HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0220.005 1996-1998 JUL r~6 ~7»~ lOPft ~ ~ u ~ ,
• 1 9?rtil~ Eh'Ft
L/ June 17, 199
N'arihuana em for Fiber:
_.rowuig (H p)
's ~s and Cons • '
*ertt'~iri.9awwn
Analyst in Agricultural Polity
Environment and Natural Rewurees Polity Division
Summary
Apart from being the wum of an illegal drug, CanraoLis aatiua (hemp) has
bees for centuries a source of Ober used in the production of rope, canvas,
clothing, sad paper. Although wms hemp production for fiber was permitted
during World War II, growing hemp has been Illegal fa the United 3tataa ai•+ti
1937. Recently, however, groups supporting hemp legalisation have boon
arguing that the plant's potential u wuree of tber, oil, sad biomass for energy
production could bolster weak farm atonomies is sswral States. Aa with say
uaeaaveationa] cmp, wme farmers might proRt from growing hemp, but its
economic benefit to the Carm sector overall would Iikely be limited. The
argument, in support of the plant's commercial uses are unlikely to change
current Federal policy on hemp, since it can also be grown for use as a drug, sad
the U.S. Government is committed to strong antidrug policies and programs.
Background
Hemp is ere of n a4mber of plants (sisal, jute, and shags are othan) hrom
which eammereially valuable fiber can M obtained. However, unlike most of
Lhasa other plane, which nra tropical or subtropical, hemp b well suited to
growing conditions over much of the Unibd States. It wu widely grows ar as
agricultural crop fmm colonial times through the mid-1800s, sad both fine sad
coarse fabrics, twine, and paper from hemp wen in common use. However, b9
the 1890,, cotton was gaining as a wurea of clothing Gber, due to the
de ~elopment oC labor saving machinery for harwating, and the demand for
coarse aatunl fibers was incnuingly being met by imports. U.S. hemp
production for fiber declined significantly toward the end of the century sad
remained low through the 1930,.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) dais going back to 1951 show that
is the decade before the U.S. entrance into World War II, land planted to hemp
nationwide avangad fewer than 1,000 acne annually. In addition to
competition from other domestic and imported IIben, a growing disapproval of
the plant's narcotic properties probably alw dampened firmer' {aterat in
LU[ISrn. No, 22D•
F51e No.
CRS Reports are prepared forMembera and committees ofCongrcas Ae[. Toy -
]tef. F)a+e ~ 3
IUL 86 '9~ r~4~11PM P.3
CR$-2
growing hemp. Between 1914 and 1933, 83 States passed laws that prohibited
growing marihuana for anything other than medicinal and industrial fiber
purpaes.!
Ia 1937, Congress paced the Brat Federa] statute ngulatiag marihuana
possession, the Marihuana Tax Act. This taw restricted posaesaion to those who
could legally buy a tax stamp for it, namely, authorized medical and industrial
users only. The Marihuana Tax Act was eventually superseded by provisions of
Title II (The CoatroUed Substances Act) of P.L. 91-513, The Compnhenaive
Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, which made possession of
marihuana illegal for any but a apeeially authorized ezpesimental purpose.
Hemp fiber production nmained at a relatively stable, low level unti11941,
when the atreage planted for both fiber and seed production Increased
dramatically u a result of the war effort (hempseed oil ears be used fa paint
and varnishes, and as a fuel). In 1943, at the height of U.S, involvement In
World War II,146,200 acne of hemp ware harvested for fiber, with as additional
40,600 acres harvested Cor hempseed. One msjor reason for the need !or
increased domestic production was the termination oCsisal shipments for rope
and rigging from the Japanese occupied Philippines.
By 1945, acres harvested for fiber and seed had dropped to 4,600 and 400,
respectively. By 1962, no production data were reported, and USDA
discontinued the hemp data series altogether in 1966. At the same time, remtds
show that between 1952 and 1972, annual U.S. impor4 of synthetic Ctbers rose
from 69.8 million pounds to 407.8 million pounds ° In more resent years,
domestic synthetic fiber production from natural gas has facnased subst8atially.
It is generally acknowledged that the mass production of cheaper, stronger, and
more uniform synthetic fibers had as much to do with the eeoation of U.S.
hemp fiber production u did the Marihuana Tax Act and unfavorable public
opinion about the plant's role as a drug source. Hemp L still grown for fiber
and need is Asia, Central and Eutern Europe, France, and Italy.
The Current Issue
Recent interest in making hemp once again a legal commodity has largelq
been spurred by the efforts of one promoter, Jack Henr, who released an
updated version of his book, Xemp and flu Mar{%uana Corupirary.• The Emperor
Wears No Clothes, In 1990. The author argues that If hemp were adopted su a
source of paper, cloth, and cordage; charcoal, methanol, and diesel tliel; edible
and industrial oils; and prouin for livestock and poultry (oilseed cake sad
hempseed), it could slow erosion, reduce pesticide usage, save the ralnfozesta,
~ Bonnie, Richard J. and Charles H. Whitebread. The Mar{huena
Conviction: A History of Marihuana Prohibition in the Unittd Stapes.
University Ptaas of Virginia. Charlottesville. 1974. p. 51.
= Commodity Year Book. Commodity Research Bureau, Inc. New York.
1865, p. 271. 1975, p. 284.
JUL. rJb '7.; rl~~ llh'fi F ~
CRS-3
preserve the ozone layer, and forestall global warming.s On a lean ambitious
scale, other supporters of hemp legalisation argue that u hemp once was a
~ valuable fiber crop, it could be again. Viewed this way, its economic potential
would be similar to that of say alteraatiw sop.
Hemp ae st fiber crop. Federal research into the development of
alternative eropa, and alteznatiw (nonfood) wes for established agricultural
commodities, is not new. USDA has been supporting this type of rewazch since
the late 1930x. Currently, under the Critical Agricultural Materials Aet of 1984
(P.L. 98.284), the supplemental and alternative crops provisions of the 1985 and
1990 omnibus firm acts, and other authorities, several million dollars annually
go to State laboratories for research and development In this"area.
Many of the alternative crops closest to commercialisation for example,
gueyule, jojoba, lcenaf, and winter rapeseed have many uses identical to those
poesibls from hemp. None of them have the associated potential for use as a
drug aoum. Ewn so, progrew in bringing thew alternative eropa to f1~11
commercial uw has been slow, and has required a continuing flow of Federal
thuds to overcome barriers.
Hemp as a llber and oil crop would likely Cace the same barriers to
commercialisation u do the crops mentioned above. First, private industry
generally pursues product and market development only for items whose
potential earnings promise a return on their investment. Seeoad, many of the
potential (including industrial) uses Cor hemp tiber and oil are identica! not only
to those of other alternative crops, but also to those of major U.S. commodities,
such u corn, soybeans, sorghum, and cotton.
Available USDA import data also show steady decline in the demand for all
hard natural fibers. U.S. imports of abaca, jute, sisal (henequen, cost (oocoaut
hunk fiber) and hemp were 23.0 million metric tons (MIRY) in 1990, mmpnred
to 62.6 MMT in 1980' The Commodity Year Book discontinued reporting U.S.
hard fiber imparts in 1983. The axptanatory text reads:
Mat of the raw sisal and henequen imported into the U.S.
in recent years have been used Cor padding and purposes
other than the manufacture of twine. Imports of twine made
with sisal and henequen baler and binder have declined !n
recent years, partly because oC changes in hay harvesting
s Certain groups are also calling for legalizing marvuana for medical
purposes. For a discusclon of this issue, see Medical Usc of ilfar(juaaa: Policy
sad Regulatory Issues, CRS Report 91.895 SPR.
~ U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. Fonlga
Agricultural Trade ojthe United States. Calendar Year 1980.1990 Supplements.
JUL l00 'yam e14: 1GYI^ r,~ _
,
CRS-4
methods and partly because oC the inrnased use of
domestically produced synthetic fiber twines.•
Hemp's eavlronmental impacts, The argument that hemp would be an
environmentally benign crop is dittieult to evaluate. Much would depend upon
what purpose it was being grown tor, and thus how intnsiwly it might be
cultivated. Proponent claim that one of hemp's advantages es an alternative
crop i. that it could be grown with little fertiliutlon or cultivation oa marginal
land, or in semiarid alienates where Carmen' crop choices are limited. ,
Available literature tends to dispute these claims. One source state that
'...it is generally tecognisad that deep, well-drained clayloam soil containing
wnsiderable organic matter are moat favorable for the growth of the
erop...Hemp requires a pleatlthl supply of moisture throughout it growIag
seasan...Drought and high temperatures during the later stages of growth will
beaten maturity and tend to dwarf the growth...Qi]emp requires liberal
fertilization for high fiber yields."• It does appear, however, that weeds, insaets,
and dissaaes do not pose a gnat threat to Kamp, which might give it some
advantages over standard commercial crops grown under conventional practices.
Hemp as a drug source. The argument that raising hemp for fiber or for
biomass would increase it availability for use u a drug is also diff~wlt to
assess. Marihuana imports from Mexico account for 63 percent of the total US.
supply. U.S. domestic production account for 18 psrceat~ The tend in
domestic cultivation appear to bs toward indoor and underground operations
that use advanced agronomic praetices••such as hydroponics and stoning-to
_ snhnaee potncy.
Ia eoatraat, hemp varieties grown for fiber vary greatly in potency, which
could limit their feasibility ar a drug source. Some varieties product very little
delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the plant's primary psychoactive chemical,
and the varistiu with the highest THC contnt are the poorest fiber
produeen.• Similarly, the cultivation practices for obtaining the maximum or
highest quality fiber contnt may not promote optimum THC development is
the leave. and nowen.
Plant breeding research could possibly trensfir the low-THC characteristic
into more commercial varieties. It could be argued that such research would not
• Commodity Yenr Book. Commodity Resenrch Bureau, Irtc. Jerwy City,
NJ. 1983, p. 16b.
• Dempsey, J.M. FYbcr Crops. The University Presses of Florida.
Gainesville. 191b. p, 46.89.
The Supply o(Illieit Drugs to the Unitrd Stage. Report otths National
Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee. June 1991.
• Dempsey, p. 47-48.
~uL CJO 'J3 d»•lcrri r.c
CRS-5
aecewarily be incoasiateat with public policy: the Federal Government spends
roughly g5 million annually on naearch on tobacco, a commodity with
acknowledged addictive and henlth•damagingpropcrties. A portion of current
tobacco research Is focused oa finding viable industrial (nonsmoking) uses for
the plant--for example, ae a source of environmentally safe biological compounds
for use as pesticides and herbicides.
Nonetheless, it might be difficult to make a mnvinciag case for similar
nseareh oa hemp. Tobacco i• an established commodity, and farmen stand to
benefit directly from research to find new uses for it. The economic beneBU to
farmers from hemp research are much less clear.
Conclusion. Other possible benefits of commercial hemp cultivation, such
as having a domestic source of hard fiber or an environmentally superior source
of biomass fuel, are not very compelling under current U.S. pollcles that [avor
low-cost synthetic fibers of both foreign and domestic origin, and in Ilght of the
availability of established crops that tea serve as alternative fuel feedstocks.
However, these policies are alwa}n open to change in toddy's volatile global
arena. It could be argued that research Into hemp's malty potentisl uses has
strategic value. 'Phis argument hw been used for more than 20 yeah to sustain
research into developing a domestic source of rubber from the guayule plant for
use is military aircntt tins.
The Cutor that Currently makes consideration of hemp cultivation for fiber
a moot point is the Government's strong antidrug policy. In addition to existing
efforts, the Drug Enforcement Agency in 19901aunched the Domestic Cannabis
Eradication and Suppression Program, which actively pursue the eradication
of both potent cultivated plants and wild stands o[ low-potency marihuana la
all 50 States.
Given U.S. antidrug policies, and the availability of established and
alternative fiber and biomass crops, hemp is likely to remain an illegal crop for
the foreseeable future.
Drug Research
rjpdate rock bands in Adanu. zeta NORML aenequcn-grown tcgally m Thud
rally grew from 2,000 participants in t4orld count: fits
1991 to 60.000 in 1992. In Afnca, the Philippines snd
The argument for matijuana- hlezico, the market far these crops
Marketing Marijuana hemp legalization is filled wtth was ruined Dy the development of
to 8 New GCOGfS00n fallacies, especially since many legal ;.ynthc[ic fibers. Rebuilding Ne
plants Wn bt used for economic and market for Icgal hemp would do
ByKeirhSchucAard,PhD. ecological purposes. Huth to relieve Ne recurring famines
PR1DECo-fourtder The marijuana plant can be used and ecological duasters that haunt
to produce methanol fuels, but so can many vulnerable countries.
Since the implemenution of a other non-drug containing plants. Whiic marijuana marketeers try
svong national anti-drug policy in Some companies produce methanol to exploit the environmenul iAmlism
1980, marijuana use among teenagers from corn, for use in higA-perfor• of the young, they also target the
has declined steadily. manta racing engines. religious values that are a major
However, use remains high Companies like Ktnncmcul deterrent to illegal drug use. The
among adulu in their lots 30s who are Laboratories want thm methanol is "3usineu Alliance for Hemp"
products of the 19702 t!r sg eultttrc. highly combustible and difficult to m:~intains a Gont organization known
Many of Nese adults Continue to store: they considu methanol a a;. the "Family Council for Drug
proselytize for marifuana use, hazard0ua, impractical, expensive Awareness." (Both organizations zest
especially through the pcpular media, Cuel for the uses NORML reeomy~" P.O. Box 71093. Los AngClu,
entertainment and fashio•t industries. mends. California 90071.)
Iktermined 10 regain theL most Use of marijuana-hemp stalks for The council disvibutes a flier
profiuble customer-the afflueni fabric, rope or fiberboard is also titled "Manjuana and CMistianity:
middle-class white teenager- unnecessuy. baause many other what Does the Bible Tell Us To
marijuana marketeers developed a hemp plants can be used. Da?" Using a kind of hallucinated
new propaganda strategy designed to If NORML really cares aDOUt exegesis of the Scripwrcs, the !tier
exploit the environmenti concuns ecology and the eCOnomy, it should argaes that everything from the "Tree
and religious values of idalistic promote the use of natural plant of life" to the "herb yielding seed"
young people. products-such as sisal. abua and refers to marijuana.
Calling thcrnsclves the "Business Law enforcement officers will be
Alliance for Hemp," marijuana interested a know that Ne e0uneil
promoters distribute videos and says ]esus "warned us about seizure
brochures that present marijuana as a and forfeitute laws." Arguing that
botanical wonder plant-"the world's le.us would free Ne prisoners (drug
most valuable and vusaUle Natural criminals), the !liar concludes, "It
Resotuce." The legalizad~n of was God who created hemp. He gave
marijuana, they argue, will prcSUve ~ r r r us fret will and inswcted mankind to
Ne rain forest, save the family farm Oarorearr use 'every green herb' on Earth."
and prevent petroleum waT. drugahvrrpmsrnrion As the Fcdcral govcmmen[ and
By marketing marijuana to a Mraughrduredan drug agencies remain relatively silent
lertile plant raNer than a mind- about the health and safety hazards of
altering drug, the Hemp Campaigners The Htvt Building, Suite 210 marijuana, this new etological and
hope to up into the ecological 30 Hurt Plaza, religious approach is making real
activism of well-educated high scnool Adsnu, Georgia 30303 inrtsuds among middle-clus students.
and college s[udenu. !n art especially (a04) 377x300 Carnptu newspapers at respected
cynical recycling of the '602 culture, ;.900.983•PRIDE colleges have reprinted Ne Hemp
these aging hippie-yuppie (huppies?) arguments almoat verbatim.
recognize that marijuana trade initial Thomns 1. Gleason, Jr.. Etl.D., It i:uonic that medical journals
inroads among privileged lnhabiunts ~ president and Co-Founder conu,in rcpons on the canto and
of affluent suburbia and elite schools. Marsha Manatt Schuchard. Ph.D., leukemia risks of marijuana-
Many parents report that their Co-Founder clutifying the drug u an environ-
children have raeived the Hemp menu! toxin-while NORML and a
brochures. parucularly a iv 0Rh4. Afl urricler may be reprmred and large segment of dte populu media
tallies that attract large cro+rdS Of distributed. Pleats credit PRIDE promote marijuana u "Hemp: Friend
young people Dy fea[urmg ;)opular and the writer, to :v`.An and the Ecology."
2 PRIDE Quancrly, Sumrnu 1992
Q n ~ ~ Q~ X ? Y ~ ~ X ~ ii 'L v ? _ r ~ ~ n ~ '1 IA
7 d- 7 Y r
YT
.q~ ~ ~ e • ~ G w ' Y a w ~ ~ `e S n 7 d 1G 7. ~ ~ M Y n ~ r
~ 4 ~ ~ ~ H n~ y. 7 i- ~ ..r v v S' y ~JO w
'ems ~ ~ 7 ~v C 7~ y Jv y;~n_-' Si ~j: ~~!L O ~n r_ ~
• b n f~ a ~ ~e ~ x Y ~ s 7 ~ p C ~ ~ N
ar7 F..r a=T°~ 7~~ 3 F~
u' j~ p v G - b b n -1 ~ Y^
~ n ~
~ - ~ 1
y r J r' Y ~ ~'Sz.p Z~ 3 ao .~^++~e v 3'.'~~ C ~ ~ .
~`~$~~32'~og°_-;Asp I `0
a-.. ~ x n 7 w 7 C- n q ~
V .mow 3 ~ p - 7 :J a G 3 y Y, pt .
a+ 7 y :i, 7 - ~ , O ~ ~ ~
C' ~ O n n p n ~ f O
~f7~pH'F C' ~
x ~ n C n n n~^ Y C N ~ I O
°Y=`^~~~ -`per' ` ~
d 2 ' ~?f N'~ x
00 a~ a b 7 y n j
n ~ v ~7 < C ai t 7
1 - ~ b
~ ^'33z~:a to .-~~~iy
a, ~ 1 M^ w 3 y u N~ 7~ 2~ V rte. ~ w X Y
`__-~~~_l .icC may= ,e :s~ x:.~y~!.n ,
"~^"-°=~~s= v=-,-~ :,may= 3 > Q _
~~i i.7 ~M ~ 3. S.. J ~ ~ n ri
tJ j~_ 9_ ~ Z ~ i
ice'. ~ ~Y=.~
USA TG~...Y • MONDnv, pEHRUAFV !O. 1991 • 30
•
Chemist is USA's guardi~ of gra~~s
Professor Mahmoud IISohly is in charge of growing and storing the federal
government': marijuana stash, for research and for a handful of patients.
By Tom CLney . _ -
USA TODAY ~ ~ i
'i I
OXFORD, Mbs. - [n winter whh no ry
crop In Ne geld, It's eery b overlook KIr
Nb perch o1 follow. trtluQy euth a[ td
end of a gravel road.
But Ne bvbed•wve fence, guard I t ,
[oven and motlonatbveted aWms
surrounding the field Inalcale that ~ c ` I \
something ttNer than wybaaru b pbat• ~ " ~ :.T. I .
ed hart. s;•'-• ms's .
Mehmoud ELSohly, Sl, growr meri• •%c:^, irk -
)uent for a Uving on Nb 71tR:~te e[ .,.J:.s•
Ne Umventq of Mlasitorppi. i[ b W ~ ~ •
oNy farm m Ne country where pot b ~ .r ~ .
tepLLly grown. t ,
And Ne federal pveromeat pays ~ ~
Aim b tlo IL (y'~~ ,
Its Uke growing tom a wbeeC" / d . .a._,,
says F1SOhly, whore burlttee and htl •
Ne taint imP!~^^ of n merlJutsm ~
IW. "We 7ua lout lKRtr seetrrily." 'z fteaerrJu TeUrvWn Yi etto weighs
Mat of Ne lersn's nsvlpuru goes b _ rtrrytwb st^yks [o De eesroa
rrsealal end guvemttseet teeeerthan. But even wiNout o crop rn Ne need.
But o small atrtwot of Ne crop eupplles -
iht gtweramtarr coa[roveNal `cans- ' ~ • Nerc b no shortage or work. TAe Urug
pasrlonate ux" D[olect Under Co11R M• ~ F.rtlorcerttent Agency annually tends
der. thatproka Drovldee mttiplausfa ~ ~ 4M~ ldW samples of sewed tnarijr:aru w
eight crttanlraliy Ill patlents arras Ne the term's Wbonbry. This eNdentt b
country wno wee It b ease a vtsfeq of run Nrough numerous tem. Including
siltntntt. from AIDS W glrut>orrs. chtxka N measure potency and ~spD
Now teat tnstll<Iarle hat beta legel• ore b paaUevs.
lad for medial purpors N Ca111orNe When rnaryu•na Is growing, the term
and Artrgtle. Ne farm b M eampN Of grid b guaNed 0.round Ne clock
how marl)trans might d grown gird cuF TDere has treen oNy orx break•in, nn a
Uvated Dy N• government for isle [o fopgr night Y••rs ago when someone
Ne general puDlle. Nougn Nett tKK cut Nrough Ne fence ASouon xroors
Ilkeq b luppen enytltM soon. have stare Dees ittsWleO
In November, hllfotts4 and Arbors Employees. even sraaonal pkkcn
vmrnapproved nferettaumslegdirfag rws.•r•rnww~ Rued (m tM harvest are wojcct to
rnarlJuana tot meaftltul use. Rtaeatly, llONlq Iqr Ms goarrarrwtk Melvtwtd ~SaNY disD'M a final d meryusna h as background checks. The harvested
the edlbr of The New Englprd Journd veuR wM~ e'a attxed. TM dlurm w idled Jartyian, rAeardn, Cotombbn a Ital. crop b kept In en aircatdl[loned s•u1t
of Mediciru taro od b hunt Of allow- ro Ne an plans Bray Ircrh.
Ing datzon b prsetd PoC aRer the smoked jrtarl)uene, p,,, term b known In yw• Berrrb the siu of utuh cars ett
Clinton edmltsbaatlon a!d h would and ndc of the boa ~ - ~ ernment shonhar.d, sucked In Nt svu16 where Ne arottu
prveecute Oocton who did ap. girds, In pUl form. ~p~ been at Ne unlvrtel• of rdrt)uam is ure[DOwerinR The
But Na man who b e[guebly Ne ro• A UIemYD'y proles ty in la6B b 7tudy a Drown drreb ere lDDtlea Dy plats vnrt-
Uon'r leading seyeR on tnerlptena b sot, £.LSobty rum rite ~WU. m tomDlez Dlaat that sty'. Jnmeftan, Thai. Mexlan end Co
htrt N e fader of Ole Mls quietly hrm (^a^ a srrWl of •rR I Md Decvate a culDrnl b[nbiea.
tentling Ne gavemrpetttt hero gee M the Madldrs! : ~ ~ DhM^~^d• Ttte rctetendurns that pasxd in Ctll•
FJSOhI krsowsumu[baDwtrruA• PUntBulldUtg•adraD, wr. Marijuana is not forme end Artmne Iegollze Ne use of
jusna u anyone N the tbtris¢y," Yys alatleatory brick t` Jre4rn I planted every year. ntenlttaae wiN a doaoYr DrtxnpUOn.
Allen St Plata of Ne Netlotut Orysni- huUdfe~ on Na ouF ~ The last trop wu But Nett s d phermaq In Ne nation
raUpt fur Ne Returm ut k(erlJstsoe atlrn of Na sPnwling pWttad in IYYS. 'LDe wt arxw Ne drug,
taws, which advodta le@Uladon. Ok Mies tampta TDe L.~ ~ NatlonN Imdtute on OsQord meY seem o ruslunl supplier
£LSOh~v s4Ys be bee narvasoW drerf• bullolag b uaarerked ter. ~ Drug ADusel which b doLYDre or pDeRaetisC7 In Nox two
rvena, crtunea ttren)wne arts tlgtrenaa am uaraneresbM. ~ vr, Boa. nuance the ~ tt! salsa. Dar the faecal governtnertt b urv
trurlfitatu. He Des aen devebped a Cordpoted wIN Ne cfdea each rpflag IlkelybperdU[tdL
aterlluus~esed auppaitory. Bu[ be tolumtled memiom found ebewberc et abeNCr b plant dependl1rrttgg upon htsw And Ne goverrdnen[ b keeping ib pd
has never r[naked IL tM uolvelLq, the DuBdlag hr ell Ne tnutN meriptars b in fuck avelkdtle bsrrrs under FJSohly's brttst•d are.
Ana, for Ne teCOrd. he's aplm[ look gird appal of o douDlwlde mP for resestchen "1 love bad Nb materiel Aett lot w
tmekina maripran tl medlanc. He DUt hatle. wh filer b pllam~tttb d {n • few ateN e~omr~ to tree b even tryrM It na•v.
rays peuem an get td trewgb of The "M•Pro)eet." u Ne marilu•^• Y~•
: ° a
4
~o 3 ~ ~ ~1
P
~s~ ~
G~,~~ a ~ ~ .':Z ~ •
F
i
t G G~ O• ~ N M M .A. i If T C~ fj
p a •.r C ~
y. » ~,p
~~."s~~ y
g~ a ~ ~ ~
'fit B'~~~~8 (y~'~~
Pa a T1~reP March 26, 199] u,T/AiEf ~
ww. a(YT1-DRUG HYSTERta a idcly noticed (an! probably not rel- ~ z
GNE waV TO THE wST FOR PROFm ega[ed to the opinicn page), associate ,ry rn
editarul page cdi[cr Steve Dornfeld m ~
takes note of the :".rie sirnilan[ies r.
between the current debate and y G
another public bailout of a Carl ~
emp an Pohlad emuptise--the metro arei s p
bus system. The 1570 acqussstion of Z ~
wha'>: was then 1'••in Csey Lines, C
Dornfeld wrices,'enabl<d (Pohlad ~ ~
and aswcistesl ro avoid bankruptcyy ,y ao
i`1~ and emerge with s fist full of cash S e
JI ~I that no pprivate buyer would over have Rt Qs
offered.' By she time it was Duet,
Dornfeld goes on, 'the taapavers Y
ended up payini f 7,9 million fora m
P~EFT1tJLL ~:i ~rT hemp is very low THC, the pry- bus eomputy wtth as outdated, unre- ~ r
come much svanyer than the alliance ehoacuve component e( muijuam liable fleet; declining ridership; and a ~ Z
coalescing wound the (ega(isation of li s also a great industrial fiber, and, huge unfundrd pension kabiliry•.' ~~~+++777 rat to
hemp.Mdnowdsemuvemcnt,which accordingtosomeanalysrs,oneofthc None of thisunseaboutbyacri- ~ r
counts among its supporters the ttwrepromisingwaysfnrs}•tuwatry's dent.TwinCiryLnatumedapsofit C ~
American Farm Bureau and the tobacco farmer: :o diversify as for most of [he 196b. But instead of Z y
etinnalt)tprsiutionfortheRrfortn eiguena come under greater tnd upgtaJ(jtt• ancient ~vses and suing p ~ '-t
of MarijuanaLaws(NOAML),isget- grn[erfire. driver,salaties,the~ttonrywen[inm m
sing a boost in the Minnesota $uttheprofic potential obviously 'divm$iation' u parent company A N ei=j
Legislature owing to the support of isn't limited [o present or former MEl Ise., of which Pohlad wu a big
stars Smase trujonry leader Roger Moe tobacco pproducm. Althou33h no sate shareholder assd ecp officer, acquired y m ~
(l~Fl-Erskine). hasyec:Jlowedlargrscalehcmppro- properties:ikc:h,`•fotelTropiranam ,y
Las Vegas.
[n 1 %9, after the tvmpany's driven
went oe strike. the Legvlacurc gave =
the hie[n.politan Trwit Communion ~
po«er to uquirc A1EI by condemns- N
Lion. PohLd said he it sell for about Sl S ~ ~
million; the pubbc s attornrys argucd~'t
saidthcbuscompanywaswonhclosc y y
to zero. The fwl f rite tag wa 57.9 M f
rtsillion. Md that money, Dornfeld ~
sores, etubled Pohlad to build MEI rrt
into an en[crpnte that would sec mm, ~
by 1986. apcrsonsl f>rofit ntitnaud at ~
S f GC mJl;.,~. 4
wnswut IF A TREE FALLS.., i7O
]uatL.t..osk,aMoc-apwtswod6:U duetion, ]0 sates have introduced L11'ILEALFIEIS~ackonth.chop•
rolicenaehempgrtswentnMinsnaoa industrial hemp bills, some of them ping block Lugging at the Supenor ~ ~
passed the state's Agricultural sponsored by prominent conserver- NauotulForattsty.7wsasuspendedin ~
Cossnmittes. M« hails the pons as an tnvs 4wauken. In January, Vermont December aftermsitonmmulisv du-
'agricultursl Rip Van Vlrinkls' that ppaasted a bill sn rnndtur a hemp mar, covered that the [ f S. Forest Service e
could be a boon to • uttered farm keting study, and other sates, such as had not done the required mviron-
itduatry a[d a sourer ofjobs statewide. Hawaii and Colorado, arc also look. mensal uscutnmt Ixfore selling the
Hei4opointaout(ubcmpp alvotata irnghud.'Thryhavetitlistencdtow 100-year-old red and white pines
have always liked to do) the ~ the US. raver the last ?S ytus,' says NORML, ("flte Lore of the Pines; 1129). Now
Constitution wu itself drafted on ante coordinator Tim Davit, 'but theaervicehasatmottnceditstillwanp
hemp paper, and that our tint prof- obviously rhry ll listen to big businea the haunt to go shad. A prelirtti•
dent grew dnc plant: Nccdlcu to say, • sad industry, benuse [pods] need the vary arulyti: prepared bythe Lauoia
Moe sakm ppaaumt~~ to point out the he monry•. l've been Joing the too long Range Diana notes, a had prcvi-
remaim adaroaotly oppoud to the to be persuaded [hat politicians do ous documenu, that 'a eontinuom
legalir~[ioa of pot and othcrdrugs- things for reasons other than that." timber rnouru supply u very impots
prcwely the sugma thai s dogged the not m the kxai antl rcgiossal econo-
onceconuaonhemppkimfo~acoupk CARL MkLAp'S p~lti W my,' and the big,'sawumbeP veer
of ggmentions now. YET ANOTHER STADIUM scoop are'apecially in demand in the ltscal ~
Ths difference between pot and from the Pioneer Press: In • pica user.' Public comntunu on the dtseu•
hemp is largely a matter d potmry; that should have been much more ment will be taJtm until Apri111. C~ `O~`
-~~•~rc
~IIiI I,.
he
l.Iniversity of Mississippi
Rtstarch lnseltuts of Phatmsmutieal Scieecn
Httlth Sciences Ratearcft Oiv{sion
School of Pharmecv
~o
~~~Q The ~nivtrsih• of fNis~iasippi
I University M°.i 38677 Feb•uary 77, 1997
(r~ttt) 212.5925 Fd\ (t•Ot) 212•i?b.
8, C. 8da, Captetn
Training Dlvisipn
Adminl:trattve Services Buresu
Missouri Stetc Highway P¢troi
t b t 0 Eaat Elm ,Street
P.O. Boz 668
Jefferson City, MO 85102.0588
ONr Captain Bekar:
This is in resporoa to your letter dead Febrwry 7 4, t 9g7, In which you posed soma Questions for me
to answer. My anaware below era given in rho same order ss your queetiont.
l . Memp plants do Contain THC, although the level is not vary h(gh. The amount o1 TMC reQuired
~ to ewes impairment is • tuner{on of the individual's awn tolerance level to the drug. Therefore, the
amount nacestary to impair ~ neiw parson might not be even enough to bal any divot for someone
who is en habitual user of the drug. CtrtsinlV. plant meterlel with .5Y~ to 1 Y~ contains sutAeisnt THC
to Droduoe • high end possibly cause impairment.
2. TNC can be extrseted lrom hemp It?ves and, obviously, the eonoentration of THC In the a:treet
will be aevaraLlotd higher then that In tht plant materiel.
r~. 3. Please refer to the anawtr In Question 1, about.
4, If that was Mr, Gain's taatimeny, than he mwt have totdly mbundmtood me. My poahion
has always bean that although the production of hemp might rapreeant an economic opportunity in
terms e1 the production o1 Ilbar, bird seeds, etc,. my concern ho 4weVa been the possibility of
d{wrsion o! tho last maUr{al end the possibility of growing other veriaties of Cannabis other then hamD
which have hi~~hsr ¢onoantration of THC. Tharalore, some measures might need to be Implemented
to monitor tM process to guar4 egairtst these shwtions.
S, Abate rdar to the prw{ous answers.
Should you hove further queat{ons, pleaso let mo know.
i SincardV,
I
Manmoud A. ElSohly. Ph.O., ~FE. BCfM
Resesrcn Professor • C ' U~
- w.n,r/'t/ RcSF.A RCN
07/ci/1996 09:!10 9566;._655 wJF< aND JT PAGE Oi
SENT OY~ XERCX ~afeCaD:e' rCl';1 'i-tJ-YI ~ ~ir~ cucaciwov•• .
Appendix e: MARIJUANA POTENCY BATA; 1974 to 1996
COMPAR180N OF NON•NORn~tA11zE0 OEITA•a THC CONCENTRATIDNS•
IN COMMERCIAL AND a1N8EMIl1A LAMPLE6 6v YEAtt CONFISCATED
I YEAR COMMERGIAL•• EIN6LMILlA TOTAL CANNA916
?OTENCY POTENCY 9AMrLEs
t07a ,sa lIJ
t 978 .08 160
t87tS 1.81 170
1077 1.06 3.20 1S1
t0%8 1,61 a.z8 131
1970 t.80 3,06 .i ~ 221
tD80 t a2 8.33 tai
196t t.OC 6.76 26!
198: 3.09 7.10 467
1983 3 07 7.61 1,129
788d 3.78 0.87 !.119
:888 3 71 7.26 1,x13
1 p8a 3.34 B.ab 1 .660
tOB~ 3.46 7.63 7,097
t088 3.62 7.OZ 1,822
t969 3.67 B.Efa t,272
laeo 3 0o to.to 1.163
t06t 3,16 10,63 2.606
tp01 ~.6a 8 6> 6,660
ta63 4.11 6.66 3.352
7696 6.08 7,26 3.273
t606 3.56 ~ d3 4,118
1006 6.01 V 10.46 781
i0u,~t a Owen as pt csnt 5y rV we p t.
• • Thb CeteOOry Inelueea kilo brleke. IvoN pleat metorld, end buds.
NOTE: The AiOheet THC enelraed to detc b 2a.6aX (copper Center, AK, 1663).
60URCE; \1ARIJUANA POTENCY IdONITORINO PROJECT through a~30/06
UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI
46
epartmerit of Public Safety ~rrwnnw,r,-
• 6~' \?ISSOURI ST4TE HIGH'~'~1.~?Y P4TROL Carnahan
Colonel Fred ?~4. i\~Iills. Superi nizndent Go:Yrrwr
I j 10 f:a~t Elan $vtct Can IL t;anpkcr
Po+l Office 8oz 3GS Oirterm
~errarson Gq•. ~~0 6510?•ostSs
Pl+unc: (5731731•??1?~ fAX (573)731•gal9
V/rDO: (37?) 131.3313
Februorl 1G, 1997
Dr. Mahmoud A• ElSOhly• Ph.D.
Projset Director. NIDA
Tha University of Mississippi
' University, NS 3e677
Dear Dr. !'iSohly, Pn.D.:
Puzsuant. to your talaphons conversation with Sergeant Moaet, wa would like to
confirm som{ ~n(p~}t;~on that you disewsad;!jr'ith hits. Please answer the
followir:g Questions:
1. can Kamp plants be used to becoms impaired and at what level of THC would De
tuifieiantt
2. Can THC be extracted from hemp marijuana plants :o s higher THC lnvalT
Is THC in a Kamp marijuana cigarette sufficient Lor marijuana impaitn+ant?
4. Jefl' Gain said in his testimony before our Sonata committee that you saiQ.
under 1' THC would be no problem and share was no fear of the crop bein;
converted for eciminal behavior. Is this accuratet
S. Our contention in law enforcement is that at best there night be a marginal
crop foc hemp marijuana (oz novelty market), but due to the difficulty in
control:.ing the diversion to an illegal market and the desensitising of the
eonenrnn about the harm of marijuana, wa feel compelled to oppose this
lagislat:ien. A brisf observation on this would bs appreeiatad.
IC you have any Questions or need clarification, please coneaet Sargsant Ed
Mosat, :S73IS26-3273 or at the above addrats. If you could fs>; your reply back
by Dutineaa day Monday, February 17, as we have a hearing on this issue that
night. Our fax number it 573!>S1-6617 or S7 )1751-9915. Thank you vary much for
your help in this arcs of concern.
Sincerely.
DALF E. BUSCHMA`7N
Adminis':rativa Services Duraau
a. C. taker, Captain
Tt:ainin, Division
From ~ 1~r h G /V f
Date: 97-03.0315:23:36'EST
NORML urges its mernbers and other i^terested parties to inform the national office of
additional pending marijuana legislation.
For up to date information, please check out NORML's website
http://www.norml.org under the heading: 'Pending State Legislation.'
Industrial Hemp legislation
In 1996, four states intrxluCed legislation to albw for the domestic Cultivation of industrial
hemp. NORML anticipates this number to double in ! 997.
Missouri ~
In December, Missouri State Sen. Jerry Howard (D-Dexter) pre-filed legislation (S.B. 79)
that will establish a permit process Ior the production of industrial hemp. The bill, entitled the
Missouri Hemp Production Act of ~ 997, also permits the appropriation o! up to 550,000 to
be used to conduct research On the commercial uses and economic viability of domestic
hemp. Woward introduced similar legislation late fast spring and received a favorable response
from the Senate AgricuRure Committee.
Contacts:
Sen. Jerry Howard
Missouri State Capitol
Jefferson City. fvl0 65101
p: (573) 751-3301
MISSCUfI NORfvIL
Attorney. Dan Viets
p: (573) a43-6866
e-mail: jlut201 t'4'maiLCpin.mi55oun p.Cu
Oxford Hemp Exchange
121 South Broadway N32
Poplar Blu1t, MO 63901
p: (573) 765-8711
e-mail: oxhempr~pbmo.ne/=
Hawaii
In Hawaii, legislation ai14~.1~ing for industrial hemp to be cultivated by the University of
Hawaii for research purposes will be debated before the legislature for the second ye+?tr in a
row. last year, tha House Agriculture Committee decided to postpone voting on the areasure:
huwever, the legislature did pass a revised resolution endorsing a commissioned study On
industrial hemp' s potential economic benefits. This years legislation, introduced by Rep.
Cynthia Thielen (R- Kailau Kameohe), once again presses the legislature to allcw Hawaii to
become the first American State to domestically cultivate hemp. "The state of Hawaii needs t0
act now and plant test plots of industrial cannabis hemp so that ii and not its r:ompetitors
will be in the position to estabUsh important busrrress nes with the manufacturer;; of
hemp-based fiber, pulp, paper, oil, paints, sealants, fuel, and lood. and•with the buyers and
sailers of industrial cannabis hemp seeds,' states the proposed legislation (H.B. 284).
Contacts:
Hawaii Hemp Council e
Roger Christie
p: (B08) 9fi .-04(38
Rep Cynthia Thielen
House of Representatives
State Capitc•I, Room 443
415 S. Bere;ania St.
Honolulu, HI 96813
p: (808) 56Ei•8480
Colorado J
Newly elected Colorado Slate Sen. Kay Alexander (R-Montrose) is ready and willing to
continue where retired senator and hemp proponent Lloyd Casey left oN and has re-introduced
a bill regarding industrial hemp (HB 1274). Her bill would create a commission to oversee
research on industrial hemp and two other fiber crops. The bill also authorizes Colorado State
University, in cooperation iviih the commissioner of agriculture. to grow test plots cf industrial
hemp for research purposes. A similar hemp bill introduced last year bill had strong support
from Colorado's agriculture community, including researchers at Colorado State Uriversity.
The Senate approved the bill on an 18-15 vote but it died in the House. (Please see Ongoing
8rieling, May 1996, tpr full details.)
Local hemp proponents CO-HIP,~t;olcrado Hemp Irntiauve ~~olect) are expected to lobby
^.ard in favor of the legislation. Presently. CO-HIP is encouraging hemp businesses to tlralt
letters to the legislature supporting hempls market demand One pl the biggest mis~:encep-
tions held by legislators is that hemp is a specially crop :vrth no market demand. CU-HIPS
Laura Kriho explained.
Contacts.
Rep. Kay Alexander
State Capitol Bugdmg
200 E. Colfax Ave.
Denver, CO 8U203
p: (303) 860.2355
Colorado Hemp Initiative Protect
Laura Kriho - P.O. Box 729
Nederland, CO 80466
P' (303) 784-5E~:32
e-mail: cohip®~arkstar.cygnus coin
Front Range NORML
Carolina Wasters
p: (970) 491)-2998
/Minnesota
\ CO-HIP a'so reports that Minnesota qep. ?Ry!Iis Kahn introduced an industrial hemp bill
oh February 3 (H.F. 349). Co-authors of the legislation include the chairman of ttre House
Agriculture Committee and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
Contacts:
Rep. Phyllis Kahn
367 State Office Building
St. ?aul, MIJ 55155
p: (6121 298.4257
e-mail: rep Phyllis.kahnrs'•house.leg.state.mn.us
Vermont
It is expected that irriustrial hemp will remain on the political agenda in Vermont once
again this year. According to the results of a recently released University of Verrrront survey.
more 1Ran 75 percent of v'ermont residents say that farmers should be allowed to grow
industrial hemp as a cash crop. ~
The survey, entitled '.4ltemative Agricultural Strategies in Vermont: The Casr: of Industrial
Hemp." was part o+ a study commissioned by the state legislature last year to determine the
viability of Remp production in Vermont. OI the 770 V?rmonters who were contacted in the
telephone survey, 402 responded.
The survey s key find;ngs are as follows:
' ' 77 percent of respondents said they supported changing the laws so farmers coulc grow
hemp in Vermont.
' ' 72 percent saitl that legalizing hemp would not hurt the effectiveness
of drug education efforts.
' ' 63 percent said that auowinq'domestic hemp cultivation would not
inevitably lead to the Ir±gali~alion of marijuana.
' ' S5 percent said they would substitute all of thEir purchase of cotton
jeans with clothing mottle from hemp if ;hey were of equal market price.
"TRrS survey indicates what the rapidly growing U.5 hemp rnarkel is already teeing us.'
said NORML Deputy Director Allen St. Pierre. °Americans want hemp products aid !hey ~'+ant
lflt?if IarmerS IU t!e a part r}I llri5 pruspenn, economic industry.' Vermont ocnvists c-houi^
encourage their local representatives to take this issue up once again in the state
legislature.
Contacts
Rep Fretl htaslack
Slate House:
Montpelier, VT 05502
G (802) 82E••2256
Vir inia
' The Farm Bureau in b~)th Virginia and Iowa recently backed hemp as a viable state crop.
Not surprisingly, legislators .n both states are now taking a much closer look at the issue.
Recently, Virginia Del. Mitchell Van Yahres (D-Charlottesville) introduced a resoluti~>n iHouse
Joint Resolution 656) to establish a joint subcommittee to Study the economic benefits of.
and barriers to, the production 01 industrial hemp ~n that state hemp.
"We are extremely plea:>ed to see that Virginia has joined the
growing number of states that are inv?stigating industrial hemp,"
said Eric Steenstra of Evolution. "Given the long historyvf hemp
in Virginia and the fact chat so many farmers Here now depend on
tobacco, growing hemp makes good sense. Farmers are struggling to
make ends meet and we believe that hemp wits oe an excellent
alternative to tobacco."
Contacts:
Evolution
Eric Steenstra
p: (540) 207.9001
e-mail: webmstr~ecolution.com
Del. Mitchell Van Yahres
223 Main St.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
p: (804) 293-6483
Iowa !
In Iowa, Rep. Cecelia Burnett (D -Ames) is contemplating introducing
industrial hemp legislation.
Contacts:
Rep. Cecelia Barnette
_ State Capitol l3uilding ,
Des Moines. IA 50319
e• 15151 232-27.0
Iowa NQ?!.'!
Carl Olsen
p: (515) 262.69:7
e-mad: Carllgcprnmonhnk.net
Kansas
As in Virginia, a resolution mandatinr~legislators to organize a
Iask-force to Study the vrabilitp Of industrial hemp cu!U~•ation has also
been introduced recently in Kansas by the Sena!s s Gommrttee on Agncalture
(SCR 1605). ~ he 'measure states that :ne to st--io: c~ shall submit its
recommendations on or befort: January t2. i398
Contacts:
Sen. Davin Corbin
Stale houe:e
Room 120-S
Topeka, KS 66612
p: (911 296-7388
Other States
Later this year, N:)RML anticipates the introduction of hemp bills in a number of other
states including Oregon• ilffnois, Kentuckv. and South Dakota. According to fo•mer Colorado
Sen. Lloyd Casey, ~egisler~ors in these states range from "75 percent to 95 percent sure" that
they will sponsor legislation in 1997.
Contacts.
Illinois: Re{~ Richard J. Winkel, Jr.
Huntington Towers
Suite 205
201 W. Springfield Ave.
Champaigr, IL 61824
p: (2171 35:-4994
Kentucky: Sen. Barry Metcalf
141 Alycia Clr.
Richmond, F:Y 40475
p: (606) 62•t•8387
Oregon: REQ. Floyd Prozanski
P.O. Box 1 1511
Eugene, OR 97aa0
p: (541) 34:?2447
South Dakcta. Sen. Fran'. J. Kloucek
F.R. ut
Box 56
Scotland, SCl 57059
p' !o0~i 5834468
t F i. a ~ f ~
_ .
_ ~ ~ J~`'EO WE Srq~
0 - C
4
o ~
~
~~DfD WE FPS''.
~r
-
- lte~ort- to .he (~~wernor' s Hemp and Relat ~d
- Fiber Crops Task Force
.n (coy) ~s-~_ 39~s
.
; -
t,.. _
Table of Contents
Summary 1
Preface 3
Introduction 7
Historical Overview of Three Bast Fibers 10
Agronomic Aspects of Fiber Crops 18
Hemp Production 22
Hemp License Procurement 37
Agronomic Feasibility of Growing Kenaf
in the Southeast 43
Fiber Flax 58
Appendices 65
Appendix A Governor's Executive Order and
Task Force Membership
Appendix B Procedure for Hemp License Application
Appendix C Hemp Marketing Committee Summary
Appendix D BIORESOURCE HEMP SYMPOSIUM
Appendix E Hemp Bibliography
Appendix F HEMP INDUSTRIES AWARENESS
Appendix G Contacts
SUMDSARY
• Most analysts forecast long-term increases in world
demand for all types of fibrous materials, and some
predict limitations in production capacity. New fiber
crops, new industrial uses of non-wood fibers, and
agricultural diversification in general are therefore
subjects of widespread interest. Kentucky agriculture is
not alone in efforts to pursue these possibilities, and
will be required to compete with producers in other
states and nations.
• Kentucky history, as well as recent research in other
temperate zone countries, demonstrates that hemp can be
produced in the Commonwealth. Selection of adapted
varieties, crop management practices, harvesting
technology and several other agronomic aspects may
require a significant research and development effort if
hemp is to be a large scale crop. Yet there is no reason
to believe that these production issues are
insurmountable.
• The historical advantages (for example: favorable
climate, naturally fertile soils, labor supply) held by
Kentucky hemp producers, particularly hemp seed
producers, have been made somewhat less important by
modern agronomic technology.
• Hemp and kenaf may have a slight advantage over certain
other annual row crops with regard to potential
environmental impacts. This might result from projected
requirements for less pesticide and modest reductions in
soil erosion.
• Currently, established markets for hemp in the U.S. are
generally limited to specialty/novelty textiles, oils,
foods, paper and other materials. The specialized nature
of this market does not require competition with other
fiber sources. The potential market size is difficult to
predict, but it is unlikely to support the large acreage
of a major new field crop.
• Bast fibers contribute an exceedingly small fraction of
world textile fiber supply, which is overwhelmingly
dominated by cotton. Increasing world demand and price
for cotton in recent years has generated some interest in
alternative fibers. However, extraction and processing
of bast fibers for high quality textiles is more
difficult than for cotton. A large investment, and
perhaps some technological innovation, will be required
by the textile industry if bast fibers are to become
competitive as mass market textiles.
• Use of annual fiber crops for most paper applications or
for building materials, as a substitute for wood or
recycled fiber, could create a very large but relatively
low value market. Crop prices above S60/ton would
probably be required to interest most producers; this
price might preclude extensive competition in this
market. Vast quantities of fibrous waste materials
(sugar cane bagasse, straw) are available world wide and
would also compete for such applications.
• A large and long-term USDA effort on kenaf has addressed
many production and processing challenges.
Infrastructure for significant utilization of kenaf fiber
is beginning to develop in the southern U.S. The
University of Kentucky College of Agriculture is actively
investigating kenaf production. Development of this
alternative fiber crop in Kentucky will be dependent on
nearby location of processing facilities and a profitable
market for farmers.
• Legal prohibition of Cannabis cultivation is the over-
riding obstacle to reintroduction of fiber hemp
production in Kentucky. Significant progress on
agronomics, marketing, or infrastructure development is
unlikely, and of relatively little importance, unless
legal issues are resolved. Legislative action would be
required at both the state and federal level. Such
consideration would likely receive strong diverse
reactions from both private and public sectors.
Editor's Preface
Frequently during the past six months, many colleagues and
friends have asked why I became involved with the Kentucky
Governor's Hemp and Related Fiber Crops Task Force. Zn
response I replied, "Curiosity." with my lifelong work in
Kentucky agriculture and my academic work in folk studies, I
believed this hemp project would appeal to both of my
principal interests.
In 1994 my friend Billy Joe Miles told me Kentucky Governor
Brereton Jones had asked him to chair a task force on the
feasibility of growing hemp and related fibers as a cash crop
for Kentucky farmers. Several weeks later, I called Miles
and asked him if I could sit in on the next meeting; he
consented and later called me with the November meeting date.
A few minutes after Chairman Miles called the meeting to
order, he asked me to write minutes for the meeting and
so, the adventure began.
After the meeting Miles gave me the names of several Kentucky
industries to call. From December 1994 until mid-February
1995 Miles and I worked steadily gathering information about
hemp. As I traversed the United States by telephone and fax,
I discovered that one informant usually led to three more.
From the beginning of this project, I realized that many
popular publications about hemp contain inaccurate
statements; thus, separating fact from fiction presented a
challenge the first month. Documented, valid information
provided the key for Task Force members to reach decisions
they believe will best serve Kentucky farmers. Even though
many of our state's farmers are skilled and well-informed,
3
farmers rely on the judgments of agricultural leaders to
guide them concerning new crops and cultivation practices.
Throughout this project, my greatest concern has been
protecting Kentucky's small farmer.
The principal problem I confronted during this project has
been the emotional response many pro-hemp supporters exhibit.
Although exuberance is important when promoting a product or
an idea, when emotional involvement overshadows objectivity,
speakers and writers may simply lift statements out of
context and use them to support various claims. After
working on this project for seven months, I can assure you
that everything you need to know about hemp is available at
the National Agriculture Library, the Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and the European Studies of bast fibers. There are
no secrets; no governmental•agency has destroyed needed
records. Furthermore, United States industry is well-
informed and extremely helpful. Other fibers discussed here
work as well 6r better than hemp in most applications.
Mainly through telephone conversations, I have met many
helpful, friendly, well-informed people. Their discussions
ranged from problems with growing hemp test plots; to textile
importation mishaps; to all the things that hemp, if an
infrastructure were in place, could become through United
States technology. I want to extend my thanks to each person
involved in this project. Through sharing professional
perspectives and concerns, each informant helped to provide a
piece of this research project. (See Appendix G Contacts)
Throughout the course of this project seven persons deserve
special recognition because they formed an integral part of
my research strategies and because we became a team. Each
a
person listed impressed me with personal integrity,
professional expertise, and a remarkable sense of humor.
Filly Joe Miles, my friend and later my supervisor, allowed
me the freedom to explore bast fibers in North America and
abroad. He kept his fax machine connected when I showered
him with research updates as well as research frustrations.
Frank Riccio, Jr. tirelessly instructed me about key issues
surrounding marketing non-wood fibers in the United States
and around the world. As a hemp grower and processor in
Spain, Riccio quickly dispelled inaccurate information about
hemp and introduced me to the experts in the pulp and paper
industry, in the non-wood fibers industries, and the United
States Department of Agriculture.
Jim Claycomb and I received barrages of pro and con articles
about hemp, kept each other abreast of the latest reports,
compared notes, and became sounding boards for each other,
occasionally trying to make sense of out nonsense. He
provided me a direct guide to state government services
useful to this project.
Christie Boling, touted in the U.S. hemp industries as the
queen of hemp, provided me a panorama of the hemp-related
industries. Given her knowledge of and involvement with hemp
products for a number of years, Boling is acutely aware of
issues facing hemp industries in the United States and
communicates those issues clearly and forcefully.
Jay Jeyasingam gave me my first crash course in hemp and pulp
and paper making. During his long career as pulp and paper
s
consultant, he has worked with hemp, kenaf, and other fibers
in many countries throughout the world.
Gero Leson, too, clarified many issues about German markets
and research developments with flax and hemp. Leson provided
hours of discussion not only about specific projects and
lectures at the Frankfurt, Germany, BIORESOURCE HEMP
Symposium, but also presented an objective comparison of hemp
with other fibers in the European community. Conversations
with Leson broadened my limited understanding of
environmental issues concerning wood and non-wood fibers in
the United States and Europe.
Scott Smith and I became acquainted as we flew to Minnesota
the North American Industrial Hemp Forum in late March 1995.
Indeed, Smith's common sense approach to hemp as a Kentucky
crop proved refreshing, and his knowledge of reintroducing
crops benefited me practically as a farmer considering new
crops. As Smith and I planned the format for the report, he
proved invaluable in keeping the focus on agriculture rather
than anthropology.
6
Introduction
Governor Brereton C. Jones and state agricultural leaders
continually seek new crops that will ensure profits to
Kentucky farmers. Tobacco, Kentucky's most lucrative cash
crop, faces an uncertain future in the United States. After
several of Kentucky's pro-hemp supporters approached him,
Jones decided a task force should investigate the feasibility
of raising hemp. Following discussions of these proposals
with Kentucky's agricultural leaders, by KRS 12.029 Governor
Jones formed a Task Force to study hemp and other fiber
crops. (See Appendix A Governor's Executive Order and Task
Force Membership.)
The Governor's executive order included the following mission
statement adjuring the Task Force:
1. to identify and report on the current legal use and
potential legal use of hemp and related fiber crops
for commercial enterprise purposes
2. to provide an overview of the historical uses of hemp
and related fiber crops prior to 1937 as well as its
contemporaneous legal use in other countries and
corresponding programs for monitoring uses
3. to identify methods of selective breeding of hemp
plants and related fiber crops for the purpose of
removing or producing low levels of tetrahydrocannibinol
4. to identify and report on manufacturers in the United
States which currently use hemp-based and related fiber
crops
5, to determine the marketability and economic
competitiveness of products made from hemp and
related fiber crops and to identify the technology
needed for growing and processing these plants
6. to work with the executive and legislative branches
on legislation, policies, and programs for promoting a
concerted effort to study hemp and related fiber crops
as supplemental crops to tobacco
7. and to develop recommendations for research programs
and a budget request for continued study of the
potential developmental uses for hemp and related fiber
crops.
The Hemp and Related Fiber Task Force first met 23 November
1994. Chairman Billy Joe Miles appointed two committees for
investigating legal issues concerning growing and marketing
hemp. Chairman Miles emphasized the importance of being well
informed about legal issues and stressed that test plots
would be planted only with legal clearance at both federal
and state levels. Before the end of that session, Miles
noted that if a hemp market could not sustain Kentucky
farmers, then he saw no reason to ask Kentucky's legislature
to amend statutes or seek federal permits to grow hemp test
plots. In subsequent months, the Legal Committee explored
state and federal laws while the Marketing Committee
investigated four potential markets using hemp: fabric, pulp
and paper, seed and oil, and building materials. (See Appendix
C Hemp Marketing Committee Summary)
Early in March 1995 Attorney General Chris Gorman ruled that
at both federal and state levels all species of Cannabis
sativa L. are illegal. Gorman told Miles that because federal
and state governments regard hemp as an illegal product, our
Task Force could not seek a permit to raise hemp test plots.
In the United States because of (a) increased concern
expressed by environmental groups about forest resources and
e
endangered species, and (b) industry's desire to use recycled
i
~ fibers and post-consumer wastes, non-wood fibers have the
potential to become an important manufacturing resource.
This manuscript describes the agronomics and marketing
possibilities for three bast fibers that can grow in Kentucky
soils: hemp, flax, and kenaf. Proponents of hemp and flax
hope to revitalize these crops and develop new markets for
them; kenaf supporters aspire to develop markets for this new
fiber.
9
Historical Overview of Three Bast Fibers
Submitted by Sara McNulty
Flax
Archaeologists dispute the origins of flax. Some believe
flax came from Tepe Sabz, Iran (then Mesopotamia, now Iran)
5500 to 5000 B.C.E. Seeds discovered from this period reveal
a select variety and indicate irrigation as part of
cultivation practice. Traces of flax were unearthed in the
Swiss Lake Dwellers. By 4,000 B.C.E. Egyptians cultivated
and processed flax. Ancient records and wall carvings show
laborers harvesting flax. Among the Egyptians, flax weaving
varied from coarse, textured material to fine, elegant linen
used in burial wrappings.
i~.round 1100 B.C.E. the Phoenicians introduced flax
cultivation and linen weaving into western Europe.
Charlemagne (AD 742-814 C.E.) issued an edict requiring every
family in Belgium to grow and process flax. In the beginning
this flax was used mainly for the home, but later became the
heart of a sophisticated industry filled with tradition;
often the business was handed down from father to son. Thus
Belgium became noted for its linen industry. During the
1700s Russia began cultivating and processing flax and soon
dominated the market because of large areas suitable for
growing flax and, because of cheap labor:
In the United States early colonists brought flax seeds with
them. In addition to home use, flax fiber and tow provided
the materials needed to manufacture cotton bale covering and
ties. Before long, jute replaced flax for cotton bale
covering because of its strength and lower cost per unit.
io
The Willamette Valley of Oregon pushed to develop a flax
industry even though the state offered subsidies to the
farmer, production was not profitable.
During World War II, because of a flax shortage, the United
States government encouraged flax cultivation and processing
and provided most of the funding to build two new scutching
mills. After the war the industry dwindled because of high
labor costs and the absence of a large domestic market.
H~
Although no one knows the exact origin of hemp, some scholars
contend that hemp production began in central Asia; others
credit China. Indeed Chinese records describe cultivating
and processing hemp fiber as early as 2700 B.C.E.
Historical documents written around 970 B.C.E. mentioned that
the Thracians and the Scythions used hemp for rope and cloth.
As the Scythions migrated into Europe they brought hemp with
them. The writings of Tragas in 1530 C.E. reveal that
Europeans cultivated hemp for fiber and harvested seed for
human consumption. Discorides named the plant and recorded
medicinal properties of hemp as well as fiber uses. Diaries
from Spanish explorations documented that Spaniards took hemp
into Chile in 1595. Even though production was small, hemp
remained significant in agriculture and industry.
when explorers reached American shores, many of their
accounts noted wild hemp growing in the forests. The hemp
referred to in these journals was a fibrous plant Native
Americans used in weaving baskets and textiles, not Cannabis
sativa. Entrepreneurs experimented with several native
fibers for cultivation and manufacturing. For example,
ii
.
i
Virginians promoted "silk grass' and Mississippians
"enequen". Colonists soon learned these fibers could not
compete with European flax and hemp applications,
Because hemp was essential to the British maritime industry,
. early colonists brought seed with them to America.
Fortunately, the fiber adapted to our climate and soil
conditions. Colonists used the fiber in the home as well as
in industry.
Although Jamestown colonists wanted to grow hemp and flax on
a commercial basis, John Rolf reported that these experiments
proved unsuccessful. Because Virginia Company and the
English government discouraged growing tobacco, in 1619
England sent settlers to Virginia specifically to cultivate
crops (flax, hemp, silk grass, and silk) other then tobacco
and produce commodities. That same year through English
legislation, Virginia Company tried, but failed to force
colonists to grow hemp and flax, but were unsuccessful. Flax
and hemp remained in cultivation, but for local use,
Nevertheless, the Virginia Company officials continued to
discourage tobacco growing and to promote flax and hemp. In
1663 the Assembly required farmers to plant flax and hemp,
but this plan failed because of limited seed supply.
Charles II endorsed flax, hemp, and silk production rather
than "the precarious and immoral tobacco industry." Even
though a number of planters from Virginia and Maryland
followed this trend, the program failed. (Hopkins 1951)
Sometime in the late 1600's Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia adopted laws making hemp and other staples legal
12
tender. Thus, production of those commodities increased,
thereby relieving the money shortage.
Colonial legislation offered subsidies for the cultivation
and manufacturing of flax and hemp. In 1671 Maryland offered
one pound of tobacco for every pound of hemp in the colony in
an effort to stop importing commodities that could be raised
and manufactured in Maryland. After 1680 England stopped
trying to discourage tobacco growing, but did continue
promoting fibers from the colonies so as not to be dependent
on foreign countries. Massachusetts, in 1700, require
cordage manufactures to use fiber raised in the colony
Other colonies began subsidy programs because England began
providing subsidies to naval store producers. Some colonies
offered subsidies as a means of attracting immigrants into
various unsettled regions. During 1767 Georgia distributed
free flax and hemp seeds as well as manuals describing
harvest procedures for the fibers.
By 1775 Hemp grew in Kentucky. At first hemp mainly was used
by settlers but soon an export trade developed in New
Orleans. The Pickney Treaty of 1795 opened the Lower
Mississippi to Kentucky trade. Loose bundles or bales of
hemp were taken to The Kentucky River and shipped down river
where hemp was made into rope or bagging for cotton. Because
of the European Wars from 1803-1805 Congress issued the
Embargo and Non-importation Acts thus stopping foreign
shipments of hemp. Kentucky's hemp industry flourished. The
drought of 1859 resulted in a total crop failure and required
importation of thousands of bushels of hemp seed from France
for the new planting season.
13
This prosperous era caused American hemp and hempen products
to be sold at high prices. As a result small amounts of
sisal from Mexico and abaca from the Philippines, cheaper and
superior in application to Kentucky grown hemp, trickled into
American commerce. The Civil War devastated the Kentucky
hemp industry because the industry depended on slave labor to
grow and break the crop. After the war Congress provided
subsidies for hemp hoping to revitalize the industry. But
with the superiority of imported fibers and iron ties being
used to bind bales the industry dwindled.
Between 1914 and 1933, 33 states enacted laws prohibiting
growing hemp for anything other than medicinal and industrial
fiber purposes. In 1937 Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act
which restricted possession to those who legally bought a tax
stamp, authorized medical and industrial use.
Early in 1941, with the coming of World War II, federal
authorities attempted to revitalize hemp, especially Kentucky
hemp. At this time the need for hemp fiber and seed
increased dramatically. Kentucky agricultural leaders hoped
this renewed interest would help restore the hemp industry.
Planners from the USDA and War Production Board structured a
war industry instead of utilizing the small existing private
industry.' The United States Department of Agriculture and
the Commodity•Credit Corporation controlled policy.
Because of government intervention and the intensive labor it
required the majority of farmers did not want to grow this
crop. Thus, the industry virtually disappeared after the
war. Later in 1970 the 1937 tax was repealed and the
provisions of Tile 11 (The Controlled Substances Act) of P.L.
91-513, The Comprehensive Druq Abuse Prevention and Control
1a
Act of 1970, made possession of marijuana illegal except for
authorized experimental purposes.
Kenaf
Scholars conclude kenaf originated in Africa. Historical
documents mention kenaf as early as 4,000 B.C.E. in western
Sudan. In Africa the plant was used for fiber and the leaves
for food.
Our term kenaf proLably originated with the Persians who used
this word to desc~±Le the plant Hibiscus cannibinus L., which
they used for pulp and fiber. In 1937 researchers Miyake and
Suzuta compiled a list of 129 names for various kenaf plants.
For example, in India the common name is mesta; in Taiwan,
ambari. In this report, kenaf means or refers to Hibiscus
cannibinus L.
In the eighteenth century, Sir William Roxburg (1759-1819)
conducted experiments with kenaf in India where it was widely
used as a substitute for European hemp. In India its main
use was for cordage, rope, twine, and sackcloth. Between
1920 -1925 the USSR conducted a massive study of fiber crops;
their research proved so promising that the initial study
spawned a 20 year study. The USSR introduced kenaf into
China in the mid-1930s. By the late 1950s China became the
world's largest producer of kenaf fiber.
Because of the jute shortage caused by World War II, the
United States began testing other fibers as substitutes in
the cordage industry. At the time, both researchers and
manufacturers favored kenaf because of its adaptability. In
1992 kenaf research intensified when the United States
Department of Agriculture and other agencies, such as the
is
.i
Cooperative Fiber Commission, embarked upon a joint study
with Americans and Cubans, a study which resulted in the
development of new high-yielding, disease-resistant
varieties. Later, the U.S. Point IV Program in Guatemala
produced photosensitive kenaf verities. Then, researchers at
the Everglades Experiment Station, Belle Glade, Florida and
the USDA kenaf studied 15 years additional years. (Dempsey
1975)
In 1957 the Agricultural Research Service of the USDA,
Northern Utilization Research and Development Division at
Peoria, Illinois, launched a study to find new fiber crops.
This new crop would replace surplus crops and have potential
in industrial applications. In particular the Peoria lab
studied fiber crops as raw materials for pulp and paper
applications. Over ten years, researchers considered 1,200
samples from 600 plant species. After considerable screening
they chose six plants for further study: kenaf, bamboo,
crotelaria (sunn hemp), roselle, seabassia and the sorghums.
Of the six, kenaf and crotelaria proved most favorable.
Because kenaf produced higher yields of solid material per
acre than crotelaria; researchers selected kenaf for further
study in growing and pulping (this study emphasized pulping
the whole raw stalk.)
Currently the USDA continues funding kenaf research for
applications using the fiber as a supplementary raw
material. There are four kenaf separations plants in
operation. (Atchison 1994)
16
i
Bibliography
Atchison, Joseph. 1999. Present Status and Future
Prospects for Use of Non-Wood Plant Fibers for Paper
Grade Pulps. AFSPA's 1994 Pulp and Fiber Fall Seminar.
Tucson, Arizona.
Dempsey, J.M. 1975 Fiber Crops. University of Florida
Press. Gainsville Florida.
Hopkins, James. 1951. Xistory of the Hemp Industry in
Kentucky. University of Kentucky Press. Lexington,
Kentucky.
Marshall G. 1988. Flax: Breeding and Utilization. The
Commission of the European Communities. The
Netherlands.
Weindling, Ludwig. 1947. Long Vegetable Fibers. Columbia
University Press. New York.
17
Agronomic Aspects of Fiber Crops .
Submitted by Seott Smith
In promoting the diversification of Kentucky agriculture,
there are several good reasons to consider the potential of
fiber crops. World demand for fiber is currently strong and
over the long term is projected to increase in all areas of
application: textiles, building materials, and paper/pulp.
Fiber demand will be closely linked to global economic
development. Depletion of forest resources in some regions,
and competing demands on forests for habitat and wilderness
preservation in other locales have raised doubts that forests
will continue to provide adequate supply of pulpwood at
reasonable cost. While agricultural diversification is an
objective shared by most states and nations, current concerns
about the future of tobacco production in Kentucky have
perhaps stimulated more interest here than elsewhere.
'I~pes of Fiber Crops: A large number of plants around the
World have been used for fiber. Kirby (1963)classifies these
as follows:
Seed fibers: cotton, kapok,
fibers on the seeds or inner walls of the fruit;
Bast fibers: flax, hemp, jute, ramie, kenaf,
fibers from the inner bast or bark of the stem;
Leaf fibers: abaca, manila hemp, henequen,
fibers from the vascular tissue of the leaves;
Woody fibers: wood pulp fiber,
fibers from the stem of trees;
Miscellaneous fibers: examples: coir from coconut,
18
whisks from various stems, roots and other plant parts.
Cotton: Cotton dominates world markets for textile fiber
crops (See Table). U.S. production of cotton has increased
greatly over the last few years because of high prices and
strong demand. Cotton production has returned to some areas
of the mid-South, for example North Carolina, from which it
had all but disappeared. Cotton was grown in Kentucky in the
past and there may be some potential for competitive
production, but only in the southwestern part of the
Commonwealth. (Recent reports indicate that small areas of
cotton are being planted in Kentucky this year.) This report
will not deal further with cotton because of its restricted
potential and because voluminous information is available
from other sources on its production, processing and
marketing.
World Production of Vegetable Fiber, 1992
Crop 1,000 metric tonnes
Cotton 18,069
Jute 3,530
Flax 610
Sisal 3B3
Hemp 124
FAO (1993), from Reichert (1994)
Bast fibers: Bast fibers are currently under intensive
evaluation as supplemental crops for several reasons. Some
are highly productive, as a group they are suitable for a
wide variety of applications, and at least three (hemp,
kenaf, and flax) are potentially adaptable to commercial
production in the continental U.S. These three crops will be
19
considered in more detail in this report. None of the three
can accurately be described as new crops. Kenaf has long
been cultivated in Asia and Africa, and it was evaluated on
an experimental basis in the U.S. during World War II. Flax
and hemp have been grown in the U.S. since colonial times.
Considerations for introduction of new crops: By some
indices, Kentucky already has a well diversified agricultural
economy. Animal and crop production are approximately equal
in gross sales. Furthermore, crop production is reasonably
well balanced between grain crops and non-grains. However,
non-grain crops sales are overwhelmingly dominated by
tobacco. Farm sales of burley and dark tobacco have
approached one billion dollars per year for much of the past
decade. Concerns about the future of this crop, in the face
of continuing social and political pressures and global
competition, provide Kentucky with additional motivation to
diversify crop production.
Few, if any, crops offer a likely alternative to tobacco with
respect to agronomic, economic and sociological
considerations. Tobacco is a high value, high labor,
relatively low risk crop that can be profitably produced by
very small and rather large land holders. Tobacco explains
why Kentucky ,has one of the nations highest ratios of farm
numbers to total population, and it has a profound effect on
rural economies and communities. It is unlikely that fiber
crops would be produced by nearly as many farmers, or that
the return relative to out-of-pocket costs would be
comparable. Because of differences in production technology
and labor requirements, it is probable that only a small
fraction of those now producing tobacco would be interested
in fiber crops, even if market demand were sufficient.
zo
Therefore, fiber crops should be evaluated as a supplemental
opportunity to diversify farming in Kentucky rather than as
an alternative to tobacco.
Given favorable conditions, adoption of new crops may be
. rapid and extensive. Introduction of soybean cultivation
throughout the grain producing regions of the U.S. provides
the most dramatic example. However, successful new crop
introductions are certainly out numbered by new crops for
which adoption has been unsuccessful, or extremely limited.
A host of factors may act against the adoption of a new or
supplemental crop. Before committing to a new crop
enterprise a farmer will expect satisfactory answers to at
least these questions:
• How do I grow it?
• What do Z need to buy to grow it?
• what yield can I expect?
• Where am I going to sell it?
• what price will it bring?
Only two of these are strictly agronomic. Innumerable
production problems may limit new crop adoption: poorly
adapted crop varieties, local pest problems or lack of
registered chemical controls, climatic limitations, soil and
fertility restrictions, incompatibility with existing
cropping systems, labor requirements, production machinery
unavailable or cost-prohibitive. Yet, such factors may be
more easily addressed and more controllable than economic and
market limitations. Success of a new crop requires
coordinated development of production, markets, and all of
the infrastructure required to bring crops to a market, for
example; storage, transportation, and processing facilities.
zi
Hemp Production
submitted by Seott Smith
I. The Hemp Plant
The term hemp commonly refers both to a class of fibers and
to a plant. Fibers from several plants other than true hemp
are called hemp. This includes Manila hemp (from Musa), Bunn
hemp (Crotolaria) and sisal hemp (Agave). Both the plant
Cannabis sativa and the fiber derived from it are often
called true hemp. These various plants are related only in
that they produce strong fibers which have historically been
used for cordage. The discussion in this section will be
limited to Cannabis sativa. '
Hemp vs. marijuana: Marijuana and hemp are the same plant
species, that is, Cannabis sativa L. The two terms define a
difference primarily with regard to the intended application
of the plant; marijuana generally designating a narcotic use
and hemp designating a fiber application. Throughout this
report, the terms marijuana and hemp are used in this sense.
As commonly cultivated, there are differences between
marijuana and fiber hemp. An appropriate analogy would be
the contrast between sweet corn and corn grown for silage or
feed. In both cases, genetically different varieties of a
single plant species have been bred to improve
characteristics for the intended application. Also in both
cases, the varieties are commonly grown under different
cultural conditions to favor the desired plant
characteristics.
Fiber production by hemp is maximized by very dense planting.
This increases the ratio of stalk to leaves and flowers.
zz
Marijuana is best grown at a low density which favors a bushy
plant with high production of leaves and flowers. Plant
structure and geometry is therefore visibly different in
typical fiber hemp and marijuana fields. However, isolated,
individual plants of the two types cannot be reliably
distinguished by sight alone.
THC: The psychoactive narcotic ingredient in Cannabis is
delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Cultivated marijuana is
commonly observed to contain 3 to 5$ THC (by dry weight), but
higher and lower values are possible. Selected fiber hemp
cultivars now grown in Europe generally contain 1/10 or less
of this concentration. In some European markets, a standard
of 0.38 maximum THC content has been accepted for hemp.
Genotypes of Kentucky hemp cultivated in years past are
reported to be near the same range of THC content as are
modern hemp varieties, but this is apparently not well
documented.
Some authorities have speculated that fiber hemp with a THC
concentration of 0.1 to 0.38 would have significant potential
for narcotic applications. THC concentrations are commonly
expressed on a whole plant basis. Selected parts of the
plant (for example, buds) would have significantly higher THC
levels. It should also be noted that THC might be
efficiently extracted and concentrated even from low THC
varieties by relatively simple methods. Also, some subjects
may have a significant psychoactive response to THC
concentrations of 0.1 to 0.38. (Communication from Dr. M.A.
Elsohly, Director, National Institute of Drug Abuse Marijuana
Project, University of Mississippi.)
23
Genetic selection of Cannabis with true zero concentration of
THC and other cannabinoid compounds should be possible,
either by conventional plant breeding methods or modern
biotechnology approaches. In fact, it has been reported that
such germplasm has been developed in some hemp breeding
programs. We do not know what methods were used to measure
cannabinoids in these genotypes, nor whether =hese results
have been confirmed.
Plant structure: Hemp forms a tall, woody stem which is the
basis for its value as a fiber source. Fiber hemp is
typically 6 to 12 feet in height. Much taller and shorter
stature has been reported;. undoubtedly height will be
dependent on both plant genetics and environmental
conditions. The stems of many varieties are hexagonal and
hollow. The complex structure of the stem includes a•woody
core which is high in lignin and on processing become the
material known as hurds. The outermost layers of the .item
include bark and cortex cells holding chlorophyll.
Underlying the epidermis of the bark are many very long, high
cellulose cells. Bundles of these cells make up the primary
bast fibers of hemp.
Climatic, environmental adaptation: Cannabis will grow under
a wide variety of climates ranging from the tropics to
northern temperate regions. Reichert (1994) states that it
grows best between 14 and 27 C, while Dempsey (1975) gives a
temperature range of 13 to 22 C. It is reported to be
resistant to moderate frost, and so can be planted early in
northern latitudes. Most authors emphasize that humid, or at
least drought-free conditions are critical for high yields.
2a
New plantings are said to be particularly susceptible to
drought damage.
A growing season of roughly 120 days was required for
production of hemp for fiber in Kentucky. This is consistent
with recent reports from Canada and northern Europe.
Apparently, in southern Europe growing seasons may be as
short as 90 days, perhaps because of selection of rapidly
maturing varieties. Seed maturation requires an additional
30 to 45 days. This long season explains the continued
prominence of Kentucky in hemp seed production during the
first part of this century when more northerly states had
become larger producers of hemp fiber. The lower probability
of drought stress in some more northerly locations may
continue to provide these regions with a competitive
advantage over Kentucky and the South for fiber production.
However, Canada and northern states would be unlikely
locations for seed production.
Hemp is a short-day, photoperiod sensitive annual species.
Therefore, it must be planted early (in the Northern
Hemisphere) to avoid premature flowering and seed set. Most
varieties are likely to mature in early fall in northern
temperate regions.
Genetics: de Meijer (1994) provides a thorough and current
review of Cannabis breeding, germplasm collections and
genetics. There are several active germplasm collections in
Europe, the largest including those at the Vavilov Research
Institute in St. Petersburg, the "Fleischmann Rudolf"
Agricultural Institute in Hungary, and the collection
developed by de Meijer at Waqeninqen in The Netherlands.
de Meijer refers to cultivars from France, Italy, Hungary,
Rumania, Poland, and the former USSR. However, it is not
25
clear how many of these are recent selections. Reportedly a
few germplasm collections (licensed or unlicensed) are being
maintained in North America but these are undoubtedly quite
limited. European germplasm plus local collection of feral
hemp should provide a reasonable base for init~ration of
breeding programs.
Hemp is dioecious; male and female flowers are typically
borne on separate plants. For optimum production of the
cannabinoid resins, male (staminate) plants are eliminated to
prevent fertilization of the pistillate plants. For seed
production male plants are greatly reduced in number.
Monoecious varieties should be desirable for fiber
production, and several such varieties have been developed in
Europe. These should have advantages in uniformity of
quality, productivity and maturity yet dioecious hemp is
still produced in many parts of the World.
II. Cultivation Practices
Seeding: Dempsey (1975) reports that recommended seeding
rates vary greatly with region of production, ranging from
about 35 to 135 pounds per acre. This is said to result in a
plant density of 19 to 70 plants per square foot. Low (1994)
seeded at 50•kq/ha. This high density would be appropriate
only for fiber hemp. For seed production desired plant
densities would be about 1/10 as great.
Seed is typically drilled to a depth of 3/4 to 1 1/2 inches
in row spacings of 2 to 6 inches. This would require only
equipment already available to most crop producers.
26
Early seeding is generally practiced for hemp. Dempsey
indicates early to mid-March for northern temperate regions.
Early April seeding was recommended for Kentucky fiber hemp,
middle to late April for seed (Dep. of Agricultural
Education, 1943). Early seeding would increase the
probability of avoiding summer drought in Kentucky. Little
information is available on seed germination characteristics
and seedling establishment. Dempsey (1975) reports some
benefits of seed treatment with fungicides.
Soils and fertility: Early Kentucky publications recommend
growing hemp only on the best available soils, and hemp is
widely regarded as being a relatively sensitive crop to soil
conditions. The most important reasons for this are likely
to be intolerance of soil acidity, high nitrogen demand, and
relatively high water use rates. In earlier times, when
lime, commercial fertilizer and irrigation were rarely used
at optimal rates by crop producers, Kentucky bottom lands or
upland soils rotating out of pastures were considered
outstanding sites for hemp culture. Under modern soil
management practices, it is possible that other regions
better suited to irrigation or having deeper soils with
higher water storage capacity might have some competitive
advantage over Kentucky.
Some recent popular reports have suggested that hemp can be
easily grown organically, without fertilizer inputs. This is
unlikely. Fiber hemp has a relatively high nutrient
requirement. Dempsey (1975) includes a comparison of
nutrient (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) withdrawal by hemp
versus grain crops, showing a 2 to 10 fold greater demand by
hemp. The value of this comparison is limited because it
appears to include the complete above ground portion of the
hemp plant, but only the grain tissue for the other crops.
i
Reichert (1994) estimates that only about 308 of the
~ accumulated nutrients would actually be removed in harvested
stalks. Nevertheless, many experiments demonstrate that
optimum yields require high nitrogen availability. Response
to fertilizer by hemp generally appears comparable to corn;
100 to 175 pounds of N input per acre could be anticipated
for high yielding circumstances.
Some authors consider hemp to be a soil-restoring or
conserving crop. Like any closely spaced plant, hemp will
greatly reduce soil erosion relative to bare ground.
However, .like any annual crop, its production requires soil
to be exposed without vegetative cover for a portion of the
year. So erosion would be greater under hemp than under
pasture sod or most other perennial vegetation. With regard
to soil conservation characteristics, hemp might be expected
to have a modest advantage over corn because of plant
spacing. However, other factors, particularly the ability to
use modern conservation tillage methods, would greatly
outweigh this difference.
Pests, pest control: Another common claim for hemp
production is that no pesticides would be needed. Most
authorities do agree that cultivated hemp is not susceptible
to intense pressure from insects and diseases. A few fungi
and insects known to attack hemp are mentioned by
Dempsey (1975), but they are considered to be minor and
infrequent problems. It is interesting to wonder if the
cannabinoids, like many alkaloids and secondary plant
products, are associated with pest resistance. if so, the
widespread culture of very low cannabinoid varieties could
eventually alter disease and insect relationships.
~e
Hemp also appears to be relatively resistant to pressure from
weed competitors. This is undoubtedly related to the rapid
formation of a complete, dense crop canopy early in the
season. In early Kentucky agriculture, hemp was considered a
valuable segment of a rotation, in part due to its function
as a smother crop. Broom rape and vines are most frequently
mentioned as common weeds in hemp fields. Intensive pre-
plant cultivation was recommended in the past. Clearly one
benefit of this would be to control early season weed
competition. Modern producers might choose to substitute
herbicides for repeated tillage/cultivation. Low (1994) grew
hemp in England with no herbicides and does not expect that
they will be required.
Harvesting technology: Harvesting hemp for fiber or seed
traditionally has been very labor intensive_ Dew rettinq and
braking stalks, as practiced in Kentucky, called for multiple
tedious manipulations of the stalks after cutting.
Harvesting requirements will vary with the anticipated end
use of the hemp. Pulp and fiberboard applications would
require the least amount of on-farm processing and would
. probably allow the use of common farm equipment, like round
balers and sicklebar mowers, with minor modification. If the
long bast fibers must be preserved for textile use, some on-
farm processing (rettinq) will probably be expected, and
simple forage harvesting equipment may become unsuitable.
Harvest for seed will require entirely different
mechanization.
Harvesting the same plants for both fiber and seed, as some
have proposed, would create a substantial challenge. Zn
29
addition to the widely different "maturity" dates, different
machinery and on-farm processing strategies probably would be
required.
ZII. Yields, Returns, and Costs
Yields: Under favorable conditions, hemp is a productive
species capable of rapidly generating large amounts of
biomass. However, contrary to the implications of some
popular reports, it is no more productive than many other
annual crop species, and clearly produces less biomass than
corn, sugar cane and kenaf.
Most recent studies report hemp yields of 5 to 15 metric
tonnes per hectare. (Ten metric tonnes per hectare equals
4.465 US tons per acre.) Jeyasingam (1995) reports 8-10
metric tonnes per hectare for hemp and 15-18 for kenaf. van
der Werf (1999) places maximum yields at 15 metric tonnes per
hectare and van Dam (1995) reports the range to be 10 to 15
in the Netherlands. Low (1994) reports average yields
consistently around 10 tonnes per hectare for a three year
study in England. Yields in Canada in a first year trial
were apparently significantly less (Reichert, Personal
Communication). Comparison of yields is complicated by their
inconsistent expression. The results above are assumed to be
on the basis of dry weight of stalks.
Historical sources for Kentucky report fiber yields of 500 to
1200 pounds per acre. This is not outside the range reported
by Dempsey (1975) 370 to 1,900 kilograms fiber per hectare
(330 to 1697 pounds per acre). More recently Reichert (1994)
reports 900 to 2,600 kilograms fiber per hectare.
30
Returns: Quoted unit prices for hemp are highly variable
' depending on the use of the fiber and the seed variety. Raw,
dry defoliated stalks are priced at 60 to 125 dollars per
metric tonnes by various sources. (However, current kenaf
prices are below this range.) If yields range from 7 to 15
metric tonnes/hectare, this would provide a gross return
ranging widely from $420/ha to 51875/ha (5170 to $759/acre).
This can be compared to a gross return for corn expected to
be in the range of 5200 to 5350/acre in Kentucky.
Returns for separated fiber components could be significantly
higher. Reichert estimates the return for raw fiber to range
from 5281 to $927/acre, but places~an additional value on
hurds of 5170 to $364/acre, giving a total crop return of
5451 to 51292/acre. He places a value of only S60 to
5171/acre on seed for oil and feed. Spaulding et al. have
estimated a much greater return for hemp seed for processing,
2,000 lbs/acre at 50.40/lb, for a return of 5800/acre. It is
probably not reasonable to add the value of seed returns to
fiber returns for the same enterprise since seed and fiber
are not likely to be harvested at high yields from the same
fields.
Spaulding et al. have estimated a gross return for certified
seed production of 51,200/acre based on seed yields of 2,000
lbs/acre. (It should be noted that their estimated
enterprise costs (Table belo~•) for certified seed production
does not include higher cost for registered or foundation
seed, field inspection and certification costs, possible
increased cost of pest management to meet certification
standards, or seed processing costs.)
31
r
Costs of production: Costs of producing hemp for fiber (as
raw stalks) or for seed (oil and feed) should not be greatly
different from costs of producing grain crops in Kentucky.
Relative to corn, fiber hemp would likely have lower costs
for pesticides, but this would probably be offset by higher
cost for seed. The costs below assume 8 hours of operator
labor for fiber or seed hemp, and 4.5 hours for corn.
At this time costs for regulating and monitoring hemp
production are impossible to determine. However, if extensive
monitoring, including THC analysis of fields and harvested
material will be required, such costs could be high. For
example, THC is normally measured with sophisticated
instrumentation such as the gas chromotograph/mass
spectrometer manufactured by Hewelett Packard at a cost of up
to 560,000 per machine. Laboratory personnel and employees
for issuing permits and testing papers create additional
costs.
The fiber hemp analysis below assumes that the crop is
harvested and sold as raw stalks. Marketing as separated
huuds and bast fiber would significantly increase both
returns and costs. Costs for any on-farm retting or
separation steps are unknown, because the technology to be
used has not been clearly defined at this time. Labor costs
for retting and fiber separation as traditionally practiced
would be so high as to severely limit marketing to
specialized high value fiber application.
32
Comparative coat of production and returns per acre for various crops
Estimated costs per acre
Crop Return/acre variable fixed labor total
burley 4,375 (2,500 lb) 1,905 626 700 3,231
corn grain 231 (110 bu) 155 46 32 233
wheat/beans 300 (45/28 bul 149 44 37 230
(double crop)
tomatoes 2,430 (27 tons) 1,278 154 231 1,663
(for processing)
fiber hemp• 170-759 184 46 56 286
hemp seeds 60-800 98 41 56 195
For hemp, see explanation of returns above and cost details see below)
For all crops except hemp, source is U.K. Dep. of Agricultural Economics,
ZD-99, 1993.
33
i
Estimated enterprise costs for hemp production
(per acre)
Seed
Costs Fiber Processinc Certified
$/acre $/acre $/acre
Variable costa
Seed (lbs) 40 80.00 10 20.00 10 20.00
' Fertilizer 33.58 33.58 33.58
Lime (tons) 1 10.82 1 10.82 1 10.82
Fuel, Oil (hrs) 4.5 16.02 2.2 12.22 2.2 12.22
Repairs 9.35 17.60 17.60
Interest 7.93 4.24 4.24
Total 184.12 98.46 98.46
Filed coats (Depreciation, taxes, insurance)
46.08 41.25 64.84
Operator labor
Hours 8 56.00 B 56.00 10 70.00
Total enterprise coats
286.20 195.71 233 30
Hemp costs as calculated by D. Spaulding et al.
34
Bibliography
Reichert, G. 1999. Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.). Bi-weekly
Bulletin. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Dempsey, J.M. 1975. Fiber Crops. University of Florida
Press. Gainsville, Florida.
van der Werf, H.M.G. 1994. "Hemp Facts and Fiction."
Journal of the International Hemp Association. vol. 1
van Dam, J.E.G. 1995. Potentials of Hemp as Industrial
Fibre Crop. Agrotechnical Research Institute,
Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Leson, G. 1995. Personal communication to Governor's Hemp
and Related Fiber Crops Task Force, summarizing
BIORESOURCE HEMP Symposium in Frankfurt, Germany held
March 1995.
Low, I. 1999. United Kingdom Hemp Production. Publication of
Hemcore LTD.
Department of Agricultural Education. 1943. Hemp Production.
Ky. Miscellaneous Publication 2626. College of
Education, University of Kentucky.
Jeyasingam, J. 1995. "Hemp and Kenaf in Others Countries as
Applies to Kentucky." Correspondence.
Kirby, R.H. 1963. Vegetable Fibres: Botany, Cultivation,
and Utilization. Interscience Publishers, Inc., New
York.
35
de Meijer, E. 1999. Diversity in Cannabis. Thesis,
Waqeninqen.
36
Hemp License Procurement
Submitted by Sara McNulty
Task Force Chairman Billy Joe Miles authorized Scott Smith,
chairman of the agronomy Department at the University of
Kentucky, to explore procedures for obtaining a license to
produce hemp. Smith was informed by the United States
Department of Agriculture that research and teaching
institutions may receive permits from the Drug Enforcement
Agency (DEA) in the Department of Justice.
With help from U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell's office and the
DEA, Smith received a packet containing names of two DEA
employees who could comment about the permit procedure.
Subsequently contact was established with Marsha Jones at the
Louisville DEA office, and she offered the following comments
about permitting procedures:
DEA considers fiber hemp a Class Z controlled substance
regardless of its THC content.
DEA concludes that anyone growing hemp must apply for
registration as a manufacturer, not as a researcher. Being a
manufacturer greatly increases the application costs and
could reduce chances of being approved. (See Appendix B
Procedure for Hemp License Application)
In addition to numerous other requirements, DEA requires that
the applicant demonstrate effective controls against
diversion of controlled substances.
37
When Smith described his plans and objectives, Jones
explained that "effective controls" might normally include
security fencing, alarm systems, controlled access to the
site (the entire farm), and, perhaps, around-the clock armed
guard. (Miles and Smith 1995.)
The United States Government Statutes
In a letter Smith received from James M. Sheahen, chief,
registration unit officer of Diversion Control, with the DEA,
Sheahan clarified the federal position on research with low
THC hemp:
Pursuant to Title 21 United States Code (21 USC), Section
802 (16). defines marijuana as
all parts of the plant Cannabis Sativa L., whether growing or
not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of
such plant, and every compound, manufacture, salt derivative,
mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin.
Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant,
fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the
seeds of such plant, .any. other compound, manufacture, salt,
derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks
(except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake,
or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of
germination..
Since marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled
substance under the auspices of the Controlled Substances Act
(CSA) and is in schedule I and IV of the Single Convention on
Narcotic Drugs, its cultivation, importation, exportation,
and distribution are strictly regulated in the United States
and throughout the world. The Single Convention Treaty
requires any marijuana (excluding fiber, seeds, and so forth)
38
that is grown must be under the control of the federal
government.
DEA has opposed the cultivation of the marijuana plant
determining that it is not in the public interest to allow
this growth. The prime consideration of the public interest
rests with the threat of diversion associated with
cultivation.
Pursuant to 21 USC 823 (a), anyone seeking to grow marijuana
must apply for registration as a manufacturer. The term
"manufacture" meant; the production, preparation.
propagation, compounding or processing to a drug or other
substances either directly or indirectly or by extraction
from substances of natural origins. In order to complete the
process of registration as a manufacturer of a controlled
substance, DEA considers the following criteria:
1) maintenance of effective controls against diversion of
particular controlled substances and any controlled
substance in schedule I or II compounded therefrom
into other than legitimate medical, scientific,
research, or other industrial channels, by limiting
the importation and bulk manufacture of such
controlled substances to a number of establishments
which can produce an adequate and uninterrupted supply
of these substances under adequately competitive
conditions for legitimate medical, scientific,
research, and industrial purposes;
2) compliance with applicable state and local law;
39
3) promotion of technical advances in the art of
manufacturing these substance and the development of
new substances:
4) prior conviction record of applicant under federal and
state laws relating to the manufacture, distribution,
or dispensing of such substances;
5) past experience in the manufacture of controlled
substances, and the existence in the establishment of
effective controls against diversion, and
6) such other factors as may be relevant to and consistent
with public health and safety."
Any application to manufacture marijuana must include
detailed documentation regarding these requirements.
The cultivation of the marijuana plant exclusively for
commercial, industrial purposes has many associated risks.
For example, only the pith, lower stalks and roots of the
plant do not contain the active principle duzinq the growth
of the plant. Rfter harvesting and removal from the field,
substances foz misuse can be obtained from the plant. To
prevent any abuse, it might be necessary to prohibit removal
from the fields of any parts of the cannabis plant except the
mature stalks and seeds. It might become necessary to burn
the remainder. This entire process would be difficult to
enforce.
Currently federal law categorizes all varieties of Cannabis
sativa L. as controlled substances. (Sheahan and Smith) The
ao
following statutes cite the federal law regarding hemp, (See
Appendix B Procedure for Hemp License Application)
The United States Government Statutes of 1995
Currently federal law categorizes all varieties of Cannabis
sativa L. as controlled substances. The following citations
state the law:
21 USC 812 (c) (10) - Cannabis sativa L. is a controlled
substance.
21 USC 841 - The production, cultivation, or dispensing of
Cannabis sativa L. is a felony.
21 USC 844 - The possession of Cannabis sativa L. is a
federal offense.
Kentucky Law
Kentucky law provides no exception allowing any governmental
agency to grow marijuana. (See Appendix B Procedure for Hemp
License Application) '
Kentucky Statutes of 1995
Kentucky statutes categorizes all varieties of Cannabis
sativa L. as marijuana:
KRS 21BA.1422 states that a person is guilty of possession of
marijuana when he knowingly and unlawfully possesses
marijuana. The offense is a Class A misdemeanor.
a1
9 ~
KRS 218A.010 defines marijuana to include all parts of the
plant, whether growing or not. The same statute defines
person to include any government or governmental subdivision
or agency.
az
/ A
0.+•
_t 4 fi ~ ' ` ~
~ x
C
a' ~ ` n o
, ~ y
tw ~ O\ c0
C
~ ~
~ Y X
~ 4~~1T,b~ ` ,
t D a
'9 1 4 u
~ ~ 6 L
t T d m
_ ti
. ~ N` / ~
`~t_ T .-1
R i x
u u
' t' v[.e"Y - ` _ .rte u
i ^
C m
_ p d L
Y d
~Df•
f.
- .4c G+ u C
O e
L
1'G ' - ~~Y~%dl" U rl
,p d T
...,r ,.~4. Y
. ' , s E .
,C.~1 t ~ c
_ FJ~ _
! : / ~
d
\ • l t a
c
o
3
~ 7 G
' O
!¢.D' n ~ m
. ~ - l w O
i:° , 1 ~ u
6 O
'1 ~ ~6 d G
~ ~ L
~ i Vii. C
~ .Gi E
x o
.r U
~ N
~
u C
a0 O
u
a _ - d m
~1 G
E 3
1 u
- 7 ^f
b ~ ^ O. O
12.' '.y \ \ G d
s...~..f~y~ .1~ u
J~ 1 a1 JO
l~ l .T.:' 1\ U v
r.
e
Agronomic Feasibility of Growing Kenaf in the Southeast
Submitted by Morris Bitzer
I. Introduction
Kenaf (Hibiscus cannibinus L.) has been grown in the United
States since the 1940's. Early USDA research focused on the
development of kenaf as a cordage crop, but by the late 50's,
most of the research had changed to looking to Kenaf as a
source of pulp for paper. In 1970, the USDR released a
report (White et al. 1970) entitled "The Cultural and
Harvesting Methods for Kenaf An Annual Crop Source of
Pulp in the Southeast". The report summarized much of the
research that had been done in the 60's. Two varieties
released in the mid 60's by Florida, Everglades 41 and 71,
are still two of the main varieties being grown today. Many
of the cultural practices done during that period have mainly
been confirmed with more recent research. The opening
paragraph of this report states that "Kenaf is a promising
new U.S. crop source of raw material for pulp. It is a fast-
growing, productive plant with fairly wide adaptation.
Excellent, high-yielding pulps are easily obtained." Today,
kenaf is being evaluated for use in newsprint, erosion mats,
seeding mats, poultry litter, horse litter, waste treatment
substrate, commercial absorbents and as a forage for
livestock. (Goforth and Fuller 1994). During the past 5
years, extensive studies on kenaf have been undertaken at
many locations throughout the United States. Kenaf is now
recognized as a promising alternative crop with economic
potential (Zhanq and Dicks 1994). The main difference
between the 60's and the 90's stems from pressure to reduce
43
the use of timber and the price of wood pulp has greatly
increased in relation to the cost of pulp from kenaf.
II. Current Research
Breeding and Seed Production: Extensive breeding of new
kenaf varieties is well underway at Texas A ~ M and
Mississippi State University (Cook and Mullin). The main
objectives of a breeding program are to improve the disease
resistance particularly to root knot nematode and to improve
the yield and quality of the fiber in newer varieties. A
good commercial supply of seed is now available for the first
time. A major increase of Everglades 41 occurred in Mexico
for the Mississippi State Foundation Seed Agency. Another
large increase of several varieties was produced in the Rio
Grande region of Texas for Kenaf International. In the 1994
growing season, more than 200 acres of kenaf seed production
were located in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas with a
seed yield of over 700 pounds per acre. There is actually a
surplus of seed available for the present market demand.
However, an adequate supply of good quality seed is an
important factor for the continued expanison of kenaf. The
seed produced in Mexico has already increased the competition
and lowered seed costs to many producers. Much of the seed
in the past has been produced in the tropics of Central and
South America and Mexico.
Variety Testing: Varieties of kenaf are being tested from
California to Delaware. New varieties being developed by Dr.
Charles Cook, USDA, are now being included in many of these
trials. Many of these varieties are adapted to different
types of soils. In California, excellent yields have been
obtained on saline soils (Bhangoo and Cook 1995). For many
years it was thought that good yields could only be
4a
accomplished in the more coastal plains of the south.
However, in 1965, Purdue University in Central Indiana tested
some kenaf varieties and had dry matter yields of 10.9 tons
per acre (Lessman 1965). In 1966 a research report from
Nebraska (Williams 1966) indicated that yields of 3.7
tons/acre and 6.9 tons/acre were achieved without and with
irrigation, respectively. This was with the variety
Everglades 71 which is still being used today. Recent
studies have shown that yields of 6 to 7 tons of dry matter
per acre (DM/acre) are possible in many areas of the U.S.
including Illinois, California, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Kentucky and Texas. Satisfactory yields for economic
production appear to be possible as far north as Central
Illinois (Lambert et. al. 1995). The 1970 report mentioned
earlier stated that "high yields have been obtained as far
north as Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska."
There are 2 distinct leaf shapes on the different kenaf
varieties. Some varieties have deeply lobed leaves (usually
called palmate) with mostly seven appendages on each leaf.
Other varieties have shallowly lobed (usually called entire)
leaves. These are much more desirable from the standpoint of
law enforcement agencies involved in reducing marijuana
production and the public because the palmate leaf is often
mistaken for the marijuana leaf During the 1994 growing
season at Lexington, Kentucky, an anonymous caller claimed
that the University of Kentucky was growing marijuana test
plots at the research farm. The DEA investigated the claim
and discovered kenaf test plots rather than marijuana. The
Everglades-41 variety that was increased in 1994 has the
entire leaf shape and should not be confused with the
marijuana leaf. At the present time, the palmate leaf types
appear to be more consistent in their yield potential and
45
fiber qualities. However, new breeding is aimed at improving
the entire leaf types for future use (Baldwin, 1994). As
kenaf becomes more widely grown, I believe with good
educational programs these differences will be quite evident.
Soil selection and moisture requirements: Optimum growing
conditions for kenaf are: mean daytime temperatures of 73°F -
80°F, a mean night time temperature of 65°F to 75°F and at
least 150 frost free days. Kenaf requires about 3 to 5
inches of rainfall per month or 18 to 30 inches during the
growing season. A survey of the southeastern states shows a
rainfall total of 22 to 34 inches of rain in all of the
states. The rainfall is adequate for good kenaf production
except when severe droughts occur. Droughts are more common
in the Carolinas and Georgia than any other states. It was
reported that Kenaf has the capability of becoming somewhat
dotznant during a long dry spell and then exploding in growth
when good rainfall occurs (Personal communication Cook). With
fair to adequate rainfall, it will continue to grow and not
be affected by periods of lower rainfall as compared to corn.
or soybeans. The deep tap root system enables kenaf to
survive better during stress periods. In 1994, just slightly
over 17 inches of rainfall was recorded on the research
station near Lexington, Kentucky where the first kenaf
variety trail in Kentucky was being conducted. This test was
on a well-drained Maury silt loam that is drought prone in
dry weather. Kenaf did not shown any signs of stress from
lack of moisture. Excellent growth occurred whereas corn in
an adjoining filed suffered drought stress.
The growing season for the upper southeastern states is from
May to October. The average rainfall in inches for these
46
states is: Kentucky - 23, North Carolina - 24, Tennessee -
22, Virginia - 26, and West Virginia - 23.
The growing season for the lower southeastern states is from
April to October. The average rainfall in inches for these
states is: Alabama - 28, Arkansas - 29, Florida - 32, Georgia
- 27, Louisiana - 31, Mississippi - 29, Oklahoma - 25, South
Carolina - 30 and Texas - 34.
Seeding rate and row width: The best seeding rate is 80,000
to 110,000 plants per acre. This will be from 6 to 8 plants
per foot of row in 20,30 or 36 inch row widths. This is from
6 to 10 pounds of seed per acre. There is disagreement in
the literature and among researchers as to the best row width
to use. The research in Mississippi (Hovermale 1993, Nei11
and Kurtz 1992) suggests that highest yields are obtained at
20 inch rows while in the Rio Grande area of Texas, Charles
Cook states that he sees no difference in yield between 30
and 40 inch rows. In the research from Nebraska in 1966,
highest yields were obtained on 20 and 30 inch row widths
(Williams 1966). The deciding factor with row width will be
the equipment available for the producer to use. In most
areas, the corn and soybean planting equipment will plant
either 30 or 36 inch rows which should be adequate for good
yields. Such factors as stem thickness and bast-to-core
ratios will be more affected by the spacing within the rows
than the spacing between rows (Phillips et al. 1992).
Fertilization: Some nitrogen source will be required for top
yields of kenaf. However, there is considerable variation in
the research as to how much nitrogen is needed for top
yields. Nebraska reported in 1966 that there was no response
to any nitrogen on yields. However, most data shows that
a~
responses are obtained up to 100 pounds of nitrogen per acre.
(Ching and Webber 1993, Hovermale 1993). By using some type
of legume cover crop, the amount of nitrogen applied can be
reduced drastically. Other research shows that 50 pounds of
nitrogen is adequate for top yields. (Goforth and Fuller
1994). This lower rate of nitrogen will be more
environmentally friendly and can possibly be supplied with
the use of manures. With the interest in organic farming or
reduced fertilizer inputs, kenaf should be readily accepted
by the producers. There are very few reports in the
literature on varying rates of phosphorus and potash for
producing kenaf. In the 1970 USDA report (White et al.
1970), research at Georgia showed no response to N,P or K and
lime. However, a study at Manhattan, Kansas showed a response
to 37.5 pounds of nitrogen, 50 pounds of potash, but no
response to phosphorus. Researchers concluded that kenaf
must be a very efficient user of nutrients. With the removal
of the whole plant, potash requirements could be fairly high.
The amount of nutrients 'removed per acre for a 7 ton/acre
kenaf crop is: N= 91 pounds, P205= 42 pounds, and K20= 112
pounds (Hawkins and Webber 1989). This compares for a 125
bushel corn crop of: N= 112 pounds, P2O5= 57 pounds and K2O=
38 pounds per acre (Missouri Extension 1980). Acorn silage
yield of 20 tons/acre removes 170 pounds of K2O per acre.
Kenaf has a lower nutrient requirement than corn but can be
grown on any soil where corn can be grown. A deep, well
drained soil with a ph of 5.8 to 6.8 is suited for kenaf.
Most all soils that produce tobacco or grain crops will fall
in this ph range.
Planting date: Soil temperatures should be 55°F for at least
five days (Dempsey 1975). This will be in early to mid-April
in the more southern states and from early to mid-May in the
as
i
more northern southeastern states. Soil moisture should be
ample for rapid germination. Early planting is important for
highest possible yields especially in the upper southeastern
states. Delayed planting (a month or more after optimum)
will result in much shorter stalks and lower yields.
Weed control: There has been considerable herbicide research
conducted at Mississippi State University (Kurtz 1994). Two
herbicides are cleared for use on kenaf at this time, Treflan
and Fusilade 2000. Several herbicides may be used on kenaf
such as Prowl, Dual, Poast, and Assure. Getting herbicides
that are registered on other crops cleared for use on kenaf
should not present a problem. For many producers,
cultivation will be adequate to control weeds for the first
two months after emergence until the plant gets big enough to
shade out the weeds. With no-till production of kenaf, some
use of herbicides will be necessary (HOVermale 1994).
Insect and disease problems: Kenaf has very few insect
problems that interfere with fiber production. During the
first year of testing in Kentucky, the Japanese beetle caused
considerable damage to the leaves. However, this insect is
easy to control and the kenaf plant will outgrow damage that
occurs. The two major disease problems are anthracnose and
root knot nematode. Anthracnose resistance has been bred
into most of the varieties being grown and does not appear to
be a problem in any current production (Cook and Mullin
1994). However, there is very little or no good resistance
to the Root Knot Nematode(RKN) that affects all varieties of
kenaf. Several studies have shown that there appears to be
some difference in the tolerance of different varieties to
RKN. (Cook et al. 1992 and 1993). The buildup of the
nematode in the soil is much slower in some varieties.
49
Several of the newer varieties in this report gave superior
yields as compared to some of the standard varieties. At the
present time there is no high level of resistance to the RiCN.
However, with good crop rotation and soil management, the
effect of RKN can be reduced. One of the big advantages to
growing kenaf in the upper southeast and lower midwest is
because RKN does not exist in these soils. In areas where
RKN is a problem, good crop rotation in crops other than
soybeans and cotton will need to be practiced (Webber, 1992).
Since REIN is also a problem on soybeans, producers are
already familiar with this problem and have a good management
practices.
Crop rotation: Theze have been several studies on the effect
of a crop rotation on the yield of kenaf. A recent study by
Webber(1994)concluded that a crop rotation with soybeans did
not reduce the yield of either kenaf stalk or soybean seed
yields. A five-year rotation study in Texas(Scott et al./
1992)indicated that deleterious effects occurred from
continuous cropping practices. Kenaf following kenaf yielded
49~ less DM than kenaf following cotton. However, lint
yields of cotton following kenaf were reduced 48B versus
cotton following grain sorghum. It appears that soybeans or
grain sorghum are better rotating crops with kenaf than
cotton. More research needs to be done using corn and
soybeans in a rotation with kenaf.
Harvesting: In all areas of the southeast, the kenaf plant
will complete its vegetative stage of growth and flower
shortly before a killing frost. In the extreme southern
areas, there will be time for seed to form and mature prior
to a freeze but in most of the southeast, seed production
- will not occur_ In most of the tobacco growing areas, the
so
kenaf will be killed shortly after flowering. All of the
leaves will then senesce from the plants. The moisture
content of the kenaf stalk will be around 70$ at this time.
If the plant is harvested at a high moisture content, it must
be delivered to the processing plant. In most cases, the
kenaf will be left in the field for natural drying. The
kenaf will be harvested as it is needed for processing.
After the stalk has reached a moisture content below 10$ to
129, it may be cut and stored in large bales or modules. This
is the method now being used in Texas and Mississippi. In
other situations, the kenaf will be harvested as it is needed
for processing. The most common method of harvesting in the
upper southeast will be with a corn silage chopper. By
removing all but 2 or 3 of the chopper knives, the kenaf will
be cut into 2 to 5 inch lengths, blown into silage type
wagons and delivered to a processing plant.
Storage: Operation of a pulp mill in an area where kenaf
could be grown throughout the year would simplify storage, if
not completely eliminate the need for storage. If harvesting
for some uncontrollable reason cannot meet mill demands on
schedule, some temporary storage may be required. One form
of storage would be to extend the harvest time. Unlike most
annual crops, kenaf can be harvested for several months,
beginning with green kenaf at 120 days after planting and
continuing several weeks or even months after frost(Bagby).
IIZ. Economic Feasibility of Kenaf in the Southeast
A recent study on the economic evaluation of U.S. kenaf
markets in the southeast was published by the Oklahoma
Agricultural Experiment Station (Zhanq and Dicks 1994).
51
Eleven southern states were included in this study. They
concluded that kenaf fiber for pulp would replace some
acreage of the current major farm crops and might become a
viable cash crop on farms in the study areas. The study
showed that the potential acreage required to supply kenaf
fiber to local pulp and paper mills ranged from 456,608 acres
assuming 5 percent conversion of current processing
capacities to 2.3 million acres assuming 25 percent
conversion of these mills. However, based on farmers' risk
attitudes, acreage for commercial }:enaf production for pulp
ranged from only 294,000 acres to 736,000 acres. A major
finding of this study was the necessity of fixed price
contracts to induce risk averse farr..ers to plant kenaf.
Kenaf as a major farming enterprise was selected in only 4
states; Florida, Louisiana, Oklahosa, and Texas. Moreover,
each state would have enough potential acres co-emitted to
kenaf to ensure consistent supply c` }:enaf fiber to the local
newsprint or paper mills. Kenaf fiber for pulp is a vzry
bul:~y product and transportation costs may be the most
constraining factor for producing }:enaf in a wide area.
Kenaf will enjoy access only to locr~: xar:•:ets. However, this
is r.ot the case with the present ke^~? processing plant in
Mississippi where the bast is being shipped to Forth Carolina
for paper processing. This study a.=_o included an analysis
of kenaf ccre for poultry litter anc Y.znaf for forage.
Economics of Kenaf Pr~luction: At the present time, the
Mississippi Kenaf Producers Cooperative is producing over
3,000 acres of kenaf and separating the bast and core for
several products. Tre producers are receiving 548.00 per ton
of kenaf stalk (Fuller Personal communication). The cost of
production is about S125 per acre with an average yield of 6
tons. This gives the farmer a gross income of 5298 or a net
sz
income of $173 per acre above fixed costs. The bast is used
for paper pulp and matting material. The core is used mainly
for bedding for horses or poultry litter. If a kenaf
processing plant is constructed in Kentucky, the yields and
net returns could be expected to be at least as good as in
Mississippi or better.
Government Programs and Kenaf: One of the advantages to a
producer of growing kenaf is that it is one of the Industrial
and Other Crops (IOC) that can be grown on Acreage
Conservation Reserve (ACR) and Conserving Use (CU) for
Payment Acreage land. Producers will .be permitted to harvest
all or any portion of their ACR or CU for payment acreage
planted to kenaf. Payment acreage will not be reduced by
planting kenaf. This will give even more net income to this
land. Kenaf can also be grown on 158 normal flex acres plus
108 additional as optional flex of their base acres. Any ZOC
crop will satisfy the 50-percent annual cover requirement on
ACR in non-arid regions. In other words, the government
programs are very positive for the production of kenaf.
53
Bibliography
Bagby, M.O. 1977. "A Practical Fiber Resource. In Non-wood
Plant Fiber Pulping." TAPPI. Atlanta, Georgia.
Progress Report No. 8. pp. 75-80.
Bhangoo, M.S. and Cook, C.G. 1995. Regional Uniform Kenaf
Variety Trial in California. Seventh Annual
International Kenaf Association. Abstracts. Irving,
Texas. p.25.
Bitzer, Morris J. 1995. Evaluating Kenaf For Kentucky.
Seventh Annual International. Kenaf Association.
Abstracts. Irving, Texas. p.24.
Cook, C.G. and Mullin, B.A. 1994. Progress of the USDA-ARS
Kenaf Genetic Improvement Program. International.
Kenaf Association Conference Procceedings. New
Orleans, Louisiana. pp.57-58.
Veech, J.A. and Mullin, B.A. 1993. Response of
Kenai Grown on Root-Knot Nematode/Soil-Borne
Pathogen Infested Soils. Proceedings. 1993
International Kenaf Conference. Fresno, California.
pp. 41-44.
Veech, J.A. and Mullin, B.A. 1992. Kenai Growth and
Stem Yield as Affected 6y the Root-Knot
Nematode/Soil-Borne Disease Complex. Fourth Annual
International. Kenaf Association. Conference
Proceedings. Biloxi, Mississippi. p.4.
Ching, A. Jr., and Webber, Charles III. 1993. Effect of
ss
Fertilizer Applications on Kenaf Photosynthesis,
Growth and Yield. Proceedings. 1993 International
Kenaf Conference. Fresno, California. pp. 17-23.
Dempsey, J.M. 1975. "Kenaf." Fiber Crops. University Press
of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. pp-203-304.
Fenn, Hollis. 1994. Instructions for Growing Kenaf on a
Sma11 Scale in a Yard or Garden. International Kenaf
Association Conference Proceedings. New Orleans,
Louisiana. pp.106-107.
Fuller, M.J. 1990. The Potential for Kenaf in Mississippi:
An Economic Prospective. Proceedings. Second Annual
International Kenaf Association Conference. 2:1-2.
Goforth, C.E. and Fuller, M.J. 1994. A Summary of Kenaf
Production and Product Development Research I989
-1993. Mississippi Agriculture ~ Forestry Experiment
Station Bulletin 1011. May 1994. p. 33.
Harsch, Jonathan. 1993. New Industrial Uses, New Markets for
U. S. Crops: Status of Technology and Com.;~ercial
Adoption. Section 11. Kenaf. United States Departr,.=_nt
of Agriculture, Coop. State Res. Svc. pp.46-49.
Hovermale, Carl H. 1993 Effect of Row Width and Nitrogen
Rate on Biomass Yield of Kenaf. Proceedings. 1993
International Kenaf Conference. Fresno, California.
pp. 35-40.
1994. Effect of Tillage Method, Cover Crop and
55
ti
Nitrogen Rate on Yield of Kenaf. International Kenaf
Association Conference Proceedings. New Orleans,
Louisiana. pp. 93-96.
Lambert, R.J., Chow, Poo and Cook, C.G. 1995. Performance of
Four Xenaf Cultivars in Illinois. Seventh Annual
International Kenaf Association Conference Abstracts.
Irving, Texas. p. 23.
Neill, S. W. and Kurtz, M.E. 1992. Row Spacing and Kenaf
Yield in Mississippi. Fourth Annual International
Kenaf Association. Conference. Proceedings. Biloxi,
Mississippi. p. 34.
Neill, S.W. and Kurtz,,M.E. 1993. Row Spacing and Kenaf Stem
Yield in the Mississippi Delta. Proceeding. 1993
International Kenaf Conference. Fresno, California.
pp. 29-34.
Phillips, J.M., Kirkpatrick, T.L., May, M.L., Roth, F.A. and
Loe, W.C. 1992. Growth Parameters and Production of
Kenaf as Influenced by Fertilization. Fourth Annual
International Kenaf Association Conference
Proceedings. Biloxi, Mississippi. p. 26.
Scott, A.W, and Cook, C.G. 1995. Growing Kenaf for Seed in
South Texas. Seventh Annual International Kenaf
Association Conference Abstracts. Irving, Texas.
p. 20.
Cook, C.G. and Namkin, L.N. 1992. Effects of Kenaf in Crop
Rotations. Fourth Annual International Kenaf
Association Proceedings. Biloxi, Mississippi. p. 38.
56
Webber, Charles L. 1992. Yield Response of Kenaf to Crop
Rotation. Fourth Annual International Kenaf
Association Conference Proceedings. Biloxi,
Mississippi. p. 3.
1994. Crop Rotation Effects on Kenaf and Soybean
Production. International Kenaf Association Conference
Proceedings. New Orleans, Louisiana. p. 92.
White, G.A., Cummins, D.G., et al, 1970. Cultural and
Harvesting Methods for Kenaf. An Annual Crop
Source of Pulp in the Southeast. United States
Department of Agriculture Production Research Report
113. p. 36.
Williams, J.H. 1966. 'Influence of Row Spacing and Nitrogen
Levels on Dry Matter Yields of Kenaf (Hibiscus
cannabinus L.)" Agronomy Journal 58:166-168.
Zhang, Jun and Dicks, M.R. 1994. An Economic Evaluation of
U. S. Kenaf Markets. Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment
Station. Research Report P. pp. 940-42.
5~