Regional Workshop on the Aflatoxin Challenges in Eastern and Southern Africa: Improving Health, Trade & Food Security through Regional Efforts to Mitigate Aflatoxin Contamination, Lilongwe, 11-13 March, 2014 Technology Solutions and Opportunities available for Abating the Aflatoxin Challenge Ranajit Bandyopadhyay IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria
Aflatoxin Facts Highly toxic metabolite produced by the ubiquitous Aspergillus flavus fungus The fungus resides in soil and crop debris, infects crops and produces the toxin in the field and in stores Fungus carried from field to store Favoured by high night temperature and dry conditions Drought stress predisposes plants to aflatoxin Contamination possible without visible signs of the fungus
Aflatoxin Contamination Occurs in Two Phases Phase I: Before Crop Maturity Developing crops become infected. Associated with crop damage (insect, bird, stress). Favored by high temperature (night) and dry conditions. Phase II: After Crop Maturity Aflatoxin increases in mature crop. Seed is vulnerable until consumed. Rain on the mature crop increases contamination. Associated with high humidity in the field & store, insect damage, and improper crop storage or transportation.
Aflatoxin (ppb)ppb) Pre-Harvest Problem Aflatoxin in Groundnut and Maize at Harvest Peanut (n = 188) Maize (n = 241) Distribution (% samples) > 4 54 70 > 10 41 52 > 20 29 24 Descriptive statistics (ppb) Minimum < LOD < LOD Maximum 3487 838 Mean 111 33 Increases in store LOD = Limit of Detection; 1 ppb
Aflatoxins in Markets Kenya (CDC and Kenyan Ministry of Health 2004) District Samples % samples with aflatoxin levels (ppb) <20 21-99 100-1,000 >1,000 Makueni 91 35 13 40 12 Kitui 73 38 21 32 10 Machakos 102 49 25 23 3 Thika 76 66 17 13 4 Total 342 47% 19% 27% 7% Tanzania (IITA & partners, unpublished, 2013) Crops Samples % samples with aflatoxin levels (ppb) <10 11-100 101-1,000 >1,000 Groundnut 180 89 11 0 0 Maize 287 71 15 10 4 Cassava 405 86 10 4 0.2
500 ppb AF diet Aflatoxin and Poultry (Broilers) Aflatoxin level (ppb) Samples (%) ~40% reduction in live weight (8 weeks) Aflatoxin levels in feeds in Nigeria <20 (safe) 38 >20 to 100 (up to 5x) 14 >100 to 500 (up to 25x) 41 >500 to 1,000 (up to 100x) 7 AF-free diet AF-free diet 500 ppb AF diet
Agriculture & Medical Prevention of Aflatoxinrelated Food Security and Health Effects Medical Early diagnosis Surveillance Provision of safe food Aflatoxin Intervention Awareness Regulation Enterosorption e.g. Novasil clay Pre-harvest Agriculture Post-harvest Food processing (Adapted from Wild and Hall, Mutation Res., 2000)
Pre- and post-harvest Interventions for Aflatoxins Pre-harvest Resistant cultivars, if available Biological control, e.g., aflasafe Irrigation, water conservation good crop management Post-harvest Sorting Insect control Improved drying and storage Aflatoxin testing Food / feed processing / detoxification methods / binders Alternative uses including blending
Integrated Management The elements are: Technology Awareness entire range of value chain participants Advocacy regional, national, investors Training farmers, transporters, traders, regulators, consumers Policies standards, harmonization, trade Institutions regulators, markets, testing, private sector Trade / Markets food/feed processors, poultry/fish industry Public good home consumption; urban and rural markets; government procurement, HGSF
Biocontrol Product: Aflasafe (Mixture of 4 native atoxigenic strains) Products ready for registration Nigeria, Senegal, Burkina Faso and Kenya Products under field testing Zambia Products under development Ghana, Tanzania and Mozambique Products development to start Mali, The Gambia, Uganda, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Burundi, Malawi and South Sudan
Farmers treating maize and groundnut fields with Aflasafe in Nigeria MAIZE: Aflatoxin reduction (%) Stage 2009 2010 2011 2012 Harvest 82 94 83 93 Storage 92 93 x x 71% and 52% carry-over of inoculum 1 & 2 years after application PEANUT: Aflatoxin reduction (%) Stage 2009 2010 2011 Harvest - 95 82 Storage 100 80 x Results from 482 on-farm trials
Fields (%) Kenya: Efficacy of aflasafe KE01 533 ppb Deadly (3,700 ppb & 2,270 ppb) Aflatoxin (ppb) Area (fields) Control Treated Reduction (%) Hola (n = 20) 885 20 98 Bura (n = 16) 105 7 93 Makueni (n = 15) 85 1 99 Hola 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Fields (%) above 10 ppb in 3 areas 38 88 20 Treated Control 60 0 33 *All means of aflasafe treated and control pairs significantly different; Student s t-test (P<0.05)
Aflasafe Plan & Plant Capacity: 5 tons/hour
Biocontrol x Resistance Aflatoxin (ppb) in Low-Aflatoxin Maize Lines With and Without Aflasafe Treatment Experimental variety Control At harvest Aflasafe After poor storage Control Aflasafe RSYN2-Y 19.6 1.7 RSYN3-W 6.9 1.8 SYN3-Y 18.4 1.7 TZB-SR (susc.) 57.5 4.7 462 44 627 38 387 19 1152 163 Combining management tactics increases extent of aflatoxin reduction
Farmer Training
Advocacy and Policies National and regionally harmonized standards in foods and feeds Intra-regional trade of safe food Enhanced capacity of regulators Alternative uses Disposal of contaminated material Regionally harmonized protocols for biopesticides registration Inclusion of aflatoxin in nutrition and health policies Aflatoxin alert system in Africa Critical role of PACA and RECs
market demand for Aflasafe Markets 60% maize consumed by farmers 40% sold in the market Poultry industry Export-oriented aggregators Food processors Large commercial farmers Smallholder farmers Market based Poultry feed Premium food market Export AgResults (Incentivecum-market based) Doreo Partner analysis
Challenges But Aflatoxin is a hidden problem Chemical analysis required Awareness is low Long incubation for expression of health impacts Regulations either non-existent or poorly enforced Market does not usually discriminate Demonstration of product value Lack of biopesticide manufacturers The value of a technology on the shelf is as much as the cost of the space it occupies on the shelf. Must translate knowledge into usable products and practices to benefit people
Pilot Implementation Value chain-centric: Farmers and other value chain participants interest as the foundation of the action Public sector intervention with health perspectives for smallholders Action-oriented: Using practical methods to actively solve problems, not just talking about ideas, plans, or theories Innovation platform: problem solving by participants working regularly together to address common issues and challenges.
Summary Impact of aflatoxins have several development dimensions: post-harvest losses, nutrition, health, crops, livestock, fish, trade, markets, policies, institutions and politics Reduction of aflatoxin will improve human health, increase farm income, improve profitability of animal industries, increase regional and international trade, and reputation of African products in global markets
Ibadan IITA Nigeria Tucson USDA/ARS IITA, USDA, AATF & Doreo have Teamed up to Bring Aflatoxin Prevention to Africa Made Possible by Many National Partners in Ministries, Industry, and on the Farm For more information about aflatoxin biocontrol for Africa, check out: www.aflasafe.com