One point not addressed yet in this discussion is - Why haven't pulp and paper producers adopted the annual crops in lieu of wood fibre, despite the substantial volume of literature on hemp, kenaf etc over the last 15 years?? Have pulp and paper manufacturers made BAD commercial decisions in foregoing the opportunity to utilize these annual fibre crops?? I suspect not. Decision makers in these companies must have had a good hard look at alternatives given the enormous political difficulties of continuing to acquire wood fibre in many countries. I can only speculate that they have stayed with wood fibre for a couple of good reasons. Perhaps there are others?? Storage of wood is pretty easy. Alternative crops have a relatively short harvest period each year and the plant material must be stored until required as feedstock. The maximum storage period for logs in Australian is in the order of 3 months during winter when logging operations are restricted in some areas. Consequently, the cost of "inventory", to use a North americanism, is a lot less for wood fibre than the alternative annual crops. Annual market fluctuations of finished paper products are easily handled when you use wood as your fibre source. You just leave the wood on the stump to grow on until next year or the year after. That option just doesn't exist with the annual crops. Once you've made the decision to plant in any one year, you're sunk! regards John
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0