Monday, 29 December 2008

An oversight

Post number 40

We reported from figures by the FAO in post number 39 that China does not produce any wool at all. We discovered on double checking our facts that New Zealand, China, India, Iran, Argentina, UK and each produce about 50,000 of wool per year.

At the same time New Zealand, produced nearly 15% of the world’s total wool in 2003/4 ( Assuming that the FAO’s figure of 50,000 is valid for 2003 for China, then the world’s total wool production for that year was 333,333 tons. How does this compare with other national figures from around the world and FAO records?

Our erroneous reporting that China does not produce any wool at all according to FAO came from total value of export earnings for the top 14 fibre producing countries. China as reported by the FAO earns $411 million from exporting silk and $134 million from cotton. China earns nothing from exporting wool. This is in agreement with our reporting in post number 39.

It would still appear that China consumes most of the world’s wool internally for purposes other than making wool textiles and/or garments for domestic use and exports. As mentioned earlier, we have reasons to believe that China uses the world’s wool for insulating buildings. We stand by our claim until the world tells us otherwise through sending comments to our blog. We haven't come across any production figures for China's production of wool carpets and interior furnishings but are searching. One reason we have ignored carpets is that coarser wool grades are used for this purpose that are unsuitable for making garments.

A situation that really needs closer scrutiny is a fact reported by That the demand for New Zealnd's finer grades of wool in China increased in the earlier parts of this decade. Do these grades make better building insulation? Perhaps, the Australians and New Zealanders can shed light and report to Mr Kuffner, direct.

We regret the oversight in post number 39, and apologise to blog readers, the FAO, Mr Henrik Kuffner, through him the UN General Assembly, and a few British Rare Sheep Breeders whom we emailed yesterday, concurrent with publishing post number 39, for having misled you all momentarily.



Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home