HemperFi

Two University of Minnesota researchers "have become the first to unequivocally separate hemp plants from marijuana plants with genetic markers."

Ok, so what?

I believe that the ability to "fingerprint" hemp and distinguish it from marijuana probably does little for the industrial hemp movement in the United States in the short term. On the other hand, this technique gives pro-hemp lawmakers a footing with which they can genetically distinguish hemp cultivars from marijuana. Yet, the pro DEA camp is unlikely to be swayed. The DEA's refusal of issuing hemp cultivation permits is not linked to a definitive testing method (such as DNA fingerprinting). Keep in mind, the DEA's marijuana eradication method hinges on spotting cannabis cultivation from the air (and car-bound college interns and bored cops). Therefore a lab test isn't really going to help make their life easier. Perhaps the researchers could splice in a glow in the dark gene or make industrial hemp look unhemp like...that way, legal hemp plots could be easily indentified. That is...until the other guys figure it out too.

One thing is clear. Hemp is now in the crop genetics club....and that means that big business (for better or worse) can't be far behind.

Posted by M at 09:01 PM | Permalink

I don't pretent to be fashion-conscious, but my wife can spot good design from the sidewalk. Although there are plenty of hemp stores selling all kinds of hemp clothing articles, I ask myself: "Do the fashion conscious really regard hemp as fashionable?". After all, with all this hoopla the big question still remains whether or not hemp be able to break out of niche markets.

The branding still smacks of decidedly "alternative'...which is fine, but limits the impact of hemp as a primary garment material. One company has taken a decidedly anti-corporate message to market: BlackSpot Shoes. Union labor, hemp and used tires are the main ingredients of BlackSpot's "Unshwoosher" line of Converse-lookalikes. These shoes feature a hand-drawn "sweet spot" on the toe to facilitate "kicking corporate ass!"

That's just great.

Let's face it, most hemp clothes are, for the most part, "formless" and "un-hip". There are people going beyond the "coolness" of hemp by actually bringing style and utility to the market. They will be the ones that will put hemp back into the clothing mainstream.

Posted by M at 08:01 AM | Permalink

I was surprised to learn that there are a number of kits available on the market that allow hobbyists or oil independence diehards to distill their own ethanol from corn or other cellulitic material such as industrial hemp (for example, Robert Warren's still, the "Charles 803"). For less than 2000 dollars you can buy your own 20 liter-an-hour, 180 proof ethanol still. If you ache to create your own, they will sell you the plans for 39 dollars.

Farmers who may have an large volume and assortment of feedstock available, may want to consider commercial stills and be the envy of the neighborhood!

Posted by M at 04:53 PM | Permalink

For today's entry, I'm encouraging people to engage the lawmakers who are currently reviewing AB 1147 in the California Senate Public Safety Committee. AB 1147 legalizes the cultivation of industrial hemp for commercial purposes and it sets up an in-state permitting regime.

Elaine Alquist, Gil Cedillo, Bob Margett, Carole Migden, Don Perata, Charles Poochigian, Gloria Romero will soon decide the fate of AB 1147 and I'm sure that they would love to hear from industrial hemp supporters. You can reach all 8 simultaneously by dropping them a note through this web form. And yes, you can write them even if you don't live in the United States or in California.

Posted by M at 02:59 PM | Permalink

Three times, the Lakota Nation planted hemp only to have the DEA destroy their crop. In December, the 8th Circuit heard oral arguments made by lawyers defending the rights of the Lakota Nation. The specific issue at hand? Get the 8th Circuit to reverse a DEA-imposed injunction that disallows the Lakota Nation to grow industrial hemp.

As reported by the U.S. Newswire, the three panel judge focused on two areas:

(1) the irrationality of allowing the exempt parts of the plant to be imported into the U.S. but not allowing industrial hemp to be grown in the U.S. and (2) the lack of any rational permitting process by the DEA. While the Government's case was made, Judge Beam commented, "It seems asinine to me that they can bring in the Canadian stuff and use it but can't grow it." Beam also suggested that it did not make sense that Congress would try to make the economy of Native American tribes more enhanced by casino gambling but not allow industrial hemp cultivation.

With many States passing hemp legislation, the remaining stumbling block remains the lack of a DEA permitting process for legal hemp cultivation. The DEA claims that the current federal law does not distinguish between hemp and marijuana, therefore making a permitting process impractical (the lack of distinction in the U.S. Code has already been covered in HemperFi). Many believe that the DEA could create a permitting process without a change to the U.S. Code, although it's somewhat unclear. North Dakota's HCR3033, for example, certainly seems to suggest that Congress only needs to "acknowledge" (not legislate) industrial hemp cultivation as different from cannabis.

The 8th Circuit should be issuing their final decision in the coming months. Let's hope the comments of Judge Beam have had a lasting impact on the Court.

Posted by M at 06:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Although I've looked long and hard, it's difficult to get recent figures on industrial hemp. Thanks to someone who works with the Ontario Hemp Alliance, I've been given some guidance on recent Canadian hemp market prices.

All prices presumed to be in Canadian dollars:

Costs:
Hemp seed (for planting): High germination yield seed $2.50 per pound, Low germination yield (<50%) 75 cents per pound.

According to the Saskatchewan government site, one should expect to use 20 lbs per acre for grain production. Fibre production requires a denser seeding rate...60 lbs per acre. OMAFRA estimates that farmers will need to spend 110 dollars per acre in fertilizer. OMAFRA lists other costs associated with hemp cultivation. The numbers are a bit sobering.

Crop Prices:
Hemp grain: Low quality, 30 cents per pound; Medium quality 65 to 80 cents per pound; and Top Quality organic hemp seed sells for around 1 dollar per pound.

Evidently the market for straw is difficult to generalize, given that the logistics determine whether or not there's a local market. Processors need to be within 100 to 200 km to make hemp straw viable. OMAFRA lists prices in the range of 70-180 dollars per ton.

Notably missing are hemp fibre prices, and that's because the processing facilities do not exist (in Ontario)...yet.

Posted by M at 08:29 PM | Permalink

Two new words which we should all add to our vocabulary: MYCOHERBICIDE and FUSARIUM. Fusarium (a type of mycoherbicide or plant killing fungus) occurs naturally and threatens a broad range of crops, including bananas, maize, wheat and tomatoes. Fusarium varieties can be extremely toxic to humans, and therefore, is classified as a WMD in weaponized form. Fusarium and other Mycoherbicides have been used in the war against illegal crops such as cultivated marijuana and opium poppies.

Thanks to The Hemp Report, I recently learned that a bill requiring the further study of Mycoherbicide was just passed by the House of Representatives and is on it's way to the Senate as H.R.2829EH. Not leaving much to the imagination, the bill calls for a "scientific study of the use of mycoherbicide as a means of illicit drug crop elimination by an appropriate Government scientific research entity."

This is not a new idea. As reported by Dan Russell:

In 1999, Ag/Bio Con, Inc., a Montana-based USDA-connected company with an inside track to Defense Department financing, proposed using a cannabis-killing strain of Fusarium oxysporum in Florida....[eventually] the head of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, David B. Struhs, quashed the maniacal idea, pointing out that ... "Fusarium species are capable of evolving rapidly. Mutagenicity is by far the most disturbing factor in attempting to use a Fusarium species as a bioherbicide. It is difficult, if not impossible to control the spread of Fusarium species. The mutated fungi can cause disease in large numbers of crops, including tomatoes, peppers, flowers, corn and vines and are normally considered a threat to farmers as a pest, rather than as a pesticide..."

Ok, so Florida is out of the question...butwill the DEA turn actually try to use this stuff elsewhere in the U.S. as part of hemp eradication efforts? I sincerely hope not. I do know that the U.S. government has repeatedly lobbied Colombia to use Fusarium as part of coca eradication efforts. And if H.R.2829EH passes, Latin American countries can look forward to more strong arm tactics, given that the bill calls for a "plan to conduct controlled scientific testing in a major drug producing nation."

There are three other related stories on this that are worth reading:
Mycoherbicide Redux (Narco News), The Mystery of the Coca Plant That Wouldn't Die (Wired Magazine) and a recent editorial (which served as the inspiration for this posting) published in The Hemp Report.

Posted by M at 08:00 PM | Permalink

During WWII, farmers in the U.S. were encouraged to grow hemp for fibre to help in the war effort. Since then, Feral hemp or "Ditchweed" grows wild across the country. Although I'm sure many have tried, you will not get high from Ditchweed, given that it contains only trace amounts of THC. Since the 1970s, an annual sporting event, otherwise known as the Domestic Cannabis Eradication Suppression Program" (or "DCE/SP"), begins in early Summer. Typically, interns are coupled with (underutilized) police officers and embark on an epic summer experience. In the case of Indiana in 2001, it used it's share of the DEA funds to "employ a state trooper, a local farmer, and a crew of college students to patrol the fields of Nothwest Indiana." In 1998, the Vermont State Auditor reported that 99 percent of the plants "seized" as part of the DEA's nationwide eradication program were Ditchweed.

The program encourages participants to actively seek out Ditchweed along with illegally cultivated Cannabis. At the end of each year, the number or seized plants are dutifully reported by the participating states to the DEA. In Table 4.38 of the current DEA Sourcebook, it states that in 2003 some 243,430,664 Ditchweed plants were "seized", whereas in that same year 3,427,923 "cultivated" plants were seized. I'll do the math for you...that's a 1.39 percent success rate.

But wait, it gets even sillier...because a footnote next to "cultivated" caught my eye. The footnote reads: "May include tended ditchweed". In other words, let's say the DEA encroaches Native American lands and destroys fields of cultivated Ditchweed, then that counts too! I was unable to find the amount of money spent by the DEA on Domestic Cannabis Eradication Suppression Program in 2003, but in 2001 it spent 13 million dollars. Now isn't that silly?

Posted by M at 08:46 PM | Permalink

While you're blissfully munching on your next hemp bar, consider that since October 2001 some very determined Canadians and Americans have joined forces to combat the DEA's self declared ban on hemp seed and oil. I'm not going to take you through the grueling legal details, but one thing is for sure...the DEA frittered away bales of taxpayer dollars.

On February 24th, 2004 --after much legal wrangling-- the 9th Circuit Court fo Appeals issued an opinion which invalidated the original 2001 DEA interpretive rule. Then came the DEA appeals, which eventually culminated in the June 28th denial by the 9th Circuit for a rehearing. Besides the fact that the industry successfully joined forces with hemp activist groups, the cherry on the sundae was delivered in February of 2005 when the 9th Circuit forced the DEA to reimburse 21 thousand dollars of legal fees to Dr. Brommer's Soaps. The significance? The court can only force reimbursement of legal fees in cases where the claim was "not substantially justified". In other words, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals told the DEA they'd wasted everyone's time. Since the DEA was overruled, you'll be happy to know that the industry experienced a reported 65% rise in hemp bread, bars, and granola products between 2004 and 2005.

While all this was going on, TestPledge was created because the industry recognized that many people worried about false positive drug test results as a result of consuming hemp foods and products. TestPledge is not a watchdog or certifying organization, but it does require its producers and processors to: "commission THC tests on each and every lot of shelled hempseed and oil, performed by a properly accredited laboratory according to the official Health Canada protocol." Ah yes, we can now breathe a little easier.

Ok, enough for now...tune in to HemperFi later this week to read about a judge that recently deemed the DEA's hemp cultivation ban "asinine".

Posted by M at 10:21 PM | Permalink

Ok, here's a lighthearted entry (gotta have at least one per week) ...5 interesting uses for hemp

1. Sushi! Yup, hemp seed is a vital ingredient for shichimi-togarashi.

2. Cars. Audi Volkswagen, Ford and BMW are experimenting with hemp for possible inclusion in cars. Henry Ford, however, is credited with the idea. He produced a hemp car (the Hempmobile) with all hemp-based bodywork in 1941.

3. Houses...Insulation (Isochanvre®), fiberboard, roofing tiles (Enviroshake), wallboard, paneling and bricks.

4. Candy...I know, I know it's somewhat troubling. Hemp gummy bear anyone?

5. Personal Lubricant...yes, I originally had lip balm as number 5, but I took the low road and went with this product which "contains ingredients to accentuate the most intimate moments."

Posted by M at 12:01 AM | Permalink

If you didn't know, California and Vermont are currently spearheading industrial hemp legislative efforts. Before anyone gets too excited, pro-hemp state legislation is half the battle...getting the federal government (read DEA) to administer a licensing program is the real challenge. Why? The US Code does not distinguish between industrial, low-THC hemp and high-THC marijuana. In the US code (Title 21 USC Section 812) "Marihuana" is defined as a "Schedule I" drug, making it bedfellows with Cocaine and Heroin (although Marijuana is in a slighlty less severe subsection which acknoledges potential medical purposes).

Here's the three-pronged approach states have taken to date:

1. Resolutions urging the President and the U.S. Congress to redefine marijuana vs. hemp. A great example is North Dakota's HCR 3033.
2. State laws legalizating hemp cultivation for research purposes. A good example is Kentucky's House Bill, HB100.
3. State laws legalizing commercial hemp cultivation. California's recent Assembly Bill 1147 is the most recent example. Vermont's Industrial Hemp bill also attempts to establish a commercial hemp industry.

It's important to note that Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana and West Virginia already have pro-hemp laws on the books. However, only West Virginia and Montana laws allow full-scale commercial hemp farming. If California and Vermont's efforts succeed, there will be a total of four.

A great site with current status on the U.S. state-by-state legislative efforst is Vote Hemp.

Posted by M at 12:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Corn, switchgrass, and hemp's high cellulose content make them ideal candidates for liquid bio fuel creation. Or at least that's what midwestern corn growers, ADM, George Bush, would like you to think. I was surprised to learn that ethanol's actual net energy ratio is hotly disputed. In a much publicized study released by professors David Pimentel (Cornell) and Tad Patzek (Berkeley) in 2005, concluded that: "Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates."

Realize that there's big, big money vested on the perception that ethanol production is a good thing. Between a massive annual subsidy (some $1.4 Billion in 2005) to corn growers, oodles of ethanol processing dollars spent with Archer Daniels Midland and the like, a desire for energy independence since the 1970s, have all contributed to an artifcially buoyed market for ethanol.

Along those lines, it's funny how many web-based resources claim industrial hemp (as a feedstock for ethanol) as an environmentally friendly and economically viable alternative to imported oil. If you're looking for a balanced perspective on the web to form your own opinion, forget it. Even the Wikipedia entry for ethanol has been flagged as "biased". The meta discussion of the "ethanol" Wikipedia entry is a fantastic microcosm of the debate as a whole.

There's also a bit of tension between the biofuels and the ethanol camps (read on)...

In a recent letter to the EPA, the head of the Californian Biodiesel Board notes:

In the fall of 2006, EPA plans to propose regulations that will establish the credit value for biodiesel and the credit-trading program rules for all renewable fuels. The credit value for biodiesel and the credit-trading program will have an enormous impact on the biodiesel industry. It is imperative that the rules be established in a fair and scientific way. We understand that EPA is under strong political pressure to favor ethanol in this process.

As the excerpt notes, there's serious --ethanol favoring-- politics at play. However, in the longer term large processors (Cargill, ConAgra and ADM) win regardless of where the subsidies land...ethanol or biodiesel. We'd all like to think that industrial hemp will make a positive contribution to the energy crisis. However, there is substantial evidence that generating liquid biofuel from cellulose-rich crops (such as hemp) is neither economically viable nor energy efficient.

Posted by M at 07:51 AM | Permalink

I've been investigating the 1999-2000 Canadian hemp processing debacle to see what lessons can be gleaned for American hemp farmers considering (an eventual) switch to industrial hemp. It would seem that some enterprising (and not entirely straightforward) individuals at Consolidated Growers & Processors, Inc. a Californian Agricultural processing company actually contributed to the hemp hype and the ensuing "Canadian hemp glut" by providing seed, contracts and emtpy promises of new processing facilities. I've done some digging around...and the blow-by-blow is very interesting...there's definitely a lesson to be learned here for farming communities considering hemp production where processing options are limited. Read on...

You see, here's how it worked:
1. It's 1997. Consolidated Growers & Processors (CG&P) realize legislation legalizing hemp cultivation and processing in Canada is near! These guys know how to grease skids...they begin issuing shares to persons resident in Manitoba.
2. Having done the groundwork a year before, CG&P now need a hemp crop to process! It's easy pickins'...in 1998 they contract 31 Winnipeg farmers to grow 1000 acres of hemp and commit to "$1.30 a kg for seed and $20 a tonne for hemp stalks".
3. Again in 1998, with rising interest, CG&P sponsors at least one seminar, targeted at farmers and local officials. Later, these events are cited as evidence of "hype generation". At this point company representatives publicly promise to build a 25 million dollar hemp processing facility in Manitoba. CG&P ships 78 tonnes of hemp seed to Canada for farmers under contract with them.
4. We're still in 1998...and the dot.com frenzy strikes CG&P. In September, the company files with the Securities Commission as an official Over the Counter (OTC) security (the try, but are unable to raise enough capital to get listed on NASDAQ). Eight growers accept shares in CG&P in lieu of cash for their crop.
5. After a number of visits, Dauphin (Manitoba) is "selected as the preferred site [for the hemp processing facility], in part due to the expressed commitment of the members of the Parkland Hemp Growers Association ("Parkland Growers") to grow hemp under contract with CGP Canada". Not wanting to be left out in the cold, the Parkland Growers want a piece of the action (i.e., shares)...CGP agrees.
6. 1999...more contracts (covering some 17,000 acres) are signed and more seeds arrive..this time a 100 ton shipment in June of 1999. As quoted in a MarijuanaNews article from 1999...

Taking off from Chateauroux, France approximately ten hours earlier, a Russian Antonov 124, the largest commercial cargo aircraft in the world, delivered 100 tonnes of industrial hemp seed today to Winnipeg International Airport, fulfilling a major element in the business plan of Consolidated Growers & Processors, Inc. to meet the needs of farmers in the Manitoba region.

CGP drew attention with its aggressive acreage and production...A $25 million processing plant promised for Dauphin, Manitoba was not delivered. Much touted marketing didn’t happen and sales were not closed. One company document revealed that CGP had sold just 4 metric tonnes of its 1998 grain production; the rest was warehoused in Portage La Prairie along with 135 tonnes of baled straw.

Posted by M at 01:01 AM | Permalink

I am surprised that the 1999-2000 Canadian hemp processing bottleneck issue suffers under-exposure given all the recent U.S. hemp hoopla. Here's what happened...

The year Canada legalized hemp cultivation (1998), the acreage dedicated to hemp production totaled some 5,587 acres. One year later, the total cultivation area grew sixfold to an astounding 34,657 acres. With relatively little processing capacity in key provinces, such as Manitoba, overcapacity of harvested hemp followed. It took years for the extra capacity to work it's way through the system...that is, up until 2004 when license requests nearly rebounded to 1999 levels. The good news is that the processing shortfalls spawned many smaller entrepreneurs into action...today there are well over a dozen hemp processing companies. So, is there a lesson to be learned here for (hopefully) soon-to-be American hemp farmers? Interestingly enough, the company behind the Canadian processing woes was a Californian company that would fall into bankruptcy.

Consolidated Growers and Processors (CGP) Inc., based in Monterey, California, had contracted an estimated 40 percent of the Canadian hemp crop but later fell into bankruptcy proceedings. During the ensuing legal morass, farmers stockpiled harvested hemp. Clearly there is a need to plan for both hemp cultivation and processing. There's an excellent summary of the Canadian experience (although somewhat dated) posted here.

Posted by M at 07:12 PM | Permalink

USDA Organic Hemp is here...or at least in Canada. The Organic Producers Association of Manitoba (OPAM) provides a "credible certification system" in order to "promote organic food production and consumption." Manitoba Hemp's "certification specialist" has been busy...their home page boasts eight "certs" including a the "USDA Organic" seal of approval. It turns out that OPAM is an USDA Accredited Certifying Agent (ACA) and, therefore, can bestow the seal on anyone complying with the USDA requirements. A quick glance at the USDA 'question and answers' page reveals that all "naturals" are allowed unless prohibited on the National List." And yes, I did check the National List...hemp is not on there.

Posted by M at 09:49 AM | Permalink