MYCOTRACE^® Q1 2026

“Türkiye Mycotoxin Assessment”

Mycotoxins are feed- and raw-material-derived risk factors that directly affect production performance. They are often difficult to identify under field conditions, yet their consequences can be serious. However, the risk is not limited to the presence of a single toxin. The co-occurrence and interaction of different mycotoxins are key determinants of the true scale of the risk.

MYCOTRACE^® is more than a system that analyses mycotoxin risk. It provides a holistic approach that gives meaning to data, interprets it and integrates it into decision-making processes. The data generated are not presented merely as numerical results. They are technically assessed and translated into an operation-specific, actionable risk management model.

1. From A^(fla) to Z^(en): Q1 2026 Assessment

The Q1 2026 results demonstrate that mycotoxin risk has not disappeared. Instead, it has developed into a more complex and multilayered structure. During this period, the risk was primarily driven by Fusarium-derived mycotoxins.

1.1. 2026 Q1 Türkiye Mycotoxin Profile

Data generated during the first quarter of 2026 show that the mycotoxin profile was concentrated around specific mycotoxins.

Fumonisin (FUM): With a prevalence of 63%, fumonisin was by far the most predominant mycotoxin. This indicates a risk of chronic contamination, particularly in maize and maize-derived raw materials.

Deoxynivalenol (DON): DON ranked second, with a prevalence of 34%. Its adverse effects on intestinal epithelial integrity and feed intake may lead to performance losses that often remain unnoticed under field conditions.

Zearalenone (ZEN): ZEN was noteworthy at a prevalence of 28%. Its oestrogenic activity poses a significant risk, particularly to reproductive performance.

T-2 Toxin: Prevalence remained stable at 20%. T-2 toxin is highly irritant on its own, and its co-occurrence with other mycotoxins may further increase the overall toxic effect.

Aflatoxin (AFLA) and Ochratoxin A (OTA): These were detected at prevalence rates of 11% and 5%, respectively. Although their prevalence appears relatively low, they require close monitoring because of AFLA’s hepatotoxic and OTA’s nephrotoxic effects.

When these findings are evaluated by animal species:

• In ruminants, ZEN-associated suppression of fertility is of particular concern, together with the adverse effects of DON and FUM on rumen function, hepatic burden and milk yield.
• In poultry, combinations of multiple Fusarium mycotoxins impair intestinal integrity and reduce feed efficiency. Immunosuppression may also weaken vaccine responses and cause fluctuations in flock performance.
• In aqua, particularly combinations of FUM and DON may cause substantial economic losses by adversely affecting growth performance, feed conversion ratio and liver health.

1.2. Türkiye Risk Map and Regional Assessment

Mycotoxin contamination is not uniformly distributed across Türkiye. Depending on climatic and agricultural conditions, it may become dangerously concentrated in specific regions. The Türkiye Mycotoxin Risk Map published for Q1 2026 clearly shows that the centre of risk has shifted towards western Türkiye.

Anatomy of Regional Risk

According to our analytical results, western Türkiye emerged as the area most vulnerable to mycotoxin pressure:

• Risk Hotspot: Aegean and Marmara: Among the analysed samples, the Aegean region recorded a prevalence of 74%, while the Marmara region recorded 68%, making them the highest-risk regions of the period. Coastal climatic conditions and humid weather patterns in these regions provide particularly favourable conditions for the development of Fusarium species.
• Relative Calm in the Central and Southern Corridors: In contrast to the high pressure in the west, mycotoxin prevalence remained relatively low in Central Anatolia (9%), Anatolia (8%) and the Mediterranean region (2%).
• Black Sea Data: No significant findings indicative of risk were identified in analyses from the Black Sea region during this period.

1.3. The Reality of Multi-Mycotoxin Contamination: 1+1+1>3

Q1 2026 data clearly show that mycotoxin risk cannot be explained by the presence of a single toxin alone. Instead, the actual field risk is shaped by combinations involving the co-occurrence of multiple mycotoxins.

Based on the results, at least two mycotoxins were detected concurrently in 70% of samples:

• In 40% of samples, two or three mycotoxins co-occurred, representing the predominant field pattern. As this group generally does not produce acute signs, it is among the most insidious causes of performance loss.
• In 25% of samples, four or five mycotoxins were detected concurrently, while 5% contained six or more, demonstrating the multilayered nature of the risk.

This may allow low-level mycotoxins to combine and cause greater-than-expected biological damage through additive or synergistic effects.

Proactive Management with MYCOTRACE^®

In the complex risk landscape of 2026, the following strategic approaches should be considered for effective mycotoxin management:

• Data-Driven Procurement Management: Regional risk maps should be reviewed regularly, and raw material procurement strategies should be reassessed in line with the current risk profile.
• Combined-Risk Protection Strategies: Analytical results should be interpreted not only against legal limits but also in consideration of the synergistic effects arising from multi-mycotoxin contamination. In particular, when planning appropriate protection products and strategies against combinations of Fusarium-derived mycotoxins, consideration should extend beyond mycotoxin-binding capacity to include protective efficacy in relation to intestinal integrity, immune function and metabolic burden.
• “Zero Increase” During Storage: Feed hygiene practices should be actively managed to control fungal growth and increases in mycotoxin load during storage. By limiting increases in mycotoxin load throughout storage, this approach contributes to keeping the overall risk under control.
• Holistic Protection and Regular Monitoring: Regular analysis, technical interpretation and follow-up at operation level should be used to assess the existing risk profile and develop holistic protection protocols appropriate to the level of risk. This is critical for preventing potential performance losses in subsequent periods.

Through its in-depth analytical and interpretive capabilities, MYCOTRACE^® does more than identify the current risk. It also evaluates the operation-specific risk profile and supports the development of appropriate management strategies. This approach provides operations with a decision-support model for measurable efficiency, sustainable animal production and more controlled risk management.

Contact our expert team to analyse your operation’s risk profile and develop a tailored “Holistic Protection Protocol”.