Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of 18 strains of <em>Lactobacillus plantarum</em> (DSM 23375, CNCM I-3235, DSM 19457, DSM 16568, LMG 21295, DSM 16565, VTT E-78076, CNCM MA 18/5U, NCIMB 30238, ATTC PTA-6139, DSM 18112, ATCC 55058, DSM 18113, DSM 18114, ATCC 55942, ATCC 55943, ATCC 55944 and NCIMB 30094) as silage additives for all species

Technological additive, silage additive, Lactobacillus plantarum, QPS, safety, efficacy
First published in the EFSA Journal
8 June 2012
23 May 2012
Scientific Opinion

The 18 strains of Lactobacillus plantarum are each intended to improve ensiling at proposed doses ranging from 5 × 106 to 1.0 × 109 colony-forming units/kg forage. The bacterial species L. plantarum is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the Qualified Presumption of Safety approach to safety assessment. As the identity of all 18 strains was clearly established and as no antibiotic resistance of concern was detected, the use of the 18 strains in silage production is presumed safe for livestock species, consumers of products from animals and the environment. The material safety data sheet proposed indicates that preparations containing the strains maycause irritation on contactwith skin oreyes. In addition, given the dusting potential and proteinaceous nature of the active agents, the FEEDAP Panel considers it prudent to treat all 18 additives as skin and respiratory sensitisers. Studies with laboratory-scale silos are described for each strain, each lasting at least 90 days, made using forage samples representing materials that are easy, moderately difficult and difficult to ensile. Nine of 18 additives showed potential at the minimum doses proposed to improve the production of silage from a wide range of forage species by reducing the pH and increasing the preservation of dry matter. A further strain also showed similar potential, but only when used in combination with a specific strain of Pediococcus pentosaceus. Of the remaining strains, six were tested only with material that is easy to ensile. Although all six showed potential to improve ensiling, as no data were provided using forages with a broader range of characteristics influencing the ensiling process, the Panel concluded that further evidence would be required to justify a claim for use with “all forage species”. The Panel was unable to draw conclusions on the efficacy of the remaining two strains.

Panel members at the time of adoption
Gabriele Aquilina, Georges Bories, Andrew Chesson, Pier Sandro Cocconcelli, Joop de Knecht, Noël Albert Dierick, Mikolaj Antoni Gralak, Jürgen Gropp, Ingrid Halle, Christer Hogstrand, Lubomir Leng, Secundino López Puente, Anne-Katrine Lundebye Haldorsen, Alberto Mantovani, Giovanna Martelli, Miklós Mézes, Derek Renshaw, Maria Saarela, Kristen Sejrsen and Johannes Westendorf
Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed
EFSA Journal 2012;10(6):2732 [36 pp.].
Question Number
On request from
European Commission