Search

There is not a welfare protocol for horses reared for meat production in semi-extensive systems. The aims of the study were to develop a specific welfare protocol suitable to be applied at pasture and on stable; and to evaluate whether the welfare items were influenced by the farming system (pasture vs stable). 52 non-animal-based measures (N-ABMs) and 14 animal-based measures (ABMs), classified into 6 thematic areas (training, feeding, facilities, ABMs, biosecurity, health management) were selected by a focus group. The protocol was applied on a total of 429 Catria horses located across 26 pastures during the warm seasons and on 7 stables during the cold seasons. Differences obtained within each horse-unit were calculated by using the diversity index (VARNC) and the distance from the ideal (dfi) index. Chi-square test was used for comparing the relative frequencies (%) of the answers (pasture vs stable). Most the welfare items were classified as adequate in both pasture and stable, yet differences were found within ‘training’ (p = 0.02) and ‘feeding’ (p

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.

The insect farming sector is expanding, but knowledge of insect welfare is still limited. This article aims to optimize the dietary regime for “black soldier fly” (Hermetia illucens L., BSF) larvae by applying a holistic view of welfare. Four diets were tested: control (CONTR, commercial laying hen feed), vegetable (VEG), omnivorous (OMN), and carnivorous (MEAT) diet, conducting experiments at a large (2000 larvae) and small scale (100 larvae). Rearing parameters were calculated including the growth rate, substrate reduction, efficiency of conversion of digested food, waste reduction index, and survival rate. Chemical analyses were conducted on BSF larvae and the residual frass. While the MEAT diet appears to be non-well-performing for the larvae, the VEG diet performed comparably to the control diet. Interestingly, the OMN diet demonstrated improved efficiency when evaluating the growth process at both scales. The chemical composition of larvae and frass highlighted the nutritional adequacy of the OMN diet, with the BSF larvae showing adequate protein and lipid content without nutrient catabolism or signs of discomfort. Applying the five freedoms of Brambell’s report as a welfare standard for animal rearing and evaluating performance as an indirect indicator of welfare, the OMN diet appears to promote larval welfare in rearing practices.

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 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, 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, 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, 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, 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 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.

Black soldier fly larvae (BSFL) can utilize food by-products or residues for growth, benefiting farm animal’s diets’ production sustainability. The experiment aimed to assess the effect of different substrate compositions on larval growth, chemical composition, and substrate temperature. BSFL were allocated to one of the four diets (control, vegetable, carnivorous, and omnivorous) for the entire experiment (8 days). The temperature was measured twice daily using a thermal-imaging camera, and the accumulated degree hours (ADH) was calculated. The results showed that the larvae fed the vegetable diet exhibited a significantly reduced growth performance, with a biomass reduction of 26.3% compared to the control diet; furthermore, vegetable-fed larvae showed a lower dry matter content (−30% compared to the average of other diets) due to lower fat content (−65% compared to average of other diets). The nutritional composition of larvae fed an omnivorous diet was similar to larvae fed a high-quality substrate diet (control diet-chicken feed), indicating that the omnivorous diet could be an ideal solution for rearing BSFL larvae; however, the current European legislation prohibits the use of animal meal. The study also revealed that substrate temperatures did not have a discernible influence on larval growth, further emphasizing the importance of diet in BSFL rearing strategies.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of benzoic acid (Kalama®) as a zootechnical feed additive for weaned piglets at a level of 5000 mg/kg complete feed and for pigs for fattening at a minimum content of 5000 mg/kg and a maximum content of 10,000 mg/kg complete feed. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that benzoic acid is safe for weaned piglets at 5000 mg/kg complete feed and for pigs for fattening at 10,000 mg/kg complete feed. The Panel considered the use of benzoic acid under the proposed conditions of use to be of no concern for consumer safety and the environment. Benzoic acid poses a risk by inhalation, it is irritant to skin and corrosive to eyes, but no conclusions can be drawn on dermal sensitisation. The additive, benzoic acid, is efficacious as a zootechnical feed additive for weaned piglets and for pigs 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 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 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, 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 endo‐β‐1,4‐xylanase (VTR‐xylanase) as a zootechnical feed additive for all avian species, piglets (suckling and weaned) and minor growing porcine species. VTR‐xylanase is available in a powder and a liquid form and is produced by a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii (CGMCC 7.371). 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 additive does not pose any safety concern regarding the production strain. VTR xylanase (powder/liquid) produced by Komagataella phaffii CGMCC 7.371 is safe for all avian species, piglets and minor growing porcine species at the proposed conditions of use. The use of both forms of the additive under assessment in animal nutrition under the proposed conditions of use raises no safety concerns for consumers or for the environment. The liquid and powder formulations of VTR‐xylanase are non‐irritant to eyes but should be considered skin sensitisers. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the final formulations of the additive to be irritant to skin. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is a respiratory sensitiser. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in all laying birds and piglets (suckling and weaned) from all Suidae at 2,000 U/kg and in all other avian species/categories at 1,000 U/kg feed.

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 25‐hydroxycholecalciferol (produced by Pseudonocardia autotrophica DSM 32858) for all pigs, all poultry for fattening and ornamental birds and other poultry species. The production strain P. autotrophica DSM 32858 is not genetically modified however, uncertainties remain on the possible presence of its viable cells in the final product. Due to the lack of adequate safety data and uncertainty on the presence of nano particles, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species and the consumer. The additive was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes and it is not a skin sensitiser. Considering the low dusting potential of the additive, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the exposure through inhalation is unlikely. However, the FEEDAP Panel considered that uncertainties remain on genotoxicity and on the possible presence of viable cells of P. autotrophica DSM 32858 in the final product which might have an impact on the safety for the users. The use of the feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The Panel concluded that the additive has a potential to be efficacious under the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the feed additive consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) CECT 8350 and Limosilactobacillus reuteri (formerly Lactobacillus reuteri) CECT 8700 (AQ02) as a zootechnical feed additive for suckling piglets. In a previous opinion the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is considered safe for the target species, the consumer, and the environment. The Panel concluded that the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser but could not conclude on the skin/eye irritation potential or on its skin sensitisation potential. The Panel previously could not conclude on the efficacy of AQ02. The applicant has provided supplementary information to support the efficacy of the additive in suckling piglets. Based on the data provided, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive.

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 product containing β‐mannanase produced by a non‐genetically modified strain of Aspergillus niger (CBS 120604). The commercial name is Nutrixtend Optim and it is intended to be used as a zootechnical feed additive for all poultry for fattening. Based on a tolerance trial in chickens for fattening and the no observed adverse effect level identified in a subchronic oral toxicity study in rats, the additive was considered safe for all poultry for fattening. The Panel concluded that the use of the product as a feed additive does not give rise to concerns for consumers and the environment. The additive is considered an irritant to skin and eyes and a dermal sensitiser. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, it is also considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel concludes that the additive has the potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive at the level of inclusion in feed of chickens for fattening of 30 U β‐mannanase/kg complete feed. This conclusion was extrapolated to all poultry for fattening.

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 a dry grape extract (Nor‐Grape® α) as a zootechnical feed additive, functional group physiological condition stabilisers ‐ increase antioxidant defences, for all avian species. The additive is already authorised for use as a feed flavouring for all animal species, except dogs. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for all avian species. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. Based on the data submitted, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin or eye irritant or a dermal or respiratory sensitiser. However, the Panel considered that exposure through inhalation is likely. The use of the feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The Panel was unable to conclude on the potential of the additive to be efficacious 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 pancreatic extract (Pan‐zoot) as a zootechnical additive for dogs. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) could not conclude on the safety of Pan‐Zoot as a feed additive for dogs under the proposed conditions of use. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the skin/eye irritancy potential of the additive or on the dermal sensitisation potential. Owing to its proteinaceous nature, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive may induce allergic reactions to the exposed users. The Panel concluded that there is no need for an environmental risk assessment. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the product as a feed additive at the recommended conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of 27 compounds to provide a milky‐vanilla flavour belonging to different chemical groups, when used as sensory additives in feed for all animal species. Fifteen of the 27 compounds were tested in tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, piglets and cattle for fattening. 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 15 tested compounds were safe for these species at the proposed use level and conclusions were extrapolated to all animal species. For the remaining 12 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 12 compounds were safe for all animal species at the proposed use level. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of the 27 compounds up to the highest levels considered safe for target animals. No new data were submitted on the safety for the user that would allow the FEEDAP Panel to change its previous conclusion for 5‐methylhept‐2‐en‐4‐one [07.139], 5‐methylfurfural [13.001] and 4‐phenylbut‐3‐en‐2‐one [07.024]. The concentrations considered safe for the target species are unlikely to have detrimental effects on the environment for all the compounds.

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 (VTR‐phytase) as zootechnical feed additive for all pigs and all avian species. The additive VTR‐phytase consists of 6‐phytase and it is available in solid and liquid forms. VTR phytase (liquid/solid) was produced by a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii (CGMCC 7.370). 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 additive does not pose any safety concern regarding the production strain. VTR phytase (liquid/solid) produced by Komagataella phaffii CGMCC 7.370 is safe for all Suidae and all avian species at the proposed conditions of use. The use of both forms of the additive under assessment in animal nutrition under the proposed conditions of use raises no safety concerns for consumers or for the environment. The liquid VTR phytase and powder VTR phytase are non‐irritant to skin or eyes but should be considered skin and respiratory sensitisers. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in laying hens at 1,000 U phytase/kg complete feed. The conclusion can be extrapolated to other birds for egg production or breeding. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of all pigs or 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 3‐phytase produced by Komagataella phaffii (CECT 13171) (FSF10000/FLF1000) as a zootechnical additive for poultry species, pigs for fattening and minor porcine species. The production strain (CECT 13171) is genetically modified and was developed from a strain that had been previously assessed by the FEEDAP Panel. The genetic modifications present in K. phaffii CECT 13171 do not raise safety concerns and no recombinant DNA was detected in the final formulations of the additive (FSF10000/FLF1000). However, the Panel could not conclude on the identity of the production strain and uncertainty remained on the possible presence of viable cells of the production strain in the final formulations. Owing to these uncertainties, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additive regarding the production strain. The additive in either form is not irritant to eyes and skin, the liquid formulation is not a dermal sensitiser but the solid formulation is, and the two formulations should be considered potential respiratory sensitisers. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the 3‐phytase present in the additive is safe for the target species at a level of 1,000 FTU/kg feed and that would not raise safety concerns for the environment. However, considering the uncertainties on the identification of the production strain and the possible presence of viable cells in the final formulations, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species, consumer, users, and the environment. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious at 500 FTU/kg feed in poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding, pigs for fattening and minor porcine species and at 1,000 FTU/kg feed in laying hens.

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 Trichoderma reesei CBS 146250 (Axtra® PHY GOLD 30L, Axtra® PHY GOLD 30 T and Axtra® PHY GOLD 65G) as a zootechnical feed additive for all poultry species and all pigs. 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 species and all pigs at the proposed conditions of use. The Panel also concluded that the use of the product as a feed additive does not give rise to concerns for consumers and the environment. Owing to the lack of data obtained with the final formulations, the Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be irritant to eyes or skin. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, it is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The panel concludes that the additive is efficacious in increasing the phosphorus utilisation when supplemented at 500 FTU/kg for all growing poultry species and all pigs, and at 300 FTU/kg in laying hens and other laying birds.

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 the product EnzaPro containing viable cells/spores of strains of Bacillus velezensis (DSM 21836) and Bacillus licheniformis (ATCC 53757) and an endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase produced by a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii (DSM 33574) 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 strains B. velezensis DSM 21836 and B. licheniformis ATCC 53757 were considered to meet the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) requirements. The K. phaffii xylanase production strain is genetically modified. No viable cells and no recombinant DNA of the genetically modified production strain were detected in the final product. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the additive does not pose any safety concern regarding the xylanase production strain. EnzaPro is safe for all poultry species for fattening or reared to the point of lay at the proposed conditions of use. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of EnzaPro in animal nutrition is safe for the consumers and the environment. EnzaPro is not a skin irritant but should be considered an eye irritant and a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the potential of the additive to cause skin sensitisation. Due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of EnzaPro for the target species. EnzaPro is compatible with diclazuril, halofuginone and nicarbazin.

We assessed the effects of inhalation administration of lavender essential oil (LEO) either once (L1) or twice (L2) a day on animal welfare indicators, carcass and meat quality of Italian heavy pigs. Pigs (n = 108) were allotted to three experimental groups (control -C-, L1 and L2) and lavender was administered, via a vaporizer device, to the treated groups during the entire fattening–finishing period (79–160 kg BW). Tail lesion severity was reduced in L1 at the end of the trial compared to the other groups (p < 0.05). Body lesion counts, however, were higher in L2 than in C (p < 0.05), resulting in a more severe overall damage classification (p < 0.01). At slaughter, no differences were observed in carcass traits or blood stress indicators, only minor differences were observed in meat quality, and no LEO residual was found in fat or lean tissues, highlighting the preserved suitability of thighs for the dry curing process. While it was not possible to conclude on the ability to improve animal welfare of vaporized LEO in this production phase, the absence of adverse effects on meat quality and the discrepancies observed regarding the body lesions in L1 and L2 make further studies on behavioral aspects and the method of administration (route, frequency) of the product desirable.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a complete hay-based total mixed ration (TMR) for calves, focusing on their feed intake, animal growth performance, and fecal output, and to develop a preliminary estimation equation for solid feed intake and body weight in Holstein heifer calves. Twenty female Italian Holstein calves (37.14 ± 2.72 kg) born between February and July were studied from the day of birth until 77 days of age. From the fourth day of life, they were fed 3 L/day of pasteurized milk twice daily and supplemented with the same hay-based TMR. The data on feed intake, fecal characteristics, and growth performances were collected and showed that these calves had adequate parameters. Moreover, the data collected was used to create equations to predict body weight and solid feed intake using a mixed model. The goodness of fit of the developed equations was evaluated by coefficients of determinations (R2). The equation obtained shows high R2 (0.98 for solid feed intake and 0.99 for calf weight), indicating the satisfactory precision and accuracy needed to predict female calves’ body weight and solid feed intake.

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 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.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of a product consisting of Limosilactobacillus reuteri (formerly Lactobacillus reuteri) DSM 32264 as a zootechnical additive for cats. The additive is a preparation of viable cells of L. reuteri DSM 32264 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 cats at a minimum inclusion 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 32264 for cats. The applicant has provided supplementary information to support the efficacy of the additive for cats. Based on the data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that L. reuteri DSM 32264 has the potential to improve faecal consistency by reducing the moisture content of stools from cats receiving the additive at 1 × 1010 CFU/kg feed. However, the Panel had some reservations on the effects in the moisture content, which if maintained overtime, might cast doubts on the benefits on the long‐term use of the additive since it could lead to constipation.

Abstract 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.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of ROVABIO® ADVANCE (liquid and solid) which contains endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase and endo‐1,3(4)‐beta‐glucanase. The enzymes present in the additive are produced by two strains of Talaromyces versatilis, one of them genetically modified. The additive is intended to be used as a feed additive for weaned piglets and pigs for fattening. Viable cells of the production strains and DNA of the genetically modified strain were not detected in the fermentation product used to formulate the additive. Based on the results of a tolerance trial in weaned piglets, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that ROVABIO® ADVANCE is safe for weaned piglets under the recommended conditions of use. This conclusion was extended to pigs for fattening. Based on the outcome of the toxicological studies performed, the Panel concluded that the additive is of no concern regarding consumer safety. ROVABIO® ADVANCE is not irritant to the skin or eyes but it is a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No risks to the environment are expected from the use of the additive in animal nutrition. Owing to the lack of sufficient data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of ROVABIO® ADVANCE.

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 HOSTAZYM® X as a feed additive for sows in order to have benefits in piglets. This additive consists of endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase produced by a non‐genetically modified strain of Trichoderma citroviride. The additive is to be used in sows at 1,500 EPU/kg feed. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive when added to feed for sows in order to have benefits in piglets. The applicant provided new efficacy data to complete the assessment of the efficacy of the additive. Based on the previously assessed data and the newly submitted one, the Panel could not 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 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.

To date, especially in Europe, few studies have analysed the implications of long journeys on pig welfare and economic losses, expressed in terms of transport mortality. This study retrospectively analysed data collected from slaughtering registers and travel journals in a large Italian abattoir. We focused on pig transports coming from abroad and arriving at the slaughter plant after long journeys (a total of 59,982 pigs over 370 journeys). We explored the relationship between mortality and the following variables: country of origin, journey duration, astronomical season, stocking density on the truck, number of stops, and prolonged stops during the journey (lasting more than 60 min, likely due to traffic jams or truck problems). Overall, the low mortality rate observed (0.09%) was in line with European estimates. The factors with a significant or tendential effect on mortality during transport were the astronomical season (p = 0.0472, with higher mortality in spring) and the presence of prolonged stops during the journey (p = 0.069, tendential effect). Journey duration, stocking density, country of origin, and the number of stops were not statistically significant. In conclusion, based on this case study, using transport mortality combined with data collected during the common routine activity by the Public Veterinary Services in slaughterhouses could be a simple screening method for identifying problematic journeys or transport conditions.

The aim of this study was to evaluate if and how the perception of animal welfare by Italian consumers and their purchasing behavior of animal-friendly foods have evolved in recent years. The research was carried out through a survey on a representative sample of Italian consumers (n=969). Responses showed that 69% of consumers declared to pay attention to animal welfare at time of purchasing, and they mostly acquired information about animal welfare through the mass media. In accordance with previous surveys, the categories perceived as having the highest welfare level were fish and dairy cows, whereas the lowest welfare level was attributed to broilers and pigs. Compared to previous surveys, Italian consumers seem to have improved their knowledge about the legislation on animal protection and increased their interest toward animal welfare issues. However, they still find it difficult to identify animalfriendly labels, together with a lack of knowledge about non-conventional (e.g. extensive and organic) farming systems.

Abstract The additive Biosprint® contains viable cells of Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885 and is authorised as a feed additive in sows, dairy cows, horses, piglets (weaned), cattle for fattening, minor ruminants for fattening and minor ruminants for dairy products. The applicant has requested to extend the use of the additive to cats and dogs at a minimum inclusion level of 7 × 1010 CFU/kg of complete feed. S. cerevisiae is considered by EFSA to have qualified presumption of safety status and consequently is considered safe for the target species. The additive is considered as a potential skin and eye irritant and a skin and respiratory sensitiser. Based on the results on efficacy studies provided, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that Biosprint® is efficacious when used in feeds for dogs. However, the FEEDAP Panel considered that the biological relevance of the magnitude of the effect detected is questionable. Based on the trial available, the FEEDAP Panel was unable to conclude on the efficacy of the additive when administered to cats.

Two independent trials were carried out to assess the effect of two enrichment tools on the prevalence of skin and tail lesions recorded prior of slaughtering, lesions of the pars oesophagea (OGL) of the stomach, and on carcase and meat quality traits in Italian heavy pigs (body weight range: 25–160 kg). Eighty undocked barrows (Landrace × Large White) were used in two trials (20 pigs/experimental group, 5 pigs/pen). In Trial 1, the control group received a hanging metal chain (C1), while the other group received wood logs (WL) placed inside a metal rack. In Trial 2, the control group was provided with hanging chain (C2), while the pen of the other group was enriched with a vegetal edible block (EB) placed inside the metal rack. In both trials, no differences were observed in the prevalence and severity of skin, tail and gastric lesions (p > .05). In Trial 1, WL pigs presented lower backfat (p = .01), higher lean meat percentage (p = .03) and higher drip loss in the loin muscle (p = .02) than C1 pigs. Tail score and gastric lesions showed a moderate correlation (r = 0.42; p = .01) in Trial 1. Treatments had no effect on carcase or meat quality traits in Trial 2 (p > .05). In conclusion, the two enrichments provided did not affect body and gastric lesions, carcase and meat quality of Italian heavy pigs, if compared to the metal chains.

Two independent trials were carried out to test the effectiveness of different environmental enrichments in improving Italian heavy pigs’ welfare. Eighty undocked Landrace × Large White barrows (body weight range: 27.1–158.4 kg) were used. In Trial 1, group C1 received a metal chain and group WL wooden logs (placed inside a specifically designed metal rack). In trial two, the enrichments proposed were a hanging chain (C2), and a vegetal edible block (EB) inside the metal rack. General health, animal behaviour, hair cortisol, blood parameters and growth performance were recorded. In Trial 1, WL pigs interacted with the enrichment at a lower extent than C1 (p

This work investigates the effects of structural modifications on the welfare level and laying patterns of hens in a three-tier commercial aviary system. Four experimental groups were used: C (control, housed in a traditional aviary); LM (longitudinal movement, in which internal partitions were removed); VM (vertical movement, in which ramps were installed); and FM (freedom of movement, both LM and VM modifications). Hens showed worse body condition scores (p < 0.05) in all the modified aviaries, while plumage condition was improved in FM but worsened in VM (p < 0.05). No significant effect was observed on egg deposition patterns, egg quality or keel bone damage. When ramps were available (VM and FM groups), hens reduced the number of flights and increased the number of walks from 0.52 to 7.7% of the displacements on average (p < 0.05). Apart from some feather pecking concerns in VM (likely due to overcrowding in some favourite aviary areas), LM and FM seemed to facilitate animal movement and promote species–specific behaviour. It is concluded that hen welfare in aviary systems can be improved by means of tailored structural modifications. Producers may therefore adopt some of these modifications (providing ramps and/or removing vertical barriers) to enhance the welfare of hens.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of disodium 5’‐guanylate produced by fermentation with Corynebacterium stationis KCCM 10530 and Escherichia coli K‐12 KFCC 11067 when used as a sensory additive (flavouring compound) in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The additive does not raise safety concerns under the proposed conditions of use for the target species, consumers the users and the environment. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) expressed reservations on the use of the additive in water for drinking due to concerns on its impact on hygienic conditions of the water. The Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious to contribute to the flavour of feed.

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 feed additive consisting of four bacteriophages infecting Salmonella Gallinarum B/00111 (PCM F/00069, PCM F/00070, PCM F/00071 and PCM F/00097, trade name: Bafasal®) when used as a zootechnical additive in water for drinking and liquid complementary feed for all avian species. The effects sought are the reduction of the Salmonella spp. carriage in chickens for fattening, the improvement of their performance, or both. The host strain harbours an acquired antimicrobial resistance gene. No viable cells or DNA from the host organism were found in the additive. The four phages proved to be strictly lytic and to have a machinery allowing to package a unit‐length of the viral genome. The manufacturing process excludes the presence of remnants from the propagation process in the final additive. Consequently, no concerns are expected from the nature and manufacture of the product. Considering this and the results of the tolerance study with chickens for fattening, the Panel concluded that Bafasal® is safe for all avian species. Considering the nature and manufacturing process of the additive, Bafasal® is not expected to pose a risk for consumers. The results of the subchronic oral toxicity study and genotoxicity studies provided support this conclusion. Exposure of users via inhalation is expected to be low, but Bafasal® should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions were drawn on the irritancy of Bafasal® to skin and eyes or on its dermal sensitisation potential due to lack of data. Considering the nature and manufacturing process of the additive, Bafasal® is safe for the environment. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Bafasal® for any avian species due to insufficient data.

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 the additive consisting of Companilactobacillus farciminis (formerly Lactobacillus farciminis) CNCM I‐3740 (tradename: Biacton®) for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and laying hens. The additive is a preparation containing viable cells of C. farciminis CNCM I‐3740 at the minimum concentration of 1 × 109 CFU/g additive. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel assessed the safety and the efficacy of the product when used in these target species. The Panel concluded that based on the qualified presumption of safety of the active agent, and the lack of concerns deriving from other components of the additive, Biacton® was presumed safe for the target animals, consumers and the environment. Regarding the safety for the user, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to be irritant to skin and eyes or its dermal sensitisation due to the lack of data. However, it concluded that the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The data provided in the previous assessment to support the efficacy of the additive did not allow drawing conclusions on the efficacy of the additive in any of the target species. The additional information submitted with chickens for fattening and laying hens did not provide sufficient evidence to conclude on the efficacy of Biacton® for these target species. No new information was provided that would lead the Panel to reconsider the conclusions already reached on the use of the additive with turkeys for fattening. The FEEDAP Panel, based on the available data, cannot conclude on the efficacy of Biacton® in chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and laying hens.

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 Belfeed B MP/ML as a feed additive for sows in order to have benefits in piglets. The additive is to be used in to sows in order to have benefits in piglets and to all porcine species at any developmental stage at 10 IU/kg feed. This additive consists of endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase produced by a genetically modified strain of Bacillus subtilis (LMG S‐15136). In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additive for the users regarding the potential of the additive as dermal sensitiser and on the efficacy of the additive when added to feed for sows in order to have benefits in piglets. In the absence of new information, the FEEDAP Panel retained its previous conclusion that the additive is not irritant to skin or eyes but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on its potential to be a dermal sensitiser. The applicant provided new efficacy data and complementary information regarding a previous study. Based on the previously assessed data and the newly submitted ones, the Panel concludes that although the additive has a potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive in sows during the lactation period at the level of 10 IU/kg feed, the data are considered not sufficient to conclude on a beneficial effect on the performance of the litters.

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 consisting of Bacillus licheniformis DSM 28710 (trade name: B‐Act®) when used in feed for laying hens, minor poultry species for laying and for breeding purposes and ornamental birds. B. licheniformis is considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The identity of the active agent was established, and it does not harbour acquired antimicrobial resistance genes or has toxigenic potential. Following the QPS approach, B. licheniformis DSM 28710 is presumed safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Since no concerns are expected from the other components of the additive, B‐Act® is also considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin/eye irritation or skin sensitisation potential of the additive, but B‐Act® is considered a respiratory sensitiser. B‐Act® when supplemented at 1.6 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed has the potential to be efficacious in laying hens. Considering also that the efficacy of the product was already shown in chickens and turkeys for fattening, the Panel concludes that the additive has the potential to be efficacious in minor poultry species for laying, poultry species for breeding purposes and for ornamental birds at the same inclusion level. The conclusions on the compatibility of B‐Act® with coccidiostats previously drawn apply to the current application provided that the maximum authorised concentrations of the coccidiostats for the target species are equal or lower than those for chickens.

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 for target animals of manganese chelates of lysine and glutamic acid (Manganese‐LG) as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. The European Commission request followed an opinion of the FEEDAP Panel published in 2020; in that opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could conclude on the safety of the additive for chickens for fattening, but not for the rest of the target animals. The applicant submitted additional information to allow the FEEDAP Panel to complete its assessment; these additional data, comprising two tolerance studies (one with chickens for fattening and one with laying hens), were the subject of this opinion. The tolerance study in laying hens was not considered for the assessment since the housing conditions of the animals were not appropriate according to the relevant EU provisions. The results of the tolerance study in chickens for fattening showed that Manganese‐LG at the highest level tested – 800 mg Mn/kg feed – is safe for these target animals. The FEEDAP Panel also considered a previous tolerance study in chickens for fattening. Taking all the evidence together the Panel concluded that Manganese‐LG is safe for chickens for fattening at 150 mg Mn/kg feed, with a margin of safety of 5.5. This conclusion can be extrapolated to all animal species and categories provided that the maximum authorised levels in the EU for total manganese in feed are not exceeded.

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 muramidase produced by Trichoderma reesei DSM 32338 (Balancius™) as a feed additive for weaned piglets. The additive has been previously assessed by the FEEDAP Panel in the context of other applications, and in the current assessment the applicant requests for an extension of use. Based on the data available in a sub‐chronic oral toxicity study, the Panel concluded that the additive is safe for weaned piglets at the maximum recommended level of 65,000 LSU(F)/kg feed. The additive is safe for the consumers and the environment but should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. The Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive for skin/eye irritancy and skin sensitisation. The additive has the potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive for weaned piglets at the dose of 50,000 LSU(F)/kg feed.

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 of 31 compounds belonging to different chemical groups, when used as sensory additives in feed for all animal species. Twenty‐two out of the 31 compounds were tested in tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, piglets and cattle for fattening. For the remaining nine compounds, read across from structurally similar compounds was proposed. No adverse effects were observed in the tolerance studies at 10‐fold the intended level. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the 22 compounds are safe for these species at the proposed use level and conclusions were extrapolated to all animal species for all the compounds except for α‐damascone [07.134]. In the absence of data that would allow the FEEDAP Panel to rule out the genotoxicity concern, the FEEDAP Panel cannot extend the conclusions for α‐damascone [07.134] to all animal species and cannot conclude on the safety for the consumer, the user and the environment. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of the remaining 30 compounds up to the highest levels considered safe for target animals. The revised maximum safe levels for the 30 compounds are not expected to further impact on the previous conclusions on user safety. The concentrations considered safe for the target species are unlikely to have detrimental effects on the environment for all the compounds except β‐damascone [07.083] and (E)‐β‐damascone [07.224], for which in the absence of ecotoxicity data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the terrestrial compartments. For the marine environment, the safe use level for 2‐methyl‐1‐phenylpropan‐2‐ol [02.035], α‐irone [07.011], β‐damascone [07.083] and (E)‐β‐damascone [07.224], phenethyl isovalerate [09.466], 4‐(p‐hydroxyphenyl) butan‐2‐one [07.055] and 2‐isopropyl‐4‐methylthiazole [15.026] is confirmed to be 0.05 mg/kg.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Bonvital® for laying hens. Bonvital® is an additive containing viable cells of Enterococcus faeciumDSM 7134 marketed in two forms, a granular and a powder form, both with a guaranteed minimum concentration of E. faeciumDSM 7134 of 1.0 × 1010 colony forming units (CFU)/g additive. Bonvital® in either form is intended for use in feed for laying hens at the minimum concentration of 1.0 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed and at the maximum concentration of 1.0 × 1010 CFU/kg feedingstuffs. Bonvital powder® is also proposed for use in water for drinking at the minimum concentration of 5.0 × 108 CFU/L. The use of Bonvital® in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target animals. The results of a tolerance trial in which hens were fed the additive at 10‐fold the maximum recommended dose support this conclusion. Delivery of comparable doses of the additive via water for drinking is considered as safe for laying hens. Bonvital® at the proposed conditions of use is safe for consumers of products derived from animals fed the additive and for the environment. Bonvital® is not a dermal or ocular irritant but a potential dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Bonvital® has the potential to be efficacious in improving the hen's performance when supplemented at 1.0 × 109 CFU/kg feed or 5.0 × 108 CFU/L water for drinking.

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 OptiPhos® PLUS (6‐phytase) as a zootechnical feed additive for suckling and weaned piglets, pigs for fattening, sows, other minor pig species for fattening and other minor reproductive pig species. The additive is a preparation of 6‐phytase produced by a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii and has been previously assessed by the FEEDAP Panel in the context of two applications for its use in different species/categories. The Panel concluded in those opinions that the production strain is safe, and that the use of the additive as a feed additive would raise no safety concerns for the consumers and the environment. The additive was also considered not to be skin irritant but was found to be a dermal sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. Based on the tolerance studies provided, the Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the target species under the conditions of use with a wide margin of safety and therefore the conclusion were extended to suckling piglets and extrapolated to other minor pig species for fattening and to other minor reproductive pig species. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious in weaned piglets, pigs for fattening and in sows at the level of 250 FTU/kg feed and this conclusion were extended to suckling piglets and extrapolated to other minor pig species for fattening and to other minor reproductive pig 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 3‐phytase FLF1000/FSF10000 as a feed additive for pigs for fattening and minor porcine species for growing. This additive contains 3‐phytase produced by a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii and it is authorised in its liquid FLF1000 and solid form FSF10000 as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, laying hens, chickens reared for laying and for minor poultry species for fattening or reared for laying or for breeding. The FEEDAP Panel has adopted an opinion regarding the use of this product as a feed additive in pigs for fattening and minor porcine species for growing. In that opinion, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the product as a feed additive would raise no concerns for the consumer safety nor for the environment but that the additive should be regarded as a potential respiratory sensitizer. The Panel also concluded that the additive has a potential to be efficacious in improving the phosphorus utilisation in the target species. However, the Panel could not conclude on the safety for the target species due to the limitations identified in the data provided. The applicant has now complemented the information and made it available to the Panel. The tolerance trial was done in weaned piglets in which the animals received up to 10 times the recommended dose of 1,000 FTU/kg feed. The results showed no adverse effects of the phytase on the performance of the animals or on the haematological and biochemical parameters measured in blood. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the additive (3‐phytase FLF1000 and FSF10000) is safe for pigs for fattening and minor growing porcine species at the recommended dose of 1,000 FTU/kg feed.