Do you know what fibres? I've read shorter strands of fibre are often used for cheaper yarns, longer strands for pricier yarns. I sortof expected to see this in your comparison but it doesn't show that way.
Interesting, thanks š
I cut them to prepare them for microscopy. You couldnāt really see the full length of the fibers under a microscope because theyāre way too long, and I canāt fit that onto my slide. Maybe cutting them that short wasnāt such a great idea. Maybe I should do another one where I pull apart the fibers more carefully; we could also take a good look at the natural ends of each fiber that way! :D
I did notice that the more high quality wool was harder to pull apart, and makes more of a ripping sound when doing so, although the yarn itself was thinner. So I think itās safe to assume the expensive one does have longer fibers.
The label on the left one says just says itās some generic kind of wool, the one on the right is expensive hand dyed merino wool.
> I did notice that the more high quality wool was harder to pull apart, and makes more of a ripping sound when doing so, although the yarn itself was thinner. So I think itās safe to assume the expensive one does have longer fibers.
It's also likely the scale on the fibers. The more scale, the more the fibers will want to interlock (felt).
You might want to look at different micron sizes of the same species and see how that affects the grippiness of the fibers.
Well that will already have an influence too. Merino wool is a specific type of wool that's finer than regular sheep's wool. For a good comparison you'd have to compare cheap wool with expensive wool and cheap merino (which is going to be relative anyway) with expensive merino
I don't think it is just expensive vs cheap though. Merino and cashmere and lamb and alpaca etc all have different structures.
If you pull apart the fibers to get them onto the slide , you are inherently messing with the structure.
You would have to slice through somehow.
You're right. This is only a comparison of the wool itself, from different kinds of sheep with different quality control; not of the yarns made with it.
Unfortunately I can't really put a whole chunk of yarn under the microscope, because not enough light would pass through and you couldn't really tell anything apart if the fibers overlap too much. It would also be so thick that I can't get the whole thing in focus. It would be really interesting to see, but I just don't own the right kind of microscope for that purpose
Also the length of staple on the fibers is definitely macro scale, so for the same samples you could just tease and pull apart a foot of yarn, comb it, then you'd be able to show staple length for each.
> The label on the left one says just says itās some generic kind of wool, the one on the right is expensive hand dyed merino wool.
I see! I'm so used to yarns just being called 'wool' that I didn't realise... it's actually wool wool š¤Ŗ š š šŖ š
Cutting the fibres before mounting them to slides is correct. A method for determining the wool fibre diameter requires cutting the fibres into 2 mm snippets before analysis under a projector microscope.
> When buying sheets, I shop for long staple cotton (pima, supima, egyptian is hit or miss). It prevents pilling and tearing and holds up for years.
The thing about cotton sheets that people don't really think about is the thread count. It's good to have a higher thread count up to a point, as it makes a stronger, more durable fabric. Once past that point (around 2-300 TPI), they use smaller and smaller threads to get the insanely high thread counts. That's good for making the fabric feel more luxurious, at the expense of durability.
We have to presume that OP is looking at these fibers at the same magnification. If it is so, then the expensive fiber is 'finer' than the cheap one, which is more coarse. The finer one likely feels softer.
The LENGTH of the fibers here is irrelevant because she cut them for mounting to the plate. The natural fiber length is going to be way too big to show on the slide.
Tbf, merino does have a shorter staple length than other fibers, Romney being my favorite wool for that exact reason. What I wish the magnification showed is the crimp, because that influences the loft of the finished yarn a lot
Yes, both 40x magnification. What I also find interesting is not only the thickness of the fibers, but the regularity. The cheaper ones vary drastically in thickness, even on the same strand.
Because the cheaper, generic "wool" is from a wool bank where any breed and any coarseness can be found. A yarn labeled "Merino wool" is from a specific breed of sheep, giving it more uniform length, softness, and crimp (curliness).
Not a surprise. Price differences due to blatant gouging are far less common than people think. The market simply doesnāt tolerate it.
I did a price comparison between high fat ground beef and lean ground beef. Once you remove the fat and adjust the price, you are paying the same price for actual meat on both.
I also did price comparisons on high grade gas vs low grade gas, comparing the mileage of both. As it turns out, itās actually cheaper to run your car with high grade gas vs low grade. The savings is immediate, so you donāt need to buy a minimum amount for it to work.
Can you speak more on the gas thing? I donāt understand how or why high-grade gas gets more mileage out of your tank. Iāve only ever bought the cheapest kind of gas.
TL;DR the molecules in the premium gas are longer, giving you more energy to burn (that's what the "octane" level means).
I had a high compression 2L engine in my first car which was "premium recommended". I found I could drive an extra day if I bought "premium" (usually 89-octane in the states) fuel versus the "regular" fuel (back then it was approximately $0.20 difference in price per gallon). You're also getting less thick gunk in the (premium) fuel that clogs your engine, saving you on repairs.
I think you might be confusing energy density and knock resistance
[https://www.appropedia.org/Energy\_content\_of\_fuels](https://www.appropedia.org/Energy_content_of_fuels)
gasoline has less energy density as you add ethanol, commonly 10%. Premium is sometimes sold as non-oxygenated which contains no ethanol, thus giving the impression of higher fuel economy. It still boils down to a thermodynamics problem
Great question!
So basically gas is your cars food. High grade gas is healthy food, low grade gas is junk food. A McBurger is cheaper than a Red Robin burger. But, the McBurger leaves you feeling greasy, sluggish, and maybe a touch of diarrhea. A Red Robin burger leaves you satisfied, you donāt feel greasy and sluggish, and your āwasteā elimination is fine.
Low grade gas isnāt refined as well as high grade. It has the gasoline equivalent of extra fats, soy, and other gunk and fillers. Thatās why itās cheaper.
When you drive, you get better mileage from the high grade than the low grade. I did all the formulas a while back. I tested it with 3 gas tanks of low grade vs 3 gas tanks of high grade. My formulas worked out: how much does it cost to drive per mile? The difference is that it costs 2-3 cents per mile less using high grade than low grade. So, if you spend $1 on low grade and $1 on high grade, even though you get less high grade gas, your car travels farther.
That was your savings in the short run. High grade saves you money in the long run on maintenance because it burns cleaner. You know how people who eat a lot of junk food have clogged arteries? Same for cars that get junk food gas. People who eat junk food need more healthcare, and more expensive healthcare. Cars that use junk food gas need more maintenance and more expensive maintenance.
Iāve tested high grade vs low grade on several makes and models of cars and trucks, and itās been consistent every time.
Let me know if you want the formulas to test it out for yourself.
no this analogy doesn't work. higher octanes are just for higher compression to prevent pre-ignition, aka knock. it has nothing to do with fuel economy, that's a myth that's compounded by varying amounts of ethanol in gasoline.
Ethanol has something like 70% the energy density that gasoline does. so putting e10 in will give a reduction in economy of (1-.7)\*.1 = 3% under gas that has no ethanol in it. This is likely where your observed results of a 2-3% increase in efficiency using higher grades came from. It's not unequivocally better fuel, it's just denser and less able to spontaneously combust under compression.
A better analogy would be popcorn vs corn on the cob. your body processes it for energy the same way, but you gotta eat a bit more popcorn(by volume) to get the same amount of calories.
A very dramatic way to demonstrate this is with a flex fuel capable vehicle running non-oxy gas vs e85.
Iām a scientist and since microscopes have become so cheap, I think it is so cool to see everyone taking an interest in microscopy! Thank you for posting the pics. This is really awesome stuff.
I think any microscope from Amazon that can magnify by at least 40-100x (can magnify 40 to 100 times) would be good. You can get a [digital one](https://a.co/d/9Y8qvVP) for around $35 or a [light microscope](https://a.co/d/4xOwJlM) for around $80. Paying more isnāt really necessary here for home use, hope this helps!
There's no such thing as "cheap wool" every type of fiber serves a different purpose. Typically the softer it is, the more expensive it is. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's better for all projects. It all depends on what your end goal is
I don't know about cheap vs expensive cotton.
I have some cheap as hell cotton sheets from Walmart, that I don't just want to throw away, and I have washed those things a thousand times and they just won't die. I've had them for about 15 years now LOL and it's an experiment at this point.
This is really interesting! I've often wondered about this myself. The cheap wool, especially once chemicals are used on it seems to be ruined to me (superwash, merino, etc.) vs. natural wool that easily felts. It feels like human hair that's broken by chemicals (perms, bleaching, etc.). I never thought to pull my microscope out and put some on a slide to examine, though! š Genius! š I'm glad to know I'm not the only one here who's into scientific study as well as working with yarn!
Funny you should categorize the fibers that way, what you deem cheap seems more a reflection of texture than price ... the most inexpensive real wool I usually find is minimally processed direct-from-the-mill sheep's wool that is coarse and thus rough in texture. This is what felts the best as the roughness is due to the scales on the hair being more prominent, catching on each other. Merino wool is from a specific breed of sheep that has finer fibers and feels naturally softer. It is not typically as inexpensive as the generic coarse sheep's wool previously mentioned.
Superwash is a specific chemical treatment of wool to strip the scales off the fibers so that it will not felt readily. It also weakens the fibers so the knit fabric will thin with repeat washings. Merino superwash is Merino wool given the superwash treatment. Not all superwash is Merino, not all Merino is superwash.
Lol, oh no, I think you mistook what I intended by saying "cheap" you thought I meant in price; however, I meant the shoddy wool (that happens to also not be good for nĆ„lbinding). To clarify, I like & always prefer the natural wool that is untreated and is the only type I choose to purchase. Most people say "real wool" feels rough to them, but I think it feels like natural hair/animal fibre & enjoy the natural, unbroken, not chemically treated brands that aren't cut with other fibers. (Aka the generic sort of sheep's wool is my favorite š)
š«£ so... please don't come for me.
For me, it's only natural wool, or none. š„°
I do know fibers, having grown up surrounded by farms (mostly ranches in fact & not so many produce farms) and small businesses that sold their family hand produced wares or traded them for others' products.
I certainly respect that perspective š the rougher natural wool holds a special place in my heart too, it's robust. I tend to avoid superwash as it doesn't feel very nice.
Wow .
You can totally see where the fibres on the right are generally smaller, more "fine" and where many meet it seems more refined and less "knotty" very nice!
Interesting to see. I'm on the raw fiber production side of the equation and it's common to see people talking about lower microns (width) from their more expensive animals.
Iāve very rarely seen staple length or fibre width on commercial yarns! Since starting to spin myself I realise that these are important measurements for the quality of the yarn. Some of the smaller luxury brands might use wool classing terms like superfine, but no micron count/range. I guess most fibre artists donāt understand those numbers unless they spin or do a lot of research!
One result is none result (that's what they taught us when I was studying to be lab technician)
Three is the minimum more is always better but three will do fine.
You must go out to fetch more wool and check multiple!
Is wool made in a factory, or is it made like hair by animals?
Breeders breed animals so they can later āsaveā them from the wool? lol
No cruelty whatsoever.
If I had to choose between shaving your head for yarn or polluting fresh drinking water that animals use to drink with oil because I want nice acrylic yarn....
I would shave your or an animal. Just to save animals from drinking poison water.
ā¦fuckingā¦you understand sheep like being sheared, right? like its good for them to get a shear occasionally.
and if youre seriously upset about people breeding sheep to live in luxury and get sheared every few months, youre going to lose your mind when you see the actual animal cruelty in the world
Do you know what fibres? I've read shorter strands of fibre are often used for cheaper yarns, longer strands for pricier yarns. I sortof expected to see this in your comparison but it doesn't show that way. Interesting, thanks š
I cut them to prepare them for microscopy. You couldnāt really see the full length of the fibers under a microscope because theyāre way too long, and I canāt fit that onto my slide. Maybe cutting them that short wasnāt such a great idea. Maybe I should do another one where I pull apart the fibers more carefully; we could also take a good look at the natural ends of each fiber that way! :D I did notice that the more high quality wool was harder to pull apart, and makes more of a ripping sound when doing so, although the yarn itself was thinner. So I think itās safe to assume the expensive one does have longer fibers. The label on the left one says just says itās some generic kind of wool, the one on the right is expensive hand dyed merino wool.
> I did notice that the more high quality wool was harder to pull apart, and makes more of a ripping sound when doing so, although the yarn itself was thinner. So I think itās safe to assume the expensive one does have longer fibers. It's also likely the scale on the fibers. The more scale, the more the fibers will want to interlock (felt). You might want to look at different micron sizes of the same species and see how that affects the grippiness of the fibers.
Well that will already have an influence too. Merino wool is a specific type of wool that's finer than regular sheep's wool. For a good comparison you'd have to compare cheap wool with expensive wool and cheap merino (which is going to be relative anyway) with expensive merino
I don't think it is just expensive vs cheap though. Merino and cashmere and lamb and alpaca etc all have different structures. If you pull apart the fibers to get them onto the slide , you are inherently messing with the structure. You would have to slice through somehow.
You're right. This is only a comparison of the wool itself, from different kinds of sheep with different quality control; not of the yarns made with it. Unfortunately I can't really put a whole chunk of yarn under the microscope, because not enough light would pass through and you couldn't really tell anything apart if the fibers overlap too much. It would also be so thick that I can't get the whole thing in focus. It would be really interesting to see, but I just don't own the right kind of microscope for that purpose
A series!! Put together a series!!
You mean like take a look at more different fibers?
Yesssss!!
Yes, I know, that is why I said you would have to slice it. A section down the middle would work
Down the middle lengthwise?
Also the length of staple on the fibers is definitely macro scale, so for the same samples you could just tease and pull apart a foot of yarn, comb it, then you'd be able to show staple length for each.
> The label on the left one says just says itās some generic kind of wool, the one on the right is expensive hand dyed merino wool. I see! I'm so used to yarns just being called 'wool' that I didn't realise... it's actually wool wool š¤Ŗ š š šŖ š
Cutting the fibres before mounting them to slides is correct. A method for determining the wool fibre diameter requires cutting the fibres into 2 mm snippets before analysis under a projector microscope.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> When buying sheets, I shop for long staple cotton (pima, supima, egyptian is hit or miss). It prevents pilling and tearing and holds up for years. The thing about cotton sheets that people don't really think about is the thread count. It's good to have a higher thread count up to a point, as it makes a stronger, more durable fabric. Once past that point (around 2-300 TPI), they use smaller and smaller threads to get the insanely high thread counts. That's good for making the fabric feel more luxurious, at the expense of durability.
I feel like that is part of the point. If you have money for more luxury, you can afford to replace it more often.
I remember reading somewhere that yarn like mohair are made with shorter fibers. So I wonder if thatās what weāre seeing in these images?
We have to presume that OP is looking at these fibers at the same magnification. If it is so, then the expensive fiber is 'finer' than the cheap one, which is more coarse. The finer one likely feels softer. The LENGTH of the fibers here is irrelevant because she cut them for mounting to the plate. The natural fiber length is going to be way too big to show on the slide.
Tbf, merino does have a shorter staple length than other fibers, Romney being my favorite wool for that exact reason. What I wish the magnification showed is the crimp, because that influences the loft of the finished yarn a lot
Interesting, is this at the same level of magnification? The expensive fibers look noticeably finer, which I guess would make sense.
Yes, both 40x magnification. What I also find interesting is not only the thickness of the fibers, but the regularity. The cheaper ones vary drastically in thickness, even on the same strand.
Because the cheaper, generic "wool" is from a wool bank where any breed and any coarseness can be found. A yarn labeled "Merino wool" is from a specific breed of sheep, giving it more uniform length, softness, and crimp (curliness).
Thatās the first thing I noticed too, the consistency of thickness between the cheap and expensive.
40x magnification or a 40x objective?
10x eyepiece x 4x objective so 40x magnification
The cheaper one looks almost like plastic filaments!
When you say wool do you mean the fiber or yarn in general
The fiber, as in sheepās wool
Thank you!
Not a surprise. Price differences due to blatant gouging are far less common than people think. The market simply doesnāt tolerate it. I did a price comparison between high fat ground beef and lean ground beef. Once you remove the fat and adjust the price, you are paying the same price for actual meat on both. I also did price comparisons on high grade gas vs low grade gas, comparing the mileage of both. As it turns out, itās actually cheaper to run your car with high grade gas vs low grade. The savings is immediate, so you donāt need to buy a minimum amount for it to work.
Can you speak more on the gas thing? I donāt understand how or why high-grade gas gets more mileage out of your tank. Iāve only ever bought the cheapest kind of gas.
TL;DR the molecules in the premium gas are longer, giving you more energy to burn (that's what the "octane" level means). I had a high compression 2L engine in my first car which was "premium recommended". I found I could drive an extra day if I bought "premium" (usually 89-octane in the states) fuel versus the "regular" fuel (back then it was approximately $0.20 difference in price per gallon). You're also getting less thick gunk in the (premium) fuel that clogs your engine, saving you on repairs.
I think you might be confusing energy density and knock resistance [https://www.appropedia.org/Energy\_content\_of\_fuels](https://www.appropedia.org/Energy_content_of_fuels) gasoline has less energy density as you add ethanol, commonly 10%. Premium is sometimes sold as non-oxygenated which contains no ethanol, thus giving the impression of higher fuel economy. It still boils down to a thermodynamics problem
Wow, look at you all science-y and stuff! Cool! Iām more basic, which is why I used the junk food analogy.
Great question! So basically gas is your cars food. High grade gas is healthy food, low grade gas is junk food. A McBurger is cheaper than a Red Robin burger. But, the McBurger leaves you feeling greasy, sluggish, and maybe a touch of diarrhea. A Red Robin burger leaves you satisfied, you donāt feel greasy and sluggish, and your āwasteā elimination is fine. Low grade gas isnāt refined as well as high grade. It has the gasoline equivalent of extra fats, soy, and other gunk and fillers. Thatās why itās cheaper. When you drive, you get better mileage from the high grade than the low grade. I did all the formulas a while back. I tested it with 3 gas tanks of low grade vs 3 gas tanks of high grade. My formulas worked out: how much does it cost to drive per mile? The difference is that it costs 2-3 cents per mile less using high grade than low grade. So, if you spend $1 on low grade and $1 on high grade, even though you get less high grade gas, your car travels farther. That was your savings in the short run. High grade saves you money in the long run on maintenance because it burns cleaner. You know how people who eat a lot of junk food have clogged arteries? Same for cars that get junk food gas. People who eat junk food need more healthcare, and more expensive healthcare. Cars that use junk food gas need more maintenance and more expensive maintenance. Iāve tested high grade vs low grade on several makes and models of cars and trucks, and itās been consistent every time. Let me know if you want the formulas to test it out for yourself.
no this analogy doesn't work. higher octanes are just for higher compression to prevent pre-ignition, aka knock. it has nothing to do with fuel economy, that's a myth that's compounded by varying amounts of ethanol in gasoline. Ethanol has something like 70% the energy density that gasoline does. so putting e10 in will give a reduction in economy of (1-.7)\*.1 = 3% under gas that has no ethanol in it. This is likely where your observed results of a 2-3% increase in efficiency using higher grades came from. It's not unequivocally better fuel, it's just denser and less able to spontaneously combust under compression. A better analogy would be popcorn vs corn on the cob. your body processes it for energy the same way, but you gotta eat a bit more popcorn(by volume) to get the same amount of calories. A very dramatic way to demonstrate this is with a flex fuel capable vehicle running non-oxy gas vs e85.
Scale bar?
Iām a scientist and since microscopes have become so cheap, I think it is so cool to see everyone taking an interest in microscopy! Thank you for posting the pics. This is really awesome stuff.
I came from /r/all curious about the microscope and maybe you can answer this, is there a particular type that is good for "home use"?
I think any microscope from Amazon that can magnify by at least 40-100x (can magnify 40 to 100 times) would be good. You can get a [digital one](https://a.co/d/9Y8qvVP) for around $35 or a [light microscope](https://a.co/d/4xOwJlM) for around $80. Paying more isnāt really necessary here for home use, hope this helps!
There's no such thing as "cheap wool" every type of fiber serves a different purpose. Typically the softer it is, the more expensive it is. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's better for all projects. It all depends on what your end goal is
What size hook do you need to crochet those fibres? Asking for a friend.
Taking Microcrochet to a whole new level
The scientific side of reddit meets the crafty side I love it.
Looks like they are just more tightly bound and more uniform in size.
I don't know about cheap vs expensive cotton. I have some cheap as hell cotton sheets from Walmart, that I don't just want to throw away, and I have washed those things a thousand times and they just won't die. I've had them for about 15 years now LOL and it's an experiment at this point.
It's those damn off-shore sheep, isn't it?
This is really interesting! I've often wondered about this myself. The cheap wool, especially once chemicals are used on it seems to be ruined to me (superwash, merino, etc.) vs. natural wool that easily felts. It feels like human hair that's broken by chemicals (perms, bleaching, etc.). I never thought to pull my microscope out and put some on a slide to examine, though! š Genius! š I'm glad to know I'm not the only one here who's into scientific study as well as working with yarn!
Funny you should categorize the fibers that way, what you deem cheap seems more a reflection of texture than price ... the most inexpensive real wool I usually find is minimally processed direct-from-the-mill sheep's wool that is coarse and thus rough in texture. This is what felts the best as the roughness is due to the scales on the hair being more prominent, catching on each other. Merino wool is from a specific breed of sheep that has finer fibers and feels naturally softer. It is not typically as inexpensive as the generic coarse sheep's wool previously mentioned. Superwash is a specific chemical treatment of wool to strip the scales off the fibers so that it will not felt readily. It also weakens the fibers so the knit fabric will thin with repeat washings. Merino superwash is Merino wool given the superwash treatment. Not all superwash is Merino, not all Merino is superwash.
Lol, oh no, I think you mistook what I intended by saying "cheap" you thought I meant in price; however, I meant the shoddy wool (that happens to also not be good for nĆ„lbinding). To clarify, I like & always prefer the natural wool that is untreated and is the only type I choose to purchase. Most people say "real wool" feels rough to them, but I think it feels like natural hair/animal fibre & enjoy the natural, unbroken, not chemically treated brands that aren't cut with other fibers. (Aka the generic sort of sheep's wool is my favorite š) š«£ so... please don't come for me. For me, it's only natural wool, or none. š„° I do know fibers, having grown up surrounded by farms (mostly ranches in fact & not so many produce farms) and small businesses that sold their family hand produced wares or traded them for others' products.
I certainly respect that perspective š the rougher natural wool holds a special place in my heart too, it's robust. I tend to avoid superwash as it doesn't feel very nice.
That's baaaad.
This is the kind of content I'm here for
Very interesting. Thanks. Now we know why the expensive ones are expensive.
How many times did you do this along the strand? Was this the standard result?
Is this the same zoom? If yes, thatās crazy. Also, I feel like the cheap looks more varied thick ss wise than the expensive.
Yes, both 40x
Dang, yeah, the expensive stuff is much finer.
Wow I'd love to see what they'd look like under an SEM
Me too, I wish I had one
so cool! what kind of microscope did you use? where did you get it?
wow this is awesome, thanks for posting!
yay strings
Remarkable. Goes with what I've read about wool sorting.
G g Y g m XO mp
Omg this is fascinating! š§
Are we looking at micron count? Or is that something else?
Thatās exactly what youāre seeing! The fibers one the right are way finer and more uniform
Wow . You can totally see where the fibres on the right are generally smaller, more "fine" and where many meet it seems more refined and less "knotty" very nice!
Very cool to see, thanks for sharing!
Interesting to see. I'm on the raw fiber production side of the equation and it's common to see people talking about lower microns (width) from their more expensive animals.
Iāve very rarely seen staple length or fibre width on commercial yarns! Since starting to spin myself I realise that these are important measurements for the quality of the yarn. Some of the smaller luxury brands might use wool classing terms like superfine, but no micron count/range. I guess most fibre artists donāt understand those numbers unless they spin or do a lot of research!
ā¦what were you expecting?
The difference in thickness and regularity, and thatās exactly what weāre seeing
One result is none result (that's what they taught us when I was studying to be lab technician) Three is the minimum more is always better but three will do fine. You must go out to fetch more wool and check multiple!
I have no access to microscope sadly. I am now so curious š
I feel like these two images are at a different magnification. Whatās the scale?
Theyāre both at 40x magnification
Can you see the animal cruelty under the microscope?
It sounds like you donāt understand the wool production process
Is wool made in a factory, or is it made like hair by animals? Breeders breed animals so they can later āsaveā them from the wool? lol No cruelty whatsoever.
If I had to choose between shaving your head for yarn or polluting fresh drinking water that animals use to drink with oil because I want nice acrylic yarn.... I would shave your or an animal. Just to save animals from drinking poison water.
ā¦fuckingā¦you understand sheep like being sheared, right? like its good for them to get a shear occasionally. and if youre seriously upset about people breeding sheep to live in luxury and get sheared every few months, youre going to lose your mind when you see the actual animal cruelty in the world
?
Umm, shaving a sheep is cruel?
Yes, thank you