search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Toxic consequences The toxic impact of these emerging mycotoxins is just start- ing to be investigated and all the new findings raise serious concerns about the harmful character of these mycotoxins. Most of the Alternaria mycotoxins are well known to have est- rogenic activity as they are able to bind and activate estrogen receptors. In other words, they cause reproductive problems. This is relevant as up until recently it was generally believed that zearalenone was the only mycotoxin that can cause these type of symptoms. For example, Myco-Marker via its introduc- tory year as a diagnostic service, revealed that 83% of the cases with sows presenting reproductive problems suffered systemic exposure to zearalenone or Alternaria mycotoxins. Interesting- ly, Crudo and co-authors (2019) demonstrated recently that the co-occurrence of Alternaria mycotoxins with zearale- none can potentiate a synergistic estrogenic toxic effect in sows. On the other hand, tenuazonic acid can seriously damage intestinal tissues and induce intestinal haemorrhage where even sub-acute exposure has been linked with bloody diarrhoea in poultry. Other severe symptoms like gizzard ero- sions and liver impairment have also been connected to ten- uazonic acid exposure. With regards to emerging Fusarium mycotoxins (enniatins and beauvericin), all studies reveal that they can exert a sig- nificant negative impact on intestinal tissues. Enniatin A1 was twice as toxic than deoxynivalenol (DON) in swine intestinal cells (IPEC-1). In vitro studies also demonstrated a toxic effect of beauvericin and enniatins on the reproductive system as they all altered the production of sexual hormones such as estradiol and progesterone. Also, beauvericin impaired the development of swine oocytes and early embryos.


Co-exposure to emerging mycotoxins The correlation between performance reduction and expo- sure to emerging mycotoxins has also been established. One recent study reported that exposure to beauvericin and en- niatins, even at low concentrations (considered safe levels and not causing any apparent symptoms), increased the feed conversion rate in broilers. Similarly, chronic exposure to ten- uazonic acid lowered the weight gain in broilers. All mycotox- ins exert some level of immunocompromising effect and data from several studies suggest that these emerging mycotoxins can impair the immune response, therefore, predisposing an- imals to other diseases and infections as well. Several clinical studies having demonstrated that co- exposure to mycotoxins exerts a synergistic or negative additive toxic impact, the high level of co-exposure to several emerging mycotoxins in our global blood survey via Myco-marker raises concerns. This is especially true given the high rate of emerging mycotoxins where for example, enniatin B and beauvericin or enniatin B and alternariol combinations were linked with significant toxic effects to the farmed animals.


Table 1 – The five most common mycotoxins detected in blood in the introductory global survey between June (2020) and August (2021) in swine and poultry farms comprising of more than 1,000 blood samples.


SWINE FARM Mycotoxin


Tenuazonic acid Enniatin B1 Ochratoxin A Enniatin B Beauvericin


Presence % 68 62 54 54 30


POULTRY FARM Mycotoxin


Tenuazonic acid Enniatin B1 Ochratoxin A Beauvericin


Deoxynivalenol


Reducing exposure to emerging mycotoxins According to the scarce existing information, emerging myco- toxins are not easily bound by the most widely used binders – clays. However, Innovad’s Escent S detoxifier technology has recently demonstrated the ability to reduce the systemic exposure to emerging mycotoxins. Two chicken groups were tested: 1) control group, under a competitor technology (1kg/T) and 2) treatment group under Escent S (1kg/T) and the true mycotoxin risk was assessed with the Myco-Marker tool. While 50% of the animals from the control group (com- petitor technology) were systemically exposed to emerging mycotoxins (tenuazonic acid and beauvericin), no detectable levels of emerging mycotoxins were identified in the blood of animals under Escent S. The results of the field trial demon- strated that the choice of technology in reducing the expo- sure to emerging mycotoxins is not irrelevant.


Uncover the ignored and solve the problem In conclusion, the use of blood biomarkers in a global survey in poultry and swine revealed a significant, in fact dominat- ing, presence of emerging mycotoxins. It appears that ani- mals are persistently exposed more to these toxins than the well-known top five mycotoxins, typically included in a rou- tine analysis. The implication being that most current myco- toxin control programmes will not in fact detect the emerg- ing mycotoxins and will underestimate the true exposure and thereby ultimately fail. This is a significant breakthrough, as it highlights that the establishment of an extensive mycotoxin biomarker monitor plan, including emerging mycotoxins, is crucial to optimise appropriately the mitigation strategies and improve not only the animal health status but also ani- mal performance. Equally, if not more important, the choice of technology in reducing the exposure to emerging myco- toxins remains key and Escent S has already gathered some very promising data towards this.


References available on request. ▶ MYCOTOXINS | NOVEMBER 2021 31


Presence % 66 34 32 27 24


PHOTO: TATIANA SHEPELEVA – STOCK.ADOBE.COM


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  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80