Search

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the feed additive consisting of endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase (produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49755) and endo‐1,3(4)‐beta‐glucanase (produced with T. reesei MUCL 49754) (AveMix® XG 10/AveMix® XG 10 L) for the renewal of its authorisation as zootechnical feed additive for pigs for fattening, minor porcine species for fattening and turkeys for fattening. The applicant declared a change in the carrier material used in AveMix® XG 10 from soybean meal to calcium carbonate + wheat flour or calcium carbonate + sepiolite. The applicant provided evidence that the additive Avemix® XG 10 with calcium carbonate + wheat flour and Avemix® XG 10 L comply with the conditions of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) noted that no data were submitted to support compliance of the formulation of Avemix® XG 10 with calcium carbonate + sepiolite with the conditions of the authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that both forms of the additive remain safe for pigs for fattening, minor porcine species for fattening and turkeys for fattening, consumers and the environment. Regarding the safety for the user, Avemix® XG 10 formulated with calcium carbonate + sepiolite and Avemix® XG 10 L are not irritant to skin and eyes. No conclusions on the irritation potential of Avemix® XG 10 formulated with calcium carbonate + wheat flour could be drawn. The additive in all its formulations is considered a respiratory and skin sensitiser. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the characterisation of the feed additive consisting of vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin) produced by fermentation with Ensifer adhaerens (CGMCC 19596). The additive is intended to be used as a nutritional additive for all animal species. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the characterisation of the production strain, due to uncertainties on whether the production strain E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596 was genetically modified. However, since viable cells and DNA were not detected in the product, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin), produced with E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596 would not raise safety concerns as regards the production strain. In the present submission, the applicant provided supplementary information regarding the origin and history of modifications of the strain. Based on the data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concluded on the characterisation of the production strain E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596, which can be considered not to be genetically modified.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the feed additive consisting of endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase (produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49755) and endo‐1,3(4)‐beta‐glucanase (produced with T. reesei MUCL 49754) (AveMix® XG 10/AveMix® XG 10 L) as a zootechnical feed additive for weaned and suckling piglets. The additive is already authorised for use in weaned piglets. This scientific opinion concerns the request for the renewal of the authorisation of the additive for weaned piglets and the extension of use to suckling piglets. The applicant declared a change in the carrier material used in AveMix® XG 10 from soybean meal to calcium carbonate + wheat flour or calcium carbonate + sepiolite. The applicant provided evidence that the additive AveMix® XG 10 with calcium carbonate + wheat flour and AveMix® XG 10 L comply with the conditions of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal FEED (FEEDAP) noted that no data were submitted to support compliance of the formulation of AveMix® XG 10 with calcium carbonate + sepiolite with the conditions of the authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that both formulations of the additive (powder and liquid) remain safe for the target species, consumers and the environment, and that the extension of use to suckling piglets would not affect these conclusions. AveMix® XG 10 formulated with calcium carbonate + sepiolite and AveMix® XG 10 L are not irritant to skin and eyes. No conclusions on the irritation potential of AveMix® XG 10 formulated with calcium carbonate + wheat flour could be drawn. The additive in all its formulations is considered a respiratory and skin sensitiser. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation for weaned piglets. The Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious in suckling piglets at 4000 XU and 900 BGU/kg complete feed.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the feed additive consisting of endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase (produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49755) and endo‐1,3(4)‐beta‐glucanase (produced with T. reesei MUCL 49754) (AveMix® XG 10/AveMix® XG 10 L) for the renewal of its authorisation as a zootechnical feed additive for laying hens and minor poultry species for fattening and laying. The applicant declared a change in the carrier material used in AveMix® XG 10 from soybean meal to calcium carbonate + wheat flour or calcium carbonate + sepiolite. The applicant provided evidence that the additive AveMix® XG 10 with calcium carbonate + wheat flour and AveMix® XG 10 L comply with the conditions of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) noted that no data were submitted to support compliance of the formulation of AveMix® XG 10 with calcium carbonate + sepiolite with the conditions of the authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that both formulations of the additive (powder and liquid) remain safe for laying hens and minor poultry species for fattening and laying, consumers and the environment. AveMix® XG 10 formulated with calcium carbonate + sepiolite and AveMix® XG 10 L are not irritant to skin and eyes. No conclusions on the irritation potential of AveMix® XG 10 formulated with calcium carbonate + wheat flour could be drawn. The additive in both formulations is considered a respiratory and skin sensitiser. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of a preparation of dried cells of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I‐4407 (Actisaf® Sc 47) as a zootechnical additive for rabbits for fattening and non‐food producing rabbits. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Regarding the safety for the user, the additive is not a skin or eye irritant. However, it should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. 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.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the feed additive consisting of endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase (produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49755), endo‐1,3(4)‐beta‐glucanase (produced with T. reesei MUCL 49754) and polygalacturonase (produced with Aspergillus fijiensis CBS 589.94) (AveMix® 02 CS/ AveMix® 02 CS L) as a zootechnical feed additive for weaned and suckling piglets. The additive is already authorised for use with weaned piglets. This scientific opinion concerns the request for the renewal of the authorisation of the additive for weaned piglets and the extension of use to suckling piglets. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. There was no new evidence that would lead the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) to reconsider its previous conclusions that the additive is safe for weaned piglets, the consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. This conclusion applied also to the new target species (suckling piglets) for which a request for an extension of use was made. The additive in both formulations (powder and liquid) is not irritant to skin or eyes but should be considered a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation for weaned piglets. The Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious in suckling piglets at 2140 XU, 1230 BGU and 46 PGLU/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 liquid l‐lysine base produced with a genetically modified strain of Corynebacterium glutamicum as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. The l‐lysine base liquid produced with C. glutamicum NRRL B‐67535 and NRRL B‐67439 is currently authorised as a nutritional additive for all animal species. The present application is aimed at modifying the current authorisation to include C. glutamicum NRRL B‐68248 as a production strain. The new production strain qualifies for the qualified presumption of safety approach when used for production purposes. It was unambiguously identified as C. glutamicum and was shown not to harbour acquired antimicrobial resistance determinants for antibiotics of human and veterinary importance. All the introduced sequences or mutations were considered to be safe, and no viable cells or DNA of the NRRL B‐68248 strain was detected in the final product. Therefore, the final product does not pose any safety concern associated with the production strain. l‐Lysine base produced using C. glutamicum NRRL B‐68248 does not represent a risk for the target species, the consumer or the environment. The additive was considered to be neither irritant to skin or the eyes, nor a dermal sensitiser. l‐Lysine base produced with C. glutamicum NRRL B‐68248 is considered to be an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l‐lysine for non‐ruminant animal species. For the supplemental l‐lysine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminant species, it would require protection against degradation in the rumen.

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

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of the feed additive consisting of endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase (produced with Trichoderma reesei CBS 143953), subtilisin (produced with Bacillus subtilis CBS 143946) and α‐amylase (produced with Bacillus amyloliquefaciens CBS 143954) (Avizyme® 1505) as a zootechnical feed additive for all poultry species. The additive is authorised in feed for chickens and turkeys for fattening, ducks and laying hens. In 2020, the FEEDAP Panel issued an opinion for the renewal of the authorisation of the additive for the species/categories for which there is an authorisation, a reduction of the minimum recommended level in turkeys for fattening and the extension of use to all poultry species. In that assessment, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additive due to uncertainties on the characterisation of the production strains and the possible presence of their viable cells and DNA in the final product. Moreover, limitations were identified in the xylanase specifications and xylanase method of analysis. The applicant submitted information to address the limitations previously identified. The Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the target species under the proposed conditions of use. The use of Avizyme® 1505 in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumer and the environment. The additive is a mild irritant to skin and eyes; it is not a dermal sensitiser but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive is efficacious in ducks at 75 U endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase, 1000 U subtilisin and 100 U α‐amylase/kg of complete feed. In other poultry species for fattening (including turkeys), reared for breeding and reared for laying, the additive is efficacious at 187.5 U endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase, 2500 U subtilisin and 250 U α‐amylase per kg of complete feed and at 300 U endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase, 4000 U subtilisin and 400 U α‐amylase per kg of complete feed for all poultry species for laying (except for ducks).

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the coccidiostat salinomycin sodium (Sacox®) for rabbits for fattening. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of salinomycin sodium (SAL‐Na) from Sacox® does not raise safety concerns for the target species, consumers, users and the environment with regard to the production strain. In the absence of adequate tolerance studies, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of SAL‐Na from Sacox® for rabbits for fattening. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the consumer when it is used at the proposed maximum level of 25 mg SAL‐Na/kg complete feed for rabbits and a withdrawal period of 1 day is respected. The following maximum residue limits (MRL) are proposed for the marker residue compound salinomycin (SAL): 0.2 and 0.03 mg SAL/kg for liver and kidney, respectively. The additive is not irritant to skin and eyes but should be considered a potential dermal and respiratory sensitiser. A risk for inhalation toxicity could not be excluded. The use of the SAL‐Na from Sacox® in feed for rabbits for fattening up to the highest proposed level will not pose a risk for the terrestrial and aquatic compartment and ground water. The risk of secondary poisoning can be excluded for worm‐eating birds and mammals, while it cannot be excluded for fish‐eating birds and mammals. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that SAL‐Na from Sacox® at the minimum concentration of 20 mg SAL‐Na/kg complete feed has the potential to control coccidiosis in rabbits for fattening. Development of resistance to SAL‐Na of field Eimeria spp. strains isolated from rabbits for fattening should be monitored.

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

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

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the feed additive consisting of l‐tryptophan produced by fermentation with Escherichia coli CGMCC 7.460 when used as a nutritional additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species and categories. The production strain is not genetically modified. Viable cells of the production strain were not detected in the final additive. The additive does not give rise to any safety concern regarding the production strain. The use of l‐tryptophan (≥ 98%) produced with E. coli CGMCC 7.460 to supplement feed is safe for non‐ruminant species. There may be a risk for an increased production of toxic metabolites when unprotected tryptophan is used in ruminants. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) has concerns on the safety of the simultaneous oral administration of l‐tryptophan via water for drinking and feed due to possible amino acid imbalances and hygienic reasons. The use of l‐tryptophan produced with E. coli CGMCC 7.460 in animal nutrition raises no safety concerns to consumers of animal products and to the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be irritant to skin or eyes, or on its potential to be a dermal sensitiser. The endotoxin activity of the additive in combination with the high dusting potential may represent a risk of exposure by inhalation to endotoxins for users. The additive l‐tryptophan is regarded as an effective source of the amino acid l‐tryptophan for all non‐ruminant species. To be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminants, it should be protected from ruminal degradation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Levilactobacillus brevis DSM 21982 as a technological feed additive, silage additive, for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the eye irritancy potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin) produced by fermentation with a non‐genetically modified strain of Ensifer adhaerens (CGMCC 21299), when used as a nutritional additive for all animal species. No viable cells or DNA of the production strain were detected in the additive. Therefore, cyanocobalamin produced by fermentation with E. adhaerens CGMCC 21299 does not raise safety concerns as regards to the production strain. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed concluded that cyanocobalamin produced by fermentation with E. adhaerens CGMCC 21299 is considered safe for all animal species, for the consumers and the environment. Due to the presence of nickel, the additive is considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. Inhalation and dermal exposure are considered a risk. Due to the lack of data, the Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to be an eye irritant. Cyanocobalamin produced by fermentation with E. adhaerens CGMCC 21299 is effective in meeting animal's nutritional requirements when administered via feed.

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

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of the authorisation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae MUCL 39885 (Biosprint®) as a feed additive for cattle for fattening (category: zootechnical; functional group: gut flora stabiliser). The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) confirmed that the use of Biosprint® under the current authorised conditions of use remains safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. Taking into account the nature of the additive, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The additive is not a skin/eye irritant. There is no need to assess the efficacy of Biosprint® in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of monensin sodium (Coxidin®) as a coccidiostat for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying, turkeys for fattening and turkeys reared for breeding. The additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Coxidin® remains safe for turkeys for fattening (up to 16 weeks) and extends this conclusion to turkeys reared for breeding (up to 16 weeks). The Panel was not in the position to confirm that the current maximum authorised level of 125 mg monensin sodium/kg complete feed remains safe for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying. The use of monensin sodium from Coxidin® at the corresponding maximum authorised/proposed use levels in the target species is safe for the consumer. The existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for poultry tissues ensure consumer safety. No withdrawal time is necessary. Both formulations of Coxidin® pose a risk by inhalation. The formulation with wheat bran as a carrier was neither irritant to the skin nor a skin sensitiser but it was irritant to the eyes. In the absence of data, no conclusions could be made on the potential of the formulation containing calcium carbonate to be irritant to skin and eyes and to be a skin sensitiser. The use of monensin sodium from Coxidin® in complete feed for the target species poses no risk for the terrestrial compartments and for sediment. No risk for groundwater is expected. For chickens for fattening the risk for aquatic compartment cannot be excluded, but no risks are expected for the other animal categories. There is no risk of secondary poisoning. Coxidin® is efficacious in controlling coccidiosis at a level of 100 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening and at 60 mg/kg complete feed for turkeys for fattening. These conclusions are extended to chickens reared for laying and turkeys reared for breeding. The Panel noted that there are signs of development of resistance of Eimeria spp. to monensin sodium.

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

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the coccidiostat narasin (Monteban® G100) for chickens for fattening. In a previous opinion, uncertainties remained on the identification and characterisation of the non‐genetically modified production strain of the active substance narasin. The Panel could not conclude either on the safety of Monteban® G100 for chickens for fattening or on the efficacy of the additive at the minimum applied concentration. The FEEDAP Panel excluded risks for environment but the risk for sediment compartment could not be assessed. The applicant provided supplementary information to cover the data gaps and substituted the narasin production strain from Streptomyces spp. NRRL 8092 to Streptomyces spp. NRRL B‐67771. The information submitted to taxonomically identify the production strain did not allow to assign it to any described microbial species. Based on the information provided, the Panel concluded that the use of Monteban® G100 did not raise safety concerns as regards the production strain for the target animal, consumer, user and environment. The Panel concluded that 70 mg narasin/kg complete feed was safe for chickens for fattening with a margin of safety of 1.4; narasin from Monteban® G100 was unlikely to increase shedding of Salmonella Enteritidis, Salmonella Typhimurium and Campylobacter jejuni. Narasin, when used in chickens for fattening at 70 mg/kg feed, was not expected to pose a risk to the aquatic compartment and to sediment, while a risk for the terrestrial compartment could not be excluded. No risk for groundwater was expected, nor for secondary poisoning via the terrestrial food chain, but the risk of secondary poisoning via the aquatic food chain could not be excluded. The Panel concluded that 60 mg narasin/kg feed was efficacious in controlling coccidiosis in chickens for fattening.

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

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Bacillus velezensis ATCC PTA‐6737 as a zootechnical additive (functional group: gut‐flora stabiliser) in the context of the renewal of the authorisation for turkeys for fattening and turkeys reared for breeding. The applicant is also requesting to modify the target species in the current authorisations to ‘all growing poultry’, the increase of the recommended use level in chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying and minor poultry species except minor poultry for laying from 1 × 107 to 1 × 108 CFU/kg complete feed and the compatibility of the additive with halofuginone. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. There was no new evidence that would lead to reconsider previous conclusions. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all poultry species for fattening and reared for laying/breeding, the consumers and the environment under the current authorised conditions of use. The additive is not irritant to the skin and eyes, but it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel could not conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The Panel concluded that the additive has a potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive for poultry for fattening and reared for laying/breeding 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 Enterococcus lactis DSM 22502 as a technological feed additive for all animal species. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that E. lactis remains safe for all animal species, consumers and environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding the user safety, the Panel concluded that the additive is not irritating to the skin or eyes. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the additive to cause skin sensitisation, but it is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

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

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of the authorisation of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 23689 as a technological additive, silage additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers, and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation, and skin and eye irritancy potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Bacillus velezensis ATCC PTA‐6737 as a zootechnical additive (functional group: gut flora stabilisers) in regard to the renewal of the authorisation for weaned piglets, weaned minor porcine species, sows and minor reproductive Suidae species, and its extension of use for all Suidae. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The Panel concluded that there is no new evidence that would lead it to reconsider the previous conclusions; the additive is safe for the target species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. This conclusion also applies to the target species/categories for which a request for an extension of use is made. The Panel concluded that B. velezensis ATCC PTA‐6737 is not irritant to skin or eyes but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser due to its proteinaceous nature. No conclusions could be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious in all growing Suidae (suckling, weaned and fattening Suidae) at the minimum inclusion level of 1 × 107 CFU/kg of complete feed and in sows and minor reproductive Suidae species at 1 × 108 CFU/kg complete 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 safety and efficacy of the feed additive containing Enterococcus faecium DSM 21913, Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. animalis DSM 16284 and Ligilactobacillus salivarius (formerly Lactobacillus salivarius) DSM 16351 (Biomin® C3) as a zootechnical feed additive (functional group: gut flora stabiliser) in the context of the renewal of the authorisation for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying and minor poultry species other than laying. In addition, the applicant requested the extension of use in all poultry species for fattening and reared for laying/breeding. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the Panel to reconsider previous conclusions that the additive is safe for the target species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. This conclusion also applies to the target species for which a request for an extension of use is made. The Panel concluded that Biomin® C3 is not irritant to skin or eyes but should be considered as a respiratory sensitiser due to its proteinaceous nature. No conclusions could be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The evaluation of the efficacy is not needed in those species for which an authorisation exists. The Panel considered that the additive is efficacious in all growing poultry species at the same inclusion level of 1 × 108 CFU/kg feed and the equivalent level in water of 5 × 107 CFU/L.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of the authorisation of Enterococcus lactis NCIMB 11181 (Lactiferm®) as a zootechnical additive for weaned piglets, calves for fattening and calves for rearing. The product under assessment is based on a strain originally identified as Enterococcus faecium. During the current assessment, the active agent has been reclassified as Enterococcus lactis. The additive currently authorised is marketed in two formulations: Lactiferm Basic 50 (a solid formulation to be used in feed), and Lactiferm WS200 (a solid ‘water‐soluble’ formulation to be used in water for drinking). The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concludes that the use of Lactiferm® under the authorised conditions of use remains safe for the target species (calves up to 6 months and weaned piglets up to 35 kg), consumers and the environment. The Lactiferm WS200 formulation of the additive is not irritant to skin or eyes. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, both formulations of the additive are considered respiratory sensitisers. It is not possible to conclude on the irritating potential for skin and eyes of the Lactiferm Basic 50 formulation or on the potential of both forms of the additive to cause skin sensitisation. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Weizmannia faecalis (formerly identified as Bacillus coagulans) DSM 32016 (TechnoSpore50®) as a zootechnical feed additive for poultry reared for breeding/laying/fattening, ornamental birds and suckling and weaned Suidae piglets. The additive is authorised for use in feed for poultry for fattening, ornamental birds and suckling and weaned Suidae piglets. This application sought the extension of use in feed for poultry reared for breeding/laying and the new authorisation in water for drinking for suckling and weaned Suidae piglets, poultry for fattening, reared for breeding/laying and ornamental birds. Moreover, the applicant requested the authorisation of simultaneous use in feed for poultry reared for breeding and laying with coccidiostats. The identity and the lack of toxigenic activity of the active agent was confirmed, and it did not show resistance to relevant antibiotics; therefore, the strain was presumed safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Since other components did not introduce concerns, TechnoSpore50® was also considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. The additive is not a skin/eye irritant but is a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. TechnoSpore50® was considered to be efficacious in feed for poultry reared for laying/breeding at 1 × 109 CFU/kg and in water for drinking for poultry reared for fattening, poultry reared for laying/breeding, ornamental birds and for suckling and weaned Suidae piglets at 5 × 108 CFU/L. TechnoSpore50® is compatible with halofuginone, diclazuril, monensin sodium, robenidine hydrochloride, salinomycin sodium and monensin sodium + nicarbazin, but not with narasin or narasin + nicarbazin. No conclusions could be drawn on the compatibility of TechnoSpore50® with decoquinate, lasalocid A sodium, semduramicin sodium, nicarbazin or amprolium hydrochloride.

Abstract The additive RONOZYME® WX (CT/L) contains endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase produced with a genetically modified strain of the filamentous fungus Aspergillus oryzae; the additive is currently authorised for poultry for fattening, weaned piglets, pigs for fattening, lactating sows and laying hens. The applicant has requested to change the production strain, substituting strain A. oryzae DSM 26372 with A. oryzae DSM 33700, and to extend the use of the additive to all poultry species and all Suidae. RONOZYME® WX (CT/L), manufactured with the production strain A. oryzae DSM 33700, did not give rise to safety concerns with regard to the genetic modification of the production strain. No viable cells of the production strain nor its DNA were detected in an intermediate product representative of both final formulations of the additive. RONOZYME® WX (CT/L) was considered safe for all poultry species and all Suidae at the recommended inclusion levels. The use of RONOZYME® WX CT and L manufactured with the production strain A. oryzae DSM 33700 raised no concerns for consumers. RONOZYME® WX L is not an eye irritant; however, no conclusions could be drawn on the potential of RONOZYME® WX CT to be an eye irritant. Both formulations are not irritant to the skin, but due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel was not able to conclude on the potential of both formulations of the additive to be skin sensitisers. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive manufactured by A. oryzae DSM 33700 raises no safety concerns for the environment. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in all poultry species and all Suidae at 100 and 200 FXU/kg complete feed, respectively.

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

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

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a feed additive containing endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase produced by Trichoderma citrinoviride DSM 34663 (Hostazym® X). The product is authorised as a zootechnical additive (digestibility enhancers) for use in all poultry species for fattening, for laying and reared for laying, weaned piglets, pigs for fattening and carp. The current opinion concerns the request for the renewal of the authorisation for the use in those species/categories and the extension of use to all poultry species for breeding and reared for breeding, ornamental birds, suckling piglets and minor porcine species for fattening. The applicant provided evidence that the additive in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the Panel to reconsider previous conclusions that the additive is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. This conclusion also applies to the target species for which a request for extension of use is made. The additive is considered not a skin corrosive or skin sensitiser, but it is an eye irritant. The Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin irritant. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel considers that the additive has the potential to be efficacious in all poultry species, ornamental birds, all growing Suidae and carp at the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Agal‐Pro BL/BL‐L®. The additive is a preparation of alpha‐galactosidase produced by a genetically modified strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (CBS 615.94) and endo‐1,4‐beta‐glucanase produced by a non‐genetically modified strain of Aspergillus niger (CBS 120604). It is intended to be used as a zootechnical additive (functional group: digestibility enhancers) in chickens for fattening in its solid and liquid forms (Agal‐Pro BL® and Agal‐Pro BL‐L®), and in minor poultry species for fattening and chickens reared for laying only in its solid form (Agal‐Pro BL®). The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for the target animals, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive is considered an irritant to the skin and eyes and a dermal sensitiser. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substances, it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of 25‐hydroxycholecalciferol as a feed additive for pigs and poultry. The applicant provided data demonstrating that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of authorisation. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concludes that the additive does not give raise to any safety concern regarding the production strain. Considering that the manufacturing process, the composition of the additive and its conditions of use have not been modified, the Panel considers that there is no evidence to reconsider the conclusions reached in the previous assessments. Therefore, the Panel concludes that 25‐OH‐D3 remains safe for the target species, the consumer and the environment under the existing conditions of the authorisation. The additive is not irritant to the skin or eyes but no conclusion on its potential to be a skin sensitiser or on its effects on the respiratory system can be reached due to absence of data. There is no need to assess the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Bacillus subtilis DSM 32324, Bacillus subtilis DSM 32325 and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens DSM 25840 (GalliPro® Fit) as a zootechnical feed additive for all poultry species for fattening and reared for laying or for breeding. The additive is already authorised for use in feed and water for drinking for the above‐mentioned species. With this application, the company requested the modification of the current authorisations as regards the simultaneous use of the additive with the coccidiostats monensin, salinomycin, narasin, nicarbazin+narasin and lasalocid. The proposed modification in the conditions of the authorisation would not modify the conclusions previously drawn regarding the safety of GalliPro® Fit. The additive is safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. The additive is not a dermal/eye irritant but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the skin sensitisation potential. The Panel concluded that GalliPro® Fit is compatible with the coccidiostats monensin, salinomycin, narasin, nicarbazin+narasin and lasalocid.

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 protease (ProAct 360) produced by a genetically modified strain of Bacillus licheniformis (DSM 33099) as a zootechnical feed additive for poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding. The production strain and its recombinant DNA were not detected in an intermediate concentrated product representative of the final formulation. The final product did not trigger a safety concern with regard to the genetic modification. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that ProAct 360 is considered safe for all growing poultry species at the recommended inclusion level of 30,000 NFP/kg complete feed. The use ProAct 360 as a feed additive did not give rise to concerns for the consumers or the environment. The additive is not an eye or a dermal irritant but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. In the absence of data, no conclusions could be reached on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious at 30,000 NFP/kg complete feed for all poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 25‐hydroxycholecalciferol monohydrate produced with Saccharomyces cerevisiae CBS 146008 as a nutritional feed additive for all ruminants. The additive is already authorised for use with chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening, other poultry and pigs. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive does not give raise to any safety concern regarding the production strain. The additive is safe for cattle for fattening and dairy cows at the maximum recommended use level of 0.1 mg 25‐OH‐D3/kg complete feed. This conclusion can be extended to other cattle categories and extrapolated to all ruminant species. The use of 25‐OH‐D3 in all ruminants under the proposed conditions of use is considered safe for the consumer. The additive is not irritant to the skin or eyes. No conclusion on its potential to be a skin sensitiser or on its effects on the respiratory system can be reached due to absence of data. The use of the additive under assessment at the recommended conditions of use is considered safe for the environment. 25‐OH‐D3 is an efficient source of vitamin D3 for all ruminants when used according to 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 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, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on concentrated liquid l‐lysine, l‐lysine monohydrochloride and concentrated liquid l‐lysine monohydrochloride produced by a genetically modified strain of Escherichia coli (NITE BP‐02917) as nutritional and as sensory (flavouring compound) feed additives for all animal species. In 2022, the FEEDAP Panel issued an opinion on the safety and efficacy of these products. In that assessment, the FEEDAP Panel could not exclude the potential presence of recombinant DNA derived from the genetically modified production organism in the products. The applicant provided supplementary data to exclude the presence of recombinant DNA derived from the production organism in the final products. Based on the new data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that no DNA of the production strain E. coli NITE BP‐02917 was detected in concentrated liquid l‐lysine, l‐lysine monohydrochloride and concentrated liquid l‐lysine monohydrochloride.

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 new scientific opinion on the coccidiostat monensin sodium (Elancoban® G200) when used as a feed additive for chickens for fattening and turkeys. Based on the new data provided, the Panel updates its previous conclusions as follows: monensin sodium is produced by fermentation by a non‐genetically modified strain of Streptomyces sp. NRRL B‐67924. Genome analysis suggests the production strain may belong to a new species within the genus Streptomyces. The production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final additive. The product is free of antimicrobial activity other than monensin. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of monensin sodium from Elancoban® G200 in feed for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying at the proposed maximum use level due to a dose‐related reduction of the final body weight. The toxicological profile of monensin sodium was evaluated in studies made with the product obtained from the parental strain ATCC 15413. Based on a comparison of the genomes of the two strains, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that toxicological equivalence has been established, thus the conclusions already drawn on Elancoban® G200 are valid for the product obtained with the new production strain concluding that the additive is safe for the consumer and the environment; the production strain does not represent an additional risk when safety for the user is considered. Monensin sodium from Elancoban® G200 is safe for turkeys up to 16 weeks of age at the concentration of 100 mg monensin sodium/kg feed and has the potential to control coccidiosis at the minimum concentration of 60 mg/kg complete 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 safety and efficacy of Sorbiflore® ADVANCE, a feed additive consisting of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus CNCM I‐3698 and Companilactobacillus sp. CNCM I‐3699 intended to be used as a zootechnical additive (functional group: other zootechnical additives) in feed for weaned piglets to improve their performance. In a previous opinion, the additive was described as containing viable but not cultivable cells of the two strains in a 1:1 ratio, with a minimum of total lactic acid bacteria counts of 5 × 108 viable‐forming units (VFU)/g additive. However, in that opinion, the Panel could not fully characterise the additive or conclude on its dermal/ocular irritancy or sensitisation potential. In the current assessment, the applicant provided supplementary information to address the missing information for the characterisation of the additive. The proposed methodology to discriminate and individually quantify the two strains composing the additive still presented limitations. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the data available do not allow to fully characterise the additive. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the taxonomical identification of the strain CNCM I‐3699, and consequently, on its eligibility for the application of the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. Therefore, the previous conclusions on the safety of the additive based on the QPS approach could not be confirmed. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species, consumer and the environment. Sorbiflore® ADVANCE is not irritant to skin. The Panel could not conclude on the eye irritancy or skin sensitisation potential of the additive.

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 feed additive containing endo‐1,4‐β‐glucanase produced by Trichoderma citrinoviride IMI 360748 (Hostazym® C). The product is authorised as a zootechnical additive (functional group: digestibility enhancers) for use in chickens for fattening, minor poultry species for fattening and weaned piglets. This scientific opinion concerns the request for the renewal of the authorisation for the use in those species/categories, and the extension of use to chickens reared for laying, turkeys reared for breeding, minor poultry species reared for laying or breeding, ornamental birds and suckling piglets. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the Panel to reconsider previous conclusions that the additive is safe for the target species, the consumers, and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. This conclusion also applies to the target species for which a request for an extension of use is made. The additive is considered not a skin corrosive or eye irritant, but it should be considered a skin sensitiser. The Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin irritant. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel considers that the additive has the potential to be efficacious at 500 CU/kg complete feed in all poultry for fattening, reared for laying or breeding, and ornamental birds, and at 350 CU/kg complete feed in piglets (weaned and suckling, for the period in which solid feed is given).

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on lactic acid produced by fermentation using a strain of Weizmannia coagulans (DSM 32789). The additive is intended to be used as a technological additive, functional group preservatives, in complete feed and water for drinking for all animal species except for fish. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the production strain qualified for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach for safety assessment. Uncertainty remained concerning the possible presence of viable cells and/or spores of the production strain in the final product, however, the presence of viable cells of a QPS strain would not raise safety concerns for the target species, humans, and the environment. The applicant has provided additional information in the form of a scientific report to support the absence of viable cells and/or spores in the final product. Based on the data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the final product contains no viable cells and/or spores of the production microorganism.

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 disodium 5′‐inosinate (also known as inosine monophosphate, IMP) produced by Corynebacterium stationis KCCM 80235 as a sensory additive, functional group flavouring compounds, for all animal species. In 2022, the FEEDAP Panel issued an opinion on the safety and efficacy of the product. In that assessment, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species, consumers, users and the environment due to uncertainties on the genetic basis of the streptomycin resistance of the production strain C. stationis KCCM 80235 and on the possible presence of its recombinant DNA in the final product. The applicant provided supplementary data which elucidated the genetic basis of the streptomycin resistance of the production strain and excluded the presence of its DNA in the final product. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that IMP produced by C. stationis KCCM 80235 is safe for the target species, consumers, users and the environment. The FEEDAP Panel reiterated its previous concerns on the safety for the target species when using IMP in water for drinking due to hygienic reasons.

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 l‐isoleucine produced by Corynebacterium glutamicum KCCM 80185 for all animal species. In 2021, the FEEDAP Panel issued an opinion on the safety and efficacy of the product. In that assessment, the FEEDAP Panel could not exclude the potential presence of recombinant DNA derived from the genetically modified production organism in the additive. The applicant provided supplementary data to exclude the presence of recombinant DNA derived from the production organism in the final product. Based on the data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that no DNA of the production strain C. glutamicum KCCM 80185 was detected in the additive.

Abstract The vitamin B12 (in the form of cyanocobalamin) under assessment is produced by fermentation with Ensifer adhaerens CGMCC 19596 and it is intended to be used as a nutritional additive for all animal species. Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of cyanocobalamin, produced by fermentation with E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596. Cyanocobalamin produced by other strains of E. adhaerens is already authorised for use in animal species. ■■■■■ However no viable cells nor DNA of the production strain were detected in the additive. Therefore, cyanocobalamin produced by E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596 does not raise safety concerns as regards to the production strain. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that cyanocobalamin produced by fermentation with E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596 is considered safe for all animal species. The use of cyanocobalamin in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. Cyanocobalamin is non‐irritant to skin and non‐irritant to eyes. No conclusions could be drawn on the potential of the additive to be a skin sensitiser. The potential endotoxin activity of the additive is unlikely to represent a hazard for users. The use of the additive under assessment in animal nutrition is considered safe for the environment. Cyanocobalamin produced by E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596 is effective in meeting animal's nutritional requirements when administered via 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 safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of two bacilli strains (tradename: BioPlus® 2B) when used in suckling piglets, calves for fattening and other growing ruminants. BioPlus® 2B is composed of viable cells of Bacillus subtilis DSM 5750 and Bacillus licheniformis DSM 5749. In the course of the current assessment, the latest strain was reclassified as Bacillus paralicheniformis. BioPlus® 2B is intended for use in feedingstuffs and water for drinking for the target species at the minimum inclusion level of 1.3 × 109 CFU/kg feed and 6.4 × 108 CFU/l water, respectively. B. paralicheniformis and B. subtilis are considered eligible for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The identity of the active agents was established, and the qualifications regarding the lack of acquired antimicrobial resistance genes, toxigenic potential and bacitracin production ability were complied with. Following the QPS approach, B. paralicheniformis DSM 5749 and B. subtilis DSM 5750 are presumed safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Since no concerns are expected from the other components of the additive, BioPlus® 2B was also considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. BioPlus® 2B is not irritant to the eyes or skin but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel could not conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. BioPlus® 2B when supplemented at 1.3 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed and 6.4 × 108 CFU/l water for drinking has the potential to be efficacious in suckling piglets, calves for fattening and other growing ruminants (e.g. sheep, goat, buffalo) at the same developmental stage.