ATTRA Question of the Week

H.G.
Pennsylvania

Answer: Thank you for requesting from ATTRA current information on kenaf production and marketing. This letter updates the information found on our Web site in the 2003 publication Kenaf Production.

Kenaf
Although USDA-funded research began during WWII, acceptance of kenaf by U.S. industry has been very slow. In the 1950’s USDA researchers “identified kenaf as the most promising non-wood fiber for pulp and paper making.”(1) Optimism about kenaf replacing wood pulp for newsprint seems to have peaked about 1993. Now it is far more likely to find uses in other products—and likely to be grown outside the U.S.

Links to USDA agency archives listed below provide a glimpse into the history of kenaf. I am also listing current contacts for past and on-going research into this crop. Many of the organizations formerly promoting kenaf no longer have Web sites.

In the U.S. demand for newsprint is falling, as consolidation of the publishing industry continues and more and more dailies go on-line. Most newsprint producers seem content to continue to pulp their vast holdings of perennial forest land, rather than contracting with large numbers of individual farmers growing an annual crop. Universities currently (or recently) researching kenaf include North Carolina State, Texas A&M, and Mississippi State University. Their Web sites may contain research reports. In the interest of preserving forest land, there has been strong and consistent backing by environmental groups for federally funded research and mandated use of kenaf for newsprint and other paper products.

Economics of Kenaf
Kenaf has been researched for at least 50 years as a possible substitute for wood pulp in papermaking, and as a possible substitute crop for cotton farmers. A relative of okra, it is adapted to areas with a long growing season and is raised in many parts of the tropics as a household fiber crop. Articles published in the mid-to-early 1990s optimistically predicted that kenaf would soon become a major crop in the South. Prototype machinery was devised for harvesting and processing this crop and manufacturing a variety of products from both the long bast fiber and the short-fibered core.

However, kenaf has not replaced wood pulp in papermaking and did not replace cotton. It is not a low-cost substitute for any bulk material. Independent grower networks did not work out because the economic returns are in selling finished products, not the raw material. Processing and marketing take a huge investment. Paper mills, for instance, would have to be completely retooled to accept kenaf as a feedstock.

Instead, kenaf has developed as a specialty crop. Kenaf Industries of South Texas, a vertically integrated company, ships a kenaf-derived raw material to Europe for use as a plastic base in automobile manufacturing, and it sells a lumber substitute, K-Wood, locally as a decking material. The company is developing K-fencing.

Vision Paper of Milan, TX, promotes its kenaf office paper (10% kenaf and 90% recycled stock) and announced in 2005 that it is building a treeless paper mill in Tennessee, the first of its kind in the world. Vision Paper also offers kenaf seed through its Web site, www.visionpaper.com. However, the Web site has apparently not been updated since 2005.

Much of the market for kenaf is in selling to environmentally conscious U.S. customers willing to pay a premium for treeless products. Many countries where labor is less costly than the U.S. produce kenaf and kenaf products. Any U.S. production would be on a contract basis—or totally vertically integrated.

A search of Amazon.com brought up 3,196 titles on papermaking. Titles include:

Hiebert, Helen. 2000. The Papermaker’s Companion. $6.92

Maurer-Mathison, Diane K. 2002. The Art of Making Paste Papers.
Paperback. $8.98

Plowman, John. 2001. Papermaking Techniques Book: Over 50
Techniques for Making and Embellishing Handmade Paper. Paperback.
$4.81

Riemer-Epp, Heidi, and Mary Riemer. 2002. The Encyclopedia of Paper
Making and Book Binding. Hardcover. $9.90

Saddington, Marianne. 1992. Making Your Own Paper. Paperback.
$3.94

Small-scale papermaking (Technical Memorandum No. 8) by ILO and World Employment Programme. 1984. paperback. $20.25

Other titles deal with aspects of the paper industry and industrial-scale production.

Reference:

1) USDA/ERS. 1997. Kenaf production and products continue to expand. Industrial Uses/IUS-7. p. 23.

Resources:

Susan Combs (ed.). 2000. Kenaf: A crop in search of a market. Fiscal Notes. June. Combs is the Texas Controller of Public Accounts.

Links for agency documents:

Geisler, Malinda. 2007. Kenaf. AgMrc (Iowa State University). 1 p.

University of Kentucky Extension. 2005. Kenaf. 1 p.

USDA/ARS. 2004. News & events: New uses for kenaf. 2 p.

USDA/ERS. 1993. Kenaf and flax find niche markets. Industrial Uses/IUS-2. December. p. 19–21.

USDA/ERS. 1997. Kenaf production and products continue to expand. Industrial Uses/IUS-7. p. 23–25.

Contacts:
Kenaf International, McAllen, TX. Processes South Texas kenaf locally to separate bast from core fibers.

Kenaf Paper Manufacturing (KPM), subsidiary of Canadian-based Kafus Capital Corp. Announced plans to use whole-stalk kenaf as its sole fiber source for a newsprint mill in Willacy County, TX.

First Farm Fibers with 750 acres under contract in Delaware collaborates with Curtis Paper Mill, Newark, DE, and with Crane Paper Co., Dalton, MA. First Farm Fibers is a consortium of farmers, investors, and U DE researchers.

Ankal, Inc., Atlanta, GA, has developed technology to separate bast and core fibers; mfg. core-based cat litter. Also working on pelletized fiber and feed.

Lumus Gin Co., Charleston, MS, plans to contract for production on over 1,000 acres of land in 2007.

Two companies advertising kenaf products on the Internet include:
Vision Paper (a division of KP Products) P.O. Box 20399 Albuquerque, NM 87154-0399 www.visionpaper.com

Kenaf Industries of South Texas L.P.
Route 2, #50 Kenaf Road
Raymondville, Texas 78580
Phone: 956-642-3395
Fax: 956-642-3482
Email: info@kenaf-industries.com

M.K
Rhode Island

Answer: I am pleased to provide you with information regarding the effects tillage has on soil tilth. Below is some information taken from the ATTRA publication Sustainable Soil Management.

Tillage can be beneficial or harmful to a biologically active soil, depending on what type of tillage is used and when it is done. Tillage affects both erosion rates and soil organic matter decomposition rates. Tillage can reduce the organic matter level in croplands below 1%, rendering them biologically dead. Clean tillage involving moldboard plowing and disking breaks down soil aggregates and leaves the soil prone to erosion from wind and water. The moldboard plow can bury crop residue and topsoil to a depth of 14 inches. At this depth, the oxygen level in the soil is so low that decomposition cannot proceed adequately. Surface-dwelling decomposer organisms suddenly find themselves suffocated and soon die. Crop residues that were originally on the surface but now have been turned under will putrefy in the oxygen-deprived zone. This rotting activity may give a putrid smell to the soil. Furthermore, the top few inches of the field are now often covered with subsoil having very little organic matter content and, therefore, limited ability to support productive crop growth.

The topsoil is where the biological activity happens—it's where the oxygen is. That's why a fence post rots off at the surface. In terms of organic matter, tillage is similar to opening the air vents on a wood-burning stove; adding organic matter is like adding wood to the stove. Ideally, organic matter decomposition should proceed as an efficient burn of the "wood" to release nutrients and carbohydrates to the soil organisms and create stable humus. Shallow tillage incorporates residue and speeds the decomposition of organic matter by adding oxygen that microbes need to become more active.

In cold climates with a long dormant season, light tillage of a heavy residue may be beneficial; in warmer climates it is hard enough to maintain organic matter levels without any tillage. The passage of heavy equipment increases compaction in the wheel tracks, and some tillage implements themselves compact the soil further, removing oxygen and increasing the chance that deeply buried residues will putrefy. Tillage also reduces the rate of water entry into the soil by removal of ground cover and destruction of aggregates, resulting in compaction and crusting.
Both no-till and reduced-tillage systems provide benefits to the soil. The advantages of a no-till system include superior soil conservation, moisture conservation, reduced water runoff, long-term buildup of organic matter, and increased water infiltration. A soil managed without tillage relies on soil organisms to take over the job of plant residue incorporation formerly done by tillage. On the down side, no-till can foster a reliance on herbicides to control weeds and can lead to soil compaction from the traffic of heavy equipment.

Other conservation tillage systems include ridge tillage, minimum tillage, zone tillage, and reduced tillage, each possessing some of the advantages of both conventional till and no-till. These systems represent intermediate tillage systems, allowing more flexibility than either a no-till or conventional till system might. They are more beneficial to soil organisms than a conventional clean-tillage system of moldboard plowing and disking. The principal benefits of conservation tillage are improved water conservation and the reduction of soil erosion. Additional benefits include reduced fuel consumption, reduced compaction, planting and harvesting flexibility, reduced labor requirements, and improved soil tilth (Sullivan, 2003).

There is quite a bit of research looking at the different types of tillage systems and their associated benefits and disturbances. The Rodale Institute, in Kutztown, PA, has the longest running research project on tillage. Much of their current research focuses on no-till and rolling cover crops. Please visit their website for more information at www.rodaleinstitute.org. In addition, their New Farm website provides information and resources on the different types of tillage.

The University of California, Davis, is another resource that is involved in studying the effects of tilling the soil. In fact, they have worked with the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, MD, to conduct a long term no-till sustainable research experiment. UC Davis has published information relating tillage and carbon cycling. The following publication and contact may be of use:

CONSERVATION TILLAGE AND CARBON CYCLING:
SOIL AS A SOURCE OR SINK FOR CARBON (PDF/191 KB)
D. C. REICOSKY
Soil Scientist, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, North Central Soil Conservation Research
Laboratory, 803 Iowa Avenue, Morris, MN 56267 USA.
(320) 589-3411 ext. 144; FAX: (320) 589-3787, E-mail: dreicosky@mail.mrsars.usda.gov

There are a few ATTRA publications that provide additional information and resources on tillage:

Conservation Tillage by Preston Sullivan (2003).

Pursuing Conservation Tillage Systems for Organic Crop Production by George Kuepper (2001).

References:

Sullivan, Preston. 2003. Conservation Tillage. ATTRA Publication. Butte, MT: National Center for Appropriate Technology.

Sullivan, Preston. 2004. Sustainable Soil Management. ATTRA Publication. Butte, MT: National Center for Appropriate Technology.