Thought this may be worth a little discussion, especially for all of
you who are convinced that land is better put to crops for human
consumption than for animals.

I heard it postulated today, in a Crop Mechanisation lecture, that the
power consumption of a powered forage harvester giving a precision (or
metered) chop, working width maybe three metres, in
chemical-energy-required terms, would, in one years use on one farm,
consume enough energy (chemical) to feed 3000 people for a year. Of
course, the conversion can't be workied, as science has yet to find an
efficient way of feeding people unrefined crude oil, but it does give
some food for thought perhaps.
I would be glad of some other views on this, either for or against, or
either, since at the moment I'm taking that with a pinch of salt, so
to speak!

Dave

Dave Chalton wrote in message
om...
Thought this may be worth a little discussion, especially for all of
you who are convinced that land is better put to crops for human
consumption than for animals.

I heard it postulated today, in a Crop Mechanisation lecture, that the
power consumption of a powered forage harvester giving a precision (or
metered) chop, working width maybe three metres, in
chemical-energy-required terms, would, in one years use on one farm,
consume enough energy (chemical) to feed 3000 people for a year. Of
course, the conversion can't be workied, as science has yet to find an
efficient way of feeding people unrefined crude oil, but it does give
some food for thought perhaps.
I would be glad of some other views on this, either for or against, or
either, since at the moment I'm taking that with a pinch of salt, so
to speak!

Dave

well, we make 80 acres of first cut grass silage, precision chopped.
There is two tractors mowing, one tractor rowing up, the self propelled
chopper, an industrial loader loading the grass into the pit, three
tractors carting. They will use, in total, less than 200 gallons of
diesel, as we have a 200 gallon tank and if it is full before the
contractor arrives, we can fill them all up when they leave.
If you put in second cut as well, we would produce enough silage to feed
70 milk cows and over 150 younger cattle through a 180 day winter off
400 gallons of diesel.

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

Jim Webster writes

well, we make 80 acres of first cut grass silage, precision chopped.
There is two tractors mowing, one tractor rowing up, the self propelled
chopper, an industrial loader loading the grass into the pit, three
tractors carting. They will use, in total, less than 200 gallons of
diesel, as we have a 200 gallon tank and if it is full before the
contractor arrives, we can fill them all up when they leave.
If you put in second cut as well, we would produce enough silage to feed
70 milk cows and over 150 younger cattle through a 180 day winter off
400 gallons of diesel.

Heating a UK house typically consumes over 600g of kerosine/annum.
12,000 miles/year (a fairly typical UK rural usage) at 25mpg ave
consumes about 500g of petrol.

70 cows at 6500l/annum produces 450,000L and if each household consumes
1L/day it will produce all the milk required for 1250 households. These
households consume some 1,400,000 galls of fossil fuel just for heating
and car. The silagemaking 'contribution' of 400g (generous) thus
accounts for only 0.03% of this. In other words entirely negligible.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"Dave Chalton" wrote in message
om...
Thought this may be worth a little discussion, especially for all of
you who are convinced that land is better put to crops for human
consumption than for animals.

I heard it postulated today, in a Crop Mechanisation lecture, that the
power consumption of a powered forage harvester giving a precision (or
metered) chop, working width maybe three metres, in
chemical-energy-required terms, would, in one years use on one farm,
consume enough energy (chemical) to feed 3000 people for a year. Of
course, the conversion can't be workied, as science has yet to find an
efficient way of feeding people unrefined crude oil, but it does give
some food for thought perhaps.
I would be glad of some other views on this, either for or against, or
either, since at the moment I'm taking that with a pinch of salt, so
to speak!

Dave

Dave,

There are two serious problems. You are hauling wet feed that will loose 85
to 90% of it weight either drying out or making pee for the cattle. The
energy density of the dry matter is not very high even on a dry mater basis.
I'll be kind had give it 60% so for every pound of forage you haul you haul
9.4 pounds of feed for ever 100 pound of fodder you haul that the cow can
use and 90.6 pounds of water and indigestible material.

While with wheat dry from the bin you haul 91 pound of usable feed for every
hundred pound so wheat you haul that is fit for man and beast alike. If you
really want to be effecting haul 100 pounds of cotton seed to a feed lot.
ten pounds of It will replace the neturantiants in 14 pounds of corn and
replace all the hay in the ration and also provide all the protien need for
the steers or bulls. The fuzzy linters replace the hay as roughage, It is
about 30% protien and the oil content is high enough that it will replace
120 percent of its weight in grain for energy.

Cotton seed can only be fed to ruminates since it is toxic to simple stomach
animals. In most climates it can only be fed in the winter because all the
fate elevates the animals body tempeterure producing extra energy to digest
it and mistakes feeding such as letting a feed bunk run dry or not noticing
a cow going off feed can end up in foundered or dead animals in short order.

One of the primary costs of feed is the drayage to put it in front of the
animal. It does not appear by magic in the bin. Green cut forage is very
very heavy and has a short shelf life if not ensiled and if you do that you
have to handle than mess yet another time in the winter.


Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 23:37:53 +0100, Dave Chalton wrote:

I would be glad of some other views on this, either for or against, or
either, since at the moment I'm taking that with a pinch of salt, so to
speak!

Dave
For or against what? Drinking diesel?

gunnar

"Dave Chalton" wrote in message
om...
Thought this may be worth a little discussion, especially for all of
you who are convinced that land is better put to crops for human
consumption than for animals.

So what do you propose to do with land such as much of that in the West of
the UK which is unsuitable for arable use?

The nearest thing to a graminivorous humaan was the robust Australopithecine
(despite some thoughts I may harbour about some poiliticans). What do you
suggest doing with this land?

How much diesel would it take to plough, sow, spray, and harvest an
equivalent area to that the forage harvester would have dealt with? How
much food does each process produce in terms of Kjoules/litre?


May glorious Shamash make his face to shine upon you

Gilgamesh of Uruk
(Include Enkidu in the subject line to avoid the spam trap)

"Dave Chalton" wrote in message
om...
Thought this may be worth a little discussion, especially for all of
you who are convinced that land is better put to crops for human
consumption than for animals.

I heard it postulated today, in a Crop Mechanisation lecture, that the
power consumption of a powered forage harvester giving a precision (or
metered) chop, working width maybe three metres, in
chemical-energy-required terms, would, in one years use on one farm,
consume enough energy (chemical) to feed 3000 people for a year.

If we feed people 3000 kilocalories a day, 3000 people need about
13,800,000 (3000*3000*365*4.2/1000) megajoules a year. Burning
hydrocarbon fuel we get about 46 megajoules per kilogram, so the
equivalent energy is about 300,000 kg of fuel.

Now I don't know forage harvester from a framistan but does it take 300
tons of fuel a year to run one? According to other posts here nothing
like it by several orders of magnitude.

I wonder if your lecturer has done their own sums?


David

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
u...

"Dave Chalton" wrote in message
om...
Thought this may be worth a little discussion, especially for all of
you who are convinced that land is better put to crops for human
consumption than for animals.

I heard it postulated today, in a Crop Mechanisation lecture, that the
power consumption of a powered forage harvester giving a precision (or
metered) chop, working width maybe three metres, in
chemical-energy-required terms, would, in one years use on one farm,
consume enough energy (chemical) to feed 3000 people for a year.

If we feed people 3000 kilocalories a day, 3000 people need about
13,800,000 (3000*3000*365*4.2/1000) megajoules a year. Burning
hydrocarbon fuel we get about 46 megajoules per kilogram, so the
equivalent energy is about 300,000 kg of fuel.

Now I don't know forage harvester from a framistan but does it take 300
tons of fuel a year to run one? According to other posts here nothing
like it by several orders of magnitude.

I wonder if your lecturer has done their own sums?

Putting up wet forage is more costly than putting up dry forage but properly
ensiled wet forage is more nutritious than dry forage and it comes out a
push or slightly in favor of silage.

Local conditions have a great deal to do with how one puts up forage. In my
part of the world it is not uncommon to cut alfalfa at 10 in the moring and
bale it at ten that night in August. In parts of the UK if you tried to make
hay the world might end before it got dry enough to bale.

There are a very many factors that go into raising animal and to reduce it
to fuel equlivents takes a very knowledgably person a long time to get it
right. When he does get it right it is only good for a small area. The
factors on farms sitting side by side can be different depending on the
management level of the farmer and comfort with risk of the farmer and the
landlord. One size does not fit all in farming. One size only fits one once.
--
Gordon

Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger

Gordon Couger writes

One size does not fit all in farming. One size only fits one once.

and only then if you get lucky ....

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

On 2/17/03 5:45 AM, in article , "Oz"
wrote:

Gordon Couger writes

One size does not fit all in farming. One size only fits one once.

OZ:

and only then if you get lucky ....


Are you really, really, absolutely, swear on a Bible sure, you're a
physicist? Luck???
I better go read the alt.sci.physics newsgroup some more. That word,
luck, doesn't seem to get mentioned much. Those characters get down to my
level once in awhile so I actually learn something.



Just wonderin,

Dean












-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Dean Hoffman writes

OZ:

and only then if you get lucky ....


Are you really, really, absolutely, swear on a Bible sure, you're a
physicist?

Not something I claimed for myself. I dabble.

Luck???
I better go read the alt.sci.physics newsgroup some more. That word,
luck, doesn't seem to get mentioned much.

Oh, on the contrary. Many important advances have been due largely to
luck (look at 'this weeks finds' for one) and of course probability and
chance are an integral part of physics.

Those characters get down to my
level once in awhile so I actually learn something.

Never read that group, and don;t read sci.physics any more. Too many
kooks, I remember Archi in his prime (shudder). I moved to a rather more
demanding group, where I seem to be kept as a pet.

We have discussed special relativity on UBA, though.
Which was quite fun.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Dean Hoffman writes

OZ:

and only then if you get lucky ....


Are you really, really, absolutely, swear on a Bible sure, you're a
physicist?

Not something I claimed for myself. I dabble.

Luck???
I better go read the alt.sci.physics newsgroup some more. That word,
luck, doesn't seem to get mentioned much.

Oh, on the contrary. Many important advances have been due largely to
luck (look at 'this weeks finds' for one) and of course probability and
chance are an integral part of physics.

Those characters get down to my
level once in awhile so I actually learn something.

Never read that group, and don;t read sci.physics any more. Too many
kooks, I remember Archi in his prime (shudder). I moved to a rather more
demanding group, where I seem to be kept as a pet.

We have discussed special relativity on UBA, though.
Which was quite fun.

Luck or what ever you want to call unintended results being of value or just
what you need falling in you lap when you need is really great to have
happen. It happens a lot. One of the best ones I have seen documented was
when the Brit's brought penicillin over to have the USDA help them work on a
way to produce it in quantity a janitor found a colony of penicillin mold on
a cantaloupe that doubled the output. It was a long road to commercial
production. If you see the story read it. I stumble over USDA and USGS
people all over the country. In the postdotorate surveys they came up
several times in the top ten of the best place to work. Pay, interactions
with colleges and support come to mind. In an area that is often little more
than indentured servitude.

Many folks never know if they are lucky or not because they never kiss the
frog to see if it is a princess. If you never take a chance luck will not
likely have much effect on your life. If you take chances you will discover
luck both good and bad quickly when you start trying to do things that
haven't been done before and are more than a baby step forward.

I have had a some success and lot of failures and a few that are yet to be
decided. At least in Ag Engineering some of them were good to eat.

My son on the other hand is much more risk averse than I am. He grew up
while I went broke and his Chinese wife has really seen poverty. They don't
kiss frogs.

Luck will work for you if you give it an opportunity and have the good sense
to recognize when it happens.

Gordon

On 2/18/03 1:47 AM, in article , "Oz"
wrote:

Never read that group, and don;t read sci.physics any more. Too many
kooks, I remember Archi in his prime (shudder). I moved to a rather more
demanding group, where I seem to be kept as a pet.

We have discussed special relativity on UBA, though.
Which was quite fun.

I had a dummy attack. The one I look at is sci.physics. Don Sheade is
still posting his stuff about mass and units of measurement. Arch is into
his Fusion Barrier Law. I really liked one of Archie's previous ideas. He
wanted agriculture to go to muscle power instead of diesel power. Much more
efficient, you know. Now if we can just get the big city people to pull
farm equipment around manually we'll be set. 150 horsepower tractors are
fairly common in my area. I think a human in good shape can put out about
about 1/3 horsepower. Let's see, 150 divided by 3 equals 450 people equals
900 feet compacting the ground.


Dean



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"Dean Hoffman" wrote in message
...
On 2/18/03 1:47 AM, in article , "Oz"
wrote:

Never read that group, and don;t read sci.physics any more. Too many
kooks, I remember Archi in his prime (shudder). I moved to a rather more
demanding group, where I seem to be kept as a pet.

We have discussed special relativity on UBA, though.
Which was quite fun.

I had a dummy attack. The one I look at is sci.physics. Don Sheade is
still posting his stuff about mass and units of measurement. Arch is into
his Fusion Barrier Law. I really liked one of Archie's previous ideas.
He
wanted agriculture to go to muscle power instead of diesel power. Much
more
efficient, you know. Now if we can just get the big city people to pull
farm equipment around manually we'll be set. 150 horsepower tractors are
fairly common in my area. I think a human in good shape can put out about
about 1/3 horsepower. Let's see, 150 divided by 3 equals 450 people
equals
900 feet compacting the ground.

We had a grad student from Ethiopia doing a maters project on improving the
wooden plow that is often pulled by humans in his country. We tried very
hard to get his advisor to pull the plow for a picture opportunity.

We also had a difficult time building the plow and getting it to work. There
is more to one than there appears to be and modern methods couldn't do much
to improve it either. The only thing we could do was use a wider point for a
few days after a rain than they do. But the price of steel over there is
such that the sweep is about 5 times as expensive as the point they use. The
point they use is not that much different than the narrow chisel point on a
chisel plow. It is just not reversible.

Gordon

Dean Hoffman writes

I had a dummy attack. The one I look at is sci.physics. Don Sheade is
still posting his stuff about mass and units of measurement. Arch is into
his Fusion Barrier Law.

Mari Meron still about?
Doubtless wizard baez still slums it occasionally.

I really liked one of Archie's previous ideas. He
wanted agriculture to go to muscle power instead of diesel power. Much more
efficient, you know. Now if we can just get the big city people to pull
farm equipment around manually we'll be set. 150 horsepower tractors are
fairly common in my area. I think a human in good shape can put out about
about 1/3 horsepower. Let's see, 150 divided by 3 equals 450 people equals
900 feet compacting the ground.

'Good shape'! I expect the average continuous output for a city dweller
might be significantly less, probably more like 100W. That puts you up
to 1500 people with 3000 feet. Hmm if each eats 1 kg grains a day then
just feeding them for a year will cost you 600T! Do you think they would
expect clothes and heating as well?

Doesn't seem very efficient to me, but a heck of a good-sized hoeing
gang.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.