Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on August 6, 2016
Is Food the Last Thing to Worry About?
Our food system is woefully dependent on petroleum, as writers such as Richard Heinberg (1) and Michael Pollan (2) have eloquently pointed out. Soaring food costs have brought on riots in some countries, and in unstable nations, famine continues to be a regular visitor. Fears of empty grocery shelves have made food security the centerpiece of many a post-Peak Oil plan, and among those watching energy descent, a common refrain is that the best way to guarantee your food supply is to buy a piece of land and grow your own.
Yet in the developed world, especially the breadbasket nations such as the US, Canada, and other food-exporting countries, the food network may be one of the last systems to fail during energy descent. In developing a wise post-Peak strategy, assessing relative risks is critical. Devoting large amounts of time and resources to events that are less likely leaves us unprepared for more probable difficulties. I don’t want to discourage anyone from growing food—I’m a serious gardener myself and could list dozens of excellent reasons for doing it. But I think there are many reasons not to be focusing primarily on food as the system most likely to fail. This isn’t to say that industrial, oil-based agriculture is invulnerable, let alone sustainable. And we may see temporary shortages of specific foods. But there are many reasons why our fears of a food collapse—particularly when they lead us to a go-it-alone, grow-your-own response—may be distracting us from focusing on more immediate and likely risks.
First, two notes of clarification: This article is about net food-exporting nations such as the US, where I live. In the less-developed world, where food growing has been abandoned for export crops that are sold for cash to import commodity food, the food system is far more vulnerable. And by “food collapse” I mean a prolonged inability to produce essential foods, not brief or local shortages of certain items, or high prices while supplies are ample. Volatile commodities markets, weather, and the other gyrations of our uncertain era mean that temporary or local shortages can always occur.
Food gets a lot of attention in part because we need it to survive, but also because one solution to a food crisis—growing your own—seems doable. I suspect we focus on food in part because providing it appears much more possible than, say, keeping the financial, health care, or automotive industries running.
Why would I argue that food collapse in breadbasket nations is not likely, when today’s farming is so dependent on hydrocarbons? Our food system is complex—much more so than it needs to be—but many of our society’s other structures are far more complex, and thus more vulnerable. Joseph Tainter (3) and others point out that complex systems need increasing energy inputs, and eventually reach a point of diminishing returns, so that the costs of complexity eventually outrun its benefits. When inputs decline, the most complex systems are often the first to fail, since they need vast resources to maintain them. With that in mind, we can ask what is likely to fail first during energy descent. That way, we’ll know what we should direct our energies toward preparing for.
Is it any wonder that one of the first complex systems to collapse has been our financial system? The energy and complexity used in Byzantine financial instruments such as collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps, and in moving trillions of dollars through millions of highly orchestrated transactions each day, is immensely greater than what it takes to grow, process, and ship food. Another system teetering near collapse is health care, and it, too, is a fantastically complicated system needing sophisticated, expensive equipment and years of specialized training for practitioners, all administered by an insurance system of equally staggering complexity. Thus the most complex systems are already collapsing. When viewed through the lens of complexity, the relative robustness of the developed world’s food system, even as finance collapses and health care becomes increasingly unavailable, is less mysterious.
It would bolster my argument to show quantitative measurements of these systems’ relative complexity, and for these I’ll point to Howard T. Odum (4) and his concepts of emergy (not energy, but embedded energy) and transformity. Emergy measures the total solar energy used directly and indirectly to make a product or service. Transformity builds on this, and means the emergy of one type required to produce a unit of energy of another type. It describes conversion losses and energy quality. For example, think of a food chain. A million calories of solar energy can make a given quantity of algae. When plankton eat this, it might yield 1000 calories of plankton. These plankton, when eaten, become one calorie of fish. Thus the transformity of that one calorie of fish is one million calories: the amount of sunlight used at the beginning of the food chain divided by the one calorie of fish produced. The plankton, being lower on the food chain, have a lower transformity: 1000 calories, or a million calories of algae divided by 1000 calories of plankton produced.
Processes that have higher transformity don’t just need more energy per output. They also contain more energy conversion steps, which bring efficiency losses and places for the system to fail. Also, high-transformity systems usually need more complex technologies than processes of lower transformity. Plankton are simpler than fish.
So how complex is our food system? Odum’s work tells us that food transformities in industrial cultures are on the order of 25,000 to 100,000 sej/J (solar emergy joules input per joule gained). This is low compared to nearly all other familiar goods and services. Odum says that the production of paper has a transformity of 215,000 sej/J; electricity, 200,000 sej/J; cement, 750,000,000 sej/J; and complex transactions based on digital technologies, such as investment banking, have transformities in the billions or higher. If complexity, transformity, and stability are related—and I think they are—then activities of great complexity and high transformities, including office jobs, electricity, communications, and nearly all social and economic services, will be disrupted before food production will be. We’re seeing that process unwind today. Training and supplying an investment banker or surgeon is more complex than doing the same for a farmer. As complexity plummets due to energy descent, jobs and products of lower transformity are more likely to remain.
But even if the food system isn’t all that complex, you might argue, we have paved over much of our farmland and use oil to make food. Let’s look at the numbers. The US is a net exporter of food, and produces roughly 4000 calories of food per person (5). To stock this larder, the US uses roughly 3 million barrels per day of petroleum, or 15% of our total consumption (6). Thus the US could cut the amount of oil used by the food system in half and still provide a basic 2000-calorie diet. That’s 1.5 million barrels per day or its equivalent, which should be available for some time. This means that neither complexity nor oil are likely to be limiting factors on food production in breadbasket nations until after the failure of other more complex, energy-intensive elements of our lives.
Cheap oil has freed us to pour staggering amounts of energy, both human and fossil, into non-essentials, such as the entertainment, recreation, tourism, sports, media, and other fuel-gobbling industries. Inexpensive oil lets much of the developed world endlessly buzz around in inefficient cars and jets. In other words, 85% of our fossil-fuel consumption is used for things other than food, usually wastefully. As oil becomes expensive we will choose to redirect a modest portion of that 85% away from long commutes, non-essential industries, and other symptoms of cheap oil, in order to feed ourselves. It’s likely that as we round Hubbert’s bend we’ll return to putting 30-50% of our energy use toward food production, as has been the case for most of human history (7). This reordering of oil priorities can buy us the time needed to reconfigure our grossly inefficient, hydrocarbon-based food system into something far more localized and sustainable, if we’re smart.
Another oft-cited argument for food collapse is that fossil-fuel supplies are unreliable. What if foreign producers cut us off? The US currently produces about 5.2 million barrels of oil per day. Canada and Mexico are the top two petroleum importers for the US, providing about 40% of our imports, or 3.8 million bbl/day (8). Thus 9 million bbl/day are currently available from nearby sources. That’s three times the oil used by our food system, and six times what is needed for a basic diet. Natural gas, used to make nitrogen fertilizers, is a critical agricultural resource that also comes from relatively stable sources. Canada provides 95% of America’s natural-gas imports. The continent’s intertwined economies and the realities of geopolitics make it probable that hydrocarbons will flow long enough for the US to shift to a less oil-intensive agriculture. Obviously, oil output will continue its decline, and there are bound to be periodic crises, but the numbers suggest that starvation in the US is far from a certainty.
Food production is truly the oldest profession. We’re good at it, we’ve been doing it for 10,000 years, and it is a relatively simple system to run. It is at the base of a large cultural pyramid, which makes it fundamental, so although disrupting it would be catastrophic, it is also more elementary and thus easier to keep running than all the systems above its level of complexity. There are gardeners in over 71 million American households (9), so there is a sizable knowledge base to help with the transition to more local food production.
Almost certainly, food will shift from being a minor piece of the US economy to once again requiring one-third to one-half of our labor and energy. The example of Cuba, which in a few years retooled its agriculture system after a sudden and near-total cutoff of oil, shows that food systems can be modified quickly. How long would it take us to convert the nearest city park, or a soybean field that’s growing feedstocks for newspaper ink and car lacquer, into food production if it were urgent? One season. The recent substitution of ethanol corn for soybeans over vast acreages in a single season shows how quickly farmers can respond to new markets. And as food prices rise, people thrown out of work by energy descent will find jobs growing food, as Sharon Astyk and Aaron Newton have suggested in their book, A Nation of Farmers.
As cheap shipping disappears, can we feed ourselves locally? To gauge this, we need to know if there is enough farmland near cities to feed their populations. Researchers at Cornell University found that the basic calories to feed Rochester, New York’s population of 225,000 could be grown on existing cropland within 16.5 miles (26.6 km) of the city limits and would cover 36,000 hectares (90,000 acres) (10). This admittedly simplistic analysis looks only at caloric needs, not overall nutrition. To provide a balanced and diverse diet might require a larger area, so let’s say we’d need twice as much land, or 180,000 acres. That area is still within 25 miles of the city, close enough to easily bring goods to market. This could save much of the fuel used today to transport the infamous 1500-mile salad. Plus, the Cornell analysis assumes wasteful conventional agriculture techniques, not high-intensity ones that use local nutrient sources such as composted waste and animal and human manure, as well as other resource-saving methods that people dependent on local food would readily use. It’s probable that the largest cities, such as New York, would be unable to feed themselves locally, but it is likely that for them we will set fuel priorities to ship food from more distant farms.
And it is the reordering of fuel priorities that leads us to one of the most powerful reasons that food supplies are less likely to run out than almost any other resource. Politicians understand that hungry people topple governments. We’re deeply imbued with cultural lore reflecting this. Most people know little else about Marie Antoinette other than the apocryphal taunt to starving peasants that ensured her rendezvous with the guillotine, “Let them eat cake.” Trotsky noted that every society is only three meals away from a revolution. History shows that any functional state short of a kleptocracy will allow almost every other service—health care, banking, sanitation, schools, transportation—to languish before it allows its people to go hungry. Preserving the flow of at least 1.5 million barrels of oil per day for food will be a critical priority of the US government.
Let me be the first to admit that there’s still some chance of food collapse. Perhaps stupid or corrupt leaders will choose to direct energy resources not toward food but to the military or the rich. Or it’s possible that the link between the financial sector and food, via the futures and commodities markets, may play havoc with food supplies. And it’s certain that adjusting from today’s food consuming 10% of the average family budget to the historical norm of 30% to 50% will be disruptive.
Whatever your chosen post-Peak scenario, it’s smart to keep emergency food and water on hand, as much as makes you feel comfortable. But focusing on preparations for a food-system collapse reminds me of the story of the fellow searching for his keys under the streetlight. He didn’t lose them there, but that was the only place where the light was bright enough to see. In crisis, we often default to doing what we know even if it’s not the wisest action. We can’t individually fix the economy or health care, yet we certainly can grow some food, and that may be why it is central to many post-Peak plans. And I agree: growing food is simple. It’s an ancient skill that is at the heart of human culture, and even in its industrial manifestation, it is a robust system that is less complex and energy-intensive than most of society’s other activities. That’s why I suspect the food system will last longer than much of the rest of the oil society. Although brief disruptions are certainly possible, in breadbasket nations food is more likely than many other aspects of our culture to make it through the transition.
But for a thousand other reasons, plant a garden anyway.
28 Comments on "Is Food the Last Thing to Worry About?"
Davy on Sat, 6th Aug 2016 7:54 am
Man this guy is clueless on many levels. Is he trying to reassure himself that all will be OK in the Good ole US of A because we are a bread basket nation? Come on please, the food system will be one of the first casualties of a collapsing economy and society. An unstable grid and fuel shortages will mean all that food transport, processing, and preservation (refrigeration) will be vulnerable. Farmers will have a difficult task getting food planted and harvested with unstable grid, fuel shortages, and disrupted economy.
Farmers barely make it now except for the wealthy connected ones. Farming is a complex uncertain occupation. I know I did the industrial kind and now I am doing the perma-culture kind. Crops will rot in the field from lack of transport and harvest equipment. Monocultures transported long distances will be problematic. Bank loans may be difficult to get to finance crop planting. The industrialized food system will likely breakdown just like the manufacturing system because it is energy intensivity with complex supply chains.
Food should never have come to this but it has and now we are going to pay the price and that price is food insecurity, hunger, and starvation. This will happen horribly in the overpopulated third world but it will definitely destroy more complex economies too. Society will come unglued quickly if people go hungry for very long in developed and developing economies alike. This article is truly off track and the usual effort by an uninformed person talking out his ass. He is trying to be optimistic about something very dangerous and close at hand. Just more typical feel good it will be OK shit that is the standard fare of the status quo.
Cloud9 on Sat, 6th Aug 2016 7:57 am
Your premise is a good one long term. I have no doubt given time, victory gardens will spring up all over the place. The one caveat is that there is a significant timeline that unfolds between the moment an individual realizes he needs a garden and the time that garden begins to produce enough food to feed that individual. At a minimum we are talking two to three months.
http://www.connexionfrance.com/potatoes-grow-france-how-long-varieties-10748-news-article.html
A true life support system requires years to develop.
http://www.gardening-guy.com/2012/09/05/how-long-does-it-take-to-create-a-mature-garden/
There is the often repeated phrase that we are but nine meals away from anarchy.
http://www.utne.com/environment/nine-meals-away-from-anarchy-zm0z13jfzros.aspx
What you are missing is the chaos that follows systemic collapse. A primary source of that chaos is a result of the panic on the part of central planners attempting to orchestrate chaos with such expedients as price and wage controls. These efforts wind up producing even more unemployment and empty shelves. Venezuela is a prime example of this process. The next expedient is forced labor resulting in gulags and famines.
onlooker on Sat, 6th Aug 2016 8:49 am
Yes Davy unfortunately, the rich countries went too much to the mechanized industrial form of food production, so this author is truly uninformed. Now they’re will be hell to pay food wise. As for the poor countries especially Asia well they’re huge populations are just not sustainable for a variety of reasons among which is their reliance on food imports, they’re overdue for a Pandemic, climate change is already a problem that will only get worse. And other environmental/social woes such as air pollution and lack of healthcare and medicine . So sufficient food will be a problem in most places in the world also due to the fact of the state of the soil, the lack of top soil from soil erosion and desertification (We have cut down so many forests and overused and overgrazed so many areas)
makati1 on Sat, 6th Aug 2016 9:00 am
“Although brief disruptions are certainly possible, in breadbasket nations food is more likely than many other aspects of our culture to make it through the transition.”
What a fruking joke! lol Food is already under stress, even in the so called “breadbaskets” of the world, ALL of them. Soon, the odds of planting and a few months later reaping a bountiful harvest will be a gamble like going to the casino and playing the slots. With seasons getting shook up like the picture in a kaleidoscope, early/late heat/cold, unpredictable rain/drought, etc., quantities will fall. And, like any other business’, if it isn’t profitable to harvest, it won’t happen.
People starved during the Great Depression while farmers left the crops to rot in the fields or destroyed them after harvest because it was not profitable to take them to market. Or the Dust Bowl that turned the farms into desert and the top soil just blew away, along with the farm families that owned them.
No, food is going to be at the top of the list soon. Perhaps sooner than we think. How many more years can California last if the drought persists? 2? 3? And that is just one of many places that are already drying up. Plant a garden now and learn how to preserve what you grow. A skill that was common in my youth but is rare now.
makati1 on Sat, 6th Aug 2016 9:07 am
BTW: America imports about 20% of it’s food already. That number is going to grow as the farms in the US lose their ability to be profitable. And yes profit WILL determine the amount that goes to market just like the Depression days. If you cannot be personally food self sufficient, you are not going to be any better off than the “Asians” supposedly are now.
I see a war coming soon. A BIG one that will hit America this time. Too many events pointing to that end. Too many desperate countries in the West that are collapsing and need a big distraction to keep control of their populations. The Forth Turning …
penury on Sat, 6th Aug 2016 9:30 am
Another article outlining the belief that ‘humans” are anointed by a “god” to rule the world, and nothing bad can ever happen to the human race. And yes there are still people even on this board that have full faith and conviction in that crap.
Davy on Sat, 6th Aug 2016 11:27 am
“BTW: America imports about 20% of it’s food already.”
This 20% figure represent luxury food items that are not necessary. The US is self-sufficient with the food basics. The US has no need for any imports from anywhere. It will be in a food insecurity situation when fossil fuels are no longer available in quantities needed to support industrial agriculture. It will not be importing food then because food will not be availed for import. All nations will be scrambling to meet their needs.
Survivalist on Sat, 6th Aug 2016 12:33 pm
Much of US food production is with ground water pumped from fossil aquifers. It takes a lot of energy to move this water up to the surface. Once that energy is less available then the water will be either less available or more expensive. The dust bowl of the 30’s occurred because of a decrease in rainfall. The statistics tell the story.
Normally, the state of Nebraska averages around 20 inches of rainfall a year.
In 1930, Nebraska got 22 inches of rain, and the state’s corn crop averaged 25 bushels per acre. In 1934, Nebraska saw the driest year on record with only 14.5 inches of rainfall. The state’s corn crop dropped even more to only 6.2 bushels per acre. In other words, between 1930 and 1934 rainfall dropped 27.5 percent, and as a result corn crop yields dropped over 75 percent. Without copious amounts of cheap energy to pump the ground water we’ll be back to relying on rain water. On the weather depends the harvest, and on the harvest depends everything.
peakyeast on Sat, 6th Aug 2016 2:46 pm
From what I undestand of the government procedures in the US – and possibly also most other places is that agriculture considered essential and has priority when it comes to fuel rationing.
I suppose this means that food will be produced at the expense of most other things – and thus is somewhat outside the economic system.
peakyeast on Sat, 6th Aug 2016 2:46 pm
From what I undestand of the government procedures in the US – and possibly also most other places is that agriculture is considered essential and has priority when it comes to fuel rationing.
I suppose this means that food will be produced at the “expense” of most other things – and thus is somewhat outside the economic system.
peakyeast on Sat, 6th Aug 2016 2:48 pm
OOOps. Sorry for the double post.
Davy on Sat, 6th Aug 2016 3:37 pm
The majority of the US corn crop is grown in the heartland without irrigation. Irrigated corn acres in the southern and northern plains account for 25% of US irrigation. The US could stop raising irrigated corn and it would not be that big a factor to US food security. It would impact exports and ethanol production but not the basics of the food system.
Apneaman on Sat, 6th Aug 2016 4:06 pm
Professor: Climate change threatens to turn Prairies into dust bowl
“Canada’s breadbasket could become a new Dust Bowl as climate change tightens its grip, warns a Dalhousie University food expert.”
“Globally, Canada is currently ranked seventh in cereal production and ninth in global in meat production, according to the report. Canada is also first in canola, second in oats, third in pulses, fourth in barley and as an agricultural exporting country, Canada is sixth in the world.
Changes in weather cycles can also increase crop pest numbers and disease rates due to higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The Prairies are home to nearly half of Canada’s farms and larger shares of its cropland and grassland bases.”
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1368778-professor-climate-change-threatens-to-turn-prairies-into-dust-bowl
“It is generally recognized that climate change has the potential to have the greatest impact on the Prairies and in central B.C. Changes reflected in the hydrographs of snowmelt streams in response to recent climate variability (which may affect the timing of water availability), have already been documented (Leith and Whitfield, 1998; Whitfield, 2001). In addition, glacial melt-water flows, which contribute significant volumes of water to rivers such as the Bow (Alberta) and Columbia (B.C.) during the summer months, will cease to exist as key glaciers disappear within the next 50 to 60 years. This will have significant impacts (10% of flow) on water availability for irrigation and instream flows for the protection of aquatic life.”
https://www.ec.gc.ca/inre-nwri/default.asp?lang=En&n=0CD66675-1&offset=12&toc=show
Melting glaciers also mean BC’s 75% hydropower will falter and one day cease altogether. Look what drought has done to Venezuela’s hydropower and to Hoover dam (they installed low flow turbines to buy some time).
So you see my American friends, there is no point in trying to escape up to Canada when it becomes too hot to bear. There will be nothing here for you.
Truth Had A Liberal Bias on Sat, 6th Aug 2016 10:34 pm
Davy, you’re a fucking idiot
Truth Had A Liberal Bias on Sat, 6th Aug 2016 10:41 pm
There’s more to US agriculture than corn grown in “the heart land” I think you mean the mid west corn belt you illiterate dip shit)you fucking retard “Irrigated farms account for $118.5 billion in sales, or 40% of the market value of agricultural products”
http://wspc.ucr.edu/events/presentations/Schaible_ppt.pdf
You obviously never did very well in school eh Davy? Did you drop out in grade 9 or something?
Truth Had A Liberal Bias on Sat, 6th Aug 2016 10:43 pm
“Agriculture is a major user of ground and surface water in the United States, accounting for approximately 80 percent of the Nation’s consumptive water use (see definitions) and over 90 percent in many Western States”
http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/irrigation-water-use.aspx
Retard
Truth Had A Liberal Bias on Sat, 6th Aug 2016 10:44 pm
One more you illiterate fuck.
30 seconds on google proves you’re a fucking retard who just makes shit up.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/western-irrigated-agriculture.aspx
Truth Had A Liberal Bias on Sat, 6th Aug 2016 10:49 pm
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/10/corn-remains-king-in-usda-irrigation-survey/
I hope a post collapse Mexican bandit smashes your head in with a rock
makati1 on Sat, 6th Aug 2016 10:57 pm
Truth, there are so many idiots in the Us today that it is a wonder it even functions. They are so brainwashed that it is a crime. They believe all of the bullshit that is fed to them 24/7/365 and try to convince those in the rest of the world, the other 7 billion of us, that it is all true and the US is exceptional and indispensable because they are told that from birth. That the rest of the world is worse than anyone in the us and that their family will be able to continue, as usual, forever.
US food independence is one of the biggest lies out there. It is all going to crash and burn soon. Aquifers are drying up. Rivers are shrinking. Reservoirs are hitting record lows and the temps are still climbing. When the energy to pump water 1,000+ feet from underground goes away, so does the food.
I fly over much of the Midwest from Washington State to the East Coast every time I visit the States. Those round green patches are not artwork, they are irrigated fields. This summer, in July, there was more brown than green in that part of the country. That will become the norm and not the exception. 20% of America’s food comes from California … I rest my case.
keithhenson on Sun, 7th Aug 2016 1:03 am
I tend to agree with Toby.
The US grows a lot more food than we eat. If the transportation structure or even the banking structure falls apart, then we will not be able to export food, though in reality, rail and water transport does not take much energy.
Rail transport was what ended famines in Europe. It’s really rare to have crops fail in all places the railways reached.
GregT on Sun, 7th Aug 2016 1:17 am
“If the transportation structure or even the banking structure falls apart, then we will not be able to export food”
Correct. Food would no longer be available to those who live far away from where it is grown. Without economies of scale, and transport networks, think walking distance.
Davy on Sun, 7th Aug 2016 7:01 am
Agricultural illiterates Makati and Truth has a liberal bi”ass” are uninformed google brats that have never grown anything of measure nor understand agriculture. Do the math dumbass (943-55). Tell me the US grows most of its food with irrigation. The US is food independent currently and will be better placed than many large nations going into the collapse of our modern global society. The food we import we don’t need. Food imports are a luxury of modern life that can and should go.
The US will suffer terribly in making a transition once collapse is pronounced. Many will die in the US for reasons of the structure of its population. We have people who don’t know how to grow food like Makati and Truth and they live in cities like Makati and Truth. Corn bread and weak soup may be the daily intake but we are still better places to feed ourselves than Asia and soon Africa. Asia is a different story with such huge population densities. Asia is beyond crisis management. Climate change is a big unknown for the US but in the near term we will have something to work with.
WASHINGTON, Nov 13, 2014 –There were 229,237 farms with 55.3 million irrigated acres in the United States, according to the 2013 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey results, published today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).Nov 13, 2014
https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Newsroom/2014/11_13_2014.php
There was an 8% decline in the number of acres in farms over the last twenty years. In 1990, there were almost 987 million acres in farms in the U.S., that number was reduced to just under 943 million acres by 2000, and then reduced to 914 million acres in 2012 (*1).
https://www.epa.gov/agriculture
ponente on Sun, 7th Aug 2016 9:42 am
Hi Davy,how I contact you? Farm related!!
Davy on Sun, 7th Aug 2016 9:51 am
Give me your email or just give me a question and I can answser it here.
ponente on Sun, 7th Aug 2016 12:58 pm
Sorry Davy that I miss your reply!!!
[email protected]
Davy on Tue, 9th Aug 2016 6:20 am
ponente, you there?
ponente on Tue, 9th Aug 2016 6:36 am
Yes I’m here!! I received 2 emails,was you?
Davy on Tue, 9th Aug 2016 6:50 am
yeap