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

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

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of agar for pets and non-food-producing animals (Hispanagar).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of agar as a feed additive for pets and non-food-producing animals. Owing the lack of information, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety of agar for pets and other non-food-producing animals and for the user. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is efficacious as a gelling agent, thickener and contributes to stabilise canned pet feed. No conclusion can be drawn on the efficacy of the additive as a binder.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of acacia gum (gum Arabic) for all animal species (A.I.P.G. Association for International Promotion of Gums).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of acacia gum (gum Arabic) as a feed additive for all animal species. Acacia gum is safe up to approximately 280 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening, 375 mg/kg complete feed for turkeys for fattening, 400 mg/kg complete feed for rabbit, 500 and 600 mg/kg complete feed for piglets and pigs for fattening, respectively, 1,100 mg/kg complete feed for cattle for fattening and 1,250 mg/kg complete feed for veal calves and salmonids. No conclusions can be reached on the safety for long living and reproductive animal, until the genotoxic potential of the additive is fully assessed in the framework of its use as a feed additive. No exposure of the consumer to the additive or its metabolites is expected. Therefore, the use of the additive in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumers. Acacia gum is a potential dermal and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusion can be reached on the irritating potential to the skin or eyes. The use of acacia gum in animal nutrition is considered safe for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of acacia gum.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of guar gum for all animal species (A.I.P.G. Association for International Promotion of Gums).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of guar gum as a feed additive for all animal species. Owing the absence of information, the genotoxic potential of the additive could not be fully assessed. From the results of tolerance studies, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that guar gum is safe for salmonids at a maximum concentration of 3,000 mg/kg complete feed. Guar gum is safe up to ~ 280 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening, 375 mg/kg complete feed for turkeys for fattening, 400 mg/kg complete feed for rabbits, 500 and 600 mg/kg complete feed for piglets and pigs for fattening, respectively, 1,100 mg/kg complete feed for cattle for fattening and 1,150 mg/kg complete feed for veal calves. No conclusions can be reached on the safety for long living and reproductive animals, until the genotoxic potential of the additive is fully assessed in the framework of its use as a feed additive. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, no conclusions could be drawn on the safety of the additive for the user. Guar gum is efficacious as a gelling agent, thickener, and contributes to stabilise canned pet feed. No conclusion can be drawn on the additive as an emulsifier.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of carrageenan for pets and other non-food-producing animals (Marinalg International).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of carrageenan as a feed additive for pets and other non-food-producing animals. The additive is manufactured in two forms, refined and semi-refined carrageenan. Owing the lack of information, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on safety of the additives for pets and other non-food-producing animals and for the user. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is efficacious as a gelling agent, thickener and contributes to stabilise canned pet feed. No conclusion can be drawn on the efficacy of the additive as a binder and emulsifier.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of zearalenone hydrolase produced by Escherichia coli DSM 32731 for all terrestrial animal species (Biomin GmbH).

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on zearalenone hydrolase (ZenA) produced by Escherichia coli DSM 32731 when used as a feed additive for all terrestrial animals. The production strain E. coli DSM 32731 is genetically modified and harbours a kanamycin resistance gene. No viable cells of the production strain were detected in the final product, but uncertainty remains on the presence of recombinant DNA in the final product. The ZenA contained in the additive is safe for all terrestrial animal species up to the maximum use levels of (in U/kg complete feed): 100 U/kg in chickens for fattening; 150 U/kg in laying hens, turkeys for fattening and rabbits; 200 U/kg in pigs; 250 U/kg in dairy cows; 400 U/kg in veal calf (milk replacer), cattle for fattening, sheep, goats, horses and cats; and 450 U/kg in dogs. Based on the ADME and toxicological data, the FEEDAP Panel considers that the use of the ZenA contained in the additive in animal nutrition is safe for the consumers. The endotoxin content in the additive poses a risk by inhalation for users handling the additive. The additive is not a skin/eye irritant nor a skin sensitiser. Due to its proteinaceous nature, the additive should be considered as a potential respiratory sensitiser. The ZenA contained in the additive and the resulting breakdown products of its enzymatic activity do not represent a safety concern for the environment. The production strain harbours an antimicrobial resistance gene and uncertainties remain on the possible presence of its recombinant DNA in the final product; therefore, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on safety of the additive for the target species, the consumer, the user and the environment.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of ferric citrate chelate (CI-FER™) for poultry species for fattening or reared up to the point of lay (Akeso Biomedical, Inc.).

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of ferric citrate chelate (CI-FER™) as a zootechnical additive for poultry species for fattening or reared up to the point of lay. The product had been already assessed by the FEEDAP Panel for use in suckling and weaned piglets and minor porcine species. The application was for an extension of use to poultry species for fattening or reared up to the point of lay. The FEEDAP Panel considers that the new use would not raise safety concerns for the consumers and the environment and retained the previous conclusions as regards to the user: CI-FER™ does not pose a risk by inhalation, it is non-irritant to the skin but should be considered as an eye irritant and as a skin sensitiser. Owing to the limitations identified in the tolerance trial submitted, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species. Regarding the efficacy, three studies were submitted but two of them were not considered further in the assessment due to the husbandry conditions to which the animals were subject to. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive.

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

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

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

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

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

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of manganese chelate of amino acids hydrate, brand name Availa®Mn, 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 8% manganese. The applicant proposed (i) to include amino acids from other sources such as hydrolysed corn gluten, hydrolysed potato protein and hydrolysed poultry feather meal; (ii) to introduce a minimum specification for free amino acids of 17%; and (iii) to introduce a tighter specification on the mineral content (manganese), with an inclusion level of 8-9%. The additive, produced using different proposed sources of hydrolysed proteins, complies with the specifications set by Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1490. The FEEDAP Panel considers that the use of the different proposed sources of hydrolysed proteins (i.e. soy, feather meal, potato and corn gluten) do not modify the conclusions reached in the previous assessments on the safety for the target species, consumers, environment and efficacy of the additive above. Concerning the safety for the users, the additive should be considered as a skin and eye irritant and a skin sensitiser. The additive has a high dusting potential; however, in the absence of data on the concentration of zinc in the dust it is not possible to make the assessment of the exposure by inhalation.

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

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of zinc chelate of amino acids hydrate, brand name Availa® Zn, 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 with a minimum content of 10% zinc. The applicant proposed (i) to include amino acids from other sources such as hydrolysed corn gluten, hydrolysed potato protein and hydrolysed poultry feather meal; (ii) to introduce a minimum specification for free amino acids of 17%; (iii) to introduce a tighter specification of the zinc content of 10-11%. The additive, produced using different proposed sources of hydrolysed proteins, complies with the specifications set by Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1095. The FEEDAP Panel considers that the use of the different proposed sources of hydrolysed proteins (i.e. soy, feather meal, potato and corn gluten) do not modify the conclusions reached in the previous assessments on the safety for the target species, consumers, environment and efficacy of the additive above. Concerning the safety for the users, the additive should be considered as a skin and eye irritant and a skin sensitiser. The additive has a high dusting potential; however, in the absence of data on the concentration of zinc in the dust it is not possible to make the assessment of the exposure by inhalation.

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

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

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) DSM 26571 for all animal species (Chr. Hansen A/S).

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 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.

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 1: Methodology, general data gaps and uncertainties.

The European Commission requested EFSA to assess, in collaboration with EMA, the specific concentrations of antimicrobials resulting from cross-contamination in non-target feed for food-producing animals below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in microbial agents relevant for human and animal health, as well as the levels of the antimicrobials which could have a growth promotion/increase yield effect. The assessment was performed for 24 antimicrobial active substances, as specified in the mandate. This scientific opinion describes the methodology used, and the main associated data gaps and uncertainties. To estimate the antimicrobial levels in the non-target feed that would not result in emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance, a model was developed. This 'Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration' (FARSC) model is based on the minimal selective concentration (MSC), or the predicted MSC (PMSC) if MSC for the most susceptible bacterial species is unavailable, the fraction of antimicrobial dose available for exposure to microorganisms in the large intestine or rumen (considering pharmacokinetic parameters), the daily faecal output or rumen volume and the daily feed intake. Currently, lack of data prevents the establishment of PMSC and/or FARSC for several antimicrobials and animal species. To address growth promotion, data from an extensive literature search were used. Specific assessments of the different substances grouped by antimicrobial classes are addressed in separate scientific opinions. General conclusions and recommendations were made.

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed.Part 2: Aminoglycosides/aminocyclitols: apramycin, paromomycin, neomycin and spectinomycin.

The specific concentrations of apramycin, paromomycin, neomycin and spectinomycin in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield, were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC for these antimicrobials, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for apramycin and neomycin, whilst for paromomycin and spectinomycin, no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these four antimicrobials.

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed.Part 3: Amprolium.

The specific concentrations of amprolium in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC for amprolium, it was not possible to conclude the assessment. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels of amprolium in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported. The lack of antibacterial activity at clinically relevant concentrations for amprolium suggests that further studies relating to bacterial resistance are not a priority.

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed.Part 4: ß-Lactams: amoxicillin and penicillin V.

The specific concentrations of amoxicillin and penicillin V in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for amoxicillin, whilst for penicillin V no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these two antimicrobials.

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 5: Lincosamides: lincomycin.

The specific concentrations of lincomycin in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels of lincomycin in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for lincomycin.

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 7: Amphenicols: florfenicol and thiamphenicol.

The specific concentrations of florfenicol and thiamphenicol in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield, were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for florfenicol was estimated. However, due to the lack of data, the calculation of the FARSC for thiamphenicol was not possible until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for florfenicol, whilst for thiamphenicol no suitable data for the assessment were available. Uncertainties and data gaps associated to the levels reported were addressed. For florfenicol, it was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC, whereas for thiamphenicol, the recommendation was to generate the data required to fill the gaps which prevented the FARSC calculation.

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed.Part 6: Macrolides: tilmicosin, tylosin and tylvalosin.

The specific concentrations of tilmicosin, tylosin and tylvalosin in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield, were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for tilmicosin and tylosin, whilst for tylvalosin no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these three antimicrobials.