Figures
1.1 Samples of some contaminated ingredients. 5
1.2 Samples of DON-contaminated wheat before and after mechanical cleaning. 10
2.1 Fusarium Head Blight of wheat and Fusarium Ear Rot of maize. 14
2.2 Maize infected with Fusarium verticillioides. 19
2.3 White fungal growth on an entire maize ear caused by S. maydis. 34
2.4 S. maydis stalk rot infections caused maize stalks to lodge in a field. 34
2.5 Black pycnidia containing conidia. 35
2.6 Cylindrical, two septate conidia of S. maydis 35
3.1 Stepwise analysis of the toxicological interaction in a mixture. 55
3.2 Isobologram illustrating the combined cytotoxicity of trichothecenes DON and 3-ADON) at concentrations eliciting 10%, 30% or 50% inhibition of the viability of intestinal Caco-2 cells. 57
4.1 Average days of sickness and of administered antibiotic doses in piglets fed diets naturally contaminated with DON at marginal levels or moderately contaminated with DON. 85
5.1 Illustrative photographs of poultry post-mortem analysis following exposure to a combination of DON and FUM toxins. 104
5.2 The effect of different mycotoxins on the intestinal epithelium. 113
6.1. Effects of main Fusarium mycotoxins on nutrient digestibility, feeding behaviour, immune state, body weight, milk yield and quality, and reproduction function in dairy cows. 137
7.1 The contamination of commercial fish feeds with the most commonly investigated mycotoxins: AFB1, OTA, T-2 toxin and ZEN, DON, and FB1. 160
7.2 This graph represents the lowest DON concentrations (LOAEL) in fish that show negative effects on different endpoints. 161
7.3 The knowledge gap between duration of exposure and the lowest DON concentrations (LOAEL) that show negative effects in the fish. 163
7.4 The lowest sublethal T-2 toxin concentrations (LOAEL) that show negative effects on different endpoints in the fish. 163
7.5 The lowest sublethal FB1 concentrations (LOAEL) that show negative effects on different endpoints in the fish. 164
7.6 Summary of the 30 data points derived from the literature showing the lowest ZEN concentrations (LOAEL) that show negative effects on different endpoints in the fish. 165
7.7. Each circle represents a study reporting the lowest ZEN concentrations (LOAEL) that show negative effects on the fish. This graph shows the knowledge gap between duration of exposure and effects in different fish species. 166
7.8 The lowest sublethal AFB1 concentrations (LOAEL) that show negative effects on different endpoints in the fish. 167
7.9 In total, 166 data points for the lowest sublethal AFB1 concentrations (LOAEL) with negative impact on different fish species were retrieved from the literature, all showing negative effects. 168
7.10 The relationship between duration of exposure and the lowest AFB1 concentrations (LOAEL) that show negative effects in fish. 169
7.11 The predicted hazard concentrations for 5 % of a fish population (CC5) on the left side, and on the right side the density plot of the predicted CC5 concentrations for AFB1 intoxication in fish. 169
7.12 In total 42 data points for the lowest sublethal OTA concentrations (LOAEL) with negative impact on fish were retrieved from the literature, showing negative effects on different endpoints in the fish. 170
7.13 The concentration-dependent effects of water-borne exposure of zebrafish embryos to ENN A for 24 h and 48 h, n=12 for each toxin concentration. Damaged embryos either showed retarded development, oedema or were dead. 172
7.14 The effects on zebrafish embryos of water-borne exposure to 2,000 ng/ml ENNA for 24h, 1,000 ng/ml ENNA for 24 h, the solvent ethanol at a concentration of 0.01% for 24 h, 2,000 ng/ml ENNA for 48 h, 1,000 ng/ml ENNA for 72 h, 1,000 ng/ml ENNB for 72 h. 172
7.15 The concentration-dependent effects of water-borne ENNA exposure on the developmental stage of zebrafish embryos after 48h. 173
7.16 Feed conversion ratios (FCR) calculated from feeding studies using mycotoxin contaminated feeds and the same feeds with the addition of feed additives. 175
7.17 Specific growth rates (SGR) calculated from feeding studies using mycotoxin contaminated feeds and the same feeds with the addition of feed additives. 176
7.18 Survival calculated from feeding studies using mycotoxin contaminated feeds and the same feeds with the addition of feed additives. 177
8.1. Summary of surveys performed in dog and cat feed. 194
11.1 Schematic diagram showing the three main steps in a sampling plan: sampling, sample preparation, and sample analysis, which are associated with sources of variability and error. 244
11.2 Pre-determined sampling positions on a bale and pit silage. 247
14.1 Flow chart showing the steps of the in vitro embryo production process. 296
14.2 Representative images of embryonic stem cell differentiation in vitro. 298
14.3 Schematic representation of the germ-cell production cycle from fertilisation until release of gametes. 305
15.1 Disease cycle of Fusarium head blight in oats caused by Fusarium graminearum 318
15.2 Representative images of a wheat sample before and after mechanical cleaning. 332
15.3 Dynamic evolution of bacterial, yeast and fungal communities during ensiling, and fungi dynamic evolution during ensiling and feed-out time. 340
16.1 Categories/sub-categories of feed additives for reducing livestock exposure to mycotoxins. 365
18.1 Climate change impacts the classic host changes and pest/pathogens, and environment triangle, which may occur due to the pressure of climate-change scenarios. 397
18.2 Relative AFB1 reduction using an antagonist strain as a biocontrol agent in a spore ratio of 50:50 pathogen:antagonist using conventional and GM maize. 402
18.3 Effect of antagonist atoxigenic A. flavus strain against a toxigenic strain in a conidial ratio of 50:50 pathogen:antagonist on relative expression of the regulatory gene aflR using conventional and GM maize. 403
Tables
1.1 Examples of swine and poultry diets multi-contaminated with mycotoxins 4
1.2 Main mycotoxins and their symptoms in different animal species 7
1.3 Concentrations of ZEN in diets of sows, and of ZEN and its metabolites in the milk of sows as measured by ELISA and LC-MS/MS, combined or not combined with SPE. 9
6.1 Survey on the effects of Fusarium toxin ingestion in ruminants based on experimental, field, and in vitro trials 138
8.1 Clinical findings associated with mycotoxin exposure in pets 196
10.1 Edible insects as animal feeds 229
10.2 Effect of mycotoxins on edible insect larvae 231
10.3 Metabolism of mycotoxins in several insect larvae 232
11.1 Division of cereal lots into sublots based on the feedstuff and batch weight 246
12.1 Mycotoxin analysis studies in animal samples, including the method, detector, mycotoxins, exposure, sample, and detected mycotoxin level 256
12.2 Relevant biomarker for feed additives intended to be registered as mycotoxin decontaminant in the EU 262
15.1 Important mycotoxins produced by fungal species within the genus Fusarium and by the genera Penicillium, Aspergillus, Claviceps and Alternaria. 316
15.2 Examples of the reduction in the content of mycotoxins and mass loss by cleaning, sorting, dehulling, etc (treatment method) of barley grain. 334
15.3 Examples of the reduction in the levels of mycotoxins and mass loss by cleaning, sorting, dehulling, etc. of oat grain. 335
17.1 Toxicological references values determined by EFSA for pigs exposed to selected mycotoxins 387
17.2 Toxicological references values determined by EFSA for poultry exposed to selected mycotoxins 388
17.3 Toxicological references values determined by EFSA for ruminants exposed to selected mycotoxins 389
17.4 Toxicological references values determined by EFSA for fish exposed to selected mycotoxins 390
17.5 Toxicological references values determined by EFSA for rabbit, cat, dog and horse exposed to selected mycotoxins 390
17.6 EU Regulatory limits of AFB1 in animal feed 391