USTER HVI 1000 - Uster Technologies · was considerably high. The USDA played an important role in replacing the human classer with instrument classing. Their objective was to determine

®

A. Schleth, H. Ghorashi, R. Furter

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

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

August 2006 SE 597

THE FIBER CLASSIFICATION AND ANALYSIS SYSTEM

Table of contents

1 Introduction.................................................................................3

2 Cotton Standards and their development ................................4

3 Manual cotton classification......................................................6

4 Development of instrument cotton classification....................7

5 Instrument cotton classification today.....................................9

6 Quality and pricing mechanisms.............................................10

7 Implementation of instrument cotton classification systems .....................................................................................10

8 Summary ...................................................................................12

9 Sources......................................................................................12

10 Appendix ...................................................................................13 10.1 Signatories to the Universal Cotton Standards Agreement

[2, 4] ............................................................................................13 10.2 Major users of Universal Cotton Standards [2, 4] .......................14 10.3 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 re-trieval system, translated or transmitted in any form or by any means, electroni-cally, mechanically, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permis-sion 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


1 Introduction Cotton is produced in over 50 countries worldwide, averaging 20 – 24 mil-lion 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).

0%10%

20%30%

40%50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 Est. 2006 Proj. 2007 Proj.

China (Mainland) USA India Pakistan Total Others

Fig. 1 Worldwide Cotton Production [1]

0%10%

20%30%

40%50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 Est. 2006 Proj. 2007 Proj.

China (Mainland) USA India Pakistan Total Others

Fig. 2 Worldwide Cotton Consumption [1]

USTER® HVI 1000 3 (16)


Thus, most of the cotton produced is being traded and exported as a com-modity 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 environ-ment (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 quali-ties 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 Cot-ton Standards for manual and instrument classing [2]

4 (16) USTER® HVI 1000


Historically, cotton prices were based on reputation and cotton buyers based their judgment largely on variety and region of production. In Eng-land, as early as 1775, terms such as Indian, American, and West Indian conveyed specific quality implications. By 1816, the terms Sea Island, San-tee 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 1841. Over the next fifty years, cotton classification became widespread but the standards were not uniform. Purchasers had to know both the description of the cot-ton 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 Up-land 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 asso-ciations in 21 countries in Europe, South America, and Asia are signatories to the Universal Cotton Standards Agreement [4, see APPENDIX].

USTER® HVI 1000 5 (16)


The Agreement provides for the adoption, use, and observance of the Uni-versal 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 revi-sions needed in the standards. All signatories have a voice in this proc-ess [2, 4]. Since their installment in 1923, additional cotton standards have been in-cluded 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 stan-dards. The grade of the cotton in the bale is assessed visually on the basis of three attributes, color, leaf content and preparation. Hand (manual) classifi-cation 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 measur-able, 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 experi-ence. Classing efficiency can be enhanced when the tactile and visual ob-servations made during classing are coordinated with subsequent experi-ence of processing performance and product acceptability [3].

Fig. 5 Manual cotton classing – Pulling a staple

6 (16) USTER® HVI 1000


Worldwide, manual cotton classification is still commonly used in establish-ing 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 uni-formly 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 stake-holders 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 electron-ics 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 char-acteristics. The disadvantage was that each instrument measured just one cotton quality parameter at a time. The operating time to determine individ-ual 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 charac-teristics 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 1000 7 (16)


Fig. 6 Instrument cotton classing USTER® HVI 1000

Micronaire

Color & Trash Length & Strength & Moisture Content

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 devel-opment of Universal Cotton Standards that could be used for setting com-parison levels for the new measurements that were now readily available. In 1995, USDA's calibration standards for HVI measurements were incorpo-rated into the Universal Standards Agreement [2].

8 (16) USTER® HVI 1000


5 Instrument cotton classification today There is a consensus that instrument testing of cotton is superior to tradi-tional hand classing. Instrument test results provide information to spinners that allow more efficient use of cotton, thereby enhancing demand. Instru-ment 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 instru-ments 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 deci-sions. 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 long-term analysis of cotton fiber quality grown in the US. Performance of differ-ent 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 1000 9 (16)


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 encour-ages 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 classifica-tion results are very important to the US cotton producer since they deter-mine 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 approxi-mately USD 200 million annually if their cotton was classed by instruments. China, the largest cotton producer in the world, is in the process of imple-menting 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 instru-ment-based cotton classification system. These requirements fall into two different categories, one that the organization responsible for the imple-mentation 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 labora-

tory locations, sample handling and transport, testing and data com-munication.

• 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


• 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 in-strument data, where applicable. Explain the basis of universally ac-cepted calibration cotton and standards used in application of the in-strument 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 auto-

mation. • 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 sup-

ply chain. • Development of international standards, statistics and certification pro-

grams. 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 market-ing 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 1000 11 (16)


The successful completion of this evaluation phase led to the official initia-tion of a large scale program by acquisition of 62 USTER® HVI1000 units in 2005 and 66 units in 2006. 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 technolo-gists 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 class-ing 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 en-courage 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 Stan-dardization 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 http://www.ams.usda.gov/cotton [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 Confer-ence, 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 Stan-dardization of Instrument Testing of Cotton (CSITC) March 22, 2006, Bre-men, Germany” published by ICAC, Washington D.C., USA, June 2006

12 (16) USTER® HVI 1000

http://www.ams.usda.gov/cotton


[7] ”Worldwide Implementation of Cotton Classing” by H. Ghorashi, Uster Technologies Inc.; paper given at the 2006 International Cotton Confer-ence, Bremen, Germany, March 2006 10 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 1000 13 (16)


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 1 10.3 Worldwide distribution of USTER® HVI instruments (in-

cluding mill shipments)

Fig. 9 2006 (Projected) Total: >1950 HVI in > 70 countries

14 (16) USTER® HVI 1000


USTER® HVI 1000 15 (16)


Uster Technologies AG Wilstrasse 11

H-8610 Uster / Switzerland C Phone +41 43 366 36 36

ax +41 43 366 36 37 F www.uster.com [email protected]

16 (16) USTER® HVI 1000

Documents

USTER HVI 1000 - Uster Technologies · was considerably high. The USDA played an important role in replacing the human classer with instrument classing. Their objective was to determine