It seems unfathomable that the strong wool industry, once our largest export earner, is today fighting for survival.
Worse than that, there is a widespread view it has one last chance to remain viable, both economically and in the volume of fibre produced.
During the Korean War farmers received £1 for a pound of wool.
It was white gold, its insulation properties recognised, and competition from synthetic fibres negligible.
Returns from wool as recently as 1980-81 made up half the income from sheep.
Now, that contribution was less than 10%.
In the 1980s, farming publications were carrying stories about farmers turning to all-wool farming in protest at continued industrial action by meat worker unions and low meat returns.
Today, that trend has reversed, with increasing numbers of farmers treating wool as a by-product of meat.
The reality is that farmers need wool returns to improve to make sheep farming more viable.
This week's Government-commissioned report by a Wool Taskforce, the fifth in 40 years to look at the sector's economic viability, said although strong wool had a future, there needed to be a change in the way it was marketed to be more consumer focused, united, and a single representative body formed.
It is not rocket science, but a model being widely followed, including by the fine wool marketing company New Zealand Merino, the New Zealand Honey Company and wool exporters Wool Partners International and Elders Primary Wool.
It means adding value to a product and retailer through a point of difference, in wool's case attributes of being sustainable, ethical, socially responsible and environmentally sound, and then capturing that value for the producer.
Coupled with having the right products, brands and targeted promotion, the report said strong wool satisfied the demands of discerning modern-day consumers.
The reasons for the fibre's demise are deeply ingrained and evident in the structures and mistrust between the various entities, with little evidence of a desire to change or for new thinking.
An example of the new thinking required, was the realisation that wool was an ingredient in other products and for wool to prosper, demand for those products must also grow.
For decades, wool has been marketed as a commodity - or disposed of as the 2007 Wool Industry Network (Win) report termed it - through an auction system.
Promotion was of generic wool, initially through the International Wool Secretariat and then Wools of New Zealand.
Farmers in 2004 baulked at the $250 million spent by Wools of New Zealand for what they saw as little or limited return, and wound up the organisation's parent, the Wool Board, leaving promotion to exporters and manufacturers.
It failed.
Consumers no longer know of wool's qualities, and even though debate still rages over the effectiveness of that earlier promotion, the space once occupied by wool has been taken by synthetics.
Woollen carpets account for about 2% of the world's floor covering market.
Last year, farmers voted to stop paying levies on the volume of wool produced, which funded research, shearer training and could have been used for promotion.
Federated Farmers Meat and Fibre section chairman Bruce Wills put it less than subtly when he said the current model has returned farmers the lowest wool prices ever.
Agriculture Minister David Carter last week showed little patience for the sector's behaviour, backing the task force's findings and saying he would not tolerate continued fighting within the industry.
There are similarities in the views of Win and the task force.
"The industry is in need of a shared vision and a more unified approach.
It will only be through collectivisation that the industry can be turned around and the full potential and value of our quality product can be realised," said Win chief executive Mike Jones in November 2007.
Wool Taskforce chairman Jeff Grant wrote in his report: "If we are to make a positive change to our industry, it is clear that we need to do things differently from the way we have done them in the past.
The challenge now is for everyone with an interest in the future of the sector to consider this report and begin ongoing positive discussion."But achieving peace and unity in an industry wracked by distrust, anger and fighting will be difficult to achieve.
It has not been a hallmark of the wool sector, even though there appears little argument in the suggested targeted and branded marketing solution.
Ironically, the task force solution has similarities to Win's suggestions and the direction being taken by Wool Partners International and Elders Primary Wool.
But even these two companies have been sniping and fighting with each other.
Council of Wool Exporters executive manager Nick Nicholson sees unity being achieved only by removing the influence of levy-funded organisations, as will happen in April, when farmers no longer pay a wool levy.
"We believe they haven't worked with the industry, but worked against it most of the time."He referred to the Wool Board in 1990-91 using its reserves to underpin sagging wool prices which inflated the price for buyers, and latterly led to the establishment, following the Win report, of the grower-owned Wool Partners International.
"Clearly, there is a lot of disharmony in the industry, and if you look closely, the perception of farmers is that it is an industry in turmoil, but most of the industry is united," he said.
Mr Nicholson said there was much in the task force report his group could not argue with, but he disagreed with the focus on selling New Zealand branded wool, saying there should be an international push by all wool producers to expand wool consumption.
"We believe the brand is wool and it should be promoted as wool world-wide."
That generic promotion should be targeted at areas such as retail staff promotion and consumers, and "not go out and blast the airways about wool."
Mr Nicolson said unless the value of all wool increased, buyers would simply swap New Zealand wool for a cheaper alternative.
While wanting levy-funded bodies to stop meddling in the industry and blaming them for the perilous state it has reached, Mr Nicolson said the taskforce wanted growers to start contributing financially again, but he said they should not control the industry as they had previously.
"Levy funders have said how the industry should be run, and it hasn't worked and they blame everyone else.
They don't acknowledge they have bullied the industry for 50 years, they've had all the money, and it hasn't worked."
Mr Carter vowed the taskforce's report would not be allowed to languish, but said the first step was to get unity.
That could give the sector access to Government funding.
"We're not saying yes, but present something to us."
"That lack of unity has proven costly.
A funding application to the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology was declined last year in part due to a lack of unity, but the taskforce said it should be resubmitted once the industry showed it was united and had adopted its suggestions.
Mr Carter said he believed the bulk of participants supported the direction of the taskforce and were prepared to bury previous conflict, in what he called a "swing towards unity and away from self-interest."
Achieving that unity is the first and most significant challenge.
The second is to attract innovative and skilled people to the industry.
