By Andy Kerr
Industrial hemp fiber has the significant
potential to displace fiber currently coming from
forests. It won't happen overnight, as first the
growing industrial hemp (cannabis sativa)
in the United States must again be allowed. After
re-legalization, many concurrent and consecutive
steps must occur to properly develop the
industry. It will take at least a decade or more
to gear up.
A coalition of environmental groups has called
for a 75% reduction in wood use. This dramatic
reduction is both ecologically necessary and
feasible using existing technologies. It provides
for the continued use of wood for those products
for which it cannot be substituted: solid wood
furniture, musical instruments and other certain
decorative uses of wood. 1
This analysis assumes no increases in
recycling of wood products, no improvements in
the utilization of wood, and no reduction in
demand. As the price of wood fiber increases,
these necessary actions will accelerate. Changes
in government policy regarding forests and
pollution from both logging and processing,
overcutting, global competition, and other
factors will contribute to drive wood fiber
prices higher.
2.6% of US farmland would have to be dedicated
to the cultivation of industrial hemp to displace
75% of the US annual wood consumption. (Table 1).
While this is unlikely to happen anytime soon, it
does show the potential of farmlands to replace
forestlands as our primary fiber sources.
Table 1
72,000,000 US tons of annual US wood
consumption (domestic & imported) 2
x .75
|
Percentage reasonably
converted to tree-free fibers 1 |
| 54,000,000 |
US tons of annual wood
consumption reasonably displaced by
annual fibers. |
| ÷ 4.5 |
US tons/acre of usable
hemp fiber (both short and long) 3 |
| 12,000,000 |
Acres of farmland
necessary to displace 75% of wood
consumption (domestic & imported) |
| ÷
464,053,800 |
Acres total US cropland
4 |
| 2.6 |
Percent of US cropland
to displace 75% wood consumption. |
These figures are conservative in that about
one-half of the weight of logs going into a pulp
mill is water. Hemp figures are dry-weight. Hemp
also appears to have a somewhat higher pulping
retention factor (the amount of dry weight
retained in the pulp) than wood. About 29% of
wood consumed is pulped.
Hemp will likely be grown in rotation with
major crops like soybeans, corn and wheat.
Farmers of these mainstays are looking for a
beneficial and profitable rotation crop. Hemp
improves the tilth of the soil, doesn't require
insecticides or herbicides and leaves the field
weed-free for the next crop. In England, hemp
grown in rotation with wheat has increased the
yields of the latter by 10%. 5 In Ontario, hemp
grown in rotation with soybeans has reduced the
nematode problem in the latter by 50-80% in the
first year. 6
Hemp can make a stronger composite
construction product than wood, allowing the use
of less material for a given application. Hemp
"chips" can be directly substituted for
wood chips in oriented strand board, particle
board and other panel products. 7 A lumber
substitute is also technically feasible. Paper
made from hemp can be of better quality and can
be recycled more times than paper made from wood
pulp.
On price, hemp can be competitive today
against wood for paper, at least in the Upper
Mid-West. A recent Forest Service study concludes
that Wisconsin farmers could very profitably
produce hemp to displace the consumption of wood
for fine papers made in Wisconsin mills. 8 85% of
wood used in Wisconsin paper mills is presently
imported from Canada. 9
The same may be true in the American South.
According to an executive in a very large
transnational paper company with significant
holdings in the region, company economists have
determined that on feedstock price alone, hemp
would cheaper than southern pine chips. Of
course, transaction costs such as retooling
machinery, management and workers has prevented
the switch at this point. This source and
company, which both have insisted it remain
nameless, are experimenting with kenaf. They view
hemp as superior for making paper, but they can
learn from kenaf until hemp is again legal to
grow in the United States.
The first commercial crop in Canada since 1938
is fostering interest among several Canadian
"forest" products companies.10
Competing on price against wood for
construction composites, hemp is not presently
competitive in the Pacific Northwest. If chip
markets again reach the late-1994 highs (brought
on by panic about the new federal forest plan for
northern spotted owl forests), then hemp can
compete. Chip prices have, within wide
fluctuations, been increasing for the past
decade. Mill efficiency improvements, coupled
with additional factors noted below, will
continue to drive up chip prices.
More than consumer demand for tree-free paper,
the critical factor that will favor annual fibers
such as industrial hemp (and kenaf, bamboo,
agricultural field waste, etc.) over wood fiber
is the time value of money. In this increasingly
competitive economy, an investment that requires
several decades for a return cannot compete
against shorter-term investments. Industrial
rotations of trees are around 30 years in the
South and 60 years in the Pacific Northwest, both
of which are unacceptable time horizons to a
rational economic manager. (There may be valid
social and environmental reasons for advocating
longer rotation sustainable forestry on private
lands, but not economic reasons.)
Fiber companies recognize this and are
investing large sums of money in
poplar-cottonwood hybrids. Three factors drive
these 7-10 year rotations. First, technology
exists to make valuable products from such
fast-growing, but still relatively small, trees.
Second, this is about as long as the financiers
will tolerate capital being tied up. Third, in
most states, such is considered an
agriculturalnot a forestcrop. State
agricultural practices act, if they exist as all,
are more lax than state forest practices laws, if
they exist at all. Such crops tend to require
large amounts of pesticides and herbicides.
Because hemp is an annual fiber (and the best
technically as a wood replacement) and also has a
longer and stronger fiber, is naturally brighter
(less, if any bleaching) and is much faster
growing than wood, it will increasingly
out-compete wood fiber in the future.
A major commercial carpet manufacture will
soon make a hemp carpet because present
synthetics cannot be recycled and cause
off-gassing problems when in use. 11
It also has potential to displace cotton by
providing a superior product, at a lower cost,
and without pesticides. Applications in energy
are also possible. 12
____________
Footnotes
1 A Call to Action: Reducing U.S. Demand
for Wood, by Atossa Soltani in Cut Waste, Not
Trees: How to Save Forests, Cut Pollution and
Create Jobs, Rainforest Action Network, San
Francisco, 1995 (Soltani projects reductions in
demand, increased recycling, better utilization
and other factors not considered here.)
2 US Statistical Abstract, 1993, Table No.
1153, cited in A Call to Action: Reducing U.S.
Demand for Wood, by Atossa Soltani in Cut
Waste, Not Trees: How to Save Forests, Cut
Pollution and Create Jobs, Rainforest Action
Network, San Francisco, 1995
3 John Roulac, HEMPTECH, personal
communication, 7/1/97
4 ABC News World Reference 3D Atlas, 1995
(187,800,000 hectares * 2.471 hectares/acre)
5 page 11, Hemp Horizons, .John W.
Roulac, Chelsea Green Publishing, 1997
6 Industrial Hemp Research Report, Kenex and
Ridgetown University of Guelph, Ontario, 1997
7 Hemp in biocomposites, Erwin Lloyd,
Journal of the International Hemp Association,
Vol. 4, No. 1, 1997.
8 Market Analysis for Hemp Fiber as a Feed
Stock for Papermaking, Carl Houtman, USDA Forest
Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, WI,
1997.
9 Dr. Neil Jorgeson, Acting Dean College of
Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of
Wisconsin, personal communication 3/17/97
10 Geof Kime, Hempline, Inc., personal
communication, 7/11/97
11 Ray Berard, INTERFACE Research Corp.,
personal communication, 7/11/97
12 Sustainability of energy crops in
Europe: A methodology developed and applied.
E. E. Biewinga and G. van der Bijl, Center for
Agriculture and Environment, Utrecht, The
Netherlands, 1996
10/21/98
|