using the cotton management system™ to minimize … · 2020. 5. 7. · using the cotton...

44
USING THE COTTON MANAGEMENT SYSTEM™ TO MINIMIZE RAW MATERIAL COSTS AND MAXIMIZE QUALITY Michael Watson – Fiber Competition Division

Upload: others

Post on 15-Feb-2021

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • USING THE COTTON MANAGEMENT SYSTEM™ TO MINIMIZE RAW MATERIAL COSTS AND MAXIMIZE QUALITY

    • Michael Watson – Fiber Competition Division

  • SPINNING JENNY

  • INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

  • EARLY RING SPINNING …1880’S

  • MODERN RING SPINNING

  • OPEN END SPINNING

  • VORTEX SPINNING

  • 400 METERS/MINUTE PER POSITION

  • MANUAL CLASSING

  • Costs of Making Yarn

    62% 12%

    11%

    10% Fiber

    Power

    Capital

    Waste

    Other Mat.

    Labor

    Relative Costs of Manufacturing Ring-Spun Yarn in China

    • Fiber represents more than 60% of the cost of making yarn

    Source: International Textiles Manufacturers’ Federation (ITMF) International Cost of Production Comparison

  • Early USDA Interest in Instrument Classification

    • Work Started in 1930’s – Colorimeter – Color Grades

  • MILL FIBER QUALITY MEASURMENTS

  • HVI DATA CAN BE OVERWHELMING

  • PBI TAG

  • USDA Cotton National Database

  • BRAZIL AND CHINA PBI TAGS

  • HVI DATA CAN BE STILL BE OVERWHELMING

  • ® EFS System

    QRNet32

    Mills Merchants

    Co-ops

    MILLNet MILLNet32

    TM

    Engineered Fiber Selection® System Software

    USCROP™

    http://www.cottoninc.com/EFSSoftwarePrograms/

  • A Short History of EFS®

    • Late 1970’s – Concept Developed • 1981 – First Licensee • 1988 – First International Licensee • 1991 – 100% HVI® Classing of U.S. Crop • Since 1994 – 8+ Million Bales Managed per

    Year

    29

  • EFS® MILLNet Users Worldwide

    • China – 9 • Hong Kong – 2 • Korea – 3 • Thailand – 5 • Philippines – 1 • Vietnam - 1

    • U.S. – 23 • Canada – 1 • Mexico – 11 • Colombia – 2 • Peru - 1

    • Morocco – 1

    Mexico

    Korea

    Thailand

    Canada

    Philippines Hong Kong

    Korea

    Thailand

    China

    Morocco Colombia

  • •For both mix and inventory control •Usually determined by growth area, staple length, end product, spinning system and/or crop year

    •For both mix and HVI control •Usually determined by spinning system, HVI distributions, end product, quality concerns, and/or blending efficiency •Ranked in order of importance

    Groups

    Categories

    Group | Category

  • Bale Tags

  • MILLNet Warehouse

  • MILLNet Laydown Template

  • MIC LEN STR Avg. 4.0 1.12 28.0 %CV 8.0 3.5 4.5

    Overall Mix:

    MIC LEN STR 4.0 1.12 28.0 8.0 3.5 4.5

    MIC LEN STR 4.0 1.12 28.0 8.0 3.5 4.5

    Overall Mix:

    MIC LEN STR 4.0 1.12 28.0 8.0 3.5 4.5

    MIC LEN STR 4.0 1.12 28.0 8.0 3.5 4.5

    EFS® Vs. Standard Mixes

    Standard Bales Random

    EFS® Mini-mixes

    MIC LEN STR 4.0 1.12 28.0 8.0 3.5 4.5

    MIC LEN STR Avg. 4.0 1.12 28.0 %CV 8.0 3.5 4.5

  • MIX 1 MIX 2

    MIX 3 MIX 4

    MIX 5 MIX 6

    EFS® Vs. Standard Mixes

    Standard

    EFS®

  • 5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    17

    13

    Raw Material Savings Using EFS System Software®

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

    Yar

    n S

    tren

    gth

    G/T

    Before EFS System® After EFS System®

    92% Weaving Efficacy

    Average Yarn Strength Before EFS System®

    Average Yarn Strength After EFS System®

    Savings in $$

    Laydowns Per Day

  • EFS® Analytical Tools Bales: 878Mean: 4.108Std: 0.294CV%: 7.163Hi Out: 0Lo Out: 0

    16

    32

    48

    64

    80

    96

    112

    128

    3.23 3.52 3.81 4.11 4.40 4.70 4.99

    Micronaire Groups ALL

    40

    45

    50

    55

    60

    65

    70

    75

    80

    85

    90

    5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 174 18

    WHITE

    LT SP

    SPOTTED

    TINGED

    Y.S.

    BG

    GO

    SGO

    LM

    SLM

    MSM

    GM

    81

    71

    61

    51

    41

    31

    2111

    1

    2

    3

    4

    Le

    <

    <

    >

    A

    M

    US Up a d Co o C a t o 8 8 ba es

    Avg Rd: 79.71, Avg +b: 8.89 (21-1), 100.00% of 878 possible

  • A FINAL WORD: OUR “REAL” COMPETITION

  • Cotton’s Competition—Synthetic Fibers

    USING THE COTTON MANAGEMENT SYSTEM™ TO MINIMIZE RAW MATERIAL COSTS AND MAXIMIZE QUALITYSlide Number 2Slide Number 3SPINNING JENNYINDUSTRIAL REVOLUTIONEARLY RING SPINNING …1880’SSlide Number 7MODERN RING SPINNINGOPEN END SPINNINGVORTEX SPINNING 400 METERS/MINUTE PER POSITION��MANUAL CLASSINGSlide Number 13Costs of Making YarnSlide Number 15Early USDA Interest in Instrument ClassificationSlide Number 17Slide Number 18Slide Number 19Slide Number 20Slide Number 21MILL FIBER QUALITY MEASURMENTSHVI DATA CAN BE OVERWHELMINGPBI TAGUSDA Cotton National DatabaseBRAZIL AND CHINA PBI TAGSHVI DATA CAN BE STILL BE OVERWHELMINGSlide Number 28A Short History of EFS®Slide Number 30Slide Number 31Slide Number 32Slide Number 33Slide Number 34Slide Number 35Slide Number 36Slide Number 37Slide Number 38Slide Number 39Slide Number 40Slide Number 41EFS® Analytical ToolsA FINAL WORD:�OUR “REAL” COMPETITIONSlide Number 44