1. Mycotoxins and Use of Mycotoxin Binders to Alleviate Mycotoxicoses
By Dennis R. Taylor, Ph.D.
Sponsored by
BROOKSIDE-AGRA
DRTaylor Consulting

2. About Mycotoxins Apspergillus flavus → produces aflatoxins
Over 370 known mycotoxins *
Mycotoxins are produced by molds and fungi that grow on grains
Mycotoxins are specific chemicals (called “metabolites”) produced by the molds and fungi
Apspergillus flavus → produces aflatoxins
Aspergillus flavus growing on corn
Aspergillus flavus magnified
Mycotoxins are elaborated (produced) by molds that grow on grains and other feedstuffs. There are over 370 different mycotoxins which have been identified thus far. Mycotoxin are specific chemical compounds. Once they are produced, they remain in the sample even if the mold is killed.
* Handbook of Toxic Fungal Metabolites – Cole / Cox (1981)
DRTaylor Consulting

3. About Mycotoxins
Fusarium toxins - Deoxynivalenol (vomitoxin), T-2, zearalenone
Fusarium graminearum → produces vomitoxin, T-2, zearalenone
Mycotoxins are elaborated (produced) by molds that grow on grains and other feedstuffs. There are over 370 different mycotoxins which have been identified thus far. Mycotoxin are specific chemical compounds. Once they are produced, they remain in the sample even if the mold is killed.
DRTaylor Consulting

4. About Mycotoxins
Mycotoxins can adversely affect animal health and performance.
Mycotoxins are potent chemicals and can produce toxic effects at very low levels – parts per million (ppm) and parts per billion (ppb) range.
Mycotoxins are very common – it is hard to avoid eventually getting some contaminated grains.
Once mycotoxins are produced, they are hard to get rid of…
They cannot be destroyed by heating – even to 340 °C.
They cannot be washed off – low solubility in water.
There are no effective chemical treatments.
Mycotoxins are hard to avoid and almost impossible to get rid of. And they are potent at very low concentrations in an animal’s feed.
DRTaylor Consulting

5. About Mycotoxins
Different mycotoxins affect different organs. Here we see the typically fatty liver caused by aflatoxicosis compared to a normal liver.
Fatty liver due to aflatoxin (left) compared to normal liver (right) (Ledoux UMC)
DRTaylor Consulting

6. About Mycotoxins Only six mycotoxins are of real commercial concern…
Aflatoxin B1
Deoxynivalenol
(“vomitoxin”)
Fumonisin B
Ochratoxin A
Zearalenone
T-2 toxin
The six mycotoxins of commercial interest are: aflatoxins (particularly B1), a known carcinogen, deoxynivalenol (abbreviated DON and sometimes called “vomitoxin” because it causes certain animals to vomit when ingested), fumonisin which many also be a natural carcinogen, ochratoxin, zearalenone and T-2 toxin.
DRTaylor Consulting

7. Effects of Mycotoxins on Animals
Affected Commercial Species
EFFECTS on ANIMALS
Aflatoxins B1, B2, G1, and G2
Duckling, turkey poult, chicks, mature chickens, piglets, calves, pregnant sows, sheep, human, fish
Carcinogenic; attacks liver; reduced growth rate; hemmorrhagic enteritis; suppression of natural immunity to infection; decreased production of meat, milk, and eggs.
Ochratoxins
Swine,duckling, chicken, human
Toxic to kidneys and liver; abortion; poor feed conversion, reduced growth rate, reduced immunity to infection.
Deoxynivalenol (Vomitoxin)
Swine, cattle, chicken, turkey, horse, human
Food refusal by swine; vomiting and diarrhea; reduction in weight gain.
T-2 Toxin
Oral lesions. Severe inflammation of gastrointestinal tract and possible hemorrhage; edema; infertility; degeneration of bone marrow; reduced weight gain; slow growth; sterility.
This table shows the manifestations of the various mycotoxins on various animals.
Zearalenone
Swine, dairy cattle, turkey, lamb
Estrogenic effects (edema of vulva, prolapsed vagina, enlargement of uterus), abortion, infertility, stunting. Atrophy of testicles, ovaries, enlargement of mammary glands.
Fumonisin B1, B2
Horses
Leucoencephalomalacia, "blind staggers," in horses.
DRTaylor Consulting

8. Recommended Acceptable Levels
FDA Guidelines on maximum levels of Aflatoxin, Vomitoxin
and Fumonisin in feedstuffs for animals
Aflatoxin M1
Aflatoxin B1
< 0.5 ppb in milk
< 20 ppb in feeds
Vomitoxin
5 ppm swine
10 ppm cattle, poultry
The FDA (USA) has made recommendations for acceptable levels of various mycotoxin in feedstuffs for animals.
Fumonisins
5 ppm horses
10 ppm swine
50 ppm beef cattle and poultry
THE ROLE OF MYCOTOXINS IN FOOD AND FEED SAFETY
Jon Ratcliff — Food and Agriculture Consultancy Services, UK
DRTaylor Consulting 8

9. Recommended Acceptable Levels
EU Maximum permitted levels of mycotoxins in animal feed
and foods for human consumption
Aflatoxin B1
5 ppb animal feedstuffs – cattle, sheep
2 ppb animal feeding stuffs – adult poultry and swine
1 ppb animal feeding stuffs – piglets and chicks
Ochratoxin A
5 ppb dried fruit and nuts
The EU has made recommendations for permissible levels of aflatoxin and ochratoxin in various commodities.
THE ROLE OF MYCOTOXINS IN FOOD AND FEED SAFETY
Jon Ratcliff — Food and Agriculture Consultancy Services, UK
DRTaylor Consulting

10. What can be done? Limited options
Only buy uncontaminated grains
But difficult to accomplish because even if you analyze for toxins you may miss them.
Usually contamination is not uniformly distributed throughout the sample.
Sometimes nothing but contaminated grains are available.
Remember – not possible to remove toxins by heating or washing.
Use mycotoxin binding sorbents to sequester toxins
This approach – first reported in 1988 by Phillips & Taylor, et al. – has over 30 years of peer reviewed research and commercial use proving its viability and utility.
At last count, there were over 100+ companies world-wide offering mycotoxin binders – and new offerings are made practically every day.
There are limited options for dealing with the problem of mycotoxins in animal feeds. The use of mycotoxin binders is the most cost effective.
DRTaylor Consulting

11. Early History of HSCAS as Aflatoxin Binder
1988 – Phillips, Taylor, Kubena, Harvey show 0.5 wt% hydrated sodium calcium aluminosilicate (HSCAS) protects CHICKENS against 7.5 ppm AFB1 (Poultry Sci., 67, )
1989 – Harvey, Phillips, Kubena, et al. show HSCAS protects SWINE against AFB1 (Amer. J. Vet. Res., 50, )
1991 – Kubena, Huff, Harvey, et al. show HSCAS protects TURKEYS against AFB1 (Poultry Sci., 70, )
1991 – Harvey, Kubena, Phillips, et al. show HSCAS protects LAMBS against AFB1 (Amer. J. Vet. Res., 57, )
1994 – Phillips, Harvey, Kubena, et al., show HSCAS protects GOATS against AFB1 (J. Anim. Sci., 72, )
At last count (2006) there were over 200 peer-reviewed articles devoted to the subject of mycotoxin binding by various binding agents.
DRTaylor Consulting

12. Evaluating Mycotoxin Binders
Two possible approaches…
In-vivo testing
Uses live animals
Uses mycotoxin contaminated feeds
Uses mycotoxin binder mixed with contaminated & uncontaminated feeds.
In-vitro testing
Does not use live animals
Generally uses low level of mycotoxin dissolved in water.
Uses mycotoxin binder to remove the mycotoxin from the water.
Usually does not use mycotoxin contaminated feeds.
Approaches to evaluating the efficacy of mycotoxin binders.
DRTaylor Consulting

13. Comparison: in-vitro vs. in-vivo testing
In-vivo tests are very expensive. It usually cost $15K-$20K to conduct an in-vivo evaluation with perhaps 3 or 4 treatment groups (poultry least expensive).
In-vivo tests take time (~40 days / evaluation for poultry)
There are too many competitive mycotoxin binders to evaluate in a single in-vivo test.
IN-VITRO
In-vitro tests are much less expensive. It usually costs about $350 to conduct an in-vitro evaluation of a sorbent (+4 toxins).
In-vitro tests are much quicker – usually about 1 week.
In-vitro tests are much more reproducible because all conditions can be carefully controlled.
Any number of competitive sorbents can be evaluated, and at different periods in time.
In-vivo vs. in-vivo testing (pros and cons).
DRTaylor Consulting

14. Does in-vitro binding correlate with in-vivo binding?
The answer is YES…
…at least for aflatoxin B1 in-vitro versus in-vivo testing.
DRTaylor Consulting

15. Correlation: In-vivo Wt. Gain vs. In-vitro Binding Activity1
Broilers: Aflatoxin Challenge PPB
Conclusion:
In-vitro binding
correlates with
in-vivo response
Pos. Control
(0 ppb AFB1/ 0 binder)
Binders:
Increasing Binding Activity
(3000 ppb AFB1/ 0.5% binder)
In this plot, the in-vivo weight gain (by broilers challenged with 3 ppm aflatoxin) is compared to the in-vitro binding by a series of binders of increasing aflatoxin binding activity. As shown, in-vivo weight gain increases as the binding activity of the binders increases.
Neg. Control
(3000 ppb AFB1/ 0 binder)
1 2002, Dr. Carlos Mallman,
Univ. Federal de Santa Maria, Brazil
DRTaylor Consulting

16. An in-vitro approach to finding the answer
So what makes one mycotoxin binder Good – and another not so good – or even Poor?
An in-vitro approach to finding the answer
DRTaylor Consulting

17. Physical properties of montmorillonite
Raw
clay
• Density (Kg/m3)
• Porosity (cc/g)
• Pore diameter (µm)
• Surface area (m2/g)
Here are shown pictures of the type of binding clay (montmorillonite) used to make Flo-Bond. Also listed are some of the physical properties that can be measured such as density, porosity, pore diameter and surface area. This type of clay is characterized by extensive porosity and high surface area compared to other minerals.
Scanning Electron Microscopy
at high magnification
DRTaylor Consulting

18. Chemical properties of montmorillonite
• Surface acidity (pKa)
• Cation Exchange Capacity
(meq/100 g)
• Exchange cations (Na+, K+, H+,
Mg++, Ca++)
• pH of clay slurry in water
Exchangeable cations →
Ca++
Here is shown a diagram of the (montmorillonite) clay structure on the atomic level. Such clays exhibit a number of chemical properties including surface acidity, cation exchange capacity, and differences in the types of exchangeable cation in the interlayer region.
DRTaylor Consulting

19. Protocol of the study
Obtain a representative group of commercially available binders.
Measure aflatoxin B1 binding under a constant set of conditions
… (20 µg toxin / 1 mg binder / 1 mL)
Obtain XRD & measure complete set of physical & chemical properties.
Determine if aflatoxin binding correlates to any particular property
… or combination of properties.
This slide presents the protocol for an in-vitro methodology for studying groups of commercially available mycotoxin binders to determine which physical or chemical properties (or combinations of physical and chemical properties) are important for binding of mycotoxins.
DRTaylor Consulting

20. Binding of Aflatoxin by Commercially Available Mycotoxin Binders: Mineralogy
Product Aflatoxin-% Binding Mineralogical Composition
Code ( 20 µg / mg / mL ) ( basis XRD analysis )
A Ca montmorillonite…………..……. + Qz, FS
B Ca/Na montmorillonite………..….. + Qz
C Ca montmorillonite (low level)….. + Opal CT, Qz
D Attapulgite + Ca montmorillonite. + Qz
E Sepiolite
F Ca montmorillonite
G Ca/Na montmorillonite……………. + Qz
H Na montmorillonite………………… + FS
I Na/Ca montmorillonite……………. + Qz
J Na montmorillonite
K Attapulgite (low level)
L Attapulgite
M 80 Ca montmorillonite……….…….….. + Qz
N Ca montmorillonite…………….…… + Opal CT
O Ca montmorillonite (low level)….… + Qz, FS
P Ca montmorillonite
Q Clinoptilolite, mordenite…….…….. + Qz
R Kaolinite + mica/illite
S 44 Ca montmorillonite (low level)
T Amorphous silica
U Amorphous silica
Excellent
Binding
Good
Binding
Two major points are illustrated by this slide. 1) The majority (62%) of products used to bind aflatoxin are montmorillonite clay. 2) Just because one has a montmorillonite clay does not insure it will be an excellent, or even a good binder. This points to the need for any supplier of a mycotoxin binder to provide in-vitro and most importantly, in-vivo data supporting his claims.
Poor
Binding
Inadequate
Binding
DRTaylor Consulting

21. Binding of Aflatoxin by Commercially Available Mycotoxin Binders: Physical Properties
Product Slurry Loose Density Hg PV Hg Pore BET Surface
Code pH (Kg/m3) (cc/g) Diameter (µm) Area (m²/g) A B
C ; 0.015a 97 D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S
T ; 1.0a 66 U
a Bimodal distribution of porosity; two maxima in pore volume versus pore diameter plots.
This slide lists the physical properties measured (slurry pH, loose density, mercury pore volume, mercury pore diameter and BET surface area).
DRTaylor Consulting

22. Binding of Aflatoxin by Commercially Available Mycotoxin Binders: Chemical Properties
Product Surface Acidity ( meq/g ) Cation Exchange Capacity ( meq/100 g )
Code pKa < pKa > Total Ca Na Total A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T
U N/A N/A N/A
This slide lists the chemical properties measured (surface acidity; for strong acid sites - below pKa 1.5, for weak acid sites – above pKa 1.5; total cation exchange capacity; and specific exchange capacity for Ca++ and Na+ cations).

23. ln [ (<1.5 pKa) x (Mg++conc.) ]
In-Vitro Binding vs. Physical / Chemical Properties of Mycotoxin Binders
RESULTS
No single physical property correlates with in-vitro binding of aflatoxin
No single chemical property correlates with in-vitro binding of aflatoxin
… however, there is a weak correlation with combination of strong
surface acidic sites (of pKa <1.5) and Mg++ concentration 20 40 60 80
100
In-Vitro
Binding (%)
This slide shows that the best correlation between in-vitro binding and physicochemical properties is obtained from a mathematical function derived as the natural log of the product between concentration of strong surface acidity sites (pKa < 1.5) and Mg+2 20 40 60 80
100
120
ln [ (<1.5 pKa) x (Mg++conc.) ]

24. Optimum binding – like tumblers in a lock…
Optimum set of physical / chemical
properties in binder …
…like tumblers
in a lock…
Aflatoxin
Aflatoxin fits perfectly…
…so lock and key
mechanism work
together
to bind aflatoxin
Another
toxin
If toxin does not match
physical / chemical properties
of binder - lock and key
mechanism won’t work…
DRTaylor Consulting

25. compare to the competition?
So - how does FLO-BOND
compare to the competition?
Some more in-vitro and in-vivo studies
DRTaylor Consulting

26. Flo-Bond is the only mycotoxin binder with Organic approval in the USA
DRTaylor Consulting

27. Recent Dioxin Analysis on Flo-Bond
All samples below 1.5 ppt EEC limit for sum (dioxins + PCB’s)
Except sample B&N 8511 which was mining sample not used for Flo-Bond
DRTaylor Consulting

28. 2010 Competitive in-vitro Mycotoxin Binder Study
METHODOLOGY
ncy
Mycotoxins /
Concentration
Binder Level:
Binding
Conditions: %
Efficie
Binders Studied
Aflatoxin B1, Deoxynivalenol, Fumonisin B1, Ochratoxin A, T -
2 Toxin, Zearalenone –
all
@ 2000 ppb
0.5 wt%
Adsorption phase: 3 pH 3.0
Desorption phase: 3 pH 8.0 -
= %
Adsorption
@ pH 3.0
% De
pH 8.0
Flo -
Bond, Flo
Bond AZ (experimental), Flo
Bond X (experimental), NovaSil
Plus, MycoAd
This slide shows the protocol for a recent in-vitro binding study of Flo-Bond (including some new experimental products) versus two well-known mycoto
New experimental products
(Brookside-Agra currently conducting in-vivo trials)
DRTaylor Consulting 28

29. 2010 Competitive in-vitro Mycotoxin Binder Study
RESULTS
AFB1
FUM
DON
OCHRA
T-2
ZONE
Flo-Bond
New Flo-Bond AZ
(AFB1/ZONE)
NEW Flo-Bond X
(Full Spectrum)
NS Plus
MycoAd
% Adsorption pH3
% Desorption pH 8
% Efficiency
% Adsorption pH 3
100 95
20.6
77.8
23.7 31 87
15.9
30.8 8
4.7
0.2
100 90
22.6
94.4
67.2
96.5
49.4
15.6
93.3
7.3
4.4
40.6 7
1.1
59.9
92.1
99.9
95.3
36.7
98.1
98.3
99.8
0.3
7.9
12.8
9.2
99.6
87.4
23.9
88.9
99.5
This slide shows that FLO-BOND is an effective in-vitro binder for a number of key mycotoxins including: aflatoxin B1 and T-2 toxin as are the competitive binders. Note that the new experimental FLO-BOND products are also effective for zearalenone (FB AZ) and a combination of other mycotoxins (FB X)
100
99.2
27.3
95.2
40.8
74.9
0.1
86.2
20.8
95.1
35.6
99.9 13
6.5
39.3
100
98.4
17.6
91.8
35.4
50.7
94.7
14.6
89.3
42.6
3.7 3
2.5
8.1
Results by Trilogy Analytical Lab, Missouri, USA
DRTaylor Consulting

30. 2010 Competitive in-vitro Mycotoxin Binder Study
CONCLUSIONS
General
While all mycotoxins studied (except DON) were significantly bound in-vitro under acidic (pH 3) conditions, some were significantly, or completely desorbed under basic (pH 8) conditions.
Aflatoxin B1
Aflatoxin strongly bound by all binders in-vitro under acidic (pH 3) & basic (pH 8) conditions. Numerous studies support in-vivo efficacy.
Experimental
Blends…
New experimental blends being studied by Brookside-Agra are showing promise for extending binder efficacy for other mycotoxins
DRTaylor Consulting 30

31. Why does aflatoxin bind so strongly compared to other mycotoxins?
Some similarity
here
Some similarity
between these
and here
…but none here
Deoxynivalenol
This grouping
causes strong binding
Although ochratoxin and zearalenone contain a related 1,3-ketoalcohol moiety which is structurally similar to the 1,3-diketone found in aflatoxin B1, other mycotoxins like deoxynivalenol (vomitoxin), T-2 toxin and fumonision lack this similarity.
Ochratoxin A
Zearalenone
DRTaylor Consulting

32. Binding of the diketone moiety to cationic sites: the reason for the strong binding of aflatoxin
The 1,3-diketone structure
of aflatoxin possesses high
electron density and is
therefore strongly attracted
to positively charged sites
Ca++
Clay Structure
Diagram showing the binding of 1,3-diketone moiety of aflatoxin to cationic site in montmorillonite structure.
This forms a type of
complex called a CHELATE
DRTaylor Consulting 6

33. Binding of the diketone moiety to cationic sites: the reason for the strong binding of aflatoxin
Broken bonds at crystal edges
can also generate cationic sites +
These sites can also bind aflatoxin
as a CHELATED complex
Ca++
Clay Structure
DRTaylor Consulting 6

34. “THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS”
A CAUTION ABOUT IN-VITRO BINDING STUDIES
“THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS”
DRTaylor Consulting

35. In-Vitro Binding Data – Be careful about what you think you see
In-Vitro Binding Data – Be careful about what you think you see! A Study of two binders
Percentage Binding 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100
WHICH WOULD YOU PICK?
Aflatoxin B1
Fumonisin
Zearalenone
Ochratoxin
Binder #1
Binder #2
DRTaylor Consulting

36. In-Vitro Binding Data -
Binding Conditions
Very Important !!
Make Sure You Read the Fine Print !
Let’s look a little more carefully at the binding conditions
Percentage Binding 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100
AFB1 (20 µg/ mL/ mg)
Fumonisin (4 µg/ mL/ 10 mg)
ZONE (4 µg/ mL/ 20 mg)
Ochratoxin (4 µg/ mL/ 50 mg)
AFB1 (4 µg/ mL/ mg)
Fumonisin (4 µg/ mL/ 1mg)
ZONE (4 µg/ mL/ 1mg)
Ochratoxin (4 µg/ mL/ 1mg)
When you compare the specific binding conditions employed for Binder #1, you see that 10 – 50 times as much binder was used for fumonisin, zearalenone and ochratoxin binding as was used for Binder #2. In fact, Binder #1 and Binder #2 were the same binder – just different binder levels were used. In the case of Binder #2, all four toxins were utilized at the same binding level (4 μg toxin/1 mL solution/1 mg binder) and this experiment more clearly shows the relative capacity for binding of mycotoxins is: aflatoxin >>> fumonisin > zearalenone > ochratoxin.
Binder #1
Binder #2
Binder #1 = #2 = Flo-Bond: Just Different Levels of Binder
DRTaylor Consulting

37. IN-VIVO DATA USING FLO-BOND
DRTaylor Consulting

38. Chicken Feeding Trial: FLO-BOND vs. NovaSil : 2500 ppb Aflatoxin B1
0 ppb AFB1 / no binder
2500 ppb AFB1 / .75% FB 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Average Body Weight (gms)
2500 ppb AFB1 / .5% NS
2500 ppb AFB1 / .5% FB
2500 ppb AFB1 / .25% FB
2500 ppb AFB1 / no binder
Therefore 0.25% FLO-BOND = 0.5% NovaSil
0.5% FLO-BOND better than 0.5% NovaSil
This graph shows the results of an in-vivo binding study with chickens using Flo-Bond versus NovaSil against a 2.5 ppm aflatoxin B1 challenge. Note that by week 4, 0.5% FB has returned the aflatoxin-challenged birds to a body weight equal to the unchallenged birds. Note also that by week 4, 0.25% FB is equal to 0.5% NovalSil and 0.5% FB is superior to 0.5% NovaSil. 1 2 3 4
Week
DRTaylor Consulting

39. Protective Effect 0.275% Flo-Bond vs. 2000 PPB Ochratoxin: Broilers*
Liver: Macroscopic Results 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentage (%)
GRADE 1
GRADES 2-4
Control
Control + Flo-Bond
Control ppb Ochratoxin + Flo-Bond
Control ppb Ochratoxin
This slide shows that 0.275% Flo-Bond provides some protection against the effects of a 2 ppm ochratoxin challenge (broilers) on the basis of liver grading scores.
Test period: 7 – 28 days of age
Groups: 4 rations (see graph)
* 64 male broilers/ 16 chicks per ration
DRTaylor Consulting

40. 2010 In-Vivo Swine Trial Using FLO-BOND against Deoxynivalenol Challenge
Evaluation of FLO-BOND in growing pigs fed 0.9 ppm and 1.8 ppm deoxynivalenol (DON) contaminated diets
Test: A 7-d (64-pen) pig study was conducted comparing live performance (average daily gain, feed conversion, and feed consumption) of pigs fed FLO-BOND at levels of 0%, 0.25% and 0.50% in commercial type diets contaminated with DON mycotoxin at levels of 1.8 and 0.9 ppm
Location: Virginia Diversified Research, Corp., Harrisonburg, VA; investigator: Michael D. Sims
This slide shows the protocol for a recent in-vivo study with swine using 0.25% and 0.5% Flo-Bond against deoxynivalenol (0.9 ppm and 1.8 ppm).
DRTaylor Consulting

41. 2010 In-Vivo Swine Trial Using FLO-BOND against Deoxynivalenol Challenge
RESULTS
FLO-BOND vs. 0.9 ppm
FLO-BOND lbs/ton 5 10
DON (ppm)
0.9
Day 0-7ADG (lbs/d)
1.982a
1.893a
0.693c
1.430b
1.307b
Day 0-7 Feed/Gain (lb/1b)
1.324a
1.284a
2.415c
1.632b
1.663b
Feed Consumption (lb)
18.36a
16.99ab
12.30c
16.66b
15.09b
FLO-BOND vs. 1.8 ppm
This slide shows that 0.25% as well as 0.5% Flo-Bond provides protection against the DON challenges of 0.9 ppm and 1.8 ppm. The best results were obtained when Flo-Bond was used at the 0.25% level.
FLO-BOND lbs/ton: 5 10
DON (ppm):
1.8
Day 0-10 ADG (lbs/d)
1.982a
1.893a
0.566c
1.079b
0.779bc
Day 0-10 Feed/Gain (lb/lb)
1.324a
1.284a
8.544c
1.834b
2.050b
Feed Consumption (lb)
18.36a
16.99a
11.41d
13.4b
10.61c
DRTaylor Consulting

42. FLO-BOND Does Not Hinder Uptake of Nutrients
Effect on
Nutrient
Level of HSCAS
Nutrient Utilization
Riboflavin
0.5 %
None
1.0 %
Vitamin A
Manganese
Zinc
Slight tibia Zn decrease
Phosphorus, inorganic
Phosphorus, phytate
The question comes up as to whether HSCAS clays will interfere with the utilization of other essential nutrients (i.e. water soluble vitamins, oil-soluble vitamins, and minerals). Experiments conducted by Baker et al. showed no effect on the utilization of riboflavin, vitamin A, manganese, zinc or phosphorus, when HSCAS was used at levels of 0.5 wt% in the diets. There was a very slight negative effect on zinc utilization at the 1 wt% level. In practice, very few farmers use binders at this high a level.
Chung, T.K.et al., 1990 Poultry Science 69:
Chung, T.K. and Baker, D.H., 1990 J Animal Science 68:
DRTaylor Consulting

43. Effect of Flo-Bond Plus on Mold Reduction
Conclusions
This evaluation demonstrates that Flo-Bond Plus can significantly reduce the mold count in a high moisture corn sample.
DRTaylor Consulting

44. What about processing? What about quality control?
Can they affect product quality?
DRTaylor Consulting

45. FLO-BOND Process – No Added Ingredients – Only Drying & Grinding
Selective Mining
of HSCAS Strata
Manufacturing Plant
Product Dried & Ground into Powder
Quality Control Check
FLO-BOND
Bagging & Sample Retention
Containerization & Shipping
DRTaylor Consulting

46. Effect of Thermal Processing on Surface Area vs
Effect of Thermal Processing on Surface Area vs. Binding of Aflatoxin B1
Increasing Processing Temperature 40 50 60 70 80 90
100
Aflatoxin Binding (%)
Therefore, it is very important
not to overheat clay that is to
be used as mycotoxin binder
While there is no correlation between in-vitro binding of aflatoxin and surface area over a range of different binders, it is quite clear that high surface area for a given binder is desirable. In this experiment, the effect of increasing processing temperature causes the surface area to drop (from about 95 m2/g down to about 65 m2/g). Notice that aflatoxin binding drops as well. This indicates the importance of having good quality control during the manufacturing of a mycotoxin binder. 50 60 70 80 90
100
BET Surface Area (m²/g)
DRTaylor Consulting

47. Effect of Particle Size (Grind) vs. Binding of Aflatoxin B170 75 80 85 90 95
% AFB1 Bound 65 50 55 60
% -325 Mesh
Increasing level of binding
Increasing fineness of grind
Therefore, it is very important
to get good grinding in order
to get maximum binding
This slide shows that in-vitro binding of aflatoxin (and other toxins) will increase with increasing fineness of the grind.
DRTaylor Consulting

48. Important Considerations Before Buying a Mycotoxin Binder
Does the manufacturer have both in-vitro and in-vivo data demonstrating efficacy for his product?
Does the manufacturer have a proven track record for delivering a quality product?
Does the manufacturer have control over his source materials and manufacturing process?
Does the manufacturer maintain good quality control during the manufacturing process?
To all these questions, Brookside-Agra can say “YES” with regard to its FLO-BOND mycotoxin binding product.
DRTaylor Consulting

49. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Montmorillonite is the most common commercially available mycotoxin binder.
Aflatoxin B1 is the most strongly adsorbed mycotoxin.
FLO-BOND is (HSCAS) montmorillonite binder that possess superior mycotoxin binding characteristics for many different mycotoxins.
Manufacturing conditions (temperature, grind) affect binding performance, so good quality control is absolutely essential.
Brookside-Agra is committed to good quality control during the manufacturing of FLO-BOND
USDA approved as organic product
FLO BOND is dioxin free –
(i.e. - below EEC limits for dioxin content)
DRTaylor Consulting

50. Thank you for your kind attention
The End
DRTaylor Consulting