Some months ago, The (Toledo) Blade published a story about hemp farmers in Canada who are working under a provisional program allowing them to plant hemp as a rotational crop. Hemp, it appears, helps re-nitrogenize the soil. Unlike soybeans, hemp actually has the possibility of turning a profit. Needless to say, the U.S. drug authorities (who have to justify their desks) aren’t interested in a similar experiment in the U.S. (sigh)
What do mean when you say that hemp, unlike soybeans, has a chance of turning a profit? In what sense do soybeans not turn a profit?
Also, why is the choice only hemp or soybeans? Are those the only nitrogen-fixers farmers can use? What about peanuts?
Kyberneticist, peanuts don’t do too well up in northern climes like the midwest and the Canadian plains. Encyclopedia Britannica notes at peanut that the peanut originated in South America’s tropical regions and was introduced by the colonial powers into various old world tropical regions, including India and China, as well as West Africa (Senegal, for instance). It requires five months of warm temperatures and substantial rainfall or the irrigation equivalent (the number given in the article, 600 mm, makes no sense). Thus, it wouldn’t do well here in Ohio, if it could be grown at all; in Saskatchewan it would be in real trouble. 
Soybeans surprised me when I read the article the first time. I see enough of them planted here in the midwest to make you think they must turn some profit. But according to the article published in The (Toledo) Blade 4/21/99, growers of corn and soybeans are, at best, breaking even, whereas the hemp growers in the project in Canada were making $200 an acre in profit. I’d link y’all to the article, but its in the Blade’s archives and costs $1.95 to get it, and I can’t republish it here without breaking certain copyright laws… (sigh)
It was also noted that the crop might be a good replacement crop for tobacco farmers.
Which variety of “hemp” would be a good replacement for tobacco farmers? 
(giggle) um, I’m not going there, nope. Nope.
Actually, of course, there is no difference between ‘hemp’ and ‘weed’. Cannibis sativa is simply cultivated differently depending on the purpose to which it is put. When grown for hemp, it is grown close together, to encourage tall plants with few leaves, the main fiber source being the stems. When grown for the drug marijuana, it is grown far apart, allowing the plant to develop large numbers of the leaves, wherein the concentration of the THC is highest. There is actually a significant difference in the THC levels of hemp-intended cannibis and drug-intended cannibis; I’ll leave it to those more informed on the issue to state the levels involved.
Really? It’s the growing method? I thought it was a question of different strains of the same species? http://www.hemp.com/101/Default.asp
Claims that it is a particular variety “L” which is low in THC.
Well, I do think that strains play a significant role in the strengh, when I was in no. cal. I knew people who were all into their seed stock and breeding program. From what I was told, they would “weed” out all the male plants and only unfertilzed females would make the kind bud. I was also told that growing hemp nearby would be disaster, and turn everything to junk, from a users perspective. If my information is correct, hiding smoke plants in fields of hemp is counterproductive.
Strains certainly have an effect, but saying a ‘strain’ is like talking about a Saluki or a Borzoi in dogs, and really not even like that but more like the difference between buying a purple-flowered rhododendron and a pink-flowered one.
Growing methods play a more significant role in the concentration of THC in cannibis plants. No matter which variety you plant, if you plant the plants close together, you ain’t gonna get very much concentration of the chemical in the leaves. This is precisely why hiding a few ‘weed’ plants in among a crop of hemp would be a stupid idea; they would either be unproductive or stick out like a sore thumb.
I’m not convinced, but if you’re correct, then no wonder the legalization of hemp is opposed - it would be the same as legalizing marijuna only when grown in a particular arrangement. You would expect, then, that any farmer’s field would have a few stragglers on the edges (as with other crops). Marijuana free for the picking by any passerby.
Well, I’m a reference addict, so I took a look around for sources.
It does indeed appear that hemp is the fibres of the cannibis sativa plant.
Growth may affect concentration of the active ingredient, but this is not usually found inany significant amount in the fibre, but rather the buds.
Could you give me some more information on the supposed non-profitability of corn and soybeans as opposed to hemp? I grew up on a farm in northwest Ohio, where my parents still live, and they’re going to be really interested to learn that they can’t make a profit on soybeans, corn, and wheat, which is what they’ve grown for the past 53 years.
While the profit the Canadian farmers are turning might be a sign that hemp crops are more profitable, it may also be the case that there is only a fixed amount of demand for hemp, and those few farmers are making a big profit because they are the only producers of it.
So, the premise that hemp will be a profitable crop is unproven due to insufficient data.
Peace.
As to the profitability of corn, that’s actually irrelevant; corn is a nitrogen extractor, which is why you rotate in the soybeans (as I understand it).
As for soybeans, all I did was state what the article stated. I don’t claim to know what if any profit soybeans result in. But I’d suggest asking your parents what profit they make per acre on the soybeans, seperate from the corn and the winter wheat.
Personally, I think that most such crop farming can’t be deciphered anyway; it’s all so mixed up with subsidies and bailouts that you have to be a real expert at knowing where to hold out your hand when to make it work, which, considering the generally independent nature of most midwest farmers must gall.