YOUR LIVINGENVIRONMENT
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
January 1970, Vol. I, No. 1
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
THE POWER OF ENVIRONMENT
"Environmentalfactors exert a directive development on
the effect of all human characteristics, in health as wellas
disease. The body and mind are shaped early in life by the
environment" (Dr. Rene Dubos, Science Journal, Oct.1969).
Man is notignorant of this concept, but he lives as if he
is unaware of it! Environmental influences DO have a majoreffect
in shaping every one of us. A clearer picture of the extentand
power of environment can be given by first examining itseffects
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 thereis
constant interplay between the two. The basis of theattachment,
it would seem, lies in the minerals of the rocks. These,released
by weathering and the acid secretions by organic life, findtheir
way into the soil and thence into the roots, stems andleaves of
plants. The metabolism of an animal (or human) feeding on the
plants becomes "attuned" to a particular mineralcomplex, which
then becomes essential to the animal's health. This fact isknown
to most farmers. Calves for instance, have an inherited
attunement to the herbage of their own farm through their
mother's blood.
"Thisalso instills immunity to local diseases and if
moved to another farm (with a distinctly differentenvironment),
special care has to be taken to protect them and build uptheir
strength as they are prone to fall victims todisease-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 fromgeneration
to generation can be seen to acquire recognizablecharacteristics
derived from its environment'" ("The InviolableHills", R. A. D.
J. Hart, p.117).
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES IN LIVESTOCK
Specificevidence to validate this is found in an 1865
Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, on the breedingand
management of sheep:
"Thetraining, the character and history of any race of
animals, the influence that situation, climate, and soil aswell
as management exert on the appearance, constitution, and
disposition must not be overlooked ... SO GREAT is theeffect of
climate and soil, that the fine flavour of the Southdown (a
squat, meaty, short-wooled breed of sheep) may be changed intime
to a coarse, tallowy meat of the Leicester, or otherlong-wooled
sheep. Nor will the flesh alone be interfered with, but thewool
and every other feature will be assimilated to those of the
natives of the different localities.
"... Aremarkable case in point occurred in France some
years ago, when I sent some Leicester sheep to a Frenchfarmer
lbs. each, the rams 14 lbs. each. These sheep being managedafter
the fashion of the Normans, the wool grew less every year,and
that of their progeny still lighter. In six years theyclipped
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 theyhad 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 aseries
of bovine experiments at Cambridge between 1945 and 1955.Batches
of calves from BEEF, DUAL-PURPOSE, and DAIRY breeds werereared
on different planes of nutrition. Before being slaughteredat two
to three years of age, the cattle were compared for growthrate,
conformation, meatiness etc ....
"Theconclusion which is of most permanent value is
that a HIGH LEVEL of nutrition and consequent rate of gainin
calf-hood leads to the FULL development of the hindquartersand
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" ("InSearch of Beef", Dr.
Allan Fraser, p. 118).
This work of Hammond'sindicates that the traditional
conformation difference between DAIRY cattle and BEEF cattleis
more the result of FEEDING differences (ENVIRONMENTAL) andless
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 familythat are
SO widely DIFFERENT that even the BOTANISTS want to PUT THEMINTO
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 thesame
strain and variety grown in Aberdeen, Scotland would be
noticeably different in appearance if grown in Surrey orKent.
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 theplant
or the flowers or fruit produced so that differences canappear
even though no genetic change has occurred. Bartlett pearsgrown
in California produce, in many years, round, apple shapedfruits,
but the same variety grown in Washington and Oregon produces
fruits that are relatively long and narrow, a difference dueto
climatic factors" ("Plant Propagation Principlesand Practices",
by Hartman and Jester, p. 159).
Practicallyevery 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 whor*cently
began a fruit farm in Spain is not so sure:
"Inthis climate, Cox is disappointing...It turns out
to be a completely different apple. For one thing thedistinctive
Cox flavour is entirely absent. For another, here (in Spain)it
ripens much earlier and has to be gathered at the end ofAugust,
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 thepower of different environments to produce
DIFFERENT 'plant-types' from the SAME genetic startingpoint!
ENVIRONMENT AND SEEDS
That the environment, with particular reference to soil
fertility, can alter the quality of seeds is also proven bywork
in India:
"Avery important observation made in the course of
investigation at Coimbatore is the effect of CATTLE MANUREon the
quality of the seed. Viswa Nath and Suryanarayana have shownthat
manuring the PARENT crop influences the resulting SEED inregard
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, asin the
case of seed vitality, the grain from the cattle manure plot
possessed HIGHER nutritive value than the grain from eitherthe
UNMANURED plot or the MINERAL-MANURED plot. He attributedthe
better nutritive value to the higher 'VITAMIN content of the
grain'.
"Theeffect 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, ofgrain
seeds grown without manure and those grown on soil to whichan
extract of pig manure had been added. Although CHEMICALANALYSIS
REVEALED LITTLE IF ANY difference in composition between thetwo
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 whengrown
continuously with nothing returned than when growncontinuously
with six tons of BARNYARD MANURE returned annually.
"Testsof the seedling vigour of grains from these
plots by Dr. R. L. Fox reported that of the Wheat seedsgrown
with no soil treatment only 42% showed emergence ofseedlings,
but where organic matter as barnyard manure had been goingback
annually, 75% of the seeds had their seedlings emerge to
represent that high degree of survival of the species in thenext
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:
"Thereis 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 transmissiblecharacters via
losses of protein characters. Yet the gene, too, strugglesto
keep the stream of its own life flowing which may mean
accumulated losses, all originating via nutrition as feedand
therefore VIA THE SOIL FERTILITY. The pedigree of the plantdoes
NOT guarantee the quality of the crop as feed for ouranimals (or
ourselves). ONLY A FERTILE SOIL DOES THAT"' (Ibid, p.52).
Herein lies theclue 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 nowexamine the
extent to which each and every one of us HAS BEEN, IS NOW,and
SHALL BE shaped by our surroundings!
"Differencesin environment make a difference in the
kind of people we become. Psychologists believe thatenvironment
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 ofall"
("Psychology for Living", Herbert Sorenson. NewYork, 1961, p.
16-17).
Notice also whatDr. Rene Dubos states:
"Jetsand world-wide television have not altered the
fact that ROCKY HILLS, ALLUVIAL PLAINS, FAMILY FARMSTEADSand
HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS, foster DIFFERENT kinds of people.
"Letme emphasise again that the radical changes in
growth, health, and behavior that result from life in the
urbanized, technologically controlled environment are NOTcaused
by genetic disturbances. In practically all cases, theCHANGES
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 technicizedand
urbanized societies, rich and poor. These influences elicitfrom
the human organism responses which are emerging thephysical,
mental and social disorders commonly called "DISEASESOF
CIVILIZATION". These responses impress a characteristicstamp on
modern life. They account for the fact that Emerson noted --we
resemble our contemporaries even more than our progenitors.
"All thoughtful persons worry aboutthe 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 physicaland
mental characteristics of mankind are being shaped now bydirty
skies and cluttered streets, anonymous high rises andamorphous
urban sprawl, social attitudes which are more concerned with
things than men.
"Theenvironment men create ... becomes a mirror that
reflects their civilization; more important it constitutes abook
in which is written the formula of life that theycommunicate to
others and transmit to succeeding generations. The
characteristics of the ENVIRONMENT are therefore ofimportance
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.
"Whilethe total environment certainly affects the way
men feel and behave, more importantly it conditions the KINDof
persons their DESCENDANTS will BECOME, because allenvironmental
factors have their MOST profound and LASTING EFFECTS whenthey
impinge on the YOUNG organism during the early stages of its
development.
"Mosteducational 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 orSpaniards
acquire their national characteristics because they areshaped
during early life by their buildings, educational systemsand
ways of life. But such shaping need not be only for the
preservation of the past. It can be oriented toward thefuture.
"The Israeli Kibbutz has demonstratedthat a systematic
programme of child-rearing can, in a single generation, giveto
children a healthy and vigorous personality entirelydifferent
from that of their parents" ("So Human AnAnimal", Dr. Rene
Dubos, pp. ix, xi, 56, 85, 171, 172).
We have quotedostensively from Dubos, not because he is the
only authority who makes this point, but rather because hehas
chosen to say it in terms that have so much meaning for
Ambassador College and its worldwide Extension Programme.
Dubos goes on toagain stress the importance of optimum
child-rearing:
"Environmental studies in animals have revealed that
severe nutritional deprivations or imbalances during theprenatal
or early postnatal period, will interfere with the normal
development of the brain and of learning ability.
"Inman also, malnutrition occurring at a critical time
appears to handicap mental development almost irreversibly.
"It isprobable that biological and mental
characteristics can be strongly affected while the processesof
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 crucialimportance of
the EARLY environment.
"Inthe past, RURAL life presented favorable conditions
for the mental development of children because it exposedthem to
an immense VARIETY of stimuli -- those from nature, thosefrom
the very diverse activities on the farm, and especiallythose
from the chores in which they were expected to participate.
During recent years, the non-urban environment has becomepoorer
in stimuli even on the farm and particularly in manysuburbs.
From the point of view of mental and emotional development,some
of the children brought up in WEALTHY suburbs may be amongthose
MOST severely deprived of stimulating sensory input.
Paradoxically their environment may be more deficient increative
stimuli than that of certain country and city children ....
"Alltoo often, modern housing developments give the
impression of being merely DISPOSABLE CUBICLES forDISPENSABLE
PEOPLE. Children growing up in them are likely to be so
handicapped as to become mentally handicapped andemotionally
crippled. This however is not a defect inherent in urbanlife; it
is only the consequence of a kind of city planningunconcerned
with the mental needs of human beings.
"Byacting on the child during his formative stages,
the ENVIRONMENT thus shapes him BIOLOGICALLY and MENTALLY,
thereby influencing what he will become and how he willfunction
as an adult. For this reason environmental planning plays akey
role in enabling human beings to realize theirpotentialities"
("Human Environment", Dr. Rene Dubos, 1969, pp.79, 80).
THE AMBASSADOR COLLEGE ENVIRONMENT
This vital powerof 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 thethinking
of leading men -- but few have stressed the importance ofright
environment MORE than AMBASSADOR COLLEGE.
The physicalplant of the college (gardens, buildings,
furniture etc.) is carefully designed to have the maximum
beneficial effect on the students (who are still at arelatively
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 dietis provided to enable the student to
function at his best while in college and to become familiarwith
the advantages of maintaining that standard of nutritionafter he
leaves college. A good environment is many more things thanwe
can enumerate here, but producing it and maintaining itboils
down to OBEDIENCE to God's laws. A bad environment is theresult
of DISOBEDIENCE to the laws of God.
The scientificevidence quoted earlier proves that a bad
environment will degenerate SHEEP, PLANTS, SEEDS and most ofall
HUMANS -- with LASTING effects to MANY generations! But
conversely a GOOD environment (i.e. obedience to God'slaws),
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 overallunderstanding.
Soil, climateand plants form the very foundation of man's
living environment. These powerful factors have always beenpart
of God's plan, in fact some of the actual tools He has usedin
building FAMILIES, TRIBES AND NATIONS. In our next issue wehope
to demonstrate this in some detail, relative to those Godhas
called His "PECULIAR" people!
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
February 1970, Vol. I, No. 2,
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
THE NUTRITION GAP
"Oncethe grip of the roots of trees and grass had
gone, there was nothing to bind the loose earth. Millions oftons
of soil were swept down the great rivers, raising theirbeds.
Thus began the grim story of China's floods that untilrecently
have brought death and disaster to millions and caused someof
this earth's greatest catastrophes, basically man-made.
"Ithas been estimated that some 670 million acres of
China's forests were cut down in what has been termed one ofthe
greatest acts of ecological stupidity in the history ofmankind.
"Theearth of China has through history been trodden by
eleven to twelve billion people, with an enormous wear andtear
of its vegetation cover and land surface; but even worse,there
has been a gradual accumulation of parasites. In man'sfootsteps
a massive deployment of bacteria, fungi, worms and insectshas
taken place.
"Disease has been spread through the night-soil, and as
a result the Chinese scene early becomes dominated byintestinal
worms. Their eggs are spread by the billions everywhere.They are
in the dust that swirls in clouds, and from this sourcealone the
people of China are bombarded by billions of helminthianeggs.
The weight of liver parasites in the aggregate of Chinesebodies
has been estimated to be equivalent to the weight of two million
Chinese. These liver parasites are responsible for many ayellow
complexion, and more than one-fifth of the population isreported
to have its liver seriously damaged by cirrhosis, chieflycaused
by protein deficiencies in the daily diet but frequently
aggravated by these marauders. This is the grim truthconcerning
a society that once lost its ecological balance and neverwas
capable of restoring it."("The HungryPlanet", by Borgstrom, pp.
99, 100.)
Here we havemore 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 thechain-reacting
effects of soil destruction and diet deficiency!
China is notalone! NUTRITIONAL bankruptcy and imbalance
daily afflicts and enfeebles the bodies and minds ofmillions
around the world. But the 400 million who today make up the
modern Israelite nations enjoy an unbelievably superiorlevel of
nutrition!
Why does thisvast nutrition gap exist? Just HOW big IS it?
HAS it been historically IMPORTANT? The answers to suchquestions
can only be touched upon in the space available, but theyshould
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, duringrecent
decades, protein deficiency diseases have come to prevail inmost
continents and must be regarded as the chief nutritional
deficiency of the world.
"ThePROTEIN INTAKE, be it plant or animal protein,
remains the MOST RELIABLE way of MEASURING NUTRITIONAL
STANDARD ...
"Inhis food, MAN NEEDS PROTEIN -- the living substrate
of the cell's protoplasm -- and in addition his proteinintake
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 theamino
acids, lies CLOSER TO MAN'S SPECIFICATIONS than is the casefor
most plant proteins. ANIMAL PROTEIN IS READILY DIGESTIBLE in
man's gastric system, while PLANT PROTEIN IS ENCASED WITHINAN
IMPENETRABLE CELL WALL, the breakdown of which requireselaborate
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 problemof 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 beenspecially
combined from FAO reports ("The State of Food andAgriculture",
1968, Annex Table 8A, 8C). They illustrate simply, yet
dramatically, twentieth century fulfillment of God's promiseto
the Patriarchs -- Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Gen. 17:2, 26:4,
28:14). The chart breaks down the average diet intocommodities,
showing comparative per capita consumption between theISRAELITE
and NON-ISRAELITE nations.
Notice that theproblem is NOT a shortage of CALORIES. The
NON-Israelite countries actually consume MORE of theHIGH-CALORIE
foods such as cereal grains, starches, etc. It is not just a
PROTEIN shortage either. NON-Israelites actually consumeMORE
NON-animal protein than the privileged Israelites. ANIMALPROTEIN
is their acute shortage!!
Here is wherethe Israelite peoples have the large end of
the stick. They have access to the very foods that areNECESSARY
to build alert, sharp minds and vigorous healthy bodies.(Their
advantage would be even greater if they did not also consumeso
much sugar and fat more than the GENTILES.) The chart below
illustrates one way that God has made the Israelites theleading
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 figuresfor China are not available for inclusion with
the non-Israelites increases the disparity between the twogroups
on the chart! After all, China represents 23% of mankind andwe
have already seen that it is a nation repeatedly hemmed inby
famine and historically restricted in its intake of animal
protein.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GRAMS OF FOOD AVAILABLE PER PERSON PER DAY
FoodISRAELITE NON-ISRAELITE ISRAELITE ADVANTAGE
Eggs 37grams 12 grams 208% more eggs
Milk602 203 195% more milk
Meat 199 70 184% more meat
Fish24 12 100% more fish
Sugars and121 66 83% more sugar
sweets
Vegetables208 162 28% more vegetables
Fats and Oils59 48 23% more fat
Fruit164 202 19% less fruit
Cereals238 326 27% less cereals
Potatoes and203 303 27% less starches
starchy foods
GRAMS OFPROTEIN AVAILABLE PER PERSON PER DAY
Animal protein 58grams 23 grams 150% MORE ANIMAL
PROTEIN
Plant protein30 46 37% LESS PLANT
PROTEIN
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANIMAL PROTEIN
All animalprotein is not the same. God makes this clear in
Lev. 11 and Deut. 14. It is significant that in Deut. 14 Godalso
refers to His "... PECULIAR people".
It is only asHis 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 tablebecome a
snare before them" (Psa. 69:22).
SOIL -- FUNDAMENTAL TO ISRAEL'S BLESSINGS!
As God promisedthe Patriarchs, He has undoubtedly
distributed the lion's share of the earth's nutritionalblessings
to the Israelites.
That there aretoday TWICE as many Chinese as Israelites
does NOT negate God's promises to greatly"multiply" Israel -- it
UNDERLINES the Israelite advantages expressed in theaccompanying
charts!!
Paul Paddock,world-travelled soil scientist pointed to this
nutritional abundance when he wrote:
"Afterevery 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 againat
the incredible richness of the landscape there. No place inall
the world matches the agricultural wealth of the MiddleWest, a
thousand miles and more of deep, rich, level terrain andstable
climate. In contrast, the areas I know in Asia, LatinAmerica and
Africa usually contain only a few square miles of uselessland,
plus a climate that is a gamble. And sometimes an entirenation
has no good land at all." ("Famine", 1975, byWm. and Paul
Paddock, 1967, Preface).
Add to this thesoil area of Canada, Britain, New Zealand,
Australia and South Africa. It makes a relatively rich andvast
total! A truly fantastic blessing upon the sons of Joseph
(Ephraim and Manasseh). It is a basic truth that SOILFERTILITY
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 OFTHE
PEOPLE" ("The Care of the Earth", p. 23) iswell illustrated in
the following chart.
Notice thatIsraelites eat FOUR times more ANIMAL PROTEIN
than Arabs and TEN times more than the Nigerians!!!
God tells usthat He sets the bounds of the nations (Deut.
32:7-14). His chosen people have been repeatedly blessedwith the
"fat" places of the earth. Adam and Eve wereplaced in a perfect
environment (Gen. 2:8, 1:31). Noah was placed in what wasthe
FERTILE CRESCENT, (Gen. 9:1, 7) Abraham, Isaac and Jacobalways
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 theIsraelites to be the world's leading people
-- living examples of the tremendous physical blessings Godgives
to those who OBEY His laws. We have seen the operation ofnatural
law, how a people strategically placed in the fertile areasof
the earth are provided a diet of top quality plant andanimal
protein. Israel of course has stubbornly refused to be allthat
God intended. Fertile soil has been their national heritagebut
they have repeatedly destroyed the quality of theirenvironment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RATIO OFTOTAL PROTEIN TO ANIMAL PROTEIN INTAKE
NATIONAVERAGE DAILY INTAKE TOTALANIMAL PROTEIN
Syria 69.3 grams 10.3 grams
Egypt 80.1 11.8
Israel (including Arabs) 87.840.9
U.K. 88.0 53.3
U.S.A. 93.8 66.7
Nigeria 59.3 5.3
(The State ofFood and Agriculture, 1968, Annex Table 8C)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As a family ofnations we are turning more and more to
UNCLEAN food and to the perversion of clean food. Can youbelieve
that your next sizzling steak may well have been raised on adiet
of 25% POULTRY DUNG??? What a filthy abomination! But it's a
fact!
The nutritiongap between Israel and the Gentiles results
not from OUR OBEDIENCE, but God's faithfulness in honouringHis
promise to the Patriarchs.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
March 1970, Vol. I, No. 3
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
OUR PLUNDERED PALATE!
"RalphNader, 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 chickenflocks
throughout America. Little time and money is being spent to
research the leukosis virus, and almost NOTHING IS BEINGDONE 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 oursthroughout.
This report andmany like it mentioning animal disease,
antibiotics, hormone residues, etc. are causing considerable
alarm. Many housewives genuinely seeking the best diet fortheir
families wonder if meat eating is worth the risk! Onealternative
rocketing into public favour is the new SYNTHETIC FOOD.
"YourLiving 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 tocome
in contact with them? Do they taste different? Are they
acceptable to the public? What is the real reason for their
"invention"?
Such questionsneed an answer. You might also discover that
your own natural revulsion to the concept of synthetic foodis
not half as strong as you thought it was!
If consumers arewilling 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 thesebefore
actually moving into synthetics.
Can you imagine,for example -- "Thirty-one tons of diseased
poultry were condemned in a town in a year. [How manyslipped
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 isdescribed as -- "... an industry that has
virtually written its own rules."
"Inthe 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 tohave
asked: 'Do we know what we are actually eating'"(Evening Post,
June 9, 1966)?
The followingquote 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, moneymeans
everything" (Evening Post, June 13, 1966).
Yes, a realproblem 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, howmany reports on cancerous chickens,
liver-abscessed steers and mastitis/brucellosis infecteddairy
cows can you take before you turn away to a diet of CLEAN,SWEET,
HYGIENICALLY-PREPARED SUBSTITUTE PROTEIN?
MEATLESS MEAT
In a recentspeech to the Oxford Farming Conference, Dr.
Magnus Pyke, of the Glenochil Research Station, Menstrie,
Clackmannanshire, gave this quick rundown of the newmeatless
meat industry:
"TheAmerican food combine, General Mills, has ALREADY
overcome all the main difficulties in producing what theycalled
'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 intowhat the
Americans called 'DOPE' and then extruded into a coagulatingbath
where the protein dope was converted into fine fibres in theway
that nylon fibres were produced.
"Byusing spinnerets with different sized holes, fibres
of varying coarseness could be produced and by stretchingthem
under varying conditions -- the resulting product could bemade
as tough as wirewool or as a sloppy mush.
"Afterthe 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 intohanks,
twisted into plaits and cut across the grain. It finished upas
slices, rashers, or mince or it could be ground up to make
sausages, meat loaf, or rissoles.
"Theprocess has already gone a long way. In 1967 the
turnover of a small pilot factory was about two milliondollars
but a much bigger plant was being built ... by 1975 aproduction
programme of 2000 million dollars was forecast"(Farmers Weekly,
Jan. 9, 1970).
INSTANT MEAT
"Theprocess allowed the operator to sit at his control
panel and by a touch of the appropriate button, produce PORKAND
VEAL, HEAVILY SMOKED HAM, COD OR SALMON, OR EVEN TOUGH OLD
PHEASANT OR TENDER YOUNG SQUAB.
"Theproduct is NOT primarily INTENDED FOR THE
IMPOVERISHED populations of under-developed countries;rather it
is FINDING FAVOUR IN the RESTAURANTS and FIVE-STAR HOTELS ofthe
West" (Ibid).
Isn't itamazing?! Now consider the ease of future BACON
production --
"Baconslices 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
"MOSTof the artificial products are made from the
SOYABEAN, but WHEAT, YEAST EXTRACTS, ALGAE, and even theLEAVES
of trees are now being investigated. The final product, insome
cases, tastes, looks and smells so much like the real thingthat
even TRAINED FOOD TESTERS have been fooled.
"Sofar, 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 meatbeing 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 percent
last year and export markets included, of all places, NewZealand
and Holland.
"TheCompany ... started producing synthetic milk in
1964 and tested it on the London Market.
"Nowoutput for the liquid market is equivalent to
nearly 600 gallons a week of NATURAL milk, and the productis
used in a range of manufactured products includingchocolate,
fudge and pease pudding.
"ASYNTHETIC CREAM is almost at the production stage
and the company is also considering a SYNTHETIC CHEESE.
"Thediluted product contains approximately 3.25 per
cent vegetable protein, the same percentage of vegetable fatand
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 foodcrops.
"Theprocess 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 isthis challenge from SYNTHETIC MILK? More than
we might expect. Michael Leybourn, Deputy editor ofBritain's
leading farm magazine, shocked producers of cows' milk a few
weeks ago --
"IWOULD FORECAST THAT THERE WILL BE LITTLE LIQUID MILK
SOLD IN BRITAIN IN TEN YEARS' TIME,' he said.
"Hegave the milk-from-the-cow industry in Britain a
maximum of another twenty years, though this might be erringon
the GENEROUS side" (Farmers Weekly, Jan. 9, 1970).
He continued bytelling the dairymen, (straight to their
face, if you please) that they need to GET RID OF THEIR COWSand
start producing grass for the synthetic industry before big
commercial interests move in and do it for them! That musthave
sounded like heresy to dairymen -- cutting your own throatis
tough advice for anyone to take, even if someone else is
threatening to do it for you!!
However thisletter 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 vegetableplantmilks
and for that matter the side-by-side growth of TEXTUREDVEGETABLE
PROTEIN (TVP).
"No farmerproduces milk for the fun of getting the
milk cheque -- it is mostly a matter of survival and agruelling
year for most. With the wider use of vegetable proteins amore
agreeable life is in the offering. Practically any kind ofplant
material can be utilized, from beet-tops and potato haulmsto
wheat and beans. The forward-looking farmer should belooking for
ways of jumping on the new bandwagon, not seeking ways ofup-
ending it.
"Amongthe advantages of producing plant milks and
vegetable proteins are: ... Complete freedom from thedisease
hazards which are inseparable from milk and meat [the verypoint
that is going to turn MILLIONS toward synthetic foods]; novet
bills, no destruction of herds, no Argentine problem [Footand
Mouth disease]. No milking schedules. No early morning
deliveries, already becoming a major problem. Tins ofplantmilk
and protein will keep for months.
"Thehealth benefit would be enormous, as these new
foods can be ADJUSTED with cheap vitamin and mineralsupplements
to meet any dietetic need. The MILK can be exactly like ahuman
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 uneconomicprocess,
for as little as 5 per cent may come back from cattle in theform
of food. The return from pigs and poultry is perhaps up to15 per
cent, but even if it were 50 per cent it would still be 50per
cent WASTEFUL.
"Thecow 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 steamengine.
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 youwant to
be a vegetarian in a nation turned vegetarian? Mr. Rudd, the
author of the above is one -- in fact he is the GeneralSecretary
of THE VEGETARIAN SOCIETY.
On the otherhand, 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 hewill
now be able to move down the biotic pyramid and thus ESCAPEthe
human penalty of having to eat his own disease-ridden
factory-farm-animals!
This is not onlytypical escapist reasoning, it is also an
absolute FALLACY!! Instead of getting AWAY from his wholeslew of
problems man would be simply moving NEARER to the SOURCE!There
are FOUR links in the basic food-chain:
If we dropANIMALS 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 arethe
most basic causes of the sick animals which we are nowadvised to
drop from our diet!
HOW "INEFFICIENT" ARE ANIMALS?
The relativeinefficiency of ANIMALS vs. PLANTS in food
production, has often been stated as the MAIN reason fordropping
animal protein from man's diet. We are told such a small
percentage of plant matter reaches the dinner table when itcomes
via animal products, that human survival in an expandingworld
demands that we drop the animal link from the food chain.
Now let uspinpoint the weakness in this argument. One
writer quoted earlier, stated that even if 50% of plantmatter
was converted to animal products, the 50% would still beWASTED!
Right there isthe crucial point -- that percentage of
"WASTED" plant matter! WHAT HAPPENS TO IT? That isthe
fundamental question the food expert and the vegetariannever
ask.
Under a correctsystem 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 agriculturalpractice. 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 hasignored this law, we now have deserts to prove
he was wrong. Where he is bringing in chemical substitutesfor
ORGANIC MATTER, NATURAL soil productivity is falling todesert
levels! That is proven by man's fear to discontinueartificial
fertilizers once he gets started.
This means thattrue 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 annuallyin
the form of food. Most of these nutrients NEVER get backinto the
soil which produced them, so without some EXTERNAL INPUTSthe
system would slowly grind to a halt! In the organic systemthese
"EXTERNAL INPUTS" come in the form of NITROGENfrom the
atmosphere, (via legumes) and MINERALS from inorganic soil
particles (via organic decomposition). Then, trueproductivity
originates in the soil and every square yard must ultimately
produce its own fertility! Soil can do this under theorganic
system, especially with man's co-operation. Under thissystem
Nitrogen and mineral inputs are free, but man must return alarge
part of his production to the soil in order to get theseINPUTS
and continuing high productivity.
Only anANIMAL-based agriculture is ideally suited to the
provision of large quantities of organic matter fromprevious
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'ssystem of balanced and diversified natural
agriculture, we DON'T have to choose between CEREAL andANIMAL
production. It is not a matter of which is the most"efficient".
One makes the other POSSIBLE and LOGICAL!
Intelligent useof 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 ofCHEMICAL
FERTILIZERS!
MEASURING FOOD PRODUCTION
If under theorganic system we take the available nutrients
in any soil and divide them into UNITS, (nitrogen e.g.)
"EFFICIENCY" will then not depend on PRODUCTIONPER ACRE, but on
something more basic. It will depend on the rate ofre-cycling
organic matter as plant food, or to put it another way, THERATE
OF TURNOVER OF NUTRIENT UNITS in the soil. This is a truemeasure
of "EFFICIENCY". It also determines"PRODUCTION PER ACRE" and is
at the same time a guarantee of FOOD QUALITY!
Anyone in thebusiness world can understand the economic
implications of the word "TURNOVER". Apply it toUNITS OF SOIL
NUTRIENTS in food production and you have the answer to the
ANIMAL-INEFFICIENCY argument, as follows:
Chemicallyfertilized cereal grain is one of man's principal
crops. It usually gives just one crop per year and thenutrients
contained in it make a complete cycle only ONCE during its
PRODUCTION and CONSUMPTION! As the crop has to feed theconsumer
through the following year it means that these nutrients canbe
re-cycled on average only once every 18 months.
Contrast thatrecycling rate with those nutrient units
allegedly "WASTED" via the digestive tract of theruminant.
Under goodrainfall conditions RUMINANTS will re-cycle the
great bulk of plant nutrients, (90%) via a fertile soil atleast
SEVEN times for every ONE cycle under GRAIN production!
"RE-CYCLINGOF NUTRIENTS" and "RATE OF TURNOVER" are
subjects incompatible with CHEMICAL agriculture, (becausethe
latter depends on EXTERNAL inputs) SO they never come up for
discussion.
In today'schemical agriculture, "PRODUCTION PER ACRE"
measures only QUANTITY! And that is no measure of TRUEEFFICIENCY
in food production. (How can "QUANTITY" be ayardstick for
SUCCESS when costs like soil damage and nutritional deficiencies
are ignored)? PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS -- BEWARE!
"PER ACREPRODUCTION" may he a convenient measure for
Accountants, Economists and Bankers in an industrializedsociety,
but Agriculture is not JUST an "INDUSTRY". It is aWAY 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! Onlynow is
industry painfully experiencing its first ecologicalthought.
The standards ofindustrially-based chemical agriculture
just don't fit God's LAWS of soil management. The solutionis to
change "INDUSTRY". No one has enough power to doit right now, so
instead "AGRICULTURE" is being modified to fit theindustrial
concept!
So we seeanimal-based agriculture threatened from without
-- by the FERTILIZER and SYNTHETIC FOOD industries and from
within by the FACTORY FARMING industry. But DON'T abandonprotein
production!
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
April 1970, Vol. I, No. 4,
AMBASSADOR COLLEGE (UK)
Agriculture Department
(Reprinted and Updated 1973)
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY -- MIRACLEOR MYTH?
"TheU.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'sability
to produce has become the envy of the world" (Top Op,August
1969, pp. 16 and 64).
"TheU.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).
"Theincrease since 1945 in productivity per man in
[British] agriculture is more than DOUBLE that in the
manufacturing industry as a whole ... and is evenconsiderably
greater than in the chemical and allied industries, whichare
well-known for their efficiency" ("ModernAgriculture and Rural
Planning", John Weller, p. 293, The ArchitecturalPress, London
1967).
Similarstatements attesting to the ever increasing
productivity and efficiency of agriculture appear regularlyin
the mass media. Much is made of the astounding statisticthat one
MODERN farmer can feed 40-50 people, while his crude 1910
counterpart could feed only SIX.
WAS GRANDFATHER THAT BACKWARD?
Most peopleaccept these astounding statistics at face
value, thus happily agreeing that the mechanized farmer ofthe
70's is some 700 per cent more efficient than hisgrandfather.
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 andprove
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. Weknow
that sounds incredible, but that is why you need to read on!
Dr. GeorgBorgstrom, world-famous food scientist, was asked
by Ambassador College interviewers what he thought of the
statement that ONE FARMER NOW FEEDS 45 OTHER PEOPLE. Hisanswer
was straightforward and dogmatic --
"It'sentirely false. Very few farmers in America feed
themselves."
Dr. Borgstromelaborated on the agricultural productivity
MYTH in an article that appeared in the Michigan Farmerearly in
1966:
"Youcan't compare a farmer of 1900 with a farmer
today. They are not the same kind of animal. In 1900 [oreven
1910] he butchered animals, delivered meat and milk to the
cities, churned butter, salted meat, made sausages, farmedwith
horses for which he produced his own feed, made his ownmachines,
baked bread, made all his own repairs, and built his own
buildings.
"Todayall 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 22million
people building roads to bring things to the farms, making
machinery, processing and delivering farm products andbringing
food and farm products to the farms, not to speak of all the
various categories of salesman.
"Ifyou divide this number (22.5 + 6.5) into the 195
million population of 1965 you can see that it takes inrelative
terms nearly the same number of people to feed America todaythat
it did in 1900 or 1910."
AGRI-BUSINESS -- THE INVISIBLE FOOD PRODUCERS
In 1910 farmswere tiny, self-contained food factories,
producing not only food, but also their own needs infertilizer,
seeds, machinery, fuel, homes, buildings, recreation,transport,
clothes, roads, etc. Whatever the farmer produced could betruly
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 caris
the product of the man fitting steering wheels on theassembly
line! Both farmer and car worker are vital, but neverthelessare
only small cogs in a huge complicated production system.
In foodproduction 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 threemain
branches: supplying things to the farm (tractors, fuel,
machinery, seeds, sprays, fertilizers, and so on); theactual
farming; and getting the products onto the consumer's plate
(processing, storing, transport, packaging, anddistribution).
The importance of the middle stage, the actual growing ofthe
food, has been waning, while the before and after stageshave
waxed. Fifty years ago, the American farmer's slice of thewhole
cheese was fifty-four per cent. Today [1965] it is down to
seventeen per cent and still dwindling; for every manworking 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 haveobserved that the figures and estimates of the
extent and scope of AGRI-BUSINESS appear to vary fromdifferent
sources, you're right. AGRI-BUSINESS is so large, so vast,and so
integrated into the fabric of our total social-industrialsystem
that it is difficult to precisely define where theactivities of
PRIMARY and SECONDARY industries begin and end. Different
authorities have various definitions for the limits of
AGRI-BUSINESS. In addition, the situation varies fromcountry to
country, and from year to year. But it is an indisputablefact
that the modern farmer is only a tiny part of a huge andcomplex
system.
The presentAmerican Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz,
underlined the point in the USDA Year-book, as far back as1960:
"The modernfarm operator is much less self-sufficient
than his father was. He buys many goods and services neededin
his production that father produced on his farm. In a veryreal
sense, HE ASSEMBLES 'PACKAGES OF TECHNOLOGY' that have beenput
together by others on a custom basis. For example he buyshis
tractors and petroleum, whereas his father produced horsesand
oats. Think for a moment of the technology that goes intothe
modern feed bag, with its careful blending of proteins,
antibiotics, minerals, and hormones, as contrasted with theear
corn and a little tankage put out for the hogs in his
grandfather's day ....
"Alarge 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 generationago, farmers were producing most of their own
fuel, power and fertilizer, but now industry is furnishing
farmers each year with:
6.5MILLION TONS OF FINISHED STEEL
(More thanis used for a year's car output)
45MILLION TONS OF CHEMICAL MATERIALS
(About fivetimes the amount they used in 1935)
18MILLION GALLONS OF CRUDE PETROLEUM
(Morethan is used by any other industry)
285MILLION POUNDS OF RAW RUBBER
(Enough to maketyres for 6 million automobiles)
22BILLION KILOWATT HOURS OF ELECTRICITY
(More than enough to serve the cities of Chicago, Baltimoreand
Houston for a whole year)" (Yearbook of Agriculture,Power to
Produce, 1960, pp. 381, 382).
It is difficultfor the mind to grasp quantities of this
size, and bear in mind that those figures don't account forthe
astronomical increase of the last ten to fifteen years! Itis
even more difficult to visualize the amount of TIME andPERSONNEL
needed to supply these annual 'inputs' to agriculture. Take
fertilizer for instance:
"Forthe United States the quantity required [annually]
exceeds SEVENTY MILLION tons. This corresponds to SIXgigantic
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 limeand
fertilizers constitutes a major task" ("The HungryPlanet", Dr.
Georg Borgstrom, Collier-MacMillan, London, 1967, p. 435).
AGRICULTURE -- NOW DEPENDENT UPON INDUSTRY
So great and sosweeping have been the changes in the system
of food production that agriculture has now become shackledto
industry and can no longer function without its aid. Theeditor
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 externalsupplies of
the tools of its trade. In fertilizers it has becomedependent
upon the phosphates of North Africa, the potashes ofGermany. It
looks to the industrial chemist for the means of protection
against crop diseases and insect pests. Most of all, itsmachines
and implements are the products of factories, skilled
technicians, and trained designers; and the sources of itspower
-- petrol, paraffin, and diesel oil are brought fromoverseas.
The output of the British farm is, therefore, by no meansall a
clear addition to the national wealth. A thousand urban manhours
have gone into each tractor, and the tractor has beendesigned
and tooled for at a cost of more than one million pounds
sterling. Before the tractor can move an inch, wells havehad to
be bored in Kuwait or Texas, the oil shipped and refined and
transported to the farm. For the corrugated iron or asbestosthat
have replaced the local timber or village-made bricks forthe
farm buildings, the sheep netting that is substituted fornatural
hedges, the grass seeds from New Zealand that take the placeof
the sweepings of the hay barns, the teat cups of the milking
machines that come from the rubber trees of Malaya to takethe
place of the horny hand of the dairyman, British farming hasto
depend upon national and international industry andcommerce.
"Indeed, the greater the output of the farm, the more
external aid there has to go into it" ("Societyand the Land",
Robert Trow Smith, The Cresset Press Ltd., London, 1953 p.235).
That was writtenTWENTY years ago! How much more applicable
to agriculture today!!
When we comecloser to today, we find that:
"FredH. 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 beinteresting to discover how many people really
ARE engaged in food production today. Exact statistics onthis
are, as was stated earlier, an impossibility. However, one
agricultural authority, Louis B. Bromfield, estimated that:
"Ashigh 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 farmeconomist, Carl H. Wilken, said:
"Morethan one half of our labor force is engaged in
processing and distributing the products ofa*griculture"
("Unforgiven", Charles Walters Jr., 1971, p.27).
In 1970, theUnited States' work force was about 74,000,000.
If, as Bromfield and Wilken estimate, over 50% of our workforce
works for agriculture (food production), then over 37million
workers are toiling to feed 200 million people. Divide thefirst
figure into the second and we find that one man is feedingonly
FIVE to SIX people -- in the specialized days of 1970.
It is notuncommon for us to pick up the newspaper and read
such quotes as:
"AGRICULTURE, the United Kingdom'slargest single
industry has a gross output of £2,500 million andexpenditure of
£1,300 million!!!" ("The Sunday Times," May10, 1972).
But we seldomgrasp the magnitude of these figures and even
more important, the implications they have for industry andthe
rest of society. The charts on the previous page should helpthe
reader to understand that most of the nation's foodproducers live
not in the COUNTRY, but in the CITY! You may now begin torealize
that most of the labour that produces our daily bread takesplace
not in the FIELD, but in the FACTORY, the MILL, the MINE andthe
LABORATORY!
(NOTE: To view the charts mentioned above, see the file700415.TIF
in the Images\Ag directory.)
An inescapablethought 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 forexample the
chemical fertilizer industry -- Borgstrom is quoted asstating:
"You know, it takes the amount ofenergy you get from
burning five tons of coal to make one ton of nitrogenfertilizer.
Including the energy cost of irrigation, transporting the
fertilizers and so on, you actually have to put more energyin
than you get out in increased food" (Observer Review,March 5,
1972).
We do notpresent the facts assembled in this issue of "Your
Living Environment" for the purpose of implying that wewould 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 thatyou
now have a better appreciation of your dependence upon your
nation's agriculture. We say this hoping that you don'tthink you
left agriculture behind, when you or some ancestor finally
"ABANDONED" the farm!
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
May 1970, Vol. I, No. 5
AMBASSADOR COLLEGE (UK)
Agriculture Department
(Reprinted and Updated 1973)
GENETIC ENGINEERING -- COMPLEX PATH TO FAILURE
Today plantdiseases destroy one-fifth of all food produced
in the world!
"Bentover a microscope, armed with minuscule
manipulators, Roy U. Schenk, a crew-cut bio-chemist at the
University of Wisconsin, spends many hours each week guidingtwo
ghostly plant cells in an attempt to fuse them. So far, hehas
tried to unite only cells from the same species, but hisultimate
aim is nothing less than fusion of different species, tocreate
plants that never existed before ... The eventual results,he
hopes, will be plants engineered to have extraordinaryresistance
to disease and insects, plants so high in protein contentthat
they will produce the nutritional equivalent of steaks on the
stalk" (Fortune, April 1969, p. 127).
By carefulmanipulation of genes and chromosomes, many plant
geneticists are striving to produce the ultimate -- plantsstrong
ENOUGH TO OVERCOME DISEASE. Will plant breeders succeed? Canthey
genetically engineer the 'SUPER-SEED', the living dynamo of
vitality that will produce seedlings resistant to allattacks by
plant disease?
Press releasesoften say they can. Unfortunately they are
dead wrong! This edition of "Your LivingEnvironment" will show
the real CAUSE of plant disease and WHY plant breeders canNEVER
genetically engineer disease-resistant varieties that willlast.
ALL professionalmen inevitably view their own work as one
of great importance to the world. But few believe this more
thoroughly than plant geneticists.
Seldom has anygroup of men taken so much power unto
themselves and yet remained as innocent as babes in the eyesof
human society! Geneticists have elected to bail the foodproducer
out of very real trouble. Man's food supply is at stake and
whether 3500 million humans know it or not, the geneticisthas
moved in to RE-ENGINEER that part of God's creation which
directly sustains human life!
The scale ofthis genetic experimentation is little
realized, but it has enormous financial backing! Recentlythe
sales director of a British seed company told a group ofgrowers:
"...the total investment necessary to get a hybrid
variety on to the market could exceed £1 million"(Farmers
Weekly, Feb. 20, 1970).
A staggeringfigure in itself, but multiply it worldwide by
the rapidly increasing number of replacement varieties being
"released" every year! Would you believe that thisdirector was
warning British seed breeders to spend MORE money developing
cereal hybrids or face being squeezed out of the market bythe
Americans?
BRITISH PLANT BREEDING -- SUCCESS OR FAILURE
Few countrieshave devoted more money, material and effort
to plant breeding than Great Britain. Years of devotedeffort
have been expended in a running battle with disease. But has
lasting success been achieved? Have the geneticmanipulations of
professional seed breeders given lasting success? The farmer
ought to know, so let him speak:
"Allis far from being well in the cornfields of
England; [WHEAT, BARLEY AND OATS ARE COLLECTIVELY CALLEDCORN IN
BRITAIN] FROM EVERY SIDE there is TALK OF REDUCED YIELDSCAUSED
BY DISEASE, spread of wild oats and black grass ..."(Farmers
Weekly, December 29, 1967, p 35).
"Atpresent new varieties of cereal grains [THE PRIDE
AND JOY OF ENGLAND'S PLANT BREEDERS] are not achieving their
disease resistance potential and were UNSATISFACTORYrelative to
older varieties once they were on the market" (Farmerand
Stockbreeder, Nov. 11, 1969).
"Someof 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 quotescould 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 geneticallyengineered
"superseeds". These seeds have all been widelyproclaimed as
RESISTANT to the very diseases with which they are nowplagued.
Any ideas that our self-appointed plant-engineers are on the
verge of a break-through and need only a little more time isan
illusion that must be shattered.
PROOF VIA SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
It is now just onthree years since this particular issue of
"Your Living Environment" was first printed, so itis most
interesting to look at subsequent results of plant breeding.Put
another way, one might say that this REPRINTED issue is inpart,
a progress report on the contents of the 1970 originalissue.
That which wewrote then would have been totally
unacceptable in most scientific circles. That which we writenow
will also be unacceptable to those same people. Theimportant
thing then is to assemble the facts and let them speak. Thatway
you can draw your own conclusions.
Within months ofour 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 ofthis
nation's food crops. [THAT MEANS A NUMBER OF CROPS ARE IN
TROUBLE, NOT JUST MAIZE.]
"Andthe 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 AMERICAWAS
SLASHED BY 50% AND THE TOTAL ESTIMATED LOSS WAS 700 MILLION
BUSHELS!]
"Thequestion now before the panel is whether wide use
of hybrid strains of seed corn may not be producing agenetic
uniformity that could subject an entire U.S. food crop to
destruction via a single new pathogen.
"Thehybrid strains of certain corn seed ... carry the
so-called Texas male-sterile (TMS) cytoplasm .... the TMSgenetic
base corn is highly vulnerable to a mutant fungus form,
helminthosporium.
"Seedcorn, it appears, has a much narrower genetic
base than previously believed. By upsetting the genetic
composition of seed corn ... the seed's resistance to thefungus
seems to have been impaired.
"Thisparticular group has no authority to go into the
broader subject of genetic engineering as it may affect,
beneficially or adversely, mice or men.
"Butthe experience with hybrid types of corn suggests
that any plans to alter the genes of higher forms of liferequire
extensive exploration before anything is done in the new
scientific realm" (The Christian Science Monitor,Thursday, March
18, 1971). A recent report states that:
"SouthAfrica still imports seed potatoes from abroad
at a cost of R 850,000 annually but every effort is beingmade to
produce adequate supplies of certified seed locally ...
"Butthere remains one big nigg*r in the wood pile --
the source of virus diseases which can reduce the crop by upto
50 per cent ...
"TheChief Inspector responsible for the potato seed
certification scheme, has appealed to seed potato growers toget
to know these diseases as speedily as possible and to take
timeous precautions against them!" (South AfricanFarmers Weekly,
Jan. 7, 1972).
One wonders ifit would not be more appropriate for this
gentleman and the South African potato growers to becomemore
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 valueof
disease losses on commercial production! Eventually theywill
have to realise that NO amount of PLANT BREEDING, INSECTICIDES
AND SYSTEMIC FUNGICIDES will remove the cause of theseexpensive
problems. This is indicated later in the article where it
continues by stating:
"Abouta year or two ago, it was assumed that complete
control over virus diseases in seed potatoes would beachieved,
but results of the past two seasons have again given causefor
alarm" (ibid.).
And may wepredict that they will CONTINUE to give "CAUSE
FOR ALARM"!
The latestevidence we can present is a retrospective view
of Britain's last grain harvest and the commentary isdevastating
when viewed against the earlier claims of plant breeders.
"WHAT ELSE CAN WE TRY?"
That was arecent 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-into a
success story. It continues:
"Ouryields of barley have been declining, our average
is hardly 23 cwt an acre. We cannot afford to let it golower.
What else can we try?" (Farmers Weekly, Nov. 3, 1972,p. 84.)
WHY PLANT GENETICISTS HAVE FAILED!
New VARIETIESreleased 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. Atthe
same time remember that the geneticist has brought ourplants 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 stillnot 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 wesee
WHY food producers experience increasing failure of NEWplant
varieties.
There is a verysimple reason for these failures. Among
others, Albrecht and Howard, (two eminent agriculturalscientists
working independently and on different continents)discovered, or
perhaps RE-DISCOVERED the real CAUSE of plant break-down.
Sir AlbertHoward (who was knighted for his agricultural
research of more than 25 years in India) pinpointed thebasic
CAUSE and PURPOSE of plant disease. He states that:
"Itwas observed in the course of these studies that
the maintenance of soil fertility is the real basis ofhealth and
disease .... Insects and fungi are not the real cause ofplant
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 isinfertile,
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 bydisease.
"Inrecent 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 greenleaf
is not effective" (An Agricultural Testament, SirAlbert 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 Howardwhen
he states:
"Much relianceis put on the belief that by selecting
and propagating certain plants of a crop we can eventuallyfind
those which TOLERATE 'diseases' like smut, rust, foot-rotand
others. Much is said about 'BREEDING RESISTANT CROPS' orthose
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 gettheir
necessary proteins ... We fail to see that immune plants are
those getting enough soil fertility support for creatingtheir
own protective proteins or antibiotics ...
"Anyhope 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 ... ofnearly
'perfect' plants.
"Ifdeficient plant nutrition, especially with regard
to proteins, brings on diseases and pests as Naturetestifies
then to believe that we could 'breed' for such resistance isthe
equivalent of believing that we could 'breed' a plant totolerate
starvation" (Soil Fertility and Animal Health, Dr. Wm.Albrecht,
p. 193).
In effect modernplant breeders are engaged in the losing
battle of providing food producers with a constantsuccession of
'new' varieties. How could they win anyway when it takesfifteen
years to establish a new variety and only three years forfarmers
to destroy it on low fertility soil?
Properlyinterpreted, plant breeders are merely attempting
to patch up MISTAKES IN SOIL MANAGEMENT. And all their talkabout
'miracle' grains is merely bragging about the size of their
PATCHES.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
June 1970, Vol. I, No. 6
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
(Reprinted & Updated June1973)
HEDGEROWS -- LUXURY ORNECESSITY?
"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 greaterefficiency
down on the farm ....
"In anage of new thinking and mechanization,
picturebook Britain is changing. Arable farming just willnot
allow farmers to hold onto 'A FOSSILIZED 18TH CENTURYLANDSCAPE'
complete with countless trees and thousands of miles ofboundary
hedgerows.
"Critics say that 'GRUBBING OUT' of trees and hedges
affects the wildlife that lives there and that this processaids
soil erosion. They quote occasional dust storms which havelifted
tons of topsoil and seeds" (Christian Science Monitor,p. 3,
April, 1969).
Few issues havebeen more controversial than the destruction
of England's renowned hedges. On one side, theconservationists
accuse the farmer of sacrificing beauty and harmony for thesake
of mercenary gain. Farmers counter by arguing that thehedges
must go if they are to eke out enough money to support
themselves.
As a farmersaid: "IF THE NATURE-LOVER WANTS TO SEE HEDGES
THEN HE SHOULD PAY FOR THEM -- to the farmer who mustconstruct
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 toplease
BOTH the farmer AND the conservationist -- to the bettermentof
both. That is what we want to show you in this issue of"Your
Living Environment."
Are Hedgerows Natural?
Manyconservationists 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!
"Theancient writer who referred to a squirrel being
able to cross the country from the Severn to the Wash [Walesto
the North Sea] without ever touching the ground, knewEngland
before men had interfered with the balance of nature"(The
Agricultural Merchant, October, 1968).
"Most hedges were planted between100 and 150 years
ago" (Brave New Victuals, Elspeth Huxley, p. 137).Surprising
though it may be!
It is clear fromthese historical notes that hedges are NOT
part of England's original 'NATURAL ORDER'. They are verymuch a
result of the hand of man. Nothing DEMANDS that they should
remain part of the English landscape. So we can now considerthem
on their own merit.
Benefits!
What do they addto the country ECONOMICALLY, AESTHETICALLY
AND ECOLOGICALLY?
As theconservationists point out, hedges have played a
significant role. They lessen the danger of wind erosion,serve
as shelter for livestock and moderate the climate bybreaking the
sweep of the wind. To a limited extent they also serve asliving
fences, though in many cases their effectiveness in thisregard
is of doubtful value.
They do serve tobreak 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 anamount
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 asmuch
as 20 per cent. Is it purely coincidence that in areas ofEast
Anglia removal of hedgerows has been followed by an urgentcall
for more costly irrigation schemes" (Tomorrow's Countryside,
Garth Christian, p. 27).
Drawbacks!
Against theseadvantages for hedges must be balanced their
very real disadvantages. One farmer listed these:
"1. Landgained 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, orwith
interest at six per cent, £900 per year.
"2. Nohedge trimming required.
"3. Noditch maintenance.
"4. Largerfields 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" (ModernAgriculture and
Rural Planning, John Weller, pp. 261, 269).
Note the strongwords from an author who is concerned for
the quality of our environment:
"Theeconomic usefulness of hedges is mainly over. The
high cost of labour, electric fences, the need to exploitevery
acre, all these combine to make most hedges not merelyuseless,
but a liability" ("Brave New Victuals",Elspeth Huxley, p. 137).
Environmental Heresy!
It looks like acase of ECONOMICS versus BEAUTY -- but can't
we have BOTH?
MOST HEDGEROWS INENGLAND COULD BE REMOVED WITHOUT HURTING
THE LANDSCAPE! Heresy??
No -- not ifthey are replaced by trees, shelterbelts and
thickets. That would be advantageous to conservationists,
sightseers and farmers a like!
Caborn sums upthe situation when he states:
"Thesacrifice 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 forwell-planned
shelterbelts and generally never repay the cost of trimming.On
stock farms they provide useful shelter and shade but theever
widening gaps, common in hedges that have been allowed toomuch
rein, reduce their efficiency. Mechanized crop farmingrequires
larger fields and fewer hedges but opening up the landscapeto
meet this need means increasing the wind problem. This iswhere
windbreaks could be incorporated while still providing abetter
farm layout to suit modern trends" ("Shelter beltsand Windbreaks",
J. M. Caborn, p. 68).
Trees and smallthickets serve even more effectively than
hedges in moderating the climate, softening the landscapeand
breaking up the otherwise barren monotony of large arablefields.
Famous Britishgeographer, 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 sawno
reason the present trend back to large open fields shouldhave
any damaging effect on wildlife" ("Farmers Weekly",November 7,
1969).
Additional treeswould 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).
"Weimport 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 percent
of our needs. That is a smaller proportion ... than mostother
Western European countries" ("Daily TelegraphMagazine", December
12, 1969).
Timber Monoculture -- A Mistake
The ForestryCommission has been trying to correct the
nation's timber shortage by planting huge tracts of land inthe
uplands of England and Scotland to conifers. Their effort is
admirable, but the overall effect on the landscape isABOMINABLE!
Regimented, dark, dreary, dripping forests are a clear caseof
timber monoculture -- an ecological nightmare! However, the
nation should be grateful -- this approach is now changing.
For farmimprovement, windbreaks and shelterbelts of
multiple species can form the basis of a revised type of
management. Because exposed arable areas can be quiteseverely
affected by wind, successful establishment of windbreakscould
benefit many cropping programs.
On HILL-FARMS,the same policy may permit the introduction
of less hardy, hut more productive breeds of livestock andhigher
survival percentages in new-born lambs. There can also be
economic advantages in earlier calving and lambing.
The value oftrees in the vicinity of watering points is
often not well enough appreciated. They offer cheapprotection
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 awindbreak is of considerable importance. If
it is too THIN, it will obviously have little slowing effecton
the wind. If it contains GAPS, or lacks low level branchesit can
have the effect of actually INCREASING the wind speedthrough a
funneling action.
Where the timberbarrier is too DENSE it will divert the
whole force of the wind OVER the tree tops. A concentrationof
pressure occurs and the wind is sucked back down to itsnormal
level within a short distance behind the windbreak. Thisallows
the wind to resume its unhindered progress and greatlyreduces
the area being sheltered. In the case of cereals, theeddying
effect can be strong enough to flatten considerable areas ofcrop
in the advanced stages of growth.
The idealwindbreak should be spelt -- WINDBRAKE! It should
filter the wind, allowing a percentage to pass right onthrough
the trees, but at REDUCED speed. This prevents leewardeddying of
the air volume that has been forced over the top. The above
diagram illustrates the principle referred to. It shouldalso be
noted that the LOWEST wind speed is recorded some littledistance
AWAY from the leeward side of the break (a down-winddistance 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 inthe Images\Ag
directory.)
Maximumprotection lies in the number and distribution of
shelterbelts. NOT in their WIDTH! Some feel WIDE timberbelts
best dissipate wind force, but this is not so. Within a few
hundred yards it will be blowing just as hard as ever downnear
ground level. This underlines the relative ineffectivenessof the
average low-trimmed HEDGE!
A semi-permeableshelterbelt offers effective protection
over a distance of approximately 5H on the WINDWARD side and20H
on the LEEWARD side (H represents the HEIGHT of theshelterbelt).
This means that every mile-run of 30 feet-high shelterbeltwill
protect approximately 90 acres of land from two directions.Using
shelterbelts one chain wide would leave about 90% of thetotal
acreage available for other farming purposes. It is claimedthat
at least 5% of the farm area can be planted with windbreaks
WITHOUT incurring a net crop loss.
Acceptedespacements 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 bestplanted up
with the tallest species in the centre row.
(Note: To view the chart titled "(Manx-leg shelterbeltfor multi-
directional protection of livestock)", see the file700624.TIF
in the Images\Ag directory.)
A Manx-leglayout presents an interesting and effective
shape for planting in centre field. It should be noted thatthe
diagram above illustrates how shelterbelts of this shapegive
animals wind protection through a full 360ø sweep of the
compass:
Tree-Farming
Ecologicalbenefits from correctly managed shelterbelts can
totally change the whole environment for the farmer, hisfamily,
his livestock and of course his bank balance!
Timber should befarmed as a regular crop by every landowner
and figure in his annual income. Labour demand forharvesting a
regular timber crop comes in the winter and therefore fits
conveniently into most farm work-programmes. Under thissystem,
every landowner would play his part in supplying the world's
lumber requirements.
Pfeiffer mayhave summed the situation up better than he
realized when he wrote:
"Todaywe 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 capacityfor
building the future of the human race.
"As inall spheres of practical life, preaching and
lecturing help little, deed and example accomplisheverything"
(The Earth's Face, E. Pfeiffer, p. 122).
Ambassador College Forestry
This is one ofthe reasons why Ambassador College is taking
its first steps in what will ultimately develop into a
globe-encircling project. Our Department of Agriculture isnow
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 thisspring,
along our new farm roads and around the boundaries of some
fields.
We are not justringing areas with an old hedge, but rather
planting and fencing planned forestry belts, filled withlush
pastures that will be a credit to the community.Furthermore, it
is intended as these areas develop, to stock them withsuitable
types of game. Overall, we wish to create an environment
surrounding the inner College campus that will be enjoyableand
filled with interest.
Coming up now isaccess to many additional acres of former
gravel pits. As these pits are excavated and thenback-filled
with garbage from the London area we can reclaim them for
agricultural purposes. Part of that reclamation programmewill
include beautifying and effective shelterbelts.
There are literallyhundreds of these badly blighted areas
in every ADVANCED country, so we are having a chance to makea
useful contribution to today's anti-pollution programme andto
sorely needed knowledge for the soon coming WORLD TOMORROW!
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
AMBASSADOR RESEARCH INTO SOIL MANAGEMENT
It is now almostthree years since the beginning of our
Agriculture Department. Its main job, (in conjunction withBig
Sandy) is to research proper management of the environmentin
which God has placed mankind.
FOOD PRODUCTIONis of prime importance in this research
programme -- first, because our immediate survival dependsupon
it -- and furthermore, because wrong methods of producingthat
food have exercised the most powerful of all destructive
influences upon the environment of man through 6,000 years!
Coupled with BigSandy, we have the unique distinction of
being the ONLY Agricultural Research Centre in the worldwhose
work is entirely based upon the understanding andapplication of
God's laws!
And in thisissue of our "Research News", we want to tell
you a success story about soil management. It concerns workwe
have done here at Bricket Wood and tested in the 'vegetable
section' of The Agriculture Programme.
Bricket Wood Trials
It was the priorwork and partial understanding of two or
three other people that triggered us off in the specific
direction of "top-cover experimentation".
Many localinhabitants have been intrigued by what they have
seen over the fence as they drive past our VegetableSection. And
according to reports that filter in, human reaction rangesall
the way from enthusiastic expectation, through cynical
skepticism, to outright sour condemnation!
One man whoworks 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 doingand
he openly admits to being fascinated!
Contrast thisman's interest with the attitude of those who
will maintain that millions through many milleniums have
understood THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANT MATTER IN SOILMANAGEMENT. The
fact is that the whole earth is deeply scarred with evidenceto
the contrary! Regardless of his understanding -- man'sactions
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 thinkthere is much future in chipping and hoeing
weeds in order to keep the ground bare. That allows it todry out
and need watering, which in turn grows more weeds, for thenext
hoeing, and so on!
In the VegetableSection of our Agriculture Programme we are
now growing much of the produce, (used by the CollegeCatering
Department) through a heavy layer of straw mulch. So far wehave
experimented with different times and rates of application--
according to the various crops being raised.
The first effectwe noticed with this covering of organic
matter showed up BEFORE crops were even planted. It tends to
maintain soil moisture and temperatures at a relativelyconstant
level. And that means ideal conditions for millions ofliving
organisms in the soil.
The treatedground literally came alive. Earthworms appear
to have quadrupled over-night! Between the rows ofsoft-fruits we
put over six inches of straw in February. This was expectedto
last well into next year, however in only THREE MONTHS the
earthworm population had mixed 50% of our organic soilblanket
INTO the soil! In some places they were depositing theircastings
on top of the straw layer.
These wormsliterally 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 waterabsorbant
and very fertile! (Now we are in the process of harvesting a
record-breaking crop of large raspberries, in a year whendry
weather has pushed their price to astronomical levels).
Since the soilis 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 plantthe
seeds in the moist soil underneath. Tedious digging andraking
have been eliminated!
Lower Costs -- Through Labour-Saving
The job ofgrowing potatoes is even simpler. We just plant
them on top of the level unprepared ground, but under thelayer
of organic material. No digging is required. The potatobeing a
strong plant, forces its way through the mulch to thesunlight.
Harvesting isequally simple and advantageous. Since the
seed potato was planted on top of the soil, that is justwhere
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 soilis protected from frost, planting can be done
three to four weeks earlier than on the conventional old
bare-ground, hilling system.
Not only canplanting be done early, but the mulch
application also. We covered almost two acres in preparationfor
the College potato crop back in the middle of last winter.At
that time labour was plentiful because outside jobs werestrictly
limited. This is just one more point to show how the system
dove-tails with other work.
It also favoursbetter year-round use of available labour,
because (as has been pointed out) the action of the deeplayer of
mulch virtually eliminates weeding and hoeing. These twojobs are
tiring, back-breaking, repetitive and bite deeply intospring and
summer man-power, just when it is needed in every area ofthe
garden at once!
A Long Wet Winter
By the time ourpotatoes were planted at the end of winter,
the curiosity of many was fully roused and then followedweeks of
anxious waiting. WE were not unduly anxious, but otherswere.
During this time, well-intentioned people even consoled usover
the great big mistake we had made in the potato area!
They still don'tknow -- but we had already proved the
system on a small scale the previous year!
However, the waythe season worked out this year, others'
potatoes were up and away, while our field continued to looklike
an inert soggy mass of dead straw. And that's about what itwas
too! But with a drier late winter the situation would havebeen
very different.
You see, thehigher soil temperature under the mulch would
normally cause plant growth to begin earlier than it does onnear
frozen, bare, windswept ground.
Drought Strikes!
Anyway ourlittle old "spuds" finally began to poke their
noses up through the straw and it was not long before theweather
in England took a dramatic turn in the opposite direction.
It came out HOT ANDDRY! And I mean weeks and weeks of
dryness! Crop producers around the nation soon began to cryabout
drought slashing some yields by more than 50%. But it wasthen
that our heavily mulched potatoes began to come into theirown.
When others were parched -- ours had ample soil moisture.
Some of our ownvegetable 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 thewhole of the verdant Bricket Wood Campus
was burning up rapidly! But visitors were just dumbfoundedon
stepping through into our areas with a heavy top-cover. Herethey
could not believe the way plants were growing vigorously in
adequate soil moisture. No shortage of plant nutrientseither!
Chemical fertilizers, artificial stimulants and hormone weed
killers have no place in a God-planned system of soilmanagement.
Every day thedry weather continues, our plants on protected
soil go further ahead, while those on bare ground stagnateor
deteriorate.
It is worthnoting that plants on the BARE-GROUND system
with the best chance of surviving drought are those thatmake
enough top-growth to cover the soil around them before thedry
weather starts. Their shade ensures their own survival by
reducing evaporation of precious soil moisture.
That in itselfought to tell the keen observer something
about the all-important role of ORGANIC SOIL-PROTECTION!
Top-cover -- A Natural Phenomenon
Protecting soilwith a covering blanket of plant material is
nothing new. We did not discover it! And neither did anyoneelse!
It is a God-given law that has been staring man in the facesince
CREATION!
Walk into anyforest that has been undisturbed for a number
of years. There you will find that the forest floor isCOMPLETELY
COVERED in a deep mulch layer of leaves and twigs. Thebottom of
this protective layer is being continuously decomposed by
billions of live soil organisms to feed the trees.
A similar thingalso 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 growingthrough
it.
Soil is meant tobe 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 bareareas in most productive climates are rendered
that way by human action! And only by self-deception has manbeen
able to ignore the fact that since CREATION, God's systemALWAYS
works toward covering bare soil.
Plants arespecifically designed to supply a YEARLY
topdressing of organic cover to the soil around their ownroots.
Take away that ANNUAL MULCHING and you smash the cycle oflife
ALL LIFE -- NOT JUST PLANT LIFE!!
First to disappearare the soil organisms, (the agents of
decomposition.) When they die the soil dies. Then the supplyof
available plant nutrients ceases. Therefore surface-rooting
plants disappear and finally the deep-rooting ones die-outtoo.
Because noanimal can survive on this now barren, windswept
plain, man himself has to hurry off over the horizon, beforehe
too is overtaken by starvation and death! It's as simple asthat
to destroy God's creation!
A New Understanding
The Agriculture Departmentin 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 toprotect
man's environment. That is the SABBATICAL YEAR! And at thattime
we were in the middle of observing it ourselves.
We believed itwas primarily to give a TEMPORARY BOOST TO
THE ALL-IMPORTANT LEVEL OF ORGANIC RESIDUES IN THE SOIL.
Now as the storyjust 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 thepreparation
of this report, has "the penny dropped." This isthe true purpose
of the YEAR OF REST!
How blind weare! With the SABBATICAL YEAR, God is obviously
confronting man with a visual reminder after every sixyears.
Though we have not been able to see it, He is rubbing ournose in
the fact that we need to KEEP A PERMANENT PROTECTIVE BLANKETOF
VEGETATION OVER EVERY PART OF THE EARTH FOR WHICH WE ARE
INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE!!
As for the oldpoint about putting organic residues back
INTO the soil -- that is automatically accomplished byliving
organisms, if only we provide the vital protective layer forthe
TOP of the soil.
In the past wehave been so pre-occupied with the very
important need to get large quantities of plant materialback
INTO our ground, that we failed to see that KEEPING THE SOIL
COVERED IS THE GREAT OVER-RIDING LESSON OF GOD'S SABBATICALYEAR!
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
CAN MAN AFFORD TO FARM GOD'S WAY TODAY?
If agricultureisn't your livelihood, this question may be
somewhat academic and even surprising from a convertedperson. It
will therefore be helpful to establish just WHY such aquestion
would be asked, because it is -- and very frequently!
Preceding thisquestion are a host of others, unasked
perhaps, but in the farmer's mind; for example: Do youappreciate
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 inagriculture
until the millennium?
A change toGod's way is quite dramatic -- EVEN IN FARMING!
In fact the whole process of agricultural change is aphysical
parallel with the spiritual upheaval that sweeps over every
individual called into God's Church.
Field Ministersare now finding that some farmer Church
Members are making insufficient effort to radically changetheir
approach to applying God's agricultural laws. In this issueof
the Research News we hope to answer points they may raise,show
success is possible and spotlight some current economic
fallacies.
Unfortunatelymost 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 deeplyingrained 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 ofobedience!
But many peoplegive 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 farmersfear for their financial survival when
confronted with this change from one system to another!
It isdiscouraging 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 ofdrive 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. Butthe
more he doubts, the less chance he has for success. Doubthas
that uncomfortable habit of quickly turning into concretebelief!
And that will set the seal of failure on any undertaking!!
If only our desire toward God's law andputting it into
practise could match the undying faith in the blundering and
endless experimentation of man! The methods man hasdeveloped are
legion, but let us now divide them into a few simplecategories:
Agriculture's Three Basic Systems
I. THE OLD WRONGWAY -- human greed, breaking natural laws
and paying the penalty by being driven out to yet anotherarea,
leaving a desert behind.
II. THE NEWWRONG 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 putand
in effect, continue law-breaking. (Part of its appeal isthat man
now has nowhere to move to).
III. GOD'S RIGHTWAY -- obedience to LAW, (the only truly
SCIENTIFIC approach), knowledge that our environment is His
Creation, understanding of relevant laws that make it workand
the wisdom to express grateful thanks for the abundance itgives,
rather than make ridiculous demands upon it!
Two Basic Problems -- But No Solutions!
Everyonebelieves Western agriculture is faced with two
basic problems, (and both of them are 'economic'):
A. RISING COSTS
B. STATIC ORFALLING INCOME, (in relation to other sectors
of the particular national economy).
Farmers have foryears been accustomed to hearing their
national leaders urge them to: CUT COSTS and INCREASE
PRODUCTIVITY. But in most 'advanced' countries, foodproducers
have done more in these directions than any other section ofthe
community.
Is it nottherefore ironic that food producers who have
learnt to run faster and faster during the past twentyyears,
have at best succeeded in standing still? At worst, (andthis is
the great majority) they have lost ground financially, inspite
of all their efforts.
So much for the'EXPERTS' and the great 'NEW WRONG WAY' of
modern agriculture. Farming is now in its worst financialstate
since the disaster of the 1930's!
Attempts to cutcosts and increase production have BOTH
tended to lead the agriculturalist AWAY from success ratherthan
TO IT! Both have encouraged him to mechanise. Both have
encouraged him to specialize. And the cost of mechanizinghas
intensified his need to specialize -- the beginning of avicious
and profitless cycle.
Along with thishas come a costly high pressure programme
for producing HIGH-YIELDING breeds of seeds, plants, andanimals,
NEW MANAGEMENT techniques and a MORE RAPID TURN-AROUND ofcrops
and animals.
Result? TakeBritain for example, her agriculture is now the
most mechanized in the world, COSTS have been kept DOWN morethan
in any other industry and PRODUCTION is at an ALL-TIME HIGH.This
looks like a true success story!
Unfortunately itis not! Farmers are desperate, angry and
near bankrupt. Returns are at their LOWEST for almost forty
years. They can't afford replacement machinery andfertilizer.
And while the nation announces an unemployment figure of570,000
for July, labour is still drifting away from agriculture!The
nation can afford to pay 570,000 people every week to doNOTHING,
but agriculture is now so sick that it can't pay for EITHER
LABOUR OR MACHINERY.
So in spite ofcost cutting, increased production and little
gimmicks like 'subsidies', the farmer is in worse troublethan
ever!
The farmer hastied himself to a dumb financial machine
which refuses to recognize any limit to: A. INDUSTRIALPRODUCTION
and B. CONSUMER PURCHASING POWER. Instead, the financialmachine
should be tied to the legal limits of agriculturalproduction,
which were determined by God at Creation.
This impossiblepredicament 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 astate
of delicate equilibrium!
Pursue Truth With Determination!
Man's 'NEW WRONGSYSTEM' 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 cherishedmethod of the past or present is sacrosanct.
Stubborn retention of just one of these strongly heldbeliefs,
(and farmers don't give up their ideas easily) can overthrowany
man during that critical change-over period to the rightsystem.
Our AgricultureDepartment 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 areunder
trial. Often they lack only A MAN WITH THE DETERMINATION TOMAKE
THEM SUCCEED. A significant point for any who would followGOD'S
WAY, in a world that is following ITS OWN.
Remember that in going God's way, man has toswim only
against the ideas of men. But that challenge is just toughenough
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 oninvested
capital are at a 30 year low! Farmers have an unfortunatehistory
of confusing the value of land with its market price. Landvalue
must be governed by what it will produce. Today'sdiscrepancy in
these figures is spelling doom for thousands of modernfarmers!
Our people cancapitalize 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 mostland-users are in the business of DESTROYING soil
fertility. We know we are to be in the business of BUILDINGIT
UP, we know how, so why not capitalize on this knowledge!
2. THE RIGHTSYSTEM: Even if a farmer can't put himself out
of the 'Red' and into the 'Black' by land selling, he shouldstop
destroying his environment and begin building it up.
Farmers will notescape all the penalties for past
law-breaking, but God's way of agriculture would bring themto
grips with the real CAUSE of their problems. BritishAgriculture
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 ofthe
farmers' involvement with those who live by having theirhand in
his pocket.)
3. QUALITY PAYSDIVIDENDS: 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 ofbureaucratically
controlled bulk-pooling. Here, quality is measured by thelowest
common denominator. This type of PRODUCTION and MARKETINGare
BOTH wrong, but let them go ahead anyway!
Once we startfollowing the right system of agriculture, all
our produce will be HIGH QUALITY. Our people shouldtherefore
specialize on their MARKET, NOT on the line of production.If we
stand or fall by the quality of our produce, we can beidentified
by the purchaser who will pay a premium for the quality he
receives. He will even expect to and will also return againand
again.
4. OUTSIDECONTRACTING: Those who abandon monoculture are
often left with excess labour and large, expensive,unsalable and
(many times) unpaid-for machinery. These can often be hiredout
to others in the local area at a profit, because they lackthe
cash for permanent labour and new machinery.
5. ACQUIRE NEWSKILLS: 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. VERTICALLYINTEGRATE: A high-sounding term for cutting
out the middle men. Milk prices in Britain for example, inthe
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 inon.
(The farmers' town and factory contacts could blossom into
customers for direct selling of farm produce).
7. ENTER THEHOLIDAY INDUSTRY: The tourist trade can be
tapped via bed and breakfast accommodation and land withbeauty
but low productivity is ideal for picnic and camp-site
development. All these are avenues for direct food salestoo,
through a roadside stall!
Keep Your Eye On That Vital Long-term Goal!
Yes, man CANAFFORD 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 toobey!
Every true member of God's Church has proved (in many cases,to
his own amazement) that the tithing laws really work. Buthow
many have ever stopped to consider that God actually givesFAR
MORE detailed promises and dire warnings in The Bibleconcerning
agriculture? (Lev. 25, and 26. Deut. 7, 14 and 28.) Theytoo,
must be heeded!
Most of thesefantastic 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 andabundance
without requiring their agricultural obedience and B. ThatHe
would CONTINUE to pour out agricultural blessings on peoplewho
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 thisworld!
Therefore some will have to get out of farming, but for thetime
being the majority CAN continue -- KEEPING ONE POINT INMIND:
The poorestpeasant will enter God's Kingdom IF he is
keeping God's laws, while many king size farmers perish!(See
Mat.13:40-43)
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
September 1970, Vol. I, No.9
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
WHY -- THE LAND-SABBATH?
The law of theland-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 questionsdemand answers and in our efforts to find
them we have been forced to embark on a rather searchingstudy of
this particular part of God's law. It has been mostrewarding and
in this edition of "Your Living Environment" wewant 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 theminteresting and
stimulating.
Did God Neglect Agricultural Instruction?
Most convertedfarmers 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, afew
verses on mingled seed, the land-sabbath and the jubilee!
Beyond thesepoints God appears to have considered it
unnecessary to offer anything very much in the way ofspecific
guidelines for producing man's most important physicalcommodity
-- FOOD!
But is thatreally the situation? Why would the all-wise
Creator God choose, in writing the Bible, to be so specificand
detailed about such things as sacrifices for example and so
seemingly nebulous about agriculture?
God wasn'tnebulous at all. In fact, He did give man
agricultural guidance, but he gave it in such a way that itcould
not be neglected by an obedient nation! God did not have to
expound principles of food production in the Bible. His lawof
the land sabbath appears to do the job for Him. It forcesthe
people in an obedient nation to learn the following pointsby
virtue of sheer economic necessity:
1. That theyneeded a cheap and effective source of feed for
their meat-producing animals, (but NOT GRAIN)!
2. How toprevent soil erosion and the formation of deserts,
(the curse of modern Palestine).
3. How to avoidwater pollution.
4. How toovercome the problem of huge grain surpluses.
5. To know whatconstitutes a logical approach to laying out
cities, towns, villages and farms.
6. The truevalue of long-term highly mechanized farming.
7. The generalimplications of protein quantity and quality
in a good diet for both animals and humans.
8. Thatfactory-farming won't work -- economically.
9. What would bean efficient system of producing and
marketing vegetables, fruit, milk, meat and eggs.
10. Theimportance of livestock in any permanent system of
agriculture.
11. That soilfertility cannot be maintained without a
regular return of organic matter to the land and thatultimately
each acre must be the source of its own fertility.
12. That there isa definite limit to the amount each acre
can produce and that this level will be reached only if manis
prepared to limit the amount he takes for his own purposes.
That may appearto 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. Armstronghas 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 hasrepeatedly
mentioned that he and his wife had to keep the annualfestivals
for many years in total faith before they were able todiscern
the true purpose of the annual Holydays!
The sameprinciple seems to apply to the Sabbatical Year.
Only by keeping it can we learn the meaning, the intent andthe
full importance of God's command to man to rest his land,etc,
every SEVEN years.
AmbassadorCollege in Bricket Wood has done this, (22 years
ago). But many of you however, have not had such anopportunity.
Imagination will therefore be required as we walk through aland
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 detailswere covered in the April, 1969, "Good
News". Briefly however, the land-sabbath imposes thefollowing
conditions every seventh year:
1. No grain maybe harvested for commercial purposes.
2. No crops maybe sown specifically for harvesting.
3. No vineyards,or orchards may be pruned.
4. No fruit,vegetables, or grain may be stored.
5. No hay, orwinter fodder may be collected in barns.
6. No freshfruit, or vegetables would be available for
sale.
7. Pasturing cattle,sheep and poultry is NOT restricted.
Some of The Implications
Visualizeyourself now as an adult male with a wife and
three children. The Civil Government of your country hasmade 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. Theprovision of
clothes, shelter, fuel and recreational amenities would be
unaffected by the Sabbatical Year. But what about FOOD?
Every SEVENTHyear one could expect a temporary shortage of
certain basic commodities, even if there had been a surplusthe
previous year, (as Lev. 25:22 indicates).
MILK and EGGSwould be even more plentiful than normal,
because under God's civil government the Sabbatical Yearapplies
to ALL food producers in the same year -- Lev. 25:9-10. Thistype
of production is in fact encouraged -- and at the specific
expense of commercial crops, (Lev. 25:7).
GRAIN could be availableto all, because it stores easily
and MEAT would also be plentiful.
VEGETABLES andFRUIT 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, sufficientto
last at least a year, (until the next harvest season). Evenif it
could be done, the cost would be high and the food much less
nutritious and less enjoyable than fresh fruit and vegetables.
The ONLYfamilies, (other than the poor and the travelers,
Ex. 23:11,12) who could have fresh produce would be thosewho
have their OWN orchards and gardens! For them, fresh fruitand
vegetables WOULD be available in season.
During the strawberryseason of the Seventh Year for
example, those people who have been growing THEIR OWN PLANTS
would be able to have fresh berries right through thestrawberry
season. God does not approve of storing these away, but Hedoes
approve of eating them FRESH, that is while they are inseason,
(Lev. 25:6).
This could meanthat only a portion of the total
strawberries would be used and the rest would return to thesoil,
but people WOULD have fresh fruit. A big incentive to growyour
OWN strawberries.
The sameprinciple would apply to all berry, stone, pome and
citrus fruits. Notice the incentive for DIVERSIFICATION.This
would lengthen seasonal production of fresh fruit availableto
each SELF-SUPPORTING family.
Amazing isn'tit? God, by giving Israel the land-sabbath
law, appears to have made it far more profitable for eachfamily
to produce their own fruit and vegetables than rely on the
efforts of someone else!
God's SabbaticalYear makes it economically and
nutritionally unattractive to rely on a few specialistproducers
selling to millions of non-producing consumers, (like wehave
today)!
Maybe everyonewon'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'ssystem, 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-grocerduring
this time, but people can have a FREE supply direct fromtheir
OWN garden, (Lev. 25:6). Even here God has seen thenecessity of
forestalling human nature. Many people, left to their own
devices, would plant a garden ONLY in the SEVENTH YEAR andbuy
their requirements from someone else during the other sixyears!!
But in order to have any garden produce in the SEVENTH Yeara
family must have a garden in at least the sixth year too!God
makes this mandatory by limiting the available produce tothat
which volunteers in the Seventh Year. You can quicklyappreciate
that volunteer growth in vegetables COMES only where theyhave
been planted in a previous year! (That cleverly rules out
vegetable retailers in the SIXTH year!)
Volunteer Growth
A properlymanaged 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 fromJuly
to December with no digging, weeding or seeding. A similarsystem
for carrots, cabbages, sprouts and other vegetables is being
tested.
Benefits of Obedience
Therefore theSabbatical Year benefits the family as
follows:
1. Consumptionof animal protein is encouraged by making it
the most plentiful food every Seventh Year.
2. By forcingman to be self-sufficient God is encouraging
us to dwell under our own vine and fig tree. (Mic. 4:4)
3. Being thesource 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 entirenation
are undeniable.
Consider some of the national benefits:
1. Theland-sabbath discriminates severely against
landowners who rely on CROPS for their income. Our modern
animal-less farms would be totally out of business everyseventh
year, while those who pasture stock would be unaffected!
Growing of cropsis 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'ssystem of marketing produce would be uneconomic.
The nation's MARKET-GARDENERS would be totally out of businessin
both the sixth and seventh years of every seven year cycle.
GREEN-GROCERS would be out too in the seventh year andlimited to
sales of fruit during the sixth and ORCHARDISTS would haveno
income in the seventh!
3. As today'smiles and miles of monotonous grain fields
become a memory, more cattle, sheep and poultry will bebred.
4. Huge andembarrassing grain surpluses would also cease
because monoculture would be discouraged.
5. Less bareground through reduced cultivation would
greatly decrease the hazards of erosion and desertformation.
Land well covered with grass is nearly immune to damage fromwind
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. Factoryfarming would be ruled out through a lack of
cheap grain. GRASS would be the cheapest and best feed, (andit
probably is, even today). Regular years of rest would raisesoil
fertility and grass quality would improve to the point where
protein supplements of grain would be UNNECESSARY.
7. Theramifications of increased SOIL FERTILITY could be
easily traced, (if space permitted) through plant, animaland
human HEALTH. This fact alone would save every modernWestern
nation millions of pounds annually for pharmaceuticals,chemical
sprays and dusting agents.
In conclusionthen it is obvious that in the Sabbatical
Year, God gave Israel a VAST amount of agricultural and
environmental guidance. Indeed, had the Israelites kept thislaw,
it is difficult to see how they could have AVOIDED healthand
prosperity.
The land-sabbathappears 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 fora
FUTURE Israel to avoid the same mistake!!
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
GRAIN -- A DANGER TO MAN!
Today the worldagrees that the solution to it food crisis
lies in grain production! Prodigious sums of money, talentand
resources are devoted to producing more and more grain. Whydon't
nations and international organizations devote their timeand
money to increasing the world's production of animalprotein? The
way to achieve this is simple -- by expanding the total areaof
improved pastures and raising soil fertility!
Instead, worldagriculture moves consistently in the
OPPOSITE direction -- toward even greater dependence uponGRAIN.
Why? Because men make one simple false assumption -- that anacre
of GRAIN equals more food than the meat of milk from an acreof
GRASS!
From this issueof "Your Living Environment" you will see
that a STARVING world is producing TOO MUCH grain and thatsuch a
policy is opposite to the way mankind should be going. Wepresent
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 itis
foremost in the minds of the most influential internationalfood
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 fewpeople
know about. And Ambassador Agricultural Research now bringsyour
this information, we believe, for the first time ever!
Food Value Per Acre -- Grain or Grass?
If only manwould get his priorities right he would believe
that an acre of land produces more nutritional value underGRASS
that under grain.
The followingtable and comments prepared by Dr. K.L.
Blaxter, (Director of the world-renowned Rowett Research
Institute, Aberdeen) proves this:
HUMAN FOODOUTPUT 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. 397.5460
Lipid kg. 45542.5
Lysine kg. 31.810
Threonine kg. 18.89.3
Thiamin g. 4 2.8
Riboflavin g.17 2.5
Nicotinic acidg. 6.8 30.3
Calcium kg. 107.5 5
Phosphorus kg.85 35
The milkproduction figures are based on grassland
yielding 11,045 lbs dry matter converted to 9,312 lbs. milkper
acre. The cereal production is based on wheat yielding 40.5cwt
(75 bushels) per acre, with 15 percent moisture content.
"The results show that the calorificyield is much greater
when good land is used to grow bread grains rather than to
produce milk. At least 50% more biologically useful caloriescan
be obtained from the cereal crop in terms of flour yieldthan
from the milk produced. This is the ONLY major nutrienthowever,
in which the cereal crop excels. Intensive milk productionand
wheat growing produce similar amounts of protein. Theseproteins
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 lysineand
to a lesser extent threonine. The yield per hectare fromdairy
production of lysine and threonine are three times and twice
those from cereal production. With the exception ofnicotinic
acid, yields of vitamins of the B complex group are greaterfor
dairy production than for cereal production and so, quite
obviously are yields of calcium and phosphorus (vital forstrong
bones and health)" (Science Journal, May 1968, pages55-56).
The table provesbeyond 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. Blaxterbased his calculations on a wheat yield of 75
bushels per acre. He couldn't be accused of exaggeration. Hadhe
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 wouldhave
weighted the table even MORE heavily in favour of GRASSLANDfood
production as the best way to feed mankind a balanced diet!
How Much Grain Does Man Produce?
You and I mayaccept Dr. Blaxter's table, but can a starving
world take a chance and institute a massive swing toproducing
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 figurelike
that does not mean anything unless we know how many peopleit
will feed for a year.
How Much Grain Does Man Need?
Nutrition bookstell us that the average person in the
Western world eats about 200 lbs of grain annually. Thatmeans
one metric ton (2,205 lbs.) would feed approximately eleven
people per year.
Therefore, 1,000million metric tons would feed 11 billion
people. World population is now said to be 3.5 billion, soin
1967 the world's farmers produced more than THREE TIMES thetotal
annual grain needs of mankind!
Rough figuresperhaps, 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 nutritionexpert has said as some time or other that
LACK OF PROTEIN is mankind's most acute food problem. Andmany
admit that they really mean -- ANIMAL protein! (Those whodon't,
need only refer to Lev. 11).
Grain does notsatisfy man's real need for high quality
protein. Only meat, cheese and eggs can do that! The highgrain
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 artificialfertilizers!
Where Does All The Grain Go?
If man could notand 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 1969/1970are
supplied by The Ministry of Agriculture. They provide and
interesting answer:
Totalconsumption 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 forexport, seeds, etc................950,000 "
(Farmer &Stockbreeder, December 9, 1969, page 85)
So! TWO-THIRDSof Britain's grain is consumed by ANIMALS!!
The same pattern of grain usage exists in most otherdeveloped
countries that are themselves large producers of grain.Britain
even feeds two-thirds of its grain to animals in spite ofthe
fact that she has to spend around £200 million annually onwheat
IMPORTS!
Millions oflivestock around the world are not fed GRASS, or
HAY, which are the materials their digestive tract isdesigned to
handle. Instead, much of our animal protein is todayproduced 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 raisedto
produce beef, or to consume embarrassing surplus, cheap,low-
quality grain!!
Grain-fed Animals -- Why?
The fact thatcattle can be successfully brought to suitable
slaughter condition WITHOUT grain-feeding is regarded byAmerican
Agriculture as a RECENT discovery. Even today, few peopleover
there know about it!
Hi. W. Staten,in his book "Grasses & Grassland" has shocked
a lot of people. He writes: "Cattle fed on goodpastures will
produce milk or beef at about one fourth to one fifth of thecost
of dry-feeding (through the use of grain plus a certainamount of
hay or straw)." (p. 19)
Elsewhere hecontinues: "Total digestible nutrients produced
by green pastures cost about ONE FIFTH as much as thoseproduced
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."
"Cowsturned onto good pastures from the best dry-lot
feeding maintain or INCREASE their milk flow." (p. 63,73)
Sufficientevidence here to make us wonder if our modern
ideas on the production of animal protein need revising! Itis a
pity that Professor Staten does not go on and show the otherside
of the "dud" coin -- a high grain diet tears upthe digestive
tract of ruminants by pH levels 100 TIMES more acid thanthose
eating grass. Livers become abscessed and are condemned asUNFIT
FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION, but if the BODIES they service canwalk
into the slaughterhouse, then they are sure to make it ontoyour
dinner plate!!
Excess Grain Production Effects Soil Too!
Today thesemisguided world-wide demands for grain have
stimulated the conversion of millions of acres fromgrassland and
forest to crop production. As the following commenttestifies, it
is these grainfield that are largely responsible for theworld's
biggest agricultural curse -- SOIL EROSION:
"Datafrom the Soil Conservation Experimental Station
at Bethany, Missouri, show that corn (maize) growingcontinuously
would allow 50.93 tons of soil to leave the field annually,but a
good kentucky bluegrass sod would lose only 0.16 tons ofsoil."
(Ibid, p. 8)
Another unhappyresult 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 ofits
chief advisors. Thousands of acres of land in England havebeen
so abused by over-cultivation, heavy machinery andcontinuous
arable farming that not even grass can be profitably grownon
them for years to come!
How Much Grain-land For One Man?
Have you everwondered how much land it takes to grow enough
grain for one man? Would you guess -- 50 acres, or perhaps10, or
5, or maybe even 1 little acre? One acre of land of average
fertility will produce 2,000 lbs of grain. We assumedearlier
that 200 lbs of grain per year would take care of a man'sneeds
in this direction. Therefore one acre would feed TEN peoplewith
200 lbs each!
Calculated atthe rate of England's average wheat yield per
acre, the College Gymnasium floor area would provide thegrain
needs of a family of FOUR people!! In other words a familywould
easily supply its own needs from a large garden. Imagine the
fantastic change in man's environment world-wide if most ofthe
grain production was moved into the family garden andbrought
under correct soil management!
Given a littlemore 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 andbeast
from millions of acres of featureless, badly managed,wrongly
used and deteriorating grain-land would quietly pass away.
Man may finallycome to understand that both his nutrition
and his environment would be a whole lot better off withfewer
"Egyptians" and more "servants" who cantruthfully say that they
"... have been keepers of cattle from our youth..." (Gen.
46:34).
It is the DIETof the average man and many animals that
should be views as an "abomination, NOT the occupationof sound
husbandry!!
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
November 1970, Vol. I, No.11
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
PLANT BREEDING -- GOD'S WAY!
A recent newsreport 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 waswell
justified by the fruits that will follow the automaticexpansion
that this building will allow.
The same reportwent 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 tobreed a
supply of "disease-resistant" plants to replacethe "disease
resistant" ones they bred only three or four yearsearlier! This
is but ONE of many such costly institutions around theworld! But
regardless of how low a value anyone may place on theirwork,
their recent worldwide impact is undeniable!!
Who hasn't heardof "the Green Revolution"? "REVOLUTION" is
most appropriate, because it is already producing agronomic
anarchy and confusion! Suddenly we are told that man hasmade a
colossal genetic break-through in a bid to hold-off famine.
But even beforethat label "green revolution" was coined, a
previous Research News brought you a report entitled --"Genetic
Engineering -- Complex Path to Failure". It aimed toinvalidate
the claims made by these influential and brilliantscientists. It
showed that they are setting the character and the pace for
PANDEMONIUM in the plant kingdom!
Having given youthat report showing why the work of the
geneticist is doomed to utter failure, it is now a realpleasure
to be able to follow-up with news of a break-through in ourown
understanding. Within this last week it has suddenly becomeclear
how God has employed the simplest device, ever sinceCreation, as
a natural means of plant-breeding!
But first let usre-cap a little on man's own efforts. The
most topical is of course the recent Blight attack thatswept
through the hybrid corn industry from one end of America tothe
other. Millions of bushels were wiped out almost over-nightand
panic ensued on the Chicago grain market.
Slowly the worldis learning of the hushed-up Asian
dissatisfaction over IR8 "Miracle-rice". At thismoment of
writing we have on Campus a Colombo-Plan expert who has come
direct from twenty months of work in Pakistan. He has givena
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 breakdownof
new cereal varieties in EVERY Western country!
What Is The Answer?
The old musichall joke in England would have you believe
that "the answerrrr lies in the soillll". Howeverin 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 oldcow!
We think youwill find that this new understanding makes the
multi-million pound efforts of "miracle"plant-breeding
geneticists an expensive tragedy!
To millions ofpeople 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 theirsoil!
To many millionsof modern Western farmers and their highly
trained scientific advisors, the same animal dung-pat hasbecome
a BARRIER to economic progress! And to some it has evenbecome a
distressing source of environmental pollution!!
Dung-pats -- An Economic Barrier?
Have you evernoticed the numerous grassy lumps and bumps in
a pasture when you have been driving down the road, orwalking
across an unploughed field? Perhaps you have wondered whythey
are there and what causes them?
If you examine theground you will find that every one of
them is centred on a dung-pat, or a urine patch. Their causeis
due to TWO factors. First, these areas persist in giving-offan
odour that is offensive to cattle, so the animalsassiduously
avoid grazing the plants growing on these spots. Secondly,the
unusually high concentration of organic matter stimulatesthese
particular plants to put out more growth than thesurrounding
areas.
You may thinkthat these lumpy patches look untidy. So does
the stock man, but his main displeasure lies in the factthat his
animals persistently refuse to graze this rank growth!
Dairy farmers inWestern countries are notorious for
squeezing large numbers of cattle into tiny pastures. (It issaid
of some that their big boots are used to push the last cowinto
the pasture to get the gate shut!!)
Economics isalways at the back of such practices but as
usual there is an over-riding law of diminishing returns. Asman
increases the stocking rate, he also increases the number ofdung
pats and urine-patches per acre. Finally, the total area of
unpalatable and unacceptable grazing exceeds the rest!
That level ofgrazing is somewhat dryly described in
farmers' parlance as "heavy-stocking". Scientificadvisors call
it "intensive-grazing". Call it what you like, butit still
confronts the financially-oppressed farmer as an economicbarrier
to further progress.
Preventing Pasture Contamination
Farmers don'tgive up easily, so now under the guidance of
their advisors many have completely REMOVED their animalsfrom
the pastures! How's that for a system to get rid of the dungpat
problem, or "pasture-contamination" as it iscalled?
Then the farmergets out his field-mower, cuts his pastures
regularly and carts all the green plant-matter to animalfeeding
troughs. This system is mistakenly hailed as an economic
breakthrough by the men in GRASSLAND RESEARCH! It isidentified
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 quitelikely 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 hisOWN
cattle. So, cutting and carting grass under the"zero-grazing"
system enables him to gather EVERY blade of grass. And thatcan
be just another point at which he goes wrong.
More To Dung-pats Than Meets The Eye!
Who would thinkthat a little old dung-pat could present man
with so many problems! This may be the first time that youhave
ever wondered WHY God designed animals to operate as theydo. It
is a question that has been pondered many times and we nowhave a
very good answer!
Yes, God DIDcreate cattle with a waste-disposal system that
leaves pastures strewn and fouled-up with dung-pats. But itnow
also appears that this is also one way in which He anticipated
Plant-Geneticists by almost 6,000 years!
Each blob ofanimal manure on the landscape represents the
ultimate in concentrated plant residues. They are able toproduce
the maximum biological action, both IN THEMSELVES and IN THESOIL
under the dung-pats.
At certainstages each year the animals start dropping pats
that are impregnated with seeds from a variety of plantspecies.
It is most important to note that these species are NOT
necessarily representative of the pasture in which theanimal is
grazing. But it WILL represent the diet that has been
INSTINCTIVELY SELECTED by the individual animal! This isvitally
important and quite miraculous!! The animals are not only
RE-SEEDING your pasture, they are actually CHOOSING thespecies
that they prefer for their own health on that particularsoil!
Furthermore, if the pasture is not over-grazed, they areeven
selecting certain individual plants within a single species!(Few
people realise that a cow is a better judge of pasture andhay
quality than ANY cattleman!)
God Produces "Super" Seeds
Wherever theclimate allows pasture reproduction to take
place through the setting of seeds, specie selection bygrazing
animals reaches its maximum effect. (That is providing man does
not interfere in a wrong way.)
It is also easyto appreciate that plants growing in dung
pats will be the BEST NOURISHED and MOST VIGOROUS in thepasture
They will therefore set seed containing the highest amountof
protein and the highest viability for future germination.
Consider whatwould happen if there was no odour to the
dung-pats! These plants would always be the most attractiveto
the shrewd old cow throughout their entire growing life.They
would be the first grazed and the most heavily grazed! Thatwould
reduce their seed-setting chances to almost nil. The WEAKEST
plants and the poorest species would then be left todominate and
pasture quality would quickly deteriorate.
God fore-stalledthis problem and even reversed the process
naturally, by the simple device of giving dung-pats an odourthat
repels the cattle. That means grazing animals spend thewhole
growing season EYING the best pasture, but EATING only theSECOND
BEST. (This appears to be a rather intriguing example of ONE
INSTINCT overcoming another INSTINCT!)
"Super" Seeds For Entire Pasture
Plant growthvirtually stops at the end of the season (the
annuals die) and so grazing becomes scarce as the plantsmature
and go to seed. At this time protein concentrates in theseed
heads and just then the offensive odour diminishes in thedung
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" plantsgrown in the
dung-pats!
"Super" Plants FROM "Super" Seeds!
Only AFTER thedung 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. Othersare
eaten by the cattle and end-up back in dung-pats. Here theywill
germinate and grow into NEXT YEAR'S "SUPER"PLANTS. So the cycle
will go on repeating itself to produce seeds for PASTURESand
seeds for further SEED-PRODUCTION!
Special Seed PROTECTION!
In a hot climatewhere 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 hassupplied
BUILT-IN protection.
Manure fromanimals 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 dryfeed always drink extra water to compensate for
the lack of moisture in their rations, but for some reasontheir
dung will still be relatively dry. That enables the sun to
quickly dry the animal manure before the seeds germinate!
In this way theseeds are protected from a quick death, and
when the rains finally come at the end of summer, the driedpats
are soaked with water and the "super" seedsgerminate in safety.
God Can Do Anything Better ...!!
Next time youdrive by a pasture that has been grazed
unevenly into rank-looking, dark green lumps and bumps, youcan
reflect very knowingly on what has been going on. You willnow
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 tothese
that God turns out automatically! Truly, "God hathchosen the
foolish things of the world to confound the wise ..."(ICor.
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
THENATURAL ENVIRONMENT -- IS IT BEST?
The initialshockwave of the ecological revolution has
rolled over most of the literate world. A new wave ofthinkers
has sprung up in its wake -- THE NATURALISTS. To thisspecial
breed of social critic and philosopher, technology istantamount
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 ofAlaska.
Industry standsfirm. Development must not be thwarted, nor
progress impeded. The naturalists, casting themselves asvaliant
defenders of our dying national heritage, have zealouslyattacked
the developers as greedy, grasping, soulless exploiters!
Thus the"PRESERVATIONIST" versus "DEVELOPER" battle rages,
and not only about pipelines. Cattle breeding, orchardculture,
land management and even egg production have inspiredcontention.
Who is right?Both sides have certain merits, but are the
naturalists correct every time they condemn man fortampering
with his environment? How does God view our insatiabledesire to
change the land in which we live? How NATURAL should ourapproach
be to agriculture and environment? This Research News shouldhelp
you to better understand MAN'S PROPER ROLE IN HIS NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT.
MAN -- The Spoiler!
The point cannotbe too strongly made that man has managed
to besmirch, pollute, desecrate and destroy nearlyeverything he
had touched. Indeed, total mismanagement of our environmenthas
been a dominant theme throughout all of history. A solutionmust
be found to this suicidal course of action. But does that
solution lie in leaving our surroundings in their mostnatural
state?
NO, IT DECIDEDLYDOES NOT!! Mismanagement must be replaced,
not with NO-MANAGEMENT, but with correct, law-abidingmanagement!
How "Natural" Was The Garden of Eden?
Have you everwondered why God did not create the earth as
one huge garden for Adam and his descendants? Gen. 2:8 tellsus
that God planted a garden eastward IN Eden. Therefore therest 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 gardenof
God, or Eden. Why did they differ? And how? And for whatreason?
God must have had a purpose for it.
Gen. 2:15reveals 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 neededcareful
and regular management by Adam and his family to maintainits
fullest beauty and productivity. God created the gardendependent
upon human effort to maintain it at maximum potential. Thismeans
that a properly MANAGED section of God's earth must besuperior
to any "NATURAL" area!
Could it be thatEden and Nod were inferior to the garden in
beauty and productivity, (inferior, not in createdpotential, but
in development of that potential)? Was the garden of God tobe
the prototype, the model after which the rest of Eden, Nodand
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 anexample of
a model environment?
Our Creator musthave realised that Adam and his descendants
would need many opportunities to develop THEIR God-given
managerial and creative abilities. Would not the task ofshaping,
fashioning and developing the whole earth to its fullest
potential be the ideal fulfillment of this human need? Thatwas
"job-enrichment" par excellence!
Gen. 1:28underlines 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 ofEden showed Adam
HOW the earth was to be subdued and conquered. But Adamrebelled
and lost access to God's model environment. Thus he rejectedboth
the physical example and the spiritual mind to follow it.
Theestablishment of a physical example of God's right way
is a common tool of our Creator. Is not this a basic purposeof
Ambassador College? Students spend four years in theAmbassador
atmosphere, in constant association with God's standards of
environment, including food, dress, recreation, thought,speaking
etc. After four years in God's "GARDEN OFEDUCATION" they
graduate -- to carry the Ambassador way into all parts ofthe
earth!
Likewise must ithave been intended with the garden of Eden
to "graduate" sons of Adam to carry God's style ofenvironmental
development to all parts of the globe.
Man CAN Improve The "Natural"
Have you everseen a precious diamond in the rough? Few
people would even recognize a rough diamond, let alone wearone!
Yet the Bible speaks of diamonds and precious stones asitems of
supreme beauty. But they do not take on this beauty untilAFTER
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 trueof 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 wouldbe
very different. Every leaf of a properly managed treereceives
the maximum amount of sunlight and every piece of fruitreceives
a correct balance of soil nutrients. This results in anabundance
of large, tasty fruit -- year after year. Thus a managedfruit
tree is far superior to a NATURAL one.
Poultry areanother example. A hen will normally lay about
20 eggs and then stop and hatch them out. However, if theeggs
are gathered each day she will produce some 200 eggs in ayear,
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 yearsago 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 ofwild
cattle that reportedly roamed northern England duringCaesar's
reign. For 600 years this particular herd has been isolatedin
their huge enclosure. They remained outside the domain ofman,
mating among themselves and feeding from the natural grassesof
the partially timbered estate.
How do theseNATURAL cattle compare with their modern
counterparts, such as the Angus, Hereford and Shorthorn?MOST
UNFAVORABLY! A personal inspection of this famousChillingham
herd some three years ago was most revealing. These cattleare so
vicious that they will allow no human to touch or handlethem.
Even the Ranger was most careful to stay within easy reachof
protective fences! The average cow calves only every thirdyear
instead of annually. The cattle are small, with carcasesthat
rate extremely low for production of valuable meat. Thoughtasty,
their meat is not superior to that from a regular grass-fed
beast. Milk production is very poor and though these animalsare
extremely hardy, their longevity does not surpass that ofother
breeds. The degeneration of these cattle is largelyexplained by
some of the environmental deterioration that can be seen at
Rothamsted.
The Rothamsted Experiment
Located only tenmiles north of Bricket Wood is The
Rothamsted Experimental Station, (the oldest agricultural
research station in the world). A long-term experimentthere,
called the "Broadbalk Wilderness", proves how landcan rapidly
lose its productivity through lack of human management.
"At theharvest of 1882 a half acre strip of the standing
wheat crop on land unmanured for many years was enclosed bya
fence at the end of the Broadbalk field and was notcultivated.
The wheat was left to compete with weeds, and after onlyfour
years, the few stunted plants found were barely recognizableas
cultivated wheat. Since then, the weeds have completelytaken
possession. One-half of the area has been left untouched; itis
now, (88 years later) woodland of mature trees over sixtyfeet
high, and the leading species are hawthorn, oak, ash and
sycamore. The ground is covered with ivy .... dog's mercury,
violet and blackberry ...
"The otherhalf has been cleared of bushes annually to
open-ground vegetation to develop ...
"In 1957the grubbed section was divided into two parts. The
northern part ... was left unchanged, and the remainder wasmown
several times each growing season and the produce removedwith
the idea of encouraging the grasses. This management was
continued for three years ... Starting in March, 1960, sheepwere
put in to graze whenever the growth was sufficient. By 1962,
perennial rye-grass and white clover (the two pasturespecies
that dominate the most productive pastures in England) had
appeared and they are still increasing ..." (RothamstedReport,
1965)
God Desires Land To Be INHABITED
While informingthe 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; lestthe
land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiplyagainst
you.
"By littleand little will I drive them from before you,
until you be increased and inherit the land". (Ex.23:29,30)
God obviouslyfelt that even Canaanite rule over His
Promised Land was more acceptable than no people there atall!
Had the Israelites remained faithful, He would undoubtedlyhave
given them further instructions toward developing the landto its
fullest potential -- without polluting the environment.
Unfortunately, such was not to be the case.
Needed -- A New Garden Of Eden
Today, some3,500 years later, we are still in trouble
because of failure to manage our environment. 1970 wasdeclared
to be European Conservation Year. Throughout the past eleven
months, world leaders, dignitaries, and scientists have helda
continual round of conferences and discussions -- attemptingto
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 verylittle
closer to any lasting solutions.
What is badlyneeded is a working model of a properly
developed environment based on an understanding of God'sLaw. If
this was available, mankind might see some light in thedeepening
darkness settling over our ecological problems. Worldleaders
might begin to believe that it IS possible for man to live
prosperously without destroying his surroundings.
European ConservationYear produced no such plan or model!
But Ambassador College is doing so. Bricket Wood and Texas
campuses are already moving in this direction. Years ofplanning
and work are involved -- but, as our new booklet"Environmental
Research" shows, the initial steps have already beentaken.
Through itstwo-campus Agriculture Programme, Ambassador
College is now laying the foundations for a new prototypeGarden
of Eden!
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
January-February 1971, Vol. II,Nos. 1-2
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
THESTORY OF THE MICRO-ORGANIC CYCLE
At theConference 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 inBricket
Wood, whose head was privileged to spend six months on theTexas
campus absorbing the interesting details.
Arriving back inEngland, all fired-up with new knowledge,
we suddenly found ourselves facing a blank wall! Weeks offrantic
activity revealed that not ONE of these three basicmaterials was
readily available anywhere near Hertfordshire!!
The nearestlignite was in Devon, and on the Isle of Wight.
The only diatomaceous earth appeared to be either somelow-grade
material over in Northern Ireland, or that up in aWestmorland
lake UNDER FORTY FEET OF WATER! (It took research in the
geological section of The British Museum to reveal eventhese
dismal bits of information.) Then learning that it isillegal to
import soil bacteria came as the final blow!
To set up anagriculture programme like that at Big Sandy,
without any of their three basic materials, posed quite a
problem. In this issue of "Your LivingEnvironment" 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 NEWunderstanding.
It was new and exciting to us then. It will STILL be new tomost
of you today!
A Sabbatical Year For Bricket Wood
The beginning ofthe Agriculture Programme in England just
happened to coincide with the seventh year after thefounding of
Ambassador College in Bricket Wood, by Mr. Armstrong. So we
STARTED our programme with a SABBATICAL YEAR. Few in thisage
have ever observed a year of rest, but imagine our surpriseto
find ourselves so involved, in our very FIRST year ofoperation!
We were happyabout the idea, but in some ways it looked
like a rather rough start. This was because we mentally
approached our "STRANGE" observance as most otherpeople do on
their first occasion. We thought it was a kind of PENALTY tobe
paid as the price of maintaining soil fertility! HOW WRONGWE
WERE!!
Keeping -- Brings Understanding
Had we not keptGod's year of rest it is quite likely that
we would still be without vital understanding on thefunctioning
of the most important law of food production.
Centred on thereturn 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 intoutter
disrepute only after man's end-time introduction of chemical
fertilizers.
There are manytreatments 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 Africanrock
phosphate and German potash is neither inexhaustible orsecure.
If God be ourDesigner, Creator and Sustainer, there must be
another basis for the production of healthy plants. The yearof
rest taught us that in the ultimate analysis, man mustdepend on
a system of soil management in which every square yard isable to
supply its OWN fertility! In other words, when everybody is
managing his soil correctly EVERYONE will NOT be able to diga
hole for minerals in his neighbour's hillside. And NO-ONEwill 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 theSABBATICAL YEAR soon indicated that commercial
crop production is totally ruled out at the very time whenmeat,
milk and wool production is most encouraged. Livestockharvest
plants from the land just like a modern mechanical haybaler, but
there are two differences. The animals return a lot of waste
products to the soil and they also trample many plantsunderfoot.
If these are the two main differences between the cow andthe
baler in relation to soil, the key to the SABBATICAL YEARmust be
the RETURN OF ORGANIC MATTER to the land.
The next keyinvolves an understanding of RUMINANT
DIGESTION, (cattle, sheep and goats, etc.). Unlike man andmost
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, thesecond stomach and the third, contain no
digestive juices. Instead, microorganisms multiply intobillions
and digest the grass and hay eaten by the animal. That'sright --
ruminants don't digest their food intake! They merely gatherit
for bacteria who do the breakdown and are then digested
themselves. Thus the ruminant feeds the bacteria and thebacteria
become food for the ruminant.
As these rumenbacteria are fundamental to digestion, we
reasoned that they must also have a very significant effecton
organic matter that is returned to the soil in the form ofdung.
But how could a layman determine this for sure? How could weeven
know for sure if any passed out in the dung?
Bacteria-charged Manure
A simple testcan be made by taking a sample of common
grass. Divide it and put it in two glass containers, thenadd a
small amount of fresh cow manure to one jar and leave themboth
in a warm atmosphere for a few days. One can soon discern,even
with the naked eye that decomposition is much more rapid inthe
presence of manure. The difference was so great that thegrass in
one container had almost decomposed before the other one had
changed at all.
Microscopicinspection revealed very little life where there
was no decomposition. However at the same power under the
microscope, the 'bugs' were working furiously in theirmillions
in the 'dung-contaminated' sample. They appeared to becrowding
each other out of the container and the grass was nearly
decomposed!
It then tookvery little reflection to realize that when
people built a compost heap, the best known ACTIVATOR andthe
most commonly used is ANIMAL MANURE -- especially that from
ruminants. An ACTIVATOR is just a primer for bacterialaction, so
one might well expect the waste-products of a bacterialdigester,
(the ruminant) to be the obvious choice for rapid plant
decomposition.
So much for themanure that goes into manmade compost heaps,
but what about that which is spread around naturally bygrazing
animals in a pasture? Surely plant decomposition is just as
important under these conditions! Of course it is. Even moreso.
A billion times more decomposition is stimulated every dayunder
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 doesnot
make sense for man to gather and transport all availableplant
matter to one point, compost it and then cart it all backagain
to spread over the same area! (When man learns to handle hissoil
and animals correctly the ORGANIC-FANATIC may not feel hehas to
raise such pious hands at the loss of certain city refuse.)
The Role of Animal Residues
Now the picturewas becoming clear. Most who have preached
the return of animal manure to the land, did so for its ownsake.
In other words its value has always been based on the amountof
actual plant material turned back into the soil. However it
should be better appreciated that a mature beast will returnless
than six tons of manure to an acre of average pasture landper
year. Ten to twenty tons is more like the dressing needed tohave
a worthwhile effect.
This surely putsanimal manure in a different perspective!
And yet the Sabbatical Year shows what great stress Godplaces on
the RETURN OF MANURE FROM RUMINANTS TO THE SOIL. Wetherefore
submit that the MOST important role of farmyard manure is to
constantly RE-INOCULATE THE SOIL WITH MICRO-ORGANISMS! Itsvalue
as humus however, is no way diminished. But on the otherhand,
readers will appreciate that God would NOT give man a soilsystem
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 justoverwhelming!
(The rumen may make them more SPECIAL than we realise!)
Plant Bacteria
Thinking our waybackwards, the next step towards further
understanding was taken by mentally going back into therumen.
There, amidst all that churning bacteria and fermentationone had
to contemplate the possibility of disaster. No greater
catastrophe could happen to a RUMEN than ingesting asubstance
that would kill ALL of its MICROBIAL content!
Everything wouldcome to a disastrous halt! And the animal
would quickly die! You may rightly say this would be anuncommon
occurrence, but severe fluctuations could occur quite often.And
remember that billions of organisms are constantly passinginto
other stomachs to be digested. Not to mention those we havejust
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 overtakeeven the
healthiest ruminant!
It wouldtherefore be unreasonable to assume that there is
not a constant replenishing source of rumen bacteria, toguard
against such a possibility. Why, of course! The TWO GLASSJARS
mentioned earlier!! Even the grass sample without ANY dungadded,
was decomposing, so WHERE did the microbes come from?
A littlemicroscope work will very clearly show that plant
leaves and stalks carry their OWN population of tinyorganisms.
That means that every time a cow or a sheep or a goatswallows a
mouthful of grass, their rumen is re-inoculated with 'bugs'.
Anyone knowsthat 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 directfilm-like
contact with the leaf surface. Their association is suchthat
they are not even washed off by heavy rain, so this filmy
environment makes them quite distinct from atmosphericbacteria.
Once again weare confronted with a beautifully designed and
simple process. Such a commonplace thing should not be newto us.
Then we might reflect on this interesting question: are the
changing leaves of autumn anything more than the obviousonset of
DECOMPOSITION by PLANT BACTERIA? You have seen this processEVERY
year of your life, but have you ever thought of this meaning
before? (What a fulfillment of Rom. 1:20!)
Soil Bacteria
If all plantsare 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 moredetail
at the end of this "Research News") indicate thatthey come from
the SOIL!
Some even comefrom 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 theplant
as it grows out from the soil. Any farmer experienced inplanting
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 abusedand
mismanaged.)
What you havebeen 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 soundvery
simple and their common connection has been partiallyestablished
in the telling of this story. But be assured -- neithertheir
simplicity nor their connection was obvious at the BEGINNINGof
this research! Coming to this understanding was a LONG, SLOW
PROCESS! As always, when one comes to understand somethingfor
the first time you look back and think how obvious it shouldhave
been from the very beginning.
You have guessedit by now -- in this story we have worked
our way through a complete FIVE-STAGE CYCLE:
1. Bacteria fromthe SOIL and from SEEDS in the soil, cover
the surface of PLANTS as they grow up out of the ground.
2. ANIMALS takein plant matter for their continuing food
needs and the associated PLANT and SOIL bacteria repeatedly
re-inoculate the rumen.
3. Inside theRUMEN, bacteria multiply fantastically as they
decompose the plant matter. They then pass down thealimentary
tract and provide the bacterial PROTEIN needs of the animal.
4. RUMEN bacteriathat escape digestion are returned to the
pasture in farmyard MANURE.
5. DUNG bacteriamultiply as they decompose the organic
material in which they find themselves and re-enter theSOIL,
along with the humus they have created. And so the wholecycle is
repeated over and over. That's why WE named it: M.O.C. or
Micro-organic Cycle.
Only NOW can webegin 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 anypoint, 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-OrganicCycle",
see the file 710104.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)
Confirmation from Other Sources
Coming to theseconclusions and such understanding was a
gigantic break-through. It was this foundation offundamental
knowledge that enabled us to proceed with the Bricket Wood
Agriculture Programme, in spite of the total absence of thethree
basic materials used in Big Sandy.
What we now call"The Micro-organic Cycle" was understood
ONLY because we were shown the specific importance ofRUMINANTS
in relation to SOIL FERTILITY. And we focused in on the roleof
ruminants ONLY because our programme started out observing a
SABBATICAL YEAR! Conversely, understanding the vital partplayed
by the ruminant in soil fertility, meant that we alsounderstood
the SABBATICAL YEAR better than EVER before!
As soon as thispoint in our research was reached there was
a great sense of urgency to press on and CONFIRM our newbeliefs
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 intothe
writings of other researchers.
At first thisdid not seem like a very attractive
proposition. But limited success came quickly and we plunged
deeply into previously unknown material with mountingexcitement.
Those which follow are brief sample excerpts that sent uswild
with delight. They do not appear necessarily in the order in
which they were located:
As the Bibletriggered 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 thyvineyard.
"...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 nowhowever, 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 only20-50
cm.
"...The bacterial numbers vary most, soils with a pH
greater than 6.0 usually have counts by dilution methods often
million or more. In soil with a low pH, however, the numbersmay
be very much less and in acid podzols the count may be lessthan
a million per gram." ("Micro-Organisms In TheSoil", by Alan
Burges, p.66-67.)
Two interestingside 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 ageneral
tendency to LOWER soil pH.
It thus becomesobvious, in the light of the above quote,
just what man can expect both when he fails to returnORGANIC
MATTER to the soil and when he substitutes regularapplications
of CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS. SOIL MICROBE POPULATIONS WILLDECREASE.
Bacteria On Seeds
"Seeds haveon their surface, (and partly also inside)
numerous micro-organisms and ... seed-born bacteria can passonto
the roots (Rempe, 1951)." ("Ecology of SoilBacteria", p. 386.)
Plant Bacteria
"Variousorganisms are growing in the slimy bacterial layer
that is characteristic of the epidermis of greenplants"
("Textbook of Agricultural Bacteriology", p. 150).
"... in agerm-free environment ... the particular bacteria
attached to the seed multiply rapidly and cover the wholeplant
with an almost continuous thin slimy layer of bacteria. Theslime
not only prevents them being washed off by heavy rains, butalso
helps to preserve a sufficient amount of moisture evenduring
periods of drought. Besides dew, small amounts of sapexcreted by
the plants are available to the bacteria.
"... allgrowing plants are covered by an almost continuous
layer of bacteria specifically adapted to theirhabitat" (ibid.
p. 149).
"Undernatural conditions, plants such as grasses have
nothing comparable to leaf-fall in the way that a deciduoustree
such as oak or beech has; instead, the leaf tissue and stemdies
in situ and under damp conditions a major part of the
decomposition occurs while the tissue is still attached tothe
plant. Webster (1956, 1957) has shown that ... primary
saprophytes ... advance up the stem as the new leavesunfold, and
different saprophytic fungi are associated with differentnodes.
Comparable results were obtained by Frankland, (1966)".("Ecology
of Soil Bacteria", p. 483).
Hay Bacteria
"When grassis made into hay, part of the bacteria will die,
but slime production and spore formation enable many of themto
remain alive although in a dormant state.
"... Unfavorableweather, however, stimulates unavoidably
the growth of bacteria and molds and their destructiveactivities
become sometimes very marked especially when clover oralfalfa is
made into hay.
"... Theso-called hay bacillus can be easily brought to
good development if hay is placed in water and the mixtureboiled
for a few minutes. After a few days the liquid is coveredwith a
whitish film characteristic of these organisms" (ibid.p. 152,
153).
Now we see thateven HAY retains bacteria on it! Notice also
the way in which these tests confirm our results in the
previously mentioned "GLASS CONTAINERS".
Furthermore itis interesting to note from the above quotes
that MOISTURE and WARMTH are precisely the conditions therumen
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 onthe
INSIDE. (Today animal feeds have an acute LACK of legumes,yet
legumes are our BEST source of high quality vegetableprotein.
Other related effects are that legumes don't grow well onpoor
soils and neither do livestock!)
Rumen Bacteria
"Inherbivorous 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 undergoa
soaking and 'fermentation' before passing on through thecanal.
The rumen, or first compartment, is very large in the adult
animal and may hold up to 50 or 60 gallons of soft foodmaterial.
"...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, theydo,
however, provide excellent compartments for the growth ofmany
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. Onpassing
into the true stomach and into the intestines, theseorganisms --
which have multiplied in the rumen, recticulum and omasum --are
digested, and their bodies serve as a source of foodprotein.
Several of the B vitamins are also synthesized in therumen."
("Introduction to Livestock Production", by H. H.Cole, pp
457-458.)
Manure Bacteria
"Thesolid 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 weightthe
number of living cells would approximate 20,000 to 40,000
millions per gram." ("Textbook of AgriculturalBacteriology",
p.222.)
"Regular additions of a source of decomposable organic
matter, such as farmyard manure [added to soil] appears to
increase ... the [microbial] ... population.
"Anexample of this effect is given by the comparison
of the micro flora on the unmannered plot on the BroadbalkField
at Rothamsted with the adjacent plot which has received 14tons
per acre of farmyard manure in most years since 1843 ...manure
has doubled the humus content of the soil and almost doubledthe
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.)
"Oneof the things that emerges ... is that measuring
the activity of micro-organisms is a very complicatedproblem.
The closer you come to a soil system, the more complicatedit
becomes. This is not a new idea, but it is an idea that isworth
recalling. It is good for the soul, good for the data andgood
for the interpretation of that data.
"Thefact that the bacterial cell generally produces
more vitamins than needed for its own metabolism andexcretes 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
"... Ifone 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 gainedentrance
into the soil, one can only wonder that the soil harbors sofew
bacteria capable of causing infectious diseases in man and
animals" ("Hylife With The Microbes", bySelman Waksman, p.19).
ProfessorWaksman 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 hasbeen
ignoring a very obvious solution to many problems. Do you
comprehend the implications of this simple statement? Ifsuch an
idea ever became popular, the ramifications for our medicaland
veterinary professions could be quite shattering, not tomention
the 'LEGITIMATE' drug industry!
Here is anotherquote 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'. Whenfound
in milk, butter and cheese, they have been repeatedlymistaken
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 experimentallythat
they assume practically all the features of the tubercle
bacillus" ("Textbook of AgriculturalBacteriology", pp. 151-152).
Is this author making the same point asWaksman, only in
reverse? It would certainly appear so! We quite understandthat
some of these quotations are pretty radical stuff and noteasy to
accept, especially by those who have been educated toclassify
bacteria as either GOOD or BAD. (Anyway, perhaps we willcome to
see that the whole system of bacterial classification needsto be
thrown into the melting-pot.)
Consider thefollowing quote on species definition -- it is
not taken from some obscure little axe-grinding tract, butrather
from an expensive full report on the 1967 internationalsymposium
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 thatI
do not believe in species" (Dr. S. T. Cowan, NationalPublic
Health Laboratories, Colindale. "Ecology of SoilBacteria", pp.
370-372).
The fore-goingquotes are just a selection from the material
we now have. It will be seen how each one supports a part ofthe
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 assembledthem as
a complete and meaningful picture!
Soil, plant andrumen bacteriologists work in totally
different knowledge compartments and evidence indicates thatthey
have little contact. That rare specialist who does stepoutside
his own field is still at a disadvantage. Why? Well for one
reason, he knows NOTHING of the SABBATICAL YEAR! Thereforehe
will not understand HOW, or WHY ruminants are the keystone
upholding fertility in the soil, for all mankind!
It is now threeYEARS 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 inseed
production and pasture management (see "Plant Breeding-- God's
Way" in Vol. I No. 11). These new facts dovetailcompletely with
all our earlier understanding on the inseparable tie-upbetween
the SABBATICAL YEAR, LIVESTOCK, BACTERIA and SOIL FERTILITY.
You can now seehow circ*mstances have worked out the
initial difficulties facing the Bricket Wood Agriculture
Programme and at the same time uncovered fantastic newknowledge!
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
March 1971, Vol. II, No 3
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
THE ROAD TO MOROCCO 1971!
by Colin Sutcliffe
Since the daysof Joshua, (1400 BC) people have been
arriving in North Africa -- some by sea, some walked andmany
RAN, hotly pursued from the east by their enemies. Bob Hopeand
Bing Crosby came by camel! But for us it was the jet-age andAir
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, aprofessor of history and a lecturer in
agronomy would seem to have little in common, especially inthis
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 itsagriculture
and ecology -- past and present. And we ended up learninghow
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 hasdriven out
all but its last human remnants! Here's what we found.
CASABLANCA
Two thousandmiles of touring in Morocco lay ahead of us and
here we were at Casablanca Airport. Its topography was likeany
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 forits
white houses. But not before we got a glimpse of thesnow-covered
Atlas mountains 100 miles away to the south. Even at that
distance they were high enough above the flat horizon toimpress
the traveler setting foot for the first time on the great
continent of Africa.
Here we were onthe edge of a continent so large that one
may travel 4,000 miles overland before reaching the EastCoast
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 landthat
gave one a sense of spaciousness, but its lack ofvegetation.
Then suddenly inthe fading light we sighted our first tree!
A tree of Africa? No! That corner of Africa is almostwithout
trees. This sizeable eucalypt was the first of many we wereto
see that have been transported from the other hemisphere ina
valiant attempt to escape the penalties of man's past. Though
millions have been planted (and thousands have died), theyare
not a drop in the bucket.
Many mistakenlythink 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 willnever be
achieved unless every goat is either slaughtered or put on a
lead. Camels, donkeys, cattle and sheep must also becontrolled
by effective grazing management.
TO MARRAKECH
From Casablancawe headed south across that wide and
featureless, but fertile coastal plain to Marrakech, at thefoot
of the Atlas mountains. The plain is so flat and by contrastthe
Atlas are so high and magnificent, that they form an almost
unreal snow-covered backdrop to the city. No wonderChurchill was
fascinated by this rare oasis/alpine combination. Its huge
date-bearing palms stand right in the shadow of theformidable,
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 comesthe
dark, narrow, winding streets filled with a sea of blackfaces,
dogs and swirling dust. Add to that one naked and highly
vulnerable little Combi-van trying to nudge a path throughthis
reluctantly writhing mass of jalahbahed (Arab dress)humanity.
(NOTE: To view a map titled "North Africa", seethe file
710308.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)
A WESTERN-TYPE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE
On the way backwe had called at an Agricultural College
where we conversed (by interpreter) with the Director and a
number of his assistants, took some photos and hurriedlyobserved
some of their outstanding successes.
All credit forMoroccan attempts at imitating Western
agriculture must go to the French. The irrigated resultswould be
a spectacular success in any environment, but they aredoubly-so
in this great, wide, brown land. Lush Israeli-like citrusgroves
are surrounded by high protective walls of green cypress and
eucalyptus. The ring of defence against the hot desert windsis
completed by a wide row of dead African box thorn cuttingspiled
two to three feet high around the perimeter. This materiallooks
and acts like a barbed-wire military entanglement. Itsdeadly
two-inch long thorns exclude both man and beast, as well asthe
sand-blasting effects of the winds at ground level.
Irrigation, mechanicalequipment, artificial fertilizers,
chemical sprays and 'improved' imported plant species makethis
all too rare and impressive show possible. North Africa is
millions of acres and millions of people. The former in direneed
of development, the latter in crying need of righteducation.
Throughout theentire 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 acrossour
barren horizon, seemingly numbed like a drought-strickendumb
animal. One wondered if generations of unequal struggleagainst a
slowly deteriorating environment had not produced this dullkind
of resignation.
Even moredistressing was the thought that the only ray of
hope being held out to these poor people is the exportedmistakes
of THE WEST! We stumble blindly under the intoxication ofscience
and technology from one crisis to the next. And yet evenwhile
the WEST is in the very act of plunging over the cliff of
environmental destruction, we glibly wave the green lightfor
3,000 million souls to follow us!!
CROSSING THE HIGH ATLAS!
From Marrakechwe soon left the barren yet fertile red plain
behind us and headed up into the snow of the High Atlastowering
13,000 feet above us! As we kept climbing toward the 6,500foot
"Tizi n test" pass, the breath-taking beauty ofthe 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 closeduntil
the morning of our departure from Marrakech by the sameblizzards
that trapped 10,000 motorists on the roads of southernFrance
four days earlier.
THE SOUS VALLEY AND AGADIR
Our journey onto Agadir (of earthquake fame some 10 years
ago) was through rock-strewn desolation and land almostdevoid of
vegetation. However, as throughout our whole trip, we wereseldom
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 littlesheep
that were either black, white or brownspotted.
Both kinds ofanimals appear to nibble their way across the
barren desert. When they reach a scrubby thorn-laden argontree
the sheep stand on their hind legs and trim its lowerbranches.
At the same time the goats perform the seemingly impossible
circus-like task of climbing the trees if they are evenslightly
bent in any direction. To claim that we saw as many as seven
black goats eating their way out onto the thin branches ofone
tree, may be too much for the reader. We did not confine
ourselves to Moroccan underground water. The local wine isvery
pleasant, but we still have photographic evidence of these
flinty-hard, cloven-footed little beasts perched in theargon
branches as we looked out over the great valley of the Sous.
Though Moroccois 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 wesaw
has enormous agricultural potential -- potential that couldbe
partially fulfilled if the existing goat population were
transformed -- perhaps into RAINDROPS! Millions of nowdesolate
acres are limestone or volcanic in origin. And either ofthese
soils will arouse the keen interest of an agriculturalist,
regardless of where they are found around the world.
PEOPLE ARE FUNNY!
It was sowingtime, 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 littlepile of
stones. The pattern of their single furrow ploughs is atleast
2,000 years old and they harness every odd combination ofcow,
donkey, camel, horse and mule. A smart young fellow coulddig up
more soil in a day with the toe of his boot than these rare
combinations do.
Most amazing isthe fact that these people appear to go out
for only a haphazard scratch around in one corner of theirlittle
plot. Why? The Westerner would be out there rushing around
cultivating every square inch, plus some of his neighbour'sif he
could get his hands on it! The answer comes slowly and as agreat
shock to the Western mind. These people have differentstandards
to us. If they need only two bags of grain -- why cultivateand
sow an area that is going to produce ten? To them it justmeans
more work, harvesting!
Keeping ahead ofthe 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 seethe
Western farmer, no doubt the North African would think thatwe
are crazy. The truth is that both approaches are wrong, butit 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 thecoast, we pushed on south over the lower end of
the Anti Atlas to Goulimene which is on an even flatter andmore
desolate fertile plain than Agadir. From here we made adesperate
spring-busting, back-jerking sortie out into the realdesert. You
may think that is what you have been reading about and wetoo
thought that was what we had been seeing. That was until we
struck out for the remote military outpost of Foume elHassane.
Still very little sand, but gigantic gibber plains withfantastic
3,000 foot sedimentary escarpments towering overhead. As the
plume of dust trailed out behind us for 20 miles at astretch, we
must have looked like a tiny lonely bug crossing the surfaceof
the moon.
Foume el Hassaneis mostly a small military outpost near the
border of the Spanish Sahara. Dr. Martin 'callously' draggedus
out into this cruel wilderness where it rains at least onceevery
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 foundelephants,
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 fromGhana
or the Congo to record his ecological experiences in themiddle
of this desolation! In those arid surroundings we concludedalong
with many others before us, that we were viewingenvironmental
destruction on the grand scale. The ecological gap betweenthe
implied environment of the rock engraver and today wasmentally
unbridgeable!
FIGHTING THE LOCUSTS!
Back in Agadirwe inspected the largest Locust Control
Centre in the world. True, the COMPETITION in locust control
centres is neither numerous nor very strong, but the rowsand
rows of trucks and Landrovers and great heavy tankers were
evidence that this was a gigantic operation. Between thetankers
and chemical storage vats the place looked like amini-refinery!
The spare parts in the vehicle maintenance depot alone areworth
£200,000!
The Director waskind 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 fewyears
enormous clouds of locusts sweep in from the desert, EastAfrica
or Arabia and they are attacked from the ground and from theair
with poisonous chemicals. Coping with the Sahara alone meansan
area as big as America!
Though expectedin 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, butthey
are ready. To keep their hand in, they last year slaughteredtwo
million olive-eating starlings and ten million grain-eating
sparrows that invaded Morocco from Europe! Parathion is usedon
the birds and DDT/BHC on the locusts.
UP THE SOUS AND OVER THE ANTI ATLAS
We thentravelled 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 opulencewhich
has surrounded a tiny minority. The grandeur was made evenmore
impressive because it so far outranked the utter simplicityof
everything else. We drove day after day seeing only clustersof
simple red mud houses, children and palm trees, in otherwise
total desolation. Generally these oases were located atfrequent
intervals along sizeable dry river-beds. The Massa, the Sousand
the Draa were exceptions -- this was the cool season andthey
were running strongly.
From Taroundantwe took the road to Ouarzazate, (pronounced
wuzazzat) which meant that we crossed over the Anti Atlasnear
their junction with the High Atlas. For miles we were on a5,000
foot barren plateau. On this section we had snow-covered
mountains on both sides -- to the south some were 7,000 feethigh
and to the north they rose to above 13,000 feet!
WILY MOUNTAIN MEN
At the top ofthe pass we came upon two Berber shepherds, a
little boy, the usual herd of sheep and goats, plus twomules
towing a reluctant, skinny, pot-bellied jersey calf! The boywas
driving the flock, the men were riding the mules and thecalf
looked as though he was having his neck stretched. We talkedat
length to one of the men (going through both interpretersevery
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 andweedy
beast' was not a CALF at all. By his size he should havebeen
only 5 months old, one might have guessed 20 months becauseof
obvious severe malnutrition. But he was in fact THREE YEARSold!!
Value? Wethought about £5, but the owner insisted it was
£25! However, if you could see the terrain over which theyhad
travelled for days before we met them on this high mountainpass,
you might conclude that he had earned this amount twiceover!
Above the snow line looked like the Himalayas and below it(where
we were), resembled Mount Sinai!!
All food for themules 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 legumehay. 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 aliving 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 MOREthan
they do about protein quality in animal feeding!! Andequally
important -- he was putting his understanding into practice.
We tested hisknowledge even further by asking in a serious
manner how old his mule would be when it reproduced. Hesmiled
and shot back an instant reply to the interpreter that ifthis
beast ever reproduced itself, IT WOULD BE THE END OF THEWORLD!
Then we all laughed together, not at the fact that thesehybrids
are against God's law, but because we understood each othervery
well!
BACK OVER THE HIGH ATLAS
After crossingthe 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 wouldever
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 oneof
these volcanic craters.
In this areamany of the mountain slopes are covered by
natural forests of beautiful Atlas cedars. Then the run downinto
Fez, Meknes, Rabat and back to Casablanca was across afertile
plain, enjoying a higher rainfall than the land in thesouth.
BENI MELLAL ORANGE GROVES
Once back inCasablanca, we drove to the productive Beni
Mellal district. There we enjoyed the fine hospitality ofNearjim
Said on his 250 acre citrus grove. This was one of his twofarms
and its appearance told us that this very friendly andhumble man
must be among the top agriculturalists in North Africa. Asan
important grower's representative on the Moroccan OrangeExport
Authority he set a fine example. His beautiful 15-foot-hightrees
were loaded with fruit and well manured from the animals of
farmers with less understanding. Disease is not a problem onthis
farm and he hasn't sprayed in four years.
On the way backto 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 firstplace 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 isa huge chunk of misused real estate that has
played a much more important role in history than mostpeople
realise. Less than 3,000 years ago it must have looked likethe
garden in Eden. Its soil and climate must have been averitable
paradise! What happened? Did a climate change destroy the
vegetation or did the disappearance of vegetation producethe
climate change, or did MAN destroy the vegetation, thereby
bringing on the climate change himself? Who knows?
Three things weDO 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 havea
destructive power disproportionate to their numbers! Andthirdly
we know from many historical references and rock carvingsthat
much of North Africa once had a vastly different eco-system!
The followingquotes attest to this: " ... The whole country
from Cartage [modern Tunis] to the Pillars [Gibraltar] isfull of
wild beasts, as is also the whole of the interior ofLibia"
(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 shadedby
dense woods and watered by gushing springs, on the sidefacing
Africa ... fruits of all kinds spring up of their own accordwith
such luxuriance that pleasure never lacks satisfaction.(Extracts
from Pliny, Bk.V. 5-7 c. 23 - 79 AD).
"Among thecultivated plants are hard high protein wheat ...
The gardens yield almost all the species of pulse known inEurope
Oats grow spontaneously ... " (Universal Geography,Bk.LXIV.
1823).
Yes, we foundNorth Africa, including Algeria and Tunisia to
be a very different place today, but what enormouspotential! In
the future, when the great deserts bloom again, none will doso
more rapidly, or more effectively than the massivesub-continent
of Northern Africa. Once again it will be enormouslyproductive!
Only then will generations of misery, resulting fromlaw-breaking
and destruction give way to millions of HEALTHY, JOYFULfamilies,
living in ABUNDANCE!
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
April 1971, Vol. II, No. 4
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
ISTHIS THE ORCHARD OF THE FUTURE?
"Forty-eight thousand apple trees to the acre is about
as far removed from the traditional image of the Englishorchard
as it is possible to imagine.
"Thatcountryside showpiece of mature trees groaning
with the yellow, red and green fruits in autumn and a massof
blossom in the spring is being given a KNOCKOUT blow by the
orcharding experts of Britain and THE WORLD'S LARGEST cider
manufacturers.
"Intheir concept of the orchard of the future, the
nearest parallel will be the rows of tomato plants of thebig
growers.
"Appletrees will be A SINGLE YARD-HIGH STEM, with
growth artificially inhibited and carrying a few pounds ofapples
close to the stem. Planted perhaps A FOOT OR TWO APART theywill
not need the traditional shaking to collect the fruit.
"Amachine will crop the rows, cutting the lot, stem
and all, a few inches from the ground and collect the applesas
casually as the pea-picking machines for the frozen food
factories.
"Atthe experimental orchards of H. P. Bulmer Ltd.,
just a mile outside Hereford, a section is planted at the48,000
trees to the acre density. It compares dramatically withacres
planted at the present 'intensive' level of 600 to theacre."
(Daily Telegraph, 6/11/70)
Does this fityour concept of the orchard of the future?
Will the tree that provides the apple-a-day for yourchildren
twenty years from now be only a single stem, three feethigh?
Man's desire to manipulate the environment to his own greedyends
knows no limit.
The Bricket WoodAgriculture and Environmental Research
Programme recently launched its own experiment in fruit
production. And as you might have guessed, our approach isthe
exact opposite to that described above. This edition of"Your
Living Environment" outlines our experiment for thereader. It
will also explain WHY our approach differs so radically,both
from that which you have seen quoted from "The DailyTelegraph"
and that of the average orchard.
A Step Towards The Ideal System
Our ResearchProgramme 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 feelthat
the system of the future is beginning to take shape, in ourminds
and now on the campus here in England.
Understandingthe 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 fruitproduction at Bricket Wood is yet another
exciting experimental step towards a model-farm environmentfor
"The World Tomorrow".
What is thatideal 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 parallelthis
ideal.
The average farmin 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 somewool as
well.
Since the unitis small and family operated, little need
exists for sophisticated machinery. Every inch of soil iswell
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 inthe
cattle pastures provide fruit, plus shade and shelter forthe
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. Nothingis
left to chance. Every square foot of soil and every planthas its
purpose and a place in the overall system. The entire unitexudes
an air of beauty, lushness and abundance.
We feel thatBricket Wood's new experiment in fruit
production is a major step forward. And it emulates many ofthe
Swiss good points.
The Ambassador Way
Did you noticein the opening quote that "ARTIFICIAL GROWTH
INHIBITORS" are being used to produce a single-stemmedtree only
three feet tall? This typifies so much of what man choosesto
label SCIENTIFIC "PROGRESS". For twenty-fiveyears, commercial
and private growers have used elaborate grafting systems and
special dwarfing root stocks to produce ever smaller trees.
It is notexaggerating 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 thefirst branch may
start only two feet from the ground. Not quite like the
"standard" fruit trees that were common even adecade or two ago,
are they? And not like the trees recently planted atAmbassador
College.
Yes, we aretaking steps in the OPPOSITE direction to this
trend toward "dwarfism"! To ensure that our treeswill be TALL
and WIDE, we have used "standards" and a method oftraining that
allows the trees to attain their maximum size (either ontheir
own root stock, or if not available, on a root stock as nearthe
parent tree-type as possible). These trees have since been
carefully pruned so that the lowest branches will still behigh
enough to escape the depredations of grazing cattle.
The DailyTelegraph also mentioned that the average density
in modern "intensive" orchards is 600 trees peracre -- as
opposed to 48,000 in the Bulmer experimental orchard! But
Ambassador College has not planted its trees at 600 to theacre.
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 thecampus
now has a few trees of some species -- be they apple,cherry,
pear, plum, or peach. At the time of writing, every youngtree
has been mulched with farmyard manure and straw. Specialguards
are being erected to protect each young tree from cattle and
rabbits.
But ourexperiment does not stop there. Raspberries,
blackberries and gooseberries have been planted beside manyof
our fences. The rails will provide support for these plants,
where necessary. A surfeit of soft-fruit should attract manymore
birds and other wildlife.
Young grapevineshave been included in the project, though
their eventual success may be limited by the Englishclimate.
Even rhubarb and asparagus crowns have been planted inprotected
areas of certain fence-lines.
As each of thesespecies 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 objectionthat will come quickly to mind is the one
of operating machinery in amongst the trees! This problemcannot
be eliminated except by abandoning the system. The treeshave
been laid out in a way that will cause minimal difficulties.It
should also be remembered that we have that kind ofmachinery in
a pasture for no more than ONE WEEK per year. And we haveall the
BENEFITS for 52 weeks per year!
Shortage of land is a common cry amongfarmers today, but
this system allows every farm the benefits of its ownorchard
without setting ANY land aside for it. Grass grows right upto
the base of our kind of fruit tree and with land at £300 peracre
-- who wouldn't maneuver around two trees per acre?
Insects And Dazzles Problems
One advantagefrom 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 asstem-rust,
leaf-spot etc. ) Huge peach orchards are usually accompaniedby
equally huge populations of PEACH-BORERS. High density apple
orchards usually have an equally high density of coddlingmoths
and red spider mites.
Spreading ourtrees 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 codlingmoths,
for example, we do away with any need for chemicalspesticides!
Variety Creates Interest And Beauty
Other advantagesof the diversified approach are less
tangible than the first, but equally vital. For severaldecades
specialized farming has been destroying the countryside's
interest and beauty. Hedgerows and stately trees disappearbefore
advancing bulldozers and whining power-saws. Even smallorchards
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-sterileprairies of barley, wheat, potatoes, or sugar
beet have swallowed up the former peaceful, diversifiedpattern
of animal-centred mixed farming. No longer are fine animalsthe
focal point of Britain's agriculture and the Britishlandscape.
They are rapidly being replaced by computer-selectedmongrels
which are pushed into barns, feed-lots and battery-cages.
Though it may bein the interest of the consumer that he
does not see modern animal production and reproduction --
monotonous landscape is a principal by-product of today'ssystem.
Not so atBricket 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 linesof
buildings. The stark relief of fences will soon be mellowedby
soft-fruit vines entwining themselves on the rails. Rhubarband
asparagus are now turning waste corners into lush productive
assets. Pear, plum and peach trees will erase the sterilelook of
open fields. Red, roan and white shorthorn cows with little
calves will soon be grazing among young blossoming trees.
AmbassadorCollege agriculture is transforming the
farm-landscape of the future from monotony to interest, from
dullness to beauty and from sterile hybridization to anEden-like
garden!
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
WHAT'SBEHIND THE FOOD CATASTROPHE?
We have heardmany times how knowledge has doubled in the
last ten years. And also that troubles too have doubled! Ofall
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? Itis
certainly one of man's most fundamental problems!
From the day weare 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 ofwhether we live in the UNDER-fed, or OVER-fed
part of the world, millions of us die throughUNDER-nourishment
each year. Most die through lack of QUANTITY, but also many
through lack of QUALITY in their food. Both stem from asingle
cause -- STARVATION! One just happens to be more subtle andless
obvious than the other.
What is the Problem?
Why is manfailing to supply himself with enough food of
sufficient quality to avoid the premature and agonizingdeath of
millions? Is it just too many hungry mouths? Too few acres?
Insufficient machines? The breaking of some simple law? Ornot
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'slook
at some recent news quotes showing a cross-section of the
difficulties that are piling up against those who produceyour
food:
Widespread Disease In Cattle!
"Mastitis [a disease that produces thick puss*-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 hadsome
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 tohave
seen the tell-tale clots ... And it is suggested that a
badly-infected herd may be losing up to 200 gallons of milka
cow" [per year] (Farmer's Weekly, Oct. 1970).
Poultry Are Even WORSE!
Britain's fowlpest plague worsens! "Last week the total
number of outbreaks reached 3,600 -- the highest everrecorded in
Britain since statistics began in 1947.
"It isestimated that about 14.5 million broilers, 9.5
million layers and 1.7 million turkeys have so far beenaffected
by the disease. Financial loss is put at more than £10million
due to mortality and lost production" (Farmer &Stockbreeder,
Jan. 1971).
Plants Fare No Better!
"Little by little, the misplaced auraof 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 theso-called
'green revolution' of hybrid crops, may instead have openeda
Pandora's box of pestilence, famine and social disruption.
"Manyagricultural experts now believe that the green
revolution is in fact a myth and that continued extensiveuse of
hybrid seeds will have devastating social and scientific
repercussions" (Paragould Daily, Arkansas, Dec. 11,1970).
DISASTER -- forAmerica's No. 1 agricultural product:
"Thedevastating 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 otherareas.
"The cornblight organism has been with us 50 years ... but
since it is so widespread this year, we suspect somethingelse is
in operation" (UPI Release, Aug. 18, 1970).
THE CAUSE -- Whatever Could It Be??
These problemsare the scourge of man in his herculean
efforts to feed himself and we have just lightly touched ona
fraction of them. Can you imagine, for example -- "AT A
CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE FUNGAL PATHOGENS CONSUME OVER ONETHIRD OF
ALL THE CROPS PRODUCED" (Science Journal, Aug. 1970).
That's QUITE anadmission!!!
Are there manycauses for these multiple problems, or can
they be traced back to just one simple underlying fact? Inspite
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 overthe
agricultural industry as a whole!
We musttherefore conclude that there is no correlation
between problem-solving and our knowledge explosion."Science"
just does NOT have the answer for the world's foodproducers. It
seems unable to focus an ecological view of the environmentnow
being destroyed. Could it be that farmers and scientistsalike --
REFUSE TO FACE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS??
Our Environment And Its Inter-dependent Parts
There exists atight inter-relationship between all the
major segments of our God-created environment. Below we have
diagrammatically represented the parts of that system, ofwhich
God said: "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish theearth, and
subdue it and have DOMINION ..." (Gen. 1:28).
(NOTE: To view a chart titled "THE ECOLOGICALPYRAMID", see the file
710518.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)
The qualityexpected of that rulership and "DOMINION" is
expressed in Gen. 2:15 -" ... God took Adam and put himinto the
garden of Eden to dress it and keep it."
Our wholeapproach 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 giveus
the key to man's approach: "to dress" means thatwe should be
bound to that Creation in a grateful attitude of service and
dedication. And "to keep" means that we shouldguard, 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 -- themore
IT will serve US! Contrast this kind of approach with thenews
quotes given earlier in this article!
A Plan For Destruction
Instead oflearning from his daily disasters -- man shrugs
his shoulders, saying in effect: "WE HAVE ALWAYS HADPROBLEMS AND
DISEASE IS INEVITABLE ANYWAY!" BUT IT IS NOTINEVITABLE!
That pyramid canhelp 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 entirephysical
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 manin this kind of perspective it makes one
think that we ought to exercise a little caution anddiscretion.
After all, WHY should the only NON-ESSENTIAL part threatenthe
continued operation of the WHOLE!
Man appears tobe bent on destruction, if that is what is
"necessary" to achieve his own GREEDY ends. Welive in a
God-designed and created environment, but humanity is filledwith
a carnal mind which is hostile to the laws of Almighty God(Rom.
8:7).
Secondly -- manis not alone and unaided in the job of
destruction he is doing. Right now Satan, who is the god ofthis
world (II Cor. 4:4) is plotting and scheming with everythingin
his power. He aims to thwart the 7,000-year plan of ourCreator.
To do this he must destroy man -- the focal point of thatplan.
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 unitof all
-- THE LIVING SOIL, as contrasted with dead, inert earth.
What Is Soil?
A fertile soilis 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. Theother
10% (or thereabouts) is "waste" organic matter. Itis 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 abuffering action against acidity, thereby
retaining a favorable environment for earthworms and other
organisms involved in organic decomposition.
2. It preserves theessential crumb-structure, thus
preventing soil compaction and also erosion by wind andwater.
3. It aids waterabsorption, moisture retention, temperature
control, drainage and the release of inorganic nutrients.
One of theworld's leading authorities on soil micro-biology
states that: "The importance of humus in human economyseldom
receives sufficient emphasis. Suffice to say that itprobably
represents THE MOST IMPORTANT SOURCE OF HUMAN WEALTH ON THIS
PLANET" [Emphasis ours] ("Humus", by SelmanWaksman, p. 414).
A man knightedby 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 machineryis
only active in soil rich in humus; it is inactive or absentin
infertile land and in similar soils fertilized withchemicals"
("An Agricultural Testament" by Sir Albert Howard,p. 167).
Elsewhere thesame authority states:
"Ihave 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 suitablevarieties 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 fertilesoil"
(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 supplyof
nutrients, the entire plant kingdom is threatened withdisease
and starvation!
WITHOUT healthyplants, the herbivora of the animal kingdom
and man are threatened with disease and starvation. AndWITHOUT a
diet of healthy animals, both carnivora and man are doomed!
The Collapse Of Our Environment
Are not thesethe exact conditions facing mankind at THIS
moment in time? Yes, they certainly are and the cause is thesame
too. Look at the following quote:
"Anofficial inquiry into the health of farmland soils
has found that in parts of England and Wales the fertilityand
structure of the soil have broken down to 'dangerous
proportions.' In the most critical areas ... thedeterioration
has gone so far that arable farming will probably have to be
abandoned. The survey reveals that the organic content ofthese
heavy clay soils is often as low as THREE PER CENT ..." (The
London Observer, Aug. 30, 1970).
Do you see thefearful implication? There are many ways in
which our society can be destroyed, but one of them is bythe
simple and seemingly innocent device of lowering the ORGANIC
content of the earth's food-producing soil.
If Satan canonly 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 theMOON!
Man Misses The Connection!
LACK OF HUMUS ISTHE KEY TO THE PROBLEMS OF FOOD PRODUCTION!
Huge manmadedeserts attest to the fact that EVERY
civilization has depleted that vital organic content of thesoil.
Today the agro-chemical industry is a lethal facade, hidingthe
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, soildestruction
takes over!
On the otherhand, research at Ambassador College is daily
improving our ecological understanding. God promises areturn 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, robbingsoil 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 isan old saying that any fool can farm, and this
was almost the truth when farming consisted chiefly inreducing
the fertility of new, rich land secured at practically nocost
from a generous government. But to restore depleted soils tohigh
productive power is no fool's job, for it requires mental aswell
as muscular energy ..." ("The Farm That Won't WearOut", by Cyril
G. Hopkins, 1913)
RestoringDEPLETED SOILS TO HIGH PRODUCTIVE POWER revolves
around the return of organic residues. By microbial
decomposition, these residues become that small percentageof the
total soil-mass we call humus. In the last issue of"Your Living
Environment", we elaborated on the vital role of humusand the
insidious threat its stealthy disappearance poses to mankind--
via the ecological pyramid.
Now let's lookat PASTURE -- man's No. 1 source of humus!
You probably take grass very much for granted, but pasturesof
HIGH quality are a RARITY. "Quality" takes theform of
GRASS/LEGUME mixtures. The best pastures do not occurnaturally.
THEY MUST BE CREATED -- and maintained -- BY SKILLFUL
MANAGEMENT!!!
What is grass?Where does it come from? What is its purpose?
The grass/legumemixture is man's MOST IMPORTANT "CROP". And
while LIVESTOCK are its link with man -- livestock are alsothe
link from this "crop" back to HUMUS in the soil!
If humus is theend-product of death -- GRASS must be the
beginning product of life!! Grass is the raw material oflife! It
is the carrier of nutrients for animal and human survival!And it
is the great combiner of the organic and inorganic in ourliving
environment!
God's Word On Grass
Now a reminderof where grass comes from:
"AndGod 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).
"Hewatereth the hills ... He causeth the grass to grow
for the cattle and herb for the service of man: that he maybring
forth food out of the earth" (Psa. 104:13,14).
Grass -- And Its Purpose
The purpose ofgrass is to provide vegetable and animal
protein for man. It is a vital part of God's Creation -- ofwhich
God said:
"Letthem have dominion over ... all the earth ... I
have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon theface of
all the earth, and ... to you it shall be for meat. And toevery
beast of the earth ... every green herb for meat" (Gen.1:26-30).
Yes, God was asmuch the Creator of "GRASS" as He was the
Creator of everything else. Along with trees, grass is themeans
by which He CLOTHES the earth. Dense pasture moderates the
extreme cold and heat and can virtually eliminate soilerosion.
By slowing-down the run-off from rain it also increaseswater-
absorption by soil.
The beautifulsimplicity of the system is that its good
effects trigger other benefits. Increased grass productionper
acre means more grazing for animals, and also more rawmaterial
for humus formation. Increased organic residues mean rapid
multiplication of earthworms and soil micro-organisms. That
speeds up nutrient recycling via decomposition and effectsthe
further release of NEW minerals from inorganic soil.
Better Quality And More Quantity!
A number ofend-results spring from these chain-reactions --
for example, such favorable conditions for plant production
ultimately modify ALL SPECIES, (plant, animal and man) inthat
particular environment!! As mineral and protein contentrise,
plants become leafier and less stemmy. This means that thereis
more tonnage per acre and each mouthful goes further!
Anothermodification to plant species is that their "NORMAL"
growing-season can be extended -- at BOTH ends too! Mostpastures
are low in production. And one reason is that they are slowoff
the mark in early spring. They tend to be stemmy and runquickly
to seed at the first sign of dry, warm weather. In otherwords,
production starts LATE and finishes EARLY.
Fertile soil isa well-known precursor of agricultural
abundance, but perhaps you can now see more of themarvellous
inter-play of other forces involved. It is a superblydesigned
system. Obedience to ONE simple law (the return of organic
residues) triggers off a beneficial chain reaction throughsoil,
plants and animals -- culminating in man himself!!
The "Grass-crop" Manager
To be aneffective manager of "grass-crop" production -- man
must be a balanced agriculturalist -- understanding soil
fertility, pasture species, climate, cash-crops andlivestock.
His dual-purpose in grass-production is to provide food for
livestock and fertility for limited grain growing.
He must understandhis environment and that GRASSLAND is
simply a stage of ecological succession. In Britain, pastureis
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 thissituation reduces most landowners to
fighting a running battle with "nature". But askilled grass-crop
manager works cleverly to maintain his acreage, at a levelof
productivity superior to all other phases of the natural
succession.
Clarification Of Grassland
Grasslands maybe conveniently divided into two categories
-- CULTIVATED and UNCULTIVATED. The latter, in Britain,comprises
hill grazing and other rough areas, all easily identified bythe
plant species they support and by the proportions in whichthey
co-exist. Dwarf forms of white clover, birds foot, trefoil,with
bent and fescue, usually make up the best rough grazing.
Two or threeless productive divisions can be made, each one
graduated towards rougher and coarser predominating species.
These progress from those already mentioned throughreedgrass,
oatgrass, sedges, brome, heather, mosses, bracken, bilberryand
rushes.
On the otherhand -- CULTIVATED grass divides into two
types: LEYS and PERMANENT grassland. Ley is a term thatrefers to
seed mixtures sown after cultivation. An area sown for aperiod
of less than four years, before turning it back into arable,is
termed a SHORT LEY. LONG LEYS are areas treated in a similarway,
but left under pasture from four to fifteen years.
Why Are Leys More Productive?
The termPERMANENT GRASSLAND is applied to leys of more than
ten to fifteen years and also areas NEVER sown undercultivation.
It is generally assumed that leys are FAR more productivethan
permanent grass. This is one reason why many pasture"experts"
advocate taking "the plough" over the whole farmevery few years!
Most of them believe that ley-farming produces more grassand
some even admit healthier grain-crops too!
The latter isundoubtedly 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 shouldLEYS 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. Butthe
vital difference appears to lie in the WEAKNESS of grassland
management, rather than in the strength of leyproductivity!!
This conclusionis supported by one authority who states:
"Onsoils of extremely high natural fertility and where
knowledgeable management has been applied, the ley may looklike,
and also behave as a ley over a whole period of severaldecades.
For example, some of the most renowned cattle-feedingpastures in
to seventy years and still retain the general attributes ofa
young ley." ("The Grass Crop", by WilliamDavies, p. 56).
What ARE"the general attributes of a young ley"? They are
high-level production of QUALITY feed over an EXTENDEDgrowing
season. And there will be no ingress of weed-types or"mat"
formation, normally associated with old grassland.
The same authorcontinues elsewhere:
"Manyof the superb old pastures of Leicestershire and
of the Romney Marsh will have been down to grass for sixtyor
more years and, in fact, may never have been explicitly sownout
to grass" (ibid., p. 74).
Thesetop-quality PERMANENT PASTURES are based on white
clover and perennial ryegrass and apparently PRODUCE AS MUCHAS
ANY LEY!!
Substitute Skill For Leys!
We must surelyrevise our ideas on the relative merits of
LEYS and permanent grass. If well managed permanent grasscan be
as productive as the expensive short-term ley, then perhapswe
don't have to regularly put "the plough" over thewhole farm!
Less graincrops, 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 ignoranceor
mistakes in permanent grass management and therefore asubstitute
for SKILL?
Grain vs. Grass!
If grass isbetter than grain for animals, then much of the
world's grainland could profitably be turned back topasture. It
would take time to re-build the lost soil fertility that
grain-men are going to have to re-build anyway. But theywould
face it more willingly if they understood that quality grassis
better for animals and for their land too!
Grain-feeding isnot the problem, but rather the amount fed,
and high grain-feeding has been in vogue for so long and isso
wide-spread in America that one author writes:
"Therelation between good grass and beef is becoming
clear to farmers and ranchers who in the last five or sixyears
have discovered that finished beef can be produced ongrass."
("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 notfar
behind America. If grain is plentiful, that's what men willfeed,
regardless of whether you like to eat sick animals that havemade
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 thegrass/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 outa convincing case against domestic
ruminants, (specified for man by God). Animals, it is said,are
so "INEFFICIENT" at turning plants into animalprotein that
millions more people could live if we all becomeVEGETARIANS!
Many say the world will soon not tolerate funneling precious
plants into beef and mutton production.
Who candisagree? There IS an answer and to say the least --
in a world in which FAO has just spent SIX YEARS and SIXMILLION
DOLLARS on its "Indicative World Plan" to preventfamine -- the
point is of more than academic importance!
Plant foods in aTOP-QUALITY pasture can be re-cycled back
through the soil at a faster rate by animals than by anycommon
agricultural CROP!!
"If wethink 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 avery
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 fedindoors,
it would find its way into the dung and would, in fact, have
taken at least 12 MONTHS to complete a cycle from soil backto
soil. In contrast again that same unit of plant food on poorand
under-stocked grass where roughage accumulates year afteryear,
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 withsuch a potentially rapid turn-around of
plant nutrients is the one that technological MAN has, inhis
ignorance, labelled "INEFFICIENT". If he keptGod's Sabbatical
Year and understood its importance, he would then know WHY
animals have been so designed!
Man has missedthe point. Animals were deliberately designed
"INEFFICIENT". They were meant to return most oftheir food
intake direct to the soil, because it is on this very factthat
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 thisprinciple 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 forhalf
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? Mostwould say so because we are told farmers
already have insufficient acreage. But if top quality GRASSis
the basis of sound agriculture, the following statisticsbear
thinking about: 1966 -- ARABLE LAND -- 18 million acres.
PERMANENT GRASS -- 12 million acres. ROUGH GRAZING -- 17million
acres. (Encyc. Britt., 1970)
Out of 47million acres of agricultural land, 12 million
might be ample for ARABLE farming -- leaving a MINIMUM of 20to
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 firstclass.
("The Grass Crop", by W. Davies, p. 70)
We live in aworld that believes "ANY FOOL CAN FARM" -- but
this is as contemptuous of the design in God's earthlyecological
complex as thinking that any fool can conduct a fullsymphony
orchestra! It now seems as though prior to contact with God's
Work we were agriculturally "barely able to readmusic" -- let
alone conduct "the grassland symphony".
We hope that TheDepartment of Agriculture and Environmental
Research at Ambassador College is now at least learning the
"SCORE".
Imagine thefuture when the whole earth is re-grassed and
under the control of multiple millions of men correctlytrained
in environmental management!
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
July 1971, VOL. II, No. 7
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
GOOD!-- YOU'RE STARTING A GARDEN!!
"As the resultof a recent speech in Spokesman's Club a
number of people have secured garden plots (Council-ownedland
that is rented out for vegetable production at a nominal sumto
interested families living in Britain's congested cities).And on
this land they are commencing to grow some of their ownfood."
This informationwas communicated to the Department of
Agriculture and Environmental Research at AmbassadorCollege,
Bricket Wood, a few days ago. It was some of the mostrefreshing
news in a long time! Why?
Because theaverage family in our SOPHISTICATED Western
World has become so specialized that it has lost all thecrafts
and simple skills which were common in the not so distantpast.
Today the mass of Western humanity has even lost theknowledge of
how to produce its own food!
Most of us wouldliterally starve to death if confronted
with the problem of feeding ourselves. Not because we lackthe
land on which to do it -- but simply because WE NO LONGERKNOW
HOW!!
Knowing thatmany 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 somehelpful points
on family-vegetable production.
First let ushave a look at some of the pitfalls to be
avoided.
If Satan has hiscounterfeits -- his churches, his priests
his healing, his art, his music, etc; then why not HIS
AGRICULTURE? If he has his methods of food production, thenwhy
not his priests of agriculture, expounding false methods ofsoil,
plant and animal management.
You know thatSatan aims to bring man to a physical self
destruction; to end our physical existence before God turnsman
into Spirit. Should we not therefore understand by what lawswe
continue to live, in this physical environment?
Satan hasblinded this world on ENVIRONMENTAL-MANAGEMENT,
just as he has blinded it on the very god it worships. Andas in
religion, so in agriculture -- he has something foreveryone. You
can carelessly partake of CHEMICALLY GROWN foodless-food.Now you
can get SYNTHETIC food. Alternatively you may become aFANATIC
about food. There must be at least 100 variants of thelatter --
some even linked with "religion" -- should onedesire it! Satan
has something for everyone.
Man can evenpractise a form of food production that looks
indistinguishable from God's way. It is called "OrganicFarming".
Does that surprise you? It probably DOES, but it shouldn't.Is
Satan not smart enough to counterfeit God's right way ininfinite
detail? Yes he is and that includes AGRICULTURE!!
In the past wehave been exposed only to Satan's system and
we know that it takes years of teaching and exposure toGod's way
through The Bible, to throw off the influence of this world.But
in food production and environmental management most of usact as
though we can pick up a few rough guidelines more or less by
accident! IMPOSSIBLE!!
Why -- eventhose working directly in God's Agriculture
Programme take years to completely throw off in-grainedfalse
concepts, so where does this leave you?
The transformingof one's mind in this aspect of life is
just as much a miracle as understanding the right principlesof
child-rearing, marriage, finance or those showing which isGod'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 attitudeindicated
in Matt. 18:3.
Beginning God's Way
Most of ourinitial efforts to produce food God's way will
be full of commendable zeal, but if that zeal is misguidedit
will surely be followed by disillusionment! Our openingquotation
could have included a fact that tiro gardeners are launching
themselves into vegetable production on 90 X 30 FEET STRIPSOF
GROUND!! Perhaps we can save you much discouragement byshowing
you how to go about it on a much smaller scale.
A garden of thatsize will feed not just your family, but
also HALF THE NEIGHBORHOOD! Better to see the refreshingresults
of a small well-managed area, than become a backache riddenslave
to a large wilderness.
A Councilallotment of 90 x 30 is probably five times bigger
than the beginner should start with. That raises thequestion --
"What do I do with the remainder?" That is notonly (as they say)
A GOOD QUESTION, but in its answer lies the whole key toyour
success. And not only your success as a gardener, but your
success in learning how to correctly manage a tiny portionof
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 howmany
less deserts AND slums there would be, if every man had tomeet
this qualification early in life.)
Beginning agarden is like painting your house, or
redecorating a room -- everyone makes the same impulsivemistake.
Has there ever been an amateur house-painter with thestrength of
character to keep his brush out of the paint-pot until AFTERhe
has done the work of preparation? Some experienced menperhaps,
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 isthe
result? IN HOUSE DECORATION, the new paint flakes off in six
months, we blame the brand of paint and find that the secondtime
around is twice as hard! IN GARDENING -- bugs and diseasetake
over, we blame the system (we didn't follow) and have tostart
again by building fertility on poverty-stricken soil!
How do thesebeginners 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 favorableintroduction
to home-grown vegetable production. And chances of successmay be
equally unfavorable!
Bashing eachclod 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 treatedto 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 thata
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 shouldbe
aimed at working WITH God's Creation and His laws governingfood
production. That's what this Department is all about.
We can help youto a new understanding and knowledge of
environmental management that will produce real satisfactionand
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 notcome
first time! Don't quit and don't "cut-and-run" forthe cover of
familiar old bad habits when your confidence is tried.
Vegetableproduction 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. TheyGIVE
little or NOTHING back!
Don't become aSOIL-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 otherhand, 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 andnutritious produce
is an automatic blessing. That such rich rewards comeeasily,
must seem quite unfair to "chemical" gardeners whofind
themselves fighting -- SOIL-STRUCTURE, DRAINAGE, WEEDS,DISEASE
and "BUGS". Remember also that they end upproducing NUTRITIONAL
JUNK!!
No one SEEKS afight against the ravages of bugs and
disease, or a struggle to either retain or get rid ofmoisture,
or a battle against unyielding clay and persistent weeds.Yet it
seems ironic that man will always gravitate away from thevery
system that will bring him everything he most desires.
Key To Success
You will havegathered by now that SOIL PREPARATION is the
great key to your success in any garden venture. Thissubject
can't be covered in the space we have available, but hereare a
number of brief points for your consideration:
A. DON'T wasteyour time trying to grow vegetables in low
fertility soil! Raising the level of fertility should beyour
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 careof
the problem!
Generally therewill have been some build-up of soil
fertility from the plant and root residues on your plot ofland.
However, if you insist on getting a small area startedquickly, a
soil test will give you an idea of the condition of yourground.
An enquiry atany office of the Ministry of Agriculture, a
farmer's organization, a grain merchant, or a plant nurserywill
give you information on where you can get a soil test donefor a
few shillings.
If the soil isnot in a balanced state, you can take a few
simple steps to bring this about. Soil lacking organicresidues
is "unbalanced" and will usually be in what isdescribed as an
ACID condition. In rare instances (such as chalk andlimestone
areas) it may be alkaline. Most vegetables do best inconditions
chemically near neutral.
The pH scale isa 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 showacidity.
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 controlundesirable "weed" growth on any new area you
wish to incorporate in your garden, the grass should be cutdown
and let decompose where it falls. Immediately after cutting,the
whole area should be given a heavy dressing of farmyardmanure or
compost and straw.
This thick layerof organic matter has a number of
beneficial effects:
1. Preserves aneven soil temperature all year round.
2. Reducesevaporation under dry, hot and windy conditions.
3. In wetweather it absorbs large quantities of moisture,
thereby reducing the chances of water-logging and soilerosion.
4. Its bufferingeffect on acid soils helps correct pH.
5. Ensures arapid build-up of micro-organisms.
6. Moisture andtemperature control promotes rapid organic
decomposition by microbes and earthworms.
7. Reduces sunlightpreventing unwanted "weed" growth.
C. If you havebare 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 heightand leave the
clippings spread evenly over the entire area. (Remember, toomany
clippings at any one time will kill the plants you arerelying on
to produce more "green manure".)
Don't assumethat you can continue growing healthy plants
year after year, simply by adding MORE STRAW. Our researches
indicate that on its own, STRAW will eventually unbalancethe C/N
(carbon-nitrogen) ratio.
As theproportion of carbon rises relative to available
nitrogen, the rate of micro-organic decomposition decreases.This
slower turn-around of plant nutrients reduces rate ofgrowth.
Then, outright deficiencies develop and finally disease andpest
attacks take over.
D. Whatevertillage 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 ofreach of
surface rooted species.
These points arethe foundation of your future success in
soil management, so they are worth taking some time andtrouble
over.
We can do nomore than whet your appetite now, but this
Dept. has other material available. It includes some seven
directly related articles. Though brief in themselves, theywill
take the reader a stage further. The first six cover the
following subjects:
1. The effectsof chemical fertilizers.
2. The effectsof organic fertilizers.
3. Sources ofminerals for plants.
4. Nitrogenavailability.
5. Soildestruction.
6. Conqueringplant disease.
The seventharticle deals briefly with twelve specific
points of gardening mechanics, including Tithing and The
Sabbatical Year.
If you areinterested, we CAN help you. And remember,
whether you have a window-box in inner London or 2,000square
miles in Outer Mongolia -- the same principles apply.Success
will depend upon diligent application of God's Law!
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
August 1971, Vol. II, No. 8
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
BRITAIN -- STUD FARM OF THE WORLD --WHY?
What do thenames Hereford, Durham, Devon, Angus, Ayrshire,
Jersey and Guernsey, mean to you? What about Hampshire,Dorset,
Suffolk, Cheviot, Shropshire, Leicester, Southdown, RomneyMarsh
and Lincoln? To most people they are merely geographiclocations
in the British Isles. But to animal breeders these names
represent the heart and core of the international livestock
industry!
Now quiteobviously 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 beresponsible
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 shouldthe leading livestock breeders of the
Western World find it necessary to regularly importhigh-quality
cattle and sheep from the British Isles -- long after colonial
influence has ended? Surely the verdant grasslands ofAmerica,
Argentina, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africaare
capable of producing even BETTER animals than tiny fog-bound
Britain. But judging by the annual trek of overseas buyersback
to Britain's top livestock shows and sales, this is not thecase!
Indeed, the reducing or dispersal sale of a famous Britishcattle
stud has been known to attract more overseas buyers thanlocal
ones. And every year, nearly all the top priced animals of
Britain are EXPORTED!
But why? Why hasBritain been so long regarded as the STUD
FARM OF THE WORLD? This issue of the Research News probesthe
development, and the influence of British livestock to findthe
answer -- an answer that heralds the need for majorrevisions of
our thinking about the "laws" of genetics andanimal breeding.
Why British Animals Conquered The "Colonies"
Britishlivestock spread around the world as the British
Empire grew. British settlers encountered vast untapped
grasslands at every turn. To exploit these areas theynaturally
IMPORTED their own improved breeds of animals. Like the
Patriarchs and the Israelites, the British have beendedicated
breeders of livestock and have taken them wherever they havegone
themselves, (as in Genesis 12:5, 13:1-5, 31:18, 46:6 andExodus
12:38).
Soon theJerseys, 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 ofLeicester,
Dorset, Hampshire, the South Downs and Romney Marsh. Andevery
farm was stocked with horses from the Clyde, or Suffolk and
Shetland. Later on every ranch and race-track owed a debt tothe
original breeders of English thoroughbreds!
But as theimported animals reproduced, the transplanted
British stock men and their descendants in America,Argentina,
Australia, Canada, the Falkland Islands, New Zealand, andSouth
Africa noticed a strange phenomenon. Their animals began to
CHANGE, without any introduction of outside blood!
A formerProfessor of Agriculture at Aberdeen University has
correctly observed that:
"TheShorthorn, 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, blockyand
massive beef confirmation of the original breed, and thatthis
deterioration can be checked by returning to the breed'soriginal
home for fresh stock and that it can be prevented in NOOTHER
WAY." ("Beef Cattle Husbandry", p. 59, Dr.Allan Fraser).
Emphasis ours throughout.
This is not aunique opinion. It is virtually the unanimous
observation of generations of pedigree stock breeders! Andhas
its expression in the multiple millions they have spent at
British livestock auctions!
All breeds ofimported livestock are affected to some degree
and it is for this reason that most top breeders return tothis
country to buy animals. Different environments producedifferent
changes in the same breed type. It may take a fewgenerations to
become obvious -- BUT THEY DO CHANGE!
All thesechanges are not necessarily bad, but because the
pedigree breeders' fixed mental image permits littlevariation,
most changes are regarded as undesirable. They may or maynot
hinder the animal's meat or milk producing ability, but therigid
Herd Book system does not allow the stud breeder to ignorethese
variations.
What causesthese 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 newblood
carries better genes than the original importations. Yet itis
indisputable that fresh blood imported from the UnitedKingdom
will bring the stock back toward their original type.
Why? Areenvironmental effects heritable after all --
despite the teachings of modern geneticists? It would seemthat
most established overseas breeders are actually purchasingLIVE
IN-BUILT BRITISH ENVIRONMENT in their subsequentimportations!
CHANGES -- NOT ONLY INTERNATIONAL
Environmentaldifferences 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 thanthose
found in the West ... Breeders have LONG observed that ifWestern
type sheep are moved to the East, or vice versa, with in a
generation or two, the type seems to assume thecharacteristics
of sheep native to the area." ("Modern Breeds ofLivestock", p.
431, H. M. Briggs)
WHAT CAUSES THESE CHANGES?
These examplesappear to indicate a build-up of
environmental effects over generations as distinct fromgenetic
changes. Yet those effects of environment are not new facts.
Breeders have understood this overall principle for morethan a
century, as the following quote proves:
"Localcirc*mstances -- 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 thesoil is
luxuriant we have large native breeds; where the land ishilly,
we have smaller and more active animals;"("Journal of The Royal
Agricultural Society", p. 262, Vol. XXII, 1865. HenryTanner,
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, tendto
assume the characteristics of the local native genera ismost
intriguing. If correct, it would explain why Britishlivestock
change type when sent overseas. And also why pedigreelivestock
breeders, addicted to a particular breed type, have found it
necessary to continually import more livestock from theUnited
Kingdom.
DOES ENVIRONMENT EQUAL BREED TYPE?
A Yorkshirefarmer recently observed that -- "If you feed
Jerseys and rear them in the North, they tend to growlarger,"
("Farmer's Weekly", U.K., p. 24, May 2, 1969).
Jersey isbasically an island of ROCK with a THIN layer of
soil and a very favorable climate. Its perennially low planeof
nutrition has produced a small, fine-boned breed of cattle.Put
that same small animal in Yorkshire, a county with manyacres,
high in inherent fertility, and the breed type becomeslarger.
It is from thisvery Yorkshire-Durham area that the
Shorthorn breed originated. These cattle came from thefertile
valley of the Tees and HAVE BEEN one of our breeds ofgreatest
size. Interestingly enough, these same Tees water Shorthornshave
been the basis for the Lincoln Red breed. As the nameindicates,
the cattle were produced in the county of Lincolnshire --which
encompasses some of the "strongest", most robustsoils in the
British Isles. Is it any wonder that the Lincoln Red cattleare
perhaps the biggest breed in England at this time?
The same is trueof sheep. As Tanner indicated, it must be
more than coincidence that the chalky Sussex hills justsouth of
London, with their light, but fertile soils would producethe
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 isnot too difficult to trace this same
relationship between soil, climate, breed size,conformation,
meat value, wool type, etc., in nearly every breed ofdomestic
livestock.
Humans Too!
Dr. Allan Frasereven suggests that it might be applicable
to humans also. In his later book, "Animal Husbandry Heresies",
p. 79, he offers a possible example:
"In theScottish clan system, there is abundant contemporary
evidence to show that while the stature of the commonclansman
was severely stunted, the gentlemen of the clan wereparticularly
well grown. {No doubt the gentlemen attributed theirsuperior
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 statethat there is a limit to the effects of
environment? We are not implying that environment will turna
black pygmy into a six-foot 'great' Dane! Neither will anynumber
of generations turn a black Shetland Pony into a white
Clydesdale!
HANDLING ENVIRONMENT
Thoughenvironment 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 wisdomof
repeatedly crossing the oceans to purchase specimensselected
against a different environmental background? Once we havethe
bloodlines located in ANOTHER environment, would it not bemore
reasonable to either ACCEPT what that environment produces,or
MODIFY THE ENVIRONMENT?
Britain's roleas 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 throughoutthe
nation and overseas, but NOW the future of the Stud industryis
seriously challenged. How? First by the massive increase in
commercial CROSS-BREEDING and secondly by the increasedcapacity
of a single bull to beget calves through artificialinsemination!
Add to this thefact that the "flood-gates" are now open
into Europe and more British livestock breeders than everare
turning their backs on the historic nucleus of their own
industry. These men, (especially cattle breeders) arecurrently
scrambling over each other to import French and Swisslivestock.
Are not theBritish themselves now doing exactly what their
ex-colonial areas and Argentina have done for generations? Why?
Is our environment not capable of producing the qualitiesthat we
are now importing from Europe?
The only way toprove this is to demonstrate that the
illusive qualities of the Continental cattle, (principally
Charolais and Simmental) HAVE previously EXISTED in Britain.
What are thosequalities, when were they evident in British
cattle and how did we come to lose them? First let's takethe
French Charolais -- what do they have? Nothing except theirold
fashioned English shorthorn bloodlines and the kind of human
selection that has allowed the environment to naturallyproduce
large-framed and heavy-boned animals. (Of course this can bedone
ONLY if the environment will permit it). But many Britishcattle
had this quality at one time -- ESPECIALLY THE SHORTHORNBREED.
At that time they were the most numerous in Britain and infact
the whole world! How ironic that BRITAIN should now beBUYING
instead of SELLING cattle. And doubly ironic that oursuppliers
are those considered to be backward European"peasants".
THE LATEST TREND -- IN BRITAIN'S ANIMAL INDUSTRY
Now the trend istoward the Swiss Simmental breed -- so what
have they got? SOMETHING that British breeders abandonedeven
EARLIER than "size" and "bone". THEY AREDUAL-PURPOSE ANIMALS!
Simmental cattle, (regardless of what British buyers may bedoing
with them) have a unique ability to fill the joint role ofdairy
cow and beef producer -- WITHOUT ANY CROSS-BREEDING! Theyhave
this capacity to a degree that has not been seen by most ofthe
world-wide British-based cattle industry for 50 YEARS!
Few YOUNG menhave ever seen it, but the British Shorthorn
HAD this dual-purpose quality above ALL the other breeds inthis
country. That was one of the important reasons that madethem THE
MOST POPULAR BREED IN THE WORLD. In little more than 50years the
highly specialized Friesian totally supplanted the Shorthornin
the dairy industry. And in less time, the more fashionableAngus
and Hereford supplanted the Shorthorn in the beef industry.
Today the ScotchBeef 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 theirsize,
but also their milking ability! These changes were not theresult
of environment, but rather John Bull's personal selection.
John Bull hascontinued as Stud Master to the world because
his "sons" were convinced that Britains livestockwere the BEST
in the world! As long as this conviction remained, theybelieved
they must return to their homeland for regular replacements.
These new animals were necessary ONLY because the"colonial"
environment was different.
This continuousstream of replacement animals was necessary
only because John Bull's own offspring could not, or wouldnot
duplicate the environment of Britain. Where it is SIMILARchanges
in the livestock were slow and limited. Where environmental
differences were PRONOUNCED changes were more rapid anddramatic.
We haveindicated big changes took place in various breeds
of stock WITHIN Britain, but these were mainly due to human
selection. Nevertheless even these changes were faithfullycopied
overseas. In other words Britain has long dictated fashionin
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 lenditself
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 beenmating 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 dayswhen it
was ONE breed, not two). Can you see now why there has neverbeen
a Hertfordshire breed of cattle, or sheep and why we are so
insistent on building soil fertility?
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
September 1971, Vol. II, No.9
Ambassador College (UK)
DWELL IN THE BEST OF THELAND!
"And Godsaid ... let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; .... And said let theearth
bring forth tender grass, the herb yielding seed, and thefruit
tree yielding fruit after his kind ..." (Gen.1:9-11).
"And theLord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and
there He put the man whom he had formed. And out of theground
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 shortoutline of the creation of man's
environment. It is but the briefest description of astupendous
miracle -- the details of which are still puzzling man after
nearly 6,000 years! We unthinkingly pass over theunbelievable
detail that is implied in these few words. Just look forexample,
at the staggering complexity of soil formation, with a vastarray
of minerals coming from the basic rock strata. Hundreds of
biological, chemical and mechanical inter-actions go to makethem
available to plants!
These trulywonderful processes can operate only through
that one medium -- SOIL. And in this issue of "YourLiving
Environment" we want to focus on the importance God hasattached
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 wemight profitably
reflect for a while on the vital role of "SOIL" asit is such a
basic part of our environment. This highly variable and yet
precious commodity must have figured very largely in theover-all
7,000 year plan of God.
MAN'S ATTITUDE TO SOIL
First let usbriefly see how soil has "figured" in MAN'S
approach to his environment and destiny. Is it exaggeratingto
say that the English language more than hints at humancontempt
for this God-given blessing? We customarily speak oftreating
someone, or being treated -- "LIKE DIRT". Thenthere is also the
frequently used expression -- "COMMON AS DIRT".
Is the analogynot valid? Is there anything physical for
which man has shown more contempt than the soil sustaininghis
very existence?
Have you evercontrasted 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 everyconceivable
human neglect!
What has beenthe result? MAN has always paid a terrible
PRICE! for this law-breaking, through a lowered environmentand
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 chanceman has of ever getting anything in right
perspective is by looking to God. So let us now seesomething of
the value our Creator attaches to this BASIC INGREDIENT OFALL
LIVING MATTER.
TO "DRESS" and "KEEP"
"And the LordGod formed man of the dust of the ground ...
(Gen.2:7). "And out of the ground the Lord God formedevery beast
of the field, and every fowl of the air" (Gen.2:19).
God need nothave formed His physical living creation out of
SOIL, but was it not both symbolic and logical that He chosethe
material used for every subsequent generation? Thissubstance has
been a basic ingredient of all plants, animals and men ever
since.
Agriculturalistslike 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 notbe
equally mindful of the fact that ALL GRASS IS SOIL?
Such achildishly simple truth should have been easy to
accept, but the historical record indicates otherwise. EvenAdam
could not proclaim innocence through ignorance. We know thatGod
gave the first man instruction in His spiritual laws, but Healso
gave necessary guidance in physical laws too:
"And theLord 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 toGUARD, 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 alwaysbeen bent on GETTING from the soil, but if he
would start GIVING, God would soon begin to overload himwith
abundance.
Of all thepunishments God could have meted out to Adam for
disobedience, notice that the very first was a curse ON THESOIL
(Gen. 3:17-18)!
Cain'spunishment 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).
Understandingthat animal husbandry is an integral part of
soil management, enhances our appreciation of the possible
differences between the approach of Cain and Abel toagriculture
(Gen. 4:2,4,).
MAN -- ARCHITECT OF HIS OWN DESTRUCTION!
Within just sixchapters of the account of man's history the
reader is at the point where:
"... Godsaw that the wickedness of man was great in the
earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of hisheart was
only evil continually" (presumably including soilmanagement).
"And theLord said, I will destroy man ... from the face of
the earth; from man unto beast and the creeping thing andthe
fowls of the air; ... The earth was corrupt before God..." (Gen.
6:5,7,11).
GOD -- BEGINS A GREAT NATION
Some generationsafter The Flood we read that God greatly
blessed his faithful servant Abram:
"For allthe land which thou seest, to thee will I give it,
and to thy seed for ever .... Then Abram ... came and dweltin
the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, ..." (Gen.13:15,18).
"... I amthe Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the
Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it ... In thesame
day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thyseed
have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto thegreat
river, the river Euphrates" (Gen.15:7,18).
What kind ofland was he given? Was it eroded desert? or was
it rich and fertile? This point was very important becauseAbram
was already "VERY RICH IN LIVESTOCK". By skippingforward a few
hundred years we can find the answer in God's Word. It helpsus
understand that God placed real importance on quality soilas a
basic building block for His specially chosen nation!
"Moses sentthem to spy out the land of Canaan, and ... they
came unto the brook Eschol, and cut down from thence abranch
with one cluster of grapes and they bare it between two upona
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 andhoney;
and this is the fruit of it" (Num. 13:25-27).
If this land wasso fertile after 500 years of Canaanite
occupation it makes you wonder what it must have been likein
Abraham's time! Perhaps we can get an idea of this too.
"... Isaacsowed 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 verygreat"
(Gen. 26:12,13).
Under today's system,England produces TWENTY-EIGHT fold!
The world's large grain producing nations such as Americaand
Australia, manage a national average of approximatelyTWENTY-FIVE
fold!! "Organic" farmers don't get a hundred foldtoday either.
But what fantastic natural fertility must God have placed inthe
particular soil He used in founding His nation under the
Patriarchs!
GOD -- SUPPLIES OUR BLESSINGS
King David saidof God: "He waters the hills from his
chambers: "... He causeth the grass to grow for thecattle, and
herb for the service of man: that he might bring forth foodout
of the earth; and wine that maketh glad the heart of man,and oil
to make his face to shine, and bread which strengthenethman's
heart" (Psa. 104:13-15).
"He blesseththem also, so that they are multiplied greatly
and suffereth not their cattle to decrease" (Psa.107:38).
"And sowthe fields, and plant vineyards, which may yield
fruits of increase" (Psa. 107:37).
"God bemerciful 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 ourown
God, shall bless us" (Psa. 67:1,2,6).
Do we needreminding that the most basic thing to "health
among the nations" is highly nutritious food and thatthis is
impossible without rich soil? And even the richest of soilsmust
have its fertility protected and guarded by obedience toGod's
laws.
Unavoidable proofof this exists today from the Euphrates
all the way to the Nile and on for the next three thousandmiles
to Tangier. The same basic situation also exists fromGibraltar
all the way back to the Euphrates on the other side of the
Mediterranean too!!
JACOB -- THE NEXT GENERATION
Notice the veryfirst part of the blessing that Isaac asked
God to pass on to his son Jacob:
"ThereforeGod 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 areblessings that can come only to people living
under an assured rainfall and on really fertile soil. Thenext
question we may reasonably ask ourselves is -- how did it all
work out?
After years ofvoluntary exile from his native area (because
of the way he obtained the above blessing) Jacob finallyreturned
to the general area in which his father and grandfather had
prospered (Gen. 33:17-18, 35:1,6,21,27).
"And Godsaid unto him ... the land which I gave Abraham and
Isaac, to thee I will give it and to thy seed after theewill I
give the land" (Gen.35:11-12).
Jacob's nextrecorded 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 peoplenumbering
seventy at this time, but to what kind of an area did Helead
them? God was working it out, however, old Israel knew wherethe
good land was in Egypt and did his part to see that hisfamily
took over some of it.
"And hesent 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 aboutlivestock
from our youth ... that ye may dwell in the land ofGoshen" (Gen.
46:28,31,33,34).
"AndPharaoh spake ... saying .... The land of Egypt is
before you; in the best of the land make thy father andbrethren
to dwell; in the land of Goshen" (Gen. 47:5,6).
It is obviousthat both Jacob and Joseph knew where the best
land was to be had in Egypt and that they placed greatimportance
upon it. Pharaoh's words indicate that he too appreciatedthis
fact and furthermore knew what they were up to! Mostimportant of
course is the fact that Goshen was precisely where Godwanted His
people at that time. (God does tell us that He is the onewho
sets the boundaries of the nations). (Deut. 32:8).
A DOUBLE PORTION -- TO JOSEPH
After some 17years living in Goshen, the ancient Israel
said to his son Joseph: "Behold, I die: but God shallbe 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 grandsonsEphraim and Manasseh were to be blessed as his
own sons (Gen. 48:3-5). They were prophesied to becollectively:
"... afruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well;
whose branches shall run over the wall" (Gen. 49:22).
"TheBlessings 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? Letus see for ourselves: "... the children of
Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, andmultiplied
and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled withthem"
(Ex. 1:7).
We need to getthe fact that there was much more than a
population explosion involved here! China, India and Latin
America are three modern lands "filled" (toover-flowing) with
people, but judging by Oxfam pictures, there has not been avery
"abundant" increase!
The term"fruitful bough" is symbolic, but it may also be
very literal. Short of an outright miracle, boughs becomeunduly
fruitful for one reason only -- because they are located ina
HIGHLY FERTILE SOIL and receive rain from God in due season.
That promise wasfulfilled when Israel's family left Egypt
and returned to the fantastically rich environment referredto by
Joshua and Caleb. Ephraim and Manasseh each took up aportion 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 housesfull
of all goods, wells digged, vineyards and olive yards, andfruit
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 notneed 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 possessedthe
"fat places" of the earth. What we have done withthem 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 willsettle 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).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
October 1971, Vol. II, No.10
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
PARASITES UPON THE EARTH
"Afterevery two or three years of work in the undeveloped
world I return home to my native Iowa. Each time I am amazedat
the incredible richness of the landscape there. No place inall
the world matches the agricultural wealth of the MiddleWest, 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 milesof
fruitful soil for every hundred square miles of uselessland,
plus a climate that is a gamble, and sometimes a nation hasno
good land anywhere at all" ("Famine 1975",Preface, W. & P.
Paddock).
Withoutrealizing it, the authors of this book have made a
graphic contrast that agrees with Bible prophecy. The abovequote
contrasts the environment of Gentile nations with Manasseh.But
this contrast can be extended to include the modernEphraimites
and in fact all the descendants of Jacob. To the Israelitesof
old, God said He would -- "set thee on high above allnations of
the earth" (Deut. 28:1). The same basic promises Hemade to
Abraham and Isaac.
Our moderngenerations have done nothing to merit these
superior and fantastic physical blessings. Our Creator has
fulfilled His promise and simply allowed us to inherit mostof
the productive temperate zones of the earth. He was quite
specific about it:
"When themost High divided to the nations their
inheritance, He set the bounds of the people according tothe
number of the children of Israel" (Deut. 32:8).
The richness thatmen 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 "YourLiving
Environment" we want to show that mankind is playing adangerous
game with that appleskin thin layer on the earth's crust wecall
SOIL! The resources of that shallow layer are all thatseparates
us from oblivion! But what are the problems, how do theyarise
and what steps can be taken to overcome them?
WHO SAID SOIL FERTILITY IS A PROBLEM?
Perhaps weshould first make sure that we are not taking too
much for granted. Is the problem of declining soil fertilityas
serious as some people would have us believe? At least one
"eminent" authority would have us believe that itdoes not exist
at all, at least in England!
"ModernFarming And The Soil" is a recent British Government
report in which the authors gave their findings on theeffects of
grain monoculture and continuous, (or near continuous)arable
farming, on soil structure. These enquiries were headed byThe
Chief Advisor to The Ministry of Agriculture, Dr. EmeryJones.
And the considered opinion of these men is that there hasbeen an
alarming deterioration in the soil structure of much ofBritain's
arable land.
It was reportedthat 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 turnedover
to pasture to allow them to recover. Furthermore it was claimed
that these soils were so depleted in organic residues thatthey
would be at least THREE YEARS recovering.
Everyoneappeared to digest this startling report in
complete silence. A few months have passed, the"dust" has
settled and some of the "scared rabbits" areemerging from their
burrows! Rothamsted Experimental Station, (the centre which
pioneered the worldwide use of artificial fertilizers infood
production) is now said to have brought out acounter-report. It
states in part:
"If the notions ('notions' hardlydoes the Ministry's
experts justice) in the report about the importance oforganic
matter, soil structure and drainage were conceived duringthe
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 nowblames soil structure problems in British
Agriculture on, of all things, -- "THE WEATHER".That which
follows shows these "experts" blowing the gaff ontheir own
counter-report:
"Similarly,a few years back we had no explanation for poor
growth of sugar beet in some fields, though bad soilstructure
and lack of organic matter were widely assumed to beresponsible.
"With themain cause identified as attack on the seedlings
by free-living nematodes, not only are the reasons nowunderstood
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 aremerely
the "SYMPTOM" of the problem! Now comes the realirony 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 isto
increase the soil's microbial population by the addition of
compost or farmyard manure. First it was NEMATODES, now it'sthe
WEATHER, but never US!!
CROP YIELDS A POOR GUIDE TO FERTILITY
In this greenland of England, it is not easy to recognize
an environmental landslide -- ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARESTANDING ON
IT! "GREEN-NESS" of the landscape may in somecases be indicative
of the blessings God has bestowed on certain peoples. But onthe
other hand it has never been decreed as a measure of their
obedience to His laws of environmental management.
Crop yields areno guide these days to the fertility of most
soils in modern agriculture. We must therefore be carefulnot 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 areunder
for environmental lawlessness.
ANY "CURSES" -- IN THE CITY OR THE FIELD?
Notice some ofthe 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.
"TheLord 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 landpowder
and dust: ... it shall come down upon thee, until thou be
destroyed" (Deut. 28:16-24).
Physicalsickness and disease is a multi-million pound
"curse" affecting the cities of EVERY nation andresults largely
from our mismanaged food industry.
Do we have any"CURSES" in the "FIELD"? What about Corn
Blight, Potato Blight, Clubroot, Nematodes, Aphids, RedSpider,
Cabbage Moth, Codling Moth, Fruit-fly, Bollworm, Mildew,Yellow
Rust and every other "new" kind of Rust that comesalong!
Foot-and-mouth disease, Mastitis, Bovine Tuberculosis, Contagious
Abortion, Footrot, Liver fluke and Fowl-pest -- these arebut a
few of the best known.
Dr. Emery Jonesand his men apparently think that some of
our most productive land is like "iron". Whatabout our heavens?
Do they ever become "like brass"? Yes they doindeed! There never
seems to be a time that severe drought is not going onsomewhere.
Need it be asked-- Do we have any deserts, (especially
man-made ones) that alternatively rain dust or clouds oflocusts
on the more productive areas?
We have the lot!
The potential ofthe Earth's land-mass falls basically into
three divisions: PASTURES, CROPS and FORESTS. AcceleratingTIMBER
USAGE continues to outstrip re-afforestation. Economicpressures
and/or ignorance denudes billions of acres of the world'spasture
lands, pushing them ever closer to desert. While intensive20th
Century agriculture and even nomadic crop production ispounding
once fertile soils to death!
SOIL RECLAMATION -- WHOSE JOB IS IT?
"For generations, the conquest of Naturehas been accepted
as man's prerogative. But man is a part of Nature, it beinghis
essential environment and unless he can find his rightfulplace
in it he has poor hope of survival. Man's present behavioroften
resembles that of an over successful parasite which, inkilling
its host, accomplishes also its own death" (C.L. Boyle,"Journal
of the Soil Association", VIII, 1954).
Man hastraditionally refused to face the facts of life
relative to soil management, but it is obvious that weultimately
have no alternative! It's OUR environment! It was createdfor 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 WITHIT?
THE ORIGINAL SOIL-BUILDER
The next pointis HOW should we go about it? Men have come
up with all kinds of ideas. But we would suggest that Godgives
the clue to land reclamation! He shows us in the Bible thatat
certain times He has had the biggest soil-building programsin
history!
He must havemade fantastic redistributions of soil and soil
types during the Flood in Noah's time. And so post-Noationman
was presented with a ready-made array of soils -- rangingfrom
"pure" SAND to "impervious" CLAY. Inbetween these extremities
are what we might generally term "LOAMS". Theseare admixtures
and innumerable combinations of sand, clay and organicmatter.
God was responsible for those.
It was God whowas 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 theirorganic
content with the mineral particles millenniums before makingthen
available to the modern Manassites.
Notice examplesfrom later times in man's history:
"To fulfillthe word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah,
until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as shelay
desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfill threescore and tenyears"
(II Chr. 36:21).
Unless manbegins to "shape-up", God is going to do it
again: "I will scatter you (modern Israel) among theheathen ...
and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste. Then
shall your land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate
What happenswhen land lies "desolate" and cities are
"waste"? THREE things basically: 1. The multitudesfrom the
cities cease their clamour for food. 2. Farmers stop forcing
production from their soil. 3. And virtually all plantgrowth,
(that the climate permits) is returned to the soil. Thesethree
effects produce a slow, but natural regeneration, just as
happened in England when farming has been abandoned onreally
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 movesinto an area, the prospects for its future
change dramatically. Why? Simply because God has given MANthe
POWER and the INTELLECT to CHOOSE how much food he will takefrom
his soil and how much organic matter he will put back intoit.
This is aperfectly 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 thebest
by their soil and that somewhere along the line a future
generation will have to do something about it, or pay apenalty.
The truth isthat both present and future generations pay a
penalty, but in most instances today, man thinks HE is
"GETTING-AWAY-WITH-IT"!
Need we be soblind over this fundamental problem of soil
management? And are the principles of soil reclamation allthat
difficult? Generations of men have treated SOIL as aneternally
productive milch cow, requiring little or no INPUT butalways
yielding a high OUTPUT! It seems to be the nature of man toact
like a greedy, spoilt child -- taking all he can get andgiving
nothing in return.
In nomadic cropand animal production this process goes on
to the point of soil exhaustion. Modern intensive methodsdiffer
in one point only -- "science" has made itpossible to extend
high levels of production BEYOND the point of soilexhaustion!
The nomad ends up with a desert and "science" endsup with a form
of hydroponics, (growing crops on chemical solutions) and
nutritional chaos!
At the otherextreme some see abundant and healthy
production of a tomato or pumpkin vine growing wild on adung
hill. And something like this leads them to a fanaticismover
compost-grown food! If only we would take up a balancedposition
between these two extremes. WE CAN, and all it requires is
obedience to the principles behind God's commandedSabbatical
Year (Lev. 25:1-7).
HUMUS, LEGUMES AND LIFE
We can and wemust be delivered from the science fiction of
Chemical Agriculture and at the same time avoid the stigmaof
Health Cranks Inc. Every acre does not have to be transformed
into a veritable dung-pile before reaching a naturallyproductive
and balanced state.
Let's centre thependulum on this matter once and for all.
The "Chemical Captive" maintains that we can abuseour soil with
impunity, while the "Compost Convert" flinchesvisibly at the
thought of burning even the most monstrous piece of garbage.God,
on the other hand was not above commanding that offal andgarbage
be taken out and burned or buried (Lev. 8:17, Deut. 23:13,Jer.
7:20)!!
At the same timeHe gave us a regular reminder of what is
involved in building and/or maintaining a BALANCED level ofsoil
fertility. Man focuses on that grossly incomplete formula,
"N.P.K." (Nitrogen, Phosphate and Potash) as thesource of life.
But "H.L.L." (Humus, Legumes and LIFE) wouldbetter summarize the
basis of God's right system of soil management. And it iscentred
around livestock, rather than crop production.
God knows humannature, seeing He created man. And to block
our natural tendency toward environmental suicide, Hedecreed a
special year of rest every seven years. This does not removethe
element of "free-choice", because WE still decidefor or against
keeping God's Sabbatical Year! Faithfully kept, it is aregular
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 ofthe
Sabbatical Year is not just something he does every SEVENyears.
It totally dominates his approach to and his thinking on
agriculture and environmental management, EVERY YEAR!!
Much more willbe written on this important subject -- God's
Sabbatical Year, but it has been at least partially coveredin an
earlier issue. The point to be emphasized here is this: Soil
maintenance and reclamation is not difficult to understandfor
the man who keeps God's Sabbatical Year. He can truly be a
BLESSING to any environment, instead of a "parasiteupon the
earth".
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
November 1971, Vol. II, No.11
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
WHY AGRICULTURE?
Why did Godcreate cattle, sheep, poultry and the other
domesticated livestock? Why did He create wheat, oats, rice,
barley and maize? Why did He design potatoes, beans, peasand
cabbage? Why has so much of man's activity from creationtill now
centred around crop cultivation, orchard and forestmanagement
and livestock husbandry? In short WHY did God createagriculture
the way He did?
Was God's mainpurpose in this system to FEED AND CLOTHE
MAN? Mankind has historically assumed so! Perhaps you havetoo.
But like so many other human assumptions, this does notagree
with the truth of God as revealed by The Bible and HisCreation.
This issue of"Your Living Environment" will draw attention
to the fact that food and fibre production is NOT theprimary
purpose of agriculture. It will also demonstrate that Godhas a
far greater purpose for agriculture than the mere productionof
so many calories per person per day. By losing sight of God,man
has long since lost the true perspective of agriculture. Andin
so doing we have doomed ourselves and our environment toslow
degeneration and destruction.
WHY IS AGRICULTURE SO TIME-CONSUMING?
The Bibleindicates that we have been using the same
domesticated livestock and crops for food from Genesis tillnow.
But this carefully planned system is without doubt
time-consuming, complicated and laborious! Any
Time-and-Motion-Study expert would have to condemn God'sfood
system as extremely cumbersome, wasteful, expensive, complexand
just plain inefficient.
Take BREAD forexample. God's system involves soil-tillage,
seed-planting, a year's delay between harvests, gathering,
threshing and cleaning. Then comes the milling and dailymaking
and bakeing that loaf of bread! Surely a continuouslybearing
"bread-tree" producing ready-to-eat loaves likeapples would be
simpler and much more "EFFICIENT"!
And what aboutmilk? 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 lattercan
be unpleasant and even hazardous! Why all this effort toobtain
milk and the further complexities of butter and cheese
production? Could God not have continued to send manna, orsupply
all our nutritional needs from a nearby stream? Could we nothave
been designed to live on air or perhaps eat soil?
WAS GOD AN INEFFICIENT DESIGNER?
Was He incapableof developing more efficient methods? Not
at all! Anyone who truly understands God and His Plan, knows
better. God does nothing haphazardly. At Creation Hedeliberately
designed an environmental system that demands much of man'stime,
effort and thought -- for reasons far more important thanmere
human physical survival!
THE TRUE PURPOSE OF AGRICULTURE
The Biblecontains no verse which states plainly -- the main
function of man's environment is such and such ... Butcareful
analysis of God's plan for man and His system of agriculturedoes
reveal several major reasons behind the TRUE PURPOSE OF
AGRICULTURE.
I. TO ENABLE MANTO UNDERSTAND GOD MORE CLEARLY: Few men
have been privileged to speak with God since Adam wasevicted
from the Garden in Eden, but we can still understand God. He
tells us -- "The invisible things of Him from thecreation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things thatare
made" (Rom. 1:20). In fact He has surrounded us withHis very
mind in the ecological relationship of our complexenvironment.
In Bromfield'sview, agriculture "... is the only profession
in which man deals constantly with ALL the laws of theuniverse
and life" ("From My Experience", LouisBromfield, p.348).
Nothing forcesman to study God's creation more than His
natural way of feeding and clothing humanity. Without aworking
knowledge of the laws governing soil, animals, crops,seasons and
their inter-relationships -- man could not survive.
II. TO CREATE INMAN AN AWARENESS OF HIS DEPENDENCE ON GOD
Plant and animalproduction, 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 Hislaws was
essential for a man to avoid extreme discomfort and evendeath
from these forces. Today under the influence of SATAN, manhas
developed a system that aims to suspend or delay the penaltyof
environmental lawlessness. When even farmers obtain most oftheir
food from the local supermarket, one can see the convenienceof
this system for ignoring broken agricultural laws!
"There aretwo spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One
is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from thegrocery
and the other that heat comes from the furnace"("A Sand County
Almanac", Aldo Leopold, p.6).
Today man'ssustenance appears to spring from those vast
seas of nutritional junk, called SUPERMARKETS, rather thanfrom
God! Likewise credit for providing heat, power and light isnow
given to gigantic national gas and electricity grid systems,
rather than God who supplies water, forests, coal and solar
energy.
III. TO PROVIDEOPPORTUNITIES FOR LEARNING RULERSHIP: "The
preservation of the landscape belongs among the essentialtasks
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 socialsignificance"
("The Earth's Face", Dr. E. Pfeiffer, pp.34, 36).
"And Godsaid, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness, and let them have dominion (rulership) over thefish of
the sea, the fowl of the air, and over the cattle and overall
the earth" (Gen. 1:26).
The very designof God's system of agriculture, provides the
future members of His all powerful ruling family with ample
opportunity to practise rulership! God watches us practiseon a
small scale and with limited power. If we fail with a fewacres
of land, plants and animals, can we hope to qualify to rulethis
whole planet with Christ?
Note howhumanity has rebelled over this God-given
responsibility. In effect we have fled the land when itwould no
longer support us, turning food and fibre production into a
specialized city-based industry.
IV. TO EXPRESSMAN'S CREATIVE DESIRES: "I know the
satisfaction of seeing the whole landscape, a whole smallworld,
change from a half-desert into a rich ordered green valley
inhabited by happy people, secure and prosperous, who eachday
create and add a little more to the world in which theylive, who
each season see their valley grow richer and morebeautiful"
("From My Experience", Louis Bromfield).
Here is a manrare among agriculturalists, expressing the
satisfaction of having helped to develop a portion of thisearth
to a higher plateau of beauty, order and productivity. Yes,God's
Creation was designed to subtly pressure every individualinto
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 anunparalleled
opportunity to exercise the creative desire inherent in thehuman
mind!
V. TO PROVIDE ANIDEAL FAMILY ENVIRONMENT: "The conditions
for the growth of happy and united families are fulfilled toa
marked degree on the farm. Here the growing child has ample
opportunities to go out with his father; he will beassociated
both with LIVING THINGS and mechanical devices"("Human Ecology",
Sir George Stapleton, p.115).
Another authorstates: "IN THE PAST, rural life presented
favourable conditions for the mental development ofchildren,
because it exposed them to an IMMENSE variety of stimuli --those
from nature, those from the very diverse activities on thefarm,
and especially those from the chores in which they wereexpected
to participate" ("The Human Environment",Rene Dubos, Science
Journal, p.79, Oct.,1969)
What better wayto 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 agriculturefrom
this point of view.
MODERN AGRICULTURE -- TOTALLY ASTRAY!
However,understanding the real purpose of our environment
is shared by extremely few agricultural thinkers today. Satanhas
encouraged farmers and scientists to consider voluminous
production of food, (regardless of quality) as the real andONLY
purpose of agriculture.
(Note: To view a drawing inserted here, see the file711166.TIF in the
Images\Ag directory.)
In the lastseventy 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 insight
yet. Politicians say millions more must go and join thosealready
in the city jungles and jobs must be found for them. Theirsmall
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 specializedfarms 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, Godconsiders
not FOOD, but CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT to be the most important
purpose of agriculture for the future members of His family.
In that respectspecialized, mechanized agriculture is
failing miserably. The skeleton staff that remain on thefarms
lose their last chance to understand the true purpose of
agriculture. Today "progressive" farmers rubshoulders more with
machines than people. For that, they are the poorer. And the
profit motive is more likely to debase character than buildit
up.
AGRICULTURE IN THE FUTURE
God promises atime of the restitution of all things (Acts
3:21). One of the things that will need restoring is aworldwide
understanding of the TRUE purpose of agriculture -- fromGod's
point of view.
Agriculture in the future will:
1. Enable man tounderstand God more clearly as he studies
God's physical laws in operation around him.
2. Greatly helpthe man, under the influence of God's Spirit
to become aware of his complete dependence upon God for hisevery
need.
3. Be recognizedand fully regarded as an unparalleled
opportunity to practise environmental rulership.
4. Encourage manto express his in-built creative desires by
the way in which he develops his portion of the environmentto a
higher plateau of beauty, order and productivity.
5. Provide anideal 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 underhis fig
tree" (Mic. 4:4).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
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 HandleyPage
airfield. If successful the Agriculture Department will havethe
tremendous opportunity to bring this land into fullproduction.
But how can itbe done? Should we plough, disc-harrow,
rotovate -- or not even cultivate at all? Is it wrong, assome
have suggested, to grow grain? Should we mulch and if so,how?
What about theright method of building soil fertility?
Should we rely on compost, on dung, lime, slag, superphosphate,
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 tothe complex problem of soil management and
soil fertility is in harmony with the laws of God? Is therein
fact any way to rejuvenate soils over-night -- to changepoor
soils into rich ones in a period of a few months?
To the academictheoretician all these questions are no more
than mildly interesting, but if you have land of your ownthey
become a very live issue! Especially so if you desire toOBEY
God's laws relative to environmental management! Thesequestions
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 manyof
the above questions have been covered. However, we now wantto
offer FURTHER insight into soil management, according toGod's
laws.
Great confusionexists 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, inan
effort to do the right thing, swing from one miracle organic
fertilizer to another, from one system of cultivation toanother
and from one system of soil management to another.
The Importance of Soil Management
Few people, evenamong those actually working the land have
ever fully comprehended the vital importance of correct soil
management, relative to either their own or mankind'ssurvival.
"...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 RUDELYHANDLED,
IMPERMANENT.
"Soilis living rock and the fundamental problem in
farming ... is to handle soil not as an aggregation of inertrock
materials, but as the substance of life " ("TheCare Of The
Earth", p.21, Russell Lord, 1962).
"Soilis a kind of PLACENTA that enables living things
to feed on the earth" ("Man And The Earth",N.S. Shaler,1915).
These are menthat do understand something of the vital
nature of soil management, but now let us test some of theideas
of other people against the guidelines of the Bible.
Cultivation and Tillage
Some haveassumed that Ambassador College is against soil
cultivation. After all, have we not written articlesdecrying its
effects on soil fertility, texture and productivity? Buttillage
handled correctly is NOT wrong and will NOT be wrong in theworld
tomorrow. Many scriptures indicate this. But irrefutableevidence
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 Bibleinfers that cultivation is a necessary part of
man's existence. The answer to this apparent anomaly issimple:
cultivation is fine, and indeed necessary to produce foodfor
mankind, but its use should be LIMITED in depth, severityand
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 typeplough. This is a
modern invention. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance gives the
meaning as "scratch".)
Grain And Cereal Crops
Anothermisconception is that Ambassador College does not
"believe" in growing cereal grains. But we havegrown grain and
intend doing so in the future. What is more, the Bibleagrees
with this practice: In Deut. 8:7-9, God tells the Israelitesthat
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 inthe
world tomorrow.
The problem ofgrain production is that it annually
necessitates a great deal of soil cultivation. This isespecially
true of the coarse feed-grains, (such as maize and grainsorghum)
and the other clean-cultivated crops such as soybeans, ticbeans
and potatoes. Tillage exposes the soil to the elements forlong
periods of time and fertility deteriorates rapidly. This
fertility and that lost through crop production canobviously be
given back in various ways. But much of this problem couldbe
avoided. How? By farmers eliminating surplusgrain-production
which now goes for cheap animal feed!
The Fertilizer Problem
Spectacular andimmediate results quickly eroded any doubts
about chemical fertilizers and by the late 1950's they hadnear
universal acceptance and acclaim! But during the last tenyears
their long-term detrimental effects become too obvious toignore.
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 abilityto provide
immediate solutions -- no more headaches of over-worked,
compacted soil, poor yields, diseases crops and insectepidemics!
Products such asFertrell, 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 -- butLASTING
soil fertility has not and never will come from a bag or a
bottle. It comes from CAREFUL OBEDIENCE TO THE LAWS OF GODAND
INTELLIGENT AND PATIENT STEWARDSHIP OF THE LAND!
As a professorof horticulture pointed out in 1907: "The
problem of maintaining or restoring the fertility of farmsoils
is much broader than that of merely adding plant food tothem.
"Mostworn-out soils are in special need of humus ... In
most cases the quickest and easiest way, to begin with, isto
grow leguminous crops for green manures. But green manuringwill
be made more effective and certainly more remunerative if itcan
be associated with some form of stock husbandry, so that the
crops may be fed or pastured ... and the manure returned tothe
soil. Stock-feeding is the key to the most ECONOMICALmaintenance
of soil fertility in general farming. DIVERSIFIED FARMING isone
of the strongest props of soil fertility"("Soils", p.280, 316,
344 & 345, S.W. Fletcher, 1907, Archibald, Constable& Co. Ltd.,
London).
A modernauthority corroborates Mr. Fletcher: "The primary
methods of increasing the fertility of all land ... involvesthe
creation of humus by means of life-promoting qualities of
compost, farmyard manure and other organic fertilizers; bygreen-
manuring, ... by the controlled grazing of livestock, bymethods
of working the land whereby the circulation of air,sunlight,
water and minerals is promoted; by planting trees andperennial
herbs, whose roots aerate the soil and bring up mineralsfrom the
subsoil" ("The Inviolable Hills", p.208,Robert A. de J. Hart,
1968).
This does not conflictwith the Bible. Nowhere does God say
there is any quick way to change abused, degenerate soilinto
fertile, rich productivity overnight. Success is a result of
patient continuance in God's law and a steady growth inknowledge
and understanding. THIS POINT CANNOT BE OVER-EMPHASIZED!
Sweeping changesmay be necessary. Continual re-education
must take place in order that a careful programme ofconstructive
soil management can be developed and put into action.
The Right System of Agriculture
Any soilmanagement program me developed in harmony with the
laws of God must revolve around the limitations imposed bythe
Sabbatical Year, (Lev. 25). As we explained in an earlierissue
of this Research News, ("Why -- The Land Sabbath?"Vol.I No. 9),
this law, if obeyed, has far-reaching implications both forthe
Christian now and for the entire world in the near future.
Though spacedoes not permit detailed explanation here, the
Land-Sabbath uses the sheer power of economics to encourage
farmers to adopt a diversified programme; based on livestockand
the production of meat, milk, eggs, wool, etc.
It encouragesgrassland 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 andharvesting.
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 andlegumes,
plus some mulching and composting for the small vegetableand
fruit areas.
Lime, basicslag, rock phosphate and other such materials
may be necessary at certain times, especially in the earlystages
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 intriguingaspect of the Bible is that it is not detailed
or specific in its instructions to farmers. There is no planlaid
out telling man how many acres of wheat to grow, how manycows to
have, how many sheep, what rotation to follow, what stockingrate
to choose, or even what cultivation tools to use, etc.
God leaves allthese decisions up to the individual land-
owner to decide, based upon his particular circ*mstances.But
once we understand the Land-Sabbath, we have very littlechoice
about the overall agricultural system that we would be wiseto
adopt. (Notice that God preserves our right of FREE-CHOICE.)
But it is in ourown interest to adopt that system which
fits the overall pattern outlined above. Otherwise, everyseventh
year will be one of comparative financial hardship, (not to
mention other more severe penalties). This will beespecially
true in the world tomorrow when whole nations will bekeeping the
Sabbatical Year at the same time (we again urge you toconsult
the earlier issue on this subject).
Observing The Land-Sabbath
In three year'stime 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 wemust
begin now to plan for this observance.
Every one of youwho reads this article is coming toward his
or her Land-Sabbath too, as are many others who perhapswon't get
the chance to study the available information beforehand.
Maybe some willbe like the man who, in all sincerity left
600 acres lie fallow during his Sabbatical Year! He andothers
were under the impression that this was a correct anddiligent
observance. Diligent it was, but correct? No! Neither was itvery
wise. Can you imagine the impression it created on his
neighbours? 600 acres under fallow when the land all up anddown
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 lookon it
as an imposition? No need to! You can confidently lookforward to
it as a GREAT BLESSING, along with all the rest of God'slaws.
That is if you begin tailoring your soil managementcorrectly --
NOW! If we can help, let us know.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
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, hasstimulated
considerable interest over a wide range of importantproblems.
And as this issue begins the third year of publication it is
perhaps timely that we should review our activities.
One may well askhow did it get started and why? Who is
receiving it and what effect is it having? Why is it writtenthe
way it is? Should it not be more specific and detailed?
Surely anyexplanation of the right methods of agriculture
should cover specific questions such as rotations, stocking
rates, sowing times and rates, exact applications offertilizer,
individual breeds of animals, plant varieties etc. in great
detail. Yet this monthly Research News has not done so, evenin
spite of the fact that many environmentalists in God'sChurch
deeply desire just this type of information.
Is it not anideal vehicle for conveying such facts and
information to the educators, students and farmers whor*ceive it
regularly?
Then why are thevarious subjects discussed in a general,
academic and even slightly theoretical way? Why not come togrips
with the specific daily decisions facing food producers?Wouldn't
that be the most helpful approach?
Birth of an Idea
Collection, siftingand 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 studyingthe
relationship of the Bible to Agriculture, the conclusions of
other researchers and our own observations -- we ended upwith a
frustrating problem. Knowledge and understanding hadincreased
enormously within the department and therefore within God'sWork,
but it was NOT leaving the Agriculture Office! Indiscussions
with Mr. Schurter it was agreed that at least the Facultyshould
have easy access to the fruits of our labours.
However, campuslife is too intense and active to allow
these educators time to enter deeply into one another'sfields.
It was then that the Agriculture Department conceived theidea of
a monthly Research News Bulletin.
The idea was putto Mr. McNair and he accepted the proposal
as a means of conveying environmental information topersonnel at
Bricket Wood and those working under him in the field.
To be of anyreal 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 informationin the early issues quickly caught the
attention of many readers. It was not long before thecontents
were being discussed appreciatively and ministers passingthrough
Bricket Wood from other areas were requesting their owncopies.
Soon therecipients were eagerly accepting the regular
monthly issues. We began to receive many favorable comments,
especially from those in direct contact withagriculturalists.
Here was a service they valued because the Research Newsprovided
regular firsthand reports of Ambassador College's approachto 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 executivesand 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 stillno 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 longbefore a number of farmer members also
became aware of the material being released through"Your Living
Environment". Their persistent and increasing volume ofrequests
to be put on a mailing list finally convinced Mr. McNair toagree
to an extended readership.
At the Feast ofTabernacles 1970, in Minehead, Church
members were told that they could receive a regular monthlycopy
providing they were directly involved in agriculture and/or
horticulture. It was also stipulated that they must bewilling to
cover printing and postage costs. The reason being that"Your
Living Environment" is a CAMPUS PUBLICATION only.
But does thefact 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 theBible does not recommend any sowing depth for
grain, what rotation to use, or how much fertilizer to applyin
any given circ*mstance! God limited His advice and guidanceabout
agriculture to a few simple but meaningful laws. Hisinstruction
goes little beyond The Sabbatical Year, The Jubile and
firstlings! And even these are covered in a few verses.
However, justone single law, the Land Sabbath, (as
explained in Vol. I, No.9) outlines the entire framework ofthe
"RIGHT" system of food production. The economicforces that God
built into these short powerful commands to His peopledictate
the food-production system that will be most successful for
ANYONE intent on obeying His laws. But they do NOT dictatethe
specific details such as the variety of cereal grains togrow,
nor when or how. Nowhere does God say -- you SHALL NOT grow
maize, or you SHALL grow Lucerne.
God providesonly 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 dobecome
more specific than the Bible, but God has left the moredetailed
decisions to the individual. This works well, because eachman
knows his circ*mstances best, such as soil type, climate,
finances, markets etc. And in this way God provides Hispeople
with ideal training opportunities for greater stewardship inthe
world tomorrow!
Our recent yearsof 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 theaverage
reader to bog down in a morass that may not even apply inhis
circ*mstances. Besides, SPACE JUST WILL NOT PERMIT SUCHDETAIL!
Why "Perspective" is Emphasized
In His overalllaws, 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 toprobe and explain the various aspects,
implications and ramifications of God's environmental laws--
thus making the all important "skeleton" morevivid to the
reader.
Circ*mstances varyso widely in different areas that
specific recommendations of fertilizers, crops, etc., areunwise.
Only PRINCIPLES are applicable in such a wide range of
situations. While the various practices, methods andmaterials to
be used for the best application of God's system ofa*griculture
will vary from area to area.
The farmerhimself must decide specific details, after
acquiring the overall perspective and an understanding ofthe
principles of God's agricultural laws.
Success in Environmental Management
We have foundthat those most successful in utilizing God's
agricultural laws have at least two things in common:
FIRST, theyremain close to God and thus have access to the
faith, balance and sound-mindedness that can come only fromHis
very mind and character.
SECOND, theyhave 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 atthis
time supply the wealth of detailed information, ideas,
alternatives and possibilities available on"natural" or
"organic" agriculture.
These men havetherefore 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 materialon
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 thathas
been done for you. They constitute just the tip of theiceberg,
which means that you don't have to pick your way through the
under-lying mass of material.)
By combiningthese three sources (the Bible, Ambassador
College and other recommended literature) with an alert,
observant and inquiring mind, we can ALL make thepreparations so
necessary for success in managing our God-given environment.
Farmers areparticularly prone to forget that our need of
education does not stop with the end of school. Continualself
education (in addition to the work of God's Ministry and
Ambassador College) is necessary for spiritual success andso too
it is necessary for agricultural success and prosperity.
Whether you areFaculty, Farmer or Student, we hope that
"Your Living Environment" can continue to provideyou with early
access to the latest information available from thisdepartment.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
February 1972, Vol. III, No.2
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
FABRICATING FOOD -- FROM FERTILIZERS!
For the year1969/70, total world consumption of chemical
fertilizers reached 63 MILLION METRIC TONS. This figure
represents a 200% increase over the average consumption forthe
years 1952/56, which stood at 20.2 million tons.
During the sameperiod the world's total agricultural
production appears to have increased by only about 45%. Nota
very startling increase compared with the extra fertilizerused!
However, it is very obvious that world agriculture is nowfully
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 inthe
next issue we hope to contrast it with a diametricallyopposite
system!
How Gullible Is Man?
It is well knownthat NITROGENOUS types of chemical
fertilizer are the most important part of this giganticsecondary
industry. Why? Because nitrogen, in a form available toplants,
is regarded as the basic building block of protein. It hasalso
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 beone
of the most vital nutrients for man. At the same time it is
difficult to avoid the assumption that it must also be hardto
come by! But read what the U.S. Department of Agriculturehas to
say:
"Theprimary 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 acreof
land area. That is about four-fifths of the atmosphere. This
inexhaustible supply remains constant, because nitrogen isbeing
returned to the atmosphere at about the same rate as it isbeing
removed." (ACEDIA. Yearbook, 1957, P. 86.)
Is it thereforesomewhat surprising to find the world's food
producers annually paying out HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS inhard-earned
cash for a commodity that is available to every one of them
virtually FREE?
It is not onlysurprising, it is almost unbelievable!!!
Surely this situation sounds more unlikely than the story ofthe
gullible country-yokel being sold the tallest building, orthe
largest bridge, on his first visit to the big city!
Nevertheless, modernscience and 20th century industry have
cleverly co-operated in selling millions of tons of combined
nitrogen to the world's farmers. Furthermore, the farmersare
convinced that they are getting value for money. And at thesame
time Science, Industry, Agriculture, Governments andConsumers
are all convinced that man has no alternative (except
starvation)!
'West' Exports Its System
RegardingAgriculture, Economics and Nutrition, the world is
divided into two sections -- the OVER-DEVELOPED and (as somesay)
the NEVER-TO-BE-DEVELOPED! Foodwise, one section is plaguedby
surplus and the other by chronic shortage. Though it islittle
understood, both have one thing in common -- they now sufferfrom
acute nutrition deficiencies!
In some ways itwould seem that the under-developed are
almost better off. Why? Because they at least know that theyare
in REAL TROUBLE! The Western world not only refuses to facethe
fact that it is in grave nutritional danger, but it is now
internationally palming off its system of food productiononto
its 'backward country cousins'.
Even FAO'sDirector General has sounded a word of warning:
"Manypeople speak of the green revolution as if it
were already an accomplished fact. But some caution iscalled for
if we are not to be carried away by mere slogans andcatchwords
general, radical and permanent improvement in theagricultural
situation in the developing countries." (Forward by FAODirector,
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 worldsare
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 wasstripped
out of this catch cry -- GREEN REVOLUTION? We need tounderstand
it for what it is! It is the science of Western Agriculture
passing itself off as the saviour of a starving world!
While one branchof that science has attacked man's food
supply problem by synthesizing plant nutrients, another isnow
manipulating genetic material to its own short-termadvantage. As
one source commented:
"Dr.Norman Ernest Borlaugh, the agriculturalist who
won the Nobel Peace Prize for helping to foster theso-called
'GREEN REVOLUTION' of hybrid crops, may instead have OPENEDA
PANDORA'S BOX OF PESTILENCE, FAMINE AND SOCIAL DISRUPTION.
"Manyagricultural experts now believe that the green
revolution is in fact a myth and that continued extensiveuse of
hybrid seeds will have devastating social and scientific
repercussions." (Marcia Hayes, PARAGOULD DAILY,Paragould,
Arkansas, 11-12-70.)
As an inspiredinternational project, vital to the survival
of mankind, the "Green Revolution" is beingmasterfully piloted
through its early stages. Millions believe in its success,but do
we have to sit and wait goggle-eyed through all theentrancing
propaganda to see if it will really succeed?
No! Anexamination of WESTERN agriculture will reveal the
nutritional future of those backward countries now dependingon
the "Green Revolution". Why? Because that"Revolution" is the
product of Western agriculture!
But Will It Succeed?
Food productionin Asia, Latin America and even Africa is
now more dependent than ever on chemical fertilizers -- thesoil
fertility drugs of Western agriculture! Of these,
synthetically-combined nitrogen is by far the mostsignificant.
Today, individual factories are turning out as much as1,000,000
TONS of this fertilizer in a single year!
But why should humansurvival appear to depend on
international fertilizer factories churning out 60,000,000TONS
of these materials annually? Did our Creator God slip up
somewhere and overlook man's need for food? You will seelater
that He didn't, but meanwhile let us look at some more facts
surrounding this multi-million pound business. As localfigures
are more readily available, we will examine U.K.agriculture.
An Unfair Comparison
No one canchallenge 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 littlespace to
question just what this farming system is being comparedwith.
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 fertilityhas
been largely stripped out of it by other wrong farmingmethods!
In other wordschemical 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 understandthat
both the old and the NEW systems are WRONG.
Modern farmingmethods still produce sick soil, diseased
plants and food for men and animals that is nutritionaljunk,
just as the old system did. There ARE differences however --NOW
we are able to produce more of it, per acre! And we can nowalso
reduce fertile virgin soil to a near sterile and hydroponicstate
in record time!
Bold statements,but what evidence do we have that our
present agriculture IS producing "NUTRITIONALJUNK"?
Costly Veterinary Services
In 1969/70British agriculture spent £127 million on
chemical fertilizers! And at the same time local farmers nowpay
out £20 million every year for veterinary drugs to treattheir
sick animals. They do so accepting that sickness isvirtually
inevitable, but this is a false assumption. £20 millionallows
nothing for the professional services of the veterinarians.These
would probably be at least another £5 million or maybe £10
million.
Many fail tomake the connection between artificial
fertilizers, food quality and disease incidence. Others don't
wish to! We hope that you can -- and do!
Take for examplethe economic survey done by British
television on the lack of profitability in localagriculture. A
hard-working young couple on a small dairy farm in the Westof
England were shown to have a nett income of £2 PER WEEK,after
all their efforts and long hours throughout the year. At thesame
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! Andthat
allows nothing for deaths and lost productivity!
The charges wereno doubt regarded as legitimate from both
the veterinarian's and the farmer's points of view. At thesame
time we might reflect on the fact that that farm was perhapsjust
one of 20 or maybe 50, attended by the veterinarian! One dayman
will offset these costs against our much vaunted progress.
Losses Through Disease
It has beenestimated that Britain's recent Fowl Pest
epidemic, affecting 45 million of our 110 million birds hascost
the nation at least £15 MILLION. Similar figures could be,and
some have in the past been quoted for other continuingdisasters
such as Mastitis, Contagious Abortion, Mildew, Weed-control etc.
Now the Ministry of Agriculture estimates, for example, thatthe
annual cost of pesticides and herbicides to the Britishfarmer is
£17 MILLION.
We should neverbelieve 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? Thenas
they are affected to the tune of these multiple millions,would
we not be affected also?
Man Can't Escape!
In 1959 theBritish Government spent £828 MILLION on the
National Health Service! If we are what we eat and if ourmethod
of food production is the kind we need to build stronghealthy
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 ishappening
to the barometer of Britain's national health? By 1969 (just10
years later) the annual health bill had NOT fallen. It hadthen
reached £1880 MILLION!!
In the sameperiod the cost of PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES,
(presumably human) rose from £88 MILLION to £198 MILLION.
(Source: Annual Abstract of Statistics; quoted from AnnualReport
of 1970-71 of The Association of the British Pharmaceutical
Industry.)
Is THIS thepicture of a nation whose agriculture is truly
progressive? And one that is producing an abundance ofnourishing
and fine health-giving food? At the same time we must notassume
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 forthe
National Health Service.
A Nation On Sick-leave!
What aboutWORKING 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 thatastronomical
total of lost working DAYS (not hours) should be falling, ina
nation whose health is improving. What are the facts? The
position is deteriorating. In 1969/70 our advanced societyin
these islands lost 342 MILLION WORKING DAYS! With a workforce of
some 15,000,000 it means that each of those workers was offsick
for an average of 22 DAYS in that 1 year.
Utopia or Bust!
Similar sets offacts 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 hopethat
science, technology and industry are leading us tonutritional
salvation in an agricultural utopia.
And now the restof the world is following:
"Inthe 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.
"InIndia ... fertilizer consumption increased rapidly,
from about 60,000 tons ... in the early 1950's to over3,000,000
tons by 1959/60 ... consumption nearly doubled in the nextfour
years and doubled again in the next three to reach 1,200,000tons
publication).
But What Is The True Cost?
Astronomicalinvestment and production costs are involved in
ringing the world with fantastic fertilizer factories and
laboratories. And who could compute the resources employedin
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 orboth and
transported to the world's farms. Then there is thatluxuriously
expensive section of industry that exists for the purpose of
applying finished fertilizer pellets, powders, liquids andgases.
It includes tankers, tractors, aircraft, helicopters and
hovercraft.
And finally themost costly step of all -- CONSUMPTION of
the resulting deficient plant foods by animals and man. Ofthese
four costly steps -- PRODUCTION, TRANSPORTATION, APPLICATIONAND
CONSUMPTION, the latter is where the real pay-off is. Andthat is
precisely why our examination of the whole system has been
concentrated on this final and fatal step.
It would befoolish, as we have said, to try to load all the
blame for soil, plant, animal, bird and human disease ontothe
agrochemical industry. But we feel that the statisticsquoted
show that there is an enormous cost factor cancelling out aLARGE
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 canafford!
Therefore there HAS to be an alternative -- and there IS an
alternative!
Chemical farmingand its appendages will wither and die. And
in its place must come a system that meets the requirementsof --
SIMPLICITY, ECONOMY, QUANTITY AND QUALITY! That is what wewill
describe next time.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
March 1972, Vol. III, No. 3
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
NOURISHING FOOD -- FROM SOILNUTRIENTS!
"Oneof the general observations regarding diet and
human health is that man frequently gives evidence of beingleast
well nourished where and when his food supply is most ample,and
as a corollary primitive peoples, as a whole, show thefewest
evidences of constitutional diseases, except when they come in
contact with civilizations ("Our PlunderedPlanet", Fairfield
Osborne, p.79).
This is a mostinteresting observation, especially in view
of our recent look at the effects of the Agro-chemicalIndustry
on Britain. Though levels of food production are high, wesaw
that there are losses running in MULTIPLE MILLIONS ofpounds.
These are in the form of soil, plant, animal and humansickness.
Therefore much of our so-called profitability must go tooff-set
these losses. This makes THAT proportion purely illusory!
Then we saw thatthe "Green Revolution" is nothing more and
nothing less than the problem-ridden Western system of
agriculture exported to the under-developed areas. Whichsimply
means that these nations can look forward to the same kindof
problems now besetting Britain and other Western countries.
That which welooked at last-time is a MAN-DEVISED system.
In this issue we are going to have a close look at certainvital
aspects of the one our Creator God devised. It has existedfor
almost 6,000 years, though man has seldom attempted todevelop
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'sefforts
apart from God seem incredibly stupid.
Our God-given Soil Environment
Before focusingon 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 soilmass:
50% Minerals
9% Dead OrganicMatter
40% Air &Water
1% Macro µ organisms
(NOTE: To view a chart titled "Total Soil Mass",see the file
720312.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)
Micro-organiclife is such a small part of even a healthy
soil that it does not show on the above diagram. Addedtogether,
micro and macro-organisms form a narrow 1% column on theright of
the diagram above (just the width of a pen stroke, that'sall)!
Ultimately, thesupply 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-designedeco-system.
Man, along with every other link down the food chain, is
affected. All are consumers and all are affected.
This ResearchNews is called "Your Living Environment" and
there is no more vital part of it than that with which weare
dealing right now. The reader might reflect that mostprevious
issues have focused the need to halt deterioration in someform
of LIFE. But all these other forms of life, including man
himself, are precariously balanced on that which is in thesoil.
That's just the way God has designed the system and we willdo
well to recognize it!
Seeing The Unseen
If so muchhinges on this invisible 1% of the total soil
mass, how could man hope to succeed in environmentalmanagement
and food production? After all, it has been only in veryrecent
times that man has actually SEEN micro-organic life. Must wethen
SEE bacteria in order to appreciate their role in soilfertility?
In other words, was effective agriculture impossible beforethe
advent of the microscope and soil microbiology?
Notice what Godsays 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 "CLEARLYSEEN" -- IF MAN CHOOSES
TO SEE! It is most plainly revealed in plant nutrition, (orthe
lack of it). But, as the first chapter of Romans points out--
there are many things that man has usually chosen NOT tosee.
We don't knowthe range of Adam's knowledge. We don't need
to. We don't know if any other civilization had themicroscope.
They did not need it. Ancient Rome certainly did not havethis
tool, but it is interesting that some at that timerecognized 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 byothers;
lentils, the small chicken pea and peas"("Columella on
Agriculture", Book II. xii.9 - xiii.3).
Nitrogen For Nothing
Without available nitrogen, it isimpossible for plants to
grow and reproduce. An abundance of nitrogen in the soilmeans an
abundance of plant growth. This fact has been responsiblefor the
development of gigantic nitrogen fertilizer factories and vast
systems for distribution and application of chemicalnitrogen to
the world's soils.
But God hasprovided mankind with a far more efficient and
inexpensive system of manufacture, distribution andapplication
of nitrogen to plants. This takes the form of soil bacteria,most
notably the rhizobium species.
Rhizobia occurin the soil as small round dots and rods and
are one of the smallest organisms. They penetrate the roothairs
of leguminous plants (such as common pea, bean, cleavers, etc).
This causes the formation of nodules (tiny lumps visible tothe
naked eye) on these roots. The bacteria multiply rapidly toas
many as 100 million in a single nodule. By living off foodfrom
the plant, the bacteria in these nodules are able to convert
gaseous nitrogen (there are 34,500 tons of this elementabove
every acre of soil) to a form the plant can use andassimilate.
Since the nodulebacteria can fix far more nitrogen than the
legume plant requires, the excess is released to stimulatethe
growth of non-legume plants growing nearby. Alternatively itis
held in the soil for subsequent crops.
A number ofmicro-organisms are capable of releasing
"available" nitrogen to plants. But rhizobiumbacteria are the
most important. They operate a little differently to theother
microbes, by fixing nitrogen from the atmosphere. It can bedone
only when these minute organisms, (10,000,000 ~=~ 1 cc) arein
direct symbiotic association with leguminous plants.
This role ofnitrogen fixation enforces a legume-based
agriculture on a God oriented farming community. This is in
direct contrast with (previously discussed) grainmonoculture! In
the past we have also seen how God's law of the Land Sabbath
guides the obedient men in the same direction. Notice howall
these points dove-tail together!
Authoritiesdiffer on the total nitrogen that each legume
can fix from the atmosphere, but the following table is afairly
representative guide:
lbs of Nitrogen per acre
Legume fixed in the soil
LUCERNE 450
SWEETCLOVER 270
CLOVER 260
SOYBEANS 160
FIELD BEANS 70
("Soil Conditions and Plant Growth" E.W. Russell,p.350)
"... cloveris fixing 480 lbs of nitrogen per acre per year
which is harvested in the grass and clover leaf and if, asT.W.
Walker (J. Sci. Agric. 1956, pp. 7, 66) suggests, as much as50
percent of what appears in the tops is left behind in thesoil,
grass and clover must be fixing about 700 lbs of nitrogenper
acre annually" (Ibid. p. 351).
The Rhizobium Riddle
The rhizobiumstory does not stop there. Consider that these
tiny nitrogen factories have no problems with distributionand
application. They do their manufacturing right on the veryroot
itself -- from existing raw materials. And what is more,they
accomplish it at ordinary temperatures and air pressures and
WITHOUT man's help!
The simplicityand beauty of the system is a true testimony
of the marvellous mind of God. But the story does not stopthere
either. You might expect that man would copy such anefficient
method, in the development and construction of his chemical
fertilizer factories, but he CAN'T! Note the comment of onewell
known scientist:
"Atechnical 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 atpresent
carried out at HIGH temperatures and HIGH pressure, yet
insignificant-seeming bacteria can accomplish nitrogenfixation
on a cold English day from unpressurized English air"("The
Environment Game", Nigel Calder, 1967, p. 57).
Another comes tothe conclusion that: "In spite of all
technical advances, it remains true that bacterial fixationof
nitrogen by legume-nodule bacteria in partnership withleguminous
herbaceous plants is the CHIEF SOURCE OF PROTEIN FROM LANDFOR
MAN AND ANIMALS" ("Microbes & Man", HughNicol, 1955, p .67).
A healthy soilcontains many types of organisms. These
include -- other bacteria types, actinomycetes, fungi, algaeand
protozoa. The statement that a gram of soil contains athousand
million bacteria, a kilometre of fungal huffy, plus hundredsof
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 availablefor
colonization.
All have vitallyimportant roles to play, mostly in the
realm of nutrient re-cycling, by organic decomposition. Butthere
are other types of bacteria which also release nitrogen in
quantities significant to plant production. So, that fixedby
rhizobium does not represent the grand total naturallyavailable
for plants.
The Eco-system
There are manyparts 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 ismore
important than another. But life in the soil, especially
micro-organic life, is the most important, in the sense thatit
is unseen. It is therefore most likely to be forgotten! Havemost
of us not overlooked it in the past? Not only ismicro-organic
life unseen, but it also forms such an amazingly SMALL partof
the total soil mass.
God does saythat He has "chosen the foolish things of the
world to confound the wise; and ... the weak things of theworld
to confound the things which are mighty:
"And basethings 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 noflesh should glory in His presences" (I Cor.
1:27-29).
Elsewhere Hecaused King David to write: "Open thou mine
eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law"(Psa.
119:18).
Those wondrousthings must certainly include God's
unbelievably fantastic ecological system. This He createdfor the
specific purpose of supporting human life. Yet puny man hasthe
effrontery, or is so blind (or both) that he worships hisown
crude system of food production and in most cases remainsblind
to God's creation.
Surprise! Surprise!
This should comeas 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 abit!
Did God not inspire His prophet Jeremiah to write:
"O Lord, Iknow 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 foodproduction? NO! The Bible doesn't say that!
Therefore apartfrom God, man looks somewhat hypnotically at
the agro-chemical industry and it seems so big. It appearsso
scientific and complex and yet it operates so smoothly andit
produces so much food. Even The Agricultural Show and TheField
Experiment Station make it look so good! One is so glossyand the
other so clinically precise, yet all these efforts of manapart
from God can only be described as:
"Everlearning, and never coming to the KNOWLEDGE OF THE
TRUTH" (II Tim. 3:7).
Truth!
That isprecisely 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".
Artificialfertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, weedicides,
the agricultural drug industry (and at times evenirrigation) are
merely weapons in the arsenal of man for the fight hecontinually
wages against "Nature". Used in a right way,irrigation is NOT
wrong and limited use of certain nutrients on plants willnot
collapse our eco-system. But the point is -- where does mandraw
the line, where does he stop? Man rapidly comes to the point
where he looks to fertilizer, water and drugs to producefood,
instead of looking to God!
What is thetruth? God tells us that His glory is the
fulness of the whole earth, (Isa. 6:3) and that includes theLIFE
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 thereis much more to plant nutrition via soil
fertility than atmospheric nitrogen fixation. Phosphate,potash,
calcium, sodium etc. plus trace elements are all laid on inGod's
system. Many will argue to the contrary, but there is anacid
test -- are high protein bread-making wheats, top qualityseeds,
or the world's best racehorses raised on impoverished soils?A
very embarrassing question!!
Don't let anyoneblame the "climate", or tell you that
productivity is necessarily lower when food quality is high.
Commercial levels of chemical fertilizer do not raisequantity on
really fertile soils! Experts tell us that the world willstarve
if we stop relying on chemical fertilizers. But that dependson
HOW we stop. And STOP we MUST! It is a withdrawal processwhich
must be entered into CAUTIOUSLY and WISELY to avoidcalamity. The
sooner we realize that no amount of chemical fertilizer willever
produce soil fertility, the sooner we will get started.
Ambassador College HAS started and it feels GOOD!
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
April 1972, Vol. III, No. 4
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
MICROBES, SOIL & MAN
"Forthe 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 themost
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 sadthing that this uniqueness of the soil
environment continues to escape all but a fewmicrobiologists?
Especially as most of them miss the point as to who createdit
anyway!
Surely WE aboveall others, should increase in our knowledge
and understanding of our magnificently designed environment.We
know it is MAGNIFICENT in concept and we know who CREATEDit, but
our specific knowledge tends to be very limited.
All lifenourished directly from the soil, must depend upon
a highly complex system for nutrients. But man either takesthis
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 howperfectly and miraculously these two work
to each other's mutual advantage, in the fixation ofatmospheric
nitrogen for plant protein. This time we will have a muchwider
look at the whole scheme of life in the soil.
With what otherliving forms are rhizobium bacteria
associated? Are they classified as ANIMAL or PLANT? Whatphysical
characteristics of soil affect the life within it? And doesthat
life affect the soil?
These are justsome of the questions we will answer in this
issue. You will see that there is much more to biologicalplant
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 inalmost
innumerable combinations. These five parts will each be in a
constant state of change, thereby multiplying thepossibilities
for environmental variation, beyond human comprehension!
Those physicaland chemical properties are important to
microbial action, but conversely microbial actions exercisegreat
changes in the soil's physical and chemical properties. Inother
words, these effects work in both directions at once! It isonly
as we begin to appreciate these facts that we can understandthe
dynamism that exists in a fertile soil.
THE INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS
Those parts ofthe total soil mass which have not lived, are
termed the INORGANIC portion. They are THREE in number --
MINERALS, WATER and AIR.
The mineralportion may vary infinitely in chemical
composition and at the same time the physical size of thosetiny
rock particles may vary. Furthermore the actual ratio ofthese
different sizes may also vary extensively. Each of thesefactors
has an important bearing on the composition of nutrientsreleased
and their RATE of availability.
Particle sizerelates 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 soillooks like a
rock quarry under low power with a microscope!)
The totalsurface area of the mineral particles in a gram of
SILT has been estimated at 450 SQ. CM. But a sample ofmedium
sand comes out at only 45 sq. cm. -- just one tenth thesurface
area! CLAY on the other hand is assigned a figure of 11,300SQ.
CM. PER GRAM! When it is realized that biological andchemical
breakdown can proceed only on the total surface area it iseasier
to explain why sandy soils are potentially the leastproductive.
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 MOISTUREnot
only increases biological action, it also forces AIR fromthe
soil into the atmosphere and at the same time reduces soil
temperature.
If however, soilMOISTURE continues to rise, AIR will
decrease to the point where lack of oxygen severely affectsthe
rate and type of microbial decomposition. Soil TEMPERATUREwill
usually fall as rising MOISTURE levels continue to excludemost
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 thegiving off
of offensive gases.
There is nosingle 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 doesappear
to be the soil temperature range within which maximum ratesof
organic decomposition are obtained.
It is commonlyaccepted, for example, that:
"Achange in temperature will alter the species
composition of the active flora [WITHIN THE SOIL] and at thesame
time have a direct influence upon each organism within the
population. Microbial metabolism and hence carbonmineralization
is slower at low than elevated temperatures and warming is
associated with greater C02 release. Appreciable organicmatter
breakdown occurs at 5 degrees C and probably at coolervalues,
but plant tissue rotting is increased with progressivelywarmer
conditions ... Above about 40 degrees C the rapidity of
decomposition declines" ("Soil Microbiology",M. Alexander, pp.
148,149).
THE HUMUS FRACTION
The organiccontent of any soil may be adequately described
as a combination of the LIVING and THE DEAD. That whichlives, or
has lived, may easily range from 6% to 12% of the total soil
mass. The lower figure seems to be eminently suitable formost
agricultural purposes. 9% dead organic matter wouldtherefore be
a fair average to maintain and this may consist of anyadmixture
of dead plants, animals and insects. It may include anythingfrom
a dead cow, above ground, to dead bacteria down below and a
variety of worms and insects at or near the surface.
Complexity ofthe 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 usis 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 mindwhen He
said to Job: "HAVE YOU PERCEIVED THE BREADTH OF THEEARTH?
DECLARE IF YOU KNOW IT ALL" (Job 38:8).
THE LIVING PORTION
We can dividethe living portion of the soil into TWO parts
-- MACRO and MICRO-organisms; those which we can see withthe
naked eye and those which we cannot. Taken together, they
represent about 1% of the total mass in a fertile soil (seelast
issue for diagram).
In spite of thistiny percentage, the total weight of
MACRO-organisms can easily run as high as 4,000 lbs. peracre, in
a well managed pasture.
These creaturesplay an important role in organic
decomposition by chewing plant and animal residues (and each
other) into fine particles. As with earthworms, the endproduct
emerges as a mixture of their digestive juices and soil.
We now come tothe MICRO-ORGANIC portion of life in the
soil. Though it represents considerably less than 1% of thesoil
mass, it is upon this tiny fraction that the continuedre-cycling
of nutrients mainly depends! It appears that God hasbalanced the
entire physical terrestrial world on this pin-point ofnaturally
invisible life!! It is as though this living microscopicfraction
is at the apex of a giant inverted pyramid, which spreadsupward
and outward from its base, to encompass man's entireecological
system.
Micro-organicsoil life is so vital to man and yet he is
often unaware of what is going on 24 hours a day belowground.
Take this example:
"Leafand branch fall in a forest contributes five tons
per acre in a cool temperate forest and up to thirty tonsper
acre a year in a tropical rain-forest. Yet by the followingyear
the surface litter left differs little in amount from that
present before the annual fall". ("Micro-organismsin the Soil",
Alan Burges, p.159).
Examples likethis 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 ofHis
complex creation.
SOIL MICROBES
MAN has dividedsoil microbes into FIVE main types:
BACTERIA, ACTINOMYCETES, FUNGI, ALGAE and PROTOZOA! Hisefforts
beyond this point range from most impressive to utterconfusion.
This is the self-confessed opinion of microbiologiststhemselves.
The literature, though very erudite on some points isliberally
sprinkled with such phrases as:
"Bergey's classification contains six species",
"Dorosinskii distinguished eleven groups of thegenus", "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 beingdeveloped",
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
"TheBacteria form a very heterogeneous group of
organisms which are difficult to classify. [You can believeit,
after reading the above paragraph.] Their small size coupledwith
lack of morphological characteristics, usually makes it
impossible to identify the organisms in direct observationof the
soil" ("Micro-organisms in the Soil", Burgesp.30).
BACTERIA, alongwith ACTINOMYCETES, FUNGI and ALGAE, are
classified as part of the "PLANT KINGDOM," but asAlexander
states:
"...keep in mind the fact that the microscopic
inhabitants do not exist in an isolated state, but rather asjust
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 byviewing
the soil system as a dynamic whole, as a natural environmentin
which micro-organisms play an essential and often poorly
understood role" ("Soil Microbiology", M.Alexander, p. 17).
ACTINOMYCETES
This organism issaid to be intermediate in appearance and
activity between BACTERIA and FUNGI. One reason for itscoming
into prominence within recent years has been man's interestin
the chemotherapeutic use of the antibiotics produced by
ACTINOMYCETES.
In abundancethey are second only to BACTERIA and flourish
in composts and various soil levels. Alkaline pH appears tobe
especially favorable to the production of large populationsof
ACTINOMYCETES.
Populations ofthis 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 allunfavorable:
Russian sources indicate that their scientists have foundmany
species of ACTINOMYCETES that evince the capacity to fixsome
nitrogen!
FUNGI
Similarnitrogen-fixing functions have also been attributed
to numerous species of fungi. Characteristically FUNGIpossess a
filamentous micelium, or white thread-like network ofindividual
strands. They contain no chlorophyll, and must thereforeobtain
carbon for cell synthesis from other preformed organicmolecules.
One of the mostspectacular 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 ofmany
forms of predacious activity of FUNGI.
Some FUNGI forma 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 insoils
low in available minerals.
Sir AlbertHoward (nighted for his work in soil research)
described this mycorrhizal association as "THE LIVINGFUNGUS
BRIDGE WHICH CONNECTS SOIL AND SAP ..." (AnAgricultural
Testament, Howard, p. 37).
ALGAE
This form ofmicroscopic life is mostly photosynthetic and
therefore needs sunlight. But Burges states that there is no
universally-accepted classification for them. They appear tobe
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 inthe
7.6 TO 8.2 PH RANGE.
ALGAE are few innumber compared to BACTERIA and FUNGI, but
there is one form that is especially important to world
agriculture. It is called "BLUE GREEN" ALGAE andis responsible
for fixing most of the nitrogen utilized in rice production
worldwide!
Mishustin quotessources who claim that 36 LBS. of FIXED
NITROGEN PER ACRE is not uncommon and estimates range ashigh as
50 LBS. PER ACRE PER YEAR! This amount would be ample toaccount
for ALL the nitrogen used in the production of rice in most
areas!
PROTOZOA
Man hasclassified 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 onbacteria.
"Ithas been estimated that one species ... requires
approximately 40,000 bacteria per cell division.Consequently,
bacteria must reproduce at a rapid rate merely to keep pacewith
their predators" ("Soil Microbiology",Alexander, p.105).
Not ALL BACTERIAare prey to Protozoa, but the reason is
unknown. (It could prove to be interesting and quiteimportant!)
Populations of 100,000 TO 300,000 CELLS PER GRAM OF SOIL arenot
uncommon. The extra size of these cells offsets theirnumerical
insignificance and so they often equal the total mass ofsoil
bacteria.
Alexander quotessix readings that show on average, that the
number of PROTOZOA in the soil increased by 500%, followingthe
addition of FARMYARD MANURE! And this is not the full storyof
these results. In unfavorable soil conditions PROTOZOAchange
into an inactive cystic form, which enables them to survivefor
years. And in the UNMANURED soil, only 53% of the LESSERnumber
of PROTOZOA were ACTIVE. On the MANURED section however,numbers
not only increased by 500%, but those in the ACTIVE grouprose to
82% of the population!
CARBON/NITROGEN RATIO
It is not onlythe addition of organic residues that
increases microbial population and the turnaround ofnutrients,
but the COMPOSITION of those residues. A ratio high incarbon and
low in nitrogen will cause microbes to draw on soil nitrogen.The
result of this will be temporary nitrogen starvation ofplants.
Soil microbesuse carbon as a source of energy and NITROGEN
for tissue building. Ideally these two elements need to bein a
ratio of around 10 TO 1. Herein lies one of the greatadvantages
of humus over other organic residues. It averages 50% C. and5%
N. or a ratio of 10 to 1.
Organicdecomposition dissipates carbon at a much faster
rate than nitrogen and this results in a narrowing of theratio
as decomposition proceeds. With humus applications, the C/Nratio
will be SPOT-ON, but the following table will show the needfor
care in applying other residues:
C/N Ratio
Material (approx.)
Saw-dust 400-1
Cornstalks 60-1
Straw 80-1
SugarcaneTrash 50-1
RottedManure 20-1
Lucerne 12-1
Humus 10-1
Bacteria & Fungi 7-1
("OrganicGardening & Farming", J. I. Rodale, March, 1967,
pp.128-131).
MICROBES IN MAN'S FUTURE!
Perhaps in thefuture 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 willbetter
appreciate just what is involved in making a land flow"WITH MILK
AND HONEY".
Now we may stopand reflect a little on some of the myriad
of activities that God has designed into our soil system inorder
to make it "FLOW WITH MILK AND HONEY".
We may reflectmore effectively and with awe, on what is
involved when God states that: "THE DESERT SHALLREJOICE, AND
BLOSSOM AS THE ROSE. IT SHALL BLOSSOM ABUNDANTLY, ANDREJOICE
EVEN WITH JOY AND SINGING" (Isa. 35: 1,2). Along withrain in due
season, the entire complex structure of MICRO- andMACRO-ORGANIC
life must first spring back into action!
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
May 1972, Vol. III, No. 5
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
A NEWPERSPECTIVE ON SHORTHORNS!
Can you imaginewhat it would be like if you received the
following invitation: "Dear Mr..., On behalf of theChairman and
Members of The ... Shorthorn Breeders' Society, I, as Hon.
Secretary, have been asked to invite you to address ourAnnual
General Meeting as guest speaker. The meeting will be held,etc.,
etc., ... "?
Now that youhave 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 youknow about cattle, or even livestock in
general, the more you will realise that you have been facedwith
quite a question! Of course you could always decline the
invitation gracefully and that would be the end of thematter.
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 wewant to show in this issue of "Your Living
Environment". In doing so, we will raise such questionsas: 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 otherpoints
that one would DEARLY wish to bring before such a gathering.
KNOWING THE AUDIENCE
It was pointedout that 'The Annual General Meeting' must
surely be a time to take stock of the past, present andfuture
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 dairystrain
of Shorthorn cattle. DAIRY-FARMERS!! Before mentallydismissing
these people as a permanently-rubber-booted peasantry, itmight
be worth mentioning that the apologies for a non-attendanceat
this meeting included: a Colonel, a Brigadier, a General anda
Knight. (That kind of information makes one realize howlimited
our perspective can be of various occupations, doesn't it?)It
was certainly a surprise to be addressing this kind ofperson in
a group of Dairymen.
Nevertheless,regardless of background, nearly all breeders
of pedigree livestock tend to be quite narrow and prejudicedin
their attitude towards other breeds. They can be more rigidin
their breed "loyalties" than ever car enthusiastsare toward one
make of automobile! So now let us begin by drawing them outof
this narrow world, which so completely involves them withCATTLE,
SHORTHORN cattle, in fact DAIRY Shorthorn cattle and perhapsjust
those within their own local area and a "DYING"BREED at that!
PERSPECTIVE IS ESSENTIAL
Our students ofa*gronomy at Ambassador College are told when
they enter that class that its purpose is -- "TO HELPTHEM THINK
CLEARLY, RELATIVE TO THEIR ENVIRONMENT". This islargely a matter
of getting things in perspective.
Cattlemen alsoneed to make sure that they too maintain a
right perspective, regarding their own activities, relativeto
world agriculture. For example -- whether one raises DAIRYor
BEEF Shorthorns, is LESS important than the breed ofShorthorns
as a whole. The BREED itself must be seen (even by those
responsible for it) as LESS important than the cattleindustry.
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 sametime, 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 willno
longer PERMIT their fellows to indulge in the"WASTFUL"
production of animal protein! (These facts have beenmentioned to
you readers in the past, but they were probably quite new toour
"SHORTHORN" audience.)
THE VEGETARIAN CHALLENGE
In an over-populatedworld, it is easy to make vegetarianism
appear to be a PRACTICAL NECESSITY, instead of a peculiarfalse
doctrine. That's what is being done! In this area,Occidental
Science and Oriental Mysticism suddenly find themselves oncommon
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 suchcirc*mstances!!
Any who wouldtreat 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 willsoon be
"breathing down the back of our necks". We referto 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 theprotein
market of the world (See Vol.I, No.3)!
GOD -- THE EXPERT NUTRITIONIST
These soberingthoughts 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 specificallycommanding meateating, God devotes
TWO chapters of the Bible to showing which meats are fit forHis
people to eat (Lev. 11 and Deut. 14). Other referencesapproving
human consumption of animal protein include: Gen.18:1-8, IChr.
16:3, Mat. 14:17-21 and John 21:12-13.
LIVESTOCK'S GREAT FUTURE
The fact thathuman 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 havefailed
to grasp this important principle, should we be surprisedthat
the masses they aim to feed have missed it too? The truth isthat
the "GREEN REVOLUTIONARIES" have based their foodproduction
programme NOT on ANIMAL protein, but on GRAIN!
Most of man'ssoil management is bad, but even under
reasonable management, this kind of agriculture is one thathits
soil fertility hardest, (see Vol. I, No. 10). (And is it not
typical of man's relationship with God, that while one partof
the population refuses to eat meat at all, the other eats
virtually any flesh that comes within reach?)
If, on the otherhand, the GREEN REVOLUTION was properly
oriented and based on soil fertility, it could presentShorthorn
and ALL breeders of "CLEAN" animals with theirgreatest chance
ever for expanded production. Can you imagine the animal
population it would take to put the nutrition of the rest ofthe
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 thestakes
that the "SYNTHETIC" boys are shooting for?)
VERSATILITY OF SHORTHORNS
There are fewthings that will bring a quicker and more
positive response from a stock-breeder than telling him hehas a
most versatile breed. This can truthfully be said ofShorthorns.
In fact there appears to be no evidence to show that therehas
ever been a more versatile breed of cattle. They have shown
themselves to thrive from the north of Scotland to Argentinaand
from Texas to Central Australia. Whilst other breeds maymake
similar claims, only Herefords have ever approached the
international popularity of the Shorthorn breed! (It isbecause
of this international popularity and the fact thatAmbassador
College has Shorthorns, that we are focusing on them. We areNOT
"plugging" Shorthorns as the only worthwhile breedof cattle!)
In Australia'sNorthern Territory for example, it has not
been unknown to have as many as 29,000 breeding cows (andtheir
"FOLLOWERS") on a single cattle station -- and ALLSHORTHORNS!!
On average, some 70,000 head of cattle per year are railedout of
Alice Springs -- mostly SHORTHORNS. To even survive in suchareas
weeds out all but the hardiest of animals. It is notuncommon for
those that do survive to have to walk from 200 to 500 milesto
the rail head before even beginning their 1,000 mile journeyto
The South! One can scarcely imagine conditions more ruggedthan
these, but so far the Shorthorn has stood against allcomers.
Almost equally important is the fact that they have alsoheld
their own in the tropical north of that same country. Underall
of these semi-wild conditions, perhaps the most outstanding
quality of the Shorthorn has been the ease with which it canbe
handled compared with some of the other breeds of cattle.
A HISTORY OF POPULARITY
During the past120 years the Shorthorn and the Hereford,
separately and yet together, established the world's firstBEEF
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 Commonwealthand
The United States of America. The popularity of thesecattle,
especially the Shorthorns, extended even to countries like
Argentina and Uruguay (because their agriculture becamestrongly
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
SouthAfrica 12,000,000
UnitedKingdom 12,000,000
UnitedStates 108,500,000
Uruguay 8,700,000
229,000,000
("WorldCattle", J.E. Rouse, Vol.II, ppl 1033, 1034.)
When it isremembered that most of these countries contained
no quantity of domestic cattle prior to colonoisation, wecan
better appreciate the significance of British settlerstaking
their own animals with them. Is it not also interesting thatthe
development of the major breeds of BRITISH cattle coincided
almost exactly with the availability of colonies, from whichthe
Empire and The United States were built? Robert Wallace,writing
in 1907, states:
"TheShorthorn 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 inFrance,
it is often called the 'Durham' breed" ("Farm LiveStock of Great
Britain", Robert Wallace, p. 56, 1907).
BEEF AND MILK
Wallace, writingon the origin of the breed, indicates that:
"Shorthorns are descended from the old North-East ofEngland
breed, variously designed the 'Durham', 'Teeswater','Yorkshire',
or 'Holder Ness'". He continues with a footnote (whichmust rank
as one of the earliest references to Shorthorns):
"In 1744Wm. Ellis wrote: -- 'I think of all the cows
in England none comes up to the Holderness breed for theirwide
bags, short horns, and large bodies, which render them ...the
most profitable beast for the dairyman, grazier and butcher'"
(Ibid, p. 57).
The followingquote 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 DUALCAPACITY
TO PRODUCE BOTH MEAT AND MILK] ... it is not surprising thatthey
have become objects of public curiosity; that they haverealized
for their breeders enormous sums of money; and that,throughout
our own island, and in every foreign country whereagriculture is
attended to, they are in increasing request."("Cattle; Their
Breeds, Management, and Diseases", W. Youatt, p. 226,1834.)
The popularityof 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 aboveauthor
and veterinarian, writing only 34 years later, makes the
following reference to London's milk supply:
"Atleast 12,000 cows are kept in the different dairies
in the metropolis and its immediate neighborhood. These areall
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 milkis
dried. This will bring 5,000 to 6,000 cows annually into the
market" (Ibid, p. 255).
The dominance ofthis 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 WorldWar,
nearly all the Shorthorns were stampeded right out ofEngland's
dairies by the invading Continental Fresians.
The reason forthis 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.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
HOW"DIVERSE" ARE YOUR "KINE"?
In our lastissue we were reporting what was said and some
things one might like to say, to 'The Shorthorn Society'. Itwas
pointed out that we are always in danger of losingperspective.
The role of the cattle industry is to produce ANIMAL PROTEINfor
human nutrition, NOT special CATTLE BREEDS for thegratification
of stock men! We looked at the rise to internationalpopularity
of the versatile Shorthorn. Then came sudden collapse, withthe
breed being swept from the dairy industry almost over-night!
We now want tocontinue our survey of this particular breed
of cattle, showing just what a dramatic reversal they have
suffered, the steps with which they and other threatenedbreeds
are countering and contrast these steps with the story of
Shorthorns at Ambassador College, U.K.
Unless you areengaged in the cattle industry you may not
realise that the English-speaking world is now witnessingits
most dramatic period in cattle history, but many even IN the
industry have not as yet comprehended the historic nature ofthe
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 SecondWorld War, Friesians have driven Dairy
Shorthorns from the cow-bail and their cross-bred calveshave
dominated the beef industry of Britain. The Ministry of
Agriculture has supplied figures which depict this greatdairy
transformation through the invasion of Continental Friesianbulls
and show just when the Shorthorn breed really 'DIED':
TOTAL BULL REGISTRATIONS
Year Friesians Shorthorns
1945/46 8,20014,600
1950/51 6,4008,000
1956/57 7,1004,000
(Ministry CensusFigures)
A decrease inbull 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 realsignificance of
the figures lies in the fact that SHORTHORN registrations
decreased by 70% but the FRIESIANS fell by only 13 1/2%.
In our lastissue 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 andonly
2.5% DAIRY SHORTHORN! Quite a reversal!!
TROUBLE FOR BEEF SHORTHORNS TOO!
For as far backas the 1830's authorities have remarked on
the lack of MILKING ability in the HEREFORD breed, butopinion
has been quite the contrary regarding SHORTHORNS in Britain.
However, on being exported to other areas, breeders soonbegan
specializing in BEEF production. Different climaticconditions,
larger-scale operations and distances from dairy producemarkets
were mainly responsible for this.
At the sametime, one should not overlook FASHION! There has
always been more evidence of MASS-MINDEDNESS in the rise andfall
of animal breeds than the non-farmer would ever believe.
Friesians as we have seen, accounted for the demise of theDairy
Shorthorn, but the fall from popularity of the BEEFShorthorn
resulted largely from cattlemen turning their attentiontoward
the ANGUS BREED and the ANGUS-TYPE carcase. (Though it wasstated
earlier that Friesian-cross calves dominated the beefindustry,
this was confined to Britain. And even here the owners of
Friesians willingly used beef bulls of the ANGUS-TYPE toproduce
their cross-breds.)
This Angussyndrome 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 carcaseconformation of
the Angus. This miniaturization gave rise to types very
unsuitable for the dry and hotter zones. And even in themost
favorable areas the counter-attack achieved little success
against the compact little Angus.
It may be arguedthat 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 twoevents
are NOT totally unrelated through CAUSE and EFFECT. The newSanta
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 thefashion-change towards Angus-type beef cattle and
Friesian dairy domination was accomplished, another changesoon
loomed up. Cattle breeders, especially from Britain,suddenly
started out-bidding each other for the limited surpluscattle of
Western Europe. WHY? First, to get more SIZE BACK intoBritish
BEEF breeds! Secondly to REGAIN MILKING ABILITY in beefcattle
and put FLESH back on the DAIRY types! This is a totalREVERSAL
of all that the producers of British stud cattle haverecently
striven for! A humiliating admission of gross error! Readthe
story yourself:
"Withalmost 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. Noforeign
breeds were involved on the first occasion however, unlessthe
English Teeswater could be classed as such" ("TheScottish
Farmer", March 25, 1972). Britain's national ruralpress reports:
"Therelease from Scottish quarantine of CHAROLAIS
heifers and bulls valued at £200,000. Also authorized withinthe
next few months are first-ever importations of two otherFrench
breeds -- 165 MAINE-ANJOU costing £1,000 a head, and anequal
number of highly-priced BLONDE d'AQUITAINE cattle"("Farmers'
Weekly", U.K. March 10, 1972).
Yet anotherheading reads:
"THEBREED 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 sem*n andwith
intense interest in the society's grading up register, makesthe
breed one of the most sought-after in the country ...
Inseminations have topped the 25,000 mark over 12months" ("The
Scottish Farmer", March 11, 1972).
BREEDS IN THE MELTING POT
Just what do allthese importations mean? You might naively
imagine that the British cattle industry is simplydiversifying
into a few extra breeds. We want you to see for yourselfwhere
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 towhat will soon be COMMONLY seen at Britain's
long-standing and world famous livestock exhibitions. Eventhe
thought of parading such genetic chaos and confusion makessome
sick in the stomach and it would not have been toleratedearlier!
Mr. R. L. Fraser, one of this nation's best knownpersonalities
of the cattle industry has been so moved by the latesttrends
that he has written to "Farmers' Weekly" in thefollowing strong
terms:
"Sir,it seems to me that Britain is soon to become
what might be termed a cattle breeders' curiosity .... Wetalk
nowadays of a permissive society, and obviously the Minister
feels that this should be carried into cattle breeding. Withthe
virtually wholesale use of cross-bred bulls on the cards,the
mind boggles at the infinite variety of favorite crosseswhich
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 cattlebreeders, but
at the same time the surprising thing is that breeders ofBritish
STUD stock are far from united in their approach to thegreat
bovine upheaval.
We might expectmoney-conscious commercial cattlemen to
plunge the stud-stock industry into chaos and confusion, butNOT
those who have MOULDED and MAINTAINED it! However, thefollowing
quotes show that some BREED SOCIETIES are officiallyencouraging
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 thespring" ("Sunday
Telegraph", December 12, 1972).
They did too! Weattended this internationally famous
exhibition and there it was, the prime exhibit of aworld-famous
pedigree Society MONGREL (at least that's what"cross-breds" used
to be called)! Make no mistake, this half bredCharolais/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 AngusSociety secretary stated: "The new type is
still in the early stages of development." There isonly ONE
stage in producing half-breds, so more crossing andback-crossing
must be contemplated.
This is also theplan of the Shorthorn Society -- multiple
crossing of their breed with European stock. Not with justONE
breed, but at least TWO or THREE! Breed societies andfarmers are
not the only ones involved. Reporting a recent £220,000cattle
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 'CattleBreed
Improvement Services' have each bought one bull". Thereport goes
on to describe these cattle as -- "dual purpose beastswhich
carry the blood of the old Durham Shorthorns"("Farmers' Weekly",
U.K. March 31, 1972).
We might expectcattle traffic between here and Europe to at
least be a two-way affair and a proven success, but thisrecent
report shows that NEITHER is the case:
"U.K. EXPORTERSSEETHE OVER BREED CURBS ... Regulations
which restrict the flow of UK breeding cattle to Frenchfarms
angered breeders [British, NOT French]. One said: 'It was an
infuriating situation ... when Britain had ... opened thedoor
for an inflow of hundreds of European breeding stock"("Farmers'
Weekly", U.K. March 10, 1972).
Those whomBritain thought of as BACKWARD EUROPEAN PEASANTS
are obviously not half as keen as we are to rush in andSCRAMBLE
their cattle with our world-famous breeds! Could it be thatthey
are just "BACKWARD" enough to KNOW BETTER?
The cattle areHERE, but scientists leading British farmers
down this path are only NOW getting out their PLANS! Noticethe
report:
"BEEFBLUEPRINT! The Meat and Livestock Commission's
blueprint for more efficient beef production -- its workschedule
for the next decade ... was prepared by a group of 12
scientists." It continues: "One of thedifficulties of assessing
imported breeds is the scale of operation .... So theCommission
will have to make a subjective judgment on which breeds totest"
[and that is before they even begin to assess the results]("FW
Extra -- Cattle Breeding", April 28, 1972).
Not veryencouraging to stud breeders who have thrown up a
life-time's work to follow this new programme! Admittedlythe
stud cattle industry made mistakes prior to boffinintervention
but is their present MOMENT OF TRUTH any excuse to panic andlose
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 breederis 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 andrushed
across the Channel that no-one appears to know just how muchhas
been spent, or on which breeds! That which was a Charolais
TRICKLE is fast becoming a raging TORRENT of multiplebreeds!
The truth isthat Britain's cattle industry has fallen prey
to FASHION and SPECIALIZATION, both IN and OUT of theshow-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 avoidbreakdowns
in new farming systems, says Sir Emrys Jones, DirectorGeneral 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 ittoo, 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 DAIRYShorthorns have looked like dying breeds
recently and in fact most of Britain's renowned old breedsare in
grave danger of being wiped out! The basic problems areclosely
tied-in with IN-BREEDING and WRONG SELECTION, but thesecould be
corrected without resorting to suicidal genetic confusion.
Traditional U.K. breeds could then confidently enter a newphase
of international influence and prosperity. The current Press
flurry shows an industry in the painful throes of correctingsome
of its worst mistakes. God's word however, seems to indicatethat
men are going about it the WRONG way (Lev. 19:19)! And it ishard
to see how anything other than UTTER CONFUSION can result.
May we remindyou that "The Plain Truth Magazine" identified
the problem and the solution 9 YEARS AGO? Five years ago,(this
August) a 'Department of Agriculture and EnvironmentalResearch'
was set up at Ambassador College in England and this problemwas
one of the FIRST we started working on. Our solution tobreed
specialization is to re-create true dual-purpose animals (inour
case Shorthorns). There was nothing special aboutSHORTHORNS, it
was just that they are a single breed now split into BEEFand
DAIRY types, which we felt could be re-united without
cross-breeding. Some questioned our sanity and even theauthor of
this experiment felt our approach was certainly idealistic(but
our old worldly ideas DIE HARD don't they -- especially ifwe
have had years of practical experience)!
Without theconstant 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 andwe
were TWO years in finding PROOF that dual-purpose cattle areNOT
necessarily INFERIOR. Of course we were not really lookingfor it
as we did not know the proof existed. We thought we wouldhave 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 ofcattle
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 theywere the
same SIMMENTALS THAT ARE TODAY CAUSING SUCH A STIR IN THEBRITISH
CATTLE INDUSTRY!
OUR REACTION WAS-- IF IT CAN BE DONE WITH SIMMENTALS, it
can be done with other popular breeds. So instead ofswitching to
a desperate cross-breeding programme we just returned toEngland
wiser for the trip, thankful we had seen with our own eyesthat a
single breed could be proficient in BOTH MEAT and MILKproduction
and carried on with the job we had already begun.
We have for sometime been dealing with the CAUSE, but the
cattle industry is only now rushing in to treat SYMPTOMS ofthe
problem. And they may yet make the biggest mess in cattle
history! Men must eventually run out of new breedcombinations,
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 futuregenerations
of geneticists more material from which to breed tomorrow's
cross-breds!
Meanwhile, ourresults 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 therebe an
unhappy pay-off? There certainly will if they are beingachieved
by breaking God's laws of animal breeding!
PROBLEMS OF SELECTION
Our job was tomate the right animals in a new breeding
programme. We aimed to secure good milkers with plenty ofsize in
both frame and bone. Our first bull was of the bestbeef-type
available, but typically, he lacked size in body and milk inhis
pedigree. He bred predictably and we are now improving his
progeny by further selection and mating to other bulls. Thelast
two have come from dairy herds, but with ancestors carrying
plenty of meat, plus a good milk record.
We have onlyjust bought the youngest bull, and progeny from
his predecessor are still too young to know how effective hehas
been. Cattle breeding is a long project, but we feel thatour
approach will produce outstanding dual-purpose animals. Wealso
feel that it can show the British-based international cattle
industry that there is absolutely no justification forstampeding
into the cesspool of hybridization!
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
July 1972, Vol. III, No. 7
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
EVOLUTION AND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
Scientificagricultural research as we know it today had its
origin in the first half of the 19th century. That whichbegan
SLOWLY and was received with RELUCTANCE and SUSPICION is nowan
internationally-acclaimed, multi-million pound operation.Every
year it involves enormous expenditure of labour, brains and
equipment in most countries around the world.
Britain'sAgricultural 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 MACHINERYand
FERTILIZER manufacturers or THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE!
As a foodconsumer and one who is watching world events, it
is important for you to realize that this stupendous effortis
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? Theseare
some of the points we will cover in this issue of "YourLiving
Environment".
More food for anincreasing population is man's PROFESSED
goal in agricultural research.
EVERY possiblemeans of making plants and animals GROW
FASTER, BIGGER and MORE ECONOMICALLY is being examined and
exploited!
Most recentlypublicized 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 weredescribed in
past issues of "Your Living Environment" and inthe June "Plain
Truth" magazine. In spite of ALL the"PROBLEMS", there is no
denying the fact that 'RESEARCH' has produced impressiveresults.
Not only has knowledge increased, but so has foodproduction!
WHERE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH WENT WRONG
For all theirapparent success, agricultural scientists have
committed many blunders. Their major error, however, lies in
their basic philosophy -- THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!
And they followit unquestioningly!
Consider for amoment how this one theory has blinded these
brilliant men. To evolutionists, research is based on thebelief
that EVERY living thing around them developed by BLINDCHANCE! If
'CHANCE' has produced a world as good as this, theevolutionist
reasons, with apparent logic WHAT CAN'T WE ACHIEVE WITH ALITTLE
PLANNING!
Working fromthis false premise. OBVIOUSLY the first thing
to do is take the food production system apart, examine its
components, carry out a little experimentation andre-assemble it
in a more PRODUCTIVE, 'EFFICIENT' and 'ORGANISED' form. Onecan
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 beconvinced he isn't
making PROGRESS!
THE PATH or DECEPTION
Consider howdevastatingly effective this deception has
been! In the 19th century, early scientists discovered that
NITROGEN, PHOSPHORUS and POTASSIUM provide plants with mostof
their food. It was also discovered that their availabilityto
plants is strictly limited. So it was reasoned, (AGAIN WITH
APPARENT LOGIC) why not try adding MORE of these chemicalsto
crops, in a form that IS readily 'AVAILABLE'?
Experiments weredesigned to test their reasoning and -- yes
-- the result was HIGHER YIELDS! But today, over 100 yearslater,
man is STILL finding out the true cost of those "HIGHERYIELDS".
It is only nowthat 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'TTURN
BACK NOW, FOR FEAR OF WORLD FAMINE'!
EFFICIENCY OR PERVERSION?
Whether researchresults are beneficial, or only APPEAR so,
SCIENCE always claims it has again improved the 'EFFICIENCY'of
man's PRIMITIVE environment.
Take for examplethe 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 beforethe
bull reaches the cow, dilute it and use it to breedTHOUSANDS of
calves instead of just ONE!
It never crossesthe 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 tohim
that any man-devised alternative could in God's eyes be an
insulting and arrogant perversion!
Researchers havenow 'DISCOVERED' that ruminants have a very
'INEFFICIENT' digestive system as their dung contains
considerable food value. So, Science is guiding farmers todry
cattle and poultry dung, disguise it and feed it back totheir
livestock. This is YOUR NEW source of hamburgers and steaks!Do
you find this offensive and revolting? Is it then POSSIBLEthat
God feels the same way, only more so?
These are justthree of many examples, but in all cases the
research has been based on logical reasoning -- 'LOGICAL' ifyou
deny Creation and 'LOGICAL' if you swallow Satan's line of
evolution, as taught in modern education!
RESEARCH WITH A DIFFERENCE
Agricultural andenvironmental researchers at Ambassador
College have therefore many advantages. First, we know thatan
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 itis man's job to "DRESS AND KEEP" his
God-given environment (Gen. 2:15). We know that MAN, notMONEY,
is the end product of ALL agriculture and that there aremore
important purposes to agriculture than FOOD PRODUCTION (seeVol.
II No. 11). We know also that man is not meant to dismantlehis
environment like some frustrated and precocious childtearing 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, theLAND-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 toagriculture
research, let us now see something of the work done atBricket
Wood.
RESEARCH AT AMBASSADOR COLLEGE
There are threebasic parts to the Bricket Wood Agricultural
Research Programme:
1. Analysis ofparticular problems in the light of God's
Word.
2. Collection ofadditional information on each specific
question.
3. Demonstrationof solutions, under field-scale conditions.
ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM
We believe thatthe vast majority of the problems of modern
agriculture can be readily solved by obeying the known lawsgiven
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 aredevoting
enormous quantities of time and effort to searching for waysof
solving these problems.
But any farmerwho keeps the Land-sabbath correctly will
immediately discover the solution -- the Land-sabbathprohibits
the growing of CONTINUOUS cereals and discouragesLARGE-SCALE
cereal production -- the inherent causes of cereal weed and
disease problems. Simple obedience to God's laws wouldELIMINATE
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 searchingthe Bible for any hints, we then make a
thorough study of the most pertinent literature. We haveneither
the TIME, MONEY, nor FACILITIES to do expensiveexperimentations;
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 academicperusal
of others' experiences, ideas and experiments. Using God's
principles of environmental management as a yardstick we areable
to separate the WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF with considerablesuccess.
Periodic visitsto the innumerable Agricultural Research
Institutes and Universities throughout the British Isles,Europe,
Australia, and the United States have also proven to beimmensely
valuable. They are most effective in broadeningunderstanding of
specific problems and their possible solutions.
The third majorsource 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 shortexample
will illustrate this:
In March werotovated a grassed-over section of our ground
-- that had in the previous season grown a few rows ofpotatoes.
By accident, some had not been harvested the previousautumn, so
the rotovator blades soon brought them to the surface. Boththe
feel and taste of these potatoes were superior to those'lifted'
in the autumn and stored in a CLAMP. In fact they approachedthe
quality of many 'NEW' potatoes.
Is it possiblethat potatoes can be 'STORED' in this manner,
even in severe winters, with the grass cover insulating themfrom
frost damage? Could this provide top-quality potatoesyear-round
-- especially during the LAND-SABBATH?
FIELD DEMONSTRATION
Once enoughinformation on any specific problem has been
studied and carefully analysed, several possible solutions
usually appear that would fit WITHIN God's created patternof
land management. But solutions on paper are worthless unlessthey
have first been tested in field-scale conditions.
Obviously, atBricket Wood, we can test only those practices
and principles that Britain's climate will allow. In thepast we
experimented with ideas easily included within the Collegefarm
and vegetable garden. We experimented for instance with
straw-mulching of vegetables and soft fruit, simply bymulching
the College garden and observing the result. We tested theidea
of milking-cows raising their own calves for beef, on theCollege
dairy herd.
The need forgreater scope and flexibility in demonstrating
ideas has caused the Agriculture Department in Bricket Woodto
enter a new and expanded phase of research. An area of landhas
now been set aside solely for FIELD TRIALS, with specific
individuals in charge of layout and daily operations. Thoughthe
new programme is only a few months old and still finding its
feet, we thought readers might be interested in an outlineof the
agricultural methods and principles under investigation.
WINTER FODDER PRODUCTION
Imagine theproblem 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 inthe
barn. How then is he to feed his CATTLE, SHEEP and POULTRYduring
the winter when grass growth is inadequate? (This problemwill
become even more acute when ALL farmers keep theLand-sabbath IN
THE SAME YEAR!)
We have, therefore,initiated tests of various winter-feed
alternatives to hay and silage -- with emphasis on cropsthat can
be consumed in the field. A selection of grasses reputed togrow
well in late autumn and winter have been sown forobservation.
Since many British farmers use roots and brassicas forwinter
feed, we have sown plots of MANGELS, SWEDES, FIELD-CABBAGE,KALE,
RAPE, FODDER-RADISH and hardy winter-green TURNIPS. Thesewill 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 possibilitiesof
direct-drilling these seeds into both old pasture andLucerne.
SOIL-FERTILITY TRIALS
Books on 'organic'farming and gardening disagree over the
merits of COMPOST, MULCH, FRESH DUNG, ROTTED DUNG andPROCESSED
SEWAGE, so we have established a long-term demonstration to
compare their value as organic fertilizers. Vegetables willbe
regularly planted into these various plots as a means of
measuring changes inherent in soil fertility andproductivity
resulting from the fertilizer treatments.
HOME-GROWN SEEDS
Are suchcompanies 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 tosave
their OWN seeds? What problems would result from thispractice?
To find the answers we have begun our own small-scale testsof
this idea.
ANIMAL NUTRITION
Is it true thatan animal can SELECT ITS OWN DIET, if given
the opportunity, and do a BETTER job than an educatedchemist
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 closerlook
at this question in the near future.
SOWING CEREAL GRAIN
Is it feasibleto sow grain almost on the surface of the
ground? After all, grain would naturally sow itself in thesoil
surface -- not 3 inches deep! Is it also feasible to departfrom
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 excessivedamage
by winter frosts.)
Is it feasibleto drill OATS, WHEAT or BARLEY directly into
established Lucerne or clover -- and by careful management,
provide late-autumn and early-spring feed when most farmersare
relying on hay? We have heard that C.S.I.R.O. has done thisin
Australia. Perhaps it is possible in England? We hope to run
field trials to test each of the above questions. In duetime we
will publish a report of the results, whether negative or
positive.
VEGETABLES IN THE LAND-SABBATH
Is it possibleto have fresh potatoes, carrots, parsnips,
radish, kale, spinach, etc. during the SABBATICAL YEAR? Ifso,
how and to what extent? To answer these questions we planteda
small trial area with vegetables this spring with theintention
of inducing maximum volunteer growth next year.
SOIL FERTILITY AND SEED QUALITY?
Will a veryFERTILE 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, theanswer
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 majorproblems of the world's agricultural soils
is an APPARENT shortage of phosphate -- thus restrictinglegume
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 todust
and spreading it on the deficient soils (usually hundreds of
miles from the source). SLAG WASTE from steel mills is alsorich
in phosphate and has been widely used as a fertilizer too.
These MAY beACCEPTABLE 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'Tthe
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. inso
many agricultural soils.
THE IMPORTANCE OF DUNG-PATS
Why did God makedung-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 bettergrass
naturally. Field investigations into the effect of dung and
ruminant digestion on grass and legume seeds have begun. Aswith
all breeding experiments, this one will require some time to
produce conclusive results.
OTHER PURPOSES OF AGRICULTURE
Today agriculture is simply a means ofPROFIT 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 otherdepartment in Ambassador College it is our
job to RECAPTURE TRUE VALUES. That is why we are not justANOTHER
Research or Organic Farming Institution. We know that manyof the
needs of God's system of agriculture cannot be determined by
laying down replicated trial plots and complex breeding
programmes.
God's Word showsthat 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 manwith a
FAMILY environment!
These arefactors that make OUR research so very DIFFERENT!
We are looking for a different RESULT -- and so are YOU'.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
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 EMPTIEDthe
countryside and denied AGRICULTURE a rightful place in thescheme
of things" ("Unforgiven", Charles Walters,Jr., 1971, p. 308)
How serious isthis 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 tothis
problem? These are important questions affecting all ofmankind
and they will be answered in this issue of "Your Living
Environment". In looking at this worldwide socialexodus you are
going to see that it has spawned major changes in thementality
and life-style of each one of us. This is especially so inthe
spheres of WORK, FAMILY and RECREATION.
A WORLDWIDE PROBLEM
United Nations'Food and Agriculture Organization puts this
problem into historic and geographic perspective:
"Whileat the beginning of the industrial revolution,
LESS THAN TEN PERCENT of the world's population lived incities,
in the coming century the MAJORITY OF THE WORLD'S POPULATIONwill
consist of URBAN DWELLERS. Thus, in the course of not morethan
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 andwarns
us that:
URBANIZEDSOCIETIES in which a majority of the people
live crowded together in towns and cities, REPRESENT a NEWand
FUNDAMENTAL STEP in MAN'S SOCIAL [HISTORY.] In 1960, for
example, ... according to the U.S. Bureau of Census, 96million
people, 53 percent of the nation's population wereconcentrated
in ... urbanized areas that together occupied only .7percent of
the nation's land .... The large and dense ... urbanpopulation
involves a degree of human contact and social complexityNEVER
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 bedescribed as
PREDOMINANTLY URBANIZED, and by 1900 only one -- GreatBritain --
could be so regarded. Today, only 65 years later, ALLindustrial
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 agriculturalpopulation
has plummeted to less than 4% of the total! So thorough hasbeen
the depopulation of the rural areas that one writer,discussing
the problems of Britain's hill country, made this startling
point:
"Theupland areas, which cover nearly HALF the entire
area of the country ... [contain a] total population lessthan
that of a SINGLE large town.." ("The InviolableHills", Robert A.
De J. Hart, London, 1968, p. 3).
Such a state ofaffairs is all the more remarkable when it
is remembered that SOUTHERN England has MORE PEOPLE PERSQUARE
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 therewill
be a further drop of two million between 1972 and 1976"
("European Community", February, 1972, p. 20).
In the THIRDWORLD 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 thanthe
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 inWEST AFRICA is the classic drama of the drift
from the rural areas to urban centres being more vividlyplayed
out than, perhaps, in Ghana. The DAILY APPEALS of thepoliticians
and social leaders to the youth to 'GO BACK TO THE LAND' notonly
indicate the extent of the problem but also the GEOGRAPHICAL
BACKGROUND of the urban unemployed. There is hardly any roomin
the labour exchange office to file the particulars of the
newcomers; the public parks swarm with aimless, hopelesspeople;
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. NationalFarmers
Union. Speaking only about the United States, Mr. Decantobserved
that,
"INTHE LAST 20 YEARS, 20 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE LEFT THE
FARMS AND RURAL TOWNS AND MOVED TO THE CITIES where wealready
have 70 percent of the population on some 2 percent of theland
and where we already have INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEMS,practically
insurmountable, in terms of water, transportation,education,
health, sewage disposal, whatever you want to name -- thebig
cities are in trouble! And ... THE MIGRATION CONTINUES,[2,300
farmers] daily -- so I think this SENSELESS MIGRATION HAS TOBE
REVERSED. We have to revitalize rural America, and dispersesome
of this high concentration we have on both sea-boards"
("Agricultural News and Research", 15.3.71).
WHY THE RURAL EXODUS?
What was and isthe 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 workand the
moth-like attraction of NEON LIGHTS and THE CROWD are a
counterfeit for GREENER PASTURES, but they neverthelessexert a
strong influence in drawing humanity to the CITIES! At thesame
time there has always been a considerable element ofECONOMIC
COMPULSION driving men from the land. Historically this has
resulted both from their own wrong land management andmisguided
governmental policies.
Historydescribes 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 theattitude of
the moneyed landowners. Lesser men and workers were regardedas
tools to be used and exploited for personal gain. When it
appeared economically favorable whole villages of peoplewere
ejected from the land -- thus breeding a deep-seatedresentment
of the ruling classes.
It isinteresting to note in passing that the oft-exploited
human 'TOOLS' have now been replaced by machines (often madeby
unhappy slum-dwelling descendants of the original peasants).
These machines of course give farmers less trouble, becauseno
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 factoriescame
from dispossessed small-farm families. American agricultural
history is a chronicle of land and resource exploitationwith the
most successful exploiters remaining on the land and the
unsuccessful being forced into the cities -- their propertybeing
absorbed by the former. Even these 'SUCCESSFUL' farmers have
supported only themselves! Most of their own sons havedesired or
been forced to seek their living in THE BRIGHT LIGHTS!
A similar themeruns through the history of urbanization in
other countries. Unfortunately the 'GREENER PASTURES' ofurban
living and employment have always been fraught withproblems.
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 producedlittle-
known crucial changes in the thought-pattern and MENTALITYof
urban dwellers!
THE URBAN MENTALITY
"Fromearly childhood superabundant impressions,
stimuli, and dangers make their impact upon the citydweller, who
compared with the peasant or small-town shopkeeper, becomesa
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-rushingtraffic.
The city dweller dashes to his place of work; and even intransit
he is assailed by loud-coloured posters and constantlyblinking
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 thetimes.
"Thealways startling, ceaseless succession of
impressions, the torrent of stimuli, and in the evening,radio
music and television movies -- all these reduce the citydweller
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.
"Theconsequence is WEARINESS and DISGUST. It is a not
uncommon attitude among the city dwellers, and the youthsfind 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 traitof
people living in large cities" ("Babylon IsEverywhere", Wolf
Schneider, 1960, pp. 321, 322).
It must beunderstood that Schneider's observations are not
applicable to EVERY city-dweller. They are broadgeneralizations
of an over-all picture.
Author LewisMumford noted that SUBURBS were established so
people could escape the stresses of city living, yet resultsare
disastrous:
"Thetown housewife, who half a century ago, knew her
histories and biographies that impinged on her own, in adaily
interchange, now has the benefit of a single weeklyexpedition to
an impersonal supermarket, where only by accident is shelikely
to encounter a neighbour. If she is well-to-do, she issurrounded
by electric devices that take the place of flesh and blood
companions; the end product is an encapsulated life, spentmore
and more either IN A MOTOR CAR, or WITHIN THE CABIN OFDARKNESS
before a television set .... Here indeed we find 'The Lonely
Crowd'" ("The City in History", LewisMumford, 1961, pp. 551,
552).
RECREATION -- AN URBAN CRAVING
Artur Glikson,Head of Planning for Housing in Israel's
Ministry of Labour states that:
"Themore that INDUSTRY and CITIES EXPAND, the greater
is the demand for recreation .... In the dynamics of citylife,
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 ofnatural
and historic origin of the people: to the indigenous andrural
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 Changingthe Face
of The Earth", pp. 897, 912).
MAN'S NEW APPROACH TO 'WORK'
The urbanenvironment has also bred a new approach and
attitude to employment:
"It isclear that 'EMPLOYMENT' is no longer regarded as
a contribution to the creation of social wealth, but ratheras a
kind of ticket entitling its holder to share in thedistribution
of that wealth. It [an urban job] has come to be regarded ASAN
AGENT OF CONSUMPTION rather than of PRODUCTION. Themechanization
of so many economic activities has built up the idea thatthe
whole economy is in fact a machine, a machine in which theworker
NATURALLY wants to ride ....
"Sincelabour has so long been regarded as a commodity
to be bought and sold in the market, the laborer can hardlybe
blamed ... for believing that it is in his 'interest' to putin
as little effort as possible and extract as much money as
possible.
"Thusthe 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 ACOMPLETED
JOB. LABOUR has been divorced from LIVING; it is no longer a
direct source of satisfaction, but simply A QUALIFICATIONFOR A
MEAL-TICKET" (From "The Ground Up", JorianJenks, Faber and
Faber, 1945, pp. 122, 123).
Even work inAGRICULTURE is now losing its job satisfaction
at the rate it patterns itself after INDUSTRY! Sir George
Stapledon also noted this general change in attitude towork:
"Towork 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 factthat
such a high proportion of the workers of the world aredenied, or
deny themselves this pleasure is to be found one of thechief
CAUSES OF WIDESPREAD SOCIAL NEUROSIS" ("TheNatural Order",
edited by H. Massingham, Faber and Faber, p. 36).
THE DISINTEGRATING FAMILY UNIT
Perhaps the mostimportant effect the rural exodus has had
on each of us lies in the sphere of family life and unity:
"Therecan be little doubt that FAMILY LIFE has
deteriorated in DIRECT proportion as the influence of theFATHER
has WANED. The real trouble began when the man went out towork,
went far from home to work, worked along hours, acquiredoutside
interests, came home late, came home tired. This is theposition
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 tobe an
active parent occurs at the weekend. All too frequently theonly
interest of the family in the father is 'THE BREAD', a most
unhealthy state of affairs -- a state of affairs which tendsto
make the father lead one kind of social life in one placewhile
the mother and the children lead ANOTHER kind of lifeELSEWHERE
"...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 accentuatethat
segregation ... the size of cities and of over-specialized
industrial undertakings has outgrown their capacity to caterfor
the real needs of real human families and of real human
individuals" ("Human Ecology", Sir GeorgeStapledon, p. 113).
PRESSURE FROM POLITICIANS
Perhaps the mostsickening aspect of the whole matter is
that so FEW WORLD LEADERS and thinkers fully comprehend whatthis
worldwide migration is doing to HUMAN MINDS and LIVES! Manyhave
in fact mistakenly spearheaded the drive to push even MOREpeople
FROM the land:
"TheWhite House takes the view that only 1 million
efficient farmers could produce all U.S. farm needs. Todaythere
are 3.4 million farmers. Thus according to the White Housethere
are 2.4 million unneeded farmers" ("U.S. News andWorld Report",
March 22, 1965, p. 59).
That of coursewas the view of the Johnson Administration.
But the present agricultural thinkers for President Nixonshare
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, toCHANGE
farm sizes RADICALLY [larger], and to balance out the supplyand
demand of farm products. It was argued that farming shouldbe
viewed simply as one among many economic activities RATHERTHAN
AS A WAY OF LIFE. Mansholt envisaged that a totalagricultural
population of 5 million in THE SIX would be DESIRABLE in1980.
That would represent ONE QUARTER OF THE 1950 FIGURE of 20million
which had since fallen to 15 million in 1960 and 10 millionin
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 fromagriculture to
take up OTHER jobs. A second form of action would involve
encouraging the elderly to leave farming" [presumablyto become a
charge against the state's welfare system].("Agriculture,
Studies in Contemporary Europe", Hugh D. Clout,Macmillan, 1971,
pp. 55, 56).
Mansholt is nowforging ahead with his plans -- apparently
unconcerned that he, like the American planners, is
systematically destroying the very heart of a nations socialand
economic foundations. At the same time the policy of theBritish
Ministry of Agriculture was (and presumably still is) toSOLVE
the economic difficulties of its farming industry by a
Mansholt-like amalgamation of every second farm!
As we explainedin an earlier "Research News", agriculture's
chief purpose is not the production of FOOD, but theproduction
of PEOPLE. It is designed to be a stable broad-basedfoundation
of a God designed society and economy.
IS THERE A SOLUTION?
Instead of driving and forcing more families to LEAVE theirrural
environment, (especially when most cities have a pool of
unemployed) even encouragement should be given to REVERSEthe
drift to the cities! It will take God to rectify thissituation.
Man will NOT do it! But it WILL be done and in the very nextfew
years!
Some 3,400 yearsago God set up a model society in which
every man received land as his inheritance. Furthermore, Godmade
it illegal for man to squander it by stating that:
"In the year of jubile [i.e. followingseven Sabbatical
Years] the field shall return unto him ... to whom thepossession
of the land did belong" (Lev. 27:24).
Soon God willset it up again -- this time not just for
Israelites, but for everyone:
"Soshall 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 lawsof LAND INHERITANCE and the JUBILE are to be
reintroduced in the world tomorrow and then "they shallsit every
man under his own vine and under his fig tree; and noneshall
make them afraid" (Mic. 4:4).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
June 1974 Vol. V, No. 1
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
PHOSPHATEDEFICIENCY -- A CRISIS WE MUST RESOLVE!
Within the pastfew months the world has looked askance at
its sudden energy crisis, triggered prematurely by theunited
action of the Arab oil sheiks.
But now we havea 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 crisisitself.
You might wonder whether that is even possible. Well, it is,and
the first stiff breezes of this ill-wind have already begunto
blow!
During therecent oil crisis, Europe's major suppliers of
North African rock-phosphate quietly and, almost withoutWestern
press comment, calmly trebled the price of their rawproduct!
Morocco andTunisia, like their oil-sheik colleagues, have
suddenly realized that their non-renewable source of incomewill
one day be exhausted. Therefore they intend to cash in onthe
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 nutritionalterms, 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 withpotassium).
They form the 'N' and 'P' of the 'NPK' trio, familiar tomost
farmers.
And yetagriculture is suddenly threatened by diminishing
reserves of both these essential elements. Industrially
synthesized NITROGEN is in relatively short supply as adirect
result of the energy crisis, and PHOSPHATE has becomerecognized
as another finite, non-renewable resource which MUST now be
conserved. Consequently, prices of these raw materials have
escalated!
In such apredicament, many farmers feel they have no
alternative but to pay 'through the nose' for fertilizerstheir
crops and soil so badly need. And yet there must be an
alternative -- God surely did not create an environment forman
dependent upon excavation and the internationaltransportation of
underground mineral deposits.
During the pastyear, this Department has been researching
in depth, the problem of phosphate availability -- orrather, the
lack of it in most soils around the world -- to try todiscover:
1. Why soilbecomes phosphate deficient, and
2. A solution tothe 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 wenormally
present, but we hope its vital importance will help you staywith
it.
A Problem of Availability
We have alreadymentioned the importance of phosphorus in
agriculture, and that phosphorus deficiency presents mankindwith
one of the biggest obstacles to increasing world foodproduction.
In fact, vastareas of intensively-managed agricultural land
are now known to be severely deficient in availability ofthis
element. Sir Arnold Theiler whose work on phosphate duringthe
1920's is now classic, found that throughout Southern Africathe
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 ifsuch
reserves were made available in forms which plants can
assimilate. It would therefore appear that the problem isnot one
of PRESENCE but AVAILABILITY -- at any one time most of the
phosphorus present consists of non water-soluble forms andso it
is not readily accessible to plant roots.
One writermentions:
"Withregard to phosphoric acid, the mineral apatite,
the ultimate source of phosphorus in nature, is almostequally
abundant in all varieties of igneous rocks, and phosphatesare
rarely deficient in soils derived from them ..."("Agricultural
Geology", by R. H. Rastall, p. 35, Cambridge Univ.Press, 1922).
He continues:
"Soilsderived from igneous rocks on the whole tend to
be rich in potash and phosphoric acid, although thesesubstances
may not always be present in an available form in largequantity"
(Ibid).
Sincesedimentary formations have their origin in the
igneous rocks, the obvious question then arises -- why isthis
element not readily available in most soils?
Pizer explains:
"It iscommonly accepted that plant roots remove
monovalent H2PO4 - ions from soils and make little use ofHPO42-
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 bothclay
particles and organic matter) ... the release of H2PO4depends on
equilibria between a number of phases which are influencedby
moisture content, Ph [soil acidity] soluble salts, changesin
soil structure and biological activity" ("SoilPhosphorus",
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 itmay seem, the answer to this seemingly complex
problem is perhaps far more simple than we might at firstthink.
Joffe gives an indication of the simplicity of the solutionin
describing the phosphorus and sulphur limitations inChernozem
soils:
"Therelatively high Ca [calcium] and N [nitrogen]
contents of the A horizon [upper soil layer] are responsiblefor
the high P [phosphorus] content in this layer. It is THEPROTEINS
OF THE ORGANIC MATTER that furnish the key. As the
organic-phosphorus compounds are mineralized, the P releasedties
up primarily with the Ca.
"Theaccumulated organic matter in the A horizon [upper
soil layer] retains appreciable quantities of S [sulphur].Its
RAPID CIRCULATION through drying plants and precipitationkeeps
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 organiccomplexes"
("Pedology", by Jacob S. Joffe, p. 292, 2nd Ed.,1949, Pedology
Publications).
Notice that itis 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 thesubsoil,
and that there is often a close relationship betweenphosphorus
levels and the amount of organic matter present("Harnessing the
Earthworm", by Thomas J. Barrett, p. 49, 1947, BruceHumphries
Inc.).
It is well knownthat dead plants and animals can return
appreciable quantities of phosphorus to the soil --phosphorus
which has been slowly but steadily accumulating over aperiod of
time but such phosphorus is basically returned in organicform
and is therefore not readily available for further plantgrowth.
It must first bebroken down by ANIMAL forms before it can
be re-used for plant growth -- thus completing one of thegreat
ecological cycles:
(NOTE: To view a chart titled "The PhosphorusCycle", see the file
740602.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)
These animalforms are many and varied, but two of the most
important and obvious are livestock -- which recycle LIVINGplant
nutrients and earthworms -- which recirculate nutrients fromDEAD
organic material. The more rapid the circulation ofnutrients,
the more stable the system -- the less is the likelihood of
depleting fertility and the greater are the opportunitiesfor
building up nutrient reserves. This rapid recycling ofnutrients
is one of the chief benefits of a live-stock-basedagriculture.
(NOTE: To view a chart titled "The PhosphorusCycle", see the file
740603.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)
Earthworms and Phosphorus
Barrett alsobrings out some remarkable information
regarding the role of earthworms in making phosphorusavailable
for plant growth.
He found thatthe phosphorus content of soil in boxes
containing worms increased 10% over those which had noworms. He
also analysed earthworm castings to discover that theycontained
FIVE times as much available nitrogen, SEVEN times as much
phosphorus, ELEVEN times as much potassium and THREE timesas
much magnesium as the parent soil.
Indirectly, the origin of these extraavailable 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 wellaware
that soil microbes multiply on organic matter. The earthwormis
therefore undoubtedly one of the major organisms directly
responsible for making soil nutrients available and formsone of
the vital links in the balance of nature.
In the Nilevalley, fertility is legendary and it is
reported that earthworm castings may amount to some 200 tonsper
acre per year. In most other areas the earthworm populationis
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 acreper
year!
Since wormsappear to depend heavily on organic matter, we
cannot expect to boost our earthworm population and solvemajor
mineral deficiency problems organically, without massivereturns
of plant residues. There is an old truism which states that"a
chain is as strong as its weakest link". And in theagricultural
chain of life, the weakest link has been the return oforganic
residues back to the soil.
Phosphorus and Sulphur Relationships
Research on thisissue 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 foundout
from other researchers about this element, since bothsulphur and
phosphorus have considerable bearing on the growth oflegumes:
1. There isevidence that phosphate deficiencies may be
accompanied by sulphur complications, and recent work in New
Zealand has indicated that SULPHUR may be equally importantwith
PHOSPHORUS in the growth and development of pasture legumes.
Ludecke found that the amount of sulphur required by legumesis
between one-tenth and one-fifteenth the amount of nitrogenfixed.
Thus, if we consider a figure of 250 lbs. of nitrogen fixedper
acre per year, somewhere between 17 and 25 lbs. of sulphurwill
be required of that soil.
2. But althoughthis amount of sulphur may be sufficient to
produce maximum plant growth, Anderson (1952) reports thatmore
sulphur is required to maintain maximum protein content.
Apparently maximum growth can be achieved without acomparable
achievement in protein levels! (i.e. yields are notnecessarily
synonymous with quality values.) Saalbach (1961) alsostudied 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. Potexperiments by Needham and Hauge (1952) showed that a
pronounced S deficiency in Lucerne caused a pronouncedshortage
of vitamins in the plant.
All of thesefacts essentially concern characteristics of
QUALITY in plant composition. We mention them here becausethey
bring us back once again to the all-important factor oforganic
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 matterand
that organic residues are the major source of sulphur forplants.
5. Lastly,Freney and Spencer (1960) report that in general,
soils mineralize more sulphur in the presence of growingplants
than in their absence. They suggest this may be due to the
"rhizosphere [root zone] effect" brought about bythe secretion
of amino acids and sugars and the subsequent increase in
micro-organism activity.
Micro-organisms and Soil Nutrients
The bacteriumThiobacillus thio-oxidans, which is widespread
in acid soils, is one of the most outstanding organisms
associated with the transformation of sulphur. It canoxidize
sulphur and sulfides to sulphates, and starting from mineral
salts can produce 10% H2SO4 (Sulfuric acid).
Waksman andStarkey 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 solubleforms.
Keruran presentsa spectacular theory that the whole genus
of Thiobacilli play an important role in other aspects ofsulphur
and phosphorus nutrition. He presents evidence aiming toshow
that they are capable of TRANSMUTING oxygen to sulphur --not a
straightforward chemical change, but a NUCLEARtransformation. He
also suggests that there is a probable link (viatransmutation)
between sulphur and phosphorus and a possible link between
sulphur and magnesium (Biological Transmutations, 1972).
Very little iscurrently 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 ifscientifically
sound, puts the whole concept of mineral formation and
availability in a new light.
No wonder Burgescomments:
"Availability of many of the plant nutrients in the
soil is markedly affected by the microorganisms, but theproblems
associated with the changes involved are exceedinglycomplex"
("Micro-organisms in the Soil", by Alan Burges,1958, p. 147).
Following the discovery of the importance of the Thiobacilliin
sulphur availability and the probable relationship between
sulphur and phosphorus, we then looked into whether one
particular group of micro-organisms was principallyresponsible
for making phosphate available.
From the limitedamount of material available (mostly
Russian), we found no such direct correlation. Zimenko(1966)
investigated most of the major micro-organic forms of lifeexcept
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 andpopulations
of actinomycetes and fungi, but it is difficult to assess.
Burges mentionsthat 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 withtree
roots, supply phosphate to some trees.
Predominance of Chicory?
Our initialthoughts on the solution to phosphate deficiency
ran on somewhat similar lines to Coccanouer's, although theywere
complemented by the material Branfield and Kervran presented--
i.e. that the answer lay in utilizing hitherto unused cropsin
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 decomposeleaving
calcium behind for other species to take up, thus continuingthe
natural ecological cycles of regeneration and succession --about
which we know so pitifully little!
Likewise, wewondered 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 hasperhaps
been overlooked and which man could utilize to greatadvantage.
Research showedseveral aquatic plants such as duckweed
(Lemony tres.) and pondweed (Oldie canadensis) to be
comparatively high in phosphate -- although this could havebeen
due to unreasonably high levels of phosphate in the surface
waters where they were growing.
Upon consideringthe various species in our own pastures, we
were reminded of the outstanding success achieved in theseeding
of chicory. This plant is well known for its value as asource of
phosphate in animal nutrition, but its performance wasespecially
interesting to us. Over many years, our Hertfordshire soilshave
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 whatone might describe as a chronic lack of
available phosphate, the chicory plant positively flourishedin
our deficient environment. The other important observationin
this connection is the fact that our sheep and cattle have
readily devoured this species, showing an outstandingpreference
for it.
Theseobservations 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 thesame
time, the grazing animals' sharp preferences lend weight tothe
belief that unhindered, they have the instinctive ability to
select for themselves a minerally balanced diet. Measuringtheir
natural preferences against the poor phosphate performanceof our
soils, seems to indicate that they are seeking theirphosphate
needs through this plant species.
As our resultsappear 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 alreadymentioned that organic matter contains
considerable reserves of sulphur and phosphorus. Whilst the
micro-organisms seem more ready to make sulphur availablefor
plant growth, it is the earthworm population that does themain
job as far as phosphate availability is concerned.
The incrediblefertility achieved in the Nile valley was
only possible through the vast quantities of fertile silt --
containing approx. 55% organic matter in finely dividedform,
deposited annually by the river. This was washed down fromthe
Ethiopian highlands and provided virtually limitless foodfor the
teeming worm life.
If we are everto achieve any comparable fertility, we will
obviously have to make huge 'investments' in our bank ofsoil
reserves. Until we have attained optimum levels of soilorganic
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 MAINTAINthem
with REGULAR returns of organic matter -- just as the Niledoes
each year.
Here, it wouldappear 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 wecan --
regardless of the consequences!
Are we beginningto see here one of the reasons why God has
allocated ONE THOUSAND YEARS in His plan for man to rebuildthis
earth to Garden of Eden specifications?
What we areprone to forget is that most agricultural soils
have been severely depleted of their natural fertility bydecades
or centuries of wrong methods. They have been croppedintensively
with little respite and very little in the way of organic
returns. We have overloaded delicate systems with demandsthat
have been far too great, and we are now paying the penalties--
penalties which cannot be eradicated overnight.
Gordon RattrayTaylor in his famous Doomsday Book cited the
sulphur and phosphorus cycles specifically in this regard.Notice
his warning.
"Any feedback mechanism can beswamped by too big an
input. The thermostat which regulates room temperaturecannot
maintain the temperature if you open all the windows on anyicy
day, or keep you cool if the house catches on fire.
"Andwhat may be more important, these mechanisms
respond very slowly: so even if they can absorb the effectsof
human activity, they may take centuries to do so, and in the
meantime conditions may be adverse for life. Man has begunto
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 ofphosphorus has
already been exceeded! Our land has been cropped far too
intensively and the phosphorus taken off merely ends up inthe
sea.(1)
---------------
(1) Each year in the U.K. we flush 172,000 tons ofphosphorus and
123,000 tons of potassium out into our rivers and coasts andhope
to make up for this loss with imports of North African rock
phosphate and potash from the Dead Sea totalling 700,000tons!!
---------------
Results of Soil Tests
On our own farm soils in Bricket Wood, wefound available
phosphorus to be higher than original levels of seven yearsago.
Over a six month period (January to June 1973), 153 randomsoil
tests were taken in 10 different fields. Of these, only 8showed
low availabilities, 123 gave moderate readings of varying
intensities, and the remaining 22 showed phosphateavailability
to be at a high level. One can only deduce that organicmatter
and available nutrient levels are slowly improving, but thatwe
still have a long way to go!
We need tomention 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:
"Thereis 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 ofPhosphorus and Other
Soil Nutrients at various levels of PH", see the file740606.TIF in
the Images\Ag directory.)
But the largenumbers of "moderate" availabilities obtained
in our 1973 tests seem to give a fairly reliable indicationof
the condition of phosphorus in our soils.
Phosphorus and Soil Ph
The precedingchart indicates the general trend of phosphate
availability according to Ph, compared with other soilnutrients.
The more soluble a nutrient is under a particular conditionof
soil acidity or alkalinity, the thicker is the horizontalband
representing the nutrient. Solubility in turn is directlyrelated
to the availability of the nutrient in an ionic form that is
assimilable by the plant.
Notice thatnearly all the nutrients shown are available in
greatest quantities around a Ph of 7 -- neutral, on thisscale.
It is also well-known that organic matter is invaluable in
stabilizing Ph. When humus is present in sufficient quantityand
in every stage of decay, soil Ph is almost invariablyneutral or
near neutral. (2)
------------------
(2) One notable exception is the floor of a conifer forest.The
special nature of its organic content actually contributesto its
acid condition.
------------------
The Haughley Organic Experiment
Lawrence D.Hills, writing in the November 1972 issue of The
Ecologist mentions that:
"TheSoil Association, after running a 'closed circuit'
farm at Haughley for thirty years, returning all the manureand
organic matter to the soil, found that the milk, eggs, meatand
grain going off the farm produced a steady fall inyields" (p.
24).
He interpretsthis to mean that if nutrients leave the
system -- regardless of how high humus levels in the soilmay be,
nutrient availability and consequent productivity must fall.For
the "closed" system, the inference is of coursethat 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 longas
we have soil, we have untapped mineral reserves. Thealternative
is that God made a mistake at Creation and forgot thephosphate
and other nutrient needs of mankind around the earth. This
MISTAKE would force man to transport mineral deposits aroundthe
world for the purpose of food production and/or to recycleall
animal and HUMAN wastes.
The FIRST presupposesthat our environment must depend on
considerable industrial development and highly expensive
international transportation. The SECOND, whiletheoretically
possible, does not appear to tally with the hygienestandards of
the Old Testament.
If either of these be the case -- ournutritional protection
would appear to be the subject of some considerable doubt,but
that premise has to be rejected because, it just does notmatch
God's performance in any other area!
What appears tobe certain however, is that under the
adopted TEN-year rotation, (3) although Haughley soil humus
INCREASED by 27% in ten years -- crops took nutrients awayfaster
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 becamemore
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 suggestthat 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 ideathat
the closed environmental system is inefficient.
Because soilwith 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 CRITICALLEVEL.
It in no way disproves the ability of much higher levels ofhumus
to release inorganic minerals commensurate with increasedplant
production.
--------------
(4) 3% humus was quoted as a disastrously low figure inBritish
Midland soils by the 1969 committee of enquiry headed by Sir
Emerys Jones, former Chief Advisor to the British Ministryof
Agriculture.
--------------
One might say itwould be like claiming that a gravitational
pull of 20 lbs cannot be overcome -- simply because wewitness
the results of a weight lifter exerting an opposing force ofonly
19 lbs! Likewise, one could raise the Ph of a soil from 5.5to
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 believeotherwise concerning the function of rising
levels of soil humus, is tantamount to turning thumbs downon
man's future, the moment we exhaust North African and otherbulk
supplies of rock phosphate.
On the contrary-- we feel that the Haughley Experiment
confirms the need for a rotation far more heavily weightedin
favour of an animal based agriculture. And if the system isto
remain "closed", it must be operated withjudicious grazing at
low intensity. Failing this, low humus levels will neverallow
plant productivity to really "take off". May weremind the
non-agricultural reader that it CAN take off -- e.g. theearly
years of high yields of high protein grain, on the world's
black-soil plains, all with a total absence of NPK fertilizers.
Other thanrobbing one area of the earth to supply the
demands of another, there is no alternative, if man is everto
relieve his current dependence on long-term fallow.
It may then beargued that the organic approach is
uneconomic. This is probably true in the short-term, but asone
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 itmay be, but one must therefore conclude that
there is no simple way of putting prosperity in the pocketsof
those working the farmlands of a world that has beenbleeding its
soil fertility for centuries.
We just happento be the generation living at the time of
the grand pay-off. Man's survival depends on many of thesem*n
being able to hold on until a world government can changethe
situation.
Time Is Running Out
Temporarily,this world can go on drawing on underground
phosphate reserves from Morocco, Tunisia, Florida and Nauruetc.,
for the immediate future -- if farmers can afford theescalating
prices. But this does not alter the fact that worldagriculture
is headed down a blind alley, a dead-end street and one dayman
will be forced to do an 180ø turn. We will eventually haveto
manage our environment so that each acre of food-producingland
will not only release its own phosphate for plantproduction, but
also a whole range of other nutrients so necessary to healthin
plants, animals and people.
If, as itcertainly appears, soil humus levels are the only
long-term solution, then the sooner we get started, the lesspain
we will inflict upon ourselves and the sooner we will reapsome
of the possible rewards.
From thematerial studied -- all the evidence indicates that
in order to effect a lasting solution to the phosphateproblem,
farmers will in future have to:
1. Raise thelevels of organic matter dramatically and
stabilize the Ph of the soil,
2. Maintain veryhigh levels of organic matter to encourage
a stable and large earthworm population, and
3. Recycle asmuch nutrient outflow as possible, or reduce
economic demands on our soils.
No experimentcomparable to the Haughley trials has to our
knowledge been carried out on high-humus (chernozem) typesoil,
so it is difficult to say what level of fertility isnecessary
before a management system based on steps ONE and TWO, could
largely dispense with the necessity of step THREE. Ofcourse, it
is extremely doubtful if it would ever make sense NOT tobother
recycling most annual plant nutrient production. If it were
otherwise -- would we not be negating God's law of the moreyou
GIVE, the more you GET?
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
YOU SHALL INHERIT THE LAND??
HistoriansToynbee, Durant and Pierenne have all observed
that "nation after nation has FALLEN when it EMPTIEDthe
countryside and denied AGRICULTURE a rightful place in the scheme
of things" ("Unforgiven", Charles Walters,Jr., 1971, p. 308)
How serious isthis 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 tothis
problem? These are important questions affecting all ofmankind
and they will be answered in this issue of "Your Living
Environment". In looking at this worldwide socialexodus 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 inthe
spheres of WORK, FAMILY and RECREATION.
A WORLDWIDE PROBLEM
United Nations'Food and Agriculture Organization puts this
problem into historic and geographic perspective:
"Whileat the beginning of the industrial revolution,
LESS THAN TEN PERCENT of the world's population lived incities,
in the coming century the MAJORITY OF THE WORLD'S POPULATIONwill
consist of URBAN DWELLERS. Thus, in the course of not morethan
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 andwarns
us that:
URBANIZEDSOCIETIES in which a majority of the people
live crowded together in towns and cities, REPRESENT a NEWand
FUNDAMENTAL STEP in MAN'S SOCIAL [HISTORY.] In 1960, for
example, ... according to the U.S. Bureau of Census, 96million
people, 53 percent of the nation's population wereconcentrated
in ... urbanized areas that together occupied only .7percent of
the nation's land .... The large and dense ... urbanpopulation
involves a degree of human contact and social complexityNEVER
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 bedescribed as
PREDOMINANTLY URBANIZED, and by 1900 only one -- GreatBritain --
could be so regarded. Today, only 65 years later, ALLindustrial
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 agriculturalpopulation
has plummeted to less than 4% of the total! So thorough hasbeen
the depopulation of the rural areas that one writer, discussing
the problems of Britain's hill country, made this startling
point:
"Theupland areas, which cover nearly HALF the entire
area of the country ... [contain a] total population lessthan
that of a SINGLE large town.." ("The Inviolable Hills",Robert A.
De J. Hart, London, 1968, p. 3).
Such a state ofaffairs is all the more remarkable when it
is remembered that SOUTHERN England has MORE PEOPLE PERSQUARE
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 therewill
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 thanthe
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 inWEST AFRICA is the classic drama of the drift
from the rural areas to urban centres being more vividlyplayed
out than, perhaps, in Ghana. The DAILY APPEALS of thepoliticians
and social leaders to the youth to 'GO BACK TO THE LAND' notonly
indicate the extent of the problem but also the GEOGRAPHICAL
BACKGROUND of the urban unemployed. There is hardly any roomin
the labour exchange office to file the particulars of the
newcomers; the public parks swarm with aimless, hopelesspeople;
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. NationalFarmers
Union. Speaking only about the United States, Mr. Decantobserved
that,
"INTHE LAST 20 YEARS, 20 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE LEFT THE
FARMS AND RURAL TOWNS AND MOVED TO THE CITIES where wealready
have 70 percent of the population on some 2 percent of theland
and where we already have INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEMS,practically
insurmountable, in terms of water, transportation,education,
health, sewage disposal, whatever you want to name -- thebig
cities are in trouble! And ... THE MIGRATION CONTINUES,[2,300
farmers] daily -- so I think this SENSELESS MIGRATION HAS TOBE
REVERSED. We have to revitalize rural America, and dispersesome
of this high concentration we have on both sea-boards"
("Agricultural News and Research", 15.3.71).
WHY THE RURAL EXODUS?
What was and isthe 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 workand the
moth-like attraction of NEON LIGHTS and THE CROWD are a
counterfeit for GREENER PASTURES, but they neverthelessexert a
strong influence in drawing humanity to the CITIES! At thesame
time there has always been a considerable element ofECONOMIC
COMPULSION driving men from the land. Historically this has
resulted both from their own wrong land management andmisguided
governmental policies.
Historydescribes 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 theattitude of
the moneyed landowners. Lesser men and workers were regardedas
tools to be used and exploited for personal gain. When it
appeared economically favorable whole villages of peoplewere
ejected from the land -- thus breeding a deep-seatedresentment
of the ruling classes.
It isinteresting to note in passing that the oft-exploited
human 'TOOLS' have now been replaced by machines (often madeby
unhappy slum-dwelling descendants of the original peasants).
These machines of course give farmers less trouble, becauseno
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 factoriescame
from dispossessed small-farm families. American agricultural
history is a chronicle of land and resource exploitationwith the
most successful exploiters remaining on the land and the
unsuccessful being forced into the cities -- their propertybeing
absorbed by the former. Even these 'SUCCESSFUL' farmers have
supported only themselves! Most of their own sons havedesired or
been forced to seek their living in THE BRIGHT LIGHTS!
A similar themeruns through the history of urbanization in
other countries. Unfortunately the 'GREENER PASTURES' ofurban
living and employment have always been fraught withproblems.
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 producedlittle-
known crucial changes in the thought-pattern and MENTALITYof
urban dwellers!
THE URBAN MENTALITY
"Fromearly childhood superabundant impressions,
stimuli, and dangers make their impact upon the citydweller, who
compared with the peasant or small-town shopkeeper, becomesa
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-rushingtraffic.
The city dweller dashes to his place of work; and even intransit
he is assailed by loud-coloured posters and constantlyblinking
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 thetimes.
"Thealways startling, ceaseless succession of
impressions, the torrent of stimuli, and in the evening,radio
music and television movies -- all these reduce the citydweller
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.
"Theconsequence is WEARINESS and DISGUST. It is a not
uncommon attitude among the city dwellers, and the youthsfind 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 charactertrait of
people living in large cities" ("Babylon IsEverywhere", Wolf
Schneider, 1960, pp. 321, 322).
It must beunderstood that Schneider's observations are not
applicable to EVERY city-dweller. They are broadgeneralizations
of an over-all picture.
Author LewisMumford noted that SUBURBS were established so
people could escape the stresses of city living, yet resultsare
disastrous:
"Thetown housewife, who half a century ago, knew her
histories and biographies that impinged on her own, in adaily
interchange, now has the benefit of a single weeklyexpedition to
an impersonal supermarket, where only by accident is shelikely
to encounter a neighbour. If she is well-to-do, she issurrounded
by electric devices that take the place of flesh and blood
companions; the end product is an encapsulated life, spentmore
and more either IN A MOTOR CAR, or WITHIN THE CABIN OFDARKNESS
before a television set .... Here indeed we find 'The Lonely
Crowd'" ("The City in History", LewisMumford, 1961, pp. 551,
552).
RECREATION -- AN URBAN CRAVING
Artur Glikson,Head of Planning for Housing in Israel's
Ministry of Labour states that:
"Themore that INDUSTRY and CITIES EXPAND, the greater
is the demand for recreation .... In the dynamics of citylife,
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 ofnatural
and historic origin of the people: to the indigenous andrural
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 Changingthe Face
of The Earth", pp. 897, 912).
MAN'S NEW APPROACH TO 'WORK'
The urban environmenthas also bred a new approach and
attitude to employment:
"It isclear that 'EMPLOYMENT' is no longer regarded as
a contribution to the creation of social wealth, but ratheras a
kind of ticket entitling its holder to share in the distribution
of that wealth. It [an urban job] has come to be regarded ASAN
AGENT OF CONSUMPTION rather than of PRODUCTION. Themechanization
of so many economic activities has built up the idea thatthe
whole economy is in fact a machine, a machine in which theworker
NATURALLY wants to ride ....
"Sincelabour has so long been regarded as a commodity
to be bought and sold in the market, the laborer can hardlybe
blamed ... for believing that it is in his 'interest' to putin
as little effort as possible and extract as much money as
possible.
"Thusthe 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 ACOMPLETED
JOB. LABOUR has been divorced from LIVING; it is no longer a
direct source of satisfaction, but simply A QUALIFICATIONFOR A
MEAL-TICKET" (From "The Ground Up", JorianJenks, Faber and
Faber, 1945, pp. 122, 123).
Even work inAGRICULTURE is now losing its job satisfaction
at the rate it patterns itself after INDUSTRY! Sir George
Stapledon also noted this general change in attitude towork:
"Towork 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 factthat
such a high proportion of the workers of the world aredenied, or
deny themselves this pleasure is to be found one of thechief
CAUSES OF WIDESPREAD SOCIAL NEUROSIS" ("TheNatural Order",
edited by H. Massingham, Faber and Faber, p. 36).
THE DISINTEGRATING FAMILY UNIT
Perhaps the mostimportant effect the rural exodus has had
on each of us lies in the sphere of family life and unity:
"Therecan be little doubt that FAMILY LIFE has
deteriorated in DIRECT proportion as the influence of theFATHER
has WANED. The real trouble began when the man went out towork,
went far from home to work, worked along hours, acquiredoutside
interests, came home late, came home tired. This is theposition
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 tobe an
active parent occurs at the weekend. All too frequently theonly
interest of the family in the father is 'THE BREAD', a most
unhealthy state of affairs -- a state of affairs which tendsto
make the father lead one kind of social life in one placewhile
the mother and the children lead ANOTHER kind of lifeELSEWHERE
"...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 accentuatethat
segregation ... the size of cities and of over-specialized
industrial undertakings has outgrown their capacity to caterfor
the real needs of real human families and of real human
individuals" ("Human Ecology", Sir GeorgeStapledon, p. 113).
PRESSURE FROM POLITICIANS
Perhaps the mostsickening aspect of the whole matter is
that so FEW WORLD LEADERS and thinkers fully comprehend whatthis
worldwide migration is doing to HUMAN MINDS and LIVES! Manyhave
in fact mistakenly spearheaded the drive to push even MOREpeople
FROM the land:
"TheWhite House takes the view that only 1 million
efficient farmers could produce all U.S. farm needs. Todaythere
are 3.4 million farmers. Thus according to the White Housethere
are 2.4 million unneeded farmers" ("U.S. News andWorld Report",
March 22, 1965, p. 59).
That of coursewas the view of the Johnson Administration.
But the present agricultural thinkers for President Nixonshare
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, toCHANGE
farm sizes RADICALLY [larger], and to balance out the supplyand
demand of farm products. It was argued that farming shouldbe
viewed simply as one among many economic activities RATHERTHAN
AS A WAY OF LIFE. Mansholt envisaged that a totalagricultural
population of 5 million in THE SIX would be DESIRABLE in1980.
That would represent ONE QUARTER OF THE 1950 FIGURE of 20million
which had since fallen to 15 million in 1960 and 10 millionin
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 agricultureto
take up OTHER jobs. A second form of action would involve
encouraging the elderly to leave farming" [presumablyto become a
charge against the state's welfare system].("Agriculture,
Studies in Contemporary Europe", Hugh D. Clout,Macmillan, 1971,
pp. 55, 56).
Mansholt is nowforging ahead with his plans -- apparently
unconcerned that he, like the American planners, is
systematically destroying the very heart of a nations socialand
economic foundations. At the same time the policy of theBritish
Ministry of Agriculture was (and presumably still is) toSOLVE
the economic difficulties of its farming industry by a
Mansholt-like amalgamation of every second farm!
As we explainedin an earlier "Research News", agriculture's
chief purpose is not the production of FOOD, but theproduction
of PEOPLE. It is designed to be a stable broad-basedfoundation
of a God designed society and economy.
IS THERE A SOLUTION?
Instead of driving and forcing more families to LEAVE theirrural
environment, (especially when most cities have a pool of
unemployed) even encouragement should be given to REVERSEthe
drift to the cities! It will take God to rectify thissituation.
Man will NOT do it! But it WILL be done and in the very nextfew
years!
Some 3,400 yearsago God set up a model society in which
every man received land as his inheritance. Furthermore, Godmade
it illegal for man to squander it by stating that:
"Inthe year of jubile [i.e. following seven Sabbatical
Years] the field shall return unto him ... to whom thepossession
of the land did belong" (Lev. 27:24).
Soon God willset it up again -- this time not just for
Israelites, but for everyone:
"Soshall 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 lawsof LAND INHERITANCE and the JUBILE are to be
reintroduced in the world tomorrow and then "they shallsit every
man under his own vine and under his fig tree; and noneshall
make them afraid" (Mic. 4:4).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
September-October 1972, Vol. III,Nos. 9-10
Ambassador College (UK)
FARM MAINTENANCE ANDCONSTRUCTION
"Onelook at the boundary gate as you drive up to a farm
property can tell you all you need to know about themanager".
An exaggerationperhaps -- but one that contains more truth
than most of us realize! Often it is not until after youhave been
in the market for a farm, or an even larger property thatyou come
to realise how much can be learned from that FIRSTimpression.
It is simplereally -- 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 usedbaling
twine over a drunken gatepost?
On the otherhand would you expect to drive through the
gold-decorated gates of Buckingham Palace and come to atumble-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 theinside.
WHY ARE SO MANYFARMS 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 andavenues of
majestic trees, while others live in the shimmering heat ofan 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 theirsolutions as
they have basically affected our own farm here at Ambassador
College, Bricket Wood.
It is highlysignificant 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 haveany
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 insufficientacreage.
Some would not regard 4/5,000 acres as "big" butto drop down to
130 can come as quite a shock! It feels like beingcommissioned to
do a portrait and then learn that your canvas is limited tothe
size of a small postage stamp!!
Of the 130 acresthe College owns only 90 can be used for
agricultural purposes. The other 40 is an area that we rentrather
precariously for six months out of every year! Still, callit 130
acres all told.
Having workedwith 1,200 acres of grain, up to 700 head of
cattle and at times 3/4,000 sheep, it was quite a contrastto find
oneself reduced to about 19 cows and calves, three sheep andtwo
goats!
The start of theAgriculture Programme in Britain sounds
almost depressing doesn't it? On the contrary, it has alwaysbeen
a most exciting challenge! Most toughened and seared oldfarmers
will find that difficult to 'SWALLOW', but bear these pointsin
mind:
FIRST, we arelooking back now in retrospect.
SECONDLY, it waseasy to overlook the run-down improvements
because it was still evident that the old Hanstead Farm hadbeen a
model of efficiency.
THIRDLY, it tooksome time to fully realise how little money
was available to implement the Agriculture Programme. Infact there
was usually PLENTY of money, it was just that the CollegeBusiness
Manager always had at least ten people with plans to useit!!
FOURTHLY, themustard-seed beginning of the Agriculture
Programme was no bother at the time. We all KNEW that Godwould
provide His College with the land we needed!
He did too, butthere were some things we did NOT realise! He
did NOT provide it when WE wanted it, or as MUCH as WEwanted, or
of the QUALITY WE wanted. Neither did He provide it in theWAY WE
thought it would come.
When we woke upto the fact that our Father in heaven, (the
RICHEST person in the universe) had given us some of thePOOREST
land in England we began to wonder! It left us with two
alternatives:
FIRST, we couldbegin to despise God's blessing. SECONDLY, we
could accept it gratefully, knowing that there must be agood
reason behind it. No doubt you hope we were smart enough tochoose
the second course. We did and over a period of time THREEimportant
facts have emerged:
FIRST, it is notlogical to expect God to give even His own
College MORE land until we learn how to use that which wealready
have. SECONDLY, if He gave us fertile land we couldperpetuate
wrong soil management practices for years before eitherfinding out
our mistakes, or having to admit them. Rememberpoverty-stricken
soil reveals mistakes in a hurry!
THIRDLY, had Godgiven us rich soil our successes could be
dismissed with the comment -- anyone could get those resultswith
land as fertile as that which Ambassador College uses. Suchof
course is not the case.
Now followingthese general comments on the College farm area,
let us look at some of the areas where improvements havebeen
carried out.
FARM BUILDINGS
In recent yearswe have formed our own Farm Construction Crew
in The Agriculture Department. This not only makes us less
dependent on certain other College Departments (who areusually
well loaded with work) but it provides many satisfying
job-opportunities. In addition it has put a real prod onsome of
our men to go out and seek special training in varioustrades.
We have nowsettled on a general type of building and
construction pattern. We buy in prefabricated woodenbuildings in
sections and do the foundations, side erection and roofingwith our
own men. Though this may not have proved to be the quickestmethod
we think it is very economical.
Much to theamazement of the construction company supplying
the buildings, our crew literally turned them inside out, orto put
it more literally -- OUTSIDE IN! By doing this we end upwith a
fully lined wooden building and use the material of ourchoice on
the outside walls. That which is proving to be mostserviceable and
attractive is box-profile galvanized metal sheeting that hasbeen
factory-covered on the outside with a pleasant blue PVCfinish.
All roofing hasbeen done in Big 6 asbestos sheeting.
Guttering and down pipes are also asbestos and each buildingis set
on 9" x 9" x 18" hollow concrete blocks,resting on excavated
concrete foundations. Where large-stock are housed, theCON-BLOCK
construction is continued to a height of 5'6". Thisallows for a
build-up of farmyard manure to a depth of 3' during winter,if
desired.
The type ofbuilding described has been used (with appropriate
modifications) as a cattle-barn, hayshed andgarden-shed/vegetable
storage unit.
Tentative plansare now in hand to erect one for poultry and
another for machinery/grain storage, but as yet we do nothave
approval for these.
It has been ourexperience that lack of trade skills in our
own farm staff is largely offset by the care they take overtheir
job. This is no substitute for proper qualifications, buttheir
relatively "unskilled" work has been better thanthe botched jobs
done by some contractors. They are at least on hand tocorrect
mistakes when they arise. This can't always be said for
contractors.
One suchdisastrous 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 wasspared,
but he suffered major injuries. Close examination revealedthat one
end of this particular sheet had never been pushed up farenough
toward the ridge-cap, to be supported by the beamunderneath. 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 thefact that most of the College Farm is gravelly
land and the total area very small, we have found a greatneed for
roads. Though the perimeter is fringed with a tar macadamroad,
internal roads are needed to service some fields.
We managed foryears with the natural surface, but it always
degenerated into an unsightly mess in winter. This wasespecially
true around gateways and other points of heavy traffic
concentration.
Rather thancreate the usual drainage ditches on either side
of a FORMED road, we used our tractors and trailers to cartin road
base from a neighboring gravel pit. They had plenty ofcoarse stone
in a clay base to lay down as a solid foundation.
Preparation ofthe underlying surface to receive this material
involved shallow ripping or chisel ploughing. Any grass andorganic
topsoil was removed to a width of 10' and an average depthof 3 to
4".
After leveling,a heavy roller was brought in to thoroughly
consolidate the imported material. This preparation work maybe
heavy at times and arduous, or even tedious, according tothe type
of mechanical equipment available for the job. Regardless ofthat,
it is worth doing the job well. A solid foundation is therefor all
time, but a job half done will continue to give trouble. Itwill
undermine the surface material for years, regardless of howmuch
one spends on the FINISH.
No effort shouldbe spared to produce a smooth even surface on
the base material. In some sections we failed to do this, inour
haste. Our finishing contractor would have done us a favourto have
refused to apply his tar finish to these uneven areas.
That was thefinal stage -- spraying with tar and spreading a
light dressing of gravel. The final process was repeated andthen
we used the road for one winter. It was our intention tobring the
contractor back for one or two tar and gravel applications.
Both parties hadmiscalculated on the speed, weight and
concentration of traffic throughout that winter. It was alsowetter
than usual. Base preparation had been good, except forunevenness,
but the surface broke up. Water penetration followed and wemanaged
to produce a fine CROP of potholes by the end of winter!
Instead ofrepairing 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 areknown.
For example the British Ministry of Agriculture makesspecial
financial grants available for farm-road construction. Agrant can
cover as much as 40% of the total cost involved and they areNOT
payable on tarred roads. Presumably the latter have beenjudged
unsatisfactory for farm use under local conditions.
In addition tothese facts, we had no foundation costs in
building the concrete type roads. These had already been metin the
initial stages of tarred construction. That which remainedof the
original road following the tough winter and heavy traffic,formed
an ideal base upon which we poured our concrete.
The tarred roadwas crowned in the middle and to save cement
this crown had to be marginally lowered in places. We aimedat a
minimum depth of 3" in the centre and 4" under thewheel tracks. An
inch of side-slope was deemed sufficient to produce thedesired
run-off of rain-water.
Concrete wasdelivered ready-mixed from a gravel-washing plant
less than a mile away and a large number of channelled steelFORMS
were hired in for the job. The latter are held in positionby iron
spikes supplied with the forms.
Spreading wasdone with shovels and rakes and tamping with a
spring-mounted small engine on a heavy wooden beam. Thedesired
rough FATTY finish (for English winter conditions) wasproduced by
a light hand tamping with a smaller wooden beam.
Cement waspoured in 15' bays, each divided by a 1/2"
expansion joint of heavy CARDBOARD-FELT. During the earlypart of
this construction the weather was unusually hot and dry,especially
for England. This produced problems of serious cracking aslong as
the cement mix was GOING-OFF too quickly. We also made themistake
of thinking that we could get away with a covering ofplastic
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 coveringand
this worked fine as long as our men kept it damped down.
STOCK-PROOF FENCING
The world owesmuch 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 puzzlingphenomenon.
Perhaps the reason is the nation's long-standing reliance onhedges
and stone walls. Whatever it is, its destitution of soundfencing
is exceeded only by its deplorable farm-gates!
Our efforts inthis direction have been quite varied and so
too have our successes. Various excuses could be given, butthey
are unimportant. That which we have learned is what might beof
interest to the reader.
The Yule estatehad been fenced in the context of horse-stud
management. Though unsuited to the needs of AmbassadorAgriculture
Programme it has been economically inadvisable to replacemany of
these old fences. Some readers will be a trifle shocked tolearn
the dimensions of the standard Yule fence; 52" high, 3softwood
rails of 4" x 1 1/2" and the bottom rail 6"apart. The general
impression of such fencing is one of either luxury orextravagance,
according to your own personal viewpoint.
The greatweaknesses 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 necessaryfor cattle.
Both of these weaknesses combine to create too much spaceabove and
below the middle rail. Young calves slip through the lowerspace
and adult cattle put their heads through the top. There isan old
saying that where an animal can get his head the rest willfollow.
The number of rails our men have replaced over the yearswould seem
to prove this point.
Cracking hasalways 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
Availablefencing materials in iron vary greatly from one
country to another, so one has to become familiar withwhatever is
available.
Unlike someother areas, iron posts seem to rather unpopular
in Britain. This is at least partly due to the corrosivenature of
British climatic conditions, but also inferior L-shapeddesign. The
star-post, available overseas, has much more strength andlength of
life.
Barbed-wireseems to be something that is almost abhorred by
British agriculture because of its dangerous potential tocut and
tear. But it seldom produces bad results if each strain isat least
four to five chains long, kept in good repair and under high
tension. It is not fair to assess barbed-wire as dangerousif one
stretches it by hand between a few half-rotten spindlystakes!
Barbed-wire in a slack and collapsing old fence is adefinite stock
hazard and has NO place on ANY farm!
One of the mosteconomical fences that is proof against all
stock -- sheep, cattle and horses is what is variouslycalled
"hinged joint", "ringlock" or"woven wire". With two BARBES on top,
this fence is almost man-proof as well as stock-proof! It isnot
only effective, but quick to erect if you have the necessarywire-
straining equipment. Though it is HORSE-PROOF it should NOTbe used
around horses, because they can never resist the temptationto paw
it with their hooves. This destroys the fabricated structureof the
wire-mesh and injures the horses.
ELECTRIC FENCES
Electric fencescome more within the field of animal
husbandry, but we must mention them in this article becausewe 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 mayneed more
training than the livestock).
We have had someexperience with both BATTERY and MAINS
electricity. There is certainly a place for the batteryoperated
fence, but our best results have been with electric powerfrom the
mains supply. It may only be that it is less subject toOPERATOR
failure rather than battery failure. We have installed many
hundreds of yards of permanent mains fencing. It can be madeto
look very neat. Our wire for example is supported between
white-painted 2 x 2" posts at 15 yard intervals. So farit has not
been used on sheep, but we are going to try running a doublewire
for them. Here again success may require training animals to
respect the electrified wire within the confines of aregular
fence.
On one farm wehave seen, portable electric fencing has even
been moderately successful with free-range poultry.
PLASTIC FENCES
Another product thatappears to be successful as a mobile
fence for sheep and poultry is an electrified plastic fenceof
hinge-joint pattern. It appeared to be working very wellwith ewes
and lambs on the Wiltshire Downs and if it will contain someof the
British breeds it needs no further recommendation.
Locally producedplastic-covered chain-link fencing wire is a
very attractive proposition until one hears the price, butat times
the additional expense may be worthwhile.
Plastic-coveredwire may raise a smile with readers in some
countries where conditions are very different to thoseexisting in
Britain. However it makes more sense under some extremeconditions
than the writer realized. At a recent Hill-farm open daynear the
Manchester industrial complex one of our guides said thefarm
receives a 1/4 ton of atmospheric pollution PER ACRE PERYEAR!
Galvanized-wire fence in that area lasts about THREE years!!Under
such conditions plastic-coated wire may be the ONLYacceptable form
of iron fence.
NETTING
Only in ourPoultry Section have we found it necessary to use
wire-netting. 6' wide x 19 guage was used, but it is muchtoo light
and is rusting rapidly after only THREE years. Inconjunction with
steel posts, it retains the birds and excludes foxes.Netting, 5'
6" high does not guarantee protection, but it has keptthem out
during daylight and we lock the birds away overnight.
HEDGES
Correctlymanaged hedges can be an acceptable stock barrier.
We think most hedges are kept too low. If allowed to go upto 10'
or 20' high, they would offer far more protection foranimals and
pastures in both winter and summer. Two of the argumentsused
against this are FIRST -- the base thins out to where it isno
longer stock-proof and SECONDLY -- shading lowers overall
production of adjacent farmland.
Figures havebeen 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 theirbottom
density, the advantages of height may justify asingle-strand
electric fence on one side of the hedge.
WOODEN RAILS
Where appearanceis 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 settledfor
this type of fence. Its dimensions are as follows: 46"high, 3
softwood rails of 6" x 1 1/2", the bottom rail10" above ground
level. Between the top and middle rail is theoretically8". In
practice the latter is nearer 9", (6" rails areNEVER 6").
The ratio ofspace to solid timber between ground level and
the top of this fence gives it a solid and substantialappearance.
Big stock can't get their heads through it and quiet cattlewon't
go over it. Keeping stock fences to minimum height iseconomic in
construction and reduces the tendency to lean over or bepushed
over, with advancing age. This is especially true on undulatingor
hilly land and all too common in cattle yards. (Many a 6'6" or
even 6' cattle yard has been pushed over years before itstime,
when one of 5' 2" would have remained upright).
STAYING, BRACING, OR STRUTTING
When it comes tostaying or strutting straining posts and any
others in need of bracing against the pull of wire undertension,
there is a long history of argument in many countries. Thesystem
used and its method of application have both been thesubject of
many heated discussions by stock men everywhere.
Some say thebest method is the commonly used STRUT with one
end let into the ground beside the fence and the other endrunning
up at an angle toward the upper part of the post, bracing it
against the direction of pull by the fence wires. Others gofor
bracing and counter-bracing with twisted wire-ropes. Stillothers
manage with a cap-rail from the straining post to the firstregular
post in the fence-line and a single wire-rope from the topof this
post back to ground level on the straining post.
We feel thatmost of these systems can be successful if
properly employed and at times local circ*mstances maydetermine
which is best to use. The first we mentioned is the mostcommon and
perhaps the simplest of all, but there must be at least 500
variations of what should be one very straight-forwardprocedure.
The bracing of straining posts is as good an indication asany that
farmers are the same the world over. 80% of their effortsbecome
ineffective in the first five years of the life of a newfence and
believe it or not, some are counter-productive from thestart!
THREE mainproblems 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 thefence.
The SECOND is at the end let into the ground. It must havesome
kind of base plate behind it that is considerably largerthan the
diameter of the strut itself. This can be metal, (in theform of an
old cultivation disc e.g.) or a large flat stone, or evenconcrete.
Without one of these, or something similar the strainingpost under
pressure will force the bracing rail to move in the soil andat
least all the top wires will lose their tension.
The THIRDtrouble-spot is the point at which the strut meets
the side of the straining post. Here there can be at leastTWO
problems. ONE is the method of securing the strut to thepost. Some
don't bother, they just lean it against the post and hopefor the
best! Some drive a large nail through the end of the railand into
the post and don't even hope for the best! Others at leasttake a
couple of rough axe cuts out of the side of the post andrest 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 methodwe have seen takes a little longer, but it
will outlast the life of any strut. One simply squares thetop-end
of the rail, preferably with an adze. Then bore and chiselan
equivalent hole in the side of the straining post,(immediately
below the appropriate wire) thus producing a mortise andtenon
joint. Drive the mortise into the tenon and then force theother
end into a shallow hole in the ground in front of atight-fitting
base-plate. All angles, on the mortise and tenon can be cutso that
no water runs into the joint, or a piece of galvanized sheetmetal
may be nailed on the top side to run the rain off.
The otherproblem is the most contentious of all -- the height
above the ground at which the strut meets the side of thepost.
This point must not be TOO high, or TOO low, but in gettingit just
right there are two factors to be taken into account. One isthe
LENGTH of the strut and the other is the ANGLE at which itmeets
the post. (If this begins to sound complicated to those whohave
never erected a fence, be assured, that it is not so. Thewhole
thing is babyishly simple, though few get it right and many
disagree.)
If the length ofthe strut and the contact point on the
straining post produce an angle underneath the mortise jointof
less than 45ø, trouble may occur. If this angle is decreasedto
something of the order of 30ø, the strut will in timeactually lift
the biggest straining post right out of the ground, justlike a
hydraulic jack! The more TENSION is applied to the fencewires the
more LIFTING power is increased, even on a post that isbelow three
feet in the ground and well rammed!
If the point ofcontact between the POST and the STRUT is too
LOW, the base of the post will tend to move and underextreme
conditions the wires will pull the post over the top of thestrut.
To say the least they will both become unstable and beeasily
pushed out of line. Whatever happens when any of thesesystems go
wrong, the end result is ALWAYS loss of tension on thefencing
wires. Then stock quickly begin to demolish even the best ofwire
fences.
Our reason for leaningso heavily on this aspect of our
subject is that MORE fences have been destroyed throughincorrect
bracing than by atmospheric pollution, wild and unrulyanimals, 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 easierto
repair. As to appearance, opinions are quite divided. Gatesof
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 keptclosed at
most times and hangs in the same line as the fence, itsweight will
exert a small and constant balancing effect against thetension of
the wires. This will tend to take some of the load off the
base-plate of the strut.
Where one is notconfident about the effectiveness of the post
bracing, it is probably better to hang the gate on aseparate post
placed next to the straining post and fortify with concrete.
Otherwise the gate will need repeated leveling to counterthe
movements of the fence straining post under pressure. (Theseare
adjustments that few people ever get around to and so it isbest to
avoid the mistakes in the first place.)
When gates goout of alignment the catches cease to work, they
no longer swing properly, they look awful and everyone hatesthem
EXCEPT their owner! He always exhibits a remarkable capacityto
live with the appearance and inconvenience of his OWN gates.They
are like pets and children -- your OWN are fine, but thoseof OTHER
people are hardly bearable.
Regardless ofhow we may excuse our own shortcomings -- other
people DON'T and the condition of those gates will tell thevisitor
all he needs to know about your farm and much more BEFORE heso
much as sets foot on your land. Farm CONSTRUCTION andMAINTENANCE
is one of the agriculturalist's biggest weaknesses. To themind of
a city-dweller, a farm stead is synonymous with UNPAINTED,SHODDY,
'QUAINT' BUILDINGS, CREAKY GATES, SAGGING FENCES, RUSTINGMACHINERY
and UNCUT WEEDS with a few chickens, pigs and geesescattered about
to make the tangle more interesting. No wonder that the bulkof our
population has a perverted idea of the rural environment.Most of
them have never seen a right one!
Farming cannotand will not rise to its God intended level of
importance until MAJOR positive changes take place in thestandards
of farm stead appearance.
We should allwatch our maintenance and construction and don't
let it condemn us in the eyes of God or other people.
Meanwhile thisDepartment of Ambassador College intends to
continue research into farm fences and other construction sothat
we may make further recommendations in the future to all whoare
interested.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
November-December 1972, Vol. III,Nos. 11-12
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AT AMBASSADORCOLLEGE
"Ifyou live by my rules and follow my orders
obediently, I will give you rain in due season, the landshall
bear its crops, the trees shall bear their fruit; yourthreshing
shall last till the time for vintage and your vintage shalllast
till the time for sowing, ... you shall have to clear outthe old
to make room for new supplies" (Lev. 26:3-5,10 Moffat).
This is hardlywhat 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 whomade
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 lostknowledge
of many of the "RULES"?
One has only toread 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 thatwe
RE-CAPTURE TRUE VALUES in ALL areas of life, including
AGRICULTURE and ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. That is preciselythe
role of this Department (apart from growing whatever food wecan
for the College).
Regainingknowledge however, is of no value unless we can do
something with it. That's why we have been publishingmaterial
like this for some three years -- to make our findingsavailable
to those who are interested.
That is also whywe operate a letter-answering service to
people in more than 30 countries, from Norway to New Zealandand
from Tonga to Togoland.
Our research isbased on the Bible and extends to any part
of the world where information on Agriculture is publishedin the
English language.
Occasionally weeven have people translating for us or
interpreting in personal interviews.
Over and aboveall of this, there are still certain things
we can do in practice right here on the College farm. Withthis
in mind we have set up an Experimental Section where we cancarry
out various field trials. In this combined issue we want togive
you some idea of the programme we have been carrying out. Atthe
same time we will also give you some of the reasons why wefeel
it was worthwhile to carry out these trials.
FERTILISING VEGETABLES
High fertilitysoil will grow healthier and more nutritious
vegetables. Home gardeners want this, but what is the bestway of
achieving it?
For severalyears we have been investigating methods of
improving soil in our Vegetable Section. There is still muchroom
for improvement, but considerable progress has been made andnow
we have a soil vastly superior to that with which westarted.
While stillpushing ahead with development of the Vegetable
Section we have now started a trial in our new Experimental
Section to compare various organic manures.
The comparisonsare between:
1. WELLROTTED COW-DUNG
2. FRESHCOW-DUNG
3. COMPOST
4. STRAW
5. HYDIG(dried sewage sludge)
6. CONTROLPLOT
7. GREENMANURE
Immediatelyafter germination, differences between
treatments became apparent. The COMPOSTED area quicklyshowed up
with the most prolific growth. The OLD-DUNG plot was thenext
best early performer, followed by the HYDIG, NEW-DUNG,CONTROL
and STRAW. (We have no results from Plot No. 7, because itwas
raising its own green-manure crop in the first year.)
There was amarked difference between the OLD-ROTTED DUNG
and the area manured with FRESH DUNG. This differenceremained
for the whole season, although the final yield was notaffected.
Obviously as the season progresses "FRESH" dungrots down and
becomes indistinguishable from "OLD" dung. Ourresults indicate
that although fresh dung retarded early growth this may be
unimportant to eventual yield.
COMPOST gavebetter yields than any other plot, but the
trial needs to go on for several years so that cumulativeeffects
can be fully observed and assessed. At present, for example,the
area under straw is at a disadvantage because there has notyet
been a chance for earthworm activity to reach its full
development underneath the straw.
As mentionedearlier, we planted a selection of vegetables
across these SEVEN soil fertility trial plots. Not allspecies of
vegetables responded in the same way. These results amply
demonstrated the wisdom of planting a SELECTION, but at thesame
time this variation in response complicated the task ofassessing
results.
It is much tooearly 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 inthe
LONG-TERM! Future years should prove interesting.
DEPTH OF SOWING
John Hepburn, inhis book "Crop Production, Poisoned Food
and Public Health", wrote a chapter on depth of sowingcereal
grains. He points out that it affects the plant in THREEways,
stating that deep-sown crops are more prone to:
1. Lodging
2. Drought
3. Wirewormattack
He produces somevery convincing photographs in support of
his theory that the conditions surrounding root development
induce these problems. These show root development atvarious
stages of plant growth.
OUR TRIAL
It was decidedthat 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 (notpart of Hepburn's trial)
2. 1/2"
3. 1 1/2"
4. 4"
Emergence of theseedlings occurred within the following
times:
1. Surface sown-- indefinite
2. 1/2" --8 days
3. 1 1/2"-- 10 days
4. 4" -- 12days
Although thetrial 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 toturn
over. This reduced the eventual germination on this plot by
approximately 30%.
Photographs weretaken 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.
Delayeddevelopment of primary plots can be clearly seen in
plants in the 4" PLOT. These roots never did develop tothe
extent of the shallower plants so the latter SHOULD havemore
resistance to lodging.
SURFACE-SOWNplants 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 30days,
see the file 721145a.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)
Between thoseplanted at 1/2" and 1 1/2" there is little to
choose. The plants in the SHALLOWER plots had a strongerstem in
the first 8 weeks of growth than did the 4" plot, butunder the
conditions of the trial this was unimportant. (Though itcould be
MOST significant in field conditions.)
ROOT & STEM DEVELOPMENT AT 42 DAYS
(NOTE: To view a photograph showing root development at 42days,
see the file 721145b.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)
Follow-up trialsmay be done in a GREENHOUSE to simulate
drought conditions. This way we could test the theory that
SHALLOW sowing gives better drought resistance.
Pest resistancewill 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 theevidence 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 eitherthe
SURFACE-SOWN or the DEEP-SOWN (4") plants and theirvigour 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 aheavier
seeding rate under such conditions, if DEEP seeding isdesired.
The primaryroots 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 DEEPsowing
would be to germinate seeds when the top layers of soil are
completely dry. In all other cases sowing at 1/2" to 11/2"
should give the best results. Despite any early advantagesduring
the growing season it is recorded by others that yields arenot
significantly affected.
(We wouldappreciate 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
"YourLiving Environment", Vol. I No. 11 carried an article
on the effect of animal dung on plant growth anddevelopment.
Vol. II Nos. 1 & 2 also referred to the role of ruminant
digestion and its effects on seeds.
As a result ofthe above research we set out to look for any
observable EFFECTS of ruminant digestion on seed germinationand
subsequent growth. We therefore thought a field trial would
demonstrate some of the concepts set out in these earlierissues
of the Research News.
Early in April, 1972a small trial was set up using Italian
ryegrass and White Clover seed. Two cows were isolated fromthe
rest of the herd and put onto a controlled seed-free dietfor
several days. At the end of this time we added a certainamount
of ryegrass and clover seed to their rations.
In due coursedung 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-freearea
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 treatedwith an
application of fresh cow manure. The other had no contactwith
manure at all. Thus we had three treatments:
COW MANURE SEEDTRIAL PLOTS
1. Cow manurecontaining seed mixture.
2. Seed sownwith fresh manure.
3. Seed sownwithout any manure. (Control)
The treatmentswere left to germinate while we eagerly
awaited the results. All three germinated at approximatelythe
same time, but the area which had been treated with FRESHMANURE,
(Plot No. 2) had caked hard and so needed watering andloosening
to allow the sample seedlings to emerge.
During thesubsequent 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 inthis
of course. However, towards the end of the growing season,plants
from the seeds that had passed through the ruminantdigestive
tract produced a much higher yield of seed heads than eitherof
the other two plots (Nos. 2 & 3)!
FUTURE OF THE TRIAL
The growthpattern of plots 2 and 3 was so different to No.
1 that it has held us back a year. Why? Because plots Nos. 2and
3 set so LITTLE seed!
The reader willappreciate that it was, (and still is) our
intention to sow the second generation seed into the same
environment as the first, to observe any noticeablecompounding
effects of these environments.
You can see howthe trial can become more interesting as
time goes on. Ultimately we should be able to demonstratesome
visual genetic changes by the simple process ofcross-planting
the three plots.
There is muchevidence to show that environment can alter
genetic characteristics. We know this already. The long-termaim
of this experiment is to demonstrate these effects thatruminant
digestive tracts may have on seeds.
About this timeyou might be asking yourself WHY we would
expect any EFFECTS on seeds passing through the system of asheep
or a cow.
We have askedourselves -- if the digestive tract doesn't
have any effect on these seeds, why did God design theanimals so
that a percentage of seeds pass through them? (In God'sdesigning
there seems to be purpose in everything).
In concludingthe comments on this particular trial -- may
we take you back to what was stated in Vol. I No. 11? It iswell
known that DUNG-PATS produce the most luxuriant plant growthin
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 yearswith
only the seeds produced in this manner, we believe thatchanges
in HEALTH, VIGOUR and PRODUCTIVITY of grazing land might bequite
revolutionary!
Such changeswould dramatically highlight the role of God's
commanded SABBATICAL YEAR and the emphasis it gives to
LIVESTOCK-BASED agriculture.
It will besometime 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, 1971we initiated a trial to compare the
suitability of growing various pasture legumes, (cloversmainly)
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 commercialgravel
pits adjacent to the boundary of our property.)
A total of 46plots were laid out, each being roughly 10' x
6'. Into these was sown the following pasture grasses and
legumes, separately and in combinations:
GRASSES
co*cksfoot(Dactylis glomerata)
PerennialRyegrass (Lolium perenne)
Phalaristuberosa (Imported Aust. seed)
Tall fescue(Festuca arundinacea)
Timothy(Phleum pratense)
LEGUMES
Alsikeclover (Trifolium hybridum)
Subterranean clover (Imported Aust. Mt. Barker variety)
Whiteclover (Trifolium repens)
The plots werearranged 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 inthe Images\Ag
directory.)
August sowingproved 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 thepoor
germination would not have given worth-while results.
By mid-summer this year, the remaining plotswere well
established and it was decided to go ahead with someprovisional
measurements.
PURPOSE AND METHODS
As statedearlier, we wanted to try a number of new pasture
species which might be more suitable than those on which wehave
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. Althoughtoo
small to be grazed individually, we were able to graze themall
in one block and observe the results.
Before turningcows 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 goodestimate of
productivity of each species and variety on OUR land and inOUR
environment.
The remainder ofthe 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 andthere
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 theplots to grazing enables us to evaluate the
productivity of each species and variety, under a grazing
situation and not simply in the artificial environment ofmown
plots.
The SECONDreason is to get some gauge of palatability.
Unlike mowers, ANIMALS show persistent preferences forcertain
species and many years of careful plant breeding have oftenbeen
lost when the end result of MOWN trials has been submittedto the
ultimate test. GRAZING ANIMALS are the ultimate test! Sooneror
later the results of EVERY pasture trial must be submittedfor
their approval.
By using grazingtechniques in the first instance, we not
only avoid this problem, but can also make some estimate ofthe
animals' PREFERENCE for different varieties. (This isvitally
important, because God has made cows, as a general rule,
instinctively better judges of their own nutritional needsthan
men are.)
RESULTS
Just by lookingat the overall growth, co*cksfoot and Tall
Fescue were by far the most advanced of all the grassessown. Of
the legumes, Australian Subterranean clover looked very
promising. Accurate dry matter weighings verified our
observations, although there was very little to choosebetween
the Subterranean clover and White clover stands. Of all the
mixtures, Sub. clover/Tall fescue came out well ahead.
Subterraneanclover has given very good results in the first
year, which makes us think that it may have a permanentplace in
this country. It will be interesting to see how well it
germinates again next year. The biggest problem with thisplant
here, may be the difficulty of re-seeding itself. (Even if
succeeding germinations are poor, there may still be a placefor
this legume on short rotation leys, if it can regularly produce
very good yields.)
Our trial willbe continued for many years to test the
persistence of all these species and provide a comparisonwith
the other pastures on the College farm. It is envisionedthat
other varieties will be added to the area as they become
available.
From this trialwe can constantly evaluate the potential of
new species under our conditions, BEFORE introducing theminto
our pastures.
WHEAT BREEDING TRIAL
In a previousissue of "Your Living Environment" (Vol. III,
No. 7), we asked the question -- WILL A VERY FERTILE SOILPRODUCE
BETTER SEEDS THAN A LOW FERTILITY SOIL? IF SO, DOES THEEFFECT
LAST OVER SEVERAL GENERATIONS?"
The approach ofour 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 whichthey are
grown. It is well known that HARDNESS in wheat is primarily
dependent on the genetic potential of the parent seed. Butdoes
this mean that the environment has NO influence on genetic
characteristics?
The underlyingprinciple involved behind this question is a
very fundamental one, and differing views have been thesubject
of many heated debates among scientists.
In 1971, we setout to try to demonstrate that environment
DOES influence genetic characteristics, because muchevidence
exists to prove this.
We chose thecharacteristic of HARDNESS" in wheat as our
yardstick, comparing a HARD (i.e. high protein) wheat with aSOFT
(i.e. low protein) wheat. Our aim was to discover whetherSOFT
wheat, bred for successive generations on FERTILE ground,
developed a greater genetic potential for HARDNESS than thesame
variety grown on LOW fertility soil. And similarly, whetherthe
HARD wheat grown on infertile soil developed a geneticpotential
for softness.
PROGRESS IN 1971
We laid out thetrial in an area which had a fertile soil
adjacent to a low fertility soil and arranged three areas:
1. A highfertility section
2. A lowfertility section
3. What wetermed a medium fertility section, where we used
inorganic fertilizers.
In addition, thetop two inches of soil were removed from
both the LOW and MEDIUM fertility sections and spread on theHIGH
fertility plot. This topsoil included most of the organicmatter.
Aftercultivation, each of the above sections were divided
into four sub-plots, into which TWO varieties were sown (onesoft
and one hard) at the same time duplicating each variety.
(NOTE: To view a chart titled "Diagram of WheatBreeding Trial",
see the file 721148.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)
In spite ofseveral initial obstacles due to late planning,
a reasonable crop resulted. But the most disastrous eventwas the
bird invasion which took nearly the whole crop just as it
ripened!!
However wemanaged to save enough seed to get a visual
comparison. This showed the effect of treatments to beexactly as
anticipated.
PROGRESS IN 1972
The procedurewas 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 gettwo
spring varieties, and so had to employ a SPRING HARD WHEATand a
WINTER SOFT WHEAT, sowing both of them in early April. Yet
despite the late start, we managed to obtain sufficient seedto
confirm the previous year's observations.
The MEDIUMfertility plot, however, did give us a brain
teaser! There didn't appear to be much difference betweenthe
seed from this plot and that from the HIGH fertility plot.
It will beinteresting to see any developments in the future
between these two.
The plan now isto continue with this experiment, keeping
the seed each year. By sowing the same seed back in the samearea
each year, any adaptation to the various environments should
gradually take place.
The final testwill be to cross-plant the seeds over the
various fertility levels to see the extent to which theyhave
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 justsome 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 thisactivity is helping us to recapture some of the
"TRUE VALUES" we speak of so frequently. At thesame time it is
equipping us to explain the "RULES" of ourGod-given environment
to YOU and to THE WORLD, through classes, letters, leaflets,
booklets, the magazine, etc.
It is helpingthis Department to play its part in "FEEDING
THE FLOCK". It is acknowledged that we all needguidance in the
areas of child-rearing, marriage, finance, etc., but is itnot
equally necessary for us to learn the truth about managingthe
broader aspects of our environment?
An ecologist isone 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 putit this way:
"Unless the general citizenry catch an understanding of
the whole scene of which they are part, they will not befitted
to participate in a solution of their own problems"("Deserts on
the March", p. 164, Paul Sears).
In his DegreeCeremony address at Melbourne University,
1971, R. F. Downes stated:
"Youshould 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 contentjust
to restrict yourself to learning more and more about the
particular field in which you have been specially trained.
"I am convinced that the educatedpeople; 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 knowledgeof
them to participate in an INTEGRATED approach to the problemof
man in his environment" ("Journal of Aust.Institute of
Agricultural Science", June 1971, p. 166).
Does thisBROAD-BASED APPROACH to education sound like
Ambassador College? Does the LIFE-LONG EDUCATION PROCESSsound
like Mr. Armstrong? Does MAN'S NEED TO THINK CLEARLYRELATIVE TO
HIS ENVIRONMENT remind you of what has been continually
emphasised in "Your Living Environment" throughoutthe past three
years?
It has been ouraim not only to inform you on what. We are
LEARNING and tell you what we are DOING, but also tostimulate
you to seek added environmental knowledge on your own.
It is our hopethat The Department of Agriculture and those
whom it serves may continue together toward a better
understanding of God's wonderful and inspiring creation!
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
June 1973, Vol. IV, No. 1
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
DON'T BOYCOTT QUALITY FOOD!
Famine stalksthe earth and thousands die daily -- yet in
most nations, farmers are fleeing the land to avoidbankruptcy!
What a crazy, illogical situation for this world to be in!What
is wrong with agriculture? Why can't farmers MAKE ENDS MEETin a
world crying out for more FOOD? Is it just a problem of
mal-distribution of produce to CONSUMERS and income toPRODUCERS?
In this issue of"Your Living Environment" we want to look
at some of the problems these two population groups arebringing
on themselves and upon each other. At the same time, as weare
all either FOOD PRODUCERS or CONSUMERS, it will help to pointout
ways in which both groups can live more abundantly.
Our Food System
Most CONSUMERSare part of the vast majority who exist on
LOW-QUALITY, MASS-PRODUCED food, bought at the LOWEST price
possible!
Those connectedwith QUALITY food are in such a minority
that for the moment in this article we need consider onlythe
MASS of consumers and those who produce the CHEAP food forthem.
The relationshipbetween the great mass of CONSUMERS and
PRODUCERS is usually explained via ECONOMICS, but the rootof
this matter is mentally and educationally based, rather than
economic.
No one seems toknow which came first -- the farmers' NEED
to cut corners and produce CHEAP food, or CONSUMERS' need tocut
corners and buy only the cheapest mass-produced article.This
must be one of the most VICIOUS CIRCLES ever to arise out ofthe
Industrial Revolution. Both PRODUCER and CONSUMER aremyopically
locked in what could be a death-struggle! While each party
struggles for economic advantage they appear to be obliviousto
their mutual DEPENDENCE on one another, but worse than that,
their influence on each other is mutually DESTRUCTIVE!
Economicpressure from CONSUMERS drives individual PRODUCERS
to run faster on their treadmill, yet the more theycollectively
produce, the lower their unit market price falls: e.g. the
European butter "MOUNTAIN"! That means they mustrun even faster
and the longer they survive the more they stress their
environment! How long can it go on?
The CONSUMER, onthe other hand feels that he is caught in a
PRODUCER-BACKED food price-spiral. If he is, it is not ofthe
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 theirfamilies
would ever join the historic population drift to the cities.
CONSUMERS arecaught-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 PRESERVATIONof
food for increased shelf-life.
All thesefactors inflate the final cost that must be borne
either by PRODUCERS or CONSUMERS. It takes PEOPLE to providethem
and if that's what we want, we must be prepared to rewardthose
from whom we demand service.
These costfactors will loom ever larger in food economics,
just as long as our life-style continues on its presentcourse of
centralization and urban concentration!
Let's Get Our Priorities Straight
As statedearlier, the basic problem is in the mind, not the
pocket book! We will come to PRODUCERS a little later, butright
now ask yourself the question -- do CONSUMERS buy low-priced
low-quality food because they can't AFFORD that which costsmore?
In all too many cases the answer is NO! Cutting down onQUANTITY
or QUALITY does not necessarily mean they can't afford it.People
do this even while receiving pay rises.
The recentinternational storm over beef prices is a good
example. Pressure groups have been active in Britain and theU.S.
to boycott beef. On the surface it would appear that anysuch
cause deserves only sympathy, but there are a few questionswe
might ask first:
1. When wasthere ever a more rapid rise in British wages
and salaries than in the months prior to the BEEF BOOM?
2. How much ofthese rises found their way into the pocket
of the meat producer -- except in the form of increased
production costs?
3. When was thelast organized boycott and massive press
campaign against the rising cost of beer, wine, spirits and
cigarettes?
4. Has the rise infood prices triggered off a fall in the
public's consumption of the above items?
5. Has the risein food prices dropped the sale of cars, TV,
pop-records, or transistors?
6. Have therebeen any reports of a recent falling off in
the national expenditure of gaming, betting, pools,lotteries, or
bingo?
No doubt risingfood prices cause very real hardships with
people on fixed incomes. Many of the rest of us also feeltrapped
as part of a vicious system, but we must admit that some ofour
troubles are self-inflicted. There is a great need to getour
priorities straight -- before cutting our level of nutritionby
boycotting beef or any other food.
Don't Sacrifice FOOD QUALITY!
The world is notabout to follow Ambassador College but it
is our job to make God's basic principles known. And evenamong
members, some will be able to apply them more than others,but as
either PRODUCERS, or CONSUMERS, WE need to make more effortto
obey God's physical laws and break away from the vastMAJORITY!
We should be numbered among the MINORITY who produce and/or
consume QUALITY food!
Governments andCONSUMERS 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 thePRODUCER is
hurting himself as well as the CONSUMER. At the same time wewill
see that positive steps can be taken that will benefit both
parties.
We All Depend Upon the Producer!
Yes -- but on whomdoes 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 AGENTSexisted!
All of these groups flock to the "AID" of theFARMER to help
solve his problems.
More"SCIENTIFIC" knowledge and "technical" know-how are
employed today than ever before, but if you have afarmer-friend
ask him:
DOES HE HAVELESS 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 apartfrom
God, man is -- "EVER LEARNING AND NEVER ABLE TO COME TOTHE
KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH" (2 Tim. 3:7)
Man has rejectedthe Bible -- the only solution to his
farming problems and is thereby jeopardizing the future ofall
mankind. We need to understand and obey the laws by whichGod'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'sdependence on chemical fertilizers is cited as
proof of their success, but in reality, its dependence onthem is
proof that they never have and never will add FERTILITY tosoil!
God's systemdepends heavily on the growing of legumes and
also on continuous re-cycling of organic residues. Thatmeans the
return of animal manure (from stock grazing land), residuesfrom
crops, "WEEDS" and even crops grown specially toturn back into
the soil as GREEN-MANURE.
Soil is thefoundation of ALL food production. Yet today,
most of our food comes from soil that receives NO plannedreturn
of organic matter! That is one major reason why soilfertility is
DECLINING in the Western world.
According toOregon State College Professor W. B. Bollen,
"Nitrogen ... is most often the limiting food elementin soil
fertility" (Micro-organisms and Soil Fertility, 1959).
The DESIGNER ofour environment has provided the soil with
four main sources of nitrogen:
A. Leguminousplants in association with a certain type of
bacteria that fixes nitrogen in the soil direct from theair.
B. Animal manurefrom grazing stock.
C. Decompositionof all types of dead plant matter.
D. Decompositionof the bodies of all types of dead animals.
Did you realizeGod's Word commands a regular return of dead
plant matter and animal manure to the soil? We are orderedto
cease harvesting the land and let it rest every seventh year
(Lev. 5:1-4). Our cattle and sheep are to spread out overit,
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 encouragean
accumulation of plant life. This material dies or is cutdown and
allowed to decompose in the soil where it grew.
Our soil is agift direct from God (Ezek. 47:13-14) and He
requires it of us that we regularly return organic matter toit.
In this way God protects the SOIL'S FERTILITY, the FARMERS'BANK
BALANCE and the CONSUMERS' HEALTH!
2. Correct Cultivation
Logically, thenext step is to follow right methods of
cultivation in order to make the most effective use ofresidues.
This will NOT be done by burying them 8 to 12 inches belowground
level. Deep burying of undecomposed organic matter canadversely
affect decomposition by limiting oxygen availability. Soil
inversion is also incompatible with maximum humus in theroot
zone.
The same may besaid of stubble-burning -- a practice so
often followed in continuous arable farming. Farming systemsand
in particular, cultivation methods need changing toincorporate
as much organic matter from the previous crop as possibleback
into the soil. Even straw is far too valuable to send up in
smoke!
With fewexceptions, 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 bevery
troublesome especially if we let them seed. At the same timewe
should remember they can also be one of our best sources of
organic manure.
Most of theinitial decomposition of residues should take
place just PRIOR to seed planting. Otherwise soil microbeswill
compete with young plants for available nutrients and theplants
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 mostvital keys to all successful agriculture is
the inclusion of LIVESTOCK in every farm programme! To acity
person this will sound a little strange, as he may neverthink of
a farm WITHOUT livestock. That's the way it should be -- but
agriculture has now become so specialized that there aretoday
MANY farms without LIVESTOCK! It is ironic that under theBATTERY
system -- there are also many livestock WITHOUT FARMS!!
These trends ofmodern 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, enablingfarmers
to "crib" a few more acres for monoculture andmaneuvering 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 inthe
words, 'BECOME LIVESTOCK FARMERS'" [emphasis oursthroughout].
The perception of this man is better appreciated when werealize
this statement appeared in Bulletin No. 29 in 1909!!
These views runcontrary to modern beliefs and here again
the Bible provides us with the all important clue to thetruth.
The followingreferences all point to one fact -- through
God, the Patriarchs understood the vital IMPORTANCE oflivestock
to agriculture! Read Gen. 4:2; 13:2,6; 24:33; 26:13,14;30:29,30.
One day we maycome to realise that the institution of
ANIMAL sacrifices (RUMINANTS in particular) was assignificant to
agriculture as to any other aspect of obedience to God.
There are alsotwo important aspects of God's commanded
SABBATICAL YEAR that should be mentioned here -- COMMERCIAL
CROP-PRODUCTION is OUT and LIVESTOCK are very much IN atthat
time!
4. Balance -- Be Diversified
Men must reversetheir mad rush into specialization. SOIL,
PLANTS, ANIMALS and PEOPLE must be supplied with wholesomefood,
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 oneenvironmental authority wrote:
"If westudy the prairie and the ocean we find that
similar principles are followed ... In lakes, rivers, andthe
sea, mixed farming is again the rule: a great variety ofplants
and animals are found living together: NO-WHERE DOES ONEFIND
MONOCULTURE" ("An Agricultural Testament",Sir Albert Howard, p.
271).
Every aspect ofa*griculture should be approached from this
natural and balanced standpoint. Every farmer should be
reasonably diversified for maximum economic security andminimum
"overhead". His quantity of production may notequal today's
high-pressure levels, but neither will his VETERINARY,
PHARMACEUTICAL and FERTILIZER BILLS!!
Mixed farming isNOT 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 ourdaughters,
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 ofthe law
in verse 19!!
As recently as10 or 20 years ago, the farmer who let
animals breed indiscriminately was the object of scorn and
ridicule. Many a "feud" developed if males gotthrough the
boundary fence and bred with the neighbours' animals.
But today in thebeef, 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"; "ECONOMICBREAKTHROUGH"; "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 markethave become a
minority of "SQUARES".
Some wouldchallenge that the "pure-breds" of today are
nothing more than a selection of yesterday's crosses. Thisis
probably true, but the modern cross-breeder must at leastgive
thanks that the founders and sustainers of today's"pure breeds"
provide him with something to pervert! Plant hybridizationis
another shoddy perversion of natural breeding laws. Why
perversion? Because it is an attempt by man to make theSTERILE,
the "oddball", the reject of nature ACCEPTABLE!!In other words
men are taking the ABNORMAL and calling it NORMAL!! This isdone
by playing on the "ECONOMIC EMOTIONS" of thefarmer. There is
just one key feature that sells the hybrid -- its ability to
produce QUANTITY!!
NO!! Hybrids areNOT the answer to the economic difficulties
of the modern farmer, or the health of consumers which isalready
declining through eating LOW QUALITY FOOD.
God's Word givesus the true answer to this question. We
could have top quality grain today -- with higher yieldsthan ANY
hybrids have EVER produced -- if we would turn back and obeyGod!
By breaking Hislaws, man is substituting QUANTITY for
QUALITY in his food.
God tells usthat His servant Isaac received ONE
HUNDREDFOLD! Do you know any farmers getting 150 bushels ofwheat
per acre (Gen.26:12)?
It used to taketwo fit men to carry a cluster of grapes
FROM a vineyard (Num. 13:23). Today it would take two fitmen to
carry the drums of pesticide TO the vineyard!
Training For The Future
Obedience to thelaws 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 weare now in a training situation -- that it
is our responsibility to future generations and to all whohave
ever lived, to become proficient in God's LAW? Now is thetime
for each one of us called into God's Work, to prepare forthe
future!
It is our job toacquire 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 importantquestion
faces us all -- ARE WE QUALIFYING TO FILL OUR ROLE INWORLDWIDE
ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EDUCATION? Let us all hope so, becausewhether
we are qualifying or not -- others WILL!
This is one ofthe most important reasons for Ambassador
College having a Department of Agriculture and we hope to beable
to continue to serve you in this direction.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
December 1973, Vol. IV, No.2
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
MAN'S INTIMATE CONTACT WITH THEEARTH
"Themeaning and future of human life on earth are
debated with growing uncertainty. We need a deeperunderstanding
of the living world and of the future of man himself, out of
which we can develop a wiser, more harmonious partnershipwith
the life of the planet."
"Weneed to find a new 'Ecological technology', which
will call for NEW concepts, NEW methods, NEW relationships
between human beings and the earth" (Emerson Collegebrochure).
Until quiterecently, 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 inone
of the most uncertain times in human history.
Commenting onthis, Dr. Schumacher (Soil Association
Chairman) has stated that many people are now calling forNEW
VALUES and NEW CONCEPTS, without telling us which of ourcurrent
values to abandon, or where to find these "NEWCONCEPTS".
These commentsare highly significant because they show that
man has lost his way in this world and that even the expertsare
uncertain and divided on man's future. Thankfully, we do nothave
to be in this condition. We can have the assurance that theRIGHT
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 -- thatman 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 conceptof seeking "NEW VALUES", implies running
away from something OLD and that's what humanity has beendoing
for millennia. We will show that man is missing his mark andthat
as long as he goes on searching for these NEW values he will
continue to miss it!
Man needs togive 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 firsthave a
look at man himself to get us in right perspective.
May we begin bymentally taking you into outer space for a
truly objective view of ourselves? This is perhaps the onlyway
we can consider mankind as a whole, together with ourearthly
environment. After doing that, we will mentally re-enterthrough
the atmosphere and zero-in until we finally come back downto
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 millionsof
miles out in the solar system, our planet is nothing morethan a
pinpoint of reflected light, spinning at 1,000 mph as itcircles
that giant ball of fire, the sun -- at precisely onerevolution
per year! It is that sun that keeps us warm. It is ourenergy
source and should we not be grateful that there is no energy
crisis in its relationship with the earth?
But there couldbe 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 littlesphere 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 ifour
little GOLF-BALL was to suddenly swing into a tighter orbit
around that white-hot inferno, with its flames leaping outin
every direction up to a million miles into space!
This is delicateenvironmental balance in the extreme, yet
it is something over which puny little man has absolutely NO
control!
Do you oftenponder the impossibility of all the orderliness
and precision of these planets and galaxies happening justby
accident? How impossible for these planets to stay inbalance
relative to each other and the rest of the universe! Such
astronomical precision could not continue to functionsmoothly of
its own accord for an instant -- even if it had come into
existence by "ACCIDENT".
Now let us comea little closer and enter the earth's
atmosphere. There's an interesting phenomenon -- THEATMOSPHERE!
How often do you reflect on where it came from and the
coincidence that it exists in a form that so perfectlymatches
and supplies the needs of every living thing on the earthbelow?
It couldn't have just happened either. It was especiallydesigned
and created for its job.
Here is whereman does BEGIN to exercise some influence. For
example -- man has proved he can pollute the atmosphere with
radioactive dust particles. He struggles to precipitate rainand
disrupt hurricanes at their centre. But MAN did not CREATEthe
atmosphere and neither does he CONTROL it.
These marvels ofcreation are almost beyond man's
comprehension, yet millions never even raise their heads to
wonder HOW it was all created and HOW it continues tofunction
WITHOUT man and now you might separately in spite of MAN!
The next stageof our mental descent from outer space is to
touch down on the surface of this planet EARTH. Here we findthe
oddest phenomenon of all -- it is called LIFE! We findmultiple
forms of LIFE -- some we can see with the naked eye and somewe
can't. Some are plant, some are animal and of some we arenot
sure.
But here arethese myriad life-forms -- all co-existing,
living, growing, reproducing, dying and decomposing together--
in one miraculously conceived and fantastically complexsymbiotic
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 morepotential
than all the other terrestrial life forms put together!
That potentialsprings from one simple fact and one fact
only -- MAN differs from all other life-forms -- HE HAS AMIND,
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 goodand
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-producedrecord
of our activities through recent millennia. Off in thevastness
of space we see other celestial bodies. And at our feet is a
complex living system -- by which we will survive, IF welearn to
work with it!
Groping To Find Our Way
To believe thatwe and our environment brought ourselves
spontaneously into existence is as irrational as believingthat
20th century technology happened without the creativeability of
MAN!
It is good torehearse the proof of a Creator God and to
remind ourselves of man's insignificance alongside the restof
creation.
Millions of our species are told they areeducated -- but
who, for example, can answer such simple questions as: WHEREWE
COME FROM, WHY WE ARE HERE AND WHERE WE ARE GOING?
What is evenstranger still -- this world is in grave danger
of annihilating itself, before discovering the answers tothose
three questions!
It is notsurprising that man has lost his way. This is
exactly what we should expect -- after all, God states quite
emphatically:
"IT IS NOTIN MAN THAT WALKETH TO DIRECT HIS STEPS" (Jer.
10:23).
That means it isIMPOSSIBLE for MAN to go the right WAY! But
the fact that our steps CAN BE CORRECTLY DIRECTED, should beVERY
comforting.
There is,however, only one way by which this can be done --
man must have an infallible basic reference point to avoidlosing
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 notbacked
by governments and multi-million pound industrial combines,
encouraging man to devise ever more fearsome ways ofconquering
"NATURE"?
Superficially itlooks 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 asea
of confusion of its own making. It contains no genuine basisto
which man can relate his experimentation.
The entiresystem 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 survivaland
catastrophe!
The referencepoint, 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 hisown
eyes, so ORGANIC agriculture will always be weakened bydivision
and diversity. It too, must accept the basic guidance ofGod's
law.
Source of Environmental Guidance
Our work atAmbassador 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 minutedetail 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 thatattitude.
Remember, God the Father and Christ were far more thandouble
PhDs in ECOLOGY from the beginning. Only now, after almost6,000
years is mankind discovering the existence of such aSCIENCE!
Through his Wordand by his Holy Spirit, God has given his
begotten sons direct access to his divine guidance. But dowe
fully realize that that guidance includes FOOD PRODUCTIONand
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT?
On the other hand -- most agro-chemicalfarmers are
different. They have a blind faith that what they callSCIENCE is
going to continue to work for them and they cling to thissystem
like a shipwrecked sailor to a piece of driftwood.
Faith in thatkind of "SCIENCE" is faith in MAN. Most of us
have exercised a wrong kind of faith in man and hisSCIENTIFIC
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 fromGod --
MAN WILL NEVER SOLVE HIS PROBLEMS!
By contrast, ifwe closely observe our environment and learn
to work with it, we can have absolute FAITH that all life onthis
planet can be blessed and supported by an orderly systembased on
LAW.
We shouldn'tneed reminding that man has been stumbling
around in environmental blindness for thousands of years,
creating deserts, disease and destruction. You above allpeople,
know what man has done and is doing to his environment.
This is where wecome back to the subject of recapturing OLD
values. It is not man's eternal striving after some elusiveNEW
concept that will solve his problems. What is needed is areturn
to TRUE values, upon which man has in the past turned hisback.
He has in fact lost his way and is unable to pinpointhimself
without the guidance of God's Word.
A nose and amouthful 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 gravityon
us. Man likewise accepts the laws of thermo- andaerodynamics,
and a huge package of laws poised ready to kill any one ofus the
instant we deliberately disobey, or even FORGET them. Theydo not
leave man a tear-ridden quivering mental wreck. Neither dothey
cause us to become depressed and frustrated. On thecontrary,
they are a great comfort -- reassuring us that we can be
guaranteed protection every single time we obey them.
Why is it thenthat man does not feel the same way about the
laws of environmental management? It is because we think wecan
get away with ecological law-breaking. That's why men keep
talking about seeking a NEW ECOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGY, NEWCONCEPTS,
NEW VALUES etc. Anything rather than obey God's LAW!! Weneed to
pierce through all this glib talk about abandoning"OLD" values
for "NEW".
This is not thefirst time in human history that man has
brought this planet to the brink of environmental collapseand we
know what happened last time! Man is now having his secondchance
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 onbreaking environmental laws (which includes
agriculture) because the penalties are not speedilyexecuted!
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 ofGod as
the foundation of man's environment, they will NEVER solveour
problems!
Man's eternalsearching for something NEW, as the solution
to his problems is a sterile, hybrid cross between Satanicand
self-deception.
The firstpositive step for mankind is to prove God's
existence. That is now unnecessary for this readership, butwe
still need a regular reminder of the greatness of God'screation
and of our own insignificance. Seeing ourselves in true
perspective as part of the total environment is what TRUEECOLOGY
is all about!
That's whatmakes 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 andelectricity.
There is noother way for us to focus the grave dangers
confronting man. We, above all people must never lose sightof
this, because we know that mankind is deceived and that hewill
choose to remain ignorant of the ecological laws governingthe
quality of life and even survival! It is up to each one ofus to
study in detail and work at keeping ALL the laws affectingour
human environment -- but are we??
In a world filledwith confusion, there is only ONE source
to which we can turn!
The Bible -- Man's Only Hope
In a recentinterview for the October 1973 issue of "The
Soil Association Journal", Dr. Schumacher was asked:
"Where forour entire man-made world problem, is there one
unravelling point?"
The "WORLDPROBLEM" being "MAN-MADE" is good phrasing of the
question. The world is not "MAN-MADE", but itsproblems certainly
ARE! Dr. Schumacher replied by saying that SOIL is in hisopinion
the "UNRAVELLING POINT".
PERHAPS WE NEEDNOT 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 instructionbook
man must have. Ecologically, many of us have not thought ofit in
these terms before, but it is the foundational writtensource of
ALL environmental management!
Perhaps thefollowing questions and answers will more
readily convince you of this. Ask yourself -- would mankindas a
whole, ever discover:
A. THATINDISCRIMINATE 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 timesince
the days of Noah!
B. THAT FOODPRODUCTION 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 foodsfor
human consumption, the Bible and the Jews notwithstanding!
C. THATCONTINUOUS 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 thanever to
diversify our agriculture.
D. THAT MANSHOULD 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 thatmechanization
enables them to do seasonal work faster than ever before.
E. THAT WESHOULD 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. THATSCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENTS, EXPERIMENTAL
STATIONS, INSTITUTES AND UNIVERSITY SCHOOLS OF AGRICULTUREWILL
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 (IITim.
3:1,7). Elsewhere a much stronger statement is madeconcerning
man's relationship with his environment and with God (Rom.
1:18,22)!
Are you Living it -- NOW?
It is too badthat we are all so limited in our knowledge of
God's intricate and awesome creation. But what is worse isthat
we sometimes choose to remain in that condition!
So manycity-born are almost completely cut off from any
appreciation of what God's environment is all about. Eventhose
of us born to the land often fail to understand that realeffort
is required of us in actively seeking God's way in ALLaspects 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 bewilling and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the
land" (Isa 1:19).
That was writtento 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 elsecan 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 ofecology and
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. And by no stretch of theimagination
can WILLINGNESS and DILIGENCE be linked with an attitude of
waiting it out until the millennium begins!
That naturalhuman 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 spiritbeings
-- won't we?
Let's not be toosure of that. Our millennium is NOW and if
we don't strive to live it, who is going to qualify to guidethe
global re-establishment of God's way on this earth and WHEN?
Christ revealed to John:
"I comequickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man
according as his work shall be" (Rev. 22:12).
Peter wrote ofthe Father:
"Whowithout respect of persons judgeth according to every
man's work" (I Pet. 1:17).
Read what theApostle 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 relationshipsetc.,
but if our "toil" involves agriculture and part ofGod's natural
environment, we had better do it correctly too!
Do you believethat? 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 doyou
have certain reservations? Are you so lightly grounded inGod's
law that you believe it will work only in theory and that in
practice we must compromise and do something different?
We must striveto reach the point where regardless of any of
our own short-comings, or those of any agriculturalemployees of
Ambassador College -- each of us knows that the system ofthis
world is doomed to failure! We must recognize that it rubsoff 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, orsalesman
that gets his foot in the door!! (II Cor. 11:3). It seemsthat if
each of us is not constantly ON GUARD Satan can sweep awayin
minutes that which it has taken months to implant in themind
(Luke 8:12).
What does thismean as far as the individual farmer is
concerned?
As Paul said:
"Study to showthyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word oftruth" (II
Tim. 2:15).
Isaiah 28:9-13and II Peter 3:16-18 remind us that we must
not expect all the information to leap out at us once weopen
some key page in the Bible. As the Bible states -- it is amatter
of HERE A LITTLE, THERE A LITTLE!
Paul could havebeen writing on God's laws of environmental
management when he stated:
"That whichmay be known of God is manifest to them; for God
hath shewed it unto them.
"For theinvisible things of him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things thatare
made" (Rom. 1:19, 20).
A thousand yearsearlier God inspired David to write that
the whole universe declares his glory. He says that it is asif
every day and every night is imparting knowledge to us,
regardless of what language we understand (Psa. 19:1-3).
This can happenonly if we are watching and studying our
environment, in conjunction with God's Word and with thehelp 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 forknowledge:
"Ask now thebeasts, and they shall teach thee, and the
fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee.
"Or speakto the earth, and it shall teach thee; and the
fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.
"Whoknoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath
wrought this?" (Job 12:7-9).
It is easy totalk, or write about STUDYING God's law and
his creation, but DOING IT is often quite another matter! Asa
rule, farmers don't GO MUCH for this type of thing, oftenusing
the excuse that they are "PRACTICAL MEN" and just"TOO BUSY".
Such talk is absolute RUBBISH -- and dangerously suicidalRUBBISH
at that!!
Who will be thefirst 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 wrotethat he loved God's law and that it was his
meditation all the day (Psa. 119:97). Do we have thatattitude,
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 thylaw;
yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart" (Psa.119:33, 34).
Do we have anyreason for lack of personal effort that would
be valid in God's sight, or is God going to have to prod usinto
action? He WILL! And when he does, let's hope our reactionis as
good as David's. Apparently God had to prod him, because hetells
us:
"Before Iwas afflicted I went astray: but now have I kept
thy word.
"It is goodfor me that I have been afflicted; that I might
learn thy statutes" (Psa. 119:67, 71).
It is much lesspainful to move without God's prodding, but
at least it brought the value of God's law sharply intofocus for
David, because he then said:
"The law of thy mouth is better unto methan 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 needthe wisdom to apply it. But, where shall
"WISDOM" be found? God asks this question andgives us the answer
in Job 28:12-28 and James 1:5. Part of the wisdom any farmerwill
need to exercise concerns the rate at which he attempts tomake
any major changes in his agricultural methods.
It cannot beemphasized too strongly that the speed of these
changes should be directly related to the individual'sexperience
in working with the natural system of organic agriculture.
Failure to adhere strictly to this principle will inevitably
result in disappointment, perhaps frustration and evensevere
financial losses. This produces a "TURNED-OFF"reaction in the
people concerned and they are very reluctant to TURN-ONagain!
It should beemphasized however, that lack of experience
should never be used as an excuse for lack of ZEAL. Any mancan
quickly and enthusiastically launch into his ownexperimental
pilot project.
This should bebig 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 andfinancial
stability. It can mean setting aside a small garden bed inyour
vegetable area, or a few trees in your orchard, one or twocows
in your herd of 50 to 100 cattle, or an acre or two if youhave a
few hundred acres under grain, or pasture.
In addition tothis, one should embark on a re-education
programme from secular material. There is quite a lotavailable
on organic agriculture and we can guide you in yourselection.
You are alreadyfar advanced in your spiritual re-education.
This may have taken years and it will continue throughoutthis
life. There is absolutely no reason why we should imaginethat
the process of acquiring KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING and WISDOM
relative to God's laws of environmental management andecology is
any different!
Go God's Way, Not Man's
Don't allowyourself 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:
"Thouvisitest 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.
"Thouwaterest the ridges thereof abundantly: thou settlest
the furrows thereof: thou meekest it soft with showers: thou
blessest the springing thereof.
"Thoucrownest the year with thy goodness; and thy paths
drop fatness.
"They dropupon the pastures of the wilderness: and the
little hills rejoice on every side.
"The pasturesare clothed with flocks: the valleys also are
covered over with corn; they shout for joy, they alsosing" (Psa.
65:9-13).
Our society isso far gone today that one of its modern
scribes would probably re-write the above verses along the
following lines:
9. You need notvisit the earth, we will water it from our
concrete reservoirs and our rapidly falling water-table. Wewill
greatly enrich it from our rivers, polluted withfertilizers,
slurry and industrial waste.
We will prepareour own corn when our plant breeders, seed
merchants, fertilizer salesmen, machinery agents and bank
managers provide for it!
10. We willwater the ridges abundantly by seeding the
clouds with silver iodide, or through our new non-clogging
trickle irrigation. If this settlest not the furrows, ourgiant
mechanical sod-busters and our 130 hp tractors will!
11. We crowneththe year with unparalleled disease epidemics
and our paths are strewn with low-protein grain.
12. 450 units ofnitrogen will we drop upon the pastures of
our wilderness -- in three strategic applications! And thelittle
hills erode on every side into the bottom of our costlydams.
13. Our pastureswe clothe with straight-ryegrass and
artificially inseminated crossbred stock. Our valleys alsoare
covered over with hybrid corn. And they are far too depletedof
natural fertility to either shout for joy or even sing!
Don't deceiveyourself that it doesn't really matter how we
manage our soil, plants and animals in this age. If we don'thave
an INTIMATE CONTACT WITH THE EARTH, we are the poorer forit. If
we do, then let's make the most of a wonderful opportunityand
begin receiving more of the natural blessings God intendedfrom
the beginning!
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
June 1974 Vol. V, No. 1
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
PHOSPHATE DEFICIENCY -- A CRISIS WEMUST RESOLVE!
Within the pastfew months the world has looked askance at
its sudden energy crisis, triggered prematurely by theunited
action of the Arab oil sheiks.
But now we havea 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 crisisitself.
You might wonder whether that is even possible. Well, it is,and
the first stiff breezes of this ill-wind have already begunto
blow!
During therecent oil crisis, Europe's major suppliers of
North African rock-phosphate quietly and, almost withoutWestern
press comment, calmly trebled the price of their rawproduct!
Morocco andTunisia, like their oil-sheik colleagues, have
suddenly realized that their non-renewable source of incomewill
one day be exhausted. Therefore they intend to cash in onthe
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 nutritionalterms, 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 withpotassium).
They form the 'N' and 'P' of the 'NPK' trio, familiar tomost
farmers.
And yetagriculture is suddenly threatened by diminishing
reserves of both these essential elements. Industrially
synthesized NITROGEN is in relatively short supply as adirect
result of the energy crisis, and PHOSPHATE has becomerecognized
as another finite, non-renewable resource which MUST now be
conserved. Consequently, prices of these raw materials have
escalated!
In such apredicament, many farmers feel they have no
alternative but to pay 'through the nose' for fertilizerstheir
crops and soil so badly need. And yet there must be an
alternative -- God surely did not create an environment forman
dependent upon excavation and the internationaltransportation of
underground mineral deposits.
During the pastyear, 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 todiscover:
1. Why soilbecomes phosphate deficient, and
2. A solution tothe 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 wenormally
present, but we hope its vital importance will help you staywith
it.
A Problem of Availability
We have alreadymentioned the importance of phosphorus in
agriculture, and that phosphorus deficiency presents mankindwith
one of the biggest obstacles to increasing world foodproduction.
In fact, vastareas of intensively-managed agricultural land
are now known to be severely deficient in availability ofthis
element. Sir Arnold Theiler whose work on phosphate duringthe
1920's is now classic, found that throughout Southern Africathe
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 ifsuch
reserves were made available in forms which plants can
assimilate. It would therefore appear that the problem isnot one
of PRESENCE but AVAILABILITY -- at any one time most of the
phosphorus present consists of non water-soluble forms andso it
is not readily accessible to plant roots.
One writermentions:
"Withregard to phosphoric acid, the mineral apatite,
the ultimate source of phosphorus in nature, is almostequally
abundant in all varieties of igneous rocks, and phosphatesare
rarely deficient in soils derived from them ..."("Agricultural
Geology", by R. H. Rastall, p. 35, Cambridge Univ.Press, 1922).
He continues:
"Soilsderived from igneous rocks on the whole tend to
be rich in potash and phosphoric acid, although thesesubstances
may not always be present in an available form in largequantity"
(Ibid).
Since sedimentaryformations have their origin in the
igneous rocks, the obvious question then arises -- why isthis
element not readily available in most soils?
Pizer explains:
"It iscommonly accepted that plant roots remove
monovalent H2PO4 - ions from soils and make little use ofHPO42-
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 bothclay
particles and organic matter) ... the release of H2PO4depends on
equilibria between a number of phases which are influencedby
moisture content, Ph [soil acidity] soluble salts, changesin
soil structure and biological activity" ("SoilPhosphorus",
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 itmay seem, the answer to this seemingly complex
problem is perhaps far more simple than we might at firstthink.
Joffe gives an indication of the simplicity of the solutionin
describing the phosphorus and sulphur limitations inChernozem
soils:
"Therelatively high Ca [calcium] and N [nitrogen]
contents of the A horizon [upper soil layer] are responsiblefor
the high P [phosphorus] content in this layer. It is THEPROTEINS
OF THE ORGANIC MATTER that furnish the key. As the
organic-phosphorus compounds are mineralized, the P releasedties
up primarily with the Ca.
"Theaccumulated organic matter in the A horizon [upper
soil layer] retains appreciable quantities of S [sulphur].Its
RAPID CIRCULATION through drying plants and precipitationkeeps
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 organiccomplexes"
("Pedology", by Jacob S. Joffe, p. 292, 2nd Ed.,1949, Pedology
Publications).
Notice that itis 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 thesubsoil,
and that there is often a close relationship betweenphosphorus
levels and the amount of organic matter present("Harnessing the
Earthworm", by Thomas J. Barrett, p. 49, 1947, BruceHumphries
Inc.).
It is well knownthat dead plants and animals can return
appreciable quantities of phosphorus to the soil --phosphorus
which has been slowly but steadily accumulating over aperiod of
time but such phosphorus is basically returned in organicform
and is therefore not readily available for further plantgrowth.
It must first bebroken down by ANIMAL forms before it can
be re-used for plant growth -- thus completing one of thegreat
ecological cycles:
(NOTE: To view a chart titled "The PhosphorusCycle", see the file
740602.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)
These animalforms are many and varied, but two of the most
important and obvious are livestock -- which recycle LIVINGplant
nutrients and earthworms -- which recirculate nutrients fromDEAD
organic material. The more rapid the circulation ofnutrients,
the more stable the system -- the less is the likelihood of
depleting fertility and the greater are the opportunitiesfor
building up nutrient reserves. This rapid recycling ofnutrients
is one of the chief benefits of a live-stock-basedagriculture.
(NOTE: To view a chart titled "The PhosphorusCycle", see the file
740603.TIF in the Images\Ag directory.)
Earthworms and Phosphorus
Barrett alsobrings out some remarkable information
regarding the role of earthworms in making phosphorusavailable
for plant growth.
He found thatthe phosphorus content of soil in boxes
containing worms increased 10% over those which had noworms. He
also analysed earthworm castings to discover that theycontained
FIVE times as much available nitrogen, SEVEN times as much
phosphorus, ELEVEN times as much potassium and THREE timesas
much magnesium as the parent soil.
Indirectly, theorigin 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 wellaware
that soil microbes multiply on organic matter. The earthwormis
therefore undoubtedly one of the major organisms directly
responsible for making soil nutrients available and formsone of
the vital links in the balance of nature.
In the Nilevalley, fertility is legendary and it is
reported that earthworm castings may amount to some 200 tonsper
acre per year. In most other areas the earthworm populationis
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 acreper
year!
Since wormsappear to depend heavily on organic matter, we
cannot expect to boost our earthworm population and solvemajor
mineral deficiency problems organically, without massivereturns
of plant residues. There is an old truism which states that"a
chain is as strong as its weakest link". And in theagricultural
chain of life, the weakest link has been the return oforganic
residues back to the soil.
Phosphorus and Sulphur Relationships
Research on thisissue 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 foundout
from other researchers about this element, since bothsulphur and
phosphorus have considerable bearing on the growth oflegumes:
1. There isevidence that phosphate deficiencies may be
accompanied by sulphur complications, and recent work in New
Zealand has indicated that SULPHUR may be equally importantwith
PHOSPHORUS in the growth and development of pasture legumes.
Ludecke found that the amount of sulphur required by legumesis
between one-tenth and one-fifteenth the amount of nitrogenfixed.
Thus, if we consider a figure of 250 lbs. of nitrogen fixedper
acre per year, somewhere between 17 and 25 lbs. of sulphurwill
be required of that soil.
2. But althoughthis amount of sulphur may be sufficient to
produce maximum plant growth, Anderson (1952) reports thatmore
sulphur is required to maintain maximum protein content.
Apparently maximum growth can be achieved without acomparable
achievement in protein levels! (i.e. yields are notnecessarily
synonymous with quality values.) Saalbach (1961) alsostudied 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. Potexperiments by Needham and Hauge (1952) showed that a
pronounced S deficiency in Lucerne caused a pronouncedshortage
of vitamins in the plant.
All of thesefacts essentially concern characteristics of
QUALITY in plant composition. We mention them here becausethey
bring us back once again to the all-important factor oforganic
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 thereare
always appreciable quantities of S present in organic matterand
that organic residues are the major source of sulphur forplants.
5. Lastly, Freneyand Spencer (1960) report that in general,
soils mineralize more sulphur in the presence of growingplants
than in their absence. They suggest this may be due to the
"rhizosphere [root zone] effect" brought about bythe secretion
of amino acids and sugars and the subsequent increase in
micro-organism activity.
Micro-organisms and Soil Nutrients
The bacteriumThiobacillus thio-oxidans, which is widespread
in acid soils, is one of the most outstanding organisms
associated with the transformation of sulphur. It canoxidize
sulphur and sulfides to sulphates, and starting from mineral
salts can produce 10% H2SO4 (Sulfuric acid).
Waksman andStarkey 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 solubleforms.
Keruran presentsa spectacular theory that the whole genus
of Thiobacilli play an important role in other aspects ofsulphur
and phosphorus nutrition. He presents evidence aiming toshow
that they are capable of TRANSMUTING oxygen to sulphur --not a
straightforward chemical change, but a NUCLEARtransformation. He
also suggests that there is a probable link (viatransmutation)
between sulphur and phosphorus and a possible link between
sulphur and magnesium (Biological Transmutations, 1972).
Very little iscurrently 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 ifscientifically
sound, puts the whole concept of mineral formation and
availability in a new light.
No wonder Burgescomments:
"Availability of many of the plant nutrients in the
soil is markedly affected by the microorganisms, but theproblems
associated with the changes involved are exceedinglycomplex"
("Micro-organisms in the Soil", by Alan Burges,1958, p. 147).
Following the discovery of the importance of the Thiobacilliin
sulphur availability and the probable relationship between
sulphur and phosphorus, we then looked into whether one
particular group of micro-organisms was principallyresponsible
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 lifeexcept
for algae -- which have similar nutrient requirements to
multicellular plants and protozoa -- which mainly feed on
bacteria. From his results, there might be a possiblecorrelation
in certain soils between phosphate availability andpopulations
of actinomycetes and fungi, but it is difficult to assess.
Burges mentionsthat 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 withtree
roots, supply phosphate to some trees.
Predominance of Chicory?
Our initialthoughts on the solution to phosphate deficiency
ran on somewhat similar lines to Coccanouer's, although theywere
complemented by the material Branfield and Kervran presented--
i.e. that the answer lay in utilizing hitherto unused cropsin
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 decomposeleaving
calcium behind for other species to take up, thus continuingthe
natural ecological cycles of regeneration and succession --about
which we know so pitifully little!
Likewise, wewondered 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 hasperhaps
been overlooked and which man could utilize to greatadvantage.
Research showedseveral aquatic plants such as duckweed
(Lemony tres.) and pondweed (Oldie canadensis) to be
comparatively high in phosphate -- although this could havebeen
due to unreasonably high levels of phosphate in the surface
waters where they were growing.
Upon consideringthe various species in our own pastures, we
were reminded of the outstanding success achieved in theseeding
of chicory. This plant is well known for its value as asource of
phosphate in animal nutrition, but its performance wasespecially
interesting to us. Over many years, our Hertfordshire soilshave
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 whatone might describe as a chronic lack of
available phosphate, the chicory plant positively flourishedin
our deficient environment. The other important observationin
this connection is the fact that our sheep and cattle have
readily devoured this species, showing an outstandingpreference
for it.
Theseobservations 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 thesame
time, the grazing animals' sharp preferences lend weight tothe
belief that unhindered, they have the instinctive ability to
select for themselves a minerally balanced diet. Measuringtheir
natural preferences against the poor phosphate performanceof our
soils, seems to indicate that they are seeking theirphosphate
needs through this plant species.
As our resultsappear 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 alreadymentioned that organic matter contains
considerable reserves of sulphur and phosphorus. Whilst the
micro-organisms seem more ready to make sulphur availablefor
plant growth, it is the earthworm population that does themain
job as far as phosphate availability is concerned.
The incrediblefertility achieved in the Nile valley was
only possible through the vast quantities of fertile silt --
containing approx. 55% organic matter in finely dividedform,
deposited annually by the river. This was washed down fromthe
Ethiopian highlands and provided virtually limitless foodfor the
teeming worm life.
If we are everto achieve any comparable fertility, we will
obviously have to make huge 'investments' in our bank ofsoil
reserves. Until we have attained optimum levels of soilorganic
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 MAINTAINthem
with REGULAR returns of organic matter -- just as the Niledoes
each year.
Here, it wouldappear 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 wecan --
regardless of the consequences!
Are we beginningto see here one of the reasons why God has
allocated ONE THOUSAND YEARS in His plan for man to rebuildthis
earth to Garden of Eden specifications?
What we areprone to forget is that most agricultural soils
have been severely depleted of their natural fertility bydecades
or centuries of wrong methods. They have been croppedintensively
with little respite and very little in the way of organic
returns. We have overloaded delicate systems with demandsthat
have been far too great, and we are now paying the penalties--
penalties which cannot be eradicated overnight.
Gordon RattrayTaylor in his famous Doomsday Book cited the
sulphur and phosphorus cycles specifically in this regard.Notice
his warning.
"Anyfeedback mechanism can be swamped by too big an
input. The thermostat which regulates room temperaturecannot
maintain the temperature if you open all the windows on anyicy
day, or keep you cool if the house catches on fire.
"Andwhat may be more important, these mechanisms
respond very slowly: so even if they can absorb the effectsof
human activity, they may take centuries to do so, and in the
meantime conditions may be adverse for life. Man has begunto
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 theoverload 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 inthe
sea.(1)
---------------
(1) Each year in the U.K. we flush 172,000 tons ofphosphorus and
123,000 tons of potassium out into our rivers and coasts andhope
to make up for this loss with imports of North African rock
phosphate and potash from the Dead Sea totalling 700,000tons!!
---------------
Results of Soil Tests
On our own farmsoils in Bricket Wood, we found available
phosphorus to be higher than original levels of seven yearsago.
Over a six month period (January to June 1973), 153 randomsoil
tests were taken in 10 different fields. Of these, only 8showed
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 organicmatter
and available nutrient levels are slowly improving, but thatwe
still have a long way to go!
We need tomention 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:
"Thereis 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 ofPhosphorus and Other
Soil Nutrients at various levels of PH", see the file740606.TIF in
the Images\Ag directory.)
But the largenumbers of "moderate" availabilities obtained
in our 1973 tests seem to give a fairly reliable indicationof
the condition of phosphorus in our soils.
Phosphorus and Soil Ph
The precedingchart indicates the general trend of phosphate
availability according to Ph, compared with other soilnutrients.
The more soluble a nutrient is under a particular conditionof
soil acidity or alkalinity, the thicker is the horizontalband
representing the nutrient. Solubility in turn is directlyrelated
to the availability of the nutrient in an ionic form that is
assimilable by the plant.
Notice thatnearly all the nutrients shown are available in
greatest quantities around a Ph of 7 -- neutral, on thisscale.
It is also well-known that organic matter is invaluable in
stabilizing Ph. When humus is present in sufficient quantityand
in every stage of decay, soil Ph is almost invariablyneutral or
near neutral. (2)
------------------
(2) One notable exception is the floor of a conifer forest.The
special nature of its organic content actually contributesto its
acid condition.
------------------
The Haughley Organic Experiment
Lawrence D.Hills, writing in the November 1972 issue of The
Ecologist mentions that:
"The SoilAssociation, after running a 'closed circuit'
farm at Haughley for thirty years, returning all the manureand
organic matter to the soil, found that the milk, eggs, meatand
grain going off the farm produced a steady fall inyields" (p.
24).
He interprets this to mean that ifnutrients leave the
system -- regardless of how high humus levels in the soilmay be,
nutrient availability and consequent productivity must fall.For
the "closed" system, the inference is of coursethat 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 longas
we have soil, we have untapped mineral reserves. Thealternative
is that God made a mistake at Creation and forgot thephosphate
and other nutrient needs of mankind around the earth. This
MISTAKE would force man to transport mineral deposits aroundthe
world for the purpose of food production and/or to recycleall
animal and HUMAN wastes.
The FIRSTpresupposes that our environment must depend on
considerable industrial development and highly expensive
international transportation. The SECOND, whiletheoretically
possible, does not appear to tally with the hygienestandards of
the Old Testament.
If either ofthese 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 notmatch
God's performance in any other area!
What appears tobe certain however, is that under the
adopted TEN-year rotation, (3) although Haughley soil humus
INCREASED by 27% in ten years -- crops took nutrients awayfaster
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 becamemore
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 suggestthat 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 ideathat
the closed environmental system is inefficient.
Because soilwith 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 CRITICALLEVEL.
It in no way disproves the ability of much higher levels ofhumus
to release inorganic minerals commensurate with increasedplant
production.
--------------
(4) 3% humus was quoted as a disastrously low figure inBritish
Midland soils by the 1969 committee of enquiry headed by Sir
Emerys Jones, former Chief Advisor to the British Ministryof
Agriculture.
--------------
One might say itwould be like claiming that a gravitational
pull of 20 lbs cannot be overcome -- simply because wewitness
the results of a weight lifter exerting an opposing force ofonly
19 lbs! Likewise, one could raise the Ph of a soil from 5.5to
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 believeotherwise concerning the function of rising
levels of soil humus, is tantamount to turning thumbs downon
man's future, the moment we exhaust North African and otherbulk
supplies of rock phosphate.
On the contrary-- we feel that the Haughley Experiment
confirms the need for a rotation far more heavily weightedin
favour of an animal based agriculture. And if the system isto
remain "closed", it must be operated withjudicious grazing at
low intensity. Failing this, low humus levels will neverallow
plant productivity to really "take off". May weremind the
non-agricultural reader that it CAN take off -- e.g. theearly
years of high yields of high protein grain, on the world's
black-soil plains, all with a total absence of NPKfertilizers.
Other thanrobbing one area of the earth to supply the
demands of another, there is no alternative, if man is everto
relieve his current dependence on long-term fallow.
It may then beargued that the organic approach is
uneconomic. This is probably true in the short-term, but asone
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 itmay be, but one must therefore conclude that
there is no simple way of putting prosperity in the pocketsof
those working the farmlands of a world that has beenbleeding its
soil fertility for centuries.
We just happento be the generation living at the time of
the grand pay-off. Man's survival depends on many of thesem*n
being able to hold on until a world government can changethe
situation.
Time Is Running Out
Temporarily,this world can go on drawing on underground
phosphate reserves from Morocco, Tunisia, Florida and Nauruetc.,
for the immediate future -- if farmers can afford theescalating
prices. But this does not alter the fact that worldagriculture
is headed down a blind alley, a dead-end street and one dayman
will be forced to do an 180ø turn. We will eventually haveto
manage our environment so that each acre of food-producingland
will not only release its own phosphate for plantproduction, but
also a whole range of other nutrients so necessary to healthin
plants, animals and people.
If, as itcertainly appears, soil humus levels are the only
long-term solution, then the sooner we get started, the lesspain
we will inflict upon ourselves and the sooner we will reapsome
of the possible rewards.
From thematerial studied -- all the evidence indicates that
in order to effect a lasting solution to the phosphateproblem,
farmers will in future have to:
1. Raise thelevels of organic matter dramatically and
stabilize the Ph of the soil,
2. Maintain veryhigh levels of organic matter to encourage
a stable and large earthworm population, and
3. Recycle asmuch nutrient outflow as possible, or reduce
economic demands on our soils.
No experimentcomparable to the Haughley trials has to our
knowledge been carried out on high-humus (chernozem) typesoil,
so it is difficult to say what level of fertility isnecessary
before a management system based on steps ONE and TWO, could
largely dispense with the necessity of step THREE. Ofcourse, it
is extremely doubtful if it would ever make sense NOT tobother
recycling most annual plant nutrient production. If it were
otherwise -- would we not be negating God's law of the moreyou
GIVE, the more you GET?
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
December 1974, Vol. V, No. 2
Ambassador College (UK)
Agriculture Department
FOUNDING A NEW CIVILIZATION
God has createdman a PHYSICAL being and along with many
other life-forms, we humans owe our continued existence tothe
constant availability of three things -- OXYGEN, WATER andFOOD!
OXYGEN, God hasmade 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 hasmade 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, bycontrast 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 todo
the rest. Some, whom we now call"HUNTER-GATHERERS," manage to
survive without actually engaging in agriculture, but thelives
of most people depend directly on the activities of FARMING.Not
one rational human being would hope to survive in anyenvironment
where his or her supplies of OXYGEN and WATER were notsecure. Is
it not then quite IRRATIONAL that multiple millions haveseen fit
to locate themselves in massive urban concentrations --without
ANY security in respect of FOOD?
Simply becauseso many are born into this insulated and
unreal existence is of itself no reason for assuming it tobe a
right way of life. We know that there is little any of uscan 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 sterilehuman
vacuums we are pleased to call CITIES!
To attempt toeven discuss the basics of physical life is an
open invitation to be TURNED-OFF today. In this, ourcivilization
wallows willingly in its own hollowness and frustration.
However, in thisissue 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 importantarea of
life!
Christ himselflived in a society where all but a trace of
God's pattern for living was blotted out by a culturalsynthesis
of ancient BABYLON, GREECE and ROME. Can we imagine what an
abomination it must have been to Christ -- the Author ofman's
true life-style in the Garden of Eden, the nation of ANCIENT
ISRAEL and THE WORLD in the coming millennium!
Perhaps none of ushave yet sufficiently grasped the
significant differences between "man's" societyand God's coming
physical kingdom. Those differences are so great that theyshould
reach right through into the spiritual aspects of our lives.Is
it any wonder Satan wants us to accept this present societyas
God's kingdom on earth and the concept of a future, floating
around in heaven!!
We Are Blind To The Essentials
Today, we livein a society that does not like to be told
that it is polluting the OXYGEN supply in our ownatmosphere!
The very natureof the environment most of us have had
created for us, engenders a mindless approach even to ourown
WATER supply. It has long been something we take totally for
granted. It is so far from our mind that we don't even thinkof
it, until some faceless "Authority" fails in ITSresponsibility
to keep a constant supply on tap in OUR home.
Oxygen and waterare vital needs upon which we seldom
reflect, but when it comes to the matter of FOOD our unconcernis
even less rational and downright shocking!
Now we have forexample, generations who live and die not
only without ever having the remotest idea of how to feed
themselves, but without understanding, or even faintlydesiring
to understand the process of FOOD production!
In the averagecity, 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 thefront
doorstep. It ends at the white jug in the centre of thebreakfast
table!
In this all toocommon city-environment, our knowledge on
producing that basic essential -- FOOD, becomes about asrelevant
as a battery-hen's ability to scratch for worms. Animportant
difference between HENS and PEOPLE, in their equallyregrettable
circ*mstances, is that hens in battery-cages never lose the
instinct to scratch for worms. On the other hand, peopleliving
in cities are highly prone to forget about food production.They
also forget that they do NOT have some inalienable right toa
cheap and constant source of food, supplied by what manyregard
as a remote and primitive human rural sub-culture!
Food supplied byimpoverished farmers, to millions living in
congested city-slums is hardly the goal of a superiorsociety.
Neither is pulling some factory assembly-line lever 120times an
hour, 40 hours per week and 49 weeks per year, until onereaches
the magical age of 65. If it is, then why did God leave itto MAN
to create such a society? Surely it is an environment Godhimself
could have put man into from the very beginning!
Are We Smarter Than God?
Compared withwhat 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, ourpattern 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 whathe
was doing when he put man into the Garden he specificallycreated
in Eden? Can we conceive that it was not just a crude meansof
getting mankind started and that there might have been evenmore
than just a human SURVIVAL connection between man and the
environment God created for us?
Might not Godhave had something else in mind, other than a
constant supply of food, when he put man into the Garden inEden?
After all, he is able to supply our OXYGEN and WATER needswith
very little inconvenience to our innate desire to enjoylife! Why
then did God tie man's survival to FOOD production and whydid he
make it such a time-consuming business?
Why, as we willsee, did he also make food production an
activity in which EVERY individual was to participate to atleast
some extent?
Having completedre-creation with the formation of man out
of the dust of the ground, God immediately set aboutinstructing
his human species in how to use one seventh of their time --the
weekly Sabbath. Man soon departed totally from this conceptand
has suffered ever since!
Likewise, Godthen put his human species into the Garden of
Eden and instructed them in the basic role we are to fulfillin
the remaining six-sevenths of our time. In similar fashion
however, man soon departed as far as possible from thatconcept
too and the further we depart, the more we suffer!
This is not toimply that the solution to man's problems is
for all of us to become farmers. It is merely making thepoint
that by revoking our intended God-given relationship withthe
land (via food production) man has committed one of hisgreatest
blunders. In departing from the SABBATH, man virtually lostall
knowledge of the true God. Perhaps even we in God's Churchhave
yet to fully appreciate what is still missing in our lives
through being cut off from the SOIL.
The very hint ofsuch 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 weare
in God's Church. The "peasant" syndrome representsman's
"natural" reaction today to anything agriculturaland by now we
should have become totally distrustful of"natural" reactions!
All of us havegrown up in a society that has gone as far as
it can in separating itself from direct contact with thesoil and
with the most important physical function in our lives (nextto
breathing OXYGEN and drinking WATER) producing FOOD to eat!
Being in God'sChurch, we understand and believe that ADAM
and EVE actually existed and are part of human history, butdo
some of us still go along with the idea that the Garden inEden
was too primitive an environment to hold our interest, orpresent
US with any worthwhile challenge? Modern society istransfixed 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 "topervert, to render
worthless by adulteration." Is any further commentnecessary?
What Are Man's Fruits?
Choose any areaof the world today and you will find a
direct correlation between the concentration of populationin
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, hom*osexuality, abortion, murder andevery
known form of petty and major corruption.
No-one would benaive 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 andSan
Francisco have been America's most notorious crime and
racketeering centres. No one could imagine Orr, Minnesotaand Big
Sandy, Texas becoming major centres of U.S. crime.
True, theselittle places have less people, but most of them
have yet to produce their first hardened criminal, unlessthey
are residents who have drifted to the big cities. Everyoneof us
has the POTENTIAL, but do we begin to appreciate how blessedwe
have been by lack of OPPORTUNITY?
Of course, manwill engage in the worst crimes regardless of
the smallness of the community. The first murder wascommitted
when there may have been only one family on the earth! That
however, is very much the exception.
Talking with oneof our men who recently returned from a
tour of West Africa, the writer learned that the same oldstory
is being repeated down there. Family and tribal life isbreaking
up as tens of thousands are attracted to WESTERN influencein the
large cities. In the outlying areas, the authority of thetribal
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 theirgrasp
and to those people it must look like UTOPIA -- but is itreally?
Would most of them not be better off back in their villages,
under the direct influence of their own family and theauthority
of their tribal chief?
Development anda degree of urbanization could be ideal for
these poor, backward and uneducated people, but is it worththe
price? Development is of itself not wrong, but everywhereman
shows that he lacks the character to handle it! That couldbe the
very reason God chose a different kind of society for hispeople.
God Knows What Is Best For Man
God desiressuccess for every one of us and his ideal for
living is so different from that which man has devised. Inthe
Bible he has given us a few basic physical laws which if
followed, will guide mankind into an entirely differentpattern
of life. Ancient Israel was to be a national living exampleof a
people operating under these laws. They failed, but nexttime
God's people will succeed.
Next time, manwill be under God's government, administered
by Jesus Christ following his second coming. Like allpreceding
civilizations, it will be based on LAW! Two differencesbetween
this coming civilization and most of those that have gonebefore
are, FIRST, the law will be the law of God, and SECONDLY, itwill
be enforced!
In the past, manhas succeeded to the extent that he has
based any civilization upon GOD'S law. And on the otherhand, 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 tosettle
for anything less!
The Jubilee Law
When we think ofthe legal system in any modern society,
even the trained mind boggles at its complexity. Yet it isshot
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, thelegal system in God's society in ancient
Israel was remarkable for its simplicity. Likewise, ourcoming
new civilization will also be notable for the simplicity ofits
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 mostbasic and far-reaching civil laws to be
re-introduced into God's society is that which makes itILLEGAL
for any man (except the priests and Levites) to becomeLANDLESS
(Lev. 25:8-17). Every family will become the recipient of anarea
of land which is to remain their possession down throughevery
generation. No man will have the right to sell thisinheritance
out from under his family, or from generations yet unborn.The
most that can happen is that the land might pass temporarilyto
the control of others on an advance rental basis. Every 50years
all of this land will be returned to the original owner, orhis
descendants -- irrespective of whether they want it or not!
The onlypossible exception to this, concerns acreage
consecrated to God and therefore given to Church control(Lev.
27:20,21). Presumably this acreage would be re-distributedto
others in need, otherwise God's Church would end up justlike the
churches of ROME and ENGLAND -- perhaps the biggestland-owner in
the country! That of course was never God's purpose. If ithad
been, he would have kept it all for the priests and neverhave
made the initial distribution.
This is atypical contrast between the systems of God and
Satan. God's priesthood have NO inheritance. Satan's priestshave
at times ended up owning vast areas of land!
All of that isan aside. The important point for us is that
under God, his people have COMPULSORY LAND OWNERSHIP. It isalso
a state of affairs that is preserved intact by the law ofrelease
-- THE JUBILEE.
Contrast thistype of society with today's Western
civilization. Here, more that 90% of our population are
concentrated in cities and have neither OWNERSHIP nor ACCESSto
land for food production!
Who Wants A Peasant Society?
One might besurprised at how few would want their own land
today -- especially if there was any thought that they mighthave
to live on it! It is a problem, but God is well able to takecare
of it in the future.
Today, we mightask ourselves -- would God's new
civilization mean a return to some kind of second-ratepeasant
society? That is the fear that would instantly spring to the
minds of many people. Being a law of God, we know it wouldNOT
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 Godhad
in mind for ancient Israel, or the WORLD TOMORROW. Multiple
millions whom we call "peasants" either have noland of their
own, or their area is totally inadequate for their needs.What is
equally important, they are mostly subject to cripplingfinancial
burdens, pitiful rewards for their produce and a lack ofright
education in the basics of land management.
In most of thesenations today, LAND-OWNERSHIP and POWER is
concentrated in the hands of a socially elite class. Whetherof
the extreme right, or the extreme left, they manage tostruggle
with their conscience and sleep quite soundly every night.
In the West, we toohave 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 toeither
of these groups, or the politicians vying with each otherfor
their support.
Farmers might aswell resign themselves to one fact of life
in our present civilization -- industrially-controlledeconomies
will always demand cheap food for their massive work-force.
Furthermore, no political party is going to risk its futureby
redressing this social imbalance.
Whatpoliticians, labour and management have not yet
understood is the fact that our industrial society will behoist
with its own petard!
In our greed wehave 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 ofa skeleton-crew of robot-like machine
operators in place of a land-owning society is a sure routeto
national disaster. If it does not arise from social anarchyit
will come in the form of nutritional bankruptcy in our soil,our
plants, our animals and finally OURSELVES!
Even today, weshould be able to see that a large and
prosperous land-owning sector is the only sound basis of astable
society.
Misconceptions On A Farm-based Society
We should notconclude that in a society based on compulsory
land-ownership every person MUST produce his own food. Somecould
pay others to do it for them. We do this today, but thegreat
majority are landless and have therefore lost the privilegeof
growing ANY of their own food -- even when they don't likethe
going price for agricultural produce. All they can do isprotest,
riot and shout for government subsidies to keep prices downand
strike for higher wages.
In the comingnew civilization every man will own land and
most will work at least part of it, but no able-bodied manneed
be fully occupied growing food just for his own family.
Subsistence farming is nowhere implied as part of the newsystem.
Everyone will have the option of growing more than their ownfood
needs, for sale to other people, or spending most of theirwork
time performing other functions useful to society.
Any communitybased 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 returnto
food production at any time. It is the fact that thefull-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 andsimple voluntary adjustments, being open to
all, will promote a happy state of equilibrium. What acontrast
to the violent recessions, mass-unemployment, depressionsand
hardship that have characterized Satan's society! Thesesimple
facts should make us all wish that God's society would comemore
quickly.
The Second Key Law To Our Environment
Compulsoryland-ownership would be an abject failure in any
society without some other law, or laws governing use of theland
by each individual owner.
Often to ourgreat surprise, God did not find it necessary
to expound at length in the Bible on the right principles offood
production. Apart from creation itself and man's future
potential, one of God's most remarkable accomplishments isthe
degree of environmental protection and guidance he has givenin
one briefly-stated law.
His law of theland sabbath forces every land user in an
obedient nation to protect man's physical support system.
Briefly, theland sabbath imposes the following conditions
every seventh year:
1. No grain maybe harvested for commercial purposes.
2. No crops maybe sown specifically for harvesting.
3. No vineyards,or orchards may be pruned.
4. No fruit,vegetables, or grain may be stored.
5. No hay, orwinter fodder may be collected in barns.
6. No freshfruit, or vegetables would be available for
sale.
7. Pasturingcattle, sheep and poultry is NOT restricted.
Fuller detailsof this law were given in the October, 1970
issue of "Your Living Environment" and it isrecommended that
readers consult this earlier material in conjunction withthe
comments being added here.
With a littlestudy and meditation it is not difficult to
get God's main message on managing our environment via theland
sabbath law.
In essence, itis 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 dependheavily
on crops -- especially continuous arable farming.
Marketing ofvegetable production is eliminated in the
seventh year, thus forcing every family to grow at leastsome of
their own needs. To do that, one must have access to aminimum
amount of land. This need is just one more very importantreason
for compulsory land-ownership, nationwide.
As one mayharvest only volunteer crops and those only for
personal use, the law virtually forces everyone to havetheir own
garden in the sixth year as well as the seventh in everycycle.
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 toavoid 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 itin
the seventh year.
What is nowbeing emphasized is the ECOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE
behind the land sabbath law and that is where we land-usershad
better not misunderstand!!
Regardless ofWHICH way we choose to keep this law, remember
one thing -- no one can claim to be preserving the fertilityof
his land if he is growing SIX crops in succession.
Viewedpositively, the land sabbath, above all else,
discourages the "getting" attitude so prevalent inour 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 byGod in
Lev. 11 and Deut. 14.
Here again wehave one more contrast between the society God
intends and that which we have today as a combined effortbetween
Satan and man.
Perhaps by thecontrasting 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 canrelease twentieth-century man from the
hellishness of our concrete and asphalt jungles and from the
poverty of an enslaved agriculture!
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
YOUR LIVING ENVIRONMENT
