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

moved in to RE-ENGINEER that part of God's creation which

directly sustains human life!

     The scale of this genetic experimentation is little

realized, but it has enormous financial backing! Recently the

sales director of a British seed company told a group of growers:

 

          "... the total investment necessary to get a hybrid

variety on to the market could exceed £1 million" (Farmers

Weekly, Feb. 20, 1970).

 

     A staggering figure in itself, but multiply it worldwide by

the rapidly increasing number of replacement varieties being

"released" every year! Would you believe that this director was

warning British seed breeders to spend MORE money developing

cereal hybrids or face being squeezed out of the market by the

Americans?

 

BRITISH PLANT BREEDING -- SUCCESS OR FAILURE

 

     Few countries have devoted more money, material and effort

to plant breeding than Great Britain. Years of devoted effort

have been expended in a running battle with disease. But has

lasting success been achieved? Have the genetic manipulations of

professional seed breeders given lasting success? The farmer

ought to know, so let him speak:

 

          "All is far from being well in the cornfields of

England; [WHEAT, BARLEY AND OATS ARE COLLECTIVELY CALLED CORN IN

BRITAIN] FROM EVERY SIDE there is TALK OF REDUCED YIELDS CAUSED

BY DISEASE, spread of wild oats and black grass ..." (Farmers

Weekly, December 29, 1967, p 35).

          "At present new varieties of cereal grains [THE PRIDE

AND JOY OF ENGLAND'S PLANT BREEDERS] are not achieving their

disease resistance potential and were UNSATISFACTORY relative to

older varieties once they were on the market" (Farmer and

Stockbreeder, Nov. 11, 1969).

          "Some of the newer barley varieties have succumbed

rapidly to new races of the disease when under large-scale

cultivation" (Farmer and Stockbreeder, Feb. 24, 1970).

          "Experience has shown that NO variety can be relied

upon to remain resistant for many years" (Farmer and

Stockbreeder, April 30, 1968).

 

     Many more quotes could be given to prove that a veritable

disease explosion is occurring in the world's grain fields --

nearly all of which have been planted with genetically engineered

"superseeds". These seeds have all been widely proclaimed as

RESISTANT to the very diseases with which they are now plagued.

Any ideas that our self-appointed plant-engineers are on the

verge of a break-through and need only a little more time is an

illusion that must be shattered.

 

PROOF VIA SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

 

     It is now just on three years since this particular issue of

"Your Living Environment" was first printed, so it is most

interesting to look at subsequent results of plant breeding. Put

another way, one might say that this REPRINTED issue is in part,

a progress report on the contents of the 1970 original issue.

     That which we wrote then would have been totally

unacceptable in most scientific circles. That which we write now

will also be unacceptable to those same people. The important

thing then is to assemble the facts and let them speak. That way

you can draw your own conclusions.

     Within months of our original article, CORN BLIGHT swept

through the American maize industry. And amid the subsequent

soul-searching came such international news headlines as:

 

"CORN CROP DAMAGE SPURS QUESTIONS Obeyer HYBRIDS"

 

          "Starting with corn, the National Academy of Sciences

(NAS) is taking a hard look at the genetic vulnerability of this

nation's food crops. [THAT MEANS A NUMBER OF CROPS ARE IN

TROUBLE, NOT JUST MAIZE.]

          "And the question is whether seed hybridization, and

the genetic tampering it implies, may at some point subject

entire crops to unexpected disaster. ['DISASTER' is no

exaggeration! IN SOME STATES THE NO. 1 FOOD CROP OF AMERICA WAS

SLASHED BY 50% AND THE TOTAL ESTIMATED LOSS WAS 700 MILLION

BUSHELS!]

          "The question now before the panel is whether wide use

of hybrid strains of seed corn may not be producing a genetic

uniformity that could subject an entire U.S. food crop to

destruction via a single new pathogen.

          "The hybrid strains of certain corn seed ... carry the

so-called Texas male-sterile (TMS) cytoplasm .... the TMS genetic

base corn is highly vulnerable to a mutant fungus form,

helminthosporium.

          "Seed corn, it appears, has a much narrower genetic

base than previously believed. By upsetting the genetic

composition of seed corn ... the seed's resistance to the fungus

seems to have been impaired.

          "This particular group has no authority to go into the

broader subject of genetic engineering as it may affect,

beneficially or adversely, mice or men.

          "But the experience with hybrid types of corn suggests

that any plans to alter the genes of higher forms of life require

extensive exploration before anything is done in the new

scientific realm" (The Christian Science Monitor, Thursday, March

18, 1971). A recent report states that:

          "South Africa still imports seed potatoes from abroad

at a cost of R 850,000 annually but every effort is being made to

produce adequate supplies of certified seed locally ...

          "But there remains one big nigger in the wood pile --

the source of virus diseases which can reduce the crop by up to

50 per cent ...

          "The Chief Inspector responsible for the potato seed

certification scheme, has appealed to seed potato growers to get

to know these diseases as speedily as possible and to take

timeous precautions against them!" (South African Farmers Weekly,

Jan. 7, 1972).

 

     One wonders if it would not be more appropriate for this

gentleman and the South African potato growers to become more

concerned about the real cause of these disease problems. From

this report it looks as though it could be worth at least

R850,000 per year to their industry, plus the annual value of

disease losses on commercial production! Eventually they will

have to realise that NO amount of PLANT BREEDING, INSECTICIDES

AND SYSTEMIC FUNGICIDES will remove the cause of these expensive

problems. This is indicated later in the article where it

continues by stating:

 

          "About a year or two ago, it was assumed that complete

control over virus diseases in seed potatoes would be achieved,

but results of the past two seasons have again given cause for

alarm" (ibid.).

 

     And may we predict that they will CONTINUE to give "CAUSE

FOR ALARM"!

     The latest evidence we can present is a retrospective view

of Britain's last grain harvest and the commentary is devastating

when viewed against the earlier claims of plant breeders.

 

"WHAT ELSE CAN WE TRY?"

 

     That was a recent headline in the British farming press to

an article on the latest problems facing its grain industry. It

sounds more like a plea made in desperation than the lead-in to a

success story. It continues:

 

          "Our yields of barley have been declining, our average

is hardly 23 cwt an acre. We cannot afford to let it go lower.

What else can we try?" (Farmers Weekly, Nov. 3, 1972, p. 84.)

 

WHY PLANT GENETICISTS HAVE FAILED!

 

     New VARIETIES released by modern plant breeders usually meet

with initial success. Over the long-term however, they FAIL! That

is proved by today's accelerating variety replacement. At the

same time remember that the geneticist has brought our plants and

animals to almost the same point that man himself reached

immediately prior to the FLOOD! With such a record, isn't it

futile and dangerous to believe that genetically engineered

super-seeds spell success?

     You may still not fully perceive the long-term DANGER! I

don't think we in this Department do either. But the 'FUTILITY'

of the geneticists' work will be better understood once we see

WHY food producers experience increasing failure of NEW plant

varieties.

     There is a very simple reason for these failures. Among

others, Albrecht and Howard, (two eminent agricultural scientists

working independently and on different continents) discovered, or

perhaps RE-DISCOVERED the real CAUSE of plant break-down.

     Sir Albert Howard (who was knighted for his agricultural

research of more than 25 years in India) pinpointed the basic

CAUSE and PURPOSE of plant disease. He states that:

 

          "It was observed in the course of these studies that

the maintenance of soil fertility is the real basis of health and

disease .... Insects and fungi are not the real cause of plant

diseases but only attack unsuitable varieties or crops

imperfectly grown. Their true role is that of censors for

pointing out the crops that are imperfectly nourished and so

keeping our agriculture up to the mark.

          "... the diseased crop is quietly but effectively

labelled (by rust, smut, mildew, root-rot or insect attack) prior

to removal for the manufacture of humus ...

          "Mother earth has provided a vast organization for

indicating the inefficient crop. Where the soil is infertile,

where an unsuitable variety is being grown, nature at once

registers her disapproval through her Censors Department. In

conventional language of today the crop is attacked by disease.

          "In recent years, another form of disease -- known as

virus disease has been appearing. When the cell contents of

affected plants are examined, the proteins exhibit definite

abnormalities, thereby suggesting that the work of the green leaf

is not effective" (An Agricultural Testament, Sir Albert Howard,

pp. 39, 156, 161).

 

          Dr. Wm. Albrecht (Prof. Emeritus of Soils at the

Missouri Experimental Station), with over sixty years of

practical experience in crops and soils agrees with Howard when

he states:

 

          "Much reliance is put on the belief that by selecting

and propagating certain plants of a crop we can eventually find

those which TOLERATE 'diseases' like smut, rust, foot-rot and

others. Much is said about 'BREEDING RESISTANT CROPS' or those

which will 'TOLERATE' such troubles. We fail to see the 'germ'

diseases as attacks by those invading foreign proteins [VIRUSES,

BACTERIA OR FUNGAL ORGANISMS] ... in their struggle to get their

necessary proteins ... We fail to see that immune plants are

those getting enough soil fertility support for creating their

own protective proteins or antibiotics ...

          "Any hope that we might 'BREED plants to TOLERATE

DISEASE' is a vain hope when it is NOT DRUGS, NOT POISONS, but

SOIL FERTILITY which protected the virgin crops ... of nearly

'perfect' plants.

          "If deficient plant nutrition, especially with regard

to proteins, brings on diseases and pests as Nature testifies

then to believe that we could 'breed' for such resistance is the

equivalent of believing that we could 'breed' a plant to tolerate

starvation" (Soil Fertility and Animal Health, Dr. Wm. Albrecht,

p. 193).

     In effect modern plant breeders are engaged in the losing

battle of providing food producers with a constant succession of

'new' varieties. How could they win anyway when it takes fifteen

years to establish a new variety and only three years for farmers

to destroy it on low fertility soil?

     Properly interpreted, plant breeders are merely attempting

to patch up MISTAKES IN SOIL MANAGEMENT. And all their talk about

'miracle' grains is merely bragging about the size of their

PATCHES.

                                                                              

 

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                    June 1970, Vol. I, No. 6

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

                 (Reprinted & Updated June 1973)

 

                HEDGEROWS -- LUXURY OR NECESSITY?

 

          "England's green and pleasant land is changing.

Gradually miles of hedgerows, sanctuaries of much bird life, are

being torn out and sacrificed to the cause of greater efficiency

down on the farm ....

          "In an age of new thinking and mechanization,

picturebook Britain is changing. Arable farming just will not

allow farmers to hold onto 'A FOSSILIZED 18TH CENTURY LANDSCAPE'

complete with countless trees and thousands of miles of boundary

hedgerows.

          "Critics say that 'GRUBBING OUT' of trees and hedges

affects the wildlife that lives there and that this process aids

soil erosion. They quote occasional dust storms which have lifted

tons of topsoil and seeds" (Christian Science Monitor, p. 3,

April, 1969).

 

     Few issues have been more controversial than the destruction

of England's renowned hedges. On one side, the conservationists

accuse the farmer of sacrificing beauty and harmony for the sake

of mercenary gain. Farmers counter by arguing that the hedges

must go if they are to eke out enough money to support

themselves.

     As a farmer said: "IF THE NATURE-LOVER WANTS TO SEE HEDGES

THEN HE SHOULD PAY FOR THEM -- to the farmer who must construct

and maintain them."

     Who is right? How costly are hedgerows? Do they best serve

our ecological needs? Believe it or not, there is a way to please

BOTH the farmer AND the conservationist -- to the betterment of

both. That is what we want to show you in this issue of "Your

Living Environment."

 

Are Hedgerows Natural?

 

     Many conservationists erroneously believe that the

destruction of hedges constitutes a departure from 'NATURE'. The

natural order of England is not hedges and fields at all -- IT IS

TREES!

          "The ancient writer who referred to a squirrel being

able to cross the country from the Severn to the Wash [Wales to

the North Sea] without ever touching the ground, knew England

before men had interfered with the balance of nature" (The

Agricultural Merchant, October, 1968).

 

          "Most hedges were planted between 100 and 150 years

ago" (Brave New Victuals, Elspeth Huxley, p. 137). Surprising

though it may be!

 

     It is clear from these historical notes that hedges are NOT

part of England's original 'NATURAL ORDER'. They are very much a

result of the hand of man. Nothing DEMANDS that they should

remain part of the English landscape. So we can now consider them

on their own merit.

 

Benefits!

 

     What do they add to the country ECONOMICALLY, AESTHETICALLY

AND ECOLOGICALLY?

     As the conservationists point out, hedges have played a

significant role. They lessen the danger of wind erosion, serve

as shelter for livestock and moderate the climate by breaking the

sweep of the wind. To a limited extent they also serve as living

fences, though in many cases their effectiveness in this regard

is of doubtful value.

     They do serve to break up the prairie-like monotony of vast

stretches of modern arable farmland. It is claimed that:

 

          "Hedges in parts of northern Europe have been proved to

reduce the evaporation of moisture from the soil to an amount

equal to one-third of the annual rainfall, which may be one

reason why those protecting corn in a district of

Schleswig-Holstein were found to increase grain yields by as much

as 20 per cent. Is it purely coincidence that in areas of East

Anglia removal of hedgerows has been followed by an urgent call

for more costly irrigation schemes" (Tomorrow's Countryside,

Garth Christian, p. 27).

 

Drawbacks!

 

     Against these advantages for hedges must be balanced their

very real disadvantages. One farmer listed these:

 

     "1. Land gained from the removal of hedges and ditches ...

is equivalent to one acre of every mile run. In this case, sixty

acres were gained for cropping, worth perhaps £15,000, or with

interest at six per cent, £900 per year.

     "2. No hedge trimming required.

     "3. No ditch maintenance.

     "4. Larger fields reduce the need for internal roads

[releasing more acreage for crop production].

     "5. Increased machinery efficiency, with reduced idle

turning-time because of awkward corners" (Modern Agriculture and

Rural Planning, John Weller, pp. 261, 269).

 

     Note the strong words from an author who is concerned for

the quality of our environment:

 

          "The economic usefulness of hedges is mainly over. The

high cost of labour, electric fences, the need to exploit every

acre, all these combine to make most hedges not merely useless,

but a liability" ("Brave New Victuals", Elspeth Huxley, p. 137).

 

Environmental Heresy!

 

     It looks like a case of ECONOMICS versus BEAUTY -- but can't

we have BOTH?

     MOST HEDGEROWS IN ENGLAND COULD BE REMOVED WITHOUT HURTING

THE LANDSCAPE! Heresy??

     No -- not if they are replaced by trees, shelterbelts and

thickets. That would be advantageous to conservationists,

sightseers and farmers a like!

     Caborn sums up the situation when he states:

 

          "The sacrifice of land is often a deterrent to planting

shelterbelts. But over a large part of the countryside, old

hedges occupy more space than would be needed for well-planned

shelterbelts and generally never repay the cost of trimming. On

stock farms they provide useful shelter and shade but the ever

widening gaps, common in hedges that have been allowed too much

rein, reduce their efficiency. Mechanized crop farming requires

larger fields and fewer hedges but opening up the landscape to

meet this need means increasing the wind problem. This is where

windbreaks could be incorporated while still providing a better

farm layout to suit modern trends" ("Shelter belts and Windbreaks",

J. M. Caborn, p. 68).

 

     Trees and small thickets serve even more effectively than

hedges in moderating the climate, softening the landscape and

breaking up the otherwise barren monotony of large arable fields.

     Famous British geographer, Sir Dudley Stamp rules out

another common objection:

 

          "Provided that farmers who remove hedges take the

trouble to plant fresh woodlands and coppice, Sir Dudley saw no

reason the present trend back to large open fields should have

any damaging effect on wildlife" ("Farmers Weekly", November 7,

1969).

 

     Additional trees would be a tremendous boon to the national

economy in a few years time:

 

          "Today £1,250,000 of wood and timber products enter our

ports EACH DAY" ("Tomorrow's Countryside", Garth Christian, p. 50).

 

          "We import over 90 per cent of our timber ... our

consumption is expected to double by the year 2000 .... Britain

has only about 4 1/2 million acres of woods supplying 9 per cent

of our needs. That is a smaller proportion ... than most other

Western European countries" ("Daily Telegraph Magazine", December

12, 1969).

 

Timber Monoculture -- A Mistake

 

     The Forestry Commission has been trying to correct the

nation's timber shortage by planting huge tracts of land in the

uplands of England and Scotland to conifers. Their effort is

admirable, but the overall effect on the landscape is ABOMINABLE!

Regimented, dark, dreary, dripping forests are a clear case of

timber monoculture -- an ecological nightmare! However, the

nation should be grateful -- this approach is now changing.

     For farm improvement, windbreaks and shelterbelts of

multiple species can form the basis of a revised type of

management. Because exposed arable areas can be quite severely

affected by wind, successful establishment of windbreaks could

benefit many cropping programs.

     On HILL-FARMS, the same policy may permit the introduction

of less hardy, hut more productive breeds of livestock and higher

survival percentages in new-born lambs. There can also be

economic advantages in earlier calving and lambing.

     The value of trees in the vicinity of watering points is

often not well enough appreciated. They offer cheap protection

against wind and sun for livestock. It has been shown that

shelter promotes the general well-being of farm animals --

reflecting this benefit in the form of better MILK, BEEF, MUTTON

and WOOL production.

 

Shelter-belt Density

 

     The density of a windbreak is of considerable importance. If

it is too THIN, it will obviously have little slowing effect on

the wind. If it contains GAPS, or lacks low level branches it can

have the effect of actually INCREASING the wind speed through a

funneling action.

     Where the timber barrier is too DENSE it will divert the

whole force of the wind OVER the tree tops. A concentration of

pressure occurs and the wind is sucked back down to its normal

level within a short distance behind the windbreak. This allows

the wind to resume its unhindered progress and greatly reduces

the area being sheltered. In the case of cereals, the eddying

effect can be strong enough to flatten considerable areas of crop

in the advanced stages of growth.

     The ideal windbreak should be spelt -- WINDBRAKE! It should

filter the wind, allowing a percentage to pass right on through

the trees, but at REDUCED speed. This prevents leeward eddying of

the air volume that has been forced over the top. The above

diagram illustrates the principle referred to. It should also be

noted that the LOWEST wind speed is recorded some little distance

AWAY from the leeward side of the break (a down-wind distance of

two to four times the height of the shelter belt).

 

(Note: To view the chart titled "EFFECT OF (A) MODERATELY PENETRABLE

& (B) DENSE WINDBREAKS" see the file 700623.TIF in the Images\Ag

directory.)

 

     Maximum protection lies in the number and distribution of

shelterbelts. NOT in their WIDTH! Some feel WIDE timber belts

best dissipate wind force, but this is not so. Within a few

hundred yards it will be blowing just as hard as ever down near

ground level. This underlines the relative ineffectiveness of the

average low-trimmed HEDGE!

     A semi-permeable shelterbelt offers effective protection

over a distance of approximately 5H on the WINDWARD side and 20H

on the LEEWARD side (H represents the HEIGHT of the shelterbelt).

This means that every mile-run of 30 feet-high shelterbelt will

protect approximately 90 acres of land from two directions. Using

shelterbelts one chain wide would leave about 90% of the total

acreage available for other farming purposes. It is claimed that

at least 5% of the farm area can be planted with windbreaks

WITHOUT incurring a net crop loss.

     Accepted espacements are, according to some authorities 12

feet in the rows and 15 feet between rows for most species. Where

there is a second row, trees should not be planted directly

opposite those of the first row. With three rows or more,

a triangular planting pattern offers effective density and

efficiency. Windbreaks of more than two rows are best planted up

with the tallest species in the centre row.

 

(Note: To view the chart titled "(Manx-leg shelterbelt for multi-

directional protection of livestock)", see the file 700624.TIF

in the Images\Ag directory.)

 

     A Manx-leg layout presents an interesting and effective

shape for planting in centre field. It should be noted that the

diagram above illustrates how shelterbelts of this shape give

animals wind protection through a full 360ø sweep of the

compass:

 

Tree-Farming

 

     Ecological benefits from correctly managed shelterbelts can

totally change the whole environment for the farmer, his family,

his livestock and of course his bank balance!

     Timber should be farmed as a regular crop by every landowner

and figure in his annual income. Labour demand for harvesting a

regular timber crop comes in the winter and therefore fits

conveniently into most farm work-programmes. Under this system,

every landowner would play his part in supplying the world's

lumber requirements.

     Pfeiffer may have summed the situation up better than he

realized when he wrote:

 

          "Today we very closely approach the border of the

lowest possible conditions permitting life. Healing and

maintenance of the landscape leads to the best possible

biological and economic conditions, and besides this, stimulate a

sense for beauty and help develop CHARACTER. A feeling of

responsibility towards the earth carries with it a capacity for

building the future of the human race.

          "As in all spheres of practical life, preaching and

lecturing help little, deed and example accomplish everything"

(The Earth's Face, E. Pfeiffer, p. 122).

 

Ambassador College Forestry

 

     This is one of the reasons why Ambassador College is taking

its first steps in what will ultimately develop into a

globe-encircling project. Our Department of Agriculture is now

starting its first afforestation work. It is being done in

consultation with the British Forestry Commission and local

bodies in the Hertfordshire area. Planting commenced this spring,

along our new farm roads and around the boundaries of some

fields.

     We are not just ringing areas with an old hedge, but rather

planting and fencing planned forestry belts, filled with lush

pastures that will be a credit to the community. Furthermore, it

is intended as these areas develop, to stock them with suitable

types of game. Overall, we wish to create an environment

surrounding the inner College campus that will be enjoyable and

filled with interest.

     Coming up now is access to many additional acres of former

gravel pits. As these pits are excavated and then back-filled

with garbage from the London area we can reclaim them for

agricultural purposes. Part of that reclamation programme will

include beautifying and effective shelterbelts.

     There are literally hundreds of these badly blighted areas

in every ADVANCED country, so we are having a chance to make a

useful contribution to today's anti-pollution programme and to

sorely needed knowledge for the soon coming WORLD TOMORROW!

                                                                               

 

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                    July 1970, Vol. I, No. 7

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

 

            AMBASSADOR RESEARCH INTO SOIL MANAGEMENT

 

     It is now almost three years since the beginning of our

Agriculture Department. Its main job, (in conjunction with Big

Sandy) is to research proper management of the environment in

which God has placed mankind.

     FOOD PRODUCTION is of prime importance in this research

programme -- first, because our immediate survival depends upon

it -- and furthermore, because wrong methods of producing that

food have exercised the most powerful of all destructive

influences upon the environment of man through 6,000 years!

     Coupled with Big Sandy, we have the unique distinction of

being the ONLY Agricultural Research Centre in the world whose

work is entirely based upon the understanding and application of

God's laws!

     And in this issue of our "Research News", we want to tell

you a success story about soil management. It concerns work we

have done here at Bricket Wood and tested in the 'vegetable

section' of The Agriculture Programme.

 

Bricket Wood Trials

 

     It was the prior work and partial understanding of two or

three other people that triggered us off in the specific

direction of "top-cover experimentation".

     Many local inhabitants have been intrigued by what they have

seen over the fence as they drive past our Vegetable Section. And

according to reports that filter in, human reaction ranges all

the way from enthusiastic expectation, through cynical

skepticism, to outright sour condemnation!

     One man who works near Ambassador College has made quite a

habit of eating his lunch in his parked car opposite our

Vegetable Section. This enables him to see what we are doing and

he openly admits to being fascinated!

     Contrast this man's interest with the attitude of those who

will maintain that millions through many milleniums have

understood THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANT MATTER IN SOIL MANAGEMENT. The

fact is that the whole earth is deeply scarred with evidence to

the contrary! Regardless of his understanding -- man's actions

have always tended to destroy his immediate environment --

Viscount Townsend, Robert Bakewell and Jethro Tull not

withstanding!!

 

Bring Back That Top-Cover!

 

     We don't think there is much future in chipping and hoeing

weeds in order to keep the ground bare. That allows it to dry out

and need watering, which in turn grows more weeds, for the next

hoeing, and so on!

     In the Vegetable Section of our Agriculture Programme we are

now growing much of the produce, (used by the College Catering

Department) through a heavy layer of straw mulch. So far we have

experimented with different times and rates of application --

according to the various crops being raised.

     The first effect we noticed with this covering of organic

matter showed up BEFORE crops were even planted. It tends to

maintain soil moisture and temperatures at a relatively constant

level. And that means ideal conditions for millions of living

organisms in the soil.

     The treated ground literally came alive. Earthworms appear

to have quadrupled over-night! Between the rows of soft-fruits we

put over six inches of straw in February. This was expected to

last well into next year, however in only THREE MONTHS the

earthworm population had mixed 50% of our organic soil blanket

INTO the soil! In some places they were depositing their castings

on top of the straw layer.

     These worms literally did the ploughing job for us in a

manner and speed that surpasses anything we had ever seen! Our

soil under the mulch became loose, black, highly water absorbant

and very fertile! (Now we are in the process of harvesting a

record-breaking crop of large raspberries, in a year when dry

weather has pushed their price to astronomical levels).

     Since the soil is so loose and fertile under the mulch,

there will be no need for laborious seedbed preparation. Next

planting season we will simply draw back the straw and plant the

seeds in the moist soil underneath. Tedious digging and raking

have been eliminated!

 

Lower Costs -- Through Labour-Saving

 

     The job of growing potatoes is even simpler. We just plant

them on top of the level unprepared ground, but under the layer

of organic material. No digging is required. The potato being a

strong plant, forces its way through the mulch to the sunlight.

     Harvesting is equally simple and advantageous. Since the

seed potato was planted on top of the soil, that is just where

the new crop of tubers will be located -- UNDER the straw, but ON

TOP of the soil!! You simply part the straw to collect the

potatoes.

     Since the soil is protected from frost, planting can be done

three to four weeks earlier than on the conventional old

bare-ground, hilling system.

     Not only can planting be done early, but the mulch

application also. We covered almost two acres in preparation for

the College potato crop back in the middle of last winter. At

that time labour was plentiful because outside jobs were strictly

limited. This is just one more point to show how the system

dove-tails with other work.

     It also favours better year-round use of available labour,

because (as has been pointed out) the action of the deep layer of

mulch virtually eliminates weeding and hoeing. These two jobs are

tiring, back-breaking, repetitive and bite deeply into spring and

summer man-power, just when it is needed in every area of the

garden at once!

 

A Long Wet Winter

 

     By the time our potatoes were planted at the end of winter,

the curiosity of many was fully roused and then followed weeks of

anxious waiting. WE were not unduly anxious, but others were.

During this time, well-intentioned people even consoled us over

the great big mistake we had made in the potato area!

     They still don't know -- but we had already proved the

system on a small scale the previous year!

     However, the way the season worked out this year, others'

potatoes were up and away, while our field continued to look like

an inert soggy mass of dead straw. And that's about what it was

too! But with a drier late winter the situation would have been

very different.

     You see, the higher soil temperature under the mulch would

normally cause plant growth to begin earlier than it does on near

frozen, bare, windswept ground.

 

Drought Strikes!

 

     Anyway our little old "spuds" finally began to poke their

noses up through the straw and it was not long before the weather

in England took a dramatic turn in the opposite direction.

     It came out HOT AND DRY! And I mean weeks and weeks of

dryness! Crop producers around the nation soon began to cry about

drought slashing some yields by more than 50%. But it was then

that our heavily mulched potatoes began to come into their own.

When others were parched -- ours had ample soil moisture.

     Some of our own vegetable crops are still on the old BARE

GROUND SYSTEM and also outside the scope of our very limited

water supply. After four weeks of continuous hot dry weather

these had not only stopped growing, they were deteriorating

rapidly like everyone elses.

 

Protection Pays Off!

 

     By this time the whole of the verdant Bricket Wood Campus

was burning up rapidly! But visitors were just dumbfounded on

stepping through into our areas with a heavy top-cover. Here they

could not believe the way plants were growing vigorously in

adequate soil moisture. No shortage of plant nutrients either!

Chemical fertilizers, artificial stimulants and hormone weed

killers have no place in a God-planned system of soil management.

     Every day the dry weather continues, our plants on protected

soil go further ahead, while those on bare ground stagnate or

deteriorate.

     It is worth noting that plants on the BARE-GROUND system

with the best chance of surviving drought are those that make

enough top-growth to cover the soil around them before the dry

weather starts. Their shade ensures their own survival by

reducing evaporation of precious soil moisture.

     That in itself ought to tell the keen observer something

about the all-important role of ORGANIC SOIL-PROTECTION!

 

Top-cover -- A Natural Phenomenon

 

     Protecting soil with a covering blanket of plant material is

nothing new. We did not discover it! And neither did anyone else!

It is a God-given law that has been staring man in the face since

CREATION!

     Walk into any forest that has been undisturbed for a number

of years. There you will find that the forest floor is COMPLETELY

COVERED in a deep mulch layer of leaves and twigs. The bottom of

this protective layer is being continuously decomposed by

billions of live soil organisms to feed the trees.

     A similar thing also exists on the good grasslands of the

plains. Every well-established healthy pasture has a layer of

dead grass on the surface that feeds the plants growing through

it.

     Soil is meant to be covered and it is high-time for man to

wake-up to the fact that BARE GROUND IS NOT A NATURAL OR

DESIRABLE PHENOMENON.

 

Life-cycle In Man's Hands

 

     The only bare areas in most productive climates are rendered

that way by human action! And only by self-deception has man been

able to ignore the fact that since CREATION, God's system ALWAYS

works toward covering bare soil.

     Plants are specifically designed to supply a YEARLY

topdressing of organic cover to the soil around their own roots.

Take away that ANNUAL MULCHING and you smash the cycle of life

ALL LIFE -- NOT JUST PLANT LIFE!!

     First to disappear are the soil organisms, (the agents of

decomposition.) When they die the soil dies. Then the supply of

available plant nutrients ceases. Therefore surface-rooting

plants disappear and finally the deep-rooting ones die-out too.

     Because no animal can survive on this now barren, windswept

plain, man himself has to hurry off over the horizon, before he

too is overtaken by starvation and death! It's as simple as that

to destroy God's creation!

 

A New Understanding

 

     The Agriculture Department in Bricket Wood has felt sure for

TWO YEARS that it understood the real purpose behind the one

great over-riding agricultural law that God instituted to protect

man's environment. That is the SABBATICAL YEAR! And at that time

we were in the middle of observing it ourselves.

     We believed it was primarily to give a TEMPORARY BOOST TO

THE ALL-IMPORTANT LEVEL OF ORGANIC RESIDUES IN THE SOIL.

     Now as the story just told shows, we have for the past year

also been attaching great importance to the level of organic

matter ON-TOP of the soil. But only NOW, during the preparation

of this report, has "the penny dropped." This is the true purpose

of the YEAR OF REST!

     How blind we are! With the SABBATICAL YEAR, God is obviously

confronting man with a visual reminder after every six years.

Though we have not been able to see it, He is rubbing our nose in

the fact that we need to KEEP A PERMANENT PROTECTIVE BLANKET OF

VEGETATION OVER EVERY PART OF THE EARTH FOR WHICH WE ARE

INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE!!

     As for the old point about putting organic residues back

INTO the soil -- that is automatically accomplished by living

organisms, if only we provide the vital protective layer for the

TOP of the soil.

     In the past we have been so pre-occupied with the very

important need to get large quantities of plant material back

INTO our ground, that we failed to see that KEEPING THE SOIL

COVERED IS THE GREAT OVER-RIDING LESSON OF GOD'S SABBATICAL YEAR!

                                                                               

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                   August 1970, Vol. I, No. 8

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

             CAN MAN AFFORD TO FARM GOD'S WAY TODAY?

 

     If agriculture isn't your livelihood, this question may be

somewhat academic and even surprising from a converted person. It

will therefore be helpful to establish just WHY such a question

would be asked, because it is -- and very frequently!

     Preceding this question are a host of others, unasked

perhaps, but in the farmer's mind; for example: Do you appreciate

what drastic changes are involved? Systems of agriculture -- how

many are there? What are the answers to the farmer's finance

problems? Must the farmer question EVERY aspect of food

production? Surely we won't make much progress in agriculture

until the millennium?

     A change to God's way is quite dramatic -- EVEN IN FARMING!

In fact the whole process of agricultural change is a physical

parallel with the spiritual upheaval that sweeps over every

individual called into God's Church.

     Field Ministers are now finding that some farmer Church

Members are making insufficient effort to radically change their

approach to applying God's agricultural laws. In this issue of

the Research News we hope to answer points they may raise, show

success is possible and spotlight some current economic

fallacies.

     Unfortunately most food producers among God's people find

out all too slowly and expensively, that almost every true

agricultural principle is the exact opposite of their own

life-long belief and practice!

     So deeply ingrained is this error within our being that many

a farmer to whom the basic Bible doctrines were no problem --

suddenly finds himself confronted with a real test of obedience!

     But many people give up the work of a lifetime to obey God,

so why should ANY farmer be surprised if he has to RE-STRUCTURE

his agriculture and RE-EDUCATE his mind?

 

Many Questions -- Yet All Have Answers!

 

     Most farmers fear for their financial survival when

confronted with this change from one system to another!

     It is discouraging to see how often this concern overshadows

man's desire to equip himself with the necessary theory and

practical working experience of the new system!

     This lack of drive to re-educate oneself often reflects

uneasy hidden doubts (even natural ones) in the mind of the

farmer about the merits of the methods he is taking on. But the

more he doubts, the less chance he has for success. Doubt has

that uncomfortable habit of quickly turning into concrete belief!

And that will set the seal of failure on any undertaking!!

     If only our desire toward God's law and putting it into

practise could match the undying faith in the blundering and

endless experimentation of man! The methods man has developed are

legion, but let us now divide them into a few simple categories:

 

Agriculture's Three Basic Systems

 

     I. THE OLD WRONG WAY -- human greed, breaking natural laws

and paying the penalty by being driven out to yet another area,

leaving a desert behind.

     II. THE NEW WRONG WAY -- the same human greed, breaking the

same natural laws, but with the messiah of

Science-falsely-so-called, telling man that he can stay put and

in effect, continue law-breaking. (Part of its appeal is that man

now has nowhere to move to).

     III. GOD'S RIGHT WAY -- obedience to LAW, (the only truly

SCIENTIFIC approach), knowledge that our environment is His

Creation, understanding of relevant laws that make it work and

the wisdom to express grateful thanks for the abundance it gives,

rather than make ridiculous demands upon it!

 

Two Basic Problems -- But No Solutions!

 

     Everyone believes Western agriculture is faced with two

basic problems, (and both of them are 'economic'):

 

     A. RISING COSTS

     B. STATIC OR FALLING INCOME, (in relation to other sectors

of the particular national economy).

 

     Farmers have for years been accustomed to hearing their

national leaders urge them to: CUT COSTS and INCREASE

PRODUCTIVITY. But in most 'advanced' countries, food producers

have done more in these directions than any other section of the

community.

     Is it not therefore ironic that food producers who have

learnt to run faster and faster during the past twenty years,

have at best succeeded in standing still? At worst, (and this is

the great majority) they have lost ground financially, in spite

of all their efforts.

     So much for the 'EXPERTS' and the great 'NEW WRONG WAY' of

modern agriculture. Farming is now in its worst financial state

since the disaster of the 1930's!

     Attempts to cut costs and increase production have BOTH

tended to lead the agriculturalist AWAY from success rather than

TO IT! Both have encouraged him to mechanise. Both have

encouraged him to specialize. And the cost of mechanizing has

intensified his need to specialize -- the beginning of a vicious

and profitless cycle.

     Along with this has come a costly high pressure programme

for producing HIGH-YIELDING breeds of seeds, plants, and animals,

NEW MANAGEMENT techniques and a MORE RAPID TURN-AROUND of crops

and animals.

     Result? Take Britain for example, her agriculture is now the

most mechanized in the world, COSTS have been kept DOWN more than

in any other industry and PRODUCTION is at an ALL-TIME HIGH. This

looks like a true success story!

     Unfortunately it is not! Farmers are desperate, angry and

near bankrupt. Returns are at their LOWEST for almost forty

years. They can't afford replacement machinery and fertilizer.

And while the nation announces an unemployment figure of 570,000

for July, labour is still drifting away from agriculture! The

nation can afford to pay 570,000 people every week to do NOTHING,

but agriculture is now so sick that it can't pay for EITHER

LABOUR OR MACHINERY.

     So in spite of cost cutting, increased production and little

gimmicks like 'subsidies', the farmer is in worse trouble than

ever!

     The farmer has tied himself to a dumb financial machine

which refuses to recognize any limit to: A. INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION

and B. CONSUMER PURCHASING POWER. Instead, the financial machine

should be tied to the legal limits of agricultural production,

which were determined by God at Creation.

     This impossible predicament of man has been well expressed

in the statement that one half of his economy depends upon

continuous expansion while the other can survive only in a state

of delicate equilibrium!

 

Pursue Truth With Determination!

 

     Man's 'NEW WRONG SYSTEM' of agriculture has no more chance

of success than the 'OLD WRONG WAY'! Every single practise,

(ancient or modern) must be treated as suspect until proven

otherwise.

     No cherished method of the past or present is sacrosanct.

Stubborn retention of just one of these strongly held beliefs,

(and farmers don't give up their ideas easily) can overthrow any

man during that critical change-over period to the right system.

     Our Agriculture Department would have made little progress

had it not been willing to sustain its challenge against any

farming practise. We have had to repeatedly fight the human

tendency, (and we still do) to abandon new ideas that are under

trial. Often they lack only A MAN WITH THE DETERMINATION TO MAKE

THEM SUCCEED. A significant point for any who would follow GOD'S

WAY, in a world that is following ITS OWN.

     Remember that in going God's way, man has to swim only

against the ideas of men. But that challenge is just tough enough

for you to need God's help in order to succeed.

 

Seven Points Toward Success!

 

     1. LAND PRICES: The biggest anomaly in British agriculture

-- land prices at a record high, while farm profits on invested

capital are at a 30 year low! Farmers have an unfortunate history

of confusing the value of land with its market price. Land value

must be governed by what it will produce. Today's discrepancy in

these figures is spelling doom for thousands of modern farmers!

     Our people can capitalize on the secret of soil-building by

selling all or some of their over-valued land and buy-in

elsewhere. This will be land considered unsuitable by the

majority, but we DO have the secret of soil building!

     Today most land-users are in the business of DESTROYING soil

fertility. We know we are to be in the business of BUILDING IT

UP, we know how, so why not capitalize on this knowledge!

 

     2. THE RIGHT SYSTEM: Even if a farmer can't put himself out

of the 'Red' and into the 'Black' by land selling, he should stop

destroying his environment and begin building it up.

     Farmers will not escape all the penalties for past

law-breaking, but God's way of agriculture would bring them to

grips with the real CAUSE of their problems. British Agriculture

for example, claims the immediate need of £140m to avoid

disaster! This could be saved many times over, if it stopped

treating the SYMPTOMS of self-compounding and self-created

problems. (Every Agricultural Show indicates the depth of the

farmers' involvement with those who live by having their hand in

his pocket.)

 

     3. QUALITY PAYS DIVIDENDS: All growers today are advised by

the 'experts' that their only chance lies in specialized

production! Result -- mass production of a single item, crudely

dumped onto world market through some system of bureaucratically

controlled bulk-pooling. Here, quality is measured by the lowest

common denominator. This type of PRODUCTION and MARKETING are

BOTH wrong, but let them go ahead anyway!

     Once we start following the right system of agriculture, all

our produce will be HIGH QUALITY. Our people should therefore

specialize on their MARKET, NOT on the line of production. If we

stand or fall by the quality of our produce, we can be identified

by the purchaser who will pay a premium for the quality he

receives. He will even expect to and will also return again and

again.

 

     4. OUTSIDE CONTRACTING: Those who abandon monoculture are

often left with excess labour and large, expensive, unsalable and

(many times) unpaid-for machinery. These can often be hired out

to others in the local area at a profit, because they lack the

cash for permanent labour and new machinery.

 

     5. ACQUIRE NEW SKILLS: Most farmers who take a part-time or

full-time job, have trouble getting one that pays well, (once

again -- because of specialization). Those who can, should

acquire some specialized skills that will help them sell

themselves to a local expanding industry.

 

     6. VERTICALLY INTEGRATE: A high-sounding term for cutting

out the middle men. Milk prices in Britain for example, in the

past 15 years have risen by less than 40% for the producer, but

by MORE than 80% to the consumer!! Quite a margin to cash in on.

(The farmers' town and factory contacts could blossom into

customers for direct selling of farm produce).

 

     7. ENTER THE HOLIDAY INDUSTRY: The tourist trade can be

tapped via bed and breakfast accommodation and land with beauty

but low productivity is ideal for picnic and camp-site

development. All these are avenues for direct food sales too,

through a roadside stall!

 

Keep Your Eye On That Vital Long-term Goal!

 

     Yes, man CAN AFFORD TO FARM GOD'S WAY TODAY! In fact right

agriculture is just like obeying the TITHING LAWS -- regardless

of any anxiety or difficulty, we simply can't afford not to obey!

Every true member of God's Church has proved (in many cases, to

his own amazement) that the tithing laws really work. But how

many have ever stopped to consider that God actually gives FAR

MORE detailed promises and dire warnings in The Bible concerning

agriculture? (Lev. 25, and 26. Deut. 7, 14 and 28.) They too,

must be heeded!

     Most of these fantastic physical blessings and terrible

punishments we tend to chalk-up against much wider and more

general issues. But aren't we kidding ourselves that: A. God

blessed nations and individuals with prosperity and abundance

without requiring their agricultural obedience and B. That He

would CONTINUE to pour out agricultural blessings on people who

are knowingly breaking agricultural laws? Wrong!! LAW-BREAKING

ALWAYS BRINGS PENALTIES!

     Remember too, man's food production is highly vulnerable and

under attack from Satan in his efforts to destroy this world!

Therefore some will have to get out of farming, but for the time

being the majority CAN continue -- KEEPING ONE POINT IN MIND:

     The poorest peasant will enter God's Kingdom IF he is

keeping God's laws, while many king size farmers perish! (See

Mat.13:40-43)

                                                                               

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                  September 1970, Vol. I, No. 9

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

                    WHY -- THE LAND-SABBATH?

 

     The law of the land-sabbath is not new to most students of

the Bible, but many questions we receive in the Agriculture

Department indicate that it is only vaguely understood.

     These questions demand answers and in our efforts to find

them we have been forced to embark on a rather searching study of

this particular part of God's law. It has been most rewarding and

in this edition of "Your Living Environment" we want to re-state

some old conclusions and give additional information on this

somewhat enigmatic law. We don't put them forward to you as

"final", but promise that you will find them interesting and

stimulating.

 

Did God Neglect Agricultural Instruction?

 

     Most converted farmers read the Bible with one eye always

searching for instruction from God about food production. Imagine

their chagrin when, having read through the entire Bible, they

discover that God's specific instructions to food producers

appear to be little more than a few notes on firstlings, a few

verses on mingled seed, the land-sabbath and the jubilee!

     Beyond these points God appears to have considered it

unnecessary to offer anything very much in the way of specific

guidelines for producing man's most important physical commodity

-- FOOD!

     But is that really the situation? Why would the all-wise

Creator God choose, in writing the Bible, to be so specific and

detailed about such things as sacrifices for example and so

seemingly nebulous about agriculture?

     God wasn't nebulous at all. In fact, He did give man

agricultural guidance, but he gave it in such a way that it could

not be neglected by an obedient nation! God did not have to

expound principles of food production in the Bible. His law of

the land sabbath appears to do the job for Him. It forces the

people in an obedient nation to learn the following points by

virtue of sheer economic necessity:

 

     1. That they needed a cheap and effective source of feed for

their meat-producing animals, (but NOT GRAIN)!

     2. How to prevent soil erosion and the formation of deserts,

(the curse of modern Palestine).

     3. How to avoid water pollution.

     4. How to overcome the problem of huge grain surpluses.

     5. To know what constitutes a logical approach to laying out

cities, towns, villages and farms.

     6. The true value of long-term highly mechanized farming.

     7. The general implications of protein quantity and quality

in a good diet for both animals and humans.

     8. That factory-farming won't work -- economically.

     9. What would be an efficient system of producing and

marketing vegetables, fruit, milk, meat and eggs.

     10. The importance of livestock in any permanent system of

agriculture.

     11. That soil fertility cannot be maintained without a

regular return of organic matter to the land and that ultimately

each acre must be the source of its own fertility.

     12. That there is a definite limit to the amount each acre

can produce and that this level will be reached only if man is

prepared to limit the amount he takes for his own purposes.

     That may appear to be reading rather much into one single

law of God!! If so, then read on and see for yourself.

 

Understanding God's Laws

 

     As Mr. Armstrong has often said, the best way to discover

the purpose and meaning of any of God's laws is to put the

particular law into action in your own life. He has repeatedly

mentioned that he and his wife had to keep the annual festivals

for many years in total faith before they were able to discern

the true purpose of the annual Holydays!

     The same principle seems to apply to the Sabbatical Year.

Only by keeping it can we learn the meaning, the intent and the

full importance of God's command to man to rest his land, etc,

every SEVEN years.

     Ambassador College in Bricket Wood has done this, (22 years

ago). But many of you however, have not had such an opportunity.

Imagination will therefore be required as we walk through a land

sabbath on paper, to help you consider its implications for

individuals and whole nations in the near future!

 

What The Land-sabbath Involves

 

     The main details were covered in the April, 1969, "Good

News". Briefly however, the land-sabbath imposes the following

conditions every seventh year:

 

     1. No grain may be harvested for commercial purposes.

     2. No crops may be sown specifically for harvesting.

     3. No vineyards, or orchards may be pruned.

     4. No fruit, vegetables, or grain may be stored.

     5. No hay, or winter fodder may be collected in barns.

     6. No fresh fruit, or vegetables would be available for

sale.

     7. Pasturing cattle, sheep and poultry is NOT restricted.

 

Some of The Implications

 

     Visualize yourself now as an adult male with a wife and

three children. The Civil Government of your country has made the

Sabbatical Year part of the enforced law of the land as God

intended. Your responsibility is to provide food, clothes,

shelter and a good way of life for your family. The provision of

clothes, shelter, fuel and recreational amenities would be

unaffected by the Sabbatical Year. But what about FOOD?

     Every SEVENTH year one could expect a temporary shortage of

certain basic commodities, even if there had been a surplus the

previous year, (as Lev. 25:22 indicates).

     MILK and EGGS would be even more plentiful than normal,

because under God's civil government the Sabbatical Year applies

to ALL food producers in the same year -- Lev. 25:9-10. This type

of production is in fact encouraged -- and at the specific

expense of commercial crops, (Lev. 25:7).

     GRAIN could be available to all, because it stores easily

and MEAT would also be plentiful.

     VEGETABLES and FRUIT would be a different matter!

Undoubtedly some could and would be stored by either drying,

freezing, or bottling. But it would be extremely difficult, if

not impossible to effect national bulk storage, sufficient to

last at least a year, (until the next harvest season). Even if it

could be done, the cost would be high and the food much less

nutritious and less enjoyable than fresh fruit and vegetables.

     The ONLY families, (other than the poor and the travelers,

Ex. 23:11,12) who could have fresh produce would be those who

have their OWN orchards and gardens! For them, fresh fruit and

vegetables WOULD be available in season.

     During the strawberry season of the Seventh Year for

example, those people who have been growing THEIR OWN PLANTS

would be able to have fresh berries right through the strawberry

season. God does not approve of storing these away, but He does

approve of eating them FRESH, that is while they are in season,

(Lev. 25:6).

     This could mean that only a portion of the total

strawberries would be used and the rest would return to the soil,

but people WOULD have fresh fruit. A big incentive to grow your

OWN strawberries.

     The same principle would apply to all berry, stone, pome and

citrus fruits. Notice the incentive for DIVERSIFICATION. This

would lengthen seasonal production of fresh fruit available to

each SELF-SUPPORTING family.

     Amazing isn't it? God, by giving Israel the land-sabbath

law, appears to have made it far more profitable for each family

to produce their own fruit and vegetables than rely on the

efforts of someone else!

     God's Sabbatical Year makes it economically and

nutritionally unattractive to rely on a few specialist producers

selling to millions of non-producing consumers, (like we have

today)!

     Maybe everyone won't be producing their own in the future,

but the only system that harmonizes with the land-sabbath is

simply one of self-sufficiency in fruit and vegetables via

home-grown production!

     Under God's system, there would be NO local green-grocers

operating anywhere in the nation during the year of rest. The law

would prevent anyone selling produce to a green-grocer during

this time, but people can have a FREE supply direct from their

OWN garden, (Lev. 25:6). Even here God has seen the necessity of

forestalling human nature. Many people, left to their own

devices, would plant a garden ONLY in the SEVENTH YEAR and buy

their requirements from someone else during the other six years!!

But in order to have any garden produce in the SEVENTH Year a

family must have a garden in at least the sixth year too! God

makes this mandatory by limiting the available produce to that

which volunteers in the Seventh Year. You can quickly appreciate

that volunteer growth in vegetables COMES only where they have

been planted in a previous year! (That cleverly rules out

vegetable retailers in the SIXTH year!)

 

Volunteer Growth

 

     A properly managed garden will have a surprising amount of

vegetables that will volunteer in the seventh year. Ambassador

College is perfecting a method of potato-growing that, among

other benefits, enables a family to have fresh potatoes from July

to December with no digging, weeding or seeding. A similar system

for carrots, cabbages, sprouts and other vegetables is being

tested.

 

Benefits of Obedience

 

     Therefore the Sabbatical Year benefits the family as

follows:

 

     1. Consumption of animal protein is encouraged by making it

the most plentiful food every Seventh Year.

     2. By forcing man to be self-sufficient God is encouraging

us to dwell under our own vine and fig tree. (Mic. 4:4)

     3. Being the source of produce, the garden keeps the family

together and occupied at least every sixth and seventh year.

Though more work than most city dwellers are used to, benefits

for adults, children, the local community and the entire nation

are undeniable.

 

Consider some of the national benefits:

     1. The land-sabbath discriminates severely against

landowners who rely on CROPS for their income. Our modern

animal-less farms would be totally out of business every seventh

year, while those who pasture stock would be unaffected!

     Growing of crops is all right, but if not strictly limited

it becomes man's most lethal weapon for soil destruction! This

single God-given law hedges the obedient nations about with

protection for its most precious physical commodity -- FERTILE

SOIL.

     2. Today's system of marketing produce would be uneconomic.

The nation's MARKET-GARDENERS would be totally out of business in

both the sixth and seventh years of every seven year cycle.

GREEN-GROCERS would be out too in the seventh year and limited to

sales of fruit during the sixth and ORCHARDISTS would have no

income in the seventh!

     3. As today's miles and miles of monotonous grain fields

become a memory, more cattle, sheep and poultry will be bred.

     4. Huge and embarrassing grain surpluses would also cease

because monoculture would be discouraged.

     5. Less bare ground through reduced cultivation would

greatly decrease the hazards of erosion and desert formation.

Land well covered with grass is nearly immune to damage from wind

and water. In a world that is observing the land sabbath no

man-made deserts like the Sahara would occur, (other than by

over-grazing with livestock).

     6. Factory farming would be ruled out through a lack of

cheap grain. GRASS would be the cheapest and best feed, (and it

probably is, even today). Regular years of rest would raise soil

fertility and grass quality would improve to the point where

protein supplements of grain would be UNNECESSARY.

     7. The ramifications of increased SOIL FERTILITY could be

easily traced, (if space permitted) through plant, animal and

human HEALTH. This fact alone would save every modern Western

nation millions of pounds annually for pharmaceuticals, chemical

sprays and dusting agents.

     In conclusion then it is obvious that in the Sabbatical

Year, God gave Israel a VAST amount of agricultural and

environmental guidance. Indeed, had the Israelites kept this law,

it is difficult to see how they could have AVOIDED health and

prosperity.

     The land-sabbath appears to be one of the most rejected of

all laws by Israel of old, right from the very beginning. But we

hope that this report helps to show how vital it will be for a

FUTURE Israel to avoid the same mistake!!

                                                                              

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                  October 1970, Vol. I, No. 10

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

                    GRAIN -- A DANGER TO MAN!

 

     Today the world agrees that the solution to it food crisis

lies in grain production! Prodigious sums of money, talent and

resources are devoted to producing more and more grain. Why don't

nations and international organizations devote their time and

money to increasing the world's production of animal protein? The

way to achieve this is simple -- by expanding the total area of

improved pastures and raising soil fertility!

     Instead, world agriculture moves consistently in the

OPPOSITE direction -- toward even greater dependence upon GRAIN.

Why? Because men make one simple false assumption -- that an acre

of GRAIN equals more food than the meat of milk from an acre of

GRASS!

     From this issue of "Your Living Environment" you will see

that a STARVING world is producing TOO MUCH grain and that such a

policy is opposite to the way mankind should be going. We present

evidence to show that basing world agriculture on grain

production is a serious threat to man's food, health, environment

and financial interests. In the past, the trend toward grain

production may have been almost unintentional. But today it is

foremost in the minds of the most influential international food

planners -- yet it endangers our very survival!

     So what? Everything "endangers our very survival" today!

True. This is just one more threat, but it is one that few people

know about. And Ambassador Agricultural Research now brings your

this information, we believe, for the first time ever!

 

Food Value Per Acre -- Grain or Grass?

 

     If only man would get his priorities right he would believe

that an acre of land produces more nutritional value under GRASS

that under grain.

     The following table and comments prepared by Dr. K.L.

Blaxter, (Director of the world-renowned Rowett Research

Institute, Aberdeen) proves this:

 

     HUMAN FOOD OUTPUT        MILK                CEREAL

     PER HECTARE              PRODUCTION          PRODUCTION

     (2.47 ACRES)

 

     Dry matter     kg.       1420 Milk solids    3557.5 flour

     Calories       Mcal      8512.5              14,585

     Protein        kg.       397.5               460

     Lipid          kg.       455                 42.5

     Lysine         kg.       31.8                10

     Threonine      kg.       18.8                9.3

     Thiamin        g.        4                   2.8

     Riboflavin     g.        17                  2.5

     Nicotinic acid g.        6.8                 30.3

     Calcium        kg.       107.5               5

     Phosphorus     kg.       85                  35

 

          The milk production figures are based on grassland

yielding 11,045 lbs dry matter converted to 9,312 lbs. milk per

acre. The cereal production is based on wheat yielding 40.5 cwt

(75 bushels) per acre, with 15 percent moisture content.

 

     "The results show that the calorific yield is much greater

when good land is used to grow bread grains rather than to

produce milk. At least 50% more biologically useful calories can

be obtained from the cereal crop in terms of flour yield than

from the milk produced. This is the ONLY major nutrient however,

in which the cereal crop excels. Intensive milk production and

wheat growing produce similar amounts of protein. These proteins

however, differ markedly in nutritive value for man. Direct

experiment with man shows that the biological value of wheat

flour proteins is 41, while that of milk proteins is 74. The

difference stems from the deficiency of wheat proteins, and

indeed all cereal grain proteins, in the amino acids lysine and

to a lesser extent threonine. The yield per hectare from dairy

production of lysine and threonine are three times and twice

those from cereal production. With the exception of nicotinic

acid, yields of vitamins of the B complex group are greater for

dairy production than for cereal production and so, quite

obviously are yields of calcium and phosphorus (vital for strong

bones and health)" (Science Journal, May 1968, pages 55-56).

     The table proves beyond a shadow of doubt that a hectare of

grass, producing milk, yield far more of the proteins and

minerals so badly needed by the hungry nations that does a

hectare of grain!

     Dr. Blaxter based his calculations on a wheat yield of 75

bushels per acre. He couldn't be accused of exaggeration. Had he

used the average yields of major producers like Russia, the

U.S.A. and Canada, his chart would have been different. Their

yields are less than HALF the figure he used and that would have

weighted the table even MORE heavily in favour of GRASSLAND food

production as the best way to feed mankind a balanced diet!

 

How Much Grain Does Man Produce?

 

     You and I may accept Dr. Blaxter's table, but can a starving

world take a chance and institute a massive swing to producing

animal protein? Perhaps not, IF we are SHORT of grain! However,

look at the latest figures:

 

     The 1970 "Stateman's Yearbook" records that in 1967, the

total world-wide production of rice, wheat, maize, oats and

barley was just over 1,000 million metric tons. A figure like

that does not mean anything unless we know how many people it

will feed for a year.

 

How Much Grain Does Man Need?

 

     Nutrition books tell us that the average person in the

Western world eats about 200 lbs of grain annually. That means

one metric ton (2,205 lbs.) would feed approximately eleven

people per year.

     Therefore, 1,000 million metric tons would feed 11 billion

people. World population is now said to be 3.5 billion, so in

1967 the world's farmers produced more than THREE TIMES the total

annual grain needs of mankind!

     Rough figures perhaps, but they leave plenty of margin for

error. And more important, they bring into perspective man's

frantic efforts to breed new grain varieties, to build more

fertilizer factories, to manufacture more and bigger farm

machinery and to bring more pasture-land under the plough!

 

Man On A Grain Diet

 

     Every nutrition expert has said as some time or other that

LACK OF PROTEIN is mankind's most acute food problem. And many

admit that they really mean -- ANIMAL protein! (Those who don't,

need only refer to Lev. 11).

     Grain does not satisfy man's real need for high quality

protein. Only meat, cheese and eggs can do that! The high grain

diet of the world's masses provides only VEGETABLE protein. It is

a protein of poor quality too where you have the usual

combination of low soil fertility and artificial fertilizers!

 

Where Does All The Grain Go?

 

     If man could not and should not eat more than ONE THIRD of

today's total grain production, where is all the rest going? The

following grain consumption figures for the year 1969/1970 are

supplied by The Ministry of Agriculture. They provide and

interesting answer:

 

     Total consumption of all grain in the U.K... 22,250,000 tons

       "        "      "   "   "    by humans....  7,950,000  "

       "        "      by animals in the U.K..... 13,350,000  "

     Grain for export, seeds, etc................    950,000  "

     (Farmer & Stockbreeder, December 9, 1969, page 85)

 

     So! TWO-THIRDS of Britain's grain is consumed by ANIMALS!!

The same pattern of grain usage exists in most other developed

countries that are themselves large producers of grain. Britain

even feeds two-thirds of its grain to animals in spite of the

fact that she has to spend around £200 million annually on wheat

IMPORTS!

     Millions of livestock around the world are not fed GRASS, or

HAY, which are the materials their digestive tract is designed to

handle. Instead, much of our animal protein is today produced by

feeding large quantities of LOW-QUALITY GRAIN. With present

farming methods there is no shortage of this kind of grain! In

fact we wonder if North American and U.K. cattle are raised to

produce beef, or to consume embarrassing surplus, cheap, low-

quality grain!!

 

Grain-fed Animals -- Why?

 

     The fact that cattle can be successfully brought to suitable

slaughter condition WITHOUT grain-feeding is regarded by American

Agriculture as a RECENT discovery. Even today, few people over

there know about it!

     Hi. W. Staten, in his book "Grasses & Grassland" has shocked

a lot of people. He writes: "Cattle fed on good pastures will

produce milk or beef at about one fourth to one fifth of the cost

of dry-feeding (through the use of grain plus a certain amount of

hay or straw)." (p. 19)

     Elsewhere he continues: "Total digestible nutrients produced

by green pastures cost about ONE FIFTH as much as those produced

by general cereal crops. Kansas reports that the cost of

producing corn and oats to be SIX to SEVEN TIMES THAT OF

PRODUCING PASTURES, and other states find comparable feeding

costs."

     "Cows turned onto good pastures from the best dry-lot

feeding maintain or INCREASE their milk flow." (p. 63, 73)

     Sufficient evidence here to make us wonder if our modern

ideas on the production of animal protein need revising! It is a

pity that Professor Staten does not go on and show the other side

of the "dud" coin -- a high grain diet tears up the digestive

tract of ruminants by pH levels 100 TIMES more acid than those

eating grass. Livers become abscessed and are condemned as UNFIT

FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION, but if the BODIES they service can walk

into the slaughterhouse, then they are sure to make it onto your

dinner plate!!

 

Excess Grain Production Effects Soil Too!

 

     Today these misguided world-wide demands for grain have

stimulated the conversion of millions of acres from grassland and

forest to crop production. As the following comment testifies, it

is these grainfield that are largely responsible for the world's

biggest agricultural curse -- SOIL EROSION:

 

          "Data from the Soil Conservation Experimental Station

at Bethany, Missouri, show that corn (maize) growing continuously

would allow 50.93 tons of soil to leave the field annually, but a

good kentucky bluegrass sod would lose only 0.16 tons of soil."

(Ibid, p. 8)

 

     Another unhappy result from excessive grain production is

now rearing its head in England -- yes, even in England -- the

total breakdown of SOIL STRUCTURE! The seriousness of this

situation was the subject of an alarming report presented

recently to The British Ministry of Agriculture by one of its

chief advisors. Thousands of acres of land in England have been

so abused by over-cultivation, heavy machinery and continuous

arable farming that not even grass can be profitably grown on

them for years to come!

 

How Much Grain-land For One Man?

 

     Have you ever wondered how much land it takes to grow enough

grain for one man? Would you guess -- 50 acres, or perhaps 10, or

5, or maybe even 1 little acre? One acre of land of average

fertility will produce 2,000 lbs of grain. We assumed earlier

that 200 lbs of grain per year would take care of a man's needs

in this direction. Therefore one acre would feed TEN people with

200 lbs each!

     Calculated at the rate of England's average wheat yield per

acre, the College Gymnasium floor area would provide the grain

needs of a family of FOUR people!! In other words a family would

easily supply its own needs from a large garden. Imagine the

fantastic change in man's environment world-wide if most of the

grain production was moved into the family garden and brought

under correct soil management!

     Given a little more land, the average family would also be

able to graze three or four ruminants and thereby be self-

sufficient in animal protein too! So the danger to man and beast

from millions of acres of featureless, badly managed, wrongly

used and deteriorating grain-land would quietly pass away.

     Man may finally come to understand that both his nutrition

and his environment would be a whole lot better off with fewer

"Egyptians" and more "servants" who can truthfully say that they

"... have been keepers of cattle from our youth ..." (Gen.

46:34).

     It is the DIET of the average man and many animals that

should be views as an "abomination, NOT the occupation of sound

husbandry!!

                                                                              

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                  November 1970, Vol. I, No. 11

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

                  PLANT BREEDING -- GOD'S WAY!

 

     A recent news report on Cambridge Plant Breeding Station

stated that a new, £250,000 BUILDING had just been opened! The

reader couldn't help but gather that this huge expense was well

justified by the fruits that will follow the automatic expansion

that this building will allow.

     The same report went on to state that PRIOR to the opening

of this building, the Station's operating expenses were some

£400,000 PER YEAR! Quite a sum to spend ANNUALLY, just to breed a

supply of "disease-resistant" plants to replace the "disease

resistant" ones they bred only three or four years earlier! This

is but ONE of many such costly institutions around the world! But

regardless of how low a value anyone may place on their work,

their recent worldwide impact is undeniable!!

     Who hasn't heard of "the Green Revolution"? "REVOLUTION" is

most appropriate, because it is already producing agronomic

anarchy and confusion! Suddenly we are told that man has made a

colossal genetic break-through in a bid to hold-off famine.

     But even before that label "green revolution" was coined, a

previous Research News brought you a report entitled -- "Genetic

Engineering -- Complex Path to Failure". It aimed to invalidate

the claims made by these influential and brilliant scientists. It

showed that they are setting the character and the pace for

PANDEMONIUM in the plant kingdom!

     Having given you that report showing why the work of the

geneticist is doomed to utter failure, it is now a real pleasure

to be able to follow-up with news of a break-through in our own

understanding. Within this last week it has suddenly become clear

how God has employed the simplest device, ever since Creation, as

a natural means of plant-breeding!

     But first let us re-cap a little on man's own efforts. The

most topical is of course the recent Blight attack that swept

through the hybrid corn industry from one end of America to the

other. Millions of bushels were wiped out almost over-night and

panic ensued on the Chicago grain market.

     Slowly the world is learning of the hushed-up Asian

dissatisfaction over IR8 "Miracle-rice". At this moment of

writing we have on Campus a Colombo-Plan expert who has come

direct from twenty months of work in Pakistan. He has given a

first-hand report on the failure of new high-yielding wheat

varieties in that country. To this sad record of failure in

modern plant-breeding must be added the continuous breakdown of

new cereal varieties in EVERY Western country!

 

What Is The Answer?

 

     The old music hall joke in England would have you believe

that "the answerrrr lies in the soillll". However in this case,

an answer that we have found appears to lie in a far more

despised object -- the common and lowly DUNG-PAT of an old cow!

     We think you will find that this new understanding makes the

multi-million pound efforts of "miracle" plant-breeding

geneticists an expensive tragedy!

     To millions of people the common animal dung-pat is

collected and treasured as the only source of fuel. This one

practice is sufficient to account for the poverty of their soil!

     To many millions of modern Western farmers and their highly

trained scientific advisors, the same animal dung-pat has become

a BARRIER to economic progress! And to some it has even become a

distressing source of environmental pollution!!

 

Dung-pats -- An Economic Barrier?

 

     Have you ever noticed the numerous grassy lumps and bumps in

a pasture when you have been driving down the road, or walking

across an unploughed field? Perhaps you have wondered why they

are there and what causes them?

     If you examine the ground you will find that every one of

them is centred on a dung-pat, or a urine patch. Their cause is

due to TWO factors. First, these areas persist in giving-off an

odour that is offensive to cattle, so the animals assiduously

avoid grazing the plants growing on these spots. Secondly, the

unusually high concentration of organic matter stimulates these

particular plants to put out more growth than the surrounding

areas.

     You may think that these lumpy patches look untidy. So does

the stock man, but his main displeasure lies in the fact that his

animals persistently refuse to graze this rank growth!

     Dairy farmers in Western countries are notorious for

squeezing large numbers of cattle into tiny pastures. (It is said

of some that their big boots are used to push the last cow into

the pasture to get the gate shut!!)

     Economics is always at the back of such practices but as

usual there is an over-riding law of diminishing returns. As man

increases the stocking rate, he also increases the number of dung

pats and urine-patches per acre. Finally, the total area of

unpalatable and unacceptable grazing exceeds the rest!

     That level of grazing is somewhat dryly described in

farmers' parlance as "heavy-stocking". Scientific advisors call

it "intensive-grazing". Call it what you like, but it still

confronts the financially-oppressed farmer as an economic barrier

to further progress.

 

Preventing Pasture Contamination

 

     Farmers don't give up easily, so now under the guidance of

their advisors many have completely REMOVED their animals from

the pastures! How's that for a system to get rid of the dung pat

problem, or "pasture-contamination" as it is called?

     Then the farmer gets out his field-mower, cuts his pastures

regularly and carts all the green plant-matter to animal feeding

troughs. This system is mistakenly hailed as an economic

breakthrough by the men in GRASSLAND RESEARCH! It is identified

by the very "mod" term -- "Zero-Grazing-Management". That name is

much more descriptive of the system than most of its

practitioners have yet realised!

     There is quite likely to be nothing that upsets a cattleman

more than to see half of his expensive, high-producing pasture

trampled down, urinated on and excreted upon, even by his OWN

cattle. So, cutting and carting grass under the "zero-grazing"

system enables him to gather EVERY blade of grass. And that can

be just another point at which he goes wrong.

 

More To Dung-pats Than Meets The Eye!

 

     Who would think that a little old dung-pat could present man

with so many problems! This may be the first time that you have

ever wondered WHY God designed animals to operate as they do. It

is a question that has been pondered many times and we now have a

very good answer!

     Yes, God DID create cattle with a waste-disposal system that

leaves pastures strewn and fouled-up with dung-pats. But it now

also appears that this is also one way in which He anticipated

Plant-Geneticists by almost 6,000 years!

     Each blob of animal manure on the landscape represents the

ultimate in concentrated plant residues. They are able to produce

the maximum biological action, both IN THEMSELVES and IN THE SOIL

under the dung-pats.

     At certain stages each year the animals start dropping pats

that are impregnated with seeds from a variety of plant species.

It is most important to note that these species are NOT

necessarily representative of the pasture in which the animal is

grazing. But it WILL represent the diet that has been

INSTINCTIVELY SELECTED by the individual animal! This is vitally

important and quite miraculous!! The animals are not only

RE-SEEDING your pasture, they are actually CHOOSING the species

that they prefer for their own health on that particular soil!

Furthermore, if the pasture is not over-grazed, they are even

selecting certain individual plants within a single species! (Few

people realise that a cow is a better judge of pasture and hay

quality than ANY cattleman!)

 

God Produces "Super" Seeds

 

     Wherever the climate allows pasture reproduction to take

place through the setting of seeds, specie selection by grazing

animals reaches its maximum effect. (That is providing man does

not interfere in a wrong way.)

     It is also easy to appreciate that plants growing in dung

pats will be the BEST NOURISHED and MOST VIGOROUS in the pasture

They will therefore set seed containing the highest amount of

protein and the highest viability for future germination.

     Consider what would happen if there was no odour to the

dung-pats! These plants would always be the most attractive to

the shrewd old cow throughout their entire growing life. They

would be the first grazed and the most heavily grazed! That would

reduce their seed-setting chances to almost nil. The WEAKEST

plants and the poorest species would then be left to dominate and

pasture quality would quickly deteriorate.

     God fore-stalled this problem and even reversed the process

naturally, by the simple device of giving dung-pats an odour that

repels the cattle. That means grazing animals spend the whole

growing season EYING the best pasture, but EATING only the SECOND

BEST. (This appears to be a rather intriguing example of ONE

INSTINCT overcoming another INSTINCT!)

 

"Super" Seeds For Entire Pasture

 

     Plant growth virtually stops at the end of the season (the

annuals die) and so grazing becomes scarce as the plants mature

and go to seed. At this time protein concentrates in the seed

heads and just then the offensive odour diminishes in the dung

pats. If the owner has been able to judge his management

correctly, the non-contaminated areas will have been grazed

heavily enough to ensure that the majority of seeds for NEXT

YEAR'S PASTURE will come from the "super" plants grown in the

dung-pats!

 

"Super" Plants FROM "Super" Seeds!

 

     Only AFTER the dung odour diminishes, will cattle suddenly

begin grazing these lumpy areas of the pasture. Many "super"

seeds will scatter out and re-seed the entire field. Others are

eaten by the cattle and end-up back in dung-pats. Here they will

germinate and grow into NEXT YEAR'S "SUPER" PLANTS. So the cycle

will go on repeating itself to produce seeds for PASTURES and

seeds for further SEED-PRODUCTION!

 

Special Seed PROTECTION!

 

     In a hot climate where new seeds may have to lie for months

in a dung-pat waiting for rain -- the intricately-designed

process above could break down. But here again God has supplied

BUILT-IN protection.

     Manure from animals on green feed contains enough moisture

to germinate most of the seeds impregnated in the dung-pats, when

combined with the intense heat of the sun. But then the manure

would quickly dry-out, thus killing the young plants. Well, it

doesn't happen that way!

     Stock on dry feed always drink extra water to compensate for

the lack of moisture in their rations, but for some reason their

dung will still be relatively dry. That enables the sun to

quickly dry the animal manure before the seeds germinate!

     In this way the seeds are protected from a quick death, and

when the rains finally come at the end of summer, the dried pats

are soaked with water and the "super" seeds germinate in safety.

 

God Can Do Anything Better ...!!

 

     Next time you drive by a pasture that has been grazed

unevenly into rank-looking, dark green lumps and bumps, you can

reflect very knowingly on what has been going on. You will now

understand that you are in fact looking at a series of God-

created, natural, miniature PLANT BREEDING STATIONS!

     No expensive, sprawling, clumsy, man-made counterpart has

ever bred plants equal in quality and disease-resistance to these

that God turns out automatically! Truly, "God hath chosen the

foolish things of the world to confound the wise ..."(I Cor.

1:27) when He chose an odoriferous dung-pat to confound the

world's geneticists!!

                                                                               

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                  December 1970, Vol. I, No. 12

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

             THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT -- IS IT BEST?

 

     The initial shockwave of the ecological revolution has

rolled over most of the literate world. A new wave of thinkers

has sprung up in its wake -- THE NATURALISTS. To this special

breed of social critic and philosopher, technology is tantamount

to sin. Only the natural, the undisturbed, the untouched is

acceptable. Indicative of this new mentality is the furor

presently raging over industry's plan to stretch hundreds of

miles of oil pipeline across the untouched wilderness of Alaska.

     Industry stands firm. Development must not be thwarted, nor

progress impeded. The naturalists, casting themselves as valiant

defenders of our dying national heritage, have zealously attacked

the developers as greedy, grasping, soulless exploiters!

     Thus the "PRESERVATIONIST" versus "DEVELOPER" battle rages,

and not only about pipelines. Cattle breeding, orchard culture,

land management and even egg production have inspired contention.

     Who is right? Both sides have certain merits, but are the

naturalists correct every time they condemn man for tampering

with his environment? How does God view our insatiable desire to

change the land in which we live? How NATURAL should our approach

be to agriculture and environment? This Research News should help

you to better understand MAN'S PROPER ROLE IN HIS NATURAL

ENVIRONMENT.

 

MAN -- The Spoiler!

 

     The point cannot be too strongly made that man has managed

to besmirch, pollute, desecrate and destroy nearly everything he

had touched. Indeed, total mismanagement of our environment has

been a dominant theme throughout all of history. A solution must

be found to this suicidal course of action. But does that

solution lie in leaving our surroundings in their most natural

state?

     NO, IT DECIDEDLY DOES NOT!! Mismanagement must be replaced,

not with NO-MANAGEMENT, but with correct, law-abiding management!

 

How "Natural" Was The Garden of Eden?

 

     Have you ever wondered why God did not create the earth as

one huge garden for Adam and his descendants? Gen. 2:8 tells us

that God planted a garden eastward IN Eden. Therefore the rest of

Eden must have differed noticeably from the garden.

     The land of Nod, (to which Cain was sent in Gen. 4:16) must

also have been noticeably different from either the garden of

God, or Eden. Why did they differ? And how? And for what reason?

God must have had a purpose for it.

     Gen. 2:15 reveals that one of Adam's most important jobs was

the management of his environment, (dressing and keeping the

garden in which he lived). Yes, the garden of Eden needed careful

and regular management by Adam and his family to maintain its

fullest beauty and productivity. God created the garden dependent

upon human effort to maintain it at maximum potential. This means

that a properly MANAGED section of God's earth must be superior

to any "NATURAL" area!

     Could it be that Eden and Nod were inferior to the garden in

beauty and productivity, (inferior, not in created potential, but

in development of that potential)? Was the garden of God to be

the prototype, the model after which the rest of Eden, Nod and

the remainder of the earth were to be fashioned? Did God, by

planting the garden for Adam not act as the first LANDSCAPE-

DEVELOPER and at the same time provide mankind with an example of

a model environment?

     Our Creator must have realised that Adam and his descendants

would need many opportunities to develop THEIR God-given

managerial and creative abilities. Would not the task of shaping,

fashioning and developing the whole earth to its fullest

potential be the ideal fulfillment of this human need? That was

"job-enrichment" par excellence!

     Gen. 1:28 underlines environmental development as our God-

given occupation. The all-wise Creator commanded man to have

domination over the earth. He told man to "subdue" it. The Hebrew

actually implies -- "conquering". The garden of Eden showed Adam

HOW the earth was to be subdued and conquered. But Adam rebelled

and lost access to God's model environment. Thus he rejected both

the physical example and the spiritual mind to follow it.

     The establishment of a physical example of God's right way

is a common tool of our Creator. Is not this a basic purpose of

Ambassador College? Students spend four years in the Ambassador

atmosphere, in constant association with God's standards of

environment, including food, dress, recreation, thought, speaking

etc. After four years in God's "GARDEN OF EDUCATION" they

graduate -- to carry the Ambassador way into all parts of the

earth!

     Likewise must it have been intended with the garden of Eden

to "graduate" sons of Adam to carry God's style of environmental

development to all parts of the globe.

 

Man CAN Improve The "Natural"

 

     Have you ever seen a precious diamond in the rough? Few

people would even recognize a rough diamond, let alone wear one!

Yet the Bible speaks of diamonds and precious stones as items of

supreme beauty. But they do not take on this beauty until AFTER

the hand of the jeweller has cut, polished and set them. The

jeweller however, does not CREATE this potential for beauty, he

merely develops it to the best of his ability.

     The same is true of fruit. An apple seedling allowed to

develop without human guidance will become a dense mass of

branches and foliage with fruit that will be small and

unattractive. Regularly pruned and dunged, the result would be

very different. Every leaf of a properly managed tree receives

the maximum amount of sunlight and every piece of fruit receives

a correct balance of soil nutrients. This results in an abundance

of large, tasty fruit -- year after year. Thus a managed fruit

tree is far superior to a NATURAL one.

     Poultry are another example. A hen will normally lay about

20 eggs and then stop and hatch them out. However, if the eggs

are gathered each day she will produce some 200 eggs in a year,

and without undue stress. Again this demonstrates how a few

simple actions by man can develop natural capacity to a high

degree.

 

CATTLE UNDER "NATURAL" CONDITIONS!

 

     Over 600 years ago the owner of a large Scottish estate on

the English border enclosed a portion of his property with a

seven mile long stone wall. By chance, or choice, this wall

surrounded a herd of wild white cattle -- descendants of wild

cattle that reportedly roamed northern England during Caesar's

reign. For 600 years this particular herd has been isolated in

their huge enclosure. They remained outside the domain of man,

mating among themselves and feeding from the natural grasses of

the partially timbered estate.

     How do these NATURAL cattle compare with their modern

counterparts, such as the Angus, Hereford and Shorthorn? MOST

UNFAVORABLY! A personal inspection of this famous Chillingham

herd some three years ago was most revealing. These cattle are so

vicious that they will allow no human to touch or handle them.

Even the Ranger was most careful to stay within easy reach of

protective fences! The average cow calves only every third year

instead of annually. The cattle are small, with carcases that

rate extremely low for production of valuable meat. Though tasty,

their meat is not superior to that from a regular grass-fed

beast. Milk production is very poor and though these animals are

extremely hardy, their longevity does not surpass that of other

breeds. The degeneration of these cattle is largely explained by

some of the environmental deterioration that can be seen at

Rothamsted.

 

The Rothamsted Experiment

 

     Located only ten miles north of Bricket Wood is The

Rothamsted Experimental Station, (the oldest agricultural

research station in the world). A long-term experiment there,

called the "Broadbalk Wilderness", proves how land can rapidly

lose its productivity through lack of human management.

     "At the harvest of 1882 a half acre strip of the standing

wheat crop on land unmanured for many years was enclosed by a

fence at the end of the Broadbalk field and was not cultivated.

The wheat was left to compete with weeds, and after only four

years, the few stunted plants found were barely recognizable as

cultivated wheat. Since then, the weeds have completely taken

possession. One-half of the area has been left untouched; it is

now, (88 years later) woodland of mature trees over sixty feet

high, and the leading species are hawthorn, oak, ash and

sycamore. The ground is covered with ivy .... dog's mercury,

violet and blackberry ...

     "The other half has been cleared of bushes annually to

open-ground vegetation to develop ...

     "In 1957 the grubbed section was divided into two parts. The

northern part ... was left unchanged, and the remainder was mown

several times each growing season and the produce removed with

the idea of encouraging the grasses. This management was

continued for three years ... Starting in March, 1960, sheep were

put in to graze whenever the growth was sufficient. By 1962,

perennial rye-grass and white clover (the two pasture species

that dominate the most productive pastures in England) had

appeared and they are still increasing ..." (Rothamsted Report,

1965)

 

God Desires Land To Be INHABITED

 

     While informing the Israelites that He would drive out the

Canaanites for them, God added this most enlightening point: "I

will not drive them out from before you in one year; lest the

land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against

you.

     "By little and little will I drive them from before you,

until you be increased and inherit the land". (Ex. 23:29,30)

     God obviously felt that even Canaanite rule over His

Promised Land was more acceptable than no people there at all!

Had the Israelites remained faithful, He would undoubtedly have

given them further instructions toward developing the land to its

fullest potential -- without polluting the environment.

Unfortunately, such was not to be the case.

 

Needed -- A New Garden Of Eden

 

     Today, some 3,500 years later, we are still in trouble

because of failure to manage our environment. 1970 was declared

to be European Conservation Year. Throughout the past eleven

months, world leaders, dignitaries, and scientists have held a

continual round of conferences and discussions -- attempting to

define man's proper role in his environment.

     Sadly enough, none thought to seek the Bible for guidance.

And equally sad, the year is now over, with the world very little

closer to any lasting solutions.

     What is badly needed is a working model of a properly

developed environment based on an understanding of God's Law. If

this was available, mankind might see some light in the deepening

darkness settling over our ecological problems. World leaders

might begin to believe that it IS possible for man to live

prosperously without destroying his surroundings.

     European Conservation Year produced no such plan or model!

But Ambassador College is doing so. Bricket Wood and Texas

campuses are already moving in this direction. Years of planning

and work are involved -- but, as our new booklet "Environmental

Research" shows, the initial steps have already been taken.

     Through its two-campus Agriculture Programme, Ambassador

College is now laying the foundations for a new prototype Garden

of Eden!

                                                                               

 

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

            January-February 1971, Vol. II, Nos. 1-2

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

              THE STORY OF THE MICRO-ORGANIC CYCLE

 

     At the Conference of 1967 a most exciting paper was

presented from Big Sandy, on restoring soil fertility. It

involved the use of lignite, diatomaceous earth and bacteria

culture. Soon the attention of thousands was focused on this

idea. It even triggered off an Agriculture Programme in Bricket

Wood, whose head was privileged to spend six months on the Texas

campus absorbing the interesting details.

     Arriving back in England, all fired-up with new knowledge,

we suddenly found ourselves facing a blank wall! Weeks of frantic

activity revealed that not ONE of these three basic materials was

readily available anywhere near Hertfordshire!!

     The nearest lignite was in Devon, and on the Isle of Wight.

The only diatomaceous earth appeared to be either some low-grade

material over in Northern Ireland, or that up in a Westmorland

lake UNDER FORTY FEET OF WATER! (It took research in the

geological section of The British Museum to reveal even these

dismal bits of information.) Then learning that it is illegal to

import soil bacteria came as the final blow!

     To set up an agriculture programme like that at Big Sandy,

without any of their three basic materials, posed quite a

problem. In this issue of "Your Living Environment" you are going

to see how we finally achieved the same results by a totally

different method. You will also see just how this unwelcome

situation rubbed our noses in a great deal of NEW understanding.

It was new and exciting to us then. It will STILL be new to most

of you today!

 

A Sabbatical Year For Bricket Wood

 

     The beginning of the Agriculture Programme in England just

happened to coincide with the seventh year after the founding of

Ambassador College in Bricket Wood, by Mr. Armstrong. So we

STARTED our programme with a SABBATICAL YEAR. Few in this age

have ever observed a year of rest, but imagine our surprise to

find ourselves so involved, in our very FIRST year of operation!

     We were happy about the idea, but in some ways it looked

like a rather rough start. This was because we mentally

approached our "STRANGE" observance as most other people do on

their first occasion. We thought it was a kind of PENALTY to be

paid as the price of maintaining soil fertility! HOW WRONG WE

WERE!!

 

Keeping -- Brings Understanding

 

     Had we not kept God's year of rest it is quite likely that

we would still be without vital understanding on the functioning

of the most important law of food production.

     Centred on the return of organic residues to the soil, this

law focuses specifically on the contribution of ruminants. Man

has relied on barnyard manure through many millenniums. Though

often neglected, this source of soil fertility fell into utter

disrepute only after man's end-time introduction of chemical

fertilizers.

     There are many treatments to overcome the effects of soil

infertility. Many are NATURAL. Some are totally UNNATURAL! But

finally it became clear to us that the SABBATICAL YEAR depicts

man's ONLY 'permanent' system of agriculture!! We should all

remember that the supply of Chilean nitrate, North African rock

phosphate and German potash is neither inexhaustible or secure.

     If God be our Designer, Creator and Sustainer, there must be

another basis for the production of healthy plants. The year of

rest taught us that in the ultimate analysis, man must depend on

a system of soil management in which every square yard is able to

supply its OWN fertility! In other words, when everybody is

managing his soil correctly EVERYONE will NOT be able to dig a

hole for minerals in his neighbour's hillside. And NO-ONE will be

able to run down the road to beg, borrow, or steal his

neighbour's straw or autumn leaves.

 

Why The Emphasis On Ruminants?

 

     Observing the SABBATICAL YEAR soon indicated that commercial

crop production is totally ruled out at the very time when meat,

milk and wool production is most encouraged. Livestock harvest

plants from the land just like a modern mechanical hay baler, but

there are two differences. The animals return a lot of waste

products to the soil and they also trample many plants underfoot.

If these are the two main differences between the cow and the

baler in relation to soil, the key to the SABBATICAL YEAR must be

the RETURN OF ORGANIC MATTER to the land.

     The next key involves an understanding of RUMINANT

DIGESTION, (cattle, sheep and goats, etc.). Unlike man and most

animals, they have FOUR stomachs. The fourth and largest is

called the rumen. In cattle it has a capacity up to sixty

gallons!

     The rumen, the second stomach and the third, contain no

digestive juices. Instead, microorganisms multiply into billions

and digest the grass and hay eaten by the animal. That's right --

ruminants don't digest their food intake! They merely gather it

for bacteria who do the breakdown and are then digested

themselves. Thus the ruminant feeds the bacteria and the bacteria

become food for the ruminant.

     As these rumen bacteria are fundamental to digestion, we

reasoned that they must also have a very significant effect on

organic matter that is returned to the soil in the form of dung.

But how could a layman determine this for sure? How could we even

know for sure if any passed out in the dung?

 

Bacteria-charged Manure

 

     A simple test can be made by taking a sample of common

grass. Divide it and put it in two glass containers, then add a

small amount of fresh cow manure to one jar and leave them both

in a warm atmosphere for a few days. One can soon discern, even

with the naked eye that decomposition is much more rapid in the

presence of manure. The difference was so great that the grass in

one container had almost decomposed before the other one had

changed at all.

     Microscopic inspection revealed very little life where there

was no decomposition. However at the same power under the

microscope, the 'bugs' were working furiously in their millions

in the 'dung-contaminated' sample. They appeared to be crowding

each other out of the container and the grass was nearly

decomposed!

     It then took very little reflection to realize that when

people built a compost heap, the best known ACTIVATOR and the

most commonly used is ANIMAL MANURE -- especially that from

ruminants. An ACTIVATOR is just a primer for bacterial action, so

one might well expect the waste-products of a bacterial digester,

(the ruminant) to be the obvious choice for rapid plant

decomposition.

     So much for the manure that goes into manmade compost heaps,

but what about that which is spread around naturally by grazing

animals in a pasture? Surely plant decomposition is just as

important under these conditions! Of course it is. Even more so.

A billion times more decomposition is stimulated every day under

these natural conditions than has taken place in all of the

little compost heaps that man has ever constructed in 6,000

years. (Why do people get so fanatical about compost heaps?) It

was about this time that compost heaps began to fall into

balanced perspective. They have a place, but it just does not

make sense for man to gather and transport all available plant

matter to one point, compost it and then cart it all back again

to spread over the same area! (When man learns to handle his soil

and animals correctly the ORGANIC-FANATIC may not feel he has to

raise such pious hands at the loss of certain city refuse.)

 

The Role of Animal Residues

 

     Now the picture was becoming clear. Most who have preached

the return of animal manure to the land, did so for its own sake.

In other words its value has always been based on the amount of

actual plant material turned back into the soil. However it

should be better appreciated that a mature beast will return less

than six tons of manure to an acre of average pasture land per

year. Ten to twenty tons is more like the dressing needed to have

a worthwhile effect.

     This surely puts animal manure in a different perspective!

And yet the Sabbatical Year shows what great stress God places on

the RETURN OF MANURE FROM RUMINANTS TO THE SOIL. We therefore

submit that the MOST important role of farmyard manure is to

constantly RE-INOCULATE THE SOIL WITH MICRO-ORGANISMS! Its value

as humus however, is no way diminished. But on the other hand,

readers will appreciate that God would NOT give man a soil system

lacking self-replenishing sources of bacteria.

     After all -- without microbial life, SOIL is nothing! And

without soil, there is NO LIFE of any kind! MANURE IS FIRST, A

NATURAL MEDIUM FOR RETURNING SPECIAL 'BUGS' TO THE SOIL!! When we

came to understand this concept (2 1/2 years ago), its pure

simplicity of operation and efficiency was just overwhelming!

(The rumen may make them more SPECIAL than we realise!)

 

Plant Bacteria

 

     Thinking our way backwards, the next step towards further

understanding was taken by mentally going back into the rumen.

There, amidst all that churning bacteria and fermentation one had

to contemplate the possibility of disaster. No greater

catastrophe could happen to a RUMEN than ingesting a substance

that would kill ALL of its MICROBIAL content!

     Everything would come to a disastrous halt! And the animal

would quickly die! You may rightly say this would be an uncommon

occurrence, but severe fluctuations could occur quite often. And

remember that billions of organisms are constantly passing into

other stomachs to be digested. Not to mention those we have just

discussed that find themselves back in the soil via animal

manure. So there is a natural and continuous depletion. Unless

this is counterbalanced, disaster would quickly overtake even the

healthiest ruminant!

     It would therefore be unreasonable to assume that there is

not a constant replenishing source of rumen bacteria, to guard

against such a possibility. Why, of course! The TWO GLASS JARS

mentioned earlier!! Even the grass sample without ANY dung added,

was decomposing, so WHERE did the microbes come from?

     A little microscope work will very clearly show that plant

leaves and stalks carry their OWN population of tiny organisms.

That means that every time a cow or a sheep or a goat swallows a

mouthful of grass, their rumen is re-inoculated with 'bugs'.

     Anyone knows that the air around us is charged with

bacteria. We breathe them in all the time, BUT it is NOT

generally realised that PLANT BACTERIA are in a direct film-like

contact with the leaf surface. Their association is such that

they are not even washed off by heavy rain, so this filmy

environment makes them quite distinct from atmospheric bacteria.

     Once again we are confronted with a beautifully designed and

simple process. Such a commonplace thing should not be new to us.

Then we might reflect on this interesting question: are the

changing leaves of autumn anything more than the obvious onset of

DECOMPOSITION by PLANT BACTERIA? You have seen this process EVERY

year of your life, but have you ever thought of this meaning

before? (What a fulfillment of Rom. 1:20!)

 

Soil Bacteria

 

     If all plants are covered with a thin film of bacteria, it

is only logical to ask -- do these microbes originate in the

atmosphere, or in the soil? Our enquiries (shown in more detail

at the end of this "Research News") indicate that they come from

the SOIL!

     Some even come from the very SEED that produced the plant.

Believe it or not, ALL healthy seeds are covered with bacteria.

The conditions that produce germination, (moisture and heat) also

cause the bacteria to multiply and cover the leaves of the plant

as it grows out from the soil. Any farmer experienced in planting

legumes will know the value of bacteria on seeds. (Most seed

companies issue special bacteria cultures with their various

legume seeds to inoculate the plant roots. This is done as a

precaution against these bacteria being absent in the soil. They

often are absent in soil environments that have been abused and

mismanaged.)

     What you have been given is a series of very interesting

BITS of information, as we came to understand them here in

Bricket Wood two and a half years ago. They probably sound very

simple and their common connection has been partially established

in the telling of this story. But be assured -- neither their

simplicity nor their connection was obvious at the BEGINNING of

this research! Coming to this understanding was a LONG, SLOW

PROCESS! As always, when one comes to understand something for

the first time you look back and think how obvious it should have

been from the very beginning.

     You have guessed it by now -- in this story we have worked

our way through a complete FIVE-STAGE CYCLE:

     1. Bacteria from the SOIL and from SEEDS in the soil, cover

the surface of PLANTS as they grow up out of the ground.

     2. ANIMALS take in plant matter for their continuing food

needs and the associated PLANT and SOIL bacteria repeatedly

re-inoculate the rumen.

     3. Inside the RUMEN, bacteria multiply fantastically as they

decompose the plant matter. They then pass down the alimentary

tract and provide the bacterial PROTEIN needs of the animal.

     4. RUMEN bacteria that escape digestion are returned to the

pasture in farmyard MANURE.

     5. DUNG bacteria multiply as they decompose the organic

material in which they find themselves and re-enter the SOIL,

along with the humus they have created. And so the whole cycle is

repeated over and over. That's why WE named it: M.O.C. or

Micro-organic Cycle.

     Only NOW can we begin to understand the full significance of

MIXED farming and why LIVESTOCK are the key to any permanent

system of agriculture. The M.O.C. can be broken at any point, but

this is extremely unlikely so long as the soil has a REGULAR (but

not necessarily permanent) association with ruminants.

 

(NOTE: To view the chart titled "The Micro-Organic Cycle",

see the file 710104.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)

 

Confirmation from Other Sources

 

     Coming to these conclusions and such understanding was a

gigantic break-through. It was this foundation of fundamental

knowledge that enabled us to proceed with the Bricket Wood

Agriculture Programme, in spite of the total absence of the three

basic materials used in Big Sandy.

     What we now call "The Micro-organic Cycle" was understood

ONLY because we were shown the specific importance of RUMINANTS

in relation to SOIL FERTILITY. And we focused in on the role of

ruminants ONLY because our programme started out observing a

SABBATICAL YEAR! Conversely, understanding the vital part played

by the ruminant in soil fertility, meant that we also understood

the SABBATICAL YEAR better than EVER before!

     As soon as this point in our research was reached there was

a great sense of urgency to press on and CONFIRM our new beliefs

and opinions. This could have been done by long and costly

research, but we possessed neither the TECHNIQUE, the EQUIPMENT

nor the MONEY. The only other way open to us was to dig into the

writings of other researchers.

     At first this did not seem like a very attractive

proposition. But limited success came quickly and we plunged

deeply into previously unknown material with mounting excitement.

Those which follow are brief sample excerpts that sent us wild

with delight. They do not appear necessarily in the order in

which they were located:

     As the Bible triggered it all, it should therefore come

first -- God's Word tells us that:

 

          "... the seventh year shall be ... a sabbath for the

Lord: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.

          "... And the sabbath of the land shall be meat for ...

thy cattle and for the beast that are in thy land ... " (Lev.

25:4,6 & 7).

          "... These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all

the beasts that are on the earth.

          "Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven footed and

cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat." (Lev.

11:2-3).

          "Wherefore ye shall do my statutes, and keep my

judgments, and do them;

          "... And the land shall yield her fruit, and ye shall

eat your fill, and dwell therein in safety" (Lev. 25:18-19).

 

     Let us now however, make a complete circuit of the M.O.C.

through quotes from the works of famous scientists:

 

How Many Microbes in Soil?

 

          "... it is clear that big variations often occur in the

soil population between areas which are separated by only 20-50

cm.

          "... The bacterial numbers vary most, soils with a pH

greater than 6.0 usually have counts by dilution methods of ten

million or more. In soil with a low pH, however, the numbers may

be very much less and in acid podzols the count may be less than

a million per gram." ("Micro-Organisms In The Soil", by Alan

Burges, p.66-67.)

     Two interesting side comments here -- FIRST, it is a well

known fact that organic matter exercises a high buffering

capacity in soil AGAINST the action of acid substances. SECONDLY,

it is widely accepted that artificial fertilizers have a general

tendency to LOWER soil pH.

 

     It thus becomes obvious, in the light of the above quote,

just what man can expect both when he fails to return ORGANIC

MATTER to the soil and when he substitutes regular applications

of CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS. SOIL MICROBE POPULATIONS WILL DECREASE.

 

Bacteria On Seeds

 

     "Seeds have on their surface, (and partly also inside)

numerous micro-organisms and ... seed-born bacteria can pass onto

the roots (Rempe, 1951)." ("Ecology of Soil Bacteria", p. 386.)

 

Plant Bacteria

 

     "Various organisms are growing in the slimy bacterial layer

that is characteristic of the epidermis of green plants"

("Textbook of Agricultural Bacteriology", p. 150).

     "... in a germ-free environment ... the particular bacteria

attached to the seed multiply rapidly and cover the whole plant

with an almost continuous thin slimy layer of bacteria. The slime

not only prevents them being washed off by heavy rains, but also

helps to preserve a sufficient amount of moisture even during

periods of drought. Besides dew, small amounts of sap excreted by

the plants are available to the bacteria.

     "... all growing plants are covered by an almost continuous

layer of bacteria specifically adapted to their habitat" (ibid.

p. 149).

     "Under natural conditions, plants such as grasses have

nothing comparable to leaf-fall in the way that a deciduous tree

such as oak or beech has; instead, the leaf tissue and stem dies

in situ and under damp conditions a major part of the

decomposition occurs while the tissue is still attached to the

plant. Webster (1956, 1957) has shown that ... primary

saprophytes ... advance up the stem as the new leaves unfold, and

different saprophytic fungi are associated with different nodes.

Comparable results were obtained by Frankland, (1966)". ("Ecology

of Soil Bacteria", p. 483).

 

Hay Bacteria

 

     "When grass is made into hay, part of the bacteria will die,

but slime production and spore formation enable many of them to

remain alive although in a dormant state.

     "... Unfavorable weather, however, stimulates unavoidably

the growth of bacteria and molds and their destructive activities

become sometimes very marked especially when clover or alfalfa is

made into hay.

     "... The so-called hay bacillus can be easily brought to

good development if hay is placed in water and the mixture boiled

for a few minutes. After a few days the liquid is covered with a

whitish film characteristic of these organisms" (ibid. p. 152,

153).

     Now we see that even HAY retains bacteria on it! Notice also

the way in which these tests confirm our results in the

previously mentioned "GLASS CONTAINERS".

     Furthermore it is interesting to note from the above quotes

that MOISTURE and WARMTH are precisely the conditions the rumen

provides when plants and accompanying microbes are ingested! If

the presence of legumes stimulates bacterial decomposition

OUTSIDE the rumen, they would surely aid animal digestion on the

INSIDE. (Today animal feeds have an acute LACK of legumes, yet

legumes are our BEST source of high quality vegetable protein.

Other related effects are that legumes don't grow well on poor

soils and neither do livestock!)

 

Rumen Bacteria

 

          "In herbivorous animals such as cattle and sheep, the

compound stomach appears to be ... a compartment in the

alimentary canal where fibrous foods may be held to undergo a

soaking and 'fermentation' before passing on through the canal.

The rumen, or first compartment, is very large in the adult

animal and may hold up to 50 or 60 gallons of soft food material.

          "... The rumen, reticulum and omasum are non-glandular

and thus do not produce acid or digestive juices. Because

proteolytic enzymes and hydrochloric acid are absent, they do,

however, provide excellent compartments for the growth of many

types of micro-organisms -- both bacteria and protozoa -- that

are taken in together with the food.

          "... Thus the ruminant is provided with a variety of

proteins derived from the bodies of micro-organisms. On passing

into the true stomach and into the intestines, these organisms --

which have multiplied in the rumen, recticulum and omasum -- are

digested, and their bodies serve as a source of food protein.

Several of the B vitamins are also synthesized in the rumen."

("Introduction to Livestock Production", by H. H. Cole, pp

457-458.)

 

Manure Bacteria

 

          "The solid excrements of animals are made up of partly

decomposed food residues and of the bacteria that cause their

decomposition ... calculated on the basis of fresh weight the

number of living cells would approximate 20,000 to 40,000

millions per gram." ("Textbook of Agricultural Bacteriology",

p.222.)

          "Regular additions of a source of decomposable organic

matter, such as farmyard manure [added to soil] appears to

increase ... the [microbial] ... population.

          "An example of this effect is given by the comparison

of the micro flora on the unmannered plot on the Broadbalk Field

at Rothamsted with the adjacent plot which has received 14 tons

per acre of farmyard manure in most years since 1843 ... manure

has doubled the humus content of the soil and almost doubled the

total cell count; however, the number of protozoa has increased

fivefold," ("Ecology of Soil Bacteria", Liverpool University

Press, pp.78-79.)

 

Bacterial Research -- Complicated!

 

          "... The bacterial cell as a biological unit is

wonderfully equipped to cope with the continuously changing

environment" (ibid. pp.370-372.)

          "One of the things that emerges ... is that measuring

the activity of micro-organisms is a very complicated problem.

The closer you come to a soil system, the more complicated it

becomes. This is not a new idea, but it is an idea that is worth

recalling. It is good for the soul, good for the data and good

for the interpretation of that data.

          "The fact that the bacterial cell generally produces

more vitamins than needed for its own metabolism and excretes the

excess into its environment is of considerable ecological

importance. This holds not only for the soil ecosystem ... "

("Ecology of Soil Bacteria", p.123).

 

Bacteria Can Acquire Characteristics

 

          "... If one considers the period for which animals and

plants have existed on this planet and the great numbers of

disease-producing microbes that must have thus gained entrance

into the soil, one can only wonder that the soil harbors so few

bacteria capable of causing infectious diseases in man and

animals" ("Hylife With The Microbes", by Selman Waksman, p.19).

     Professor Waksman may well have done much more than "WONDER"

about this fact! If just changing the ENVIRONMENT turns a

PATHOGEN into a NON-PATHOGEN, it would seem that man has been

ignoring a very obvious solution to many problems. Do you

comprehend the implications of this simple statement? If such an

idea ever became popular, the ramifications for our medical and

veterinary professions could be quite shattering, not to mention

the 'LEGITIMATE' drug industry!

     Here is another quote from a different source that could

also stir unusual thoughts in the minds of some readers:

 

          "Grass, hay and straw contain almost regularly ...

bacilli related to B. tuberculosis. Some of them have been

explicitly named 'grass bacilli' or 'timothy bacilli'. When found

in milk, butter and cheese, they have been repeatedly mistaken

for true tubercle bacilli. In their typical form they are not

pathogenic for men, but their virulence can be increased and

their general character may be so changed experimentally that

they assume practically all the features of the tubercle

bacillus" ("Textbook of Agricultural Bacteriology", pp. 151-152).

     Is this author making the same point as Waksman, only in

reverse? It would certainly appear so! We quite understand that

some of these quotations are pretty radical stuff and not easy to

accept, especially by those who have been educated to classify

bacteria as either GOOD or BAD. (Anyway, perhaps we will come to

see that the whole system of bacterial classification needs to be

thrown into the melting-pot.)

     Consider the following quote on species definition -- it is

not taken from some obscure little axe-grinding tract, but rather

from an expensive full report on the 1967 international symposium

of the world's leading bacteriologists:

 

          "Dr. Gordon ... defined species in a way which

horrified me a little. It really boiled down to this -- 'A

species is what a competent taxonomist says is a species, i.e.

that the newly isolated strains, the old one in the culture

collection and any old thing we think is this same organism

constitutes a species ... Those of you who know me, know that I

do not believe in species" (Dr. S. T. Cowan, National Public

Health Laboratories, Colindale. "Ecology of Soil Bacteria", pp.

370-372).

 

     The fore-going quotes are just a selection from the material

we now have. It will be seen how each one supports a part of the

whole (which we named "The Micro-organic Cycle"). All we did was

make a mental connection between the individual parts. Scientific

specialists had worked on each one, but had not assembled them as

a complete and meaningful picture!

     Soil, plant and rumen bacteriologists work in totally

different knowledge compartments and evidence indicates that they

have little contact. That rare specialist who does step outside

his own field is still at a disadvantage. Why? Well for one

reason, he knows NOTHING of the SABBATICAL YEAR! Therefore he

will not understand HOW, or WHY ruminants are the keystone

upholding fertility in the soil, for all mankind!

     It is now three YEARS since we first understood and named

the M.O.C., but our knowledge is still increasing on this

subject, e.g. it is less than three MONTHS since our latest

additional knowledge was added on the role of dung pats in seed

production and pasture management (see "Plant Breeding -- God's

Way" in Vol. I No. 11). These new facts dovetail completely with

all our earlier understanding on the inseparable tie-up between

the SABBATICAL YEAR, LIVESTOCK, BACTERIA and SOIL FERTILITY.

     You can now see how circumstances have worked out the

initial difficulties facing the Bricket Wood Agriculture

Programme and at the same time uncovered fantastic new knowledge!

                                                                              

 

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                   March 1971, Vol. II, No 3

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

                    THE ROAD TO MOROCCO 1971!

                       by Colin Sutcliffe

 

     Since the days of Joshua, (1400 BC) people have been

arriving in North Africa -- some by sea, some walked and many

RAN, hotly pursued from the east by their enemies. Bob Hope and

Bing Crosby came by camel! But for us it was the jet-age and Air

Maroc!! A contradiction no doubt, in a land of the camel, the

donkey and the mule, but this was just the first of many

contradictions.

     For example, a professor of history and a lecturer in

agronomy would seem to have little in common, especially in this

environment as we, together with our wives (just one each)

stepped out of our Caravelle onto the edge of the Sahara. Dr.

Martin's purpose was to study at first-hand the people and

history of North Africa. Mine was to learn about its agriculture

and ecology -- past and present. And we ended up learning how

closely connected they are.

     Thickly-populated Europe, with its most 'advanced'

civilization in all history, has this sprawling gigantic

vacant-lot at its front door. In a world bursting with

over-population, North Africa is one of the largest

under-populated areas on earth. It is in one of the two most

favoured climatic zones, yet paradoxically CLIMATE has driven out

all but its last human remnants! Here's what we found.

 

CASABLANCA

 

     Two thousand miles of touring in Morocco lay ahead of us and

here we were at Casablanca Airport. Its topography was like any

airport, but on the bus ride into the city it soon became

apparent that we were on a vast, flat, brown coastal plain.

Darkness overtook us before we reached the city named for its

white houses. But not before we got a glimpse of the snow-covered

Atlas mountains 100 miles away to the south. Even at that

distance they were high enough above the flat horizon to impress

the traveler setting foot for the first time on the great

continent of Africa.

     Here we were on the edge of a continent so large that one

may travel 4,000 miles overland before reaching the East Coast

and the Indian Ocean! And 5,000 miles to far-off Cape Town! You

soon realized that it was not just the flatness of this land that

gave one a sense of spaciousness, but its lack of vegetation.

     Then suddenly in the fading light we sighted our first tree!

A tree of Africa? No! That corner of Africa is almost without

trees. This sizeable eucalypt was the first of many we were to

see that have been transported from the other hemisphere in a

valiant attempt to escape the penalties of man's past. Though

millions have been planted (and thousands have died), they are

not a drop in the bucket.

     Many mistakenly think that trees are the solution to the

problems of North Africa. Some trees, yes, as shelter belts, but

top-cover at GROUND-LEVEL is what is needed and it will never be

achieved unless every goat is either slaughtered or put on a

lead. Camels, donkeys, cattle and sheep must also be controlled

by effective grazing management.

 

TO MARRAKECH

 

     From Casablanca we headed south across that wide and

featureless, but fertile coastal plain to Marrakech, at the foot

of the Atlas mountains. The plain is so flat and by contrast the

Atlas are so high and magnificent, that they form an almost

unreal snow-covered backdrop to the city. No wonder Churchill was

fascinated by this rare oasis/alpine combination. Its huge

date-bearing palms stand right in the shadow of the formidable,

thirty-foot high, square, castellated, red mud walls!

     Inside, Marrakech is a curious combination. French-inspired

boulevards are fringed on either side by rows of fruit-laden

orange trees growing right out of the pavement. Then comes the

dark, narrow, winding streets filled with a sea of black faces,

dogs and swirling dust. Add to that one naked and highly

vulnerable little Combi-van trying to nudge a path through this

reluctantly writhing mass of jalahbahed (Arab dress) humanity.

 

(NOTE: To view a map titled "North Africa", see the file

710308.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)

 

A WESTERN-TYPE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

 

     On the way back we had called at an Agricultural College

where we conversed (by interpreter) with the Director and a

number of his assistants, took some photos and hurriedly observed

some of their outstanding successes.

     All credit for Moroccan attempts at imitating Western

agriculture must go to the French. The irrigated results would be

a spectacular success in any environment, but they are doubly-so

in this great, wide, brown land. Lush Israeli-like citrus groves

are surrounded by high protective walls of green cypress and

eucalyptus. The ring of defence against the hot desert winds is

completed by a wide row of dead African box thorn cuttings piled

two to three feet high around the perimeter. This material looks

and acts like a barbed-wire military entanglement. Its deadly

two-inch long thorns exclude both man and beast, as well as the

sand-blasting effects of the winds at ground level.

     Irrigation, mechanical equipment, artificial fertilizers,

chemical sprays and 'improved' imported plant species make this

all too rare and impressive show possible. North Africa is

millions of acres and millions of people. The former in dire need

of development, the latter in crying need of right education.

     Throughout the entire trip we endured the painful and

saddening experience of watching hundreds of miles of these

people resigned to the borderline of poverty and beggary.

Wherever we looked they could be seen moving slowly across our

barren horizon, seemingly numbed like a drought-stricken dumb

animal. One wondered if generations of unequal struggle against a

slowly deteriorating environment had not produced this dull kind

of resignation.

     Even more distressing was the thought that the only ray of

hope being held out to these poor people is the exported mistakes

of THE WEST! We stumble blindly under the intoxication of science

and technology from one crisis to the next. And yet even while

the WEST is in the very act of plunging over the cliff of

environmental destruction, we glibly wave the green light for

3,000 million souls to follow us!!

 

CROSSING THE HIGH ATLAS!

 

     From Marrakech we soon left the barren yet fertile red plain

behind us and headed up into the snow of the High Atlas towering

13,000 feet above us! As we kept climbing toward the 6,500 foot

"Tizi n test" pass, the breath-taking beauty of the scenery and

the hazards of the route increased in equal proportions. Car

access to the south through the snow-covered mountains is

possible through two passes. Both of these had been closed until

the morning of our departure from Marrakech by the same blizzards

that trapped 10,000 motorists on the roads of southern France

four days earlier.

 

THE SOUS VALLEY AND AGADIR

 

     Our journey on to Agadir (of earthquake fame some 10 years

ago) was through rock-strewn desolation and land almost devoid of

vegetation. However, as throughout our whole trip, we were seldom

out of sight of some lonely Arab figure perched high on the

mountain or somewhere out across the distant plain with his

donkey and little flock. The general rule seemed to be a

confusing mixture of 20 black goats and 10 shaggy little sheep

that were either black, white or brownspotted.

     Both kinds of animals appear to nibble their way across the

barren desert. When they reach a scrubby thorn-laden argon tree

the sheep stand on their hind legs and trim its lower branches.

At the same time the goats perform the seemingly impossible

circus-like task of climbing the trees if they are even slightly

bent in any direction. To claim that we saw as many as seven

black goats eating their way out onto the thin branches of one

tree, may be too much for the reader. We did not confine

ourselves to Moroccan underground water. The local wine is very

pleasant, but we still have photographic evidence of these

flinty-hard, cloven-footed little beasts perched in the argon

branches as we looked out over the great valley of the Sous.

     Though Morocco is now barren and desert, we were surprised

at our own ignorance of the fact that it is by no means just

camels and moving sand! On the contrary, most of the land we saw

has enormous agricultural potential -- potential that could be

partially fulfilled if the existing goat population were

transformed -- perhaps into RAINDROPS! Millions of now desolate

acres are limestone or volcanic in origin. And either of these

soils will arouse the keen interest of an agriculturalist,

regardless of where they are found around the world.

 

PEOPLE ARE FUNNY!

 

     It was sowing time, yet the inactivity of the vast majority

of Moroccan farmers was puzzling, to say the least! Their tiny

plots of land are designated only by an occasional little pile of

stones. The pattern of their single furrow ploughs is at least

2,000 years old and they harness every odd combination of cow,

donkey, camel, horse and mule. A smart young fellow could dig up

more soil in a day with the toe of his boot than these rare

combinations do.

     Most amazing is the fact that these people appear to go out

for only a haphazard scratch around in one corner of their little

plot. Why? The Westerner would be out there rushing around

cultivating every square inch, plus some of his neighbour's if he

could get his hands on it! The answer comes slowly and as a great

shock to the Western mind. These people have different standards

to us. If they need only two bags of grain -- why cultivate and

sow an area that is going to produce ten? To them it just means

more work, harvesting!

     Keeping ahead of the Joneses causes most of us to rush

around in circles getting ulcers through grasping at every

material possession we can lay our hands on. If he could see the

Western farmer, no doubt the North African would think that we

are crazy. The truth is that both approaches are wrong, but it is

also interesting to note that the North African is not destroying

his environment as fast as we are in the West!

 

GOULIMENE AND FOUME EL HASSANE

 

     Leaving the coast, we pushed on south over the lower end of

the Anti Atlas to Goulimene which is on an even flatter and more

desolate fertile plain than Agadir. From here we made a desperate

spring-busting, back-jerking sortie out into the real desert. You

may think that is what you have been reading about and we too

thought that was what we had been seeing. That was until we

struck out for the remote military outpost of Foume el Hassane.

Still very little sand, but gigantic gibber plains with fantastic

3,000 foot sedimentary escarpments towering overhead. As the

plume of dust trailed out behind us for 20 miles at a stretch, we

must have looked like a tiny lonely bug crossing the surface of

the moon.

     Foume el Hassane is mostly a small military outpost near the

border of the Spanish Sahara. Dr. Martin 'callously' dragged us

out into this cruel wilderness where it rains at least once every

five years. These dying oases are the last vestiges of human

occupation, clinging by their finger nails, through blinding

sandstorms and terrible searing heat. But we found elephants,

cattle, rhinos and many other animals scattered across the

hillsides! Who knows how long they had been there? But, there

they were, deeply etched into the shimmering rocks by some

unknown artist. Presumably he had not come all the way from Ghana

or the Congo to record his ecological experiences in the middle

of this desolation! In those arid surroundings we concluded along

with many others before us, that we were viewing environmental

destruction on the grand scale. The ecological gap between the

implied environment of the rock engraver and today was mentally

unbridgeable!

 

FIGHTING THE LOCUSTS!

 

     Back in Agadir we inspected the largest Locust Control

Centre in the world. True, the COMPETITION in locust control

centres is neither numerous nor very strong, but the rows and

rows of trucks and Landrovers and great heavy tankers were

evidence that this was a gigantic operation. Between the tankers

and chemical storage vats the place looked like a mini-refinery!

The spare parts in the vehicle maintenance depot alone are worth

£200,000!

     The Director was kind enough to give us an interview without

any appointment and gave us a graphic, map-illustrated

description of their work. It is now done largely by air and

ranges over a desert of 3,000,000 square miles! Every few years

enormous clouds of locusts sweep in from the desert, East Africa

or Arabia and they are attacked from the ground and from the air

with poisonous chemicals. Coping with the Sahara alone means an

area as big as America!

     Though expected in 1970 they did not come and experts are

now puzzled as they sit waiting and planning and probing and

patrolling. They are uncertain about the next attack, but they

are ready. To keep their hand in, they last year slaughtered two

million olive-eating starlings and ten million grain-eating

sparrows that invaded Morocco from Europe! Parathion is used on

the birds and DDT/BHC on the locusts.

 

UP THE SOUS AND OVER THE ANTI ATLAS

 

     We then travelled back up the Sous valley to Taroundant

where we spent the night in a Pasha's palace that had been

converted into a hotel. It gave us an idea of the opulence which

has surrounded a tiny minority. The grandeur was made even more

impressive because it so far outranked the utter simplicity of

everything else. We drove day after day seeing only clusters of

simple red mud houses, children and palm trees, in otherwise

total desolation. Generally these oases were located at frequent

intervals along sizeable dry river-beds. The Massa, the Sous and

the Draa were exceptions -- this was the cool season and they

were running strongly.

     From Taroundant we took the road to Ouarzazate, (pronounced

wuzazzat) which meant that we crossed over the Anti Atlas near

their junction with the High Atlas. For miles we were on a 5,000

foot barren plateau. On this section we had snow-covered

mountains on both sides -- to the south some were 7,000 feet high

and to the north they rose to above 13,000 feet!

 

WILY MOUNTAIN MEN

 

     At the top of the pass we came upon two Berber shepherds, a

little boy, the usual herd of sheep and goats, plus two mules

towing a reluctant, skinny, pot-bellied jersey calf! The boy was

driving the flock, the men were riding the mules and the calf

looked as though he was having his neck stretched. We talked at

length to one of the men (going through both interpreters every

time). Cattle in North Africa are at a terrible nutritional

disadvantage because of competition from sheep and goats.

Everywhere the cattle looked like drought-stricken jerseys, but

my senses were really jolted when told that this 'thin and weedy

beast' was not a CALF at all. By his size he should have been

only 5 months old, one might have guessed 20 months because of

obvious severe malnutrition. But he was in fact THREE YEARS old!!

     Value? We thought about £5, but the owner insisted it was

£25! However, if you could see the terrain over which they had

travelled for days before we met them on this high mountain pass,

you might conclude that he had earned this amount twice over!

Above the snow line looked like the Himalayas and below it (where

we were), resembled Mount Sinai!!

     All food for the mules and the 'calf' was stuffed into two

double-sided woven saddle pouches. It was mostly pulverized

barley straw plus a few handfuls of first quality legume hay. Our

inquisitive chance inspection of these feed pouches drove an

important point home very forcibly. Here was one of the most

backward peasants in the world. And he was squeezing a living out

of one of its most inhospitable environments. His 'western'

counterparts are by comparison environmental millionaires, but

one look into those pouches showed that he understood MORE than

they do about protein quality in animal feeding!! And equally

important -- he was putting his understanding into practice.

     We tested his knowledge even further by asking in a serious

manner how old his mule would be when it reproduced. He smiled

and shot back an instant reply to the interpreter that if this

beast ever reproduced itself, IT WOULD BE THE END OF THE WORLD!

Then we all laughed together, not at the fact that these hybrids

are against God's law, but because we understood each other very

well!

 

BACK OVER THE HIGH ATLAS

 

     After crossing the High Atlas we then had to climb the

Middle Atlas range. From here to the ancient city of Fez we

passed through some of the richest volcanic soil you would ever

hope to see. Old volcanic craters were everywhere and many

'recent' lava flows. We passed through a snowfield where Dr.

Martin got photos of people ski-ing down the outside of one of

these volcanic craters.

     In this area many of the mountain slopes are covered by

natural forests of beautiful Atlas cedars. Then the run down into

Fez, Meknes, Rabat and back to Casablanca was across a fertile

plain, enjoying a higher rainfall than the land in the south.

 

BENI MELLAL ORANGE GROVES

 

     Once back in Casablanca, we drove to the productive Beni

Mellal district. There we enjoyed the fine hospitality of Nearjim

Said on his 250 acre citrus grove. This was one of his two farms

and its appearance told us that this very friendly and humble man

must be among the top agriculturalists in North Africa. As an

important grower's representative on the Moroccan Orange Export

Authority he set a fine example. His beautiful 15-foot-high trees

were loaded with fruit and well manured from the animals of

farmers with less understanding. Disease is not a problem on this

farm and he hasn't sprayed in four years.

     On the way back to the coast we called at Kouribga where we

inspected a small part of Morocco's biggest industry -- rock

phosphate. Output has skyrocketed the nation into first place as

a world exporter of this fertilizer. Between 1967 and 1970

production has jumped from 3 million tons to more than 10

million!

 

DRASTIC CHANGES IN NORTH AFRICA

 

     North Africa is a huge chunk of misused real estate that has

played a much more important role in history than most people

realise. Less than 3,000 years ago it must have looked like the

garden in Eden. Its soil and climate must have been a veritable

paradise! What happened? Did a climate change destroy the

vegetation or did the disappearance of vegetation produce the

climate change, or did MAN destroy the vegetation, thereby

bringing on the climate change himself? Who knows?

     Three things we DO know! Now that the vegetation is gone,

the climate makes natural plant restoration difficult! Secondly,

the harshness of the climate enables sheep and goats to have a

destructive power disproportionate to their numbers! And thirdly

we know from many historical references and rock carvings that

much of North Africa once had a vastly different eco-system!

     The following quotes attest to this: " ... The whole country

from Cartage [modern Tunis] to the Pillars [Gibraltar] is full of

wild beasts, as is also the whole of the interior of Libia"

(Strabo Bk. 2.5.33 c. 64 - 22 BC).

     "Sallee [near Rabat] ... is beset by herds of elephants ...

Mt. Atlas ... the side facing towards the coast ...is shaded by

dense woods and watered by gushing springs, on the side facing

Africa ... fruits of all kinds spring up of their own accord with

such luxuriance that pleasure never lacks satisfaction. (Extracts

from Pliny, Bk.V. 5-7 c. 23 - 79 AD).

     "Among the cultivated plants are hard high protein wheat ...

The gardens yield almost all the species of pulse known in Europe

Oats grow spontaneously ... " (Universal Geography, Bk.LXIV.

1823).

     Yes, we found North Africa, including Algeria and Tunisia to

be a very different place today, but what enormous potential! In

the future, when the great deserts bloom again, none will do so

more rapidly, or more effectively than the massive sub-continent

of Northern Africa. Once again it will be enormously productive!

Only then will generations of misery, resulting from law-breaking

and destruction give way to millions of HEALTHY, JOYFUL families,

living in ABUNDANCE!

                                                                              

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                   April 1971, Vol. II, No. 4

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

               IS THIS THE ORCHARD OF THE FUTURE?

 

          "Forty-eight thousand apple trees to the acre is about

as far removed from the traditional image of the English orchard

as it is possible to imagine.

          "That countryside showpiece of mature trees groaning

with the yellow, red and green fruits in autumn and a mass of

blossom in the spring is being given a KNOCKOUT blow by the

orcharding experts of Britain and THE WORLD'S LARGEST cider

manufacturers.

          "In their concept of the orchard of the future, the

nearest parallel will be the rows of tomato plants of the big

growers.

          "Apple trees will be A SINGLE YARD-HIGH STEM, with

growth artificially inhibited and carrying a few pounds of apples

close to the stem. Planted perhaps A FOOT OR TWO APART they will

not need the traditional shaking to collect the fruit.

          "A machine will crop the rows, cutting the lot, stem

and all, a few inches from the ground and collect the apples as

casually as the pea-picking machines for the frozen food

factories.

          "At the experimental orchards of H. P. Bulmer Ltd.,

just a mile outside Hereford, a section is planted at the 48,000

trees to the acre density. It compares dramatically with acres

planted at the present 'intensive' level of 600 to the acre."

(Daily Telegraph, 6/11/70)

 

     Does this fit your concept of the orchard of the future?

Will the tree that provides the apple-a-day for your children

twenty years from now be only a single stem, three feet high?

Man's desire to manipulate the environment to his own greedy ends

knows no limit.

     The Bricket Wood Agriculture and Environmental Research

Programme recently launched its own experiment in fruit

production. And as you might have guessed, our approach is the

exact opposite to that described above. This edition of "Your

Living Environment" outlines our experiment for the reader. It

will also explain WHY our approach differs so radically, both

from that which you have seen quoted from "The Daily Telegraph"

and that of the average orchard.

 

A Step Towards The Ideal System

 

     Our Research Programme has been given the task of providing

answers, both on paper and in practice, to the world's

food-production problems. After four years of study, we feel that

the system of the future is beginning to take shape, in our minds

and now on the campus here in England.

     Understanding the full implications of the land sabbath law

(as mentioned in detail in an earlier edition of this "Research

News") appears to be the vital key.

     Work in fruit production at Bricket Wood is yet another

exciting experimental step towards a model-farm environment for

"The World Tomorrow".

     What is that ideal model? Basically it consists of small

family farms, producing a diversified managed abundance!! This is

neither as idealistic or uneconomic as you might imagine. Even

today a few tiny communities in central Switzerland parallel this

ideal.

     The average farm in these Swiss communities is about 20

acres. On this small area, the family manages to produce an

amazing amount of beef, milk, cheese, butter, eggs, poultry,

vegetables, honey, a wide range of fruit and perhaps some wool as

well.

     Since the unit is small and family operated, little need

exists for sophisticated machinery. Every inch of soil is well

utilized. Fence-rows, for example, which in England would

normally be allowed to run to weeds, produce a surfeit of

soft-fruit and perennial vegetables. Apple and pear trees in the

cattle pastures provide fruit, plus shade and shelter for the

cattle. And the cattle, in turn, provide fertilizer for next

year's crops.

     Forest trees, such as oak and beech, line the borders and

fill the waste corners, providing fuel and lumber. Nothing is

left to chance. Every square foot of soil and every plant has its

purpose and a place in the overall system. The entire unit exudes

an air of beauty, lushness and abundance.

     We feel that Bricket Wood's new experiment in fruit

production is a major step forward. And it emulates many of the

Swiss good points.

 

The Ambassador Way

 

     Did you notice in the opening quote that "ARTIFICIAL GROWTH

INHIBITORS" are being used to produce a single-stemmed tree only

three feet tall? This typifies so much of what man chooses to

label SCIENTIFIC "PROGRESS". For twenty-five years, commercial

and private growers have used elaborate grafting systems and

special dwarfing root stocks to produce ever smaller trees.

     It is not exaggerating to say that the average apple tree

now being planted will seldom grow to more than ten feet. These

are known as "dwarfs" among orchardists and the first branch may

start only two feet from the ground. Not quite like the

"standard" fruit trees that were common even a decade or two ago,

are they? And not like the trees recently planted at Ambassador

College.

     Yes, we are taking steps in the OPPOSITE direction to this

trend toward "dwarfism"! To ensure that our trees will be TALL

and WIDE, we have used "standards" and a method of training that

allows the trees to attain their maximum size (either on their

own root stock, or if not available, on a root stock as near the

parent tree-type as possible). These trees have since been

carefully pruned so that the lowest branches will still be high

enough to escape the depredations of grazing cattle.

     The Daily Telegraph also mentioned that the average density

in modern "intensive" orchards is 600 trees per acre -- as

opposed to 48,000 in the Bulmer experimental orchard! But

Ambassador College has not planted its trees at 600 to the acre.

No! Not even 60 per acre! Would you believe -- TWO TREES per

acre?

     That's right! And it means that the 150 or so trees planted

this winter are lightly sprinkled over some 75 acres of our

present farm. Nearly every cattle pasture adjacent to the campus

now has a few trees of some species -- be they apple, cherry,

pear, plum, or peach. At the time of writing, every young tree

has been mulched with farmyard manure and straw. Special guards

are being erected to protect each young tree from cattle and

rabbits.

     But our experiment does not stop there. Raspberries,

blackberries and gooseberries have been planted beside many of

our fences. The rails will provide support for these plants,

where necessary. A surfeit of soft-fruit should attract many more

birds and other wildlife.

     Young grapevines have been included in the project, though

their eventual success may be limited by the English climate.

Even rhubarb and asparagus crowns have been planted in protected

areas of certain fence-lines.

     As each of these species begins to blossom and fruit, the

College Farm should acquire an air of lushness, beauty and

abundance -- so fitting to God's total way of life!

 

A Drawback In Pasture Management?

 

     An old objection that will come quickly to mind is the one

of operating machinery in amongst the trees! This problem cannot

be eliminated except by abandoning the system. The trees have

been laid out in a way that will cause minimal difficulties. It

should also be remembered that we have that kind of machinery in

a pasture for no more than ONE WEEK per year. And we have all the

BENEFITS for 52 weeks per year!

     Shortage of land is a common cry among farmers today, but

this system allows every farm the benefits of its own orchard

without setting ANY land aside for it. Grass grows right up to

the base of our kind of fruit tree and with land at £300 per acre

-- who wouldn't maneuver around two trees per acre?

 

Insects And Dazzles Problems

 

     One advantage from spreading the trees and vines so thinly

is that it minimizes the risk of insect and disease attack. It is

well-known that monoculture ENCOURAGES predatory insects and

disease. (Vast acreages of barley, or wheat are an open

invitation to epidemics of cereal diseases such as stem-rust,

leaf-spot etc. ) Huge peach orchards are usually accompanied by

equally huge populations of PEACH-BORERS. High density apple

orchards usually have an equally high density of coddling moths

and red spider mites.

     Spreading our trees around will enable us to avoid most of

the danger so inherent in the typical monoculture system. By

making it easier for natural enemies to control codling moths,

for example, we do away with any need for chemicals pesticides!

 

Variety Creates Interest And Beauty

 

     Other advantages of the diversified approach are less

tangible than the first, but equally vital. For several decades

specialized farming has been destroying the countryside's

interest and beauty. Hedgerows and stately trees disappear before

advancing bulldozers and whining power-saws. Even small orchards

are grubbed from existence in deference to larger, more

"efficient" and more monotonous fruit plantations. Once beautiful

green pastures are replaced by miles of barren, drab, dull-brown

cultivation.

     Near-sterile prairies of barley, wheat, potatoes, or sugar

beet have swallowed up the former peaceful, diversified pattern

of animal-centred mixed farming. No longer are fine animals the

focal point of Britain's agriculture and the British landscape.

They are rapidly being replaced by computer-selected mongrels

which are pushed into barns, feed-lots and battery-cages.

     Though it may be in the interest of the consumer that he

does not see modern animal production and reproduction --

monotonous landscape is a principal by-product of today's system.

     Not so at Bricket Wood! We do have pastures, but more than

that, they don't just consist of grass and unpainted rails. Young

cherry and apple trees now break the uninviting square lines of

buildings. The stark relief of fences will soon be mellowed by

soft-fruit vines entwining themselves on the rails. Rhubarb and

asparagus are now turning waste corners into lush productive

assets. Pear, plum and peach trees will erase the sterile look of

open fields. Red, roan and white shorthorn cows with little

calves will soon be grazing among young blossoming trees.

     Ambassador College agriculture is transforming the

farm-landscape of the future from monotony to interest, from

dullness to beauty and from sterile hybridization to an Eden-like

garden!

                                                                               

 

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                    May 1971, Vol. II, No. 5

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

               WHAT'S BEHIND THE FOOD CATASTROPHE?

 

     We have heard many times how knowledge has doubled in the

last ten years. And also that troubles too have doubled! Of all

these troubles -- what do you think is the BIGGEST problem?

     Would you say -- the HYDROGEN BOMB! Maybe POLLUTION! Or

perhaps FOOD is the biggest problem confronting mankind? It is

certainly one of man's most fundamental problems!

     From the day we are born -- WE NEED FOOD! If we don't get it

WE DIE! It's as simple as that. And if we DO get food -- many

still die, (prematurely) because of its LOW QUALITY!

     Regardless of whether we live in the UNDER-fed, or OVER-fed

part of the world, millions of us die through UNDER-nourishment

each year. Most die through lack of QUANTITY, but also many

through lack of QUALITY in their food. Both stem from a single

cause -- STARVATION! One just happens to be more subtle and less

obvious than the other.

 

What is the Problem?

 

     Why is man failing to supply himself with enough food of

sufficient quality to avoid the premature and agonizing death of

millions? Is it just too many hungry mouths? Too few acres?

Insufficient machines? The breaking of some simple law? Or not

enough scientific knowledge?

     This issue of "Your Living Environment" will take you right

to the trunk of the tree and answer this question for you. In the

process you will see that humanity is perhaps closer to

nutritional catastrophe than you have imagined. First let's look

at some recent news quotes showing a cross-section of the

difficulties that are piling up against those who produce your

food:

 

Widespread Disease In Cattle!

 

          "Mastitis [a disease that produces thick pussy-looking

clots in the cow's udder and destroys all or part of her

milk-producing ability] loses us up to £35 million a year ... in

272 herds surveyed, every cow in herds over 80 strong had some

degree of clinical mastitis" (Farmer's Weekly, Nov. 1970).

          "... It is unlikely that there is a single dairyman in

Britain who, with his hand on his heart, can claim never to have

seen the tell-tale clots ... And it is suggested that a

badly-infected herd may be losing up to 200 gallons of milk a

cow" [per year] (Farmer's Weekly, Oct. 1970).

 

Poultry Are Even WORSE!

 

     Britain's fowl pest plague worsens! "Last week the total

number of outbreaks reached 3,600 -- the highest ever recorded in

Britain since statistics began in 1947.

          "It is estimated that about 14.5 million broilers, 9.5

million layers and 1.7 million turkeys have so far been affected

by the disease. Financial loss is put at more than £10 million

due to mortality and lost production" (Farmer & Stockbreeder,

Jan. 1971).

 

Plants Fare No Better!

 

          "Little by little, the misplaced aura of magic invested

in that misused bit of phraseology 'the green revolution' is

wearing thin" (Ceres, July-Aug. 1970, p. 45).

          "Dr. Norman Ernest Borlaugh, the agriculturalist who

won the Nobel Peace Prize for helping to foster the so-called

'green revolution' of hybrid crops, may instead have opened a

Pandora's box of pestilence, famine and social disruption.

          "Many agricultural experts now believe that the green

revolution is in fact a myth and that continued extensive use of

hybrid seeds will have devastating social and scientific

repercussions" (Paragould Daily, Arkansas, Dec. 11, 1970).

     DISASTER -- for America's No. 1 agricultural product:

          "The devastating southern leaf blight disease, which

already has wiped out 50 per cent of the South's corn [maize]

crop this year, has reached epidemic stage in many other areas.

     "The corn blight organism has been with us 50 years ... but

since it is so widespread this year, we suspect something else is

in operation" (UPI Release, Aug. 18, 1970).

 

THE CAUSE -- Whatever Could It Be??

 

     These problems are the scourge of man in his herculean

efforts to feed himself and we have just lightly touched on a

fraction of them. Can you imagine, for example -- "AT A

CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE FUNGAL PATHOGENS CONSUME OVER ONE THIRD OF

ALL THE CROPS PRODUCED" (Science Journal, Aug. 1970).

     That's QUITE an admission!!!

     Are there many causes for these multiple problems, or can

they be traced back to just one simple underlying fact? In spite

of our knowledge explosion, (especially in SCIENCE and

TECHNOLOGY) man is still blind to the truth about his

agriculture. As knowledge increases, we might well expect

problems to decrease. Never before have so much science and

technology been applied to the business of food production, as

today. Yet never before have problems loomed so large over the

agricultural industry as a whole!

     We must therefore conclude that there is no correlation

between problem-solving and our knowledge explosion. "Science"

just does NOT have the answer for the world's food producers. It

seems unable to focus an ecological view of the environment now

being destroyed. Could it be that farmers and scientists alike --

REFUSE TO FACE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS??

 

Our Environment And Its Inter-dependent Parts

 

     There exists a tight inter-relationship between all the

major segments of our God-created environment. Below we have

diagrammatically represented the parts of that system, of which

God said: "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, and

subdue it and have DOMINION ..." (Gen. 1:28).

 

(NOTE: To view a chart titled "THE ECOLOGICAL PYRAMID", see the file

710518.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)

 

     The quality expected of that rulership and "DOMINION" is

expressed in Gen. 2:15 -" ... God took Adam and put him into the

garden of Eden to dress it and keep it."

     Our whole approach to this beautifully designed ecological

system is bound up in those two words: "dress" and "keep". The

Creation is for the service of MAN, but these two words give us

the key to man's approach: "to dress" means that we should be

bound to that Creation in a grateful attitude of service and

dedication. And "to keep" means that we should guard, protect and

preserve our environment -- just as parents would their own

children.

     It is true -- the environment is for OUR service, but the

more WE serve IT and hedge it about with loving care -- the more

IT will serve US! Contrast this kind of approach with the news

quotes given earlier in this article!

 

A Plan For Destruction

 

     Instead of learning from his daily disasters -- man shrugs

his shoulders, saying in effect: "WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD PROBLEMS AND

DISEASE IS INEVITABLE ANYWAY!" BUT IT IS NOT INEVITABLE!

     That pyramid can help us understand ecology by appreciating

the inter-dependence of each segment. Looking at it closely, one

can conclude that the entire structure contains only ONE

NON-ESSENTIAL UNIT -- MAN! Knock out any one of the other

integral parts of this biotic pyramid and the entire physical

system would collapse. We never pause to reflect that MAN could

be removed and yet the environment would continue right on

without him.

     When you put man in this kind of perspective it makes one

think that we ought to exercise a little caution and discretion.

After all, WHY should the only NON-ESSENTIAL part threaten the

continued operation of the WHOLE!

     Man appears to be bent on destruction, if that is what is

"necessary" to achieve his own GREEDY ends. We live in a

God-designed and created environment, but humanity is filled with

a carnal mind which is hostile to the laws of Almighty God (Rom.

8:7).

     Secondly -- man is not alone and unaided in the job of

destruction he is doing. Right now Satan, who is the god of this

world (II Cor. 4:4) is plotting and scheming with everything in

his power. He aims to thwart the 7,000-year plan of our Creator.

To do this he must destroy man -- the focal point of that plan.

Because the ecological pyramid sustains man, EVERY physical

section of it is under attack. NONE has been overlooked! But

Satan is cleverly working with the most insignificant unit of all

-- THE LIVING SOIL, as contrasted with dead, inert earth.

 

What Is Soil?

 

     A fertile soil is 90% INORGANIC. Under the microscope, even

the finest of these rock particles (that's what they are) look

like the smashed remains of a pile of broken bottles. The other

10% (or thereabouts) is "waste" organic matter. It is of

vegetable and animal origin and ideally is in every stage of

decomposition. Ultimately it becomes what is called HUMUS.

 

What Are The Facts About Humus?

 

     1. It provides a buffering action against acidity, thereby

retaining a favorable environment for earthworms and other

organisms involved in organic decomposition.

     2. It preserves the essential crumb-structure, thus

preventing soil compaction and also erosion by wind and water.

     3. It aids water absorption, moisture retention, temperature

control, drainage and the release of inorganic nutrients.

     One of the world's leading authorities on soil micro-biology

states that: "The importance of humus in human economy seldom

receives sufficient emphasis. Suffice to say that it probably

represents THE MOST IMPORTANT SOURCE OF HUMAN WEALTH ON THIS

PLANET" [Emphasis ours] ("Humus", by Selman Waksman, p. 414).

     A man knighted by a past British Government for his work on

organic agriculture, writes as follows:

          "Nature has provided a marvellous piece of machinery

for conferring disease-resistance on the crop. This machinery is

only active in soil rich in humus; it is inactive or absent in

infertile land and in similar soils fertilized with chemicals"

("An Agricultural Testament" by Sir Albert Howard, p. 167).

     Elsewhere the same authority states:

          "I have several times seen my oxen rubbing noses with

foot-and-mouth cases. Nothing happened. The healthy well-fed

animals reacted to this disease exactly as suitable varieties of

crops, when properly grown, did to insect and fungus pests -- no

infection took place.

          " ... Nothing was done in the way of prevention beyond

good farming methods and the building up of a fertile soil"

(ibid, pp. 162-163).

 

     The organic 10% is the basic key to the ecological

structure. WITHOUT it, the earthworms and other organisms of

decomposition disappear from the soil. WITHOUT organic

decomposition, soil texture is destroyed and plant nutrients

become unavailable. WITHOUT a balanced and continuous supply of

nutrients, the entire plant kingdom is threatened with disease

and starvation!

     WITHOUT healthy plants, the herbivora of the animal kingdom

and man are threatened with disease and starvation. And WITHOUT a

diet of healthy animals, both carnivora and man are doomed!

 

The Collapse Of Our Environment

 

     Are not these the exact conditions facing mankind at THIS

moment in time? Yes, they certainly are and the cause is the same

too. Look at the following quote:

 

          "An official inquiry into the health of farmland soils

has found that in parts of England and Wales the fertility and

structure of the soil have broken down to 'dangerous

proportions.' In the most critical areas ... the deterioration

has gone so far that arable farming will probably have to be

abandoned. The survey reveals that the organic content of these

heavy clay soils is often as low as THREE PER CENT ... " (The

London Observer, Aug. 30, 1970).

     Do you see the fearful implication? There are many ways in

which our society can be destroyed, but one of them is by the

simple and seemingly innocent device of lowering the ORGANIC

content of the earth's food-producing soil.

     If Satan can only induce man to remove that vital 10% of

organic matter, the ecological pyramid will COLLAPSE -- this

planet will then be agriculturally as dead and inert as the MOON!

 

Man Misses The Connection!

 

     LACK OF HUMUS IS THE KEY TO THE PROBLEMS OF FOOD PRODUCTION!

     Huge manmade deserts attest to the fact that EVERY

civilization has depleted that vital organic content of the soil.

Today the agro-chemical industry is a lethal facade, hiding the

falling humus levels in a smoke-screen of low quality, high

production! The fact that this produce is NUTRITIONAL JUNK --

phases neither farmer nor consumer. Stealthily, soil destruction

takes over!

     On the other hand, research at Ambassador College is daily

improving our ecological understanding. God promises a return to

Garden of Eden conditions (Ezek. 36:33-35). And then HUMUS

REPLACEMENT will again assume its proper importance. Obedience to

this law will go far to eliminating: SOIL DESTRUCTION, MAN-MADE

DESERTS and DISEASE in all life forms! Meanwhile, robbing soil of

its organic 10% continues to undermine our entire ecological

structure!

                                                                              

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                    June 1971, VOL. II, No. 6

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

                   GRASS THE SOURCE OF HUMUS!

 

          "It is an old saying that any fool can farm, and this

was almost the truth when farming consisted chiefly in reducing

the fertility of new, rich land secured at practically no cost

from a generous government. But to restore depleted soils to high

productive power is no fool's job, for it requires mental as well

as muscular energy ..." ("The Farm That Won't Wear Out", by Cyril

G. Hopkins, 1913)

 

     Restoring DEPLETED SOILS TO HIGH PRODUCTIVE POWER revolves

around the return of organic residues. By microbial

decomposition, these residues become that small percentage of the

total soil-mass we call humus. In the last issue of "Your Living

Environment", we elaborated on the vital role of humus and the

insidious threat its stealthy disappearance poses to mankind --

via the ecological pyramid.

     Now let's look at PASTURE -- man's No. 1 source of humus!

You probably take grass very much for granted, but pastures of

HIGH quality are a RARITY. "Quality" takes the form of

GRASS/LEGUME mixtures. The best pastures do not occur naturally.

THEY MUST BE CREATED -- and maintained -- BY SKILLFUL

MANAGEMENT!!!

     What is grass? Where does it come from? What is its purpose?

     The grass/legume mixture is man's MOST IMPORTANT "CROP". And

while LIVESTOCK are its link with man -- livestock are also the

link from this "crop" back to HUMUS in the soil!

     If humus is the end-product of death -- GRASS must be the

beginning product of life!! Grass is the raw material of life! It

is the carrier of nutrients for animal and human survival! And it

is the great combiner of the organic and inorganic in our living

environment!

 

God's Word On Grass

 

     Now a reminder of where grass comes from:

          "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the

herb yielding seed ..." (Gen. 1:11).

          "... if you shall hearken diligently unto my

commandments ... I will give you grass in thy fields for thy

cattle, that you mayest eat and be full" (Deut. 11:13-15).

          "He watereth the hills ... He causeth the grass to grow

for the cattle and herb for the service of man: that he may bring

forth food out of the earth" (Psa. 104:13,14).

 

Grass -- And Its Purpose

 

     The purpose of grass is to provide vegetable and animal

protein for man. It is a vital part of God's Creation -- of which

God said:

 

          "Let them have dominion over ... all the earth ... I

have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of

all the earth, and ... to you it shall be for meat. And to every

beast of the earth ... every green herb for meat" (Gen. 1:26-30).

 

     Yes, God was as much the Creator of "GRASS" as He was the

Creator of everything else. Along with trees, grass is the means

by which He CLOTHES the earth. Dense pasture moderates the

extreme cold and heat and can virtually eliminate soil erosion.

By slowing-down the run-off from rain it also increases water-

absorption by soil.

     The beautiful simplicity of the system is that its good

effects trigger other benefits. Increased grass production per

acre means more grazing for animals, and also more raw material

for humus formation. Increased organic residues mean rapid

multiplication of earthworms and soil micro-organisms. That

speeds up nutrient recycling via decomposition and effects the

further release of NEW minerals from inorganic soil.

 

Better Quality And More Quantity!

 

     A number of end-results spring from these chain-reactions --

for example, such favorable conditions for plant production

ultimately modify ALL SPECIES, (plant, animal and man) in that

particular environment!! As mineral and protein content rise,

plants become leafier and less stemmy. This means that there is

more tonnage per acre and each mouthful goes further!

     Another modification to plant species is that their "NORMAL"

growing-season can be extended -- at BOTH ends too! Most pastures

are low in production. And one reason is that they are slow off

the mark in early spring. They tend to be stemmy and run quickly

to seed at the first sign of dry, warm weather. In other words,

production starts LATE and finishes EARLY.

     Fertile soil is a well-known precursor of agricultural

abundance, but perhaps you can now see more of the marvellous

inter-play of other forces involved. It is a superbly designed

system. Obedience to ONE simple law (the return of organic

residues) triggers off a beneficial chain reaction through soil,

plants and animals -- culminating in man himself!!

 

The "Grass-crop" Manager

 

     To be an effective manager of "grass-crop" production -- man

must be a balanced agriculturalist -- understanding soil

fertility, pasture species, climate, cash-crops and livestock.

His dual-purpose in grass-production is to provide food for

livestock and fertility for limited grain growing.

     He must understand his environment and that GRASSLAND is

simply a stage of ecological succession. In Britain, pasture is

the natural successor to the ARABLE phase, then follows

domination by such plants as tall-grasses, heather, rushes,

bracken and other roughage. The next stage of the natural

reversion is LOW-FOREST and then follows HIGH-FOREST -- the

natural climax.

     Controlling this situation reduces most landowners to

fighting a running battle with "nature". But a skilled grass-crop

manager works cleverly to maintain his acreage, at a level of

productivity superior to all other phases of the natural

succession.

 

Clarification Of Grassland

 

     Grasslands may be conveniently divided into two categories

-- CULTIVATED and UNCULTIVATED. The latter, in Britain, comprises

hill grazing and other rough areas, all easily identified by the

plant species they support and by the proportions in which they

co-exist. Dwarf forms of white clover, birds foot, trefoil, with

bent and fescue, usually make up the best rough grazing.

     Two or three less productive divisions can be made, each one

graduated towards rougher and coarser predominating species.

These progress from those already mentioned through reedgrass,

oatgrass, sedges, brome, heather, mosses, bracken, bilberry and

rushes.

     On the other hand -- CULTIVATED grass divides into two

types: LEYS and PERMANENT grassland. Ley is a term that refers to

seed mixtures sown after cultivation. An area sown for a period

of less than four years, before turning it back into arable, is

termed a SHORT LEY. LONG LEYS are areas treated in a similar way,

but left under pasture from four to fifteen years.

 

Why Are Leys More Productive?

 

     The term PERMANENT GRASSLAND is applied to leys of more than

ten to fifteen years and also areas NEVER sown under cultivation.

It is generally assumed that leys are FAR more productive than

permanent grass. This is one reason why many pasture "experts"

advocate taking "the plough" over the whole farm every few years!

Most of them believe that ley-farming produces more grass and

some even admit healthier grain-crops too!

     The latter is undoubtedly TRUE! (The pity is that more don't

believe it, in this age of grain monoculture.) And who would

dispute the wisdom of using the grain-crop to periodically

cash-in on accumulated grassland fertility!

     But why should LEYS be more productive grasswise? We would

suggest that ley production is superior to permanent grassland

ONLY because the latter suffers from inferior management. Leys

are usually more heavily dressed with fertilizer and often

contain more legumes than the average permanent pasture. But the

vital difference appears to lie in the WEAKNESS of grassland

management, rather than in the strength of ley productivity!!

     This conclusion is supported by one authority who states:

 

          "On soils of extremely high natural fertility and where

knowledgeable management has been applied, the ley may look like,

and also behave as a ley over a whole period of several decades.

For example, some of the most renowned cattle-feeding pastures in

to seventy years and still retain the general attributes of a

young ley." ("The Grass Crop", by William Davies, p. 56).

 

     What ARE "the general attributes of a young ley"? They are

high-level production of QUALITY feed over an EXTENDED growing

season. And there will be no ingress of weed-types or "mat"

formation, normally associated with old grassland.

     The same author continues elsewhere:

 

          "Many of the superb old pastures of Leicestershire and

of the Romney Marsh will have been down to grass for sixty or

more years and, in fact, may never have been explicitly sown out

to grass" (ibid., p. 74).

 

     These top-quality PERMANENT PASTURES are based on white

clover and perennial ryegrass and apparently PRODUCE AS MUCH AS

ANY LEY!!

 

Substitute Skill For Leys!

 

     We must surely revise our ideas on the relative merits of

LEYS and permanent grass. If well managed permanent grass can be

as productive as the expensive short-term ley, then perhaps we

don't have to regularly put "the plough" over the whole farm!

     Less grain crops, fewer leys and more permanent pasture

would encourage every farmer to STUDY GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT! Are

many short-term leys not an expensive cover-up for ignorance or

mistakes in permanent grass management and therefore a substitute

for SKILL?

 

Grain vs. Grass!

 

     If grass is better than grain for animals, then much of the

world's grainland could profitably be turned back to pasture. It

would take time to re-build the lost soil fertility that

grain-men are going to have to re-build anyway. But they would

face it more willingly if they understood that quality grass is

better for animals and for their land too!

     Grain-feeding is not the problem, but rather the amount fed,

and high grain-feeding has been in vogue for so long and is so

wide-spread in America that one author writes:

 

          "The relation between good grass and beef is becoming

clear to farmers and ranchers who in the last five or six years

have discovered that finished beef can be produced on grass."

("Grasses & Grassland Farming", by H.W. Staten, p. 13, 1952).

 

     This "DISCOVERY" must have been a fairly well kept secret --

because grain feeding has INCREASED! Britain too is now not far

behind America. If grain is plentiful, that's what men will feed,

regardless of whether you like to eat sick animals that have made

it to the slaughter-house just in time!! Years have now been

spent researching liver breakdown in cattle, but the problem

would end if only the farmer would grow MORE GRASS and LESS

GRAIN!

 

Is Animal Protein A Luxury?

 

     Added to the grass/grain issue is a new "school of thought".

Because of famine and the population explosion, men in high

places now seriously question all animal feeding! To them, animal

protein is a Western LUXURY that we must do without.

     Experts make out a convincing case against domestic

ruminants, (specified for man by God). Animals, it is said, are

so "INEFFICIENT" at turning plants into animal protein that

millions more people could live if we all become VEGETARIANS!

Many say the world will soon not tolerate funneling precious

plants into beef and mutton production.

     Who can disagree? There IS an answer and to say the least --

in a world in which FAO has just spent SIX YEARS and SIX MILLION

DOLLARS on its "Indicative World Plan" to prevent famine -- the

point is of more than academic importance!

     Plant foods in a TOP-QUALITY pasture can be re-cycled back

through the soil at a faster rate by animals than by any common

agricultural CROP!!

 

          "If we think of the unit of plant food in such a

habitat, that unit would proceed from soil through plant and

animal and back again to soil within a period of perhaps a very

few DAYS and, at most, a period of weeks.

          "By contrast, if that same unit of plant food were

taken up by a cereal crop and passed into the animal fed indoors,

it would find its way into the dung and would, in fact, have

taken at least 12 MONTHS to complete a cycle from soil back to

soil. In contrast again that same unit of plant food on poor and

under-stocked grass where roughage accumulates year after year,

might take MANY A YEAR to complete its full cycle ... The

high-quality grazing ley, therefore, makes it possible that ...

plant food is used to the maximum ... much as in business, a

quick turnover" (ibid., p. 170). [Emphasis ours]

 

     This system with such a potentially rapid turn-around of

plant nutrients is the one that technological MAN has, in his

ignorance, labelled "INEFFICIENT". If he kept God's Sabbatical

Year and understood its importance, he would then know WHY

animals have been so designed!

     Man has missed the point. Animals were deliberately designed

"INEFFICIENT". They were meant to return most of their food

intake direct to the soil, because it is on this very fact that

ALL AGRICULTURAL soil fertility depends. The increase in

fertility that can occur in land turned from GRAIN to GRASS

production is a direct measure of this INEFFICIENCY.

     Applying this principle world-wide would do far more to

prevent famine than anything man has yet planned! Just take

Britain as an example -- any country with an import bill for half

of its food and one million in the dole-queue might ease two

burdens at once, by assisting some back in the direction of

agriculture!

     Ridiculous? Most would say so because we are told farmers

already have insufficient acreage. But if top quality GRASS is

the basis of sound agriculture, the following statistics bear

thinking about: 1966 -- ARABLE LAND -- 18 million acres.

PERMANENT GRASS -- 12 million acres. ROUGH GRAZING -- 17 million

acres. (Encyc. Britt., 1970)

     Out of 47 million acres of agricultural land, 12 million

might be ample for ARABLE farming -- leaving a MINIMUM of 20 to

30 MILLION ACRES for development into first and second grade

pastures! Figures for 1938 show that only 1.6% of Britain's

permanent grass, even excluding rough grazings, was first class.

("The Grass Crop", by W. Davies, p. 70)

     We live in a world that believes "ANY FOOL CAN FARM" -- but

this is as contemptuous of the design in God's earthly ecological

complex as thinking that any fool can conduct a full symphony

orchestra! It now seems as though prior to contact with God's

Work we were agriculturally "barely able to read music" -- let

alone conduct "the grassland symphony".

     We hope that The Department of Agriculture and Environmental

Research at Ambassador College is now at least learning the

"SCORE".

     Imagine the future when the whole earth is re-grassed and

under the control of multiple millions of men correctly trained

in environmental management!

                                                                              

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                    July 1971, VOL. II, No. 7

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

               GOOD! -- YOU'RE STARTING A GARDEN!!

 

     "As the result of a recent speech in Spokesman's Club a

number of people have secured garden plots (Council-owned land

that is rented out for vegetable production at a nominal sum to

interested families living in Britain's congested cities). And on

this land they are commencing to grow some of their own food."

 

     This information was communicated to the Department of

Agriculture and Environmental Research at Ambassador College,

Bricket Wood, a few days ago. It was some of the most refreshing

news in a long time! Why?

     Because the average family in our SOPHISTICATED Western

World has become so specialized that it has lost all the crafts

and simple skills which were common in the not so distant past.

Today the mass of Western humanity has even lost the knowledge of

how to produce its own food!

     Most of us would literally starve to death if confronted

with the problem of feeding ourselves. Not because we lack the

land on which to do it -- but simply because WE NO LONGER KNOW

HOW!!

     Knowing that many in God's Church ARE interested in growing

some of their own food, (as indicated in the above quote) -- this

issue of "Your Living Environment" brings you some helpful points

on family-vegetable production.

     First let us have a look at some of the pitfalls to be

avoided.

     If Satan has his counterfeits -- his churches, his priests

his healing, his art, his music, etc; then why not HIS

AGRICULTURE? If he has his methods of food production, then why

not his priests of agriculture, expounding false methods of soil,

plant and animal management.

     You know that Satan aims to bring man to a physical self

destruction; to end our physical existence before God turns man

into Spirit. Should we not therefore understand by what laws we

continue to live, in this physical environment?

     Satan has blinded this world on ENVIRONMENTAL-MANAGEMENT,

just as he has blinded it on the very god it worships. And as in

religion, so in agriculture -- he has something for everyone. You

can carelessly partake of CHEMICALLY GROWN foodless-food. Now you

can get SYNTHETIC food. Alternatively you may become a FANATIC

about food. There must be at least 100 variants of the latter --

some even linked with "religion" -- should one desire it! Satan

has something for everyone.

     Man can even practise a form of food production that looks

indistinguishable from God's way. It is called "Organic Farming".

Does that surprise you? It probably DOES, but it shouldn't. Is

Satan not smart enough to counterfeit God's right way in infinite

detail? Yes he is and that includes AGRICULTURE!!

     In the past we have been exposed only to Satan's system and

we know that it takes years of teaching and exposure to God's way

through The Bible, to throw off the influence of this world. But

in food production and environmental management most of us act as

though we can pick up a few rough guidelines more or less by

accident! IMPOSSIBLE!!

     Why -- even those working directly in God's Agriculture

Programme take years to completely throw off in-grained false

concepts, so where does this leave you?

     The transforming of one's mind in this aspect of life is

just as much a miracle as understanding the right principles of

child-rearing, marriage, finance or those showing which is God's

true Church. Though the process of change is a miracle, it

requires TEACHING, STUDY and TIME to learn God's way in

Agriculture! But most of all it requires the attitude indicated

in Matt. 18:3.

 

Beginning God's Way

 

     Most of our initial efforts to produce food God's way will

be full of commendable zeal, but if that zeal is misguided it

will surely be followed by disillusionment! Our opening quotation

could have included a fact that tiro gardeners are launching

themselves into vegetable production on 90 X 30 FEET STRIPS OF

GROUND!! Perhaps we can save you much discouragement by showing

you how to go about it on a much smaller scale.

     A garden of that size will feed not just your family, but

also HALF THE NEIGHBORHOOD! Better to see the refreshing results

of a small well-managed area, than become a backache ridden slave

to a large wilderness.

     A Council allotment of 90 x 30 is probably five times bigger

than the beginner should start with. That raises the question --

"What do I do with the remainder?" That is not only (as they say)

A GOOD QUESTION, but in its answer lies the whole key to your

success. And not only your success as a gardener, but your

success in learning how to correctly manage a tiny portion of

this planet. Come to think of it, THAT'S QUITE A CHALLENGE. If

you and your family can properly manage a plot 90 x 30, then

you're qualified to manage a far larger area! (Think how many

less deserts AND slums there would be, if every man had to meet

this qualification early in life.)

     Beginning a garden is like painting your house, or

redecorating a room -- everyone makes the same impulsive mistake.

Has there ever been an amateur house-painter with the strength of

character to keep his brush out of the paint-pot until AFTER he

has done the work of preparation? Some experienced men perhaps,

but NEVER a beginner!!

     "New-born" gardeners are of the same breed' We always want

to charge in and get on with the "brush work" -- in other words,

get something planted so we can see it growing. And what is the

result? IN HOUSE DECORATION, the new paint flakes off in six

months, we blame the brand of paint and find that the second time

around is twice as hard! IN GARDENING -- bugs and disease take

over, we blame the system (we didn't follow) and have to start

again by building fertility on poverty-stricken soil!

     How do these beginners get started? We have recently heard

of some not-so-robust types, moving-in on their 90' strip of

weeds with a LITTLE garden-fork and a LOT of enthusiasm. Digging

your way on a 30' front, through 90' of couch-infested clay, is

no picnic! One can hardly imagine a less favorable introduction

to home-grown vegetable production. And chances of success may be

equally unfavorable!

     Bashing each clod to death with the back of the fork and

shaking the weeds free, is really going-at-it the hard way!

 

Some Broad Principles

 

     You have been treated to a sample of the methods by which

many people go forth to do battle with "NATURE" (Knowing that

nature is a euphemism for God, is it less than symbolic that a

three-pronged fork for this battle?) Well that's just the

misguided system of this world, but we hope that we have

something better to offer God's people. Our efforts should be

aimed at working WITH God's Creation and His laws governing food

production. That's what this Department is all about.

     We can help you to a new understanding and knowledge of

environmental management that will produce real satisfaction and

rich rewards. However, regardless of the TEACHING, INSTRUCTION

and INFORMATION you receive -- you will need much PRACTICAL

EXPERIENCE. Don't blame the system when success does not come

first time! Don't quit and don't "cut-and-run" for the cover of

familiar old bad habits when your confidence is tried.

     Vegetable production is a form of ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT!!

And that should be our No.1 goal in gardening. Too many are

interested only in what they can GET from the soil. They GIVE

little or NOTHING back!

     Don't become a SOIL-ROBBER. If you do, you will be in a

battle from start to finish. CULTIVATION is difficult, WEEDS

become more persistent, MOISTURE is "never" right, DISEASE

threatens constantly and PESTS multiply in profusion!

     On the other hand, BUILDING soil-fertility, then guarding it

and managing it, calls for real skill, but the results are

worthwhile and bring great satisfaction.

     Under such a benevolent eye, abundant and nutritious produce

is an automatic blessing. That such rich rewards come easily,

must seem quite unfair to "chemical" gardeners who find

themselves fighting -- SOIL-STRUCTURE, DRAINAGE, WEEDS, DISEASE

and "BUGS". Remember also that they end up producing NUTRITIONAL

JUNK!!

     No one SEEKS a fight against the ravages of bugs and

disease, or a struggle to either retain or get rid of moisture,

or a battle against unyielding clay and persistent weeds. Yet it

seems ironic that man will always gravitate away from the very

system that will bring him everything he most desires.

 

Key To Success

 

     You will have gathered by now that SOIL PREPARATION is the

great key to your success in any garden venture. This subject

can't be covered in the space we have available, but here are a

number of brief points for your consideration:

 

     A. DON'T waste your time trying to grow vegetables in low

fertility soil! Raising the level of fertility should be your

FIRST task if you want to establish a successful garden. This

point is so vital that many would be wise to continue BUYING

vegetables -- for a year, if necessary, while you take care of

the problem!

     Generally there will have been some build-up of soil

fertility from the plant and root residues on your plot of land.

However, if you insist on getting a small area started quickly, a

soil test will give you an idea of the condition of your ground.

     An enquiry at any office of the Ministry of Agriculture, a

farmer's organization, a grain merchant, or a plant nursery will

give you information on where you can get a soil test done for a

few shillings.

     If the soil is not in a balanced state, you can take a few

simple steps to bring this about. Soil lacking organic residues

is "unbalanced" and will usually be in what is described as an

ACID condition. In rare instances (such as chalk and limestone

areas) it may be alkaline. Most vegetables do best in conditions

chemically near neutral.

     The pH scale is a set of numerical values which indicate how

far a soil is one way or the other from "7" (neutral). Readings

ABOVE 7 indicate degrees of alkalinity and BELOW 7 show acidity.

The addition of ground limestone will neutralize acidity. Whoever

tests your soil will give you a fairly accurate guide on

quantities, otherwise we can advise you.

 

     B. To control undesirable "weed" growth on any new area you

wish to incorporate in your garden, the grass should be cut down

and let decompose where it falls. Immediately after cutting, the

whole area should be given a heavy dressing of farmyard manure or

compost and straw.

     This thick layer of organic matter has a number of

beneficial effects:

 

     1. Preserves an even soil temperature all year round.

     2. Reduces evaporation under dry, hot and windy conditions.

     3. In wet weather it absorbs large quantities of moisture,

thereby reducing the chances of water-logging and soil erosion.

     4. Its buffering effect on acid soils helps correct pH.

     5. Ensures a rapid build-up of micro-organisms.

     6. Moisture and temperature control promotes rapid organic

decomposition by microbes and earthworms.

     7. Reduces sunlight preventing unwanted "weed" growth.

 

     C. If you have bare ground and completely lack access to

organic residues, sow in season, a cereal/legume mixture. Then

mow it every time it reaches 3" to 6" in height and leave the

clippings spread evenly over the entire area. (Remember, too many

clippings at any one time will kill the plants you are relying on

to produce more "green manure".)

     Don't assume that you can continue growing healthy plants

year after year, simply by adding MORE STRAW. Our researches

indicate that on its own, STRAW will eventually unbalance the C/N

(carbon-nitrogen) ratio.

     As the proportion of carbon rises relative to available

nitrogen, the rate of micro-organic decomposition decreases. This

slower turn-around of plant nutrients reduces rate of growth.

Then, outright deficiencies develop and finally disease and pest

attacks take over.

 

     D. Whatever tillage you decide to do should be confined to

the top 4" of the soil and any action that buries organic

residues should be definitely avoided. The old practice of

"digging the manure well-in" is NOT recommended. It slows down

the decomposition and puts much of the plant food out of reach of

surface rooted species.

     These points are the foundation of your future success in

soil management, so they are worth taking some time and trouble

over.

     We can do no more than whet your appetite now, but this

Dept. has other material available. It includes some seven

directly related articles. Though brief in themselves, they will

take the reader a stage further. The first six cover the

following subjects:

 

     1. The effects of chemical fertilizers.

     2. The effects of organic fertilizers.

     3. Sources of minerals for plants.

     4. Nitrogen availability.

     5. Soil destruction.

     6. Conquering plant disease.

 

     The seventh article deals briefly with twelve specific

points of gardening mechanics, including Tithing and The

Sabbatical Year.

     If you are interested, we CAN help you. And remember,

whether you have a window-box in inner London or 2,000 square

miles in Outer Mongolia -- the same principles apply. Success

will depend upon diligent application of God's Law!

                                                                               

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                   August 1971, Vol. II, No. 8

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

            BRITAIN -- STUD FARM OF THE WORLD -- WHY?

 

     What do the names Hereford, Durham, Devon, Angus, Ayrshire,

Jersey and Guernsey, mean to you? What about Hampshire, Dorset,

Suffolk, Cheviot, Shropshire, Leicester, Southdown, Romney Marsh

and Lincoln? To most people they are merely geographic locations

in the British Isles. But to animal breeders these names

represent the heart and core of the international livestock

industry!

     Now quite obviously these cattle and sheep have derived

their breed names from the area in which they originated. But not

so obvious is why the tiny British Isles should be responsible

for originating and developing so many of the world's major

breeds of livestock. Why have not an equal number of Dutch,

French, German, Italian, Russian or Spanish breeds become as

popular?

     Also why should the leading livestock breeders of the

Western World find it necessary to regularly import high-quality

cattle and sheep from the British Isles -- long after colonial

influence has ended? Surely the verdant grasslands of America,

Argentina, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa are

capable of producing even BETTER animals than tiny fog-bound

Britain. But judging by the annual trek of overseas buyers back

to Britain's top livestock shows and sales, this is not the case!

Indeed, the reducing or dispersal sale of a famous British cattle

stud has been known to attract more overseas buyers than local

ones. And every year, nearly all the top priced animals of

Britain are EXPORTED!

     But why? Why has Britain been so long regarded as the STUD

FARM OF THE WORLD? This issue of the Research News probes the

development, and the influence of British livestock to find the

answer -- an answer that heralds the need for major revisions of

our thinking about the "laws" of genetics and animal breeding.

 

Why British Animals Conquered The "Colonies"

 

     British livestock spread around the world as the British

Empire grew. British settlers encountered vast untapped

grasslands at every turn. To exploit these areas they naturally

IMPORTED their own improved breeds of animals. Like the

Patriarchs and the Israelites, the British have been dedicated

breeders of livestock and have taken them wherever they have gone

themselves, (as in Genesis 12:5, 13:1-5, 31:18, 46:6 and Exodus

12:38).

     Soon the Jerseys, the Herefords, the Angus and the

Shorthorned cattle from Durham had spread across most of the

world's temperate grassland. So too had the sheep of Leicester,

Dorset, Hampshire, the South Downs and Romney Marsh. And every

farm was stocked with horses from the Clyde, or Suffolk and

Shetland. Later on every ranch and race-track owed a debt to the

original breeders of English thoroughbreds!

     But as the imported animals reproduced, the transplanted

British stock men and their descendants in America, Argentina,

Australia, Canada, the Falkland Islands, New Zealand, and South

Africa noticed a strange phenomenon. Their animals began to

CHANGE, without any introduction of outside blood!

     A former Professor of Agriculture at Aberdeen University has

correctly observed that:

 

     "The Shorthorn, particularly in the Argentine ... TENDS TO

LOSE TYPE; that it tends to grow MORE LEGGY AND RANGY IN

SUCCEEDING GENERATIONS, LOSING thereby the low-set, blocky and

massive beef confirmation of the original breed, and that this

deterioration can be checked by returning to the breed's original

home for fresh stock and that it can be prevented in NO OTHER

WAY." ("Beef Cattle Husbandry", p. 59, Dr. Allan Fraser).

Emphasis ours throughout.

 

     This is not a unique opinion. It is virtually the unanimous

observation of generations of pedigree stock breeders! And has

its expression in the multiple millions they have spent at

British livestock auctions!

     All breeds of imported livestock are affected to some degree

and it is for this reason that most top breeders return to this

country to buy animals. Different environments produce different

changes in the same breed type. It may take a few generations to

become obvious -- BUT THEY DO CHANGE!

     All these changes are not necessarily bad, but because the

pedigree breeders' fixed mental image permits little variation,

most changes are regarded as undesirable. They may or may not

hinder the animal's meat or milk producing ability, but the rigid

Herd Book system does not allow the stud breeder to ignore these

variations.

     What causes these changes? And more important -- why is it

that only imported cattle and sheep from BRITAIN correct the

deterioration? There is no reason to assume that the new blood

carries better genes than the original importations. Yet it is

indisputable that fresh blood imported from the United Kingdom

will bring the stock back toward their original type.

     Why? Are environmental effects heritable after all --

despite the teachings of modern geneticists? It would seem that

most established overseas breeders are actually purchasing LIVE

IN-BUILT BRITISH ENVIRONMENT in their subsequent importations!

 

CHANGES -- NOT ONLY INTERNATIONAL

 

     Environmental differences change breed types even within a

nation. For example:

 

     "Hampshires, (sheep) found in the Eastern section of the

United States tend to be somewhat shorter of leg, lighter in

colour and to have a little more wool on their faces than those

found in the West ... Breeders have LONG observed that if Western

type sheep are moved to the East, or vice versa, with in a

generation or two, the type seems to assume the characteristics

of sheep native to the area." ("Modern Breeds of Livestock", p.

431, H. M. Briggs)

 

WHAT CAUSES THESE CHANGES?

 

     These examples appear to indicate a build-up of

environmental effects over generations as distinct from genetic

changes. Yet those effects of environment are not new facts.

Breeders have understood this overall principle for more than a

century, as the following quote proves:

 

     "Local circumstances -- such as the quality of the soil and

the peculiarities of climate -- influence the development of

these animals; and thereby we have local breeds established

especially suited to certain districts... Thus, where the soil is

luxuriant we have large native breeds; where the land is hilly,

we have smaller and more active animals;" ("Journal of The Royal

Agricultural Society", p. 262, Vol. XXII, 1865. Henry Tanner,

M.R.A.C.)

 

     This concept -- that an animal, a plant, or even a human,

will -- over a period of generations in the same area, tend to

assume the characteristics of the local native genera is most

intriguing. If correct, it would explain why British livestock

change type when sent overseas. And also why pedigree livestock

breeders, addicted to a particular breed type, have found it

necessary to continually import more livestock from the United

Kingdom.

 

DOES ENVIRONMENT EQUAL BREED TYPE?

 

     A Yorkshire farmer recently observed that -- "If you feed

Jerseys and rear them in the North, they tend to grow larger,"

("Farmer's Weekly", U.K., p. 24, May 2, 1969).

     Jersey is basically an island of ROCK with a THIN layer of

soil and a very favorable climate. Its perennially low plane of

nutrition has produced a small, fine-boned breed of cattle. Put

that same small animal in Yorkshire, a county with many acres,

high in inherent fertility, and the breed type becomes larger.

     It is from this very Yorkshire-Durham area that the

Shorthorn breed originated. These cattle came from the fertile

valley of the Tees and HAVE BEEN one of our breeds of greatest

size. Interestingly enough, these same Tees water Shorthorns have

been the basis for the Lincoln Red breed. As the name indicates,

the cattle were produced in the county of Lincolnshire -- which

encompasses some of the "strongest", most robust soils in the

British Isles. Is it any wonder that the Lincoln Red cattle are

perhaps the biggest breed in England at this time?

     The same is true of sheep. As Tanner indicated, it must be

more than coincidence that the chalky Sussex hills just south of

London, with their light, but fertile soils would produce the

smallest breed of sheep, the Southdown. On the other hand, the

large sheep breeds, such as the Hampshire, Suffolk, Oxford,

Lincoln and Leicester come from the deep fertile soil areas.

     In fact, it is not too difficult to trace this same

relationship between soil, climate, breed size, conformation,

meat value, wool type, etc., in nearly every breed of domestic

livestock.

 

Humans Too!

 

     Dr. Allan Fraser even suggests that it might be applicable

to humans also. In his later book, "Animal Husbandry Heresies",

p. 79, he offers a possible example:

 

     "In the Scottish clan system, there is abundant contemporary

evidence to show that while the stature of the common clansman

was severely stunted, the gentlemen of the clan were particularly

well grown. {No doubt the gentlemen attributed their superior

physique to their gentility (or noble genes) rather that to

access to a better diet for several generations}." ("Animal

Husbandry Heresies", p. 79 Dr. Allan Fraser)

 

     Do we need to state that there is a limit to the effects of

environment? We are not implying that environment will turn a

black pygmy into a six-foot 'great' Dane! Neither will any number

of generations turn a black Shetland Pony into a white

Clydesdale!

 

HANDLING ENVIRONMENT

 

     Though environment has affected men, animals and plants, it

is possible to SELECT for or against these effects. This, man has

done to a marked degree in plants and animals (with varying

degrees of success). But should we not question the wisdom of

repeatedly crossing the oceans to purchase specimens selected

against a different environmental background? Once we have the

bloodlines located in ANOTHER environment, would it not be more

reasonable to either ACCEPT what that environment produces, or

MODIFY THE ENVIRONMENT?

     Britain's role as Stud-master to the world has long been

that of selecting for particular characteristics against the

background of her own micro-environments like Herefordshire,

Hampshire, etc. The results have been exported throughout the

nation and overseas, but NOW the future of the Stud industry is

seriously challenged. How? First by the massive increase in

commercial CROSS-BREEDING and secondly by the increased capacity

of a single bull to beget calves through artificial insemination!

     Add to this the fact that the "flood-gates" are now open

into Europe and more British livestock breeders than ever are

turning their backs on the historic nucleus of their own

industry. These men, (especially cattle breeders) are currently

scrambling over each other to import French and Swiss livestock.

     Are not the British themselves now doing exactly what their

ex-colonial areas and Argentina have done for generations? Why?

Is our environment not capable of producing the qualities that we

are now importing from Europe?

     The only way to prove this is to demonstrate that the

illusive qualities of the Continental cattle, (principally

Charolais and Simmental) HAVE previously EXISTED in Britain.

     What are those qualities, when were they evident in British

cattle and how did we come to lose them? First let's take the

French Charolais -- what do they have? Nothing except their old

fashioned English shorthorn bloodlines and the kind of human

selection that has allowed the environment to naturally produce

large-framed and heavy-boned animals. (Of course this can be done

ONLY if the environment will permit it). But many British cattle

had this quality at one time -- ESPECIALLY THE SHORTHORN BREED.

At that time they were the most numerous in Britain and in fact

the whole world! How ironic that BRITAIN should now be BUYING

instead of SELLING cattle. And doubly ironic that our suppliers

are those considered to be backward European "peasants".

 

THE LATEST TREND -- IN BRITAIN'S ANIMAL INDUSTRY

 

     Now the trend is toward the Swiss Simmental breed -- so what

have they got? SOMETHING that British breeders abandoned even

EARLIER than "size" and "bone". THEY ARE DUAL-PURPOSE ANIMALS!

Simmental cattle, (regardless of what British buyers may be doing

with them) have a unique ability to fill the joint role of dairy

cow and beef producer -- WITHOUT ANY CROSS-BREEDING! They have

this capacity to a degree that has not been seen by most of the

world-wide British-based cattle industry for 50 YEARS!

     Few YOUNG men have ever seen it, but the British Shorthorn

HAD this dual-purpose quality above ALL the other breeds in this

country. That was one of the important reasons that made them THE

MOST POPULAR BREED IN THE WORLD. In little more than 50 years the

highly specialized Friesian totally supplanted the Shorthorn in

the dairy industry. And in less time, the more fashionable Angus

and Hereford supplanted the Shorthorn in the beef industry.

     Today the Scotch Beef Shorthorn is a miniaturized version of

its ancestors, but the breed has "missed the boat" because the

industry is already moving back toward the old-fashioned type.

The Simmental fulfills that demand NOW. It will take TIME to

rebuild the Beef Shorthorn. They have not only lost their size,

but also their milking ability! These changes were not the result

of environment, but rather John Bull's personal selection.

     John Bull has continued as Stud Master to the world because

his "sons" were convinced that Britains livestock were the BEST

in the world! As long as this conviction remained, they believed

they must return to their homeland for regular replacements.

These new animals were necessary ONLY because the "colonial"

environment was different.

     This continuous stream of replacement animals was necessary

only because John Bull's own offspring could not, or would not

duplicate the environment of Britain. Where it is SIMILAR changes

in the livestock were slow and limited. Where environmental

differences were PRONOUNCED changes were more rapid and dramatic.

     We have indicated big changes took place in various breeds

of stock WITHIN Britain, but these were mainly due to human

selection. Nevertheless even these changes were faithfully copied

overseas. In other words Britain has long dictated fashion in

animals, just as Paris has in clothes!

 

NOW -- AT AMBASSADOR COLLEGE

 

     In Bricket Wood, the Shorthorn was selected for the

Agriculture Programme four years ago. It seemed to lend itself

better for breeding back to a DUAL-PURPOSE type, without the

confusion of crossbreeding (Lev. 19:19). We were unwittingly

ahead of the current trend.

     We have been mating a Beef Shorthorn bull with our Dairy

Shorthorn cows and allowing them to suckle their own calves. Now

OUR environment is having its effect on these calves. But

Hertfordshire's gravelly land is a far cry from the original

Teeswater environment of the Shorthorn (back in the days when it

was ONE breed, not two). Can you see now why there has never been

a Hertfordshire breed of cattle, or sheep and why we are so

insistent on building soil fertility?

                                                                              

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                 September 1971, Vol. II, No. 9

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

                 DWELL IN THE BEST OF THE LAND!

 

     "And God said ... let the dry land appear: and it was so.

And God called the dry land Earth; .... And said let the earth

bring forth tender grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit

tree yielding fruit after his kind ..." (Gen.1:9-11).

     "And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and

there He put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground

made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the

sight and good for food" (Gen. 2:8-9).

 

     This is a short outline of the creation of man's

environment. It is but the briefest description of a stupendous

miracle -- the details of which are still puzzling man after

nearly 6,000 years! We unthinkingly pass over the unbelievable

detail that is implied in these few words. Just look for example,

at the staggering complexity of soil formation, with a vast array

of minerals coming from the basic rock strata. Hundreds of

biological, chemical and mechanical inter-actions go to make them

available to plants!

     These truly wonderful processes can operate only through

that one medium -- SOIL. And in this issue of "Your Living

Environment" we want to focus on the importance God has attached

to SOIL down through the history of man.

     It is true, "MAN" is the focal point of God's physical

creation on this planet, NOT "soil". However we might profitably

reflect for a while on the vital role of "SOIL" as it is such a

basic part of our environment. This highly variable and yet

precious commodity must have figured very largely in the over-all

7,000 year plan of God.

 

MAN'S ATTITUDE TO SOIL

 

     First let us briefly see how soil has "figured" in MAN'S

approach to his environment and destiny. Is it exaggerating to

say that the English language more than hints at human contempt

for this God-given blessing? We customarily speak of treating

someone, or being treated -- "LIKE DIRT". Then there is also the

frequently used expression -- "COMMON AS DIRT".

     Is the analogy not valid? Is there anything physical for

which man has shown more contempt than the soil sustaining his

very existence?

     Have you ever contrasted this attitude with man's idolatrous

worship of such things as -- the sun, the moon, the stars,

animals, insects and possibly even plants? But is there any

record of man having worshipped soil? We don't know of any,

though there is probably an exception somewhere. Soil has

generally been treated "LIKE DIRT" -- thrashed, abused and

depleted! It has been scorched, burned, plundered, powdered,

stomped and exposed to rain, floods, wind and every conceivable

human neglect!

     What has been the result? MAN has always paid a terrible

PRICE! for this law-breaking, through a lowered environment and

inferior health. No man should become a "soil-worshipper" but he

could well afford to get his relationship with the soil in a

right perspective!!

     The only chance man has of ever getting anything in right

perspective is by looking to God. So let us now see something of

the value our Creator attaches to this BASIC INGREDIENT OF ALL

LIVING MATTER.

 

TO "DRESS" and "KEEP"

 

     "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground ...

(Gen.2:7). "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast

of the field, and every fowl of the air" (Gen.2:19).

     God need not have formed His physical living creation out of

SOIL, but was it not both symbolic and logical that He chose the

material used for every subsequent generation? This substance has

been a basic ingredient of all plants, animals and men ever </