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.