<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [GSBN] Update, question re: proposed SB code (hay bales)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>Hi Derek,<BR>
<BR>
The code proposal doesn’t define hay. When words are not defined in the code, they have “ordinarily accepted meanings such as the context implies.” A short dictionary definition of hay is “cut and dried grass”. Which is a rather cut and dried definition. <BR>
<BR>
Straw is defined in the code proposal as “The dry stems of cereal grains after the seed heads have been removed.” (Though the allowed straw is currently limited to five cereal grains - wheat, rice, rye, barley, and oat) (am I missing any that anyone uses?) <BR>
<BR>
Even without hay being defined in the code, I don’t think hay vs. straw is as fuzzy as you suggest. However, I might ask ICC for their opinion on whether hay should be defined. <BR>
<BR>
Martin <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
<BR>
On 2/8/12 5:13 PM, "Derek Roff" <<a href="derek@unm.edu">derek@unm.edu</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>How does the code proposal define hay? Hay vs. straw is a fuzzy distinction, especially if you want to compare current agricultural products with those of a hundred years ago. The use of synthetic fertilizers and new grain varieties make historical comparisons less valuable for code work, in my opinion. Anything grown with a high dose of synthetic fertilizer is likely to be more subject to spontaneous combustion. <BR>
<BR>
Derelict<BR>
<BR>
Derek Roff<BR>
<a href="derek@unm.edu">derek@unm.edu</a><BR>
<BR>
On Feb 8, 2012, at 4:04 PM, martin hammer wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><FONT SIZE="2"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>Hello all,<BR>
<BR>
After resubmitting the proposed SB code to the International Code Council last week, I received their comments and will submit final revisions on Monday.<BR>
<BR>
Thank you to those who gave input re: clay plaster in the proposed SB section of the International Building Code. There was a mix of opinion, sometimes in direct conflict. I used some of the suggested changes. I generally loosened the language (we’ll see how much vagueness is accepted without challenge) and eliminated any required percentage of clay. I still welcome clay plaster input from those who expressed initial interest, but whose busy lives probably got in the way (but asap please). Particular thanks to Graeme North who gave input on the entire proposed code (as he did in a past iteration).<BR>
<BR>
One other question for input:<BR>
<BR>
Prohibit use of baled hay? (That’s what the proposed code currently says.)<BR>
<BR>
This is the conventional wisdom, but weren’t some of the first buildings in Nebraska built with hay bales (some still standing?), or has anyone successfully used hay bales (or bales with other non-straw “grasses”)? Yesterday I had a discussion with a California rice farmer who bales straw and alfalfa hay. He says that apart from the notion that hay is more subject to degradation, hay is 2 to 3 times as expensive so is much less likely to be used as a building material. Regarding the notorious proclivity for stacks of hay bales to spontaneously combust, in addition to witnessing that, he has twice seen a stack of rice straw bales spontaneously combust.<BR>
<BR>
Thanks<BR>
<BR>
Martin (what the hay) Hammer<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="95%">_______________________________________________<BR>
GSBN mailing list<BR>
<a href="GSBN@sustainablesources.com">GSBN@sustainablesources.com</a><BR>
<a href="http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN">http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN</a><BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>