Abstract
Inspired by the slow fashion movement, this is an exploratory case study focused on New York’s raw fiber-to-retail value chain for local clothing and textiles. New York has over 470 diverse sheep, alpaca, goat farms, fiber processing mills for product development, and fiber festivals for retail. A survey with farmers presents their motives for establishing a fiber farm business, diverse fibers available, fiber products, income, and their multiple retail venues. Interviews were conducted with farmers, fiber mill owners, and artisan designers. Primary research objectives included: (1) determining how fiber farms, mills, artisans, fiber festivals, and fiber agro-tourism intersect to sustain the current fiber community; (2) evaluating the major challenges the fiber community faces; (3) determining if stakeholders of the fiber community have benefited from any policies; and (4) understanding future goals New York raw fiber-to-fashion stakeholders have to sustain the local fiber community. Interviews reveal several leadership initiatives developed by fiber farmers to address challenges of finding a market, limited income, and fiber mill closures. This study uses the five key dimensions of slow fashion as a framework to evaluate New York raw fiber-to-retail.
Introduction
Fast fashion is the dominating business model of the global fashion industry. Leading fast fashion retailers include H&M and Zara that offer low cost trendy clothing at accelerated production and consumption cycles (Taplin, 2014). Key factors that lead consumers to buy fast fashions include instant satisfaction, quantity, and their low cost. However, consumers donate or throw away fast fashions due to inferior product quality (Watson and Yan, 2013). This system is unsustainable based on the throw away culture it creates. Although a fast fashion production model is used by the global fashion industry, local fashion entrepreneurship suggests opportunities for sustainable clothing and textile development (Brydges, 2018; Langdown, 2014).
In response to the environmental and social issues of the fashion industry, slow fashion is part of a global sustainable fashion movement (Henninger et al., 2016). The term “slow fashion” was introduced by Kate Fletcher (2007) who emphasizes quality in production, rather than speed. She indicates that slow fashion involves “designing, producing, consuming and living better” (p. 61). Slow fashion parallels slow food by encouraging healthy localized value chains, quality, and consumer consciousness (Petrini, 2001). Fashion and food are linked to agricultural systems as they provide fibers that can support and sustain our lives (Fletcher and Vittersø, 2018). Clark (2008) indicates that slow fashion is characterized by local resources and distributed economies, transparent production, and creating sustainable, sensorial products. Clark suggests that slow and fashion are paradoxes to the traditional fashion system of production and consumption; however, it is an opportunity for sustainability to redefine fashion. Several scholars identify challenges and barriers to slow fashion including economics and the consumer-attitude gap (Cataldi et al., 2010; Ertekin and Atik, 2015; Štefko and Steffek, 2018).
The importance of renewable, natural fibers in local fashion is increasingly apparent at community, and broader industry scales (Fibershed, 2017). Several studies highlight the feasibility of local clothing and textile production (Bieg et al., 2014; Cao et al., 2014; Daniels et al., 2016). The Northern California Fibershed non-profit has led research and development efforts to support farmer and apparel industry partnerships. A notable example is with the outdoor apparel brand, The North Face, where they highlighted key aspects of their U.S. supply chain including the farms, yarn spinners, and sewing facilities (Grace, 2016; Sustainable Brands, 2014). They developed a “Backyard Collection” and the Cali Wool Beanie made of Climate Beneficial Wool from a California sheep farm. Domestic manufacturing initiatives align with consumers’ interest in locally produced natural fiber products (Bernard et al., 2013; Cao et al., 2014).
Fashion geography scholar Louise Crewe (2017) indicates that the biological origins of clothing are just as important as who makes our clothes and where they are made. Natural materials such as plant-based fibers (cotton, linen) and animal fibers (wool, alpaca) are biological aspects of clothing. There are several slow fashion approaches with wool and cashmere at limited edition scales to exemplify sustainable and sensorial products (Clark, 2008). Fiber farmers can add value to raw fibers from sheep, alpaca, and goats by preparing fibers for consumers to purchase, such as roving for hand-spinning, yarns for knitting, crochet, or weaving (Lowry, 2014; Stannard, 2020; Trejo, 2014). Consumers can find these products at fiber-yarn stores, fiber festivals, or online. Farmers also offer clothing, accessories, and home textiles associated with their fiber farms.
Community efforts toward local fiber and fashion production during the advent of the globalized fast fashion paradigm stimulated interest in exploring local production opportunities and challenges in the U.S. A focus on the perspective of fiber farmers, fiber mill owners, and designers involved in the New York raw fiber-to-retail value chain will provide insight into production aspects of slow fashion. Primary research objectives include: (1) determining how fiber farms, mills, artisans, fiber festivals, and fiber agro-tourism intersect to sustain the current fiber community; (2) evaluating the major challenges the fiber community faces; (3) determining if stakeholders of the fiber community have benefited from any policies; and (4) understanding future goals of key stakeholders to sustain the local fiber community. Understanding the complex, local raw fiber-to-retail value chain will provide deeper insight into slow fashion as part of broader sustainable fashion efforts.
Slow fashion theoretical approach
Slow fashion is a concept acknowledged by both designers and consumers (Jung and Jin, 2014; Langdown, 2014). By designers, slow fashion is understood to embody ideals of originality, craftsmanship, versatility, longevity for extended use, responsible use of local resources, and transparency (Antanavičiūtė and Dobilaitė, 2015; Earley, 2017; Fletcher, 2008; Langdown, 2014). There are several slow fashion principles for practitioners (Cataldi et al., 2010). This includes a systems thinking approach where earnings from clothing can go back to farmers or mill owners involved in local production; slowing down consumption to allow ecological rejuvenation; acknowledging diversity in raw materials, such as plant-based fibers, animal fibers, business diversity, cultural diversity, fair labor, and wages (Cataldi et al., 2010; Fletcher, 2008; Langdown, 2014).
Several studies explore how consumers perceive slow fashion. They suggest that consumers make purchase decisions based on quality, versatility, fit, and timeless aspects (Pookulangara and Shephard, 2013; Watson and Yan, 2013). Jung and Jin (2014) identify five key dimensions of slow fashion from a consumer perspective including equity, authenticity, functionality, localism, and exclusivity. Equity is defined as involving producers who are fairly compensated, respected, and offering accessible fair-trade products. Authenticity is focused on skilled craftsmanship and use of traditional techniques to provide a historical narrative. Localism includes using local resources and supporting local or domestic businesses. Exclusivity means offering unique items that have distinct, rare characteristics and that are produced in small quantities. Functionality is defined as the full use of a clothing item, including its longevity and versatility. These dimensions convey environmental sustainability and social responsibility aspects of slow fashion.
In further consumer research, Jung and Jin (2016) identify four primary groups when evaluating the five dimensions of slow fashion. In a consumer survey, 35% of respondents were highly oriented toward slow fashion; these respondents revealed the highest willingness to buy and pay for slow fashion, and expressed a willingness to pay up to 30%–40% more (Jung and Jin, 2016). Overall, positive consumer perceptions of slow fashion, perceived value, and ease of purchasing items can influence purchase intentions and willingness to pay a premium price (Chi et al., 2021; Şener et al., 2019; Sung and Woo, 2019); however, consumers’ limited discretionary income reduces their ability to actually purchase slow fashion items (Pookulangara and Shephard, 2013).
Sustainable fashion researchers propose an “urgent transition” towards slow fashion to encourage less consumption and longer use of clothing (Niinimäki et al., 2020: 189). They highlight prevailing issues with water use, chemical pollution, carbon emissions, and textile waste. Future stability of the fashion industry depends on elimination of the fast fashion model, reduced overproduction, and less overconsumption. For a successful transition toward slow fashion, there must be a new systemic understanding of how the transition can occur in collaboration with producer and consumer stakeholders. Several barriers challenge slow fashion (Ertekin and Atik, 2015). At an industry level, challenges include globalization, lack of transparency, and desires for economic growth. Among consumers, challenges include inconvenience, lack of resources such as finances, time, lack of trust in companies, and the attitude–behavior gap (Ertekin and Atik, 2015; Štefko and Steffek’s, 2018).
Although there are several practice-based and consumer research studies that evaluate slow fashion, there are no studies that focus on evaluating the complexities of slow fashion from a local production perspective that involves insights from key stakeholders such as farmers, mill owners, and designers. Previous slow fashion fiber farm research has focused on assessing fiber quality (Trejo and Lewis, 2018), product development (Cao et al., 2014; Trejo et al., 2019), and farmers’ broader reach through ecommerce or social media (Stannard, 2020; Trejo and Lewis, 2017). This study uses the five key dimensions of slow fashion as a framework, including equity, authenticity, functionality, localism, and exclusivity.
Contextualizing raw fibers
Globally, the most common types of fibers used for clothing and textiles are synthetics (52%) such as polyester, followed by natural cellulosic fibers such as cotton (23%) (Opperskalski et al., 2020). Wool makes up less than 1% of all fibers used. Leading countries that produce wool include Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Uruguay, and the U.S. (Wilcox, 2018). In 2019, Australia produced approximately 585 million pounds of wool compared to the U.S. that produced an estimated 13 million pounds. U.S. wool production accounts for less than 1% of the global supply, with a dwindling supply since the 1940s (National Research Council, 2008). Leading causes for the decline include World War II that created a shift toward meat rather than wool production, elimination of the National Wool Act, which lasted from 1955 to 1993 and provided supplemental income to farmers, and greater availability of synthetic fibers. Nonetheless, there is a steady demand for U.S. wool in the domestic sock industry and from the US military due to the Berry Amendment (ASI, 2018). Although wool is a small part of the global fiber industry, consistent efforts by national and international organizations such as Fibershed, Textile Exchange, the American Sheep Industry, and Woolmark convey that it is a critical fiber.
Current sheep populations are approximately 5 million (USDA, 2020). In 2019, these sheep produced about 24 million pounds of wool. The average price paid for wool was $1.89 per pound, which resulted in a total value of $45.4 million to the U.S. economy. Leading wool producing states included California, Colorado, and Wyoming; they each produced over 2.2 million pounds of wool that had a value of $17.2 million, which is approximately 38% of the value of all U.S. wool. Although it would be ideal to process raw wool domestically, much of the mill infrastructure has declined over the past 30 years due to outsourcing (National Research Council, 2008). During 2017 to 2018, the U.S. exported raw wool primarily to China (58%) to develop products such as top for spinning, yarn, fabric, or clothing (Wilcox, 2018).
Angora goats and alpacas produce a smaller amount of fibers compared to sheep. In 2019, about 127,000 Angora goats produced about 730,000 pounds of mohair. The average price for mohair was $6.37 per pound, which generated a total value of $4.6 million. States with the most Angora goats that produce the most mohair include Texas and Arizona. National data about alpacas are limited. Several alpaca farmers are part of the Alpaca Owner’s Association, which reports that approximately 260,000 alpacas are registered on farms throughout the U.S. (AOA, 2019). The New England Alpaca Fiber Pool (2019) accepts alpaca fibers from U.S. farmers and pays between $3 and $4 if the fiber meets their quality standards.
New York is the focus of this study because New York City is a major fashion capital of the world (Rantisi, 2004), and there is a strong presence of fiber farms with sheep, alpacas, and goats to support local clothing and textile production (Trejo et al., 2019). The U.S. Bureau of Census (2010) reports that 87% of New York is urban and 12% is rural based on population. The urban NYC fashion industry, and rural fiber farms make New York a unique site to study the dynamics of raw fiber-to-retail for local slow fashion.
Many New York farms are small to mid-sized with less than 200 acres (USDA, 2017). Additionally, the New York Agricultural Districts law of 1971 designates land for agricultural uses, and 53 of 62 New York counties currently have agricultural districts (NYS Department of Agriculture & Markets, 2020). In 2016, agricultural districts made up over 8 million acres with over 25,000 farms. Among 473 fiber farms identified throughout New York in 2017, approximately 38% are in agricultural districts (Somers, 2017). Compared to the broader U.S., New York makes up about 1% of all wool commercially produced (USDA, 2019). In 2018, 46,000 New York sheep produced 270,000 pounds of wool with a market value of $0.90 per pound, which generated approximately $240,000. On the commercial market for large scale production and international trade, New York wool has a low economic value and prices for raw wool decreased in 2019 (USDA, 2020).
At a local, community scale, New York has a vibrant culture to support small and mid-sized fiber farms. There are over 470 fiber farms, 12 fiber processing mills, and 9 fiber festivals that make it possible for farmers to add value to their raw fibers by sending them to a mill to become roving for hand-spinning, yarn for knitting/weaving, or final products such as socks to sell directly to consumers. The availability of these farms aligns with the resurgence of small fiber farms in the Northeast, culture of fiber artisanship, and fiber festivals (Lowry, 2014); however, the economic sustainability of these farms is a concern (Trejo, 2014). Major challenges New York farmers face include difficulty finding their target market and low economic profits from selling fiber products. Figure 1 presents the location of fiber farms throughout New York based on county median household income (American Community Survey, 2017). Overall, 22% of all fiber farms are in counties with an income below $50,000, which is categorized as lower income compared to the broader household incomes in the state; 75% of fiber farms are in mid-income counties ranging from $50,000 to $85,000; and approximately 2% of all farms are in higher income counties that earn $85,000 and above. This study aimed to include a representative sample of farms from the different counties.
Map of New York farms, household median income by county, and interviewee locations.
To support farmers’ economic development needs as fiber farms have emerged, the New York State Sheep and Wool Festival developed in the 1970s and is one of the largest fiber festivals in the Northeast. The festival originated with a focus on wool, but now includes a variety of fibers, such as mohair and cashmere. The fiber festival hosts over 260 vendors such as fiber farmers, fiber mill owners, artisans, and textile designers. In 2018, 38% of vendors were from New York, while 65% were from other parts of the U.S. In 2016, the festival reached up to 38,000 visitors (Barry, 2017), which is over double the amount reported 10 years prior (Kelley, 2007). There are also several smaller local, community events that support slow fashion with local fibers.
Methodology
A case study approach is ideal for this study because it considers the real-world context of contemporary phenomena (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007; Farquhar, 2012; Yin, 2014). The case study approach is common in business, fashion supply chain, and production research (Caniato et al., 2012; Holliday, 1995). This case study uses a mixed methods survey, semi-structured interviews, and observational methods (Farquhar, 2012; Yin, 2014).
New York fiber farmers, mill owners, and designers were surveyed and interviewed between 2015 and 2017. Observational data were collected during site visits to farmers’ farms and retail venues. Most of the data are qualitative and subjective. The use of multiple methods aims to create validity, reliability, and triangulation of data to corroborate major research findings (Farquhar, 2012). The variation of research participants with farmers, mill owners, and designers aims to minimize bias in research findings and be inclusive of several perspectives (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). Figure 2 visually conveys this case study approach.
Visual of case study approach based on sample.
Data collection
A survey was distributed to learn more about New York fiber farms. The survey was developed based on a pilot survey with New York farmers in 2013 (Trejo, 2014). The objectives of the survey were to (1) determine demographics of New York fiber farmers, (2) evaluate their motives for establishing a fiber farm business, (3) determine the fibers available, (4) fiber products, (5) income earned, and (6) multi-channel retailing efforts. This provided baseline knowledge about who New York fiber farmers are, their motivations for establishing a fiber farm business, and their fiber entrepreneurial activities. The online survey was distributed during January and February 2015. The survey asked farmers to reflect on the year 2014. The survey was distributed to 286 New York farmers with fiber producing animals, through personal email communication, a Small Ruminants Listserve, and the snowball effect.
To supplement survey data, approximately 100 farmers, fiber mill owners, and designers were contacted for semi-structured interviews during 2016 and 2017. The study received 30 respondents. All participants received the IRB consent form and returned it. Research participants included 20 fiber farmers, 8 artisan designers, and 2 fiber mill owners. Some farmers were also mill owners, and/or artisans. They were categorized into the group that they primarily aligned themselves with. Each interview was recorded for accurate transcribing and data analysis. Interviews were conducted in person and over the phone. Key topics discussed included motivations for starting their business, products developed, production processes, fiber community involvement, retail strategies, challenges, local support, and prospects for future growth.
Observations were also used to support survey and interview data. The primary researcher attended several fiber retail community events that farmers participated in during 2015 to 2017. This provided an opportunity to view farmers’ products, marketing, and direct-to-consumer retail strategies. This involved going to fiber festivals, farmer’s markets, community festivals, a fiber tour, and a knitting retail venue. 1 Data from these observational retail site visits were visually captured through photographs.
Data analysis
This study used inductive content analysis as an exploratory case study focused on New York farmers, mill owners, and designers (Farquhar, 2012). The survey data were exported into Excel for general data analysis. Descriptive categorical data were analyzed using SPSS software (i.e. age, years of experience, etc.). Interviews were transcribed based on audio recordings. Key points emphasized by the participants were highlighted during the transcription process. Dedoose qualitative data analysis software was used based on its previous use by scholars (Lawless and Medvedev, 2016). Interview transcripts were uploaded to classify, sort, and store data. The primary researcher developed codes and definitions for each group of participant interviews, including farmers, mill owners, and designers. There were several overlapping themes across the different groups, which suggests data triangulation in the case study (Farquhar, 2012). 2
Sample characteristics
Most farmers in this study were female (87%), and primarily over 45 years old (89%). These demographics are consistent with previous research focused on New York fiber farmers, and broader female farmer demographics (Trejo, 2014; USDA, 2017). 3 The participants reported having a variety of animals on their small and mid-sized farms, which ranged from 3 to 250. Prevalent fiber animals included alpacas, sheep, llamas, goats, and angora rabbits. Approximately 53% of farmers reported working on the farm full-time and 47% worked on the farm part-time. Their farm experience ranged from 1 to 15 years. The land acreage of farms ranged from 2 to over 500 acres, including pastureland. Although the Northeast has a high density of fiber processing mills compared to other parts of the U.S. (Daniels et al., 2016), this study included a relatively small sample of fiber mill owners, all with distinct approaches. Among the three fiber mill owners, one focused on wool and two focused on processing alpaca fibers. Among the New York based designers interviewed, eight were professional fashion, knitwear, or textile designers, and two were yarn designers. Most of their businesses were less than five years old.
Results and discussion
The findings indicate several complexities of the raw fiber-to-retail value chain. This study uses the five key dimensions of slow fashion to discuss prevalent themes—equity, authenticity, functionality, localism, and exclusivity. Two of these dimensions were combined based on narratives that connected both authenticity and exclusivity. Many participants in this study were farmers; the results and discussion will focus on their narratives while also including key points from fiber mill owners and designers as key stakeholders in the raw fiber-to-retail value chain. Figure 3 provides an overview of the major findings from the surveys and interviews.
Visual of major findings from interviews with fiber farmers, fiber mill owners, and designers.
Exploring the farm-to-retail value chain
Authenticity and exclusivity 4
Farmers constantly discussed motivations for starting their farm to community members who visited to highlight both authenticity and exclusivity aspects. During interviews with farmers, they discussed skilled craftsmanship, historical narratives, and direct experiences on the farm, which expands Jung and Jin’s (2014) original definition. Their key motivations for starting their farms included love for fiber arts, animals, interest in a fiber business, and retirement lifestyle choice. Fiber arts included skilled craftsmanship in fiber spinning to create yarn, knitting, weaving, crochet, or other experimental techniques. Additionally, having a farm supported their personal well-being and overall quality of life.
Based on farmers’ interest and love for animals, many had one main type of fiber animal and 20% had more than one type, such as sheep, alpacas, and goats to diversify. Nearly 40% of farmers had diverse sheep breeds, some of which were threatened to be endangered (Livestock Conservancy, 2019). Of 53 alpaca farmer respondents, most farmers (92%) had Huacaya alpacas, the more common breed compared to Suri alpacas. Eleven farmers had one llama to protect their alpaca herd as a predator friendly approach (Fletcher and Grose, 2012). Among 10 farmers with goats, 60% had angora goats that produce mohair and 20% had cashmere goats. The variation of fiber animals and fibers aligns with Fibershed’s (2018) findings in California.
In alignment with exclusivity and rare aspects of slow fashion, many farmers aimed to support broader efforts to conserve rare sheep breeds and expand knowledge through fiber arts education (Livestock Conservancy, 2019). This further expands Jung and Jin’s (2014) definition. Sheep that are on the Livestock Conservancy list as threatened to be endangered include Lincoln Longwool, Navajo Churro, and Cotswold sheep to name a few. In this study, a farmer with Lincoln Longwool sheep took pride in preserving natural dark colors such as grey and black since it is a recessive trait in the sheep breed. She was featured in a popular wool podcast during 2015 and emphasized the darker color variations among her flock. Additionally, a farmer with Icelandic sheep was conserving the leadership traits in her flock. She explained that her Icelandic sheep have the highest percentage leadership traits outside of Iceland; they are very alert and can lead a flock. Farmers communicate this information with potential customers and display this information on their product labels, websites, and/or social media sites.
Many farmers actively brought their fiber animals to festivals as a marketing strategy to attract potential consumers. This gives customers an opportunity to directly connect with their animals. The fiber animals also provide a starting point for farmers to a talk about their animals, farm, and fiber products available. Farmers tend to bring animals that are unique to the farm, and have friendly personalities. Figure 4 presents alpacas at a summer community festival in south central New York. This further contributes to authenticity aspects of slow fashion.
Alpacas in a community festival for community engagement.
Many farmers also developed their own products on their farms to support authenticity narratives to consumers. Their creative, limited edition efforts align with exclusivity aspects of slow fashion. A sheep farmer developed hand-felted wool scarves using a cob-web felting technique to sell at a farmer’s market. An angora-cashmere goat, sheep, and alpaca farmer obtained several hand-operated knit machines during 2016 to develop knit products on her farm. The machine knit scarf was made with alpaca and wool for a community festival. Some farmers also use several fiber mills with different lead times to spread out inventory and maximize fiber products that will be available for consumers.
Designers were heavily motivated by their interests in sustainability, interest in engaging with a local community, and expanding their creativity with the different natural fibers. They were also interested in expanding creative applications with techniques such as yarn spinning, knitting, weaving, felting, and/or natural dyeing. They worked independently and were actively trying to reach a consumer market interested in sustainable and locally produced products.
Designers often visited farms and/or mills to gain greater insight about the fibers, farm, and potential processing for product development. Designers worked primarily at small, custom scales, which align with slow fashion ideals in practice. Designers were often inspired by their discussions with farmers or mill owners, expressed learning new information, and/or techniques. The unique farm narrative and experiences interacting with farmers or mill owners helped distinguish their brand as local or Made in New York. A New York City luxury fashion designer visited a solar and wind-powered mill to develop a unique felted textile using Cormo wool and mohair sourced from the farm. Her work was featured during New York Fashion Week in 2016, and was sold in a NYC luxury retail store. She explained: It’s bringing the artisan luxury, that heritage vision of these materials and these fibers and producing these custom pieces, but on a scale that can be scaled up or down and is still sustainable.
Functionality 5
Farmers discussed the quality of their fibers for clothing, textile, and accessories available to potential consumers. In discussions with farmers, the quality of their fibers was the strongest factor that impacted a product’s overall longevity and versatility. Farmers discussed whether their fibers were fine, medium, or coarse. To develop product ideas, farmers often considered whether the fiber would be suitable for a scarf, hat, or socks as a few examples. Several farmers also expressed interest in expanding knowledge about fiber quality for future, high-quality product development.
Many farmers sought to diversify their product offerings to offer a range of options to consumers and convey versatility. Although fiber farmers develop products unique to their farms, the same products may not sell from year to year depending on consumer preferences. Some farmers experiment with assorted colors, techniques, and product ideas to diversify their offerings and maximize their market reach. Some conduct market research on Ravelry and at local yarn stores to determine potential items to introduce. A sheep farmer described a challenge in introducing new products to the market to maintain a loyal customer base.
Designers created several functional items that ranged from clothing to home textiles. Based on their strong interest in sustainability, product quality was a key characteristic they paid attention to during their product development process. They discussed the fineness of fibers that impacted decisions to make scarves, hats, or coats. A designer developed customized wool–alpaca blended yarns by sourcing fibers from four regional sheep and alpaca farms. She worked with mills to further develop a collection of beanies, scarves, and sweaters with knitting in NYC (New York Textile Lab, 2020). Figure 5 conveys early textile development. Designers also found uses for coarser fibers, which was used to fill pillows. This was an alternative to using synthetic stuffing. Many of the designers worked at limited edition scales and fiber mills helped further scale efforts as needed. While both farmers and designers discuss functionality, longevity, and versatility aspects of their products that aligns with slow fashion (Jung and Jin, 2014), further research about consumer experiences with these aspects can help verify claims regarding functionality, longevity, and versatility.
Woven textiles made from local wool and alpaca fibers.
Localism 6
The local-regional community played a significant role in supporting farmers. Farmers had varying experiences and newer farmers sought to learn from those with more experience. They often shared common practices and challenges by visiting each other’s farms, being part of fiber guilds, joining sheep, goat, or alpaca associations, and/or taking courses. This influenced many fiber farmers with several years of experience to develop informal, creative raw fiber-to-retail leadership initiatives to address challenges they observed in their local vicinities. Key initiatives included collecting wool from several farms for scaled processing, developing a local yarn shop, creating a local fiber festival, and creating a value chain for regional production of yarns, fabrics, and/or blankets.
Localism and support for regional economic development was a prevalent theme to address the issue of “wool waste.” A sheep farmer created an informal barter economy based on the issue of wool being stored or thrown away. A fiber mill closed in her local area and there was a demand for local fiber processing. In response, the farmer added a “low-tech fiber mill” to her existing sheep farm business and obtained over 300 pounds of wool each year from four sheep farms within a 75-mile radius in central New York. Two of the sheep farms primarily raised the sheep for meat with wool as a by-product. The farmer indicated that one of the farms previously threw away their wool for the past 20 years.
Overall, the sheep farmer–artisan charged less than a commercial mill and had creative freedom with product development. She washed raw fleeces, carded the fibers to align them, created batts, roving, dyes, and hand-spun yarns. The barter-business arrangement she had with fellow farmers was to process 50% for their use, and keep 50% for her personal use. She earned a profit by having farmers who sold products also take some of her products to a festival, for instance. From one of these collaborations, she earned an estimated $1500. She also provided feedback about the fleeces to farmers to help improve fleece qualities. She pointed out fleece breaks, or defects. She explained that the farmers appreciated her feedback, and it also helped her develop higher quality wool products. This suggests how local, collaborative efforts among sheep farmers can add value to hundreds of pounds of wool while generating value.
An informal barter system was also found for larger scale, commercial production efforts. A professional sheep shearer and farmer sheared sheep throughout southern and central New York. He aimed to help farmers bring their wool to a wool pool commercial market to earn some income from the raw fiber that would have otherwise sat in a barn or become “wool waste.” Most of his clients raised sheep primarily for meat with wool as a by-product. He collected wool from farmers who did not want it and he took it to a local wool pool, which paid a certain amount per pound. Since 2008, he brought over 4500 pounds of wool to a local wool pool to reach a broader, scaled market. These examples of fiber bartering to address the issue of wool waste further expand the definition of localism.
Another notable example of creating a solution to address an issue identified in the local community was by creating a local festival to help farmers reach a market. A cashmere farmer helped develop the Central New York Fiber Festival through a local organization. The festival created an annual retail venue for fiber farmers during the summer, a time when there were limited opportunities for them to sell compared to more common seasons in fall and winter. The development of the festival aligned with the organization’s mission to increase the visibility and market reach of farmers and artisans. Many farmers participated in the festival as vendors during 2017. A sheep farmer expressed that it was the first big festival she was able to participate in as a vendor, and she will “always be grateful to them for the start.” She further participated in the three other fiber festivals and a local farmer’s market. This suggests how participation in one local fiber festival provides a launching point for additional opportunities to support their economic development. The Central New York Fiber Festival also provided opportunities for fiber mills to reach fiber farm customers with their fiber processing services. A relatively new mill owner participated in the festival for the first time in 2017. The festival helped increase her mill’s visibility, especially for farmers interested in small batches of batts, roving, and core spun yarn.
The theme of localism was also prevalent in discussions with fiber mill owners and designers. They all sought to support local employment opportunities involving fiber production, textile development, and design expertise. The fiber mill owners managed local to regional value chains in New York and/or throughout the Northeast. Although the fiber mill owners operated at different scales, they had similar perspectives for their future regional production. The commercial scale mill that processed wool anticipated future work with wool to support emerging, collaborative-community based initiatives. A fiber mill owner who also had an alpaca farm hoped to attract more customers to have the mill functioning at maximum capacity and offer more employment opportunities in her region. The fiber cooperative mill owner anticipated future growth in processing alpaca fibers, collecting fibers from alpaca farms throughout the U.S., consistently making products available for farmers to sell, and planned to develop new clothing and textile products with a professional knitwear designer.
Several of the designers interviewed expressed a commitment to continue using local or domestic fibers to support small and mid-sized farms in the U.S. Anticipated efforts included developing Made in New York exclusive lines of yarn, using heritage wool to support rare breeds of sheep, developing lines of woven fabric for designers, obtaining more manufacturing equipment to increase manufacturing capabilities, developing a textile school for local artisanship, participating in pop up shops, and expanding consumer education about the value of local fiber and fashion production. This suggests continued efforts to use local fibers and innovative product development to engage with prospective consumers.
Fiber agro-tourism was another approach that fostered community engagement, knowledge about fibers, animals, and sales of fiber products. Farmers hosted annual open farm days, or were part of a fiber tour and were able to sell a variety of products that ranged from raw fleeces to hand-knit clothing and accessories. An alpaca farmer shifted his business model raising alpacas for breeding to agro-tourism in 2013. He had the largest alpaca farm in central New York, regularly hosted tours of his farm, and two farm stores, which conveys a distinct approach. Farmer’s openness to visitors to provide additional opportunities for engagement aligns with previous studies (Trejo and Lewis, 2017), and further contributes to localism.
Equity 7
Farmers identified many challenges with equity. Most fiber farmers are the main operators of their farm, and manage all aspects including caring for their animals and selling final products. This requires extensive attention to all aspects including animal husbandry, land management, product development, and fiber marketing. Based on the time it took to take care of their fiber animals, many fiber farmers relied on fiber processing mills to help them scale their production to offer affordable products to consumers.
Nonetheless, several farmers identified cash flow as a major issue. Limited income from sheep and goat farms aligns with broader U.S. farm data where approximately 90% of farmers indicated that they obtained less than 25% of their annual income from their farms (USDA, 2017).
8
In order to earn income for their fiber business, many New York farmers sent their fibers to be processed in a fiber mill, and estimated spending between $2,000 and $10,000 annually. An alpaca farmer explained issues with long-lead times that limit her business growth: I started in 2014, and my alpacas were shorn in 2014, but I never saw the yield from my shearing until 2015. The mills are anywhere from 8 to 10 months out to process your fiber … So you gotta be able to compensate your income for that, especially when you shear in the summer and your high selling business is in the Winter … There is not enough fiber mills to take care of the fiber business.
To address uncertainties of cash flow and limited income at a larger scale, many farmers added value to their raw fibers by sending them to a fiber processing mill despite challenges. Fiber processing mills typically wash raw fibers, card fibers, and/or spin yarn. Farmers sent a variable amount of fiber to these mills; about 40% of farmers sent between 30 and 90 pounds. Approximately 55% of farmers spent less than $1000 on fiber processing. With the availability of knitting mills, some farmers also sent their fibers to be processed into socks, mittens, or gloves. They commonly spent over $1000 to process their fibers in commercial knitting mills, or through fiber cooperatives. This conveys investments farmers make to add value to their fibers although there are many uncertainties.
To reach their market, fiber farmers used several strategies to sell their fiber products directly to consumers. Farmers sold several fiber products including yarn (65%), raw fleeces (63%), top/roving (48%), clothing (48%), household (22%), and felt products (11%). Approximately 70% of farmers reported earning an income of less than $4000 from selling fiber products. Eighty percent of farmers had retail venues such as on-farm stores, websites, attend community festivals, fiber festivals, or Farmer’s Markets. Notable New York fiber retail venues included the New York Sheep & Wool Festival and NYC Vogue Knitting LIVE! However, a limited number of farmers were able to sell products at these venues because either the venue was at full vendor capacity, or the vendor fee was very high. Only a few farmers actively sold their fiber products online through their farm websites, Etsy.com, or Facebook selling groups.
To further convey farmer’s efforts to diversify their fiber products and earn an income, there is a notable example from an angora goat farmer. She began to process her naturally colored raw mohair into yarn during 2006 to sell directly to fiber artisan consumers. She realized that people were not attracted to natural colors at the time, and began to hand-dye her yarns to add color variation. To increase her consumer market beyond fiber artisans, she also began to develop hats, gloves, and socks by sending her yarn to local knitting. She concentrated on four key items—socks, mittens, gloves, yarn—during a fall community festival in 2015 and successfully doubling her sales, which boosted her confidence. Targeting both fiber artisans and everyday consumers was a strategy implemented by many sheep, alpaca, and/or angora goat farmers.
As mentioned previously, farmers also sold at several retail venues. A sheep farmer participated in various markets year-round, including the New York State Sheep & Wool Festival. Participating in the annual festival with products ranging from yarn to interior textiles contributed to approximately 10% of her annual income. Fiber festivals offered a unique merchandizing opportunity for the farmer to directly connect with customers and develop customer loyalty. Although fiber festivals are a retail venue to attract fiber consumers, all farmers do not use festivals. Some farmers felt that there was too much competition with several farmers offering similar products. Some also felt that they did not have enough inventory or time to participate in a fiber festival based on full day commitments and limited income that may be earned.
Business-to-business sales typically developed based on a business owner’s desire for a particular fiber. For example, when a cashmere farmer developed her farm over 20 years ago, she sent the cashmere to be processed in a fiber mill that could work with fine fibers, and the cashmere was purchased by a spinner in Vermont since. Similarly, a sheep farmer sold her wool to a mill and farm. During 2016, she sold 200 pounds of wool to a Connecticut mill that produced yarn, and 100 pounds to a farm in Massachusetts that made batts for hand-spinners. The farm buyer previously also sold their sheep, but continued to sell fiber products in different retail venues to diversify income opportunities.
Additionally, some farmers sold a select amount of yarns to yarn stores. In 2015, a sheep farmer developed a brick-and-mortar store to carry local farm yarns and a line of Made in New York wool products. After 20 years of being part of the fiber community, she reached out to her network to buy yarns wholesale and charged 25% commission as retail mark-up in her store. Local farmers sold their skeins of yarn at wholesale prices to the sheep farmer to re-sell at her brick-and-mortar store. 9 The yarns were featured on the store’s social media page with a photograph and sold out quickly. Based on her sheep farm and success of her yarn store, she became a new vendor at the New York State Sheep & Wool Festival in 2016. Figure 6 presents the farmer’s display of local yarns to attract consumers.
New York Sheep & Wool Festival booth that emphasizes local farm wool.
A less common, but significant strategy for farmers to earn an income was for them to sell their raw wool directly to a wool pool with a pre-determined buyer. Two farmers that focused on raising their sheep for meat with wool as a by-product relied on wool pools to earn income. A farmer focused on raising Romney sheep with high quality genetics and showed them at national sheep shows. Since wool was not the focus of his business, he took his wool to the Finger Lakes Wool Pool. His sheep flock consisted of approximately 50% white wool and 50% natural colors. He took approximately 200 pounds of wool to the pool each year. Prices were roughly between 90 cents per pound to 18 cents, which aligns with broader USDA data. The farmer explained that these are low prices and not sufficient to cover the original shearing costs. This suggests the limited income earned from wool pools for commercial scale production; this connects with an earlier example from the sheep shearer who took the wool from sheep farmers as an informal fiber bartering approach.
Although the sheep, goat, and alpaca are part of the agricultural economy, farmers have not benefited from any specific policies to support their businesses. U.S. sheep farmers were previously eligible for wool subsidies, but have not received subsidies since 2011; similarly angora goat farmers in the U.S. stopped receiving mohair subsidies in 2009 (Environmental Working Group, 2017). Some famers benefitted from broader historical policies. The federal Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 led to the establishment of Cornell University, a land-grant university with cooperative extension offices that provides courses that anyone can take to learn about shearing and animal husbandry. Some farmers expressed attending these courses, or using the university’s veterinary services for their animals. A few farmers in this study had farms in an agricultural district and could benefit from the New York Agricultural Districts Law of 1971. This designated land for agricultural purposes and reduced property taxes. Additionally, due to the severe drought in upstate New York during 2016, some farmers received drought assistance to help offset hay costs. Many farmers expressed their participation in the New York Farm Bureau that aims to solve economic and public policy issues in agriculture. Activism efforts further expands equity aspects of slow fashion.
Although many participants in this study did not benefit from specific policies, some received local grants to support their economic development. Grants were provided to support community-based initiatives including a textile summit, a fiber cooperative, and educational outreach. A fashion designer in western New York received a Start-Up NY grant based on her use of advanced knitting technology to create zero-waste knitwear. This suggests that there are some funds available to support local fiber, education, and economic development efforts that align with slow fashion.
In anticipating the next five years, farmers were optimistic despite major challenges identified. They planned to maintain the same number of fiber animals ranging between 10 and 100. They also hoped to find a better market for their products, and to develop strategies to make a sustainable income. On a broader scale, farmers also had visions that support interconnections between fiber farms, mills, and design. A sheep farmer who also had the brick-and-mortar fiber store and facilitated a Made in New York value chain expressed “I hope that my business will be so successful that farmers stop throwing their wool away.” This farmer hoped that her business model could provide a successful retail venue for local fiber products to prevent wool waste. In alignment with this long-term vision, this farmer initiated a “Take or Make Hudson Valley Mitts” project in collaboration with several farmers, fiber artisans, and a local mill. The aim was to create greater consumer awareness of local fiber production and sustainability as an alternative to fast fashion. The project was launched during 2017 at the New York State Sheep & Wool Festival. Many farmers also anticipated increasing their e-commerce and social media presence to expand their market reach. Overall, this suggests farmers’ efforts to sustain fiber animals at hand, continue to connect directly with consumers, and hopes to generate a sustainable income by expanding their ecommerce presence as part of slow fashion.
Conclusions
In the context of slow fashion, this study provides insights from producers, including farmers, fiber mill owners, and designers. This research provides comprehensive data about New York raw fiber-to-retail and evaluates the information based on the slow fashion framework, including equity, authenticity, functionality, localism, and exclusivity (Jung and Jin, 2014). Although it is difficult to generalize case study research (Yin, 2014), this study provides insights that may inform future studies about raw fiber-to-retail with small farms, mills, and designers.
Although farmers have authentic, exclusive, functional, and local narratives and fiber products, a major limitation is in equity, which suggests underlying complexities of New York raw fiber-to-retail. Fiber farmers have developed several leadership initiatives to address key issues in fiber marketing and fiber processing. This coincides with broader efforts throughout the U.S. (Miller et al., 2016; Wilkes, 2017). New York farmers are involved in business-to-business collaborations that include adding value to their wool that would otherwise go to waste, creating new retail venues in support of local fibers, and developing farm-scale fiber processing to become more self-sufficient. Fiber farmers identified critical issues including cash flow, high fiber processing costs, difficulty making a full return on their fiber processing investments based on consistently reaching their target market, low economic profits, long lead times, and the issue of mill closures. Long lead times and fiber mill closures are occurring more broadly throughout the U.S. (Daniels et al., 2016). Based on the absence of local fiber production and policy support, farmers, designers, and mill owners made use of available resources, such as grants for specialized projects. In anticipation of the future, farmers, mill owners, and designers were positive. All expressed efforts to diversity product offerings and meet consumer expectations, which aligns with broader efforts (Wilkes, 2017). Opportunities for community engagement with open farm days or tours is a unique aspect of these farms and parallels broader efforts (Tapper and Zucker, 2008; Wood, 2011). It further contributes to slow fashion localism, authenticity, and can help justify higher prices for fiber products from an equity standpoint. A study by Havas (2020) provides recommendations to support farmers’ economic development through a loan program to begin with larger herds, learn about potential markets, and supply chain navigation; developing regional branding; and recommending farmers to raise multi-purpose animals that can produce wool, meat, and milk.
While this study conveyed the vast efforts of farmers to successfully reach their consumers, not all artisan designers visited farms and instead relied on email or cell phone communication with farmers to obtain products. A limited number of farmers had complementary e-commerce sites, which helped designers more easily find products to place orders. Even though artisans do not commonly buy fibers online based on an expectation to touch products before buying (Stannard and Mullet, 2018), an e-commerce strategy can be useful for farmers in the long term to more adequately help artisans and designers find their products. Including fiber quality information can provide baseline information for customers, improve understanding of functionality, and can help justify higher pricing. An e-commerce strategy aligns with broader fashion industry initiatives to sell products online and through mobile app-devices as a multi-channel retailing effort (Blázquez, 2014).
Footnotes
Authors' Note
Helen X Trejo is now affiliated with California State Polytechnic University.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research received funding from a Cornell FSAD Graduate Research Grant.
