DON needs a complex approach Today, there are several different approaches to mycotoxin adsorption/deactivation, but DON is difficult to deal with in pigs: it shows a low polarity (difficult to adsorb), a high bioavailability in pig intestine and, thought-provoking, is effectively metabolised in the liver to non-toxic DON-3- glucuronide and excreted via urine. It is interesting to know that binding on mycotoxin adsorbent may not be a good option for DON decontamination. Scientists from the University of Ghent in Belgium studied the adsorption of DON in broilers and found that the negative action of the binding of DON is shifted to the distal parts of the small intestine, the part which is naturally most sensitive to DON. This is particularly harmful since it causes damage of the villi’s, thereby decreasing the absorption of dietary nutrients, which could then become the prefect substrate for the growth of pathogens. Therefore, a complex approach, based on the stimulation of a natural bio- inactivation process in the body by the liver, intestinal cells, microbiota etc., should be applied for DON deactivation in contrast to DON binding. Furthermore, the aid to immune and antioxidant systems, and organ support in piglets would help them to deal with DON-toxicosis more efficiently. In 2021, Adisseo evaluated the effect of a natural contamination of DON in nursery pigs. A total of 18 barrows and 18 gilts, weaned at 27 days of age, were allotted to 3 dietary treatments (n = 12), based on a completely randomised block design, according to sex and body weight. Each pig received one of the following 3 diets for 34 days: 1. M- diet with corn DDGS containing minimal amounts of detectable DON; 2. M+ diet with corn DDGS contaminated with DON to supplement 2 mg/kg DON; 3. UP diet M+ + 0.2% Unike Plus (Table 1). The M+ diet compromised the average daily gain (ADG) by -11.7%, and the average daily feed intake (ADFI) by -5.9%, and thus lowered G:F ratio by -5.6%. UP restored ADG by +4.2% and G:F by +3.0%, compared to M+. The M+ diet affected the intestinal health of the animals by
modulating the redox parameters (GSH/GSSG and MDA), inflammatory (IL8) and immune response (IgA). The pigs fed with UP had a higher (P=0.036) globulin concentration in the serum, one of the major constituents of serum protein. The supplementation of Unike Plus to the pig diet also led to an increase in GSH/GSSG (P=0.045) and a decrease of Malondialdehyde (MDA) (P=0.037) concentrations in the jejunum mucosa. IL-8 and IgA were also numerically decreased in the UP group, compared to the M+ group.
Catching DON contamination early The harvesting time, with its “suspense” related to mycotoxin contamination, is fast approaching, and we know large European exporting countries need to pay special attention to DON in wheat. This mycotoxin, due to its low polarity and high absorption, needs special attention and cannot, even should not, be treated with simple binders. Solutions that have a complementary approach to adsorption, bio- inactivation, support of immunity, organs and anti-oxidative protection seem to be more promising to offset the negative effects caused by mycotoxins.
From the moment they are born, piglets are highly susceptible to infections.
Reference available upon request.
Table 1 - Performance and metabolism parameters of the overall nursery phase of piglets. M-
M+
Performance, 0-34d ADG, g/d ADFI, kg/d G:F
Serum, d14 Globulin, g/dL
Mid-jejunum mucosa, d34 Malondialdehyde (MDA), µM
Total Glutathione (GSH/GSSG), µM Interleukin 8 (IL-8), ng/mg protein Immunoglobulin A (IgA), µg/mg protein M-
385 544 0.71
1.60
0.404 4.274 0.507 2.610
diet with minimal amounts of detectable DON, M+ diet with 2 mg/kg DON, UP diet M+
340 512 0.67
1.50
0.619 2.594 0.661 4.032
+ 0.2% Unike Plus. ▶ MYCOTOXINS | NOVEMBER 2021 47 UP
354 508 0.69
1.69
0.371 4.439 0.513 2.284
M- vs. M+
0.106 0.393 0.112
0.265
0.069 0.067 0.150 0.154
M+ vs. UP
0.627 0.897 0.330
0.036
0.037 0.045 0.166 0.081
PHOTO: ADISSEO
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
