业内都知道霉菌毒素的问题是中国饲料原料乃至全球饲料原料，或者是我们在养殖过程中碰到的最大的问题。关于霉菌毒素的消除，霉菌毒素吸附剂是一个比较好的方法，吸附剂价格从几元钱到几十元钱，甚至上百元钱每千克，价格差这么大，到养殖中到底能起多大的效果?今天在这里，我简单分享一下霉菌毒素吸附剂的评估方法，以及添加剂、防霉剂等等问题。
霉菌毒素吸附剂的评估
在中国农业部的三个目录中是没有霉菌毒素吸附剂这个条款的，美国也没有，欧洲也没有，在饲料工业术语中也没有这个词，这个词仅用于商业和学术上的讨论。霉菌毒素吸附剂在官方上也没有得到认可，最大的问题就是很多饲料企业到农业部去反应，说自己按照霉菌毒素吸附剂厂家的检测和建议，添加了霉菌毒素吸附剂之后，饲料被官方抽查，检测结果不合格，把吸附剂的厂家告到农业部去了。农业部专门对这方面做了解释，是因为吸附剂在农业部没有被认可，这是第一个问题。
第二点，关于吸附剂的作用，很受关注，褒贬不一。它的评估方法有体内和体外两类，体内评估的方法很难说得清楚，体外的方法，所有卖霉菌毒素吸附剂的厂家到饲料公司做宣传时都能给出很好的数据，但一个科学的方法一定要证明饲料原料霉菌毒素是如何转移的，这一点要说清楚，能证实，这个评估的方法才是有效的方法。
现在被吸附剂厂家所普遍采用的方法是这样的：基本上把霉菌毒素的标样游离，加入到缓冲溶液中，加上毒素吸附剂，经过振动、离心、分离，取上清。我认为这样的数据最大的好处是操作简单，但是这脱离了实际的情况，因为霉菌毒素在我们的饲料中、或者饲料原料中并不是以游离状态存在的，或者说游离存在的只是一部分，还由一部分是结合态的，如果这样的评估是加了一个游离毒素的标样，这样的数据和实际是相差甚远的。
有一些厂家也看到了前一个方法的问题，第二个方法进行了一定改进，叫做空白基质的方法。取一个空白基质，比如说玉米或者淀粉，这里面是不含任何毒素的，加上标准样品，实际上就加了一定的干扰，再把这些东西加到缓冲浓液里面去，经过振荡、离心，同样认为上清液中毒素的减少是吸附的数量。这个时候我们认为它跟现实的原料情况还是不一样，虽然增加了干扰因子，但这个数据还不是很可靠。
新方法试验
基现在厂家给我们提供的方法是这样，我们自己通过这几年的摸索形成了另一个方法，我们认为毒素的吸附或者毒素跟原料是有结合力的，吸附剂必须把毒素跟原料的蛋白或者淀粉的结合力破坏掉，形成一种结合物，这个结合物在肠液或者胃液中不被解析，通过这个途径，我们就做了一个已知毒素含量的天然底物，然后加上吸附剂，通过仿生消化的方法，让毒素和吸附剂形成一个结合物，再经过分离。这个方法的创新点，就是把霉菌毒素吸附剂加进去以后，可以把毒素能够分离出来，把吸附剂分离进来，能明确指出霉菌毒素从原料中转移到什么地方去了。我们几乎用了一年半的时间想分离的方法，最后攻克了分离这个难点。但是现在看来，吸附剂的回收率只能做到75%左右，还不是很理想，有待进一步的提高。我认为这样一个毒素转移的过程，能把它讲清。
用这样的方法，我们看它对霉菌毒素的吸附。选择一个被黄曲霉素污染的棉粕，测定空白时的数据，然后加蒙脱石，进行体外消化，把棉粕和蒙脱石分离出来，分离出来的蒙脱石就能达到80ppb左右。经过分离以后，黄曲霉毒素都转移到分离出的吸附剂里了。再看牛的饲料，前面是按每吨5千克添加的，现在有这样一个添加方式，就是按照0.1千克、0.3千克，1千克，3千克，5千克，7.5千克，10千克，每吨饲料按这样的比例添加，没有添加前牛的饲料是54ppb，在不同添加比例的时候，牛的饲料经过分离，毒素含量明显下降，加到5千克到7.5千克的时候，吸附力上升的数据就比较低了，一般都是在5千克上下，这是一个比较好的吸附。
不同厂家的吸附剂，对黄曲霉毒素，对呕吐毒素，对赤霉烯酮，最后的结果不同，包括蒙脱石在内的对黄曲霉毒素的吸附还算是比较有效，好的话能做到70左右，对呕吐毒素跟赤霉烯酮的吸附，按我们这个方法做出来的效果是非常有限的，就是呕吐毒素好的厂家能做到25左右，赤霉烯酮做到20左右。
霉菌毒素吸附剂的选择
通过这些数据我们能看到一些什么?第一是关于毒素吸附剂的问题，虽然官方没认可，但是商品化的只有它能做，其他的不行。但是评价方法确实没有公认的标准，直接加标样，缓冲液的吸附效果是比较好，数据也非常漂亮，但是那个数据是被夸大的，实际上无论是养殖企业，还是饲料企业，大家在生产实践中看到的也是同样的，对呕吐毒素，对赤霉烯酮的消除，无论用什么样的方法，在实践中都非常非常有限。通过这个实验我们得到的结论是，对常见的霉菌毒素，如果采用吸附剂的方法，对黄曲霉毒素是有效的。这种有效我需要花多少钱能做到的呢?3块5块钱的蒙脱石就足够了，没必要钱几十块钱达到这样的效果。如果你想把赤霉烯酮和呕吐毒素有效降低，现在靠吸附的方法是不可能的，是非常有限的，充其量也就是降低20-30，如果你想降低的话唯一的方法就是买好的药。未来生物技术在脱毒这方面会得到更广泛的关注。
总结
第一，抗氧化剂含量并不一定等于质量，关键是看抗氧化剂效果的评估，好的抗氧化剂的效果才有好的质量。
抗氧化剂说穿了是自己牺牲了，保护了别人(底物)。在纯氧的条件下，如果抗氧化能力越强，氧的浓度不会变化。一旦抗氧化剂消化掉了以后，氧开始对底物进行氧化，氧的分压迅速下降。不同的抗氧化剂加到一个饲料里面或者同一个脂肪里面，表现的效果是不一样的，有的线平衡达到几十个小时，我们最长测过能达到30几个小时。比较差能达到一个小时，半个小时，最差的加了抗氧化剂以后比对照组还要差，这个抗氧化剂就没有任何意义了，反而起到反作用。这个时候我们就研究出了不同的抗氧化剂拐点的时间。面对众多抗氧化剂的品牌，我们怎么来选择，怎么样能保证饲料不被氧化，迫使我的成本做到最低，我们现在就是采用这样一个评价的方式来选择抗氧化剂的品牌和添加量。
现在抗氧化剂不是单一的，把不同的成分进行配伍，结果不同;相同的成份，不同的含量，结果也不同。现在很多大企业也在追求平衡点越长，但是带来了新问题。因为在中国饲料行业合法的抗氧化剂只有这几种，实际上其他行业也用抗氧化剂，比如说汽车的轮胎橡胶高温高热，橡胶很容易被氧化，所以轮胎橡胶中有很多的抗氧化剂，这些抗氧化剂是不能食用的。追求抗氧化剂的效果带来的新的问题，就是有一些抗氧化剂的厂家开始用轮胎橡胶用的抗氧化剂，例如使用2246，这个时候就带来新的问题--要怎么样防止出现食品安全的问题。
The English version
Industry know mycotoxin problem is China's feed ingredients, feed ingredients, and even the whole world or is one of the biggest problems we met in the process of breeding. About the elimination of mycotoxin, mycotoxins adsorbent is a better method and adsorbent price from a few dollars to several dozens yuan, even hundreds of yuan per kilogram, price difference is so big, in the farming can have the effect that is how much? Here today, I share some simple mycotoxins adsorbent evaluation methods, as well as the additive, fungicide, and so on.
The evaluation of mycotoxins adsorbent
In the Chinese ministry of agriculture of three directories is no mycotoxins adsorbent this clause, the United States also have no, Europe also have no, also does not have the word in the feed industry terms, the word is used only for commercial and academic discussion. Mycotoxins adsorbent on the official has not accepted, the biggest problem is that many enterprises to the ministry of agriculture feed to reaction, said he was in accordance with the mycotoxins adsorbent factory inspection and the suggestion, add the mycotoxins adsorbent, feed is the official selectiving examination, test result is unqualified, the manufacturer of the adsorbent to went to the department of agriculture. The agriculture department specially made explanation to this aspect, because of the adsorbent in the department of agriculture has not been approved, this is the first question.
Second, about the effect of adsorbent, is very popular, mixed reviews. Its evaluation methods have two types of in vivo and in vitro, in vivo evaluation methods is difficult to say clearly to the method of in vitro, all sell mycotoxins adsorbent manufacturers to feed company do propaganda can give very good data, but a scientific approach must be to prove how the mycotoxin feed raw material is transferred, it should be clear, can be confirmed that this evaluation method is effective.
Method is widely adopted by adsorbent manufacturers now is this: basically the mycotoxin sample free, join the buffer solution, and poison adsorbent, through vibration, centrifugal, separation, take the supernatant. I think this data is the biggest benefit of the operation is simple, but it out of the actual situation, because in the process of our feed mycotoxins, or does not exists in the free state of feed ingredients, or free existence is just part of also by combining state is a part of the, if the assessment is to add a sample free of toxins, such data and actual is far.
Some manufacturers have also seen the problem of the previous method, the second method was improved, called blank matrix method. Take a blank substrate, such as corn or starch, it is do not contain any poison, combined with standard sample, actually added some interference, then add them into the buffer thick liquid, after oscillation, centrifugal, also note that reduce toxin in the supernatant fluid is the amount of adsorption. This time we think it is not the same as real raw material situation or, although increased the interference factors, but the data is not very reliable.
A new method for
Base manufacturers to provide us with method now is such, ourselves through these years of groping formed another method, we think the toxins with raw material is adsorption or the binding force, adsorbent must put toxins with the adhesion strength of the raw material of protein or starch eroded, form a kind of combination, this combination in intestinal juice or gastric juice is not parsed, by this way, we'll do a known toxin content of natural substrate, and then combined with adsorbent, by the method of bionic digestive let toxins and adsorbent to form a combination, after separation. Innovation points, this method is the mycotoxins adsorbent added later, can put the toxins can separate, separate the adsorbent in, can clear mycotoxin where to move from the raw material. We almost spent one and a half years to separation method, finally overcome the separation of the difficulty. But now it seems that the recovery rate of adsorbent can achieve 75%, also is not very ideal, remains to be further improved. I think such a toxin transfer process, to make it clear.
In this way, we look at its adsorption of mycotoxin. Select a aflatoxin contamination of cotton pulp, when the gap is measured data, and then add montmorillonite, carries on the in vitro digestion, to separate cotton pulp and montmorillonite, the separated montmorillonite can reach about 80 PPB. After separation, aflatoxin and transferring them to the separation of the adsorbent. Then look at the cattle feed, front is added according to the 5 kg per ton, now there is a way to add, is according to 0.1 kg, 0.3 kg, 1 kg, 3 kg, 5 kg, 7.5 kg, 10 kg, per tonne of feed that according to the proportion of added, without adding former cattle feed is 54 PPB, at the time of adding different proportion, the cattle feed after separation, toxin content decreased obviously, add to 5 kg to 7.5 kg, adsorption data is lower up, are generally in 5 kg, it is a better adsorption.
Different manufacturers of the adsorbent, to aflatoxin, to vomiting toxins, gibberellic ketene, the end result is different, including montmorillonite, adsorption of aflatoxin is more effective, good can do around 70, adsorption of vomiting toxins with gibberellic ketene, according to we make to the effect of this method is very limited, is vomiting toxins good manufacturer can do 25 or so, gibberellic ketene do 20 or so.
The choice of mycotoxins adsorbent
Through these data we can see some? The first is the questions about the toxin adsorbent, although officials have not recognized, but the commercialization of only you can do it, not the other. But there is no accepted standard, evaluation method is directly with the prototype, the buffer is better adsorption effect, the data is also very beautiful, but the data is exaggerated, in fact both farmed enterprise, or feed enterprises, we see the same in the production practice, the vomiting toxins, eliminate to gibberellic ketene, no matter use what kind of method, are very limited in practice. Through the experiments we get the conclusion is that the common mycotoxins, if adopt the method of adsorbent, the aspergillus flavus toxin is effective. This effectively I need to spend how many money can do? Three of the five dollars montmorillonite is enough, don't need the money a few dollars to achieve such effect. If you want to gibberellic ketene and vomiting toxins effectively reduce, now by the method of adsorption is impossible, is very limited, at best, that is, to reduce the 20 to 30, if you want to reduce the only way is to buy good medicine. The future biotechnology in detoxification will get wider attention.
conclusion
First, antioxidant content does not necessarily equal to the quality, the key is to see the antioxidant effect of evaluation, good antioxidant effect is good quality.
Antioxidants, after is his sacrifice, to protect others (substrate). Under the condition of pure oxygen, if the stronger antioxidant ability, concentration of oxygen will not change. Once the digest antioxidants, oxygen began oxidation on the substrate, the oxygen partial pressure drops rapidly. Different antioxidant added to a feed or inside the same fat, the effect of the performance is different, some line balance is a few hours, we tested longest can reach 30 hours. Less able to achieve an hour, half an hour, after the worst added antioxidant is even poorer than the control group, the antioxidant doesn't make any sense, but counterproductive. This time we developed different antioxidant inflection point of time. In the face of numerous brands of antioxidants, we how to choose, how to keep the feed from oxidation, forcing me to achieve the lowest cost, we have now is the way of adopting such a evaluation to select antioxidant brand and add quantity.
Antioxidants are not single now, put the compatibility of different ingredients, different results; The same ingredients, different levels, different results. Now many large enterprises in the pursuit of the longer the balance, but has brought new problems. Because in China feed industry legal there's only several antioxidants, in fact other industries with antioxidants, such as car tyre rubber in high temperature high fever, the rubber is easy to oxidation, so there are many antioxidants in tire and rubber, these antioxidants are inedible. Achieve the effect of antioxidant brought new problems, is some antioxidant manufacturers began in tire and rubber in antioxidants, such as using 2246, this time will bring new problems, how to prevent food safety problems.
|
