Cotton Contamination Surveys

Transcription

1 Cotton Contamination Surveys INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE MANUFACTURERS FEDERATION FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DES INDUSTRIES TEXTILES INTERNATIONALE VEREINIGUNG DER TEXTILINDUSTRIE

2 Contents Introduction p. 3 Foreword p. 4 Methodology p. 5 Questionnaire p. 6 Summary Graphs Contamination p. 7 Stickiness p. 8 Seed-coat Fragments p. 9 Survey Overview Press Release p Participation p Main Results p Contamination p Stickiness p Seed-coat Fragments p Profiles of Individual Cotton Descriptions Africa p America, North p America, South p Asia p Europe p

3 3/281 Introduction The 2013, edition of the Cotton Contamination Survey has been published on CD-ROM, to facilitate its distribution and to encourage multi-year comparison of results. Thus, the survey results for the five previous editions, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2013 are included on this CD, and the contents are organized by year and by topic. This structure enables an easy comparison among the six sets of results, in order for readers to track contamination developments in a given cotton description over time. Survey conducted and distributed by INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE MANUFACTUERS FEDERATION FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DES INDUSTRIES TEXTILES INTERNATIONALE VEREINIGUNG DER TEXTILINDUSTRIE Wiedingstrasse 9 Phone (+41-44) CH Zürich Fax (+41-44) Switzerland secretariat@itmf.org Web

4 4/281 Foreword In an effort to shed more light on spinners perception of the problem of cotton contamination and foreign matter, the International Textile Manufacturers Federation (ITMF) has conducted regular surveys since 1982 with spinning mills affiliated to its world-wide membership. For decades, spinners have produced evidence of all kinds of foreign matter found inside cotton bales which could often be eliminated by hand as long as spinning was still largely a labour-intensive processing technology. Following the extensive modernization of production equipment in recent years, processing steps which previously required the intervention of manual labour are increasingly performed by machines. The trend towards automation in textile manufacturing is not limited to any particular geographical area and will gain further momentum in the years to come. The biggest problem which automation presents for cotton relates to cleanliness. Automated equipment can detect and eliminate contamination or foreign matter only to a limited degree. In the case of plastic material - one of the most vicious forms of contamination - the damage is becoming visible only by the time the fabric leaves the final finishing process, at which stage it is too late to apply any remedy. It is not only affecting the quality and appearance of the final textile product, but may actually damage the processing machinery itself. By accumulating evidence of contamination and foreign matter at regular intervals, ITMF helps cotton producers, merchants and spinners to better identify problem areas and thus contribute towards their eradication. February 2014

5 5/281 Methodology The data used in the survey have been collected by means of a questionnaire which gave spinning companies the possibility of evaluating virtually all cotton descriptions (= combinations of country of origin and name of growth) consumed and traded internationally. An excerpt of the questionnaire showing its legend and four of the pre-indicated descriptions is reproduced on the following page. It is important to point out some methodological aspects and underlying assumptions before reading the results of the survey. For each description, participating companies (respondents) were asked to indicate whether or not they had consumed that particular description. This has been done in an attempt to avoid respondents inadvertently "forgetting" descriptions which had been consumed but were not found to be contaminated. The basic statistical unit (the sample) of this survey is a mill s evaluation of a given description which it had consumed during the last 12 months. It is assumed that no description by the average mill has been consumed to a distorting degree, i.e. in much larger/smaller quantities than each of the other descriptions reported on. If this were not the case, sources of contamination appearing in a discrete, i.e. discontinuous fashion (e.g. metal/wire) might in this survey make descriptions consumed in larger quantities appear "worse" than descriptions consumed in smaller quantities. Nevertheless, in order to technically prevent such a possible bias from having an undue impact on the final results, no distinction has been made between "non-existent" and "" contamination, the underlying assumption being that respondents who have experienced discrete contamination in a much used description would be inclined to consider it in relation to the volume consumed. In the weighting of the 16 sources of contamination, these are all assumed to be equally serious. It is, therefore, important to note that the key summary indicators for each description (the averages of all 16 contaminants combined) are calculated only for the purpose of facilitating general comparisons between different descriptions. Thus, for instance, a low average percentage figure under the category "seriously contaminated" in the summary indicator for a description does not exclude that description from being seriously contaminated by one of the 16 sources indicated. The latter would, however, be clearly visible from the individual table for the description in question. Moreover, in the introductory summary tables, in which comparisons are made between different descriptions, the ranking has basically been made according to the percentages of replies falling into the category "non-existent/". However, descriptions with an identical percentage of replies falling into this category have been further ranked according to the percentages of replies falling into the category "serious". In the same summary tables showing a ranking of descriptions, only those descriptions which have been evaluated by at least five respondents have been included. Finally, concerning stickiness and seed-coat fragments, there do not seem to be any methodologically critical points in the rather simple approach to those two questions in the survey.

6 6/281 Continent Country AFRICA Tanzania Tanzania Togo Uganda Growth Indicate under each description whether you have consumed that description during last 12 months Indicate for each description you have consumed whether contamination by the following sources was found to be non-existent / (I), moderate (M) or serious (S) CoastalMwanza Togo Uganda No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes I M S I M S I M S I M S - leaves, feathers, paper, leather, etc. 13 Oily substances/ chemicals - grease/oil For each description you have consumed state whether you have experienced stickiness during last 12 months For each description you have consumed state whether you have encountered seed-coat fragments during last 12 months No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

7 7/281 Contamination Fig. 1: Contamination % of all cottons evaluated Fig. 2: Contamination by Country = 100

8 8/281 Stickiness Fig. 3: Stickiness % of all cottons evaluated Fig. 4: Stickiness by Country = 100

9 9/281 Seed-coat Fragments Fig. 5: Seed-coat Fragments % of all cottons evaluated Fig. 6 Seed-coat Fragments by Country = 100

10 10/281 Press Release Summary of Survey Results 2003 Foreign matter, stickiness and seed-coat fragments in raw cotton continue to be among the most serious problems affecting the cotton spinning industry world-wide. This is the conclusion to be drawn from the "Cotton Contamination Survey 2003 which has just been released by the International Textile Manufacturers Federation (ITMF). The survey is carried out every other year, the 2003 edition being the eighth in the series since the changeover to a new methodology in In the 2003 report, 75 growths were evaluated by 220 spinning mills located in 23 countries. Contamination -- affecting more than one-quarter of cotton growths With 26% of all cottons evaluated found to be seriously or moderately contaminated, the overall level of contamination has risen for the third consecutive survey. The cottons evaluated in 2003 were in 8% (2001: 6%) of all cases found to be seriously contaminated by 16 different sources of foreign matter, a further 18% (2001: 16%) were moderately contaminated, leaving only 74% (2001: 78%) ly or not at all contaminated. As these summary data are arithmetic averages, the extent of contamination is fully illustrated only by the results for the individual contaminants, which range from 6% for "tar" (unchanged from 2001) to a full 50% of all cottons processed being either moderately or seriously contaminated by "organic matter", i.e. leaves, feathers, paper, leather, etc. (up from 39% in 2001). Other serious contaminants are strings made of jute/hessian, cotton, and woven plastic, "inorganic matter" in the form of sand or dust, and cotton or jute/hessian fabrics. Also of concern are, in descending order of incidence, woven plastic fabrics, strings and fabrics made of plastic film, and grease or oil. The most contaminated descriptions continue to originate in India, Turkey and Central Asia (Uzbekistani & Tajikistani medium staple growths). In contrast, clean cottons can be sourced from the USA, Zimbabwe, and selected West African origins (Senegal and Chad). Stickiness -- on the rise In the 2003 survey, 21% of all evaluations reveal the presence of stickiness, a deterioration compared with the result of 2001 which showed 18% to be affected. After reaching a record level of 27% in 1991, stickiness has been steadily trending down, but in 2003 the prevalence of stickiness returned to the long-run average level. In 2003, the highest occurrence of stickiness was reported for Sudan (Acala, 80% and Barakat, 56%), followed by Cameroon with 59%. 41% of the American growths, Pima and California, were reported to be sticky in On the other hand, no stickiness has been experienced in cotton originating in the South Eastern USA, Senegal, Mozambique and Uganda, and only 3% of Australian samples were affected. Seed-coat fragments -- the proliferation continues The prevalence of seed-coat fragments increased to a record level of 44% in 2003, after rising to 40% in cotton growths recorded seed-coat fragment contamination in more than 50% of their samples. The problem was particularly serious in Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, and India. Cottons in which the perception of seed-coat fragments was negligible (below 20% prevalence) included those from the Texas High Plains, Zimbabwe, Senegal and Yemen. June 2003

11 11/281 Participation Table I 2003 Participation in 2003 Survey Country Number of respondents (participating companies) Number of samples (evaluations) Argentina 1 7 Austria 2 22 Bangladesh 1 10 Belgium 3 26 Brazil Czech Republic 2 11 Egypt France 1 15 Germany 7 40 Greece 2 6 India Italy Japan 9 52 Korea Rep Madagascar 1 1 Portugal 4 32 South Africa 5 19 Spain 1 3 Switzerland 1 8 Taiwan, ROC 7 55 Tunisia 1 8 Turkey USA 7 28 Total 220 1,092* * Divided among 75 cotton descriptions

12 12/281 Main Results Table IIa 2003 All Countries/All Growths Number of Samples: 1,092 woven plastic plastic film jute/hessian cotton woven plastic plastic film jute/hessian cotton leaves,feathers,paper,leather,etc sand/dust rust metal/wire Oily substances/chemicals grease/oil rubber stamp colour tar No (%) Yes (%) No (%) Yes (%) Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table IIb 2003 Summary Year Stickiness (%) Seed-coat fragments (%)

13 13/281 Contamination Table IIIa 2003 The Most Contaminated Descriptions * Ranking Description Number of samples** 1. India H India J Turkey Cukurova/South Turkey Turkey-Others India LRA India Shankar-4/ India India-Others India DCH India MCU Uzbekistan Medium Staples Turkey Izmir Paraguay Paraguay Tajikistan Medium Staples Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Spain Spain Togo Togo Ivory Coast Ivory Coast Uganda Uganda Sudan Barakat Mali Mali Benin Benin Greece Greece South Africa South Africa * Average degree of contamination by each of the 16 pre-indicated contaminants ** Minimum: 5 samples

14 14/281 Contamination Table IIIb 2003 The Least Contaminated Descriptions * Ranking Description Number of samples** 1. Zimbabwe Zimbabwe USA Texas High Plains USA South Eastern Senegal Senegal USA Pima USA Memphis Territory Chad Chad Yemen Yemen Australia Australia Israel Pima Argentina Argentina Mozambique Mozambique Uzbekistan Long Staples USA California Turkmenistan Medium Staples Brazil Brazil USA Arizona China Xinjiang Sudan Acala Syria Syria Tajikistan Long Staples Egypt Giza Cameroon Cameroon * Average degree of contamination by each of the 16 pre-indicated contaminants ** Minimum: 5 samples

15 15/281 Stickiness Table IVa 2003 Descriptions Most Affected by Stickiness Ranking Description Affirmative replies (%)* Number of samples** 1. Sudan Acala Cameroon Cameroon Sudan Barakat Tajikistan Medium Staples Uzbekistan Long Staples USA California USA Pima Benin Benin South Africa South Africa Tajikistan Long Staples Mali Mali Turkey Turkey-Others Uzbekistan Medium Staples Chad Chad Togo Togo Turkmenistan Medium Staples India DCH Paraguay Paraguay Brazil Brazil Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Yemen Yemen India India-Others USA Memphis Territory * Percentage of replies indicating the existence of stickiness ** Minimum: 5 samples

16 16/281 Stickiness Table IVb 2003 Descriptions Least Affected by Stickiness Ranking Description Affirmative replies (%)* Number of samples** 1. USA South Eastern Senegal Senegal Mozambique Mozambique Uganda Uganda Australia Australia Egypt Giza Syria Syria India H India J Turkey Izmir Israel Pima Greece Greece China Xinjiang India LRA India Shankar-4/ Ivory Coast Ivory Coast Zimbabwe Zimbabwe India MCU USA Texas High Plains USA Arizona Turkey Cukurova/South Argentina Argentina Spain Spain 14 7 * Percentage of replies indicating the existence of stickiness ** Minimum: 5 samples

17 17/281 Seed-coat Fragments Table Va 2003 Descriptions Most Affected by Seed-coat Fragments Ranking Description Affirmative replies (%)* Number of samples** 1. Tajikistan Long Staples Turkey Turkey-Others India H Turkey Cukurova/South India DCH Uzbekistan Medium Staples India J India Shankar-4/ India India-Others India LRA South Africa South Africa India MCU Argentina Argentina Tajikistan Medium Staples Turkey Izmir Uzbekistan Long Staples Turkmenistan Medium Staples Mali Mali Benin Benin Israel Pima USA California Spain Spain Burkina Faso Burkina Faso * Percentage of replies indicating the existence of seed-coat fragments ** Minimum: 5 samples

18 18/281 Seed-coat Fragments Table Vb 2003 Descriptions Least Affected by Seed-coat Fragments Ranking Description Affirmative replies (%)* Number of samples** 1. USA Texas High Plains Zimbabwe Zimbabwe Senegal Senegal Yemen Yemen Sudan Acala Uganda Uganda Australia Australia Egypt Giza USA Pima Ivory Coast Ivory Coast USA South Eastern Chad Chad Brazil Brazil Greece Greece USA Memphis Territory China Xinjiang Syria Syria USA Arizona Sudan Barakat Paraguay Paraguay Togo Togo Mozambique Mozambique Cameroon Cameroon * Percentage of replies indicating the existence of seed-coat fragments ** Minimum: 5 samples

19 19/281 Africa Table Benin Benin leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Burkina Faso Burkina Faso leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 58 42

20 20/281 Africa Table C. A. Republic Central African Rep leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Cameroon Cameroon leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 59 41

21 21/281 Africa Table Chad Chad leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Egypt Egypt-Others leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments 33 67

22 22/281 Africa Table Egypt Giza leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness 96 4 Seed-coat fragments Table Ethiopia Ethiopia leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 50 50

23 23/281 Africa Table Ghana Ghana 1 - leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments Table Ivory Coast Ivory Coast leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 71 29

24 24/281 Africa Table Madagascar Madagascar 2 - leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Malawi Malawi 3 - leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 67 33

25 25/281 Africa Table Mali Mali leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Mozambique Mozambique leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments 60 40

26 26/281 Africa Table Nigeria Nigeria leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments Table Senegal Senegal leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments 83 17

27 27/281 Africa Table South Africa South Africa leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Sudan Acala leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 80 20

28 28/281 Africa Table Sudan Barakat leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Sudan Sudan-Others 2 - leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 100 0

29 29/281 Africa Table Tanzania Coastal 2 - leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Tanzania Mwanza leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments 33 67

30 30/281 Africa Table Togo Togo leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Uganda Uganda leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments 80 20

31 31/281 Africa Table Zambia Zambia leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Zimbabwe Zimbabwe leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 88 13

32 32/281 America, North Table Mexico Juarez 1 - leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Mexico Mexicali 3 - leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 67 33

33 33/281 America, North Table U.S.A. Arizona leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table U.S.A. California leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 56 44

34 34/281 America, North Table U.S.A. El Paso 4 - leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table U.S.A. Memphis Territory leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 68 32

35 35/281 America, North Table U.S.A. Pima leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table U.S.A. Rio Grande Valley leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments 33 67

36 36/281 America, North Table U.S.A. South Eastern leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments Table U.S.A. Texas High Plains leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 93 7

37 37/281 America, North Table U.S.A. USA-Others 4 - leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 50 50

38 38/281 America, South Table Argentina Argentina leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Brazil Brazil leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 68 33

39 39/281 America, South Table Paraguay Paraguay leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Peru Aspero leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments 67 33

40 40/281 America, South Table Peru Pima leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments Table Peru Tanguis 1 - leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments 100 0

41 41/281 Asia Table Australia Australia leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness 97 3 Seed-coat fragments Table China Anhui leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 50 50

42 42/281 Asia Table China China-Others leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments Table China Shandong 1 - leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments 0 100

43 43/281 Asia Table China Xinjiang leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table India DCH leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 26 74

44 44/281 Asia Table India F leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments Table India H leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness 96 4 Seed-coat fragments 22 78

45 45/281 Asia Table India India-Others leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table India J leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness 95 5 Seed-coat fragments 27 73

46 46/281 Asia Table India LRA leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table India MCU leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 43 57

47 47/281 Asia Table India Shankar-4/ leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Iran Iran leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 100 0

48 48/281 Asia Table Israel Acala 4 - leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments Table Israel Pima leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness 91 9 Seed-coat fragments 55 45

49 49/281 Asia Table Pakistan AmSeed AFZAL leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments Table Pakistan Pakistan-Others leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments 33 67

50 50/281 Asia Table Syria Syria leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness 96 4 Seed-coat fragments Table Tajikistan Long Staples leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 20 80

51 51/281 Asia Table Tajikistan Medium Staples leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Turkmenistan Long Staples leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 50 50

52 52/281 Asia Table Turkmenistan Medium Staples leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Uzbekistan Long Staples leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 45 55

53 53/281 Asia Table Uzbekistan Medium Staples leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Yemen Yemen leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 83 17

54 54/281 Europe Table Greece Greece leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Spain Spain leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 57 43

55 55/281 Europe Table Turkey Antalya 4 - leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Turkey Cukurova/South leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 24 76

56 56/281 Europe Table Turkey Izmir leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness 95 5 Seed-coat fragments Table Turkey Turkey-Others leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 21 79

57 57/281 Press Release Summary of Survey Results 2005 Foreign matter, stickiness and seed-coat fragments in raw cotton continue to be among the most serious problems affecting the cotton spinning industry worldwide. This is the conclusion to be drawn from the "Cotton Contamination Survey 2005" which has just been released by the International Textile Manufacturers Federation (ITMF). The survey is carried out every other year, the 2005 edition being the ninth in the series since the changeover to a new methodology in In the 2005 report, 152 spinning mills located in 18 countries evaluated 68 cotton growths. Contamination -- falling for the first time since 1997 With 22% of all cottons evaluated in 2005 found to be seriously or moderately contaminated, the overall level of contamination fell from 26% in The cottons evaluated in 2005 were in 7% (2003: 8%) of all cases found to be seriously contaminated by 16 different sources of foreign matter, a further 15% (2003: 18%) were moderately contaminated, leaving 78% (2003: 74%) ly or not at all contaminated. As these summary data are arithmetic averages, the extent of contamination is fully illustrated only by the results for the individual contaminants, which range from 5% for "tar" (2003: 6%) to 40% of all cottons processed being either moderately or seriously contaminated by "organic matter", i.e. leaves, feathers, paper, leather, etc. (down from 50% in 2003). Other serious contaminants are "fabrics" made of cotton, "strings" made of woven plastic and plastic film and "inorganic matter" in the form of sand or dust. Also of concern are, in descending order of incidence, woven plastic and plastic film fabrics, cotton strings, jute/hessian fabrics, and grease or oil. The most contaminated descriptions originate in Turkey, India, Paraguay, Nigeria, Syria and Central Asia. In contrast, very clean cottons can be found in Israel, Senegal, the US, Zimbabwe, Australia and Togo. Stickiness -- on a record low In the 2005 survey, 17% of all evaluations reveal the presence of stickiness, which is significantly lower compared to 2003 (21%). This short-term decline is in line with the long-term trend of falling levels of stickiness. In 2005, the highest occurrence of stickiness was reported for Cameroon (64%), followed by Sudan (44%), Uzbekistan (medium staple: 39%) and Mali (37%). Of the American growths, California (35%), Pima (31%) and Arizona (31%) were reported to be sticky. On the other hand, no stickiness has been experienced in cotton originating in the South Eastern USA, Zimbabwe, Turkey (Izmir and Turkey-Others), India (Shankar-4/6 and MCU-5), Zambia, Senegal, Spain and Togo. Seed-coat fragments -- improvement The appearance of seed-coat fragments dropped to the level of the long-run average (37%), a significant improvement compared to the 44% recorded in The origins most affected were those from Nigeria (100%), India (J-34: 86%), Turkmenistan (long-staple: 83%) and Uzbekistan (long-staple: 71%). Cottons for which the existence of seed-coat fragments was negligible (prevalence of less than 20%) included those from Togo (0%), Zimbabwe (7%), Paraguay (10%), Ivory Coast (14%), USA (Arizona: 15%), Egypt (Giza: 17%), Australia (17%) and China (Xinjiang: 17%) and Israel (Pima: 18%). August 2005

58 58/281 Participation Table I 2005 Participation in 2005 Survey Country Number of respondents (participating companies) Number of samples (evaluations) Number of cotton growths evaluated Argentina Belgium Brazil Czech Republic Egypt Germany Greece India Italy Japan Korea Rep Nigeria South Africa Spain Sweden Taiwan, ROC Turkey USA Total * * On the basis of 68 different cotton descriptions

59 59/281 Main Results Table IIa 2005 All Countries/All Growths Number of Samples: 715 woven plastic plastic film jute/hessian cotton woven plastic plastic film jute/hessian cotton leaves,feathers,paper,leather,etc sand/dust rust metal/wire Oily substances/chemicals grease/oil rubber stamp colour tar No (%) Yes (%) No (%) Yes (%) Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table IIb 2005 Summary Year Stickiness (%) Seed-coat fragments (%)

60 60/281 Contamination Table IIIa 2005 The Most Contaminated Descriptions * Ranking Description Number of samples** 1. Turkey Cukurova/South Turkey Turkey-Others India MCU India DCH India J India Shankar-4/ Paraguay Paraguay Nigeria Nigeria India India-Others Uzbekistan Long Staples Uzbekistan Medium Staples Syria Syria Turkey Izmir Tajikistan Medium Staples Turkmenistan Long Staples Mali Mali Sudan Bakarat Turkmenistan Medium Staples Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Zambia Zambia * Average degree of contamination by each of the 16 pre-indicated contaminants ** Minimum: 5 samples

61 61/281 Contamination Table IIIb 2005 The Least Contaminated Descriptions * Ranking Description Number of samples** 1. Israel Pima Senegal Senegal USA USA-Others USA Pima Zimbabwe Zimbabwe Australia Australia Togo Togo USA Memphis Territory USA California Spain Spain Cameroon Cameroon USA South Eastern Benin Benin Chad Chad USA Texas High Plains Egypt Giza China Xinjiang USA Arizona Greece Greece Ivory Coast Ivory Coast Brazil Brazil * Average degree of contamination by each of the 16 pre-indicated contaminants ** Minimum: 5 samples

62 62/281 Stickiness Table IVa 2005 Descriptions Most Affected by Stickiness Ranking Description Affirmative replies (%)* Number of samples** 1. Cameroon Cameroon Sudan Bakarat Uzbekistan Medium Staples Mali Mali USA California Tajikistan Medium Staples USA Pima USA Arizona Chad Chad Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Israel Pima Turkmenistan Medium Staples India DCH Syria Syria China Xinjiang Turkmenistan Long Staples USA Texas High Plains Ivory Coast Ivory Coast Uzbekistan Long Staples Brazil Brazil * Percentage of replies indicating the existence of stickiness ** Minimum: 5 samples

63 63/281 Stickiness Table IVb 2005 Descriptions Least Affected by Stickiness Ranking Description Affirmative replies (%)* Number of samples** 1. USA South Eastern Zimbabwe Zimbabwe Turkey Izmir India Shankar-4/ Turkey Turkey-Others Zambia Zambia India J India MCU Senegal Senegal Spain Spain Togo Togo USA Memphis Territory Greece Greece Egypt Giza Turkey Cukurova/South India India-Others Australia Australia Nigeria Nigeria Paraguay Paraguay Benin Benin USA USA-Others 12 8 * Percentage of replies indicating the existence of stickiness ** Minimum: 5 samples

64 64/281 Seed-coat Fragments Table Va 2005 Descriptions Most Affected by Seed-coat Fragments Ranking Description Affirmative replies (%)* Number of samples** 1. Nigeria Nigeria India J Turkmenistan Long Staples Uzbekistan Long Staples Syria Syria India MCU Turkey Cukurova/South Turkey Turkey-Others Uzbekistan Medium Staples Tajikistan Medium Staples USA USA-Others USA South Eastern Greece Greece USA Texas High Plains Turkmenistan Medium Staples Chad Chad Brazil Brazil India DCH Spain Spain USA Memphis Territory * Percentage of replies indicating the existence of seed-coat fragments ** Minimum: 5 samples

65 65/281 Seed-coat Fragments Table Vb 2005 Descriptions Least Affected by Seed-coat Fragments Ranking Description Affirmative replies (%)* Number of samples** 1. Togo Togo Zimbabwe Zimbabwe Paraguay Paraguay Ivory Coast Ivory Coast USA Arizona Egypt Giza Australia Australia China Xinjiang Israel Pima Senegal Senegal Sudan Bakarat India India-Others Benin Benin Zambia Zambia USA Pima Burkina Faso Burkina Faso USA California Turkey Izmir Cameroon Cameroon India Shankar-4/ Mali Mali * Percentage of replies indicating the existence of seed-coat fragments ** Minimum: 5 samples

66 66/281 Africa Table Benin Benin leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Burkina Faso Burkina Faso leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 73 27

67 67/281 Africa Table C. A. Republic Central African Rep leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments Table Cameroon Cameroon leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 64 36

68 68/281 Africa Table Chad Chad leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Egypt Egypt-Others 2 - leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments 50 50

69 69/281 Africa Table Egypt Giza leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness 94 6 Seed-coat fragments Table Ethiopia Ethiopia 1 - leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 0 100

70 70/281 Africa Table Ivory Coast Ivory Coast leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Madagascar Madagascar 1 - leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments 100 0

71 71/281 Africa Table Malawi Malawi leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments Table Mali Mali leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 63 38

72 72/281 Africa Table Mozambique Mozambique leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Nigeria Nigeria leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness 91 9 Seed-coat fragments 0 100

73 73/281 Africa Table Senegal Senegal leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments Table South Africa South Africa leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 67 33

74 74/281 Africa Table Sudan Acala leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Sudan Barakat leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 78 22

75 75/281 Africa Table Sudan Shambat 1 - leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Sudan Sudan-Others leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 100 0

76 76/281 Africa Table Tanzania Coastal leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments Table Togo Togo leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments 100 0

77 77/281 Africa Table Uganda Uganda leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments Table Zambia Zambia leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments 75 25

78 78/281 Africa Table Zimbabwe Zimbabwe leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments 93 7

79 79/281 America, North Table Mexico Juarez leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Mexico Mexico-Others 2 - leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments 100 0

80 80/281 America, North Table U.S.A. Arizona leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table U.S.A. California leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 68 32

81 81/281 America, North Table U.S.A. El Paso leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments Table U.S.A. Memphis Territory leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness 97 3 Seed-coat fragments 63 37

82 82/281 America, North Table U.S.A. Pima leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table U.S.A. Rio Grande Valley leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 33 67

83 83/281 America, North Table U.S.A. South Eastern leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments Table U.S.A. Texas High Plains leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 56 44

84 84/281 America, North Table U.S.A. USA-Others leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 50 50

85 85/281 America, South Table Argentina Argentina leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments Table Brazil Brazil leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 60 40

86 86/281 America, South Table Paraguay Paraguay leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments Table Peru Aspero leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments 100 0

87 87/281 America, South Table Peru Pima leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments Table Peru Tanguis 1 - leaves, feathers, paper, leather Seed-coat fragments 100 0

88 88/281 Asia Table Australia Australia leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness 91 9 Seed-coat fragments Table China Xinjiang leaves, feathers, paper, leather Stickiness Seed-coat fragments 83 17