I being dedicated research worker in Brazil with PhD in Biochemical
engineering from India about alcohol production from biomass from one of the
best research center in Asia in 1980 , carefully following the state of art
this technology several decads,feel that the views of the Keith is
ecological and Luiz , genetic engineering which are totally totally
different.Even though I belonged unfortunately this breed of the higher
caste of biotechnology tribes with limited kespealized kwnowelge like Dr luiz
, I am fortunate enough to leave away this caste.In india it is not possible
to change the caste because they say genetica nad god made , but with the
interation of the active yahoo biofuel group (high quality , vey ha limited
experts group and making great effort to become an ecological engineering
student , rather than to have limited specialist approach like one that of Dr
Luiz approach of genetic engineering , transgenics and hybrids .The
biotechnology experts in general do not try to see all aspects and understand
what is natural ,simple , decentralized ecological system , not even this
natural ecological system developments.
In Brazil , all high yielding projects of fruits and any crop lead to
total collapse of the lands water leading to degradation of lands.
The insects devastations of mono crops of the Cotton has lead to billion
dollars until now the real reason for the poverty of the people who were
rich 10 years ago.Yet no biotechnology experts has introduced new one here.
Brazil has high yielding cassava , which can produce twice the
alcohol.Yet, not able to make it possible reality , as they used the same
method to implement as that of luiz , with enorme waste of money eventhouh
this has higher productivity , 2 time that of cane per ha.
In India a lot of alcohol made in home scale micro distillery using
biomass energy cheaper and village leval pot distillation technolgy , with out
any cane at all , using the palm tree can help to make arrack killing people
as food can be used as biofuel.No patent is there , not much literature, but
every uneducated can make the biofuel.
This can be the best technology as the yeast there can ferment everty
thing.The best and worst technolgy are very relative , change place to place.
Dr luiz really need to rethink again that the problem of food , fuel
,fertilizer, feed and food are inter connected to make the whole thing work in
Argo industrial system.Only one canot be the best system to all the people ,
to all the country for all the the time the best.
Biodiversity is less kwnown to many like Dr.Luiz. Any less educated
people like native tribal Indians knows very well that imported one; the
hybrid, the transgenic, genetically modified are not better than naturally
adopted local variety created by nature. There is great debate in Brazil every
where now a days about the way the biotechnology experts groups are trying
to have rapid quick technological anda economical developments , in
sustainablel for long time where the future generations food and energy cannot
be assured , as if matter the present generation.
Again , I as an scientific researcher on behave of of the many of the
members fully agree with the Keith and wish that our group need to focus the
is so com objective and not an attack of personnel views and opinions. with
out any base and truth.
I am sure that my words represent the views of many members who do not
have time not even to read all the important so many biofuel information,
imagine how they can reply .
Once Again best wishes Keith keep it up the correct critical ecological
thinking.
Your hard working dedicated work can only be well understood to all the less
developed one as you become the part and parcel of it.When this large starving
people can made his own food and fuel with out importing fuel using the road
map our group make , there can be great green future for all .
Sorry for my poor English, as I am way 20 years without the contact with the
language .
For all the members the best wishes and the new happy yaer to all our
biofuel group.
Thanking you
Truely
P.V.Pannrselvam
Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Luis R. Calzadilla wrote:
>Wrong Keith:
>You are wrong again Keith when you issue the following statement:
>Wrong again, Keith when you utter:
>Keith, who told you all the above?
>Now, in reference to the yeast, you are wrong again, dear Keith:
>Sorry Keith, but you have failed on all counts.
:-)
Heard it all before Luis, so many times, seen it all before too. I
did expect this sort of response from you, it's fairly obvious that
your thinking is locked to the industrialised, centralised, top-down,
"best-technology" approach to both crop and energy production which
is primarily what has brought us to this sorry pass we're in today
with both issues.
I've seldom found people embedded in this kind of thinking who're
able to prise their way out of it easily, nor will even attempt to,
because they almost invariably resist anything that might shake their
overconfidence in it - as with, most infamously, any knowledge of the
victims, in their many millions, who tend to remain the
"beneficiaries" in their thinking. "Beneficiaries RIP". It seems you
haven't seen it, but I have, though you seem to assume I'm just
spouting what wrongheaded people have told me - and I seem to think
you've never really had a good look at what actually goes on on the
other side of the research station fence, though you think you have.
You can't see past the "highest yields", the maximised "efficiency" -
and that, Luis, is not a vision of how things can and should be, it's
peculiar a type of blindness. "The Best is the enemy of the Good."
Who told me these things, you ask? The first people who told me them
were independent development workers trying to repair some of the
horrendous damage inflicted on the populace and the environment by
the kind of "best-technology" one-crop-solution approach you espouse,
in Negros Occidental, the main sugar-growing area of the Philippines,
more than 20 years ago. One thing they were doing was growing very
superior sugar crops, and other crops, without the use of any NPK
fertilizers, nor of any other off-farm inputs. True independence for
growers - but not via your route, that's just what had caused the
problems.
Read on...
>On January 13th, Keith wrote:
>
> > "Luis, I've wanted to say so a few times in response to your posts -
> > IMO the big hole in your scheme is your exclusive concentration on
> > sugar. It's no use telling me that it's the best crop for this or
> > that reason or scores of reasons: THERE IS NO BEST CROP.
> > Which crop is "best" depends entirely on the local circumstances,
> > which vary widely: a higher-yielding crop might not in the end
> > produce better results - better overall results - than a lower-yielding
> > one which local farmers grow, are familiar with and which has other
> >,benefits for them and their farming systems and their communities.
>
> > Yield is not everything, and too often it's claimed to be everything
> > while the adverse effects on other parts of the system (it's a system)
> > of achieving that high yield are concealed, or not even noticed.
>
> > Unless you diversify your scheme to include other crops and other
> > possibilities, you'll only be making the classic top-down, centralist
> > mistake of fitting the project to the technology instead of the other
> > way round - a mistake that has cost many millions of people most
> > dearly, while the technology promoters often remain unaware of that
> > and go right on promoting their technology and its "benefits".
>
>Wrong Keith:
>
>We are talking about producing an alternative fuel which is ethanol,
>fuel ethanol, that calls firstly to produce fermentable sugars, and,
>secondly, to convert those fermentable sugars into ethanol and other
>valuable by-products (PLease, do not ignore the other stream of additional
>value-added by-products).
Luis, we're just a little bit beyond equating "fermentable sugars"
and sugar-cane, eh? Don't be so ingenuous.
I NEVER ignore the by-products in any process - but YOUR approach
ignores them in demanding that ethanol production must use
sugar-cane. The almost infinite variety of local agricultural
production systems that you would adapt to your system rather than
the other way round is fraught with "by-products" that you would
either fail to notice or downgrade as "insignificant", subordinating
them to the priorities of your system. These are by-processes and
by-products carefully adapted to the needs and requirements of those
particular farms operating in that particular environment within that
particular community with its own particular requirements - but it's
mere clutter and inefficiency, it's unscientific, dump it all, do it
the BEST way, the most efficient way... and then ignore all the
"unforeseeable side-effects", um, collateral damage, er,
"Beneficiaries RIP". Seen it all before, too many times.
>There is one "best" way to produce ethanol, there is a "worst" way to
>produce ethanol and there are many, many shades in between.
Wrong Luis, as with all else: there is no best way, there is only the
way that fits best, which turns out to be as many "best" ways as
there are different situations in which they're implemented, and
they're ALL different. *The* best way to produce fuel ethanol is
independent of any particular feedstock, technology or proprietory
strain of yeast. That is when fuel ethanol is one among several
different bio-energy options produced from the various by-products
yielded by the ever-shifting cropping patterns of a mixed,
integrated, sustainable farm - which is a *small* farm (much more
efficient than big farms), with low to zero inputs from off-farm,
including technology inputs. No place for GADA on such a farm. The
yield and productivity per acre cannot be beaten nor even approached
by the GADA system or any other such system, because the amount of
land dedicated to fuel production is ZERO.
>The "best" (meaning the most efficient)
:-) I don't think you'll ever see it Luis, your idea of efficient is
much too narrow. What's truly efficient is what suits the farmer and
his farming system best, and super-efficient ethanol production is
unlikely to be it. "Adapting" the farm to fit such an "efficiency",
or imposing such an "efficient" system on top of such farming systems
(all agricultural areas are complex networks of such systems, where
agribusiness hasn't already displaced and destroyed them), will no
doubt sometimes produce the results you propose, at the cost of
massive externalised inefficiencies in the major functions of the
farming system, which are to produce food. (Not commodities - FOOD,
stuff people eat.)
>way to produce ethanol, anywhere in
>the world, calls for obtaining the maximum possible amount of fermentable
>sugars from each unit of land in a sustainable fashion, with minimal inputs
>of water, fertilizers, labor, and in the shortest possible time; It also
>must increase soil's fertility, microbial population and organic matter with
>each crop; It must also enhance the population of Nitrogen fixing organisms
>in the soil and in the plant tissues in order to reduce chemical N input;
I'll agree with you that it's a fool who buys N, if that's what you're saying.
>It
>must look for the cane varieties that best capture and use sunlight; It also
>must even look for the presence and distribution of miniscule "leaf hairs"
>that interfere with some plant functions.
:-) Tell it to Elaine Ingham at www.soilfoodweb.com Luis. She'll
laugh at you, same as me.
>The GADA System looks also for the creation of a biological environment
>where decease and pests cause the minimal damage;
>It also looks for the creation of stress-free conditions that lead
>the cane sugar plants to an early inflorescence that consume sugars
>and reduce the crop's output.
There ain't no stress-free conditions in an industrialised monocrop.
Cane-sugar is actually a grass. Grass grows best in company with
legumes and deep-rooting herbs, and requires also the presence, even
if indirectly, of animals in the system. I doubt you know how to
produce and maintain the kind of rich soil micro-populations that
might make up for the lack of these conditions. Deprived of which
your sugar-cane crops will not be stress-free without artificial
support. Exit sustainability.
>The GADA Sugar Cane Production System is all the above, plus
>a lot more... about which, unfortunately, you know nothing yet.
You'd be surprised.
>The GADA Sugar Cane Production System has been developed over 15 years of
>dedicated research and work and has been field-tested for a decade already.
Newbies reinventing the wheel, and it's not much of a wheel anyway. I
wrote this 20 years ago - you should have a look at it:
http://journeytoforever.org/keith_phsoil.html
Nutrient Starved Soils Lead To Nutrient Starved People
>The GADA System fully complies with the objectives set forth in the
>preceeding paragraph
>
>You are wrong again Keith when you issue the following statement:
>
> >"There is no "best site in the world" either - the best site is the local
> > site."
>
>You are probably familiar with sugar cane yields world wide, are you?
Yes.
>If you are, you should know that the following figures represent the average
>TM cane/hectare/season yields for some of the sugar cane producing
>countries:
>
>India 63
>Brazil 80
>Cuba 40
>Viet Nam 51
>South Africa 70
>Australia 70
>Guatemala 52
>Colombia 126 (2003 crop year)
>
>Please, compare the above numbers with the yields in TM//Ha obtained in
>Colombia when the GADA System is used:
>
>160 to 180 TM/13 mo for cane to be processed for sugar production
>240 TM/12 months for cane to be processed for ethanol
>
>Let it be known that the GADA Sugar Cane Production System can
>overcome (except for water availability and some other climatic
>site-specific conditions) the local limitations that interfere with high
>sugar cane yields.
Yields are not very relevant.
>Low sugar cane yields can be attributed, worldwide, mainly to lack of
>knowledge in the art of sugar cane cultivation. There are too many
>misconceptions around the best ways to grow cane; There are too many voids
>in the knowledge base of cane cultivation, even amongst the
>largest sugar cane producers of the world.
>
>Any grower, as well as any country in the world, will be delighted at the
>possibility of increasing sugar cane production (and/or sugar) by unit of
>land by 50% or even by a smaller percentage, in a way that
>improves, at the same time also, the soil's fertility.
>
>Could you please ask a Vitnameese sugar cane grower, for example, if he/she
>would welcome come 25 additional MT /Ha of sugar cane per season while
>improving upon the soil's structure, quality and fertility?
>
>Wrong again, Keith when you utter:
>
> > "Best best best, eh? There is no need for NPK fertilizers. Why do you
> > want to use unnecessary and costly inputs derived from fossil fuels
> > and part of an unsustainable agricultural production system to
> > produce biofuels you claim are sustainable?"
>
>Keith, who told you all the above?
Among many others (let's put it this way: many MILLIONS of others
worldwide) I did, many times, in assessing the results of my farming
systems work and other people's farming systems work, and the farming
systems work done by the scientists at the institutes I've worked for
and with, and so on and on and on.
Millions:
"Reducing Food Poverty with Sustainable Agriculture: A Summary of New
Evidence" Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex
http://www2.essex.ac.uk/ces/ResearchProgrammes/SAFEWexecsummfinalreport.htm
"47 Portraits of Sustainable Agriculture Projects and Initiatives"
Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex
http://www2.essex.ac.uk/ces/ResearchProgrammes/SAFEW47casessusag.htm
>You can not produce healthy crops of sugar cane or of any other crop if you
>do not have in the soil the sufficient amounts of NPK, Sulfur, Calcium,
>Magnesium, Iron, Copper, Boron, Molybdenum, Zinc, Cobalt and, sometimes,
>Silica for the plants to daw on. Not only that, those elements must be
>present and available to the plants in the right proportion but at the right
>time also. Any deficiencies in the chemical balance will lead lead to a
>reduced crop.
Chemicals chemicals chemicals - go and talk with a soils
microbiologist Luis, not a chemist, and not with me either, it's
rather clear that I know rather more about this than you do.
>Of the above list of elements only Urea, a form of Nitrogen, is produced by
>the input of fossil fuels. Therefore, if you do not use Urea,
>(which I have not advocated, have I, Keith?) for sugar cane production,
>then there is no input of any fossil fuel, except for the small ammounts of
>fuels used in the mining, conditioning and transportation from the source to
> the point of use. If the fuels so spent are substituted for ethanol, then
>there is zero (yes, ZERO) input of your "fossil fuel concern"... and your
>assumption then, is completely wrong and, therefore, invalid.
Uh-huh. By the same point-of-use token, the corollary of your big,
centralised, industrialised, monocrop-dependent production scheme
imposed from above as if dropped by helicopter upon the unfortunate
place beneath is that, unlike with truly localised production, your
fuel will not be produced where it's to be used and will have to be
transported there, which is a waste of fuel, whether it be bio- or
dino-fuel. Also your fuel will not be able to compete with locally
produced fuel - and even if it can compete on a purely cost-price
basis, there are many factors not included within that basis with
which it won't be able to compete, regardless of the price: the
farmers' on-farm priorities and efficiencies, local community
self-reliance, the value of local jobs and local enterprises, to nae
a few.
To extend your preposterous claims a little further, with all your
overuse of "best" and "only" and "best in the world", Europe should
now abandon production of ethanol from sugar-beet and instead export
the whole industry offshore to Columbia and the GADA system, not
fogetting to invest in a fleet of ethanol super-tankers, and the USA
and Canada should do the same with their maize- and wheat-based
ethanol industries, while maybe South Africa and the Philippines
should just give up on their pathetic attempts to grow sugar and
subcontract it all to you. Yield yield yield.
>Now, in order to further dismiss your concerns about use of fertilizers,
>read on, please:
>
>You should know that you can not find in ethanol ANY ELEMENT TAKEN FROM THE
>SOIL... Did you know that, Keith?
Yes.
>Ethanol
> formula is: CH3CH2OH, that is, ethanol is only a "blend" of
>Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms as you can see in the formula, Wright
>Keith?
>
>Then, it stands to reason that if all the N, P, K, S, Ca, Mg, and the other
>microelements taken from the soil are not present in the end product, they
>must be somewhere, since the Laws of Conservation of Matter teaches us that
>elements can not vanish from the face of the earth or transmute into other
>elements.
>
>Yes, dear Keith, all the elements are acounted for: They are all present in
>the distillery effluent (Vinasse), except for Nitrogen that has been
>consumed in the cane growing process and end up with the trash (crop
>residue) or has returned to the air as molecules of N2, at the end of the
>Nitrogen Cycle.
>
>Therefore, if you are smart enough as to return the Vinasse minerals
>(and behold, they are now "Organic Minerals") back to the soil, you would be
>almost "home free", fertilizer-wise, and would have only to replenish the
>Nitrogen & P plus a minute portion of the minerals taken up by the cane
>roots. (The K is all in the Vinasse).
>
>Then, dear Keith, if you put back the Vinasse into the soil where it came
>from, your only fertilizer input for the following crop is just a fraction
>of the input used for the first crop. Do you gather me, Keith?
Well, I'm unmoved by your trying to schoolmarm me Luis. I suggest you
have a much closer look at Journey to Forever than you've apparently
done so far before you try it again.
http://journeytoforever.org/
>Now, in reference to the yeast, you are wrong again, dear Keith:
Only if your priorities of yield and efficiency and your definitions
of them are accepted, but I don't accept them, they're misplaced, and
so is everything you posit on top of them.
Luis, there's not a lot of difference between sustainable food supply
and sustainable energy supply, the two have a great deal in common,
perhaps chief among which are localisation and diversification, on
both of which grounds you and your GADA scheme fail utterly.
This is now very well known regarding sustainable food production,
especially among development scientists, but less well-known
regarding sustainable energy production, which, though not at all a
new problem, is not as yet as visible a problem as a billion-odd
starving people are in this world of plenty, plus the fact that each
purported attempt to solve the hunger problem (by using the same
methods that caused them - your methods: best best best, yield yield
yield) has only served to increase it.
So I'll strongly urge you to visit the links I've given you here, to
Jules Pretty's work at Essex university for instance, and the
sustainable farming information at Journey to Forever, and to study
it carefully. There's a lot for you to learn.
<snip>
>Sorry Keith, but you have failed on all counts.
>
>Unfortunately you have made a lot of wrong and subjective assumptions,
>which demonstrates that you are completely unfamiliar
>with the issues of cane growing and ethanol production.
>
>If you would like to be better informed on both fields, we can lend you a
>helping hand.
:-) Thanks anyway Luis, I think I'll manage to struggle along somehow
on my own.
When you first joined the list just on a year ago you wrote: "I have
extensive archives on fuel ethanol, please be my guests."
I replied off-list: "I'd welcome more discussion on the list of fuel
ethanol issues. Please feel free to take the initiative."
To which you replied: "Ok, the challenge is accepted, I will plan to
contribute in the area of ethanol" - and sent me a sales pitch
featuring your system and crediting you and BPI, a biotechnology firm
in Indiana. Your email address, "Contactos Mundiales", means
"World-wide Contacts" - more sales. Far from useful information from
an "extensive archives on fuel ethanol", virtually all we've had from
you is various sales pitches on the benefits of your GADA sugar
system and your proprietary yeast, which I assume is a GMO, no?
To sum up, Luis, all you seem to do here is to push your commercial
interests, which may concern ethanol but are seriously at odds with
the sustainability precepts of this list. It might seem on-topic on
the surface, but actually it's just spam, and we've had enough of it,
if you don't mind, and even if you do.
Best wishes
Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
http://journeytoforever.org/
Biofuel list owner
>With best regards,
>
>Luis R. Calzadilla
>VP Operations
>Fundaci˜n Sugar Cane Research Org.
>Cali, Colombia
>Tel (572) 557-0627
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Previous:
>Luis R. Calzadilla wrote:
>
>>Dear Steve:
>>
>>The financial success of a cane juice-to-ethanol project will depend
>>on a few key variables, such as:
>>
>>1- Total fermentable sugars produced yearly per unit of land
>>2- Number of ratoons that can be harvested from each planting
>>3- Sugar cane production cost per unit of land
>>4- Capital cost of the distillery
>>5- Efficiency of Yeast and the Fermentation Process
>>
>>A few comments follow on the above:
>
>Luis, I've wanted to say so a few times in response to your posts -
>IMO the big hole in your scheme is your exclusive concentration on
>sugar. It's no use telling me that it's the best crop for this or
>that reason or scores of reasons: THERE IS NO BEST CROP. Which crop
>is "best" depends entirely on the local circumstances, which vary
>widely: a higher-yielding crop might not in the end produce better
>results - better overall results - than a lower-yielding one which
>local farmers grow, are familiar with and which has other benefits
>for them and their farming systems and their communities. Yield is
>not everything, and too often it's claimed to be everything while
>the adverse effects on other parts of the system (it's a system) of
>achieving that high yield are concealed, or not even noticed.
>
>Unless you diversify your scheme to include other crops and other
>possibilities, you'll only be making the classic top-down,
>centralist mistake of fitting the project to the technology instead
>of the other way round - a mistake that has cost many millions of
>people most dearly, while the technology promoters often remain
>unaware of that and go right on promoting their technology and its
>"benefits".
>
>>The best site in the world to produce sugar cane for direct fermentation to
>>ethanol is Colombia, for the following reasons:
>
>There is no "best site in the world" either - the best site is the local site.
>
>>a) In Colombia we can harvest cane all 365 days of the year, therefore, the
>>distillery and harvesting equipment could run the year round without any
>>interruption for lack of cane thus using the capital investment more
>>efficiently than in a situation where you have a short harvest season.
>>Therefore, depreciation cost/unit of ethanol product will be lower than in
>>almost any other country of the world.
>>
>>b) By the implementation of the GADA Sugar Cane Production System, developed
>>by our Research Foundation, we can produce
>>around 38,000 kilograms of fermentable sugars/Hectare/Year
>>that translate into some 20,000 liters fuel ethanol/Ha/Year. This
>>yield seems to be, by far, the highest in the world.
>>
>>c) Under the GADA System, the productive life of sugar cane fields
>>can be extended up to 20 years and more...Right now we can show
>>30 (thirty) year-old fields yielding more than 150 MT sugar cane/Ha/Year of
>>cane planted for high sucrose content intended for sugar production.
>>
>>d) The GADA System affords the best way to lower production costs
>>while simultaneously doing it in a sustainable fashion; Soil fertility is
>>increased with each crop; It permits to minimize input of irrigation
>>water; Application of N-K-P fertilizers are reduced to around 2 (two) kgs
>>per MT of harvested cane.
>
>Best best best, eh? There is no need for NPK fertilizers. Why do you
>want to use unnecessary and costly inputs derived from fossil fuels
>and part of an unsustainable agricultural production system to
>produce biofuels you claim are sustainable?
>
><snip>
>
>>e) All Saccharomyces Serevisiae yeasts have an "ethanol inhibiting point" or
>>ethanol concentration tolerance. That is, as the ethanol concentration
>>rises in the substrate being fermented, the yeast will
>>react by inhibiting (not producing any more alcohol) when it reaches
>>its cncentration limit. Common yeasts usually stop producing
>>alcohol when the ethanol concentration reaches 5-6% in the broth
>>(substrate). A yeast that possesses a higher ethanol concentration
>>tolerance, for example 12% ethanol tolerance, will be more
>>desirable for two important reasons:
>
>This seems to be wrong. Common yeasts usually stop producing at
>5-6%? More like 15% I think. A higher ethanol concentration
>tolerance would be 12%? Turbo yeasts produce clean alcohol up to
>21%. Here's one example, but there are quite a few of them.
>
>http://www.stillspirits.com/webfiles/StillSpirits/files/tb2turbonotes.pdf
>
>Best
>
>Keith
>
><snip>
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel
Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel
Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
