Next Article in Journal
Recent Insights into Sample Pretreatment Methods for Mycotoxins in Different Food Matrices: A Critical Review on Novel Materials
Next Article in Special Issue
Investigation on Fermentation Characteristics and Microbial Communities of Wheat Straw Silage with Different Proportion Artemisia argyi
Previous Article in Journal
Water Quality, Toxicity and Diversity of Planktonic and Benthic Cyanobacteria in Pristine Ancient Lake Khubsugul (Hövsgöl), Mongolia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Production of Aflatoxin B1 by Aspergillus parasiticus Grown on a Novel Meat-Based Media
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Toxins
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/toxins15030214
toxins-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Prevalence and Concentration of Mycotoxins in Animal Feed in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Ghader Jalilzadeh-Amin
1,
Bahram Dalir-Naghadeh
1,*,
Masoud Ahmadnejad-Asl-Gavgani
1,
Aziz A. Fallah
2 and
Amin Mousavi Khaneghah
3,4,*
1
Department of Clinical Pathology and Internal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Urmia University, Urmia 5756151818, Iran
2
Department of Food Hygiene and Quality Control, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord 8818634141, Iran
3
Department of Fruit and Vegetable Product Technology, Prof. Wacław Dąbrowski Institute of Agricultural and Food Biotechnology–State Research Institute, 36 Rakowiecka St., 02-532 Warsaw, Poland
4
Department of Technology of Chemistry, Azerbaijan State Oil and Industry University, 16/21 Azadliq Ave, Baku AZ1010, Azerbaijan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Toxins 2023, 15(3), 214; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins15030214
Submission received: 26 November 2022 / Revised: 17 December 2022 / Accepted: 6 March 2023 / Published: 10 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mycotoxins in Animal Feed and Animal-Derived Food: Analytical Approach and Toxicology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study seeks a comprehensive meta-analysis of mycotoxin contaminants in animal feed consumed in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. The obtained articles were reviewed, and 49 articles that investigated the contamination of mycotoxins including aflatoxins (AFs), deoxynivalenol (DON), zearalenone (ZEA), T-2 toxin, fumonisins (FUM), and ochratoxin A (OTA), in feed samples or components of animal feed in the MENA region were selected. The titles of the final articles included in the study were meta-analyzed. Necessary information was extracted and categorized from the articles, and a meta-analysis was performed using Stata software. The highest contamination was in dry bread (80%), and Algeria was the most contaminated country (87% of animal feed), with the most mycotoxins contaminating AFs (47%) and FUM (47%). The highest concentration of mycotoxins in animal feed is related to FUM (1240.01 μg/kg). Climate change, economic situation, agricultural and processing methods, the nature of the animal feed, and improper use of food waste in animal feed are among the most critical factors that are effective in the occurrence of mycotoxin contamination in animal feed in MENA. Control of influential factors in the occurrence of contaminations and rapid screening with accurate identification methods to prevent the occurrence and spread of mycotoxin contamination of animal feed seem important.
Keywords:
mycotoxins; meta-analysis; feed; MENA
Key Contribution: The most contaminated animal feed with mycotoxins was in Algeria, Yemen, and Iran. The highest mycotoxin contamination is in dried bread, silage, and beet pulp. The order of mycotoxins was FUM ~ AFs > DON > ZEA > OTA > T-2 toxin. The order of mycotoxins concentration was FUM > DON > T-2 toxin > AFs > ZEN > OTA. Climatic changes, economic situations, and feed ingredients are effective in mycotoxin contamination.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The mycotoxins are secondary toxic metabolites of certain species of fungi, including Aspergillus, Fusarium, and Penicillium. These toxins are produced by pathogenic molds and infect plants or crops [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. Various mycotoxins have been identified from animal feed, and studies have shown that most feed samples are contaminated with at least one mycotoxin [8]. However, aflatoxins (AFs), deoxynivalenol (DON), zearalenone (ZEA), T-2 toxin, fumonisins (FUM), and ochratoxin A (OTA) are the main mycotoxins contaminating animal feed and are considered dangerous to animals’ health [9,10,11,12]. Moreover, the presence of mycotoxins in animal products could be a public health hazard [13,14]. Therefore, animal feed safety is an essential prerequisite for human food safety, and the slogan “Feed for Food” clearly shows the importance of this issue [15,16].
Exposure to AFs in animal feed can reduce milk production, reproductive performance, and immune function and can increase susceptibility to various diseases in livestock [17]. Intake of FUM can affect animals’ nervous, renal, hepatic, reproductive, and digestive systems, causing oxidative stress and inducing apoptosis [18]. In addition to being toxic to the immune system and genes, ZEN can have estrogenic effects and cause endocrine, reproductive, and growth disorders [19]. Trichothecenes (TCTs), such as T-2 and HT-2 toxins, and DON (or vomitoxin) can be absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract or even topically and inhalational and adversely affect the liver, kidneys, skin, gastrointestinal, reproductive, neuroendocrine, immune, lymphoid, and hematopoietic systems. Their pathogenesis pathway is inhibition of protein synthesis, changes in intestinal microbiota, induction of oxidative stress, inflammation, and apoptosis. Decreased appetite, growth retardation, and gastroenteritis are symptoms of TCT poisoning in animals [20,21,22].
Cows receiving diets contaminated with AFB1, ZEA, and DON had significantly altered γ-glutamyl transpeptidase, total antioxidant capacities, and serum metabolites involved in amino acid metabolism [23]. DON- and FUM-contaminated TMR feed in dairy cows reduce milk quality, dietary digestibility, immune system function, and metabolic profile disorders [24]. The presence of mycotoxins in pig feed can reduce feed intake by 18% and weight gain by 21%, and DON had the most significant effect on this reduction. Young animals, males, and those receiving the highest concentrations of mycotoxins were the most affected. Mycotoxins also affect the relative weight of pigs’ internal organs, such as kidneys, liver, and heart [25]. Aflatoxins can cause reduced productivity, immune system dysfunction, hepatic injury, and even mortality in broilers. Additionally, feeding with Afs-contaminated feed can have an adverse effect on the feed conversion ratio of broilers at the end of the first week (low), second week (moderate), and third to sixth week (very high) [23]. The presence of mycotoxins in the diet of broilers causes significant hematologic changes in hematocrit, hemoglobin, leukocytes, heterophils, and lymphocytes and significant biochemical changes in creatine kinase, alkaline phosphatase, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, creatinine, triglycerides, albumin, globulin, cholesterol, total protein, calcium, and mineral phosphorus [26]. Intestinal cells are among the first to be exposed to ingested mycotoxins, so they are exposed to high concentrations of mycotoxins. Mycotoxins can reduce the surface available for nutrient absorption, disrupt nutrient transport and intestinal barrier function, and perpetuate intestinal pathogens and intestinal inflammation [27].
The animal feed includes livestock, horse, fish, and poultry feed, formulated to ensure the supply of nutrients needed to maintain the health and proper performance of animals. Plant and animal materials are used to meet these needs in animal feed. Both sources of animal feed can pose biological, chemical, and physical hazards to the animals [28]. Animal feed directly affects livestock health and welfare. It is an important part of the food chain that directly plays a role in the safety of animal-origin foods and, consequently, human health [29]. Harmful effects of mycotoxins include liver toxicity, teratogenicity, mutagenicity, neurotoxicity, skin toxicity, carcinogenicity, estrogenicity, and immunosuppressive effects [30,31,32]. For example, aflatoxin B1 (AFB1)-contaminated animal feed is converted to aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) by the cytochrome p450 associated enzyme 15 min after ingestion, and approximately 0.3–6.2% of the consumed AFB1 enters the milk as AFM1 [32,33,34,35]. The transmission of feed AFB1 to milk AFM1 depends on the breeding system, milk production status, animal health, and diet [36,37].
Materials used to feed livestock, processed, semi-processed, or unprocessed, are called animal feed. The composition of animal feed is different in countries and even livestock farms. However, in general, cereals and cereal-based products are animal feed’s most commonly used ingredients. Most of the world’s corn production (55%) and about 20% of the total wheat area are allocated to animal feed [14]. In cereal processing, mycotoxins are mainly used for animal feed [38].
Allergies to mycotoxins are a significant concern for those who are exposed to them, either through the consumption of contaminated food or exposure to mold in indoor environments [39,40]. However, allergies to mycotoxins in animal feed are relatively rare but can occur in animals with a hypersensitive immune system. These allergies can manifest in various ways, such as respiratory problems, skin irritation, and digestive issues, which can lead to reduced growth rates, weight loss, and in severe cases, mortality [41,42,43,44,45,46]. To prevent allergies to mycotoxins in animal feed, it is essential to maintain proper storage conditions, regularly test feed for mycotoxin contamination, and use appropriate detoxification techniques before feeding animals. Additionally, early detection and prompt treatment of any allergy symptoms can help minimize the impact on animal health and productivity [47,48,49,50].
Elimination of contaminated feed reduced livestock productivity, and costs of veterinary care are parts of the economic impact of mycotoxin contamination of animal feed on the livestock industry [51]. One short-term direct financial loss related to AFs contamination in maize in the Netherlands in 2013 was estimated at between € 12 and € 25 million, of which 60% was for traders, 39% for the feed industry, and 1% for the dairy industry [52]. Contamination of animal feed and its components also disrupts international trade [53].
The occurrence of feed mycotoxins varies in different geographical areas [38]. The results of a study have shown that animal feed in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region has also been significantly contaminated with mycotoxins such as AFs, TCT, ZEN, FUM, and OTA [42,54]. Moreover, the occurrence of AFM1 in raw, pasteurized, and ultra-high temperature processing (UHT) milk is also high in MENA, which can even increase the risk of cancer in children. The high level of AFM1 may reflect the high contamination of animal feed with mycotoxins in the MENA region [55].
Meta-analysis is a method applied to integrate data from published individual studies and can provide new, comprehensive, and valuable results [56]. Meta-analysis is used in the fields of human medicine and veterinary medicine [57,58,59,60,61,62], food [56,63,64,65,66], and feed safety [67,68,69].
Due to the unavailability of a comprehensive study of the occurrence and levels of mycotoxins in animal feed in the MENA region, the present study was performed on the subject through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

2. Results

The number of articles retrieved from significant database searches for search combinations between 2010 and 2022 was 2632. The number of articles obtained from each database was as follows: PubMed 316, Web of Science 918, Scopus 870, Embase 368, and Google Scholar 160. After importing all the results into the EndNote software, 955 articles were identified as duplicates and deleted. Of the remaining articles, 377 were identified and deleted as duplicate articles in the manual screen of reviewers. After evaluation of the title and abstract of the articles, 1064 articles were found to be inappropriate and were removed. In the search for the full text of the remaining articles, no complete text was found for 108, and they were left out of the study. Finally, out of 132 full-text articles reviewed, 49 were identified as eligible and entered into the meta-analysis (Table S1) [70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117].
Most studies were conducted in Asian countries (265/323, 82%) and fewer in African countries (58/323, 17.9%). The majority of trials were in Pakistan (116/323, 35.9%) and Iran (52/323, 16.1%); the remaining were in Turkey (48/323, 14.9%), Egypt (31/323, 9.6%), Tunisia (21/323, 6.5%), Qatar (18/323, 5.6%), MENA countries (16/323,5%), Saudi Arabia (11/323, 3.4%), Jordan (3/323, 0.9%), Sudan (3/323, 0.9%), Algeria (2/323, 0.6%), Morocco (1/323, 0.3%), and Yemen (1/323, 0.3%) (Table 1). The proportional independent study was not conducted in Iraq, Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cyprus, Djibouti, Georgia, Israel, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Mauritania, Oman, Palestine, Somalia, and Syria.
Most studies were published in 2016 with 10 articles. A total of 33 out of 49 studies were published between 2010 and 2016, and there have been only 16 studies in the last 5 years (Figure 1). The sample size in the published studies was 18,748. Among the 323 studies, 172 were related to AFs (53.3%); 49 were related to OTA (15.2%); 36 were related to ZEN (11.1%); 31 were related to FUM (9.6%); 23 were related to DON (7.1%); and 12 were related to T-2 toxin (3.7%) (Table 2).
Most studies were on finished feed (117/323, 36.2%) and cereals (115/323, 35.6%), followed by oil seed meal/cake (47/323, 14.6%), silage (10/323, 3.1%), wheat bran (9/323, 2.8%), hay (7/323, 2.2%), gluten meal (4/323, 1.2%), animal protein-based meal (4/323, 1.2%), straw (4/323, 1.2%), beet pulp (3/323, 0.9%), and dried bread (3/323, 0.9%) (Table 3).
The rank order of the mean mycotoxins level in animal feeds was as follows: FUM (1240.1 μg/kg), DON (806.1 μg/kg), T-2 toxin (43.60 μg/kg), AFs (23.38 μg/kg), ZEN (17.56 μg/kg), and OTA (12.01 μg/kg) (Table 4) (Figure 2). The overall occurrence of mycotoxins in animal feeds was 42%, with a remarkable heterogeneity (I2 = 96.71%, Cochrane Q test’s p < 0.001). Based on the mycotoxin type, the occurrence rank order was as follows: FUM (47%) ~ AFs (47%) > DON (42%) > ZEA (33%) > OTA (31%) > T-2 toxin (18%) (Figure 3). The occurrence and concentration of mycotoxins are shown in (Figure 4).
Regarding the countries, the rank order of mycotoxins occurrence was Algeria (87%) > Yemen (72%) > Iran (66%) > Jordan (63%) > Qatar (46%) > Sudan (45%) > Pakistan (41%) ~ Turkey (41%) > Middle East (39%) > Tunisia (31%) ~ Morocco (31%) > Egypt (29%) > Saudi Arabia (15%) (Table 4) (Figure 5).
The occurrence of mycotoxins in finished feeds was 46%. Considering the feed ingredients, the lowest and highest mycotoxin occurrences were found in an animal protein-based meal (28%) and dried bread (80%), respectively. The mycotoxin occurrence in the other feed ingredients was ranked as follows: silage (57%) > beet pulp (53%) > straw (52%) > hay (50%) > oil seed meal/cake (49%) > wheat bran (41%) > cereals (33%) > gluten meal (31%) (Figure 6).

3. Discussion

In the present study, the highest occurrence of mycotoxins in animal feed in MENA was related to AFs and FUM (47%), and the lowest was related to T-2 toxin (18%). Additionally, the highest concentration of mycotoxin contamination in animal feed in the MENA region was related to FUM (1240.1 μg/kg) and then DON (806.1 μg/kg), and the lowest concentration was related to T-2 toxin (12.01 μg/kg). In most parts of the world, except North America, the highest concentrations of mycotoxin contamination in animal feed were related to FUM and then DON [38]. In a study of mycotoxin contamination in animal feed samples from a large geographical area in the Middle East and Africa, the highest incidence of mycotoxin contamination was related to FUM. A total of 83% of the samples were contaminated with FUM, and the average concentration was 713 μg/kg [82]. Additionally, in one study, contamination of Iranian dairy cows’ feed with AFB1, AFB2, AFG1, and AFG2 was 82.5%, 69.37%, 43.12%, and 41.87%, respectively [74]. On the other hand, Iran has one of the highest AFM1 contamination in ultra-high temperature processing (81%) of milk [55]. High contamination of AFM1 in milk can be due to the high level of AFB1 in animal feed, posing many risks to the human consumer community. One study found an association between AF exposure and the risk of liver cancer in humans [118]. A study of biomarkers of mycotoxin exposure in human urine has shown that Asian and African countries have the highest food exposure to AFs, FUM, ZEN, and DON [119].
Several factors can affect mycotoxins’ occurrence and concentration, such as climatic conditions (humidity, temperature, and precipitation), geographical location, and drought [120]. Mycotoxin production by mycotoxin-producing fungi is a complex and multifactorial process mainly dependent on establishing favorable environmental conditions for the growth of fungi. Contamination of animal feed with mycotoxins is predicted to affect climatic conditions [14] significantly. Climate is the most important factor in the occurrence of mycotoxins in animal feed, so in Europe, rainfall can be an important risk factor for mycotoxins in animal feed [121].
MENA is one of the driest and most vulnerable regions in the world to climate change. Contrary to popular belief, water scarcity is not the leading cause of vulnerability in these countries [122]. Yemen is the most vulnerable country in the MENA region to climate change [122], which in the present study also has a very high occurrence of mycotoxins in feed. The 10-year change in climate change score by 2020 has been different for the countries in the present study. Algeria, which has the highest occurrence of mycotoxins in animal feed, has a worsening score of about 6 points over its 10-year climate change score and has the worst situation among MENA countries. The climate change score of Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, which have the lowest mycotoxin occurrence in animal feed, has improved in 10 years better than the global average [123]. The present study’s findings strengthen the hypothesis of the importance of climate change in the occurrence of mycotoxin contamination in animal feed.
Crop variety, crop rotation, tillage, and planting date are among the causes that have been considered effective in the occurrence of mycotoxin contamination in the components of animal feed. For example, plowing, early planting of corn, and avoiding planting corn before wheat cultivation are some things that reduce the risk of mycotoxin contamination in animal feed [121]. Using fungicides and insect damage can also affect the concentration of mycotoxins produced [124,125]. There are conflicting results and opinions about the contamination of organic products with mycotoxins, and it cannot be stated with certainty that the occurrence of mycotoxin contamination in them is more or less due to the lack of pesticide use [121,126,127]. It seems that farmers’ knowledge about mycotoxin contaminants, as well as risk factors for fungal and mycotoxin contaminants, should be increased. However, in some studies, this awareness has yet to be useful even in a European country such as Italy [109,121]. Post-harvest stages of animal feed components, including drying, transport, and storage, are the most critical stages in which mycotoxin contamination can occur [128].
Many MENA countries import food and feed, and contamination of feed with mycotoxins can occur before importation, transport, or storage until use [129]. Economic sanctions on Iran have been a significant obstacle to the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) protocol [123]. Sanctions have prevented Iran from accessing clean technology for environmentally friendly development in polluting industries such as petrochemicals, refineries, smelters, and automobiles. Interestingly, out of 22 registered CDM projects, only one has received certification. All of these can effectively worsen the climate change situation, consequently increasing the occurrence of mycotoxin contamination in Iran’s livestock feed. Pakistan, which borders Iran, has about 68% more CDM projects than Iran, and mycotoxin contamination occurrence in Pakistan is 25% lower than in Iran. Yemen, where no CDM project has been registered, is worse off than Iran and ranks second in MENA’s mycotoxin contamination occurrence of animal feed. Sanctions affect countries’ access to global feed trade [130], which can lead farmers to turn to food waste in animal feed. As the present study showed, most mycotoxin contamination was in food waste such as dry bread, and the reckless introduction of these substances into animal feed can increase the occurrence of mycotoxin contamination.
The focus of digital agricultural development in MENA is on economic goals, and social and environmental challenges play a minor role in using digital technologies in the agricultural sector [122]. However, in developing countries such as Sudan and war-torn countries such as Yemen, there needs to be more knowledge to develop new technologies in agriculture and animal husbandry [122]. Thus, the lack of knowledge in animal feed production, processing, transportation, and consumption has led to a high occurrence of mycotoxin contamination in Yemen.
The results of the present study showed that the highest occurrence of mycotoxins in the MENA region was in dried bread, with 80%, and the lowest incidence of mycotoxins was related to an animal protein-based meal, with 28%. In the Messripour study, the highest incidence of AFs in animal feed was related to dry bread, 64% of which was contaminated with AFB1. The cause of this high contamination in dry bread has been attributed to improper storage. [131]. Despite this high contamination with mycotoxins in recycled bread, many farmers in MENA are forced to use these resources for animal feed [65,73,83,86,92]. Countries have to make optimal use of resources to provide animal feed. About 5 million tons of bread, pastry, and cereals are turned into animal feed in Europe [132]. It is estimated that by 2050 the demand for animal protein will increase by 70%. At the same time, UN member states are committed to reducing food waste by 50% by 2030 [132]. Therefore, it is necessary to use human food waste efficiently, and one of the easiest things to do is to use these human nutritional wastes in livestock feed. However, the use of these food wastes may involve chemical hazards (mycotoxins, antibiotics, heavy metals, gossypol, pesticides, dioxins, and biogenic amines), biological hazards (bacterial, fungal, parasitic, viral, and prion), and physical hazards (metal, glass, plastic, and other) for animals. Even the consumption of the products of these animals is harmful to human health [133,134]. Food waste may account for up to 65% of the dry matter consumed by livestock [135]. Given the high incidence of mycotoxin contamination in them, the use of these wastes is a significant risk factor for mycotoxins entering the feed.
The second rank of mycotoxin contamination occurrence is related to silage. Silage, especially corn silage, is an important component of dairy cows’ diets that can be contaminated with mycotoxins before harvest, during transportation, storage, after silage, or during use. Proper management of the silage to prevent fungal growth before and after silage and using chemical or biological additives can minimize the mycotoxin contamination of the silage [124,136]. However, due to the time between the harvest, processing, and consumption of silage, there is likely to be higher mycotoxin contamination. In one study, total DON and ZEA intake by dairy cows from silage were 3.5 and 2.9 times higher than compound feed, respectively [137]. In the present study, mycotoxin contamination in silage, straw, and hay was estimated to be more than 50%. Because most of the dry matter intake of ruminants is related to the forage part of the diet, mycotoxin contamination of forage is probably the cause of the most mycotoxins received by ruminants [38].
The chemical and physical properties of animal feed components can also affect the occurrence and concentration of mycotoxins, such as temperature, water content, pH, enzymatic activity, micronutrients, and macronutrients [54]. Various raw material processing methods can reduce the contamination of mycotoxins, such as FUM [54], which is why if the final feed is appropriately prepared and stored, it will be less contaminated than the raw components.
Different physical, chemical, and biological methods are used to reduce mycotoxin. Methods such as pulsed electric field process, oscillating magnetic field, high-pressure homogenization, X-ray methods, membrane filtration, and photolytic and photocatalytic methods have been used as non-thermal methods to reduce mycotoxins in food and feed [138]. Essential oils and plant extracts can decrease mycotoxin synthesis and change mycotoxins’ normal structure [139]. Nanoformulations of phytochemicals can be fungicides and detoxify the mycotoxins [140]. Recombinant mycotoxin-degrading enzymes can use for the detoxification of mycotoxins [141]. A microbial complex can simultaneously degrade different mycotoxins [141]. Adding probiotics and yeast to animal feed can reduce mycotoxins’ concentration or adverse effects and improve feed conversion ratio, immune status, and enzyme activity [142,143,144,145,146].
Due to the high incidence of mycotoxin contamination in animal feed in the MENA region and, on the other hand, the limitations and time-consuming implementation of macro-strategies to combat mycotoxins, more straightforward strategies to reduce mycotoxin contamination in animal feed should be used as an urgent solution. This solution may include using mycotoxin to inactivate, absorb, or degrade feed additives [121].
Studies have shown that ruminal fluid is one of the best binders for AFs. However, different conditions, such as pH, temperature, and type of AFs, can affect this ability [147]. Some research results have shown that adding some animal feed additives, such as Solis Mos, can reduce the transmission of feed AFB1 to milk as AFM1 [148]. Adding a toxin binder such as Mycofix to DON- and FUM-contaminated TMR feed can prevent the adverse effects of mycotoxins on milk, diet, immunity, and metabolic profile in dairy cows [24]. Additionally, anti-mycotoxin feed additives in broiler diets can reduce the biochemical changes caused by mycotoxins [26].
Diet composition can also affect the effect of mycotoxins on animal health and productivity. A study showed that higher levels of protein and methionine could reduce the adverse effect of mycotoxin on pig weight gain [25].

4. Conclusions

According to the results of the present study, 46% of MENA’s animal feed was contaminated with mycotoxins, which is a danger to the health of animals and humans consuming animal products in this region. The highest contamination percentage was related to FUM, AFs, and DON mycotoxins, and FUM and DON had the highest concentration of mycotoxin contamination. The dominant mycotoxins in the MENA are dangerous, and mycotoxins such as AFs can enter milk and dairy products and endanger human health. Algeria, Yemen, and Iran were, respectively, the most contaminated countries in terms of mycotoxin contamination of animal feed. These countries are not in a good situation dealing with climate change, and Yemen and Iran are experiencing a bad economic situation due to sanctions. However, these countries’ agricultural and health authorities should have detailed control programs to monitor mycotoxin contamination in customs, processing, and animal feed consumption. Dry bread is a human food waste used as animal feed in MENA. In the present study, it was the most contaminated animal feed, followed by silage, beet pulp, and fodder, which were the most contaminated with mycotoxins. Poor livestock farmers being forced to misuse food waste in animal feed, such as dry bread, can cause mycotoxin contamination in animal feed. Education on the correct preparation and storage methods of silage and fodder can effectively reduce the incidence of mycotoxin contamination in these materials. Additionally, different toxin binders, such as probiotics, were used to reduce the load of mycotoxin contamination in livestock feed.
Co-occurrence of mycotoxins in animal feed can have different effects on animals, most of which are synergistic and can pose a greater risk to animal and even human health [57]. Studies have shown that 30 to 100% of animal feed samples are contaminated with two or more mycotoxins, and this type of contamination is higher in Asia than in Europe and America. [38]. Therefore, permanent laboratory or field strategies should be considered to monitor mycotoxins’ co-occurrence in animal feed. The occurrence of mycotoxins such as nivalenol, citrinin, beauvericin, moniliformin, or enniatins should also be evaluated in future studies. Rapid screening with accurate methods to identify mycotoxins in animal feed is crucial to prevent the spread of contamination or the arrival of contaminated animal feed for animal consumption.

5. Materials and Methods

The present systematic review was conducted based on the Cochrane protocol according to the PRISMA guidelines (Figure 7). The search strategy was performed from 2010 to 2020 in international databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar (as gray literature). Search terms used were: (“mycotoxin” OR “aflatoxin” OR “ochratoxin” OR “trichothecene” OR “deoxynivalenol” OR “zearalenone” OR “fumonisin”) AND (“iran” OR “iraq” OR “qatar” OR “turkey” OR “saudi” OR “afghanistan” OR “pakistan” OR “algeria” OR “armenia” OR “azerbayjan” OR “bahrain” OR “cyprus” OR “djibouti” OR “egypt” OR “georgia” OR “israel” OR “jordan” OR “kuwait” OR “lebanon” OR “libya” OR “malta” OR “mauritania” OR “morocco” OR “oman” OR “palestine” OR “somalia” OR “sudan” OR “syria” OR “tunisia” OR “emirates” OR “western”sahra” OR “yemen”) AND (“feed” OR “feedstuff” OR “maize” OR “fodder” OR “forage” OR “hay” OR “straw” OR “silage” OR “soy” OR “soybean” OR “meal” OR “wheat” OR “barley” OR “rice” OR “corn” OR “sorghum” OR “palm” OR “cottonseed” OR “sunflower”). Searches were performed on titles, abstracts, and keywords of articles. Duplicate articles were removed using EndNote X8 (Thomson Reuters, Toronto, Canada). A manual search in the article references section was performed to prevent missing relevant studies. Two independent reviewers screened studies’ abstracts and full texts based on inclusion criteria. After deleting several articles by screening the title and abstract, the full text of the articles was first searched and added by EndNote software. Using the DOI and other article specifications and Urmia University’s access to scientific databases, it was searched and added to the EndNote library. Original articles that reported the concentrations and occurrence of mycotoxins in animal feed in the MENA region and published online between 2010 and 2022 were included in the study.
Criteria for eligibility of articles for inclusion in the study included: (a) the full text of the article is available in English; (b) concentration and/or occurrence of at least one of the mycotoxins in at least one of the types of animal feed be reported; (c) cross-sectional studies are carefully described; (d) accurate assessment methods are used; (e) data with effective size (concentration and/or prevalence) in animal feed are reported. In this regard, other ecological studies, genetic research, case reports, animal studies, dissertations, and review articles were excluded from the systematic review. Some unrelated articles were deleted in the first stage based on the title evaluation. In the second stage, the abstract of the articles was evaluated, and disproportionate articles were deleted; finally, the full text of related articles was searched and reviewed.
Data extraction was performed from eligible articles. Extracted data included first author name, sampling year(s), publication year, type of feed, type of mycotoxin, standard deviation (SD) or standard error (SE), mean or median level of mycotoxin, minimum and maximum level of mycotoxin, total number of samples, number of positive samples, continent, country, mycotoxin detection method and its limit of detection (LOD), and quantification (LOQ). All reported units for mycotoxin levels were converted to µg/kg. Converting SD to SE and vice versa was conducted using the following formula (Equation (1)):
SE = SD sample   size
Data meta-analysis was performed using Stata 14.0 (Statistical Software, College Station, TX, USA, 2015). The relationship between the total number of samples (ni) and positive samples (pi) was the prevalence (p = pi/ni), which was defined as the effect size (ES) and expressed as a percentage. The Metaprop command calculated the prevalence of mycotoxins. A 95% confidence interval (CI) was obtained for the articles. The combined concentrations of mycotoxins were estimated using SE (standard error) and mean. The weight of each study (Wi) was determined according to each study’s accuracy, which was inversely related to SE (Equation (2)). A meta-analysis of the prevalence and concentration of mycotoxins was performed using a weighted average (combined average). The average weight (AW) was calculated according to the accuracy of each study, which is correlated with standard error (Equation (3)). ∑W in the third equation shows the sum of Wi.
In articles that did not mention SE, the number of samples was calculated using SD. The random-effects model was used to estimate the overall effect because the eligible studies were performed in various settings. The Cochrane Q test and I2 index evaluated the heterogeneity among the studies. The Cochrane Q test’s p ≤ 0.050 indicates the presence of heterogeneity, and I2 > 50% indicates the high heterogeneity among the studies. When the I2 index is less than 50%, the heterogeneity is low, but in the present study, the I2 index was higher than 50%, so the random effect model 3 was used to evaluate the combined ES. Due to severe data heterogeneity, the instantaneous model performed meta-regression between studies. The difference was statistically significant when p < 0.001. Finally, tables and graphs of the results were prepared [67]. The formulas used are as follows:
W i = 1 SE 2
A W = W i ∑ W × 100

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/toxins15030214/s1; Table S1: Details of data extracted from selected studies that met the inclusion criteria.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.M.K., B.D.-N. and G.J.-A.; methodology, A.M.K. and A.A.F.; software, A.A.F.; validation, A.M.K., B.D.-N., G.J.-A. and A.A.F.; formal analysis, A.M.K. and A.A.F.; investigation, M.A.-A.-G. and A.M.K.; resources, B.D.-N. and G.J.-A.; data curation, M.A.-A.-G. and A.M.K.; writing original draft preparation, M.A.-A.-G. and A.M.K.; writing—review and editing, A.A.F., B.D.-N. and G.J.-A.; visualization, G.J.-A.; supervision, A.M.K. and B.D.-N.; project administration, A.M.K.; funding acquisition, B.D.-N. and G.J.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by URMIA UNIVERSITY, grant number 62-5232.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the researchers whose studies were used in the present study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Aranega, J.P.; Oliveira, C.A. Occurrence of mycotoxins in pastures: A systematic review. Qual. Assur. Saf. Crops Foods 2022, 14, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Khaneghah, A.M.; Mostashari, P.; Oliveira, C.A.; Vanin, F.M.; Amiri, S.; Sant’Ana, A.S. Assessment of the concentrations of ochratoxin A, zearalenone, and deoxynivalenol during cracker production. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2023, 115, 104950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nourbakhsh, F.; Tajbakhsh, E. Neurotoxicity mechanism of Ochratoxin A. Qual. Assur. Saf. Crops Foods 2021, 13, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pires, R.C.; Portinari, M.R.; Moraes, G.Z.; Khaneghah, A.M.; Gonçalves, B.L.; Rosim, R.E.; Oliveira, C.A.; Corassin, C.H. Evaluation of Anti-Aflatoxin M1 effects of heat-killed cells of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in Brazilian commercial yogurts. Qual. Assur. Saf. Crops Foods 2022, 14, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mir, S.A.; Dar, B.; Shah, M.A.; Sofi, S.A.; Hamdani, A.M.; Oliveira, C.A.; Moosavi, M.H.; Khaneghah, A.M.; Sant’Ana, A.S. Application of new technologies in decontamination of mycotoxins in cereal grains: Challenges, and perspectives. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2021, 148, 111976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Khaneghah, A.M.; Moosavi, M.H.; Oliveira, C.A.F.; Vanin, F.; Sant’Ana, A.S. Electron beam irradiation to reduce the mycotoxin and microbial contaminations of cereal-based products: An overview. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2020, 143, 111557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Mokhtarian, M.; Tavakolipour, H.; Bagheri, F.; Oliveira, C.A.F.; Corassin, C.H.; Khaneghah, A.M. Aflatoxin B1 in the Iranian pistachio nut and decontamination methods: A systematic review. Qual. Assur. Saf. Crop. Foods 2020, 12, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rodrigues, I.; Naehrer, K. A Three-Year Survey on the Worldwide Occurrence of Mycotoxins in Feedstuffs and Feed. Toxins 2012, 4, 663–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bangar, S.P.; Sharma, N.; Bhardwaj, A.; Phimolsiripol, Y. Lactic acid bacteria: A bio-green preservative against mycotoxins for food safety and shelf-life extension. Qual. Assur. Saf. Crop. Foods 2022, 14, 13–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Heshmati, A.; Khorshidi, M.; Khaneghah, A.M. The prevalence and risk assessment of aflatoxin in sesame based products. Ital. J. Food Sci. 2021, 33, 92–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jafari, K.; Fathabad, A.E.; Fakhri, Y.; Shamsaei, M.; Miri, M.; Farahmandfar, R.; Khaneghah, A.M. Aflatoxin M1 in traditional and industrial pasteurized milk samples from Tiran County, Isfahan Province: A Probabilistic Health Risk Assessment. Ital. J. Food Sci. 2021, 33, 103–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. De Souza, C.; Khaneghah, A.M.; Oliveira, C.A.F. The Occurrence of Aflatoxin M1 in Industrial and Traditional Fermented Milk: A Systematic Review Study. Ital. J. Food Sci. 2021, 33, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Behfar, M.; Heshmati, A.; Mehri, F.; Khaneghah, A.M. Removal of Ochratoxin A from Grape Juice by Clarification: A Response Surface Methodology Study. Foods 2022, 11, 1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Santos Pereira, C.; Cunha, S.C.; Fernandes, J.O. Prevalent Mycotoxins in Animal Feed: Occurrence and Analytical Methods. Toxins 2019, 11, 290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Pinotti, L.; Dell’orto, V. Feed Safety in the Feed Supply Chain. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 2011, 15, 9–14. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hartog, J.D. Feed for Food: HACCP in the animal feed industry. Food Control. 2003, 14, 95–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Jiang, Y.; Ogunade, I.; Vyas, D.; Adesogan, A. Aflatoxin in Dairy Cows: Toxicity, Occurrence in Feedstuffs and Milk and Dietary Mitigation Strategies. Toxins 2021, 13, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chen, J.; Wei, Z.; Wang, Y.; Long, M.; Wu, W.; Kuca, K. Fumonisin B1: Mechanisms of toxicity and biological detoxification progress in animals. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2021, 149, 111977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liu, J.; Applegate, T. Zearalenone (ZEN) in Livestock and Poultry: Dose, Toxicokinetics, Toxicity and Estrogenicity. Toxins 2020, 12, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Polak-Śliwińska, M.; Paszczyk, B. Trichothecenes in Food and Feed, Relevance to Human and Animal Health and Methods of Detection: A Systematic Review. Molecules 2021, 26, 454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tao, Y.; Xie, S.; Xu, F.; Liu, A.; Wang, Y.; Chen, D.; Pan, Y.; Huang, L.; Peng, D.; Wang, X.; et al. Ochratoxin A: Toxicity, oxidative stress and metabolism. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2018, 112, 320–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Wang, W.; Zhai, S.; Xia, Y.; Wang, H.; Ruan, D.; Zhou, T.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, M.; Ye, H.; et al. Ochratoxin A induces liver inflammation: Involvement of intestinal microbiota. Microbiome 2019, 7, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Suganthi, R.U.; Suresh, K.P.; Parvatham, R. Effect of Aflatoxin on Feed Conversion Ratio in Broilers: A Meta-analysis. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 24, 1757–1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gallo, A.; Minuti, A.; Bani, P.; Bertuzzi, T.; Cappelli, F.P.; Doupovec, B.; Faas, J.; Schatzmayr, D.; Trevisi, E. A mycotoxin-deactivating feed additive counteracts the adverse effects of regular levels of Fusarium mycotoxins in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 11314–11331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Andretta, I.; Kipper, M.; Lehnen, C.R.; Hauschild, L.; Vale, M.M.; Lovatto, P.A. Meta-analytical study of productive and nutritional interactions of mycotoxins in growing pigs. Animal 2012, 6, 1476–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Andretta, I.; Kipper, M.; Lehnen, C.; Lovatto, P. Meta-analysis of the relationship of mycotoxins with biochemical and hematological parameters in broilers. Poult. Sci. 2012, 91, 376–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Grenier, B.; Applegate, T.J. Modulation of Intestinal Functions Following Mycotoxin Ingestion: Meta-Analysis of Published Experiments in Animals. Toxins 2013, 5, 396–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Huss, A.; Cochrane, R.; Muckey, M.; Jones, C. Animal Feed Mill Biosecurity: Prevention of Biological Hazards. In Food and Feed Safety Systems and Analysis; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 63–81. ISBN 9780128498880. [Google Scholar]
  29. Fumagalli, F.; Ottoboni, M.; Pinotti, L.; Cheli, F. Integrated Mycotoxin Management System in the Feed Supply Chain: Innovative Approaches. Toxins 2021, 13, 572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Khaneghah, A.M.; Eş, I.; Raeisi, S.; Fakhri, Y. Aflatoxins in cereals: State of the art. J. Food Saf. 2018, 38, e12532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Oteiza, J.M.; Khaneghah, A.M.; Campagnollo, F.B.; Granato, D.; Mahmoudi, M.R.; Sant’Ana, A.S.; Gianuzzi, L. Influence of production on the presence of patulin and ochratoxin A in fruit juices and wines of Argentina. LWT 2017, 80, 200–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Khaneghah, A.M.; Chaves, R.D.; Akbarirad, H. Detoxification of Aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) in Dairy Base Beverages (Acidophilus Milk) by Using Different Types of Lactic Acid Bacteria-Mini Review. Curr. Nutr. Food Sci. 2017, 13, 78–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Campagnollo, F.B.; Ganev, K.C.; Khaneghah, A.M.; Portela, J.B.; Cruz, A.G.; Granato, D.; Corassin, C.H.; Oliveira, C.A.F.; Sant’Ana, A.S. The occurrence and effect of unit operations for dairy products processing on the fate of aflatoxin M1: A review. Food Control. 2016, 68, 310–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Masri, M.S.; Lundin, R.E.; Page, J.R.; Garcia, V.C. Crystalline Aflatoxin M1 from Urine and Milk. Nature 1967, 215, 753–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Škrbić, B.; Živančev, J.; Antić, I.; Godula, M. Levels of aflatoxin M1 in different types of milk collected in Serbia: Assessment of human and animal exposure. Food Control. 2014, 40, 113–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Fallah, A.A.; Fazlollahi, R.; Emami, A. Seasonal study of aflatoxin M1 contamination in milk of four dairy species in Yazd, Iran. Food Control. 2016, 68, 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Turna, N.S.; Wu, F. Aflatoxin M1 in milk: A global occurrence, intake, & exposure assessment. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 110, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pinotti, L.; Ottoboni, M.; Giromini, C.; Dell’Orto, V.; Cheli, F. Mycotoxin Contamination in the EU Feed Supply Chain: A Focus on Cereal Byproducts. Toxins 2016, 8, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Ajikah, L.B.; Alebiosu, O.S.; Orijemie, E.A.; Onah, D. A review of aeropalynology research in Nigeria: Implication on public health and environmental research collaboration. Allergol. Immunopathol. 2021, 49, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Katsimpris, P.; Nikolaidis, C.; Deftereou, T.-E.; Balatsouras, D.; Printza, A.; Iliou, T.; Alexiadis, T.; Chatzisouleiman, I.; Samara, M.; Constantinidis, J. Three-year pollen and fungi calendar in a Mediterranean region of the Northeast Greece. Allergol. Immunopathol. 2022, 50, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hallit, S.; Sacre, H.; Kheir, N.; Hallit, R.; Waked, M.; Salameh, P. Prevalence of asthma, its correlates, and validation of the Pre-School Asthma Risk Factors Scale (PS-ARFS) among preschool children in Lebanon. Allergol. Immunopathol. 2021, 49, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Murgia, V.; Ciprandi, G.; Votto, M.; De Filippo, M.; Tosca, M.A.; Marseglia, G.L. Natural remedies for acute post-viral cough in children. Allergol. Immunopathol. 2021, 49, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Szczawinska-Poplonyk, A.; Begier, K.; Dorota, A.; Dabrowska, M.; Galecka, D.; Wawrzeniak, K.; Wroblewski, K. Syndromic immunodeficiencies: A pediatrician’s perspective on selected diseases. Allergol. Immunopathol. 2021, 49, 117–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Szczawińska-Popłonyk, A.; Bernat-Sitarz, K.; Schwartzmann, E.; Piechota, M.; Badura-Stronka, M. Clinical and immunological assessment of APDS2 with features of the SHORT syndrome related to a novel mutation in PIK3R1 with reduced penetrance. Allergol. Immunopathol. 2022, 50, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Ünsal, H.; Ocak, M.; Akarsu, A.; Şahiner, Ü.M.; Soyer, Ö.; Şekerel, B.E. Oral food challenge in IgE mediated food allergy in eastern Mediterranean children. Allergol. Immunopathol. 2021, 49, 185–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Zang, L.; Chi, J.; Bi, S.; Tao, Y.; Wang, R.; Li, L. SIRT3 improves alveolar epithelial cell damage caused by bronchopulmonary dysplasia through deacetylation of FOXO1. Allergol. Immunopathol. 2023, 51, 191–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jardim-Botelho, A.; de Oliveira, L.C.L.; Motta-Franco, J.; Solé, D. Nutritional management of immediate hypersensitivity to legumes in vegetarians. Allergol. Immunopathol. 2022, 50, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Lin, Y.; Liu, J.; He, J.; Wu, L.; Li, S.; Cheng, B.; Shao, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Tang, L. Effects of subcutaneous immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis children sensitive to dust mites. Allergol. Immunopathol. 2023, 51, 84–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Qiu, T.; Lv, Y.; Niu, L.; Zhang, Y. Knockdown of TRIM8 alleviates dextran sulfate sodium-induced colitis in mice by inhibiting the NF-κB signaling pathway. Allergol. Immunopathol. 2023, 51, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Huang, H.; Gao, S.; Xu, X. Echinococcus multilocularis induces surface high expression of inhibitory killer immunoglobulin-like receptor on natural killer cells. Allergol. Immunopathol. 2021, 49, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Magnoli, A.P.; Poloni, V.L.; Cavaglieri, L. Impact of mycotoxin contamination in the animal feed industry. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2019, 29, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Focker, M.; van der Fels-Klerx, H.J.; Lansink, A.G.J.M.O. Financial losses for Dutch stakeholders during the 2013 aflatoxin incident in Maize in Europe. Mycotoxin Res. 2021, 37, 193–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Imade, F.; Ankwasa, E.M.; Geng, H.; Ullah, S.; Ahmad, T.; Wang, G.; Zhang, C.; Dada, O.; Xing, F.; Zheng, Y.; et al. Updates on food and feed mycotoxin contamination and safety in Africa with special reference to Nigeria. Mycology 2021, 12, 245–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Rodrigues, I.; Handl, J.; Binder, E. Mycotoxin occurrence in commodities, feeds and feed ingredients sourced in the Middle East and Africa. Food Addit. Contam. Part B 2011, 4, 168–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Rahmani, J.; Alipour, S.; Miri, A.; Fakhri, Y.; Riahi, S.-M.; Keramati, H.; Moradi, M.; Amanidaz, N.; Pouya, R.H.; Bahmani, Z.; et al. The prevalence of aflatoxin M1 in milk of Middle East region: A systematic review, meta-analysis and probabilistic health risk assessment. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2018, 118, 653–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Khaneghah, A.M.; Farhadi, A.; Nematollahi, A.; Vasseghian, Y.; Fakhri, Y. A systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the concentration and prevalence of trichothecenes in the cereal-based food. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 102, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mardones, F.; Perez, A.; Sanchez, J.; Alkhamis, M.; Carpenter, T. Parameterization of the duration of infection stages of serotype O foot-and-mouth disease virus: An analytical review and meta-analysis with application to simulation models. Vet. Res. 2010, 41, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Compton, C.; Heuer, C.; Thomsen, P.; Carpenter, T.; Phyn, C.; McDougall, S. Invited review: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of mortality and culling in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Scharnböck, B.; Roch, F.-F.; Richter, V.; Funke, C.; Firth, C.L.; Obritzhauser, W.; Baumgartner, W.; Käsbohrer, A.; Pinior, B. A meta-analysis of bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) prevalences in the global cattle population. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 14420 . [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Khorrami, B.; Khiaosa-Ard, R.; Zebeli, Q. Models to predict the risk of subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy cows based on dietary and cow factors: A meta-analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 7761–7780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Raboisson, D.; Mounié, M.; Maigné, E. Diseases, reproductive performance, and changes in milk production associated with subclinical ketosis in dairy cows: A meta-analysis and review. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 7547–7563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. McAloon, C.G.; Whyte, P.; More, S.J.; Green, M.J.; O’Grady, L.; Garcia, A.; Doherty, M.L. The effect of paratuberculosis on milk yield—A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 1449–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Khaneghah, A.M.; Moosavi, M.; Omar, S.S.; Oliveira, C.A.; Karimi-Dehkordi, M.; Fakhri, Y.; Huseyn, E.; Nematollahi, A.; Farahani, M.; Sant’Ana, A.S. The prevalence and concentration of aflatoxin M1 among different types of cheeses: A global systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Food Control. 2021, 125, 107960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Khaneghah, A.M.; Fakhri, Y.; Raeisi, S.; Armoon, B.; Sant’Ana, A.S. Prevalence and concentration of ochratoxin A, zearalenone, deoxynivalenol and total aflatoxin in cereal-based products: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2018, 118, 830–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Khaneghah, A.M.; Martins, L.M.; von Hertwig, A.M.; Bertoldo, R.; Sant’Ana, A.S. Deoxynivalenol and its masked forms: Characteristics, incidence, control and fate during wheat and wheat based products processing—A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 71, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Farhadi, A.; Fakhri, Y.; Kachuei, R.; Vasseghian, Y.; Huseyn, E.; Khaneghah, A.M. Prevalence and concentration of fumonisins in cereal-based foods: A global systematic review and meta-analysis study. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 20998–21008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Vanrolleghem, W.; Tanghe, S.; Verstringe, S.; Bruggeman, G.; Papadopoulos, D.; Trevisi, P.; Zentek, J.; Sarrazin, S.; Dewulf, J. Potential dietary feed additives with antibacterial effects and their impact on performance of weaned piglets: A meta-analysis. Veter. J. 2019, 249, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Moula, N.; Detilleux, J. A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Insects in Feed on Poultry Growth Performances. Animals 2019, 9, 201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Grenier, B.; Oswald, I. Mycotoxin co-contamination of food and feed: Meta-analysis of publications describing toxicological interactions. World Mycotoxin J. 2011, 4, 285–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Karami-Osboo, R.; Mirabolfathy, M.; Aliakbari, F. Natural Deoxynivalenol Contamination of Corn Produced in Golestan and Moqan Areas in Iran. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2010, 12, 233–239. [Google Scholar]
  71. Demir, C.; Simsek, O.; Arici, M. Incidence of Fusarium verticillioides and levels of fumonisin B1 and B2 in corn in Turkey. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2010, 19, 1103–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Khatoon, S.; Hanif, N.Q.; Tahira, I.; Sultana, N.; Sultana, K.; Ayub, N. Natural Occurrence of Aflatoxins, Zearalenone and Trichothecenes in Maize Grown in Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot. 2012, 44, 231–236. [Google Scholar]
  73. Oruç, H.H.; Sorucu, A.; Türkmen, I.I.; Arslan, E. Determination of Various Mycotoxin Concentrations in the Feedstuffs and Feed Produced by A Feed Manufacturer in Turkey. Kafkas Univ. Vet. Fak. Derg. 2012, 18, 633–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Abbès, S.; Ben Salah-Abbès, J.; Bouraoui, Y.; Oueslati, S.; Oueslati, R. Natural occurrence of aflatoxins (B1 and M1) in feed, plasma and raw milk of lactating dairy cows in Beja, Tunisia, using ELISA. Food Addit. Contam. Part B 2012, 5, 11–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Ali, S.; Mohamed, A. Determination of Aflatoxins in Selected Foods and Animal Feed in Khartoum State, Sudan. Acta Hortic. 2012, 963, 231–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kocasari, F.S.; Mor, F.; Oguz, M.N.; Oguz, F.K. Occurrence of mycotoxins in feed samples in Burdur Province, Turkey. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2012, 185, 4943–4949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Mahmoudi, R.; Norian, R.; Katiraee, F.; Pajohi Alamoti, M.R. Total Aflatoxin Contamination of Maize Produced in Different Regions of Qazvin-Iran. Int. Food Res. J. 2013, 20, 2901–2904. [Google Scholar]
  78. Ahsan, S.; Batti, I.A.; Hussain, Z.; Bukhari, S.A.; Naqvi, S.A.R.; Khan, Z.A.; Asi, M.R. HPLC Determination of Aflatoxins in Wheat Grains Collected from Central Areas of the Punjab, Pakistan. Asian J. Chem. 2013, 25, 7463–7466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sadegh, M.; Sani, A.M.; Ghiasvand, R. Determination of Aflatoxin B1 in Animal Feed in Mashhad. Iran. Biotechnol. Indian J. 2013, 7, 334–336. [Google Scholar]
  80. Azizi, I.G.; Azarmi, M.; Pouya, N.D.; Rouhi, S. T-2 toxin Analysis in Poultry and Cattle Feedstuff. Jundishapur J. Nat. Pharm. Prod. 2014, 9, e13734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Eskandari, M.; Pakfetrat, S. Aflatoxins and heavy metals in animal feed in Iran. Food Addit. Contam. Part B 2014, 7, 202–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Bilal, T.; Aksakal, D.H.; Sünnetci, S.; Keser, O.; Eseceli, H. Detection of Aflatoxin, Zearalenone and Deoxynivalenol in Some Feed and Feedstuffs in Turkey. Pak. Vet. J. 2014, 34, 459–463. [Google Scholar]
  83. Shar, Z.; Sumbal, G.; Sherazi, S.; Bhanger, M.; Nizamani, S. Natural co-occurrence of aflatoxins and deoxynivalenol in poultry feed in Pakistan. Food Addit. Contam. Part B 2014, 7, 162–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Sherazi, S.T.H.; Shar, Z.; Sumbal, G.A.; Tan, E.T.; Bhanger, M.I.; Kara, H.; Nizamani, S.M. Occurrence of ochratoxin A in poultry feeds and feed ingredients from Pakistan. Mycotoxin Res. 2014, 31, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Bahrami, R.; Shahbazi, Y.; Nikousefat, Z. Occurrence and seasonal variation of aflatoxin in dairy cow feed with estimation of aflatoxin M1 in milk from Iran. Food Agric. Immunol. 2015, 27, 388–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Namjoo, M.; Salamat, F.; Rajabli, N.; Hajihoseeini, R.; Niknejad, F.; Kohsar, F.; Joshaghani, H. Quantitative Determination of Aflatoxin by High Performance Liquid Chromatography in Wheat Silos in Golestan Province, North of Iran. Iran. J. Public Health 2016, 45, 905–910. [Google Scholar]
  87. Sahin, H.Z.; Celik, M.; Kotay, S.; Kabak, B. Aflatoxins in dairy cow feed, raw milk and milk products from Turkey. Food Addit. Contam. Part B 2016, 9, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ehsani, A.; Barani, A.; Nasiri, Z. Occurrence of aflatoxin B1 contamination in dairy cows feed in Iran. Toxin Rev. 2016, 35, 54–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Hashemi, M. Aflatoxin B1 levels in feedstuffs from dairy cow farms in south of Iran. Food Agric. Immunol. 2015, 27, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Asghar, M.A.; Ahmed, A.; Iqbal, J.; Zahir, E.; Nauman, H. Fungal flora and aflatoxin contamination in Pakistani wheat kernels (Triticum aestivum L.) and their attribution in seed germination. J. Food Drug Anal. 2016, 24, 635–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Chohan, K.A.; Awan, F.; Ali, M.M.; Iqbal, U.; Ijaz, M. Assessment of Aflatoxin in Dairy Concentrate Feeds, Total Mixed Rations, Silage and Various Feed Ingredients in Pakistan. Pak. J. Zool. 2016, 48, 277–280. [Google Scholar]
  92. Abdolmaleki, K.; Javanmardi, F.; Gavahian, M.; Phimolsiripol, Y.; Ruksiriwanich, W.; Mir, S.A.; Mousavi Khaneghah, A. Emerging technologies in combination with probiotics for aflatoxins removal: An updated review. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 57, 5712–5721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Mahdavi-Yekta, M.; Karimi-Dehkordi, M.; Hadian, Z.; Salehi, A.; Deylami, S.; Rezaei, M.; Mousavi Khaneghah, A. Silver nanoparticles and quinoa peptide enriched nanocomposite films for the detoxification of aflatoxins in pistachio. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2022, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Smaoui, S.; Agriopoulou, S.; D’Amore, T.; Tavares, L.; Mousavi Khaneghah, A. The control of Fusarium growth and decontamination of produced mycotoxins by lactic acid bacteria. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Sifou, A.; Mahnine, N.; Manyes, L.; Adlouni, C.E.; Azzouzi, M.E.; Zinedine, A. Determination of Ochratoxin A in Poultry Feeds Available in Rabat Area (Morocco) by High Performance Liquid Chromatography. J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 2016, 7, 2229–2234. [Google Scholar]
  96. Iqbal, S.Z.; Asi, M.R.; Nisar, S.; Zia, K.M.; Jinap, S.; Malik, N. A Limited Survey of Aflatoxins and Zearalenone in Feed and Feed Ingredients from Pakistan. J. Food Prot. 2016, 79, 1798–1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Abudabos, A.M.; Al-Atiyat, R.M.; Khan, R.U. A survey of mycotoxin contamination and chemical composition of distiller’s dried grains with solubles (DDGS) imported from the USA into Saudi Arabia. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 15401–15405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Abdallah, M.F.; Girgin, G.; Baydar, T.; Krska, R.; Sulyok, M. Occurrence of multiple mycotoxins and other fungal metabolites in animal feed and maize samples from Egypt using LC-MS/MS. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 97, 4419–4428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Ismail, A.; Riaz, M.; Akhtar, S.; Yoo, S.; Park, S.; Abid, M.; Aziz, M.; Ahmad, Z. Seasonal variation of aflatoxin B1 content in dairy feed. J. Anim. Feed. Sci. 2017, 26, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Yalçin, N.F.; Işik, M.K.; Avci, T.; Oğuz, H.; Yurduseven, T. Investigation of mycotoxin residues in poultry feeds by LC MS/MS method. Ank. Üniversitesi Vet. Fakültesi Derg. 2017, 64, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Jedidi, I.; Cruz, A.; González-Jaén, M.T.; Said, S. Aflatoxins and ochratoxin A and their Aspergillus causal species in Tunisian cereals. Food Addit. Contam. Part B 2016, 10, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Yilidirim, E.; Macun, H.C.; Yalçinkaya, İ.; Kocasari, F.Ş.; Ekici, H. Survey of aflatoxin residue in feed and milk samples in Kırıkkale province, Turkey. Ank. Üniversitesi Vet. Fakültesi Derg. 2018, 65, 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Al Khalail, N. Prevalence of Ochratoxin A in Poultry Feed and Meat from Jordan. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2018, 21, 239–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Ghiasian, S.A.; Shephard, G.S.; Yazdanpanah, H. Natural Occurrence of Aflatoxins from Maize in Iran. Mycopathologia 2011, 172, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Zebiri, S.; Mokrane, S.; Verheecke-Vaessen, C.; Choque, E.; Reghioui, H.; Sabaou, N.; Mathieu, F.; Riba, A. Occurrence of ochratoxin A in Algerian wheat and its milling derivatives. Toxin Rev. 2018, 38, 206–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Abdallah, M.F.; Girgin, G.; Baydar, T. Mycotoxin Detection in Maize, Commercial Feed, and Raw Dairy Milk Samples from Assiut City, Egypt. Veter. Sci. 2019, 6, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Iram, S.; Fareed, S.K.; Chaudhary, M.; Iqbal, M.U.N.; Ghani, R.; Khan, T.A.; Abbas, T. Identification of Aspergillus flavus and aflatoxin in home mix layer poultry feed in relation to seasons in Karachi, Pakistan. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2019, 51, 1321–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Ahmed Abdullah Murshed, S.; Bacha, N.; Alharazi, T. Detection of Total Aflatoxins in Groundnut and Soybean Samples in Yemen Using Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay. J. Food Qual. 2019, 2019, 1614502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Juan, C.; Oueslati, S.; Mañes, J.; Berrada, H. Multimycotoxin Determination in Tunisian Farm Animal Feed. J. Food Sci. 2019, 84, 3885–3893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Shar, Z.H.; Pirkash, O.; Sherazi, S.T.H.; Mahesar, S.A. Aflatoxins in cotton seeds and cotton seed cake from Pakistan. Food Addit. Contam. Part B 2019, 13, 72–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Juan, C.; Mannai, A.; Ben Salem, H.; Oueslati, S.; Berrada, H.; Juan-García, A.; Mañes, J. Mycotoxins presence in pre- and post-fermented silage from Tunisia. Arab. J. Chem. 2020, 13, 6753–6761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Waqas, M.; Pervaiz, W.; Zia, K.M.; Iqbal, S.Z. Assessment of aflatoxin B 1 in animal feed and aflatoxin M 1 in raw milk samples of different species of milking animals from Punjab, Pakistan. J. Food Saf. 2021, 41, e12893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Azizi, I.; Ghadi, H.; Azarmi, M. Determination of Aflatoxin B1 Levels of the Feedstuffs in Traditional and Semi-industrial Cattle Farms in Amol, Northern Iran. Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2012, 7, 528–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Feizy, J.; Beheshti, H.R.; Asadi, M. A survey of aflatoxin in cotton seed in Iran by HPLC with on-line photochemical derivatisation and fluorescence detection. Food Addit. Contam. Part B 2012, 5, 200–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Rashid, N.; Bajwa, M.A.; Rafeeq, M.; Khan, M.A.; Ahmad, Z.; Tariq, M.M.; Wadood, A.; Abbas, F. Prevalence of Aflatoxin B1 in Finished Commercial Broiler Feed from West Central Pakistan. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2012, 22, 6–10. [Google Scholar]
  116. Rashedi, M.; Sohrabi, H.R.; Ashjaazadeh, M.A.; Azizi, H.; Rahimi, E. Zearalenone contamination in barley, corn, silage and wheat bran. Toxicol. Ind. Health 2011, 28, 779–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Değirmencioğlu, N.; Eseceli, H.; Demir, E.; Şentürklü, S. Evaluation of total aflatoxin, nitrate and nitrite levels in layer feed samples of companies producing their own feed in Edincik and Bandırma province of Turkey. Food Addit. Contam. Part B 2012, 5, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Claeys, L.; Romano, C.; De Ruyck, K.; Wilson, H.; Fervers, B.; Korenjak, M.; Zavadil, J.; Gunter, M.J.; De Saeger, S.; De Boevre, M.; et al. Mycotoxin exposure and human cancer risk: A systematic review of epidemiological studies. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 1449–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Franco, L.T.; Khaneghah, A.M.; Lee, S.H.I.; Oliveira, C.A.F. Biomonitoring of mycotoxin exposure using urinary biomarker approaches: A review. Toxin Rev. 2019, 40, 383–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Ganesan, A.R.; Balasubramanian, B.; Park, S.; Jha, R.; Andretta, I.; Bakare, A.G.; Kim, I.H. Ochratoxin A: Carryover from animal feed into livestock and the mitigation strategies. Anim. Nutr. 2020, 7, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Streit, E.; Schatzmayr, G.; Tassis, P.; Tzika, E.; Marin, D.; Taranu, I.; Tabuc, C.; Nicolau, A.; Aprodu, I.; Puel, O.; et al. Current Situation of Mycotoxin Contamination and Co-occurrence in Animal Feed—Focus on Europe. Toxins 2012, 4, 788–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Bahn, R.; Yehya, A.; Zurayk, R. Digitalization for Sustainable Agri-Food Systems: Potential, Status, and Risks for the MENA Region. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Olawuyi, D.S. Climate Change Law and Policy in the Middle East and North Africa Region; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2021; ISBN 9781003044109. [Google Scholar]
  124. Cendoya, E.; del Pilar Monge, M.; Chiacchiera, S.M.; Farnochi, M.C.; Ramirez, M.L. Influence of water activity and temperature on growth and fumonisin production by Fusarium proliferatum strains on irradiated wheat grains. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018, 266, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Kirinčič, S.; Škrjanc, B.; Kos, N.; Kozolc, B.; Pirnat, N.; Tavčar-Kalcher, G. Mycotoxins in cereals and cereal products in Slovenia—Official control of foods in the years 2008–2012. Food Control. 2015, 50, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Kouba, M. Quality of organic animal products. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2003, 80, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Jouany, J.P. Methods for preventing, decontaminating and minimizing the toxicity of mycotoxins in feeds. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2007, 137, 342–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Althagafi, A.M.; Alshegifi, H.M.; Qussyier, T.S.; Tobaiqy, M.; Abdalbasit, M. Mycotoxin-contaminated food and feed in Saudi Arabia: Review of occurrence and toxicity. Food Raw Mater. 2021, 9, 174–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Al-Jaal, B.; Salama, S.; Al-Qasmi, N.; Jaganjac, M. Mycotoxin contamination of food and feed in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries and its detection. Toxicon 2019, 171, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Khaledi, K.; Ardestani, M. The Impact of Sanctions on Economic Growth of Iran’s Agricultural Sector. J. Agric. Econ. Dev. 2022, 29, 251–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Messripour, M.; Gheisari, M.M. Occurrence of Aflatoxin B in Some Feedstuffs in Isfahan. J. Res. Agric. Sci. 2010, 6, 49–55. [Google Scholar]
  132. Torok, V.A.; Luyckx, K.; Lapidge, S. Human food waste to animal feed: Opportunities and challenges. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2021, 62, 1129–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. FAO & WHO Hazards Associated with Animal Feed. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/ca6825en/CA6825EN.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2023).
  134. Rhouma, M.; Lachapelle, V.; Comeau, G.; Quessy, S.; Zanabria, R.; Provost, F.; Italiano, C.; Holley, R.; Smillie, J.; Brockhoff, E.; et al. Identification and selection of animal health and food safety-related risk factors to be included in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s risk assessment model for livestock feed mills. Food Control. 2021, 121, 107642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Lane, J.; Hoban, S. To Investigate the Practicalities and Regulatory Requirements of Utilising Food Waste as a Feed Source for Pigs. Aust. Pork 2017, 45, 134623. [Google Scholar]
  136. Ogunade, I.; Martinez-Tuppia, C.; Queiroz, O.; Jiang, Y.; Drouin, P.; Wu, F.; Vyas, D.; Adesogan, A. Silage review: Mycotoxins in silage: Occurrence, effects, prevention, and mitigation. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 4034–4059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Driehuis, F.; Spanjer, M.C.; Scholten, J.M.; te Giffel, M.C. Occurrence of Mycotoxins in Feedstuffs of Dairy Cows and Estimation of Total Dietary Intakes. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91, 4261–4271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Drishya, C.; Yoha, K.; Perumal, A.B.; Moses, J.A.; Anandharamakrishnan, C.; Balasubramaniam, V.M. Impact of nonthermal food processing techniques on mycotoxins and their producing fungi. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 57, 2140–2148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Jafarzadeh, S.; Abdolmaleki, K.; Javanmardi, F.; Hadidi, M.; Khaneghah, A.M. Recent advances in plant-based compounds for mitigation of mycotoxin contamination in food products: Current status, challenges and perspectives. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 57, 2159–2170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Kumar, P.; Mahato, D.K.; Gupta, A.; Pandhi, S.; Mishra, S.; Barua, S.; Tyagi, V.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, M.; Kamle, M. Use of essential oils and phytochemicals against the mycotoxins producing fungi for shelf-life enhancement and food preservation. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 57, 2171–2184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Liu, L.; Xie, M.; Wei, D. Biological Detoxification of Mycotoxins: Current Status and Future Advances. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Sayed-ElAhl, R.M.H.; Hassan, A.A.; Mansour, M.K.; Abdelmoteleb, A.M.M.; El-Hamaky, A.M.A. Controlling Immunomodulation Effects of Deoxynivalenol Mycotoxins by NanoZinc Oxide and Probiotic in Broiler Chickens. J. World’s Poult. Res. 2022, 12, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Azizi, T.; Daneshyar, M.; Allymehr, M.; Tukmechi, A.; Behroozyar, H.K.; Jalali, A.S. Effect of a probiotic (Lactobacillus sp.), yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and mycotoxin detoxifier alone or in combination on performance, immune response and serum biochemical parameters in broilers fed deoxynivalenol-contaminated diets. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2021, 61, 1553–1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Poloni, V.; Magnoli, A.; Fochesato, A.; Poloni, L.; Cristofolini, A.; Merkis, C.; Riquelme, C.S.; Maldonado, F.S.; Montenegro, M.; Cavaglieri, L. Probiotic gut-borne Saccharomyces cerevisiae reduces liver toxicity caused by aflatoxins in weanling piglets. World Mycotoxin J. 2021, 14, 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Śliżewska, K.; Piotrowska, M. Reduction of Ochratoxin A in Chicken Feed Using Probiotic. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2014, 21, 676–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Wang, L.; Wang, X.; Chang, J.; Wang, P.; Liu, C.; Yuan, L.; Yin, Q.; Zhu, Q.; Lu, F. Effect of the Combined Compound Probiotics with Glycyrrhinic Acid on Alleviating Cytotoxicity of IPEC-J2 Cells Induced by Multi-Mycotoxins. Toxins 2022, 14, 670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Campagnollo, F.B.; Khaneghah, A.M.; Borges, L.L.; Bonato, M.A.; Fakhri, Y.; Barbalho, C.B.; Barbalho, R.L.; Corassin, C.H.; Oliveira, C.A. In vitro and in vivo capacity of yeast-based products to bind to aflatoxins B1 and M1 in media and foodstuffs: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 109505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Xiong, J.; Wang, Y.; Nennich, T.; Li, Y.; Liu, J. Transfer of dietary aflatoxin B1 to milk aflatoxin M1 and effect of inclusion of adsorbent in the diet of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 2545–2554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Toxins 15 00214 g001 550
Figure 1. Number of studies on aflatoxins in animal feed in the MENA region from 2010 to 2021.
Figure 1. Number of studies on aflatoxins in animal feed in the MENA region from 2010 to 2021.
Toxins 15 00214 g001
Toxins 15 00214 g002 550
Figure 2. Mean level of mycotoxins in animal feed in the MENA region. Aflatoxins (AFs), deoxynivalenol (DON), zearalenone (ZEA), T-2 toxin, fumonisins (FUM), and ochratoxin A (OTA).
Figure 2. Mean level of mycotoxins in animal feed in the MENA region. Aflatoxins (AFs), deoxynivalenol (DON), zearalenone (ZEA), T-2 toxin, fumonisins (FUM), and ochratoxin A (OTA).
Toxins 15 00214 g002
Toxins 15 00214 g003 550
Figure 3. Occurrence of different mycotoxins in animal feed in the MENA region. Aflatoxins (AFs), deoxynivalenol (DON), zearalenone (ZEA), T-2 toxin, fumonisins (FUM), and ochratoxin A (OTA).
Figure 3. Occurrence of different mycotoxins in animal feed in the MENA region. Aflatoxins (AFs), deoxynivalenol (DON), zearalenone (ZEA), T-2 toxin, fumonisins (FUM), and ochratoxin A (OTA).
Toxins 15 00214 g003
Toxins 15 00214 g004 550
Figure 4. Occurrence and concentration of mycotoxins in animal feed in the MENA region. Aflatoxins (AFs), deoxynivalenol (DON), zearalenone (ZEA), T-2 toxin, fumonisins (FUM), and ochratoxin A (OTA).
Figure 4. Occurrence and concentration of mycotoxins in animal feed in the MENA region. Aflatoxins (AFs), deoxynivalenol (DON), zearalenone (ZEA), T-2 toxin, fumonisins (FUM), and ochratoxin A (OTA).
Toxins 15 00214 g004
Toxins 15 00214 g005 550
Figure 5. Occurrence of mycotoxins in animal feed in the countries of the MENA region.
Figure 5. Occurrence of mycotoxins in animal feed in the countries of the MENA region.
Toxins 15 00214 g005
Toxins 15 00214 g006 550
Figure 6. Occurrence of mycotoxins in different animal feed ingredients in the MENA region.
Figure 6. Occurrence of mycotoxins in different animal feed ingredients in the MENA region.
Toxins 15 00214 g006
Toxins 15 00214 g007 550
Figure 7. Systematic review PRISMA flow diagram.
Figure 7. Systematic review PRISMA flow diagram.
Toxins 15 00214 g007
Table
Table 1. Meta-analysis of the occurrence of mycotoxins in animal feed in the countries of the MENA region.
Table 1. Meta-analysis of the occurrence of mycotoxins in animal feed in the countries of the MENA region.
CountryNo. of
Trials		ES (95% CI)pI2 (%)PQ
Pakistan1160.41 (0.35, 0.46)<0.00192.30<0.001
Iran520.66 (0.56, 0.76)<0.00196.05<0.001
Turkey480.41 (0.31, 0.52)<0.00197.77<0.001
Egypt310.29 (0.18, 0.40)<0.00197.60<0.001
Tunisia210.31 (0.16, 0.47)<0.00197.36<0.001
Qatar180.46 (0.28, 0.64)<0.00178.24<0.001
Saudi Arabia110.15 (0.09, 0.23)<0.00193.53<0.001
Middle East160.39 (0.24, 0.56)<0.00195.9–
Jordan30.63 (0.25, 0.94)<0.001––
Sudan30.45 (0.32, 0.59)<0.001––
Algeria20.87 (0.74, 0.96)<0.001––
Morocco10.31 (0.21, 0.43)<0.001––
Yemen10.72 (0.60, 0.82)<0.001––
Overall estimate3230.42 (0.38, 0.46)<0.00196.71<0.001
Table
Table 2. Meta-analysis of the occurrence of mycotoxins in animal feed in the MENA region.
Table 2. Meta-analysis of the occurrence of mycotoxins in animal feed in the MENA region.
Mycotoxin TypeNo. of
Trials		ES (95% CI)pI2 (%)PQ
Aflatoxins1720.47 (0.40, 0.53)<0.00197.35<0.001
Ochratoxin A490.31 (0.23, 0.39)<0.00191.34<0.001
Zearalenone360.33 (0.23, 0.43)<0.00193.98<0.001
Fumonisins310.47 (0.35, 0.60)<0.00196.79<0.001
Deoxynivalenol230.42 (0.32, 0.53)<0.00192.42<0.001
T-2 toxin120.18 (0.06, 0.34)<0.00196.97<0.001
Overall estimate3230.42 (0.38, 0.46)<0.00196.71<0.001
Table
Table 3. Meta-analysis of the occurrence of mycotoxins in animal feed ingredients in the MENA region.
Table 3. Meta-analysis of the occurrence of mycotoxins in animal feed ingredients in the MENA region.
IngredientsNo. of
Trials		ES (95% CI)pI2 (%)PQ
Finished feed1170.46 (0.39, 0.54<0.00197.94<0.001
Cereals1150.33 (0.28, 0.37)<0.00193.33<0.001
Oilseed meal/cake470.49 (0.40, 0.58)<0.00191.68<0.001
Silage100.57 (0.33, 0.80)<0.00196.01<0.001
Wheat bran90.41 (0.14, 0.72)<0.00195.46<0.001
Hay70.50 (0.26, 0.74)<0.00193.87<0.001
Gluten meal40.31 (0.17, 0.46)<0.00136.130.20
Animal protein-based meal40.28 (0.05, 0.58)<0.00178.84<0.001
Straw40.52 (0.27, 0.76)<0.00190.71<0.001
Beet pulp30.53 (0.22, 0.83)<0.001––
Dried bread30.80 (0.61, 0.94)<0.001––
Overall estimate3230.42 (0.38, 0.46)<0.00196.71<0.001
Table
Table 4. Meta-analysis of concentrations of mycotoxin types in animal feed in the MENA region.
Table 4. Meta-analysis of concentrations of mycotoxin types in animal feed in the MENA region.
Mycotoxin TypeNo. of trialsES (95% CI)pI2 (%)PQ
Aflatoxins11423.38 (−47.98, 94.74)0.521100<0.001
Ochratoxin A4312.01 (10.93, 13.08)<0.00199.1<0.001
Zearalenone1117.56 (15.07, 20.05)<0.00199.8<0.001
Fumonisins61240.1 (841.9, 1638.3)<0.001100<0.001
Deoxynivalenol5806.1 (1.03, 2615.8)0.038100<0.001
T-2 toxin743.60 (−28.63, 115.8)0.237100<0.001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jalilzadeh-Amin, G.; Dalir-Naghadeh, B.; Ahmadnejad-Asl-Gavgani, M.; Fallah, A.A.; Mousavi Khaneghah, A. Prevalence and Concentration of Mycotoxins in Animal Feed in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Toxins 2023, 15, 214. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins15030214

AMA Style

Jalilzadeh-Amin G, Dalir-Naghadeh B, Ahmadnejad-Asl-Gavgani M, Fallah AA, Mousavi Khaneghah A. Prevalence and Concentration of Mycotoxins in Animal Feed in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Toxins. 2023; 15(3):214. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins15030214

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jalilzadeh-Amin, Ghader, Bahram Dalir-Naghadeh, Masoud Ahmadnejad-Asl-Gavgani, Aziz A. Fallah, and Amin Mousavi Khaneghah. 2023. "Prevalence and Concentration of Mycotoxins in Animal Feed in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Toxins 15, no. 3: 214. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins15030214

APA Style

Jalilzadeh-Amin, G., Dalir-Naghadeh, B., Ahmadnejad-Asl-Gavgani, M., Fallah, A. A., & Mousavi Khaneghah, A. (2023). Prevalence and Concentration of Mycotoxins in Animal Feed in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Toxins, 15(3), 214. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins15030214

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop