Wool Classing and associated views. By, Edward Wymer
This collaboration to produce this new fabric called Neulana, although good news. It should not have been too difficult, with " cashmere-like handle" and " silk-like sheen".
Many thousands of bales of fine merino wool have been blended into " cashmere" and "mohair" in European businesses for years. Then sold as "cashmere" and "mohair". As Cashmere has historically been worth eight to twelve times more than a similar micron wool, you can see why the Europeans love Australian merino wool. Someone has to pay for the Mega Yachts floating around the Mediterranean Sea.
I agree with Richard Bell's need for a levy, in a post on Sheep Central. But a re-reading of his original submission to the Wool Selling Systems Review confirms my original assessment of a score of 0/10 . He mentions " Professionally prepared unskirted", this is a contradiction in terms and a joke.
A lot of people believe sweat points will scour out.Sweat points will NOT scour out. Unskirted wool should not be allowed on the Show floor, then you would see an improvement in prices.
Only 11 of the 22 final submissions to the W.S.S.R. are worth reading. But I Will list them all. Only one of the eleven was from a woolgrower, W.C.Freeman, which is worth reading. The other ten are all from businesses. I will say the best is from Ming Ho Wool Industry Company Ltd. A consice submission with no jargon.
1 A & J Farran. Not consice as requested, too many assumptions. 2/10
2 R. B. Crawford. Too convoluted, Buyers don't want objectively measured handle, they want to view the sample. 1/10
3 Geoffrey Beath. Who says, or how do you know you can get top prices. 0/10
4 Talman Pty Ltd. Saving costs would be great, if possible, how you get higher prices is more important. 0/10
5 N Z X Australian Agribusiness. An advertisement. Nothing useful. 0/10
6 W.C. Freeman. Very clear submission, best from a wool grower. 8/10
7 United Wool Company. Wow that says it all. 10/10
8 Australian Superfine Woolgrowers Association Inc. Growers, store wool on farm, and selling with certainty of measurements. No way. 1/10
9 Australisn Council of Wool Exporters and Processors. Spot on. 10/10
10 Australian Wool Testing Authoriity. Basically fine tune the present system. " will overseas customers accept sampling on farm ?" NO. 10/10
11 I Trade Wool. How to increase costs exponentially. 0/10
12 Ming Ho Wool Industry Company Ltd. Clear and concise, no jargon. 10/10
13 The National Council of Wool Selling Brokers of Australi Inc. All obvious. 10/10
14 Peter Small. Opposes buyers inspecting samples. 0/10
15 Stephen Blair. Prepared by an economist who obviously knows nothing about Wool. 0/10
16 Techwool Trading. Great Submission. 10/10
17 Wool Producers Australia. A nothing submission. 0/10
18 N.S.W. Farmers' Association. Not concise, and all wrong. 0/10
19 G. Schneider Australia P/L. Great Submission. 10/10
20 Modiano Australia. Very concise, great. 10/10
21 Australian Merino Exports. Great Submission. 10/10
22 David Richie. Another Great Submission. 10/10
SUMMARY. There we have it, ten great submissions all from Buyers or Brokers and the A.W.T.A. Submissions from Growers not much good, except W.C.Freeman's, the best of them. All submissions from proponents of the Wool Exchange Portal, were rubbish. I will unwind on them if they start to get traction.
The only people to benefit from the Wool Exchange Portal, as proposed by the, Wool Selling System Review will be it's promotors.
They want to sell growers wool at any price, and claim it's the best, without a SAMPLE.
No buyer wants to buy wool without a sample,UNLESS it is very CHEAP.
Mr McCullough of WSSR. says it makes no sense that 95 % of Wool is sold by the open-cry Auction.
I say it is the best system AFTER viewing the sample, no sample no sale, certainly not at a decent price. The main focus should be on getting higher prices, not saving a few cents on costs, the stated purpose of the WSSR.
We all know what a lottery Wool Testing is. One area where Wool Growers lost $ millions in the past was with jute packs.
Being a vegetable fibre they gave a higher v.m. content to the test result. The discs of jute cut out of the bottom of the bale by the coreing machine had to be picked out by hand, and as they fragmented, it was really impossible.
This naturally led to higher v.m.results, therefore lower prices. Fortunately jute packs have been banned. As the Buyers would say, " It all averages out"