Mycotoxin Team 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 by-products in the feed, the risks of mycotoxin contamination likely increase. This article reviews why mycotoxins cause the damage they do – and how effective toxin-mitigating solutions prevent this damage.

Mycotoxin contamination of cereal by-products requires solutions

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

 

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; Caballero and Heinzl, 2022). To safeguard animal health and performance when feeding lower-quality cereals, monitoring mycotoxin risks through regular testing and using toxin-mitigating solutions is essentialy.

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. Notably, 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).

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 primarily 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.

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 in 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 to human health.

4. Interaction with bacterial toxins

When mycotoxins induce changes in the intestinal microbiota, this can increase 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 by-products? 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. This becomes even more important as the current market conditions will likely engender a long-term shift towards including more cereal by-products in animal diets.

Trial data shows that EW Nutrition’s toxin-mitigating solution SOLIS MAX 2.0 provides adequate protection against feedborne mycotoxins. The synergistic combination of ingredients in SOLIS MAX 2.0 prevents mycotoxins from damaging the animals’ gastrointestinal tract and entering the bloodstream and additionally acts as antioxidant and liver-protecting:

In-vitro study shows strong mitigation effects of SOLIS MAX 2.0 against a wide range of mycotoxins

Animal feed is often contaminated with two or more mycotoxins, making it essential for an anti-mycotoxin agent to be effective against a wide range of different mycotoxins. A trial with SOLIS MAX 2.0 was conducted at an independent laboratory in Spain with an inclusion level of the product of 0.10% (equivalent to 1 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). The following mycotoxins were evaluated in the test (see Table 1):

Table 1: Mycotoxin challenges

Each mycotoxin was tested separately by adding a challenge to buffer solutions, incubating for one hour at 41°C, to establish the baseline (table). At the same time, a solution with the toxin challenge and Solis Max 2.0 was prepared, incubated, and analyzed for the residual mycotoxin to find the binding efficacy. All analyses were carried out using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with standard detectors.

The results (Figure 4) demonstrate that SOLIS MAX 2.0 is a highly effective solution against the most common mycotoxins in raw materials and animal feed.

Mycotoxin risk management for better animal feed

A healthy gastrointestinal tract is crucial to animals’ overall health: it ensures that nutrients are optimally absorbed, provides adequate protection against pathogens through its immune function, and 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 additionally escalate the problem. On top of rigorous testing, producers should mitigate unavoidable mycotoxin exposures by using solutions such as SOLIS MAX 2.0 – 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.

The EU’s Short-term Outlook for Agricultural Markets (Autumn 2024) reveals significant challenges in agriculture, with adverse weather, geopolitical instability, and fluctuating trade conditions impacting production. The report identifies declining cereal and oilseed outputs, particularly for soft wheat and maize. Meanwhile, milk production is expected to remain stable despite a shrinking cow herd, and the meat sector shows mixed trends, with poultry production rising but pigmeat and beef facing structural challenges.

Cereals

The EU cereal production in 2024/25 is projected at 260.9 million tons, approximately 7% below the 5-year average. This marks the lowest production in the past decade, driven by unfavorable weather conditions, including excessive rain in Northwestern Europe, which impacted planting, particularly for soft wheat, and drought in Southern and Eastern regions, severely affecting maize yields. Production of soft wheat and maize is expected to decline year-on-year by 9.5% and 4%, respectively. On the other hand, barley and durum wheat production are increasing by about 6% and 3%, respectively, compared to the previous year.

EU cereal exports are projected to decline by 22% year-on-year due to reduced production and quality issues. At the same time, domestic demand remains relatively stable, with animal feed consumption holding steady as livestock production stagnates. In terms of prices, cereal prices fell throughout 2024, pressuring farmers’ cash flow, which could hinder their ability to afford inputs such as fertilizers in the coming year.

Milk and Dairy Products

The EU milk market is expected to see relatively stable supply, despite a continuously shrinking cow herd. Milk yields have increased, compensating for the herd’s decline. Milk prices are forecast to stabilize after a period of volatility in the past few years, remaining above historical averages, and input costs for farmers, such as feed and energy, are showing signs of stabilizing, allowing for a potential improvement in farmer margins.

Despite the stability in milk supply, demand for dairy products continues to show mixed trends, influenced by shifts in consumer preferences and trade dynamics. The balance of milk supply and prices could provide an opportunity for dairy farmers to recover some profitability after several challenging years.

In the dairy products sector, cheese and butter continue to dominate EU production, with butter production projected to rise slightly in 2024, driven by stable milk supplies and strong domestic demand. The demand for butter in the global market remains relatively strong, although competition is rising.

Cheese production is also expected to remain stable, reflecting a balance between domestic and export markets. The cheese sector has seen steady growth over the years, supported by increasing consumer demand for premium and specialty cheeses. The demand for skimmed milk powder (SMP) and whole milk powder (WMP) is projected to remain subdued due to fluctuating global demand, particularly from key markets such as China, although some growth is expected in non-European markets.

Meat Products

The meat sector in the EU remains a mixed picture, with structural changes and external factors shaping production and trade in 2024.

Beef and Veal: Beef production continues to face structural decline due to a shrinking herd size, with the sector stabilizing but at lower levels of production. The demand for EU beef remains relatively high, and exports are increasing, but domestic production is likely to remain constrained by environmental and economic pressures. Additionally, the number of animals has been declining consistently, reflecting longer-term trends within the EU beef industry.

Pigmeat: The EU pigmeat sector is facing diverse challenges, with some countries recovering from production setbacks, while others struggle with ongoing disease outbreaks and economic issues. The overall EU pigmeat production is expected to decline slightly, and exports have become less competitive, particularly with reduced demand from key markets such as China. However, opportunities exist in other Asian countries, where EU exporters are gaining ground. Domestically, consumption is forecast to decrease slightly, reflecting shifting consumer preferences toward plant-based alternatives and poultry.

Poultry: Poultry production is expected to rise, driven by strong domestic demand and favorable export conditions. The EU poultry sector has shown resilience, with increasing production and exports, despite higher input costs. Poultry remains a preferred source of protein for consumers, especially as prices for other meats rise. The sector continues to grow in competitiveness on the international stage, with exports expected to increase in 2024 despite the challenges posed by higher EU prices.

Sheep and Goat Meat: Production of sheep and goat meat continues to decline due to the structural reduction of flocks across the EU. High EU prices have made sheep and goat meat less competitive on the global market, reducing export opportunities. Domestically, consumption remains stable but at lower levels than other meat types. The ongoing structural decline in the sector highlights long-term challenges related to animal health, productivity, and market competitiveness.

Volatility and challenges persist

The report highlights the ongoing challenges faced by the cereals, dairy, and meat sectors. Weather conditions and global trade dynamics are shaping the future of EU agriculture, with many sectors grappling with production declines and shifting market demands. Despite these challenges, opportunities exist for some areas of growth, particularly in dairy and poultry, where rising consumer demand and stable supply conditions offer optimism for the future.

by Dr. Inge Heinzl, Editor EW Nutrition

For optimum health, the content of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) is decisive. On the one hand, they act locally in the gut, on the other hand, they are absorbed via the intestinal mucosa into the organism and can affect the whole body. Newer studies in humans show a connection between the deficiency of SCFAs and the occurrence of chronic diseases such as diabetes type 2 or chronic inflammatory gut diseases.

SCFAs – what are they, and where do they come from?

SCFAs consist of a chain of one to six carbon atoms. They are crucial metabolites primarily generated through the bacterial fermentation of dietary fiber (DF) in the hindgut. However, SCFAs and branched SCFAs can also arise during protein fermentation. Short-chain fatty acids predominantly include acetate, propionate, and butyrate, which together account for over 95% of the total SCFAs, typically in a 60:20:20 ratio.

Acetate is produced in two different ways, via the acetyl-CoA and the Wood-Ljungdahl pathways where Bacteroides spp., Bifidobacterium spp., Ruminococcus spp., Blautia hydrogenotrophica, Clostridium spp. are involved. Additionally, acetogenic bacteria can synthesize acetate from carbon dioxide and formate through the Wood-Ljungdahl pathway (Ragsdale and Pierce, 2021). Acetate counts for more than 50% of the total SCFAs in the colon and is the most abundant one.

Propionate can also be produced in two ways. If it is produced via the succinate pathway involving the decarboxylation of methyl malonyl-CoA, the essential bacteria are Firmicutes and Bacteroides. In the acrylate pathway, lactate is converted to propionate. Here, only some bacteria, such as Veillonellaceae or Lachnospiraceae, participate.

Butyrate is produced from acetyl-CoA via the classical pathway by several Firmicutes. However, also other gut microbiota such as Actinobacteria, Proteobacteria, and Thermotogae, which contain essential enzymes (e.g., butyryl coenzyme A dehydrogenase, butyryl-CoA transferase, and butyrate kinase) can be involved. Butyrate can also be produced via the lysine pathway from proteins.

Besides the production of SCFAs from dietary fiber, there is another possibility for the synthesis of SCFAs as well as branched SCFAs – the fermentation of protein in the hindgut. This is something we want to avoid, since it´s clear signal of incorrect animal nutrition. It tells us that there is either oversupply of protein or decrease in protein digestion and absorption.

Which roles do SCFAs play?

SCFAs play a crucial role in the maintenance of gut health. Some benefits originate from these substances’ general character, while others are specific to one acid. If we talk about the benefits of all SCFAs, we can mention the following:

1. Primarily, SCFAs are absorbed by the intestine and serve enterocytes as an essential substrate for energy production.
2. By lowering the pH in the intestine, SCFAs inhibit the invasion and colonization of pathogens.
3. SCFAs can cross bacterial membranes in their undissociated form. Inside the bacterial cell, they dissociate, resulting in a higher anion concentration and bactericidal effect (Van der Wielen et al., 2000)
4. SCFAs repair the intestinal mucosa
5. They mitigate intestinal inflammation by G protein-coupled receptors (GPRs).
6. They enhance immune response by producing cytokines such as IL-2, IL-6, IL-10, and TNF-α in the immune cells. Furthermore, they enhance the differentiation of T-cells into T regulatory cells (Tregs) and bind to receptors (Toll-like receptor, G protein-coupled receptors) on immune cells (Liu et al., 2021).
7. SCFAs are involved in the modulation of some processes in the gastrointestinal tract, such as electrolyte and water absorption (Vinolo et al., 2011)

After seeing the general characteristics of short-chain fatty acids, let us take a closer look at the specialties of the single SCFAs.

Acetate might play a crucial role in the competitive process between enteropathogens and bifidobacteria and help to build a balanced gut microbial environment (Liu et al., 2021). Additionally, acetate promotes lipogenesis in adipocytes (Liu et al., 2022).

Concerning general health, acetate inhibits, e.g., lung inflammatory response and the reduced air-blood permeability induced by avian pathogenic E. coli-caused chicken colibacillosis (Peng et al., 2021).

Propionate is thought to be involved in controlling intestinal inflammation by regulating the immune cells assisting and, consequently, in maintaining the gut barrier. Furthermore, propionate regulates appetite, controls blood glucose, and inhibits fat deposition in broiler chickens (Li et al., 2021).

In a trial conducted by Elsherif et al. (2022), birds fed a diet with 1.5 g sodium propionate/kg showed considerably (P<0.05) longer and wider guts, higher counts of lactobacillus(P<0.05) and no colonization of Clostridium perfringens. The immunological state improved significantly (P<0.05), which could be seen by the higher antibody titers when the birds were vaccinated against Newcastle disease or avian influenza.

Butyrate additionally improves the function of the intestinal barrier by regulating the assembly of tight junctions (Peng et al., 2009) and stimulating cell renewal and differentiation of the enterocytes. Butyrate-producing microbes on their side prevent the dysbiotic expansion of potentially pathogenic E. coli and Salmonella (Byndloss et al., 2017; Cevallos et al., 2021) by stimulating PPAR-γ signaling. This leads to the suppression of iNOS synthesis and a significant reduction of iNOS and nitrate in the colonic lumen. Furthermore, the microbiota-induced PPAR-γ-signaling inhibits dysbiotic Enterobacteriaceae expansion by limiting the bioavailability of oxygen and, therefore, respiratory electron acceptors to Enterobacteriaceae in the colon.

In a trial conducted by Xiao et al. (2023), sodium butyrate enhanced broiler breeders’ reproductive performance and egg quality due to the regulation of the maternal intestinal barrier and gut microbiota. Additionally, it improved the antioxidant capacity and immune function of the breeder hens and their offspring.

SCFAs’ production can be managed

The extent of production depends on the diet and the composition of the intestinal flora. Nutritional strategies can be taken to regulate the production of short-chain fatty acids by providing dietary fiber and prebiotics, the respective bacteria but also additives in the diet or, on the other, negative way, use of antibiotics.

One example of SCFA-promoting additives is phytomolecules. Ventar D, a blend of diverse gut health-promoting phytomolecules, shows its SCFAs-increasing effect in a trial with Ross 308 broilers.

Trial design: The 41-day research study was conducted at an R&D farm in Turkey, with 3200 Ross 308 broilers in total. The day-old broiler chicks were randomly divided into two groups with 8 replicates in 16-floor pens (6.5×2 m each), each of 200 chicks (100 males and 100 females). One group was managed as a control group with regular feed formulation, and the other group was supplemented with Ventar D. All the birds were provided feeds and water ad libitum. Temperature, lighting, and ventilation were managed as per Ross 308 recommendation.

Groups	Application dose
	Starter (crumbles)	Grower & Finisher – 1 & 2 (pellet)
Control	No additive
Ventar D	100 gm/MT	100 gm/MT

All the birds and feed were weighed on days 0, 11, 23, and 41. Dead birds were also weighed, and the feed consumption was corrected accordingly. At the end of the experiment, one male and one female chicken close to the average weight of each pen were separated, weighed, and slaughtered. Short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) concentration in the caecum was measured by gas chromatography (Zhang et al. 2003). Statistical analysis of the data obtained in this study was carried out in the Minitab 18 program using the T-test following the randomized block trial design (P ≤ 0.05). The research results were subjected to statistical analysis on a pen basis. Mortality results were evaluated with the Chi-square test.

Results: Ventar D significantly increased the levels of acetate, butyrate, and total SCFAs. The level of propionate was numerically higher. Additionally, higher final body weights (on average 160 g), improved feed efficiency (6 points), a higher EPEF (33 points), and lower mortality (0.5%) could be asserted in this experiment.

One explanation could be the microbiota-balancing effect of Ventar D. Meimandipour et al. (2010), for example, saw in their study that increased colonization of Lactobacillus salivarius and Lactobacillus agilis in cecum significantly increased propionate and butyrate formation in caeca.

Phytomolecules: Balancing intestinal microbiome and increasing healthy SCFAs

By promoting beneficial intestinal bacteria and fighting the harmful ones, phytomolecules drive the microbiome in the right direction and promote the production of short-chain fatty acids. Their gut health-protecting effect, in turn, provides for adequate digestion and absorption of nutrients, leading to optimal feed conversion and growth rates. The support of the immune system and the promotion of the antioxidant capacity additionally enhance the health of the animals. Healthy animals grow better, which ultimately leads to a higher profit for the farm.

References:

Byndloss, Mariana X., Erin E. Olsan, Fabian Rivera-Chávez, Connor R. Tiffany, Stephanie A. Cevallos, Kristen L. Lokken, Teresa P. Torres, et al. “Microbiota-Activated PPAR-γ Signaling Inhibits Dysbiotic Enterobacteriaceae Expansion.” Science 357, no. 6351 (August 11, 2017): 570–75. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9949.

Cevallos, Stephanie A., Jee-Yon Lee, Eric M. Velazquez, Nora J. Foegeding, Catherine D. Shelton, Connor R. Tiffany, Beau H. Parry, et al. “5-Aminosalicylic Acid Ameliorates Colitis and Checks Dysbiotic Escherichia Coli Expansion by Activating PPAR-γ Signaling in the Intestinal Epithelium.” mBio 12, no. 1 (February 23, 2021). https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.03227-20.

Elsherif, Hany M.R., Ahmed Orabi, Hussein M.A. Hassan, and Ahmed Samy. “Sodium Formate, Acetate, and Propionate as Effective Feed Additives in Broiler Diets to Enhance Productive Performance, Blood Biochemical, Immunological Status, and Gut Integrity.” Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences 10, no. 6 (June 2022): 1414–22.

Li, Haifang, Liqin Zhao, Shuang Liu, Zhihao Zhang, Xiaojuan Wang, and Hai Lin. “Propionate Inhibits Fat Deposition via Affecting Feed Intake and Modulating Gut Microbiota in Broilers.” Poultry Science 100, no. 1 (January 2021): 235–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.10.009.

Liu, Lixuan, Qingqing Li, Yajin Yang, and Aiwei Guo. “Biological Function of Short-Chain Fatty Acids and Its Regulation on Intestinal Health of Poultry.” Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8 (October 18, 2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.736739.

Liu, Lixuan, Qingqing Li, Yajin Yang, and Aiwei Guo. “Biological Function of Short-Chain Fatty Acids and Its Regulation on Intestinal Health of Poultry.” Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8 (October 18, 2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.736739.

Meimandipour, A., M. Shuhaimi, A.F. Soleimani, K. Azhar, M. Hair-Bejo, B.M. Kabeir, A. Javanmard, O. Muhammad Anas, and A.M. Yazid. “Selected Microbial Groups and Short-Chain Fatty Acids Profile in a Simulated Chicken Cecum Supplemented with Two Strains of Lactobacillus.” Poultry Science 89, no. 3 (March 2010): 470–76. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2009-00495.

Peng, Lu-Yuan, Hai-Tao Shi, Zi-Xuan Gong, Peng-Fei Yi, Bo Tang, Hai-Qing Shen, and Ben-Dong Fu. “Protective Effects of Gut Microbiota and Gut Microbiota-Derived Acetate on Chicken Colibacillosis Induced by Avian Pathogenic Escherichia Coli.” Veterinary Microbiology 261 (October 2021): 109187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2021.109187.

Peng, Luying, Zhong-Rong Li, Robert S. Green, Ian R. Holzmanr, and Jing Lin. “Butyrate Enhances the Intestinal Barrier by Facilitating Tight Junction Assembly via Activation of AMP-Activated Protein Kinase in Caco-2 Cell Monolayers.” The Journal of Nutrition 139, no. 9 (September 2009): 1619–25. https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.109.104638.

Ragsdale, Stephen W., and Elizabeth Pierce. “Acetogenesis and the Wood–Ljungdahl Pathway of CO2 Fixation.” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) – Proteins and Proteomics 1784, no. 12 (December 2008): 1873–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbapap.2008.08.012.

Vinolo, Marco A.R., Hosana G. Rodrigues, Renato T. Nachbar, and Rui Curi. “Regulation of Inflammation by Short Chain Fatty Acids.” Nutrients 3, no. 10 (October 14, 2011): 858–76. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu3100858.

Wielen, Paul W. van der, Steef Biesterveld, Servé Notermans, Harm Hofstra, Bert A. Urlings, and Frans van Knapen. “Role of Volatile Fatty Acids in Development of the Cecal Microflora in Broiler Chickens during Growth.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 66, no. 6 (June 2000): 2536–40. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.66.6.2536-2540.2000.

Xiao, Chuanpi, Li Zhang, Bo Zhang, Linglian Kong, Xue Pan, Tim Goossens, and Zhigang Song. “Dietary Sodium Butyrate Improves Female Broiler Breeder Performance and Offspring Immune Function by Enhancing Maternal Intestinal Barrier and Microbiota.” Poultry Science 102, no. 6 (June 2023): 102658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2023.102658.

by Vesna Jenkins, Global Product Manager, Biomin BioStabil

Silage quality directly impacts animal health and farm profitability. This guide delves into the scientific principles and practical steps necessary to produce silage of the highest caliber.

Optimal Dry Matter

The journey to exceptional silage begins with harvesting at the ideal dry matter percentage. This critical timing ensures the preservation of yield and energy content. Striking the right balance is key; harvesting too early can lead to nutrient-poor silage, while too late can compromise the forage’s structural integrity. Aim for a dry matter content of 32-38% depending on forage type for optimal results.

Wilting Wisdom

When wilting is part of the process (e.g. grass, clover or alfalfa silage), efficiency is paramount. Achieving the desired dry matter in just a few hours help to prevent spoilage and retain the forage’s nutritional value. It’s a delicate dance between removing excess moisture and maintaining the feed’s quality.

Ensiling Excellence

Post-harvest, the clock is ticking. Compacting and sealing the forage within 24 to 48 hours is vital to create an anaerobic environment. This step is crucial to ensure anaerobic conditions for optimal fermentation. Pack the silage in thin layers with heavy enough machinery such as dual wheeled heavy tractors to achieve optimal dry matter density of around 250 kg per cubic meter. Pay special attention to the edges for even compaction. Once filled, seal the clamp with high quality overlapping sheets ensuring the edges are weighted down to prevent air ingress.

Rapid Acidification

The role of silage inoculants cannot be overstated. The proven science of the silage inoculant Biomin® BioStabil accelerates the pH drop, locking in dry matter, energy, and protein. This rapid acidification is a defense mechanism against pathogenic bacteria and mycotoxin producing fungi, ensuring the silage remains safe and nutritious.

Feed-Out Finesse

Proper management of the clamp face is crucial to prevent spoilage and ensure livestock health. Cut sufficient depth from the clamp face daily to prevent newly exposed silage near the face from having time to spoil. Maintain a smooth and clean silage face to minimize spoilage. Spilled debris on the ground can easily go moldy, presenting hazards for animals if fed out. Use the proven silage inoculant Biomin® BioStabil for longer aerobic stability in the silage and TMR.

Silage making is both a science and an art. By following these guidelines and choosing the right inoculant, farmers can secure the nutritional integrity of their forage.

Consult with an EW Nutrition representative to select the perfect BioStabil inoculant tailored to your forage type and conditions, and elevate your silage from good to great.

Part 4: Paleness

By Dr. Inge Heinzl, Editor and Technical Team, EW Nutrition

We already showed bad feathering, mouth and beak lesions, bone issues, and foot pad lesions as signs of mycotoxin contamination in the feed, but there is another indicator: paleness. Paleness can signify a low count of red blood cells resulting from blood loss or inadequate production of these cells. Other possibilities are higher bilirubin levels in the blood due to an impaired liver, leading to jaundice or missing pigmentation.

The mycotoxins mainly causing anemia are Aflatoxins, Ochratoxin, DON, and T-2 toxin

Anemia can be diagnosed using parameters such as red blood cell count, hemoglobin levels, and hematocrit/packed cell volume (PCV). Numerous studies have examined the impact of mycotoxins on hematological parameters. They reveal their propensity to affect red blood cell production by impairing the function of the spleen and inducing hematological alterations. On the other hand, anemia can be caused by blood loss. Due to affecting coagulation factors, mycotoxins can lead to internal hemorrhages. The gut wall damage, probably due to secondary infections such as coccidiosis and necrotic enteritis, can entail bloody diarrhea in various animal species.

Impact on the production of blood cells

Low values of blood parameters such as red blood cells, hemoglobin, and hematocrit can result from inadequate production due to impacted production organs. The World Health Organization (WHO, 1990) and European Commission (European Commission, 2001) have identified hematopoietic tissues as targets for necrosis caused by T-2 toxin. Chu (2003) even stated that “the major lesion of T-2 toxin is its devastating effect on the hematopoietic system in many mammals, including humans”. Pande et al. (2006) suggested that reduced hemoglobin values result from decreased protein synthesis due to mycotoxin contamination, a notion supported by Pronk et al. (2002), who described trichothecenes as potent inhibitors of protein, DNA, and RNA synthesis, particularly affecting tissues with high cell division rates. Additionally, the European Commission (2001) highlighted the sensitivity of red blood cell progenitor cells (in this trial, the cells of mice, rats, and humans) to the toxic effects of T-2 and HT-toxins. DAS also seems to attack the hematopoietic system, as shown in humans (WHO, 1990). A further cause for anemia might be low feed intake or nutrient absorption, which inhibits adequate iron absorption and leads to iron deficiency. In their case report, Bozzo et al. (2023) assumed that renal failure and a resulting impaired excretion capacity caused by OTA might even increase the half-life of the toxins. This would enhance their effects on their target organs, such as the liver and bone marrow, and lead to anemia.

Several studies utilizing different animal species and mycotoxin dosages have been conducted to assess the effects of Aflatoxins, Ochratoxin, and T-2 Toxin on hematological parameters. The following table provides a summary of some of these studies.

Animal species	Dosage	Impact	Reference
T-2 Toxin and other Trichothecenes
Broilers	T-2 – 0, 1, 2, and 4 mg T-2 toxin/kg n=30 per group	Significant reduction in hemoglobin at 1, 2, and 4 ppm; PCV significantly reduced at 4 ppm	Pande et al., 2006
Broilers	T-2 – 0 and 4 mg/kg diet n=60 per group	Decrease in hemoglobin, mean corpuscular volume, and mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration	Kubena et al., 1989a
Broilers	4, 16, 50, 100, 300 ppm for seven days n=5-20 chickens per group	Anemia; significant reduction of hematocrit (50 and 100 ppm); survivors had atrophied lymphoid organs and were anemic	Hoerr et al., 1982
Yangzhou goslings	0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0 mg/kg; n=6 per group	Red blood cell count decreased in the 2.0 mg/kg group along with an increase in mean corpuscular hemoglobin (p<0.05) and reduced mean platelet volume (P<0.05)	Gu et al., 2023
Broilers	2 ppm; 32 birds per group	Anemia, as indicated by significantly (P<0.05) lower total erythrocyte count (TEC) values, lower hemoglobin levels, and packed cell volume; additional thrombocytopenia could be the cause of bleeding	Yohannes et al., 2013
DON
Broilers	5 and 15 mg/kg of feed for 42 days	Decrease in erythrocytes, mean corpuscular volume (MCV), and mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC) at 15 mg/kg; decrease in hematocrit and hemoglobin at both levels of DON.	Riahi, 2021
Piglets	0.6 mg/kg and 2.0 mg/kg	Significant decrease in mean corpuscular volume	Modrá et al., 2013
Broilers	16 mg/kg diet n=60 per group	Significant decrease in mean corpuscular volume	Kubena et al., 1989c
Ochratoxin
Broilers	2 mg/kg diet singly or combined with DAS 6 mg/kg	Reduced mean corpuscular hemoglobin values	Kubena et al., 1994
Broilers	2 mg/kg diet	Significant decrease in hemoglobin, hematocrit, mean corpuscular volume and mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration	Kubena et al., 1989b
Aflatoxins
Broilers	2.5 µg/g	Decrease in red blood cell count	Huff et al., 1988
Broilers	≥1.25 µg/g	Significant decrease in hemoglobin and erythrocyte count	Tung et al., 1975
AFB1 + OTA
Laying hens	Natural feed contamination OTA – 31 ± 3.08 µg/kg and AFB1 – 5.6 ± 0.33 µg/kg dry weight	Anemia signs (pale appearance of combs and wattles), evidenced by the discoloration of the content of the femoral medullary cavity.	Bozzo et al., 2023

Table 1: The effects of different mycotoxins on hematological parameters – hematopoiesis

In their meta-analysis, Andretta et al. (2012) reported that the presence of mycotoxins in broiler diets decreased the hematocrit and the hemoglobin concentration by 5% and 15%, and aflatoxin alone decreased the parameters by 6% and 20%.

It should be evident that a simultaneous occurrence of several mycotoxins even aggravates the situation. In an experiment involving Sprague Dawley rats, administering T-2, DON, NIV, ZEA, NEO, and OTB decreased hematocrit and red blood cell counts across all mycotoxins. However, for DON, NIV, ZEN, and OTB, red blood cell values showed partial recovery after 24 hours (Chattopadhyay, 2013). Perhaps the organism learns to cope with the mycotoxins.

The examples show that Trichothecenes, such as T-2 toxin, DON, and others, as well as Ochratoxins and Aflatoxins, impact blood parameters such as hematocrit, hemoglobin, red blood cell count, and mean corpuscular volume. All these changes might lead to paleness of the skin and birds’ feet and combs.

Blood loss caused by bleeding or destruction of erythrocytes

The second possibility for anemia is blood loss due to injuries or lesions. In addition to directly causing hemorrhages, mycotoxins can promote secondary infections such as coccidiosis, which damages the gut and may produce bloody feces.

Parent-Massin (2004) e.g. reports on rapidly progressing coagulation problems after the ingestion of trichothecenes leading to septicemia and massive hemorrhages. Table 2 shows more examples of mycotoxins causing paleness due to blood loss.

Animal species	Dosage	Impact	Reference
T-2 Toxin and other Trichothecenes
Cats	T-2 toxin – 0.06-0.1 mg/kg body weight/day	Bloody feces, hemorrhages	Lutsky et al., 1978
Cats	T-2 toxin – 0.08 mg/kg BW every 48 h until death	Bloody feces	Lutzky and Mor, 1981
Pigeon	DAS in oat, sifting	Emesis and bloody stools	Szathmary (1983)
Calves	0.08, 0.16, 0.32, or 0.6 mg/kg BW per day for 30 days; 1 calf per treatment	Bloody feces at doses ≥0.32 mg/kg BW per day	Pier et al., 1976
Ochratoxin
Rats	Single dosages of 0, 17, or 22 mg/kg BW in 0.1 Mol/L NaHCO3, gavage	Multifocal hemorrhages in many organs	Albassam et al., 1987
DON
Broilers	0, 35, 70, 140, 280, 560, and 1120 mg/kg body weight	Ecchymotic hemorrhages throughout the intestinal tract, liver, and musculature; relationship to hemorrhagic anemia syndrome seems warranted	Huff et al., 1981
Sterigmatocystin (ST)
10-12-day old chicks (93-101 g)	10 and 14 mg/kg BW intraperitoneal	Hemorrhages and foci of necrosis in the liver	Sreemannarayana et al., 1987
Aflatoxins
Broiler chickens	100 µg/kg feed	Hemorrhages in the liver	Abdel-Sattar, 2019
Turkeys	500 and 1000 ppb in the diet	Bloody diarrhea, spleens with hemorrhages, petechial hemorrhages in the small intestine	Giambrone et al., 1984
Broilers	0, 0.625, 1.25, 2.5, 5.0, and 10.0 mg/kg of diet combined with Infectious Bursal Disease	Slight hemorrhages in the skeletal muscles; decreased hematocrit and hemoglobin due to hemolytic anemia.	Chang and Hamilton, 1981
Broilers	0, 1, and 2 mg AFB1/kg of diet	Downregulation of the genes involved in blood coagulation (coagulation factor IX and X) and upregulation of anticoagulant protein C precursor, an inactivator of coagulation factors Va and VIIIa, and antithrombin-III precursor with 2 mg/kg	Yarru, 2009
Pigs	1-4 mg/kg, 4 weeks 0.4-0.8 mg/kg, 10 weeks	Hemorrhages	Henry et al., 2001

Table 2: The effects of different mycotoxins on hematological parameters – blood loss

Poor pigmentation

The fourth reason for paleness can be inadequate pigmentation. According to Hy Line (2021), the so-called pale bird syndrome is characterized by poor skin and egg yolk pigmentation and is caused by reduced absorption of fat and carotenoid pigments in compromised birds. This is also the case when the diets contain pigment supplements. Tyczkowski and Hamilton (1986) observed in their experiment with chickens exposed to doses of 1-8 µg of Aflatoxins/g of diet for three weeks that aflatoxins can cause poor pigmentation in chickens, probably by impairing carotenoids absorption but also transport and deposition. Osborne et al. (1982) asserted that carotenoids were significantly (P<0.05) depressed by 2 ppm ochratoxin as well as by 2.5 ppm aflatoxin in the diet.

Another possibility is oxidative stress due to the mycotoxin challenge. As pigments also serve as antioxidants, they may be expended for this purpose and are no longer available for pigmentation.

Paleness in poultry – a reason to think about mycotoxins

Paleness can have different causes, some of which are influenced by mycotoxins. If your chickens or hens are pale, checking the feed concerning mycotoxins is always recommended. A feed analysis can give information about possible contamination (see our tool MasterRisk).

In the case of contamination, effective products binding the mycotoxins and mitigating the adverse effects of these harmful substances can help protect your birds. As paleness is usually not the only effect of mycotoxins but also a decrease in growth, toxin binders can help maintain the performance of your animals.

References:

Abdel-Sattar, Ward Masoud, Kadry Mohamed Sadek, Ahmed Ragab Elbestawy, and Disouky Mohamed Mourad. “The Protective Role of Date Palm (Phoenix Dactylifera Seeds) against Aflatoxicosis in Broiler Chickens Regarding Carcass Characterstics, Hepatic and Renal Biochemical Function Tests and Histopathology.” Journal of World’s Poultry Research 9, no. 2 (June 25, 2019): 59–69. https://doi.org/10.36380/scil.2019.wvj9.

Albassam, M. A., S. I. Yong, R. Bhatnagar, A. K. Sharma, and M. G. Prior. “Histopathologic and Electron Microscopic Studies on the Acute Toxicity of Ochratoxin a in Rats.” Veterinary Pathology 24, no. 5 (September 1987): 427–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/030098588702400510.

Andretta, I., M. Kipper, C.R. Lehnen, and P.A. Lovatto. “Meta-Analysis of the Relationship of Mycotoxins with Biochemical and Hematological Parameters in Broilers.” Poultry Science 91, no. 2 (February 2012): 376–82. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01813.

Bhat, RameshV, Y Ramakrishna, SashidharR Beedu, and K.L Munshi. “Outbreak of Trichothecene Mycotoxicosis Associated with Consumption of Mould-Damaged Wheat Products in Kashmir Valley, India.” The Lancet 333, no. 8628 (January 1989): 35–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(89)91684-x.

Bozzo, Giancarlo, Nicola Pugliese, Rossella Samarelli, Antonella Schiavone, Michela Maria Dimuccio, Elena Circella, Elisabetta Bonerba, Edmondo Ceci, and Antonio Camarda. “Ochratoxin A and Aflatoxin B1 Detection in Laying Hens for Omega 3-Enriched Eggs Production.” Agriculture 13, no. 1 (January 5, 2023): 138. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13010138.

Chang, Chao-Fu, and Pat B. Hamilton. “Increased Severity and New Symptoms of Infectious Bursal Disease during Aflatoxicosis in Broiler Chickens.” Poultry Science 61, no. 6 (June 1982): 1061–68. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0611061.

Chattopadhyay, Pronobesh, Amit Agnihotri, Danswerang Ghoyary, Aadesh Upadhyay, Sanjeev Karmakar, and Vijay Veer. “Comparative Hematoxicity of Fusarium Mycotoxin in Experimental Sprague-Dawley Rats.” Toxicology International 20, no. 1 (2013): 25. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-6580.111552.

European Commission. “Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food on Fusarium Toxins Part 5: T-2 Toxin and HT-2 Toxin.” Food.ec.europa. Accessed May 30, 2001. https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/a859c348-a38e-404c-a2af-c3e29a3a8777_en?filename=sci-com_scf_out88_en.pdf.

Giambrone, J.J., U.L. Diener, N.D. Davis, V.S. Panangala, and F.J. Hoerr. “Effect of Purified Aflatoxin on Turkeys.” Poultry Science 64, no. 5 (May 1985): 859–65. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0640859.

Gu, Wang, Qiang Bao, Kaiqi Weng, Jinlu Liu, Shuwen Luo, Jianzhou Chen, Zheng Li, et al. “Effects of T-2 Toxin on Growth Performance, Feather Quality, Tibia Development and Blood Parameters in Yangzhou Goslings.” Poultry Science 102, no. 2 (February 2023): 102382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102382.

Henry, H., T. Whitaker, I. Rabban, J. Bowers, D. Park, W. Price, F.X. Bosch, et al. “Aflatoxin M1.” Aflatoxin M1 (JECFA 47, 2001). Accessed July 29, 2024. https://inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v47je02.htm.

Hoerr, F., W. Carlton, B. Yagen, and A. Joffe. “Mycotoxicosis Caused by Either T-2 Toxin or Diacetoxyscirpenol in the Diet of Broiler Chickens.” Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 2, no. 3 (May 1982): 121–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-0590(82)80092-4.

Huff, W.E., J.A. Doerr, P.B. Hamilton, and R.F. Vesonder. “Acute Toxicity of Vomitoxin (Deoxynivalenol) in Broiler Chickens,” Poultry Science 60, no. 7 (July 1981): 1412–14. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0601412.

Huff, W.E., R.B. Harvey, L.F. Kubena, and G.E. Rottinghaus. “Toxic Synergism between Aflatoxin and T-2 Toxin in Broiler Chickens.” Poultry Science 67, no. 10 (October 1988): 1418–23. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0671418.

Hy-Line. “Mycotoxins: How to deal with the threat of mycotoxicosis.” Hy-Line International. Accessed July 29, 2024. https://www.hyline.com/.

Klein, P. J., T. R. Vleet, J. O. Hall, and R. A. Coulombe. “Dietary Butylated Hydroxytoluene Protects against Aflatoxicosis in Turkey.” Poisonous plants and related toxins, November 24, 2003, 478–83. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851996141.0478.

Kubena, L.F., R.B. Harvey, T.S. Edrington, and G.E. Rottinghaus. “Influence of Ochratoxin A and Diacetoxyscirpenol Singly and in Combination on Broiler Chickens.” Poultry Science 73, no. 3 (March 1994): 408–15. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0730408.

Kubena, L.F., R.B. Harvey, W.E. Huff, D.E. Corrier, T.D. Philipps, and G.E. Rottinghaus. “Influence of Ochratoxin A and T-2 Toxin Singly and in Combination on Broiler Chickens.” Poultry Science 68, no. 7 (July 1989): 867–72. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0680867.

Kubena, L.F., R.B. Harvey, W.E. Huff, D.E. Corrier, T.D. Phillips, and G.E. Rottinghaus. “Influence of Ochratoxin A and T-2 Toxin Singly and in Combination on Broiler Chickens.” Poultry Science 68, no. 7 (July 1989): 867–72. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0680867.

Kubena, L.F., W.E. Huff, R.B. Harvey, T.D. Phillips, and G.E. Rottinghaus. “Individual and Combined Toxicity of Deoxynivalenol and T-2 Toxin in Broiler Chicks.” Poultry Science 68, no. 5 (May 1989): 622–26. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0680622.

Lutsky, I.I., and N. Mor. “Alimentary Toxic Aleukia (Septic Angina, Endemic Panmyelotoxicosis, Alimentary Hemorrhagic Aleukia): T-2 Toxin-Induced Intoxication of Cats.” The American journal of pathology, 1980. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6973281/.

Lutsky, Irving, Natan Mor, Boris Yagen, and Avraham Z. Joffe. “The Role of T-2 Toxin in Experimental Alimentary Toxic Aleukia: A Toxicity Study in Cats.” Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 43, no. 1 (January 1978): 111–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0041-008x(78)80036-2.

MEJ, Pronk, Schothorst RC, and H.P. van Egmond. “Toxicology and Occurrence of Nivalenol, Fusarenon X, Diacetoxyscirpenol, Neosolaniol and 3- and 15- Acetyldeoxynivalenol; a Review of Six Trichothecenes.” Home – Web-based Archive of RIVM Publications, November 7, 2002. https://rivm.openrepository.com/handle/10029/9184.

Modra, Helena, Jana Blahova, Petr Marsalek, Tomas Banoch, Petr Fictum, and Martin Svoboda. “The Effects of Mycotoxin Deoxynivalenol (DON) on Haematological and Biochemical Parameters and Selected Parameters of Oxidative Stress in Piglets.” Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 34, no. Suppl 2 (2013): 84–89.

Osborne, D.J., W.E. Huff, P.B. Hamilton, and H.R. Burmeister. “Comparison of Ochratoxin, Aflatoxin, and T-2 Toxin for Their Effects on Selected Parameters Related to Digestion and Evidence for Specific Metabolism of Carotenoids in Chickens,” Poultry Science 61, no. 8 (August 1982): 1646–52. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0611646.

Pande, Vivek, Nitin Kurkure, and A.G. Bhandarkar. “Effect of T-2 Toxin on Growth, Performance and Haematobiochemical Alterations in Broilers .” Indian Journal of Experimental Biology 44, no. 1 (February 2006): 86–88.

Pier , A.C., S.J. Cysewski, J.L. Richard , A.L. Baetz, and L. Mitchell. “Experimental Mycotoxicoses in Calves with Aflatoxin, Ochratoxin, Rubratoxin, and T-2 Toxin.” Proceedings, annual meeting of the United States Animal Health Association, 1976. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1078072/.

Resanovic, Radmila, Ksenija Nesic, Vladimir Nesic, Todor Palic, and Vesna Jacevic. “Mycotoxins in Poultry Production.” Zbornik Matice srpske za prirodne nauke, no. 116 (2009): 7–14. https://doi.org/10.2298/zmspn0916007r.

Riahi, Insaf, Virginie Marquis, Anna Maria Pérez-Vendrell, Joaquim Brufau, Enric Esteve-Garcia, and Antonio J. Ramos. “Effects of Deoxynivalenol-Contaminated Diets on Metabolic and Immunological Parameters in Broiler Chickens.” Animals 11, no. 1 (January 11, 2021): 147. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010147.

Sreemannarayana, O., A. A. Frohlich, and R. R. Marquardt. “Acute Toxicity of Sterigmatocystin to Chicks.” Mycopathologia 97, no. 1 (January 1987): 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00437331.

Stack, Jim, and Mike Carlson. “Fumonisins in Corn.” DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska – Lincoln, 2003. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/188054556.pdf.

Szathmary, C.I. “Trichothecene Toxicoses and Natural Occurrence in Hungary.” Essay. In Ueno, Y: Developments in Food Science IV. Trichothecenes, 229–50. New York: Elsevier, 1983.

Tung, Hsi-Tang, F.W. Cook, R.D. Wyatt, and P.B. Hamilton. “The Anemia Caused by Aflatoxin.” Poultry Science 54, no. 6 (November 1975): 1962–69. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0541962.

Tyczkowski, Juliusz K., and Pat B. Hamilton. “Altered Metabolism of Carotenoids during Aflatoxicosis in Young Chickens,” Poultry Science 66, no. 7 (July 1987): 1184–88. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0661184.

WHO. “Selected Mycotoxins : Ochratoxins, Trichothecenes, Ergot / Published under the Joint Sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation and the World Health Organization.” World Health Organization, January 1, 1990. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/39552.

Yohannes, T., A. K. Sharma, S. D. Singh, and V. Sumi. “Experimental Haematobiochemical Alterations in Broiler Chickens Fed with T-2 Toxin and Co-Infected with IBV.” Open Journal of Veterinary Medicine 03, no. 05 (2013): 252–58. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojvm.2013.35040.

Part 3: Bone disorders and foot pad lesions

By Dr. Inge Heinzl, Editor, and Marisabel Caballero, Global Technical Manager Poultry

 

Bone health is essential for animals and humans. Besides giving structural support, allowing movement, and protecting vital organs, the bones release hormones that are crucial for mineral homeostasis and acid balance and serve as reservoirs of energy and minerals (Guntur & Rosen, 2012; Rath, N.C. & Durairaj, 2022; Suchacki et al., 2017).

Bone disorders and foot pad lesions are considerable challenges in poultry production, especially for fast-growing birds with high final weights. Due to pain, the animals do not move, and dominant, healthy birds may restrict lame birds’ access to feed and water. In consequence, these birds are often culled. Moreover, processing these birds is problematic, and often, they must be discarded or downgraded.

Foot pad lesions, another common issue in poultry production, can also have significant economic implications. On the one hand, pain restricts birds from eating and drinking and reduces weight gain. On the other hand, for many producers, chicken feet constitute a substantial part of the economic value of the bird; therefore, discarding them represents a significant financial loss. Additionally, to push poultry production in the right direction concerning animal health and welfare, a foot pad scoring system at the processing plant is in place in European countries.

Mycotoxins affect bones in different ways

Mycotoxins, depending on their target organs, can have diverse effects on the skeleton of birds. For example, mycotoxins that target the liver can disrupt calcium metabolism, which in turn affects the mineralization of the bones (rickets) and the impairment of chondrocytes can slow down bone growth (e.g., tibial dyschondroplasia). When the kidneys are impacted, urate clearance decreases, plasma uric acid consequently increases, and urate crystals form in the synovial fluid and tendon sheaths of various joints, particularly the hock joints. These examples highlight the complex and varied ways mycotoxins can impact poultry bone health.

Inadequate bone mineralization and strength – Rickets and layer cage fatigue

Sufficient bone mineralization is essential for the stability of the skeleton. Calcium (Ca), Vitamin D, and Phosphorous (P) deficiency leads to inadequate mineralization, weakens the bone, and can cause soft and bent bones or, in the case of layers, cage fatigue – a collapse of the spinal bone- and paralysis. Inadequate bone mineralization can be caused in different ways, among them:

1. Decrease in the availability of the nutrients necessary for mineralization. This can occur if the digestibility of these nutrients deteriorates
2. Impact on the Ca/P ratio—A ratio of 1 – 2:1 is vital for adequate bone development (Loughrill et al., 2016). Mycotoxins can alter absorption and transporters for one or both elements, altering their ratio.
3. Impact on the Vitamin D receptor, affecting its expression or the transporters for Ca and P.

Aflatoxins can impair bone mineralization by different modes of action. An important one is the impairment of the digestibility of Ca and P: Kermanshahi et al. (2007) fed broilers diets with high levels of aflatoxins (0.8 to 1.2 mg AFB1/kg feed) for three weeks, which resulted in a significant reduction of Ca and P digestibility. Other researchers, however, did not find an effect on Ca and P digestibility with lower aflatoxin levels:  Bai et al. (2014) feeding diets contaminated with 96 (starter) and 157 µg Aflatoxins (grower) per kg of feed to broilers and Han et al. (2008) saw no impact on cherry valley ducks with levels of 20 and 40 µg AFB1/kg diet.

Indirectly, a decrease in the availability of Ca and P due to aflatoxin-contaminated feed can be shown by blood or tibia levels of these minerals, as demonstrated by  Zhao et al. (2010): They conducted a trial with broilers, resulting in blood serum levels of Ca and P levels significantly (P<0.05) dropped with feed contaminated with 2 mg/kg of AFB1. Another trial conducted by Bai et al. (2014) showed decreased Ca in the tibia and reduced tibial break strength.

To get more information about the effect of mycotoxins on bone mineralization and the utilization of Ca, P, and Vit. D in animal organisms, Costanzo et al. (2015) challenged osteosarcoma cells with 5 and 50 ppb of aflatoxin B1. They asserted a significant down-modulation of the expression of the Vitamin D receptor. Furthermore, they assumed an interference of AFB1 with the actions of vitamin D on calcium-binding gene expression in the kidney and intestine.  Paneru et al. (2024) could confirm this downregulation of the Vit D receptor and additionally of the Ca and P transporters in broilers with levels of ≥75 ppb AFB1. They also saw a significant reduction in tibial bone ash content at AFB1 levels >230 ppb, a decreased trabecular bone mineral content and density at AFB1 520 ppb, and a reduced bone volume and tissue volume of the cortical bone of the femur at the level of 230 ppb (see Figure 1). They concluded that AFB1 levels of already 230 ppb contribute to bone health issues in broilers.

Figure 1: Increasing doses of AFB1 (<2 ppb – 560 ppb) deteriorate bone quality (Paneru, 2024): Cross-sectional images of femoral metaphysis with increasing AFB1 levels (left to right). The outer cortical bone is shown in light grey, and the inner trabecular bone in blue. Higher levels of AFB1 (T4 and T5) show a disruption of the trabecular bone pattern (less dense blue pattern with thinner and more fragmented bone strands and with wide spaces between the trabecular bone) (shown in white).

All experiments strongly suggest that aflatoxins harm bone homeostasis. Additional liver damage, oxidative stress, and impaired cellular processes can exacerbate bone health issues.

Trichothecenes also negatively impact bone mineralization. Depending on the mycotoxin, they may affect the gut, decreasing the absorption of Ca and P and probably provoking an imbalance in the Ca/P ratio.

For instance, when T-2 toxin was fed to Yangzhou goslings at 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 mg/kg of diet, it decreased the Ca levels (halved at 0.8 mg/kg) and increased the P levels in the blood serum, so the Ca/P ratio decreased from the adequate ratio of 1 – 2 to 0.85, 0.66, and 0.59 (P<0.05) (Gu et al., 2023). The alterations of the Ca and P levels, the resulting decreasing Ca/P ratio, and an additional increase in alkaline phosphatase (ALP) suggest that T-2 toxin negatively impacts Ca absorption, increases ALP, and, therefore, disturbs calcification and bone development.

Other studies show that serum P levels decreased in broilers fed DON-contaminated feed with levels of only 2.5 mg/kg (Keçi et al., 2019). One reason for the lower P level is probably the lower dry matter intake, affecting Ca and P intake. Ca serum level is not typically reduced, which can be explained by the fact that Ca plays many critical physiological roles (e.g., nerve communication, blood coagulation, hormonal regulation), so the body keeps the blood levels by reducing bone mineralization. Another explanation is delivered by Li et al. (2020): After their trial with broilers, they stated that dietary P deficiency is more critical for bone development than Ca deficiency or Ca & P deficiency. The results of the trial conducted by Keçi et al. with DON (see above) were reduced bone mineralization, affected bone density, ash content, and ash density in the femur and tibiotarsus with a stronger impact on the tibiotarsus than on the femur.

In line with trichothecenes effects in Ca and P absorption, Ledoux et al. (1992) suppose that diarrhea caused by intake of fumonisins leads to malabsorption or maldigestion of vitamin D, calcium and phosphorus, having birds with rickets as a secondary effect.

Ochratoxin A (OTA) impairs kidney function, negatively affects vitamin D metabolism, reduces Ca absorption, and contributes to deteriorated bone strength (Devegowda and Ravikiran, 2009). Indications from Huff et al. (1980) show decreased tibia strength after feeding chickens OTA levels of 2, 4, and 8 µ/g, and Duff et al. (1987) report similar results also in turkey poults.

A further mycotoxin possibly contributing to leg weakness is cyclopiazonic acid produced by Aspergillus and Penicillium. This mycotoxin is known for leading to eggs with thin or visibly racked shells, indicating an impairment of calcium metabolism (Devegowda and Ravikiran, 2009). Tran et al. (2023) also showed this fact with multiple mycotoxins.

The co-occurrence of different mycotoxins in the feed – the standard in praxis – increases the risk of leg issues. A trial with broiler chickens conducted by Raju and Devegowda (2000) showed a bone ash-decreasing effect of AFB1 (300 µg/kg), OTA (2 mg/kg), and T-2 toxin (3 mg/kg), fed individually but an incomparable higher effect when fed in combination.

Impairment of bone growth – tibial dyschondroplasia (TD)

In TD, the development of long bones is impaired, and abnormal cartilage development occurs. It is frequent in broilers, with a higher incidence in males than females. It happens when the bone grows, as the soft cartilage tissue is not adequately replaced by hard bone tissue. Some mycotoxins have been related to this condition: According to Sokolović et al. (2008), actively dividing cells such as bone marrow are susceptible to T-2 toxin, including the tibial growth plates, which regulate chondrocyte formation, maturation, and turnover.

T-2 toxin: In a study with primary cultures of chicken tibial growth plate chondrocytes (GPCs) and three different concentrations of T-2 toxin (5, 50, and 500 nM), He et al. (2011) found that T-2 toxin decreased cell viability, alkaline phosphatase activity, and glutathione content (P < 0.05). Additionally, it increased the level of reactive oxygen species and malondialdehyde in a dose-dependent way, which could be partly recompensated by adding an antioxidant (N-acetyl-cysteine). They concluded that T-2 toxin inhibits the proliferation and differentiation of GPCs and contributes, therefore, to the development of TD, altering cellular homeostasis. Antioxidants may help to reduce these effects.

Gu et al. (2023) investigated the closely bodyweight-related shank length and the tibia development in Yangzhou goslings fed feed with six different levels (0 to 2.0 mg/kg) of T-2 toxin for 21 days. They determined a clear dose-dependent slowed tibial length and weight growth (p<0.05), as well as abnormal morphological structures in the tibial growth plate. As tibial growth and shank length are closely related to weight gain (Gu et al., 2023; Gao et al., 2010; Ukwu et al., 2014; Yu et al., 2022), their slowdown indicates lower growth performance.

Fumonisin B1 is also a potential cause of this kind of leg issue. Feeding 100 and 200 mg/kg to day-old turkey poults for 21 days led to the development of TD (Weibking et al., 1993). Possible explanations are the reduced viability of chondrocytes, as found by Chu et al. (1995) after 48 h of exposure, or the toxicity of FB1 to splenocytes and chondrocytes, which was shown in different primary cell cultures from chicken (Wu et al., 1995).

Bacterial chondronecrosis with osteomyelitis lameness (BCO) can be triggered by DON and FUM

BCO presents a highly critical health and welfare issue in broiler production worldwide, and it is estimated that 1-2 % of condemnations in birds at the marketing age result from this disease. What is the reason? Today’s fast-growing broilers are susceptible to stress. This enables pathogenic bacteria to compromise epithelial barriers, translocate from the gastrointestinal tract or the pulmonary system into the bloodstream, and colonize osteochondrotic microfractures in the growth plate of the long bone. This can lead to bone necrosis and subsequent lameness.

In their experiment with DON and FUM in broilers, Alharbi et al. (2024) showed that these mycotoxins reduce the gut’s barrier strength and trigger immunosuppressive effects. They used contaminations of 0.76, 1.04, 0.94, and 0.93 mg DON/kg of feed and 2.40, 3.40, 3.20, and 3.50 mg FUM/kg diet in the starter, grower, finisher, and withdrawal phases, respectively. The team observed lameness on day 35; the mycotoxin groups always showed a significantly (P<0.05) higher incidence of cumulative lameness.

The increase in uric acid leads to gout

In general, mycotoxins, which damage the kidneys and, therefore, impact the renal excretion of uric acid, are potentially a factor for gout appearance.

One of these mycotoxins is T-2 toxin. With the trial mentioned before (Yangzhou goslings, 21 days of exposure), Gu et al. (2023) showed that the highest dosage of the toxin (2.0 mg/kg) significantly increased uric acid in the blood (P<0.05), possibly leading to the deposit of uric acid crystals in the joints and to gout.

Huff et al. (1975) applied Ochratoxin to chicks at 0, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and 8.0 µg/g of feed during the first three weeks of life. They found ochratoxin A as a severe nephrotoxin in young broilers as it caused damage to the kidneys with doses of 1.0 µg/g and higher. At 4.0 and 8.0 µg/g doses, uric acid increased by 38 and 48%, respectively (see Figure 2). Page et al. (1980) also reported increased uric acid after feeding 0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg of Ochratoxin A to adult white Leghorn chickens.

Figure 2: Effect of Ochratoxin A on plasma uric acid (mg/100 ml) (according to Huff et al., 1975)

Foot pad lesions – a further hint of mycotoxicosis

Foot pad lesions often result from wet litter, originating from diarrhea due to harmed gut integrity. Frequently, mycotoxins impact the intestinal tract and create ideal conditions for the proliferation of diarrhea-causing microorganisms and, therefore, secondary infections. Some also negatively impact the immune defense system, allowing pathogens to settle down or aggravate existing bacterial or viral parasitic diseases. In general, mycotoxins affect the physical (intestinal cell proliferation, cell viability, cell apoptosis), chemical (mucins, AMPs), immunological, and microbial barriers of the gut, as reported by Gao et al. (2020). Here are some examples of the adverse effects of mycotoxins leading to intestinal disorders and diarrhea:

• Mycotoxins can modulate intestinal epithelial integrity and the renewal and repair of epithelial cells, negatively impacting the intestinal barrier’s intrinsic components; for instance, DON can significantly reduce the transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER)(Grenier and Applegate, 2013). A higher permeability of the epithelium and a decreased absorption of dietary proteins can lead to higher protein in the digesta in the small intestine, which serves as a nutrient for pathogens including perfringens (Antonissen et al., 2014; Antonissen et al., 2015).
• The application of Ochratoxin A (3 mg/kg) increased the number of S. typhimurium in the duodenum and ceca of White Leghorn chickens (Fukata et al., 1996). Another trial with broiler chicks at a concentration of 2 mg/kg aggravated the symptoms due to an infection by S. gallinarum (Gupta et al., 2005).
• In a trial by Grenier et al., 2016, feed contaminated with DON (1.5 mg/kg), Fumonisin B (20 mg/kg), or both mycotoxins aggravated lesions caused by coccidia.
• DON impacts the mucus layer composition by downregulating the expression of the gene coding for MUC2, as shown in a trial with human goblet cells (Pinton et al., 2015). The mucus layer prevents pathogenic bacteria in the intestinal lumen from contacting the intestinal epithelium (McGuckin et al., 2011).
• Furthermore, DON and other mycotoxins decrease the populations of lactic acid-producing bacteria, indicating a shift in the microbial balance (Antonissen et al., 2016).
• FB1 causes intestinal disturbances such as diarrhea, although it is poorly absorbed in the intestine. According to Bouhet and Oswald (2007), the main toxicological effect ascertained in vivo and in vitro is the accumulation of sphingoid bases associated with the depletion of complex sphingolipids. This negative impact on the sphingolipid biosynthesis pathway could explain other adverse effects, such as reduced intestinal epithelial cell viability and proliferation, modification of cytokine production, and impairment of intestinal physical barrier function.
• T-2 toxin can disrupt the immune response, enhance the proliferation of coli in the gut, and increase its efflux (Zhang et al., 2022).

All these mycotoxins can cause foot pad lesions by impacting gut integrity or damaging the gut mucosa. They promote pathogenic organisms and, thus, provoke diarrhea and wet litter.

Mitigating the negative impact of mycotoxins on bones and feet is crucial for performance

Healthy bones and feet are essential for animal welfare and performance. Mycotoxins can be obstructive. Consequently, the first step to protecting your animals is to monitor their feed. If the analyses show the occurrence of mycotoxins at risky levels, proactive measures must be taken to mitigate the issues and ensure the health and productivity of your poultry.

References

Alharbi, Khawla, Nnamdi Ekesi, Amer Hasan, Andi Asnayanti, Jundi Liu, Raj Murugesan, Shelby Ramirez, Samuel Rochell, Michael T. Kidd, and Adnan Alrubaye. “Deoxynivalenol and Fumonisin Predispose Broilers to Bacterial Chondronecrosis with Osteomyelitis Lameness.” Poultry Science 103, no. 5 (May 2024): 103598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.103598.

Antonissen, Gunther, Filip Van Immerseel, Frank Pasmans, Richard Ducatelle, Freddy Haesebrouck, Leen Timbermont, Marc Verlinden, et al. “The Mycotoxin Deoxynivalenol Predisposes for the Development of Clostridium Perfringens-Induced Necrotic Enteritis in Broiler Chickens.” PLoS ONE 9, no. 9 (September 30, 2014). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108775.

Antonissen, Gunther, Filip Van Immerseel, Frank Pasmans, Richard Ducatelle, Geert P. Janssens, Siegrid De Baere, Konstantinos C. Mountzouris, et al. “Mycotoxins Deoxynivalenol and Fumonisins Alter the Extrinsic Component of Intestinal Barrier in Broiler Chickens.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 63, no. 50 (December 10, 2015): 10846–55. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.5b04119.

Antonissen, Gunther, Venessa Eeckhaut, Karolien Van Driessche, Lonneke Onrust, Freddy Haesebrouck, Richard Ducatelle, Robert J Moore, and Filip Van Immerseel. “Microbial Shifts Associated with Necrotic Enteritis.” Avian Pathology 45, no. 3 (May 3, 2016): 308–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2016.1152625.

Bai, Shiping, Leilei Wang, Yuheng Luo, Xumei Ding, Jun Yang, Jie Bai, Keying Zhang, and Jianping Wang. “Effects of Corn Naturally Contaminated with Aflatoxins on Performance, Calcium and Phosphorus Metabolism, and Bone Mineralization of Broiler Chicks.” The Journal of Poultry Science 51, no. 2 (2014): 157–64. https://doi.org/10.2141/jpsa.0130053.

Bouhet, Sandrine, and Isabelle P. Oswald. “The Intestine as a Possible Target for Fumonisin Toxicity.” Molecular Nutrition &amp; Food Research 51, no. 8 (August 2007): 925–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.200600266.

Chi, M.S., C.J. Mirocha, H.J. Kurtz, G. Weaver, F. Bates, W. Shimoda, and H.R. Burmeister. “Acute Toxicity of T-2 Toxin in Broiler Chicks and Laying Hens ,.” Poultry Science 56, no. 1 (January 1977): 103–16. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0560103.

Chu, Qili, Weidong Wu, Mark E. Cook, and Eugene B. Smalley. “Induction of Tibial Dyschondroplasia and Suppression of Cell-Mediated Immunity in Chickens by Fusarium Oxysporum Grown on Sterile Corn.” Avian Diseases 39, no. 1 (January 1995): 100. https://doi.org/10.2307/1591988.

Costanzo, Paola, Antonello Santini, Luigi Fattore, Ettore Novellino, and Alberto Ritieni. “Toxicity of Aflatoxin B1 towards the Vitamin D Receptor (VDR).” Food and Chemical Toxicology 76 (February 2015): 77–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.025.

Costanzo, Paola, Antonello Santini, Luigi Fattore, Ettore Novellino, and Alberto Ritieni. “Toxicity of Aflatoxin B1 towards the Vitamin D Receptor (VDR).” Food and Chemical Toxicology 76 (February 2015): 77–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2014.11.025.

Debouck, C., E. Haubruge, P. Bollaerts, D. van Bignoot, Y. Brostaux, A. Werry, and M. Rooze. “Skeletal Deformities Induced by the Intraperitoneal Administration of Deoxynivalenol (Vomitoxin) in Mice.” International Orthopaedics 25, no. 3 (March 24, 2001): 194–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002640100235.

Devegowda, G., and D. Ravikiran. “Mycotoxins and Skeletal Problems in Poultry.” World Mycotoxin Journal 2, no. 3 (August 1, 2009): 331–37. https://doi.org/10.3920/wmj2008.1085.

Duff, S.R.I., R.B. Burns, and P. Dwivedi. “Skeletal Changes in Broiler Chicks and Turkey Poults Fed Diets Containing Ochratoxin a.” Research in Veterinary Science 43, no. 3 (November 1987): 301–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0034-5288(18)30798-7.

Fukata, T., K. Sasai, E. Baba, and A. Arakawa. “Effect of Ochratoxin A on Salmonella Typhimurium-Challenged Layer Chickens.” Avian Diseases 40, no. 4 (October 1996): 924. https://doi.org/10.2307/1592318.

Gao, Y., Z.‐Q. Du, C.‐G. Feng, X.‐M. Deng, N. Li, Y. Da, and X.‐X. Hu. “Identification of Quantitative Trait Loci for Shank Length and Growth at Different Development Stages in Chicken.” Animal Genetics 41, no. 1 (January 6, 2010): 101–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2052.2009.01962.x.

Grenier, Bertrand, Ilse Dohnal, Revathi Shanmugasundaram, Susan Eicher, Ramesh Selvaraj, Gerd Schatzmayr, and Todd Applegate. “Susceptibility of Broiler Chickens to Coccidiosis When Fed Subclinical Doses of Deoxynivalenol and Fumonisins—Special Emphasis on the Immunological Response and the Mycotoxin Interaction.” Toxins 8, no. 8 (July 27, 2016): 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins8080231.

Gu, Wang, Qiang Bao, Kaiqi Weng, Jinlu Liu, Shuwen Luo, Jianzhou Chen, Zheng Li, et al. “Effects of T-2 Toxin on Growth Performance, Feather Quality, Tibia Development and Blood Parameters in Yangzhou Goslings.” Poultry Science 102, no. 2 (February 2023): 102382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102382.

Guntur, Anyonya R., and Clifford J. Rosen. “Bone as an Endocrine Organ.” Endocrine Practice 18, no. 5 (September 2012): 758–62. https://doi.org/10.4158/ep12141.ra.

Gupta, S., N. Jindal, R.S. Khokhar, A.K. Gupta, D.R. Ledoux, and G.E. Rottinghaus. “Effect of Ochratoxin A on Broiler Chicks Challenged withSalmonella Gallinarum.” British Poultry Science 46, no. 4 (August 2005): 443–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660500190850.

Han, Xin-Yan, Qi-Chun Huang, Wei-Fen Li, Jun-Fang Jiang, and Zi-Rong Xu. “Changes in Growth Performance, Digestive Enzyme Activities and Nutrient Digestibility of Cherry Valley Ducks in Response to Aflatoxin B1 Levels.” Livestock Science 119, no. 1–3 (December 2008): 216–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2008.04.006.

He, Shao‐jun, Jia‐fa Hou, Yu‐yi Dai, Zhen‐lei Zhou, and Yi‐feng Deng. “N‐acetyl‐cysteine Protects Chicken Growth Plate Chondrocytes from T‐2 Toxin‐induced Oxidative Stress.” Journal of Applied Toxicology 32, no. 12 (July 28, 2011): 980–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.1697.

Hou, Hai-Feng, Jin-Ping Li, Guo-Yong Ding, Wen-Jing Ye, Peng Jiao, and Qun-Wei Li. “The Cytotoxic Effect and Injury Mechanism of Deoxynivalenol on Articular Chondrocytes in Human Embryo.” Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi 45, no. 7 (July 2011): 629–32.

Huff, W. E., R. D. Wyatt, and P. B. Hamilton. “Nephrotoxicity of Dietary Ochratoxin A in Broiler Chikens1.” Applied Microbiology 30, no. 1 (1975): 48–51. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.30.1.48-51.1975.

Huff, William E., John A. Doerr, Pat B. Hamilton, Donald D. Hamann, Robert E. Peterson, and Alex Ciegler. “Evaluation of Bone Strength during Aflatoxicosis and Ochratoxicosis.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 40, no. 1 (July 1980): 102–7. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.40.1.102-107.1980.

Kermanshahi, H., M.R. Akbari, M. Maleki, and M. Behgar. “Effect of Prolonged Low Level Inclusion of Aflatoxin B1 into Diet on Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, Histopathology and Blood Enzymes of Broiler Chickens.” J of Anim and Vet Adv 6, no. 5 (2007): 686–92.

Keçi, Marsel, Annegret Lucke, Peter Paulsen, Qendrim Zebeli, Josef Böhm, and Barbara U. Metzler-Zebeli. “Deoxynivalenol in the Diet Impairs Bone Mineralization in Broiler Chickens.” Toxins 11, no. 6 (June 18, 2019): 352. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins11060352.

Ledoux, David R., Tom P. Brown, Tandice S. Weibking, and George E. Rottinghaus. “Fumonisin Toxicity in Broiler Chicks.” Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 4, no. 3 (July 1992): 330–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/104063879200400317.

Li, Tingting, Guanzhong Xing, Yuxin Shao, Liyang Zhang, Sufen Li, Lin Lu, Zongping Liu, Xiudong Liao, and Xugang Luo. “Dietary Calcium or Phosphorus Deficiency Impairs the Bone Development by Regulating Related Calcium or Phosphorus Metabolic Utilization Parameters of Broilers.” Poultry Science 99, no. 6 (June 2020): 3207–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.01.028.

Loughrill, Emma, David Wray, Tatiana Christides, and Nazanin Zand. “Calcium to Phosphorus Ratio, Essential Elements and Vitamin D Content of Infant Foods in the UK: Possible Implications for Bone Health.” Maternal &amp; Child Nutrition 13, no. 3 (September 9, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.12368.

McGuckin, Michael A., Sara K. Lindén, Philip Sutton, and Timothy H. Florin. “Mucin Dynamics and Enteric Pathogens.” Nature Reviews Microbiology 9, no. 4 (March 16, 2011): 265–78. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2538.

Morishita, Y., K. Nagasawa, Naoko Nakano, and Kimiko Shiromizu. “Bacterial Overgrowth in the Jejunum of ICR Mice and Wistar Rats Orally Administered with a Single Lethal Dose of Fusarenon‐x, a Trichothecene Mycotoxin.” Journal of Applied Bacteriology 66, no. 4 (April 1989): 263–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.1989.tb02478.x.

Paneru, Deependra, Milan Kumar Sharma, Hanyi Shi, Jinquan Wang, and Woo Kyun Kim. “Aflatoxin B1 Impairs Bone Mineralization in Broiler Chickens.” Toxins 16, no. 2 (February 2, 2024): 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins16020078.

Pegram, R.A., and R.D. Wyatt. “Avian Gout Caused by Oosporein, a Mycotoxin Produced by Chaetomium Trilaterale.” Poultry Science 60, no. 11 (November 1981): 2429–40. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0602429.

Persico, Marco, Raffaele Sessa, Elena Cesaro, Irene Dini, Paola Costanzo, Alberto Ritieni, Caterina Fattorusso, and Michela Grosso. “A Multidisciplinary Approach Disclosing Unexplored Aflatoxin B1 Roles in Severe Impairment of Vitamin D Mechanisms of Action.” Cell Biology and Toxicology 39, no. 4 (September 6, 2022): 1275–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10565-022-09752-y.

Pinton, Philippe, Fabien Graziani, Ange Pujol, Cendrine Nicoletti, Océane Paris, Pauline Ernouf, Eric Di Pasquale, Josette Perrier, Isabelle P. Oswald, and Marc Maresca. “Deoxynivalenol Inhibits the Expression by Goblet Cells of Intestinal Mucins through a PKR and MAP Kinase Dependent Repression of the Resistin‐like Molecule β.” Molecular Nutrition &amp; Food Research 59, no. 6 (April 27, 2015): 1076–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.201500005.

Raju, M.V.L.N., and G. Devegowda. “Influence of Esterified-Glucomannan on Performance and Organ Morphology, Serum Biochemistry and Haematology in Broilers Exposed to Individual and Combined Mycotoxicosis (Aflatoxin, Ochratoxin and T-2 Toxin).” British Poultry Science 41, no. 5 (December 2000): 640–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/713654986.

Rath, Narayan C., and Vijay Durairaj. “Avian Bone Physiology and Poultry Bone Disorders.” Sturkie’s Avian Physiology, 2022, 549–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-819770-7.00037-2.

Siller, W.G. “Renal Pathology of the Fowl — a Review.” Avian Pathology 10, no. 3 (July 1981): 187–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/03079458108418474.

Suchacki, Karla J, Fiona Roberts, Andrea Lovdel, Colin Farquharson, Nik M Morton, Vicky E MacRae, and William P Cawthorn. “Skeletal Energy Homeostasis: A Paradigm of Endocrine Discovery.” Journal of Endocrinology 234, no. 1 (July 2017). https://doi.org/10.1530/joe-17-0147.

Tran, Si-Trung, Y. Ruangpanit, K. Rassmidatta, K. Pongmanee, K. Palanisamy, and M. Caballero. “The World Mycotoxin Forum, 14th Conference.” In WMF Meets Belgium – Abstracts of Lectures and Posters, 120–21. Antwerp: Conference Secretariat Bastiaanse Communication, 2023.

Ukwu, H.O, V.M.O. Okoro, and R.J. Nosike. “Statistical Modelling of Body Weight and Linear Body Measurements in Nigerian Indigenous Chicken.” IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science (IOSR-JAVS), Ver. V, 7, no. 1 (2014): 27–30.

Wright, G.C., Walter F.O. Marasas, and Leon Sokoloff. “Effect of Fusarochromanone and T-2 Toxin on Articular Chondrocytes in Monolayer Culture in Monolayer Culture.” Toxicological Sciences 9, no. 3 (1987): 595–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/9.3.595.

Wu, Weidong, Mark E. Cook, Qili Chu, and Eugene B. Smalley. “Tibial Dyschondroplasia of Chickens Induced by Fusarochromanone, a Mycotoxin.” Avian Diseases 37, no. 2 (April 1993): 302. https://doi.org/10.2307/1591653.

Wu, Weidong, Tianxing Liu, and Ronald F. Vesonder. “Comparative Cytotoxicity of Fumonisin B1 and Moniliformin in Chicken Primary Cell Cultures.” Mycopathologia 132, no. 2 (November 1995): 111–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01103783.

Yu, Jun, Yu Wan, Haiming Yang, and Zhiyue Wang. “Age- and Sex-Related Changes in Body Weight, Muscle, and Tibia in Growing Chinese Domestic Geese (Anser Domesticus).” Agriculture 12, no. 4 (March 25, 2022): 463. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12040463.

Zhang, Jie, Xuerun Liu, Ying Su, and Tushuai Li. “An Update on T2-Toxins: Metabolism, Immunotoxicity Mechanism and Human Assessment Exposure of Intestinal Microbiota.” Heliyon 8, no. 8 (August 2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10012.

Zhao, J., R.B. Shirley, J.D. Dibner, F. Uraizee, M. Officer, M. Kitchell, M. Vazquez-Anon, and C.D. Knight. “Comparison of Hydrated Sodium Calcium Aluminosilicate and Yeast Cell Wall on Counteracting Aflatoxicosis in Broiler Chicks.” Poultry Science 89, no. 10 (October 2010): 2147–56. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2009-00608.

Author: Judith Schmidt, Product Manager On Farm Solutions

Alarm in the gut! Horses have a susceptible digestive system that can quickly become unbalanced. Intestinal disorders in horses are usually associated with colic. Many factors can be responsible for intestinal issues. Have you ever thought about mycotoxins? What can horse owners do to support their horse´s gut health?
The equine stomach is not robust at all. Depending on their age and use, more than half of all horses suffer from stomach pain. Their digestive system is very sensitive and very different from that of other mammals: Horses cannot vomit and often suffer from severe abdominal pain, diarrhea, or cramps if they overeat or ingest spoiled feed.

The horse´s digestive system is complex and sensitive

The horse´s stomach has a relatively small capacity of around twelve to fifteen liters. Depending on the feed’s consistency and composition, it remains in the stomach for around one to five hours before it is pressed through the stomach outlet (pylorus) into the small intestine. The horse´s entire intestine is about ten times its body length.

Figure 1: The horse’s digestive tract

The horse´s gastrointestinal tract is a complex network, reacting extremely sensitively to changes and, therefore, highly susceptible to disorders. It essentially consists of the head intestine (lips, oral cavity, teeth, and esophagus), stomach (blind pouch, fundus, and stomach outlet), small intestine (duodenum, jejunum, and ileum), and large intestine (caecum, colon and rectum). Each section plays a crucial role in the digestive process; any disruption can lead to health issues. Understanding this structure is key to maintaining a horse’s digestive health.

Digestive disorders can have various reasons

Intestinal problems in horses can stem from diverse causes, often a complex interplay of multiple factors. By understanding these causes more deeply, horse owners can be better equipped to prevent and manage these issues. In the following, we delve into several of these causes.

1.   Too long time between the feedings

Usually, a feeding break should be at most four to six hours, as, in nature, a horse is busy eating for at least 18 hours a day. In contrast to humans, who produce stomach acid only after food intake, the horse’s stomach produces gastric acid around the clock. The continuous intake of roughage, intensive chewing, and high saliva production (a horse produces 5 to 10 L of saliva per day) is, therefore, essential to protect the stomach mucosa by neutralizing excess gastric acid.

A too-long time between feedings and, therefore, no saliva production leads to an accumulation of gastric acid in the stomach. Four hours without roughage can already cause inflammation of the mucosa and probably ulcers.

2.   Excessive amounts of concentrated feed

Excessive amounts of concentrates such as wheat or rye, conditioned by less chewing activity, increase gastric acid and histamine production, and the stomach lining can be attacked. Also, in this case, the development of stomach ulcers is possible.

Furthermore, the possibly resulting hyperacidity of the organism can lead to malfunctions of the organs, the skin, and the hooves.

3.   Stress

Stress can also lead to a higher production of gastric acid and, therefore, to gastric ulcers. The horse is a flight animal.  When it is under stress, it prepares for the impending escape, and the muscles are preferably supplied with blood, resulting in a lower blood flow to the mucous membranes. Furthermore, the rising cortisone level reduces the hydrochloric acid-suppressing prostaglandin E. As a result, more stomach acid is produced, irritating the gastric mucosa.

Stress can be triggered, e.g., by transportation, competitions, training, a change of house, a new rider, unsuitable equipment, or poor posture.

4.   Dental diseases

The teeth are essential for digestion. When feed is chewed, it is broken down and mixed with saliva. Chipped teeth cannot chew well, and the feed is not sufficiently salivated or crushed, which has a detrimental effect on digestion.

For this reason, an expert vet should check the horse´s teeth at least once a year.

5.   Administration of painkillers/medication

As with humans, long-term medication administration can promote the formation of stomach ulcers. For this reason, it is essential to ensure that horses are fed a gentle diet on the stomach, especially when using oral pain therapy, and to add stomach protection if necessary.

6. Endotoxins

If pathogens such as E. coli or clostridia proliferate extremely or are killed by an antibiotic, endotoxins can be released. These toxins can cause transformation or inflammation of the gut mucosa. In drastic cases, whole areas of the mucosa can die off. 

7. Mycotoxins – the hidden danger in horse feed

Mycotoxins in plants and horse feed are a common but often unnoticed danger to horses’ health. Mycotoxins are natural, secondary metabolites of molds that have a toxic effect on humans and animals and can trigger mycotoxicosis. Contaminated feed can severely affect the horse’s health and, in the worst case, lead to death.

Over 90 % of the world´s feed production is estimated to be contaminated with at least one mycotoxin (see also Global Mycotoxin Report 2023, EW Nutrition. The intake of mycotoxins via hay, grain, silage, or compound feed can hardly be avoided. Mycotoxins are an increasing problem for all horse owners. Scientific studies show that the mycotoxins DON and ZEA are most frequently found in horse feed and, therefore, are also frequently detected in sports horses’ urine and blood samples.

Due to the highly toxic metabolic products, feed contaminated with molds can lead to severe liver and kidney diseases in horses, affect fertility, trigger colic, and promote digestive issues (diarrhea and watery stools).

Figure 2: Mycotoxins and their impact on horses

How to protect the horse from mycotoxins?

The first measure against the ingestion of mycotoxins is prevention. Correct pasture management and adequate barn and feed hygiene can contribute to preventing the ingestion of toxins.

However, despite the best prophylactic measures, it is impossible to prevent mycotoxin contamination of feed completely. As mycotoxins are not visible, analyzing the feed regarding mycotoxin contamination is recommended.

To protect your horse from mycotoxins, EW Nutrition developed MasterRisk, a tool for evaluating the risk of mycotoxins. Additionally, EW Nutrition has developed a complementary feed specifically for your horse´s needs in the form of granules. The sophisticated formulation of “Toxi-Pearls” is designed to bind mycotoxins and mitigate the adverse effects of mycotoxin contamination.

The pearls contain a mixture of mycotoxin binder, brewer’s yeast, and herbs:

• The contained mycotoxin binder effectively controls the most important feed myco- and endotoxins. It additionally supports the liver and immune system and strengthens the intestinal barrier.
• Brewer´s yeast supports the natural strength of the gastrointestinal tract. Due to its high natural content of beta-glucans and mannan-oligosaccharides (MOS), unique surface structure, and the associated high adsorption power, brewer´s yeast has a prebiotic effect on the intestinal microbiome.
• The additional unique herbal mixture consists of the typical gastrointestinal herbs oregano, rosemary, aniseed, fennel, and cinnamon. The processed beetroot is a true all-rounder. Literature shows that it has an antioxidant effect and strengthens the immune system. It also promotes bile secretion and, therefore, supports fat digestion.

Conclusion

The horse’s digestive tract is highly sensitive and must be supported by all means. Besides failures in management, such as too long breaks between feedings or too high amounts of feed concentrate, mycotoxins present a high risk in horse nutrition. To prevent horses from intestinal issues, feed and stress management, dental care, and medication in the case of disease must be optimized. Particular attention should be paid to possible mycotoxin contamination. Effective toxin risk management, which consists of analysis, risk evaluation, and adequate toxin risk-managing products, should be implemented.

Part 2: Beak/mouth lesions

by Technical Team and Inge Heinzl, Editor EW Nutrition

The second part of this series will focus on oral lesions as signs of mycotoxin exposure. In this segment, we will delve into the appearance and development of oral lesions, their specific locations based on the type of mycotoxin, and how toxin levels and duration of exposure impact these lesions.

A bit of history: oral lesions in poultry and their association with mycotoxin exposure

Exposure to trichothecenes, a specific group of mycotoxins that includes T-2 toxin and scirpenols- such as monoacetoxyscirpenol (MAS), diacetoxyscirpenol (DAS), and triacetoxyscirpenol, has been associated with oral lesions since the early studies related with mycotoxins:

• After reports of toxicosis in farm animals, Bamburg’s group (1968) aimed to isolate the toxins produced by Fusarium tricintum, then considered the most toxic fungus found in moldy corn in Wisconsin (USA). Their experiments led to the discovery of the T-2 toxin, named after the strain of F. tricintum from which it was isolated. Today, we know that this fungus was wrongly identified; it was F. sporotrichioides (Marasas et al., 1984). However, the toxin remained known as T-2.
• Wyatt’s group (1972) already described yellowish-white lesions in the oral cavity of commercial broilers in a case report from 1972. The birds also presented lesions on the feet, shanks, and heads, which raised the possibility of contact with the toxin from the litter.
• In some of the earliest experimental works regarding T-2 toxin in poultry, Christensen (1972) noted the development of oral necrosis in turkey poults consuming increasing levels of feed invaded by tricintum; also Wyatt (1972) found a linear increase in lesion size and severity with increasing toxin concentrations of T-2 in broilers, starting with 1 ppm. He noted that oral lesions occurred without exception in all birds receiving T-2 toxin.
• Later, Chi and co-workers (1977) tested what later were considered sub-acute levels of T-2 in broiler chickens, finding oral lesions from 0.4 ppm after 5 to 6 weeks of exposure. At higher levels, the lesions appeared after two weeks. In the same year, Speers’ group (1977) concluded that adult laying hens are more tolerant to T-2 than young chicks and also found that another mycotoxin can produce oral lesions in poultry: monoacetoxyscirpenol (MAS).
• Fast forward, scientific research continued and the effects of T-2 and scirpenols, either alone or in combinations, on performance and oral lesions in poultry are today well known, as studied by Kubena et al. (1989), Ademoyero & Hamilton (1991), Kubena et al. (1994), Diaz et al. (1994), Brake et al. (2000), Schuhmacher-Wolz et al. (2010), Verma & Swamy (2015), Vaccari (2017), and reviewed by Sokolovic et al. (2008), Minafra et al. (2018), Puvača & Ljubojević Pelić (2023), and Vörösházi et al. (2024).

What are oral lesions and how do they develop?

Oral lesions caused by feed contaminated by T-2 toxin or scirpenols first occur as yellow plaques that develop into raised yellowish-gray crusts with covered ulcers (Hoerr et al., 1982). They also have been described as white in color and sometimes caseous in nature, as well as round and small, pin-point-sized, or large sheets covering a wider part of the mouth (Wyatt et al., 1972; Ademoyero and Hamilton, 1991).

Under the microscope, the lesions show a fibrinous surface layer and intermediate layers with invaginations full of rods and cocci, suggesting that the surrounding microbiota quickly colonizes the lesion. Inflammation immediately ensues as Wyatt’s team (1972) found the underlying tissues filled with granular leukocytes.

Why do T-2 toxins and other trichothecenes cause such lesions?

T-2 toxin and other trichothecenes are known for their caustic nature (evidenced by studies of Chi and Mirocha, 1978; Marasas et al., 1969), and for incidents involving accidental exposure by laboratory personnel (Bamburg et al., 1968, cited in Wyatt et al., 1972).

Induction of necrosis has been proposed as the main toxicity effect based on in vitro experiments on human skin fibroblast models. The findings were a reduction of ATP production in the cell line together with disruption of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) but without an increase in reactive oxygen species (ROS) or activity of caspase-3 and caspase-7, which would be the case for apoptosis (Janik-Karpinsa et al., 2022). A further study (Janik-Karpinsa et al., 2023) found that T-2, on the same cell line, reduced the number of mtDNA copies, damaging several genes and hindering its function; consequently, ATP production is inhibited, and cell necrosis ensues.

Meanwhile, an inflammatory response is triggered, and the lesions are colonized by the surrounding microbial flora (Wyatt et al., 1972). Supporting this notion, Hoerr et al. (1981) observed no mouth lesions after directly administering toxins via crop gavage. Enterohepatic recirculation, facilitating the return of toxins to the oral cavity through saliva, can amplify their toxic effects (Leeson et al., 1995).

Oral lesions depend on…

…the toxin

Oral lesions vary depending on the type of toxin involved. The location of lesions is influenced by the specific mycotoxin in the feed. For instance, research by Wyatt et al. (1972) revealed that with T-2 toxin, lesions initially manifest on the hard palate and along the tongue’s margins. Over two weeks, these lesions progress to affect the lingual papillae at the tongue’s root, the underside of the tongue, and the inner side of the lower beak near the midline.

In contrast, Ademoyero and Hamilton (1991) found that scirpenols present a different pattern. A study including 4 mycotoxins at 5 different levels found, after three weeks of exposure, that the lesions caused by triacetoxyscirpenol (TAS) predominantly occurred in the angles of the mouth (53% of the birds in the study), sparing the tongue. On the other hand, diacetoxyscirpenol (DAS) primarily induces lesions inside the upper beak (shown 47% of the broilers), followed by the inside of the lower beak (in 32% of the birds). The lesion distribution for scirpentriol mirrors that of TAS, while monoacetoxyscirpenol (MAS) resembles DAS in its impact.

Chi and Mirocha (1978) conducted a comparative analysis of lesions caused by T-2 toxin and DAS (both 5 ppm). They observed that the severity of DAS-induced lesions was higher, leading to difficulties in mouth closure for some chicks due to encrustations in the mouth angles.

…the contamination level

Different findings regarding the dose dependency of the lesions are available. Wyatt et al. (1972) (Figure 1) showed a relationship between the lesion size and the toxin level. A clear relationship between the severity and incidence of lesions and the amount of T-2 toxin was also demonstrated by Chi et al. (1977) and Speers et al. (1976). This linear relationship in the case of T-2 toxin could be confirmed for the scirpenols TAS, STO, MAS, and DAS by Ademoyero and Hamilton (1991). They demonstrated a distinct dose-response relationship in a trial with the scirpenols STO, TAS (at 5 levels between 0-8 µg/g), MAS, and DAS (at 5 levels between 0-4 µg/g).

 

Sklan et al. (2001) tested T-2 toxin at more likely levels (0, 110, 530, and 1,050 ppb) in male chickens and found lesions in 90% of the chickens fed 500 ppb T-2 and in 100% of the ones fed 1,000 ppb of T-2 after 10 to 15 days; the higher dosage provoked the lesions of higher severity. When feeding 100 ppb of T-2, mild lesions appeared in 40% of the chickens after 25 and 35 days. Another group led by Sklan (2003) studied four groups of 12 one-day-old male turkey poults fed mash diets with 0 (control), 241, 485, or 982 ppb T-2 toxin for 32/33 days. Feed intake and feed efficiency were not affected, but oral lesions were apparent on day 7. The severity of the lesions plateaued after 7–15 days, and the lesion score was dose-related (see Figure 2). In the same trial, they also tested DAS (0, 223, 429, or 860 ppb) and found a similar dose relationship.

Figure 2: Lesion scores in poults fed T-2 toxin at different inclusion rates and lengths of exposure (Sklan et al., 2003)

A different result is found in the trial conducted by Hoerr et al. (1982), who observed lesions 2-4 days after initiating toxin exposure (T-2 toxin and DAS; 4 and 16 ppm for 21 days) and comparable lesions when feeding 50, 100, or 300 ppm of the same toxins for 7 days. They asserted that the toxin concentration did not influence the time to onset of lesions nor their severity. Most research, however, shows a clear dose-response relation.

…the duration of exposure

On one hand, chronic exposure to low levels of toxins often requires a specific duration before noticeable effects emerge. And on the other hand, symptoms may also diminish due to hormesis, an adaptive response of the organism to moderate, intermittent stress.

With high toxin levels, lesions appear very soon after exposure. For example, Diaz et al. (1994) exposed hens to a diet containing 2 mg DAS/kg feed, finding lesions in 40% of the birds after only 48 h of exposure. Chi and Mirocha (1978) noted lesions after five days with a T-2 level of 5 ppm. At a comparable level (4 ppm), Chi et al. (1977) reported lesions emerging in the second week of exposure, with nearly 75% of chicks experiencing oral lesions by the third week. Sklan et al. (2003) saw lesions already on day 7 when feeding T-2 toxin or DAS at 1 ppm.

When testing lower levels (200 ppb), Sklan et al. (2001) found lesions after 10 days. They became more severe after 15 to 20 days and then, their severity decreased. Hoerr et al. (1982) also confirmed this by reporting that the number and size of the lesions increased until day 14 but decreased thereafter. Both studies confirm the phenomenon of hormesis.

… animal factors

In general, lesions appear with lower levels of toxins in broilers compared with layers and in layers compared with breeders. Turkeys are also less sensitive than broilers (Puvača & Ljubojević Pelić (2023).

Age also has an influence: young birds usually still have a maturing immune system, and the detoxification processes might not be entirely in place. However, their feed intake is lower and for this reason, in studies like Wang and Hogan (2019), higher impact of mycotoxins is found in older chicks.

Furthermore, additional stress factors influence the impact of mycotoxins in animals. Stress factors are cumulative and, when different factors concur, the severity of mycotoxin effects can increase.

Are oral lesions key indicators for implementing effective toxin risk management?

Oral lesions are painful for the animals, distract them from eating, and deteriorate growth performance. Often they are related with mycotoxins; however, when they appear, an investigation of different factors should take place, including mycotoxin analysis, as oral lesions may have other causes. Some of the known causes of oral lesions in poultry are also very fine feed particle size, deficiency of Vitamins A, E, B6 and Biotin, excessive levels of copper sulphate, and some parasite infections.

This article aimed to help with the differential diagnosis by providing a summary of the knowledge we have about the type and shape of the lesions related to mycotoxin contamination, which can help on a differential diagnosis. Checking the feed for mycotoxins and implementing effective toxin management helps prevent their negative effects, keeps the animals healthy, and contributes to animal welfare and, consequently, performance.

 

References

Ademoyero, Adedamola A., and Pat B. Hamilton. “Mouth Lesions in Broiler Chickens Caused by Scirpenol Mycotoxins.” Poultry Science 70, no. 10 (October 1991): 2082–89. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0702082.

Bamburg, J.R., N.V. Riggs, and F.M. Strong. “The Structures of Toxins from Two Strains of Fusarium Tricinctum.” Tetrahedron 24, no. 8 (January 1968): 3329–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0040-4020(01)92631-6.

Bamburg, J.R., N.V. Riggs, and F.M. Strong. “The Structures of Toxins from Two Strains of Fusarium Tricinctum.” Tetrahedron 24, no. 8 (January 1968): 3329–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0040-4020(01)92631-6.

Brake, J., P.B. Hamilton, and R.S. Kittrell. “Effects of the Trichothecene Mycotoxin Diacetoxyscirpenol on Feed Consumption, Body Weight, and Oral Lesions of Broiler Breeders.” Poultry Science 79, no. 6 (June 2000): 856–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/79.6.856.

Chi, M.S., and C.J. Mirocha. “Necrotic Oral Lesions in Chickens Fed Diacetoxyscirpenol, T—2 Toxin, and Crotocin.” Poultry Science 57, no. 3 (May 1978): 807–8. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0570807.

Chi, M.S., C.J. Mirocha, H.J. Kurtz, G. Weaver, F. Bates, and W. Shimoda. “Subacute Toxicity of T-2 Toxin in Broiler Chicks ,.” Poultry Science 56, no. 1 (January 1977): 306–13. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0560306.

Christensen, C. M., R. A. Meronuck, G. H. Nelson, and J. C. Behrens. “Effects on Turkey Poults of Rations Containing Corn Invaded by            Fusarium Tricinctum            (CDA.) Sny. &amp; Hans.” Applied Microbiology 23, no. 1 (January 1972): 177–79. https://doi.org/10.1128/am.23.1.177-179.1972.

Diaz, G. J., E. J. Squires, R. J. Julian, and H. J. Boermans. “Individual and Combined Effects of T‐2 Toxin and Das in Laying Hens.” British Poultry Science 35, no. 3 (July 1994): 393–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071669408417704.

European Food Safety Authority. “Scientific Opinion on the Risks for Animal and Public Health Related to the Presence of T-2 and HT-2 Toxin in Food and feed1EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM).” European Food Safety Authority, 2011. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2481.

Hoerr, F, W Carlton, B Yagen, and A Joffe. “Mycotoxicosis Caused by Either T-2 Toxin or Diacetoxyscirpenol in the Diet of Broiler Chickens.” Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 2, no. 3 (May 1982): 121–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-0590(82)80092-4.

Hoerr, F. J., W. W. Carlton, and B. Yagen. “Mycotoxicosis Caused by a Single Dose of T-2 Toxin or Diacetoxyscirpenol in Broiler Chickens.” Veterinary Pathology 18, no. 5 (September 1981): 652–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/030098588101800510.

Janik-Karpinska, Edyta, Michal Ceremuga, Magdalena Wieckowska, Monika Szyposzynska, Marcin Niemcewicz, Ewelina Synowiec, Tomasz Sliwinski, and Michal Bijak. “Direct T-2 Toxicity on Human Skin—Fibroblast HS68 Cell Line—in Vitro Study.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23, no. 9 (April 29, 2022): 4929. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23094929.

Janik-Karpinska, Edyta, Michal Ceremuga, Marcin Niemcewicz, Ewelina Synowiec, Tomasz Sliwiński, and Michal Bijak. “Mitochondrial Damage Induced by T-2 Mycotoxin on Human Skin—Fibroblast HS68 Cell Line.” Molecules 28, no. 5 (March 6, 2023): 2408. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28052408.

Kubena, L.F., R.B. Harvey, T.S. Edrington, and G.E. Rottinghaus. “Influence of Ochratoxin A and Diacetoxyscirpenol Singly and in Combination on Broiler Chickens.” Poultry Science 73, no. 3 (March 1994): 408–15. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0730408.

Kubena, L.F., R.B. Harvey, W.E. Huff, D.E. Corrier, T.D. Phillips, and G.E. Rottinghaus. “Influence of Ochratoxin A and T-2 Toxin Singly and in Combination on Broiler Chickens.” Poultry Science 68, no. 7 (July 1989): 867–72. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0680867.

Leeson, Steven, Gonzalo J. Diaz, and John D. Summers. Poultry metabolic disorders and Mycotoxins. University Books, 1995.

Marasas, W.F.O., J.R. Bamburg, E.B. Smalley, F.M. Strong, W.L. Ragland, and P.E. Degurse. “Toxic Effects on Trout, Rats, and Mice of T-2 Toxin Produced by the Fungus Fusarium Tricinctum (Cd.) Snyd. Et Hans.” Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 15, no. 2 (September 1969): 471–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-008x(69)90045-3.

Minafra, Cibele, Denise Russi Rodrigues, Isabel Cristina Mores Vaccari, Vinícius Duarte, Fabiana Ramos dos Santos, Weslane Justina da Silva, Alison Batista Vieira Silva Gouveia, Lorrayne Moraes de Paulo, Janaina Borges dos Santos, and Júlia Marixara Souza Silva. “Oral Lesions in Broilers Caused by Corn Mycotoxins: Review – Original: Lesões Orais Em Frangos de Corte Provocadas Por Micotoxinas Do Milho: Revisão.” Pubvet 12, no. 07 (July 17, 2018). https://doi.org/10.31533/pubvet.v12n7a134.1-11.

O., Marasas W F, Paul E. Nelson, and T. A. Toussoun. Toxigenic fusarium species, identity and Mycotoxicology. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1984.

Puvača, Nikola, and Dragana Ljubojević Pelić. “Problems and Mitigation Strategies of Trichothecenes Mycotoxins in Laying Hens Production.” Journal of Agronomy, Technology and Engineering Management (JATEM) 7, no. 2 (April 1, 2024): 1074–87. https://doi.org/10.55817/isad5453.

Riahi, Insaf, Virginie Marquis, Anna Maria Pérez-Vendrell, Joaquim Brufau, Enric Esteve-Garcia, and Antonio J. Ramos. “Effects of Deoxynivalenol-Contaminated Diets on Metabolic and Immunological Parameters in Broiler Chickens.” Animals 11, no. 1 (January 11, 2021): 147. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010147.

Schuhmacher-Wolz, Ulrike, Karin Heine, and Klaus Schneider. “Toxicity of HT-2 and T-2 Toxins.” European Food Safety Authority, 2010. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/en-65.

Sklan, D., E. Klipper, A. Friedman, M. Shelly, and B. Makovsky. “The Effect of Chronic Feeding of Diacetoxyscirpenol, T-2 Toxin, and Aflatoxin on Performance, Health, and Antibody Production in Chicks.” Journal of Applied Poultry Research 10, no. 1 (March 2001): 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/japr/10.1.79.

Sklan, D., M. Shelly, B. Makovsky, A. Geyra, E. Klipper, and A. Friedman. “The Effect of Chronic Feeding of Diacetoxyscirpenol and T-2 Toxin on Performance, Health, Small Intestinal Physiology and Antibody Production in Turkey Poults.” British Poultry Science 44, no. 1 (March 2003): 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/0007166031000085373.

Sokolović, Marijana, Verica Garaj-Vrhovac, and Borka ŠImpraga. “T-2 Toxin: Incidence and Toxicity in Poultry.” Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology 59, no. 1 (March 1, 2008): 43–52. https://doi.org/10.2478/10004-1254-59-2008-1843.

Speers, G.M., C.J. Mirocha, C.M. Christensen, and J.C. Behrens. “Effects on Laying Hens of Feeding Corn Invaded by Two Species of Fusarium and Pure T-2 Mycotoxin ,.” Poultry Science 56, no. 1 (January 1977): 98–102. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0560098.

Verma, Yamini, and Madhu Swamy. “Clinico-Pathological Effect of FeedingFusarium Sporotrichioidesand t-2 Toxin Contaminated Diet in Broiler Chicken.” Indian Journal of Veterinary Pathology 39, no. 1 (2015): 58. https://doi.org/10.5958/0973-970x.2015.00013.9.

Vörösházi, Júlia, Zsuzsanna Neogrády, Gábor Mátis, and Máté Mackei. “Pathological Consequences, Metabolism and Toxic Effects of Trichothecene T-2 Toxin in Poultry.” Poultry Science 103, no. 3 (March 2024): 103471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.103471.

Wyatt, R. D., B. A. Weeks, P. B. Hamilton, and H. R. Burmeister. “Severe Oral Lesions in Chickens Caused by Ingestion of Dietary Fusariotoxin T-21.” Applied Microbiology 24, no. 2 (1972): 251–57. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.24.2.251-257.1972.

Wyatt, R. D., J. R. Harris, P. B. Hamilton, and H. R. Burmeister. “Possible Outbreaks of Fusariotoxicosis in Avians.” Avian Diseases 16, no. 5 (October 1972): 1123. https://doi.org/10.2307/1588839.

Author: Ajay Bhoyar, Global Technical Manager, EW Nutrition

Exogenous feed enzymes are increasingly utilized in poultry diets to manage feed costs, mitigate the adverse effects of anti-nutritional factors, and enhance nutrient digestion and bird performance. These enzymes are primarily employed to bolster the availability of nutrients within feed ingredients. Among the various enzymes utilized, those capable of breaking down crude fiber, starch, proteins, and phytates are commonly integrated into animal production systems.

In monogastric animals such as poultry and swine, a notable deficiency exists in the endogenous synthesis of enzymes necessary for the hydrolysis of non-starch polysaccharides (NSPs) like xylan (McLoughlin et al., 2017). This deficiency often manifests in poultry production as a decline in growth performance, attributed to increased digesta viscosity arising from the prevalence of NSPs in commonly utilized poultry feed ingredients. Without sufficient endogenous enzymes to degrade xylan, NSPs can increase digesta viscosity, encase essential nutrients, and create a barrier to their effective digestion. In response to this issue, monogastric animal producers have implemented exogenous enzymes such as xylanases into the feeds for swine and poultry to degrade xylan to short-chain sugars, thus reducing intestinal viscosity and improving the digestive utilization of nutrients (Sakata et al., 1995; Aragon et al., 2018)

Understanding Xylanase Enzymes

Xylanase enzymes belong to the class of carbohydrases that specifically target complex polysaccharides, such as xylan, a backbone nonstarch polysaccharide (NSP) prevalent in plant cell walls. These enzymes catalyze the hydrolysis of xylan into smaller, more digestible fragments, such as arabino–xylo-oligosaccharides (AXOs) and xylo-oligosaccharides (XOs), thereby facilitating the breakdown of dietary fiber in poultry diets.

Mechanism of action

It is generally agreed that the beneficial effects of feed xylanase are primarily due to the reduction in viscosity. Studies have shown that supplementing xylanases to animal feeds reduces digesta viscosity and releases encapsulated nutrients, thus improving the overall feed digestibility and nutrient availability (Matthiesen et al., 2021). The reduction in digesta viscosity by adding xylanase is achieved by the partial hydrolysis of NSPs in the upper digestive tract, leading to a decrease in digesta viscosity in the small intestine (Choct & Annison, 1992).

GH10 vs. GH11 Xylanases

Well-characterized xylanases are mostly grouped into glycoside hydrolase families 10 (GH10) and 11 (GH11) based on their structural characteristics (amino acid composition), mode of xylan degradation, the similarity of catalytic domains, substrate specificities, optimal conditions, thermostability, and practical applications.

Why are GH10 xylanases more efficient in animal production?

While both GH10 and GH11 xylanases act on the xylan main chain, these two enzyme types have different folds, substrate specificities, and mechanisms of action (Biely et al., 2016). The GH10 xylanases are more beneficial in animal feed production due to their efficient mechanism of action, broader substrate specificity, and better thermostability, as discussed below.

GH10 xylanase exhibits broader substrate specificity

Generally, the GH10 xylanases exhibit broader substrate specificity and can hydrolyze various forms of xylan, including soluble and insoluble substrates. On the other hand, GH11 xylanases have a narrower substrate specificity and are primarily active on soluble xylan substrates. GH10 xylanases exhibit higher catalytic versatility and can catalyze the cleavage of the xylan backbone at the nonreducing side of substituted xylose residues, whereas GH11 enzymes require unsubstituted regions of the xylan backbone (Collins et al., 2005; Chakdar et al., 2016).

As a result, GH10 xylanases generally produce shorter xylo-oligosaccharides than members of the GH11 family (Collins et al., 2005). Moreover, as shown in Fig.1, the GH10 xylanase can rapidly and effectively break down xylan molecules.

Fig.1.: Activity of a bacterial GH10 xylanase against soluble and insoluble arabinoxylans

Higher thermostability

Enzymes are proteins, and the protein’s primary structure determines their thermostability. The enzyme protein tends to denature at higher than tolerable temperatures, rendering it inactive. An enzyme’s high-temperature tolerance ensures its efficacy throughout the pelleted feed manufacturing. This results in consistent enzyme activity in the finished feed, subsequent gut health, and predictable performance benefits.

Xylanases with higher thermostability are more suitable for applications requiring high-temperature processes. An intrinsically heat-stable bacterial xylanase maintains its activity even under high-temperature feed processing conditions, such as pelleting.

A study conducted at the University of Novi Sad, Serbia (Fig. 2), with three pelleting temperatures (85 °C, 90 °C, and 95 °C) and conditioning times of 4 and 6 mins, showed that Axxess XY, an intrinsically thermostable GH10 xylanase, demonstrated more than 85% recovery even at 4 to 6 mins conditioning time and 95 °C temperature.

Fig.2: Optimum recovery of Axxess XY at elevated conditioning time and temperatures

Maintaining consistently optimum enzyme activity is crucial for realizing the benefits of enzyme inclusion in feed under challenging feed processing conditions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, exogenous feed enzymes, including xylanase, have gained widespread recognition for their pivotal role in poultry nutrition. The increasing use of xylanase is attributed to its ability to effectively manage feed costs while incorporating high-fiber ingredients without compromising poultry performance. However, the efficacy of xylanase is based on several factors, including its mode of action, substrate specificity, catalytic efficacy, and thermostability. Selecting the appropriate xylanase enzyme tailored for specific needs is crucial to harnessing its full benefits.

A GH10 xylanase, such as Axxess XY, designed explicitly as a feed enzyme, offers distinct advantages in poultry production. Its efficient mechanism of action, broader substrate specificity, and superior thermostability make it a preferred choice for optimizing animal performance. Notably, Axxess XY exhibits exceptional activity against soluble and insoluble arabinoxylans, thereby enhancing nutrient utilization, promoting gut health, and ultimately elevating overall performance levels in poultry.

Incorporating specialized GH10 Xylanase enzymes like Axxess XY represents a strategic approach to unlocking the nutrients in feedstuffs, ensuring optimal performance, and maximizing profitability in the poultry business.

References

Aragon, Caio C., Ana I. Ruiz-Matute, Nieves Corzo, Rubens Monti, Jose M. Guisán, and Cesar Mateo. “Production of Xylo-Oligosaccharides (XOS) by Controlled Hydrolysis of Xylan Using Immobilized Xylanase from Aspergillus Niger with Improved Properties.” Integrative Food, Nutrition and Metabolism 5, no. 4 (2018). https://doi.org/10.15761/ifnm.1000225.

Bedford, Michael R., and Henry L. Classen. “Reduction of Intestinal Viscosity through Manipulation of Dietary Rye and Pentosanase Concentration Is Effected through Changes in the Carbohydrate Composition of the Intestinal Aqueous Phase and Results in Improved Growth Rate and Food Conversion Efficiency of Broiler Chicks.” The Journal of Nutrition 122, no. 3 (March 1992): 560–69. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/122.3.560.

Biely, Peter, Suren Singh, and Vladimír Puchart. “Towards Enzymatic Breakdown of Complex Plant Xylan Structures: State of the Art.” Biotechnology Advances 34, no. 7 (November 2016): 1260–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2016.09.001.

Chakdar, Hillol, Murugan Kumar, Kuppusamy Pandiyan, Arjun Singh, Karthikeyan Nanjappan, Prem Lal Kashyap, and Alok Kumar Srivastava. “Bacterial Xylanases: Biology to Biotechnology.” 3 Biotech 6, no. 2 (June 30, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-016-0457-z.

Choct, M., and G. Annison. “Anti‐nutritive Effect of Wheat Pentosans in Broiler Chickens: Roles of Viscosity and Gut Microflora.” British Poultry Science 33, no. 4 (September 1992): 821–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071669208417524.

Collins, Tony, Charles Gerday, and Georges Feller. “Xylanases, Xylanase Families and Extremophilic Xylanases.” FEMS Microbiology Reviews 29, no. 1 (January 2005): 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.femsre.2004.06.005.

Matthiesen, Connie F., Dan Pettersson, Adam Smith, Ninfa R. Pedersen, and Adam. C. Storm. “Exogenous Xylanase Improves Broiler Production Efficiency by Increasing Proximal Small Intestine Digestion of Crude Protein and Starch in Wheat-Based Diets of Various Viscosities.” Animal Feed Science and Technology 272 (February 2021): 114739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114739.

McLoughlin, Rebecca F, Bronwyn S Berthon, Megan E Jensen, Katherine J Baines, and Lisa G Wood. “Short-Chain Fatty Acids, Prebiotics, Synbiotics, and Systemic Inflammation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 106, no. 3 (March 2017): 930–45. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.117.156265.

Sakata, T., M. Adachi, M. Hashida, N. Sato, and T. Kojima. “Effect of N-Butyric Acid on Epithelial Cell Proliferation of Pig Colonic Mucosa in Short-Term Culture.” DTW – Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenschau 102, no. 4 (1995): 163–64.

Part 1: Impact on Feathering

By Dr. Inge Heinzl, Editor, EW Nutrition

 

Mycotoxins are known to decrease health and performance in poultry production. Their modes of action, such as reducing protein synthesis and promoting oxidative stress and apoptosis, lead to cell destruction and lower cell replacement, affecting several organs and tissues.

When different stress factors collude, such as high temperatures and humidity, poor ventilation, high stocking density, and management events, the effects of in-feed mycotoxins can reach a higher level, which may include external signs.

The most common and recognized external sign of mycotoxicosis is mouth lesions caused by trichothecenes, which are highly associated with the presence of T-2 in the feed. However, other signs may appear, such as paleness of combs, shanks, and feet, as well as leg problems, ruffled feathers and poor feather coverage, feed passage, and abnormal feces.

In a series of articles, we want to report on external signs facilitating a differential diagnosis of mycotoxin contamination. This is necessarily followed by feed or raw material mycotoxin analysis and strategies to avoid or mitigate the effects of mycotoxin contamination in poultry production. In the first article, we will cover feathers.

A healthy plumage is crucial for growth and reproduction

Feathering is a crucial aspect of poultry health and productivity. Feathers are essential for thermoregulation, locomotion, adequate skin protection, and reproductive success, protecting hens from injury during mating. Inadequate feathering can lead to lower feed efficiency (Leeson and Walsh, 2004) as well as loss in fertility and chick production (Fisher, 2016). Mycotoxins in poultry feed can compromise feather quality in poultry production animals. This first article delves into the relationship between mycotoxins and poor feathering, exploring different mycotoxins and their mechanisms of action.

In which way do mycotoxins compromise feathering?

On the one hand, chronic mycotoxin exposure impairs the digestive process, hindering the absorption and utilization of vital nutrients essential for feather growth. This disruption can lead to malnutrition, directly impacting the quality and health of feathers. On the other hand, mycotoxins also interfere with metabolic processes critical for feather development, such as keratin synthesis (Wyatt et al., 1975;  Nguansangiam, 2004). Enzymatic pathways involved in synthesizing keratin, the protein building block of feathers, are particularly vulnerable to mycotoxin-induced disruptions. The presence of mycotoxins in feed has been associated with the manifestation of sparse feathering and the sticking out of feathers at an unnatural angle (Emous and Krimpen, 2019). In the case of multiple mycotoxins occurring in the feed, even at singularly unimportant concentrations, a negative impact on feathering is possible. Different mycotoxins have different target organs and consequences for the animal, so their ways of compromising feathering also vary. As feathering needs protein availability, all mycotoxins affecting the protein metabolism or the absorption of nutrients also impact the feathering process. Let us look at the most prominent mycotoxins.

1.   T-2 toxin

Due to climate change, T-2 toxins are on the rise. In the US, more than 50% of the tested samples contained T-2 toxin; in Europe, we found it in 31%, and in China, in 82% of the samples (EW Nutrition, 2024). The highest level was found in Europe, with 850 ppb.

Adverse effects of T-2 toxin in goslings were shown by Gu et al. (2023), who exposed the animals to 6 different levels of T-2 toxin, from 0.2 to 2.0 mg T-2 toxin/kg of feed. The goslings showed a sparse covering with short, dry, rough, curly, and gloss-free feathers on their back with dosages ≥0.8 mg/kg. When zooming on, T-2 can cause necroses of the layer of regenerative cells in the feather base, implying malformation or absence of new feathers, as well as structural damage to existing feathers on the base of the ramus and barb ridges (Hoerr et al. (1982), Leeson et al. (1995)).

The effects in feather regenerative cells are dose-dependent, as confirmed by Hoerr et al. (1982), who applied different doses of T-2 toxin (1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3 mg/kg body weight/day) to 7-day-old broilers for 14 days. Delayed feather development, especially at high dosages, was noticed, as well as malformations and opaque bands in the feathers, the latter probably caused by a segmental reduction in diameter.

Manafi et al. (2015) noticed feather malformations when broiler chickens were challenged with 0.5 ppm T-2 toxin in the feed in combination with an inoculation of 2.4×10⁸ cfu Mycoplasma gallisepticum. When the chickens were challenged only with T-2 toxin, the feathers were ruffled, showing that a coincidence of stress factors even aggravates the symptoms.

2.   Aflatoxins

Aflatoxins, produced by certain Aspergillus species, are among the most notorious mycotoxins. Looking at test results of the last year, Aflatoxin shows incidences between 25 (USA) over 40-65% (Europe, LATAM, MEA, and SEAP) up to 84-88% (China and South Asia) with average levels up to 42 ppb in South Asia (EW Nutrition, 2023). However, more information about the concrete impact of aflatoxins on feathering is needed. They may indirectly affect feathering because they impact digestion and the utilization of nutrients or trace minerals such as zinc, which is essential for the feather construction process. Damage to the liver impacts protein metabolism, and keratin is also necessary for feather production.

In other studies, Muhammad et al. (2017) fed 5 mg AFB1/kg to Arbor Acres broilers, and the birds showed ruffled feathers. A significantly lower feather shine was noticed by Saleemi et al. (2020) when they gave the animals 300 μg AFB1/kg of feed, and the birds of Zafar et al. (2017) showed ruffled, broken, dull, and dirty feathers after six weeks of feeding an aflatoxin-contaminated diet.

3.   Ochratoxin

Ochratoxins, commonly produced by Aspergillus and Penicillium fungi, also pose a significant threat to poultry. When looking at the mycotoxin report, this mycotoxin was found in 16% (Europe) to 70% (SEAP) of the samples (EW Nutrition, 2023). Ochratoxins primarily affect feathering by compromising the structural integrity of feathers and causing delayed feathering in broilers (Leeson, 2021).

Several trials have shown the negative impact of ochratoxin on feather quality. Hassan et al. (2010) fed OTA to laying hens and saw a dose-dependent (dosages from 0 to 10 mg/kg feed) occurrence of ruffled and broken feathers in the OTA group, whereas the plumage of the control group was shiny and well-formed. Hameed et al. (2012) also realized dull feathers when feeding 0.4 and 0.8 mg OTA per kg of feed. A further dose-dependent decrease in feather quality was described by Khan et al. (2023) in broiler chicks. He injected them with dosages from 0.1 to 1.7 mg/kg body weight on day 5 of age and saw a deterioration of feather appearance (rippled feathers) in the groups with the higher dosages of 1.3 and 1.7 mg/kg. Abidin et al. (2016) observed a similar dose-dependent deterioration of the feather quality in white Leghorn cockerels when feeding 1 or 2mg OTA/kg feed.

Combinations of aflatoxins and ochratoxins were also tested. Khan et al. (2017) fed moldy feed naturally containing 56 µg OTA and 136 µg AFB1 per kg to layer hens and saw a deterioration of feather quality with increasing feeding time. Qubih (2017) noticed ruffled feathers when feeding a diet naturally contaminated with 800 ppb of OTA and 100 ppb of AFB1.

4.   Scirpenol mycotoxins

Parkhurst et al. (1992) examined the effects of different scirpenol mycotoxins. After feeding graded levels of fusarium mycotoxins to broiler chicks until three weeks of age, they discovered that the impact of scirpenols stretched across the entire feathered body parts and that the degree of feather alteration is dose-dependent. The main alteration was a frayed or even missing web on the medial side of the outer end of the feather due to poor development of the barbs, barbules, and barbicels, and the tip of the feathers became square instead of rounded—the thinner and weaker shafts of the feathers inclined to show an accentuated medial curve.

Parkhurst et al. (1992)

Figure 1: Feathering affected by scirpenol mycotoxins

In their trial, Parkhurst and Hamilton realized that 15-monoacetoxyscirpenol (15-MAS) caused the most severe alterations of feathers, and they determined a minimum effective dose (MED) of 0.5 µg/g diet. The MEDs for 4,15-diacetoxyscirpenol (4,15-DAS) and 3,4,15-triacetoxyscirpenol (TAS) were higher, 2 µg/g and > 8 µg/g, respectively.

How can we enable adequate feathering in poultry?

Adequate feathering of poultry is necessary for the animal’s health and welfare and to ensure fertility and productivity. The occurrence of mycotoxins in the feed – and the probability is high! – can cause poor feathering or the development of malformed feathers.

To best equip broilers, layers, and breeders, their feed must contain all nutrients essential for healthy growth and appropriate feathering. As the risk of contamination of the feed materials is very high (see EW Nutrition’s mycotoxin report 2023), it is of crucial importance to have an efficient mycotoxin risk management in place, which includes sampling, analysis of samples, and the use of mycotoxin binders. EW Nutrition offers MasterRisk, an online tool where farmers and feed millers can feed the results of their feed analysis concerning mycotoxins and get a risk management recommendation.

In the next part of the series, we will report on beak lesions and skin paleness, two other external signs of mycotoxin contamination.

References:

Abidin, Zain ul, Muhammad Zargham Khan, Aisha Khatoon, Muhammad Kashif Saleemi, and Ahrar Khan. “Protective Effects Ofl-Carnitine upon Toxicopathological Alterations Induced by Ochratoxin A in White Leghorn Cockerels.” Toxin Reviews 35, no. 3–4 (August 22, 2016): 157–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/15569543.2016.1219374.

Emous, R. A., and M. M. Krimpen. “Effects of Nutritional Interventions on Feathering of Poultry – a Review.” Poultry Feathers and Skin: The Poultry Integument in Health and Welfare, 2019, 133–50. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781786395115.0133.

Fisher, Colin. “Feathering in Broiler Breeder Females – Aviagen.” https://aviagen.com/, 2016. http://en.aviagen.com/assets/Tech_Center/Broiler_Breeder_Tech_Articles/English/Feathering-in-Broiler-Breeeder-Females-EN-2016.pdf.

Gu, Wang, Qiang Bao, Kaiqi Weng, Jinlu Liu, Shuwen Luo, Jianzhou Chen, Zheng Li, et al. “Effects of T-2 Toxin on Growth Performance, Feather Quality, Tibia Development and Blood Parameters in Yangzhou Goslings.” Poultry Science 102, no. 2 (February 2023): 102382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102382.

Hameed, Muhammad  Raza, Muhammad Khan, Ahrar Khan, and Ijaz Javed. “Ochratoxin Induced Pathological Alterations in Broiler Chicks: Effect of Dose and Duration.” Pakistan Veterinary Journal Pakistan Veterinary Journal 8318, no. 2 (December 2012): 2074–7764.

Hassan, Zahoor-Ul, M. Zargham Khan, Ahrar Khan, and Ijaz Javed. “Pathological Responses of White Leghorn Breeder Hens Kept on Ochratoxin A Contaminated Feed.” Pakistan Veterinary Journal 30, no. 2 (2010): 118–23.

Hoerr, F. J., W. W. Carlton, and B. Yagen. “Mycotoxicosis Caused by a Single Dose of T-2 Toxin or Diacetoxyscirpenol in Broiler Chickens.” Veterinary Pathology 18, no. 5 (September 1981): 652–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/030098588101800510.

Hoerr, F.J., W.W. Carlton, B. Yagen, and A.Z. Joffe. “Mycotoxicosis Produced in Broiler Chickens by Multiple Doses of Either T‐2 Toxin or Diacetoxyscirpenol.” Avian Pathology 11, no. 3 (January 1982): 369–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/03079458208436112.

Khan, Ahrar, Muhammad Mustjab Aalim, M. Zargham Khan, M. Kashif Saleemi, Cheng He, M. Noman Naseem, and Aisha Khatoon. “Does Distillery Yeast Sludge Ameliorate Moldy Feed Toxic Effects in White Leghorn Hens?” Toxin Reviews, January 25, 2017, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/15569543.2017.1278707.

Khan, Shahzad Akbar, Eiko N. Itano, Anum Urooj, and Kashif Awan. “Ochratoxin-a Induced Pathological Changes in Broiler Chicks.” Pure and Applied Biology 12, no. 4 (December 10, 2023): 1608–16. https://doi.org/10.19045/bspab.2023.120162.

Leeson, S., and T. Walsh. “Feathering in Commercial Poultry II. Factors Influencing Feather Growth and Feather Loss.” World’s Poultry Science Journal 60, no. 1 (March 1, 2004): 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1079/wps20045.

Leeson, Steve. “Effects of Nutrition on Feathering.” Poultry World, May 22, 2021. https://www.poultryworld.net/specials/effects-of-nutrition-on-feathering/.

Leeson, Steven, Gonzalo J. Diaz Gonzalez, and John D. Summers. Poultry metabolic disorders and Mycotoxins. Guelph, Ontario, Canada: University Books, 1995.

Manafi, M., N. Pirany, M. Noor Ali, M. Hedayati, S. Khalaji, and M. Yari. “Experimental Pathology of T-2 Toxicosis and Mycoplasma Infection on Performance and Hepatic Functions of Broiler Chickens.” Poultry Science 94, no. 7 (July 2015): 1483–92. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev115.

Muhammad, Ishfaq, Xiaoqi Sun, He Wang, Wei Li, Xinghe Wang, Ping Cheng, Sihong Li, Xiuying Zhang, and Sattar Hamid. “Curcumin Successfully Inhibited the Computationally Identified CYP2A6 Enzyme-Mediated Bioactivation of Aflatoxin B1 in Arbor Acres Broiler.” Frontiers in Pharmacology 8 (March 21, 2017). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2017.00143.

Nguansangiam, Sudarat, Subhkij Angsubhakorn, Sutatip Bhamarapravati, and Apichart Suksamrarn. The Southeast Asian J of Tropical Medicine 34, no. 4 (2004): 899–905.

Parkhurst, Carmen R., Pat B. HamiltonON, and Adedamola A. AdemoyeroERO. “Abnormal Feathering of Chicks Caused by Scirpenol Mycotoxins Differing in Degree of Acetylation.” Poultry Science 71, no. 5 (May 1992): 833–37. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0710833.

Qubih, T. S. “Relationship between Mycotoxicosis and Calcium during Preproduction Period in Layers.” Iraqi Journal of Veterinary Sciences 26, no. 1 (June 28, 2012): 11–14. https://doi.org/10.33899/ijvs.2012.46888.

Saleemi, M. Kashif, Kamran Ashraf, S. Tehseen Gul, M. Noman Naseem, M. Sohail Sajid, Mashkoor Mohsin, Cheng He, Muhammad Zubair, and Ahrar Khan. “Toxicopathological Effects of Feeding Aflatoxins B1 in Broilers and Its Amelioration with Indigenous Mycotoxin Binder.” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 187 (January 2020): 109712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109712.

Wyatt, R.D., P.B. Hamilton, and H.R. Burmeister. “Altered Feathering of Chicks Caused by T-2 Toxin.” Poultry Science 54, no. 4 (July 1975): 1042–45. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0541042.

Zafar, Roheena, Farhat Ali Khan, and Muhammad Zahoor. “In Vivo Amelioration of Aflatoxin B1 in Broiler Chicks by Magnetic Carbon Nanocomposite.” Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira 37, no. 11 (November 2017): 1213–19. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-736×2017001100005.