Mycotoxin Effects in Beef Cattle

By: Elizabeth Belew, Ph.D., Patrick Gunn, Ph.D., and Ted Perry, Cattle Nutritionists with Purina Animal Nutrition

What are Mycotoxins?

Mycotoxins are toxic substances produced by a fungus, such as molds. They play a crucial role in the environment by breaking down organic matter which can be incredibly beneficial for row-crop enterprises here in the Corn belt; however, they can cause reduced animal productivity and increased morbidity and mortality. Cool, wet growing seasons can delay harvest resulting in mold and mycotoxins growing on the grain. Storing grains, feedstuffs, and forages at higher than normal moisture levels or in poor storage units also may increase mold-related problems. It should be emphasized that looks can be deceiving, as mycotoxins can be present on feeds that have little or no visible mold.

What are the most common types?

There are several types of mycotoxins that can negatively impact beef cattle performance. The common mycotoxins presence in livestock feeds are outlined below.

Vomitoxin is on many producer’s minds this year as there have been multiple hot spots identified throughout the state of Ohio during corn harvest. Vomitoxin, also known as deoxynivalenol or DON, is a toxin produced by several species of pink mold fusarium. It is a natural toxin that forms when conditions are cold and wet where the grain is grown. In animals, it may cause feed refusal, immune suppression, diarrhea, weight loss, reduced milk production, and in some cases, vomiting (more common in monogastrics).Wheat is another grain commonly affected and as such, byproducts from corn and wheat milling industries can likely concentrate DON in the by-products used for feed. While DON is typically the only toxin tested for at grain receiving stations, it is incredibly important to understand that there is a myriad of toxins that can negatively impact

THIS IS A TESTIMONIAL:

We could go on and on about Wind and Rain® mineral. How it provides the essential minerals cattle need in a convenient, weather-resistant granular form. But these cows say it all. Rely on this proven solution available through the Purina® All Seasons ™ Cattle Nutrition Program.

We can tell you more than this ad ever could. Or visit ProofPays.com

©2021 Purina Animal Nutrition LLC. All rights reserved.

Patrick Gunn, Ph.D. (317) 967-4345 pgunn@landolakes.com Cy Prettyman, Sales Specialist (740) 360-5358 clprettyman@landolakes.com

animal productivity. Furthermore, it is not uncommon to see contaminated grain contain more than one of these toxins at detectable levels. Aflatoxin is a natural carcinogen. Ingestion of aflatoxin leads to liver damage, poor animal performance, reduced immune function and increased incidence of disease, ataxia, and rough hair coat. It is the only mycotoxin regulated by the FDA with limits in liquid milk of 0.5 ppb and limits in feed of 20 ppb. Fumonisin represents the most frequent threat to cattle. In ruminant animals, fumonsin is not significantly degraded by the rumen microbes and is not well-absorbed. However, if large amounts of fumonsin are present in the diet, cattle experience lower feed intake due to decreased palatability of the ration. Prevalence of T2 increases in feeds exposed to warm and wet conditions. It is associated with intestinal hemorrhaging, gastroenteritis, immune suppression, reproductive issues, and poor animal performance. Presence of this toxin is often positively correlated with the presence of vomitoxin. Zearalenone develops in high humidity conditions followed by low temperatures. It is structurally similar to estrogen and mimics the hormone in the body. As such, consumption leads to reproductive issues including vaginitis and mammary gland enlargement. At increased concentrations in the diet, zearalenone can lead to, irregular estrous cycles, impaired reproductive function, and even abortion. Livestock that have never given birth tend to be more sensitive to the reproductive impacts of this toxin.

What levels are safe for beef cattle?

For each livestock species, the FDA has established guidelines outlining the maximum toxic level that can be fed for each of the primary mycotoxins. For cattle, the maximum toxic level for potential effects are outlined in the table below. It is important to remember, animals may be still be negatively impacted by the ingestion of mycotoxins below maximum tolerable levels. Additionally, ingestion of multiple mycotoxins simultaneously may have a more extreme negative impact on animal health than the ingestion of individual mycotoxins at similar levels. It is recommended to regularly test feedstuffs for the presence of mycotoxins. If mycotoxins are present in your feeds, they should be removed, or their use should be restricted to safe levels. Animal performance and health should improve within 3-7 days of after the removal or reduction of contaminated feeds from the diet. Additionally, flow agents, including aluminosilicate and bentonite clays, could also be added to the ration to help mitigate the effects of mycotoxins, by reducing absorption in the digestive tract of the animal.

METHANE - A BLACK EYE FOR THE CATTLE INDUSTRY? OR NOT?

By Ashley Lyon McDonald, NCBA Sr. Director, Sustainability Methane is often cited for why through GWP*. In fact, using the may be able to find ways to lead in beef is a major contributor to global new calculation, U.S. cattle move from reducing the atmospheric burden of warming. However, a new (and more contributing 2% of U.S. Greenhouse CO2, and be a part of the solution by accurate) assessment of the effect of Gas Emissions to being responsible helping reduce the intensity of climate methane shows that when the short for only 0.4%. change. Instead of vilifying the indusatmospheric life of methane is ac- GWP* was first reported by the try, those truly interested in comprecounted for, the U.S. cattle industry Climate Dynamics research team at hensive and sensible approaches to may NOT be contributing much at the University of Oxford in 2018 and mitigation should become the cattle all to global warming. Why is that has been gaining acceptance in the industry’s strongest supporters. important? If you read the anti-beef scientific community as a more accu- Is the U.S. cattle industry climate reports related to climate change, the rate accounting for methane’s effects neutral, or even climate positive? argument against beef is focused on on warming. In its previous reports, When you look at the soil and grassthe high amount of methane pro- the International Panel on Climate lands maintained by the cattle indusduced by cattle through the ruminant Change (IPCC) acknowledged the try, it is certainly a strong possibility. digestive process. Methane is viewed shortcomings of current methods of If the industry continues its tradition as a powerful greenhouse gas that has reporting methane impacts, and may of reducing emissions per unit of 25-35 times the warming impact of recommend a change to GWP* in beef delivered to consumers (through CO2, but when that impact naturally their next report, which sets the stan- nutrition, technologies, and genetics) goes away because methane is broken dard for global emissions reporting. while also continuing to be stewards down in the atmosphere the picture Many reports have relied on the old of the land by continuously improving of beef’s impact on global warm- calculation, resulting in some organi- grazing lands to stimulate plant and ing is significantly changed. Armed zations publishing articles advocating root growth (pulling down more CO2 with this new methodology, the U.S. for plant-based diets. These results from the atmosphere), then climate cattle industry may be able to show it may change, however, when GWP* is positive beef is very possible. It’s time makes minimal contributions to global adopted more broadly. By identifying the industry stops ducking the issue warming, and in the future, may even better science, NCBA is better posi- of greenhouse gas emissions and takes suggest cattle production is helping to tioned to push back on organizations the bull by the horns. If the world “cool” the effects of other industries, who are not accurately portraying wants to address global warming such as transportation and electricity the U.S. cattle industry. It also allows (along with many other related issues generation. us to build the case that the cattle like catastrophic wildfires), cattle are A recent report written by Dr. Ja- industry may actually be off-setting not only a part of the equation, but are son Sawyer at King Ranch® Institute the warming effect of other industries. the best solution. for Ranch Management and commis- With these insights, cattle producers sioned by NCBA to apply the new calculation (called Global Warming Potential Star, or GWP*) to the U.S. cattle herd shows promising evidence that our industry’s improvements over the last few decades has us hovering around zero warming equivalents from methane contributions. GWP* accounts for methane’s meager 1012 year lifespan in the atmosphere, instead of accounting for methane emissions accumulating indefinitely over time. CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels can take 1,000 years to break down in the atmosphere. This discrepancy is finally being addressed

2021 BUCKEYE FRESH MINI MEAT CUTTING WORKSHOPS

Want to learn more about food animal processing? Ohio State University extension meat specialists are offering a two-day workshop to help the current labor force face challenges brought forth by the 2020 pandemic.

What To Expect:

Participants will have a better understanding of anatomy, muscle myology, cutting guidelines, food safety, meat quality, the role of processed meat and government regulated non-meat ingredients (i.e.salt, phosphates, nitrites, etc.) finalized by conducting hands-on cutting tests to understand the impact of yields on profit margins.

Workshop Dates:

Workshops are Friday and Saturday from 8 a.m. –5 p.m. on the following dates:

March 26 & 27 April 9 & 10 April 23 & 24 May 7 & 8 May 21 & 22

Who Can Attend:

Anyone (18 years of age and older) interested, or currently, working in meat processing plants. Cost: $125 (for both days)

Location:

OSU Animal Sciences Building, The Ohio State University Room 111 -Indoor Arena; 2029 Fyffe Court, Columbus, OH 43210

In order to follow university and state guidelines, personal protective equipment (PPE) and sanitizers will be provided. Additionally, social distancing will be practiced. Lunch will be catered. Please note any food allergens during registration.

If you are interested in participating, please email Dr. Lyda G. Garcia, Extension Meat Specialist, at garcia.625@osu. edu.