View
235
Download
7
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Can the rumen protect the dairy from mycotoxins?
Naturally ahead
Hilmar Gerhardt, MScRuminant Application Champion, Biomin
• Total number of samples analyzed ~1384
• Analysis from 2 perspectives:
– By Geographical Regions
– By Commodity Types
• All Analysis done by Romer Labs Singapore
Analytical Data & Criteria
Geographical Regions
North AsiaNorth Asia
– China, Japan, Korea & Taiwan
SouthEast AsiaSouthEast Asia
– Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand & Vietnam
South AsiaSouth Asia
– India
Oceania Oceania
– Australia
AmericasAmericas
– North America
- South America
Commodity Types
• Corn
• Soybean Meal
• Wheat/bran
• Corn Gluten Meal
• Rice/bran
• DDGS
• Feed
• Straw/silage
• Other feed ingredients
– fishmeal, canola meal, cassava, sorghum, cottonseed meal, copra meal, peanut meal etc.
Method of Analysis
MYCOTOXIN*Method of Analysis
Limit of detection (LOD)
Afla total HPLC < 1 µg/kg (=ppb)
ZON HPLC < 32 µg/kg (=ppb)
DON HPLC < 50 µg/kg (=ppb)
FUM total HPLC < 100 µg/kg (=ppb)
OTA HPLC < 2 µg/kg (=ppb)
* Due to the high LOD of T-2 toxin analysis (<125 µg/kg) it was chosen not to analyze this toxin to avoid false negative results. However, this mycotoxin is toxic at levels below 125 µg/kg. Therefore, its absence from the results of this survey is not an indicative of its inexistence in the feedstuffs.
Summary Oct. 2007 – June 2009
MYCOTOXIN n % Positive
Average of
positiveµg/kg
Max.µg/kg Commodity Country
Afla total 1353 36 88 6200 Corn India
ZON 1348 36 214 7422 Corn Japan
DON 1350 41 687 13920 DDGS China
FUM 1384 50 1406 32510Corn Gluten
Meal Malaysia
OTA 1240 15 20 1582 Finished feed Pakistan
Occurrence of Mycotoxin by Geographical Regions
Oceania:Afla-7%
ZON-15% DON-24%
FUM-8%OTA-9%
Americas:Afla-9%
ZON-28% DON-54% FUM-52%OTA-2%
North Asia:Afla-18%ZON-45%
DON-63% FUM-55%OTA-10%
South-East Asia:
Afla-52%ZON-39%
DON-31% FUM-59%OTA-15%
South Asia:Afla-78%ZON-24%
DON-18% FUM-50%OTA-38%
Importing concerns?
• Importing commodities also means importing mycotoxins!
• Different geographic regions present different climates therefore different mycotoxins will be present.
Yes,
Some rumen microbes (and protozoa)
detoxify myxotoxins
Naturally ahead
BUT:
How much?
Naturally ahead.
Rumen Degraded No Rumen
Degradation
Aflatoxin 0-42 % 58 – 100 %
Zearalenone90 %
-Zearalenol 10 x more oestrogenic
10 %
BUT oestrogenic metabolites
Deoxynivalenol35 %
Rumen-pH sensitive65 %
Ochratoxin A completely? ?
Natural Bioconversion in the Rumen
Doerr 2003
Jouany and Diaz 2005
Ruminal Detoxification
Ruminal Detoxification
Yesterday`s feed
Today`s feed
Gases
Detoxifying Capacity:
Factors reducing the detoxifing capacity of rumen microbes:
• High dry matter intake– High passage rate
– Little time for detoxifying
• Nutrient dense ration (NFC, Fat, Protein)
– Risk for acidosis
– Maintain rumen activity?
– Maximum mycotoxin-inactivation in the rumen?
Naturally ahead.
Negative Effects of Mycotoxins depend on:
• Contamination-level in the feeds
• Different mycotoxins – different degradation rate
• Duration of mycotoxin contamination
• Milk/Reproduction performance levels (metabolic stress)
– Immune function
– Rumen health?
• Cow comfort– SCC (milking routine, bedding)
– Lameness occurrence (floor design, hygiene)
Naturally ahead.
Remember !After the Rumen nothing
stops Mycotoxins !!
• immunesuppressive
• livertoxic
• cytotoxic
Ruminal Detoxification
Why is there an increased risk
for mycotoxins in the field?
Naturally ahead.
• Annual recontamination
– No till
– Less crop rotation
• Dramatic change of temperatures (at flowering)(cold nights, warm days)
You can`t change the weather, BUT:Effect of Cultivation system under unfavourable weather conditions
on DON contamination?
Naturally ahead.
1220 ppb DON315 ppb DON
Ploughing No Till
Average:
French study Barrier-Guillot et al. (2004) presented in Maryland, USA
• n =765 fields, >360.000 acres~ 3% wheat surface in France
• Risk factors for DON
– Weather at flowering (biggest impact)
– Previous crop (corn!)
• Resistance against Fusarium
– Cultivation system (ploughing, no till)
• Crop residues on the soil surface !
Naturally ahead.
Why is there an increased risk
for mycotoxins in the rations?
Natürlich im Futter.
• Highly concentrated rations
Why is there an increased risk for
mycotoxins in the rations?
Naturally ahead.
• Highly concentrated rations
• High mycotoxin risk (DON, ZON, T-
2, Alfatoxins) in concentrates
– Corn, wheat, cotton seed
• Mycotoxins in corn silage
Why is there an increased risk
for mycotoxins in the rations?
Naturally ahead.
• Highly concentrated rations
• High mycotoxin risk in concentrates
– Corn (DON, ZON), wheat (DON; ZON), cotton seed (T-2)
• Mycotoxins in corn silage !
Mycotoxins in forages?
Naturally ahead.
mycotoxin suspicious samples tested
Naturally ahead.
Mycotoxins in corn silage
UW-Extension Team Forage – field study in fall 2000:
Objective: Mycotoxin level of plants in standing corn
Results: all samples positiv for Fusarium
63% of the samples were between
0,1 – 4,9 ppm DON (highest 41,6 ppm)
Rankin M., Grau C. (2004)
Do Mycotoxins get
eliminated in the feeds?
They are not destroyed by:
– Fermentation (corn silage)
– Time (longer storing period)
– Heat
Naturally ahead
Rankin M., Grau C. (2004)
What is happening in the field?
Naturally ahead.
n=100 dairies, USA
Whitlow et al. (1986)
Conclusion of other field data
There is a relationship between DON
contamination and losses in production
– Gotlieb 1997
– Seglar 1997
Naturally ahead.
Research and field trial difference?Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Ontario
Naturally ahead.
For example: Effects of DON in dairy cows
Research Field data
12 ppm DON: no reduced milk production
(13-22 wk. of lactation)
Depressed feed intake and lower milk production at 0,1 ppm DON
Research and field trial difference?Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Ontario
Naturally ahead.
Research Field data
„pure“ mycotoxinssynergistic effects of mycotoxins
short trial periodmost symptoms occur after weeks
mid to late lactation cows, 20 kg milk
fresh cows with problems (DA, ketosis)
High risk especially in the
transition period!
Why?
Naturally ahead.
Depressed immune function
Naturally ahead.
Goff & Horst (1997)
Periparturient energy balance
Naturally ahead.
6
9
12
15
18
21
-8bis -
4
-3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9-12
week around calving
requirement
intake
nu
trie
nt
inta
ke/-
req
uir
em
en
t
Energy deficit prior to calving!
SurplusFar off dry
parturition
Effect of mycotoxins on transition cows?
• More DA`s
(displaced abomasum)
Naturally ahead.
Vet. Med. Univ. Munich, Germany
Whitlow et al. (1986)
Whitlow & Hagler (1998)
Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Ontario
Effect of mycotoxins on transition cows?
• More DA`s (displaced abomasum)
• Ketosis, fatty liver syndrome
• Retained placenta, Metritis
• Mastitis
Naturally ahead.
Whitlow et al. (1986)
Whitlow & Hagler (1998)
Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Ontario
Effect of mycotoxins on transition cows?
• More DA`s (displaced abomasum)
• Ketosis, fatty liver syndrome
• Retained placenta, Metritis
• Mastitis
Naturally ahead.
Whitlow et al. (1986)Whitlow & Hagler (1998)Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Ontario
Naturally ahead.
Mycotoxins intensify the risk for lameness in dairy cows
Nocek (1993), adaptedHoffmann (2001)
DON - Deoxynivalenol
ZON – Zearalenone
AFB1 – Aflatoxin B1
T2-Toxin
ZON• Irregular heats• Low conception rates • Ovarian cysts• Embryonic Loss
T2-Toxin, DON, AFB1
• Gastroenteritis• Intestinal hemorrhages• Impaired rumen function• Diarrhea• Ketosis
DON• Laminitis
T2-Toxin, DON• Decreased feed intake• Lower milk production• Decreased feed efficiency
AFB1, T2-Toxin, DON• Milk contamination • Decreased milk
production• Mastitis
Effects of Mycotoxins
Limits for Mycotoxins?
Compromised immune system:
– Transition (fresh) cows
– sick cows
– stressed cows
Most susceptible to mycotoxins!
Naturally ahead
Linn & Chapman 2002
Limits for Mycotoxins? exact levels for dairy cattele unknown!
Naturally ahead
Biomin experience
Mycotoxin level low medium high
A-Trichothecenes (T-2, HAT-2, DAS)
< 300 300 - 800 > 800
B-Trichothecenes (DON, AcDON, NIV, Fus X)
< 500 500 - 2000 > 2000
ZON < 100 100 - 250 > 250
Ochratoxin A < 200 200 - 500 > 500
Aflatoxin B1 > 5 5 -20 (FDA) > 20
Controlling of the benchmarks in the milk produktion- small screws..
• Feed conversion, -efficiancy• Feed quality• Supervision of the animals• Optimising the TMR..demand is
leading the rations
Naturally ahead
Basics for economical value of life time performance
• Three lactations or 27000 kg / cow
• 15 kg of milk per day of life (27000 kg in 1800 days)
• Feed efficacy 1,5 kg milk / kg DM
Naturally ahead
Auszug aus: DGfZ Schriftenreihe, Heft 42, 2005
T. Schomaker
Less than 20% of dairy cows are finding in lactation No. 4 und 5!!
66 % of dairy cows do not reach the 3rd lactation !
Naturally ahead
• PREVENTION(“good agricultural practices”, plant breeding, Bt corn)
... during feed production
• FEED ADDITIVES Deactivation
ADSORPTION BIOTRANSFORMATION BIOPROTECTION
... during feed digestion
• DECONTAMINATION physical/chemical treatments(cleaning, mechanical sorting, irradiation, solvent extraction; ammonia, sodium hydroxide, oxidizing- and reducing agents...) ... during feed processing
• uncertain results, often connected with high feed losses
• expensive
• time consuming
• change in palatability and nutritive value
• decreased feed quality
• toxic by-products possible
Strategies to minimize mycotoxin impact
Strategies counteracting
Mycotoxins
3 StrategiesUnique and exclusive....
Biotransformation
Adsorption
Elimination oftoxic effects
• Trichothecenes e.g. DON, T-2,...• Zearalenone
All mycotoxins
Aflatoxin, Fumonisin
No binding of vitamins, antiobiotics
Experience with
Mycofix® Plus in Dairy Cows
Experience
Naturally ahead
1200 cows
12 week trial
„on-off-on“
Milk and DMI
40
60,3
41
55,6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
milk (lbs) DMI (lbs)
lbs
Control Mycofix Plus
Naturally ahead
g VFA/ 1000 g Rumen Fluid (Volatile Fatty Acids)
6,645,96,16
0
2
4
6
8
Control Toxin Mycofix Plus
Experience
Acetic Acid :
Propionic Acid
2,8 : 1
www.bvw.at/
www.vu-wien.ac.at
Naturally ahead.
Even in low producing, robust Simmental cows –
There is a difference
ECM(energy corrected milk)
4341
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Group K+T Group MPL
lbs
Somatic Cell Count (SCC)
112.000
152.000166.000
0
30.000
60.000
90.000
120.000
150.000
180.000
Control Toxin Mycofix Plus
SC
C
Results:
• Stronger immune defense
• Lowering SCC (long trial period!)
Experience
www.bvw.at/
www.vu-wien.ac.at
Take home message:
• Mycofix® Plus increases milk yield.
• Mycotoxines impair rumen function.
• Mycofix® Plus lowered Somatic Cell Count by 60%.
Experience
www.bvw.at/
www.vu-wien.ac.at
Mycofix® Plus 3.E since 28. January 2006
Progress of days between calving and new pregnancyFarm: BEAG Agrar GmbH, Behringen, Germany
Naturally ahead
Long term field trial in a dairy farm 340 cows
Long term effects of Biomin MycofixPlus
Farms Cows age Lakt. Diff. Millkyield Diff. Livetime Diff. Culling
Nr. in days Nr.Past year Livetime
Past year efficiancy
Past year
cows DIM
Fürstenwalde 603 2120 3,3 0,5 30505 6900 14,7 2,0 343
Griesheim 771 1570 2,5 0,2 23579 3970 14,5 0,6 204
Ranzig 628 1910 2,9 0,0 28466 2750 15,1 1,2 260
Behringen 413 1850 2,5 0,3 30732 5800 16,4 2,0 354
Körner 539 1730 2,9 0,4 27032 3940 15,2 1,7 207
Farms without
Mycofix Plus
Milsana 1427 1810 2,7 -0,1 22578 -150 13,1 -0,1 213
Dermbach 1663 1780 2,7 -0,2 22442 -1550 13,1 -0,2 237
Field trials
Auszug aus: DGfZ Schriftenreihe, Heft 42, 2005
T. Schomaker
Less than 20% of dairy cows are finding in lactation No. 4 und 5!!
66 % der Kühe erreichen nicht die 3. Laktation !
FCM control data FCM genetic possible
Outlook: In using the capability of the dairy cows by stabilizing the performance with Mycofix Plus , the better ones reach the higher lactation number 4,5 and 6 and more
References• Barrier-Guillot B., Delambre M., Morel A., Maumene C., Gouet H., Grosjean F., Leuillet M. (2004):
Identification of agronomic factors that influence the level of deoxynivalenol (DON) in wheat grown in france. XI IUPAC Symposium on mycotoxins and phytotoxins, May 17-21 2004, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
• Goff J.P., Horst R.L. (1997): Physiological changes at parturition and their relationship to metabolic disorders. J. Dariy Sci. 80, 1260-1268
• Gotlieb, A. (1997): Causes of mycotoxins in silages. Pp 213-221. In: „Silage: Field to Feedbunk“, NRAES-99, Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service, Ithaca, NY
• Hagler Jr., W.M., Tyezkowska, K., Hamilton, P.B. (1984): Simultaneous occurence of deoxynivalenol, zearalenon and aflatoxin in 1982 scabby wheat from the midwestern United States. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 47: 151-154
• Hofman, P. (2004): Feed Molds & Mycotoxins. www. wisc. edu/dysci/uwex/nutritn/presentn/mold.pdf• Hoffmann M. (2001): Gut zu Fuß, wenn es im Trog stimmt. DLZ 12, 86-89• Linn J., Chapman B. (2002): Drought feed concerns and feeding strategies. Timly Topics.
www.ansci.umn.edu/dairy/topics/out2002-drought_feed_concerns.pdf• Ministry of Agriculture and Food (2004): Molds and Mycotoxins – Effects of Moldy Feed and Mycotoxins on
Cattle. www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/livestock/dairy/herd/food/mico22.htm• Nocek, J.E. (1993): Hoof Care for Dairy Cattle. W.D. Hoard & Sons Company, Fort Atkinson, WI• Rankin M., Grau C. (2004) Agronomic Considerations for Molds and Mycotoxins in corn silage. Crops and
Soils Agent, Fond du Lac County. Extension Plant Pathologist, UW-Madison www.uwex.edu/ces/crops/uwforage/Mycotoxins.htm
• Seglar, B. (1997): Case studies that implicate silage mycotoxins as the cause of dairy herd problems. Pp. 242-254. In: „Silage: Field to Feedbunk“. NRAES-99, Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service, Ithaca, NY
• Whitlow et al. (1986), J. Dairy Sci., 69 (Suppl. 1): 223• Whitlow L.W., Hagler W.M. (1998): The Potential for an Association for Mycotoxins with Problem of
Production, Helath, and Reproduction in Dairy Cattle. Proceedings MN Dairy Health Conference, May 19-21, 1998. College of Vet Med., UM, St. Paul, MN
Naturally ahead.
Recommended