experiences with management of fusarium-toxins in cereals in … · 2009. 2. 23. · 2 6th...

A-3.pptExperiences with management of Fusarium-toxins in cereals in France
Bruno BARRIER-GUILLOT INTERCEREALES COPA-COGECA
2 6th Fusarium-toxin forum
COPA-COGECA: the voice of European farmers and co-ops since 1958 – 76 Member Organisations – 15 million farmers – 40.000 co-ops
INTERCEREALES: professional organization of the cereal sector in France
• Production • Collectors (Coops, Merchants) • International trade • First processing industries (food and feed)
COPA-COGECA, INTERCEREALES
• R 1881/2006 - maximum levels for Fusarium-toxins into force from 1st July 2006 for human consumption (1st October 2007 for maize)
• Being below maximum levels = a new condition to accede to the market
• DON : the most common Fusarium-toxin found in cereals produced in France and Europe. Zearalenone and fumonisins : also in maize
• Mycotoxins : very stable compounds, not degraded during processing
• Prevention is better than cure !
Introduction
Progress in Progress in preventionprevention researchresearch
• Situation of maize in 2006 (DON, zearalenone and fumonisins) • Situation of wheat and durum wheat in 2007 and 2008 (DON)
• High levels in grains • Problem of pics • Progression of Fusarium into the kernel with flours more
contaminated and more variable than usually
• Results of surveys • At field level or at silo entry, before sorting or cleaning
Occurrence: problem of difficult years
Despite all the work to prevent toxin accumulation, climate is the main influencing factor and leads to great variations in mycotoxin levels
FUMO+DON and/or ZEA FUMO DON+ZEA ZEA DON
% >
Arvalis (Farm field survey)
• A farm field survey with coops and traders to identify involved factors, weigh the importance of these factors and study their interactions •Sampling at harvest – Analysis on elementary sample from
each field with maximal variation
• A national survey to evaluate the natural occurrence of production: •Sampling at silo entry – Analysis on aggregate samples from
several elementary samples from the same site –
For both wheat and durum wheat
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2006 2007 2008
NN20072007=149=149
NN20062006=84=84
2006, 2007, 2008 2006, 2007, 2008 FarmFarm fieldfield surveysurvey DON in DON in wheatwheat ((µµg/kg)g/kg)
(% of (% of resultsresults))
NN20082008=106=106
12% 6% 4% 3% 2% 2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
<750 750-1250 1250-1750 1750-2250 2250-8000 >8000
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009
rc en
8%
1%
20%
41%
35%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
2007-2008 2008-2009
DON content (µg/kg) in wheat
69%
6%
14%
19%
2006 2007 2008
NN20072007=154=154
NN20062006=111=111
2006, 2007, 2008 2006, 2007, 2008 FarmFarm fieldfield surveysurvey DON in DON in durumdurum wheatwheat ((µµg/kg)g/kg)
(% of (% of resultsresults))
NN20082008=117=117
3% 3% 4% 10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
<750 750-1250 1250-1750 1750-2250 2250-8000 >8000
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009
DON content (µg/kg) in durum wheat
(percent over 1750 ppb in 7 french regions)
0%
31%
2007-2008
2008-2009
However variability is more pronounced
• at the regional level • at field level
Very different situations between years : a high climate effect !
Occurrence: problem of difficult years
Activity of collectors
• All data come directly from fields, or at the entry of silos
• Collectors operate monitoring plans at reception and/or expedition stage to identify not compliant lots, in order to dispatch them to other outlets (feed or industrial outlets)
• The technical activity of collectors reduce the variability • Receiving (identifying, sampling, classifying…) • Packaging (cleaning, sorting, drying, gathering) • Storing (cooling, transferring between silos…) • Dispatching (loading, sampling)
• Problem in occurrence some years: primarily a climatic effect !
Mycotoxin management: from theory to practice
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Su m
o f
pr ec
ip it
at io
• Question of the definition of a lot ? « an identifiable quantity… delivered at one time… having common characteristics such origin, variety… »
A lot is often an aggregation of differents sublots
A lot is often divided in sublots
And distribution of mycotoxins is heteregenous!
And samples can be performed from either the entire lot, either from one sublot
Impossibility to analyse each field or each lot! • Technical feasability • Time • Money
A higher risk and a higher variability : more controls are necessary
Why many difficulties in applying the regulation ?
• Difficulties to know the risk for each field or each lot
• Problem in occurrence some years: primarily a climatic effect !
• Reliable sampling methods:
• Fusarium-toxins: non homogeneous distribution (even inside a field): distribution depends on fields constituting the lot
• The Regulation proposed for food is unapplicable for large volumes in practice and is adding costs
A more appropiate sampling procedure for Fusarium-toxins is possible (French AFNOR – XP V03-777 – june 2008)
Nevertheless, sampling remains a critical operation: • Take different incremental samples • Aggregate them • Divide into sub-samples for labs
• Reference analysis methods (for LABS):
• Complex analysis with high uncertainty • Necessity to have standardized and normalized methods • Not appropriate for the screening of batches
• Rapid analysis methods (for OPERATORS):
• Necessity to have rapid, accurate and cheap methods for a first screening of batches
Whatever the method, results with high uncertainty (∼40%), when it is known…
Operators are not used to manage results with such variability…
Definition of the lot for sampling +
Uncertainty from sampling itself +
Why many difficulties in applying the regulation ?
Misunderstanding or disputes between buyers and sellers
Risk of rejection of lots
Higher costs
• National surveys to evaluate the natural occurrence of production • Farm field surveys agrosupply distributors (coops and merchants) to identify
involved factors, weigh the importance of these factors and study their interactions
• Experimental trials : • Contamination pathways of Fusarium • Impact of soil management • Evaluate the cultivar susceptibility • Evaluate the impact of borers • …
• National research programmes
An effective collaboration between all levels of activity of cereal sector: authorities and public institutions, research institutes, farmers, collectors and trade companies, first processing companies, seed and agrochemical companies…
Previous crop Tillage
FactorsFactors : : fromfrom the the highesthighest ((********) to the ) to the lowestlowest ((**) of importance) of importance
ClimateClimate********
ARVALIS-Institut du végétal, 2005
Ploughing
M ea
n D
O N
µ g/
% >
Agronomic risk
Agronomic risk
Arvalis - 2008
Ploughing
Arvalis - 2008
M ea
n D
O N
µ g/
% >
Agronomic risk
Agronomic risk
Arvalis - 2008
D O
N B
as is
1 00
MT : Minimum Tillage
DurumDurum wheatwheat afterafter maizemaize
• Technical meetings, forum, workshops…
2è s éminaire
Myc otoxines des c éréalesMyc otoxines des c éréalesMyc otoxines des c éréales
JEUDI 3 AVRIL 2008
2è s éminaire
Myc otoxines des c éréalesMyc otoxines des c éréalesMyc otoxines des c éréales
JEUDI 3 AVRIL 2008
• Despite maximum prevention, problems in compliance remain
• Conflicts between technical advices or political decisions:
• annual ploughing against Fusarium-toxins vs minimum tillage for environmental considerations (minimum tillage: from 21 to 34% between 2001 and 2006)
• authorized pesticides (triazols could be withdrawn with review of R CE/91/414 on pesticides)
• authorized GMO ?
• Necessity to have reliable sampling methods and validated methods of detection and analysis - Research of harmonization and standardization.
Conclusions

experiences with management of fusarium-toxins in cereals in … · 2009. 2. 23. · 2 6th...

Documents