milling wheat in Northern Europe, instead of use as feed. In Central Europe, on average, an extra 3.8 MT wheat could be used as milling wheat and in Southern Europe, on average, an extra 1.1 MT wheat could be used as milling wheat. For case 2, it was estimated that if 80% of the farmers in the test region Serbia would use both control measures, an average of 12.3% less maize would exceed the AFB1 limit of 20 μg/kg. This is assuming that the use of biocontrol has the same effectiveness on resistant maize cultivars than is has on non-resistant cultivars. This reduction in maize exceeding the AFB1 limit would be significant, equivalent to 545,000 tonnes of maize. In this situation, on average, 25.7%, equivalent to 1.6 MT more maize, compared to the baseline, could be used for food use with an AFB1 concentration <5 μg/kg in the test region Serbia.
Results post-harvest With the post-harvest measures (cases 3-5), the researchers assessed – amongst others – that in the test region UK, with 20% of the silo managers using the real time sensors measur- ing the temperature, the relative humidity and the CO2
levels,
The use of resistant maize cultivars was one of the measures assessed.
in silos suitable for these sensors, coupled to a Decision Sup- port System (DSS), on average 2.9% of the losses of wheat can be avoided annually. With 50% of the silo managers using the real-time sensors coupled to a DSS, these average annual losses can be reduced by 7.4%, and with 80% uptake, 11.8% of the harvested product could be saved. This latter reduction of 11.8% is equivalent to 193,000 tonnes of cereals. Current losses of bran, a by-product from the pasta industry, can be avoided when more processors adopt innovative milling strategies, minimising mycotoxin levels and increasing fibre content of pasta (case 4). Considering a ten-year period (2009- 2018), with 50% of the processors using the innovative milling technique developed, 8.6% of the losses can be avoided on
average per year, equivalent to 53,000 tonnes in the test re- gion Italy and 113,000 tonnes for the relevant European re- gion. Case 5 looked at the effectiveness of the enzyme FUMzyme and ZENzyme to degrade FB1+FB2 and ZEN in DDGS. Currently, 2.8 MT maize produced in Europe per year exceeds the EU limits for feed for FB1+ FB2 and/or ZEN. The researchers estimated that when using enzymes, able to de- grade FB1+FB2 and ZEN by 99 and 89%, respectively, all maize having FB1+FB2 and/or ZEN levels initially above the EU limits for FB1+FB2 and/or ZEN for feed, could be used to produce DDGS, safe to be used as feed, or bioethanol.
Better decision making This impact assessment provides quantitative evidence that the various developed prevention and control strategies in the MyToolBox project, substantially can reduce mycotoxin contamination in these key food/feed supply chains as well as reduce the losses of produce due to mycotoxin contamina- tion. The impact was more pronounced in those areas prone to higher mycotoxin contamination levels than in those areas with lower mycotoxin contamination levels. Combined with predictive models for mycotoxin contamination, such as de- veloped and integrated in the MyToolBox e-platform, this im- pact assessment will support decision makers to apply the most effective control measures. The impact assessment re- sults may be validated in future research with more (future) data from more years and sites.
*This article is based on the original paper: The impact of management practices to prevent and control mycotoxins in the European food supply chain: MyToolBox project results, authored by M. Focker, H.J. van der Fels-Klerx, N. Magan, S.G. Edwards, M. Grahovac, F. Bagi, D. Budakov, M. Suman, G. Schatzmayr, R. Krska and M. de Nijs, and published in World Mycotoxin Journal, 2020; 14 (2).
38
▶ MYCOTOXINS | NOVEMBER 2021
PHOTO: SHUTTERSTOCK
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
