Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Final Deliverable for Global Introduction of Non-‐Medicated Feed Additives for Company X
Project Scope and Objectives
3
Project Scope
The scope of this speciDic project for Company X was for Harrison Hayes to perform an independent review of Company X’s customers’ perception of the non-‐medicated feed additives market and determine how it matches or does not match the Company X brand as a whole. Harrison Hayes speciDically focused on the following countries:
Australia Mexico
Brazil Poland
Canada Saudi Arabia
China Spain
France Thailand
Japan United Kingdom
Jordan United States
4
Project Objectives
The project objectives as outlined by Harrison Hayes with input from the Company X project team were as follows: I. Development of the appropriate lexicon to describe non-‐medicated feed
additives and components. II. IdentiDication of the appropriate requirements for research and data
consistency in the non-‐medicated feed additives market. III. IdentiDication of key capabilities needed to succeed in the non-‐medicated
feed additives market. IV. IdentiDication of major products and assessment of their use by species. V. IdentiDication of current major gaps in the non-‐medicated feed additives
market. VI. Determination of a Dit or non-‐Dit with the Company X brand.
5
Sample of Project Key Opinion Leaders As per this project’s proposal, Harrison Hayes interviewed a total of 52 animal feed experts across a variety of species. Below are examples of the Key Opinion Leaders interviewed: q Douglas Zaviezo, Ph.D.: International Poultry Nutrition Consultant M.Sc. and Ph.D. in
Nutrition from Washington State University. Technical Manager for Central Soya-‐Provimi Brazil. Latin America Technical Director for Central Soya-‐Provimi, ADM and Novus International.. Numerous international presentations in different meetings and congresses. Most important nutritional areas of experience: feed formulation using non-‐traditional ingredients; vitamins and trace minerals; proteins and amino acids; nutrition under heat stress; interrelations between nutrition-‐additives-‐medications; and nutrition-‐molds-‐mycotoxins.
q Guilherme Agapito: Nutritional Technician for Latin America -‐ Tortuga -‐ Formulation of diets and nutritional plans for major customers in 17 countries in Latin America and Africa, including pigs, layers hens and broilers, with speciDic work of care, evaluating for improvement in productivity & quality with personalized service, aiming to increase sales.
q Jurgen Verkuyten: President of Trouw Nutrition Polska. Trouw provides advanced knowledge on animal nutrition and production and innovative products for home mixing (farm minerals, concentrates, young animal feed, feed additives) and compound feed industry (premixes, vitamin blends)
Objective I: Development of the appropriate lexicon to describe non-‐medicated feed additives and components
7
What is a “Non-‐Medicated Feed Additive?”
The interviewed Key Opinion Leaders did not know, nor did they understand the term “non-‐medicated feed additive.” In fact, the term needed to be deDined and clariDied in 45 of the 52 total interviews.
7
45
Understanding of NMFA
Understood NMFA Did not Understand
8
Who Understands NMFA?
Throughout the interviews completed in this study, “Non-‐Medicated Feed Additives” was most widely acknowledged in the United States as a relevant term for the category. The term was not recognized or accepted in any other country or region.
9
Nomenclature of NMFA When Key Opinion Leaders were asked “when you think about the ingredients you or your customers use, recommend or assess when formulating a ration; apart from vitamins, minerals or amino acids, what are the other categories of products or feed ingredients utilized?” the following items were mentioned. Note: # of responses in ().
Vitamins (49) Organic (7) Choline (3) Enzymes (41) Urea (7) Threonine (3) Amino Acids (39) Pantothenic acid (6) Botanicals (3) Prebiotics (30) Yeast (6) Coccideostat (2) Probiotics (28) Antioxidants (6) Functional (2) Supplements (20) Antimicrobials (5) Biuret (2) Minerals (16) Healthy (4) Carotenoids (2) Niacin (15) Phytase (4) Soy (2) AcidiDiers (13) Flavorants (4) Nutrient-‐Rich (1) Lysine (11) Pre-‐Mixes (3) RiboDlavin (1) Natural (9) Glycine (3) Organic Acids (1)
10
What is NMFA Called around the World?
The interviewees referred to NMFA as a multitude of items, from Vitamins to RiboWlavins. These are out of 52 total responses
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Num
ber of Responses
Responses
11
What is NMFA Called around the World? (Con’t.)
The interviewees referred to NMFA as a multitude of items, from Vitamins to RiboWlavins. These are out of 52 total responses.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Num
ber of Responses
Responses
12
Recommended/Appropriate Lexicon for NMFA
Through our primary and secondary research, Harrison Hayes recommends the following lexicon and terminology for the Non-‐Medicated Feed Additives product space: Recommendation 1: Based on research conducted throughout the engagement, Harrison Hayes conDidently recommends that Company X NOT refer to the category as Non-‐Medicated Feed Additives.
Recommendation 2: Consistent nomenclature from country to county is needed. SpeciDic product segment names with the term “Feed” preceding the name is the most accepted nomenclature. Ex: “Feed Enzyme,” “Feed Vitamin,” etc. This recommendation is more descriptive and would be strongly suggested for use in countries/regions with divergent languages from English.
13
Recommended/Appropriate Lexicon for NMFA
Through our primary and secondary research, Harrison Hayes recommends the following lexicon and terminology for the Non-‐Medicated Feed Additives product space:
Recommendation 3: In the event that Company X elects to utilize a generic name, Harrison Hayes recommends that Company X refer to the Non-‐Medicated Feed Additives space as “feed supplements.” Based on primary and secondary research, we believe that “feed supplements” would most effectively communicate the most accurate connotation of the product category.
14
Lexicon of NMFA – KOL Recommendations One (1) Key Opinion Leader strongly recommended that feed additives be deDined in Dive (5) segments. The Dirst two segments are identiDied and deDined below. q Technological additives. This classiDication refers to a group of additives which
inDluences the technological aspects of the feed. This does not directly inDluence the nutritional value of the feed but may do indirectly by improving its handling or hygiene characteristics, for example. An example of such an additive would be an organic acid for preservation of feed.
q Zootechnical additives. These additives improve the nutrient status of the animal, not by providing speciDic nutrients, but by enabling more efDicient use of the nutrients present in the diet. An example of such an additive would be an enzyme or direct fed microbial product, both of which enhance the conditions of the intestinal tract, thus enabling more effective nutrient extraction from the diet. In this respect they are often referred to as pro-‐nutrients, i.e. products which improve the nutritional value of a diet without necessarily providing nutrients directly. Other additives are used for environmental beneDits that they provide to animal husbandry and others are targeted for speciDic physiological functions.
15
Lexicon of NMFA – KOL Recommendations Con’t. One Key Opinion Leader strongly recommended that feed additives be deDined in Dive (5) segments. The last three segments are identiDied and deDined below.
q Sensory additives. This refers to a group of additives which improve the palatability (i.e. voluntary intake) of a diet by stimulating appetite, usually through the effect these products have on the Dlavor or color of the diet. For example, a vanilla extract may well encourage piglets to eat a ration.
q Nutritional additives. Such additives supply speciDic nutrient(s) required by the animal for optimal growth. An example would be a vitamin, amino acid or trace mineral. In most cases, such additives are simply concentrated forms of nutrients supplied in natural ingredients in the diet.
q Coccidiostats and Histomonostats. These products are used to control intestinal health of poultry through direct effects on the parasitic organism concerned. They are not classiDied as antibiotics.
Objective II: IdentiDication of the appropriate requirements for research and data consistency in the non-‐medicated feed additives
market.
17
Important Data Points
q It varies from region to region, but more feed production Managers responded that they would rely on Word of Mouth in selecting product over sales materials, sales representative relationships, or clinical/study data.
q In fact, clinical study data in Asia was not readily mentioned as a purchase decision driver to try a new product or a new supplier.
q Also in Asia, any change to a new supplier of an existing additive, on the recommendation of a peer, was more likely to occur than in Europe or the Middle East.
What did the Key Opinion Leaders believe to be the most appropriate requirements for research and data consistency relating to NMFA?
18
Requirements in Product Selection When the (52) Key Opinion Leaders were asked “what do elements/items do you consider in selecting a speciDic product or additive” the following data points were mentioned:
Data Point # of Responses Price 41 Word of Mouth Referral 34 Improved Animal Results 33
Safety ProDile 28 Trial and Error 24 Reputable supplier 24 Regulatory Approval/Endorsement 23
Peer Referral 21
Higher Productivity 19
Sales Rep. Relationship 18
Web Based Info. 18
Positive ScientiDic Data/Trial Results 16
19
Requirements in Product Selection Con’t. When the (52) Key Opinion Leaders were asked “what do elements/items do you consider in selecting a speciDic product or additive” the following data points were mentioned:
Data Point # of Responses
Existing Supplier Relationship 15
Product Support 14
Good Customer Hot-‐line 14
Return on Investment over time 13
Mobile Based Info. Support 12
Natural 11
Track Record of Animal Production Results 10
Ease of Use 7
No Negative Reports 6
Ease of Product Info. Availability 4
Track Record of Mixing with Existing Feed 3
20
SpeciWic Responses Regarding Data Requirements
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Num
ber of Responses
Key Data Points
Out of a total of 52 responses
*Price was the most frequent selection criteria mentioned, but was somewhat out of scope of this project.
21
SpeciWic Responses Regarding Data Requirements
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Num
ber of Responses
Key Data Points
22
Observation on Price
One Key Opinion Leader spoke in detail on the price of supplements:
We can evaluate the true cost of a supplement beyond the purchase price. When we evaluate how a given supplement program can help save on other input costs such as fuel, labor, equipment cost, etc., bargain supplement or feed really isn’t a bargain if more dollars are spent to feed it, store it or handle it. Even cheap supplements cost money, and again, if a bargain perceived supplement is not “managed” correctly, it actually becomes a waste of money or a bigger cost. I see this much too often with free-‐choice mineral supplements where a problem with performance is not as much the mineral, but the management (or lack of). With Low Moisture Blocks there are competing brands and formulations with equal protein content and feeding levels that would differ as much as $200 per ton. This $200 sounds like a lot, but when evaluating cost per head per day (which we always do), a $200 per ton difference on a supplement that is consumed at ¾ of a lb. per head per day translates to 7.5 cents. So, if we are already committed to spend 25-‐30 cents for a protein, vitamin, mineral supplement and are evaluating multiple brands or formulations, what more is received for spending another nickel?
23
Why is ScientiWic Data Not Frequently Mentioned?
As the previous slides indicate, Regulatory Approval/Endorsement and Positive ScientiWic Data was mentioned by 23 and 16 Key Opinion Leaders respectively. Begs the question…Why is this the case?
24
Why is ScientiWic Data Not Important?
q Key Opinion Leaders strongly believe that study results advertised/provided by suppliers are not accurately stated or portrayed.
q Nine (9) Key Opinion Leaders felt that study results provided by suppliers may be misstated.
q There is a high level of skepticism in how the studies were conducted.
q Key Opinion Leaders who believed these studies were important (6 respondents) viewed the protocol and proDile of the study (i.e., where the study was conducted) to be of high importance.
25
Other Requirement Observations
q The need to know how the product works in different genetic lines was not mentioned (unaided) in any of the interviews. When the subject was introduced (aided), 2 respondents stated it would be important and 6 said it may be somewhat valuable.
q The need to know how the product works in different types of diets (wheat versus corn for example) was mentioned in 3 (unaided) interviews. When the subject was introduced (aided), 5 respondents stated it would be important and 8 said it may be somewhat valuable.
q The need to know how data on interactions with other products (when our product is used together with another one they consider standard in their diet) was mentioned in 2 (unaided) interviews. When the subject was introduced (aided), 6 respondents stated it would be important and 7 said it may be somewhat valuable.
26
Recommendation for Research Requirement and Data Consistency
Through our primary and secondary research, Harrison Hayes recommends Company X perform the following in regards to providing the appropriate requirements for research and data consistency:
Recommendation: Performance of large studies of animal populations consisting of more than 100 head for each species. Studies of this size or greater are generally thought to carry more weight than smaller studies.
Objective III: IdentiDication of key capabilities needed to succeed in the
non-‐medicated feed additives market
28
How to be Successful in the NMFA Space
q There were two primary elements that Key Opinion Leaders believed were essential for success: Quality and Value.
q These two terms had a variety of meanings; Quality and Value were mentioned in regard to product selection and supplier relationship.
q Respondents stated that suppliers must show product viability in order to be successful.
29
Requirements in Product Selection When the (52) Key Opinion Leaders were asked “what are the necessary steps or items to be a successful non-‐medicated feed additive provider” the following items were mentioned:
Data Point # of Responses Relationship with Sales/Technical and Support Personnel 25
Education from Company 24
Customer Service 23
Company/Product Quality 20 Ease of Access and Use of Technology to Disseminate Information 19
Past Experience with Company’s Other Brands 18
Company’s Safety ProDile with Past Products 16
Easy of Reaching Someone to Answer Questions 13
ScientiDic Information 12
30
Key Capabilities to Succeed
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Num
ber of Responses
Key Data Points Mentioned to Succeed (Responses out of 52)
31
Observations on Needs to Succeed
q In terms of relationship and quality of suppliers, the suppliers who support and promote new products by allowing production managers to try new products for an extended period of time, free of charge, was a high indicator of success.
q Determination of product viability through studies conducted “on-‐site” was a key factor for success in all studied countries.
q It is clear that if clinical studies/pilot programs/and other tests are performed in conjunction with production managers, that there is a high likelihood of potential success and future relationships.
32
Observations on Needs to Succeed Con’t.
q Key Opinion Leaders, speciDically in Asia, stated that education through multiple channels would enable future success.
q Education tools mentioned include web portals and mobile applications. It was further stated that these technologies must be intuitive and easily available.
q If Company X were able to provide a technologically advanced CRM tool, this would place it at the forefront of the market.
33
Stand-‐Out Companies in the NMFA Space When Key Opinion Leaders were asked “what company in your region speciDically stands out as a leader in non-‐medicated feed additives” the following companies were mentioned:
Adisseo Kemin Ridley Ajinomoto PDizer Alltech Alpharma Lallemand AB Vista ADM Lesaffre Varsha BASF Lonza Lumis Cargill Novozymes EDC Chareon Pokphand Novus Zagro Danisco Nutreco Agranco DSM Phibro Renle Company X Mosaic Nutrex Evialis JEFO
34
Recommendation for Key Capabilities to Succeed
Through our primary and secondary research, Harrison Hayes recommends Company X perform the following in order to successfully be in the non-‐medicated feed additives space:
Recommendation 1: There must be a consistency in the product and demonstrate the ability to produce improved outcomes.
Recommendation 2: Provide unbiased and full proof that the products can increase and maintain uniform weight gain. Provide similar data that supports feed additives can prevent disease. Provide clinically viable data that shows improvement in feed conversion rates.
35
Recommendation for Key Capabilities to Succeed Con’t.
Through our primary and secondary research, Harrison Hayes recommends Company X perform the following in order to successfully be in the non-‐medicated feed additives space:
Recommendation 3: Company X should create a line of species speciDic non-‐medicated feed “cocktails” and create proprietary brand names/packaging that is consistent with the Company X brand.
Recommendation 4: In order to best penetrate the market, Company X needs to consider a distribution business model. This needs to include a global network of trusted distributors.
Objective IV: IdentiDication of major products and assessment of their
use by species
37
Market Drivers
The following are market drivers speciDic to Market for Non-‐Medicated Feed Additives:
q Complete Ban on All Growth-‐Promoting Antimicrobials in the EU
q Increased Emphasis on “Natural Products” as Potential Alternatives to Antimicrobials
q Increased Emphasis on Quality Control
q Farmers are Looking to Discover Reasons and Solutions for Problems in Productivity
q Growing Interest in Probiotics has Led to Creation of New Societies and Forums
q Change in Focus Towards an Application-‐orientated Perspective
q Increased Use of Therapeutic Antimicrobials in Intensive Animal Production
q Potential for ban on Use of Coccidiostats in 2012
38
Market Growth Trends
The following growth trends were mentioned across all species:
q The growing use and popularity of Amino Acids was noted as a key trend in the NMFA space.
q SpeciDic Amino Acids mentioned included Tyrosine, Arginine, Taurine, Glycine, Threonine, Lysine, and Tryptophan.
q From an academic perspective, the rise of D-‐Amino Acids was seen as a “future game-‐changer” in the animal feed additives segment.
q Synbiotics research and development efforts were noted to be “top of mind” within DSM, Alltech, and Danisco.
q DSM is focusing its Research and Development efforts on creating a new synthetic ally produced NMFA with an emphasis on greater consistency of product and elevated animal performance.
39
Emerging Trends
q The concept of Direct Feed Microbials (DFM)/Probiotics involves the feeding of beneDicial microbes to dairy cattle when they are under periods of stress.
q These periods of distress are deDined as disease, ration changes, environmental issues, or production challenges.
q Of the Key Opinion Leaders familiar with the usage of Probiotics (15 respondents), nine (9) were aware that these products have been shown to improve animal performance in clinical studies.
40
Market Inhibitors
The following are market inhibitors speciDic to Market for Non-‐Medicated Feed Additives:
q Increase in Price of Raw Materials for Use in Animal Feeds
q Regulatory Developments Hinder Product Development and Innovation
q Inconsistency of additives such as Probiotics
q Product Presentation and Handling
q General Lack of Awareness of certain feed additives
q General Lack of Quality Research Data Proving EfDicacy
q Price of Probiotics as Feed Supplements
q Uncertain Future of Feed Compounding in the EU
41
Major Product: Vitamins
The table below represents the most cited usage of vitamin additives across all species based on Key Opinion Leader Response:
Fat Soluble Vitamins General Function
Vitamin A Heart Health, Immunity, Vision
Vitamin D Calcium metabolism, gene regulation
Vitamin E Antioxidant
Vitamin K Blood Clotting, Vision
42
Major Product: Vitamins
The table below represents the most cited usage of vitamin additives across all species based on Key Opinion Leader Response:
Water Soluble Vitamins General Function
Biotin Carbohydrate, fat, and protein metabolism
Choline Fat metabolism and transport
Folacin (Folic Acid) Nucleic and amino acid metabolism
Niacin Energy metabolism
Pantothenic Acid Carbohydrate and fat metabolism
RiboDlavin Energy metabolism
Thiamin Carbohydrate and protein metabolism
Pyridoxine Amino acid metabolism
Vitamin B12 Nucleic and amino acid metabolism
Vitamin C Antioxidant and amino acid metabolism
43
Swine Additives: Observations
q Swine feed additives most commonly cited by producers included:
q Respondents cited that historical experience demonstrates that antibacterials provide the most consistent generalized improvements in growth rate and feed efDiciency of the additives mentioned in the table above.
q Alternatives to antimicrobials are actively being sought due to increased consumer concerns.
q Most producers have developed a customized feed additive program based on speciDic production needs.
Antibacterial agents Probiotics and Prebiotics
Antiparasiticides Botanicals
Metabolic modiWiers Flavors
AcidiWiers Enzymes
44
Recommendation for Key Products
Through our primary and secondary research, Harrison Hayes recommends the following product speciDics:
Recommendation 1: Company X should create a line of species speciDic non-‐medicated feed “cocktails” and create proprietary brand names/packaging that is consistent with the Company X brand.
Note: This recommendation is the same as Recommendation 3 in the previous section.
Objective V: IdentiDication of current major gaps in the NMFA market
46
Primary Unmet Needs
q The primary and overwhelming stated unmet needs in the NMFA space were speciDic to Education and Dosage Recommendations.
q Twenty one (21) Key Opinion Leaders stated that they needed greater knowledge regarding animal nutrition in unaided response.
q When the need for greater knowledge was introduced on an aided basis, 36 Key Opinion Leaders agreed that there is not enough information regarding animal nutrition needs.
q Technology tools that could educate production managers would be extremely beneDicial in this regard.
q Across all species, Key Opinion Leaders need “Diet Formulation Tools.”
47
Major Gap: Education Producers just want something they can measure by the time they order the next batch of feed. Something tangible. Say, I add this additive and my feed cost (all other things being equal) is reduced by such amount. This is the kind of desperate advice I have been asked to give, more times than I dare to admit, lately! Every week, I receive at least one request to review a set of diets. Sometimes for sows, sometimes for growers, occasionally for both. Yes, there are the occasional major issues, but most striking is the fact that almost all formulas are simply over-‐formulated. Too much of everything or just one thing, it does not matter, it is simply a waste of nutrients, money, and a huge loss of potential pro]it. This is a global issue, as I receive diets from most pig producing countries (but none from Japan yet!). My own understanding is that such practice is just fear of under-‐formulation.
-Dr. Ioannis Mavromichalis
48
Major Gap: Education Con’t.
“Many times, in very different countries, and farms, I ]ind lots of protein but unbalanced amino acids, also lots of fat, and very frequently the use of too many additives, many of them with the same aim. There is a fear of under-‐formulation, together with a very good sales job (additives) and the fact that many farms do not have the possibility of measuring the effect of the nutritional modi]ications in the diets, so they include these high levels or these extra additives as an insurance policy”
-David Mortimer, Swine Producer in Florida
49
Key Gaps Reiterated
q To reiterate, one of the key gaps was not product related, but education related.
q Beef producers speciDically noted that there was not “enough information on demand” in terms of access to recommended dosages for various combinations of non-‐medicated feed additives.
q Swine and Poultry producers also mentioned lack of education as a shortcoming, but were not as vocal as the cattle segment.
q All species Key Opinion Leaders felt that suppliers could be more diligent about providing information about speciDic products.
50
Statements from Key Opinion Leaders on Unmet Needs
The following are direct quotes from Key Opinion Leaders regarding their view on unmet needs in the NMFA space.
q “We know very little regarding vitamin ]low out of the rumen and even less regarding ef]iciency of absorption of vitamins from the gastro-‐intestinal tract of cows.”
q “Without reliable data regarding vitamin supply from basal diets, actual requirements cannot be determined.”
q “For ration formulation purposes, knowing the true requirement for vitamins is not essential. The question that needs to be asked is: What vitamins should be supplemented and at what rates?”
51
Recommendations for Major Gaps
In order to best address the existing unmet needs and major gaps in the NMFA space, Harrison Hayes recommends the following: Recommendation 1:
Company X must be able to provide data and information on various species diseases.
Recommendation 3: Provide intuitive, easy to use mobile/tablet/web-‐based platforms that offers speciDic feed additives recommendations. Mobile access is key to fulDilling a major education gap in Asia.
Note: Recommendation 2 is related to having success in the NMFA market section.
Recommendation 2: Provide recommendations as to which are the best/most applicable non-‐medicated feed additives to use in each situation.
52
AfWirmation of Technology Platforms
Some basic questions need to be answered each time you consider purchasing other ingredients:
· Does the ingredient make sense regarding nutrition and palatability? · How variable is the nutrient content from one shipment or vendor to another? · What are the real economic impacts of using an alternative ingredient? · How much should I buy (if any)?
It is time you may need to look at technology to help you get the answers you need. The answer may or may not be in your existing applications, or even something off the shelf, it may take more innovation to con]igure what you speci]ically need but technology can help get you there and start saving…but you won’t know unless you start asking and time to start collaborating!
-‐ Bob Luedtke
Before the Final Objective (Objective VI): A Competitive Examination
54
Companies Assessed
In interviewing Key Opinion Leaders on a global scale, they speciDically mentioned initiatives of the following companies:
55
Assessing the Competition
q PWizer is attempting to deDine the NMFA category.
q PWizer is examining a NMFA “go to market strategy” in Asia with its existing animal health sales team across all species.
q Concurrently, PWizer is also evaluating “strategic options” for its Animal Health franchise.
q Alltech is expanding its sales force through additional recruitment and aggressive hiring.
56
Assessing the Competition Con’t.
q Danisco intends to place a greater emphasis on the NMFA market and support regulatory reform in China.
q DSM seeks to expand market presence in the NMFA space through acquisition.
q Merial does not see the NMFA market as aligned with its brand value.
Objective VI: Determination of a Dit or non-‐Dit with the Company X Brand
58
Company X and NMFA
The Company X Brand Explained to KOLs:
The Company X brand promises to provide innovative solutions to people who share the commitment of producing safe, nutritious, affordable food by enhancing animal wellness, welfare, and performance. These solutions provided by Company X are superior products, in front of industry issues with technical excellence and speciDic information/education. The Company X brand is based on sound science, independent research, and key industry relationships and leadership.
59
Company X and NMFA Con’t.
How do the Company X brand characteristics compare with the Key Opinion Leader’s deDinition of feed additives?
Key Opinion Leader Statement: “Nutritional quality of a feed is in]luenced not only by nutrient content but also by many other aspects such as feed presentation, hygiene, content of anti-‐nutritional elements, digestibility, palatability and impact on intestinal wellness to name several. Feed additives give a mechanism by which such dietary de]iciencies might be addressed which bene]its not just the nutrition and for this reason the growth rate of the animal concerned, but also its wellness and welfare.”
60
Entering the NMFA Space
q The Company X, Merial, and PWizer brands are the most trusted and respected brands in animal health, even though they are virtually non-‐existent in non-‐medicated feed.
q Key Opinion Leaders stated that Company X, Merial, and PWizer as the companies who are best suited to enter the Non-‐Medicated Feed Additives space.
q These three (3) companies were mentioned across all species; no one species had a signiDicantly higher sentiment than the others.
q Why? q Experience with animal health q Knowledgeable sales team q Trusted supplier
61
Company X and NMFA
q The Company X brand is perceived to have “strong science” behind it and therefore would be positioned to capitalize on this attribute.
q The lack of product consistency from existing non-‐medicated feed additives is a major concern.
q Key Opinion Leaders felt that Company X and PWizer would be the two most likely companies to enter the market that would allay those concerns.
q This sentiment was most prevalent from Key Opinion Leaders in the swine and poultry segments.
62
Recommendation on NMFA
Recommendation: Based on research conducted throughout this engagement, Harrison Hayes has determined that the Non-‐Medicated Feed Additives market is clearly a Dit with the Company X brand attributes in the mind of the customer.
About Harrison Hayes
64
About Harrison Hayes
Harrison Hayes is a strategic consulting Dirm to the life, chemical, and material science industries. SpeciDic areas of expertise reside in our unique and proprietary research methodologies that support strategic and tactical decision making processes for our clients.
