out of
SOIL, but was it not both symbolic and logical that He chose the
material used for every subsequent generation? This substance has
been a basic ingredient of all plants, animals and men ever </