The document provides details on a project conducted by Harrison Hayes to review customer perceptions of the non-medicated feed additives market for Company X across 16 countries. The scope was to determine how the market matches or differs from Company X's brand. Key Opinion Leaders from the animal feed industry in these countries were interviewed. However, the term "non-medicated feed additive" was generally not recognized or understood outside of the United States. Interviewees referred to the category using various terms from vitamins to amino acids. As a result, the project's first objective was to develop a standardized lexicon to describe non-medicated feed additives globally.

1. Final
Deliverable
for
Global
Introduction
of
Non-­‐Medicated
Feed
Additives
for
Company
X

2. Project
Scope
and
Objectives

3. 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. 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. 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)

6. Objective
I:
Development
of
the
appropriate
lexicon
to
describe
non-­‐medicated
feed
additives
and
components

7. 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. 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. 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. 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
Number
of
Responses
Responses

11. 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
Number
of
Responses
Responses

12. 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. 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. 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. 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.

16. Objective
II:
IdentiDication
of
the
appropriate
requirements
for
research
and
data
consistency
in
the
non-­‐medicated
feed
additives
market.

17. 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. 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. 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. 20
SpeciWic
Responses
Regarding
Data
Requirements
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Number
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. 21
SpeciWic
Responses
Regarding
Data
Requirements
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Number
of
Responses
Key
Data
Points

22. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

27. Objective
III:
IdentiDication
of
key
capabilities
needed
to
succeed
in
the
non-­‐medicated
feed
additives
market

28. 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. 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. 30
Key
Capabilities
to
Succeed
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Number
of
Responses
Key
Data
Points
Mentioned
to
Succeed
(Responses
out
of
52)

31. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

36. Objective
IV:
IdentiDication
of
major
products
and
assessment
of
their
use
by
species

37. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

45. Objective
V:
IdentiDication
of
current
major
gaps
in
the
NMFA
market

46. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

53. Before
the
Final
Objective
(Objective
VI):
A
Competitive
Examination

54. 54
Companies
Assessed
In
interviewing
Key
Opinion
Leaders
on
a
global
scale,
they
speciDically
mentioned
initiatives
of
the
following
companies:

55. 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. 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.

57. Objective
VI:
Determination
of
a
Dit
or
non-­‐Dit
with
the
Company
X
Brand

58. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

63. About
Harrison
Hayes

64. 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.

65. www.harrisonhayes.com
Phone:
704.906.3402
Email:
wsmith@harrisonhayes.com
65