One gets the impression that Matt Nespeca did not even read the post
he supposedly replied to! I thought Thomas Kimmerer's post was very
accurate in pointing out that industrial hemp has no drug (i.e.
"marihuana") properties (otherwise "ditchweed" hemp in the midwestern
U.S. would be a haven for druggies), and in pointing out that most
forest land is not fertile enough to grow hemp profitably. I wasn't
aware that hemp was a heavy nitrogen-demanding species; at least in
the midwest (where hemp was produced in abundance for the WWII war
effort) it might be economical, compared to the low return farmers are
getting for many food crops. I think three simple facts make further
studies of hemp production in the US worthwhile: hemp used to be
(pre-1900's) the #1 fiber source in the world, the US is a net
importer of raw fiber, and fiber production from hemp may require
fewer chemicals (at least at the processing end, but maybe more at the
cultivation end?). There seems to be a dearth of reliable information
on this topic. Let's not erect boogie-men (or boogie-plants, as it
may be) before we even know what the potential benefits or drawbacks
are.
Andrew Gray
graya@fsl.orst.edu
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0