[GSBN] Update, question re: proposed SB code (hay bales) ( GSBN Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2)

[RT]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:50:29 -0500, <GSBN-request at sustainablesources.com>  
wrote:

> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:24:26 -0800
> From: martin hammer <mfhammer at pacbell.net>

> Even without hay being defined in the code, I don?t think hay vs. straw  
> is as fuzzy as you suggest.

I've been waiting for Habib to chime in and tell us about the Timothy hay  
bales that he has built with.

In my neighbourhood, where it's not unusual to see Timothy grass that is a  
metre-and-a-half (~five feet) tall , one will often see bob-o-links  
perched on atop a gently arching slender stalk , swaying gently in a  
breeze.

Although I've never done a thatched roof, I could easily imagine bundles  
of nice, long-stemmed Timothy hay being used to make a pretty  
respectable-looking/serviceable roof. Good enough for a roof, good enough  
for a wall.

And I'm certainly no agronomist but in noticing the seed heads of mature  
"wild" grasses, one can't help but think that "cereal grains" are grasses  
which our distant forebears saw value in cultivating for food.

(ie I would agree that the distinction between hay (ie "cut/dried grass")   
and straw (stalks of cereal grains) is as fuzzy as the Derelict suggests.)

I would suggest that the distinguishing characteristic between the two for  
the purposes of building bales is the amount of vegetative matter (ie leaf  
-- more cellulose than lignin) vs fibrous material  (ie stalk -- more  
lignin than cellulose).


-- 
=== * ===
Rob Tom
Kanata, Ontario, Canada

< A r c h i L o g i c  at  Y a h o o  dot  c a  >
(manually winnow the chaff from my edress if you hit "reply")