Unit cost benchmarks for U.S. textile manufacturing in 2026 can feel weirdly slippery, because every mill has its own “normal” that doesn’t show up in a quote. A single change like fiber grade or a tighter shade tolerance can move the number more than people expect, and then someone swears the market is “broken.” It’s also easy to forget how much the boring stuff matters, like scheduling discipline, maintenance, and how clean the shop keeps its process notes.
Still, the US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 picture is clearer than it looks once the cost drivers get separated and compared on the same basis. Benchmarks help teams stop arguing over anecdotes and start negotiating from a shared baseline, even if the baseline needs caveats. And yeah, the “real” cost is often the cost of a delay or a re-run, which is the least glamorous part of textile work. This kind of perspective fits naturally alongside the broader market context on Trophy Daughter.
20 Top US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 (Editor's Choice)
20 Top US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 and Future Implications
US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 #1. Benchmark knit fabric unit cost range per linear yard
The US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 baseline for standard knit fabric usually lands inside a pretty tight band once fiber, width, and finish are normalized. The big surprise is how often the quote is really a calendar quote, meaning the price is quietly tied to what slot is open. A mill that can run the job in a clean sequence tends to price confidently, and a mill that expects interruptions builds padding. This is why two “similar” quotes can look like different planets even before anyone mentions color. In 2026, teams are getting better at comparing apples to apples, but there’s still noise from specs that are written like wish lists. Future sourcing is likely to reward brands that standardize constructions and lock repeat programs early.
Over the next few seasons, this benchmark range will matter more because brands are squeezing timelines and expecting domestic speed without paying for chaos. If inflation cools but volatility stays, buyers will lean on benchmarks to call out outlier quotes faster. Mills that publish transparent rate cards or clearer cost logic will win trust and reduce negotiation churn. There’s also a tech angle: quoting systems that learn from past runs will tighten price variance, but only if the input specs are clean. A small documentation upgrade in 2026 can reduce price arguments in 2027. That kind of operational hygiene becomes a competitive edge, not a nice-to-have.
US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 #2. Woven fabric unit cost benchmark per linear yard
The US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 woven range tends to run higher because loom time is less forgiving and prep work is real work. Warp setup and loom efficiency drive cost in a way that doesn’t always show up in a glossy spec sheet. If a brand wants a special hand feel and a tight defect threshold, it stacks labor and inspection on top of already constrained capacity. Wovens also punish small batches, since setup is a larger share of the total. In 2026, woven pricing is turning into a signal of how tight the mill’s schedule is, not only how fancy the fabric is. Future programs will likely shift toward fewer, larger woven orders to protect unit cost.
There’s a second-order effect too: if woven demand spikes, mills will prioritize repeat customers, and the benchmark range will widen for new buyers. This pushes brands to build relationships earlier, even before the first big season. Expect more “program pricing” offers in 2026 that are basically capacity reservations with a nicer name. Over time, mills that invest in faster style changeovers will compress the premium for complexity. Buyers who track these benchmarks season-to-season can spot when a mill is upgrading equipment versus just raising prices. That insight will shape supplier scorecards and long-term sourcing maps.
US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 #3. Dyeing and finishing add-on cost per linear yard
The US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 add-on for dyeing and finishing is one of the most misunderstood numbers in the entire chain. People treat it like a flat fee, but it behaves more like a risk meter tied to chemistry, water, and rework odds. Dark colors, demanding fastness specs, and tight shade windows push the add-on up quickly. Mills also price differently when they anticipate higher lab time, more dips, or a greater chance of a re-run. In 2026, dyehouses are managing more compliance paperwork and that administrative load quietly creeps into the unit economics. Future costs will reward brands that simplify shade libraries and reuse approved colors.
As sustainability requirements tighten, finishing will keep gaining attention because water and chemical controls can’t be treated like background tasks. More mills will build “standard finish packages” that reduce decision fatigue and reduce variability. Buyers that insist on custom finishing every season should expect the benchmark to drift upward over time. On the flip side, mills that invest in better process control will reduce re-dye frequency and stabilize costs. That stability becomes a selling point in 2027 and beyond. The practical implication is that color planning becomes a cost strategy, not only a design choice.
US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 #4. Premium for tight shade tolerance and lab dips
The US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 premium tied to shade tolerance exists because precision takes repetition, and repetition burns time. Every extra lab dip is a mini project: lab work, approvals, communication, and then more production risk if the target keeps moving. Buyers sometimes treat “tight shade” as a vibe, but mills treat it as a measurable probability of delay and rework. In 2026, this premium is also tied to who is paying for the decision-making lag, since approvals can stall a line. Brands that move fast on approvals reduce hidden costs more than they realize. Future supplier agreements will likely formalize response-time expectations to keep this premium from ballooning.
Over the next year, tighter shade requirements will become even more expensive for one-time colors, because mills will prefer repeatable recipes. There’s a strong incentive to lock a color standard and reuse it, especially for core programs. Digital color tools can help, but only if the brand, lab, and mill are all aligned on the same standard. In 2026, that alignment is still uneven across suppliers. The future implication is simple: the premium shrinks when decisions are predictable. Brands that build a disciplined color governance process will pay less and launch faster.
US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 #5. Small-batch run premium versus steady-state production
The US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 small-batch premium is basically the tax for stopping and starting. Setup time, clean-down, calibration, and scheduling changes don’t shrink just because the order is smaller. If a mill has to swap colors, adjust tension, and reset quality checks, the hours are real and they get allocated into fewer yards. In 2026, small-batch demand is rising because brands want testing, limited drops, and faster feedback loops. That’s great for creativity and speed, but it keeps unit costs higher unless the mill has true small-run systems. Future pricing will separate “small batch” from “small batch done efficiently,” and the gap will widen.
Expect mills to offer more structured small-run tiers, with clearer premiums tied to yardage bands. Brands that plan small runs in a smarter cadence, like batching similar colors or constructions, can shrink this premium without sacrificing agility. Over time, the mills that win will be the ones that treat small runs as a product line, not an exception. Automation in setup and better scheduling software will push that direction in 2027. Buyers should plan budgets assuming small runs stay premium-priced, but less chaotic if partnerships mature. That’s the real future payoff: predictability, not only speed.
US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 #6. Typical labor component per yard in US mills
The US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 labor component per yard is the most human piece of the math, and it’s also the piece that gets blamed for everything. In reality, labor cost is closely tied to how smoothly work flows and how often the process gets interrupted. A stable program with clean specs uses labor more efficiently than a complex program with constant changes. In 2026, labor pressure also shows up as training time because skilled operators are not instantly replaceable. Paying more per hour isn’t always the problem, paying for confusion is. Future mills will compete on labor productivity, not only wage levels.
This pushes buyers to write better tech packs and reduce midstream changes. Better inputs mean fewer stops, fewer rechecks, and less overtime creeping into the per-yard calculation. Over the next few years, expect more mills to quote labor as an explicit component when buyers demand heavy documentation or special handling. That transparency can feel uncomfortable, but it helps align expectations. In 2026, buyers who understand labor per yard can negotiate more effectively, because they can trade complexity for cost. Long term, programs that are simple to run will get priority pricing and priority slots.
US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 #7. Energy component per yard for knitting and finishing
The US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 energy component isn’t just electricity, it’s heat, drying, and the whole “move water around” problem that finishing depends on. When energy prices drift upward, the per-yard effect looks small until a mill runs large volumes and the totals become painful. In 2026, energy is also a volatility driver: even modest changes can trigger surcharge conversations. Mills with older equipment feel this more because efficiency losses compound over long runs. Brands don’t always see the energy footprint of their requested finishes, but mills feel it every day. Future cost models will include energy-driven finish pricing more explicitly.
Over the next cycle, expect more investment in efficiency: heat recovery, better boilers, and smarter process controls. That reduces the energy per yard benchmark and makes pricing less jumpy. Buyers will also face more questions about “can we simplify the finish package” because energy-heavy processes invite scrutiny. In 2026, the mills that can quantify energy per yard will win more business, since they can justify pricing without hand-waving. This also ties to sustainability reporting, which is getting stricter and more buyer-driven. The long-term implication is that energy transparency becomes a commercial requirement, not a marketing detail.
US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 #8. Overhead and depreciation allocation per yard
The US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 overhead allocation is the part nobody wants to talk about, even though it explains half the pricing disagreements. Overhead changes with utilization, maintenance burden, and how many “non-production” tasks the buyer asks for. Depreciation also varies by how modern the equipment is, which creates a weird paradox: newer assets can raise overhead rates but lower labor and defect costs. In 2026, mills with heavy investment cycles are trying to recover capital while proving they can deliver better consistency. Buyers who only chase the lowest overhead number can accidentally choose higher risk. Future sourcing will balance overhead against stability metrics.
As automation increases, overhead becomes a larger share of unit cost, even if total cost falls. That means benchmarks will shift: more cost in overhead, less in manual labor and rework. In 2026, buyers should compare overhead alongside service levels, since overhead often funds the systems that keep production consistent. Over time, mills with strong preventive maintenance will show tighter pricing stability across repeats. This is why repeat programs matter, since they amortize overhead more efficiently. The future implication is that capacity planning and asset strategy become part of pricing, whether buyers like it or not.
US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 #9. QC and inspection cost per yard benchmark
The US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 QC cost looks tiny per yard, but it’s one of the most predictive signals of future headaches. When brands ask for extra reporting, extra audits, and extra checkpoints, the QC line item grows and the production pace slows. In 2026, QC is also tied to brand risk management, since buyers need traceable records for compliance and returns. A mill that prices QC honestly is usually telling the truth about what the work takes. Cheaper QC sometimes means less QC, and that is not a savings once returns show up. Future programs will treat QC spend as prevention spend.
QC benchmarks will keep rising for brands with complex requirements, but they may drop for brands willing to standardize. Digital inspection systems could reduce manual QC time, but they need training and process discipline. In 2026, those tools are spreading unevenly, creating a performance gap between mills. Buyers will increasingly request data sharing, not only pass or fail results. That will push QC into a more analytical role, closer to process engineering. The long-term implication is fewer surprises, and more predictable quality economics across seasons.
US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 #10. Waste, scrap, and rework allowance in benchmark costing
The US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 waste allowance is a quiet confession that textile production is not perfect, and pretending it is only makes budgets lie. Scrap and rework come from defects, off-shade lots, handling damage, and process drift that shows up mid-run. Some constructions are inherently more sensitive, and some colors are inherently more fragile. In 2026, waste is also a sustainability headline, so mills feel pressure to document it more precisely. That documentation effort can reveal that the “real” waste rate is higher than the assumed rate. Future costing will get stricter and more data-based, reducing magical thinking.
Over time, waste allowances will become negotiated, with brands taking responsibility for spec complexity that drives scrap. This could show up as shared-cost clauses or tighter approval processes that reduce rework. Mills that track waste at a granular level will be able to lower it, and then lower total unit cost without cutting corners. In 2026, buyers should treat waste reduction as a joint project, not a mill-only issue. The best future scenario is fewer emergency re-runs and fewer late shipments driven by rework. The benchmark becomes a target for improvement, not a static assumption.
US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 #11. Unit cost delta between commodity cotton and premium cotton blends
The US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 fiber upgrade delta is not just the fiber price, it’s the standards that come with it. Premium cotton and blends often require tighter defect thresholds and more careful handling, which increases labor and inspection time. In 2026, premium fibers are also tied to marketing claims, so brands push for stronger traceability and documentation. That paperwork adds cost, even when the fabric itself is straightforward. The delta also moves with global fiber markets, which can change quickly. Future programs will likely lock fiber specs earlier to avoid mid-season cost spikes.
Brands that treat fiber selection like a strategic decision will manage this delta better than brands that treat it like a last-minute upgrade. Over the next year, expect more “good, better, best” benchmark menus from mills so buyers can see the trade-offs clearly. That makes negotiations less emotional and more practical. Mills will also favor predictable fiber sourcing to reduce disruptions and quality variability. This means long-term partnerships can reduce the delta, even if the fiber is premium. The future implication is that fiber strategy becomes part of cost control, not only part of product storytelling.
US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 #12. Performance finishes premium per yard
The US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 performance finish premium tends to surprise brands because it’s not only chemistry cost, it’s process complexity. Extra steps mean extra handling, extra QC, and extra opportunities for variability. In 2026, buyers keep stacking performance requirements, like moisture management plus anti-odor plus a specific hand feel, and each add-on compounds risk. Mills price that risk, even if the buyer only sees “one more finish.” Some finishes also have tighter compliance constraints, which adds testing and documentation. Future product teams will likely simplify finish stacks to protect speed and margins.
Over the next few seasons, the market will split into “standardized performance packages” versus “custom lab projects.” Standard packages will get cheaper and faster, while custom projects will get more expensive and slower. That’s a natural evolution once mills see repeat demand for certain finish recipes. Brands that align on a core set of finishes can stabilize unit costs and reduce returns tied to inconsistent hand feel. In 2026, those decisions will be guided by both cost and customer feedback. The future implication is that finish strategy will be more disciplined, with fewer one-off experiments.
US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 #13. Recycled fiber traceability and certification cost add-on
The US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 recycled fiber add-on is partly administrative, and that’s exactly why it’s sticky. Chain-of-custody controls, batch tracking, audits, and additional tests all take time. In 2026, buyers increasingly request proof, not promises, which pushes mills to formalize systems and hire compliance talent. That means the add-on can feel like a surcharge, but it’s also a signal that the mill is running a more controlled operation. If a brand wants recycled claims, the cost of certainty is real. Future compliance expectations will keep increasing, so this add-on is unlikely to vanish.
As the market matures, some of this cost will compress due to better systems and more standardized workflows. Mills that scale recycled programs will spread admin cost across more volume and reduce the per-yard effect. Brands can help by keeping certification requirements consistent across suppliers instead of changing the rules every season. In 2026, inconsistency is a major cost driver in documentation-heavy programs. The future implication is that recycled programs will reward repeatable processes, and punish improvisation. Benchmarks will become a planning tool for sustainability budgeting, not an afterthought.
US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 #14. Domestic freight and packaging benchmark per yard
The US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 freight and packaging number looks small until urgency kicks in. When a brand wants a quick turn, shipping choices get expensive and packaging specs get stricter. Rolls, labels, poly, pallets, and protective wrap add up, and the “nice” packaging that reduces damage often costs more upfront. In 2026, domestic freight also reflects broader trucking and fuel conditions, which can swing seasonally. Buyers sometimes ignore packaging rules until the final moment, then the cost shows up in a rush fee. Future purchasing teams will budget freight and packaging as a standard line item, not a surprise line item.
Over time, mills will offer more packaging options that tie directly to damage rates and returns. That means buyers can choose cheaper packaging with higher risk, or slightly higher packaging cost with smoother outcomes. In 2026, a lot of brands are learning that damage prevention is cheaper than replacement. Freight benchmarks also push brands to regionalize supply chains when possible, since shorter lanes reduce cost and volatility. The future implication is tighter coordination between sourcing and logistics, instead of treating them like separate worlds. Unit cost benchmarking becomes a full landed-cost discipline, not a mill-only calculation.
US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 #15. Expedite premium for rush dyehouse scheduling
The US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 expedite premium exists because rushing is disruptive, even when everyone pretends it’s normal. Jumping the queue means overtime, weekend runs, and more risk of mistakes because the job is being forced into a tight slot. In 2026, more brands are asking for rush runs as a default behavior, which makes mills more selective about who gets that service. Mills that do accept rush work price it as a priority service tier, not as a favor. This premium can also protect the mill’s broader schedule from cascading delays. Future supplier relationships will likely limit rush requests to avoid constant pricing escalation.
Expect more formal expedite policies: defined rush windows, defined premiums, and defined responsibilities for approvals. Brands that repeatedly ask for rush work will either pay more or lose priority, because mills will protect their most stable programs. Over time, better forecasting and better calendar discipline could reduce the need for expedite runs, which is the best outcome for everyone. In 2026, the brands that plan earlier will quietly win cost and lead-time advantages. The future implication is that schedule discipline becomes a commercial lever. Benchmarks make it easier to spot when “rush” has turned into a habit.
US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 #16. Benchmark cost per pound for greige fabric output
The US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 greige cost per pound is useful because it strips away some finish complexity and focuses on base output economics. GSM, yield, and machine efficiency drive this number, and those are operational truths. In 2026, mills use greige benchmarks to sanity-check whether their processes are efficient or drifting. Buyers can also use it to compare suppliers, as long as they normalize specs properly. Greige cost can look “cheap” and then inflate after finishing, so it must be used carefully. Future costing frameworks will use greige benchmarks as a building block for more transparent quotes.
As mills digitize more of their operations, greige benchmarking will become more granular, possibly by machine group or construction family. That helps identify which constructions are profitable and which are resource drains. Buyers who understand greige economics can ask smarter questions, like whether a cost increase is fiber-driven or efficiency-driven. In 2026, that clarity is still rare, which creates negotiation friction. The future implication is more data-driven pricing, with fewer vague explanations. Greige benchmarks will also support faster quoting, which supports faster development cycles.
US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 #17. Benchmark fully loaded cost per machine hour
The US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 machine-hour rate is the most honest way to talk capacity, because it connects cost directly to time. Complex styles consume time, and time is the scarce resource. In 2026, mills with modern equipment sometimes carry higher hourly rates, but they can deliver more consistent output and fewer defects. That trade-off matters more as brands prioritize reliability and speed. The machine-hour benchmark also explains why changeovers are expensive, since idle time is still paid for. Future pricing is likely to reference machine-hour economics more openly.
Over time, mills will differentiate by offering “premium machine-hour” slots for high-spec work and “standard machine-hour” slots for commodity work. This can reduce conflict and align expectations better. Buyers will also push for capacity transparency, which makes machine-hour benchmarks a negotiation tool rather than a hidden internal metric. In 2026, suppliers that can show machine-hour utilization trends will look more credible. The future implication is stronger alignment between technical design choices and cost reality. It will be easier to predict what a new construction will cost before sampling even begins.
US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 #18. Unit cost gap between low MOQ and high MOQ runs
The US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 MOQ gap is basically the math of fixed costs divided by volume. Setup and validation work stays similar, but the yardage changes, so the per-yard hit is bigger at low volumes. In 2026, many brands accept this gap because small runs reduce inventory risk and allow faster trend tests. The problem shows up when brands want small runs priced like bulk runs, because the mill can’t make that math work. This gap also influences fabric development, because early-stage runs are nearly always smaller. Future programs will likely use smarter bundling strategies to narrow the gap without losing flexibility.
Brands can reduce the gap by grouping colors, repeating constructions, and aligning calendars so setup work is shared. Over time, mills will invest in systems that shrink setup time, which directly reduces the MOQ gap. In 2026, that investment is uneven, which means supplier choice matters more for small runs than for big runs. Buyers who live in drop culture should treat MOQ economics as a core skill, not a nuisance. The future implication is more tiered pricing models that feel like airline seats, with different cost levels tied to how disruptive the order is. Benchmarks keep those tiers grounded in reality.
US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 #19. Typical cost impact of tighter defect thresholds
The US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 defect-threshold premium exists because perfection costs time and scrap. When thresholds tighten, more fabric gets rejected, and the mill has to spend more effort finding and managing defects. In 2026, buyers are tightening thresholds partly because returns are expensive and social proof is unforgiving. That’s understandable, but it pushes cost upward unless process capability improves. Mills with stronger process control can hold tighter thresholds with less scrap, which is why “quality” is not just a promise, it’s a cost control mechanism. Future procurement will likely pair defect thresholds with process capability evidence.
Over time, defect benchmarking will become more standardized, which helps buyers compare suppliers more fairly. Mills will also invest in better detection systems and training to reduce scrap at high standards. In 2026, buyers that demand very tight thresholds should consider longer lead times or higher prices as the cost of certainty. A better alternative is partnering on root-cause fixes, which reduces cost for both sides. The future implication is fewer reactive disputes and more preventive collaboration. Benchmarks help convert “this feels wrong” into “this is what it costs to hit that threshold.”
US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 #20. Best-in-class benchmark for repeat program pricing stability
The US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 pricing stability metric is the one buyers secretly want most, because it makes budgeting possible. Repeat programs run smoother, with fewer surprises, and mills can plan capacity with more confidence. In 2026, the best stability happens when specs stay consistent and the calendar slot is booked early enough to avoid chaos. Even small spec drift, like a hand feel tweak or a new finish request, can break the stability pattern. Pricing stability is also tied to trust, since mills are less likely to pad quotes for customers who behave predictably. Future sourcing strategies will prioritize stability suppliers, not only lowest-cost suppliers.
As volatility continues across fiber, energy, and logistics, stability becomes a competitive advantage. Brands will sign more long-term agreements that resemble capacity subscriptions, with guardrails for spec changes. Mills will also prefer customers who commit to forecast discipline, which reinforces stable pricing. In 2026, the brands that treat repeat programs like “assets” will protect margins better. The future implication is fewer emergency quotes and fewer last-minute negotiations. Benchmarks make it easier to measure whether stability is improving year to year, instead of guessing.
What These Benchmarks Mean for 2026 Sourcing Decisions
US Textile Manufacturing Unit Cost Benchmarks Statistics 2026 are really a map of friction, showing which choices create drag and which choices keep production smooth. The numbers don’t remove negotiation, but they make it harder for anyone to hide behind vague explanations. In 2026, the winners will be the brands that plan earlier, write cleaner specs, and treat mills like long-term partners instead of quote machines.
Costs will keep moving, but volatility can be managed with repeatable constructions, disciplined color strategies, and realistic MOQ planning. The next phase is more transparency, since buyers want proof, not vibes, and mills want predictable customers. Done well, benchmarking becomes the calm middle ground between speed, quality, and margin.
Sources
- Average hourly earnings for US manufacturing production workers
- BLS industry productivity context for textile mills NAICS 313
- BLS table of hourly and weekly earnings by industry
- EIA average electricity prices by end use sector tables
- EIA monthly electricity price changes across customer sectors
- NIST primer explaining the Manufacturing Cost Guide methodology
- NIST Manufacturing Cost Guide primer PDF for cost categories
- NIST announcement describing a tool for estimating manufacturing costs
- Producer price index series for polyester manufactured fibers
- Producer price index series for selected textile product categories
- USDA cotton and wool market outlook summary and projections
- DAT weekly trendlines showing spot rate movement snapshots
