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

[Derek Roff]

I don't pretend to know the wise way forward, but I find this very disheartening.  I'm getting that we can't talk about something that we know matters, because we can't pin down the details enough, nor provide solid testing.  We can, and will, propose banning various straw bale materials, that may be the best choice in some locations and circumstances, because we can't do sufficient testing.  We will propose banning a widely used and successful bale stacking method, very popular in my region, and supported by multiple tests on multiple continents, because of reasons that I have yet to see enumerated.  Apparently, because some "they" in the process are uncomfortable with the approach.  

Recognizing how thankless and frustrating this process has been for David, and is currently being for Martin, I wonder where the payoff is.  I remember the excitement, when New Mexico became the first state with strawbale in the code, and the second jurisdiction mentioning and approving a form of SB building anywhere in the US.  Then the code was published with mysterious changes that banned loadbearing structures, among other things, and these changes are said to have come from one of the SB members of the committee.  We still have that code in New Mexico, unchanged after many attempts.  It also requires rebar pinning and wrapping the bottom course of bales in plastic.  So, somehow, codes can happily churn along for years with provisions that we know are counterproductive and at odds with science and best practices.  But nothing can be proposed that isn't exhaustively documented.  I've worked with our state code boards, and their attitude seems to be, "If you sellout and suck up enough now, at the beginning of the process, maybe we will put a piece into the code that allows some of what you want, while it prevents a lot of the building that people are currently doing successfully."    

I am currently working with a few other SB supporters to try and get improvements, again, in the New Mexico code, and the words "Why bother?" loom large in my consciousness.  If the best we think we can get approved is something that I don't agree with, why am I pushing for it?  What sort of a victory is it, when our proposal is approved, and we are stuck with something that was never really what we wanted, and that I know will lock us into practices for many years after superior approaches have been discovered?  

I recognize that these gloomy thoughts on a gloomy day for me don't represent the complete picture.  I would welcome a more positive perspective that would help me recapture a sense of why this process is a worthwhile use of my limited time, resources, and life-energy.  

(more than usually) Derelict

Derek Roff
derek at unm.edu


On Feb 13, 2012, at 12:54 PM, strawnet at aol.com wrote:

> I want to inject a couple of comments and thoughts about this process of code writing and what makes it so challenging for things like straw and earthen materials. But first, I want to acknowledge something that I hope we can figure out how to address. 
> 
> Having been in the shoes that Martin is now wearing - leading the effort to get straw bale building accepted by the codes and standards folks - I have an extremely deep appreciation for the amount of work, the time, the brain and heart stressing process - of trying to get these things right. Over the past few years, Martin has taken on the central load of getting this done, with some wonderful technical and occasional (and very minimal) financial support for his expenses. As an individual with his own small architectural practice, and a family, Martin has invested far more than his share of his invaluable time and expertise and, as well, I know that this has to have taken a financial toll on him and his other work (which has also included volunteering to work in Haiti and Pakistan). I don't know what the solution is, but I would like to see us try to not have invaluable people like Martin carry such a huge financial and time burden doing work that benefits all of us. And of course, I speak from my own place of experience in this realm, but I have had the benefit of at least working for a small nonprofit organization that occasionally pays me but covers most of my direct expenses. If DCAT were adequately funded, we would create a program or some way to compensate people doing this kind of work. But we're not. So I would like to see how we might find a way to support this kind of work so that it doesn't create such a heavy burden on those who take on these years-long and crucial leadership roles. Okay, enough said on that.
> 
> As for the questions around how to deal with different types of baled materials and the seasonal harvesting issues, while I think they are important to think about and address at some point, what concerns me most is that the folks in the building codes and standards realm are not accustomed to dealing with materials like straw or earth that don't go through intense industrialized processes to assure that they are extremely uniform and predictable. And I am concerned that while these issues are of importance, I question if they are of such importance that they are worth jeopardizing the potential to get straw bale provisions into the IBC here in the US at this point in time. 
> 
> What I know is that there is an expectation that anything that is proposed for inclusion in code can be backed up by irrefutable testing and research. Knowing what we know about what it costs to do the amount of testing we've done to date, I wonder how and when we could reasonably expect to be able to substantiate anything about the viability of straw harvested at different times of year, what would need to be tested to achieve that, etc. What concerns me about raising these issues in the code language is that it will just be more ammunition for those who are already likely to oppose the inclusion of straw bale construction in these codes. I just don't want us throwing obstacles in our own way. This relates also to the incredibly frustrating experience that Martin bore the brunt of in having the straw bale provisions withdrawn in their entirety from the International Green Construction Code. We don't need another setback that involves the three year code development cycle. 
> 
> Lastly, I don't feel like I know enough about the specifics of what harvest times ultimately mean for bale quality, but I do know that we are typically not going to be in control of when crops are harvested or baled. So are we also adding in something that will make it even more difficult and potentially, more expensive to obtain bales for building by introducing this issue?
> 
> I just want to make sure that people are aware that the code development process, while it can be incredibly beneficial and there are many people who would like to and will offer constructive assistance, is a comparatively hostile environment for innovative, low tech, and environmentally beneficial technologies and materials. That is just the voice of a couple of decades of immersion in the realm. So let's be very careful about what we include, how we present it, and what the implications may be.
> 
> Thanks everyone for the insightful comments in this thread.
> 
> David Eisenberg
> www.dcat.net
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Derek Roff <derek at unm.edu>
> To: Global Straw Building Network <GSBN at sustainablesources.com>
> Sent: Mon, Feb 13, 2012 10:27 am
> Subject: Re: [GSBN] Update, question re: proposed SB code (hay bales)
> 
> Thanks for your response, Martin.  I agree that it is useful in a code to mention items like hay explicitly, even if other parts of the code might cover them implicitly.  Well-chosen redundancy improves clarity and communication.  You have to deal with the realities of code creation, in ways that I can't even imagine.  My thoughts and hope for the code may be impractical or impossible, but I will offer them in case they are of use.  
> 
> One of the things on my mind is the point others have raised, that harvesting the same cereal grain at different parts of its life cycle can have a significant effect on the durability of the bales.  The proposed language approves five cereal grains, with the hope that this limitation will increase the likelihood of using good building bales.  If the code doesn't mention the importance of how the time of harvest, in the growing cycle of the grain, affects the bales, then most of the code officials and owner-builders won't know about it.  So I would like to see that mentioned.  I think that RTs suggestion that any plant with provably similar performance should be usable has a deep truth, but if the burden of testing is on the individual owner or builder, then this amounts to a prohibition in most cases.  There would be no way for the average product to fund all the testing needed.  
> 
> To the extent that the code will be a model for other countries and climates, a strict limitation to the 5 major cereal grains grown in the United States would be unfortunate.  If the code community could tolerate it, I think it would be good to say what we know, and avoid insisting that we know everything.  Including the five cereal grains as approved, when harvested properly, makes sense to me.  Including some additional plants that have been used with success, such as flax and hemp, also makes sense.  This second tier might require explicit recognition by the architect or engineer, and by the builder, that this choice has a little less data and experience to back it up.  The use of additional unnamed grains and grasses should be possible as local conditions and experience would recommend- that is, a recognition that local people will know more about local options than centralized codes ever can.  The bar for approval might need to be higher for these choices, but if this code is to have any value outside of industrialized US locations, then the bar can't be set at repeating all of the historical tests that have been done on wheat and rice bales.  
> 
> I think my thoughts are pretty close to what Chris Magwood wrote.  It may be that the code creation environment won't be willing to tolerate this kind of thinking.  However, I hope the code can find a way to be inclusive in these ways.  If it can't, it won't be able to come close to serving as an International code, and it will be prohibiting and banning reasonable and effective approaches to building.  
> 
> Thanks for all your work on these difficult questions,
> 
> Derelict
> 
> Derek Roff
> derek at unm.edu
> 
> 
> Smirk of the day:
> 
> Code official:  The short answer is "No".  
> 
> Owner-Builder:  Well, what's the long answer?
> 
> Code official:  "NOOOOOOoooooooooooo!"
> 
> 
> 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> 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
>>> 
>>> 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://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 (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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20120214/e0ff5733/attachment.htm>