The Green Religion prefers vegetarians, but....
By Stephen Byrnes, ND, PhD, RNCP
"An unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account is the only method of preservation against the fluctuating extremes of fashionable opinion" -- Alfred North Whitehead
Bill and Tanya sat before me in my office in a somber mood: they had just lost their first baby in the second month of pregnancy. Tanya was particularly upset: "Why did this happen to me? Why did I miscarry my baby?" The young couple had come to see me mostly because of Tanya's recurrent respiratory infections, but also wanted some advice as to how they could avoid the heartache of another failed pregnancy.
Upon questioning Tanya about her diet, I quickly saw the cause of her infections, as well as her miscarriage: she had virtually no fat in her diet and was also mostly a vegetarian. Because of the plentiful media rhetoric about the supposed dangers of animal product consumption, as opposed to the supposed health benefits of the vegetarian lifestyle, Tanya had deliberately removed such things as cream, butter, meats and fish from her diet. Although she liked liver, she avoided it due to worries over "toxins."
Tanya and Bill left with a bottle of vitamin A, other supplements and a dietary prescription that included plentiful amounts of animal fats and meat. Upon leaving my office, Tanya looked at me and said ruefully: "I just don't know what to believe sometimes. Everywhere I look there is all this low-fat, vegetarian stuff recommended. I followed it, and look what happened." I assured her that if she and her husband changed their diets and allowed sufficient time for her weakened uterus to heal, they would be happy parents in due time. As they left, I shook my head in disbelief and concern: I knew they were not the only ones.
Along with the saturated fat and cholesterol scares of the past several decades has come the notion that vegetarianism is a healthier dietary option for people. It seems as if every health expert and government health agency is urging people to eat fewer animal products and consume more vegetables, grains, fruits and legumes. Along with these exhortations have come assertions and studies supposedly proving that vegetarianism is healthier for people and that meat consumption causes sickness and death.
Several medical authorities, however, have questioned these data, but their objections have been largely ignored.
As we shall see, many of the vegetarian claims cannot be substantiated and some are simply false and dangerous. There are benefits to vegetarian diets for certain health conditions, and some people function better on less fat and protein, but, as a practitioner who has dealt with several former vegans (total vegetarians), I know full well the dangerous effects of a diet devoid of healthful animal products.
It is my hope that all readers will more carefully evaluate their position on vegetarianism after reading this article. It is important to note that there are different types of vegetarianism, including lacto-vegetarian diets (dairy products included) and lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets (dairy products and eggs included). The nutritional caveats that follow are primarily directed at veganism, or a diet totally lacking in animal products.
Myth #1: Meat Consumption Contributes to Famine and Depletes the Earth's Natural Resources
Some have argued that cows and sheep require pasturage that could be better used to raise grains to feed starving millions in Third World countries. Additionally, claims are made that raising livestock requires more water than raising plant foods. Both arguments are illogical and simplistic. The pasturage argument ignores the fact that a large portion of our Earth's dry land is unsuited to cultivation. The open range and desert and mountainous areas yield their fruits to grazing animals (1).
Unfortunately, the bulk of commercial livestock are not range fed, but stall-fed. They do not ingest grasses and shrubs (like they should), but are fed an unnatural array of grains and soybeans. It is true that these foods could be fed to humans. The argument here, then, is not that eating meat depletes the Earth's resources, but that commercial farming methods do. Such methods also subject livestock to deplorable living conditions where infections, antibiotics, steroids and synthetic hormones are common.
These all lead to an unhealthy animal and, by extension, an unhealthy food product. Organically raised livestock, then, is a healthier and more humane choice (see myth #15 for more on this topic).
As for the claims that raising livestock requires more water than raising plant foods, water that livestock drink would be drunk by them anyway, even if they were not being raised for food. Additionally, the urine of grazing animals, which mostly comprises water, is rich in nitrogen, which helps replenish the soil.
Much of the water used in commercial livestock farming, however, is used up in growing the various grains and soybeans fed to the animals. If a concerted effort were made to return to the ecologically sound "mixed farm," (described below), then such huge expenditures of water would be unnecessary.
A far more serious threat to humanity, and the Earth, is the monoculture of grains and legumes, advocated by some vegetarian groups, which depletes the soil and requires the heavy use of artificial fertilizers and dangerous pesticides; pesticides that must first be tested on animals for safety (2). The solution? Astute writers on this dilemma have pointed out:
The educated consumer and the enlightened farmer together can bring about a return of the mixed farm, where cultivation of fruits, vegetables and grains is combined with the raising of livestock and fowl in a manner that is efficient, economical and environmentally friendly.
For example, chickens running free in garden areas eat insect pests, while providing high-quality eggs; sheep grazing in orchards obviate the need for herbicides; and cows grazing in woodlands and other marginal areas provide rich, pure milk, making these lands economically viable for the farmer. It is not animal cultivation that leads to hunger and famine, but unwise agricultural practices and monopolistic distribution systems. (3)
The "mixed farm" is also healthier for the soil, which will yield more crops if managed according to traditional guidelines. British organic farmer and dairyman Mark Purdey has accurately pointed out that a crop field on a mixed farm will yield up to five harvests a year, while a "mono-cropped" one will only yield one or two (4). Which farm is producing more food for the world's peoples? Purdey well sums up the ecological horrors of "battery farming" by saying:
Our agricultural establishments could do very well to outlaw the business- besotted farmers running intensive livestock units, battery systems and beef-burger bureaucracies; with all their wastages, deplorable cruelty, anti-ozone slurry systems; drug/chemical induced immunotoxicity resulting in B.S.E. [see myth # 13] andsalmonella, rain forest eradication, etc. Our future direction must strike the happy, healthy medium of mixed farms, resurrecting the old traditional extensive system as a basic framework, then bolstering up productivity to present day demands by incorporating a more updated application of biological science into farming systems. (5)
Myth #2: Vitamin B12 can be Obtained from Plant Sources
Of all the myths, this is perhaps the most dangerous. Vegans who do not supplement their diet with vitamin B12 will eventually get anemia (a fatal condition) as well as severe nervous and digestive system damage (6). Claims are made that B12 is present in certain algae, tempeh (a fermented soy product) and brewer's yeast. All of them are false.
Like the niacin in corn, the B12 analogues present in algae and tempeh are not bioavailable. We know this because studies done on people's blood levels of B12 remained the same after they ate spirulina and tempeh; there was no change, clearly indicating no absorption by the body (7). Further, the ingestion of too much soy increases the body's need for B12 (8). Brewer's yeast does not contain B12 naturally; it is always fortified from an outside source.
Some vegetarian authorities claim that B12 is produced by certain fermenting bacteria in the intestines. This may be true, but it is in a form unusable by the body. B12 requires intrinsic factor from the stomach for proper absorption in the ileum. Since the bacterial product does not have intrinsic factor bound to it, it cannot be absorbed (9).
It is true that vegans living in certain parts of India do not suffer from vitamin B12 deficiency. This has led some to conclude that plant foods do provide this vitamin. This conclusion, however, is erroneous as many small insects, their eggs, larvae and/or residue, are left on the plant foods these people consume, due to non-use of pesticides and inefficient cleaning methods. This is how these people obtain their vitamin B12.
This contention is borne out by the fact that when Indian Hindus migrated to England, they came down with pernicious anemia within a few years. In England, the food supply is cleaner, and insect residues are completely removed from plant foods (10). The only reliable and absorbable sources of vitamin B12 are animal products, especially organ meats and eggs (11). Though present in lesser amounts, milk products do contain B12. Vegans, therefore, should consider adding dairy products into their diets. If dairy cannot be tolerated, eggs, preferably from free-run hens, are a virtual necessity.
That vitamin B12 can only be obtained from animal products is one of the strongest arguments against veganism being a "normal" way of human eating. Today, vegans can avoid anemia by taking supplemental vitamins or fortified foods. If those same people had lived just a few decades ago, when these products were unavailable, they would have died.
In my own practice, I recently saved two vegans from death from anemia by convincing them to eat generous amounts of dairy products. Both of these sickly gentlemen thought their B12 needs were being met by tempeh and spirulina. They weren't.
Myth #3: Your Body can Convert Omega-6 Fatty Acids into Omega-3 fatty Acids as it Needs
This falsehood is akin to myth number two. Omega 3 and 6 fatty acids are polyunsaturated fats of which two, linolenic (an omega-3) and linoleic (an omega 6), are essential to human life and must be obtained from food as the body cannot synthesize them. Although very small amounts of omega 3 linolenic acid are found in whole grains and dark green leafy vegetables, it is principally found in animal foods (especially fish and eggs), as well as flax seed oil. Omega 6 linoleic acid is mostly found in vegetables, but small amounts are present in certain animal fats.
To assuage vegans who fear they may not get enough omega 3 linolenic acid, some vegetarian sources assert that the body can simply convert excess omega 6 linoleic acid into omega 3 linolenic acid, and other omega 3 fatty acids such as EPA and DHA, two fatty acids intimately involved in the health of the brain and immune system.
Renowned lipid biochemist Dr Mary Enig, of the University of Maryland, and other authorities have shown that the body cannot change the omega number of fatty acids. The body can change the fatty acid's degree of saturation and also its molecular length, but not its omega number (12). In other words, omega 6 fatty acids can only be converted into other omega 6 fatty acids; omega 3s only into other omega 3s.
Again, I have seen the results of this misinformation in my practice. I've had several patients of Northern European descent with severe mental and immune problems caused by a lack of EPA and DHA, two omega-3 fatty acids not found in plant foods (DHA is found in small amounts in some algae). People native to warmer climates in the world can manufacture these fatty acids from other omega-3s, but those of Northern European or Inuit descent cannot.
Since their ancestors ate so much EPA- and DHA-rich fish, their bodies eventually lost the ability to manufacture these fatty acids (13). For these people, vegetarianism is impossible; they must consume either eggs or fish in order to survive.
There is also a very real danger from consuming too many omega-6 fatty acids, principally found in vegetables. The body requires both omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids. However, when the body's cells are overloaded with omega-6s, their ability to utilize the omega-3 is inhibited (14). Chronically low levels of omega-3 fatty acids are associated with higher cancer rates and immune dysfunction. Excessive levels of omega-6 fatty acids are also strongly correlated with a high incidence of cardiovascular disease (as is excessive consumption of refined sugar and trans-fatty acids) .
Myth #4: Your Body's Needs for Vitamin A can be Entirely Obtained from Plant Foods
Vitamin A is principally found in animal products. Plants do contain beta-carotene, a substance that the body can convert into vitamin A. The impression given by some vegetarian sources is that beta-carotene is just as good as vitamin A. This is not true.
Firstly, the conversion from carotene to vitamin A can only take place in the presence of bile salts. This means that fat must be eaten with the carotenes to stimulate bile secretion. Additionally, infants and people with hypothyroidism, gall bladder problems or diabetes either cannot make the conversion or do so very poorly. Lastly, the body's conversion from carotene to vitamin A is not very efficient: it takes 46 units of carotene to make one unit of vitamin A.
What this means is that the sweet potato (containing about 25,000 units of beta-carotene) you just ate will only convert into about 4,000 units of vitamin A (assuming you ate it with fat and do not have a thyroid or gall bladder problem) .
Relying on plant sources for vitamin A, then, is not a very wise idea. This is why good-old-fashioned butter is a virtual must in any diet. Butter from pasture-fed cows is rich in vitamin A and will provide the intestines with the fatty material needed to convert vegetable carotenes into active vitamin A. Vitamin A is all-important in our diets, for it enables the body to use proteins and minerals (17).
Myth #5: Meat-eaters have Higher Rates of Heart and Kidney Disease, Cancer, Obesity and Osteoporosis than Vegetarians
Such stupendous claims are hard to reconcile with historical and anthropological facts. All of the diseases mentioned are primarily 20th century occurrences, yet people have been eating meat and animal fat for thousands of years. Further, there are several native peoples around the world (the Innu, Masai, Swiss, Greeks, etc.) whose traditional diets are very rich in animal products, but do not suffer from the above-mentioned maladies (18).
This shows that other factors besides animal foods are at work in these diseases.
Several studies have supposedly shown that meat consumption is the cause of heart disease, cancer and bone loss, but such studies, honestly evaluated, show no such thing (19). For example, the studies that supposedly proved that meat consumption among the Inuit caused high rates of osteoporosis, failed to note other dietary factors that contributed to bone loss (and to the other chronic diseases listed in myth #5). Things such as refined sugar consumption, alcoholism and a junk food consumption equaled more bone loss were not done with real meat but with fractionated protein powders (20).
Certainly, when protein is consumed in such an unnatural fashion, separated from the fat-soluble nutrients required for its absorption and assimilation, it will lead to problems.
Because of this, the current use of fat-free protein powders as "food supplements", and low-fat or non-fat dairy products should be avoided. Trimming off visible fat from meats and removing duck and chicken skin before eating should also be discouraged.
Despite claims that studies have shown that meat consumption increased the risk for heart disease (21), their authors actually found the opposite. For example, in a 1984 analysis of a 1978 study of Seventh Day Adventists (who are largely vegetarian), H. A. Kahn concluded, "Although our results add some substantial facts to the diet-disease question, we recognize how remote they are from establishing, for example, that men who frequently eat meat or women who rarely eat salad are thereby shortening their lives" (21).
A similar conclusion was reached by D.A. Snowden (21). Despite these startling admissions, the studies nevertheless concluded the exact opposite and urged people to reduce animal foods from their diets.
Further, both of these studies threw out certain dietary data that clearly showed no connection between eggs, cheese, whole milk, and fat attached to meat (all high fat and cholesterol foods) and heart disease. Statistician Dr. Russel Smith concluded, "In effect the Kahn [and Snowden] study is yet another example of negative results which are massaged and misinterpreted to support the politically correct assertions that vegetarians live longer lives."
When all of the data are taken into account, the actual differences of heart disease between vegetarians and non-vegetarians in these studies was less than 1%: hardly a significant amount (22).
It should be noted here that Seventh Day Adventists are often studied in population analyses to prove that a vegetarian diet is healthier and is associated with a lower risk for heart disease and cancer (but see the last paragraph in this section). While it is true that most members of this Christian denomination do not eat meat, they also do not smoke, drink alcohol, or drink coffee or tea, all of which may be factors in promoting cancer and heart disease (23).
The Mormons are a religious group often overlooked in vegetarian studies. Although their Church urges moderation, Mormons do not abstain from meat. Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith, declared a diet devoid of animal products as "not of God." As with the Adventists, Mormons avoid tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine. Despite being meat eaters, a study of Utah Mormons showed they had a 22% lower rate for cancer in general and a 34% lower mortality for colon cancer than the US average (24).
A study of Puerto Ricans, who eat large amounts of fatty pork, nevertheless revealed very low rates of colon and breast cancer (25). Similar results can be adduced to demonstrate that meat consumption by itself does not correlate with cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, kidney disease, or obesity (26). Obviously, other factors are at work.
It is usually claimed that vegetarians have lower cancer rates than meat-eaters, but a 1994 study of California Seventh Day Adventists (who are largely vegetarian) showed that, while they did have lower rates of some cancers (e.g., breast), they had significantly higher rates of several others (brain, skin, uterine, cervical and ovarian)! (27)
Myth #6: Saturated Fats Cause Heart Disease and Cancer, and Low-Fat, Low-Cholesterol Diets are Healthier for People
Despite claims that primitive societies are/were largely vegetarian, diets of native peoples the world over are rich in saturated fats and animal foods (28) and, as noted above, heart disease and cancer are primarily modern diseases. Saturated fat consumption, therefore, cannot logically cause these diseases. As with the poorly done studies of the Inuit, modern-day researchers fail to take into account other dietary factors of people who have heart disease and cancer.
As a result, the harmful effects of eating refined sugar, nutrient-poor "foods," trans-fats (found in margarine and hydrogenated oils) and vegetable oils get mixed up with animal fat consumption. It is commonly believed that saturated fats and cholesterol "clog arteries", but such ideas have been shown to be false by such scientists as Linus Pauling, George Mann, John Yudkin, Abram Hoffer, Mary Enig and others (29). On the contrary, studies have shown that arterial plaque is primarily composed of Unsaturated fats, particularly polyunsaturated ones, and not the saturated fat of animals, palm or coconut (30).
Trans-fatty acids, as opposed to saturated fats, have been shown by researchers such as Enig, Mann and Fred Kummerow to be causative factors in atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, cancer and other assorted diseases (31).
A recent study of thousands of Swedish women showed no correlation between saturated fat consumption and increased risk for breast cancer. However, the study did show a strong link between vegetable oil intake and higher breast cancer rates (32).
The Framingham Heart Study is often cited as proof that dietary cholesterol and saturated fat intake cause heart disease and ill health. Involving about 6,000 people, the study compared two groups over several years at five-year intervals. One group consumed little cholesterol and saturated fat, while the other consumed high amounts. Surprisingly, Dr William Castelli, the study's director, is quoted in the Archives of Internal Medicine (July 1992) as saying:
In Framingham, Mass., the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person's serum cholesterol ... we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active.
It is true that the study did show that those who weighed more and had higher serum cholesterol levels were more at risk for heart disease, but weight gain and cholesterol levels had an inverse correlation with dietary fat and cholesterol intake. In other words, there was no correlation at all (33).
In a similar vein, the US Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial, sponsored by the National Heart and Lung Institute, compared mortality rates and eating habits of 12,000+ men. Those who ate less saturated fat and cholesterol showed a slightly reduced rate of coronary heart disease (CHD), but had an overall mortality rate much higher than the other men in the study (34).
The few studies that indicate a correlation between saturated fat reduction and a lower CHD rate also clearly document a sizeable increase in deaths from cancer, suicide, violence and brain hemorrhage (34). Like the bone density experiments, such things are not told to the public.
Low-fat/cholesterol diets, therefore, are decidedly not healthier for people. Studies have proven over and over that such diets are associated with depression, cancer, psychological problems, fatigue, violence and suicide (35).
Children on low-fat diets suffer from growth problems, failure to thrive, and learning disabilities (36). Despite this, sources from Dr. Benjamin Spock to the American Heart Association recommend low-fat diets for children! One can only lament the fate of those unfortunate youngsters who will be raised by unknowing parents taken in by such misinformation.
There are many health benefits to saturated fats, depending on the fat in question. Coconut oil, for example, is rich in lauric acid, a potent antifungal and antimicrobial substance. Coconut also contains appreciable amounts of caprylic acid, also an effective antifungal (37). Butter from free-range cows is rich in trace minerals, especially selenium, as well as all of the fat-soluble vitamins and beneficial fatty acids that protect against cancer and fungal infections (38).
In general, however, saturated fats provide a good energy source for the vital organs, protect arteries against damage by the atherogenic lipoprotein (a), are rich in fat-soluble vitamins, help raise HDL levels in the blood, and make possible the utilization of essential fatty acids. They are excellent for cooking, as they are chemically stable and do not break down under heat, unlike polyunsaturated vegetable oils. Omitting them from one's diet, then, is ill advised (39).
Myth #7: Saturated Fats Cause Heart Disease and Cancer, and Low-Fat, Low-Cholesterol Diets are Healthier for People
Surprising as it may seem, some prior studies have shown the annual all-cause death rate of vegetarian men to be slightly more than that of non-vegetarian men (0.93% vs. 0.89%). Similarly, the annual all-cause death rate of vegetarian women was shown to be significantly higher than that of non-vegetarian women (0.86% vs. 0.54%). (40)
Russell Smith, PhD, referred to in myth # 5, in his authoritative study on heart disease, showed that as animal product consumption increased among some study groups, death rates decreased! Such results were not obtained among vegetarian subjects. For example, in a study published by Burr and Sweetnam in 1982, analysis of mortality data revealed that, although vegetarians had a slightly (.11%) lower rate of heart disease than non-vegetarians, the all-cause death rate was much HIGHER for vegetarians (41).
It is usually claimed that the lives of predominantly meat-eating peoples are short-lived, but the Aborigines of Australia, who traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their longevity (at least before colonization by Europeans). Within Aboriginal society, there is a special caste of the elderly (42).
Obviously, if no old people existed, no such group would have existed. In his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has numerous photographs of elderly native peoples from around the world (42). Explorers such as Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Inuit (again, before colonization). (43)
Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus Mountains live to great ages on a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's milk, which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the shortest life spans in the world (45). Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets.
Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In Africa, Dr. Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples whose diets were largely vegetarian (42).
It is popular in sports nutrition to recommend "carb loading" for athletes, to increase their endurance levels. But recent studies done in New York and South Africa show that the opposite is true: athletes who "carb loaded" had significantly less endurance than those who "fat loaded" before athletic events (46)..."
The often repeated claim of environmentalists and animal rights advocates states that the world would be well fed if grain growing replaced cattle raising. This is currently the trend in developed countries world wide, a movement begun with much help from the UN.
This propaganda has been well received by many in such countries whose lifestyles have become far removed from the reality of farming and self sustained living, but those who still know that lifestyle quickly see the problems with it.
Not only does a diet of mostly grain contribute to malnutrition on a life threatening level but it badly depleats the soil, making it useless for other crops or fertile pastures.
Hope of Israel Ministries (Ecclesia of YEHOVAH):
Our Living Environment
GRAIN -- A DANGER to Man?
Today the world agrees that the solution to it food crisis lies in grain production! Prodigious sums of money, talent and resources are devoted to producing more and more grain. Why don't nations and international organizations devote their time and money to increasing the world's production of animal protein? The way to achieve this is simple -- by expanding the total area of improved pastures and raising soil fertility!
Instead, world agriculture moves consistently in the OPPOSITE direction -- toward even greater dependence upon GRAIN. Why? Because men make one simple false assumption -- that an acre of GRAIN equals more food than the meat of milk from an acre of GRASS!
From this issue of Your Living Environment you will see that a STARVING world is producing TOO MUCH grain and that such a policy is opposite to the way mankind should be going. We present evidence to show that basing world agriculture on grain production is a serious threat to man's food, health, environment and financial interests. In the past, the trend toward grain production may have been almost unintentional. But today it is foremost in the minds of the most influential international food planners -- yet it endangers our very survival!
So what? Everything "endangers our very survival" today! True. This is just one more threat, but it is one that few people know about. And Ambassador Agricultural Research now brings your this information, we believe, for the first time ever!
Food Value Per Acre -- Grain or Grass?
If only man would get his priorities right he would believe that an acre of land produces more nutritional value under GRASS that under grain.
The following table and comments prepared by Dr. K.L. Blaxter, (Director of the world-renowned Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen) proves this:
HUMAN FOOD OUTPUT
Dry matter (kg.) 1420 Milk solids 3557.5 flour
Calories (Mcal) 8512.5 14,585
Protein (kg.) 397.5 460
Lipid (kg.) 455 42.5
Lysine (kg.) 31.8 10
Threonine (kg.) 18.8 9.3
Thiamin (g.) 4 2.8
Riboflavin (g.) 17 2.5
Nicotinic acid (g.) 6.8 30.3
Calcium (kg.) 107.5 5
Phosphorus (kg.) 85 35
The milk production figures are based on grassland yielding 11,045 lbs dry matter converted to 9,312 lbs. milk per acre. The cereal production is based on wheat yielding 40.5 cwt (75 bushels) per acre, with 15 percent moisture content.
"The results show that the calorific yield is much greater when good land is used to grow bread grains rather than to produce milk. At least 50% more biologically useful calories can be obtained from the cereal crop in terms of flour yield than from the milk produced. This is the ONLY major nutrient however, in which the cereal crop excels. Intensive milk production and wheat growing produce similar amounts of protein. These proteins however, differ markedly in nutritive value for man. Direct experiment with man shows that the biological value of wheat flour proteins is 41, while that of milk proteins is 74. The difference stems from the deficiency of wheat proteins, and indeed all cereal grain proteins, in the amino acids lysine and to a lesser extent threonine. The yield per hectare from dairy production of lysine and threonine are three times and twice those from cereal production. With the exception of nicotinic acid, yields of vitamins of the B complex group are greater for dairy production than for cereal production and so, quite obviously are yields of calcium and phosphorus (vital for strong bones and health)" (Science Journal, May 1968, pages 55-56).
The table proves beyond a shadow of doubt that a hectare of grass, producing milk, yield far more of the proteins and minerals so badly needed by the hungry nations that does a hectare of grain!
Dr. Blaxter based his calculations on a wheat yield of 75 bushels per acre. He couldn't be accused of exaggeration. Had he used the average yields of major producers like Russia, the U.S.A. and Canada, his chart would have been different. Their yields are less than HALF the figure he used and that would have weighted the table even MORE heavily in favour of GRASSLAND food production as the best way to feed mankind a balanced diet!
How Much Grain Does Man Produce?
You and I may accept Dr. Blaxter's table, but can a starving world take a chance and institute a massive swing to producing animal protein? Perhaps not, IF we are SHORT of grain! However, look at some of the figures:
The 1970 Stateman's Yearbook records that in 1967, the total world-wide production of rice, wheat, maize, oats and barley was just over 1,000 million metric tons. A figure like that does not mean anything unless we know how many people it will feed for a year.
How Much Grain Does Man Need?
Nutrition books tell us that the average person in the Western world eats about 200 lbs of grain annually. That means one metric ton (2,205 lbs.) would feed approximately eleven people per year.
Therefore, 1,000 million metric tons would feed 11 billion people. World population is now said to be 3.5 billion, so in 1967 the world's farmers produced more than THREE TIMES the total annual grain needs of mankind!
Rough figures perhaps, but they leave plenty of margin for error. And more important, they bring into perspective man's frantic efforts to breed new grain varieties, to build more fertilizer factories, to manufacture more and bigger farm machinery and to bring more pasture-land under the plough!
Man On A Grain Diet
Every nutrition expert has said as some time or other that LACK OF PROTEIN is mankind's most acute food problem. And many admit that they really mean -- ANIMAL protein! (Those who don't, need only refer to Lev. 11).
Grain does not satisfy man's real need for high quality protein. Only meat, cheese and eggs can do that! The high grain diet of the world's masses provides only VEGETABLE protein. It is a protein of poor quality too where you have the usual combination of low soil fertility and artificial fertilizers!
Where Does All The Grain Go?
If man could not and should not eat more than ONE THIRD of today's total grain production, where is all the rest going? The following grain consumption figures for the year 1969/1970 are supplied by The Ministry of Agriculture. They provide and interesting answer:
Total consumption of all grain in the U.K.: 22,250,000 tons
Total consumption of all grain by humans: 7,950,000 tons
Total consumption of all grain by animals in the U.K.: 13,350,000 tons
Grain for export, seeds, etc.: 950,000 tons
(Farmer & Stockbreeder, December 9, 1969, page 85)
So! TWO-THIRDS of Britain's grain is consumed by ANIMALS!! The same pattern of grain usage exists in most other developed countries that are themselves large producers of grain. Britain even feeds two-thirds of its grain to animals in spite of the fact that she has to spend around £200 million annually on wheat IMPORTS!
Millions of livestock around the world are not fed GRASS, or HAY, which are the materials their digestive tract is designed to handle. Instead, much of our animal protein is today produced by feeding large quantities of LOW-QUALITY GRAIN. With present farming methods there is no shortage of this kind of grain! In fact we wonder if North American and U.K. cattle are raised to produce beef, or to consume embarrassing surplus, cheap, low- quality grain!!
Grain-fed Animals -- Why?
The fact that cattle can be successfully brought to suitable slaughter condition WITHOUT grain-feeding is regarded by American Agriculture as a RECENT discovery. Even today, few people over there know about it!
H. W. Staten, in his book Grasses & Grassland has shocked a lot of people. He writes: "Cattle fed on good pastures will produce milk or beef at about one fourth to one fifth of the cost of dry-feeding (through the use of grain plus a certain amount of hay or straw)." (p. 19)
Elsewhere he continues: "Total digestible nutrients produced by green pastures cost about ONE FIFTH as much as those produced by general cereal crops. Kansas reports that the cost of producing corn and oats to be SIX to SEVEN TIMES THAT OF PRODUCING PASTURES, and other states find comparable feeding costs."
"Cows turned onto good pastures from the best dry-lot feeding maintain or INCREASE their milk flow." (p. 63, 73)
Sufficient evidence here to make us wonder if our modern ideas on the production of animal protein need revising! It is a pity that Professor Staten does not go on and show the other side of the "dud" coin -- a high grain diet tears up the digestive tract of ruminants by pH levels 100 TIMES more acid than those eating grass. Livers become abscessed and are condemned as UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION, but if the BODIES they service can walk into the slaughterhouse, then they are sure to make it onto your dinner plate!!
Excess Grain Production Effects Soil Too!
Today these misguided world-wide demands for grain have stimulated the conversion of millions of acres from grassland and forest to crop production. As the following comment testifies, it is these grain fields that are largely responsible for the world's biggest agricultural curse -- SOIL EROSION:
"Data from the Soil Conservation Experimental Station at Bethany, Missouri, show that corn (maize) growing continuously would allow 50.93 tons of soil to leave the field annually, but a good Kentucky bluegrass sod would lose only 0.16 tons of soil." (Ibid, p. 8)
Another unhappy result from excessive grain production is now rearing its head in England -- yes, even in England -- the total breakdown of SOIL STRUCTURE! The seriousness of this situation was the subject of an alarming report presented recently to The British Ministry of Agriculture by one of its chief advisors. Thousands of acres of land in England have been so abused by over-cultivation, heavy machinery and continuous arable farming that not even grass can be profitably grown on them for years to come!
How Much Grain-land For One Man?
Have you ever wondered how much land it takes to grow enough grain for one man? Would you guess -- 50 acres, or perhaps 10, or 5, or maybe even 1 little acre? One acre of land of average fertility will produce 2,000 lbs of grain. We assumed earlier that 200 lbs of grain per year would take care of a man's needs in this direction. Therefore one acre would feed TEN people with 200 lbs each!
Calculated at the rate of England's average wheat yield per acre, the College Gymnasium floor area would provide the grain needs of a family of FOUR people!! In other words a family would easily supply its own needs from a large garden. Imagine the fantastic change in man's environment world-wide if most of the grain production was moved into the family garden and brought under correct soil management!
Given a little more land, the average family would also be able to graze three or four ruminants and thereby be self-sufficient in animal protein too! So the danger to man and beast from millions of acres of featureless, badly managed, wrongly used and deteriorating grain-land would quietly pass away.
Man may finally come to understand that both his nutrition and his environment would be a whole lot better off with fewer "Egyptians" and more "servants" who can truthfully say that they "...have been keepers of cattle from our youth..." (Gen. 46:34)..."
Yes, I think it's modern practices which are to blame- and not the thing in and of itself. Although who knows what they will soon start saying is just generally "bad"- you remember that doozy of an article that tried telling folks green tea was harmful because it contained sodium flouride? Not sure where it was from...I think it was featured here, but for some reason I'm having trouble locating it. Probably from a well known "alternative" news site (that still, however, is under careful Luciferian direction).
Anyhoot, I've come to learn no diet needs are the Exact same for each person. Someone hardwired to eat lots of animal protein should not be filling their bellies daily with celery. It's too bad that "eat right for your blood type" literature is becoming a joke to many people. While I don't care for the fact that they tend to explain the origins of different blood types as being the result of randomly mutating blood (asanine), it at least points to some realities of modern human biochemistry. Anyhoot, I went off on a bit of a tangent there...haha...
Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress knew that this would be the outcome of their standoff. Was it the goal?
Is this shutdown a practice run for something more permanent? Is it training for federal law enforcement?
The federal government had to order the K-rail in advance. Had to have contracts in place for installation. Had to order signs printed in advance. This showdown was expected and planned for. Is this a practice run for a wider plan?
UN Agenda 21 is in effect now throughout our country. Our cities, counties, states, and federal government are implementing regional plans that are creating a new layer of governance not responsible or responsive to us. We are slowly being collapsed into this ‘no mans land’ of no return. Any crisis can be used to push us further into compliance. Larger units of governance–regional units–are a stepping stone to global governance and are ‘sold’ to us as being ‘more efficient.’
What is the most efficient form of government? Dictatorship. A single ‘decider.’ Whether a neo-con or a progressive acts in the theater of globalization is ultimately irrelevant. What is relevant is the behavior of the audience when the play pretends to be real..."
The debt crisis issue is not unstoppable if someone who can stop it wants to stop it. The question is, do any of those people want to? It won't be stopped by people like you or I.
Conspiracies are just a fact of the way the world works. It's not like choosing to believe or not believe in a speculation. History is full of the documented proof that there are professional liars running the world. How do you know the world leaders are lying to you? They're saying something.
The debt ceiling issue is a fantastic hoax of a reason to cause suffering in the world.
"As of 30 November 2012, debt held by the public was approximately $11.553 trillion or about 72% of GDP. Intra-governmental holdings stood at $4.816 trillion, giving a combined total public debt of $16.369 trillion" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
It's insane to imagine that borrowing more or less could possibly matter at all at this point. There isn't that much money in the world to borrow, nevermind paying it back. It's comical. The US is and has been operating on imaginary funds. Raising the borrowing authority means less than nothing. This shutdown has nothing whatsoever to do with a lack of imaginary money.
A dictatorship is simply a tyranny operated by one specific individual. There's already an open tyranny in the US as well as most other nations, and if we want to be honest, there's already a dictator named Satan who only has to put on a human suit and take the throne to make it all a legitimate NWO.
Doesn't matter what the man does, what doctors do, what people do or where they go. There's a Creator who trumps all that. He gives safety, healing, provision. Nobody and nothing else can promise it.
It's no coincidence that modern wiccans are very "enviomentally aware" and green. They are almost always pro-choice, and yet if you swat a fly your Hitler reincarnated.
Perhaps it was unlikely that the books you owned would contain effective rituals, though even dabbling can result in very dangerous spiritual consequences.
True witchcraft is not sold in book stores nor can most Wiccans said to be practicing true witchcraft, which is ancient and kept secret from the laypeople.
It is a death cult which derives its power from death and so it is no surprise that even a watered down version which is sold to the world as peaceful and nature-loving will still emphasize the "right" to murder when it's called abortion.
2:52 "Global warming has gone beyond politics. It is a new kind of morality"
7:35 "The whole Global Warming business has become like a religion, and people who disagree are called heretics."
perhaps "climate change" could be a crown jewel of the green religion, since a major climate change could describe the flood which destroyed that age.
It is strange that those who are very attached to the environmental agenda, emotionally, seem to not recall the hacked emails of climate "scientists" which exposed them falsifying the data for publication.
yeah, that's their "inconvenient truth"... i think it was probably Divine intervention!
Remember Climategate? There's actually no such thing as "global warming"
Global warming is man made by pollution caused by toxic stuff we shouldn't be using. Want to fix it? Get rid of the crap. Like toxins in food supply. Other countries like the UK have banned them. Which makes me think and know America is up to something. Other countries are so clean with their food. All we have is chemical waste and chemical pollutants.
The Earth's temperature does fluctuate under normal circumstances. You will not even actually find mainstream science saying uniformly that there is any warming at all going on, with or without manmade pollution. As years go by and people can observe for themselves that nothing is getting consistently warmer, the global warming advocates are now changing their tune and calling it "climate change" which amounts to saying...something is changing. The ice caps are not truly disappearing...and if they did, it would not cause mass flooding.
We were told in the Bible that there would be natural disasters in excess during the last days. We know that the powers that be have the technology to purposely create "natural" disasters. We don't have an Earth dying under the weight of a population who drives too many vehicles, we have an Earth that is groaning under the abuse of sinful world leaders who want to pretend to be gods.
I think I remember this. The earths temperature fluctuates up and down. Air pollution just makes this worse, hence, melting ice caps and rising seas, mass bird deaths, etc... Global warming is a myth, chemicals are not. Air pollution is real and bad on the lungs. I watched "Untold Stories of the ER" last night and found out about a pesticide called Malathion. It is so dangerous, that not only was the patient hallucinating and acting crazy, all of the doctors that simply touched him got contaminated as if it was Torah uncleanness. They fell ill from it within seconds until they got washed off. This being found out, why in the world would crops be sprayed with it? If just touching it through the skin can cause this amount of distress, imagine what ingesting it could do. It needs to be banned. Crop dusters should use natural repellants. Sadly they don't.