Influence of haemolysis on blood biochemistry profiles in cattle

Although haemolysis is the most common source of preanalytical error in clinical laboratories, its influence on cattle biochemistry remains poorly understood. The effect of haemolysis and its clinical relevance were investigated in 70 samples in which haemolysis was artificially induced (by spiking with increasing amounts of haemolysate, yielding 0.0%, 0.2%, 0.5%, 1.0%, 2.5%, 5.0% and 10% haemolysis degree (HD)), focusing on key parameters for bovine metabolic health assessment, including albumin, alkaline phosphatase (ALP), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), calcium (Ca), cholesterol, creatinine, creatine kinase (CK), gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), globulins, magnesium (Mg), phosphorus (P), total bilirubin (TBIL) and total proteins (TP). Preanalytical haemolysis significantly affected most (8 of 14) of the biochemical parameters analysed, leading to significant increases in concentrations of albumin (starting at 5% HD), cholesterol (at 5% HD) and P (at 10% HD) and to significant decreases in Ca (at 2.5% HD), creatinine (at 5% HD), globulins (at 10% HD), TBIL (at 2.5% HD) and TP (at 10% HD). Comparison of the present and previous data indicated that, for each parameter, the HD required to produce significant bias and the clinical relevance of over- and underestimation are variable and appear to depend on the analytical technique used. Therefore, different laboratories should evaluate the influence of haemolysis in their analytical results and provide advice to clinicians accordingly. Affected parameters should be interpreted together with clinical signs and other analytical data to minimize misinterpretations (false or masked variations). Finally, due to the significant impact on numerous parameters and the limited potential for correction, we recommend rejection of samples with >10% HD.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of inactivated selenised yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae CCTCC M 2022402) for all animal species (Phytobiotics Futterzusatzstoffe GmbH)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the selenised yeast (inactivated) Saccharomyces cerevisiae CCTCC M 2022402 (Plexomin® Se 3000, available in two forms: 'granules' and 'micro') as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. Based on a tolerance-efficacy trial, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening at proposed conditions of use and this conclusion can be extrapolated to all animal species. In the absence of deposition data in all animal species and products, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the consumer. Plexomin® Se 3000 (granules) is dust-free; therefore, the exposure through inhalation is unlikely. Plexomin® Se 3000 (micro) presents a risk by inhalation. Both forms of the additive (granules and micro) are considered as respiratory sensitisers. Due to the lack of data, no conclusions can be drawn on the dermal and eye irritation potential of Plexomin® Se 3000 (granules). Plexomin® Se 3000 (micro) is not irritant to the skin and the eyes. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of both forms of the additive to be dermal sensitisers. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is considered safe for the environment. The additive is an efficacious source of selenium in feedingstuffs for all animal species.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Enterococcus lactis NCIMB 11181 (Lactiferm®) for chickens for fattening or reared for laying, other poultry species for fattening or reared for laying, and ornamental birds (Chr. Hansen A/S)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Enterococcus lactis NCIMB 11181 (Lactiferm®) as a zootechnical additive (gut flora stabiliser) for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying, other poultry species for fattening or reared for laying, and ornamental birds. The additive is available in two formulations: Lactiferm WS200 and Lactiferm Basic 50. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the additive is safe for chickens for fattening or reared for laying, other poultry species for fattening or reared for laying, and ornamental birds. The Panel also concluded that the use of the feed additive is safe for consumers, and the environment. Lactiferm WS200 is not irritant to skin or eyes. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, both formulations of the additive are considered respiratory sensitisers. It was not possible, however, to conclude on the irritancy potential for skin and eyes of the Lactiferm Basic 50 formulation or on the potential of both formulations of the additive to cause skin sensitisation. The efficacy studies submitted did not allow to draw a conclusion on the efficacy of the additive for the target species. Lactiferm® is considered compatible with the coccidiostats monensin sodium and decoquinate.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 23688 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Chr. Hansen A/S)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 23688, a technological additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers, and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on skin sensitisation potential of the additive, but it is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Factors Affecting Toxic and Essential Trace Element Concentrations in Cow's Milk Produced in the State of Pernambuco, Brazil

The aim of this study was to provide information on the levels of toxic (Cd and Pb) and essential (Cu, Fe, and Zn) elements in cow's milk produced in the State of Pernambuco (Brazil). A total of 142 samples of raw milk were collected, and the concentrations of essential and toxic elements were determined using inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry. In almost 30% of the samples analyzed, the Pb content exceeded the maximum level established in the Brazilian legislation (0.05 mg/L). By contrast, in all the samples, the Cd content was below the maximum allowable level (0.02 mg/L). The essential trace elements Cu, Fe, and Zn were generally present at lower concentrations than reported in other studies and can be considered within the deficient range for cow's milk. Statistical and chemometric procedures were used to evaluate the main factors influencing the metal concentrations (proximity to major roads, presence of effluents, and milking method). The study findings demonstrate that the proximity of the farms to major roads influences the concentrations of Cd, Pb, and Cu and that this is the main factor explaining the Pb content of milk. In addition, the presence of effluents influenced the concentrations of Cu, while no relationship between the metal content and the milking method was observed. Thus, in accordance with the study findings, the consumption of cow's milk produced in the region can be considered a risk to public health due to the high concentrations of Pb and the low concentrations of other essential minerals such as Cu, Zn, and Fe in some of the milk samples.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of thaumatin for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (ADISSEO France S.A.S.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for the renewal of authorisation of thaumatin as a sensory additive (flavouring compound) for all animal species. The applicant requested a change in the authorising regulation for the minimum content of nitrogen and protein in the specification of the additive. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) confirms that the use of thaumatin under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. This conclusion can be extended to the newly proposed specification. Due to its proteinaceous nature, the additive is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. Thaumatin is not irritant to the eyes and the skin. In the absence of data, no conclusion on skin sensitisation could be made. The proposed modification of the specification of the additive is not considered to have an impact on the efficacy of thaumatin.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of robenidine hydrochloride (Cycostat® 66G) for rabbits for breeding and rabbits for fattening for the renewal of its authorisation (Zoetis)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the feed additive consisting of robenidine hydrochloride (Cycostat® 66G) for rabbits for breeding and rabbits for fattening for the renewal of its authorisation. Since the potential aneugenic activity of robenidine hydrochloride cannot be excluded, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species and the consumer. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of robenidine hydrochloride for the environment. Robenidine hydrochloride has potential for bioaccumulation; however, a risk for secondary poisoning for worm/fish-eating birds and mammals is not likely to occur. No concern for groundwater is expected. Robenidine hydrochloride is not a skin or eye irritant and not a skin sensitiser. Due to the lack of data on the genotoxicity (aneugenicity) of the substance, the exposure to the additive of the unprotected users should be minimised. Owing to the lack of sufficient data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude that robenidine hydrochloride from Cycostat® 66G is still efficacious against recent Eimeria spp. strains in rabbits.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of an essential oil from the leaves of Laurus nobilis L. (laurel leaf oil) for all animal species (FEFANA asbl)

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the leaves of Laurus nobilis L. (laurel leaf oil), when used as a sensory additive for all animal species. The additive contains up to 4% methyleugenol. The use of the additive at 2 mg/kg complete feed in dogs and cats was considered of low concern. For other long-living and reproductive animals, the use of the additive at 10 mg/kg was considered of concern. For short-living animals, the Panel had no safety concern when the additive is used at 10 mg/kg complete feed for turkeys for fattening, piglets and other growing Suidae, pigs for fattening, veal calves (milk replacer), cattle for fattening and other growing ruminants, horses and rabbits for meat production, salmonids and other fin fish; and at 8.5 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, other growing poultry and other minor species for fattening. The use of laurel leaf oil up to the highest level in feed which was considered of no concern for target animals was also expected to be of no concern for consumers. The additive should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes and the respiratory tract. Due to the high concentration of methyleugenol (≥ 1%), the additive was classified by the applicant as suspected of causing genetic defects and of causing cancer and should be handled accordingly. The use of the additive under the proposed conditions of use was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since the leaves of L. nobilis and their preparations were recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be the same, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Pediococcus pentosaceusDSM 23376 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Agri-King, Inc.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 23376, as a technological additive to improve ensiling of forage for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive is not irritant to skin or eyes but owing to its proteinaceous nature, it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of the bacteriophages PCM F/00069, PCM F/00070, PCM F/00071 and PCM F/00097 (Bafasal®) for all avian species (Proteon Pharmaceuticals S.A.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a product consisting of four bacteriophages infecting Salmonella enterica ser. Gallinarum B/00111, intended to be used as a zootechnical additive (functional group: other zootechnical additives) for all avian species. The additive (tradename Bafasal®) is not currently authorised in the European Union. Bafasal® is intended to be used in water for drinking and liquid complementary feed to guarantee a minimum daily dose of 2 × 10⁶ PFU/bird, to reduce the Salmonella spp. contamination of poultry carcasses and load in the environment, and to improve the zootechnical performance of the treated animals. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the additive's potential to be irritant or a dermal sensitiser, or on its efficacy for any avian species due to insufficient data. The applicant provided supplementary information to address these data gaps. The new data showed that Bafasal® is not a skin or eye irritant. No conclusions could be drawn on its skin sensitisation potential. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Bafasal® to improve the zootechnical performance of the target species based on the available data. The additive showed the potential to decrease the counts of two strains of Salmonella Enteritidis in boots swabs and caecal digesta of chickens for fattening. No conclusions could be drawn on the capacity of Bafasal® to reduce the contamination of other Salmonella enterica strains, serovars or other species of Salmonella. The potential of Bafasal® to reduce the Salmonella spp. contamination poultry carcasses and/or the environment is limited. The FEEDAP Panel recommended a post-market monitoring plan to address the potential selection and spread of resistant variants of Salmonella to Bafasal®.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Bacillus paralicheniformis DSM 5749 and Bacillus subtilis DSM 5750 (BioPlus® 2B) for piglets, calves for fattening and other growing ruminants (Chr. Hansen A/S)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of two bacilli strains (tradename: BioPlus® 2B) when used in suckling piglets, calves for fattening and other growing ruminants. BioPlus® 2B is composed of viable cells of Bacillus subtilis DSM 5750 and Bacillus licheniformis DSM 5749. In the course of the current assessment, the latest strain was reclassified as Bacillus paralicheniformis. BioPlus® 2B is intended for use in feedingstuffs and water for drinking for the target species at the minimum inclusion level of 1.3 × 10⁹ CFU/kg feed and 6.4 × 10⁸ CFU/l water, respectively. B. paralicheniformis and B. subtilis are considered eligible for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The identity of the active agents was established, and the qualifications regarding the lack of acquired antimicrobial resistance genes, toxigenic potential and bacitracin production ability were complied with. Following the QPS approach, B. paralicheniformis DSM 5749 and B. subtilis DSM 5750 are presumed safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Since no concerns are expected from the other components of the additive, BioPlus® 2B was also considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. BioPlus® 2B is not irritant to the eyes or skin but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel could not conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. BioPlus® 2B when supplemented at 1.3 × 10⁹ CFU/kg complete feed and 6.4 × 10⁸ CFU/l water for drinking has the potential to be efficacious in suckling piglets, calves for fattening and other growing ruminants (e.g. sheep, goat, buffalo) at the same developmental stage.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of semi-refined carrageenan for cats and dogs (Gel Systems Ltd.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of semi-refined carrageenan as a feed additive for cats and dogs. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that semi-refined carrageenan was safe for dogs at 6,000 mg/kg final wet feed (with about 20% dry matter). This would correspond to 26,400 mg semi-refined carrageenan/kg complete feed (with 88% dry matter). In the absence of specific data, the maximum concentration of the additive considered safe for cats was 750 mg semi-refined carrageenan/kg final wet feed, corresponding to 3,300 mg semi-refined carrageenan/kg complete feed (with 88% dry matter). In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the safety of carrageenan for the user. The additive under assessment is intended to be used in dogs and cats only. No environmental risk assessment was considered necessary for such use. The FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of semi-refined carrageenan as a gelling agent, thickener and stabiliser in feed for cats and dogs at the proposed conditions of use.

Safety and efficacy of the feed additives 2-acetylfuran [13.054] and 2-pentylfuran [13.059] belonging to chemical group 14 for animal species (FEFANA asbl)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 2-acetylfuran [13.054] and 2-pentylfuran [13.059] belonging to chemical group 14 (furfuryl and furan derivatives with and without additional side-chain substituents and heteroatoms), when used as sensory additives (flavourings) in feed for all animal species. 2-Acetylfuran [13.054] was tested in tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, weaned piglets and cattle for fattening. No adverse effects were observed in the tolerance studies at 10-fold the intended use level. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that 2-acetylfuran [13.054] is safe for these species at the proposed use level of 0.5 mg/kg and conclusions were extrapolated to all animal species. For 2-pentylfuran [13.059], the Panel concluded that it is safe at the proposed maximum use level in feed of 0.5 mg/kg. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of 2-acetylfuran [13.054] and 2-pentylfuran [13.059] up to the proposed maximum use level in feed as flavourings. The additives should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes and the respiratory tract, and as dermal and respiratory sensitisers. The use of 2-acetylfuran [13.054] and 2-pentylfuran [13.059] as flavours in animal feed was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since the compounds under assessment are used in food as flavourings and their function in feed is essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus CNCM I-3698 and Companilactobacillus sp. CNCM I-3699 for all animal species (STI Biotechnologie)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus CNCM I-3698 and Companilactobacillus sp. CNCM I-3699 intended to be used as a technological additive (functional group: silage additives) in forage for all species. In a previous opinion, the additive was described as containing viable but not cultivable cells of the two strains in a 1:1 ratio, with a minimum of total lactic acid bacteria counts of 5 × 10⁸ Viable Forming Units (VFU)/g additive. However, in that opinion the Panel could not fully characterise the additive or conclude on its dermal/ocular irritancy or sensitisation potential. In the current assessment, the applicant provided supplementary information to address these gaps. The proposed methodology to discriminate and individually quantify the two strains composing the additive still presented limitations. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the data available do not allow to fully characterise the additive. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the taxonomical identification of the strain CNCM I-3699, and consequently, on its eligibility for the application of the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. Therefore, the previous conclusions on the safety of the additive based on the QPS approach could not be confirmed. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species, consumer and the environment. The additive is not irritant to skin. The Panel could not conclude on the eye irritancy or skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The Panel reiterated its previous conclusions that no conclusions can be drawn on the efficacy of the additive to improve the ensiling process of forage.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus CNCM I-3698 and Companilactobacillus sp. CNCM I-3699 for chickens for fattening (STI Biotechnologie)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Sorbiflore® ADVANCE, a feed additive consisting of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus CNCM I-3698 and Companilactobacillus sp.CNCM I-3699 intended to be used as a zootechnical additive (functional group: other zootechnical additives) in feed for chickens for fattening to improve their performance. In a previous opinion, the additive was described as containing viable but not cultivable cells of the two strains in a 1:1 ratio, with a minimum of total lactic acid bacteria counts of 5 × 10⁸ viable forming units (VFU)/g additive. However, in that opinion, the Panel could not fully characterise the additive or conclude on its dermal/ocular irritancy or sensitisation potential. In the current assessment, the applicant provided supplementary information to address the missing information for the characterisation of the additive. The proposed methodology to discriminate and individually quantify the two strains composing the additive still presented limitations. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the data available do not allow to fully characterise the additive. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the taxonomical identification of the strain CNCM I-3699, and consequently, on its eligibility for the application of the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. Therefore, the previous conclusions on the safety of the additive based on the QPS approach could not be confirmed. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species, consumer and the environment. Sorbiflore® ADVANCE is not irritant to skin. The Panel could not conclude on the eye irritancy or skin sensitisation potential of the additive.

Efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Bacillus subtilis strains CNCM I-4606, CNCM I-5043 and CNCM I-4607 and Lactococcus lactis CNCM I-4609 for all animal species (MiXscience)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of the preparation consisting of viable cells of Bacillus subtilis CNCM I-4606, B. subtilis CNCM I-5043, B. subtilis CNCM I-4607 and Lactococcus lactis CNCM I-4609 when used as a technological additive (hygiene condition enhancer) for all animal species. In a previous opinion, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive is safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. The Panel also considered the additive to be non-irritant to skin and eyes, nor a dermal sensitiser, but a respiratory sensitiser. Moreover, the data provided were not sufficient to conclude on the efficacy of the additive to significantly reduce the growth of Salmonella Typhimurium or Escherichia coli in feed. In the current assessment, the applicant provided supplementary information to address these flaws and limited the claimed effect to 'prevent (re)contamination by Salmonella Typhimurium'. Based on the new studies, the Panel concluded that the additive at a minimum proposed inclusion level of 1 × 10⁹ colony forming units (CFU) B. subtilis and 1 × 10⁹ CFU L. lactis per litre showed potential to reduce Salmonella Typhimurium growth in feeds with high moisture content (60-90% moisture).

Safety and efficacy of the feed additive consisting of 6-phytase (produced by Aspergillus oryzaeDSM 33699) (RONOZYME® Hiphos GT/L) for poultry, pigs for fattening, weaned piglets and sows (DSM Nutritional Products Ltd)

The additive RONOZYME® Hiphos (GT/L) contains 6-phytase produced with a genetically modified strain of the filamentous fungus Aspergillus oryzae, it is currently authorised for poultry, pigs for fattening, weaned piglets and sows. The applicant has requested to change the production strain, substituting strain A. oryzae DSM 22594 for A. oryzae DSM 33699. RONOZYME® Hiphos (GT/L), manufactured with the production strain A. oryzae DSM 33699, did not give rise to safety concerns with regard to the genetic modification of the production strain. No viable cells of the production strain nor its recombinant DNA were detected in an intermediate product representative of both final forms of the additive. RONOZYME® Hiphos (GT/L) was considered safe for poultry, pigs for fattening, weaned piglets and sows at the recommended inclusion levels of 500-4,000 FYT/kg complete feed. The use of RONOZYME® Hiphos GT and L manufactured with the production strain A. oryzae DSM 33699 raised no concerns for consumers. In the absence of data on the final formulations, the Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to be irritant to eyes or skin, or a skin sensitiser. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive was considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive manufactured by A. oryzae DSM 33699 raises no safety concerns for the environment. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in poultry, pigs for fattening, weaned piglets and sows at 500 FYT/kg complete feed.

Marine Macroalgae in Rabbit Nutrition—A Valuable Feed in Sustainable Farming

Simple Summary

Commercial rabbit farming has faced critical challenges in the last few years, during which the ban on the prophylactic use of antibiotics in animal feed has added to the weakness of the production system and a decrease in consumption of rabbit meat. Considering the potential role of macroalgae as an alternative to the use of antibiotics in animal nutrition, this review paper aims to evaluate the use of macroalgae in rabbit farming. It specifically focuses on how macroalgae can be used sustainably to improve rabbit health as an economically viable alternative that could help guarantee the future of this high-value sector.

Abstract

The rabbit meat industry has faced critical challenges in the last few years, during which the ban on the prophylactic use of antibiotics in animal feed has added to the weakness of the production system and a decrease in consumption of rabbit meat. This review paper highlights the potential value of macroalgae in the rabbit farming sector as an alternative to the use of antibiotics to improve rabbit health. In line with sustainable agriculture programmes, the use of seaweed in rabbit nutrition may improve gut health according to the One Health approach, whereby consumers and the environment could receive tangible benefits. The inclusion of algae in animal feed has experimentally proven to help to reduce intestinal dysbiosis. However, further studies evaluating the prebiotic effects of algal components on gut health and also identifying the compounds directly responsible for the antimicrobial, antiviral, antioxidative and anti-inflammatory properties of algae are still needed. Furthermore, the inclusion of marine algae in rabbit food could potentially become a commercial marketing strategy that could attract new consumers who are concerned about environmental sustainability and who are looking for different, high-quality foods.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of a preparation of carvacrol, thymol, d-carvone, methyl salicylate and l-menthol (Biomin®DC-P) for all poultry species (Biomin GmbH)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a preparation of carvacrol, thymol, d-carvone, methyl salicylate and l-menthol (Biomin^® DC-P) for all poultry species. The additive is authorised for use in feed for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying and minor poultry species reared to the point of lay. The safety and efficacy of the additive for those species have been previously evaluated by the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel). The current application is for an extension of use of the additive for all poultry species under the same conditions of use (recommended level ranging between 65 and 105 mg/kg complete feed). The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive Biomin^® DC-P is safe for poultry species for fattening or reared for laying, but in the absence of adequate data cannot conclude on the safety for laying/breeding birds. The use of Biomin^® DC-P in feed for all poultry species under the proposed conditions of use was considered safe for consumers and the environment. The FEEDAP Panel considered that exposure of users by inhalation is unlikely. In the absence of data, the Panel could not conclude on the effects of Biomin^® DC-P on skin and eyes. Biomin^® DC-P has the potential to be efficacious in poultry species for fattening or reared for laying when incorporated into feed at a minimum concentration of 65 mg/kg complete feed. In the absence of sufficient data, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy for laying hens or for other poultry species for laying/breeding.

Trace Elements in Beef Cattle: A Review of the Scientific Approach from One Health Perspective

The objective was to investigate the context, approach and research topics present in the papers that analysed trace elements in beef cattle to identify gaps and scientific perspectives for the sustainable management of trace elements in livestock. The main research groups came from the United States, Spain, Japan, Brazil, India and Slovakia, which represented 31% of the papers produced. Only 37% of studies addressed aspects that integrated animal, environmental and human health. The reviewed papers concerned 56 elements and 15 bovine tissues (Cu, Zn, Pb, liver, muscle and kidney highlighted). The main gaps were (1) lack of research in developing countries, (2) the need to understand the impact of different environmental issues and their relationship to the conditions in which animals are raised, and (3) the need to understand the role of many trace elements in animal nutrition and their relationship to environmental and human health. Finally, we highlight possible ways to expand knowledge and provide innovations for broad emerging issues, primarily through expanding collaborative research networks. In this context, we suggest the adoption of the One Health approach for planning further research on trace elements in livestock. Moreover, the One Health approach should also be considered for managers and politicians for a sustainable environmental care and food safety.

Concentrations of Essential Trace and Toxic Elements Associated with Production and Manufacturing Processes in Galician Cheese

The objective of this study was to determine the trace element composition and the toxic metal residues in Galician cow’s milk cheese produced in different systems (artisan, industrial, and organic). Fourteen elements (As, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, I, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Se, and Zn) were determined in 58 representative samples of Galician cheeses by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. The toxic elements were present at low concentrations, similar to those reported for other unpolluted geographical areas. The essential elements were also within the normal range in cheeses. There were no statistically significant differences between smoked and unsmoked cheeses for any of the elements. Chemometric analyses (principal component analysis and cluster analysis) revealed that the industrial cheeses produced in Galicia using the milk from intensive dairy farms were different, in terms of elemental content, from artisan and organic cheeses, in which the elemental contents were similar.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Bifidobacterium longum CNCM I-5642 (PP102I) for cats and dogs (Nestlé Enterprises S.A.)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Bifidobacterium longum CNCM I‐5642 (PP102I) when used as a feed additive for cats and dogs. The product under assessment consists of viable cells of a strain of B. longum, a species considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The strain was unambiguously identified as B. longum and was shown not to harbour antimicrobial resistance determinants for antibiotics of human and veterinary importance, thus meeting the QPS requirements. Following the QPS approach to safety assessment and since no concerns are expected from maltodextrin, the other component of the additive, PP102I was considered safe for the target species and the environment. Owing to the lack of data, no conclusions could be drawn on the skin/eye irritancy potential of PP102I. However, it should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of PP102I for the target species.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Solanum glaucophyllum leaf extract for dairy cows and other dairy ruminants (Herbonis Animal Health Gmbh)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Solanum glaucophyllum leaf extract (SGE) as a nutritional additive for dairy cows and other dairy ruminants. However, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) considered the glycosides of 1,25‐dihydroxycholecalciferol (1,25[OH]₂D₃) as the active substance and the bolus containing SGE‐derived 1,25[OH]₂D₃ as the preparation of the additive. The product is intended to be administered to dairy ruminants during the pre‐parturient (period from 9 days before calving to immediately before calving). The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the administration of one bolus, the preparation of the additive as applied in the animal studies evaluated, containing 500 μg of SGE‐derived 1,25[OH]₂D₃ during the pre‐parturient period is safe for cows. Owing to the lack of data, the Panel could not conclude on the safety for of a subsequent administration of a second bolus or on the safety of another SGE‐derived 1,25[OH]₂D₃ preparation for use in dairy ruminants other than cows (Bos taurus). The Panel considered that, under the specified conditions of use, the product is safe for the consumer and the environment. The bolus, a preparation containing SGE, as a source of the active substance, is not irritating to skin and eyes and it is not a sensitiser. Exposure via inhalation is unlikely. The Panel concluded that the administration of the bolus, the preparation of the additive as applied in the animal studies evaluated, containing 500 μg of SGE‐derived 1,25[OH]₂D₃ in a period from 9 days before calving to immediately before calving has the potential to prevent hypocalcaemia in dairy cows. Owing to the lack of data with another preparation, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy in other dairy ruminants.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Pediococcus acidilacticiCNCM I-4622 for all animal species (Danstar Ferment AG)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I‐4622 when used as a technological additive (acidity regulator and hygiene condition enhancers) for all animal species. The product is intended for use in mash compound feeds and/or solid feed materials used for the preparation of liquid feeds at a minimum inclusion level of 1 × 10⁹ CFU kg feed. The bacterial species is considered by EFSA to be eligible for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. As the identity of the strain has been clearly established and it did not show acquired resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance, the use of this strain in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. The additive is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser but is not irritant to eyes/skin or a skin sensitiser. Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I‐4622 at 1 × 10⁹ CFU/kg complete feed showed the potential to reduce the pH and the growth of coliforms in liquid feeds. Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I‐4622 is compatible with halofuginone, diclazuril, decoquinate and nicarbazin at the highest authorised levels for chickens for fattening.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of endo-1,4-β-xylanase produced by Komagataella phaffii DSM 33574 (Xylamax) for chickens and turkeys for fattening, chickens reared for laying/breeding, turkeys reared for breeding and minor poultry species for fattening or raised to the point of lay (BioResource international, Inc.)

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products of Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the product containing endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase produced by Komagataella phaffii DSM 33574 (Xylamax) as a zootechnical additive in chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying/breeding, turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding and minor poultry species for fattening or raised to the point of lay. The production strain is genetically modified. No viable cells nor recombinant DNA of the production strain were detected in the final product. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the additive does not pose any safety concern regarding the production strain. Based on the no observed adverse effect level identified in a subchronic oral toxicity study in rats, the Panel concluded that Xylamax is safe for all poultry species for fattening or reared to the point of lay. Considering the production strain and the results obtained in the genotoxicity studies, the Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the consumers. The Panel also concluded that Xylamax is not irritant to the skin but should be considered a potential eye irritant and a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the potential of the additive to cause skin sensitisation. The use of the product as a feed additive is of no concern for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious at 10,000 XU/kg feed in chickens for fattening. This conclusion was extended/extrapolated to chickens reared for laying/breeding, turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding and minor poultry species for fattening or raised to the point of lay.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of tocopheryl phosphate mixture (TPM) for all animal species (Avecho biotechnology limited)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of tocopheryl phosphate mixture (TPM) as nutritional feed additive for all animal species. The additive has not been authorised for use in animal nutrition. TPM is produced by chemical synthesis and is a mixture of two different phosphorylated tocopheryl compounds in approximate 2:1 weight ratio: all‐rac‐α‐tocopheryl di‐hydrogen phosphate (TP) and all‐rac‐di‐α‐tocopheryl hydrogen phosphate (T₂P). It is intended to be used as nutritional additive (as a source of vitamin E) in feed for all animal species and categories. Considering the limited information on the ADMER for the components of the additive and the uncertainties on the potential aneugenicity and clastogenicity of the additive, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species and for the consumer. TPM is not a skin irritant nor a skin sensitiser but should be considered irritant to the eyes and the upper respiratory tract. Owing to the uncertainty on the potential aneugenicity and clastogenicity of the additive, it is not possible to conclude on safety for the user. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of TPM for the environment due to lack of data on environmental impact of T₂P. TPM is a bioavailable source of α‐tocopherol. The data available, however, do not allow the Panel to establish the relative bioequivalence of TPM as vitamin E. Therefore, the Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of TPM for all animal species.

Assessment of the efficacy of the feed additive consisting of Saccharomyces cerevisaeCNCM I-1077 (Levucell®SC) for dairy cows, cattle for fattening, minor ruminant species and camelids (Lallemand SAS)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the re‐evaluation of the authorisation of the feed additive containing Saccharomyces cerevisae CNCM I‐1077 (Levucell^® SC) as a zootechnical additive for ruminants. The additive is already authorised for use in dairy sheep and dairy goats, lambs and horses, calves, all minor ruminant species (for rearing) other than lambs and camelids (for rearing) and dairy cows. The additive is intended for use in complete feed for dairy cows, minor ruminant species for milk production and all camelids at the minimum dose of 4 × 10⁸ CFU/kg and for cattle for fattening and minor ruminant species for fattening at the minimum dose of 5 × 10⁸ CFU/kg. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive has a potential to improve the performance of cattle raised for fattening, minor ruminant species and camelids raised for meat production but could not conclude on the efficacy of Levucell^® SC for dairy cows or extrapolate to minor dairy ruminant species or dairy camelids. The applicant has provided supplementary information to support efficacy of the additive in dairy cows. Based on the data provided, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive for dairy cows or other dairy ruminants under the proposed conditions of use.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 32292 for all animal species (Marigot Ltd t/a Celtic Sea Minerals)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 32292 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive is intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 5 × 10⁷ colony forming units (CFU)/kg forage. The bacterial species P. pentosaceus is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. As the identity of the strain has been established and no antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers and for the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive at the proposed application rate of 5 × 10⁷ CFU/kg forage has the potential to improve the production of silages from moderately difficult to ensile forages.

Assessment of the efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Limosilactobacillus reuteri (formerly Lactobacillus reuteri) DSM 32203 for dogs (NBF LANES)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of Limosilactobacillus reuteri (formerly Lactobacillus reuteri) DSM 32203 as a zootechnical additive for dogs. The additive is a preparation of viable cells of L. reuteri DSM 32203 and it has not been previously authorised as a feed additive in the European Union. The additive is intended for use in complete feed for dogs at a minimum use level of 6 × 10⁹ colony forming units (CFU) per animal and day. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of L. reuteri DSM 32203 for dogs. The applicant has provided supplementary information to support the efficacy of the additive to dogs. Based on the data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that L. reuteri DSM 32203 has the potential to improve faecal consistency by reducing the moisture content of stools from dogs receiving the additive at 1 × 10¹⁰ CFU/kg feed. However, the Panel has some reservations on the effects in the moisture content of stools, which if maintained over time might cast doubts on the benefits on the long‐term use of the additive since it could lead to constipation.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of endo-1,4-β-xylanase produced by Komagataella phaffii ATCC PTA-127053 (Xygest™ HT) for poultry (Kemin Europa N.V.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase produced by Komagataella phaffii ATCC PTA‐127053 (Xygest™ HT) as a zootechnical feed additive for poultry. The production strain is genetically modified. No viable cells nor recombinant DNA of the production strain were detected in the final product. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the additive does not pose any safety concern regarding the production strain. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Xygest™ HT is considered safe for chickens for fattening at 30,000 U/kg and in laying hens at 45,000 U/kg, with a wide margin of safety. These conclusions can be extended to chickens reared for laying/breeding and extrapolated to all poultry species for fattening and reared for laying/breeding and to ornamental birds. The conclusions on laying hens are extrapolated to all laying poultry species. The use of Xygest™ HT in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety and this feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The Panel also concluded that Xygest™ HT is not irritant to the eyes and skin but should be considered a dermal and a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel concluded that the additive Xygest™ HT has a potential to be efficacious for laying hens under the proposed conditions of use and this conclusion can also be extrapolated to all laying poultry species. The Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the product for chickens for fattening due to insufficient data.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Bacillus subtilis FERM BP-07462, Enterococcus lactis FERM BP-10867 and Clostridium butyricum FERM BP-10866 (BIO-THREE®) for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying, turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding, all avian species for rearing/fattening to slaughter and all avian species reared for laying or breeding to point of lay (TOA BIOPHARMA Co., Ltd.)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of BIO‐THREE^® when used as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying, turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding, all avian species for rearing/fattening to slaughter and all avian species reared for laying or breeding to point of lay. The product under assessment is based on viable cells/spores of Bacillus subtilis FERM BP‐07462, Enterococcus lactis FERM BP‐10867 and Clostridium butyricum FERM BP‐10866. Based on the tolerance study provided, the Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the target species under the conditions of use. The additive is safe for the consumers of products derived from animals receiving the additive. The additive is not irritant to skin and eyes. The additive is a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on its potential to be a skin sensitiser. The use of the product as a feed additive is of no concern for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of BIO‐THREE^® for the target species. BIO‐THREE^® is compatible with diclazuril, decoquinate and halofuginone. No conclusions could be drawn on the compatibility of BIO‐THREE^® with monensin sodium, salinomycin sodium, narasin, robenidine hydrochloride and maduramicin ammonium.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) for all animal species (Lanxess Deutschland GmbH)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) as a feed additive for all animal species. The additive BHT is considered safe for chickens for fattening and weaned piglets at the maximum proposed concentration of 150 mg/kg complete feed. This conclusion is extended to chickens reared for laying and extrapolated to pigs for fattening. In the absence of data, no conclusion on the safety for the other target species could be drawn. The exposure of the consumer to BHT from tissues and products of animals fed the additive ranged from 1% to 3% of the acceptable daily intake (ADI). The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of BHT as a feed additive at the proposed conditions of use is of no concern for the safety of the consumers. Exposure of the user to BHT via inhalation is likely; however, the Panel is not in the position to conclude on the potential inhalation toxicity of the additive. BHT is a skin and eye irritant, no conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the additive to be a skin sensitiser. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of BHT for the environment. The additive BHT is considered an efficacious antioxidant in feedingstuffs for all animal species.

Safety of 37 feed additives consisting of flavouring compounds belonging to different chemical groups for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl)

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the supplementary information submitted on the safety of 37 compounds belonging to different chemical groups, when used as sensory additives (flavourings) in feed for all animal species formerly assessed by the Panel in the context of the re‐evaluation of these feed additives. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that ethyl oleate [09.192] and benzyl cinnamate [09.738] are safe at the proposed use level of 5 mg/kg complete feed for all animal species, the consumer and the environment; ethyl salicylate [09.748] is safe up to the maximum proposed use level of 5 mg/kg complete feed for all animal species and the consumer. No new data were submitted on the safety for the user that would allow the FEEDAP Panel to change its previous conclusion for 26 out of the 37 compounds under assessment. The use of 4‐terpinenol [02.072], linalyl butyrate [09.050], linalyl formate [09.080], linalyl propionate [09.130], linalyl isobutyrate [09.423], isopulegol [02.167] and 1,2‐dimethoxy‐4‐(prop‐1‐enyl)‐benzene [04.013] as flavouring additives at the proposed use level of 5 mg/kg in feed for all animal species is considered safe for the environment. The use of 3‐methyl‐2‐cyclopenten‐1‐one [07.112] at 0.5 mg/kg and methyl dihydrojasmonate [09.520] at 5 mg/kg in feed for all animal species except marine animals is considered safe for the environment.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of l-lysine monohydrochloride and l-lysine sulfate produced by Corynebacterium glutamicum CGMCC 14498 for all animal species (Kempex Holland BV)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of l‐lysine monohydrochloride (l‐lysine HCl) and l‐lysine sulfate produced by Corynebacterium glutamicum (C. glutamicum) CGMCC 14498 as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. The active substance is l‐lysine and it is produced in two different forms (monohydrochloride or sulfate). The production strain C. glutamicum CGMCC 14498 and its recombinant DNA were not detected in the final products. The products l‐lysine HCl and l‐lysine sulfate do not pose any safety concern associated with the production strain. l‐Lysine HCl and l‐lysine sulfate produced by C. glutamicum CGMCC 14498 are considered safe for the target species. When using l‐lysine sulfate, the background sulfur/sulfate content in the compound feed should be taken into account. l‐Lysine HCl and l‐lysine sulfate produced by C. glutamicum CGMCC 14498 are safe for the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of l‐lysine HCl produced by the strain C. glutamicum CGMCC 14498 to be toxic by inhalation, and on the potential of l‐lysine HCl and l‐lysine sulfate produced by the above‐mentioned strain to be irritant to skin or eyes, or on their potential to be dermal sensitisers. l‐Lysine HCl and l‐lysine sulfate produced by C. glutamicum CGMCC 14498 are considered efficacious sources of the essential amino acid l‐lysine for non‐ruminant animal species. For the supplemental l‐lysine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminant species, this would require protection against degradation in the rumen.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of an essential oil from Cinnamomum camphora (L.) J. Presl (camphor white oil) for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl)

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the whole plant Cinnamomum camphora (L.) J. Presl (camphor white oil), when used as a sensory additive (flavouring) in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 30 mg/kg for piglets, pigs for fattening, sows, horses, rabbits, fish, ornamental fish and dogs and of 50 mg/kg for calves (milk replacer), cattle for fattening, dairy cows, sheep and goats. For the other species, the calculated safe concentration in complete feed is 28 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 42 mg/kg for laying hens, 37 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening and 22 mg/kg for cats. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use in water for drinking is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. No concerns for consumers were identified following the use of the additive at the use level considered safe in feed for the target species. The essential oil under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. The use of the additive under the proposed conditions in animal feed was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Camphor white oil was recognised to flavour food. Since its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of sodium aluminosilicate, synthetic, for all animal species (European Zeolites Producers Association (EUZEPA) & Association of Synthetic Amorphous Silica Producers (ASASP))

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of sodium aluminosilicate, synthetic, as a technological feed additive for all animal species. The additive sodium aluminosilicate, synthetic, is proposed to be manufactured in two different forms, amorphous and crystalline, characterised by different ratios among the main components, silica, aluminium and sodium. In the absence of adequate data, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was not in the position to conclude on the safety of the additive sodium aluminosilicate, synthetic, in both the amorphous and crystalline forms, for the target species, the consumer and the user. The use of sodium aluminosilicate, synthetic, as a feed additive was considered safe for the environment. In the absence of appropriate data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of sodium aluminosilicate, synthetic, as a technological additive.

Safety and efficacy of the feed additive consisting of selenium-enriched yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-3060) for all animal species (Alltech Ireland)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of selenium‐enriched yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I‐3060) for all animal species, based on a dossier submitted for the modification of the terms of the authorisation of the additive. The additive is currently authorised as selenomethionine produced by S. cerevisiae CNCM I‐3060 as a nutritional additive (compound of trace elements) with a minimum selenium content of 2,000 mg/kg. The applicant proposed the inclusion of an additional formulation with a minimum content of selenium in the additive of 3,000 mg/kg. Considering (i) that the main changes in the manufacturing of the product compared to the former application involve the drying phase (spray‐drying vs drum drying), which has led to slightly different values of the dusting potential and particle size, and (ii) the conditions of use already authorised, the FEEDAP Panel stated that the modification requested would only affect the safety for the target animals and the users, without impacting the safety for the consumers, safety for the environment or the efficacy of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that there are no concerns for the safety of the target animals based on its previous assessment and an additional study on homogeneity of the additive. The additive is hazardous by inhalation, is not irritant for the eyes, skin and is not a dermal sensitiser.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of a tincture from the bark of Cinnamomum verum J. Presl (cinnamon tincture) for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl)

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a tincture from the bark of Cinnamomum verum J. Presl (cinnamon tincture) when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The product is a water/ethanol ■■■■■ solution, with a dry matter content of approximately 0.9%. The product contains on average 0.344% polyphenols (of which 0.001% are flavonoids) and 0.001% cinnamaldehyde. Methyleugenol was present at the limit of detection in one out of the five batches examined. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that cinnamon tincture is safe at the maximum proposed use level of 50 mg/kg complete feed for all animal species except horses. For horses, the maximum proposed use level of 60 mg/kg complete feed is considered safe. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of cinnamon tincture up to the highest proposed use levels in feed. The additive under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. The use of the cinnamon tincture as a flavour in animal feed is not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since C. verum and cinnamon bark extracts are recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy is considered necessary for the tincture under application.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of l-isoleucine produced by Corynebacterium glutamicum KCCM 80185 for all animal species (CJ Europe GmbH)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of l‐isoleucine produced by Corynebacterium glutamicum KCCM 80185 when used as a nutritional additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The production strain is genetically modified, does not carry acquired antimicrobial resistance genes and no viable cells of the production strain were detected in the final product. The FEEDAP Panel could not exclude the presence of recombinant DNA from the production strain in the product. However, since no sequences of concern remain in the final production strain, the potential presence of recombinant DNA in the final product does not raise any safety concerns. The Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the target species, for the consumer and for the environment under the proposed conditions of use. Regarding the use in water, the FEEDAP Panel reiterated its concerns over the safety of l‐isoleucine administered simultaneously via water for drinking and feed owing to the risk of nutritional imbalances and hygienic reasons. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that l‐isoleucine produced by C. glutamicum KCCM 80185 is considered not toxic by inhalation, not irritant to skin or eyes and not a dermal sensitiser. However, due to the high dusting potential, exposure to dust per se might be a hazard for the user. l‐Isoleucine produced by C. glutamicum KCCM 80185 is considered as an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l‐isoleucine for non‐ruminant animal species. For the supplemental l‐isoleucine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminant species, it would require protection against degradation in the rumen.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of monosodium l-glutamate produced by fermentation with Corynebacterium glutamicum KCCM 80187 for all animal species (CJ Europe GmbH)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of monosodium l‐glutamate monohydrate produced by fermentation using Corynebacterium glutamicum KCCM 80187 when used as a sensory additive (flavouring compound) in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The production strain is genetically modified and viable cells of the production strain, and its DNA were not detected in the final additive. The additive does not give rise to any safety concern regarding the production strain. Monosodium l‐glutamate monohydrate produced using C. glutamicum KCCM 80187 is considered safe for the target species, for the consumer and for the environment. Moreover, it is considered not toxic by inhalation, not irritant to skin or eyes and not a dermal sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel expressed reservations on the use of the additive in water for drinking due to concerns on its impact on the hygienic conditions of the water. The Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious to contribute to the flavour of feed.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Bacillus subtilis strains CNCM I-4606, CNCM I-5043 and CNCM I-4607 and Lactococcus lactis CNCM I-4609 for all animal species (Nolivade)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the preparation of Bacillus subtilisCNCM I‐4606, B. subtilisCNCM I‐5043, B. subtilisCNCM I‐4607 and Lactococcus lactisCNCM I‐4609 when used as a technological additive (hygiene condition enhancer) for all animal species. The product is intended for use in compound feeds and feed materials for all animal species at a minimum inclusion level of 1 × 10⁹CFUB. subtilis and 1 × 10⁹CFUL. lactis per kg or litre. The two bacterial species are considered by EFSA to be eligible for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. As the identity of the strains has been clearly established and they did not show acquired resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance, the use of these strains in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. The additive is not irritant to skin and eyes or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agents, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive to significantly reduce the growth of either Salmonella Typhimurium or Escherichia coli in feed.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of 3-nitrooxypropanol (Bovaer® 10) for ruminants for milk production and reproduction (DSM Nutritional Products Ltd)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Bovaer^® 10 as a zootechnical additive for ruminants for milk production and reproduction. Systemic exposure or site of contact toxicity for the active substance 3‐nitrooxypropanol (3‐NOP), for which genotoxicity has not been fully clarified, in the target species, is unlikely based on ADME data available. Consequently, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that Bovaer^® 10 was safe for dairy cows at the maximum recommended level. However, as a margin of safety could not be established, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additive for other animal species/categories. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the consumer was exposed to 3‐nitrooxypropionic acid (NOPA), which is one of the 3‐NOP metabolites. NOPA was not genotoxic based on the studies provided. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of Bovaer^® 10 in animal nutrition under the conditions of use proposed was of no concern for consumer safety and for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the active substance 3‐NOP may be harmful if inhaled. It is irritant (but not corrosive) to skin, irritant to the eyes but it is not a skin sensitiser. As the genotoxicity of 3‐NOP is not completely elucidated, the exposure through inhalation of the additive may represent an additional risk for the user. The Panel concluded that the additive has a potential to be efficacious in dairy cows to reduce enteric methane production under the proposed conditions of use. This conclusion was extrapolated to all other ruminants for milk production and reproduction.

Influence of Haemolysis on the Mineral Profile of Cattle Serum

Simple Summary

The results of blood tests routinely used in clinical chemistry can be altered by haemolysis, the disruption of red blood cells. Haemolysis of serum samples is recognized to be the leading cause of preanalytical errors in clinical laboratories. The influence of haemolysis must be specifically studied for each analyte and species of clinical interest, as it is often not known how serum samples are affected. Little is known about the potential alterations in the concentrations of mineral elements in haemolyzed serum in general and the phenomenon has not been specifically studied in bovine serum samples. We investigate how haemolysis affects the mineral content of bovine samples.

Abstract

Haemolysis of serum samples is the leading cause of preanalytical errors in clinical laboratories. Little is known about the potential alterations in the concentrations of mineral elements in haemolyzed serum and the phenomenon has not been specifically studied in bovine serum samples. We investigate how haemolysis affects the mineral content of bovine samples. We used ICP-MS to measure the concentrations of 12 mineral elements (Ca, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Ni, P, Se and Zn) in bovine whole blood, serum and gradually haemolyzed samples and observed significant differences between the different types of samples, particularly in the Fe and Zn concentrations. However, in practice, the high interindividual variability makes it difficult to establish whether a given value corresponds to normal or haemolyzed samples. In response to this problem, we propose to consider that a result is significantly biased when the haemolysis threshold (the degree of haemolysis above which the concentration of an element in serum is significantly altered) of a given element is surpassed. The haemolysis threshold values for the different elements considered were found as follows: 0.015 g Hb L⁻¹ for Fe, 2 g for Zn, 4 g for Cr and 8 g for Ca, Se and Mo.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of an aqueous extract of Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck (lemon extract) for use in all animal species (Nor-Feed SAS)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an aqueous extract of Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck (lemon extract) when used as a sensory additive in feed for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive under assessment is safe for all animal species up to the maximum proposed use levels of 1,000 mg/kg complete feed and 250 mg/kg water for drinking. No concerns for consumers were identified following the use of lemon extract up to the highest safe level in feed. The additive should be considered a skin and eye irritant, and a potential corrosive. The use of the extract in animal feed under the proposed conditions was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Lemon extract was recognised to flavour food. Since its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Levilactobacillus brevis (formerly Lactobacillus brevis) DSM 12835 EU for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Lactosan GmbH & Co KG)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of Levilactobacillus brevis (formerly Lactobacillus brevis) DSM 12835 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive aims to improve the production of silage and is authorised without a minimum inclusion level. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There was no new evidence to lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, L. brevisDSM 12835 is not irritant to skin and eyes but is considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of iron (II) chelate of amino acids hydrate for all animal species

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of iron (II) chelate of amino acids hydrate for all animal species, brand name Availa^® Fe, for all animal species, based on a dossier submitted for the modification of the terms of the authorisation of the additive. The additive is currently authorised using amino acids derived from soya protein and with a minimum content of 9% iron. The applicant proposed (i) to include amino acids from other sources such as hydrolysed corn gluten, hydrolysed potato protein and hydrolysed poultry feather meal; (ii) to include a minimum specification for free amino acids of 18%; (iii) to introduce a tighter specification on the mineral content (iron), with an inclusion level of 9–10%. The additive, produced using different proposed sources of hydrolysed proteins, complies with the specifications set by Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2330. The FEEDAP Panel considers that the use of the different proposed sources of hydrolysed proteins (i.e. soy, feather meal, potato and corn gluten) do not modify the conclusions reached in the previous assessments on the safety for the target species, consumers, environment and efficacy of the additive above. Concerning the safety for the users, the additive should be considered as a skin and eye irritant and a skin sensitiser. The additive has a high dusting potential; however, in the absence of data on the concentration of zinc in the dust, it is not possible to make the assessment of the exposure by inhalation.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus (formerly Lactobacillus rhamnosus) NCIMB 30121 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Lactosan GmbH & Co. KG)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus (formerly Lactobacillus rhamnosus) NCIMB 30121 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive aims to improve the production of silage and is authorised without a minimum inclusion level. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There was no new evidence to lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the eye and skin irritancy potential of the additive. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of endo-1,4-β-xylanase produced by Bacillus subtilisLMG S-27588 (Beltherm MP/ML) for laying hens, minor poultry species and all avian species (Puratos NV)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an endo-1,4-β-xylanase (Beltherm MP/ML), produced by a genetically-modified Bacillus subtilis strain, as a zootechnical additive for laying hens, minor poultry species and all avian species. The additive is authorised for use in feed for poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding, weaned piglets, pigs for fattening and minor porcine species for fattening. The safety and efficacy of the additive for those species have been evaluated previously by the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel). The current application is for an extension of use of the additive. No viable cells were detected in the additive, but the data provided to support the absence of DNA in the additive was not sufficient to conclude on the absence of recombinant DNA in the additive. However, the Panel concluded that no safety concerns would arise from the presence of DNA from the production strain in the additive. In the current assessment, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for all avian species at the recommended level of 100 ADXU/kg feed. Similarly, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that Beltherm MP/ML is safe for the consumer and the environment. Concerning the user safety, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is not toxic by inhalation or irritant for skin or eyes, but it is considered a potential dermal and a respiratory sensitiser. In a previous opinion, the efficacy of the additive in poultry species for fattening was shown. However, owing to the insufficient data submitted in previous and current assessments, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the product for the target species for which the application was made.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Lacticaseibacillus paracasei (formerly Lactobacillus paracasei)DSM 16245 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Lactosan GmbH & Co KG)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of Lacticaseibacillus paracasei (formerly Lactobacillus paracasei) DSM 16245 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive aims to improve the production of silage and is currently authorised at a proposed application rate of 1 × 10⁸ colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There was no new evidence to lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety L. paracaseiDSM 16245 is not irritant to skin and eyes but is considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of copper (II) chelate of amino acids hydrate for all animal species (Zinpro Animal Nutrition (Europe) Inc.)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of copper (II) chelate of amino acids hydrate, brand name Availa^®Cu, for all animal species, based on a dossier submitted for the modification of the terms of the authorisation of the additive. The additive is currently authorised using amino acids derived from soya protein and with a minimum content of 10% copper. The applicant proposed (i) to include amino acids from other sources such as hydrolysed corn gluten, hydrolysed potato protein and hydrolysed poultry feather meal; (ii) to introduce a minimum specification for free amino acids of 18%; (iii) to introduce a tighter specification on the mineral content (copper), with an inclusion level of 10-11%. The additive, produced using different proposed sources of hydrolysed proteins, complies with the specifications set by Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1039. The FEEDAP Panel considers that the use of the different proposed sources of hydrolysed proteins (i.e. soy, feather meal, potato and corn gluten) do not modify the conclusions reached in the previous assessments on the safety for the target species, consumers, environment and efficacy of the additive above. Concerning the safety for the users, the additive should be considered as a skin and eye irritant and a skin sensitiser. The additive has a high dusting potential; however, in the absence of data on the concentration of zinc in the dust it is not possible to make the assessment of the exposure by inhalation.