Angelini 2016

Journal of Natural Fibers
ISSN: 1544-0478 (Print) 1544-046X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjnf20
Performance of New and Traditional Fiber

Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) Cultivars for Novel
Applications: Stem, Bark, and Core Yield and
Chemical Composition
Luciana G. Angelini, Silvia Tavarini & Mario Di Candilo
To cite this article: Luciana G. Angelini, Silvia Tavarini & Mario Di Candilo (2016) Performance
of New and Traditional Fiber Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) Cultivars for Novel Applications: Stem,
Bark, and Core Yield and Chemical Composition, Journal of Natural Fibers, 13:2, 238-252, DOI:
10.1080/15440478.2015.1029193
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2015.1029193
Published online: 21 Mar 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 5
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjnf20
Download by: [Library Services City University London] Date: 28 March 2016, At: 01:42
Journal of Natural Fibers, 13:238–252, 2016
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1544-0478 print/1544-046X online
DOI: 10.1080/15440478.2015.1029193
Performance of New and Traditional Fiber Hemp (Cannabis

sativa L.) Cultivars for Novel Applications: Stem, Bark, and
Core Yield and Chemical Composition
Luciana G. Angelini,1 Silvia Tavarini,1 and Mario Di Candilo2

1
Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
2
Research Center for Industrial Crops CRA-CIN, Bologna, Italy
Journal of Natural Fibers 2016.13:238-252.
Finding a use for all components of hemp is key to improving the overall economics of fiber production
from this crop. In this context, the core, a by-product of fiber production, has become increasingly
important for new innovative applications. The aim of the present study was to compare traditional
and new dioecious and monoecious fiber hemp cultivars in a 2-year field experiment in Central Italy,
evaluating the variations on their fiber yield, bark and core production, and their chemical composition.
The obtained results underlined the interesting potentiality of the new dioecious genotypes characterized
by interesting fiber and nonfiber components which make their utilization appealing in several woven and
nonwoven applications. Thanks to the interesting chemical properties recorded for the core fraction, the
full use of hemp biomass in a cascade approach can contribute to the total valorization of this versatile
fiber crop for a modern biorefinery facility.
Keywords: bark-core ratio, bast fiber, chemical composition, crop, hemp, nonfiber components, stem,
yield
Address correspondence to Luciana G. Angelini, Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Pisa,
Via S. Michele degli Scalzi, 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy. E-mail: luciana.angelini@unipi.it
238
HEMP CULTIVARS FOR NOVEL APPLICATIONS 239
INTRODUCTION
Hemp is a versatile and multipurpose fiber crop that can supply, besides fibers, a variety of
feedstocks, including residues, which can be converted into a portfolio of products with improved
economy and environmental effects, compared to stand-alone processes often producing only one
product. In a context of increased attention for alternative crops, a renewed interest in hemp,
Cannabis sativa L., has been triggered by its agronomic characteristics and by the diversity of renew-
able resources that it produces (Struik et al. 2000; Karus and Vogt 2004), providing interesting and
new opportunities for farmers.
In a typical process, the hemp fibers are obtained by stem retting to separate the fibers from non-
fiber components, known as hurds. Hemp hurds are the woody and lignified inner tissues (core),
constituting 70% of stalk (Dang and Nguyen 2006), and considered a by-product of fiber produc-
tion. Although the hurds are mainly used in animal bedding (95%) and the construction sector (about
5%), new uses are under development, in particular for second generation ethanol production and
bio-based innovative products such as added value fine chemicals (Barta et al. 2010; González-
García et al. 2012). So, the use of hemp hurds as a feedstock for a modern biorefinery facility
could supply a variety of market sector (chemistry, energy, and transportation) (Gandolfi et al.
2013).
Agriculturally, hemp is a relatively high-yielding crop with great agroecological plasticity, low
or no pesticide requirement, and modest demands for fertilizer (van der Werf et al. 1996; Struik
et al. 2000; Amaducci, Zatta, Raffanini et al. 2008). For these features, its introduction in the
intensive Mediterranean farming systems might be a long-term strategy in maintaining farming sys-
tems and practices that are particularly favorable to environmental and climate policy goals. Due
to its large versatility, hemp can be grown under a wide range of agroecological conditions, con-
tributing to the sustainability of arable cropping systems in agreement with the post-2013 CAP
(Common Agricultural Policy) scenario (Amaducci et al. 2012; Cosentino et al. 2012; Matthews
2011; Struik et al. 2000). In relation to the environmental conditions, the choice of cultivar becomes
an essential aspect, both to increase the fiber production, and to enhance the coproducts such
as the core, in the perspective of the full use of biomass in a cascade approach. In this crop,
even more than in other fiber species, the germplasm plays a crucial role in successful culti-
vation, not only with regard to environmental adaptability and production potential, but also in
term of final quality and end-use. In particular, fiber chemical composition, as well as the ratio
between core and bark, depends directly on genotype and maturation time (Karus and Vogt 2004;
Struik et al. 2000; van der Werf et al. 1994). Fiber hemp includes dioecious and monoecious
varieties belonging to different geographical areas with different biological and morphological
characteristics.
Due to its robustness and adaptability, hemp is well suited to the central European climate, where
most developed fiber varieties were bred (Amaducci et al. 2012; Cosentino et al. 2012). Anyway, due
to hemp sensitivity to temperature and photoperiod (Amaducci, Zatta, Pelatti et al. 2008; 2012; Di
Candilo, Liberalato et al. 2002; van der Werf et al. 1995), the varieties originating from a more north-
ern latitude tend to flower earlier when grown at lower latitudes as in the southern environments. As a
result, northern European varieties may be affected by “preflowering” (i.e., an anticipated flowering
with the occurrence of plants with visible male or female flowers structures) in central and southern
Mediterranean environments, with adverse consequences such as strong reduction of the production
and quality (Amaducci, Zatta, Pelatti et al. 2008; de Meijer and van der Werf 1994; Di Candilo,
Ranalli et al. 2000, Di Candilo, Liberalato et al. 2002, Di Candilo, Ranalli et al. 2002; Struik et al.
2000).
Available varieties may present noticeably divergent characteristics, making them more suitable
for different types of end products (pulp and paper, rope, textile fabrics, oilseed production, etc.),
derived from different plant organs (Bertoli et al. 2010; Ranalli and Venturi 2004).
240 L. G. ANGELINI, S. TAVARINI, AND M. DI CANDILO
It is also worth noting that a much wider range of cultivars are available today than in
the past (Amaducci, Errani, and Venturi 1998; Grassi 2004). In addition to the historical vari-
eties (Carmagnola, C.S., and Fibranova), which are well known wherever hemp is grown, newly
constituted dioecious national cultivars (Pop series and Red Petiole) can also be found (Di
Candilo, Ranalli et al. 2000, Di Candilo, Ranalli et al. 2002), such as the recently consti-
tuted monoecious Italian varieties (Carma and Codimono) (Grassi 2004) and the monoecious
variety Felina 34, constituted in France for fiber production destined to the paper industry.
However, many of these cultivars have not yet been sufficiently tested in our environments.
Following these considerations, the aim of the present experiment was to compare new and tra-
ditional fiber hemp cultivars in a 2-year field trial in Central Italy, evaluating the variations
on their fiber yield, bark and core fraction, and chemical composition of the different stem
fractions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Field Crop Establishment and Experimental Design

Field experiments were carried out in San Piero a Grado (PI), in Central Italy, at the Experimental
Centre of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment (DAFE) of University of Pisa
(43◦ 40’N latitude; 10◦ 19’E longitude; 10 m above sea level) during the 2005–2006 2-year period
in a Typic Xerofluvent soil (Soil Survey Staff 2006). As an alluvial deep loam soil representative of
the lower Arno River plain, it has a good fertility and water retention capacity with a fairly high
water table (0.12 m deep in driest conditions) (sand 44.3%; silt 41.0%; clay 14.6%; organic matter
1.8%; pH 8.0; total nitrogen 0.12%; available P 17.25 mg kg−1 ; exchangeable K 97.0 mg kg−1 ; field
capacity: 23.0% d.w.; and wilting point 9.45% d.w.).
Previously to hemp, castor bean and rapeseed were cultivated in 2005 and 2006, respectively.
Aiming to prepare the sowing bed, in November 2004 and 2005 soil tillage was done with 0.30 m
deep ploughing, followed by two superficial disk harrowings at the end of March. Plants were main-
tained under identical fertilization conditions throughout the 2-year field trials. Mineral fertilizer was
applied at rates of 120/80/120 kg ha−1 of N/P/K (as urea, triple superphosphate, and potassium
sulphate, respectively). The N fertilization was split in two applications of 50% (preplanting) and
50% (before interrow closure), instead P and K fertilizations were all applied before planting. Due
to the natural water availability in the soil, no supplementary irrigation was necessary after sowing.
Twelve fiber hemp cultivars were compared in a randomized block experimental design with
four replicates: Carmagnola, C.S., Fibranova, Pop 1, Pop 2, Pop 3, Pop 4, Pop 5, Red Petiole as
Italian dioecious; Carma and Codimono as Italian monoecious; and Felina 34 as French monoecious,
respectively. The seeds of the hemp varieties were kindly supplied by CRA-CIN (Bologna, Italy).
The seeds showed a 99% of purity and a percentage of germination of 90%. These varieties have
been selected on the basis of their THC value below 0.2% (on dry matter basis, w/v), as required by
EC Regulation.
Hemp cultivars were sown on the 27th April, 2005 and 4th April, 2006 by a pneumatic drill. Plant
distance between rows was 0.20 m and the planned crop density was 130–140 plants m−2 . Each plot
size was 20 m2 (5 × 4 m) and 15 m2 (3 × 5 m) in 2005 and 2006, respectively.
Fiber hemps were protected against weeds before inter row closure, by mechanical weeding and
no herbicides, neither pesticides were applied during both growing seasons.
Plant Sampling and Yield Evaluation

Plant emergence and flowering were recorded when at least 2/3 of seedlings/plants in each plot
showed the specific phenological stage (Table 1). For both monoecious and dioecious cultivars, the
TABLE 1
Emergence, flowering, harvest dates, and growing degree days (GDD) of the trial cultivars grown in Pisa in
2005 and 2006
2005 2006
Group Cultivar Emergence Flowering GDD (◦ C) Emergence Flowering GDD (◦ C)
Dioecious Carmagnola 5–6 May 28–30 July 892.10 19–20 April 23–25 July 921.25
C.S. 5–6 May 28–30 July 892.10 19–20 April 23–25 July 921.25
Fibranova 5–6 May 28–30 July 892.10 19–20 April 23–25 July 921.25
Pop 1 5–6 May 2–5 August 965.90 19–20 April 28–29 July 980.60
Red Petiole 5–6 May 28–30 July 892.10 19–20 April 28–29 July 980.60
Monoecious Carma 5–6 May 28–30 July 892.10 19–20 April 28–31 July 1009.80
Codimono 5–6 May 15–17 July 714.45 19–20 April 2–4 July 632.55
Felina 34 5–6 May 8–10 July 649.40 19–20 April 22–24 June 499.60
Harvest 8 July–7 August 893.51 22 June–31 July 899.03
harvest was performed at flowering, corresponding to the phenological code 2103 and 2302 for
monoecious and dioecious genotypes, respectively (Mediavilla et al. 1998). The mean thermal time
in growing degree days (GDD) was also calculated for each growing season and for each cultivar
with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration method, above a base temperature of
10◦ C and a maximum cut-off temperature of 30◦ C as GDD = S1 S2 (Tm-b0). Tm was the mean
daily temperature, b0 the base temperature, and S1 and S2 were the growth start and the harvest time
respectively, expressed in Julian day.
Prior to harvest, the proportion of male plants in each plot was recorded for the monoecious
cultivars as a percentage of the total amount of plants per plot. Only the monoecious Carma showed
the presence of male plants, equal to 20%.
The plants were hand harvested at the end of flowering, cutting them in the centre of each plot at
40–50 mm from the soil.
The main biometric (plant density, stem height, stem basal and median diameter, and bark/stem
ratio) and productive (dry biomass, stem yield, and fiber content) parameters were determined. Plant
density and biomass, defoliated stem and leaf fresh weight were performed in each plot on a 10 m2
sampling area, excluding the plants in the two outer rows. The dry matter percentage was determined
on representative plant subsamples, oven-dried at 65◦ C till constant weight. Plant height and stem
basal and median diameter were measured on 20 representative plants per plot. The bark to stem ratio
(% d.w. and mg cm−3 d.w.) was determined by cutting the fresh stems into three equal parts. The
bark was manually separated from the core on the middle part of the stem (Li et al. 2013), and then
allowed to dry in the same conditions described before, to quantify the dry weight of the two stem
portions.
Chemical Analysis
For fiber determination, 1 kg dry stems per plot was placed in a 100-L plastic tanks with lids, to
reduce air exchange The tanks were filled with water from an artesian well to prevent any interfer-
ence with the microbial activity by the chlorine present in drinking water. Bacterial strain used as
inoculum was the anaerobic strain Clostridium sp. having high pectinolytic activity for controlled
fiber maceration, according to Di Candilo, Di Bari et al. (2000, Di Candilo et al. 2010). The tanks
were inoculated with the spores at the beginning of the process and then incubated at 35◦ C for
4 days. After retting, stems were washed in running water and placed to dry in an oven at 65◦ C.
Subsequently, they were manually scutched.
For cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin content determination, three samples of fibers corre-
sponding to each stem portion (bark and core) of the 12 cultivars were analyzed according to Van
Soest’s method (Van Soest 1963), which consists of the gravimetric determination of residues pre-
viously treated with acid and neutral detergent solutions. Hemicellulose and cellulose contents were
calculated from acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and acid detergent lignin
(ADL) measurements, as (NDF–ADF) and (ADF–ADL) for hemicellulose and cellulose, respec-
tively. Ash content was estimated as the residue after heating in an electric muffle furnace at 550◦ C
until a constant mass was achieved.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was carried out by two-way randomized block ANOVA using the COSTAT soft-
ware version 6.400 (Cohort software 2008), considering year and cultivar as variability factors.
The means were separated on the basis of the least significant difference (LSD) test at P ≤ 0.05.
In order to compare dioecious and monoecious group, a t-test analysis was carried out. Linear corre-
lation analysis was performed by the Pearson’s correlation test, in order to evaluate the relationships
among the main biometric and productive parameters.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Temperature and rainfall patterns of the site, recorded during the experimental years (2005 and
2006) and in the long-term period (1918–1995), were expressed by the xerothermic Bagnouls-
Gaussen diagrams (Bagnouls and Gaussen 1953) as reported in Figure 1. A summer dry period
characterized by high temperatures and poor rainfalls occurred in the two growing seasons as typical
of the Mediterranean region. In 2005, during the first plantlet growth stage (April), lower minimum
and maximum temperatures were recorded as compared to the same period in 2006, although air
maximum temperature in 2005 was similar to that observed in the long-term run (about 18◦ C).
During the rest of the plant cycle only slight differences of temperatures between the 2 years were
recorded, with the exception of July, when air temperature values were higher in the second year (30
vs 32◦ C, in 2005 and 2006 respectively). Rainfall was mainly concentrated in autumn-spring (770 vs
970 mm year−1 as total rainfall in 2005 and 2006, respectively, in comparison with 950 mm year−1
in the long period). In 2005, rainfall was higher in March and June compared to the same months in
2006, even if an inverse tendency was noticed in July and August in the second year of trial. During
this last period (July-August) the total rainfalls resulted about twofold lower in 2005 (36 mm) and
about threefold higher in 2006 (179 mm) than those observed in the long term (71 mm). According to
Bócsa and Karus (1998), the spring weather conditions play a crucial role on the hemp sowing period
and seedling emergence. Although there were no differences between the 2 years with regard to
spring (April) rainfall amount, the effects of rainfall distribution on sowing time and emergence were
strongly differentiated. In fact, in the first year, rain occurred in mid-April, delaying the scheduled
sowing date (27th April). In the same year, emergence was recorded on 5–6th May (8–9 days after
sowing) (Table 1), and the plants showed a normal development and a regular plant density. In 2006,
instead, rain happened at the end of April, over 20 days after sowing (4th April) and emergence
was recorded on 19–20th April (15–16 days after sowing) (Table 1). The rain and the consequent
FIGURE 1 Meteorological data of the study site (Pisa, 43◦ 40’N latitude; 10◦ 19’E longitude; 10 m above sea level),
expressed by Bagnouls–Gaussen diagrams, referred to the long-term period (A), 2005 (B), and 2006 (C) growing
season of hemp crop, at the field experimental site. A month was considered “dry” when the value of the average
monthly rainfall (R) equal to or less than twice the monthly average temperature value (T) (R ≤ 2T).
occurrence of soil crust made the seedling development difficult and stunted and some plots showed
non homogeneous plant density. Concerning the phenological development, the date of flowering
changed not only between the two sexual groups, but also among the cultivars of the same group
between the two growing seasons (Table 1). Once the flowering starts, the dry matter accumulation
drops rapidly as already reported (Amaducci et al. 2008; Bertoli et al. 2010; Cosentino et al. 2012;
Struik et al. 2000). As a general trend, the monoecious cultivars flowered earlier than the dioecious
ones, due to their lower photoperiodic needs. (Table 1). Furthermore, in 2006 all the cultivars, except
for Red Petiole and Carma, flowered earlier than the previous year, likely owing to an earlier sowing
date, and, therefore, a different combination of photoperiod and temperature. Regarding the cycle
length expressed as GDD, it changed between the years: in the second year the earlier sowing time
lead to a lengthening of the cycle. Differences in GDD values were also observed among the cultivars
with a high degree of variability in the monoecious ones. In particular, Carma showed a divergent
behavior with respect to the other monoecious cultivars both for the thermal requirements and the
share of male plants recorded prior to harvest (about 20% of male plants as a percentage of the total
amount of plants per plot). This last characteristic makes this cultivar not completely stable by a
genetic point of view, showing a behavior a little bit similar to the dioecious cultivars.
The biometric and productive traits in the two subsequent seasons are summarized in Tables 2
and 3. At harvest, the mean plant densities were significantly higher in 2005 than in the sec-
ond year of trial, with 138 and 115 plants m−2 respectively. In the second year, the unfavorable
climatic conditions after sowing negatively affected the seed germination and, consequently, the
plant density, which decreased by 19% and 12%, in dioecious and monoecious cultivars, respectively
compared to 2005. Analyzing the mean values between the 2 years, Felina 34 and Pop1 showed the
highest plant densities. Also the stem height was affected by year of trial, with the higher values in
2005 in comparison with 2006. The reduction of stem elongation observed in the second year could
be related to the earlier flowering, as already observed by van der Werf et al. (1994). Considering the
effect of the cultivar, Carmagnola showed the highest stem height but not significantly different from
the other dioecious cultivar, except for Pop 2 and Pop 3; otherwise, Felina 34 showed the shortest
stems.
Stem basal diameter values were found to be most promising (Table 2). The bark to stem ratio
(mg cm−3 ) resulted higher in 2006 than in 2005 and it was particularly profitable in Felina 34 in
both years. In 2006, the ratio was significantly higher in the French monoecious cultivar, while the
dioecious ones presented lower values. It is important to highlight that the new cultivars Pop1, 2, and
3 showed significant higher values than the traditional dioecious Carmagnola and C.S. As regard to
the bark/stem% value, the hemp cultivars gave best results in 2006 again, but the dioecious cultivars
Fibranova, Pop 1, and Pop 5 showed values not significantly different from the monoecious Felina
34 and Codimono (Table 2). As 2-year mean value, the new cultivars Pop 1, 2, and 5 showed the
best bark/stem ratio together with the traditional dioecious cultivar Fibranova, and the monoecious
Codimono and Felina 34. Red Petiole showed always the lowest bark/stem ratio. Our findings
were in agreement with those observed by other authors (van der Werf et al. 1994; Venturi and
Amaducci 1999), which found that the proportion of bark in the stem varied from 14—30% to
48–50% depending on genotype, plant height, and growing conditions.
According to the t-test analysis, the dioecious cultivars showed significant higher values of stem
height (+30%) and stem diameter (+31% and +24% as basal and median stem diameter) than the
monoecious ones. On the other hand, this last group showed both higher plant density (+8%) and
bark/stem ratio in mg cm−3 (+77%) than the dioecious cultivars (Table 2).
As regard to the mean dry biomass production (Table 3), no significant differences were observed
between the 2 years, recording 22.8 and 21.2 Mg ha−1 as 2005 and 2006 mean values. Similarly,
the dry biomass values did not change significantly among the dioecious and monoecious cultivars.
On the contrary, the Y × C interaction significantly affected the total dry aboveground biomass
which decreased significantly in Carmagnola from 2005 to 2006. On the other hand, the Pop series
and the other dioecious cultivars, showed a greater yield stability than Carmagnola. Furthermore, the
lowest dry biomass yield was observed in Felina 34 in 2006. Otherwise, mean dry stem yields were
significantly different between the 2 years, showing values of 17.9 and 16.9 Mg ha−1 in the first
and second year, respectively. Carmagnola and Pop 3 in 2005, as well as Carma in 2006, achieved
TABLE 2
Effect of year (Y ), cultivar (C), and Y × C interaction on plant density and biometric characteristics of dioecious and monoecious hemp cultivars, harvested in the first
(2005) and second (2006) years of growth. The comparison between dioecious and monoecious group was also reported
Plant density Stem basal diameter Stem median diameter

(plants m−2 ) Stem height (m) (mm) (mm) Bark/stem (mg cm−3 d.w.) Bark/stem (% d.w.)
Cultivar 2005 2006 Mean 2005 2006 Mean 2005 2006 Mean 2005 2006 Mean 2005 2006 Mean 2005 2006 Mean
Dioecious Carmagnola 133.0 95.3 114.2 D 3.17 2.95 3.06 A 10.8 bc 13.2 a 12.0 A 9.5 ab 7.6 cd 8.6 A 37.3 k 61.5 fghij 49.4 E 23.7 h 29.6 def 26.7 CD
C.S. 125.5 108.8 117.2 CD 3.30 2.71 3.01 AB 11.9 ab 10.3 bc 11.1 AB 9.8 a 8.1 bcd 9.0 A 48.7 jk 72.9 defg 60.8 CDE 28.6 efg 30.5 cdef 29.6 B
Fibranova 148.3 124.8 136.6 B 3.07 2.80 2.94 AB 10.5 bc 11.6 b 11.1 AB 8.8 ab 8.0 bcd 8.4 AB 51.8 hijk 95.4 c 73.6 BC 31.4 cde 38.8 a 35.1 A
Pop 1 162.0 116.3 139.2 AB 3.22 2.57 2.90 AB 9.7 cd 7.7 de 8.7 CD 7.2 d 8.1 bcd 7.7 B 63.2 fghij 92.6 c 77.9 B 31.1 cde 38.9 a 35.0 A
Pop 2 151.3 118.8 135.1 BC 2.83 2.64 2.74 B 9.6 cd 8.4 de 9.0 C 6.7 d 8.0 bcd 7.4 BC 69.2 defgh 82.1 cde 75.7 B 31.1 cde 34.1 bc 32.6 A
Pop 3 119.5 107.8 113.7 D 2.74 2.44 2.59 B 9.3 cd 9.5 cd 9.4 C 5.6 e 7.8 bcd 6.7 C 79.5 cdef 82.6 cde 81.1 B 26.7 fgh 31.3 cde 29.0 BCD
Pop 4 135.3 121.3 128.3 BCD 2.89 2.75 2.82 AB 9.3 cd 8.6 d 9.0 C 7.5 cd 7.6 cd 7.6 B 70.6 defg 77.5 cdef 74.1 BC 26.5 fgh 29.4 ef 28.0 BCD
Pop 5 120.8 105.5 113.2 D 3.06 2.57 2.82 AB 11.1 bc 10.0 c 10.6 B 8.5 bc 8.4 bc 8.5 A 55.6 ghijk 84.8 cde 70.2 BCD 26.6 fgh 39.1 a 32.9 A
Red petiole 130.0 95.5 112.8 D 3.11 2.68 2.90 AB 11.6 b 9.6 cd 10.6 B 8.7 b 8.1 bcd 8.4 AB 50.6 hijk 67.5 efghi 59.1 DE 24.6 gh 28.0 efg 26.3 D
Monoecious Carma 132.8 135.3 134.1 BC 2.86 2.71 2.79 B 10.5 bc 8.2 de 9.4 C 9.3 ab 7.9 bcd 8.6 A 49.0 ijk 67.5 58.3 DE 28.0 efg 30.8 cde 29.4 BC
Codimono 121.7 110.8 116.3 CD 2.42 1.85 2.14 C 8.7 cd 6.4 f 7.6 DE 8.0 bcd 5.6 e 6.8 C 71.4 defg 87.6 cd 79.5 B 30.0 def 36.5 ab 33.3 A
Felina 34 178.7 135.3 157.0 A 2.04 1.36 1.70 D 7.2 ef 5.4 f 6.3 E 3.5 f 4.6 e 4.1 D 272.7 a 186.6 b 229.7 A 33.6 bcd 37.0 ab 35.3 A
Mean 138.3 A 114.6 B 2.89 A 2.50 B 10.0 A 9.1 B 7.7 A 7.5 A 76.6 B 88.2 A 28.5 B 33.7 A
Significance:
∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗
Year (Y) N.S.
∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗
Cultivar (C)
∗∗∗ ∗ ∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗
Y ×C N.S. N.S.
t-test: dioecious vs
∗ ∗∗ ∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗
monecious N.S.
Two-way ANOVA test, with year and cultivar as variability factors. Mean values followed by the same letters are not significantly different at 0.05 probability level (LSD test). Uppercase letter: effect of year (Y)
and cultivar (C); lowercase letter: Y × C interaction. The comparison between dioecious and monoecious group have been carried out by t-test analysis.
∗
Significant at P ≤0.05; ∗ ∗ ∗ Significant at P ≤0.001; n.s.: not significant.
245
246
TABLE 3
Effect of year (Y ), cultivar (C), and Y × C interaction on productive characteristics of dioecious and monoecious hemp cultivars, harvested in the first (2005) and second
(2006) year of growth. The comparison between dioecious and monoecious group was also reported
Dry Biomass (Mg ha−1 ) Stem Dry Yield (Mg ha−1 ) Core Dry Yield (Mg ha−1 )
Cultivar 2005 2006 Mean 2005 2006 Mean 2005 2006 Mean
Dioecious Carmagnola 27.6 a 20.5 bc 24.1 A 21.8 a 16.6 bc 19.2 AB 16.6 a 11.7 defgh 14.2 AB
C.S. 22.7 abc 20.7 abc 21.7 A 17.7 b 17.2 bc 17.5 BC 12.6 cdefg 12.0 defgh 12.3 BCDE
Fibranova 19.3 bc 20.8 abc 20.1 A 15.4 bcd 16.6 bc 16.0 C 10.6 fghij 10.2 ghij 10.4 E
Pop 1 25.4 ab 20.1 bc 22.8 A 20.4 ab 16.1 bc 18.3 ABC 14.1 abcd 9.8 hij 11.9 CDE
Pop 2 21.4 abc 23.1 abc 22.3 A 17.3 b 18.8 ab 18.1 ABC 11.9 defgh 12.4 defgh 12.2 CDE
Pop 3 24.8 ab 23.6 abc 24.2 A 22.3 a 19.0 ab 20.7 A 16.3 ab 13.1 cdef 14.7 A
Pop 4 18.9 bc 24.3 ab 21.6 A 15.3 bcd 19.7 ab 17.5 BC 11.2 efghi 13.9 abcde 12.6 BCD
Pop 5 22.2 abc 20.9 abc 21.6 A 17.7 b 17.3 b 17.5 BC 13.0 cdef 10.5 fghij 11.8 CDE
Red petiole 26.9 ab 19.7 bc 23.3 A 21.1 ab 15.7 bcd 18.4 ABC 15.9 ab 11.3 defghi 13.6 ABC
Monoecious Carma 17.9 bc 24.4 ab 21.2 A 13.5 cde 22.1 a 17.8 BC 9.7 hijk 15.3 abc 12.5 BCD
Codimono 27.1 ab 17.8 bc 22.5 A 19.5 ab 12.3 de 15.9 C 13.7 bcde 7.8 jk 10.7 DE
Felina 34 19.2 bc 17.0 c 18.1 A 13.3 cde 11.1 e 12.2 D 8.8 ijk 7.0 k 7.9 F
Mean 22.8 A 21.1 A 17.9 A 16.9 B 12.9 A 11.2 B
Significance:
Year (Y) n.s. ∗ ∗∗∗
Cultivar (C) n.s. ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗
Y ×C ∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗
t-test: dioecious vs monecious n.s. ∗∗ n.s.
Two-way ANOVA test, with year and cultivar as variability factors. Mean values followed by the same letters are not significantly different at 0.05 probability level (LSD test). Uppercase
letter: effect of year (Y) and cultivar (C); lowercase letter: Y × C interaction. The comparison between dioecious and monoecious group have been carried out by t-test analysis.
∗ Significant at P ≤0.05; ∗∗ Significant at P ≤0.01; ∗∗∗ Significant at P ≤0.001; n.s.: not significant.
the best values. The behavior of Carmagnola, Codimono, and Carma between the 2 years was com-
pletely different. Carmagnola and Codimono showed a significant decrement of stem dry yield from
2005 to 2006; while the opposite trend was observed in Carma. Averaging over the seasons, the data
revealed that Pop 3 was the cultivar with greatest stem yield (20.7 Mg ha−1 ), while Felina 34 was
again the least interesting variety (12.2 Mg ha−1 ), as already noted for plant height. In the same way,
these two cultivars showed the highest (Pop 3) and the lowest (Felina 34) core yield, as mean values
across the 2 years. As already observed for the other parameters, core dry yield was significantly
affected by year, cultivar and their interaction. Conversely, no significant differences were found
between the two sexual groups of cultivars, according to t-test analysis (Table 3). In general, the
core production ranged from 7 to 17 Mg ha−1 , with the core to bark ratio from 1.8 to 2.8, to indicate
how the core represents the major component of hemp stalk.
Fiber percentage, expressed as the ratio between extracted fiber through stem retting and stem
weight, averaged 22% in both years (Table 4). No significant differences were observed between the
2 years of trial, while cultivar and Y × C interaction had a significant effect on fiber percentage.
The traditional dioecious cultivar Fibranova, showed the highest fiber content (28.9%), followed by
the new cultivar Pop 1 (26.2%) that appeared very promising. Interesting results were also obtained
by the other Pop cultivars, with values ranging from 22.4% to 23.3%. Red Petiole, on the other
TABLE 4
Effect of year (Y ), cultivar (C) and Y × C interaction on fiber content (%) and yield (Mg ha−1 ) of dioecious and
monoecious hemp cultivars, harvested in the first (2005) and second (2006) year of growth. The comparison
between dioecious and monoecious group was also reported
Fibre content (% DW) Fibre yield (Mg ha−1 )
2005 2006 Mean 2005 2006 Mean
Cultivar Carmagnol a 21.8 de 18.3 f 20.1 E 4.8 abc 3.0 ghij 3.9 CD
Dioecious C.S. 22.4 de 20.7 e 21.6 D 4.0 cdef 3.6 efgh 3.8 CD
Fibranova 30.3 a 27.5 b 28.9 A 4.7 bc 4.6 bcd 4.7 AB
Pop 1 27.1 b 25.3 c 26.2 B 5.5 a 4.1 cdef 4.8 A
Pop 2 24.2 cd 22.4 de 23.3 C 4.2 bcde 4.2 bcde 4.2 BC
Pop 3 22.0 de 23.9 cd 23.0 C 4.9 ab 4.5 bcd 4.7 AB
Pop 4 21.8 de 22.9 d 22.4 CD 3.3 fghi 4.5 bcd 3.9 CD
Pop 5 21.4 de 24.8 c 23.1 C 3.8 defg 4.3 bcde 4.1 C
Red petiole 16.6 g 17.2 fg 16.9 F 3.5 efgh 2.7 ij 3.1 EF
Monoecious Carma 21.8 de 20.4 e 21.1 DE 2.9 hij 4.5 bcd 3.7 CD
codimono 21.4 de 20.6 e 21.0 DE 4.2 bcde 2.5 j 3.4 DE
Felina 34 19.7 ef 22.9 d 21.3 DE 2.6 j 2.5 j 2.6 F
Mean 22.5 A 22.2 A 4.0 A 3.8 B
Significance:
Year (Y) n.s. ∗
Cultivar (C) ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗
Y ×C ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗
t-test: dioecious vs monecious ∗ ∗
Two-way ANOVA test, with year and cultivar as variability factors. Mean values followed by the same letters are not
significantly different at 0.05 probability level (LSD test). Uppercase letter: effect of year (Y) and cultivar (C); lowercase
letter: Y × C interaction. The comparison between dioecious and monoecious group have been carried out by t-test analysis.
∗ Significant at P ≤ 0.05; ∗∗∗ Significant at P ≤0.001; n.s.: not significant.
hand, gave the lowest mean fiber yield, followed by Carmagnola and all the monoecious cultivars.
As general trend, dioecious cultivars showed a greater fiber content (+8%) than monoecious ones, as
mean value over years (Table 4). The estimated fiber yield (Mg ha−1 ), as mean value across the years
and cultivars, averaged 4 Mg ha−1 with the best results for Pop1 (4.8 Mg ha−1 ), Fibranova (4.7 Mg
ha−1 ), and Pop 3 (4.7 Mg ha−1 ) and the worst one for Felina 34 (2.6 Mg ha−1 ) (Table 4). These
findings are in accordance with the general acceptance that dioecious hemp varieties are higher fiber
yielding than monoecious ones (Bennett et al. 2006; Cappelletto et al. 2001; Cromack 1998; van der
Werf et al. 1994; van der Werf et al. 1996).
To better understand the relationships between the plant biometric and productive characteris-
tics, a correlation analysis was carried out. The significant coefficients of correlations between all
the pairs of variables are presented in Table 5. The final plant density was positively correlated
with bark/stem ratio as mg d.w. cm−3 . Furthermore, the fiber content was positively correlated with
bark/stem ratio as percentage. At the same time, both basal and median stem diameter were nega-
tively correlated with bark/stem ratio, expressed as mg cm−3 or %. These two last variables were
negatively related to stem height and yield, besides dry biomass. Stem height was, in turn, positively
correlated with stem and core yield, dry biomass, stem basal diameter, and stem median diameter.
Core yield was also positively correlated with bark/stem ratio (%), stem height, stem dry yield, and
total biomass. As reported in literature, a positive correlation between plant height and stem diame-
ter gives an advantage in fiber production, because fibers are directly located beneath the epidermis
(Schäfer and Honermeier 2006). As a consequence, shorter and thinner stems can be separated more
easily and are much more suitable for the textile industry (Amaducci 2003; Cosentino et al. 2012).
Concerning the cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin content, no significant differences were
observed among the cultivars, and neither between the two years of cultivation. At the same time, no
significant differences were observed between monoecious and dioecious cultivars, contrary to that
observed by Benedetti et al. (1979), which found a lower cellulose content in the bark of monoecious
French cultivars. However, the chemical composition significantly differed between bark and core.
For this reason, the data were bulked and presented in Figure 2. It was found 66.0% cellulose,
6.9% hemicellulose, and 2.5% lignin in the bark as overall mean of the dioecious and monoecious
genotypes. The core showed 47.4% cellulose, 19.4% hemicellulose, and 18.2% lignin as mean val-
ues between the two sexual types. Interestingly, the cellulose content decreased (−37%), while the
hemicellulose and lignin level increased noticeably (+61% and 7-fold, respectively) in the core in
comparison with the bark. The higher cellulose and lower lignin content here found in the bark,
may be related to a higher primary bast fibers at the expense of secondary ones, increasing the fiber
quality of the bark, as already observed by Struik et al. (2000). Our findings were in agreement to
those reported in previous studies (van der Werf et al. 1994; Venturi and Amaducci 1999), where the
core composition, was constituted by 35%–40% cellulose, 30%–35% hemicellulose, and 15%–20%
lignin. The chemical composition of hemp core, here observed, is similar to that of wood species,
with a relative high content of cellulose and high contents of lignin and hemicelluloses, with very
small amounts of ash (Gandolfi et al. 2013; Thomsen et al. 2006). The complete chemical charac-
terization of this nonfiber component, obtained after retting of stem, appears essential in order to
optimize its utilization as raw material, and to underline the high potentiality of hemp for a range of
end-uses (wovens, nonwovens, and composites). Although new uses for this component are under
development, it is mainly used in animal bedding (95%) and the construction sector (5%) (González-
García et al. 2012). Thanks to its high carbohydrate content, the hemp core could be considered as
a potential feedstock for second-generation ethanol production (Barta et al. 2010; González-García
et al. 2012) as well as a potential feedstock for innovative lignin-based chemicals in a biorefinery
approach (Gandolfi et al. 2013). In fact, the lignin content of hemp core could become the primary
source of bio-based aromatic compounds for the chemical industry.
Additional advantages of hemp are that it is not a food crop and it acts as a relatively low input
break crop that can improve soil quality and the yields of subsequent crops. Thus, cultivated within
TABLE 5
Significant correlation coefficients (r ) (P ≤0.05, Pearson’s correlation test) among pairs of variables related to expression of growth and yield in the dioecious and
monoecious hemp cultivars grown in two years (2005 and 2006)
Plant Stem basal Stem median Stem dry Core dry

density Fibre content diameter diameter Bark/stem Bark/stem Stem height yield Dry biomass yield
Character (plants m-2) (%) (mm) (mm) (mg cm−3) (%) (cm) (t ha−1) (t ha−1) (t ha−1)
Plant density 1 0.307 ns −0.225 n.s. −0.350 n.s. 0.430∗ −0.046 n.s. 0.005 n.s. −0.070 n.s. −0.022 n.s. 0.039 n.s.
(plants m−2)
Fibre Content (%) 1 −0.027 n.s. 0.109 n.s. −0.067 n.s. 0.408∗ 0.105 n.s. −0.050 n.s. −0.103 n.s. 0.186 n.s.
Stem basal 1 0.679∗∗∗ −0.605∗∗ −0.461∗ 0.830∗∗∗ 0.362 n.s. 0.278 n.s. 0.417∗
diameter (mm)
Stem median 1 −0.822∗∗∗ −0.346 n.s. 0.743∗∗∗ 0.387 n.s. 0.339 n.s. 0.401 n.s.
diameter (mm)
Bark/stem (mg 1 0.462∗ −0.725∗∗∗ −0.500∗ −0.398 n.s. 0.536∗∗
cm−3)
Bark/stem (%) 1 −0.580∗∗ −0.473∗ −0.481∗ 0.646∗∗∗
Stem height (cm) 1 0.582∗∗ 0.467∗ 0.631∗∗∗
Stem dry yield (t 1 0.927∗∗∗ 0.964∗∗∗
ha−1)
Dry biomass (t 1 0.914∗∗∗
ha−1)
Core dry yield (t 1
ha−1)
∗ , ∗∗ , ∗∗∗ and n.s. = significant at P ≤ 0.05; ≤0.01; ≤0.001 and not significant.
249
FIGURE 2 Bark and core chemical composition (%) of dioecious (D) cultivars compared to monoecious (M) ones
in the average of the 2 years.
∗∗ Significant at P ≤0.01; ∗∗∗ Significant at P ≤0.001; n.s.: not significant according to t-test analysis.
a crop rotation cycle, hemp production can complement, rather than compete with, food production.
Today, in fact, the development of bio-fuels and green plastics using agricultural commodities is in
direct competition with the food supply chain and has already led to steep price increases in food
commodities.
CONCLUSIONS
The present work shows that, in Central Italy, hemp production is not less satisfactory than that
obtained in the areas of Central Europe, which are generally thought to be more favorable for hemp
growing. The naturally fertile alluvial soil of Arno river plain, characterized by good water retention
and fairly superficial water table, enabled hemp plants to achieve considerable vigor and fast rate of
growth, reaching by the end of the cycle considerable stem development in height and dry stem pro-
duction. Among the recent acquisitions, the new cultivars Pop 1, Pop 2, and Pop 3 gave particularly
promising results, showing excellent yield potentiality thanks to good drought tolerance, consider-
able resistance to preflowering, strong competition against weeds. No definitive judgment can be
given with regard to the Italian monoecious cultivar Carma because it is still genetically unstable as
demonstrated by the high degree of percentage of male dioecious plants in the experimental plots.
It should, therefore, be subjected to further selection in order to fix the character of monoeciousness
among its populations. On the contrary, the French monoecious Felina 34 showed to be very stable
without male plants present in the plots.
In conclusion, the Italian range of fiber hemp genotypes is certainly much broader than was
the case until not long ago. The currently available range is well adapted to the conditions both
of Northern and also Central Italy, and it is certainly more competitive as compared to cultivars
of Northern European countries. The new dioecious cultivars were characterized by interesting
fiber an nonfiber components which make appealing their utilization in several woven and non-
woven applications. Thanks to the great yield and the interesting chemical properties recorded
for the core fraction (47.4% cellulose, 19.4% hemicellulose, and 18.2% lignin), the full use
of hemp biomass in a cascade approach can contribute to the total valorization of this versa-
tile fiber crop, making possible the use of core fraction as feedstock for a modern biorefinery
facility.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully thank to Tuscany Region (Italy), that supported this study within the project
“Pilot action for sustainable cultivation, transformation and commercialization of fiber hemp in
Tuscany”. They wish to thank Dr S. Tozzi and Dr B. Cestone for their useful help in data
collection.
REFERENCES
Amaducci, S. 2003. HEMP-SYS: Design, development and up-scaling of a sustainable production system for HEMP textiles
– an integrated quality SYStem approach. Journal of Industrial Hemp 8:79–83. doi:10.1300/J237v08n02_06.
Amaducci, S., M. Colauzzi, G. Bellocchi, S. L. Cosentino, K. Pahkala, T. J. Stomph, W. Westerhuis, A. Zatta, and G. Venturi.
2012. Evaluation of a phenological model for strategic decisions for hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) biomass production across
European sites. Industrial Crops and Products 37:100–10. doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2011.11.012.
Amaducci, S., M. Errani, and G. Venturi. 1998. Confronto tra genotipi monoici e dioici di canapa. L’informatore Agrario
26:39–42.
Amaducci, S., A. Zatta, F. Pelatti, and G. Venturi. 2008. Influence of agronomic factors on yield and quality of hemp
(Cannabis sativa L.) fibre and implication for an innovative production system. Field Crops Research 107:161–69.
doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2008.02.002.
Amaducci, S., A. Zatta, M. Raffanini, and G. Venturi. 2008. Characterization of hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) roots under
different growing conditions. Plant Soil 313:227–35.
Bagnouls, F., and H. Gaussen. 1953. Saison sèche et indice xérothermique. Bulletin de la Société d’histoire Naturelle de
Toulouse 88:193–289.
Barta, Z., J. M. Oliva, I. Ballesteros, D. Dienes, M. Ballesteros, and K. Réczeya. 2010. Refining hemp hurds into fermentable
sugars or ethanol. Chemical and Biochemical Engineering Quarterly 24:331–39.
Benedetti, R., R. Ciarrocca, and N. Ciaralli. 1979. Chemicals characteristics of 7 hemp varieties. Cellulosa e Carta 29:25–34.
Bennett, S. J., R. Snell, and D. Wright. 2006. Effect of variety, seed rate and time of cutting on fibre yield of dew-retted
hemp. Industrial Crops and Products 24:79–86. doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2006.03.007.
Bertoli, A., S. Tozzi, L. Pistelli, and L. G. Angelini. 2010. Fibre hemp inflorescences: From crop-residues to essential oil
production. Industrial Crops and Products 32:329–37. doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2010.05.012.
Bócsa, I., and M. Karus. 1998. The cultivation of hemp – Botany, varieties, cultivation and harvesting, 1st ed. Sebastopol,
CA: Hemptech.
Cappelletto, P., M. Brizzi, F. Mongardini, B. Barberi, M. Sannibale, G. Nenci, M. Poli, G. Corsi, C. Grassi, and P.
Pasini. 2001. Italy-grown hemp: Yield, composition and cannabinoid content. Industrial Crops and Products 13:101–13.
doi:10.1016/S0926-6690(00)00057-1.
CoHort, 2008. CoStat-Statistics Software version 6.400. Monterey, CA: CoHort Software.
Cosentino, S. L., G. Testa, D. Scordia, and V. Copani. 2012. Sowing time and prediction of flowering of dif-
ferent hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) genotypes in southern Europe. Industrial Crops and Products 37:20–33.
doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2011.11.017.
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 7:205–10. doi:10.1016/S0926-6690(97)00049-6.
Dang, V., and K. L. Nguyen. 2006. Characterisation of the heterogeneous alkaline pulping kinetics of hemp woody core.
Bioresource Technology 97:1353–59. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2005.07.008.
de Meijer, E. P. M., and H. M. G. van der Werf. 1994. Evaluation of current methods to estimate pulp yield of hemp. Industrial
Crops and Products 2:111–20. doi:10.1016/0926-6690(94)90092-2.
Di Candilo, M., P. M. Bonatti, C. Guidetti, B. Focher, C. Grippo, E. Tamburini, and G. Mastromei. 2010. Effects of selected
pectinolytic bacterial strains on water-retting of hemp and fibre properties. Journal of Applied Microbiology 108:194–203.
doi:10.1111/jam.2009.108.issue-1.
Di Candilo, M., V. Di Bari, I. Giordano, G. Grassi, A. Pentangelo, and P. Ranalli. 2000. Due nuovi genotipi di canapa da
fibra: Descrizione morfo-produttiva. Sementi Elette 1:25–31.
Di Candilo, M., D. Liberalato, A. Del Gatto, D. Laureti, V. Di Bari, R. Colucci, P. Tedeschi, L. Postiglione, M. Poli, M.
Diozzi, G. Grassi, and P. Ranalli. 2002. Comportamento morfo-produttivo e qualitativo di cultivar di canapa (Cannabis
sativa L.) in varie località italiane. Agroindustria 1:19–27.
Di Candilo, M., P. Ranalli, B. Bozzi, B. Focher, and G. Mastromei. 2000. Preliminary results of tests facing with the controlled
retting of hemp. Industrial Crops and Products 11:197–203. doi:10.1016/S0926-6690(99)00047-3.
Di Candilo, M., P. Ranalli, M. Diozzi, and G. Grassi. 2002. Attività di miglioramento genetico per la costituzione di nuove
varietà di canapa dioiche. Agroindustria 1:14–18.
Gandolfi, S., G. Ottolina, S. Riva, G. P. Fantoniand, and I. Patel. 2013. Complete chemical analysis of Carmagnola hemp
hurds and structural features of its components. BioResources 28:2641–56.
González-García, S., L. Luo, M. T. Moreira, G. Feijoo, and G. Huppes. 2012. Life cycle assessment of hemp hurds use in
second generation ethanol production. Biomass and Bioenergy 36:268–79. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.10.041.
Grassi, G. 2004. La canapa monoica a confronto con varietà dioiche. L’Informatore Agrario 20:57–60.
Karus, M., and D. Vogt. 2004. European hemp industry: Cultivation, processing and product lines. Euphytica 140:7–12.
doi:10.1007/s10681-004-4810-7.
Li, X., S. Wang, G. Du, Z. Wu, and Y. Meng. 2013. Variation in physical and mechanical properties of hemp stalk fibers
along height of stem. Industrial Crops and Products 42:344–48. doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.05.043.
Matthews, A. 2011. Post-2013 EU common agricultural policy, trade and development. A review of legislative proposals, 34.
Geneva, Switzerland: ICTSD.
Mediavilla, V., M. Jonquera, I. Schmid-Slembrouck, and A. A. Soldati. 1998. Decimal code for growth stages of hemp
(Cannabis sativa L.). International Hemp Association 5:68–74.
Ranalli, P., and G. Venturi. 2004. Hemp as a raw material for industrial applications. Euphytica 140:1–6.
doi:10.1007/s10681-004-4749-8.
Schäfer, T., and B. Honermeier. 2006. Effect of sowing date and plant density on the cell morphology of hemp (Cannabis
sativa L.). Industrial Crops and Products 23:88–98. doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2005.04.003.
Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. In USDA natural resources conservation service, 10th ed., 341. Washington,
DC: US Government Printing Office.
Struik, P. C., S. Amaducci, M. J. Bullard, N. C. Stutterheim, G. Venturi, and H. T. H. Cromack. 2000. Agronomy of fibre
hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) in Europe. Industrial Crops and Products 11:107–18. doi:10.1016/S0926-6690(99)00048-5.
Thomsen, A. B., A. Thygesen, V. Bohn, K. V. Nielsen, B. Pallesen, and M. S. Jørgensen. 2006. Effects of chemical-physical
pre-treatment processes on hemp fibres for reinforcement of composites and for textiles. Industrial Crops and Products 24
(2):113–18. doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2005.10.003.
van der Werf, H. M. G., K. Brouwer, M. Wijlhuizen, and J. C. M. Withagen. 1995. The effect of temperature on leaf
appearance and canopy establishment in fibre hemp (Cannabis sativa L.). Annals of Applied Biology 126:551–61.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-7348.1995.tb05389.x.
van der Werf, H. M. G., E. W. J. M. Mathussen, and A. J. Haverkort. 1996. The potential of hemp (Cannabis
sativa L.) for sustainable fibre production: A crop physiological appraisal. Annals of Applied Biology 129:109–23.
doi:10.1111/aab.1996.129.issue-1.
van der Werf, H. M. G., J. E. H. Van Der Veen, A. T. M. Bouma, and M. Ten Cate. 1994. Quality of hemp (Cannabis sativa
L) stems as a raw material for paper. Industrial Crops and Products 2:219–27. doi:10.1016/0926-6690(94)90039-6.
Van Soest, P. J. 1963. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds, II. A rapid method for the determination of fiber and
lignin. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 46:829–35.
Venturi, G., and M. T. Amaducci. 1999. Canapa (Cannabis sativa L.). In Le Colture da Fibra, ed. G. Venturi, and M. T.
Amaducci, 33–55. Edagricole, Italy: Collana PRisCA.

Angelini 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Angelini 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Natural Fibers

ISSN: 1544-0478 (Print) 1544-046X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjnf20

Performance of New and Traditional Fiber

Luciana G. Angelini, Silvia Tavarini & Mario Di Candilo

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2015.1029193

Published online: 21 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Performance of New and Traditional Fiber Hemp (Cannabis

Luciana G. Angelini,1 Silvia Tavarini,1 and Mario Di Candilo2

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Field Crop Establishment and Experimental Design

Plant Sampling and Yield Evaluation

Group Cultivar Emergence Flowering GDD (◦ C) Emergence Flowering GDD (◦ C)

Harvest 8 July–7 August 893.51 22 June–31 July 899.03

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Plant density Stem basal diameter Stem median diameter

Mean 22.8 A 21.1 A 17.9 A 16.9 B 12.9 A 11.2 B

Cultivar (C) n.s. ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗

t-test: dioecious vs monecious n.s. ∗∗ n.s.

Fibre content (% DW) Fibre yield (Mg ha−1 )

2005 2006 Mean 2005 2006 Mean

Mean 22.5 A 22.2 A 4.0 A 3.8 B

Cultivar (C) ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗

t-test: dioecious vs monecious ∗ ∗

Plant Stem basal Stem median Stem dry Core dry

You might also like