Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum NCIMB 30094 for all animal species (Volac International Ltd)
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum NCIMB 30094 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additive) for use in fresh material for all animal species. The additive is intended for use at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 109 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species Lactiplantibacillus 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 animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed with the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive consists of a microorganism, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The additive was shown to be irritant for eyes, but not for skin. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that L. plantarum NCIMB 30094 at the proposed inclusion rate has the potential to improve the production of silage from all fresh plant 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 8
- Authors
- (FEEDAP), E. P. O. A. A. P. O. S. U. I. A. F., Villa, R. E., Azimonti, G., Bonos, E., Christensen, H., Durjava, M., Dusemund, B., Gehring, R., Glandorf, B., Kouba, M., López‐Alonso, M., Marcon, F., Nebbia, C., Pechová, A., Prieto‐Maradona, M., Röhe, I., Theodoridou, K., Anguita, M., Bozzi Cionci, N., Brozzi, R., Firmino, J. P., Innocenti, M. L., Revez, 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
- 2025-01
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- e9144-e9144
- ISSN
- 1831-4732 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11711969
- OpenAlex
- W4406224760
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 0.00
- 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)
- Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
- Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca (Universita Degli Studi Di Milano) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- 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, qualified presumption of safety, antimicrobial resistance genes, user safety, eye irritation, silage making, probiotic bacteria
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
