The food animal industry in this country is in a big mess. Individual producers face rising costs, increased production problems and the prospects of a grim balance sheet. And the agricultural industry as a whole is rapidly losing domestic and world markets because of poor quality and unsafe residues. The United States Food Safety and Inspection Service is in shambles and is unable or perhaps unwilling to adequately police the safety and wholesomeness of our domestically produced food. We import food products from foreign countries virtually without inspection or regulatory concern for wholesomeness or dangerous contaminants. Yet, Japan rejects huge shipments of our pork because of sulfa residues and the European Economic Community bans the import of out beef because of possible hormone contamination. Consumers everywhere are beginning to carry their concerns about food safety into the market place by demonstrating a willingness to pay a premium for high quality, residue free food. Meanwhile, the industry and the government put forth more effort justifying the status quo than looking for real answers. We thus arrive at the paradox of the consumer having an unprecedented abundance of food to choose from and the money to pay for it; but no way to know if it is safe to eat.

How did we ever get in this mess? No doubt, the root of the problem is the desire for greater profits with little or no regard for the environment or for the consumer.., but the actual mechanism is unbridled technology. Technology, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad; but technology that is not governed by sound ecological principles can be "hazardous to your health." As POGO said, "We have met the enemy - and he is us!"

While many interrelated and overlapping factors are involved, I believe there are four main areas of technology that are directly responsible for the mess we are in. Genetic manipulation has so altered the production capacity of our animals that they are under excess internal stress and are thus more susceptible to disease and stress related conditions, Chemical fertilizers have unbalanced our soil systems resulting in crops of lower quality that are unable to support healthy growth and production in our animals without extensive supplementation. Herbicides and pesticides have not only failed to control weeds and insects but have also produced super-bugs and super-weeds causing an escalation of chemical warfare against them. A side-effect of this is the toxic contamination of soil, water, feed, animals and people. Antibiotics have been misused to the point that resistant bacteria now constitute a major threat to people as well as animals.

Let's examine each of these factors in greater detail ... not to assess blame but because we MUST study and understand them so that we do not fall into the trap of believing that more of the same technology is the way out of the mess. THE CAUSE OF THE MESS CANNOT ALSO BE THE CURE! More NPK fertilizer will not increase soil fertility, more antibiotics will not make healthier animals, more herbicides and insecticides will not make our crops safe from weeds and insects and finally, more uncontrolled genetic manipulation may result in as many "monsters" as "miracles".

From a historical perspective probably the first technological advance that helped us get in "the mess we are in" was genetic manipulation of our domestic animals, Selection on the basis of desirable traits goes back into antiquity. Even before Gregory Mender discovered the laws of heredity in the late nineteenth century, we were using selective breeding as a tool to adapt our domesticated animals to our own needs. And it has been a good tool, one that has been a boon to mankind in many ways, However, in nature "there is no free lunch" and selection for only a few traits - while disregarding the rest can result in many unanticipated problems.

For example, in an automobile each system is designed to be in balance with all others, If one system is too strong, it puts undue strain on all the other systems and this results in excess wear and premature failure. Putting a 12 volt battery in a car wired for 6 volts could be a disaster and installing a large truck motor in a Volkswagen would certainly shorten the life of the tires, the suspension system and the transmission.

In somewhat the same way, animals are subject to similar problems if their systems are not in balance. An inbalance causes a great deal more "internal" stress and the resulting "excess wear and premature failure" in animals usually takes the form of increased susceptibility to disease and reproductive failures.

This problem affects most of today's domesticated animals. Thoroughbreds have been bred for great speed, but have many problems with their legs and joints, Their respiratory system is under such stress that bleeding from the lungs both during and after racing is common. Some strains of swine are affected by a condition called porcine Stress Syndrome and die suddenly when subjected to even moderate stress.

No animal exhibits this problem more than the modern dairy cow. She is like an automobile with a 1989 turbo-charged, V-8, hi-performance sports car motor on a 1928 Model A Ford chassis. She has been bred to produce a tremendous amount of milk but the body systems that support this production have lagged far behind. The ability of her digestive system to function most efficiently on forages has remained basically unchanged. However, the drastically increased milk production requires that we feed large quantities of grains and concentrates to meet her nutritional needs, Since she cannot efficiently digest these high-density rations, an unbalance is created which disrupts the normal function of the rumen bacteria with resulting rumen acidosis and damage to the liver. She has been bred for an "ideal type and conformation" which often results in a tipped pelvis which, in turn, causes more infections in the reproductive tract and lowered breeding efficiency. These, and a multitude of other stresses all tend to depress the immune system. Is it any wonder that she has more problems with mastitis and more breeding problems?

Is there an answer to this dilemma? Perhaps the first step is to realize that the highest producing cow is not necessarily the most profitable cow, especially if genetic stress causes her to suffer from "excess wear and premature failure". We must begin selecting for other factors that underlie profitable production, such as resistance to disease, longevity in the herd and conformation that supports breeding efficiency.

What will the future hold if our vastly increased use of these procedures is not governed by natural principles?

In the 1840's a German scientist named Von Liebig was able to measure the presence of the mineral elements nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potash (K) in the ashes of burned plants. Since it was obvious that these elements had to come from the soil, he concluded that soil fertility depended on the presence of NPK in the soil and suggested that soil fertility could be maintained or improved by adding these elements. At about this same time, Dawes, an Englishman, found that the addition of water soluble NPK resulted in dramatic increases in plant growth. It is my belief that most of today's problems in agriculture stem from the misuse of this NPK technology without regard for maintaining adequate levels of organic matter, without regard for a proper balance of ALL essential elements, and without regard for the biological life in the soil.

There is no question that NPK fertilizers do stimulate growth in plants but there is now irrefutable evidence that they do so only at great cost to the environment and to our health. The use of these products results in a vicious downward spiral that begins with depletion of soil organic matter and humus. This lowers the soils ability to hold nutrients and water in place and more plant food nutrients leach into the sub-soil water or escape into the atmosphere, To counteract this loss and maintain yields, we are advised to use more NPK. The biological life in the soil is adversely affected and the capture of atmospheric nitrogen and humus production are reduced. As the soil becomes more unbalanced weeds become more of a problem. Crops growing under these conditions are under more stress and are more susceptible to attack by insects, To rescue these sick crops we are then forced to use toxic biocides in addition to more NPK, resulting in even greater damage to the soil systems, The end result of of all this is high cost, poor quality crops with reduced nutritive value. Many of them are so full of nitrates and toxic residues that they are unfit for consumption by animals or humans.

In this country the use of NPK began to escalate rapidly after World War II. Industry and Academia joined forces to promote the use of NPK fertilizers as modern and progressive while downplaying the use of crop-rotations and natural fertilizers as old-fashioned and unprofitable, The social and economic climate was right for this new "quick-fix" agriculture and the use of NPK fertilizer increased dramatically. Sales by the huge chemical companies generated research money for the land-grant colleges and this research, in turn, promoted more sales. Thus did the American farmer become the guinea pig for the great chemical fertilizer experiment. And now, almost a half century later, it is obvious that THE EXPERIMENT HAS FAILED,

It is not difficult to verify this conclusion. The signposts are all around us ... all we need to do is to ask the right questions. Why is the quality and nutritive value of our crops on the decline? For example, why did the yield go up, but the protein content of midwest wheat decline from almost 19% in 1940 to 14% in 1951 and 10.5% in 1969? Is it really true that WE ARE WHAT WE EAT? What is happening to our water supplies? Why are so many good farmers being forced off the land? Why is soil depletion and erosion a national disgrace? Why must we spend huge amounts of tax monies to repair the damage to our soil, our land, our food, our health and our environment? And perhaps the most relevant question of all ... is it possible to have healthy productive people or animals without healthy crops grown on healthy soil?

Our decisions regarding soil fertility must be made on the basis of natural principles that take into consideration the long-term effects on the soil and the life supported by the soil ... not on short-term economic factors, The question is not IF WE CAN do this, or even IF WE WANT to do this. The real question is, WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF`WE DON'T?

Judging from the number of agricultural chemical ads on TV there must be a tremendous profit in the sale of herbicides and insecticides, These chemical hucksters would have us believe ~that their poisons are absolutely essential to profitable farming today ... this is a lie. They would like us to believe that the poisons are effective 100% of the time ... they're not. They recommend excessive rates of application.., not really necessary. And finally, they continue to hawk their products in the face of overwhelming evidence of their damage to the environment and the health of humans and animals alike,

The truth is that most of these "biocides" (life-killers) are not really necessary and are in fact used primarily to rescue sick crops from weeds and insects that are invited onto the scene by the misuse of chemical fertilizers,

In the past, crop rotations were used to keep the soil balanced, to accumulate organic matter and nitrogen for high demand crops and to control weeds and insect pests, The easy availability of cheap NPK fertilizers not only causes depletion of the soil but also allows the use of mono-cropping (continuous planting to only one crop).

NPK fertilizers and mono-cropping cause most of our weed and insect problems. Weeds are sometime known as "Guardians of the sail" because of their ability to rejuvenate soils. Most weeds are deep rooted and coarse stemmed, Their roots bring up trace minerals and other plant food nutrients from the subsoil and when they eventually die and decay they increase the mineral balance and the organic matter content of the topsoil. If our farming practices allow a soil to become depleted and unbalanced, weeds are a natural consequence,

Insects are often called the "Censors of Nature". Their job is to evaluate crops and delete those that do not come up to nature's high standards. Low quality crops grown on depleted soils do not meet these standards, and are targeted by nature for destruction, mono-cropping allows an even greater build-up of insects because their life cycle is not periodically interrupted as it is with crop rotations. As bad as this is, it gets worse if insecticides are used since beneficial insects that act as predators to hold other insects in check are also destroyed by the non-selective biocides.

Whether the pest is a weed or a bug, our first response is to kill it. We indiscriminately use more and more toxic biocides (over one billion pounds in the United States during 1987) without regard for their side-effects. These toxic substances do not just disappear, we get them back, sometimes in the air we breath, sometimes in our food and increasingly in the water we drink... but we always get them back, and so do our animals! Pesticide residues in food is not just a problem for humans, but also affects our livestock and they cannot be healthy and produce quality products if their feed and water is contaminated with pesticide residues,

A solution to this is not easy. In a sense our soil is "addicted" to NPK and pesticides. To quit "cold-turkey" could be financially disastrous. The solution requires a two-pronged approach, first need is to rebuild soil fertility according to natural principles. Along with this we must phase-out the use of pesticides and begin to rely on the natural pest control systems. The technology to do this profitably is already available. If we don't start using it soon we may be adding mankind's name to the endangered species list!

Antibiotics are naturally occurring substances produced by bacteria, molds and fungi in healthy soil. In 1929 an Englishman named Fleming noticed that penicillin mold could inhibit bacterial growth in the lab, but it was not until the 1940's that the full potential of this discovery began to realized. Since that time millions of lives probably have been saved by these miracle drugs and undoubtedly many more will be saved in the future.

Antibiotics are selective poisons and act by various mechanisms to interfere with the metabolic processes of other organisms. Only a few have a useful combination of low-toxicity to animals coupled with hi-toxicity to bacteria. Most are dangerous to use in humans or animals because of toxic side-effects. ALL antibiotics have some side-effects. Even the"safe" ones may cause problems with high dosages or prolonged use. As bacteria develop resistance to the "safe" antibiotics, we are forced to use those with greater toxicity and this increases the chance for more severe side-effects.

If antibiotics were only used in severe conditions THAT COULD NOT BE OTHERWISE CONTROLLED OR AVOIDED there would probably be no problem. Unfortunately, antibiotics are usually used in animals as a crutch to cover up sloppy management practices and/or a futile attempt to compensate for previous long term damage to the agricultural ecology. For example, today's domestic animals are forced to live on low- quality feeds grown on unbalanced soil. Additionally, the feed and the water is often saturated with herbicides, pesticides and nitrates, Couple this with a high level of internal genetic stress and its easy to see why we have so many problems with animal health and production. When these stresses accumulate to a certain point, the immune system is overwhelmed and bacteria move in to begin the recycling process. Modern science then prescribes antibiotics to kill the germ that is "causing" this disease and continues the use of antibiotics on a daily basis to help "keep them healthy". Antibiotics used in this fashion (9.9 million pounds last year) are indicative of the failure of the animal industry and the veterinary profession to address the true nature and cause of disease.

In my opinion, there are 3 main objections to the use of antibiotics.

Antibiotics disrupt the normal population of beneficial microbes in the gastrointestinal tract of all animals, these beneficial bacteria are the first fine of defense against most diseases, Without them the animal is more susceptible to other infections,

Antibiotics depress the immune system by decreasing the number of circulating white blood cells. This lowers the animal's ability to fight infections. Some antibiotics, such as chloramphenicol, can cause irreversible damage to the bone marrow.

Many bacteria develop resistance to the effects of antibiotics, This resistance can be passed to other bacteria, The concern is that if humans are exposed to resistant bacteria from animals then the use of antibiotics may be Ineffective in treating any resulting disease. This is the major controversy regarding the use of antibiotics on a regular basis in food producing animals,

The informed consumer will no longer tolerate drug or chemical contaminated meat, milk or other food products. A prudent industry would strive to capitalize on this emerging demand for "clean" food rather than trying to use sledgehammer public relations tactics to override consumer objections.

I believe that any really successful solutions to the mess we are in will fit the following pattern. First, the solution will be simple (not simplistic) rather than complex. Second, the "cause" will not also the the "cure", The solutions to the mess we're in will rely more on the return to basic natural principles than on increased use of toxic-technology. Third, the biggest push toward sustainable agriculture will be profitability. In the long run, it costs less to produce food naturally, the consumer will pay more for pure food, and the damage to the environment is less, Finally, real change will only come as individuals change their awareness and redirect their efforts. Here are some steps anyone can take to help get out of the mess and to begin to shape a healthy, sustainable future for themselves, their farms and their livestock.

THINGS TO DO FOR YOURSELF

1. Educate yourself in true principles of human health and nutrition ,

2. When you buy food, find out how it was grown and what has been added.

3. Take a family trip to a pristine wilderness area and ask yourself, 'How long will this be here for my children or grandchildren to enjoy?"

THINGS TO DO FOR YOUR FARM AND ANIMALS

1. Educate yourself in true principles of farming and animal health and nutrition.

2. Implement a sustainable program of soil stewardship by using safe, natural agricultural products and farming practices.

3. Rotate crops to build natural soil fertility and aid in the control of weeds and insect pests, Phase out the use of toxic pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.

4. Feed your superior home-grown crops to your own livestock.

5. Manage your animals for reduced stress and when necessary, treat with natural products and methods. Encourage your local Veterinarian to investigate these alternative therapies. Many of them are more effective than the drugs and antibiotics now being used and they do not cause residues in our food,

THINGS TO DO FOR YOUR FELLOW PASSENGERS ON SPACESHIP EARTH

1. Educate yourself regarding global environmental issues.

2. Become actively involved in at least one group dedicated to improving some aspect of the environment.

3. Write letters to your elected officials to let them know your views on sustainable agriculture and environmental issues.

For the benefit of those who tend to resist any sort of change or involvement I have included a list of tried and tested EXCUSES FOR NOT TAKING ACTION.

We are for it, but ...

1. The issue is too controversial to make a decision at this time.

2. We haven't proved the old way can't be made to work.

3. We haven't proved that the new one can be made to work.

4. We have no precedent to guide us.

5. If we do this we might set a precedent.

6. It's just another fad.

7. The time is not ripe.

8. We can't afford it.

9. The situation is hopeless anyway.

WHAT'S YOUR EXCUSE?