Okla. Flag
Money Bag
Okla. Flag
hemp vs cotton


It was Mark Twine who once said:
        “There are Lies",
                "There are Damn Lies",
                        "And then there are Statistics”

Yet despite his warnings, throughout the 19th and even well into the 20th Century, there was an expression that carried a lot of weight back in that day:

                    “STATISTICS DON’T LIE”

An expression that held up in some quarters until around 1954 when some guy (Darrel Huff) wrote his landmark book, “How to Lie with Statistics” and pretty much decimated the whole concept.   Simply put, if one used selected figures, and manipulated them just right, you could make any set of figures look pretty much like; --- just about anything anyone wanted them to look like.   A fact that has not been lost on many, and most specifically on those who wish to keep our present day situation as is.   And a fact that should not be lost on the reader, as their are many it seems who willingly, knowingly, with the intent to deceive, are going around doing just that.   And thus a fact that the reader must always keep in the back of their mind.

Maybe one quick example is in order.   According to one website:

The following table shows average (2013) cotton yields (lbs./per acre) for that year.   Take special note of the fact that Oklahoma is places right at the bottom of this table in terms of cotton yield per acre.

California 1,726
Arizona 1,453
Virginia 1,239
Arkansas 1,193
Mississippi 1,183
Louisiana 1,171
Missouri 1,117
North Carolina 1,049
Florida 914
Alabama 910
South Carolina 898
New Mexico 878
Georgia 876
Tennessee 875
Kansas 861
Texas 581
Oklahoma 578

And while to the uninitiated, the above table might appear as a simple set of statistics, all dealing with average cotton yields.   To a skilled charlatan, well let’s just say, he could easily have a field day with it.
  • Example 1:   If one were to add up all the figures on the second column (17,502 lbs.) and divide them by the total number of states polled (17).   One would come up with a mean average of 1,030 lbs. total average.   Implying that the average cotton farmer produces 1,030 lbs. of cotton per acre per year.   BUT THAT IS NOT CORRECT:

    Globally (including the third world) the average is somewhere around 600 lbs, and in America it’s somewhere around 800 lbs. per acre.   SO WHY THE DIFFERENCE?   Simple, the above calculation (17,502 / 17 = 1,030) assumed ALL states were growing an equal number of cotton acreage, which was not the case.   While all mentioned states were growing cotton, some were only growing a few acres, while others were growing a lot.   Thus the above equation, which assumes all are growing the same acreage, is not valid.

  • Example 2:   The above table ranks Oklahoma so low on the productivity scale that one is tempted to think that maybe our farmers should rethink growing it in the first place.   HOWEVER, the table's data is good for that year (2013) and for that year only.   A year which, here in Oklahoma, corresponded with major drought conditions throughout the state.   And as Cotton is a thirsty crop, probably the main reason why crop yields were so low for that year.   As the next table shows, yields went way up after the draught lifted up a bit, placing it somewhere towards the top of the list (where it stands today).

  • TABLE B [2]
    (lbs. per Acre/yr)
    2015 2016
    876 lb. 1,021 lb.

  • Example 3:   Then note that the figures, of-and-by-themselves do not detail the exact type of cotton actually being grown.   A factor that of-and-by-itself will affect exact yields per acre as some spices of cotton give large yields than others.   Thus it is possible that the above table is comparing (figuratively speaking) apples to oranges etc.
Okay, the only point being made here is that (if one has a mind to do so) statistics can OF-AND-BY THEMSELVES LIE.   And when it comes to both Hemp and its closes competitor, Cotton, people seem hell bent on doing so.   So with these let’s actually (using honest statistics and data), compare Industrial Hemp growth to its nearest competitor Cotton.


    There are some out there, be they narcotic agent provocateurs, or well intentioned but naive young persons, who make the claim that:

                --- (ACRE PER ACRE),
                    --- THEN WE CAN COTTON FIBERS”

    And indeed that might be mathematically possible, but only if one really manipulates the statistics to make it come out that way.   Let’s examine the facts.   We know that during the Second World War, American’s “Hemp For Victor” farmers (with relatively little Hemp farming experience), produced an average crop yield of 2.6-Tons of hemp stalks per acre.   Which in the American system; as one-Ton is the equivalent of 2,000 pounds.   Therefore:

            2.6-tons x 2,000 = 5,200 pounds of stalks

    As (roughly) 25% of a hemp stalk's weight/volume is made up of hemp fibers, that means each acre back then produced a total of:

           (5,200 pounds of hemp stalks) x (25%) = 1,300 pounds of fiber material per acre of land

    And as farmers today are talking about 3-to-5 tons (1,500 to 2,500 lbs., of fiber) per acre . . .etc.   To quote the “SEI-Report-EcologicalFootprintAndWaterAnalysisOfCottonHempAndPolyester-2005:”
    “The average yield of dry hemp stalks in the EU is about 12–15 tonnes per hectare, yielding approximately 3 tonnes per hectare [1.34 tons or 2,672 lbs. per US Acre] of the final fibre product (Karus, 2003).   -----SEI-Report-EcologicalFootprintAndWaterAnalysisOfCottonHempAndPolyester-2005
    NOTE: Our first calculation (above) was per crop planting, while the EU statistics refer to total yearly production.   And as Oklahoma weather permits up to three major plantings per year, therefore the given figure of 1,300 pounds of hemp fiber should be increased by a multitude of three or 3,900 lbs. (per acre/yr).

    But whatever, it takes no genius to see that lands place under hemp production can easily out produce those placed under cotton production.   Which according to the USDA only averaged 826lbs in 2014 and 755lbs in 2015.[3]   And note that these are American NOT WORLDWIDE averages.   Also note that due to its much faster growth cycle, we can reasonably expect to grow two to three times as much hemp fiber crops as we can cotton growths on the same amount of land.   Thus it is reasonable to expect that a hemp grower can produce a multiple of 300% to 800% more fiber per acre of land than today’s standard cotton farmer.   Meaning a multiple of “times-three” to a “times-eight”, are possible and maybe more on a good year, but a multiple of “times-sixteen”, that is a bit hard to swallow.

    UNLESS that is, one is willing to play games with the statistics.   Example:

    According to a report put out by the WWF (World Wildlife Foundation): [10]

    The average yield of cotton is 854 kg per hectare [761 lbs. per US acre] for irrigated cotton and 391 kg per hectare [348 lbs. per US acre] for rain-fed cotton.

            Giving us a total average of 650 lbs. per acre of global harvested cotton per acre.
            A Total average yield of 589 lbs. per acre of global planted cotton per acre.


    Which if we did the math only gives us a total of:

            3,900 lbs. of hemp fiber per acre/yr   (div)   650 lbs., of globally grown cotton fiber per acre/yr = X6

    But noting that we had based our calculations on WW-2 era hemp farming statistics of only 2.6-tons per acre. It is thus possible to state that the calculable figure is in fact much higher.   Meaning (again) that a multiple of “times-three” to a “times-eight”, is possible.   But how does that equate a multiple of “times-sixteen”?

    The answer: It’s simple, referencing the following table:

    WWF Cotton harvest

    Note that if one were to (selectable) take the given statistics for India (and ignoring metric to English system conversion) one would come out with the following:

            (Total Cotton yield 1993) / (total Cotton Acreage) = 286 pounds per acre.

    Now if we were to plug in 286lbs and compare that cotton yield to that of an Oklahoma farmers yearly Hemp yield . . . one probably could come up with a multiple of Times-Sixteen.   But mathematically speaking, other than through such slight of hand, one views no other way of obtain such a figure.   Thus we repeat; a multiple of “times-three” to a “times-eight”, is very realistically possible and maybe more on a good year, but a multiple of “times-sixteen”, that truly is a bit hard to swallow.


                            ILLEGAL GROWERS ARE USING WATER
                                    RESOURCES TO IRRIGATE THEIR CROPS

    NO, this is not a joke [11] but instead, yet one more excuse the prohibitions have come up with for maintaining the status quo.   Of course they’ll also throw in fancy words about draught conditions . . . or other shortage etc., but in general their case seems to be:
    •   Hemp requires water to grow
    •   That from time to time, there are waters shortages and/or costs incurred in providing said water
    •   That this Water is need by other crops, etc.

    THEREFORE, as they present the facts, yet one more reason to JUST SAY NO!   To which all one can say to such arguments is;   “What won’t these prohibitionist think of next. ”

    But on the other side, we have yet another water myth being circulated; THIS ONE BEING THAT Hemp “ONLY” requires a mire fraction of what other crops need to grow.   -- ALSO simply Not True.   --- And grant it, if one monkeys around with the statistics, it is indeed possible to come out with some of these outlandish claims.   For example: If one compares cotton being grown in the middle of hot Arizona (mostly desert country), to a hemp crop being grown in the wet English countryside.   Yes one can indeed come up with an irrigated water formula of twenty to one in hemp’s favor.   But that would be like comparing apples to oranges; ---it simply can’t/shouldn't be done.

    However, facetious responses aside, their argument does bring out an important subject matter, as Oklahoma, while not exactly a water poor state, does suffer from time to time under severe draught conditions.   Thus the need to look beyond the babble and stick as truthfully as possible to the facts.   Facts which are as follows:

    •   All living things require water.   Hemp requires water to grow, as does every other crop out there.   However, being a bit more descriptive, hemp does best under nice moist soil conditions.   This does not mean that it won’t grow in more arid areas, only that it does best in moist soil.

    •   We also know that hemp does indeed require less water to grow than cotton does.   In fact, assuming the same weather, the same geographic and soil conditions, a hemp crop (acre per acre) requires roughly ONE-THIRD LESS WATER than a similar cotton one. [5a]

    •   AND as a crop of Hemp produces two to three times as much fiber as cotton.   If we were to compare each fiber, pound for pound, then a hemp crop ONLY requires a fourth of the water that a similar cotton crop would. [5b]

    As hard to believe as this sounds, there are those out there who are still claiming that the whole Industrial Hemp situation is:


    One to which they will claim was started by the likes of some “Unwashed Hippie” and is very soon to go away.   And with it (we are lead to presume) the demand for Industrial Hemp fibers.

    As proof of this, these naysayers point out:
    • That there is very little Industrial Hemp growth in the U.S.
    • That the amount of Hemp fiber usage is not very high,
    • That for quite some time now, globally Hemp production has stagnated.
    • And in terms of total acreage, that Hemp production has been in declined for quite some time.

    Then they ramble on about how great cotton is:
    • That it too is a natural, not a synthetic fiber
    • That its great because its soft and flexible
    • That its structure allows for the cloth to breathe, so one doesn’t get sweaty during hot humid days.
    • That we’ve already have a large infrastructure for cotton production.

    Thus their argument goes;   What do we need with Hemp for?   And anyway, it’s ONLY A FAD, and one that will soon go away.   Thus no need to change the laws and that we should just keep them the way they are.

    In response, it can be said there are many (pro-Industrial Hemp) individuals who do not accept such arguments and in fact view them as out and out ludicrous.   Their own arguments being something like:
    • That some of these naysayers are actually paid propagandists whose very job is to keep the present day status-quo fully in place.

    • That after 20 years of hemp advocates trying to end the prohibition; --- that one think that the fad would have long ago given out.

    • That hemp’s illegality NOT economic factors, is what lead to its decline.   If it’s against the law, they will argue, then no wonder farmers are not growing it.

    • As a second counter argument to hemp’s decline, it could also be said the illegal Hemp growth has been on the increase, while illegal Cotton growth is near zero;   Why is this, it might be asked?

    • That while true Cotton is a natural fiber -- So is Hemp, and that it too can be made soft and flexible.

    But probably their most vocal argument against the naysayers is that;   In an age of food insecurity (too many people, not enough farm land etc.), do they ready think that a crop that can grow up to eight times as much clothing fiber per acre, is simply a fad?

    The naysayers would have us believe that Hemp is a NO-GO, because unlike cotton, American farmers do not have adequate Farm machinery specially dedicated for hemp growth. --- An argument so defies logic and reason, one wonders how its proponents are simply not just laughed out altogether.

    But in any case just to set the facts straight, while some modifications on existing equipment are needed:
    • America’s Second World War, “Hemp For Victory” farmers had no problem obtaining such equipment during the war
    • European farmers are ALREADY using such equipment on their fields
    • American Farmers in Colorado are already growing Industrial Hemp without any farm equipment problems.
    So what’s the Problem?

    According to that wonderful (year 2000) hit piece: “Feasibility of Industrial Hemp Production in Arkansas” believe it or not under the headline of “Environmental Concerns,” we find:
    “There are no [hemp] processing plants within the borders of the United States.   Plants would have to be constructed and put on line.   This would necessitate new permits being obtained and environmental impact assessments made.   To this point, producers of Kenaf, a similar crop, have had difficulty obtaining permits for a processing plant in Texas The hemp processing plants, of which it takes two to complete the process, are no less polluting facilities than those for Kenaf or other fiber crops.”
    Will the wonders never cease.   And these guys had the nerve to place the above quote under the Headline of “Environmental Concerns.   Okay, to get facts straight; Because Cotton is legal, yes it has processing plants while Hemp (an illegal crop) does not.   However, it should be noted that during the Second World War America had no problem putting together 72 Hemp Mills from scratch.   [see sec 7.0]   From a technological standpoint, these Mills DO NOT require much in the way of either machinery or capital expenditures to built them.   To quote, H. McCory (America’s Hemp Czar during the war):
    “The, 71 new plants won't consume as much critical material in their construction as the large number might lead one to believe, according to the hemp director.   He protested against the popular Washington title of "Czar".   Driers, breaks, scutching and hackling machinery are, about all that is needed to prepare hemp for the rope plants, he said and they are of a fairly simple structure.   For those ignorant of hemp fiber-making, Mr. McCrory explains that:
    • Driers do what their name implies to the damp hemp stalk after It has lain in the field to be "dew-retted."
    • Breaks are fluted rollers through which the dried stalk is forced, crumbling the hard fiber outside away from the inside pulp and wood.
    • Scutches brush off the unwanted wood and pulp and scrub up the fiber generally.
    • Hacklers comb out the remaining fiber by tossing it over a row of rugged pins.   The mill's task is practically finished at this point Fiber then is graded, baled and shipped to a textile or rope plant for manufacture into coast cordage.”
    Thus establishing processing Hemp Mills is actually a non-event.   As for the permits to build, what is one to say, “stupid is as stupid does”, meaning the same can also be said of cotton facilities.


        “How much fertilizer does a Hemp Crop require?”
                Or maybe the real question should be;
                        “Does a Hemp Crop even require the use of fertilizer?”

    While these two questions seem (at least on the surface) easy enough to answer, as anyone having done research on the Internet can attest.   There’s a lot of “Mambo Jumbo” out there regarding the whole subject.   With some proponents of re-legalization claiming NO FERTILIZER is required, while others (not so favorable to re-legalization), sighting its use as yet one more reason NOT to re-legalize.

    Thus (to remain objective), it is important to walk carefully on this subject.   As the book of first Thessalonians (5 21) so well puts it;
          “ . . . . Prove all things, except that with is good and reject that which is false.”

    So in answer to the second question; "Does Hemp even require fertilizer?”   The answer is NO IF:

    • A proper crop rotation system has been established.   This is evident by fig-6 (sec 6.7) taken from the 1947 pamphlet “Soil Type and Soil management Factors in Hemp Production” This seems to have something to do with some crops using up only certain nutrients not required by the next seasons crop etc.   To quote one article.
      “Hemp makes a great rotational crop and may be a great fit between corn and wheat,” . . . “It also grows tremendously well behind alfalfa from all the nitrogen in the soil.” “---The Colorado Farmer ; “Shatters Hemp's Fiber Ceiling”
    • The farmland in question is allowed to lie fallow for some period of time, a biblical system that allows the soil to somehow refurbishes itself.   A process that seems to have something to do with a bunch of worms running around, doing what earth worms do all the time.
    • It may also not be needed if the hemp crop is being grown for seed, and is very thinly spaced.   In which case the seed can be planted in a checkerboard like manner, one in which the dark squares are seed one season and the light squares the next, etc.

    However, on the other hand, the answer is “YES IF:
    • No crop rotation system is in place, meaning hemp is being planting season after planting season.   This is because hemp, no matter how environmentally friendly still requires/uses soil nutrients.
    • Or if the soil is extremely poor (lacking in nutrients) to begin with.

    In which case, the question once more becomes; “How much fertilizer does a Hemp Crop require?”   A question to which, there’s not only a lack or real actual data, but a lot of misleading, if not out and out misinformation as well.   My favorite such statement is as follows:
    “Hemp needs less fertilizer than corn does.”
    A statement which while technically true, sounds fantastic, ecologically correct, and probably put up by a well meaning individual, is also kind of misleading.   Why?   Because, as can be seen from the below table; -- Just about anything out there makes use of a lot less fertilizer than corn does.

    TABLE C [7]
    (2015) Fertilizer Average Costs /per acre
    CORN $135
    SOYBEANS $34
    WHEAT $40
    COTTON $86

    Then there is the now infamous (what can only be termed) “the Hemp/Soil paradox.”
    About 42% of the plants’ biomass returns to the soil in the form of leaves, roots and tops.   These contain over half of the nutrients applied to the crop.   Many of these nutrients will be available to help feed the following crop.”

    Meaning that planting a hemp crop leaves the soil a lot healthier and better able to grow the next seasons crop then before the hemp planting.   And on paper that is true.   Example;   Pretend that a patch of soil has no nitrogen, none what so ever.   Assuming a hemp crop and that a pound of nitrogen fertilizer was added to the soil, that would mean that after harvest (due to the biomass return).   That patch of soil will now have approximately half of a pound of nitrogen in it, whereas before the planing, it didn’t.

    But be that as it may, it still doesn’t answer the question -- How Much Fertilizer Does Hemp Need?

    In answer to that question, for which there is quite a babble of (often-contradictory) information on the Internet dealing with that subject.   Here we will spare the reader the babble by simply quoting the Oaksterdam University, which by anyone’s standards is a respected organization.
    “Hemp requires approximately the same fertility as a high-yielding crop of wheat.   Research is continuing to define the exact nutrient requirements.   Apply up to 110 kg/ha of nitrogen, depending on soil fertility and past cropping history.   Research to date supports the application of 40-90 kg/ha of potash for fibre hemp.   Base your phosphorus (P205) and potash (K20) applications on a recent soil test.   To interpret soil test information, follow the nitrogen, phosphate and potash recommendations for winter wheat in OMAFRA Publication 811, Agronomy Guide for Field Crops. ” [8]
    Which by the way translates as follows:   Making reference to the nitrogen, as there are 2.47 American Acres per 1 hectare.   Therefore:

            110kg per hectare translates into 44.5 kg/acre

    And as there are 2.2 pounds per kg, therefore:

            44.5kg/acre x 2.2 pounds = 98lbs of nitrogen fertilizer per acre

    Or roughly (to keep the math simple) 100lbs of nitrogen fertilizer per acre (per crop growth).   Now what about cotton?   According to the AGRI-BRIEFS:[9]

            “Cotton takes up about 60 pounds of nitrogen per acre”

    Which makes it sound as if Cotton uses “LESS” fertilizer than hemp does, BUT that’s only if one goes per usage “PER ACRE.”   If on the other hand one were to go “PER POUND OF FIBER,” recalling that we can grow three times as much hemp fiber as we can cotton fiber on the same acreage of crop land.   Then the true figure comes out to; -- [100lbs (div) 3 = ] 33lbs of nitrogen fertilizer for equivalent fiber growth.   Thus, while it is true that it can be said that Hemp requires almost twice as much fertilizer as cotton.   It can also be said that Hemp (pound for pound) only requires half as much fertilizer as cotton.

    Hemp like many other crops does not like acidic soil.   This does not mean that hemp cannot grow on such spoils, but only that it won’t grow as well on them.   Thus to increase crop yields, farmers need to ad some sort of acid neutralizer to restore the soils pH balance.   Usually this is lime because it’s so easy to obtain, work with and it’s cheap.   To quote one website:
    “Agricultural lime (often shortened to ‘aglime’) is a completely natural solution to problems associated with acidic soil and nutrient-deprived soil.   The alkaline quality of aglime works to react with the earth in order to raise its pH level while also adding much needed nutrients into the ground.”
    However, here the question is not whether or not Cotton and/or Hemp require the use of Lime but in what quantities and what costs?   With our conclusion being that this is one of the few times where there is no difference.   If the soil is acidic then NO MATTER WHAT CROP is planted you need to balance the pH levels in the soil, meaning any crop (given the same soil conditions) requires the same amount of lime.

    Thus, at least on this one matter, there seems to be no difference between Cotton and Hemp.   According to the National Cotton Council:

    Cotton production costs and returns per planted acre
    U.S., 2013-2015
    Item 2013 2014 2015
    Chemicals $70.04 $71.32 $67.91

    Which sounds about right for one acre of Lime.

    According to a 1999 much widely quoted study, “The Impact of Cotton on Fresh Water Resources and Ecosystems”
    “The share of cotton on global pesticide sales has averaged 11% and on the global insecticides market even 24%.   At the same time, cotton acreage amounts to only 2.4% of the world's arable land.   Therefore it is obvious that the pesticide use for cotton in relation to the area is disproportional. -- p9
    Meaning that Cotton while being grown on just 2.4% of ALL (global) farmlands is making use of 24% of all insecticide use.

    On the other hand, the Hemp plant, while not totally immune to insects, does have the advantage of (in baby language) not tasting so good to insects.   Thus giving it a sort of insect immunity not found in other crops, which in turn means that farmers do not require as much insecticides.   A fact that has not gone unnoticed by many.   According to the article; “Cannabis as repellent and pesticide” [6]
    “Cannabis has been utilized as a pest repellent or pesticide, in a variety of formulations . . . Riley (1885) noted that Cannabis sativa growing near cotton exerted a "protective influence" against cotton worms.   Similarly, hemp grown around vegetable fields safeguarded the fields from attack by a cabbage caterpillar ; potato fields were protected against the potato beetle, . . “
    But this is not to say that a Hemp crop is 100% insect free, European farmers are indeed using some amounts of insecticide on their crops, BUT NO WHERE NEAR the amounts required by Cotton production.

    What can be said about Insecticides is also true about Fungicidal uses.   Yes, some funguses do attack the hemp plant, which may thus require the use of pesticides (a pesticide can be either a insecticide or a fungicide).   But, needless to say Cotton is way more susceptible to various fungus rots than hemp is by a mile.   The fact that cotton, on a global scale, while only accounting for 2.5% of agricultural land use, accounts for 11% of ALL it’s pesticide sales speaks for itself.

    The following website: https://www.apsnet.org/publications/commonnames/Pages/Hemp.aspx
    "As its name “Diseases of Hemp” implies has a good listing of such aliments fugal/bacterial diseases that can afflict hemp plants.   But don’t become overly worried, as hemp is a particularly hardy plant and also as these aliments are actually generic in nature and thus affect just about every other plant on the plant. "

    The naysayers claim that Hemp (just like cotton) DOES INDEED require the use of herbicides, implying that hemp advocates are in error if they state otherwise.   However, its been noticed that ALL such naysayers are a bit vague when it comes to actual statistics of actual use.   And for good reason; that being that Hemp of-and-by itself IS considered to be an HERBICIDE.

    Let’s look at the facts.   A weed is defined as any unwanted plant.   Farmers in general hate weeds, as weeds that take root in their planted acres not only take up space and get in the way of harvesting crops, they also use up soil nutrients, moisture, etc., which are required by the actual crop under cultivation.   Yet worst of all, in many cases these fast growing weeds actually cut off the sunlight to the crops being cultivated.   Thus no wonder farmers hate those things.

    So how does Hemp act like an herbicide?   Referencing the growth table (sec 6.3), it becomes obvious that Hemp itself is a tall, fast growing crop, meaning it quickly turns the tables on weeds by depriving them of sunlight.   Which in turn leads to studded weed growth, so they don’t create as much seed and they die more quickly.   Meaning farmers see fewer weeds during the next plowing season, and even fewer the next, etc.

    However, the naysayers are correct that under certain circumstances, some small amounts of herbicides probably will be needed IF:

    • Crop rotation policies are in place by the farmer.   If it’s hemp one season, and cotton the next, the weeds will spring back up.

    • Partial year crop growth takes place.

    • First time a hemp crop is being planted.

    • Strong winds blow in seeds from adjacent fields.

    However, the issue here is not whether or not herbicides are in order, but rather the comparable amounts of use by Hemp as oppose to Cotton which (relatively speaking) is a rather short, closed to the grown, slow growing crop.   And while there is limited data on exact amounts, it is obvious that Hemp growth requires no where near the amount of herbicide that a similar Cotton crop requires.

[2]- ibid
[3]- ibid
[4]- McPartland, J. M., 1996. A review of Cannabis diseases Journal of the International Hemp Association 3(1): 19-23 http://www.internationalhempassociation.org/jiha/iha03111.html
[5]- There is a clear lack of real comparison data on this subject, however the chart given here (while not perfect) seems to come out with the same figures this report (independently) also came up with https://csbsju.edu/Documents/Environmental%20Studies/curriculum/395/2011/rietz.pdf
[6]- Cannabis as repellent and pesticide by John M. McPartlan http://www.druglibrary.net/olsen/HEMP/IHA/jiha4210.html
[7]- Information for the table taken from: https://i2.wp.com/ageconomists.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/figure-1-more-of-the-same.jpg http://ageconomists.com/2015/08/03/2016-usda-cost-of-production-forecasts-point-to-more-of-the-same-for-u-s-farmers/ http://www.cotton.org/econ/cropinfo/costsreturns/usa.cfm
[8]- http://www.hempuniversity.com/hemp-university/growing-hemp/hemp-fertility/
[9]- Which is a figure confirmed by numerous other sources: Agri-Brief_ FERTILIZE COTTON FOR TOP YIELD AND QUALITY.html
[10]-- Unfortunately, the WWF has what can be termed “An Agenda,” but still these figures do look honest. --- WWF_CottonWaterUse --- THE IMPACT OF COTTON ON FRESH WATER RESOURCES AND ECOSYSTEMS May 1999


Due to space / download time considerations, only selected materials are displayed.   If you would like to obtain more information, feel free to contact the museum.   All our material is available (at cost) on CD-Rom format.