Evaluating the cost-benefits of sheep covers
Abstract
As margins for superfine wool production are currently under downward pressure, a basic cost benefit analysis was conducted in the Central Tablelands area of NSW to provide a guide as to the possible economic gains from coating sheep. The analysis showed that coating young superfine sheep had the potential to increase net returns.
Method
The sheep were run on two properties in the Pyramul district of the NSW Central Tablelands during the 2005/06 season. The properties are owned by Pyramul Pastoral Property. The evaluation was conducted by Countrywide Wool Testing of Crookwell, NSW
.
About one month after shearing, 700 sheep were randomly selected from a mob of 1000 mixed sex 2 tooth hoggets. These sheep were coated with a UV resistant standard sheep-cover. The sheep were separated according to sex, however, covered sheep were run with uncovered sheep in order to draw effective comparisons.
The sheep were shorn over September/October 2006 with the sheep-covers being removed immediately prior to shearing. The wool from the covered sheep was mainly classed into two lines while the uncovered wool was mainly placed in the one separate line. The wool was subsequently core tested then sold in November 2006.
Results
Table one shows the core test results for the three lines of wool.
The covered sheep had significantly higher results for yield and staple strength with significantly lower vegetable matter. These results are similar to the South Australian Demonstation Flocks’ trial, although the SA trial showed staple length being 3mm longer for covered sheep.
The mean fibre diameter for the uncovered line was significantly lower than the covered lines. This was unexpected as previous trial results and the writer’s experience is that there is insignificant difference in mean fibre diameter between covered and uncovered wool. The SA trial results were 16.7 microns for covered sheep against 16.8 for uncovered sheep.
Table One:
|
Line |
MFD (µm) |
VM (%) |
Yield (%) |
CV (%) |
Length (mm) |
SS N/kt |
Price c/kg |
|
Covered (Ausfine Ultra) |
15.6 |
0.1 |
78.3 |
19.9 |
66 |
43 |
2700 |
|
Covered (Ausfine Choice) |
15.7 |
0.7 |
77.5 |
19.7 |
69 |
39 |
2400 |
|
Uncovered (Ausfine XXXXX) |
15.3 |
1.5 |
73.1 |
21.3 |
71 |
37 |
1400 |
The covered wool achieved significantly higher prices compared to uncovered wool. Comments provided by wool buyers indicated the main contributing factor was the reduced vegetable matter, with higher staple strength and yield also influencing the difference.
Unfortunately, fleece weights could not be recorded in this evaluation, however, previous trials have shown negligible difference in clean fleece weights as a result of coating sheep. Obviously, the decrease in non-fibre particles results in decreased greasy weights for covered wool.
The average greasy fleece weight for the sheep was 2kg with an estimated 1.4 kg being placed in the fleece lines.
The costs associated with covering the sheep over a one year season are estimated at $4.95, comprising $2.75 for the sheepcover (initial cost of $6.85 depreciated over 3 years with 5% loss) and $2.20 labour. Labour costs involve initial placement of the covers and one change of cover during the year.
Conclusion
In this particular case, the covered sheep made 1300c per kg and 1000c per kg more than uncovered sheep for the respective two covered lines.
Given the expected weight of fleece wool, this could reasonably equate to $18.20 and $14 increase per head. Given the estimated costs, this would result in a net cost benefit of $13.25 and $9.05 respectively.
Clearly, the benefits would not be as great if the sheep were grazed in country with historically low levels of VM. Further, the extent of the benefits would be arguably diminished with increased fibre diameter.
The limitations of this cost-benefit analysis are that fleece weights were not recorded, the number of sheep was lower than normal for such an exercise and the analysis did not use advanced statistical methods. The exercise does however, show that coating sheep can significantly increase net returns, even in challenging market (and seasonal) conditions.
Further evaluations, preferably large scale, need to be conducted over various conditions in order to effectively determine the benefits of coating sheep.
Paul Vallely
Coutnrywide Wool Testing.
Ph: 02 48342132. email: paulvallely@bigpond.com
Countrywide Wool Testing declares its vested interest in this report as a distributor of ‘Matilda Brand’ sheepcovers.
