1. Can the rumen protect the dairy from mycotoxins?
Naturally ahead
Can the rumen protect the dairy from mycotoxins?
Hilmar Gerhardt, MSc Ruminant Application Champion, Biomin

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. Limit of detection (LOD)
Method of Analysis
MYCOTOXIN*
Method of Analysis
Limit of detection (LOD)
Afla total
HPLC
< 1 µg/kg (=ppb)
ZON
< 32 µg/kg (=ppb)
DON
< 50 µg/kg (=ppb)
FUM total
< 100 µg/kg (=ppb)
OTA
< 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.

6. Summary Oct. 2007 - Sept. 2008 MYCOTOXIN n % Positive
Average of positive
µg/kg
Max.
Commodity
Country
Afla total
1080 31 61
2483
Corn
Pakistan
ZON
1057 46
199
3112
China
DON
1086 54
783
32893
Finished feed
FUM
1068
946
9481
OTA
901 19 11
197
India

7. Summary Oct. 2007 – June 2009 MYCOTOXIN n % Positive
Average of positive
µg/kg
Max.
Commodity
Country
Afla total
1353 36 88
6200
Corn
India
ZON
1348
214
7422
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

8. Occurrence of Mycotoxin by Geographical Regions
North Asia:
Afla-18%
ZON-45%
DON-63%
FUM-55%
OTA-10%
South Asia:
Afla-78%
ZON-24%
DON-18%
FUM-50%
OTA-38%
Americas:
Afla-9%
ZON-28%
DON-54%
FUM-52%
OTA-2%
South-East Asia:
Afla-52%
ZON-39%
DON-31%
FUM-59%
OTA-15%
Oceania:
Afla-7%
ZON-15%
DON-24%
FUM-8%
OTA-9%

9. Importing concerns?
Different geographic regions present different climates therefore different mycotoxins will be present.
Importing commodities also means importing mycotoxins!

10. Yes, Some rumen microbes (and protozoa) detoxify myxotoxins
Naturally ahead
Yes, Some rumen microbes (and protozoa) detoxify myxotoxins

11. Naturally ahead .
BUT: How much?

12. Natural Bioconversion in the Rumen
Ruminal Detoxification
Natural Bioconversion in the Rumen
Rumen Degraded
No Rumen Degradation
Aflatoxin
0-42 %
58 – 100 %
Zearalenone
90 %
-Zearalenol
10 x more oestrogenic
10 %
BUT oestrogenic metabolites
Deoxynivalenol
35 %
Rumen-pH sensitive
65 %
Ochratoxin A
completely? ?
Doerr 2003
Jouany and Diaz 2005

13. Ruminal Detoxification
Yesterday`s feed
Today`s feed
Gases

14. Detoxifying Capacity:
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?

15. Negative Effects of Mycotoxins depend on:
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)

16. After the Rumen nothing stops Mycotoxins !!
Ruminal Detoxification
Remember !
After the Rumen nothing stops Mycotoxins !!
immunesuppressive
livertoxic
cytotoxic

17. Why is there an increased risk for mycotoxins in the field?
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)

18. Naturally ahead .
You can`t change the weather, BUT: Effect of Cultivation system under unfavourable weather conditions on DON contamination?
1220 ppb DON
315 ppb DON
Ploughing
No Till
Average:

19. French study Barrier-Guillot et al. (2004) presented in Maryland, USA
Naturally ahead .
French study Barrier-Guillot et al. (2004) presented in Maryland, USA
n =765 fields, > 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 !

20. Why is there an increased risk for mycotoxins in the rations?
Natürlich im Futter.
Why is there an increased risk for mycotoxins in the rations?
Highly concentrated rations

21. Why is there an increased risk for mycotoxins in the 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

22. Why is there an increased risk for mycotoxins in the rations?
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 !

23. Mycotoxins in forages? Naturally ahead .
mycotoxin suspicious samples tested

24. Mycotoxins in corn silage
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)

25. Do Mycotoxins get eliminated in the feeds?
Naturally ahead
Do Mycotoxins get eliminated in the feeds?
They are not destroyed by:
Fermentation (corn silage)
Time (longer storing period)
Heat
Rankin M., Grau C. (2004)

26. What is happening in the field?
Naturally ahead .
What is happening in the field?
n=100 dairies, USA
Whitlow et al. (1986)

27. Conclusion of other field data
Naturally ahead .
Conclusion of other field data
There is a relationship between DON contamination and losses in production
Gotlieb 1997
Seglar 1997

28. 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
(13-22 wk. of lactation)
Depressed feed intake and lower milk production at 0,1 ppm DON

29. 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)

30. High risk especially in the transition period! Why?
Naturally ahead .
High risk especially in the transition period! Why?

31. Depressed immune function
Naturally ahead .
Depressed immune function
Goff & Horst (1997)

32. Periparturient energy balance
Naturally ahead .
Periparturient energy balance
Energy deficit
 prior to calving!
Surplus
Far off dry
parturition
intake/-requirement
nutrient

33. Effect of mycotoxins on transition cows?
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

34. Effect of mycotoxins on transition cows?
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

35. Effect of mycotoxins on transition cows?
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

36. Mycotoxins intensify the risk for lameness in dairy cows
Naturally ahead .
Mycotoxins intensify the risk for lameness in dairy cows
Nocek (1993), adapted
Hoffmann (2001)

37. Effects of Mycotoxins T2-Toxin, DON, AFB1 Gastroenteritis
Intestinal hemorrhages
Impaired rumen function
Diarrhea
Ketosis
DON - Deoxynivalenol
ZON – Zearalenone
AFB1 – Aflatoxin B1
T2-Toxin
ZON
Irregular heats
Low conception rates
Ovarian cysts
Embryonic Loss
AFB1, T2-Toxin, DON
Milk contamination
Decreased milk production
Mastitis
T2-Toxin, DON
Decreased feed intake
Lower milk production
Decreased feed efficiency
DON
Laminitis

38. Limits for Mycotoxins? Most susceptible to mycotoxins!
Naturally ahead
Limits for Mycotoxins?
Compromised immune system:
Transition (fresh) cows
sick cows
stressed cows
Most susceptible to mycotoxins!
Linn & Chapman 2002

39. Limits for Mycotoxins? exact levels for dairy cattele unknown!
Naturally ahead
Limits for Mycotoxins? exact levels for dairy cattele unknown!
Mycotoxin level
low
medium
high
A-Trichothecenes
(T-2, HAT-2, DAS)
< 300
> 800
B-Trichothecenes
(DON, AcDON, NIV, Fus X)
< 500
> 2000
ZON
< 100
> 250
Ochratoxin A
< 200
> 500
Aflatoxin B1
> 5
5 -20 (FDA)
> 20
Biomin experience

40. Controlling of the benchmarks in the milk produktion- small screws..
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

41. Basics for economical value of life time performance
Naturally ahead
Basics for economical value of life time performance
Three lactations or kg / cow
15 kg of milk per day of life (27000 kg in 1800 days)
Feed efficacy 1,5 kg milk / kg DM

42. Less than 20% of dairy cows are finding in lactation No. 4 und 5!!
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

43. Strategies to minimize mycotoxin impact
uncertain results, often connected with high feed losses
expensive
time consuming
change in palatability and nutritive value
decreased feed quality
toxic by-products possible
PREVENTION
(“good agricultural practices”, plant breeding, Bt corn)
... during feed production
DECONTAMINATION physical/chemical treatments
(cleaning, mechanical sorting, irradiation, solvent extraction; ammonia, sodium hydroxide, oxidizing- and reducing agents...) ... during feed processing
FEED ADDITIVES Deactivation
ADSORPTION
BIOTRANSFORMATION
BIOPROTECTION during feed digestion 1

44. Strategies to minimize mycotoxin impact
uncertain results, often connected with high feed losses
expensive
time consuming
change in palatability and nutritive value
decreased feed quality
toxic by-products possible
PREVENTION
(“good agricultural practices”, plant breeding, Bt corn)
... during feed production
DECONTAMINATION physical/chemical treatments
(cleaning, mechanical sorting, irradiation, solvent extraction; ammonia, sodium hydroxide, oxidizing- and reducing agents...) ... during feed processing
FEED ADDITIVES Deactivation
ADSORPTION
BIOTRANSFORMATION
BIOPROTECTION during feed digestion 1

45. Strategies counteracting Mycotoxins

46. vitamins, antiobiotics
3 Strategies
Unique and exclusive....
Elimination of
toxic effects
Biotransformation
Adsorption
All
mycotoxins
Trichothecenes
e.g. DON, T-2,...
Zearalenone
Aflatoxin,
Fumonisin
No binding of
vitamins, antiobiotics

47. Experience with Mycofix® Plus in Dairy Cows

48. Naturally ahead
1200 cows
12 week trial
„on-off-on“

49. Naturally ahead

50. Acetic Acid : Propionic Acid
Experience
Acetic Acid : Propionic Acid
2,8 : 1

51. Even in low producing, robust Simmental cows –
Naturally ahead .
Even in low producing, robust Simmental cows –
There is a difference

52. Experience Results: Stronger immune defense
Results:
Stronger immune defense
Lowering SCC (long trial period!)

53. Experience Take home message: Mycofix® Plus increases milk yield.
Take home message:
Mycofix® Plus increases milk yield.
Mycotoxines impair rumen function.
Mycofix® Plus lowered Somatic Cell Count by 60%.

54. Farm: BEAG Agrar GmbH, Behringen, Germany
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

55. Long term effects of Biomin MycofixPlus
Field trials
Long term effects of Biomin MycofixPlus
Farms
Cows
age
Lakt.
Diff.
Millkyield
Livetime
Culling
Nr.
in days
Past year
efficiancy
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
0,3
30732
5800
16,4
354
Körner
539
1730
0,4
27032
3940
15,2
1,7
207
Farms without
Mycofix Plus
Milsana
1427
1810
2,7
-0,1
22578
-150
13,1
213
Dermbach
1663
1780
-0,2
22442
-1550
237

56. 66 % der Kühe erreichen nicht die 3. Laktation !
FCM control data
FCM genetic possible
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
66 % der Kühe erreichen nicht die 3. Laktation !
Auszug aus: DGfZ Schriftenreihe, Heft 42, 2005
T. Schomaker

57. References Naturally ahead .
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 , Bethesda, Maryland, USA
Goff J.P., Horst R.L. (1997): Physiological changes at parturition and their relationship to metabolic disorders. J. Dariy Sci. 80,
Gotlieb, A. (1997): Causes of mycotoxins in silages. Pp 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:
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.
Ministry of Agriculture and Food (2004): Molds and Mycotoxins – Effects of Moldy Feed and Mycotoxins on Cattle.
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
Seglar, B. (1997): Case studies that implicate silage mycotoxins as the cause of dairy herd problems. Pp 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, College of Vet Med., UM, St. Paul, MN