date:20050706



Frank,

Sweden have a higher living standard than US, according to statistics. I am 
not suggesting that it is a direct relationship between happiness and 
living standard, as it is between happiness and dumbness. Why I say this, 
is because the first I will hear when I say this, is something about living 
standard and the Swedish suicide rate. The latter is very exact in Sweden, 
contrary to catholic countries, where it is a sin to commit suicide. The 
high suicide rate is well compensated by the lower accident rate among 
Swedes and longer life expectancy. LOL


Had to say the above sooner or later, since it will be brought up, when 
something is said about the Swedish living standard.


Then to the base arguments. The Swedes use 1/3 and 1/4 of energy in 
housing, compared to US and Canada, after climate compensation. Sweden also 
have the same size relationships, when it comes to some countries in 
central and southern Europe.


The Swedes and Europeans in general, uses around 50% of the fuel in 
transportation per distance, compared to US and Canada. This without a 
general use of hybrids or hydrogen -:), but with 30 to 50% of diesel 
vehicles, compared with US with a couple of percent. Despite the higher use 
of diesel vehicles, the pollution levels per distance is lower in Europe 
than US.


It is no necessary relationship between living standard and energy use, but 
it is a clear relationship between dirtiness and energy efficiency. It is 
amazing that we need a Kyoto agreement to be clean, neat and efficient, but 
it is even more amazing that someone do not want to subscribe to it.


Hakan


At 12:44 AM 7/6/2005, you wrote:

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01C581B3.1A7EE376

Before you throw up... Can you tell us the solution?

Bio-fuel, wind, and solar are great starts on energy, but all combined are 
still a tiny drop in the bucket up against fossil fuels.


If the oil stops - we starve.
   Ties to middle east oil are likely to drag us into WWIII (consult your 
Bible  nightly news for details).
   Kyoto as it stands is nothing but a money and political power grab, I 
wouldn't support it either (and yes I have read it).
   Hydrogen/fuel cell cars are the low hanging fruit here, we can 
possibly cut auto fuel usage by 30%-40% through efficiency.


I remember the fuel crisis of the 70's that resulted minor long term changes.
Seams to me we do need a short term and long term policy...

Short term, get as far away from the evils as possible 
(environmental, political, and economic).

Long term, exploit every energy source possible.

I you have any viable real world solutions lets hear it.

O-yes, I live in Kansas where people are fighting against wind farms (we 
are a high wind state) because it disrupts their view of the country side.





-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Redler

Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 4:50 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Bush wants to shift global warming debate

OK, I've been a little preoccupied lately and haven't been able to 
contributions to recent discussions. However, one of Kieth's recent posts 
caught my attention.


Please allow me to vent.

...I'm quoting parts of Kieth's post in reverse order.

My hope is -- and I think the hope of Tony Blair is -- to move
beyond the Kyoto debate and to collaborate on new technologies that
will enable the United States and other countries to diversify away
from fossil fuels so that the air will be cleaner and that we have
the economic and national security that comes from less dependence on
foreign sources of oil, Bush said.

Bush spoke of his administration's investment of $20 billion (16.55
billion euros) in developing hydrogen-powered vehicles, zero-emission
power stations and other technology.

Bush's position shifts like the tide -- like a tide resulting from global 
warming and which might swallow Bangladesh.


He starts out with ...away from fossil fuels..., then differentiates 
who's fossil fuels with ...less dependence on foreign sources of oil. 
Finally, (In an earlier statement) he spoke of his administrations $20 
billion investment in hydrogen powered vehicles, demonstrating his 
steadfast commitment to oil interests.


He wants to project concern toward (only the most uneducated) 
environmentalists with a technology that addresses the storage of energy 
and not sustainable resources for conversion. At the same time, he chooses 
a cause which the oil industry can actively participate. Finally, a low 
emphasis on greenhouse gas emissions is an invitation for some companies 
to manufacture green products with no regard to the manufacturing 
processes and how it contributes to global warming -- thus, defeating the 
purpose.


I think I need to throw up now.

Mike

___
Biofuel mailing list

Re: [Biofuel] UK biodiesel noobie


Hello John, welcome

I live in the UK and want to start making my own biodiesel.  The 
recipes I've seen generally come from the US


No they don't, not if it's the Journey to Forever website you've been 
looking at. Mike Pelly's does, but not the others.



and contain products that I cant find over in the UK.


People have just the same problem in the US, and everywhere else too.


Does anybody know where to get the UK alternatives from?


Yes, in the list archives. For instance, re methanol:


Try Ellis  Everard.
I only know their Exeter branch, 01392 444108. I know they can supply but
haven't bought any from them.

Methonex in the north east are the manufacturers but they won't deal with
individuals.

There is an ellis and Everard in Nuneaton, just north of Coventry, 
just off junction 3 of the M6, if that helps


There is a company called Ellis  Everard and they can supply in 200
litre drums and cost is in region of £168 (methanol, delivery, drum
charge and vat).

The number for Cumbernald office is 01236 732711, don't know if this
is near you but you can see if they have a branch in your area.

Hays 01582 560055 min. order£100 Methanol
25 litre £14.20 +VAT
205l £88.30 + VAT Caustic Soda £15/25kg
Citric acid £34/25kg

Jennychem 01634 290770

Monarch 01795 58

Try Jennychem 016934 290770
I checked these and they are very good.They are really
interested in customers and offering a good price.

Racing Methanol in the UK is about £3 a gallon (4.54L).

 Try albion Chemicals,
 Approx £90 per 205L drum

I used a company called 'Almetron' in Wrexham. They charged about 
£14 per 25litre drum plus vat.


http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
biofuel

Lye is abailable at hardware stores, used as drain-cleaner - make 
sure it's pure sodium hydroxide. If you want to use KOH instead, 
potassium hydroxide, go to a laboratory supplies company, where 
you'll also get isopropanol. You might be able to get pure 
isopropanol from a pharmacy.



I'd be glad of the recipe and any tips etc to start me on my project.


Start here:
Where do I start?
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html#start

Best wishes

Keith




Thanks

John



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] UK biodiesel noobie


Hello Sam


Hi John,

The Low Impact Living Initiative (see http://www.lowimpact.org.uk 
for  their site) has recently published a book called How to Make 
Biodiesel  which I received about two weeks ago (you can order it 
from their website  for £8.95). As well as procedures, equipment 
lists etc, it also provides  long lists of UK suppliers of all the 
necessary ingredients and kit,


Now why don't they just put that on their website?

Actually they seem to have got a lot of their material from the 
Journey to Forever site anyway, they wrote to me about it a couple of 
times, asking me questions: I must start by congratulatiing you on 
producing THE most comprehensive biodiesel / liquid biofuel website 
in the world. LOL!


But we wouldn't let them put Mike Pelly's page and so on in their 
book and sell it, as they wanted to do on the grounds that they're a 
not-for-profit environmental organisation. I told them: We are also 
a not-for-profit and involved in education work, and it costs us a 
lot more than nothing to provide the material free-of-charge at our 
website. If you want to offer it on your website, you can do the 
same, free-of-charge, with a link to us as above, or just provide the 
link.


I'm sorry they didn't do that, it would have been more useful. At 
£120 and up their courses aren't exactly cheap.


and  goes into considerations for setting up a commercial biodiesel 
operation  in the UK. Not much use to me, as I live in the 
Netherlands, but my  girlfriend and I will be going on their weekend 
biodiesel course from  22nd-24th July at their site North West of 
London. See you there?


Good luck with it, I hope it goes well.

Best wishes

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
KYOTO Pref., Japan
http://journeytoforever.org/




Cheers,


Sam


On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 09:59:26 +0200, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I live in the UK and want to start making my own biodiesel.  The 
recipes  I've seen generally come from the US and contain products 
that I cant  find over in the UK.  Does anybody know where to get 
the UK alternatives  from?  I'd be glad of the recipe and any tips 
etc to start me on my  project.


Thanks

John




--
Sam Critchley - mailing-list address
A2B Location-Based Search Engine - http://www.a2b.cc
- Find websites near a geographical location
- Search using a GPS device or from a map
- Register your blog and see your neighbours in blogland



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] fuel efficient cars and motorcycles

2005-07-06 Thread Busyditch




Hi Chris
Gearing may be through a trans or torque converter 
belt drive (snowmobile) I have a Norton Commando basket case with a tranny 
(these bikes were not "unit" engines, the trans is seperate)I imagine using a 
smaller bike such as Honda 350cc or so.There areseveral bike shops 
nearby who may have one sitting around I can use asa donor .I read on 
Biofuel about someone who put a 10 hp diesel in a Geo Metro. It took all day to 
get it up to 55 MPH, but it got well over 100 MPG. So 6 hp ,may be adequate. I 
plan on using it as a commuter, as I live 3 miles from work. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Chris 
  To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 10:04 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [Biofuel] fuel efficient 
  cars and motorcycles
  
  Wow, cool. Thats really interesting, i'm big into 
  engines and mechcanics in general. Will 6HP be enough, or by motorcycle do you 
  mean large scooter? What about gearing? what bike are you planning on putting 
  it in? 
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Busyditch 

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org 

Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 9:12 
PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] fuel efficient 
cars and motorcycles
Ha I guess this is called Synchronicity. I just won this 
diesel engine onebay and plan on installing it in a motorcycle frame. I 
do not have a donorbike yet, but I do have some ideas.http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=29520item=4367731706rd=1- 
Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: 
Friday, July 01, 2005 9:46 PMSubject: Re: [Biofuel] fuel efficient cars 
and motorcycles todd, that's awesome! curiously, i've 
been pondering this very concept--a diesel-powered 
motorbike--recently. i figured it had to have been done 
somewhere by someone. best fo luck! -chris 
b. 
___ Biofuel mailing 
list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org 
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org 
Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html 
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives 
(50,000messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/___Biofuel 
mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel 
at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch 
the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
  
  

  ___Biofuel mailing 
  listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel 
  at Journey to 
  Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the 
  combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
  messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

RE: [Biofuel] Bush wants to shift global warming debate

2005-07-06 Thread Chris Lloyd

 Sweden have a higher living standard than US, according to statistics.
I am 
not suggesting that it is a direct relationship between happiness and 
living standard, as it is between happiness and dumbness. Why I say
this, 
is because the first I will hear when I say this, is something about
living 
standard and the Swedish suicide rate. The latter is very exact in
Sweden, 
contrary to catholic countries, where it is a sin to commit suicide. The

high suicide rate is well compensated by the lower accident rate among 
Swedes and longer life expectancy. 

Beer is around $10 a pint and spirits up to $50 no wonder the suicide
rate is so high.   Chris. 

Wessex Ferret Club  (http://www.wessexferretclub.co.uk)

 


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.9/41 - Release Date: 05/07/2005
 


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] UK biodiesel noobie

2005-07-06 Thread michael hicks

You can buy Methanol from Jenny chem 01634 290770 and b Q do NaOh granuals. Have a look on uk chemical supply sites sum only deliver if you are a business so be prepared.
Myke.John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




I live in the UK and want to start making my own biodiesel. The recipes I've seen generally come from the US and contain products that I cant find over in the UK. Does anybody know where to get the UK alternatives from? I'd be glad of the recipe and any tips etc to start me on my project.

Thanks

John___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
		How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! 
Photos___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Bush wants to shift global warming debate

2005-07-06 Thread Go Hoff

Snip. 
 high suicide rate is well compensated by the lower accident rate among
 Swedes and longer life expectancy. 
 
 Beer is around $10 a pint and spirits up to $50 no wonder the suicide
 rate is so high.   Chris.
 
 Wessex Ferret Club  (http://www.wessexferretclub.co.uk)

Yes, but a lot of people make their own, many, many, many more than are into
biodiesel!

Cheers! 



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

RE: [Biofuel] Bush wants to shift global warming debate



and accident rate so low. -:)

Hakan


At 01:09 PM 7/6/2005, you wrote:

 Sweden have a higher living standard than US, according to statistics.
I am
not suggesting that it is a direct relationship between happiness and
living standard, as it is between happiness and dumbness. Why I say
this,
is because the first I will hear when I say this, is something about
living
standard and the Swedish suicide rate. The latter is very exact in
Sweden,
contrary to catholic countries, where it is a sin to commit suicide. The

high suicide rate is well compensated by the lower accident rate among
Swedes and longer life expectancy. 

Beer is around $10 a pint and spirits up to $50 no wonder the suicide
rate is so high.   Chris.

Wessex Ferret Club  (http://www.wessexferretclub.co.uk)




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.9/41 - Release Date: 05/07/2005



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/




___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 45 gallons of cream(part 2)

2005-07-06 Thread Appal Energy


Brent,

First we've heard of adding methanol to break an emulsion. But then 
again, anything hydrophillic, if it works. Congratulations.


You are aware, however, that methanol boils at 145*F? You were very 
close to having instantaneous vaporization when you added it. Hopefully 
you're working with a sealed reactor with an appropriately sized vent to 
the exterior of your work space. If not, a few more degrees could have 
been disastrous beyond your belief.


As for the thin layer? Chances are more than good that it's soap. This 
seems to happen more often with the use of sodium hydroxide than with 
potassium hydroxide.


The suggestion would be to isolate a sample of the fuel without this 
component layer and conduct a sample washing to see if your emulsion 
reoccurs. It's as safe a bet as any that it will, indicating that your 
reaction didn't reach sufficient completion and it's partially reacted 
glycerides that are causing your emulsion. If so, you'll need to conduct 
another transesterification to complete the reaction prior to washing in 
earnest.


Todd Swearingen


Brent S wrote:

Just a note from my last post. I took the temp of my failure to 140F 
and then had a brainwave to add more methanol. I added 4 liters to the 
45 gallons. I had almost imediate separation down to about 4 from the 
top. A thin layer also was floating on top. Any ideas?


Brent



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/





___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] How many trees were killed to build your home ?





Hi Chris;


  
  
  <>Granted a mature forest supports a 

  <>different ecology than a second growth but
for instance studies have 

  <>shown that there is more food for bears in
a clearcut zone than there is 

  
in a mature forest.

  
  
i don't see the relevance of this.  you could make the same argument for 
garbage dumps.  does that mean we should be sending all these huge barges full of 
waste to the canadian wilderness?  who conducted these studies? and who funded 
them?

  

Well here in Canada there is a very strong movement for the
preservation of wildlife habitat and bears are a favorite focus point.
The welfare of bears seems to have become a symbol of environmental
awareness for some folks, so much so that due to restrictions in
hunting regulations we have a situation in northern Ontario where bears
are litterally trying to break in to people's houses. There is a
misguided notion that clearcutting forests puts the bear population at
risk and this is clearly an example of public misinformation which is
gladly exploited by those who would like to see all logging in this
country put to an end. I admit I don't know about the details of the
studies I mentioned but I can get references. I am speaking from
experience though. I spend a lot of time roaming around the forests of
this country and I have come across bears many times and often enough
to have a general sense of the likelihood and frequency of such
encounters in a remote forest of Canada be it hardwood, softwood or
boreal. Let me tell you walking around in a clearcut in northern B.C.
is a different experience where it is routine to see bears EVERY DAY
and often several times a day, so much so that it requires a different
attitude to being out there. Clearcutting results in a more plentiful
food supply for bears so much so that they are beginning to
overpopulate which is also not natural and is a problem in itself ( for
people AND bears). I used this example not to say that clearcutting is
good but rather just to illustrate that there are misconceptions about
the lumber industry destroying habitat and threatening the extinction
of bears which are pervasive and obviously untrue. I guess I can't
blame ecoterrorist mouthpieces like David Suzuki for using the same
fear mongering and disinformation tactics to arouse us that the wealthy
commonly use to keep us all hypnotized with our faces in the food
trough of excess. But I don't have to like it.

  
forest fires have been sending co2 into the atmosphere for millenia, but that 
isn't what has precipitated global warming.  furhtermore, in the case of 
north america, fire has been one of the primary evolutionary forces.  the 
ecosystem of this continent has a sort of co-dependency with fire; sort of like a 
purging/renewal mechanism.  in fact, there are certain conifers which need the 
high tempatures of a wildfire for their cones to open and release the seeds.
  

Yes the Jack Pine cone requires heat to release it's seeds and after a
fire a similar thing happens to the burnt area due to opening up the
forest floor to sunlight as what happens after mature trees are removed
although the ground is not torn up and looking like an ugly wound on
the earth as a clearcut does. ( If you've never seen one up close you
can't imagine how ugly it is). Many scrub plants and berry bushes
suddenly shoot up where they couldn't grow before due to lack of light.
You are right that fire does beneficial things but my point was that
something useful to human life is also lost and we still have the need
for it so we will still take it from somewhere else resulting in
deforestation in two places. If we were to go in and selectively
remove the largest trees which are most likely to get a lightning
strike and have the most board feet of lumber we can reduce the loss to
fire, keep that CO2 sequestered, and make use of the wood
simultaneously. More and more this is becoming an approach the logging
industry is taking. It is more costly than clearcutting and hence
would result in an increase in luber costs for the consumer which is
something I eagerly applaud. I smile when I consider the day when our
cost of living will skyrocket in this society. As it should.

Having said this I also want to say that I agree we should set asside
certain areas like the old growth coastal rain forests with the huge
douglas firs and sitka spruce that escaped the last glaciation and are
something truely wonderful to behold and spend time in just as we do
with other natural wonders.


  
i don't know about this, but i've kind of always assumed that a plant's 
'oxygen cycle' and 'co2 cycle' pretty much cancel each other out.  but there's no 
denying that trees sequester large quantities of carbon (breaking down co2 to 
do so, no?).
  

Yeah if only humans were as smart as plants

Joe


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org

Re: [Biofuel] Biofuel as a rural community developement project in Belize


Hello Dennis, welcome

I am in the process of doing the same in Belize, Central America. I 
have some land and want to grow Jatropha and encourage the local 
people to grow it as a cash crop to help the local economy and ease 
the high price of fuel there.


Why jatropha? Better to use crops the local people have some 
experience of, more important than allegedly high yields. Please see 
this recent message (in the same thread):


http://sustainablelists.org/pipermail/biofuel_sustainablelists.org/200 
5-July/000989.html

[Biofuel] Biofuel as a rural community development project in Mozambique

Or:
http://snipurl.com/g2cn

Anyway, depending on climate and growing conditions, the high yields 
vary, all the way down to low yields. This is from Dr Karve in India:



From: A.D. Karve [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Harmon Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Jatropha oil as household energy (forwarding Henning)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 21:29:28 +0530

Dear Mr. Seaver,
I have conducted field experiments on both castor and Jatropha.  I had
already mentioned in a previous E-mail, that Jatropha was tested rather
widely in India and was given up because it was not found to be as high
yielding as the traditional oil crops in India.  I do not know how it
behaves in other countries, but under our agroclimatic and edaphic
conditions, Jatropha produces much more vegetative matter than fruits.  At
harvest, one has to search for the occasional fruit hidden behind all the
foliage that this plant produces.  It is found all over India as a wild
plant.  India has some 25 uncultivated species of trees that yield
non-edible oil. The seed of the wild trees is collected by villagers and
sold to merchants attending the weekly village markets, but no farmer would
ever think of growing them as a crop, because all of them are lower yielding
than the cultivated oil plants such as peanut, soybean, sunflower,
safflower, sesame, various mustards and rapes, coconut, etc. Among the
seasonal oilseeds, hybrid castor is the highest yielding (2.5 tonnes oil per
ha), but it is not an edible oil. The highest yield of edible oil, also
about 2.5 tonnes per ha, is obtained from coconut. Oil palm, which yields 6
tonnes of oil per hectare in Malaysia,  was tested and given up as low
yielding under Indian conditions.
Yours A.D.Karve


http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg48290.html
[biofuels-biz] Fwd: Re: Jatropha oil as household energy

The fact that the jatropha seedcake can't be fed to livestock is a 
big disadvantage.


Anyone know of where to find a good seed oil press for a third world 
application? Also, is there a place where I find a plant oil cooking 
stove? What is known about using palm nut/coconut oil for as veggie 
oil in a diesel engine?


Do a search of the list archives.

For palm oil, no problem processing it into biodiesel, but it's a 
warm-weather fuel, the gel point is quite high. If it's unrefined 
palm oil, straight from the palm, it's likely to have a very high 
Free Fatty Acid content, but it can still be processed (not for 
novices though). Do a search for Allen and check the thread called 
High FFA oils - another way and associated threads:

http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuels-biz/

If you mean using it as straight vegetable oil fuel (not biodiesel), 
please see:


http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_SVO-Allen.html
Straighter-than-straight vegetable oils as diesel fuels


There is a wild palm nut in Belize that might be used as a biofuel.


What's the full name of it? The African oil palm is Elaeis guineensis:
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/duke_energy/Elaeis_guineensis.html
Elaeis guineensis

It's native to West Africa, where it grows wild. Maybe it grows well 
in Belize, or maybe not.


The Attalea cohune palm or Orbignya cohune, the American oil palm, is 
native to Central America, but information on its oil yield potential 
is not so easy to find.


Best wishes

Keith



Thanks,

Dennis






From: Armando R [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Biofuel as a rural community development 
projectinMozambique

Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:58:09 +0200

Alexis,

With the current oil prices I am sure many things can be done in rural
communities in Mozambique in the area of biofuels.
I would leave fuel ethanol for the sugar cane factories to produce. It can
be mixed up to 10% in gasoline as the Malawians are doing, apparently.

The rural poor buy kerosene (and sometimes gasoil) for illumination at very
high prices, above USD1000,00 per cubic metre in many remote areas, were
vegetable oil (coconut oil for instance) could be used. This would be a very
small-scale project, but the local alternative price of the raw material
should be investigated. I have done some calculations on coconut oil and
found out that the raw material (copra) is the most important single cost in
the production of oil.
The vegetable oil could also be used in

Re: [Biofuel] Will Brazilian Flex Fuel Device work on American Cars?


Skipperx wrote:

Dear Ethanol users,
 
The below information (re: modifications to car to run on ethanol) is 
incorrect in my experience. I live in Brazil and I export conversion kit 
(petrol to ethanol) to Australia. Kits in Australia are being used in 
both vehicles manufactured by both Holden (GM) and Ford. Here in Brazil 
the kits are used in Fiats, VW's, GM's, Ford's, Nissan, Honda's, etc, 
etc. with NO modifications; that is on MULTI POINT fuel injection 
vehicles. These included 4, 6 and 8 cylinder cars.


This is consistent with the Flextek company statements.
 
There is no need to increase the compression of petrol engines vehicles 
produced in the past 5 years or so. The new engines in car produced 
today have higher compression ratings than in the past. Not as high as 
the flex power engines, but higher than previous petrol engines.


	I believe you are misunderstanding what I'm trying to communicate. 
Here's what I wrote:


It would also be helpful to increase compression pressure by some 
means, if ethanol will be the primary fuel.


Helpful is not mandatory.  A conversion certainly doesn't have to have 
its compression pressure increased.  Ethanol is, however, more 
resistant to spontaneous combustion and as a result, can be squeezed 
harder without risk of detonation.  This will improve the thermal 
efficiency and power of the engine.  Much research supports this idea, 
and I have a lot of experience running gaseous fuels in converted 
gasoline engines to substantiate my claim.



There will be a need to change the fuel pump at some stage (2 to 5 
years) as the ethanol corrodes the copper used on the bushes of the 
pump. The ethanol pumps use graphite instead of copper, and silver wires 
instead of copper wires. It costs about US$ 50.


This makes sense.  Thank you for clarifying.


I wouldn't bother trying to change a carburetor based engine, these 
engines were always a hassle for cold starting even here in Brasil where 
it is quite warm (compared to Canada) all year round, and where the big 
car amnufacturers here producing 100's of thousands of units. The 
conversion kits can come with small ptrol tanks (1 litre) which is used 
for cold starting.


	Most of the information that's been available for ethanol conversions 
in North America was published in the 1970's and 1980's, when 
carburetors were still the dominant fuel management system on 
automobiles.  Within the last few months, a trickle of information 
concerning electronic fuel management for ethanol conversions has 
become available.  I would really like to run my truck on ethanol, if 
the legal issues can be worked out.




robert luis rabello
The Edge of Justice
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

RE: [Biofuel] Bush wants to shift global warming debate

2005-07-06 Thread Michael Redler

"Can you tell us the solution?" and "I you have any viable real world solutions lets hear it." tells me that you've missed the point.

If you are the president of the United States and you're going to sell an alternative energy idea to your country, don't serve it to them half baked.My original post didn't make an argument for, or against a certain technology. It did however challenge his prioreties and the technical accuracy of hydrogen as an alternative to fossil fuels. A legitimate comparison issimply impossible because one is a source of energy and the other is a methodfor storing it. If you doubt this argument, ask yourself a question. What is the net energy gain of hydrogen as fuel? I'll give you a hint -- It's a negative number.

Despite your questions being unrelated, I'll address them anyway:

"Can you tell us the solution?" -- If there was "a" solution, you wouldn't need this forum or JTF. The reason we are all here is to discuss the possibilities and develop a consensus -- a process with only a beginning and no end.

"I you have any viable real world solutions lets hear it." -- I never implied that I have/had an all encompassing, "real world" solution. However, I do what I can to contribute as much as possible to this forum and listen to those who contribute to myeducation. Thisallowsme to further contribute and continue the cycle.

Finally: "Ties to middle east oil are likely to drag us into WWIII (consult your Bible nightly news for details)."

If you really believe that consulting my Bible or nightly news will help me find a solution to our energy problems, you're in the wrong forum. This kind of narrow mindedness implies that Christianity is the only path to enlightenment (and that I own a bible). This makes you a religious zealot. You're trust in the nightly news (despite discussions in this forum regarding the so called "main stream media") implies that you believe the white washed, corporate driven journalism that is carefully packaged and sold to us as news from "the free press".

MikeFrank Dungan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Before you throw up... Can you tell us the solution?

Bio-fuel, wind, and solar are great starts on energy, but all combined are still a tiny drop in the bucket up against fossil fuels.

If the oil stops - we starve.
Ties to middle east oil are likely to drag us into WWIII (consult your Bible nightly news for details).
Kyoto as it stands is nothing but a money and politicalpower grab, I wouldn't support it either (and yes I have read it).
Hydrogen/fuel cell cars are the low hanging fruit here, we can possibly cut auto fuelusage by30%-40%through efficiency.

I remember the fuel crisis of the 70's that resulted minor long term changes.
Seams to me we do need a short term and long term policy...

Short term, get as far away from the evils as possible (environmental,political, and economic).
Long term, exploit every energy source possible.

I you have any viable real world solutions lets hear it.

O-yes, I live in Kansas wherepeople are fighting against wind farms (we are a high wind state) because it disrupts their view of the country side.

-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Michael RedlerSent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 4:50 PMTo: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: Re: [Biofuel] Bush wants to shift global warming debate

OK, I've been a little preoccupied lately and haven't been able tocontributions to recent discussions. However, one of Kieth's recent postscaught my attention.
Please allow me to vent.
...I'm quoting parts of Kieth's post in reverse order.
"My hope is -- and I think the hope of Tony Blair is -- to move beyond the Kyoto debate and to collaborate on new technologies that will enable the United States and other countries to diversify away from fossil fuels so that the air will be cleaner and that we have the economic and national security that comes from less dependence on foreign sources of oil," Bush said."Bush spoke of his administration's investment of $20 billion (16.55 billion euros) in developing hydrogen-powered vehicles, zero-emission power stations and other technology."
Bush's position shifts like the tide -- like atideresultingfrom global warming and which might swallow Bangladesh.He starts out with "...away from fossil fuels...", then differentiates who's fossil fuels with "...less dependence on foreign sources of oil". Finally, (In an earlier statement) he spoke of his administrations$20 billion investmentin hydrogen powered vehicles, demonstratinghis steadfast commitment to oil interests.
He wants to projectconcern toward (only the mostuneducated) environmentalists with a technology that addresses the storage of energy and not sustainable resourcesfor conversion. At the same time, he chooses a cause which the oil industry can actively participate. Finally, a low emphasis on greenhouse gas emissions is an invitation for some companies to manufacture "green" products with no

Re: [Biofuel] How many trees were killed to build your home ?



Joe,

Only a couple of complementary things,

The Elk an Moose also like clear cut, but they are very bad for
forest management. They eat the top of the newly planted trees.

Clear cuts are also bad, since it often result in that the top soil
is washed down the streams and over fertilize them. this in its
turn results in greater vulnerability to the acid rains from industrial
areas, that kills our lakes. The only reason for clear cut, is the
adoption to modern machinery.

Proper forest management was developed in Southern Germany
around 200 years ago and was implemented in Sweden 150 years
ago. It has proven its viability, but clear cut was not a part of the
those methods.

Why we get a large amount of bushes etc. in clear cuts, is not
because of more sunlight, it is because a lack of pines to control
the vegetation. The pine tree is releasing chemicals from the needles
it drops, that limit the under vegetation and give the pines the
space  and nutrition to grow. It is their way of fighting the competition
and only allow species that are good for them.

Fires have always been a natural part of the forest cycle, to keep
the ground relatively clean and add nutrients. This is also done in
good forest management, which starts to be a thing of the past and
had to give way for the use of large machines.

All of this and much more, are to be found in the biofuel archives
from earlier extensive discussions. No need to repeat it in full.

Harvesting properly managed forests for building material, has been
proven viable for more than 150 years. We are also killing plants
for food like bread etc. and the way the subject provoke is misleading
and ignorant. We even kill animals to eat, but the real abuse is not
that we kill them, it is often worse with the way we let them live.

Hakan



At 04:15 PM 7/6/2005, you wrote:

Hi Chris;






Granted a mature forest supports a
different ecology than a second growth but for instance studies have
shown that there is more food for bears in a clearcut zone than there is

in a mature forest.




i don't see the relevance of this.  you could make the same argument for
garbage dumps.  does that mean we should be sending all these huge barges 
full of
waste to the canadian wilderness?  who conducted these studies? and who 
funded

them?


Well here in Canada there is a very strong movement for the preservation 
of wildlife habitat and bears are a favorite focus point. The welfare of 
bears seems to have become a symbol of environmental awareness for some 
folks, so much so that due to restrictions in hunting regulations we have 
a situation in northern Ontario where bears are litterally trying to break 
in to people's houses.  There is a misguided notion that clearcutting 
forests puts the bear population at risk and this is clearly an example of 
public misinformation which is gladly exploited by those who would like to 
see all logging in this country put to an end.  I admit I don't know about 
the details of the studies I mentioned but I can get references. I am 
speaking from experience though. I spend a lot of time roaming around the 
forests of this country and I have come across bears many times and often 
enough to have a general sense of the likelihood  and frequency of such 
encounters in a remote  forest of Canada be it hardwood, softwood or 
boreal.  Let me tell you walking around in a clearcut in northern B.C. is 
a different experience where it is routine to see bears EVERY DAY and 
often several times a day, so much so that it requires a different 
attitude to being out there.  Clearcutting results in a more plentiful 
food supply for bears so much so that they are beginning to overpopulate 
which is also not natural and is a problem in itself ( for people AND 
bears).  I used this example not to say that clearcutting is good but 
rather just to illustrate that there are misconceptions about the lumber 
industry destroying habitat and threatening the extinction of bears which 
are pervasive and obviously untrue.  I guess I can't blame ecoterrorist 
mouthpieces like David Suzuki for using the same fear mongering and 
disinformation tactics to arouse us that the wealthy commonly use to keep 
us all hypnotized with our faces in the food trough of excess.  But I 
don't have to like it.



forest fires have been sending co2 into the atmosphere for millenia, but 
that

isn't what has precipitated global warming.  furhtermore, in the case of
north america, fire has been one of the primary evolutionary forces.  the
ecosystem of this continent has a sort of co-dependency with fire; sort 
of like a
purging/renewal mechanism.  in fact, there are certain conifers which 
need the

high tempatures of a wildfire for their cones to open and release the seeds.

Yes the Jack Pine cone requires heat to release it's seeds and after a 
fire a similar thing happens to the burnt area due to opening up the 
forest floor to sunlight as what happens after mature trees are removed 
although

[Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again

2005-07-06 Thread John Hayes

Thanks to a post at TDIclub, I discovered that Pimentel has released yet 
another report on ethanol. Looking at the dates below, he's a month 
ahead of schedule this year.


http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/03/8.14.03/Pimentel-ethanol.html

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/01/8.23.01/Pimentel-ethanol.html

I can't speak to this newest report, but as long time readers of this 
list already know, Pimental's work has been repeatedly critiqued, and 
one of the main compliants it that he uses out of date numbers for yield 
and conversion efficiency. Here's a few links:


http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ethanol/balance.html

http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-814.pdf

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_rooster.html

http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf

http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm

All that having been said, Pimental is right that soy and corn alone 
cannot replace our petroleum addiction


jh

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Bush wants to shift global warming debate







  
  

I you have any viable real world solutions lets
hear it.
  
  

Excuse me while I put my jack boots on

How about we hijack the mainstream media and start brainwashing people
with the notion that life is not about immediate gratification. (Don't
expect the sheeple of america to go searching for the truth on the
internet - no they need to be spoonfed) That there is a cost involved
in everything we do, every choice we make, and that they need to
consider that they might expect to live with less so that others can
live with something. That we collectively in the developed world are
complicit in all the death, suffering and destruction that takes place
in this world, as a result of turning a blind eye while supporting the
the selfish exploitive practices that bring all the above into
existence in this world. That they are voting with thier dollars and
currently they are voting for their own worst enemies and by doing so
are creating a sense of hatred in other places in the minds of
terrorists ( or is it freedom fighters I forget? ) who are attacking
them as a result. Once we have people convinced to lower thier standard
of living we can then mobilize them to kick the bastards out and enact
a worldwide system of referendum to decide how we proceed with issues
that need to be addressed. Here's a novel idea; we could even call it
the united nation or something stupid like that. Heck we could spread
some nukes around so that everyone at the table gets an equal share of
respect while we're at it. Yeah there's nothing like the respect you
get when you pull up your chair and lay your .45 down on the discussion
table beside you. So how do you like me so far?

Jack boots offflame suit on.

Joe


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again

2005-07-06 Thread Appal Energy


 All that having been said, Pimental is right that soy
 and corn alone cannot replace our petroleum addiction

Essentially, soybeans are not grown for their oil value. They're grown 
for the feed value, whether human destined or livestock. The oil is more 
a co-product, almost waste product in some respect. If oilseeds are to 
be grown for liquid fuel replacement, the focus must be on higher 
yielding crops, with a mix of others such as soy to meet the feed meal 
demands of populations.


Were it not for the excessive demand for feed meal placed by the 
livestock industry, soy would not be the oilseed of predomenance. Reduce 
the meat centered diet to one that treats meat as a delicacy rather than 
a mainstay and vast acreages could be diverted to liquid fuel production 
and cellulosic ethanol production rather than feed meal.


Todd Swearingen

John Hayes wrote:

Thanks to a post at TDIclub, I discovered that Pimentel has released 
yet another report on ethanol. Looking at the dates below, he's a 
month ahead of schedule this year.


http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/03/8.14.03/Pimentel-ethanol.html

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/01/8.23.01/Pimentel-ethanol.html

I can't speak to this newest report, but as long time readers of this 
list already know, Pimental's work has been repeatedly critiqued, and 
one of the main compliants it that he uses out of date numbers for 
yield and conversion efficiency. Here's a few links:


http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ethanol/balance.html

http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-814.pdf

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_rooster.html

http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf 



http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm

All that having been said, Pimental is right that soy and corn alone 
cannot replace our petroleum addiction


jh

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/





___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Wastewater Use In Irrigated Agriculture -- Confronting the Livelihood and Environmental Realities


http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-31595-201-1-DO_TOPIC
International Development Research Centre

WASTEWATER USE IN IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE
Confronting the Livelihood and Environmental Realities
 Book(s) 8 of 180

WASTEWATER USE IN IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE
Confronting the Livelihood and Environmental Realities

Edited by Christopher Scott, Naser I. Faruqui, and Liqa Raschid

CABI/IWMI/IDRC 2004
ISBN 1-55250-112-4
206 pp.

Download:
http://web.idrc.ca/openebooks/112-4/
  

The use of urban wastewater in agriculture is a centuries-old 
practice that is receiving renewed attention with the increasing 
scarcity of fresh water resources in many arid and semi-arid regions 
of the world. Driven by rapid urbanization and growing wastewater 
volumes, wastewater is widely used as a low-cost alternative to 
conventional irrigation water: it supports livelihoods and generates 
considerable value in urban and peri-urban agriculture despite the 
associated health and environmental risks. Though pervasive, this 
practice is largely unregulated in low-income countries, and the 
costs and benefits are poorly understood.


This book critically reviews experience worldwide in the use of 
wastewater for agriculture through a series of peer-reviewed papers 
defining and elaborating on the issues at the centre of the debate 
around wastewater use in agriculture. Particular emphasis is placed 
on untreated wastewater use by means of field-based case studies from 
Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America that address the 
environmental and health impacts and risks. In a first step toward 
better understanding the global extent of wastewater use in 
agriculture, a methodology is developed and applied for selected 
countries to quantify the magnitude of wastewater use in agriculture. 
The chapters consider multiple aspects including the economic, 
health, agronomic, environmental, institutional, and policy 
dimensions and research needs. The editors conclude with a prognosis 
of future challenges and realities of wastewater use in agriculture.


THE EDITORS



Christopher Scott is South Asia Regional Director for the 
International Water Management Institute. Dr Scott is a hydrologist 
with over 15 years of research experience in applied hydrology and 
water resources. He has worked on issues related to wastewater 
irrigation, water reuse, and water quality in Mexico, India, Nepal, 
Jordan, and the United States over the past 9 years.




Naser Faruqui, Senior Specialist (Water) for the International 
Development Research Centre, is an environmental engineer with over 
16 years experience in water resources management, water supply and 
treatment, and wastewater treatment and use. Since 1995, he has 
focused his research on more efficient and equitable water use in 
developing countries, principally in the Middle East and West Africa.




Liqa Raschid is the Coordinator of the Wastewater and Agriculture 
Program at the International Water Management Institute. She is an 
environmental engineer with over 18 years experience in the planning 
and management of environmental pollution control. She has worked 
extensively on wastewater agriculture issues in both Africa and Asia.


 Book(s) 8 of 180

Document(s)

Contributors 2004

Acknowledgements 2004

1. Wastewater Use in Irrigated Agriculture: Management Challenges in 
Developing Countries C.A. Scott1, N.I. Faruqui2 and L. Raschid-Sally3 
2004


2. A Framework for a Global Assessment of the Extent of Wastewater 
Irrigation: The Need for a Common Wastewater Typology Wim van der 
Hoek 2004


3. A Sustainable Livelihoods Approach for Action Research on 
Wastewater Use in Agriculture Stephanie J. Buechler 2004


4. Health Guidelines for the Use of Wastewater in Agriculture: 
Developing Realistic Guidelines R.M. Carr1, U.J. Blumenthal2 and D.D. 
Mara3 2004


5. A Fresh Look at Microbial Guidelines for Wastewater Irrigation in 
Agriculture: A Risk-assessment and Cost-effectiveness Approach Badri 
Fattal1, Yael Lampert2 and Hillel Shuval1 2004


6. Wastewater Irrigation - Hazard or Lifeline? Empirical Results from 
Nairobi, Kenya and Kumasi, Ghana G.A. Cornish and N.C. Kielen 2004


7. National Assessments on Wastewater Use in Agriculture and an 
Emerging Typology: The Vietnam Case Study L. Raschid-Sally1, Doan 
Doan Tuan2 and Sarath Abayawardana1 2004


8. Wastewater Use in Pakistan: The Cases of Haroonabad and Faisalabad 
Jeroen H.J. Ensink1, R.W. Simmons2 and Wim van der Hoek3 2004


9. Agricultural Use of Untreated Urban Wastewater in Ghana B.N. 
Keraita and P. Drechsel 2004


10. Untreated Wastewater Use in Market Gardens: A Case Study of 
Dakar, Senegal N.I. Faruqui1, S. Niang2 and M. Redwood1 2004


11. Wastewater Irrigation in Vadodara, Gujarat, India: Economic 
Catalyst for Marginalised Communities Vaibhav Bhamoriya 2004


12. The Use of Wastewater in Cochabamba, Bolivia: A Degrading 
Environment Frans P. Huibers1, Oscar Moscoso2, Alfredo Durán3 and 
Jules B. van Lier4 2004


13.

Re: [Biofuel] How many trees were killed to build your home ?


Hi Hakan


Joe,

Only a couple of complementary things,

The Elk an Moose also like clear cut, but they are very bad for
forest management. They eat the top of the newly planted trees.

Clear cuts are also bad, since it often result in that the top soil
is washed down the streams and over fertilize them. this in its
turn results in greater vulnerability to the acid rains from industrial
areas, that kills our lakes. The only reason for clear cut, is the
adoption to modern machinery.

Proper forest management was developed in Southern Germany
around 200 years ago and was implemented in Sweden 150 years
ago.


Round the same time in Britain I think. In most of Europe in various 
forms, I suppose. Anyway, sustainable forest management, very 
productive, good for the local economy.



It has proven its viability, but clear cut was not a part of the
those methods.

Why we get a large amount of bushes etc. in clear cuts, is not
because of more sunlight, it is because a lack of pines to control
the vegetation. The pine tree is releasing chemicals from the needles
it drops, that limit the under vegetation and give the pines the
space  and nutrition to grow. It is their way of fighting the competition
and only allow species that are good for them.

Fires have always been a natural part of the forest cycle, to keep
the ground relatively clean and add nutrients. This is also done in
good forest management, which starts to be a thing of the past and
had to give way for the use of large machines.

All of this and much more, are to be found in the biofuel archives
from earlier extensive discussions. No need to repeat it in full.

Harvesting properly managed forests for building material, has been
proven viable for more than 150 years. We are also killing plants
for food like bread etc. and the way the subject provoke is misleading
and ignorant. We even kill animals to eat, but the real abuse is not
that we kill them, it is often worse with the way we let them live.


Yes... But also with how we kill them (see below). And how we feed 
them, and how we deal with the wastes. Or at least with how the 
agribusiness corporations do it.


Best wishes

Keith


THE
AGRIBUSINESS
EXAMINER
July 5,, 2005, Issue #412
Monitoring Corporate Agribusiness
From a Public Interest Perspective

Exclusive:
Best Chicken Killer In Arkansas Tells Of Tyson Foods' Inhumane 
Slaughter Of Poultry And Coverup


VIRGIL BUTLER
Special to THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER
July 29, 2005

I worked in Tyson Foods slaughter plants for over ten years, much of 
that time spent in the killing room. I was employee of the month on 
four different occasions and, for the last three years, trained the 
new killers.  I was once even told by the plant manager that I was 
the best killer in Arkansas.


I have obtained a copy of the PETA tape [See Reprint of PETA story 
--- Issue #408 --- below] and watched it over and over again, 
analyzing what exactly was captured on it. I even watched it in slow 
motion. It takes a trained eye to catch these things, and I certainly 
have one. There is no doubt at all in my mind that Tyson is the one 
at fault here, as their killing machine was acting up and severely 
mutilating those birds.


At one point on the tape, the supervisor even admits this. I saw this 
same problem many nights that I worked for Tyson through the years, 
so I find that the investigator and the tape to be entirely credible 
and that Tyson is simply lying to cover their own selves.


The way they are attacking the investigator is the same way they 
attacked me when I brought a bright spotlight into the dark corners 
of what goes on behind the scenes of those houses of horror and 
outright torture, coming forward and swearing out a formal statement.


They can't refute the message, as they know it to be true, so they 
attack the messenger.  It is an old tactic and the only one to resort 
to when you are caught the way they have been. They even support 
Consumer Freedom, who freely admits the use of such tactics.


It was not uncommon at all for me to spend two to three weeks 
training a new-hire to kill.  I find the fact that they put an 
untrained person in there to do that job without any training to be a 
serious concern and a very bad judgment call. There's no doubt in my 
mind that the investigator probably missed many more chickens than 
even he realized and that were subsequently scalded alive.


If you listen to the tape closely, you can even hear the baby chicks 
(because, let's face it --- that's what they are, no matter how the 
industry has manipulated them to gain the size they are at slaughter) 
peeping as they are lowered into the scalding tanks.


It's not just the uncut birds that you have to watch for. It takes a 
trained eye to watch for the miscuts. Those are the ones that are the 
hardest to spot. In order for the chicken to bleed to death before 
she hits the scalding tank, both the carotid arteries and the jugular 
vein must be severed

Re: [Biofuel] How many trees were killed to build your home ?


Hello Joe, Chris


Hi Chris;


Granted a mature forest supports a

different ecology than a second growth but for instance studies have

shown that there is more food for bears in a clearcut zone than there is

in a mature forest.


i don't see the relevance of this.  you could make the same argument for
garbage dumps.  does that mean we should be sending all these huge 
barges full of
waste to the canadian wilderness?  who conducted these studies? and 
who funded

them?



Well here in Canada there is a very strong movement for the 
preservation of wildlife habitat and bears are a favorite focus 
point. The welfare of bears seems to have become a symbol of 
environmental awareness for some folks, so much so that due to 
restrictions in hunting regulations we have a situation in northern 
Ontario where bears are litterally trying to break in to people's 
houses.  There is a misguided notion that clearcutting forests puts 
the bear population at risk and this is clearly an example of public 
misinformation which is gladly exploited by those who would like to 
see all logging in this country put to an end.  I admit I don't know 
about the details of the studies I mentioned but I can get 
references. I am speaking from experience though. I spend a lot of 
time roaming around the forests of this country and I have come 
across bears many times and often enough to have a general sense of 
the likelihood  and frequency of such encounters in a remote  forest 
of Canada be it hardwood, softwood or boreal.  Let me tell you 
walking around in a clearcut in northern B.C. is a different 
experience where it is routine to see bears EVERY DAY and often 
several times a day, so much so that it requires a different 
attitude to being out there.  Clearcutting results in a more 
plentiful food supply for bears so much so that they are beginning 
to overpopulate which is also not natural and is a problem in itself 
( for people AND bears).  I used this example not to say that 
clearcutting is good but rather just to illustrate that there are 
misconceptions about the lumber industry destroying habitat and 
threatening the extinction of bears which are pervasive and 
obviously untrue.


Yet you provide an example of clearcutting leading to the 
overpopulation of bears. Both the clearcutting and the overpopulation 
are a distortion of the local eco-system, which has more to it than 
just trees and bears. Are you sure it's benefitting the bears? 
Overpopulation isn't a healthy sign, it can be a poison chalice. 
What's the next step for them? Deer populations have stopped breeding 
when that's happened to them, until the population stabilised at a 
lower level. It saved them from inevitable decline, as the weaker 
specimens were surviving to breeding age instead of succumbing. You'd 
need to give a much clearer picture of the state of the local ecology 
in the clearcuts in comparison with the rest of the forest for this 
example to establish that clearcutting isn't always bad.


itself ( for people AND bears).  I used this example not to say that 
clearcutting is good but rather just to illustrate that there are 
misconceptions about the lumber industry destroying habitat and 
threatening the extinction of bears which are pervasive and 
obviously untrue.


There are misconceptions on both sides of the issue, as long 
discussions here previously have shown.


I guess I can't blame ecoterrorist mouthpieces like David Suzuki for 
using the same fear mongering and disinformation tactics to arouse 
us that the wealthy commonly use to keep us all hypnotized with our 
faces in the food trough of excess.  But I don't have to like it.


Damning people with labellings such as ecoterrorist mouthpieces like 
David Suzuki is the same technique that the fear-mongers and 
disinformationists of the wealthy use (or of the powerful, more 
accurately).


We don't hold any brief for the big environment groups and we've said 
so quite often. Too often they've become the mirror-image of what 
they claim to be fighting, while the resources they can bring to bear 
on fund-raising and publicity mean the lion's share of the public 
support gets vacuumed up to them and away from the real grass-roots 
local groups, who usually know more about the all-important and 
ever-varying local situation and are generally more effective and 
less knee-jerk as a result.


But neither does it make any sense to paint either side with too 
broad a brush. Even big Environment Inc. groups, even when they 
take funding from the corporations, also do worthwhile work. As on 
occasion the corporate side proves capable of sensible lumbering 
(though the local company does it much better).


Labellings don't help.


forest fires have been sending co2 into the atmosphere for millenia, but that
isn't what has precipitated global warming.  furhtermore, in the case of
north america, fire has been one of the primary evolutionary forces.  the
ecosystem of this continent has a sort

[Biofuel] International Model Forest Network Secretariat Celebrates 10 Years


http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-80492-201-1-DO_TOPIC
International Development Research Centre

Partnerships to Success -- International Model Forest Network 
Secretariat Celebrates 10 Years at IDRC


The International Model Forest Network Secretariat (IMFNS) has much 
to celebrate after a decade: a global network dedicated to 
sustainable forest management; a diverse partnership linking people, 
communities, business, and governments; and more than 30 model 
forests in 17 countries.


* From the smallest seed
* Milestones
* The IMFNS
* Partnerships to Success
* Rooted in a common approach
* Relevance at the local level
* Order a copy of our 10-year anniversary publication
* Model forest profiles

From the smallest seed

The term model forest was first used in 1991, to describe an 
innovative program launched by the Government of Canada to develop 
broad-based partnerships within large forested landscapes that 
translate sustainable forest management (SFM) policies into practice. 
Each site was intended to be a model from which others could learn 
in order to advance towards SFM.


When the model forest approach was proposed as an international 
initiative by Canada at UNCED, it resonated with people and 
institutions from a variety of cultures, political affiliations and 
values.  It was innovative, practical, and do-able. And, in 1992, it 
was also ahead of its time.  Model forests are unique in several 
ways: in terms of  the comprehensiveness and flexibility of their 
approach, scale of operation, the breadth of their partnerships, the 
level of policy they aim to  affect, and the importance placed upon  
networking at all levels.


Following a period of program development and pilot project 
selection, the International Model Forest Network Secretariat (IMFNS) 
was established at the International Development Research Centre 
(IDRC) in 1995.  Its goal was to support the development of a global 
network of model forests that would:


* Foster an international exchange of ideas on the concept of SFM
* Facilitate international cooperation in the application of SFM at 
the field-level
* Use these concepts and applications to support ongoing 
international discussion on the principles, criteria and policies 
related to SFM


Other founding partners include Foreign Affairs Canada (FAC), Natural 
Resources Canada - Canadian Forest Service (NRCan-CFS), and the 
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). 

A decade later, the Network has grown to 36 model forest sites in 17 
countries across 5 continents, and represents a global community of 
practice on virtually every aspect of SFM. With an aggregate 
partnership base totaling nearly 1 000, the Network also represents a 
powerful and cost-effective tool for sharing knowledge and 
innovation. 


Partnerships to Success

Voluntary partnerships and participatory processes are at the heart 
of the model forest approach. The assumption behind it is that local 
communities, and locally-based stakeholders, can and should be part 
of the problem solving process - and among the beneficiaries of a 
sustainably managed landscape. 

While building partnerships is not new, model forests have been 
instrumental in bringing together highly diverse and often opposing 
interests. The glue that holds a model forest together comes from a 
need to find solutions to shared problems, to frame a common vision 
of SFM, and a shared belief that moving in this direction can meet  
stakeholder's needs. This invariably takes time, dedication, and 
resources, but we know from experience that there are no short-cuts.


Further, because model forests are directly relevant to National 
Forest Programs and strategies, they address some of the most 
important policy objectives identified by the international forest 
policy community. In other words, model forests have been active 
policy implementation vehicles.


And, while many contributions have been made to traditional forest 
science through the model forest program, perhaps their most 
important on-going contribution lies elsewhere.  Not in traditional 
bio-physical sciences, but rather in the social science of 
sustainability: how people and communities manage themselves in 
relation to their physical environment has been one of the most 
difficult and neglected areas of sustainable management. Model 
forests, through their partnerships, address this head-on.


Rooted in a common approach

Because the specific conditions out of which SFM must be developed 
can be highly varied from one site or region to another, the model 
forest approach was designed to be flexible. Nevertheless, all model 
forests share six defining attributes that give the program coherence 
and provide the basis for networking:


1.	An inclusive and dynamic partnership in which those with an 
interest in their area's natural resources agree on a process for 
defining SFM in locally relevant terms and work collaboratively to 
achieve them

2.  A commitment

Re: [Biofuel] How many trees were killed to build your home ?


Hi Hakan;

100% in agreement with all of that.  Clearcutting IS bad, I thought I 
made that distinction.  It is also true that clearcutting does not hurt 
bears or elk.  Selective cutting and even the use of helicopters to 
remove the odd massive tree are being used which is normally cost 
prohibitive.  But then again I guess my attitude is that basing 
everything on dollar cost is not the right attitude for how to live in 
this world.  I bet lumber is more expensive in areas where selective 
logging is being carried out as the norm.  But that is a good thing and 
makes people less wasteful when it impacts thier pocket book.
WRT your comments r.e. the treatment of animals yes and factory farming 
techniques are easy to ignore when your meat is only seen as a nicely 
packaged 'commodity' on the store shelf rather than the reality of 
inhumane treatment animals experience in thier short lives at our 
hands.  We just don't look carefully enough at what we are doing and we 
are encouraged not to. 


Joe

Hakan Falk wrote:



Joe,

Only a couple of complementary things,

The Elk an Moose also like clear cut, but they are very bad for
forest management. They eat the top of the newly planted trees.

Clear cuts are also bad, since it often result in that the top soil
is washed down the streams and over fertilize them. this in its
turn results in greater vulnerability to the acid rains from industrial
areas, that kills our lakes. The only reason for clear cut, is the
adoption to modern machinery.

Proper forest management was developed in Southern Germany
around 200 years ago and was implemented in Sweden 150 years
ago. It has proven its viability, but clear cut was not a part of the
those methods.

Why we get a large amount of bushes etc. in clear cuts, is not
because of more sunlight, it is because a lack of pines to control
the vegetation. The pine tree is releasing chemicals from the needles
it drops, that limit the under vegetation and give the pines the
space  and nutrition to grow. It is their way of fighting the competition
and only allow species that are good for them.

Fires have always been a natural part of the forest cycle, to keep
the ground relatively clean and add nutrients. This is also done in
good forest management, which starts to be a thing of the past and
had to give way for the use of large machines.

All of this and much more, are to be found in the biofuel archives
from earlier extensive discussions. No need to repeat it in full.

Harvesting properly managed forests for building material, has been
proven viable for more than 150 years. We are also killing plants
for food like bread etc. and the way the subject provoke is misleading
and ignorant. We even kill animals to eat, but the real abuse is not
that we kill them, it is often worse with the way we let them live.

Hakan



At 04:15 PM 7/6/2005, you wrote:


Hi Chris;






Granted a mature forest supports a
different ecology than a second growth but for instance studies have
shown that there is more food for bears in a clearcut zone than 
there is


in a mature forest.




i don't see the relevance of this.  you could make the same argument 
for
garbage dumps.  does that mean we should be sending all these huge 
barges full of
waste to the canadian wilderness?  who conducted these studies? and 
who funded

them?


Well here in Canada there is a very strong movement for the 
preservation of wildlife habitat and bears are a favorite focus 
point. The welfare of bears seems to have become a symbol of 
environmental awareness for some folks, so much so that due to 
restrictions in hunting regulations we have a situation in northern 
Ontario where bears are litterally trying to break in to people's 
houses.  There is a misguided notion that clearcutting forests puts 
the bear population at risk and this is clearly an example of public 
misinformation which is gladly exploited by those who would like to 
see all logging in this country put to an end.  I admit I don't know 
about the details of the studies I mentioned but I can get 
references. I am speaking from experience though. I spend a lot of 
time roaming around the forests of this country and I have come 
across bears many times and often enough to have a general sense of 
the likelihood  and frequency of such encounters in a remote  forest 
of Canada be it hardwood, softwood or boreal.  Let me tell you 
walking around in a clearcut in northern B.C. is a different 
experience where it is routine to see bears EVERY DAY and often 
several times a day, so much so that it requires a different attitude 
to being out there.  Clearcutting results in a more plentiful food 
supply for bears so much so that they are beginning to overpopulate 
which is also not natural and is a problem in itself ( for people AND 
bears).  I used this example not to say that clearcutting is good but 
rather just to illustrate that there are misconceptions about the 
lumber industry destroying habitat and

Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again

2005-07-06 Thread Ken Dunn

Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

 Reduce the meat centered diet to one that treats meat as a delicacy rather
 than a mainstay and vast acreages could be diverted to liquid fuel 
 production and cellulosic ethanol production rather than feed meal.

Interesting thought (basically the same reason that I gave up meat 6 years
ago), I am curious how many American meat-eaters would give up the habit if it
ever came down having your choice between meat or energy but not both. 
Frankly, I can't imagine meat remaining a staple for much longer as it is just
not a sustainable food source.  And we didn't discuss the water that is also
wasted, polluted and diverted in the process of raising animals for slaughter.
 The American obsession is cheese is another that just amazes me.  I wonder
what that price is a pound of cheddar would be were it not for farm and fuel
subsidies.

$.02,

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] How many trees were killed to build your home ?

2005-07-06 Thread r

Thanks for the info and the links, Keith.  I have been looking for the 
right word to do web searches with.  Agroforestry.  Since web searches 
are word-based, it is important to use the right word to find the right 
info.


Richard

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Hello Rich


I think that trees are a (renewable) resource that should be harvested.



Yes, but how? Good ways and bad ways... there are some interesting 
discussions (and arguments) about this in the list archives.


Otherwise, trees, like other resources, will get depleted, no matter 
the quantity of trees.  The more there is of the resource, the more 
time it takes to deplete it and the more the hurt after it is gone. I 
ordered this fascinating book Les Methodes Jean Pain ou Un Autre 
Jardin (The Jean Pain Methods or Another Garden) from 
www.jean-pain.com (in French) that does just that.  It can be ordered 
using Paypal, among other payment methods.  Tree harvesting. removing 
dead branches, shred them and compost them. Removing dead branches 
has the added benefit of reducing wild fire risk.



http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library.html#pain
Biofuels Library - Journey to Forever
Jean Pain: France's King of Green Gold

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html#treecrops
Small Farms Library - Journey to Forever
Tree Crops: A Permanent Agriculture by J. Russell Smith

The Overstory, Agroforestry Net, Inc.
http://www.overstory.org


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hard to say where the truth is in all of this debate regarding 
cutting trees.  In Canada forest is one of our largest natural 
.ahemresources. Currently more forest area is lost to 
natural causes than logging.  Trees are renewable and the lumber 
industry now replants more trees than it takes.  The ecological 
impact is not a clear cut issue (pardon the pun).  Granted a mature 
forest supports a different ecology than a second growth but for 
instance studies have shown that there is more food for bears in a 
clearcut zone than there is in a mature forest.  I can vouch for 
this and the proof is in the sheer number of bears I have seen in 
clearcut areas in the province of British Columbia vs old growth 
areas.  Clear cutting is still bad for what it does to soil 
retention on slopes but consider that a mature forest WILL burn 
eventually one hot dry summer during an electrical storm and all the 
lumber will have gone to waste and a lot of CO2 and particulate 
would have gone into the air.  I have also been told that trees 
contibute relatively little oxygen to our atmosphere compared to the 
majority which comes from algae in the sea.  Is this true? I've not 
verified it. Surely in a place like Canada using lumber makes sense 
from the perspective of localization vs globalization. Steel mills 
and recycling foundaries are few and far apart and require energy 
and transportation over long distances.  The lumber industry uses 
heavy equipment for sure but there are thousands of saw mills that 
can process lumber right where it is cut and it can be used there as 
well. Lumber will not disappear any time soon as a building 
material.  If logging was banned here construction companies would 
look for imported lumber possibly imported from regions where lack 
of environmental standards and logging practices are much more 
damaging to the earth.  What is really needed is to put the brakes 
on the pervasive need for expansion that our capitalist system 
requires in order to sustain itself.  I don't know what can replace 
it but I have a feeling we are going to find out in the next decade 
or so.




We'll replace it.

There may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States 
and world public opinion. - The New York Times



http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030414s=schell
The Other Superpower | Jonathan Schell

Best wishes

Keith




Joe

Chris wrote:

Todd, of course you are correct that energy is used to recycle 
steel. However, no more land is strip mined, and no new land is 
disturbed to bury the old broken washing machine that got melted 
down.  Were the electricity generated in a sustainable way, it 
would be all good.



Chris K
Cayce, SC

- Original Message - From: Appal Energy 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] How many trees were killed to build your home ?



 We do not live in the US.
 Would like to know what is this panasteel or recycled steel?

Something that requires a boatload of fossil fuels to smelt, sheet 
and press.


Nice thing about renewables. They're renewable.

And to a very large they do it in a carbon neutral way without 
much interference from humans.


Todd Swearingen.



Josephine Wee wrote:


To Nancy Canning:
We do not live in the US.  Would like to know what is this 
panasteel or recycled steel?

thanks.

  - Original Message -
  *From:* Nancy Canning mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  *To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org

Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again


Hello John

Thanks to a post at TDIclub, I discovered that Pimentel has released 
yet another report on ethanol. Looking at the dates below, he's a 
month ahead of schedule this year.


You're right John, every year I have to do an update on it at our website:
http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html
Is ethanol energy-efficient?

Thanks for the links.


http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/03/8.14.03/Pimentel-ethanol.html

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/01/8.23.01/Pimentel-ethanol.html

I can't speak to this newest report, but as long time readers of 
this list already know, Pimental's work has been repeatedly 
critiqued, and one of the main compliants it that he uses out of 
date numbers for yield and conversion efficiency. Here's a few links:


http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ethanol/balance.html

http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-814.pdf

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_rooster.html

http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf

http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm

All that having been said, Pimental is right that soy and corn alone 
cannot replace our petroleum addiction


Nothing can replace it, nor should, IMO. It's the addiction that's 
the problem, not the oil, and substitution is not the way to deal 
with it. Unless the addict can prise his attention away from the 
abused substance-of-choice he's just not going to take any notice of 
totally irrelevant stuff like alternatives, nor care. When it's 
backed by such vast resources of money and power and influence as 
petroleum is, it's hard to budge.


Meanwhile it's wrecking the neighbourhood. Sure the other 
industrialised countries are not exactly blameless, but your lot's 
just ridiculous. They're like a bunch of folks sitting on the deck of 
a burning ship saying, Naah, that's not a fire, just a few flames, 
that's all, it's perfectly safe, the ship won't sink, it's not 
leaking. But they're not the only guys on the ship, and they won't 
listen to reason, instead they keep pouring gasoline on the fire 
because they say they're cold or something. We don't have to like it.


Best

Keith




jh



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Chicken resources on the web

2005-07-06 Thread Kirk McLoren

http://www.ithaca.edu/staff/jhenderson/chooks/chlinks.html#history


		Yahoo! Mail for Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again


Ken Dunn wrote:



Interesting thought (basically the same reason that I gave up meat 6 years
ago), I am curious how many American meat-eaters would give up the habit if it
ever came down having your choice between meat or energy but not both. 


	The problem is not meat, per se, it's the manner in which beef, pork 
and poultry are being produced that creates such high resource strain. 
 We could certainly thrive without fast food hamburgers and chicken, 
as humanity has done for a very long time.  This doesn't have to be an 
either / or proposition.


	In the past, some people on this list have asked legitimate questions 
such as: What do I do with all the bull calves and roosters that are 
born on my ranch? or, What should I do with chickens and ducks that 
no longer lay eggs?


	The answer, obviously, is for someone to eat them.  Perhaps the offal 
would be better used as dog food than supplemental protein for 
cattle and poultry.  Maybe the bones could be ground up and applied to 
the soil again.  Cow hide makes excellent leather for shoes and 
clothing.  Chicken feathers make lovely pillow stuffing.  We don't 
have to waste animal products to benefit from them.




Frankly, I can't imagine meat remaining a staple for much longer as it is just
not a sustainable food source.


	In nearly every ecosystem on the planet (save for some very 
specialized ones) plants and animals live together.  Eliminating 
animals from the equation will result in a different, but nonetheless 
unsustainable, paradigm.  I don't eat meat, but my garden depends on 
composted bovine barn litter for its productivity.  Recycling nutrient 
streams makes sense, eliminates the concept of waste, and promotes 
tilth.



 And we didn't discuss the water that is also
wasted, polluted and diverted in the process of raising animals for slaughter.
 The American obsession is cheese is another that just amazes me.  I wonder
what that price is a pound of cheddar would be were it not for farm and fuel
subsidies.


	Water usage is a HUGE problem.  In the western United States, 
agriculture requires far more water than any other single use. 
Farmers grow rice in California, where much of it evaporates in the 
field, but any suggestion that the state restructure its water rights 
will be met with fierce opposition from powerful agriculture lobbies. 
 I suspect the system will have to collapse before any real reform is 
possible.


	As for cheese, without subsidy it would probably be much more 
expensive than it is.  My wife and I will spend our money on locally 
grown food even if it costs more, with the rationale that we neither 
smoke nor drink, so why not invest in health and support of our local 
farmers?  Food remains very cheap in North America.  My family spends 
about 10% of its monthly income on food, and if you came to dinner at 
our house, you'd realize before long that we eat very well!


	Having written this, it seems to me that any increase in food prices 
will likely hit poorer people significantly harder than it would those 
who have been blessed with my level of prosperity.  I believe that 
your argument against the current food production paradigm contains 
many valid points, but we need to be careful to replace what we have 
with something that actually works well to feed everyone.



robert luis rabello
The Edge of Justice
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Bush wants to shift global warming debate


Hello again Joe


I you have any viable real world solutions lets hear it.


Excuse me while I put my jack boots on

How about we hijack the mainstream media and start brainwashing 
people with the notion that life is not about immediate 
gratification. (Don't expect the sheeple of america to go searching 
for the truth on the internet - no they need to be spoonfed)


But they do go searching for truth on the Internet. After Sept 11 
2001 the big British media websites were swamped with US visits - 
literally, in some cases, crash upgrades on servers. Not just 
Britain, Indian and Pakistani newspapers too, many others. It didn't 
die away.


That there is a cost involved in everything we do, every choice we 
make, and that they need to consider that they might expect to live 
with less so that others can live with something.


Do you know of the work of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen?

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/georgescu.htm
Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, 1906-1994

There's some of his work here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg30418.html
[biofuel] Energy and Economic Myths
Selections from Energy and Economic Myths by Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen

His inheritors are the ecological economists, such as Herman Daly, 
Robert Costanza, Michael T. Klare, Joshua Farley and others.


More:

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg34131.html
[biofuel] From Here to Economy

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg30417.html
[biofuel] How Much Is Nature Worth? For You, $33 Trillion

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg34130.html
[biofuel] At What Cost? - Costanza

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg34129.html
[biofuel] The Wealth of Nature

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg34207.html
Re: [biofuel] The Wealth of Nature

That's a good read.

That we collectively in the developed world are complicit in all the 
death, suffering and destruction that takes place in this world, as 
a result of turning a blind eye while supporting the the selfish 
exploitive practices that bring all the above into existence in this 
world. That they are voting with thier dollars and currently they 
are voting for their own worst enemies and by doing so are creating 
a sense of hatred in other places in the minds of terrorists ( or is 
it freedom fighters I forget? )


Many share your confusion but many of them find the US forces' role 
at least as confusing.


who are attacking them as a result. Once we have people convinced to 
lower thier standard of living


I doubt it's even necessary - I think they have to change the style, 
not the standard.


we can then mobilize them to kick the bastards out and enact a 
worldwide system of referendum to decide how we proceed with issues 
that need to be addressed. Here's a novel idea; we could even call 
it the united nation or something stupid like that.  Heck we could 
spread some nukes around so that everyone at the table gets an equal 
share of respect while we're at it. Yeah there's nothing like the 
respect you get when you pull up your chair and lay your .45 down on 
the discussion table beside you.


Just as long as everyone else has got one too, in which case you 
might as well have left them all at the door. The mature, and most 
effective, use of power is to refrain from using it. Apart from 
that...



So how do you like me so far?

Jack boots offflame suit on.


:-) Nothing much to argue about there, sorry to disappoint your flame suit.

Best wishes

Keith



Joe



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

RE: [Biofuel] Bush wants to shift global warming debate

2005-07-06 Thread Frank Dungan





I'm a 
nice guy - no flame suit required, but I see no real 
answers...

I hate 
feeding our enemies as much as anybody.What was the solution? 

World 
government? That's a little scary, and the UN is a disaster.
It 
takes energy to keep this many people alive in the world. The question is how do 
we pull it off?





  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Joe 
  StreetSent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 10:28 AMTo: 
  Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: Re: [Biofuel] Bush wants to 
  shift global warming debate
  


  
  I you have any viable real world solutions lets hear 
  it.Excuse me while I put 
  my jack boots onHow about we hijack the mainstream media and 
  start brainwashing people with the notion that life is not about immediate 
  gratification. (Don't expect the sheeple of america to go searching for the 
  truth on the internet - no they need to be spoonfed) That there is a 
  cost involved in everything we do, every choice we make, and that they need to 
  consider that they might expect to live with less so that others can live with 
  something. That we collectively in the developed world are complicit in all 
  the death, suffering and destruction that takes place in this world, as a 
  result of turning a blind eye while supporting the the selfish exploitive 
  practices that bring all the above into existence in this world. That they are 
  voting with thier dollars and currently they are voting for their own worst 
  enemies and by doing so are creating a sense of hatred in other places in the 
  minds of terrorists ( or is it freedom fighters I forget? ) who are attacking 
  them as a result. Once we have people convinced to lower thier standard of 
  living we can then mobilize them to kick the bastards out and enact a 
  worldwide system of referendum to decide how we proceed with issues that need 
  to be addressed. Here's a novel idea; we could even call it the united nation 
  or something stupid like that. Heck we could spread some nukes around so 
  that everyone at the table gets an equal share of respect while we're at it. 
  Yeah there's nothing like the respect you get when you pull up your chair and 
  lay your .45 down on the discussion table beside you. So how do you like 
  me so far?Jack boots offflame suit 
on.Joe
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Will Brazilian Flex Fuel Device work on American Cars?

2005-07-06 Thread Ryan Hall


I would really like to run my truck on ethanol, if

the legal issues can be worked out.

Robert, what legal issues are you talking about? I am in america, so I don't 
think there will be any issues for me, but what are you coming across?


How would you increase the compression? And in doing so, what effect would 
this have on fuel consumption and emissions?


Thanks,
Ryan


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again

2005-07-06 Thread Ryan Hall

A new process developed by the University of Wisconsin was posted on this 
board a while back (it's in the archives.)  The process talks about green 
diesel and using the entire feedstock instead of just the fatty acids.


I don't know the feasability of making this process a commercially accepted 
way of making bio, but if and/or when this happens, won't people who try to 
disprove bio fuel basically have to eat their words?


Does anybody know how long it would/does take a processs like this to see 
the light of day in large scale commercial production, or does it depend on 
if they are forcefully bought out by the oll  cumpnies?


I would really like to see a process like this become more widespread.  More 
energy, less cost, how can that be bad?


Ryan 



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again


Hello Ryan

A new process developed by the University of Wisconsin was posted on 
this board a while back (it's in the archives.)  The process talks 
about green diesel and using the entire feedstock instead of just 
the fatty acids.


I don't know the feasability of making this process a commercially 
accepted way of making bio, but if and/or when this happens, won't 
people who try to disprove bio fuel basically have to eat their 
words?


Does anybody know how long it would/does take a processs like this 
to see the light of day in large scale commercial production, or 
does it depend on if they are forcefully bought out by the oll 
cumpnies?


I would really like to see a process like this become more 
widespread.  More energy, less cost, how can that be bad?


Not in your backyard though - it's industrial stuff. Here's some more about it:

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg45851.html
[Biofuel] Re: Diesel from wood/biomass

Best

Keith



Ryan




___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Will Brazilian Flex Fuel Device work on American Cars?




robert luis rabello wrote:



YOU can obtain a distillation permit from the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms to distill your own ethanol.  There is no such 
provision in Canada for individuals.  I'm trying to do this through my 
business right now, but the people at Revenue Canada never answer 
their phones and are NOT returning my calls!




Robert;

You raise an issue I am concerned about.  Have you or anyone on the list 
looked into the issue of distillation with regard to biodiesel 
production in Canada.  I heard that stills are required to be registered 
in Canada even for distillation of water.  The reactors that we use and 
the way we recover methanol could be considered a form of distillation 
although my vacuum unit is technically more like a refinery than a 
distillation apparatus.  I have been wondering what the pros and cons 
are of  this terminology and which would be better in terms of applying 
for a permit.  I see this as a potential sticking point whereby 
biodiesel production could fall under existing regulations in this 
country and thereby be subject to rules and regulations and taxes etc 
that could eventually make it difficult for the average person to make 
thier own fuel.

Does anybody have any ideas on this?

Joe


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

RE: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again

2005-07-06 Thread Bede

There's many trains of thought on this,
Crop rotation is very important, there's a whole growing cycle that if used
correctly increases
soil fertility year on year.

In new Zealand, we typically just feed our animals grass, with perhaps
additional fodder
such as corn waste or some of the root crops grown and market garden type
foods such as squash,
tomatoes, radishes.

we also don't shelter our stock as in keep them in barns etc, they all live
out side, there's
been some research about this and it all points to animals grown outside are
healthier than
there indoor compatriots. there's a lot of research also in to stock shock,
and exposure to the elements,
I really feel sorry for the poor cattle out in the fields in the us with out
so much as a tree to shelter
them from the sun and wind.

NZ has spent allot of time on soil and pasture research as its one the basis
of our major exports
in fact www.fonterra.com our major dairy company has carries allot of global
weight with its
products.

have a look at
http://www.fonterra.com/content/dairyingnz/linksresources/default.jsp
for additional resources.

its not possible for every country to use all the same practices as us, but
the ones
they do pick up, could be very rewarding

in regards to organics its not impossible to grow organically, its a
different set of rules, and
requires more understanding of your local conditions, i.e. soil type,
nutrient levels and
such things as companion planting, you may not be able to go totally
organic, but you can definitely
cut back on broadcast spraying and dropping the levels of all your inputs
needed.

Cheers,
Bede



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ken Dunn
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 12:25 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org; Keith Addison
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again


Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

 Meat is most certainly a sustainable food source. More than that,
 there is no sustainable way to maintain and renew soil fertility for
 crop growth without raising animals too. Nature never attempts it,
 and Man's attempts are doomed to failure - indeed, they are failing.
 Removing the animals would inevitably mean increased reliance on
 industrialised agriculture for crop production, and especially on
 fossil-fuels and chemical fertilisers, and therefore on pesticides
 too. Wall-to-wall GMOs, in the face of soaring oil costs, hm.

Keith,

Perhaps I overstated my case and simultaneously was not clear.  But, you
covered it for me anyway.  You are correct, meat as a food source is viable
but, I don't think that will continue to be as much of staple like it has
been
in the U.S. for the last few decades.  Furthermore, I don't think that it
could have been a staple to the degree that it has been if such a large
portion of the world wasn't already somewhere between near-vegetarian and
vegan.  6 billion people eating factory raised beef for 2 meals a day would
take its toll on the environment pretty fast.  You are correct, livestock
definitely help us tend the soil but, that doesn't mean that you have to eat
the animal for it to be beneficial to you.  You could just as easily raise
sheep for wool and still have livestock as a dual purpose barnyard
companion.
 And again, have the added benefit of the meat when the sheep has become too
old for shearing.  Likewise, grazing work horses would provide even better
nutrients to the soil if I understand correctly.  Back to the original point
though, corporate agrobusiness approach to meat farming means that the
animal
waste is nothing more than a toxic with which to pollute our streams.  That
same waste is not being used to fertilize the soil.  The inputs and outputs
of
factory farming make that approach to a meat-centric diet unsustainable.
Personally, I'd rather see the inputs going to raise grains or vegetables to
help the parts of the world that are struggling to provide enough food for
themselves right now.

 But organic farming can't feed everybody? I reckon it's the only
 thing that can, and it's spreading like a weed. But the crazed food
 distribution system will have to go, along with its billions of
 wasted food miles, and the corporate grip on it all will have to go
 too.

For what its worth,  I never said anything to the affect that organic
farming
couldn't feed everyone.  In fact, I buy as much *local* *organic* fruits and
vegetables as I can get a hold of.  I certainly try to promote buying local
as
much as I can.

One more thought,  there are *very few* streams here Lancaster County
Pennsylvania that I would consider swimming in or eating fish from.  This is
primarily due to the incredible amount of dairy cattle waste that finds its
way into the water every day.  That waste is coming directly from the
source.

Take care,
Ken

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org

Re: [Biofuel] How many trees were killed to build your home ?

2005-07-06 Thread Chris




Trees are renewable and the lumber industry now replants more 
trees than it takes.

The only problem with repanting trees, period, that 
i'm shocked no one has mentioned (unless i missed it), is that the earth in a 
particular area can only support 4-5 generations of trees before the soil is 
completely exhausted. Trees take more nutrients out of the soil to grow than 
just about anything else, and after several generations they will NOT grow any 
longer. So yeah, replanting after clear cutting is nice and all, but after a few 
times at the the soil stops growing... anyhting... 

And as far as deforestation goes, i'm more worried 
about places outside developed countries where no one really cares if trees are 
replanted. A lot of the slash and burntaking place in therainforest 
is regular old people who are trying to grow food or make money, clearing land 
for cattle andfarms. Those people don't replant trees, and they aren't 
part of a multibnation company with lots of enviromental regulations to uphold. 


_Chris N

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Joe Street 
  To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 11:55 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [Biofuel] How many trees 
  were killed to build your home ?
  Hi Hakan;100% in agreement with all of that. 
  Clearcutting IS bad, I thought I made that distinction. It is also 
  true that clearcutting does not hurt bears or elk. Selective cutting 
  and even the use of helicopters to remove the odd massive tree are being 
  used which is normally cost prohibitive. But then again I guess my 
  attitude is that basing everything on dollar cost is not the right 
  attitude for how to live in this world. I bet lumber is more 
  expensive in areas where selective logging is being carried out as the 
  norm. But that is a good thing and makes people less wasteful when 
  it impacts thier pocket book.WRT your comments r.e. the treatment of 
  animals yes and factory farming techniques are easy to ignore when your 
  meat is only seen as a nicely packaged 'commodity' on the store shelf 
  rather than the reality of inhumane treatment animals experience in thier 
  short lives at our hands. We just don't look carefully enough at 
  what we are doing and we are encouraged not to. JoeHakan 
  Falk wrote: Joe, Only a couple of 
  complementary things, The Elk an Moose also like clear cut, 
  but they are very bad for forest management. They eat the top of the 
  newly planted trees. Clear cuts are also bad, since it often 
  result in that the top soil is washed down the streams and over 
  fertilize them. this in its turn results in greater vulnerability to 
  the acid rains from industrial areas, that kills our lakes. The only 
  reason for clear cut, is the adoption to modern 
  machinery. Proper forest management was developed in Southern 
  Germany around 200 years ago and was implemented in Sweden 150 
  years ago. It has proven its viability, but clear cut was not a part 
  of the those methods. Why we get a large amount of 
  bushes etc. in clear cuts, is not because of more sunlight, it is 
  because a lack of pines to control the vegetation. The pine tree is 
  releasing chemicals from the needles it drops, that limit the under 
  vegetation and give the pines the space and nutrition to grow. 
  It is their way of fighting the competition and only allow species 
  that are good for them. Fires have always been a natural part 
  of the forest cycle, to keep the ground relatively clean and add 
  nutrients. This is also done in good forest management, which starts 
  to be a thing of the past and had to give way for the use of large 
  machines. All of this and much more, are to be found in the 
  biofuel archives from earlier extensive discussions. No need to repeat 
  it in full. Harvesting properly managed forests for building 
  material, has been proven viable for more than 150 years. We are also 
  "killing" plants for food like bread etc. and the way the subject 
  provoke is misleading and ignorant. We even "kill" animals to eat, but 
  the real abuse is not that we kill them, it is often worse with the 
  way we let them live. Hakan At 
  04:15 PM 7/6/2005, you wrote: Hi 
  Chris; 
  Granted a mature forest supports a 
  different ecology than a second growth but for instance studies 
  have shown that there is more food for bears in a 
  clearcut zone than  there 
  is in a mature 
  forest. 
  i don't see the relevance of this. you could make the same argument 
   for garbage dumps. does that mean we 
  should be sending all these huge  barges full 
  of waste to the canadian wilderness? who conducted these 
  studies? and  who funded 
  them? Well here in Canada there is 
  a very strong movement for the  preservation of wildlife habitat 
  and bears are a favorite focus  point. The welfare of bears seems 
  to have become a symbol of  environmental awareness for some 
  folks, so much so that due to  restrictions in hunting

[Biofuel] give up meat?

2005-07-06 Thread Ryan Hall


Ken,
I am curious, what do you eat if you don't eat meat.  I have been attempting 
to give up beef.  Mostly because a good friend of mine runs a testing lab at 
a beef plant in Colorado.  The things he tells me makes me not want beef 
anymore.  Especially when he talks about mad cow.  I don't think most 
Americans know what it will do, furthermore we think we are invincible.


Do you only eat veggies, or do you eat meat substitutes, or both?

Ryan 



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] give up meat?

2005-07-06 Thread Chris

I'm not Ken, but I've been a vegetarian for over a
year now. I just got back some blood work from the doctor and found not only
weremy iron and protein levels normal, but I actually had a lot more of
each than a normal person! I'm perfectly healthy and I didn't read any books or
get any help.

I replaced meat with lots and lots of beans! Every
kind of bean, lots of tofu, soy products (morning star farms makes *good* veggie
chicken stuff, "spicy black bean burgers", etc), tempe(sp?), dark green veggies,
and cheese. I usually eat enriched bread/wheat products andthe
rareegg. I drink Soy Milk nearly everyday with cereal (tons of
calcium, protein, vitamins). Vanilla flavor is so good I don't see how anyone
even drinks realmilk. I eat lots of potatoes too. You'd think they were
filler, but a good look at the nutritional content and you'll realize how good
they are for you. Oh, and almost forgot,I eat lots of nuts.

I also take a simple generic-brand multi-vitamin
and run/bike/horse back ride whenever possible.

If I could get away from the meat substitutes
(which sometimes contain egg), and the cheese, I'd be a ""true"" vegetarian, but
my life at this particular time doesn't allow me to cook for myself very often
or be super choosey about what I eat.

Chris N.

- Original Message -
From:
Ryan
Hall
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org

Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 2:49
PM
Subject: [Biofuel] give up meat?
Ken,I am curious, what do you eat if you don't eat
meat. I have been attempting to give up beef. Mostly because a
good friend of mine runs a testing lab at a beef plant in Colorado.
The things he tells me makes me not want beef anymore. Especially
when he talks about mad cow. I don't think most Americans know what
it will do, furthermore we think we are invincible.Do you only eat
veggies, or do you eat meat substitutes, or both?Ryan
___Biofuel mailing
listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel
at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch
the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again


Hello Ken


Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

 Meat is most certainly a sustainable food source. More than that,
 there is no sustainable way to maintain and renew soil fertility for
 crop growth without raising animals too. Nature never attempts it,
 and Man's attempts are doomed to failure - indeed, they are failing.
 Removing the animals would inevitably mean increased reliance on
 industrialised agriculture for crop production, and especially on
 fossil-fuels and chemical fertilisers, and therefore on pesticides
 too. Wall-to-wall GMOs, in the face of soaring oil costs, hm.

Keith,

Perhaps I overstated my case and simultaneously was not clear.  But, you
covered it for me anyway.  You are correct, meat as a food source is viable
but, I don't think that will continue to be as much of staple like it has been
in the U.S. for the last few decades.


Yes, eat less of it. On the other hand, eat less of everything! Or of 
all the processed junk at least.



Furthermore, I don't think that it
could have been a staple to the degree that it has been if such a large
portion of the world wasn't already somewhere between near-vegetarian and
vegan.


I think not. Most people eat a mixed diet. There is no traditional 
vegetarian society and never has been, it's not a sustainable system, 
sooner or later the soil fertility reserves wind down.



6 billion people eating factory raised beef for 2 meals a day would
take its toll on the environment pretty fast.


Indeed, but why should it have to be factory farmed? Outside the 
industrialised countries and industrialised urban centres elsewhere 
it's generally not factory farmed.



You are correct, livestock
definitely help us


Not just help, animals are essential.


tend the soil but, that doesn't mean that you have to eat
the animal for it to be beneficial to you.


Actually it does, eat them or compete with them.


You could just as easily raise
sheep for wool and still have livestock as a dual purpose barnyard companion.


Yes.


And again, have the added benefit of the meat when the sheep has become too
old for shearing.


Yes. Anyway, even with raising meat, you don't slaughter the 
breeders, just the offspring.



Likewise, grazing work horses would provide even better
nutrients to the soil if I understand correctly.


Not so, horses are far inferior grazers to cattle and sheep.


Back to the original point
though, corporate agrobusiness approach to meat farming means that the animal
waste is nothing more than a toxic with which to pollute our streams.  That
same waste is not being used to fertilize the soil.  The inputs and outputs of
factory farming make that approach to a meat-centric diet unsustainable.


Quite right.


Personally, I'd rather see the inputs going to raise grains or vegetables to
help the parts of the world that are struggling to provide enough food for
themselves right now.


Not a good answer. Food aid only helps in emergencies, but disasters 
like famines usually wouldn't happen had there been timely 
development efforts which could have prevented them. Have a look at 
this, for instance:


http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_food.html
Biofuels - Food or Fuel?

What parts of the world that are struggling to provide enough food 
for themselves really need is an equitable world economic system, 
fair trade not free trade, and less bullying by the G8 and the 
likes of the IMF. And their local lackeys.



 But organic farming can't feed everybody? I reckon it's the only
 thing that can, and it's spreading like a weed. But the crazed food
 distribution system will have to go, along with its billions of
 wasted food miles, and the corporate grip on it all will have to go
 too.

For what its worth,  I never said anything to the affect that organic farming
couldn't feed everyone.


I know you didn't, and good for you, but it's the usual objection.


In fact, I buy as much *local* *organic* fruits and
vegetables as I can get a hold of.  I certainly try to promote buying local as
much as I can.


It makes so much sense, eh?


One more thought,  there are *very few* streams here Lancaster County
Pennsylvania that I would consider swimming in or eating fish from.  This is
primarily due to the incredible amount of dairy cattle waste that finds its
way into the water every day.  That waste is coming directly from the source.


It's a thoroughly lousy way of doing it and it has no future. But 
dairy farming itself certainly has a future.



Take care,



And you too.

Best

Keith



Ken



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] was Will Brazilian Flex Fuel Device work on American Cars?

2005-07-06 Thread Ray J

First of all anyone running these flextek thingys on a 97 S-10 
pickup with a 2.2 liter 4 cylinder... gm made the ones after 2000 fun on 
e85 but i would love to be able to run e-85 in my 97 s-10  as it is 
avalable  locally at quite a bit less than regular gas





From what i have heard from several people on different lists, in the 
USA it is impossible to obtain the atf permit for making ethanol out of 
your garage.. there is a huge amounts of  regulations that cannot even 
be met by the normal person living in a non comercial/industerial zoned 
area...
Under current law and regulations, the ATF cannot allow you to conduct 
experiments involving distillation of alcohol at your home. (atf site)...


A person with a shop in a industerial area, that can jump throught 
a lot of hoops might be able to do it...



http://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/info/faq/subpages/27cfrpart019.htm

some where around page 380 theres some relevent information. yeah.. 
page 380... this is just some of the regulations and permit stuff  
way to complicatedI wonder if we need a permit to be recovering out 
methanol from out biodiesel?  I think all they care about is ethanol... 
because u can drink it... and they tax it..



Ray J








YOU can obtain a distillation permit from the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms to distill your own ethanol.  There is no such 
provision in Canada for individuals.  I'm trying to do this through 
my business right now, but the people at Revenue Canada never answer 
their phones and are NOT returning my calls!




Robert;

You raise an issue I am concerned about.  Have you or anyone on the 
list looked into the issue of distillation with regard to biodiesel 
production in Canada.  I heard that stills are required to be 
registered in Canada even for distillation of water.  The reactors 
that we use and the way we recover methanol could be considered a form 
of distillation although my vacuum unit is technically more like a 
refinery than a distillation apparatus.  I have been wondering what 
the pros and cons are of  this terminology and which would be better 
in terms of applying for a permit.  I see this as a potential sticking 
point whereby biodiesel production could fall under existing 
regulations in this country and thereby be subject to rules and 
regulations and taxes etc that could eventually make it difficult for 
the average person to make thier own fuel.

Does anybody have any ideas on this?

Joe


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/








___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] How many trees were killed to build your home ?



Chris,

I am not sure of what you say, nor what background you have to say it. .

The traditional and correct forest management is based on continuos
cleaning and selective harvesting. The only base for an agricultural type
of replanting and harvesting is the clear cutting, which only been practised
for around 50 years.

The cycle is 20 to 30 years for clear cutting and  replanting. 4-5 generations
is then a period of over 100 years. This means that we still have around
50 years more, to see if your statement is valid for trees. We know that
this is about true for normal farming with yearly planting and harvesting,
for some species it can be 2-3 times a year.

For trees, it is more complicated than this. I do not see any natural cycle
that supports your statement. The natural life time for pine trees are
hundreds of years.

Hakan


At 08:28 PM 7/6/2005, you wrote:

Trees are renewable and the lumber industry now

replants more trees than it takes.

The only problem with repanting trees, period, that i'm shocked no one has 
mentioned (unless i missed it), is that the earth in a particular area can 
only support 4-5 generations of trees before the soil is completely 
exhausted. Trees take more nutrients out of the soil to grow than just 
about anything else, and after several generations they will NOT grow any 
longer. So yeah, replanting after clear cutting is nice and all, but after 
a few times at the the soil stops growing... anyhting...


And as far as deforestation goes, i'm more worried about places outside 
developed countries where no one really cares if trees are replanted. A 
lot of the slash and burn taking place in the rainforest is regular old 
people who are trying to grow food or make money, clearing land for cattle 
and farms. Those people don't replant trees, and they aren't part of a 
multibnation company with lots of enviromental regulations to uphold.


_Chris N
- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Joe Street
To: mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] How many trees were killed to build your home ?

Hi Hakan;

100% in agreement with all of that.  Clearcutting IS bad, I thought I
made that distinction.  It is also true that clearcutting does not hurt
bears or elk.  Selective cutting and even the use of helicopters to
remove the odd massive tree are being used which is normally cost
prohibitive.  But then again I guess my attitude is that basing
everything on dollar cost is not the right attitude for how to live in
this world.  I bet lumber is more expensive in areas where selective
logging is being carried out as the norm.  But that is a good thing and
makes people less wasteful when it impacts thier pocket book.
WRT your comments r.e. the treatment of animals yes and factory farming
techniques are easy to ignore when your meat is only seen as a nicely
packaged 'commodity' on the store shelf rather than the reality of
inhumane treatment animals experience in thier short lives at our
hands.  We just don't look carefully enough at what we are doing and we
are encouraged not to.

Joe

Hakan Falk wrote:


 Joe,

 Only a couple of complementary things,

 The Elk an Moose also like clear cut, but they are very bad for
 forest management. They eat the top of the newly planted trees.

 Clear cuts are also bad, since it often result in that the top soil
 is washed down the streams and over fertilize them. this in its
 turn results in greater vulnerability to the acid rains from industrial
 areas, that kills our lakes. The only reason for clear cut, is the
 adoption to modern machinery.

 Proper forest management was developed in Southern Germany
 around 200 years ago and was implemented in Sweden 150 years
 ago. It has proven its viability, but clear cut was not a part of the
 those methods.

 Why we get a large amount of bushes etc. in clear cuts, is not
 because of more sunlight, it is because a lack of pines to control
 the vegetation. The pine tree is releasing chemicals from the needles
 it drops, that limit the under vegetation and give the pines the
 space  and nutrition to grow. It is their way of fighting the competition
 and only allow species that are good for them.

 Fires have always been a natural part of the forest cycle, to keep
 the ground relatively clean and add nutrients. This is also done in
 good forest management, which starts to be a thing of the past and
 had to give way for the use of large machines.

 All of this and much more, are to be found in the biofuel archives
 from earlier extensive discussions. No need to repeat it in full.

 Harvesting properly managed forests for building material, has been
 proven viable for more than 150 years. We are also killing plants
 for food like bread etc. and the way the subject provoke is misleading
 and ignorant. We even kill animals to eat, but the real abuse is not
 that we kill them, it is often worse with the way we

Re: [Biofuel] give up meat?

Sorry to butt in on your question, but I've eaten a (mostly) 
vegetarian diet since about 1970.  The key to avoiding protein 
deficiency is to eat grains in combination with legumes.  (Brown rice 
and black beans are a personal favorite.)  Eating a wide variety of 
foods is essential, especially vegetables and fruits.  I don't care 
for analogs (the Morningstar Farms patties, gluten glumps and other 
textured vegetable proteins) and don't understand why people need to 
eat them.  The less prepared your food is when you buy it, the 
easier it will be to sustain health without supplements.


I eat cheese, drink milk with my spicy Indian tea (Food Miles 
Alert!!!) and consume the occasional egg (though I don't like them) 
and fish (if there's nothing else, or if I crave it, which probably 
indicates a B vitamin deficiency) without any health related 
difficulties, aside from those related to normal aging, like the 
arthritis in my hands and knees.


Eat well and exercise.  If you want to avoid meat, be smart about it, 
but PLEASE don't insist that everyone else conform to your diet!


If you REALLY want to be subversive, grow a garden.  We had fresh peas 
two days ago, and I can attest that nothing tastes as flavorful as 
produce straight from the garden to the kitchen and the dinner table!



robert luis rabello
The Edge of Justice
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] give up meat?

2005-07-06 Thread Ken Dunn - CountyEarth.com


Ryan,

As I mentioned,  I gave up meat and dairy because of environmental 
reasons - as mentioned before not because meat is bad but, because the 
primary method by which it is raised in the U.S. is bad.  I don't have a 
single ethical issue with eating meat.  I actually like it quite a bit.  
Be that as it may,  I originally tried all sorts of meat substitutes.  I 
was also pretty fanatical about trying to balance my diet.  I have since 
learn to eat as much whole foods as possible.  I eat tons of whole 
grains and lots of beans.  From there, I just try to eat as many 
different colored foods as possible (different colors mean different 
vitamins and minerals) and when I crave something, I eat it (except the 
meat and dairy).  I can't eat dairy anymore anyway, it now gives me a 
terrible stomach ache usually followed by vomiting.  I am pretty 
healthy.  I haven't had beef in over 10 years and no other meat or dairy 
for over 6 years.  I have begun eating eggs again mostly because vegan 
breads and pastas are so expensive.  My family used to worry that I 
would turn green and die.  But, they have since sort of forgotten about 
it except at holidays!  ;-)


Take care,

Ryan Hall wrote:


Ken,
I am curious, what do you eat if you don't eat meat.  I have been 
attempting to give up beef.  Mostly because a good friend of mine runs 
a testing lab at a beef plant in Colorado.  The things he tells me 
makes me not want beef anymore.  Especially when he talks about mad 
cow.  I don't think most Americans know what it will do, furthermore 
we think we are invincible.


Do you only eat veggies, or do you eat meat substitutes, or both?

Ryan

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/





___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] How many trees were killed to build your home ?

2005-07-06 Thread r





Nitrogen-fixing trees. Nitrogen, is that part of soil nutrients?

http://agroforestry.net/overstory/overstory4.html



[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  Trees are renewable and the lumber industry now 
  
replants more trees than it takes.
  
  The only problem with repanting
trees, period, that i'm shocked no one has mentioned (unless i missed
it), is that the earth in a particular area can only support 4-5
generations of trees before the soil is completely exhausted. Trees
take more nutrients out of the soil to grow than just about anything
else, and after several generations they will NOT grow any longer. So
yeah, replanting after clear cutting is nice and all, but after a few
times at the the soil stops growing... anyhting... 
  
  And as far as deforestation goes,
i'm more worried about places outside developed countries where no one
really cares if trees are replanted. A lot of the slash and burntaking
place in therainforest is regular old people who are trying to grow
food or make money, clearing land for cattle andfarms. Those people
don't replant trees, and they aren't part of a multibnation company
with lots of enviromental regulations to uphold. 
  
  _Chris N
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Joe Street 
To:
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org

Sent:
Wednesday, July 06, 2005 11:55 AM
Subject:
Re: [Biofuel] How many trees were killed to build your home ?


Hi Hakan;

100% in agreement with all of that. Clearcutting IS bad, I thought I 
made that distinction. It is also true that clearcutting does not hurt

bears or elk. Selective cutting and even the use of helicopters to 
remove the odd massive tree are being used which is normally cost 
prohibitive. But then again I guess my attitude is that basing 
everything on dollar cost is not the right attitude for how to live in 
this world. I bet lumber is more expensive in areas where selective 
logging is being carried out as the norm. But that is a good thing and

makes people less wasteful when it impacts thier pocket book.
WRT your comments r.e. the treatment of animals yes and factory farming

techniques are easy to ignore when your meat is only seen as a nicely 
packaged 'commodity' on the store shelf rather than the reality of 
inhumane treatment animals experience in thier short lives at our 
hands. We just don't look carefully enough at what we are doing and we

are encouraged not to. 

Joe

Hakan Falk wrote:


 Joe,

 Only a couple of complementary things,

 The Elk an Moose also like clear cut, but they are very bad for
 forest management. They eat the top of the newly planted trees.

 Clear cuts are also bad, since it often result in that the top soil
 is washed down the streams and over fertilize them. this in its
 turn results in greater vulnerability to the acid rains from
industrial
 areas, that kills our lakes. The only reason for clear cut, is the
 adoption to modern machinery.

 Proper forest management was developed in Southern Germany
 around 200 years ago and was implemented in Sweden 150 years
 ago. It has proven its viability, but clear cut was not a part of
the
 those methods.

 Why we get a large amount of bushes etc. in clear cuts, is not
 because of more sunlight, it is because a lack of pines to control
 the vegetation. The pine tree is releasing chemicals from the
needles
 it drops, that limit the under vegetation and give the pines the
 space and nutrition to grow. It is their way of fighting the
competition
 and only allow species that are good for them.

 Fires have always been a natural part of the forest cycle, to keep
 the ground relatively clean and add nutrients. This is also done in
 good forest management, which starts to be a thing of the past and
 had to give way for the use of large machines.

 All of this and much more, are to be found in the biofuel archives
 from earlier extensive discussions. No need to repeat it in full.

 Harvesting properly managed forests for building material, has been
 proven viable for more than 150 years. We are also "killing" plants
 for food like bread etc. and the way the subject provoke is
misleading
 and ignorant. We even "kill" animals to eat, but the real abuse is
not
 that we kill them, it is often worse with the way we let them live.

 Hakan



 At 04:15 PM 7/6/2005, you wrote:

 Hi Chris;




 Granted a mature forest supports a
 different ecology than a second growth but for
instance studies have
 shown that there is more food for bears in a
clearcut zone than 
 there is

 in a mature forest.



 i don't see the relevance of this. you could make the
same argument 
 for
 garbage dumps. does that mean we should be sending all
these huge 
 barges full of
 waste to the canadian wilderness? who conducted these
studies? and 
 who funded
 them?


 Well here in Canada there is a very strong movement for the 
 preservation of wildlife habitat and bears are a favorite
focus 
 point. The welfare of bears

Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again

2005-07-06 Thread Ken Dunn - CountyEarth.com


Keith,

Your make many points that give me reason for pause.  However, I can 
wait for someone else to do something about the problems that exist or I 
can do something myself - done!  The majority of U.S. citizens will 
continue to eat meat and larger quantities than responsible and probably 
of the cheapest factory farmed variety.  I think that the animals not 
being raised for my personal consumption will benefit everyone more than 
were I to eat meat because of the benefit that it might hold for 
fertilization.  Hopefully,  I can offset the over consuption and 
thoughtless consumption of one other person.  And we all know that we 
can't change anyone else.  I have always thought of this as my 
contribution to the environment - hopefully just one of many.


A point of interest, though,  I don't know of any animal aside from 
humans that consume the milk of another animal, though, I'm sure there 
probably is at least one.  Can someone name one?  However, the concept 
of consuming the lactic fluids from a bovine seems rather bizarre.  
Those which are intended for its offspring as all milk is.  I'm pretty 
sure that I can do without bovine hormones and antibodies.


Take care,
Ken

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Bush wants to shift global warming debate

2005-07-06 Thread capt3d


my favorite part waswhere he mentions"harnessing greenhouse gasses". harness them for what?

is this yet another"bubba-ism", or something very orwellian disguised as one?

-chris b.-Original Message-From: Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 14:49:56 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Bush wants to shift global warming debate





OK, I've been a little preoccupied lately and haven't been able tocontributions to recent discussions. However, one of Kieth's recent postscaught my attention.
Please allow me to vent.
...I'm quoting parts of Kieth's post in reverse order.
"My hope is -- and I think the hope of Tony Blair is -- to move beyond the Kyoto debate and to collaborate on new technologies that will enable the United States and other countries to diversify away from fossil fuels so that the air will be cleaner and that we have the economic and national security that comes from less dependence on foreign sources of oil," Bush said."Bush spoke of his administration's investment of $20 billion (16.55 billion euros) in developing hydrogen-powered vehicles, zero-emission power stations and other technology."
Bush's position shifts like the tide -- like atideresultingfrom global warming and which might swallow Bangladesh.He starts out with "...away from fossil fuels...", then differentiates who's fossil fuels with "...less dependence on foreign sources of oil". Finally, (In an earlier statement) he spoke of his administrations$20 billion investmentin hydrogen powered vehicles, demonstratinghis steadfast commitment to oil interests.
He wants to projectconcern toward (only the mostuneducated) environmentalists with a technology that addresses the storage of energy and not sustainable resourcesfor conversion. At the same time, he chooses a cause which the oil industry can actively participate. Finally, a low emphasis on greenhouse gas emissions is an invitation for some companies to manufacture "green" products with no regard to the manufacturing processes and how it contributes to global warming -- thus, defeating the purpose.
I think I need to throw up now.
Mike
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again

2005-07-06 Thread desertstallion

FWIW - My cat drinks milk from cows.

Derek

 -- Original message --
From: Ken Dunn - CountyEarth.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Keith,
 
 Your make many points that give me reason for pause.  However, I can 
 wait for someone else to do something about the problems that exist or I 
 can do something myself - done!  The majority of U.S. citizens will 
 continue to eat meat and larger quantities than responsible and probably 
 of the cheapest factory farmed variety.  I think that the animals not 
 being raised for my personal consumption will benefit everyone more than 
 were I to eat meat because of the benefit that it might hold for 
 fertilization.  Hopefully,  I can offset the over consuption and 
 thoughtless consumption of one other person.  And we all know that we 
 can't change anyone else.  I have always thought of this as my 
 contribution to the environment - hopefully just one of many.
 
 A point of interest, though,  I don't know of any animal aside from 
 humans that consume the milk of another animal, though, I'm sure there 
 probably is at least one.  Can someone name one?  However, the concept 
 of consuming the lactic fluids from a bovine seems rather bizarre.  
 Those which are intended for its offspring as all milk is.  I'm pretty 
 sure that I can do without bovine hormones and antibodies.
 
 Take care,
 Ken
 
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
 
 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again