AGENDA
30th Meeting of the Task Force for CSITC
1 December 2019
Brisbane, Australia
Sofitel Brisbane Central
249 Turbot St, Brisbane City QLD 4000
Odeon Room (located on the lower lobby level)
13:00 – 14:30
- Approval of the Minutes 29th Meeting in Abidjan December 2018
- Adoption of the Agenda
- Update on latest Round Trial Results and review of additional parameters (Axel Drieling)
- Strategic review (Chairman)
- The number of participants over last five years (Yana Pomerants)
- Evaluation of the overall results over last five years (Axel Drieling)
- Promotion of CSTIC Round Trials (Yana)
- Uster agreement
- Problems of commercialization of cotton with HVI (Chairman)
- Instrument Testing Interpretation Guideline (Jean-Paul)
- Update of payment instructions for CSITC Round Trials participants
- Discussion on CSITC Round Trials accredited based on ISO 17043
- Next meeting in Bremen Germany on Monday, March 23, 2020, 09:30 – 12:00
- Members also invited to in Bremen:
- Monday, March 23, 2020, 12:00 – 13:00 Introduction to Universal Cotton Standards
- Tuesday, March 24, 2020, 14:00 – 18:00 ITMF/IVGT Spinner & Textile Seminar
- Wednesday 25 – Friday 27, March 2020 Bremen Cotton Conference
- Administrative matters
- Any other business
MINUTES
30th Meeting of the Task Force on CSITC
Sunday, 1 December 2019
Brisbane, Australia
The Task Force on Commercial Standardization of Instrument Testing of Cotton (CSITC) conducted its 30th meeting on Sunday 1st December 2019 in Brisbane, Australia during the 78th Plenary Meeting of the ICAC.
Members Present:
Mr. Andrew MacDonald, ABRAPA, Brazil (Chair)
Mr. Axel Drieling – Faserinstitut Bremen
Mr. Greg Parle, Auscott Ltd., Australia
Mr. Rene van der Slujis, Textile Technical Services, Australia
Mr. Peter Wakefield, Wakefield Inspection Services, China
Dr. Mohammed Negm, Cotton Research Institute, Egypt
Dr. Susan Sanad, Cotton Research Institute, Egypt
Dr. Jean-Paul Gourlot, Cirad Persyst Ltc., France
Prof. Iwona Frydruch, Gdynia, Poland
Mr. Fatih Dogan, AKIB Ari-Tarim, Turkey
Mr. Darryl Earnest, USDA AMS, USA
Observers:
Mr. Joseph Tartaglia, Bontech Technologies, Australia
Mr. James Woodrow, Australian Classing Services, Australia
Mr. Joso Luis Pessa, ABRAPA, Brazil
Mr. Bruno Bachelier, CIRAD, France
Mr. Fritz Grobien, Bremen Cotton Exchange, Germany
Mr. Takaaki Kai, Toyoshima Co. Ltd., Japan
Mr. Yoshito Kawazu, Kurabo Industries Ltd., Japan
Mr. Jerzy Kotwas, Gdynia, Poland
Mr. James Johnson, USDA-FAS, USA
ICAC Secretariat:
Mr. Kai Hughes, Executive Director
Mr. Mike McCue, Director of Communications
Ms. Yana Pomerants, Executive Assistant
Approval of the Minutes 29th Meeting in Abidjan December 2018
The Task Force approved the minutes from 29th Meeting in Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire that took place in December 2018.
Adoption of the Agenda
Agenda for the 30th Meeting of the Task Force on CSITC with an addition that time permitting, the Task Force would review that Terms of References of the Task Force on CSITC.
Update on latest Round Trial Results and Comparisons.
Mr. Drieling had completed his presentation. The CHAIR thanked him for the presentation and for his work on the evaluations. The CHAIR then asked Mr. Drieling a suggestion regarding changing the tolerance on the Trash evaluation.
Mr. Drieling said that he didn’t have the answer on what the new tolerance level should be on Trash. He proposed that during the next meeting in March, the task force could decide on the new tolerance level for Trash based on additional evaluations on the given Round Trial data. The Chair and the Task Force agreed on the proposal.
A representative from Australia commented that his laboratory had been using the USDA standards, and that in the measurement of the Trash Area, the reproducibility was good but on Trash Count it was low. He said that they would welcome new measurement parameters.
The Chair said that the comments would be taken into consideration during the next meeting because eventually Trash measurements would be included in the overall evaluation.
The Chair then asked a question regarding Mr. Drieling’s comment regarding Maturity measurements being worthless and asked to explain what he meant by that.
Mr. Drieling explained that the distance between the results was small, so it appeared that the tests were not sensitive enough to produce conclusive results. The range that was presented was between 81 and 84. He explained that there were other instruments that could be used to measure Maturity by separating the measurement of Micronaire and Fineness. The Chair asked if the difference between 81 and 84 would mean anything for spinners. Mr. Drieling said that he would like to ask spinners this question. The Chair said that he would find out from spinners what their opinion on Maturity measurements was.
The Chair also asked what tolerances were being applied in the Short Fibre Index (SFI). Mr. Drieling said that the tolerances were variable and that he would present more information on this parameter during the meeting in March.
The Chair thanked Mr. Drieling for his work and his presentation, he also congratulated the Task Force on the improvement on the results.
Strategic review
The Chair asked to speak about the current number of participating laboratories and discuss the growth CSITC Round Trials. Ms. Pomerants informed the Task Force that the number of registered laboratories was 98 in 2019. That had been the lowest number in the last five years. The highest number of registered laboratories was in 2017 at 109 laboratories. The Chair proposed to talk about what can be done to increase the number of participants.
Ms. Pomerants presented three brochures that were produced in order to promote CSITC Round Trials – general information brochure, brochure that addresses spinners, and the most recent one that addresses traders. It was mentioned that many of the traders dropped out of the participation because they didn’t think that their business depended on having accurate results.
Mr. Drieling added that it was mainly laboratories in the cotton producing countries that were participating. Most of the laboratories have learned that the results were beneficial to their operation. However, he noted that spinning mills didn’t see the importance of participation. He said that he didn’t think that the spinners would use all of their machines to participate in the CSITC Round Trials, but he asserted that the Task Force should involve spinners more.
The Chair added that cotton was still sold based on visual classing and therefore results were theoretical. Many spinners that had HVI machines didn’t necessarily agree with the results and didn’t see the need to ensure that their machines were accurate.
Mr. Wakefield from Wakefield Inspection Services (WIS) made a comment that there was a situation with one laboratory, that had been participating in testing the cotton with WIS, which didn’t agree with the HVI testing results. After discussions with WIS, the laboratory decided to join CSITC Round Trials in order to update their facility. However, such outcome was an exception to the rule. Mr. Wakefield noted that majority of spinners didn’t believe that they should join and asked if CSITC Task Force could Involve ITMF to convince spinners that they needed to join. The Chair responded that he didn’t believe that the problem was with spinners, but rather it was with traders. He explained that traders sold cotton on description and they relied on manual classing because there was more variability in such method – it suited the traders not to use the High Volume Instrument Testing Machines. Mr. Ralph Schulze added that he believed that the sellers of cotton were the greatest beneficiaries of participation in the CSITC Round Trials because they could establish a level of confidence in their results which would give them an advantage in marketing. He also added that the buyer could have confidence in the product when buying from a seller that used High Volume Instrument Testing Machines. Mr. Schulze concluded that there must be a way that the sellers could let everyone know that that they were participating in the Round Trials.
Mr. Kai Hughes discussed ICAC’s efforts in promoting CSITC Round Trials. ICAC had partnered with Uster and it was agreed that when a laboratory would purchase a new HVI machine from Uster, it would give complimentary two years of CSITC Round Trials subscription. Additionally, Uster had agreed to give one year of complimentary subscription to laboratories with an existing HVI machine in India. The ICAC Secretariat had not heard whether any progress had been made and there had not been additional laboratories signing up under this agreement. Mr. Drieling had informed the Task Force that he had been in communication with Uster and had prepared a joint presentation that outlined the benefits of the CSITC program. However, Mr. Drieling noted that these efforts had not produced results in terms of getting new laboratories to sign up for the participation in the Round Trials. He reasoned that there could be two reasons for the lack of participants – one could be that the salespeople who were selling the machines were not trained to promote and explain the benefits of participation, the second reason could be that Uster was not offering the participation in the Round Trials for free, but was actually offering it as an additional service for a fee. Dr. Drieling added that he had planned a phone call with Uster to discuss this question and to discuss how to support the sales people and what else could be done to promote the participation.
The Task Force reviewed a document that was produced by Uster to promote CSITC Round Trials. The document promoted participation in the CSITC Round Trials stating that the participants could save more that $110,000 in a single year. However, there was also a cost for participation which was listed to be CHF1040. The Chair stated that he had received a message from the president of Uster that said that there had not been any laboratories that signed up for CSITC Round Trials through Uster. The Chair stated that he thought that there was understanding that Uster was going to offer participation in the CSITC Round Trials free of charge to the participants and that Uster was going to cover the cost.
Iwona Frydrych asked whether the variability of the CSITC Round Trial results would differ depending on what the generation of the machine that had been used was. She stated that new equipment would produce results with better repeatability. The Chair answered that the agreement with Uster included new and older generation equipment, but because there was a cost associated with this program, Uster customers were not willing to participate.
Dr. Mohammed Negm thanked the ICAC for the work that had been put in to the promotion of the CSITC Round Trials. He noted that in Egypt, traders had in their possession 4 HVI machines and spinners had 50 HVI machines. He informed that spinners were interested in differentiating cotton by properties and traders were interested in differentiating cotton by varieties. Dr. Negm suggested that Uster should make a presentation to their agents in different regions. He added that in Egypt, there was an Uster agency that covered the Middle East and North Africa region and he thought that it was most likely uninformed about the CSITC Round Trials. The Chair assured the Task Force that he would speak with the CEO of Uster to see what could be done to promote participation in the CSITC Round Trials.
A representative from Uster made a comment that the agreement that the Chair was referring to had to do with Uster’s ISO 9000 and that it was mentioned to all of the agents that CSITC program was included. However, he stated that he was not aware that it was offered as part of service to every HVI machine. He also agreed that most agents were not aware about the CSITC Round Trials and urged the Task Force to clarify with Uster what should the next steps be.
The Chair said that it was understood that Uster would offer participation in the CSITC Round Trials free of charge to their participants as a service that would incentivise more sales of their HVI machines. The Task Force on CSITC was not aware that Uster was offering this service at an additional cost since that’s not what was agreed between ICAC and Uster.
Mr. Drieling had proposed that he would contact Uster and speak with Mr. David McAlister, Product Manager of Fiber Testing at Uster, prior to Mr. Macdonald contacting the CEO of Uster. The Chair agreed and affirmed that the misunderstanding must be sorted out.
The Task Force then had a discussion regarding the need for traders to be accepting of the testing results that were performed on the HVI machines rather than relying on manual classing. The Chair explained that traders did not sell their cotton based on HVI results, but sold it on description. The spinners had stated that the results of the HVI testing would differ from the description. The Chair reiterated that if traders accepted HVI results to be accurate the same way that they had accepted the USDA Green Card, then the spinners would be obliged to correct their instruments.
Mr. MacDonald suggested to continue the conversation regarding the use of HVI machines. He presented a spreadsheet with recorded numbers of all the parameters that were tested at ABRAPA. The cotton samples for the tests that were presented were taken from the same bale that came from the same lot. The results on the parameters had some considerable variations which was normal due to the organic nature of cotton. Mr. MacDonald then showed the average numbers taken from all of the results, which were consistent. He suggested that it would be more comprehensive to use the average numbers that represent the parameters within the bale. He stated that it was important to explain to anyone who might be using the HVI machine that it was not an exact science and that the classers should be using average results. He then asked if one of the tasks of the Task Force on CSITC would be to recommend what the established global tolerances should be established. The establishment of global tolerances would prompt the buyers and sellers of cotton to participate in the CSITC Round Trials to ensure that their machine were working properly.
Instrument Testing Interpretation Guide
Mr. Jean Paul Gourlot gave a presentation regarding the guide on the Interpretation and Use of Instrument Measured Cotton Characteristics. He stated that the guide was in its last phase before completion. He said that the document had been placed on ICAC website. He urged the Task Force to study the guide and to return with feedback with any suggestions for revision by the end of January 2020. Mr. Gourlot stated that the completion of this guide was done with the help of ITMF – ICCTM contributors and chairpersons whose names were listed in the presentation. Additionally, Mr. Gourlot listed other contributors who mainly contributed on the textile area. Mr. Gourlot informed the Task Force that the guide was comprised of five chapters and that chapter five focused on the natural variability of cotton and on the procedures how to interpret individual results and average results from the same bale. This guide had been designed as an addition to the existing testing guide which had been available since 2012. The guide would provide information on such cotton characteristics as: Micronaire, Length, Strength, Colour, Trash, Moisture, SCI, Neps, and Stickiness. The only point that was not included in the guide was the Interactions between all of these parameters to the yarn quality which would be included in the next version of the guide. For all these characteristics the guide would provide: unit range, existing measuring instruments, description of any relation between ‘manual and visual grading’ and ‘instrument classing’ evaluation results, evaluation results present in ‘manual and visual grading’ but missing in ‘instrument classing’ evaluation results, use of the results for cotton production, use of the results in ginning, use of the results for trading, and use of the results for spinning mills in textile processing. Dr. Gourlot stated that the guide was at the latest stage of development and asked the Task Force to email him with specific comments regarding different parts of the guide. He stated that the comments should be submitted before 31st of January 2020 so the guide could be formally approved during the meeting in Bremen in March 2020. The guide would be approved by CSITC Task Force and ITMF-ICCTM. If approved, the guide would be available on several websites. After that, Dr, Gourlot would be calling for volunteers to make translations into several languages such as French, Arabic, Chinese, Portuguese, and Spanish. The Chair commented that since the guide was 76 pages, it would be beneficial to have a shorter version. He expressed hope that Dr. Gourlot would receive helpful comments on the guide.
The Chair asked the members of the Task Force whether they approved the new task of promoting and encouragement of the use of HVI machines rather than only encouraging the participants to ensure that their instruments lacked variability. The new task was approved.
Discussion on CSITC Round Trials accreditation based on ISO 17043.
The Chair asked Mr. Drieling whether there was a need to accredit the CSITC Round Trials based on ISO 17043. Mr. Drieling stated that in the last few years he had received several requests from laboratories participating in the CSITC Round trials asking whether the Trials were accredited according to ISO 17043. He said that he believed that this was coming from a change in the ISO17025. Many good laboratories had been accredited according to ISO17025. Mr. Drieling read from the document that said that laboratories had to be participating in the Round Trials and in proficiency testing: “Proficiency testing providers that meet the requirements of ISO17043 are considered to be competent.” Mr. Drieling commented that this statement implied that if the Round Trials were not accredited, they were not considered competent, which was a message that was concerning. Faserinstitut Bremen got inquiries from e.g. CATGO in Egypt, ABRAPA’s central lab from Brazil, and from Shanghai institute of Quality Inspection in China regarding the accreditation of CSITC Round Trials. Mr. Drieling asked whether the Round Trials and the organisers be accredited according to ISO17043. He added that if the Task Force saw the necessity in accreditation, then there should be a discussion about the cost involved. He stated that there was a one time cost for the implementation and accreditation and the annual cost for the re-accreditation. Mr. Drieling asked the opinion of the Task Force members on this question. Mr. Drieling proposed that the Task Force could ask the participating laboratories in the CSITC Round Trials regarding their demand for this accreditation. It would be also important to mention that the accreditation could cause a need for an increase in the price for participation in the Round Trials. The Chair replied that it would be best to ask the participants in the Round Trials and it would be important to know what the cost associated with the accreditation would be before going any further. A question was raised whether this accreditation was a requirement based on the ISO17025. Mr. Drieling clarified that there was a note in the ISO17025 regarding this accreditation, but it was not a requirement. However, the accreditation according to ISO17043 was something that would be reviewed during an audit of the laboratories. He noted that he had received the same question regarding the Bremen Round Trials and whether they were accredited. Mr. Drieling proposed that he could speak to the National Accreditation Organisation on how the CSITC Round Trials could become accredited. The objective would be to understand whether this accreditation was something necessary or not. The Chair proposed to get an idea regarding the cost and discuss this topic again in March. Mr. Drieling informed the Task Force that he knew the approximate cost and stated that there would be an original fee of 10,000 Euros for getting accredited and there would also be an annual cost which would be around 3000 Euros. This cost would not include any preparation time which would be necessary to be eligible for accreditation. The Chair noted that the cost was quite high, but reiterated that there should be an understanding regarding the demand for this accreditation among the CSITC Round Trials participants. It was decided to discuss this topic again during the next meeting in March 2020. Mr. Drieling noted that he wouldn’t want to see laboratories leaving the CSITC Round Trials and working with smaller Round Trials that were accredited. There was a discussion regarding a laboratory from Brazil that was a current participant of the CSITC Round Trials, but had also signed up for the round trials through Technology Center of Shijiazhuang Customs in Hebei, China since those round trials were accredited through ISO17043. Faserinstitut Bremen is in contact and intends to sign up for the round trials with the Technology Center of Shijiazhuang Customs in order to understand what is the difference between their round trials and CSITC Round Trials was. Mr. Drieling suggested to create a document that would explain the competence of the CSITC Round Trials so they would be able to use this document in an audit, which might satisfy the request of the auditors. This topic was asked to be put on the agenda for the meeting in March 2020.
Update of payment instructions for CSITC Round Trials participants.
Ms. Pomerants informed the Task Force that there had been an issue of laboratories not paying on time for their participation in the CSITC Round Trials. By the end of year 2019, 23 out of 98 laboratories had not submitted payment for 2019 Round Trials, even though they had received the services. This had become an issue since ICAC would need to send payment to Faserinstitut Bremen and to the USDA for their services. Ms. Pomerants also informed the Task Force that ICAC would be sending invoices for the 2020 Round Trials soon and that the ICAC Banking information had changed. In the past, ICAC was using a local bank which required the use of the intermediary bank and it caused confusion with some of the participants and some of the payments have not gone through. With the new bank account with CITI Bank, the wire transfer process would be more simple.
Administrative matters
The Chair reminded the Task Force that the next meeting of the Task Force on CSITC would take place on Monday, 23rd of March 2020 in Bremen, Germany at 9:30 in the morning during the Bremen Cotton Conference. There would also be other cotton related events during that week such as Introduction to Universal Cotton Standards, ITMF/IVGT Spinner & Textile Seminar and the Bremen Cotton Conference itself, which the Chair encouraged the members of the Task Force to attend. Mr. Drieling added that he would encourage the members of the Task Force ITMF Committee on Cotton Testing Methods which would take place on the afternoon 23rd of March and would continue on the morning of 24th of March.
The Chair had informed the committee that he had been the Chair of the Task Force on CSITC since its formation and he had asked if any of the members would like to take over this responsibility. The members did not volunteer to take over this role and had proposed the current Chair to remain. The Chair accepted the proposal and thanked the Task Force.
Any other business.
There being no other business the Chair ended the meeting.