Characteristics and Feasibility oi Marketing Texas Grease Wool 0n a Known Quality Basis Summary The domestic wool industry is faced with in- creased competition from well-prepared foreign wools and man-made fibers. The per capita consumption of wool has remained fairly constant during the past 25 to 30 years, but the per capita consumption of man-made fibers increased from 1 pound in the late l920’s to more than l0 pounds by 1957. Wool generally has been sold, and is still sold to a large extent, on the basis of a flat price per pound, with little regard to the various quality factors involved. There appears to be a definite trend away from this practice and, as a consequence, core sampling has increased. Other quality factors such as fineness and length need to be determined objec- tively. Practically all wool is sold in country markets on the basis of a visual appraisal and estimates of shrinkage. Market prices for Texas wool central market prices after handling tion costs are considered. There is ‘A variation between central market pricesi prices for grease wool. More than m,“ all prices compared varied l0 cents clean pound from the calculated price, of the wools. More than 5 percent of Q were 20 cents per clean pound or mo, 65 percent of these variations were be“, that producers should have received d f based on measurement at the three this study. i‘ A total of 2.8 million pounds off-l‘ was sampled during the 3-year period; produced an average of 45.9 percent f Only slightly more than 85 percent f A sampled was fine (64’s and finer). The average length was 2.8 inches. The average color was slightly above a B color, and the average crimps ran 15.5 j per inch. The average size lot was 8,903 pounds. The lots sampled showed an average of 56 bags with " an average bag weight of 158 grease pounds. One-third of the total volume of clean wool sampled and sold brought more than the calculated price; two-thirds sold for less than the calculated a price. The wool actually sold for $1,536,722.68, but _ it should have brought $1,566,074.07. _ 3-year‘ period, 750,000 pounds of wool brought grow- During the ers $64,120.24 less than it should have brought according to calculated prices. A total of 496,000 pounds brought growers $34,768.85 more than it should have brought according to calculated prices. Correlations between the calculated price and the actual price indicate that wool sold on a core test alone more nearly approximates the price it should have brought than does that sold on an esti- mated basis, even in those cases where the core results were known to the warehouse operator. Correlations between calculated prices and actual prices for wool sold each year at each warehouse were rather low. Correlations between the prices at all warehouses for any l year or at any warehouse for all 3 years were considerably higher. Buying on averages exists and is substantiated by the close correlation obtained on all observations for all years at all warehouses. This situation is highly desirable from the standpoint of the buyer since it enables one who overpays on a particular lot to underpay on another. More lots are bought under the actual price they should have brought than are bought above this price. This relationship holds true on both a poundage and lot basis. Many benefits are to be derived from an objec- tive classification system. Growers will derive more direct benefits than any others concerned. On the basis of the 3-year sample, growers could reasonably expect to receive more than half a million dollars additional annually for their wools. In Texas, this extra income would pay for the new system and still leave a definite annual increase. Growers also could use such a system profitably as a basis for flock im- provement. Information obtained in sampling wool for sale on a descriptive basis will yield valuable information to sheep breeders in the selection of superior breeding animals. Marketing agencies stand to gain improved in- formation on which to base their sales, for under an objective classification system those lots similar in quality could be assembled for sale at less expense‘ than is now the case. Buyers probably would pay more for the wools required to meet their particular demand if an objec- tive classification system were in use. Buyers would be able to locate various qualities of wool, however, at much less expense than at present and with much more speed. In addition, more wool could be sold on a description basis, which would eliminate much expense now involved in obtaining wool. Recommendations A system of objective wool classification is de- isirable. Knowledge about the various quality rela- tionships and their value is lacking, but indications are that clean content, length and fineness should at least be included in such a system. Additional characteristics that should be investigated more fully and included if warranted are color, crimp, strength and vegetable matter. f An objective system of classification would be economical. Such a system offers more gain than loss to the wool industry. The system proposed should add more than half a million dollars annually to the income of Texas wool producers. It should cost slightly less and should provide a basis for im- proved flock productions and, therefore, greater net income from sheep. The system proposed can be integrated easily into and be financed through the existing system of marketing. Facilities for performing the measure- ments are available, and with little effort the system could begin in the immediate future. The National Wool Act of 1954 and its subse- quent revisions have involved incentive payments to a wool growers based on quality (as reflected by price). The higher the quality, and the price, the more the incentive payment, since the program pays a per- centage of the market price. The ultimate aim of wool growers, consequently, should be to improve quality as well as to increase production. A portion of incentive payments, moreover, have been set aside to promote the consumption of sheep and the prod- ucts of sheep production. The funds so appropriated have been used mainly for advertising. A program aimed directly at improving the quality of wools and flocks would be in order. The system of objec- tive wool classification suggested not only would promote production of higher quality wools but also would provide a basis for it through eventual flock improvements. This dual gain would improve the competitive position of domestic wools. Contents Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . - -- 2 Recommendations ............ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Introduction ................................. 5 Acknowledgments... 4 Objectives .................................... .- 6 Methods of Evaluating Grease Wool . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- .- 6 Procedures for Obtaining Information ................................................. .- 7 Methods and Basis for the System ........................................................... .. 8 Prerequisites ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 3 Proeedure Used in Analysis ............................................................... -- 8 Need for Market Classification System .......................................... .. 9 Relationships Between Calculated Price and Price Paid .......... .-l0 Benefits of Objective Classification System ........................................... -.l2 Overall Benefits ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~12 Grower Benefits ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~12 Marketing Agency Benefits ............................................................... .13 Buyer Benefits ..................................................................................... "l3 PI-Qposed System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "l3 Method and Procedure ..................................................................... "l3 (jest and Payment Considerations .................................................. --14 .~(]0nsiderations of Time and Convenience ................................... .-l5 Arguments Against Proposed System ............................................. --l5 Market Information ........................................................................... ..l6 Description of Wools Sampled and Sold at Three Locations .......... ..l6 Number of Lots Sampled and Sold ................................................ ..l6 Yield, Clean Content ............................... .. .-l6 Fineness ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ~17 Length ---------------------------------------------------------------- "l7 Color ........... .. i ----------------------------- ..l8 Crimp ........................ -- -- "-18 Lot Size _______ __ 18 Bag Weights and Number of Bags Per Lot ................................... ..l8 Other Characteristics ......................................................................... .-l8 Generalizations Concerning Type of Wool Produced ................. --l9 Changes in Quality of Texas Wool ............................................... --l9 Uses for Which Texas Wools Are Well Adapted ......................... __20 Bibliography-. .............................................. -.20 Acknowledgment This report was adapted from tion submitted to the faculty uate School of the Agricultur‘ chanical College of Texas, Coll Texas, in partial fulfillment of; of Doctor of Philosophy. Data on quality and prices ti-l cluded in this report were - _ cooperation with Marketing vi“? search, Market Quality Researcli stock Divisions, Agricultural Service, U. S. Department of - Appreciation is expressed t0“lj bard, professor, Department of Economics and Sociology (reti support and encouragement. i‘ Acknowledgment is made siderable assistance given by L. as agricultural economist, U. S. of Agricultural Economics ands, Further acknowledgment is three warehouses from which s; obtained for assistance and c" furni.shing the basic data. The assistance of the W00 Laboratory of the Texas A periment Station and the Wool; of the U. S. Department of g the sample analysis is al i. acknowledged. " EXAS LEADS THE NATION IN ANNUAL WOOL PRODUCTION, but between 1951 and 1959 the percent of the total domestic clip produced in the State declined from a high of 21.4 percent in 1959 to 16.1 percent in 1958. Texas wool production accounted for 17.6 percent of the 1959 domestic clip, an increase of 1.5 percent over the State’s 1958 production. Texas produced slightly more than 44 million pounds of grease wool in 1959, Table 1. Better range conditions and the ‘National Wool Act of 1954, which provided for an incentive payment to producers of shorn wool, prob- ably caused the increase in 1959. There was a general decline in the value of the annual grease wool clip in both Texas and the United States between 1951 and 1959, Table 1. The farm ‘value of the 1951 Texas clip to the producer was approximately three times that of the 1959 clip since production was much greater in 1951 than it was in 1959 and the average price per pound was consider- ably higher. The situation in Texas reflects the general situation in the United States as well, for although the total domestic wool clip of this country in 1959 was slightly above the 10-year average of 1949-58, Table 1, the value of the U. S. domestic (wool clip for 1959 was, like that of Texas, only about one-third of the value of the domestic clip for 1951. j One problem now faced by the U. S. wool in- dustry is the inability of domestic wool producers, warehouse operators and wool buyers, using present subjective means, to evaluate consistently and accu- rately the various quality characteristics of grease wool .f0r marketing and manufacturing purposes. Much wool is sold, therefore, especially by producers, on a flat price basis, which is affected little by individual lot quality. Such pricing offers little inducement to ranchmen to improve either wool quality or prepara- tion (7). ‘ j The physical and chemical properties of wool determine its use as a textile fiber. The major physical characteristics of wool are fineness and length of fiber, and actual clean wool. Other factors that determine its commercial value‘, are crimp, color, strength, char- =acter and elasticity. '* Most wool sales are made on the basis of visual inspection and expert quality assessment (9). Re- ‘Respectively, formerly instructor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, now marketing specialist, Agricultural Marketing Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture; professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology; and wool ' and mohair technician, Department of Animal Husbandry. Characteristics and Feasibility 0i Marketing Texas Grease W001 0n a Known Quality Basis Robert L. Holland, Robert L. Hunt and Stanley P. Davis* cently, wool technologists also have developed scien- tific means of measuring objectively some of the important physical properties of wool. They have devised sampling methods and laboratory tests for the determination of fineness, length and clean yield on small wool quantities or samples. These tests may be applied to commercial size lots of wool, but their reliability depends largely on whether the samples selected are truly representative of the lot (9) (l3) . Before 1947, U. S. wool marketing had undergone relatively few changes since the earliest days of com- mercial sheep production. Clips or lots of wool were sold almost entirely on the basis of quality and value’ estimates. Such estimates were generally visual esti- mates and they were concerned with clean content, fineness, staple length, variability, color, soundness and other physical properties (10). Accurate determination of actual value of a grease wool lot by visual estimate, however, has proved ex- tremely difficult. Wool, as it comes from the sheep, contains various impurities: grease, dirt, vegetable matter and moisture. These impurities may con- stitute as low as 25 percent or as high as 75 per- cent of the total weight of a grease wool lot. The amount depends on the conditions under which the wool was produced and the type of sheep produced. Thus the actual price per pound for grease wool is influenced largely by the element of clean content, which determines the quality of usable clean wool available (10). Clean content is difficult to estimate accurately by visual techniques alone. Wool prices also vary considerably year after year and may vary in different areas within any given a year. Between 1930 and 1950, average prices per pound for grease wool in the United States varied from a low of 19.5 cents to a high of 62.1 cents and in Texas from 20 cents to 68 cents. Even prices paid in different Texas counties have varied a great deal every year. In 1957, for example, the lowest average price paid for grease wool in any county in Texas, including government payments, was almost 30 cents per pound, and the highest almost 75 cents per pound. These variations exist for several reasons; differences in clean content, variations in wool quality, and variation in amount and type of vegetable matter and other impurities present. The most important quality factor that affects prices are yield, fineness and staple length. Because of style and pattern variations, differences in price also are noted when sales are made at different times of the year (6). 8O t, so - C 3 O O. Q 4o - U) ‘é 8 2O * o | | JAN. JAN. JAN. JAN. I957 I958 I959 I960 Figure 1. Average midmonth prices received by Texas wool producers for grease wool, January 1957-December 1959. Source: Texas Agricultural Prices, Midmonth Market Price Reports, Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Austin, Texas, 1957-59. The average prices per pound for Texas grease wool for the 3-year period, 1957-59, are plotted in Figure l. The high prices during the 3-year period occurred during May-September, 1957, and the low prices occurred in late 1958 and early 1959. Prices paid based on incentive payments for individual counties for grease wool during this 3-year period varied almost 200 percent. Other strong influences on grease wool prices are the marked increases in supplies of man-made fibers and the improvements in the quality of such fibers. Synthetic fibers now are well-prepared for manufacture and are uniform in quality. They also possess characteristics that make them especially de- sirable for various end uses.. In the United States the consumption of man-made fibers in recent years .-has increased tremendously in comparison with the consumption of wool, Table 2. Mill consumption of man-made fibers averaged approximately 81 per- cent of the mill consumption of wool during 1934-38, TABLE 1. SHORN WOOL PRODUCTION AND VALUE, TEXAS AND THE UNITED STATES, AND PERC PRODUCTION PRODUCED IN TEXAS, 1951-59‘ but this figure had jumped to approximi percent by 1958. Mills were consuming V, pound of man-made fibers for apparel uses y pound of wool during 1934-38 (7). A Only 2.4 pounds of synthetic fibers sumed in 1937, but by 1957 the amount-f creased to 11.2 pounds per capita. The portant competitors of U. S. wools are u»; fibers and well-prepared foreign wools. l Objectives The objectives of this study are: 1. To design and test a procedure grease wool to be used as an aid by HY ducers, warehouse operators and buyers i‘ objective measurements of physical wool i’ istics. 2. To evaluate the benefits that gro '1’ house operators and buyers may derive “f, tive system describing grease wool. ' a 3. To analyze and describe a sample} produced wools in order to determine their“ physical qualities and advantages. f; Methods of Evaluati Grease Wool Wool has been sold mainly 0n the b price per grease pound. Wool coring h in popularity with growers, warehouse 0 buyers as a sampling method to determi wool content of a particular lot of grease f‘ 1947 when the government cored a ~_ quantity of grease wool on a loan progr if is the most accurate means known for determination of clean wool yield. This has been accepted by the American Society I Texas United States Year ' Production Value Production Value 1 ,000 ' 1,000 1,000 1 ,000 Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars 1951 48,712 48,225 228,091 221,456 1952 46,277 26,841 233,309 126,327 1953 43,492 27,400 232,258 127,514 1954 45,408 25,883 235,807 125,538 1955 45,137 19,409 234,058 99,813 1956 43,269 19,471 238,569 105,544 1957 39,409 22,069 235,509 125,732 1958 38,716 14,712 240,801 88,949 1959 44,461 16,184 251,929 91,702 ‘1958 and 1959 Shorn Wool Production and Income Reports, Agricultural Marketing Service, U. S. 6 Department of Materials, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Customs of the Treasury Department, Wool Associates 0f the New York Cotton Exchange, In- corporated, and by a large segment of the wool in- dustry. Argentina requires that all wools exported to the United States be cored as a basis for sale, and it is reported that other countries are considering . adopting similar procedures (1). Determination of other quality factors of a par- ticular wool lot have not been perfected as fully as i those for the determination of clean wool. “Quality” in this study means all the factors that affect the use- fulness of a particular wool lot. Evaluation of fine- ness, staple length, crimp, color, strength and other characteristics are made almost entirely by visual esti- mation and inspection. Various research agencies have set forth tentative objective means of evaluating such factors, but none have been approved as stand- ) ards by the American Society of Testing Materials except tests for yield, length, fineness and strength. Proposed methods for the determination of color and crimp have been developed by the USDA. Standards for length, fineness, strength, color, or crimp, however, have not been accepted to any degree by the industry. Commercial testing companies recently have begun to measure objectively the fineness or grade of a lot from the core sample when requested. “Grade” in this p study means fineness only. Practically no wool is sold on a description basis in Texas or in the United States except in the case of well-known special clips and in the relatively few cases when special relationships exist between buyers and sellers. Practically all wool is sold by visual ap- praisal and inspection. Buyers examine and place a value on a particular wool lot. Then by discussion between buyer and seller, a price per pound that is satisfactory to both parties is agreed on. The sale may be made on a clean basis, in which case either the wool is cored and the percentage of clean wool ~used in determining the grease price or the clean yield is estimated and the sale completed on an esti- mated clean basis. Other quality factors are determined by purely subjective means with the exception of yield and to a much lesser extent, fineness. This procedure places the producer in a weak position since he has neither the experience nor the knowledge necessary to evalu- ‘ate properly a particular wool lot. The producers bargaining position is weakened also because usually the buyer, rather than the grower or his representa- tive, obtains a core analysis for yield determination. Outstanding resfearch work on the physical char- acteristics of grease ‘wool was completed by Elroy M. Pohle and his associates and reported by the USDA in its Market Research Reports 2ll (9) and 256 (8). These reports compared visual appraisal with actual mill results. Pohle and his associates concluded that: (1) Use of the l.25-inch core to analyze yield is much more accurate than visual estimates TABLE 2. PER-CAPITA CONSUMPTION IN THE UNITED STATES OF WOOL, COTTON, SYNTHETICS AND TOTAL FIBER CONSUMPTION, 1927-57‘ Total wool, cotton Year W00? and synthetics Cotton Synthetics“ — — — — ——Pounds———--- 1927 3.0 30.2 .8 34.0 1932 1.8 19.7 1.2 22.7 1937 3.0 28.3 2.4 33.7 1942 4.5 41.8 4.8 51.1 1947 4.8 32.4 7.3 44.5 1952 3.0 ' 28.5 9.3 40.8 1957 2.2 23.7 11.2 37.1 ‘Agricultural Statistics, 1957, USDA. zClean basis, total of apparel and carpet types. “Includes cellulose and noncellulose fibers. and also more accurate than either the smaller 35-inch tube or the larger 2-and-3- inch tubes. (2) Objective testing of grease wool offers a much more consistent and precise method to” determine grade than visual classifications. (3) Length determinations for grease wool can be made rather accurately either by visual or purely objective means. Rather high correlations were obtained in this same project between visual and objective appraisal of crimp and color. Techniques used to measure both of these characteristics, however, are neither purely visual nor purely objective; actually they com- bine the two. Procedures for Obtaining In formation- The proposed research was discussed with ware- house operators at three locations in Texas, during the early spring of 1957. Warehouses at which samples were taken are identified as warehouses A, B and C because of considerable variation in both quality of ' wool handled and prices in different warehouses. Methods of classifying samples and financing local work and time factors were discussed with the ware- house operators. Agreements were made concerning the collector of the samples, dates for sampling, years for which the samples would be taken, number of samples to be taken, and type of information to be collected. Approximately 100 lots were to be sampled each year during 1957-59 under this agreement. Core samples were taken with the l.25-inch tube. Samples were taken for length and crimp measurements just before the core sampling, but on the same pattern used for coring. In every case the warehouse operator secured the approval of the grower before taking samples of any particular wool lot. All core samples 7 and length samples were taken by the writer or by someone that he had trained and supervised. After analyses of length, fineness, yield, color and crimp were made in the laboratory, the results were mailed both to the grower and to the warehouse operator for their use in marketing the wool. Sixty- one samples were processed at the USDA Wool Laboratory of Denver, Colorado, in 1957 and 5O samples were processed at the Wool Laboratory of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station in College Station, Texas. In l958and 1959 all samples were analyzed at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Sta- tion Wool Laboratory at College Station. When the wool was sold, the warehouse operator recorded on a copy of the report the sale price, date and terms and forwarded the copy to the writer for analysis. The analysis of the samples included determinations on clean content, fineness, length, color and crimp. Since no accepted standards were available for de- terminations of crimp or color, methods used to analyze crimp and color were those employed by the USDA, and they are still in an experimental stage of development. Methods and Basis for the System Prerequisites Adequate standards for the description of wool quality characteristics are necessary before any system describing grease wool can be adopted. Since the standards should reflect the changes necessary to meet the circumstances of each particular situation, they should not be rigid. Standard methods by ASTM are presently available to determine clean wool con- tent, fiber fineness and fiber length—the major eco- nomic characteristics of wool. Proposed or tentative standard methods are available for determining strength and vegetable matter. There are no standard methods and no proposed or tentative methods for determining color and crimp, but at present, work is under way for developing a proposed set of standard methods to measure color and crimp. The standards or measurement terms for each quality characteristic should be such that significant differences can be determined. There are no reasons why the standards for the measurement of quality elements cannot be developed further and refined at the same time that a system of grease wool classification is developed. Whether buyers, growers, warehouse operators and others accept a grease wool classification system depends on: (1) confidence in the system, (2) com- petent and unbiased agency operators and pro- vision of a method to guarantee measurements by wool merchandisers, who have developed and used their own system. Dependability of the evaluations, current market evaluations and usefulness of the classification system should be considered also. Both wool for sampling and personnel needed to take samples should be available if objective sampling 8 is to be done. To obtain samples, personnel, petent to take them should be available soon, shearing. Samples might be drawn from large, at the shearing location, but it would be to sample small clips at the warehouse or ati‘ concentration points in order to combine several‘ clips to obtain a lot sufficiently large to sample. lots should be combined with lots of similar ~ Some exactness might be sacrificed, but any; toward a more objective sampling techniquef be an improvement over present methods. l Evaluation of quality elements in individu lots vary slightly even under almost perfect con These variations, under normal conditions, ably may be expected to be small and to some? self-compensating. Where the variations ap treme, some recourse should be available to t f or purchaser. Unless a standard recourse is a double testing and abuse of the whole progr g result. a Samples should be taken carefully to be? sentative. Lots that are uniform in quali ‘ acteristics offer no real problem but lots that uniform pose various problems. Sampling prop might be affected by competence, training an vision of the sampler, the equipment availa methods used in sampling and the care and fication of samples with individual lots. The may necessitate the use of a qualified sampler, and supervised by a competent agency (7). ' ' It should be understood that the proposed is not to replace the present system of wool. if Instead it is hoped that this system will sup present methods and supply objective data n“ market grease wool on a known quality bas' Procedure Used in Analysis Data were collected on sale dates, te us? and prices paid for all lots of grease wool 4 and sold before January l, 1960. All 1957- _ had been sold by that date, but only apprf 50 percent of those at warehouse A and 75‘ at warehouse C in 1959 had been sold by 1960. Almost all wool sampled in 1959 at l B had been sold. Each lot was evaluated and priced on date on the basis of data obtained by objectiv tory measurements for fineness, length a content. No adjustments for color or crimp f istics were made since these factors are not c i explicitly in any known market quotation All prices were calculated on a clean basis/s livered at Boston for comparative purposesgi? news reports issued weekly by the Livestock- of the Agricultural Marketing Service were arrive at the theoretical market value of the? the sale date. The comparisons made on thy wool lots sampled and sold, although not; "s approximate a realistic situation. Quality differences g between the actual and the theoretical imperfections in market news reporting and in the quality determi- a nation are assumed to be self-equilibrating. All sales ‘ are first sales or primary sales by the producer. ,3 Need for Market ‘Classification System Range of price variation is the most important T single factor that indicates a need for a market classi- - . fication system for grease wool. The most important a price variations are caused by various physical proper- e ties and by place of sale. Increased information about end uses and more reliable estimates of future needs will be necessary , to make any system of describing grease wool sig- l nificantly helpful to the industry. More and better market news also is essential to any system designed f to improve marketing of grease wool in Texas or f in the United States. f able to obtain and use such information if a system a of market classification for grease wool is to be valu- , able to them. Moreover, growers should be Actually, market prices for grease wool in Texas should equal prices in Boston after adjustments for transportation and handling costs are made. Tences for each lot were obtained by subtracting the j price actually paid for the lot from the calculated 1 pI‘1C€S. Differ- Plus values indicate that the particular lot actually brought more than the calculated price; A minus values indicate that the lot brought less than 1 the calculated value. i or 15.7 percent of all lots observed, varied less than §l cent per pound. A total of 25 lots was split for sale purposes; sale information was complete on 307 sampled lots. Twelve lots varied a minus 1 cent per - pound; 27 lots varied plus 1 cent per pound; the calculated and the actual price were equal on only f 13 lots on a clean basis, delivered at Boston. A total a of 94, or 28.3 percent of all lots, showed variation of Only 52 lots of a total of 332, l0 cents or more per clean pound. Twenty-two, or 6.6 percent of all lots, varied 20 cents or more per clean pound. Sixty-three percent of all variations of at least 10 cents per pound of clean wool was nega- +20 ~ - +|o - - O Warehouse A +20 - c - +|o — - Warehouse B a Q l 0 0 00 .1. O I Price variation (Cents) rb o o I +29 " - +|o — - O "M ...................... -- warehouse C _ 4o _ "" . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ H . g _ -29 _ i. - 1o 2o so 4o so so 1o so 9o Number of lots Figure 2. Difference above and below the calculated price for wool lots sold by three warehouses for 3-year period, 1957-59. tive, and the lots sold for less than they should have brought on the basis of the calculated price. The average variation for lots which sold for less than the calculated prices was 8.5 cents per clean pound, and 7 cents per pound for those which sold for more r than the calculated price. A total of 126 lots, or 38.9 ' TABLE 3. TOTAL AND AVERAGE PER POUND VALUE‘ OF WOOL FOR EACH WAREHOUSE FOR EACH YEAR, FOR ALL WAREHOUSES AND FOR ALL YEARS FOR WOOL SAMPLED AND SOLD AT THE THREE LOCATIONS, r CLEAN BASIS, DELIVERED, BOSTON, 1957-59 1957 1958 195-9 , 1957-59 w h Average T 1 Average Average Average a are ouse 35:: per pound wit‘; per pound 353g per pound Tlital per pound s‘ - value value value Va ue value — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ——Do11ars——————--------__ ? A 231,110.53 1.26 259,267.32 1.13 164.019.49 1.30 654,397.34 1.22 p‘ B 158,291.97 1.55 166,373.51 1.12 176,680.20 1.21 501,345.68 1.27 Y C 105,313.61 1.20 128,441.73 1.12 147,224.32 1.25 380,979.66 1.19 _ All warehouses 494,7 16.1 1 1.33 554,082.56 1.13 487,924.01 1.25 1,536,722.68 1.23 ' ‘Clean basis. percent of all lots observed, reflected plus values, or more than they were worth on the day of sale, based on their calculated price, Negative values were re- corded for 206 lots, or 61.1 percent of all lots observed. Only one warehouse showed more plus than minus values. Warehouse A recorded the greatest number of plus values, 57 of its 97 lots, or 58.8 percent of all lots observed, showed plus values. Warehouse C recorded 36.8 percent of all lots as plus values, and warehouse B only 19.2 percent. Houses B and C recorded 63.2 and 80.8 percent negative values, respec- tively. A graphic representation of the variations by warehouses is presented in Figure 2. About one-third of the lots sold for more than their actual value (based on their theoretical or calcu- lated price), and about two-thirds sold for less than their worth. Only 13 lots actually sold for their true value. The major aim of this study is to propose an evaluation program designed to minimize such variation and thus insure equitable pricing for all concerned. The total value of the 1,254,078 clean pounds of wool was $1,536,722.68, or an average of $1.23 per clean pound, Table 3. At warehouse B, sales were completed early in the 1957 season. Before ware- houses A and C sold, a substantial decrease in prices occurred. The total difference between the adjusted price and the actual price on this same wool amounted to $98,899.09, or an average difference of 7.9 cents per pound. The minus differences totaled $64,120.24 and the plus differences, $34,768,85, Table 4. Plus values exceeded minus values at only one warehouse for only one year. At warehouse A plus values amounted to more than $17,000 in 1957, minus values to less than $2,000. At all other warehouses "and for all 3 years, 1957-59, the minus values exceeded the plus values. Total minus values for 1957 were less than total plus values, mainly because of the effect of the sales at warehouse A. Of a total of 332 lots observed, 126 reflected plus values and 206 re- flected minus values. Those lots that sold for more than the j calculated value brought $275.94 more than value per lot. Lots that sold for less thanthe” calculated value brought $311.26 per lot less thi true value. At warehouse A lots which bro- than average calculated value sold for an price of $479.85 per lot, while at warehouse the average values per lot which; sold for calculated value were $338.86 and $207.18,", tively. On lots which sold for more than thef calculated value, the averages per lot were‘, $239.49 and $66.73 per lot at warehouses A, respectively. The overall average lot value; 3-year period was $4,628.68. The average l, by warehouses were $6,746.36, $5,064.09 and i, at warehouses A, B and C, respectively. On the basis of clean pounds, a total off mately 758,000 pounds sold for less than t; lated value, and 466,000 pounds sold for F the calculated value. Only 50,000 pounds ,1 the actual calculated value, Table 5. Expg percentages of all lots observed, 60.4 percent‘ less than the calculated value, 35.6 percent , than the calculated value, and only 4 percenf actual calculated price. a Relationships Between Calculated Price. Price Paid l‘ There are two possible relations bet calculated price for a product and the price; paid. Any comparisons made are useless, if lated price does not reflect the true value thing very near the true value, for it is ass ,2: since the best available means for arrivin calculated price have been used, they r‘ approximate the true value of the product. g if the calculated prices do reflect the true v, obviously they are very useful in the anal’ market situation. T If the calculated price and the price each lot of wool in this study had been id g. TABLE 4. SUMS OF PLUS AND MINUS DIFFERENCES MULTIPLIED BY THE NUMBER OF CLEAN POUNDS f FOR EACH WAREHOUSE FOR EACH YEAR, FOR ALL WAREHOUSES AND FOR ALL YEARS FOR W ? SAMPLED AND SOLD AT THE THREE LOCATIONS, 1957-59 1957 , 195s 1959 1957-59 Warehouse Sum of plus Sum of minus Sum of plus Sum of minus Sum of plus Sum of minus Sum of plus S ~ values‘ values‘ values‘ va1ues2 values‘ values’ values‘ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ——Dollars——’———————————— A 17,107.84 1,930.51 4,949.37 9,367.50 4,826.00 7,895.99 26,883.21 B 739.44 11,257.46 3,216. 15 8,148.53 593.29 7,702.75 4,548.88 C 1,550.59 2,047.27 1,550.79 4,225.13 235.38 11,545.10 3,336.76 All warehouses 19,397.87 15,235.24 9,716.31 21,741.16 5,654.67 27,143.84 34,768.85 ‘Sum of plus values multiplied by the number of clean pounds for those lots with plus values for differences betw - and actual price. _ ‘Sum of minus values multiplied by the number of clean pounds for those lots with minus values for differences betw and actual price. l0 TABLE 5. AMOUNT OF WOOL‘ WHICH SOLD FOR THE CALCULATED PRICE OR MORE AND WOOL WHICH SOLD FOR LESS, FOR EACH WAREHOUSE, FOR EACH YEAR, FOR ALL WAREHOUSES AND FOR ALL YEARS FOR WOOL SAMPLED AND SOLD AT THE THREE LOCATIONS IN TEXAS, 1957-59 1957 1958 1959 1957-59 Sold for Sold for Sold for Sold for Sold for Sold for Sold for Sold for l warehmlse calculated less than calculated less than calculated less than calculated less than price or calculated price 0r calculated price or calculated price 0r calculated more price more price more price more price — — — — — - — - — - — — — — ——Pounds——————----____.__ A 162,920 20,359 77,595 151,164 69,971 56,011 310,486 227,534 a B 14,717 87,232 30,154 118,043 26,298 119,203 71,169 324,478 a C _ 54,306 33,807 57,671 56,714 2,553 115,360 114,530 205,881 " A11 warehouses 231,943 141,398 165,420 325,921 98,822 290,574 496,185 757,893 . ‘Clean basis. nearly identical, the correlation between the two producers. On the average, the value purchased would have been 1 or nearly 1. Conversely, the more usually is less than the value obtained. This expec- pronounced the variations, the smaller are the cor- tation is substantiated further by the fact that more relations between the two. Likewise the more im- of the wool sampled under this study sold for less perfections that exist in the marketing system, the than the calculated value, as determined by objective smaller are the correlations between the prices actually means, than sold for more than the calculated value. received and the prices that should have been received. A Considerable number of 1O ts tested and Sold The correlation between the calculated price and during these 3 years at all warehouses, were sold on the price actually paid for wool lots sampled at the a clean basis, delivered in Boston. In most instances three warehouses for each of the 3 years in which the clean yield was determined by core testing. A samples were taken is shown in Table 6. total of 115 lots were sold on this basis, 32 of them The highest correlation coefficient obtained for in 1957’ 45 in 1958 and 38 in 1959' any one warehouse during any one year was .75 on By correlating price paid and calculated price, wools sold at warehouse B in 1957. The lowest very high significant correlations were obtained by obtained was .24 at warehouse A in 1959. The latter years. Correlation between calculated price and price fwas not considered significant because of the small paid for lots sold in Boston on a clean basis was .95 number of observations during 1959. Only one other in 1957. Correlations for 1958 and 1959 were .94 correlation, that at warehouse B in 1958, was not and .81, respectively. The correlation for all 3 years considered significant. was .92, which is highly significant at the 95 percent Fairly close correlations were obtained between level’ Flgure 4- the two prices when all observations for any particular It is also significant that the differences between year or warehouse were compared. Two obvious ex- the two prices are considerably smaller on the average _ceptions exist: in 1958 all correlations of observations for those lots which sold on a clean basis. On the were fairly low, probably because of a very unstable average, growers received nearest the true price for I arket situation; and an unusually low correlation wool sold on a clean basis, delivered in Boston. Most xisted for the 3 years when combined at warehouse lots were probably sold on a core test since this is . The latter was probably due to a large carryover a general practice in the area studied, although there f 1957 wools which were marketed late in the 1958 is no definite figure or way available to determine arketing year. the exact number. = j The correlation of .82, obtained when all observa- ions were correlated, supports the thesis that buying TABLE 6- CORRELATION BETWEEN CALCULATED PRICE AND PRICE PAID FOR EACH WAREHOUSE, 1 averages exists under the present system of market- EACH YEAR’ ALL YEARS AND ALL WAREHOUSES ‘I18 W001» Figure 3- BuYing on averages is highly FOR WOOL SAMPLED AND SOLD AT THREE esirable because it enables the buyer who overpays LOCATIONS, 1957-59 14.: a particular lot to underpay on other lots. The resent technique of subjective evaluations of clips Warehwse 1957 1958 1959 195759 pauses some clips to be overvalued while others are A m 29 241 36 -. ndervalued. Even so, present subjective evaluations B J5 27, '41 '90 ould be quite acceptable to the buyer since the C 54 .68 48 '49 verage value paid at the close of a buying season All warehouses 38 32 A2 '82 g ould be near the average value obtained, although ' xtreme differences would exist among individual 1N0: significant at the 95 percent level.’ 11 Benefits of Objective Classification System Overall Benefits “Something is radically wrong with either the quality of wool we produce, our method of preparing it for market or the way in which we sell it. It may be a combination of all three, but better marketing methods must be devised which will reflect values to each grower according to the quality of his produce before the incentive is given to grow better wool and pack it in the best possible manner” (l2). The industry will ‘benefit appreciably through an objective classification system for grease wool. Such a- system would permit more accurate communication among different areas. Wool production has been primarily a periphery enterprise. Wool consumption, on the other hand, is greatest near the population centers. Wool probably is transported over longer distances than any other important commodity. Be- cause of its relatively high value per pound, however, it can be transported these long distances and still yield a profit to the producer (ll). An objective classification system will facilitate this movement at less cost to the industry. Grower Benefits Growers should obtain more benefits from an objective classification system for grease wool than any other group concerned with marketing it. Wool producers who lack experience in evaluating grease wool quantity and quality characteristics need objec- tive evaluations of their wool before making decisions 1.80 " L60 ' l.40 P L20 " Price paid (Dollars) l.00 " l’= .82 Y= .23 + .80X \ L>\l I l l I l .80 l.OO l.2O L40 l.6O l.8O Calculated price (Dollars) Figure 3. Correlation between calculated price and price paid for wool sampled and sold at warehouses A, B and C, 1957-59. 12 regarding the marketing of their clips, Ellldqi should be marketed on its own merits if t j values are to be obtained consistently. would receive benefits not only from the standpoint, but such information also woul; a sound basis for flock improvement and, desirable production practices. In 1958, on the basis of the} shrin i obtained at the three warehouses ‘heret tioned and the application of these data to; production in Texas, it was calculated million pounds of clean wool were produ) State. The Texas clip for 1958 had a million dollars based on average prices warehouses where the wool was sampled; assumption that all Texas wool sold and sold in a similar manner to that sampled, pounds probably sold for less than it sh, during the year. The average negative cents per clean pound indicates that actually received in 1958 about a million for their wool than they should have rec the other hand, the average plus value of clean pound indicates that Texas produc n $500,000 more than they should have receiv it appears that Texas producers lost a total on the 1958 wool clip because of underpri ' Approximately 60 percent of all wool be sold to better advantage if an objective; _, grease wool classification were available. " 60 percent of all wool growers probably than true value because larger clips tend for the largest percentage of total pounds; more than their true value. About 60 the wool marketed in 1958 actually sold f true value. L80 ' L60 - l.40 ' L20 * Price paid (Dollars) l.00 ' .80 Figure 4. Correlation between calculated paid for wool sampled at warehouses A, B and 1 . a clean basis, delivered Boston, 1957-59. Growers are slower than buyers t0 recognize changes in yields. Buyers generally adjust their esti- - mates of shrinkages before too many clips are pur- chased. Growers and warehouse operators, however, are less aware of year-to-year changes in yields. Other quality factors of wool also vary according i to range conditions, amount of feeding, weather and breeding. Growers and warehouse operators appear frequently to be unaware of these changes. Hence an objective classification system would further pro- vide growers with an objective historical record on which decisions could be made on the general manage- tment of individual flocks. An objective classification system thus would provide growers before selling, with measurements that indicate both quality and quantity elements of the clips and possible year-to-year changes. a Marketing Agency Benefits An objective classification system performs a I major service for the marketing agency by taking over the responsibility for estimating the quality and quantity of the clips. The marketing agency pertains only to those firms which operate as commission agents for the producer. The marketing agency that purchases directly from the grower is assumed to be a buyer. Warehouses or other marketing agencies act in behalf of the grower and in many cases complete the sale without consulting with the grower. In some cases, the grower may reserve the right to approve the price before sale. In others the grower may set a minimum price and order sale at that price or higher at the discretion of the marketing agency. j Prices obtained by a given agency must correspond closely with prices obtained by other nearby agencies in order to establish and maintain the marketing agency’s business volume. Growers will change agencies if too low prices are received from any par- ticular marketing agency and buyers will tend to shy way from the marketing agency if prices demanded re consistently higher than the true value. It is therefore to the best interests of the market- 'ng agencies to obtain as nearly as possible prices eflecting the true values of the wool sold. With ccurate market quotations and the information sup- lied by an objective classification system, marketing géncies can obtain prices nearer the true value of he wool handled than would otherwise be possible. Much of the guesswork of marketing agency per- onnel can be eliminated by using an objective 1 easurement for yiield, length, fineness, color and rimp. Not only is guesswork eliminated, but justi- ication for marketing a particular wool lot at any articular time can be made, if necessary. Since the | ost common difficulty that arises between growers nd their marketing agencies results from the prices eceived, this system would help maintain true values of the wool handled. Consequently, grower-market- ing agency relationships would improve. Buyer Benefits Wool buyers will still be needed in addition to objective wool descriptions, since it will still be neces- sary to locate lots of varying characteristics desired for specific uses. The classifications data should aid buyer and seller to arrive at an equitable value of the wool. Acquaintance with laboratory wool reports should help locate wools at various sources by tele- phone and save time and travel. Such reports would allow buyer andseller to pay for wool on a quality basis because of actual tests made by an impartial third party. Proposed System Method and Procedure All clips would be sampled in the system of grease wool classification. Samples would be taken by means of techniques and methods approved by the American Society for Testing Materials as standards“ for core-testing grease wool. Sampling patterns would include cores from every bag on a specific pattern, Figure 5. A minimum of 100 cores would be drawn from each lot. In cases where more than 100 bags were in the lot, one would be taken from each bag. Before coring, a staple length sample of wool would be drawn according to methods approved by the ASTM for determining the grease wool length. Core samples and staple samples should be properly identi- Pattern for lOO-bog lot a 0 7h ° l l Staple o o Repeat the same pattern for the rest of the lot 1m 2 Pattern for 50~bog lot Elli? Pattern for ZO-bog lot Figure 5. Sampling pattern to be used to core every bag and staple pattern. Pattern for 10-bag lot would be the same as for 20-bag lot except both the front and back of the bag would be cored. Other size lots would be cored using a similar pattern to obtain at least 100 cores for each lot. Staples would be drawn from the seam side of the bag, within 6 inches of the seam, before coring. l3 fied, placed in proper containers and forwarded to a public wool testing laboratory. Two such labora- tories are operating in Texas. The analysis carried on at the laboratory should include an analysis of clean wool, fineness, length, vegetable matter and strength by methods adopted as standards by the ASTM. Measurement of crimp and color should be made using methods now being developed by the USDA. The most up-to-date series in each case would be used. Information on the various quality elements would be returned to the producer and warehouse- men on a form such as that shown in Figure 6. This form should also include a short explanation of the various measurements on the back. Information concerning the grower, warehouse, sampler, testing agency, addresses, date, lot number, number of bags, place sampled, weight of the lot at coring, number of staples and the weight of samples would be recorded on the form at coring time. This form would be included with the sample and would remain with it until the sample was destroyed or disposed of by properly authorized personnel. An array of staples used to determine the length of the grease wool could be made available at addi- tional cost when the grower’s wool is delivered to the marketing agency. WOOL ANALYSIS REPORT Producer ................................ .. Handler ................................. .. Address ................................... ._ Address ................................... .. Sampler .................................. .. Testing company ................. .. Address ................................... .. Address ................................... .. Lot number .......................... .. Sample number .................... .. Number of bags .................. .. Number sampled ................. .. Date sampled ...................... .. Place sampled ...................... .. Core weight ........ ..pounds ..........ounces Net weight ................ ..pounds Number of cores .................. .. Number of staples .............. .. Clean yield‘ ............ ..percent Clean pounds ........................ .. Average diameter ................ ..microns Spinning count ..................... .. Average length .......... ..inches Length class .......................... .. Percent vegetable matter ................ .. Type ........................................ .. Strength .................. ..pounds Crimp ...................... ..per 1nch per square inch Histogram of staples Yes .............. .. No .............. .. requested ‘Simple explanations would be included on the back of each form. Figure 6. Sample report form to be used to record in- formation for a particular wool lot sampled. 14 Cost and Payment Considerations Four methods of financing such a gr classification system are examined. The Ineth (l) grower payment, (2) buyer payment, (3) nation of grower and buyer payment and payment through Federal appropriations, 0 ment of the incentive payment. i Grower payment or buyer payment or -T nation of grower and buyer payment will mately in the grower’s paying the classifica: This would happen because the buyer mere ‘i? transfer his portion of the cost to the grow; form of a reduced price offer for the wool c‘ The main point in favor of this first payment; is that the growers receive the most benefits system and thus should pay for its cost. i) against this method of payment center ar; cost of the service. It would cost about th test a large wool lot as a small one, thus sma y’ would be less likely to use the classificatio A grower-payment program could be hand _ in Texas through the warehouse system. g tional amount for testing could be deduc, the final settlement. Federal appropriations for a wool-tes classification system might appear as an i solution in view of the aid offered other a producers through the Smith-Doxey Act o“ Classification and the Tobacco Grading Servi‘ ever, a more desirable method appears avail“ 1954, Congress passed the National Wool ' g provides an incentive payment to wool r! Funds collected from tariffs since that time a“ used to defray the expenses of the Act. S ] could be used to provide a wool-classificati but some slight changes would be necess t A those portions of the Act that pertain tof lambs should be abandoned because the lambs will be shorn or pulled. Second, > should be made on pulled and shorn Under the present law there is a provision l cent per pound is deducted from incentive,‘ to growers for promotional purposes. So" amount also could be deducted to defray of a classification service. The effect wo further the broad intentions of the Natio Act of 1954, and those who would benefit 1 would pay the most in the long run. The estimated cost per grower for a»). classification as proposed would be about depending on whether the staple s n1 mounted and returned to each individual his request. Approximately 21,000 wool producers?) received payments in 1956 under the Nati Act of 1954. Of this number, 8,500 pr’ under 1,000 pounds, grease basis, and 15,000? produced average lots of less than 2,000 lot (5). In other words, approximately 25 percent of Texas growers produce 70 percent of the wool. It is estimated that there would be about 12,000 lots in the State after lots were combined for sampling purposes. The cost per sample estimate of $46 multi- plied by 12,000 lots equals $550,000, or a classification cost of 1.2 cents per pound for all wool produced in the State in 1959. In years when production falls below the amount necessary to finance the system, direct payment could be made from tariff funds col- lected on imported wool by the Treasury Department. This situation would happen only in years of extreme prolonged drouth, when the same number of lots, but fewer pounds of wool would be tested. Payments could be handled by the county Agricultural Stabiliza- tion and Conservation offices. Considerations of Time and Convenience Any classification system should satisfy certain time requirements to be successful. The need to have results of laboratory analysis back in the grower’s hands within 3 (not more than 4) days after sampling is very important. It is important also to provide for processing individual lots even more quickly when the need arises. A major problem for the laboratories would be to secure trained people to perform the lanalyses. Sampling is done usually on a part-time basis, and perhaps much laboratory work could also be done on a part-time basis since it is routine work. However, since supervisory personnel would need to be employed on a year-round basis, they could recruit ‘and train samplers and laboratory personnel during "the off-season. Wool could be sampled either when delivered to the warehouse or after it is sold and ready to be moved from the warehouse. The preferable time would be immediately on delivery since reweighing and rehandling would thus be eliminated. Delay in settlement would occur if testing were not completed before sale and the overall operation would tend to be inconvenient and unduly expensive for the ware- house operator. Furthermore, the seller would not have the information in time to line up his wools for sale or to sell them on the basis of known quality. Handling would not be slowed down if the wool was cored as it moved into the warehouse. Only a few seconds are required to core a bag by this pro- icedure. A warehouse operator might want to add a fraction of a cent to his handling charge but this is, unlikely since such a service would provide a real basis for improvement of wool marketing in that particular warehouse}. It could save the warehouse time in displaying wools in the long run. It is extremely inconvenient for warehouse opera- tors to core after the wool has been placed in stacks for storage since the wool must be removed from the ‘stack, cored, weighed and restacked. A crew of seven laborers, one weigher and one sampler can core about 25,000 pounds of wool in 4 hours after it is stored. The same crew can weigh, core and stack about 75,000 pounds in 4 hours as the wool moves into storage, since the coring does not slow up the overall storage operation. Each warehouse would need to arrange for the service of an official sampler. However, one indi- vidual could do the sampling for several warehouses if they were located in one community. Otherwise, he might do the sampling in several communities if they were not too far apart. Arguments Against Proposed System Everyone associated with the production, market- ing and consumption of wool would benefit to some degree by a classification system for grease wool. Some, however, would benefit more than others, and there would in all probability be some objection to the system here proposed. The traditions-and-customs aspects of wool mar- keting would serve as the basis for much of such opposition. Buyers who travel through the wool- producing areas in season, evaluating and bidding on ~- wool in the old traditional manner are part of a long-established custom. This system, however, is decreasing in importance as old producers, warehouse operators and buyers are replaced by younger men since the younger men are more inclined to desire more objective measurements of quality and yield. In addition, as more older men retire, less opposition to a new grease wool classification system can be ex- pected. Growing familiarity with objective measure- ments also encourages the breakdown of the old method. Buyers, warehouse operators and growers who understand the proposed system find it accept- able. The strongest opposition will be from old members of the buying trade. They will have to realize that the system would not replace personnel but would aid in wool evaluation. Wool lot examina- tion and confirmation of sales still probably would be made in person, with a few exceptions. More and more wool probably could be purchased on a descrip- tion basis alone as buyers place more confidence in the classification system. Marketing agency objections to such a system would arise from additional trouble and expense, but such objections could be overcome easily once ad- vantages were demonstrated. The charges made for services by Texas ware- house operators are different from those made any- where else in the United States (4). The system of charging a flat rate per pound is outmoded and should be replaced by a system under which charges are based on services rendered. Texas operators should charge a percentage of gross returns based on services ren- dered in warehousing wool. A charge of 2 percent of gross sales would yield slightly more revenue to warehouse operators and would enable them to pro- 15 vide more efficient services toward marketing wool on a quality basis. Market Information A good system of market news that reflects actual market situations must be available t0 the producer if a classification system is to function properly. The producer can use the information to compare his particular wool lot with similar lots mentioned in the current market reports. Today’s market informa- tion is inadequate for the proper functioning of a classification system. More accurate and timely re- ports, wider dissemination of market news, and a uniform basis for reporting, designed to provide in- formation necessary under the proposed classification system, is needed. Description of Wools Sampled and Sold at Three Locations A major aim of this study was to accumulate by means of objective measurements enough physical data to permit generalization about the quality char- acteristics of Texas wools. This report represents initial work on this project and marks the beginning of studies which should eventually result in a more equitable system for marketing Texas wools. Although the wools sampled and reported on in the following pages represents only a comparatively small tonnage, they are characteristic of most Texas wools. Number of Lots Sampled and Sold Table 7 presents a summary of the lots sampled and sold at all warehouses at which samples were taken during the 3-year sampling period. In 1957 a total of 111 lots was sampled, but information on only 105 of these was used. In 1958, 112 lots were sampled, and information on 110 of these was used. In 1959, 143 lots were sampled, but information on only 92 of these was used. Over the 3-year sampling period a total of 366 lots was sampled, and informa- tion on 307 of them was used. Ten lot samples were taken at locations other than the three warehouses TABLE 7. NUMBER OF CORE SAMPLES TAKEN AND NUMBER OF LOTS SOLD FOR EACH WAREHOUSE, YEAR, FOR ALL YEARS AND FOR ALL WAREHOUSES, 1957-59 f; concerned in this study; six of the ten were 1957 and four in 1959; information on samples was not used. Samples from two ‘l eliminated from the 1958 lot data because off and 47 lots not sold at the end of 1959 we!‘ over as 1960 data. 1 Yield, Clean Content § During this study a total of 2,733,000 grease wool which yielded 45.9 percent, or p clean pounds of wool, was sampled and so 8. An analysis of slightly more than 875, of grease wool in 1957 indicated a yield of 1J9 cent clean wool. During 1958, an analysis more than 1,000,000 pounds indicated a yijf percent clean wool. The difference in yield between the 2 years was 5.7 percent. ,_ if it had gone entirely to the buyer in have cost growers about 7 cents per pound q age alone. In 1959, average yield was 46, clean wool from 835,000 pounds of grease w: was a smaller yield than that of 1958 but that of 1957. Yield differences were not significant at locations at which samples were taken. Ave by warehouses for the 3 years were 45.2, 46. percent clean wool at warehouses A, B and, l, tively. The maximum amount 0f grease He? at any warehouse during a given year pounds, sampled in 1958 at warehouse A. i: mum amount was 205,000 pounds, sampl house C in 1957. Slightly more than 1,100, were sampled during the 3 years at wareho,‘ 690,000 pounds at warehouse C. A total I pounds was sampled at warehouse B. T By years, all warehouses sampledj 1,019,000 and 835,000 pounds of grease w f, 59, respectively, for a total of 2,700,000 f‘ all warehouses for the 3 years. The percentage of clean wool by v sharply. The highest yield was 57.3 r437“ the lowest was 31.6 percent. Both higf yields by lots occurred in 1958, the high at}; C and the low at warehouse A. ' 1957 195s 1959 warehwse Sampled sold Sampled Sold Sampled sold Sampled - - - - - — — — — — — — — --—Number———-———-----j A ss ss s4 s4 s7 l6 104 B s4 s4 s7 s5 s4 so 105 c ss ss 41 41 6s 4s 147 1) 4 4 i E 6 6 All warehouses lll 10s 112 110 14s 92 s66 16 Fineness Two important quality characteristics that de- termine the usefulness of a particular lot of wool are fineness, 0r grade and staple length. Fineness of fiber, coupled with staple length, determine largely g the uses for a particular lot of wool. The majority of Texas wools are generally con- sidered to be fine—that is, 64’s or finer, or t0 have an average fiber diameter of less than 22 microns with no more than 7 percent of the fibers exceeding 30.1 microns and no more than 1 percent over 40.1 microns. Of wool measured in this study and sold, 86.4 ~ ‘percent was finer than 22 microns. The remaining 13.6 percent ranged in fineness from 22.1 to 24.6 microns in diameter, or in terms of the Bradford spinning count system, 86.4 percent was 64's and finer and 13.6 percent was 60’s and 62’s. Average fineness of all wool sampled and sold was 20.98 microns. Average fineness for 3 years at warehouses A, B and C was 20.90, 21.01 and 21.06; respectively. The average fineness for all warehouses for 1957, 1958 and 1959 was 20.19, 21.27 and 21.36, respectively. Wool produced in 1957 was considerably finer than that produced in either 1958 or 1959 be- cause of poor range and feed conditions in 1957. Warehouse B in 1957 had an average fineness of 19.92 microns, the finest at all the warehouses for all years. This measurement was on the coarse side of a 70’s grade. Warehouse B in 1958 had an average fineness l of 21.39 microns, the coarsest at the warehouses for all years. Much wider variations occurred between lots. The finest lot found during the 3 years, measured 18.03 microns, the coarsest lot, 24.58 microns. The finest lot was measured in 1957 at warehouse C, the coarsest at warehouse B in 1959. Each warehouse had wool lots that were finer in 1957 than in either 1958 or 1959, and the coarsest of the lots in 1957 was finer than the wool in any lots sampled in 1958 or 1959 with the exception of a lot at warehouse C. Slightly less than 1,100,000 pounds of wool, clean asis, of the 1,250,000 pounds sampled was fine, that s 64’s and finer. A total of 170,000 pounds, clean ‘asis, or 13.6 percent of all wool sampled, was 22 icrons or more in diameter. In 1957, none of the - ool sampled had an average diameter of 22 microns r more at warehouse A in 1957. In 1957, 96.5 per- ent of all wool samipled and sold was fine; in 1958 nd 1959, 81.9 and ‘82.5 percent, respectively, were ine. During the 3 years, 95.9 percent of the wool a warehouse A was fine. The comparative percent- ge for warehouse B was 80.8 percent, for warehouse ‘ , 82.5 percent. A relatively higher percentage of ' ine wool was noted at all warehouses in 1957 than any other year. TABLE 8. PERCENT CLEAN WOOL FOR EACH WARE- HOUSE FOR EACH YEAR, FOR ALL YEARS AND FOR ALL WAREHOUSES FOR WOOL SAMPLED AND SOLD AT THE THREE LOCATIONS, 1957-59 Warehouse 1957 1958 1959 1957-59 — — — — — Percentclean — — — — — A 41.4 48.0 46.7 45.2 B 43.8 48.9 45.9 46.4 C 43.2 48.1 47.5 46.5 All warehouses 42.5 48.2 46.6 45.9 Length Length is a major characteristic that determines the usefulness of a particular wool lot. The shorter the wool, the more limited are its uses. The 3-year average unstretched length of wool sampled at all warehouses was 2.8 inches. Average wool lengths for the 3 years at warehouses A, B and C were 3, 2.5 and 2.8 inches, respectively. The aver- age length for 1957, 1958 and 1959 for all warehouses was 2.8 inches. The average unstretched length of all wools sampled and sold at warehouse A was longer than the average length of those sampled and sold at either of the other two warehouses for all years. Warehouse A wools ranged from .3 inch to .9 inch longer than the others. For the entire period, warehouse A wools averaged .6 inch longer than wools at warehouse B and .3 inch longer than those at warehouse C. Wools at warehouse B were always shorter than the average, but those at warehouse C were nearer the average length for all warehouses. The greatest average length of a single lot at all warehouses during the 3 years was 3.8 inches, the shortest was 1.3 inches. The lot that had the longest average length was sampled in 1959 at warehouse A, and the lot that had the shortest average length was sampled in 1957 at warehouse C. The lots that showed the longest average lengths for the 3 years were 3.8, 3.4 and 3.6 inches at warehouse A, B and C, respectively. The lots that showed the shortest average length were 1.8, 1.4 and 1.3 inches for the same period at the same warehouses. By years, the longest average lot lengths were 3.7, 3.4 and 3.8 inches; and the shortest average lot lengths were 1.3, 1.4 and 1.7 inches during 1957, 1958 and 1959, respectively. The shortest lengths above were from wools of less than 12 months growth. According to the standards for length, proposed by the USDA, the following classifications may be made: Wool lots that have an average length of 2.75 inches and above are classified “strictly staple,” those of 2 to 2.75 inches as “staple and good French,” those of 1.5 to 2 inches as “average and good French” and those under 1.5 inches as “short French and clothing.” On a clean basis, 715,000 pounds, or 57 percent, of all wool sampled and sold were strictly 17 staple; 466,000 pounds, or 37.1 percent, were staple and good French; 61,000 pounds, or 4.9 percent, were average and good French; and 13,000 pounds, or 1 percent, were short French and clothing wool. No short French and clothing wools were sampled and sold in 1959. Color Objective standards for determining the color of a particular wool lot are not yet available, but methods used to determine color were those currently employed by the USDA. Colors were estimated by representa- tive samples of various colors and by visual com- parison of the subjected lot with the sample. The colors were ranked A through E; A was the whitest and E the creamy or least desirable color. Tex-as wools are not normally the whitest wools produced in the United States. Whitest wool or A color is given an index value of 1; B, C and D values of 2, 3 and 4, respectively. The average color for all warehouses for all years was 1.9 or only slightly better than B color. However, wools_produced in 1957 were considerably whiter than those produced in either 1958 or 1959. This fact characterized wools sampled at all warehouses. The lowest “color rating for wool sampled and sold at any warehouse during any year was sampled at warehouse C in 1958 and had an average rating of 2.3. Very little difference in average color was found in wools at all warehouses during these 3 years. Eighty-five lots, or 27.7 percent of all lots, were A color; 181 lots, or 59 percent, were B color; 40 ‘lots, or 13 percent, were C color; and only one lot, or .3 percent, was D color. A total of 75 lots, or 88.2 per- cent of all lots with A color, were sampled in 1957. “Most B wools were sampled in 1958 and 1959. On a clean basis, 277,000 pounds, or 22.08 percent of all wool sampled and sold,» were A color; 816,000 pounds, or 65 percent, were B color; 159,100 pounds, or 12.7 percent, were C color; and only 2,000 pounds, or .2 percent, were D color. Distribution by weight and by lot are very similar. Most weight classified as A color was so classified in 1957, which was also the case by lots. Most of the weight classified as B wool was accumulated in 1958-59. Crimp Crimp of wool is a characteristic presently de- termined by tentative methods. No one standard method for crimp measurement is used since a variety of methods are employed. Although the method used in this study is not entirely satisfactory, it offers a quick and convenient method of determining objec- tively the staple crimp of a particular wool lot and gives a distinct impression of whether the wool has a coarse or fine crimp. No measurements on crimp depth were made. 18 The average crimp per inch for all wool f was 15.6. The highest number of crimps for any lot was 21.1, the lowest was {_ which the wools sampled showed the lowest number of crimps per inch was 1958. Lot Size V The average grease weight of wool in sampled during these 3 years was 18,903 poun smallest lot sampled contained 1,445 pounds largest 36,947 pounds, grease basis. The ave weight of all lots sampled increased about 900. ,9 grease basis, between 1957 and 1958. This i _ increase, however, was not characteristic o wool production throughout Texas. The 1* portant cause for increase in size of the lots was probably the improved range conditio § primary wool-producing areas of the State. The average size of lot by warehouses 8,611 and 5,518 pounds at warehouses A, B1 respectively. During the 1956 marketing average lot size for the entire State was 2,1211 (5) . The difference between the figure for l the average for the 3 years is caused by the eli of all lots with less than 20 bags from cons“ for sampling purposes. Bag Weights and Number of Bags Per; The average bag weight of all wool sam 158 pounds, grease basis. The lightest ave- weight at any warehouse during any year: pounds at warehouse A in 1958, and the heal 179 pounds at warehouse C in 1957. The? bag weights at all warehouses were lighter f‘ than in either of the other 2 years because off shrinking wool in 1958. Bags contained, on A age, about 15 pounds less grease wool at war‘ than at either of the other warehouses du a 3 years. Yearly average bag weights at all will were approximately 10 pounds heavier in 1959 than in 1958. ' The average number of bags per lot, from 52 in 1957 to 61 and 56 in 1958 and I spectively. The average number of bags the 3 years at warehouse A was about three ‘i number at warehouse C and about twice at warehouse B. _ The highest number of bags sampled in any lot was 256 bags, and the lowest nu‘ 14 bags. The highest number of bags per lot‘ at warehouse A for all 3 years. ' ; Other Characteristics Other physical characteristics that sho g vestigated include strength, handle and b content. Originally, black fiber contentf sidered, but this factor was eliminated from after 1957 because there was no suitabl, available for determining black fiber contei: vidual lots. Strength was not included in this study because instruments for measuring strength and satis- factory methods of analysis of strength data are not available for rapid determinations. This study indi- cates that additional work should be done on methods and procedures that can be used in measuring these characteristics. Texas wools generally are considered superior to most U. S. produced wools in handling characteristics. The wools produced in the State characteristically have a soft pliable feel and are desirable for use alone or in blends since they tend to improve the handle and feel of a wool fabric. No generally accepted objective standards are available to determine this characteristic, and additional work needs to be done in this particular area. Generalizations Concerning Type of Wool Produced Texas wools, on the average, yield about 46 per- cent clean wool. Generally, short staple wools are expected to yield less than the longer staple wools. However, our data do not confirm this generalization. More than 85 percent of Texas wool is fine. The average diameter of all wool included was 21 microns, a figure which represents a firm 64’s grade, although a substantial volume of wool produced in the State is finer than 64’s. In years when the range conditions vary from poor to very poor, much wool produced borders on a 70’s grade. The average length of 2.8 inches is somewhat short and barely made the staple class according to the proposed standards of the USDA. Slightly more than half, or 57 percent, of all wool sampled and sold was staple. Considerable improvement can be made by selec- tion of breeding stock for length of wool produced. Sheep breeders generally believe that there is a high negative correlation between length of staple and fine- ness. This study, however, does not confirm that opinion, since the wools it measured indicate that staple length was not longest at the warehouse where wool was coarsest. However, it appears that fineness and length might simultaneously be improved by _ areful selection of breeding stock. The average fine- ess for all 8 years at warehouses A, B and C was 2059, 21 and 21.1 microns, respectively, whereas the average length was 3, 2.5, and 2.8 inches, respectively. Warehouse A samples showed the finest as well as the longest wool. Texas wools are slightly “off-white” instead of a pure white. Apparently the amount of rainfall affects the color of wool considerably. Wools pro- duced during the years of least rainfall are closer to A color, but when heavy amounts of rainfall occurred, the wools were more off-white. Thus improvements in color characteristics of Texas wool would be very difficult to achieve. Texas wool crimp varies considerably according to the breed of sheep. There is a high correlation between the number of crimps per inch and the fine- ness of wool produced by any one breed of sheep. There are exceptions to this however, and therefore crimp may be used only as an approximate guide to fineness. The average number of crimps per inch was 15.5, a discovery which indicates that the amount of crimp is quite satisfactory in Texas wools. The average bag weights indicate that the bags are not packed to capacity and could be packed more firmly. Apparently no great damage to the wool occurs when bags are packed more tightly, because if the wools were damaged by overpacking, baling in the grease would not be practiced. Wools packed to greater density are perhaps less attractive to buyers but not to the extent that prices should be reduced for overpacking. The main objection to overpacking seems to be that heavier than average packed bags are usually estimated to yield less than they actually do. Fewer bags would be necessary and greater effi- ciency could be obtained in objectively determining the clean yield if bags were packed to a greater" density. Also, a greater density of pack could be obtained in either the flat or round bag by using the current method of packing. Lot size makes Texas wools desirable from the standpoint of convenience. Characteristically large lot sizes and concentration of wool production enables buyers to obtain any desired volume of wool of a specific type fairly easily. The average lot size prob- ably is approximately 2,100 pounds, but in 1956 a total of 41 percent, or more than 8,500 growers, pro- duced an average sized clip of less than 1,000 pounds (5). However, 7.5 percent of the larger producers produced more wool than did the 41 percent, since more than 1,500 producers produced an average lot size of more than 5,000 pounds, grease basis, in the same year. Producers in Pecos, Terrell, Val Verde, Kinney, Sutton, Crockett and Schleicher counties produced 25 percent of Texas wool in 1956. Only about 4 percent of Texas wool producers are located in these seven f counties, but each of these counties produced more than 1,000,000 pounds of grease wool in 1956, and the growers had an average clip of more than 5,000 pounds. A total of 15 counties (and some 5,100 growers) produced 47 percent of the wool produced in Texas in 1956. In other words, about one-fourth of the Texas growers produced almost half of the wool in the State total. The average lot size of 8,900 pounds for the clips included in this study represents a large percentage of the State’s annual wool produc- tion, but only a small percentage of the growers. Changes in Quality of Texas Wool Improvements in preparing Texas clips have been slow, but some progress is being made. Much of the wool is still ungraded, and growers in many areas still 19 unusual softness. persist in putting up their wool carelessly. A number of growers still place tags, black wool, tender wool, wet wool and other low-grade wools into the same bag with their good or premium wool. In such cases, the grower loses financially since the whole lot is heavily discounted because of these undesirable wools. These off-type wools should be bagged and labeled separately from the premium wools in order to obtain fair market value. Selection and culling of flocks have proved very beneficial. Agricultural extension programs in flock improvement and wool preparation have been helpful, and warehouse operators in some areas have assisted in improving the quality of Texas wool. Significant improvements have been made in the more profitable production of higher quality wool in areas where the .most concentrated efforts at flocks improvement have been tried. The percent of lamb crop and weight of Texas market lambs have been improved along with wool through agricultural extension programs and warehouse efforts toward flock improvement since lambs are also a major source of income from sheep production. As improved flock practices raise the quality of wool and sheep produced in some areas, they could be more widely practiced. The develop- ment of a state-wide production program that empha- sized flock improvement through better management practices would help considerably in increasing superior market products of both wool and lambs. Uses for Which Texas Wools are Well Adapted Texas wools are especially well suited to several purposes. First, they are useful when used in 100 percent wool products and also as blending wools, for they improve the “handle” of harsh wools by their For this reason, they are also especially valuable in fabrics used in the manufacture of men’s and women’s wear. Texas wools are also well suited for felting pur- poses, and a sizable volume goes into felts annually. The shorter wools of approximately 6 rralpnths growth are particularly well suited for felting and high >gnade woolens. . .3 A I’ _ _ Texas produces about :10“ or spring and fall, wool 5* (Most, osprirlgp .-wool is especially well adapted for» use. inwoolen ‘manufac- ture and is usually in good demand. The longer staple wools are extremely popular in the worsted trade because of their adaptability and the wide number of uses to which they are particu- larly well suited. Hence, additional emphasis should be placed on improving the length of all wool in the State. In general, Texas wools fit a wide variety of uses because of their uniformity of fineness, their handle and the concentration of volume of fine wool. 2O 9 l0. 11. 12. 13. Bibliography Anonymous, Wool Yield Determination Test Method, United States Testing Co, Boston, Massachusetts (Undated). ' Campbell, Fred R., Gabbard, L. P., and? S. P., Marketing Wool Through Texas houses, Bulletin 740, Agricltlltural Ex Station, October, 1951. l i” e Holland, Robert L., A Market Classif, System for Grease Wool to Facilitate on an Objective Basis, Ph.D. Dissertation;- College of Texas, 1960. i Holland, Robert L. and Gabbard, L. P., l; ing Texas Wool and Mohair on a Quali Department of Agricultural Economics a’ ology, A&M College of Texas, Augus" (Unpublished paper). f. . Sales Incentive f and Prices for Texas Wool, MP-257,'l tural Experiment Station, January 1958s.; Holland, Robert L. and Wooten, A. -, Incentive Payments and Prices for Te MP-337, Agricultural Experiment Station“ 1959. i‘ Howell, L. D., Changes in American '1 Industry, Technical Bulletin 1210, U. partment of Agriculture, Washington: ' ment Printing Office, November 1959.0} Johnson, D. D., Keller, H. R., Mueller; Ray, H. D., Reals, H. C., and Pohle, E. .; ical Measurements and Their Appli‘ Describing Wool, Marketing Researchi- 256, U. S. Department of Agriculture, ton: Government Printing Office, July; Pohle, E. M., Johnson, D. 1)., Keller? Mueller, W. A., Ray, H. D., and Rea A? Value-Determining Physical Properties '_ acteristics of Domestic Wools, Mark] search Report 211, U. S. Department of ture, Washington: Government Printin” February 1958. l 5 Slagsvold, P. L., “Problems in Wool I Research,” The Journal of Farm p Volume XXXIII (November 1951), wj von Bergen, Werner, and Mauersberger; R., American Wool Handbook (Second; New York: Textile Book Publishers, Walker, F., Wool Production and (First Edition), Chicago: Breeder Pu A _ 1941. i Johnston, Alexander and Davis, Stanle Sampling of U. S. Domestic Wool for Determination, University of Wyomi tural Experiment Station, Laramie, Bulletin 292, May 1949. " a.‘ ‘i.