Longer staple wool increases income

              \    HSR  MEXICO COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND MEpflANIC ARTS
vAVO, ) 01 0 AMD AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
Press Bulletin 1010 /
LONGER STAPLE WOOL INCREASES INCOME^i"' 3 « A Vll<^
To determine the effect of staple length on the commercial value of wool and
ithe consequent income per sheep, the New Mexico Experiment Station and Extension
Service have compared incomes with wool lengths on seven ranches.
Just before shearing in 194-5, range sheep from the ranches studied were divide*
^into three groups on the basis of wool length.  In group A were sheep with wool 2.5
inches long or longer; in group B, animals with wool from 2 to 2.5 inches; and in
group C, sheep with wool less than 2 inches in length. Each of the three groups was
sheared separately. When sacked, the wool was designated as A, B, or C wool, according to the same length-of-wool classifications that were used in grouping the sheep.
Each lot was put up separately for government appraisal and sold separately. Since
all data in the accompanying tables are those of the government appraisal committee,
results are strictly on a commercial basis. No experiment station shrinkages or
forices are used.
Except for two small lots of A wool from Ranch 2 and one small lot from Ranch 3,
all A wool was lightest in shrinkage. The three exceptionally heavy-shrinking A lots
were from ewes which had been segregated because their wool had heavier grease and
dirt than that of other A ewes in these herds, and these lots were sacked separately.
3 wool from all ranches except 3 and 6 shrank less than C wool. The smaller
[shrink of C wool from these two ranches was accounted for by the considerable number
pf off sorts and some half-blood wool in these lots.
When all A, B, and C v/ools were compared, B wool was .35 inch longer than C
[wool, while A wool was .5 inch longer than B wool; that is, increase in length of
|A wool over B wool was just .15 inch more than that of B wool over C wool. However,
while B wool had 1.16 percent less shrinkage than C wool, A wool had 2.65 percent
less shrinkage than B wool. Thus, while increase in length of A over B wool was
less than 1.5 times that of B over C wool, decrease in shrinkage of A over B wool was
more than 2.25 times the shrinkage decrease of B over C wool. These figures indicate
that decrease in shrinkage multiplies faster than increase in length.
Boston clean value, Boston grease value, fleece weight, and fleece value of A,
B, and C wool were also compared. Increase in length of A over B wool caused a
greater proportional increase in these economically valuable factors than did the increase in length of B over C wool.
A comparison cf the price increase of A over B wool with that of B over C wool
shows the economic importance of A wool. Income per head of sheep producing B wool
was $4.14.' This was just $.34 more than the income per head for C wool. However,
income per sheep for A wool v/as $4.86, which was 0.72 more than for B wool. Thus,
increase in income of A wool over B wool wa^ more than twice that of B wool over
i C wool.
The question has been raised as to whether a clip of wool will sell for more or
less if v/ool is sacked in these three lots instead of all together, as is the usua_
method. A comparison between average wool length and price on all ranches, as shown
in table 1, and the schedule of values for the 1945 V/ool Purcnase Program will heir
answer this question. .Average Boston price for clean wool on the seven ranches wae
$1.17 while the average length was 2.31 inches. The 3B classification on the schedule of values was.: Original bag, bulk good French combing, some staple, occasicna-