Scaling out aflatoxin biocontrol in Africa

www.iita.org A member of CGIAR consortium

Scaling-Out Aflatoxin

Biocontrol in Africa

Ranajit Bandyopadhyay

IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria

On behalf of the Aflasafe Team

International Mycotoxin Conference,2014:

Perspectives on the Global Prevention and Control of Mycotoxins

Beijing, China, 19-23 May, 2014


Pre-Harvest Problem

Aflatoxin (ppb)ppb)

Peanut (n = 188) Maize (n = 241)

Distribution (% samples)

> 4 54 70

> 10 41 52

> 20 29 24

Descriptive statistics (ppb)

Minimum < LOD < LOD

Maximum 3487 838

Mean 111 33

LOD = Limit of Detection; 1 ppb

Aflatoxin in Groundnut and Maize at Harvest

Increases in store


EPA approved 2 products

AF36

Afla-guard

More than 1 million hectares treated

annually in the US!

Production Room

Atoxigenic Strain Manufacturing Facility

Arizona Cotton Research & Protection Council

(Funded and Governed by the Farmers of Arizona),

Phoenix, Arizona

It Works in Africa Too

Biocontrol Works!


Biocontrol Principles

In nature, some strains produce a lot

(toxigenic), and others no aflatoxin

(atoxigenic) (Donner, Soil Biol Biochem

2009)

Atoxigenic strains are already present on

the crop (Atehnkeng et al., IJFM, 2008)

Increase the frequency of atoxigenic

strains to competitively displace

toxigenic strains (Cotty & Bayman,

Phytopath 1993) to reduce aflatoxin

contamination .

Atoxigenic strains can be applied without

increasing infection and without

increasing the overall quantity of A. flavus

on the crop or in the environment (Cotty,

Phytopath 1994; Atehnkeng et al., Biological

Control 2014)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 20 40 60 80 100Afl

ato

xin

B1 (

ng

/g X

10,0

00)

Isolates (%) in Applied Atoxigenic Strain

Strains move from

field to stores

Multiple year & crop

carry-over effect

(Jaime & Cotty,

Phytopath 2006) We use only native

strains


Strain Selection Criteria

In the laboratory (~5,000 strains):

• Does not produce aflatoxin

• VCG/SSR group with

Wide geographic distribution

No toxigenic member

• Defective in >2 aflatoxin & CPA

genes

• Outcompetes toxigenic strains

After field application:

• Superior capacity to colonize,

multiply and survive in soil

• Superior frequency of isolation

from grains

• Superior capacity to reduce

aflatoxin 8-12 native strains

selected for field tests

4 native strains

formulated into

the final

product

Broadcast @ 10 kg/ha 2-3 weeks before flowering

Sporulation on moist soil

Spores

Insects

Aflasafe in 5 kg boxes

3-20 days

Wind

Soil colonization

30-33 grains m-2

Fungal network in killed grain

How Does aflasafe Work?


Nigeria: Efficacy on Maize

372

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2009 2010 2011 2012

Aflasafe™ Control

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2009 2010 2011 2012

82 94 83 86 82 93 89 90

51 14 199 38 51 14 166 38 Fields (#)

Less (%)

At Harvest After Storage

*All means of aflasafe and control pairs significantly different; Student’s t-test (P<0.05)

*

Aflato

xin

(ppb)


Area Sample Treatment Mean

Aflatox (ppb)

Reduct. (%)

Mean Aflatox (ppb)

Reduct. (%)

Mean Aflatox (ppb)

Reduct. (%)

Diourbel

Harvest Treated 1.9

93 6.6

87 3.7

82 Control 29.7 50.1 20.3

Storage Treated 4.4

86 2.1

91 6.9

81 Control 31.3 22.1 35.5

Nioro

Harvest Treated 4.4

75 5.6

76 5.4

90 Control 17.6 23.1 55.7

Storage Treated 3.5

95 2.8

94 11.5

84 Control 52.1 46.7 72.5

*All means of aflasafe treated and control pairs significantly different; Student’s t-test (P<0.05)

Senegal: Efficacy of aflasafe SN01

2010 (n=40) 2011 (n=34) 2012 (n=71)


Bars with same letter within the same

crop/year not significantly different (P<0.05)

Basis of Efficacy: Strain Shift

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Soil Grain Soil Grain

2009 (n = 49) 2010 (n = 14)

Control Treated

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Soil Grain Soil Grain

2009 (n = 2) 2010 (n = 16)

Proportion of 4 aflasafe™ strains in soil before treatment

and grains after harvest in control and treated fields

Afl

asafe

str

ain

s (

%)

a a a a a a a a a a a a

b b b

b

Carry-over of inoculum: 71, 52

and 28% after 1, 2, and 3 years

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=lKk0dkUswMQkNM&tbnid=iNOHk0UxXmQVFM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://naijaintellect.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/nigerian-govt-releases-two-new-hybrid-maize-varieties/&ei=2BeSUsG8EKeH0AXah4DICw&bvm=bv.56988011,d.ZG4&psig=AFQjCNEwOZ2zmi8Rt6wdDo6BOODAz2xl1g&ust=1385392435580697


Kenya: Efficacy of aflasafe KE01™

Area (fields) Control Treated Reduction

(%)

Hola (n = 20) 885 20 98

Bura (n = 16) 105 7 93

Makueni (n = 15) 85 1 99

Aflatoxin (ppb)

*All means of aflasafe treated and control pairs significantly different; Student’s t-test (P<0.05)

38

20

0

88

60

33

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100Treated

Control

Fields (%) above 10 ppb in 3 areas

Fie

lds (

%)

Deadly (3,700 ppb & 2,270 ppb)

533 ppb

Hola


Product Development in Africa

Products ready for registration

Products under testing

Strain development in progress

Senegal Mali

Burkina

Ghana

Nigeria

Kenya

Tanzania

Mozambique

Zambia

Rwanda

Burundi

Uganda

2015

onwards

Benin Togo Ivory Coast Uganda Ethiopia South Sudan Malawi ……….. …………

The Gambia


Challenges

• Aflatoxin is a hidden problem

• Chemical analysis required

• Awareness is low

• Long incubation for expression of health impacts

• Regulations either non-existent or poorly enforced

• Market does not usually discriminate

• Demonstration of product value

• Lack of biopesticide manufacturers

The value of a technology on the shelf is as much as the cost of the space it occupies on the shelf.

Must translate knowledge into usable products and practices to benefit people

But……

www.iita.org www.iita.org A member of CGIAR consortium

Integrated Management

The elements are:

• Technology

• Awareness – entire range of value chain participants

• Advocacy – regional, national, investors

• Training – farmers, transporters, traders, regulators, consumers

• Policies – standards, harmonization, trade

• Institutions – regulators, markets, testing, private sector

• Trade / Markets – food/feed processors, poultry/fish industry

• Public good – home consumption; urban and rural markets; government procurement, HGSF


Markets

Doreo Partner analysis

Poultry industry

Export-oriented aggregators

Food processors

Large commercial farmers

Smallholder farmers

Market based

• Poultry feed

• Premium food

market

• Export

• AgResults (Incentive-

cum-market based)

• Public distribution

ma

rke

t d

em

an

d f

or

Afl

as

afe

• 60% maize consumed by farmers

• 40% sold in the market

Poultry Feeding Study

$3,200 net

profit from

10,000 birds

in 8 weeks

www.iita.org Mycored Europe, 28 May, 2013 A member of CGIAR consortium

Aflasafe maize feed Toxic maize feed

G-20 AgResults Aflasafe


• Pull mechanism – Aflasafe is one of the first three pilots

• Provides incentives after demonstrating adoption

• Private sector driven, but focused on smallholder groups

• Implementers provide credit, inputs and technical services to increase yield

• Aflasafe purchased at cost to improve quality

• Maize tested for aflasafe strains; if present in large frequency, the implementers incentivized with $18.75/ton maize

• Implementers negotiate maize sale at premium

• Project provides aflatoxin awareness, training of implementers, and identifies potential market linkages

• Target: 260,000 tons in 4 years

AgResults Aflasafe Pilot -- 2013


Some key statistics

• Number of implementers: 4

• Number of farmers: 1,015

• Treated area: 1,457 ha

• Average productivity: 4.3 tons/ha

• Maize aggregated for sale: 2,031 tons

• Samples with <4 ppb AF (n = 660): 99%

• Mean recovery of aflasafe strains from samples (n = 88): 72% to 89%

• Samples with >70% aflasafe strains

(n = 88): 65% to 100%

• Aflasafe maize kept for family (n = 60): 46%


Aflasafe Return on Investment

Quantity sold

(tons) Premium

(%) Premium

(USD)

Aflasafe cost

(USD)

Finance cost

(USD)

Net profit (USD)

Seasonal RoI

AgResults Premium

(USD)

Total Profit (USD)

Total RoI

120.0 7.5% 3,000 836 146 2,017 241% 1,800 3,817 456%

150.0 7.5% 3,750 1,046 183 2,521 241% 2,250 4,771 456%

96.0 3.6% 1,200 669 117 414 62% 1,440 1,854 277%

128.0 13.2% 5,600 892 156 4,552 510% 1,920 6,472 725%

32.0 7.5% 800 223 39 538 241% 480 1,018 456%

30.1 1.8% 188 210 37 -58 -28% 452 393 187%

Irrespective of the implementer, Aflasafe-treated maize had consistently high mean recovery rates. Four batches were sampled by Kano CADP, nine batches by Kaduna CADP, two batches by Maslaha, and four batches by Babban Gona. Prize amounts were awarded by a multiplier of $18.75 applied to each MT of maize aggregated.

All implementers witnessed high levels of Aflasafe

21

Implementer Quantity of Maize Aggregated per

Sample (MT)

Aflasafe % Prize Prize Amount

($)

Maslaha 69.8 88 Yes 1,309

67 89 Yes 1,256

136.8 2,565

Kano CADP 60 95.5 Yes 1,125

30.9 92.5 Yes 579

38.2 82.5 Yes 716

13.2 78 Yes 248

142.3 2,668

Kaduna CADP 30.2 67 Yes* 566

30.6 40 No -

30.3 31 No -

31.2 68 Yes* 585

60.3 85 Yes 1,131

30.1 68 Yes* 564

120.0 72 Yes 2,250

218.9 73 Yes 4,104

80.7 96 Yes 1,513

632.0 10,713

Babban Gona 120.0 86 Yes 2,250

210.0 73 Yes 3,938

300.0 73 Yes 5,625

150.0 95 Yes 2,813

780.0 14,625

Grand Total 1691.4 30,571

*Premiums are awarded for 70% +/-5% Aflasafe recovery rates

The above reflects data collected by the four implementers from 60 households. Altogether, 39% of the total yield by 60 farmers under the four implementers was kept for consumption at the household level. Kaduna CADP was the only case in which a majority of maize was consumed, rather than sold.

55%

45%

76%

62%

45%

55%

24%

38%

Babban Gona Kaduna CADP Kano CADP Maslaha

% Sold % Consumed

Most smallholders sold the majority of Aflasafe-treated maize produced

Commercial Behavior of Maize Producers

22


Scaling-Out

• Nigeria: AgResults (260,000 t) • Senegal: Area-wide treatment in

2013; about 8 tons used • Kenya: Government buy-in;

excellent support • Zambia: Large-scale efficacy tests

and demonstration of product value with private sector (12 t)

• Need for business plan, manufacturing capacity, marketing and distribution strategies

• Critical role of PACA and RECs

Coming in 2014-2015…

The Gambia, Benin,

Togo, Ivory Coast,

Uganda, Rwanda,

Burundi, Ethiopia, South

Sudan, Malawi


Aflasafe Manufacturing Facility

Large-scale: capacity 5 tons/hour

• Aflatoxins in food and feed pervasive in Africa

• Biological control, as the foundation, with other practices can dramatically reduce aflatoxin contamination and improve food safety and security

• Efforts underway to pilot commercialization of aflatoxin biocontrol and develop regional strains

• The pilots need to be up-scaled and efforts to improve efficacy needs a fillip for wide-spread impact on health and trade in Africa

Summary

IITA

Tucson

USDA/ARS IITA, USDA, & Doreo have Teamed up to Bring

Aflatoxin Prevention to Africa

Made Possible by Many National Partners in Ministries, Industry, and on the Farm

Nigeria

For more information about aflatoxin biocontrol for Africa, check out: www.aflasafe.com

http://www.entwicklung.at/en/

Science

Scaling out aflatoxin biocontrol in Africa