A Farming Crisis


By J.W. Robinson and others

Animal diseases including dwarfism (degenerate freaks), Bang's Disease (infectious abortion), Mastitis, Bluetongue, blackleg, hoof-and-mouth disease, "lepto," "cow asthma," rabies, anaplasmosis, vibriosis (which causes sterility), and many others are increasing. "Before the outbreaks in the past 13 years (since 1946), the United Stares was singularly free of virus disease of any consequence in cattle. Recent changes in handling animals ... may have upset the NATURAL BALANCE!" (California Farmer Oct. 1959). Proverbs 27:23-24 warns us to "Be thou diligent to know the state of thy flocks, and look well to thy herds. For riches are not for ever."

These troubles hit at the HIGHEST PRODUCERS -- the BLOCKIEST beef breeds, the MILKIEST dairy cows, the laying hens with FASTER EARLY PRODUCTION. The most ADVANCED STRAINS within the affected breeds suffer most. Yet there are some very productive breeds that are almost untouched by any of these ailments. Some farmers almost never have livestock losses -- they always show a profit. Why this difference?

Why should Shorthorns, Herefords, Aberdeen Angus, Holstein-Friesians, Guernseys have greater onslaughts of trouble than Brown Swiss, Jerseys, and Devons? Why are there such differences in losses from herd to herd even within the same breed? And why should Scotch Highlanders, Brahmans, Galloways, Dexters, and others almost never have troubles of any sort, and consistently return a profit to their owners -- and health to the consumer? Why is it that some commercial dairymen can count on only five or six years of production from a cow while other very productive milk cows can be expected to produce well until they are fifteen or more years old? Why is it that most commercial laying hens produce for only one year, while many back-yard flocks, that produce almost as well, are still going strong when six or eight years old? Is there a logical answer to these perplexing problems? Yes, there is. And it is of vital concern to all because it concerns the source of your health.

Many popular misconceptions contribute to man's mismanagement of his livestock. It is assumed that man has many inalienable rights, and no responlibility to God or neighbor -- that the world owes us a living -- that the majority is always right -- that if it makes more money, that makes it better -- that cattle have to be bigger to be better -- that an idea has to be popularly accepted to be good. These errors are so strongly implanted in the minds of the masses -- so taken for granted -- that even when a man starts repenting and trying to obey God, he may still unknowingly continue ruining the health
of his livestock and the consumer -- besides wrecking his economy.

It is high time we study the principles that govern animal husbandry and avert disaster. You can change YOUR methods so that you shall have no need for worry! And the consumer can then eat your products without misgivings. Remember, noted veterinarians recognize that methods of animal husbandry may have upset the NATURAL BALANCE and thus caused these problems. What are the principles involved? Did you know that your Bible has something to say abom this very problem?

What the Bible Says About It

There is a cause for prosperity and a cause for every sickness and disease. Notice what God promises for our cattle if we follow the right laws of agriculture. "And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do ALL his commandments. . . . Blessed shall be .. thy fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine (cows), and the flocks of thy sheep" (Deut. 28:1-4).
The same promise is given in more explicit detail in Deuteronomy 7:11·15: "Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments .... He will also bless . .. the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. . .. There shall not be male or female barren among you or among your cattle. And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness ..." (including cattle sickness).
Notice that this all-inclusive promise of unrestrained success in life is dependent upon one factor: obeying God. God's ways were designed for the ex- press purpose of automatically bringing success and happiness. One who believes what God says and obeys Him finds it impossible to be a failure.
But our people have not obeyed God. We -- and that includes farmers -- have forsaken Him on a grand scale. Notice what is to happen to us as a penalty for this rebellion:

"But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments. . . . Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. . . . The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me" (Deut. 28: 15-21).

Notice that a quick end is prophesied for our prosperous society because of our rebellion against our Maker. God is no respecter of persons. A quick end came upon the prosperity of our people of old. And our prosperity today is about to terminate just as quickly for the same reason! A hasty downfall such as herein described could corne only at the death throes of an empire or nation -- when sin reaps its devastating penalty after God's patience runs out. But God is giving a warning before sending punishment (Amos 3:7). When men rebel against God's ways, their own clouded thinking and consequent wrong decisions bring most of their grief upon them. God has given us instructions and examples to show us how to manage our affairs. But this darkened society has taught us to turn our backs on God's Word, the Bible.

Physical Creation Originally Perfect

A strong delusion has gripped the whole Anglo-Saxon world in regard to the principles of livestock husbandry. We have supposed that we have been improving our cattle to a now near-perfect state. But near-perfect cattle do not suddenly "go to pot" as ours are doing! When God created man and the animal world, He did not create scrubs, as men have thought. He did a GOOD job of His work (Gen. 1:24-27). He created physical PERFECTION. Any scrubs that have come along since are a result of man's mismanagement -- of physical sins. God reminds us: "I had planted thee a NOBLE VINE, wholly a RIGHT SEED: how then art thou turned into the DEGENERATE PLANT of a STRANGE VINE unto me?" (Jer. 2: 21.) "They have PERVERTED their way" (Jer. 3:21). God gave us the standards by which man could have maintained that perfection. But man guesses and supposes, out of his own imagination, in order to devise his own standards of supposed excellence.

Quality of Feed Affects Livestock

Modern methods of producing feed crops and feeding animals have had considerable impact on the present livestock distress. God gave us a rich, boun- tiful land full of a great variety of forage crops for our livestock and wildlife. Animals that are allowed to instinctively graze and browse in native grasses, weeds, and bushes will never become ill if they have good heredity as well.

But men, in the interest of greater, temporary profits for the moment, have in many cases cleared away the God-intended herbs and bushes that are vital in balancing the diet of livestock -- so that they can plant a few quick-growing grasses and legumes. At first glance this looks good -- if the farmer has his eye on money, only. But it is a well known fact that a limited diet makes an animal more susceptible to disease -- just as it does us humans. Healthy cattle that have been allowed to browse and graze at will on bushes, weeds, and grasses, are likely to become susceptible to sickness within two or three years after being moved to a pasture containing only limited grasses. Some veterinarians tell us that a sick animal or barnyard bird, if not too far gone, will usually recover if turned out to SHIFT FOR ITSELF among native plants. Even the feed companies admit this if they are honest. Notice this quote from pages 3-4 of Ace Hi Feed Company's manual on the care and feeding of pigeons: "One little tip: if by any chance you have a very special bird that is off feed, or listless, remove it from the pen and let it FORAGE FOR ITSELF. This method SURPASSES anything else you can do." Not only variety, but also quality, of feed is important. In pasture fertility experiments at Missouri Experiment Station, 1946·1949, Dr. Wm. A. Albrecht, Chairman, Department of Soils, University of Missouri, at Columbia, Missouri, came up with some startling facts: A dairy herd, which began the experiment with only 25% conception, rose to 75% and then 100% in three years of treating devitalized soil with MAJOR and TRACE ELEMENTS. Bang's disease (infectious abortion) dropped from 29% to 20% during the test, and heifers raised during the test had no Bang's disease at calving time, and their calves were likewise free from infection (Soil Fertility and Animal Health by Dr. Wm. A. Albrecht, p. 167). The cows, which, due to poor soil, grew up with weak constitutions, were gradually building health. The calves, having always had a good diet, grew up with sound health. Another of his carefully controlled experiments proved that TRACE AMOUNTS of COPPER in soil lets an animal build its antibiotic protection that will prohibit worms from staying in its digestive tract (Albrecht, p. 150). A healthy animal tends to repel both body parasites and contagious disease. There are cases in which one man's cattle are victims of anything from cattle grubs to hoof-and-mouth disease, while his neighbor's unmedicated cattle just across the fence are untouched. Today cattle are not even fed grass. Instead of fertilizing, mowing and eating the grass as they roam a green field which they were intended to do, they are kept inside a factory-farm stall their whole lives and fed GMO corn which makes them fat quickly. They develop E coli in their gut which gets into hamburger and can kill humans.

Hybrids Too

For years modern man has been developing and raising all sorts of new varieties of HYBRID corn in order to squeeze a few extra bushels out of each acre -- and put a little more waste fat on animals in the feed lots. But is this endeavor motivated by brotherly love? A desire to increase quality, as we are told' Definitely NOT!
In an experiment on 16 farms in Illinois, HYBRID and OPEN-POLLINATED corn were grown in neighboring strips under the same conditions, and the produce was tested by Armour's Institute of Research in Chicago. The OPEN-POLLINATED corn tested 12 percent protein. None of the HYBRIDS showed more than 8 percent. All the HYBRIDS were short on 7 to 9 MINERALS, and all failed completely to pick up COBALT, whose deficiency is one cause of Bang's disease. By rapidly using some trace elements and leaving others untouched, HYBRIDS unbalance and thereby poison the soil ten times as quickly as OPEN-POLLINATED corn, horticulturists now admit. It is no wonder that God forbids the growing of HYBRIDS (Lev. 19:19).

When Mexican farmers in the U.S.A. try HYBRIDS for home use, they usually quickly give them up. HYBRIDS, they discover, are simply NO GOOD for tortillas: the flavor, color, texture, and consistency are all INFERIOR to that of OPEN-POLLINATED corn. Those interested in quality prefer natural varieties and natural methods of production. Shortcuts to riches are not good for anyone.

Every Corruption a Health Hazard

Whenever a food or forage crop is CORRUPTED in any way in the interest of unnatural, greedy, excessive profit, the animal or plant PROTEINS are one of the first factors to be DIMINISHED. The carbohydrates are, in turn, increased. Is it any wonder that many of us have difficulty building muscle while others have problems with an excess of fat? "Protein deficiency in a parent animal causes a one-generation mutation -- a DEGENERATION -- in the offspring -- a loss, not a gain. Choosing breeding stock for fattening ability, with its failing physiologies, rather than for health and survival DEGENERATES a species" (Albrecht, pp. 199-200 ).

We must build both health and character: they cannot be bought. Besides the PROTEIN LOSS, there is also the loss of TRACE ELEMENTS when the soil is depleted or the heredity of plants is forcibly altered. Many of the TRACE ELEMENTS are vitally needed to help the animal or human body make proper use of all the nutrients in food. In some cases, experimenters have recently been able to tell us that certain DEFICIENCY DISEASES in animals and humans can be caused by the loss of certain TRACE ELEMENTS. But man does not yet know to what extent our multitudes of new diseases are brought on by these deficiencies.

In some cases, both DEGENERATIVE BREEDING and DEFICIENCY are associated with the same disease. Degeneration weakens the animal so that it is more likely to become ill by malnutrition. Instead of using MANURE and natural ROCK FERTILIZERS containing major, minor, and trace elements in proper proportions, men have tried to offset soil depletion by use of water-soluble CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS, containing unnatural combinations of major elements which deposit in the soil poisonous residues ranging from 'Washing soda to sulfuric acid (Make Friends With Your Land by Leonard Wickenden, pp. 63, 117).

Antibiotics Can Harm You

In a vain attempt to offset the harm he has brought upon his livestock, man has resorted to chemicals and drugs, which have no food value and serve no actual beneficial purpose. Doctors readily admit there is no drug without harmful side effects. Dr. Harry E. Kingman, Jr., Executive Secretary of the American Veterinary Association, stated that "medications in feed have done about as much harm as they have done good." "Livestock owners are {now] being encouraged," he continued, "to look to feed additives as disease control agents. This is an area where feed additives can do more harm than good (even from the viewpoint of veterinary medicine). "Continued administration of drugs is inclined to produce resistant strains of bacteria so that when you really need treatment, the drug is not as effective as it could and should be. [There is also] the residual problem in which these drugs are found in human food, either in the milk, or in the meat. People who are sensitized to these drugs can have severe reactions to antibiotic contaminated foods." (From D-X Sunray Farm Information Center, #312, July 24, 1959). It has been proved by government-backed and private experimenrs that chemicals in foods are partIy responsible for many of our modern allergies, which were virtually unknown in the last century, before the advent of all these corruptions.

Just how harmful are the chemicals in YOUR meat and milk? Notice this admission from Western Farm Life: "The presence of antibiotics in market milk is recognized as a danger by the Food and Drug Administration. Accumulation of antibiotics in the human system reduces the immune response of non-specific infections.· This could mean more colds, more influenza, more pneumonia, more of almost anything. (And that is exactly what we have been having.) Coupled with this is the fact that the use of antibiotics to cure mastitis is not killing the bacteria, but simply breeding more resistant strains. The most dangerous of these is a staphylococcal microbe (staphylococcus aureous), a human killer. "Thus, as antibiotics are lowering our resistance to disease, their use on animals is also creating more dangerous disease bacteria." With such a drastic DOUBLE RISK forced upon the consumer, is it any wonder that we have so much sickness today? Who can blame those few hardy individuals who have turned against today's system and have moved out to the suburbs to produce their own food?

 

The Truth About Modern Milk

1.) Since female mammals can only produce milk during and after pregnancy, farmers shove long steel devices into cow vaginas with their bare hands once a year to inject them with bull semen.
2.) The calves are taken away after birth to prevent them from drinking the milk that will be sold to the public. This is unnecessary since the average domesticated dairy cow produces far more milk (5 gallons/day) than would be required to feed their calf (less than 2 gallons/day).
3.) The male calves are sent to the veal industry where they are kept in small stalls or tiny crates. Minimal to no movement is allowed. This prevents muscle development which keeps their flesh tender for steaks.
4.) The milking machines suck the cows dry twice a day. Most of these cows have severe infections, and the pus gets sucked out along with the milk. One glass of milk typically contains 135 million pus cells.
5.) Cows have a natural life span of about 25 years. But due to factory-farming methods and conditions, the cow is rendered "worthless" to the dairy industry by the time it is four or five years old, at which time it is sent to the slaughter house. One factory-farming method employed is to feed penned-up cattle GMO corn to fatten them quickly. This generates E Coli. But cows were designed to graze freely on pasture land eating grasses that they fertilize and mow at the same time.
6.) Cow's milk is the number one cause of food allergies among infants and children. A glass of milk contains up to 20 painkillers, antibiotics, and hormones. IGF-1 bovine growth hormone, which contributes to increased diabetes risk, hormonal imbalance, immune system damage, early puberty and cancer is just one example.
7.) Acidic protein in milk leeches minerals and calcium from the bones if the milk is pasteurized and homogenized. Countries that drink the most dairy have the highest Osteoporosis rates. "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are" (1 Cor. 3:17).
8.) Toxic milk protein called "cassein" contributes to Breast Cancer, Prostate Cancer, Kidney Disease, Arthritis, MS, Crohn's, Irritable Bowel and Asthma -- just to name a few. Because of America's disobedience, "Cursed shall be ... the increase of thy cows" (Deut. 28:18) even when our land is "flowing with milk and honey" (Josh. 5:6).



Why Use Chemicals

Some ask. "Didn't the authorities prohibit the use of harmful additives in raising livestock?" The answer is a definite "No." What the Food and Drug Administration specifically prohibited was not ANTIBIOTICS or chemical additives in general, but stilbestrol pellet implants in chicken necks. When it was proved that growth stimulants used in the feed of 80% of our cattle and poultry causes cancer, the government made the feed manufacturers reduce its use to supposedly safe levels. Stilbestrol is frequently disguised under the innocent-sounding term "plant sterol" Being a plant derivative does not make a chemical harmless. Many of our potent poisons, drugs and chemical contaminants are derived from plants.

Some will wonder why chemicals known to be dangerous are used in the production of our food supply. The answer is -- money. "Cost of stilbestrol is low in respect to its average return. Each dollar spent for stilbestrol can be expected to return about $15 to the producer. No other feed additive has given as large or as consistent benefits in beef cattle supplements. Its use is almost standard practice in feedlots over the nation." Gulf Farm Review. These artificial HORMONES rob men of virility and make men effeminate and weak-willed. A whole host of chemicals, however, are profitable enough to make their use prominent despite these dangers. Experimenters in Mississippi State College proved that "use of a TRANQUILIZER fattened steers 14 percent faster, and gave a 23 percent decrease in the amount of feed required per pound of fat." "Every time you consume factory-farmed chicken, veal, beef, pork, eggs or dairy, you're eating ANTIBIOTICS, PESTICIDES, STEROIDS and HORMONES" -- Rory Freedman. But the Bible condemns the use of drugs. The word translated "sorceries" in Revelation 9:21, 18:23, 21:8, and 22:15 is the Greek word pharmakeia or pharmakos. This is how we got our English word pharmacist, or druggist. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon defines pharmakeia as "the use or the administering of drugs; poisoning; sorcery, magical arts." Galatians 5:20 translates it "witchcraft."

Experimenters and producers alike are interested in money, and in fat because it makes more money. If God had intended livestock to be just money- making machines to satisfy the lusts of men, He would not have said: "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel"' (Prov. 12:10). Most men are not interested in the welfare of their livestock; and they have also forgotten that Christ commanded: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Matt. 22:39.) an it mayMen are legally selling as food many products that are not fit to be put in the human system. We have too long been told that to be "well stuffed" is to be healthy. Proof of the opposite is all around us. Many supposedly well fed people in their thirties and forties are dropping dead of heart attacks all around us. Livestock are even more susceptible than man to corruptions that are standard in our diets. In a herd of 28 fine cattle, 13 DROPPED DEAD in three years when fed the DEGERMINATED GRAIN so universally used in our nation (Annals N.Y . Academy of Science, 1948, V. 52, pp. 256-259).

God created foodstuffs in a perfect, harmonious balance. Everything in nature-- minerai, plant, and animal --has its working partners in the whole inter- dependent creation: nothing is complete when isolated. God is the author of cooperation and community spirit of a right sort. His whole creation eloquently attests to this fact. Soil feeds plants; plants feed animals and man; by-products of plants and animals decompose in soil and feed myriads of micro- organisms that turn inert minerals into balanced plant food. Then the cycle is repeated. All foodstuffs are composed of many mutually helpful component parts. Many times one part is useful only in helping the human or animal system use the other parts. But men want to isolate everything and then call it "pure." When one part is taken away by SOIL DEPLETION, HYBRIDIZATION, CHEMICAL POLLUTION, DRUGS, PROCESSING, or any other factor, there is a chain reaction of sickness and inadequacy throughout the whole interdependent life cycle. By actual test even the manure of a poorly fed animal has been proved to produce plants of inferior quality (Albrecht, pp. 179-182).

We cannot breed plants to tolerate a starvation diet of chemicals and depleted soil. Neither can we breed animals to tolerate a starvation diet of corrupt forage crops. An animal of degenerate heredity cannot be made totally healthy by good feeding. We must have both FERTILE SOIL and GOOD BREEDING in order to produce good animals and foodstuffs fit for human consumption. God holds the producer responsible for growing quality foods. He intended that farmers should be studious, progressive, well educated individuals fully capable of handling the responsibility of properly nourishing humanity. Health is important! God intends the farmer to be a pillar in his community. One who doubts this has only to study the complicated structure of the agricultural laws in the Bible. No other secular occupation has been given a set of Biblical laws even remotely comparable to the laws of agriculture. These laws cannot be fully understood without considerable educational progress. The production of the food that gives either health or degeneration is certainly an honorable position worthy of the dedicated effort of top quality men. God commands: "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are" (1 Cor. 3:17). In these days of utter corruption, many consumers will be willing to throw up their hands in defeat and cooperate with producers and processors-- by continuing to use foods that are making the populace effeminate, cowardly, sick, and crippled. But it is still possible to obtain quality food if one is willing to put forth effort. The world's system was just about as corrupt in Christ's day as it is now. Leprosy and other degenerative diseases ran rampant. Yet Peter was able to boast that he had never eaten corrupt food (Acts 10:14) . Peter had been blessed with parents who were diligent in their efforts to rear healthy children. His resultant physical virility enabled Peter to accomplish great things in the New Testament Church. Are you doing as much for your children?

We have seen the schemes men have devised to force unnatural profits out of livestock. We saw that dietary shortcuts are bringing on mounting diseases. And drugs and medicines, instead of relieving these distresses, have increased them by lowering the natural resistance of livestock. The California Farmer magazine admitted that: "Recent changes in handling animals my have upset the NATURAL BALANCE." We also saw that health-endangering chemicals fed to livestock are rapidly increasing the sicknesses of consumers. Then there is the mounting problem of dwarfism, of birth difficulties and sicknesses due to bad breeding practices.

Our bodies are made up of what we eat. Our health is regulated in large part by the quality of our food. This shoulders upon the farmer and rancher a serious responsibility. If he loves his fellow man, he will be concerned for the quality of the foodstuffs he is producing for the tabIes of others. We are told by many that modern selective breeders have been improving the quality of livestock. They usually cite as proof increasing SIZE and QUANTITY of production. That this is erroneous animal husbandry is proved by the fact that the supposedly MOST IMPROVED herds generally have the GREATER HEALTH PROBLEMS -- eventually affecting consumers' health. Our supposedly SUPERIOR BEEF cattle are NOT naturally AS TENDER as they should be.

Hence, the wide-spread use of tenderizers. "Today 80% of the nation's beef cattle get stilbestrol," states TIME magazine. This chemical-related to the spread of cancer-- makes cows grow faster, which supposedly tenderizes them and makes for a "better" market animal. But does it, really? Chemical and Engineering News states that: "Buyers and consumers are demanding better quality and more uniform [meat] products." One factor constantly mentioned in reports on the beef market is that customers are demanding LESS WASTE FAT and MORE of the marbling that gives meat its natural TENDERNESS. Producers of dairy products tell us they also have been giving us better quality. But Dr. Murray C. Zimmerman, M.D., in an article in the A.M.A. Archives of Dermatology admits many are sensitive to penicillin because of the ever-increasing amounts of it we are getting in milk. A chronic itching rash is often the result. Penicillin is used to combat mastitis, which is one of the most persistent of dairymen's problems. And in the testing of commercial milk samples, measurable quanrities of penicillin have been found in as high as 96% of tested samples.

If breeders have been steadily improving the quality of livestock all these years, why do we have all these COMPLAINTS about the milk and meat? And why does the meat of most beef animals have to be artificially tenderized? Shouldn't beef be naturally tender like most wild game? Just what are the principles by which men have been supposedly "improving" their cattle and our food supply? Could these principles have anything to do with our own health problems -- as well as the health problems of commercial cattIe herds? Notice the facts!

How the Trouble Began

Let us start at the beginning. Here is how modern selective breeding developed -- and the principles it employs. Much has been written on this subject. But one of the most readable, authoritative, brief summaries of the development of the modem cattle industry is The Taurine World, a special cattle issue published by The National Geographic Magazine in December, 1925. The author, Alvin Howard Sanders, D.Agr., LL.D., is a noted author and editor of several books and magazines dealing with animal husbandry. In The Taurine World, he drew upon facts published by many noted authorities, in addition to his own vast store of knowledge.

The Taurine World informs us that about two centuries ago Robert Bakewell, a pioneering Leicestershire, England, farmer, discovered he could, through many generations of animal INCEST, concentrate the traits of one preferred-type animal in his or her offspring, and thereby establish a few isolated characteristics that were being sought. He bred a bull calf, from an especially good cow, back to his mother -- and their offspring back to the mother again. He repeated such matings for several generations until the desired qualities were fixed. So successful was Bakewell that King George III took a deep
personal interest in his work. lmmediately he had a following. It was through Bakewell's methods that ALL NEW BREEDS have been established -- and by which a few old breeds were forcibly changed to fit man's concept of what animals should be.

Livestock authorities recognize that there are very real -- though sometimes hidden -- DANGERS in animal INCEST. But some characteristics are commonly considered by breeders worth the RISK -- if there may be money in it. (pp. 37·38, Dual-Purpose Cattle, by Claude H. Hinman, past President of the America Milking Shorthorn Society.) What characteristics did Bakewell and his followers desire? Mr. Sanders states: "He [Bakewell] found that breeding from close affinities [INCESTUOUS inbreeding] tended to REDUCE SIZE and VIGOR and set up a certain DELICACY of form which experience taught was favorable to the process of FAT SECRETION (The Taurine World, p. 620). Thus Bakewell and his proteges knew that when they bred for a few isolated characteristics, they had to NEGLECT and LOSE other qualities.

Notice these two facts -- that Bakewell knew he was REDUCING VIGOR -- knew he did it to get MORE FAT, which makes more profit. Being motivated by greed for money, he knowingly and willingly SACRIFICED QUALITY! Bakewell's principles were applied to dairy cattle by concentrating on UDDER DEVELOPMENT (The Taurine World, p. 621).

Cattle authorities admit that: "All cattle measuring up to the modern human idea as to what they ought to be are most assuredly NOT IMPROVED from the standpoint of the animals themselves" (page 621, The Taurine World). Improvement was not under consideration. What was so diligently sought by Bakewell and his followers was more money. The records prove these men bred only for BIG UDDERS or BLOCKY FRAMES and MUCH FAT. Nothing was considered so important that it could nor be sacrificed in the interest of a greater inflow of the almighry pound or dollar. Cattlemen know this brand of "improvement" results in a LOSS OF HARDINESS. One of the most universally recognized facts of breeding is that species UNTOUCHED by man are always MORE HARDY. But men consider "progress" to be worth the price.

Many honest farmers have been skeptical of these principles of deliberately corrupting cattle in the interest of money. Some of the animal breeders interested in greater profits had to practice their PERVERSIONS in secret so their neighbors would not ostracize them. Yet, these men made such notable changes and gained such international fame that the breeds they developed -- usually from CROSSBREEDS -- caught on and gradually became popular. Most of our major beef and dairy breeds were developed in this way, the genetic alterations and LOSS OF QUALITIES varying from breed to breed and herd to herd according to the degree to which Bakewell's system was applied. Breeds that were not so altered remained normal, but obscure.

Selective breeders in England became so famous for changing the very hereditary nature of livestock through many generations of INCESTUOUS matings that Emerson was led to comment: "The native cattle are extinct, but the island is full of ARTIFICIAL breeds. Bakewell created sheep and cows and horses to order, and breeds in which everything was omitted but what is ECONOMICAL. The cow is sacrificed to her BAG; the ox to his SIRLOIN."


Emerson's analysis was, in principle, correct. The things that were omitted because they were not considered of importance were QUALITY of meat and milk, VITALITY, ADAPTABILITY to extremes in weather, DISEASE RESISTANCE, INTELLIGENCE, GENTLENESS, and other desirable traits which still remain in older breeds that were not developed by the Bakewell system. All modern livestock authorities who menrion these obscure breeds comment on their HARDINESS and other qualities. Modern experts know the trend started by Bakewell is DANGEROUS. Yet many modern Bakewell followers perpetuate unnatural livestock by breeding for isolated characteristics. A leading livestock authority states: "The use of that criterion of only weight increase has crowded the life stream of our growing, young animals so badly that the stream is about to be DRIED UP through an INCREASING CROP OF DWARFS! There is a higher percentage of them where the stream of life has been more carefully guided by us according to PARTICULAR PEDIGREES." (Soil Fertility and Animal Health by Dr. Wm. A. Albrecht, Chairman, Department of Soils, University of Mo.)


Unnatural Breeds

Men have imposed upon their livestock many limitations that God did not impose at creation. They look around and see what our animals are now like and assume they are the best ever -- thinking we are evolving better and better all the time.

Many Britons, Australians and Americans feel: "It has to be bigger -- or have greater capacity -- to be better," and have disregarded all other factors in preference for capacity production in all types of livestock. Then they adamantly insist they have increased the quality of their product. But what is the result of this "improvement"?

A few years ago a high concentration of nitrates in forage crops in Missouri, Illinois, and Wisconsin poisoned and killed many hundreds of cattle. Dr. Arthur A. Case, M.S., D.V.M., Professor of Veterinary Medicine, University of Missouri, reported on this tragedy in the Haver Glover Messenger: "In most instances, by the fifth day several of the LARGEST and BEST cows were found either dead or very sick. Almost all of the sick animals were dead in 24 hours." Notice that the LARGEST and supposedly BEST cows -- the most "IMPROVED" individuals -- SUCCUMBED FIRST, because they had the lowest resistance to poison. The GAIN in SIZE had been a LOSS in HARDINESS. The human body, fed by these inadequate animals, is reaping the same results.
In recent years most dairymen have had a mania for increasing the size of their cows in order to further increase individual production, and have assumed that increasing the size also increases the strength. Their newest technique in choosing herd cows is to use wither height only as their guide to quality. Now these dairymen are wondering why these abnormally larger cows are suddenly having difficulty giving normal birth, whereas their smaller ancestors fifteen years ago gave birth without distress.

Many dairymen claim a bigger cow gives proportionately more nourishment in her extra gallons of milk. But milk tests have proved that this increased capacity does not give a proportionate increase in the nourishment -- that the increase is practically ALL WATER, which the dairyman then sells to the customers at milk prices.

Men claim that cattle were originally scrubs and had to be bred for capacity. But this is not true. God created GOOD livestock, not scrubs (Gen. 1:24-27). In ancient times when God's people were taken into captivity and a few poor people were temporarily left in the land, a large family was able to get an abundance of milk and butter from one young cow and two sheep (Isa. 7:21-22).

Laying hens are even more distorted than cattle. The modern egg has a pale, flat, sick-looking yolk and a watery white that splatters all over the skillet -- with the flavor missing! Such an egg is not remotely comparable to that produced by a non-pressured hen in a back-yard flock -- with its rich, flavorful yolk and firm, healthy white.



Does this mean selective breeding is wrong? Most assuredly not! It only means selective breeding has been misapplied, wrongly used.
God saw fit to preserve in the Bible the example of the patriarch Jacob's seleccive breeding technique. Scholars recognize that Jacob had an amazing amount of knowledge and skill in live-stock breeding.

Jacob agreed to herd Laban's cattle and take as his pay all the odd-colored animals while the standard colors were to be Laban's (Gen. 30:27-34). Be- cause Laban changed Jacob's wage frequently in order to enrich himself with Jacob's labor (Gen. 31:7), God performed a miracle to cause the animals to produce a fair wage for Jacob, as described in verses 6-12. The account makes it obvious that Jacob bred for strength as regards hardiness, vigor, and virility, which perpetuates quality in general. In his quest for quality, he trusted God to provide the quantity in the right color patterns. Jacob did not fix a particular color pattern or other unnatural characteristic by INCEST as modern breeders have done, but left hereditary qualities as they were. He picked the most virile males, corralled them for breeding with the more virile females in order to produce quality -- and as a result God rewarded him with a decent wage (Gen. 30:37- 39,41-43 and 31:38).

As a constant safeguard against INBREEDING, Jacob maintained a flock ratio of one male to ten females (Gen. 32:13-14). Modern authorities unwisely recommend one male to thirty or forty females -- or one male to thousands of females in artificial insemination, admittedly a calculated risk! Dr. C. O. Gilmore of the Ohio Experimem Station, in a report in The Rural New Yorker, stated that artificial insemination has already begun to produce many heritable defects that are becoming a public concern. Wirh 90% of our dairy cows now being artificially inseminated, a few more years of such a practice could lead to sudden degeneration of entire herds.

Men have departed from God's way and in their greed have bred their cattle and poultry for isolated characteristics according to man's desire for each particular breed: excessive FAT; BLOCKY, BIG-RUMPED frames; excessively RAPID GROWTH; abnormal amounts of MILK and EGGS, unusual or unnatural color patterns, and other hereditary distortions. The present livestock crisis -- of disease, dwarfism and birth difficulty -- is abundant proof that modern breeders have been wrong in their judging of what constitutes quality, and what is profitable, in the long run, for human health. Then why were bad breeding practices introduced in the first place? What did these men want to accomplish?

Bakewell and his followers lived in England's fertile valleys that had attracted settlers with varied sorts of cattle. The cattle had been allowed to promiscuously CROSSBREED until the land was full of MONGRELS. Bakewell tbought the way to improve those cattle was to take local individuals that looked good and, through INCESTUOUS mating, develop a new, supposedly superior, breed by concentrating on developing certain desired characteristics. He and his followers did not generally consider going to other areas and buying good quality pure breeds for foundation stock.

The practice temporarily worked so well that some tried it on pure breeds to increase the SIZE, MILK capacity, or FATTENING ability. As farmers were paid for quantity, their reasoning easily told them QUANTITY meant QUALITY! What actually happened was that QUALITY was sacrificed for QUANTITY -- all in the name of quick profits.

But in other areas good breeds of pure cattIe were not changed by this system. Their owners were satisfied with the natural and just profit their stock produced. These breeds, though profitable, were neglected by Bakewell and his followers because they were either too small or they were in areas far removed from the productive plains and valleys that inspired the use of Bakewell's system. These neglected natural breeds have generally retained their natural HARDINESS since creation. They do not suffer the losses from DISEASE, DWARFISM, and BIRTH DIFFICULTIES so common in the artificial breeds. This fact and their superior digestion make them generally as profitable as the artificial breeds. They produce meat and milk -- or eggs in the case of poultry -- that are of noticeably SUPERIOR QUALITY. The meat of the old, natural breeds, according to all authoritative comment, is NOT TOUGH and STRINGY as some have assumed. It is TENDER and WELL MARBLED WITHOUT heavy layers of waste FAT, is of superior FLAVOR, and very highly prized by the consumer. These breeds have RUGGED CONSTITUTIONS, but tender meat. Men who switch from new breeds to the old breeds are always surprised at their many GOOD qualities.

 

Quality Breeding

The natural breeds came from areas where conditions were rugged and farmers could not afford to use a breeding technique that caused a loss of hardiness and quality. They left their cattle as God created them. And in many cases owners of these natural breeds have been "old-fashioned" enough to be honest -- to recognize, and strive for, true quality in livestock. The meat of natural breeds does not have to be artifically tenderized as the unnatural breeds usually require. Corruption is a chain reaction: one sinful practice requires another, and then another, to cover up. Now the whole land is full of the wretched result of such actions. The ultimate result is our own sickly bodies.

To better understand the qualities all cattle should have by nature, notice the traits of some of the natural breeds which have been bred for over-all quality and hardiness, instead of for one or two isolated characteristics. The best market beeves of the natural breeds -- such as Scotch Highlanders, Brahmans, Galloways, Dexters, Red Polls, and Charolais -- can be counted on to dress out a carcass weighing 58% to 64% of live weight with very little or NO WASTE FAT. But the artificial breeds dress out no more than 60% to 65% of live weight -- only a very little more, and have a CONSIDERABLE amount of WASTE FAT, and many times have a considerable amount of hard, unmarbled lean. The evidence amply demonstrates that the natural breeds actually produce a higher percentage of lean beef, and that of BETTER QUALITY and FLAVOR. It is a widely known fact that the natural beef breeds give their calves a BETTER SUPPLY of RICH MILK than most cows in the artificial beef breeds. Natural breeds do not have to be finished on the feedlot: they are GOOD and render fresh out of the pasture -- and grass is much less expensive than grain. When put in the feedlot, the natural breeds put on tender lean, instead of waste fat.

In regard to commercial milk production, Mr. Sanders and others inform us the old, natural breeds such as Dexters, Red Polls, and Kerries have long been noted for both QUALITY and RICHNESS of milk, and for profitable production. At the Model Dairy contest conducted at Buffalo in 1901, a Red Poll cow placed second in individual competition for profitable production. All the Red Polls entered were from one herd, but in most other breeds, contestants were picked from numerous herds scattered all over the country. Thus, the first place winner, a Guernsey, had a decided advantage (The Taurine World, pp. 683-684). Red Polls, though still not numerous, have won many similar dairying honors since that time.

Another ancient breed is the Irish Dexter, smaller than a Jersey but almost as beefy proportioned as an Aberdeen Angus. Big-cow enthusiasts who look with contempt on the Dexter's small size have to ignore several vital factors which prove it does not have to be bigger to be better. They are such good
foragers they eat young bushes and dry cornstalks from top to bottom -- which increases their health and profitableness. Even though tiny, they give up to three gallons of very rich milk a day. Those who have raised these tiny cows many years affirm that "they produce both milk and beef more economically than the strictly beef or dairy breeds."

Dexters are so gentle and affectionate it is not uncommon to have children do the milking and feeding -- even caring for the bulls (which I have personally witnessed). Some families actually give Dexters the dog's place as household pet. But this does not make them delicate: Dexters can take extremes of heat and cold without discomfort. In England, where most other dairy cattie are put in snug barns in winter, Dexters are commonly housed in sheds open on three sides, without loss of production. Even though short legged, they are so agile on foot that steep, rocky terrain offers no problem. (The Dexter Cow, by W. R. Thrower.)

These factors of hardiness, which are common -- in slightly varying degrees -- to all the old, natural, pure breeds, whether large or small, contribute greatly to their profit-making capacity. When exposed to wintry cold, any of the hardy breeds get a better start in the spring and are not adversely affected by sudden spring storms.

People who are familiar with only the artificial breeds assume that the natural breeds are just as limited and just as adversely affected by distresses. But this is not true. The natural breeds consider such things as sudden weather changes to be normal. Scotch Highlanders, for example, are not, as some sup- pose, just northern cows. They are so adaptable they do not appear to suffer from the heat of Southern California summers. Big, gentle Brahman cattle, assumed to be suited only for hot climates, adapt more readily to Canadian winters than the light dairy breeds, and frequently spend their time in the open in below-zero weather, even when a barn is available -- according to reports from northern breeders.

Charolais cattIe, another big, extremely gentle breed, are noted for hardiness, for milk that tests up to six percent butterfat, and for fine quality, tender beef. Having long been bred in France for hardiness and lean meat, these cattle did not have their nature distorted in the interest of unnatural profit. The ancient, natural beef breeds are usually better milkers than the artificial breeds. Brahmans are sometimes used as family milk cows because of their abundance of rich milk that tests over five percent butterfat. Devon cattle are such heavy milkers that they used to be considered dual-purpose cattIe. Some writers still list them as such, although the Devon Cattle Club lists them as strictly beef cattle.

Gentleness and Courage

Many people assume that gentle animals must be indolent cowards, and that certain animals, like watchdogs and dairy bulls, must be vicious and dangerous in order to be good. Such an assumption is the height of folly! God did not intend any domestic animal to be dangerous. He commands that a dangerous bull sbould be kept penned, and that if this does not keep him from harming people or other animals, he should be killed (Ex. 21:28-36).
Men have not obeyed God. They have carelessly bred such belligerent natures into dairy bulls that big-game hunters always list the domestic dairy bull as the most dangerous animal on the North American continent. This is true, but it is a perversion. Viciousness is NOT an essential part of courage. Some of the most docile cattle are noted for their courageous protection of their young. And there are several breeds of medium and large dogs -- gentle as lap dogs -- that have for centuries been used to guard sheep and cattle. They are so courageous they will fearlessly fight off wolves or bears. Viciousness in cattle is not a trait created in them. It is a rather recent development caused by mismanagement, CROSSBREEDING and breeding INCESTUOUSLY for a few isolated characteristics while neglecting the over-all quality. Throughout the Middle East, where our ancestors and our cattle originated, all species of livestock have been noted for genrleness ever since the earliest recorded history. Both the Bible and secular literature speak of young boys and girls caring for the family flocks and herds in ancient times. And the modern traveller in Crete who mentioned "a small yellow-haired girl, driving a flock of sheep, goats, cows, and one pig under the shadow of the trees," in The National Geographic Magazine, November, 1943, p. 564, was only reiterating what many other recent travellers throughout the East have said. Those flocks of cattle, sheep and goats together, commonly seen throughout the unfenced East, normally include a few male animals, all docile. Those people could not afford a vicious animal. But when our ancestors started migrating and indiscriminately mixing different breeds from different areas, and breeding for abnormal profits, many strains lost their normal docility, along with some other qualities.

Many breeders recognize that CROSSBREEDING many times causes a LOSS OF DOCILITY as well as QUALITY. It is no wonder God forbids CROSSBREEDING (Lev.19:19). From the beginning He intended that each species should reproduce "after its kind" (Gen.1). Cross-breeding recommendations are made primarily by theorists, and not by quality·minded cattlemen.

Age-Old Qualities Still Profitable

All the natural breeds -- which originated by the branching out of the original stock -- have inherited many of the desirable traits in common, because these are the traits God put in the original perfect cattIe. These good traits were BRED OUT of the others as a sacrifice to unnatural profit. As an illustration of the day-to-day economic usefulness of these diversified qualities that good cattle have, notice the rare qualities listed in this enthusiastic report from a rancher who hauled a few Scotch Highland Cattle 3000 miles from Vancouver, Canada, to Ross River, Yukon Territory:

"They gained weight on the trip. I gave them lots of room and hay . . . To unload at night I would back up to a bank and call them and out they would jump. In the morning the same thing. Just walk in with some hay and they would follow ... [What manageability!] These cattle along side others have horse sense. Loose on the range other cattle I have known will walk into bog holes, fall into holes, wedge into trees,
in fact are always in trouble, not these little guys. They walk around bogs and open water in the river; you can't drive them near a dangerous spot, They nonchalantly feed on sidehills that a horse would break his neck on, in fact we are sold on them .. . It gets very cold, down to 70 below ...."

Another rancher reports : "It got down to 20 below and a strong nonhwest wind. The Herefords broke through the fence and came home, and a couple of Highland cows came with them. I rode out the next day; the rest of the Highland cows and the yearling Highland heifers were out there by themselves and didn't seem to be a bit perturbed. We have no natural shelter here . . ."

With performance such as reported by these ranchers, coupled with disease resistance, good calf crops, twenty years of productivity, and no dwarfism, it would be difficult to lose money. Low overhead and good production is a combination hard to beat. These are the qualities all cattle would have if they were bred and fed properly. Some of the long-neglected hardy breeds are gaining more public attention and favor, especially from cattlemen who have been suffering losses. Regrettably some breeders are using the hardy breeds only for CROSSBREEDING, or are trying to quickly MAKE THEM FATTER or BIGGER in the rump by using Bakewell's techniques. Thus they are headed for the same degeneration through the same mistakes all over again. lndiscriminately striving for LARGER FRAMES, MORE FAT, HEAVIER RUMPS, MORE MILK, or a particular color pattern will lead to neglect of the overall quality and can quickly degenerate any breed.

A Recent Case History

A typical example of rapid corruption occurred in the Brittany peninsula of France, long famous for its tiny, hardy, excellent milk cows. Several decades ago "progressive" farmers on the fertile coastal plain began to import Shorthorn bulls to INCREASE SIZE and Ayrshire and Jersey bulls to INCREASE MILK production of the Brittany cows. The latter did not increase the already-good milk production but the former did increase size, so they continued to use Shorthorns and discontinued the others. However, in the poor, rugged, hilly southern pan of the peninsula, Morbihan Department, the farmers would have none of this CROSSBREEDING, but kept their cattle pure and small (The Taurine World, page 656). Crossbreeding with high quality purebred stock produces no advantage or hybrid vigor if there are no recessive weaknesses to cover up.

What is the outcome of this unfortunate experiment with the Shorthorns? Dr. Ghislain Gielfrich reports that "pure Brittany cattle are perfectly adapted for poor land," and he adds, "purebred animals are now in the minority in the peninsula, but certain CROSSES are as unfortunate as they are indefinable" (page 17 of L'appr'ovisionnement en Lait de la Ville de Rennes translated by Ambassador College French Department). Dr. Gielfrich further informs us, on page 41, that brucellosis, or Bang's disease, is prevalent in the northern part of the peninsula (the coastal plain where CROSSBREEDING had been practiced), and that the hilly southern section (where cattle were kept pure) has healthy cattle to this day.

CROSSBREEDING did not directly cause Bang's disease, but weakened the constitutions of the animals so they became more susceptible. Greed for unnatural profits always brings its eventual retribution. In this end time when a speedy downfall has been decreed for a rebellious sociery, that retribution will come more quickly.

The susceptibility of livestock to degeneration from mismanagement also implies another factor. The degenerate breeds -- if not hopelessly decadent -- can be regenerated, NOT by crossbreeding and use of feed additives, but by following Jacob's breeding principles and by use of PROPER FEED and FORAGE. By culling out weaklings and BREEDING HARDY, normal individuals -- beef cattle with the normal, NOT-SO-BLOCKY APPEARANCE and slightly smaller, NATURAL RUMPS, and milk stock with NORMAL UDDERS giving a natural amount of rich nourishment instead of excessive gallons of water -- and by seeking QUALITY FIRST, following the teachings of the Bible, some can rebuild the health of their cattle soon enough to avoid catastrophe. Changing the principles of management will rebuild the health of livestock more quickly than it will give normal tenderness to the beef of the tougher-meated modern breeds. For that reason some have already found it necessary to change breeds, but many will not find such a drastic move necessary.

Knowledge Requires Action

We may not previously have known these principles of animal husbandry. But after God warns us He requires us to obey His instructions (Ezek. 3:19; John 13:17). We should be satisfied with the prosperity God built into the natural heredity of good livestock. God's standards of excellence are best for both producer and consumer. A greedy desire for more brings less in the long run -- and poor health. Some claim they cannot afford to correct the abuses in their livestock. But neither can they afford to stand idly by and watch a plague of livestock losses descend upon them like a storm. One who follows God's principles will always prosper without indulging in DRUGS, GROWTH STIMULANTS and TENDERIZERS -- and need have no fear of disease, dwarfism, or birth difficulties. It is time to quit deceiving ourselves and rely upon God and His ways for our prosperity (Deut. 28:1-6; Mal. 3:8-11; Mat. 6:24-34). God's promises are not the idle dreams of righteous men of old; they are the sure and practical ways that work. All our errors can be eliminated -- and a livestock tragedy can be prevented -- but only by changing man's motives and practices from greed to God's law.

Next Lesson: Ancient Jewish Marriage Customs | Back to Home | Emal Us