Green Antibiotics develops plant-derived antimicrobial combinations for poultry and aquaculture. We have reproducible in-vitro activity against MRSA and multidrug-resistant Salmonella Typhi, and a two-track route to market that reaches revenue in year one while the long-form regulatory dossier is built behind it.
Roughly two thirds of all antimicrobials are used in food-producing animals, much of it given across whole flocks and ponds. Resistance selected on farms does not stay on farms — it circulates back to people through several routes at once.
Global veterinary antimicrobial use was estimated at 99,502 tonnes in 2020 and is projected to reach 107,472 tonnes by 2030 — concentrated in intensifying middle-income markets.
Nearly 20% of WOAH member states report using antimicrobials as growth promoters, and 11% report using colistin — a highest-priority critically important antimicrobial for human medicine — for that purpose.
The 2024 GRAM analysis in The Lancet forecasts 39 million deaths from bacterial AMR between 2025 and 2050, with associated deaths rising from 4.71 million in 2021 to 8.22 million in 2050.
Avix combines drug-discovery experience, literature-guided compound selection and AI and machine-learning-assisted analysis to design and screen defined plant-derived antimicrobial cocktails against priority livestock and zoonotic pathogens. The platform is built to generate multiple candidates, each tuned to a species, pathogen and production system — a repeatable process rather than one fixed blend.
Share of global antimicrobial use in animals by species group. WOAH ANIMUSE, reported by 152 of 182 member countries. Poultry and aquaculture — our focus — together account for around a quarter of the total.
Twelve months to market is achievable — but only on one of these tracks. Being explicit about which is what makes the plan credible rather than optimistic.
Launched as a botanical feed material, sold on composition and quality rather than therapeutic claims. Produces revenue, manufacturing experience, distribution relationships and real-world field data — all of which strengthen Track B.
Feed additives cannot be placed on the EU market without authorisation following EFSA assessment, and practitioners put the full process at three to four years. Authorisations then run for ten years — which is exactly why an authorised product is valuable.
Most early-stage animal health companies pick one track. Track A alone produces a commodity with no barrier to entry. Track B alone means four years of spend before a single sale. Running both means the South Asian business helps fund the European dossier, and the European authorisation eventually protects everything.
We have proof of concept in vitro. We do not yet have in-vivo efficacy data, toxicology, residue studies or filed IP. The funded phase is designed to produce all four.
Patent filing, in-vivo poultry study, manufacture and first distribution — with the EU dossier designed in from the start so no work is wasted.
Our results to date are in-vitro screening data. They do not demonstrate efficacy in live animals, and they say nothing about safety, residues or withdrawal periods. No Green Antibiotics product is authorised for sale in any market. Any statement about performance in animals will be made only when in-vivo data supports it.
Antimicrobial resistance is a measured, rising burden. Animal agriculture is one of its largest single drivers, and the sector's own economics depend on solving it.
The GRAM project's 2024 analysis in The Lancet is the current reference. It found over a million deaths attributable to bacterial AMR annually since 1990, and forecasts a sharp rise to mid-century.
GBD 2021 Antimicrobial Resistance Collaborators, The Lancet, 2024.
Most antimicrobials are not used to treat sick animals individually. They are given across flocks and ponds in feed and water — and in some countries, still to make animals grow faster.
Nearly 20% of WOAH member states report antimicrobials used as growth promoters. Eleven per cent report colistin used for that purpose — a drug classified as highest-priority critically important for human medicine.
China alone accounted for approximately 32,776 tonnes of veterinary antimicrobial use in 2020. Growth is fastest in intensifying middle-income markets, where regulation is weakest.
The EU banned antibiotic growth promoters in 2006 and further restricted routine prophylactic use under Regulation 2019/6. Producers exporting into these markets need alternatives, not exemptions.
Resistance genes selected in poultry houses and fish ponds move through meat and eggs, through direct contact with animals, and through manure applied to land and run-off into water. Salmonella colonises the poultry gut and reproductive tract and spreads through asymptomatic carriers. MRSA transfers to humans through handling and consumption.
This is why reducing antibiotic use in animals is a human health intervention, not only an agricultural one — and why it attracts policy support, development finance and buyer-side pressure at the same time.
Single plant extracts have been used in feed for decades with inconsistent results. Avix designs defined multi-compound cocktails and screens them systematically — 41 screened to date, seven selected as leads.
Plant-derived antimicrobials selected from published literature on documented antibacterial activity, established use in food or feed, and availability at agricultural scale.
Compounds combined in defined ratios to act on several bacterial targets at once — membrane integrity, efflux, biofilm formation — rather than a single mechanism.
Each combination screened against priority pathogens in repeat assays. Those showing reproducible activity progress; those that do not are dropped. Forty-one have been through this process.
A conventional antibiotic usually acts on one molecular target. A single mutation can confer resistance. A combination acting on several targets requires several simultaneous changes — the reasoning behind combination therapy in tuberculosis and HIV.
Dr David Brown's antibiotic resistance breaker concept adds a second angle: a compound with little antibacterial activity of its own can restore the effectiveness of an existing antibiotic. Part of our programme tests whether our combinations can work alongside conventional drugs as well as in place of them.
A higher barrier to resistance is a hypothesis, not a finding. We have not yet run serial-passage experiments, the standard test for how quickly resistance develops under repeated exposure. Those are in the next phase.
Plant-derived does not mean automatically safe. Botanical compounds can be toxic, leave residues and interact with animal physiology in ways that require formal study. We treat our candidates as unproven until tested.
Forty-one proprietary Green Antibiotics™ cocktails have been screened, yielding seven leads. To protect the wider programme while showing transparent progress, this website presents representative in-vitro findings against just two important drug-resistant organisms. They are examples that demonstrate the screening platform — not the full testing programme or commercial pipeline.
In poultry, associated with joint infections, abscesses, dermatitis and sepsis, contributing to reduced growth and higher mortality. Transfers to humans through handling and consumption, causing wound, respiratory and bloodstream infections. Among the leading contributors to global AMR deaths.
Colonises the poultry gut and reproductive tract, contaminating eggs, meat and litter, often spreading undetected through asymptomatic carriers. In humans causes severe gastrointestinal illness and, for S. Typhi, typhoid fever — with rising drug resistance.
Compounds, ratios and combination logic are not described on this website. Public disclosure before a patent application is filed can destroy the novelty required to obtain protection. Detailed scientific information is shared with investors, partners and collaborators under confidentiality agreement.
What a defined, plant-derived cocktail platform could offer if the current in-vitro results are confirmed in formulation, safety and animal studies. These are development goals and hypotheses to be tested — not proven product claims.
Plant-derived formulations built to a specification, each combining three complementary compounds — not a variable botanical blend.
Designed as potential alternatives that could lower dependence on conventional antibiotics in animal agriculture.
Acting across several bacterial pathways may raise the barrier to resistance — a hypothesis the funded phase is designed to test.
Formulation work targets compatibility with existing feed and drinking-water dosing infrastructure.
Seven leads selected from 41 screened cocktails, intended to address a range of poultry-associated pathogens.
Safety, residue, stability and controlled in-vivo studies are the next stage before any efficacy or safety claim is made.
What we tested, what we found, what it means and what it does not mean. We would rather be believed than impressive.
Forty-one candidate combinations screened against clinical isolates of MRSA and multidrug-resistant Salmonella Typhi using disc diffusion, with a conventional antibiotic as comparator. Assays repeated to establish reproducibility.
ResultThe comparator produced little or no measurable inhibition against these resistant isolates, as expected from their resistance profile. Several candidate combinations produced clear zones. The strongest was a triple combination reaching approximately 20 mm against S. Typhi and 15 mm against MRSA, consistent across repeats.
Reproducible in-vitro inhibition of two clinically important multidrug-resistant organisms is a legitimate proof of concept. It justifies the next stage of investment. It is why we are raising.
It is not evidence of efficacy in animals. Disc diffusion measures diffusion through agar as well as potency, so zone diameters cannot rank potency against a structurally different comparator. Nothing here addresses dose, delivery, stability, palatability, absorption, toxicity or residues.
Raw plate images, measurement tables, repeat data and the screening protocol are shared with investors, prospective partners and scientific collaborators on request.
We publish the denominator, not only the seven that progressed. That is the standard either founder would apply to a pharmaceutical programme, and it is the fastest way to tell whether a screening claim is real.
Our earlier materials quoted the $200bn aquaculture and $350bn poultry sectors. Those are sector output figures, not addressable market. This is the addressable market.
Published estimates vary because analysts define the category differently. We show the spread rather than the largest number.
Central case: Grand View Research, $1.05bn (2024) to $1.48bn (2030), 6.04% CAGR. Upper: Strategic Market Research, $2.14bn by 2030. Lower: Mordor Intelligence, $955m by 2030 on a narrower category definition.
The spread is not noise. It reflects whether an analyst counts only essential-oil phytogenics or the broader botanical additive category, and whether feed-material sales are included alongside registered additives.
We plan against the conservative case. A business that works at $955m works better at $2.14bn; the reverse is not true.
The category has substantial incumbents with distribution we do not have. Our route in is evidence they have not generated, in a segment they under-serve.
| Player type | Examples | Strength | Where we differentiate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Global nutrition majors | Cargill, DSM-Firmenich, Adisseo, IFF (Danisco Animal Nutrition), Land O'Lakes | Distribution, regulatory capability, capital | Positioned on performance and gut health rather than defined activity against resistant pathogens |
| Phytogenic specialists | Delacon, Phytobiotics, Kemin, Anpario | Category expertise, established products | Few publish controlled data against named multidrug-resistant organisms |
| Regional producers | Local South Asian manufacturers | Price, proximity, relationships | Minimal characterisation, inconsistent potency, no dossier ambition |
| Green Antibiotics | — | Drug-discovery screening discipline; seven leads from 41 screened cocktails | No distribution, no authorisation, no revenue. That is what the round addresses |
Each AV candidate is a defined cocktail of three selected plant-derived compounds, drawn from the 41 screened to date. AV-01 is the publicly demonstrated lead shown in our assay evidence; AV-02 to AV-07 are further leads intended, together, to cover the major poultry-associated bacterial challenges. Stage labels are deliberately conservative — nothing is described as ready for market, because nothing is.
| Candidate | Composition | Representative target | Intended application | Stage | Next milestone |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AV-01 | Proprietary three-compound cocktail | MRSA & MDR S. Typhi | Broiler, feed/water | In-vitro lead confirmed | MIC/MBC & in-vivo study |
| AV-02 | Proprietary three-compound cocktail | Salmonella spp. | Broiler & layer, water | Lead selected | Repeat confirmation & MIC |
| AV-03 | Proprietary three-compound cocktail | E. coli | Broiler, feed | Lead selected | Repeat confirmation & MIC |
| AV-04 | Proprietary three-compound cocktail | Campylobacter spp. | Broiler, water | Repeat confirmation | MIC/MBC characterisation |
| AV-05 | Proprietary three-compound cocktail | S. aureus incl. MRSA | Broiler & layer, feed | Repeat confirmation | MIC/MBC characterisation |
| AV-06 | Proprietary three-compound cocktail | Klebsiella spp. | Poultry, water | Repeat confirmation | MIC/MBC characterisation |
| AV-07 | Proprietary three-compound cocktail | Broad enteric panel | Layer & broiler | Repeat confirmation | Expanded isolate screening |
Composition is withheld to protect intellectual property. Compound identities and ratios are shared with investors and partners under confidentiality agreement. Development stages are in-vitro; efficacy, safety, residue and withdrawal characteristics in live animals remain to be established.
Broiler production runs on six-week cycles with tightly measured inputs and outputs. Feed conversion ratio, mortality, weight gain and pathogen load are recorded as standard, so a trial produces a commercially meaningful read-out in a single cycle.
Aquaculture accounts for roughly 9% of reported animal antimicrobial use, though the true figure is likely higher because reporting in major producing countries is incomplete. Antibiotics enter pond water directly, making environmental release a defining problem of the sector.
We treat aquaculture as a second application rather than a parallel one. Different pathogens, delivery, stability requirements and regulators. We enter it once poultry data exists.
The decision is not ideological. A feed additive is adopted when it costs no more per animal than what it replaces, delivers a measurable production gain, or unlocks a market the producer cannot otherwise sell into.
Cost parity with in-feed antimicrobial use per bird per cycle. Formulation work in the funded phase aims to achieve that at agricultural raw-material scale, using regional essential-oil supply.
If lower pathogen load improves feed conversion or reduces mortality, the product justifies itself regardless of regulation. The in-vivo study measures exactly the metrics producers already track.
Producers exporting to the EU and UK face tightening restrictions on prophylactic antimicrobial use. For them the product is not a cost but a route to retaining the customer.
A bottom-up model: birds treated per cycle, dose per bird, cost per dose at scale, achievable penetration in the beachhead market and resulting serviceable revenue. That model sits in the investor pack rather than on a public page, because the assumptions deserve discussion rather than a skim.
Two regulatory routes with very different timescales, run deliberately in parallel so the fast one funds and de-risks the slow one.
Every item is fundable, measurable and dated. Nothing here depends on an approval we do not control.
| Quarter | Workstream | Deliverable | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Intellectual property | Priority patent applications filed on lead combinations | Without this the platform is unprotected and the company is hard to value |
| Q1 | Laboratory | MIC panel across expanded isolate set; serial-passage protocol agreed | Converts screening data into characterisation data regulators recognise |
| Q2–Q3 | In-vivo | Controlled broiler study: efficacy, feed conversion, mortality, safety, residues | The single result that determines whether this becomes a product |
| Q2 | Regulatory | Classification confirmed with advisers in Bangladesh, UK and EU | Determines dossier scope and what may lawfully be claimed |
| Q3 | Manufacture | CMO batches produced; potency assay and stability programme running | Batch consistency is the category's known failure mode |
| Q3–Q4 | Commercial | Distribution agreement signed in beachhead market | Converts a laboratory result into a route to a customer |
| Q4 | Commercial | First commercial sales on Track A | Revenue, field data, and proof that producers will pay |
| Q4 | Team | Animal-health regulatory and commercial hire | The capability the founding team does not currently have |
Feed additives may not be placed on the EU market unless authorised following scientific evaluation by EFSA. EFSA gives an opinion within six months of a valid application, extendable if further information is requested, after which the Commission and member states decide. Industry practitioners put the full process — study design, dossier preparation and submission through to decision — at three to four years.
Authorisations then run for ten years and are renewable. That is the point. The barrier that makes Europe slow to enter is the same barrier that protects you once you are in.
So we do not claim a twelve-month European launch. We claim a twelve-month launch in a market where a botanical feed material can be sold without therapeutic claims, and a four-year programme to an authorisation competitors would need four years of their own to match.
The in-vivo poultry study could be run cheaply to answer a commercial question, or run properly to EFSA data requirements for modestly more. We are doing the second. The study that supports the first sale then becomes part of the European dossier, rather than work repeated later at full cost.
Green Antibiotics is not a founder with an advisor. The screening programme was designed and run jointly by Dr Md Arif Sheikh and Dr David Brown, combining structural biology with four decades of antibacterial discovery experience.
Molecular and structural biologist with more than nineteen years across drug discovery, protein science and biotechnology innovation. Designed and ran the 41-combination screening programme, and leads the company's UK and Bangladesh operations. Responsible for candidate design, laboratory execution and the route to market in South Asia.
Experienced drug discoverer and biotechnology advisor, and originator of the antibiotic resistance breaker concept — the principle that a compound with little antibacterial activity of its own can restore the effectiveness of an existing antibiotic. Co-designed the combination strategy, the selection criteria and the interpretation framework applied to the screening results.
The feed industry has treated plant extracts as nutrition. We treated them as chemistry — selected against defined targets, combined deliberately, and screened until something either worked repeatedly or was dropped.
Dr Md Arif Sheikh, Founder & Chief ExecutiveTwo people from different ends of antibacterial research produced a programme neither would have designed alone.
MRSA and multidrug-resistant S. Typhi were selected because they are clinically serious in both animals and people, and because failure of conventional antibiotics against them is well documented — making the comparator arm meaningful rather than flattering.
Rather than testing extracts individually, candidates were designed as defined multi-component combinations from the outset, applying resistance-breaker reasoning to how many targets a formulation should hit.
Thirty-four of forty-one combinations did not progress. Publishing that ratio, rather than only the seven that progressed, is the same standard either of us would apply to a pharmaceutical programme.
Green Antibiotics is backed by the wider 24-member Avix Pharmaceuticals team, bringing together expertise across microbiology, molecular biology, drug discovery, pharmacy, formulation, data science, manufacturing, regulatory planning and commercial development.
Avix has already shown it can translate scientific concepts into structured product-development programmes through the development and clinical evaluation of T-Booster. That experience — from laboratory research through formulation, human study, manufacturing coordination and commercial preparation — is the foundation for advancing Green Antibiotics from screening to market.
We are early-stage with in-vitro proof of concept, no filed IP and no product on the market. This page says exactly what stage we are at and what the money buys.
A billion-dollar category exists and is growing at around 6% a year. Its incumbents compete on performance claims rather than documented activity against named resistant pathogens. Regulation is closing off routine antimicrobial use in the markets producers most want to sell into.
We have reproducible in-vitro activity against two organisms conventional antibiotics are failing to control, and a twelve-month plan that reaches revenue rather than only another laboratory result.
Indicative allocation. Final figures are in the investor pack.
Patent attorney, prior art search and priority filings on the lead combinations, ahead of any further disclosure.
MIC determination, serial-passage resistance studies, cytotoxicity screening, and independent CRO verification.
Controlled broiler trial designed to EFSA data standards so the same work serves both regulatory tracks.
CMO batches, potency assay, stability and raw-material sourcing to control batch-to-batch variability.
Formal classification advice across Bangladesh, UK and EU, so trials generate data regulators will accept.
Animal-health regulatory and commercial experience — the capability the founding team does not have.
Every early-stage investment carries risk. These are the specific ones here.
Activity on agar frequently fails to reproduce in a living animal where absorption, metabolism and gut environment intervene. This is the principal technical risk and why the in-vivo study is the first major milestone.
Until priority applications exist the combinations are unprotected. Delay increases exposure to independent development or inadvertent disclosure.
Whether the product is a feed material, a zootechnical additive or a veterinary medicine materially changes cost, timeline and value in each market.
Botanical potency varies with growing conditions, harvest and extraction. Consistent potency at scale is the documented failure mode in this category.
Cargill, DSM-Firmenich, Adisseo and specialist phytogenic firms hold distribution we do not. Differentiation depends on producing data they have not.
Producers run thin margins. Without cost parity or an offsetting performance gain, adoption is limited to regulated export markets.
Investor deck, screening data, twelve-month plan, financial model and regulatory strategy. Released under NDA. We reply within one working day.
Nothing on this website constitutes an offer, invitation or inducement to invest, or advice of any kind. Investing in early-stage companies carries significant risk, including total loss of capital, illiquidity and dilution. Forward-looking statements, projections and timelines are estimates based on current assumptions and may change. Investor materials are made available to qualifying investors only. Prospective investors should take independent financial and legal advice.
Investor, partnership, scientific and press enquiries answered within one working day.
AVIX Pharmaceuticals Limited
Suite 01, 195–197 Wood Street
London, E17 3NU, United Kingdom
Registered in England & Wales no. 11299779
+44 20 7288 4567
+44 7726 886415
hello@greenantibiotics.co.uk
Floor 5, 23 Central Road
Dhaka-1205, Bangladesh
+880 1713 044440
+880 1711 520429
Detailed formulation and screening information is shared under a non-disclosure agreement. Tell us what you need and we will send an NDA with our reply.
How AVIX Pharmaceuticals Limited handles the information you share through this website.
This policy explains how AVIX Pharmaceuticals Limited (“Avix”, “we”, “us”), the company behind the Green Antibiotics programme, collects and uses personal information. It applies to this website and to enquiries you send us. For any question about this policy, contact hello@greenantibiotics.co.uk.
AVIX Pharmaceuticals Limited is registered in England & Wales (company no. 11299779), with offices in the United Kingdom and Bangladesh. We are the data controller for information collected through this website.
We do not sell your personal information, and we do not use it for automated decision-making.
We share information only with service providers who help us operate (for example, email and hosting providers), and only as needed. We may disclose information where required by law.
We keep enquiry information for as long as needed to deal with your request and to meet legal and record-keeping requirements, then delete or anonymise it.
Subject to applicable law, you may request access to, correction of, or deletion of your personal information, and you may object to certain processing. To exercise any right, email hello@greenantibiotics.co.uk. You may also complain to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office.
We may update this policy from time to time. The current version always appears on this page.
How this website uses cookies and similar technologies.
This website is designed to work with a minimal set of cookies. This policy explains what cookies are and how we use them.
Cookies are small text files stored on your device by your browser. They let a website remember your actions and preferences over time.
We do not use advertising cookies, and Avix does not sell advertising on this site.
You can control or delete cookies through your browser settings. Blocking some cookies may affect how parts of the site work. For questions, contact hello@greenantibiotics.co.uk.
The terms on which AVIX Pharmaceuticals Limited makes this website available.
By using this website you agree to these terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the site. The site is operated by AVIX Pharmaceuticals Limited (company no. 11299779).
This website provides information about the Green Antibiotics research programme for investors, research collaborators and commercial partners. It is provided for general information only and is not veterinary, medical, legal or financial advice.
Nothing on this website is an offer, invitation or inducement to invest, or a recommendation of any kind. Investor materials are made available only to qualifying investors, typically following a confidentiality agreement. Early-stage investment carries significant risk, including total loss of capital.
Information describing results is based on early-stage, primarily in-vitro research. It does not establish efficacy or safety in live animals or humans, and no Green Antibiotics product is authorised for sale in any jurisdiction.
The content, branding and “Green Antibiotics” name on this site belong to Avix or its licensors and may not be copied or reused without permission. Compound identities and formulations are confidential and are not disclosed here.
The site links to third-party pages (for example, founder profiles and the wider Avix team). We are not responsible for the content of external sites.
The site is provided “as is”. To the extent permitted by law, Avix is not liable for any loss arising from reliance on its content. Nothing in these terms excludes liability that cannot lawfully be excluded.
These terms are governed by the laws of England & Wales. Questions: hello@greenantibiotics.co.uk.
Please read this before relying on any information presented on this website.
The Green Antibiotics programme is at an early, pre-commercial stage of development. This disclaimer sets out important limits on the information shown here.
The findings presented on this website are based mainly on laboratory (in-vitro) screening. In-vitro activity does not predict efficacy or safety in living animals. Results shown for representative organisms (MRSA and multidrug-resistant Salmonella Typhi) are examples that demonstrate the screening platform, not the full programme.
No Green Antibiotics product is currently authorised or registered as a veterinary medicine or as an authorised feed additive in any jurisdiction. Nothing here should be read as an offer to sell such a product.
We do not claim that any candidate is proven effective or safe in animals, is free of residues, or requires no withdrawal period. Statements about the potential benefits of the platform are development goals and hypotheses to be tested, not established facts. Product claims will be made only after appropriate validation and regulatory review.
Timelines, market figures and projections are estimates based on current assumptions and third-party sources, and may change. Market sizes are cited from external analysts and vary by definition and source.
This content is intended for investors, research collaborators and commercial partners. It is not veterinary advice and should not be used to guide the treatment of animals. For questions, contact hello@greenantibiotics.co.uk.