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.

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

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.

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 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.

Gordon Couger writes

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.

This doesn't surprise me.
It has had an extended development period already.

Doubtless the point could be readily made from old truck springs.

--
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
.. 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.

remember to add in the administration and motivation costs as well.
overseers with whips don't come cheap :-))



--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

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

Jim Webster writes
Oz wrote in message
...
Dean Hoffman writes
. 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.

remember to add in the administration and motivation costs as well.
overseers with whips don't come cheap :-))

Dang it, you always see the downside ......


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

Dean Hoffman writes

I don't remember either of those names at sci.physics. I think that's
where I saw this puzzle. Take a circular pasture with grass growth even
over the full area. Put a stake at the edge of the pasture with a rope on
it. Tie a hungry critter on the other end. How long should the rope be so
the critter can get to only 1/3 of the pasture? Express the length in
relation to one of the circle's dimensions such as radius, diameter or
circumference.

1) Take the radius, r. That is the original length of the rope.

Now we know from elementary geometry that area is pi*r^2,
so for 1/3 area we need a radius of 1/(square root 3).

2) Take a right angled triangle of side r and hypotenuse 2r.
Again this is elementary geometry, compass and straight edge stuff.
You can use a 3:4:5 triangle for a 90deg if you like.

The other side will be square root of 3r in length.
Cut a length of string off at sqrt(3).

3) Divide the string into three equal parts by folding it (free ends at
opposite ends).

This will have length sqrt(3)/3 = 1/sqrt(3) which is what we want,

so cut the string into three equal lengths. Each gives you the length
you require for your string.

Easy ....

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