YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

 

 

                     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!

                                                                               

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                   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!

                                                                               

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                     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