Conditionally negative cases.

Good afternoon.

A new drug for a poultry farm is always a risk for a veterinarian, even if it has shown effectiveness in other poultry farms. This is objective. Drugs in this category require personal marketing. And here we are faced with a particularly subjective approach on the part of poultry farm veterinarians. Their position can be understood, especially if everything is relatively normal and calm at the poultry farm.

And so, as promised: negative cases. I will deliberately not name the companies.

Case 1.

Large poultry farm. Broilers are raised. The initial contact was with the production manager. A production experiment was completed. We were presented with test data. The data show the advantage of the experimental group in terms of weight gain and, most importantly, the mortality rate is significantly lower. At the poultry farm, it was even decided to slaughter the control group one day earlier - the mortality rate there had increased. And our drug Rezovet showed itself on the good side.

It would seem that all we need to do is negotiate the price, terms of delivery and carry out extensive production tests. After all, there is a clear economic effect. But no, the chief veterinarian refused further cooperation without any comments. There is no point in going to the management of the poultry farm. Any veterinarian, unfortunately, can “make” the test results negative if desired. After all, our drug Rezovet is not a magic wand, and the results may depend on many factors in the operation of a poultry farm (all kinds of stress, feed, vaccines, etc.

Conclusion: we will wait until large poultry farms in this region begin to massively use the drug Rezovet. This is the only argument.

Case 2.

Average poultry farm. Broilers are raised. The initial contact was with one of the shareholders. The veterinarian was initially skeptical about the drug Rezovet. For production tests, we initially selected an old poultry house and weak livestock for the experimental group. On average, on day 8, at the start of the tests, the average weight of the experimental group was 16 grams lower than the control group (this is a lot!!!). Two weeks of testing passed - the experimental group caught up with the control group in weight! By the third week, the experimental group was already ahead of the control group in terms of weight gain and average weight. Fourth week: fatal result. The weight gain in the experimental group decreased sharply and mortality increased. We did not receive any comments from the veterinarian. At the end of the period, the indicators in both poultry houses leveled off. And this takes into account the fact that the experienced poultry house was initially weaker than the control one. We tried to find out the reasons for the sudden change in the situation, but did not receive an answer. The veterinarian refused to communicate with us. Later we found out that in the fourth week he gave a “fashionable” and not cheap antibiotic. True, we did not know the dose of this antibiotic.

We decided to check and ordered an expensive independent study. It showed that, on the contrary, the use of this antibiotic together with the drug Rezovet gives a good effect in terms of weight gain and reduces mortality. It's simple: the veterinarian didn't want to change anything! Therefore, for now we are not working with this poultry farm either.

Conclusion: we will wait until large poultry farms in this region begin to massively use the drug Rezovet. This is the only argument. Moreover, for the management of the agricultural holding, and not for the veterinarian.

Case 3.

Large poultry farm. Broilers are raised. The initial contact was with the chief veterinarian of the poultry farm. Production tests were carried out without our consultation. There were 4 experimental poultry houses in the tests. During the production experiment, it turned out that the deputy director of the agricultural holding for quality was dissatisfied with the fact that the experiment was organized without his participation. Production tests were completed and a meeting of agricultural holding specialists was organized with the participation of specialists from our company. Unfortunately, there was no constructive conversation. The test results did not satisfy the Deputy Director for Quality. Indeed, the data provided by the employees of the agricultural holding showed that the experimental group showed worse results, slightly, but worse than the results of the control group. True, we were not given data on experimental poultry houses for previous periods - and this would have been extremely interesting, and the conclusions could have been different.

But the most interesting was yet to come. And only at the end of the meeting I was able to find out how the agricultural holding’s specialists conducted tests with our drug. Moreover, on four experimental poultry houses at once. They began using the drugs from the first day of the broiler’s life and only for five days. That is, they completely excluded antibiotics from the growing scheme!!!

I'm not even saying that they grossly violated the regimen for taking Rezovet. It must be given from 6–7 days of life and for at least 9–10 days; additionally, according to indications, it should be given for another 2–3 days in the last week of life. They conducted an experiment that we didn’t even dare to try ourselves.

Many thanks to them!!! They excluded antibiotics AT ALL from the standard broiler farming regimen. And they proved the possibility of refusing antibiotics in the first days of a broiler’s life, when the bird experiences the main types of stress.

Conclusion: we will wait until large poultry farms in this region begin to massively use the drug Rezovet. And we will definitely agree on a regimen for taking the drug Rezovet at this poultry farm.

And soon I will write about successful cases.