[GSBN] Update, question re: proposed SB code (hay bales)

Thu Feb 9 14:52:41 UTC 2012

Derek,

Thanks for persisting with this.  You¹re right that if only straw from the
five named plants is permitted, then everything else is not pemitted,
including hay.  But sometimes something is so commonly misused, it¹s worth
explicitly prohibiting it.  On the other hand, I was actually revisiting the
issue of building with hay bales. (Is it in fact a misuse.)

You¹re also right that alfalfa is often referred to as hay (the words
³alfalfa hay² were spoken to me yesterday) and it is not a grass, which I
didn¹t know until looking it up just now.  You raise a good point.  And
according to at least some definitions, cereal grains are a type of grass
(or graminoid).  So stating that hay (cut and dried grass) is prohibited
seems to unwittingly also prohibit the use of straw from cereal grains.
(Depending on what definitions are agreed upon.) (RT seems to concur that
cereal grain plants are grasses.)

And flax?  Maybe.  That¹s why I opened the question.  Should flax be added
to the list of permitted building bale materials?  I¹ve never seen a test
that included flax bales, which could be a problem when this is all
scrutinized.  But I don¹t believe I¹ve seen a test with rye straw bales
either.  As with virtually every small and large part of this, pandora¹s box
is not far away.

The task here, as with every inch of the proposed code, is to find the best
place to draw the line, all relevant things considered.

Do you want to propose how this should be worded?

Martin

On 2/8/12 7:59 PM, "Derek Roff" <derek at unm.edu> wrote:

> "I don¹t think hay vs. straw is as fuzzy as you suggest."  How fuzzy did I
> suggest?  For people who are paying attention to strawbale building, I agree
> that the distinction is clear enough.  But the number of articles and reports,
> and even occasional statements from SB home owners, that mention "hay bale
> houses" is high enough, that I think there is plenty of confusion in the
> broader public.  My guess is that lots of code officials, who spend most of
> their time with concrete and frame construction, may not immediately grasp the
> distinction.  For example, alfalfa is called hay, is sold without seed heads,
> and isn't a grass, nor a cereal.
> 
> Your response says that, for the purposes of the code, straw allowed for
> construction is one of five plants.  With that language in the code, hay is
> banned, whether it is mentioned or not.  For what it is worth, the few people
> who have posted to the SB lists on building with flax bales have rated flax as
> their favorite bale material.
> 
> Derelict
> Derek Roff
> derek at unm.edu
> 
> On Feb 8, 2012, at 7:24 PM, martin hammer wrote:
> 
>> Re: [GSBN] Update, question re: proposed SB code (hay bales)
>> Hi Derek,
>> 
>> The code proposal doesn¹t define hay.  When words are not defined in the
>> code, they have ³ordinarily accepted meanings such as the context implies.²
>> A short dictionary definition of hay is ³cut and dried grass².  Which is a
>> rather cut and dried definition.
>> 
>> Straw is defined in the code proposal as ³The dry stems of cereal grains
>> after the seed heads have been removed.² (Though the allowed straw is
>> currently limited to five cereal grains - wheat, rice, rye, barley, and oat)
>> (am I missing any that anyone uses?)
>> 
>> Even without hay being defined in the code, I don¹t think hay vs. straw is as
>> fuzzy as you suggest.  However, I might ask ICC for their opinion on whether
>> hay should be defined.
>> 
>> Martin 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/8/12 5:13 PM, "Derek Roff" <derek at unm.edu <x-msg://63/derek@unm.edu> >
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> Derelict
>>> 
>>> Derek Roff
>>> derek at unm.edu <x-msg://63/derek@unm.edu>
>>> 
>>> On Feb 8, 2012, at 4:04 PM, martin hammer wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hello all,
>>>> 
>>>> After resubmitting the proposed SB code to the International Code Council
>>>> last week, I received their comments and will submit final revisions on
>>>> Monday.
>>>> 
>>>> 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 (we¹ll 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).
>>>> 
>>>> One other question for input:
>>>> 
>>>> Prohibit use of baled hay?  (That¹s what the proposed code currently says.)
>>>> 
>>>> This is the conventional wisdom, but weren¹t 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 ³grasses²)?
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> 
>>>> Martin (what the hay) Hammer
>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GSBN mailing list
> GSBN at sustainablesources.com
> http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20120209/4cb5328c/attachment.htm>