CAUTION: LONG POST There has been a prolonged discussion about hemp vs. trees on several lists, notably bionet.agroforestry. This was my reply after getting annoyed with the lack of focus in the discussion. I am posting it to our Forest list in hopes of getting some feedback from some of you who may know something about yields of various fiber crops. It seems to me that this thread, like so many discussions about hemp, misses some very important points, and glosses over some others: 1. Hemp should be regarded simply as one of a large number of potential fiber plants to fill our growing needs. Arguments about drugs and legality are periperhal issues, as industrial hemp is not a drug plant. 2. If we so regard hemp, then we should compare it with all other possible fiber plants, and make some rational decisions about which are best for a given site. 3. Trees should also be regarded in this fashion. It is silly to think of hemp as "saving the forest." This is cognate to eating soybeans to "save the corn." Trees can be grown as a crop, just as any other crop. The choice that needs to be made by society is to switch from natural forests as a major fiber source, to the production of fiber in plantations, regardless of the crop being considered. This is presently occuring in nearly every country. Taken in this light, efforts such as the Earth Island Institute's Tree Free Paper campaign seem misguided at best. 4. Many claims are made that hemp is more productive than trees. This is based on old USDA data. It does not hold up well to scrutiny. The data are not based on economic factors, but only on crude yields. They do not take into account inputs and labor. By this I mean that we need to consider the costs of fertilizer, and the labor costs of separating the fiber from the nonfibrous parts. Since hemp contains both long phloem fibers and short xylem fibers, this separation is problematic, though there are machines which can deal with it. A comparison needs to be made between modern plantation trees and modern hemp production methods, and this has not been done. 5. Hemp is suitable only for rich sites, on well drained loamy soils (you can look this up in any of the standard fiber crop textbooks). Even there, fairly heavy fertilization is required. Trees, on the other hand, are very well suited to poor sites. Hemp will have a difficult time competing with trees in economic terms if the land costs of production are high. 6. In my home state of Kentucky, and my present residence in Malaysia, there are large amounts of very poor quality, unproductive land. Rich, fertile sites are at a premium and are already in use for crops with a higher value than fiber crops. These poor quality sites are those best suited to fiber production. We need to identify those fiber plants best suited to these kinds of sites. Comments on this long post are welcome.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0