Setting the record straight on hemp

Speakout

Posted

Recently, several news articles have appeared in the Register featuring industrial hemp. Hemp is produced in many European countries, China, Australia plus the Canadian Prairie provinces, and the North Dakota Legislature cleared the way for its production in 2015. 

Previously, hemp stories invariably refer to the plant as “a type of cannabis plant and looks like marijuana,” which is partially correct. 

As far as botanical science and the Linnaean naming system are concerned Cannabis sativa L. is one species. However, some authorities recognize two sub-species, sativa and indica. Also, geneticists and other plant breeders have produced numerous strains and varieties for mostly drug related purposes. 

Cannabis plants, i.e. marijuana, are dioecious, meaning that an individual plant either bears male parts or female flowers, thus there are separate sexes.  

It all depends on how a grower cultures the plant or sub-species for a particular outcome; for almost all medicinal, psychotropic and recreational purposes only female plants are allowed on a grow plot. Those plants can be induced to ramp up their psychoactive chemical content through various methods.  

The last thing a producer would want is to have any male plants around to pollenate and thus degrade the female plants. If a producer/farmer wanted to grow hemp, the desired vegetation would essentially be left alone and develop into tall, spindly plants with the desired fiber content, which when harvested and processed is known as industrial hemp and used for fiber, paper, and other products. Hemp may also be used for some medicinal purposes. Simply put, culturing Cannabis sativa for drug or psychoactive use is completely opposed to growing it for industrial hemp applications.  

Hemp does contain a minimal amount of psychoactive chemicals such as THC [Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol], for example, which the “pot or weed” grower wishes to maximize in his/her endeavors. Smoking vast amounts of hemp would be necessary for a “high.”

Cannabis sativa (for hemp production) was imported to the Virginia colony in 1611 and became a vital component of agriculture in the Atlantic colonies. By 1630 half of the winter clothing of British-American colonists and nearly all of their summer clothing was made from hemp fiber.  George Washington was actively engaged in hemp production on his plantation, as were other land owning Founding Fathers. The U.S.S. Constitution carried 60 tons of hemp fiber in her rigging.  

During WWII, George H. W. Bush bailed out of his damaged war plane over the Pacific with a parachute, the shrouds of which were made of hemp.  U.S. farmers were encouraged, by the U.S.D.A., to grow “Hemp for Victory” in our part of the country and further east and south as part of the war effort. Peak production came in 1943 when 146,200 acres, 228 sections, of hemp were harvested for fiber by U.S. farmers. Ditch weed, a much-degraded Cannabis sativa, occurs in South Dakota and elsewhere as a reminder of that time. 

All of which above is presented in view of the issues enveloping industrial hemp production possibilities in our state Legislature and the governor’s office. 

The House has voted to proceed with trying to establish farming hemp as a legitimate enterprise. 

The 2018 U.S. Farm Act recognizes industrial hemp as a legal crop. But our governor wants to apply the brakes on the endeavor. I think that Gov. Noem may be misinformed about the subject. 

If no bill is approved in Pierre during the current session, South Dakota farmers, who would like to participate in the hemp market, will lose this year’s production.  There appears to be significant potential to develop a crop to help diversify South Dakota’s agricultural matrix, but the governor is slow-walking, even impeding, the process. 

How many other states’, provinces’ and countries’ farmers have successfully pursued industrial hemp production, with no apparent law enforcement issues, while some South Dakota politicians stand on the side lines?