Despite suggestions that this site is "dyspicable", I continue to offer comment.
It seems we are in a very delicate situation. The outgoing Mohair Australia Board, largely by their own hand, seems to have disassociated themselves from the role they undertook last year to run Mohair Australia. Not only have they resigned but they have registered a new company. As well they have failed to provide for the continuation of the administration of the Company they were elected to run.
Even more surprising is the secret assention to the contract, termed the "Memorandum of Understanding", between Mohair Australia and the new Australian Mohair Growers Inc (which they had recently registered as an Association, Inc.), which sort to bind Mohair Australia to the wishes and objectves of the new company. This a monumental conflict of interest and was refuted by the incoming Board of Mohair Australia.
I must state, up front, that I am part of the Services Committee appointed by the new Board to provide ongoing servises to members of Mohair Australia, so maybe I am biased in my reporting..
The challenge (rediculous as it seems) is to maintain the operations of Mohair Australia. We are now in a conflict situation with the "Grower's Association". Why this should be is really something of a mystery. Was there really a conflict between "commercial growers" and the rest of the membership, or was it simply that the outgoing Board could not come to grips with the reality of the current industry? Of course we all wish to grow the industry but it cannot be achieved by dogmatic calls for the growth of commercial production. The one does not demand the result of the objective no matter how desirable.
So now we have a substantial "Mohair Australia Ltd" with a new Board trying to rescue the situation, and a new, untried and non resourced "Growers Association", claiming to provide a way forward without anything but a claim to "do something".
Best of British, I supose. Sooner or later, there will be a need for negotiation and compromise on a joint approach. I await such a realisation that dramatic claims, without a substantail basis or a workable methodology, will simply fail to produce results.
Doug Stapleton
State of the Mohair Industry (11/10/08)
Blogs are the new media. No doubt the term is familiar but it does not sink home until you start doing one. Blogs are one person’s opinions, ideas, reports or statements. There is no editor; there is no check on the facts. So the reliability of the blog has to be suspect and it relies on the reliability of the author. Some blogs are helpful, some are accurate, some are unwittingly inaccurate or biased, some are just opinion and some are down right fraud and lies. It’s up to you to decide.
So here we go with a “State of the Mohair Industry” statement.
The world financial industry is in a complete pickle. One might also comment that the world’s climate in under imminent challenge and the two may interact, but perhaps it’s the financial situation which is of immediate concern. Textiles are basic to human activity but they are also very competitive so anything which impacts on business has an effect on prices. There used to be a link between high oil prices and high fibre prices. Not only has that link not been demonstrated recently but now, with the drop in oil prices, it will be interesting to see if the argument is reversed. Of course exchange rates are a modifying effect.
The big picture for mohair sees production continue to fall. In Australia this year’s production is only likely to be about 150,000kg. It is evident that falling world production has not increased demand and price for YG and Adult fibre, at least. It has to be concluded that processors and maybe, consumers, are not particularly interested in using stronger fibre. This is a big problem for the producing community and may result in the virtual extinction of the industry as we know it. On the other hand there is always the chance of boutique processing and new innovations from new players looking for novel products.
We have seen some specific efforts at promoting mohair production in Australia. These, and the general thrust of the industry over the last 10 years, seem not to have had an effect. The message has not been heard or has not been acted upon. On the other hand many growers have been hobbyists or small property owners and retired people. Many of these people are retiring again and mohair may not be of sufficient profitability or interest to justify expansion. Where that leaves “promotion” is a good question.
Now we come to the current upheaval in the Australian industry. Clearly things are in a state of flux – in both scientific (change or uncertainty) and medical (diarrhoea) definitions. I remind you that I have an involvement but that I will try not to state a case here. It’s the event I am commenting on. In my opinion the current Mohair Australia Board has not only dropped the ball but seems to have picked up another one. In any event there seems to have been no thought about the issues raised above and this, I guess, is really my point. While it’s hard to say what the Board might have done over the last 11 months, they have not been effective in creating unity or direction.
You may have read the “Rescue” letter (if you are a member of Mohair Australia) and in it you will see that 4 of us are offering to try and put a new Mohair Australia administration together. Facing the facts of a smaller industry, a smaller membership and a reduced income probably means that we will have to move to a voluntary administration and a lighter work load; but a work load nevertheless. Perhaps we have been fortunate to have had a full time office and staff over the last 25 year, just as we have been fortunate to have a commercial and competitive sale system for our mohair. Other small industries have never had this advantage or this facility, not that it seems to have been all that effective for us.
The other thing which has just happened (and I am involved in that too) is the National Mohair Pool move to on-line cataloguing and sale of mohair. This is a response to lower volumes and uncertainty in buyer bidding. It is also an attempt to spread offerings of fibre over the year to satisfy buyers wished for continuous supply, and a method of creating more stable prices. Dare I say it, but its also a very small attempt to be more aggressive in pricing and to link prices to some extent, to cost of production.
Now to the future. We are all committed to mohair. We want an industry. We want to make some money out of our goats. One fact that impresses me is the development of the meat industry and the acceptance of Angoras by meat processors, albeit at slightly lower prices than for short haired animals. So the idea is to realise that flocks are very dynamic and that we need to utilize the high fertility aspect and move animals on as soon as their production potential drops. Overstocking is a constant risk so we need to plan for turnoffs after shearing and do it. This will result in higher profits and better mohair.
Next year the South Africans are planning an International Mohair Summit (early November 2009). This is an important event. Australia needs to stake a claim and make our mark on the world industry. The processors and the end users will be there. The Americans and the South Africans will be there. The Africans will be there. Just who does something about the Australian’s being there is open to debate but I have started planning and designing a presence. A stand and a team to stake our claim. More of this later but if we want to be taken seriously as an industry, here and overseas, we have to take part; big time.
So, there it is. It’s difficult to see where this is all going but some of us are trying. I would like to suggest that a recovery is close but I suspect it isn’t. It is likely that the relatively small group of people interested in Angoras and Mohair will battle on doing our thing. What I would like to stress is that it’s mohair production which is important and that has a significant follow-on to our husbandry and our fibre quality control. Please, concentrate on the mohair.
Doug Stapleton.
Cross purposes and misguided enthusiasm (2/10/08)
Mohair Australia seems to be in a state of melt down. The AGM notices for the meeting on the 25th October contained a extraordinary report from the President with the news of his, and other's impending resignations, the resignation of staff and the formation of an Association for mohair growers - headed by the retiring Board Members. This seems to have been brought about by various criticisms and the notification of motions to the AGM clearly critical of the actions (or lack thereof) of the Board during the current year. Yes, there are criticisms. Are they justified? And do they warrent the "abandon ship" strategic reaction from the Board? I guess we shall see.
Whatever - the actions and foreshaddowed actions leave Mohair Australia Limited in an odd position. No leadership; no one in charge - and the liklehood that there will be no administration at least for the period of the AGM. This can only be seen as irresponsible of the Board, whatever they feel is their moral position.
It is incredible that the powers-that-be do not see how to exercise their role. If you are in power, one would have thought you played the game and used your position to put forward policies and actions which you feel are appropriate for the company. You don't, one would have thought, run off on a wild flight of fancy, assuming the system is broken and believing that your view of the world is more appropriate.
Let me be more specific; and clearly I have some involvement in a number of issues so may be able to shed some light on certain activities.
For many years there has been a philosophical argument about breed societies and commercial production. Breed Societies register stud animals, and commercial growers produce mohair (it is assumed). Commercial producers may or may not purchase breeding stock from studs depending on the belief of just how effective studs are at breeding superior stock.
The problem in a small industry with a small population of animals is that there is just not room for such theoretical separation of functions. Most growers are breeders and all breeders are producers.
Quite some time ago some well meaning industry people felt that there was a need for research and development and persuaded the Commonwealth Government to introduce a statutory levy on mohair sales to pay for such research. At the time there were (and still are) a number of types of goat fibre (Mohair and Cashmere) as well as other "Rare Natural fibres - Alpaca, as well as meat and milk goat industries. The powers-that-be, at the time and still do, failed to appreciate that there were a number of completely different industries and bulked everything into "goats". So we have a Goat Industry Advisory Council covering fibre, milk and meat and a Goat Fibre Levy. All very expedient at the time - power in numbers and unity, of course.
But now, mohair seems to be the only viable "Rare Natural Fibre" so why should "we" be tied to cashmere and Alpaca under the RIRDC RNF organisation? Well, because RIRDC offers and effective administration system and that is the way it is.
"Oh no", says our current Mohair Australia Board. "We want Development, we want to organise the expenditure of our own levy. We want our new organisation to do it."
Sorry, its a Goat Fibre Levy and it's administererd by a perfectly effective organisation - RIRDC's RNF Committee . Mohair Australia is the specified industry representative body in the Act and if it wants expenditure in a particular area, Mohair Australia can make the appropriate representations. The fact that mohair gets more than just its levy contribution from the current system seems to have eluded the proponents of the new company.
So there is the nub of it. There may be other issues and other reluctances to deal with matters but it's still a shambles.
DS
Has the fire gone out? (25/9/08)
Is it just me or is there an overall feeling of disconnection. I sense from a number of areas, some lack of enthusiasm. On the wider animal fibres front, wool continues its woeful way, cashmere seems to have fallen off the screen, alpaca is holding its own but with an almost impossible task to produce and process its clip. Mohair seems to be sliding as well. No direction! Despite the imminent Year of Natural Fibres coming up next year. Anyone got any ideas?
You may be aware of the flurry of activity in early August when the Mohair Australia Division AGM’s were held but it now seems to have gone quiet. I guess the Mohair Australia Limited AGM notices are not far away and it will be interesting to see what they hold. I can inform you that I have a serries of “spill motions” and I know of at least one other set of pretty contentious motions which have been foreshadowed. I will leave the arguments for my case to the explanation sent with my motions, but you should think about the issues and try and have a say, at least by appointing a proxy. I believe we should be getting a lot more from the Mohair Australia Board.
In both the mohair marketing area and the Mohair Australia Company business area there are going to be some serious changes. If we are to survive we will all have to review our ideas and the way we behave in this fragile industry.
Real Fineness (2/6/08)
Fineness is desirable for two reasons. Fine fibre is soft to feel against the skin but, more importantly to manufacturers, there are more fibres in fine mohair and so more yarn can be spun from the finer fibre. Brushed piled yarn and cloths can still feel soft because long fibres bend and don’t tend the prickle however, short, broad fibres don’t bend and so prickle. Since the current fashion in mohair is ladies knitwear, soft or fine fibre is at a premium.
But by fine, we mean low fibre diameter, not fine looking locks. For years breeders and buyers have used staple width and small crimp to define fineness but his has not been all that successful and in recent times, selection for fine crimp has produced just that, fine crimp, not lower fibre diameter.
With presale measurement has come an emphasis on micron in the market place and we are now challenged to do something serious about real fineness if we want to increase the value of our mohair. It might not be quite as simple as that because experience in the wool industry suggests that mass movement to production of finer fibre has the effect of increasing supply of those types and so reducing demand. However, since the age effect on mohair fibre diameter is so strong there are several strategies which can be undertaken to increase the proportion of fine fibre and so increase the average value of the clip.
Maximising fertility and kid survival would seem the most obvious. Careful choice of shearing time of kids will also maximise returns by minimising the amount of lower value, short kid mohair. Rapid turnoff of does after the fifth shearing might also maximise carrying capacity of younger stock but it will also have an effect on fertility since older animals have more multiple births.
Selection for fineness would seem the ultimate strategy for increasing the amount of fine fibre produced by a flock. There is very little advantage in the current market in producing sub 22micron kid fibre but there would be benefits for producing more sub 30um “adult" fibre Whether this can be achieved is subject to question.
Clearly the antagonistic genetic correlations between fineness and fleece weight, fineness and length and fineness and body weight present major problems for breeders. Perhaps it depends on just what the premium for fineness is when assessing the effects of lower fleece weight and body weight. With a big premium, lighter fleeces and smaller animals might still be more profitable though maybe there are concerns about the proportion of “poor doers” and infertility in runty does which might be the result of heavy selection for real fineness.
Some properties claim a high proportion of sub 30um fibre from adult animals already. It is likely that this is a function of poor soil fertility and poor pasture quality and it remains to be seen if animals from such properties show genetic fineness when moved elsewhere. That aside, the application of strong selection pressure for measured fineness has not been examined in a commercial setting. Such selection implies not only the routine measurement of fineness but the application of a strong selection pressure. Further, there is little point in producing fine (and likely light cutting) animals if the marketing system does not recognise and reward fine fibre from older animals. For this to happen, methods of “grower line testing” as being adopted by NMP is essential to produce real gains in returns from breeding for fineness.
There are reasonably strong positive correlations between fibre diameter measured at different shearings so testing and selection based on first and second shearing tests will be of some use. Testing and selection for fineness in older animals is somewhat less understood. The effects of pregnancy and lactation are likely to be significant, though at least in a positive way with fecund animals having finer fleeces and barren does being culled for coarseness (not that it matters because there are no progeny anyway). Since most does actually kid each year this is not a big issue. What is of interest is the effect of culling does on their 4th or 5th fleece fibre diameter. In effect, can selection at that age change the shape of the fibre diameter/age curve? One might hope so. And one might equally ask if a second round of selection might be exercised on sires retained for later mating.
Experience shows that it is unlikely that progeny testing can be of great assistance in bucks because it, in effect, takes 2 years to get a result. Theoretically semen could be stored and used from bucks which are later shown to produce fine progeny but this is an expensive and possibly less effective method than selecting young bucks directly and then selecting females on first there 2nd fibre diameter and possibly later on their adult diameter.
Real fineness dose not just happen. It needs serious effort to measure and select animals. It is remarkable how many people will buy kid bucks every year thinking that they are being effective at breeding for fineness. If the mohair industry is really going to make progress with fibre diameter we all have to move from the show/eyeballing approach to the use of some modern technology.
DS
Comment (14/5/08) - Options for the future of Mohair Australia
After some considerable time we have to confront the future for Mohair Australia. I am in no position to criticise now, because the problem has been around for many years and it was an issue when I was last on the Board in 2003. The facts are that for at least 12 years, membership has been falling and the organisation has been running deficit budgets. It just can’t go on and we have to confront reality and do something drastic.
In the 1980’s we put or best foot forward and purchased real-estate for our head quarters. This was a bold move and assumed we had a growing industry and a real future. It was not to be the case.
First, we lost our CEO and the cost of the office became too great so we moved to Armidale and ABRI. Then we lost our new CEO and we relied on ABRI to do the work of the central office. The cost of this office was still too high and the Board decided to take up an office based in Narrandera under what might now be assumed as a false economy offer.
Many people may not know that at the time we sold the Melbourne office we were some $80,000 in deficit on a cash basis. Head Office had effectively borrowed the money from Regions and Divisions (and the Promotions account). The only way to balance the books was to sell the building. Had the Regions and Divisions wanted their money at that time, the company could not have supplied it.
Even before we moved to Narrandera, we were running a disastrous deficit budget. Membership continued to fall and the office was drawing on capital to continue to operate. Despite some slick reporting, the situation has been getting considerably worse.
With the new Board in 2007 came the revised membership and levy payment policy. Manifestly, that has failed with many members either refusing to renew their membership or failing to pay their levy as specified. The move failed and we and we are in a worse position than before with as many as 60 members dropping out. (Now people might say it's too early to declare this failure but wishfull thinking and procrastination have been a feature of all Boards on this issue. It is not going to get better by itself.)
The facts are that less than 100 members cannot sustain a central office and cannot afford even the two, part time staff, in the Narrandera office.
We need a new model but it would seem the current Board has refused to accept the reality of the situation. I might yet be proved wrong but here are some suggested options.
We move to a voluntary office structure with contracted accounting, and other functions handled by members, possibly with a cost recovery component. There is a real question about the cost of centralised banking and tax reporting. A number of offers have been made to fill functions and some budgets have been proposed to support this option. This would necessarily result in the closing of the Narrandera office and the loss of the existing staff.
De corporatisation of the company with the Divisions becoming Incorporated Associations with some sort of federal relationship to run the Herd Book, News letter and web site. This option has the advantage of removing the cost of centralised banking and corporate reporting, including audit costs. This would also results in the closing of the office but we would need to consider how the Federal structure might be organised.
Continue the current situation, funding activity from reserves which will run out within 3 years at which time we will have to re evaluate the position. At some time, Region and Division funds will be exposed to continue funding the Central office functions.
Some other model proposed by the Board.
Clearly, these options need analysis and decisions based on detailed study. We look forward to some leadership from our elected Board.
DS
Comment as an essay, April 2008
Out! Out! damned spot
So said Lady Macbeth in that Scottish play. I have just returned from my stint at the Sydney Royal Easter Show. I do my bit as Steward and "Broadcaster" (getting control of a microphone and a ring at the RAS is a sign of considerable trust and I have had the job for about 6 years). I have used the position to give a running commentry on the Angora Goat and Mohair Production, breeding objectives, Mohair Australia and the virtues of the winning exhibits.
On this point I congratulate Debbie Scattergood for a second year at scooping the pool. Last year Debbie collected all the Broad ribbons. This year Debbie collected all but one Reserve Champion ribbon. This is a remarkable achievement in both persistence, breeding and preparation.
I have to say that this Royal Easter Show was a dream. No arguments or protests and a very professional judge (Lynn Carter from South Australia).
However, in line with some of my other comments I have to raise a point of some concern.
What's all this about pigmentation? I mean spots on the skin of the ears and nose, not coloured fibre. Several years ago I started to hear comments in South Africa and from South African judges in Australia, but most of us ignored these comments coming out of South Africa. Sure, we don't like a lot of pigmentation but more recent comments have mentioned "smutty noses" and just plain "pigmentation" as if it were a complete no, no.
(At left: Pigmented ear spots with pigmented fibre growing in the spots. No doubt about it, this is a no, no. This photo was taken in South Africa at a field day on breeding. An example like this is hard to find in Australia. More common, though still rare, is a single spot with some black fibres.)
On what basis have the comments been made and on what authority have judges started to insinuate the concept into the breeding and judging of Angoras? Suddenly we are hearing comments like - "This animal has a better fleece but there is too much pigmentation so I had to put her down at the end of the front line". And what's worse, the kids (junior judges) have picked it up; and even been lectured on the point making it seem that its a forgone conclusion - a done deal - an edict from on-high.
(At right: A rather common, if not normal situation in Australia with some black skin on the ears and some on the nose.)
Why? I have asked.
Our friends in South Africa who appeared to be leading the charge against pigmentation. They put great emphasis on the face of stud animals and appear to believe that what happens there is reflected elsewhere on the body.
I have heard three supposed reasons for favouring "clean" of non pigmented ears and noses.
One is that cancers start on the black spots. So, is there any evidence? Or alternatively, is there evidence that pigmentation protects the skin from cancers? I don't believe so in either case.
The second is that pigmentation is associated with harshness and poor fleeces. Again, is there any evidence or is this simply a theory relating to some outmoded concept of "purity"? Not that I am aware of.
The third is that pigmentation is an indicator of recessive colour. Here there is evidence to the contrary. Breeding black ear spotted animals together in South Africa failed to produce pigmented animals though did increase the amount of pigmentation on the ears. I would have to look hard for the reference but it is there.
I have studied pigmentation of ears for over 20 years and have even written about my conclusions. Yes, pigmented skin increases somewhat with age. Yes, black spots with black fibre growing from them do occur at a low frequency but they seem to remain constant over the life of the animal. Yes, pigmented fibre spots on the body are a rare and completely undesirable character. Yes, there is a piebald character in Angoras just as it occurs in Merinos but it had a rather random expression and seems unrelated to ear pigmentation.
It is my belief that a small amount of pigmentation on the ears and nose is of no significance. Like many marking characters it has a high heritability and can be selected for, or against, if you want to. However, housing of young animals reduces the amount and intensity of pigmentation in the skin, and exposure to sunlight seems to increase the expression of the character. So what?
I believe this "red herring" is now out of the bag and running wild. Beware!
DS
Comment as an Essay- March 2008.
Wooly thinking, Hairy logic and Slippery self deception
Again we have seen a ridiculous run of shows with the emphasis on preparation, perfect lock type, perfect yolk content, perfect aesthetics (in the eye of the judge) and even unsubstantiated preference for clean faces and ears (black spots or "smutty" noses) in preference to better fleece. With fleeces it was worse, with total preference for purely aesthetic properties which even expert judges admit make no difference to processing ability.
“Is that all there is?” says the song. Well NO! Emphatically NO! Aesthetics are an artefact of narrow-minded, folksy enthusiasm. Now many might well retaliate with accusations of “If you can’t cut it, don’t criticise.”
But how does the current show process improve the breed or increase productivity?
There is another view and that is one of "evidence based" decision making. Look for what works rather than what we think works. So now I have got your attention. Show preparation and judging has, in my view completely lost the plot in the Angora Mohair Industry. It’s all about winning, and it’s all about impressing the judge, and if you have to pick the judge to impress, it is that too. I have to ask; how does feeding, washing, oiling, staple splitting and general manicuring help to show genetic value. Clearly is doesn’t; it just demonstrates what can be done to the environment (E) in the equation:
P = G + E + GxE
That is, Phenotype (P=appearance) equals Genetics (G) plus Environment (E) plus whatever cumulative interaction happens between G and E (some animals react better to a combination of genetics and environment than others).
So much for the theory! So, how do you get on in the show circuit?
Well:
1. You select a number of fine ringletted, open fleeced animals and you start supplementing them with high protein feeds.
2. Then you shear then some 7 months out from the show.
3. You continue to feed the animals and you wash and comb them every two to four weeks and run them inside on sand floors.
4. Towards the end of the 7 month period you strip out cross fibres and continue working on the staples to ensure that they remain narrow, especially on the neck.
5. If you think the judge favours “unwashed” animals you apply an oil – baby oil or white oil or "product", sparingly close to the show. If the judge favours white “foreman material” you just continue to wash the animal and maybe use a conditioner to improve handle.
On the other side of the equation you can look to see how particular judges behave. Not what they say, but what they do. Unfortunately most favour pretty, well prepared animals. But some are (maybe) more “production” oriented and will favour bulkier fleeces. They may also prefer superficially “natural” fleeces. Some may have a reputation for favouring clean skin (no black spots on the ears and nose, or even the most recent fad - a preference for brown pigmentation on the ears), others may prefer ultra fine animals – at the expense of body size (such judges are likely to favour kids in the championship events), some may be a little more related to the fibre market and show some even disapproval for over-long fleeces.
(Above left: Absence of black pigmentation and the presence of brown colouration deemed desirable or even necessary by some judges. Above right: Mottled colouration on the inside of the ear is commonly seen but not always associated with brown on the nose and outer ear.)
There is of course, the reverse of this preference. One of the most bizarre preferences or tendencies some judges exhibit is the favouring of competent handlers. Many exhibitors appear to believe that this is an important factor in gaining show success. How to dress, how to move, how to train the animal and how to impress the judge are all seen as useful tricks. There is some systematic teaching of these techniques presumably in the belief that they are important and work. We even have “handler classes” in some shows.
It is rather funny watching the synchronised moves of handlers as the judge walks along the row - everyone change sides....)
Unfortunately these activities appear to be all that is happening in the general thrust for improvement of the breed. Whatever breeders do on their own properties and how they purchase animals seem to be entirely influenced by planning gaining show successes in the future. This may include purchasing expensive animals from recent importations so as not to be outflanked by such introductions should they start winning. Do doubt, also, the purchase of successful show winners or animals exhibiting similarities to show winners is another example of furthering show prospects.
The problem is that none of this is related to productivity. Neither is there any proof that aesthetic properties of character and style and balance between them have any effect of processing ability of the fibre. Handle, lustre, evenness as well as the “correct” character and style predominate in show judges’ comments. All are highly effected by preparation and feeding but have little to do with productivity or processing ability.
So what is important? By all reckoning, its fibre diameter and fleece weight with a minimal requirement for reasonable lock structure and a freedom from kemp. Not much of these characters are effectively assessed by animal judges. Indeed, to get a fine looking animal you may need to start with a weak, light fleeces animal and feed it furiously. Such animals may not “blow out” under feeding. Unfortunately such animals either drop dead when placed under paddock conditions or fail to throw progeny which show anything like the apparent performance of the purchased show winner or prepared animal.
What we want is paddock performance. What we want is animals which produce heavy fleeces, fine fleeces and kids – under paddock feed situation. What we want is a method of assessing each animal in the flock and in the paddock - a method of culling all those which don’t perform. What we want is a Performance Recording and Indexing system.
You think I am cynical and just being stupid and hypercritical. I AM NOT. The only way to improve your flock and the breed is by selection for productivity and that means selection on measured characteristics under production conditions.
DS
Comment as an Essay.
Enter the new year - 2008
Where are we going? This is a serious question for mohair producers and Angora breeders. Many of us have been working for years to develop our flocks and to market out fibre. There was always the expectation of great returns and spectacular animals. Maybe this was over enthusiastic and wishful thinking but for many it was not far short of the mark. Now, perhaps, its time for a re-think and the setting of more realistic goals.
Mohair has always been a speciality fibre. However, it’s been one of the biggest volume industries of the speciality fibres and has not only had a steady demand but also an organised world market underpinned by the South African auction system. Mohair has 3 “large” topmaking companies which compete to process and market mohair to the textile community.
The modern Australian industry began in the 1970’s with interest in natural fibres and continued with the boom of the 1980’s. The late 1980’s and early 1990s where characterised by huge market uncertainty with the collapse of the Russian textile industry but the 1990’s and 2000’s saw the revival of the market and the setting of uses for mohair which seem to have been centralised on Europe and with the development of early stage processing in South Africa.
Now we are faced with a new set of circumstances. Textiles are dominated by cheap materials and while there are demands created by various fashion changes and demands for special effects, price is the real issue. Either, we want an “effect” or we want cheap yarn. Mohair can give the effect but not the low price. Almost by definition, animal fibres are variable and have problems of diversified production with difficulties in aggregation and variation in levels of contamination from individual clips. These factors add to the cost of processing. Low biological efficiency adds to the “cost” of raw fibre.
Cheap cotton and man made fibres production is not without their own problems. Environmental damage of irrigated monoculture and high water consumption devil cotton production and hugely increasing costs of oil are having their effects on the major textile raw products. And there is still the fundamental division of properties between cellulose and acrylic fibres and the protein based compounds of wool and mohair. Animal proteins are generally comfortable to wear, absorbing sweat and drawing it away from the skin (and generate heat), while cotton and man-made’s require engineering to produce the insulating properties more common to animal fibres. Nevertheless, animal fibres give a lot of advantage away when it comes to price.
Maybe the consuming population has also become somewhat more cynical. No longer are we so completely taken by fashion trends, or so seduced by claims of “natural” or “pure” or even “cool”. Of course such a comment is bound to be incorrect. Maybe we are just waiting for the next big thing which will, once again, sweep us away (for a moment) in a frenzy of delight.
In any event it’s the future of mohair that we are especially interested in. Yes, there is a steady demand for coating and upholstery materials and rugs. Yes, there is a demand for fine fluffy knitwear’s, but less likely is the demand for worsted cloths with mohair content and the hand knitting yarns which gave the industry such support in the 1960’s and 1970’s?
Imagination. This has always been the driving force of fashion. Where would the Beatles be without their Mohair Suits? And more recently, where would the catwalk be without young things parading covered in next to nothing, slinky, “informal” clothes. All this seems to be where it is lacking for mohair. Clothes now seem so mundane, textiles seem so mundane – it’s all been done. And it will be done again but at an even less spectacular way. This seems to be the way things are going. Everyone seems to be relying on old stories and old products with apparently, less appeal. It’s really rather odd. In a world of staggering growth, of huge consumer demand, why is mohair (and wool for that matter) decreasing in both consumption and price? Where is the “normal” growth associated with a normal industry?
So we come round again to the original question. Where are we going in 2008?
In Australia we have a remarkable set of circumstances. Access to all the best genetic material there is in the Angora breed, a modern and competitive marketing system, and a group of keen workers prepared to offer the industry their skills at classing and presenting fibre for sale. The actual price for mohair has been buoyant and in most cases better than that for wool. And yet, as with other producing countries, mohair production continues to fall. Wool is suffering the same fate. This trend is becoming somewhat alarming as everyone involved now sees economies of scale being threatened.
Clearly, returns from animal fibre production are simply not good enough to stimulate growth. Is this because of competition from other forms of primary production? Or, from competition from production in other countries? I think not. One might point to returns from all agriculture and suggest that everyone is suffering. So what is wrong? Economic recession (persistent lack of growth) seems likely. Recession seems to be a strange animal. It’s largely just plain lack of excitement and confidence.
Or is it the cut-throat competition which forces prices down? And the producer on the bottom takes the kick.
It’s not as if many mohair producers rely on their mohair for a living. Most run small flocks and most treat their animals as pets (or at least a source of personal interest). So many of us do it for fun anyway so why not enjoy it? There is nothing wrong with that but collectively; each year there are fewer such people and less fibre produced. Likewise there are fewer people actually trying to make mohair production a major enterprise.
There is nothing wrong will calling for more growers and more production. But it does not seem to happen. It is of considerable interest that the recent order for Angoras for Madagascar was unfilled because of lack of supply – and the order was only for some 700 animals. If we had an effective promotion campaign to increase the number of flocks, or a big new demand for mohair, we could not supply either the animals or the fibre. We might need to rethink the promotion ideas.
One area which traditionally fires the imagination is stud breeding and the sale of animals. This goes through cycles and no doubt, novelty, scarcity of animals and high animal prices stimulate interest. But, this is the wrong model. Eventually numbers increase, prices come down and people loose interest. The message we need to get across with breeding is productivity and quality. It’s not the pedigree or the blue ribbon which is the prize; it’s the mohair in the bale and the cheque for the clip. This is why I have been so keen for the Mohair Australia Recording System to include production measurements. When a breeder can see the numbers, he/she has an appreciation of what he/she is trying to do. Then there is a real value in breeding stock, not just the ephemeral pretty animal in a show. Of course it’s not one pretty animal we want anyway, we need hundreds of mohair cutters.
Another area where some have suggested Angoras could fire imagination is in weed control and recovery of wild country. Australia used to be full of battlers willing to take on this “start from behind scratch” task. It’s just not sexy and its not worth the effort anymore in a land of high labour demand and wages. Yes, Angoras can have a role and they can be used in some circumstances to do a good job. BUT, saving costs is not nearly as attractive as producing a top product and getting top dollar. And how much land is there which could be rescued by Angoras and how many people out there own such land and would want to go to the effort?
So here is the challenge. We need to make animals measurably better. We need to see value in producing good mohair and we need a level of excitement about our fibre (both at grower and processor level). No doubt higher mohair prices would help but we might have to wait for a “sea change” in textiles for that to happen. Meanwhile its productivity, quality and efficiency
and enthusiasm!!!!!!!
Of course shows and showing are useful but if they drain our energies and are seen as an end in themselves, we have missed the point. So, let’s get on with it! Bigger flocks. Better flocks. More flocks. (For those who don’t like the term “flock”, pleased substitute “herd”.) Bigger herds. Better herds. More herds.
Doug Stapleton
Cudal Mohair Stud / National Mohair Pool
conclusion - a done deal - an edict from on-high.
