Wildlife Forensics Huffman, Jane E; Wallace, John R
2011, 2012-02-08, Volume:
6
eBook
Wildlife Forensics: Methods and Applications provides an accessible and practical approach to the key areas involved in this developing subject. The book contains case studies throughout the text ...that take the reader from the field, to the lab analysis to the court room, giving a complete insight into the path of forensic evidence and demonstrating how current techniques can be applied to wildlife forensics. The book contains approaches that wildlife forensic investigators and laboratory technicians can employ in investigations and provides the direction and practical advice required by legal and police professionals seeking to gain the evidence needed to prosecute wildlife crimes. The book will bring together in one text various aspects of wildlife forensics, including statistics, toxicology, pathology, entomology, morphological identification, and DNA analysis. This book will be an invaluable reference and will provide investigators, laboratory technicians and students in forensic Science/conservation biology classes with practical guidance and best methods for criminal investigations applied to wildlife crime. Includes practical techniques that wildlife forensic investigators and laboratory technicians can employ in investigations. Includes case studies to illustrate various key methods and applications. Brings together diverse areas of forensic science and demonstrates their application specifically to the field of wildlife crime. Contains methodology boxes to lead readers through the processes of individual techniques. Takes an applied approach to the subject to appeal to both students of the subject and practitioners in the field. Includes a broad introduction to what is meant by 'wildlife crime', how to approach a crime scene and collect evidence and includes chapters dedicated to the key techniques utilized in wildlife investigations. Includes chapters on wildlife forensic pathology; zooanthropological techniques; biological trace evidence analysis; the importance of bitemark evidence; plant and wildlife forensics; best practices and law enforcement.
Draft Endorsed by the FEEDAP Panel
*
18 May 2017
Submitted for public consultation
15 June 2017
End of public consultation
15 September 2017
Adopted by the FEEDAP Panel
21 February 2018
...Implementation date
1 September 2018
* Sections 3.1 and 3.2 were also endorsed by the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) and EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources Added to Food (ANS) on 18 May (GMO) and 7 June (CEF and ANS) 2017.
This guidance document is intended to assist the applicant in the preparation and the presentation of an application, as foreseen in Article 7.6 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition. It specifically covers the characterisation of microorganisms used as feed additives or as production organisms.
This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1389/full
This guidance document is intended to assist the applicant in the preparation and the presentation of an application, as foreseen in Article 7.6 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, for the authorisation ...of additives for use in animal nutrition. It specifically covers the assessment of the efficacy of feed additives.
Draft Endorsed by the FEEDAP Panel
28 November 2018
Submitted for public consultation
4 December 2017
End of public consultation
28 January 2018
Adoption by the FEEDAP Panel
17 April 2018
Implementation date
1 September 2018
This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1411/full
Table: see text.
This guidance document is intended to assist the applicant in the preparation and the presentation of an application, as foreseen in Article 7.6 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, for ...the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition. It specifically covers the assessment of the safety for the target species.
Table: see text.
This guidance document is intended to assist the applicant in the preparation and the presentation of an application, as foreseen in Article 7.6 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, for ...the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition. It specifically covers the identity, characterisation and conditions of use of the additives.
Table: see text.
This guidance document is intended to assist the applicant in the preparation and the presentation of an application, as foreseen in Article 7.6 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, for ...the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition. It specifically covers the assessment of the safety for the consumer.
l‐Glutamic acid, N,N‐diacetic acid, tetrasodium salt (GLDA‐Na4) (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‐Na4, respectively. Kelforce® is safe for chickens for fattening at the maximum level of 1,000 mg GLDA‐Na4/kg complete feed. Based on the toxicological profile of GLDA‐Na4 and the consumer exposure to GLDA‐Na4 and to nitrilotriacetic acid trisodium salt (NTA‐Na3; 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‐Na4 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.
Sodium and potassium alginate are intended to be used as technological additives (functional groups: emulsifiers, stabilisers, thickeners, gelling agents and binders). Sodium alginate is intended to ...be used in feedingstuffs for pets, other non food‐producing animals and fish, with no maximum recommended use level. Potassium alginate is intended to be used in feedingstuffs for cats and dogs at levels up to 40,000 mg/kg feed (on dry matter). Since the functional properties of the additives are determined by the alginate content, sodium and potassium alginate were considered equivalent. The maximum dose considered safe for cats, dogs, other non food‐producing animals, salmonids and other fish is 40,000 mg alginates (sodium and potassium salts)/kg complete feed. The use of alginates in feedingstuffs for fish is of no concern for the consumer. Alginates are reported not to be irritant to the skin but mildly irritant to the eyes. They are considered as potential sensitisers to the skin and the respiratory tract. Alginates are high‐molecular‐weight polymers naturally occurring in brown algae. Their use in feedingstuffs for fish does not pose a risk for the aquatic environment. Alginates are effective as stabilisers, thickeners, gelling agent and binders. No conclusion could be drawn on the efficacy of alginates as emulsifiers.
Sodium saccharin is intended to be used as a sweetener in feed and water for drinking for piglets, pigs for fattening and veal calves. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal ...Feed (FEEDAP) considers the proposed maximum use level of 150 mg sodium saccharin/kg feed as safe for calves and pigs for fattening. For piglets (sucking and weaned piglets), a lower level of 100 mg sodium saccharin/kg complete feed is considered safe. The corresponding maximum safe concentrations in water for drinking are 30 mg/L for piglets and 50 mg/L for pigs for fattening, respectively. The maximum safe concentrations of sodium saccharin in feed and water for drinking are derived under the premise that only one source, feed or water for drinking, contains the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that no concern for the consumer would result from the use of sodium saccharin in feed and water for drinking at the dose considered safe for the target species. The precautions for handling the product proposed by the applicant are considered to be sufficient to ensure user safety. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the use of sodium saccharin at the dose considered safe for target species is unlikely to have detrimental effects on the terrestrial and freshwater compartments. The high mobility and relative persistence of saccharin and the high persistency of its degradation product 4‐hydroxysaccharin indicate that groundwater contamination above 0.1 μg/L is likely to occur. Since the function of sodium saccharin in feed for the target species is essentially the same as that in food, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that no demonstration of efficacy is necessary.
Blast furnace hearth refractories are a key component in achieving long furnace lives. These refractories can be degraded by among other things reactions with coke ash products. Recent studies have ...shown that these coke ash products could be calcium aluminate based. To understand and characterize the effects of these calcium aluminates on hearth refractories a study has been carried out that investigates the reaction kinetics of CaO.Al2O3, CaO.2Al2O3 and CaO.6Al2O3 in contact with an aluminosilicate blast furnace hearth refractory. The experimental program covered the temperature range 1450° to 1550°C. The temperatures were chosen to represent the hot face temperatures of the hearth refractories. From this study it was found that the rate of reaction with the aluminosilicate refractory and CaO.6Al2O3 was much slower than that of CaO.Al2O3 and CaO.2Al2O3. The prevailing kinetics of the aluminosilicate refractory with CaO.Al2O3 and CaO.2Al2O3 was found to be consistent with the linear rate law. The slow rate of reaction of the refractory with CaO.6Al2O3 prohibited identification of the prevailing kinetic regime. In characterizing the reaction interface between the aluminosilicate and the calcium aluminates it was found that there was significant reaction between the refractory and CaO.Al2O3 and CaO.2Al2O3 but little reaction with the CaO.6Al2O3. The reaction layers formed at the interface between the couples were found to consist of CaO.2Al2O3, CaO.6Al2O3, corundum (Al2O3), plagioclase (CaO.Al2O3.2SiO2) and melilite (2CaO.Al2O3.SiO2). The formation of a layer with these phases could result in spalling/wear of the hearth refractory.
PDF
