Search

This article presents results of the influence of three probiotic feed additive of various microbiological composition: Bacillus subtilis (VKPM B-2335); B. subtilis (OZ-2 VKPM-11966) + Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (OZ-3 VKPM-11967); Lactobacillus acidophilus (VKPM B-3235) on the growth and histology of the organs of the gastrointestinal tract of juvenile Oncorhynchus mykiss by morphometric parameters. These probiotic bacteria are the most commonly used in aquaculture. The effect of the probiotic feed additive led to the increase in fish growth and influenced different sections of the gastrointestinal tract. The biggest change was found in the mid intestine and the reliable difference compared with the control diet was obtained at the following parameters: lamina propria width, intraepithelial lymphocytes number of prismatic epithelium and goblet cells area. The changes in the pyloric appendages were less obvious but reported as playing an important functional role in digestion. The liver preserved normal functional structure in all series of the experiment except for the group with L. acidophilus, where hepatocyte small-drop vacuolization was observed. That might be connected with the change of the digest activity resulting from a decrease in secretory activity of the intestinal exocrinocytes. The use of all probiotic feed additives led to a similar change in morphometric parameters in all groups, which suggests a decrease in the immune response.

BACKGROUND Yeast hydrolysate (YH) has multiple salutary biological activities. Nevertheless, the application of YH in broiler production is limited. This study was conducted to evaluate the protective effects of YH derived from Saccharomyces cerevisiae by exploring growth performance, serum parameters, organs relative weight, carcass traits, meat quality and antioxidant status of broilers. RESULTS Supplementing YH linearly and quadratically improved (P

Livestock blood discarded during slaughtering has potentially valuable components such as plasma proteins and haemoglobin. Plasma is used as a feed additive following processing via different methods, including spray drying, whereas blood cells have been underutilized. In this study, we developed haemoglobin hydrolysate (HH) and iron-enriched residue (IER) from porcine blood cells and investigated whether their oral administration regulates the immune system and gut microbiota in growing rats. Twenty-one Sprague-Dawley male rats (n = 7) were used during a 4-week trial and were fed a control, HH or IER diet. The ratio of beneficial bacteria such as Lactobacillus and Akkermansia strains increased in rats fed HH or IER diets. Moreover, compared with the control group, the IER group had an elevated ratio of Lactobacillus to Enterobacteria, which is regarded as an index of beneficial aspect in the gut. Phagocytosis of peripheral blood leucocytes was higher in the HH and IER groups than in the control group. The level of plasma immunoglobulin G increased to approximately 72.7 mg/ml and 152.0 mg/ml in the HH and IER groups, respectively, which was significantly (p

BACKGROUND Several feed additives have been used in recent past to reduce enteric methane production in ruminants. But most of them also inhibit feed digestibility and rumen fermentation, thereby lowering animal performance. Phytogenic feed additives are gaining importance owing to their safety in regard to human health issues. The present study examined the effect of dietary supplementation of phytogenic feed additive containing a blend of poplar (Populus deltoides) and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus citriodora) leaves on feed utilization, milk production, methane emissions and health status of Murrah buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis). RESULTS The daily milk yield, 6% fat corrected milk yield, and fat-protein corrected milk yield were increased (P

High ambient temperature is one of the major causes of economic losses in the livestock industry. The poultry industry is an integral part of the livestock industry. It faces severe losses due to heat stress (HS). The adverse effects of HS can be seen on production performance, body temperature, intestinal health, appetite hormone regulation, immune responses and oxidative characteristics. It is important to monitor these parameters to identify the HS possessions during rearing so that timely action can be taken to minimize the adverse effects of high ambient temperature. Furthermore, the application of productive methods on farms is equally important. Several strategies have been suggested by researchers. Providing a suitable environment with selective rearing systems along with proper ventilation and hygiene is the basic requirement for all types of livestock reared for animal protein. Supplementation of appropriate feed additive could be useful for improving intestinal absorption and minimizing adverse effects of HS. Selection for breeding heat resistant birds also provide merits for improving the germplasm of the strains. Early age thermal conditioning also helps in developing resistance for HS. The most recent advancement is the supplementation of active substances during incubation. It is expected that these methods may have a potential impact on the poultry industry for creating thermotolerance in the newly hatched chicks. This review highlights the major issues concerning chicken health and suggests the measures to be adopted following the increase in environmental temperature.

Chlortetracycline (CTC), an antimicrobial administered as a feed additive to cattle, swine, and poultry, is present in the corresponding manure. Land application of raw or processed (composted or stockpiled) manure provides a mechanism by which CTC (and other antimicrobials) enters the environment and becomes available for transport to surface receiving waters via rainfall or snowmelt runoff. Chlortetracycline has been detected in Canadian surface waters, but little has been reported on its fate in aquatic ecosystems. To address this knowledge gap, the dissipation of CTC-enol was monitored in deionized water and water typical of wetlands within the prairie region of Canada. In deionized water, CTC-enol tautomerized to CTC-keto, and both tautomers epimerized to 4-epi-CTC-enol and 4-epi-CTC-keto, respectively. Irreversible isomerization to iso-CTC occurred, which then epimerized to 4-epi-iso-CTC. In wetland water, although tauterization of CTC-enol to CTC-keto occurred, there was no evidence of the formation of the 4-epimers of either CTC-enol or CTC-keto. The major product formed in the wetland water was iso-CTC, some of which epimerized to 4-epi-iso-CTC. Although CTC-enol was shown to tautomerize to CTC-keto, the concentration of CTC-keto remained low in both deionized and wetland water, suggesting that the isomerization of CTC-enol to iso-CTC most likely occurred via CTC-keto. The dissipation of CTC-enol in wetland water was described by pseudo first-order kinetics with a DT50 (time required for 50% dissipation) value of 4.8 h. The short DT50 value of CTC and reduced antimicrobial activity of iso-CTC and 4-epi-iso-CTC suggest a lower probability for selection for CTC-resistant bacteria in Canadian Prairie aquatic ecosystems.

The supplementation of fish diets with herbal medicines aimed at improving growth and flesh quality is an attractive subject in fish nutrition research. In the present study, the effects of barberry root on the growth performance, muscle fatty acids profile, whole‐body composition, and digestive enzymes of rainbow trout were investigated. A total of 306 rainbow trout fingerlings (15.55 ± 0.76 g) were fed various diets in groups including the control (C), BRP10 (10 g/kg of barberry root powder), BRP20 (20 g/kg of barberry root powder), BRE250 (250 mg/kg of barberry root extract), BRE500 (500 mg/kg of barberry root extract), and OTC30 (30 g/kg oxytetracycline) groups. After 56 days, the results indicated that fish fed the BRE250, BRE500, and OTC30 diets had significantly higher weight gain (592.23, 580.43, and 605.21%, respectively) compared with the other dietary treatments (p p p −1), trypsin (57.16 U/mg protein−1), and lipase (5.62 U/mg protein−1). Based on the current findings, barberry root is suggested to be a promising and strategic feed additive in the aquaculture industry as it promotes growth performance and improves flesh quality.

This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of dietary sodium butyrate (SB) supplementation on growth performance, the development of gastrointestinal tract and immune organs (thymus, spleen and bursa of fabricius), and serum antibody titer after Newcastle disease (ND) vaccination in broilers. The total of 288 1‐day‐old broilers were randomly allocated to four groups with six replications according to initial body weight. Four treatment groups were designed as follows and fed the indicated diets: CON, basal diet; T1, basal diet supplemented with 0.3 g/kg SB; T2, basal diet supplemented with 0.6 g/kg SB; T3, basal diet supplemented with 1.2 g/kg SB. During days 1–21, broilers fed the T2 diet had higher (p, Dietary SB improved the growth performance, the development of gastrointestinal by increasing the relative weight and length as well as enhanced the immune response of ND vaccine.

An experiment was conducted to determine the effect of Moringa oleifera leaves (MOL) on breeder hen performance, hatching egg quality and blood parameters. A total of 180 Sasso broiler breeder hens were used for the study. They were allotted to two groups each containing 3 replicates of 30 hens of 18 weeks of age. Dietary treatments were a control diet (basal diet without moringa leaves) and a diet containing 10g of moringa leaves in 1kg of control diet (1% w/w). The experiment lasted 40 weeks. The following production parameters; feed intake, egg weight, laying rate and feed conversion ratio were measured for the whole experimental period while egg quality and blood parameters were assessed at different ages. Results showed that laying rate and hatching egg weight were improved by moringa meal diet for the whole experimental period. Feed intake and feed conversation ratio were decreased (p .05) by incorporation of moringa in the diet. It was concluded that the use of moringa leaves as feed additive in Sasso breeders diet improved productivity and quality of hatching eggs., Use of Moringa oleifera leaves as feed additive improve broiler breeders’ performances, number and weight of hatching eggs; and yolk colour. Except HDL cholesterol, serum lipids and atherogenic index are reduced by this phytobiotic.

BACKGROUND l-Theanine has multiple beneficial biological activities. However, there is little information about the use of l-theanine in broiler production. Therefore, this study investigated the effect of l-theanine on growth performance, intestinal development and health, and the mRNA levels of intestinal peptide and amino acid (AA) transporters of broilers. RESULTS Body weight and average daily gain were increased by l-theanine, whereas feed to gain ratio was decreased (quadratic, P

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

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 Panelon 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 Panelconcluded that no safety concerns would arise from the presence of DNA from the production strain in the additive. In the current assessment, the FEEDAP Panelconcluded that the additive is safe for all avian species at the recommended level of 100 ADXU/kg feed. Similarly, the FEEDAP Panelconcluded that Beltherm MP/ML is safe for the consumer and the environment. Concerning the user safety, the FEEDAP Panelconcluded 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 Panelcould not conclude on the efficacy of the product for the target species for which the application was made.

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

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

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

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Bacillus velezensis DSM 15544 (Calsporin®) when used as a feed additive for piglets (suckling and weaned), pigs for fattening, sows in order to have benefit in piglets, ornamental fish, dogs and all avian species. The additive is authorised for use in sows, suckling and weaned piglets, pigs for fattening, chickens for fattening, laying hens, ornamental fish and dogs. With this application the company requested a new authorisation for all avian species and the modification of the current authorisations as regards the strain taxonomy from Bacillus subtilis DSM 15544 to B. velezensis DSM 15544. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the active agent of Calsporin® should be taxonomically designated as Bacillus velezensis DSM 15544. The Panel also concluded that Calsporin® is presumed safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Calsporin® is not a dermal/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. Calsporin® when supplemented at 3 × 108 CFU/kg complete feed has the potential to be efficacious in all avian species for rearing, fattening, laying and breeding purposes.

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

The additive under assessment is a dried aqueous ethanol extract of Melissa officinalis L. leaves, intended to be used as a sensory additive (flavouring compound) in feed for all animal species. The aqueous ethanol extract is specified to contain ≥ 10% of hydroxycinnamic acid derivatives including ≥ 3% of rosmarinic acid. In a previous assessment, considering the contradictory data from the Ames tests and uncertainty about the qualitative and quantitative presence of flavonoids and other compounds in the extract from M. officinalis L. leaves, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) could not conclude on the safety of the additive at the proposed use levels of up to 100 mg/kg complete feed for the target species, the consumer and the user. The new data submitted identified luteolin 3′‐glucuronide as the only flavonoid present in the additive, improved the characterisation of the hydroxycinnamates present and demonstrated that the additive is not genotoxic. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive under assessment is safe up to the maximum proposed use level of 100 mg/kg complete feed for all animal species. The use in water for drinking is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of the additive up to the highest safe level in animal nutrition. The exposure of users to dusts from the additive is not of concern. No data are provided on irritant properties for eyes or skin, thus no conclusion can be drawn on these aspects. Due to the nature of the additive, it may be assumed to be potentially both a skin and respiratory sensitiser.

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 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) DSM 26571 when used as a technological additive intended to improve ensiling of forage. The additive is intended for use with all forages and for all animal species at a proposed application rate of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species L. plantarum is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. As the identity of the strain has been clearly established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers and for the environment. The additive is not irritant to skin or eyes and is not a skin sensitiser but should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the addition of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 26571 at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg may improve the production of silage from easy, moderately difficult and difficult to ensile forage material.

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of butylated hydroxy anisole (BHA) when used as a technological additive (antioxidant) in feed for cats. BHA is a waxy solid consisting for > 98.5% of the active substance, a mixture of 3‐tert‐butyl‐4‐hydroxyanisole and 2‐tert‐butyl‐4‐hydroxyanisole and is currently authorised for use in all animal species except in cats. In support of the safety of the additive for the target species, the applicant has submitted a tolerance study which demonstrated that BHA is tolerated by cats at a concentration up to 150 mg/kg complete feed. The additive should be considered a skin, eye irritant and a potential skin sensitiser. Exposure of the user via inhalation was considered unlikely; therefore, a risk is not expected. BHA is authorised as an antioxidant for food use at comparable use levels; therefore, no studies were required to demonstrate the efficacy of BHA as an antioxidant in complete feed for cats.

The tincture derived from Verbascum thapsus L. (great mullein tincture) is intended to be used as a sensory additive in feed for all animal species. The product is a water/ethanol solution, with a dry matter content of ˜ 2.8% and contains on average 0.216% polyphenols including 0.093% flavonoids. According to a previous assessment, the additive was not characterised in full and about 82% of the dry matter fraction remained uncharacterised (representing 2.26% of the tincture). There was also uncertainty on the potential presence of iridoid glycosides in the tincture. Therefore, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) could not conclude on the safety of the additive at the proposed use levels of up to 50 g/kg complete feed for all animal species or for the consumer. The applicant has provided new data which show that the unidentified fraction consists of crude fibre, other carbohydrates, and protein. The tincture also contains aucubin (0.004%). Considering the genotoxic potential of aucubin and other related iridoids, no conclusions can be drawn for long‐living animals (pets and other non‐food producing animals, horses and animals for reproduction). For short‐living animals (animals for fattening), the FEEDAP Panel concludes that the tincture is safe at the maximum proposed use level of 50 mg/kg complete feed and that the use in water for drinking is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. No safety concerns would arise for the consumer from the use of the tincture up to the highest safe level in animal nutrition. In the absence of data, no conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the tincture to be a dermal/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser.

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 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) IMI 507028 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive is intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 1 × 109 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species L. plantarum is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach. As the identity of the strain has been established and no antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers and for the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive at the proposed application rate of 1 × 109 CFU/kg fresh material has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silages from easy to moderately difficult to ensile forages.

In 2012, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) issued an opinion on the safety and efficacy of acetic acid when used as a technological additive (preservative) for all animal species. The characterisation and condition of use of the additive are the same as those already assessed by the FEEDAP Panel in the previous opinion on acetic acid. Acetic acid produced with the new manufacturing process complies with the specifications set by Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012. The FEEDAP Panel considers that the conclusions reached in the previous assessment apply to the acetic acid produced by the new manufacturing process. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is considered safe for poultry, pigs and pet animals at a maximum concentration of 2.5 g acetic acid/kg complete feed (or 1 g/L water for drinking). The known high endogenous production of acetic acid in the ruminants shows that the tolerance of these target animals is considerably higher. No data is available for salmonids. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. The risks for users handling the additive depend on the concentration and include skin, eyes, and respiratory tract irritation (10–25% solution) and corrosion (> 25% solution). The use of the additive as a feed additive is considered safe for the environment. The Panel concluded that the additive has a potential to be efficacious as preservative in feedingstuffs and water for drinking. The FEEDAP Panel has some reservations about the effectiveness of acetic acid as preservative in dry feedingstuffs with a typical moisture content of ≤ 12%.

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of titanium dioxide (TiO2) for all animal species. TiO2 is applied to be used as a sensory additive (functional group: colourants; i) substances that add or restore colour in feedingstuffs). The specification for TiO2 used as feed additive meets the specifications of TiO2 used as food additive. The EFSA Panel on Food Additive and Flavourings (FAF) concluded that TiO2 (E171) can no longer be considered as safe when used as a food additive. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) endorses this conclusion and considers that it also applies to TiO2 as a feed additive for all animal species. TiO2 is absorbed to a low extent; however, particles of TiO2 can accumulate in the body due to their long half‐life. The genotoxicity of TiO2 particles cannot be ruled out raising potential concerns on the safety of the additive for the target species (especially for long‐living animals and reproductive animals), consumers and user. Considering this fact and the absence of specific data related to its use as a feed additive, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety of TiO2 for the target species, consumers and environment. In the absence of studies with the additive under assessment, the Panel cannot conclude on the assessment of the effects of the additive on eyes and skin. TiO2 is potentially carcinogenic to workers if inhaled. The concern for genotoxicity of TiO2 particles cannot be ruled out, this should be considered as an additional potential concern to users handling the additive. TiO2 is efficacious in colouring the food for cats and dogs at a minimum content of 1%.

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 assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of vitamin B6 (pyridoxine hydrochloride) produced by chemical synthesis as a feed additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided data demonstrating that the additive in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel confirms that the use of pyridoxine hydrochloride under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. Pyridoxine hydrochloride is non‐irritant to skin and eyes. In the absence of data, no conclusion can be drawn on skin sensitisation potential. Pyridoxine hydrochloride may cause photosensitisation. Despite the lack of data on inhalation toxicity, the additive is not dusty and exposure through inhalation is unlikely. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) DSM 12836, as a technological additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There was no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The additive was not irritant to skin and eyes but is considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. The present application for renewal of the authorisation did not include a proposal for amending or supplementing the conditions of the original authorisation that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive. Therefore, there was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

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 expressed mandarin oil from the fruit peels of Citrus reticulata Blanco, when used as a sensory additive (flavouring) in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the essential oil under assessment is safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 15 mg/kg for poultry, 33 mg/kg for pigs, 30 mg/kg for ruminants, 40 mg/kg for horse, and 15 mg/kg for salmon and rabbit. The presence of perillaldehyde was identified as a source of potential concern. However, in target species fed citrus by‐products as part of daily feed the use of the expressed mandarin oil in feed was not expected to increase the exposure to perillaldehyde to a relevant extent (< 4%). For companion animals and ornamental fish not normally exposed to citrus by‐products, no conclusion can be drawn. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use in water for drinking is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. No concerns for consumer safety were identified following the use of the additive up to the maximum proposed use level in feed. The essential oil under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin, eyes and the respiratory tract, and as a skin sensitiser. The use of the additive in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Expressed mandarin oil was recognised to flavour food. Since its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

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 phyllite, a natural mixture of minerals of metamorphic origin, as a feed additive for all animal species. The additive, specified to contain at least 40% of mica, muscovite, illite, chlorite and talc as the main components, and maximum 60% of quartz, potassium‐feldspar, sodium‐feldspar and calcite, is intended for use as a technological additive (functional groups: (i) anticaking agents) in premixtures and feedingstuffs for all animal species at a maximum inclusion level of 25,000 mg/kg. The additive is safe for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying/breeding at the maximum inclusion level of 25,000 mg/kg feed, with no margin of safety determined. Owing the absence of data in pigs and ruminants and in the absence of data on the potential genotoxicity of the additive, the Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety of the additive for any other animal species/categories. The additive is considered safe for the consumers and the environment at the proposed conditions of use. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin and eye irritant and skin sensitiser. Exposure via inhalation is considered a risk. The FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive as an anticaking agent.

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 extension of use of the feed additive consisting of Bacillus velezensis CECT 5940 (tradename: Ecobiol®) to turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding, minor poultry species for fattening and reared for laying and ornamental birds (except for reproduction). The product under assessment is based on viable spores of a strain originally identified as Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. During the course of the current assessment, the active agent has been reclassified as B. velezensis CECT 5940. The bacterial species B. velezensis is considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The identity of the active agent was established and the compliance with the other qualifications confirmed. Therefore, B. velezensis CECT 5940 is presumed safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Since no concerns are expected from the other components of the additive, the additive Ecobiol® is also considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. The additive is not irritant to skin/eye or a skin sensitiser, but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The efficacy data previously evaluated allowed the Panel to conclude that the additive has the potential to be efficacious at the level of 1 × 109 CFU/kg feed in turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding, minor poultry species for fattening and reared for laying and ornamental birds (except for reproduction).

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 Panelon 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 Panelconcluded that the additive is efficacious to contribute to the flavour of feed.