Wool is WeatherWool’s most important input, and our purchases of greasy (raw) wool are based upon careful analysis of lab test results.  We are therefore extremely concerned that the samples sent for lab testing are truly representative of the entire lot of wool.  Even the smallest lots we purchase weigh many thousands of pounds, so sampling is critical.  Poor sampling will result in misleading test results.

Proper Sampling is not a simple task.  Sampling can be undertaken in a variety of ways, and there is room for varying opinions.   As WeatherWool grows and becomes more-directly involved with Ranchers, we will be more-directly involved with sampling.  Here are some thoughts from Padula.  The lack of organization is my fault.  This subject comes up at irregular intervals over the months and years, and Padula has a lot to say!  We're right now (March 2025) up against shearing-time and sampling-time, so ... here we are again, thinking about how sampling is done and how it could be done, and by whom ...

This page exists more for my own benefit than for any other reason.  This website seems a handy repository for information that I need to access from time to time. 

 

Andy, Ralph and Zack,

 

The attached document [Padula alludes to a 21-page HOW-TO from the Australian Wool Council!] can be used as a guide for sampling both cores and grab sampling.   

 

Is there a reason why you want to avoid the warehouse doing this and you are wanting to send it to NZ for the testing yourself?  I am not sure if NZWTA is still set up for individual growers to send tests with all the bio-security issues, disposal fees and paperwork.  I do know they made arrangements with warehouses and now the Bill Simms lab in TX to help with the testing.    I know warehouses would typically send a couple of samples for shipping efficiency. 

 

Several issues to consider when doing this “out in the field” versus sending it in to the warehouse.  On the surface, it may seem trivial - but there are some problems with using the wrong equipment and the test results are different enough to cause some concern.  

 

ANDY - what size core tube and equipment are you using?  There have been problems in the past when people used the old 2” core tubes when coring bales of wool - versus bags of wool - which the 2” was designed for.  There was also a problem when using a rotating ½ core tube on a drill compared to the 7/8” tube that is pushed into the compressed ends of the bale.   I’ve seen some people try to use a 1” hay core tube on bales and bags of wool ..... that didn’t work out either.    

 

Weighing at the same time as coring and as close to obtaining the grab sample (if done at shearing time) to be sent in for length/strength testing is critical.  Certified scale is preferred. 

 

Grab sampling at shearing, compared to grab sampling at coring.   Doing the in-shed sampling at shearing as close to coring and weighing the bales is critical.  In order to conduct the test and get results, the yield and VM are required.  It’s not for the measurement of the length (mm) or the force to break the staple (Newtons) - rather the issue is doing the testing on raw/greasy wool and then having to convert it to a clean basis for reporting.   So - if the sample is taking too far away from when the yield is determined, the results can be skewed. 

 

Grab sampling and sending samples to the lab for testing.    After you get your grab sample, what are you going to send to NZWTA for testing - the entire grab sample?   Most of the warehouses will send a randomized, mixed sub-sample that is representative of the entire lot of wool, rather than send the entire 5-10 lb grab sample.   Some warehouses have made arrangements with the lab (NZWTA) where they will send staples in pouches specifically made for sending in staple samples.   

 

Mass of wool needed for multiple tests - there needs to be enough wool cored and sent to allow for check tests and if the test results do not come back “close enough” - they will re-run the entire sample from the residual material sent in.   I know there have been problems with not having enough sample - and then the lot has to be “re-cored” and re-sent.  It is always advisable to send more than the minimum required. 

 

Coring - the document gives a guide for the number of cores per bale.... and if you do not have the required “mass” - each bale must be sampled again and the same number of times per bale.  You can’t be 50 grams short and then only take 1 sample from a bale to get above the minimum - each bale in the lot needs to be cored the same number of times.

 

Where I see problems - someone shearing in March - taking the grab samples at shearing, holds onto the samples until May/June and then core test the wool - sending both samples at the same time.  

 

 

Sampling - the grab sample for length/strength seems to be the challenge or problem area.  There are ways to do it at shearing time, and that means someone trained must be there at shearing to do it.          

Regarding you sampling, yes - you could do it. 

But, over the years I’ve always heard the grumbling over sampling and the potential for a “conflict of interest” in particular when it comes to length and strength.  That is why grab sampling equipment is used, because the grab sample is “random” in every bale and the grab sample is sent to lab were they have at least 4 people further selecting the samples for testing to ensure there is no bias.  I would not think there is any grower that feels like you as their wool buyer were going to “scam them” - but with the others it is kind of the fox guarding the hen house.       

I’ve been to lots of shearings, wool sales and taught a lot of stuff of the years, and have seen a lot of things ....  the other buyers would probably not be too willing to accept the tests results if the grower took the samples themselves at shearing.  I’ve been out with the OFDA2000 doing testing on-site micron testing of fleeces at shearing time and had growers and wool buyers second guess the machine and/or take another sample.   And then they would “dicker” about the length/strength because they didn’t feel like that sample was “right”.

Few will argue with the core test results because you can’t see a micron - and yield is fairly well accepted - but length and strength is the one test that everyone still likes to fight overin the USA ..... because no two people will pick the same staple of wool, no two people will “tug on it” the same strength and everyone has access to a ruler and can “measure it” themselves.  The buyer picks the short staples and breaks the wool every time ...... The grower picks the longer sample and doesn’t break it into two pieces.   Combined with blending strategies and different products require different wool and some use the same wool differently, it is still the one test area that the other buyers still have “control over” and do NOT want to have done.  But every one of them wants Mike Corn to give them the test results and they use it to price the wool.  If it is not tested, they ALWAYS bid more conservatively.    

Another thing to consider is what happens if the wool does not meet the specifications - keeping the sampling independent avoids the conflict of interest issue from coming back up.

Cost savings..... the beauty of going through a warehouse sale like Roswell is that it kind of “levels” the playing field.  You are able to buy it from one location and the warehouse can “piggy back” your load with others going to the mill.   The warehouses do not always work together and the buyers don’t generally either..... Mike at Roswell is very open and upfront with his costs and his marketing charges.  The others tend to hide or not report everything, especially when prices are given on a grease price basis at the farm gate.  

Buying outside of the Roswell warehouse or sale kind of puts Mike into a hard spot to coordinate it all.   It kind of puts him into a “buyer mode” - rather than the warehouse mode where he is working “for the grower” and also helping you as the buyer get the wool you want/need.  If the growers in Wyoming want to work with WeatherWool, could they get their wool down to Roswell and let Mike do the rest of the marketing of the wool for them?  That is what I do - I figure out a way to get my wool to Roswell.  I’ve combined my wool with other wool going down there when that opportunity presented itself - or I simply get in the truck and go myself.   I figure, at least my wool is now at the warehouse and tested, and all the same buyers are able to access the wool through the Roswell warehouse if it cannot be used by WeatherWool - like my short wool, belly wool, tags/offsorts.....  Mike sells that wool separately.

As far as saving 40 cents......  I don’t know if that is possible with you doing the sampling.   Core test still costs the same, you have to send it to NZ and jump through the hoops now and if you are paying the same clean prices for the wool, I don’t think that is where the 40 cents is.....  There is also not 40 cents costs difference in transportation between Roswell to SC and Wyoming to SC.   Even WY to Roswell is not going to cost 40 cents..... commercial trucking/shipping. 

From what I remember, SD/MT/WY shipping costs are the highest of any of the areas, but not $16K worth of transportation (40 cents @ 40,000 lbs).  When international buyers are buying US wool - it costs them more to get the wool from that area of the country, than other locations.  It is not just mileage, back hauls and location come into play and it does cost more out of that area.  I think the issue is middlemen and their pricing.   You don’t have that with Mike Corn and Roswell wool.   Does Mike have commission?  Yes, but it is listed on the grower settlement and up front - not hidden in the prices the grower get at the farm gate.       

Selfishly, I wouldn’t mind it if the growers would figure out a way to become a pooling location for WeatherWool as it would be a lot closer for me - about ½ the distance.   I wouldn’t mind working with them on sampling the wool at shearing for length/strength testing - I don’t know who these growers have/use for a wool classer or shearing crew, that is another way to get the sample taken at shearing time - since they do not have access to the grab sampling equipment.  There are certain people you do not want to work with out there - so that is something to keep in mind - you don’t want WeatherWool to be listed/showcased on the Peta Web-site - like Patagonia was.

Bottom line, yes you could do the sampling.... but you’d have to be there on the days they are shearing and that is weather dependent.   And that is separate from coring the bales because you would be grab sampling at shearing and core sampling later and the bales have to be weighed when they are cored.

---------

The biggest obstacle [to testing in other countries] is import requirements into these other countries for bio-security reasons and the prevention of foreign animal diseases (FADs). 

 

This is why it is important for the USA to maintain a wool lab here in the USA - so we are not “shut out” of having the ability to test wool.  While “chicken eggs” are in the current spotlight, it bigger than that and FADs are a  huge concern for agriculture.  The sheep/wool industries are not over-looked or giving a pass.  Foot and Mouth disease virus (FMDV) is a huge international trade barrier that crops up from time to time - and while not something that has happened in the USA since the 1920s, if/when it does - movement of livestock and livestock products will be shut down immediately, until the extent in known, infection areas identified and eventually restrictions lifted.   It will be a huge issue world-wide, even if it is a small isolated area in the USA and people are not impacted by the virus.   

 

For wool raised in an FMDV  infected area, there are movement restrictions in place until the virus is considered no longer infectious.  It is a time and temperature issue - with it taking less time in hotter environments.   From what I was told, the temperature must be over 4C (39.2F) for 120 days consecutively.  Meaning - in Minnesota if the temperature dips down to 39 degrees one evening, the time period starts over again.   So, for instance I shear in March - the temperature still gets below freezing and say in May we start having low temps over 40 degrees and then come mid-June and we get a cold morning and it gets down to 38 at night, the time clock resets for 120 days from that June day.   If we get a cold day in Mid-September, the 120 consecutive day threshold may not have been met - in this case, we might never be declared “free”.....  Thankfully, there are shorter time frames with warmer temperatures -  18C (64.4F) is 4 weeks, 37C (98.6F) is 8 days ......  but I can’t be guaranteed in Minnesota that we’d have 28 straight days of the low temperature not dipping to 64F.....  And as long as MN has sheep and wool that can not be certified “Free” - other countries will likely not allow ANY wool to be sent to their country.   Biological Trade Barriers...... doesn’t matter if there is a Tariff or not! 

 

In addition, many IWTO labs are not set up for testing greasy raw wool for commerce or testing greasy wool on a commercial level.  Many of the labs are used for scoured, top, yarn, fabric testing for the mills.   Within IWTO, Raw wool has its own working group - they get fairly strict and detailed on testing - there are 5 labs (buildings) that do about 80% of the raw wool testing in the world - (AWTA - Melbourne & Freemantle) NZWTA, Wool testing Bureau (South Africa) and Wool Testing Authority Europe.  There are other labs (such as SGS in NZ) who will test according to the IWTO specifications and are certified, but AWTA and NZWTA are the big dogs ......  And AWTA isn’t always helpful.    A few of the other labs are able to test for length/strength - but many are not able to.  The big dogs have locked up the business and squash efforts by others for alternative testing and equipment.   They have their $600K atlas machines (and they require 2 for testing to make sure they are giving similar results) and that pretty much shuts out any competition.   I don’t think they have ATLAS machines in at WTA-Europe.  WTB in South Africa does - but the Kiwi’s are more “friendly” to the US industry.   I guess it is due to their proximity to AWTA and they know how AWTA can be a bully.  There are testing labs in Uruguay and Argentina, but when I was there, they were not length/strength testing and still were doing AFDs using the airflow or Projection Microscope - rather than Laserscan and OFDA100.    

 

Angus used the Agri-test equipment (so did SGS in NZ) and the raw wool group at IWTO would fight over the instruments and getting IWTO certified test status ..... it was horrible.  It was a battle of the egos and whose equipment was better.   They fought over Laserscan, OFDA100, and even micro-projection - (they hated ASTM and were quick to pick it apart).   Some of the tests are “instrument specific” to reduce competition and force people into buying their technology.   And so few are needed, that is stymies development and innovation.   (It’s ugly)

 

DOUBLE TESTING - yeah, that is something that is going to happen and is happening now.   There are concerns with the TEXAS lab having lower yields and higher VMs than NZWTA.   And I recently heard of someone getting AFD results back that were questionable (too fine).   When I spoke with the people in TX, they commented to me that for the few people that are wanting length/strength tests - to send the samples to NZ - rather than have them do the core test and have to send staple samples to NZWTA.   Do it all at one lab, rather than 2 different labs.   

 

Double testing and differences are not anything new - Angus was a little lower yielding (0.5 - 1%) than when samples were sent to AWTA, NZWTA and SGS.  However, VMs typically came back within acceptable ranges.  It worked out for our Exporters - they would sell wool that under-estimated yield, so their buyers were “getting a deal” so to speak.   The joke was that with any “Round trials” that Angus conducted with the other wool testing labs in the USA, his lab was “always” in the middle of results. 

 

It looks like many of the warehouses are going to be sending samples to NZWTA this year, unless the TX lab can get their yields and VMs in line.   I don’t think the people tugging on Rita’s ear really understand the issues and she is being told different things from different people.  The lab tells her one thing, and I honestly believe them more than the rest, but they have a bias since it is there lab.  The wool exporters are telling her another thing, and they have a vested interest in they like it that the US wool is “under-reported” because it processes and comes out better for them.   The warehouses are saying the wool tests are coming back lower with higher VMs and the buyers are using that to discount wool unnecessarily or not buy it because it doesn’t meet VM specs. 

 

And in the middle is the fact that they are not using the same instruments and techniques..... and given the small amounts being used for these tests, a small issue becomes magnified.   In Scottsdale, I had a few beers with my old wool consultant friends ..... after a few beers we had it all figured out.   The challenge is that some of the newer people don’t have the technical training and back-ground anymore - sometimes they don’t even know or realize what they don’t know or understand.  They read something on the internet and now that is the truth ..... forgetting what we’ve done over the 40, 50, 60, 75 years. 

 

---------