494 Journal of the Department of Agriculture. — Dec, 1922. 



The following' table gives a compari.son of the prices in recent years 

 with those of 1914, as well as the quantities exported dniing the 

 same years : — 



Wool (gredL8e) — Average price ... ... 1920 ... 21' • 3d. per lb. 



1921 ... 7-9d. perlb. 

 May ... 1922 ... 10 -Id. perlb. 



1914 ... 7 •2d. perlb. 



Quantity of wool 1921 ... 230^ million lb., valued at £8,236,835 

 (scoured and grease) 1920 ... 119 million lb., valued at £15,988,103 



exported 



1914 ... 133| million lb., valued at £4,228,(i30 



Mohair — Average price 1921 ... 8*18(1. perlb. 



1920 ... 19-80d. per lb. 



1914 ... 10 -Gd. perlb. 



Quantity exported ... 1921 ... 17,128,000 lb., valued at £583,G43 



1920 ... (;,290,000 11)., valued at £518,973 



1914 ... 18,865,743 lb., valued at £834,202 



Wool merchants confirm the Department's conviction that great 

 improvement has been made in recent years in the quality of the 

 Mool clip. This is due both to the progressive spirit of breeders and 

 to the sound educational work of the sheep and wool experts employed 

 by the Department. 



When it became known that the United States (iovernment 

 proposed to reimpose the 1909 tariff (withdrawn during the war) and 

 thus levy an import duty of 15 cents per lb. on unwashed wool, the 

 Union Government made representations showing the damaging 

 effect on South African wool of basing a tariff on unwashed wool 

 instead of clean yield, in view of the fact that South African wool 

 yields only 38 per cent, of clean wool as against 48 per cent, obtained 

 from Australian wool. The tariff of 1909 was, however, broiight 

 intc operation again, but only as an emergency measure, designed, 

 it would seem, to give immediate relief to the wool growers of the 

 United States. The question raised by the Union Government was 

 left over for later consideration. A permanent tariff has since been 

 passed which makes provision on the lines urged by the Union 

 Go^•ernment. 



Instances of false packing of wool continue to be brought to the 

 l!>epartment's notice. It has been urged by purchasers that legislation 

 should be passed to prevent such dishonest practice, which is carried 

 on by a few, apparently with the intention to deceive the buyer. 

 It would be very difficult, however, to frame suitable legislation for 

 this purpose. Several associations have been formed this year for 

 the proper sorting and marketing of wool, for the protection of the 

 growers, and for securing the best prices according to quality. By 



