I think that people need to look at the productive capabilities of the soil that the hemp or trees are grown on. 1. Pine and other pulp trees can grow on sites that are nutrient deficient where it would financially unfeasible to grow crops ie. hemp. I do not know the nutrient requirements of hemp but my guess is that it is higher than pine for a given year. 2. Intensive agriculture often results in greater amounts of soil erosion and soil damage. The increased erosion comes from having longer periods of bare soil without plant cover. If one added the amount of erosion after a clearcut and rotation and compared it to the amount of erosion caused by yearly crop rotation over the same period of time as a pine rotation---the yearly crop rotation would result in greater soil loss. Please correct me if I'm wrong or provide numbers which I am to lazy right now to look up. 3. Also yearly crop rotations cause increased soil compaction which destroys the soil structure thereby reducing the productivity of the soil. While I am in no way a 'sawdust head' and I am not a student of Dr. South's, I believe it is more ecologically sound to grow trees for pulp than it is to grow hemp. I do believe hemp should be grown for pulp and medicinal purposes if it does make such good paper, but it is not the savior of the planet. It just makes you feel that way.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0