A major disappointment of my farming career has been the demise of the crossbred wool industry.
Wool is a naturally produced sustainable product meeting the requirements of discerning high-paying customers.
Fibres are strong, resilient, take dye well, are fire resistant and suitable for a range of products.
Production can be varied to meet processing requirements.
During the heady days of the early 1950s wool reached 440c/kg.
During the late 1980s the prices received for our main line of wool ranged from 450c to 543c/kg.
However, by 2009 this had fallen to 321c/kg.
The market has risen recently and at the last sale our wool type reached 394c/kg.
However, history tells us that unless we change the way we market wool the price will inevitably fall again.
While wool prices fall, farm costs rise, squeezing profitability.
Synthetic fibre manufactures through aggressive marketing have taken a greater share of the world fibre market, even though they can never replicate some of wool's qualities.
The problem lies in the model by which we sell our wool.
We have between 20 and 40 wool exporters buying wool as cheaply as they can and selling it on for a few cents' margin.
They spend minimal resources on marketing, mainly because the selling model does not enable them to do this.
If an exporter earns a premium by innovative marketing, others will undercut their price.
Despite frequent criticism I believe the farmer levy-funded producer organisations did a good job.
The Wool Research Organisation of New Zealand carried out innovative research which led to significant new advances in processing and uses for wool.
Our wools enjoyed a premium over British wools, because of acknowledged good colour and quality.
It is significant that since that marketing ceased, the premium has evaporated.
However, that model was also flawed.
I believe it is virtually impossible to promote and market a product when you have no control over the supply, flow or quality of the product.
The entity marketing must be able to control the supply and quality of the product.
I strongly believe the only way forward is a strong marketing entity controlling at least 60% to 70% of the crossbred wool clip.
Such a body would have strength to invest in marketing, and assist processors and retailers with technical and marketing assistance.
New Zealand is a significant player in the international strong wool trade, and could exert some influence on prices.
Farmers are the only group that can create such an entity.
It seems Wool Grower Holdings will shortly release a prospectus inviting farmers to subscribe and supply their wool to a farmer-owned co-operative.
I urge all strong wool farmers to very seriously consider supporting the proposal.
It will only work if a majority of farmers support it with their wool.
If farmers sit on the fence to see what transpires, it will not work as it will not achieve sufficient critical mass.
Many farmers have been through tough times recently, especially in Southland and South Otago, and drought-affected areas.
The proposal needs to recognise this in the cost of entry. I see this as the last opportunity to revive the strong wool industry.
We farmers simply have to take control of our own destiny. If we don't, we get what we deserve.
Processors tell us they could pay more, but don't because they don't have to.
John Aspinall is a Wanaka farmer.