This. I have pondered this question for years. Hemp has 100s of other uses, more yield per square foot in the ground with heaps less water. Cotton also degrades much much faster. If you bought a hemp T-shirt and a cotton T-shirt, 3 cotton t shirts later your hemp one will still be in good nick. Cotton industry is a bad joke, buy hemp, send em broke.
I had a pair of hemp shorts I bought in Eumundi one year, they didn't last any longer than similar styled cotton ones. Jonesy would be the one who give the industry perspective on this.
I bought a hemp shirt in Eumundi 5 years ago. It's still alive and hanging up in my wardrobe. Unfortunately it always needs ironing to look good and its an ugly colour. But it's lasted longer than all my similar styled cotton ones!
Irrespective of whether the hemp propaganda is real or not I'd be in favour purely because the Government would hopefully need to legalise marijuana at the same time (assuming they let any farmer grow the hemp without having to jump through massive bureaucratic hurdles).
Exactly - and why do we grow rice in Australia as well? Aus is the driest country on earth and we grow 2 of the thirstiest crops of all here. Makes absolutely no sense. I refuse to buy Australian rice and any Australian cotton product.
I have had a couple of hemp shirts that were quite comfy, and one that was less so. I think that in the end it depends on how it's processed.
Quite simple, we grow rice because it has been the highest value use of the land and water in the riverina area. Nothing else came close (from memory revenues per hectare are 5-10 times higher than wheat). The region became one of the highest yielding lowest water using rice crops in the world. Almost nowhere else in Australia can match it. Our yields have been 2-4 times those in the major rice growing countries like Thailand etc. So by buying imported rice you are actually encouraging more wastage of scarce land in foreign countries (land that will probably be brought into production by cutting down yet more rainforests). Similarly our cotton farmers are some of the most efficient in the world. As a farmer you'd be stupid to not use the water if it has been made available to you. But similarly, our farmers readily switched away from rice when the water was scarce during the drought a few years ago (did dryland wheat or similar instead). From memory production fell 95% in 2-3 years during the drought and farmers switched to other crops. Hence they don't blindly "waste" water when it's not there to be had.
On the hemp issue, there is a GM modified hemp that is exactly the same as the traditional hemp minus the THC. I'm quite certain it has been grown in Australia previously. Edit: and is legal to do so. http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/431095/Growing-low-THC-hemp-in-NSW-faq.pdf If hemp is so good compared to cotton, there is no reason it could not have been completely replaced with it. I personally can't see a big green leafy bush using less water than cotton.
Gah! See licencing hurdles! Legalise marijuana and unleash the real benefits of hemp (if they're real that is).
Search for cotton vs hemp on the inter web. There is a plethora of information about both products. The main reasons hemp isn't used to any degree is political. It's all about THC.
Just because something is used efficiently doesn't mean it's the right thing to use. Is our rice GM? Are other rice producers using GM products? Do rice producers in other countries all cut down rain forests to produce more rice? Do they use a lot of pesticides? Do poor people in third world countries get a valuable stream of income from selling rice overseas? Is hemp more water efficient than cotton? I'm not trying to be a smart arse but to me it doesn't make sense. We are a major beef producer in this country. Doesn't mean we should be using these animals to produce food. Our topsoil was never meant for cloven hoofed animals. We still produce food using European farming techniques. Does this make sense when our climates are so different?
No, efficiency is essentially irrelevant in what's "right". You should produce based on what is your "comparative advantage". For our Riverina farmers that clearly meant to produce rice when the water was available. For our Burdekin farmers to produce sugar cane and intensive veges, etc. The "best" use and therefore the "right" use is (almost?) always based on what is your comparative advantage now based on your existing capital stock and over your expected forward time horizon for new capital stock. I'm not taking any position on hemp vs cotton about what is "right" to produce except to say that hemp is hamstrung in its ability to compete by our (and other) Governments regulations. Remove the regulations and what's "right" will become bleedingly obvious and will happen naturally. Finally, I think there are very few (if any) farmers that still use "European farming techniques" - precisely because our environments are so different and (most) farmers aren't stupid and actually care about the fact that they want their piece of land to continue producing output for years into the future. We have been separated long enough now that we have developed our own plethora of techniques. [This is not saying that improvements can't be made, which they clearly can be but many of the innovations in the pipeline take time to flow through.]
Good couple of posts just above.I find the views interesting and agree with some content from both. Good to see people actually caring about the issue of agriculture in Oz enough to debate it.
My point wasn't WRT the pot debate but mearely that if hemp was really that competitive a crop on its own, it would be standing on its own feet. Those licensing hurdles are tiny in today's nanny state of regulation and I doubt is a blocking force for NSW farmers.
