Re: SB: Re: wood stoves for sb

["Raquel & Greg" <eatrice@princetonca.net>]

> At 08:06 PM 2001-07-24 -0700, John Swearingen wrote:
> >(snip)... perhaps Rum Tom has forgotten his California Straw-bale
> >History:  the large governmental impetus for straw-building is based upon
> >the Air Quality Resource Board's disapproval of extensive burning of rice
> >straw because of the toxic pollution thus generated.  Any other ideas?
> >
>
> Rice straw is the same as wood or any other cellulose biomass. Smolder it
> (burn it in the fields) and it is dirty.
> Compress it into pellet fuel and burn it in a pellet stove, and it is clean
> as a whistle.
>
> Best ..... Norbert

As an interesting historical note, when the California Air Resources Board
starting regulating the burning of rice straw in the fields, they specifically
banned hot, fast head fires (burning with the wind), in favor of smoldering,
smoky back fires.  Back fires can take all day to burn 100 acres, while a head
fire can accomplish the job in less than 30 minutes.  The hotter fire is more
effective at ridding the fields of weed seeds and fungal disease spores as well.
The reason for this is a little known and dubious study from decades ago that
said that back fires produce less smoke.  Having burned fields both ways, I much
prefer a head fire.

However, all this is more or less moot, as we don't really burn much anymore
anyway.

Greg



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, send a message to:
   <strawbale-unsubscribe@crest.org>

or for the digest to:
   <strawbale-digest-unsubscribe@crest.org>

Please send any list administration questions to
strawbale-owner@crest.org