Suchergebnisse

According to latest EFSA's recommendations (2007) on the welfare of fattening pigs, the aim of the present trial was to give a contribution to the still debated problem concerning pig requirements in terms of environmental illumination. Forty hybrid pigs (26 kg BW) were homogeneously allocated into two experimental groups (20 animals per group) each containing four replications of five pigs: group LL (Long Lighting) in which pigs were exposed to a 16-hour/day light period and group SL (Short Lighting) in which, in compliance with minimum legislative standard, pigs were subjected to a 8-hour/day light period. For both groups the light intensity was 40 lux, equivalent to the minimum mandatory level. Pigs were fed on the basis of their metabolicBW up to a maximum of 3.3 kg/pig/day. From 100 to 160 kg BW pigs were monthly videotaped over a 24-hour period in order to assess, by scan sampling, their behaviour. Growth parameters and post-mortem outcomes were submitted to analysis of variance (GLM procedure) with lighting duration as the main effect.For non-parametric data (behavioural traits), Mann-Whitney test (NPAR1WAY procedure) was used. During the first phase of the experiment (0-118 days of trial), animals receiving the longer illumination period (LL group) showed a significant (P<0.01)improvement of average daily weight gain and a reduction (P<0.05) of feed conversion rate, leading to a higher (P<0.05) final body weight. At slaughtering, despite similar lean meat yields (assessed by F-o-M), pigs on LL group produced heavier carcasses and heavier hams (P<0.01). With respect to behavioural traits, pigs receiving the longer illumination period were more calm as demonstrated by a higher percent of lying behavior and by a lower incidence of pseudo-rooting behavior (P<0.01). From a general standpoint it can be concluded that a prolonged photoperiod with a low light intensity could have some positive effects both on production and behavioural traits of pigs.

l‐Glutamic acid, N,N‐diacetic acid, tetrasodium salt (GLDA‐Na(4)) (Kelforce(®)) is sought to be used as a zootechnical feed additive in chickens for fattening to improve the absorption of zinc from feed, reducing zinc emissions through manure and thus, affecting favourably the environment. The product has not been authorised in the European Union as a feed additive. Kelforce(®) is intended to be marketed as a liquid and solid formulation, containing ≥ 47% and ≥ 30% of GLDA‐Na(4), respectively. Kelforce(®) is safe for chickens for fattening at the maximum level of 1,000 mg GLDA‐Na(4)/kg complete feed. Based on the toxicological profile of GLDA‐Na(4) and the consumer exposure to GLDA‐Na(4) and to nitrilotriacetic acid trisodium salt (NTA‐Na(3); an impurity of the additive), the use of Kelforce(®) at the maximum proposed level in feed of chickens for fattening is of no concern for consumer safety. Due to its low inhalation toxicity, the exposure to GLDA‐Na(4) is unlikely to pose a risk by inhalation. However, owing to the high‐dusting potential of the solid formulation, a risk from such high level of dust, even if toxicologically inert, cannot be excluded. Kelforce(®) is not a skin/eye irritant or skin sensitiser. No risks for the terrestrial compartment were identified at the maximum use level of the additive. Risks for the aquatic compartment cannot be excluded based on the secondary effect of the additive on green algae. In the absence of data, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the sediment compartment or the possible ground water contamination. The risk of bioaccumulation and secondary poisoning caused by the additive is considered very low. Owing to the inconsistent and conflicting results from the studies assessed, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) cannot conclude on the efficacy of the additive. The Panel made a recommendation regarding the levels of formaldehyde and cyanide in the active substance.

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Taminizer D (dimethylglycine sodium salt) as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, based on a dossier submitted for the modification of the terms of authorisation of the additive. The product is authorised in the European Union for chickens for fattening at the maximum content of 1,000 mg/kg complete feedingstuffs. The applicant proposed the introduction of an additional manufacturing process, which introduces an impurity (dimethylamino‐ethanol (DMAE)) in the additive at concentrations up to 0.09%. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) considered that the proposed modification would not substantially affect the previous assessment as related to the safety of the environment and the efficacy of the product. Since the safety of the active substance was established, the current assessment has dealt with the impurity DMAE. Considering the toxicological profile of DMAE, the estimated intake by the target animal and consumers, and making use of the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) approach, the Panel concluded that Taminizer D, manufactured by the DMAE route, is safe for both chickens for fattening and consumers, up to the maximum level of 1,000 mg/kg feed. The FEEDAP Panel extends its conclusions about Taminizer D produced by the original method to cover also Taminizer D produced by the new DMAE method. There is minimal risk to users from dust produced as a result of normal handling of the additive. Taminizer D is not irritant to skin but may be irritant to eyes; it is regarded as a potential skin sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel recommended to set a specification for the DMAE content in the additive.