Search

Abstract 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 for be as a zootechnical additive (functional group: other zootechnical additives) for all poultry species. Bafasal® is proposed for use 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 previous opinions, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that Bafasal® is safe for the target species, consumers and the environment and is not a skin or eye irritant but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusion could be drawn on its dermal sensitisation potential. The additive showed the potential to decrease the counts of two Salmonella Enteritidis strains in boots swabs and caecal digesta of chickens for fattening. However, the Panel was not in the position to conclude on the capacity of Bafasal® to improve the zootechnical performance of poultry, to reduce the contamination of other Salmonella enterica strains, serovars or other Salmonella spp. in chickens, or to reduce the Salmonella spp. contamination of poultry other than chickens. In the current application, the claim on zootechnical performance has been withdrawn. Bafasal® is not a skin or eye irritant but should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser and inhalation and dermal exposure is considered a risk. Based on the new data provided, the Panel concluded that Bafasal® has the potential to reduce the environmental contamination with S. Enteritidis when used in feed and water for all poultry species. No conclusions could be drawn on the effects of the additive on other Salmonella serotypes.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of two technological additives (functional group: silage additives) consisting of Enterococcus faecium strains ATCC 53519 and ATCC 55593, respectively. The additives are intended for use with all types of fresh materials and for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 107 colony‐forming units of E. faecium ATCC 53519/kg fresh material or 5 × 106 CFU of E. faecium ATCC 55593/kg fresh material. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on their efficacy since the dry matter content of the ensiled materials at the end of the experiments was not corrected for volatiles, which led to unreliable estimation of the dry matter loss, and the lack of positive effects on any of the other parameters. The supplementary information submitted by the applicant included updated data on the dry matter loss corrected for volatiles. The results showed that, at the end of the ensiling process, the dry matter loss during the ensiling was significantly lower in the ensiled materials treated with E. faecium ATCC 53519 or ATCC 55593 compared to controls. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the addition of E. faecium ATCC 53519 or ATCC 55593 in all types of fresh plant materials shows potential to improve the nutrient preservation of silage at the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on a formulation of Bacillus subtilis DSM 33862 and Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 12856 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use with fresh plant material with a dry matter (DM) range of 32%–65% at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material to be used for all animal species. The bacterial species B. subtilis and L. buchneri are considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strains was established, no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected in any of the two active agents and no evidence of toxigenic potential was found in B. subtilis DSM 33862. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the strains as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed with the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive contains microorganisms and therefore should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser. The additive is not irritant to skin or eyes. Inhalation and dermal exposure is considered a risk. These conclusions would apply, in principle, to any preparations containing the active agents. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive containing B. subtilis DSM 33862 and L. buchneri DSM 12856 at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material has the potential to extend the aerobic stability of silage prepared from fresh plant materials with a DM range of 32%–65%.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 32651 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use in all fresh material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species L. buchneri is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The additive is not an eye irritant. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive consisting of L. buchneri DSM 32651 at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material may extend the aerobic stability of silage prepared from fresh plant material with a DM range of 28%–45%.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a product containing endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase (ECONASE® XT) as a zootechnical feed additive (digestibility enhancer) for pigs for fattening, laying hens and minor poultry species. ECONASE® XT is available in two liquid and three solid forms and is produced with a genetically modified strain of Trichoderma reesei (CBS 114044). The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the genetic modification of the production strain does not raise any safety concerns, and viable cells of the production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final products. The Panel also concluded that ECONASE® XT is safe for pigs for fattening, laying hens and minor poultry species at the proposed conditions of use. The use of the additive raises no safety concerns for the consumers of products derived from animals fed with the additive or for the environment. The liquid and solid forms of ECONASE® XT are non‐irritant to the skin, but only the liquid forms were confirmed as non‐irritant to the eyes and not dermal sensitisers. The Panel could not conclude on the irritation potential to the eyes and the dermal sensitisation potential for the solid forms. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in pigs for fattening at 20,000 BXU/kg complete feed, in all laying poultry species at 12,000 BXU/kg complete feed and in minor poultry species other than laying birds at 8000 BXU/kg complete feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCYC R618 as a zootechnical feed additive (functional group: gut flora stabiliser) for chickens for fattening and other poultry species for fattening and reared for laying. The additive has never been authorised. The strain under assessment S. cerevisiae (NCYC R618) qualifies for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) and, consequently, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the product is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the skin and eye irritation or skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. Due to the lack of sufficient data, the Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of the additive under the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a Camellia oleifera C.Abel seed extract (Cosap®) as technological feed additive for all animal species except fin fish. In the absence of adequate tolerance studies in the target species or toxicological studies with the additive under assessment, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) could not conclude on the safety of C. oleifera extract for the target species. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is not expected to cause concern for consumer safety. The additive is considered as irritant to the eyes and mucous membranes. No conclusions can be reached on the potential of the additive to be irritant to the skin or to be a dermal sensitiser. The use of the additive under the proposed conditions of use is considered safe for the terrestrial compartment. However, no conclusion can be reached on the safety of the additive for the environment when used in feed of aquatic animals other than fin fish. The Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious as an emulsifier when used according to proposed conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Loigolactobacillus coryniformis DSM 34345 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use with all fresh plant material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species L. coryniformis is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive containing Loigolactobacillus coryniformis DSM 34345 should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. One preparation was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes. However, the Panel cannot assess the irritation potential of other possible preparations. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Loigolactobacillus coryniformis DSM 34345 has the potential to improve the production of silages prepared from all fresh plant materials at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 34271 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use in easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh plant material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species L. plantarum is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive containing Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 34271 should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. One preparation was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes. However, the Panel cannot assess the irritation potential of other possible preparations. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 34271 has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silage prepared from fresh plant material with a DM range of 30%–35% at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the alpha‐amylase (Ronozyme® HiStarch CT/L) produced with a genetically modified strain of Bacillus licheniformis (DSM 34315) as a zootechnical feed additive for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and minor growing poultry species. The additive is available in two forms, a coated thermotolerant granulate formulation and a liquid formulation. The production strain and its DNA were not detected in an intermediate concentrated product representative of the final formulations. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the final product did not trigger safety concerns with regard to the genetic modification. The Panel concluded that Ronozyme® HiStarch CT/L is safe for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and minor growing poultry species at the recommended inclusion level of 80 KNU/kg complete feed. The use of Ronozyme® HiStarch CT/L in animal nutrition under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumers and the environment. The additive in any form was shown to be non‐irritant to the skin and the solid form was shown to be non‐irritant to the eyes. No conclusions could be drawn on the potential of the liquid form to be irritant to the eyes or on the potential of both forms of the additive to be dermal sensitisers due to lack of data. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive in either form was considered to be a respiratory sensitiser and any exposure by inhalation is considered a risk. In the absence of data, the Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Ronozyme® HiStarch CT/L for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and minor growing poultry species.

Abstract 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 Quillaja saponaria powder and Yucca schidigera powder (Magni‐Phi®) for all avian species (to slaughter age/weight, or to the point of lay) and ornamental birds, as a zootechnical additive (digestibility enhancer and other zootechnical additives). The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening at the level of 250 mg/kg complete feed with a margin of safety of 20 assuming that the additive contains 3.58% of saponins. This conclusion was extrapolated to all growing poultry species and ornamental birds. The Panel concluded that the use of the feed additive in animal nutrition at 250 mg/kg complete feed is of no concern for the safety for the consumer and the environment. The Panel also concluded that the additive is not irritant to skin, but irritant to the eyes and to the respiratory system. Due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive for all poultry species and ornamental birds.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of sepiolite as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In 2022, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) delivered an Opinion on the safety and efficacy of the same additive. The Panel concluded that sepiolite used as a feed additive is safe for the consumers and the environment, and efficacious as a thickener‐suspending agent, binder and anticaking agent in feed for all animal species under the proposed conditions of use. The additive was not considered an eye or skin irritant. However, it was considered a respiratory irritant, a respiratory and dermal sensitiser; owing to the dusting potential and its silica content, the additive was considered a risk by inhalation. Regarding the target species, in the previous Opinion, the Panel concluded on the safety of the additive for dairy ruminants. However, no conclusion could be drawn for all other species/categories. Based on the tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, weaned piglets and trout evaluated in the current assessment, and the one in dairy cows previously assessed, the Panel concluded that the inclusion of sepiolite at the maximum recommended level of 20,000 mg/kg complete feed is safe for all animal species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Lactococcus lactis DSM 34262 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use in easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh plant material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species L. lactis is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive containing Lactococcus lactis DSM 34262 should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. One preparation was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes. However, the Panel cannot assess the irritation potential of other possible preparations. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Lactococcus lactis DSM 34262 has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silage prepared from fresh plant material with a DM range of 30–35% at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material.

Abstract This guidance document is intended to assist the applicant in preparing and presenting an application, as foreseen in Article 7.6 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition. It specifically covers the assessment of the efficacy of feed additives.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I‐1079 as a zootechnical feed additive for dogs and all other Canidae. The additive is intended for use in feed for dogs and all other Canidae at a proposed minimum inclusion level of 1 × 109 CFU per kg of complete feed. Saccharomyces cerevisiae is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. Since the identity of the active agent has been clearly established and no concerns are expected from other components of the product, the additive is considered safe for the target species. Since the additive is intended to be used only in feed for dogs and other non‐food‐producing animals, an assessment of the safety for the consumer and the environment is not needed. The non‐coated form of the additive was shown to be non‐irritant to skin and eyes. No conclusion can be drawn on the eye irritation potential of the coated form of the additive due to the lack of data. The additive in both forms, should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I‐1079 at the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract 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 efficacy of ROVABIO® ADVANCE (liquid and solid) which contains endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase and endo‐1,3(4)‐beta‐glucanase produced with Talaromyces versatilis IMI 378536 and DSM 26702 as a zootechnical feed additive for weaned piglets at the recommended use level of 1800 U xylanase and 1250 U glucanase per kg feed. In a previous assessment, three long‐term trials in weaned piglets were submitted. Two of them were considered to support the efficacy of the additive while a third trial was not further considered due to the large number of veterinary treatments applied. A new trial was provided to support the efficacy of the additive, but it did not show a significant improvement of the performance parameters at the minimum recommended use level. Due to the lack of sufficient data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive for the target species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of muramidase produced with Trichoderma reesei DSM 32338 (Balancius™) as a feed additive for laying hens. The additive is already authorised as a zootechnical additive (functional group: other zootechnical additives) for chickens, turkeys and minor poultry species for fattening or reared for breeding, and for weaned piglets. The enzyme is produced by fermentation with a genetically modified strain of Trichoderma reesei; viable cells of the production strain and its recombinant DNA were not detected in the additive. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive does not give rise to safety concerns regarding the genetic modification of the production strain. Based on the data available from a sub‐chronic oral toxicity study, the Panel concluded that the additive is safe for laying hens at the maximum recommended level of 60,000 LSU(F) (muramidase activity units)/kg feed. The Panel also concluded that the additive is safe for the consumers and the environment. The liquid formulation of the additive is considered not irritant to the skin or eyes. The solid formulation of the additive is considered not irritant to the skin. The Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive (both formulations) to be a dermal sensitiser or on the potential of the solid formulation to be irritant to the eyes. Due to the proteinaceous nature, both forms of the additive should be considered respiratory sensitisers. The additive has the potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive for laying hens at 30,000 LSU(F)/kg feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 6‐phytase (Quantum® Blue) as a zootechnical feed additive for fin fish. The additive is authorised for use in poultry and pigs. The additive is available in solid and liquid forms, and the 6‐phytase contained in the product is produced by fermentation with a genetically modified strain of Trichoderma reesei. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the genetic modification of the production strain does not give rise to safety concerns; viable cells of the production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final products. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that, based on the data available, the additive tested is safe for fin fish at the highest recommended level of 2500 phytase activity unit (FTU)/kg complete feed. The Panel concluded that Quantum® Blue is not an irritant to skin and eyes nor a skin sensitiser. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, 6‐phytase (Quantum® Blue) is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The use of Quantum® Blue as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The additive is considered to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive for salmonids and ornamental fish at 500 FTU/kg complete feed and other fin fish at 2500 FTU/kg complete feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Macleaya cordata (Willd.) R. Br. extract and leaves (Sangrovit® Extra) as a zootechnical feed additive for suckling and weaned piglets and other growing Suidae. The additive is standardised to contain a concentration of the sum of the four alkaloids sanguinarine, chelerythrine, protopine and allocryptopine of 1.25%, with 0.5% sanguinarine. Owing to the presence of the DNA intercalators sanguinarine and chelerythrine, a concern for genotoxicity was identified. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) had no safety concerns for the target species when the additive is used at the recommended level of 0.750 mg sanguinarine/kg complete feed for suckling and weaned piglets and other growing Suidae. Since in all consumer categories the exposure to sanguinarine and chelerythrine via the use of Sangrovit® Extra exceeds the threshold of toxicological concern of 0.0025 μg/kg bw per day for DNA reactive mutagens and/or carcinogens, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety for the consumers. The additive was shown to be irritant to the eyes but not irritant to skin or a skin sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel could not exclude the potential of the additive to be a respiratory sensitiser. When handling the additive, exposure of unprotected users to sanguinarine and chelerythrine may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of users should be reduced. The use of Sangrovit® Extra as a feed additive under the proposed conditions of use was considered safe for the environment. The additive Sangrovit® Extra had the potential to be efficacious in improving performance of weaned piglets at 0.600 mg sanguinarine/kg complete feed. This conclusion was extended to suckling piglets and extrapolated to other growing Suidae.

Abstract 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 efficacy of ferrous lysinate sulfate (Plexomin® L‐Fe) for all animal species. The additive has not been previously authorised as a feed additive in the European Union (EU). The safety of the additive for the target species, consumer, user and the environment has already been assessed in previous opinions. However, the efficacy remained inconclusive due to the absence of evidence of the bioavailability of the iron contained in the additive in the trials submitted either with chickens for fattening or with weaned piglets. For the present assessment, the applicant submitted a recalculation of the previous data on weaned piglets, which did not show evidence of bioavailability. Therefore, in the absence of adequate data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of ferrous lysinate sulfate for all animal species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae DSM 34246 as a zootechnical feed additive for dogs and cats. The additive, with the trade name Canobios‐BL, is intended for use in feed for cats and dogs at a proposed minimum inclusion level of 5 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed. Saccharomyces cerevisiae is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. Since the identity of the active agent has been clearly established and the additive is composed by dried cells of the active agent and an emulsifier, that are not expected to introduce any risk, the additive is considered safe for the target species. Canobios‐BL is not a skin or eye irritant but should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. Canobios‐BL is considered to be efficacious in feedingstuffs for dogs and cats at the use level 5 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I‐4407 (Actisaf® Sc47) as a zootechnical feed additive (functional group: gut flora stabiliser) in cattle for fattening. The additive is already authorised for use in feed for dairy cows, calves for rearing, lambs for fattening, dairy goats, dairy sheep and dairy buffaloes. In a previous opinion, the EFSA Scientific Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) concluded that Actisaf® Sc47 was safe for cattle for fattening, the consumers and the environment. Additionally, the Panel considered that Actisaf® Sc47 is not a skin irritant, and no conclusions could be drawn on the additive's eye irritancy and dermal sensitisation potential. Due to the lack of adequate data, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive in cattle for fattening at the proposed conditions of use. In the current application, the applicant submitted three trials to support the efficacy in cattle for fattening. However, two of them were not considered for the assessment. The other trial showed an improved zootechnical performance of the animals at the proposed use level of 4 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed. Considering the additive is authorised in dairy cows and calves for rearing and the requirements of the current Guidance on the assessment of the efficacy of feed additives, no further demonstration of efficacy is necessary to extrapolate the conclusions previously reached to all ruminants. The significant positive effect shown in one trial in cattle for fattening supports the above extrapolation. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that Actisaf® Sc47 is efficacious as a zootechnical additive for cattle for fattening at the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae DBVPG 48 SF (BioCell®) as a zootechnical feed additive for horses, pigs and ruminants. In a previous opinion, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious at the proposed conditions of use for horses, dairy ruminants and all pigs. However, the Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of BioCell® for calves, and, consequently, for other ruminants for fattening or rearing. The applicant provided three additional efficacy trials in veal calves to support the efficacy of BioCell® for ruminants for fattening or rearing. The three studies showed positive effects of the supplementation with the additive at 1.7 × 109 colony forming unit (CFU)/kg complete feed on the performance of veal calves. Considering the previously submitted studies in dairy cows and the new submitted trials, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious for all ruminants at the proposed condition of use: 4.0 × 108 CFU/kg complete feed for dairy ruminants and 4.0 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed for ruminants for fattening and rearing.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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 Huvezym® neXo 100 G/L, a product containing endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase, endo‐1,4‐β‐glucanase and xyloglucan‐specific‐endo‐β‐1,4‐glucanase activities produced by a non‐genetically modified strain of Trichoderma citrinoviride (DSM 33578), as a zootechnical additive for all Suidae. The applicant provided information confirming the taxonomic identification of the production strain. The batches used for the characterisation of the final formulations showed compliance with the minimum specifications of the additive in terms of enzyme activities (> 15,000 EPU, > 1000 CU, > 1000 XGU per g) but not for the ratio of the enzymes, which is lower (ca. 7:1:1) than the ones specified (15:1:1). The Panel could not conclude on the representativeness of the test item used in the toxicological and tolerance studies with respect to the final formulations. Therefore, the conclusions are limited to the product with a minimum enzyme activity of 15,000 EPU, 1000 CU, 1000 XGU per g and a xylanase:glucanase:xyloglucanase ratio of 15:1:1. The Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Huvezym® neXo 100 G is not an irritant to the skin and eyes but should be considered a skin sensitiser. Huvezym® neXo 100 L is neither an irritant to the skin and eyes nor a skin sensitiser. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substances, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in all reproductive Suidae at the minimum proposed use level. Owing to the lack of sufficient data, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive for Suidae for fattening or reared for reproduction.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the additive based on fumonisin esterase (Free Yeast® F), produced with a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii. The additive is categorised as a technological feed additive, for the reduction of the contamination of feed by mycotoxins and intended for use in all pigs species (piglets, pigs for fattening, sows and minor growing and reproductive porcine species). It was shown that the production strain and its recombinant genes are not present in the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for weaned and suckling piglets and pigs for fattening, and all minor growing porcine species up to 60 U/kg complete feed. No conclusions can be drawn on the safety of the additive in sows. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. The additive is dust‐free, and therefore, respiratory sensitisation/irritation is unlikely. The additive is non‐irritant to the eyes and the skin. No conclusion could be made on skin sensitisation. The use of the additive as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious as technological feed additive for the reduction of feed contamination by fumonisins, when used at the minimum recommended concentration of 60 U/kg. This conclusion can be extrapolated to all growing and reproductive pigs and other minor porcine species.

Abstract 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 efficacy of a feed additive consisting of carvacrol (Nimicoat®) as a zootechnical feed additive for weaned piglets at the recommended use level of 250 mg/kg complete feed. In a previous assessment, three efficacy trials and one tolerance–efficacy trial were assessed. Only one of the efficacy trials was considered to support the efficacy at the recommended use level. The applicant provided amendments to two previously submitted studies and a new trial. The amendments to the previously submitted studies did not change the conclusions from the previous assessment. The new efficacy study showed a significant improvement of the zootechnical parameters. Two studies showed positive and significant effects on the performance of the weaned piglets when the additive was administered at 250 mg/kg feed. Due to the lack of sufficient data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive for the target species.

Abstract 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 6‐phytase produced by the genetically modified strain Aspergillus oryzae DSM 33737 (HiPhorius™ 10, 40, 20L and 50L) as a zootechnical feed additive for all poultry, all Suidae and all fin fish. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the genetic modification of the production strain does not give rise to safety concerns. Based on the no observed adverse effect level identified in a subchronic oral toxicity study in rats, the additive was considered safe for all poultry, all Suidae and all fin fish at the proposed conditions of use. The Panel also concluded that the use of the product as a feed additive is of no concern for the consumers and the environment. The liquid formulations of the additive are not skin or eye irritants. The two solid ones are not skin irritants but are eye irritants. Owing to the lack of data, the Panel cannot conclude on the skin sensitisation of the final formulations of the additive. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance (6‐phytase), the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel concludes that the additive is efficacious when included in the diet of poultry for fattening or reared for laying/breeding, reproductive Suidae, and all fin fish. Due to the lack of sufficient data, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy for laying and reproductive poultry and growing Suidae.

Abstract 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 (functional group: digestibility enhancers) for all Suidae at a recommended minimum level of 90,000 U/kg complete feed for pigs in the growing period and 45,000 U/kg complete feed for sows. The production strain is considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe at the minimum recommended use level for all growing Suidae and all sows in the lactating phase. Xygest™ HT was considered safe for the consumers and for the environment when used in feed for all Suidae. The additive was considered not to be irritant to eyes and skin, but was considered as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. In the absence of sufficient data, the FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Xygest™ HT for all Suidae.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the proposed modification of the terms of the authorisation regarding the maximum inclusion level of a feed additive consisting of nonanoic acid for all pigs and poultry species. Nonanoic acid is currently authorised for use as a sensory additive (functional group: flavouring compounds) for all animal species at a recommended maximum content of 5 mg/kg complete feed. The applicant is requesting a modification of the authorisation to increase the recommended maximum content of the active substance from 5 to 100 mg/kg complete feed for all poultry and pig species. In support of the safety of the additive at the new proposed level, the applicant provided tolerance trials in the target species. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that nonanoic acid is safe for all growing poultry species and Suidae at 100 mg/kg feed. The Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the new proposed level (100 mg/kg complete feed) for laying hens, turkeys for breeding, minor poultry species for laying/breeding and reproductive Suidae. However, FEEDAP Panel considered that nonanoic acid is safe at 10 mg/kg complete feed in laying hens, turkeys for breeding, minor poultry species for laying/breeding and 20 mg/kg complete feed for reproductive Suidae. The use of the feed additive in animal nutrition under the conditions of use proposed is of no concern for the consumer and the environment. Due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin and eye irritant neither a dermal nor respiratory sensitiser. No further demonstration of efficacy is necessary.

Abstract 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 the authorisation of folic acid as a nutritional feed additive. The additive is authorised for use in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation and the production process has not been modified. The FEEDAP Panel considers that there is no evidence to revise the conclusions reached in the previous assessment for the safety for the terrestrial species, consumers and for the environment. The use of folic acid in aquatic animal species to cover their nutritional needs is considered safe. However, the Panel is not in a position to set a maximum safe level for all fish and crustacean species. Considering the narrow margin between the requirement and the tolerated levels seen in some aquatic animal species, the FEEDAP Panel considers that supplementation should not exceed the requirements of the different aquatic animal species. The additive is neither a skin irritant nor a dermal sensitiser. The exposure through inhalation is likely. Due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the potential of folic acid to be harmful to the respiratory system and irritant to eyes. The Panel retains that the previously made conclusion on the efficacy remains valid.

Abstract 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 the feed additive containing Enterococcus faecium DSM 21913, Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. animalis DSM 16284 and Ligilactobacillus salivarius (formerly Lactobacillus salivarius) DSM 16351 (Biomin® C3) as a zootechnical feed additive (functional group: gut flora stabiliser) in the context of the renewal of the authorisation for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying and minor poultry species other than laying. In addition, the applicant requested the extension of use in all poultry species for fattening and reared for laying/breeding. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the Panel to reconsider previous conclusions that the additive is safe for the target species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. This conclusion also applies to the target species for which a request for an extension of use is made. The Panel concluded that Biomin® C3 is not irritant to skin or eyes but should be considered as a respiratory sensitiser due to its proteinaceous nature. No conclusions could be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The evaluation of the efficacy is not needed in those species for which an authorisation exists. The Panel considered that the additive is efficacious in all growing poultry species at the same inclusion level of 1 × 108 CFU/kg feed and the equivalent level in water of 5 × 107 CFU/L.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of natrolite–phonolite obtained from volcanic rock from Kaiserstuhl as a technological additive (functional group: anticaking) for all animal species. According to the conventional risk assessment, due to the lack of adequate data, the Panel is not in a position to conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species under the proposed conditions of use. However, from the tolerance studies in cattle for fattening and weaned piglets, effects observed in animal performance and blood clinical biochemistry suggest adverse effects on the animals supplemented with the additive. Based on current knowledge, there is no indication of substantial absorption of the components of the additive and, therefore, of concern for the consumer. The FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin and eye irritant. The additive is considered a respiratory and dermal sensitiser. In the absence of suitable data, the presence of small/nanoparticles cannot be excluded. As no suitable data in line with the requirements of the Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials were provided by the applicant, the potential risks associated with the presence of nanoparticles for the target species, the consumer and the user could not be assessed. Due to the lack of sufficient data, the Panel is not in a position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of phenylcapsaicin (aXiphen®) as a zootechnical additive (functional group: physiological condition stabilisers) in feed for chickens for fattening. The additive under assessment, phenylcapsaicin, is safe for chickens for fattening up to the maximum proposed use level of 15 mg/kg complete feed. A margin of safety could not be established. Phenylcapsaicin is not genotoxic. The reference point for phenylcapsaicin derived from a 90‐day repeated dose oral toxicity study in rats is 37.2 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, the lowest of the model averaged BMDL20 values for alanine aminotransferase increase in plasma. The metabolic similarity in the laboratory animals and the target species was not demonstrated and the identity of the marker residue could not be established. In the absence of such data, the safety for the consumers could not be evaluated. The inhalation exposure of phenylcapsaicin (as liquid) for the user was considered unlikely. The FEEDAP Panel considered the additive irritant to the eyes but not to the skin and it is not a dermal sensitiser. In the absence of appropriate data, the environmental risk assessment for phenylcapsaicin could not be performed. It is unlikely that phenylcapsaicin bioaccumulates in the environment and the risk of secondary poisoning is considered low. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive in chickens for fattening at the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract 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 the authorisation of zinc chloride hydroxide monohydrate as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species (3b609). The applicant reported changes in the production process and requested a change 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 the additive under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species and the consumers. The use of the additive in animal nutrition at the proposed use levels for the terrestrial species and land‐based aquaculture systems is considered safe for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the additive for marine sediment compartment, when it is used in sea cages. The additive is an eye irritant, but not irritant to the skin and not a skin sensitiser. The exposure through inhalation is likely, but in the absence of data, the Panel is not in a position to conclude on the risk of exposure by inhalation. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract 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 efficacy of copper(II)‐betaine as a nutritional additive for all animal species and on the safety for the marine sediment when the additive is used in sea cages. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the risk to the marine sediment is acceptable when the additive is used in sea cages. The additional statistical analysis of the results of the efficacy study already assessed in the previous opinion did not allow the Panel to conclude on the efficacy of the additive.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I‐4622 as a zootechnical additive (functional group: physiological condition stabilisers) for all insects. The active agent used in the additive is already authorised for use in all animal species as a technological additive, and as a zootechnical additive in all Suidae species for fattening and for breeding, other than sows, all avian species, all fish species and all crustaceans. The active agent has been identified as a strain of P. acidilactici and consequently meets the qualifications required by the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The use of the additive is considered safe for all insect species, consumers and the environment. The additive is considered non‐irritant to skin and eyes but a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn regarding its skin sensitisation potential. In the absence of adequate data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive as a physiological condition stabiliser for honeybees nor for all insect species.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of Availa®Cr (active compound: chromium chelate of dl‐methionine) as a feed additive for dairy cows. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that Availa®Cr at a maximum recommended use level of 0.5 mg Cr(III) (8 mg Cr from Availa®Cr/cow per day) was safe for dairy cows and the consumers. Additionally, the FEEDAP Panel considered that the additives posed a risk to the user by inhalation, it was not irritant to skin and eyes, and it should be considered a skin sensitiser. The Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive at the proposed conditions of use. Since the new information provided in the current application is lacking sufficient evidence, the FEEDAP Panel is still not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of chromium dl‐methionine from Availa®Cr.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of zeolites (≥ 50%) obtained from Neapolitan Yellow Tufa as a technological additive (functional group: anticaking) for all animal species. The additive is specified to contain not less than 50% of zeolites, namely phillipsite, chabazite and analcime. Neapolitan Yellow Tufa originates from the volcanic activity of Campi Flegrei, Italy. According to the conventional risk assessment, due to a lack of adequate data, the safety of the additive for the target species cannot be established. Based on current knowledge, there is no indication of substantial absorption of the components of the additive and, therefore, of concern for the consumer. The additive poses a risk by inhalation. It is not irritant to the skin. The Panel cannot conclude on the eye irritancy and on the dermal and respiratory sensitisation potential of the additive. As no suitable data in line with the requirements of the Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials were provided by the applicant, the potential risks associated with the presence of nanoparticles for the target species, the consumer and the user could not be assessed. The additive is safe for the environment. The additive is considered to be efficacious in feedingstuffs for all animal species at 20,000 mg/kg complete feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the mixture of Sepiolite and Kieselguhr (diatomaceous earth) (Anpro) as a technological feed additive for all terrestrial animal species. According to the conventional risk assessment, due to lack of adequate data, the safety of the additive Anpro for the target species cannot be established. Based on current knowledge, there is no indication of substantial absorption of the components of the additive and therefore no concern for the consumer. The additive poses a risk by inhalation. It is not irritant to the skin or eyes but should be considered as skin sensitiser. As no suitable data in line with the requirements of the Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials were provided by the applicant, the potential risks associated with the presence of nanoparticles could not be assessed for the target species, the consumer and the user. The additive is safe for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive for all terrestrial animal species.

Abstract 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 of a feed additive consisting of Duddingtonia flagrans NCIMB 30336 (BioWorma®) for all grazing animals. The safety and efficacy of the additive have been already assessed previously, however the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species and the consumers due to the limitations in the dataset provided. For the current assessment, the applicant submitted a new tolerance trial in dairy cows and new toxicological studies. After the assessment of the new data submitted, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the feed additive in animal nutrition under the conditions of use proposed is of no concern for dairy cows. This conclusion can be extrapolated to all dairy bovines, ovines and caprines, but not to fattening and rearing animals of those species. Due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the additive for other grazing species/categories. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the consumers.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of Bacillus subtilis FERM BP‐07462, Enterococcus lactis FERM BP‐10867 and Clostridium butyricum FERM BP‐10866 (BIO‐THREE®) as a zootechnical feed additive to be used as a gut flora stabiliser for chickens for fattening and reared for laying, turkeys for fattening and reared for breeding, and all avian species for rearing/fattening or reared for laying/breeding. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of BIO‐THREE® for the target species at the proposed conditions of use. The applicant has provided a new study in chickens for fattening as supplementary information to support the efficacy of BIO‐THREE® for the target species. Considering the previously submitted studies and the new submitted trial, the Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious for chickens for fattening and reared for laying, turkeys for fattening and reared for breeding, and all avian species for rearing/fattening or reared for laying/breeding under the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract The additive RONOZYME® WX (CT/L) contains endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase produced with a genetically modified strain of the filamentous fungus Aspergillus oryzae; the additive is currently authorised for poultry for fattening, weaned piglets, pigs for fattening, lactating sows and laying hens. The applicant has requested to change the production strain, substituting strain A. oryzae DSM 26372 with A. oryzae DSM 33700, and to extend the use of the additive to all poultry species and all Suidae. RONOZYME® WX (CT/L), manufactured with the production strain A. oryzae DSM 33700, 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 DNA were detected in an intermediate product representative of both final formulations of the additive. RONOZYME® WX (CT/L) was considered safe for all poultry species and all Suidae at the recommended inclusion levels. The use of RONOZYME® WX CT and L manufactured with the production strain A. oryzae DSM 33700 raised no concerns for consumers. RONOZYME® WX L is not an eye irritant; however, no conclusions could be drawn on the potential of RONOZYME® WX CT to be an eye irritant. Both formulations are not irritant to the skin, but due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel was not able to conclude on the potential of both formulations of the additive to be skin sensitisers. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive manufactured by A. oryzae DSM 33700 raises no safety concerns for the environment. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in all poultry species and all Suidae at 100 and 200 FXU/kg complete feed, respectively.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of 41 compounds to provide a Herbal flavour and belonging to different chemical groups, when used as sensory additives in feed for all animal species. Fourteen out of the 41 compounds were tested in tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, piglets, cattle for fattening and Atlantic salmon. No adverse effects were observed in the tolerance studies at 10‐fold the intended level. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the 14 tested compounds were safe for these species at the proposed use level and conclusions were extrapolated to all animal species. For the remaining 27 compounds, read‐across from structurally similar compounds tested in tolerance trials and belonging to the same chemical group was applied. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that these 27 compounds were safe for all animal species at the proposed use level. No safety concern would arise for the consumer and the environment from the use of the 41 compounds up to the maximum proposed use level in feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of 6‐phytase produced by Komagataella phaffii CGMCC 7.19 (Nutrase P) as a zootechnical feed additive for chickens for fattening, other poultry for fattening or reared for laying and ornamental birds. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel concluded on the efficacy of Nutrase P for the target species at the level of 1,500 phytase units (FTU)/kg but could not conclude at the minimum recommended use level of 500 FTU/kg complete feed. The applicant has provided supplementary information, consisting in the statistical re‐analysis of the long‐term study assessed in the original opinion, in order to support the efficacy of the additive at the minimum recommended level of 500 FTU/kg complete feed. Considering the previously submitted studies and the re‐analysis of the long‐term study, the Panel concluded that the additive has a potential to be efficacious for chickens for fattening, other poultry for fattening or reared for laying and ornamental birds under the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of manganese(II)‐betaine complex as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species and categories. Based on the tolerance study performed in chickens, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening when used up to the maximum proposed level of manganese in feed; this conclusion was extrapolated to all animal species and categories at the corresponding maximum manganese levels in complete feed (100 mg Mn/kg feed for fish and 150 mg Mn/kg feed for all other animal species). The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of additive in animal nutrition does not represent a concern for consumer safety or for the environment. The additive is irritant to the eyes, but not irritant to skin. Owing to the presence of nickel the additive is considered to be a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. The Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious as a nutritional additive for all animal species under the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract 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 feed additive consisting of viable cells of Enterococcus faecium DSM 33761, Pediococcus acidilactici DSM 33758, Bifidobacterium animalis DSM 16284, Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM 33751 and Ligilactobacillus salivarius DSM 16351 (Biomin® C5) as a zootechnical additive (functional group: gut flora stabiliser) for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying, turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding and minor poultry species for fattening and reared for laying/breeding. Biomin® C5 is marketed in two formulations: a coated and a non‐coated formulation with a total minimum microbial count of 1 × 1011 and 4 × 1010 colony forming unit (CFU)/g product, respectively. The Panel considered that the use of Biomin® C5 in feed at the proposed conditions of use raises no risk for the target species, consumers and the environment. Both coated and non‐coated formulations of Biomin® C5 are considered respiratory and skin sensitisers, but not skin irritants. The FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the eye irritation potential of any formulation. Due to lack of sufficient data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive in the target species at the proposed conditions of use. Biomin® C5 is compatible with nicarbazin, diclazuril, decoquinate and halofuginone. No conclusions can be drawn on the compatibility of Biomin® C5 with monensin sodium, robenidine hydrochloride, maduramicin ammonium and lasalocid A sodium.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885 (Biosprint®) as a zootechnical additive for cats. The additive is already authorised for use in sows, dairy cows, horses, weaned piglets, dogs, cattle and minor ruminants for fattening and minor ruminants for dairy production. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that Biosprint® is safe when used in feeds for cats and dogs. However, based on the data available, the FEEDAP Panel was unable to conclude on the efficacy of the additive when administered to cats. In the current application, the applicant provided an additional efficacy trial in cats. Based on the previously and newly submitted data, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that Biosprint® has the potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive for cats under the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract 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 the authorisation of dicopper chloride trihydroxide as a nutritional feed additive. The additive is currently authorised for use in all animal species (3b409). The applicant is requesting a modification in the current authorising specification: (i) replacing the alpha crystal form paratacamite with clinoatacamite; (ii) removing the ratio between crystal polymorphs from the authorising specification; (iii) changing the minimum for particles below 50 μm from 1% to 5%. The FEEDAP Panel considers that the proposed modifications do not introduce concern for the safety for the target species and that the additive remains safe for the target species and the consumers when used up to the maximum authorised levels. Regarding the safety for the environment, the use of the additive in feed for terrestrial animals and land‐based aquaculture is considered safe under the proposed conditions of use. The data available do not allow the FEEDAP Panel to reach a conclusion on the safety of the additive for marine sediment when it is used in sea cages. The additive is not corrosive to skin, but is an eye and skin irritant. Due to the nickel presence, it is considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of K‐9 Heritage Probiotic Blend® when used as a zootechnical additive (functional group: gut flora stabilisers) for dogs. The product under assessment is based on viable cells of Lacticaseibacillus casei IDAC 210415‐01, Limosilactobacillus fermentum IDAC 210415‐02, Levilactobacillus brevis IDAC 051120‐02 and Enterococcus faecium IDAC 181218‐03. The FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the identification of the strains and, therefore, the safety of the product cannot be based on the presumption of safety of the active agents. The Panel notes that the use of E. faecium IDAC 181218‐03 represents a safety concern because it harbours an acquired antimicrobial resistance gene. Moreover, the hazard related to the presence of additional antimicrobial resistance genes in the active agents cannot be excluded. No tolerance trials on the target animals have been provided. Therefore, the Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety of the additive for dogs. Regarding the user safety, the Panel cannot conclude on the irritant potential of the additive for skin or eyes due to the absence of data. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agents, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on its potential to be a skin sensitiser. The use of K‐9 Heritage Probiotic Blend® in animal nutrition represents a safety concern for the environment due to the potential carryover of at least an antimicrobial resistance gene. The FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of K‐9 Heritage Probiotic Blend® for the target species.