Coalition Against Fur Farms obtains new issue internal fur industry newsletter Fur Farm Letter
CAFF has obtained copies of the Fur Farm Letter, published by the Fur Commission USA. We will be publishing numerous excerpts from the newsletters over the coming weeks.
For now, we are posting this article by mink veterinarian John Easley. We chose this article as the first to be released because it is very relevant to previous posts this week regarding information CAFF is uncovering about mink vaccine research.
Several important things are gleamed from this article:
*The fact that the Fur Commission USA lobbied for this meeting with Merck further emphasizes how significant it’s vaccine is.
*The research facility outside Omaha (see posts from earlier this week) is” Merck Animal Health’s main research and development and production facility for the majority of their vaccines that they distribute worldwide”.
*Quote: “The Merck representatives continually reinforced that the mink vaccine production is very important to them.”
*Quote: “Merck has only has one source for their test animals”. As covered in a post earlier this week, this is likely to be Steve Krage / Circle K Farms in Sioux City, Iowa (near Omaha).
*There is a vaccine shortage, which is of concern to US fur farmers.
*Notice this quote: “Merck has done a lot of work investigating why they are having the problem and have made changes with the way they manage their test mink population at the farm and in the lab”. This indicates the mink research is being done in an experimental farm setting. It is not known if this is on-site, at the Sioux City farm, or elsewhere.
*United Vaccines in Wisconsin “hopes” to have a “4-way vaccine available for the North American market in about 18
months.”
Here is the article, in full:
Fur Commission meets with Merck Vaccine Producers
Fur Farm Letter, Spring 2012
By Dr. John Easley DVM, Fur Commission USA Director of Research
After attempting to arrange a meeting for months, this February we were able to organize a meeting with Merck Animal Health for
mink industry representatives. Kate Roesler, FCUSA Board Member from the state of Washington representing the US producers,
Peter Peters from P.E.I. and chairman of the CMBA research committee representing the Canadian industry and myself, met with
the Merck Animal Health representatives. The Merck group included the general site manager for the Elkhorn facility, the heads of
sales, distribution, marketing, production (virology and bacteriology), technical services and quality control; quite an impressive
group.
First of all, we of the mink industry need to thank Merck Animal Health for accommodating our request for the meeting and
the very impressive effort they put forth to have this truly informative and open meeting. I strongly believe Merck is committed to
serving the North American mink industry by producing a high quality product for today’s market and also investing in the future
of the industry by improving their product and their ability to deliver that product.
The state of the art facility in Elkhorn, Ne. is Merck Animal Health’s main research and development and production facility for the majority of their animal biologicals (“vaccines”) that they distribute worldwide. The Merck representatives continually reinforced that the mink vaccine production
is very important to them. The production of the vaccine is a complicated process that takes about 7 months from start to finish for each batch. They are continually producing the vaccine throughout the year to meet demand. As you know, they have been having problems with individual batches passing their quality control standards. This is primarily due to the need to use live animals (mink) in the final test studies. Merck only has one source for their test animals, so if something is “off” with their test population it affects the whole process. We, the mink producers, offered to assist Merck in any way possible to help them develop additional sources for the test animals.
Merck is also investing time and money in developing new testing methods that will be acceptable to USDA so that the variability of the live animal testing model can be eliminated, and testing for the release of the vaccine could be done in a more controllable laboratory environment.
Unfortunately, all this doesn’t change the present situation with concerns for vaccine availability. Merck has enough vaccine production scheduled to cover the North American market, if and that is a big IF, each batch can pass the quality control tests. Merck has done a lot of work investigating why they are having the problem and have made changes with the way they manage their test mink
population at the farm and in the lab. Time will tell if the changes will increase the consistency of the vaccine release. We also discussed why the vaccine pricing was increased. As expected it was a corporate decision to recoup the increased costs of production, investing in future development and with the increased value of your product and no competition, the industry can afford to pay more for the vaccine.
I, also, spoke with United Vaccine and they are hoping to have a 4-way vaccine available for the North American market in about 18
months. We discussed the possibility of getting USDA to allow for an emergency release of United’s 3-way product if needed. This
process is now under way.
Good luck with the upcoming whelp.
John Easley DVM
Director of Research
FCUSA