Feasibility of Hemp Textile Production in the UK

November 2004

Blackburn, K., Brighton, J., James, I., Riddlestone, S., Stott, E. BioRegional Development Group
BedZED Centre, 24 Helios Road, Wallington, Surrey, SM6 7BZ. UK Tel: +44 (0)20 8404 4880 Web: www.bioregional.com

This project is supported under the England Rural Development Programme by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. It also has the generous support of South East of England Development Agency, WWF, Marks & Spencer, Polden-Puckham Charitable Foundation, and Wyndham Charitable Trust.

Wyndham Charitable Trust

1

Acknowledgements We are grateful to the organisations who provided the funds to allow us to carry out this project; it has been supported through the England Rural Development Programme by the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. We also received significant funding from the South East England Development Agency, WWF Cymru, Marks and Spencer, Polden-Puckham Charitable Foundation and the Wyndham Charitable Trust. We are also grateful for the goodwill, advice and practical assistance provided by the UK hemp growers Hemcore, the National Non-Food Crops Centre, farmer Steve West and his family in Battle Sussex and to the UK and European textile processors who assisted us, in particular, Dewsbury Dyers, Gledhills, Dr Mahmoudi at Leeds University, Alex Vanneste and Ian Brierley of JL Brierley in Huddersfield and the retailers including Marks and Spencer and THTC who advised on market development. This technical and economic feasibility study was not as straightforward as we would have hoped and we are extremely grateful to the project team, Dr James Brighton, Dr Kim Blackburn and Robert Franck for their dedication to completing the project. Sue Riddlestone and Emily Stott BioRegional Development Group November 2004

1. Executive summary
This report aims to assess the technical and economic feasibility of growing and processing hemp fibre in the UK for textiles. This was not possible using currently available technologies and methods so BioRegional set out to test new technology developed by Fibrenova Limited, an Australian company, for this purpose and to review other projects and developments in this field. The Australian technology is designed to harvest and separate the fibre in one operation in the field, cutting out the need for field or dew retting. Dew retting is a commonly used method of breaking down the pectins and gums which bind the fibres to the stem. BioRegional also commissioned an ecological footprint analysis of hemp compared to cotton and polyester in order to assess the environmental case for hemp as a textile fibre. This work builds on earlier work by BioRegional in the area of hemp textiles (Riddlestone et al 1995) where weather dependency of dew retting and the old-fashioned inefficient nature of subsequent processing were identified as significant issues discouraging attempted production of hemp textile fibre in the UK using traditional methods. Based on samples provided to BioRegional by Fibrenova of white short staple fibre suitable for spinning and samples of yarn which it was claimed was produced in previous work, field trials were organised by BioRegional aiming to evaluate the feasibility of the Fibrenova process from field through to producing a textile fibre. Experts in agronomic engineering from Cranfield University were commissioned by BioRegional to carry out an independent study evaluating the technical and economic feasibility of the machinery presented by Fibrenova and its implications for use in the UK. BioRegional worked with the textile industry to evaluate the fibre produced. Initial field trials were carried out in Battle, East Sussex with crop grown for UK hemp contractor and processor Hemcore. An open day was held in July 2003; farmers, industry and retailers viewed the harvest in operation and discussed potential for future UK

industry. During the four week trial 80kgs of fibre was produced. As presented, this fibre could not be used by UK spinners. BioRegional explored many options for further opening and cleaning to enable its use by UK spinners. This is documented in the report. It was decided to carry out a second trial because the results from the UK trial were limited by pilot machinery that was not fully operational and only small quantities of fibre were produced. In addition a replicable process had not been demonstrated. BioRegional secured further funds to repeat the field trial using an Australian crop in February 2004. The field trials were held in New South Wales, Australia in February 2004, again evaluated by BioRegional and Cranfield University. Some of the pilot machinery was not fully operational in the Australian trial. BioRegional staff worked in the field with Fibrenova staff for three weeks and 250kgs of additional fibre was produced. This fibre was not suitable for immediate textile processing. However, Australian textile processors who had previously prepared fibre supplied by Fibrenova did demonstrate to BioRegional methods of post field processing to prepare fibre for spinning. These methods appeared very similar to published methods used to complete processing of hemp or similar fibres prior to spinning. The fibre produced in Australia was sent after harvesting to the textile dyer in Melbourne for cleaning and opening as demonstrated, however it was not returned to the UK for testing and evaluation. The fibre produced in the UK field trial was processed for BioRegional by the UK textile industry using published methods for preparing hemp or similar fibres. Meetings and discussions with the UK textile industry are described. It was found that the fibre produced in the UK field trial could be cleaned and opened in the UK, but that the resulting fibre was unsuitable for spinning by the textile industry in the UK (or indeed in Europe) due to its low quality and lack of homogeneity. A low quality spun yarn was produced but only by blending with 50% viscose. However, BioRegional has established an interested consortium of stakeholders encompassing the cultivation, opening, cleaning, spinning, weaving and retailing of hemp for textiles for future development in the area.

In addition, raw fibre was provided to the BioComposites Centre in Wales for evaluation for use in composites and fibreglass replacement. An ecological footprint analysis of hemp compared to cotton and polyester by the Stockholm Environmental Institute found that hemp does indeed have a reduced environmental impact when compared to these fibres. A summary is included in this report. Economic analysis suggests that hemp textile fibre as processed by the new technology and methods used in the trial documented in this report would be expensive compared to other textile fibres such as cotton or flax. However, in line with the conclusions of the previous 1995 BioRegional study, it is considered that the green decortication approach could potentially yield a quality textile fibre at a competitive price, if a more controlled post-field process incorporating storage and cleaning to remove pectins and gums could be developed.

2. Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 3 2. CONTENTS................................................................................................................... 6 3. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 8 4. REVIEW OF WORK IN THE FIELD RELEVANT TO GREEN FIBRE SEPARATION AND POST-FIELD PROCESSING................................................... 11
4.1 GREEN RIBBONING ...............................................................................................................................11 4.2 DEGUMMING ........................................................................................................................................12 4.3 ENZYMATIC DEGUMMING ....................................................................................................................13 4.4 CROP DESICCATION..............................................................................................................................14

5. FIELD TRIALS PHASE 1 - UK................................................................................ 15 6. CRANFIELD TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY PART 1 ....... 18
6.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................20 6.2.1 Methodology ...............................................................................................................................24 6.2.1.1 Aim ...........................................................................................................................................24 6.2.1.2 Objectives.................................................................................................................................24 6.3 BACKGROUND / MATERIALS AND METHODS .........................................................................................25 6.3.1 The industrial hemp plant in the UK...........................................................................................25 6.3.1.1 General Plant characteristics ..................................................................................................26 6.3.1.2 UK and EU legislation in relation to industrial hemp production...........................................27 6.3.1.3 Agronomy and Production .......................................................................................................27 6.3.2 Processing and mechanisation....................................................................................................31 6.3.3 The Prototype Fibrenova System ................................................................................................32 6.3.4 Experimental procedure..............................................................................................................33 6.4 RESULTS ..............................................................................................................................................36 6.4.1 Characteristics of the trial crop..................................................................................................36 6.4.2 Crop yield....................................................................................................................................37 6.4.3 Machine Performance - processing ............................................................................................39 6.4.4 Machine performance mechanical ...........................................................................................41 6.5 MOISTURE CONTENT AND IMPLICATIONS ..........................................................................................43 6.5.1 Crop Results................................................................................................................................44 6.6 PROJECTED SYSTEM .............................................................................................................................45 6.6.1 Product Markets..........................................................................................................................45 6.6.1.1 Fibre.........................................................................................................................................45 6.6.1.2 Hurd and leaf ...........................................................................................................................50 6.6.2 Relevance of issues to machine design key questions ..............................................................53 6.6.2.1 Cut Crop...................................................................................................................................56 6.6.2.2 Transport..................................................................................................................................56 6.6.2.3 Separate hurd...........................................................................................................................57 6.6.2.4 Open fibre ................................................................................................................................57 6.6.2.5 Refine Fibre .............................................................................................................................57 6.6.2.6 Wash/clean fibre ......................................................................................................................58 6.6.2.7 Dry Fibre .................................................................................................................................58 6.6.2.8 Energy requirement for crop drying ........................................................................................59 6.6.2.9 Available heat sources .............................................................................................................61 6.6.2.10 Storage ...................................................................................................................................62

6.6.2.11 Machine design and economics..............................................................................................63 6.7 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................................66 6.8 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................67

7. CONCLUDING FIELD TRIAL 1............................................................................. 69 8. FIELD TRIALS PHASE 2 NSW, AUSTRALIA, FEBRUARY 2004 ................. 70 9. CRANFIELD TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY PART 2 .......... 75
9.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................77 9.2 TRIAL METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................78 9.2.1 System description.......................................................................................................................78 9.2.2 Component functions...................................................................................................................79 9.2.3 Field Assessment .........................................................................................................................80 9.2.4 Post field processing ...................................................................................................................81 9.3 RESULTS ..............................................................................................................................................83 9.3.1 Crop Separation D7 .................................................................................................................83 9.3.2 Machine work rate and energy consumption ..............................................................................83 9.3.3 Moisture content .........................................................................................................................86 9.3.4 Washing trial...............................................................................................................................87 9.4 ECONOMIC SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................90 9.5 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................................92 9.6 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................93

10. PREPARATION OF UK PRODUCED FIBRE FOR SPINNING....................... 95

10.1 De-gumming.................................................................................................................................95 10.2 Carding and opening ...................................................................................................................97 10.2.1 Fearnought openers ..................................................................................................................97 10.2.2 Rag Pullers................................................................................................................................99 10.2.3 Woollen Openers.....................................................................................................................100 10.2.4 Bast fibre affining....................................................................................................................100 10.2.5 Garnett Machine .....................................................................................................................101 10.2.6 Conclusions on opening machines ..........................................................................................103

11. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND SPINNING TRIALS................................. 104

11.1 FIBRE TESTING .................................................................................................................................104 11.2 Spinning trials............................................................................................................................106 11.2.1 Woollen and semi-worsted spinning .......................................................................................106 11.2.2 Linen spinning - wet and dry...................................................................................................107 11.2.3 Cotton spinning .......................................................................................................................108 11.2.4 Conclusions spinning ...........................................................................................................111 11.3 Weavers......................................................................................................................................112 11.4 Retailers .....................................................................................................................................112 11.5 Green decorticated hemp as reinforcement in thermosetting polymer matrix composites ........115

12. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT ................................................................................ 117 13. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEI)......................................................... 120 14. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 125 15. RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................ 128 16. REFERENCES........................................................................................................ 129

3. Introduction
BioRegional Development Group is an independent environmental organisation working with industry, retail and public sectors to bring local sustainable solutions into the mainstream. Established in 1994, projects have included developing the award-winning BedZED eco-village development, supply of locally produced charcoal from wellmanaged UK coppice woodlands to B&Q stores, the local paper for london paper recycling scheme and development of the MiniMill small-scale paper pulp mill. BioRegional aim to see hemp textile production established in the UK with hemp garments and soft furnishings available on the High Street. This could strengthen the regional economy, reduce transport distances, and provide an alternative to imports of unsustainably produced cotton or fossil-fuel based synthetics. Textiles such as cotton have a very high environmental burden, with cotton causing the greatest environmental damage of all textiles. Cotton accounts for 14% of the worlds pesticide use, though grown on just 3% of the worlds land. It is also the worlds most water-intensive crop and has had disastrous consequences in areas such as the Aral Sea (Desai &Riddlestone 2002). Hemp is a low input alternative to cotton that is easy to grow organically in the UK. It requires no agricultural chemical inputs and is not water hungry. Over 3000 hectares of hemp are currently grown in the UK primarily for horse bedding and non-woven car interiors. Hemp is also a cool, comfortable and attractive product with similar properties to linen, which is made from flax. It is cool to wear in the Summer and softens with use. Hemp was used to produce the original Levis jeans made from hemp fabric imported from Nimes in France, hence the name denim, from Serge de Nimes. The global textile market is 56 million tonnes and is increasing at 4% per year. Cotton reached its maximum possible production in 1990 and its share of the market has been

declining since then and has been taken up by synthetic (polyester) fibres. Cotton now forms 34% of the market, synthetics 53%, despite consumer demand for natural fibres. There is clearly potential for hemp to develop a share of the textiles market. Hemp textiles are currently only produced in Asia or Eastern Europe either by hand or using machines that would be uneconomic for use in the UK. BioRegional have a history of research into the potential of hemp for textiles, and produced the first UK grown and produced hemp clothing for decades in their 1995 trials resulting in a stylish jacket designed by Katharine Hamnett (pictured) using traditional methods of dew retting, scutching, hackling, and wet spinning as used to produce linen from flax. This trial highlighted the need for a new harvesting and processing method suitable for the UK which would be less weather dependent than dew retting and more reliable if hemp textile production is to become mainstream. The study recommended that green ribboning (decortication) machines and tank-retting deserved further investigation.(Riddlestone et al,1995).
Figure 1- BioRegionals previous work in 1995 Above: Katharine Hamnett jacket made from 100% UK grown hemp produced in 1995 BioRegional trials. Left: Volunteers rest in the hemp field during 1995 trials. Hemp stalks are dew retting in the foreground.

Based on these findings, BioRegional began a new programme of work in 2003, commissioning Cranfield University to assess for potential use in the UK newly identified technology based on mechanically separating the bast fibre from hemp stalks without the need for retting (green decortication). This technology had been developed by Fibrenova Pty Ltd, an Australian company, and it was claimed by Fibrenova to produce a fine white fibre suitable for spinning on the cotton system within days of harvest at comparable prices to cotton (Fibrenova, 2002). Fields trials were carried out in the UK during July 2003 and in Australia in January 2004, in which Cranfield University assessed the technical feasibility of the systems presented for use in the UK. An ecological footprinting study was also undertaken by the Stockholm Environment Institute in York to compare the environmental impact of hemp fibre with cotton, organic cotton and polyester. Resulting fibres from the field trials were then processed by the UK textile industry and assessed by BioRegional and the textile industry for their suitability as textile fibres.

10

4. Review of work in the field relevant to green fibre separation and post-field processing
4.1 Green ribboning
A number of technologies for green ribboning (also known as green decortication) or separation of the bast fibre from the stem of the plant without retting, have been developed, patented and produced over the last 100 years for use on hemp and other bast fibres such as kenaf. Though there are not any known commercial hemp textile operations involving these technologies, a number of groups are known to be working in this area. BioRegional recommended in 1995 the potential for green ribboning as part of a process for UK sustainable hemp textiles production in the Hemp for Textiles Report. Alvan Blanch agricultural machinery manufacturers (pers comm. 2004) produced until recently a ribboning machine for kenaf, mainly used in developing countries for separating the fibre from the stalk. Leupin (2001) from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich mentions development of a mechanical and biological process for treating hemp in which the bast is extracted from fresh green stems (fresh decortication) before it is treated biologically with selected micro-organisms under aerobic conditions (biological degumming),(Leupin 2001). There are a number of patents filed for hemp ribboning and decortication machines. Some examples are the following: Patent No: GB412281 (28th June 1934) Improvements relating to the decortication and/or hackling or cleaning of flax, hemp, jute and analogous fibre Patent No: GB410358 (17th May 1934) Improvements relating to the decortication or stripping of hemp and like fibrous stalks Patent No: GB343351 (19th February 1931) Improvements in or relating to machines for the scutching or decorticating of flax, hemp and analogous fibres

11

Patent No: GB2050452 (7th January 1981) Method of producing fibre ribbon from fibre crops and a machine for carrying the same into effect Australian company Fibrenova Pty have filed patents for machines which carry out green decortication. One known patent is International application number PCT/AU 99/00858 (July 1998) "Apparatus and method for processing green fibrous plant stalks"

A technical and economic feasibility study of the Fibrenova green decortication machine is the subject of much of this report as explained earlier.

4.2 Degumming
As documented in BioRegionals earlier Hemp for Textiles report (1995), there is a long history of work carried out around the world in the area of degumming and controlled retting of hemp and other bast fibres in preparation for textile manufacture. Boyce in 1900 describes the use of potash lye, for aiding retting of hemp to produce a fine textile fibre through water retting. This is believed to be either potassium hydroxide or any solution of potassium in which something would lie (Potash Development Association, 1995 per comm.). It was also noted to have been used followed by muriatic acid (Hydrochloric acid). Japanese literature from prehistoric Jomon era describe use of rice ash or lime, potassium carbonate or calcium hydroxide to break the glue holding strands of fibre together before spinning as cotton. (Taima.org, 2003). The Chinese, who are currently one of the largest commercial producers of hemp textiles are known to use caustic soda for degumming hemp fibre after water retting, manual separation of fibre, drying and removal of hurds (Riddlestone et al,1995).

12

Many degumming processes have been developed for Ramie (pers comm. Robert Franck). These all follow a similar pattern consisting of the following basic steps, and may be relevant for developing future processing of green hemp fibre: a) Boiling of the fibre one or more times in an aqueous alkaline solution with or without pressure and agitation, and with or without penetrants or reducing agents. b) Washing with water and neutralising c) Bleaching with dilute hypochlorites or hydrogen peroxide d) Washing with water and neutralizing e) Oiling with a sulphonated hydrocarbon Fibrenova have also filed a patent with International Publication Number WO 03/006722 A1 entitled "Degumming of bast fibres".

4.3 Enzymatic degumming

Work is known to be being carried out in the area of enzymatic degumming of hemp fibre in Europe. Mussig (Dreyer et al, 2002) describes in a recent paper comparison of enzymatically, chemically and steam exploded hemp fibre. It is concluded that enzymatic separation is capable of producing comparably strong fibre suitable for quality textiles. Leupin (Leupin 1998) also describes work investigating enzymatic degumming through alkalophilic microorganisms. Leupin describes comparison of chemically and biologically degummed fibre for fibre diameter and fibre length. It was concluded that both methods could potentially produce a short staple fibre suitable for cotton spinning, and that further work would be carried out on biological methods as this was of particular interest for reducing costs and the environmental impact of the degumming process. BioRegional contacted Novozymes, based in Denmark, the largest enzyme manufacturer in the world. They recommended ScourzymeL, one of their products containing pectinase and pectatase for the cleaning of cotton, hemp, linen and natural cellulose fibres

13

apparently without harming the cellulose fibres. Novozymes state that their products are best used in conjunction with a wetting agent or emulsifier. An Italian based EU funded project entitled HempSys: Design, development and upscaling of a sustainable production system for hemp textiles: an integrated quality systems approach has the stated objectives of developing an improved environmentally friendly production chain for high quality hemp fibre textiles, preparing economic assessment of the EU and international fibre markets and production costs, and disseminating to the public knowledge generated. These results are due to be released in November 2005. EU funded Italian project, Toscanapa, led by Italian company Fibranova focuses on developing bacterial and enzymatic degumming/retting systems for use on hemp fibre suitable for use in Italy, for paper and textiles end uses. Hemptown Clothing Inc, providers of hemp fabric clothing currently produced in China (2004) recently announced the development of a patentable enzyme technology process based on technologies in the pulp and paper industries, aiming to build a fibre production facility in Saskatchewan, Canada and license the technology to third parties.

4.4 Crop desiccation

Another relevant project is being carried out in the UK focusing on producing short staple flax fibre to be spun in Italy. This is led by Ray Harwood at De Montford University, and is based on principles of desiccation and retting of the straw as a standing crop using a herbicide commonly used on UK farms known as glyphosate followed by fibre extraction and cleaning.

14

5. Field Trials Phase 1 - UK

The first field trials took place in Summer 2003 in South East England. One and a half hectares of hemp crop of two varieties, Fedora 17 and Chameleon, were planted for BioRegional by UK hemp growers, Hemcore at a farm in Battle, East Sussex. The crop was planted at the higher seed rate of 55kgs/hectare recommended for production of a textile grade fibre. The agronomy is detailed further in the next section.

Figure 2 BioRegional visiting crop on 24th June 2003 (8 weeks after sowing)

Four staff from Fibrenova Ltd and the Australian machine manufacturer, Geoff Williames of Williames Hi-Tech International Pty Ltd flew to the UK and worked at the farm for a four week period with BioRegional between 15th July and 11th August 2003. Three pilot-scale machines with three different functions which replicate the process of the proposed full-scale harvester were brought over from Australia. Using this method 80kgs of fibre were produced.

15

Hemcore Limited Hemcore are the UKs largest growers and processors of industrial hemp, contracting British farmers to grow around 3000 hectares per year. Hemcore commenced trading in 1993 and have a factory in Essex processing the hemp core/pith into horse bedding whilst selling fibre to paper, automotive and insulation industries. Wholesale fibre is sold to industry for 400 per tonne. A lower grade for use in composites and paper is sold for 250/tonne. Hemcore contract farmers to grow hemp, providing guidance on agronomy and processing recommendations. The crop is cut and field retted in the traditional manner, before being baled and stored. The grower then arranges delivery of straw to Hemcores factory in Maldon, Essex where the straw is processed and the outer fibres separated from the woody inner core. For farmers growing with Hemcore, seed costs 3.20 per kilo. Recommended sowing rate is 37 kgs per hectare, this is lower than the seed rate for textile production. Buy back prices for straw from harvest 2003, based on price per tonne of straw delivered factory were between 90 and 120. Farmers producing higher quality fibre are paid higher rates.

16

Event showing process in action An event was held in Battle at the hemp field on 29th July 2003 aiming to raise awareness of the potential for hemp textiles in the UK. This was attended by thirty-seven people including local farmers and contractors, representatives from DEFRA, DTI, SEEDA, NFU, two textile spinners and four retailers including Marks and Spencer.

Figure 2 Delegates at the open day discover the potential for hemp textiles, Battle, July 2003.

Figure 3 Sue Riddlestone and Emily Stott of BioRegional present to delegates seated on straw bales

The project was reported in Farmers Weekly, Green Futures, Positive News and Textiles Month. The event was filmed so that a video can be made later showing the process from start to finish. The project was also filmed as part of an educational programme shown on UK Channel 4 for school children about consumers making ethical choices, showing local hemp production compared to the impacts of modern cotton production. An evaluation of the agronomy and Fibrenova machinery were carried out by Cranfield University as part of the field trial. Results of this trial follow in Cranfield Universitys Technical Report Part 1 (Brighton, Blackburn, James, 2003) Section 6 of this report.

17

6. Cranfield Technical and Economic feasibility Part 1

18

UNIVERSITY

Silsoe

National Soil Resources Institute Engineering Group

Hemp Production in the UK: Feasibility and Fibrenova Technology

Confidential Report for:

Report 741001-03-R4 Dr James Brighton Dr Kim Blackburn Dr Iain James 5th November 2003

This project is supported under the England Rural Development Programme by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.
19

6.1 Executive summary

This report considers the feasibility of producing fibre from hemp in the UK for use as textiles, in the light of new processes and prototype machinery demonstrated by Fibrenova Limited, Australia. A brief introduction is given to the background of the hemp plant, its morphology, agronomic and current legal issues relating to growth in the UK. Production issues are considered in the context of UK agriculture. Possible variable production costs are examined, which could be approximately 240/ha, excluding the cost of a mechanical harvesting operation. This cost is equal to the current area payment, and hence the only cost to be covered by the fibre value is that of mechanical harvesting and subsequent processing. The study evaluated two prototype devices demonstrated by Fibrenova Limited. The process consisted of a D7 decorticator and mechanical opener. The field trial analysed crop performance (yield), machine separation performance and mechanical performance issues. Results indicated that of the two varieties for the trial the Chameleon variety gave significantly greater resulting fibre yield than the Fedora variety which may be attributed to a higher density of smaller stemmed plants. The Fibrenova D7 decorticator appeared a most effective separation device, giving a similar fractionation to a careful manual separation. Mechanically, the Chameleon had a significantly lower overall power requirement (for decortication and opening combined). Spot work rates were found to be in the range of 0.06 0.08 kg per second of wet crop. Moisture content was measured throughout the trial system, and found to be generally high, around 70% (wet basis). For safe storage, hemp fibre must be reduced to around 15% moisture content, and therefore significant drying will be required. Energy requirement for a full thermal (evaporative) method was considered, and compared with the energy that may be available as waste heat from a conceivable harvesting machine powered by a diesel engine. There was not found to be sufficient energy available for

20

drying, and hence water must be removed by mechanical processes (press rollers or spinning) or by the addition of further heat. The fibre product resulting from the prototype system was found to be variable. Material dried directly from the process demonstrated appeared darker in colour and contaminated with plant juices. Fibre that had been washed in the green state by Fibrenova intended for further textile experiments by BioRegional appeared considerably lighter in colour, but still comprised a range of sizes of fibre bundle. Fibrenova presented material from previous Australian trials that had been post-processed which appeared to be made up of much finer, more consistent fibres. This processing was not demonstrated during the field trial, however various possible technical processes are discussed which may be suitable. The possibility of marketing non-fibre parts of the hemp plant is considered, however no immediately profitable market was identified, partly due to the issue of drying the product. The most attractive route for non-fibre material is therefore direct return to the field from the harvester. The harvest requirements are reviewed from a functional perspective. From this a system is considered that fulfils the cut, transport and decorticate functions embodied on a mobile harvester. The considerable specific power requirement measured in the field trial suggests a machine towards the upper end of current agricultural engineering practice (500 hp) is desirable. This could result in a workrate of 0.2 ha per hour if performance can be scaled linearly from the prototype machines, costing around 330 per ha. (Using information from second field trial, this was later revised to 369, see Section 9.4) This value is combined with the agronomic analysis to suggest a breakeven value for the raw fibre product ex-harvester of 92 per ton. (This was later revised to 104, see above) Green decortication is highly desirable as it results in a reduction of transported volume, direct return of non-fibre material to the field and enhanced subsequent processing of fibre product. The Fibrenova technologies demonstrated for this trial show promise in this area and therefore have potential application in the development of a hemp industry

21

in the UK. It is understood Fibrenova are presently undertaking the build of a field scale mobile machine. To demonstrate the viability of hemp as a commercial UK textile fibre crop, issues associated with the post-decortication processing should be resolved. Further work should therefore quantify: Performance and cost of post-decortication processing techniques. Fibre quality resulting from post-decortication processing. Field performance and operational cost of the full size Fibrenova harvester.

22

6.2 Introduction
This report considers the feasibility of growing hemp in the UK primarily as a fibre crop suitable for use as textiles, in the light of new processes and prototype machinery demonstrated by Fibrenova Limited, Australia. Hemp production within the UK is of relatively small volume with 2000 ha being grown in 2000, but is increasing with 3000 ha being grown in 2001 and 2002 (Nix et.al, 2003) as new markets are developed. The majority of the crop is grown for agricultural and industrial uses such as animal bedding and automotive composites. The crop is hardy and highly resistant to disease. Its fast growth rate means that providing the crop is established well, it will suffer minimal interference from weeds and pests (Nix et.al, 2003). Its use for textiles is currently limited to small niche areas of the clothing market despite the fact that from an environmental perspective it is often considered to be better than an equivalent cotton crop (Riddlestone et al., 1995). The predominant reason is that of the quality of the fibre produced. This is in itself not an inherent feature of the crop but rather a function of the production procedures. Harvesting is the particular area of hemp production that has attracted the most significant volume of research interest. Although many attempts have been made to mechanise Hemp harvesting (Hobson et.al, 2001) still the prevalent technique is to dew ret the crop following the cutting operation. This, especially in the British maritime climate produces a coloured and inconsistent fibre, which needs a considerable amount of post harvest manipulation to produce a quality of fibre suitable for textile industry use. This solution is therefore sub-optimal, costly and as a result the product does not compete favourably with other fibres. The timing of harvest is critical because lignification of cells occurs soon after the start of flowering and this process is asynchronous along the stem (Struick et al., 2000). If harvested too late after flowering (typically late July in the UK) then the crop will be

23

difficult to harvest and of poor and inconsistent fibre quality. Harvest timing must take into account environmental conditions and the stage of plant development.

One of the most recent systems developed to improve upon existing harvesting techniques comprises of a suite of prototype machines developed by Fibrenova, Australia. This solution has been developed to address the fibre quality issues and produce a textile quality hemp fibre without retting. Their prototype machines use two post harvest mechanisms whose design embodiment is described as being unique. The first is a decorticator, which performs a similar function to previous designs from the research community (Hobson et. al, 2000) and commercial sector (ATB, 2003) and the second is an opener. These used in combination can separate the fibre from the other parts of the plant. This project has therefore been conducted to quantify the performance of the Fibrenova system and investigate the feasibility of growing hemp for textile use as an agricultural crop within the UK.

6.2.1 Methodology
6.2.1.1 Aim
To determine the outline physical and financial feasibility of hemp fibre production, to a standard suitable for use in textiles, within the UK agricultural industry.

6.2.1.2 Objectives
To achieve the aim, the project was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 considered the conceptual feasibility of hemp production for textile fibre, and phase 2 considered the validation of the mechanisation requirements for the production system. The objectives for each phase are shown below.

Phase 1 Conceptual feasibility To determine the outputs (in terms of the quantity and quality) and inputs required by the farming system.

24

To assess a suitable agronomic, management and mechanisation system for hemp production for the textile industry. To quantify the costs associated with hemp production within the output constraints identified above.

Phase 2 Field Trials To asses the proposed mechanisation system and define the experimental requirements for the measurement of the performance of the system. To evaluate a field-scale trial. To determine the performance of the proposed mechanisation system and incorporate the findings into the analysis conducted for phase 1. During the later stages of the report some comments are made based on a possible mechanised harvesting system comprising a mobile harvest rig of approximately 500 HP. This is used purely as an example for calculation, to demonstrate the relative importance of various process stages. There are many system design solutions and the large mobile harvester represents only one. This example follows general discussions with Fibrenova on their intended development route. No calculation has been made of optimal machine size.

6.3 Background / materials and methods

Following the order of the objectives listed above it is first necessary to consider the general case and background for growing hemp in the UK. Subsequently the Fibrenova processing technology can be described against this background together with a description of the specific characteristics of the field trial crop.

6.3.1 The industrial hemp plant in the UK

Industrial hemp, Cannabis sativa, is a multi-use annual crop which is cultivated for its fibre, hurd and seed throughout Europe and other regions. The crop is of great historical

25

importance, particularly in the 16th century being used for textile and rope manufacture in Europe, but its origins date back over thousands of years (Cromack, 1996). Following a decline in cultivation by the end of the 19th century and prohibition due to its potential to produce narcotic compounds, there has been a significant revival in industrial hemp production throughout Europe (Struik et al., 2000), under strict controls to prevent illicit production of material with significant narcotic -9 tetra-hydro cannabinol (THC) content. The UK limit has been 0.2% THC since 2001 (MAFF NF0307). Cannabis sativa is an annual crop (in the UK at least) which requires little or no maintenance during the season. Following suitable establishment its growth can be exceptionally rapid. The crop is currently grown commercially for hurd as a speciality animal bedding material and fibre for low strength applications such as automotive trim panels. Recently there has been renewed interest in using the fibre for textiles and general industrial matrix composites.

6.3.1.1 General Plant characteristics

Cultivated varieties of Cannabis sativa are commonly dioecious1 but also include monoecious2 types. Breeding of varieties has been focussed in eastern and central Europe and France since the end of World War II (Van der Werf et al, 1996). Varietal selection is important because the efficiency at which intercepted radiation is converted to dry matter drops rapidly post flowering; therefore it is critical to select later cultivars for higher latitudes such as the UK for optimum yield (Struick et al., 2000). Cultivars used in the UK are typically French and are based on the production of crops for seed and fibre (MAFF NF0307). The hemp plant comprises a long stem, typically 1.5 - 3 m in length at maturity. The stem will however branch at high stem densities, leaf branches will fall off during growth

1 In dioecious plants there are separate individual male and female flowering plants which must cross pollinate to reproduce. 2 In monoecious plants reproductive components of both sex occur on the same plant.
26

so that the highest leaf density is at the top of the plant. Stem diameter is a function of plant density but typically ranges between 10 and 30 mm (Bcsa & Karus, 1998). The stem anatomy comprises long bast tissue, surrounding short (<0.5 mm) wood fibres which form the hurd3. The combined structure formed from external tensile members spaced by a central core resistant to compression provides the strength to support such a tall, narrow diameter plant. The bast tissue is the major water and transport network of the plant and is active in photosynthesis. Long, high cellulose content fibres are produced with the main function of protecting inner cells and the hurd. The fibres comprise cellular bundles which are as long as the plant stem, i.e. typically 1.5 to 3 m long. This study will focus on fibres from these bundles that may be useful for textiles and composites, and hence the primary reasons for growth of the crop.

6.3.1.2 UK and EU legislation in relation to industrial hemp production

Hemp is subject to strict EU controls concerning seed varieties used, planting location and harvest timing. This is due to the potential for THC production, even in a commercial crop of generally low THC content. In the UK, the growth of hemp is conducted under licence from the Home Office; which may be organised through seed suppliers or purchasers of the crop grown under contract for production (DEFRA, 2003). Advice is given to locate crops away from the general public, and this is best followed in order to avoid crop losses from individuals seeking to obtain plants they mistakenly believe are high in THC.

6.3.1.3 Agronomy and Production

Hemp is typically a fast growing, relatively straightforward crop to grow, however for industrial purposes there are a number of agronomic and husbandry factors which should be considered.

3 The hurd is the woody core component of the plant

27

Establishment
Hemp seed (strictly nut) is 2 5 mm long and 2 3.5 mm wide (Bcsa & Karus, 1998). It requires a high quality seed bed with sufficient moisture and good seed to soil contact. Compaction immediately below the seedbed is believed to be an important factor limiting crop yield and loosening should be carried out if necessary. It is desirable for a high yield of fibre that the final stand be composed of a larger number of relatively smaller plants, this increases the fraction of the crop contained usefully in the skins. Research (Stuick et al. (2000) suggests the final stand stem density is the result of considerable self thinning from the initial target stem density seen early in the season. Stuick et al. found an initial target stem density of 250 stems/m2 self thinned to a final 180 stems/m2, with considerable lodging. This self thinning process cannot be completely controlled and there may be a considerable effect from individual fields, however variation in initial target density and fertiliser application does have an effect on final plant density. A farmer will therefore decide a seed rate and later manage fertiliser in order to establish a particular initial stem density which will then self thin to give a particular final crop. In the UK the majority of hemp grown commercially for hurd (horse bedding) and seed is sown with the aim of an initial target stem density of approximately 180 stems/m2 (Hobson, Personal communication.). Hemcore recommend a typical seed rate of 35kg/ha to achieve this. An increased initial target density can be achieved through increased seed rate, however this will result in a higher level of self thinning and a greater potential for lodging. A particular level of increase in initial target density will not necessarily result in a similar increase in final plant density. Increased seed rate represents a higher cost, and must be justified through final fibre yield. High lodging rates may also represent a problem (and therefore added cost) for a mechanised harvest process. Hemp should be drilled after the risk of frost has passed and when soil temperatures have reached 10oC; typically from the third week in April onwards in the UK (Hobson, Personal communication.) A pre-season application of non-specific herbicide is commonly used prior to seed bed cultivation for establishment purposes and to minimise

28

the weed seed bank. Although the use of herbicide is common commercial practice this may not be necessary if appropriate cultivations bury trash and remove weeds prior to sowing. Once established hemp competes strongly and shades out many weed types (Bcsa & Karus, 1998). Organic cultivation of Hemp may prove a useful market angle, however no yield comparison data is currently available.

Maintenance
Once suitably established the hemp crop will compete successfully with weeds and is not subject to common pests or diseases and therefore does not require pesticide applications. Fertiliser requirement is relatively small - typically half that required for winter wheat. Nitrogen is important in terms of cell development and yield with maintenance levels of phosphorus and potassium required.

Traditional Harvesting
Where hurd is the primary product, harvest is in two components: cutting and fieldretting. The crop is cut using a drum or reciprocating cutter bar mower and laid in the field. Retting, the fungal and bacterial breakdown of the chemical bonds between the fibre and surrounding tissue requires the stem to remain damp. The retted stem then needs to dry to less than 15% moisture content (Bcsa & Karus, 1998) before it is baled to stabilise the product (Hobson et al. 2001). It is difficult to control the retting process to produce an even effect on the whole crop as moisture and crop density vary in the field. The variation in degree of ret and fibre separation at any point in time leads to a variation in fibre quality. This is often considered a loss as low grade fibre must be removed by later processing. Where the principal product is the hurd this is not a major consideration, however where the principal product is fibre then this represents a serious cost and quality issue, hence the clear demand for a different fibre separation process.

29

Cost of production
To determine whether it is economically feasible to grow hemp it is necessary to determine the costs of production, and relate these to market value and yield. The following budget ( Table 1) describes the cost of production for a fibre quality hemp crop. The values are adapted from figures published in Nix & Hill, (2002) and the Hemcore Ltd Growers Guide. Table 1 Cost of hemp crop Output Yield (t/ha) Price (/t) Yield.Price Area payment (2003) Total output Variable costs Seed Fertiliser Pesticides Contract cutting, turning & baling or Harvesting and decortication Haulage to factory Total variable costs Output less Costs Wheat /ha 8.0[1] 72.50 580 245 825 Hemp for hurd Hemp for fibre /ha /ha 5 110 550 245 795 3.5[2] x[3] 3.5x 245 3.5x + 245

37.5 82.5 105 82.5 307.5 517.5

120 60 0 80[4] 50-125 (mean=87.5) 347.5 447.5

120 60 0 y[5] 35-85 (mean=60) 240 + y 3.5x + 5 - y

[1] This is an average yield for winter feed wheat over all varieties. [2] This is the mean fibre yield for cv. Chameleon, determined in this study, prior to any processing to determine ultimate fibre product yield. [3] This is an unknown and to be determined. [4] These costs can be reduced by using on farm labour and machinery. [5] This is currently a projected figure, one estimate being made in section 0 below. A final figure will need to be determined once a complete system, including separation of fibre product, is demonstrated. [6] Haulage cost varies with distance and yield, range taken from Hemcore (2003).

30

6.3.2 Processing and mechanisation

The economic processing of a ripe standing crop into a clean fibre suitable for spinning and entry into the textile industry represents a key issue. From a functional viewpoint, in addition to the physical cutting and transport of relevant materials from the field it is primarily a question of separation of clean bast fibre ultimates or bundles from the rest of the plant. The traditional processing system using dew retting and some later mechanical processing for fibre extraction relies largely on the natural decay processes that take place during the ret to separate fibres and remove other plant materials. The prototype system as demonstrated by Fibrenova is an entirely mechanical process, working directly on the fresh crop from the field. These two methods are compared in Table 2. A full description of the prototype system is given below, and the performance data in section 6.4.3. Comments on the potential of an up-scaled version of the technology to be applied in the UK are made in section 6.6.2.11. Table 2 Functional comparison of processing methods Harvest Processing function. Cutting stems Crop transport Separation of bast fibre from hurd (decortication) Traditional method (Dew retting) Mowing (conventional machinery) Baling or other conventional machinery Retting process whilst laying in the field followed by mechanical separation (scotching) Naturally during retting process Proposed Fibrenova System Cutting head on machine (existing technology) On machine Direct - D7 type decorticator

Separation of fibre bundles

Primarily mechanical in decorticator and subsequent machinery Possible extra stages required

Cleaning Drying for storage and transport

Washing Naturally during retting process

Various methods Not demonstrated On machine using waste heat Not demonstrated

31

6.3.3 The Prototype Fibrenova System

The Fibrenova process consists of a primary separation element, the D7 decorticator, which separates the bast fibre from stem and leaf material. Fibres are then processed by additional stages to further break apart the fibre bundles, increase the surface area and attempt to remove gums and liquids. Products from the system are twofold a fibre product and a mixture of broken hurd and leaf material. It is possible that this hurd and leaf has a market in addition to the fibre product. The prototype process was arranged as a series of discrete machines (Figure 5) operating on a batch process. This makes the system highly adjustable to suit the crop as not only may adjustments be made to individual components, but whole process steps may be added or removed to suit. One key aim of the Fibrenova visit to the UK was to experiment with machines and settings to optimise for the crop available. These experiments led to the process arrangement and settings shown below which were fixed throughout the field trial: Fibre Nova process used for the Trial. 1. Manual harvest and crop transport. 2. Manual feed into D7 decorticator (with 13hp engine). This separates plants into bast fibre (with partially opened fibre bundles) and a hurd/leaf mixture. 3. Manual removal of fibre into storage bin 4. Wringing of wet fibre by hand to remove water/juices. This process was intended to simulate a mechanical rolling device that was unavailable on the day of testing. 5. Processing of fibre by dual drum opener (with 2x 13hp engines). This machine is intended to open the fibre bundles and increase surface area by passing the crop through a pair of comb drums operated at differential speeds.

32

Figure 5 Fibrenova prototype machinery (Picture, BioRegional)

In addition to the field trial a quantity of plants were processed in bulk to provide input for later experiments conducted by BioRegional and the textile industry. A different process was used to produce this material, in place of step 4 above an extra manual water/detergent washing and air-drying phase was used. When dried the fibre from this second process appeared lighter in colour and visually cleaner than the dry fibre from the process tested (photographs shown later in Figure17). There may also be differences in fibre quality/strength, however this process change is outside the scope of this report.

6.3.4 Experimental procedure

Trials were undertaken on 8/8/2003 to examine the characteristics of a raw crop together with the mechanical and functional performance of the prototype devices when operating on that crop.

33

Two varieties were available for the trial, Chameleon and Fedora. These had been planted in discrete areas of the same field at Randalls Farm, Sussex UK (50:57:10N, 0:29:25E). The crop history is detailed in Table 3. Table 3 Crop History Preparation, fertiliser etc Stubble sprayed at 4 l/ha Roundup 360 glyphosate. See notes above. Plough, power harrow, power harrow/drill Sowing date Sown 1/05/2003 @ 55 kg/ha seed rate See notes above. Harvest 8/8/2003

In this field trial a total of 125 kg [N]/ha, 70 kg [P2O5]/ha and 70 kg [K2O]/ha were applied. Three spatially distributed sample areas (examples in Figure6) were taken from each variety. Samples were taken from inside the body of the crop to avoid edge effects

Figure 6 Harvest Plots (Chameleon)

34

Crop yield was assessed by taking two types of sample from the same area - ten individual plants and a marked out 2x2m plot area cut and removed complete.

The individual plants were weighed and manually separated into leaf material, bast fibre and central hurd. The components were weighed individually and bagged for moisture content analysis.

A stem count was made from the 2x2m (=4m2) plot and the total weight taken. This crop was then used as the input for the machine processing

Machine processing performance was measured separately for the crop from each plot by measuring cut crop weight and taking samples for moisture content as the material passed through the process described above:

Total weight of crop cut. Weight of wet fibre resulting from first decortication stage (D7). Weight of hurd/leaf components resulting from first stage. Weight of fibre after manual wringing process. Weight of final fibre after opening.

The mechanical performance characteristics of the processing machinery were measured for each plot by:

Fuel used (volume) Time taken (from start of feed to completion of process) Active time taken (time when machine is actually processing crop, excluding breaks due to manual feeding)

Due to the inconsistent nature of the crop input and the need for lengthy clean down after each batch of fibre it was not feasible to measure the time taken for the second opener machine, but this was apparently able to process the crop resulting from the D7 several times as quickly as it was produced. It would therefore appear that this opener stage should not represent a bottleneck.

35

As noted above, samples were taken for moisture content at all key stages and sealed into heavy gauge plastic bags. These were returned to Cranfield where the contents were again weighed before being dried in mesh bottom trays at 100C for 24h. The moisture content on a wet basis was determined from the weight loss during drying.

6.4 Results

6.4.1 Characteristics of the trial crop

For the purposes of this study hemp can be considered to have three principal components:

Leaf material and the soft growing tip/flower Hurd Bast fibre surrounding the hurd

As described above, the trial included a manual separation into these three components to establish the characteristics of the crop entering the processing machinery. The results of this are shown in Figure7. This bast fibre was not disrupted as in the mechanical process, and included all of the material outside of the main hurd including a considerable fraction of juices and gums. Figure7 Manual Separation
100% % of total plant mass (above ground) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
e el on 1 Ch am e el on 2 Ch am e el on 3 F o ed ra 1 F o ed ra 2 F o ed ra 3

Hurd Leaf Bast Fibre

Ch

am

36

As can be seen Figure, approximately 30% of the plant material is raw bast fibre with 45% hurd and the remainder being leaf and flowering tip. The mean raw moisture content for all crop was 72%. The Chameleon has a significantly higher fibre content (@95% confidence interval) than the Fedora (mean =33.8% vs. 26.1%). An increase in leaf material makes up the difference, resulting in a very similar hurd content (46.1% vs 44.8%)

6.4.2 Crop yield

The crop yield is described via three measures, the total yield of whole wet plants per hectare (Figure 8), the number of plant stems per hectare (Figure 9) and the combination of these two factors into a mean weight per plant (Figure 10).
70000 60000 Wet Yield (kg/ha) 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0
1 1 2 3 ra 2 ha m el eo ha m el eo ha m el eo do do do Fe ra ra n n n 3

Fe

Figure 8 Whole Crop Wet Yield per unit area

Fe

37

1200000 1000000 Plant Density (Stems/ha) 800000 600000 400000 200000 0

1 2 1 2 3 ra ra eo eo eo ra Fe do n n n 3

do

el

el

el

Fe

am

am

Ch

Figure 9 Plant density (stems per unit area)

120 100 Weight per plant (g/stem) 80 60 40 20 0
1 1 2 3 ra 2 eo eo eo ra ra Fe do n n n 3
38

Ch

Ch

am

do

Fe

el

el

el

Fe

am

am

Ch

Figure 10 Weight per plant The results appear to show the Chameleon resulted in a greater number of relatively smaller plants.

Ch

Ch

am

Fe

do

do

Converting to yield of dry matter for comparison with the literature, the two varieties gave: Chameleon, 15.1 t/ha (range 12.5 to 18.5 t/ha) and Fedora, 17.2 t/ha (range 15.8 to 18.2 t/ha). These yields are greater than the 10.6 t/ha reported in Stuick et al., (2000), and at the upper end of the range of 12-15 t/ha given in Bcsa & Karus (1998). This may possibly be accounted for by the selection of healthy plots from the centre of a field, ignoring edge effects and less productive areas. It was however clearly a good crop by general standards. It was observed that the Fedora appeared to be at a later stage of maturity, with stronger, more lignified stems. Incidentally, it was noted that the Fedora had a strong smelling odour from the oil glands on the stem, an effect not observed in the Chameleon variety.

6.4.3 Machine Performance - processing

The performance of the prototype machines is described firstly in terms of processing effectiveness and secondly in mechanical terms of throughput and energy use. Considering the processing issue, the weight fractions obtained by the first stage machine (D7) from the crop cut from each plot are shown in Figure 11.

100% 90% 80% % of total plant mass 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
1 1 2 3 ra 2 eo eo eo ra ra n n n 3

Losses Hurd/Leaf Mixture Fibre (out of D7)

do

el

el

el

do

Fe

am

Ch

am

Ch

Figure 11 Machine 1 (D7 Decorticator) Separation

39

Ch

am

Fe

Fe

do

The Chameleon crop returned an average of 32% fibre, and the Fedora significantly less at 25% (@95% C.I.). It is notable how similar the crop fractionation obtained by the mechanical process is to that from the manual separation. The second opener/cleaner process is described as a separation between useful final fibre and material lost (water, waste material, fibre etc). This is shown in Figure 12.

100% 90% Percentage of input fibre from D7 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Losses Final Fibre (wet)

ra

eo

eo

eo

ra

do

el

el

el

do

Fe

ha

ha

Figure 12 Machine 2 separation On average 74% of the fibre was returned, with no significant difference between varieties. The later determination of moisture content allowed the weight of dry matter in the final fibre product from each plot to be calculated and scaled to a value per unit area as shown in Figure 13. This represents the summation of crop yield and machine processing performance. Mean yield of the Chameleon variety was 3055 kg/ha and for the Fedora variety was 2731 kg/ha. This may represent the advantage of a larger number of smaller stems with greater bast fibre content.

ha

Fe

Fe

do

ra

40

4000 3500 Fibre Dry Matter Yield (kg/ha) 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
1 2 1 2 3 ra ra eo eo eo ra Fe do n n n 3

do

el

el

el

Fe

am

am

Figure 13 Weight of fibre dry matter per hectare

6.4.4 Machine performance mechanical

Decortication and fibre separation is a process requiring considerable energy input, which must be included in the processing cost. Without modification of the prototype machines it is not possible to take detailed power measurements, so a simple estimate of energy input was made via fuel usage and published data for engine efficiency from the manufacturer. This approach assumes the engine is in a similar condition and state of tune to that used for the manufacturers tests and no account was made of changes in fuel density due to ambient temperature, however it gives at least a general indication of the power requirement for the prototype at the work rate observed during the tests. Fuel volume was measured, and converted to mass at 737 g/l (Bosch). Honda state this type of engine consumes 230 g/hp hour, equating to 0.09 g of fuel per kJ of work done in the machine.

Ch

Ch

Ch

am

Fe

do

41

Details of the energy use of the two machines is shown in Figure 14, however no comment will be made as the process is viewed as a whole. Adjustments to any final machinery may alter the work split between parts of the process, and therefore the total input is a more useful value. The Chameleon variety appears to have significantly lower overall power requirement (105 kJ/kg vs. 156 kJ/kg). This was confirmed by the general impression of engine noise during testing.

180 Specific fuel use (kJ/kg wet crop) 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
1 1 2 3 2 eo eo eo ra Fe do ra ra n n n 3

Machine 2 (opener) Machine 1 (D7)

do

el

el

el

Fe

am

Ch

Ch

Figure 14 Machine Energy Use Work rate was measured both as a general rate (time per plot) and a spot rate (time machine actually processing material). This second spot rate is intended to give insight into the processing capacity without any variation caused by manual feeding. These results are shown in Figure15.

Ch

am

am

Fe

do

42

0.09 0.08 Machine Work Rate (kg/s) 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0

Average

Spot

ra

ra

eo

eo

eo

do

do

el

el

el

Fe

Fe

am

am

Ch

Ch

Figure 15 Average and spot work rate Generally the spot rate and average rate appear to be related the machine was working for approximately 60% of the total time taken to process a plot. A mechanical feed system may significantly improve on this, however allowance must be made for turning at headlands, stoppages etc. For the first decortication stage the energy use may be combined with the spot time taken to calculate the mean power input when crop was in the entry slot. For the Chameleon variety this was a total of 4.3hp (3.2 kW) and 9.1hp (6.8 kW) for the Fedora.

6.5 Moisture content and implications

The moisture content of the hemp plant is an important issue in a processing system that must result in a relatively dry (~15%, Bcsa & Karus (1998)) fibre product suitable for storage and transport. It is important to rapidly reduce the moisture content before storage in order to prevent fungal growth. Historically the separated fibre is laid out in the field to allow natural drying. Although energy efficient and environmentally attractive this reintroduces issues of decay and uncontrolled fibre quality, along with

Ch

am

Fe

do

ra

43

contamination and extra operational cost as the crop must be later recovered from the ground for later processing. Due to the volume of crop passing through a commercial field scale system only industrial, artificially aided drying methods are considered.

6.5.1 Crop Results

The moisture content was measured by taking samples throughout the process detailed in section 6.3.3, results are shown in Figure 16.
90% W hole Plants 80% Moisture content (%, wet basis) 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
1 2 2 1 3 ra ra eo eo eo ra Fe do n n n 3

After Machine 1

Final Fibre

do

el

el

el

Fe

am

am

Ch

Ch

Figure 16 Moisture content through process

Values are clearly high, however this is not unusual for such a quick growing plant. There is a general trend of moisture reduction as the material passes through the system as would be expected, however the final fibre is still very wet, being approximately 68% water (wet basis). The moisture content must be reduced to prevent decay in storage. Bcsa & Karus (1998) suggest a value of approximately 15% is required, similar to that required for grain.

Ch

am

Fe

do

44

Water has a very high energy of vaporisation (2270 kJ/kg) and hence it is preferable to reduce the moisture content mechanically as far as possible before attempting thermal drying. Rolling (calendaring) or spinning (centrifugal separation) may be suitable techniques for use on a mobile harvester, but no data is available about the possible levels of moisture reduction attainable in hemp fibre using these methods. Theoretically the performance will depend on the size of the fibres produced smaller sizes having a greater surface area and smaller pore size between fibres, tending to retain more moisture. Fibrenova have developed a roller based machine, but this was not in operation on the day of the field trial the manual wringing process being substituted as noted.

6.6 Projected system

Having considered the background to the Hemp industry and examined the practical performance of the Fibrenova technology before the success of introducing such a technology can be assessed, consideration should be given to the end use of the output products and any remaining process issues identified.

6.6.1 Product Markets

Although the intention is primarily to grow the crop for fibre applications other suggestions have been made to utilise the hurd and leaf components as produced by the Fibrenova system.

6.6.1.1 Fibre
Hemp fibre has two primary markets, the broad areas of textiles and as a fibre in composite materials

Textiles
For textile use the value of the fibre to the spinning industry is closely related to its quality and cleanliness in addition to other factors such as availability. Cleanliness

45

affects value because a manufacturer will need to include pre-cleaning processes if a fibre product is not sufficiently clean to enter their processes directly. This has both a machine and energy cost as well as reducing the usable fraction of the product bought in. The fibres produced during the field trial are pictured in Figure below and will form the basis for this discussion. Sample 1 represents material produced directly by the process described above, and immediately dried. Sample 2 is the result of subsequently washing this dried material by hand in warm water for ~5 minutes. Sample 3 represents the material produced in bulk for further trials by BioRegional, this has been washed (with unspecified detergent) prior to drying and dry processing by the initial opener demonstrated during the trial. Sample 4 represents material presented by Fibrenova from previous trials in Australia (with additional non mechanical processing).

1 Raw (D7 + initial opener) from field trial dried directly

2 Fibre 1, washed post-drying

3 Fibre supplied to BioRegional from field trial believed to have been washed and dried before opening.

4 Fibre sample supplied by Fibrenova (Photo: BioRegional)

Figure 17 Fibre samples No measurements of fibre size or distribution are available (these may result from further work by BioRegional et al.). There is however a clear difference between the fibre samples, the entirely unwashed material is crunchy to the touch, being apparently coated in gums and plant juices. Sample 3 is considerably lighter in colour; however there are apparently a wide range of sizes of fibre bundle. Washing of the material post-

46

drying (Sample 2) does not appear as effective in cleaning the fibre as washing predrying (Sample 3). Sample 4 appears very much cleaner and comprised smaller, more uniform fibres. It is not known exactly how this final sample was processed, but it appears to have included chemical or biological steps. It can therefore be stated that the Fibrenova technology demonstrated during the field trial can (possibly with some cleaning as in Sample 3) produce a raw fibre product comprising a mixture of sizes of fibre bundle; each bundle being made up of ultimates bound together with pectins and gums. There may be a market for this material as-is or it may apparently be refined further towards a product such as Sample 4. Further technical work is needed to establish the spinning characteristics of material in the raw state and BioRegional are, with collaborators, examining this issue using the bulk fibre harvested during this field trial. There is however considerable interest in further refinement, as a product similar to Sample 4 could have a higher value and perhaps be used in a similar way to cotton, either alone or in a blend with that fibre. The market for cotton type textiles is extremely large; 20m tonnes per year, +12m tonnes for polyester-cotton blends (Franck, 2003, Personal Communication) In order to produce such a refined product, the technical issue of removing the material bonding fibres into bundles, in a way that does not damage the underlying fibre and is viable on a commercial scale when linked with the technology so far demonstrated, remains. Traditionally, this function is carried out during the water or dew retting process. For a modern, controlled process several alternatives have been suggested, including chemical (possibly potash lye), enzyme, ultrasound, steam explosion and further mechanical systems. Details may be found in the literature, especially Bcsa & Karus, (1998) and Leupin (1998). To date these have been demonstrated in a form more suited to static or relocatable (e.g. lorry container) use rather than on a mobile harvester. Chemical and enzyme processing tend to require considerable quantities of water for treatment and washing, which results in a very significant weight issue. Some treatments also require considerable time (hours or days) for processing, making mobile operation impractical. Fibrenova are

47

known to have interest in the area as they hold patents (Clarke & Dennis, 2003) for anaerobic retting methods to refine fibre. They also verbally describe the existence of novel mechanical systems intended for future harvesting systems. None of these techniques were demonstrated during the field trial and therefore no comment can be made on their effectiveness or costs involved. It seems likely that Sample 4 is a result of these developments, although it is not clear exactly which processes have been used. Fibrenova have demonstrated processes in other work with hemp that produced cottonised fibres (Figure 18) by processes at least in part involving biological techniques (Hanks, 2001). If Fibrenova have been able to develop a new system to allow sufficient cleaning and fibre bundle separation within the weight and size limits of a mobile harvester it will represent a very interesting solution. Alternatively separation could take place externally as noted in the functional description. As yet however the processing cost and energy requirement cannot be quantified, nor can the exact quality of output.

Figure 18 Fibrenova samples from previous work (different machinery); Picture from Hanks (2001) - The Hemp Report

To the textile industry the price paid is often determined by quality, the definition of which varies according to the end product. A raw fibre intended for carpet use will have

48

different requirements to a fine refined fibre for garment use. An important additional issue is the requirement for unknown investment to develop and optimise processing systems for hemp fibre. This may prove difficult in an industry with low margins. For progress it will be essential to convince a few companies of the benefits of bringing a new fibre to the market. Currently therefore, it is difficult to describe the value of the fibre product as the spinning trials of the relatively raw material are not complete and the extra cost of processing into a material comparable with cotton are not known.

In addition to the technical issue there are significant political and marketing questions in establishing a value for the fibre product ex-farm. It is possible that hemp based fabric may be sold at a premium based on the reduced environmental impact and home grown aspect. It is thought unwise to be seen to compete directly with cotton products, at least initially. This may attract strong competitive attention from a large powerful industry when a new product is at a vulnerable stage. Throughout the market there is a need to maintain equity and resist pressure to lower prices from the next tier. Because of the investment required in process development and the risk of a new market it is likely the weaving industry will be resistant to high prices for yarn. Similarly the spinners will attempt to reduce the price paid for raw fibre in order to offset their development and risk costs. The results of initial contract negotiations are therefore critical in both establishing the industry and attempting to ensure the resulting structure is sufficiently equitable as to drive growth at all levels, from farmer to garment manufacturer. One area where value could be retained at the farm level is through the provision of storage being an annual crop with a mid-summer harvest period the entire crop is produced within a window approximately 4 weeks long. It is likely that spinners and other processors will require product throughout the year. If they can store the crop without degradation the growers can control supply to achieve optimum prices during periods of high demand and short supply, usually preceding the following harvest. If the

49

grower cannot provide storage then costs will be incurred, either through rent of neighbouring facilities or through storage levies and poor prices from the processors.

Composites
Currently hemp is used to a small extent in the composites market representing 3500 tonnes per year out of 20,000 tonnes of natural fibres (Franck, 2003, Personal Communication). There is now increasing interest in using the fibre with a resin as a composite material as with glass fibres in fibreglass. Fibrenova have been involved in early trials with commercial partners who believe the potential market to be very large (10,000 tonnes per month of a material with a processed value as a punched fibre mat of ~ A$3/kg). Potential exploitation in the UK of this market is dependent on the involvement of similar large commercial partners in order to get the product accepted by engineering manufacturers and designers. There is a strong environmental angle if product performance similar or better than conventional composites can be demonstrated using hemp fibres and a biologically derived resin as from oil seeds for example. BioRegional are currently working with the Biocomposites centre and DEFRA to explore potential in this area.

6.6.1.2 Hurd and leaf

Currently the major market for hemp in the UK requires only the hurd component. There is therefore clearly a value here in addition to the main fibre product. The key issue is the high moisture content of the material as it is produced, rapid decay and resulting effluent production if stored without being dried. From the trial results the decorticator produces approximately 28 t/ha of wet hurd and leaf material at 72% moisture content (wet basis). If the material can be used directly in the wet state the potential transport cost is high because of the weight of water (crop weight is 3 times a dry 15% mc case). A secondary issue is the separation of leaf and hurd which is important for some markets. Leaves may be stripped from the plant prior to cutting, or later separated from the hurd mixture by either a floatation process whilst in the wet state or a sieving/pneumatic process when dry (leaf material becomes brittle and may be blown away). No technology

50

is apparent for separation in the damp phase as leaves stick to the hurd pieces by surface tension. It is possible to dry the material on the harvester or in a subsequent process. The fibre is viewed as the primary product, and hence has the first call on any drying process on the harvester. As will be described in section 0, there is not likely to be spare heat to dry the hurd/leaf product, therefore drying must be either entirely externally fuelled or via a slower natural operation. If dried in a high speed industrial drier as considered for the fibre product the cost per hectare would be: With a hurd/leaf yield of 28 t/ha, at a moisture content of 72%. If final moisture content = 15%, the percentage of weight as water to be removed = 67%. Weight of water removed = 280.67 = 18.78 t = 18776 kg Energy @ 3500 kJ/kg dryer efficiency = 65.7 GJ Fuel quantity @ 35488 kJ/l (Bosch) =1852 l/ha Resulting in 9.24 t/ha of hurd/leaf material, at a cost of 0.2/litre (Barton, 2003) this represents a cost of 370/ha or 40/t. As with the fibre there is potential for mechanical (rolling or spinning) processes to remove water at a relatively low energy cost. However as this has not been quantified in any way. It may be more difficult to extract water from this material compared to the fibre as the hurd itself contains many small passages which will act as a sponge and retain water. A low cost drying method would be to thinly spread the material out on an area of hard standing and allow the moisture to evaporate. This is highly weather dependent and involves considerable land and labour cost in spreading and recovering the material after drying. For a small scale process it may be considered, but it is difficult to envisage an industrial product being produced this way.

51

Possible markets for a wet product

Compost There is a market for material to feed compost production for use as a soil improver, for market gardening and for retail sale. A key advantage of this route is the ability to accept the mixture of hurd and leaf material. On-farm composting is a growing market, however feed material is usually of very low value indeed many producers see themselves as providing a waste disposal service, charging a gate fee of approximately 10 per tonne (Tyrrell, 2003). It seems unlikely a farmer would be prepared to pay for this on top of transport when the free alternative of returning the material directly to the field is available. Paper Hemp hurd is currently used on a small scale to produce paper. There is also considerable potential to include the material as a component of a mill pulping a mixture of other materials such as straw. BioRegional have worked extensively on projects to study the scaling down of paper mill technology in a way that could suit this sort of feed material. The proposed technology (Riddlestone, 2003) could accept up to 250 tonnes of dry equivalent material per day (~27 ha of crop) possibly paying up to 25 per tonne. The process could accept wet material directly; however the problem of wet storage would prevent the use of hemp outside the harvesting season. For this reason it would seem more likely to form part of a mixed input stream. Key costs are the separation of leaves (stripped pre-cutting or possibly water flotation if the crop is supplied in the wet form) and transport. The 25 per tonne value limits the radius of economic supply from the paper mill.

Possible markets for a dry product

Horse bedding material after the current Hemcore process. This possibility has been explored via discussion with Hemcore. They suggest it is possible, however there is a need for a total separation of all leaf material as this produces the dust, the absence of which is the main reason for use of hemp as
52

bedding. Separation might be achieved via a pneumatic process with cyclones etc, or in the wet phase as noted earlier. The material must be dried for final storage, and as national transportation is necessary this should happen on the farm soon after the harvester. They believe that the considerable drying cost is likely to rule out the economic use of the material in the near future. It would be cheaper to grow two areas of hemp on the one farm one to be processed for fibre and a second to be dew retted and dried in-field following the current process. Hemcore are not interested in receiving the material from a wet decorticator in the current market. Building insulation material Hemp hurd is a good thermal insulator and can absorb moisture from the environment which from a building perspective allows the structure to breathe. Compared to rockwool it is considered to have fewer health issues during installation and later building works. However it is anticipated that value for this application is lower than that for horse bedding with similar drying and process requirements.

6.6.2 Relevance of issues to machine design key questions

For a commercial application it is essential that the harvest and processing systems should be mechanised. This report focuses on the functional requirements applicable to any mechanised system rather than machine design details. With specific regard to the Fibrenova system it must be noted that the remit of the project team was purely to measure the performance of the existing prototypes and due to the intellectual property value of the inventions, at no time were the internal components of either machine presented for examination, remaining covered from view throughout the trial. From a functional view however it is possible to describe how the technology may be designed to fit within the overall requirement, and which areas (such as final cleaning) require further development. It should be noted that the sizes of the machines under test during the field trial were considerably smaller than will be required for a commercial solution. Hence the concepts
53

used for the prototypes will require a degree of scaling. This section is based upon the assumption that the performance of technologies and concepts employed within the machines are linearly scaleable. To facilitate the assessment of possible hemp mechanisation equipment, the process required to produce a fibre from a green standing crop can be sub-divided into a number of predominant sub-functions as shown in Figure19. The order of some later sub-functions may be rearranged and further interim functions may be inserted, but the diagram demonstrates the stages that must be undertaken. For example, the crop may be dried for storage and transport at an earlier stage, leaving cleaning and opening later. Possibly crop rollers may be used in between the functions to aid crop flow and water removal. The green box encircles those processes that could be installed either on a primary harvesting machine or on a second machine/stationary plant. Gums may be removed in one or more of the processing stages after the initial separation.

54

Inputs:
Crop Energy (fuel) Ground position Crop edge Operator control

Possible Inputs:
Water Chemical/Biological agents Standing time

Cut Crop

Transport

Separate Hurd Decorticate

Open fibre Clean? Dry Fibre Temporary store & Unload/move

Refine

Clean/ wash & Dry

Fine Open

Temporary store

Move harvested material Could be on second machine or stationary plant(s)

Leaf & Hurd Output

Market 1 Raw Fibre Output

Waste outputs Noise Heat (minimal) Exhaust gas Effluent

Market 2 Refined Fibre Output

Figure 19 Function requirements for hemp fibre production (Orange box = machine functions evaluated during the field trial). (Blue box = possible fibre markets). Of the machines demonstrated, the D7 decorticator carried out the Separate Hurd function and started on the fourth function Open Fibre. There are also a number of other designs present within research literature (Hobson et.al. 2001) and some in pilot scale commercial use eg in Germany (ATB, 2003) that can perform at least the Separate Hurd function. The Fibrenova second opener machine conducted the Open fibre function, although further stages (fine open) may be required for complete opening suitable for the most demanding markets.

55

The function diagram reveals that in addition to those evaluated there are other functions that must be carried out either on a field machine and/or on a separate machine(s) to achieve an output fibre suitable for commercial use. Despite the limited scope of the machinery evaluated for this project, a number of observations can be made with reference to the general design of a mechanisation solution, by considering each of the functions in isolation and then the probable combinations that could be implemented at field scale.

6.6.2.1 Cut Crop.

This describes the mechanical process of cutting the plant stem from the root portion a short distance above the ground level. There are many existing solutions for this function many of which have a long history of applications in agricultural environments. Therefore this element of the design will pose no major problems if sufficient power is available and the design embodiment and manufacture are completed to an acceptable standard of quality.

6.6.2.2 Transport.
This describes the process of feeding cut stems from the cutting area to the decortication/separation systems. This may be direct (a few metres) or over a longer range to a static system. Hemp is an unusual crop due to its significant slenderness ratio. As a direct result of this, and the roughness of the stem, handling can be problematic. Using suitable machine components these issues should be resolvable when harvesting a uniform standing crop, however lodged irregular crops will be more challenging and the machine efficiency would be expected to be compromised in favour of increased robustness and reliability via reduced machine complexity. An overall system requiring transport of whole crop out of the field may pose a more significant challenge, as stem alignment is important to the decorticator, and this is not assured in simple bulk transportation. It is therefore advantageous to decorticate directly on the mobile machine, using the natural vertical stem alignment. The products resulting from decortication are more easily handled and transported in bulk.
56

6.6.2.3 Separate hurd.

This describes the process of separation of hurd and leaf components from the fibre. Assuming that the components used within the D7 are linearly scaleable and coupled with an opening mechanism similar to the one in the field trial the power consumption of this process will be in the region of 330 kW at 0.2 ha/hr (see below). This is a very considerable energy requirement which can only be realistically supplied via an internal combustion engine design solution. This will have the inevitable consequences of using a fossil fuel unless a biofuel can be obtained economically.

6.6.2.4 Open fibre

Following initial separation the fibre bundles must be further broken down or opened to reduce the fibre diameter. Fibrenova describe the opener used during the field trial as one of a range of devices available to them. The device used for the trial was not found to be a process bottleneck, however there was a significant power requirement which contributed to the 330 kW requirement described above. The degree of opening is determined by the final end use of the hemp fibre. It is understood that Fibrenova propose an entirely mechanical opening solution. Other hemp processing systems have included water or enzyme based stages to attack the gums joining fibre bundles together and allow the release of ultimates (or at least smaller bundles). These enzyme stages involve liquid washes and a considerable time element and it may be difficult to embody the requirements on a mobile harvesting machine.

6.6.2.5 Refine Fibre

A further stage of opening may be required using techniques as described for the open fibre stage depending upon the end use of the product. This stage could follow the open fibre stage or follow an interim wash or drying stage. Fibrenova claim to have a technology for this, but this was not available for this trial.

57

6.6.2.6 Wash/clean fibre

Cleaning of the separated fibre comprises two aims, the removal of gums and juices and the removal of any remaining plant or other material contained in the fibre. Devices in commercial application in other fibre processing industries may well be applicable, either directly or via the inclusion of design elements in new machine combinations. An important aspect which has not yet been demonstrated is the ability to remove gums and juices without a water washing process. Fibre from the field trial that has simply been dried has a strong yellow/brown colour and crunchy feel due to the surface contamination. Fibrenova have used a water/detergent washing process on an amount of bulk fibre produced for other evaluations. On a commercial scale this introduces a significant cost and the issue of effluent from the washing tanks. A secondary issue arises is that to maximise the efficiency of the operation the drying stage should only be carried out once and therefore must be completed before a storage phase.

6.6.2.7 Dry Fibre

Drying the fibre is essential to ensure that the fibre quality can be maintained. From the field trial the expected moisture content will be in the region of 65% which will represent a significant amount of water that has to be removed. Fibrenova have suggested that the final design will incorporate a press of some form that will squeeze water from the fibre. This will be an important design feature that could reduce the amount of heating required for crop drying. However, to ensure that the crop does not reabsorb a proportion of the water following exit from the device, the design will require very careful consideration of the dynamics associated with the water movement. After pressing the remaining water must be removed by thermal drying. As described in detail below, this has a very significant energy requirement. If the rollers can remove approximately 60% of the water it may be possible to dry using the heat from the exhaust heat alone, however it is likely that a supplementary heat supply will be required.

58

The fuel requirements of a largely thermal drying system create a separate design issue the storage of sufficient fuel to operate for a reasonable time.

6.6.2.8 Energy requirement for crop drying

Thermal crop drying is an established technology, and some comments can be made about the likely energy requirements and constraints in this application. The key issue is the need to dry material very rapidly as it passes through the harvester. This suggests a relatively high temperature system operating at or above boiling point (100 C) A low temperature drying system is unlikely to be sufficiently rapid to evaporate sufficient water in a reasonable overall machine volume. Care will be necessary to avoid damaging the fibre by overheating during the drying process, or the permanent thermal setting of any gum on the fibre surface. The energy requirement can be considered in two ways, firstly examining the theoretical minimum requirement and secondly considering the performance of previous crop drying systems. From a theoretical viewpoint the minimum energy required is that to heat and evaporate the water in the crop. Here the energy used in heating the crop material is ignored, as are the thermodynamic losses of heating ambient air to use for blast drying. Using the values obtained for moisture content in the field trial for Chameleon fibre (66%) and an acceptable storage condition (15%). The weight of water that must be removed can be found from: (1 mc in ) weight of wet crop Weight of water removed = 1 (1 mc out ) So in this case 60% of the initial wet crop weight. To rapidly remove 1kg of water, starting at 20C requires : Heating Evaporation Total kJ. = 4.2 kJ/kg/C (100C-20C) = 336 kJ = 2270 kJ = 2606 kJ / kg water

Hence for the reduction of 1kg of wet final fibre to 15% moisture content requires 1563

59

It is however impossible to design a machine to be this efficient, some published figures for evaporation energy requirement of commercial grass driers range from 4700 kJ/kg water (Culpin, 1981) to 3300 kg/kJ water (Arnold & Comely). If, as outlined below, a possible harvesting system may have a mechanical power input of around 500 hp (373 kW), and be capable of processing 0.2 ha per hour this would represent a whole crop intake rate of 3.2 kg/s. At the machine yield (including losses) achieved in the trial this results in a wet final fibre production rate of 0.53 kg/s (1890 kg/h). If a value for energy requirement in the mid range of commercial practice is taken (3500 kJ/kg water) this results in a drying power requirement of 1106 kW. Although limited technical details are available it is interesting to note the existence of a field scale high temperature rotary drum grass drying system developed by Claas (Figure20) The system is described as being capable of producing 750 kg/h of dry grass, very similar to the system outlined above. Although the method has not been widely taken up for grass conservation it demonstrates the type and size of technology that may be required.

Figure 20 Mobile grass drying system (Culpin, 1981)

60

6.6.2.9 Available heat sources

It has been commented that a significant portion of the heat required to dry the crop might be obtained from waste heat generated by the prime mover on the harvesting machine. Diesel engines convert the energy in their fuel into three forms. Whilst the exact efficiencies vary slightly between engine types and manufacturers (and more greatly with load on the engine) typical values for a modern engine (Trans-Atlantic Diesels, 2003) are given in Table 4. Table 4 Diesel Engine energy paths Item Percentage of fuel input power Shaft power Heat loss to cooling system Heat loss to exhaust gases 30% 33% (typically @ 90 C) 37% (typically @ 400 C) If, the example machine system is considered, with a shaft power requirement in the range of 500 hp (373 kW) it follows that the engine will consume fuel at a rate of 1243 kW - the remaining energy being available as heat as shown in the third column of the table. Unfortunately this energy is not as useful as it first appears a mobile harvester must dry material relatively quickly and there is not time to evaporate the water slowly at a relatively low temperature. The energy from the cooling water is only available at 90C, which will be further reduced by the heat exchange to the air used to dry the crop. This is far below the typical furnace temperature of a high speed rotary drier, (~500 C, Culpin). It may be possible to use some energy from the cooling water, but not all of the 400 kW. 460 Power available (kW) 373 410

61

The exhaust is at a more useful temperature, however this represents less than half the power requirement of 1106 kW found above. Practically it is also important not to excessively restrict the exhaust flow by passage through heat exchangers etc. It is important to note that these thermal outputs are only available if the engine is at full output. Conditions of light loading, or initial warm up suggest an auxiliary burner system is essential, possibly capable of providing heat for the full drying requirement with the engine heat as a very useful auxiliary source. Burners may use the main vehicle fuel supply or a separate system this issue is outside the remit of the report, however a considerable quantity of fuel is required. If a situation is considered where the exhaust heat (and not the cooling water heat) is all used for drying, and a burner system produces the additional heat from the main diesel fuel supply the total rate of energy use is =1243+(1106-460)=1889 kW. Taking diesel to have a calorific value of 35488kJ per litre (Bosch) then working flat out for eight hours requires over 1500 litres of fuel! This confirms that any water removal that can be achieved by non-thermal means will reduce the supplementary heating required and hence the fuel consumption. Development in this area is therefore important.

6.6.2.10 Storage
This function may be necessary on farm and can also be included on a smaller scale on the harvest machine to improve the field efficiency of the operation. It is essential that the crop is dried prior to long term storage, and must be sheltered from rainfall because hemp bales absorb rather than shed rainwater (Hemcore, 2003). Precautions should also be taken to prevent pest infestation and contamination of the crop. Based on experiment with material from the field trial a dry fibre product could be baled to a density of approximately 500kg/m3.

62

6.6.2.11 Machine design and economics

The detailed embodiment of a field scale machine will depend upon the number of functions carried out in the field, before the fibre is either stored or transported to the end users, and the degree of processing undertaken by the end users. The first in-field machine would be expected to incorporate a minimum of the cut crop, transport and separate hurd functions. From the field trial data the power requirement of the main decortication and initial opening functions can be scaled linearly in order to estimate the likely performance of a larger machine. A realistic size for a large selfpropelled agricultural machine is approximately 500 BHP installed power as demonstrated by several current examples. This is therefore taken as a possible size. For the purposes of this estimate the power used by processing stages other than the main decortication and opening cannot be included as no data is available. This will therefore form an upper estimate of productivity if any extra stages do not have a large power requirement. Scaling the field trial results indicates that a machine of 500 BHP could achieve a rate of crop processing of approximately 0.2 ha per hour, using 330 kW (445 HP) for processing and the remainder for machine drive, cutting etc. These secondary power requirements represent a minimum, and operation on slopes or complex crop transport would either require more power or reduce the work rate. Careful detail design is required to keep the overall machine within a manageable size, drying particularly requiring a considerable volume. Later stages may of course be carried out via stationary equipment located at the field edge or elsewhere on the farm. Whatever functions are included it is important to consider soil compaction and practical access issues raised by a large, heavy harvester. Ground pressure especially must be examined to ensure mobility. A smaller machine may be able to operate in a wider range of locations and soil conditions without causing undesirable soil conditions. Working from the assumption of a machine of this general size the operational costs may be considered. Such analysis will necessitate a considerable amount of assumption due to the limited capability of the prototype machines evaluated for this trial. Therefore the

63

following analysis should be considered to be approximate and should only be judged against the assumptions made. Considering the use of a large self propelled harvesting machine capable of the first 4 functions (Figure19 as shown previously) which will produce raw fibre of a quality similar to that produced for this trial, use we will assume that the final harvest machine will be equipped with an installed power of ~500 BHP. Assuming that the machine will be capable of 0.2 ha/hr with one skilled operator (excluding crop transport), the personnel cost for the operation using an Appointment Grade I standard rate employee is 6.89/hr and 10.34/hr overtime (Nix et.al. 2003). Therefore for a 10hr day the average hourly cost would be expected to be 7.58/hr, this equates to 37.90/ha. The fuel, maintenance, repair and insurance costs are harder to predict because they will be entirely dependant upon the embodiment of the design. However an indication can be derived from similar machines in operation within agricultural environments. It is unlikely the design solution will deviate from conventional agricultural engineering technologies (Diesel engine, steel fabrication, hydraulics etc), hence the operational cost may be estimated via scaling the cost of existing machinery. One methodology is to scale the operational cost of a 200 HP tractor to produce the estimate shown in Table 5. Table 5 Cost of machine operation 200 Hp Tractor (Nix et.al. 2003)
Hourly rate () Hourly rate () Per Ha ()

Predicted 500 Hp machine

Fuel/oil Maintenance and repairs Insurance Total

5.94 9.50 1.69 17.13

14.85 23.75 4.23 42.82

74.25 118.75 21.15 214

64

These results show that the cost per ha of operating a 500 HP machine at 0.2 ha/hr excluding drying costs could be 214. An alternate route is to scale the operational cost of a contract operated combine harvester (82.5/ha * 2.5 = 206/ha). These methods give clearly similar results. However it must be noted that both base technologies are well established and there may be significant extra complexity in a new design solution. This may result in higher maintenance costs in this case. Considering the drying of the crop the total power requirement excluding any contribution from the vehicles engine is predicted to be 1106 kW (Section 6.6.2.8). Assuming that the calorific value of the fuel is 35488 kJ/l and the price of heating fuel is 20p per litre (Barton, 2003) results in a total drying cost of 112/ha at 0.2ha/hr. If the harvester can be designed to use the waste exhaust heat this reduces the drying power requirement to 646 kW and the cost to 65/ha. Therefore in summary a guide to the total cost of harvesting excluding crop transport from harvester could be 330/ha (this was later revised to 369; see section 9.4) if the machine has similar operating costs to a standard agricultural harvester. Including this value in the agronomic analysis from Table 1, the fibre product must have a value of 92 per ton to give breakeven with operating costs (this was later revised to 104; see section 9.4). Current ongoing work with BioRegional and their collaborators will hopefully determine a value and hence the level of any likely profit margin.

65

6.7 Conclusions
1. There appear to be no limits to the field scale cultivation of hemp in the UK other than the resolvable issue of legal growth permission. 2. Input costs for producers are reasonably low at 240 per ha, however the harvest may increase this significantly, being estimated at 330 per ha(this was later revised to 369; see section 9.4). 3. Significant care is required in establishing an industry structures that maintains equity for all parties and hence encourages expansion of the crop. 4. Plants from the field trial yielded a mean of 56 t/ha green crop at a moisture content of 72% 5. Plants from the field trial demonstrated a skin fraction (containing bast fibres) of approximately 30% (by weight, wet) with the Chameleon variety producing significantly more (33.8%) than the Fedora variety (26.1%). 6. The Chameleon variety produced a significantly better fibre yield than the Fedora variety, which also consumed more power in the prototype processing machinery demonstrated (105 kJ/kg vs. 156 kJ/kg). 7. The Fibrenova prototype D7 decorticator demonstrated good separation of bast fibre material. The relative quantities of plant components produced were very similar to a careful manual separation with mean losses in the machine of 18%, a large amount of which may be due to desirable water loss. 8. The Fibrenova prototype opener showed mean product losses of 25%, which are again composed partly of desirable water separation. 9. Whilst significant elements have been demonstrated in prototype form, no full process fulfilling all functions required to deliver a high quality fibre directly from the field has yet been produced.

66

10. Projections suggest a machine with 500 BHP installed power could theoretically process crop at a rate of approximately 0.2 ha per hour. 11. The final value of the fibre product and cost of operation will be apparent when a large scale machine can be produced. Using estimates developed in this report however suggests a breakeven value of 92 per ton (this was later revised to 104; see section 9.4) if no additional processing cost is required beyond the prototype machinery demonstrated.

6.8 Recommendations
1. The new technologies demonstrated for this report appear to show promise and have considerable potential application in the development of a hemp industry in the UK. The decortication device is the first to be demonstrated at a field scale in a form suitable for scaling to a larger machine. Separation of the plants into the principle components was most effective, giving similar results to a careful manual separation. Further developments should therefore be closely followed 2. Once a larger machine is produced it will be essential to review performance through an independent trial in field conditions to demonstrate performance to the farming community and other interested parties. 3. Issues remain in the area of fibre bundle separation, and the degree of any further processing needed to produce a product acceptable to the textile market. There are various technologies which may be applicable, and processing a decorticated fibre material may be considerably easier than a whole stem product. Further work is therefore required to quantify the performance and suitability of post-decortication processing techniques, ideally through to a spun yarn or fabric product.

67

4.

Costs resulting from this work can be combined with the analysis presented here to review the overall returns from a UK hemp crop. The basic crop production cost and initial estimate of the cost of mobile decortication suggest there is considerable room for additional processing provided a good textile price can be obtained.

68

7. Concluding Field Trial 1

Approximately 80 kg of fibre were produced in the trial, most of which had been through initial decortication by the D7 machine, followed by an onsite wash using relatively large quantities of water with added (unspecified) detergent, drying in the sun and air (figure 20), then processed using a machine described by Fibrenova as a proprietary opening device. The washing stage was not documented by Cranfield, however the bulk of fibre presented to BioRegional was treated in this way, so is recorded here.

Figure 20 Hemp fibre post washing hanging to dry in the sun and air before pre-opening, Battle, Sussex 2003

Figure 21 Hemp fibre from Battle shown in Fig 20 After pre-opening at a textile processor

The fibre produced during these trials (80kg raw fibre) was left with BioRegional to prepare for spinning in the UK. Initially following the harvest, opening/carding machines were sought, as BioRegional were told that this should be sufficient to prepare the fibre for spinning. However it became evident after consulting and conducting trials with a number of openers that opening/carding alone would not be sufficient, and that the fibre would require further processing using degumming methods to remove dried pectins and gums remaining on the fibre. Fibrenova stated that they hope to remove this step and use purely mechanically action, but this has not yet been achieved. Carding/opening would also be necessary to open the fibre after a chemical degumming process, hence the knowledge gained of UK opening facilities at this stage was useful and is recorded in Section 10.2.

69

8. Field Trials Phase 2 NSW, Australia, February 2004

It was decided to carry out a second trial because the results from UK trial were limited by pilot machinery that was not fully operational and only small quantities of fibre were produced. In addition a replicable process had not been demonstrated. BioRegional secured further funds to repeat the field trial using an Australian crop in February 2004 in order to conclude the evaluation of the process and to produce enough fibre to carry out spinning trials. The field trials were held in New South Wales, Australia in February 2004, again evaluated by BioRegional and Cranfield University. Results of this trial follow in Cranfield Universitys Technical Report Part 2 (Blackburn and Brighton, 2004), Section 9 of this report. Two Chinese hemp varieties CHG and CHA were harvested. Some of the pilot machinery was not fully operational in the Australian trial, both the D7 and an earlier prototype the D6 were used to process the crop. BioRegional staff worked in the field with Fibrenova staff (Figure 22) for three weeks and 250kgs of additional fibre was produced. This fibre was not suitable for immediate textile processing. However, Australian textile processors who had previously prepared fibre supplied by Fibrenova did demonstrate to BioRegional methods of post field processing to prepare fibre for spinning. These methods appeared very similar to published methods used to complete processing of hemp or similar fibres prior to spinning. Hemp for this trial was grown by Phil Warner of EcoFibre Ltd in conjunction with Keith Bolton from Southern Cross University who was evaluating use of hemp as a mop crop for sewerage effluent. This was irrigated with 8mm/day for the 100 day growing cycle, a total of 800mm/hectare.

70

Figure 22 Emily Stott, Tom Riddlestone and Sue Riddlestone of BioRegional with Adrian Clarke senior and Adrian Clarke junior of Fibrenova in front of the prototype D7 machine during the field trial in Australia, February 2004

EcoFibre Industries Limited Ecofibre Industries Limited (EIL) based in Brisbane, Queensland is an Australian company carrying out research and development into hemp agronomy, plant breeding and fibre production. Ecofibre grew 64 ha of fibre crop in 2002-3. This hemp was mainly exported for processing in France, before being re-imported for commercial sale as plant and animal bedding. Ecofibre are also exploring markets for absorbency products, mulch, insulation, felts, building and construction, automotive, plastics, biocomposites and fibreglass replacement. Ecofibre note in their newsletter that they have been particularly developing use of hemp as surface mulch, requiring low level processing. Trials conducted with Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research compared hemp mulch to other available mulches. The mulch aims to be produced in 60L bags which will cover around 5m2 and retail for $20AUS (8.90), available from January 2004. The wholesale price is expected to be $9/bag. (www.hempmulch.com). Ecofibre state that once local processing is available in Australia, they expect gross returns to farmers of $150-$220 per ton of baled stalk expected. (www.ecofibre.com.au) Following the second field trial in Bangalow, NSW, in February 2004, BioRegional accompanied Fibrenova to take approximately 130kg raw green fibre to a textile dyer, for the degumming stage of the process. The factory had previously processed many samples of hemp in conjunction with Fibrenova.

71

It was recommended by Fibrenova that the green dried fibre presented be mechanically opened by a sample woollen card or Garnett machine before being put through a degumming process in a pressurised dye vat. BioRegional observed two samples be put through this process (see section 9.2 and figure 23 below). The first sample (2.5kg CHG variety) had been opened first on a woollen card, the second sample (7kg CHA variety) was raw uncarded fibre.

Figure 23 Hemp fibre samples after degumming process. Back: carded fibre, Front: raw uncarded fibre

72

Table 6 - Samples of Australian hemp fibre produced at Bangalow, NSW during trials, left by BioRegional for degumming at factory, to be returned to UK for testing and yarn and fabric production in order to determine the technical and economic feasibility of hemp textile production using the Fibrenova process in the UK. Sample 1 Variety CHG, Sample 1a Sample 2 Variety CHA Sample 2a Sample 3 Variety CHA Sub-total of fibre delivered to factory by BioRegional 12/2/04 Sample 4 Variety CHA and CHG bag 1 13.8kg D7 decorticator, Proprietary bag 2 26.4kg Processing Device, proprietary opening device wet x1, dry x2 as above but including wool card 2.5kg before dye vat processed 13/2/04 D7 decorticator only bag 3 18.8kg bag 4 13.5kg bag 5 25.8kg as above processed on 13/2/04 7 kg D6 decorticator only bag 6 36.4kg 135.2kg Unknown processing method (BioRegional awaiting information on processing method and weights) Approx 120kg

Total fibre produced at Bangalow trial February 2004

Approx 250kg

The Australian fibre weighing around 250kg in raw form is believed to have been treated as recommended by Fibrenova. Considerable losses would have been expected from both the dyeworks and opening processes, but this was not able to be documented by BioRegional. The dye works were unable to carry out the remaining processing before BioRegional left Australia for the UK on 19th February 2004. Fibre suitable for spinning on a cotton spinning system was expected to be delivered back to the UK in March 2004, but currently remains in Australia. Information on Fibrenovas optimal degumming method was considered commercially sensitive, and was not revealed to BioRegional by Fibrenova in its entirety, therefore publicly available degumming methods were researched for use on the UK (Battle) fibre in April and May 2004. Information on the subsequent degumming and carding processes are presented in Section 10.

73

In summary, the method proposed at this stage in the technical and economic evaluation of Fibrenova technology in order to process hemp to produce textile fibre suitable for spinning (using the Fibrenova D7 decorticator) was as follows:

D7 harvester/decorticator (to separate fibre from leaves and hurd in the field) Proprietary Processing Systems ( to remove plant gums and juices from the fibre and open the fibre to facilitate drying) Degumming to remove plant pectins and gums holding fibres together Drying and opening (To allow storage, and in preparation for the spinning process) Carding (with fine tooth cards to open out fibre) Spinning (using a cotton or wool system)

Results of this trial follow in Section 9 (Cranfield Report 741002-04-PR1-R5: Hemp Textile production in the UK: Technical and Economic Feasibility & Evaluation of Fibrenova technology by Dr Kim Blackburn and Dr James Brighton, 29th March 2004.)

74

9. Cranfield Technical and Economic Feasibility Part 2

75

National Soil Resources Institute Engineering Group

Hemp Textile production in the UK: Technical and Economic Feasibility & Evaluation of Fibrenova technology
Confidential Report for:

Report 741002-04-PR4 Dr Kim Blackburn Dr James Brighton 29th March, 2004

This project is supported under the England Rural Development Programme by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.
76

9.1 Introduction
This report describes work undertaken to extend the experimental program reported in Cranfield report 741001-03-R4. That study described the agronomic background to Hemp production as a potential textile crop for the UK and the issues associated with processing the Hemp to produce fibre. It continued to describe a new system of field processing in the fresh state as demonstrated by Fibrenova, an Australian company. A trial of field performance was performed using the prototype machinery and the results presented. Throughput and energy consumption were included in the agronomic assessment and set in the context of a large mobile harvester. The fibre resulting from these trials has been assessed by experts for suitability as a textile raw material, but no complete process had been demonstrated which produced a product from the field thought immediately desirable to the UK textile industry. The report noted key issues associated in post-decortication cleaning and separation of fibre bundles, for which there appeared to be a range of available technologies. Further work was recommended in this area, particularly to demonstrate the possible effectiveness of unspecified mechanical devices suggested by Fibrenova during the first trial. Following the completion of that earlier study Fibrenova have refined their suggestions and a new field trial was designed to assess the new improved system in a field context. Due to availability of crop and external project constraints the trial was conducted in Bangalow, Australia using a different variety of hemp to that tested in England. The measurements presented below are all from the CHG variety, although the machine was also seen to process CHA in an apparently similar manner.

77

9.2 Trial Methodology

9.2.1 System description

As was the organisation of the first trial, a series of pilot machines were presented by Fibrenova (report 741001-03-R4). The system tested comprised a number of individual machines (Figure 24) , manufactured to demonstrate proof of concept. Fibrenovas intention would be to combine these elements into a larger, mobile machine undertaking all operations in one pass. As in the UK trials, crop was cut with a hedgetrimmer (Figure 25) and manually presented to the first part of the process as described in Chapter 6.3.3. Materials were moved between each stage by hand and processed as soon as possible.

Standing Crop

ManualCut & Carry

D7

Fibre

Proprietary processing device 1

Proprietary processing device 2

Sun/Air Drying

Hurd & Leaf

Figure 24 - System diagram

Figure 25 - Crop cut and carry operations

78

9.2.2 Component functions

The aim of this trial was to assess field performance and provide fibre for other assessments. The machines were viewed as black boxes, and detailed technical descriptions are not included here. The D7 machine acts primarily to separate hurd and leaf components from the bast fibre of the plant. The fibre material is manually taken from a conveyor at the rear of the machine, while hurd and leaf are deposited separately. Three types of proprietary processing systems to be used immediately after decortication were presented for evaluation. As these machines, concepts and systems may be developed into patented intellectual property by Fibrenova, it was requested that they not be disclosed here. These were intended to reduce fibre moisture content and open the fibre resulting from the D7 process. Unfortunately one of these systems suffered a mechanical failure during the second batch of testing. The final process is described by Fibrenova as a proprietary opening device acting to mechanically separate the fibre bundles. It was also seen to aid in partial separation of remaining pieces of hurd in the fibre material. Due to constraints of the Australian trial, the fibre was sun and air dried after the third device by spreading it out by hand on large racks (Figure 26).

Figure 26 left and next page, sun and air drying green decorticated hemp on drying racks

79

9.2.3 Field Assessment

As with the previous trials a batch of crop material was taken through the whole process as an identifiable entity, starting with a weighed quantity of whole plant stems. Following each process step the output materials were weighed and samples taken for determination of moisture content. Machine work rate for the D7 was quantified in terms of both spot and mean work rate over the batch. Spot rate includes only the time the crop is actually being processed and therefore removes any effect of manual feeding. Energy use was recorded via the quantity of fuel used, a graduated measure being incorporated in the fuel feed line so that the engine could start on the main tank and then be switched to the graduated cylinder during crop processing. The time taken to consume a given quantity of fuel was then recorded, and converted to energy via published values from the engine manufacturer.

80

9.2.4 Post field processing

Following the field assessment the dried product was transported to a fibre processing and dyeing plant in Victoria, the intention being to de-gum the fibre, using a chemical process to further clean and open the fibre. During the time available in Victoria Cranfield were requested to take a quantity of material which had passed through the complete field system above and pass it twice more through the proprietary opening device, the material now being in a dry state. This process is shown in Figure 27.

Figure 27 Dr Kim Blackburn & Dr James Brighton feeding dry fibre through the proprietary opening device in Victoria

This fibre was then observed to be passed through a small sized wool carding machine, which is used for pilot studies at the dyeing plant in Victoria. This material, together with a quantity of the material direct from the field process (not opened or carded) was seen to be packed into a 20kg dye vat for processing (Figure 28).

81

Figure 28- Fibre packed into Dye Vat

Figure 28 shows the fibre produced being packed into the dye vat for de-gumming. Figure 23 in section 8 previously shows the same samples after the de-gumming process. The results of this treatment are being examined by BioRegional at the current time, which in conjunction with other published and previous work will aid the selection of appropriate processing for the entire quantity of harvested material.

82

9.3 Results

9.3.1 Crop Separation D7

As can be seen in Figure 29, the mean fraction of the whole crop delivered as Fibre across all batches from the D7 was 20%. Losses from the process, mainly in lost hurd material and water evaporated equated to 16% across all batches.
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 Batch 3 Loss D7 Hurd and Leaf D7 Fibre

Figure 29- Separation of crop components

This value is lower than that found in the UK varieties (Chameleon = 32% and Fedora = 25%. It is understood that the CHG variety is known to have a generally lower fibre content which may explain this difference.

9.3.2 Machine work rate and energy consumption

As noted above, the work rate of the D7 machine was recorded both as a mean figure (batch weight / total time to process) and spot (batch weight / time with crop passing into machine) to remove any effect of manual feeding. Results are shown in Figure 30.

83

0.090 0.080 (Workrate (kg whole crop/s) 0.070 0.060 0.050 0.040 0.030 0.020 0.010 0.000 1 2 Ba tch 3

Mean (kg/s)

Spot (kg/s)

Figure 30- D7 Rate of processing whole crop

Note should be made however that even a self propelled, self feeding machine could not achieve the full spot work rate values in a commercial setting due to the operational aspects of field harvesting. The mean processing rate was 0.065 kg/s, and the spot value 0.075 kg/s. These values compare with 0.041 kg/s (mean) and 0.067 kg/s (spot) recorded in the previous work in the UK. The spot rates are very similar, and the difference in mean rate may be accounted for by improved feeding technique by more practiced operators. As noted above, energy consumption of the decortication function was measured via fuel consumption, these values have been converted into specific values (energy per unit weight) as shown in Figure 31.

84

80 Specific fuel consumption (kJ/kg wet crop) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 Ba tch 3

Figure 31 Specific Energy requirement (D7)

The mean energy consumption was 57 kJ/kg. While the previous report primarily considered the energy consumption of D7 and proprietary processing devices combined, the D7 can be separated which gives a comparable mean figure of 73 kJ/kg, although the Fedora variety had lignified and was over-tough, skewing the mean (variety means, Chameleon = 51 kJ/kg) and Fedora = 95 kg/kg). These values represent a mean power input of 3.6 kW (4.8 HP) over the whole batch of material, peak power with crop in the machine was considerably higher, indeed the 11HP engine was stalled on occasion. As no further instrumentation was fitted more detailed information is not available. Specific energy assessment of the secondary processing device is not presented as the work rate is entirely dependent on the technique of the manual feed. Time and crop availability did not permit trials at varied feed rates so it is not possible to state whether the time taken represents a realistic maximum feed rate. Power was however recorded via rate of fuel consumption and the mean of three replicate tests found to be 1.6kW (2.1 HP)

85

We understand that the proprietary processing device had not been altered in any way since the previous trials, and therefore no new mechanical measurements were made. Fibre was however passed through this device for later textile experimentation. Generally the mechanical performance of the D7 machine appears very similar to that seen in the UK on UK varieties, with the obvious exception of reduced fibre content in this variety as noted above.

9.3.3 Moisture content

As found in the previous work, the moisture content of all of the materials in the hemp plant was very high. This has consequences for the drying requirement in order to safely store the material, and the viability of marketing non-fibre (hurd) material. Moisture content results throughout the process as demonstrated are shown in Figure32.
80%

Moisture content (%, wet basis)

75%

70%

65%

Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3

60%

55%

50% Whole Crop Fibre out of Hurd and Fibre out of Fibre out of Fibre out of MP HP Pintel D7 Leaf out of D7

Figure 32- Moisture content

Generally these values are very similar to those seen in the UK (~70% water), with similar implications for crop drying. Interestingly the proprietary processing systems tested were not seen to significantly reduce water content. This issue requires further investigation.

86

9.3.4 Washing trial

During the field trials it was suggested that the fibre material might be cleaned effectively by in-field washing in water. Fibre samples were presented by Fibrenova which had apparently been treated in this manner. Although facilities were not available for an in-depth study a pilot trial was carried out on material after the D7 with the aim of investigating three issues: 1. Removal of green juices 2. Quantity of water removed in the fibre when removed from the washing step 3. Degree to which water could be re-used. The trial took the form of 16 (in two batches of 8) similar small samples of fibre material which were digitally photographed on a plain background. These were then washed once, manually, in a known quantity of water using considerable agitation, both fibre and water being weighed before and after each washing step. This allowed calculation of the water balance. After washing the samples were again digitally photographed against the same plain background. The water was re-used for the next sample in the line, to determine (3) above. Subsequently, the colour of the samples before and after washing was determined by extracting the raw red, green and blue pixel values from circular areas encompassing the majority of each of the samples. Corrections were made for any change in ambient light and camera (automatic) adjustments by normalising the data using the colour of the background surface included in all images. Although not as desirable as a full colour metric test this provides a numerical assessment of sample cleaning. The photographs are included below in Figure33 the areas included in numerical analysis shown outlined in red.

87

Sample no: 1 Before Washing 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

After Washing

Figure 33 - Photographs of washing trial

It can be seen visually that the washed samples are far from white and there is clearly a considerable quantity of plant juice remaining. It also appears that some parts of the sample have been affected more than others for example Sample 15, shown in detail in Figure34.

Figure 34 - Differential juice removal

Some parts (e.g. area 1) have been considerably brightened, whereas others remain the original colour (area 2). Some hurd (white flecks) and substantially whole leaf (between 1 and 2) can also be seen. Numerical results are shown in Figure 35. Generally the brightness of the material is increased by washing shown by differences greater than zero. The mean increase is 20% across all samples, however there is a high degree of variability, particularly demonstrated by samples 1 and 9. Sample 1 (with clean water) would be expected to show a large degree of juice extraction, and little is found. Sample 9 (after 8 previous washes) would be expected to show a reduced effectiveness, however a similar change to

88

that seen in Sample 2 is found. No clear relationship is found between number of washes and juice removal as seen by colour intensity change.
0.2

Difference in Channel intensity (range 0-1)

0.2

0.1 Red Green Blue 0.1

0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Number of washes -0.1

Figure 35 - Difference in R,G, B pixel values by washing

4 3 2 Mass change (g) 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Number of washes Water Crop Sample

Figure 36 - Change in water and crop mass during washing

The change in mass of both the water and the individual samples during the washing process is shown in Figure36. Neither changed by more than 5 grams for any individual wash, on a total water mass of 288 grams and typical sample mass of 25 grams. Importantly, there was no overall trend in either value.

89

It therefore appears that the mass of plant juices left behind approximately equals any water taken up by the fibre. Importantly for a field washing system the washing bath does not loose water over time, and therefore did not require replenishment. The following summary can be derived from this pilot study of a fibre washing technique: 1. Although there is clearly a reduction in the plant juices present on the fibre (possibly equating to a 20% increase in brightness) in all samples used further cleaning would be required. 2. There is apparently little fluid removed from the washing bath, although some water loss will be replaced by plant juices 3. This trial has not shown clearly how many times water may be re-used, however ignoring the 9th wash, Figure indicates a reduction in effectiveness after about 6 washes, when the weight of water is approximately ten times that of each fibre sample.

9.4 Economic summary

The process demonstrated for this field trial represents a development of that described in the earlier report. Costs associated with growing the crop to a stage ready for field harvest and decortication are unchanged from those found before. Production cost equalled 240/ha, and there is currently an area payment of 245/ha. The field process seen here incorporates an additional step (proprietary processing systems), which could reasonably be included on a mobile harvesting concept. As noted above, this trial did not allow full investigation of maximum work rate of the prototype proprietary processing devices, only a measurement of the mean power consumed, and the hand-feeding process introduced a major overhead. For the purposes of producing an estimate it will therefore be assumed that the proprietary processing devices seen in the field were able to process material at the same rate it was produced from the prototype D7. This gives the total energy requirement of the system as presented as shown in Table

90

7. Scaling to a machine with 500 HP available and assuming 50HP for drive, cutting etc

gives a total process throughput of 2.5 kg/s. At the whole plant yield found in the UK (56t/ha whole wet crop) this equates to 0.16 ha/h. This value is slightly reduced on the value given in the previous report due to the significant power predicted for the rollers as noted above.
Table 7 - Specific energy consumption of 3-stage system kJ per kg of wet whole crop D7 (Current trial) Device (Current trial) Device 3 (Previous trial) Total 54.3 135.4 57.0 24.0

As presented in the previous report, the overall cost of machine operation (fuel, oil, maintenance etc) may be estimated by scaling from existing large agricultural machinery. This was previously found to be 214/ha, which rises to 268/ha at the revised production rate. Labour cost also rises in proportion, to 47/ha. Total drying power requirement is reduced as the rate of crop production is reduced (now 885 kW). Waste heat for drying may be recovered from both the engine exhaust stream and cooling water, however this is not all available as investigated in the previous report. If the total recovery is taken as before to equal the energy in the exhaust stream (460 kW) the remaining requirement from gas or oil burners is 425 kW. Using values for diesel fuel as before (35388 kJ/l and 0.20/l) this requires 270 litres per ha, at a cost of 54/ha, slightly reduced on the previous value. The total cost of harvesting can therefore be estimated at 268+47+54=369/ha. This is combined with the cost of producing a standing crop (240/ha) less the subsidy (245/ha) to give a total of 365/ha. The earlier report found one hectare might yield

91

approximately 3.5 tonnes of fibre product dried in the green state. This equates to an estimated production cost for this material of 104/t. This is a small increase on the value of 92/t found previously, due to the energy requirement of proprietary processing devices and subsequent reduction in field work rate if these processes were included. This addition demonstrates how any process added to the system must be justified in cost terms, wherever it is inserted in this case the proprietary processing devices must increase the value of the ex-farm product by at least 12/t to be worthy of inclusion. None of the processes presented are in the final commercial form, and performance improvements may be realised during the development process. The viability of any commercial enterprise will depend on the costs of subsequent processing, and the price achieved for the final product. Weight lost in later separations will also add considerably to the cost, as a greater quantity of raw material is required to result in a given weight of final fibre.

9.5 Conclusions
1. The D7 has demonstrated performance and functionality very similar to that described in the UK field trial - Cranfield report 741001-03-R4. 2. Energy use of the D7 machine was found to be similar to the UK trial in this case 57kJ/kg whole stems processed. 3. The variety available for this trial (CHG) gave a lower percentage of fibre (=~20%) than that measured in the UK (Chameleon variety). 4. The prototype proprietary processing devices evaluated for this trial did not show any significant ability to reduce the moisture content of fibre material, however they may disrupt plant structure beneficially.

92

5.

Washing in water in the fresh state appears to remove some plant juices, however a single wash is not sufficient to give a white product.

6.

If washing is later determined to be beneficial a re-circulating system may be an appropriate solution, and the limited trials to date show little loss of water to the fibre, however further work is required to determine water purification requirement or replacement interval.

7.

Inclusion of a proprietary processing devices similar to the system demonstrated for this trial increases the projected harvesting cost to 369/ha, and overall production cost to 104/t both values including current area payment.

9.6 Recommendations
1. Although there are detailed design issues to resolve on the D7 machine, especially if it is to be scaled up to a larger machine, the main focus of development must now be in later crop processing to produce a fibre more acceptable to the textile market. 2. The proprietary processing devices demonstrated have not shown a significant reduction in the water content of the fibre product, and hence alternative systems are necessary to remove water. Any effect of the proprietary processing devices on the resulting fibre will be quantified by BioRegional as they evaluate the fibre produced for textile processing. These results will be required to direct future proprietary processing devices system development. 3. As seen in the washing trial, there may be potential for applying water as an infield process to aid in removing plant juices. This does however require considerable work to demonstrate a process which is sufficiently effective to cover the significant costs likely to be involved. Mechanical agitation or the use of pressure sprays, possibly in addition to detergents or elevated temperatures may be useful here.

93

4. A fundamental evaluation of the structure of the ex-decorticator plant material may be useful in selecting the most appropriate treatments 5. Variability of crop samples was an issue in this trial, particularly noted in the washing trial. As further work must focus on obtaining a consistent product the variation must be quantified for any proposed process. This requires larger samples, so that these may be sub-sampled. Practical production of larger sample sizes requires a more mechanised system of crop cutting and feed which may also help by removing variability introduced by the manual handling in and out of the process steps.

94

10. Preparation of UK produced fibre for spinning

10.1 De-gumming
BioRegional researched possible industrial textile dyers in the UK where a degumming process could be carried out on the Battle fibre which was prepared by processing through the Fibrenova D7 green decortication machine followed by washing in large quantities of water with added detergent and air drying (as described in Sections 5-7), and a control sample of dew-retted commercially available Hemcore fibre (see Section 5). Though there are a number of dyers in the UK, only a few have the facility to deal with both loose fibre and the type of chemicals needed. As most of the dyers currently treat wool, they are set up and experienced at treating protein fibres as opposed to cellulose fibres such as hemp (or cotton). In general, wool is treated in acidic conditions, whereas cellulose fibres are treated with alkali, so dyers able to handle loose fibres were on the whole not keen to treat hemp. Conversely dyers able to deal with strong alkalis were located, but these generally dyed or scoured yarns and fabric, and couldnt physically handle loose fibre, without purchasing special equipment, for example a metal cage. There were a number of dyers able to handle pressure if desired, but it was often considered by the dyers consulted that pressure would not be necessary for successful treatment of the hemp fibre. BioRegional then carried out initial lab trials with a Yorkshire loose stock dyer, Dewsbury Dyers using degumming recipes from old hemp literature, mainly using weak alkalis. Limited trials of Novozymes enzyme, ScourzymeL were also carried out on both the dried Battle fibre, and on fresh green fibre whilst in Australia. In addition small samples were sent to Clariant chemical company who proposed several possible methods to clean the fibre. These included; 1. Bio Scour: Clarizyme and Non ionic detergent (APEO free)

95

2. Bio Bleach Organic stabilizer, Non ionic detergent, Hydrogen Peroxide and Optivator PA (No Alkali) 3. Traditional scour: Caustic soda and non ionic detergent 4. Combi bleach: Hydrogen Peroxide, Caustic soda, organic stabilizer and non ionic detergent. Fibre samples produced by Clariant looked promising, however the limited amount of fibre available did not permit full optimisation of these possibilities and so the bulk of the Battle and Hemcore fibre was scoured using a traditional caustic recipe (sodium hydroxide) 2% NaOH then 4% NaOH, each for 20 minutes then neutralised with acid at an industrial dyer near Manchester, as this was felt to be the most reliable and tested option to prepare fibre for carding and spinning. The subsequent processing of the fibre de-gummed in this way is described in the following section 10.2 and 11.

Fibrenova published papers on de-gumming

Fibrenova have published papers documenting some of their work in the area of degumming carried out with Deakin University in Geelong (Hurren et al, 2002) and (Beltran et al, 2002). Hurren C.J. et al (2002) describe trials degumming Fibrenova decorticated hemp fibre using a range of published recipes for degumming bast fibres, all using baths of 100 degrees for one hour at 2 bar pressure, followed by fibre opening. The first paper concludes that based on fibre fineness as simple measure of the effectiveness of retting, that the samples degummed using a 7% Sodium hydroxide solution, produced the finest mean fibre diameter. However, taking into account handle (softness) of the fibre, and yield, the best results were obtained with a 1% Sodium hydroxide solution, preceded by a 0.3% Hydrochloric acid wash.

96

10.2 Carding and opening

The de-gummed fibre produced needed to be opened out to allow spinning to take place. Previous trials were described by Fibrenova where an opening machine and semi-worsted card were used to prepare fibre for spinning on cotton systems. It is believed these were carried out with Deakin University and the IFC (International Fibre Centre) in Australia. BioRegional investigated availability opening/carding machines in the UK through consultation with a number of textile contacts. Notes and recommendations from conversations are included below:

10.2.1 Fearnought openers

Tim Porritt of Macart Ltd confirmed that his company built Tatham Fearnoughts for 100 years, and knew of some Fearnought machines which BioRegional could use for the trial. He suggested Squire A Radcliffe & Sons as commission based openers. However, this company didnt think Fearnought system most suitable for hemp and bast fibres as it was considered that the fibres might be damaged and such machines have no mechanism for removing dust/waste, only a grid underneath. He suggested Laroche in Cours La Ville, France who make specialist machines for opening flax. Commercial size Fearnought openers (4-54 inches working width) cost around 6-8000. Information was provided by Macart Ltd on Fearnought Openers (Macart, 2003). The Tatham Fearnought Opener provides controlled opening and short-term or localised blending of the widest possible range of fibres including wool, hair, synthetics, bast and waste materials. The new design heavy duty machine is capable of exceptionally high production utilising the established pre-carding principle to provide a gentle but thorough opening and mixing of the various natural and synthetic fibre types.

97

Figure 37 Tatham Fearnought Opener

Douggie Douglas at Pneumatic Conveyors gave contact details of Pennine blenders. Mr Douglas would be able to source a Fearnought, as he knew of several out of use in old textile mills nearby. John Hoyle at Pennine Blending agreed to put a hemp sample through their Fearnought. BioRegional visited the mill in Huddersfield, and observed around 10kg hemp processed through their Fearnought. It was set up for wool at an inch and a half pitch. However the pins were seen to be too coarse to open up the fibre to any degree, and even after twice through the system, there was little effect to be seen on the fibre. Ian Brierley, cotton spinner confirmed that this fibre would not be suitable to go into his card at the start of the cotton spinning process.
Figure 38 BioRegional observing fibre processed through a Fearnought opener at Pennine Blenders.

98

10.2.2 Rag Pullers

Pennine blenders recommended Jon Shaw of Fred Singletons, Huddersfield. Singletons are rag-pullers, mainly dealing with recycling waste yarns and fabrics. They own a Laroche rag-puller machine including cutter to around 9 inches, then through opener system. Singletons agreed to put 5-10kg through in a trial. If there were to be a regular processing requirement Singletons could buy finer swift with needle pins. BioRegional visited Singletons with spinner Ian Brierley who mentioned he would be interested to see fibre cut to 40mm in this way then put through, as it would overcome the length issue of too many long fibres in the sample. However it was noted that this system could potentially produce much shorter and longer fibres due to the random nature of fibres entering cutter. BioRegional met with Chris Knowles and Steven Fenton of Wilson Knowles & Sons, West Yorks at the International Textiles Machinery Association Fair in Birmingham, October 2003. After showing a sample of fibre, Chris Knowles mentioned that they had just sold a second hand system for processing retted fibre, that the machine would turn dark looking fibre (presumed retted) into fibre more reminiscent of BioRegionals Battle fibre. Then he would recommend putting fibre through a waste card to produce finer fibre. This machine processed 250kg/hr and would cost around 100,000. (FP model). They would need a minimum 5-10kg to put through this as a test sample. Chris Knowles considered that Laroche was the wrong system to use because of the type of feed (dish feed). He thought that feed rollers would be needed. He suggested BioRegional should use a traditional rag machine. Robert Franck, of Rafex European Ltd suggested that bale breaker/opening type machines eg Fearnought may present problems due to the length of fibres and the random manner in which they are presented to the machine, but that this can be solved by passing the decorticated and dried fibres to a cylinder cutting machine, as Singletons would have done. He suggests two cutters are needed, working at right angles to each other, as fibres of 40mm approx. length are required. If fibres are presented to the cutter randomly, not all fibres will be reduced to this length by the first cut, even if the cutter's

99

blades are set to cut at 40mm. But this might lead to the production of an unacceptable level of short fibres thus possibly reducing the spinning quality of the fibres, or if they are removed by combing, reducing the yield and adding combing costs. After being cut to the required length the fibres would pass though an opener of the required fineness to tease apart the clumps and present a web suitable for carding on a cotton card. The Textile Institute recommended a listing of Second-hand machinery: www.textilemachines.info

10.2.3 Woollen Openers

Various woollen/worsted spinners in the UK were contacted to see if they would be willing to put through a sample of hemp fibre for opening. It was found that whilst a wide variety of equipment exists in the UK woollen industry, that may be able to open hemp fibre, most companies contacted were reluctant to put samples through their machines due to risk of contamination. A small fibre sample was put through a Kirshner beater at University facilities, which opened the tangled fibre somewhat, but did not produce fibre uniform enough for cotton spinning, and pectins clearly remained on the fibre. It was suggested by the University that the Laroche bast affining system may be better than ragpullers, which may damage fibres.

10.2.4 Bast fibre affining

Robert Franck of Rafex European suggested that the second option after rag-pulling is Bast Fibre affining (hemp and flax are bast fibres, that is the fibre is contained along the length of the stem) such as the Laroche flax cottonising systems in France consisting of passing the fibres through a series (from 2 to 6) of toothed cylinders of increasing fineness. He states that the first roller may be toothed, the others are usually card clothing but of different type to cotton or wool cards. This has the advantage of straightening the fibres and breaking them to the required length. The final result is a web suitable for carding.

100

BioRegional spoke with Laroche in Cours-la-Ville, France at ITMA (International Textiles Machinery Association, Birmingham, 2003) who described Laroches bast fibre affining systems, which are mainly used for composites. After discussions a 910,000 Euro system was proposed comprising card openers, a rotary cutter and fine openers. BioRegional contacted Liniere St Martin in Northern France, who run a Laroche flax affining system cottonising hemp and flax. A sample of cottonised hemp was provided to BioRegional, which was brown in colour due to the dew-retting process, but of fibre length suitable for cotton spinning. Laroche confirmed that they would be happy to put through a sample of our hemp fibre through their system to demonstrate the effectiveness of Laroche as a potential opening system, and confirm the machines recommended.

10.2.5 Garnett Machine

During the Australian field trials BioRegional witnessed use of a Garnett machine and woollen card in preparing fibre for Fibrenovas degumming process. The fibre produced in the Australian field trials was not sent back to the UK for evaluation, so no comment can be made on the effectiveness of these methods, however BioRegional investigated the Garnett machine as a possible method to use on the Battle fibre. Information gathered is presented below: A machinery manufacturers in Yorkshire stated that they no longer make new Garnett machines but could source a second hand machine, 15 horse power, or up to 20 hp. However they warned that it may need re-wiring which could cost 5000. Overall cost of a machine would be between 5,000 and 15,000. BioRegional visited a UK cashmere spinners, weavers and commission blenders and finishers, who are currently blending linen and wool for furnishings, and would be keen to try hemp. They have a Garnett machine that processes 10-20kg per hour. For 600 tonnes a year (the outcome predicted by Fibrenova for one harvester in a UK harvest) they suggest we would need a big machine, working at 12 tonnes a week. The machine was not set up and so could not be used. In addition, it was suggested that garnetting is an

101

expensive process, and one would expect to lose 20% of raw fibre. In terms of work rate, their Garnett would process around 4kg per hour of cashmere, because it is so fine, but would process 200kg/hour of carpet fibre. It was suggested that atmospheric degumming should be tried instead of pressure dyeing which was not thought necessary. It was also suggested that a Garnett machine would shred fibre and that a woollen card would be more suitable but there were concerns about gums adhering to the wire of their wool card, and as the company deals with very fine cashmere wools this would not be acceptable. If mixed with wool, the factory could spin hemp fibre on the woollen spinning systems once chemically degummed, but not 100% hemp. A 40-50mm staple length is required, but it is possible to spin longer fibres. The company were very happy to make some samples. They spin a blend of wool and linen at 22 micron, but would expect hemp to be a bit thicker. An opener in Yorkshire suggested that he has the ideal machine for hemp but that it would not be worth cleaning to put hemp through as it would be too expensive. The company currently processes Nomex, which is an expensive flame retardant fibre on the machine. The company has several types of Garnett, Laroche and Scouring lines and would process hemp through a specially made card, a type of Garnett machine. 60p/kg is the usual price for opening fibre, but for 1000 tonnes would be much less. The opening would take around 1 hour to put through card, would charge on time for carrying out the work for us. On woollen scouring lines, can cost 44p/kg for synthetics. 18p/g for scouring and input drying.

102

10.2.6 Conclusions on opening machines

In conclusion, there are several options for opening tangled hemp fibre, to separate fibre bundles largely held together by gums and pectins remaining on the fibre in preparation for spinning. BioRegional investigated: a. Fearnought openers b. Ragpullers c. Woollen openers d. Bast affining machines e. Garnett openers Had there been a larger sample of fibre, all options would have been investigated and trialled to compare results. However trials were limited to handful samples, retaining the bulk of fibre to be treated in most desirable method. Of the systems evaluated, BioRegional felt that Bast Fibre affining systems looked the most promising, but fibre would have had to be sent to France for this purpose. Woollen or worsted openers/cards were believed to be a viable option to open fibre for spinning, if the issue of contamination could be overcome, perhaps by purchasing a dedicated piece of machinery. Fearnought machines were trialled without success, and ragpulling machines were not trialled, as it was believed the random cutting of fibre would be detrimental to overall fibre length. It was decided therefore, on advice, to process the fibre after de-gumming using a garnett type card in Yorkshire which had previously processed UK hemp with good results. The resulting fibre was then evaluated for spinning.

103

11. Technical assessment and spinning trials

11.1 Fibre testing

Small samples of the fibre samples resulting from the field trials which had been scoured and carded in small sample batches were tested by the Huddersfield Textile Training Company for fibre length and fineness prior to making decisions about processing the entire quantity. The results are detailed in the Table 8. Data previously published with fibre testing of Fibrenova hemp fibre by Deakin University in Australia is also included below and some comparative hemp fibre results from other hemp projects. Comparative data on fibre length, fineness and diameter for other fibres is also presented. It must be noted that for bast fibres such as hemp and flax, unlike animal fibres or cotton, the strands or filaments that are used to produce yarn are not the ultimate fibres of the plant but are comprised of bundles of fibres, the cross-section of which is dependent on processing. (Robert Franck, pers. comm.) In traditional processing of hemp, hanks of fibre bundles of 1-4 metres in length are produced. However, the ultimate fibres, ie the individual fibres when separated from the bundles, are shorter and classified into primary and secondary bast fibre. Primary bast fibre is between 5-55mm, with a mean length of 20mm. Secondary bast fibres have a mean length of about 2mm (Van der Werf, 1994). Ultimate fibre diameter varies from 0.016 to 0.050 mm (16-50 micron or ) with a mean of 0.022 mm.

104

Table 8 - Fibre length/fineness relationship for a range of fibres4:

Length (mm) Cotton Egyptian (High) American (Med) Asian (Low) Wool Fine merino Medium Coarse Man made Short staple Long staple Carpet Bast fibres Flax fibres6 Flasin flax Hemp fibres7 Fibrenova/Deakin hemp8 [Trial A] Battle hemp (NaOH) 9 [Trial B] Australian hemp (enzyme)10 [Trial C] Dew-retted hemp (NaOH) 11 Leupin (biol degum) hemp Leupin (chem degum) hemp Chinese hemp (cited by Dreyer et al) Dreyer et al Hemp (enzyme) Fineness (decitex)5 1-1.5 1.25-1.9 1.3-2.6 Diameter ()

25-62 12-27 9-25

10-15 12-17 13-22

50-80 100-150 >150

3-4 4-6 >10

20 30 35-50

32-45 50-80 100

1-2 3-6 10-20

8-69 (33) 5-55 (20) 52.9 64.7

2.2-17.7 3.3-22

14-21 (19) 15 16-50 (22) 18-24 35 32 42 19-25 16.5-18.5 16.3-17.4 20.6

As can be seen from the above results the mean fibre diameter - resulting from BioRegionals initial trials A, B and C shown above - of 32- 42 micron is of the range of a medium to coarse wool, (30-50 micron) considerably coarser than cotton (10-22 micron), and indeed notably coarser than fibre samples resulting from other comparable
4 5

Wynne. A. (1997) Textiles. Macmillan texts for Industrial Vocational and Technical Education Decitex fineness measurement = mass (g) of 10,000 m of fibre 6 Marsh, J.T. (1948) Textile Science. Chapman and Hall, London. 7 Kirby, R.H. (1963) Vegetable Fibres- Botany, Cultivation and Utilization. Leonard Hill Ltd London. 8 Chemically degummed Fibrenova hemp samples, range due to recipe used, as described in Hurren, C.J., Wang, X, Dennis, H.G.S, Clarke, A.F.K. (2002) Evaluation of bast fibre retting systems on hemp. Proceedings of Textile Institute 9 Fibre sample as produced at Battle, UK (2003) after mechanical decortication, scouring and carding 10 Fibre sample as produced in NSW, Aus (2004) after mechanical decortication then enzyme treatment 11 Hemcore dew retted control sample (2003) scoured and carded

105

hemp projects (16-25 micron). This character alone will limit the application of the hemp fibre to spinning relatively coarse yarn counts, only suitable for heavier textiles and furnishings fabrics. The following section documents the spinning trials carried out with this fibre.

11.2 Spinning trials 11.2.1 Woollen and semi-worsted spinning

A number of UK woollen, worsted and semi-worsted spinners were contacted. These make up the majority of remaining spinning mills in the UK and predominantly spin yarns for carpet making, though some of these spin fine wools such as cashmere for apparel and blends for furnishings. A number of these were concerned about contamination as they could not afford to have stray hemp fibres (cellulose) mixing with the wool (protein) as they would have different dyeing properties, and this would be particularly noticeable amongst carpet wools which are often pale in colour. However, several of the spinners contacted expressed an interest in carrying out trials to spin UK hemp fibre. On receiving samples however, none of these were able to spin either the hemp produced in Battle, or the Hemcore control sample. The main reasons were given as follows: Fibre too short in staple length (needs to be 70-80mm average) Fibre too variable in length, too many short fibres Fibre not clean enough too much dust and residue remaining on fibre Require the fibre presented in sliver (aligned) form

106

11.2.2 Linen spinning - wet and dry

WET SPINNERS require long line (flax) fibre of around one metre in length, as produced by the traditional methods of long line flax harvesting, scutching and hackling. This is the way almost all of the linen yarns and fabrics produced in Europe and elsewhere are produced. This is the method which was shown to be most effective in producing a finer yarn in BioRegionals previous work (Riddlestone et al, 1995) see Section 3. The last remaining wet spinning mills in Northern Ireland were known to be moving their equipment abroad at the time of writing, but the fibre produced would have been unsuitable anyway, as it was prepared for short staple spinning. The fibre produced in this trial could not be spun on this system because; Fibre would need to be 1 metre in length as prepared for long-line spinning

A number of DRY SPINNERS were contacted, as these traditionally spin the flax tow or short fibres produced as by-products in the traditional long line fibre route. The last one of these in Northern Ireland was closing down at the time of writing with equipment being sold to Asia. A number of dry spun flax mills in Europe were then contacted. It was found that the average fibre length of our fibre samples were too short to be spun on these systems. One Belgian producer of short-staple flax fibre noted on seeing the fibre that it would be equivalent to flax fibre worth 1.45, one of the lowest qualities and he felt that there was limited potential for hemp of this quality. The fibre produced in this trial could not be spun on this system because; Fibre is too short in staple length (needs to be 7-11 cm in length) Fibre was noted as being of a low value, due to irregularity in diameter and length

107

11.2.3 Cotton spinning

The few remaining cotton spinners in the UK were consulted, the cotton system being the target spinning system for the fibre produced due to the low cost of spinning. At the time of writing one of the remaining two ring spinners, Werneth Ring Mills, have now sold their equipment to Asia, and there remain one rotor and one ring spinner with the cotton system. Rotor spinner, Rossendale spinning company currently spin acrylic and mod-acrylic into speciality yarn counts of NM1 to NM40. They were keen to carry out trials with fibre if it could be provided clean and of regular length. On viewing fibre produced in Battle, it was suggested that this could probably be spun in a blend with for example cotton, but it was thought unlikely that a 100% blend would be possible. Yorkshire ring spinner JL Brierley expressed a particular interest in spinning hemp fibre and has spent considerable time and effort working with BioRegional to advise on, and attempt to spin the fibre we provided. JL Brierley currently spin viscose mainly for medical textiles. Initially the fibre produced in Battle was inserted into the carding line (by-passing the bale-opening step which required a larger bulk of fibre than was available). From this process a web would be produced that would be guided through a small ring to form sliver (aligned fibres), then drafted into roving. Using 100% scoured and carded Battle fibre, it was not possible to produce this initial web consistently (Figure 39), and thus a sliver could not be formed. The fibres were found to have too low fibre to fibre friction. When repeated with the Hemcore control sample, the same effect was noted, with even less cohesion between the fibres, so that the web simply collapsed and could not be drawn through the ring. This would suggest that the dew retting that the Hemcore fibre had been subjected to had had a negative effect on quality and spinnability (Figure 39).

108

Figure 39 Incomplete web formation when preparing hemp for spinning at JL Brierley Photo above: Battle green decorticated and chemically processed fibre Photo below: Hemcore dew retted and mechanically decorticated fibre chemically processed

It was therefore decided to try spinning using a blend. A sample of the Battle trial fibre was blended with 50% viscose, as the spinner had experience with and samples of this fibre. Samples of 12.5kg of hemp and 12.5kg of viscose were sent to a local blending company so that the fibre would be consistently blended. It was then entered manually
109

into the card, from which a web was drawn and sliver produced. This was then made into roving and eventually spun with a high amount of twist into yarn of around 12s nm (metric) count. However, it was considered that it was solely the viscose content that made the fibre spinnable at all, and that this yarn would not have a high commercial value. It was believed likely by the spinner that a similar count yarn could be produced in a 50:50 hemp viscose blend with the Hemcore control sample. The problems with trying to spin the fibre produced on the cotton spinning method could be summarized as follows: Fibre length too long on average. Ideally less than 40mm (range 38-44mm) and regular for successful spinning, longer fibres make drawing difficult. Fibre was coarse in diameter at 30-40 micron thus only coarse yarns could be produced even using blends, thus limiting market application. In general fibre needs to be consistent in both length and diameter and relatively clean, that is no dirt, gums or woody core of hemp Low fibre to fibre cohesion was noted, a high twist was required to spin

110

11.2.4 Conclusions spinning

It was originally intended to spin yarns of counts 10-30nm, representing a range from 10nm, a furnishings weight suitable for upholstery coverings through 20nm, suitable for heavier trousers/suits to 30nm, suitable for finer apparel. Counts of yarns produced in previous trials by Fibrenova and BioRegional and compared to that produced in the trial carried out for this technical and economic feasibility study of Fibrenova technology are recorded in Table 9 below: Table 9 Comparison of yarn count of hemp from trial with other hemp yarn samples Tex12 BioRegional traditionally processed hemp14 Fibrenova labelled 100% hemp15 Fibrenova labelled 50:50 hemp/cotton16 Chinese 100% hemp17 Battle Fibrenova trial 50:50 hemp/viscose18 92-105 65-70 37.2 23.7-142 Metric (nm)13 9.6-10.8 14.5-16 12-27 7-42 12

From these results we can conclude that the method demonstrated to BioRegional for preparing hemp fibre harvested using Fibrenovas green decortication machine as described throughout this report is not suitable for preparing fibre for spinning on any commercial spinning system for 100% hemp yarns and can only be spun in yarn blends. The blends produced are of low quality and would not find a ready market. The viscose used to blend with the hemp fibre from Fibrenova is very fine and usually spun in counts of between Nm 20-67s19.
12 13

Tex yarn count = No of grams per kilometre Metric (nm) yarn count = No of kilometres per kilogram 14 two different yarns produced in 1995 trials, as documented in Riddlestone, S. (1995) Hemp for Textiles. 15 As supplied by Fibrenova to Robert Franck, produced in previous trials. 16 As 15 above 17 As available from Shanxi Greenland Textiles Co., Ltd, www.greenlandhemp.com, accessed 13/11/03 18 As produced in BioRegional trial with cotton spinner. (2004)

111

Samples supplied by Fibrenova to BioRegional in 2003 which were labelled 75% hemp: 25% cotton were tested and found to have a much higher percentage of cotton than labelled. There could be a technical explanation for this, in that the blend entered originally may have been a higher percentage of hemp than cotton, but the hemp could have been differentially lost during the carding and sliver formation due to hemps poor fibre to fibre friction. However resulting sliver should have been re-tested.

11.3 Weavers
Weaving trials were not able to be carried out due to the poor quality of the yarn produced. However a number of weavers have expressed interest and noted demand from their customers for hemp yarns and fabrics. Once a satisfactory yarn can be produced, it was felt that weaving should not present a problem, as there are a number of weavers left in the UK and weaving mills are not fibre-specific as the spinning mills are.

11.4 Retailers
It is BioRegionals eventual intention to see attractive locally grown hemp products available in the UK high street priced competitively with other fabrics as a more sustainable alternative to polyester and cotton. It is envisaged that regional branding and a transparent and ethical supply chain, would make these products attractive to consumers, as long as the technical barriers can be overcome to produce quality products. Several large companies have already used hemp in their lines. Calvin Klein, Armani, Adidas and Patagonia are all such examples. Once suitable yarn and fabric samples have been produced BioRegional intend to make partnerships with designers and retailers to see products realised, and available in the market. Though the scope of this product did not allow production of yarns and fabrics of suitable quality and price for demonstration to retailers, BioRegional spoke to a number of retailers prospectively to gauge opinion on the issues they felt would be most important in using hemp. Two examples are detailed below:

19

http://www.johnlbrierley.com/jlbp2.htm

112

THTC (The Hemp Trading Company) BioRegional spoke to Dru Lawson of THTC (The Hemp Trading Company) who runs a business selling organic hemp/cotton blend t-shirts worldwide to streetwear merchandisers. He told BioRegional that he would be very interested in yarn for 400gsm hooded tops and 200 gsm tshirts. (Winter t-shirts are currently 240gsm and Summer tshirts 195gsm). He mentioned that he was currently having trouble with Chinese hemp yarn for the lighter weight as the t-shirts tend to twist and lose shape after washing. He mentioned that he would also be interested in fabric for caps, trousers, bags, t-shirts. THTC know of individual samplers who could make samples for BioRegional and would offer to fund cutting and making some samples. Dru sees THTC as potential customer of 100,000 t-shirts if their business plan goes to plan and the fabric is good enough quality. If it was too expensive then THTC would consider a specialist range to begin with.

Marks and Spencer BioRegional met with staff of M&S Environmental Management Department, and a cotton specialist looking at economics and technicalities of supply chain (2003). M&S mentioned that they currently work with Rocklee cotton spinners in Australia. It was noted that previous experience with hemp was that it was not as good quality and more expensive than linen. However, they would be potentially interested in a local UK product but only if the quality was as good. They advised BioRegional not to focus on knitted products such as t-shirts because the hemp would be too heavy, and to instead look at trousers and jackets. They mentioned a current trend for a homespun look, that they felt hemp might fit into as demonstrated by Italian denim, French workwear fabrics and products by Levis, Diesel, Legler. M&S recommended BioRegional to work with Fashion and Design Colleges and Universities such as Kingston University, UK as M&S sometimes sponsor students, and can take products designed by such students straight onto their range, and M&S do not design anything themselves. M&S would arrange for samples of apparel and home wear to be produced using fabric provided by BioRegional. M&S suggest piece dying the fabric, in a light colour, and suggested going to a weaver with our yarn counts and seeing what fabric these lead to. It was suggested that home wear is the more obvious thing to produce, such as cushions, furnishings etc. It was also

113

noted that there are still UK-made home wear products. M&S currently carry out ethical and social audits for all supply chains costing around 2000 a time. It was mentioned that this would be considered for a UK supply chain. An overall recommendation was that competitive costs should be the focus with UK hemp production. These retailers and two others attended the open day in Battle in July 2003. BioRegional have contacts with several design schools and intend to approach designers and retailers once yarns and fabrics have been produced to gauge opinion on the value and potential application of these products. During the course of the project, BioRegional have also been approached by a number of baby wear retailers, selling both washable nappies and clothing, wanting to be able to offer sustainable and locally produced hemp products alongside their organic cotton ranges. This suggests that there is increasing demand from consumers for products with ethical and ecological credentials. Whilst fashion retail and furnishings has been a particular focus, BioRegional also intend to develop other potential applications for hemp fibre such as non-wovens and technical textiles such as for medical applications. A short study of the use of the green decorticated hemp as reinforcement in thermosetting polymer matrix composites was carried out by the BioComposites Centre as reported in the next section (11.5).

114

11.5 Green decorticated hemp as reinforcement in thermosetting polymer matrix composites

by Mark Hughes, The BioComposites Centre, University of Wales, Bangor

Introduction: A short study was conducted to investigate the potential of green decorticated hemp supplied by BioRegional as reinforcement in polymer matrix composites. Due to the limited amount of material available for study, a method developed at The BioComposites Centre was used to form the fibres into a reinforcement fabric for manufacture into small-scale composites.

Materials and method: Green hemp (supplied by BioRegional) was cut to approximately 2 mm by hand. Using a wet forming technique developed at The BioComposites Centre, the fibres were formed into circular discs of non-woven fabric mats, having highly reproducible and homogeneous structures. Using a resin infusion process, the fibre mats were impregnated with a catalysed epoxy laminating resin (Ampreg 20, SP Systems, Isle of Wight) and subsequently cured between glass plates. This resulted in circular composite laminates of approximately 15 cm in diameter and <0.5 mm in thickness. After curing, tensile specimens were cut from the laminates and tested in tension on an Instron universal testing instrument. Approximately 10 specimens per laminate were tested.

115

Results and discussion: Table 10 shows the comparative tensile strength and stiffness of the green hemp fibre reinforced composites, an equivalent flax fibre reinforced composite manufactured in the same manner and typical un-reinforced resin properties.

Table10: Laminate properties Laminate type Green hemp reinforcement Flax fibre reinforcement20 Ampreg 2221 Youngs modulus (GPa) 5.0 (1.0) 4.6 (0.2) 3.7 Tensile strength (MPa) 44.4 (6.2) 47.2 (2.4) 72.2

Note: Figures in parentheses are standard deviations As may be observed, the strength and stiffness of the green hemp fibre reinforced material compares favourably with that of flax. However, it should be remembered that this was a short look-see study, using only a small quantity of fibre and a small number of laminates. For greater reliability, a far more extensive evaluation would need to be conducted. Nevertheless, these results are encouraging. It will also be noted that the inclusion of green hemp affords an improvement in stiffness (Young modulus) although both fibre types result in a weakening of the laminates. Conclusions: These encouraging preliminary results indicate that green hemp has good potential as reinforcement in composites. A more detailed evaluation should be conducted to fully evaluate the potential.

20 21

Fibre was retted, scutched and hackled Manufacturers figures (SP Systems, Isle of Wight - http://www.spsystems.com/solutions/laminating.htm)

116

12. Economic assessment

Of the world total consumption of textile fibres of about 56 million tonnes last year, cotton supplied some 19.5 million tonnes or about 34% of the market, and polyester staple fibre supplied 9.25 million tonnes. Flax constituted only 1.2% at 250,000 tonnes and hemp an estimated 70,000 tonnes. (Robert Franck pers. comm.) Table 11 below estimates the cost of production of hemp fibre prepared using Fibrenova green decortication technology followed by removal of pectins and gums (degumming) for BioRegional by UK textile processors as described throughout this study: Table 11 - Estimated cost of production of UK hemp fibre as prepared in field trials for spinning on cotton system Estimated cost of production for each processing step FIELD PRODUCTION (BALED)
Cranfield University estimate of the cost of raw fibre production using green decortication system (See Section 9.4)
Pence per kg at each processing step

10.4

DEGUMMING (losses of 25%)

A UK dyers (Manchester) estimate for scouring process as carried out for BioRegional at a package dyers (1.50/kg incoming with 25% losses). Note very few dyers had the facilities to carry out such a process with loose fibre due to scourers generally treating wool and acidic chemicals. A pressure dyeworks estimate for degumming hemp fibre in Australia was estimated by Fibrenova at AUS $2/kg (0.90). UK atmospheric wool scouring and drying estimate of 28-34p/kg but such a continuous system has not been developed for hemp, and wool scourers would not be currently able to put hemp through their systems, but printed here for comparison.

150

CARDING (losses of 25%)

UK textile industry estimate for opening with Garnett-like carding machine (Yorkshire). Gave range of 30-60p per kg (charged on outgoing fibre, after 25% losses) depending on quantity

45

TOTAL COST (taking into account approximate losses)

330pence/kg

117

For comparison, Table 12 below shows the approximate market sales prices of other textile fibres: Table 12 market sales process of various textile fibres

Market sales prices of various textile fibres COTTON Cotlook A index price for Middling Cotton (30 March 04) (71.80c =1lb, 0.391=1lb, 1kg=2.20lb, 1kg=0.86). (Extremes in 1995 at 1.34 and 2001 with 0.48.) LINEN Long-line Linen price (March 04) medium quality. Linen range (low to best qualities) WOOL Unscoured (Robert Franck pers comm. June 03) MANMADE CELLULOSIC FIBRES Viscose EUR 1,70/kg, (July 04 supplied by Lenzing fibres) Modal EUR 2,20/kg Lyocell EUR 2,50/kg POLYESTER Polyester Staple Fibre, current prices around USD $0.80, however these may well increase if price of oil remains high, or perhaps even increase (Robert Franck pers comm.2004) HEMCORE HEMP - commercially available dew-retted, and factory carded fibre available at 0.40-0.50 per kg (but would require further processing to be suitable for textiles)

Pence per kg 86 (48 -134)

110 (66-123) 350

118 153 174 43 (43-65)

40-50

It can be seen that the cost of hemp as produced in the trials of the Fibrenova technology by BioRegional put it out of the range of the major textile fibres of cotton and polyester, and considerably above the new man-made cellulosic fibres modal and lyocell, already considered expensive in the industry. Robert Franck (pers. comm.) notes that given the similarity between hemp and flax, under present conditions unless hemp fibre can be produced at prices below those of flax

118

there is little or no industrial technical or commercial reason why it should increase its share of the market. However, though the cost of producing hemp in the above trials is clearly very high, it should be noted that there is considerable scope for refining the degumming/cleaning process which for wool cost under 30p per kg. But in the BioRegional trial cost 150p per kg. If a woollen type continuous scouring process could be used for hemp this would reduce the cost from 330p per kg to 210p per kg. Although this price is still two to three times the price of linen or cotton. However, with an estimated starting cost for the raw hemp fibre of just 10.4p/kg, and the target price of flax fibre of around 1.10, there is a substantial window for developing the necessary processing to produce a textile quality fibre. Whereas cotton has remained at a relatively stable production of 20 million tonnes over the last 10 years, polyester has almost doubled in the same time. World fibre consumption increases at a rate of approximately 3.4 % per year, with cotton type textiles increasing at nearly 5.5% per year. This cotton type market currently comprising largely cotton and polyester has been estimated at 29 million tonnes, making up 52% of world textile fibre production. (Robert Franck, pers.comm). Therefore, it can be seen that there is a huge potential market for hemp as a cotton type fibre if the technical production issues can be overcome, with the clear advantages of biodegradability, comfort and reduced chemical and fossil fuel use over polyester which is currently meeting the increase in demand.

119

13. Environmental assessment (SEI)

BioRegional commissioned the Stockholm Environment Institute York (SEI) to measure the environmental impact of hemp production compared to cotton, organic cotton and polyester through completion of an Ecological Footprint analysis. The report by SEI (Cherret et al, 2004) is in the final draft stages at the time of writing and so the reader is asked to check with BioRegional for the final report before quoting any of the figures contained within. This report will be updated to include the final results if they differ in any way. The Ecological Footprint represents the amount of land area required to provide all the necessary resources and absorb the waste to produce a given unit of each textile, within the Earths biological capability to regenerate them. WWF publish an Ecological footprint assessment for the whole of the Earth once every two years in their Living Planet Report. (WWF, 2004). It should be noted that the footprint only deals with demands placed on the environment and does not attempt to quantify social or economic sustainability, such as the contribution to livelihoods or detrimental effect on health of populations that production of a particular textile may contribute to. There are also aspects of environmental degradation such as toxicity and pollution that the Ecological Footprint does not fully represent, however it can be seen as a snapshot indication of the environmental impact in terms of demands on the planets available renewable resources.

120

The Stockholm ecological footprint study compares twelve scenarios, chosen to compare hemp processed in a variety of ways as described in this report with cotton and polyester, two of the most important world textile fibres. The scenarios examined are;
Scenario Number Cotton 1 Cotton 2 Cotton 3 Cotton 4 Hemp 5 Textile Cotton Punjab Cotton USA Organic Cotton, Punjab Organic Cotton, USA Hemp green decorticated & chemical de-gum Hemp dew retted & chemical de-gum Hemp dew retted & scutched Organic Hemp green decorticated & chemical de-gum Organic Hemp Hemcore dew retted & chemical de-gum Organic Hemp dew retted & scutched Case Study* Low energy use in medium sized farms: Punjab, India. High energy use in medium sized farms: USA. Low energy use in medium sized farms in Punjab, India. High energy use in medium sized farms in the USA. Processed with Fibrenova technology green decorticated and processed through a non-aligned system with chemical degumming (UK). Cultivated by Hemcore, dew retted and processed through a non-aligned system with chemical de-gumming (UK). Cultivated by Hemcore, dew retted and processed through an aligned scutch mill system as used by the linen industry (UK). Organic hemp processed with Fibrenova technology and processed through a non-aligned system with chemical degumming (UK). Cultivated organically by Hemcore, dew retted and processed through a non-aligned system with chemical de-gumming (UK). Cultivated organically by Hemcore, dew retted and processed through an aligned scutch mill system as used by the linen industry (UK). Polyester manufacturing in Europe Polyester manufacturing in USA

Hemp 6

Hemp 7

Hemp 8

Hemp 9

Hemp 10

Polyester 11 Polyester 12

Polyester Europe Polyester USA

*n.b. Assumption is that all cotton and hemp is spun in a UK textile mill except Hemp 7 and Hemp 10 which are wet spun using the linen system and polyester which is not spun but rather extruded.

121

The results are presented here as three comparisons between the scenarios based on Ecological Footprint in global hectares (gha/tonne), Energy consumption (MJ/tonne) and CO2 emissions (kg/tonne):

4.00 Global Hectares per Tonne Fibre 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 10 He m Po p 7 lye st er 11 He m p 9 He m p 8 He m p 6 He m p 5 Co tto Po n 4 lye st er 12 Co tto n 2 Co tto n 3 Co tto n 1 He m p

Textile Case Studies Crop Cultivation Fibre Production

Figure 40 Ecological Footprint (global hectares) per tonne of fibre by textile case study

122

140,000 120,000 MJ per Tonne Spun Fibre 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 10 9 7 3 4 1 2 8 6 5
2

Textile Case Studies Crop Cultivation Fibre Production

Figure 41 Energy (MJ) per tonne fibre by textile case study

10.00 9.00
KG CO2 per Tonne Spun Fibre

8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00

10 7 8 4 3 1 9 6 5 He m p He m p He m p He m p He m p Co tto n Co tto n He m p Co tto n Co tto n st er 11 st er 12

Po lye

Textile Case Studies

Crop Cultivation
Fibre Production

Figure 42 - CO2 (kg) per tonne of fibre by textile cast study

Po lye

Po lye

st er 11 Po lye st er 12

He m p

Co tto n

Co tto n

He m p

He m p

Co tto n

Co tto n

He m p

He m p

He m p

123

It can be seen that hemp textiles as produced in the traditional way, that is, dew retting, scutching, wet spinning and organically grown has the lowest impact of all fibres compared in terms of Ecological footprint, and that seven of the eight lowest impact scenarios are for hemp production. Organic cotton or cotton farmed by hand also has a relatively low impact. These findings support the view that hemp is a low-impact and more environmentally sustainable alternative to polyester and cotton, therefore worthy of further development by BioRegional and others to make a commercial reality. Note should be made that the social and economic dimensions of sustainability, as demonstrated for example by adoption of fair trade principles and fair working conditions, should also be taken into account. It is hoped that techniques such as the Ecological Footprint could one day be used to allow consumers to make more informed decisions on their purchases.

124

14. Conclusions
1. The technical and economic feasibility of Fibrenova technology for the production of short staple hemp fibre for spinning on the cotton system and at a comparable price to cotton, as claimed by Fibrenova Ltd (Section 3) has not been demonstrated to BioRegional and Cranfield University in the two field trials and the textile processing carried out and described in the main body of this report (Sections 5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12). Whilst the technology shows promise, with the D7 pilot decorticator demonstrating good separation of the bast fibre material consistently in both trials, there remain a number of technical and economic issues to be overcome. These include; a. removal of water from the green decorticated fibre to prevent degradation of the fibre and facilitate further processing or storage, b. on-farm handling and storage techniques of green decorticated material, c. processing of the green decorticated fibre to remove gums and pectins to produce a homogenous quality fibre at a cost competitive price. 2. The green decortication and crop drying were projected to produce green fibre exfield for 10.4 pence per kg, but subsequent chemical de-gumming and opening processes and the losses incurred in those processes increased the production cost to 330 pence per kg, an unacceptably high price being twice or three times the sales price of cotton or linen (Section 12). 3. There are machines other than the Fibrenova green decortication machine which it would seem could remove fibre from hemp stems in the field, the patents for which have lapsed (Section 4.1). 4. There are methods for chemical and enzymatic de-gumming and carding of hemp and other similar fibres which have been previously processed using traditional water and dew retting methods (Section 4.2 and 4.3) but these were not shown to be effective in dealing with Fibrenovas green decorticated hemp fibre as a

125

homogenous fibre could not be produced in the limited trials carried out by BioRegional (Section 10 and 11). The carding process used for these trials was not necessarily wholly satisfactory, and would possibly need a more refined process, though it is difficult to tell how much of the irregularity was caused by the in-field process and how much by the chemical process and the carding. However, many other organisations are working in this area and we conclude that it merits further investigation. 5. A problem with green decortication is the fact that it produces not only fibre at 70% moisture but also hemp hurds at 70% moisture (Section 6.6.1.2). There are well developed markets for hemp hurds and not being able to sell the hurds in addition to the fibre will make the overall economics of the process less attractive. 6. Crop desiccation (Section 4.4) is an interesting possibility as it overcomes the issues of wet fibre and wet hurds. It is not immediately seen as environmentally attractive as a herbicide is required to kill and so dry the crop standing in the field. However, if it avoids the need for energy to dry the crop and the hurds and facilitates storage of the crop then the benefits could outweigh the disadvantages. To our knowledge this technique has not yet been developed to a commercial outcome and there may be problems such as uneven spraying of the crop leading to uneven fibre "retting". Nevertheless this should be investigated. 7. The textile industry in the UK is contracting under international market forces. During the course of this study BioRegional came across several of the few remaining textile spinners for cotton and linen closing down or relocating or selling their equipment overseas (Section 11.2) 8. There is considerable interest in buying and processing hemp as a textile fibre from spinners, weavers and retailers provided quality and price demands can be met. The idea of a local hemp textile product found favour, again provided quality and price are acceptable.(Section 11)

126

9. Farmers who attended the BioRegional Open Day at Battle in July 2003 (Section 5), the National Farmers Union, DEFRA and the NNFCC all wish to develop new crops and markets for farmers. Hemp fibres for textiles or higher quality nonwovens could fulfil this requirement. 10. If hemp fibre production is to thrive the benefits should be equitable from farmer to garment manufacturer. Cranfield University highlighted that one way in which value could be retained at the farm level is to prepare the crop in such a way that year round on-farm storage is possible, that way the growers can control the supply to achieve optimum prices during periods of high demand and short supply, which would usually be preceding the next harvest (Section 6.6.1.1). 11. Of the hemp varieties tested Chameleon contained significantly more fibre in finer stems more suited to textile fibre production (Section 6.4) 12. The reputation of hemp as an environmentally friendly fibre is upheld by the ecological footprint study commissioned by BioRegional to accompany this technical and economic feasibility study. It shows (Section 13) that when compared to cotton and polyester, two of the most popular mainstream fibres seven of the eight lowest scenarios are for hemp production. With traditional hemp production, that is, organic cultivation, dew-retting, scutching and line fibre spinning having the lowest ecological footprint. The study by Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) is currently only published in final draft and so figures should not be quoted without checking first with BioRegional. This report will be amended if necessary to reflect the final report from SEI.

127

15. Recommendations
1. The ecological footprint analysis carried out for BioRegional for this study reaffirms hemps reputation as a textile fibre with a low environmental impact. Therefore we believe that further research to develop a cost-effective solution to produce quality hemp textile fibres is worthwhile and should be undertaken. 2. Further work should be carried out which will assist the general development of hemp as a textile fibre whatever process is used to extract the fibres. This should include; an identification of the nature and location of pectic polymers and gums which bind the fibres into the hemp stalk and the development of techniques to break down, dissolve and remove the pectic polymers and gums using the information gained about the location and nature of these pectic polymers and gums. 3. For green decortication processes it is recommended that techniques for the removal of moisture from green fibre strips be developed in order to reduce fibre degradation and transport weight and development of a handling system to allow on-farm storage, transport and delivery of the fibre to subsequent processes. 4. The technical, economic and environmental feasibility of crop desiccation should be investigated and compared to other potential systems. 5. In all cases the need to develop a simple process which will work at the farm to primary processor level and which has low environmental and cost burdens should be the major guiding considerations.

128

16. References
ATB (2003), Visit, June 2003. ATB Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Bornim. Potsdam, Germany. Barton Petroleum (2003), Market price of non road-duty diesel fuel. Personal Communication 10/10/2003 Beltran, Rafael; Christopher J. Hurren, Akif Kaynak, and Xunghai Wang (2002) (School of Engineering and Technology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia) 2002. Correlating the Fineness and Residual Gum Content of Degummed Hemp Fibres. Bcsa, I; Karus, M (1998) The Cultivation of Hemp, HempTech, California USA ISBN 1-886874-03-4 Bosch (1996), Bosch Automotive Handbook, 4th Edition. Robert Bosch GmbH, Stuttgart. 238-239 Brighton JL, Blackburn DWK, James IT, (2003) Hemp Production in the UK: Feasibility and Fibrenova Technology. Research Study for BioRegional November 2003( Full version of this study is contained in this report). DWK Blackburn, J Brighton, (2004) Hemp Textile production in the UK: Technical and Economic Feasibility & Evaluation of Fibrenova technology. Research study for BioRegional. March 2004 (abridged version of the study contained within this report) Cherret et al, (2004). Ecological footprint of Cotton, hemp and polyester pilot study with comparison and analysis. Stockholm Environmental Institute, University of York. YO10 5YW (December 2004). (Commissioned as part of this study and summarised in this report.) Cromack, H T H (1998). The effect of cultivar and seed density on the production and fibre content of Cannabis sativa in southern England. Industrial Crops and Products, 7 (1998), 205-210. Culpin, C (1981). Farm Machinery. 10th Edition. Granada Publishing, Herts UK. ISBN 0-246-11585-8 DEFRA (2003). Website: www.defra.gov.uk/farm/acu/fibres/fibres.htm [accessed 17/9/03] Desai, P and Riddlestone, S (2002) BioRegional Solutions, Green Books, UK ISBN 1903998-07-7

129

Dreyer, J et al (2002) Comparison of Enzymatically Separated Hemp and Nettle Fibre to Chemically Separated and Steam Exploded Hemp Fibre Journal of Industrial Hemp, Vol 7(1). Engineering Toolbox (2003). (Heat capacity of water: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/24_162.html Fibrenova, (July 2002), Fibrenova Holdings Business Plan 3 July 2002. page 14. Franck, R. (2003) Textile Industry Consultant. Personal Communication. Hobson, R N; Hepworth, D G; Bruce, D M (2001). Quality of Fibre Separated from Unretted Hemp Stems by Decortication. J. agric. Engng Res. 78(2), 153-158. Honda Corporation (undated). GX390 Engine Owners manual. http://www.hondaengines.com/Engines_owners_manuals/ownersmanuals/31ZH9600.pdf [accessed 8/9/2003] Hurren, Christopher J, Xunghai Wang, (2002) (School of Engineering and Technology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia) Hamish G.S. Dennis, Adrian Francis K. Clarke. (Fibrenova Limited) 2002. Evaluation of Bast Fibre Retting Systems on Hemp. Leupin, M. (1998) Enzymatic degumming through alkalophillic microorganisms a new approach for bast fibre Processing. From: Hemp, Flax and other Bast Fibrous Plant Production, Technology and Ecology Symposium, 24-25th September, 1998. Poznan, Poland: 119-120. Accessed via: http://www.inaro.de/Deutsch/KULTURPF/Hanf/degumm.htm [accessed 8/9/2003] Leupin, M (2001) http://www.texma.org/English/Staff/Leupin/leupin.html (accessed May 2004) Macart (2003) web-site accessed 2003 http://www.macart.com/tatham/docs/Equipment/Fibrepreparation/copy.htm MAFF (undated). NF0307 Hemp for Europe: Manufacturing and Production Systems. Research and Development Final Project Report. Project Officers: Bullard, M; MurphyBokern, D Available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/acu/fibres/fibres.htm [accessed 17/9/2003]. Nix, J; Hill, P; Edwards, A (2003). Farm Management Pocketbook. 34th Edition (2004). Imperial College at Wye. Published by: The Andersons Centre, Melton Mowbray, UK. ISBN 0-9541201-2-4, 256 pp. Riddlestone, S. (2003) Director, BioRegional Personal Communication

130

Riddlestone, S.; Franck, R; Wright, J.; Desai, P (1995) Hemp for Textiles Growing our own clothes. BioRegional Development Group. Available as a PDF file from BioRegional. www.bioregional.com Struick, P C; Amaducci, S; Bullard, M J; Stutterheim, N C; Venturi, G; Cromack, H T H (2000). Agronomy of fibre hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) in Europe. Industrial Crops and Products, 11 (2000), 170-118. Hanks, A. (2001) The Hemp Report - Fall 2001, 3(18) HCFR publishing. ISSN 14988135. Accessed at: http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/201/300/hemp_report/2001/v03n18/fibre18.html, [accessed 8/10/2003] Taima.org, (2003) Pictures of Hemp Farming in Japan, accessed Nov 2003. www.taima.org/en/nomin.htm Trans Atlantic Diesels Inc. Catalogue (2003) - Thermodynamic performance of Cumins diesel engines http://www.tadiesels.com/cu-B3.3M.html [accessed 5/10/2003] Tyrrell, S. (2003) Comments regarding composting of green waste material. Pers. Comm. Van der Werf, H.M.G (1994) Crop Physiology of fibre Hemp, Doctoral Thesis Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands 152 pp. English and Dutch Van der Werf, H M G; Mathijssen, E W J M; Haverkort, A J (1996). The potential of hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) for sustainable fibre production: a crop physiological appraisal. Ann. appl. Biol, 129:109-123. WWF, 2004, Living Planet Report 2004 Can be downloaded as a PDF from http://www.panda.org/news_facts/publications/index.cfm

131