15/06/2026
The introduction of fibre testing results into halter judging at the National Show will generate considerable discussion within our industry. Objective fibre measurement is a valuable tool and has contributed significantly to genetic improvement across a number of livestock industries. However, its inclusion in the halter judging process raises a fundamental question:
If the information is not intended to influence judging decisions, why is it being presented to judges during the judging process?
Before commenting further, I think it is important to provide some context. I come from a scientific background and strongly support the use of objective measurement, data and science-based decision making. My comments should therefore not be interpreted as opposition to objective fibre measurement. I believe it plays an important role in breeding decisions, genetic improvement and commercial fibre production.
Between us, Ron and I have 57 years of experience in the alpaca industry and have seen many changes, some positive, some less so, and some that produced unintended consequences despite the best of intentions.
Objective fibre measurement and halter judging assess different things. Fibre testing measures a limited number of fibre characteristics. Halter judging assesses the complete animal, including handle, density, uniformity, length, brightness, conformation and balance—in other words, the overall quality of the fleece and animal.
While fibre diameter is undoubtedly an important commercial trait, it is not the sole determinant of fleece value, textile performance or breeding merit. Softness, handle and processing performance are influenced by a range of factors including uniformity, density, length, brightness, medullation and overall fibre consistency. Handle itself is influenced not only by fibre diameter, but also by factors such as follicle symmetry and fibre surface characteristics including scale structure and scale height. The trial testing regime captures only part of the picture, creating a risk that undue emphasis may be placed on the characteristics that are measured while equally important attributes remain unrepresented.
Density provides a useful example. A 20-micron fleece with exceptional density is economically superior to an 18-micron fleece with poor density because it produces more saleable fibre. Yet objective measurements of density will not be provided to the judge.
The experience of the Merino industry reinforces this point. Decades of breeding have shown that long-term genetic progress is achieved through balance, not by chasing individual traits in isolation. The most successful breeding programs focus on fibre quality, production and overall performance rather than placing excessive emphasis on any one trait.
The alpaca industry remains relatively young and is many generations behind the Merino industry in terms of genetic development and consistency. We should therefore be careful not to create incentives that may place disproportionate emphasis on a small number of measured characteristics rather than the overall quality of the animal.
We also need to remember that judges are human. This is not a criticism of judges; additional information naturally influences decision-making. Presenting micron, SD, CV and Comfort Factor on an exhibitor card creates an unavoidable risk that these measurements will influence placings, even if no formal weighting is assigned to them.
Historically, livestock shows have influenced breeding direction far beyond the animals that actually enter the ring. If exhibitors perceive that certain measured traits are being highlighted, selection pressure will naturally move in that direction. The concern is therefore not whether micron, SD, CV and Comfort Factor are useful measurements, they clearly are, but whether displaying a limited subset of objective data during halter judging could gradually shift breeding priorities toward those characteristics at the expense of other equally important aspects of fleece and animal quality, including density, brightness, length, conformation and overall balance.
The proposal also raises questions regarding voluntary participation. If some alpacas are tested and others are not, judges will be presented with different levels of information for different exhibits, creating an uneven playing field.
Objective fibre testing has an important place within the alpaca industry. The question is not whether objective measurement should be used, but whether displaying a limited set of fibre measurements to judges during halter judging is appropriate at this early stage of the industry. The traits we reward in the show ring inevitably influence the traits breeders select for. Any initiative with the potential to shape future breeding decisions should promote balanced genetic improvement and reflect the full range of traits that contribute to commercial value and long-term industry sustainability, rather than elevating a small number of measured characteristics above overall merit.
