Nature vs. nurture: The ‘weed science’ of hemp
Reefer. Ganja. Marijuana. “Weed science” speaks to a whole subculture of self-professed stoners. [Never mind that there’s a longstanding field called weed science that actually tackles the management of weeds!]
After decades of de facto prohibition and shady streetcorner dealings, Cannabis (sativa or indica) has gone boardroom legitimate. Business is booming. State legislatures are salivating at the prospect of new revenue streams. Decriminalization is positioned as a surefire way to replenish depleted statehouse coffers.
Yet as marijuana gets most of the press and vies for consumer dollars, there’s a whole other, less sexy angle — hemp. It may be less centerfold worthy, but the possibilities are intriguing. In fact, your friendly neighborhood farmer might be dabbling in (or gone all in on) this new enterprise.
From a staple, versatile crop in Colonial America, to riding the politicized coattails of reefer madness in the 1930s, hemp has seen its highs and lows. But for modern farmers, there’s so little information, it might as well be alien in origin. It’s like hemp has been purged from the history books — I liken hemp to a forbidden tome of spells and other arcane (forbidden) dark arts that’s been lost to the ages — and we’re starting anew.
While it’s an exciting prospect to “rediscover” hemp since the hysterics have subsided, it’s also a daunting task, with plenty of gotchas along the way. How do we grow it? What pests/diseases is it susceptible to? How can we manage said pests/diseases (especially with ag protectants) if the EPA has scant few options labeled?
But from a legal standpoint, one question rises to the forefront. What about “hot” plants? And by hot, I mean too much THC. Enough THC to legally classify it as marijuana (which the Feds still technically frown upon on paper, as do some states).
Interestingly, very little distinguishes marijuana (the joint and brownie-infused kind) from hemp, its more homely and less popular little brother. Indeed, appearances can be deceiving. To truly appreciate their uniqueness, you have to delve into their internal chemistry. Specifically, the relative levels of THC, the psychoactive (“high” inducing) component vs. CBD, which holds promise in a more subdued and (non-trippy) medicinal capacity. THC dominates in marijuana, and CBD dominates in hemp (though it still has a small quantity of THC). [Note that there’s also hemp grown for fiber, but these varieties generally have the least upside market potential.]
Conventional wisdom has always been that stress (temperature, drought, etc.) induces THC spikes in hemp, skewing the CBD/THC ratio — and possibly putting it over the top. The ceiling, as defined by the Feds, is 0.3% THC. As a result, farmers have to diligently monitor their crop at all stages. If the crop is sampled and approaches the magic number of 0.3%, it has to be harvested stat to avoid running afoul of the law (and an old fashioned field-torching at the farmer’s expense). Predictably, few farmers want to make that investment with such uncertainty dangling over their heads.