Small Ruminant Research 99 (2011) 178–186

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Small Ruminant Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/smallrumres

Measurement of luster in Suri alpaca fiber

C.J. Lupton a,∗ , A. McColl b
a
Texas AgriLife Research and Extension Center, 7887 US Highway 87 North, San Angelo, TX 76901, USA
b
Yocom-McColl Testing Labs, 540 West Elk Place, Denver, CO 80216, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A study was conducted to evaluate the ability of two instruments for measuring luster
Received 2 December 2010 in Suri alpaca fiber and to compare the results with subjectively assessed luster scores.
Received in revised form 3 March 2011
In addition, the study was designed to determine the correlations between luster and
Accepted 15 March 2011
other value-determining, objectively measured physical properties of Suri alpaca fiber. For
Available online 13 April 2011
this purpose, 205 Suri alpaca fleece samples were submitted by 49 breeders that repre-
sented a broad cross-section of Suri alpaca in terms of visually assessed luster, color, and
Keywords:
fiber characteristics. Raw staples and “washed-and-aligned” staples were independently
Alpaca
Suri and subjectively assessed for luster by 2 alpaca judges certified by the Alpaca Owners
Luster and Breeders Association (AOBA). The fiber samples were measured for luster and lumi-
Objective fiber measurements nance using a SAMBA Hair System and were scanned using a near-infrared reflectance
Near-infrared reflectance spectrometer spectrometer. Standard objective test methods were used to measure mean fiber diameter
and variability (at mid-staple and overall), prickle factor, comfort factor, mean fiber cur-
vature and variability, medullation (white, beige, and light fawn samples only), laboratory
scoured yield, mean staple length and variability, and mean staple strength and variabil-
ity. The precision of the luster measurement (MLUS) was estimated using CV based on 3
measurements per subsample and averaged 3.9% across all colors. In contrast, precision of
the luminance measurement (MLUM) was higher with an average CV of 2.3%. Agreement
between the subjective luster scores of 2 certified alpaca judges was low (r2 = 0.17 and
0.10 for raw and washed-and-aligned samples, respectively). Despite this, evidence was
obtained linking instrument-measured luster and luminance with subjectively assessed
luster scores. Two systems were proposed for expressing instrument-measured luster that
will permit comparisons between alpacas of different color. Small negative correlations
were present between mean fiber diameter and subjectively assessed luster scores. Small
positive correlations were present between mean fiber diameter and objectively measured
luster values. A strong correlation (r = −0.94) existed between instrument-measured luster
and log10 luminance. Prediction equations derived from near-infrared reflectance spectra
(NIRS) produced precise and accurate estimates of log10 luminance. The NIRS estimates of
instrument-measured luster were less precise and less accurate, and estimates of subjec-
tively assessed luster were neither accurate nor precise. The SAMBA Hair System is capable
of producing estimates of luster that are accurate enough to be useful to Suri alpaca breeders
who intend to select for this trait.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The alpaca (Vicugna pacos) is commercially the most

important fiber producer of the South American camelid
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 325 653 4576; fax: +1 325 658 4364. family. Two breeds of alpaca are recognized, the Huacaya
E-mail address: c-lupton@tamu.edu (C.J. Lupton). and the Suri. This study deals exclusively with the lustrous

0921-4488/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.smallrumres.2011.03.045
 C.J. Lupton, A. McColl / Small Ruminant Research 99 (2011) 178–186
fiber from the distinct-stapled Suris. Approximately 28,000
Suri alpacas are registered in the U.S. at this time repre-
senting about 18% of the total registered alpaca population
(Alpaca Registry Inc., 2010). In South America, Suris are
estimated to compose 7% of the entire alpaca population
(Hoffman, 2003b).
Luster in alpaca is the shiny appearance of the fibers
when they are illuminated. Several attempts have been
made over the years to quantify luster in animal fibers
(e.g., Elliot, 1986; Orwin and Woods, 1983; Van Rensburg
and Maasdorp, 1985). A more recent study was concerned
with “silkiness” in mink pelts, a property that includes
“glossiness”, and which appears to be very similar to lus-
ter in alpaca and mohair (Rasmussen and Dyck, 2000). Van
Rensburg and Maasdorp (1985) used a goniophotometer
to evaluate mohair luster in their studies but were not suc-
cessful in establishing this technique for routine analysis
of this mohair attribute. The goniophotometer undoubt-
edly provides accurate luster information on single fibers.
Unfortunately, the cost of the instrument and the cost of
measuring many individual fibers per sample (to obtain
statistically significant results for the sample as a whole)
have caused this test method to be prohibitively expensive
for routine testing of individual animals and commercial
consignments. Researchers at the Textile Research Insti-
tute at Princeton (Keis and Kamuth, 2004) reviewed past
work and summarized their recent results with objective
measurement of human hair luster.
In their attempts to identify which alpaca fiber charac-
teristics are important to textile processors, 2 prominent
U.S. alpaca breeders and authors (Hoffman, 2003a; Safley,
2004) interviewed leading processors and fiber experts in
Arequipa, a major center for alpaca processing in Peru. A.
Burgos, head fleece buyer with Grupo Inca was quoted
by Safley (2004) as saying “Fineness is the first consider-
ation. Suri is valued for its excellent handle and luster.”
Hoffman (2003a) presented 3 tables listing the premium
alpaca fiber characteristics according to 3 processors (D.
Michell, largest alpaca fleece buyer in the world for Michell
and CIA; L. Chavez, general manager with Inca Tops; and G.
Sarfaty, general manager of Prosur). All 3 men included lus-
ter (or sheen) as one of 6 premium fiber characteristics,
the others being fineness, handle, medullation, density,
and cleanliness. The processors also pointed out (Safley,
2004) that luster is essential for the types of products
manufactured from Suri alpaca, i.e., predominantly fabrics
composed of worsted yarns that are tailored into men’s and
ladies coats and blazers and are typically brushed in the fin-
ishing process to further enhance the natural luster. Thus
we conclude that textile manufacturers consider luster to
be an important characteristic of Suri alpaca.
Subjective assessments of fleece luster on live ani-
mals are commonly made by breeders and show judges
throughout the world but are complicated by several fac-
tors including the observer’s individual perception, amount
of direct sunlight or other light source on the fleece, amount
and type of dirt in the fleece, color, etc. and agreement of
subjective luster scores even between trained and expe-
rienced individuals is typically not high (e.g., coefficients
of determination among 3 judges scoring luster in 89 raw
mohair fleeces using a scale of 0 (no luster) to 5 (excel-
179
lent luster) ranged from 0.29 to 0.41 [Lupton, 2006]). Most
people associated with Suri alpacas recognize this lack of
consistency among subjective luster assessments, particu-
larly on the live animal. Despite the recognized importance
of luster in Suri and alpaca generally, numerous scientists
(e.g., Wuliji et al., 2000; Aylan-Parker and McGregor, 2002;
McGregor, 2006; Lupton et al., 2006) omitted assessment
of luster from their alpaca fleece studies. Multiple reasons
may be responsible for these omissions including: high
cost of goniophotometric measurements, no access to such
measurements, or lack of confidence in subjective assess-
ment of luster.
Recently, Bossa Nova Technologies (BNT, Venice, CA)
introduced an instrument, the SAMBA Hair System, based
on polarization imaging technology that is capable of
differentiating and measuring the different light scatter-
ing sources (shine, chroma, and diffuse) in a “staple” (in
this context, a structure of straightened parallel fibers) of
hair (Clemenceau, 2007). Luminance and luster values are
reported using a dedicated computer and numerous differ-
ent formulas. The instrument is being used in the cosmetic
industry to substantiate claims and to evaluate the efficacy
of products such as hair shampoos, conditioners, and shine
sprays and has been shown to be effective in measuring
luster in human hair (Lefaudeux et al., 2008). Consequently,
several sectors of the animal fiber industry are optimistic
that the SAMBA instrument can also be technically and
economically adapted for objective measurement of lus-
ter in Suri alpaca, mohair, and other lustrous fibers. In
fact, in a preliminary study sponsored by the Suri Network
and reported by Bossa Nova Technologies, 71 Suri alpaca
samples were measured for luster with the SAMBA Hair
System (Anon., 2006). The objectively measured luster of
clean samples was shown to be correlated with subjec-
tive assessments within a specific color range. The SAMBA
Hair System is also capable of concurrently producing an
estimate of color (luminance value). In order to be able to
compare luster of differently colored fleeces, it was deemed
desirable that an estimate of luster that is independent
of color be developed. The SAMBA Hair System was also
used to measure luster in a few samples of cleaned mohair
and once sample preparation had been optimized, promis-
ing results were obtained (Lefaudeux, 2007; Lefaudeux
et al., 2007). In a recent study, Lupton (2006) concluded
that a near-infrared reflectance spectrometer (NIRS) was
not accurately predicting luster in mohair that had also
been subjectively assessed and measured for luster using a
goniophotometer. The suspected reason for this result was
likely the quality of the luster data used for the NIRS cali-
bration. Only relatively few fibers (∼25 per sample) were
measured (at great expense) in order to establish luster of
a particular calibration sample. This number of fibers mea-
sured is now considered to be inadequate. It appears the
SAMBA instrument may have the potential to provide more
accurate data with which to calibrate the NIRS that will
subsequently be evaluated to predict unknown samples.
Like the SAMBA Hair System, most NIRS instruments are
also capable of providing data that will permit an objective
description of color.
Based on the above information, we arranged for a
short-term lease of the SAMBA instrument for the purpose
180 C.J. Lupton, A. McColl / Small Ruminant Research 99 (2011) 178–186
of conducting an independent evaluation of the instrument
for measuring luster in Suri alpaca fiber. Because near-
infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) was considered to
have potential for estimating luster and color in alpaca, this
technology was also evaluated in the current project for
its ability to estimate luster and luminance measurements
made by the SAMBA instrument. Both the SAMBA and NIRS
instruments are potentially capable of providing measure-
ments at considerably lower cost than the current standard
goniophotometric measurement. Because it is well estab-
lished (Orwin and Woods, 1983; Lupton, 2006) that mean
fiber diameter and distribution influence fiber luster, cor-
relations between alpaca luster and other commercially
important physical properties were also investigated.
Thus the specific objectives of the project were to: (1)
determine the precision of the SAMBA Hair System for
measuring luster and luminance of washed and aligned
Suri alpaca fibers; (2) develop an estimate of luster that
is independent of color; (3) determine the correlations
between SAMBA luster measurements and subjective lus-
ter assessments, lab scoured yield, mean fiber diameter
(and variability), mean fiber curvature (and variability),
mean staple length (and variability) and mean staple
strength (and variability); (4) calibrate a near-infrared
reflectance spectrometer using the SAMBA measurements
and determine how accurately the NIRS instrument can
predict SAMBA-measured luster and luminance.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sample description
Two hundred and five Suri alpaca raw fiber samples were obtained
from numerous North American locations with the assistance of the Suri
Network and 49 of its member breeders. Individual breeders were asked
to describe their submitted samples using 10 color categories and to sub-
mit samples having ranges in subjectively assessed luster and mean fiber
diameter. Individual samples (>200 g raw material, 10 cm minimum sta-
ple length) were received at Yocom-McColl Testing Laboratories, Inc. in an
undisturbed natural staple configuration (i.e., not folded over) contained
in sealed Ziploc bags.
2.2. Methods of test
Subsamples were drawn for: measurements of staple length and
strength; lab scoured yield, luster and luminance; and measurements
made with the OFDA 100 instrument (BSC Electronics, Ardross, Western
Australia). A protocol for cleaning Suri alpaca staples clamped at the base
of staple was developed at Yocom-McColl Testing Laboratories that used
standard washing conditions (in terms of detergent and sodium carbon-
ate concentrations, water temperatures, etc. as specified in ASTM D 584
(2003)) and resulted in clean, relatively undisturbed staples that were
air-dried (to avoid potential changes in color and luster caused by hot-air
drying) in a flat configuration under standard conditions of temperature
and relative humidity (20 ◦ C and 65%, respectively). The protocol also
involved hand carding the staples before washing (to remove loose dirt
and separate individual fibers) and after drying and conditioning. This
procedure concurrently provided duplicate measures of lab scoured yield
(LSY) and duplicate subsamples with parallel, untangled fibers that were
mounted and fastened onto black cardboard and subsequently placed over
a cylinder and measured with the SAMBA Hair System. To determine the
precision of the SAMBA Hair System measurements of luster and lumi-
nance, two subsamples were each measured 3 times on 97 samples. The
SAMBA Hair System actually outputs 25 variables, 5 of which are estimates
of luster calculated using different formulas (BNT, Reich-Robbins, Textile
Research Institute, Stamm, and Guiolet [Lefaudeux et al., 2008]). Only 2
of those variables are considered in this report, i.e., BNT luster (MLUS)
and luminance (MLUM), the latter providing a number that is unique for a
specific color. MLUS is defined as: 100 × [Sin /(D + Sout )] × [1/Wvisual ], where
Sin = integral inside the specular peak in the specular profile, Sout = integral
in the wings of the peak in the specular profile, D = integral in the dif-
fused profile, and Wvisual = mean value of the bandwidth along the region
of interest from the real image.
Spectra were measured in the visible and near-infrared ranges using
a near-infrared reflectance spectrometer (NIRS, Feed and Forage Analyzer
Model 6500M, Foss North America, Eden Prairie, MN) for each raw sample
and each washed-and-aligned sample that had been previously measured
using the SAMBA Hair System. Reflected energy (log 1/R) was measured
on duplicate samples and averaged over 25 scans and recorded at 2-nm
intervals from 400 to 2498 nm. WinISI II software (version 1.04, Infrasoft
International, Port Matilda, PA) was used to transform spectral data and
calculate calibration equations and expected levels of precision and accu-
racy for NIRS estimates of SAMBA-measured and subjectively assessed
luster, luminance, and several of the other objectively measured fiber
properties.
The following objective measurements were conducted on each sam-
ple using the referenced international or national standard test methods.
Relaxed mean staple length (MSL) was determined using 10 staples and
the Agritest Staple Length Meter (IWTO-30-98). Mean staple strength
(MSS) was determined using 10 staples and an Agritest Staple Breaker
Model 2 (IWTO-30-98). Other washed and conditioned subsamples were
minicored and 2 mm snippets were evaluated for mean fiber diameter
(MFD), prickle factor (PF), comfort factor (CF), total medullation (MED)
and objectionable (OBJ) fibers (natural white, beige, and light fawn sam-
ples only), and mean fiber curvature (MFC) using an Optical Fiber Diameter
Analyser 100 (OFDA 100; IWTO-47-00 and IWTO-57-98). Because the
SAMBA Hair System measures luster and luminance close to the mid-point
of staples or tresses, one of each of the washed-and-aligned subsamples
was guillotined at its mid-point to produce 2-mm snippets and these were
also measured with the OFDA 100.
Each raw sample and each washed-and-aligned sample was indepen-
dently assessed for luster on a scale of 1–20 by 2 AOBA-certified alpaca
judges. The same light source (fluorescent cool white) and location were
used to illuminate and view all samples. The judges assessed the same
washed-and-aligned samples that were measured using the SAMBA Hair
System.
2.3. Statistical analysis
The means procedure (PROC MEANS) of SAS (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary,
NC) was used to calculate means, standard deviations, coefficients of
variation, minima and maxima for the 50 characteristics measured and
assessed in this study. Paired t-tests were used to identify significant
differences in measured luster and luminance between subsamples and
between fiber judges. Stepwise multiple regression analyses (PROC REG)
were used to determine to what extent other measured traits contributed
to measured luster and scored luster. And the CORR procedure of SAS was
used to calculate correlation coefficients between selected measured and
scored characteristics.
3. Results
3.1. Description of samples and summary statistics
The distribution of samples by color and the ranges
in subjectively assessed luster score and objectively mea-
sured mean fiber diameter are shown in Table 1. The
abbreviations and units used throughout this report are
listed in Table 2. Table 3 summarizes all the data assessed,
measured, or calculated in the study in terms of number of
measurements (N), mean values, standard deviations (SD),
coefficients of variation (CV), and minimum and maximum
values.
3.2. Subjective assessments of alpaca luster
Mean luster scores, measures of variability, minimum
and maximum values for both judges on raw and washed-
 C.J. Lupton, A. McColl / Small Ruminant Research 99 (2011) 178–186 181

Table 1
Distribution of Suri alpaca samples by color and ranges for subjective luster score and mean fiber diameter.

Color number Color Number Luster score range (1–20) Mean fiber diameter range (␮m)

1 White 52 11.0–16.5 18.0–36.5

2 Beige 10 12.5–15.0 22.3–32.6
3 Light fawn 29 11.5–17.0 18.5–36.9
4 Medium fawn 14 12.0–16.0 16.8–29.6
5 Dark fawn 5 13.0–15.0 20.7–33.5
6 Light brown 15 12.5–15.0 18.1–39.0
7 Medium brown 24 12.5–15.5 19.4–39.3
8 Dark brown 17 12.5–15.0 20.6–35.6
9 Bay black 6 13.0–14.5 24.5–34.2
10 True black 33 12.5–16.0 22.1–36.9

and-aligned samples are presented in Table 3. Judge 1
had overall lower scores on the raw samples (11.5 versus
12.1, P < 0.05), greater variability (16.6 versus 10.4% for CV,
P < 0.05), and a wider range in scores (5–16 versus 9–16).
Mean scores, variability, and ranges were much closer for
the washed samples (14.1 versus 1.0, 9.1 versus 9.5%, and
10–17 versus 11–17, respectively). Coefficients of determi-
Table 2
Key to abbreviations (and units) used in text and tables.
nation for several simple linear regressions are presented
in Table 4.
3.3. Precision and accuracy of SAMBA Hair System
measurements
Precision estimates were based on 97 samples that
were measured 6 times each. Means of 6 subsamples had
CVLUS > 10% (Fig. 1) but most CV values were between 0%
and 10%, the average value being 3.9% (Table 5). In contrast,

MLUS Mean luster using Bossa Nova Technology

Table 3
(BNT) formula
Summary statistics for properties measured on Suri alpaca samples.
SDLUS Standard deviation of 3 measurements on the
same subsample Property N Mean SD CV Min Max
CVLUS Coefficient of variation of 3 measurements on
the same subsample MLUS 205 7.4 7.3 99.4 0.6 29.1
MLUM Mean luminance MLUM LOG10 MLUM 205 1599.8 1889.7 118.1 4.5 8680.5
SDLUM Standard deviation of 3 measurements on the LOG10 MLUM 205 2.6 0.9 34.9 0.6 3.9
same sample J1R 205 11.5 1.9 16.6 5 16
CVLUM Coefficient of variation of 3 measurements on J2R 205 12.1 1.3 10.4 9 16
the same sample J1W 205 14.1 1.3 9.1 10 17
LOG10 MLM Log10 mean luminance J2W 205 14.0 1.3 9.5 11 17
J1R (1–20) Judge 1 luster score on raw sample MLSR (1–20) 205 11.8 1.3 11.4 7.5 15.5
J2R (1–20) Judge 2 luster score on raw sample MLSW (1–20) 205 14.1 1.1 7.5 11.0 17.0
J1W (1–20) Judge 1 luster score on washed-and-aligned AGE 205 2.4 1.7 68.8 0.6 9.7
sample MFD (␮m) 205 26.0 4.9 18.7 16.8 39.3
J2W (1–20) Judge 2 luster score on washed-and-aligned SDFD (␮m) 205 6.7 1.5 22.9 3.9 11.1
sample CVFD (%) 205 25.9 3.9 15.2 16.8 37.1
MLSR (1–20) Mean luster score of raw sample PF (%) 205 23.6 21.0 88.8 0.8 84.7
MLSW (1–20) Mean luster score of washed-and-aligned CF (%) 205 76.4 21.0 27.4 15.3 99.2
sample MFC (◦ /mm) 205 12.9 2.7 21.1 6.8 26.7
AGE (yr) Age to nearest year SDFC (◦ /mm) 205 18.4 4.1 22.2 8.6 33.3
MFD (␮m) Mean fiber diameter (␮m) CVFC (%) 205 143.4 20.0 14.0 93.1 218.5
SDFD (␮m) Standard deviation of fiber diameter (␮m) MED (%)a 91 15.6 14.2 90.7 0.5 59.5
CVFD (%) Coefficient of variation of fiber diameter (%) OBJ (%)a 91 6.2 3.5 56.9 0 18.7
PF (%) Prickle factor, fibers >30 ␮m (%) MIDMFD (␮m) 205 27.2 5.0 18.4 18.0 39.4
CF (%) Comfort factor, fibers ≤30 ␮m (%) MIDSDFD (␮m) 205 6.7 1.7 24.8 3.5 12.7
MFC (◦ /mm) Mean fiber curvature (◦ /mm) MIDCVFD (%) 205 24.8 4.3 17.3 14.2 37.1
SDFC (◦ /mm) Standard deviation of fiber curvature (◦ /mm) MIDPF (%) 205 28.4 23.4 82.3 0.5 85.6
CVFC (%) Coefficient of variation of fiber curvature (%) MIDCF (%) 205 71.6 23.4 32.7 14.5 99.5
MED (%) Medullated fibers (white, beige, and light fawn MIDMFC (◦ /mm) 205 10.4 2.7 26.3 5.8 23.4
samples only) (%) MIDSDFC (◦ /mm) 205 12.8 5.4 42.0 5.6 36.9
OBJ (%) Objectionable fibers (white, beige and light MIDCVFC (%) 205 120.3 23.4 19.4 79.2 200.6
fawn samples only) (%) MIDMED (%)a 89 12.8 13.5 105.6 0.1 63.0
MID An abbreviation preceded by MID indicates MIDOBJ (%)a 89 4.5 4.1 90.2 0 25.0
this variable was measured at the mid-point of LSY (%) 205 77.8 7.4 9.5 56.7 94.8
the staple MSL (mm) 205 177.2 47.6 26.9 108.4 332.2
LSY (%) Lab scoured yield (%) SDSL (mm) 205 13.2 12.5 94.7 1.7 128.7
MSL (mm) Mean staple length (mm) CVSL (%) 205 7.3 5.4 73.6 0.8 45.5
SDSL (mm) Standard deviation of staple length (mm) MSS (N/ktex) 205 35.9 10.9 30.3 8.6 65.7
CVSL (%) Coefficient of variation of staple length (%) SDSS (N/ktex) 205 7.5 3.9 57.1 2.1 26.4
MSS (N/ktex) Mean staple strength (N/ktex) CVSS (%) 205 23.8 16.8 70.5 4.1 105.8
SDSS (N/ktex) Standard deviation of staple strength (N/ktex) Key: See Table 2.
CVSS (%) Coefficient of variation of staple strength (%) a
White, beige, and light fawn samples only.
182 C.J. Lupton, A. McColl / Small Ruminant Research 99 (2011) 178–186

Table 4
Coefficients of determination for simple linear regressions between sub-
jective luster in raw and washed and aligned Suri alpaca scored by two
judges.

Variables r2

J1R J1W 0.25

J2R J2W 0.44
J1R J2R 0.17
J1W J2W 0.10
MLSR MLSW 0.42

Key: See Table 2.

Fig. 2. CV of luminance versus average luminance for 3 measurements
made on one subsample.

the SAMBA Hair System. Pearson correlation coefficients

(and P values) were calculated between 35 of these prop-
erties. The more important correlations are presented in
Table 6.

3.5. Near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy

Tables 7 and 8 summarize the calibration, cross valida-

Fig. 1. CV of BNT luster versus average BNT luster for 3 measurements tion, and prediction statistics for several Suri alpaca traits
made on one subsample. determined using the WINISI software. No independent
Table 5
samples were predicted using these equations so no gen-
Means, SD, and CV of triplicate measurements made on two subsamples uine validation statistics are presented.
and probability values from paired t-tests.

Property N Subsample 1 Subsample 2 P 4. Discussion

MLUS 97 4.22 4.11 0.3770
SDLUS 97 0.21 0.23 0.7454
4.1. Samples and summary statistics
CVLUS 97 4.17 3.63 0.2010
MLUM 97 2714.7 2779.3 0.1563 Colors were not represented equally; white, true black,
SDLUM 97 37.4 45.4 0.4685 and light fawn samples predominated. However, represen-
CVLUM 97 1.94 2.59 0.3339
tation of the other colors was considered to be adequate
Key: See Table 2. for the purpose of this project. Ranges in luster score
and mean fiber diameter (Table 1) were similar for each
the average CVLUM was 2.3% with no individual CV > 10% color. The MLUS values (Table 3) ranged from 0.6 to 29.1
(Fig. 2). with smaller values being associated with white fiber and
larger values with black fiber. Conversely, MLUM values
3.4. Correlations and multiple regression analyses increased from black to white and exhibited a wide range,
4.5–8680.5. For plotting purposes, it was convenient to use
In all, we measured or calculated 50 physical properties the log10 of luminance rather than the luminance value
for each of 205 samples of Suri alpaca. This total included itself. Mean fiber diameter ranged from 16.8 to 39.3 ␮m
only 2 of the many variables measured and calculated by providing a wide range for this trait. All other measured

Table 6
Pearson correlation coefficientsa , b , c between selected Suri alpaca fiber traits.

MFC MED OBJ LSY MSL MSS MIDMFD MLSR MLSW MLUS MLUM

MFD −0.6341 0.6249 0.3786 0.3419 −0.3367 0.4025 0.9054 −0.3676 −0.2133 0.3468 −0.1875
MFC −0.3453 −0.0231 −0.2971 0.3428 −0.3279 −0.5512 0.1911 0.0378 −0.1912 0.1591
MED 0.5527 0.1210 −0.1513 0.4075 0.5472 −0.4330 −0.4627 −0.3076 0.2420
OBJ 0.1357 −0.0331 0.3556 0.3110 −0.2603 −0.2871 −0.0811 0.2277
LSY −0.1748 0.1936 0.2779 −0.1533 −0.0768 −0.00467 0.1362
MSL −0.1331 −0.3316 0.0984 0.1087 −0.0784 0.0564
MSS 0.3673 −0.2579 −0.1358 −0.0025 −0.0645
MIDMFD −0.3484 −0.1935 0.3706 −0.2748
MLSR 0.6480 0.0460 −0.0568
MLSW 0.1521 −0.1300
MLUS −0.6577

Key: See Table 2.

a
N = 205 for all correlations except those that include MED and OBJ in which cases N = 91.
b
Correlation coefficients >0.15 or <−0.15 are significant (P < 0.05) when N = 205.
c
Correlation coefficients >0.21 or <−0.21 are significant (P < 0.05) when N = 91.
 C.J. Lupton, A. McColl / Small Ruminant Research 99 (2011) 178–186 183

Table 7
NIRS calibration and cross validation statistics for selected constituents in raw Suri alpaca samples.

Constituent N Calibration Prediction

2
Mean SD SEC R SECV SEP Slope R2

MLUS 187 6.39 6.54 1.50 0.95 1.56 2.36 1.03 0.90
MLUM 190 1317.56 1470.67 241.37 0.97 404.72 881.05 1.13 0.80
LOG10 MLUM 194 2.64 0.90 0.14 0.98 0.15 0.19 1.00 0.96
MLSR 198 11.86 1.26 1.26 0.22 1.16 1.22 0.93 0.18
MLSW 199 14.04 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.05 0.87 0.01

Key: N, number of samples used in calibration model; SD, standard deviation; SEC, standard error of calibration; R2 , multiple coefficient of determination
for calibration; SECV, standard error of cross validation; SEP, standard error of prediction; R2 , coefficient of determination for the prediction.

Table 8
NIRS calibration and cross validation statistics for selected constituents in washed-and-aligned Suri alpaca samples.

Constituent N Calibration Prediction

2
Mean SD SEC R SECV SEP Slope R2

MLUS 188 6.61 6.62 1.67 0.94 1.72 2.45 1.03 0.89
MLUM 194 1320.76 1417.28 267.72 0.96 309.18 1058.00 1.14 0.71
LOG10 MLUM 196 2.62 0.92 0.12 0.98 0.13 0.167 1.00 0.97
MLSR 197 11.81 1.30 1.27 0.05 1.29 1.33 0.62 0.03
MLSW 200 14.04 1.00 0.99 0.02 1.00 1.05 0.83 0.01

Key: See Table 6.

properties exhibited ranges in values that were compared
to those reported earlier for Huacaya alpaca (Wuliji et al.,
2000; McGregor, 2006; Lupton et al., 2006). Generally,
Suri alpaca had lower mean fiber curvature (less crimp
frequency) compared to Huacaya (12.9 versus 33.2◦ /mm
[values in parenthesis from this study and Lupton et al.,
2006]), comparable medullation (15.6 versus 17.5%), lower
lab scoured yield (77.8 versus 89.8%), longer staple length
(177.2 versus 116.3 mm), and lower staple strength (35.9
versus 50.2 N/ktex). With the exception of staple length,
means and ranges tabulated in this study (MFD, CF, MFC)
are also similar to those reported in an earlier Suri alpaca
study (Lupton, 2009).
4.2. Subjective assessment of alpaca luster
Subjective luster scores (MLSR, average values for 2
judges) on the raw samples ranged from 7.5 to 15.5 with a
mean value of 11.8 (Table 3) and predictably increased after
the samples had been washed, dried, and aligned resulting
in a mean value of 14.1 and a range of 11.0–17.0 (MLSW
values). The problem of consistency in subjective assess-
ments of luster, as previously alluded to, is exemplified
by the following results. Coefficients of determination for
raw versus washed-and-aligned scores by the same judge
(Table 4) were low (r2 = 0.25 and 0.44) and r2 values for the
regressions between the scores of individual judges on raw
and clean samples were even lower (0.17 and 0.10, respec-
tively). The r2 value for averaged scores on raw versus
washed-and-aligned was 0.42. Thus, even if we assumed
the instrument measurements were accurate, it would be
unreasonable to expect a high level of correlation between
the objective SAMBA measurements and the subjectively
assessed scores.
We also conducted stepwise multiple linear regression
analyses to determine which combination of all the mea-
sured properties would be used to best predict MLSW
and MLUS. For MLSW the following variables entered the
regression model in the indicated order (partial r2 and P
values follow the abbreviation): MLSR (0.4503, <0.0001),
MIDMED (0.0353, 0.0172), and MFC (0.0472, 0.0043) for a
model R2 = 0.5328. No other variable met the 0.05 signifi-
cance level for entry into the model. In other words, 53% of
the variability in subjectively scored luster in the washed-
and-aligned samples was accounted for by variability in
these 3 traits. In contrast, for MLUS the following vari-
ables entered the regression model in the indicated order:
LOG10 MLUM (0.5913, <0.0001), MLUM (0.1030, <0.0001),
MIDMED (0.0601, <0.0001), COLORNO (0.0385, 0.0002),
MLSW (0.0240, 0.0014), MIDSDFC (0.0207, 0.0017), SDFC
(0.0188, 0.0016) and MIDCVFD (0.0750, 0.0387) for a model
R2 = 0.8640. No other variable met the 0.05 significance
level for entry into the model. It is interesting to note that
a measure of medullation (MIDMED) made a small but sig-
nificant contribution to both MLSW and MLUS.
4.3. Precision and accuracy of SAMBA Hair System
measurements
Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate that the measurement of lumi-
nance is more precise than that of luster. Small differences
in the alignment of fibers in the staples and smoothness
of the staple surface have been reported to affect luster
measurements (Gao et al., 2009), hence the great care nec-
essary in sample preparation. Apparently, these differences
do not affect color measurement to the same degree. Paired
t-tests indicated no differences (P > 0.16, Table 4) between
subsamples for MLUS, SDLUS, CVLUS, MLUM, SDLUM, and
CVLUM. Accuracy of the SAMBA measurements was not
determined because no absolute or standard methods were
used in this trial to compare them with. In fact, com-
parison of SAMBA-measured luster on staples containing
many fibers having a wide distribution of fiber diameter
with measures of luster based on multiple goniophoto-
184 C.J. Lupton, A. McColl / Small Ruminant Research 99 (2011) 178–186
Fig. 3. BNT luster versus log10 luminance for 205 Suri alpaca samples.
metric measurements of single fibers may not have been
appropriate and certainly would not have been practical or
affordable. We were actually more interested in determin-
ing how well SAMBA-measured luster related to the judges
subjective evaluations.
4.4. Instrument measurement of luster
Interpretation of BNT luster values is complicated by the
observation that MLUS is highly dependant on luminance
(Fig. 3). Consequently, direct comparison of BNT luster val-
ues between animals of different color is meaningless. An
earlier study (reported by Vonderhaar, 2009) conducted by
BNT personnel identified different trend lines for visually
low, medium, and high luster when Stamm luster was plot-
ted against luminance. A similar relationship was noted
in this study when BNT luster (MLUS) was plotted against
log10 luminance (MLUM) for 25 samples with extreme high
scores, 25 with extreme low scores and 25 with intermedi-
ate luster scores (Fig. 4). So, despite the aforementioned
problems with consistency of subjective assessments of
luster, we were also able to demonstrate clear evidence that
SAMBA luster and luminance measurements are related
Fig. 4. BNT luster versus log10 luminance for 25 extreme high and low and
medium subjective scores.
Fig. 5. BNT luster versus log10 luminance showing 95% confidence limits
for the luster measurement.
to subjectively assessed luster scores. The practical ques-
tion then arises, how can the BNT luster measurements
be used to produce estimates of luster that are indepen-
dent of color? Two possibilities include the following. If the
assumption is made that the samples used in this study are
truly representative of all colors and levels of luster found in
Suri alpacas, then it is possible to calculate 95% confidence
limits about the regression line (Fig. 5) and conclude that
samples that fall between the 95% confidence limits have
intermediate or normal luster, while those above could be
termed high and those below could be termed low luster,
thus providing a 3-point scoring system. The present sub-
jective system (show ring) for scoring luster in Suri alpaca is
a 20-point system so breeders and judges might find the 3-
point system too restrictive. So alternatively, knowing the
range of MLUS for a specific luminance (Fig. 6), luster scores
could be assigned within that range for a specific lumi-
nance. Because the MLUS range decreases with increasing
luminance, moving from black to white, the smallest ranges
are in the white area of the spectrum. Using the formulas
in Fig. 6, the range in MLUS for a value of LOG10 MLUM = 3.5
was calculated to be 0.8163–2.4932. Using the formulas in
Fig. 5 (based on 97 samples only), the 95% confidence limits
at this same luminance value are of the order ±0.05. So even
Fig. 6. BNT luster versus log10 luminance showing minimum and maxi-
mum measured ranges of luster.
 C.J. Lupton, A. McColl / Small Ruminant Research 99 (2011) 178–186
at this particular luminance where the observed range in
MLUS is relatively small, the SAMBA Hair System is capa-
ble of differentiating between samples having numerically
small differences in luster. Taking into account the actual
score ranges observed in this study and the precision of
the luster measurement, a score range of 1–5 (rather than
1–20) might be more appropriate.
When scores of 1–3 (based on the system described
above) were assigned to the 97 samples represented in
Fig. 5, correlations between instrument-based scores and
judges scores of raw and washed-and-aligned samples
were 0.1652 and 0.3043, respectively, higher than the cor-
relations between MLSR and MLSW versus MLUS (0.0460
and 0.1521, Table 6).
4.5. Correlation analyses
Several of the correlations listed in Table 6 appear to
be intuitive and some (those between MFD, MFC, LSY,
MSL, and MSS) are similar in magnitude and sign to those
reported earlier for Huacaya alpaca fiber (Lupton et al.,
2006). Small negative correlations existed between MFD
and the scores made on raw and washed-and-aligned
fibers, finer samples receiving higher luster scores. How-
ever, the opposite was true for the correlation between
MFD and instrument-measured luster in which a small pos-
itive correlation was observed. Knowing that the SAMBA
Hair System measures luster close to the middle of the
tress, we also measured MFD at mid staple. The MIDMFD
and MFD values (the latter representing fibers through-
out the staple) were highly correlated (r = 0.9054) and
the MIDAFD versus MLUS correlation was slightly greater
than the corresponding correlation with MFD (0.3706
versus 0.3468). This is interpreted to mean that approx-
imately 14% (r2 = 0.1373) of the variability in MLUS can
be explained by the variability in MFD. It was also inter-
esting to note that both the subjective scores and the
instrument measurements of luster were negatively cor-
related with medullation. So the human perceptions as
well as the instrumental measurements were affected by
medullation in the same direction, though the magnitude
was larger in the case of the scores (r = −0.4 versus −0.3
for scores and instrument measurements, respectively).
Very few of the other correlations are noteworthy. One
exception is the correlation between raw and washed-
and-aligned scores for which r = 0.6480, an indication that
a significant (P < 0.0001) degree of consistency is present
between scores made on fiber in the two different physical
forms. The other exception is the relatively high linear cor-
relation between MLUS and MLUM (r = −0.6577). Though
not shown in Table 6, it is noteworthy that the corre-
lation between MLUS and LOG10 MLUM is considerably
higher (r = −0.9419). This linear correlation coefficient is
only slightly smaller than the r value calculated from the
data represented in Fig. 3 (r = −0.9701) that is associated
with the polynomial relationship between these two traits.
4.6. NIRS estimates of luster and luminance
In the absence of a true validation using independent
samples, a cross validation technique was used to generate
185
cross validation statistics that used the same samples for
validation as were used for calibration. This was achieved
by removing a sample or group of samples and develop-
ing a calibration model with the remaining samples. The
samples that were eliminated were then predicted and
residuals were calculated. This procedure was repeated
until all the samples had been predicted and also used in
the calibration model development (Williams, 2005). The
derived calibration equation was used to predict the var-
ious constituents thus producing another set of statistics
(SEP, slope, and R2 ). The slope of the line between pre-
dicted and actual lab measurements approaches 1 as the
predictions become more accurate. R2 approaches 1 as the
predictions become more precise. It is apparent from both
Tables 6 and 7 that NIRS predictions of LOG10 MLUM are
both accurate and precise. The NIRS predictions of MLUS
and MLUM are less accurate and precise, though potentially
still useful. And the NIRS predictions of MLSR and MLSW are
neither accurate nor precise.
5. Conclusions
1) Precision estimates for the SAMBA Hair System mea-
surements of luster and luminance were calculated and
should be satisfactory for routine measurement of these
traits in Suri alpaca.
2) Two approaches for expressing instrument-measured
luster that are independent of color in Suri alpaca have
been proposed.
3) Correlation between instrument-measured luster and
subjective scores was low. However, significant rela-
tionships between the 2 were demonstrated for samples
judged to have high, medium, and low luster. Cor-
relations between BNT luster and several objectively
measured fiber characteristics were calculated.
4) Prediction equations derived from near-infrared
reflectance spectra produced precise and accurate
estimates of log10 luminance. Estimates of BNT luster
were less precise and less accurate, and estimates of
subjectively assessed luster were neither accurate nor
precise.
6. Implication
The SAMBA Hair System is capable of producing pre-
cise estimates of luster that in conjunction with pedigree
information could be used to calculate the heritability of
this trait in Suri alpacas and other species where luster is
important. If luster proves to be a heritable trait, these mea-
surements will be useful to Suri alpaca breeders who intend
to select for this trait.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their appreciation to the
Alpaca Research Foundation and the Suri Network for
financial support of this project and to the cooperating
breeders who shared in the cost of the testing.
186 C.J. Lupton, A. McColl / Small Ruminant Research 99 (2011) 178–186
References
Alpaca Registry Inc., 2010. http://www.Alpacaregistry.com/public/reports/
alpacaworld (accessed 12.11.10.).
Anon., 2006. Shine measurement of hair care product applied on blond,
light brown, and dark brown samples with Samba Hair System. In:
Bossa Nova Technologies Report, Venice, CA, October, p. 14.
A STM D 584-96, 2003. Standard test method for wool content of raw wool
– laboratory scale. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Sec. 7, vol. 07.01.
American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA,
pp. 187–192.
Aylan-Parker, J., McGregor, B.A., 2002. Optimising sampling techniques
and estimating sampling variance of fleece quality attributes in
alpacas. Small Ruminant Res. 44, 53–64.
Clemenceau, P., 2007. Objective measurement of luster in alpaca Suri sam-
ples. In: Bossa Nova Technologies Report, Venice, CA, August 7, p.
9.
Elliot, K.H., 1986. The Ability of the WRONZ Bulkometer to Rank Wools for
Luster. Wool Research Organization of New Zealand Rep. No. R135, p.
11.
Gao, T.A., Pereira, A., Zhu, S., 2009. Study of hair shine and hair surface
smoothness. J. Cosmet. Sci. 60, 187–197.
Hoffman, E., 2003a. The Complete Alpaca Book. Bonny Doon Press, Santa
Cruz, CA, pp. 252–253.
Hoffman, E., 2003b. The Complete Alpaca Book. Bonny Doon Press, Santa
Cruz, CA, p. 279.
IWTO-30, 1998a. Determination of Staple Length and Staple Strength.
International Wool Textile Organisation, Brussels, Belgium.
IWTO-57, 1998b. Determination of Medullated Fibre Content of Wool and
Mohair Samples by Opacity Measurements Using an OFDA. Interna-
tional Wool Textile Organisation, Brussels, Belgium.
IWTO-47, 2000. Measurement of the Mean and Distribution of Fibre
Diameter of Wool Using an Optical Fibre Diameter Analyser (OFDA).
International Wool Textile Organisation, Brussels, Belgium.
Keis, K., Kamuth, Y.K., 2004. TRI Princeton Business Briefing: Global Cos-
metics Manufacturing, pp. 1–5.
Lefaudeux, N., 2007. Mohair measurement. In: Bossa Nova Technologies
Report, Venice, CA, April 20, p. 10.
Lefaudeux, N., Clemenceau, P., Lechocinski, N., 2007. Visual appear-
ance measurements on mohair samples. In: Bossa Nova Technologies
Report, Venice, CA, May 22, p. 9.
Lefaudeux, N., Lechocinski, N., Clemenceau, P., Breugnot, S., 2008. New lus-
ter formula for the characterization of hair tresses using polarization
imaging. J. Cosmetic Sci. 60 (2), 153–169.
Lupton, C.J., 2006. Objective measurement of mohair luster. In: Final
Report to the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center. Texas
Agric. Exp. Sta. Texas A&M Univ. System, p. 10.
Lupton, C.J., 2009. Characteristics of North American Suri alpacas.
In: The Suri Network, http://surinetwork.org/pages/Luster Study
Reports/Characteristics%20of%20North%20AmericanSuri%20Alpacas.
pdf (accessed 21.10.10.).
Lupton, C.J., McColl, A., Stobart, R.H., 2006. Fiber characteristics of Huacaya
alpaca. Small Ruminant Res. 64, 211–224.
McGregor, B.A., 2006. Production, attributes and relative value of alpaca
fleeces in southern Australia and implications for industry develop-
ment. Small Ruminant Res. 61, 93–111.
Orwin, D.F.G., Woods, J.L., 1983. The effects of within-fibre diameter vari-
ability and other fiber characteristics on the luster of wool. J. Text. Inst.
3, 118–130.
Rasmussen, P.V., Dyck, J., 2000. Silkiness in brown mink pelts character-
ized with optical methods. J. Anim. Sci. 78, 1697–1709.
Safley, M., 2004. Some Views on Evaluating Suri Alpaca, http://www.ideal-
alpaca.com/article/-174.htm (accessed 02.03.11.).
Van Rensburg, N.J.J., Maasdorp, A.P.B., 1985. A study of the luster of mohair
fibres. In: Proc. 7th Int. Wool Text. Res. Conf., vol. 1 , Tokyo, Japan, pp.
243–252.
Vonderhaar, B., 2009. Characteristics of North American Suri alpacas.
In: The Suri Network, http://surinetwork.org/pages/Luster Study
Reports/Vonderhaar’s%20Power%20Point.ppt (accessed 10.10.10.).
Williams, P., 2005. Near-Infrared Technology – Getting the Best Out of
Light. PDK Projects Inc., Nanaimo, BC, Canada, pp. 5–11, 5–12.
Wuliji, T., Davis, G.H., Dodds, K.G., Turner, P.R., Andrews, R.N., Bruce,
G.D., 2000. Production performance, repeatability and heritability
estimates for live weight, fleece weight, and fiber characteristics of
alpacas in New Zealand. Small Ruminant Res. 37, 189–201.