The results to the third poll question shed light on how common mycotoxin contamination problems are for the food and feed industries.
The live results during both sessions presented somewhat different pictures when it comes to counteraction and prevention practices. When we aggregated response data from the two sessions, an unexpected finding emerged.
Session 1 results
In the first session, the strategy preference among attendees was almost equally divided among 3 options -a mycotoxin binder added to feed, a multi-strategy mycotoxin deactivation feed additive and good quality control/feed management- in that order.
Table 1. In the past 12 months, which mycotoxin mitigation methods have you used? AM results
|Method||% of respondents|
|A mycotoxin binder added to feed||33%|
|Good quality control, feed management||33%|
|A multi-strategy mycotoxin deactivation feed additive||29%|
|Currently looking for a solution||18%|
|Mycotoxins are not an issue for us||5%|
Source: Mycotoxin Outlook 2018 webinar session 1 poll question 3
SESSION 2 RESULTS
In the second session, which had a greater number of participants from the Western Hemisphere, good quality control took the top spot, quickly followed by mycotoxin binder and then a multi-strategy mycotoxin deactivation feed additive.
Table 2. In the past 12 months, which mycotoxin mitigation methods have you used? PM results
|Method||% of respondents|
|Good quality control, feed management||40%|
|A mycotoxin binder added to feed||38%|
|A multi-strategy mycotoxin deactivation feed additive||31%|
|Currently looking for a solution||16%|
|Mycotoxins are not an issue for us||10%|
Source: Mycotoxin Outlook 2018 webinar session 2 poll question 3
Surprising aggregate results
What was less apparent during the live sessions was that -unlike the first two poll questions- here poll question 3 allowed for multiple choice. Many webinar attendees selected two, three or even four choices when answering the question-something we weren't able to devote much time to during the live discussion.
Once we complied the aggregate results from both sessions, a surprising finding jumped out: a combination of strategies was the most popular answer to the question of which methods attendees had used in the past year.
Figure 1. In the past 12 months, which mycotoxin mitigation methods have you used? (both sessions)
Source: Mycotoxin Outlook 2018 webinar poll question 3 aggregate results
By a slight margin, a combination of strategies ranked as the top method for mycotoxin mitigation; 21.6% of respondents. Admittedly, this category includes a variety of combinations. Among the top combinations were: 1) a binder plus a multi-strategy mycotoxin deactivator, and 2) a binder plus a multi-strategy mycotoxin deactivator plus quality control and feed management - followed by another 15 permutations.
Use of a mycotoxin binder and good quality control/feed management ranked as second and third most popular mitigation methods, at 21.2% and 19.6%, respectively.
Why a combination makes sense
Both regular testing of feed ingredients and the use of mycotoxin deactivators in animal diets are important components of a robust mycotoxin risk management program. These reflect the core competencies of Romer Labs and BIOMIN, respectively.
The effects of mycotoxins in various animal species ultimately translate into losses in productivity for the feed and food sectors. There are a number of actions you can take to reduce the risk of mycotoxin contamination before, during and after harvest. For many feed mills, integrations and farms, adding Mycofix® to animal diets is a key component of their mitigation plan. By protecting your animals, you can help improve your bottom line results.