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