Mean HRMS peak area


Mean concentration (ng/mL)


FOTO: PETER J.E.ROEK


MYCOTOXINS ▶▶▶


Transforming the way we manage mycotoxin-related stress


Technological advancements for the detection of mycotoxins have exploded in recent decades. However, we are still missing the obvious: we haven’t yet quantified and thus, assessed the true exposure of animals to mycotoxins.


BY DR CHRISTOS GOUGOULIAS, HEAD OF INNOVATION, INNOVAD A


lthough field surveys and feed risk assessments are valuable, their real usefulness (when applied in isolation) remains highly questionable, since they fail to reveal the true exposure of animals to myco-


toxins. Feed sampling per se, is problematic. Nearly 90% of the error comes from the sampling itself, whereas only ~ 10%is down to analytical error. Everyone is aware of feed ‘hot-spots’. Also, routine feed sampling does not reveal masked mycotoxins.


Both limitations can lead to a major underestimation of the true risk.


Missing the bigger picture But this is only part of the problem. The second, and perhaps biggest limitation, is that we miss the bigger picture by con- tinually ignoring what animals face under real farming condi- tions: a continuous exposure to several stress factors. From cli- matic conditions to a number of stress challenges via feed (e.g. ANFs, low quality or change of feed), vaccinations, infec- tions, high performance, etc. To contextualise this: the cumu- lative impact of long-term exposure to multiple mycotoxins, even at a low level, may be completely different on the same farm between winter and summer. Thus, we desperately need comprehensive technologies with multiple modes of action and proven efficacy in vivo. Technologies that can help the animal confront multiple stress factors under the prism of concomitant mycotoxin exposure,


Figure - 1 (a) Mean high resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) peak area-time curves (+SD) of deoxynivalenol-sulphate (DON-S) and, (b) Mean concentration–time curves (+SD) of AFB1 in plasma of broiler chickens after oral administration of a bolus of DON (5 mg/kg feed), OTA (2.5 mg/kg feed), and AFB1 (20 mg/kg feed) mix, either with the Escent group, (n = 8) or without (control group, n = 8).


Broilers: SIngle oral bolus of OTA, DON and AFB1 mix Don-S in plasma 100000 50% reduction


10000 1000 100 10 1


40% reduction 10 100 AFB1 in plasma


with Escent® S withoout Escent® S 1


02468 10 Time p.a. (h)


20 ▶ ALL ABOUT FEED | Volume 28, No. 5, 2020 12


012345 6 Time p.a. (h)


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28