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

[Andy Horn]

Hi John Rehorn & all

 

I find your insight very interesting about taking into account the time of
harvesting and that in times past folk would probably have harvested grasses
during the fall so as to reduce the level of nutrient in the grasses or hay
that they were baling for building purposes.

 

To add to this, I recall working on a rural project in Zululand where the
local women told me that they would wait for the first frost (which
typically starts in late autumn) before they would cut the local grasses to
add reinforcing to their mud when making mud bricks. Their winters are dry
and so an ideal time for making of mud bricks. 

 

This understanding also ties in with the technique of "moon phase
harvesting" of timber, which I learn of in Japan and that I have been using
very successfully for the last 6 or so years now.

 

For building purposes when ever possible, we harvest our timbers in the late
autumn up to mid winter and according to the waning phase of the moon ..so
as to cut the timber when virtually all of the nutrient bearing sap moves
into the roots. i.e. to be precise: between the time of the autumn equinox
and up until the winter solstice combined with being in the last 3 days
leading up to the new moon .but not on or after the time of the new moon.
When this is done correctly one can be guaranteed that there will be
practically no nutrient remaining in the timbers, which leaves the timber
super resistant to any form of borer beetle and fungal attack - within in
reason i.e. keeping ones timber dry is always a good idea - As a result one
can get away from having to preserve ones structural timber with
preservatives .still really toxic in our parts other than boron which is
sometimes available. The timber also tends to be far more stable and much
less susceptible to cracking and warping. 

 

cheers

Andy

 

 



 

  _____  

From: GSBN-bounces at sustainablesources.com
[mailto:GSBN-bounces at sustainablesources.com] On Behalf Of john rehorn
Sent: 09 February 2012 05:27 PM
To: Global Straw Building Network
Subject: Re: [GSBN] Update, question re: proposed SB code (hay bales)

 

Just a note as it pertains to actual need for a building material in certain
areas, perhaps third world cases where grains aren't typically grown.  I
realize this wouldn't apply generally to building codes, but may be useful
information.  

 

Grass cut for animal feed is harvested just when the plant has maximum food
value -- right after seed heads form.  If one were to wait until fall when
the energy (sugars specifically) of the plant returns to the root, then that
hay is more straw-like and is substantially less likely to possess the
undesirable properties associated with building with "hay".  I'm sure that's
what the Nebraskans did.

 

Farmer John Rehorn 

On Feb 9, 2012, at 7:52 AM, martin hammer wrote:





Derek,

Thanks for persisting with this.  You're 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, it's 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.)

You're also right that alfalfa is often referred to as hay (the words
"alfalfa hay" were spoken to me yesterday) and it is not a grass, which I
didn't 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.  That's why I opened the question.  Should flax be added
to the list of permitted building bale materials?  I've never seen a test
that included flax bales, which could be a problem when this is all
scrutinized.  But I don't believe I've seen a test with rye straw bales
either.  As with virtually every small and large part of this, pandora's 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 <x-msg://1524/derek@unm.edu>
> wrote:




"I don't 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 <x-msg://1524/derek@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 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.  

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?)   

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. 

Martin 


On 2/8/12 5:13 PM, "Derek Roff" <derek at unm.edu <x-msg://1524/derek@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://1524/derek@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 (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).

One other question for input:

Prohibit use of baled hay?  (That's what the proposed code currently says.)

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.

Thanks

Martin (what the hay) Hammer

 









  _____  

_______________________________________________
GSBN mailing list
GSBN at sustainablesources.com <x-msg://1524/GSBN@sustainablesources.com> 
http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN

_______________________________________________
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/20120210/0ac3c6ee/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 15324 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20120210/0ac3c6ee/attachment.gif>