Open AccessSafety and efficacy of Lactobacillus parafarraginis DSM 32962 as a silage additive for all animal species
Author(s) -
Bampidis Vasileios,
Azimonti Giovanna,
Bastos Maria de Lourdes,
Christensen Henrik,
Dusemund Birgit,
Kos Durjava Mojca,
Kouba Maryline,
LópezAlonso Marta,
López Puente Secundino,
Marcon Francesca,
Mayo Baltasar,
Pechová Alena,
Petkova Mariana,
Ramos Fernando,
Sanz Yolanda,
Villa Roberto Edoardo,
Woutersen Ruud,
Cocconcelli Pier Sandro,
Glandorf Boet,
Prieto Maradona Miguel,
Saarela Maria,
Galobart Jaume,
Gregoretti Lucilla,
Innocenti Matteo,
LópezGálvez Gloria,
Pettenati Elisa,
Sofianidis Konstantinos,
Vettori Maria Vittoria,
Brozzi Rosella
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
efsa journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.076
H-Index - 97
ISSN - 1831-4732
DOI - 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6201
Subject(s) - silage , food science , feed additive , european commission , forage , biology , microbiology and biotechnology , livestock , zoology , agronomy , business , european union , ecology , broiler , economic policy
Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lactobacillus parafarraginis DSM 32962 when used as a technological additive intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 1 × 10 8 colony forming units ( CFU )/kg fresh material. The bacterial species L. parafarraginis is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. As the identity of the strain has been clearly established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. The additive is not an eye or dermal irritant but should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. Three studies with laboratory‐scale silos were made using samples of easy and moderately difficult to ensile forage. In each case, replicate silos containing untreated forage were compared with identical silos containing the same forage to which Lactobacillus parafarraginis DSM 32962 was added to reach an intended concentration of 1 × 10 8 CFU /kg fresh matter. The results showed that the addition of the additive improves significantly the aerobic stability of the silage tested.