pre announce, page-36

I understand your point of view, but I still want to defend what I posted, which was based on that was written by the MMA.

I don't think anyone, not me and not MMA, is saying that this product is a substitute for antibiotics which may remain the treatment of choice for certain cases. Nor is it proposed as a substitute for good husbandry and hygiene practices. On the other hand, I am very clear that this product is not proposed merely as a preventative treatment for subclinical mastitis, although it would certainly be useful in such cases.

Here is what MMA says:

"The second group was chosen for its problematic cows, cows that had very high SCC and had been through traditional anti biotic therapy many times. The average SCC for this group was 960,000 with 50% of the group at or above 1.5million SCC. We increased the actives for the formula for this group and have had an outstanding outcome with up to half the group suitable for milking again and at the end of testing we have seen a decrease of more than 60% BVC in what were considered problem cows.

"The results of the higher dose cows are in fact showing results never before seen in any testing anywhere in the world."

Note that they say that some of the problem cows had been treated with antibiotics "many times". It seems to me that these "problem cows" with SCC numbers sometimes in excess of 1,000,000 can't be called "sub-clinical", yet the product proved to be very successful in reducing SCC, with "up to half" the problem cows suitable for milking again after 30 days treatment.

It remains pretty clear to me that they are suggesting that this product can and ought to be used as an alternative to antibiotics at least in appropriate cases.