z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Safety and efficacy of Feedlyve AGL (endo‐1,3(4)‐β‐glucanase) as a feed additive for chickens for fattening
Author(s) -
Rychen Guido,
Aquilina Gabriele,
Azimonti Giovanna,
Bampidis Vasileios,
Bastos Maria de Lourdes,
Bories Georges,
Chesson Andrew,
Cocconcelli Pier Sandro,
Flachowsky Gerhard,
Gropp Jürgen,
Kolar Boris,
Kouba Maryline,
López Puente Secundino,
LópezAlonso Marta,
Mantovani Alberto,
Mayo Baltasar,
Ramos Fernando,
Saarela Maria,
Villa Roberto Edoardo,
Wallace Robert John,
Wester Pieter,
Brantom Paul,
Dierick Noël,
Anguita Montserrat
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
efsa journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.076
H-Index - 97
ISSN - 1831-4732
DOI - 10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4620
Subject(s) - feed additive , animal feed , genotoxicity , toxicity , biology , food science , microbiology and biotechnology , toxicology , medicine , broiler
Feedlyve AGL is a feed additive that is available in liquid and solid formulations and contains endo‐1,3(4)‐β‐glucanase, which is produced by a strain of Aspergillus niger . The tolerance trial submitted did not comply with the requirements of tolerance trials, and consequently, the study was considered not valid. Therefore, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) could not conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species. The enzyme concentrate gave negative results in a bacterial reverse mutation assay and in an in vitro chromosome aberration assay. Moreover, the substance was negative in an in vivo micronucleus test in the rat bone marrow and the results of the subchronic oral toxicity study showed no adverse effects. However, the correspondence of the test item used and the fermentation product that is currently used to prepare the additive was not established. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel was not in a position to conclude on the safety for the consumer of the additive. The tests conducted in order to address the safety for the user indicated that the test items were not toxic by inhalation, not irritant to the eyes or skin but showed a dermal sensitisation potential. However, the relationship between the test items and the additive for which re‐evaluation is sought were not fully established. The additive is considered as a potential respiratory sensitizer. No risks to the environment are expected. The results of two efficacy trials showed that 100 AGL U/kg feed increased the apparent metabolisable energy of the diets in one trial and improved the body weight gain and the gain to feed ratio in another trial. However, a third trial showing significant and positive effects would be required to positively conclude on the efficacy of the product.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here