Assessment of a feed additive containing Enterococcus lactis NCIMB 11181 (Lactiferm®) for weaned piglets, calves for fattening and calves for rearing for the renewal of its authorisation (Chr. Hansen A/S).

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.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Levilactobacillus brevis DSM 23231 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Biomin GmbH).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Levilactobacillus brevis (formerly Lactobacillus brevis) DSM 23231 as a technological feed additive for all animal species. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that evidence has been provided that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of authorisation. The Panel also concluded that L. brevis DSM 23231 remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. Based on the studies submitted regarding user safety, the preparation of the additive tested was shown not to be a skin or eye irritant. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) NCIMB 30083 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (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 assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (previously Lactobacillus plantarum) NCIMB 30083 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. There is no evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, 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.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) NCIMB 30084 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (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 assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (previously Lactobacillus) NCIMB 30084 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. 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 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.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of monensin sodium (Elancoban® G200) for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying and turkeys (Elanco GmbH).

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.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei ATCC PTA-5588, protease produced by Bacillus subtilis CBS 148232, and alpha-amylase produced by Bacillus licheniformis ATCC SD-6525 (Axtra® XAP 104 TPT) for chickens for fattening, laying hens and minor poultry species (Genencor international B.V.).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei ATCC PTA-5588, protease produced by Bacillus subtilis CBS 148232, and alpha-amylase produced by Bacillus licheniformis ATCC SD-6525, Axtra® XAP 104 TPT, for chickens for fattening, laying hens and minor poultry species. In the previous assessment, a series of shortcomings did not allow to conclude on the safety of the product. The shortcomings included uncertainty on the presence of viable cells of one of the production strains; uncertainty on the identity of the production strains of the ■■■■■ used in the manufacturing process of the protease and their presence in the final additive; and uncertainty about the test item used for the toxicological testing of the xylanase. Moreover, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy in laying hens. The applicant submitted some new information to address some of the limitations previously identified. Moreover, the applicant declared a change in the production strain of the protease, substituting B. subtilis ATCC SD-2107 for B. subtilis CBS 148232. The Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the target species at the recommended use level (1,000 xylanase U, 100 amylase U and 2,000 protease U per kg feed). The additive is safe for the consumers of food products obtained from animals fed with the additive and raises no concerns for the environment. The Panel could not conclude on the skin/eye irritancy potential of the additive nor on its dermal sensitisation potential. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active substances, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive is efficacious in chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying and minor poultry species up to the point of lay at the level of 2,000 xylanase U, 200 amylase U and 4,000 protease U per kg feed (double the minimum recommended use level). Owing to the lack of sufficient data, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive for laying hens.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Enterococcus faecium NBIMCC 8270, Lactobacillus acidophilus NBIMCC 8242, Lactobacillus helveticus NBIMCC 8269, Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. lactis NBIMCC 8250, L. delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus NBIMCC 8244 and Streptococcus thermophilus NBIMCC 8253 (Probiotic Lactina®) for cats and dogs (Lactina Ltd.).

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the feed additive consisting of Enterococcus faecium NBIMCC 8270, Lactobacillus acidophilus NBIMCC 8242, Lactobacillus helveticus NBIMCC 8269, Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. lactis NBIMCC 8250, L. delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus NBIMCC 8244 and Streptococcus thermophilus NBIMCC 8253 (Probiotic Lactina®) when used as a zootechnical additive for cats and dogs. The Panel concluded that Probiotic Lactina® is safe for the target species at the proposed conditions of use. The Panel also concluded that Probiotic Lactina® is irritant to skin and eyes and a respiratory sensitiser, but in the absence of data, no conclusions could be reached on its skin sensitisation potential. No conclusions could be drawn on the efficacy of Probiotic Lactina® for dogs and cats based on the data available.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) DSM 8862 and L. plantarum DSM 8866 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Dr. Pieper Technologie- und Produktentwicklung GmbH).

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ssp. plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum ssp. plantarum) DSM 8862 and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ssp. argentoratensis (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum ssp. argentoratensis) DSM 8866 as a technological additive to improve ensiling of forage for all animal species. 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 all animal species, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive is not a skin irritant but no conclusions can be drawn on the eye irritancy potential of the additive nor to the skin sensitisation potential. The additive 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.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Pediococcus acidilacticiCNCM I-4622 for all animal species (Danstar Ferment AG).

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 Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I-4622 when used as a technological additive (acidity regulator and hygiene condition enhancers) for all animal species. The product is intended for use in mash compound feeds and/or solid feed materials used for the preparation of liquid feeds at a minimum inclusion level of 1 × 109 CFU kg feed. The bacterial species is considered by EFSA to be eligible for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. As the identity of the strain has been clearly established and it did not show acquired resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance, the use of this strain in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. The additive is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser but is not irritant to eyes/skin or a skin sensitiser. Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I-4622 at 1 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed showed the potential to reduce the pH and the growth of coliforms in liquid feeds. Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I-4622 is compatible with halofuginone, diclazuril, decoquinate and nicarbazin at the highest authorised levels for chickens for fattening.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 32292 for all animal species (Marigot Ltd t/a Celtic Sea Minerals).

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 Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 32292 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive is intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 5 × 107 colony forming units (CFU)/kg forage. The bacterial species P. pentosaceus is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. As the identity of the strain has been established and no antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers and for the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive at the proposed application rate of 5 × 107 CFU/kg forage has the potential to improve the production of silages from moderately difficult to ensile forages.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Lactococcus lactis DSM 11037 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Chr. Hansen A/S).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactococcus lactis DSM 11037, a technological additive to improve ensiling of forage for all animal species. 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 all animal species, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive is not a skin and eye irritant but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. In absence of data, the Panel cannot conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Lactococcus lactis NCIMB 30117 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Chr. Hansen A/S).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactococcus lactis NCIMB 30117 as a technological additive for use in forage for all animal species. The additive aims to improve the production of silage and is authorised for all animal species. 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 all animal species, consumer 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 eye and skin 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.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Bacillus subtilis strains CNCM I-4606, CNCM I-5043 and CNCM I-4607 and Lactococcus lactis CNCM I-4609 for all animal species (Nolivade).

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 preparation of Bacillus subtilis CNCM I-4606, B. subtilis CNCM I-5043, B. subtilis CNCM I-4607 and Lactococcus lactis CNCM I-4609 when used as a technological additive (hygiene condition enhancer) for all animal species. The product is intended for use in compound feeds and feed materials for all animal species at a minimum inclusion level of 1 × 109 CFU B. subtilis and 1 × 109 CFU L. lactis per kg or litre. The two bacterial species are considered by EFSA to be eligible for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. As the identity of the strains has been clearly established and they did not show acquired resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance, the use of these strains in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. The additive is not irritant to skin and eyes or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agents, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive to significantly reduce the growth of either Salmonella Typhimurium or Escherichia coli in feed.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Levilactobacillus brevis (formerly Lactobacillus brevis) DSM 12835 EU for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Lactosan GmbH & Co KG).

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

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus (formerly Lactobacillus rhamnosus) NCIMB 30121 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Lactosan GmbH & Co. KG).

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

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Lacticaseibacillus paracasei (formerly Lactobacillus paracasei)DSM 16245 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Lactosan GmbH & Co KG).

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of Lacticaseibacillus paracasei (formerly Lactobacillus paracasei) DSM 16245 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive aims to improve the production of silage and is currently authorised at a proposed application rate of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There was no new evidence to lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety L. paracasei DSM 16245 is not irritant to skin and eyes but is considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser.

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.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) IMI 507027 for all animal species (ALL-TECHNOLOGY (IRELAND) LIMITED [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 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) IMI 507027 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive is intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 1 × 109 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species L. plantarum is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach. As the identity of the strain has been established and no antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers and for the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive at the proposed application rate of 1 × 109 CFU/kg fresh material has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silages from easy to moderately difficult to ensile forages.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Lentilactobacillus buchneri (formerly Lactobacillus buchneri) DSM 16774 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Lactosan GmbH & Co.KG).

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of Lentilactobacillus buchneri (formerly Lactobacillus buchneri) DSM 16774 as a technological additive to improve ensiling of forage for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 16774 is not irritant to skin and eyes but is considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Assessment of the feed additive consisting of Pediococcus acidilactici DSM 16243 for all animal species for the renewal of its authorisation (Lactosan GmbH & Co.KG).

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of Pediococcus acidilactici DSM 16243 as a technological additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety Pediococcus acidilactici DSM 16243 is not irritant to skin and eyes but is considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.