In the intricate world of poultry farming, ensuring the health and productivity of your flock is important. Recently, there has been a growing concern about the impact of mycotoxins on poultry species. Mycotoxins, derived from the Greek words “mykes” (meaning fungi) and “toxicon” (meaning poison), are toxic substances produced by over 200 species of molds.
Identifying the Culprits: Mycotoxins in Focus
Aflatoxins (AF), zearalenone (ZEN), ochratoxin A (OTA), fumonisins (FUM), deoxynivalenol (DON), and T-2 toxin are among the mycotoxins that pose a significant threat to the health and well-being of your poultry. These toxins can lead to various diseases collectively known as “mycotoxicoses,” either independently or in conjunction with other stressors like pathogens.
Understanding the specific mycotoxins affecting your flock is crucial. For instance, aflatoxins are known for their impact on DNA and RNA, inhibiting macromolecular synthesis. On the other hand, trichothecenes like DON and T-2 toxin interfere with the host’s ribosomes, hindering protein synthesis. Recognizing the distinct characteristics of each mycotoxin is essential for targeted mitigation strategies.
Detecting Mycotoxins: A Vital Step
Detecting mycotoxins in poultry feed is a crucial aspect of maintaining optimal health and productivity in your flock. When faced with unexplained suboptimal performance, where typical causes like infections, environmental issues, or nutritional deficiencies are ruled out, mycotoxicosis could be the underlying issue. To ensure the early identification of mycotoxin presence, poultry producers have two main avenues: using diagnostic kits for on-site testing or sending feed samples to a specialized laboratory. Both methods play a pivotal role in complementing evaluations based on historical data, clinical observations, post-mortem assessments, and microscopic examinations of tissues. By incorporating mycotoxin analysis into your routine feed management practices, you can effectively safeguard the well-being of your flock and mitigate the risks associated with mycotoxicosis.
The Gastrointestinal Impact: Unraveling the Effects
The gastrointestinal tract (GIT) stands out as a hotspot for mycotoxin impact in poultry farming, given its high protein synthesis and rapid turnover. Drawing insights from swine data, mycotoxicosis has been associated with a substantial 30% reduction in growth, affecting both maintenance and feed efficiency. Poultry producers should grasp the distinct nutritional and energy requirements, especially considering the prolonged recovery time for intestinal challenges compared to mycotoxicosis.
In the realm of poultry, the GIT not only serves as a primary target for mycotoxins but also functions as a critical site for the metabolic activation or deactivation of specific toxins. A notable example is Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1), which undergoes activation to its toxic metabolite AFB1-exo-8, 9-epoxide (AFBO) not only in the liver but also within the intestinal tract. This underscores the crucial role played by the intestine in mycotoxin metabolism, emphasizing the necessity for strategies that specifically address GIT functionality in poultry health management.
Nutrient Digestion and Absorption: Navigating the Complexities
Mycotoxicoses influence nutrient digestion and absorption, leading to malabsorption issues observed in chickens. The effects on pancreatic and intestinal functionality, nutrient transporters, and epithelial short-circuit current emphasize the need for a comprehensive strategy to counteract mycotoxins.
Beyond growth reductions, recent studies have shed light on the impact of mycotoxins on nutrient transporters. For instance, toxic doses of DON reduce the intestinal expression of key transporters like SGLT1 (responsible for glucose absorption in the small intestine) and palmitate (fatty acid) transporters. This not only affects nutrient absorption but also contributes to the overall reduction in apparent nutrient and energy digestibility.
Preserving Intestinal Barrier Function: A Shield against Mycotoxins
Maintaining intestinal health in poultry involves two key components: passive barriers and active immunological processes. Passive barriers include mucin and other natural defenses, the beneficial bacteria in the gut, tight junction complexes between cells, and the constant renewal of the intestinal lining. On the other hand, active immunological processes, such as those involving gut-associated lymphoid tissues and intra-epithelial lymphocytes, are responsible for identifying and eliminating harmful invaders while distinguishing them from the body’s own cells. This balance is crucial for ensuring the gut health of poultry.
Recent studies have delved into the impact of mycotoxins on the functionality of the intestinal barrier. While the basal epithelial resistance remains relatively unchanged, the active transport of glucose and amino acids is significantly inhibited. This suggests that mycotoxins may compromise not only the physical integrity of the intestine but also its functional aspects, posing a threat to nutrient absorption and overall poultry health.
Impact on the Immune System: Weakening Defenses
Mycotoxins interfere with DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis, impairing the efficiency of the immune system. Recent research indicates that even at levels below clinical mycotoxicosis, mycotoxins can modulate immune functions, decreasing resistance to infectious diseases. Aflatoxins, for example, have been found to bind with both DNA and RNA, inhibiting macromolecular synthesis. Trichothecenes, including DON and T-2 toxin, share the trademark of inhibiting protein synthesis, further compromising the immune response. Understanding these immunological disruptions highlights the need for holistic approaches to strengthen the immune system in the face of mycotoxin challenges.
Mycotoxin Prevention Strategies in Poultry Feed Management
Mitigating mycotoxins in poultry feed requires a proactive approach to prevent fungi production. Ensuring feed freshness, maintaining low humidity, and keeping equipment clean are crucial steps in this endeavor. The introduction of fungistatic substances further aids in preventing fungal growth. Cereals and feed with humidity levels surpassing 11% become breeding grounds for fungi, emphasizing the importance of vigilant storage practices. Storage conditions with elevated relative humidity can significantly impact feed moisture content, making good ventilation essential to remove excess humidity from both raw materials and the storehouse. Physically damaged cereals are more susceptible to fungus production, highlighting the need for careful handling and storage. Regularly changing the storage location of raw materials at short intervals can contribute to reducing mycotoxin formation, promoting a healthier and safer poultry feed supply.
Strategies for Combat: Mycotoxin Counteracting Approaches
Given the diverse structures of mycotoxins, it is evident that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach for their deactivation in feed. To effectively neutralize various mycotoxins without compromising feed quality, a combination of different strategies is necessary. This ensures a targeted and comprehensive approach tailored to address specific mycotoxin challenges in poultry feed.
- Binding Approach: The widely recognized approach for mycotoxin deactivation involves “binding” through the use of agents known as mycotoxin binders, adsorbents, or enterosorbents. These can be either organic (microbial) or inorganic (mainly clay minerals) in nature. The inclusion of binding agents or “enterosorbents” in the diet has garnered attention as a strategy to minimize foodborne exposure to mycotoxins.
- Bio-protection: This method employs various substances like algae and plant ingredients to safeguard vital organs such as the liver and enhance the immune system of animals. Enzymatic or microbial detoxification, also referred to as “biotransformation” or “biodetoxification,” utilizes microorganisms or purified enzymes to catabolize entire mycotoxins or transform them into less or non-toxic compounds.
- Calcium Dioctahedral Smectite Clay: Research revealed that calcium dioctahedral smectite clay (NovaSil, NS) effectively mitigated the adverse effects of AF in animals by enterosorption in the gut, reducing toxin bioavailability. This led to the widespread acceptance of AF enterosorbents in the farm animal industry, introducing diverse materials and complex mixtures for AF binding. These products, known as mycotoxin enterosorbents, encompass smectite clays, zeolites, kaolinite, mica, silica, charcoal, and various biological constituents like chlorophyllins, yeast products, lactic acid bacteria, plant extracts, and algae. Some formulations include smectite or zeolite minerals amended with surfactants, creating hydrophobic organoclays or organozeolites. Substantial evidence supports smectite clays as the most effective AF enterosorbents.
- Enzymatic or Microbial Detoxification: Alternative approaches involving microbial or enzymatic detoxification are gaining prominence. Microorganisms like Trichosporon mycotoxinivorans and anaerobic rumen bacterium BBSH 797 show promise in detoxifying specific mycotoxins.
In conclusion, safeguarding your poultry from mycotoxin-related challenges requires a multifaceted strategy. Understanding the intricacies of mycotoxin’s impact on various poultry systems and adopting innovative counteracting measures will contribute to the long-term health and productivity of your flock.
References
Carretero, M. 2002. Clay minerals and their beneficial effects upon human health. Appl. Clay Sci. 21:155–163 (link)
Filazi A, Yurdakok-Dikmen B, Kuzukiran O, Sireli UT. 2017. Mycotoxins in poultry. In: Manafi M, ed. Poultry Science. IntechOpen. (link)
Grenier, B., and T. J. Applegate. 2013. Invited review-Modulation of intestinal functions upon mycotoxin ingestion: Meta-analysis of published experiments in animals. Toxins. 5:396–430 (link)
Murugesan, G. R., D. R. Ledoux, K. Naehrer, F. Berthiller, T. J. Applegate, B. Grenier, T. D. Phillips, and G. Schatzmayr. 2015. Prevalence and effects of mycotoxins on poultry health and performance, and recent development in mycotoxin counteracting strategies. Poultry Science 94:1298–1315 (link)
Pastorelli, H., J. van Milegen, P. Lovatto, and L. Montagne. 2012. Meta-analysis of feed intake and growth responses of growing pigs after a sanitary challenge. Animal. 6:952–961 (link)
Phillips, T. D., E. Afriyie-Gyawu, J. H. Williams, H. J. Huebner, N.A. Ankrah, D. Ofori-Adjei, P. E. Jolly, N. Johnson, J. F. Taylor, A. Marroquin-Cardona, L. Xu, L. Tang, and J. S. Wang. 2008. Reducing human exposure to aflatoxin through use of clay. Food Addit. Contam. 25:134–145 (link)
Sergent, T., L. Ribonnet, A. Kolosova, S. Garsou, A. Schaut, S. de Saeger, C. van Peteghem, Y. Larondelle, L. Pussemier, and Y. J. Schneider. 2008. Molecular and cellular effects of food contaminants and secondary plant components and their plausible interactions at the intestinal level. Food Chem. Toxicol. 46:813–841 (link)Vekiru, E., C. Hametner, R. Mitterbauer, J. Rechthaler, G. Adam, G. Schatzmayr, R. Krska, and R. Schuhmacher. 2010. Cleavage of zearalenone by Trichosporon mycotoxinivorans to a novel nonestrogenic metabolite. Appl. Env. Microbiol. 76:2353–2359 (link)
