Forest Netters Interesting discussion but..... I suggest that references be provided when posting information that is presented as a statement of fact rather than opinion. It adds rigor to the discussion. glenn > 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