Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39123728›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024

Quantification of the Environmental Impact of Feeding Yeast Probiotic

Nizar Salah, Héloïse Legendre, Erika Paiva, Julie Duclos, Maxime Briche, Mariem Maaoui, Jasper Scholten, Céline Garat Boute

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Environmental Benefits of Yeast PostbioticAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Does the Use of the Yeast ProbioticAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Nizar SalahPhileo by Lesaffre, 59520 Marquette-lez-Lille, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2683-4460
Héloïse LegendrePhileo by Lesaffre, 59520 Marquette-lez-Lille, France.ORCID 0000-0001-7584-6287
Erika PaivaPhileo by Lesaffre, 59520 Marquette-lez-Lille, France.
Julie DuclosPhileo by Lesaffre, 59520 Marquette-lez-Lille, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5744-8688
Maxime BrichePhileo by Lesaffre, 59520 Marquette-lez-Lille, France.ORCID 0009-0003-9068-7896
Mariem MaaouiBlonk Sustainability Tools, Groen van Prinsterersingel 45, 2805 TD Gouda, The Netherlands.
Jasper ScholtenBlonk Sustainability Tools, Groen van Prinsterersingel 45, 2805 TD Gouda, The Netherlands.
Céline Garat BoutePhileo by Lesaffre, 59520 Marquette-lez-Lille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Today, one of the major challenges of dairy farmers is to reduce their environmental footprint to establish more effective, efficient, and sustainable production systems. Feed additives such as yeast probiotics could potentially allow them to achieve these objectives through the improvement of milk production, feed efficiency, and ration valorization, hence mitigating the environmental impacts of milk production. In this study, the life cycle assessment (LCA) principle was performed to estimate the environmental impact of the production and supplementation of a commercial yeast probiotic (Actisaf Sc 47) in three trials performed in three different countries that are representative for around 50% of the milk production in Europe: France (French trial), United Kingdom (UK trial), and Germany (German trial). For each trial, two groups of animals were compared: control, without Actisaf Sc 47 supplementation, used as baseline; and experimental, with Actisaf Sc 47 supplementation at 5 or 10 g/cow/day. Different impact categories were analyzed for each group to calculate the impact of producing 1 kg of fat- and protein-corrected milk. An initial analysis was done only during the period of Actisaf Sc 47 supplementation and showed than the supplementation with Actisaf Sc 47 reduced, on average by 5%, the carbon footprint during the three trials. A second analysis was done via the extrapolation of all the data of each trial to an annual farm level, including the lactation period (305 days), dry period (60 days), and the period with and without Actisaf Sc 47 supplementation. Reported at a farm annual scale, the average reduction allowed by Actisaf Sc 47 supplementation was 2.9, 2.05, 2.47, 1.67, 2.28, 2.18, 2.14, and 2.28% of the carbon footprint, land use, water use, resource use, acidification, freshwater eutrophication, marine eutrophication, and terrestrial eutrophication, respectively. On average, the production of 1 kg of fat- and protein-corrected milk by using Actisaf Sc 47 was shown to improve environmental impacts compared to control. Regarding Actisaf Sc 47 production, the LCA showed that the production of 1 kg of Actisaf Sc 47 emitted 2.1 kg CO

Indexed as

Actisaf Sc 47dairy cowlife cycle assessmentyeast probiotic

Identifiers

PMID39123728
PMCPMC11310962

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.