>Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 15:25:16 +0200 >From: David South <dsouth@Forestry.Auburn.EDU> >To: forest@nic.funet.fi >Subject: Hemp monocultures > >ARE TREE MONOCULTURES MORE EFFICIENT IN PRODUCING PAPER FIBER >THAN HEMP MONOCULTURES? > ............ >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. ............. >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. This argument by Mr. David South, in response to an earlier post, claiming higher hemp fiber tonnage production per acre than wood fiber, assumes several things, which may or may not be true, especially over the long term: (1) that monoculture forestry (or any kind of forestry) is sustainable at current growth rates now and into the future; (2) that hemp cultivation data from the early part of the century is relevant to what is achievable today (we can't know if this is true, because the US govt won't permit hemp cultivation or research); (3) that fire control (fire suppression) is a good thing; and (4) that there are no other considerations, besides overall wood volume per hectare, to evaluate in deciding what fiber source constitutes the best public policy direction for the USA. I would suggest that, instead of debating which method gets greater volume, that we begin discussing how to go about reducing the consumption of wood and paper in the USA. It is probably realistic to achieve a reduction of well over 50% total volume of wood and paper consumed annually in the USA over the next 20 years, so let's do it! We should all encourage the folks doing forestry research to start looking into efficiency of USE of wood products, rather than maximizing production. The high outputs per acre realized by the US timber industry have come at a cost: low quality wood; proliferation of toxic wood products (e.g. waferboard); diminishing supply of high grade furniture wood; excessive waste; low efficiency in general. If our researchers were to focus on doing more with what we have instead of spending their careers stoking the engine of maximized volume production, then perhaps we might get closer to TRUE 'sustainability.' PAPER-FREE in '03! (Electronically) David Orr dgorr@ucdavis.edu
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0