Alltech Advances Research and Practical Approach to Multiple Mycotoxin Risk – INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES

Advances in technology mean it is now possible to find and identify many more mycotoxins in grain and forage samples. While traditional mycotoxin guidelines only look at one mycotoxin at a time, data from field and lab-based tests shows multiple mycotoxins remain the most dominant challenge, according to Alltech.

Its global testing regime, consisting of more than 15,000 samples annually, from over 50 countries, shows that on average these samples contain between four to six mycotoxins, depending on the season or region where samples originate. Recently published scientific papers also highlight the risks posed by chronic exposure to low levels of mycotoxins, which researchers found negatively impacted farm productivity and profitability.

In today’s Industry Perspectives piece, Feedinfo talks to Alltech’s Dr Alexandros Yiannikouris, Research Group Director, and Dr Alexandra Weaver, Global Technical Support Manager, about the company’s approach to mycotoxins, and specifically the issue of multiple mycotoxins. Besides its practical approach to advising on robust mycotoxin testing plans and tackling the issue on farm, we also discuss its involvement with new research projects at Wageningen University and the University of Guelph and how it plans to tackle the issue at source, in the field.

[Feedinfo] Alltech has been working with the complex challenge of mycotoxins for almost 30 years and is working on the 2023 harvest analysis at present. Can you tell us more about the breadth and depth of what you are now doing with these tests, and what you are finding? Is the situation more complex than might have been initially appreciated? 

In addition to increasing our knowledge of the distribution and occurrence of the common mycotoxins, often referred to as the big six, one of our biggest endeavours has been to expand our understanding of the non-regulated or less investigated toxins, including categories such as conjugated and emerging mycotoxins that could all play a role impacting animal health and performance. Having a consistent, wide-spectrum multiplex approach, and accounting for over 50 individual mycotoxins gives us the opportunity to glean greater insight on the presence, prevalence, or even absence of these fungal metabolites and how they can correlate with decreased animal productivity and subsequent economic loss for livestock producers.

This multiple mycotoxin challenge is borne out in the data from both our annual new crop harvest analyses, as well as regular ongoing testing. Across over 15,000 samples annually, and depending on the season or region where samples originate, on average these samples contain between four to six mycotoxins.

[Feedinfo] Given that you have indicated that the presence of multiple mycotoxins is the rule rather than the exception, how can producers assess the risk associated with this, as it is surely a complex situation which could have numerous different outcomes?  

[Dr Alexandra Weaver] Traditional mycotoxin guidelines only look at one mycotoxin at a time, but as we continually see from the data generated across both our field and lab-based test network, multiple mycotoxins remain the most dominant challenge. The question then arises, are these traditional guidelines giving enough insight into the total risk exposure to the animal when a sample may contain more than just one toxin?

Since all species and life stages are impacted by mycotoxins to varying degrees, Alltech also equips livestock producers with a set of practical limits across a wide range of species and animal groups. The Alltech Practical Limits are designed to focus on the effect of chronic levels of mycotoxin exposure on animal health and performance, not the maximum tolerable limits, thereby assisting in understanding the challenge level of both individual mycotoxins and the Alltech REQ. 

[Feedinfo] For producers, the effect on physical and financial performance is a key driver, but this can sometimes be viewed as being very subtle when it comes to mycotoxins. Can you talk through how you assess the impact of mycotoxins on individual farms, and how producers can take best-informed decisions about their course of action? 

[Dr Alexandra Weaver] Although mycotoxins at all levels can be challenging, there is growing acceptance that exposure to lower mycotoxin levels over a prolonged period could be most problematic due to the difficulty of detecting an issue before it is too late.  

A recent paper published in Toxins (Weaver et al., 2023), demonstrated that a categorisation with levels of contamination both under/at or above regulatory levels had a negative impact on swine production. As such, this research shows that even chronic and low doses of mycotoxins have a significant effect on animal performance, in turn negatively affecting farm profitability.  

Mycotoxins are a dynamic problem, and the risk can change with each load of incoming grain, meaning routine control at a farm level is essential in identifying ways to minimise contamination or mitigate the effects of mycotoxins where their presence is unavoidable. As margins continue to be squeezed at a farm level, producers are seeking greater insight into the costs associated with mycotoxins.

Where mycotoxin risk is known, a tool like the Alltech PROTECT^™ calculator can help livestock producers assess the physical and financial losses associated with animals consuming contaminated feeds. These calculators, which are available for swine, poultry and dairy cows, draw data from almost 100 different research trials and just under 9,000 animals to estimate the physical and financial impact of mycotoxins based on total risk calculated by Alltech REQ. Armed with this knowledge, producers are in a much better position to make decisions related to mycotoxin control, including inclusion of in-feed nutritional solutions to protect animal health and performance.

[Feedinfo] One of the areas you highlight is the risk of under-estimating the impact of multiple mycotoxins. Is this something which has a high degree of importance but is not yet being recognised, and if so, what is the magnitude of that risk? Do you have some practical examples of this?

[Dr Alexandra Weaver] Yes, considering the widespread use of rapid test kits as mycotoxin screening tools, we recognised that we could use Alltech REQ to understand the potential implications of only testing for a limited number of mycotoxins.   

Using this REQ value, we compared the difference between assessing one mycotoxin, six mycotoxins, and 54 mycotoxins, and thus calculate how much risk could be underestimated if only a limited number of mycotoxins were analysed.   

Based on corn grain samples analysed for up to 54 mycotoxins by Alltech 37+^® over a five-year period (2018-2023), if only aflatoxin (AF) was measured, the risk to sows would be underestimated by 96%. This makes sense, as aflatoxins were only detected in 9% of samples, whereas other mycotoxins are detected more frequently. In situations where the only option is to test for one mycotoxin, analysing samples for deoxynivalenol (DON) is slightly better than analysing for AF, with a risk underestimation of 77%, but there are many mycotoxins still not accounted for which are typically present in corn.   

When corn grain is analysed for all six mycotoxins that can be detected through a rapid test method, the overall risk assessment can be closer to what would be delivered by testing for an increased number of mycotoxins. The presence of emerging and storage mycotoxins would not be detected by the rapid test methods, but many of the mycotoxins posing the greatest risk to pigs, such as DON, zearalenone and T-2/HT-2, would be included. The mycotoxin risk in forages presents an even more complex picture when we consider the higher prevalence of multiple mycotoxins.

The possibility of risk underestimation does not mean rapid testing has no place in a mycotoxin control program, rather it highlights the need to combine this method with a more comprehensive lab-based system to deliver a more robust understanding of overall mycotoxin risk.

[Feedinfo] Your annual survey always produces interesting results, particularly with challenging weather conditions affecting many geographies and impacting grain and forage quality. With risk being ever-present, how can individuals create the most effective mycotoxin testing plan? 

[Dr Alexandra Weaver] For most feed or livestock producers, mycotoxin management typically starts with assessing risk through some type of a testing program. There is large variability in terms of how these programs are deployed. Some producers may test every load of incoming grain, while another may only test their feeds if they notice a problem with animal performance.

Testing capabilities are continually improving, and the most effective testing programs will utilise both on-site rapid testing and more comprehensive laboratory-based analysis. Rapid test systems, such as Alltech RAPIREAD^® are ideally suited for routine testing where speed and cost are of concern. These rapid tests give quality control teams the ability to manage contaminated feed ingredients in real time, thereby reducing the chance of harmful levels of mycotoxins being fed to animals. However, due to the frequent presence of other mycotoxins such as emerging mycotoxins, the chance of developing storage mycotoxins from the Penicillium or Aspergillus spp., or regionalised contamination by certain mycotoxins such as ergot alkaloids, periodic mycotoxin testing by more advanced laboratory-based methods, such as Alltech 37+, is critical to learning about more complex mycotoxin mixtures or the mycotoxin presence in complete rations.

If you are developing a mycotoxin testing program, it is important to consider the level of interpretation you can gain from the system you implement or external service that you use. Test result data is one piece of the puzzle, but ultimately, the key priority should be generating detailed insights that will allow you to make the most informed and targeted mycotoxin control decisions.

[Feedinfo] With the changing climate providing many challenges for agriculture, are you seeing a shift in the mycotoxin population and presence? Are you planning to develop your approach and services further as a result, and what can we expect to see from Alltech on this front in future? 

[Dr Alexandros Yiannikouris] Results from our annual harvest analyses programs are certainly revealing some interesting patterns when it comes to mycotoxin population and presence. Parts of Europe in particular have suffered extreme drought events over the past five years, manifesting in higher-than-normal aflatoxin risk, both from the actual aflatoxin levels in samples tested and the regions where we are seeing aflatoxins being detected. What was once seen as just an issue for areas of Southern Europe is now becoming a greater problem across other regions. 

Going forward, capitalising on advances in areas such as data analysis, machine learning and AI will undoubtedly underpin many of our ambitions to enhance the mycotoxin management program that we can deliver to our customers. As we fast approach 10 million data points, it affords us exciting opportunities to better mine this and leverage the accumulated information. This database is now also contributing towards establishing forecasting tools applied to mycotoxins. Alltech has recently joined a Wageningen University-led consortium that for the next four years will be working collaboratively to build an early warning system using machine learning and big data, aiming at early prediction and control of mycotoxins in European-grown grain.

Staying on the pre-harvest side of things, a more proactive approach to controlling mycotoxins at a field level is very much on our radar. The growth of the Alltech Crop Science division, and in particular the acquisition of Spanish-based Ideagro has opened exciting opportunities when we consider providing mycotoxin control solutions right across the feed supply chain, from crop planting to when the feed is delivered to the animal.

And finally, the continued expansion of our knowledge on emerging mycotoxins remains a key focus. In collaboration with University of Guelph, we have been undertaking studies to assess their toxicity, while also researching the most effective mitigation strategies. These have highlighted positive outcomes, especially with regards to the sequestration of emerging mycotoxins and cell proliferation effects. The findings have been recently published in Toxins (Xu et al., 2023).

There is no doubt that factors such as changing climates and environmental regulations are set to affect the yields, quality and safety of feedstuffs over coming years. Mycotoxins will be a key concern within this. However, we are confident that our work up to now, in addition to the many exciting new arenas that are appearing, puts us in a strong position to manage the challenges that lie ahead. It will ultimately support the agricultural industry in delivering safe, sustainable and nutritious food to the end consumer, all of which are central to of our vision of Working Together for a Planet of Plenty^™.

Published in association with Alltech