Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed. (Question No EFSA-Q ) Adopted on 18 October 2007

Similar documents
Safety of the enzymatic preparation Natuphos (3-phytase) for sows 1

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. Efficacy of the product Levucell SC20/Levucell SC10ME (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) as feed additive for leisure horses 1

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. Safety and efficacy of Biosaf Sc47 (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) as feed additive for dairy buffaloes 1

(Question No EFSA-Q ) Adopted on 10 July 2007

Safety and efficacy of Biosaf Sc 47 (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) as feed additive for pigs for fattening 1

Scientific Opinion on the modification to the formulation of GalliPro and compatibility with formic acid 1

The EFSA Journal (2005) 288, 1-7

The EFSA Journal (2005) 262, 1-6

Safety and efficacy of Levucell SC20/Levucell SC10ME, a preparation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, as feed additive for lambs for fattening 1,2

Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed. Adopted on 19 September 2007

The EFSA Journal (2005) 287, 1-9

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 2,3

The EFSA Journal (2005) 207, 1-6

The EFSA Journal (2004) 96, 1-5

The EFSA Journal (2005) 171, 1-5

Scientific Opinion on the modification of the terms of authorisation of Protural (sodium benzoate) as a feed additive for weaned piglets 1

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed. Adopted on 3 February 2009

The EFSA Journal (2005) 231, 1-6

Maximum Residue Limits for Clinacox 0.5% (diclazuril) for turkeys for fattening, chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying 1

The EFSA Journal (2005) 289, 1-6

The EFSA Journal (2006) 406, 1-11

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 2,3

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 2,3

Scientific Opinion on modification of the terms of authorisation of VevoVitall (Benzoic acid) as a feed additive for weaned piglets 1

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 2,3

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 2,3

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed. (Question N EFSA-Q )

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of sodium carbonate (soda ash) for all species 1

The EFSA Journal (2006) 385, 1-9

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 2,3

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 2,3

Statement on the safety and efficacy of the product Rosemary extract liquid of natural origin as a technological feed additive for dogs and cats 1

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. Safety and efficacy of Avizyme 1505 (endo-1,4-β-xylanase, α-amylase, subtilisin) as a feed additive for turkeys for fattening 1

The EFSA Journal (2006) 384, 1-9

Withdrawal period for Coxidin for chickens and turkeys for fattening and re-examination of the provisional Maximum Residue Limit 1

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of Calsporin (Bacillus subtilis) as a feed additive for piglets 1

Session 47.

Statement on the preparation of guidance for the assessment of plant/herbal products and their constituents used as feed additives 1

(Question No EFSA-Q ) Adopted on 11 July 2007

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed. (Question No EFSA-Q )

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed. Adopted on 2 April 2009

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of InteSwine (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) as a feed additive for weaned piglets 1,2

Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed. Adopted on 16 July 2008

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 2,3

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 2,3

Scientific Opinion on the efficacy of Suilectin (Phaseolus vulgaris lectins) as a zootechnical additive for suckling piglets (performance enhancer)

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of MycoCell (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) for dairy cows 1

The EFSA Journal (2005) 271, 1-6

Scientific Opinion on the safety of a manganese chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine (Mintrex Mn) as feed additive for all species 1

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 3,4

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 2,3

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 2,3

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of Bonvital (Enterococcus faecium) as a feed additive for dogs 1

Scientific Opinion on the Safety and Efficacy of thaumatin for all animal species 1

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 2,3

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. Safety and efficacy of 25-hydroxycholecalciferol as a feed additive for poultry and pigs 1

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. Safety and efficacy of Natugrain Wheat TS (endo-1,4-β-xylanase) for use as feed additive for chickens for fattening and ducks 1

Scientific Opinion on the safety of a copper chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine (Mintrex Cu) as feed additive for all species 1

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lactobacillus plantarum (NCIMB 30236) as a silage additive for all species 1,2

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 2,3

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. (Question No EFSA-Q ) Adopted on 18 November 2008 by the FEEDAP Panel and on 29 October 2008 by the GMO Panel

Safety and efficacy of Mintrex Zn (Zinc chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine) as feed additive for all species 1

Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed and the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of synthetic alpha-tocopherol for all animal species 1

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. Safety and efficacy of OPTIPHOS (6-phytase) as a feed additive for finfish. Abstract

(Question No EFSA-Q ) Adopted on 12 June 2007

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. Safety and efficacy of the product ColiCure (Escherichia coli) as a feed additive for horses 1

Safety of Allura Red AC in feed for cats and dogs

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of allylhydroxybenzenes (chemical group 18) when used as flavourings for all animal species 1

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 2,3

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lactobacillus brevis (DSMZ 21982) as a silage additive for all species 1,2

Safety and efficacy of Mintrex Mn (Manganese chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine) as feed additive for all species 1

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lactobacillus buchneri (DSM 22963) as a silage additive for all species 1

Adopted on 21 May 2008 by the FEEDAP Panel and on 16 April 2008 by the GMO Panel

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. Abstract

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 2,3

The EFSA Journal (2006) 336, 1-15

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 12836) as a silage additive for all species 1

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed. (Question No EFSA-Q )

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of Pediococcus pentosaceus (DSM 12834) as a silage additive for all species 1

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of anthranilate derivatives (chemical group 27) when used as flavourings for all animal species 1

The EFSA Journal (2005) 195, 1-10

The EFSA Journal (2004) 121, 1-13

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of erythrosine in feed for cats and dogs, ornamental fish and reptiles 1

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 2,3

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of Formi LHS (potassium diformate) as a feed additive for sows 1

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lactobacillus buchneri (DSM 12856) as a silage additive for all species 1

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed. (Question No EFSA-Q )

Safety and efficacy of Panaferd-AX (red carotenoid-rich bacterium Paracoccus carotinifaciens) as feed additive for salmon and trout 1

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 2,3

The EFSA Journal (2006) 350, 1-14

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of sodium bisulphate (SBS) for all species as preservative and silage additive 1

EUROPEAN COMMISSION JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements Community Reference Laboratory for Feed Additives

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. Safety of use of colouring agents in animal nutrition 1

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of sodium hydroxide for dogs, cats and ornamental fish 1

Safety and efficacy of Mintrex Cu (Copper chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine) as feed additive for all species 1

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 2,3

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 2,3

EUROPEAN COMMISSION HEALTH & CONSUMER PROTECTION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL. (Adopted on 22 June 2000)

Scientific Opinion on the safety of Hostazym X as a feed additive for poultry and pigs 1

Transcription:

The EFSA Journal (2007) 573, 1-5 Compatibility of the microbial preparation of licheniformis and subtilis (BioPlus 2B) with the coccidiostat lasalocid A sodium in feed for turkeys 1 Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (Question No EFSA-Q-2006-310) Adopted on 18 October 2007 PANEL MEMBERS Georges Bories, Paul Brantom, Joaquim Brufau de Barberà, Andrew Chesson, Pier Sandro Cocconcelli, Bogdan Debski, Noël Dierick, Anders Franklin, Jürgen Gropp, Ingrid Halle, Christer Hogstrand, Joop de Knecht, Lubomir Leng, Anne-Katrine Lundebye Haldorsen, Alberto Mantovani, Miklós Mézes, Carlo Nebbia, Walter Rambeck, Guido Rychen, Atte von Wright and Pieter Wester SUMMARY Following a request from the European Commission (EC), the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to assess the compatibility of the micro-organism product BioPlus 2B with lasalocid A sodium when mixed in turkey feed. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the compatibility of BioPlus 2B with lasalocid A sodium (Avatec 15 %) was not established. In response to this, the applicant provided an in vivo trial with one-day-old turkeys given feed supplemented with BioPlus 2B or BioPlus 2B + lasalocid A sodium 15 % (30 birds per treatment). The results of this study did not reveal any significant differences between the experimental groups for the studied zootechnical parameters or morbidity/mortality. The absence of statistical differences in the total spore counts based on 30 animals per treatment provides evidence of the compatibility between lasalocid A sodium and BioPlus 2B in spore form. However, spores are able to germinate in the digestive tract to an unknown extent and it is likely that the vegetative form would be more susceptible to coccidiostats. Data was provided which attempted to distinguish between the sensitivity of spores and vegetative cells but this was insufficient to allow statistical assessment. Consequently, the FEEDAP Panel is unable to conclude on the compatibility of BioPlus 2B with lasalocid A sodium. Key words: micro-organisms, BioPlus 2B, licheniformis, subtilis, turkeys for fattening, lasalocid A sodium, compatibility 1 For citation purposes: Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) on a request from the European Commission on the compatibility of the microbial preparation of licheniformis and subtilis (BioPlus 2B) with the coccidiostat lasalocid sodium in feed for turkeys. The EFSA Journal (2007) 573, 1-5 European Food Safety Authority, 2007

BioPlus 2B for turkeys Compatibility with lasalocid sodium TABLE OF CONTENTS Panel Members...1 Summary...1 Table of Contents...2 Background as provided by EC...3 Terms of reference as provided by EC...3 Acknowledgements...3 Assessment...4 1. Introduction...4 2. Compatibility with lasalocid A sodium...4 Conclusions...5 Documentation provided to EFSA...5 References...5 The EFSA Journal (2007) 573, 2-5

BACKGROUND AS PROVIDED BY EC BioPlus 2B for turkeys Compatibility with lasalocid sodium Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 2 establishes rules governing the Community authorisation of additives for animal nutrition and in particular defines the conditions that a substance/product should meet to be granted the authorisation. This Regulation replaces Council Directive 70/524/EEC. The Regulation also foresees the possibility to modify authorisations already given in accordance with its Article 13. The company Chr. Hansen A/S is seeking to modify the current Community authorisation and has requested an assessment of the compatibility of its additive licheniformis DSM 5749 and subtilis DSM 5750 (BioPlus 2B) with the coccidiostat lasalocid A sodium. (Table 1). Table 1. Description of the preparation under Regulation (EC) No 600/2005 Product category Micro-organisms Trade name - Description licheniformis DSM 5749 and subtilis DSM 5750 (in ratio 1/1) containing a minimum 3.2 x 10 9 CFU g -1 (1.6 x 10 9 of each bacterium) Target animal category Turkeys for fattening Applicant Chr. Hansen A/S Type of request Modification of authorisation The EFSA, in its opinion adopted on 22 September 2005 (Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Additive and Products or Substance used in Animal Feed on the modification of terms of authorisation of the micro-organism product licheniformis DSM 5749 and subtilis DSM 5750 (BioPlus 2B) authorised as feed additive in accordance with Council Directive 70/524/EEC), was not able to give a conclusive opinion on the compatibility because of lack of data and inadequacy of tests provided by the company. Therefore, the Commission gave the possibility to the company to submit complementary information to complete the assessment. The Commission has received a supplementary dossier from the applicant company Chr. Hansen A/S containing new data on compatibility of BioPlus 2B with Lasalocid sodium. The data generated by the company and complied in the above mentioned supplementary dossier have been sent directly to the Authority. TERMS OF REFERENCE AS PROVIDED BY EC In view of the above, the Commission asks to the European Food Safety Authority to deliver an opinion on the compatibility of this additive with the coccidiostat lasalocid sodium under the authorised conditions of use. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The European Food Safety Authority wishes to thank the members of the Working Group on Micro-organisms for the preparation of this opinion. 2 OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p.29 The EFSA Journal (2007) 573, 3-5

BioPlus 2B for turkeys Compatibility with lasalocid sodium ASSESSMENT 1. Introduction In a previous opinion (EFSA, 2005), the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the compatibility of BioPlus 2B with lasalocid A sodium (Avatec 15 %) was not established. The in vivo growth study provided, involving four experimental groups (control, BioPlus 2B, coccidiostat, BioPlus 2B + coccidiostat), did not make it possible to demonstrate the survival of the bacilli in presence of lasalocid A sodium. The applicant has now provided a supplementary in vivo study. 2. Compatibility with lasalocid A sodium One-day-old female turkeys were individually identified by coloured, numbered wing bands and randomly distributed to experimental groups (30 birds per treatment). One treatment was supplemented with BioPlus 2B at the minimum recommended dose (1.28 x 10 9 spores kg -1 ) and the other was supplemented with BioPlus 2B at 1.28 x 10 9 spores kg -1 feed and lasalocid A sodium at a dose of 125 mg of active substance per kg feed. The experiment duration was 42 days. The animals were allocated in groups of three birds and there were ten replicates per treatment. The diet, based on wheat, corn and soybean meal and added essential amino acids, was prepared three to four weeks before onset of the experiment. Care was taken to avoid cross-contamination in the manufacture of feed. No other antibiotic or medicinal substances were added to the diets. The content of BioPlus 2B viable spores were checked in all supplemented feed batches and were always found close to the expected value. Zootechnical parameters (feed intake, body weight and feed conversion ratio), mortality and morbidity were measured or monitored. Caecal samples from all turkeys were collected aseptically after slaughter and total spores were enumerated. The pen means for body weight, intake and feed conversion and mortality were analysed by ANOVA as a randomised block experiment to compare dietary treatments. Caecal spore counts were tested statistically by a student t-test. The results of this study did not reveal any significant differences between the experimental groups for the different studied zootechnical parameters (body weight from 2.51 kg to 2.60 kg, feed conversion ratio from 1.69 to 1.73) and for mortality or morbidity. Only two birds died at the beginning of the experiment and were replaced. The mean caecal spore counts were 2.77 x 10 5 and 3.07 x 10 5 CFU g -1 for BioPlus 2B and BioPLus 2B + lasalocid, respectively, which were not significantly different. There is evidence of the germination of spores in the digestive tract of experimental animals (Hong et al., 2005). The applicant performed a second approach involving a selective medium and heat treatment to distinguish between vegetative cells and spores using the caecal samples from two animals from each treatment. Microbial counts given in Table 2 indicate that total caecal counts in animals treated with BioPlus 2B and lasalocid A sodium were in the same range than those in animals treated with BioPlus 2B alone. However, the use of only two animals per treatment did not allow statistical evaluation. When considering the individual B. licheniformis or B. subtilis enumerations in caecal contents, similar counts were found in animals whether on not treated with lasalocid A sodium. The EFSA Journal (2007) 573, 4-5

Table 2. Treatment BioPlus 2B BioPlus 2B + lasalocid BioPlus 2B for turkeys Compatibility with lasalocid sodium counts (CFU ml -1 ) of vegetative cells and spores (without heat treatment) and total spore count (with heat treatment) in caecal samples of animals treated with BioPlus 2B and BioPlus 2B + lasalocid A sodium Total counts Without heat treatment licheniformis subtilis Total counts With heat treatment licheniformis subtilis 5.8 x 10 5 3.1 x 10 5 5.4 x 10 5 2.8 x 10 5 4.0 x 10 4 3.0 x 10 4 8.3 x 10 5 4.5 x 10 5 7.2 x 10 5 4.3 x 10 5 1.1 x 10 5 2 x 10 4 6.1 x 10 5 5.4 x 10 5 7.0 x 10 4 6.9 x 10 5 6.0 x 10 5 9.5 x 10 4 3.4 x 10 5 3.2 x 10 5 2.0 x 10 4 6.2 x 10 5 5.6 x 10 5 5.5 x 10 4 CONCLUSIONS The absence of statistical differences in the total spore counts based on 30 animals per treatment provides evidence of the compatibility between lasalocid A sodium and BioPlus 2B in spore form. However, spores are able to germinate in the digestive tract to an unknown extent and it is likely that the vegetative form would be more susceptible to coccidiostats. Some data was provided which attempted to distinguish between the sensitivity of spores and vegetative cells but this was insufficient to allow statistical assessment. Consequently, the FEEDAP Panel is unable to conclude on the compatibility of BioPlus 2B with lasalocid A sodium. DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO EFSA 1. BioPlus 2B. Supplementary dossier vol. 34. Compatibility with the permitted coccidiostat lasalocid A sodium (Avatec 15 %) in feedingstuffs for turkeys. August 2006. Submitted by Chr. Hansen A/S. 2. Supplementary information on the evaluation of BioPlus 2B ( licheniformis and subtilis). Compatibility with lasalocid sodium (EFSA-Q-2006-310). July 2007. Submitted by Chr. Hansen A/S. REFERENCES EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2005. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed on the modification of terms of authorisation of the micro-organism product licheniformis (DSM 5749) and subtilis (DSM 5750) (BioPlus 2B) authorised as a feed additive in accordance with Council Directive 70/524/EEC. <http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/feedap/feedap_opinions/1170.html> Hong, H.A., Duc, L.H. and Cutting, S.M., 2005. The use of bacterial spore formers as probiotics. FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 29, 813-835. The EFSA Journal (2007) 573, 5-5