THREAT TO WOOL

Grey River Argus, 8 January 1944, Page 7

THREAT TO WOOL

Australian Warnings

SYDNEY, Dec. 19. A warning that the Governments in wool-growing countries and the growers must provide resources for the improvement of efficiency in production and manufacture if wool is to compete successfully With synthetic textiles was given by two Australian experts. > Professor Clunies Ross, dean or the faculty of veterinary science at Sydney University, and . previously chairman of the International Wool Secretariat in London, said in a lecture on the future of wool that a twofold problem would face the wool Industry after the war. The first Consideraitilcn was the disposal or the accumulations of wool in Australia, the United States and South America, which were of greater proportions than at the end of last war; and the second, competition from wool substitutes, the production ot which had been greatly expanded and the quality markedly improved. “Synthetics are not superior to wool,” Professor Ross said, “but they enjoy two great advantages —cheapness’ and control by vast organisations employing every scientific aid and up-to-date methods of sales promotion and publicity. But great possibilities exist to apply science to the problems of wool production. So far in relation to the magnitude ol the industry and the dangers threatening it, our attack on the problems has been trifling. There must be. a co-ordinated Commonwealth-wide

programme of research into every aspect of wool production, into nutrition, agrostology, genetics, sex physiology, and economics. Equally, the resources of science must be mobilised to improve the methods of the wool textile, industry. Eventually wool must stand or fall by the public appreciation of wool fabrics .and garments, The leading Australian authority on synthetic fibres. Mr A. R. Penfold, ‘ director of the Technological Museum, Sydney, told . a combined meeting of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science and the Australian Veterinary Association of the remarkable development _ of wool .substitutes since' their introduction by Axis "countries 13 years ago. 'Staple fibre first came into proininence in 1930, when Germany began to make it from beechwood and spruce timbers as a substitute lor wool, said Mr Penfold. The other totalitarian countries entered the nelu a year or two later. There had been a marvellous improvement in quality year by year, with a very steep Increase in production from 7,000,0001 b in 1930 to over 1.500,000,0001 b last year. Only four countries were originally engaged in this manufwcture. but 13 or more were , now producing these fibres, including Great Britain. The output in one European factory equalled in fibre what Australia would obtain in wool from 6.000, 000'sheep. Germany, Japan and Italy produced 88 per cent, of the world’s total of 623,000,0001 b in 1937 .—Germany 35 per cent.. Japan 28 per cent., and Italy 25 per cent. An excellent textile was made by a mixture of 50 per cent, wool and 50 per cent. Lanital, a milk product, ■continued Mr Penfold. Great Britain to-day was producing about 1,500,000 lb of this fibre, in suite of the fact that milk was an important foodstuff. The United States of America was producing 5,000,0001 b weight per annum —the recoverable casein content of about 160,000,0001 b of skim milk. Just before the outbreak of war in the Pacific in 1941, textiles from soybeans fibre were received at the Sydney Technological Museum. They were of excellent quality. Since then remarkable progress in the technical application of the fibre had been made by one of the. progressive firms in the 'United States. This compahy planted about 30-000 acres of soybeans for its own use, intending to use it for automobile unholstery. The I outbreak of war, 'however. <vused the present production of 50001 b /per day to be commandeered for blankets, overcoats and, experimentally, for some uniform suitings. ■/ “I prefer not to discuss the/ question of prices,” Mr Penfold said. “but obviously the fibre is so much lower in price than wool that it must have a very serious effect on th<e future of wool. I am not pessimistic about the future of .wool if we ejmbark on a planned investigation of>all phases of wool production and /technology. If we can give the same concentrated attention to wool/ as other nations give to synthetic) fibres then no one can foresee wha/t possible revolutionary results migiht come from it. Unless we do soml’-hing on the lines indicated, wool *-',ll lose its ; pre-eminent position. *jl be relegated to a secondary J withii 10 years.” jfl \