© Kondinin Group
Livestock
Wool harvesting
This article has been reproduced with permission from Farming Ahead.
For more information about Kondinin Group phone 1800 677 761.
Further duplication of this article is not permitted.
Price cuts needed to make Bioclip viable
As the wool industry confronts widespread shearer shortages and serious health and safety issues affect conventional shearing
practices, alternative wool harvesting methods such as Bioclip have become a priority. But Kondinin Group has found that
some farmers who had used Bioclip abandoned the system and resumed traditional shearing practices. This article explains
the Bioclip process and examines its on-farm performance.
by
Fleur Muller,
KONDININ GROUP
• Bioclip offers improved wool quality
with more even staple and
increased wool in the top lines.
• Wool harvesting is fast, with two
people able to defleece five lambs
in the time it takes to shear one.
• Bioclip gives farmers flexibility in
planning operations around
available labour and other
farming practices.
• On the downside, Bioclip can be
management intensive and
expensive, costing about $7 per
head compared with conventional
shearing at about $5/head.
Producers found that removing the net and fleece
was quick and easy.
Only one farmer reported receiving
more for his Bioclip wool compared with
conventionally shorn wool.
Fifty years in the making
For half a century farmers and researchers
alike have been trying to find an alternative
method to traditional shearing.
But since its release during 1998, Bioclip
has made only small inroads into capturing a
slice of the Australian wool clip.
FIGURE 1 Bioclip ‘buy again’ rate
Yes
2 people
No
7 people
Undecided
2 people
Kondinin Group surveyed 11 farmers who have
used Bioclip to see how many would use this
wool harvesting method again. Some producers
would consider using Bioclip again if the price
was reduced and the nets improved.
Source: Kondinin Group’s 2005 Bioclip Wool Harvesting Survey.
48
Historically, sheep shed their fleece but
this trait was bred out of most modern
sheep breeds.
During the 1950s, a naturally occurring
protein called epidermal growth factor
(EGF) — found in sheep’s saliva — was
identified as a potential alternative to
conventional shearing.
Two decades later CSIRO took up the
mantle to make Bioclip a commercial reality.
By the 1990s, researchers were confident
EGF could induce sheep to shed their fleece.
The next step was to develop a practical way
of collecting the wool, with researchers
settling on a type of net that could keep t
he fleece from being scattered across
the paddock.
Merial Australia
At a glance
Separating the net from the fleece can be timeconsuming. Bioclip fleeces look different from
those shorn conventionally as the belly wool stays
attached in the centre.
Merial Australia
hile offering wool quality and animal
selection advantages, problems with
nets, concerns about animal safety and
the expense have left some producers
disappointed with the Bioclip system.
Kondinin Group’s 2005 Bioclip Wool
Harvesting Survey revealed that seven out of
11 wool growers who had tried the system
would not use it again (see Figure 1).
At $6.65–$7.25 per head (conventional
shearing costs $4.50–$5.50/head) and set-up
costs of about $5000, producers claim
price was a major factor influencing their
decision not to use Bioclip, a protein injection
which effectively makes sheep ‘shed’ their
own fleece.
Other reasons for dropping Bioclip
included unsatisfactory animal losses, the
need for better fitting nets that were easier to
use and one farmer considered the process
too labour intensive.
Only two producers surveyed have
adopted Bioclip as an integral part of their
sheep enterprises.
Two farmers were undecided, again stating
price was a deterrent. The seven growers
opting out would reconsider its use if
it became more price-competitive and
improvements were made.
Merial Australia
W
Skin wrinkles and coarse hair fibres are clearly
visible after harvest, helping producers to be more
objective when classing and selecting.
FA R M I N G A H E A D
No. 169
February 2006
Wool harvesting
Livestock
How Bioclip works
Administered to the animal via a
subcutaneous injection, the EGF protein
causes wool follicles to cease fibre production
temporarily to produce a clean break in the
staple just below the skin.
EGF stays active in the sheep’s system for
about 16 hours, after which the sheep’s
metabolism deactivates it. After 48 hours
EGF levels return to normal and wool
grows again.
The system only can be used on Merino and
Merino-cross lambs and hoggets up to 50
kilograms. Lambs less than seven months of
age require two injections 5–14 hours apart
due to their fast metabolism, while older
sheep up to 50kg require only one injection.
Ill or nutritionally stressed animals often
have slower metabolism, so might not
respond to the protein. An incomplete break
in the wool can occur if the protein is released
too slowly.
Sheep are fitted with a lightweight elastic
net in a process called donning. Using a
specially designed cradle, the sheep is laid on
its back and the net pulled over the body in
one piece. Nets are available in four sizes and
can have leg pieces attached if required.
The net keeps the fleece close to the body.
Both the net and the severed fleece are kept in
place for four weeks, allowing for sufficient
new wool growth to protect the sheep after the
fleece is harvested.
Kondinin Group
The nets have been improved continually
since the Biological Wool Harvesting
Company bought the Bioclip technology
during the 1990s.
Producers have been slow to adopt
Bioclip but it has gained a second start
with its relaunch during April 2005 by
Merial Australia.
The Bioclip wool harvesting system eliminates skin cuts and pizzle and teat damage that can occur with
conventional shearing. Sheep present well after harvest and can provide benefits for sale or stud sheep.
TABLE 2 Bioclip use (2000–2005)
New South
Wales
South
Tasmania Victoria Total
Australia
Farmers surveyed
5
2
1
3
11
Average number of times Bioclip was used
3
1
2
3
3
Number of sheep Bioclip was used on
12,926
520
2000
4650
20,096
Average number of sheep per property
Bioclip was used on
2585
260
2000
1550
1827
Source: Kondinin Group Bioclip Wool Harvesting Survey 2005.
During wool harvesting (called doffing),
the sheep is placed on its back in the cradle.
The net is cut between the back legs and
peeled over the sheep’s head, similar to
removing a jumper as the wool adheres to
the net.
The harvested fleece and net can be stacked
easily and tagged, then the wool separated
and skirted or stored.
Farmer evaluation
While Bioclip is being heralded as a
revolution in wool harvesting, the process
might not suit everyone and requires
producers to commit more time and
management skills than with conventional
shearing (see Table 1).
Kondinin Group surveyed 11 wool growers
from across Australia who have used the
TABLE 1 Benefits of the Bioclip wool harvesting system
Wool harvesting
More wool in top line
No second cuts or skin pieces. More even and longer staple length. Fewer locks. Higher percentage of wool in the top
lines. Independent trials showed Bioclip shorn lambs had 20mm longer staple lengths, 12.4% heavier fleece weights and
also produced 24.6% more wool when compared with conventionally shorn lambs.
Easier and safer
Occupational health and safety hazards are reduced. Less strain on the handler (reduced bending and dragging).
Flexible and efficient
The clip can be classed during or after harvest. Lower requirement for skilled labour. More time for classing.
Animal welfare
Improved health
Skin damage is reduced, with fewer cuts that can enhance flystrike and the spread of cheesy gland.
Reduced animal stress
Less animal handling and less physical trauma compared with conventional shearing. Sheep start grazing soon after harvest.
Minimal pizzle and
teat damage
Reduced production losses from teat, pizzle and hamstring injuries. Western Queensland trials have recorded teat damage
of up to 10% in a flock of maiden ewes, which can reduce milk production, lamb survival and growth rates.
Better grass seed control
Wool harvest can be timed to avoid grass seed and fly strike problems. Reduces skin damage and clip contamination.
Wool quality
Improved wool quality
No skin pieces, coarse hair fibres or mechanical damage.
Better animal selection
Coarse hair fibres and skin wrinkle are seen easily after harvest, allowing more objective animal classing and selection for
desirable traits. Fleece can be tagged for identification to an individual animal for objective fleece measurements.
Source: Merial Australia.
FA R M I N G A H E A D
No. 169
February 2006
49
Wool harvesting
system (see Table 2). More than 60 per cent
of the farmers surveyed had used Bioclip
more than once, averaging three years under
the system and harvesting wool from more
than 20,000 sheep combined.
One South Australian producer tried
Bioclip for the first time during 2005 on 170
sheep, while another New South Wales
farmer had used the system for five years on
more than 8500 sheep.
While producers believed in the potential
of the Bioclip system and had achieved
some wool quality and animal selection
benefits, they said it was limited by the high
levels of management and time needed to
ensure its success.
Of those surveyed, seven producers hired
contractors to inject and net their sheep and
the remainder carried out the operations
themselves after attending an accreditation
course and also received initial assistance
from Bioclip staff.
Special equipment
A specialised sheep handler and cradle
(manufactured by Peak Hill Industries) are
required for netting and harvesting fleeces.
Each net size needs a different-sized cradle.
One producer estimated it cost $5000 for
the specialised handler and cradles, others
modified existing equipment or contractors
supplied the sheep handler and cradle.
This
space
is
deliberately
blank
50
Kondinin Group
Livestock
A New South Wales Southern Tablelands producer found many of his sheep were still pink after harvesting
despite retaining the nets for the recommended four weeks.
Injecting and netting
Animal throughput for injecting and
netting can vary from 500 lambs a day for 3–4
inexperienced operators to 1200 lambs a day for
the same number of experienced contractors.
But producers found the success of the
operation relied on correct administration
and dosage.
One producer surveyed experienced
problems with leakage from the injection site,
which he believed contributed to the EGF
protein failing to work effectively in some sheep.
Animal safety
Kondinin Group’s Bioclip survey showed
producers were concerned about how
lambs reacted to both the net and injection
and commonly reported problems with
sheep sulking.
Most animals needed to adjust to
the nets, with some producers believing
the nets were too tight, restricting both the
animals’ movement and their ability to reach
feed and water.
One Tasmania producer surveyed lost several
weaners just after netting due to heat stress.
He suggests avoiding very hot conditions.
Some producers also expressed concerns
about the effect of the EGF protein itself.
One producer lost 27 animals after they
were netted, which he attributed to the stress
of wearing the net.
Checking for cast animals regularly is
recommended but many producers found
they needed to inspect sheep more than once
a day for the first few days.
Six producers reported that nets would
catch on fences and logs: one farmer
estimated 2% of his animals died from
becoming caught on fences and snags.
To prevent snagging, ensure sheep yards
are free of projecting objects such as wire,
mesh or even thick welds.
Keeping mustering and activities such as
supplementary feeding to a minimum
can also reduce the amount netted sheep
rub against each other which can cause
wool clotting in the net, particularly around
the shoulders.
Harvesting the wool
Most producers surveyed found harvesting
the wool was quick and easy. One farmer
estimated two people could defleece five lambs
as quickly as shearing one lamb conventionally.
Removing the wool from animals that did
not have a complete reaction to the EGF
protein or had a lot of hair fibres was more
difficult and often required hand plucking,
although more difficult areas such as around
the brisket sometimes had to be shorn.
Wool from areas not covered by the net
such as the topknot, jowls, shank and crutch
cannot be harvested. Fine wool growers
surveyed found this wool loss unacceptable,
while other producers considered the loss to
be negligible.
One NSW Southern Tablelands fine
wool producer who ran his own two-year
comparison of Bioclip and conventional
shearing estimated 24% of total fleece weight
was lost when using Bioclip nets without
leg pieces.
One option to prevent this loss is to shear
these areas before donning. All Biolcip nets
are now sold with leg pieces.
Like conventional shearing, adequate
shelter is needed if rainfall or cold weather is
likely at harvest.
In one instance, during 2005 the same
producer lost 450 lambs in a storm
FA R M I N G A H E A D
No. 169
February 2006
after doffing. Additionally, in two of the three
years he used Bioclip, the sheep were still
pink with little wool growth at harvest, despite
leaving the nets on for 35 days. This possibly
could be due to drought slowing the animals’
wool growth. No losses were experienced in a
mob of conventionally shorn sheep used as a
comparison group.
The manufacturer suggests producers
check the amount of regrowth before
removing the nets to ensure sheep have
enough protection at harvest.
If sheep are still pink, the nets can be left
on for another week (but not indefinitely
as the nets only retain a maximum of 5kg
of wool).
Kondinin Group
Reducing stress
Less stress on animals and excellent
recovery after harvest were rated as the major
benefits of Bioclip.
Many producers surveyed were impressed
with how well sheep presented after doffing
and their subsequent progress.
But the Southern Tablelands grower
experienced higher growth rates in
conventionally shorn sheep in the month
after shearing compared with Bioclip
harvested animals.
He compared 100
conventionally shorn and 100 Bioclip lambs
that were run together. The lambs were
weighed first at shearing then monthly for
three months.
The conventionally shorn animals gained
an extra 87 grams per day over their Bioclip
counterparts. Despite their initial growth lag,
the Bioclip lambs had nearly caught up within
three months.
Adopting Bioclip improved the returns for
one SA producer whose conventionally shorn
lambs were often penalised for lacking a
‘fresh sucker look’ at sale but his Bioclip
Wool cannot be harvested from the parts of the
sheep not covered by the net such as the crutch
and topknot unless the sheep is shorn before
administering the injection. A southern NSW
Tablelands producer estimated 24 per cent of total
fleece weight was lost by using Bioclip (nets
without leg pieces).
FA R M I N G A H E A D
No. 169
Livestock
Kondinin Group
Wool harvesting
February 2006
Some sheep lost valuable wool from the top of their legs but with improvements such as additional leg
pieces, more of the leg can be covered, reducing the amount of wool lost.
lambs looked fresh for up to two months after
harvest and sold well.
Selling the clip
While removing the nets was easy, many
producers had problems with the timeconsuming task of separating the fleece from
the net, particularly fleeces with burrs.
Stretching the net over a frame can make
separation easier.
Producers also had to adjust to handling
and classing the Bioclip fleeces, as the
belly wool stayed attached and less skirting
was needed due to the reduced levels of
stain contamination.
Some producers achieved more top line
wool, with one wool grower estimating 85%
of his clip was classed as AAA.
According to Kondinin Group’s survey all
producers surveyed sold their Bioclip wool in
the same way as conventionally shorn fleeces.
But only one farmer reported receiving
a premium for his Bioclip wool over
conventionally shorn wool — in the previous
year he actually received less for Bioclip wool
than he did for conventionally shorn wool.
Four producers believed their Bioclip wool
received higher prices due to more wool in
the top line and longer staple lengths but they
did not sell any conventionally shorn wool
to compare.
One farmer withdrew his first Bioclip line
from sale due to contamination from the nets.
Another grower said his wool was
catalogued with other Bioclip lines to attract
a premium but there was insufficient wool
to interest buyers.
To address the issue of premium prices,
the makers of Bioclip are promoting the
advantages of skin-free wool to buyers
and processors.
Flexibility for the farm
A major advantage of the Bioclip system is
the ability to plan operations around available
labour and other farming practices.
For some wool producers, particularly those
on smaller properties, this allows better use of
family labour outside of the usual shearing
day, varying workloads and scheduling
activities to avoid the heat of the day.
But like shearing there are a limited
number of accredited contractors. The labour
shortage meant several producers were
unable to complete timely Bioclip operations.
Bioclip is available only through accredited
resellers and producers need to be
accredited to purchase and use the system
(two-day accreditation workshops are
available). Certified contractors are available.
Best features
• Improved wool quality with more even
staple and increased wool in the top lines.
• No skin pieces.
• No cuts and damage to teats and pizzles.
• No second cuts and reduced locks.
• Less animal stress and quick recovery
after harvest.
Worst features
• High level of management.
• Nets are restrictive and difficult to use.
• Cost.
Price
The cost of Bioclip has fallen since Kondinin
Group carried out its survey with nets and
injections now available for $4.50/head;
contractors are an additional $1–$3/head.
Contact
Merial Australia
Phone: (02) 9893 0000 or 1800 808 691.
Note: The manufacturer has viewed this report and
their comments have been incorporated.
About the author
Fleur Muller is a research officer and
writer for Farming Ahead magazine.
Email: [email protected]
51