Transcript Can the rumen protect the dairy from mycotoxins? Naturally ahead

Naturally ahead
Can the rumen protect the
dairy from mycotoxins?
Hilmar Gerhardt, MSc
Ruminant Application Champion, Biomin
Analytical Data & Criteria
• Total number of samples analyzed ~1384
• Analysis from 2 perspectives:
– By Geographical Regions
– By Commodity Types
• All Analysis done by Romer Labs Singapore
Geographical Regions
North Asia
– China, Japan, Korea & Taiwan
SouthEast Asia
– Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand & Vietnam
South Asia
– India
Oceania
– Australia
Americas
– 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
Average
of
positive
µg/kg
Max.
µg/kg
Commodity
Country
MYCOTOXIN
n
% Positive
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
32510
Corn Gluten
Meal
Malaysia
OTA
1240
15
20
1582
Finished feed
Pakistan
Occurrence of Mycotoxin by
Geographical Regions
North Asia:
Afla-18%
ZON-45%
DON-63%
FUM-55%
OTA-10%
Americas:
Afla-9%
ZON-28%
DON-54%
FUM-52%
OTA-2%
South Asia:
Afla-78%
ZON-24%
DON-18%
FUM-50%
OTA-38%
South-East
Asia:
Afla-52%
ZON-39%
DON-31%
FUM-59%
OTA-15%
Oceania:
Afla-7%
ZON-15%
DON-24%
FUM-8%
OTA-9%
Importing concerns?
• Different geographic regions present
different
climates
therefore
different
mycotoxins will be present.
• Importing commodities
importing mycotoxins!
also
means
Naturally ahead
Yes,
Some rumen microbes
(and protozoa)
detoxify myxotoxins
Naturally ahead
.
BUT:
How much?
Ruminal Detoxification
Natural Bioconversion in the Rumen
Aflatoxin
Zearalenone
Deoxynivalenol
Ochratoxin A
Rumen Degraded
No Rumen
Degradation
0-42 %
58 – 100 %
90 %
10 %
-Zearalenol
10 x more oestrogenic
BUT oestrogenic
metabolites
35 %
Rumen-pH sensitive
65 %
completely?
?
Doerr 2003
Jouany and Diaz 2005
Ruminal Detoxification
Gases
Today`s feed
Yesterday`s
feed
Naturally ahead
.
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)
Ruminal Detoxification
Remember
!
After the Rumen nothing
stops Mycotoxins !!
• immunesuppressive
• livertoxic
• cytotoxic
Naturally ahead
.
Why is there an increased risk
for mycotoxins in the field?
•
•
Annual recontamination
–
No till
–
Less crop rotation
Dramatic change of temperatures (at
flowering)
(cold nights, warm days)
Naturally ahead
.
You can`t change the weather, BUT:
Effect of Cultivation system under unfavourable weather conditions
on DON contamination?
Ploughing
No Till
Average:
315 ppb DON
1220 ppb DON
Naturally ahead
.
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 !
Natürlich im Futter.
Why is there an increased risk
for mycotoxins in the rations?
•
Highly concentrated rations
Naturally ahead
.
Why is there an increased risk for
mycotoxins in the rations?
•
Highly concentrated rations
•
High mycotoxin risk (DON, ZON,
T-2, Alfatoxins) in concentrates
–
•
Corn, wheat, cotton seed
Mycotoxins in corn silage
Naturally ahead
.
Why is there an increased risk
for mycotoxins in the rations?
•
Highly concentrated rations
•
High mycotoxin risk in
concentrates
–
•
Corn (DON, ZON), wheat (DON;
ZON), cotton seed (T-2)
Mycotoxins in corn silage !
Naturally ahead
.
Mycotoxins in forages?
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)
Naturally ahead
Do Mycotoxins get
eliminated in the feeds?
They are not destroyed by:
–Fermentation
–Time
(corn silage)
(longer storing period)
–Heat
Rankin M., Grau C. (2004)
Naturally ahead
.
What is happening in the field?
n=100 dairies,
USA
Whitlow et al. (1986)
Naturally ahead
.
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
For example: Effects of DON in dairy cows
Research
Field data
12 ppm DON: no reduced
milk production
Depressed feed intake
and lower milk production
at 0,1 ppm DON
(13-22 wk. of lactation)
Naturally ahead
.
Research and field trial difference?
Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Ontario
Research
Field data
„pure“ mycotoxins
synergistic effects of
mycotoxins
short trial period
most symptoms occur
after weeks
mid to late lactation
cows, 20 kg milk
fresh cows with
problems (DA, ketosis)
Naturally ahead
.
High risk especially in the
transition period!
Why?
Naturally ahead
.
Depressed immune function
Goff & Horst (1997)
Naturally ahead
.
Periparturient energy balance
parturition
nutrient
intake/-requirement
21
requirement
18
15
12
intake
Energy deficit
Surplus

Far off dry
prior to calving!
9
6
-8
bis 4
-3
-2
-1
1
2
3
4
5
week around calving
6
7
8
9-12
Naturally ahead
.
Effect of mycotoxins on
transition cows?
• More DA`s
(displaced abomasum)
Vet. Med. Univ. Munich, Germany
Whitlow et al. (1986)
Whitlow & Hagler (1998)
Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Ontario
Naturally ahead
.
Effect of mycotoxins on
transition cows?
• More DA`s (displaced
abomasum)
• Ketosis, fatty liver syndrome
• Retained placenta, Metritis
• Mastitis
Whitlow et al. (1986)
Whitlow & Hagler (1998)
Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Ontario
Naturally ahead
.
Effect of mycotoxins on
transition cows?
• More DA`s (displaced
abomasum)
• Ketosis, fatty liver syndrome
• Retained placenta, Metritis
• Mastitis
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), adapted
Hoffmann (2001)
Effects of Mycotoxins
ZON
• Irregular heats
• Low conception rates
• Ovarian cysts
• Embryonic Loss
T2-Toxin, DON, AFB1
• Gastroenteritis
• Intestinal hemorrhages
• Impaired rumen function
• Diarrhea
• Ketosis
AFB1, T2-Toxin, DON
• Milk contamination
• Decreased milk
production
• Mastitis
DON - Deoxynivalenol
ZON – Zearalenone
AFB1 – Aflatoxin B1
T2-Toxin
T2-Toxin, DON
• Decreased feed intake
• Lower milk production
• Decreased feed efficiency
DON
• Laminitis
Naturally ahead
Limits for Mycotoxins?
Compromised immune system:
– Transition (fresh) cows
– sick cows
– stressed cows
Most susceptible to mycotoxins!
Linn & Chapman 2002
Naturally ahead
Limits for Mycotoxins?
exact levels for dairy cattele unknown!
Mycotoxin level
low
medium
high
< 300
300 - 800
> 800
< 500
500 - 2000
> 2000
ZON
< 100
100 - 250
> 250
Ochratoxin A
< 200
200 - 500
> 500
>5
5 -20 (FDA)
> 20
A-Trichothecenes
(T-2, HAT-2, DAS)
B-Trichothecenes
(DON, AcDON, NIV, Fus X)
Aflatoxin B1
Biomin experience
Naturally
ahead
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
Less than 20%
of dairy cows
are finding in
lactation No. 4
und 5!!
66 % of dairy cows
do not reach the 3rd
lactation !
Auszug aus: DGfZ
Schriftenreihe, Heft 42,
2005
T. Schomaker
Strategies to minimize
mycotoxin impact
PREVENTION
•• uncertain
results, often connected with high feed losses
(“good agricultural practices”, plant breeding, Bt corn)
• expensive
... during feed production
• time consuming
• DECONTAMINATION
• change in palatability
and nutritive value
physical/chemical
treatments
(cleaning, mechanical
sorting,
irradiation,
• decreased
feed
quality
solvent extraction; ammonia, sodium
• toxic by-products possible
hydroxide, oxidizing- and reducing
agents...) ... during feed processing
• FEED ADDITIVES Deactivation
 ADSORPTION
 BIOTRANSFORMATION
 BIOPROTECTION
Strategies counteracting
Mycotoxins
3 Strategies
Unique and exclusive....
Elimination of
toxic effects
Biotransformation
Adsorption
• Trichothecenes
e.g. DON, T-2,...
• Zearalenone
Aflatoxin,
Fumonisin
No binding of
vitamins, antiobiotics
All
mycotoxins
Experience
Experience with
Mycofix® Plus in Dairy Cows
Naturally ahead
Milk and DMI
70
60
55,6
60,3
lbs
50
40
40
41
1200 cows
30
12 week trial
20
10
„on-off-on“
0
milk (lbs)
Control
DMI (lbs)
Mycofix Plus
Naturally ahead
Experience
www.bvw.at/
www.vu-wien.ac.at
g VFA/1000 g Rumen Fluid
(Volatile Fatty Acids)
8
6
6,16
5,9
6,64
Acetic Acid :
Propionic Acid
2,8 : 1
4
2
0
Control
Toxin
Mycofix Plus
Naturally ahead
.
ECM
(energy corrected milk)
50
45
41
43
lbs
40
Even in low
producing, robust
Simmental cows –
35
30
There is a
difference
25
20
Group K+T
Group MPL
Experience
www.bvw.at/
www.vu-wien.ac.at
Somatic Cell Count (SCC)
180.000
166.000
Results:
152.000
150.000
112.000
SCC
120.000
• Stronger immune
defense
90.000
• Lowering SCC (long
60.000
trial period!)
30.000
0
Control
Toxin
Mycofix Plus
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%.
Naturally ahead
Long term field trial in a dairy farm 340 cows
Progress of days between calving and new pregnancy
Farm: BEAG Agrar GmbH, Behringen, Germany
Mycofix® Plus 3.E since 28. January 2006
Field trials
Long term effects of Biomin MycofixPlus
Farms
Cows
Nr.
age
in days
Lakt.
Diff.
Nr.
Past
year
Millkyield
Diff.
Livetime
Past
year
Livetime
Diff.
Culling
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
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
Farms without
Mycofix Plus
FCM control data
FCM genetic possible
66 % der Kühe erreichen
nicht die 3. Laktation !
Less than 20% of
dairy cows are
finding in lactation
No. 4 und 5!!
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
Auszug aus: DGfZ
Schriftenreihe, Heft 42,
2005
T. Schomaker
Naturally ahead
.
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“, NRAES99, 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