MYCOTRACE^® 2026 Q2 – The Risk Centre Has Not Shifted, but the Profile Has Deepened

21 September 2026

MYCOTRACE^® 2026 Q2

The Risk Centre Has Not Shifted, but the Profile Has Deepened

As Fusarium pressure persists and ZEN and T-2 become more prominent, multi-mycotoxin contamination is becoming a more complex area to manage.

THREE KEY MESSAGES FROM Q2

PERSISTENT BASELINE

Across the four-year outlook, FUM remains the most consistent component of the risk profile.

SHIFT THIS QUARTER

The increasing prominence of ZEN and T-2 shows that a single-toxin interpretation is no longer sufficient.

MANAGEMENT FOCUS

More complex toxin combinations directly affect sampling and follow-up plans.

2026 Q2 does not signal a new field risk. It shows that the established Fusarium baseline has become more layered as different toxins occur together. The key question is no longer only which toxin is most prevalent, but which toxins co-occur and how the combination changes the operation’s risk profile.

QUARTER-ON-QUARTER CHANGE

From Q1 to Q2: The risk profile broadened

Figure 1 placeholder — Figure 1. Comparison of toxin prevalence in 2026 Q1 and Q2.

In Q1, the profile centred on FUM. By Q2, the gap between FUM and other Fusarium toxins had narrowed. The greater prominence of ZEN and T-2 indicates a shift from one dominant toxin to a broader combination profile.

Persistent DON makes cereal and cereal by-product monitoring essential across procurement, formulation and storage. Lower AFLA and OTA prevalence does not remove operational risk; source, concentration, feed matrix and exposure duration remain decisive.

Key interpretation for this quarter

FUM is the constant point in the risk profile, while ZEN, DON and T-2 determine its depth. The management approach should therefore be based on the full combination, not solely on the dominant toxin.

SAME-QUARTER COMPARISON

Four years, one common thread: Persistent risk, changing combinations

Figure 2 placeholder — Figure 2. Comparison of toxin prevalence for the same quarter from 2023 to 2026.

Comparing the same quarter across four years partially controls for seasonal effects and makes the structural features of the risk profile more visible. FUM stands out as the most consistent risk over time. Monitoring maize and maize-derived inputs is therefore not a temporary measure, but an ongoing management priority.

PERSISTENT RISK

FUM remaining within a similar range over the years indicates a structural and recurring risk baseline.

FLUCTUATING RISK

Sharp year-to-year changes in ZEN and T-2 increase the importance of source- and period-specific monitoring.

SOURCE-SPECIFIC RISK

Variability in AFLA and OTA requires assessment by batch, supplier and storage condition rather than broad national interpretation.

Although DON rises and falls between years, it remains a recurring component of the profile. By contrast, the prominence of ZEN and T-2 in 2026 Q2 distinguishes the current period from previous years. Fixed programmes based solely on the most prevalent toxin in the previous year may therefore fail to reflect the risk architecture of the new period.

MULTI-MYCOTOXIN CONTAMINATION

Not just toxin count: The burden profile has changed

Figure 3 placeholder — Figure 3. Four-year distribution of major toxin groups in the same quarter.

The defining feature of 2026 Q2 is not merely the presence of multiple toxins, but the greater visibility of more complex combinations within the data set. Single-toxin profiles have become less prominent, while profiles containing four or five major toxins have become more evident.

This finding does not prove that synergistic effects or performance losses occur in every sample. However, a greater number of toxins makes biological effects more difficult to interpret and increases the relevance of low-level but persistent exposure. Toxin count should therefore be assessed together with concentration, feed intake, exposure duration, animal age and production stage.

TECHNICAL INTERPRETATION BY SPECIES

The same data have different implications across species

The following comments do not represent the analytical results themselves. They provide a technical framework for the biological and operational areas that should be monitored for each species in relation to the Q2 profile.

POULTRY

The DON, T-2 and FUM-dominant profile should be monitored in relation to feed intake, intestinal integrity, nutrient utilisation and flock resilience. In broilers, growth and feed conversion are key; in layers and breeders, continuity over long production cycles is particularly important.

RUMINANTS

Biotransformation by the rumen microbiota does not provide absolute protection. When ZEN is prominent, fertility records should be reviewed; when DON, T-2 and FUM are present, feed intake, rumen stability, hepatic burden and metabolic load should be assessed together.

SWINE

Given their sensitivity to DON and ZEN, the Q2 profile requires priority monitoring of feed intake and growth, as well as fertility in breeding herds. Risk profiles should be assessed separately for young animals and breeding groups.

AQUACULTURE

In feeds with greater inclusion of plant-based raw materials, Fusarium toxins become relevant to appetite, growth, feed conversion, intestinal health and liver health. Species, life stage and diet formulation may alter the biological significance of the same analytical result.

ACTIONABLE MANAGEMENT

Five questions every operation should ask after reading this report

Does our sampling plan genuinely capture differences among suppliers, batches, raw materials and storage periods?
Are we assessing results only at raw-material level, or against the actual exposure created by the complete diet?
Do we consider the co-occurring toxins alongside the dominant toxin and the biological systems affected by the combination?
Do we relate analytical results to feed intake, FCR, milk or egg production, reproductive records and health indicators?
Do we update our control and protection strategy in line with the risk profile as it changes from quarter to quarter?

DECISION SUPPORT MODEL

From data to actionable decisions with MYCOTRACE^®

Samples and Data

Accredited Analysis

Risk Profile

Technical Interpretation

Operation-Specific Assessment

Management Strategy

Follow-up

MYCOTRACE^® does not present the Türkiye and regional outlook solely as a risk map. It links F.A.S.T. Lab. analytical data with the operation’s raw-material profile, feed matrix, animal species, production stage and historical results to develop an actionable technical risk profile.

The key message from 2026 Q2 is clear: The centre of risk has not shifted, but the profile has deepened. Effective mycotoxin management requires a dynamic system that monitors toxin combinations, animal species and changes over time together, rather than relying on fixed decisions based on a single result.

Assess Your Operation-Specific Risk Profile.

Contact the MYCOTRACE^® expert team for support with sampling plans, technical interpretation and follow-up strategies.

DVM Susen Gizem Ertaş
Technical Marketing Manager – Turkey & MENA

References

1. MYCOTRACE^® 2026 Q2 Quarterly Türkiye Mycotoxin Summary.
2. MYCOTRACE^® 2023-2026 Four-Year Comparison of the Same Quarter.
3. MYCOTRACE^® 2026 Q1 Quarterly Türkiye Mycotoxin Summary.
4. EFSA CONTAM Panel. Risks to human and animal health related to deoxynivalenol and its acetylated and modified forms in food and feed. EFSA Journal, 2017;15(9):4718.
5. EFSA CONTAM Panel. Risks for animal health related to the presence of zearalenone and its modified forms in feed. EFSA Journal, 2017;15(7):4851.
6. EFSA CONTAM Panel. Risks for animal health related to the presence of fumonisins, their modified forms and hidden forms in feed. EFSA Journal, 2018;16(5):5242.
7. EFSA CONTAM Panel. Scientific Opinion on the risks for animal and public health related to the presence of T-2 and HT-2 toxin in food and feed. EFSA Journal, 2011;9(12):2481; ruminant assessment updated in 2022.