ISSUE FOCUS 34 FEED & ADDITIVE MAGAZINE April 2023 ple, if it is set to a mass of 313 m/z, it will only let aflatoxin through, whereas another mycotoxin, like DON, with a mass of 297 m/z would not progress. The selected mycotoxin continues to a collision cell, which fragments the compound into its components. These fragments act as a fingerprint for each mycotoxin. Upon reaching the final mass analyser, individual fragments can be filtered again. This profile provides the confirmation of the mycotoxin presence since each compound will fragment in unique ways. This is what makes LCMS/MS so powerful; it allows control over interfering peaks by removing them, which helps its specificity, selectivity and sensitivity. MAKING A CHOICE BETWEEN TESTING METHODS It is often tempting to turn the debate between mycotoxin testing methods into a mutually exclusive outcome. In reality, it does not need to be an either-or decision, rather different methods can act as complementary tools in a mycotoxin control program. Methods such as LFDs and ELISA can provide the basis for a routine testing or quality control programs that delivers results speedily and, in a cost-effective manner. Complementing this, HPLC or LCMS/MS methods can be used on a more periodic basis to validate and support routine monitoring. Where samples like finished feeds or TMRs need to be tested, producers still only have one option, lab-based analysis. When making a decision about mycotoxin testing programs, it is important to consider what systems allow for the generation of insights with regards to species risk and recommendations on the application of nutritional solutions. As data analysis capabilities continue to accelerate, more accurately linking mycotoxin risk to animal productivity outcomes could be one of the next frontiers in the quest to better understand and manage this complex and ever-growing challenge. About Martin Minchin Graduating in 2010 with a bachelor’s degree in agriculture and land management, Martin joined a Norwegian based forage and crop care specialist. His post-graduate studies include an MBA from University of Wales Trinity Saint David and a master’s degree in food business strategy from the UCD Michael Smurfit Business School. After completing his master’s degree in 2017, Martin joined Alltech where he now holds the role of marketing manager for their Mycotoxin Management Program. PROS AND CONS OF LAB-BASED ANALYSIS Pros • Extremely sensitive, low detection limits • Detects broad range of mycotoxins simultaneously, including emerging, storage and masked toxins • Suitable for a wide range of feedstuffs including finished feeds and TMRs • Internal standards provide normalization, improve extraction recovery and help verify results Cons • More expensive per sample than rapid test kits • Expensive equipment to purchase • Longer time between sample collection and results due to shipping to laboratories • Requires skilled technicians to operate the equipment
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUxNjkxNQ==