Michigan State University Extension
Ag Experiment Station Special Reports - SR499201
07/28/98
Department of Animal Science Michigan State University
INTRODUCTION
Throughout history fur has been valued by humans for
warmth, protection, adornment and prestige. Stone Age man
hunted wild fur bearing animals for clothing and for
barter. Later, furs became valued spoils of war and
symbols of status among royalty throughout the world. The
fur trade was responsible for the exploration and
development of much of North America and played a prominent
role in the economy of colonial America.
As the demand for furs increased, enterprising
trappers began raising the more valuable furbearers in
captivity and fur farming soon became an important
agricultural industry. Without the millions of fur bearing
animals raised on farms to satisfy the demand for furs,
those in the wild might have been extirpated long ago.
At present, both in terms of dollar value and numbers
produced, mink is by far the most important fur bearer
raised domestically, although fox, chinchilla, rabbits,
nutria, and ferrets (fitch) are also raised commercially
for their fur on farms throughout the United States.
THE FUR FARMING INDUSTRY
Fur farming in this country came into prominence
around the turn of the century. Raising silver fox was a
lucrative business at that time, with pelt prices in excess
of $1,000. The popularity of fox fur, however, lasted only
a few years as fashions shifted from the long-haired furs
to shorter-napped, denser furs such as mink.
Although mink are indigenous to North America and have
been raised in captivity since 1866, their fur was
considered to be more of a fashion curiosity than a status
symbol prior to the 1920s. Commercial mink farming began
in the late 1920s and experienced continued growth into the
1960s when domestic production peaked at 6« million pelts
in 1968. In 1938, 80 percent of the 550,000 mink pelts
marketed in the United States were from wild mink, whereas
95 percent of the 5.2 million pelts marketed in 1970 were
farm raised.
Mink reproduce only once a year in the spring and
their pelts are taken in late November and December when
their fur is prime. During the following calendar year,
the pelts are sold as raw pelts or dressed (tanned) skins
at auctions through farmer-controlled marketing
associations. The Hudson's Bay Company and the Seattle Fur
Exchange are the two major fur auction companies in the
United States.
The marketing associations oversee sorting and grading
of pelts according to size, color, and quality and maintain
quality standards for the skins sold under their registered
labels. Promotions by the marketing associations have been
instrumental in creating domestic and foreign markets for
American mink. The higher quality pelts are usually used
in the manufacture of fur garments, while the less
desirable skins are utilized by the trimming trade for
hats, collars, etc.
The demand for mink and fox pelts of particular colors
varies from year to year. Over 20 different color shades
of mink are produced by American farmers. These have
occurred through natural mutations or have been developed
by selective breeding. Standard (natural dark) mink
comprised over one-half of the pelts produced in Michigan
and the U.S. in 1990 (Table 1). Other popular mink colors
are ranch wild, demi-buff, gunmetal, and mahogany. Most
fur farmers raise several color shades to offset temporary
declines in demand for certain colors. There is presently
little market interest in the lighter shades of mink.
During recent years, fur farming has become an
international industry dominated by foreign production.
Denmark is the leading mink producer, accounting for over
30 percent of the world's production of nearly 42 million
pelts in 1989 (Table 2). American mink farmers produced 11
percent of the pelts marketed in 1989.
World fox production was around 5 million pelts in
1989, of which almost 60 percent were raised in Finland
(Table 3). Less than 1 percent was produced by American
fox farmers. About 68 percent of the farm-raised fox were
blue fox. Silver fox accounted for 13 percent with the
rest consisting of various mutation color phases.
Approximately 15 percent of U.S. mink farmers also raise
fox.
Mink and fox farms of many foreign countries are owned
or operated by the government (e.g., China and the
Commonwealth of Independent States) or subsidized by the
government (e.g., Scandinavian countries) through European
Economic Community (ECC) conversion funds. These farmers
can produce pelts at substantially lower costs than
American farmers, which has led to a marked expansion in
fur production in these countries in recent years. Through
EEC support, the Scandinavian mink farmers increased their
pelt production from 10 to 18 million pelts between 1987
and 1988. However, most foreign mink are of only average
(commercial) quality. These farmers have not yet developed
the technology and management skills necessary to produce
high quality mink comparable to those raised by American
farmers. Therefore, American mink farmers are able to
compete in the world market because of the demand for the
superior quality of their animals.
As shown in Tables 4 and 5, the number of mink farms
in the United States and Michigan has decreased
considerably during the last two decades. However, the
average number of pelts produced per farm in the U.S. has
steadily increased from 2,036 pelts in 1969 to 4,898 in
1989. The net result of these trends is that U.S. and
Michigan mink pelt production in 1989-90 was comparable to
that of 1970-71.
About one-half of the mink produced in the U.S. are
from the Great Lakes states. Wisconsin is the leading
state, producing over 25 percent of the mink pelts marketed
in 1990. Since 1969, Michigan has ranked from seventh to
eleventh nationally, producing 2.5 to 4 percent of the mink
crop. Michigan currently is sixth among the states in the
number of mink farms. Although published data on fox
production in Michigan is not available, it is estimated
that there are presently about 20 fox farmers in the state.
Fur farming is practiced throughout Michigan. About
one-half of the mink produced in the state are raised on
farms in the Upper Peninsula, while most of the fox farms
are located in the Lower Peninsula. Almost all of
Michigan's mink and fox farms are family owned and
operated. Nationally, an estimated 9,000 individuals (with
an estimated annual payroll of $63 million) are employed
(full-time and seasonal) in mink farming.
Fur farming is an integral component of Michigan's
diversified agricultural economy and lends support to other
farming endeavors. Fur animal production requires little
land area and can utilize soils with marginal agricultural
value. Byproducts from field crops are used for animal
bedding, and slaughterhouse byproducts provide feed for
mink and fox. The manure from furbearers is recycled as
fertilizer, and mink oil (a byproduct from processing
pelts) is used in the manufacture of hypoallergenic soaps,
cosmetics, and leather preservatives.
Fur farmers have been pioneers in the promotion of
animal welfare. Over 95 percent of the mink produced in
the U.S. in 1990 came from farms that have been certified
by the Fur Farm Animal Welfare Coalition as complying with
humane standards for animal care.
At present, mink production costs are about $30/pelt
produced, which is considerably above the average pelt
price received by mink farmers during the last two years
(Table 4). Feed is the greatest expense for the fur
farmer. Mink and fox are carnivores that require diets
high in protein and fat and low in fiber. Conventional
diets are composed primarily of animal byproducts from the
beef, pork, chicken, turkey, duck, and egg industries that
are not utilized for human consumption. Nationally, annual
revenues generated by these food-producing industries from
the sale of animal byproducts for feeding mink are in
excess of $75 million.
Mink pelt prices have fluctuated markedly since 1975
(Table 3) in response to the economy and fashion trends.
During the 1960s, a rising economy and favorable fashions
sent American mink production to an all-time high.
Domestic consumption kept pace with the increasing
production and peaked at over 10 million pelts between 1966
and 1968. During the early 1970s, a less favorable
economy, fluctuations in fashions, and an attitude change
toward luxury items in the younger generation resulted in
marked declines in domestic consumption. The high domestic
pelt production, unsold pelt and garment inventories, and
rapid expansion by foreign producers seriously weakened the
price structure and forced many American (and foreign) fur
farmers out of business (Table 4). From the mid-1970s
through 1988, U.S. mink production gradually increased from
3 to 4.5 million pelts with practically no change in the
number of mink farmers. The decline in mink production in
1987-88 was reminiscent of that of the early 1970s and was
also primarily due to worldwide overproduction of mink and
unsold pelt inventories. These factors, coupled with the
increased strength of the U.S. dollar against most major
foreign currencies, the economic recession, a luxury tax
(10 percent on furs over $10,000), short capitalization
problems for fur manufacturers, dealers and retailers, and
the animal rights-antifur issue, caused a reduction in pelt
prices that forced many mink farmers to "pelt down" or
"pelt out." A worldwide decease in mink production is
expected to continue through 1992. In the U.S., 5 percent
fewer female mink were bred to produce kits in 1991 than in
1990.
Since 1989, there has been an increase in mink pelt
prices. The average mink pelt price for 1990 was 20
percent ($5.10) higher than in 1989 (Table 4). This trend
in pelt prices is projected by the industry to continue for
the near future. Based on the 1990 average mink pelt
price, the sale of mink pelts generated over $2.1 million
for the state's mink farmers. The continued decrease in
mink production (at least through 1992) along with the
present small pelt and fur garment inventories should
result in even stronger pelt prices and a more favorable
position for fur farmers in the near future. Long-term
predictions for the fur farming industry are, however,
extremely difficult to make due to the industry's
dependence on fashion trends, domestic and foreign
economies, and the uncertainty of foreign pelt production
in the world marketplace.
FUTURE OUTLOOK AND POTENTIAL
Fur farming has always been a cyclical and risky
business influenced by general economic conditions and the
whims of the fashion world. Pelt supplies and consumer
demands play an important role in the price structure and
stability of the luxury fur market.
The domination of foreign countries in the production
of luxury furs such as mink and fox has created a greater
emphasis on global marketing of fur pelts in recent years.
With the expanding world economy (especially in the lesser
developed countries), a more affluent and fashion-conscious
population should increase the demand for luxury furs.
Newly established markets in Korea, Spain and South America
have shown a preference for high-quality American furs, and
recent promotions of luxury fur garments for men have met
with success and should expand this market in the future.
To compete successfully in the world market, American fur
farmers and fur marketing associations must continue to
cater to the desires of the more sophisticated and quality-
conscious consumers.
Michigan should retain its position as a major fur
producer. It has a favorable climate for producing high
quality fur and abundant supplies of animal and cereal
byproducts that can be used for feeding mink, fox, and
other furbearers. The trend toward fewer but larger fur
farms will undoubtedly continue, with local zoning
regulations and environmental concerns determining where
future fur farms will be located.
Two state mink producer organizations (Michigan Fur
Breeders Association and Upper Michigan Mink Breeders
Association) and a rabbit breeders association (Michigan
Rabbit Breeders Association) currently serve these
industries. Michigan State University operates an
experimental fur farm where research on nutrition,
physiology, toxicology and management of fur bearing
animals is conducted with support from the Mink Farmers
Research Foundation. There are also several veterinarians
and pathologists with considerable fur animal experience at
the MSU Animal Health Diagnostic Laboratory to assist fur
farmers with animal health- related problems.
New technologies and research advances should have a
positive impact on the economics of fur production. In the
future, there will be greater use of commercially
manufactured pelleted feed by mink and fox producers.
Electronic recordkeeping for monitoring animal performance
and production costs will increase. Computerized breeder
selection should enhance herd reproductive performance and
fur quality. New technologies will be implemented for
grading fur and processing pelts. There will be greater
emphasis on environmentally-controlled housing to
facilitate reproduction and fur priming. Artificial
insemination techniques will be developed for mink. There
will be a greater emphasis on animal welfare and efforts to
educate the public about the humane care and treatment
provided for fur bearing animals, as well as the appeal and
desirability of wearing furs - a renewable resource.
Table 1. Mink Farm Production by Color - 1990 1)
Michigan U.S.
Pelt color
No. pelts % total No. pelts % total
(thousand) production (thousands) production
Standard 54 65.1 1,776 52.7 Ranch Wild2
Demi-buff 6 7.2 272 8.1
Pastel 1 1.2 71 2.1
Pale Brown -- --- 4 0.1
Sapphire2 -- --- 93 2.8
Gunmetal 1 1.2 255 7.6
Mahogany2 -- --- 263 7.8
Peral 6 7.2 32 1.0
Lavender Hope -- --- 12 0.4
Pink -- --- 43 1.3
Violet 6 7.2 89 2.6
White 6 7.2 60 1.8
Miscellaneous2-- --- 4 0.1
_____ _________
TOTAL 83 3,365
1 Source: U.S.D.A. 2 Production not reported to avoid disclosing individual operations.
Table 2. World Mink Production - 1989 1)
Country Pelts produced Percent total
(thousand) production
Denmark 12,700 30.5
USSR (export) 5,000 12.0
China (export) 5,000 12.0
United States 4,600 11.0
Finland 3,800 9.1
Sweden 2,200 5.3
Holland 1,800 4.3
Canada 1,300 3.1
Japan 780 1.9
France 750 1.8
Others 3,755 9.0
_______ ______
TOTAL 41,685 100.0
1 Source: Fur Rancher 70(8):6
Table 3. World Fox Production - 1989 1)
Country Pelts produced Percent total
production
Finland 2,930,000 59.7
Norway 720,000 14.7
Poland (export)482,000 9.8
Denmark 180,000 3.7
USSR (export) 174,000 3.5
Canada 104,000 2.1
Holland 85,000 1.8
Iceland 77,500 1.6
Sweden 64,000 1.3
United States (est.) 38,000 0.8
Other 51,000 1.0
_________ _______
TOTAL 4,905,500 100.0
1 Source: Fur Rancher 70(8):6; Seattle Fur Exchange, Seattle, WA
Table 4. U.S. Farm Mink Production and Average Pelt Price 1
Year No. farms Pelts Average Average Value of
produced # pelts pelt $ pelts (mill
(thousand) per farm (dollars) dollars)
1969 2,794 5,688 2,036 --- --- 1970 2,227 4,532 2,035 --- --- 1971 1,615 3,380 2,093 --- --- 1972 1,380 2,965 2,149 --- --- 1973 1,329 3,037 2,285 --- --- 1974 1,221 3,128 2,562 --- --- 1975 1,084 3,067 2,860 24.10 73.9 1976 1,015 3,026 2,956 29.00 87.8 1977 1,040 3,076 2,981 28.30 87.1 1978 1,095 3,358 3,105 39.30 132.0 1979 1,105 3,394 3,077 41.10 139.5 1980 1,122 3,501 3,119 35.30 123.6 1981 NA2 NA NA 32.20 NA 1982 1,116 4,085 3,674 28.90 118.8 1983 1,098 4,137 3,734 29.90 123.7 1984 1,084 4,220 3,929 30,80 130.0 1985 1.042 4,171 4,002 28.00 116.8 1986 989 4,096 4,142 41.30 170.0 1987 1,027 4,122 4,014 43.00 177.2 1988 1,027 4,453 4,336 32.30 143.8 1989 940 4,604 4,898 20.40 93.9 1990 786 3,365 4,281 25.50 85.8
1 Source: U.S.D.A. 2 Data not available
Table 5. Michigan Mink Production (Thousand)1
Year Pelts No. ranches National
produced (1,000) ranking
1969 215 96 9 1970 180 82 9 1971 135 53 8 1972 130 47 7 1973 125 45 8 1974 135 43 9 1975 114 35 11 1976 105 35 10 1977 104 37 11 1978 NA2 NA NA 1979 NA NA NA 1980 129 48 10 1981 NA NA NA 1982 144 50 10 1983 145 54 11 1984 168 56 8 1985 167 53 8 1986 155 52 8 1987 146 54 9 1988 161 56 8 1989 184 54 8 1990 83 35 11
1 Source: Michigan Department of Agriculture 2 Data not available
Table 6. Major Mink Producing States - 1990 1)
State No. farms No. pelts Percent of
produced total U.S.
(thousand) production
Wisconsin 152 855 25.4 Utah 180 680 20.2 Minnesota 93 373 11.1 Oregon 40 227 6.7 Idaho 34 210 6.2 Washington 43 172 5.1 Iowa 32 125 3.7 Illinois 20 120 3.6 Pennsylvania 24 95 2.8 Ohio 16 88 2.6 Michigan 35 83 2.5 New York 20 74 2.2
1 Source: U.S.D.A.