|
[This speech was delivered by the author during
the 63rd Plenary Meeting of ICAC held in Mumbai,
India in November 2004]
The Commercial Standardization of Instrument
Testing of Cotton has been a topic of
conversation ever since the Expert Panel was
formed by the Standing Committee and the
Secretariat nearly a year ago.
But before I start, for the benefit of the
layman allow me to try to demystify the title,
and since I live in the Southern Hemisphere I
will take it backwards.
- Cotton, well that we understand
- Testing means examining the cotton for
its composition, characteristics formation,
which might be better
understood as quality.
- Instrument means we do such testing
with a machine or instrument as opposed to doing
so by hand, as used to
be the case.
- Standardization means that there is an
accepted procedure and interpretation of the
results of a given test.
 We
could have stopped there since Standardization
of Instrument Testing stands by itself, but, we
have tried for more than 20 years to achieve
such standardization between instruments,
without success due to the current unavoidable
variable factors involved in cotton testing in
different parts of the world.
So we have added the word Commercial in the
title, to indicate that deviations from a given
standard could be considered acceptable in
commerce, but which not might be acceptable in a
scientific forum.
That subtle adding of the word changes the
prospects for success, since less sophisticated
users, like smaller farmers, as well as the
international trade, would feel more comfortable
in utilizing the benefits of instrument testing
on commercial standards, as the goal posts would
be somewhat wider apart, at least initially.
So we have Commercial Standardization of
Instrument Testing of Cotton (CSITC)
At the first meeting in Bremen the whole concept
was discussed and various proposals were put
forward. Since these suggestions have been well
received, we now propose to put forward a seven
point action plan to the Plenary, being the
recommended way forward to implement the
concepts presented by the panel.
I do not propose to detail the conclusions
reached in Bremen, since we believe the actions
we shall describe in this presentation cover
most of the points raised.
Firstly allow me to remind ourselves of the Aims
and Objectives together with the proposed
actions.
“Worldwide testing of cotton with standardized,
instrument testing methods and procedures”
The prerequisites for instrument testing must
be:
Reliable
Practical
Economical
Suitable for the commercialization
Arbitratable
And the actions we are proposing are:-
• 1. Definition of specifications for cotton trading
• 2. Definition of international test rules
• 3. Implementation of the test rules
• 4. Certification of the testing laboratories
• 5. Calibration standards
• 6. Specifying commercial control limits for trading
• 7. Arbitration procedures.
During our meeting in Bremen it was agreed that
at this initial stage we should concentrate for
international testing on the following
characteristics:-
Micronaire
Strength
Length (UHML)
Length Uniformity (UI)
Colour (Rd and +b)
For the testing purposes the participants to the
contracts, will have to define whether 10%
sampling sufficient, or the sampling must be
100% of the bales. This will depend on various
factors principally on the origin of the cotton,
so the panel felt that this point should be
optional.
The expert panel is responsible for this.
Though we are suggesting that the testing
methods to be based on
USDA Guidelines for HVI Testing
ITMF HVI User Guide
Other International HVI Working Groups from
various origins
An approved sample protocol.
 at
this stage we shall be seeking to prepare
international rules (rather than methods) which
will accompany the thought process behind the
proposals of the Expert Panel. Therefore we do
not intend to prepare detailed instructions on
the methods of testing, which accompany any
testing instrument, but rather devise the basic
rules for international co-operation in testing
of cotton, to achieve international
certification of laboratories. We are
recommending that the Fiber Institute in Bremen
together with the USDA, undertake this task,
together with the support of the ITMF Committee
for Cotton Testing and CIRAD to name examples.
Once these basic “international” rules, have
been drawn up they would be submitted to the
Expert Panel for approval.
The next job would be to implement the rules,
and for this we would need to obtain acceptance
from the cotton producers, traders, processors
and the spinning mills, of the principles, since
the inclusion of these basic rules would
certainly have to be included in the cotton
trading system. Likewise the rules for the
Certification System of testing centers would
also have to be contemplated in the trading
arena. This would be the job of the cotton
associations.
Perhaps we should make it clear that the word
trading includes, cotton growers, ginners,
merchants and spinner all having a stake in this
project. Instrument testing is as important to
growers and seed breeders as it is the spinners.
For this all the Cotton Associations would have
to be consulted for example:
American Cotton Shippers Association,
African Cotton Association
Belgian Cotton Association, Gent, Belgium
Bremer Baumwollbörse, Bremen, Germany
East India Cotton Association, Mumbai, India
Gdynia Cotton Association, Gdynia, Poland
Liverpool Cotton Association, Liverpool, UK
but clearly the leader in international trading
rules is the Liverpool Cotton Association,
shortly to become the International Cotton
Association, who are very supportive of this
initiative and can be counted on to assist.
 So
how do we envisage certification of the testing
laboratories? We imagine the formation of
regional or national certified centers
corresponding and carrying out round trials with
those instruments located in that specific
region. If the region was large there might be
more than one approved/certified centre. These
centers in turn would carry out round trails
with a selected international centre, which we
are proposing would be the Bremen Institute, but
clearly this responsibility could be also
divided between other international centers like
the USDA for example. These international
centers would also carry out remote inspections
of laboratories which had been approved by the
regional center, as well as make random
inspections of the certified laboratories.
They would also form national or regional
centers for training in testing and calibration
as well as provide maintenance assistance where
necessary.
The determination of the certification
procedures of laboratories would be extended to
all the interested parties. At this time we are
envisaging that bodies like the Fibre Institute
in Bremen and the USDA would in fact issue the
certification according to the commercial
control tolerances which will have been
established. It is proposed that perhaps the
ICAC, based on the evaluation of the Bremen
institute and the USDA, could issue and of
course withdraw certification as the case arose.
However we do envisage that other institutions
could be involved with the standard of
certification such as:-
ITMF Committee on Cotton Testing Methods HVI
Working Group
CIRAD, Montpellier, France
Wakefield Inspections
SGS etc
As regards manufacturing of calibration
standards we are proposing that the USDA should
be responsible for this important work and would
include.
• Definition of valid calibration standards
• Control of the selection of standards
• Defined validity period for defined standard
sets
• Forwarding of calibration standards to all
certified laboratories.
Now we come to the most important part of the concept for all this to be
possible. The panel agreed that there
are valid reasons for variations in test results
though out the world.
• There are variations in the results even in
individual bales, due to the variation in cotton
itself.
• There may be variations in the results of
different bales from one lot
• Certainly there are variations caused by the
test method and deviations between laboratories
which we call “
repeatability”.
• Deviations between laboratories. • Finally we
can obtain a genuine variation depending on
number of tests
made per sample.
So the panel agrees that there exists variance
between instruments and conditioning of samples,
will require some commercial tolerance of
control limits for trading cotton.
The panel agreed that moisture content in cotton
varies with alterations in temperatures, and
that cotton strength increases with higher
relative humidity. However the panel agreed that
as the other characteristics are affected to
much lesser extent by fluctuations in moisture
content, that such variances would be acceptable
under commercial control limits for cotton
trading.
So the next step in this strategy will be to
establish the range and trading tolerances for
these basic characteristics. Ideally for
strength measurement we need to initially
introduce software to correct results based on
variations in climatization by the measurement
of temperature and humidity, or better still the
moisture content of the sample. For this we
shall have to look to the manufacturers of
instruments to supply this information to assist
in this project.
We shall need to quantify the different
variations/tolerances proposed, but in final
analysis the proposal is that it should be based
on, Bremen and USDA round trial results, as well
as other literature on the subject, and it might
be found useful to make specific round trials
with other organizations to supplement the
results. All this would lead to a combination of
acceptable variations between certified testing
centers, as well as the basis for commercial
trading control limits.
Naturally what we shall be looking for in the
long term would be the development of a
stand-alone, self calibrating instrument with
internal climate control, requiring no operator
intervention which would allow us to reduce the
commercial tolerance closer to the “scientific
tolerances” which would be ideal in a perfect
world.
Having established this concept of trading
tolerances, we still need to approach the
commercial aspect as regards agreement between
two parties. The logical step it to treat any
variations between instruments outside of agreed
tolerances between buyer and seller, in the same
manner as we handle visual classing, Samples
would be drawn and sent to an approved centre
for arbitration identified in the contact, for
example Liverpool, Bremen or Gdynia. The results
would be communicated in the identical manner
which exists today for visual classing, an
arbitration award, using established value
differences. As is the norm, the costs of the
arbitration involved would be for losers
account. This arbitration between instruments
would mimic what is done manually today, and in
fact would be one of the most efficient way of
eliminating poorly calibrated or badly operated
instruments.
So in conclusion let me mention some other
factors that will be required for this project
to advance.
• We shall need the motivation of political
support to implement these proposals in cotton
trade.
• We shall need the support from the cotton
trade growers, merchants, spinners.
• It will be important to agree on these future
actions
• Ensure that we obtain the participation of the
laboratories involved.
• We shall need to encourage those entities we
have sited to responsibly undertake their part
in the program
Finally and most important is that the project
will require a provision of funds for those
responsible for the testing. We encourage the
ICAC to approach Common Fund for Commodities,
the European Commi-ssion, as well as national
governments for financial support.
We must offer our thanks to the Faserinstitut of
Bremen for their valuable assistance with this
presentation; additionally the Institute has
prepared a time flow chart with estimated costs
to undertake their part of the project. Once
this prog-ram is approved in principle, we shall
be able to present a timetable with costings and
ask the other participants to do likewise. Then
the project as a whole would be presented to the
authorities together with the detailed reasoning
for the importance of this program, so as to
seek the funds that will be required.
¨
|
Home | |
.gif){kind=tracking}