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