Make or Break

It’s not a fight between David and Goliath, but one between Goliath and David’s baby brother.  “We’re not running at maximum capacity right now. Even if we were, we’re trying to compete in a North American market where the big runners are doing 5000 animals a day, that’s half of …

Depression Hurts But You Don’t Have To

by Nancy Resnitzky Those who live in the city may not be aware of the nature and extent of farm stress within farm families across the Island. For most people, it’s just a story, not something that affects them directly. The PEI Federation of Agriculture knows of the stress though …

Film Brings Island Fox Industry to Life

Just before World War One broke out, PEI could boast one of the highest per capita incomes in the country. The reason can be summed up in two words—“silver foxes.” To help bring that history alive, Wyatt Heritage Properties in Summerside has developed a 46 minute film entitled Those Little …

From Rural Survival to Rural Revival

by Shannon Courtney ‘We export inspiration!’ I smiled when I first heard this proclamation uttered about Hardwick, Vermont. A former mining town that fell from its glory days at the outset of World War II, it has weathered decades of economic depression. Unemployment and poverty rates run high, and jobs …

Recent Articles:

Hey.. What About Hay

August 1, 2011 Ian Petrie No Comments

It’s a common site throughout the Maritimes in the summer, farmers cutting and baling hay, more often now big round bales that require far less labour. There are efforts throughout the region to use this hay for more than feeding livestock, in fact many see it as a low-cost local source of fuel to heat homes and businesses. Here’s one story from Nova Scotia.

 

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/01/making-hay-heating-homes-clean-renewable-homegrown-cheaper-than-coal/

 

Hay for Heating Homes: Clean, Renewable, Cheaper than Coal

by Andrew Burger  •  Aug. 1, 2011 •

As CEO and co-founder of LST Energy1 Jim Trussler is a man on a mission: to tout the benefits of growing and using hay, or rather concentrated hay pellets, to heat homes across North America. A Nova Scotia-based start-up, LST has built a patented device that turns hay into pellets that burn efficiently in a range of burners that the company is now manufacturing.

“The hay farmers of North America will one day out-produce the oil sands,” Trussler quoted Roger Samson, a biomass energy expert, while speaking at a TEDx2 event in Nova Scotia in June. They “can produce the energy equivalent of 7.2% of the world’s oil supply (82 million barrels of oil/day).”

Growing crops for energy has been blamed for driving up basic food costs in countries around the world. Examining the case of hay in North America, however, Samson and colleagues determined that there are 90 million hectares of land area suitable for hay production out of a total 450 million hectares of agricultural land across the continent.

Growing hay on this land and using the biomass for energy could done “without interrupting the food chain for animals, or for humans,” Trussler noted, producing enough heat for 69 million homes.

Hay Pellets for Home Heating

Trussler and his partner have invented and built a simple, straightforward device that takes in hay, grinds it up into a “sawdust-type consistency,” and turns that into concentrated, dense and stable pellets that can be burned efficiently and create no pollution. They’re also manufacturing a line of burners of various size and capacity for home heating.

Trussler pointed out that “the same thing can be done from leftover biomass from sunflower crops, as well as corn…or sugar beets, or potatoes.” “Even the skins and cores of apple make great fuel pellets,” he waxed enthusiastically. “But it’ll be mostly hay because we can grow an enormous amount of it.”

Why hay? One reason is what you get out of it, in terms of energy, compared to what’s put in to grow and process it. Hay pellets have a surprisingly high energy input-to-output ratio of 20:1. That compares to 10:1 for wood, 5:1 for biodiesel and an extremely low 1.5:1 for corn ethanol, according to Trussler.

One pound of hay will produce almost 8,000 BTUs, “that’s almost exactly equal to hardwood, and frankly, quite close to what coal produces when it burns, so it’s a fantastic heat source,” he noted.

Clean, Cheap, Predictable & Local

In addition, hay is cheap to produce and plentiful, requiring relatively little in the way of added inputs. And it’s supply is predictable. That holds out another substantial promise: low, steady, predictable costs for consumers. That’s a stark contrast to the cost volatility inherent in fossil fuels.

“The crop yields are predictable from year to year to year; it doesn’t really depend that much on the weather, and it requires so few inputs that the costs are well-known and quite low,” Trussler noted.

“And so consumers can look forward to having a consistent supply of heating materials at consistent prices, and that’s something that you can’t get from fossil fuels. And frankly, that concerns a lot of us, and businesses, because of the unpredictability of that.”

At current prices, consumers could cut their home heating costs in half by installing the sort of equipment LST is manufacturing and burning concentrated hay pellets in them to heat their homes, Trussler said.

Then there are the environmental advantages. Burning hay pellets in an efficient burner has the same lifetime GHG footprint as wind, according to an Ontario government study.

Burning hay pellets for home heating as opposed to the current mix of home heating fuels in North America would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 90%. What’s left is almost completely reabsorbed in next year’s crop, according to Trussler.

Boosting Local, Rural Economies

Finally, going down this path would also have significant, positive impacts in terms of rural economic development, stimulating local economies by boosting rural incomes and job growth. And it would preserve land, according to Trussler.

Much of the money flow associated with this business model would be kept within the local community, he notes. “It’s not going to be a business where you’re going to ship this stuff across the country; it just doesn’t make any sense.” In addition, farmers could supplement their income by qualifying for carbon credits.

In terms of preserving land, “we have excess capacity farmland, and it’s just going dormant. If we’re not careful, that dormant farmland will just turn back into bush and not be easily usable for agricultural purposes again,” he said.

“If you put hay crops on it, it saves it from any erosion problems, and keeps it in tip-top shape until you do want to use it again for agricultural purposes, and it pays for itself while you’re doing that.”

 

 

Agriculture Ministers Meet in New Brunswick

July 13, 2011 Ian Petrie No Comments

The headline to the news release from Agriculture Canada following the agriculture ministers meeting in St Andrews New Brunswick  looked pretty familiar:

“An Innovative, Modern Agriculture Sector to Foster Growth and Prosperity”

 

The “to  foster”  pushed prosperity into the future which is at least being honest, although it sounds more like a promise than a hope. The challenge for farmers is that every time they become innovative, which usually means borrowing more and more money, the benefits seem to flow up the marketing chain, to processors, or consumers.

 

The other telling bit in the news release was  a * next to the words “FPT ministers agreed”  (translation  FPT: Federal, Provincial, Territorial, in other words all the agriculture ministers in the country). The * was an indication that one province with a huge agriculture sector didn’t agree. Ontario agriculture minister Carol Mitchell refused to sign what’ s being called the St. Andrew’s Statement, a framework for how governments will respond to financial and environmental disasters under what’s called the “Growing Forward” program. In a news release Mitchell said  “I did not sign on to this flawed agreement on future programs because Ontario farmers told me it would take us in the wrong direction and not provide our family farms what they need to continue to bring quality, locally grown foods to Ontario tables.”  Federal Minister Gerry Ritz didn’t mention Mitchell’s position at a closing news conference last Friday.

 

The Maritime provinces don’t have a lot of resources to support what can be very expensive income support programs for farmers, so generally go along with whatever they can get from the Federal Government.  Farmers across the country have generally been critical of the Growing Forward programs, saying they’re  not responsive or predictable enough to the variety of weather and  market disruptions   producers face.  All of the major farm groups in Ontario support Mitchell’s decision not to sign the protocol saying someone has to stand up to the Federal Government.

 

Another province standing up to the Federal Government is Manitoba. It’s fighting Ottawa over its decision to end the marketing monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board to sell wheat and barley.  This is from a report done in the Winnipeg Free Press:

“It leaves Manitoba as the lone holdout against what federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz calls “marketing choice” but Manitoba agriculture minister Stan Struthers says he’s not backing down.

“We are the only province standing up for the farmers right to vote,” said Struthers.

He said he knew going into the meeting he was going to be a lone voice at the table but it didn’t “deter us from speaking very frankly to the federal minister.”

He acknowledged he is frustrated by the situation because he believes the decision is solely ideological.

“We’ve been clear we want (Ritz) to put a business case forward that says how this will be good for farmers,” said Struthers. “He hasn’t done that.”

The CWB is holding its own plebiscite among prairie farmers to determine support levels for the monopoly versus marketing choice.

However Ritz has dismissed the plebiscite saying it doesn’t matter how many farmers support the monopoly, any farmer who wants to sell grain somewhere else should be able to do so. He said the only vote needed was the May 2 federal election where Conservatives were elected in almost every rural riding affected by the wheat board.”