Forest list archive: msg00013

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Hemp monocultures



ARE TREE MONOCULTURES MORE EFFICIENT IN PRODUCING PAPER FIBER
THAN HEMP MONOCULTURES?

A recent advertisement states "According to the US Department of Agriculture
hemp produces 4:1 times more paper per land area than trees."  However, the data
cited is about 80 years old (USDA Bulletin #404 was published in 1916).   The
growth rate for wood was 0.37 cord/acre/year (approximately 2.3 cubic
meters/ha/yr).  The title of the Bulletin is "Hemp hurds as paper-making
material"
by Lyster H. Dewey and Jason L. Merrill (thanks to Stephanie Bianchi who tracked
down the reference).

The 1916 Bulletin compares yields of hemp grown in a monoculture (single species
crop) with yields from trees grown in natural stands (often containing
several tree
species per hectare).  We now know that wood yields from intensively managed 
monocultures can be greater than that achieved from multiple species native
stands.   Therefore, I suggest those advocating use of hemp paper should
recalculate the land use efficiency.  Current information may show that
intensive
tree monocultures require less land per ton of paper than hemp monocultures. 
Some approximate growth rates of tree monocultures in 1994 are:


Country                      cubic meters/ha/yr

Brazil   (Eucalyptus)               35
New Zealand  (Pinus)                25
South Africa (Eucalyptus)           21
Chile  (Pinus)                      21
Congo (Eucalyptus)                  20
South Africa (Pinus)                15
United Kingdom (Picea)              14
West US (Pseudotsuga)               14
Southern US (Pinus)                  9





----------------------------------------------------------------------------



In 1916, Jason  Merrill was concerned about the rapid depletion of forests
in the
United States.  His work involved making paper from hemp hurds ( a waste
product of the hemp industry).  He expected hemp to be one of the staple
agricultural crops in the United States and using the waste to make paper could 
reduce the expected shortage of wood paper.  Readers may be interested in the
following comments by Jason Merrill (Bulletin #404). 


"There seems to be little doubt that the present wood supply can not withstand
indefinitely the demands placed upon it, and with increased scarcity economy
in the
use of wood will become imperative.  This effect is already apparent in many
wood-using industries, and although the paper industry consumes only about 3 per
cent of the total forest cut, it is probable that it will be affected
through this
economy.  Our forests are being cut three times as fast as they grow, and as
wood
becomes more expensive proper growing and reforesting will receive more
attention.  Thus, naturally, a balance will be established between
production and
consumption, but as this condition approaches its limiting values the price
of wood
may rise to such levels that there will be a demand for other raw materials."



What happened in the 8 decades since has been quite different than that
predicted
by Merrill.  For example, the amount of wood used for paper has increased.
In 1916, the amount of woodpulp production in the Southern
United States (South) was about 230,000 metric tons (few pine plantations
were being
established).  By 1984, the production was up to 35,054,000 metric tons and
about
745,000 hectares of pine monocultures were being established annually in the
South.
The amount of annual growth of wood in the Southern US now equals about 153
million cubic meters/year.  Merrill was right when he predicted an increased
attention to
tree planting. In 1993, the South grew about 1,123 million tree seedlings
for reforestation.
 


Thank goodness here in the Southern United States, we now have effective fire
control (the area burned in the South in 1916 was about 4 million hectares)
as well
as an efficient replanting program.  By the turn of the century, it is
predicted that
half of the conifer volume harvested in the South will be from plantation 
monocultures (even though only 23% of the timber stands would be in pine
plantations).  Thanks in part to fire control and monocutures, our growth to
harvest ratio 
is now 1 to 1.  This ratio is much more "sustainable" 
than the 1 to 3 ratio in 1916 when wood was harvested only from native forests.


David South
School of Forestry
Auburn University, AL  36849-5418

dsouth@forestry.auburn.edu

205-844-1022
205-844-1084 (FAX)




Follow-Ups:

[Metla] [Main Index] [Thread Index]

Mail converted by MHonArc 1.1.0