
George
H.
Davis,
MS
When
you
look
at
an
alpaca,
do
you
see
a
nice
animal
with
some
fiber
on
the
outside,
or
nice
fiber
with
some
animal
inside?
I
am
sure
that
most
people
who
farm
alpacas
have
them
primarily
because
they
like
them
as
an
animal.
Nevertheless,
we
need
to
remember
that
the
processor's
interest
is
focused
entirely
on
the
animal's
fiber
as
a
raw
material.
For
the
breeder
in
a
fiber
industry,
quality
fiber
production
per
animal
is
the
key
to
profitability,
whereas
for
the
processor
it
is
the
processing
attributes
of
the
fiber
that
determine
its
value.
Both
of
these
two
different
goals
can
often
be
met
if
the
processor
sends
the
producer
the
appropriate
price
signals,
but
this
is
not
always
the
case.
It
is
therefore
important
that
some
fiber
attributes
are
not
promoted
to
an
extent
that
will
ultimately
work
to
the
detriment
of
the
alpaca
industry.
My
background
is
with
beef
cattle
and
sheep.
I
have
regarded
alpacas
as
basically
another
livestock
option,
and
this
has
been
reflected
in
the
production-type
research
we
have
carried
out
on
our
alpacas
at
Tara
Hills
and
Invermay.
Our
focus
has
not
been
on
alpacas
as
adorable
pets
and
cute
show-ring
exhibits.
Of
course,
after
researching
alpacas
for
the
past
seven
years,
I
became
hooked
and
now
have
fifteen
of
my
own.
So
much
for
my
credibility!
Even
so,
I
believe
it
is
important
that
we
don't
lose
sight
of
the
role
of
alpacas
as
production
animals
and
the
product,
fiber.
The
nonfiber
characteristics
affecting
the
productivity
of
an
animal
must
also
always
be
considered.
It
will
be
much
more
profitable
for
a
producer
to
have
an
alpaca
with
an
average
fleece
that
produces
a
healthy
cria
each
year
than
one
with
a
top
fleece
and
a
poor
reproductive
record.
Regardless
of
its
fleece
attributes,
an
alpaca
with
any
serious
physical
defect
or
with
an
unsound
reproductive
history
should
have
no
breeding
future.
In
South
America
another
of
its
products
is
meat,
but
as
long
as
we
regard
them
as
pets,
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
much
likelihood
of
the
Super
Macpaca
burger
making
the
big
time.
PRODUCTION
AND
PROCESSING
ATTRIBUTES
OF
WOOL
So
if
fiber
is
the
important
product
we
need
to
identify,
the
factors
that
influence
its
value
to
the
producer
are
the
most
important.
I
use
the
term
producer
deliberately,
because
there
is
a
danger
that
too
much
emphasis
can
be
given
to
the
value
set
by
the
processor.
Here
I
draw
on
my
experience
in
the
sheep
industry.
Processors
list
attributes
such
as
staple
length,
tensile
strength,
yield,
fiber
diameter,
wool
bulk,
and
color
as
being
all-important.
It
doesn't
matter
to
processors
whether
it
takes
two
hundred
or
a
thousand
sheep
to
produce
a
ton
of
fiber
because
their
interest
is
in
acquiring
a
certain
weight
of
fiber.
On
the
other
hand,
for
the
sheep
farmer
the
single
most
important
trait
influencing
profitability
is
the
weight
of
fiber
produced
per
animal.
It
is
this
factor,
more
than
any
other,
that
determines
whether
a
farmer
stays
in
business.
We
have
the
example
in
sheep
of
wool
tensile
strength.
Processors
insist
that
it
is
important,
and
farmers
know
that
they
can
manipulate
tensile
strength
by
shearing
in
late
winter
before
lambing.
However,
apart
from
obviously
tender
wool,
there
is
no
price
premium
related
to
tensile
strength,
and
because
prelamb
shearing
incurs
an
extra
feed
cost,
this
practice
cannot
be
justified
in
relation
to
profitable
wool
production.
So
unless
processors
are
prepared
to
pay
a
worthwhile
premium
for
a
particular
fleece
characteristic,
one
must
question
its
importance.
PRODUCTION
AND
PROCESSING
ATTRIBUTES
OF
ALPACA
FIBER
What
does
this
have
to
do
with
alpacas?
Well,
there
seem
to
be
many
in
the
alpaca
industry
who
are
looking
at
fiber
from
the
processor's,
rather
than
the
producer's,
viewpoint.
Nowhere
is
this
more
evident
than
in
relation
to
fiber
diameter.
We
are
bombarded
with
information
on
microns,
standard
deviations,
and
coefficients
of
variation.
Owners
can
display
all
this
information
in
a
histogram
that
can
be
pinned
on
the
wall
for
all
to
admire.
But
what
is
the
extra
value
to
the
producer
in
selecting
for
fineness?
Earlier
this
year
I
read
in
AOBA's
Alpacas
magazine
1
that
understanding
what
qualities
the
buyer
desires
most
is
the
key
to
getting
maximum
value
from
alpaca
fiber
production.
I
suggest
that
from
the
producer's
point
of
view,
understanding
what
qualities
the
buyer
desires
most
and
is
prepared
to
pay
for
is
the
key
to
getting
maximum
value
from
alpaca
fiber
production.
Data
presented
by
Bruce
McGregor
at
the
1995
Australian
Alpaca
Association
conference
indicated
that
fiber
averaging
27
microns
was
worth
about
60
percent
of
fiber
averaging
22
microns.
2
This
would
suggest
that
selection
for
fineness
is
a
wise
option.
However,
because
selection
solely
for
fineness
is
likely
to
reduce
fleece
weights,
it
is
important
to
establish
that
any
increase
in
price
resulting
from
the
reduction
in
fineness
is
not
offset
by
the
lower
level
of
fleece
production.
SELECTION
FOR
IMPROVED
FIBER
PRODUCTION
Some
data
from
New
Zealand
research
flocks
located
at
Tara
Hills
and
Flock
House
illustrate
this
point.
Records
from
193
adult
female
huacaya
alpacas
were
used
to
compare
three
selection
policies:
selection
of
the
top
10
percent
on
fleece
weight,
the
finest
10
percent,
and
a
flock
unselected
for
fleece
weight
or
fiber
diameter.
This
would
be
typical
of
a
stud
situation
where
the
top
10
percent
were
used
as
parents
of
replacement
stud
sires.
The
mean
fleece
weight
was
4.2
pounds
(1.9
kg),
and
the
mean
fiber
diameter
was
30.9
microns.
These
values
were
assumed
for
the
unselected
flock
that
is
included
as
the
baseline.
The
top
10
percent
selected
on
fleece
weight
averaged
6.4
pounds
(2.9
kg)
and
33.2
microns--that
is,
they
produced
2.2
pounds
(1
kg)
of
fiber
that
was
2.3
microns
coarser
than
the
flock
average.
The
top
10
percent
selected
for
fineness
averaged
3.1
pounds
(1.4
kg)
and
24.1
microns,
so
a
reduction
of
6.8
microns
was
associated
with
the
loss
of
about
1.1
pounds
(half
a
kilogram)
of
fiber.
Thus,
the
difference
between
the
top
10
percent
on
fleece
weight
and
the
best
10
percent
on
fineness
was
3.3
pounds
(1.5
kg)
and
9.1
microns.
If
we
assume
that
22-micron
fiber
is
worth
$9
a
pound
on
the
commodity
market,
the
relative
figures
cited
by
McGregor
suggest
that
24-micron
fiber
would
be
worth
$7.25
per
pound,
26
microns
would
be
worth
$6.35
per
pound,
and
27
microns
or
coarser
would
be
worth
about
$5.44
per
pound.
For
this
comparison
let's
also
assume
that
50
percent
of
the
fleece
is
skirted.
The
unselected
animals
would
return
4.2
pounds
x
50
percent
x
$5.44
=
$11.42.
The
top
10
percent
on
fleece
weight
would
return
6.4
pounds
x
50
percent
x
$5.44
=
$17.41;
and
the
best
10
percent
on
fineness
would
return
3.1
pounds
x
50
percent
x
$7.25
=
$11.24.
In
this
scenario,
selection
for
fleece
weight
increases
returns
by
about
50
percent,
whereas
selection
for
fineness
results
in
no
increase
in
returns.
The
figures
used
have
assumed
that
24-micron
fiber
is
worth
33
percent
more
per
pound
than
fiber
averaging
27
microns
or
more.
In
order
for
selection
solely
for
low
micron
to
break
even
with
selection
solely
for
fleece
weight,
24-micron
fiber
would
have
to
be
worth
105
percent
more
per
pound
than
27-micron
or
coarser
fiber.
Guanaco
in
Torres
del
Paine
National
Park,
Patagonia
Not
all
the
difference
between
the
selected
10
percent
and
the
flock
average
is
due
to
genetic
factors,
but
as
both
fleece
weight
and
fiber
diameter
are
known
to
be
highly
inherited
in
other
species,
it
can
be
assumed
that
good
responses
can
be
achieved
by
selecting
for
these
traits
in
alpacas.
The
above
example
suggests
that
selection
for
low
micron
will
not
increase
returns
for
producers.
However,
this
assumed
selection
was
carried
out
for
a
single
trait.
From
our
data,
fleece
weight
and
fiber
diameter
appear
to
have
a
positive
correlation--that
is,
as
fleece
weight
increases
so
does
fiber
diameter--but,
fortunately,
this
relationship
is
quite
weak.
If
we
use
an
index
that
combines
the
benefits
of
fleece
weight
with
the
benefits
of
lower
fiber
diameter,
making
useful
gains
in
both
traits
should
still
be
possible.
Index
selection
will
identify
those
individuals
that
have
high
merit
for
both
traits.
Although
animals
with
finer
fleeces
tend
to
have
lower
fleece
weights,
an
appropriate
index
that
is
weighted
for
each
characteristic
will
ensure
that
only
those
individuals
with
a
fine
fleece
and
a
high
fleece
weight
are
selected.
This
will
not
increase
fleece
weight
as
fast
as
selection
solely
for
fleece
weight,
nor
will
it
decrease
fiber
diameter
as
fast
as
selection
solely
for
fiber
diameter;
but
the
net
effect
of
increasing
fleece
weight
and
decreasing
fiber
diameter
in
tandem
is
likely
to
be
the
most
profitable
for
the
producer.
Furthermore,
a
breeding
value
can
be
assigned
to
each
animal
by
including
heritability
and
a
dollar
value
for
each
pound
of
fiber
and
a
dollar
value
for
each
micron
change
in
fiber
diameter.
Thus,
an
animal
that
had
a
low
fiber
diameter
but
a
below-average
fleece
weight
would
not
be
ranked
as
highly
as
one
with
a
low
fiber
diameter
and
an
above-average
fleece
weight.
This
method
was
used
successfully
in
the
New
Zealand
merino
sheep
industry
to
establish
a
flock
of
ultrafine
merinos
that
maintained
fleece
weight
and
may
have
value
in
the
alpaca
industry
as
well.
It
has
become
common
practice
to
advertise
studs
as
having
a
specific
low
micron
count,
implying
that
this
is
an
indicator
of
their
merit
as
sires.
Our
flock
data
show
that
in
the
absence
of
comparative
fleece
weight
data,
these
micron
values
can
be
quite
misleading.
This
same
stud
with
the
impressive
low
micron
may
be
producing
the
lightest
fleece
in
the
flock!
The
key
to
genetic
improvement
is
to
select
from
large
numbers
of
animals.
Breeders
with
large
flocks
have
the
scope
to
rank
animals
within
their
flocks
and
are
able
to
use
their
top
sires
within
their
own
flocks.
This
gives
them
the
potential
to
make
worthwhile
genetic
progress.
Breeders
with
small
flocks
have
insufficient
animals
to
effectively
assign
genetic
merit
to
individuals
and
a
limited
capacity
to
use
their
own
sires
because
of
inbreeding
concerns.
Because
smaller
flocks
require
a
continual
supply
of
sires
bred
outside
the
flock,
they
are,
in
practice,
multipliers
of
the
larger
flocks'
genetics.
The
most
important
decision
smaller
breeders
make
in
the
purchase
of
stud
males
is
the
choice
of
a
large
stud
flock
where
the
selection
goals
and
procedures
are
consistent
with
their
own
objectives.
An
average
male
from
a
top
stud
will
often
be
superior
to
a
top
male
from
a
mediocre
stud.
INFLUENCE
OF
NUTRITION
ON
FIBER
PRODUCTION
It
is
known
that
nutrition
can
have
a
profound
effect
on
alpaca
fiber.
In
a
comparison
between
alpacas
grazed
on
native
pastures
and
those
grazed
on
alfalfa
in
Peru,
Allan
Marshall
demonstrated
that
adult
and
young
alpaca
grazed
on
alfalfa
had
heavier
liveweights
and
produced
heavier
fleeces.
3
The
adults
on
alfalfa
were
16
percent
heavier
and
produced
an
extra
34
percent
of
fiber,
whereas
the
crias
on
alfalfa
were
50
percent
heavier
than
those
on
unimproved
pasture
(145
versus
97
pounds,
or
66
versus
44
kg,
at
fifteen
months
of
age)
and
produced
79
percent
more
fiber
(4.1
versus
2.3
pounds,
or
1.9
versus
1.1
kg).
The
fiber
grown
by
the
group
fed
alfalfa
was
coarser
in
both
adults
(+5.1
microns)
and
crias
(+6.8
microns).
Multicolored
herd
in
central
United
States
When
alpaca
research
commenced
at
the
Tara
Hills
High
Country
Research
Station
in
the
South
Island
of
New
Zealand
in
1989,
the
expectation
was
that
under
better
nutrition
liveweights
would
increase,
fleece
weight
would
increase,
and,
based
on
experience
with
sheep,
some
coarsening
of
fiber
would
occur.
The
phenomenon
of
hunger-fineness
is
well
known
in
merino
sheep.
It
turned
out
that
the
apparent
effects
of
nutrition
on
fiber
diameter
in
alpacas
were
much
greater
than
anticipated.
The
100
two-to-four-year-old
research
alpacas
imported
from
Chile
weighed
100
pounds
(45
kg)
when
|