255 
published in full in the n®nthly report above referred to. This opinion 
was adverse to the contemplated exchange, for the reason that no bene- 
fit to our wool interests could reasonably be expected from the introdue- 
tion of Australian merinos into this country. The only State wool- 
growers’ associations from which the Department has received a report 
upon the merits of the wools which were sent to them, are those of 
Pennsylvania and Ohio. The latter, after having submitted the sam- 
ples to the examination of a committee of ten good judges of wool, 
passed a resolution that, in their opinion, “ the fine-wool flocks of Ohio 
‘ could not be benefited by introducing a cross of blood from the fine- 
wool flocks of New South Wales.” The Pennsylvania association also 
submitted the Australian samples to a competent and judicious com- 
mittee, whose report is given below in full. Im communicating this re- 
port to the Department, the president of the association, F. Julius Le 
Moyne, esq., remarks tbat ‘“ wool-growers in the United States are not 
in the habit of preparing their wool for market as these Australian sam- 
ples were evidently prepared—most of them having been partially 
scoured, soap and chemicals being used in the operation; while Ameri- 
can wools are generally sold either in the grease or brook-washed. In 
view of the fact that this difference of preparation renders a compari- 
son of foreign with American wools more difficult and uncertain, Mr. 
Le Moyne suggests that “a uniform manner of preparing our wools for 
the market is very desirable, and would save much trouble in the traf- 
fic, and give character and stability to the business.” 
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SAMPLES OF AUSTRALIAN WOOL. 
To Dr. F. J. Le Moyne, president of The State of Pennsylvania Wool-Growers’ Association : 
The undersigned committee, to whom you assigned for examination samples of Aus- 
tralian wool received by you from the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture 
at Washington City, D. C., respectfully report: 
Those of the thirty-three samples offered to our inspection which have been partially 
scoured are much better cleansed than is customary in our State, are in very nice con- 
dition, and compare very favorably with the wools of the same class in Pennsylvania. 
The scale of comparative qualities, as given in the small pamphlet accompanying 
the samples, (if we rightly understand it,) affords a method, if skillfully and honestly 
administered, of arriving at the comparative merits of fleeces of different sheep, and of 
varieties of breed. No such standards have been adopted in this State. The relative 
and comparative points are well presented in this pamphlet, embracing all the samples 
of wool presented for inspection. ; 
After a careful examination, we have selected as XXX, (triple X) or pick-lock, in our 
mode of grading, the samples Nos. 1, 6, 8, 11, 12, and 32; and, with the exception of 
32, the others are too light in fleece, falling nearly a pound in weight below the cus- 
tomary weight of premium fleeces in our standard flocks in the State of the same grade 
of wool, viz., XXX. We calculate on two and a half to three pounds of clean wool of 
this grade, while, with the exception of No. 32, these Australian wools fall short of that 
weight nearly or quite one pound to the fleece. 
With repect to the samples Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15, and 16, also Nos. 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 
29, and 30, second quality, some of which might be graded somewhat above our XX 
(double X) when compared with the fleeces of our “improved American merino,” which 
produce XX wool, we are safe in saying large selections can be made from the standard 
flocks in our State, either clean or in the grease, which would greatly excel these Austra- 
lian samples in nearly every point of comparison. 
The remaining samples we would class with our single X wools, most of which would 
fall Peay the products of our American merino fleeces of that grade, more especially 
in weight. 
Sample No. 31, French merino, is, in our opinion, the poorest in the lot. After a short 
experiment with this breed of sheep in this State, we abandoned them quickly, as un-- 
worthy of propagation. Their fiber is very deficient in strength, and their fleeces too 
light in proportion to their heavy carcasses. ! 
The weeht of the carcasses from which these Australian fleeces were shown not being 
given, one essential point of merit and comparison was not afforded us. 
We present, from our own observation, for the consideration of those interested, the 
general product from ewes in the good flocks of our State, the weight of clean fleeces, 
and their percentage to the weight of the animal: 
