I guess its more a question of what that fraction is versus cotton or synthetics, and then what the cost of processing is for wool vs cotton & synthetic.

Harvesting wool is done by hand, and takes probably 1.5-2.5 people per sheep (depending on how many shearers the rousey can work at once, how big the shed is, whether sorting & pressing is done by another person as well as someone in the yards) and that's excluding the farmer. I would guess that automatically makes it more expensive as a raw product than alternatives.

[–] flathead@quex.cc 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't know how total emissions stack up for wool vs synthetic production, but the article suggests that sustainability be used as a rationale for subsidies.

[–] Dave 2 points 1 year ago

I guess you have to start weighing up impacts of higher stock numbers vs impacts of non-degradable plastic. What do carbon emissions of sheep farming look like compared to say cattle? Because subsidising wool would surely lead to an oversupply of sheep meat.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis 3 points 1 year ago

That's probably a bit to do with where the wool spinning (for garments) ends up happening, then the dying, then the garment making.

The problem for farmers is its good for the sheep in different parts of the year to have the wool taken off, but some years the margins can be so tight you're almost paying to have the sheep shorn, the whole process barely breaks even.

There's been a bunch of genetics research into self-shedding sheep for that reason, the flip from the 80s is that sheep in NZ is about meat now (for the most part) not wool.