ARCHIVED - Consultation Summary on Maximum Nutrient Values in Poultry (Chicken and Turkey) Feeds

This page has been archived

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or record-keeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Respondent Comments
and CFIA Responses

(November 23 – December 23, 2016)

Contents

Introduction

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has embarked on a comprehensive change agenda to strengthen its foundation of legislation, regulatory programs and inspection delivery. These directions set the context for the renewal of the Feeds Regulations (Regulations).

The goal of modernizing the Regulations is to reduce compliance burden and support innovation, while ensuring feeds are safe and contribute to the production and maintenance of healthy livestock, safe foods of animal origin, and that they do not pose a significant risk to the environment. The modernization of the Regulations is being designed to benefit the collective Canadian feed industry, which includes livestock producers, commercial feed manufacturers, retailers, importers, exporters, ingredient manufacturers, and food processors. As well as aligning with other international feed regulatory regimes, modernization also maintains the objective of enhancing animal health and food safety for the Canadian public.

The oversight of maximum nutrient values in feeds is just one aspect of the Regulations that is being reviewed as part of the comprehensive modernization project. Table 4 of Schedule I was created and incorporated into the Feeds Regulations in the 1980s as a mechanism to exempt certain groups of feeds from registration. Currently, if a complete feed provides nutrients which fall within the ranges listed in Table 4, or a supplement has directions for use which would result in a complete feed that provides nutrients which fall within the Table 4 ranges, the feed can be exempted from registration. Feeds that provide nutrients which fall outside the ranges listed in Table 4, and that do not meet any additional exemption criteria, require assessment and registration by the CFIA prior to manufacture and sale.

The values in Table 4 no longer have the same nutritional relevancy that they did when the table was first introduced. Stakeholders have also indicated that they feel Table 4 prevents innovation for new feed products, however, many of the maximum nutrient limits which are currently set in Table 4 have health and safety implications that must be considered.

The CFIA undertook a consultation from November 23, 2016 to December 23, 2016 on a proposal to identify maximum nutrient values in poultry (chicken and turkey) feeds. It was also proposed that Table 4 be removed from the Regulations and no longer serve as a trigger for registration of feeds based on specified ranges of nutrient content. Finally, the proposal indicated that these maximum nutrient values would be included in a document to be incorporated by reference in the regulations to allow the flexibility to amend the list(s) in a timely manner, as necessary.

This report consolidates and summarizes the comments received on the maximum nutrient values in poultry (chicken and turkey) feeds proposal and the CFIA's response to those comments.

The CFIA would like to thank everyone who participated in the consultation for contributing their time to the consultation process and sharing their views.

About the Consultation

The primary mode of consultation involved the preparation and posting of the Proposal – Maximum Nutrient Values in Poultry (Chicken and Turkey) Feeds – on the CFIA website, and outreach directly to industry stakeholders, government partners and CFIA staff. Twenty-two (22) sets of written comments were received in response to the maximum nutrient values in poultry feeds proposal.

What We Heard

Respondent Profile

Table 1: Respondent Profile
Category of Respondent Distribution
Feed Industry – Individual 7
Feed Industry – Association 4
Livestock Producer – Individual 3
Livestock Producer – Association 3
Other Feed Inputs 3
Government (Canadian Federal/Provincial) 2
Total 22

The feed industry association comments represent Canadian and American commercial feed manufacturers, as well as some larger feed ingredient supplier organizations. The Canadian feed manufacturers association represents 90 percent of commercial feed manufactured in Canada, while the US association represents about 75 percent of commercial feed manufactured in the US. The "Other Feed Inputs" listed in the table above included an industry consulting firm, a food manufacturer and a poultry genetics company.

Key Respondent Messages

There was considerable interest among respondents regarding the alternative oversight approach presented in this proposal. While stakeholders provided many suggestions for improvement regarding the proposed maximum nutrient values for poultry feeds, the CFIA did not receive any comments indicating an outright disagreement with the proposed regulatory approach.

Respondents indicated they agreed with the concept of discontinuing the use of Table 4 as a means of exempting feeds from registration, however, they also raised some concerns regarding the proposal, including:

  • that the stated scope of the proposal was not being observed;
  • the age classification proposed for chickens and turkeys were not reflective of current industry practices; and,
  • some of the proposed maximum nutrient values were not appropriate.

A more detailed discussion on these concerns and the CFIA's responses follows below.

Comments received from livestock producers or their associations echoed the concerns expressed from other stakeholders and focussed mostly on the impacts that some of the proposed values may have on their production practices and livestock. They also stressed the importance of maintaining flexibility with certain nutrient values that may exceed the nutritional needs of poultry to support label claims being made on food products being marketed to consumers, such as:

  • producing eggs rich in Vitamin D in order to supply 30% of the recommended daily intake in human diets requires levels of greater than 10,000 International Units per Kilogram (IU/kg) in the feed; and,
  • producing eggs enriched in omega-3 fatty acids requires levels of Vitamin E as high as 275 IU/Kg in the feed to act as an antioxidant for the omega-3 fatty acids.

Feedback on the Proposed Maximum Nutrient Values in Poultry Feeds

Scope of the Proposal

The scope of the Table 4 review was described in the proposal as determining those nutrient values that may impact the health and safety of the respective livestock, humans, and environment; determining those nutrient values that support a nutritional purpose as opposed to a therapeutic purpose; and, determining those nutrient values that may produce residues in the resulting food that could be harmful to those consuming the products. Seven (7) respondents commented on the stated scope of this proposal. Four (4) respondents suggested the maximum values proposed for certain nutrients were based more on animal performance concerns and not on animal health concerns, thus outside the scope of this proposal. One (1) respondent felt the proposal didn't take into account the supra-nutritional roles of nutrients in the diet such as immunological functions in instances of disease or other challenges. This respondent also felt the proposal failed to address the differences in the effects of nutrients in supplemental form vs. added sources. Another respondent was unsure of how human safety concerns related to the use of highly concentrated micro/macro premixes would be handled. Lastly, one (1) respondent commented that certain nutrients proposed are too restrictive and limit the ability to treat with nutrition as opposed to medications.

CFIA Response

During its assessment for the purposes of proposing the maximum nutrient levels, the CFIA reviewed scientific studies identifying the maximum tolerable level from an animal health perspective and then focussing on whether these levels of nutrients represented a food safety, therapeutic use, or environmental concern. Nutrients fed at levels that may have a negative impact on livestock are usually first observed when a reduction in animal performance, such as feed efficiency, occurs. As a result, it was reasonable to consider adverse animal performance in the scope of the review as an indicator of animal health. In addition, the maximum nutrient levels proposed included all sources of nutrients, i.e. intrinsic and added sources as well as inorganic and organic forms.

For those feeds that may contain concentrated levels of nutrients (such as micro premixes or macro premixes), mixing directions would continue to be required on feed labels to ensure the maximum nutrient values would not be exceeded when formulating the complete feed. This will permit the safe preparation and use of the feed in question and potentially reduce the risk of maximum nutrient values being exceeded.

One aspect of the proposal's scope was specific to determining nutrient levels that support a nutritional purpose in feeds as opposed to a therapeutic or "supra-nutritional" purpose, such as immune function. While the CFIA regulates livestock feed products, the approval and regulatory authority for therapeutic products, including nutrients marketed as having therapeutic effects, is the responsibility of the Veterinary Drugs Directorate of Health Canada. As a result, maximum nutrient values based on their therapeutic uses were considered outside of the scope of this proposal and the legislated authority of the CFIA.

Suggestions for Improvement

With respect to the nutrient values, in many cases respondents indicated that the proposed values were too low, based on current industry practices and the experiences of individual nutritionists in the formulation of diets for poultry species.

CFIA Response

The CFIA appreciates the time stakeholders invested in providing detailed descriptions and rationales of their production practices, growing stages and concerns with the proposed maximum nutrient values. The CFIA acknowledges these perspectives and in many instances, agrees to increase certain nutrient maximum levels in response to this feedback.

Growing Stages

The proposal identified the following as growing stages for chickens:

Chicken
Class Proposed Growing Stages
Starter 0 - 4 weeks
Grower 4 - 8 weeks
Finisher >8 weeks
Broiler Breeder >21 weeks
Pre-Layer / Pre-Layer Breeder 16-23 weeks
Layer / Layer Breeder >19 weeks

The proposal also identified the following as growing stages for turkeys:

Turkey
Class Proposed Growing Stages
Starter 0 - 8 weeks
Grower >8 weeks
Breeder Grower 15-28 weeks
Breeder >28 weeks

Nine (9) respondents indicated a concern with the proposed age classification for chickens and five (5) respondents indicated a concern with the proposed age classification for turkeys set out in the proposal. The respondents felt in both circumstances that the classifications are too restrictive and the stages do not accurately portray current production practices. This is especially the case when birds are being light stimulated, so respondents suggested the age restrictions should be removed entirely.

Additional comments from those responding on the proposed chicken age classification indicated an overlap for some growing stages (Pre-layer/Pre-layer Breeder and Layer/Layer Breeder) that may cause confusion with respect to the maximum nutrients for each class. Additional comments from those responding on the proposed turkey age classification indicated the terminology used in the proposal to classify the different turkey stages was inconsistent with industry terminology (e.g. "Grower" should be changed to "Grower/Developer/Holding").

CFIA Response

The CFIA agrees that the classes set out in the proposal may not be reflective of poultry industry current practices and will proceed to amend the chicken growing stages as follows:

Chicken
Class Amended Growing Stages
Starter 0 - 8 weeks
Grower 4 - 8 weeks
Finisher / Breeder >8 weeks
Pre-Layer / Pre-Layer Breeder >15 weeks
Layer / Layer Breeder / Layer Broiler Breeder No age set

The overlap of the age between Starter and Grower classes will allow more flexibility between broilers, roasters and pullets. The age restrictions have been removed from the pre-layer and layer classes to provide additional flexibility for light stimulation.

The CFIA agrees that the proposed turkey classes also may not be reflective of industry's current practices and will proceed to amend these growing stages as follows:

Turkey
Class Amended Growing Stages
Starter 0 - 8 weeks
Grower / Developer / Holding / Finisher / Breeder 4 - 30+ weeks
Pre-Layer / Layer / Layer Breeder No age set

To align more closely with industry terminology, the designation "Grower" will be expanded to account for a larger portion of the rearing period, as suggested by stakeholders. Furthermore, the age restrictions have been removed from the pre-layer and layer classes to provide additional flexibility with light stimulation.

In addition, if production practices continue to change over time, amendments to the age ranges can be made in a more timely fashion as the intent is to incorporate the document by reference in the Regulations as opposed to what is currently the case where Table 4 forms part of the Feeds Regulations.

Macro-Minerals
Calcium (Ca) and Phosphorus (P)

Twelve (12) respondents provided comments regarding the proposed maximum calcium values for chickens and/or turkeys. While one (1) respondent indicated approval for the proposed values, in all other instances respondents felt the proposed values were unnecessarily low and should be increased.

Seven (7) respondents provided comments regarding the proposed maximum phosphorus values for chickens and/or turkeys. While two (2) respondents indicated approval for the proposed values, in all other instances respondents felt the proposed values were unnecessarily low and should be increased.

Concerns raised by respondents
Nutrient Chickens Turkeys
Calcium
  • layer/layer breeder should have a maximum value of 6% calcium as opposed to 5% to prevent metabolic disorders like cage fatigue;
  • 5% calcium is more likely the requirement for layer/layer breeder and not the maximum tolerable level; and,
  • layer/layer breeder calcium should be set at 6%.
  • 2.5% maximum level would be more in line with calcium needs of starter turkeys;
  • maximum of 2% calcium for both starter and grower would be more reasonable;
  • maximum value of 1% calcium for breeder grower would result in leg shaking syndrome; and,
  • maximum value of 5% calcium required for breeder layers for when feed intake issues arise.
Phosphorus
  • concern over potential cage layer fatigue in young pullets; and,
  • proposing a phosphorus maximum limit of 1.2% for all stages as there is no evidence of animal health issues in current production at that level.
  • higher phosphorus value is needed due to the lower feed intake of newer genetics and additional feed phosphate added to the feed when caged layer fatigue is detected in flock; and,
  • increase the maximum nutrient value for phosphorus in breeders to 1.0% as 0.8% would result in shaky leg syndrome.
CFIA Response
Calcium

After careful review and consideration of the suggested values from all respondents, the CFIA intends to amend the maximum calcium values in chicken and turkey feeds as follows:

Chicken
Class Proposed Amended
Starter 1.5% 1.5%
Grower 1.5% 1.5%
Finisher / Breeder 1.5% 1.5%
Pre-Layer / Pre-Layer Breeder 4.0% 4.0%
Layer / Layer Breeder / Layer Broiler Breeder 5.0% 6.0%
Turkey
Class Proposed Amended
Starter 1.8% 2.5%
Grower / Developer / Holding / Finisher / Breeder 2.5% 2.5%
Pre-Layer / Layer / Layer Breeder 4.0% 5.0%

These changes proposed for the maximum calcium values will enable increased flexibility for variable feeding practices and genetic diversity as well as provide protection against certain nutritionally-based metabolic disorders.

Phosphorus

After careful review and consideration of the suggested values from all respondents, the CFIA intends to amend the maximum phosphorus values in chicken and turkey feeds as follows:

Chicken
Class Proposed Amended
Starter 1.0% 1.2%
Grower 1.0% 1.2%
Finisher, Breeder 1.0% 1.2%
Pre-Layer / Pre-Layer Breeder 0.8% 1.2%
Layer / Layer Breeder / Layer Broiler Breeder 0.8% 1.2%
Turkey
Class Proposed Amended
Starter 1.2% 1.2%
Grower / Developer / Holding / Finisher / Breeder 1.0% 1.2%
Pre-Layer / Layer / Layer Breeder 0.8% 1.2%

These changes proposed for the maximum phosphorus values will enable increased flexibility for variable feeding practices, genetic diversity and availability of the phosphorus. In addition, if higher calcium values are being proposed, the phosphorus levels must also increase to keep the Ca:P ratio in proportion.

Magnesium, Sodium, Potassium and Sulfur
Nutrient No. of respondents with comments No. in agreement with proposed values No. not in agreement - Summary of feedback
Magnesium (Mg) 5 4 1 – Suggested this nutrient should be removed from the list as no animal health or environmental concerns existed.
Sodium (Na) 6 3 2 – Proposed maximum value was too low and suggested the NRC value for chickens and turkeys of 0.65% should be followed.
1 - Suggested this nutrient should be removed from the list as no animal health or environmental concerns existed.
Potassium (K) 4 2 1 – Proposed maximum value was too low and should be increased to 2.73%.
1 - Suggested this nutrient should be removed from the list as no animal health or environmental concerns existed.
Sulfur (S) 5 2 3 - Proposed maximum value was too low and could restrict lysine-sulfate, methionine, canola meal or feather meal use in feeds and suggested the maximum sulfur value should be increased to 0.6%
CFIA Response
Magnesium

The CFIA agrees with the respondents and will proceed with the maximum values for magnesium identified in the proposal.

Sodium

The CFIA agrees with the respondent that the value proposed by the NRC does not present an animal health risk. As a result the CFIA intends to increase the proposed maximum sodium values in chicken and turkey feeds to 0.65%.

Potassium

The form of potassium in the diets can influence its toxicity, e.g. potassium chloride (KCl) vs potassium bicarbonate (KHCO3). Limited scientific studies are available on the effect of potassium bicarbonate in poultry diets at a level exceeding 2%, therefor until further research is conducted there is insufficient evidence to support an increase to the maximum potassium level proposed. The process to request future amendments to the maximum nutrient levels will be outlined in the document submitted as part of the formal Canada Gazette Part I publication.

Sulfur

Based on the comments received from respondents, the CFIA intends to increase the maximum sulfur value for chickens and turkeys to 0.6%. The concerns expressed in the proposal for the use of sulfur rich ingredients and growth issues observed with sulfur levels above 0.4% could be counterbalanced by the increase of calcium levels in the diets.

Trace Minerals
Cobalt, Copper, Iodine and Iron
Nutrient No. of respondents with comments No. in agreement with proposed values No. not in agreement - Summary of feedback
Cobalt (Co) 4 4 0 - N/A (Not applicable)
Copper (Cu) 6 1 3 – Suggested the level should be increased to allow Cu to be utilized to promote poultry health/improve the digestive system.
1 – Proposed maximum value was too low as there was no health and safety risk at higher levels, e.g. 250mg/kg.
1 – Proposed to increase the maximum value to the level most commonly used in the industry, i.e. 250mg/kg.
Iodine (I) 6 3 1 – Proposed maximum value was too low and was unnecessary for starters, growers and finishers.
1 – Suggested there was insufficient evidence to validate any negative effects with elevated iodine levels.
1- Suggested efforts should be made to ensure that the use of algae product will not result in diets exceeding the proposed maximum value for I.
Iron (Fe) 6 2 4 - Proposed maximum value was too low and constraining and suggested the NRC upper limit value of 500mg/kg should be used.
CFIA Response
Cobalt

The CFIA agrees with the respondents and will proceed with the maximum values for cobalt identified in the proposal.

Copper

The CFIA appreciates the concerns expressed and suggestions provided by stakeholders. The use of nutrients for therapeutic purposes is regulated by the Veterinary Drugs Directorate of Health Canada. As a result, identifying maximum nutrient values based on their therapeutic use would be outside of the scope of this proposal and the legislated authority of the CFIA. The CFIA will continue to work with our partners at Health Canada to determine any potential flexibility that may exist with this requirement, if applicable, and will outline this decision in a supplementary response.

Iodine

The concentration of iodine in animal tissues and their resulting food products is related to the iodine intake from feed. While the proposed maximum iodine value of 5mg/kg is a reduction from the current value, it is still significantly higher than the NRC (1994) iodine dietary requirement (0.35 mg/kg feed). This level will allow animals to meet their nutritional needs while promoting food safety. As a result, the CFIA is not considering making any further changes to the maximum iodine value identified in the proposal.

Iron

The 500 mg/kg upper limit values suggested by the National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC (2005)) is on a dry matter basis and is equivalent to approximately 440 mg/kg at 88% DM, thus the maximum value identified in the proposal already mirrors the NRC (2005) upper limit value. Furthermore, the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) Journal 2014; 12(2):3566 reviewed the experiments done by (Cao et al., 1996). The results identified 565 mg Fe/kg complete feed, or 497mg Fe/kg complete feed at 88% DM as fed, as the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL). As one of the pillars to establishing the maximum nutrient levels is to prevent any adverse effect on the health of the animal, the CFIA is not considering making any further changes to the maximum iron value identified in the proposal.

Manganese, Selenium and Zinc
Nutrient No. of respondents with comments No. in agreement with proposed values No. not in agreement - Summary of feedback
Manganese (Mn) 10 2 8 - Proposed maximum value was too low which could lead to leg disorders in turkeys and suggested increasing the level to allow flexibility and to account for natural background Mn levels found in some ingredients, e.g. 200 – 300mg/kg.
Selenium (Se) 10 1 9 – Concerns expressed regarding the controls needed to adhere to the "total" requirement. Suggestions included increasing the level to 0.6mg/kg or 1.0 mg/kg and keeping the requirement on an "added" basis as opposed to a "total" basis.
Zinc (Zn) 8 0 3 - Proposed to increase the maximum value to the level most commonly used in the industry, e.g. 200-300mg/kg.
2 – Proposed maximum value was too low as there was no evidence of environmental risk.
2 – Proposed maximum value was too low to account for natural Zn levels in some ingredients.
1 – Suggested following the NRC upper limit value of 500mg/kg.
CFIA Response
Manganese

The CFIA agrees with the respondents that an increase in the proposed maximum value does not present an animal health risk, coupled with the expectation that safe handling procedures will be followed, the CFIA intends to increase the proposed maximum manganese values in chicken and turkey feeds to 300mg/kg to allow flexibility in formulation.

Selenium

The proposal to set the selenium maximum value on a total basis would bring the requirements in line with all other nutrient maximums. The comments regarding the selenium maximum values and the issues noted with respect to total vs added guarantees appears to be a consistent concern expressed by stakeholders across most species. As a result, the Se requirements warrant a further review by the CFIA. Furthermore, given that an excess of selenium in the diet of animals results in accumulation in tissues, and thus presents a food safety risk, the CFIA is working with Health Canada to determine an approach that will provide flexibility for industry without compromising human or animal health. The CFIA will outline this decision in a supplementary response.

Zinc

The CFIA appreciates the concerns expressed and suggestions provided by stakeholders. Elevated levels of Zn in poultry feeds have historically been used for non-nutritive purposes. The use of nutrients for therapeutic purposes is regulated by the Veterinary Drugs Directorate of Health Canada. As a result, identifying maximum nutrient values based on their therapeutic use would be outside of the scope of this proposal and the legislated authority of the CFIA. The CFIA will continue to work with our partners at Health Canada to determine any potential flexibility that may exist with this requirement, if applicable, and will outline this decision in a supplementary response.

Vitamins
Vitamin A, Vitamin D, Vitamin E and Vitamin C
Nutrient No. of respondents with comments No. in agreement with proposed values No. not in agreement - Summary of feedback
Vitamin A (Vit A) 11 0 11 - Proposed maximum value was too low which could lead to leg development problems and it was suggested the level needs to support nutritional claims in eggs.
Vitamin D (Vit D) 12 3 9 – Proposed maximum value was too low as there was no health and safety risk at higher levels and could cause additional regulatory burden. In addition, it was suggested the level needs to support nutritional claims in eggs.
Vitamin E (Vit E) 11 0 11 – Concerns expressed indicating the level established needs to support the production of enriched eggs, fertility in broiler breeders, prevent the oxidation of Omega 3 enriched eggs and support immunity in laying hens.
Vitamin C (Vit C) 4 4 0 - N/A
CFIA Response
Vitamin A

The CFIA agrees with the respondents that an increase in the proposed maximum value does not present an animal health or food safety risk. As a result, the CFIA intends to increase the proposed maximum vitamin A values in chicken feeds to 25,000 IU/kg for pre-layers, layers and layer breeders and 20,000 IU/kg for all other classes of chickens and all classes of turkeys.

Vitamin D

At this time Health Canada does not allow for the fortification or enrichment of shell eggs with vitamins, minerals or amino acids. Modifying food fortification provisions to, for example, permit a different level of vitamin, mineral nutrient or amino acid addition to a food, or to allow a new food category to be fortified, requires a regulatory amendment to the Food and Drug Regulations (FDR). A reference table (taken from Part D of the FDR), that indicates foods which are required to be, or may be, fortified is available on the CFIA website. The Canadian Nutrient File indicates that on average 100 g of raw egg contains an average of 56 IU of Vitamin D and 100 g of raw egg yolk contains 188 IU of Vitamin D. Eggs that exceed this level may be considered to be fortified. At this time, the feed maximum for Vitamin D will remain at 6,500 IU/kg of poultry feed to support animal needs but will not be increased to allow for fortification of eggs. CFIA agrees with respondents that feeding 40,000 IU Vitamin D/kg of complete feed in layer rations does not result in an animal health issue, and as such if Health Canada allows for the fortification/enrichment of eggs with Vitamin D, CFIA will consider data in support of increasing the maximum Vitamin D levels in feed. CFIA will also proceed with maintaining the proposed maximum value of 6,500 IU/kg for all other classes of chickens.

Furthermore, the CFIA did not receive any data in support of increasing the maximum Vitamin D level for all classes of turkeys and thus will leave the maximum at 6,500 IU/kg.

Vitamin E

The CFIA agrees with the respondents that an increase in the proposed maximum value does not present an animal health or food safety risk and may benefit the health of the animal. As a result, the CFIA intends to increase the proposed maximum vitamin E value for all classes of chickens and turkeys to 1,000 IU/kg.

Vitamin C

The CFIA agrees with the respondents and will proceed with removing vitamin C from the list of maximum nutrient values.

Additional Respondent Feedback

Regulations respecting Customer Formula Feeds

In addition to the suggested amendments provided by stakeholders and summarized above, the CFIA received additional inquiries with respect to the future state of the customer formula exemption criteria. Three (3) respondents indicated a desire for CFIA to maintain the flexibility the current customer formula criteria provides to the industry, including having access to a secure tool to achieve elevated levels of nutrients in the feeds, when requested by the purchaser.

CFIA Response

The primary use of the customer formula exemption currently allows manufacturers to formulate feeds, as per their customer's request, outside the Table 4 nutrient ranges without requiring premarket registration by the CFIA. As the nutrient ranges in Table 4 will be removed from the Regulations and replaced with a list of maximum nutrient values established in respect of animal health, human health and the protection of the environment, it is not anticipated that feeds will be permitted to be manufactured above the maximum values identified under any circumstances. For those stakeholders who do have a desire to manufacture feeds with one or more nutrients above the established maximum value(s), an application to amend the maximum value would be required to be submitted to the CFIA along with supporting data to substantiate the safety of this feed. See Consolidated Proposal, "Customer and Consultant Formula Feeds" under heading, "Permissions – Mixed Feeds".

Next Steps

The CFIA is preparing a formal regulatory proposal for publication in the Canada Gazette Part I which will incorporate the comments received on all the consultation proposals, public meetings, stakeholder workshops and submissions, and other outreach activities that have been used over the course of the project. A draft of the Maximum Nutrient Values in Poultry (Chicken and Turkey) Feeds will be available for public review and comment at the time of the Canada Gazette publication.

Date modified: