March 18th, 2024, 10:00 to 13:00 Hrs. (CET)
In-Person: Bremen Cotton Exchange Building room 406 and Hybrid
Chaired By: Dr Marinus (René) van der Sluijs
The Task Force on Commercial Standardization of Instrument Testing of Cotton (CSITC) conducted its 34th meeting on Monday, 18th March 2024, in-person and virtually on the sidelines of the 37th International Cotton Conference in Bremen, Germany.
Members Present:
- Dr Marinus (René) van der Sluijs, Principal Consultant, Textile Technical Services, Australia (Chair)
- Mr Axel Drieling, Faserinstitut Bremen, Germany
- Dr Mohammed Negm, Head of Spinning Research Department, Cotton Research Institute, Egypt
- Suzan Husseini Sanad, Cotton Research Institute, Egypt
- Dr Jean Paul Gourlot, CIRAD Persyst, France
- Ms Gretchen Deatherage, Director Standardization, USDA- AMS, USA
- Mr Fatih Dogan, Vice President, Mediterranean Textile and Raw materials Exporters Associations, Turkey (attended online)
Observers:
- Mr Kayla Burbblouses, Faserinstitut Bremen, Germany
- Dr Robert Jiang, ICA, UK
- Mr Peyman Dehkordi, Uster Technologies, USA
- Ms Mona Qaud, Uster Technologies, USA
- Dr Stefan Fliescher, Textechno, Germany
- Dr Guntram Kugler, Textechno, Germany
- Mr Felix Liebhold, Textechno, Germany
- Dr Neha Kothari, Cotton Incorporated, USA
- Mr Jens Wirth, BBB, Germany
- Mr Karsten Froese, BBB / ICA Bremen, Germany
- Mr Michel Giner, CIRAD, France
- Mr Darryl Earnest, Earnest Consulting Services, USA
- Mr Jaya Hanyar, Tumulurv, USDA-ARS, USA
- Mr Derek Whitelock, USDA-ARS, USA
- Mr Vijay Kuradagi, Cotton Corporation of India, India (attended online)
- Mr Justin Kuhn, ITA, Aachen University, Germany
- Eike Knull, Faserinstitut Bremen, Germany
- Mr Mark Messura, Cotton Incorporated, USA
ICAC Secretariat:
- Mr Eric Trachtenberg
- Mr Mike McCue
- Mr Kanwar Usman
Members Not Present:
- Mr Peter Wakefield, Wakefield Inspection Services and Chair, Private Sector Advisory Council (PSAC), Taiwan (Apology)
- Ms Mariana Carfagnini, Coordinator of the Textile Physical Unit of the Center for Textile Research, Argentina
- Mr Ramiro Casoliba, Director Del Centro Intl, Argentina
- Mr Gregory Parle, Australian Food and Fibre, Australia (Apology)
- Mohamed Khalil Khedr, Chair CATGO – Cotton Arbitration & Testing General Organization, Egypt
- Dr Urania Kechagia, Consultant Cotton and Industrial Plants Institute, Greece
- Mr Patrick Ilukat, Cotton Development Organization, Uganda
- Mr Pardeep Kumar, Chair Cotton Corporation of India, India
The 34th meeting commenced with welcoming remarks from the Chair of CSITC, Dr van der Sluijs.
The Chair , introduced Mr Eric Trachtenberg, the new Executive Director of International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC), to the Task Force on Commercial Standardization of Instrument Testing of Cotton (CSITC). The Chair highlighted Mr. Trachtenberg’s recent appointment and the continuation of leadership following Dr Terry Townsend, Mr Jose Sette and Mr Kai Hughes.
Mr Eric Trachtenberg greeted the Task Force, expressing his pleasure in reconnecting with known colleagues and meeting new ones. He shared a brief overview of his extensive background, highlighting his 16-year tenure at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agriculture Service, and his roles in various government and consulting capacities, including a significant focus on the cotton sector.
Mr Trachtenberg emphasized the critical role of CSITC in ensuring the reliability and consistency of cotton testing, which he sees as fundamental to maintaining the integrity and competitiveness of cotton against synthetic alternatives. He underlined the importance of instrument standardization to uphold contract sanctity and foster trust in cotton transactions globally.
Looking forward, Mr Trachtenberg outlined his strategic vision for ICAC under his leadership. He aims to refine ICAC’s data and publication efforts, enhance agricultural development and sustainability, increase engagement with the textile industry, and strengthen relationships with brands and retailers. He stressed the importance of adapting to member and stakeholder needs and encouraged open communication for continuous improvement. Additionally, Mr Trachtenberg highlighted his recent policy engagement efforts, including discussions with the European Commission in Brussels, emphasizing the importance of regulatory engagement to support the cotton industry. He concluded by thanking the Task Force for their dedication and expressing enthusiasm for the potential advancements in instrument testing. The Chair thanked Mr Trachtenberg for his comprehensive introduction and insightful vision, marking a promising direction for the future of CSITC.
Agenda Item 1: The agenda was adopted.
Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of the 33rd Meeting held on the 2nd of December 2023 on the sidelines of the 81st Plenary Meeting of ICAC held in Mumbai India
The minutes of 33rd Meeting of the Task Force were read and approved.
Agenda Item 3: Latest on Round Trial Results and Comparisons by Mr. Axel Drieling
The Chair gave the floor to Mr Axel Drieling.
Mr Drieling delivered his presentation, ‘Latest on Round Trial Results and Comparisons,’ which continues to be an essential feature of every meeting of the Task Force. He provided information on the participation and outcomes of the 2023 Round Trials. He noted that the Round Trials are executed jointly by the ICAC, Faserinstitut, and USDA AMS. The six properties which are evaluated are micronaire, strength, length in terms of upper half mean length, length uniformity in % and color in terms of Rd and +b were analyzed for evaluation purposes, whilst four properties – trash area and count, short fiber index in % and maturity were also assessed but only for information purposes and did not form part of the overall evaluation of the laboratories.
Mr Drieling highlighted the use of an Overall Evaluation Result (OER) as a grading system for the laboratories based on their deviation from true results. The OER averages six evaluated properties, with zero representing the ideal outcome.
Mr. Drieling reported that the 2023 Round Trials results have been compiled but are not yet public and have not been shared with the participating laboratories. He noted the trends in annual participation and said there was an increase in participation up to the year 2013-14, followed by a period of stability. Recently, there has been a slight increase in participation. He emphasized the notable increase in the number of instruments, particularly in the last two rounds, where several laboratories have participated with multiple instruments per sample set. He discussed seasonal variations in participation and pointed out that participation typically dips at the beginning of each year but increases with the third and fourth rounds, especially in countries like Australia and Brazil. He further explained the evaluation results and clarified that lower scores were indicative of better performance. The results have shown significant improvement from 2010 to 2015, after which they stabilized. This trend suggests a maturing in the accuracy and reliability of the testing processes among the participating laboratories. He also explained that the deviation between laboratories, which was related to the evaluation of combined properties, had been steadily decreasing from 0.5 which was achieved in 2007. The results for the earlier years were below expectation as laboratories participating in the RT needed time to improve their procedures and practices. The results had significantly improved since 2011 and from 2012 onwards, when the number of participants remained consistent, the results improved, with variation between the laboratories reducing to 0.35. The deviation between laboratories, which was related to the evaluation of combined properties, had been steadily decreasing from 0.5 which was achieved in 2007.
Mr. Drieling described the proposed new reporting system and that the new system included detailed quantile rankings for laboratories, which would be included in both the general and specific instrument reports. This system is designed to assist laboratories understand their performance relative to their peers, categorizing them into top 10%, 25%, 50%, and 75% based on their Overall Evaluation Results (OER). He further suggested enhancements to the general report format: and proposed adding tables to the general report. These new tables would show the top 10%, 25%, 50%, and 75% quantile categories alongside the average and best/worst instrument results. This update aims to provide clarity on what constitutes a good result and how laboratories rank within the broader participant pool.
Mr. Drieling concluded his presentation by emphasizing the benefits of the new reporting enhancements, which were intended to provide laboratories with clearer benchmarks for performance and improvement. He expressed anticipation for feedback on the proposed changes to ensure they meet the needs of all stakeholders.
The Chair thanked Mr Drieling and opened the floor for Q&A.
On a question Mr Drieling explained that for each instrument participating in the trials, specific percentages indicating the level of performance are outlined, demonstrating how each rank within the entire group. For instance, one particular instrument was highlighted for performing in the top 9%, 6%, 5%, and at times in the top 14% across different Round Trials. This allows for a more precise understanding of where each instrument stands—whether consistently within the top 10% or occasionally in the top 25% at the end of each Round Trial. He further emphasized that this additional detail would be beneficial for laboratories not only to gauge their performance more accurately but also to effectively market their standing, such as being within the top 25% of participants. He again expressed his hope that the inclusion of these specifics, as discussed in the previous meeting, would be seen as a valuable enhancement, helping laboratories understand and communicate their competency levels more clearly.
On a question that the number of participating laboratories periodically change and could it effect the results provided – hereplied that the variability in participation could be seen as a potential issue; however, it actually underscores the benefit of using quantiles. The quantile system relates directly to the number of instruments involved, and regardless of whether the labs are consistently good or vary widely in quality, the quantiles offer a robust measure of performance. This system helps in understanding where a laboratory stands relative to others, which is crucial not only from an academic perspective but also from a commercial standpoint. The key commercial value for laboratories is gaining a clear understanding of their performance and identifying areas for improvement. Often, we hear from labs that have achieved high rankings, and they use this status as a marketing tool to assure their clients of their quality. This external validation is significant as it allows labs not only to internally manage quality but also to display their standing externally, asserting their competence in the marketplace. Being ranked in the top 25%, for example, is a strong selling point that laboratories can use to distinguish themselves to potential clients.
On a question on the concern that about the contributing factors such as instrument performance, sample preparation, and operator influence and how much each factor contributes to the overall variation, he explained that consistently high-performing laboratories tend to maintain stable results, typically ranging between 0.2 and 0.3 in their evaluations. He emphasized that variations due to sample differences are generally minimal because the protocol includes testing four samples with thirty tests each. This design mitigates the impact that any single sample’s variability could have on the overall results.
Mr. Drieling further noted that while the data might not explicitly distinguish whether deviations are due to the instrument, the operator, or other factors, a preliminary analysis can be conducted to determine if the deviations are systematic (consistently high or low across multiple tests) or random (spikes in test results). Additionally, the laboratory tests evaluate the consistency of results across 30 individual tests and over five days, providing insights into day-to-day operational stability and the repeatability of single-day tests by the same operator under ideal conditions.
These detailed analyses help in understanding the internal consistency of the testing process and are outlined in the instrument-specific reports. However, he noted that such data are not included in the broader certification documents but are available in the detailed reports for those who need to delve deeper into the quality assurance aspects of their operations.
On another question that that there were approximately sixty laboratories and about 150 instruments participating. How many of these are typically classified as outliers in each round of results, on that Mr Drieling explained that outlier identification follows a strict mathematical rule which assesses how significantly a single instrument or result deviates from the standard deviation. If results from an instrument consistently deviate in the same direction – whether too high or too low – they are only considered outliers if such deviations occur in isolation. If multiple laboratories or instruments exhibit similar deviations, they are not classified as outliers.
He noted that approximately 2 to 4% of results are typically excluded as outliers based on this criteria. These omissions are essential for ensuring the accuracy of OER, because including severely abnormal data would skew the average and the standard deviation significantly. Such outliers are removed from the overall analysis to maintain the integrity of the data set. Every result is considered valid within its context; however, extreme anomalies, such as micronaire values fluctuating from 4 to 400 and back to 4, would be flagged and affect the laboratory’s evaluation negatively, indicating a potential issue with the instrument or its operation. These values would not be considered as it was most likely a typing error while reporting the results.
The Chair thanked Mr Drieling for the comprehensive briefing.
Agenda Item 4: Correspondence from the Chair to Instrument Manufacturers
The Chair reported on outreach to industry stakeholders and said that he extended invitations to prominent instrument manufacturers to participate in this meeting, successfully engaging companies such as Uster Technologies AG and Textechno. He expressed appreciation for their presence at the meeting. While attempts to engage with Premier were less successful, receiving minimal response and confirmation of non-attendance and lastly contact was made with MAG who provided some valuable feedback.
Agenda Item 5: Correspondence from the Chair to Spinning Companies on (a) how to engage them and persuade them to participate (b) free samples and (c) agent
The Chair informed the meeting that by using information from Mr Axel Drieling, he contacted the seven spinning companies that participated in last year’s Round Trials. These companies were from diverse locations including India, South Africa, Colombia, and Mexico. The purpose was to understand their reasons for participating in CSITC, determining the benefits they perceive. Common responses highlighted the importance of participation for verifying instrument accuracy, ensuring cotton matches export specifications, and achieving consistent yarn quality and efficient processing. Notably, Indian spinners queried about including long-staple cotton in CSITC trials to assess its impact on HVI reliability. Moreover, concerns regarding the cost of participation were voiced, with some spinners indicating the fees were prohibitively high. The suggestion to incorporate long-staple cotton into CSITC trials was discussed, acknowledging previous deliberations and considering it as a viable enhancement for future trials. It was discussed that a fifth sample may be incorporated for the long staple, however, concerns were raised about how laboratories currently calibrated primarily with Upland cotton would adjust to including long-staple varieties. The fear was that adding ELS cotton would lead to inappropriate calibration for these samples, potentially affecting the overall accuracy of the trials.
Moreover, the lack of standardized testing for cotton stickiness was also raised. It was noted that issues of cotton stickiness was currently overseen in the International Committee on Cotton Testing Methods (ICCTM) indicating that CSITC will not considerincorporating this into their program at this stage.
It was indicated that the last increase from $275 to $325 per RT was made in September 2022 commencing from January 2023 was necessary to off-set rising operational costs.
The Chair invited further comments and insights from the attendees regarding the feedback from the spinners and the possible inclusion of long-staple cotton in the trials, aiming to align CSITC activities more closely with industry needs and expectations.
It was discussed that free samples would be provided to develop success stories. The International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC) and the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA-AMS) will determine the number of samples available. The Chair and Mr Peter Wakefield, the Chair of PSAC, in consultation with Mr. Drieling, will develop criteria for distributing these samples and outline a framework for documenting the success stories. The discussion on the role of the agent was not possible as Mr Wakefield was unable to attend the CSITC meeting, both in person and virtually, due to travel arrangements.
Agenda Item 6: Review / revamp the role of CSITC (a) Rename and (b) Roles and Responsibilities of Members
The Chair initiated the discussion by expressing his initial inclination to rename CSITC to something shorter and more memorable. However, after reflection and considering the recognition CSITC has gained, he now favored retaining the name due to the widespread recognition of the CSITC acronym, likening it to known brands such as BMW or KFC, where the full meaning were less commonly known.
The Chair opened the floor to feedback on renaming CSITC. The consensus among members leaned towards maintaining the existing name due to its established recognition within the industry. Concerns were raised about the potential confusion and loss of identity that would accompany a name change, with comparisons made to ongoing usage of old names after rebranding in other contexts. Discussions touched on the idea that, similar to commercial brands, changing a well-established name might necessitate continued reference to the previous name, leading to a prolonged transition period.
The Chair proposed potentially simplifying the name to “ICAC Committee on CSITC,” replacing the word ‘Task Force’ with ‘Committee’. Further, the existing logo designed by Mr was valued by the members and it was agreed that Mr Mike McCue, Director Communication ICAC, would consider the possibility of adding a cotton boll to the existing logo to enhance recognition and relevance.
The proposal of retaining the name CSITC and also replacing the Task Force with Committee was accepted by the members.
On review of role and responsibilities of members, the Chair opened the discussion by recalling a conversation with Mr Wakefield at the ICAC-PSAC meeting in India. This interaction inspired the consideration of formalizing roles and responsibilities within CSITC, similar to structures observed in other Committees of ICAC. The Chairmentioned that preliminary work on defining roles and responsibilities was initiated by Mr Axel Drieling and Dr Jean Paul Gourlot , which he had the opportunity to review and refine. The revised document aims to clarify expectations and enhance member engagement.
The Chairproposed the creation of an executive committee within CSITC to facilitate quicker decision-making and ongoing operational activities, drawing a parallel to the executive committee of the ICCTM Cotton Testing Committee and PSAC. This committee would allow for more dynamic and responsive governance of CSITC activities. The Chair expressed concern over the lack of participation from several long-standing members and suggested reaching out to their respective countries for updates or potential replacement to revitalize involvement.
The Chair highlighted the need for greater inclusion of member countries not currently active, suggesting that having representatives from underrepresented regions could enhance CSITC’s visibility and effectiveness.
The Chair proposed sending out the updated roles and responsibilities document to all members for feedback. He emphasized the importance of having clear and agreed-upon roles to ensure active participation and meaningful contribution from all members. Further, the members approved the proposal for the establishment of an Executive Committee.
Agenda Item 7: Review of Cost of Participation in CSITC Round Trial
The Chair highlighted the recent adjustment in participation costs, increased in September 2022 for the Round Trials commencing from January 2023, and the need to re-evaluate for potential increases effective from 2026. The Chair opened the floor for insights into whether an additional increase was necessary. Ms. Gretchen Deatherage representing USDA-AMS, said that her organization remains committed to the current costing without needing an immediate cost increase. Mr Drieling also agreed that in order to retain the current membership, it is proposed not to increase the price for Round Trial for the year 2025 and we may review the decision in 2025 for any increase for the Round Trial starting from 2026. Mr Trachtenberg also had the same opinion that participation should be increased rather than the increase in the price of the Round Trials. There was a consensus that whilst covering costs was essential, increasing fees may counteract efforts to boost participation. It was suggested that enhancing the perceived value of participation could precede any fee increases. The possibility of postponing any fee increase until after 2025 was discussed, with it was agreed to re-evaluate the situation at the end of 2025 for the 2026 fiscal year.
Agenda Item 8: Update of CSITC Guide
The Chair provided an update on the ongoing efforts to update the CSITC guide. He noted that the guide had been distributed to several members, including those from the ICCTM Committee, for feedback on its content. Numerous submissions have been received, mostly addressing grammatical and language improvements, with a few technical modifications suggested. The Chair thanked those who had already contributed, acknowledging the significant effort given the guide’s extensive length. The Chair announced plans to distribute the latest version of the guide to all members within the next few weeks for further review and finalization. The aim is to consolidate feedback and finalize the document within the next two months. A point was raised about the translation of the guide into several languages. It was emphasized that if changes are mainly grammatical or minor, they may not necessitate retranslation in all languages. However, significant technical changes would require updates across all versions to maintain consistency and accuracy.
Agenda Item 9: Explore opportunities for application to CFC for funding
The Chair opened the discussion by recalling past successful funding applications to the Common Fund for Commodities (CFC) by Mr l Drieling and Dr Gourlot some 10 years ago. The Chair suggested considering this avenue again to potentially add value to CSITC. Mr Trachtenberg updated the committee on recent developments with CFC. He noted that the CFC’s business model has shifted from grants to loans, which might not align with CSITC’s funding needs as they no longer operate as a donor organization. This change poses a challenge for pursuing funding directly from CFC for future projects. Eric mentioned engagements with other development agencies interested in the textile sector, such as USAID and the European Commission, which are now focusing on textile industry development. These agencies might represent viable alternatives for partnership and funding.
The discussion highlighted the need to align any project proposals with the development-oriented goals of these potential new partners. The members agreed that while CFC might no longer be a suitable funding source, other opportunities for blended finance or partnerships with development agencies should be explored.
Agenda Item 10: Any other Item with the Permission of Chair
The Chair asked if there were any other issues or topics members felt needed to be addressed in the current meeting that had not been discussed yet.
No further points were raised.
The next meeting of CSITC will be held during the 82nd ICAC Plenary Meeting in Uzbekistan scheduled from 30th September to 3rd October 2024.
The Chair thanked ICAC and the Bremen Faserinstitut for arranging the meeting and ended the meeting with a note of thanks from and to the participants and the Chair.
********