Monitoring-
Report Feed 2014
PARAMETERS UNDER THE MICROSCOPE
Feed monitoring is a tool for self-assessment at each individual business location. Testing feed for compliance with maxi-
mum levels, intervention level values and guidance values enables us to draw conclusions regarding in-house quality as-
surance. At the same time, the result supplied by a sample shows directly whether a specific feed lot or batch can be
marketed without reservation.
Heavy metals
Heavy metals head the hit list of most frequently analysed parameters. As these metals are typical environmental toxins,
nearly all feed products and raw materials have to be tested for possible traces. The focus is on arsenic, lead, cadmium
and mercury. Some products also need to be tested for nickel.
FEED “HOTSPOTS”
Aflatoxin finds in corn under control
With feeds given to dairy cattle, a QS gui-
dance value of 1 µg/kg of Aflatoxin B1 applies
in addition to the maximum legal concentra-
tion. If values are above this level, QM-Milch
e.V. must be notified in addition to QS head
office. If utilisation in dairy cattle businesses
cannot be excluded, the supplier must, as a
precaution, notify the customer that the QS
guidance value has been exceeded by issuing
a warning such as “Product not suitable as
feed for dairy cattle”.
■
Every business in the QS scheme that produces or trades in feed
undertakes to participate in feed monitoring. Year-on-year compa-
risons show that the number of tests is increasing. One reason is
that more and more companies are joining the QS scheme. The
fact that the highest number of tests were conducted on feed ma-
terial is due to the interconnected control system: the participants
monitor both their raw materials and the end products. Based on
this procedure, therefore, every stage monitors the previous stage
as well as its own production process and output. The compound
feed producers are the most frequent “testers”: 45.6 % of all sam-
ples were taken by compound feed producers, 26.7 % by feed ma-
terial producers, 4.4 % by traders and 0.2 % by additive producers.
23.1 % of all samples were taken on farms/agricultural businesses,
with cattle farming businesses accounting for 49.7 % of these
latter samples, pig farmers for 46.5 % and poultry businesses for
3.8 %.
■
PECULIARITY:
AFLATOXIN B1 AND QM MILK
HAND IN HAND: A SUPPLY
CHAIN CONTINUES TO
GROW TOGETHER
2011
2012
2013
Feed
sector
Number of participants
In total
Feed material
producer
Compound feed
producer
Trader
3,133
3,350
3,573
1,227
1,160
1,254
1,245
1,333
1,233
661
863
1,080
12,610
13,860
16,333
7,372
9,048
9,212 57 91 124
11 47 50
2011
2012
2013
Type
of feed
Number of samples
Feed material/
Raw Material
Compound
feed
Premixtures
Additives
Number of samples in type of feed in %:
Feed materials are mostly analyzed
Sampling frequencies sorted by industry in % :
Compound feed producer take most of the samples
Compound feed producer
Feed material producer
Farmer
Trader
Premix and
4.4
23.1
0.2
45.6
26.7
Additive producer
49,312
108,357
13,416
4,509
38,186
78,883
10,904
3,351
120,000
Parameters
Number of analysis
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
Heavy metals
Salmonella
Dioxins and dl PCB
Animal components
ndl PCB
Antibiotically active substances
PAH
Mycotoxines
19,167
27,358
29,137
27,559
27,759
26,478
26,561
3,221
As
DON
Pb
Cd
Hg
ZEA
Afla
OTA
496
124
64
5
272
0-1
µg/kg
>1-5
µg/kg
>5-10
µg/kg
>10-20
µg/kg
>20
µg/kg
HG
20 µg/kg
Measured
value
Number analysis
Number of analysis per parameter: Heavy metals are number one
Growing participant numbers feed monitoring
QS AD-HOC MONITORINGPLAN FOR CORN TAKING HOLD
With the alarming finds of Aflatoxin B1 at the beginning of 2013, which found its way into the market in maize consignments
from Serbia, it became clear very quickly that Aflatoxin B1 contamination was also to be expected to an increasing extent
in corn from other regions since the harvest in 2012. QS reacted immediately. An Ad-hoc monitoringplan for corn from
certain countries of origin was prescribed as early as May 2013. Ever since, compound feed producers, feed material pro-
ducers and dealers have had to have samples taken of every batch of corn and processed corn products from the affected
countries during the receiving inspection of raw materials – 100 % monitoring. The inspection results show that the sector
has responded, either by changing suppliers or no longer purchasing products from certain regions. The maximum con-
centration in a batch was only exceeded in five instances, four times in corn and once in corn gluten meal. The scheme
participants had to take immediate action here, however, because these products may not be fed to animals. The Ad-hoc
monitoringplan still applies, because the sector has focused on sustainability here.
Measured values of Aflatoxin B1 in Corn and corn
processing products: Only 5 exceedance of the maximum level
HG: Maximum level (20 µg/kg). From value
of 20 µg/kg product is not suitable for the market
Mycotoxins
In second place are the mycotoxins. These health-threatening fungal toxins occur in certain kinds of weather during the
growth and flowering mostly in cereals, or at a later stage during storage. Deoxynivalenol (DON) and Zearalenone (ZEA)
pose a particular risk to sows and piglets, which means that major attention is paid to the potential presence of these
contaminants in the feed for this livestock. In addition, numerous raw materials are tested for the mycotoxins Aflatoxin B1
and Ochratoxin (OTA).
Dioxins
A special element of QS feed monitoring is “positive release sampling”. Some production processes are considered parti-
cularly critical. This is why certain feed material and compound feed products have to undergo lot-based positive release
sampling before being brought into circulation – resulting in a higher number of tests for dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs. Re-
lease sampling is necessary for, among other products, refining fatty acids, salts of fatty acids and raw coconut oil as well
as mixed fats and oils processed using fatty acids and mixed fatty acids.
■
