In a recent webinar to launch the 2024 Alltech Asia Import Risk Analysis, our experts shared the following insights during the Q&A session:

1. What specific strategies can livestock/feed producers and crop farmers employ to control mycotoxins in their feed?

Pre-harvest:

• Fungus-resistant crops: Develop crop varieties that are resistant to fungal infestations.
• Field management: Control fungal infections during crop growth.
• Moisture control: Maintain a low moisture content in seeds during storage.
• Temperature: Store commodities at lower temperatures when possible.
• Fungicides and preservatives: Use various solutions to help inhibit fungal growth.

Post-harvest:

• Drying and storage: Maintain optimal drying and storage conditions to prevent fungal growth.
• Mold inhibition: A variety of solutions, including Mold-Zap®, are available to help reduce mold levels in stored grains.

The right combination of mitigation and control strategies is essential to effectively combat the mycotoxin threat. Some strategies have to do with management; for instance, suitable pre-harvest, harvest and post-harvest schedules are helpful. Other strategies rely on new innovations such as mycotoxin binders. A broad-spectrum mycotoxin binder such as Alltech’s Mycosorb®, which is based on leading-edge yeast cell wall extract (YCWE) technology, can be a game-changer, adsorbing numerous mycotoxins from the gastrointestinal tract simultaneously.

Adding to their efficacy, Mycosorb and other Alltech mycotoxin technologies are constantly being updated to reflect new research findings and to target new, emerging mycotoxins.

2. Does Alltech’s mycotoxin data include information about grains that have been genetically modified? If so, to what degree does mycotoxin contamination impact genetically modified crops/grains?

• Agricultural biotechnology has made notable advances in reducing mycotoxins over the past few years. While transgenic Bt corn (corn that has been genetically engineered to contain Bacillus thuringiensis) has been known for years to reduce the threat of the mycotoxin fumonisin, new studies have revealed its ability to combat aflatoxin as well. Other transgenic and RNA-interference corn hybrids specifically target mycotoxin reduction, and gene editing through clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) has focused on preventing mycotoxin biosynthesis (Wu et al., 2022).
• Analyses of GMO crops are certainly included in Alltech’s database — but most of the time, the producers who submit samples do not specify whether or not their crops are genetically modified. As such, we cannot generate statistics that fully answer that question.

3. How has the methodology behind Alltech’s mycotoxin assessments changed with the increasing unpredictability of adverse weather conditions and recent geopolitical events?

We are always working hard to implement the most up-to-date analytical methods for as many mycotoxins as possible in our service portfolio. The Alltech 37+® methodology is continuously evolving; we are currently lowering our limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ) levels and are also adding new mycotoxins to the panel of toxins analyzed by the lab. Alltech® RAPIREAD™ is another valuable asset, providing quick insight into mycotoxin risks on-farm so that producers can continually protect their feeds.

4. How accurate is Alltech’s risk equivalent quantity (REQ), and why is it a useful tool?

Alltech’s REQ is a calculation used to assess the risk of multiple mycotoxin challenges. The logic behind maintaining an REQ is that this number can help us better understand the threat these mycotoxins, both individually and in combination, pose to animal performance and health. With this knowledge in hand, producers can make better management decisions on-farm.

5. Some farms utilize mycotoxin binders or mold inhibitors. Are any of these solutions made specifically for sows? If so, how should they be offered to help reduce the number of sow abortions, stillbirths and weak piglets?

As breeding animals, sows can benefit from being offered Mycosorb A+®. If clinical signs of mycotoxin contamination appear, we recommend utilizing a treatment dosage of 1.5–2 kg/ton, and we also recommend testing the sow feed through the Alltech 37+ lab as soon as possible.

6. How often should I be sampling incoming grains with rapid test kits?

Regularly and routinely testing each new batch of feed entering the feed mill or farm is important. We also recommend testing raw materials again if they have been stored for a while, as the mycotoxin profile can change over time. To mitigate mycotoxin contamination during storage, we recommend using liquid mold inhibitors for raw materials and dry mold inhibitors for finished feeds.

Feed mills sometimes use stale grains, which are more likely to be contaminated with mold and bacteria than other raw materials are. Testing through Alltech RAPIREAD and/or the Alltech 37+ laboratory is crucial here, and we recommend testing these types of high-risk ingredients more often.

7. What is the lowest inclusion rate you recommend when using a mycotoxin binder?

The lowest inclusion rate recommended for Mycosorb A+ and Mycosorb® LR is 0.5 kg/ton or 10 g/cow/day.

8. How quickly does Alltech update its mycotoxin risk data if a major global event disrupts grain shipments?

We prioritize prompt response to field challenges and other potential obstacles. With a network of over 37 laboratories worldwide, we can ensure expedited delivery of results. To bolster our capacity for swift mycotoxin risk assessment, we've deployed over 200 Raptor® test machines globally; these yield results within a mere 15 minutes. Additionally, in the event of supply chain disruptions, our globally distributed local teams are poised to swiftly employ rapid testing methods to assist customers.

9. The threat of mycotoxins is always present. Besides adsorbents, what other products are effective at combatting the intestinal damage and immunosuppression caused by mycotoxins?

We recommend Sel-Plex®, Actigen® and Yea-Sacc® to counteract mycotoxin damage and maximize health and productivity overall.

10. What is the best solution for controlling deoxynivalenol (DON)?

It’s important to realize that DON is only one mycotoxin of many that may be present in feed. Its metabolic activity and impact on animal health and productivity will very much depend on whether other mycotoxins are present. The best strategy is prevention. First, conduct mycotoxin testing to assess risk, and avoid giving feeds that are highly contaminated with DON to your animals. Then employ a mycotoxin binder, which can reduce the risk by approximately 70%. Alltech’s Mycosorb line of solutions includes multi-mycotoxin binders that can bind a wide range of mycotoxins, including DON.

11. What is the best method for correctly collecting and testing samples, and how frequently should sampling and testing take place?

For best results, follow Alltech's guide to best-practice sampling techniques for mycotoxin testing. Contact your Alltech sales representative for a copy of the guide.

For more information about mycotoxins and how to address the mycotoxin threat for your business, please get in touch with our team. You can also find resources at knowmycotoxins.com.

Mycotoxins in feed pose a serious threat to animal health and productivity. These compounds, though often invisible, can wreak havoc on multiple organ systems, diminishing liver and kidney function, fertility, immune response, feed intake and average daily gain.

A recent publication authored by Dr. Alexandra Weaver, Dr. Daniel Weaver, Nick Adams and Dr. Alexandros Yiannikouris used a technique of meta-analysis with meta-regression to examine the detrimental effects of mycotoxin challenges in growing pigs. This meta-analysis closely examined the use of yeast cell wall extract (YCWE), as found in Alltech’s Mycosorb®, to mitigate these challenges.

What are meta-analysis and meta-regression?

A meta-analysis is a statistical technique used in research to combine and analyze the results from multiple independent studies on a particular topic. This provides a more comprehensive and reliable overview of the evidence. The process involves literature reviews, the use of inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction, statistical analysis, and interpretation of the results. Meta-analyses are particularly useful when individual studies may have limitations, or when there is a need for a more robust understanding.

Meta-regression is a process often used in meta-analysis to explore and quantify the relationship between study characteristics and the observed effects across a set of studies. This can help identify sources of variability and assess whether certain factors may be influencing the overall treatment effects observed.

Impacts of mycotoxins on pigs

Pigs are one of the most sensitive species when it comes to the impact of mycotoxins on health, development and productivity. The type and concentration of these toxins in the feed, along with the age and production phase of the pig, determine the degree to which the animals are affected. Young pigs and breeding sows/boars are generally the most susceptible.

Some common mycotoxins affecting pigs include:

• Aflatoxins: Produced by Aspergillus fungi, aflatoxins can damage the liver. They may also suppress the immune system, increasing susceptibility to disease, and lead to reduced growth rates and impaired reproductive performance. Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) is particularly harmful to pigs.
• Deoxynivalenol (DON): Deoxynivalenol primarily affects the gastrointestinal tract. Pigs exposed to DON may experience reduced feed intake, vomiting, diarrhea and impaired nutrient absorption. Chronic exposure can lead to poor growth performance.
• Zearalenone (ZEA): Often seen as the mycotoxin that causes the most damage, zearalenone can disrupt reproductive function in pigs. It can induce swelling and reddening of the vulva, leading to false heats and false pregnancy. When pregnancy does occur, sows experience more abortions and stillbirths.
• Ochratoxins: These can impair kidney function, with chronic exposure potentially leading to kidney damage and reduced growth rates.
• Fumonisins (FUM): Fumonisins are associated with several health issues, including liver and kidney damage. They have also been shown to increase the severity of diseases such as porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) and to decrease resistance against pathogens such as E. coli.
• T2-HT2 toxins: These belong to the trichothecene group of mycotoxins produced by certain species of Fusarium fungi. They are also known to have significant impacts on animal health when present in feed.

In addition, more mycotoxins are constantly being identified by researchers, and many of these may be frequent contaminants of feedstuffs as well.

Study findings at a glance

The meta-analysis reveals a significant correlation between mycotoxin exposure and diminished performance in growing pigs. Even when mycotoxin levels were below EU/US regulatory guidelines, the average daily gain (ADG) dropped by 79 grams. Notably, when at least one mycotoxin exceeded regulatory limits, the loss in ADG increased to 85 grams, accompanied by a significant reduction in average daily feed intake (ADFI), at 166 grams.

Assessment of a summary of results from 30 different treatments shows that the inclusion of yeast cell wall extract (YCWE) during mycotoxin challenges can boost ADG. Pigs fed YCWE during challenges below regulatory guidelines exhibited a significantly higher ADG, by 48 grams, compared to those fed mycotoxins alone. Even at higher mycotoxin challenge levels, when YCWE was included, there was both an increase in ADG and a tendency for an increase in ADFI.

Implications for pig producers

Understanding the potential impact of mycotoxins on pig performance is crucial. For pig producers, this meta-analysis — showing that even when these toxins fall below regulatory guidelines, there is a discernible reduction in growth performance — has significant implications, offering actionable insights to protect and even enhance animal health and performance by using solutions such as YCWE.

In summary

This research not only sheds light on the adverse effects of mycotoxin challenges on pig health and pig production but also emphasizes the potential of YCWE supplementation in overcoming them. YCWE emerges as a promising solution, offering a pathway to enhance pig performance and mitigate the impacts of mycotoxin exposure.

As we continue to navigate the intricate landscape of pig nutrition, these insights will prompt us to reconsider our strategies in the face of this growing threat.

Discover more content:

Recognizing the warning signs of mycotoxins in pigs

Uncovering the mycotoxin risk in straw

Mycotoxin control: A view from the field

The relationship between mycotoxins and pathogens in pigs

About the author:

Dr. Alexandra Weaver obtained her master’s degree and Ph.D. in animal science and nutrition from North Carolina State University under the direction of Dr. Sung Woo Kim. Her dissertation is entitled “The impact of mycotoxins on growth and health of swine,” which investigated the effects of mycotoxins on the performance, immunity, oxidative stress, gut health and reproductive capacity of pigs. She has published multiple research articles in several journals, including the Journal of Animal Science. In 2013, Weaver joined the Alltech^® Mycotoxin Management team. In this role, she helps producers and nutritionists of all species understand and manage mycotoxins.

Twenty-four journalists from 15 countries recently ventured to the south of Spain with the International Federation of Agricultural Journalists (IFAJ) to explore the agricultural operations that make that region unique. The crown jewel of the press trip was a visit to the Olivarera de Los Pedroches Cooperative, or Olipe, where organic olive oil producers are collaborating with Alltech Crop Science to make their farms more environmentally and economically sustainable.

Outstanding olive oil in the spotlight

Pozoblanco, Cordoba — where the Olipe cooperative is headquartered — was uncharacteristically gloomy during the IFAJ trip, but the journalists remained eager to learn about the olives grown in this mountainous region. Spain produces approximately 50% of the world’s olive oil, and this region is particularly well-known for its long tradition of olive oil production thanks to its climate and topography, which are perfect for olive cultivation.  

Representatives of the Olipe co-op were also proud to explain to the journalists that the olive oil produced in southern Spain features the highest level of polyphenols of any olive oil in the world. Since polyphenols have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, this outstanding characteristic has brought olive oil cooperatives like Olipe to the attention of major brands — including L’Oreal, which sources olive oil from the cooperative to be used in its cosmetic products.

Making positive change through a Planet of Plenty partnership

Francisco Gálvez, project manager for olive and almond farming for Alltech Crop Science (ACS) in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, discusses the olives grown at the Olipe co-op, which is partnering with ACS to improve the economic and environmental sustainability of ag production.

While Olipe has already achieved great success, the region’s olive farmers want to improve their operations even more while remaining environmentally sustainable — and Alltech Crop Science intends to help them do just that.

Alltech Crop Science has established a Planet of Plenty partnership with Olipe to develop an ambitious five-year plan that includes soil analysis and research studying the process of growing olives in the Los Pedroches region. The results of those studies will allow Ideagro and Alltech Crop Science to formulate custom solutions for Olipe that will help enhance sustainable olive production in Spain.

The IFAJ cohort heard from Francisco Gálvez, project manager for olive and almond farming for Alltech Crop Science in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and Liana Dobler, Alltech’s Spanish and Portuguese communications manager, who shared details about several of the other initiatives that will be explored through this partnership, including:

• the production of organic compost from mill waste
• utilizing olive pits in the manufacture of plastic-substitute products
• the validation of olive oil with a high oleocanthal content and a high polyphenol index

Notably, Alltech Crop Science has committed to covering all costs related to the monitoring and experimentation processes underway at Olipe through this partnership. Alltech Crop Science will also help distribute the olive oil produced through the co-op internationally. Olipe, on the other hand, will invest the profits that result from this project in training and educational activities that will help attract and keep olive farmers in the Los Pedroches region.  

Sharing the recipe for success

Throughout the IFAJ’s press trip to Olipe, the co-op’s olive farmers were excited to discuss how they’re working to make agricultural production more sustainable and more profitable — and the journalists in attendance are eager to help tell that story to the world.

“For the Olivarera Los Pedroches Cooperative, this type of visit serves as a platform to let everyone know about the incredible projects they are carrying out,” said Gálvez of Alltech Crop Science.  

“We all enjoyed the visit to cooperative,” said Lena Johansson, president of the IFAJ. “It’s always more interesting and useful for journalists to see things on-site than on PowerPoint slides.”

The journalists will continue sharing what they learned first-hand about olive oil production in southern Spain with readers across the globe — including those with no connection to agriculture, who will likely be fascinated to learn how olive farmers are contributing to economic, environmental and social sustainability. 

About the author:

Liana Dobler is Alltech’s Spanish and Portuguese Communications Manager globally. She is responsible for communications strategy, including content management and social media, for all Spanish and Portuguese stakeholders.
 
Liana has been with Alltech for 17 years, beginning as a sales assistant in Alltech Brazil. Her journey later led her to Alltech Argentina where she served in a regional capacity as Latin America Communications Manager. Liana relocated to Spain in 2022.

Health issues can result in significant economic losses for cattle producers. By taking a proactive approach to preventing health problems, producers can reduce monetary loss associated with treating sick animals.

Meeting cattle’s nutritional requirements is the first step. The second step is maintaining a healthy gastrointestinal tract (gut). With 70% of the immune system being located within the gut, it plays a crucial role in animal health. With this knowledge, we can develop proactive supplementation strategies to prevent animal health issues before they become a problem.

Dietary nutrients required to maximize immune health

For an animal to respond properly to an immune challenge, we must meet the nutrient requirements needed for the immune system to function optimally, including dietary protein, energy, vitamins and minerals.

Protein and energy are required in the largest quantities. Protein provides the necessary amino acids needed for production of immune proteins such as cytokines and also antibodies that mediate immune response. Energy is required for every system in the body, but an immune challenge increases energy demand. Therefore, enough dietary protein and energy must be available for the animal to both meet its maintenance requirements and respond to a health issue.

Micronutrients such as copper, zinc, selenium and vitamins E and A are also necessary for proper immune function. They are important components of the antioxidant system, and they are required for enzymes to function properly in the immune system. The forms in which copper, zinc and selenium are supplemented play a role in how well the minerals are utilized. Alltech offers two solutions in the ideal forms for mineral uptake and efficacy:

• Bioplex® trace minerals, including copper, zinc, manganese, and cobalt, are part of the Alltech mineral management program. Bioplex minerals are trace minerals that are bound to amino acids and a range of peptides. They are easily absorbed and readily metabolized, optimizing immune health and thus improving performance.
• Sel-Plex® is Alltech’s proprietary organic form of selenium. The selenium in Sel-Plex supports metabolic processes, acts as an antioxidant, supports against infection, and boosts overall immune health.

Benefits of a healthy gut

Much focus has been aimed at maintaining rumen health. Although the rumen of cattle is the main site for microbial fermentation and energy production, the entire digestive tract needs to be considered when discussing gut health.

The small and large intestines contain a single lining of cells protecting the body from infection, and this lining is susceptible to damage when the gut is unhealthy. A healthy microbial ecosystem aids in maintaining the gut lining. In addition to digestion, absorption and production of nutrients, gut microbiota contribute to regulation of energy homeostasis, prevention of mucosal infections and modulation of the immune system. A healthy gut microbial ecosystem and lining will prevent colonization by potentially pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella, E. coli, Cryptosporidium, Clostridium and coccidia. Preventing damage to the gut lining will prevent pathogenic bacteria, toxins and other harmful substances from entering the bloodstream and the lymphatic system. This reduces the animal’s susceptibility to diseases such as bovine respiratory disease (BRD).

What causes gut damage, and how can it be prevented?

Many factors can compromise gut health. The main ones are associated with periods of stress. This can include illness or injury, weaning, transportation, challenged feedstuffs, weather, feed changes, poor management, and quality of feed and water. In addition, disturbances in gut microbiota can have severe effects on the digestive system, including metabolic disorders such as bloat, ruminal acidosis and scours. These can have profound effects on health.

The right feed additives, supplied in the most effective forms, can make all the difference in protecting gut health. Alltech’s leading-edge research and technology is the basis for the Alltech Gut Health Management program, which includes such solutions as:

• Bio-Mos 2®, a unique product derived from a select strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast using Alltech’s proprietary process. Bio-Mos 2 promotes beneficial bacteria and builds natural defenses, helping to build a foundation for performance by reinforcing a healthy gut microbiome without antibiotics at all stages of production.
• Integral A+® protects animal health, performance and reproduction during feedstuff challenges caused by molds and toxins, which are increasingly common — and increasingly dangerous — due to more extreme weather patterns and changing agricultural practices.

Summary

The best way to support animal health and productivity is to be proactive, not reactive. Preventing health problems before they occur starts with providing the nutrients necessary for immune function, in a form the animal can metabolize. This should be followed by supplementation with feed additives that aid in maintaining gut health.

About the author:

Dr. Cadra Krueger is a territory sales manager for Kansas and Colorado at Alltech. In that role, she focuses on all aspects of beef nutrition, from cow/calf production to growing/finishing feedlots, and provides guidance about sales, nutrition and management to help producers and feed mills reach their ultimate production goals.

Cadra has been involved in the cattle industry since she was 10 years old, when she first began raising and showing cattle in 4-H and helping her younger siblings with their show calves. While pursuing her graduate degrees, she managed the Beef Cattle Research Center at Kansas State University. She previously served as a beef nutritionist for Hubbard Feeds before joining the Alltech beef team.

Cadra holds a bachelor's degree in equine science from Colorado State University and master's and doctoral degrees in ruminant nutrition from Kansas State University. In her free time, she enjoys riding horses and spending time with family and friends.

I want to learn more about nutrition for beef cattle.

As we enter 2024, the talk among economists and producers seems to center around the decreasing beef cow herd. The 28.2 million head of beef cows posted in the USDA biannual cattle inventory report is the smallest in decades. When considering factors like feed and equipment cost, supplemental nutrition and mineral decisions, continued dry and drought conditions in many areas, regional lack of feed inventory, age of the average producer, complex considerations in herd management decisions, and elevated interest rates, we need to consider: Is that cow number only going to get smaller?

2023 saw higher prices — at record or near-record levels — for feeder cattle and calves, along with cull cows and bulls selling for over $1 per pound. Some producers are sharing that they are getting more for their cull cows than those cows originally cost. And, with the smaller cow herd leading to tighter feeder cattle numbers, some are predicting even higher prices this year and for years to come.

The key to success during this uncertain time is getting the information you need to make savvy decisions about the health and productivity of your herd.

Could there be an opportunity for the herd to expand?

Could the prediction of higher prices change the tides? With the current costs of production, the outlook for higher prices has some producers thinking that there is opportunity and it may be time to expand their herds.

The conversation with these producers tends to lead to important questions:

• Should I keep my heifer calves back this year and develop my own?
• Should I wait that long?
• Should I buy bred cows or bred heifers now?
• Should I wait and buy higher-priced pairs right before grass turnout?
• Should I do some or all of the above?

As they start to find answers for what will work best for their financial, labor and feed situations, and what makes sense for their facilities and land base usage, I offer a few things to consider.

Is it a cost or an investment?

What is your mindset when it comes to deciding to purchase cows or heifers versus developing your own? Are you looking at that animal as a cost or as an investment? There’s a big difference. Cost is simply the amount paid to buy something, but investment is the action of paying money today in order to reap greater rewards later. Producers often look at these herd decisions as simply a cost instead of an investment, but if you invest in that cow or heifer today, she may give you back more in the long run.

A few questions to ask yourself:

• Is the cow or heifer the better investment to maintain your cow herd and keep production high?
• Is your supplementation program, including minerals, a cost or an investment?
• Do you know the return on a given bag of mineral?
• If you don’t currently supplement with minerals, would adding that to your nutritional program pay off well?
• If you are already supplementing, would a better-quality mineral and/or a year-round program return you more?
• What about protein supplementation when appropriate?
• Is your vaccine program up to date? Could an updated program pay dividends later?

Good supplementation is an investment — and a worthy one

Fetal programming research shows that cow nutrition and mineral status can directly impact the longevity and productiveness of offspring. A good mineral program for the cow herd contributes to more productive and profitable heifers that stay in the cow herd longer. The data shows that a heifer whose dam received a good mineral program year-round tends to reach puberty earlier, breed earlier in the cycle, and stay in the cow herd longer.

As you look to invest up to $3,000 for a commercially bred heifer, consider this:

• Do you know how the dam of that heifer was supplemented and what she was supplemented with?
• Was the heifer given the best opportunity from the start to work for you?
• Will she be ideally equipped to breed back, and to do so in a timely manner?
• Will she raise a calf every year and stay in the cow herd long enough to pay for herself?

And what about the home-raised heifer calf you want to retain and develop? You will have invested a lot of time, effort and energy by the time she calves. How can you give her the best chance to give you a high return on that investment?

In short, when it comes to the decision of breeding versus buying, are you consistently investing so as to maximize your return?

Data and insights vs. “what we’ve always done”

Consider what criteria you are using to make your decisions. Do you have the records to justify your decisions, or is it, Well, this is what we’ve always done?

Recently, I was talking with a banker who works with a father/son operation. The father and son were considering expanding their herd and were debating on buying young bred cows or bred heifers. The father was leaning toward buying heifers because he felt that they were the better value.

The banker reviewed their purchase and sale records and then advised them, “Don’t spend more than $2,600 for a bred heifer, because that heifer will never pay for herself.” He explained that in their operation, heifers tended to “fall out” in 3–4 years due to management constraints; namely, the operation didn’t have the facilities or labor to keep the heifers separate from the cows. In this particular operation, cows returned more money because they stayed in the cow herd longer.

What data do you have, and what data do you need, to make the best decisions?

Tough decisions will determine the direction of the cow herd

With current prices and the price outlook, producers have some tough decisions to make about whether to get out now or try to expand. If they decide to expand, they need to know how to make the most informed decisions along the way. Those who see the opportunity to expand, if they use their data wisely and invest where they are most likely to get the biggest returns, stand the highest chance of success.

About the author: 

Bryan Sanderson grew up in Lake Preston, South Dakota, and spent most of his childhood working on pig, crop and cattle farms. After receiving a degree in animal science from South Dakota State University, with minors in ag marketing and ag business, Bryan began his impressive career in animal agriculture. With experience in livestock production, feedlot supervision, sales and finance, Bryan is currently the U.S. beef business manager for Alltech.

I want to learn more about beef nutrition. 

In the heart of County Meath, Ireland, four ambitious students from Dunshaughlin Community College embarked on a journey that would not only showcase their dedication to agriculture but also highlight the power of sustainable farming practices. Meet Liam Byrne, Eric Allen, Eoin O’Sullivan and David Malone, the dynamic quartet whose passion for farming propelled them to victory in the 10^th annual Certified Irish Angus School’s Competition.

Under the guidance of Alltech nutritionist Dr. Mj Doran, these students adopted a data-driven approach to their project, which was called “A Holistic Approach to Improving Animal Performance.” Armed with a mission to merge production efficiency with environmental sustainability, they set out to rear four Aberdeen Angus steers and minimize their carbon footprint throughout the process.

Alltech E-CO₂ was an essential tool used in this approach. Utilizing the Alltech E-CO₂ audit, the students meticulously analyzed every aspect of their cattle-rearing process, from nutrition to on-farm trials and soil analysis.

Particularly, they predicted how much CO₂ would be produced as a result of rearing their Angus cattle to slaughter. Then they ran multiple scenarios through the E-CO₂ audit, fine-tuning their approach in order to ensure maximal efficiency and minimal environmental impact. This involved nutritional advice from Dr. Doran, who formulated the cattle’s diets and collected the data required for the E-CO₂ report. Yea-Sacc^® was used in the animals’ diet.

The culmination of the students’ efforts came with the final CO₂ emission figure: a remarkable 8.5 kg CO₂ per kg of liveweight, significantly below the Irish national average. This achievement not only secured the students’ victory in the competition but also served as a testament to the transformative power of science-based sustainable farming practices.

“Liam, Eric, Eoin and David demonstrated just how useful the E-CO₂ sustainability report can be in planning for farming with a lower environmental impact,” Dr. Doran said. “This, along with precision nutrition advice from InTouch, was key to the students achieving beef production with a lower environmental impact. Comhghairdeas to the lads, they are great ambassadors for their school, their local area and Irish agriculture.”

As a global leader in animal nutrition and sustainability solutions, Alltech is proud to support initiatives that empower the next generation of farmers to embrace sustainable practices and drive positive change in the world.

About the author: 

Tien Le received her bachelor’s degree in advertising and marketing communications from the University of Greenwich, London, with the University Merit Award for Outstanding Achievement. She started her career at Alltech in 2016 as part of the Corporate Career Development Program, spending time in both the U.S. and Ireland before taking a role in Vietnam, her home country. Tien presently serves as the editorial content manager for Alltech, a role that allows her to fulfill her passions for writing, innovation and sustainable agriculture.

I want to learn more about nutrition for beef cattle. 

Mycotoxin contamination poses a growing concern for animal feed producers worldwide. Asian feed production, for example, has been steadily increasing, with a significant reliance on imported grains. As this trend is projected to continue, understanding the mycotoxin risks associated with these imported grains is paramount. The Alltech Asia Import Risk Analysis provides insights into the prevalence and types of mycotoxins present in grains sourced from various regions globally.

Accurate mycotoxin analysis is essential for identifying and mitigating contamination risks in animal feed. Various analytical methods, such as Alltech 37+®, Alltech® RAPIREAD™, and collaborations with organizations such as SGS, Masterfeeds and Stratford Labs, form the basis of the Alltech Asia Import Risk Analysis report.

The analysis assessed the mycotoxin risks in grains — such as corn, wheat, barley and byproducts — sourced from Europe, North America, Canada and Latin America for feed and livestock producers in the Asia-Pacific region.

Europe

In 2023, Europe faced significant mycotoxin challenges, especially in small grains like barley. Adverse weather conditions, including prolonged rainfall, exacerbated contamination levels in Northern and Western European countries. Fusarium toxins, such as deoxynivalenol, rapidly multiplied in barley and wheat due to these severe conditions and posed challenges for crop growers.

Although the mycotoxin challenge in corn is lower compared to recent years, there are still pockets of higher risk in Central and Southern Europe. Aflatoxins, fumonisins and ochratoxins are the most prevalent mycotoxins in corn from these regions. Barley has the highest risk among small grains, with an average of six mycotoxins per sample and with 97% of samples containing two or more mycotoxins. Wheat samples, on the other hand, have an average of 3.5 mycotoxins per sample, with 90% of samples containing two or more mycotoxins. In Northwestern Europe, the average risk equivalent quantity (REQ) for wheat and barley is moderate to high, partly due to a delayed harvest and an increased presence of Fusarium toxins.

United States

Weather conditions in the U.S. had a significant impact on the mycotoxin profile of the corn samples analyzed. In the Southwest, a prolonged dry period resulted in a higher-than-usual fumonisin challenge. Whereas, in the East, lengthy periods of rainfall resulted in higher levels of deoxynivalenol (DON). This variation highlights the intricate interplay between climatic conditions and crop quality.

U.S. corn samples had an average of 4.4 mycotoxins per sample, with 87% containing two or more mycotoxins. In general, the mycotoxin challenge in corn grain is lower this year than in recent years. However, there are still pockets of higher risk in the Midwest and the South.

Canada

In Canada, dry conditions across the prairies led to a reduced overall crop output compared to the previous year. Fusarium toxins present the greatest challenge, with average DON levels of 1,882 ppb detected in wheat and barley samples, leading to a generally higher risk for this ingredient in pig diets. Additionally, high levels of zearalenone, predominantly observed in corn grain, are indicating potentially significant impacts, raising concerns for the pig industry.

Latin America

In Brazil, a favorable growing season led to an increase in overall corn yield. As with Canada, higher-than-average levels of DON and zearalenone could create challenges when corn from Brazil is included in pig diets. Zearalenone was present in 91% of samples tested, while the prevalence of DON was much lower. Although fumonisins were widely detected, with almost 70% of samples containing this type of mycotoxin, the levels are lower than for other mycotoxin groups.

Corn byproducts

Rising costs of raw materials commonly used for animal feed have led to an increased usage of byproducts. This poses challenges for mycotoxin contamination, particularly with corn byproducts having higher contamination levels compared to parent grains.

Using Alltech 37+ mycotoxin analysis, Alltech tested samples of corn gluten meal and dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) from North America, Asia and Europe. All had a minimum of two mycotoxins, with an average of 13.4. The most common and significant mycotoxins detected were emerging mycotoxins, type B trichothecenes, and Fusarium mycotoxins.

Monogastric vs. ruminant animals

While mycotoxin contamination poses a threat to both monogastric and ruminant animals, the animals’ digestive systems react differently to the threat. Understanding the nuances of mycotoxin risks for monogastric animals, such as pigs and poultry, compared to ruminants like cows and sheep, is crucial for effective feed management.

The Alltech Asia Import Risk Analysis report provides detailed insights into the impacts of specific findings on each species of animal, distinguishing between monogastric and ruminant species.

Conclusion

Mycotoxin contamination is a significant issue for animal feed producers globally, with impacts on various grains and byproducts from different regions. The 2024 Alltech Asia Import Risk Analysis report demonstrates the need for rigorous testing and quality-control measures and offers vital information to help producers make better decisions when purchasing ingredients and formulating animal diets. 

With widespread and rising contamination in raw materials being imported into the Asia-Pacific region, it is crucial to implement effective mycotoxin management strategies. Doing so will optimize both the safety and well-being of animals and the profitability of operations. A holistic approach is essential to managing mycotoxins correctly, so establishing a routine mycotoxin testing program when purchasing feed ingredients and developing nutrition plans is crucial.

To access valuable insights on managing mycotoxin risks, download your copy of the 2024 Alltech Asia Import Risk Analysis here. We also invite you to visit knowmycotoxins.com for further resources. Don't miss this opportunity to safeguard your animals and your production.

Discover more content:

Reducing the challenge of storage mycotoxins | Alltech

The heightened risk of Penicillium mycotoxins in European forage (alltech.com)

Protecting grain and forage quality this winter | Alltech

2023 harvest: Early insights into Europe’s mycotoxin landscape (alltech.com)

About the author: 

Dr. Ghazanfar Naseer is the regional ruminant and mycotoxin technical manager for Asia Pacific at Alltech. He is currently based in Australia.

Dr. Naseer was one of three people selected to participate in the Alltech Dairy Career Development Program in 2015. His current role in the company has taken him to countries around the world. Dr. Naseer has vast international experience and expertise in ruminant nutrition and management. He has worked with various dairy and beef producers across the globe, from small farms to large operations.

Born in Pakistan, Dr. Naseer earned his doctoral degree in veterinary medicine from PMAS-Arid Agriculture University in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, with a gold medal distinction. He is also certified as a CowSignals® Master Trainer in Thailand.

On January 1, 2024, AAFCO officially implemented its new Pet Food Model Regulations, marking a significant milestone in the industry. These regulations, in development since 2015, had undergone rigorous scrutiny from various stakeholders and involved input from the AAFCO Pet Food Committee, consumer surveys and focus groups, as well as discussions with regulatory agencies, professional associations, and industry trade organizations.

The overarching goal was to bring about a modernization of pet food and specialty pet food labels, emphasizing clearer communication with consumers.

Four major label changes:

1. Pet Nutrition Facts Box

One of the most notable changes is the introduction of the Pet Nutrition Facts Box, which closely resembles the nutrition facts panel found on labels of human food. By conveying essential and easily understandable nutritional information in a standardized format, this box helps consumers make informed choices about their pets’ nutrition. It includes details such as serving size, calorie content, nutrient guarantees, total carbohydrate values, and an AAFCO nutrition adequacy statement.

The Specialty Pet Nutrition Facts Box is specifically tailored for specialty pet food products. While it includes much of the same information as the standard box, it does not require a calorie statement. However, it does have to include a nutritional adequacy statement, giving consumers clarity regarding the suitability of the product for their pets’ specific needs.

2. Product Purpose Statement:

Nutritional Adequacy Claims, which attest to the nutritional completeness of a pet food product, must now appear prominently in the lower third of the label’s principal display panel. This placement makes it easier for consumers to identify the intended life stage and purpose of a product, further enabling them to confidently choose the right products for their pets’ needs.

Veterinary diets must designate the species for which they are intended, such as “Veterinary Diet for Cats” or “Veterinary Diet for Dogs.” Treats will also need to be identified by species, as in “Dog Treat” or “Hamster Treat.”

Pet food supplements, which are not complete diets and are only intended to supply specific nutrients, must identify their purpose and species name, as in “Species Food Supplement: Dog.”

3. Ingredient Statement:

The new AAFCO regulations include updates to ingredient statement, to enhance consumer understanding and ensure transparency and consistency across products.

Of particular note is the clarification of naming conventions for meat, poultry and fish ingredients. Additionally, there are new requirements for listing sugar sources and vitamin/mineral premixes using common or usual names, as listed in the AAFCO Official Publication.

4. Handling and Storage Instructions:

While handling and storage instructions are optional, they are encouraged under the new regulations. If included, these instructions must be clearly readable and presented under a bold header. The regulations also specify guidelines for the use of graphics to support handling and storage instructions, so that consumers can easily understand how to properly handle and store their pet food products.

Adoption and enforcement

The implementation of these new regulations will be overseen by state regulatory agencies, with AAFCO encouraging uniform and timely adoption to ensure consistency across jurisdictions. To facilitate this process, AAFCO has recommended that state feed regulatory programs exercise enforcement discretion for six years following the availability of the printed version of the 2024 AAFCO Official Publication.

Furthermore, AAFCO will hold workshops to educate stakeholders on the new regulations. The next workshop will be at Petfood Forum on April 29, 2024.

About the author: 

Dr. Randall Johnson has more than 40 years of experience as a consultant to the pet food, livestock feed and aquaculture industries. A registered professional animal scientist, Dr. Johnson regularly offers advisory services for the Pet Food Institute’s Nutrition Task Force, as well as its International Trade and Regulatory Affairs committees.

Dr. Johnson is a diplomate of the American College of Animal Nutrition. He has previously served on the staff of the University of Missouri, where he also completed a post-doctoral fellowship, and as an adjunct associate professor in the Arizona State University School of Agribusiness and Environmental Resources.

Understanding contamination risk in feed and ingredients

There is growing awareness of the presence of trace heavy metals in the feed industry and their potential impacts on animal and human health.

Trace metals are naturally occurring elements, used in many industries and needed for regular body function in animals and humans. Zinc, iron and copper, for example, are essential in trace amounts. However, they can be toxic even at moderately elevated levels, and heavy metal poisoning occurs when too much of a particular metal is absorbed by the body. Mercury, lead, cadmium and arsenic are the most common metals to cause exposure at toxic levels.

The general population can be exposed to heavy metal contaminants through drinking water, dust, and fumes and from a variety of food sources (Atafar et al., 2010). Toxic heavy metals can be transferred into edible animal products such as meat, milk and eggs, and thus be passed into the human food chain. High levels of exposure to these compounds in humans can be toxic, with many having carcinogenic properties.

The buildup of heavy metals within animal protein sources can be attributed to the contamination of certain feed ingredients (Vremane et al., 1986; Spragg, 2008), with the potential for contamination originating from:

• Exposure to groundwater and soil with high levels of heavy metals during crop production (transfer into plant material)
• Bioaccumulation higher along the food chain (e.g., mercury in carnivores)
• Raw material processing (e.g., for inorganic mineral extraction and recycling)
• Cross-contamination during processing or transport, or in the feed mill

Understanding the risks within the feed industry

The past decade has seen growing scrutiny regarding the potential for heavy metal contamination in animal feeds. This is due to a number of high-profile food safety alerts. For example, in both 2020 and 2021, batches of dog foods from Europe were found to contain excessive levels of cadmium, and inorganic mineral sources destined for the feed industry are often reported by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the RASFF (Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed) Portal.

Other parts of the world, however, do not have such advanced monitoring or alert systems, and much of the risk may be missed or underestimated.

The Alltech 2023 Asia-Pacific Toxic Heavy Metal Survey

An ongoing effort to quantify the risk of toxic heavy metals to the feed industry has been carried out by Alltech in the Asia-Pacific region. Alltech initiated the survey in 2010 and has issued nine comprehensive reports so far, which have become essential benchmarks for assessing contamination risks in animal feed and trace minerals.

The survey analyzed 735 samples collected from 12 countries across the Asia-Pacific region, bringing the total number of samples analyzed to over 7,000 since the survey was launched in 2010.

Consistent with previous years, the survey evaluated lead, arsenic and cadmium levels, applying the European Union’s maximum allowable thresholds to determine contamination risks. The analysis encompassed complete feed, premix, and inorganic and organic trace mineral samples, spanning various agricultural categories including pig, poultry, ruminant, aquaculture and pet.

When completed, the survey revealed a contamination level of 14% across all these Asia-Pacific samples, with analysis showing that significant contamination was found in both organic trace mineral and inorganic mineral sources.

The survey highlighted that poultry premix exhibited the highest contamination levels at 13%, followed by aquaculture (9%) and ruminant premix samples (8%). In complete feed, swine diets demonstrated the highest contamination at 14%, followed by ruminant (9%) and poultry (5%). Certain samples displayed heavy metal levels surpassing EU regulations.

The collective results of all Alltech Asia-Pacific Toxic Heavy Metal Surveys since 2010 have revealed a persistent risk of elevated contamination in Asia-Pacific samples, with an average rate of 19%. This indicates serious and ongoing risks to both animal health and the safety of the entire food chain.

Managing feed contamination risk with reputable suppliers

To reduce the risk, it is imperative that feed and animal companies source their trace minerals from reputable sources. This involves working with companies that have robust quality systems, such as the Alltech Q+™ program, that focus on product safety, consistency and traceability for high-risk materials such as mineral sources. If we can reduce the risk of heavy metal contaminants entering the food chain, that will have flow-on effects to the human food chain.

For more information about the survey, please contact your local Alltech representative or email knowyourminerals@alltech.com.

About the author: 

Tara Tiller is the global project manager of corporate accounts and companion animals for Alltech. In this role, she oversees the growth of Alltech's pet and equine business as a member of the company's larger companion animal team.

Tara first joined Alltech as its quality assurance manager for the Asia-Pacific region. In that role, which was based in Thailand, she led the establishment of production facilities in Thailand, China, India and Vietnam and traveled extensively across Asia. She subsequently joined Alltech’s Mineral Management division, where she provided technical support and offered consultations, both internally and externally, across Asia-Pacific on trace mineral nutrition, with a focus on Alltech’s organic trace mineral range.

In 2018, Tara was named Alltech's global project manager. That role, which was based in Bangkok, combined her previous technical support responsibilities with the management of Alltech’s mineral projects and programs globally. In her current position on the company's companion animal team, she continues to develop and promote solutions and services related to mineral management.

Tara received a degree in animal science and aquaculture from the University of Tasmania in Australia.

As winter winds down and soil temperatures start to rise, spring grass pops up all over. Our equine partners eagerly start seeking out this lush, soft, green grass. However, many owners worry about this sudden transition from a rather bland winter hay ration to green spring pasture. On the other hand, when hay resources are running low, it may be tempting to just let them be — especially given the scarcity of hay this year!

In this post, we’ll explore the challenges of managing grazing horses in this season and provide practical tips for a smooth and safe transition to spring grass.

Understanding the issue: Winter hay vs. spring grass

As grass matures throughout the growing season, the protein content decreases, while the fiber fraction and dry matter content increase, resulting in an overall decrease in digestibility and digestible energy.

It therefore makes sense for early spring grass to be higher in protein, and higher in easily fermentable carbohydrate content, than the grass used to make hay, which was allowed to grow later into the season before being cut. Of course, hay will be much lower in moisture compared to fresh grass as well.

The combination of these factors sets the stage for potential digestive upset when there is an abrupt switch from hay to spring pasture. That’s a big problem, given the overall importance of gut health for horses.

Why, you ask? Well, let’s do a quick calculation.

Depending on the variety of the grass, early spring grass can be as high as 20% or more in protein. That same grass, cut later for hay, may test around 10% to 14%. We know that the majority of the average horse’s nutrients will be supplied by their forage. So, as an example, let’s say there is a 6% protein difference between our hay and our spring grass. An increase in forage protein content of 6% equates to just over a pound of additional protein consumed by the horse each day. That seemingly small change in protein content alone can almost cover the protein requirements of the average horse. Consider that the horse is now consuming that in addition to what they were getting from the hay alone.

The same goes for other nutrients passing through the digestive tract. When combined with the higher digestibility of spring grass due to its rapidly fermentable fibers, it all represents a large and potentially abrupt change in the influx of nutrients into the hindgut. This change in nutrient influx can disrupt the delicate balance of gut microbial organisms. The highly specialized and sensitive hindgut microbial population requires time to adapt to feeding changes to avoid metabolic issues. And so, as with all nutritional changes in a horse’s diet, a gradual change is ideal when moving from hay to fresh grass.

Strategies for a successful transition

Spring grass often sprouts and grows rapidly, making it difficult to accurately determine how much horses are really consuming when they have full access to pasture — but with good management, you can help to keep the transition gradual. Here are some different approaches to gradual transitions that may suit your management situation and personal preferences:

1. Keep some hay in the pasture: Start by making hay available in the pasture for the first couple of weeks, regardless of access to fresh grass. The fresh grass is lower in fiber, so horses can manage their fiber needs by going back and forth between the two forage sources.
2. Manage turn-out time: If your horse is stalled, consider reducing the amount of time they are turned out on grass and then gradually increasing it as spring progresses. This is an easier option for those who have dry lots or other areas, to make sure horses spend enough time turned out while also restricting access to grass.
3. Consider a grazing muzzle: Horses that are exclusively kept out on pasture can also be managed with a grazing muzzle. Another option, for horses kept out on large pastures, is the use of temporary fencing to restrict access, but be aware that the fencing will need to be moved frequently.

Some horses require careful oversight

Horses diagnosed with equine metabolic syndrome (EMS) conditions, a history of pasture-associated laminitis, foundering, and so forth, present a different set of challenges. They require particularly careful management during this time, should some access to a dry lot, or careful restriction practices such as muzzles or time-of-day turnout, not be possible. Depending on the individual horse’s condition, turnout on spring pasture may not be desirable regardless of the restrictions implemented.

Some horses may lose a little weight in the early days of spring, specifically the picky ones that prefer soft new grass over hay. That weight should be gained back rapidly as pasture growth rate accelerates and you can give them free access. Keep in mind, though, that mares in late pregnancy or lactation need to be monitored more closely. They have higher nutrient requirements and benefit from the more nutritious grass.

The magic number is two … or perhaps three?

For the best support of horse health throughout, the hay-to-grass transition is implemented over a two-week period. This allows those hindgut microbial communities to adjust without deleterious effects. If your horse has been fed only hay over the winter, with absolutely no access to pasture, start out more conservatively, extending the adaptation period to three weeks if needed.

Keep in mind that the area you live in will dictate when and how quickly your spring grass arrives, and this will influence your transition plans. Some areas have sparse pastures as compared to more lush areas such as Central Kentucky. Regular evaluation of your horse’s condition and your forage quality and quantity during this period are crucial to making informed adjustments to the transition plan.

Keeping these principles of equine nutrition in mind will empower you to plan for and oversee a healthy transition from winter hay to spring grass. By embracing a gradual approach and tailoring strategies to your horse’s needs, you can ensure a smooth and healthy transition, allowing them to fully enjoy spring pasture.

About the author: 

Originally from South Africa, Dr. Mieke Holder is a senior research scientist at Alltech. Her research focuses on equine nutrition and the use of Alltech technologies to improve feed and nutrient utilization, horse health and environmental sustainability. Prior to joining Alltech, Dr. Holder was a faculty member at the University of Kentucky, focusing on the environmental impact of grazing livestock. She earned her bachelor’s degree and master’s degree in animal sciences from the University of Pretoria, South Africa, followed by a Ph.D. in equine nutrition from the University of Kentucky.

I want to learn more about nutrition for my horses.