Thu, Mar 5, 2015, 11:30 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

ImmuCell Corp. Message Board

  • conmegood conmegood Dec 18, 2012 7:06 PM Flag

    LONG for a Long time

    LONG TIME COMING:
    It has LONG been reported that there are milk producer-dairy industry losses from both sub clinical and clinical mastitis amounting to $100’s of millions, now some say a billion dollars p/yr.

    That loss number would seem to mean that if an efficacious agent like ICCC's Nisin derived products were available such numbers could potentially be reduced and the dairy [farmer-producer operator] industry would benefit due to the improvement and reduction in the practice of antibiotic use.

    Such antibiotic lactating and dry cow treatment use creates much milk withhold losses that make up a significant part of total operator inefficiency-loss profile but not the entire story. As many know management practices, sanitation environmental equipment use practices are significant yes prevent mastitis infection rates.

    The use of various mastitis antibiotic products used to treat both conditions is now largely controlled –kept from the consumer milk market by GOV mandated antibiotic testing now decades in effect. Of course those losses are only part of the loss cost issues for the operators. Indeed there are places reporting far lower rates of both sub and clinical infections than most places. The reasons are many but the most significant is producer-operator management practices where husbandry, sanitation and equipment care and maintenance integrated with milking technique plays an essential role.

    Those BIG$ losses are embedded in the costs to produce, and for the operator those cost s are mostly a result of sub-optimal practices, the primary factors causal for both infection rates and lower bovine output. Many if not most of the leading dairy science schools and the commercial sanitation products producers like those in the Milking Machine Manufacturers Council along with the specialty ag-chemical and animal health companies have an enormous stake in the game. Some investigate-teach while others are in multiple markets selling state of art milking-process-chemical products.

    So what’s this blather about…?
    IMO there likely would have been be ready partners lined up once Pfizer withdrew, some with direct vet marketing, some with chemical and equipment businesses all itching supposedly to have such beneficial product …why not much itching?

    So why not?, for ICCC a development marketing partnership or at least an option to participate would have been relatively low cost for those commercial co’s, unless all those entities were waiting to see outcomes, yes outcomes, to learn what affect the use of another very useful tool would have in an industry that many believe knows apparent BEST practices in all aspects of herd management-genetics-reproduction and environmental milking practices? ICCC looks like a small public company existing on its development history with solid, low dollar volume products having few competitors while incrementally adding more small volume products to its mix.

    As many know their human HIV nutrition product program was a near success in that it actually showed efficacy and but for BIG Pharma’s enormous push for HIV drug solutions it might have been a winner?

    Too many unknowns to tell; why a cash flush small [public?] company ICCC wouldn’t expand its product range with game changers like ICCC’s First Defense, a rather small yet valuable product for a publically owned company.

    Questions now have to do with similar circumstances in an industry that’s slow to take up products unless they are GAME changing disruptive products like AZT was to AIDS or Ivermectin was for numerous animal [human health] applications.

    Is this new Nisin product a true game-changer… why hasn’t ICCC moved in a direction that would have it partner or license new products to broaden its base and use such to yes demonstrate how good their stuff is so that the companies in their industry, others too, wouldn’t be on board yet?

    Is this their new product a true game-changer and why hasn’t ICCC moved in a direction that could have it in-license new complimentary products or merge-sell ICCC to broaden its base and increase shareholder value?

    How good is their Nisin product and why is it that the companies in the dairy milk input industry aren’t on board...ANY ANSWERS-IDEAS OUT THERE?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • LONG TIME COMING:
      It has LONG been reported that there are milk producer-dairy industry losses from both sub clinical and clinical mastitis amounting to $100’s of millions, now some say a billion dollars p/yr.

      That loss number would seem to mean that if an efficacious agent like ICCC's Nisin derived products were available such numbers could potentially be reduced and the dairy [farmer-producer operator] industry would benefit due to the improvement and reduction in the use of antibiotics for mastitis.

      Such antibiotic lactating [dry cow] treatment use creates much milk withhold losses that make up a significant part of total operator inefficiency-loss profile but not the entire story. As many know management practices, including nutrition, environmental sanitation, and equipment use practices are significant in the prevention to help prevent-lower mastitis infection rates. The use of various mastitis antibiotic products to treat both lactating and dry cow conditions is now largely controlled – kept from the consumer milk market by GOV mandated antibiotic testing regulations now decades in effect.

      Of course those losses are only part of the loss cost issues for dairy producer-operators. Indeed there are operators reporting far lower rates of both sub and clinical infections than in the general producer groups. The reasons are many but the most significant is producer-operator management practices where husbandry, sanitation and equipment care and maintenance integrated with milking technique are essential to optimal output.

      Those BIG$ losses [$Billion?] are embedded in the costs to produce, and for the operator those cost s are mostly a result of sub-optimal practices, the primary factors causal for both mastitis infection rates and lower bovine output.

      Many if not most of the leading dairy science schools and the commercial sanitation products producers like those in the Milking Machine Manufacturers Council along with the specialty ag-chemical and animal health companies have an enormous stake in the game. Some investigate-teach while others are in multiple markets selling state of art milking-process equipment and chemical products.

      So what’s this blather about…?
      IMO there likely would have been be ready partners lined up once Pfizer withdrew, some with direct vet marketing, some with chemical and equipment businesses all itching supposedly to have such beneficial product …then why not much itching?

      So why not? For ICCC a development marketing partnership or at least an option to participate would have been relatively low cost for those commercial co’s, unless most entities were waiting to see outcomes to learn what affect the use of another very useful tool would have in an industry that many believe knows the apparent BEST practices in most all aspects of herd management-genetics-reproduction and environmental milking practices.
      ICCC looks like a small public company existing on its development history with solid, low dollar volume products having few competitors while incrementally adding more small volume products to its mix.

      As many know their human HIV nutrition product program was a near success in that it actually showed efficacy and but for BIG Pharma’s enormous push for HIV drug solutions it might have been a winner?

      Too many unknowns to tell no partner: why a cash flush small [ICCC] company wouldn’t expand its product range with game changers like its ‘First Defense’, a rather small yet valuable product for a publically owned company.

      Questions now have to do with similar circumstances in an industry that’s slow to take up products unless they are GAME changing disruptive products like AZT was to AIDS or Ivermectin was for numerous animal [human health] applications.

      Is this new Nisin product a true game-changer, why hasn’t ICCC moved in a direction that would have it partner or license new products to broaden its base and use such and demonstrate how good their stuff is so that companies in their industry, others too, might have been on board – not yet and we’re waiting.

      Is this their new product a true game-changer and why hasn’t ICCC moved in a direction that could have it in-license new complimentary products or merge, sell ICCC to broaden its base and increase shareholder value?

      How good is their Nisin product and why is it that the companies in the dairy milk input industry aren’t on board...ANY ANSWERS-IDEAS OUT THERE?

 
ICCC
7.05+0.050(+0.72%)Mar 5 3:38 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
Geron Corporation
NASDAQThu, Mar 5, 2015 4:00 PM EST
Orbital ATK, Inc.
NYSEThu, Mar 5, 2015 4:02 PM EST