By Marisabel Caballero, Global Technical Manager Poultry, EW Nutrition

Most grains used in feed are susceptible to mycotoxin contamination, causing severe economic losses all along feed value chains. As skyrocketing raw material prices force producers to include a higher proportion of economical cereal byproducts in the feed, the risks of mycotoxin contamination likely increase. In this article, we review why mycotoxins cause the damage they do – and how effective toxin-mitigating solutions prevent this damage.

Mycotoxin contamination of cereal byproducts requires solutions

Cereal byproducts may become more important feed ingredients as grain prices increase. But also from a sustainability point of view and considering population growth, using cereal byproducts in animal feed makes  a lot of sense. Dried distiller’s grains with solubles (DDGS) are a good example of how byproducts from food processing industries can become high-quality animal feed.

Figure 1: Byproducts are a crucial protein source (data from FEFAC Feed & Food 2021 report)

Still, research on what happens to mycotoxins during food processing shows that mycotoxins are concentrated into fractions that are commonly used as animal feed (cf. Pinotti et al., 2016 + link to article IH+MC ). To safeguard animal health and performance when feeding lower-quality cereals, it is essential to monitor mycotoxin risks through regular testing and to use toxin-mitigating solutions.

Problematic effects of mycotoxins on the intestinal epithelium

Most mycotoxins are absorbed in the proximal part of the gastrointestinal tract. This absorption can be high, as in the case of aflatoxins (ca. 90%), but also very limited, as in the case of fumonisins (< 1%); moreover, it depends on the species. Importantly, a significant portion of unabsorbed toxins remains within the lumen of the gastrointestinal tract.

Importantly, studies based on realistic mycotoxin challenges (e.g., Burel et al., 2013) show that the mycotoxin levels necessary to trigger damaging processes are lower than the levels reported as safe by EFSA, the Food Safety Agency of the European Union. The ultimate consequences range from diminished nutrient absorption to inflammatory responses and pathogenic disorders in the animal (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Mycotoxins’ impact on the GIT and consequences for monogastric animals

1.  Alteration of the intestinal barrier‘s morphology and functionality

   Several studies indicate that mycotoxins such as aflatoxin B1, DON, fumonisin B1, ochratoxin A, and T2, can increase the permeability of the intestinal epithelium of poultry and swine (e.g. Pinton & Oswald, 2014). This is mostly a consequence of the inhibition of protein synthesis.

   As a result, there is an increase in the passage of antigens into the bloodstream (e.g., bacteria, viruses, and toxins). This increases the animal’s susceptibility to infectious enteric diseases. Moreover, the damage that mycotoxins cause to the intestinal barrier entails that they are also being absorbed at a higher rate.

2. Impaired immune function in the intestine

   The intestine is a very active immune site, where several immuno-regulatory mechanisms simultaneously defend the body from harmful agents. Immune cells are affected by mycotoxins through the initiation of apoptosis, the inhibition or stimulation of cytokines, and the induction of oxidative stress.

   For poultry production, one of the most severe enteric problems of bacterial origin is necrotic enteritis, which is caused by Clostridium perfringens toxins. Any agent capable of disrupting the gastrointestinal epithelium – e.g. mycotoxins such as DON, T2, and ochratoxin – promotes the development of necrotic enteritis.

3. Alteration of the intestinal microflora

   Recent studies on the effect of various mycotoxins on the intestinal microbiota show that DON and other trichothecenes favor the colonization of coliform bacteria in pigs. DON and ochratoxin A also induce a greater invasion of Salmonella and their translocation to the bloodstream and vital organs in birds and pigs – even at non-cytotoxic concentrations.

   It is known that fumonisin B1 may induce changes in the balance of sphingolipids at the cellular level, including for gastrointestinal cells. This facilitates the adhesion of pathogenic bacteria, increases in their populations, and prolongs infections, as has been shown for the case of E. coli. The colonization of the intestine of food-producing animals by pathogenic strains of E. coli and Salmonella also poses a risk for human health.

4. Interaction with bacterial toxins

   When mycotoxins induce changes in the intestinal microbiota, this can lead to an increase in the endotoxin concentration in the intestinal lumen. Endotoxins promote the release of several cytokines that induce an enhanced immune response, causing inflammation, thus reducing feed consumption and animal performance, damage to vital organs, sepsis, and death of the animals in some cases.

   The synergy between mycotoxins and endotoxins can result in an overstimulation of the immune system. The interaction between endotoxins and estrogenic agents such as zearalenone, for example, generates chronic inflammation and autoimmune disorders because immune cells have estrogen receptors, which are stimulated by the mycotoxin.

Increased mycotoxin risks through byproducts? Invest in mitigation solutions

To prevent the detrimental consequences of mycotoxins on animal health and performance, proactive solutions are needed that support the intestinal epithelium’s digestive and immune functionality and help maintain a balanced microbiome in the GIT. As the current market conditions will likely engender a long-term shift towards the inclusion of more cereal byproducts in animal diets, this becomes even more important.

Trial data shows that EW Nutrition’s toxin-mitigating solution SOLIS MAX provides effective protection against feedborne mycotoxins. The synergistic combination of ingredients in SOLIS MAX mycotoxins from damaging the animals’ gastrointestinal tract and entering the blood stream:

In-vitro study shows SOLIS MAX’ strong mitigation effects against wide range of mycotoxins

Animal feed is often contaminated with two or more mycotoxins, making it important for an anti-mycotoxin agent to be effective against a wide range of different mycotoxins. A dose response evaluation of SOLIS MAX was conducted a at an independent laboratory in Spain, for inclusion levels of 0.10%, 0.15%, and 0.20% (equivalent to 1 kg, 1.5 kb, and 2 kg per ton of feed). A phosphate buffer solution at pH 7 was prepared to simulate intestinal conditions in which a portion of the mycotoxins may be released from the binder (desorption).

Each mycotoxin was tested separately by adding a challenge to buffer solutions, incubating for one hour at 41°C, to establish the base line (see table). At the same time a solution with the toxin challenge and SOLIS MAX was prepared, incubated, and analyzed for the residual mycotoxin. All analyses were carried out by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with standard detectors.

Figure 3: SOLIS MAX adsorption capacity against different mycotoxins (%)

The results demonstrate that SOLIS MAX is a very effective solution against the most common mycotoxins found in raw materials and animal feed, showing clear dose-response effects.

Mycotoxin risk management for better animal feed

A healthy gastrointestinal tract is crucial to animals’ overall health: it ensures that nutrients are optimally absorbed, it provides effective protection against pathogens through its immune function, and it is key to maintaining a well-balanced microflora. Even at levels considered safe by the European Union, mycotoxins can compromise different intestinal functions, resulting in lower productivity and susceptibility to disease.

The globalized feed trade, which spreads mycotoxins beyond their geographical origin, climate change and raw material market pressures only escalates the problem. On top of rigorous testing, producers should mitigate unavoidable mycotoxin exposures through the use of solutions such as SOLIS MAX – for stronger animal health, welfare, and productivity.

References

Antonissen, Gunther, An Martel, Frank Pasmans, Richard Ducatelle, Elin Verbrugghe, Virginie Vandenbroucke, Shaoji Li, Freddy Haesebrouck, Filip Van Immerseel, and Siska Croubels. “The Impact of Fusarium Mycotoxins on Human and Animal Host Susceptibility to Infectious Diseases.” Toxins 6, no. 2 (January 28, 2014): 430–52. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins6020430.

Burel, Christine, Mael Tanguy, Philippe Guerre, Eric Boilletot, Roland Cariolet, Marilyne Queguiner, Gilbert Postollec, et al. “Effect of Low Dose of Fumonisins on Pig Health: Immune Status, Intestinal Microbiota and Sensitivity to Salmonella.” Toxins 5, no. 4 (April 23, 2013): 841–64. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins5040841.

Burton, Emily J., Dawn V. Scholey, and Peter E. Williams. “Use of Cereal Crops for Food and Fuel – Characterization of a Novel Bioethanol Coproduct for Use in Meat Poultry Diets.” Food and Energy Security 2, no. 3 (September 19, 2013): 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.30.

Ghareeb, Khaled, Wageha A. Awad, Josef Böhm, and Qendrim Zebeli. “Impacts of the Feed Contaminant Deoxynivalenol on the Intestine of Monogastric Animals: Poultry and Swine.” Journal of Applied Toxicology 35, no. 4 (October 28, 2014): 327–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.3083.

Mani, V., T. E. Weber, L. H. Baumgard, and N. K. Gabler. “Growth and Development Symposium: Endotoxin, Inflammation, and Intestinal Function in livestock1,2.” Journal of Animal Science 90, no. 5 (May 1, 2012): 1452–65. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4627.

Obremski, K. “The Effect of in Vivo Exposure to Zearalenone on Cytokine Secretion by Th1 and Th2 Lymphocytes in Porcine Peyer’s Patches after in Vitro Stimulation with LPS.” Polish Journal of Veterinary Sciences 17, no. 4 (2014): 625–32. https://doi.org/10.2478/pjvs-2014-0093.

Oswald, I. P., C. Desautels, J. Laffitte, S. Fournout, S. Y. Peres, M. Odin, P. Le Bars, J. Le Bars, and J. M. Fairbrother. “Mycotoxin Fumonisin B1 Increases Intestinal Colonization by Pathogenic Escherichia Coli in Pigs.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69, no. 10 (2003): 5870–74. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.69.10.5870-5874.2003.

Pinotti, Luciano, Matteo Ottoboni, Carlotta Giromini, Vittorio Dell’Orto, and Federica Cheli. “Mycotoxin Contamination in the EU Feed Supply Chain: A Focus on Cereal Byproducts.” Toxins 8, no. 2 (February 15, 2016): 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins8020045.

Pinton, Philippe, and Isabelle Oswald. “Effect of Deoxynivalenol and Other Type B Trichothecenes on the Intestine: A Review.” Toxins 6, no. 5 (May 21, 2014): 1615–43. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins6051615.

by Marisabel Caballero, Global Technical Manager Poultry
Inge Heinzl, Editor

Consistently rising feed prices compel feed producers to resort to alternative feed ingredients. By-products of milling and ethanol distillation would be good options. The following article shows what should be paid attention to when using these feeds.

Keeping high-quality animal protein affordable requires cost-efficient alternatives

For a high percentage of consumers, the price of food products is one of the most decisive purchase factors; however, quality and sustainable use of resources are also of high importance. So, to comply with market requirements, meat producers must find cost-efficient and sustainable sources of feed ingredients. Feed prices already increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Shortage of workforce and high shipping costs led to discontinuity in the supply chain, long delivery times, and increased costs for certain raw materials. Due to the Ukrainian crisis, there is no improvement to be seen. Alternatives must be considered more vigorously to compensate for this limited feed supply.

Grain by-products are an option

The use of grain by-products occurring at milling or ethanol production can cover a part of animal nutritional demands. Additionally, it contributes to sustainable usage of the available sources, as the remains of the production of human consumables are put back into the food chain.

However, increasing levels of by-products in the feed also have their sticking points. The raw materials grains or corn are often contaminated with mycotoxins, impacting the quality of this kind of feed.

Milling processes reduce mycotoxins in food

Before the whole process of milling, the grains are sorted and cleaned. Kernels with extensive mold growth, broken kernels, fine materials, and dust are removed.

When it comes to reducing mycotoxins by sorting and cleaning, the results vary a lot. They are influenced by several factors, including the initial condition of the grains, the type and level of contamination, and the type and efficiency of the cleaning process (Pinotti et al., 2016). The cleaning process has been shown to remove from 5 to 80 % of DON and NIV, 5 to 40 % of ZON (Schaarschmidt & Fauhl-Hassek, 2018), and 50 to 60 % of T2/HT2 contamination in wheat (Pascale et al., 2011). Debranning, the mechanical process by which the outer layers of wheat grains are removed, further reduces mycotoxin content in wheat grain from 15 to 80% of the initial contamination (Aureli et al., 2007; Rios et al., 2009). However, neither the cleaning and debranning nor the milling process include a step that destroys mycotoxins.

In white flour for human consumption, mycotoxin levels typically range from 50 to 70% of the wheat grain (Cheli et al., 2013).

The milling of maize shows a reduction factor of about 4 for aflatoxins and about 10 for zearalenone from the grain to the final human products. Contrarily, concentration triplicates for both aflatoxins and zearalenone in the case of the by-products such as germs, bran, and animal flour.

Milling processes concentrate mycotoxins in animal-feed fractions

The milling and pre-milling processes reduce the content of mycotoxins in products for human consumption, but what about the parts removed and normally used in animal feeds? Several studies (Tibola et al., 2015; Hoffmans et al., 2022) indicate that the concentration of mycotoxins is higher in the wheat fractions intended for animal feeds such as bran, flour shorts screenings, and middlings. However, their level in feedstuffs is variable and affected by several factors such as the type of mycotoxins, the level and extent of fungal contamination, and the complexity of the cereal processing technology.

Compared to the concentration in wheat grain, these concentrations in by-products may be up to 800 % but more typically range from 150 % to 340 % (Cheli et al., 2013). EW Nutrition’s worldwide mycotoxin survey shows a similar trend (Figures 1 and 2), in which DON levels are nine times higher in wheat midds than wheat grains, and fumonisin is eight times higher in wheat bran.

Figure 1 + 2: Mycotoxins levels in grain and by-products

Highest concentrations in germ and bran fraction

After corn milling, animal feed fractions such as germ and bran have a low yield ranging from 5 to 7 % and are mostly composed of the outer parts of the kernels; as a consequence, an important concentration of mycotoxins occurs in these fractions (Schollenberger et al., 2008). When taking corn grains as the base, the contamination of aflatoxins goes up to three times in corn germ and up to nine times in bran (Brera et al., 2006; Pietri et al., 2009). For fumonisins, a double concentration can be expected (Brera et al., 2004), and for zearalenone, up to four times (Brera et al., 2006). Recently, Park and collaborators (2018) evaluated the distribution of 12 mycotoxins during wet milling of corn and found higher concentrations in corn gluten feed and corn bran.

Milling is a crucial step in the post-production of rice, in which the husk and the bran layers are removed. Rice bran is a common ingredient for animal feeds, in which aflatoxin is a common contaminant. It is believed that most of the aflatoxin contamination in rice bran occurs due to non-optimal storage conditions (Takahashi et al., 1989); however, a concentration of the toxin during milling of stored paddy rice also occurs, and the levels can triplicate compared with the grains (Trucksess et al., 2011).

The concentration of mycotoxins in DDGS during the ethanol production

Destillers’ dried grains with solubles (DDGS), a by-product of ethanol production, is a valuable feed ingredient, particularly as a source of protein for ruminants and monogastric animals at a competitive price.

Also here, mycotoxin contamination raises concerns with regard to their use in animal feeds. Mycotoxins are not destroyed during the ethanol fermentation process or during the production of DDGS. Moreover, a concentration of DON, ZEA, and fumonisin from corn to DDGS of 2–3.5 times has been reported for industrial ethanol production (Bennett et al., 1981; Schaafsma et al., 2009; Bowers & Munkvold, 2014).

In summary, studies on the fate of mycotoxins during food processing have shown that mycotoxins are concentrated in the fractions commonly used as animal feed. Moreover, high variability in mycotoxin contamination of cereal by-products has been evidenced, representing barriers to an increased acceptance of several food by-products as feed ingredients.

Feed formulation: Consider the mycotoxin contamination in by-products

Higher inclusions of cereals have an impact on their safe use in feeds. To evaluate this impact, we can simulate two different scenarios with different inclusions of by-products:

Table 1: Different levels of by-products’ inclusion rates

*Risk Tool (masterrisktool.com)

In the first lower inclusion scenario, the risk for broilers in the starting phase considers the low inclusion of raw materials; the losses related to the contamination (without management) are mild. When increasing the levels of by-products, the risk category also increases. The losses are more important for the operation, ranging from gut barrier alterations with impaired production parameters to alterations in the immune response and increased susceptibility to disease.

Mycotoxins in by-products effective toxin risk management can help!

Given the pros of including cereal by-products in animal feeds, such as their saving potential and their link with sustainability of resources, their utilization is advisable; however, understanding how mycotoxin distribution and concentration change during grain processing is critical. Today’s knowledge is limited to a few mycotoxins in cereal milling.

Therefore, when considering using these by-products in the animal feed, we must bear in mind that:

• modified mycotoxins and mycotoxin co-contamination can be present, contributing to additive/synergistic effects on animal health.
• toxin risk management strategies, including analysis, risk evaluation, and risk mitigation must be pursued to prevent those undesired effects.

References:

Aureli, G., and M.G. D’Egidio. “Efficacy of Debranning on Lowering of Deoxynivalenol (DON) Level in Manufacturing Processes of Durum Wheat.” Tecnica Molit. 58 (2007): 729–33.

Bennett, G. A., A. A. Lagoda, O. L. Shotwell, and C. W. Hesseltine. “Utilization of Zearalenone- Contaminated Corn for Ethanol Production.” Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society 58, no. 11 (1981): 974–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02659774.

Bowers, Erin, and Gary Munkvold. “Fumonisins in Conventional and Transgenic, Insect-Resistant Maize Intended for Fuel Ethanol Production: Implications for Fermentation Efficiency and DDGS Co-Product Quality.” Toxins 6, no. 9 (2014): 2804–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins6092804.

Brera, Carlo, Carla Catano, Barbara de Santis, Francesca Debegnach, Marzia de Giacomo, Elena Pannunzi, and Marina Miraglia. “Effect of Industrial Processing on the Distribution of Aflatoxins and Zearalenone in Corn-Milling Fractions.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 54, no. 14 (2006): 5014–19. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf060370s.

Brera,Carlo, Francesca, Debegnach, Silvana Grossi, and Marina Miraglia. “Effect of Industrial Processing on the Distribution of Fumonisin B1 in Dry Milling Corn Fractions.” Journal of Food Protection 67, no. 6 (2004): 1261–66. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028x-67.6.1261.

Cheli, Federica, Luciano Pinotti, Luciana Rossi, and Vittorio Dell’Orto. “Effect of Milling Procedures on Mycotoxin Distribution in Wheat Fractions: A Review.” LWT – Food Science and Technology 54, no. 2 (2013): 307–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2013.05.040.

Park, Juhee, Dong-Ho Kim, Ji-Young Moon, Jin-Ah An, Young-Woo Kim, Soo-Hyun Chung, and Chan Lee. “Distribution Analysis of Twelve Mycotoxins in Corn and Corn-Derived Products by LC-MS/MS to Evaluate the Carry-over Ratio during Wet-Milling.” Toxins 10, no. 8 (2018): 319. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins10080319.

Pascale, Michelangelo, Miriam Haidukowski, Veronica Maria Lattanzio, Marco Silvestri, Roberto Ranieri, and Angelo Visconti. “Distribution of T-2 and HT-2 Toxins in Milling Fractions of Durum Wheat.” Journal of Food Protection 74, no. 10 (2011): 1700–1707. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-11-149.

Pietri, A., M. Zanetti, and T. Bertuzzi. “Distribution of Aflatoxins and Fumonisins in Dry-Milled Maize Fractions.” Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A 26, no. 3 (2009): 372–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/02652030802441513.

Pinotti, Luciano, Matteo Ottoboni, Carlotta Giromini, Vittorio Dell’Orto, and Federica Cheli. “Mycotoxin Contamination in the EU Feed Supply Chain: A Focus on Cereal Byproducts.” Toxins 8, no. 2 (2016): 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins8020045.

Ríos, G., L. Pinson-Gadais, J. Abecassis, N. Zakhia-Rozis, and V. Lullien-Pellerin. “Assessment of Dehulling Efficiency to Reduce Deoxynivalenol and Fusarium Level in Durum Wheat Grains.” Journal of Cereal Science 49, no. 3 (2009): 387–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2009.01.003.

Schaafsma, Arthur W, Victor Limay-Rios, Diane E Paul, and J David Miller. “Mycotoxins in Fuel Ethanol Co-Products Derived from Maize: A Mass Balance for Deoxynivalenol.” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 89, no. 9 (2009): 1574–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.3626.

Schaarschmidt, Sara, and Carsten Fauhl-Hassek. “The Fate of Mycotoxins during the Processing of Wheat for Human Consumption.” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 17, no. 3 (2018): 556–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12338.

Schollenberger, M., H.-M. Müller, M. Rüfle, S. Suchy, and W. Drochner. “Redistribution of 16FusariumToxins during Commercial Dry Milling of Maize.” Cereal Chemistry Journal 85, no. 4 (2008): 557–60. https://doi.org/10.1094/cchem-85-4-0557.

Takahashi, H., H. Yazaki, M. Manabe, S. Matsuura, and S. Kimura. “Distribution of Citrinin and Aflatoxins in Steamed Milled Rice Kernels Inoculated with Penicillium Citrinum and Aspergillus Flavus.” Mycotoxins 1990, no. 31 (1989): 49–53. https://doi.org/10.2520/myco1975.1990.49.

Trucksess, M.W., H.K. Abbas, C.M. Weaver, and W.T. Shier. “Distribution of Aflatoxins in Shelling and Milling Fractions of Naturally Contaminated Rice.” Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A 28, no. 8 (2011): 1076–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2011.576441.

By Marisabel Caballero, Global Technical Manager Poultry, and Ivan Ilić, Global Manager Technical Product Applications, EW Nutrition

Modern large-scale feed mills operate extremely efficiently and have few variable costs that could be reduced to lower the total cost of the final feed (Stark, 2012). In light of worrying energy price hikes, feed producers, however, should reduce their electricity use per unit produced, to maintain profitability. Find out how optimizing the feed mill’s moisture management increases feed quality while decreasing the energy required to produce it.

Due to climatic challenges, variability in raw material quality, and technical constraints, it can be challenging for feed producers to stabilize the water content in compound feed across time, raw material batches or even different machinery.

Combined with high temperatures, high moisture in feed can favor the growth of molds. They spoil feed, depleting energy and nutrients and generating reactive oxygen species (ROS) that reduce feed palatability. Even worse, some molds release toxins harm animals’ health and performance. On the other hand, low moisture levels in feed has a negative impact on pellet durability, increasing fines, process loss, and energy consumption while decreasing pellet press yield (Moritz et al., 2002).

What does feed moisture management have to do with a feed mill’s electricity consumption?

Moisture from raw materias can be lost during storage and processing. Silo aeration and enviroment conditions can contribute to moisture loss when the grains are stored at higher than optimal moisture levels (Angelovič, 2018). During feed processing, the intense friction of grinding results in heat and moisture from the grains is lost as vapor. As an optimal level of moisture is critical to ensure production output and feed quality, it must be added back to the system and adequately managed to keep or increase final feed quality.

For pelleted feeds, managing moisture is a two-step process:

1. Adding moisture in the mixer. This ensures that the mash feed is enters the conditioning process at the right moisture level, facilitating the penetration of steam and increasing the efficiency of the process.
2. Managing steam during conditioning. Steam added to the conditioner must be dry (meaning saturated with water droplets in suspension), and when this dry steam contacts the feed, it condenses and adds moisture.

However, simply adding water into the mixer does not give optimal results: Pure water does not completely bind to the feed; it mostly “sits on top” of the feed surface, increasing its water activity, and thus increasing the danger of microbial growth. Plus, a high proportion of pure water evaporates again when the feed is cooled.

Surfactants improve moisture retention

Surfactants change the way water behaves: by reducing the surface tension of water, they enable the feed particles to absorb the water and ensure that it is evenly distributed throughout the feed.

Improved moisture retention can:

• facilitate the starch gelatinization during conditioning (important making the pellet more durable and the feed more digestible),
• minimize feed shrinkage,
• reduce friction and hence the energy required for the pellet die (improving milling efficiency), and
• curb microbial growth by reducing water activity.

SURF•ACE: Improve throughput and reduce energy requirements

While surfactants contribute to mold control, feed producers also require the help of organic acids such as propionic acid (cf. Smith et al., 1983). The objectives are to optimize the moisture content in feed and to reduce its mold contamination. EW Nutrition’s SURF•ACE^TM feed mill processing aid combines organic acids and surfactants to achieve the objective of adding moisture without risking either the significant loss of moisture during cooling or the development of mold.

The effect of adding SURF•ACE to diets with different levels of fat was evaluated at more than 40 feed mills, with production capacities ranging from 5 to 20 tons per hour. SURF•ACE is added to water sprayed during mixing. This hydrating solution lubricates the mash feed, improves steam penetration and starch gelatinization, and reduces friction in the pellet dies. The results show that, relative to pure water, the addition of SURF•ACE increases press throughout (t/h) by between 5 and 25 %.

Trial results: SURF•ACE increases press yields while lowering energy consumption

• For a trial at a Turkish beef and poultry feed mill, the same feed was run through the pelletizer in two batches, one with a 1 % water and one with 1% water mixed with 200 g of SURF•ACE per ton of feed. Adding SURF•ACE resulted in higher pellet output (6% for beef; 9% for poutry) and reduced energy consumption (13% for both beef and poultry):

• In Poland, another trial conducted at a commercial feed mill found that when SURF•ACE was added to 1% mixer-moisture, this lead to a 28.6 % higher feed throughput in the pellet press, 23 % lower energy consumption per unit produced during the pelleting process, and a nearly 1 %-point higher moisture content in finished feed. This resulted in higher profitability: based on the costs in Poland at the time of the trial, an ROI of 2.4:1 was achieved.

• A recent trial at an Indian feed mill evaluated the difference between adding 1% moisture to produce crumble feed (control group) and upgrading the water with 200 g of SURF•ACE per ton. The addition of SURF•ACE reduced power consumption by 6% and improved throughput by 18%.

Feed mills must deal with rising energy costs head-on

Operating in a tight margin environment, feed mills always need to prioritize efficiency. The advantages of using SURF•ACE feed mill processing aid are clear: reduced energy consumption, better pellet quality, fewer fines, better PDI, moisture optimization, lower maintenance costs, and higher productivity (throughput). During times of increasingly high ingredient and energy costs, it is even more important to utilize savings opportunities at every production stage. Thanks to its dual surfactant and preservative effects, SURF•ACE enables feed mills to improve feed quality and increase throughput while lowering electricity use.

References

Angelovič, Marek, Koloman Krištof, Ján Jobbágy, Pavol Findura, and Milan Križan. “The effect of conditions and storage time on course of moisture and temperature of maize grains.” BIO Web Conferences 10 (2018): 02001. https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20181002001

Moritz, J. S., K. J. Wilson, K. R. Cramer, R. S. Beyer, L. J. McKinney, W. B. Cavalcanti, and X. Mo. “Effect of Formulation Density, Moisture, and Surfactant on Feed Manufacturing, Pellet Quality, and Broiler Performance.” Journal of Applied Poultry Research 11, no. 2 (2002): 155–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/japr/11.2.155.

Smith, Philip A., Talmadge S. Nelson, Linda K. Kirby, Zelpha B. Johnson, and Joseph N. Beasley. “Influence of Temperature, Moisture, and Propionic Acid on Mold Growth and Toxin Production on Corn.” Poultry Science 62, no. 3 (1983): 419–23. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0620419.

Stark, Charles. “Feed manufacturing to lower feed cost”. Presentation at Allen D. Leman Swine Conference, Volume 39, 2012. https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/139624/Stark.pdf?sequence=1

By Technical Team, EW Nutrition

A variety of stressors simultaneously occur at weaning, making this probably the most challenging period in pig production. During weaning, we commonly see altered gut development and gut microbiome, which increases piglets’ vulnerability to diseases. The most classic clinical symptom resulting from these stressors is the occurrence of post-weaning diarrhea. It is a sign that something went wrong, and piglet development and overall performance may be compromised (Guevarra et al. 2019).

Besides weaning, an unavoidable practice in pig production, the swine industry has been facing other changes. Among them, the increased pressure to reduce the use of antimicrobials stands out. Antimicrobials are often associated with improved piglet performance and health. Their usage has been reduced worldwide, however, due to the threat of antimicrobial resistance that affects not just animal health but also human health (Cardinal et al., 2019).

Reduce antimicrobials and post-weaning diarrhea: can piglet nutrition achieve both?

With these drastic changes for the piglets and the global swine industry, producers must find solutions to keep their farms profitable — especially from a nutritional perspective. Our last article presented two feed additives that can be part of an antibiotic-free concept for post-weaning piglets. This article will highlight a few essential nutritional strategies that swine producers and nutritionists must consider when formulating post-weaning feed without or with reduced amounts of antimicrobials.

What makes weaning so stressful for piglets?

Producers, nutritionists, and veterinarians all agree that weaning is a tough time for piglets (Yu et al., 2019) and, therefore, a challenge to all those involved in the pig production chain. Although there is a global trend towards increasing weaning age, generally speaking, animals are still immature when going through the weaning process. They face several physiological, nutritional, and environmental changes (figure 1).

Figure 1. Factors associated with weaning can compromise piglet well-being and performance

Most of these changes become “stressors” that trigger a cascade of reactions affecting the balance and morphology of the intestinal microbiome (figure 2). The outcome is a decrease in the piglets’ well-being and, in most cases, performance. We need to clearly understand how these stressors affect pigs to develop effective strategies against post-weaning growth impairments, especially when no antimicrobials are allowed.

Figure 2. Schematic diagram illustrating the effects of stress in weaned piglets (adapted from Jayaraman and Nyachoti, 2017)

Weaning support starts before weaning

The use of creep feed has been evaluated and even criticized for many years. Some operations are still reluctant to use such a feed due to its high cost and amount of labor on the farm, with manually providing feed and cleaning feeding trays. In addition, some questions have been raised regarding the ideal composition of the creep feed – how much complexity should we add to this special diet?

Therefore, the benefits of creep feed are under re-evaluation, not only considering piglet physiology per se, but also feed characteristics and different feeding programs. Recent studies have questioned highly complex creep feed formulations. Creep feed is being called “transition feed” (Molist, 2021) – i.e., that meal which is complementary to sows’ milk and not a replicate of it, helping piglets during the period of changing its main source of nutrients. We must, therefore, look at it as a way of making piglets familiar with solid feed, as highlighted by Mike Tokach during the 2020 KSU Swine Day. Dr. Tokach also mentioned that the presence of feeders in the lactation pen could stimulate the exploratory behaviors of the piglets. Combined, these practices can lead to a higher feed intake and performance during the nursery phase.

Towards a pragmatic stance on creep feed

Heo et al. (2018) evaluated three different creep feed types: a highly digestible creep feed, weaning feed as creep feed, and sow feed as creep feed until weaning. Piglets receiving the highly digestible creep had higher feed intake during the second to the last week pre-weaning (14 to 21 days of age) and higher ADG during the last week pre-weaning (21 to 28 days of age). This resulted in a trend for higher weaning weight. However, these benefits did not persist after weaning when all piglets received the weaning feed.

Guevarra et al. (2019) also suggested that the abrupt transition in piglet nutrition to a more complex nutrient source can influence shifts in the gut microbiota, impacting the absorptive capacity of the small intestine. Yang et al. (2016) evaluated 40 piglets from eight litters during the first week after weaning. They found that the change in diet during weaning reduced the proliferation of intestinal epithelial cells. This indicates that this period affects cellular macromolecule organization and localization, in addition to energy and protein metabolism. These results suggest that “similarity” in feed pre- and post-weaning may contribute more to the continuity of nutrient intake post-weaning than a highly complex-nutrient dense creep feed.

Nutritional strategies without antibiotics: focus on pig physiology

As mentioned, it is crucial to avoid a drastic drop in feed/nutrient intake after weaning compared to pre-weaning levels. In a classic study, Pluske et al. (1996) showed the importance of high intake levels on villus weight (used as a reference for gut health, cf. graph 1). Although not desirable, the reduction should be considered “normal” behavior.

Imagine these recently weaned piglets, facing all these stressors, having to figure out within this new group of peers when it is time to eat, where to find food, why water and food now come from two distinct sources… Therefore, management, feeding, water quality, and other aspects play important roles in post-weaning feed intake (figure 3).

Graph 1. Villus height following different levels of feed intake (M = maintenance) post-weaning (a.b.c bars with unlike superscript letters are different at P<0.05). (From Pluske et al., 1996.)

From a nutritional perspective, piglets at weaning experience a transition from milk (a high-fat, low-carbohydrate liquid) to a plant-based diet (a solid, low-fat, and high-carbohydrate diet) (Guevarra et al., 2019). Even when previously introduced to solid feed, it is still difficult for their enzymatic system to cope with grains and beans.

One of the consequences of the lower digestibility capacity is an increase of undigested nutrients. Harmful bacteria thrive and cause diarrhea, reducing even further an already compromised feed intake. This cycle must be broken with the support of formulations based on piglet physiology.

Post-weaning feed must support digestion and nutrient absorption, including the largest possible share possible of high-quality, digestible ingredients, with low anti-nutritional factors. High-performing feed also integrates functional amino acids, functional carbohydrates, and additives to support the intestinal mucosa and gut microbiome.

Figure 3. Supporting piglets with effective solutions

Crude protein – more of the same?

Levels of crude protein in piglet feed have been in the spotlight for quite some time. The topic can be very controversial where the exact percentage of crude protein in the final feed is concerned. Some nutritionists pragmatically recommend maximal levels of 20% in the weaner feed. Others go a bit lower, with some formulations reaching 17 to 18% total crude protein. Levels above 20% will incur high costs and may accentuate the growth of pathogenic bacteria due to a higher amount of undigested protein in the distal part of the small intestine (figure 4).

Figure 4. The dynamics of crude protein levels in piglet feed

What is not open for discussion, however, is the quality of the protein used, in terms of:

• digestibility,
• the total amount of anti-nutritional factors, and
• the correct supply of essential and non-essential amino acids (particularly lysine, methionine, threonine, tryptophane, isoleucine and valine).

The critical role of digestibility

High-digestibility ingredients for piglets need to deliver minimum 85% digestibility. In most cases, to reach high biological values (correlating to high digestibility), these ingredients typically undergo different processing steps, including heat, physical, and chemical treatments. Animal by-products (such as hydrolyzed mucosa, fish meal, spray-dried plasma) and processed vegetable sources (soy protein concentrate, extruded grains, potato protein) can be used in high amounts during this phase. They will notably reduce the total amount of undigested protein reaching the distal part of the intestine, with 2 main benefits:

• Less substrate for pathogenic bacteria proliferation (and therefore lower incidence of diarrhea)
• Lower nitrogen excretion to the environment

It is common knowledge that certain storage proteins from soybean meal (for instance, glycinin and B-conglycinin) can cause damage to piglets’ intestinal morphology and trigger the activation of the immune system. However, it is normal practice to introduce this ingredient to piglets around weaning so that the animals can develop a certain level of tolerance to such compounds (Tokach et al., 2003). In Europe, where most diets are wheat-barley based, soybean meal is included in levels varying from 3 to 9% in the first 2 diets, with gradual increases during the nursery phase.

Amino acids and protein: manage the balance

When the supply and balance between essential and non-essential amino acids is concerned, reducing total crude protein brings indeed complexity to the formulations. The concept of ideal amino acid should be expanded, ideally, to all 9 essential amino acids (lysine, methionine, tryptophan, threonine, valine, isoleucine, leucine, histidine, and phenylalanine). In most cases, formulations go up to the 5^th or 6^th limiting amino acid. Lawor et al. (2020) suggest 2 practical approaches to avoid deficiencies when formulating low-protein piglet feed:

• Maintain a maximum total lysine to crude protein ratio in the diet of 7.1 to 7.4%
• Do not exceed the SID lysine to crude protein ratio of 6.4%

Some conditionally essential amino acids (e.g. arginine, proline, and glutamine) also play critical roles in diets with reduced crude protein levels. Glutamine is especially interesting. When supplemented in the feed, it can be used as a source of energy by the intestinal epithelium and, therefore, prevent atrophy and support nutrient absorption, resulting in better growth post-weaning (Hanczakowska and Niwińska, 2013; Watford et al., 2015)

The importance of the buffer capacity of the feed – supporting the enzymatic system

Given the move towards antibiotic reduction, this topic is more relevant than ever to nutritionists worldwide. The acid-binding capacity (also known as buffering capacity) of the feed directly affects the capacity of the stomach to digest protein. Hence, buffer capacity is of utmost importance in antimicrobial-free diets as it influences the growth of pathogenic bacteria (Lawlor et al., 2005).

In short, the acid-binding capacity is the resistance of an ingredient or complete feed to pH change. For piglet feed/feed ingredients, it is normally measured by the acid-binding capacity at pH4 (ABC-4). A higher ABC-4 equates to a higher buffering capacity. Feed with a high ABC-4 would require large amounts of gastric acid for the pH of the stomach to reach 4 and below. As the post-weaned piglet has limitations on producing and secreting acid, the stomach pH would stay high and, thus, less favorable for protein digestion.

The recommendation is to have a complete feed based on single ingredients with low ABC-4 values and to use additives that further reduce the ABC-4 value (such as organic acids). According to Molist (2020), post-weaning feed must have an ABC-4 that is lower than 250-300 meq/kg.

Talking about fiber

Dietary fibers are also known for regulating intestinal health in both humans and animals. Chen et al. (2020), for example, examined the effects of dietary soluble fibers (inulin) and insoluble fibers (lignocellulose) in weaned piglet diets for four weeks. Results showed that combining those fibers can positively influence nutrient digestibility, gut microbiota composition, intestinal barrier functions, and growth performance (table 1 ).

Table 1. Effects of dietary fiber supplementation on piglet growth performance (adapted from Chen et al., 2020)

How to reduce antimicrobials? Understand the roles of piglet physiology and nutrition

Swine producers might think that “How can I reduce antimicrobial use on my farm?” and “How can I improve the performance of piglets at weaning?” are two separate questions. However, that is not always the case. Answers based on a deep understanding of physiology and nutrition dynamics help piglets overcome the challenges encountered during weaning – and, thus, lessen the need for antimicrobial interventions.

In this article, we have explored the basic principles that are the basis for ensuring the performance and health of the post-weaning piglet. Although we do not have a singular solution for eliminating antimicrobials on our pig farms, we can count on a group of robust and integrated nutritional strategies. By integrating factors ranging from management to feed additives, these solutions can improve piglet health and performance throughout their lives.

To know more about Gut health products click here.

By Technical Team, EW Nutrition

A storm has been brewing.

Even before the invasion of Ukraine in late February, global growth was expected to trend significantly downward, from 5.5-5.9% in 2021 to 4.1-4.4% in 2022 and 3.2% in 2023. The causes are similar across industries:

• rising inflation around the world
• supply chain issues stretching long into the foreseeable future, including exponentially higher freight costs
• pandemic restrictions and long-lasting effects
• rising raw material prices

In early 2022, this “perfect storm” quickly stifled the moderate optimism of Q4 2021. Of course, the worst was yet to come.

What causes sustained price increases?

With the ongoing crisis in Eastern Europe, economic perspectives are tilting down to a new level of uncertainty. The new variables now thrown into the mix are crude oil and natural gas prices, as well as added concerns over other raw materials coming out of Russia and Ukraine.

Source: tradingeconomics.com, March 2022

Russia accounts for 25% of the global natural gas market and 11% of the crude oil market. It is also the largest wheat exporter (China and India are still the largest producers, but Russia exports appreciably more). Together with Ukraine, also a powerhouse of agricultural exports, the two now enemies account for 29% of international annual wheat sales.

Source: ING, March 2022

Wheat prices were already nearly double the five-year average shortly before the invasion; after February 24, they rose by another 30%. Today we are at a staggering 53% increase in wheat prices in just the last few months. We are at a 14-year peak. And the countries that import the most from Russia and Ukraine (such as Egypt or Indonesia) will bear the brunt of this crisis.

Together, Russia and Ukraine’s exports account for 12% of the world’s traded calories. The two countries account for almost 30 percent of global wheat exports, almost 20 percent of corn exports, and more than 80 percent of the world supply of sunflower oil. However, the compounded effect of embargo and devastation in the two countries will surely exert tremendous influence on the global economic outlook for years to come.

What are the perspectives?

Agriculture was already hurting before February 24^th. Poor harvests caused by extreme weather conditions, continued losses along the production chain, supply chain issues, and abnormal pandemic buying patterns combined to sink global wheat stocks one third lower than the five-year average. Reserves, in other words, are low – and will be significantly lower.

We need to be realistic about the coming months and years. Corn (where Ukraine accounts for 13% of global exports) and wheat will be severely hit by the war and its aftermath. This will compound all the pre-existing factors (transportation costs, supply chain slowdown, continuing weather disruptions, energy costs), none of which will trend down. Fertilizer prices have also gone up exponentially, and Russia – the largest exporter – has banned fertilizer exports at the beginning of March. The effects will be ultimately reflected in the cost of raw materials.

Ukraine and Russia have all but banned grains exports – either for security reasons or to protect internal needs. On top of this, the last harvests collected in Ukraine are now sitting in bins where ventilation and temperature controls have been affected by power cuts.

Source: World Bank, March 2022

At the end of February, World Bank data already showed upward movement for nearly all categories; whatever was not trending up at that time is catching up fast. The last time things looked like this, experts warn, was in 2008-2009 – and social unrest followed around the world, to serious global consequences.

However, the perspective is not catastrophic and there is room to conserve profitability. The essential is to intervene with fast, targeted action that favors smart optimization, localization, and long-term planning.

What can feed producers do?

 Most feed producers will be caught in the middle of all rising costs, from raw materials to transport and energy. Where, then, can they look for shelter when the storm hits?

Optimize feed costs without losing performance

One of the first things feed producers will focus on will be cutting down feed costs. At this point, it is essential that this basic optimization does not impact animal health and performance. Here is what should be kept in mind.

Preserve feed material and feed quality

Whatever raw materials you choose to use, minimizing losses and maintaining quality should be the first step. Losses caused by storage are often the easiest to mitigate.

Quick intervention #1: Use mold inhibitors and mitigate the impact of mycotoxins

Compensate for lost nutrients (protein content, digestibility)

Freight costs will continue to cause pressure on transported raw materials, driving producers to local/regional options. When you replace one feed ingredient with a cheaper one, the first effects will be on the active principle and on the digestibility of the feed. Often something you are taking out of the diet cannot be replaced 1:1.

Quick intervention #2: Maximize the use of enzymes to ensure high feed digestibility; for poultry, pigments can replace corn-derived coloration (to control color variability)

Compensate for stress caused by diet changes

Adjusting the feed composition doesn’t only have effects on paper.

Even if you choose the best replacements, adjust the balance, compensate for loss of digestibility and optimize everything in every possible way, one thing remains:

The animal receives a new diet.

New diets are textbook stressors. But sometimes the nutritionist or the producer is so stressed that it is easy to overlook the stress placed inside the animal. Since animal efficiency is key for productivity, it is essential that the effects of diet stress are mitigated for the animal.

Quick intervention #3: Precautionary use of gut-health mitigating additives; also consider palatable feed materials and taste enhancers

Optimize production costs without losing quality

To optimize costs on the production floor, there are three essential areas where feed producers can act:

• Saving on energy costs and reducing the carbon footprint
• Reducing losses on the production floor
• Increasing throughput without increasing manpower

To answer these challenges, there are solutions that can operate individually. More importantly in such times, there are products that can impact all three areas without negatively influencing the quality of output. One such solution, for instance, can decrease energy costs, increase throughput and pellet quality, and reduce fines.

Quick intervention #4: Choose a solution that satisfies 3/3 of your issues

Conclusion

Climate change will continue to wreak havoc on the predictability of harvests. Freight costs are projected to keep rising. And the costs of war and (hopefully) reconstruction will take a toll on the cost of living and cost of doing business around the world, for years to come.

In the storm that has already started, it is unwise to take shelter for a while and hope for good weather soon. Cutting down on ingredients here and additives there won’t keep profitability high in the long run. Feed producers must look at all aspects – from feed storage and composition to process improvement – and consider holistic measures that protect animals and profitability at the same time.

By Dr. Inge Heinzl, Editor, EW Nutrition

Eggs are an unparalleled source of nutrition for humans. Apart from being tasty and easy to cook, they are an essential ingredient for pasta, cakes, ice cream, and more. More importantly, they provide high-value proteins with amino acids we cannot produce, various B-vitamins, fat-soluble vitamins, and trace elements.

Assessing the value of the egg

The quality characteristics of eggs are usually divided into external features, such as:

·        egg weight
·        egg shape
·        shell structure
·        shell crack resistance
·        dynamic shell resistance
·        shell color

and internal characteristics, including:

·        albumen weight
·        Haugh unit (a measure of egg protein quality)
·        yolk height,
·        yolk diameter,
·        albumen pH,
·        yolk pH
·        yolk color

For consumers, yolk color is probably the most important criterion for egg quality. Higher color intensity often is taken as indicating the good health of the laying hen.

Depending on the region or on the culture, people prefer more yellow or more orange yolks. In countries with traditional corn feeding, e.g., Mexico, they often like a deep yellow. In Northern Europe, consumers prefer a lighter yellow; in Southern Europe, more gold-orange yolks (see table 1).

Table 1. Egg pigmentation preferences – variation across European countries
* Values range from 1 (very pale yellow) to 16 (intense orange)

Egg yolk color is achieved via feed

The typical color of the yolk depends on pigments that are ingested with the feed. Corn and alfalfa meal provide the yellow pigments lutein and zeaxanthin, belonging to the xanthophylls, a sub-group of carotenoids. The golden-orange color is provided by red pigments from chili or paprika (Grashorn, 2008). Egg yolks start changing color about 48 h after the application of xanthophylls.

To reach an optimal yolk coloration in egg production, diets should be supplemented with yellow and red xanthophylls. Yellow xanthophylls achieve a correct yellow base coloration. The main yellow pigments used in poultry feeding are apoester, a synthetic carotenoid, and saponified marigold extracts, a natural alternative containing lutein and zeaxanthin. For the redness, paprika or chili offer natural sources; canthaxanthin is a nature-identical red xanthophyll.

For a long time, synthetic colorants were the substances of choice in the poultry industry because they provide consistently predictable results and high product stability. However, consumers’ preferences concerning food have shifted; demand favors natural over synthetic food ingredients. Moreover, current EU regulations restrict these synthetic molecules’ inclusion level due to their potentially harmful effects on human health if applied in excessive doses.

Table 2. Maximum concentration allowed in feed for poultry production

Fortunately, there is already a natural, highly efficient option to replace apoester.

Lutein: a natural colorant, antioxidant, and provider of health benefits

One of these natural compounds is lutein, a lipophilic pigment. It is extracted from marigold petals, which contain up to 8.5 mg/g wet weight. Lutein is always accompanied by its isomer zeaxanthin.

Lutein – the yolk colorant

The use of xanthophylls such as lutein and zeaxanthin enables producers to safely control the color of the egg yolk and the broiler skin. In poultry, the carotenoids are deposited in high quantities in the epidermis, the fatty tissue, and the egg yolk. According to Grashorn (2016), between 4.4-23 % of dietary lutein and 23 % of dietary zeaxanthin are deposited in the egg yolk.

Lutein – the antioxidant protects the egg lipids

Another critical characteristic of lutein is its antioxidant effect. Egg yolks contain a high fat content. Therefore, they are very susceptible to lipid oxidation. Lutein, acting as an antioxidant, can prevent or at least limit lipid oxidation during egg processing. Kljak et al. (2021) compared different sources of pigments (basil, calendula, dandelion, marigold, and an industrial product containing canthaxanthin) concerning their antioxidant capacity. In this trial, marigold improved the yolks’ oxidative stability by 75 % compared to the control, with canthaxanthin showing no antioxidant effect. Kljak et al. attributed this effect to the carotenoids in the marigold extract.

Lutein – a value-added ingredient

Lutein and its isomer are nutritionally valuable and, therefore, welcome ingredients of the eggs. Once more, due to their antioxidant effects, they play an essential role in preventing and reducing cataracts and age-related eye dysfunctionalities in humans and animals (Landrum & Bone, 2001; Wang et al., 2016).

However, the amounts of antioxidant pigments in a standard egg are not very high (approx. 400 µg/egg). Compared to the total amount of antioxidants ingested, their importance for humans is only limited (Grashorn, 2008). The situation is different for functional eggs, which are widely sold in certain English-speaking countries. These eggs are enriched with n-3 fatty acids and with antioxidants such as ß-carotene (approx. 150 IE/egg).

Can natural pigments be as effective as synthetic apoester?

The precondition for the deposition of lutein in the egg or the skin is its absorption in the intestine. This absorption makes the difference between the synthetic apoester and the traditional yellow natural xanthophylls (lutein/zeaxanthin). In the case of traditional yellow xanthophylls, about three parts of the product are necessary to achieve the same effectiveness as one part of apoester.

With special technology owned by EW Nutrition, it is possible to improve the absorption of natural carotenoids and, therefore, the efficacy of lutein products. Only about 1.25 parts are then needed to replace one part of apoester.

Trial 1: A new generation of pigment products as effective as apoester

A trial was conducted in Spain to compare the effectiveness of apoester and a new generation natural pigment in combination with canthaxanthin.

For the trial, 288 layers (Hy-Line Brown, 39 weeks of age) were divided into 12 groups with 8 replications and 3 hens per replication. The trial consisted of a 7-week xanthophyll depletion and a 4-week experimental phase. The products included in the trial were a natural lutein product produced with a unique absorption-improving technology (Colortek Yellow, CTY), the synthetic xanthophyll apoester, and canthaxanthin. Three yolk color fan (YCF) targets were tested (10, 11, and 12).

For canthaxanthin, 1.5, 2.0, and 3.0 ppm were used. Within these groups of three different canthaxanthin concentrations, different concentrations of Colortek Yellow and apoester were applied to an otherwise xanthophyll-free diet:

Table 3. Trial design | *   TX= total xanthophylls | ** CTX = Canthaxanthin

The colors of the egg yolks were measured with the help of the DSM egg yolk color fan.

Figure 1 shows that Colortek Yellow at a 1.25 fold concentration as apoester (3.13 ppm) provided the same result as apoester regarding YCF target 11 (= canthaxanthin concentration of 2.00 ppm). In the case of YCF target 12 (= canthaxanthin concentration of 3.00 ppm), the same yolk color as apoester could be achieved using Colortek Yellow at a 1.25 or 1.5-fold concentration as apoester. Furthermore, it could be seen that the recommendations for apoester were overestimated and yielded color results 1 point above the target.

Figure 1. Egg yolk color values achieved by the use of apoester (APO) and different concentrations of Colortek Yellow (CTY)
* a, b, c, d: different superscripts mean statistical difference (P<0.05)

Can lutein be as stable as synthetic pigments like apoester?

Another potential disadvantage of natural pigments is lower stability. By accelerating saponification in a continuous process, producing a product with low moisture and a high content of xanthophylls is possible. This process leads to higher stability of the product and prolongs the shelf life.

Trial 2: New generation pigment shows better stability than apoester

In this trial, the stability of products containing either a new generation natural colorant (Colortek Yellow) or apoester was tested. A vitamin-mineral premix containing 12.5 % choline chloride and one of the tested products were stored in closed bags at 30 °C and 75 % relative humidity. The recovery of the substances was tested after one, two, and three months.

The trial shows higher recovery rates for Colortek Yellow than for apoester at a longer storage time (Figure 2). This new technology, therefore, provides natural pigments with higher stability than products containing synthetic apoester.

Figure 2. Recovery rates of apoester and Colortek Yellow after different times of storage (%)

New-generation natural pigments beat traditional synthetic options

The trend towards natural food ingredients also affects egg yolk color: consumers want natural alternatives to get their preferred yolk color, and regulators are imposing ever stricter limits on synthetic additives. Natural pigments have historically had two limiting characteristics compared to synthetic ones, their lower absorption and their lower stability. Due to new technologies, natural pigmentation products such as Colortek Yellow can now offer absorption rates comparable to apoester and even higher stability – making them the optimal replacement for synthetic colorants.

References

Grashorn, M. “Eiqualität.” In Legehuhnzucht und Eiererzeugung. Empfehlungen für die Praxis (special issue 322) edited by W. Brade, G. Flachowsky, and L. Schrader, 18-33. Landbauforschung – vTI Agriculture and Forestry Research, 2008

Grashorn, M. “Feed additives for influencing chicken meat and egg yolk color.” In Handbook on Natural Pigments in Food and Beverages. Industrial Applications for Improving Food Color, edited by R. Carle and R.M. Schweiggert, 283-302. Woodhead Publishing, 2016.

https://doi.org/10.1016/C2014-0-03842-7

Kljak, K., K. Carović-Stanko, I. Kos, Z. Janječić , G. Kiš, M. Duvnjak, T. Safner, and D. Bedeković. “Plant carotenoids as pigment sources in laying hen diets: effect on yolk color, carotenoid content, oxidative stability and sensory properties of eggs.” Foods 10, no. 4 (2021):721

https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10040721

Landrum, J. T. and R.A. Bone. “Lutein, zeaxanthin, and the macular pigment.” Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 385 no. 1 (2001): 28–40.

https://doi.org/10.1006/abbi.2000.2171.

Wang, W., J., C. Moore, J. Jackson, and K. Narfström. “Antioxidant supplementation increases retinal responses and decreases refractive error changes in dogs.” J. Nutr. Sci. 5 e18 (2016): 7 pages

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jns.2016.5

By Vinil Samraj Padmini, Global Category Manager Feed Quality, and Marisabel Caballero, Global Technical Manager Poultry, EW Nutrition

Climate across the globe has changed, with rising atmospheric temperatures and carbon dioxide levels. This change favors the growth of toxigenic fungi in crops and thus increases the risk of mycotoxin contamination. When contaminating feed, mycotoxins exert adverse effects in animals and could be transferred into products such as milk and eggs.

95% of the samples were contaminated with at least one mycotoxin

EW Nutrition constantly analyzes feed and raw material samples for their mycotoxin contamination. We report challenges from the most common mycotoxins hindering animal health around the globe.

Worldwide, more than 4,000 analyses on more than 1,000 samples were performed between June – October of the present year. The samples covered grain and by-products commonly used in animal feed worldwide. Figure 1 shows the percentage of the samples tested for which a positive result was found, detailing the number of mycotoxins per sample.

The number of mycotoxins analyzed per sample can vary based on regional risk-evaluation, including weather conditions, raw material origin and past frequency of positives. However, a minimum number of samples per region is always analyzed for the full spectrum, in order to monitor and corroborate the risk level.

3 or more mycotoxins per sample

95% of the samples were contaminated with at least one mycotoxin. In Europe and Latin America, most samples were analyzed for up to five mycotoxins, and were found contaminated with at least two. In South Asia, three mycotoxins were regularly analyzed per sample and most samples were positive for two. Worldwide, it is common to find samples with 3 or more mycotoxins, indicating that, even in raw materials, poly-contamination is the rule.

Aflatoxin: Main concern for South Asia

From all samples tested positively for mycotoxin contamination, 55% were contaminated with Aflatoxins. In all regions, the maximum levels lay over the thresholds for dairy and poultry. In Europe, less than 20% of the samples were contaminated with Aflatoxin. In Europe and the USA, the average contamination is low, hence this toxin can hardly be considered an issue for animal production in those areas (Figure 2).

In South Asia, where high temperatures and humidity are prevalent, Aflatoxin was detected in more than 95% of the samples and the average contamination is over all thresholds. Management strategies, such as the use of mold inhibitors for stored grain and toxin binders in feed, are necessary in this area to keep animals healthy and productive.

Fumonisins: Main concern for LATAM, also global

Fumonisin was found in 70% of the samples globally and roughly in 90% of the samples coming from Latin America (figure 3). Moreover, in LATAM, more than 50% of the results have values over the threshold for dairy and swine, and 14% over the threshold for poultry, making it a great concern in the area. South Asia is the second concern area, with a high proportion of contaminated samples (80%) and 14% of them representing a danger for poultry production.

Deoxynivalenol (DON): Present worldwide

All across the regions, the maximum tested levels lay over the threshold for dairy, poultry, and swine. This trichothecene was found in more than 70% of the samples analyzed worldwide. In the United States, more than 75% of the positive tested samples showed a contamination with DON and the average of the positives exceeded the thresholds for swine and poultry.

The region with highest maximum values is LATAM, followed by South Asia, and the region with the highest frequency of positives in analyzed samples is Europe. Thus, it can be concluded that the worldwide frequency and levels in which DON is found represent a high risk for production animals.

Ruminants can tolerate 10–20 times more DON than, for example, pigs. The majority of ingested DON is converted into the less toxic de-epoxy DON, but the degradation rate is influenced by different factors such as the diet, where high starch decrease the process. Moreover, DON also has a detrimental effect on rumen microorganisms, impacting its fermentative capacity.

T2: A danger for poultry producers word-wide

Average levels of T2 were over the threshold for poultry in all regions, with a high presence (>70% of the analyzed samples) in Europe, the US & LATAM.

Zearalenone: 80% positive tests globally

More than 80% of all samples tested for this mycotoxin were found positive. The maximum contaminations lay over the thresholds for dairy and swine. These high levels found should not be ignored, considering feedstuffs for long living and reproduction animals.

A bad year for crops could be a bad year for production animals

The high mycotoxin contamination found so far in 2021 is partially explained by climate events, such as high temperature and humidity. Temperate zones such as Europe or parts of the USA tend to have higher contaminations compared with previous years.

Multiple mycotoxins co-occur, increasing their impact on animals. Certain combinations of mycotoxins are known to have synergistic or additive effects, aggravating their adverse effects.

To safeguard animal performance, it is important to continually strive for low levels of contamination and to manage the risk of mycotoxins through the use effective tools to measure, interpret, and manage the risk. MasterRisk can aid in the interpretation of mycotoxin risks, weighing in the animal species, age, purpose, as well as the mycotoxin exposure and interactions.

By Predrag Persak, Regional Technical Manager, EW Nutrition

We eat with our eyes. Depending on our cultural background and our experience, we prefer foods that have a certain appearance. Moreover, we regulate our taste and health expectations based on this appearance. In that equation, color plays an essential role. Think of healthy-looking salad, fruit, eggs, meat, and more. Certain foods are more appetizing and appear healthier – and, in many cases, are indeed so – when they display a certain color.

For poultry producers,  skin color and the yolk color of table eggs are of major concern. This concern is driven by the market (in certain regions,  skin and yolk pigmentation heavily affect buying preferences), by regulations, and by an interest in using all options to increase product quality with natural solutions.

Where does poultry pigmentation come from?

Birds cannot synthesize pigments; they must take them up with their feed. Natural pigments have, besides their pigmenting properties, an antioxidant role in the bird’s organism. Unfavorable conditions can heavily influence the outcome of pigmentation. For producers looking to achieve reliable and consistent coloration, results are often unpredictable and disappointing.

Knowing the factors that affect pigmentation will help us to better understand how to achieve the desired level of pigmentation – or to identify, in hindsight what went wrong and when. In general, three different factors are decisive for efficient pigmentation:

1. The quality of the product (type, content, and stability of the pigment)
2. The amount of pigment ingested/absorbed/deposited
3. The persistence of the pigment in the final product

1. Product quality is essential

The first point to be considered is the quality of the product you use, including type, content, and stability of the pigment in the product and the feed.

Content and quality of active substances determine efficacy

Concerning type and content, what matters more than the total amount of carotenoids is the level of active substances. The trans-isomers have higher efficiency than the cis-isomers and are decisive for pigmentation.

Natural pigments originate from natural sources that often vary due to growth conditions, harvest, and handling. Therefore, producers need to control incoming materials and conduct proper formulation during the production process. This is crucial in order to obtain an adequate level of pigments for appropriate pigmentation.

Adequate measures ensure the stability of the pigment in the product

Natural pigments are sensitive to light and air; they are easily oxidized. Also in the feed formulation there are many substances (e.g. oxidized forms of trace elements, choline, chloride) enhancing the oxidation of the pigments. Some precautions can be taken to protect natural pigments from oxidation:

• Use of adequate package materials preventing the exposure to light and air
• Use of antioxidants in the product as well as in the feed formulation

With these measures in place, the pigments are given adequate protection to ensure their stability.

2. Pigment intake, absorption, and deposition affect pigmentation

Every factor reducing the amount of pigment reaching its target deteriorates the quality of pigmentation. Below are the crucial factors producers need to take into account.

Feed intake is correlated to pigment intake

Assuming that the pigment is homogeneously distributed in the feed, feed intake directly determines the intake of pigment. Consequently, anything that affects feed intake also affects pigment intake and pigmentation. To that end, what is also decisive is particle size and homogeneous distribution of the pigment in the product.

The energy concentration in the feed is also a critical factor. Antinutrients, unpleasant taste, or inconsistent feed structure negatively influence feed intake.

Feed intake is also influenced by other elements:

• the animal’s health status
• environmental conditions
• the availability of water
• the housing system (free-range, farm)
• feeding management factors (length of the feeding lines, separation of the feed in silo bins or through the feeding lines etc.).

Saponification plays a role in pigment absorption

Through saponification, the natural, esterified form of the pigment gets broken down and the pigment is separated from the fatty acid molecule. This step is necessary to enable the pigment to pass the intestinal wall. The higher the saponification, the better the bioavailability of the pigment.

Besides improving bioavailability, saponification also influences the particle size and the homogeneous distribution of the pigment particles in the product.

Some feed materials and nutrients influence pigment absorption

If pigments are used, it is essential to know that some feed materials or nutrients have a beneficial or adverse effect on the absorption or deposition of the pigments. The inclusion of saturated, low-digestible fats or fat sources decreases pigment absorption and, therefore, the efficacy of pigmentation, whereas unsaturated fats (oils) facilitate it. The addition of oil up to 5% linearly increases pigment deposition in the egg.

Nutrients such as Calcium or Vitamin A also change pigment absorption. In the case of calcium, the level and the source are decisive. High levels of fast soluble limestone or calcium levels higher than 4 % will decrease the absorption. Also, increased levels of Vitamin A are critical for the effectiveness of deposition, as Vitamin A and the pigment use the same transporters. This fact is very important in broilers if vitamin A addition is applied through the water.

Mycotoxins affect feed intake and absorption

The presence of mycotoxins in feed, especially DON, will reduce feed intake due to the bad taste. The gut health-impacting effect of the mycotoxins will increase the passage rate of the feed and will prevent adequate absorption through the intestinal wall. Additionally, the liver function is negatively impacted by the mycotoxins. This results in an affected serum transport and a lower storage capacity for the pigments, leading to lower deposition in the tissue.

Impacted gut health is bad for pigmentation, too

Good gut health is essential for good pigmentation, including the uptake/absorption of pigments, their deposition, but also already existing pigmentation. All health challenges that negatively affect digestion and absorption, such as dysbiosis, negatively influence pigment availability and pigmentation. In such cases, products or strategies improving digestibility and gut integrity can be a solution.

Specific diseases such as NCD, Coryza, helminthiasis, as well as coccidiosis are an important consideration. The first three diseases lower pigment deposition; coccidiosis, however, has multiple impacts. It not only affects digestion and absorption and, therefore, the ongoing pigmentation but also decreases the already existing one.

Coccidia cause damage to the intestinal wall and affect its activity, resulting in a lower absorption. Additionally, the animals lose weight due to an insufficient supply of energy. The consequence is a degradation of fat tissue where the pigments are stored. Furthermore, coccidiosis means oxidative stress for the animal – triggering a reaction of the organism. As pigments also serve as antioxidants, they are removed from the fatty tissues and used as antioxidants.

Within three days post-infection, pigment levels in the subcutaneous tissues, but also in the serum and the liver, drop to 0. Coccidiosis outbreaks occur more frequently in alternative housing systems, affecting broilers, but also laying hens. Paying close attention to coccidiosis and having a proper anticoccidial program in place is obligatory for good pigmentation.

3. Pigmentation ends when the final products are on the shelf

For the end consumer, an attractive color in the final products (such as pasta or the broiler carcass) is essential. Producers of these final products request to put more pigments into the feed, but is this always the solution? As described before, there are a lot of factors possibly impacting the process of pigmentation during animal production on the farm.

However, also in the pasta factory or in the slaughterhouse, pigmentation of the final products can be impacted. In the pasta factory, oxidizing enzymes can destroy the pigments making the pasta pale and unattractive. If they have issues with Salmonella in the slaughterhouse, the birds may be scalded in slightly hotter water. The defeathering afterward can cause the loss of the upper layer of the skin with the pigments.

These examples show why pigmentation is not just the responsibility of the animal producer, but rather continues up to the moment when the pasta or meat is ready for the consumer.

Control these 3 factors for best pigmentation results

Pigmentation is a dynamic process that requires knowledge and attention. The better we control the influences, the more consistent and predictable the outcome. To that end, it is essential to use the product with the best quality, the best amount of pigment that can be not just ingested, but also absorbed and deposited, and with the best persistence in the final product and along its shelf life.

Keeping everything under control is not always possible or is extremely difficult. That is why choosing the right product is a vital link that will allow us to pay more attention to those things that we can find difficult to manage.

To meet all these demands, Colortek Yellow B is the best natural yellow pigment on the market. This highly concentrated natural yellow evidences optimal flowability, homogeneous mixing in feed and high stabilit, for reliable and consistent results. In addition, it boasts high bioavailability and is produced in the EU in a state-of-the art facility, with FAMI-QS certification and strict control of undesirable substances.

By Dr. Twan van Gerwe, Global Technical Director, EW Nutrition

A year ago, the European Commission announced regulation (EU) 2020/1400 – restricting the use of ethyl ester of β-apo-8’-carotenoic acid (generally known as ‘apo-ester’). Starting on 26 October 2021, this legislation restricts the use of apo-ester in poultry feed to 5 mg/kg for laying hens and 15 mg/kg for broilers.  

As apo-esters is a synthetic pigment – not naturally occurring in nature – this measure was taken because the authorities could not guarantee safety upon exposure to the user. Limiting the concentration in feed would reduce this risk to acceptable levels, according to the legislators’ decision.  

Why use apo-esters in the first place? 

Apo-ester is a synthetic yellow colorant, with good stability in premixtures and complete feed. It also has a high deposition rate in the yolk, making it an effective egg yolk colorant.  

Its ability to be applied through premix facilitates the proper dispersion in the final feed, which is relevant if micro-dosing systems are lacking in the feed mill. 

Why was the legislative change necessary? 

The legislative change which limits the use of synthetic apo-ester is based on the precautionary principle and in line with a broader market trend: away from synthetic (non-natural) components, towards the use of naturally occurring alternatives.  

The alternative to apo-ester

Natural yellow pigments, typically based on lutein and zeaxanthin produced from marigold oleoresin, are available in the market and can be used to reach the egg yolk pigmentation desired by the consumer. In contrast to apo-ester, these natural solutions are functional antioxidants, further contributing to the egg’s nutritious composition. 

Challenges for natural alternatives 

However, stability in premixtures and complete feed can be a challenge, with inconsistent yolk coloration as a risk. Safety can also be an issue, so it is important to ask for Quality Control measures routinely applied to avoid contamination with undesired substances (e.g., dioxins). To limit the risk of producing eggs with insufficient yolk coloration, it is important to select natural pigments with excellent stability and deposition efficiency. 

What is the best natural alternative to apo-ester? 

EW Nutrition’s natural pigment Colortek® Yellow B, produced with a proprietary technology, withstands the harsh conditions in premixtures, while the unique saponification process provides unparalleled deposition rates.  

Moreover, Colortek® Yellow B is the most concentrated natural pigment on the market, making it the perfect premix-delivered colorant in the egg industry. If you want to produce all-natural eggs without worrying about the stability of the product or the reliability of your egg coloration, please contact your local EW Nutrition person.