MYCOTRACE^® 2026 SECOND QUARTER

The Growing Importance of Multi-Mycotoxin Contamination in Türkiye

Quarterly technical assessment

The key question in mycotoxin management is not which mycotoxin is detected most often, but how the risk profile changes over time and what this means for operational decisions. MYCOTRACE^® assesses FAST Lab data from this perspective, converting the national and regional outlook into technical interpretation, an operation-specific risk profile and a traceable management approach.

Results for Q2 2026 show that mycotoxin pressure persisted. The period was defined not by a single highly prevalent mycotoxin, but by the concurrent prominence of Fusarium-derived mycotoxins, indicating a more multilayered risk profile.

1. Türkiye Mycotoxin Profile for 2026 Q2

The Q2 profile reveals several important risk areas with increasingly similar prevalence levels. FUM remained high, while the concurrent prominence of ZEN, DON and T-2 suggests that cereal- and maize-based raw materials should be assessed within a shared risk profile. Although AFLA and OTA were less prevalent, their concentrations and exposure conditions should also be evaluated at operation level.

2. Change from Q1 to Q2: How Did the Risk Profile Evolve?

Across the first two quarters, the composition of the risk profile is more important than the overall change. A profile centred mainly on FUM in Q1 developed into a multifaceted Fusarium profile in Q2, with ZEN, DON and T-2 also becoming prominent. This change shows that fixed control plans established at the beginning of the year should be reassessed using current analytical data rather than applied unchanged throughout the period.

Technical interpretation of the comparison

The main difference between Q1 and Q2 is not simply the increase in overall positivity. The composition of the risk profile changed, with several Fusarium mycotoxins, particularly ZEN and T-2, reaching higher prevalence during the same period.

3. Multi-Mycotoxin Contamination: Q2’s Defining Finding

The defining finding of Q2 is that multi-mycotoxin contamination became a core characteristic of the dataset. When several major mycotoxins occur in the same sample, assessments focused only on the highest result may not fully reflect the total exposure profile.

Technical assessment should therefore move beyond “Which mycotoxin is predominant?” and address “Which mycotoxins occur together, at what concentrations and which animal group is exposed to the combination?” This supports more accurate interpretation of subclinical and performance-related risks.

Co-detection alone is not conclusive evidence of synergy or performance loss. Its biological significance must be assessed together with the mycotoxin combination, concentration, animal species, production stage, exposure duration and overall diet composition.

4. Türkiye Risk Map and Regional Assessment

The regional outlook shows that mycotoxin pressure is not uniform across Türkiye. Where sufficient data are available, the concurrent presence of high positivity rates and multi-mycotoxin contamination indicates that the regional map can guide not only general awareness, but also sampling and procurement-control priorities.

Regional rates reflect samples submitted to MYCOTRACE^® and should not be interpreted as official national surveillance results. Sampling was limited in the Aegean Region, while no assessable data were available for the Black Sea Region. A data gap does not indicate low risk; it highlights the need for monitoring.

The risk map should consider percentage values alongside sampling adequacy, matrix distribution, multi-mycotoxin patterns and temporal consistency. An individual operation’s risk may differ from the regional average.

6. What Does This Mean for Operations?

The Q2 outlook indicates that mycotoxin control should move beyond a fixed-product or one-off analytical approach and become a periodic management process. Raw material source, matrix, storage conditions and seasonal variation should determine the analytical plan.

Results should be interpreted by considering not only the predominant mycotoxin, but also the mycotoxin combination and measured concentrations within the same sample. Different raw materials or compound feeds from the same region may have different risk profiles.

Procurement control and feed hygiene are key preventive measures for limiting risk development or its increase during storage. The adequacy of the approach should be verified through the operation-specific risk profile, regular analyses and field performance data.

7. From Data to Decisions with MYCOTRACE^®

MYCOTRACE^® connects risk maps and analytical results with the operation’s own raw material, feed, animal species and production-stage data, converting technical interpretation into a management approach and follow-up plan.

The multilayered Q2 profile shows that exposure may differ among operations within the same national outlook. Effective risk management therefore requires analysis, correct contextualisation, operation-specific assessment and regular follow-up.

Conclusion

Q2 2026 shows that mycotoxin risk has become more complex. The concurrent prominence of Fusarium-derived mycotoxins and the defining role of multi-mycotoxin contamination demonstrate the limits of single-mycotoxin assessments. The priority is to monitor combinations, temporal changes and the operation’s actual exposure conditions together.

Results should be interpreted within the analysed MYCOTRACE^® dataset. Positivity alone does not indicate biological risk severity or performance outcome; concentration, animal species, production stage, exposure duration and operational conditions are integral to technical interpretation.

Review the national and regional outlook, place your analytical results in context, assess your risk profile with the technical team and develop a data-driven follow-up plan.