Mycotoxins in Poultry Production: Impacts on Gut Health, Immunity, and Emerging Mitigation Strategies
2026 Volume 14 Issue 2 Pages 16-29
Details
2026 Volume 14 Issue 2 Pages 16-29
Mycotoxins are toxic secondary metabolites produced by fungi such as Aspergillus, Fusarium, and Penicillium, which frequently contaminate poultry feed worldwide. Their occurrence poses severe risks not only to poultry health and productivity but also to food safety through residue transfer into eggs and meat. This review aims to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the prevalence of mycotoxins in poultry systems, their physiological and immunological impacts, and current as well as emerging mitigation strategies. A systematic literature review was conducted using Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases, with twenty-four peer-reviewed articles published between 2010 and 2025 selected based on PRISMA-like screening. Across multiple surveys, more than two-thirds of feed samples in many regions contained at least one detectable mycotoxin, and co-contamination with two or more toxins was frequently observed. Extracted data covered prevalence surveys, mechanistic investigations, controlled feeding trials, and intervention studies. Findings demonstrate that poultry feed is widely contaminated with multiple mycotoxins, including aflatoxins, deoxynivalenol (DON), fumonisins, and zearalenone, often occurring simultaneously and sometimes in masked forms that complicate detection. Chronic exposure reduces growth rates, increases feed conversion ratios, and elevates mortality while adversely affecting welfare indices, such as measures of stress and fear responses. Mycotoxins disrupt intestinal barrier integrity, induce dysbiosis, and suppress immune function, resulting in diminished vaccine responsiveness. Notably, synergistic interactions between toxins and pathogens, such as DON with Campylobacter jejuni, amplify inflammatory responses and impair host defenses. Food safety implications are underscored by the detection of residues in eggs and meat. Conventional binders remain effective against aflatoxins but are limited against DON and fumonisins. Enzyme-based detoxification technologies offer promising specificity, while probiotics (e.g., Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, Aseel chicken-derived strains) and phytobiotics (curcumin, baicalin) provide protective effects through antifungal, antioxidant, and immunomodulatory mechanisms. Despite laboratory success, field validation remains insufficient. In conclusion, mycotoxins impose multifaceted burdens on poultry production. Effective management requires multi-modal approaches integrating adsorbents, enzymes, probiotics, and phytobiotics. This review advances the current knowledge by linking mechanistic evidence with practical strategies, thereby providing a framework for sustainable poultry production and food safety.
Poultry production represents one of the most efficient systems for converting feed into high-quality animal protein, providing affordable meat and eggs that contribute significantly to global food security. However, sustainability of poultry systems is threatened by persistent feed safety challenges, particularly contamination by mycotoxins. These toxic fungal metabolites are produced primarily by Aspergillus, Fusarium, and Penicillium species and are common contaminants in maize, wheat, soybean meal, and other feed ingredients widely used in poultry diets [1, 2]. Their occurrence is influenced by environmental factors, storage conditions, and agricultural practices, making them a global concern. Large-scale feed surveys have reported that may contain at least one mycotoxin, with a substantial proportion showing multiple contaminants, underlining the scale of the problem for intensive poultry systems.
Beyond their prevalence, mycotoxins exert multifaceted impacts on poultry health and production. Chronic exposure compromises feed efficiency, depresses growth performance, induces oxidative stress, and reduces animal welfare. For example, deoxynivalenol (DON) has been shown to alter stress and fear responses in broilers, linking neurobehavioral changes with impaired productivity [3]. Furthermore, the occurrence of “masked” or modified mycotoxins complicates risk assessment. These derivatives often evade detection in standard assays yet retain toxicological activity, leading to underestimated exposure levels in poultry operations [4]. As a result, mycotoxins present a dual threat, first to poultry performance and welfare, and second to public health through carry-over residues in eggs and meat [5].
The gastrointestinal tract has emerged as a central target for mycotoxin toxicity. The gut not only regulates nutrient absorption but also serves as a critical immune organ [6]. Previous work has highlighted that mycotoxins disrupt epithelial integrity, increase intestinal permeability, and alter microbial composition, creating a cascade of downstream effects on immunity and health [6]. Other studies have demonstrated that such disruptions can reduce vaccine responsiveness and compromise systemic immunity in broilers [7]. Mechanistic evidence has strengthened this perspective: exposure to DON in combination with Campylobacter jejuni significantly altered intestinal gene expression in broilers, including interleukin-1β (IL-1β), amplifying inflammatory responses and weakening host defenses [8]. This illustrates that mycotoxins rarely act in isolation but often interact with pathogens, compounding their negative effects on poultry health.
Given these risks, considerable research has been directed toward mitigation strategies. Conventional approaches focus on feed adsorbents, such as clay-based or yeast-derived binders, which reduce toxin bioavailability. While widely applied, their efficacy is limited by toxin specificity and binding strength, yielding variable outcomes in practice [9]. Recent advances have introduced enzyme technologies capable of biotransforming toxins into less harmful metabolites, offering targeted detoxification for otherwise resistant compounds such as fumonisins and trichothecenes [10]. However, despite their promise, these enzyme-based strategies require further validation under field conditions before being widely adopted in poultry production systems.
Phytobiotics have gained increasing attention as part of a broader shift toward natural, sustainable feed additives that support poultry health and resilience. Their relevance in the context of mycotoxin exposure stems from their wide-ranging biological activities, including antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory functions, which align with the key physiological pathways disrupted by major mycotoxins. Turmeric extracts improve gut health, modulate immunity, and may counteract the negative effects of mycotoxins in poultry [11]. Turmeric-derived compounds curcuminoids and flavonoids like baicalin have been widely cited in the literature as promising candidates for enhancing gut integrity [12], supporting hepatic function, and modulating immune responses. However, despite their potential, the scientific community still lacks integrative evaluations that position phytobiotics within comprehensive mycotoxin management frameworks, particularly in comparison with more established approaches such as adsorbents and enzymatic detoxifiers.
Similarly, the use of beneficial microorganisms has emerged as a complementary strategy for reducing mycotoxin risk. Probiotics, including Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and various indigenous poultry-derived strains, are increasingly recognized for their potential roles in modulating gut microbiota, enhancing immune competence, and improving overall feed safety [13]. Recent literature highlights their capacity not only to reinforce gut barrier function but also to contribute to broader microbial-driven detoxification processes. Nevertheless, systematic reviews integrating their efficacy with other mitigation strategies remain limited, and most available studies have been conducted under controlled laboratory conditions.
By synthesizing evidence on phytobiotics and probiotics within the broader context of mycotoxin prevalence, toxicity mechanisms, and mitigation approaches, this review seeks to address current gaps in the literature. Existing reviews often treat these strategies separately or emphasize only conventional mitigation techniques. The present work positions itself by providing a unified and critical evaluation of both established and emerging interventions, with particular focus on their relevance to gut health, immune function, and food safety in poultry production. This integrated perspective is essential for guiding future research and for informing practical, multi-component mycotoxin control programs in modern poultry systems [14].
Taken together, the literature indicates that effective mycotoxin control requires a multi-modal approach that integrates conventional binders, enzymatic detoxifiers, natural phytobiotics, and probiotic interventions. While adsorbents remain useful as frontline defenses, the emergence of enzyme technologies, bioactive plant compounds, and microbial solutions significantly broadens the toolkit available to poultry nutritionists. Importantly, the interaction between mycotoxins and gut health underscores the need to design mitigation strategies that support both nutritional and immunological resilience.
Despite these advances, key gaps remain; mycotoxins continue to undermine accurate monitoring, while synergistic interactions between toxins and pathogens complicate risk management. Moreover, most studies evaluating natural compounds or probiotics are conducted under controlled laboratory conditions, and their translation to field settings remains limited. Integrative assessments that simultaneously evaluate growth performance, gut integrity, immune responses, and food safety outcomes are scarce. Without such comprehensive evaluations, the true potential of emerging mitigation strategies remains uncertain.
The aim of the present review is therefore to consolidate and critically examine the evidence on the prevalence, impacts, and mitigation of mycotoxins in poultry, with particular attention to recent advances in enzyme detoxification, phytobiotics such as turmeric and baicalin, and probiotic applications. By synthesizing findings across mechanistic studies, field surveys, and intervention trials, this work seeks to highlight both progress achieved and gaps that persist. The novelty lies in integrating conventional and emerging approaches within a unified framework that places gut health and immune function at the centre of discussion. In doing so, this review contributes to a more holistic understanding of mycotoxin challenges in poultry production and outlines pathways for future innovation in feed safety and animal health management.
This study employed a systematic literature review framework to synthesize evidence on mycotoxin prevalence, impacts, and mitigation strategies in poultry. The overall design combined an initial broad search of literature with subsequent focused screening to identify high-quality epidemiological, mechanistic, and intervention studies.Although this review is narrative in its final presentation, the selection and appraisal of studies were guided by principles adapted from the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework to enhance transparency and reproducibility.
2.2 Data sources and search strategyPrimary records/references were obtained from the Scopus database, supplemented with searches in PubMed and Web of Science to ensure inclusivity of relevant materials. The electronic search was conducted using the following Boolean search strings:
Scopus: (“mycotoxin*” OR “aflatoxin*” OR “deoxynivalenol” OR “fumonisin*”) AND (“poultry” OR “broiler*” OR “layer*”) AND (“feed contamination” OR “performance” OR “gut health” OR “immune response” OR “adsorbent*” OR “detoxification” OR “enzyme*” OR “phytobiotic*” OR “probiotic*”)
PubMed: (“mycotoxins”[Title/Abstract]) AND (“poultry”[Title/Abstract]) AND (“gut health” OR “immune response” OR “feed additive”)
Web of Science: (“mycotoxin*” AND “poultry” AND (“performance” OR “health” OR “mitigation”))
Searches were conducted between 1 January 2025 and 20 March 2025, covering publications from January 2010 to March 2025, to balance foundational evidence with recent advances. The electronic search initially retrieved 482 records across all databases (Scopus n = 265; PubMed n = 121; Web of Science n = 96). All retrieved records were imported into EndNote X9, where 103 duplicates were identified and removed automatically, followed by manual verification of author names, titles, and DOIs to ensure accuracy. After duplicate removal, 379 unique records remained for screening.
A total of 24 peer-reviewed articles were ultimately selected for inclusion. These studies represented a wide range of evidence types, including but not limited to:
・Surveillance and prevalence studies [15, 16, 17, 18]
・Reviews on masked mycotoxins and poultry health [7, 16, 17]
・Experimental studies on DON and aflatoxins [8, 12, 19]
・Food safety investigations on residues [5]
・Conventional mitigation using binders [9, 20]
・Innovative enzyme detoxification strategies [10]
・Probiotic-based biocontrol [13, 14]
・Phytobiotic interventions, including turmeric and bioactive flavonoids [11, 12]
・Comprehensive feed additive reviews [18]
・Studies linking toxin exposure to immune modulation and welfare [6, 8]
These categories illustrate the major themes represented in the dataset; however, the complete set of 24 studies includes additional articles within each category, as well as several multidisciplinary and cross-cutting publications.
2.3 Inclusion and exclusion criteriaTitle and abstract screening excluded 295 records for the following reasons:
・Non-poultry species (n = 142)
・Irrelevant outcomes or non-mycotoxin focus (n = 97)
・Review articles without relevance to poultry feed or health outcomes (n = 34)
・Conference abstracts or non-peer-reviewed sources (n = 22)
A total of 84 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility.
Studies were included if they met all of the following criteria:
(i) peer-reviewed journal articles
(ii) direct relevance to poultry species (broilers or layers)
(iii) reporting empirical data or systematic evaluation of mycotoxin prevalence, physiological effects, or mitigation strategies
(iv) publication between 2010 and 2025
(v) availability in English
Full-text articles were excluded if they:
1. Focused exclusively on ruminants without transferable mechanisms (n = 29),
2. Lacked primary data or systematic analysis (n = 21), or
3. Did not report clear outcome measures related to poultry health or performance (n = 10).
As a result, 24 studies met all inclusion criteria and were included in the final synthesis, as summarized in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure. 1).
A structured data extraction framework was employed independently by two reviewers to minimize bias. For prevalence studies, extracted data mycotoxin type, levels, and co-occurrence patterns [15, 22, 23]. For mechanistic studies, data included toxin dose, animal model, physiological parameters, gene expression markers, and immune outcomes [12, 19]. For intervention studies, data included mitigation strategy type, experimental design, target toxins, performance metrics, and health indicators [9, 10, 11, 13]
Analysis was conducted through narrative synthesis, integrating quantitative evidence from feeding trials and prevalence surveys with qualitative findings from reviews and mechanistic studies. Themes were organized into four domains:
2.5 Risk of bias and quality assessment1. Occurrence and prevalence of mycotoxins across global poultry feed
2. Physiological, immunological, and welfare impacts of chronic exposure
3. Food safety implications through residue transfer to eggs and meat
4. Mitigation strategies include conventional binders, enzymatic detoxification, phytobiotics, and probiotics.
Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using adapted criteria from SYRCLE’s Risk of Bias tool for animal studies, focusing on:
・Random allocation and control group adequacy
・Blinding of outcome assessment (where applicable)
・Completeness of outcome data
・Appropriateness of statistical analysis
・Transparency of experimental protocols
Surveillance studies were evaluated based on sampling representativeness, analytical methods (e.g., LC–MS/MS), and reporting frequency. Feeding trials were assessed for replication, dose justification, and statistical power. Mechanistic studies were appraised for clarity of biological endpoints and reproducibility. Studies with robust experimental design and transparent reporting were weighted more heavily in the synthesis, while exploratory studies, particularly those on emerging phytobiotic and probiotic interventions, were interpreted cautiously [14].
2.6 Ethical considerationsBecause this study relied exclusively on secondary data from published literature, no ethical approval was required. Nevertheless, ethical standards were upheld by ensuring accurate citation of original works, acknowledgment of intellectual contributions, and faithful representation of study findings without selective reporting.
2.7 Scope and limitationsThe review provides a comprehensive overview covering multiple geographic regions, production systems, and mitigation approaches. However, the findings are limited by heterogeneity in study designs, toxin doses, and outcome measures, which restricted quantitative meta-analysis. Furthermore, most studies on phytobiotics and probiotics remain laboratory-based, with limited translation to commercial-scale field trials.
Mycotoxins are a ubiquitous challenge in poultry production, with prevalence documented across continents and production systems. Multiannual surveys in Europe, particularly in the Czech Republic from 2013 to 2018, revealed persistent contamination with deoxynivalenol (DON), fumonisins, zearalenone, and aflatoxins [15]. In this survey, DON was detected in more than 80% of complete poultry feed samples, while co-occurrence of two or more mycotoxins was observed in approximately 60% of samples, highlighting the chronic and combinatorial nature of exposure in temperate regions [15, 24]. At a broader scale, global and regional reviews indicate that 70–80% of poultry feed or feed ingredients in Europe contain at least one detectable mycotoxin, and 50–65% of samples exhibit co-contamination with multiple toxins [1]. Minougou et al. [19] found that 100% of poultry feed samples were contaminated with aflatoxin B₁, yet only 4.4% exceeded the regulatory maximum limit, clearly distinguishing widespread low-level exposure from regulatory non-compliance. This suggests that approximately 10–15% of farms may face an elevated aflatoxin risk requiring targeted intervention, even when average contamination levels remain below safety thresholds [19]. Similarly, Njaramba et al. [20] found over 70% of broiler feed samples in semi-intensive Kenyan farms contained two or more mycotoxins. In Asia, studies such as Naveed et al. [21] identified aflatoxin contamination in 58–76% of commercial poultry feed, while according to Saeedi et al. [5], highlighted egg contamination in Iran, linking feed exposure directly to food safety.
As summarized in Table 1, quantitative surveillance data across Europe, Africa, and Asia demonstrate that mycotoxin contamination is widespread in poultry feed, with detection rates commonly exceeding 70% and frequent co-occurrence of multiple mycotoxins particularly deoxynivalenol, fumonisins, zearalenone, and aflatoxins highlighting chronic multi-toxin exposure as the dominant risk scenario.
| Region/Study | Sample Type | Mycotoxins Detected | Key Findings | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Czech Republic | Complete feed | DON, fumonisins, zearalenone, aflatoxins | Multiannual persistence | [15] |
| Senegal | Feed | Aflatoxin B1 | High prevalence, consumer risk | [19] |
| Kenya | Broiler feed | Aflatoxin, DON, fumonisins, zearalenone | Co-occurrence, high cumulative risk | [20] |
| Pakistan | Feed | Aflatoxins | Variable contamination, growth impact | [21] |
| Iran | Eggs | Aflatoxin residues | Residues in consumer products | [5] |
Exposure to mycotoxins compromises bird productivity through impaired nutrient utilization, reduced feed intake, and elevated feed conversion ratio (FCR). Chronic exposure to Fusarium toxins such as DON has been associated with reduced growth and metabolic dysfunction, even at subclinical doses [7] (Olariu et al., 2025). Experimental work has shown that DON-contaminated diets can decrease body weight gain by approximately 5–15% and increase FCR, reflecting a less efficient conversion of feed into body mass [8 ]. Aflatoxin B1, in particular, impairs hepatic function and protein synthesis, reducing growth and increasing mortality [21]. During high-level aflatoxin challenges, reductions in feed intake and severe hepatotoxic lesions have been reported, with knock-on effects on organ weights, carcass yield, and welfare indicators.
Table 2 synthesizes key physiological and performance outcomes associated with individual toxins and mixed exposures. The table indicates, for instance, that while DON primarily affects gut integrity and behaviour (stress and fear responses), leading to moderate but functionally significant growth depression, aflatoxin B1 exerts stronger hepatotoxic effects accompanied by marked declines in feed intake and survival [8, 24]. Mixed multi-toxin exposures often produce cumulative or even synergistic effects, resulting in multi-organ stress and more pronounced performance declines [7].
Overall, these data highlight that even when mortality remains low, subclinical mycotoxicosis can substantially reduce production efficiency and economic returns by impairing growth and feed utilization.
The gastrointestinal tract is the primary site of toxin exposure. Consistent with previous research, Yakout [6] emphasized that mycotoxins compromise epithelial barrier integrity, leading to increased intestinal permeability and dysbiosis. Histological studies have shown shortened villi, increased crypt depth, and disruption of tight junction proteins following chronic exposure, changes that are consistent with leaky-gut phenomena and malabsorption.
Olariu et al. [7] reported reduced vaccine efficacy in broilers exposed to multi-mycotoxin challenges, which threatens flock-level immunity in commercial systems where vaccination is a cornerstone of disease control. Mechanistic work by Awad et al. [17] demonstrated that DON exposure combined with Campylobacter jejuni infection induced marked changes in intestinal gene expression, amplifying inflammatory responses, altering innate immune signaling, and increasing pathogen susceptibility. These interactions support the concept of a “mycotoxin–pathogen synergy” whereby moderate toxin levels that might be tolerated in isolation become far more damaging in the presence of concurrent infections.
Table 3 summarizes the gut and immune effects of selected toxins. DON is characterized by epithelial barrier disruption and upregulation of pro-inflammatory mediators, leading to reduced antibody titers and chronic intestinal inflammation [17]. Aflatoxins increase intestinal permeability and damage lymphoid organs, contributing to generalized immunosuppression [6]. Mixed toxins are associated with dysbiosis of the gut microbiota and reduced responsiveness to vaccines, underscoring the significance of cumulative exposures [7]. Together, these findings reinforce the centrality of the gut–immune axis in mediating mycotoxin-induced health and performance deficits.
Residues of mycotoxins in poultry products present a direct threat to consumers. Saeedi et al. [5] documented et al.[5] documented aflatoxin residues in eggs from Iran. Similarly, Minougou et al. [19] emphasized the risk of aflatoxin B1 contamination in Senegalese poultry feed, with implications for residues in eggs and potentially in meat. Olariu et al., 2025 [7] drew attention to the broader issue of mycotoxin carry-over into animal products, noting that even low-level chronic exposures may lead to cumulative dietary intake for humans.
As summarized in Table 4, eggs can contain aflatoxin residues when hens are fed contaminated diets, while broiler meat may harbor DON, fumonisins, and other Fusarium-derived toxins. Although many residue levels are below regulatory thresholds, repeated exposure through frequent consumption of poultry products could contribute to chronic intake, particularly in vulnerable populations such as children. Consequently, control of mycotoxins in poultry feed must be viewed not only as an animal health issue but also as a critical component of food safety policy.
Feed additives and biologically active compounds have been widely explored as both conventional and emerging strategies to mitigate the adverse effects of mycotoxins in poultry production. Conventional agents such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae and clays are valued for their adsorption capacity, while plant-derived extracts and phytobiotics provide additional antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory benefits [9, 25, 26 , 27]. Recent work has shown that yeast cell wall extracts can adsorb up to approximately one-third of ochratoxin A in vitro and reduce hepatic deposition in vivo, illustrating the potential of tailored adsorbents in mitigating toxin bioavailability [24].
More recently, enzyme detoxification technologies and probiotic-based approaches have been identified as promising tools to target specific toxins that are poorly responsive to traditional binders. Enzymatic degradation using esterases and epoxide hydrolases provides specificity against fumonisins and trichothecenes such as DON, enabling biochemical transformation into less toxic metabolites [10, 18]. Probiotic strains such as Lactiplantibacillus plantarum MYSN128 contribute to detoxification through microbial degradation of Fusarium toxins [13], while indigenous Aseel chicken-derived probiotics produce antifungal metabolites that suppress mycotoxigenic fungi in feed [14, 28].
Phytobiotics, including curcumin and baicalin, further enhance gut health and protect against oxidative and inflammatory damage caused by mycotoxins. Turmeric bioactive compounds have been reported to improve antioxidant status, modulate cytokine profiles, and partially restore performance in birds challenged with mycotoxin-contaminated diets [11, 25]. Baicalin has demonstrated hepatoprotective and anti-inflammatory effects in DON-exposed chicken liver cell models, suggesting a role as a supportive therapy in DON-contaminated environments [12, 28].
Table 5 provides an overview of these emerging strategies, listing the targeted mycotoxins, mechanisms of action, and representative outcomes. Collectively, the table illustrates that while clays and yeast-based binders are primarily physical adsorbents, enzymes, probiotics, and phytobiotics offer more diverse mechanisms, including biotransformation, antifungal activity, and immunomodulation. These complementary modes of action support the rationale for combining different additive categories in integrated mycotoxin control programs.
| Additive / Strategy | Mycotoxins Targeted | Mechanism of Action | Effectiveness / Outcome | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Turmeric, Garlic, Curcumin | General mycotoxins | Anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antifungal, immunomodulatory | Effective in detoxifying mycotoxins and improving immune response | [22] |
| Chamomile and Thyme Extracts | Aflatoxin B1, ochratoxin A | Growth performance improvement, immune response | Mitigates adverse effects of mycotoxins | [23] |
| Saccharomyces cerevisiae | Aspergillus toxins; multiple | Adsorption and detoxification | Effective against multiple mycotoxins | [24] |
| Probiotics (Lactobacillus) | Ochratoxin A | Detoxification through fermentation | Reduces Ochratoxin A concentration significantly | [25] |
| Red Yeast | General mycotoxins | Reduces hepatic deposition of mycotoxins | Effective in reducing mycotoxin effects | [26] |
| Fruit Pomace Extracts | Aflatoxins, Fumonisins, Ochratoxin A | Antioxidant defense, detoxification | Improves growth performance and reduces oxidative stress | [27] |
| Açai Flour | Fumonisins | Reduces oxidative stress, improves body weight | Effective in improving performance and reducing oxidative stress | [28] |
| Enzyme: Esterase | Fumonisins | Hydrolysis of ester bonds | Detoxifies fumonisins where binders fail | [10] |
| Enzyme: Epoxide hydrolase | Trichothecenes (DON) | Detoxification of epoxide group | Neutralizes DON toxicity | [10] |
| L. plantarum MYSN128 | Fusarium toxins | Biological degradation of Fusarium | Reduced mycotoxin load in feed | [13] |
| Aseel chicken probiotics | General fungi | Antifungal metabolite production | Controlled feed fungi and improved safety | [14] |
| Curcumin (phytobiotic) | General mycotoxins | Antioxidant, immunomodulatory | Improved gut health and resilience | [11] |
| Baicalin (flavonoid) | DON | Hepatoprotective, anti-inflammatory | Reduced DON-induced liver damage | [12] |
Despite advances in understanding mycotoxin toxicity and mitigation, several gaps remain. Masked mycotoxins are still underrepresented in monitoring programs. Reviews on hidden or modified forms have emphasized that standard analytical methods frequently underestimate total exposure [4, 16]. Given that crops and feed can contain both free and conjugated toxins, regulatory frameworks and routine testing protocols may need to be updated to ensure that all biologically relevant forms are captured.
Field validation of enzymes, probiotics, and phytobiotics is also limited. Many studies demonstrating promising detoxification or protective effects are conducted under controlled laboratory or experimental conditions [10, 11, 13, 25]. Although these settings are essential for mechanistic insight, they may not fully reflect the complex realities of commercial flocks, where multiple stressors, variable feed quality, and management differences can modulate efficacy. Large-scale, multi-farm trials are therefore needed to confirm robustness and cost-effectiveness of emerging strategies.
Another gap is the lack of integrated evaluations that simultaneously consider growth performance, gut integrity, immune responses, and food safety. Most trials focus on one or two outcome categories (e.g., performance or organ histopathology), leaving other dimensions underexplored [7, 28]. Future research should adopt multidimensional designs, measuring not only production indices but also markers of intestinal barrier function, microbiota composition, immune competence, and residue carry-over into products. Such comprehensive evaluations will enable more accurate cost–benefit analyses of mitigation strategies and clarify their relevance for both animal and human health.
These issues are summarized in Table 6, which highlights key research gaps, their implications for poultry production and food safety, and representative references. The table underscores the need for improved analytical tools, more field-based evidence, and holistic outcome frameworks to guide policy and practical implementation.
Overall, evidence shows that mycotoxins impair growth, gut health, immunity, and food safety in poultry production worldwide. Surveillance data indicate that DON, fumonisins, zearalenone, and aflatoxins occur frequently in complete feeds, with DON alone detected in more than 80% of samples in some European surveys and aflatoxins detected in virtually all feed samples examined in certain African contexts [15, 22, 23]. Large-scale global surveys indicate that a substantial majority of animal feed samples test positive for one or more mycotoxins, with one of the most extensive datasets reporting an 88% positivity rate and frequent co-contamination. Multi-mycotoxin contamination is therefore a common characteristic of feed and feed raw materials worldwide [16].
From a biological standpoint, the convergence of evidence from performance trials, gut histology, and immunological assessments supports a unifying model in which mycotoxins primarily target the gut–liver–immune axis. Subclinical exposures can reduce body weight gain by 5–25%, increase FCR, damage hepatic tissue, and impair vaccine responsiveness, even when overt clinical signs are minimal [3, 6, 7, 8, 24]. Interactions with pathogens such as Campylobacter further intensify the negative impacts, suggesting that mycotoxin control is integral to successful disease management.
Mitigation strategies need to reflect this complexity. Adsorbents remain widely used and are effective against aflatoxins, but their binding capacity for DON and fumonisins is limited and sometimes inconsistent across products [9, 27]. Enzyme-based detoxification offers specific degradation pathways for Fusarium toxins, but most products are in early stages of field validation [10]. Probiotics and phytobiotics contribute additional layers of protection by improving gut health, modulating immunity, and in some cases directly degrading or antagonizing mycotoxigenic fungi [11, 12, 13, 14, 25, 28].
Table 7 provides a comparative summary of these mitigation approaches, outlining their main strengths and limitations. Adsorbents are relatively simple to implement and have a well-established safety profile but are largely toxin-specific. Enzymes can offer highly targeted detoxification yet require precise dosing and quality control, and their field performance under varied farm conditions remains to be fully established. Probiotics and phytobiotics can enhance resilience and help maintain gut homeostasis but may show strain- and dose-dependent variability.
Taken together, the evidence suggests that no single strategy is sufficient. A multi-modal approach that combines adsorbents for aflatoxin control, enzymes for Fusarium toxin degradation, probiotics for gut and immune support, and phytobiotics for antioxidant and hepatoprotective effects appears most promising. Such integrated programs should be tailored to regional risk profiles, feed ingredients, production systems, and economic constraints,and supported by continuous monitoring of feed and product contamination.
| Strategy | Strengths | Limitations | Representative References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adsorbents | Effective for aflatoxins | Limited for DON/fumonisins | [9, 20] |
| Enzymes | Specific degradation pathways | Limited field trials | [10] |
| Probiotics | Gut health + antifungal effect | Strain-specific efficacy | [13, 14] |
| Phytobiotics | Antioxidant & hepatoprotective | Limited validation in flocks | [11, 12] |
This review provides a consolidated understanding of the prevalence, impacts, and mitigation strategies of mycotoxins in poultry production. Evidence from multiannual surveys confirms that contamination with aflatoxins, deoxynivalenol, fumonisins, and zearalenone is widespread, with frequent co-occurrence and the added challenge of masked forms that escape conventional detection. These toxins not only impair poultry growth and feed efficiency but also compromise welfare by altering stress responses, reducing gut integrity, and suppressing immunity. Critically, residues in eggs and meat highlight the food safety dimension, extending the impact of mycotoxins beyond poultry farms to public health.
The quantitative and qualitative evidence reviewed here underscores that mycotoxins act through multidimensional pathways, affecting the gut–immune axis, vaccine responsiveness, and resilience against pathogens. Even when overt clinical disease is absent, subclinical mycotoxicosis can reduce productivity and increase susceptibility to infectious agents. This complexity demands solutions that go beyond single interventions. While conventional adsorbents remain effective against aflatoxins, they have limited scope against trichothecenes and fumonisins. Advances in enzyme-based detoxification offer targeted degradation pathways, though these remain under-validated under field conditions. At the same time, emerging biological strategies such as probiotics and phytobiotics (e.g., curcumin, baicalin, and indigenous Lactiplantibacillus plantarum strains) show promising dual benefits: reducing mycotoxin burden while strengthening gut health and immunity.
Taken together, the evidence indicates that effective mycotoxin management requires multi-modal strategies that integrate binders, enzymes, probiotics, and phytobiotics in complementary ways. However, key gaps persist: reliable detection of masked mycotoxins, large-scale field validation of natural and microbial interventions, and integrative trials that simultaneously assess growth, gut health, immunity, and food safety outcomes. Addressing these gaps will be crucial for translating laboratory findings into practical, farm-level solutions and for designing region-specific control programs that reflect local ingredient use and climatic conditions.
In conclusion, this review advances the field by unifying mechanistic evidence with intervention strategies and by framing mycotoxin control as both an animal health necessity and a public health imperative. Future research should prioritize the development of integrated, field-tested, and region-specific control programs to ensure sustainable poultry production, improved welfare, and safer food systems.
