The pivotal roles of regulatory jurisdictions in the feed additive sector cannot be over-emphasized. In the European Union (EU), antioxidant substances are authorized as feed additives for prolonging the shelf life of feedstuffs based on their effect for preventing lipid peroxidation. However, the efficacy of antioxidants transcends their functional use as technological additives in animal feeds. Promising research results have revealed the in vivo efficacy of dietary antioxidants for combating oxidative stress in production animals. The in vivo effect of antioxidants is significant for enhancing animal health and welfare. Similarly, postmortem effect of dietary antioxidants has been demonstrated to improve the nutritional, organoleptic and shelf-life qualities of animal products. In practice, dietary antioxidants have been traditionally used by farmers for these benefits in livestock production. However, some antioxidants particularly when supplemented in excess could act as prooxidants and exert detrimental effects on animal well-being and product quality. Presently, there is no exclusive legislation in the EU to justify the authorization of antioxidant products for these in vivo and postmortem efficacy claims. To indicate these efficacy claims and appropriate dosage on product labels, it is important to broaden the authorization status of antioxidants through the appraisal of existing EU legislations on feed additives. Such regulatory review will have major impact on the legislative categorization of antioxidants and the efficacy assessment in the technical dossier application. The present review harnesses the scientific investigations of these efficacy claims in production animals and, proposes potential categorization and appraisal of in vivo methodologies for efficacy assessment of antioxidants. This review further elucidates the implication of such regulatory review on the practical application of antioxidants as feed additives in livestock production. Effecting these regulatory changes will stimulate the innovation of more potent antioxidant products and create potential new markets that will have profound economic impacts on the feed additive industry. Based on the in vivo efficacy claims, antioxidants may have to contend with the legislative controversy of either to be considered as veterinary drugs or feed additives. In this scenario, antioxidants are not intended to diagnose or cure diseases as ascribed to veterinary products. This twisted distinction can be logically debated with reference to the stipulated status of feed additives in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003. Nonetheless, it is imperative for relevant stakeholders in the feed additive industry to lobby for the review of existing EU legislations for authorization of antioxidants for these efficacy claims.

All material supplied via Jukuri is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. Duplication or sale, in electronic or print form, of any part of the repository collections is prohibited. Making electronic or print copies of the material is permitted only for your own personal use or for educational purposes. For other purposes, this article may be used in accordance with the publisher's terms. There may be differences between this version and the publisher's version. You are advised to cite the publisher's version. This is an electronic reprint of the original article. This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail.

All material supplied via Jukuri is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. Duplication or sale, in electronic or print form, of any part of the repository collections is prohibited. Making electronic or print copies of the material is permitted only for your own personal use or for educational purposes. For other purposes, this article may be used in accordance with the publisher's terms. There may be differences between this version and the publisher's version. You are advised to cite the publisher's version.This is an electronic reprint of the original article. This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail.

This review aims to elucidate the contemporary methods of measuring and estimating methane (CH4) emissions from ruminants. Six categories of methods for measuring and estimating CH4 emissions from ruminants are discussed. The widely used methods in most CH4 abatement experiments comprise the gold standard respiration chamber, in vitro incubation, and the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) techniques. In the spot sampling methods, the paper discusses the sniffer method, the GreenFeed system, the face mask method, and the portable accumulation chamber. The spot sampling relies on the measurement of short-term breath data adequately on spot. The mathematical modeling methods focus on predicting CH4 emissions from ruminants without undertaking extensive and costly experiments. For instance, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides default values for regional emission factors and other parameters using three levels of estimation (Tier 1, 2 and 3 levels), with Tier 1 and Tier 3 being the simplest and most complex methods, respectively. The laser technologies include the open-path laser technique and the laser CH4 detector. They use the laser CH4 detector and wireless sensor networks to measure CH4 flux. The micrometeorological methods rely on measurements of meteorological data in line with CH4 concentration. The last category of methods for measuring and estimating CH4 emissions in this paper is the emerging technologies. They include the blood CH4 concentration tracer, infrared thermography, intraruminal telemetry, the eddy covariance (EC) technique, carbon dioxide as a tracer gas, and polytunnel. The emerging technologies are essential for the future development of effective quantification of CH4 emissions from ruminants. In general, adequate knowledge of CH4 emission measurement methods is important for planning, implementing, interpreting, and comparing experimental results.

Direct measurement of individual animal dry matter intake (DMI) remains a fundamental challenge to assessing dairy feed efficiency (FE). Digesta marker, is currently the most used indirect technique for estimating DMI in production animals. In this meta-analysis we evaluated the performance of marker-based estimates against direct or observed measurements and developed equations for the prediction of FE (g energy-corrected milk (ECM)/kg DMI). Data were taken from 29 change-over studies consisting of 416 cow-within period observations. Most studies used more than one digesta marker. So, for each observed measurement of DMI, faecal dry matter output (FDMO) and apparent total tract dry matter digestibility (DMD), there was one or more corresponding marker estimate. There were 924, 409 and 846 observations for estimated FDMO (eFDMO), estimated apparent total tract DMD (eDMD) and estimated DMI (eDMI), respectively. The experimental diets were based mainly on grass silage, with soya bean or rapeseed meal as protein supplements and cereal grains or by-products as energy supplements. Across all diets, average forage to concentrate ratio on a dry matter (DM) basis was 59 : 41. Variance component and repeatability estimates of observed and marker estimations were determined using random factors in mixed procedures of SAS. Between-cow CV in observed FDMO, DMD and DMI was, 10.3, 1.69 and 8.04, respectively. Overall, the repeatability estimates of observed variables were greater than their corresponding marker-based estimates of repeatability. Regression of observed measurements on marker-based estimates gave good relationships (R 2 = 0.87, 0.68, 0.74 and 0.74, relative prediction error = 10.9%, 6.5%, 15.4% and 18.7%for FDMO, DMD, DMI and FE predictions, respectively). Despite this, the mean and slope biases were statistically significant (P < 0.001) for all regressions. More than half of the errors in all regressions were due to mean and slope biases (52.4% 87.4%, 82.9% and 85.8% for FDMO, DMD, DMI and FE, respectively), whereas the contributions of random errors were small. Based on residual variance, the best model for predicting FE developed from the dataset was FE (g ECM/kg DMI) = 1179(±54.1) +38.2 (±2.05) × ECM(kg/day) − 0.64(±0.051) × BW (kg) − 75.6(±4.39) × eFDMO (kg/day). Although eDMD was positively related to FE, it only showed a tendency to reduce the residual variance. Despite inaccuracy in marker procedures, eFDMO from external markers provided a reliable determination for FE measurement. However, DMD estimated by internal markers did not improve prediction of FE, probably reflecting small variability. ImplicationsThe main obstacle to assessing dairy feed efficiency (FE) is an accurate individual animal feed intake measurement which direct recording is laborious and expensive. Therefore, indirect methods using digesta markers to estimate intake have been developed. In this study, we used a metaanalytical approach to develop models that could be used to predict feed intake and FE by means of markers. Overall, mar...