Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 34271 as a silage additive for all animal species (Lactosan GmbH & Co.KG)
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 34271 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use in easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh plant material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species L. plantarum is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive containing Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 34271 should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. One preparation was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes. However, the Panel cannot assess the irritation potential of other possible preparations. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 34271 has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silage prepared from fresh plant material with a DM range of 30%–35% at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 11 · Cited by 6
- Authors
- (FEEDAP), E. P. O. A. A. P. O. S. U. I. A. F., Bampidis, V., Azimonti, G., Bastos, M. D. L., Christensen, H., Durjava, M., Dusemund, B., Kouba, M., López‐Alonso, M., López Puente, S., Marcon, F., Mayo, B., Pechová, A., Petkova, M., Ramos, F., Villa, R. E., Woutersen, R., Alija‐Novo, N., Anguita, M., Bozzi Cionci, N., Brozzi, R., Innocenti, M. L., Ortuño, J., Tarrés‐Call, J., Valeri, P., & García‐Cazorla, Y.
- Corresponding author
- EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP)
- ORCID
- Venue
- EFSA Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2024-07
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e8903-e8903
- ISSN
- 1831-4732 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11270007
- OpenAlex
- W4400987332
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4
- FWCI
- 1.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nd
- Locations
- EFSA Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- European Food Safety Authority
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Mycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
- Keywords
- silage additives, feed additive safety, silage fermentation, probiotic bacteria, antimicrobial resistance genes, irritancy, consumer safety, environmental safety, user safety
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review