Been rather dead here (UBA) lately and I have been busy (and had a few
days 'up north') but I am amazed at the mindless goings on in the press
about biofuels, world food prices and oil prices.

Astonishingly nearly everyone seems to be so far off the mark as to the
economics of agriculture, and that includes third world agriculture,
that its positively dangerous.

So I thought a cross-fertilisation of disciplines might be useful
(assuming there is anyone in uk.politics.???).

Please for uk.politics.?? to note that uk.business.agriculture is
currently infested with a troll (pete: multiple personalities) and
gardiner (who is paranoid). Its not hard to spot either (pete will often
fake headers to pretend to be a regular poster).

-- 
Oz

Oz wrote:
> Been rather dead here (UBA) lately and I have been busy (and had a few
> days 'up north') but I am amazed at the mindless goings on in the press
> about biofuels, world food prices and oil prices.
> 

Relevant statistic - with heating oil at 60 p/litre before VAT, then 
that makes the equivalent grain price for burning as an oil 
replacement £240 per tonne, quite a bit more than people are 
prepared to pay for it as food.

-- 
Stephen Temple

J F Temple & Son Ltd
Mrs Temple's Cheese - Quality Norfolk Produce
Barn Owl Instruments and Controls

In article , Oz
<URL:mailto:Oz@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote:
> 
> Been rather dead here (UBA) lately and I have been busy (and had a few
> days 'up north') but I am amazed at the mindless goings on in the press
> about biofuels, world food prices and oil prices.
> 
> Astonishingly nearly everyone seems to be so far off the mark as to the
> economics of agriculture, and that includes third world agriculture,
> that its positively dangerous.

YM in that the powers-that-be are now moving to espouse non-foodcrop
biofuels, mostly ligniferous source?

They are still missing the basic point that -whichever- crop is taken off
the field it removes plant nutrient that will have to be replaced (with
petrochemical fertiliser?) if a subsequent crop is to yield as well.

This also applies to straw/haulm from foodcrops which would ordinarily be
ploughed back to partially replenish the soil.
The obvious untapped resource is, of course, human sewage.  Far too much is
wasted.  There is a good deal of energy in it that could be extracted in a
diesel-like form - I've no idea what the exhaust fumes would smell like
though.

> So I thought a cross-fertilisation of disciplines might be useful
> (assuming there is anyone in uk.politics.???).
> 
> Please for uk.politics.?? to note that uk.business.agriculture is
> currently infested with a troll (pete: multiple personalities) and
> gardiner (who is paranoid). Its not hard to spot either (pete will often
> fake headers to pretend to be a regular poster).

Pete's missing atm, I expect he'll be back rsn. uk.politics know him of old.
Pat is hooking into every thread though and probably finding 'bent vets'
behind every comment.  Cue paranoid rant:

Cheerio,

-- 

>>   derek@farm-direct.co.uk
>>   http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

Derek Moody wrote:

> The obvious untapped resource is, of course, human sewage.  Far too much is
> wasted.  There is a good deal of energy in it that could be extracted in a
> diesel-like form - I've no idea what the exhaust fumes would smell like
> though.

At last, someone has found a use for this government. :-)


-- 
Howard Neil

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 08:57:09 +0100, Oz  wrote:

>
>Been rather dead here (UBA) lately and I have been busy (and had a few
>days 'up north') but I am amazed at the mindless goings on in the press
>about biofuels, world food prices and oil prices.
>
>Astonishingly nearly everyone seems to be so far off the mark as to the
>economics of agriculture, and that includes third world agriculture,
>that its positively dangerous.
>
>So I thought a cross-fertilisation of disciplines might be useful
>(assuming there is anyone in uk.politics.???).
>
>Please for uk.politics.?? to note that uk.business.agriculture is
>currently infested with a troll (pete: multiple personalities) and
>gardiner (who is paranoid). Its not hard to spot either (pete will often
>fake headers to pretend to be a regular poster).

I really can't understand why I worry Oz so much.  We all make
mistakes, even Oz.

OK, he was actually the first one to mention MRSA publicly in
connection with PMWS and pigs, and even though he did not make a
direct connection, he did have the grace to admit that I was right and
that Britain's pigs were very sick.

The refusal of the British government to even test pigs for MRSA
and/or refuse to release the results should worry everyone, not just
Oz. That's not paranoia. That's asking awkward questions that need
answering.

But it is very odd behavior, he takes the thread deliberately
off-topic and splays it all over the place.

I suspect that he agrees with the "Gardiner Hypothesis"

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com

Stephen Temple  writes

>Relevant statistic - with heating oil at 60 p/litre before VAT, then that 
>makes the equivalent grain price for burning as an oil replacement £240 per 
>tonne, quite a bit more than people are prepared to pay for it as food.

Eh? Is that right?

Lessee 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/science/energy_calculator.html

0.007333 barrels = 1kg oil = 45MJ = 1.166 lits

wheat is approx 13MJ/kg (fresh) so one lit oil has the same energy as
3.0 kg grain (predictably).

So with oil at 60p/l that equates to 20p/kg of wheat or £200/T.

OK somewhat lower than your figure but startlingly high just the same.

OSR is 45% oil worth 450 x .6 /1.166 = 230
plus 55% rapemeal worth about 550x.6/3.5 = 94 total £324/T

Astonishing...

-- 
Oz

On Tuesday, in article
     
     Oz@farmeroz.port995.com "Oz" wrote:

> but I am amazed at the mindless goings on in the press

So, what's new?

-- 
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was 
turning into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins.

Derek Moody  writes

>YM in that the powers-that-be are now moving to espouse non-foodcrop 
>biofuels, mostly ligniferous source? 

Comes to much the same thing really. Grow food or grow inedible biomass
INSTEAD.

Of course you can switch edible biomass to food instantly, but you can't
switch inedible biomass to food. This could be vital were there to be a
crop failure somewhere in the world.

>They are still missing the basic point that -whichever- crop is taken off 
>the field it removes plant nutrient that will have to be replaced (with 
>petrochemical fertiliser?) if a subsequent crop is to yield as well.

Yes, although offtake of NPK in some tree cropping situations is
surprisingly modest.

>This also applies to straw/haulm from foodcrops which would ordinarily be 
>ploughed back to partially replenish the soil. 

Absolutely. Currently the fertiliser value exceeds the ex-field value so
not really worth selling.

>The obvious untapped resource 
>is, of course, human sewage.  Far too much is wasted.  

Yes.

>There is a good deal 
>of energy in it that could be extracted in a diesel-like form - I've no idea 
>what the exhaust fumes would smell like though.

-- 
Oz

Oz  wrote:

> Comes to much the same thing really. Grow food or grow inedible biomass
> INSTEAD.

I manage to do both Oz, they're not necessarily mutually exclusive
options.

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
>Oz  wrote:
>
>> Comes to much the same thing really. Grow food or grow inedible biomass
>> INSTEAD.
>
>I manage to do both Oz, they're not necessarily mutually exclusive options. 

Strangely inedible and food are mutually exclusive. The crop is what you
grow, byproducts don't count as 'the crop'.

-- 
Oz

Posted more widely...

Oz  writes
>
>Been rather dead here (UBA) lately and I have been busy (and had a few
>days 'up north') but I am amazed at the mindless goings on in the press
>about biofuels, world food prices and oil prices.
>
>Astonishingly nearly everyone seems to be so far off the mark as to the
>economics of agriculture, and that includes third world agriculture,
>that its positively dangerous.
>
>So I thought a cross-fertilisation of disciplines might be useful
>(assuming there is anyone in uk.politics.???).
>
>Please for uk.politics.?? to note that uk.business.agriculture is
>currently infested with a troll (pete: multiple personalities) and
>gardiner (who is paranoid). Its not hard to spot either (pete will often
>fake headers to pretend to be a regular poster).
>

-- 
Oz

Oz  writes
>Stephen Temple  writes
>
>>Relevant statistic - with heating oil at 60 p/litre before VAT, then that 
>>makes the equivalent grain price for burning as an oil replacement £240 per 
>>tonne, quite a bit more than people are prepared to pay for it as food.
>
>Eh? Is that right?
>
>Lessee 
>
>http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/science/energy_calculator.html
>
>0.007333 barrels = 1kg oil = 45MJ = 1.166 lits
>
>wheat is approx 13MJ/kg (fresh) so one lit oil has the same energy as
>3.0 kg grain (predictably).
>
>So with oil at 60p/l that equates to 20p/kg of wheat or £200/T.
>
>OK somewhat lower than your figure but startlingly high just the same.
>
>OSR is 45% oil worth 450 x .6 /1.166 = 230
>plus 55% rapemeal worth about 550x.6/3.5 = 94 total £324/T
>
>Astonishing...
>

-- 
Oz

Oz  wrote:

> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
> >Oz  wrote:
> >
> >> Comes to much the same thing really. Grow food or grow inedible biomass
> >> INSTEAD.
> >
> >I manage to do both Oz, they're not necessarily mutually exclusive options.
> 
> Strangely inedible and food are mutually exclusive. 

No they are not, the two go hand in hand. Much of any food plant is
inedible.

> The crop is what you grow, byproducts don't count as 'the crop'.

Sometimes your voice is muffled when you sit down. If I produce both
fruit and fuel from the same trees then I am producing two crops, one
edible, one not.

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
>Sometimes your voice is muffled when you sit down. If I produce both fruit 
>and fuel from the same trees then I am producing two crops, one edible, one 
>not. 

And is this described as a food crop, or an inedible fuel crop?

Bear in mind the context up the thread a bit, if that's not too hard for
you.

-- 
Oz

Oz  wrote:

> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
> >Sometimes your voice is muffled when you sit down. If I produce both fruit
> >and fuel from the same trees then I am producing two crops, one edible, one
> >not. 
> 
> And is this described as a food crop, or an inedible fuel crop?

One is a food crop, the other is an inedible crop. Both grown on the
same land and both from the same tree. In fact to make matters more
complicated we also grow a third crop beneath the trees and in some
years a fourth.

we practice rotation and grow legumes every fourth crop. We have no
petrochemical fertiliser input.

> Bear in mind the context up the thread a bit, if that's not too hard for
> you.

Yes, that would be the context where you stated:

"Grow food or grow inedible biomass INSTEAD."

Please don't hesitate to ask for more help if your memory continues to
play tricks.

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:52:25 +0100, Oz  wrote:

>Posted more widely...
>
>Oz  writes
>>
>>Been rather dead here (UBA) lately and I have been busy (and had a few
>>days 'up north') but I am amazed at the mindless goings on in the press
>>about biofuels, world food prices and oil prices.
>>
>>Astonishingly nearly everyone seems to be so far off the mark as to the
>>economics of agriculture, and that includes third world agriculture,
>>that its positively dangerous.
>>
>>So I thought a cross-fertilisation of disciplines might be useful
>>(assuming there is anyone in uk.politics.???).
>>
>>Please for uk.politics.?? to note that uk.business.agriculture is
>>currently infested with a troll (pete: multiple personalities) and
>>gardiner (who is paranoid). Its not hard to spot either (pete will often
>>fake headers to pretend to be a regular poster).
>>


So you decide to repeat to an ever wider selection of newsgroups who
have never heard of me that I'm paranoid.

I rather think you have lost your grip.

Now let me take this slowly:

Merely because you were the first man as far as I know to mention PMWS
and MRSA and pigs in the same sentence does not entitled you to any
special privilege.

OK to the total fury, no doubt,  of the NFU, CLA, BPEX and just about
every other quango and lobby group in the known universe, you
reluctantly admitted that the pigs were indeed sick on
uk.business.agriculture, way back in early 2002.

You then spent the next six years rubbishing the man who forced the
admission and encouraging others to do the same

It is the last bit that will screw you in the end. You won't be able
to claim the credit in mitigation. 

Rather the contrary, you knew and deliberately targeted the whistle
blower.

Claiming, as the others will do, that they were just ignorant and
following their leader won;t do for you.

Once the population at large, here and in North America,  realise that
MRSA and possibly C.Diff is reaching the hospitals from pig farms,
they will be looking for someone to blame.

If you will insist in throwing yourself into their path shouting "it
was me", they will probably believe you. Personally I don't much care.

But your mania for kudos is endangering my drive to get the bent vets
before the international courts.

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.c

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:52:25 +0100, Oz  wrote:

>Posted more widely...
>
>Oz  writes
>>
>>Been rather dead here (UBA) lately and I have been busy (and had a few
>>days 'up north') but I am amazed at the mindless goings on in the press
>>about biofuels, world food prices and oil prices.
>>
>>Astonishingly nearly everyone seems to be so far off the mark as to the
>>economics of agriculture, and that includes third world agriculture,
>>that its positively dangerous.
>>
>>So I thought a cross-fertilisation of disciplines might be useful
>>(assuming there is anyone in uk.politics.???).
>>
>>Please for uk.politics.?? to note that uk.business.agriculture is
>>currently infested with a troll (pete: multiple personalities) and
>>gardiner (who is paranoid). Its not hard to spot either (pete will often
>>fake headers to pretend to be a regular poster).
>>

So you decide to repeat to an ever wider selecttion of newsgroups who
have never heard of me that I'm paranoid.

I rather think you have lost your grip.

Now let me take this slowly:

Merely because you were the first man as far as I know to mention PMWS
and MRSA and pigs in the same sentence does not entitled you to any
special privilege.

OK to the total fury, no doubt,  of the NFU, CLA, BPEX and just about
every other quango and lobby group in the known universe, you
reluctantly admitted that the pigs were indeed sick on
uk.business.agriculture, way back in early 2002.

You then spent the next six years rubbishing the man who forced the
admission and encouraging others to do the same

It is the last bit that will screw you in the end. You won't be able
to claim the credit in mitigation. 

Rather the contrary, you knew and deliberately targeted the whistle
blower.

Claiming, as the others will do, that they were just ignorant and
following their leader won;t do for you.

One the population at large, here and in North America,  realise that
MRSA and possibly C.Diff is reaching the hospitals from pig farms,
they will be looking for someone to blame.

If you will insist in throwing yourself into their path shouting "it
was me", they will probably believe you. Personally I don't much care.

But your mania for kudos is endangering my drive to get Britain's bent
vets before the international courts.

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:52:25 +0100, Oz  wrote:

>Posted more widely...
>
>Oz  writes
>>
>>Been rather dead here (UBA) lately and I have been busy (and had a few
>>days 'up north') but I am amazed at the mindless goings on in the press
>>about biofuels, world food prices and oil prices.
>>
>>Astonishingly nearly everyone seems to be so far off the mark as to the
>>economics of agriculture, and that includes third world agriculture,
>>that its positively dangerous.
>>
>>So I thought a cross-fertilisation of disciplines might be useful
>>(assuming there is anyone in uk.politics.???).
>>
>>Please for uk.politics.?? to note that uk.business.agriculture is
>>currently infested with a troll (pete: multiple personalities) and
>>gardiner (who is paranoid). Its not hard to spot either (pete will often
>>fake headers to pretend to be a regular poster).
>>

So you decide to repeat to an ever wider selecttion of newsgroups who
have never heard of me that I'm paranoid.

I rather think you have lost your grip.

Now let me take this slowly:

Merely because you were the first man as far as I know to mention PMWS
and MRSA and pigs in the same sentence does not entitled you to any
special privilege.

OK to the total fury, no doubt,  of the NFU, CLA, BPEX and just about
every other quango and lobby group in the known universe, you
reluctantly admitted that the pigs were indeed sick on
uk.business.agriculture, way back in early 2002.

You then spent the next six years rubbishing the man who forced the
admission and encouraging others to do the same

It is the last bit that will screw you in the end. You won't be able
to claim the credit in mitigation. 

Rather the contrary, you knew and deliberately targeted the whistle
blower.

Claiming, as the others will do, that they were just ignorant and
following their leader won;t do for you.

One the population at large, here and in North America,  realise that
MRSA and possibly C.Diff is reaching the hospitals from pig farms,
they will be looking for someone to blame.

If you will insist in throwing yourself into their path shouting "it
was me", they will probably believe you. Personally I don't much care.

But your mania for kudos is endangering my drive to get the bent vets
before the international courts.

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
>Oz  wrote:
>
>> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
>> >Sometimes your voice is muffled when you sit down. If I produce both fruit
>> >and fuel from the same trees then I am producing two crops, one edible, one
>> >not. 
>> 
>> And is this described as a food crop, or an inedible fuel crop?
>
>One is a food crop, the other is an inedible crop. Both grown on the
>same land and both from the same tree. In fact to make matters more
>complicated we also grow a third crop beneath the trees and in some
>years a fourth.

Its a food crop. The others are incidental as far as politicians are
concerned. 

>we practice rotation and grow legumes every fourth crop. We have no
>petrochemical fertiliser input.

No tractor power, sprays etc? In any case that's irrelevant to it being
a food crop.

>
>> Bear in mind the context up the thread a bit, if that's not too hard for
>> you.
>
>Yes, that would be the context where you stated:
>
>"Grow food or grow inedible biomass INSTEAD."
>
>Please don't hesitate to ask for more help if your memory continues to
>play tricks.

Non-foodcrop biofuels....

Derek Moody (to whom I was replying) said:


YM in that the powers-that-be are now moving to espouse non-foodcrop
biofuels, mostly ligniferous source? 

They are still missing the basic point that -whichever- crop is taken
off the field it removes plant nutrient that will have to be replaced
(with petrochemical fertiliser?) if a subsequent crop is to yield as
well.

-- 
Oz

Oz wrote:

> They are still missing the basic point that -whichever- crop is taken
> off the field it removes plant nutrient that will have to be replaced
> (with petrochemical fertiliser?) if a subsequent crop is to yield as
> well.
> 

If it is biomass for burning in a boiler, then the P and K are 
recovered in the ash for land spreading. Miscanthus is even better, 
in that it is harvested after leaf fall, with very little N, P or K 
in the harvested stem at all.

Our own plans are for biogas, when virtually all N, P and K are 
retained within the digestate for land spreading. We are planning to 
generate electricity and heat for sale; alternatively the gas can be 
scrubbed and used for CNG vehicles. I have ridden in a biomethane 
powered Vito van.

My grandfather and father had a third of the farm down to fuel crops 
- hay and oats for the horses, before they had petrol, TVO or diesel 
power.

-- 
Stephen Temple

J F Temple & Son Ltd
Mrs Temple's Cheese - Quality Norfolk Produce
Barn Owl Instruments and Controls

Oz  wrote:

> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
> >Oz  wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
> >> >Sometimes your voice is muffled when you sit down. If I produce both fruit
> >> >and fuel from the same trees then I am producing two crops, one
> >> >edible, one not.
> >> 
> >> And is this described as a food crop, or an inedible fuel crop?
> >
> >One is a food crop, the other is an inedible crop. Both grown on the
> >same land and both from the same tree. In fact to make matters more
> >complicated we also grow a third crop beneath the trees and in some
> >years a fourth.
> 
> Its a food crop. The others are incidental as far as politicians are
> concerned. 

We were talking about your mistake, not those of politicians.

> >we practice rotation and grow legumes every fourth crop. We have no
> >petrochemical fertiliser input.
> 
> No tractor power, sprays etc? In any case that's irrelevant to it being
> a food crop.

Of course we use tractors. We don't use sprays. And we don't use
petrochemical fertiliser inputs. Something that you claimed was
necessary, and that you claim again at the end of this post.

BTW, I think you've discovered a new mode of transport, moving
goalposts. Your goalposts are currently exceeding the speed of sound.

> >
> >> Bear in mind the context up the thread a bit, if that's not too hard for
> >> you.
> >
> >Yes, that would be the context where you stated:
> >
> >"Grow food or grow inedible biomass INSTEAD."
> >
> >Please don't hesitate to ask for more help if your memory continues to
> >play tricks.
> 
> Non-foodcrop biofuels....

Both food and biofuel can be grown on the same land, at the same time,
without detriment to the productivity of either. I know because I'm
doing it at present. I can meet my domestic needs from 4HA, and I can
meet my income needs from the rest of the land. If time gets tough, I
can produce enough diesel to farm the land at the cost of 15% drop in
productivity.
 
> Derek Moody (to whom I was replying) said:
> 
> 
> YM in that the powers-that-be are now moving to espouse non-foodcrop
> biofuels, mostly ligniferous source? 
> 
> They are still missing the basic point that -whichever- crop is taken
> off the field it removes plant nutrient that will have to be replaced
> (with petrochemical fertiliser?) if a subsequent crop is to yield as
> well.

The ash goes back on the land. However what works at one scale may not
work well at another and may not work at all in the UK where the
conditions are not as good for rapid growth of biofuels.

Stephen Temple  writes
>Oz wrote:
>
>> They are still missing the basic point that -whichever- crop is taken
>> off the field it removes plant nutrient that will have to be replaced
>> (with petrochemical fertiliser?) if a subsequent crop is to yield as
>> well.
>> 
>
>If it is biomass for burning in a boiler, then the P and K are 
>recovered in the ash for land spreading. 

I understood that  most of the P was lost (volatalised, as was said to
be the case for straw burning).

>Our own plans are for biogas, when virtually all N, P and K are 
>retained within the digestate for land spreading. We are planning to 
>generate electricity and heat for sale; alternatively the gas can be 
>scrubbed and used for CNG vehicles. I have ridden in a biomethane 
>powered Vito van.

The costings I have seen gave a poor return, however Things Have
Changed.

>My grandfather and father had a third of the farm down to fuel crops 
>- hay and oats for the horses, before they had petrol, TVO or diesel 
>power.

<grin> Indeed, people forget.

-- 
Oz

Oz wrote:
> Stephen Temple  writes
> 
>> Our own plans are for biogas, when virtually all N, P and K are 
>> retained within the digestate for land spreading. We are planning to 
>> generate electricity and heat for sale; alternatively the gas can be 
>> scrubbed and used for CNG vehicles. I have ridden in a biomethane 
>> powered Vito van.
> 
> The costings I have seen gave a poor return, however Things Have
> Changed.
> 
Double ROCs, the possibility of a capital grant (we are currently 
awaiting a decision) gives a payback of 7-8 years, if you can make 
good use of the heat. We plan to use it for domestic heating, dairy 
hot water, cheese process heat, heating cottages across the road. 
Summer use for on-floor grain drying, possibly some lucerne drying.

-- 
Stephen Temple

J F Temple & Son Ltd
Mrs Temple's Cheese - Quality Norfolk Produce
Barn Owl Instruments and Controls

Stephen Temple  writes
>Oz wrote:
>> 
>> The costings I have seen gave a poor return, however Things Have
>> Changed.
>> 
>Double ROCs, the possibility of a capital grant (we are currently 
>awaiting a decision) gives a payback of 7-8 years, if you can make 
>good use of the heat. We plan to use it for domestic heating, dairy 
>hot water, cheese process heat, heating cottages across the road. 
>Summer use for on-floor grain drying, possibly some lucerne drying.

Indeed, with a dairy there is plenty of homes for low-level heat
sources. Also consider reverse refrigeration for heating since I expect
your size of digester will probably be highly exothermic.

However I was rather hoping for a discussion on energy and food in
general. Not least because politicians and others seem to think that
grain at £60/T is viable even with fuel at 20p/L, urea at £130/T and
PK's at around £140/T let alone current prices of 60p/350/600!!!

That's even before they ban triazole fungicides and numerous other
pesticides. At that point everything goes into grass and gets topped
(perhaps) once a year.

-- 
Oz

Oz wrote:
> Stephen Temple  writes

>> If it is biomass for burning in a boiler, then the P and K are 
>> recovered in the ash for land spreading. 
> 
> I understood that  most of the P was lost (volatalised, as was said to
> be the case for straw burning).
> 

See www.fibrophos.co.uk, who claim that the ash from the chicken 
litter power stations analyse as 0-20-10.
-- 
Stephen Temple

J F Temple & Son Ltd
Mrs Temple's Cheese - Quality Norfolk Produce
Barn Owl Instruments and Controls

Stephen Temple  writes

>See www.fibrophos.co.uk, who claim that the ash from the chicken litter 
>power stations analyse as 0-20-10.

I imagine they have significant scrubbing mechanisms. Some I have heard
of apparently use something like an alkaline (CaHCO3?) water spray into
the exhaust.

I simply report what was always claimed (by MAFF/ADAS) in the days of
burning straw, I do not remember seeing any actual experimental work
though, although this may originally have been ancient (say late 60's?).

Mind you I could never think of any really plausible chemical entity for
this other than P2O5, which is of course very volatile but its also very
reactive and would (I should have thought) rapidly reacted with any
metal ions knocking about. OTOH you do make elemental phosphorus by
heating calcium phosphate with carbon, so there you go.

-- 
Oz

Stephen Temple  wrote:

> The digester produces a CO2/methane mix which is burnt in a spark 
> engine. Heat produced by the engine is used for keeping the digester 
> at 37 C, and the balance (the majority) available for use/sale. 
> Electricity produced is sold back to the grid. Digestate will be 
> separated, so solids go to our more distant fields and liquids 
> pumped through the irrigation system. The digestate is not a waste, 
> but valuable fertiliser and should be less smelly than our current 
> dirty water system. About the only waste is from servicing the 
> engine, and plastic from silage storage.

I did some consultancy work when I was fresh from university for
Severn-Trent water on something similar. The sewage sludge from Wanlip
sewage station on the Trent was charged into anaerobic digesters and
fermented to produce a mostly methane gas which was used in large
stationary compression-ignition engines. Very large engines in fact, the
sort usually used to drive container ships. Some of the waste heat was
used to warm the digesters, and some used to dry the fermented sludge to
make a granular fertiliser. There wasn't enough electricity to sell back
to the grid but it did produce enough to operate all the electrical
equipment on site.

The advantage with the engines was their efficiency (about 50%) and low
speed - 15rpm IIRC - which gave the engines an extremely long service
life.

In message 
          Oz  wrote:



> That's even before they ban triazole fungicides and numerous other
> pesticides. At that point everything goes into grass and gets topped
> (perhaps) once a year.
I noticed a reference to that recently.  As you know, I'm a non 
fertilizing grazier and know next to nothing about dirt farming.

Can you elaborate on what products are proposed for the ban and the 
effects these bans will have?  Also, is there any scientific 
justification for this action?  On past experience, I suspect not:*(



-- 
Edward..
What can they know, whose talk is only of bullocks.

In article <QKGdnTFnQN7bHu7VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.metronet>, Stephen Temple
<URL:mailto:usenet@jftemple.co.uk> wrote:
> Oz wrote:
> 
> > They are still missing the basic point that -whichever- crop is taken
> > off the field it removes plant nutrient that will have to be replaced
> > (with petrochemical fertiliser?) if a subsequent crop is to yield as
> > well.
> > 
> 
> If it is biomass for burning in a boiler, then the P and K are 
> recovered in the ash for land spreading. Miscanthus is even better, 
> in that it is harvested after leaf fall, with very little N, P or K 
> in the harvested stem at all.

Most seem to be thinking of replacement for road fuels so products are
spread up and down thw highways.

> Our own plans are for biogas, when virtually all N, P and K are 
> retained within the digestate for land spreading. We are planning to 
> generate electricity and heat for sale; alternatively the gas can be 
> scrubbed and used for CNG vehicles. I have ridden in a biomethane 
> powered Vito van.
> 
> My grandfather and father had a third of the farm down to fuel crops 
> - hay and oats for the horses, before they had petrol, TVO or diesel 
> power.

BUT - this is the essential difference - almost all the 'used' plant
nutrients were either spread during field operations or neatly concentrated
in piles next the stable ready for targeted re-application.  Net loss to
farm negligable.

Cheerio,

-- 

>>   derek@farm-direct.co.uk
>>   http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

In article , Oz
<URL:mailto:Oz@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote:
> Stephen Temple  writes
> 
> >Relevant statistic - with heating oil at 60 p/litre before VAT, then that 
> >makes the equivalent grain price for burning as an oil replacement £240 per 
> >tonne, quite a bit more than people are prepared to pay for it as food.
> 
> Eh? Is that right?

Cheapest own-band flour in local supermarket 47p/kg (was 34p before price
hikes) so retail is about double the figure - which suggests roughly 100%
markup.

I doubt milling and packing account for much

800g loaf flour equivalent 19p - see below 

> http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/science/energy_calculator.html
> 
> 0.007333 barrels = 1kg oil = 45MJ = 1.166 lits
> 
> wheat is approx 13MJ/kg (fresh) so one lit oil has the same energy as
> 3.0 kg grain (predictably).
> 
> So with oil at 60p/l that equates to 20p/kg of wheat or £200/T.
> 
> OK somewhat lower than your figure but startlingly high just the same.

800g loaf flour equivalent 16p

When wheats were £60/t (ok not bread wheats) the loaf equivalent was 5p 
actual bread wheats were probably 2p more.  Own brand sliced were about 25p.

(For non cooks the other ingredients in a plain loaf are a small amount of
yeast, a pinch of salt, sometimes a little vegetable oil, maybe a fraction
of a gram of 'improver' [vitamin C] and water.)

> OSR is 45% oil worth 450 x .6 /1.166 = 230
> plus 55% rapemeal worth about 550x.6/3.5 = 94 total £324/T

Retail rapeseed oil ca. 90p/l - ex road tax.

Cheerio,

-- 

>>   derek@farm-direct.co.uk
>>   http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

Derek Moody wrote:

> 
> Most seem to be thinking of replacement for road fuels so products are
> spread up and down thw highways.
> 

While we are burning significant quantities of oil and gas for 
static uses such as power stations and building heating, it makes 
sense to replace these first with biomass, keeping the oil and gas 
for mobile uses. This avoids conversion losses from biomass to 
liquid fuels, and retains nutrients for re-use.

It seems strange to me to pick the most difficult market (biofuels) 
while leaving the easy market (heating) largely untouched.

Of course the optimum for the static market is Combined Heat and 
Power, using biomass. It is criminal that power stations (gas fired 
amongst others) throw away the heat while householders have to burn 
oil or gas to produce heat. They have it better organised on the 
continent.
-- 
Stephen Temple

J F Temple & Son Ltd
Mrs Temple's Cheese - Quality Norfolk Produce
Barn Owl Instruments and Controls

Edward  writes
>In message 
>          Oz  wrote:
>
>
>
>> That's even before they ban triazole fungicides and numerous other
>> pesticides. At that point everything goes into grass and gets topped
>> (perhaps) once a year.
>I noticed a reference to that recently.  As you know, I'm a non fertilizing 
>grazier and know next to nothing about dirt farming.
>
>Can you elaborate on what products are proposed for the ban and the effects 
>these bans will have?  Also, is there any scientific justification for this 
>action?  On past experience, I suspect not:*(

I haven't seen the full list. It is reported in the agpress that one to
go will be the triazole fungicides. That immediately takes 30% of wheat
yields. Further that means using lower yielding more disease resistant
varieties (typ -5% to -10%), lower N usage (-10% to -20%) because the
marginal cost-per-ton is poorer. Some small savings on PK per acre, but
not per ton.

So yield loss is likely to be around:

0.7 x 0.97 x 0.85 = 0.58 say 0.6 or 40% yield loss.
That may be somewhat overstated on average but -30% seems a certainty.

So an 8.2T/Ha (66cwt/ac) yield will drop to about 6T/Ha (48cwt/ac) or
a 9.0T/ha (72cwt/ac) will drop to about 6.3 (50cwt/ac).

Note that this is typical of the better farmers in the late 70's when
many fungicides were available (including some effective triazoles). N-
rates were less in those days as crops tended to fall over.

The effect of this will turn the UK into a net imported of grains,
sticking £10-20/T onto our grain prices due haulage alone. On top of
that the whole EC will suffer similarly and this will (pretty
drastically) affect world grain prices.


-- 
Oz

Stephen Temple  writes
>Derek Moody wrote:
>
>> 
>> Most seem to be thinking of replacement for road fuels so products are
>> spread up and down thw highways.
>> 
>
>While we are burning significant quantities of oil and gas for 
>static uses such as power stations and building heating, it makes 
>sense to replace these first with biomass, keeping the oil and gas 
>for mobile uses. This avoids conversion losses from biomass to 
>liquid fuels, and retains nutrients for re-use.

This is absolutely true but seems to have passed HMG and US by. In
particular OSR oil gives a 300% return on total energy in and can be
substituted for oil directly in power stations (probably including jet-
engine types).

Bioethanol is little more than break-even when processing is taken into
account.

>It seems strange to me to pick the most difficult market (biofuels) 
>while leaving the easy market (heating) largely untouched.

Yes (excluding rape oil).

>Of course the optimum for the static market is Combined Heat and 
>Power, using biomass. It is criminal that power stations (gas fired 
>amongst others) throw away the heat while householders have to burn 
>oil or gas to produce heat. They have it better organised on the 
>continent.

Indeed. Battersea power station did this to the Churchill Gdns council
house complex with a pipe under the thames.

-- 
Oz

In article <QpednV21dNuh1unVRVnyiQA@posted.metronet>, Stephen Temple
<URL:mailto:usenet@jftemple.co.uk> wrote:
> Derek Moody wrote:

> > Most seem to be thinking of replacement for road fuels so products are
> > spread up and down thw highways.

> While we are burning significant quantities of oil and gas for 
> static uses such as power stations and building heating, it makes 
> sense to replace these first with biomass, keeping the oil and gas 
> for mobile uses. This avoids conversion losses from biomass to 
> liquid fuels, and retains nutrients for re-use.

Agreed.

> It seems strange to me to pick the most difficult market (biofuels) 
> while leaving the easy market (heating) largely untouched.

These are politicians, they have to impress journalists and their more
vociferous constituents.  Most of these are shouting about road-fuel prices
and a negligable percentage are able to do a simple power equivalence
calculation.

Winter fuel prices won't hit the headlines before October... 

> Of course the optimum for the static market is Combined Heat and 
> Power, using biomass. It is criminal that power stations (gas fired 
> amongst others) throw away the heat while householders have to burn 
> oil or gas to produce heat. They have it better organised on the 
> continent.

As you know I regard Nuclear chp as a better way to go in which case the
waste heat would most likely be used industrially but we're in the same
ballpark here.

At the least it is daft not to utilise the concentratable energy released
when converting collected biomass back to fertiliser.  Whether it is worth
collecting specifically for power generation is another matter.

With a few notable, local, exceptions the whole renewable energy programme
is a waste of resources.  Renewable makes sense for off-grid static use and
where incidental surpluses accrue. For grid power nuclear is, and has been
since Calder Hall first opened, the only sensible option.  A hundred 2-3
reactor stations would serve the whole country indefinitely.

Cheerio,

-- 

>>   derek@farm-direct.co.uk
>>   http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 08:24:51 +0100, Oz wrote:

> Stephen Temple  writes
>>Derek Moody wrote:
>>
>>> 
>>> Most seem to be thinking of replacement for road fuels so products are
>>> spread up and down thw highways.
>>> 
>>
>>While we are burning significant quantities of oil and gas for 
>>static uses such as power stations and building heating, it makes 
>>sense to replace these first with biomass, keeping the oil and gas 
>>for mobile uses. This avoids conversion losses from biomass to 
>>liquid fuels, and retains nutrients for re-use.
> 
> This is absolutely true but seems to have passed HMG and US by. In
> particular OSR oil gives a 300% return on total energy in and can be
> substituted for oil directly in power stations (probably including jet-
> engine types).

So you say just use the biomass as is or stop at the point where you have
extracted the oil and before you do anything fancy to make automobile
compatibility?  Most power stations in US are coal or natural gas.  Very
few are liquid fuels.

> Bioethanol is little more than break-even when processing is taken into
> account.

What do you think of this:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9966867-54.html


>>It seems strange to me to pick the most difficult market (biofuels) 
>>while leaving the easy market (heating) largely untouched.
> 
> Yes (excluding rape oil).

Why is rapeseed an exception?

>>Of course the optimum for the static market is Combined Heat and 
>>Power, using biomass. It is criminal that power stations (gas fired 
>>amongst others) throw away the heat while householders have to burn 
>>oil or gas to produce heat. They have it better organised on the 
>>continent.
> 
> Indeed. Battersea power station did this to the Churchill Gdns council
> house complex with a pipe under the thames.

I think (just guessing) that in the UK there is not a lot of "scrub" land
as there is in the USA.  We have much area that is not really suitable for
growing food crops and would require massive amounts of water to have any
prayer of growing such crops.  Closed bioreactor algae farms seem to be
the logical choice in that they do not lose a lot of water to evaporation
and require very little "fertilizer".  The land itself is virtually free.

-- 
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

In message <$keABcGHaGdIFwX8@farmeroz.port995.com>
          Oz  wrote:

> Edward  writes
>>In message 
>>          Oz  wrote:
>>
>>


> The effect of this will turn the UK into a net imported of grains,
> sticking £10-20/T onto our grain prices due haulage alone. On top of
> that the whole EC will suffer similarly and this will (pretty
> drastically) affect world grain prices.

So, plenty of downside:*(  Where is the upside?  What is the science 
behind this decision?




-- 
Edward..
What can they know, whose talk is only of bullocks.

In message , Derek Moody 
 writes

snip
>
>With a few notable, local, exceptions the whole renewable energy programme
>is a waste of resources.  Renewable makes sense for off-grid static use and
>where incidental surpluses accrue. For grid power nuclear is, and has been
>since Calder Hall first opened, the only sensible option.  A hundred 2-3
>reactor stations would serve the whole country indefinitely.

A comment culled from uk.d-i-y currently says that there may be only 100 
years worth of U235 available and that we should find a way round the 
politics of using Plutonium.

regards

-- 
Tim Lamb

In article , The Trucker  wrote:
>What do you think of this:
>
>http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9966867-54.html

Certainly looks interesting. But since companies have
zillion reasons to lie (OK, "exacerbate"), ultimately the 
judgement is reserved. But if successful the technology 
can probably cover something like 10% of total energy 
that today comes from oil. Not too shabby. Way better 
than wind.

Edward  writes
>
>So, plenty of downside:*(  Where is the upside?  What is the science behind 
>this decision? 

They are removing all hazardous substances from the food chain
REGARDLESS OF RISK. Applied elsewhere this would remove all vehicles,
animals and a wide range of things (knives, stairs, beds, BBQ, frying,
roasting etc).

So the science is, well, shakey to say the very least.

-- 
Oz

Tim Lamb  writes

>A comment culled from uk.d-i-y currently says that there may be only 100 
>years worth of U235 available 

Improbable.

>and that we should find a way round the 
>politics of using Plutonium.

Won;t be a problem when the lights go out (as they will).

-- 
Oz

In article ,
   Edward  wrote:
> In message <$keABcGHaGdIFwX8@farmeroz.port995.com>
>           Oz  wrote:

> > Edward  writes
> >>In message 
> >>          Oz  wrote:
> >>
> >>


> > The effect of this will turn the UK into a net imported of grains,
> > sticking £10-20/T onto our grain prices due haulage alone. On top of
> > that the whole EC will suffer similarly and this will (pretty
> > drastically) affect world grain prices.

> So, plenty of downside:*(  Where is the upside?  What is the science 
> behind this decision?

Not a lot of point in govt using science. It has a lead time and govt needs
political effects <now>; the future may be some other govt's problem.

Cheers
Jane

-- 

Jane G       :      j.gillett@higherstert.co.uk            :        S Devon

In article , Tim Lamb
<URL:mailto:tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message , Derek Moody 
>  writes

> A comment culled from uk.d-i-y currently says that there may be only 100 
> years worth of U235 available

Probably right at current price levels but there are a lot of slightly lower
grade ores around which will be viable as energy price rises - may well be
already in some cases.  Anywhere with tin/lead/silver mines is quite likely
to have tailings that would be worth reworking before bothering to open new
mines.

>                               and that we should find a way round the 
> politics of using Plutonium.

Breeders are an obvious plus - it's aways politics (combined with ignorance)
that gets in the way of sensible nuclear development.

Cheerio,

-- 

>>   derek@farm-direct.co.uk
>>   http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

In message 
          Tim Lamb  wrote:

> In message , Derek Moody
>  writes

> snip
>>
>>With a few notable, local, exceptions the whole renewable energy programme
>>is a waste of resources.  Renewable makes sense for off-grid static use and
>>where incidental surpluses accrue. For grid power nuclear is, and has been
>>since Calder Hall first opened, the only sensible option.  A hundred 2-3
>>reactor stations would serve the whole country indefinitely.

> A comment culled from uk.d-i-y currently says that there may be only 100
> years worth of U235 available and that we should find a way round the
> politics of using Plutonium.

> regards
Back in the 70's I was topping a field on the farm in Trawsfynydd and 
there was a helicopter flying up and down with a torpedo slung 
underneath.  I was intrigued by the fact that, as I made my way up the 
field 5 feet at a time the chopper kept pace with me passing directly 
overhead each time but travelling about 5 miles as opposed to my 100 
yards.  I couldn't work out how he was navigating so accurately and 
there was no GPS in those days I think.

Anyway, there was a piece in the local paper soon after about how it 
was mapping a national uranium reserve.  Govt was at pains to point 
out that it was considered a strategic reserve and there were no plans 
to exploit it.


-- 
Edward..
What can they know, whose talk is only of bullocks.

In message , Edward 
 writes
>Back in the 70's I was topping a field on the farm in Trawsfynydd and
>there was a helicopter flying up and down with a torpedo slung
>underneath.  I was intrigued by the fact that, as I made my way up the
>field 5 feet at a time the chopper kept pace with me passing directly
>overhead each time but travelling about 5 miles as opposed to my 100
>yards.  I couldn't work out how he was navigating so accurately and
>there was no GPS in those days I think.

Presumably the Decca Navigator system would have been available then. I 
have no idea of the accuracy obtainable.

regards

-- 
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote:

> In message , Edward
>  writes
>>Back in the 70's I was topping a field on the farm in Trawsfynydd and
>>there was a helicopter flying up and down with a torpedo slung
>>underneath.  I was intrigued by the fact that, as I made my way up the
>>field 5 feet at a time the chopper kept pace with me passing directly
>>overhead each time but travelling about 5 miles as opposed to my 100
>>yards.  I couldn't work out how he was navigating so accurately and
>>there was no GPS in those days I think.
> 
> Presumably the Decca Navigator system would have been available then. I
> have no idea of the accuracy obtainable.


OBOE was available by 1943 and located a spot quite well, then IFF (identify
friend or foe??) morphed into a way of locating a control tower and from
this LORAN was developed in the early post war years, so given 3 local
loran stations I'd guess you would precisely know your location, GPS just
extended the principle globally.

AJH

"Oz"  wrote in message 
news:oyrlU1BV3xcIFwNH@farmeroz.port995.com...
 Its not hard to spot either (pete will often
> fake headers to pretend to be a regular poster).
>
  As often Pete is the only regular poster he has to forge headers 
pretending to be himself in infinite regression..

"Derek Moody"  wrote in message 
news:ant080845b49BxcK@strongarm.dereks.pad...
 probably finding 'bent vets'
> behind every comment.  Cue paranoid rant:
>

  Perhaps we could use 'bent-vet' and politicians as source for biofuel ?
With 26 candidates for the last by- election there is clearly a gross 
surplus of the breed and a cull is well over due.

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:16:35 +0100, "Buddenbrooks"
 wrote:

>
>"Oz"  wrote in message 
>news:oyrlU1BV3xcIFwNH@farmeroz.port995.com...
> Its not hard to spot either (pete will often
>> fake headers to pretend to be a regular poster).
>>
>  As often Pete is the only regular poster he has to forge headers 
>pretending to be himself in infinite regression.. 

Who's Pete?

Somebody had to say it ;o)

He certainly worries you lot.  Even when he has not posted since he
says he was leaving for the States.

Yet in all the years you have twittered on about him, you have never
been able to confidently identify or stop him.

Strange business.

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com

Pat Gardiner wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:16:35 +0100, "Buddenbrooks"
>  wrote:
> 
>>  As often Pete is the only regular poster he has to forge headers 
>> pretending to be himself in infinite regression.. 
> 
> Who's Pete?
> 
> Somebody had to say it ;o)
> 
> He certainly worries you lot.  Even when he has not posted since he
> says he was leaving for the States.
> 
> Yet in all the years you have twittered on about him, you have never
> been able to confidently identify or stop him.
> 
> Strange business.

Indeed, that is usually the way with trolls.  You might reflect on the 
fact that nobody has bothered to positively identify and stop you either.


-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make 
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:57:37 +0100, Old Codger
 wrote:

>Pat Gardiner wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:16:35 +0100, "Buddenbrooks"
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>  As often Pete is the only regular poster he has to forge headers 
>>> pretending to be himself in infinite regression.. 
>> 
>> Who's Pete?
>> 
>> Somebody had to say it ;o)
>> 
>> He certainly worries you lot.  Even when he has not posted since he
>> says he was leaving for the States.
>> 
>> Yet in all the years you have twittered on about him, you have never
>> been able to confidently identify or stop him.
>> 
>> Strange business.
>
>Indeed, that is usually the way with trolls.  You might reflect on the 
>fact that nobody has bothered to positively identify and stop you either.

Look, don't take the fact, that the lobbyists of the Politburo have
dumped you, out on me.

I told you years ago that your libels would come home to roost. Oz and
co were never going to support you, when the chips were down. You will
have to make do with potty Moody, who can't deny the contents of his
own website, much as he might like to.

They made a mug of you. A real 100 percent prize prat.

You and your assets are in the front line and it is entirely your own
fault

You have had your moment of glory being buttered up in Oxfordshire and
quoted in Farmer's Guardian  you will now have to learn to cope with
the consequences.

 You were set up deliberately.

The government  are looking for sources of superbugs in the community.

You were deliberately libeling the man who was trying to tell the
world that the pigs carried MRSA and had been sick since 1999.

The investigators are going to be after you to see just how much you
know about the lobbying campaign against myself and others.

You will just get trampled underfoot in the Klondyke rush for some
real assets.

Live with it.

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com

In message 
          andrew  wrote:

> Tim Lamb wrote:

>> In message , Edward
>>  writes
>>>Back in the 70's I was topping a field on the farm in Trawsfynydd and
>>>there was a helicopter flying up and down with a torpedo slung
>>>underneath.  I was intrigued by the fact that, as I made my way up the
>>>field 5 feet at a time the chopper kept pace with me passing directly
>>>overhead each time but travelling about 5 miles as opposed to my 100
>>>yards.  I couldn't work out how he was navigating so accurately and
>>>there was no GPS in those days I think.
>> 
>> Presumably the Decca Navigator system would have been available then. I
>> have no idea of the accuracy obtainable.


> OBOE was available by 1943 and located a spot quite well, then IFF (identify
> friend or foe??) morphed into a way of locating a control tower and from
> this LORAN was developed in the early post war years, so given 3 local
> loran stations I'd guess you would precisely know your location, GPS just
> extended the principle globally.

> AJH
Ah, yes.  That will be it.  Thanks.

-- 
Edward..What can they know, whose talk is only of bullocks.