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

since.

     Agriculturalists like to play on the scriptural meaning of

the phrase -- "All flesh is grass" (Isa. 40:6). What they imply

is, in a sense, quite true. But should we in agriculture not be

equally mindful of the fact that ALL GRASS IS SOIL?

     Such a childishly simple truth should have been easy to

accept, but the historical record indicates otherwise. Even Adam

could not proclaim innocence through ignorance. We know that God

gave the first man instruction in His spiritual laws, but He also

gave necessary guidance in physical laws too:

     "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden

of Eden to dress it and to keep it" (Gen.2:15).

     "DRESS" means to WORK and by implication to SERVE as a bond

man, or become servant to. And "KEEP" means to GUARD, HEDGE

ABOUT, PROTECT, PRESERVE and LOOK NARROWLY TO. (Strong's

Exhaustive Concordance). Contrast this commission with man's

performance; abuse, greed, neglect, robbery and destruction!

     Man has always been bent on GETTING from the soil, but if he

would start GIVING, God would soon begin to overload him with

abundance.

     Of all the punishments God could have meted out to Adam for

disobedience, notice that the very first was a curse ON THE SOIL

(Gen. 3:17-18)!

     Cain's punishment for the murder of his brother is also most

significant: "And now you are cursed from the earth .... When you

till the ground it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her

strength ..." (Gen.4:11-12).

     Understanding that animal husbandry is an integral part of

soil management, enhances our appreciation of the possible

differences between the approach of Cain and Abel to agriculture

(Gen. 4:2,4,).

 

MAN -- ARCHITECT OF HIS OWN DESTRUCTION!

 

     Within just six chapters of the account of man's history the

reader is at the point where:

 

     "... God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the

earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was

only evil continually" (presumably including soil management).

     "And the Lord said, I will destroy man ... from the face of

the earth; from man unto beast and the creeping thing and the

fowls of the air; ... The earth was corrupt before God ..." (Gen.

6:5,7,11).

 

GOD -- BEGINS A GREAT NATION

 

     Some generations after The Flood we read that God greatly

blessed his faithful servant Abram:

 

     "For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it,

and to thy seed for ever .... Then Abram ... came and dwelt in

the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, ..." (Gen. 13:15,18).

     "... I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the

Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it ... In the same

day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed

have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great

river, the river Euphrates" (Gen.15:7,18).

     What kind of land was he given? Was it eroded desert? or was

it rich and fertile? This point was very important because Abram

was already "VERY RICH IN LIVESTOCK". By skipping forward a few

hundred years we can find the answer in God's Word. It helps us

understand that God placed real importance on quality soil as a

basic building block for His specially chosen nation!

     "Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan, and ... they

came unto the brook Eschol, and cut down from thence a branch

with one cluster of grapes and they bare it between two upon a

staff!   (Num. 13:17-20,23).

     "... they ... came to Moses ... and they told him ... We

came unto the land ... and surely it floweth with milk and honey;

and this is the fruit of it" (Num. 13:25-27).

     If this land was so fertile after 500 years of Canaanite

occupation it makes you wonder what it must have been like in

Abraham's time! Perhaps we can get an idea of this too.

     "... Isaac sowed in that land and received in the same year

an hundredfold: and the Lord blessed him. And the man waxed

great, and went forward, and grew until he became very great"

(Gen. 26:12,13).

     Under today's system, England produces TWENTY-EIGHT fold!

The world's large grain producing nations such as America and

Australia, manage a national average of approximately TWENTY-FIVE

fold!! "Organic" farmers don't get a hundred fold today either.

But what fantastic natural fertility must God have placed in the

particular soil He used in founding His nation under the

Patriarchs!

 

GOD -- SUPPLIES OUR BLESSINGS

 

     King David said of God: "He waters the hills from his

chambers: "... He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and

herb for the service of man: that he might bring forth food out

of the earth; and wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil

to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's

heart" (Psa. 104:13-15).

     "He blesseth them also, so that they are multiplied greatly

and suffereth not their cattle to decrease" (Psa. 107:38).

     "And sow the fields, and plant vineyards, which may yield

fruits of increase" (Psa. 107:37).

     "God be merciful unto us, and bless us; .... That your way

may be known upon earth, thy saving health among the nations ....

Then shall the earth yield her increase; and God, even our own

God, shall bless us" (Psa. 67:1,2,6).

 

     Do we need reminding that the most basic thing to "health

among the nations" is highly nutritious food and that this is

impossible without rich soil? And even the richest of soils must

have its fertility protected and guarded by obedience to God's

laws.

     Unavoidable proof of this exists today from the Euphrates

all the way to the Nile and on for the next three thousand miles

to Tangier. The same basic situation also exists from Gibraltar

all the way back to the Euphrates on the other side of the

Mediterranean too!!

 

JACOB -- THE NEXT GENERATION

 

     Notice the very first part of the blessing that Isaac asked

God to pass on to his son Jacob:

 

     "Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the

fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine" (Gen. 27:28).

 

     Surely "fatness" is synonymous with soil fertility!

     These are blessings that can come only to people living

under an assured rainfall and on really fertile soil. The next

question we may reasonably ask ourselves is -- how did it all

work out?

     After years of voluntary exile from his native area (because

of the way he obtained the above blessing) Jacob finally returned

to the general area in which his father and grandfather had

prospered (Gen. 33:17-18, 35:1,6,21,27).

     "And God said unto him ... the land which I gave Abraham and

Isaac, to thee I will give it and to thy seed after thee will I

give the land" (Gen.35:11-12).

     Jacob's next recorded move was into Egypt where God

fulfilled His promise and reunited the family under Joseph

(Gen.46:1-7). Now we have God's new nation of people numbering

seventy at this time, but to what kind of an area did He lead

them? God was working it out, however, old Israel knew where the

good land was in Egypt and did his part to see that his family

took over some of it.

     "And he sent Judah before him unto Joseph, to direct his

face unto Goshen. ... And Joseph said unto his brethren ... I

will go up, and shew Pharaoh ... when Pharaoh shall call you ...

ye shall say ... Thy servants trade hath been about livestock

from our youth ... that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen" (Gen.

46:28,31,33,34).

     "And Pharaoh spake ... saying .... The land of Egypt is

before you; in the best of the land make thy father and brethren

to dwell; in the land of Goshen" (Gen. 47:5,6).

 

     It is obvious that both Jacob and Joseph knew where the best

land was to be had in Egypt and that they placed great importance

upon it. Pharaoh's words indicate that he too appreciated this

fact and furthermore knew what they were up to! Most important of

course is the fact that Goshen was precisely where God wanted His

people at that time. (God does tell us that He is the one who

sets the boundaries of the nations). (Deut. 32:8).

 

A DOUBLE PORTION -- TO JOSEPH

 

     After some 17 years living in Goshen, the ancient Israel

said to his son Joseph: "Behold, I die: but God shall be with

you, and bring you again unto the land of your fathers. Moreover,

I have given to you one portion above your brethren ..." (Gen.

48:21,22).

     His grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh were to be blessed as his

own sons (Gen. 48:3-5). They were prophesied to be collectively:

 

     "... a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well;

whose branches shall run over the wall" (Gen. 49:22).

     "The Blessings of your father have prevailed above the

blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the

everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph ..." (Gen.

49:26).

 

     Were they? Let us see for ourselves: "... the children of

Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied

and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them"

(Ex. 1:7).

     We need to get the fact that there was much more than a

population explosion involved here! China, India and Latin

America are three modern lands "filled" (to over-flowing) with

people, but judging by Oxfam pictures, there has not been a very

"abundant" increase!

     The term "fruitful bough" is symbolic, but it may also be

very literal. Short of an outright miracle, boughs become unduly

fruitful for one reason only -- because they are located in a

HIGHLY FERTILE SOIL and receive rain from God in due season.

     That promise was fulfilled when Israel's family left Egypt

and returned to the fantastically rich environment referred to by

Joshua and Caleb. Ephraim and Manasseh each took up a portion of

that land on at least equal terms with the families of their

eleven uncles.

     And what blessings they received -- "So the children went in

and possessed the land ... a fat land, and possessed houses full

of all goods, wells digged, vineyards and olive yards, and fruit

trees in abundance: so they did eat, and were filled and became

fat, and delighted themselves in thy great goodness" (Neh.

9:24,25).

 

     We should not need reminding of the application of these

verses to the past 350 years of modern history and none have

prospered like Ephraim and Manasseh! We have truly possessed the

"fat places" of the earth. What we have done with them is quite

another story and another issue. Prophecy warns us of the

consequences, but we are also shown the future under a most

merciful God:

 

     "... I will settle you after your old estates, and will do

better unto you than at your beginnings" (Ezek. 36:11). "... in a

fat pasture shall they feed upon the mountains of Israel ... and

the earth shall yield her increase" (Ezek. 34:14,27). "... the

Lord shall comfort Zion ... He will make her wilderness like

Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord" (Isa. 51:3).

                                                                              

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                  October 1971, Vol. II, No. 10

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

                    PARASITES UPON THE EARTH

 

     "After every two or three years of work in the undeveloped

world I return home to my native Iowa. Each time I am amazed 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 soil, 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

fruitful soil for every hundred square miles of useless land,

plus a climate that is a gamble, and sometimes a nation has no

good land anywhere at all" ("Famine 1975", Preface, W. & P.

Paddock).

 

     Without realizing it, the authors of this book have made a

graphic contrast that agrees with Bible prophecy. The above quote

contrasts the environment of Gentile nations with Manasseh. But

this contrast can be extended to include the modern Ephraimites

and in fact all the descendants of Jacob. To the Israelites of

old, God said He would -- "set thee on high above all nations of

the earth" (Deut. 28:1). The same basic promises He made to

Abraham and Isaac.

     Our modern generations have done nothing to merit these

superior and fantastic physical blessings. Our Creator has

fulfilled His promise and simply allowed us to inherit most of

the productive temperate zones of the earth. He was quite

specific about it:

 

     "When the most High divided to the nations their

inheritance, He set the bounds of the people according to the

number of the children of Israel" (Deut. 32:8).

 

     The richness that men like William Paddock see is largely

based upon TWO factors -- RAIN IN DUE SEASON, (Lev. 26:4) and

FERTILE SOIL, (e.g. Ex. 3:8). In this issue of "Your Living

Environment" we want to show that mankind is playing a dangerous

game with that appleskin thin layer on the earth's crust we call

SOIL! The resources of that shallow layer are all that separates

us from oblivion! But what are the problems, how do they arise

and what steps can be taken to overcome them?

 

WHO SAID SOIL FERTILITY IS A PROBLEM?

 

     Perhaps we should first make sure that we are not taking too

much for granted. Is the problem of declining soil fertility as

serious as some people would have us believe? At least one

"eminent" authority would have us believe that it does not exist

at all, at least in England!

     "Modern Farming And The Soil" is a recent British Government

report in which the authors gave their findings on the effects of

grain monoculture and continuous, (or near continuous) arable

farming, on soil structure. These enquiries were headed by The

Chief Advisor to The Ministry of Agriculture, Dr. Emery Jones.

And the considered opinion of these men is that there has been an

alarming deterioration in the soil structure of much of Britain's

arable land.

     It was reported that this group of experts said that grain

production should be abandoned on much of the formerly rich

Midland soil. And that these areas would have to be turned over

to pasture to allow them to recover. Furthermore it was claimed

that these soils were so depleted in organic residues that they

would be at least THREE YEARS recovering.

     Everyone appeared to digest this startling report in

complete silence. A few months have passed, the "dust" has

settled and some of the "scared rabbits" are emerging from their

burrows! Rothamsted Experimental Station, (the centre which

pioneered the worldwide use of artificial fertilizers in food

production) is now said to have brought out a counter-report. It

states in part:

 

     "If the notions ('notions' hardly does the Ministry's

experts justice) in the report about the importance of organic

matter, soil structure and drainage were conceived during the

inquiry, they matured rapidly, for they dominate the report

almost to the exclusion of other factors that affect soil

fertility and crop yields" (Quoted in U.K. Farmers' Weekly, p.

48, June 25, 1971).

 

     Rothamsted now blames soil structure problems in British

Agriculture on, of all things, -- "THE WEATHER". That which

follows shows these "experts" blowing the gaff on their own

counter-report:

 

     "Similarly, a few years back we had no explanation for poor

growth of sugar beet in some fields, though bad soil structure

and lack of organic matter were widely assumed to be responsible.

     "With the main cause identified as attack on the seedlings

by free-living nematodes, not only are the reasons now understood

but also it can be prevented" (ibid).

 

     "Prevention" would of course be by chemical means. This

group of experts seized on the nematodes as the "CAUSE". Any old

Organic Gardener would tell them that nematode attacks are merely

the "SYMPTOM" of the problem! Now comes the real irony in the

above report. The nematode problem, instead of being the "CAUSE"

is actually a sure sign of the condition Rothamsted denies.

Nematode damage occurs in crops grown on land that is LOW IN

ORGANIC RESIDUES! And the recognized biological control is to

increase the soil's microbial population by the addition of

compost or farmyard manure. First it was NEMATODES, now it's the

WEATHER, but never US!!

 

CROP YIELDS A POOR GUIDE TO FERTILITY

 

     In this green land of England, it is not easy to recognize

an environmental landslide -- ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE STANDING ON

IT! "GREEN-NESS" of the landscape may in some cases be indicative

of the blessings God has bestowed on certain peoples. But on the

other hand it has never been decreed as a measure of their

obedience to His laws of environmental management.

     Crop yields are no guide these days to the fertility of most

soils in modern agriculture. We must therefore be careful not to

conclude that all must be well if the landscape is green and

yields are higher than they were fifty years ago. Disease

incidence is a good guide though! They are the curse we are under

for environmental lawlessness.

 

ANY "CURSES" -- IN THE CITY OR THE FIELD?

 

     Notice some of the penalties God said would come, upon His

chosen people Israel:

 

          "Cursed shalt thou be in the city and cursed shalt thou

be in the field. Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store. Cursed

shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the

increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.

          "The Lord shall smite thee ... with blasting and

mildew, ... thy heaven ... shall be brass, and the earth ...

shall be iron. The Lord shall make the rain of thy land powder

and dust: ... it shall come down upon thee, until thou be

destroyed" (Deut. 28:16-24).

 

     Physical sickness and disease is a multi-million pound

"curse" affecting the cities of EVERY nation and results largely

from our mismanaged food industry.

     Do we have any "CURSES" in the "FIELD"? What about Corn

Blight, Potato Blight, Clubroot, Nematodes, Aphids, Red Spider,

Cabbage Moth, Codling Moth, Fruit-fly, Bollworm, Mildew, Yellow

Rust and every other "new" kind of Rust that comes along!

Foot-and-mouth disease, Mastitis, Bovine Tuberculosis, Contagious

Abortion, Footrot, Liver fluke and Fowl-pest -- these are but a

few of the best known.

     Dr. Emery Jones and his men apparently think that some of

our most productive land is like "iron". What about our heavens?

Do they ever become "like brass"? Yes they do indeed! There never

seems to be a time that severe drought is not going on somewhere.

     Need it be asked -- Do we have any deserts, (especially

man-made ones) that alternatively rain dust or clouds of locusts

on the more productive areas?

     We have the lot!

     The potential of the Earth's land-mass falls basically into

three divisions: PASTURES, CROPS and FORESTS. Accelerating TIMBER

USAGE continues to outstrip re-afforestation. Economic pressures

and/or ignorance denudes billions of acres of the world's pasture

lands, pushing them ever closer to desert. While intensive 20th

Century agriculture and even nomadic crop production is pounding

once fertile soils to death!

 

SOIL RECLAMATION -- WHOSE JOB IS IT?

 

     "For generations, the conquest of Nature has been accepted

as man's prerogative. But man is a part of Nature, it being his

essential environment and unless he can find his rightful place

in it he has poor hope of survival. Man's present behavior often

resembles that of an over successful parasite which, in killing

its host, accomplishes also its own death" (C.L. Boyle, "Journal

of the Soil Association", VIII, 1954).

     Man has traditionally refused to face the facts of life

relative to soil management, but it is obvious that we ultimately

have no alternative! It's OUR environment! It was created for US!

WE degrade it! WE are the one species with "intelligence" and WE

have the tools for the job, so -- should we not GET ON WITH IT?

 

THE ORIGINAL SOIL-BUILDER

 

     The next point is HOW should we go about it? Men have come

up with all kinds of ideas. But we would suggest that God gives

the clue to land reclamation! He shows us in the Bible that at

certain times He has had the biggest soil-building programs in

history!

     He must have made fantastic redistributions of soil and soil

types during the Flood in Noah's time. And so post-Noation man

was presented with a ready-made array of soils -- ranging from

"pure" SAND to "impervious" CLAY. In between these extremities

are what we might generally term "LOAMS". These are admixtures

and innumerable combinations of sand, clay and organic matter.

God was responsible for those.

     It was God who was responsible for those unbelievably rich

soils in the American Mid-west, (referred to by the Paddock

brothers). And it should be noted that He pre-mixed their organic

content with the mineral particles millenniums before making then

available to the modern Manassites.

 

     Notice examples from later times in man's history:

 

     "To fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah,

until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay

desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfill threescore and ten years"

(II Chr. 36:21).

     Unless man begins to "shape-up", God is going to do it

again: "I will scatter you (modern Israel) among the heathen ...

and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste. Then

shall your land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate

     What happens when land lies "desolate" and cities are

"waste"? THREE things basically: 1. The multitudes from the

cities cease their clamour for food. 2. Farmers stop forcing

production from their soil. 3. And virtually all plant growth,

(that the climate permits) is returned to the soil. These three

effects produce a slow, but natural regeneration, just as

happened in England when farming has been abandoned on really

sick soil.

     Under these "desolate" conditions, (not to be confused with

DESERT conditions, they are two different Hebrew words) A

BUILD-UP OF ORGANIC RESIDUES TAKES PLACE! Plant matter is

produced each growing season, according to local conditions,

providing God supplies "rain in due season" (Lev. 26:4, Psa.

65:9-13).

 

MAN CAN BUILD OR DESTROY

 

     Once man moves into an area, the prospects for its future

change dramatically. Why? Simply because God has given MAN the

POWER and the INTELLECT to CHOOSE how much food he will take from

his soil and how much organic matter he will put back into it.

     This is a perfectly free choice which has come up before

every man in history if he has been responsible for managing

anything from a window-box to a million acres! Traditionally, (as

has been pointed out many times) the soil has lost out, through

exploitation. Many secretly realize they are not doing the best

by their soil and that somewhere along the line a future

generation will have to do something about it, or pay a penalty.

     The truth is that both present and future generations pay a

penalty, but in most instances today, man thinks HE is

"GETTING-AWAY-WITH-IT"!

     Need we be so blind over this fundamental problem of soil

management? And are the principles of soil reclamation all that

difficult? Generations of men have treated SOIL as an eternally

productive milch cow, requiring little or no INPUT but always

yielding a high OUTPUT! It seems to be the nature of man to act

like a greedy, spoilt child -- taking all he can get and giving

nothing in return.

     In nomadic crop and animal production this process goes on

to the point of soil exhaustion. Modern intensive methods differ

in one point only -- "science" has made it possible to extend

high levels of production BEYOND the point of soil exhaustion!

The nomad ends up with a desert and "science" ends up with a form

of hydroponics, (growing crops on chemical solutions) and

nutritional chaos!

     At the other extreme some see abundant and healthy

production of a tomato or pumpkin vine growing wild on a dung

hill. And something like this leads them to a fanaticism over

compost-grown food! If only we would take up a balanced position

between these two extremes. WE CAN, and all it requires is

obedience to the principles behind God's commanded Sabbatical

Year (Lev. 25:1-7).

 

HUMUS, LEGUMES AND LIFE

 

     We can and we must be delivered from the science fiction of

Chemical Agriculture and at the same time avoid the stigma of

Health Cranks Inc. Every acre does not have to be transformed

into a veritable dung-pile before reaching a naturally productive

and balanced state.

     Let's centre the pendulum on this matter once and for all.

The "Chemical Captive" maintains that we can abuse our soil with

impunity, while the "Compost Convert" flinches visibly at the

thought of burning even the most monstrous piece of garbage. God,

on the other hand was not above commanding that offal and garbage

be taken out and burned or buried (Lev. 8:17, Deut. 23:13, Jer.

7:20)!!

 

     At the same time He gave us a regular reminder of what is

involved in building and/or maintaining a BALANCED level of soil

fertility. Man focuses on that grossly incomplete formula,

"N.P.K." (Nitrogen, Phosphate and Potash) as the source of life.

But "H.L.L." (Humus, Legumes and LIFE) would better summarize the

basis of God's right system of soil management. And it is centred

around livestock, rather than crop production.

     God knows human nature, seeing He created man. And to block

our natural tendency toward environmental suicide, He decreed a

special year of rest every seven years. This does not remove the

element of "free-choice", because WE still decide for or against

keeping God's Sabbatical Year! Faithfully kept, it is a regular

exercise in THE CONSERVATION OF SOIL FERTILITY!

     Walking in this "statute" changes a man's whole outlook and

attitude toward his environment. Following the principles of the

Sabbatical Year is not just something he does every SEVEN years.

It totally dominates his approach to and his thinking on

agriculture and environmental management, EVERY YEAR!!

     Much more will be written on this important subject -- God's

Sabbatical Year, but it has been at least partially covered in an

earlier issue. The point to be emphasized here is this: Soil

maintenance and reclamation is not difficult to understand for

the man who keeps God's Sabbatical Year. He can truly be a

BLESSING to any environment, instead of a "parasite upon the

earth".

                                                                              

 

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                 November 1971, Vol. II, No. 11

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

                        WHY AGRICULTURE?

 

     Why did God create cattle, sheep, poultry and the other

domesticated livestock? Why did He create wheat, oats, rice,

barley and maize? Why did He design potatoes, beans, peas and

cabbage? Why has so much of man's activity from creation till now

centred around crop cultivation, orchard and forest management

and livestock husbandry? In short WHY did God create agriculture

the way He did?

     Was God's main purpose in this system to FEED AND CLOTHE

MAN? Mankind has historically assumed so! Perhaps you have too.

But like so many other human assumptions, this does not agree

with the truth of God as revealed by The Bible and His Creation.

     This issue of "Your Living Environment" will draw attention

to the fact that food and fibre production is NOT the primary

purpose of agriculture. It will also demonstrate that God has a

far greater purpose for agriculture than the mere production of

so many calories per person per day. By losing sight of God, man

has long since lost the true perspective of agriculture. And in

so doing we have doomed ourselves and our environment to slow

degeneration and destruction.

 

WHY IS AGRICULTURE SO TIME-CONSUMING?

 

     The Bible indicates that we have been using the same

domesticated livestock and crops for food from Genesis till now.

But this carefully planned system is without doubt

time-consuming, complicated and laborious! Any

Time-and-Motion-Study expert would have to condemn God's food

system as extremely cumbersome, wasteful, expensive, complex and

just plain inefficient.

     Take BREAD for example. God's system involves soil-tillage,

seed-planting, a year's delay between harvests, gathering,

threshing and cleaning. Then comes the milling and daily making

and bakeing that loaf of bread! Surely a continuously bearing

"bread-tree" producing ready-to-eat loaves like apples would be

simpler and much more "EFFICIENT"!

     And what about milk? It takes three YEARS to produce the cow

and even then the milk supply is dependent on a continuous

feeding, watering and a daily extraction process. The latter can

be unpleasant and even hazardous! Why all this effort to obtain

milk and the further complexities of butter and cheese

production? Could God not have continued to send manna, or supply

all our nutritional needs from a nearby stream? Could we not have

been designed to live on air or perhaps eat soil?

 

WAS GOD AN INEFFICIENT DESIGNER?

 

     Was He incapable of developing more efficient methods? Not

at all! Anyone who truly understands God and His Plan, knows

better. God does nothing haphazardly. At Creation He deliberately

designed an environmental system that demands much of man's time,

effort and thought -- for reasons far more important than mere

human physical survival!

 

THE TRUE PURPOSE OF AGRICULTURE

 

     The Bible contains no verse which states plainly -- the main

function of man's environment is such and such ... But careful

analysis of God's plan for man and His system of agriculture does

reveal several major reasons behind the TRUE PURPOSE OF

AGRICULTURE.

 

     I. TO ENABLE MAN TO UNDERSTAND GOD MORE CLEARLY: Few men

have been privileged to speak with God since Adam was evicted

from the Garden in Eden, but we can still understand God. He

tells us -- "The invisible things of Him from the creation of the

world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are

made" (Rom. 1:20). In fact He has surrounded us with His very

mind in the ecological relationship of our complex environment.

     In Bromfield's view, agriculture "... is the only profession

in which man deals constantly with ALL the laws of the universe

and life" ("From My Experience", Louis Bromfield, p.348).

     Nothing forces man to study God's creation more than His

natural way of feeding and clothing humanity. Without a working

knowledge of the laws governing soil, animals, crops, seasons and

their inter-relationships -- man could not survive.

 

     II. TO CREATE IN MAN AN AWARENESS OF HIS DEPENDENCE ON GOD

     Plant and animal production, as God designed it is extremely

subject to the vagaries of drought, flood, hail, disease, insect

attack etc. Daily dependence on God and obedience to His laws was

essential for a man to avoid extreme discomfort and even death

from these forces. Today under the influence of SATAN, man has

developed a system that aims to suspend or delay the penalty of

environmental lawlessness. When even farmers obtain most of their

food from the local supermarket, one can see the convenience of

this system for ignoring broken agricultural laws!

     "There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One

is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery

and the other that heat comes from the furnace" ("A Sand County

Almanac", Aldo Leopold, p.6).

     Today man's sustenance appears to spring from those vast

seas of nutritional junk, called SUPERMARKETS, rather than from

God! Likewise credit for providing heat, power and light is now

given to gigantic national gas and electricity grid systems,

rather than God who supplies water, forests, coal and solar

energy.

 

     III. TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEARNING RULERSHIP: "The

preservation of the landscape belongs among the essential tasks

of mankind, for man has been appointed the master of life on

earth ... the forming, maintenance and recreation of the

land-scape, is not only an eternal biological problem but a

problem with an essential spiritual and social significance"

("The Earth's Face", Dr. E. Pfeiffer, pp.34, 36).

     "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our

likeness, and let them have dominion (rulership) over the fish of

the sea, the fowl of the air, and over the cattle and over all

the earth" (Gen. 1:26).

     The very design of God's system of agriculture, provides the

future members of His all powerful ruling family with ample

opportunity to practise rulership! God watches us practise on a

small scale and with limited power. If we fail with a few acres

of land, plants and animals, can we hope to qualify to rule this

whole planet with Christ?

     Note how humanity has rebelled over this God-given

responsibility. In effect we have fled the land when it would no

longer support us, turning food and fibre production into a

specialized city-based industry.

 

     IV. TO EXPRESS MAN'S CREATIVE DESIRES: "I know the

satisfaction of seeing the whole landscape, a whole small world,

change from a half-desert into a rich ordered green valley

inhabited by happy people, secure and prosperous, who each day

create and add a little more to the world in which they live, who

each season see their valley grow richer and more beautiful"

("From My Experience", Louis Bromfield).

     Here is a man rare among agriculturalists, expressing the

satisfaction of having helped to develop a portion of this earth

to a higher plateau of beauty, order and productivity. Yes, God's

Creation was designed to subtly pressure every individual into

working with soil, grass, flowers, trees, shrubs, birds and

animals -- the very components of landscape development. God's

whole living environment has provided man with an unparalleled

opportunity to exercise the creative desire inherent in the human

mind!

     V. TO PROVIDE AN IDEAL FAMILY ENVIRONMENT: "The conditions

for the growth of happy and united families are fulfilled to a

marked degree on the farm. Here the growing child has ample

opportunities to go out with his father; he will be associated

both with LIVING THINGS and mechanical devices" ("Human Ecology",

Sir George Stapleton, p.115).

     Another author states: "IN THE PAST, rural life presented

favourable 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" ("The Human Environment", Rene Dubos, Science

Journal, p.79, Oct.,1969)

     What better way to channel a child's zest for life and

boundless energy than helping parents care for animals, gather

eggs, grow vegetables, harvest grain, etc.? The marvellous wisdom

of God becomes more apparent when we look at agriculture from

this point of view.

 

MODERN AGRICULTURE -- TOTALLY ASTRAY!

 

     However, understanding the real purpose of our environment

is shared by extremely few agricultural thinkers today. Satan has

encouraged farmers and scientists to consider voluminous

production of food, (regardless of quality) as the real and ONLY

purpose of agriculture.

 

(Note: To view a drawing inserted here, see the file 711166.TIF in the

Images\Ag directory.)

 

     In the last seventy years the economics of the system we are

adopting has removed multiple millions from the farming

environment of the Western World! And there is no end in sight

yet. Politicians say millions more must go and join those already

in the city jungles and jobs must be found for them. Their small

farms have been replaced by -- vast prairies of grain, battery

egg and broiler production, huge animal feed-lots, one man

milking one hundred cows daily, and so on.

     Large specialized farms with the minimum of people on the

farms and the maximum in the cities, may be efficient food

production -- from MAN'S point of view. However, God considers

not FOOD, but CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT to be the most important

purpose of agriculture for the future members of His family.

     In that respect specialized, mechanized agriculture is

failing miserably. The skeleton staff that remain on the farms

lose their last chance to understand the true purpose of

agriculture. Today "progressive" farmers rub shoulders more with

machines than people. For that, they are the poorer. And the

profit motive is more likely to debase character than build it

up.

 

AGRICULTURE IN THE FUTURE

 

     God promises a time of the restitution of all things (Acts

3:21). One of the things that will need restoring is a worldwide

understanding of the TRUE purpose of agriculture -- from God's

point of view.

 

Agriculture in the future will:

 

     1. Enable man to understand God more clearly as he studies

God's physical laws in operation around him.

     2. Greatly help the man, under the influence of God's Spirit

to become aware of his complete dependence upon God for his every

need.

     3. Be recognized and fully regarded as an unparalleled

opportunity to practise environmental rulership.

     4. Encourage man to express his in-built creative desires by

the way in which he develops his portion of the environment to a

higher plateau of beauty, order and productivity.

     5. Provide an ideal family environment in which multiple

millions will flow back to man's original God-given job, where

"... they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig

tree" (Mic. 4:4).

                                                                              

 

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                 December 1971, Vol. II, No. 12

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

                       SOIL USE AND ABUSE

 

     Ambassador College, Bricket Wood, is currently negotiating

for the use of some 250 acres of land on the former Handley Page

airfield. If successful the Agriculture Department will have the

tremendous opportunity to bring this land into full production.

     But how can it be done? Should we plough, disc-harrow,

rotovate -- or not even cultivate at all? Is it wrong, as some

have suggested, to grow grain? Should we mulch and if so, how?

     What about the right method of building soil fertility?

Should we rely on compost, on dung, lime, slag, super phosphate,

chemical nitrogenous fertilizers, or green manure crops? How

about organic fertilizers such as Super-gro, Acta-bacta,

Verta-life, etc. -- or no fertilizers at all?

     What approach to the complex problem of soil management and

soil fertility is in harmony with the laws of God? Is there in

fact any way to rejuvenate soils over-night -- to change poor

soils into rich ones in a period of a few months?

     To the academic theoretician all these questions are no more

than mildly interesting, but if you have land of your own they

become a very live issue! Especially so if you desire to OBEY

God's laws relative to environmental management! These questions

then become vitally important -- both for now and the world

tomorrow!

     This issue of "Your Living Environment" completes two years

of reporting on Bricket Wood Agricultural Research and many of

the above questions have been covered. However, we now want to

offer FURTHER insight into soil management, according to God's

laws.

     Great confusion exists on the problems of right soil

management (even among our own people). Today, fads, panaceas and

wacky ideas seem to increase at an exponential rate. Some, in an

effort to do the right thing, swing from one miracle organic

fertilizer to another, from one system of cultivation to another

and from one system of soil management to another.

 

The Importance of Soil Management

 

     Few people, even among those actually working the land have

ever fully comprehended the vital importance of correct soil

management, relative to either their own or mankind's survival.

          "... man and all that breathes are fed through a

tenuous film of rock particles, water and organic remains --

INDISPENSABLE, READILY SUBJECT TO INJURY AND IF RUDELY HANDLED,

IMPERMANENT.

          "Soil is living rock and the fundamental problem in

farming ... is to handle soil not as an aggregation of inert rock

materials, but as the substance of life " ("The Care Of The

Earth", p.21, Russell Lord, 1962).

          "Soil is a kind of PLACENTA that enables living things

to feed on the earth" ("Man And The Earth", N.S. Shaler,1915).

 

     These are men that do understand something of the vital

nature of soil management, but now let us test some of the ideas

of other people against the guidelines of the Bible.

 

Cultivation and Tillage

 

     Some have assumed that Ambassador College is against soil

cultivation. After all, have we not written articles decrying its

effects on soil fertility, texture and productivity? But tillage

handled correctly is NOT wrong and will NOT be wrong in the world

tomorrow. Many scriptures indicate this. But irrefutable evidence

shows that EXCESSIVE tillage is severely damaging.

 

          "Cultivation tends to reduce the level of fertility of

most soils as measured by the crop-producing power. ... directly

ploughing and cultivation operations begin great losses of

nitrogen set in" ("Scientific Agriculture", Vol. 28 p.30, January

1948, Atkinson & Wright).

 

     But the Bible infers that cultivation is a necessary part of

man's existence. The answer to this apparent anomaly is simple:

cultivation is fine, and indeed necessary to produce food for

mankind, but its use should be LIMITED in depth, severity and

frequence. In most cases superficial tillage, with a mixing

action, tends to be less harmful than the old deep inversion

methods. (It should be noted that the Biblical references to

"ploughing" do not refer to the mouldboard type plough. This is a

modern invention. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance gives the

meaning as "scratch".)

 

Grain And Cereal Crops

 

     Another misconception is that Ambassador College does not

"believe" in growing cereal grains. But we have grown grain and

intend doing so in the future. What is more, the Bible agrees

with this practice: In Deut. 8:7-9, God tells the Israelites that

He has brought them to a good land, a land of wheat, barley, etc.

Amos 9:13 refers to the ploughman over-taking the reaper in the

world tomorrow.

     The problem of grain production is that it annually

necessitates a great deal of soil cultivation. This is especially

true of the coarse feed-grains, (such as maize and grain sorghum)

and the other clean-cultivated crops such as soybeans, tic beans

and potatoes. Tillage exposes the soil to the elements for long

periods of time and fertility deteriorates rapidly. This

fertility and that lost through crop production can obviously be

given back in various ways. But much of this problem could be

avoided. How? By farmers eliminating surplus grain-production

which now goes for cheap animal feed!

 

The Fertilizer Problem

 

     Spectacular and immediate results quickly eroded any doubts

about chemical fertilizers and by the late 1950's they had near

universal acceptance and acclaim! But during the last ten years

their long-term detrimental effects become too obvious to ignore.

     Disillusioned, farmers began searching for ways to rebuild

soil fertility. To their rescue came a new army of salesmen --

from the "organic" cult. They claimed the ability to provide

immediate solutions -- no more headaches of over-worked,

compacted soil, poor yields, diseases crops and insect epidemics!

     Products such as Fertrell, Acta-Bacta, Q-R Activator, Terra

Tonic, etc, have had great appeal because man is readily

convinced that soil fertility comes from a bag or a bottle. Why?

Because these materials can be easily sprinkled on the soil,

giving rapid results. They do benefit the soil -- but LASTING

soil fertility has not and never will come from a bag or a

bottle. It comes from CAREFUL OBEDIENCE TO THE LAWS OF GOD AND

INTELLIGENT AND PATIENT STEWARDSHIP OF THE LAND!

     As a professor of horticulture pointed out in 1907: "The

problem of maintaining or restoring the fertility of farm soils

is much broader than that of merely adding plant food to them.

     "Most worn-out soils are in special need of humus ... In

most cases the quickest and easiest way, to begin with, is to

grow leguminous crops for green manures. But green manuring will

be made more effective and certainly more remunerative if it can

be associated with some form of stock husbandry, so that the

crops may be fed or pastured ... and the manure returned to the

soil. Stock-feeding is the key to the most ECONOMICAL maintenance

of soil fertility in general farming. DIVERSIFIED FARMING is one

of the strongest props of soil fertility" ("Soils", p.280, 316,

344 & 345, S.W. Fletcher, 1907, Archibald, Constable & Co. Ltd.,

London).

     A modern authority corroborates Mr. Fletcher: "The primary

methods of increasing the fertility of all land ... involves the

creation of humus by means of life-promoting qualities of

compost, farmyard manure and other organic fertilizers; by green-

manuring, ... by the controlled grazing of livestock, by methods

of working the land whereby the circulation of air, sunlight,

water and minerals is promoted; by planting trees and perennial

herbs, whose roots aerate the soil and bring up minerals from the

subsoil" ("The Inviolable Hills", p.208, Robert A. de J. Hart,

1968).

     This does not conflict with the Bible. Nowhere does God say

there is any quick way to change abused, degenerate soil into

fertile, rich productivity overnight. Success is a result of

patient continuance in God's law and a steady growth in knowledge

and understanding. THIS POINT CANNOT BE OVER-EMPHASIZED!

     Sweeping changes may be necessary. Continual re-education

must take place in order that a careful programme of constructive

soil management can be developed and put into action.

 

The Right System of Agriculture

 

     Any soil management program me developed in harmony with the

laws of God must revolve around the limitations imposed by the

Sabbatical Year, (Lev. 25). As we explained in an earlier issue

of this Research News, ("Why -- The Land Sabbath?" Vol.I No. 9),

this law, if obeyed, has far-reaching implications both for the

Christian now and for the entire world in the near future.

     Though space does not permit detailed explanation here, the

Land-Sabbath uses the sheer power of economics to encourage

farmers to adopt a diversified programme; based on livestock and

the production of meat, milk, eggs, wool, etc.

     It encourages grassland farming (the feeding AND FATTENING

of livestock ON GRASS), rather than excessive dependence on

cereal grains as animal feed. It discourages an excessive

dependence on crops that require annual sowing and harvesting.

And it encourages small vegetable gardens, diversified and

intensively managed.

     Interestingly enough, by encouraging just such a programme,

God induces farmers to adopt the ideal fertility-building

methods. These (as it was pointed out earlier) are based on

livestock, dung, green-manures, minimal cultivations and legumes,

plus some mulching and composting for the small vegetable and

fruit areas.

     Lime, basic slag, rock phosphate and other such materials

may be necessary at certain times, especially in the early stages

of fertility building. But if these have to be relied on

indefinitely, the particular system needs to be re-examined.

 

God's Agricultural Instruction

 

     An intriguing aspect of the Bible is that it is not detailed

or specific in its instructions to farmers. There is no plan laid

out telling man how many acres of wheat to grow, how many cows to

have, how many sheep, what rotation to follow, what stocking rate

to choose, or even what cultivation tools to use, etc.

     God leaves all these decisions up to the individual land-

owner to decide, based upon his particular circumstances. But

once we understand the Land-Sabbath, we have very little choice

about the overall agricultural system that we would be wise to

adopt. (Notice that God preserves our right of FREE-CHOICE.)

     But it is in our own interest to adopt that system which

fits the overall pattern outlined above. Otherwise, every seventh

year will be one of comparative financial hardship, (not to

mention other more severe penalties). This will be especially

true in the world tomorrow when whole nations will be keeping the

Sabbatical Year at the same time (we again urge you to consult

the earlier issue on this subject).

 

Observing The Land-Sabbath

 

     In three year's time Ambassador College will again be

observing the Sabbatical Year on its Bricket Wood campus. This

will include many additional acres for the first time and we must

begin now to plan for this observance.

     Every one of you who reads this article is coming toward his

or her Land-Sabbath too, as are many others who perhaps won't get

the chance to study the available information beforehand.

     Maybe some will be like the man who, in all sincerity left

600 acres lie fallow during his Sabbatical Year! He and others

were under the impression that this was a correct and diligent

observance. Diligent it was, but correct? No! Neither was it very

wise. Can you imagine the impression it created on his

neighbours? 600 acres under fallow when the land all up and down

the country was under green crops.

     How about you? Will you be prepared when the time comes?

Will you fear the approach of your Sabbatical Year and look on it

as an imposition? No need to! You can confidently look forward to

it as a GREAT BLESSING, along with all the rest of God's laws.

That is if you begin tailoring your soil management correctly --

NOW! If we can help, let us know.

                                                                              

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                 January 1972, Vol. III, No. 1

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

                 RE-EDUCATION VIA RESEARCH NEWS

 

     Publication of "Your Living Environment" by The Agriculture

Department of Ambassador College, Bricket Wood, has stimulated

considerable interest over a wide range of important problems.

And as this issue begins the third year of publication it is

perhaps timely that we should review our activities.

     One may well ask how did it get started and why? Who is

receiving it and what effect is it having? Why is it written the

way it is? Should it not be more specific and detailed?

     Surely any explanation of the right methods of agriculture

should cover specific questions such as rotations, stocking

rates, sowing times and rates, exact applications of fertilizer,

individual breeds of animals, plant varieties etc. in great

detail. Yet this monthly Research News has not done so, even in

spite of the fact that many environmentalists in God's Church

deeply desire just this type of information.

     Is it not an ideal vehicle for conveying such facts and

information to the educators, students and farmers who receive it

regularly?

     Then why are the various subjects discussed in a general,

academic and even slightly theoretical way? Why not come to grips

with the specific daily decisions facing food producers? Wouldn't

that be the most helpful approach?

 

Birth of an Idea

 

     Collection, sifting and analysis of reams of information is

one of the main tasks of the department in its study of

agriculture and environment. But after two years of studying the

relationship of the Bible to Agriculture, the conclusions of

other researchers and our own observations -- we ended up with a

frustrating problem. Knowledge and understanding had increased

enormously within the department and therefore within God's Work,

but it was NOT leaving the Agriculture Office! In discussions

with Mr. Schurter it was agreed that at least the Faculty should

have easy access to the fruits of our labours.

     However, campus life is too intense and active to allow

these educators time to enter deeply into one another's fields.

It was then that the Agriculture Department conceived the idea of

a monthly Research News Bulletin.

     The idea was put to Mr. McNair and he accepted the proposal

as a means of conveying environmental information to personnel at

Bricket Wood and those working under him in the field.

     To be of any real value the contents had to be brief, clear,

positively oriented and at the same time intellectually

intriguing enough to gain the attention of ministers, lecturers,

department heads and students.

 

Readership Expansion

 

     The information in the early issues quickly caught the

attention of many readers. It was not long before the contents

were being discussed appreciatively and ministers passing through

Bricket Wood from other areas were requesting their own copies.

     Soon the recipients were eagerly accepting the regular

monthly issues. We began to receive many favorable comments,

especially from those in direct contact with agriculturalists.

Here was a service they valued because the Research News provided

regular firsthand reports of Ambassador College's approach to the

rural side of man's environment.

     Furthermore, "Your Living Environment" has been a means of

clearing away many misconceptions created by second-hand

information about the work of the Agriculture Department. And it

can take care of others that might arise in the future.

     As executives and ex-agronomy students from England

travelled around the world, a trickle of requests for the

Research News started to filter in from the men staffing our

Offices in other areas. After further discussion with Mr. McNair

these requests were granted.

     There was still no real need to provide detailed information

on specific farming problems. Perspective, background and

objective understanding on agricultural matters were of most

value to these educators reading the monthly Research News.

 

Farmers -- next!

 

     It was not long before a number of farmer members also

became aware of the material being released through "Your Living

Environment". Their persistent and increasing volume of requests

to be put on a mailing list finally convinced Mr. McNair to agree

to an extended readership.

     At the Feast of Tabernacles 1970, in Minehead, Church

members were told that they could receive a regular monthly copy

providing they were directly involved in agriculture and/or

horticulture. It was also stipulated that they must be willing to

cover printing and postage costs. The reason being that "Your

Living Environment" is a CAMPUS PUBLICATION only.

     But does the fact that an increasing number of farmers are

now reading this Research News mean that its approach and

presentation should be altered? Should it now become more

specific?

 

How Specific is God -- Agriculturally?

 

     Note that the Bible does not recommend any sowing depth for

grain, what rotation to use, or how much fertilizer to apply in

any given circumstance! God limited His advice and guidance about

agriculture to a few simple but meaningful laws. His instruction

goes little beyond The Sabbatical Year, The Jubile and

firstlings! And even these are covered in a few verses.

     However, just one single law, the Land Sabbath, (as

explained in Vol. I, No.9) outlines the entire framework of the

"RIGHT" system of food production. The economic forces that God

built into these short powerful commands to His people dictate

the food-production system that will be most successful for

ANYONE intent on obeying His laws. But they do NOT dictate the

specific details such as the variety of cereal grains to grow,

nor when or how. Nowhere does God say -- you SHALL NOT grow

maize, or you SHALL grow Lucerne.

     God provides only the overall framework, the skeleton of the

system He has designed to work in the best interests of man. Of

course some may think that this is the very reason why God's

Agriculture Departments should go into great detail. We do become

more specific than the Bible, but God has left the more detailed

decisions to the individual. This works well, because each man

knows his circumstances best, such as soil type, climate,

finances, markets etc. And in this way God provides His people

with ideal training opportunities for greater stewardship in the

world tomorrow!

     Our recent years of working directly with farmers have

convinced both branches of The Division of Agriculture (Texas and

England) that elaboration of general principles is the best

guidance. An overall perspective of God's system of environmental

management and an in-depth understanding is what is needed.

Masses of minor details and technicalities will cause the average

reader to bog down in a morass that may not even apply in his

circumstances. Besides, SPACE JUST WILL NOT PERMIT SUCH DETAIL!

 

Why "Perspective" is Emphasized

 

     In His overall laws, God provides the correct perspective

from which to view ALL agricultural problems (see Vol. II, No.

12). And experience in this department has confirmed that "Your

Living Environment" needs to follow the same example.

     It is our job to probe and explain the various aspects,

implications and ramifications of God's environmental laws --

thus making the all important "skeleton" more vivid to the

reader.

     Circumstances vary so widely in different areas that

specific recommendations of fertilizers, crops, etc., are unwise.

Only PRINCIPLES are applicable in such a wide range of

situations. While the various practices, methods and materials to

be used for the best application of God's system of agriculture

will vary from area to area.

     The farmer himself must decide specific details, after

acquiring the overall perspective and an understanding of the

principles of God's agricultural laws.

 

Success in Environmental Management

 

     We have found that those most successful in utilizing God's

agricultural laws have at least two things in common:

 

     FIRST, they remain close to God and thus have access to the

faith, balance and sound-mindedness that can come only from His

very mind and character.

     SECOND, they have recognized the value of self-education and

gone after it. In doing so they have realized that the two

Departments of Agriculture in Ambassador College cannot at this

time supply the wealth of detailed information, ideas,

alternatives and possibilities available on "natural" or

"organic" agriculture.

     These men have therefore embarked on an extensive and

absorbing self-education programme. It involves the principles,

problems, practices and possibilities of right agriculture. To do

this they have sought out books and other written material on

many subjects. (Big Sandy and Bricket Wood Agriculture

Departments both supply a book list for fundamental reading.

Remember that these lists enable YOU to capitalize on many

hundreds of hours of reading research and evaluation that has

been done for you. They constitute just the tip of the iceberg,

which means that you don't have to pick your way through the

under-lying mass of material.)

     By combining these three sources (the Bible, Ambassador

College and other recommended literature) with an alert,

observant and inquiring mind, we can ALL make the preparations so

necessary for success in managing our God-given environment.

     Farmers are particularly prone to forget that our need of

education does not stop with the end of school. Continual self

education (in addition to the work of God's Ministry and

Ambassador College) is necessary for spiritual success and so too

it is necessary for agricultural success and prosperity.

     Whether you are Faculty, Farmer or Student, we hope that

"Your Living Environment" can continue to provide you with early

access to the latest information available from this department.

                                                                              

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                 February 1972, Vol. III, No. 2

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

              FABRICATING FOOD -- FROM FERTILIZERS!

 

     For the year 1969/70, total world consumption of chemical

fertilizers reached 63 MILLION METRIC TONS. This figure

represents a 200% increase over the average consumption for the

years 1952/56, which stood at 20.2 million tons.

     During the same period the world's total agricultural

production appears to have increased by only about 45%. Not a

very startling increase compared with the extra fertilizer used!

However, it is very obvious that world agriculture is now fully

committed to its present method of feeding mankind (i.e.

production of plant matter for man and animals by the use of

artificial fertilizers).

     In this issue of "Your Living Environment" we are going to

make an up-to-date survey of this present

internationally-accepted method of food production. And in the

next issue we hope to contrast it with a diametrically opposite

system!

 

How Gullible Is Man?

 

     It is well known that NITROGENOUS types of chemical

fertilizer are the most important part of this gigantic secondary

industry. Why? Because nitrogen, in a form available to plants,

is regarded as the basic building block of protein. It has also

been said NITROGEN is the greatest single limiting factor to

increasing world food production. Taking these factors into

consideration, we may rightly conclude that nitrogen must be one

of the most vital nutrients for man. At the same time it is

difficult to avoid the assumption that it must also be hard to

come by! But read what the U.S. Department of Agriculture has to

say:

 

          "The primary source of soil nitrogen is in the air.

Harry A. Curtis, of the Tennessee Valley Authority, calculated

that there are about 34,500 tons of nitrogen over every acre of

land area. That is about four-fifths of the atmosphere. This

inexhaustible supply remains constant, because nitrogen is being

returned to the atmosphere at about the same rate as it is being

removed." (ACEDIA. Yearbook, 1957, P. 86.)

 

     Is it therefore somewhat surprising to find the world's food

producers annually paying out HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS in hard-earned

cash for a commodity that is available to every one of them

virtually FREE?

     It is not only surprising, it is almost unbelievable!!!

Surely this situation sounds more unlikely than the story of the

gullible country-yokel being sold the tallest building, or the

largest bridge, on his first visit to the big city!

     Nevertheless, modern science and 20th century industry have

cleverly co-operated in selling millions of tons of combined

nitrogen to the world's farmers. Furthermore, the farmers are

convinced that they are getting value for money. And at the same

time Science, Industry, Agriculture, Governments and Consumers

are all convinced that man has no alternative (except

starvation)!

 

'West' Exports Its System

 

     Regarding Agriculture, Economics and Nutrition, the world is

divided into two sections -- the OVER-DEVELOPED and (as some say)

the NEVER-TO-BE-DEVELOPED! Foodwise, one section is plagued by

surplus and the other by chronic shortage. Though it is little

understood, both have one thing in common -- they now suffer from

acute nutrition deficiencies!

     In some ways it would seem that the under-developed are

almost better off. Why? Because they at least know that they are

in REAL TROUBLE! The Western world not only refuses to face the

fact that it is in grave nutritional danger, but it is now

internationally palming off its system of food production onto

its 'backward country cousins'.

 

     Even FAO's Director General has sounded a word of warning:

 

          "Many people speak of the green revolution as if it

were already an accomplished fact. But some caution is called for

if we are not to be carried away by mere slogans and catchwords

general, radical and permanent improvement in the agricultural

situation in the developing countries." (Forward by FAO Director,

State of Food & Agriculture 1971.)

 

     The term "green revolution" has become just what the

Director General said -- a slogan and a catch phrase. Meaning

that millions in both the over and under-developed worlds are

taking it literally. Who is not believing in that "RADICAL AND

PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT" in the backward section of world

agriculture? Is it not time the magic and mysticism was stripped

out of this catch cry -- GREEN REVOLUTION? We need to understand

it for what it is! It is the science of Western Agriculture

passing itself off as the saviour of a starving world!

     While one branch of that science has attacked man's food

supply problem by synthesizing plant nutrients, another is now

manipulating genetic material to its own short-term advantage. As

one source commented:

 

          "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." (Marcia Hayes, PARAGOULD DAILY, Paragould,

Arkansas, 11-12-70.)

 

     As an inspired international project, vital to the survival

of mankind, the "Green Revolution" is being masterfully piloted

through its early stages. Millions believe in its success, but do

we have to sit and wait goggle-eyed through all the entrancing

propaganda to see if it will really succeed?

     No! An examination of WESTERN agriculture will reveal the

nutritional future of those backward countries now depending on

the "Green Revolution". Why? Because that "Revolution" is the

product of Western agriculture!

 

But Will It Succeed?

 

     Food production in Asia, Latin America and even Africa is

now more dependent than ever on chemical fertilizers -- the soil

fertility drugs of Western agriculture! Of these,

synthetically-combined nitrogen is by far the most significant.

Today, individual factories are turning out as much as 1,000,000

TONS of this fertilizer in a single year!

     But why should human survival appear to depend on

international fertilizer factories churning out 60,000,000 TONS

of these materials annually? Did our Creator God slip up

somewhere and overlook man's need for food? You will see later

that He didn't, but meanwhile let us look at some more facts

surrounding this multi-million pound business. As local figures

are more readily available, we will examine U.K. agriculture.

 

An Unfair Comparison

 

     No one can challenge the high level of productivity that has

resulted from the increasing and widespread use of chemical

fertilizers and NO ONE DOES! But we should take a little space to

question just what this farming system is being compared with.

     The "SUCCESS" of agro-chemical food production, in terms of

output and quality IS TOTALLY questionable. Success has been

measured by yield increases obtained on land whose fertility has

been largely stripped out of it by other wrong farming methods!

     In other words chemical farming was not introduced because

of its success, but rather because of the failure of man's

traditional methods. Most men have yet to come to understand that

both the old and the NEW systems are WRONG.

     Modern farming methods still produce sick soil, diseased

plants and food for men and animals that is nutritional junk,

just as the old system did. There ARE differences however -- NOW

we are able to produce more of it, per acre! And we can now also

reduce fertile virgin soil to a near sterile and hydroponic state

in record time!

     Bold statements, but what evidence do we have that our

present agriculture IS producing "NUTRITIONAL JUNK"?

 

Costly Veterinary Services

 

     In 1969/70 British agriculture spent £127 million on

chemical fertilizers! And at the same time local farmers now pay

out £20 million every year for veterinary drugs to treat their

sick animals. They do so accepting that sickness is virtually

inevitable, but this is a false assumption. £20 million allows

nothing for the professional services of the veterinarians. These

would probably be at least another £5 million or maybe £10

million.

     Many fail to make the connection between artificial

fertilizers, food quality and disease incidence. Others don't

wish to! We hope that you can -- and do!

     Take for example the economic survey done by British

television on the lack of profitability in local agriculture. A

hard-working young couple on a small dairy farm in the West of

England were shown to have a nett income of £2 PER WEEK, after

all their efforts and long hours throughout the year. At the same

time the interviewer and the farmer passed glibly over the

appalling fact that the farmer paid out £12 PER WEEK for

veterinary products and services during the entire year! And that

allows nothing for deaths and lost productivity!

     The charges were no doubt regarded as legitimate from both

the veterinarian's and the farmer's points of view. At the same

time we might reflect on the fact that that farm was perhaps just

one of 20 or maybe 50, attended by the veterinarian! One day man

will offset these costs against our much vaunted progress.

 

Losses Through Disease

 

     It has been estimated that Britain's recent Fowl Pest

epidemic, affecting 45 million of our 110 million birds has cost

the nation at least £15 MILLION. Similar figures could be, and

some have in the past been quoted for other continuing disasters

such as Mastitis, Contagious Abortion, Mildew, Weed-control etc.

Now the Ministry of Agriculture estimates, for example, that the

annual cost of pesticides and herbicides to the British farmer is

£17 MILLION.

     We should never believe however, that the costly penalties

for our high-production system of farming are limited to

soil-breakdown, diseased plants, pest attacks and unhealthy

animals. Do we not EAT our plant and animal production? Then as

they are affected to the tune of these multiple millions, would

we not be affected also?

 

Man Can't Escape!

 

     In 1959 the British Government spent £828 MILLION on the

National Health Service! If we are what we eat and if our method

of food production is the kind we need to build strong healthy

bodies, that figure ought to be dropping rapidly under a

progressive system of agriculture. Despite inflation, our

standards of living are said to be rising. But what is happening

to the barometer of Britain's national health? By 1969 (just 10

years later) the annual health bill had NOT fallen. It had then

reached £1880 MILLION!!

     In the same period the cost of PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES,

(presumably human) rose from £88 MILLION to £198 MILLION.

(Source: Annual Abstract of Statistics; quoted from Annual Report

of 1970-71 of The Association of the British Pharmaceutical

Industry.)

     Is THIS the picture of a nation whose agriculture is truly

progressive? And one that is producing an abundance of nourishing

and fine health-giving food? At the same time we must not assume

that all sickness results from eating low quality food.

Accidents, old age and emotional stress are very important

factors and must be allowed for. But the cost to the nation,

through SICKNESS, does not end with payment of a bill for the

National Health Service.

 

A Nation On Sick-leave!

 

     What about WORKING DAYS lost through sickness? The earliest

figure we have is for 1962/63 and it stands at 288 MILLION! Our

population has increased some since then but that astronomical

total of lost working DAYS (not hours) should be falling, in a

nation whose health is improving. What are the facts? The

position is deteriorating. In 1969/70 our advanced society in

these islands lost 342 MILLION WORKING DAYS! With a work force of

some 15,000,000 it means that each of those workers was off sick

for an average of 22 DAYS in that 1 year.

 

Utopia or Bust!

 

     Similar sets of facts could be related for each Western

country, as we all plunge headlong down this blind alley of

nutritional chaos towards that magical figure of 2,000 AD. It

attracts us like blinded moths on a suicidal dash toward a

white-hot light. Man charges ahead in the misguided hope that

science, technology and industry are leading us to nutritional

salvation in an agricultural utopia.

     And now the rest of the world is following:

 

          "In the case of Mexico ... in 1949/50 total consumption

of fertilizer nutrients was about 8,000 tons ... by 1959/60 ...

consumption had grown nearly twentyfold ... 170,000 tons ... and

in 1966/67 it was about 440,000 tons.

          "In India ... fertilizer consumption increased rapidly,

from about 60,000 tons ... in the early 1950's to over 3,000,000

tons by 1959/60 ... consumption nearly doubled in the next four

years and doubled again in the next three to reach 1,200,000 tons

publication).

 

But What Is The True Cost?

 

     Astronomical investment and production costs are involved in

ringing the world with fantastic fertilizer factories and

laboratories. And who could compute the resources employed in

transportation. Much of the raw material is first dragged

hundreds of miles across the ocean for processing. The end

products have to be loaded back into ships or lorries or both and

transported to the world's farms. Then there is that luxuriously

expensive section of industry that exists for the purpose of

applying finished fertilizer pellets, powders, liquids and gases.

It includes tankers, tractors, aircraft, helicopters and

hovercraft.

     And finally the most costly step of all -- CONSUMPTION of

the resulting deficient plant foods by animals and man. Of these

four costly steps -- PRODUCTION, TRANSPORTATION, APPLICATION AND

CONSUMPTION, the latter is where the real pay-off is. And that is

precisely why our examination of the whole system has been

concentrated on this final and fatal step.

     It would be foolish, as we have said, to try to load all the

blame for soil, plant, animal, bird and human disease onto the

agrochemical industry. But we feel that the statistics quoted

show that there is an enormous cost factor cancelling out a LARGE

proportion of man's "progress" in food production.

     How large? Opinions will differ on this, but we are

convinced that the price is far above anything man can afford!

Therefore there HAS to be an alternative -- and there IS an

alternative!

     Chemical farming and its appendages will wither and die. And

in its place must come a system that meets the requirements of --

SIMPLICITY, ECONOMY, QUANTITY AND QUALITY! That is what we will

describe next time.

                                                                              

 

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                   March 1972, Vol. III, No. 3

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

             NOURISHING FOOD -- FROM SOIL NUTRIENTS!

 

          "One of the general observations regarding diet and

human health is that man frequently gives evidence of being least

well nourished where and when his food supply is most ample, and

as a corollary primitive peoples, as a whole, show the fewest

evidences of constitutional diseases, except when they come in

contact with civilizations ("Our Plundered Planet", Fairfield

Osborne, p.79).

 

     This is a most interesting observation, especially in view

of our recent look at the effects of the Agro-chemical Industry

on Britain. Though levels of food production are high, we saw

that there are losses running in MULTIPLE MILLIONS of pounds.

These are in the form of soil, plant, animal and human sickness.

Therefore much of our so-called profitability must go to off-set

these losses. This makes THAT proportion purely illusory!

     Then we saw that the "Green Revolution" is nothing more and

nothing less than the problem-ridden Western system of

agriculture exported to the under-developed areas. Which simply

means that these nations can look forward to the same kind of

problems now besetting Britain and other Western countries.

     That which we looked at last-time is a MAN-DEVISED system.

In this issue we are going to have a close look at certain vital

aspects of the one our Creator God devised. It has existed for

almost 6,000 years, though man has seldom attempted to develop

its full potential. But as we might expect -- IT DOES WORK!! You

are going to see that God's system of producing food of both

quality and quantity is so successful that it makes man's efforts

apart from God seem incredibly stupid.

 

Our God-given Soil Environment

 

     Before focusing on the life that has its existence in

dynamic relationship with the soil, let us get a true

perspective. The diagram that follows will give a percentage

breakdown of each of the major components of the total soil mass:

 

     50% Minerals

      9% Dead Organic Matter

     40% Air & Water

      1% Macro & micro organisms

 

(NOTE: To view a chart titled "Total Soil Mass", see the file

720312.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)

 

     Micro-organic life is such a small part of even a healthy

soil that it does not show on the above diagram. Added together,

micro and macro-organisms form a narrow 1% column on the right of

the diagram above (just the width of a pen stroke, that's all)!

     Ultimately, the supply of plant and animal nutrients for man

depends on that vital 1% of the total soil mass. These tiny

living forms are an integral part of our God-designed eco-system.

Man, along with every other link down the food chain, is

affected. All are consumers and all are affected.

     This Research News is called "Your Living Environment" and

there is no more vital part of it than that with which we are

dealing right now. The reader might reflect that most previous

issues have focused the need to halt deterioration in some form

of LIFE. But all these other forms of life, including man

himself, are precariously balanced on that which is in the soil.

That's just the way God has designed the system and we will do

well to recognize it!

 

Seeing The Unseen

 

     If so much hinges on this invisible 1% of the total soil

mass, how could man hope to succeed in environmental management

and food production? After all, it has been only in very recent

times that man has actually SEEN micro-organic life. Must we then

SEE bacteria in order to appreciate their role in soil fertility?

In other words, was effective agriculture impossible before the

advent of the microscope and soil microbiology?

     Notice what God says to man on this problem: "... the

invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are

clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made ..."

(Rom. 1:20)

     Obviously, microscopic life is one of "THE INVISIBLE

THINGS". And its effect is most "CLEARLY SEEN" -- IF MAN CHOOSES

TO SEE! It is most plainly revealed in plant nutrition, (or the

lack of it). But, as the first chapter of Romans points out --

there are many things that man has usually chosen NOT to see.

     We don't know the range of Adam's knowledge. We don't need

to. We don't know if any other civilization had the microscope.

They did not need it. Ancient Rome certainly did not have this

tool, but it is interesting that some at that time recognized at

least the EFFECTS of rhizobium bacteria on soil fertility!

 

          "... of the crops that I have mentioned, the same

Saserna thinks that land is fertilized and improved by some, and,

on the other hand, that it is burned out and wasted by others;

lentils, the small chicken pea and peas" ("Columella on

Agriculture", Book II. xii.9 - xiii.3).

 

Nitrogen For Nothing

 

     Without available nitrogen, it is impossible for plants to

grow and reproduce. An abundance of nitrogen in the soil means an

abundance of plant growth. This fact has been responsible for the

development of gigantic nitrogen fertilizer factories and vast

systems for distribution and application of chemical nitrogen to

the world's soils.

     But God has provided mankind with a far more efficient and

inexpensive system of manufacture, distribution and application

of nitrogen to plants. This takes the form of soil bacteria, most

notably the rhizobium species.

     Rhizobia occur in the soil as small round dots and rods and

are one of the smallest organisms. They penetrate the root hairs

of leguminous plants (such as common pea, bean, cleavers, etc).

This causes the formation of nodules (tiny lumps visible to the

naked eye) on these roots. The bacteria multiply rapidly to as

many as 100 million in a single nodule. By living off food from

the plant, the bacteria in these nodules are able to convert

gaseous nitrogen (there are 34,500 tons of this element above

every acre of soil) to a form the plant can use and assimilate.

     Since the nodule bacteria can fix far more nitrogen than the

legume plant requires, the excess is released to stimulate the

growth of non-legume plants growing nearby. Alternatively it is

held in the soil for subsequent crops.

     A number of micro-organisms are capable of releasing

"available" nitrogen to plants. But rhizobium bacteria are the

most important. They operate a little differently to the other

microbes, by fixing nitrogen from the atmosphere. It can be done

only when these minute organisms, (10,000,000 ~=~ 1 cc) are in

direct symbiotic association with leguminous plants.

     This role of nitrogen fixation enforces a legume-based

agriculture on a God oriented farming community. This is in

direct contrast with (previously discussed) grain monoculture! In

the past we have also seen how God's law of the Land Sabbath

guides the obedient men in the same direction. Notice how all

these points dove-tail together!

     Authorities differ on the total nitrogen that each legume

can fix from the atmosphere, but the following table is a fairly

representative guide:

 

                              lbs of Nitrogen per acre

     Legume                        fixed in the soil

 

     LUCERNE                            450

     SWEET CLOVER                       270

     CLOVER                             260

     SOYBEANS                           160

     FIELD BEANS                         70

 

("Soil Conditions and Plant Growth" E.W. Russell, p.350)

 

     "... clover is fixing 480 lbs of nitrogen per acre per year

which is harvested in the grass and clover leaf and if, as T.W.

Walker (J. Sci. Agric. 1956, pp. 7, 66) suggests, as much as 50

percent of what appears in the tops is left behind in the soil,

grass and clover must be fixing about 700 lbs of nitrogen per

acre annually" (Ibid. p. 351).

 

The Rhizobium Riddle

 

     The rhizobium story does not stop there. Consider that these

tiny nitrogen factories have no problems with distribution and

application. They do their manufacturing right on the very root

itself -- from existing raw materials. And what is more, they

accomplish it at ordinary temperatures and air pressures and

WITHOUT man's help!

     The simplicity and beauty of the system is a true testimony

of the marvellous mind of God. But the story does not stop there

either. You might expect that man would copy such an efficient

method, in the development and construction of his chemical

fertilizer factories, but he CAN'T! Note the comment of one well

known scientist:

 

          "A technical hope of considerable interest, which is

exercising research workers in several countries, is that we

shall discover precisely HOW nitrogen-fixing bacteria do the

trick. The syntheses of ammonia in chemical plants is at present

carried out at HIGH temperatures and HIGH pressure, yet

insignificant-seeming bacteria can accomplish nitrogen fixation

on a cold English day from unpressurized English air" ("The

Environment Game", Nigel Calder, 1967, p. 57).

 

     Another comes to the conclusion that: "In spite of all

technical advances, it remains true that bacterial fixation of

nitrogen by legume-nodule bacteria in partnership with leguminous

herbaceous plants is the CHIEF SOURCE OF PROTEIN FROM LAND FOR

MAN AND ANIMALS" ("Microbes & Man", Hugh Nicol, 1955, p .67).

     A healthy soil contains many types of organisms. These

include -- other bacteria types, actinomycetes, fungi, algae and

protozoa. The statement that a gram of soil contains a thousand

million bacteria, a kilometre of fungal huffy, plus hundreds of

thousands of protozoa and algae conjures up a vision of

Piccadilly in rush hour. Actually the microscope shows large

areas of the soil apparently unoccupied and still available for

colonization.

     All have vitally important roles to play, mostly in the

realm of nutrient re-cycling, by organic decomposition. But there

are other types of bacteria which also release nitrogen in

quantities significant to plant production. So, that fixed by

rhizobium does not represent the grand total naturally available

for plants.

 

The Eco-system

 

     There are many parts to God's food production system and

they operate collectively, cyclically and at the same time

ecologically. It is misleading to think that one part is more

important than another. But life in the soil, especially

micro-organic life, is the most important, in the sense that it

is unseen. It is therefore most likely to be forgotten! Have most

of us not overlooked it in the past? Not only is micro-organic

life unseen, but it also forms such an amazingly SMALL part of

the total soil mass.

     God does say that He has "chosen the foolish things of the

world to confound the wise; and ... the weak things of the world

to confound the things which are mighty:

     "And base things of the world, and things which are

despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to

bring to nought things that are:

     "That no flesh should glory in His presences" (I Cor.

1:27-29).

     Elsewhere He caused King David to write: "Open thou mine

eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law" (Psa.

119:18).

     Those wondrous things must certainly include God's

unbelievably fantastic ecological system. This He created for the

specific purpose of supporting human life. Yet puny man has the

effrontery, or is so blind (or both) that he worships his own

crude system of food production and in most cases remains blind

to God's creation.

 

Surprise! Surprise!

 

     This should come as no surprise. We should know better, but

even for us it is not always easy to adjust to the idea that

man's methods of producing food are diametrically opposed to

God's way. Many would consider that to be overstating it a bit!

Did God not inspire His prophet Jeremiah to write:

 

     "O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is

not in man that walketh to direct his steps" (Jer. 10:23).

     Except in food production? NO! The Bible doesn't say that!

     Therefore apart from God, man looks somewhat hypnotically at

the agro-chemical industry and it seems so big. It appears so

scientific and complex and yet it operates so smoothly and it

produces so much food. Even The Agricultural Show and The Field

Experiment Station make it look so good! One is so glossy and the

other so clinically precise, yet all these efforts of man apart

from God can only be described as:

     "Ever learning, and never coming to the KNOWLEDGE OF THE

TRUTH" (II Tim. 3:7).

 

Truth!

 

     That is precisely what we must come to, if we are going to

operate our God-given environment in harmony with His laws --

"the knowledge of the truth".

     Artificial fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, weedicides,

the agricultural drug industry (and at times even irrigation) are

merely weapons in the arsenal of man for the fight he continually

wages against "Nature". Used in a right way, irrigation is NOT

wrong and limited use of certain nutrients on plants will not

collapse our eco-system. But the point is -- where does man draw

the line, where does he stop? Man rapidly comes to the point

where he looks to fertilizer, water and drugs to produce food,

instead of looking to God!

     What is the truth? God tells us that His glory is the

fulness of the whole earth, (Isa. 6:3) and that includes the LIFE

He has created and placed in the soil. MAN, however, has

consistently turned his back on the potential blessings with

which God has surrounded him. This is exactly what we should

expect, if we really believe such scriptures as Jer. 10:23, Rom.

8:7, and II Tim. 3:7.

     Naturally there is much more to plant nutrition via soil

fertility than atmospheric nitrogen fixation. Phosphate, potash,

calcium, sodium etc. plus trace elements are all laid on in God's

system. Many will argue to the contrary, but there is an acid

test -- are high protein bread-making wheats, top quality seeds,

or the world's best racehorses raised on impoverished soils? A

very embarrassing question!!

     Don't let anyone blame the "climate", or tell you that

productivity is necessarily lower when food quality is high.

Commercial levels of chemical fertilizer do not raise quantity on

really fertile soils! Experts tell us that the world will starve

if we stop relying on chemical fertilizers. But that depends on

HOW we stop. And STOP we MUST! It is a withdrawal process which

must be entered into CAUTIOUSLY and WISELY to avoid calamity. The

sooner we realize that no amount of chemical fertilizer will ever

produce soil fertility, the sooner we will get started.

Ambassador College HAS started and it feels GOOD!

                                                                              

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                  April 1972, Vol. III, No. 4

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

                      MICROBES, SOIL & MAN

 

          "For the microbiologist, the soil environment is unique

in several ways: it contains a vast population of bacteria,

actinomycetes, fungi, algae, and protozoa; it is one of the most

dynamic sites of biochemical reactions concerned in the

destruction of organic matter, in the weathering of rocks, and in

the nutrition of agricultural crops" ("Introduction to Soil

Microbiology", M. Alexander, p. 3.).

 

     Is it not a sad thing that this uniqueness of the soil

environment continues to escape all but a few microbiologists?

Especially as most of them miss the point as to who created it

anyway!

     Surely WE above all others, should increase in our knowledge

and understanding of our magnificently designed environment. We

know it is MAGNIFICENT in concept and we know who CREATED it, but

our specific knowledge tends to be very limited.

     All life nourished directly from the soil, must depend upon

a highly complex system for nutrients. But man either takes this

system for granted, or attempts to dispense with it! In the

January issue, we saw something of these "ATTEMPTS". And last

month we looked at the operation and advantages of the

legume/rhizobium partnership.

     It was shown how perfectly and miraculously these two work

to each other's mutual advantage, in the fixation of atmospheric

nitrogen for plant protein. This time we will have a much wider

look at the whole scheme of life in the soil.

     With what other living forms are rhizobium bacteria

associated? Are they classified as ANIMAL or PLANT? What physical

characteristics of soil affect the life within it? And does that

life affect the soil?

     These are just some of the questions we will answer in this

issue. You will see that there is much more to biological plant

nutrition than supplying nitrogen via root nodules.

 

THE SOIL ENVIRONMENT

 

     MINERALS, WATER, AIR, DEAD ORGANIC MATTER and SOIL LIFE are

the five components that go to make up the total soil

environment. Each of these components has its own particular

physical and chemical properties and may be present in almost

innumerable combinations. These five parts will each be in a

constant state of change, thereby multiplying the possibilities

for environmental variation, beyond human comprehension!

     Those physical and chemical properties are important to

microbial action, but conversely microbial actions exercise great

changes in the soil's physical and chemical properties. In other

words, these effects work in both directions at once! It is only

as we begin to appreciate these facts that we can understand the

dynamism that exists in a fertile soil.

 

THE INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS

 

     Those parts of the total soil mass which have not lived, are

termed the INORGANIC portion. They are THREE in number --

MINERALS, WATER and AIR.

     The mineral portion may vary infinitely in chemical

composition and at the same time the physical size of those tiny

rock particles may vary. Furthermore the actual ratio of these

different sizes may also vary extensively. Each of these factors

has an important bearing on the composition of nutrients released

and their RATE of availability.

     Particle size relates to the external surface area of the

"ROCKS" forming the mineral portion of the soil. (It does consist

of "ROCKS" -- a PINCH of the finest textured soil looks like a

rock quarry under low power with a microscope!)

     The total surface area of the mineral particles in a gram of

SILT has been estimated at 450 SQ. CM. But a sample of medium

sand comes out at only 45 sq. cm. -- just one tenth the surface

area! CLAY on the other hand is assigned a figure of 11,300 SQ.

CM. PER GRAM! When it is realized that biological and chemical

breakdown can proceed only on the total surface area it is easier

to explain why sandy soils are potentially the least productive.

 

MOISTURE, AIR AND TEMPERATURE!

 

     Together, MOISTURE and AIR can approach half of the total

soil volume! Each plays a significant role in productivity, not

only by their direct effect on the soil but also by their effects

on each other.

     For example, under limited MOISTURE conditions, little or no

biological action takes place. A rising level of MOISTURE not

only increases biological action, it also forces AIR from the

soil into the atmosphere and at the same time reduces soil

temperature.

     If however, soil MOISTURE continues to rise, AIR will

decrease to the point where lack of oxygen severely affects the

rate and type of microbial decomposition. Soil TEMPERATURE will

usually fall as rising MOISTURE levels continue to exclude most

of the air. Then instead of a rapid aerobic decomposition of

organic material, a slower anaerobic putrefaction sets in,

resulting in a slower turn-around of nutrients and the giving off

of offensive gases.

     There is no single optimum within the soil for these three:

"MOISTURE" "AIR" and "TEMPERATURE", because of complicating

factors, such as multiplicity of microbial species and the

variable nature of organic residues. 30-40 degrees C does appear

to be the soil temperature range within which maximum rates of

organic decomposition are obtained.

     It is commonly accepted, for example, that:

 

          "A change in temperature will alter the species

composition of the active flora [WITHIN THE SOIL] and at the same

time have a direct influence upon each organism within the

population. Microbial metabolism and hence carbon mineralization

is slower at low than elevated temperatures and warming is

associated with greater C02 release. Appreciable organic matter

breakdown occurs at 5 degrees C and probably at cooler values,

but plant tissue rotting is increased with progressively warmer

conditions ... Above about 40 degrees C the rapidity of

decomposition declines" ("Soil Microbiology", M. Alexander, pp.

148,149).

 

THE HUMUS FRACTION

 

     The organic content of any soil may be adequately described

as a combination of the LIVING and THE DEAD. That which lives, or

has lived, may easily range from 6% to 12% of the total soil

mass. The lower figure seems to be eminently suitable for most

agricultural purposes. 9% dead organic matter would therefore be

a fair average to maintain and this may consist of any admixture

of dead plants, animals and insects. It may include anything from

a dead cow, above ground, to dead bacteria down below and a

variety of worms and insects at or near the surface.

     Complexity of the soil environment is enhanced by the fact

that each of these organic residues will vary in mineral

composition, pH, date of death and rate of decomposition. The

latter of course, being affected by all of the variables

mentioned earlier in this article!

     With which of us is it not a problem, to come to a

realization of just how little we know about the wonderfully

complex creation around us? God may have had this in mind when He

said to Job: "HAVE YOU PERCEIVED THE BREADTH OF THE EARTH?

DECLARE IF YOU KNOW IT ALL" (Job 38:8).

 

THE LIVING PORTION

 

     We can divide the living portion of the soil into TWO parts

-- MACRO and MICRO-organisms; those which we can see with the

naked eye and those which we cannot. Taken together, they

represent about 1% of the total mass in a fertile soil (see last

issue for diagram).

     In spite of this tiny percentage, the total weight of

MACRO-organisms can easily run as high as 4,000 lbs. per acre, in

a well managed pasture.

     These creatures play an important role in organic

decomposition by chewing plant and animal residues (and each

other) into fine particles. As with earthworms, the end product

emerges as a mixture of their digestive juices and soil.

     We now come to the MICRO-ORGANIC portion of life in the

soil. Though it represents considerably less than 1% of the soil

mass, it is upon this tiny fraction that the continued re-cycling

of nutrients mainly depends! It appears that God has balanced the

entire physical terrestrial world on this pin-point of naturally

invisible life!! It is as though this living microscopic fraction

is at the apex of a giant inverted pyramid, which spreads upward

and outward from its base, to encompass man's entire ecological

system.

     Micro-organic soil life is so vital to man and yet he is

often unaware of what is going on 24 hours a day below ground.

Take this example:

 

          "Leaf and branch fall in a forest contributes five tons

per acre in a cool temperate forest and up to thirty tons per

acre a year in a tropical rain-forest. Yet by the following year

the surface litter left differs little in amount from that

present before the annual fall". ("Micro-organisms in the Soil",

Alan Burges, p.159).

 

     Examples like this show us what a real blessing God's laws

are -- how they direct man into activities that preserve and

promote this essential microbial action in all forms of

agricultural production! We learn via obedience, that God

protects us, through His law, against our own ignorance of His

complex creation.

 

SOIL MICROBES

 

     MAN has divided soil microbes into FIVE main types:

BACTERIA, ACTINOMYCETES, FUNGI, ALGAE and PROTOZOA! His efforts

beyond this point range from most impressive to utter confusion.

This is the self-confessed opinion of microbiologists themselves.

The literature, though very erudite on some points is liberally

sprinkled with such phrases as:

 

          "Bergey's classification contains six species",

"Dorosinskii distinguished eleven groups of the genus", "Several

investigators have tended to enlarge the groups", "There are some

other groupings", "By this criterion the genus ... divides into

two species", "... a classification ... now being developed",

etc., etc. ("Biological Fixation of Atmospheric Nitrogen"

Mishustin & Shil'nikova, pp.19, 20). These examples, taken from

just ONE AND A HALF PAGES, are typical of the literature!

 

BACTERIA

 

          "The Bacteria form a very heterogeneous group of

organisms which are difficult to classify. [You can believe it,

after reading the above paragraph.] Their small size coupled with

lack of morphological characteristics, usually makes it

impossible to identify the organisms in direct observation of the

soil" ("Micro-organisms in the Soil", Burges p.30).

 

     BACTERIA, along with ACTINOMYCETES, FUNGI and ALGAE, are

classified as part of the "PLANT KINGDOM," but as Alexander

states:

 

          "... keep in mind the fact that the microscopic

inhabitants do not exist in an isolated state, but rather as just

a part of a highly complex environment regulated by natural

forces and, to a lesser extent, by man's activities. An

appreciation of soil microbiology can only be gained by viewing

the soil system as a dynamic whole, as a natural environment in

which micro-organisms play an essential and often poorly

understood role" ("Soil Microbiology", M. Alexander, p. 17).

 

ACTINOMYCETES

 

     This organism is said to be intermediate in appearance and

activity between BACTERIA and FUNGI. One reason for its coming

into prominence within recent years has been man's interest in

the chemotherapeutic use of the antibiotics produced by

ACTINOMYCETES.

     In abundance they are second only to BACTERIA and flourish

in composts and various soil levels. Alkaline pH appears to be

especially favorable to the production of large populations of

ACTINOMYCETES.

     Populations of this micro-organism are said to be greater in

dry areas and in grassland, than in cultivated land. Peats,

water-logged areas and a pH less than 5, are all unfavorable:

Russian sources indicate that their scientists have found many

species of ACTINOMYCETES that evince the capacity to fix some

nitrogen!

 

FUNGI

 

     Similar nitrogen-fixing functions have also been attributed

to numerous species of fungi. Characteristically FUNGI possess a

filamentous micelium, or white thread-like network of individual

strands. They contain no chlorophyll, and must therefore obtain

carbon for cell synthesis from other preformed organic molecules.

     One of the most spectacular functions yet noted of this

micro-organism is its ability to trap eelworms in a noose of

filament. The thread then begins to swell rapidly and the

outgrowths from the "NOOSE" penetrate the eelworm, breaking down

the internal contents of the animal. This is just one of many

forms of predacious activity of FUNGI.

     Some FUNGI form a structure called "MYCORRHIZA", by a

symbiotic union with roots of plants. Burges states that the

general consensus of opinion is that mycorrhizal infection

assists in the absorption of mineral salts, especially in soils

low in available minerals.

     Sir Albert Howard (nighted for his work in soil research)

described this mycorrhizal association as "THE LIVING FUNGUS

BRIDGE WHICH CONNECTS SOIL AND SAP ..." (An Agricultural

Testament, Howard, p. 37).

 

ALGAE

 

     This form of microscopic life is mostly photosynthetic and

therefore needs sunlight. But Burges states that there is no

universally-accepted classification for them. They appear to be

yet another form of soil life critically affected by pH. And

experimental results show that most types fail to multiply

significantly in pH 5 or less. In a sample of English soils,

THREE important types have been shown to be most abundant in the

7.6 TO 8.2 PH RANGE.

     ALGAE are few in number compared to BACTERIA and FUNGI, but

there is one form that is especially important to world

agriculture. It is called "BLUE GREEN" ALGAE and is responsible

for fixing most of the nitrogen utilized in rice production

worldwide!

     Mishustin quotes sources who claim that 36 LBS. of FIXED

NITROGEN PER ACRE is not uncommon and estimates range as high as

50 LBS. PER ACRE PER YEAR! This amount would be ample to account

for ALL the nitrogen used in the production of rice in most

areas!

 

PROTOZOA

 

     Man has classified this form of life as part of the "ANIMAL

KINGDOM" and the terrestrial forms are apparently all

microscopic. AMOEBA are the most important "Order" of the

"Phylum" PROTOZOA and they live mostly on bacteria.

 

          "It has been estimated that one species ... requires

approximately 40,000 bacteria per cell division. Consequently,

bacteria must reproduce at a rapid rate merely to keep pace with

their predators" ("Soil Microbiology", Alexander, p.105).

 

     Not ALL BACTERIA are prey to Protozoa, but the reason is

unknown. (It could prove to be interesting and quite important!)

Populations of 100,000 TO 300,000 CELLS PER GRAM OF SOIL are not

uncommon. The extra size of these cells offsets their numerical

insignificance and so they often equal the total mass of soil

bacteria.

     Alexander quotes six readings that show on average, that the

number of PROTOZOA in the soil increased by 500%, following the

addition of FARMYARD MANURE! And this is not the full story of

these results. In unfavorable soil conditions PROTOZOA change

into an inactive cystic form, which enables them to survive for

years. And in the UNMANURED soil, only 53% of the LESSER number

of PROTOZOA were ACTIVE. On the MANURED section however, numbers

not only increased by 500%, but those in the ACTIVE group rose to

82% of the population!

 

CARBON/NITROGEN RATIO

 

     It is not only the addition of organic residues that

increases microbial population and the turnaround of nutrients,

but the COMPOSITION of those residues. A ratio high in carbon and

low in nitrogen will cause microbes to draw on soil nitrogen. The

result of this will be temporary nitrogen starvation of plants.

     Soil microbes use carbon as a source of energy and NITROGEN

for tissue building. Ideally these two elements need to be in a

ratio of around 10 TO 1. Herein lies one of the great advantages

of humus over other organic residues. It averages 50% C. and 5%

N. or a ratio of 10 to 1.

     Organic decomposition dissipates carbon at a much faster

rate than nitrogen and this results in a narrowing of the ratio

as decomposition proceeds. With humus applications, the C/N ratio

will be SPOT-ON, but the following table will show the need for

care in applying other residues:

 

                              C/N Ratio

     Material                 (approx.)

 

     Saw-dust                 400-1

     Cornstalks                60-1

     Straw                     80-1

     Sugarcane Trash           50-1

     Rotted Manure             20-1

     Lucerne                   12-1

     Humus                     10-1

     Bacteria & Fungi           7-1

 

     ("Organic Gardening & Farming", J. I. Rodale, March, 1967,

pp.128-131).

 

MICROBES IN MAN'S FUTURE!

 

     Perhaps in the future when we read such scriptures as: "I AM

COME DOWN TO DELIVER THEM UNTO ... A GOOD LAND AND A LARGE, UNTO

A LAND FLOWING WITH MILK AND HONEY" (Ex. 3:8), we will better

appreciate just what is involved in making a land flow "WITH MILK

AND HONEY".

     Now we may stop and reflect a little on some of the myriad

of activities that God has designed into our soil system in order

to make it "FLOW WITH MILK AND HONEY".

     We may reflect more effectively and with awe, on what is

involved when God states that: "THE DESERT SHALL REJOICE, AND

BLOSSOM AS THE ROSE. IT SHALL BLOSSOM ABUNDANTLY, AND REJOICE

EVEN WITH JOY AND SINGING" (Isa. 35: 1,2). Along with rain in due

season, the entire complex structure of MICRO- and MACRO-ORGANIC

life must first spring back into action!

                                                                               

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                    May 1972, Vol. III, No. 5

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

                A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON SHORTHORNS!

 

     Can you imagine what it would be like if you received the

following invitation: "Dear Mr..., On behalf of the Chairman and

Members of The ... Shorthorn Breeders' Society, I, as Hon.

Secretary, have been asked to invite you to address our Annual

General Meeting as guest speaker. The meeting will be held, etc.,

etc., ... "?

     Now that you have received and read "your" invitation, pause

for a moment and reflect briefly on WHAT YOU WOULD SAY -- just

supposing you had actually received such a request.

     The more you know about cattle, or even livestock in

general, the more you will realise that you have been faced with

quite a question! Of course you could always decline the

invitation gracefully and that would be the end of the matter.

Recently, the writer did receive just such an invitation, which

was NOT turned down. Now, you may ask -- HOW was it handled?

     That's what we want to show in this issue of "Your Living

Environment". In doing so, we will raise such questions as: Do

stock men tend to lose perspective, in pedigree breeding? How

could the GREEN REVOLUTION affect the livestock industry? How can

man know that his diet should be centred on animal protein? What

has been the role of the Shorthorn breed in providing that

protein? And at the same time, we will also include other points

that one would DEARLY wish to bring before such a gathering.

 

KNOWING THE AUDIENCE

 

     It was pointed out that 'The Annual General Meeting' must

surely be a time to take stock of the past, present and future

facing Society Members. But perhaps we should first "TAKE STOCK"

of our audience -- a group of Dairy farmers, whose cattle

interests are sure to be overly concentrated on the dairy strain

of Shorthorn cattle. DAIRY-FARMERS!! Before mentally dismissing

these people as a permanently-rubber-booted peasantry, it might

be worth mentioning that the apologies for a non-attendance at

this meeting included: a Colonel, a Brigadier, a General and a

Knight. (That kind of information makes one realize how limited

our perspective can be of various occupations, doesn't it?) It

was certainly a surprise to be addressing this kind of person in

a group of Dairymen.

     Nevertheless, regardless of background, nearly all breeders

of pedigree livestock tend to be quite narrow and prejudiced in

their attitude towards other breeds. They can be more rigid in

their breed "loyalties" than ever car enthusiasts are toward one

make of automobile! So now let us begin by drawing them out of

this narrow world, which so completely involves them with CATTLE,

SHORTHORN cattle, in fact DAIRY Shorthorn cattle and perhaps just

those within their own local area and a "DYING" BREED at that!

 

PERSPECTIVE IS ESSENTIAL

 

     Our students of Agronomy at Ambassador College are told when

they enter that class that its purpose is -- "TO HELP THEM THINK

CLEARLY, RELATIVE TO THEIR ENVIRONMENT". This is largely a matter

of getting things in perspective.

     Cattlemen also need to make sure that they too maintain a

right perspective, regarding their own activities, relative to

world agriculture. For example -- whether one raises DAIRY or

BEEF Shorthorns, is LESS important than the breed of Shorthorns

as a whole. The BREED itself must be seen (even by those

responsible for it) as LESS important than the cattle industry.

And, taking the over-view, CATTLE are of themselves LESS

important than the total supply of animal protein for human

nutrition world-wide!

     At the same time, many "EXPERTS" in the world today are

firmly convinced that mankind can no longer afford the "LUXURY"

of animal protein. Some openly state that soon humanity will no

longer PERMIT their fellows to indulge in the "WASTFUL"

production of animal protein! (These facts have been mentioned to

you readers in the past, but they were probably quite new to our

"SHORTHORN" audience.)

 

THE VEGETARIAN CHALLENGE

 

     In an over-populated world, it is easy to make vegetarianism

appear to be a PRACTICAL NECESSITY, instead of a peculiar false

doctrine. That's what is being done! In this area, Occidental

Science and Oriental Mysticism suddenly find themselves on common

ground! But, if this combined threat goes unchallenged, CATTLEMEN

and ALL producers of ANIMAL protein, may suddenly find THEIR

"GROUND" swept from under their feet!

     SHORTHORNS, LONGHORNS, MIDDLE-HORNS and even "NO-HORNS"

could ALL become things of the past, under such circumstances!!

     Any who would treat such a warning lightly, would do well to

take a quick look over their shoulder. There they will see

another branch of Science that is coming up fast and will soon be

"breathing down the back of our necks". We refer to the producers

of SYNTHETIC protein. They are right now teaming-up with

secondary industry. INDUSTRY is supplying the capital -- and

SCIENCE, the brains. They are gambling for control of the protein

market of the world (See Vol.I, No.3)!

 

GOD -- THE EXPERT NUTRITIONIST

 

     These sobering thoughts should give all producers of ANIMAL

protein strong encouragement to bury their many inter- and

intra-breed animosities. One would very much like to comfort

these farmers by telling them that even though many of their

methods are WRONG, their type of production is RIGHT! God

obviously does not agree with the human "EXPERTS", regardless as

to whether their brand of vegetarianism is VOLUNTARY or

COMPULSORY!

     Though not specifically commanding meateating, God devotes

TWO chapters of the Bible to showing which meats are fit for His

people to eat (Lev. 11 and Deut. 14). Other references approving

human consumption of animal protein include: Gen.18:1-8, I Chr.

16:3, Mat. 14:17-21 and John 21:12-13.

 

LIVESTOCK'S GREAT FUTURE

 

     The fact that human nutrition was one of God's main purposes

in creating our magnificent range of "CLEAN" animals, is totally

lost on most of today's global nutritionists. If they have failed

to grasp this important principle, should we be surprised that

the masses they aim to feed have missed it too? The truth is that

the "GREEN REVOLUTIONARIES" have based their food production

programme NOT on ANIMAL protein, but on GRAIN!

     Most of man's soil management is bad, but even under

reasonable management, this kind of agriculture is one that hits

soil fertility hardest, (see Vol. I, No. 10). (And is it not

typical of man's relationship with God, that while one part of

the population refuses to eat meat at all, the other eats

virtually any flesh that comes within reach?)

     If, on the other hand, the GREEN REVOLUTION was properly

oriented and based on soil fertility, it could present Shorthorn

and ALL breeders of "CLEAN" animals with their greatest chance

ever for expanded production. Can you imagine the animal

population it would take to put the nutrition of the rest of the

world on ANIMAL protein parity with modern "ISRAEL"? And

remember, our nations still contain millions whose diet is

protein deficient. (Do you now see the magnitude of the stakes

that the "SYNTHETIC" boys are shooting for?)

 

VERSATILITY OF SHORTHORNS

 

     There are few things that will bring a quicker and more

positive response from a stock-breeder than telling him he has a

most versatile breed. This can truthfully be said of Shorthorns.

In fact there appears to be no evidence to show that there has

ever been a more versatile breed of cattle. They have shown

themselves to thrive from the north of Scotland to Argentina and

from Texas to Central Australia. Whilst other breeds may make

similar claims, only Herefords have ever approached the

international popularity of the Shorthorn breed! (It is because

of this international popularity and the fact that Ambassador

College has Shorthorns, that we are focusing on them. We are NOT

"plugging" Shorthorns as the only worthwhile breed of cattle!)

     In Australia's Northern Territory for example, it has not

been unknown to have as many as 29,000 breeding cows (and their

"FOLLOWERS") on a single cattle station -- and ALL SHORTHORNS!!

On average, some 70,000 head of cattle per year are railed out of

Alice Springs -- mostly SHORTHORNS. To even survive in such areas

weeds out all but the hardiest of animals. It is not uncommon for

those that do survive to have to walk from 200 to 500 miles to

the rail head before even beginning their 1,000 mile journey to

The South! One can scarcely imagine conditions more rugged than

these, but so far the Shorthorn has stood against all comers.

Almost equally important is the fact that they have also held

their own in the tropical north of that same country. Under all

of these semi-wild conditions, perhaps the most outstanding

quality of the Shorthorn has been the ease with which it can be

handled compared with some of the other breeds of cattle.

 

A HISTORY OF POPULARITY

 

     During the past 120 years the Shorthorn and the Hereford,

separately and yet together, established the world's first BEEF

EMPIRE. These two breeds of cattle emigrated to the other

temperate zones of the world, right along with their owners, who

left 19th century EPHRAIM to found The British Commonwealth and

The United States of America. The popularity of these cattle,

especially the Shorthorns, extended even to countries like

Argentina and Uruguay (because their agriculture became strongly

influenced by British settlers, capital and management). The

following table shows the TOTAL cattle population of these

countries as it was in 1967:

 

     COUNTRY             CATTLE POP.

     Argentina            45,000,000

     Australia            18,200,000

     Canada               11,500,000

     Ireland               5,500,000

     New Zealand           7,600,000

     South Africa         12,000,000

     United Kingdom       12,000,000

     United States       108,500,000

     Uruguay               8,700,000

                         229,000,000

 

     ("World Cattle", J.E. Rouse, Vol.II, ppl 1033, 1034.)

 

     When it is remembered that most of these countries contained

no quantity of domestic cattle prior to colonoisation, we can

better appreciate the significance of British settlers taking

their own animals with them. Is it not also interesting that the

development of the major breeds of BRITISH cattle coincided

almost exactly with the availability of colonies, from which the

Empire and The United States were built? Robert Wallace, writing

in 1907, states:

 

          "The Shorthorn is the most widely distributed and

numerously represented of all varieties of British cattle, not

only in the United Kingdom and her colonies, but also in the

United States of America, and in Argentina, where, as in France,

it is often called the 'Durham' breed" ("Farm Live Stock of Great

Britain", Robert Wallace, p. 56, 1907).

 

BEEF AND MILK

 

     Wallace, writing on the origin of the breed, indicates that:

"Shorthorns are descended from the old North-East of England

breed, variously designed the 'Durham', 'Teeswater', 'Yorkshire',

or 'Holder Ness'". He continues with a footnote (which must rank

as one of the earliest references to Shorthorns):

 

          "In 1744 Wm. Ellis wrote: -- 'I think of all the cows

in England none comes up to the Holderness breed for their wide

bags, short horns, and large bodies, which render them ... the

most profitable beast for the dairyman, grazier and butcher' "

(Ibid, p. 57).

 

     The following quote indicates the reputation of the breed 90

years later -- 1834:

 

          "Whatsoever differences of opinion may prevail

respecting the comparative merits of our several breeds of

cattle, it must be admitted that the short-horns -- possessing in

an eminent degree, a combination of qualities which have

generally been considered incompatible, [i.e. THE DUAL CAPACITY

TO PRODUCE BOTH MEAT AND MILK] ... it is not surprising that they

have become objects of public curiosity; that they have realized

for their breeders enormous sums of money; and that, throughout

our own island, and in every foreign country where agriculture is

attended to, they are in increasing request." ("Cattle; Their

Breeds, Management, and Diseases", W. Youatt, p. 226, 1834.)

 

     The popularity of Shorthorn cattle has in no way been

limited to just BEEF production. Though the breed's area of

influence was still very localized until 1800, the above author

and veterinarian, writing only 34 years later, makes the

following reference to London's milk supply:

 

          "At least 12,000 cows are kept in the different dairies

in the metropolis and its immediate neighborhood. These are all

short-horns; and since the rapidity with which they can be

fattened has been established, few dairymen breed from their

cows, but they are fattened and sold as soon as their milk is

dried. This will bring 5,000 to 6,000 cows annually into the

market" (Ibid, p. 255).

 

     The dominance of this breed in the dairy soon encompassed

not just London, but England as a whole! And there was no

dramatic change in this situation for the next 110 years

(1834-1944). Then quite suddenly, after the Second World War,

nearly all the Shorthorns were stampeded right out of England's

dairies by the invading Continental Fresians.

     The reason for this sudden exit, the subsequent

counter-challenge by the Shorthorn breed and the story of

Shorthorns at Ambassador College will be some of the most

important points covered in our next issue.

                                                                              

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                   June 1972, Vol. III, No. 6

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

                 HOW "DIVERSE" ARE YOUR "KINE"?

 

     In our last issue we were reporting what was said and some

things one might like to say, to 'The Shorthorn Society'. It was

pointed out that we are always in danger of losing perspective.

The role of the cattle industry is to produce ANIMAL PROTEIN for

human nutrition, NOT special CATTLE BREEDS for the gratification

of stock men! We looked at the rise to international popularity

of the versatile Shorthorn. Then came sudden collapse, with the

breed being swept from the dairy industry almost over-night!

     We now want to continue our survey of this particular breed

of cattle, showing just what a dramatic reversal they have

suffered, the steps with which they and other threatened breeds

are countering and contrast these steps with the story of

Shorthorns at Ambassador College, U.K.

     Unless you are engaged in the cattle industry you may not

realise that the English-speaking world is now witnessing its

most dramatic period in cattle history, but many even IN the

industry have not as yet comprehended the historic nature of the

events taking place! However, reports are daily shaking

stud-breeders of British livestock to their boots in many

countries around the world.

 

THE TURNING POINT

 

     Since the Second World War, Friesians have driven Dairy

Shorthorns from the cow-bail and their cross-bred calves have

dominated the beef industry of Britain. The Ministry of

Agriculture has supplied figures which depict this great dairy

transformation through the invasion of Continental Friesian bulls

and show just when the Shorthorn breed really 'DIED':

 

TOTAL BULL REGISTRATIONS

 

     Year      Friesians Shorthorns

     1945/46   8,200     14,600

     1950/51   6,400      8,000

     1956/57   7,100      4,000

 

     (Ministry Census Figures)

 

     A decrease in bull registrations of 1,100 in 11 years may

not look like a very successful Friesian invasion, but this

period also coincides with the great increase in ARTIFICIAL

INSEMINATION of dairy cattle. Therefore the real significance of

the figures lies in the fact that SHORTHORN registrations

decreased by 70% but the FRIESIANS fell by only 13 1/2%.

     In our last issue we described the long-standing dominance

of Dairy Shorthorns, especially in Britain, but by 1970 the

industry in this country was rated as being 76% FRIESIAN and only

2.5% DAIRY SHORTHORN! Quite a reversal!!

 

TROUBLE FOR BEEF SHORTHORNS TOO!

 

     For as far back as the 1830's authorities have remarked on

the lack of MILKING ability in the HEREFORD breed, but opinion

has been quite the contrary regarding SHORTHORNS in Britain.

However, on being exported to other areas, breeders soon began

specializing in BEEF production. Different climatic conditions,

larger-scale operations and distances from dairy produce markets

were mainly responsible for this.

     At the same time, one should not overlook FASHION! There has

always been more evidence of MASS-MINDEDNESS in the rise and fall

of animal breeds than the non-farmer would ever believe.

Friesians as we have seen, accounted for the demise of the Dairy

Shorthorn, but the fall from popularity of the BEEF Shorthorn

resulted largely from cattlemen turning their attention toward

the ANGUS BREED and the ANGUS-TYPE carcase. (Though it was stated

earlier that Friesian-cross calves dominated the beef industry,

this was confined to Britain. And even here the owners of

Friesians willingly used beef bulls of the ANGUS-TYPE to produce

their cross-breds.)

     This Angus syndrome hit BEEF Shorthorns from TWO directions:

FIRST, by a sharp increase in Angus popularity, thus eroding

traditional Shorthorn territory, especially in Argentina. And

SECONDLY, Shorthorn and some Hereford men mounted a not very

successful counter-attack by COPYING the carcase conformation of

the Angus. This miniaturization gave rise to types very

unsuitable for the dry and hotter zones. And even in the most

favorable areas the counter-attack achieved little success

against the compact little Angus.

     It may be argued that scaling-down the conformation of

British breeds had nothing to do with the success of 'EXOTIC'

Brahman and Zebu crosses in the hot areas. But these two events

are NOT totally unrelated through CAUSE and EFFECT. The new Santa

Gertrudis breed -- Shorthorns with a dash of Brahman -- are

numerically one of the fastest growing 'EXOTIC' breeds! Developed

in Texas, they are now making a strong take-over bid in

Australia's tick-infested subtropical NORTH.

 

THE GREAT CATTLE DISCOVERY!

 

     Once the fashion-change towards Angus-type beef cattle and

Friesian dairy domination was accomplished, another change soon

loomed up. Cattle breeders, especially from Britain, suddenly

started out-bidding each other for the limited surplus cattle of

Western Europe. WHY? First, to get more SIZE BACK into British

BEEF breeds! Secondly to REGAIN MILKING ABILITY in beef cattle

and put FLESH back on the DAIRY types! This is a total REVERSAL

of all that the producers of British stud cattle have recently

striven for! A humiliating admission of gross error! Read the

story yourself:

 

          "With almost 30 foreign breeds queueing up for import

licences, the Scottish livestock scene could be at a turning

point such as that experienced nearly 140 years ago. No foreign

breeds were involved on the first occasion however, unless the

English Teeswater could be classed as such" ("The Scottish

Farmer", March 25, 1972). Britain's national rural press reports:

 

          "The release from Scottish quarantine of CHAROLAIS

heifers and bulls valued at £200,000. Also authorized within the

next few months are first-ever importations of two other French

breeds -- 165 MAINE-ANJOU costing £1,000 a head, and an equal

number of highly-priced BLONDE d'AQUITAINE cattle" ("Farmers'

Weekly", U.K. March 10, 1972).

 

     Yet another heading reads:

 

          "THE BREED IN DEMAND -- The 'GO AHEAD' given recently

by the Ministry of Agriculture to the importation of 200

SIMMENTAL cattle will bring the total number of imported

Simmental in this country up to 1,300 head by July. This,

together with the massive demand for Simmental semen and with

intense interest in the society's grading up register, makes the

breed one of the most sought-after in the country ...

Inseminations have topped the 25,000 mark over 12 months" ("The

Scottish Farmer", March 11, 1972).

 

BREEDS IN THE MELTING POT

 

     Just what do all these importations mean? You might naively

imagine that the British cattle industry is simply diversifying

into a few extra breeds. We want you to see for yourself where

the industry is REALLY heading:

 

          "Cross-bred stock by European bulls out of British cows

will be included in the live exhibits at many ... centres" ("The

Scottish Farmer", April 8, 1972).

 

     This refers to what will soon be COMMONLY seen at Britain's

long-standing and world famous livestock exhibitions. Even the

thought of parading such genetic chaos and confusion makes some

sick in the stomach and it would not have been tolerated earlier!

Mr. R. L. Fraser, one of this nation's best known personalities

of the cattle industry has been so moved by the latest trends

that he has written to "Farmers' Weekly" in the following strong

terms:

 

          "Sir, it seems to me that Britain is soon to become

what might be termed a cattle breeders' curiosity .... We talk

nowadays of a permissive society, and obviously the Minister

feels that this should be carried into cattle breeding. With the

virtually wholesale use of cross-bred bulls on the cards, the

mind boggles at the infinite variety of favorite crosses which

may be used for breeding" ("Farmers' Weekly", U.K. April 28,

1972).

 

GOOD OR BAD RESULTS?

 

     Obviously Mr. Fraser is worried and is far from convinced

that the end results will be good for the industry's British

breeds. (Remember it is around these breeds that the world's

export trade in beef and dairy products has been built.) Mr.

Fraser's letter represents the views of many cattle breeders, but

at the same time the surprising thing is that breeders of British

STUD stock are far from united in their approach to the great

bovine upheaval.

     We might expect money-conscious commercial cattlemen to

plunge the stud-stock industry into chaos and confusion, but NOT

those who have MOULDED and MAINTAINED it! However, the following

quotes show that some BREED SOCIETIES are officially encouraging

and even WELCOMING this genetic revolution:

 

          "Bigger, juicier steaks are being produced by

cross-breeding two well-established breeds ... Angus and the

French Charolais ... The Aberdeen Angus Society is taking a

cross-bred to the Paris Agricultural Show in the spring" ("Sunday

Telegraph", December 12, 1972).

 

     They did too! We attended this internationally famous

exhibition and there it was, the prime exhibit of a world-famous

pedigree Society MONGREL (at least that's what "cross-breds" used

to be called)! Make no mistake, this half bred Charolais/Angus

looked like a good beast, but it would take a lot of mental

gymnastics for some old stud breeders to conclude that our

present wave of indiscriminate cross-breeding is the right

course.

     As the Angus Society secretary stated: "The new type is

still in the early stages of development." There is only ONE

stage in producing half-breds, so more crossing and back-crossing

must be contemplated.

     This is also the plan of the Shorthorn Society -- multiple

crossing of their breed with European stock. Not with just ONE

breed, but at least TWO or THREE! Breed societies and farmers are

not the only ones involved. Reporting a recent £220,000 cattle

purchase from France, the British rural press states:

 

          "Maine-Anjou ... heifers go to 75 buyers ... 'The Milk

Board' is taking four ... Maine-Anjou bulls, and the 'Scottish

MMB' two. 'The Aberdeen and District AI Centre' and 'Cattle Breed

Improvement Services' have each bought one bull". The report goes

on to describe these cattle as -- "dual purpose beasts which

carry the blood of the old Durham Shorthorns" ("Farmers' Weekly",

U.K. March 31, 1972).

 

     We might expect cattle traffic between here and Europe to at

least be a two-way affair and a proven success, but this recent

report shows that NEITHER is the case:

 

          "U.K. EXPORTERS SEETHE OVER BREED CURBS ... Regulations

which restrict the flow of UK breeding cattle to French farms

angered breeders [British, NOT French]. One said: 'It was an

infuriating situation ... when Britain had ... opened the door

for an inflow of hundreds of European breeding stock" ("Farmers'

Weekly", U.K. March 10, 1972).

 

     Those whom Britain thought of as BACKWARD EUROPEAN PEASANTS

are obviously not half as keen as we are to rush in and SCRAMBLE

their cattle with our world-famous breeds! Could it be that they

are just "BACKWARD" enough to KNOW BETTER?

     The cattle are HERE, but scientists leading British farmers

down this path are only NOW getting out their PLANS! Notice the

report:

 

          "BEEF BLUEPRINT! The Meat and Livestock Commission's

blueprint for more efficient beef production -- its work schedule

for the next decade ... was prepared by a group of 12

scientists." It continues: "One of the difficulties of assessing

imported breeds is the scale of operation .... So the Commission

will have to make a subjective judgment on which breeds to test"

[and that is before they even begin to assess the results] ("FW

Extra -- Cattle Breeding", April 28, 1972).

 

     Not very encouraging to stud breeders who have thrown up a

life-time's work to follow this new programme! Admittedly the

stud cattle industry made mistakes prior to boffin intervention

but is their present MOMENT OF TRUTH any excuse to panic and lose

faith in the very breeds which have brought this industry

international fame and no small fortune?

     New, science-based breeding programs are by no means solely

responsible for the current upheaval. Every cattle breeder is a

FREE MORAL AGENT. They are not COMPELLED to follow blindly. But

it sounds from the current rash of reports that Continental

cattle are being snapped up so fast by British buyers and rushed

across the Channel that no-one appears to know just how much has

been spent, or on which breeds! That which was a Charolais

TRICKLE is fast becoming a raging TORRENT of multiple breeds!

     The truth is that Britain's cattle industry has fallen prey

to FASHION and SPECIALIZATION, both IN and OUT of the show-ring.

And it is now relying on Science to lead it out of trouble. That

which follows is a beautifully-descriptive press headline

sounding a timely warning:

 

     "FARMER-BOFFIN GAP MUST CLOSE -- Closer links are needed

between farmers advisers and research workers to avoid breakdowns

in new farming systems, says Sir Emrys Jones, Director General of

ADAS [Agricultural Development and Advisory Service]. It had

become clear that modern methods had produced new and

unaccustomed biological relationships on the farm" ("Farmers'

Weekly", March 31, 1972).

 

     You'd believe it too, if you could only see some of the

weird animal research that is going on inside our halls of

science!

 

CATTLE AT AMBASSADOR COLLEGE

 

     Both BEEF and DAIRY Shorthorns have looked like dying breeds

recently and in fact most of Britain's renowned old breeds are in

grave danger of being wiped out! The basic problems are closely

tied-in with IN-BREEDING and WRONG SELECTION, but these could be

corrected without resorting to suicidal genetic confusion.

Traditional U.K. breeds could then confidently enter a new phase

of international influence and prosperity. The current Press

flurry shows an industry in the painful throes of correcting some

of its worst mistakes. God's word however, seems to indicate that

men are going about it the WRONG way (Lev. 19:19)! And it is hard

to see how anything other than UTTER CONFUSION can result.

     May we remind you that "The Plain Truth Magazine" identified

the problem and the solution 9 YEARS AGO? Five years ago, (this

August) a 'Department of Agriculture and Environmental Research'

was set up at Ambassador College in England and this problem was

one of the FIRST we started working on. Our solution to breed

specialization is to re-create true dual-purpose animals (in our

case Shorthorns). There was nothing special about SHORTHORNS, it

was just that they are a single breed now split into BEEF and

DAIRY types, which we felt could be re-united without

cross-breeding. Some questioned our sanity and even the author of

this experiment felt our approach was certainly idealistic (but

our old worldly ideas DIE HARD don't they -- especially if we

have had years of practical experience)!

     Without the constant prod of Lev. 19:19 such a programme may

never have been undertaken. Why? Because of a doctrine among

cattlemen called -- INEVITABLE DUAL-PURPOSE INFERIORITY. This

false doctrine is both widespread and deeply entrenched and we

were TWO years in finding PROOF that dual-purpose cattle are NOT

necessarily INFERIOR. Of course we were not really looking for it

as we did not know the proof existed. We thought we would have to

breed it, but we stumbled on it accidently, ahead of time. WHERE?

On a little 23-acre farm in the Bern Canton of Central

Switzerland! A visit (not directly connected with stock) produced

this astounding side-benefit. There we found a breed of cattle

whose females MILKED like Friesians and KILLED-out like old-time

heavy Shorthorn bullocks! No three or four lactations either --

these cows averaged EIGHT to TEN. That was 1969 and they were the

same SIMMENTALS THAT ARE TODAY CAUSING SUCH A STIR IN THE BRITISH

CATTLE INDUSTRY!

     OUR REACTION WAS -- IF IT CAN BE DONE WITH SIMMENTALS, it

can be done with other popular breeds. So instead of switching to

a desperate cross-breeding programme we just returned to England

wiser for the trip, thankful we had seen with our own eyes that a

single breed could be proficient in BOTH MEAT and MILK production

and carried on with the job we had already begun.

     We have for some time been dealing with the CAUSE, but the

cattle industry is only now rushing in to treat SYMPTOMS of the

problem. And they may yet make the biggest mess in cattle

history! Men must eventually run out of new breed combinations,

even if they scour the world as they have done for plants. Then

at least someone will have to settle down to some serious

straight breeding, even if it is only to give future generations

of geneticists more material from which to breed tomorrow's

cross-breds!

     Meanwhile, our results are SLOW. Theirs are QUICK and the

fruits of multiple crosses and half-breds often look good (take

for example the Angus-cross steer in Paris)! But will there be an

unhappy pay-off? There certainly will if they are being achieved

by breaking God's laws of animal breeding!

 

PROBLEMS OF SELECTION

 

     Our job was to mate the right animals in a new breeding

programme. We aimed to secure good milkers with plenty of size in

both frame and bone. Our first bull was of the best beef-type

available, but typically, he lacked size in body and milk in his

pedigree. He bred predictably and we are now improving his

progeny by further selection and mating to other bulls. The last

two have come from dairy herds, but with ancestors carrying

plenty of meat, plus a good milk record.

     We have only just bought the youngest bull, and progeny from

his predecessor are still too young to know how effective he has

been. Cattle breeding is a long project, but we feel that our

approach will produce outstanding dual-purpose animals. We also

feel that it can show the British-based international cattle

industry that there is absolutely no justification for stampeding

into the cesspool of hybridization!

                                                                              

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                   July 1972, Vol. III, No. 7

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

               EVOLUTION AND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

 

     Scientific agricultural research as we know it today had its

origin in the first half of the 19th century. That which began

SLOWLY and was received with RELUCTANCE and SUSPICION is now an

internationally-acclaimed, multi-million pound operation. Every

year it involves enormous expenditure of labour, brains and

equipment in most countries around the world.

     Britain's Agricultural Research Council alone spends

£18,000,000 per year (ARC Annual Report, 1970/71, p. 46). This

figure takes no account of the huge sum spent by MACHINERY and

FERTILIZER manufacturers or THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE!

     As a food consumer and one who is watching world events, it

is important for you to realize that this stupendous effort is

GROSSLY MISDIRECTED! How did such brilliant men get so far

OFF-COURSE? Is anyone ON-COURSE and is there any alternative

programme for the future? If so, what is being done? These are

some of the points we will cover in this issue of "Your Living

Environment".

     More food for an increasing population is man's PROFESSED

goal in agricultural research.

     EVERY possible means of making plants and animals GROW

FASTER, BIGGER and MORE ECONOMICALLY is being examined and

exploited!

     Most recently publicized success in this worldwide effort to

scuffle more food from every square foot of land is the 'GREEN

REVOLUTION'. However it has many problems! Some were described in

past issues of "Your Living Environment" and in the June "Plain

Truth" magazine. In spite of ALL the "PROBLEMS", there is no

denying the fact that 'RESEARCH' has produced impressive results.

Not only has knowledge increased, but so has food production!

 

WHERE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH WENT WRONG

 

     For all their apparent success, agricultural scientists have

committed many blunders. Their major error, however, lies in

their basic philosophy -- THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!

     And they follow it unquestioningly!

     Consider for a moment how this one theory has blinded these

brilliant men. To evolutionists, research is based on the belief

that EVERY living thing around them developed by BLIND CHANCE! If

'CHANCE' has produced a world as good as this, the evolutionist

reasons, with apparent logic WHAT CAN'T WE ACHIEVE WITH A LITTLE

PLANNING!

     Working from this false premise. OBVIOUSLY the first thing

to do is take the food production system apart, examine its

components, carry out a little experimentation and re-assemble it

in a more PRODUCTIVE, 'EFFICIENT' and 'ORGANISED' form. One can

recognize the cunning of Satan in this diabolical deception.

EVOLUTION is the tool he has cleverly used to channel

environmental sciences down the wrong road. Each 'solution'

produces MORE "PROBLEMS" and yet man won't be convinced he isn't

making PROGRESS!

 

THE PATH or DECEPTION

 

     Consider how devastatingly effective this deception has

been! In the 19th century, early scientists discovered that

NITROGEN, PHOSPHORUS and POTASSIUM provide plants with most of

their food. It was also discovered that their availability to

plants is strictly limited. So it was reasoned, (AGAIN WITH

APPARENT LOGIC) why not try adding MORE of these chemicals to

crops, in a form that IS readily 'AVAILABLE'?

     Experiments were designed to test their reasoning and -- yes

-- the result was HIGHER YIELDS! But today, over 100 years later,

man is STILL finding out the true cost of those "HIGHER YIELDS".

     It is only now that a few people are beginning to look

seriously at the alarming trends in FOOD QUALITY and SOIL

FERTILITY! More often, however, we hear the mistakes of

agricultural science justified by the claim that 'MAN CAN'T TURN

BACK NOW, FOR FEAR OF WORLD FAMINE'!

 

EFFICIENCY OR PERVERSION?

 

     Whether research results are beneficial, or only APPEAR so,

SCIENCE always claims it has again improved the 'EFFICIENCY' of

man's PRIMITIVE environment.

     Take for example the very artificial practice of ARTIFICIAL

INSEMINATION! It was discovered that a bull 'WASTES' millions of

valuable sperm cells every time he mates with a cow. So

scientists have reasoned -- why not collect the sperm before the

bull reaches the cow, dilute it and use it to breed THOUSANDS of

calves instead of just ONE!

     It never crosses the scientist's mind that he is tinkering

with the natural reproduction system designed and created by

Almighty God. As a believer in evolution it never occurs to him

that any man-devised alternative could in God's eyes be an

insulting and arrogant perversion!

     Researchers have now 'DISCOVERED' that ruminants have a very

'INEFFICIENT' digestive system as their dung contains

considerable food value. So, Science is guiding farmers to dry

cattle and poultry dung, disguise it and feed it back to their

livestock. This is YOUR NEW source of hamburgers and steaks! Do

you find this offensive and revolting? Is it then POSSIBLE that

God feels the same way, only more so?

     These are just three of many examples, but in all cases the

research has been based on logical reasoning -- 'LOGICAL' if you

deny Creation and 'LOGICAL' if you swallow Satan's line of

evolution, as taught in modern education!

 

RESEARCH WITH A DIFFERENCE

 

     Agricultural and environmental researchers at Ambassador

College have therefore many advantages. First, we know that an

ALL-WISE, ALL-INTELLIGENT God CREATED the earth, its plants, its

animals and man. We know that His Creation was preceded by

infinite detailed PLANNING and we know that the result was 'GOOD'

(Gen. 1:31).

     We know that it is man's job to "DRESS AND KEEP" his

God-given environment (Gen. 2:15). We know that MAN, not MONEY,

is the end product of ALL agriculture and that there are more

important purposes to agriculture than FOOD PRODUCTION (see Vol.

II No. 11). We know also that man is not meant to dismantle his

environment like some frustrated and precocious child tearing the

back off a brand-new clock. EVERY facet of our environmental

manage me must conform to God's laws and standards. EVERY

agricultural practice must preserve our environment.

     The BIBLE, the LAND-SABBATH and CREATION are guides to teach

us how best to develop this earth with the least problems. With

this knowledge of Ambassador College's approach to agriculture

research, let us now see something of the work done at Bricket

Wood.

 

RESEARCH AT AMBASSADOR COLLEGE

 

     There are three basic parts to the Bricket Wood Agricultural

Research Programme:

 

     1. Analysis of particular problems in the light of God's

Word.

     2. Collection of additional information on each specific

question.

     3. Demonstration of solutions, under field-scale conditions.

 

ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM

 

     We believe that the vast majority of the problems of modern

agriculture can be readily solved by obeying the known laws given

in God's Word.

     For example, British farmers who grow cereal grains

continuously on their land are experiencing ever-increasing

problems with noxious weeds (such as couch and wild oats) and

disease (rust, mildew, eyespot, etc). Scientists are devoting

enormous quantities of time and effort to searching for ways of

solving these problems.

     But any farmer who keeps the Land-sabbath correctly will

immediately discover the solution -- the Land-sabbath prohibits

the growing of CONTINUOUS cereals and discourages LARGE-SCALE

cereal production -- the inherent causes of cereal weed and

disease problems. Simple obedience to God's laws would ELIMINATE

the very root CAUSE of the PROBLEM!

 

COLLECTION OF INFORMATION

 

     There are, however, still many questions to which we do not

yet have absolute workable answers -- simply because God's

agricultural and environmental laws are not yet known and

understood in enough detail.

     After searching the Bible for any hints, we then make a

thorough study of the most pertinent literature. We have neither

the TIME, MONEY, nor FACILITIES to do expensive experimentations;

but in so many cases we discover that other farmers and

scientists have already done the work for us. Therefore a

considerable part of our research is devoted to academic perusal

of others' experiences, ideas and experiments. Using God's

principles of environmental management as a yardstick we are able

to separate the WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF with considerable success.

     Periodic visits to the innumerable Agricultural Research

Institutes and Universities throughout the British Isles, Europe,

Australia, and the United States have also proven to be immensely

valuable. They are most effective in broadening understanding of

specific problems and their possible solutions.

     The third major source of information is the observation of

God's Creation in action. Quite by accident vital clues to

problems often uncover themselves in this manner. A short example

will illustrate this:

 

     In March we rotovated a grassed-over section of our ground

-- that had in the previous season grown a few rows of potatoes.

By accident, some had not been harvested the previous autumn, so

the rotovator blades soon brought them to the surface. Both the

feel and taste of these potatoes were superior to those 'lifted'

in the autumn and stored in a CLAMP. In fact they approached the

quality of many 'NEW' potatoes.

     Is it possible that potatoes can be 'STORED' in this manner,

even in severe winters, with the grass cover insulating them from

frost damage? Could this provide top-quality potatoes year-round

-- especially during the LAND-SABBATH?

 

FIELD DEMONSTRATION

 

     Once enough information on any specific problem has been

studied and carefully analysed, several possible solutions

usually appear that would fit WITHIN God's created pattern of

land management. But solutions on paper are worthless unless they

have first been tested in field-scale conditions.

     Obviously, at Bricket Wood, we can test only those practices

and principles that Britain's climate will allow. In the past we

experimented with ideas easily included within the College farm

and vegetable garden. We experimented for instance with

straw-mulching of vegetables and soft fruit, simply by mulching

the College garden and observing the result. We tested the idea

of milking-cows raising their own calves for beef, on the College

dairy herd.

     The need for greater scope and flexibility in demonstrating

ideas has caused the Agriculture Department in Bricket Wood to

enter a new and expanded phase of research. An area of land has

now been set aside solely for FIELD TRIALS, with specific

individuals in charge of layout and daily operations. Though the

new programme is only a few months old and still finding its

feet, we thought readers might be interested in an outline of the

agricultural methods and principles under investigation.

 

WINTER FODDER PRODUCTION

 

     Imagine the problem that a stock man faces when he observes

the Land-sabbath. Every seventh year it appears, no HAY, SILAGE,

STRAW or GRAIN may be taken from the land, even to store in the

barn. How then is he to feed his CATTLE, SHEEP and POULTRY during

the winter when grass growth is inadequate? (This problem will

become even more acute when ALL farmers keep the Land-sabbath IN

THE SAME YEAR!)

     We have, therefore, initiated tests of various winter-feed

alternatives to hay and silage -- with emphasis on crops that can

be consumed in the field. A selection of grasses reputed to grow

well in late autumn and winter have been sown for observation.

Since many British farmers use roots and brassicas for winter

feed, we have sown plots of MANGELS, SWEDES, FIELD-CABBAGE, KALE,

RAPE, FODDER-RADISH and hardy winter-green TURNIPS. These will be

compared for suitability to this area, winter-hardiness, yield,

resistance to weed competition, ease of establishment and

livestock preference. We also hope to test the possibilities of

direct-drilling these seeds into both old pasture and Lucerne.

 

SOIL-FERTILITY TRIALS

 

     Books on 'organic' farming and gardening disagree over the

merits of COMPOST, MULCH, FRESH DUNG, ROTTED DUNG and PROCESSED

SEWAGE, so we have established a long-term demonstration to

compare their value as organic fertilizers. Vegetables will be

regularly planted into these various plots as a means of

measuring changes inherent in soil fertility and productivity

resulting from the fertilizer treatments.

 

HOME-GROWN SEEDS

 

     Are such companies as Suttons, Carter's, Elsom's etc. (large

vegetable-seed suppliers for the U.K. market) essential to

vegetable production? How feasible is it for everyone to save

their OWN seeds? What problems would result from this practice?

To find the answers we have begun our own small-scale tests of

this idea.

 

ANIMAL NUTRITION

 

     Is it true that an animal can SELECT ITS OWN DIET, if given

the opportunity, and do a BETTER job than an educated chemist

sitting in a laboratory, formulating animal-feed rations? Some

authorities say yes and some say NO! Who is right? Though no

trials are yet under way, we do anticipate having a closer look

at this question in the near future.

 

SOWING CEREAL GRAIN

 

     Is it feasible to sow grain almost on the surface of the

ground? After all, grain would naturally sow itself in the soil

surface -- not 3 inches deep! Is it also feasible to depart from

accepted British practice and sow grain in July and August -- at

the time it would normally sow itself? (Of course it would be

necessary to graze the excess growth to prevent excessive damage

by winter frosts.)

     Is it feasible to drill OATS, WHEAT or BARLEY directly into

established Lucerne or clover -- and by careful management,

provide late-autumn and early-spring feed when most farmers are

relying on hay? We have heard that C.S.I.R.O. has done this in

Australia. Perhaps it is possible in England? We hope to run

field trials to test each of the above questions. In due time we

will publish a report of the results, whether negative or

positive.

 

VEGETABLES IN THE LAND-SABBATH

 

     Is it possible to have fresh potatoes, carrots, parsnips,

radish, kale, spinach, etc. during the SABBATICAL YEAR? If so,

how and to what extent? To answer these questions we planted a

small trial area with vegetables this spring with the intention

of inducing maximum volunteer growth next year.

 

SOIL FERTILITY AND SEED QUALITY?

 

     Will a very FERTILE soil produce better seeds than INFERTILE

soil? If so does the effect last over several generations? Since

this really boils down to HEREDITY versus ENVIRONMENT, the answer

to these questions has far-reaching implications! We have

established a very POOR soil plot adjacent to a very FERTILE

plot, and by using WHEAT as the yardstick, hope to achieve a

reliable answer to the questions posed.

 

PHOSPHATE DEFICIENCY STUDIES

 

     One of the major problems of the world's agricultural soils

is an APPARENT shortage of phosphate -- thus restricting legume

and grass growth by checking potential productivity.

Agriculturalists in the present technological era solve the

problem by digging up ROCK RICH IN PHOSPHATE, grinding it to dust

and spreading it on the deficient soils (usually hundreds of

miles from the source). SLAG WASTE from steel mills is also rich

in phosphate and has been widely used as a fertilizer too.

     These MAY be ACCEPTABLE materials, but did God design man's

production system around the massive movement of SPECIAL

PULVERIZED ROCKS to all parts of the earth? If that ISN'T the

right system, what is? We don't yet know the full answer, but we

are examining possible alternatives to solve man's worldwide

shortage of available PHOSPHATE, POTASSIUM, CALCIUM etc. in so

many agricultural soils.

 

THE IMPORTANCE OF DUNG-PATS

 

     Why did God make dung-pats repulsive to animals? We

indicated the answer to this question in Vol. I No. 11, and

suggested that dung-pats may be vital in breeding better grass

naturally. Field investigations into the effect of dung and

ruminant digestion on grass and legume seeds have begun. As with

all breeding experiments, this one will require some time to

produce conclusive results.

 

OTHER PURPOSES OF AGRICULTURE

 

     Today agriculture is simply a means of PROFIT via FOOD

PRODUCTION and the role of Research has been to achieve more

OUTPUTS with fewer INPUTS! Sounds suspiciously like the 'GET'

system doesn't it? And that is NOT God's way!

     Like every other department in Ambassador College it is our

job to RECAPTURE TRUE VALUES. That is why we are not just ANOTHER

Research or Organic Farming Institution. We know that many of the

needs of God's system of agriculture cannot be determined by

laying down replicated trial plots and complex breeding

programmes.

     God's Word shows that the Creator has MUCH MORE in mind when

He made man's environments than providing FOOD and MATERIAL

POSSESSIONS! A correctly oriented system MUST provide man with a

FAMILY environment!

     These are factors that make OUR research so very DIFFERENT!

We are looking for a different RESULT -- and so are YOU'.

                                                                              

 

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                  August 1972, Vol. III, No. 8

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

                  YOU SHALL INHERIT THE LAND??

 

     Historians Toynbee, Durant and Pierenne have all observed

that "nation after nation has FALLEN when it EMPTIED the

countryside and denied AGRICULTURE a rightful place in the scheme

of things" ("Unforgiven", Charles Walters, Jr., 1971, p. 308)

 

     How serious is this problem in today's society and why does

denuding the rural landscape of its people threaten the very

EXISTENCE of nations? Can man look forward to a solution to this

problem? These are important questions affecting all of mankind

and they will be answered in this issue of "Your Living

Environment". In looking at this worldwide social exodus you are

going to see that it has spawned major changes in the mentality

and life-style of each one of us. This is especially so in the

spheres of WORK, FAMILY and RECREATION.

 

A WORLDWIDE PROBLEM

 

     United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization puts this

problem into historic and geographic perspective:

 

          "While at the beginning of the industrial revolution,

LESS THAN TEN PERCENT of the world's population lived in cities,

in the coming century the MAJORITY OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION will

consist of URBAN DWELLERS. Thus, in the course of not more than

300 years of human history man will have turned from an

overwhelmingly RURAL to an overwhelmingly URBAN resident, both in

the rich and poor countries" (Gotz Hagmuller, "Ceres" Nov-Dec

1970, p. 44). All emphasis ours.

 

     Kingsley Davis, Director of International Population and

Urban Research at the University of California observes and warns

us that:

          URBANIZED SOCIETIES in which a majority of the people

live crowded together in towns and cities, REPRESENT a NEW and

FUNDAMENTAL STEP in MAN'S SOCIAL [HISTORY.] In 1960, for

example, ... according to the U.S. Bureau of Census, 96 million

people, 53 percent of the nation's population were concentrated

in ... urbanized areas that together occupied only .7 percent of

the nation's land .... The large and dense ... urban population

involves a degree of human contact and social complexity NEVER

BEFORE KNOWN. They exceed in size the communities of any ...

large animal; they suggest the behavior of communal insects ....

Neither the RECENCY nor the SPEED of this ... development is

widely appreciated. Before 1850 NO society could be described as

PREDOMINANTLY URBANIZED, and by 1900 only one -- Great Britain --

could be so regarded. Today, only 65 years later, ALL industrial

nations are HIGHLY URBANIZED and in the world as a whole, the

process of urbanization is ACCELERATING RAPIDLY" (The

Urbanization Of the Human Population, "Cities", 1965, pp. 4, 5).

 

     In BRITAIN, where the industrial revolution began, the drift

from the land has been more gradual, though it has continued

unabated for nearly 200 years. By now the agricultural population

has plummeted to less than 4% of the total! So thorough has been

the depopulation of the rural areas that one writer, discussing

the problems of Britain's hill country, made this startling

point:

 

          "The upland areas, which cover nearly HALF the entire

area of the country ... [contain a] total population less than

that of a SINGLE large town.." ("The Inviolable Hills", Robert A.

De J. Hart, London, 1968, p. 3).

 

     Such a state of affairs is all the more remarkable when it

is remembered that SOUTHERN England has MORE PEOPLE PER SQUARE

MILE than India or China!

     In EUROPE -- "since 1958 the number of people in the SIX

(EEC) making their living from farming has dropped from 17.5

million to 10 million ... the Commission estimate that there will

be a further drop of two million between 1972 and 1976"

("European Community", February, 1972, p. 20).

 

     In the THIRD WORLD developing countries:

     "urbanization started much later than in the industrialized

nations, in many cases only one or two decades ago ... [However]

the poor countries are ... urbanizing at a GREATER RATE than the

industrialized ... nations EVER did.... To live in ...

SHANTYTOWNS ... will therefore be the rule rather than the

exception by the end of this century" (Gotz Hagmuller, "Ceres",

Nov-Dec., 1970, p. 44).

     "Nowhere in WEST AFRICA is the classic drama of the drift

from the rural areas to urban centres being more vividly played

out than, perhaps, in Ghana. The DAILY APPEALS of the politicians

and social leaders to the youth to 'GO BACK TO THE LAND' not only

indicate the extent of the problem but also the GEOGRAPHICAL

BACKGROUND of the urban unemployed. There is hardly any room in

the labour exchange office to file the particulars of the

newcomers; the public parks swarm with aimless, hopeless people;

the factories have become daily witnesses to the fading

expectation of the persistent callers ..." (Isaac Sam, "Ceres",

July-August, 1971, p. 41).

 

     In February, 1971, Ambassador College representatives

interviewed Tony Decant, President of the U.S. National Farmers

Union. Speaking only about the United States, Mr. Decant observed

that,

 

          "IN THE LAST 20 YEARS, 20 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE LEFT THE

FARMS AND RURAL TOWNS AND MOVED TO THE CITIES where we already

have 70 percent of the population on some 2 percent of the land

and where we already have INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEMS, practically

insurmountable, in terms of water, transportation, education,

health, sewage disposal, whatever you want to name -- the big

cities are in trouble! And ... THE MIGRATION CONTINUES, [2,300

farmers] daily -- so I think this SENSELESS MIGRATION HAS TO BE

REVERSED. We have to revitalize rural America, and disperse some

of this high concentration we have on both sea-boards"

("Agricultural News and Research", 15.3.71).

 

WHY THE RURAL EXODUS?

 

     What was and is the cause of this mass migration? In modern

times the industrial revolution was the initial spark that

started the movement. The bait of HIGHER wages, LESS work and the

moth-like attraction of NEON LIGHTS and THE CROWD are a

counterfeit for GREENER PASTURES, but they nevertheless exert a

strong influence in drawing humanity to the CITIES! At the same

time there has always been a considerable element of ECONOMIC

COMPULSION driving men from the land. Historically this has

resulted both from their own wrong land management and misguided

governmental policies.

     History describes all too vividly Britain's rural conditions

at the time of the industrial revolution. Above all else in

contribution to the 'ROT' in the countryside was the attitude of

the moneyed landowners. Lesser men and workers were regarded as

tools to be used and exploited for personal gain. When it

appeared economically favorable whole villages of people were

ejected from the land -- thus breeding a deep-seated resentment

of the ruling classes.

     It is interesting to note in passing that the oft-exploited

human 'TOOLS' have now been replaced by machines (often made by

unhappy slum-dwelling descendants of the original peasants).

These machines of course give farmers less trouble, because no

understanding of the laws that govern successful human

relationships is required to operate them successfully.

     In America, where land colonization and the industrial

revolution occurred simultaneously, labour for the factories came

from dispossessed small-farm families. American agricultural

history is a chronicle of land and resource exploitation with the

most successful exploiters remaining on the land and the

unsuccessful being forced into the cities -- their property being

absorbed by the former. Even these 'SUCCESSFUL' farmers have

supported only themselves! Most of their own sons have desired or

been forced to seek their living in THE BRIGHT LIGHTS!

     A similar theme runs through the history of urbanization in

other countries. Unfortunately the 'GREENER PASTURES' of urban

living and employment have always been fraught with problems.

Physical difficulties of cities such as pollution, noise, sewage,

water, transportation etc., receive justifiable attention, but

the change from rural to urban life-styles has produced little-

known crucial changes in the thought-pattern and MENTALITY of

urban dwellers!

 

THE URBAN MENTALITY

 

          "From early childhood superabundant impressions,

stimuli, and dangers make their impact upon the city dweller, who

compared with the peasant or small-town shopkeeper, becomes a

nervous, unstable, harassed, often pitiful being. Constantly

driven back by the clock that ticks the time away and by the

speeding motor car, pursued by evil-smelling, on-rushing traffic.

The city dweller dashes to his place of work; and even in transit

he is assailed by loud-coloured posters and constantly blinking

neon lights, which pound into him that he must by all means, buy

this or look at that if he wants to keep abreast of the times.

          "The always startling, ceaseless succession of

impressions, the torrent of stimuli, and in the evening, radio

music and television movies -- all these reduce the city dweller

to the level of an organism always on the lookout for newer,

different, still stronger impressions -- ready for the

sanatorium, or in the end completely dulled and unable to be

roused by anything.

          "The consequence is WEARINESS and DISGUST. It is a not

uncommon attitude among the city dwellers, and the youths find it

downright chic NOT TO BE AMAZED BY ANYTHING. The German

sociologist Georg Simmel found this weariness, this 'FANCYING

ONESELF SUPERIOR TO IT ALL', the most typical character trait of

people living in large cities" ("Babylon Is Everywhere", Wolf

Schneider, 1960, pp. 321, 322).

 

     It must be understood that Schneider's observations are not

applicable to EVERY city-dweller. They are broad generalizations

of an over-all picture.

     Author Lewis Mumford noted that SUBURBS were established so

people could escape the stresses of city living, yet results are

disastrous:

 

          "The town housewife, who half a century ago, knew her

histories and biographies that impinged on her own, in a daily

interchange, now has the benefit of a single weekly expedition to

an impersonal supermarket, where only by accident is she likely

to encounter a neighbour. If she is well-to-do, she is surrounded

by electric devices that take the place of flesh and blood

companions; the end product is an encapsulated life, spent more

and more either IN A MOTOR CAR, or WITHIN THE CABIN OF DARKNESS

before a television set .... Here indeed we find 'The Lonely

Crowd'" ("The City in History", Lewis Mumford, 1961, pp. 551,

552).

 

RECREATION -- AN URBAN CRAVING

 

     Artur Glikson, Head of Planning for Housing in Israel's

Ministry of Labour states that:

 

          "The more that INDUSTRY and CITIES EXPAND, the greater

is the demand for recreation .... In the dynamics of city life,

the demand for recreation represents a reaction against the ...

complexity of life introduced by centralization and

industrialization ....

          "It [recreation] is an attempt to balance urban

concentration by a temporary escape back to the places of natural

and historic origin of the people: to the indigenous and rural

landscape, the hamlet the little town by-passed by-modern

development, in the hope of restoring, or 'recreating' HEALTH,

ENERGY and MENTAL EQUILIBRIUM" (Recreational Land Use, paper

presented by Artur Glikson, in "Man's Role in Changing the Face

of The Earth", pp. 897, 912).

 

MAN'S NEW APPROACH TO 'WORK'

 

     The urban environment has also bred a new approach and

attitude to employment:

 

          "It is clear that 'EMPLOYMENT' is no longer regarded as

a contribution to the creation of social wealth, but rather as a

kind of ticket entitling its holder to share in the distribution

of that wealth. It [an urban job] has come to be regarded AS AN

AGENT OF CONSUMPTION rather than of PRODUCTION. The mechanization

of so many economic activities has built up the idea that the

whole economy is in fact a machine, a machine in which the worker

NATURALLY wants to ride ....

          "Since labour has so long been regarded as a commodity

to be bought and sold in the market, the laborer can hardly be

blamed ... for believing that it is in his 'interest' to put in

as little effort as possible and extract as much money as

possible.

          "Thus the natural instincts for which work forms an

outlet are largely frustrated. Except for a relatively small

class of technicians there is little scope for CREATIVENESS, for

DESIGN, for INITIATIVE, even for THE GRATIFICATION OF A COMPLETED

JOB. LABOUR has been divorced from LIVING; it is no longer a

direct source of satisfaction, but simply A QUALIFICATION FOR A

MEAL-TICKET" (From "The Ground Up", Jorian Jenks, Faber and

Faber, 1945, pp. 122, 123).

 

     Even work in AGRICULTURE is now losing its job satisfaction

at the rate it patterns itself after INDUSTRY! Sir George

Stapledon also noted this general change in attitude to work:

 

          "To work WITHOUT INTEREST IN THE FINAL RESULT, or any

FEELING OF LOVE is to be denied the enjoyment of perhaps THE

GREATEST PLEASURE THIS LIFE HAS TO OFFER, and in the fact that

such a high proportion of the workers of the world are denied, or

deny themselves this pleasure is to be found one of the chief

CAUSES OF WIDESPREAD SOCIAL NEUROSIS" ("The Natural Order",

edited by H. Massingham, Faber and Faber, p. 36).

 

THE DISINTEGRATING FAMILY UNIT

 

     Perhaps the most important effect the rural exodus has had

on each of us lies in the sphere of family life and unity:

 

          "There can be little doubt that FAMILY LIFE has

deteriorated in DIRECT proportion as the influence of the FATHER

has WANED. The real trouble began when the man went out to work,

went far from home to work, worked along hours, acquired outside

interests, came home late, came home tired. This is the position

in most homes today. It is essential that the FATHER should

associate himself ACTIVELY with the lives of his CHILDREN. If he

leaves the house early and returns late, his only chance to be an

active parent occurs at the weekend. All too frequently the only

interest of the family in the father is 'THE BREAD', a most

unhealthy state of affairs -- a state of affairs which tends to

make the father lead one kind of social life in one place while

the mother and the children lead ANOTHER kind of life ELSEWHERE

          "... the real point to be faced is that segregation of

the individual from the family, and of the family from the

community, has been carried to dangerous, not to say lethal,

lengths, and it would seem that modern trends accentuate that

segregation ... the size of cities and of over-specialized

industrial undertakings has outgrown their capacity to cater for

the real needs of real human families and of real human

individuals" ("Human Ecology", Sir George Stapledon, p. 113).

 

PRESSURE FROM POLITICIANS

 

     Perhaps the most sickening aspect of the whole matter is

that so FEW WORLD LEADERS and thinkers fully comprehend what this

worldwide migration is doing to HUMAN MINDS and LIVES! Many have

in fact mistakenly spearheaded the drive to push even MORE people

FROM the land:

 

          "The White House takes the view that only 1 million

efficient farmers could produce all U.S. farm needs. Today there

are 3.4 million farmers. Thus according to the White House there

are 2.4 million unneeded farmers" ("U.S. News and World Report",

March 22, 1965, p. 59).

 

     That of course was the view of the Johnson Administration.

But the present agricultural thinkers for President Nixon share

this same general view.

     In Europe, leading EEC planner, Dr. Sicco Mansholt has

similar ideas:

 

          "Mansholt proposed three objectives for West European

farming by 1980: to ACCELERATE the DRIFT from the land, to CHANGE

farm sizes RADICALLY [larger], and to balance out the supply and

demand of farm products. It was argued that farming should be

viewed simply as one among many economic activities RATHER THAN

AS A WAY OF LIFE. Mansholt envisaged that a total agricultural

population of 5 million in THE SIX would be DESIRABLE in 1980.

That would represent ONE QUARTER OF THE 1950 FIGURE of 20 million

which had since fallen to 15 million in 1960 and 10 million in

1970 ... almost HALF of the 1970 total number of farmers ... will

have to DISAPPEAR DURING THE COMING DECADE.

          "Mansholt argued that EVERY EFFORT should be made to

divert the children of farming families AWAY from agriculture to

take up OTHER jobs. A second form of action would involve

encouraging the elderly to leave farming" [presumably to become a

charge against the state's welfare system]. ("Agriculture,

Studies in Contemporary Europe", Hugh D. Clout, Macmillan, 1971,

pp. 55, 56).

 

     Mansholt is now forging ahead with his plans -- apparently

unconcerned that he, like the American planners, is

systematically destroying the very heart of a nations social and

economic foundations. At the same time the policy of the British

Ministry of Agriculture was (and presumably still is) to SOLVE

the economic difficulties of its farming industry by a

Mansholt-like amalgamation of every second farm!

     As we explained in an earlier "Research News", agriculture's

chief purpose is not the production of FOOD, but the production

of PEOPLE. It is designed to be a stable broad-based foundation

of a God designed society and economy.

 

IS THERE A SOLUTION?

 

Instead of driving and forcing more families to LEAVE their rural

environment, (especially when most cities have a pool of

unemployed) even encouragement should be given to REVERSE the

drift to the cities! It will take God to rectify this situation.

Man will NOT do it! But it WILL be done and in the very next few

years!

     Some 3,400 years ago God set up a model society in which

every man received land as his inheritance. Furthermore, God made

it illegal for man to squander it by stating that:

 

          "In the year of jubile [i.e. following seven Sabbatical

Years] the field shall return unto him ... to whom the possession

of the land did belong" (Lev. 27:24).

 

     Soon God will set it up again -- this time not just for

Israelites, but for everyone:

 

          "So shall ye divide this land ... for an inheritance

unto you and unto the strangers that sojourn among you ... YOU

SHALL INHERIT THE LAND ... one as well as another" (Ezek. 47:21,

22, 13, 14)!

 

     Yes, God's laws of LAND INHERITANCE and the JUBILE are to be

reintroduced in the world tomorrow and then "they shall sit every

man under his own vine and under his fig tree; and none shall

make them afraid" (Mic. 4:4).

                                                                               

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                     June 1974 Vol. V, No. 1

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

        PHOSPHATE DEFICIENCY -- A CRISIS WE MUST RESOLVE!

 

     Within the past few months the world has looked askance at

its sudden energy crisis, triggered prematurely by the united

action of the Arab oil sheiks.

     But now we have a new crisis that has gone largely

unnoticed, and yet it is one that could cripple European and

world agriculture almost as effectively as the oil crisis itself.

You might wonder whether that is even possible. Well, it is, and

the first stiff breezes of this ill-wind have already begun to

blow!

     During the recent oil crisis, Europe's major suppliers of

North African rock-phosphate quietly and, almost without Western

press comment, calmly trebled the price of their raw product!

     Morocco and Tunisia, like their oil-sheik colleagues, have

suddenly realized that their non-renewable source of income will

one day be exhausted. Therefore they intend to cash in on the

profits while supplies last. This is not to imply, however, that

deposits are almost worked out now. They aren't YET, but the

future is strictly limited.

 

The 'P' of 'NPK'

 

     In nutritional terms, the greatest limiting factors to

increasing world food production are firstly nitrogen, and

secondly phosphorus. These are THE two most important

macro-nutrients required for plant growth (along with potassium).

They form the 'N' and 'P' of the 'NPK' trio, familiar to most

farmers.

     And yet agriculture is suddenly threatened by diminishing

reserves of both these essential elements. Industrially

synthesized NITROGEN is in relatively short supply as a direct

result of the energy crisis, and PHOSPHATE has become recognized

as another finite, non-renewable resource which MUST now be

conserved. Consequently, prices of these raw materials have

escalated!

     In such a predicament, many farmers feel they have no

alternative but to pay 'through the nose' for fertilizers their

crops and soil so badly need. And yet there must be an

alternative -- God surely did not create an environment for man

dependent upon excavation and the international transportation of

underground mineral deposits.

     During the past year, this Department has been researching

in depth, the problem of phosphate availability -- or rather, the

lack of it in most soils around the world -- to try to discover:

     1. Why soil becomes phosphate deficient, and

     2. A solution to the problem.

Our research has borne fruit -- fruit which we would like to

share with you in this issue of YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT. Depth of

subject demands slightly more technical language than we normally

present, but we hope its vital importance will help you stay with

it.

 

A Problem of Availability

 

     We have already mentioned the importance of phosphorus in

agriculture, and that phosphorus deficiency presents mankind with

one of the biggest obstacles to increasing world food production.

     In fact, vast areas of intensively-managed agricultural land

are now known to be severely deficient in availability of this

element. Sir Arnold Theiler whose work on phosphate during the

1920's is now classic, found that throughout Southern Africa the

country as a whole was deficient in available phosphate. Since

Theiler's time, his findings have been verified by basic

research. Equally low levels of available soil phosphate now

exist in major agricultural regions on all five continents.

     Paradoxically, few agricultural soils are deficient in

actual, or total phosphorus present. Most of them contain

sufficient reserves of phosphorus to support plant growth if such

reserves were made available in forms which plants can

assimilate. It would therefore appear that the problem is not one

of PRESENCE but AVAILABILITY -- at any one time most of the

phosphorus present consists of non water-soluble forms and so it

is not readily accessible to plant roots.

     One writer mentions:

 

          "With regard to phosphoric acid, the mineral apatite,

the ultimate source of phosphorus in nature, is almost equally

abundant in all varieties of igneous rocks, and phosphates are

rarely deficient in soils derived from them ..." ("Agricultural

Geology", by R. H. Rastall, p. 35, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1922).

 

     He continues:

 

          "Soils derived from igneous rocks on the whole tend to

be rich in potash and phosphoric acid, although these substances

may not always be present in an available form in large quantity"

(Ibid).

 

     Since sedimentary formations have their origin in the

igneous rocks, the obvious question then arises -- why is this

element not readily available in most soils?

     Pizer explains:

 

          "It is commonly accepted that plant roots remove

monovalent H2PO4 - ions from soils and make little use of HPO42-

and PO43-. The main sources of H2PO4- are attached to Ca

[calcium], Al [aluminum] and Fe [iron] on CLAY MINERALS and

ORGANIC MATTER, (this is why all fertile soils contain both clay

particles and organic matter) ... the release of H2PO4 depends on

equilibria between a number of phases which are influenced by

moisture content, Ph [soil acidity] soluble salts, changes in

soil structure and biological activity" ("Soil Phosphorus",

Technical Bulletin No. 13, M.A.F.F., 1965, p. 147, by N. H.

Pizer). (Emphasis ours throughout.)

 

Organic Matter and Soil Phosphorus

 

     Amazing as it may seem, the answer to this seemingly complex

problem is perhaps far more simple than we might at first think.

Joffe gives an indication of the simplicity of the solution in

describing the phosphorus and sulphur limitations in Chernozem

soils:

 

          "The relatively high Ca [calcium] and N [nitrogen]

contents of the A horizon [upper soil layer] are responsible for

the high P [phosphorus] content in this layer. It is THE PROTEINS

OF THE ORGANIC MATTER that furnish the key. As the

organic-phosphorus compounds are mineralized, the P released ties

up primarily with the Ca.

          "The accumulated organic matter in the A horizon [upper

soil layer] retains appreciable quantities of S [sulphur]. Its

RAPID CIRCULATION through drying plants and precipitation keeps

up the supply in the surface layer in spite of the ease of

leaching of sulphates. Of course large quantities of S [sulphur]

in the A horizon persist in the form of organic complexes"

("Pedology", by Jacob S. Joffe, p. 292, 2nd Ed., 1949, Pedology

Publications).

 

     Notice that it is the ORGANIC MATTER that is the effective

source of phosphorus. Barrett also mentions that phosphorus

levels are higher in the surface soil layers than in the subsoil,

and that there is often a close relationship between phosphorus

levels and the amount of organic matter present ("Harnessing the

Earthworm", by Thomas J. Barrett, p. 49, 1947, Bruce Humphries

Inc.).

     It is well known that dead plants and animals can return

appreciable quantities of phosphorus to the soil -- phosphorus

which has been slowly but steadily accumulating over a period of

time but such phosphorus is basically returned in organic form

and is therefore not readily available for further plant growth.

     It must first be broken down by ANIMAL forms before it can

be re-used for plant growth -- thus completing one of the great

ecological cycles:

 

(NOTE: To view a chart titled "The Phosphorus Cycle", see the file

740602.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)

 

     These animal forms are many and varied, but two of the most

important and obvious are livestock -- which recycle LIVING plant

nutrients and earthworms -- which recirculate nutrients from DEAD

organic material. The more rapid the circulation of nutrients,

the more stable the system -- the less is the likelihood of

depleting fertility and the greater are the opportunities for

building up nutrient reserves. This rapid recycling of nutrients

is one of the chief benefits of a live-stock-based agriculture.

 

(NOTE: To view a chart titled "The Phosphorus Cycle", see the file

740603.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)

 

Earthworms and Phosphorus

 

     Barrett also brings out some remarkable information

regarding the role of earthworms in making phosphorus available

for plant growth.

     He found that the phosphorus content of soil in boxes

containing worms increased 10% over those which had no worms. He

also analysed earthworm castings to discover that they contained

FIVE times as much available nitrogen, SEVEN times as much

phosphorus, ELEVEN times as much potassium and THREE times as

much magnesium as the parent soil.

     Indirectly, the origin of these extra available nutrients is

probably soil organic matter, on which the earthworms feed,

because Barrett also noticed that castings contain larger

bacterial populations than unworked soil. And we are well aware

that soil microbes multiply on organic matter. The earthworm is

therefore undoubtedly one of the major organisms directly

responsible for making soil nutrients available and forms one of

the vital links in the balance of nature.

     In the Nile valley, fertility is legendary and it is

reported that earthworm castings may amount to some 200 tons per

acre per year. In most other areas the earthworm population is

much smaller and the weight of castings deposited each year

seldom exceeds 10 to 20 tons per acre. On many farms these

castings would amount to less than one or two tons per acre per

year!

     Since worms appear to depend heavily on organic matter, we

cannot expect to boost our earthworm population and solve major

mineral deficiency problems organically, without massive returns

of plant residues. There is an old truism which states that "a

chain is as strong as its weakest link". And in the agricultural

chain of life, the weakest link has been the return of organic

residues back to the soil.

 

Phosphorus and Sulphur Relationships

 

     Research on this issue of phosphate deficiency took us into

many areas of mineral nutrition, one of which was sulphur. It

might be worthwhile to mention here several facts we found out

from other researchers about this element, since both sulphur and

phosphorus have considerable bearing on the growth of legumes:

     1. There is evidence that phosphate deficiencies may be

accompanied by sulphur complications, and recent work in New

Zealand has indicated that SULPHUR may be equally important with

PHOSPHORUS in the growth and development of pasture legumes.

Ludecke found that the amount of sulphur required by legumes is

between one-tenth and one-fifteenth the amount of nitrogen fixed.

Thus, if we consider a figure of 250 lbs. of nitrogen fixed per

acre per year, somewhere between 17 and 25 lbs. of sulphur will

be required of that soil.

     2. But although this amount of sulphur may be sufficient to

produce maximum plant growth, Anderson (1952) reports that more

sulphur is required to maintain maximum protein content.

Apparently maximum growth can be achieved without a comparable

achievement in protein levels! (i.e. yields are not necessarily

synonymous with quality values.) Saalbach (1961) also studied the

influence of S on plant yield and protein quality in various

forage crops, and found a positive correlation between S

fertilization and protein quality.

     3. Pot experiments by Needham and Hauge (1952) showed that a

pronounced S deficiency in Lucerne caused a pronounced shortage

of vitamins in the plant.

     All of these facts essentially concern characteristics of

QUALITY in plant composition. We mention them here because they

bring us back once again to the all-important factor of organic

matter in soil, which, as we have seen, is not only a major

source of phosphorus but also of sulphur.

     4. Barrow ( 1962), Williams and Steinbergs (1958) and other

researchers confirm Joffe's previous statement that there are

always appreciable quantities of S present in organic matter and

that organic residues are the major source of sulphur for plants.

     5. Lastly, Freney and Spencer (1960) report that in general,

soils mineralize more sulphur in the presence of growing plants

than in their absence. They suggest this may be due to the

"rhizosphere [root zone] effect" brought about by the secretion

of amino acids and sugars and the subsequent increase in

micro-organism activity.

 

Micro-organisms and Soil Nutrients

 

     The bacterium Thiobacillus thio-oxidans, which is widespread

in acid soils, is one of the most outstanding organisms

associated with the transformation of sulphur. It can oxidize

sulphur and sulfides to sulphates, and starting from mineral

salts can produce 10% H2SO4 (Sulfuric acid).

     Waksman and Starkey have shown that it can produce H2SO4 in

the soil -- an ability which may be significant in the

transformation of insoluble rock phosphate to more soluble forms.

     Keruran presents a spectacular theory that the whole genus

of Thiobacilli play an important role in other aspects of sulphur

and phosphorus nutrition. He presents evidence aiming to show

that they are capable of TRANSMUTING oxygen to sulphur -- not a

straightforward chemical change, but a NUCLEAR transformation. He

also suggests that there is a probable link (via transmutation)

between sulphur and phosphorus and a possible link between

sulphur and magnesium (Biological Transmutations, 1972).

     Very little is currently known about nutrient

inter-relationships. They are certainly exceedingly complex. But

this new evidence for transmutation -- also supported by

Branfield, further complicates the issue and if scientifically

sound, puts the whole concept of mineral formation and

availability in a new light.

     No wonder Burges comments:

 

          "Availability of many of the plant nutrients in the

soil is markedly affected by the microorganisms, but the problems

associated with the changes involved are exceedingly complex"

("Micro-organisms in the Soil", by Alan Burges, 1958, p. 147).

Following the discovery of the importance of the Thiobacilli in

sulphur availability and the probable relationship between

sulphur and phosphorus, we then looked into whether one

particular group of micro-organisms was principally responsible

for making phosphate available.

     From the limited amount of material available (mostly

Russian), we found no such direct correlation. Zimenko (1966)

investigated most of the major micro-organic forms of life except

for algae -- which have similar nutrient requirements to

multicellular plants and protozoa -- which mainly feed on

bacteria. From his results, there might be a possible correlation

in certain soils between phosphate availability and populations

of actinomycetes and fungi, but it is difficult to assess.

     Burges mentions that one type of fungi (Basidiomycete) traps

phosphate in the lower layers of litter on the forest floor. And

there is some indication that other fungi (mycorrhizal) in

certain mutually beneficial (symbiotic) associations with tree

roots, supply phosphate to some trees.

 

Predominance of Chicory?

 

     Our initial thoughts on the solution to phosphate deficiency

ran on somewhat similar lines to Coccanouer's, although they were

complemented by the material Branfield and Kervran presented --

i.e. that the answer lay in utilizing hitherto unused crops in

the rotation to supply the missing minerals.

     For example, Branfield shows that plants can produce their

own magnesium when grown in culture mediums in which none is

available.

     Similarly, Kervran points out that when a lawn is lacking in

calcium -- daisies appear. When they die, they decompose leaving

calcium behind for other species to take up, thus continuing the

natural ecological cycles of regeneration and succession -- about

which we know so pitifully little!

     Likewise, we wondered if there could be a plant, or a number

of plants with exceptional ability for making phosphate

available. Another link in the ecological chain that has perhaps

been overlooked and which man could utilize to great advantage.

     Research showed several aquatic plants such as duckweed

(Lemony tres.) and pondweed (Oldie canadensis) to be

comparatively high in phosphate -- although this could have been

due to unreasonably high levels of phosphate in the surface

waters where they were growing.

     Upon considering the various species in our own pastures, we

were reminded of the outstanding success achieved in the seeding

of chicory. This plant is well known for its value as a source of

phosphate in animal nutrition, but its performance was especially

interesting to us. Over many years, our Hertfordshire soils have

traditionally and consistently tested deficient in available

phosphate. Even repeated dressings of natural rock phosphate

materials have effected only temporary improvements in

availability of this agriculturally important mineral.

     In spite of what one might describe as a chronic lack of

available phosphate, the chicory plant positively flourished in

our deficient environment. The other important observation in

this connection is the fact that our sheep and cattle have

readily devoured this species, showing an outstanding preference

for it.

     These observations would seem to support the idea that

chicory is effective in bringing phosphate to the surface, even

in soils that appear to be deficient in the mineral. At the same

time, the grazing animals' sharp preferences lend weight to the

belief that unhindered, they have the instinctive ability to

select for themselves a minerally balanced diet. Measuring their

natural preferences against the poor phosphate performance of our

soils, seems to indicate that they are seeking their phosphate

needs through this plant species.

     As our results appear to confirm other's findings, we are

more than ever inclined to the view that more research would

reveal a capacity in other plants to help balance mineral

availability in soils that need it.

 

Optimum Levels of Soil Organic Matter

 

     We have already mentioned that organic matter contains

considerable reserves of sulphur and phosphorus. Whilst the

micro-organisms seem more ready to make sulphur available for

plant growth, it is the earthworm population that does the main

job as far as phosphate availability is concerned.

     The incredible fertility achieved in the Nile valley was

only possible through the vast quantities of fertile silt --

containing approx. 55% organic matter in finely divided form,

deposited annually by the river. This was washed down from the

Ethiopian highlands and provided virtually limitless food for the

teeming worm life.

     If we are ever to achieve any comparable fertility, we will

obviously have to make huge 'investments' in our bank of soil

reserves. Until we have attained optimum levels of soil organic

matter we can only expect to reap mediocre crops and breed a

pitifully diminutive population of earthworms. Once we have

achieved such optimum levels we will be obliged to MAINTAIN them

with REGULAR returns of organic matter -- just as the Nile does

each year.

     Here, it would appear is the ultimate pay-off for every man

and every generation willing to adopt the GIVE philosophy, in

place of our natural human desire to GET and GET while we can --

regardless of the consequences!

     Are we beginning to see here one of the reasons why God has

allocated ONE THOUSAND YEARS in His plan for man to rebuild this

earth to Garden of Eden specifications?

     What we are prone to forget is that most agricultural soils

have been severely depleted of their natural fertility by decades

or centuries of wrong methods. They have been cropped intensively

with little respite and very little in the way of organic

returns. We have overloaded delicate systems with demands that

have been far too great, and we are now paying the penalties --

penalties which cannot be eradicated overnight.

     Gordon Rattray Taylor in his famous Doomsday Book cited the

sulphur and phosphorus cycles specifically in this regard. Notice

his warning.

 

          "Any feedback mechanism can be swamped by too big an

input. The thermostat which regulates room temperature cannot

maintain the temperature if you open all the windows on any icy

day, or keep you cool if the house catches on fire.

          "And what may be more important, these mechanisms

respond very slowly: so even if they can absorb the effects of

human activity, they may take centuries to do so, and in the

meantime conditions may be adverse for life. Man has begun to

intrude on this beautifully balanced mechanism [in context -- the

nitrogen cycle], as well as on the cycles which regulate the

turnover of carbon, SULPHUR, PHOSPHORUS, carbon dioxide, and

other substances. No one knows how much overload they can

tolerate" (p. 89).

 

     Apparently the overload in the case of phosphorus has

already been exceeded! Our land has been cropped far too

intensively and the phosphorus taken off merely ends up in the

sea.(1)

 

---------------

(1) Each year in the U.K. we flush 172,000 tons of phosphorus and

123,000 tons of potassium out into our rivers and coasts and hope

to make up for this loss with imports of North African rock

phosphate and potash from the Dead Sea totalling 700,000 tons!!

---------------

 

Results of Soil Tests

 

     On our own farm soils in Bricket Wood, we found available

phosphorus to be higher than original levels of seven years ago.

Over a six month period (January to June 1973), 153 random soil

tests were taken in 10 different fields. Of these, only 8 showed

low availabilities, 123 gave moderate readings of varying

intensities, and the remaining 22 showed phosphate availability

to be at a high level. One can only deduce that organic matter

and available nutrient levels are slowly improving, but that we

still have a long way to go!

     We need to mention one word of caution regarding soil

analyses such as the ones we conducted. Soil tests (especially of

P and K) can be unreliable, misleading and highly variable.

Others agree:

 

          "There is still no foolproof method whereby the exact

quantity of available phosphorus can be determined" (South

African Farmer's Weekly, Sept. 13th, 1972).

 

(NOTE: To view a chart titled "Availability of Phosphorus and Other

Soil Nutrients at various levels of PH", see the file 740606.TIF in

the Images\Ag directory.)

 

     But the large numbers of "moderate" availabilities obtained

in our 1973 tests seem to give a fairly reliable indication of

the condition of phosphorus in our soils.

 

Phosphorus and Soil Ph

 

     The preceding chart indicates the general trend of phosphate

availability according to Ph, compared with other soil nutrients.

The more soluble a nutrient is under a particular condition of

soil acidity or alkalinity, the thicker is the horizontal band

representing the nutrient. Solubility in turn is directly related

to the availability of the nutrient in an ionic form that is

assimilable by the plant.

     Notice that nearly all the nutrients shown are available in

greatest quantities around a Ph of 7 -- neutral, on this scale.

It is also well-known that organic matter is invaluable in

stabilizing Ph. When humus is present in sufficient quantity and

in every stage of decay, soil Ph is almost invariably neutral or

near neutral. (2)

 

------------------

(2) One notable exception is the floor of a conifer forest. The

special nature of its organic content actually contributes to its

acid condition.

------------------

 

The Haughley Organic Experiment

 

     Lawrence D. Hills, writing in the November 1972 issue of The

Ecologist mentions that:

 

          "The Soil Association, after running a 'closed circuit'

farm at Haughley for thirty years, returning all the manure and

organic matter to the soil, found that the milk, eggs, meat and

grain going off the farm produced a steady fall in yields" (p.

24).

 

     He interprets this to mean that if nutrients leave the

system -- regardless of how high humus levels in the soil may be,

nutrient availability and consequent productivity must fall. For

the "closed" system, the inference is of course that nutrient

availability will inevitably diminish in the absence of

replenishments from outside.

     On the surface, it sounds like an open and shut case!

Nutrients DO escape, even from an organic cycle, but we must

remember that soil is mostly INORGANIC and therefore as long as

we have soil, we have untapped mineral reserves. The alternative

is that God made a mistake at Creation and forgot the phosphate

and other nutrient needs of mankind around the earth. This

MISTAKE would force man to transport mineral deposits around the

world for the purpose of food production and/or to recycle all

animal and HUMAN wastes.

     The FIRST presupposes that our environment must depend on

considerable industrial development and highly expensive

international transportation. The SECOND, while theoretically

possible, does not appear to tally with the hygiene standards of

the Old Testament.

     If either of these be the case -- our nutritional protection

would appear to be the subject of some considerable doubt, but

that premise has to be rejected because, it just does not match

God's performance in any other area!

     What appears to be certain however, is that under the

adopted TEN-year rotation, (3) although Haughley soil humus

INCREASED by 27% in ten years -- crops took nutrients away faster

than the system could replace them from internal sources!

Nitrogen and potassium levels fell during this period. Phosphate

levels -- in crop analysis, fell slightly and soil pH became more

acidic.

 

-------------

(3) The rotation consisted of: 1. winter wheat, 2. root and

forage, 3. barley,  4. winter beans and spring peas, 5. oats, 6.

silage of oats and peas, and 7-10. four years of pasture.

-------------

 

     But we suggest that anyone would be making a grave error to

postulate from these results that a CLOSED system will not

support mankind for the duration of at least seven thousand

years. We feel that the Bible gives no support to the idea that

the closed environmental system is inefficient.

     Because soil with only 3% humus is acknowledged to be below

the critical level (4) a decline in plant nutrients, following a

27% increase in humus, proves only that the closed system is

doomed to lose efficiency WHEN HUMUS IS BELOW THE CRITICAL LEVEL.

It in no way disproves the ability of much higher levels of humus

to release inorganic minerals commensurate with increased plant

production.

 

--------------

(4) 3% humus was quoted as a disastrously low figure in British

Midland soils by the 1969 committee of enquiry headed by Sir

Emerys Jones, former Chief Advisor to the British Ministry of

Agriculture.

--------------

 

     One might say it would be like claiming that a gravitational

pull of 20 lbs cannot be overcome -- simply because we witness

the results of a weight lifter exerting an opposing force of only

19 lbs! Likewise, one could raise the Ph of a soil from 5.5 to

6.0 and still witness a decline in its clover population. But any

agriculturalist would expect the same clover plants to

proliferate with a further Ph increase to 7.0, or even 6.5!

     To believe otherwise concerning the function of rising

levels of soil humus, is tantamount to turning thumbs down on

man's future, the moment we exhaust North African and other bulk

supplies of rock phosphate.

     On the contrary -- we feel that the Haughley Experiment

confirms the need for a rotation far more heavily weighted in

favour of an animal based agriculture. And if the system is to

remain "closed", it must be operated with judicious grazing at

low intensity. Failing this, low humus levels will never allow

plant productivity to really "take off". May we remind the

non-agricultural reader that it CAN take off -- e.g. the early

years of high yields of high protein grain, on the world's

black-soil plains, all with a total absence of NPK fertilizers.

     Other than robbing one area of the earth to supply the

demands of another, there is no alternative, if man is ever to

relieve his current dependence on long-term fallow.

     It may then be argued that the organic approach is

uneconomic. This is probably true in the short-term, but as one

ecologist said -- if you accept every argument that is put

forward today on the grounds of economics, you have no

alternative but to conclude that it is definitely "uneconomic"

for mankind to survive!

     Depressing it may be, but one must therefore conclude that

there is no simple way of putting prosperity in the pockets of

those working the farmlands of a world that has been bleeding its

soil fertility for centuries.

     We just happen to be the generation living at the time of

the grand pay-off. Man's survival depends on many of these men

being able to hold on until a world government can change the

situation.

 

Time Is Running Out

 

     Temporarily, this world can go on drawing on underground

phosphate reserves from Morocco, Tunisia, Florida and Nauru etc.,

for the immediate future -- if farmers can afford the escalating

prices. But this does not alter the fact that world agriculture

is headed down a blind alley, a dead-end street and one day man

will be forced to do an 180ø turn. We will eventually have to

manage our environment so that each acre of food-producing land

will not only release its own phosphate for plant production, but

also a whole range of other nutrients so necessary to health in

plants, animals and people.

     If, as it certainly appears, soil humus levels are the only

long-term solution, then the sooner we get started, the less pain

we will inflict upon ourselves and the sooner we will reap some

of the possible rewards.

     From the material studied -- all the evidence indicates that

in order to effect a lasting solution to the phosphate problem,

farmers will in future have to:

 

     1. Raise the levels of organic matter dramatically and

stabilize the Ph of the soil,

     2. Maintain very high levels of organic matter to encourage

a stable and large earthworm population, and

     3. Recycle as much nutrient outflow as possible, or reduce

economic demands on our soils.

 

     No experiment comparable to the Haughley trials has to our

knowledge been carried out on high-humus (chernozem) type soil,

so it is difficult to say what level of fertility is necessary

before a management system based on steps ONE and TWO, could

largely dispense with the necessity of step THREE. Of course, it

is extremely doubtful if it would ever make sense NOT to bother

recycling most annual plant nutrient production. If it were

otherwise -- would we not be negating God's law of the more you

GIVE, the more you GET?

                                                                              

 

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                  August 1972, Vol. III, No. 8

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

                  YOU SHALL INHERIT THE LAND??

 

     Historians Toynbee, Durant and Pierenne have all observed

that "nation after nation has FALLEN when it EMPTIED the

countryside and denied AGRICULTURE a rightful place in the scheme

of things" ("Unforgiven", Charles Walters, Jr., 1971, p. 308)

 

     How serious is this problem in today's society and why does

denuding the rural landscape of its people threaten the very

EXISTENCE of nations? Can man look forward to a solution to this

problem? These are important questions affecting all of mankind

and they will be answered in this issue of "Your Living

Environment". In looking at this worldwide social exodus you are

going to see that it has spawned major changes in the mentality

and life-style of each one of us. This is especially so in the

spheres of WORK, FAMILY and RECREATION.

 

A WORLDWIDE PROBLEM

 

     United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization puts this

problem into historic and geographic perspective:

 

          "While at the beginning of the industrial revolution,

LESS THAN TEN PERCENT of the world's population lived in cities,

in the coming century the MAJORITY OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION will

consist of URBAN DWELLERS. Thus, in the course of not more than

300 years of human history man will have turned from an

overwhelmingly RURAL to an overwhelmingly URBAN resident, both in

the rich and poor countries" (Gotz Hagmuller, "Ceres" Nov-Dec

1970, p. 44). All emphasis ours.

 

     Kingsley Davis, Director of International Population and

Urban Research at the University of California observes and warns

us that:

          URBANIZED SOCIETIES in which a majority of the people

live crowded together in towns and cities, REPRESENT a NEW and

FUNDAMENTAL STEP in MAN'S SOCIAL [HISTORY.] In 1960, for

example, ... according to the U.S. Bureau of Census, 96 million

people, 53 percent of the nation's population were concentrated

in ... urbanized areas that together occupied only .7 percent of

the nation's land .... The large and dense ... urban population

involves a degree of human contact and social complexity NEVER

BEFORE KNOWN. They exceed in size the communities of any ...

large animal; they suggest the behavior of communal insects ....

Neither the RECENCY nor the SPEED of this ... development is

widely appreciated. Before 1850 NO society could be described as

PREDOMINANTLY URBANIZED, and by 1900 only one -- Great Britain --

could be so regarded. Today, only 65 years later, ALL industrial

nations are HIGHLY URBANIZED and in the world as a whole, the

process of urbanization is ACCELERATING RAPIDLY" (The

Urbanization Of the Human Population, "Cities", 1965, pp. 4, 5).

 

     In BRITAIN, where the industrial revolution began, the drift

from the land has been more gradual, though it has continued

unabated for nearly 200 years. By now the agricultural population

has plummeted to less than 4% of the total! So thorough has been

the depopulation of the rural areas that one writer, discussing

the problems of Britain's hill country, made this startling

point:

 

          "The upland areas, which cover nearly HALF the entire

area of the country ... [contain a] total population less than

that of a SINGLE large town.." ("The Inviolable Hills", Robert A.

De J. Hart, London, 1968, p. 3).

 

     Such a state of affairs is all the more remarkable when it

is remembered that SOUTHERN England has MORE PEOPLE PER SQUARE

MILE than India or China!

     In EUROPE -- "since 1958 the number of people in the SIX

(EEC) making their living from farming has dropped from 17.5

million to 10 million ... the Commission estimate that there will

be a further drop of two million between 1972 and 1976"

("European Community", February, 1972, p. 20).

 

     In the THIRD WORLD developing countries:

     "urbanization started much later than in the industrialized

nations, in many cases only one or two decades ago ... [However]

the poor countries are ... urbanizing at a GREATER RATE than the

industrialized ... nations EVER did.... To live in ...

SHANTYTOWNS ... will therefore be the rule rather than the

exception by the end of this century" (Gotz Hagmuller, "Ceres",

Nov-Dec., 1970, p. 44).

     "Nowhere in WEST AFRICA is the classic drama of the drift

from the rural areas to urban centres being more vividly played

out than, perhaps, in Ghana. The DAILY APPEALS of the politicians

and social leaders to the youth to 'GO BACK TO THE LAND' not only

indicate the extent of the problem but also the GEOGRAPHICAL

BACKGROUND of the urban unemployed. There is hardly any room in

the labour exchange office to file the particulars of the

newcomers; the public parks swarm with aimless, hopeless people;

the factories have become daily witnesses to the fading

expectation of the persistent callers ..." (Isaac Sam, "Ceres",

July-August, 1971, p. 41).

 

     In February, 1971, Ambassador College representatives

interviewed Tony Decant, President of the U.S. National Farmers

Union. Speaking only about the United States, Mr. Decant observed

that,

 

          "IN THE LAST 20 YEARS, 20 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE LEFT THE

FARMS AND RURAL TOWNS AND MOVED TO THE CITIES where we already

have 70 percent of the population on some 2 percent of the land

and where we already have INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEMS, practically

insurmountable, in terms of water, transportation, education,

health, sewage disposal, whatever you want to name -- the big

cities are in trouble! And ... THE MIGRATION CONTINUES, [2,300

farmers] daily -- so I think this SENSELESS MIGRATION HAS TO BE

REVERSED. We have to revitalize rural America, and disperse some

of this high concentration we have on both sea-boards"

("Agricultural News and Research", 15.3.71).

 

WHY THE RURAL EXODUS?

 

     What was and is the cause of this mass migration? In modern

times the industrial revolution was the initial spark that

started the movement. The bait of HIGHER wages, LESS work and the

moth-like attraction of NEON LIGHTS and THE CROWD are a

counterfeit for GREENER PASTURES, but they nevertheless exert a

strong influence in drawing humanity to the CITIES! At the same

time there has always been a considerable element of ECONOMIC

COMPULSION driving men from the land. Historically this has

resulted both from their own wrong land management and misguided

governmental policies.

     History describes all too vividly Britain's rural conditions

at the time of the industrial revolution. Above all else in

contribution to the 'ROT' in the countryside was the attitude of

the moneyed landowners. Lesser men and workers were regarded as

tools to be used and exploited for personal gain. When it

appeared economically favorable whole villages of people were

ejected from the land -- thus breeding a deep-seated resentment

of the ruling classes.

     It is interesting to note in passing that the oft-exploited

human 'TOOLS' have now been replaced by machines (often made by

unhappy slum-dwelling descendants of the original peasants).

These machines of course give farmers less trouble, because no

understanding of the laws that govern successful human

relationships is required to operate them successfully.

     In America, where land colonization and the industrial

revolution occurred simultaneously, labour for the factories came

from dispossessed small-farm families. American agricultural

history is a chronicle of land and resource exploitation with the

most successful exploiters remaining on the land and the

unsuccessful being forced into the cities -- their property being

absorbed by the former. Even these 'SUCCESSFUL' farmers have

supported only themselves! Most of their own sons have desired or

been forced to seek their living in THE BRIGHT LIGHTS!

     A similar theme runs through the history of urbanization in

other countries. Unfortunately the 'GREENER PASTURES' of urban

living and employment have always been fraught with problems.

Physical difficulties of cities such as pollution, noise, sewage,

water, transportation etc., receive justifiable attention, but

the change from rural to urban life-styles has produced little-

known crucial changes in the thought-pattern and MENTALITY of

urban dwellers!

 

THE URBAN MENTALITY

 

          "From early childhood superabundant impressions,

stimuli, and dangers make their impact upon the city dweller, who

compared with the peasant or small-town shopkeeper, becomes a

nervous, unstable, harassed, often pitiful being. Constantly

driven back by the clock that ticks the time away and by the

speeding motor car, pursued by evil-smelling, on-rushing traffic.

The city dweller dashes to his place of work; and even in transit

he is assailed by loud-coloured posters and constantly blinking

neon lights, which pound into him that he must by all means, buy

this or look at that if he wants to keep abreast of the times.

          "The always startling, ceaseless succession of

impressions, the torrent of stimuli, and in the evening, radio

music and television movies -- all these reduce the city dweller

to the level of an organism always on the lookout for newer,

different, still stronger impressions -- ready for the

sanatorium, or in the end completely dulled and unable to be

roused by anything.

          "The consequence is WEARINESS and DISGUST. It is a not

uncommon attitude among the city dwellers, and the youths find it

downright chic NOT TO BE AMAZED BY ANYTHING. The German

sociologist Georg Simmel found this weariness, this 'FANCYING

ONESELF SUPERIOR TO IT ALL', the most typical character trait of

people living in large cities" ("Babylon Is Everywhere", Wolf

Schneider, 1960, pp. 321, 322).

 

     It must be understood that Schneider's observations are not

applicable to EVERY city-dweller. They are broad generalizations

of an over-all picture.

     Author Lewis Mumford noted that SUBURBS were established so

people could escape the stresses of city living, yet results are

disastrous:

 

          "The town housewife, who half a century ago, knew her

histories and biographies that impinged on her own, in a daily

interchange, now has the benefit of a single weekly expedition to

an impersonal supermarket, where only by accident is she likely

to encounter a neighbour. If she is well-to-do, she is surrounded

by electric devices that take the place of flesh and blood

companions; the end product is an encapsulated life, spent more

and more either IN A MOTOR CAR, or WITHIN THE CABIN OF DARKNESS

before a television set .... Here indeed we find 'The Lonely

Crowd'" ("The City in History", Lewis Mumford, 1961, pp. 551,

552).

 

RECREATION -- AN URBAN CRAVING

 

     Artur Glikson, Head of Planning for Housing in Israel's

Ministry of Labour states that:

 

          "The more that INDUSTRY and CITIES EXPAND, the greater

is the demand for recreation .... In the dynamics of city life,

the demand for recreation represents a reaction against the ...

complexity of life introduced by centralization and

industrialization ....

          "It [recreation] is an attempt to balance urban

concentration by a temporary escape back to the places of natural

and historic origin of the people: to the indigenous and rural

landscape, the hamlet the little town by-passed by-modern

development, in the hope of restoring, or 'recreating' HEALTH,

ENERGY and MENTAL EQUILIBRIUM" (Recreational Land Use, paper

presented by Artur Glikson, in "Man's Role in Changing the Face

of The Earth", pp. 897, 912).

 

MAN'S NEW APPROACH TO 'WORK'

 

     The urban environment has also bred a new approach and

attitude to employment:

 

          "It is clear that 'EMPLOYMENT' is no longer regarded as

a contribution to the creation of social wealth, but rather as a

kind of ticket entitling its holder to share in the distribution

of that wealth. It [an urban job] has come to be regarded AS AN

AGENT OF CONSUMPTION rather than of PRODUCTION. The mechanization

of so many economic activities has built up the idea that the

whole economy is in fact a machine, a machine in which the worker

NATURALLY wants to ride ....

          "Since labour has so long been regarded as a commodity

to be bought and sold in the market, the laborer can hardly be

blamed ... for believing that it is in his 'interest' to put in

as little effort as possible and extract as much money as

possible.

          "Thus the natural instincts for which work forms an

outlet are largely frustrated. Except for a relatively small

class of technicians there is little scope for CREATIVENESS, for

DESIGN, for INITIATIVE, even for THE GRATIFICATION OF A COMPLETED

JOB. LABOUR has been divorced from LIVING; it is no longer a

direct source of satisfaction, but simply A QUALIFICATION FOR A

MEAL-TICKET" (From "The Ground Up", Jorian Jenks, Faber and

Faber, 1945, pp. 122, 123).

 

     Even work in AGRICULTURE is now losing its job satisfaction

at the rate it patterns itself after INDUSTRY! Sir George

Stapledon also noted this general change in attitude to work:

 

          "To work WITHOUT INTEREST IN THE FINAL RESULT, or any

FEELING OF LOVE is to be denied the enjoyment of perhaps THE

GREATEST PLEASURE THIS LIFE HAS TO OFFER, and in the fact that

such a high proportion of the workers of the world are denied, or

deny themselves this pleasure is to be found one of the chief

CAUSES OF WIDESPREAD SOCIAL NEUROSIS" ("The Natural Order",

edited by H. Massingham, Faber and Faber, p. 36).

 

THE DISINTEGRATING FAMILY UNIT

 

     Perhaps the most important effect the rural exodus has had

on each of us lies in the sphere of family life and unity:

 

          "There can be little doubt that FAMILY LIFE has

deteriorated in DIRECT proportion as the influence of the FATHER

has WANED. The real trouble began when the man went out to work,

went far from home to work, worked along hours, acquired outside

interests, came home late, came home tired. This is the position

in most homes today. It is essential that the FATHER should

associate himself ACTIVELY with the lives of his CHILDREN. If he

leaves the house early and returns late, his only chance to be an

active parent occurs at the weekend. All too frequently the only

interest of the family in the father is 'THE BREAD', a most

unhealthy state of affairs -- a state of affairs which tends to

make the father lead one kind of social life in one place while

the mother and the children lead ANOTHER kind of life ELSEWHERE

          "... the real point to be faced is that segregation of

the individual from the family, and of the family from the

community, has been carried to dangerous, not to say lethal,

lengths, and it would seem that modern trends accentuate that

segregation ... the size of cities and of over-specialized

industrial undertakings has outgrown their capacity to cater for

the real needs of real human families and of real human

individuals" ("Human Ecology", Sir George Stapledon, p. 113).

 

PRESSURE FROM POLITICIANS

 

     Perhaps the most sickening aspect of the whole matter is

that so FEW WORLD LEADERS and thinkers fully comprehend what this

worldwide migration is doing to HUMAN MINDS and LIVES! Many have

in fact mistakenly spearheaded the drive to push even MORE people

FROM the land:

 

          "The White House takes the view that only 1 million

efficient farmers could produce all U.S. farm needs. Today there

are 3.4 million farmers. Thus according to the White House there

are 2.4 million unneeded farmers" ("U.S. News and World Report",

March 22, 1965, p. 59).

 

     That of course was the view of the Johnson Administration.

But the present agricultural thinkers for President Nixon share

this same general view.

     In Europe, leading EEC planner, Dr. Sicco Mansholt has

similar ideas:

 

          "Mansholt proposed three objectives for West European

farming by 1980: to ACCELERATE the DRIFT from the land, to CHANGE

farm sizes RADICALLY [larger], and to balance out the supply and

demand of farm products. It was argued that farming should be

viewed simply as one among many economic activities RATHER THAN

AS A WAY OF LIFE. Mansholt envisaged that a total agricultural

population of 5 million in THE SIX would be DESIRABLE in 1980.

That would represent ONE QUARTER OF THE 1950 FIGURE of 20 million

which had since fallen to 15 million in 1960 and 10 million in

1970 ... almost HALF of the 1970 total number of farmers ... will

have to DISAPPEAR DURING THE COMING DECADE.

          "Mansholt argued that EVERY EFFORT should be made to

divert the children of farming families AWAY from agriculture to

take up OTHER jobs. A second form of action would involve

encouraging the elderly to leave farming" [presumably to become a

charge against the state's welfare system]. ("Agriculture,

Studies in Contemporary Europe", Hugh D. Clout, Macmillan, 1971,

pp. 55, 56).

 

     Mansholt is now forging ahead with his plans -- apparently

unconcerned that he, like the American planners, is

systematically destroying the very heart of a nations social and

economic foundations. At the same time the policy of the British

Ministry of Agriculture was (and presumably still is) to SOLVE

the economic difficulties of its farming industry by a

Mansholt-like amalgamation of every second farm!

     As we explained in an earlier "Research News", agriculture's

chief purpose is not the production of FOOD, but the production

of PEOPLE. It is designed to be a stable broad-based foundation

of a God designed society and economy.

 

IS THERE A SOLUTION?

 

Instead of driving and forcing more families to LEAVE their rural

environment, (especially when most cities have a pool of

unemployed) even encouragement should be given to REVERSE the

drift to the cities! It will take God to rectify this situation.

Man will NOT do it! But it WILL be done and in the very next few

years!

     Some 3,400 years ago God set up a model society in which

every man received land as his inheritance. Furthermore, God made

it illegal for man to squander it by stating that:

 

          "In the year of jubile [i.e. following seven Sabbatical

Years] the field shall return unto him ... to whom the possession

of the land did belong" (Lev. 27:24).

 

     Soon God will set it up again -- this time not just for

Israelites, but for everyone:

 

          "So shall ye divide this land ... for an inheritance

unto you and unto the strangers that sojourn among you ... YOU

SHALL INHERIT THE LAND ... one as well as another" (Ezek. 47:21,

22, 13, 14)!

 

     Yes, God's laws of LAND INHERITANCE and the JUBILE are to be

reintroduced in the world tomorrow and then "they shall sit every

man under his own vine and under his fig tree; and none shall

make them afraid" (Mic. 4:4).

                                                                               

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

           September-October 1972, Vol. III, Nos. 9-10

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

                FARM MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION

 

          "One look at the boundary gate as you drive up to a farm

property can tell you all you need to know about the manager".

 

     An exaggeration perhaps -- but one that contains more truth

than most of us realize! Often it is not until after you have been

in the market for a farm, or an even larger property that you come

to realise how much can be learned from that FIRST impression.

     It is simple really -- would you expect to approach a MANSION

or a PALACE through a little old twisted-wooden front-gate, hanging

by one hinge and held up at the other end by a loop of used baling

twine over a drunken gatepost?

     On the other hand would you expect to drive through the

gold-decorated gates of Buckingham Palace and come to a tumble-down

SHANTY? The answer to these questions is all too obvious, but these

extremes serve to illustrate that the front entrance to any

property is a good indication of what one can expect on the inside.

     WHY ARE SO MANY FARMS RUN-DOWN? Why do the few keep their

property neat and clean, well painted and in good repair? Why are

so many content to live on a pile of rusting farm machinery, old

tyres, bottles and tins? Why do some plant groves and avenues of

majestic trees, while others live in the shimmering heat of an open

plain? To be a little more personal -- how do you keep your

property?

     In this issue of "Your Living Environment" we want to focus on

some of the more common problems in farm maintenance, construction

and management. We will treat these problems and their solutions as

they have basically affected our own farm here at Ambassador

College, Bricket Wood.

     It is highly significant to the average reader that God

allowed our Department of Agriculture to begin in a run-down

situation and with virtually no money. Few farmers will have any

difficulty relating themselves to that kind of situation! Such

conditions are common-place in all farming communities. And

furthermore, like most farmers we felt we had insufficient acreage.

Some would not regard 4/5,000 acres as "big" but to drop down to

130 can come as quite a shock! It feels like being commissioned to

do a portrait and then learn that your canvas is limited to the

size of a small postage stamp!!

     Of the 130 acres the College owns only 90 can be used for

agricultural purposes. The other 40 is an area that we rent rather

precariously for six months out of every year! Still, call it 130

acres all told.

     Having worked with 1,200 acres of grain, up to 700 head of

cattle and at times 3/4,000 sheep, it was quite a contrast to find

oneself reduced to about 19 cows and calves, three sheep and two

goats!

     The start of the Agriculture Programme in Britain sounds

almost depressing doesn't it? On the contrary, it has always been

a most exciting challenge! Most toughened and seared old farmers

will find that difficult to 'SWALLOW', but bear these points in

mind:

     FIRST, we are looking back now in retrospect.

     SECONDLY, it was easy to overlook the run-down improvements

because it was still evident that the old Hanstead Farm had been a

model of efficiency.

     THIRDLY, it took some time to fully realise how little money

was available to implement the Agriculture Programme. In fact there

was usually PLENTY of money, it was just that the College Business

Manager always had at least ten people with plans to use it!!

     FOURTHLY, the mustard-seed beginning of the Agriculture

Programme was no bother at the time. We all KNEW that God would

provide His College with the land we needed!

     He did too, but there were some things we did NOT realise! He

did NOT provide it when WE wanted it, or as MUCH as WE wanted, or

of the QUALITY WE wanted. Neither did He provide it in the WAY WE

thought it would come.

     When we woke up to the fact that our Father in heaven, (the

RICHEST person in the universe) had given us some of the POOREST

land in England we began to wonder! It left us with two

alternatives:

     FIRST, we could begin to despise God's blessing. SECONDLY, we

could accept it gratefully, knowing that there must be a good

reason behind it. No doubt you hope we were smart enough to choose

the second course. We did and over a period of time THREE important

facts have emerged:

     FIRST, it is not logical to expect God to give even His own

College MORE land until we learn how to use that which we already

have. SECONDLY, if He gave us fertile land we could perpetuate

wrong soil management practices for years before either finding out

our mistakes, or having to admit them. Remember poverty-stricken

soil reveals mistakes in a hurry!

     THIRDLY, had God given us rich soil our successes could be

dismissed with the comment -- anyone could get those results with

land as fertile as that which Ambassador College uses. Such of

course is not the case.

     Now following these general comments on the College farm area,

let us look at some of the areas where improvements have been

carried out.

 

FARM BUILDINGS

 

     In recent years we have formed our own Farm Construction Crew

in The Agriculture Department. This not only makes us less

dependent on certain other College Departments (who are usually

well loaded with work) but it provides many satisfying

job-opportunities. In addition it has put a real prod on some of

our men to go out and seek special training in various trades.

     We have now settled on a general type of building and

construction pattern. We buy in prefabricated wooden buildings in

sections and do the foundations, side erection and roofing with our

own men. Though this may not have proved to be the quickest method

we think it is very economical.

     Much to the amazement of the construction company supplying

the buildings, our crew literally turned them inside out, or to put

it more literally -- OUTSIDE IN! By doing this we end up with a

fully lined wooden building and use the material of our choice on

the outside walls. That which is proving to be most serviceable and

attractive is box-profile galvanized metal sheeting that has been

factory-covered on the outside with a pleasant blue PVC finish.

     All roofing has been done in Big 6 asbestos sheeting.

Guttering and down pipes are also asbestos and each building is set

on 9" x 9" x 18" hollow concrete blocks, resting on excavated

concrete foundations. Where large-stock are housed, the CON-BLOCK

construction is continued to a height of 5'6". This allows for a

build-up of farmyard manure to a depth of 3' during winter, if

desired.

     The type of building described has been used (with appropriate

modifications) as a cattle-barn, hayshed and garden-shed/vegetable

storage unit.

     Tentative plans are now in hand to erect one for poultry and

another for machinery/grain storage, but as yet we do not have

approval for these.

     It has been our experience that lack of trade skills in our

own farm staff is largely offset by the care they take over their

job. This is no substitute for proper qualifications, but their

relatively "unskilled" work has been better than the botched jobs

done by some contractors. They are at least on hand to correct

mistakes when they arise. This can't always be said for

contractors.

     One such disastrous example of this occurred recently on a

contractor-erected building when one of our men fell 18' through an

asbestos roof onto the concrete floor below! His life was spared,

but he suffered major injuries. Close examination revealed that one

end of this particular sheet had never been pushed up far enough

toward the ridge-cap, to be supported by the beam underneath. That

building was erected 15 months ago and in painting the roof

recently, our man fell straight through to the floor.

 

ROAD CONSTRUCTION

 

     In spite of the fact that most of the College Farm is gravelly

land and the total area very small, we have found a great need for

roads. Though the perimeter is fringed with a tar macadam road,

internal roads are needed to service some fields.

     We managed for years with the natural surface, but it always

degenerated into an unsightly mess in winter. This was especially

true around gateways and other points of heavy traffic

concentration.

     Rather than create the usual drainage ditches on either side

of a FORMED road, we used our tractors and trailers to cart in road

base from a neighboring gravel pit. They had plenty of coarse stone

in a clay base to lay down as a solid foundation.

     Preparation of the underlying surface to receive this material

involved shallow ripping or chisel ploughing. Any grass and organic

topsoil was removed to a width of 10' and an average depth of 3 to

4".

     After leveling, a heavy roller was brought in to thoroughly

consolidate the imported material. This preparation work may be

heavy at times and arduous, or even tedious, according to the type

of mechanical equipment available for the job. Regardless of that,

it is worth doing the job well. A solid foundation is there for all

time, but a job half done will continue to give trouble. It will

undermine the surface material for years, regardless of how much

one spends on the FINISH.

     No effort should be spared to produce a smooth even surface on

the base material. In some sections we failed to do this, in our

haste. Our finishing contractor would have done us a favour to have

refused to apply his tar finish to these uneven areas.

     That was the final stage -- spraying with tar and spreading a

light dressing of gravel. The final process was repeated and then

we used the road for one winter. It was our intention to bring the

contractor back for one or two tar and gravel applications.

     Both parties had miscalculated on the speed, weight and

concentration of traffic throughout that winter. It was also wetter

than usual. Base preparation had been good, except for unevenness,

but the surface broke up. Water penetration followed and we managed

to produce a fine CROP of potholes by the end of winter!

     Instead of repairing the potholes and applying finishing coats

of tar and gravel we made a decision to switch to concrete

construction.

     To some, especially overseas readers this will sound like a

very costly move. It is not really, when all the facts are known.

For example the British Ministry of Agriculture makes special

financial grants available for farm-road construction. A grant can

cover as much as 40% of the total cost involved and they are NOT

payable on tarred roads. Presumably the latter have been judged

unsatisfactory for farm use under local conditions.

     In addition to these facts, we had no foundation costs in

building the concrete type roads. These had already been met in the

initial stages of tarred construction. That which remained of the

original road following the tough winter and heavy traffic, formed

an ideal base upon which we poured our concrete.

     The tarred road was crowned in the middle and to save cement

this crown had to be marginally lowered in places. We aimed at a

minimum depth of 3" in the centre and 4" under the wheel tracks. An

inch of side-slope was deemed sufficient to produce the desired

run-off of rain-water.

     Concrete was delivered ready-mixed from a gravel-washing plant

less than a mile away and a large number of channelled steel FORMS

were hired in for the job. The latter are held in position by iron

spikes supplied with the forms.

     Spreading was done with shovels and rakes and tamping with a

spring-mounted small engine on a heavy wooden beam. The desired

rough FATTY finish (for English winter conditions) was produced by

a light hand tamping with a smaller wooden beam.

     Cement was poured in 15' bays, each divided by a 1/2"

expansion joint of heavy CARDBOARD-FELT. During the early part of

this construction the weather was unusually hot and dry, especially

for England. This produced problems of serious cracking as long as

the cement mix was GOING-OFF too quickly. We also made the mistake

of thinking that we could get away with a covering of plastic

sheets. Plastic, as they say is used for everything -- well, this

is one thing it should not be used for, at least under these

particular conditions! We then changed to a hessian covering and

this worked fine as long as our men kept it damped down.

 

STOCK-PROOF FENCING

 

     The world owes much to British agriculture. It has taught man

many things, but it is our considered opinion that FENCE

CONSTRUCTION is NOT one of them! This is a puzzling phenomenon.

Perhaps the reason is the nation's long-standing reliance on hedges

and stone walls. Whatever it is, its destitution of sound fencing

is exceeded only by its deplorable farm-gates!

     Our efforts in this direction have been quite varied and so

too have our successes. Various excuses could be given, but they

are unimportant. That which we have learned is what might be of

interest to the reader.

     The Yule estate had been fenced in the context of horse-stud

management. Though unsuited to the needs of Ambassador Agriculture

Programme it has been economically inadvisable to replace many of

these old fences. Some readers will be a trifle shocked to learn

the dimensions of the standard Yule fence; 52" high, 3 softwood

rails of 4" x 1 1/2" and the bottom rail 6" apart. The general

impression of such fencing is one of either luxury or extravagance,

according to your own personal viewpoint.

     The great weaknesses of this fencing design are, (apart from

the enormous cost) that the bottom rail is at least 5" too close to

the ground and the top one is 6" higher than necessary for cattle.

Both of these weaknesses combine to create too much space above and

below the middle rail. Young calves slip through the lower space

and adult cattle put their heads through the top. There is an old

saying that where an animal can get his head the rest will follow.

The number of rails our men have replaced over the years would seem

to prove this point.

     Cracking has always been a traditional problem with concrete

fence posts and in this direction our breakages were greatly

increased by the unduly large spaces between the rails, as

mentioned above.

 

STEEL FENCING MATERIALS

 

     Available fencing materials in iron vary greatly from one

country to another, so one has to become familiar with whatever is

available.

     Unlike some other areas, iron posts seem to rather unpopular

in Britain. This is at least partly due to the corrosive nature of

British climatic conditions, but also inferior L-shaped design. The

star-post, available overseas, has much more strength and length of

life.

     Barbed-wire seems to be something that is almost abhorred by

British agriculture because of its dangerous potential to cut and

tear. But it seldom produces bad results if each strain is at least

four to five chains long, kept in good repair and under high

tension. It is not fair to assess barbed-wire as dangerous if one

stretches it by hand between a few half-rotten spindly stakes!

Barbed-wire in a slack and collapsing old fence is a definite stock

hazard and has NO place on ANY farm!

     One of the most economical fences that is proof against all

stock -- sheep, cattle and horses is what is variously called

"hinged joint", "ringlock" or "woven wire". With two BARBES on top,

this fence is almost man-proof as well as stock-proof! It is not

only effective, but quick to erect if you have the necessary wire-

straining equipment. Though it is HORSE-PROOF it should NOT be used

around horses, because they can never resist the temptation to paw

it with their hooves. This destroys the fabricated structure of the

wire-mesh and injures the horses.

 

ELECTRIC FENCES

 

     Electric fences come more within the field of animal

husbandry, but we must mention them in this article because we have

depended on them so much. TO US they have been invaluable -- once

the animals have been trained to respect them. Therefore MEN

ultimately determine its effectiveness. (The OPERATOR may need more

training than the livestock).

     We have had some experience with both BATTERY and MAINS

electricity. There is certainly a place for the battery operated

fence, but our best results have been with electric power from the

mains supply. It may only be that it is less subject to OPERATOR

failure rather than battery failure. We have installed many

hundreds of yards of permanent mains fencing. It can be made to

look very neat. Our wire for example is supported between

white-painted 2 x 2" posts at 15 yard intervals. So far it has not

been used on sheep, but we are going to try running a double wire

for them. Here again success may require training animals to

respect the electrified wire within the confines of a regular

fence.

     On one farm we have seen, portable electric fencing has even

been moderately successful with free-range poultry.

 

PLASTIC FENCES

 

     Another product that appears to be successful as a mobile

fence for sheep and poultry is an electrified plastic fence of

hinge-joint pattern. It appeared to be working very well with ewes

and lambs on the Wiltshire Downs and if it will contain some of the

British breeds it needs no further recommendation.

     Locally produced plastic-covered chain-link fencing wire is a

very attractive proposition until one hears the price, but at times

the additional expense may be worthwhile.

     Plastic-covered wire may raise a smile with readers in some

countries where conditions are very different to those existing in

Britain. However it makes more sense under some extreme conditions

than the writer realized. At a recent Hill-farm open day near the

Manchester industrial complex one of our guides said the farm

receives a 1/4 ton of atmospheric pollution PER ACRE PER YEAR!

Galvanized-wire fence in that area lasts about THREE years!! Under

such conditions plastic-coated wire may be the ONLY acceptable form

of iron fence.

 

NETTING

 

     Only in our Poultry Section have we found it necessary to use

wire-netting. 6' wide x 19 guage was used, but it is much too light

and is rusting rapidly after only THREE years. In conjunction with

steel posts, it retains the birds and excludes foxes. Netting, 5'

6" high does not guarantee protection, but it has kept them out

during daylight and we lock the birds away overnight.

 

HEDGES

 

     Correctly managed hedges can be an acceptable stock barrier.

We think most hedges are kept too low. If allowed to go up to 10'

or 20' high, they would offer far more protection for animals and

pastures in both winter and summer. Two of the arguments used

against this are FIRST -- the base thins out to where it is no

longer stock-proof and SECONDLY -- shading lowers overall

production of adjacent farmland.

     Figures have been produced in a number of countries to dispute

the latter claim and, to say the least, the former point (thinning

out) is open to discussion. Even if some do lose their bottom

density, the advantages of height may justify a single-strand

electric fence on one side of the hedge.

 

WOODEN RAILS

 

     Where appearance is paramount and expense can be justified, a

white-painted wooden fence is, in our opinion, best of all. Where

the farm fields and the college campus meet, we have settled for

this type of fence. Its dimensions are as follows: 46" high, 3

softwood rails of 6" x 1 1/2", the bottom rail 10" above ground

level. Between the top and middle rail is theoretically 8". In

practice the latter is nearer 9", (6" rails are NEVER 6").

     The ratio of space to solid timber between ground level and

the top of this fence gives it a solid and substantial appearance.

Big stock can't get their heads through it and quiet cattle won't

go over it. Keeping stock fences to minimum height is economic in

construction and reduces the tendency to lean over or be pushed

over, with advancing age. This is especially true on undulating or

hilly land and all too common in cattle yards. (Many a 6' 6" or

even 6' cattle yard has been pushed over years before its time,

when one of 5' 2" would have remained upright).

 

STAYING, BRACING, OR STRUTTING

 

     When it comes to staying or strutting straining posts and any

others in need of bracing against the pull of wire under tension,

there is a long history of argument in many countries. The system

used and its method of application have both been the subject of

many heated discussions by stock men everywhere.

     Some say the best method is the commonly used STRUT with one

end let into the ground beside the fence and the other end running

up at an angle toward the upper part of the post, bracing it

against the direction of pull by the fence wires. Others go for

bracing and counter-bracing with twisted wire-ropes. Still others

manage with a cap-rail from the straining post to the first regular

post in the fence-line and a single wire-rope from the top of this

post back to ground level on the straining post.

     We feel that most of these systems can be successful if

properly employed and at times local circumstances may determine

which is best to use. The first we mentioned is the most common and

perhaps the simplest of all, but there must be at least 500

variations of what should be one very straight-forward procedure.

The bracing of straining posts is as good an indication as any that

farmers are the same the world over. 80% of their efforts become

ineffective in the first five years of the life of a new fence and

believe it or not, some are counter-productive from the start!

     THREE main problems occur in the angled-strut method of

bracing posts. FIRST is that the strut itself is too SMALL, and the

timber too YOUNG. It decays years ahead of the rest of the fence.

The SECOND is at the end let into the ground. It must have some

kind of base plate behind it that is considerably larger than the

diameter of the strut itself. This can be metal, (in the form of an

old cultivation disc e.g.) or a large flat stone, or even concrete.

Without one of these, or something similar the straining post under

pressure will force the bracing rail to move in the soil and at

least all the top wires will lose their tension.

     The THIRD trouble-spot is the point at which the strut meets

the side of the straining post. Here there can be at least TWO

problems. ONE is the method of securing the strut to the post. Some

don't bother, they just lean it against the post and hope for the

best! Some drive a large nail through the end of the rail and into

the post and don't even hope for the best! Others at least take a

couple of rough axe cuts out of the side of the post and rest the

top end of the strut in the axe cut. These and many other

variations are almost equally ineffective in the long-run.

     The best method we have seen takes a little longer, but it

will outlast the life of any strut. One simply squares the top-end

of the rail, preferably with an adze. Then bore and chisel an

equivalent hole in the side of the straining post, (immediately

below the appropriate wire) thus producing a mortise and tenon

joint. Drive the mortise into the tenon and then force the other

end into a shallow hole in the ground in front of a tight-fitting

base-plate. All angles, on the mortise and tenon can be cut so that

no water runs into the joint, or a piece of galvanized sheet metal

may be nailed on the top side to run the rain off.

     The other problem is the most contentious of all -- the height

above the ground at which the strut meets the side of the post.

This point must not be TOO high, or TOO low, but in getting it just

right there are two factors to be taken into account. One is the

LENGTH of the strut and the other is the ANGLE at which it meets

the post. (If this begins to sound complicated to those who have

never erected a fence, be assured, that it is not so. The whole

thing is babyishly simple, though few get it right and many

disagree.)

     If the length of the strut and the contact point on the

straining post produce an angle underneath the mortise joint of

less than 45ø, trouble may occur. If this angle is decreased to

something of the order of 30ø, the strut will in time actually lift

the biggest straining post right out of the ground, just like a

hydraulic jack! The more TENSION is applied to the fence wires the

more LIFTING power is increased, even on a post that is below three

feet in the ground and well rammed!

     If the point of contact between the POST and the STRUT is too

LOW, the base of the post will tend to move and under extreme

conditions the wires will pull the post over the top of the strut.

To say the least they will both become unstable and be easily

pushed out of line. Whatever happens when any of these systems go

wrong, the end result is ALWAYS loss of tension on the fencing

wires. Then stock quickly begin to demolish even the best of wire

fences.

     Our reason for leaning so heavily on this aspect of our

subject is that MORE fences have been destroyed through incorrect

bracing than by atmospheric pollution, wild and unruly animals, old

age and all the other causes put together!

 

GATES

 

     Regarding gates -- both TIMBER and METAL have their strong

points. Metal may last longer, but wooden ones may be easier to

repair. As to appearance, opinions are quite divided. Gates of

wooden construction tend to be heavier and sag more often. Some

don't like to hang any gates on the same posts that have the

tension of the fencing wires on them. If the gate is kept closed at

most times and hangs in the same line as the fence, its weight will

exert a small and constant balancing effect against the tension of

the wires. This will tend to take some of the load off the

base-plate of the strut.

     Where one is not confident about the effectiveness of the post

bracing, it is probably better to hang the gate on a separate post

placed next to the straining post and fortify with concrete.

Otherwise the gate will need repeated leveling to counter the

movements of the fence straining post under pressure. (These are

adjustments that few people ever get around to and so it is best to

avoid the mistakes in the first place.)

     When gates go out of alignment the catches cease to work, they

no longer swing properly, they look awful and everyone hates them

EXCEPT their owner! He always exhibits a remarkable capacity to

live with the appearance and inconvenience of his OWN gates. They

are like pets and children -- your OWN are fine, but those of OTHER

people are hardly bearable.

     Regardless of how we may excuse our own shortcomings -- other

people DON'T and the condition of those gates will tell the visitor

all he needs to know about your farm and much more BEFORE he so

much as sets foot on your land. Farm CONSTRUCTION and MAINTENANCE

is one of the agriculturalist's biggest weaknesses. To the mind of

a city-dweller, a farm stead is synonymous with UNPAINTED, SHODDY,

'QUAINT' BUILDINGS, CREAKY GATES, SAGGING FENCES, RUSTING MACHINERY

and UNCUT WEEDS with a few chickens, pigs and geese scattered about

to make the tangle more interesting. No wonder that the bulk of our

population has a perverted idea of the rural environment. Most of

them have never seen a right one!

     Farming cannot and will not rise to its God intended level of

importance until MAJOR positive changes take place in the standards

of farm stead appearance.

     We should all watch our maintenance and construction and don't

let it condemn us in the eyes of God or other people.

     Meanwhile this Department of Ambassador College intends to

continue research into farm fences and other construction so that

we may make further recommendations in the future to all who are

interested.

                                                                              

 

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

          November-December 1972, Vol. III, Nos. 11-12

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

          ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AT AMBASSADOR COLLEGE

 

          "If you live by my rules and follow my orders

obediently, I will give you rain in due season, the land shall

bear its crops, the trees shall bear their fruit; your threshing

shall last till the time for vintage and your vintage shall last

till the time for sowing, ... you shall have to clear out the old

to make room for new supplies" (Lev. 26:3-5,10 Moffat).

 

     This is hardly what is happening to mankind today, despite

all the recent "ADVANTAGES" of modern agriculture. Every one of

us owes our very existence to the Almighty Creator God who made

this promise. Then WHY is He not blessing us as He PROMISED?

Could it be that we are not obeying the "RULES"? Could it also be

that with the passing of generations we have even lost knowledge

of many of the "RULES"?

     One has only to read on in Lev. 26, Deut. 28 and many other

places in God's Word to see law-breaking is the cause of our

punishments and that worse is to come! Then it is vital that we

RE-CAPTURE TRUE VALUES in ALL areas of life, including

AGRICULTURE and ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. That is precisely the

role of this Department (apart from growing whatever food we can

for the College).

     Regaining knowledge however, is of no value unless we can do

something with it. That's why we have been publishing material

like this for some three years -- to make our findings available

to those who are interested.

     That is also why we operate a letter-answering service to

people in more than 30 countries, from Norway to New Zealand and

from Tonga to Togoland.

     Our research is based on the Bible and extends to any part

of the world where information on Agriculture is published in the

English language.

     Occasionally we even have people translating for us or

interpreting in personal interviews.

     Over and above all of this, there are still certain things

we can do in practice right here on the College farm. With this

in mind we have set up an Experimental Section where we can carry

out various field trials. In this combined issue we want to give

you some idea of the programme we have been carrying out. At the

same time we will also give you some of the reasons why we feel

it was worthwhile to carry out these trials.

 

FERTILISING VEGETABLES

 

     High fertility soil will grow healthier and more nutritious

vegetables. Home gardeners want this, but what is the best way of

achieving it?

     For several years we have been investigating methods of

improving soil in our Vegetable Section. There is still much room

for improvement, but considerable progress has been made and now

we have a soil vastly superior to that with which we started.

     While still pushing ahead with development of the Vegetable

Section we have now started a trial in our new Experimental

Section to compare various organic manures.

     The comparisons are between:

          1. WELL ROTTED COW-DUNG

          2. FRESH COW-DUNG

          3. COMPOST

          4. STRAW

          5. HYDIG (dried sewage sludge)

          6. CONTROL PLOT

          7. GREEN MANURE

 

     Immediately after germination, differences between

treatments became apparent. The COMPOSTED area quickly showed up

with the most prolific growth. The OLD-DUNG plot was the next

best early performer, followed by the HYDIG, NEW-DUNG, CONTROL

and STRAW. (We have no results from Plot No. 7, because it was

raising its own green-manure crop in the first year.)

     There was a marked difference between the OLD-ROTTED DUNG

and the area manured with FRESH DUNG. This difference remained

for the whole season, although the final yield was not affected.

Obviously as the season progresses "FRESH" dung rots down and

becomes indistinguishable from "OLD" dung. Our results indicate

that although fresh dung retarded early growth this may be

unimportant to eventual yield.

     COMPOST gave better yields than any other plot, but the

trial needs to go on for several years so that cumulative effects

can be fully observed and assessed. At present, for example, the

area under straw is at a disadvantage because there has not yet

been a chance for earthworm activity to reach its full

development underneath the straw.

     As mentioned earlier, we planted a selection of vegetables

across these SEVEN soil fertility trial plots. Not all species of

vegetables responded in the same way. These results amply

demonstrated the wisdom of planting a SELECTION, but at the same

time this variation in response complicated the task of assessing

results.

     It is much too early to draw final or even firm conclusions

at this stage. And it must be remembered that the soil fertility

system of highest value is the one that proves its value in the

LONG-TERM! Future years should prove interesting.

 

DEPTH OF SOWING

 

     John Hepburn, in his book "Crop Production, Poisoned Food

and Public Health", wrote a chapter on depth of sowing cereal

grains. He points out that it affects the plant in THREE ways,

stating that deep-sown crops are more prone to:

 

     1. Lodging

     2. Drought

     3. Wireworm attack

 

     He produces some very convincing photographs in support of

his theory that the conditions surrounding root development

induce these problems. These show root development at various

stages of plant growth.

 

OUR TRIAL

 

     It was decided that his experiments were of sufficient

interest for us to set up a small trial to investigate the

effects of sowing depths on wheat as a check on Hepburn's

findings.

     On April 28th, 1971 FOUR plots of Janus spring wheat were

sown. The four depths that we selected were:

 

     1. Surface sown (not part of Hepburn's trial)

     2. 1/2"

     3. 1 1/2"

     4. 4"

 

     Emergence of the seedlings occurred within the following

times:

 

     1. Surface sown -- indefinite

     2. 1/2" -- 8 days

     3. 1 1/2" -- 10 days

     4. 4" -- 12 days

 

     Although the trial was protected from birds, only a few of

the SURFACE-SOWN seeds germinated. Many of the 4" PLANTS failed

to emerge because of stones causing the emerging shoots to turn

over. This reduced the eventual germination on this plot by

approximately 30%.

     Photographs were taken at 30, 42, 57 and 89 days. These show

the pattern of root development much the same as Hepburn

describes it, but in more detail.

     Delayed development of primary plots can be clearly seen in

plants in the 4" PLOT. These roots never did develop to the

extent of the shallower plants so the latter SHOULD have more

resistance to lodging.

     SURFACE-SOWN plants were also slow in developing their roots

and never did develop really strong roots.

 

ROOT DEVELOPMENT AT 30 DAYS

 

(NOTE: To view a photograph showing root development at 30 days,

see the file 721145a.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)

 

     Between those planted at 1/2" and 1 1/2" there is little to

choose. The plants in the SHALLOWER plots had a stronger stem in

the first 8 weeks of growth than did the 4" plot, but under the

conditions of the trial this was unimportant. (Though it could be

MOST significant in field conditions.)

 

ROOT & STEM DEVELOPMENT AT 42 DAYS

 

(NOTE: To view a photograph showing root development at 42 days,

see the file 721145b.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)

 

     Follow-up trials may be done in a GREENHOUSE to simulate

drought conditions. This way we could test the theory that

SHALLOW sowing gives better drought resistance.

     Pest resistance will be more difficult to test, but it could

be done in an area where wireworm was a problem, or by

introducing wireworm to special boxes.

 

TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS

     From the evidence of root development that we have got so

far, it appears far preferable to plant between 1/2" and 1 1/2".

These SHALLOW-SOWN plants were in no way inferior to either the

SURFACE-SOWN or the DEEP-SOWN (4") plants and their vigour was

obviously superior. Root development was not only faster, but

always remained more substantial.

     In addition, less plants will emerge from greater depth,

especially in stony soils. This would imply a need for a heavier

seeding rate under such conditions, if DEEP seeding is desired.

     The primary roots are going to develop just below the

surface, no matter what depth of sowing is chosen. It would

therefore appear that the only likely advantage for DEEP sowing

would be to germinate seeds when the top layers of soil are

completely dry. In all other cases sowing at 1/2" to 1 1/2"

should give the best results. Despite any early advantages during

the growing season it is recorded by others that yields are not

significantly affected.

     (We would appreciate any experiences that readers may have

had with sowing cereals at various depths which show any

conclusive advantages of either DEEP or SHALLOW sowing.)

 

EFFECT OF RUMINANT DIGESTION ON SEEDS

 

     "Your Living Environment", Vol. I No. 11 carried an article

on the effect of animal dung on plant growth and development.

Vol. II Nos. 1 & 2 also referred to the role of ruminant

digestion and its effects on seeds.

     As a result of the above research we set out to look for any

observable EFFECTS of ruminant digestion on seed germination and

subsequent growth. We therefore thought a field trial would

demonstrate some of the concepts set out in these earlier issues

of the Research News.

     Early in April, 1972 a small trial was set up using Italian

ryegrass and White Clover seed. Two cows were isolated from the

rest of the herd and put onto a controlled seed-free diet for

several days. At the end of this time we added a certain amount

of ryegrass and clover seed to their rations.

     In due course dung from the animals was collected. It

contained some of the seeds previously fed to the cows. Together

with some of the manure they were then sown into a weed-free area

in early May. Two other plots were established alongside -- both

with the same basic seed mixture as that in the cow manure

(Italian ryegrass and White Clover). One plot was treated with an

application of fresh cow manure. The other had no contact with

manure at all. Thus we had three treatments:

 

     COW MANURE SEED TRIAL PLOTS

 

     1. Cow manure containing seed mixture.

     2. Seed sown with fresh manure.

     3. Seed sown without any manure. (Control)

 

     The treatments were left to germinate while we eagerly

awaited the results. All three germinated at approximately the

same time, but the area which had been treated with FRESH MANURE,

(Plot No. 2) had caked hard and so needed watering and loosening

to allow the sample seedlings to emerge.

     During the subsequent weeks, a marked difference developed

between the three. The two plots sown WITH MANURE, (Nos. 1 & 2)

were much lusher and farther advanced. Nothing surprising in this

of course. However, towards the end of the growing season, plants

from the seeds that had passed through the ruminant digestive

tract produced a much higher yield of seed heads than either of

the other two plots (Nos. 2 & 3)!

 

FUTURE OF THE TRIAL

 

     The growth pattern of plots 2 and 3 was so different to No.

1 that it has held us back a year. Why? Because plots Nos. 2 and

3 set so LITTLE seed!

     The reader will appreciate that it was, (and still is) our

intention to sow the second generation seed into the same

environment as the first, to observe any noticeable compounding

effects of these environments.

     You can see how the trial can become more interesting as

time goes on. Ultimately we should be able to demonstrate some

visual genetic changes by the simple process of cross-planting

the three plots.

     There is much evidence to show that environment can alter

genetic characteristics. We know this already. The long-term aim

of this experiment is to demonstrate these effects that ruminant

digestive tracts may have on seeds.

     About this time you might be asking yourself WHY we would

expect any EFFECTS on seeds passing through the system of a sheep

or a cow.

     We have asked ourselves -- if the digestive tract doesn't

have any effect on these seeds, why did God design the animals so

that a percentage of seeds pass through them? (In God's designing

there seems to be purpose in everything).

     In concluding the comments on this particular trial -- may

we take you back to what was stated in Vol. I No. 11? It is well

known that DUNG-PATS produce the most luxuriant plant growth in

any field and that the animals avoid grazing these plants. These

are SUPERIOR PLANTS because they are grown in a fertile

environment. If a pasture re-seeded itself over many years with

only the seeds produced in this manner, we believe that changes

in HEALTH, VIGOUR and PRODUCTIVITY of grazing land might be quite

revolutionary!

     Such changes would dramatically highlight the role of God's

commanded SABBATICAL YEAR and the emphasis it gives to

LIVESTOCK-BASED agriculture.

     It will be sometime before we get accurate information on

the final genetic effects of ruminant digestion on seeds, but we

thought you would be interested in our observations so far.

 

PASTURE GRASS TRIALS

 

     In August, 1971 we initiated a trial to compare the

suitability of growing various pasture legumes, (clovers mainly)

and grasses on our land here at Bricket Wood. (You may know

already that the College is situated on a somewhat naturally

unproductive area of Hertfordshire gravel -- a fact that is

forcefully demonstrated by the existence of TWO commercial gravel

pits adjacent to the boundary of our property.)

     A total of 46 plots were laid out, each being roughly 10' x

6'. Into these was sown the following pasture grasses and

legumes, separately and in combinations:

 

     GRASSES

          Cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata)

          Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium perenne)

          Phalaris tuberosa (Imported Aust. seed)

          Tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea)

          Timothy (Phleum pratense)

 

     LEGUMES

          Alsike clover (Trifolium hybridum)

          Subterranean clover (Imported Aust. Mt. Barker variety)

          White clover (Trifolium repens)

 

     The plots were arranged at random and the species

duplicated, to ensure that the results obtained would be

consistent.

 

(NOTE: To view a chart titled "Pasture Grass and Legume

Trials: Layout of Plots", see the file 721147.TIF in the Images\Ag

directory.)

 

     August sowing proved very suitable for all varieties except

Lucerne, but it may have been affected by sowing techniques. It

was decided to replant the Lucerne at a later date as the poor

germination would not have given worth-while results.

     By mid-summer this year, the remaining plots were well

established and it was decided to go ahead with some provisional

measurements.

 

PURPOSE AND METHODS

 

     As stated earlier, we wanted to try a number of new pasture

species which might be more suitable than those on which we have

been relying. However, planting down whole fields to new

varieties and doing a full-scale grazing trial is far too

extensive for our Research Programme at this stage.

     On the other hand, planting down small nursery plots would

not show how the new types stand up to grazing. We therefore

adopted a compromise solution -- 10' x 6' plots. Although too

small to be grazed individually, we were able to graze them all

in one block and observe the results.

     Before turning cows in to graze, cuts were taken by hand

from each plot. These cuts were then dried and weighed to

determine total dry weight production from each variety, species

and combination. When used in conjunction with the known

digestibility for each species, this gives us a good estimate of

productivity of each species and variety on OUR land and in OUR

environment.

     The remainder of the plots could be cut after this, but we

prefer to graze them. There are two reasons for this. FIRST, the

ultimate purpose of our pasture is GRAZING, NOT CUTTING and there

is some evidence to suggest that certain species react very

differently to grazing than to cutting (see e.g. "Grass

Productivity" by Voisin, p.2).

     Opening the plots to grazing enables us to evaluate the

productivity of each species and variety, under a grazing

situation and not simply in the artificial environment of mown

plots.

     The SECOND reason is to get some gauge of palatability.

Unlike mowers, ANIMALS show persistent preferences for certain

species and many years of careful plant breeding have often been

lost when the end result of MOWN trials has been submitted to the

ultimate test. GRAZING ANIMALS are the ultimate test! Sooner or

later the results of EVERY pasture trial must be submitted for

their approval.

     By using grazing techniques in the first instance, we not

only avoid this problem, but can also make some estimate of the

animals' PREFERENCE for different varieties. (This is vitally

important, because God has made cows, as a general rule,

instinctively better judges of their own nutritional needs than

men are.)

 

RESULTS

 

     Just by looking at the overall growth, Cocksfoot and Tall

Fescue were by far the most advanced of all the grasses sown. Of

the legumes, Australian Subterranean clover looked very

promising. Accurate dry matter weighings verified our

observations, although there was very little to choose between

the Subterranean clover and White clover stands. Of all the

mixtures, Sub. clover/Tall fescue came out well ahead.

     Subterranean clover has given very good results in the first

year, which makes us think that it may have a permanent place in

this country. It will be interesting to see how well it

germinates again next year. The biggest problem with this plant

here, may be the difficulty of re-seeding itself. (Even if

succeeding germinations are poor, there may still be a place for

this legume on short rotation leys, if it can regularly produce

very good yields.)

     Our trial will be continued for many years to test the

persistence of all these species and provide a comparison with

the other pastures on the College farm. It is envisioned that

other varieties will be added to the area as they become

available.

     From this trial we can constantly evaluate the potential of

new species under our conditions, BEFORE introducing them into

our pastures.

 

WHEAT BREEDING TRIAL

 

     In a previous issue of "Your Living Environment" (Vol. III,

No. 7), we asked the question -- WILL A VERY FERTILE SOIL PRODUCE

BETTER SEEDS THAN A LOW FERTILITY SOIL? IF SO, DOES THE EFFECT

LAST OVER SEVERAL GENERATIONS?"

     The approach of our Department, (contrary to geneticists and

plant breeders) has for some time been that the breeding of

plants is VERY MUCH affected by the environment in which they are

grown. It is well known that HARDNESS in wheat is primarily

dependent on the genetic potential of the parent seed. But does

this mean that the environment has NO influence on genetic

characteristics?

     The underlying principle involved behind this question is a

very fundamental one, and differing views have been the subject

of many heated debates among scientists.

     In 1971, we set out to try to demonstrate that environment

DOES influence genetic characteristics, because much evidence

exists to prove this.

     We chose the characteristic of HARDNESS" in wheat as our

yardstick, comparing a HARD (i.e. high protein) wheat with a SOFT

(i.e. low protein) wheat. Our aim was to discover whether SOFT

wheat, bred for successive generations on FERTILE ground,

developed a greater genetic potential for HARDNESS than the same

variety grown on LOW fertility soil. And similarly, whether the

HARD wheat grown on infertile soil developed a genetic potential

for softness.

 

PROGRESS IN 1971

 

     We laid out the trial in an area which had a fertile soil

adjacent to a low fertility soil and arranged three areas:

 

     1. A high fertility section

     2. A low fertility section

     3. What we termed a medium fertility section, where we used

inorganic fertilizers.

 

     In addition, the top two inches of soil were removed from

both the LOW and MEDIUM fertility sections and spread on the HIGH

fertility plot. This topsoil included most of the organic matter.

     After cultivation, each of the above sections were divided

into four sub-plots, into which TWO varieties were sown (one soft

and one hard) at the same time duplicating each variety.

 

(NOTE: To view a chart titled "Diagram of Wheat Breeding Trial",

see the file 721148.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)

 

     In spite of several initial obstacles due to late planning,

a reasonable crop resulted. But the most disastrous event was the

bird invasion which took nearly the whole crop just as it

ripened!!

     However we managed to save enough seed to get a visual

comparison. This showed the effect of treatments to be exactly as

anticipated.

 

PROGRESS IN 1972

 

     The procedure was repeated this year, using new varieties,

since we had retrieved too little seed for sowing from the

previous year's crop. Unfortunately we were not able to get two

spring varieties, and so had to employ a SPRING HARD WHEAT and a

WINTER SOFT WHEAT, sowing both of them in early April. Yet

despite the late start, we managed to obtain sufficient seed to

confirm the previous year's observations.

     The MEDIUM fertility plot, however, did give us a brain

teaser! There didn't appear to be much difference between the

seed from this plot and that from the HIGH fertility plot.

     It will be interesting to see any developments in the future

between these two.

     The plan now is to continue with this experiment, keeping

the seed each year. By sowing the same seed back in the same area

each year, any adaptation to the various environments should

gradually take place.

     The final test will be to cross-plant the seeds over the

various fertility levels to see the extent to which they have

departed genetically. At the same time, the quality of the

resultant seed will give us an idea of just how much the

environment -- given time -- can influence the genetic

characteristic of hardness. Such conclusions would be

revolutionary to plant genetics!

 

WHY ALL THIS EFFORT

 

     These are just some of the trials that are now under way in

The Department of Agriculture at Ambassador College, Bricket

Wood, and others will be added in the future.

     All of this activity is helping us to recapture some of the

"TRUE VALUES" we speak of so frequently. At the same time it is

equipping us to explain the "RULES" of our God-given environment

to YOU and to THE WORLD, through classes, letters, leaflets,

booklets, the magazine, etc.

     It is helping this Department to play its part in "FEEDING

THE FLOCK". It is acknowledged that we all need guidance in the

areas of child-rearing, marriage, finance, etc., but is it not

equally necessary for us to learn the truth about managing the

broader aspects of our environment?

     An ecologist is one who understands the relationship and

inter-dependence of each part of his environment. In effect, do

we not all need to become ecologists?

     One author put it this way:

 

          "Unless the general citizenry catch an understanding of

the whole scene of which they are part, they will not be fitted

to participate in a solution of their own problems" ("Deserts on

the March", p. 164, Paul Sears).

 

     In his Degree Ceremony address at Melbourne University,

1971, R. F. Downes stated:

 

          "You should be able to continue with your own

self-education, not just for a few years, but throughout the

whole of your career. Furthermore, you should not be content just

to restrict yourself to learning more and more about the

particular field in which you have been specially trained.

          "I am convinced that the educated people; who will be

MOST USEFUL TO SOCIETY IN THE FUTURE will be those who are

broadly enough educated to understand the languages of many

disciplines, so that they can acquire sufficient knowledge of

them to participate in an INTEGRATED approach to the problem of

man in his environment" ("Journal of Aust. Institute of

Agricultural Science", June 1971, p. 166).

 

     Does this BROAD-BASED APPROACH to education sound like

Ambassador College? Does the LIFE-LONG EDUCATION PROCESS sound

like Mr. Armstrong? Does MAN'S NEED TO THINK CLEARLY RELATIVE TO

HIS ENVIRONMENT remind you of what has been continually

emphasised in "Your Living Environment" throughout the past three

years?

     It has been our aim not only to inform you on what. We are

LEARNING and tell you what we are DOING, but also to stimulate

you to seek added environmental knowledge on your own.

     It is our hope that The Department of Agriculture and those

whom it serves may continue together toward a better

understanding of God's wonderful and inspiring creation!

                                                                              

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                    June 1973, Vol. IV, No. 1

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

                   DON'T BOYCOTT QUALITY FOOD!

 

     Famine stalks the earth and thousands die daily -- yet in

most nations, farmers are fleeing the land to avoid bankruptcy!

What a crazy, illogical situation for this world to be in! What

is wrong with agriculture? Why can't farmers MAKE ENDS MEET in a

world crying out for more FOOD? Is it just a problem of

mal-distribution of produce to CONSUMERS and income to PRODUCERS?

     In this issue of "Your Living Environment" we want to look

at some of the problems these two population groups are bringing

on themselves and upon each other. At the same time, as we are

all either FOOD PRODUCERS or CONSUMERS, it will help to point out

ways in which both groups can live more abundantly.

 

Our Food System

 

     Most CONSUMERS are part of the vast majority who exist on

LOW-QUALITY, MASS-PRODUCED food, bought at the LOWEST price

possible!

     Those connected with QUALITY food are in such a minority

that for the moment in this article we need consider only the

MASS of consumers and those who produce the CHEAP food for them.

     The relationship between the great mass of CONSUMERS and

PRODUCERS is usually explained via ECONOMICS, but the root of

this matter is mentally and educationally based, rather than

economic.

     No one seems to know which came first -- the farmers' NEED

to cut corners and produce CHEAP food, or CONSUMERS' need to cut

corners and buy only the cheapest mass-produced article. This

must be one of the most VICIOUS CIRCLES ever to arise out of the

Industrial Revolution. Both PRODUCER and CONSUMER are myopically

locked in what could be a death-struggle! While each party

struggles for economic advantage they appear to be oblivious to

their mutual DEPENDENCE on one another, but worse than that,

their influence on each other is mutually DESTRUCTIVE!

     Economic pressure from CONSUMERS drives individual PRODUCERS

to run faster on their treadmill, yet the more they collectively

produce, the lower their unit market price falls: e.g. the

European butter "MOUNTAIN"! That means they must run even faster

and the longer they survive the more they stress their

environment! How long can it go on?

     The CONSUMER, on the other hand feels that he is caught in a

PRODUCER-BACKED food price-spiral. If he is, it is not of the

farmers' making. Any farmer will tell you that as much as he

would like it to be otherwise -- the price of food is set by

CONSUMERS! If it were different, few farmers and their families

would ever join the historic population drift to the cities.

     CONSUMERS are caught-up in a system. We help generate our

own higher food prices by crowding together into ever larger

cities! This results in longer lines of TRANSPORTATION, which in

turn encourages more PROCESSING, PACKAGING and PRESERVATION of

food for increased shelf-life.

     All these factors inflate the final cost that must be borne

either by PRODUCERS or CONSUMERS. It takes PEOPLE to provide them

and if that's what we want, we must be prepared to reward those

from whom we demand service.

     These cost factors will loom ever larger in food economics,

just as long as our life-style continues on its present course of

centralization and urban concentration!

 

Let's Get Our Priorities Straight

 

     As stated earlier, the basic problem is in the mind, not the

pocket book! We will come to PRODUCERS a little later, but right

now ask yourself the question -- do CONSUMERS buy low-priced

low-quality food because they can't AFFORD that which costs more?

In all too many cases the answer is NO! Cutting down on QUANTITY

or QUALITY does not necessarily mean they can't afford it. People

do this even while receiving pay rises.

     The recent international storm over beef prices is a good

example. Pressure groups have been active in Britain and the U.S.

to boycott beef. On the surface it would appear that any such

cause deserves only sympathy, but there are a few questions we

might ask first:

     1. When was there ever a more rapid rise in British wages

and salaries than in the months prior to the BEEF BOOM?

     2. How much of these rises found their way into the pocket

of the meat producer -- except in the form of increased

production costs?

     3. When was the last organized boycott and massive press

campaign against the rising cost of beer, wine, spirits and

cigarettes?

     4. Has the rise in food prices triggered off a fall in the

public's consumption of the above items?

     5. Has the rise in food prices dropped the sale of cars, TV,

pop-records, or transistors?

     6. Have there been any reports of a recent falling off in

the national expenditure of gaming, betting, pools, lotteries, or

bingo?

     No doubt rising food prices cause very real hardships with

people on fixed incomes. Many of the rest of us also feel trapped

as part of a vicious system, but we must admit that some of our

troubles are self-inflicted. There is a great need to get our

priorities straight -- before cutting our level of nutrition by

boycotting beef or any other food.

 

Don't Sacrifice FOOD QUALITY!

 

     The world is not about to follow Ambassador College but it

is our job to make God's basic principles known. And even among

members, some will be able to apply them more than others, but as

either PRODUCERS, or CONSUMERS, WE need to make more effort to

obey God's physical laws and break away from the vast MAJORITY!

We should be numbered among the MINORITY who produce and/or

consume QUALITY food!

     Governments and CONSUMERS need to realise that forcing the

farmers' hand results in a RAW DEAL for the CONSUMER in food

quality. Let us now have a look at ways in which the PRODUCER is

hurting himself as well as the CONSUMER. At the same time we will

see that positive steps can be taken that will benefit both

parties.

 

We All Depend Upon the Producer!

 

     Yes -- but on whom does HE depend? Never before has

agriculture been beset by such an army of EXPERTS, ADVISORS,

LIAISON OFFICERS and professional EXTENSION SERVICES! Never

before has such a massive body of SALESMEN and AGENTS existed!

All of these groups flock to the "AID" of the FARMER to help

solve his problems.

     More "SCIENTIFIC" knowledge and "technical" know-how are

employed today than ever before, but if you have a farmer-friend

ask him:

     DOES HE HAVE LESS PROBLEMS THAN HE HAD 30 YEARS AGO? ARE HIS

PROBLEMS LESS THAN THOSE OF HIS FATHER AND HIS GRANDFATHER? The

answer will be NO!! One might conclude from this that apart from

God, man is -- "EVER LEARNING AND NEVER ABLE TO COME TO THE

KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH" (2 Tim. 3:7)

     Man has rejected the Bible -- the only solution to his

farming problems and is thereby jeopardizing the future of all

mankind. We need to understand and obey the laws by which God's

creation operates. Here are FIVE basic points that will help

protect both PRODUCERS and CONSUMERS:

 

1. Tap God's Free Nitrogen Supply

 

     The world's dependence on chemical fertilizers is cited as

proof of their success, but in reality, its dependence on them is

proof that they never have and never will add FERTILITY to soil!

     God's system depends heavily on the growing of legumes and

also on continuous re-cycling of organic residues. That means the

return of animal manure (from stock grazing land), residues from

crops, "WEEDS" and even crops grown specially to turn back into

the soil as GREEN-MANURE.

     Soil is the foundation of ALL food production. Yet today,

most of our food comes from soil that receives NO planned return

of organic matter! That is one major reason why soil fertility is

DECLINING in the Western world.

     According to Oregon State College Professor W. B. Bollen,

"Nitrogen ... is most often the limiting food element in soil

fertility" (Micro-organisms and Soil Fertility, 1959).

     The DESIGNER of our environment has provided the soil with

four main sources of nitrogen:

 

     A. Leguminous plants in association with a certain type of

bacteria that fixes nitrogen in the soil direct from the air.

     B. Animal manure from grazing stock.

     C. Decomposition of all types of dead plant matter.

     D. Decomposition of the bodies of all types of dead animals.

 

     Did you realize God's Word commands a regular return of dead

plant matter and animal manure to the soil? We are ordered to

cease harvesting the land and let it rest every seventh year

(Lev. 5:1-4). Our cattle and sheep are to spread out over it,

grazing it lightly and returning animal manure to the soil (v.

7). We can take enough produce for our immediate needs (v. 6),

but the real physical purpose of the LAND REST is to encourage an

accumulation of plant life. This material dies or is cut down and

allowed to decompose in the soil where it grew.

     Our soil is a gift direct from God (Ezek. 47:13-14) and He

requires it of us that we regularly return organic matter to it.

In this way God protects the SOIL'S FERTILITY, the FARMERS' BANK

BALANCE and the CONSUMERS' HEALTH!

 

2. Correct Cultivation

 

     Logically, the next step is to follow right methods of

cultivation in order to make the most effective use of residues.

This will NOT be done by burying them 8 to 12 inches below ground

level. Deep burying of undecomposed organic matter can adversely

affect decomposition by limiting oxygen availability. Soil

inversion is also incompatible with maximum humus in the root

zone.

     The same may be said of stubble-burning -- a practice so

often followed in continuous arable farming. Farming systems and

in particular, cultivation methods need changing to incorporate

as much organic matter from the previous crop as possible back

into the soil. Even straw is far too valuable to send up in

smoke!

     With few exceptions, any organic matter present on the

surface should be retained, rather than raked off or burned.

Furthermore, greater efforts should be made to capitalize on

"UNWANTED" plant growth such as "WEEDS". We all tend to have a

passionate hatred of "WEEDS" and true, they can be very

troublesome especially if we let them seed. At the same time we

should remember they can also be one of our best sources of

organic manure.

     Most of the initial decomposition of residues should take

place just PRIOR to seed planting. Otherwise soil microbes will

compete with young plants for available nutrients and the plants

always lose! If decomposition takes place TOO far ahead of

sowing, valuable nutrients may be lost to the atmosphere, or

leached into the subsoil. It is all a matter of TIMING.

 

3. Centre On Livestock

 

     One of the most vital keys to all successful agriculture is

the inclusion of LIVESTOCK in every farm programme! To a city

person this will sound a little strange, as he may never think of

a farm WITHOUT livestock. That's the way it should be -- but

agriculture has now become so specialized that there are today

MANY farms without LIVESTOCK! It is ironic that under the BATTERY

system -- there are also many livestock WITHOUT FARMS!!

     These trends of modern agriculture have left large areas

devoid of stock and therefore animal manure. Banishment of

animals from the fields has encouraged the tearing out of

protective hedges, shade trees and windbreaks, enabling farmers

to "crib" a few more acres for monoculture and maneuvering of

ever-larger machinery.

     Cyril G. Hopkins, a former chief in agronomy and chemistry

at the University of Illinois wisely stated: "... practically all

the advice given to grain farmers concerning the problem of

maintaining the fertility of the soil can be summed up in the

words, 'BECOME LIVESTOCK FARMERS'" [emphasis ours throughout].

The perception of this man is better appreciated when we realize

this statement appeared in Bulletin No. 29 in 1909!!

     These views run contrary to modern beliefs and here again

the Bible provides us with the all important clue to the truth.

     The following references all point to one fact -- through

God, the Patriarchs understood the vital IMPORTANCE of livestock

to agriculture! Read Gen. 4:2; 13:2,6; 24:33; 26:13,14; 30:29,30.

     One day we may come to realise that the institution of

ANIMAL sacrifices (RUMINANTS in particular) was as significant to

agriculture as to any other aspect of obedience to God.

     There are also two important aspects of God's commanded

SABBATICAL YEAR that should be mentioned here -- COMMERCIAL

CROP-PRODUCTION is OUT and LIVESTOCK are very much IN at that

time!

 

4. Balance -- Be Diversified

 

     Men must reverse their mad rush into specialization. SOIL,

PLANTS, ANIMALS and PEOPLE must be supplied with wholesome food,

produced under the normal conditions of "nature". In short -- we

need MIXED FARMS -- where ALL life processes are going on

together in the harmonious balance our Creator intended.

     As one environmental authority wrote:

 

          "If we study the prairie and the ocean we find that

similar principles are followed ... In lakes, rivers, and the

sea, mixed farming is again the rule: a great variety of plants

and animals are found living together: NO-WHERE DOES ONE FIND

MONOCULTURE" ("An Agricultural Testament", Sir Albert Howard, p.

271).

 

     Every aspect of agriculture should be approached from this

natural and balanced standpoint. Every farmer should be

reasonably diversified for maximum economic security and minimum

"overhead". His quantity of production may not equal today's

high-pressure levels, but neither will his VETERINARY,

PHARMACEUTICAL and FERTILIZER BILLS!!

     Mixed farming is NOT retrograde agriculture. It will bring

security to the PRODUCER and health to the CONSUMER!

 

5. Breeding -- Purity in Plants and Animals

 

     In Lev. 19:19, God's word tells us plainly NOT to mix our

plants and animals by cross-breeding. Verse 29 of the same

chapter tells us NOT to make prostitutes out of our daughters,

otherwise the land will become filled with wickedness. Most

people have had no difficulty understanding that principle, yet

today men of agriculture (in spite of being closer to God's

creation than most people) act as if they are ignorant of the law

in verse 19!!

     As recently as 10 or 20 years ago, the farmer who let

animals breed indiscriminately was the object of scorn and

ridicule. Many a "feud" developed if males got through the

boundary fence and bred with the neighbours' animals.

     But today in the beef, dairy, mutton and poultry industries

a chaotic REVERSAL has taken place! Of course this utter

perversion of God's laws is dignified with labels like --

"SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS"; "ECONOMIC BREAKTHROUGH"; "GENETIC

ENGINEERING" and "PRODUCTION MIRACLE"!!

     The pursuit of "HYBRID VIGOUR" has elevated the breeder of

mongrel animals and plants to the "with-it" status, while those

producing "PUREBREDS" for the commercial market have become a

minority of "SQUARES".

     Some would challenge that the "pure-breds" of today are

nothing more than a selection of yesterday's crosses. This is

probably true, but the modern cross-breeder must at least give

thanks that the founders and sustainers of today's "pure breeds"

provide him with something to pervert! Plant hybridization is

another shoddy perversion of natural breeding laws. Why

perversion? Because it is an attempt by man to make the STERILE,

the "oddball", the reject of nature ACCEPTABLE!! In other words

men are taking the ABNORMAL and calling it NORMAL!! This is done

by playing on the "ECONOMIC EMOTIONS" of the farmer. There is

just one key feature that sells the hybrid -- its ability to

produce QUANTITY!!

     NO!! Hybrids are NOT the answer to the economic difficulties

of the modern farmer, or the health of consumers which is already

declining through eating LOW QUALITY FOOD.

     God's Word gives us the true answer to this question. We

could have top quality grain today -- with higher yields than ANY

hybrids have EVER produced -- if we would turn back and obey God!

     By breaking His laws, man is substituting QUANTITY for

QUALITY in his food.

     God tells us that His servant Isaac received ONE

HUNDREDFOLD! Do you know any farmers getting 150 bushels of wheat

per acre (Gen.26:12)?

     It used to take two fit men to carry a cluster of grapes

FROM a vineyard (Num. 13:23). Today it would take two fit men to

carry the drums of pesticide TO the vineyard!

 

Training For The Future

 

     Obedience to the laws of God is the way to abundant

agricultural production and a healthy diet. Mingled seeds,

continuous grain-monoculture and cross-bred battery-housed

animals is NOT!

     Do we realise we are now in a training situation -- that it

is our responsibility to future generations and to all who have

ever lived, to become proficient in God's LAW? Now is the time

for each one of us called into God's Work, to prepare for the

future!

     It is our job to acquire knowledge and the practical ability

to use that knowledge. Soon we will be confronted with the

gigantic task of global rehabilitation. And included in this

great thousand-year project will be HUMAN NUTRITION, FOOD

PRODUCTION and ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT! But irrespective of

whether we are a PRODUCER or a CONSUMER, ONE important question

faces us all -- ARE WE QUALIFYING TO FILL OUR ROLE IN WORLDWIDE

ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EDUCATION? Let us all hope so, because whether

we are qualifying or not -- others WILL!

     This is one of the most important reasons for Ambassador

College having a Department of Agriculture and we hope to be able

to continue to serve you in this direction.

                                                                               

 

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                  December 1973, Vol. IV, No. 2

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

              MAN'S INTIMATE CONTACT WITH THE EARTH

 

          "The meaning and future of human life on earth are

debated with growing uncertainty. We need a deeper understanding

of the living world and of the future of man himself, out of

which we can develop a wiser, more harmonious partnership with

the life of the planet."

          "We need to find a new 'Ecological technology', which

will call for NEW concepts, NEW methods, NEW relationships

between human beings and the earth" (Emerson College brochure).

 

     Until quite recently, statements like this were unusual, but

now they have developed into a solid chorus of semi-official

opinion. Food producers and mankind as a whole are moving in one

of the most uncertain times in human history.

     Commenting on this, Dr. Schumacher (Soil Association

Chairman) has stated that many people are now calling for NEW

VALUES and NEW CONCEPTS, without telling us which of our current

values to abandon, or where to find these "NEW CONCEPTS".

     These comments are highly significant because they show that

man has lost his way in this world and that even the experts are

uncertain and divided on man's future. Thankfully, we do not have

to be in this condition. We can have the assurance that the RIGHT

answers are available and that we can apply them.

     In this issue of "Your Living Environment" we want to

achieve that purpose by showing you:

     FIRST -- that man is totally weak, vulnerable and dependent

as a species on this planet and therefore needs infallible

ecological guidance.

     And SECONDLY -- that such guidance exists, is unique, is

available and should be used!

 

Getting Man In Perspective

 

     The very concept of seeking "NEW VALUES", implies running

away from something OLD and that's what humanity has been doing

for millennia. We will show that man is missing his mark and that

as long as he goes on searching for these NEW values he will

continue to miss it!

     Man needs to give up this eternal searching for something

NEW and go back to recapturing some really OLD values. However,

before coming to the subject of OLD VALUES -- let us first have a

look at man himself to get us in right perspective.

     May we begin by mentally taking you into outer space for a

truly objective view of ourselves? This is perhaps the only way

we can consider mankind as a whole, together with our earthly

environment. After doing that, we will mentally re-enter through

the atmosphere and zero-in until we finally come back down to

earth and even to individual personalities like you and the

writer.

     Here we are, 3,600 million human beings, orbiting through

space on a tiny ping-pong ball! Looking back from millions of

miles out in the solar system, our planet is nothing more than a

pinpoint of reflected light, spinning at 1,000 mph as it circles

that giant ball of fire, the sun -- at precisely one revolution

per year! It is that sun that keeps us warm. It is our energy

source and should we not be grateful that there is no energy

crisis in its relationship with the earth?

     But there could be and it would be fatal to all life-forms

on our planet. For example -- have you ever thought how,

inevitably, we would all freeze to death if this little sphere of

ours wandered off course and away from its energy source -- the

sun? On the other hand, we would all be fried to a crisp if our

little GOLF-BALL was to suddenly swing into a tighter orbit

around that white-hot inferno, with its flames leaping out in

every direction up to a million miles into space!

     This is delicate environmental balance in the extreme, yet

it is something over which puny little man has absolutely NO

control!

     Do you often ponder the impossibility of all the orderliness

and precision of these planets and galaxies happening just by

accident? How impossible for these planets to stay in balance

relative to each other and the rest of the universe! Such

astronomical precision could not continue to function smoothly of

its own accord for an instant -- even if it had come into

existence by "ACCIDENT".

     Now let us come a little closer and enter the earth's

atmosphere. There's an interesting phenomenon -- THE ATMOSPHERE!

How often do you reflect on where it came from and the

coincidence that it exists in a form that so perfectly matches

and supplies the needs of every living thing on the earth below?

It couldn't have just happened either. It was especially designed

and created for its job.

     Here is where man does BEGIN to exercise some influence. For

example -- man has proved he can pollute the atmosphere with

radioactive dust particles. He struggles to precipitate rain and

disrupt hurricanes at their centre. But MAN did not CREATE the

atmosphere and neither does he CONTROL it.

     These marvels of creation are almost beyond man's

comprehension, yet millions never even raise their heads to

wonder HOW it was all created and HOW it continues to function

WITHOUT man and now you might separately in spite of MAN!

     The next stage of our mental descent from outer space is to

touch down on the surface of this planet EARTH. Here we find the

oddest phenomenon of all -- it is called LIFE! We find multiple

forms of LIFE -- some we can see with the naked eye and some we

can't. Some are plant, some are animal and of some we are not

sure.

     But here are these myriad life-forms -- all co-existing,

living, growing, reproducing, dying and decomposing together --

in one miraculously conceived and fantastically complex symbiotic

relationship! Yet man created NONE of them!

     Finally there is -- MAN -- cynically perhaps, yet on his

record, accurately described as THE ONE MISFIT SPECIES -- more

awesome, more wonderful in his design and with more potential

than all the other terrestrial life forms put together!

     That potential springs from one simple fact and one fact

only -- MAN differs from all other life-forms -- HE HAS A MIND,

as something separate and quite apart from instinct. MAN HAS

FREEDOM OF CHOICE, which no other physical life form has. Man's

brain and his freedom of choice give him potential for good and

also for evil. AND ACCORDING TO HIS CHOICE, so goes his

environment!

     So here we are -- 3,600 million human beings all with the

power of intellect and a reasonably accurate self-produced record

of our activities through recent millennia. Off in the vastness

of space we see other celestial bodies. And at our feet is a

complex living system -- by which we will survive, IF we learn to

work with it!

 

Groping To Find Our Way

 

     To believe that we and our environment brought ourselves

spontaneously into existence is as irrational as believing that

20th century technology happened without the creative ability of

MAN!

     It is good to rehearse the proof of a Creator God and to

remind ourselves of man's insignificance alongside the rest of

creation.

     Millions of our species are told they are educated -- but

who, for example, can answer such simple questions as: WHERE WE

COME FROM, WHY WE ARE HERE AND WHERE WE ARE GOING?

     What is even stranger still -- this world is in grave danger

of annihilating itself, before discovering the answers to those

three questions!

     It is not surprising that man has lost his way. This is

exactly what we should expect -- after all, God states quite

emphatically:

     "IT IS NOT IN MAN THAT WALKETH TO DIRECT HIS STEPS" (Jer.

10:23).

     That means it is IMPOSSIBLE for MAN to go the right WAY! But

the fact that our steps CAN BE CORRECTLY DIRECTED, should be VERY

comforting.

     There is, however, only one way by which this can be done --

man must have an infallible basic reference point to avoid losing

his way, down through successive generations.

     Consider now, the directional guidance mechanism of modern

agriculture. Is it not EXPERIMENTATION? Is the agro-chemical

industry not completely dependent on the results of complex

research projects and experimental programs? Are these not backed

by governments and multi-million pound industrial combines,

encouraging man to devise ever more fearsome ways of conquering

"NATURE"?

     Superficially it looks good and though it captures the

imagination of a lot of people, "EXPERIMENTATION" is really no

guide at all! That is why modern agriculture is adrift on a sea

of confusion of its own making. It contains no genuine basis to

which man can relate his experimentation.

     The entire system is wrongly orientated. To take just one

aspect -- if MAN continues to strive for MAXIMUM rather than

OPTIMUM yields he could be choosing between human survival and

catastrophe!

     The reference point, or guiding light of organic agriculture

is OBSERVATION, rather than experimentation. "OBSERVATION" is

fine because it embodies the ecological approach, but it too

lacks something. Every organic farmer's way is right in his own

eyes, so ORGANIC agriculture will always be weakened by division

and diversity. It too, must accept the basic guidance of God's

law.

 

Source of Environmental Guidance

 

     Our work at Ambassador College is different. It is based not

on "EXPERIMENTATION" or "OBSERVATION", but on REVELATION!!

     What "REVELATION"? It is the revelation of God, through his

inspired Word, that Christ created man and every minute detail of

our natural environment (Col. 1:16, John 1:3, Heb. 1:2). Often we

limit God's Word to a colorfully illustrated package of

doctrines, but it is time for us all to change that attitude.

Remember, God the Father and Christ were far more than double

PhDs in ECOLOGY from the beginning. Only now, after almost 6,000

years is mankind discovering the existence of such a SCIENCE!

     Through his Word and by his Holy Spirit, God has given his

begotten sons direct access to his divine guidance. But do we

fully realize that that guidance includes FOOD PRODUCTION and

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT?

     On the other hand -- most agro-chemical farmers are

different. They have a blind faith that what they call SCIENCE is

going to continue to work for them and they cling to this system

like a shipwrecked sailor to a piece of driftwood.

     Faith in that kind of "SCIENCE" is faith in MAN. Most of us

have exercised a wrong kind of faith in man and his SCIENTIFIC

achievements. These are often distinctly UN-SCIENTIFIC -- seeking

merely to short-circuit the laws of God and protect man from

self-induced penalties. We can all be sure that apart from God --

MAN WILL NEVER SOLVE HIS PROBLEMS!

     By contrast, if we closely observe our environment and learn

to work with it, we can have absolute FAITH that all life on this

planet can be blessed and supported by an orderly system based on

LAW.

     We shouldn't need reminding that man has been stumbling

around in environmental blindness for thousands of years,

creating deserts, disease and destruction. You above all people,

know what man has done and is doing to his environment.

     This is where we come back to the subject of recapturing OLD

values. It is not man's eternal striving after some elusive NEW

concept that will solve his problems. What is needed is a return

to TRUE values, upon which man has in the past turned his back.

He has in fact lost his way and is unable to pinpoint himself

without the guidance of God's Word.

     A nose and a mouthful of water in our first swimming lesson

soon teaches us about asphyxiation. A couple of falls down a

flight of stairs is sufficient to impress the law of gravity on

us. Man likewise accepts the laws of thermo- and aerodynamics,

and a huge package of laws poised ready to kill any one of us the

instant we deliberately disobey, or even FORGET them. They do not

leave man a tear-ridden quivering mental wreck. Neither do they

cause us to become depressed and frustrated. On the contrary,

they are a great comfort -- reassuring us that we can be

guaranteed protection every single time we obey them.

     Why is it then that man does not feel the same way about the

laws of environmental management? It is because we think we can

get away with ecological law-breaking. That's why men keep

talking about seeking a NEW ECOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGY, NEW CONCEPTS,

NEW VALUES etc. Anything rather than obey God's LAW!! We need to

pierce through all this glib talk about abandoning "OLD" values

for "NEW".

     This is not the first time in human history that man has

brought this planet to the brink of environmental collapse and we

know what happened last time! Man is now having his second chance

and today we are back at the edge of the ecological abyss. We are

so precariously close that many are expressing real fear of

environmental catastrophe!

     Man goes on breaking environmental laws (which includes

agriculture) because the penalties are not speedily executed!

Now, as more of these penalties ARE finally coming upon us, men

are feverishly holding CONFERENCES, SEMINARS and SYMPOSIA in

search of solutions. But as long as they reject the law of God as

the foundation of man's environment, they will NEVER solve our

problems!

     Man's eternal searching for something NEW, as the solution

to his problems is a sterile, hybrid cross between Satanic and

self-deception.

     The first positive step for mankind is to prove God's

existence. That is now unnecessary for this readership, but we

still need a regular reminder of the greatness of God's creation

and of our own insignificance. Seeing ourselves in true

perspective as part of the total environment is what TRUE ECOLOGY

is all about!

     That's what makes the motto -- RE-CAPTURE TRUE VALUES -- so

appropriate to this subject. "TRUE VALUES" are not "NEW". They

are OLD -- as OLD as the laws of gravity, sound and electricity.

     There is no other way for us to focus the grave dangers

confronting man. We, above all people must never lose sight of

this, because we know that mankind is deceived and that he will

choose to remain ignorant of the ecological laws governing the

quality of life and even survival! It is up to each one of us to

study in detail and work at keeping ALL the laws affecting our

human environment -- but are we??

     In a world filled with confusion, there is only ONE source

to which we can turn!

 

The Bible -- Man's Only Hope

 

     In a recent interview for the October 1973 issue of "The

Soil Association Journal", Dr. Schumacher was asked:

     "Where for our entire man-made world problem, is there one

unravelling point?"

     The "WORLD PROBLEM" being "MAN-MADE" is good phrasing of the

question. The world is not "MAN-MADE", but its problems certainly

ARE! Dr. Schumacher replied by saying that SOIL is in his opinion

the "UNRAVELLING POINT".

     PERHAPS WE NEED NOT DISAGREE WITH HIM, BUT WE WOULD GO EVEN

DEEPER. THE "WORLD PROBLEM" is MAN himself! Physically, there is

no better way than to work up through the soil as a means of

correcting our environmental mistakes, but the basis of the

"WORLD PROBLEM" is NOT PHYSICAL! It is SPIRITUAL!!

     The real "UNRAVELLING POINT" lies in the closest scrutiny of

our Creator's instruction manual -- the BIBLE. It is the one

source that makes an effective claim to be the instruction book

man must have. Ecologically, many of us have not thought of it in

these terms before, but it is the foundational written source of

ALL environmental management!

     Perhaps the following questions and answers will more

readily convince you of this. Ask yourself -- would mankind as a

whole, ever discover:

     A. THAT INDISCRIMINATE CROSS-BREEDING OF PLANTS, ANIMALS AND

MEN IS WRONG (Lev. 19:19. Gen. 6:1-9)? Answer -- No! Proof --

this practice is becoming more widespread than at any time since

the days of Noah!

     B. THAT FOOD PRODUCTION FROM PIGS, HORSES, RABBITS, SNAILS

AND LOBSTERS IS WRONG (Lev. 11, Deut. 14)? Answer -- No! Proof --

after thousands of years man is still producing these foods for

human consumption, the Bible and the Jews notwithstanding!

     C. THAT CONTINUOUS GRAIN-MONOCULTURE IS WRONG (Lev. 25)?

Answer -- No! Proof -- it is the commonest form of grain

production in an age when technology makes it easier than ever to

diversify our agriculture.

     D. THAT MAN SHOULD NOT WORK ON THE SEVENTH DAY, EVEN IN THE

MIDDLE OF HIS HARVEST (Ex. 34:21)? Answer -- No! Proof -- men

everywhere still do it, in spite of the fact that mechanization

enables them to do seasonal work faster than ever before.

     E. THAT WE SHOULD GIVE GOD THE FIRST TENTH OF ALL OUR

INCREASE EVERY YEAR (Lev. 27:30)? Again, the answer is No! Proof

-- mankind couldn't even discover God himself, unless he is

revealed to us (John 6:44).

     F. THAT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENTS, EXPERIMENTAL

STATIONS, INSTITUTES AND UNIVERSITY SCHOOLS OF AGRICULTURE WILL

NEVER SOLVE THIS WORLD'S PROBLEMS? The answer is No! Proof -- our

Creator states that in the last days men would be ever learning

and yet NEVER able to come to the knowledge of the truth (II Tim.

3:1,7). Elsewhere a much stronger statement is made concerning

man's relationship with his environment and with God (Rom.

1:18,22)!

 

Are you Living it -- NOW?

 

     It is too bad that we are all so limited in our knowledge of

God's intricate and awesome creation. But what is worse is that

we sometimes choose to remain in that condition!

     So many city-born are almost completely cut off from any

appreciation of what God's environment is all about. Even those

of us born to the land often fail to understand that real effort

is required of us in actively seeking God's way in ALL aspects of

our lives. Some even imagine it is a facet of life not to be

bothered with until after the MILLENNIUM begins! God says:

     "If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the

land" (Isa 1:19).

     That was written to ancient Judah and to us today, so

perhaps we should all examine ourselves to see just how "WILLING"

we have been to search God's Word for understanding and how

"WILLING" we are to diligently apply it. How else can we really

expect to "EAT THE GOOD OF THE LAND"?

     "DILIGENTLY" is the way God says we are to hearken to his

law (Deut. 28:1). That in no way excludes the laws of ecology and

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. And by no stretch of the imagination

can WILLINGNESS and DILIGENCE be linked with an attitude of

waiting it out until the millennium begins!

     That natural human desire may have some appeal, if we lack

understanding, because then the problems will all belong to

someone else. They will be the humans -- we will be spirit beings

-- won't we?

     Let's not be too sure of that. Our millennium is NOW and if

we don't strive to live it, who is going to qualify to guide the

global re-establishment of God's way on this earth and WHEN?

Christ revealed to John:

     "I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man

according as his work shall be" (Rev. 22:12).

     Peter wrote of the Father:

     "Who without respect of persons judgeth according to every

man's work" (I Pet. 1:17).

     Read what the Apostle Paul says about our "work" in I Cor.

3:13-15! In the above references the Greek for "work" comes from

"ergo" (to toil). Of course we are to "toil" at becoming perfect

beings in our marriage, child-rearing, labour relationships etc.,

but if our "toil" involves agriculture and part of God's natural

environment, we had better do it correctly too!

     Do you believe that? Are you 100% convinced that Satan is

the controlling influence over this world's system of food

production and environmental management (Rev. 12:9) or do you

have certain reservations? Are you so lightly grounded in God's

law that you believe it will work only in theory and that in

practice we must compromise and do something different?

     We must strive to reach the point where regardless of any of

our own short-comings, or those of any agricultural employees of

Ambassador College -- each of us knows that the system of this

world is doomed to failure! We must recognize that it rubs off on

us daily, that it is specifically designed to ATTRACT us, to

DECEIVE us and to cause us to FALL FOR IT and furthermore, to

turn our back on God's way!

     Agriculturally, most of us have not yet come to this

realization and until we do, we are prime targets, in fact a

PUSH-OVER for any scientist, agricultural advisor, or salesman

that gets his foot in the door!! (II Cor. 11:3). It seems that if

each of us is not constantly ON GUARD Satan can sweep away in

minutes that which it has taken months to implant in the mind

(Luke 8:12).

     What does this mean as far as the individual farmer is

concerned?

     As Paul said:

     "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that

needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth" (II

Tim. 2:15).

     Isaiah 28:9-13 and II Peter 3:16-18 remind us that we must

not expect all the information to leap out at us once we open

some key page in the Bible. As the Bible states -- it is a matter

of HERE A LITTLE, THERE A LITTLE!

     Paul could have been writing on God's laws of environmental

management when he stated:

     "That which may be known of God is manifest to them; for God

hath shewed it unto them.

     "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the

world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are

made" (Rom. 1:19, 20).

     A thousand years earlier God inspired David to write that

the whole universe declares his glory. He says that it is as if

every day and every night is imparting knowledge to us,

regardless of what language we understand (Psa. 19:1-3).

     This can happen only if we are watching and studying our

environment, in conjunction with God's Word and with the help of

his Holy Spirit (I Cor. 2:14-16).

     Job, approximately one thousand years before King David,

also referred to our need to study God's creation for knowledge:

     "Ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee, and the

fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee.

     "Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee; and the

fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.

     "Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath

wrought this?" (Job 12:7-9).

     It is easy to talk, or write about STUDYING God's law and

his creation, but DOING IT is often quite another matter! As a

rule, farmers don't GO MUCH for this type of thing, often using

the excuse that they are "PRACTICAL MEN" and just "TOO BUSY".

Such talk is absolute RUBBISH -- and dangerously suicidal RUBBISH

at that!!

     Who will be the first farmer to step forward and claim that

he is busier than King David was, ruling over the nation of

Israel and fighting off its enemies?

     Yet David wrote that he loved God's law and that it was his

meditation all the day (Psa. 119:97). Do we have that attitude,

or are we TOO BUSY?

     David said:

     "Teach me, O Lord, the way of thy statutes; and I shall keep

it unto the end: Give understanding, and I shall keep thy law;

yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart" (Psa. 119:33, 34).

     Do we have any reason for lack of personal effort that would

be valid in God's sight, or is God going to have to prod us into

action? He WILL! And when he does, let's hope our reaction is as

good as David's. Apparently God had to prod him, because he tells

us:

     "Before I was afflicted I went astray: but now have I kept

thy word.

     "It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might

learn thy statutes" (Psa. 119:67, 71).

     It is much less painful to move without God's prodding, but

at least it brought the value of God's law sharply into focus for

David, because he then said:

     "The law of thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of

gold and silver" (Psa.119:72).

     It will take "STUDY" and perhaps a little "AFFLICTION" to

produce in us a knowledge and an actual love of God's law.

     Next, we need the wisdom to apply it. But, where shall

"WISDOM" be found? God asks this question and gives us the answer

in Job 28:12-28 and James 1:5. Part of the wisdom any farmer will

need to exercise concerns the rate at which he attempts to make

any major changes in his agricultural methods.

     It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the speed of these

changes should be directly related to the individual's experience

in working with the natural system of organic agriculture.

Failure to adhere strictly to this principle will inevitably

result in disappointment, perhaps frustration and even severe

financial losses. This produces a "TURNED-OFF" reaction in the

people concerned and they are very reluctant to TURN-ON again!

     It should be emphasized however, that lack of experience

should never be used as an excuse for lack of ZEAL. Any man can

quickly and enthusiastically launch into his own experimental

pilot project.

     This should be big enough to provide the operator with the

necessary practical experience and yet small enough to avoid

financial distress, in the event of failure. How big is "BIG

ENOUGH"? That will vary according to farm size and financial

stability. It can mean setting aside a small garden bed in your

vegetable area, or a few trees in your orchard, one or two cows

in your herd of 50 to 100 cattle, or an acre or two if you have a

few hundred acres under grain, or pasture.

     In addition to this, one should embark on a re-education

programme from secular material. There is quite a lot available

on organic agriculture and we can guide you in your selection.

     You are already far advanced in your spiritual re-education.

This may have taken years and it will continue throughout this

life. There is absolutely no reason why we should imagine that

the process of acquiring KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING and WISDOM

relative to God's laws of environmental management and ecology is

any different!

 

Go God's Way, Not Man's

 

     Don't allow yourself the possibility of being lumped in with

the present society by God. It is sick and far-gone!

     In Psalms 65, God inspired his servant David to write the

following on man's environment:

     "Thou visitest the earth, and waterest it: thou greatly

enrichest it with the river of God, which is full of water: thou

preparest them corn, when thou hast so provided for it.

     "Thou waterest the ridges thereof abundantly: thou settlest

the furrows thereof: thou meekest it soft with showers: thou

blessest the springing thereof.

     "Thou crownest the year with thy goodness; and thy paths

drop fatness.

     "They drop upon the pastures of the wilderness: and the

little hills rejoice on every side.

     "The pastures are clothed with flocks: the valleys also are

covered over with corn; they shout for joy, they also sing" (Psa.

65:9-13).

     Our society is so far gone today that one of its modern

scribes would probably re-write the above verses along the

following lines:

     9. You need not visit the earth, we will water it from our

concrete reservoirs and our rapidly falling water-table. We will

greatly enrich it from our rivers, polluted with fertilizers,

slurry and industrial waste.

     We will prepare our own corn when our plant breeders, seed

merchants, fertilizer salesmen, machinery agents and bank

managers provide for it!

     10. We will water the ridges abundantly by seeding the

clouds with silver iodide, or through our new non-clogging

trickle irrigation. If this settlest not the furrows, our giant

mechanical sod-busters and our 130 hp tractors will!

     11. We crowneth the year with unparalleled disease epidemics

and our paths are strewn with low-protein grain.

     12. 450 units of nitrogen will we drop upon the pastures of

our wilderness -- in three strategic applications! And the little

hills erode on every side into the bottom of our costly dams.

     13. Our pastures we clothe with straight-ryegrass and

artificially inseminated crossbred stock. Our valleys also are

covered over with hybrid corn. And they are far too depleted of

natural fertility to either shout for joy or even sing!

     Don't deceive yourself that it doesn't really matter how we

manage our soil, plants and animals in this age. If we don't have

an INTIMATE CONTACT WITH THE EARTH, we are the poorer for it. If

we do, then let's make the most of a wonderful opportunity and

begin receiving more of the natural blessings God intended from

the beginning!

                                                                              

 

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                     June 1974 Vol. V, No. 1

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

        PHOSPHATE DEFICIENCY -- A CRISIS WE MUST RESOLVE!

 

     Within the past few months the world has looked askance at

its sudden energy crisis, triggered prematurely by the united

action of the Arab oil sheiks.

     But now we have a new crisis that has gone largely

unnoticed, and yet it is one that could cripple European and

world agriculture almost as effectively as the oil crisis itself.

You might wonder whether that is even possible. Well, it is, and

the first stiff breezes of this ill-wind have already begun to

blow!

     During the recent oil crisis, Europe's major suppliers of

North African rock-phosphate quietly and, almost without Western

press comment, calmly trebled the price of their raw product!

     Morocco and Tunisia, like their oil-sheik colleagues, have

suddenly realized that their non-renewable source of income will

one day be exhausted. Therefore they intend to cash in on the

profits while supplies last. This is not to imply, however, that

deposits are almost worked out now. They aren't YET, but the

future is strictly limited.

 

The 'P' of 'NPK'

 

     In nutritional terms, the greatest limiting factors to

increasing world food production are firstly nitrogen, and

secondly phosphorus. These are THE two most important

macro-nutrients required for plant growth (along with potassium).

They form the 'N' and 'P' of the 'NPK' trio, familiar to most

farmers.

     And yet agriculture is suddenly threatened by diminishing

reserves of both these essential elements. Industrially

synthesized NITROGEN is in relatively short supply as a direct

result of the energy crisis, and PHOSPHATE has become recognized

as another finite, non-renewable resource which MUST now be

conserved. Consequently, prices of these raw materials have

escalated!

     In such a predicament, many farmers feel they have no

alternative but to pay 'through the nose' for fertilizers their

crops and soil so badly need. And yet there must be an

alternative -- God surely did not create an environment for man

dependent upon excavation and the international transportation of

underground mineral deposits.

     During the past year, this Department has been researching

in depth, the problem of phosphate availability -- or rather, the

lack of it in most soils around the world -- to try to discover:

     1. Why soil becomes phosphate deficient, and

     2. A solution to the problem.

Our research has borne fruit -- fruit which we would like to

share with you in this issue of YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT. Depth of

subject demands slightly more technical language than we normally

present, but we hope its vital importance will help you stay with

it.

 

A Problem of Availability

 

     We have already mentioned the importance of phosphorus in

agriculture, and that phosphorus deficiency presents mankind with

one of the biggest obstacles to increasing world food production.

     In fact, vast areas of intensively-managed agricultural land

are now known to be severely deficient in availability of this

element. Sir Arnold Theiler whose work on phosphate during the

1920's is now classic, found that throughout Southern Africa the

country as a whole was deficient in available phosphate. Since

Theiler's time, his findings have been verified by basic

research. Equally low levels of available soil phosphate now

exist in major agricultural regions on all five continents.

     Paradoxically, few agricultural soils are deficient in

actual, or total phosphorus present. Most of them contain

sufficient reserves of phosphorus to support plant growth if such

reserves were made available in forms which plants can

assimilate. It would therefore appear that the problem is not one

of PRESENCE but AVAILABILITY -- at any one time most of the

phosphorus present consists of non water-soluble forms and so it

is not readily accessible to plant roots.

     One writer mentions:

 

          "With regard to phosphoric acid, the mineral apatite,

the ultimate source of phosphorus in nature, is almost equally

abundant in all varieties of igneous rocks, and phosphates are

rarely deficient in soils derived from them ..." ("Agricultural

Geology", by R. H. Rastall, p. 35, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1922).

 

     He continues:

 

          "Soils derived from igneous rocks on the whole tend to

be rich in potash and phosphoric acid, although these substances

may not always be present in an available form in large quantity"

(Ibid).

 

     Since sedimentary formations have their origin in the

igneous rocks, the obvious question then arises -- why is this

element not readily available in most soils?

     Pizer explains:

 

          "It is commonly accepted that plant roots remove

monovalent H2PO4 - ions from soils and make little use of HPO42-

and PO43-. The main sources of H2PO4- are attached to Ca

[calcium], Al [aluminum] and Fe [iron] on CLAY MINERALS and

ORGANIC MATTER, (this is why all fertile soils contain both clay

particles and organic matter) ... the release of H2PO4 depends on

equilibria between a number of phases which are influenced by

moisture content, Ph [soil acidity] soluble salts, changes in

soil structure and biological activity" ("Soil Phosphorus",

Technical Bulletin No. 13, M.A.F.F., 1965, p. 147, by N. H.

Pizer). (Emphasis ours throughout.)

 

Organic Matter and Soil Phosphorus

 

     Amazing as it may seem, the answer to this seemingly complex

problem is perhaps far more simple than we might at first think.

Joffe gives an indication of the simplicity of the solution in

describing the phosphorus and sulphur limitations in Chernozem

soils:

 

          "The relatively high Ca [calcium] and N [nitrogen]

contents of the A horizon [upper soil layer] are responsible for

the high P [phosphorus] content in this layer. It is THE PROTEINS

OF THE ORGANIC MATTER that furnish the key. As the

organic-phosphorus compounds are mineralized, the P released ties

up primarily with the Ca.

          "The accumulated organic matter in the A horizon [upper

soil layer] retains appreciable quantities of S [sulphur]. Its

RAPID CIRCULATION through drying plants and precipitation keeps

up the supply in the surface layer in spite of the ease of

leaching of sulphates. Of course large quantities of S [sulphur]

in the A horizon persist in the form of organic complexes"

("Pedology", by Jacob S. Joffe, p. 292, 2nd Ed., 1949, Pedology

Publications).

 

     Notice that it is the ORGANIC MATTER that is the effective

source of phosphorus. Barrett also mentions that phosphorus

levels are higher in the surface soil layers than in the subsoil,

and that there is often a close relationship between phosphorus

levels and the amount of organic matter present ("Harnessing the

Earthworm", by Thomas J. Barrett, p. 49, 1947, Bruce Humphries

Inc.).

     It is well known that dead plants and animals can return

appreciable quantities of phosphorus to the soil -- phosphorus

which has been slowly but steadily accumulating over a period of

time but such phosphorus is basically returned in organic form

and is therefore not readily available for further plant growth.

     It must first be broken down by ANIMAL forms before it can

be re-used for plant growth -- thus completing one of the great

ecological cycles:

 

(NOTE: To view a chart titled "The Phosphorus Cycle", see the file

740602.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)

 

     These animal forms are many and varied, but two of the most

important and obvious are livestock -- which recycle LIVING plant

nutrients and earthworms -- which recirculate nutrients from DEAD

organic material. The more rapid the circulation of nutrients,

the more stable the system -- the less is the likelihood of

depleting fertility and the greater are the opportunities for

building up nutrient reserves. This rapid recycling of nutrients

is one of the chief benefits of a live-stock-based agriculture.

 

(NOTE: To view a chart titled "The Phosphorus Cycle", see the file

740603.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)

 

Earthworms and Phosphorus

 

     Barrett also brings out some remarkable information

regarding the role of earthworms in making phosphorus available

for plant growth.

     He found that the phosphorus content of soil in boxes

containing worms increased 10% over those which had no worms. He

also analysed earthworm castings to discover that they contained

FIVE times as much available nitrogen, SEVEN times as much

phosphorus, ELEVEN times as much potassium and THREE times as

much magnesium as the parent soil.

     Indirectly, the origin of these extra available nutrients is

probably soil organic matter, on which the earthworms feed,

because Barrett also noticed that castings contain larger

bacterial populations than unworked soil. And we are well aware

that soil microbes multiply on organic matter. The earthworm is

therefore undoubtedly one of the major organisms directly

responsible for making soil nutrients available and forms one of

the vital links in the balance of nature.

     In the Nile valley, fertility is legendary and it is

reported that earthworm castings may amount to some 200 tons per

acre per year. In most other areas the earthworm population is

much smaller and the weight of castings deposited each year

seldom exceeds 10 to 20 tons per acre. On many farms these

castings would amount to less than one or two tons per acre per

year!

     Since worms appear to depend heavily on organic matter, we

cannot expect to boost our earthworm population and solve major

mineral deficiency problems organically, without massive returns

of plant residues. There is an old truism which states that "a

chain is as strong as its weakest link". And in the agricultural

chain of life, the weakest link has been the return of organic

residues back to the soil.

 

Phosphorus and Sulphur Relationships

 

     Research on this issue of phosphate deficiency took us into

many areas of mineral nutrition, one of which was sulphur. It

might be worthwhile to mention here several facts we found out

from other researchers about this element, since both sulphur and

phosphorus have considerable bearing on the growth of legumes:

     1. There is evidence that phosphate deficiencies may be

accompanied by sulphur complications, and recent work in New

Zealand has indicated that SULPHUR may be equally important with

PHOSPHORUS in the growth and development of pasture legumes.

Ludecke found that the amount of sulphur required by legumes is

between one-tenth and one-fifteenth the amount of nitrogen fixed.

Thus, if we consider a figure of 250 lbs. of nitrogen fixed per

acre per year, somewhere between 17 and 25 lbs. of sulphur will

be required of that soil.

     2. But although this amount of sulphur may be sufficient to

produce maximum plant growth, Anderson (1952) reports that more

sulphur is required to maintain maximum protein content.

Apparently maximum growth can be achieved without a comparable

achievement in protein levels! (i.e. yields are not necessarily

synonymous with quality values.) Saalbach (1961) also studied the

influence of S on plant yield and protein quality in various

forage crops, and found a positive correlation between S

fertilization and protein quality.

     3. Pot experiments by Needham and Hauge (1952) showed that a

pronounced S deficiency in Lucerne caused a pronounced shortage

of vitamins in the plant.

     All of these facts essentially concern characteristics of

QUALITY in plant composition. We mention them here because they

bring us back once again to the all-important factor of organic

matter in soil, which, as we have seen, is not only a major

source of phosphorus but also of sulphur.

     4. Barrow ( 1962), Williams and Steinbergs (1958) and other

researchers confirm Joffe's previous statement that there are

always appreciable quantities of S present in organic matter and

that organic residues are the major source of sulphur for plants.

     5. Lastly, Freney and Spencer (1960) report that in general,

soils mineralize more sulphur in the presence of growing plants

than in their absence. They suggest this may be due to the

"rhizosphere [root zone] effect" brought about by the secretion

of amino acids and sugars and the subsequent increase in

micro-organism activity.

 

Micro-organisms and Soil Nutrients

 

     The bacterium Thiobacillus thio-oxidans, which is widespread

in acid soils, is one of the most outstanding organisms

associated with the transformation of sulphur. It can oxidize

sulphur and sulfides to sulphates, and starting from mineral

salts can produce 10% H2SO4 (Sulfuric acid).

     Waksman and Starkey have shown that it can produce H2SO4 in

the soil -- an ability which may be significant in the

transformation of insoluble rock phosphate to more soluble forms.

     Keruran presents a spectacular theory that the whole genus

of Thiobacilli play an important role in other aspects of sulphur

and phosphorus nutrition. He presents evidence aiming to show

that they are capable of TRANSMUTING oxygen to sulphur -- not a

straightforward chemical change, but a NUCLEAR transformation. He

also suggests that there is a probable link (via transmutation)

between sulphur and phosphorus and a possible link between

sulphur and magnesium (Biological Transmutations, 1972).

     Very little is currently known about nutrient

inter-relationships. They are certainly exceedingly complex. But

this new evidence for transmutation -- also supported by

Branfield, further complicates the issue and if scientifically

sound, puts the whole concept of mineral formation and

availability in a new light.

     No wonder Burges comments:

 

          "Availability of many of the plant nutrients in the

soil is markedly affected by the microorganisms, but the problems

associated with the changes involved are exceedingly complex"

("Micro-organisms in the Soil", by Alan Burges, 1958, p. 147).

Following the discovery of the importance of the Thiobacilli in

sulphur availability and the probable relationship between

sulphur and phosphorus, we then looked into whether one

particular group of micro-organisms was principally responsible

for making phosphate available.

     From the limited amount of material available (mostly

Russian), we found no such direct correlation. Zimenko (1966)

investigated most of the major micro-organic forms of life except

for algae -- which have similar nutrient requirements to

multicellular plants and protozoa -- which mainly feed on

bacteria. From his results, there might be a possible correlation

in certain soils between phosphate availability and populations

of actinomycetes and fungi, but it is difficult to assess.

     Burges mentions that one type of fungi (Basidiomycete) traps

phosphate in the lower layers of litter on the forest floor. And

there is some indication that other fungi (mycorrhizal) in

certain mutually beneficial (symbiotic) associations with tree

roots, supply phosphate to some trees.

 

Predominance of Chicory?

 

     Our initial thoughts on the solution to phosphate deficiency

ran on somewhat similar lines to Coccanouer's, although they were

complemented by the material Branfield and Kervran presented --

i.e. that the answer lay in utilizing hitherto unused crops in

the rotation to supply the missing minerals.

     For example, Branfield shows that plants can produce their

own magnesium when grown in culture mediums in which none is

available.

     Similarly, Kervran points out that when a lawn is lacking in

calcium -- daisies appear. When they die, they decompose leaving

calcium behind for other species to take up, thus continuing the

natural ecological cycles of regeneration and succession -- about

which we know so pitifully little!

     Likewise, we wondered if there could be a plant, or a number

of plants with exceptional ability for making phosphate

available. Another link in the ecological chain that has perhaps

been overlooked and which man could utilize to great advantage.

     Research showed several aquatic plants such as duckweed

(Lemony tres.) and pondweed (Oldie canadensis) to be

comparatively high in phosphate -- although this could have been

due to unreasonably high levels of phosphate in the surface

waters where they were growing.

     Upon considering the various species in our own pastures, we

were reminded of the outstanding success achieved in the seeding

of chicory. This plant is well known for its value as a source of

phosphate in animal nutrition, but its performance was especially

interesting to us. Over many years, our Hertfordshire soils have

traditionally and consistently tested deficient in available

phosphate. Even repeated dressings of natural rock phosphate

materials have effected only temporary improvements in

availability of this agriculturally important mineral.

     In spite of what one might describe as a chronic lack of

available phosphate, the chicory plant positively flourished in

our deficient environment. The other important observation in

this connection is the fact that our sheep and cattle have

readily devoured this species, showing an outstanding preference

for it.

     These observations would seem to support the idea that

chicory is effective in bringing phosphate to the surface, even

in soils that appear to be deficient in the mineral. At the same

time, the grazing animals' sharp preferences lend weight to the

belief that unhindered, they have the instinctive ability to

select for themselves a minerally balanced diet. Measuring their

natural preferences against the poor phosphate performance of our

soils, seems to indicate that they are seeking their phosphate

needs through this plant species.

     As our results appear to confirm other's findings, we are

more than ever inclined to the view that more research would

reveal a capacity in other plants to help balance mineral

availability in soils that need it.

 

Optimum Levels of Soil Organic Matter

 

     We have already mentioned that organic matter contains

considerable reserves of sulphur and phosphorus. Whilst the

micro-organisms seem more ready to make sulphur available for

plant growth, it is the earthworm population that does the main

job as far as phosphate availability is concerned.

     The incredible fertility achieved in the Nile valley was

only possible through the vast quantities of fertile silt --

containing approx. 55% organic matter in finely divided form,

deposited annually by the river. This was washed down from the

Ethiopian highlands and provided virtually limitless food for the

teeming worm life.

     If we are ever to achieve any comparable fertility, we will

obviously have to make huge 'investments' in our bank of soil

reserves. Until we have attained optimum levels of soil organic

matter we can only expect to reap mediocre crops and breed a

pitifully diminutive population of earthworms. Once we have

achieved such optimum levels we will be obliged to MAINTAIN them

with REGULAR returns of organic matter -- just as the Nile does

each year.

     Here, it would appear is the ultimate pay-off for every man

and every generation willing to adopt the GIVE philosophy, in

place of our natural human desire to GET and GET while we can --

regardless of the consequences!

     Are we beginning to see here one of the reasons why God has

allocated ONE THOUSAND YEARS in His plan for man to rebuild this

earth to Garden of Eden specifications?

     What we are prone to forget is that most agricultural soils

have been severely depleted of their natural fertility by decades

or centuries of wrong methods. They have been cropped intensively

with little respite and very little in the way of organic

returns. We have overloaded delicate systems with demands that

have been far too great, and we are now paying the penalties --

penalties which cannot be eradicated overnight.

     Gordon Rattray Taylor in his famous Doomsday Book cited the

sulphur and phosphorus cycles specifically in this regard. Notice

his warning.

 

          "Any feedback mechanism can be swamped by too big an

input. The thermostat which regulates room temperature cannot

maintain the temperature if you open all the windows on any icy

day, or keep you cool if the house catches on fire.

          "And what may be more important, these mechanisms

respond very slowly: so even if they can absorb the effects of

human activity, they may take centuries to do so, and in the

meantime conditions may be adverse for life. Man has begun to

intrude on this beautifully balanced mechanism [in context -- the

nitrogen cycle], as well as on the cycles which regulate the

turnover of carbon, SULPHUR, PHOSPHORUS, carbon dioxide, and

other substances. No one knows how much overload they can

tolerate" (p. 89).

 

     Apparently the overload in the case of phosphorus has

already been exceeded! Our land has been cropped far too

intensively and the phosphorus taken off merely ends up in the

sea.(1)

 

---------------

(1) Each year in the U.K. we flush 172,000 tons of phosphorus and

123,000 tons of potassium out into our rivers and coasts and hope

to make up for this loss with imports of North African rock

phosphate and potash from the Dead Sea totalling 700,000 tons!!

---------------

 

Results of Soil Tests

 

     On our own farm soils in Bricket Wood, we found available

phosphorus to be higher than original levels of seven years ago.

Over a six month period (January to June 1973), 153 random soil

tests were taken in 10 different fields. Of these, only 8 showed

low availabilities, 123 gave moderate readings of varying

intensities, and the remaining 22 showed phosphate availability

to be at a high level. One can only deduce that organic matter

and available nutrient levels are slowly improving, but that we

still have a long way to go!

     We need to mention one word of caution regarding soil

analyses such as the ones we conducted. Soil tests (especially of

P and K) can be unreliable, misleading and highly variable.

Others agree:

 

          "There is still no foolproof method whereby the exact

quantity of available phosphorus can be determined" (South

African Farmer's Weekly, Sept. 13th, 1972).

 

(NOTE: To view a chart titled "Availability of Phosphorus and Other

Soil Nutrients at various levels of PH", see the file 740606.TIF in

the Images\Ag directory.)

 

     But the large numbers of "moderate" availabilities obtained

in our 1973 tests seem to give a fairly reliable indication of

the condition of phosphorus in our soils.

 

Phosphorus and Soil Ph

 

     The preceding chart indicates the general trend of phosphate

availability according to Ph, compared with other soil nutrients.

The more soluble a nutrient is under a particular condition of

soil acidity or alkalinity, the thicker is the horizontal band

representing the nutrient. Solubility in turn is directly related

to the availability of the nutrient in an ionic form that is

assimilable by the plant.

     Notice that nearly all the nutrients shown are available in

greatest quantities around a Ph of 7 -- neutral, on this scale.

It is also well-known that organic matter is invaluable in

stabilizing Ph. When humus is present in sufficient quantity and

in every stage of decay, soil Ph is almost invariably neutral or

near neutral. (2)

 

------------------

(2) One notable exception is the floor of a conifer forest. The

special nature of its organic content actually contributes to its

acid condition.

------------------

 

The Haughley Organic Experiment

 

     Lawrence D. Hills, writing in the November 1972 issue of The

Ecologist mentions that:

 

          "The Soil Association, after running a 'closed circuit'

farm at Haughley for thirty years, returning all the manure and

organic matter to the soil, found that the milk, eggs, meat and

grain going off the farm produced a steady fall in yields" (p.

24).

 

     He interprets this to mean that if nutrients leave the

system -- regardless of how high humus levels in the soil may be,

nutrient availability and consequent productivity must fall. For

the "closed" system, the inference is of course that nutrient

availability will inevitably diminish in the absence of

replenishments from outside.

     On the surface, it sounds like an open and shut case!

Nutrients DO escape, even from an organic cycle, but we must

remember that soil is mostly INORGANIC and therefore as long as

we have soil, we have untapped mineral reserves. The alternative

is that God made a mistake at Creation and forgot the phosphate

and other nutrient needs of mankind around the earth. This

MISTAKE would force man to transport mineral deposits around the

world for the purpose of food production and/or to recycle all

animal and HUMAN wastes.

     The FIRST presupposes that our environment must depend on

considerable industrial development and highly expensive

international transportation. The SECOND, while theoretically

possible, does not appear to tally with the hygiene standards of

the Old Testament.

     If either of these be the case -- our nutritional protection

would appear to be the subject of some considerable doubt, but

that premise has to be rejected because, it just does not match

God's performance in any other area!

     What appears to be certain however, is that under the

adopted TEN-year rotation, (3) although Haughley soil humus

INCREASED by 27% in ten years -- crops took nutrients away faster

than the system could replace them from internal sources!

Nitrogen and potassium levels fell during this period. Phosphate

levels -- in crop analysis, fell slightly and soil pH became more

acidic.

 

-------------

(3) The rotation consisted of: 1. winter wheat, 2. root and

forage, 3. barley,  4. winter beans and spring peas, 5. oats, 6.

silage of oats and peas, and 7-10. four years of pasture.

-------------

 

     But we suggest that anyone would be making a grave error to

postulate from these results that a CLOSED system will not

support mankind for the duration of at least seven thousand

years. We feel that the Bible gives no support to the idea that

the closed environmental system is inefficient.

     Because soil with only 3% humus is acknowledged to be below

the critical level (4) a decline in plant nutrients, following a

27% increase in humus, proves only that the closed system is

doomed to lose efficiency WHEN HUMUS IS BELOW THE CRITICAL LEVEL.

It in no way disproves the ability of much higher levels of humus

to release inorganic minerals commensurate with increased plant

production.

 

--------------

(4) 3% humus was quoted as a disastrously low figure in British

Midland soils by the 1969 committee of enquiry headed by Sir

Emerys Jones, former Chief Advisor to the British Ministry of

Agriculture.

--------------

 

     One might say it would be like claiming that a gravitational

pull of 20 lbs cannot be overcome -- simply because we witness

the results of a weight lifter exerting an opposing force of only

19 lbs! Likewise, one could raise the Ph of a soil from 5.5 to

6.0 and still witness a decline in its clover population. But any

agriculturalist would expect the same clover plants to

proliferate with a further Ph increase to 7.0, or even 6.5!

     To believe otherwise concerning the function of rising

levels of soil humus, is tantamount to turning thumbs down on

man's future, the moment we exhaust North African and other bulk

supplies of rock phosphate.

     On the contrary -- we feel that the Haughley Experiment

confirms the need for a rotation far more heavily weighted in

favour of an animal based agriculture. And if the system is to

remain "closed", it must be operated with judicious grazing at

low intensity. Failing this, low humus levels will never allow

plant productivity to really "take off". May we remind the

non-agricultural reader that it CAN take off -- e.g. the early

years of high yields of high protein grain, on the world's

black-soil plains, all with a total absence of NPK fertilizers.

     Other than robbing one area of the earth to supply the

demands of another, there is no alternative, if man is ever to

relieve his current dependence on long-term fallow.

     It may then be argued that the organic approach is

uneconomic. This is probably true in the short-term, but as one

ecologist said -- if you accept every argument that is put

forward today on the grounds of economics, you have no

alternative but to conclude that it is definitely "uneconomic"

for mankind to survive!

     Depressing it may be, but one must therefore conclude that

there is no simple way of putting prosperity in the pockets of

those working the farmlands of a world that has been bleeding its

soil fertility for centuries.

     We just happen to be the generation living at the time of

the grand pay-off. Man's survival depends on many of these men

being able to hold on until a world government can change the

situation.

 

Time Is Running Out

 

     Temporarily, this world can go on drawing on underground

phosphate reserves from Morocco, Tunisia, Florida and Nauru etc.,

for the immediate future -- if farmers can afford the escalating

prices. But this does not alter the fact that world agriculture

is headed down a blind alley, a dead-end street and one day man

will be forced to do an 180ø turn. We will eventually have to

manage our environment so that each acre of food-producing land

will not only release its own phosphate for plant production, but

also a whole range of other nutrients so necessary to health in

plants, animals and people.

     If, as it certainly appears, soil humus levels are the only

long-term solution, then the sooner we get started, the less pain

we will inflict upon ourselves and the sooner we will reap some

of the possible rewards.

     From the material studied -- all the evidence indicates that

in order to effect a lasting solution to the phosphate problem,

farmers will in future have to:

 

     1. Raise the levels of organic matter dramatically and

stabilize the Ph of the soil,

     2. Maintain very high levels of organic matter to encourage

a stable and large earthworm population, and

     3. Recycle as much nutrient outflow as possible, or reduce

economic demands on our soils.

 

     No experiment comparable to the Haughley trials has to our

knowledge been carried out on high-humus (chernozem) type soil,

so it is difficult to say what level of fertility is necessary

before a management system based on steps ONE and TWO, could

largely dispense with the necessity of step THREE. Of course, it

is extremely doubtful if it would ever make sense NOT to bother

recycling most annual plant nutrient production. If it were

otherwise -- would we not be negating God's law of the more you

GIVE, the more you GET?

                                                                               

 

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT

                  December 1974, Vol. V, No. 2

                     Ambassador College (UK)

                     Agriculture Department

 

                   FOUNDING A NEW CIVILIZATION

 

     God has created man a PHYSICAL being and along with many

other life-forms, we humans owe our continued existence to the

constant availability of three things -- OXYGEN, WATER and FOOD!

     OXYGEN, God has made available by enveloping our planet in

an atmosphere that is consistently recharged with this gas. All

we have to do is breathe it in!

     WATER, he has made freely available through cyclical

atmospheric precipitation. However, we are required to do

something more than drink it. We have to go and get it for

ourselves. Furthermore, our survival depends on locating

ourselves close to a regular supply.

     FOOD, by contrast with the other two basic necessities, is

something man has to really work at producing for himself. Our

Creator has provided us with the essentials, but we have to do

the rest. Some, whom we now call "HUNTER-GATHERERS," manage to

survive without actually engaging in agriculture, but the lives

of most people depend directly on the activities of FARMING. Not

one rational human being would hope to survive in any environment

where his or her supplies of OXYGEN and WATER were not secure. Is

it not then quite IRRATIONAL that multiple millions have seen fit

to locate themselves in massive urban concentrations -- without

ANY security in respect of FOOD?

     Simply because so many are born into this insulated and

unreal existence is of itself no reason for assuming it to be a

right way of life. We know that there is little any of us can do

at this time to combat the weaknesses and evils of raising

humanity under battery conditions. However, we may at least

recognize that teeming millions are daily undergoing

dehumanization and social disintegration -- as successive

generations live and die in the isolation of those sterile human

vacuums we are pleased to call CITIES!

     To attempt to even discuss the basics of physical life is an

open invitation to be TURNED-OFF today. In this, our civilization

wallows willingly in its own hollowness and frustration.

     However, in this issue of "Your Living Environment" we aim

to contrast our modern BABYLON with the kind of apprentice

training-ground God has long had in mind for his prospective

sons. You will see a remarkable contrast and the details are

something with which we need to be familiar. If we are not, how

can we hope to have the mind of Christ in this important area of

life!

     Christ himself lived in a society where all but a trace of

God's pattern for living was blotted out by a cultural synthesis

of ancient BABYLON, GREECE and ROME. Can we imagine what an

abomination it must have been to Christ -- the Author of man's

true life-style in the Garden of Eden, the nation of ANCIENT

ISRAEL and THE WORLD in the coming millennium!

     Perhaps none of us have yet sufficiently grasped the

significant differences between "man's" society and God's coming

physical kingdom. Those differences are so great that they should

reach right through into the spiritual aspects of our lives. Is

it any wonder Satan wants us to accept this present society as

God's kingdom on earth and the concept of a future, floating

around in heaven!!

 

We Are Blind To The Essentials

 

     Today, we live in a society that does not like to be told

that it is polluting the OXYGEN supply in our own atmosphere!

     The very nature of the environment most of us have had

created for us, engenders a mindless approach even to our own

WATER supply. It has long been something we take totally for

granted. It is so far from our mind that we don't even think of

it, until some faceless "Authority" fails in ITS responsibility

to keep a constant supply on tap in OUR home.

     Oxygen and water are vital needs upon which we seldom

reflect, but when it comes to the matter of FOOD our unconcern is

even less rational and downright shocking!

     Now we have for example, generations who live and die not

only without ever having the remotest idea of how to feed

themselves, but without understanding, or even faintly desiring

to understand the process of FOOD production!

     In the average city, interest seldom extends beyond the

bottle we expect to appear miraculously on the doorstep each

morning -- like manna from heaven! Among all too many males,

interest in our source of FOOD does not reach even to the front

doorstep. It ends at the white jug in the centre of the breakfast

table!

     In this all too common city-environment, our knowledge on

producing that basic essential -- FOOD, becomes about as relevant

as a battery-hen's ability to scratch for worms. An important

difference between HENS and PEOPLE, in their equally regrettable

circumstances, is that hens in battery-cages never lose the

instinct to scratch for worms. On the other hand, people living

in cities are highly prone to forget about food production. They

also forget that they do NOT have some inalienable right to a

cheap and constant source of food, supplied by what many regard

as a remote and primitive human rural sub-culture!

     Food supplied by impoverished farmers, to millions living in

congested city-slums is hardly the goal of a superior society.

Neither is pulling some factory assembly-line lever 120 times an

hour, 40 hours per week and 49 weeks per year, until one reaches

the magical age of 65. If it is, then why did God leave it to MAN

to create such a society? Surely it is an environment God himself

could have put man into from the very beginning!

 

Are We Smarter Than God?

 

     Compared with what God intended for MAN our present

situation would be laughable, except it is such a horrific

reality! Asked what he liked LEAST and MOST about his job, a

Sheffield steelworker summed up the attitude of most factory

employees when he said: "COMING and GOING".

     Today, our pattern for living has become one of the most

fundamental evils of human history! What a contrast to God's

plan! How deeply do we appreciate that our Creator knew what he

was doing when he put man into the Garden he specifically created

in Eden? Can we conceive that it was not just a crude means of

getting mankind started and that there might have been even more

than just a human SURVIVAL connection between man and the

environment God created for us?

     Might not God have had something else in mind, other than a

constant supply of food, when he put man into the Garden in Eden?

After all, he is able to supply our OXYGEN and WATER needs with

very little inconvenience to our innate desire to enjoy life! Why

then did God tie man's survival to FOOD production and why did he

make it such a time-consuming business?

     Why, as we will see, did he also make food production an

activity in which EVERY individual was to participate to at least

some extent?

     Having completed re-creation with the formation of man out

of the dust of the ground, God immediately set about instructing

his human species in how to use one seventh of their time -- the

weekly Sabbath. Man soon departed totally from this concept and

has suffered ever since!

     Likewise, God then put his human species into the Garden of

Eden and instructed them in the basic role we are to fulfill in

the remaining six-sevenths of our time. In similar fashion

however, man soon departed as far as possible from that concept

too and the further we depart, the more we suffer!

     This is not to imply that the solution to man's problems is

for all of us to become farmers. It is merely making the point

that by revoking our intended God-given relationship with the

land (via food production) man has committed one of his greatest

blunders. In departing from the SABBATH, man virtually lost all

knowledge of the true God. Perhaps even we in God's Church have

yet to fully appreciate what is still missing in our lives

through being cut off from the SOIL.

     The very hint of such a possibility is in some quarters of

our society today an open invitation for scorn, jokes and

ridicule. That in itself should alert everyone of us, if we are

in God's Church. The "peasant" syndrome represents man's

"natural" reaction today to anything agricultural and by now we

should have become totally distrustful of "natural" reactions!

     All of us have grown up in a society that has gone as far as

it can in separating itself from direct contact with the soil and

with the most important physical function in our lives (next to

breathing OXYGEN and drinking WATER) producing FOOD to eat!

     Being in God's Church, we understand and believe that ADAM

and EVE actually existed and are part of human history, but do

some of us still go along with the idea that the Garden in Eden

was too primitive an environment to hold our interest, or present

US with any worthwhile challenge? Modern society is transfixed by

the vista of man's own ingenuity, but we may yet come to

understand that herein lies one of Satan's most cunningly

conceived pitfalls. We live in Satan's world and we are all

pressured into admiring its "sophistication". Webster's

definition of the word "sophisticate" is "to pervert, to render

worthless by adulteration." Is any further comment necessary?

 

What Are Man's Fruits?

 

     Choose any area of the world today and you will find a

direct correlation between the concentration of population in

cities and the incidence of crime and corruption. Take any

selection of countries! Without ever having visited them, one

could instantly put their finger on the hotbeds of drugs,

thievery, prostitution, homosexuality, abortion, murder and every

known form of petty and major corruption.

     No-one would be naive enough to think that in Britain this

rotten side of society is located in the tiny villages of

Scotland, Kent or the Cotswolds. No -- you would correctly

conclude it is London. Historically, New York, Chicago and San

Francisco have been America's most notorious crime and

racketeering centres. No one could imagine Orr, Minnesota and Big

Sandy, Texas becoming major centres of U.S. crime.

     True, these little places have less people, but most of them

have yet to produce their first hardened criminal, unless they

are residents who have drifted to the big cities. Everyone of us

has the POTENTIAL, but do we begin to appreciate how blessed we

have been by lack of OPPORTUNITY?

     Of course, man will engage in the worst crimes regardless of

the smallness of the community. The first murder was committed

when there may have been only one family on the earth! That

however, is very much the exception.

     Talking with one of our men who recently returned from a

tour of West Africa, the writer learned that the same old story

is being repeated down there. Family and tribal life is breaking

up as tens of thousands are attracted to WESTERN influence in the

large cities. In the outlying areas, the authority of the tribal

chiefs is being challenged and undermined. In the cities, graft

and corruption of every kind grows at an unprecedented rate.

Development toward WESTERN standards is almost within their grasp

and to those people it must look like UTOPIA -- but is it really?

Would most of them not be better off back in their villages,

under the direct influence of their own family and the authority

of their tribal chief?

     Development and a degree of urbanization could be ideal for

these poor, backward and uneducated people, but is it worth the

price? Development is of itself not wrong, but everywhere man

shows that he lacks the character to handle it! That could be the

very reason God chose a different kind of society for his people.

 

God Knows What Is Best For Man

 

     God desires success for every one of us and his ideal for

living is so different from that which man has devised. In the

Bible he has given us a few basic physical laws which if

followed, will guide mankind into an entirely different pattern

of life. Ancient Israel was to be a national living example of a

people operating under these laws. They failed, but next time

God's people will succeed.

     Next time, man will be under God's government, administered

by Jesus Christ following his second coming. Like all preceding

civilizations, it will be based on LAW! Two differences between

this coming civilization and most of those that have gone before

are, FIRST, the law will be the law of God, and SECONDLY, it will

be enforced!

     In the past, man has succeeded to the extent that he has

based any civilization upon GOD'S law. And on the other hand, he

has failed, to whatever degree he has departed from it! Ps. 19:7

tells us that God's law is perfect, so let's not desire to settle

for anything less!

 

The Jubilee Law

 

     When we think of the legal system in any modern society,

even the trained mind boggles at its complexity. Yet it is shot

through with loopholes and weaknesses. Man, in his law, struggles

endlessly in treating the effects. Ultimately these become

totally unmanageable -- economically, socially and

environmentally!

     By contrast, the legal system in God's society in ancient

Israel was remarkable for its simplicity. Likewise, our coming

new civilization will also be notable for the simplicity of its

legal system. This is because the mind of God has a habit of

getting to the root cause of problems. His laws, if obeyed, will

head our problems off before they get started.

     One of the most basic and far-reaching civil laws to be

re-introduced into God's society is that which makes it ILLEGAL

for any man (except the priests and Levites) to become LANDLESS

(Lev. 25:8-17). Every family will become the recipient of an area

of land which is to remain their possession down through every

generation. No man will have the right to sell this inheritance

out from under his family, or from generations yet unborn. The

most that can happen is that the land might pass temporarily to

the control of others on an advance rental basis. Every 50 years

all of this land will be returned to the original owner, or his

descendants -- irrespective of whether they want it or not!

     The only possible exception to this, concerns acreage

consecrated to God and therefore given to Church control (Lev.

27:20,21). Presumably this acreage would be re-distributed to

others in need, otherwise God's Church would end up just like the

churches of ROME and ENGLAND -- perhaps the biggest land-owner in

the country! That of course was never God's purpose. If it had

been, he would have kept it all for the priests and never have

made the initial distribution.

     This is a typical contrast between the systems of God and

Satan. God's priesthood have NO inheritance. Satan's priests have

at times ended up owning vast areas of land!

     All of that is an aside. The important point for us is that

under God, his people have COMPULSORY LAND OWNERSHIP. It is also

a state of affairs that is preserved intact by the law of release

-- THE JUBILEE.

     Contrast this type of society with today's Western

civilization. Here, more that 90% of our population are

concentrated in cities and have neither OWNERSHIP nor ACCESS to

land for food production!

 

Who Wants A Peasant Society?

 

     One might be surprised at how few would want their own land

today -- especially if there was any thought that they might have

to live on it! It is a problem, but God is well able to take care

of it in the future.

     Today, we might ask ourselves -- would God's new

civilization mean a return to some kind of second-rate peasant

society? That is the fear that would instantly spring to the

minds of many people. Being a law of God, we know it would NOT

mean a peasant society, but perhaps we have not thought the

situation through to where we understand WHY. It is a vital

point, concerning all of mankind, so let us try to shed some

light on it.

     The poor, down-trodden, half-starved PEASANT-ECONOMIES of

this world are not even remotely similar to the society God had

in mind for ancient Israel, or the WORLD TOMORROW. Multiple

millions whom we call "peasants" either have no land of their

own, or their area is totally inadequate for their needs. What is

equally important, they are mostly subject to crippling financial

burdens, pitiful rewards for their produce and a lack of right

education in the basics of land management.

     In most of these nations today, LAND-OWNERSHIP and POWER is

concentrated in the hands of a socially elite class. Whether of

the extreme right, or the extreme left, they manage to struggle

with their conscience and sleep quite soundly every night.

     In the West, we too have our own brand of "peasantry" today.

Though it is a contradiction in terms, our "elite" in the West

has become the MAJORITY! It is the organized mass of trade

unionists and their bosses, each struggling for power. Scattered

and relatively small numbers of farmers pose no threat to either

of these groups, or the politicians vying with each other for

their support.

     Farmers might as well resign themselves to one fact of life

in our present civilization -- industrially-controlled economies

will always demand cheap food for their massive work-force.

Furthermore, no political party is going to risk its future by

redressing this social imbalance.

     What politicians, labour and management have not yet

understood is the fact that our industrial society will be hoist

with its own petard!

     In our greed we have destroyed our own social and economic

foundations and no amount of technological and industrial

penetration into the business of food production is going to

stave off collapse!

     Substitution of a skeleton-crew of robot-like machine

operators in place of a land-owning society is a sure route to

national disaster. If it does not arise from social anarchy it

will come in the form of nutritional bankruptcy in our soil, our

plants, our animals and finally OURSELVES!

     Even today, we should be able to see that a large and

prosperous land-owning sector is the only sound basis of a stable

society.

 

Misconceptions On A Farm-based Society

 

     We should not conclude that in a society based on compulsory

land-ownership every person MUST produce his own food. Some could

pay others to do it for them. We do this today, but the great

majority are landless and have therefore lost the privilege of

growing ANY of their own food -- even when they don't like the

going price for agricultural produce. All they can do is protest,

riot and shout for government subsidies to keep prices down and

strike for higher wages.

     In the coming new civilization every man will own land and

most will work at least part of it, but no able-bodied man need

be fully occupied growing food just for his own family.

Subsistence farming is nowhere implied as part of the new system.

Everyone will have the option of growing more than their own food

needs, for sale to other people, or spending most of their work

time performing other functions useful to society.

     Any community based on these lines would have a large

measure of social and economic stability built into it. There is

an option corresponding to the non-farmer's chance to return to

food production at any time. It is the fact that the full-time

food producer may opt to cut production any time returns are

inadequate and branch out into activities that are more

financially rewarding.

     These gentle and simple voluntary adjustments, being open to

all, will promote a happy state of equilibrium. What a contrast

to the violent recessions, mass-unemployment, depressions and

hardship that have characterized Satan's society! These simple

facts should make us all wish that God's society would come more

quickly.

 

The Second Key Law To Our Environment

 

     Compulsory land-ownership would be an abject failure in any

society without some other law, or laws governing use of the land

by each individual owner.

     Often to our great surprise, God did not find it necessary

to expound at length in the Bible on the right principles of food

production. Apart from creation itself and man's future

potential, one of God's most remarkable accomplishments is the

degree of environmental protection and guidance he has given in

one briefly-stated law.

     His law of the land sabbath forces every land user in an

obedient nation to protect man's physical support system.

     Briefly, 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.

 

     Fuller details of this law were given in the October, 1970

issue of "Your Living Environment" and it is recommended that

readers consult this earlier material in conjunction with the

comments being added here.

     With a little study and meditation it is not difficult to

get God's main message on managing our environment via the land

sabbath law.

     In essence, it is a law designed to protect the soil from

the excessive demands man is prone to make upon it via crop

production. By ruling out commercial crop production every

seventh year, God made it uneconomical for man to depend heavily

on crops -- especially continuous arable farming.

     Marketing of vegetable production is eliminated in the

seventh year, thus forcing every family to grow at least some of

their own needs. To do that, one must have access to a minimum

amount of land. This need is just one more very important reason

for compulsory land-ownership, nationwide.

     As one may harvest only volunteer crops and those only for

personal use, the law virtually forces everyone to have their own

garden in the sixth year as well as the seventh in every cycle.

This is due to the simple fact that one can't have volunteer

production in the seventh year without planned sowing in the

sixth year.

     In order to avoid undue hardship in this day and age,

headquarters of God's Church has permitted setting aside one

seventh of our land each year, in lieu of resting all of it in

the seventh year.

     What is now being emphasized is the ECOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE

behind the land sabbath law and that is where we land-users had

better not misunderstand!!

     Regardless of WHICH way we choose to keep this law, remember

one thing -- no one can claim to be preserving the fertility of

his land if he is growing SIX crops in succession.

     Viewed positively, the land sabbath, above all else,

discourages the "getting" attitude so prevalent in our society

today. It encourages us to care for the soil and thereby the

future of coming generations. It also encourages a system of

agriculture based on the ruminants designated as CLEAN by God in

Lev. 11 and Deut. 14.

     Here again we have one more contrast between the society God

intends and that which we have today as a combined effort between

Satan and man.

     Perhaps by the contrasting of just two simple laws of God

with our modern Babylonish society, we can see a little more

clearly God's infinite wisdom and man's suicidal foolishness

under the influence of Satan.

     Only God can release twentieth-century man from the

hellishness of our concrete and asphalt jungles and from the

poverty of an enslaved agriculture!

                                                                               

 

 

 

                     YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT