35th Meeting of the Committee on CSITC

35th Meeting of the Committee on Commercial Standardization of Instrument Testing of Cotton (CSITC)

September 29, 9:00 to 10:30 Hrs

Tashkent, Uzbekistan: In-Person and Hybrid

Chaired By: Dr Marinus (René) van der Sluijs

The Committee on Commercial Standardization of Instrument Testing of Cotton (CSITC) conducted its 35th meeting on Sunday, 29th September 2024, in-person and virtually on the sidelines of the 82nd Plenary Meeting of International Cotton Advisory Committee, Tashkent, Uzbekistan under the leadership of Dr Marinus (René) van der Sluijs.

Members Present:

  1. Dr Marinus (René) van der Sluijs, Chair CSITC, Principal Consultant, Textile Technical Services, Australia
  2. Dr Mohammed Negm, Head of Spinning Research Department, Cotton Research Institute, Egypt
  3. Prof Suzan Husseini Sanad, Cotton Research Institute, Egypt
  4. Mr Axel Drieling, Senior Cotton Manager and Member of Executive Board, FaserInstitut Bremen, Germany
  5. Prof Iwona Frydrych, Vice President, Gdynia Cotton Association, Poland
  6. Mr Peter Wakefield, Managing Director, Wakefield Inspection Services and Chair, Private Sector Advisory Council, ICAC, International Organization, Taiwan
  7. Mr Fatih Dogan, Vice President, Mediterranean Textile and Raw Materials Exporters Associations, Türkiye
  8. Mr Gert Klindt, Quality Control Manager, Cotton South Africa, South Africa (online)
  9. Dr Christopher Delhom, Research Leader, USDA, USA (online)
  10. Dr Müge Ekizoglu, General Manager, Izmir Commodity Exchange Laboratory, Türkiye (online)

Observers:

  1. Mr Jigar Raval, Delegate India
  2. Dr Monali Prajapati, Delegate India
  3. Mr Jens Wirth, Bremer Baumwollboerse, Germany
  4. Mr Jerzy Kotwas, Gdynia Cotton Association, Poland
  5. Mr Shun Kudo, Japan Cotton Traders Association, Japan
  6. Mr Mirza Khanov, UPL Limited, Uzbekistan
  7. Mr Nurlan Akhmetov, UPL Limited, Uzbekistan

ICAC Secretariat:

  1. Mr Kanwar Usman, Head of Textiles, ICAC

Members Not Present:

  1. Ms Mariana Carfagnini, Coordinator of the Textile Physical Unit of the Center for Textile Research, Argentina
  2. Mr Ramiro Casoliba, Director Del Centro Intl., Argentina
  3. Mr Gregory Parle, Classing Office Manager, Australian Food & Fibre, Australia
  4. Eng. Mohamed Khalil Khedr, Chairman CATGO – Cotton Arbitration & Testing General Organization, Egypt
  5. Dr Jean Paul Gourlot, Cirad Persyst, France (Retired and will be replaced)
  6. Ms Gretchen Deatherage, Director Standardization, USDA, USA
  7. Dr Urania Kechagia, Consultant, Cotton and Industrial Plants Institute, Greece (Retired and will be replaced)
  8. Mr Pradeep Kumar, Chairman cum Managing Director, Cotton Corporation of India, India
  9. Mr Patrick Ilukat, Cotton Development Organization, Uganda
  10. Mr Deninson Bezerra dos Santos, Quality Specialist ABRAPA, Brazil
  11. Mr Roberto Vieira Cabral, Cotton Coordinator, OLAM, Brazil

The Chair welcomed all participants, both those attending in person and those joining online. Following this, each participant introduced themselves.

Agenda Item 1: Adoption of the Agenda

The agenda was presented and approved by the Members.

Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of the 34th Meeting held on March 18th, 2024, on the sidelines of the 37th International Bremen Conference, Germany

The Chair provided a brief overview of the minutes from the 34th meeting of the Committee on Commercial Standardization of Instrument Testing of Cotton (CSITC), which was held on March 18, 2024, during the 37th International Cotton Conference in Bremen, Germany. It was noted that the minutes had already been circulated to members and were available on the ICAC website. After a summary by the Chair, the Members approved the minutes.

During the review of the previous meeting minutes, Mr. Jigar Raval, the Indian delegate offered his support in enhancing membership and engagement from India, particularly among spinning mills, which aligns with CSITC’s priority of expanding participation. The Chair and the Members appreciated his offer.

Agenda Item 3: General Correspondence

The Chair discussed the ongoing efforts to expand participation in the CSITC Round Trials, with a particular focus on spinning mills. He mentioned outreach initiatives with key organizations, including the International Textile Manufacturers Federation (ITMF) and the International Cotton Association (ICA). Additionally, the Chair highlighted the collaborative development of an informative CSITC brochure, which was made possible through the contributions of Mr Mike McCue, Mr Axel Drieling, and Mr Peter Wakefield.

Emphasizing the importance of engaging with international federations and associations, the Chair invited suggestions for additional platforms or organizations where CSITC could enhance its visibility. Mr Peter Wakefield, Chair of the Private Sector Advisory Council (PSAC), noted potential opportunities with various international cotton associations, such as the Cotton Association of India, and extended PSAC’s support for outreach efforts.

Mr Jigar Raval, the Indian delegate proposed leveraging global textile exhibitions, such as Bharat Tex in India, as well as others in the US, EU and other countries, to promote CSITC’s activities to a broader audience. These events provide valuable opportunities to engage with stakeholders across the supply chain, many of whom may not be fully aware of CSITC’s impactful work. The Chair welcomed these suggestions, highlighting their significance for CSITC’s growth and visibility.

Reflecting on past experiences, the Chair shared his positive impression of Bharat Tex, describing it as an exceptional event. He also mentioned the upcoming Bharat Tex scheduled in February 2025, emphasizing its potential as a key platform for further promoting CSITC’s initiatives.

Agenda Item 4: Welcome to the New Members to the Committee on CSITC

The Chair introduced new members to CSITC, including recent additions from United States, South Africa, Turkey, and Brazil. The Chair noted that the nomination and approval process involves recommendations by the Chair and ICAC Secretariat, followed by approval from the Standing Committee of ICAC member countries.

The Chair shared CSITC’s adoption of a structured approach to member responsibilities inspired by PSAC, a committee chaired by Mr Peter Wakefield. This approach defines clear roles and responsibilities, encouraging active participation. The Chair noted that while CSITC values long-standing members, some have become less active due to retirement or reduced industry involvement. To maintain a vibrant Committee, the Chair proposed replacing inactive members with professionally active individuals.

New Members included:

  1. Mr Gert Klindt, Quality Control Manager, Cotton South Africa, South Africa
  2. Dr Christopher Delhom, Research Leader, USDA, USA
  3. Mr Deninson Bezerra dos Santos, Quality Specialist, ABRAPA, Brazil
  4. Mr Roberto Vieira Cabral, Cotton Coordinator, OLAM, Brazil
  5. Dr Müge Ekizoglu, General Manager, Izmir Commodity Exchange Laboratory, Turkey

The Chair said that these new members would bring fresh perspectives and help rejuvenate CSITC’s activities, strengthening its role and impact.

Agenda item 5: New Logo

The Chair said that the new logo symbolized the committee’s evolution from its original designation as a “Task Force” to a “Committee.” Initially, “Task Force” reflected CSITC’s need for decisive action when it was founded in 2003. However, as the organization’s role has developed, the “Committee” better aligns with its collaborative approach.

The new logo, designed to enhance CSITC’s visibility and industry presence, will be used in all future communications and presentations.

Agenda Item 6: Latest on Round Trial Results and Comparisons by Mr. Axel Drieling

Mr. Axel Drieling began his presentation by detailing the primary activity of the CSITC, the Round Trials, which are conducted quarterly. In each round, four cotton samples are tested thirty times across various laboratories in five days. The objective is to evaluate six key properties that contribute to each laboratory’s performance grade. These properties include Micronaire (Mic), Strength (g/tex), Upper Half Mean Length (UHML), Length Uniformity, Reflectance Degree (Rd), and Yellowness (+b). Additionally, four properties: Trash Count and %, Area, Short Fiber Index, and Maturity – are analyzed for informational purposes but do not impact on the overall laboratory evaluation.

Mr. Drieling emphasized that the Round Trials are a collaborative effort between the International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC), Faserinstitut, and the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), underscoring the comprehensive and rigorous approach taken to ensure the reliability and consistency of cotton testing across global laboratories.

Mr Drieling shared the results from the 2024-2 round trial, completed in June, and noted that the evaluation of the 2024-3 round trial was still ongoing. He explained the analysis process, which involves examining the deviation between each laboratory’s results and the average results from all participating instruments. This deviation is calculated into an average absolute deviation and converted into a scaled evaluation score, typically ranging from 0.2 to 1.0, where an ideal score of zero indicates no deviation.

He highlighted that the evaluation focuses on six key properties, with the average of these evaluations providing the overall performance score. Typical scores range from 0.2 to 0.7. This Overall Evaluation Result (OER) offers a single value that reflects how closely an instrument’s results align with the true results, presenting laboratories with an opportunity to enhance their accuracy.

The data presented showed three key participation metrics: sample sets purchased, laboratories submitting results, and the number of instruments evaluated. He noted a record high of 164 instruments tested in the latest round trial, surpassing the previous peak of 160 in 2012. However, this increase reflects a higher number of instruments per laboratory rather than an increase in the number of laboratories. Brazil stood out as an example, where all laboratories in the cotton production sector are mandated to participate, with each laboratory utilizing all available instruments.

Mr Drieling highlighted the historical development of CSITC, noting that after its establishment in 2003 and the initiation of round trials in 2007, participation steadily increased as laboratories and countries recognized the program’s benefits. A significant shift occurred in 2012 when laboratories were required to pay for their participation, leading to a temporary stabilization in numbers. However, between 2018 and 2021, participation declined, and recent concerted efforts by the Chair, Faserinstitut, ICAC, and other members have successfully reversed this trend, resulting in renewed growth.

He further cited Brazil’s high participation rate as a model for other cotton-producing nations, demonstrating the positive outcomes of mandatory involvement in quality testing. He also highlighted Australia’s consistent commitment, particularly in promoting 100%HVItested cotton.

Additionally, the US was mentioned as another key player, underscoring the global importance of HVI testing in ensuring cotton quality.

Mr Peter Wakefield informed the committee that one of the main laboratories in Australia has recently transitioned from manual grading to 100% HVI color evaluation for the 2024 season. This shift highlights the growing importance of CSITC and the increased use of HVI machines, enhancing the reliability of cotton testing and reinforcing CSITC’s role in ensuring consistent quality.

Responding to an inquiry from Mr. Jigar Raval, the delegate from India, regarding government support in Brazil, Mr Drieling clarified that the initiatives in Brazil are driven by ABRAPA, the national cotton producers’ association, rather than the government. Since 2017, ABRAPA has implemented a comprehensive plan involving the establishment of central laboratories, training, and quality checks, resulting in significant progress and improved quality outcomes. Further, the Chair highlighted Australia’s consistent participation, with its industry-led initiative ensuring 100% HVI testing across three classing facilities and eighteen instruments. This self-funded approach by the Cotton Classers Association of Australia guarantees accurate and reliable results, providing confidence in buyers and reinforcing the importance of high-quality testing. Participants agreed that these success stories could serve as a valuable case study for other countries to promote awareness and learning.

Mr Drieling presented an analysis of annual participation trends, noting that while the average participation in the four annual round trials has remained stable in terms of laboratories and sample sets, the number of participating instruments has increased since 2021. This growth in instrument participation suggests a strengthening commitment to CSITC standards.

He then reviewed the overall evaluation results, explaining that a higher evaluation score indicates poorer performance, with the ideal score being zero. Although laboratories do not achieve zero deviation, the average score has improved significantly over time. Initially, the average evaluation score was around 0.5, but as more laboratories joined and learned from participation, this score gradually stabilized. Since 2011–2012, laboratories have shown consistent improvement, leading to an overall evaluation score reduction to 0.35. This improvement represents a 35% decrease in variation, thereby reducing the risk of quality claims.

Recent results have shown slight fluctuations, indicating a likely upward trend in evaluation scores. However, he interpreted this as part of a broader stable trend, with a constant overall level around 0.35 since 2018. He emphasized that participating laboratories continue to learn and enhance their performance, even if progress is gradual.

To further illustrate these evaluation trends, he shared graphs showing that the best-performing laboratories have consistently achieved evaluation scores between 0.15 and 0.2 since 2007, although the specific instruments achieving these scores vary. He noted that a score of 0.2 to 0.25 is required to be among the top 10% of laboratories, while a score between 0.25 and 0.3 places a laboratory in the top 25%.

Mr Drieling explained that to be classified among the top 50% of instruments, a laboratory’s evaluation score should ideally fall around the median line, which has improved over time from 0.5 to 0.35. He noted that previously, a score of 0.5 would suffice to rank among the top half of participating laboratories, but now a score closer to 0.45 is required, reflecting significant quality improvement.

When asked about a recent slight increase in evaluation scores, he suggested it might be due to the increase in instruments or simply random variation. He reassured the participants that the best laboratories continue to perform exceptionally well, with the top 10% consistently achieving high standards, despite minor fluctuations. He attributed the variability in results primarily to three factors: instrument, operator, and the environment.

Further, Mr. Drieling addressed improvements in HVI’s, particularly noting advancements from the HVI 900 to the HVI 1000 and in Premier models. He observed a positive impact from these newer models, which offer more automated processes and reduce human error, thus yielding more uniform results.

The detailed analysis of evaluation results showed average scores across various properties, indicating steady improvement over the years. For the most recent round trials, scores demonstrated notable progress compared to earlier averages, with Micronaire at 0.4, Strength at 0.3, Length at 0.34, Uniformity at 0.3, Color Rd at 0.24, and Color +b at 0.46. These results highlight consistent performance and improvements in each measured property, with certain properties like Color Rd consistently showing slightly better scores due to calculation methods.

Mr Axel provided an overview of the types of instruments participating in the latest CSITC round trial , where 164 instruments were evaluated. He highlighted that the HVI 1000 remains the dominant model, with 78% of the participating instruments, reflecting an industry shift toward more advanced testing equipment. Comparatively, only two HVI 900 units and a few older models, such as Premier R1 and R2, participated, marking a decline from 2012 when HVI 1000 represented only 47% of instruments, and HVI 900 accounted for 32%.

Mr Drieling explained that each instrument receives a general evaluation report which includes the median, and now added best 10%, 25%, 50%, and 75%. Further, he presented a new report format that shows each instrument’s performance relative to others, making it easier for laboratories to understand their standing. This format encourages laboratories to identify areas for improvement based on specific benchmarks.

Additionally, he introduced a new certificate for participating laboratories Who will now receive a certificate that summarizes their performance without revealing specific details to the public, maintaining anonymity. This certificate can be shared with clients at the laboratory’s discretion to build confidence in testing quality. Unlike some countries, such as Australia, where results are openly shared across the industry, individual laboratories in other regions can choose to keep their results private. He highlighted that this approach to reporting and certification allows laboratories to focus on continuous improvement while maintaining confidentiality.

Mr Wakefield shared how commercial laboratories leverage CSITC results to attract clients by providing a copy of their performance results, highlighting their ranking within the top percentile categories. He highlighted that this transparency reassures clients about the quality and reliability of the laboratory’s testing capabilities.

Mr Drieling then discussed the participation status of Uzbekistan, once a prominent cotton producer, which currently has no laboratories participating in CSITC. The reasons for this decline could be attributed to changes in the cotton industry structure, where most of Uzbekistan’s cotton is now consumed domestically within clusters, reducing the need for external quality verification.

He also shared insights into the cost of operating an HVI laboratory, noting that the purchase of an HVI instrument alone costs approximately $250,000 over ten years, amounting to about $25,000 per year. Additional costs include staff, energy for conditioning, quality management, maintenance, and other operational expenses, totaling over $100,000 annually. However, the annual CSITC round trial participation fee of $1,300 is only about 1% of the total operational cost, providing significant benefits by reducing claim risks and boosting credibility.

The discussion then shifted to the participation of spinning mills in CSITC. Mr Drieling explained that while spinning mills do participate, their proportion remains lower compared to cotton production and classing laboratories, which make up nearly 80% of participants. Instrument manufacturers comprised about 4%, and spinning mills represent around 9%. A member inquired about the performance of spinning mill laboratories compared to cotton production labs, noting that spinning mills might not face the same risk of claims related to fiber quality since their primary concern is yarn quality.

The conversation then turned to the impact of fiber quality on spinning mill profitability. The Chair, drawing on his years of experience in the textile industry, emphasized that a spinning mill’s profitability hinges primarily on the quality and cost of raw materials. Proper bale management and adherence to control limits are critical in maximizing returns. Given the tight profit margins of around 2-3% in spinning mills, purchasing cotton within specific tolerances and blending it effectively are essential to optimizing performance and achieving profitability. The Chair said that selecting the right cotton quality from the start is essential to efficient production and maintaining low waste, underscoring the vital role of quality testing in the supply chain.

Mr Jigar Raval asked if there were scientific studies quantifying the relationship between fiber quality and profit margins, which would be valuable in demonstrating the financial benefits of quality control to spinners. It was noted that while some studies have been conducted, most are general and lack specific, quantifiable data that would resonate strongly with spinning mills.

The Chair highlighted on the importance of variability control in fiber parameters. If a mill is set to process 28-millimeter fiber, variation in fiber length can lead to inefficiencies. Therefore, achieving consistency in fiber properties is crucial for optimizing machine performance and minimizing waste.

This led to a discussion on the percentage of bales tested and Mr Wakefield emphasized that higher sampling percentages, ideally 100%, allow for more precise selection and blending of bales, reducing variation. Lower sampling rates (e.g., 1-5%) limit the ability to control quality and consistency, impacting overall mill performance.

Mr Jens proposed conducting a collaborative study with government and corporate support to develop empirical data that illustrates the link between better fiber testing and spinning profitability.

The Chair and the members expressed deep appreciation for the presentation, praising the thorough data, clarity, and summarized delivery.

Agenda Item 7: Correspondence from the Chair to Spinning Companies. How do we engage them and persuade them to participate? Free samples? Agent?

The Chair initiated a discussion on strategies to engage and encourage spinning companies to participate in CSITC. Expanding CSITC’s membership and participation was a central theme, with a focus on targeting countries with underrepresented spinning sectors, such as Vietnam, India, Indonesia, and Mexico etc. Members underscored the importance of structured data to highlight the financial benefits of quality control and certified testing, which could drive greater participation among spinners. While no specific country was initially prioritized, India emerged as a promising target due to its large cotton production and the potential for government-supported quality improvement initiatives. With several states producing cotton on a significant scale, promoting CSITC’s testing services in India could add considerable value to both domestic production and export markets.

The idea of utilizing agents to promote CSITC’s services to spinning mills was discussed. Mr Wakefield highlighted that agents who regularly interact with spinners to sell cotton could be instrumental in raising awareness about the advantages of accurate and current laboratory testing. Given that agents often communicate directly with the owners of spinning mills – who play a key role in purchasing decisions, they can significantly influence the adoption of reliable testing facilities, which in turn helps reduce quality claims. It was suggested that CSITC might organize a meeting with a group of agents to demonstrate how their advocacy could support the industry by reducing quality issues for clients. Although monetary incentives for agents may be minimal, the real value lies in educating them on how improved testing enhances cotton quality reliability, benefiting both buyers and sellers.

Agenda Item 8: Update of CSITC Guide

The Chair emphasized the importance of this guide for laboratories and industry professionals, as it offers comprehensive guidance on achieving accurate and consistent testing results and informed that CSITC Guide is in process of revision.

Agenda Item 9: Any other item with the permission of the Chair

There was no additional item.

The Chair thanked all participants for their contributions and looked forward to continued engagement.