INDUSTRIAL HEMP

I ran across this article in my files and thought I would pass it on. I cannot remember the source. This is a thumbnail of info on Hemp production from 1998. What I find interesting is that current activity to legalize industrial hemp cultivation is NOT NEW. The problem is, Washington has stonewalled any action in this regard. Moreover, 100% of hemp products sold in the U.S., which, oddly, is perfectly legal, IS IMPORTED! To make matters worse, the imported hemp has a very high tariff! This is preposterous! Tariffs are usually placed on imported products to inhibit its competition with U.S. produced products. This is not the case with hemp products, since there is NONE in the U.S.! It is time Washington listens and uses Hemp to help us out of the economic mess we are in! Let's flood Congress with letters, emails and phone calls! Let's make this issue a priority!

1998 Hemp Production

State Study Findings

Each of the three 1998 studies focused on different

aspects of supply and/or demand. Since Kentucky was

a major producer of certified hemp seed in the past, it

is one of the main markets mentioned in the 1998

study. Also, the horse racing industry in the State

could be a significant buyer of hemp hurds for animal

bedding. North Dakota has an oilseed crushing industry.

Thus, the North Dakota study concluded that the

largest market opportunity for the State may be hemp

seed oil. The Oregon report concentrated on fiber production

because of the pulp and paper industry in the

Pacific Northwest. (Summaries from each of the

reports are in Appendix III.)

All three of the studies do mention hemp’s benefits as

a rotation crop. As stated in the Oregon report, industrial

hemp may provide an excellent rotation crop for

traditional crops to avoid outbreaks of insect and disease

problems or to suppress weeds (Ehrensing). The

North Dakota report further states that hemp rebuilds

and conditions soils by replacing organic matter and

providing aeration through its extensive root system

(Kraenzel et al.).

The Kentucky Task Force had a broad mandate to

examine legal, agronomic, and economic aspects of

hemp production. In 1995, the majority of the

Kentucky Task Force concluded that legal prohibition

of Cannabis cultivation was the overriding 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

(McNulty).

The North Dakota report takes a different position.

Since industrial hemp may have potential as an alternative

rotation crop, the report recommends that the North

Dakota Legislature consider action that would allow

controlled experimental production and processing.

This would allow collection and analysis of necessary

baseline production, processing, and marketing data. At

the same time, the concerns and costs of law enforcement

agencies could be addressed (Kraenzel et al.).