This study was performed on commercially available material. The cottons were obtained from a variety of sources within Texas from the 1986 cotton crop and had all been classed by the USDA. Dale Shaw of the Plains Cotton Cooperative Association in Lubbock, Texas, had been intimately involved with their selection and reported((1)) on this work at the 1989 Beltwide Cotton Conference. In his report, he had shown that within those cottons which had been reduced in value by one grade because of the presence of bark, it was possible to subdivide these cottons further, according to their perceived bark content.

The evaluation of these cottons, reported((2)) at the same Beltwide Conference, showed that the visual assessment of these cottons was a reasonable indicator of processing performance. The subgroup of barky cottons identified as having a medium bark level was processed with similar efficiency to those cottons which had not been reduced for bark. The cottons comprising the group described as having a heavy bark level were found to be difficult to process.

The inference was clear: Some cottons classed as "barky" could be spun into yarn as well as cottons which had not been so reduced in value. The penalty for bark could be unjust, therefore, on many occasions. In addition, the question was raised that, it a responsible amateur cotton classer could differentiate between lots, why could not the USDA's classing system?

In 1990, a second study was completed which will be reported by Roger Haidenby((3)). It had set out to determine levels of bark in cotton which could be used to establish standards. While this goal was not achieved, it was realized that newer textile mill cleaning machinery was capable of handling barky cottons much better than anticipated.

Many of the cottons which had been assessed in the first study were still available. As a result of the second study's findings, R was left advisable to assess their performance after processing through the more modern equipment which was installed at the International Center for Textile Research and Development. The sequences of final preparation, spinning and testing were to be performed on identical equipment to that used before.