From: Institute for Hemp Newsgroups: alt.hemp Subject: **NEWS** Greenleaf News V5#6 **LAST ISSUE** 1/5 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 95 19:29:32 -0500 Message-ID: The Greenleaf News VOL# 5 ISSUE# 6 "For the Past Four Years, Recording the Re-Birth of the North American Hemp Industry" *************************** Hemp Debate Moves to Colorado Institute for Hemp Changes Course Institute spearheads Effort to Get Id Number for Fabrics Hemp vs Kenaf the Debate Continues. ********************************** This Entire Issue was Printed on Paper Made From Hemp ********************************** The Greenleaf News Vol 5, #6 "Recording the Re-Emergence of Cannabis Hemp as the Worlds #1 Agricultural Crop" Publisher The Institute for Hemp Editor John Birrenbach Contributing Writers Jack Frazier, and a bunch of others Vol 5,#6 of the Greenleaf News is published by the Institute for Hemp. Subscription rates are 1 yr $20, 2 yrs $35, Canada add $5 per year additional. Payable in U.S. funds. The Views expressed herein are those of the writer and not necessarily those of the publisher. The publisher does not condone the breaking of ANY laws regardless of the ignorance of the law. The publisher feels that ONLY if you work within the law can we change the law. Without responsible laws we have anarchy. ADVERTISING RATES: This Newsletter is published using QuarkXPress*. All ads must be camera ready. Discounts & Freebies are available to Hemp reform Organizations. FULL PAGE 7"x10"--- $30. Quarter Page -------------$10. other sizes are acceptable Multi-Insertion Discounts given Call for Quote. WE NEED ARTICLES: We need articles for publication. If you would like to write something DO IT and send it in. If you can submit it on a disk or send it to us via e-mail, it makes it easier for us to publish. WE NEED MATERIAL, got an idea call us 612-222-2628. Internet E-Mail us at instforhemp@delphi.com @ZEND The Greenleaf News C/O The Institute for Hemp PO Box 65130 St. Paul, MN 55165 612-222-2628 instforhemp@delphi.com ****************************************************** Editorial Vol5#6 By John Birrenbach, Editor Here it is the first of March and 1995 is all ready off to a great start. The state of Colorado is contemplating a bill that would legalize the cultivation of low-THC Hemp for industrial applications. The bill would make it legal to cultivate hemp in the state, but there is a down side (as I and John Stahl well know) that is the DEA is still in charge of issuing the Federal Permits for cultivation and importation of live seed. The up side is that at least one state may take the position that Low-THC Hemp is not a concern of Drug Control Agencies. The State of Kentucky's advisory board is still considering hemp as a cash crop. There has been a number of editorial letters in support and opposition to hemp in the local newspapers. So we'll have to wait and see. This has spurred Gatewood Galbraith, long time Hemp Advocate, to kick off his bid for the Democratic Nomination for Governor of Kentucky. At The Institute for Hemp we have finished filing the necessary paperwork with the necessary government agencies and are now registered as a Non-Profit 501(c)3 Charitable Organization. This will allow us to run, if we can get them through the stations, Public Service Anouncements (PSA's), and do a variety of other educational programs, conduct research, and do other forms of fund raising. We are also going to be holding an annual convention between Sept and Nov of each year. This years convention will be held in St. Paul Minnesota on Saturday Sept. 9th 1995. I am also glad to be welcoming the following people to accompany myself on the Board of Directors. We have Sarah Birrenbach, serving as Secretary, and Marsha Mertens, serving as the treasurer. We are also going to have an Advisory Board made up of elected persons from the membership. The Advisory Board will have the duty of approving nominated members and purposing projects that The Institute for Hemp should undertake. We are also now open for membership. We have a number of open membership categories. These categories are open to any individuals and organizations of various types. We also have a number of Closed membership categories. To be eligible for these categories an individual, organization or company must be nominated by a member and approved by the Advisory Board and the Board of Directors. The downside is that we have to be careful in political action. We can't endorse, or support candidates for Political Office or introduce Legislation. We are allowed to participate in debate about things that will effect our organization or its goals. So the door is open for some political action. This also doesn't affect the members ability to act as an individual in these matters. It also doesn't prevent the use information prepared by The Institute for Hemp we simply can't be representing The Institute in the matters. Looking forward to seeing everyone at "Festival for Project E.A.R.T.H." to be held at the usual site on Fathers Day Weekend June 16-18 1995. Sincerely, Hemp for Victory, John Birrenbach *********************** Institute for Hemp Spearheads Drive for HTS Number for Hemp Fabrics St Paul, MN John Birrenbach, President of The Institute for Hemp, with the assistance of The Industrial Fabrics Association International (IFAI), is spearheading an effort to obtain a Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) designation for Hemp Fabrics. The International Trade Commission (ITC) as a part of its duty keeps track of various imported and exported items through the use of the HTS Number. Statistics are then made available to the general public. The ITC has a HTS number for both Hemp Yarn and Fiber, but none exists for Hemp Fabrics. This is an obvious oversight given the fact that until three years ago no real significant amounts of Hemp Fabric were imported. This information is of extreme value to investors and to members of an industry. If someone wishes to see the scale of imports or exports of a given commodity they can look up data in the ITC. Seeking investors for your company? An ability to offer independent statistics as evidence of market growth and your position in that market can mean the difference between getting investment or not. "It's important that we are able obtain a determination number as soon as possible" John Birrenbach stated. Adding "We need to be able to start now while the industry is still small so we can monitor its growth with reliable statistics." Mr Birrenbach stated "We are getting a positive response from those who have written letters to the ITC." Adding "This is something that the Committee does on a regular basis (adding HTS designations) and nothing out of the ordinary. I think we have a very good chance of getting our HTS Number." For more information or updates as to the progress of this please call: The Institute for Hemp 612-222-2628 or e-mail instforhemp@delphi.com --END- *************** Statement from Colorado Hemp Initiative Project concerning the defeat of the Hemp Production Act In a vote of 4 to 3, the Senate Committee on Agriculture voted not to appoint a commission to study hemp. No reasons were given by the committee members who voted against a hemp study commission. Voting for the hemp study were Senators Power, Johnson and Wattenburg. Voting against the hemp study were Senators Ament, Dennis, Gallagher, and Bishop. The Colorado Hemp Initiative Project, which organized support for the bill, released the following statement: "The common sense and interest of the Senate Committee on Agriculture was not enough to overcome the fear instilled by almost 60 years of lies and dis-information about hemp. If over 10,000 years of history and facts can't overcome this fear, perhaps it can't be done." "It is incredible to us that a majority of the senators on the Agriculture Committee thought it was too risky to study the possibilities of hemp agriculture despite the support from the Weld County Farm Bureau, Colorado State Univ. Agriculture Department and many other groups. The Agriculture Committee is mandated to improve the agricultural economy of Colorado. They have failed to do that." "We are also disappointed in the Rocky Mountain Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration. We have operated very openly and honestly in this process, and we had hoped the DEA would do the same. However, the DEA stated their opposition to the bill in a faxed letter only 2 hours before the hearing on Thursday. Sen. Ament, the chairman of the committee, requested an agent be sent to testify about the fax, but none did." "We had sent the DEA a copy of the bill in December and have been trying to arrange a discussion with them ever since. But they canceled one meeting we had arranged and have since then refused to return our phone calls." "We sincerely believe that we can work out our differences with the DEA and other groups in opposition to us. That is why we have arranged Colorado's first Hemp Summit on Sat. March 18 at the CU Law School. We will invite all the groups supporting and opposing hemp research and try to work out our differences. If they are not willing to discuss industrial hemp, they will be doing a great dis-service to the agricultural community of Colorado." "The hemp research we have is irrefutable. Hemp is coming back as a crop world-wide. It's only a shame that Colorado won't be a leader in hemp research. Other states like Kentucky will surely surpass Colorado in hemp industry now." "We would like to thank Senator Casey for caring enough to introduce a bill aimed at improving Colorado's agricultural economy and reducing our need for forest and petroleum products." For more information, contact the: Colorado Hemp Initiative Project P.O. Box 729 Nederland, CO 80466 (303) 784-5632 email: cohip@darkstar.cygnus.com ******************************** DEA Writes to Colorado Legislature Dear Senator Ament: I am taking this opportunity to offer , for the record, the Drug Enforcement Administration's views on Senate Bill 95-132, "Hemp Reclassification" which is currently before your Committee. As the Special Agent in Charge of DEA's Rocky Mountain Field Division, I am charged with enforcement of the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in Colorado. In this capacity, it is imperative that I advise you that the "Hemp Reclassification Bill", which attempts to legalize the production of the Cannabis Sativa or Cannabis Indicia, providing the THC content is under 1.4%, violates both the letter and the spirit of the CSA. Under 21 USC 812 (c) (10), marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance, regardless of the percentage of THC content. The production, distribution or dispensing of marijuana is a felony under federal law pursuant to 21 USC 841. The possession of marijuana is also a federal criminal offense under 21 USC 844. ============================================================================= From: Institute for Hemp Newsgroups: alt.hemp Subject: **NEWS** Greenleaf News V5#5 2/5 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 95 19:30:22 -0500 Message-ID: As you are no doubt aware, in cases where Federal and state law are in opposition, the question of which law would control is well settled. In view of these facts, passage of the "Hemp Reclassification Bill" would have the effect of leading otherwise law abiding farmers down the road to the commission of a felony, under the color of a seriously misguided state statute. If even one honest farmer faces such a dilemma, it would be an insupportable miscarriage of justice. Beyond the bare facts of the matter on the legality of what this Bill attempts to do, its passage would send a harmful and dysfunctional message to the people of the State of Colorado. A recent nationwide survey conducted by the University of Michigan has shown that the use of marijuana by the nation's school children is on the rise. Enactment of this legislation would add the force of a Colorado statute to the perception that marijuana is "OK." And let us be clear that what we are talking about in this Bill is marijuana. Calling it "hemp" on the basis of an artificial threshold level of psychoactive ingredient does not erase the fact that it is botanically and legally the same plant. An illegal drug by any other name is still an illegal drug. The threshold level of THC content which the Bill proposes as the imaginary dividing line between marijuana and hemp communicates another delusional message. No less an authority than Dr. Charles Ksir of the University of Wyoming points out that the marijuana sold of the streets is the 1960s and 1970s was of this strength. To think that those interested in the criminal use and distribution of marijuana would forsake the "hemp" as defined by the Bill is altogether naive. The claims of the Bill's proponents that Colorado would derive some economic benefit from the commercial production of Cannabis are equally deceptive. In the words of Joseph E. Atchison, Ph.D., an international consultant to the pulp and paper industry, "...it would make far more sense for U.S. Industry to consider returning to the use of agricultural residues which are grown for other purposes, such as wheat straw, seed grass straw and grain sorghum stalks, rather than attempting to grow a plant just for its fiber content, such as kenaf and hemp." Although I am not an expert in the economics of crop production, I believe that my 31 years as a federal drug agent make me an expert in drug law enforcement. From that standpoint I can tell you that, in my professional opinion, this legislation is no more than a shallow ruse being advanced by those who seek to legalize marijuana. The people of Colorado deserve to be protected from this sort of subterfuge. The federal criminal law on this subject does provide such protection and will be enforced with all the vigor at DEA's command. Thank you for giving consideration to my statements on this matter. Sincerely, Philip W. Perry Special Agent in Charge DEA ****************************** From: Jack Frazier Solar Age Press Box 610 Peterstown WV 24963 Jan 18, 1995 Dear John, Thanks for another excellent issue of The Greenleaf News. I hope that you will give this letter the same exposure you gave our critic, Mr Rymsza of kenaf Paper Products. Mr Rymsza makes his living from kenaf paper, with the assistance of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I make my living from hemp paper, with the active opposition and hostility of the USDA, plus other powerful federal and state organizations. Despite the obvious differences between the two fiber industries, I would like to see us cooperate whenever possible, and I welcome the debate that Greenleaf News has initiated by publishing Mr Rymsza's letter of Jan. 3, 1995. Apparently, Mr. Rymsza's company and other kenaf paper companies have run up against some difficulties trying to introduce their paper into the paper market and competing with hemp paper and woodpulp paper. Granted, the price of woodpulp paper is very sheap compared to both kenaf and hemp paper. However, the problem does not lay at the feet of the hemp industry as Mr. Rymsza implies with his comments that hemp is "causing confusion and a loss of credibility within mainstream markets for alternative fibers." It appears that the problems for both kenaf and hemp paper originate with a USDA agency, the US Forest Service. When I worked for that agency they were partically giving timber away to the woodpulp paper industry, thereby creating an artificially low price for paper. Friends who still work for the Forest Service tell me that is still the policy. Perhaps if Mr. Rymsza and other kenaf paper executives would try a mixture of Hemp, say 50=50 with their kenaf they would have more success marketing it and breaking into the "mainstream markets". Every hemp paper wholesaler and retailer I know of is having fabulous success selling their product. The American and Canadian people have been denied quality hemp paper for so long they are hungry for it, and are buy all they can get. The only real problem for hemp paper is keeping it in stock. I hope Mr. Rymsza will devote as much time and emotion to critizing the federal government and the woodpulp paper industry as he has wasted criticizing our humble and persecuted hemp paper industry. Many Kind Regards Jack Frazier, Editor Solar Age Press. **************************** TO: Thomas Rymsza, President KP Products Inc, dba Vision Paper PO Box 20399 Albuquerque, NM 87154 Subject: Your letter of Jan 3 and Critique of Report B Jan 16,1995 Dear Tom, Thank you for taking the time to write and for your critique of Special Report B: on the use of Cannabis Hemp for the production of paper products. I sincerely appreciate your comments. Before I comment on your critique I would like to make comments about your cover letter. I would agree that there is a segment of "Hemp Advocates" which are distributing what I have begun to call "Hemp Hype". I personally have taken a great deal of Grief from these "Hemp Advocates" when I try to tell them that they are wrong about one thing or another. I have come to the conclusion that these individuals are more interested in ending "Drug Prohibition" and "Legalizing Marijuana" then they are in using Hemp or other alternative farm crops to solve our environmental problems. Unfortunately they have latched on to this as a "See it'll Save The ... Trees, Environment, Planet" and will not likely let go of it. With the media looking for sensationalism and grabber headlines it is not likely that they will halt the publication of articles like "Pot for Paper". There is, however, a growing number of "Hemp Industrialists" that have questioned some of this "Hemp Hype" and have begun to reevaluate Hemps' potential as a farm crop and wish for this accurate information to get into the hands of the general public. I consider myself a "Hemp Industrialist" more interested in truth than just legalizing Hemp. page 2 I agree that when the laws are changed to allow the production of industrial Hemp the real work will begin, but unless people like myself are out here demanding that opportunity it will never happen. I wish that we could, have the funding like Kenaf and be allowed to do the research now. (I have for the past five years been attempting to obtain the necessary permits from all the governing agencies so that we may conduct experiments in Hemp. So far every attempt to cultivate Hemp for anything other than selected research has been stymied.) In the mean time I have hoped that a grassroots education of people about the use of Hemp as an industrial farm crop would help to bring about a change in US policy regarding cultivation of Non-Drug Cannabis. I am glad that Kenaf and other fiber crops have gotten support from the US Government. The problems that Kenaf has encountered can be lessons for Hemp as well. The lack of technology and research has Hemp 10-30 years behind Kenaf. Luckily the research that has been and is being done on Kenaf and other fibers will, in part, be applicable to Cannabis as well. It troubles me that you feel the Promotion of Hemp may be hindering the expansion of the use of other fibers for the production of paper products. I have always considered problems to be opportunities. In the case of the over promotion of Hemp, I think that the opportunity for Kenaf advocates is to say "We Are Doing it Now!" "Want Tree-Free Paper, We Have It NOW!". It is, however, up to Kenaf Advocates to make this statement known. It is my position that Hemp like other crops is only part of the answer to many of our problems. Just as Kenaf cannot be grown, profitably, everywhere neither can Hemp. Just as corn is not the crop to grow in some areas neither is Hemp. Hemp may however be the answer for areas, like Minnesota and the upper Midwest, where fiber crops like Kenaf are not suitable. Report B was published to show a part of the answer which had been previously overlooked by the paper industry. Since it was first published in the summer of 1993 new information has come to light which requires that a rewrite of the report is now necessary. Sincerely, John Birrenbach Founder & President The Institute for Hemp enc: Response to Critique "Alternative Fiber Papers" ************************** Alternative Fiber Papers "making arguments that make sense!" by Thomas Rymsza, KP Products. "The following is offered in the spirit of cooperation to promote the factual and professional presentation of alternative fiber information as it relates to paper making." The Institute for hemp issued a report dated 10/4/94, and addressed it to all participants in the Rainforest Action Networks "Wood Conservation Strategy Session." This "Special Report B:" is represented as an evaluation of USDA Bulletin #404 (Published in 1916), and current global events regarding hemp production. This report is frequently cited as authoritative by advocates for tree-free paper. This Institute for Hemp evaluation provides interesting reading, but it contains generalities, inaccuracies, and omissions that discredit its credibility. The major inaccuracies included in the report are critiques in detail on the following pages. In fairness to the Institute for Hemp, most of the hemp reports and supposedly authoritative publications available contain inaccuracies equal to or greater than those that follow. It is critical to the advancement of alternative fibers that information represented as authoritative be prepared and presented in the most accurate and credible manner possible. Authors note: Quotations taken directly from the Institute for hemp report are in quotation marks, and italicized. Specific examples of significant inaccurate information and the overpromotion of hemp that are included in the Institute for Hemps' Special Report B. ============================================================================= From: Institute for Hemp Newsgroups: alt.hemp Subject: **NEWS** Greenleaf News V5#6 3/5 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 95 19:31:10 -0500 Message-ID: Page 6 - "Yields" - "Yields of hemp production world wide range from a low of 5 tons to a high of 10 tons of hemp stalk per acre." The use of the term "world wide is overpromotion. Northern climates like Alaska and Northern Canada could not produce 5 tons of Hemp fiber per acre. Like any plant, climate, soil and water are the necessary inputs. In the Los Angles Times, May 16 1994, a Canadian hemp grower is reported to have 18 acres planted, and is hoping to harvest 80 tons of hemp. That would be a projected yield of 4.44 tons per acre, if in fact, the amount of harvested was 80 tons. The actual yield is not know as of this writing. In the same Los Angles Times article, Fiona Briody, director of an Alberta Crop Development Association is quoted as saying "the yields definitely aren't what some people say." In Pulp and Paper, July 1993, a report titled "Hemp Variations as Pulp Source Researched in the Netherlands," reports stem production as 14-16 tons per hectare (1 hectare = 2.47 acres). That equates to 5.67 - 6.48 tons per acre. In the TAPPI 1 textbook "Pulp and Paper Manufacture - Vol 3, secondary fibers and non-wood pulping, chapter IX - Other Fibers" it is reported that "a hectre of hemp may produce as much as 6 tons of stems, 25% of which may be bast 2 fiber." That equates to 2.43 tons per acre. While five tons per acre might be a reasonable estimate in general, it is not a valid "world wide" minimum yield project. To evaluate the economic potential of hemp, a reasonable yield number must be established, and generally agreeable to all parties involved in the discussion. The high/low yields of 5-10 tons per acre claimed in the report added together and divided by two results in an average yield of 7.5 tons per acre. This is probably too optimistic given the reports of 4.44, 2.43, 5.67 and 6.48 tons per acre cited above. For the sake of critiqueing this report, the 7.5 3 ton yield will be assumed to be valid. The portion of bark fiber to woody core fiber (hurds) is a major consideration in evaluation the viability of fiber crops. higher valued, non-paper related markets 4 can typically be found for the longer bark fiber. The report states that hemp fiber content (bark) ranges from12-30%, and that hurds comprise 70-87%. The report does not mention the two different components of the bark fiber or their values. As reported in the Pulp and Paper, July 1993 article, hemp stalks have an outer bark fiber that is ideal for rope making and textiles and an inner bark fiber that is relatively short and coarse. The implications of these two bark fiber components on textile or paper making economics are unclear. For further evaluation of this report, percentages of bark and core will simply be assumed to be 25% bark and 75% core. This assumption does not consider processing loss, which will need to be included in any economic analysis. Page 7 - 4th paragraph - "To supply all the raw material necessary to provide paper, the United States would need to cultivate some 10-12 million acres of Hemp. This would produce the necessary 54 million metric tons of raw material necessary to produce virgin paper each year." 6 7 Using the optimistic yields of 7.5 tons per acre, and 25% bast, 75% core composition, 10-12 million acres of hemp will yield 75-90 million short tons of raw stalk. Extracting the hurds (75%) will result in 56.25 - 67.5 million short tons of hemp hurds. Not all grade of paper can be produced from hemp hurds, and longer fiber is required to produce many grades. Additionally, the pulping of the raw material will result in a reduction of mass. Assuming a pulp yield of 65% (this percentage will be higher for mechanical pulps and lower for chemical pulps) the 56.25-67.5 million short tons of hurd will produce 36.56-43.88 million short tons of pulp, not the 54 million metric tons (59.4 Million short tons) the report claims. This kind of basic math error is very significant to the overall credibility of the report. Even if we assume that all the hemp stalk is used (bast included) the 75-90 million short tons of hemp produced will result in 48.75-58.50 million short tons fo pulp at best. This still falls short mathematically. Changing our optimistic yield per acre from 7.5 tons to 5.4 tons will reduce the amount of pulp that can be produced from the proposed 10-12 million acres increasing the shortfall significantly. Page 7 - 7th Paragraph - "If the proper laws were introduced so that farmers, like those in France, Italy, and Spain, could cultivate low potency varieties of hemp many farmers would take advantage of cultivating hemp." This fails to address many issues. If an assumption of paper industry acceptance in inherent in the argument, the economics of the crop must be better understood, and the infrastructure issues must be developed. If kenaf cannot achieve mainstream paper industry acceptance, what chance does unfairly stigmatized hemp have? Additional, this section of the report might be a good place to mention that European farmers are receiving heft subsides (L245 per acre according to an article in the Financial Times, Oct 26, 1994) to grow hemp, and that without the subsidy the crop economics are poor. Page 7, 8th paragraph - "Sinsemilla Marrijuana" - This argument is faulty. If industrial hemp will cross pollinate the sinsemilla, why won't the sinsemill cross pollinate the industrial hemp, thereby makin it psychoactive? The report also discusses "the seed, collected by the illicit grower ...," presumably from the "seedless" crop. Authors Note: The report then goes into the 1916 pulping study conducted by the USDA on hemp hurds. This critique will remain focused on the editor's comments, and will leave the almost 80 years old technical paper out of the discussion. page 18 - second editors note - "This is the only serious objection to the use of Hurds for an existing paper manufacturer.", and "Regardless, this reduction in production is not a major consideration ..." To dismiss these very real problems as insignificant is misleading, and maybe negligent. There are several significant, and in fact, serious technically orientated objections to hemp as a paper making fiber. Among them are the reduced throughput and what that means to the economic viability of a mill, the increased energy used in the refining process, the slower paper machine drainage due to excessive fibrillation of the fiber, the uncertainty of supply from year to year, the storage issues all annual crops must address, and the cost of equipment changes. Pages 18 and 19 - 3rd editors note - (top of page 19) - "hydrogen peroxide, which cannot be used in the production of tree paper..." This is a totally false statement. Hydrogen peroxide can absolutely be used in tree-paper production. Page 23 - "Conclusion to the entire report" - In the third paragraph, the report says that kenaf has major drawbacks as a paper making raw material, and footnotes the 1916 USDA Bulletin #404 as the source for this "fact". The fact is that the earliest work by the USDA was in the 1940's. The added word kenaf never appeared in Bulletin #404. Also Page 23 - "Profits" - "Hemp will probably be the most profitable crop available to the American Farmer"; "Hemp is a plant that when planted requires little or no care"; "Fertilizers, herbicides, irrigation and other methods of caring for crops are not applicable to hemp"; ".. the equipment and chemicals necessary to cultivate the crop are limited in scope and cost"; "Hemp in effect should be one of the cheapest and easiest crops to produce," etc. If hemp is the cheapest and easiest crop to produce, it will not be the most profitable. Laws of supply and demand, and simple economics will come into play. The cheapest and easiest crop to produce will typically fetch a low price on the market because everybody will be producing it. The statements on fertilizer, herbicides, and irrigation are to general, and are being contradicted by recent information. The article in Financial Times, Oct. 26, 1994, says hemp grown in Europe is heavily fertilized. The issues of herbicides is a matter of farm management, and there are farms where herbicides or extensive cultivation are required. It is true that hemp can outgrow many weeds, but there are some weeds that will be a problem to hemp, especially as a paper making fiber, and some herbicide use will probably be required. Irrigation is required to grow crops in many parts of the country. Water is required to grow hemp, and the yields are directly related to how much water the crop gets. It may be drought tolerant, but it won't grow very big if it doesn't get water. If a very high purity level of bark fiber is required (as in textiles) the cost of processing is high. In the Los Angles Times, May 16, 1994 article, Stuart Carpenter, director of Hemcore Ltd. in England, Britain's major hemp processor said, "It (hemp) is an extremely difficult crop to process." Page 24 - 3rd Paragraph - "Rural Development" - "It can be estimated that the farms that cultivate hemp will enjoy the addition of between $15 - $30 billion dollars annually". Using the reports' estimate that 10-12 million acres of hemp could supply the paper making nees of the US, the crop must generate $1,500 - $3,000 per acre annually to reach the estimated $15-30 Billion dollar number. Using the assumption of 7.5 tons per acre, the crop value would have to be $200-$400 per ton for the raw fiber. That is a prohibitively high price for raw fiber. Add to that price the costs of separating the bark from the hurds and the hurds become prohibitively expensive as a raw material for paper making. Going back to page 23 - in the section on "Profits" - The report said that; "Today the farmers would be a caretaker for the crop and have little involvement in the processing..." Based on our experience with kenaf, farmers must be involved in the processing of the raw material for several reasons. The cotton industry is a good example of this. A farmer must have a means to know that the weight he is being paid to produce is an honest weight. Moisture determination, weed content, dirt, and the quality of the fiber (variety and maturity) are all areas of potential dispute between a grower and buyer. If the farmer does not have an interest in the determination of methods, and an oversight capability regarding the processing and grading of the material, mistrust will develop between the farmer and the buyer, and over a short time, the relationship between them will erode. Farmers' cooperatives may be a valid way to address many of these issues. A cooperative suggests that farmers would have significant involvement with the crop after harvest, not "little involvement". Conclusion The evaluation of hemp as a raw material for paper making requires that the following information be available. 1) Crop budgets including cost of seed and average yield per acre. 2) The price per ton a farmer must receive for raw stalk. 3) The cost of separating (decorticating) and purity of the outputs. 4) The bast/hurd percentages of a given variety of hemp. 5? Reasonable values of bast and hurd. As an offering, I suggest the following are reasonable starting values. Cost of producing the crop (includes seed, land prep, cultivation, irrigation, fertilizers, herbicides, harvesting, management and land costs) $120. per acre Average Yield per acre - 5 tons Price to farmer - $50. per ton Gross payment to farmer - $250. per acres Costs of production - $120. per acre Gross Profit to Farmer - $130. per acre ============================================================================= From: Institute for Hemp Newsgroups: alt.hemp Subject: **NEWS** Greenleaf News V5#6 4/5 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 95 19:31:53 -0500 Message-ID: ***************** The Institute for Hemps' Response to Mr. Rymszas' Critique of The Institute for Hemps' Report B The following is offered in response to Thomas Rymszas' Critique of The Institute for Hemp's Special Report B. It is meant to answer and clarify The Institute for Hemps' position regarding the critique of Special Report B. This response is offered in the spirit of cooperation between differing alternative fiber supporters. It would be most beneficial for the reader to have copies of both "Special Report B" ()1993) and "Alternative Fiber Papers: Arguments that make sense." by Thomas Rymsza of KP Products dba Vision Paper. Mr. Rymsza's critique has made many good points regarding inaccuracies in Special Report B. So that the credibility of Report B and of The Institute for Hemp remains intact a rewrite of Special Report B is necessary and is hereby ordered by The President and Founder of The Institute for Hemp. Mr. Rymsza's critique is inaccurate in certain instances and those inaccuracies are explained in the following pages. Page 2 - Production Rates - The use of the term "world wide" is intended to indicate the yields of hemp in areas in which hemp is currently cultivated. I would suppose that you could argue that "world wide" would be better defined as "Where Hemp was cultivated in 1993 yields were...", but it would be extremely picky to do so. The information on the yields of hemp come from fairly reliable sources. The yield of 5 tons is taken from information obtained from Prof. Golobrodko of the Ukrainian Bast Fiber Institute, Glukov Ukraine. The yields of 10 tons per acre come from information obtained about special varieties of Hemp developed in Hungary. While I tend not to rely heavily upon the Hungarian information, and in the report I tend use the 5 ton figure, the information obtained from the Ukrainians is considered reliable and supported by your sites. Reports from the Canadian experiment indicate that they, in their first year of primitive production, have had yields of 4.5 - 5 tons of stalk per acre. It can be reasonably assumed that given a longer growing season, and proper planting and harvesting equipment, that reliable yields of 5+ tons of hemp could be attained in the, Continental, United States. Page 3 - Yields - The figure of "54 million metric tons of raw material" used in the report is referring to the amount of Timber (wood chips) that is used to manufacture paper. It doesn't compare pulp yields. As for the pulp yields, a 65% yield from hemp is much higher than the yield of 45-48% for chemically pulped wood chips but certainly lower than the 85-94% yield for mechanically pulped wood chips . The use of Pulp yields would change the input of 54 million tons of wood chips to 27-49 million tons of wood pulp, depending on pulping method, which is a comparable figure to those you use in your critique of Hemps' pulp yield. In the report I assumed that much, if not all, of the bast fiber produced by Hemp would be used in Paper making. In order to obtain varying grades of paper, the use of Bast fiber would be necessary. I would agree that I need to rewrite this section to make the Report more accurate and to help make the comparisons clearer to the reader. Page 4 - Subsidies Paid in Europe- Hemp is a subsidized Seed Oil crop in Europe. It is my understanding that to obtain the subsidy a farmer must grow the crop for seed oil. Hemp that is grown for a Seed Oil crop is grown in a manner that is completely different from Hemp that is grown for a straw, fiber or paper crop. Hemp for seed is typically grown 20-50 plants per sq. meter where hemp for fiber is grown with hundreds of plants per sq. meter. The yields of straw from a Seed crop are considerably lower than yields from a fiber crop. This may also account for the varying yields of straw reported by various European countries. There are many other factors that go into the reasons for European subsidies on Hemp Seed Oil crops, among them are Large amounts of low cost Hemp Seed from China with which they must compete. Page 4 - Sinsemilla Marijuana - This argument is not faulty, but may be better explained in the report. The amount of Marijuana being cultivated for drug use is comparably insignificant to the Tens of Millions of acres that would be cultivated for paper production alone. The "Marijuana" grower typically removes all but a selected male plant from his crop. This is done so that the "Marijuana" grower can increase the possibilities of a Seedless crop (considered more potent and of increased value on the illicit drug market ) and to control the seed produced for future crops . The effect is that the amount of "High Potency" Genetic material, in the form of Pollen, entering the environment is reduced to an extremely low level. This is not done in the cultivation of Hemp for Seed or for Fiber. Another consideration is that Hemp grown for seed and fiber is typically of hermaphroditic strains. For obvious reasons "Marijuana" growers prefer dioecious types that allow them to sex out the unwanted male plants. The intermingling of overabundant hermaphroditic strains with the dioecious "Marijuana" strains will result in hermaphroditic strains considered of lower value to the "Marijuana" grower . If a "marijuana" grower were to decide to grow in an area in which low potency hemp was grown and they had no outside source for High potency Seed they would have to rely on the hope that the seed they produce would be of the make-up that they desire. There would, in essence, be no way for the "Marijuana" producer to completely control the seed produced for future generations of drug plants. There would be no doubt that at least a small percentage of the seed produced, by the "marijuana" grower, would be of a genetic make-up that produces a lower potency marijuana plant. It is more likely that a majority of the seed produced by the illicit grower would be of lower potency. I would agree that it is mathematically possible that some very minuscule percentage of a Seed Hemp crop could be cross pollinated from higher potency Drug Plants growing nearby. It is however extremely unlikely that given the exponentially larger number of Low potency hermaphroditic Hemp pollen, that the future Hemp Seed crop would be of a genetic make-up that could produce a Higher potency than that of the non-drug parents. Given also that "Marijuana" growers are not likely to grow in an area where large amounts of pollen from Non-drug Hermaphroditic Hemp is being produced, which would make their crops heavily seeded and of less value on the illicit drug market, it would be extremely unlikely that a non-drug Hemp crop would turn into a "Marijuana" drug crop. I would agree that it would be possible for a farmer to plant a High potency strain in hopes of producing a drug crop. If however a system were in place, like is in place in France, which would have crops tested at various times for potency and any crop discovered to be above a limit, allowed by law, were destroyed would be an incentive to encourage the farmer to plant only non-drug strains. Page 5 - Fertilizers and Hemp - The use of fertilizers is a complex question that needs to be reevaluated. Clearly in the past, and in the U. S., little fertilizer has been used to grow hemp. Fortunately, the harvesting and processing of hemp has and will continue to change. In the past Hemp was left to ret and the fiber was generally separated in the field. This left a large amount of the plant material as a natural fertilizer. This would no longer the case as Hemp is generally harvested and sent to a facility to thrash the seed, ret stalks and process the fiber. This leaves very little in the field to act as a natural fertilizer, as such and to increase yields, nitrogen rich fertilizer may be required on US farm land. Hemp is certainly not a crop like cotton or even corn in which heavy to moderate fertilization is required to obtain an average harvest, but it is certainly not a Fertilizer Free Crop either. Page 5 - Herbicides and Hemp - It is generally reported that Hemp out competes other weeds and the use of herbicides in the United States is not reported. It is clear from USDA information that, in the United States, Hemp out competes even the Canadian Thistle one of our hardiest weeds. I can recall an early report from the USDA that claimed that Hemp could, in two years, clear a field of the hardiest unwanted weeds. Again this is dependent on hemp being grown for a Fiber and not as a Seed Oil Crop and that the Hemp is not harvested. Page 5 - Irrigation and Hemp - We can argue the point about irrigation. I would agree that hemp may require irrigation during the first few weeks after planting, and that in areas Hemp, as with other crops grown in those areas, would require irrigation. However in the area of the U. S. where hemp has been traditionally grown, ie the Midwest, the use of irrigation is not reported. In fact quite the opposite, it has been reported that Hemp crops did better in years of moist springs and dry summers. Hemp is certainly not a crop that is as water sensitive as most other fiber crops. *********************** Common Hemp Myths - Supplement to the critique of the Institute for Hemp Special Report B by Thomas Rymsza, KP Products. Authors note: The following is a discussion of common misconceptions about hemp and hemp paper. These misconceptions are not excerpted from Special Report B. Paper made from hemp will last 1,500 years and tree paper lasts only 75 years. The archival quality of paper is based first and foremost on the pulping process used to produce it. Wood based fiber can be manufactured to meet the most stringent of archival requirements, as can hemp or kenaf or cotton based paper. Straw, which constitutes 50% of certain hemp papers is not generally considered an archival fiber. If this paper lasts 1,500 years it will be due more to the acid-free pulping process used and the achievement of an optimum pH balance, not the fact that it contains hemp. Hemp is the longest and strongest fiber in the world. Multiple textbook references report that flax, abaca, and cotton fibers are longer than hemp fibers. Hemp produces more bio-mass per acre than any other plant. Corn, surgarcane, kenaf, and papyrus clearly produce more bio-mass per acre than even the most optimistic hemp projections. Hemp paper won't turn yellow like wood based paper does. Most paper that turns yellow with age contains mechanical or acid based pulp. If hemp paper was manufactured in a mechanical or acid based pulping process it too would turn yellow with age. Hemp paper doesn't require chlorine bleaching. The use of chlorine is a manufacturers' decision, and is unrelated to the raw material. Hemp paper could be produced using chlorine, and tree paper can be produced without using chlorine. ************* ============================================================================= From: Institute for Hemp Newsgroups: alt.hemp Subject: **NEWS** Greenelaf News V5#6 5/5 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 95 19:32:27 -0500 Message-ID: Is ALT.HEMP loosing its focus. In only the past few weeks I have gotten a few messages from readers of alt.hemp with the concerns that it is turning into alt.hemp.pot . These messages typically go like this: > Also, are there any other groups bessides alt.hemp which deal with the environmental uses of hemp and not the drug uses? This group is being overrun with drug posts now and has basically become alt.drugs.pot. >When I first started reading alt.hemp it had a lot more >serious discussion concerning manufacturing uses of hemp than >It does now. I am interested to know if any one else is concerned >with the amount of other hemp topics that are discussed on this >news group, and whether anyone would be interested in a moderated >news group for industry uses only. This has concerned me as well. All to often I find that I only read one or two articles in alt.hemp because most of them deal with an issue that is totally separate from the Industrial Hemp issue, mainly Dope this or Dope that. Don't get me wrong, legalization of Marijuana for medical use is admirable, but it is Marijuana not Hemp. IMHO the definitions of Hemp and Marijuana follow: Hemp - The legal products produced by the Cannabis Hemp Plant as defined in US Federal Law 21 USC 802.15 mainly Stalks Marijuana - The illegal products products by the Cannabis Hemp Plant as defined in US Federal Law 21 USC 802.15 When we examine my definitions of Hemp and Marijuana, it seems that most of the posts to alt.hemp would be better suited to alt.drugs or talk.politics.drugs or other forums. IMHO alt.hemp is not alt.cannabis or alt.marijuana IMHO alt.hemp readers we must begin to clean up this mess. IMHO alt.hemp should only be used for the Industrial use of Hemp not the discussion of Medical or Recreational use of marijuana. IMHO if people want an alt.marijuana to discuss the drug use of the plant or alt.cannabis for complete discussion then form one. If this means fewer posts to alt.hemp oh well. Sincerely Hemp For Victory John Birrenbach President The Institute for Hemp not The Institute for Marijuana or Cannabis **** From: Rob Savoye Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 03:27:13 GMT Well, not that anyone can control a usenet group, but.... when I created alt.hemp, the idea was for it to be for *legalization* issues. All other topics can go to alt.drugs. It was hard enough to keep it from falling into the alt.drugs heirarchy, but we held out, and alt.hemp it was. There was some talk on moderation to keep this group from what's happened. Maybe we should just not respond to any drug related postings, and stick to the real issues, like in two days the Colorado Industrial Hemp bill goes before the state agriculture committeee. - rob - PS: Seriously, when I created alt.hemp I never realized how popular it would become. Just for a note, alt.hemp was created at the request of COHIP, the Colorado Hemp Initiative. We wanted a way of spreading the word on hemp to the masses... We got that. :-) ***************** From: Jason M Sullivan Date: 8 Feb 1995 15:29:49 GMT (Page 1 of 2) Well, if I skip the 'I got the k00lest bong!" and "Dudez! I was soo st00ned" articles, I find about a 50/50 mix. I think that's a good thing, though. MJ users, and Industrial Hemp promoters find themselves against the same laws and fears most of the time, and addressing all aspects of the issue (Since Hemp's nutritive value was left out of the original post, as well as it's other uses besides paper, cloth, and recreation), seems to be the best approach. Besides, I don't likethe idea of saying "All you stoners go here, and all you industrial hemp promoters go here" It's all just different parts of the same plant, after all :-). //// Jason M. Sullivan jmsulli@eos.ncsu.edu (sullivan@rtp.dg.com) ****************** END OF ISSUE........