USTER HVI 1000 APPLICATION REPORT. The role of cotton classification in the textile industry THE FIBER CLASSIFICATION AND ANALYSIS SYSTEM

Transcription

1 USTER HVI 1000 APPLICATION REPORT The role of cotton classification in the textile industry THE FIBER CLASSIFICATION AND ANALYSIS SYSTEM A. Schleth, H. Ghorashi, R. Furter August 2006 SE 597

2 Table of contents 1 Introduction Cotton Standards and their development Manual cotton classification Development of instrument cotton classification Instrument cotton classification today Quality and pricing mechanisms Implementation of instrument cotton classification systems Summary Sources Appendix Signatories to the Universal Cotton Standards Agreement [2, 4] Major users of Universal Cotton Standards [2, 4] Worldwide distribution of USTER HVI instruments (including mill shipments)...14 Copyright 2007 by Uster Technologies AG All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, translated or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronically, mechanically, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of the copyright owner. veronesi\tt\schulung_dokumente\off-line\hvi\ SE-597_The role of cotton classification in the textile industry 2 (16) USTER HVI 1000

3 1 Introduction Cotton is produced in over 50 countries worldwide, averaging million metric tons per year. China, the United States, India and Pakistan are the largest cotton producers, accounting for approximately 65 percent of the world cotton production alone. Brazil, Uzbekistan and other countries with smaller annual cotton crops cover the remaining 35 percent. China, India and Pakistan are also the largest consumers of cotton, accounting for app. 60 percent of the worldwide cotton consumption (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Est Proj Proj. China (Mainland) USA India Pakistan Total Others Fig. 1 Worldwide Cotton Production [1] 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Est Proj Proj. China (Mainland) USA India Pakistan Total Others Fig. 2 Worldwide Cotton Consumption [1] USTER HVI (16)

4 Thus, most of the cotton produced is being traded and exported as a commodity in an international market. The quality of cotton, however, is highly variable making it difficult to determine its commercial value or price. Cotton quality is a function of its variety, growing conditions, harvesting and ginning. Growth conditions change every year depending on the environment (weather and soil). In addition, agricultural, harvesting and ginning methods used for cotton production vary widely in different countries around the world. All these factors attribute to a wide range of cotton qualities available in the international cotton market. In cotton spinning, raw material costs make up 50-70% of the overall yarn manufacturing costs. Cotton purchasing is the highest risk for a spinner, and it is often based on trust gained over generations between cotton buyer (mill owner) and seller (merchant). Other stakeholders in the cotton supply chain are cotton seed breeders, producers, and ginners. All have a high interest in an objective method of assessing the quality of cotton. Cotton classification provides this objective assessment of cotton quality, and it is the basis for determining the cotton price. It is an integral part of the cotton supply chain, and has its roots in the historic development of cotton standards. 2 Cotton Standards and their development A cotton standard is a physical cotton standard that represents a specific cotton quality. Today, several Universal Cotton Standards are available to cover a certain range of cotton quality characteristics of US Upland cotton. Physical cotton standards are a prerequisite for classing cotton either by hand (manual) or by instrument. In both cases, they serve as reference for comparison (Fig. 3). Fig. 3 Examples of Universal Cotton Standards for manual and instrument classing [2] 4 (16) USTER HVI 1000

5 Historically, cotton prices were based on reputation and cotton buyers based their judgment largely on variety and region of production. In England, as early as 1775, terms such as Indian, American, and West Indian conveyed specific quality implications. By 1816, the terms Sea Island, Santee and Short Staple were used to identify specific cotton growth areas as a basis for price quotations in Charleston, South Carolina [3]. In 1853, the New York cotton brokers adopted the classification standards developed by the Liverpool Cotton Brokers Association in Over the next fifty years, cotton classification became widespread but the standards were not uniform. Purchasers had to know both the description of the cotton and the system that was being used. In order to solve the problems of different standards, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) established nine standard grades for US Upland cotton in 1909 [3]. The Cotton Futures Act of 1914 provided permanent authority for the USDA to establish cotton standards. Experts from the New York and New Orleans Cotton Exchanges assisted the department staff in developing new grade standards, using the 1909 standard grades and the Liverpool standards as a guide. It was decided that physical standards would be selected and set up in grade boxes of twelve samples each to represent all growths throughout the cotton belt. Photographs are placed in each box cover, as they are today (Fig. 4), to verify the authenticity of the trash content [3]. Fig. 4 Universal Cotton Standard for Grade of American Upland Cotton [2] Initially, European firms continued to use Liverpool Standards but in 1923, all the major European trading associations signed the Universal Cotton Standards Agreement [3]. Today, 23 cotton merchant and spinners associations in 21 countries in Europe, South America, and Asia are signatories to the Universal Cotton Standards Agreement [4, see APPENDIX]. USTER HVI (16)

6 The Agreement provides for the adoption, use, and observance of the Universal Standards in the classification of U.S. Upland cotton. It also provides for the preparation, distribution, and protection of copies of the Universal Standards. Conferences are held every three years in the United States to ensure accurate reproduction of the standards and to consider any revisions needed in the standards. All signatories have a voice in this process [2, 4]. Since their installment in 1923, additional cotton standards have been included in the Universal Cotton Standards Agreement, reflecting industry developments. Others have been updated or discontinued for the same reason. Over fifty countries have purchased Universal Cotton Standards in the past ten years [4, see APPENDIX]. 3 Manual cotton classification Cotton classing essentially describes the quality attributes of each bale of cotton in terms of grade, staple and character according to a set of standards. The grade of the cotton in the bale is assessed visually on the basis of three attributes, color, leaf content and preparation. Hand (manual) classification for staple depends on sight and touch and is achieved by pulling a small specimen of cotton from the sample and comparing it with staple standards (Fig. 5). Character is a complex set of elements, which does not have any standards. It refers to those elements of cotton quality that are not included in grade or staple length. Some of these elements are measurable, but others depend on the classer s judgment. Traditionally, character was assessed from the way the sample handled [3]. Cotton classing is an art rather than a skill, requiring considerable experience. Classing efficiency can be enhanced when the tactile and visual observations made during classing are coordinated with subsequent experience of processing performance and product acceptability [3]. Fig. 5 Manual cotton classing Pulling a staple 6 (16) USTER HVI 1000

7 Worldwide, manual cotton classification is still commonly used in establishing the cotton price. This applies especially to cotton types different from US Upland cottons. Over fifteen different grade standards are mentioned in the Value Differences Circular by the International Cotton Association (ICA), describing cotton of different origin [5]. Only staple is recorded uniformly across origins in 32nds of an inch. Developing local standards for grade may have validity in representing the specific cotton quality with respect to color and trash of a certain growing region. However, the resulting variety in grade descriptions, lacking any instrument measurement information, continues to confuse the stakeholders in the cotton industry. 4 Development of instrument cotton classification The increasing cotton production made it difficult for the USDA to provide consistent and timely classing results across the US cotton belt, which they are required by law to provide to the US cotton producer [Smith-Doxey Act of 1937]. Thus, the USDA initiated discussions with the American electronics industry in the late 1960s. In the three decades from 1940 to 1970, various measurement instruments for cotton fiber testing had been introduced to the industry. Most of these instruments contributed to a more systematic measurement of quality characteristics. The disadvantage was that each instrument measured just one cotton quality parameter at a time. The operating time to determine individual quality parameters as well as the operator influence on the test results was considerably high. The USDA played an important role in replacing the human classer with instrument classing. Their objective was to determine all the quality characteristics of a cotton bale in a short period of time. The instrument developed to meet this objective was named the High Volume Instrument (HVI). Today, the entire US cotton crop is classed every year using 295 USTER HVI instruments located in 12 classing laboratories across the US cotton belt (Fig. 6). USTER HVI (16)

8 Color & Trash Length & Strength & Moisture Content Micronaire Fig. 6 Instrument cotton classing USTER HVI 1000 Official cotton classing results include measurements for: Fiber Length Length Uniformity Index Fiber Strength Micronaire Color Grade The Leaf Grade is still assigned by a human classer who also determines other extraneous matters such as bark or grass [2]. The development of HVI instruments for cotton classing required the development of Universal Cotton Standards that could be used for setting comparison levels for the new measurements that were now readily available. In 1995, USDA's calibration standards for HVI measurements were incorporated into the Universal Standards Agreement [2]. 8 (16) USTER HVI 1000

9 5 Instrument cotton classification today There is a consensus that instrument testing of cotton is superior to traditional hand classing. Instrument test results provide information to spinners that allow more efficient use of cotton, thereby enhancing demand. Instrument test results provide information to seed breeders, cotton producers and ginners, enabling the production of cotton with characteristics desired by the spinning industry. Instrument testing can also render the trading of cotton more efficient [6]. The benefits of instrument over manual cotton classing are indicated through an increase in the interest of these programs by cotton growing countries outside the United States. The US cotton classing system is a good example of such benefits: Since 1991, all bales produced in the United States are instrument classed. In 2005, 23.7 million cotton bales were classed on USTER HVI instruments within the 4 to 5 months of cotton season. The fiber quality data was reported back to the cotton producer within 72 hours of receiving the bale samples at one of the 12 classing offices operated by the USDA (Fig. 7). The HVI data, which is the basis of the crop value and the trade of this commodity, allows the producer to make timely financial plans and decisions. The data also allows cotton buyers to trace every individual cotton bale and its fiber quality worldwide [2, 7]. Fig. 7 Instrument cotton classing - USDA Classing office In addition, this extensive database of HVI test results allows for the longterm analysis of cotton fiber quality grown in the US. Performance of different cotton varieties for quantity and quality are analyzed for research of new varieties and selection of suitable varieties for different growth areas. Accurate instrument classing is the very foundation of this system without which these accomplishments would not be possible [7]. USTER HVI (16)

10 6 Quality and pricing mechanisms In the United States, the cotton classification system is used to determine premiums and discounts for the most important fiber properties measured by the USTER HVI instrument. Under the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Loan program, a premium and discount schedule is developed based on the USDA cotton grade, length, length uniformity, Micronaire, strength and extraneous matter. This government loan program encourages the US cotton farmer producing cotton to a certain quality level. Price discounts (reductions) are automatically applied when the cotton quality is below the base quality, and price premiums (increases) are given when the cotton quality exceeds this base quality. Thus, the USDA classification results are very important to the US cotton producer since they determine the price of his cotton crop. Instrument classification as the objective method for evaluating the annual cotton crop has not only been adopted by the United States but also by other cotton producing countries such as Australia, Brazil, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe. A 1991 study indicated that Uzbekistan would gain approximately USD 200 million annually if their cotton was classed by instruments. China, the largest cotton producer in the world, is in the process of implementing a cotton classification system similar to the United States. 7 Implementation of instrument cotton classification systems There are several requirements to consider when implementing an instrument-based cotton classification system. These requirements fall into two different categories, one that the organization responsible for the implementation should meet, and the other that the instrument manufacturer should meet in order to make instrument classing successful and effective. The following initiatives are recommended for the organization responsible for the implementation of an instrument-based cotton classification system: Establish government approval in the form of legislation or industry support in funding and promotion of this program. Arrange for funding through government, private or international sources. Establish infrastructure and procedures for logistics regarding laboratory locations, sample handling and transport, testing and data communication. Establish education programs for growers on the benefits resulting in higher value for their cotton through a) more accurate and repeatable data and b) higher resolution of cotton grades. Establish education for more accurate and timely bale information. The additional fiber quality data over manual grades is an added benefit for marketing and use of cotton. 10 (16) USTER HVI 1000

11 Assure both segments of the integrity of the overall system s operation and performance of classing instruments. The historical data can be used to educate on the relationships between manual classing and instrument data, where applicable. Explain the basis of universally accepted calibration cotton and standards used in application of the instrument data. The instrument manufacturer should meet the following requirements: Experience and history in providing accurate and reliable instruments for such programs. Comprehensive technical and service support. Innovations to reduce operator influence on test results through automation. Methods to reduce laboratory climatic requirements resulting in higher data integrity as well as reduction of overall operational costs. Effective training for use of instrument and logistics. Development of applications and data utilization across the cotton supply chain. Development of international standards, statistics and certification programs. The China classing project is a good example of all the above key points. As the background, in the span of two decades, Chinese mills have utilized over 90 HVIs to insure product quality in this country. However, the marketing system still uses measurement of fiber qualities based on manual and mechanical methods. In 2004, the China Fiber Inspection Bureau (CFIB) started the evaluation of 22 USTER HVI units in an effort to convert from manual to instrument classing using a similar system used in the United States (Fig. 8) [7]. Fig. 8 Instrument cotton classing CFIB Classing office USTER HVI (16)

12 The successful completion of this evaluation phase led to the official initiation of a large scale program by acquisition of 62 USTER HVI1000 units in 2005 and 66 units in These instruments have been installed in 53 classing laboratories in the cotton growing areas in China, and have classed part of the 2005 crop. In the past 2 years, over 45 textile technologists and over 100 service technicians have been trained. When the project is completed in 2010, over 350 HVIs will be in operation in over 100 classing laboratories. This will make the Chinese classing program the largest in the world [7]. This is a major accomplishment not only for China, but for the international cotton market as well. As the largest producer and user of cotton in the world, the conversion to instrument classing using the HVI will further encourage the application of instruments. It will ensure a common language in cotton quality testing is spoken in the market worldwide. 8 Summary Instrument cotton classification is rapidly spreading in the cotton industry. International organizations such as the Task Force on Commercial Standardization of Instrument Testing (CSITC) operated under the authority of the International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC) are actively promoting instruments to replace manual cotton classification worldwide. The USTER HVI has been the key instrument in the successful implementation of every existing instrument classing project, and will continue to be in the future. 9 Sources [1] I Cotton: Review of the World Situation, International Cotton Advisory Committee, Volume 59 Number 5, May-June 2006 [2] USDA Web Site at [3] From Field to Fabric, Volume 1 by Frederick E.M Gillham et al., Tom Bells Associates, Falls Church, VG, USA, 1983 [4] Changes in Cotton Standardization by James K. Knowlton, USDA AMS Cotton Program; paper given at the 2003 Beltwide Cotton Conference, Memphis, TN, USA [5] Value Differences Circular, No. 03/2006 published by The International Cotton Association Ltd., Liverpool, England [6] Report of the Fifth Meeting of the Task Force on Commercial Standardization of Instrument Testing of Cotton (CSITC) March 22, 2006, Bremen, Germany published by ICAC, Washington D.C., USA, June (16) USTER HVI 1000

13 [7] Worldwide Implementation of Cotton Classing by H. Ghorashi, Uster Technologies Inc.; paper given at the 2006 International Cotton Conference, Bremen, Germany, March Appendix 10.1 Signatories to the Universal Cotton Standards Agreement [2, 4] Bangladesh: Bangladesh Textile Mill Association Belgium: Association Cotonniére de Belgique Brazil: Bolsa de Mercadorias e Futurosl Egypt : Alexandria Cotton Exporters Association England: International Cotton Association Ltd., Liverpool France: Association Francaise Cotonniére Germany: Bremer Baumwollboerse India: East India Cotton Association, Ltd. Indonesia: Wonocorp Italy: Associazione Cotoniera Japan: a. Japan Cotton Arbitration Institute b. Japan Cotton Traders Association c. Japan Spinners Association Korea: Spinners & Weavers Association of Korea Malaysia: Malaysia Textile Manufacturing Association Mexico: Camara National de la Industria Textil Peru: Comite Textil de la Sociedad Nacional de Industria Philippines: Textile Mills Association Inc. of The Philippines Poland: Gdynia Cotton Association Spain: Centro Algodonero National Switzerland: Swiss Textile Federation Thailand: Thai Textile Manufacturer s Association Taiwan: Taiwan Cotton Spinners Association USTER HVI (16)

14 10.2 Major users of Universal Cotton Standards [2, 4] Argentina Greece Pakistan Taiwan Australia India Portugal Thailand Brazil Indonesia South Africa Turkey China Israel South Korea United Kingdom France Italy Spain Uzbekistan Ghana Japan Switzerland Zimbabwe Table Worldwide distribution of USTER HVI instruments (including mill shipments) Fig (Projected) Total: >1950 HVI in > 70 countries 14 (16) USTER HVI 1000

15 USTER HVI (16)

16 Uster Technologies AG Wilstrasse 11 CH-8610 Uster / Switzerland Phone Fax sales@uster.com 16 (16) USTER HVI 1000