312 OHIO EXPERIMENT STATION: BULLETIN 294 



commercially. The wool was put through three scouring liquors 

 containing potash soap and potassium carbonate, of gradually dimin- 

 ishing strengths, and finally through a rinse of clear, warm water. 

 The wool was dried to a constant weight at a temperature of 150 F. 

 both before and after scouring, to overcome any differences in 

 moisture content that might exist on different days. The entire 

 1912 clip was shipped to Cleveland and scoured in a commercial 

 plant. Here the wool was put through three scouring liquors and a 

 final rinse of clear, warm water. This wool was dried to a constant 

 weight at 150 F. before it was shipped to Cleveland, and after it 

 was scoured it was returned to Wooster and again dried to a con- 

 stant weight at the same temperature. 



INFLUENCE OF WASHING ON YIELD OF GREASE WOOL 

 AND OF SCOURED WOOL 



Table I shows the total amount and the average yield per head 

 of grease and of scoured wool produced by each lot of sheep in 1912 

 and 1913. This table shows that the amount of loss in weight of 

 fleece due to washing sheep before shearing depends somewhat upon 

 the time of the year when the washing was done. When the sheep 

 were washed, and then shorn April 12, the average for the 2 years 

 showed a loss of only 1.49 pounds per fleece due to washing; but, 

 when they were washed, and then shorn June 1, this loss was 2.64 

 pounds per fleece. This difference can perhaps be attributed to one 

 or more of the following causes: (1) While the oil in wool is not 

 readily soluble in water, it is quite probable that some of it is dis- 

 solved when the sheep are washed. As stated on page 315, it seems 

 that the wool shorn June 1 contained more yolk and was thus liable 

 to a greater loss of this material in washing than was the wool shorn 

 April 12. (2) The higher atmospheric temperature may have made 

 the yolk softer in June than in April, either rendering the yolk itself 

 more soluble, or making it possible for the water to wash out more 

 of the other impurities entangled in the yolk. It is probable that 

 both factors were in operation. (3) The water in which the sheep 

 were washed was warmer in June than in April, making it more 

 effective in removing foreign matter from the wool. 



It is possible, although not probable, that the shock and excite- 

 ment due to washing might affect the health of the sheep to such an 

 extent as to retard the growth of the wool the following year. The 

 yield of scoured wool produced by the different lots, as presented in 

 Table I, throws some light on this point. The average weight of 

 scoured wool produced per head was practically the same for the 

 washed and for the unwashed sheep shorn April 12, but when the 



