1. بِسْمِ اللّهِ الرَّحْمـنِ الرَّحِيمِ
وَقُل رَّبِّ زِدْنِي عِلْمًا
صدق الله العظيم

2. Rasha Mahmoud Hamza Sayed El-Ahl
Cairo University
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine
Department of Microbiology
STUDIES ON MYCOTOXINS-PRODUCING MOULDS IN ANIMALS AND POULTRY FEEDSTUFFS AND EVALUATION OF SOME COMMERCIAL ANTIFUNGALS By
Rasha Mahmoud Hamza Sayed El-Ahl
Under the Supervision of
Prof. Dr. Mohamed Kamal Refai
Professor of Microbiology
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine
Cairo University
Prof.Dr.Atef Abdel Aziz Hassan
Chief Researcher of Mycology and
Mycotoxins – Animal Health
Research Institute, Dokki ,Giza
Prof. Dr. Hosam Ahmed Abdel-Latif
Prof. of Feeding
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine
Cairo University
2005

3. INTRODUCTION

4. Up to date the dramatical increase in population in the world requires an efficient modern animal production industry and the manufacture of good quality feeds and food. This is necessary to give suitable growth performance of broilers, high egg production by layers and good quality meat and milk production from cattle for human consumption. This is in turn will contribute to the production of high quality food material for human consumption and the profitability of agricultural industry. Hence, great attention has been paid to the increased importance of fungi and their mycotoxins, which are serious fungal metabolites.
These fungi and mycotoxins have serious effects upon the growth rate and health of human being and animals, as some mycotoxins had been found to be hepatotoxic, carcinogenic, tremorgenic, haemorrhagic and dermatitic.

5. AIM OF WORK

6. 1. Screening single and compound feeds for fungal contamination.
2. Evaluation of the isolated Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus ochraceus for production of respective mycotoxins.
3. Testing of some commercial fungal inhibitors and antimycotoxin for prevention and control of fungal growth and mycotoxins degradation.

7. MATERIALS AND METHODS

8. I- MATERIALS: 1. Feed samples.
A total of 200 samples of feeds and feedstuffs were collected for investigation of fungal contamination and detection of aflatoxin and ochratoxin contamination. These samples included 20 of each of yellow corn, wheat, Soya bean, hay, tiben, layer’s concentrates, bone and blood meals, poultry ration, broiler’s concentrates and processed animal feed.
2. Standards of aflatoxins and ochratoxin A :
Standards of aflatoxins B1, B2, G1 and G2 and ochratoxin A were purchased from Sigma Chemical Company (USA).

9. 3. Media:
1. Sabouraud’s dextrose agar medium (SDA): (Cruickshank et al., 1975)
2. Czapek- Dox agar medium: (Al Doory, 1980)
3. Malt extract agar medium: (Cruikshank et al., 1975)
4. Fresh potato dextrose agar medium: (Shotwell et al., 1966)
5. Yeast extract sucrose liquid medium (Davis et al., 1969).
4. Chemicals and reagents:
1. Buffered peptone water (BPW): (Refai, 1979)
2. Phenol saline:
3. Other chemicals:
5. Stains: Lactophenol cotton blue stain: (Leanor and Callway, 1978)
6. Equipment, apparatus and glassware:
1. Thermostatic controlled water bath, rotary evaporator.
2. Thin layer chromatographic apparatus

10. 2- METHODS:
1. Isolation and plate colony count of moulds: (Refai, 1979)
1.1. Preparation of sample homogenate.
1.2. Dilution.
1.3. Plate pouring.
1.4. Incubation and reporting.
2. Mould identification:
- Macroscopic examination:
- Microscopic examination:
- Direct microscopic examination:
- Slide culture technique (Ajello et al., 1963)
3.1. Screening of Aspergillus flavus for productions of aflatoxin using liquid medium (Gabal et al., 1994):
- Cultivation and extraction of aflatoxins:
3.2. Estimation of aflatoxin (Lee, 1975):
- Qualitative estimation:
- Quantitative estimation of aflatoxin :

11. 4. Production of ochratoxin A by A
4. Production of ochratoxin A by A. ochraceus using liquid medium (Davis et al., 1969)
1 Extraction of ochratoxin A from liquid medium (Walbeek et al., 1968; Davis et al., 1969)
2. Purification of the acidified chloroform from liquid medium: (Vender Merwe et al., 1965 and Nessheim, 1969)
3. Qualitative determination of the prepared ochratoxin (Vender Merwe et al., 1965 and Scott and Hand, 1967)
4. Quantitative estimation of the prepared ochratoxin: (Vander Merwe et al., 1965)
5. Control of A. ochraceus and A. flavus growth by 2 commercial antifungal compounds (muv-anti mould and mycostatine) using plate count assay (Chen and Day, 1974)
- Maintaining of culture.
- Determination of inhibitory concentration.
- Incubation of plates.

12. - Colony count of fungi in commercial poultry feeds:
1. Type A Toxin: produced an irregular area of yellowish necrosis. The lesions tend to spread downwards (Alpha toxin).
2. Type B Toxin: produced a purplish yellow haemorrhagic necrosis (Beta toxin).
3. Type C Toxin: produced a reaction intensively bluer than that produced by type B.
4. Type D Toxin: produced a circular white necrosis that was fuiiy developed in 24 hours (Epsilon toxin). Sometimes it showed a few small areas of purplish haemorrhagic mottling.
- Evaluation of Muv- anti mould in inhibition of fungal growth in poultry feeds:
- Colony count of fungi in commercial poultry feeds:
- Detection of inhibitory concentration of Muv- anti mould:
- Degradation of mycotoxins (aflatoxin B1 and ochratoxin A) by hydrated sodium calcium aluminosilicate (HSCAS) compound (Harvey et al. (1991).

13. RESULTS

14. Table (1): Prevalence of main fungal species in single feeds.
Wheat
Hay
Tiben
Soya bean
Yellow corn
Isolates %
No. +ve
100 20
Aspergillus spp. 80 16 90 18 70 14 30 6
Penicillium spp. 4 60 12 40 8 – 50 10
Fusarium spp.
Mucor spp.
Rhizopus spp.
C. albicans
Rhodotorula
Cladosporium 15 3
Alternaria
Curvularia
Scopulariopsis
Chaetomium glabosum

15. Fig. (1): Prevalence of main fungal species in single feeds.%
Fig. (1): Prevalence of main fungal species in single feeds.

16. Table (2): Prevalence of members of Aspergillus, Fusarium and Penicillium species in single feeds.
Total
Tiben
Hay
Wheat
Soya bean
Yellow corn
Isolates
No. %
No. +ve
225
100 20
Aspergillus sp. 25 – 4 15 3 30 6 60 12
A. candidus 21 50 10 40 8
A. fumigatus 64 80 16
A. flavus 70 14 90 18
A. niger 13
A. ochraceus
A. parasiticus
A. terreus 68
Penicillium sp. 11
14.28 2
31.25 5
14.2
33.3
P. chrysogenum 7
7.14 1
16.6
P. digitatum
P. funicolosum
18.75
P. oryzee
12.5
P. sclerotigenum
57.1 9
37.5
35.7
P. thomii
P. viridicatum
P. vercossum
(P. crustosum)
Fusarium sp.
F. oxysporium
F. solani
F. tabacinum
F. tricinactum
(F. latiratum)
F. violacium
314

17. Broiler’s concentrate
Table (3): Prevalence of main fungal species in compound feeds.
Broiler’s concentrate
Layer’s concentrate
Processed animal feed
Poultry ration
Bone and blood meal
Isolates %
No. +ve
100 20 90 18
Aspergillus spp. 70 14 80 16 50 10
Penicillium spp. 4 15 3 –
Fusarium spp. 60 12
Mucor spp. 40 8 30 6
Rhizopus spp.
C. albicans
Rhodotorula
Cladosporium
Scopulariopsis

18. Fig. (2): Prevalence of main fungal species in compound feeds%
Fig. (2): Prevalence of main fungal species in compound feeds

19. Broiler’s concentrate
Table (4): Prevalence of members of Aspergillus, Fusarium and Penicillium species in compound feeds.
Total no. of isolates
Broiler’s concentrate
Layer’s concentrate
Processed animal feed
Poultry ration
Bone and meat meals.
Isolates %
No. +ve
188
100 20 90 18
Aspergillus sp. 22 4 40 8 30 6 -
A. candidus 68 80 16 60 12
A. flavus 10
A. fumigatus 3 15 –
A. glaucus 56 70 14 50
A. niger
A. parasiticus
A. ochraceus 28
A. terrus 63 13
Penicillium sp. 5
7.1 1
6.25
21.4
P. citreoviride 25
14.28 2
P. chrysogenum
28.75
28.57
14.2
P. digitatum
P. funiculosum
P.purpurogenum
35.7
P. restrictum
12.5
P. thomii
P. viridicatum
Fusarium sp.
F. moniliform
F. oxisporium
F. solani
F. tabacium
F. tricinatum
(F.latitum)
265

20. Fig. (3): Macroscopical feature of A. flavus.

21. Fig. (4): Microscopical structure of A
Fig. (4): Microscopical structure of A. Flavus showing globose vesicle and the streigmate over almost the entire surface and conidophore .

22. Fig. (5): Macroscopical feature of A. niger

23. Fig. (6): Microscopical feature of A. niger .

24. Fig. (7): Macroscopical feature of A. ochraceus

25. Fig. (8): Microscopical feature of A. ochraceus

26. Fig. (9): Macroscopical feature of C. albicans

27. Fig. (10): Microscopical feature of C. albicans

28. Fig. (11): Macroscopical feature of Rhodotorula species

29. Fig. (12): Microscopical feature of Rhodotorula species

30. Fig. (13): 10 days old culture of Mucor species on S.D.A. at 25°C

31. Fig. (14): Microscopical feature of Mucor species

32. Fig. (15): S.D. slant contaning Fusarium species; the colony is cottony or wolly with a delicate lavender, rose colour

33. Fig. (16): Microscopical appearance of Fusarium species

34. Fig. (17): Macroscopical feature of Penicillium species colony an S. D
Fig. (17): Macroscopical feature of Penicillium species colony an S.D.A, 7days, 25°C

35. Fig. (18): Microscopical structure of Penicillium: condiophore head were symmetrical branches consisting of serigmate and metulae. Conidia were globose.

36. Table (6): Colony count of fungi in soya bean.SE
Mean
Min.
Max. %
No. +ve
0.025
0.84 x 102
0.2 x 102
1.8 x 102
100 20
Total colony count
0.033
1.8 x 101
0.5 x 101
3 x 101
T. Aspergillus spp.
0.037
1.68 x 101 80 16
A. flavus
0.046
1.88 x 101
2.5 x 101 90 18
A. niger
0.011 30 6
A. candidus
0.054
1.37 x 101
1 x 101
2 x 101 40 8
A. terreus
0.013
0.44 x 101
0.56 x 101
A. fumigatus
1.64 x 101 70 14
Penicillium spp.
0.032
0.91 x 101
1.6 x 101 4
Mucor spp.
0.014
Rhizopus spp.
0.018
0.45 x 101
0.53 x 101
Cladosporium spp.
0.035 15 3
Alternaria spp.
0.43 x 101
0.54 x 101
Scopulariopsis spp.

37. Table (7): Colony count of fungi in wheat.SE
Mean
Min.
Max. %
No. +ve
0.0095
0.33 x 102
0.1 x 102
0.85 x 102
100 20
Total colony count
0.028
1.1 x 101
0.5 x 101
2 x 101
T. Aspergillus spp.
0.025
1 x 101 70 14
A. niger
0.049
0.41 x 101
0.58 x 101 15 3
A. candidus
0.016
0.7 x 101 50 10
A. fumigatus
0.024
0.93 x 101
1.5 x 101 80 16
Penicillium spp.
0.043
0.39 x 101
0.6 x 101 4
Fusarium spp.
0.042
0.75 x 101
Mucor spp. 40 8
Rhizopus spp
0.42 x 101
0.54 x 101
Cladosporium spp.
0.032
0.44 x 101
0.55 x 101
Alternaria spp.

38. Table (8): Colony count of fungi in hay.SE
Mean
Min.
Max. %
No. +ve
0.057
2.28 x 102
0.95 x 102
4 x 102
100 20
Total colony count
0.05
1.9 x 101
1 x 101
4 x 101
T. Aspergillus spp.
0.04
A. flavus
0.055
2.4 x 101
A. niger
0.02
0.75 x 101
0.5 x 101 4
A. ochraceus
0.172
2 x 101
1.5 x 101
A. candidus
0.03
0.93 x 101
A. terreus
0.056
0.84 x 101
1.09 x 101
A. parasiticus
0.063
2.6 x 101 90 18
Penicillium spp.
0.08
3 x 101 70 14
Fusarium spp.
1.07 x 101 15 3
Mucor spp.
0.039
2.5 x 101
Cladosporium spp.
0.037
1.4 x 101 60 12
Alternaria spp.
0.071
Curvularia spp.

39. Table (9): Colony count of fungi in tiben.SE
Mean
Min.
Max. %
No. +ve
0.009
2.03 x 102
0.9 x 102
3.2 x 102
100 20
Total colony count
0.05
2.27 x 101
0.5 x 101
4.5 x 101
T. Aspergillus spp.
0.055
2.62 x 101
1 x 101
4 x 101 80 16
A. flavus
0.029
0.95 x 101
1.05 x 101 15 3
A. fumigatus
0.06
2.5 x 101
A. niger
0.021
0.83 x 101 30 6
A. ochraceus
0.056 70 14
Penicillium spp.
0.038
1.62 x 101 40 8
Fusarium spp.
0.035 4
Cladosporium spp.
0.013
1.28 x 101
Alternaria spp.
0.019
1.75 x 101
1.5 x 101
2 x 101
C. albicans
0.156
Rhodotoruella

40. Table (10): Colony count of fungi in processed animal feeds .
Mean
Min.
Max. %
No. + ve
0.0043
1.12 x 102
0.12 x 102
3.3 x 102
100 20
Total colony count
0.043
1.15 x 101
0.5 x 101
1.5 x 101 90 18
T. Aspergillus spp.
0.02
0.87 x 101 40 8
A. flavus
0.026
0.66 x 101
1 x 101 30 6
A. niger
0.019
0.75 x 101 4
A. ochraceus
A. candidus
0.021
0.97 x 101
1.06 x 101
A. terreus
0.023
0.43 x 101
0.53 x 101
A. parasiticus
0.04
0.57 x 101 15 3
A. glucaus
0.121
2.7 x 101
6 x 101 70 14
Penicillium
0.108
2.4 x 101
3.5 x 101 60 12
Mucor
0.162
3.6 x 101
Rhizopus
0.074
1.29 x 101
1.62 x 101
Cladosporium
0.017
0.45 x 101
Scopulariopsis
0.202
3.1 x 101
3.8 x 101
C. albicans
0.072
1.6 x 101
5 x 101 50 10
Rhodoturella

41. Colony count of fungi Fungi
Table (11): Colony count of fungi in broiler’s concentrate.
Colony count of fungi
Fungi SE
Mean
Min.
Max. %
No. + ve
0.003
1.19 x 102
0.2 x 102
1.8 x 102
100 20
Total colony count
0.05
2.15 x 101
0.5 x 101
3 x 101
T. Aspergillus spp.
0.028
1.25 x 101
2.5 x 101 80 16
A. flavus
0.073
1.85 x 101
1 x 101 70 14
A. niger
0.049
0.41 x 101
0.58 x 101 15 3
A. ochraceus
0.009
0.44 x 101
0.54 x 101 4
A. candidus
0.011
0.47 x 101
0.53 x 101
A. terreus
0.45
1.14 x 101
2 x 101
Penicillium spp.
0.47x 101
Fusarium spp.
0.065
1.44 x 101 90 18
Mucor spp.
0.051
1.12 x 101 40 8
Rhizopus spp.
0.013
0.46 x 101
Cladosporium spp.

42. SE Mean Min. Max. % No. + ve Colony count of fungi Fungi
Table (12): Colony count of fungi in poultry rations.
Colony count of fungi
Fungi SE
Mean
Min.
Max. %
No. + ve
0.003
1.55 x 102
0.1 x 102
3.1 x 102
100 20
Total colony count
0.063
2.95 x 101
0.5 x 101
3 x 101
T. Aspergillus spp.
0.042
1.9 x 101
A. flavus
0.033
1.3 x 101
2 x 101 50 10
A. niger
0.028
0.45 x 101
0.54 x 101 15 3
A. ochraceus
0.013
0.44 x 101
0.56 x 101 30 6
A. candidus
0.02
0.36 x 101
0.58 x 101 40 8
A. terreus
0.025
0.55 x 101 4
A. fumigatus
0.034
1.42 x 101
2.5 x 101 70 14
Penicillium spp.
0.038
1.5 x 101
Fusarium spp.
0.03
0.9 x 101
Mucor spp.
0.032
1.25 x 101
1 x 101
Rhizopus spp.
0.015
Cladosporium spp.
0.022
0.4 x 101
0.65 x 101
Scopulariopsis spp.

43. Table (13): Colony count of fungi in layer’s concentrate.SE
Mean
Min.
Max. %
No. +ve
0.003
1.39 x 102
0.75 x 102
2.15 x 102
100 20
Total colony count
0.03
1.37 x 101
0.5 x 101
2.5 x 101 90 18
T. Aspergillus spp.
0.039
1.75 x 101 60 12
A. flavus
0.07
1.78 x 101 70 14
A. niger
0.029
0.75 x 101
1 x 101 4
A. ochraceus
0.031
0.43 x 101
0.55 x 101
A. candidus
0.1
A. terreus
0.069
3.5 x 101 80 16
Penicillium
0.038
0.43x 101
0.53 x 101 15 3
Fusarium
0.059
1.31 x 101
2 x 101
Mucor
0.045
1.5 x 101 30 6
Rhizopus
0.017
0.45 x 101
Scopulariopsis

44. Colony count of fungi Fungi SE Mean Min. Max. % No. +ve 0.002
Table (14): Colony count of fungi in bone and meat meals.
Colony count of fungi
Fungi SE
Mean
Min.
Max. %
No. +ve
0.002
1.08 x 102
0.35 x 102
2.2 x 102
100 20
Total colony count
0.055
2.5 x 101
0.5 x 101
3 x 101 90 18
T. Aspergillus spp.
0.019
0.83 x 101
2 x 101 60 12
A. flavus
0.033
A. niger
0.029
0.75 x 101
1.5 x 101 40 8
A. terrus
0.045
0.35 x 101
0.61 x 101 4
A. fumigatus
0.067
1.7 x 101 50 10
Penicillium
0.09
4 x 101 80 16
Mucor
0.34
1 x 101
Rhizopus
0.011
0.5 x 10
0.48 x 101
0.53 x 101
Cladosporium

45. Table (15): Aflatoxin production by A. flavus isolated from feeds.
Levels of aflatoxin B1 (ppm)
Toxigenicity of isolates
Incidence of isolates
Source of
A. flavus
Mean
Min.
Max. %
No. of –ve isolates
No. of +ve isolates
Mean of count
No. of +ve samples
No. of tested samples
0.6
0.4
0.8
16.6 10 2
3.9 x101 ±0.0124 60 12 20
Yellow corn
3.0
2.0
4.0
12.5 14
1.68 x101 ±0.037 80 16
Soya bean
2.3 40 8
1.9 x101 ±0.04
100
Hay
1.2 25 4
2.62 x101 ±0.055
Tiben
1.1
0.2
1.25 x101 ±0.028
Broiler’s conc.
0.625
0.05 18
1.9 x101 ±0.042
Poultry ration
4.1
6.0 50 6
1.75 x10 1 ±0.039
Layer’s conc.
33.3
0.83 x101 ±0.019
Bone and meat meals
13.725
4.05
21.1
25.8 92 32
1.58 x102 ±0.27
77.5
124
160
Total

46. Levels of ochratoxin (ppm) Toxigenicity of isolates
Table (16): Ochratoxin production by A. ochraceus isolated from feeds.
Levels of ochratoxin (ppm)
Toxigenicity of isolates
Incidence of isolates
Source of
A. ochraceus
Mean
Min.
Max. %
No. of-ve isolates
No. of +ve isolates
Mean of count
No. of +ve samples
No. of tested samples
0.400
33.3 2 1
1 x 101 ±0.069 15 3 20
Yellow corn
0.800 25
0.75 x101 ±0.02 4
Hay
1.200
0.83 x101 ±0.021 30 6
Tiben
0.300
0.200 50
0.75 x101 ±0.019
Processed animal feeds
0.050
0.5 x101 ±0.049
Broiler’s conc.
0.500
66.6
0.5 x101 ±0.028
Poultry ration
0.75 x101 ±0.029
Layer’s conc.
4.05
2.85
4.85 37 17 10
0.4 x101 ±0.234
19.2 27
140
Total

47. MIC range of tested drug (µg/ml)
Table (17): MIC of muv-anti mould on A. flavus.
MIC range of tested drug (µg/ml)
No. of tested isolats
Source of isolates
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0 1
0.75
0.5
0.25
0.125
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.1×101
0.2×101
1×10²
2×10³
0.5×104
2×104
5×105 5
Yellow corn
1×101
5×10²
8×104
6×105
7×105 6
Poultry ration
0.5×101
7×10²
3×10³
4×10³
1×104
Layer’s conc.
2×101
8×10³
6×104
3×105
4×105 4
Broiler’s conc.
4×101
2×10²
5×104
9×105 9
Hay
6×10²
1×105
8×105 10
Tiben
9×101
8×10²
7×10³ 3
Processed animal feed
3×101
4×10²
6×10³
4×104
2×105
Bone and meat meal
0: No growth of fungal isolate  this conc. of inhibitor could inhibit fungal growth.

48. MIC range of tested drug (µg/ml)
Table (18): MIC of muv-anti mould on A. ochraceus.
MIC range of tested drug (µg/ml)
No. of tested isolates
Source of isolates
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.75
0.5
0.25
0.125
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.01
3×101
5×10²
6×10²
2×10³
1×104
6×104
4×105 2
Yellow corn
7×101
8×10²
9×10²
5×10³
3×104
1×105
Poultry ration
8×101
7×10²
4×10³ 4
Layer’s conc.
1×101
3×10²
6×10³
8×10³
2×105
Broiler’s conc.
4×10²
7×10³
Hay
5×101
9×101
2×104 6
Tiben
7×104
8×104
6×105 3
Processed animal feed
0 : No growth of fungal isolate  this conc. of inhibitor could inhibit fungal growth

49. MIC range of tested drug units)
Table (19): MIC of mycostatine on A. flavus.
MIC range of tested drug units)
No. of tested isolates
Source of isolates
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.75
0.5
0.25
0.125
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.01
8×101
9×101
5×10²
2×10³
1×104
7×104
8×104
7×105 5
Yellow corn
3×10²
8×10²
1×10³
5×104
6×104
2×105 8
Poultry ration
2×10²
6×10²
5×10³
2×104 2
Layer’s conc.
7×101
9×10³
8×10³
4×105 4
Broiler’s conc.
1×101
9×104
6×105 9
Hay
6×101
2×102
9×102
7×10³
3×104
1×105 10
Tiben
4×10³
6×10³ 3
Processed animal feed
3×101
5×101
9×10²
Bone and meat meal
0 : No growth of fungal isolate  this conc. of inhibitor could inhibit fungal growth.

50. MIC range of tested drug (units/ml)
Table (20): MIC of mycostatine on A. ochraceus.
MIC range of tested drug (units/ml)
No. of tested isolates
Source of isolates
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.75
0.5
0.25
0.125
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.01
6×101
5×101
2×10²
1×10³
4×10³
2×105
6×105
8×105 2
Yellow corn
8×101
5×10²
7×10³
8×104
3×104
6×104
1×105
4×105
Poultry ration
7×101
6×10²
4×10²
6×103
9×104
3×105 4
Layer’s conc.
3×101
9×10²
8×10³
Broiler’s conc.
6×10³ 3
Processed animal feed
9×101
7×102
5×102
3×10²
2×104
1×104
Hay
9×10³
4×104 6
Tiben
0 : No growth of fungal isolate  this conc. of inhibitor could inhibit fungal growth.

51. Table (21): The mould growth on poultry feeds before adding Muv-anti mould.
Poultry’s ration
Isolates
Total 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
5.2x102
7x101
4x101
2x101
6x101
8x101
Aspergillus
1x101
C.albicans
1.6x102
3x101
5x101
Fusarium
4.8x102
Mucor
2.8x102
Penicillium
2x10
Rhodotorulla
1.7x102
1.2x102
1.3x102
1.8x102
1.4x102
2.1x102
2.2x102
1.1x102

52. Table (22): The effect of Muv-antimould on colony of mould growth after adding to poultry feeds by 2 days.
Poultry ration
Isolates
Total 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
1.2x102
1x101
2x101
Aspergillus
C.albicans
4x101
Fusarium
2.0x102
3x101
Mucor
2.0x101
Penicillium
Rhodotorulla
8x101
5x101

53. Poultry’s ration samples
Table (23): Effect of Muv-anti mould after adding to poultry feeds by one week.
Poultry’s ration samples
Isolates
Total 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Aspergillus
C.albicans
Fusarium
Mucor
Penicillium
Rhodotorulla

54. Concentration of chemical /% of Detoxification
Table (24) Detoxification of Aflatoxim B1, in poultry and animals feeds by Sat.F. Dray (commercial compound) (HSCAS).
Concentration of chemical /% of Detoxification
feed 8% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1%
0.5%
0.25% 0% %D At
100 90
5±0.0 48
26±0.01 24
38±0.1 10
45±1.0 50
Poultry feeds 85
7.5±0.2 60
20±0.5 38
31±0.7
Animal feeds
A.T= original amounts of toxin before treatment = 50ppb.
%D= % of Detoxification
HSCAS = Hydrated Sodium Calcium Aluminosilicate.

55. Concentration of chemical / % of Detoxification
Table (25) Detoxification of Ochratoxin A in poultry and animals feeds by Sat. F. Dry (a commercial compound) (HSCAS).
Concentration of chemical / % of Detoxification
feed 8% 6%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.5%
0.25% 0% %D At
100 84
8±0.8 54
23±0.2 40
30±0.5 26
37±1.0 50
Poultry feeds 94
3±0.0 60
20±0.01 32
34±0.3 20
40±0.8
Animal feeds
A.T= original amounts of toxin before treatment = 50ppb.
%D= % of Detoxification
HSCAS = Hydrated Sodium Calcium Aluminosilicate.

56. CONCLUSIONS

57. From the foregoing results its is apparent that
1. The mycoflora of the single feeds is more higher than compound feeds. This may be due to the single feeds were subjected to processes help in their contamination as bad irrigation, cultivation, harvesting, handling and storage condition. While the compound feeds subjected to heat treatment, additives and processing during preparation. These factors may decrease nycoflora of compound feeds.
2. The use of fungal inhibitors and antimycotoxins in addition to proper storage condition provided an effective ways of controlling the growth of fungi and subsequently toxin production.

58. 3. The treated feeds must be remained a time not less than 1 week before used by animal or poultry.
Therefore, frequent testing programs of feed and feedstuffs during different steps of production must be monitored before given to animal for consumption. All this way for increasing the quality of human health and animals wealth.

59. THANK YOU