A page with no numbers on it.
That is deliberate. Ekome has measured no emissions, holds no third-party assurance and has set no dated target. We could put a figure here that nobody would check. Plenty of companies our size do.
Instead this page sets out the part of the argument that is structurally true, the part that is not yet ours to claim, and what would have to happen before a number appears here at all.
Where the argument is real
Three things that are true about this category. These are properties of prevention-first animal health as a field, and of the way we have chosen to build the company. They are not performance claims about Ekome products, and we have been careful to keep the two apart.
Antimicrobial resistance
Resistance is a public-health problem with an agricultural component, and policy across our markets is moving steadily against routine antimicrobial use in healthy animals. That direction is settled. What it leaves producers needing is credible ways to keep birds well without reaching for a broad-spectrum tool, and gut flora stabilisers are one of the categories that exists to fill that space.
A structural argument, not a product claim
Resource intensity of feed
Feed is the largest single input in poultry production and carries most of its land, water and processing burden. Anything that improves the conversion of feed into food reduces the tonnage required for the same output, and the land and inputs behind that tonnage. This is arithmetic that holds for the industry as a whole, whoever supplies the improvement.
Fewer tonnes for the same output
Capability in both markets
We sell into Ghana and the United Kingdom and manufacture in the UK. The technical support that makes an additive work — reading a mill schedule, designing a trial that can fail — is the part that usually does not get exported. Building that capability locally rather than shipping product and hoping is a social commitment we can be held to now, without waiting for a reporting framework.
Ghana and the United Kingdom
The claims we have refused to make.
That our products reduce antibiotic use. That is not a permitted claim for a zootechnical feed additive, we hold no data supporting it, and decisions about veterinary treatment belong to your veterinary surgeon.
A carbon figure, an intensity metric or a tonnage saved. We have not measured our footprint, so we do not have one to publish. A number we cannot show the working for is worse than no number at all.
A net-zero date or any other dated target. Setting one before we have a baseline would be a press release, not a commitment.
Alignment with a reporting framework. We are not yet reporting under one, we have obtained no third-party assurance, and we display no certification or scheme marks because we hold none.
Claims about waste, water or nutrient excretion. There is published work in this area, but not work we consider clean enough at species level to put our name to, so it stays off this page.
Four things that have to be true first.
We would like this page to carry evidence rather than intentions. This is the order in which that has to happen, and we are at the start of it.
A product in commercial use
Nothing can be measured until material is running through a real mill and into real houses. We are pre-launch and have run no commercial trials, which is the honest reason this page is short.
A measured effect, including no effect
Trials designed with a partner, with the failure condition agreed before the birds are placed. Whatever comes out gets published, including the runs where nothing happens.
A baseline we did not estimate ourselves
A footprint calculated on a recognised methodology with the boundaries stated — what is inside the assessment, what is outside it, and who did the calculation.
Someone independent checking it
Assurance from a third party before a figure goes on a website, not after a customer questions it.
"We don't fight nature. We fortify it."ONENESS · BALANCE · RESILIENCE
The commitments we can be held to today.
We publish what is in the sack: every organism named, every count declared, a Certificate of Analysis with each batch. Where the evidence behind a formulation is thin, we say so in the first conversation rather than the fourth, and the technical dossier lists the gaps alongside the findings.
We attribute other people's results to them. We do not display certification marks we have not earned, and where earlier versions of this website did, they were wrong and have been removed.
We support the trials our partners run, including the ones that make us look bad, and we agree in advance what would count as no effect. A trial that can only produce good news is a marketing exercise, and it is worth nothing to a nutritionist.
Nothing on this page is a target. All of it is current practice, and you may hold us to any of it.
If your procurement process needs more than this.
Some buyers need a supplier ESG questionnaire completed, or an assurance position we do not yet hold. Ask us early and we will tell you exactly what we can and cannot evidence, rather than filling in the form optimistically and hoping nobody audits it.