Homestead mailing list

[sanrico AT highdesert.com]

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

 A study prepared by the Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial
Materials, a non-profit group of 15 research universities, has concluded that
wood is a more environmentally sound building material than either steel or
concrete. The $1 million study revealed that a wood frame house in cold 
Minnesota
uses 17 percent less energy than steel construction for the typical house and 
16
percent less energy than a concrete structure. In steamy Atlanta, researchers
found that a concrete house used 16 percent more energy and caused 31 percent
more global warming potential than did a similar wood building. Further, for
those concerned about global warming, the study indicates "[T]he growth of 
wood
in renewable forests works to 'sequester' and remove carbon from the 
atmosphere,
and fewer carbon emissions are created in the processing needed to produce 
wood
products than their steel and concrete counterparts." The study is the first
major update on the subject since 1976 and James Wilson, professor of wood
science and engineering at Oregon State University and vice president of the
research group believes the information will aid those seeking environmentally
friendly materials. This study will provide them a blueprint, Wilson believes.
Once again, sound science trumps environmental hysteria. 
Saving the Environment by Building with Wood 

A study by a University of Nevada research team has concluded livestock 
grazing
does not harm the environment. The scientists studied ungrazed enclosures that
had been in place since the Taylor Grazing Act was established in 1934 and
compared them to outside areas grazed by cattle and sheep. The study, which 
was
conducted from 2001 to 2002, determined there were few differences between the
two areas. That bit of news may give cattle-haters heart-burn. "Advocates for 
the
removal of livestock often do not provide scientific evidence of long-term 
damage
from properly managed livestock grazing," said Barry Perryman, assistant
professor of animal biotechnology at the University of Nevada, Reno. "On the
other hand, livestock grazing supporters have little documented evidence of
grazing having any beneficial effect on the land," he said. Perryman explained
that while there are few major differences between grazed and ungrazed
rangelands, the enclosed areas contained more cheatgrass, a very undesirable 
and
highly flammable, invasive weed. The study may provide substantial help to
ranchers who have a legal right to graze livestock. "From an ecological
standpoint we can argue if we remove the grazing infrastructure from public
rangelands, we would see some adverse consequences," Perryman continued. We'd 
see
less variety and too much ground cover…as well as more cheatgrass and the
potential for more range fires." 
Study Finds Cattle Grazing Has Little Long-Term Impact 

___________________________________________
Get free email at http://www.highdesert.com