Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Thank you for posting such a good survey of bovine mastitis. I have been interested in the subject for quite a few years. I once tried to get a company to do a test of a vaccine they were developing to see if there was an economic benefit from treating cows with it, but they were no interested "We are not an animal products company" the CEO said.
Recently, I have been trying to get the makers of n OTC nasal spray which I think works very well on humans to do a test of spraying their product on the noses of cows to reduce their infection rate. Should be very cheap to do this. I don't know what sort of FDA or other regulations have to be met to do this. The company [SinoFresh] has very little money though, not sure they will do it.
Maybe it has already been tried and did not work. From personal experience I think it is the best nose spray out there.
Norman
John,
I owned and operated a dairy for 25 years, 1971 to 1996.
600 cows.
Come back on Ninjas if you wish.
Prevalence and risk factors of mastitis in dairy cows
Percentage of cows affected by Mastitis. Between 17% and 40%, depending on whether it is dry or wet season. risk factors are the how clean and dry the farm is.
http://www.banglajol.info/index.php/BVET/article/viewFile/4951/3961
John
Mastitis Control Programs:
Bovine Mastitis and Milking Management
Details on Mastitis and cost:
Mastitis is complex; there is no simple solution to its control. Some aspects are well understood and documented in the scientific literature. Others are controversial, and opinions are often presented as facts. The information and interpretations presented here represent the best judgments currently accepted by the National Mastitis Council.
To simplify understanding of the mastitis complex, it is useful to consider that three major factors are involved in this disease: the microorganisms as the causative agent, the cow as host, and the environment, which can influence both the cow and the microorganisms. (Figure 1.)
Well over 100 different microorganisms can cause mastitis, and these vary greatly in the route by which they reach the cow and in the nature of the disease they cause.
Cows contract udder infection at different ages and at different stages of the lactation cycle. Cows also vary in their ability to overcome an infection once it has been established. Therefore, the cow plays an active role in the development of mastitis.
The cows' environment influences both the numbers and types of bacteria they are exposed to and their ability to resist these microorganisms. However, through appropriate management practices, the environment can be controlled to reduce this exposure and enhance resistance to udder disease.
Practical measures are now available to maintain common forms of mastitis at relatively low and acceptable levels in the majority of herds. While continued research is needed to control the less common forms of intramammary infection, herd problems are often the result of failure to apply the proven mastitis control practices consistently and to consider all aspects of the disease problem.
Definitions
Mastitis -- inflammation of the mammary gland caused by microorganisms, usually bacteria, that invade the udder, multiply, and produce toxins that are harmful to the mammary gland.
Clinical Mastitis -- visible signs of mastitis which include:
Mild signs flakes or clots in the milk, may have slight swelling of infected quarter.
Severe signs secretion abnormal, hot, swollen quarter or udder; cow may have a fever, rapid pulse, loss of appetite, dehydration and depression; death may occur.
Subclinical Mastitis -- no visible signs of the disease:
Somatic cell count (SCC) of the milk will be elevated.
Bacteriological culturing of milk will detect bacteria in the milk.
Causes the greatest financial loss to dairy farmers through lowered milk production.
For every clinical case of mastitis, there will be 15 to 40 sub-clinical cases.
Somatic Cell Count (SCC) -- the number of leukocytes or white blood cells per milliliter of milk.
Normal milk will have less than 200,000 cells per milliliter.
An elevated SCC is an indication of inflammation in the udder.
Bulk tank SCC gives an indication of the level of sub-clinical mastitis and the loss of milk production in a herd due to mastitis.
Economic Loss
Economic loss to mastitis in the United States is estimated to be approximately $185/cow annually. If we assume the same milk price and this value is multiplied by the total number of milking cows (9.5 million head), the total annual cost of mastitis is about $1.8 billion. This is approximately 10% of the total value of farm milk sales, and about two-thirds of this loss is due to reduced milk production in subclinically infected cows.
The average production loss per lactation for one infected quarter is about 1,600 pounds. Other losses are due to discarded abnormal milk and milk withheld from cows treated with antibiotic, costs of early replacement of affected cows, reduced sale value of culled cows, costs of drugs and veterinary services, and increased labor costs. The estimated costs of these factors are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Estimated annual losses due
to mastitis.*
-----------------------------------------
Loss Percent of
per Cow Total
Source of Loss ($) (%)
-----------------------------------------
Reduced Production 121.00 66.0
Discarded Milk 10.45 5.7
Replacement Cost 41.73 22.6
Extra Labor 1.14 .1
Treatment 7.36 4.1
Veterinary Services 2.72 1.5
TOTAL 184.40 100.0
-----------------------------------------
*Assumptions: One-third of cows infected in
an average of 1.5 quarters; milk loss 856
pounds per infected quarter; milk price
$12.07 per hundred weight.
Source: Current Concepts in Bovine Mastitis,
1996. National Mastitis Council.
These estimates do not include additional costs arising from mastitis-associated problems related to antibiotic residues in human foods, milk quality control, dairy manufacturing, nutritional quality of milk, degrading of milk supplies due to high bacteria or somatic cell counts, and interference with genetic improvement of dairy animals.
Economics of Mastitis Control
When analyzing the cost of mastitis control, consider first the cost in lost production. The bulk tank SCC is a good place to start. Table 2 estimates expected losses and prevalence of infection for elevated bulk tank SCC.
Consider as well the possible savings when mastitis is effectively managed. The value of increased milk sales from reduced mastitis more than offset the costs of an effective control program. (Table 3.)
Table 2. Estimated infection prevalence
and losses in milk production
associated with elevated bulk tank SCC.
-------------------------------------
Bulk Tank
SCC Percent Percent
(1,000's/ ml) Infected Production
in Herd Quarters Loss*
-------------------------------------
200 6 0
500 16 6
1000 32 18
1500 48 29
-------------------------------------
*Production loss calculated as a percent
of production expected at 200,000 cells ml.
Source: Current Concepts of Bovine Mastitis.
National Mastitis Council, 1996.
Table 3. Estimated annual savings from an effective
mastitis control program.
----------------------------------------------------
National Mastitis Council Study (Table 1):
Production per cow (+1,069 lb @ $12 cwt) $121.08
Clinical mastitis reduced 40%
Discarded milk $10.45 x 40% 4.18
Total Return $125.26
Mastitis Control Costs (per cow annually)
Teat dip $10.00
Dry cow medication $4.00
Paper towels $10.00
Total Cost $24.00
Net Return to mastitis control $101.26
(per cow annually)
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/ansci/dairy/as1129w.htm
I think approval won't be till early 2011. Not sure if there is anything else upcoming that would move the stock.
were is your link ?? LOL
New mastitis treatment may offer alternative to antibiotics
Agricultural Research, Feb, 2006 by Jan Suszkiw
A new weapon could be on tap for fighting bacteria that cause mastitis, an inflammatory udder disease of dairy cows costing around $2 billion annually in animal and milk-production losses.
In trials at ARS's Bovine Functional Genomics Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland, scientists Max Paape and Douglas Bannerman showed that injecting the cows' mammary glands with the sugar Poly-x reduced mastitis infections at about one-twelfth the cost of antibiotics.
The sugar, a type known as a "polysaccharide," occurs naturally in the cell walls of certain yeasts. But when administered to nonlactating ("dry") dairy cows, the polysaccharide serves as a kind of biochemical bugle call that mobilizes the animals' immune system, especially to produce bacteria-killing 1 white blood cells.
"Previous work at Beltsville indicated that increasing the cell count in milk will prevent infection," says Paape, a dairy scientist. "Poly-x increases the cell count in dry-cow secretions for the first 5 days of the dry period, thus preventing infection by bacteria."
Today's mastitis-control programs often use several measures, like diagnostic testing, sanitation, herd separation, animal culling, teat dips, and antibiotic treatment. For conventional dairy operations, antibiotics use can be expensive, costing about $10 a cow, or $45 million nationwide , Paape estimates. The practice is also controversial, with concerns focusing on the potential for environmental contamination and the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Paape and Bannerman see some advantages to using Poly-x as a natural alternative--the lack of residues being one. Another is the expense. A tube of antibiotic costs around $2.50. By comparison, the ingredient cost for an experimental Poly-x treatment is only 20 cents.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3741/is_2_54/ai_n16069030/
You can put it together from the posts I left. But the market for antibiotics for cows is maybe 40,000 million a year, but dairy farmers don't want to use anitbiotics so cows go untreated.
If Nisin is approved, more farmers would use it earlier, maybe 100 million in yearly sales. After that, you have to figure out if ICCC will partner with someone or not which would determine their net profit.
ICCC has about 4 million in revenue, going to 40-100 million in revenue would get them much higher price.
You could do a deeper analysis, tax rates and profit margins, but I dont have time right now.
yeah...please provide...is there a big market for a drug for lactating cows? TIA
ImmuCell's Mastitis Drug Meets Pivotal Effectiveness Study End Point
Source: ImmuCell Corporation
On Wednesday September 30, 2009, 8:00 am EDT
Companies:ImmuCell Corp.
PORTLAND, ME--(Marketwire - 09/30/09) - ImmuCell Corporation (NASDAQ:ICCC - News) today announced initial results from its pivotal effectiveness study of Mast Out�. All data, results and conclusions discussed in this press release are subject to review and approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Veterinary Medicine.
In a study of approximately 300 qualified cows with subclinical mastitis that was conducted at sixteen sites across the United States, the Mast Out� treatment group showed a statistically highly significant (p < 0.0001) overall cure rate in comparison to the placebo group. The preliminary breakdown of the data by species suggests both the necessary numerical superiority and clinical relevancy to support robust product performance in the field. The primary objective of this study was to demonstrate effectiveness in the field, at a level similar to currently marketed intramammary antibiotics.
"We accomplished our objective and confirmed results from two major field studies conducted since 2003," commented Michael F. Brigham, President and CEO. "The main competitive advantage of Mast Out� is that it may qualify for use in the United States without a requirement to discard milk or withhold meat from human consumption for the period of treatment and for a defined period of time thereafter. All mastitis treatment products on the market today are sold subject to such 'discard' and 'withhold' requirements."
These positive results justify a continued product development effort. Commercial introduction of Mast Out� in the United States is subject to review and approval of a New Animal Drug Application (NADA) by the FDA, which approval cannot be assured. The NADA is comprised of several Technical Sections under the FDA's phased review of a NADA. The pivotal effectiveness data described in this press release would be used to prepare the submission of the Effectiveness Technical Section. The current objective is to complete all the Technical Sections required for submission of the administrative NADA to the FDA in approximately 12 months. The Company intends to continue disclosing the current status of each Technical Section in its periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
By acquiring certain rights and patents in April 2000, ImmuCell began its development of Mast Out�, which is an intramammary infusion product containing Nisin for the treatment of subclinical mastitis in lactating dairy cows. The dual purpose of such a subclinical treatment would be to both clear the infection at an early stage and earn premiums for higher quality milk (low Somatic Cell Counts). The use of antibiotics in food-producing animals may be a contributing factor to the rising human public health problem of bacterial drug resistance. As an alternative to traditional antibiotics that are on the market, Mast Out� could potentially reduce the use of traditional antibiotics in the treatment of mastitis.
Preparations for this pivotal effectiveness study included the production of registration batches of drug product to fulfill the pivotal regulatory requirements of effectiveness, target animal safety, and stability at no less than 10% of the scale anticipated for commercial manufacture. The treatment phase of this study was initiated in June 2008.
Nisin, the same active ingredient contained in ImmuCell's product, Wipe Out� Dairy Wipes, is an antibacterial peptide that is commonly used as a preservative in dairy food products. Nisin is known to have activity against most gram positive and some gram negative bacteria.
ImmuCell Corporation is a public, animal health biotechnology company dedicated to developing, manufacturing and selling products that improve animal health and productivity in the dairy and beef industries. Press releases and other information about the Company are available at http://www.immucell.com.
Forward-Looking Statement Disclaimer:
The foregoing press release contains certain "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, such as, but not limited to, the likelihood of regulatory approval of Mast Out� and certain label claims and our product development timeline. Factors that could cause the Company's future results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements, together with other risk factors, are detailed from time to time in filings we make with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including our Annual Report on Form 10-K and our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. Forward-looking statements in this press release are based on our current information and expectations. Actual results may differ materially due to various factors, including those risks.
ICCC value with Nisin approval, between 40-100 per share.
If you would like my analysis, please ask, otherwise it seems like a waste of time to talk to myself. At least not a long chat :):):)
ciao
Sanofi to Buy Merck’s Merial Stake for $4 Billion (Update3)
By Albertina Torsoli
July 30 (Bloomberg) -- Sanofi-Aventis SA agreed to buy Merck & Co.’s half of their Merial animal-health venture for $4 billion and said the two companies may again work together to form the world’s biggest maker of pet and livestock treatments.
Sanofi will pay cash for the 50 percent it doesn’t own of Merial, which makes a bird flu vaccine for poultry and Frontline, the best-selling flea spray for pets. Sanofi can also combine Merial with the veterinary unit Merck gets when it buys Schering-Plough Corp., the companies said in a statement today.
Merck and Sanofi, which compete in making drugs for people, have worked together for more than a decade to build Merial into a company with $2.6 billion in annual sales. Sanofi now gets control of the veterinary business in an industry that’s growing five times faster than the human health one, and Merck Chief Executive Officer Richard Clark resolves an antitrust obstacle to the Schering-Plough purchase.
“Dick and I both believe that animal health is a business we want to be in for the long term,” Sanofi Chief Executive Officer Chris Viehbacher said on a conference call with analysts. “We saw an opportunity to create an even stronger and more successful animal-health business.”
Sanofi fell 36 cents, or 0.8 percent, to 46.76 euros at 1:42 p.m. in Paris trading.
Antitrust Concerns
Merck, of Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, formed Merial by merging its animal-health unit in 1997 with a division of Rhone Merieux, a predecessor of Paris-based Sanofi. Merck is selling animal-health assets after regulators said its purchase of Schering-Plough would make it too dominant in the market. It also had the option to divest Schering-Plough’s Intervet animal- health unit, the company said on July 13.
Sanofi has about 100 days after Merck finishes buying Schering-Plough to exercise an option to combine Merial with Intervet in a new 50-50 joint venture. Merial would be valued at $8 billion, while Intervet would be valued at $8.5 billion.
Sanofi would pay $750 million in cash to Merck to reflect the value Intervet would have fetched in a sale, Viehbacher said. Merck had offers from other companies interested in buying Intervet as a standalone business, he said. There will then be a second payment by Sanofi to make each company’s contribution to the venture equal to 50 percent, according to Viehbacher.
The new venture would face antitrust reviews in the U.S. and Europe, he said. The combined businesses would surpass the merged animal-health units of Pfizer Inc. and Wyeth as the industry’s largest company.
Credit Suisse Group AG and Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP are advising Merck on the transaction, and Evercore Partners Inc. is counseling Sanofi.
Meat, Milk and Eggs
Some pharmaceutical companies are turning to animal health to diversify their business. Sales of drugs for humans grew 1.3 percent to $291 billion last year, according to IMS Health Inc. That compares with a 7.2 percent increase to $19.2 billion for animal medicines, according to Vetnosis Ltd., a U.K.-based research company.
Medicines added to animal feed, vaccines to prevent livestock disease and treatments for parasites make up the bulk of animal-health products. Sales are benefiting from demand for meat, milk and eggs, which is estimated to rise 50 percent by 2020 as populations grow and people in emerging economies become wealthier, according to the International Federation of Animal Health, based in Brussels.
‘New Engine’
Sanofi’s Viehbacher has been focusing on acquisitions in countries such as the U.S. and Brazil to help replenish Sanofi’s pipeline since he took over eight months ago. Drugs accounting for about 20 percent of the French company’s sales face competition from generic products by 2012.
“Merial is a jewel,” said Jerome Forneris, who helps manage $11 billion at Banque Martin Maurel in Marseille and owns Sanofi shares. “Sanofi absolutely needs a new engine of growth other than traditional drugs. The company is back on track ever since the change of management.”
Merial is Viehbacher’s biggest acquisition so far and the second one this week. The drugmaker will probably announce more transactions in coming months, Viehbacher said in an interview yesterday. Sanofi is considering opportunities “anywhere in Asia and the U.S.” as well as Europe. A large acquisition isn’t a priority, though it can’t be ruled out, he said.
“You are going to see pearls of different sizes,” Viehbacher said, referring to Sanofi’s purchases. “It’s not going to be a nice, even necklace.”
Pfizer has also been seeking a buyer for part of its animal-health unit to resolve antitrust concerns over its purchase of Wyeth. Bayer AG, Eli Lilly & Co., Novartis AG, and Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH are among those companies seen as potential bidders for animal units, said Bill Kridel, a managing director at Ferghana Partners Group, in an interview this month.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=am0XFRnBtKSc
Pfizer returned Nisin to ICCC last year, it could well be Pfizer knew they were going to have to get out of the business pretty soon. In any case, animal-health is heating up.
How important is your mastitis drug selection?
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-DA/Drug_Selection.pdf
1Extension Veterinarian and 2Population Health and Reproduction
School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California Davis
Veterinary Medicine Teaching and Research Center Tulare, CA
Antibiotics that are used for intramammary treatment of mastitis are often suggested to dairymen by their herd veterinarian based on past experience and performance. Most of the time this works and the mastitis cases respond after treatment with return of milk to normal appearance. This is termed a clinical cure. Each dairyman has a cure rate that they accept as being reasonable. We have recently prepared a computer spreadsheet that can be used to visualize the factors responsible for the outcome of this selection process. The input variables are the characteristics of the herd, antibiotics, diagnostics and milk quality (Table 1). The program will estimate the impact of treatment success on cows not clinically cured, cost of diagnostic testing, discard milk, antibiotics and cow potentially
marketed as well as the future impact on the bulk tank somatic cell count (Table 2).
Interesting article.
Nisin Inhibits Several Gram-Positive, Mastitis-Causing Pathogens
http://jds.fass.org/cgi/reprint/72/12/3342.pdf
Part of article.
Nisin is a short peptide antibiotic produced by some strains of Lactococcus lactis ssp. lactis. The protein exerts a bactericidal effect on many gram-positive organisms but is not effective against gram-negative bacteria. Nisin is nontoxic to humans and is readily broken down by digestive enzymes when consumed (7). Hypersensitivity to nisin has not been recorded. It
has been used as a food preservative in other countries since 1954 (8) and has recently gained approval in the United States for use in certain dairy products (3). These features make nisin a good candidate for mastiffs research, because many mastiffs infections involve grampositive pathogens (2) and nisin-containing milk does not present a threat to consumer
health. The objective of this study was to determine
if several species of mastiffs-causing pathogens
were susceptible to nisin in vitro.
But at least 21,000 shares for sale at 2.50.
Pfizer, Merck Takeovers Put Animal Drugs Into Play
By Shannon Pettypiece
July 13 (Bloomberg) -- Four of the world’s biggest drugmakers are likely to compete for Pfizer Inc. and Merck & Co. animal-health products as revenue for flea medicine, canine cancer treatments, and cattle vaccines outpaces human drugs.
Novartis AG, Eli Lilly & Co., Bayer AG and Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH may seek to buy animal-health businesses from Merck and Schering-Plough Corp. with a combined $4.27 billion in sales last year, said Bill Kridel, managing director for New York-based Ferghana Partners Group, which advises companies on mergers and acquisitions. Pfizer’s animal products with as much as $400 million in sales will also draw interest, he said.
The assets are being sold because Pfizer, the purchaser of Wyeth, and Merck, the buyer of Schering-Plough, have been told by regulators the acquisitions may make them too dominant in the animal-health market. Human-drug sales grew 1.3 percent to $291 billion last year, according to IMS Health Inc. That compares with 7.2 percent to $19.2 billion for animal medicines, according to Vetnosis Ltd., a U.K.-based research company.
“Animal health is a much steadier business than the human pharmaceuticals business these days,” said David Moskowitz, an analyst with Caris & Co. in Washington, in a telephone interview. “Animal products tend to have very nice margins, there’s much lower threat of generic competition, and there’s a lot of brand loyalty.”
Pfizer rose 56 cents, or 3.9 percent, to $14.76 at 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. Merck rose 37 cents, or 1.4 percent, to $26.82.
Drugmakers are looking to add animal drugs as a way to broaden their business as generic competition threatens $139 billion in annual sales of human medicines by 2012.
‘Exploring Options’
Merck, of Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, is “exploring the options” on its animal-health businesses, considering whether it would prefer to divest the Intervet unit owned by Schering-Plough, based in Kenilworth, New Jersey, or the Merial division it co-owns with Paris-based Sanofi-Aventis SA, a Merck spokeswoman, Amy Rose, said in an e-mailed statement.
Intervet had $2.97 billion in 2008 sales, while Merial generated $2.6 billion, 50 percent of which is shared with Sanofi.
The most attractive of the three assets would be Intervet, because the buyer would get an entire business, said Ferghana’s Kridel. Lilly, Novartis, Bayer and Boehringer, all of which have existing animal-health businesses, would be candidates to buy Intervet and could finance such a purchase, which may cost $9 billion, Kridel said.
Lilly and Novartis’s animal-health units each had $1.1 billion in revenue last year, while Bayer’s generated about $1.3 billion and Boehringer brought in $655 million.
Growing the Business
Mark Taylor, a spokesman for Indianapolis-based Lilly, declined to comment on whether the U.S. drugmaker will bid for the Pfizer or Merck assets. He said his company does have plans to grow its animal business, and sees that market as a way to diversify beyond human medicines.
“We like animal health,” said Lilly Chief Executive Officer John Lechleiter at an investor meeting last month. “We would look for opportunities to grow that business if there are those opportunities. That would also help diversify us.”
Lechleiter said Lilly is open to acquisitions worth as much as $5 billion to $15 billion. Lilly will lose patent protection in 2011 for its antipsychotic medicine Zyprexa, the company’s top product, with $4.7 billion in sales last year.
“Eli Lilly has a mid-sized animal health business that really needs to bulk up,” said Caris & Co.’s Moskowitz. “Any of the animal health assets that are up for sale would be a perfect fit, and Eli Lilly is a willing buyer.”
Sanofi Seeks Growth
Chris Viehbacher, chief of Sanofi, said on March 13 that his company also would like to raise its animal health profile. Sanofi has the right to buy Merck’s share of Merial if they can match a rival bid.
In an interview with Bloomberg News, Viehbacher called Merial an “extremely interesting company.” Merial employs 5,400 people and sells products including Frontline, a flea product for dogs and cats, and Ivomec, which eliminates parasites in large animals.
A Sanofi spokeswoman, Elizabeth Baxter, declined to comment on a possible deal in a telephone interview.
The Financial Times Deutschland reported on July 7 that Bayer is interested in buying an animal health unit, citing people close to the deal. The story didn’t identify the target.
Guenter Forneck, a Bayer spokesman in Leverkusen, Germany, declined to comment about a possible deal, as did Eric Althoff, a spokesman for Novartis in Basel, Switzerland, and Judith von Gordon, a spokeswoman for Boehringer Ingelheim in Ingelheim, Germany.
Boehringer Partnership
Boehringer has a partnership in the U.S. with Merial and this week sold $1.26 billion in promissory notes to raise capital.
Medicines added to animal feed, vaccines to prevent livestock disease and treatments for parasites make up the bulk of animal-health products. Sales are benefiting from demand for meat, milk and eggs, which is estimated to rise 50 percent by 2020 as populations grow and people in emerging economies become wealthier, according to the International Federation of Animal Health, based in Brussels.
Drugmakers like the animal-health business because it has a lower “risk profile” than human medicines, said Ferghana’s Kridel. The cost of developing treatments for animals is cheaper than for humans, he said.
“A lot of the discovery comes from human pharmaceuticals, and the testing period, clinical development and regulatory approach are more reasonable,” Kridel said. “The margins are lower, but the risks are lower.”
$4 Billion in Revenue
When Pfizer, based in New York, completes its purchase of Madison, New Jersey-based Wyeth, set to close by the end of the year, it will have the world’s biggest animal business, with about $4 billion in annual revenue. Pfizer spokeswoman Joan Campion said the drugmaker may have to divest some of its animal assets to complete the Wyeth transaction. She declined to comment on the bidding process.
Drugmakers are also expanding into medicines for household pets that go beyond the realm of rabies shots and flea powders. In 2007, Pfizer, the world’s biggest drugmaker, started selling an obesity treatment for dogs and Lilly began marketing a version of its antidepressant Prozac for dogs to quell panic attacks and bad behavior from separation anxiety.
There are about 75 million dogs and 88 million cats owned in the U.S., according to the Humane Society of the United States. Dog owners spend about $219 a year on their pets’ vet visits and vaccination and cat owners spend $175.
To contact the reporter on this story: Shannon Pettypiece in New York at spettypiece@bloomberg.net.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601202&sid=apbsBtLbcz18
Per this MSG
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=38733029
ICCC looking good.
Looks like no shares left for sale below 2.50.
Mastitis Control Programs:
Bovine Mastitis and Milking Management
Interesting article about Mastitis. Note that I bolded this line. The total annual cost of mastitis is about $1.8 billion.
Mastitis is complex; there is no simple solution to its control. Some aspects are well understood and documented in the scientific literature. Others are controversial, and opinions are often presented as facts. The information and interpretations presented here represent the best judgments currently accepted by the National Mastitis Council.
To simplify understanding of the mastitis complex, it is useful to consider that three major factors are involved in this disease: the microorganisms as the causative agent, the cow as host, and the environment, which can influence both the cow and the microorganisms. (Figure 1.)
Well over 100 different microorganisms can cause mastitis, and these vary greatly in the route by which they reach the cow and in the nature of the disease they cause.
Cows contract udder infection at different ages and at different stages of the lactation cycle. Cows also vary in their ability to overcome an infection once it has been established. Therefore, the cow plays an active role in the development of mastitis.
The cows' environment influences both the numbers and types of bacteria they are exposed to and their ability to resist these microorganisms. However, through appropriate management practices, the environment can be controlled to reduce this exposure and enhance resistance to udder disease.
Practical measures are now available to maintain common forms of mastitis at relatively low and acceptable levels in the majority of herds. While continued research is needed to control the less common forms of intramammary infection, herd problems are often the result of failure to apply the proven mastitis control practices consistently and to consider all aspects of the disease problem.
Definitions
Mastitis -- inflammation of the mammary gland caused by microorganisms, usually bacteria, that invade the udder, multiply, and produce toxins that are harmful to the mammary gland.
Clinical Mastitis -- visible signs of mastitis which include:
Mild signs flakes or clots in the milk, may have slight swelling of infected quarter.
Severe signs secretion abnormal, hot, swollen quarter or udder; cow may have a fever, rapid pulse, loss of appetite, dehydration and depression; death may occur.
Subclinical Mastitis -- no visible signs of the disease:
Somatic cell count (SCC) of the milk will be elevated.
Bacteriological culturing of milk will detect bacteria in the milk.
Causes the greatest financial loss to dairy farmers through lowered milk production.
For every clinical case of mastitis, there will be 15 to 40 sub-clinical cases.
Somatic Cell Count (SCC) -- the number of leukocytes or white blood cells per milliliter of milk.
Normal milk will have less than 200,000 cells per milliliter.
An elevated SCC is an indication of inflammation in the udder.
Bulk tank SCC gives an indication of the level of sub-clinical mastitis and the loss of milk production in a herd due to mastitis.
Economic Loss
Economic loss to mastitis in the United States is estimated to be approximately $185/cow annually. If we assume the same milk price and this value is multiplied by the total number of milking cows (9.5 million head), the total annual cost of mastitis is about $1.8 billion. This is approximately 10% of the total value of farm milk sales, and about two-thirds of this loss is due to reduced milk production in subclinically infected cows.
The average production loss per lactation for one infected quarter is about 1,600 pounds. Other losses are due to discarded abnormal milk and milk withheld from cows treated with antibiotic, costs of early replacement of affected cows, reduced sale value of culled cows, costs of drugs and veterinary services, and increased labor costs. The estimated costs of these factors are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Estimated annual losses due
to mastitis.*
-----------------------------------------
Loss Percent of
per Cow Total
Source of Loss ($) (%)
-----------------------------------------
Reduced Production 121.00 66.0
Discarded Milk 10.45 5.7
Replacement Cost 41.73 22.6
Extra Labor 1.14 .1
Treatment 7.36 4.1
Veterinary Services 2.72 1.5
TOTAL 184.40 100.0
-----------------------------------------
*Assumptions: One-third of cows infected in
an average of 1.5 quarters; milk loss 856
pounds per infected quarter; milk price
$12.07 per hundred weight.
Source: Current Concepts in Bovine Mastitis,
1996. National Mastitis Council.
These estimates do not include additional costs arising from mastitis-associated problems related to antibiotic residues in human foods, milk quality control, dairy manufacturing, nutritional quality of milk, degrading of milk supplies due to high bacteria or somatic cell counts, and interference with genetic improvement of dairy animals.
Economics of Mastitis Control
When analyzing the cost of mastitis control, consider first the cost in lost production. The bulk tank SCC is a good place to start. Table 2 estimates expected losses and prevalence of infection for elevated bulk tank SCC.
Consider as well the possible savings when mastitis is effectively managed. The value of increased milk sales from reduced mastitis more than offset the costs of an effective control program. (Table 3.)
Table 2. Estimated infection prevalence
and losses in milk production
associated with elevated bulk tank SCC.
-------------------------------------
Bulk Tank
SCC Percent Percent
(1,000's/ ml) Infected Production
in Herd Quarters Loss*
-------------------------------------
200 6 0
500 16 6
1000 32 18
1500 48 29
-------------------------------------
*Production loss calculated as a percent
of production expected at 200,000 cells ml.
Source: Current Concepts of Bovine Mastitis.
National Mastitis Council, 1996.
Table 3. Estimated annual savings from an effective
mastitis control program.
----------------------------------------------------
National Mastitis Council Study (Table 1):
Production per cow (+1,069 lb @ $12 cwt) $121.08
Clinical mastitis reduced 40%
Discarded milk $10.45 x 40% 4.18
Total Return $125.26
Mastitis Control Costs (per cow annually)
Teat dip $10.00
Dry cow medication $4.00
Paper towels $10.00
Total Cost $24.00
Net Return to mastitis control $101.26
(per cow annually)
----------------------------------------------------
Effects on Milk Production, Composition and Quality
Mastitis reduces milk yield and alters milk composition. The magnitude of these changes in individual cows varies with the severity and duration of the infection and the causative microorganisms. Mastitis is almost always caused by bacteria. These microorganisms produce toxins that can directly damage milk-producing tissue of the mammary gland, and the presence of bacteria initiates inflammation within the mammary tissue in an attempt to eliminate the invading microorganisms. The inflammation contributes to decreased milk production and is primarily responsible for the compositional changes observed in milk from infected quarters and cows. In general, compositional changes involve an increase in blood components present in milk and a decrease in normal milk constituents.
Production
The Dairy Herd Improvement Association (DHIA) has adopted an SCC scoring system that divides the SCC of compositive milk into 10 categories from 0 to 9 known as linear scores. The DHIA programs determine the SCC on each milking cow each month and report either the SCC or the linear score. Linear scores can be used to estimate production losses, but the average linear score for the lactation most accurately reflects reduced milk yield. Cows with higher lactation average SCC scores produce less milk (Table 4).
Table 4. Somatic cell counts as they relate to
estimated milk losses.
----------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Lactation Milk
Average Somatic Production
Linear Cell Milk Loss Per
SCC CMT WMT Count Loss Cow/Year*
Score# (Score) (mm) (cells/ml) (%) (lb)
----------------------------------------------------
2 Negative -- 50,000 --- ---
3 Negative 2 100,000 3 -400
4 5 200,000 6 -800
Trace 8 300,000 7 -1,000
5 10 400,000 8 -1,200
12 500,000 9 -1,300
1 14 600,000 10 -1,400
16 700,000 -1,500
6 18 800,000 11 -1,600
20 900,000 -1,650
21 1,000,000 12 -1,700
<2 24 1,200,000 >12 -1,700
7 29 1,600,000 -2,000
----------------------------------------------------
*Based on 14,000-15,000 lb average/cow/year, lasted in >2.
Linear score calculation from SCC. Example: SCC = 2000,000/ml.
CMT Interpretation:
Negative - Mixture remains liquid with no evidence of the
formation of a precipitate.
Trace - A slight precipitate or small flakes form and then
disappear.
1 (weak positive) - A distinct precipitate forms.
2 (distinct positive) - The mixture thickens immediately
with some gel formation.
Source: Dairy Herd Improvement Association and Philpot (1984).
Linear score calculation from the SCC.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Example: SCC = 200 (i.e., 200,000/ml)
1. Divide the reported SCC by 100.* 200/100 = 2
2. Determine the natural log (In). In 2 = .693147
3. Divide this value by .693147. .693147/.693147 = 1
4. Add "3" to the result. 1 + 3 = 4 linear score
--------------------------------------------------------------
*If SCC is expressed as 1,000s of cells/ml, divide by 100,000:
(200,000/ 100,000) = 2.
Production losses in older cows are about double those of first lactation cows. Determining the exact amount of milk lost at a specific SCC or linear score or for any one cow is not possible. However, the fact remains that elevated SCC results in major losses to dairy producers, and elevated SCC is almost always due to the presence of intramammary infection.
Composition
Changes in milk composition accompany the increase in SCC following infection of the mammary gland. Table 5 compares the composition of normal, low SCC milk with milk having a high SCC. These comparisons fre-quently are made between high and low SCC milk from opposite quarters of the same cow to reduce cow to cow variation. Elevated SCC is associated with a decrease in the content of lactose and fat in milk because of a reduced ability of the mam-mary gland to produce these components. Some studies have shown no change in fat percentage, yet total fat production declines with the decrease in milk production.
Table 5. Changes in milk composition
associated with an elevated SCC.*
----------------------------------------------
Normal Milk With Percentage
Constituent Milk High SCC of Normal
----------------------------------------------
------------- % --------------
Solids-Not-Fat 8.9 8.8 99
Fat 3.5 3.2 91
Lactose 4.9 4.4 90
Total Protein 3.61 3.56 99
Total Casein 2.8 2.3 82
Whey Protein .8 1.3 162
Serum Albumin .02 .07 350
Lactoferrin .02 .10 500
Immunoglobulins .10 .60 600
Sodium .057 .105 184
Chloride .091 .147 161
Potassium .173 .157 91
Calcium .12 .04 33
----------------------------------------------
*Example of compositional changes found in
various studies.
Although there may be little change in the total protein con-tent as a result of subclinical mastitis, there are marked and significant changes in the types of proteins present. The major milk protein is casein. This protein has high nutritional qualities and is very important in cheese manufacturing. Casein content of milk with a high SCC is reduced, but lower quality whey proteins increase in concentration, resulting in a similar total protein content. The lower quality whey proteins are blood serum proteins such as serum albumin, immunoglobulins, and transferrin, which increase in milk as a result of the destruction of membranes that normally prevent blood serum proteins from entering milk.
Sodium and chloride increase in high SCC milk due to increased passage of these minerals from blood into milk. Potassium, normally the predominant mineral in milk, declines due to its passage out of milk to lymph between damaged secretory cells. Most of the calcium in milk is associated with casein, and disruption of casein synthesis results in reduced calcium levels in milk from mastitic cows. These alterations in mineral content affect the pH and conductivity of milk. The pH of normal milk is generally around 6.6, but may increase to 6.9 or higher in milk from mastitic quarters.
Other important compositional changes include increases in enzymes originating from damaged mammary tissue, the blood stream, or milk somatic cells. Many of these enzymes negatively impact milk quality. An increase in the enzyme lipase can raise the content of free fatty acids, which produce off-flavors in milk from mastitic cows. An additional example is the enzyme plasmin, which may double in concentration in high SCC milk. Plasmin attacks casein and can markedly reduce the casein content, resulting in lower yields of cheese and other manufactured products and off-flavors in milk.
Quality
Mastitis not only reduces dairy producer profits but also results in important and costly losses to processors due to poor quality milk. Reduced quality is detected with herd milk at 400,000 cells/ml. A variety of dairy products are affected, including cheeses, powdered milk, fermented products, and fluid milk. Progressive milk plants pay on milk quality for obvious reasons, but quality premiums also pay big dividends to producers, as shown in Table 6. For example, a 100-cow herd averaging 50 lbs milk per cow per day and receiving $0.25 per hundredweight premium would get $375 more per month in milk receipts.
Table 6. Dollar return per month in a
100 cow herd with quality premiums of
$0.10 to $0.50/cwt and average lbs of
milk/cow/day from 30 to 70 lbs.
-------------------------------------------
Premium
per cwt Quality Premium Return per 100
milk cows per month (30 days)
-------------------------------------------
$0.50 $450 $600 $750 $900 $1,050
$0.45 $405 $540 $675 $810 $945
$0.40 $360 $480 $600 $720 $840
$0.35 $315 $420 $525 $630 $735
$0.30 $270 $360 $450 $540 $630
$0.25 $225 $300 $375 $450 $525
$0.20 $180 $240 $300 $360 $420
$0.15 $135 $180 $225 $270 $315
$0.10 $90 $120 $150 $180 $210
-------------------------------------------
Source: W.L. Crist, et al. Mastitis and Its
Control. Univ. of Kentucky.
Development of Mastitis
A basic knowledge of mammary gland anatomy and physiology is necessary to understand how mastitis develops. The interior of each quarter is composed of a teat cistern, gland cistern, milk ducts, and glandular tissue (Figure 2-A). The glandular tissue or secretory portion contains millions of microscopic sacs called alveoli (Figure 2-B). Each alveolus is lined with milk-producing epithelial cells and is surrounded by muscle cells that contract and squeeze milk from the alveolus during milking. Blood vessels bring nutrients to each alveolus where epithelial cells convert them into milk. Between milkings, milk accumulates in the alveolar spaces, milk ducts, and cisterns. During milking, the accumulated fluid is removed through the teat ducts.
Figure 2. Structure of the mammary gland showing teat and gland cisterns, milk ducts, and glandular tissue (A). Glandular tissue is made up of many small microscopic sacs called alveoli that are lined by milk-producing epithelial cells (B). There are millions of alveoli within each mammary gland.
Invasion of the Udder
Mastitis results once bacteria pass through the teat duct and multiply in milk-producing tissues. Microorganisms breach the teat duct in several ways. Between milkings, microorganisms may pass through the teat duct by multiplying inside the duct, or by physical movement resulting from pressure placed on the teat end as the cow moves about. During machine milking, microorganisms may be propelled into or through the teat duct into the teat cistern.
The potential for invasion is greatly increased by bacteria that reside in or colonize the teat duct. Such colonizations occur in both lactating and dry cows, and the colonizing bacteria may survive for months, serving as sources of bacteria for infecting the gland. The practice of dipping teats with an effective bacteriacide both before and after each milking greatly reduces teat duct colonization.
To better understand the important difference among mastitis causing organisms, the following list summarizes contagious and environmental mastitis.
Contagious Versus Environmental Mastitis,
Understanding the Difference
Controlling Contagious Mastitis
Caused by:
Streptococcus agalactiae (S. agalactiae)
Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus)
Streptococcus dysgalactiae (S. dysgalactiae)
Primary source:
Udders of infected cows.
Method of spread:
From infected quarters to other quarters and cows primarily at milking time.
Indicators of problem:
Bulk tank somatic cell count (SCC) above 300,000 cells/ml.
DHIA SCC score above 3.2.
More than 15% of cows with a DHIA SCC score of 5 or greater.
Frequent flare ups of clinical mastitis, often in the same cows.
Bacterial culturing of cows shows S. agalactiae and/or S. aureus infections.
Control recommendations:
Develop program to prevent the spread of bacteria at milking time.
Eliminate existing infections by treating all cows at drying off and culling chronic cows.
Goals:
Eradicate S. agalactiae from the herd.
Reduce S. aureus infections to less than 5% of the cows in the herd.
Controlling Environmental Mastitis
Caused by:
Coliforms
Escherichia coli
Klebsiella pneumoniae
Klebsiella oxytoca
Enterobacter aerogenes
Environmental streptococci
S. uberis
S. bovis
S. disgalactiae
Enterococcus faecium
Enterococcus faecalis
Primary source:
The environment of the cow.
Indicator of problem:
High rate of clinical mastitis, usually in early lactation or during hot weather. Somatic cell count may be low (less than 300,000).
Control recommendations:
Reduce the number of bacteria to which the teat end is exposed.
Improve cleanliness of cow surroundings, especially in late dry period and at calving.
Improve prepping procedures to ensure clean, dry teats are being milked.
Goal:
Reduce clinical mastitis to less than 3% of the milking cows/month.
Controlling Contagious Mastitis
Staphylococcus aureus infections remain the largest mastitis problem on North Dakota dairy farms. Cure rate with antibiotic therapy during lactation is very low. Many "staph" cows become chronic and have to be culled.
Streptococcus agalactiae responds well to antibiotic therapy and can be eradicated from dairy herds with good mastitis control practices including teat dipping and dry cow treatment.
Streptococcus dysgalactiae may live almost anywhere: in the udder, rumen, and feces, and in the barn. They can be controlled with proper sanitation and are moderately susceptible to antibiotics.
Prevention - Improved milking procedures:
Milk clean, dry teats.
Keep liner slips to a minimum.
Teat dip with an effective germicidal teat dip. Maintain milking system.
Eliminating infections:
Treat all quarters of all cows at drying off with antibiotic products specifically designed for dry cow therapy.
Cull chronically infected cows.
Steps to follow to control mastitis and lower somatic cell count:
Teat dip.
Dry cow treat.
Practice proper milking procedure.
Use properly functioning milking system.
Maintain clean, dry environ ment for the cows.
Cull chronic mastitis cows. Use DHIA SCC program to monitor mastitis in the herd.
Controlling Environmental Mastitis
Prevention:
Reduce the number of bacteria to which the teat end is exposed.
Environment:
Cow environment should be as clean and dry as possible.
Cow should not have access to manure, mud, or pools of stagnant water.
Dry cow environment is as important as lactating cow environment.
Calving area must be clean.
Properly design and maintain free stalls.
Bedding:
Bacteria numbers in bedding depends on available nutrients, amount of contamination, moisture, and temperature.
Inorganic materials (such as crushed limestone or sand) are low in nutrients and moisture, and thus bacteria.
Finely chopped organic bedding (such as sawdust, shavings, recycled manure, pelleted corncobs, various seed hulls, chopped straw) are frequently high in bacteria numbers.
Teat dipping:
Post milking teat dipping with a germicidal (germ-killing) dip is recommended.
Controls the spread of contagious mastitis.
Exerts no control over coliform infections.
Barrier dips are reported to reduce new coliform infections; however, they do not appear to be as effective against environmental streptococci and the contagious pathogens.
Attempts to control environ mental mastitis during the dry period, using either germicidal or barrier dips, have been unsuccessful.
Dry cow therapy:
Recommended for all quarters of all cows at drying off.
Helps control environmental streptococci during the early dry period.
Has little or no value in controlling coliforms.
Not effective during the period prior to calving.
Backflushing milker claws between cows:
Will not control environmental mastitis.
Proper milking procedure:
Proper milking procedure is important.
Wash teats, but not the udder.
Clean and dry teats before attaching the milking machine.
Milking wet udders will likely increase mastitis.
Predipping:
A germicidal teat dip reduces environmental mastitis during lactation by 50%.
Be sure teat dip is removed from teats before attaching milking machine to prevent contamination of the milk.
Milking machine:
Maintain and operate properly.
Badly functioning milking machines result in frequent liner slips and teat end impacts will increase environmental mastitis.
Nutrition:
Proper nutrition will reduce the risk of environmental mastitis.
Adequate levels of Vitamin E and selenium reduce the incidence of environmental mastitis.
There are conflicting reports whether Vitamin A and ß- carotene influence udder health.
Ongoing research at the University of Kentucky indicates that copper may play a role in maintaining the immune system in dairy cattle.
Feed dairy cattle a balanced ration.
Vaccines:
Not effective in preventing new infections.
Research on vaccines to reduce Escherichia coli and staphylococcal mastitis infections looks promising.
Proper Milking Procedures
Proper milking procedures are important for the prevention of mastitis and for ensuring complete milk removal from the udder.
Cow Movement. Cows should be moved in a quiet, gentle manner. If cows are frightened or hurried, the milk letdown process may be disturbed, so avoid rough handling.
Mastitis Detection. Milking may begin with a check of all quarters for mastitis. It is acceptable to strip milk onto the floor in a milking parlor or flat barn. Any cows that show clinical mastitis should be examined and appropriate action taken. If fore milking is not done, visual checking for inflamed quarters is done by milkers and herd health people.
Udder Preparation. The object of udder preparation is to ensure that clean dry udders and teats are being milked. Single service paper towels or washed and dried cloth towels may be used.
Premilking Teat Dip. The procedure for predipping involves washing teats with water and a sanitizer. The teats are then dried with an individual towel and dipped or sprayed with the sanitizer. A 30-second contact with sanitizer is needed to kill organisms. Then the sanitizer is wiped dry with the towel. The cows are milked and teats are dipped with the same type of sanitizer to prevent chemical reactions that could cause irritation to teats.
Predipping may be beneficial in reducing mastitis, but the actual dipping, dip contact time, and wiping with a towel increase the total milking time. If the dip is not wiped off, excessive chemical residues in milk may occur. If contact time is not sufficient, then it is a very expensive premilking regime.
Milking Unit Attachment and Detachment. To attach the milking unit to the teats, apply the cluster allowing a minimum of air admission and adjust to prevent liner slip. Air entering the unit may cause the propulsion of mastitis organisms from one infected teat into a noninfected teat. This may also happen when one teat cup is removed before the others.
Machine stripping usually is not needed on dairy cows. Machine stripping should not take more than one minute, and no air should be allowed to enter the teat cups while this is being done. A downward force applied to the cluster while massaging the udder with the other hand is all that is needed.
Following milk-out, the machine should be removed only after the vacuum to the teats is shut off. This is accomplished most commonly by use of a vacuum shut off valve or milk hose clamp which prevents the backjetting of bacteria from one teat to another.
Use of Backflush. Backflushers have been developed to sanitize the liners and claws between milkings. Most units on the market have four or five cycles. The first cycle is a water rinse, followed by an iodine or similar sanitizer rinse, a clear water rinse, and positive air dry cycle.
Research has demonstrated that backflushers do reduce the number of bacteria on the liners between cows, but do not reduce the number of bacteria on teats. Backflushers also may stop the spread of contagious organisms, but this can also be accomplished at a much lower cost by teat dipping. There is no effect on environmental pathogens that are encountered between milkings.
Teat dips are effective against all mastitis organisms. They have been shown to effectively reduce mastitis caused by S. aureus and S. agalactiae, the most common types of mastitis found.
There seems to be much controversy about the effectiveness of teat dipping on environmental pathogens E. coli and S. uberis. Some research has shown that teat dipping does not control these organisms. These pathogens are found in the cow's surroundings; if there is udder-deep mud, the teat dip will be removed and a new infection may occur.
There are many effective teat dips, including iodine at 0.1%, 0.5%, and 1.0%, and chlorhexidine at 0.5%. Also, although it is not labeled for teat dipping, hypochlorite at 4.0% with a sodium hydroxide content less than 0.05% was effective in field trials. There are many more teat dips on the market that are effective in preventing new infections. Effective coverage of the teats is more important than the type of dip being used.
If contagious bacteria, S. agalactiae, S. dysgalactiae, S. aureus, or Mycoplasma, is present in your herd you must dip the whole teat to the base of the udder to stop the spread. Wand sprayers are acceptable for herds that have environmental mastitis, since teat colonization is not a factor. Hand-held spray bottles are the most ineffective method of getting proper coverage of dip on the cow's teats, so they should not be used. Dip cups, on the other hand, give the best coverage.
Dry Cow Therapy. Dry cow treatment is administered after the last milking of the cow before the dry period. Care must be taken to scrub the teat end with cotton and alcohol before infusion and to use teat dip after infusion.
There are many antibiotics available for dry cow therapy. High levels of penicillin and dihydrostreptomycin, the cloxacillins and other products specifically for dry treatment are effective.
Dry period therapy has been accepted because antibiotics can be put into a slow release base that allows them to stay in the udder longer. They are not constantly being milked out of the udder as is the case with lactation therapy. Antibiotics can be given in higher quantities because there is no concern for milk levels and antibiotic residues.
While dry treatment is very effective, it must be administered properly and dry cows must have favorable environmental conditions. Teat ends must be scrubbed clean with cotton alcohol pads before injecting the dry treatment. If the teat ends are not cleaned properly, you may inject very high numbers of bacteria into the udder which would overwhelm the antibiotic just administered. Unsanitary treatment procedures cause rather than eliminate mastitis.
Management of dry cows is very important in mastitis control. If dry cows are exposed to muddy or dirty conditions, risk of mastitis will increase. This is especially true at calving time; cows are under much stress during this period. If an udder is exposed to wet dirty conditions, mastitis will increase. If you believe that your dry cow therapy program is ineffective, it may be because of poor treatment procedures and/or improper management of the cows during the dry period and at calving.
Culling. Culling cows for mastitis is effective in eliminating mastitis in the herd. Cows that have been treated many times in a single lactation are prime candidates for culling, as they may no longer be profitable because of discarded milk and antibiotic costs. it is usually more profitable to carry out preventive mastitis control procedures and cull only old chronic cows rather than try to control mastitis by routine culling.
Proper Treatment Procedures
In every program, some medication is required, plus dry cow treatment protocol. This is especially important with intramammary infusions. Extreme care must be taken whenever anything is being infused into a cow's udder. Careless treatment procedures can result in udder infections resistant to treatment. Approach treatment in the same way a surgeon approaches surgery.
Wash hands with soap and water.
Wash teats and udder in sanitizing solution.
Thoroughly dry teats and udder with individual towels.
Dip teats in an effective germicidal teat dip.
Allow 30 seconds of contact time before wiping off teat dip with an individual towel.
Thoroughly scrub the teat end with a cotton swab soaked in alcohol. If all four quarters are being treated, start by cleaning the teat farthest from you and work toward the closest teat.
Use commercial antibiotic products in single dose containers formulated for intramammary infusion. For dry cow therapy, use commercial antibiotic products specifically formulated for dry cow therapy in single dose containers. Treat teats nearest to you first, then those farthest away to prevent contaminating clean teat ends.
Insert only the tip of the canula into the teat end. Do not allow the sterile canula to touch anything prior to infusion.
After infusion, remove canula, squeeze teat end with one hand, massage antibiotic up into the quarter with the other hand.
Dip teats in an effective germicidal teat dip after treatment.
How to Collect Milk Samples
Even the most successful milking management program needs to culture samples when problems arise. Positive identification of invading organisms can speed up solutions to difficult challenges. When taking samples, it is imperative that you take a sample that is not contaminated for accurate lab analysis.
Label sterile tubes and fill out forms ahead of time. (Tubes with screw caps are preferred.)
Wash hands in soap and water.
Wash teats in sanitizing solution.
Dry teats with individual towels.
Discard one or two squirts of milk from each teat.
Dip teats in germicidal teat dip.
Allow 30 seconds of contact time before wiping off teat dip with an individual towel.
Thoroughly scrub the teat end with a cotton swab soaked in alcohol. If a composite sample is being taken from all four quarters, start with the teat farthest from you and work toward the closest teat. Use a clean swab on each teat.
Open the sterile tube under the teats. Hold it at an angle so that foreign material cannot fall into the opening. Do not allow anything to come in contact with the mouth of the tube. Collect one or two squirts of milk from each quarter, starting with the closest quarters and working toward the ones farthest away.
Close the container before removing it from beneath the teats.
Refrigerate samples until they reach the lab. If samples will not reach the lab within 24 hours, they should be frozen and kept frozen until they reach the lab.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milking Machine Inspection and Maintenance Checklist
Before each milking:
Check
vacuum controller
milking vacuum
hoses and teatcup liners for holes or tears
pulsators
air admission holes in claw or tailpiece of liner
Weekly (or every 50 hours of operation):
Set aside one day each week to perform these checks, such as every Monday morning.
Check
and clean vacuum controller
and clean pulsator filters
belts on vacuum pumps
oil reserve on vacuum pump
if it is time to change liners (every 1,000-2,000 milkings, or as recommended)
clean moisture trap
automatic take off equipment (especially vacuum shut off)
Monthly (or every 250 hours):
Set aside one day each month to perform these checks, such as the first Monday of each month.
Check
and clean the pulsators
and clean vacuum pulsation lines
vacuum pump(s)
check belts for wear and tension
clean screens
change filters on vacuum pump tank
change oil if needed
change liners if it is time
Dealer checks and service (every 6 months or 1,250 hours):
Checks to be made: Equipment needed:
air delivery by vacuum pump air flow meter
reserve air flow (remaining pump capacity with units operating but not on cows) air flow meter
pulsator rate (pulsations per minute) stop watch or clock
pulsator function and ratio vacuum recorder
vacuum level vacuum gauge
line voltage voltmeter
Maintenance items:
Check all gaskets, flappers, "O" rings, and caps which come in contact with milk. Replace if worn.
Clean all electric pulsator selectors and activators. Check all solenoids and coils. Clean all plungers and vacuum lines.
Overhaul pneumatic pulsators. Repair milk supports, milker units, etc.
Every year (or 2,500 hours of use):
Change all solenoid coils, plungers, hoses, diaphragms, caps, gaskets, flappers, and rubber vacuum connectors.
Check electric timer controls, switches, motors, and parts. Grease all bearings.
Check milk pump seal, rubber spring, and clearances. Change gaskets.
Every two years (or 5,000 hours of use):
Recondition entire system, including all motors, pumps, selectors, timers, and starters.
Replace all rubber coils, hoses, gaskets, "O" rings, springs, and plungers. Clean entire pipeline system.
http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/ansci/dairy/as1129w.htm
Bought a position in ICCC between 1.80-2.04. Will wait for results.
Hope for 20.00 (fingers crossed) if results are good. Downside looks like 1.50. Seems outrageous, but that is what it seems like could happen.
ImmuCell Announces Financial Results for the First Half of 2008
Monday August 4, 8:30 am ET
PORTLAND, ME--(MARKET WIRE)--Aug 4, 2008 -- ImmuCell Corporation (ICCC - News) today announced the results of its operations for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2008.
For the three-month period ended June 30, 2008, product sales increased by 4%, or $35,000, to $826,000 in comparison to the same period in 2007. For the six-month period ended June 30, 2008, product sales increased by 7%, or $157,000, to $2,457,000 in comparison to the same period in 2007.
"In this very challenging economic environment, we are gratified that our customers have rewarded us with an 8% increase in sales our lead product, First Defense®, during the six-month period ended June 30, 2008," commented Michael F. Brigham, President and CEO. "First Defense® sales continue to be seasonal with lower sales expected during the second and third quarters."
Product development expenses increased by 44%, or $130,000, to $423,000 during the three-month period ended June 30, 2008 in comparison to the same period in 2007. Product development expenses increased by 35%, or $195,000, to $755,000 during the six-month period ended June 30, 2008 in comparison to the same period in 2007.
The net loss was $(238,000) (or $(0.08) per share) during the three-month period ended June 30, 2008 in comparison to a net loss of $(60,000) (or $(0.02) per share) during the same period in 2007. Technology licensing revenue decreased by $158,000 (100%) and product development expenses increased by $130,000 during the comparable periods.
The net loss was $(160,000) (or $(0.06) per share) during the six-month period ended June 30, 2008 in contrast to net income of $237,000 (or $0.08 per diluted share) during the same period in 2007. Technology licensing revenue decreased by $316,000 (100%) and product development expenses increased by $195,000 during the comparable periods.
"Our net loss reflects our strategic decision to make a significant and controlled investment in the development of Mast Out®, which entered into its pivotal effectiveness trial during the second quarter," commented Dr. Joseph H. Crabb, Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer.
Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments increased by 5%, or $283,000, to $5,695,000 at June 30, 2008 as compared to $5,412,000 at December 31, 2007. Stockholders' equity decreased by 1%, or $106,000, to $9,951,000 at June 30, 2008 as compared to $10,057,000 at December 31, 2007. The Company had 2,895,000 shares of common stock outstanding as of June 30, 2008.
(Unaudited) (Unaudited)
Three Months Ended Six Months Ended
June 30, June 30,
---------------- ----------------
(In thousands, except per share
amounts) 2008 2007 2008 2007
------- ------- ------- --------
Revenues:
Product Sales $ 826 $ 791 $ 2,457 $ 2,300
Other Revenues -- 168 5 335
------- ------- ------- --------
Total Revenues 826 959 2,462 2,635
Cost and expenses:
Product costs 447 511 1,261 1,141
Product development expenses 423 294 755 560
Selling, general and administrative
expenses 351 307 772 656
------- ------- ------- --------
Total costs and expenses 1,221 1,112 2,788 2,357
------- ------- ------- --------
Net operating (loss) income (395) (153) (326) 278
Interest and other income 56 70 116 146
------- ------- ------- --------
(Loss) income before income taxes (339) (83) (210) 424
Income tax (benefit) expense (101) (23) (50) 187
------- ------- ------- --------
Net (loss) income $ (238) $ (60) $ (160) $ 237
======= ======= ======= ========
Net (loss) income per common share:
Basic $ (0.08) $ (0.02) $ (0.06) $ 0.08
Diluted $ (0.08) $ (0.02) $ (0.06) $ 0.08
======= ======= ======= ========
Weighted average common shares
outstanding:
Basic 2,893 2,903 2,893 2,900
Diluted 2,893 2,903 2,893 3,066
(Unaudited)
At June 30, At December 31,
(In thousands) 2008 2007
--------------- ---------------
Cash, cash equivalents and short-term
investments $ 5,695 $ 5,412
Total assets 10,302 10,412
Net working capital 6,746 6,710
Stockholders' equity $ 9,951 $ 10,057
ImmuCell Corporation is a biotechnology company that is developing, manufacturing and selling products that improve animal health and productivity in the dairy and beef industries. Press releases and other information about the Company are available at http://www.immucell.com
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080804/0421359.html
surf's up......crikey
ImmuCell Initiates Pivotal Trial of Mast Out(R)
Thursday June 5, 8:30 am ET
PORTLAND, ME--(MARKET WIRE)--Jun 5, 2008 -- ImmuCell Corporation (NasdaqCM:ICCC - News) today announced that it has initiated the pivotal effectiveness field trial of Mast Out®.
Planning and preparations for this trial began in July 2007. Completion of the field trial is expected by year-end. Enrollment is targeted at several hundred cows covering multiple locations in the major dairy sheds across the U.S.
"Mast Out® has shown strong performance in previous studies," commented Dr. Joseph H. Crabb, vice president and chief scientific officer. "However, this trial is being conducted under an FDA-approved pivotal protocol, and, as such, will be the effectiveness bench mark for this product."
Mast Out® is a Nisin-based intramammary infusion product that is being developed as an alternative to traditional antibiotics used in the treatment of mastitis in lactating dairy cows. The safety profile of Nisin and its long history as a food preservative may allow for the sale of Mast Out® in the U.S. without a milk discard requirement, which would be a significant competitive advantage. No other intramammary mastitis treatment product has such a "zero discard" claim. Commercial introduction of Mast Out® in the United States is subject to approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
ImmuCell Corporation is a biotechnology company that is developing, manufacturing and selling products that improve animal health and productivity in the dairy and beef industries. Press releases and other information about the Company are available at http://www.immucell.com.
ImmuCell Announces Financial Results for First Quarter of 2008
Monday May 5, 8:30 am ET
PORTLAND, ME--(MARKET WIRE)--May 5, 2008 -- ImmuCell Corporation (NasdaqCM:ICCC - News) today announced the results of its operations for the three-month period ended March 31, 2008.
For the three-month period ended March 31, 2008, product sales increased by 8%, or $122,000, to $1,631,000 in comparison to the same period in 2007.
"Sales of our lead product, First Defense®, increased by 8% during the three-month period ended March 31, 2008," commented Michael F. Brigham, President and CEO. "During the first quarter of 2008, we sold our 8,000,000th dose of First Defense®."
Product development expenses increased by 25%, or $66,000, during the three-month period ended March 31, 2008 in comparison to the same period in 2007 principally reflecting the costs of funding the development of Mast Out® internally.
The Company reported income before income taxes of $129,000 during the three-month period ended March 31, 2008 in comparison to $508,000 during the same period in 2007. Approximately 59%, or $224,000, of the $379,000 decrease in income before income taxes resulted from the expected decrease in technology licensing revenue and increase in product development expenses. Net income was $78,000 ($0.03 per diluted share) during the three-month period ended March 31, 2008 in comparison to $297,000 ($0.10 per diluted share) during the same period in 2007.
Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments increased by 8%, or $455,000, to $5,867,000 at March 31, 2008 as compared to $5,412,000 at December 31, 2007. Stockholders' equity increased by 1%, or $104,000, to $10,161,000 at March 31, 2008 as compared to $10,057,000 at December 31, 2007. The Company had 2,892,000 shares of common stock outstanding as of March 31, 2008.
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080505/0393223.html
mmuCell Announces Cross-License With Anadis
Wednesday March 12, 8:30 am ET
PORTLAND, ME--(MARKET WIRE)--Mar 12, 2008 -- ImmuCell Corporation (NasdaqCM:ICCC - News) today announced that it had entered into a cross-license of technology with Anadis Limited (ASX:ANX.AX - News) of Australia.
ImmuCell granted Anadis an exclusive, worldwide license to the human and environmental applications of its milk antibody technology. Under this agreement, ImmuCell is not obligated to fund further product development and is entitled to receive a royalty on any sales achieved by Anadis utilizing the technology.
In return, ImmuCell was granted a license to the production technology and capabilities of Anadis in Australia. ImmuCell is obligated to pay Anadis a royalty on any sales of First Defense® manufactured in collaboration with Anadis in Australia.
Anadis is an Australian-based biotechnology company focused on milk derived polyclonal antibodies and other milk-derived bioactives for human and environmental health applications.
ImmuCell Corporation is a biotechnology company that is developing, manufacturing and selling products that improve animal health and productivity in the dairy and beef industries. Press releases and other information about the Company are available at http://www.immucell.com.
ImmuCell Announces Financial Results for 2007
Thursday February 7, 8:30 am ET
PORTLAND, ME--(MARKET WIRE)--Feb 7, 2008 -- ImmuCell Corporation (NasdaqCM:ICCC - News) today announced the results of its operations for the three and twelve month periods ended December 31, 2007.
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080207/0358266.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/071102/0323029.html
ImmuCell Announces Financial Results for Third Quarter of 2007
Friday November 2, 8:00 am ET
PORTLAND, ME--(MARKET WIRE)--Nov 2, 2007 -- ImmuCell Corporation (NasdaqCM:ICCC - News) today announced the results of its operations for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2007.
For the three month period ended September 30, 2007, product sales decreased by 7%, or $76,000, to $983,000 in comparison to the same period in 2006. For the nine month period ended September 30, 2007, product sales increased by 1%, or $36,000, to $3,283,000 compared to the same period in 2006.
During the third quarter of 2007, ImmuCell announced that Pfizer Animal Health elected to terminate its product development and marketing agreement covering Mast Out® and return the product rights to ImmuCell. As a result of this termination, the Company recognized the remaining deferred income from non-refundable milestone payments received from Pfizer and wrote off the remaining unamortized cost of technology rights acquired in November 2004. This resulted in a net increase to income before income taxes of approximately $602,000 during the third quarter of 2007, with no impact on cash.
Including the impact of the accounting described above, the Company reported income before income taxes of $605,000 during the three month period ended September 30, 2007 in comparison to $291,000 during the same period in 2006. The Company recognized income before income taxes of $1,029,000 during the nine month period ended September 30, 2007 compared to $832,000 during the same period in 2006.
The Company reported net income of $354,000 ($0.12 per diluted share) during the three month period ended September 30, 2007 in comparison to $171,000 ($0.06 per diluted share) during the same period in 2006. The Company recognized net income of $590,000 ($0.19 per diluted share) during the nine month period ended September 30, 2007 compared to $492,000 ($0.16 per diluted share) during the same period in 2006.
"Sales of our lead product, First Defense®, increased by 3% during the first nine months of the year," said Michael F. Brigham, President and CEO. "Excluding non-cash amortization expense related to an intangible technology asset, product development expenses increased by 43%, or $78,000, during the third quarter of 2007 compared to the same period in 2006, principally reflecting our initial efforts to fund the development of Mast Out® internally."
Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments decreased by 18%, or $1,186,000, to $5,428,000 at September 30, 2007 as compared to $6,614,000 at December 31, 2006. The decrease was largely due to an ongoing effort to become compliant with current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) regulations. Shareholders' equity increased by 7%, or $630,000, to $9,962,000 at September 30, 2007 as compared to $9,332,000 at December 31, 2006. The Company had 2,892,000 shares of common stock outstanding as of September 30, 2007.
(Unaudited) (Unaudited)
Three Nine
Months Ended Months Ended
September 30, September 30,
----------------- -----------------
(In thousands, except per share
amounts) 2007 2006 2007 2006
-------- -------- -------- --------
Revenues:
Product sales $ 983 $ 1,059 $ 3,283 $ 3,246
Other revenues 949 134 1,283 332
-------- -------- -------- --------
Total revenues 1,932 1,193 4,566 3,578
Cost and expenses:
Product costs 476 466 1,618 1,361
Product development expenses 589 237 1,149 702
Selling, general and administrative
expenses 330 272 984 872
-------- -------- -------- --------
Total costs and expenses 1,395 975 3,751 2,935
-------- -------- -------- --------
Net operating income 537 218 815 643
Interest and other income 68 73 214 189
-------- -------- -------- --------
Income before income taxes 605 291 1,029 832
Income tax expense 251 120 439 340
-------- -------- -------- --------
Net income $ 354 $ 171 $ 590 $ 492
======== ======== ======== ========
Net income per common share:
Basic $ 0.12 $ 0.06 $ 0.20 $ 0.17
Diluted $ 0.12 $ 0.06 $ 0.19 $ 0.16
Weighted average common shares
outstanding:
Basic 2,897 2,910 2,899 2,885
Diluted 3,013 3,054 3,049 3,050
(Unaudited)
At December At September
(In thousands) 31, 2006 30, 2007
------------ ------------
Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments $ 6,614 $ 5,428
Total assets 11,364 10,280
Net working capital 6,934 6,564
Stockholders’ equity $ 9,332 $ 9,962
ImmuCell Corporation is a biotechnology company that is developing, manufacturing and selling products that improve animal health and productivity in the dairy and beef industries. Press releases and other information about the Company are available at http://www.immucell.com.
Contact:
Contact:
Michael F. Brigham
President and Chief Executive Officer
(207) 878-2770 Ext. 3106
Source: ImmuCell Corporation
Looking to back some ICCC on any tax loss selling that may take place through Oct(money flow has been very positive for ICCC)
ImmuCell Announces Financial Results for Second Quarter Of 2007
ImmuCell Corporation (NASDAQ: ICCC) today announced the results of its operations for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2007.
For the three months ended June 30, 2007, product sales were $791,000, representing an increase of $41,000, or 6%, in comparison to the same period in 2006. The Company incurred a net loss of $60,000 ($0.02 per diluted share) during the three months ended June 30, 2007, in contrast to net income of $16,000 ($0.01 per diluted share) during the same period in 2006.
For the six months ended June 30, 2007, product sales were $2,300,000, representing an increase of $113,000, or 5%, in comparison to the same period in 2006. The Company recognized net income of $237,000 ($0.08 per diluted share) during the six months ended June 30, 2007, compared to net income of $322,000 ($0.11 per diluted share) during the same period in 2006.
"While more would always be better, 5% sales growth is reasonable for our current products in our current markets," said Michael F. Brigham, President and CEO, commenting on the product sales increase during the six month period ended June 30, 2007 in comparison to the same period in 2006. "The small loss in the second quarter was largely caused by a lower than expected gross margin on product sales and increased product development expenses."
On July 19, 2007, ImmuCell announced that Pfizer Animal Health had elected to terminate its product development and marketing agreement covering Mast Out® and return the product rights to ImmuCell. As a result of this termination, the Company expects to recognize the remaining deferred income from non-refundable milestone payments received from Pfizer and to write-off the remaining unamortized cost of associated technology license rights. This will result in a net increase to income before income taxes of approximately $602,000 during the third quarter of 2007, with no impact on cash.
"Because we believe that the termination decision was primarily market driven, rather than arising from any unanticipated efficacy or regulatory issues, we intend to carry on the product development efforts for Mast Out®," said Michael F. Brigham, President and CEO. "Having access to the new space provided by the recently completed renovation of our facility is very timely and better positions us to develop the product."
Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments decreased by 16%, or $1,090,000, to $5,524,000 at June 30, 2007, as compared to $6,614,000 at December 31, 2006. The decrease was largely caused by the investment in equipment and facility improvements related to an effort to gain compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) regulations in its manufacturing operations. Shareholders' equity increased by 3%, or $310,000, to $9,642,000 at June 30, 2007, as compared to $9,332,000 at December 31, 2006. The Company had 2,906,000 shares of common stock outstanding as of June 30, 2007.
(Unaudited) (Unaudited)
Three Months Ended Six Months Ended
June 30, June 30,
---------------- -----------------
(In thousands, except per share
amounts) 2007 2006 2007 2006
------- ------- -------- --------
Revenues:
Product sales $ 791 $ 749 $ 2,300 $ 2,187
Other revenues 168 93 335 198
------- ------- -------- --------
Total revenues 959 842 2,635 2,385
Cost and expenses:
Product costs 511 386 1,141 895
Product development expenses 294 231 560 466
Selling, general and administrative
expenses 307 257 656 599
------- ------- -------- --------
Total costs and expenses 1,112 874 2,357 1,960
------- ------- -------- --------
Net operating (loss) income (153) (32) 278 425
Interest and other income 70 64 146 116
------- ------- -------- --------
Income (loss) before income taxes (83) 32 424 541
Income tax expense (credit) (23) 16 187 219
------- ------- -------- --------
Net income (loss) $ (60) $ 16 $ 237 $ 322
======= ======= ======== ========
Net income (loss) per common share:
Basic $ (0.02) $ 0.01 $ 0.08 $ 0.11
Diluted $ (0.02) $ 0.01 $ 0.08 $ 0.11
Weighted average common shares
outstanding:
Basic 2,903 2,893 2,900 2,872
Diluted 2,903 3,073 3,066 3,055
(Unaudited)
At December 31, At June 30,
(In thousands) 2006 2007
------------ ------------
Cash, cash equivalents and short-term
investments $ 6,614 $ 5,524
Total assets 11,364 10,847
Net working capital 6,934 5,815
Stockholders’ equity $ 9,332 $ 9,642
ImmuCell Corporation is a biotechnology company that is developing, manufacturing and selling products that improve animal health and productivity in the dairy and beef industries. Press releases and other information about the Company are available at http://www.immucell.com.
Contact:
Michael F. Brigham
President and Chief Executive Officer
(207) 878-2770 Ext. 3106
Source: Market Wire (August 3, 2007 - 7:30 AM EST)
News by QuoteMedia
www.quotemedia.com
ImmuCell Announces Termination of Mast Out(R) License and Return of All Rights and Data From Pfizer
ImmuCell Corporation (NASDAQ: ICCC) today announced that Pfizer Animal Health has elected to terminate its product development and marketing agreement covering Mast Out®.
"We appreciate the advances that Pfizer has made in the development of this product over the past two and one-half years," commented Michael F. Brigham, President and CEO. "Pfizer has generated significant data that supports the product's efficacy. We intend to carry on the product development efforts for Mast Out®."
ImmuCell's management believes that the termination decision was primarily market driven, rather than arising from any unanticipated efficacy, technical or regulatory issues.
"We believe that this product is approvable by the FDA with a zero milk discard claim and has significant potential market appeal," commented Joseph H. Crabb, Ph.D., Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer.
As a result of this termination, the Company expects to recognize the remaining deferred income from non-refundable milestone payments received from Pfizer and to write-off the remaining unamortized cost of technology license rights acquired in November 2004. This will result in a net increase to income before income taxes of approximately $602,000 during the third quarter of 2007, with no impact on cash.
ImmuCell Corporation is a biotechnology company that is developing, manufacturing and selling products that improve animal health and productivity in the dairy and beef industries. Press releases and other information about the Company are available at http://www.immucell.com.
Forward-Looking Statement Disclaimer
The foregoing press release contains "forward-looking statements" concerning ImmuCell's intended development activities and expectations about future marketability and regulatory approvals. These statements involve numerous risks and uncertainties, including without limitation those relating to the timing and cost of steps necessary to commercialize this product; those arising from market acceptance and competition within our anticipated product markets; those associated with regulation of animal health products in the United States and abroad; and other risks detailed from time to time in filings we make with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including our Annual Report on Form 10-KSB and our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-QSB. Forward-looking statements in this press release are based on our current information and expectations. Actual results may differ materially due to various factors, including those risks and uncertainties referred to above.
Contact:
Michael F. Brigham
President and Chief Executive Officer
(207) 878-2770 Ext. 3106
Followers
|
3
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
82
|
Created
|
07/23/07
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
http://www.immucell.com/
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=ICCC
ImmuCell Corporation, a biotechnology company, engages in the development and manufacture of diagnostic tests and products for therapeutic and preventive use against infectious diseases in animals and humans. It offers First Defense, an orally delivered scours preventive product that is manufactured from cows' colostrum using proprietary vaccine and milk protein purification technologies. The company also sells products that aid in the management of inflammation of the mammary gland caused by bacterial infections, including Wipe Out Dairy Wipes, a natural antibacterial peptide that consists of pre-moistened towelettes that are impregnated with Nisin to prepare the teat area of a cow in advance of milking; MASTiK, a mastitis antibiotic susceptibility test kit; California Mastitis Test, which is performed at cow-side for early detection of mastitis, as well as for bulk tank and individual cow sample monitoring, and for determining the quarter of the udder that is mastitic; and Rapid Johne's Test, which identifies cattle with symptomatic Johne's disease in a herd. In addition, ImmuCell develops Mast Out, an intramammary infusion product containing Nisin that is used in the treatment of mastitis in lactating dairy cows. It sells and distributes its products directly, as well as through veterinarian distributors to various veterinarians and producers in the dairy and beef industries in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1982 and is based in Portland, Maine.
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |