Maximun tolerable concentrations of some mycotoxins: a review

Dear Mr.Jimmy, Thank you very much for your comments. The best regards. Gimeno

Dear Swamy About DON natural contaminations in feed for layers and breeders, I forgot say you the following: apart from the trials, field observations showed no problems with egg and shell weight, shell thickness and percent shell with 0.05 to 0.3 ppm DON, but there were problems with 0.4 to 1 ppm DON natural contaminations. No conjugated-DON was present. The problems with 0.4 ppm were less severe than with 0.5 ppm or more. The DON feed contaminations results were obtained using HPLC analytical methods. Not “Elisa” methods. Regards. Gimeno

Dear Mr. Swamy, About the DON in layers and breeders I have a reference concerning to a publication by Hamilton, R.M.G. Thompson, B.K. Trenholm, H.L. (1981). “Feed intake, egg production and shell quality of hens given diets that contained vomitoxin contaminated wheat”. Poultry Science 60: 1666 (Abstract). According to the article, wheat-soybean diets containing 0.35 to 0.7 ppm DON were fed to laying pullets from 192 to 262 days of age (10 weeks). Diets had no effect in performance (body weight gain, feed intake and efficiency – kg feed/dozen and kg feed/kg egg). However, egg and shell weight, shell thickness and percent shell decreased linearly with increasing levels of dietary DON. Due to this big difference of DON undesirable effects susceptibility between broilers and layers, I made a field trial (many years ago) similar to the above mentioned but with layers and breeders feeding natural contaminated diets with 0,1; 0.2; 0.25; 0.35; 0.5 and 0.7 ppm DON contamination levels (not other known mycotoxins were present according to the minimum detectable concentration of the analytical method which was used). For 0.35 to 0.7 ppm DON contamination levels, the results were the same that the before mentioned in the Hamilton et al, article. However, with the 0.1 to 0.25 ppm DON contamination levels, there were no problems with egg and shell weight, shell thickness, percent shell and with the performance. Therefore I decided set the limit of 0.2 ppm. About the DON in broiler chickens and turkeys, I respect your data but I also respect old data already published, several of them agree with a limit of 15 ppm DON contamination level, even more, in feed for broiler chickens and turkeys. I am grateful for your information and I consider that the articles published by Swamy et al. (2004) and Girish et al. (2008) are very good articles. It is obvious that a limit of 8 ppm DON for broilers and 2.5 ppm DON for turkeys are safer than 15 ppm. Therefore I will take into account these data in the future. When I decided to publish my article, my principal idea, was for giving to the people a guidance about de maximum tolerable concentrations of some mycotoxins, and create a discussion forum for improving (if necessary) the data which are already showed. Thanks. Gimeno

Dear Mr. Swamy, I forgot to tell you about some references concerning to my previous comments, as follow: .- About DON levels (Broilers) of 15 and 50 ppm: Romer, T.R. (1983). Feedstuffs. April 11, pp.30-31. Halloran, H.R. (1983). Feedstuffs. May 2, p. 18 .- About DON level (Broilers) of 16 ppm: Dersjant-Li, Y. Verstegen, MW. Gerrits WJ. (2003). “The impact of low concentrations of aflatoxin, deoxynivalenol or fumonisin in diets on growing pigs and poultry”. Nutr. Res- Rev. Dec16(2):223-239. Animal Nutrition Group, Department of Animal Science, Wageningen UniversityPO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands. Harvey, RB. Kubena, LF. Rottinghaus, GE. Turk, JR. Casper, HH. Buckley SA. (1997). “Moniliformin from Fusarium fujikuroi culture material and deoxynivalenol from naturally contaminated wheat incorporated into diets of broiler chicks”. Avian Dis.Oct-Dec41(4):957-963. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Food Animal Protection Research Laboratory, College Station, TX 77845, USA. .- About DON level (Ducks) of 6 ppm: Dänicke, S. Ueberschär, KH. Valenta, H. Matthes, S. Matthäus. K. Halle I.(2004). “Effects of graded levels of Fusarium-toxin-contaminated wheat in Pekin duck diets on performance, health and metabolism of deoxynivalenol and zearalenone. Br. Poult. Sci. Apr45(2):264-72. Institute of Animal Nutrition, Federal Agricultural Research Centre, Braunschweig (FAL), Braunschweig, Germany. sven.daenicke@fal.de .- About DON levels (Turkey) of 20 ppm: Morris CM, Li YC, Ledoux DR, Bermudez AJ, Rottinghaus GE. (1999). “ The individual and combined effects of feeding moniliformin, supplied by Fusarium fujikuroi culture material, and deoxynivalenol in young turkey poults”. Poult Sci. 1999 Aug78(8):1110-1115. Department of Animal Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211, USA. .- Abou DON levels (Broilers) of 10 ppm: I have other interesting reference which shows that a diet contaminated with 10 ppm of DON which was given to broilers during 42 days had no effect in the feed consumption, feed conversion, or body weight. It was absence on clinical signs and the performance was not impaired, but altered the gut function of broilers. Awad. WA. Böhm, J. Razzazi-Fazeli E. Hulan, HW. Zentek J.(2004) ”Effects of deoxynivalenol on general performance and electrophysiological properties of intestinal mucosa of broiler chickens” Poultry Sci. Dec83(12):1964-1972. Institute of Nutrition, Department of Veterinary Public Health and Food Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, A-1210 Vienna, Austria. .- Apart from my extensive field observations. Sincerely Gimeno

Dear Mr. Swamy, Your point about the DON level of 2.5 ppm which seems that can compromise poultry performance is very interesting and I am grateful for the information. Tell me please where I can found the research that you mention, in order to take into account the results of this one in the future However, the study published by Awad, WA. Böhm, J. Razzazi-Fazeli, E. Zentek,J., from Department of Veterinary Public Health and Food Science, Institute of Nutrition, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria, in the J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. (Berl), 2006 Feb 90(1-2): 32-37, with the title “Effects of feeding deoxynivalenol contaminated wheat on growth performance, organ weights and histological parameters of the intestine of broiler chickens”, shows a results which do not agree with the level that you referred in your comments, al least for broiler chickens. The article above mentioned shows the following: A group of fifteen 1-day-old broiler chicks was fed with a diet naturally contaminated with 5 mg DON/Kg diet (5 ppm), during 21 days. Another (control) group was fed with a non contaminated diet, during 21 days. Deoxynivalenol (DON) had no effect (p > 0.05) on feed consumption, feed conversion, body-weight gain, live body weight or mortality. The absolute and relative weight of the organs (gizzard, pancreas, heart, spleen, colon and caecum) were not altered by the dietary inclusion of DON contaminated grain. No gross lesions were detected in any of the organs of birds fed contaminated diet during the feeding trial. However, this concentration of DON can affect small intestinal morphology in broilers but not the performance. On the other hand, old studies published about the subject showed that, feeds contaminated with 15 and 50 ppm of DON that were given to 6 day old chicks during 42 and 6 days, respectively, the highest concentration only produced few oral lesions. A diet contaminated with 16 ppm of DON (given during 21 days) not adversely affect performance and health of broilers. Dietary DON concentration of 6 ppm was given to Pekin ducks during 49 days and did not adversely affect performance and health of growing Pekin ducks. Day old turkey poults given feed containing 20 ppm of DON during a period of 21 days did not have any variations in daily feed intake, or in body weight gain, compared to the control group. There were no histological lesions or significant adverse effects However, the layers and breeders are more susceptible to DON as you can see in my Table 1. More of your other explanations agree with my comments in the article. The maximum tolerable concentration (MTC) levels may be termed as safe provided the animals are in healthy condition and without the presence of other mycotoxins (synergism or association amongst them). I agree with your other comments but if other factors are taking into account, like I mention in my first and second paragraph of my comments (including the masked mycotoxins, such as deoxynivalenol and zearalenone glucosides), it is almost impossible to establish a guidance for the maximum tolerable mycotoxins concentrations. If I found enough data which justify for reducing the MTC levels of DON in poultry (chickens, broilers, pullets, ducks and turkeys), I will reduce the MTC DON levels of my article in the future. Yours sincerely. Gimeno

Dear Mr. Mirza, I would like to inform you that many of the levels showed in Table 1 are based on extensive field observations during 40 years, and obviously many of these levels can agree with other ones already published. Regards. Gimeno

Dear Mr. Ganesh, Thank you very much for your expression “Good article” and for your explanations. I agree with them and also that MTC levels may be termed as safe provided the animals are in healthy condition. In my article is possible to deduce this one from the two first paragraphs of de Comments. In order to be clear the concentration unit “ppb” I put “micrograms/Kg”. Regards. Gimeno