Case Study: High-Sensitivity Testing for Enogen Corn

Posted on April 8, 2022April 7, 2023 by Ryan Whipkey

What is Enogen corn?

Launched in 2011 by Syngenta®, Enogen® corn is a genetically modified (GMO) variety of corn developed to drive efficiencies in ethanol and cattle feed production—two industries that account for 90% of US domestic corn use.[1] Enogen corn contains a special trait that enables it to produce within the kernel a high amount of alpha-amylase, an enzyme that breaks down starch to sugar. This enzyme saves on the cost and energy of converting corn starch to alcohol in ethanol production, and is claimed to improve digestibility of cattle feed.[2] Enogen corn adoption has grown rapidly across US. For example, in North Dakota, refiners have been looking to secure up to 16 million bushels of the Enogen corn—about 4% of the state’s total annual production. [3] Adoption in the cattle feed segment has also accelerated dramatically since introduction. Syngenta reported double-digit growth in their 2021 financial report.

The map below from IP Field Finder (ip360.agconnections.com) illustrates that Enogen farms are present in virtually every corn growing region in the US in high numbers. (click image to expand)

Map from IP360 showing the prevalence of Enogen corn fields in the United States.

Impact on Corn Food Product Quality

You may have experienced this for yourself—if you chew on a piece of tortilla or bread for a bit longer, it will start tasting sweeter. This is because the alpha-amylase in your saliva starts converting the starch content to sugar as part of the digestion process in your mouth. The alpha-amylase produced in Enogen corn has a similar impact of catalyzing starch hydrolysis—potentially to a point of dysfunction—resulting in issues like soupy grits, crumbly cornbread, and sticky tortillas.

The enzyme is also designed to be heat-resistant and works optimally at temperatures at which the corn is cooked. Enzymes can remain active well after the cooking process is over and continue to impact the starch quality of packaged foods, making tortilla dough sticky or the product fragile. The nixtamalization process (a key step in corn processing in which the corn is soaked and cooked in an alkaline solution) is especially sensitive to alpha-amylase, and caused one of our largest customers to experience significant masa flour quality incidents. They also reported that cornbread made with corn flour containing the Enogen corn crumbled on its own when stored in a hot box or on a hot shelf for more than an hour.

“The starch content is obviously different in this corn. Tamales don’t bind. When you make the product, it falls apart.” – Juan Galván, VP Amapola[4]

Another corn processor was afflicted by customer complaints about soupy and runny corn grits for nearly a year before they could trace the issue back to Enogen corn through PCR testing.

Cross-Contact Risk

In order to keep Enogen corn out of the food supply chain, Syngenta has implemented a stewardship program that includes regulating aspects of seed and produce distribution and spacing between farms. For the most part, this program is successful, but Enogen corn does at times come into cross-contact with food-grade corn during shared transportation, handling, and storage infrastructure, as well as through cross-pollination events from wind and weather. This commingling risk is supported both by the growing number of EnviroLogix customers seeking Enogen testing, as well as positive customer samples we have received for PCR tests conducted in our TotalTest Labs.

“We cut about 400 to 500 feet off the end of 400 acres that we had to bin separately—and it was contaminated. We tested it and it wasn’t going to meet specs.” -Mark Jost of Henderson, Nebraska [5]

A lot of cross-contact risk conversation revolves around the level on concentration of the enzyme. The science suggests that if an enzyme is present in a supportive environment, it will start degrading the starch by acting as a catalyst. This implies that the enzyme may not get consumed in the reaction, but will simply move to the next site. This would mean that practically any dose of the enzyme that goes undetected can lead to a uncontrolled reaction and have severe consequences on the production process. Novozyne, a leader in enzyme preparation for the baking industry, warns that even a slight amount of overdosing of enzymes in food preparation can lead to unacceptable products.[6] The North America Millers Association (NAMA) has documented that even one kernel mixed with ten thousand (0.01%) can disrupt food processing operations.[7] While each product has different level of associated risk, any process involving heating and/or acidic/alkaline exposure of corn for a long duration is a high-risk process in the presence of the alpha-amylase enzyme.

Assessing a Customer Need

An EnviroLogix customer, one of the largest corn millers in the United States, was experiencing multiple batch failures of masa flour, an issue that had to be escalated to their Head of Quality. Only after performing DNA tests was the root cause determined to be cross-contamination with Enogen corn. Yet the issue had arisen despite the customer testing all inbound corn for Enogen using following methods:

Lateral flow device (LFD) test at the decision point- LFD tests provide real-time guidance to staff on whether to accept or reject a load. But, the EnviroLogix test they were using at the time was only specified to detect contamination at a level of 1 in 400 kernels (0.25%).
Lab-based PCR test-Performed by trained scientists in a lab setting, Lab-based PCR tests reduce the possibility of error but take a few days to return results, making them an impractical choice for inbound screening. If Enogen corn is accepted into inventory before the test result is obtained, it is already too late.

A Breakthrough Solution

With the PCR results arriving too late, and product quality issues occurring despite inbound grain tested using a test specified to detect 1 Enogen corn grain in 400 (0.25%), there was a clear need to revise the acceptance criteria for inbound corn cross-contact to a much lower level. To enable this revision, the limit of detection for the test used to monitor each truck would also need to be lowered to help mitigate this ongoing and increasing risk they were seeing. After additional internal consideration, they told us- “Increase sensitivity of the strip to at least 1/1000 although 1/2000 is the ideal level since 0.0625% is threshold where we start seeing issues”. With the evolving needs of the grain industry always at the forefront of our research and development, EnviroLogix was ready with TotalTarget™ for Amylase Corn—a breakthrough LFD solution able to detect Enogen in corn at 1 in 2,500 kernels (0.04%).

Graph showing that TotalTarget for Enogen can detect the presence of Enogen and a much lower level (0.04%) that the prior low sensitivity test.

Key features of TotalTarget for Amylase Corn

Increased Sensitivity – TotalTarget for Enogen is 6 times more sensitive than the existing low sensitivity test to enable detection of Enogen above 0.04% contamination.
Common Workflows – Workflows for TotalTarget Enogen and TotalTox™ Mycotoxin test kits mesh seamlessly. With the same sample prep and simultaneous reading, operators can test for Enogen and mycotoxin contamination side-by-side in under 10 minutes.
Updated Extraction – Safer and easier extraction process that no longer requires Hydrochloric Acid (HCl)
Reader Enabled – No need to rely on visual test line results. Get an instant objective read with the QuickScan Reader.
Audit-Ready Data – Whether you download your data directly from the QuickScan or access it online through our new TotalHub data management system, record keeping and reporting are just a few clicks away.

Ongoing Benefits

By adopting this new high sensitivity test, the customer was able to more than meet their threshold needs with an on-site test that is fast and simple. With TotalTarget for Enogen, they were able to:

Dramatically reduce the risk of Enogen contamination of purchased food-grade corn, potentially averting hundreds of thousands of dollars in operational disruptions, product recalls, and inventory disposal.
Save significant time and effort with training and testing by implementing the common workflow for Enogen and Mycotoxin testing that utilizes the sampling protocols and testing steps that operators already know.
Further insure against contamination risk by mandating that all upstream corn suppliers test for Enogen using the new TotalTarget high sensitivity test before delivering corn to them

Click here to Learn More about the test or Email Us if you have any questions

[Free Poster] 6 Tips to Reduce Quality Control Chaos at Feed Mills

Posted on September 29, 2020November 18, 2020 by Brian Harris

Download your poster now!

Click the thumbnail below!

Thumbnail of the Non-GMO-Feed-Mill-Confusion-Solution Poster from EnviroLogix

Want even more tips?
Contact an EnviroLogix Ag Consultant by phone at (866) 408-6409, extension 1,
or by email: info@envirologix.com.

Harvest 2020 comes on the tails of one of the most chaotic and confusing years most of us can remember. As this latest harvest comes rushing in, EnviroLogix is back with another list of helpful tips to assist you while the pandemonium of this year’s inbound grain ripples through the food and feed supply chains.

This year we’re focusing on Feed Mills like yours. We’re looking specifically at ways to reduce chaos and confusion in the Quality Assurance/Quality Control department. Every year Quality Control Managers face new and unique challenges, perhaps the most onerous of which is rigorously testing against an ever-lengthening battery of quality checks while trying to maintain quotas for volume and quality standards.

Some of these include positive markers:

Nutritional value
Protein
Vitamins

And others involve ensuring nothing has contaminated the formula:

GMOs
Mycotoxin occurence (or worse, co-occurence)
Heavy Metals

With all of these modalities to oversee in your fast-paced quality environment, here are six tips we’ve compiled for reducing chaos and confusion at your feed mill. These recommendations come from direct customer feedback based on the very real challenges that feed mills face every day.

‣ Maintain a Robust QA/QC Policy	‣ Streamline and Reduce Protocol	‣ Manage and Maintain Audit-compliant Data
‣ Adhere to Best Practice	‣ Combine and Simplify Test Types	‣ Promote Health and Safety Standards
Download a poster with these tips


1	MAINTAIN a Robust Quality Assurace/Quality Control (QA/QC) Policy As we’ve noted previously, when feed mills are performing inbound testing, they must have a robust QA/QC policy in place. Ingredients comprise 70-90% of the cost of producing feed. For this reason alone, carefully monitoring ingredients as they arrive to ensure your quality standards is directly correlated to profitability. Your policy should define what, when, and how to measure ingredient quality. On site measurement of bulk ingredients at the point of delivery enables your feed mill to segregate low quality ingredients and appropriately re-formulate to produce finished feeds that meet requirements.

2	STREAMLINE and Reduce Protocol Many of our feed mill customers are responsible for year-round testing of multiple mycotoxins for various reasons (e.g., export regulatory requirements) regardless of conditions (whether there is an outbreak in their area or not). For mills that have to test for Aflatoxin, DON (Vomitoxin), Fumonisin, and Zearalenone, the worst possible protocol would involve running four separate tests in sequence or following different protocols while trying to run them at the same time. As a prime example of streamlining/reducing protocol, solutions like TotalTox™ from EnviroLogix employs a common protocol so multi-toxin testing can be run in parallel. In fact, EnviroLogix has come out with the industry’s first and only mycotoxin comb to further reduce the number of steps required for these four mycotoxin tests. This common and simple protocol not only allows for concurrent testing, but more importantly the protocol is greatly simplified, freeing your QA/QC staff’s time to perform other tasks.

3	MANAGE and Maintain Audit-compliant Data It goes without saying that we now live in a data-driven, and frequently audited, world. At any given feed mill, you can expect a certain number of government inspections each year. But we know that atop state and federal audits you also have to accommodate customer inspections and data audits as part of your contractual obligations. Therefore immaculate bookkeeping and recording data efficiently while minimizing the risk of human error is mission critical. To solve for this challenge, EnviroLogix introduced QuickScan II. QuickScan II is a reader for Mycotoxin and GMO tests that allows you to test multiple strips and/or combs, including a mix of mycotoxin and GMO tests at the same time. Not only does it perform these tests efficiently, but QuickScan’s onboard software also stores up to 100,000 quality reports. These reports allow you to review trends and monitor the historic values of a given grain, or a given supplier, or a particular operator on your team. This data is stored in a LIMS-compatible and export-friendly format for additional analysis.

4	ADHERE to Best Practice For all the things you test as part of your QA/QC program, you become responsible for a litany of processes and procedures. We know we’re preaching to the choir when we say this, but adhering to best practices is the only way to maintain and continually improve your QA/QC program. Whether you’re working on ensuring that the probe stand follows best practices for sampling, or that those that handle samples properly follow guidelines for proper pipetting technique, or for maintaining accurate data, or cleaning and calibrating your testing equipment; you have to instill a sense of responsibility across the team to stay on top of their technique.

5	COMBINE and Simplify Test Types With your ever-increasing list of testing equipment, calibration procedures, and additional customer support ticketing systems, it’s not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when’ something will inevitably go wrong. Therefore, the economies of scale and efficiency that arise when you are able to use the same piece of testing equipment to conduct even one more type of test improve exponentially. As mentioned above, the QuickScan II from EnviroLogix provides a common reader for both your mycotoxin and GMO testing needs. If and when you can find these commonalities and implement them in your QA/QC testing areas, including the probe stand and your in-house lab, you are reducing chaos and confusion.

6	PROMOTE Health and Safety Standards There has never been a time in history when health and safety standards at feed mills have had to be so strict. Under normal conditions, the pressure on you is extreme to ensure the health and safety of your team, as well as that of the downstream stakeholders, from humans to animals. On top of all of the factors that can generate unexpected chaos and confusion is a risk of one (or worse several) workers being infected with a virus that requires them to quarantine and you to find additional workers who can stand in for them until they’re cleared to return to work.

Next Steps

Interested in how EnviroLogix can help your feed mill reduce QA/QC chaos and confusion?
Contact one of our agriculture consultants at (866) 408-4597, extension 1, or by emailing info@envirologix.com
Ready to order?
Order EnviroLogix’ industry-leading GMO and mycotoxin tests or learn more about our new lab services

GMO Testing Modality Comparison: On-Site QuickCombs and PCR Testing

Posted on September 29, 2020 by Brian Harris

EnviroLogix’ 10-up GMO Corn
QuickComb for QuickScan

One of the most frequent questions we get asked about our on-site GMO test for corn is why testing in corn requires a 10-up “comb” on inbound testing, but only a 4-assay PCR panel lab test to meet most common compliance standards.

EnviroLogix’ immunoassays detect GMO proteins in grain, whereas our PCR detects the GMO DNA. The table below shows the relationship between our corn comb (10 unique GMO Lateral Flow Device [LFD] strips connected with a bridge for easy handling) and the most commonly tested PCR panel.

Crop science laboratories are now routinely commercializing new traits on a regular basis. To keep your non-GMO operation compliant, EnviroLogix continually updates this table on our website, where you can also find a similar table for soy traits.

Table 1. Immunoassay GMO Trait Proteins and PCR GMO DNA Sequences

QuickScan 10-up Comb	Cry1	CP4 EPSPS	Cry3	Cry1F	PAT/pat	Cry34	Cry2	mCry3A	VIP	–	eCry3.1Ab
PCR Standard Panel	CaMV 35s							MIR604	MIR162	GA21	–

PCR DNA Test

If you’re interested in why this works for GMO testing, the answer gets very technical very quickly. The root comes down the biological basis of GMOs. Most modifications add DNA from one organism to a plant’s genome to allow that plant to express a new protein that creates a trait of interest.

For a plant to make a new protein, the added DNA includes both the sequence for the protein, as well as regulatory element sequence that “tells” the plant to turn that protein production on. Those regulatory sequences are often reused in many different GMO traits, which means that some GMOs might create different proteins but they have a common DNA sequence. The most common regulatory sequence used in GMOs and tested by PCR is CaMV 35s, which is a short piece of DNA from cauliflower mosaic virus.

PCR testing is complex and costly. To minimize the amount of testing needed, a CaMV 35s assay is commonly used to detect DNA from many different GMO traits at the same time. Conversely, these sequences cannot be tested by a common immunoassay strip; they are designed for quick screening and trait differentiation, which is why we continue to add more LFD strips to the comb over time.

Figure 1. Relationship between GMO Trait DNA and Expressed GMO Trait Protein

EnviroLogix Launches 10-Trait QuickComb for Corn Bulk Grain

Posted on January 29, 2019 by Brian Harris

EnviroLogix Inc. offers the world’s most comprehensive, quantitative decision-point screening diagnostic for GMO corn testing with the introduction of the 10-trait QuickComb.

Portland, ME, January 29, 2019 – EnviroLogix Inc. launches the 10-trait QuickComb, now including Duracade™, for corn bulk grain quantitative testing in support of Non-GMO testing programs.

“With the introduction of the industry’s only 10-trait corn comb, EnviroLogix further demonstrates our commitment to customers needing the most comprehensive quantitative decision-point GMO diagnostics for use in the grain handling and processing, animal feed, and export industries,” said Bill Welch, President of EnviroLogix Inc.. “When used in conjunction with our QuickScan II instrument, customers experience the most advanced quantitative solution, along with a traceability system to support claims, using a single test with results in less than ten minutes.”

Duracade, a corn rootworm-resistant trait, has been fully deregulated by the USDA since 2013, and the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture granted import approval of corn grain and processing co-products for food and feed use in 2017. More recently, in May of 2018, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued a positive scientific opinion that will now proceed to the Standing Committee of representatives to complete the authorization process of final import approval for the European Union.

Welch continued, “Potential regulatory changes permitting the import of Duracade will increase the number of approved countries from fifteen to more than forty. As a result, the need to segregate corn bulk grain containing Duracade in addition to other commercialized GMO traits, for animal feed markets versus human consumption will increase significantly. The 10-trait QuickComb will facilitate grain segregation for importers and exporters to mitigate disruptions in the global supply chain.”

Along with Agrisure Duracade, the new 10-trait GMO comb from EnviroLogix also detects the following: Roundup Ready®; LibertyLink®; YieldGard® Corn Borer, Rootworm, and VT Pro®; Herculex® I and RW; and Agrisure® RW and Viptera® and various stacks of these traits. GMO traits serve crop growers by expressing proteins that allow the plant to better resist pests and herbicides. The addition of Duracade to the EnviroLogix 10-trait QuickComb enables the most comprehensive, critical decision-point GMO testing where EnviroLogix’ customers need it most.

EnviroLogix Inc. is a leading producer of GMO and mycotoxin tests serving the food and feed safety markets. The company continues to provide innovative solutions as the sole supplier of on-site quantitative GMO protein detection and were the first to offer LFD technology for mycotoxin screening in grain. EnviroLogix’ dedication to scientific innovation and providing exceptional solutions for today’s identity-preservation and food-safety supply chains remains at the forefront.

For more information about EnviroLogix Inc. and the quantitative GMO 10-trait corn bulk grain test, visit the QuickComb for QuickScan – Corn page.

Storage Under Pressure: Squeezing This Year’s Crop for Max Value

Posted on December 5, 2018 by Susan Whipkey

With unprecedented bushels per acre numbers projected a month ago, the U.S. was looking like it was headed for the largest corn harvest in history. Though recently those yield projections retreated a bit, overall numbers look like we’ll see another bumper crop of corn this year.

As is the case when corn acreage and yields are high, two factors come in to play: downward pressure on prices and less-than-ideal storage solutions, including bags, open bins, and ground piles.

In order to squeeze out the maximum value of this year’s harvest, grain handlers need to mitigate post-harvest losses due to damage, infestation, and especially mycotoxin contamination, by properly storing and monitoring corn.

Storage practices need to be adequate to protect the value of what’s being stored, distilled down to 4 factors:

1. Moisture: Mold needs moisture to grow so when you reduce your moisture content you improve your chances of winning the fight against mycotoxin producing molds. It is recommended to reduce the amount of moisture as early as possible and to keep the percent moisture at 14% or less.

2. Temperature: Keep cool and even temperatures by using proper aeration. Why? Keeping the temperature cool will make the environment less favorable for insects. Keeping the temperature even will reduce the chance of condensation that can occur from drastic temperature changes.

3. Insects: Control insects or mitigate insects. Insects can damage grain with digging, chewing and leaving waste, leaving it more susceptible to mycotoxin contamination. They can also bring in additional moisture.

4. Damage: Remember the old adage “quality in quality out”? Damaged grain is more susceptible to mycotoxin contamination. Separate or sell damaged grain to limit its incorporation into high-quality stored grains.

storage animation: moisture, temperature, damage, and insects

Monitoring incoming and stored commodities is critical to protecting value.

Remember that weather conditions are not a guarantee of either presence or absence of mycotoxins, and reliance upon rumors either way is foolhardy at best and costly at its worst. Begin with testing incoming grain to set a baseline understanding of the grain quality in your area, then continue to monitor stored grains, whether in bins, piles, or bags. Cool weather is no guarantee to keep molds and mycotoxins at bay, as temperatures and moisture levels especially in the center of a ground pile can climb without proper aeration.

It is generally recommended to inspect stored corn weekly during fall and spring, and once or twice a month during winter, so any potential for loss can be addressed immediately.

By regularly testing your grain, you can assure that your storage practices are working effectively, and you’ll achieve the maximum value when it’s time to sell.

A list of EnviroLogix’ most popular mycotoxin test kits for use with the EnviroLogix QuickScan II quantitative GMO and mycotoxin detection instrument appears below:

Contact us if you have questions or concerns about how mycotoxin contamination might be present in the grain in your supply chain. We can be reached at (866) 408-4597 or info@envirologix.com.

Want more great articles like this?

Subscribe to the EnviroLogix newsletter

Name that strip!

Posted on October 18, 2018December 5, 2018 by Daryn Daniluk

You may be moving corn for a Non-GMO Identity Program (IP), or you may be a farmer desiring a Non-GMO premium on thousands of acres of corn. The last thing anyone wants is GMO to be found while the product is headed for premium non-GMO markets. With all the GMO seed products on the market today, it is hard to keep track of which strip tests for what. Your neighbors could be buying and planting various GMO traits this spring. Wouldn’t it would be great to know what, exactly, is in your corn? Our non-GMO corn combs have as many as nine strips. People often ask us, “what do all those strips do?” Because it is a full-time job to keep up on what GMO traits are present in any given seed, our corn comb is designed to detect the GMO protein in corn that is currently on the market. That way, you will be able to detect any and all GMO present in the corn coming through your facility, or in the seed that you are about to plant.

Our strips fall into three broad categories of trait detection:

Herbicide tolerance,
Lepidoptera managment, and
Coleopteran management.

The first category refers to weed suppression. You’ve most likely heard of Roundup Ready. It was the first widely available trait in corn and it was a game changer. The second trait in this category that is detected by our corn comb is Liberty Link. Like Roundup Ready, it puts another powerful tool in the farmer’s tool box when dealing with competitive vegetation.

The next group is Lepidoptera managers. This is the genus of insect that Corn Borers fall into. ‘Cry’ proteins (GMO) kill insects and it is one of the most well-studied, well-characterized proteins in history. There are thousands of variations that have different effects on bugs. The ones that kill corn borers are Cry1, Cry1AB, Cry1F, and Vip3A…Vip proteins are fascinating in their own right, but we’ll write about that in a future article.

Last on our list are the Coleoptera managers, that mitigate potentially devastating pests such as root worms. In certain applications, these proteins are expressed specifically in root tissue keeping the protein where it is needed. No energy is wasted by expressing it in leaf tissue, for example. The proteins fatal to root worms are Cry3B, Cry34, and modified Cry3A.

Here is a Quick glance at the 9 strips that help you detect the presence of GMO.

Strip	Name	Commercial Product	Function
C1	Cry1A	YieldGard Bt11	Corn Borer/lepidopteran
RR	Roundup Ready	Agrisure, Optimum, Enlist, and others	Herbicide Resistance
C3	Cry3B	YieldGard Rootworm	Rootworm/coleopteran
1F	Cry1F	Herculex, PowerCore, and Acremax	Corn Borer/lepidopteran
LP	Liberty Link	Agrisure, SmartStax, Herculex, Optimum, and others	Herbicide Resistance
34	Cry34	SmartStax, Herculex RW	Rootworm/coleopteran
3A	Modified Cry3A	Agrisure Rootworm MIR604	Rootworm/coleopteran
C2	Cry2A	Genuity/PowerCore	Corn Borer/lepidopteran
VP	Vip3A	Viptera, MIR162	Corn Borer/lepidopteran

EnviroLogix published in Global Milling Advances

Posted on September 5, 2018September 5, 2018 by Brian Harris

Jamie Welch, a scientist and Technology Product Manager at EnviroLogix, wrote an article on ‘Increasing Throughput at Grain Mills’ for the publication, Global Milling Advances. The article was requested by Global Milling Advances as part of their August 2018 focus on mycotoxins.

Welch’s article discusses the impact mycotoxins carry, the importance of testing, and how mycotoxin assay test time directly influences overall delivery throughput. It also touches on third party certification; data capture, analytics, and transmission; protocols; as well as sampling and other best practices.

Click here to read the article (pages 26-29). If you would like to discuss increasing your mill’s throughput, compliance, or accelerating your decisions, please contact EnviroLogix.

Poor Corn + Moisture = Mycotoxins?

Posted on August 29, 2018August 30, 2018 by Brian Harris

Growing conditions and moisture levels are critical factors in the overall health of growing corn crops. Mycotoxin contamination can start in the field if fungi infect corn ears. The risk of pre-harvest fungal growth goes up if the condition of the crop is reported to be less than optimal (e.g., damaged by weather or insects). Another factor that increases the risk even further is moisture throughout the growing season.

Ultimately, corn that is growing in locations in which crop conditions have been classified as fair, poor, or very poor; and at the same time have been subjected to a persistently moist environment are at heightened risk for yielding grain that is contaminated with mycotoxins.

2018 Corn Crop Growing Condition as of August 22nd
State	% of corn crop conditions reported as fair, poor, or very poor
Illinois	24%
Indiana	30%
Iowa	28%
Kansas	71%
Kentucky	27%
Michigan	20%
Minnesota	23%
Missouri	71%
Montana	32%
Nebraska	17%
North Dakota	18%
Ohio	22%
Oklahoma	20%
South Dakota	33%
Tennessee	35%
Wisconsin	24%

The National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center database was used to identify at-risk regions with persistently moist growing conditions. The Soil Moisture Map (inset) shows persistently high levels of moisture (dark green) in several corn-growing US states from May 31st to August 27th.

Comparing this information to the corn crop quality as determined by the USDA Crop Progress and Conditions Report (see table) indicates several corn-producing states are at risk of corn crops that are contaminated by mycotoxins.

According to the Climate Prediction Center, the following states have had consistently anomalous soil moisture: Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. Those states have also had double-digit percentage of fair, poor, or very poor growing conditions for corn; as have Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Tennessee, and Wisconsin. The table below indicates those levels.

This animation overlays the soil moisture data from the National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center with that of the crop conditions from the USDA Crop Progress and Prediction Report.

Sporadic reports of mycotoxin contamination have already begun to filter in as harvest season for many grains gets underway across the US. Not all crops are affected, but it’s essential to establish whether contamination has occurred in your supply chain and at what level.

If you or your suppliers are in the affected areas where factors conducive to mycotoxin contamination are prevalent, EnviroLogix strongly recommends careful sampling and testing. EnviroLogix makes a variety of test kits for testing mycotoxins in most grain types.

A list of EnviroLogix’ most popular mycotoxin test kits for use with the EnviroLogix QuickScan II quantitative GMO and mycotoxin detection instrument appears below:

Contact us if you have questions or concerns about how mycotoxin contamination might be present in the grain in your supply chain. We can be reached at (866) 408-4597 or info@envirologix.com.

Want more great articles like this?

Subscribe to the EnviroLogix newsletter

Q3’18 Tech Tip from EnviroLogix Tech Support

Posted on August 29, 2018 by Brian Harris

Take it from someone who’s spoken with countless people stuck in the following predicament: there’s nothing worse than having to get harvest in and running out of combs or strips. The truck lines get longer and longer. Every lost minute results in lost revenue. With QuickScan II, that horrible scenario can permanently become a thing of the past. The new QuickScan II quantitative GMO and mycotoxin detection instrument, launched by EnviroLogix last month, has an inventory management tool that tracks your current test inventory and will count each use as you process your inbound or outbound grain.

Once your inventory falls to a certain a level of tests, set by you to suit your needs, the QuickScan II will send an email to you (or to EnviroLogix) to make ordering that much easier for you. It will be one less thing to worry about during your busy season, letting you focus on everything else you have to get done.

Let’s take a look under the hood to see how this great feature works.

The Inventory tab from the QuickScan II’s settings

Enter received inventory of QuickCombs, QuickStix, and QuickTox Strips into the Inventory Tab to activate the alerts to low inventory levels, set by you. Alerts are given when the number of strips or combs remaining is less than the Low-Level Warning number. Alerts are given as a pop-up dialog in the results screen and as an email to a designated email address.
From the Select A Test Kit: drop-down menu, select the test kit for inventory tracking, then click the Add button.
Enter the number of tubes, or canisters (for single-strip kits), or number of pouches (for combs) into column 1. The program will automatically convert number of tubes to strips (50 strips per canister) or convert number of pouches to combs (5 combs per pouch).
Enter the number of remaining strips or combs to activate a Low-Inventory warning.
Inventory can be adjusted manually at any time.
To activate the option email feature, enter an email address in the Notification box in the lower left corner and click the Save button. Please note: this requires an email program to be installed and set up on the QuickScan II. Contact your IT Department to set up an email account.

As you can see, this feature can be a game changer in your site management, giving you the freedom to focus on the other important aspects of your business.

If you have a QuickScan II and want help implementing this feature, call Technical Support at (866) 408-4597 ext. 2, or email us at techsupport@envirologix.com.

If you’re interested in ordering a QuickScan II, call (866) 408-4597, ext. 1, or email us at info@envirologix.com.

Want more great articles like this?

Subscribe to the EnviroLogix newsletter

What is Malt?

Posted on August 29, 2018August 29, 2018 by Brian Harris

Most likely, you’ve heard malt or malting in reference to beer, but have you ever wondered exactly what malt is?

In general, the subject is malted barley. Malting is the least-familiar part of the beer brewing process, since you won’t see it on a brewery tour. Very few brewers do their own malting but rather rely on maltsters with specialized knowledge, equipment and facilities to produce this crucial ingredient.

Least familiar, perhaps, but quite fascinating, because it harnesses the barley plant’s natural enzymatic processes of converting starch to sugar. The sugars extracted from germinated barley feeds yeast and induces fermentation.

It begins with the selection of barley variety. Brewers generally specify (or work with maltsters to choose) certain barley varieties for a particular influence on their processing and/or finished product. Any new varieties are tested for as long as 10-12 years before being deemed suitable for malting. Maltsters require delivery in pure lots, by season and by growing region; this careful segregation carries through the entire process and ensures consistent, reliable, expected properties for brewing.

Incoming barley is also meticulously inspected for quality and tested for fungal mycotoxins such as deoxynivalenol (DON). Sprouted, damaged, or immature kernels; foreign material; and fungal infections and diseases can at the very least produce poor malt, and at worst be toxic.

The malting process itself starts by steeping barley in water for a couple of days. Experienced maltsters have a deep knowledge of all the factors that determine the exact soak time. It is then laid out in a huge room where it is turned regularly for aeration and to maintain a constant temperature, usually around 60°F. This encourages the barley kernels to sprout or germinate.

As this point, enzymes start converting the kernel’s starch reserves and proteins into amino acids and sugars intended to help the barley plant grow. The trick is to stop the germination process at just the right point so that the kernel retains the optimum level of each to contribute to the final product.

Maltster raking sprouted barley, photo courtesy of Allagash Brewing Company

To stop germination, when the time is right, the kernels are kilned (dried) by slowly raising the temperature to a point at which the process is stopped. How high that temperature is determines the kind of malt produced. In general, the higher the temperature, the darker the malted barley, and the darker the beer will be in the end. Finished malt may then also be roasted at even higher temperatures to affect the darkness and even carbonation of the final product.

The maltsters’ finished product is a dried barley grain full of sugar and starch. Once delivered to the brewery, it is added to hot water to convert the remaining starch into simple sugars. The sugars dissolve into the hot water and can be easily accessed by the yeast to begin the fermentation process.

With the brewers controlling the mixing and matching of ingredients, they rely on maltsters to provide malt with reliable and specific physical and chemical characteristics in order to ensure consistency and quality, in their processes as well as their final product.

Photos courtesy of Allagash Brewing Company, Portland, ME.

Mycotoxins in Non-GMO Feed Grains

Posted on August 29, 2018August 29, 2018 by Brian Harris

Eager to supply the growing demand for organically produced milk and meat, many farms are testing corn, soy, and other feed components for GMOs. But what about mycotoxins?

The limited supply of non-GMO organic grains, which we wrote about last time, sometimes forces buyers to accept more broken and imperfect grains…the most susceptible to fungal infestation and possibly the development of mycotoxins, a toxic byproduct of certain fungi.

Some mycotoxins not only reduce yields, but also cause irreparable harm and even death. Whether feeding pigs, cattle, or poultry, mycotoxin testing is crucial to the success and profitability of organic milk and meat production.

For example, pigs are extremely sensitive to mycotoxins; breeding losses and hampered weight gain can reduce margins to the point of non-profitability. Mycotoxins are detrimental to poultry as well, one of the fastest-growing segments of organic demand. With effects such as poor gut integrity and gizzard erosion, broiler, turkey, and egg production margins are at risk.

The U.S. FDA regulates mycotoxin levels in food and feed, but organic producers are limited in their mycotoxin risk management and health prevention tools. By testing frequently along the feed supply chain, farmers, suppliers and producers alike can be confident in the animals’ health and better capitalize on this growing market.

Want more great articles like this?

Subscribe to the EnviroLogix newsletter

QuickScan II AOAC certified with DON Flex

Posted on August 7, 2018August 8, 2018 by Brian Harris

Portland, ME, August 7, 2018 – Portland, Maine. EnviroLogix Inc. is pleased to announce that its newest QuickScan II Reader System (ACC-331) has been certified through the AOAC® Performance Tested Methods℠ Program for use with the DON Flex mycotoxin kit (Cat. No. AQ-304-BG; AOAC® PTM #121701).

The QuickScan II System is validated for testing commodities destined for human consumption and animal feed.

According to Alex Miller, Vice President of Marketing & Business Development at EnviroLogix, “We continue to take our mycotoxin kits and reader systems through the AOAC PTM process to provide our customers with the added confidence that comes with certification from this globally recognized association. EnviroLogix products, including our newest QuickScan II Reader System, offer best in class performance and reproducibility; approval through AOAC helps to bring awareness to this.”

AOAC International (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) is an international association and voluntary consensus standards developing organization. AOAC standards are used globally to promote trade and to facilitate public health and safety.

For more information…

Learn more about the QuickScan II Reader System (ACC-331).
Learn more about the DON Flex mycotoxin kit (Cat. No. AQ-304-BG).
Learn more about AOAC International and AOAC certification.

EnviroLogix Announces QuickScan II

Posted on July 9, 2018July 9, 2018 by Brian Harris

EnviroLogix Inc.’s history as a technology innovator for the global agricultural diagnostic markets continues with the introduction of the next generation QuickScan II instrument for quantitative GMO and mycotoxin testing.

Portland, ME, July 9, 2018 – EnviroLogix Inc. launched QuickScan II, the next generation scanner for quantifying GMOs and mycotoxins (such as aflatoxin) for the grain, processing, and feed industries. The QuickScan platform was built for rapid detection of GMOs and mycotoxins in crops critical to the grain, distilling, ethanol processing, livestock feed, and pet food industries.

“With the introduction of the QuickScan II, EnviroLogix is delivering enhanced features and capability to our already best-in-class quantitative GMO and mycotoxin testing platform.” said Bill Welch, President of EnviroLogix Inc.. “Our partnership with the world’s leading seed, grain, animal feed, and pet food providers enables us to uniquely understand their increasing demand for improving operational efficiencies. The QuickScan II provides enhancements to meet these needs on a platform they already know and trust.”

QuickScan II extends the platform’s robust offering to improve operational efficiency. The instrument boasts expanded testing capabilities within a streamlined footprint; bringing exciting new functionality and an expanded test carrier that allows up to 22 tests to be scanned simultaneously, while requiring less space in the testing environment.

As data management needs evolve, QuickScan II enhances the platform’s capabilities for inventory tracking, quality measurement, and offering refined graphics and analytics for better decision making.

Across the markets EnviroLogix serves, the demand for stricter compliance is always rising. To aid in driving compliance, the QuickScan II expands the platform’s functionality, including user authentication, enhanced intelligence for flagging duplicate reads, and maintenance reminders and enforcement.

According to Jason Lee, Senior Business Unit Manager, “QuickScan II offers our customers benefits throughout their organization, making their jobs easier while facilitating improvements in efficiency and traceability; giving added confidence that they’re delivering on their quality standards.”

EnviroLogix Inc. is a leading producer of mycotoxin and GMO tests serving the food and feed safety market. The company continues to provide innovative solutions to its markets and was the first to offer LFD technology for mycotoxin screening in grain. EnviroLogix’s commitment to scientific innovation and providing exceptional solutions for today’s identity-preservation and food-safety environments remains at the forefront with the introduction of QuickScan II.

New GMO Soy Traits

Posted on June 20, 2018June 25, 2018 by Brian Harris

More and more US farmers are electing to plant soybean varieties with multiple modes of herbicide tolerance. Stacking these herbicide traits in soy gives farmers the flexibility to use the most effective chemical tools available to control a broad spectrum of weeds.

In addition to flexibility, the use of multiple herbicides with different sites of action also allows farmers to help control the propagation of herbicide resistant weeds, a major challenge facing the industry. Two new herbicide resistant soybean varieties have been developed and are being released to the US market: Balance GT soybeans and Enlist E3 soybeans. The Enlist E3 soybean is tolerant to the following herbicides: 2,4-D Choline (2,4-D), Glyphosate (e.g. Roundup), and Glufosinate (Liberty). While Enlist soybeans have not received import approval from China, Enlist E3 soybeans have been planted this year in a closed-loop program administered by DOW and ADM for the domestic soy market. Enlist E3 soybeans can be detected with the EnviroLogix LibertyLink (PAT/pat) lateral flow strip included in the bulk soybean QuickComb.

MS Technologies, Bayer, and Mertec LLC have collaborated to develop the Balance GT soybean system. The foreign import permits have been received for this variety but the US EPA has not approved the new herbicide utilized, Isoxaflutole. The Balance GT variety will be a stack of 2mepsps to allow for glyphosate resistance and HPPD w336 which allows for resistance to Isoxaflutole. In 2019 a Balance variety will be released that includes an additional trait allowing for resistance to a 3rd herbicide, Liberty.

What do these new soy varieties mean for organizations involved with the origination of Non-GMO soybeans? The EnviroLogix QuickComb kit for bulk soybeans provides complete trait detection coverage for the 2018 harvest to insure the success of your Non-GMO program.

Questions? Need sampling plan development guidance? Rely on EnviroLogix and its decades of industry support and innovation to insure your success.

For more GMO news, check out:

Want more great articles like this?

Subscribe to the EnviroLogix newsletter

Q2’18 Tech Tip from EnviroLogix Tech Support

Posted on June 20, 2018June 25, 2018 by Brian Harris

Sampling

Getting ready for the busy season means planning for how to receive grain. Let’s examine the statistics of grain sampling. When you’re testing a truck or a barge, you unfortunately can’t test every kernel or bean. When you’re testing inbound corn or beans, the best outcome you can have is a fair reading for each particular truck. The goal is for the sample you take to test to be as close as possible to a representation of the truck’s true score. When we accomplish this, the farmer gets their well-deserved premium for the hard work of growing a quality crop, and you can be confident the material you’re moving downstream is of the highest quality and satisfies your customers’ needs. If there are low levels of GMOs or mycotoxins present on that truck, you want to sample enough grain, and from enough places on the truck, to find them.

So, how do we find low levels of GMOs or mycotoxins? In sampling, size matters! If you only sample a small amount from only one corner of the shipment, there’s a very good chance you won’t find them. You’re better off looking at grain from each corner, and even the middle of the shipment. When you’re sampling a truck, take as large a sample as you can reasonably handle. We suggest a 3 to 4-pound sample. If you always look for GMOs or mycotoxins in the same spot in every shipment, you’re far less likely to find them. Make sure you are probing 3 to 7 different spots with your hydraulic probe. See the diagram at right for examples.

Push the probe to the bottom, open it, and draw up. To the same point you want to mix that 3 to 4-pound sample as much as possible. Put the sample over a divider and grind as much as is practical in your probe stand (the GIPSA Sampling handbook can be found here).

Weigh out the sample you will test, and with this fair sampling, you can be more confident you’re providing the best answer possible for both your company, and for the farmer. If the sample is close to cutoff (for example, a 1.1% where your cutoff is 1%), and you have the time, take a second sample from your collected corn or beans, regrind, and retest. Go with the average score of the two tests (not the better of the two scores). The best way to keep our growers happy, and to continue providing product for Identity Preservation programs, is to sample fairly and to properly detect GMOs or mycotoxins when they can be found.

Download a primer for sampling grain from a flat-bottom truck.

Proper Pipette Position

The best way to be fair in your testing is to perform the protocol as accurately as possible. When using your mini-pipette, make sure you hold it plumb vertically.

Tipping to the side can cause the liquid to roll back into the pipette, further reducing your accuracy and quality of testing.

If you ever have any questions, or just want to talk to someone about your testing, Tech Service is here for you.

Give us a call at (866)408-4597 X 2, or email techsupport@envirologix.com.

Want more great articles like this?

Subscribe to the EnviroLogix newsletter

World GMO Cultivation

Posted on June 20, 2018June 28, 2018 by Susan Whipkey

Chart Showing World GMO Culivation by Domestic and Imported Percentages — Growing percentage of U.S.
organic commodities from import
Demand for organic soybeans and corn is outpacing domestic supply, causing an increase in imported organic commodities, and a subsequent requirement for heightened testing.

Did you know that U.S. grain imports are on the rise? The increasing consumer demand for organic and non-GMO foods has exposed a shortfall in the U.S. supply chain. Even as domestic acreage devoted to organic soybeans and corn is increasing, production remains well short of demand.

The complex risk/reward calculation, as well as the multi-year commitment, has made it tough on US farmers to commit to joining the market. An additional 1 to 5 million acres would need to be converted to meet demand. Added to that, a ready supply of these commodities on the world market from countries such as Turkey, India, Ukraine and Romania keep a damper on market premiums for these commodities.

Unfortunately, it has also led to less-than-honest business practices, if not outright fraud, within the international supply chain. The Washington Post recently identified several shipments of grain that showed conventional pricing at the point of purchase that were inexplicably identified as organic when they reached the U.S.—and proven to not conform to the organic standard.

The truth is, there is very little confirmation testing when organic and non-GMO shipments are received; the documentation provided is relied upon, endangering the integrity of all downstream usage. Imported grain gets shuttled in numerous ways through various transit points with little traceability.

Though you are familiar with what crops are grown in your area, as well as your domestic partners supplying grain, there are many ways that your supply chain can be infiltrated with commodities from unknown sources. Reliance on paperwork and handshakes can severely compromise your product as well as your reputation.

EnviroLogix is committed to getting you the answers you need to ensure that you can reliably participate in non-GMO markets, with world-class GMO test coverage and traceable, quantifiable results for corn and soy, as well as canola, alfalfa and more. Test with confidence and get your own answers, insuring your own claims and reputation.

Want a GMO test? We have them available for the crops above and more…

For more GMO news, check out:

Want more great articles like this?

Subscribe to the EnviroLogix newsletter

USDA Releases Proposed GMO Labeling Rules

Posted on June 20, 2018 by Brian Harris

Congress enacted The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard Law on July 29, 2016; and more recently the USDA released a proposed rule regarding the labeling of bioengineered foods and how this should be communicated to the public. The standard is currently open for public comment. Per Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue “We are looking for public input on a number of these key decisions before a final rule is issued later this year.” The 60-day open comment period will be closing on July 3rd. The proposed rule can be viewed and comments can be submitted here. Some of the important points that the USDA is looking for public comment on are:

Definition of bioengineered: will new genetic techniques like genetic editing (CRISPR, TALEN, etc.), RNAi, and others require labeling?
Will highly refined ingredients that originate from bioengineered foods, but do not have nucleic products that can be detected via common test methods, require labeling?
At what threshold are products considered bioengineered? 0.9%, 5%, and 10% have been proposed.
Will bioengineered levels be determined by ingredient or by product weight?
How will the bioengineered label be communicated to consumers: text claims, digital codes (QR), symbols, or text message based inquiries?

More information from the USDA on the National Bioengineering Food Disclosure Law is available via a pre-recorded webinar found here.

As you contemplate the impact that the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law may have on your organizations, use EnviroLogix as an informed industry resource. We’re here to supply the diagnostic solutions and implementation guidance to insure your organization is well positioned to comply with this new law.

For more GMO news, check out:

Want more great articles like this?

Subscribe to the EnviroLogix newsletter

Report from the CRISPR-Ag Bio Conference

Posted on June 20, 2018 by Brian Harris

On March 28, USDA Secretary Perdue issued a statement clarifying the department’s oversight of plants produced by new gene editing techniques, including CRISPR. With the USDA’s focus on protecting plant health, gene edited plants that do not contain genetic material from ‘plant pests’, such as viral DNA, will not require their standard regulatory process.

At the recent CRISPR-Ag Bio conference in San Diego, California, several representatives from the USDA spoke about the Secretary’s statement and regulatory status of gene edited plants. The speakers emphasized the USDA’s stance to regulate products, not processes. This is not unfamiliar territory – plants that have been exposed to mutation-inducing chemicals or radiation are not subject to the USDA regulatory process because the mutations induced are not derived from plant pests and are comparable to genetic changes that occur naturally in plants.

Gene edited crops that fall into one of the following categories are likewise considered comparable to natural genetic change:

Sequence deletions
Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)
Sequence introduction from a compatible organism
Complete null segregants

The USDA also emphasized their commitment to providing regulatory certainty to the agricultural community. The department is looking to develop a framework for regulation that adapts to future innovation, includes “off-ramps” for plants that do not require plant health regulation, and ensures that neither the department, nor plant breeders and innovators waste time in repetitive reviews. The USDA is, of course, a government agency that welcomes comments and input from the agricultural community on policy and procedures – during their talks, the speakers emphasized that they seek unique comments and input. Although an adjacent process to plant health regulation, the USDA is in the open comment period through July 3rd for the Bioengineered Food Disclosure Act.

For more GMO news, check out:

Want more great articles like this?

Subscribe to the EnviroLogix newsletter

Test DDGS for Mycotoxins Due to Increased Risk This Year

Posted on November 8, 2017May 24, 2018 by Brian Harris

Although ethanol plants don’t need to check every incoming truck for every mycotoxin, it is good practice to screen the first incoming loads of harvested corn carefully to get a sense of the mycotoxins that might be present in newly-harvested corn. The mycotoxins of most concern are Aflatoxin, Vomitoxin (DON), and Fumonisin. Testing for mycotoxins in ethanol plants isn’t new. It was implemented in most facilities when a secondary market for feed was found for the byproduct of ethanol production, DDGS (dried distillers grains with solubles).

Screening for mycotoxins appears to be especially important this year; double-digit percentages of corn in “poor” and “very poor” condition are being reported in 9 states responsible for 70% of the US corn production, according to the latest USDA/NASS 2017 Crop Progress and Condition Report (see graphic).

In other words, conditions are ripe, and it is important to test DDGS for harmful mycotoxins.

Feed markets have very strict guidelines about the levels of mycotoxins present. With the multiplicative effect of corn ethanol production, even small amounts of mycotoxins coming into the plant can be magnified to reportable levels in the end product. And because each mycotoxin has known negative health impacts in animals, each has individual limits that vary according to species and age.

Added to that, the new guidelines for complying with the Food Safety and Modernization Act (FSMA) require testing and traceability of feed components. Plants with robust quality systems have been able to utilize existing systems to comply with the requirements for analyzing hazards and reporting results. But FSMA does not give guidance as to how frequently or comprehensively to test.

In general, getting a comprehensive baseline for a season can help quality managers set their testing frequencies and cutoffs for any particular year, and support the justification for that testing. Supplementary testing of homogeneous DDGS can provide additional data points and confirmation of good quality screening of incoming materials. That approach provides the basis for complying with the requirements and intention of FSMA.

Along with offering mycotoxin tests for corn and DDGS, EnviroLogix has introduced Common Extraction testing for Aflatoxin, DON and Fumonisin that will allow for one sample preparation and a common run time when testing for these three mycotoxins in incoming corn.

The resulting operational efficiency streamlines early-season testing, and our world-class QuickScan System provides unparalleled quantification and traceability. Contact us today to find out how you can take advantage of time-saving Common Extraction mycotoxin testing.

Our Take on the 2017 USDA Acreage Report

Posted on August 9, 2017October 3, 2017 by Brian Harris

A lot of interesting reports are coming out of the USDA at this time of year. The USDA Acreage report confirmed the data from the prior quarter’s Prospective Plantings report: corn acres are down, soy acres are at a record high, wheat acres are at a long-time low, and cotton acres are up.

More acreage planted to soybeans seemed like a sure bet last year during planning in the US, particularly since the lower input cost was attractive to farmers on the edge of profitability. However, it will be very interesting to see if the world’s demand for soybeans can keep up with production. US prices remain strong so far, with some contract highs for beans and meal, but analysts expect that soy prices will settle back down as the world demand for soybeans is strongly served by Brazil and Argentina. With both countries facing faltering economies, selling commodities for dollars is a hedge against inflation of their native currencies. Brazil is on pace for record-setting soybean production, exceeding all predictions with excellent yields despite slightly lower acreage.

Acreage also reports the area planted to biotechnology varieties, and whether those varieties are Insect Resistant (IR), Herbicide Tolerant (HT), or stacked with both. This year is pretty much on par with 2015 and 2016 as far as the limited but steady percentage of non-GMO acreage. It has been interesting over the years to see the rise in biotech acreage, as well as the growing popularity of stacked varieties.

Keep Mycotoxins in Mind and Out of Your Grain

Posted on June 21, 2017May 24, 2018 by Brian Harris

Remember that mycotoxins are produced by molds like Aspergillus (Afla) or Fusarium (DON). You can learn more about mycotoxins in general and find more detail on the most common individual toxins here. When we speak about controlling mycotoxin contamination, we are really discussing creating grain storage conditions that are not favorable for mold growth. Here are 4 conditions you can control to help maintain the quality of your grain and keep mycotoxins out:

Moisture

Mold needs moisture to grow so when you reduce your moisture content you improve your chances of winning the fight against mycotoxin producing molds. It is recommended to reduce the amount of moisture as early as possible and to keep the percent moisture at 14% or less.

Temperature

Keep cool and even temperatures by using proper aeration. Why? Keeping the temperature cool will make the environment less favorable for insects. Keeping the temperature even will reduce the chance of condensation that can occur from drastic temperature changes.

Insects

Insects can damage grain with digging, chewing and leaving waste, leaving it more susceptible to mycotoxin contamination. They can also bring in additional moisture.

Damaged Grain

Remember the old adage “quality in quality out”? Damaged grain is more susceptible to mycotoxin contamination. Separate or sell damaged grain to limit its incorporation into high-quality stored grains.

Are your storage practices working?

Make sure your storage practices are adequate. Monitor the quality of your grain through testing. Begin with testing incoming grain to set a baseline understanding of the grain quality. Then regularly test your grain to assure that your storage practices are working effectively. EnviroLogix offers a complete line of mycotoxin tests for your testing needs. Envirologix’ new Flex line of mycotoxin kits, which includes the market’s fastest DON test, provides fast, easy and accurate results to help you with your grain testing needs.

How Immunoassays Work

Posted on March 19, 2017May 24, 2018 by Brian Harris

What is an immunoassay?

Immunoassays are based on the principles that specific antigens will stimulate very specific (unique) immune responses and that the proteins produced by the immune response, called antibodies, can be used to signal the presence of a target compound in a sample.

There are two types of immunoassays: sandwich and competitive.

Sandwich assays use two antibodies to bind a specific target. One antibody is typically immobilized to a solid support such as nitrocellulose (as is the case for lateral flow test strips) or a microtiter plate (as is the case for ELISA tests). The antibody attached to the solid support specifically binds a large substance (known as an antigen) and then another antibody (which is soluble or suspended in solution) binds the other side of the antigen. The soluble antibody is attached to a reporter system (e.g., a gold particle for a lateral flow test or an enzyme for an ELISA test) which is used to visualize the binding event. Gold particles create a red colored line at the zone of detection on a test strip whereas the enzyme catalyzes a reaction that turns the solution a different color in the microtiter plate. In a sandwich assay, the amount signal produced (i.e., line intensity or optical density on a strip or in a plate, respectively) that is produced is directly proportional to the amount of antibody sandwich formation that occurs. Thus, by adding known amounts of a specific sample to a detection system and measuring the amount of signal produced, a standard curve can be produced. When a sample containing an unknown amount of analyte is tested, the result can be compared to the standard curve and the amount of analyte in the unknown sample can be quantitated. The QuickScan system performs quantitation for EnviroLogix test strips. A plate reader performs quantitation of ELISA tests.

Competitive assays use only one antibody to detect the presence of a specific antigen. Competitive assays are designed for analytes that are too small to be sandwiched. In competitive assays, analyte in the sample competes with analyte attached to a solid support (test strip) or enzyme (ELISA) for the antibody binding site. In competitive assays, the darker the line (test strip) or greater the optical density (ELISA) the lesser the concentration of analyte in the sample.

What is a Lateral Flow Device?

Lateral flow devices, also known as test strips or LFDs, are immunoassays that work by applying a fluid sample to one end of the strip (called the sample pad) and allowing the sample to flow to the other end of the strip (called the absorbent pad). During flow, either a sandwich assay (GMO detection) or competitive assay (mycotoxin detection) occurs. The strip components are engineered with various pads containing buffer salts, antibodies, or competitive analytes which bind or compete to bind with the analyte in the sample as the fluid migrates from the sample pad to the absorbent pad. Certain areas of the strip are functionalized to provide zones of detection. These zones are known as the test line or the control line. The control line is always the last line that the fluid encounters and is an indicator that the assay is working properly. Thus, if no control line appears, the test result is considered invalid. For GMO detection, sandwich assays are used, which means a very dark test line indicates a high concentration of GMO protein while no visible test line indicates the absence of GMO protein in the sample. For mycotoxin detection, a competitive assay is used, and therefore if no test line is present than the sample contains a high concentration of the specific mycotoxin the test was designed for. EnviroLogix develops and manufactures test strips for both qualitative and quantitative analyte detection. Qualitative results are interpreted by eye and provide a yes or no test result. Quantitative results are obtained using the QuickScan system.

Interpretation of results with QuickStix LFDs

If no “control line”, the test has not run properly and should be repeated. As with the plate and tube formats, certain tests are “competitive assays” and others are so-called “sandwich assays”. For example, EnviroLogix’ pesticide assays, whether plate, tube or QuickStix, are all competitive assays, while the Bt endotoxin assays are all sandwich assays.

In competitive LFD assays, a positive result is indicated by the absence of a line in the test result zone.

In sandwich LFD assays, a positive result is indicated by the presence of a line in the test result zone.

Interpreting ELISA Immunoassays

EnviroLogix plate and tube kits are supplied with Calibrators (known concentrations of the target analyte in solution) and a negative Control (known to be free of the target analyte) for both visual and instrumented interpretation of the test results. These Standards (Calibrators and Control) exhibit distinctly different shades of blue color at the different concentrations provided (for example: zero, 0.5 ppb (parts per billion), 1 ppb, 5 ppb, 10 ppb). By comparing the color of the sample against the Standards, the person testing may visually determine the concentration range of the sample, for example, “between 1 and 5 ppb”. This interpretation is semi-quantitative.

Quantitative interpretation can be performed by inserting the microwells in a “plate reader” which precisely measures the optical density of all samples and all Standards at the same time. Using software provided with the reader the user then calculates the sample concentration from the Standard.

For field use, a “strip reader” or “mini-photometer” can be used to process one eight-well or twelve-well strip at a time. This type of device is much more portable than a plate reader, and less costly, but it does require more manual manipulation.

Plate and Tube Format Assays

Antibody-based Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent Assay (ELISA) methods have been widely used in medical applications since the early-70’s. Countless studies have demonstrated the correlation between ELISA results and traditional methodologies such as gas chromatography (GC) and high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC).

Most EnviroLogix 96-well format (Plate) kits and tube kits (including all the pesticide ELISA assays) are competitive assays. As with all competitive immunoassays, sample concentration is inversely proportional to color development:

Darker color = Lower concentration of the suspected analyte

Lighter color = Higher concentration of the suspected analyte

In these tests, pesticide residues in the sample compete with known amounts of pesticide analogue that has been enzyme labeled (typically with horseradish peroxidase) for a limited number of antibody binding sites on the inside surface of the test wells.

After a simple wash step, the outcome of the competition is visualized with a color development step.

Note: Certain non-pesticide tests use a different format for displaying immune response called a “sandwich” assay. In such assays, darker color means higher concentration of the analyte. Be careful to read the product insert that accompanies each test to be certain of the proper interpretation.

Increased Demand Drives New GMO Testing Technology

Posted on October 5, 2016May 24, 2018 by Brian Harris

A recent article in The Organic & Non-GMO Report described the increased interest in non-GMO (genetically modified organism) labeling, which is driving the increased demand for faster, cheaper and more accurate GMO testing technology.

More food companies are getting their products verified as GMO-free to meet consumer demand and the new national GMO labeling law. Non-GMO verification is based on testing. This testing ensures that the GMO content in food ingredients is below the acceptable threshold, as defined by non-GMO verification programs like the Non-GMO Project and NSF’s True North Program. The most common threshold of acceptance for GMO content is 0.9%, which is consistent with the threshold for GMO labeling in Europe, although the Non-GMO project does have different thresholds for seed and animal feed.

Current GMO Testing Technology

There are two widely-used methods for GMO detection. Lateral flow devices, or LFDs, detect proteins on a test strip and are most often used on-site due to their ease of use and rapid results. In contrast, PCR is performed in a laboratory. It detects the DNA of a genetically modified trait, and is the current “gold standard” test method because of its sensitivity and precision and ability to detect GMOs in processed foods. However, PCR testing does have its drawbacks. It can take up to three days and is costly, especially compared to LFD testing.

Currently, many companies use both testing methods. LFD strips are often used to screen incoming commodities for GMOs and then PCR testing is used to quantify the amount of GM presence. According to Jamie Welch, a scientist at EnviroLogix, “the two systems work well in conjunction [but] both have benefits and drawbacks.”

New GMO Testing Technology

There are new testing technologies on the horizon. With more consumers demanding to know what is in their food, and GMO labeling laws being passed, more food manufacturers are taking a closer look at their suppliers and asking for assurance that their materials are non-GMO compliant. It is critical that GMO testing be easy, affordable and fast to keep pace with the needs of the global food supply chain.

EnviroLogix developed a rapid molecular-based testing platform called DNAble. It is similar to PCR, but faster and much less expensive. It is so easy to use that testing can be performed on-site in a matter of minutes.

“It does what PCR does but with a crude sample and in less than 10 minutes,” says Dean Layton, a Senior VP at EnviroLogix, “anyone that has a basic lab setup but needs real time point-of-need answers could benefit from it.”

Photo credit: The Organic & Non-GMO Report

What is T-2 toxin?

Posted on May 5, 2016May 1, 2017 by Brian Harris

What is T-2 toxin?

T-2 toxin is a trichothecene, produced by the Fusarium species of fungi. Fusarium spp. are also responsible for vomitoxin (DON) and zearalenone. T-2 can be found under similar growing conditions (wet and cool).

What is HT-2 toxin?

HT-2 toxin is a metabolite of T-2, and cannot be differentiated immunologically. The EnviroLogix T-2/HT-2 rapid assay has balanced recognition of both toxins, and delivers a combined result. Both T-2 and HT-2 are toxic, and emerging regulations and current recommendations do not require differentiation between the two forms of the toxin.

Regulations vary globally, and can be found as low as 5 ppb in food and 10 ppb in feed (EU), but most limits are greater than 50 ppb. T-2/HT-2 toxicity is well characterized in research, even though it is not well regulated as a result. There are acute (immediate) and chronic (long-term) affects to T-2 exposure, including apoptosis (programmed cell death) within immune systems and fetal tissues. On the skin, the toxin is absorbed quickly and can produces lesions.

Are these toxins dangerous?

In humans, the toxin does not stick around within the body; it is rapidly metabolized. However, the impact of ingestion can be severe at high concentrations, even fatal. There are controversial accounts and some evidence that T-2 has been used in chemical warfare, including against the US forces during Operation Desert Storm.

Animals are particularly susceptible to the effects of T-2 ingestion. Although they also rapidly metabolize T-2, animals experience impacts similar to DON including lower feed intake and reduced weight gain, combined with other negative chronic effects to immune and reproductive systems.

Winter Wheat Harvest Woes

Posted on July 28, 2015May 2, 2017 by Brian Harris

Wheat harvest season is well underway for many U.S. wheat growers. Some of the first soft-red wheat harvested by U.S. farmers in 2015 is the worst in at least 17 years, according to Bloomberg and other sources.

This year’s heavy rainfalls – up to three times the normal amount – have made mycotoxin diseases like vomitoxin more prominent in many wheat-growing states.

USDA scouts recently noted that “there have been reports of elevators rejecting wheat loads due to the presence of vomitoxin,” a toxic fungal residue, also known as Deoxynialenol or DON. “Winter wheat left unharvested continues to have quality issues, including problems with scab, sprouting and mold,” the scouts added. In Michigan, official scouts said that “intermittent rain showers limited the amount of winter wheat harvested this week – moisture levels were reported as high, and some growers reported vomitoxin issues.” And in Ohio, USDA staff said that “some wheat has been of such poor quality, it is not able to be sold.”

Soft-red winter wheat is typically sold to mills and turned into flour, which is then used to make consumer products like crackers and cookies. However, the poor quality of this year’s winter wheat harvest means that it may only consumable in animal feed. According to the USDA Risk Management Agency, high levels of vomitoxin may result in either a discount in price or the requirement to destroy the grain.

So how can you avoid contamination in your crops? There is no sure DON prevention, as environmental conditions play a big part. However, there are several good practices for controlling it such as crop rotation, choosing a variety with some resistance, applying fungicides in a timely manner and tillage practices. Iowa State University engineer Charles Hurburgh warns that storing wet grain, even overnight and especially without aeration, shortens its life considerably. You should check it weekly, monitoring for spikes in the temperature, and test it regularly for evidence of DON or other mycotoxins.

Non-GMO Webinar 501

Posted on June 29, 2015May 24, 2018 by Brian Harris

You are invited to join a free webinar focused specifically on testing and sampling.

As a leading provider of testing solutions for Identity Preservation (IP) and Non-GMO programs, EnviroLogix has joined NSF International in presenting a webinar to discuss testing technologies that can be applied to the Non-GMO Project verification process.

The testing requirements for the Non-GMO Project can be a little be tricky. Sampling and testing for GMOs can be easy with QuickScan technology by EnviroLogix. This webinar will look at how EnviroLogix has supported the grain industry through its innovative, simple and cost-effective platform, now being applied to the Non-GMO Project. Also joining the will be representatives of Eurofins, focusing specifically on Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) testing.

This is the 5th installment of the NSF Non-GMO Project webinar series aimed to get you ready, in compliance, and leveraging your in-place quality systems to gain market share with this new certification.

To participate in this informative session on July 1, click on the registration link below:

Non-GMO Project 501: Pointers on Sampling & Testing

July 1, 2015 – 10:30-11:30 Pacific Time

Are You Ready for FSMA?

Posted on June 17, 2015May 24, 2018 by Brian Harris

Understanding FSMA and new liabilities

Each year, 3,000 Americans die from foodborne illness (Source: CDC).

The Food Safety Modernization Act, or FSMA, has four main objectives:

Improve capacity to prevent food-safety problems
Improve capacity to detect and respond to food-safety problems
Improve the safety of imported food
Miscellaneous provisions, such as whistle-blower protection

If your company is required by the FDA to register under its current food facility registration regulations, FSMA applies to you.

By June 30, 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration must finalize a series of seven regulations that create significant new criminal liabilities affecting companies in the food industry (Source: Retail Leader).

How big is this? Once regulations are final, business operations can cease pending investigation and a company CEO can be held personally liable for violating any of the new regulations, even if that CEO had no knowledge of the violation. If your company doesn’t have strong controls in place to manage its production as well as other aspects of the supply chain, you’re taking on significant risk.

Recognizing the FDA’s reach

More than ever before, FSMA intends to hold the food industry accountable for securing the supply chain. Here’s a short list of what’s within the FDA’s power:

Require a recall rather than recommend a recall.
Require verification of imported ingredients used in U.S.-produced feed; the burden to track is on the manufacturer.
Compel disclosure of records without a warrant.
Detain ingredients or inventory, causing delays in production and even immediate shutdown.
Suspend license of noncompliant operators.
Conduct unscheduled audits, typically records-based. This could force a reconciliation of ingredients, requiring documentation of existing best practices and their application.

Protecting your business

Agribusinesses can’t afford any gaps in their safety testing practices. To compete in this climate while protecting the supply chain and your place in it, you need strategic solutions. You want to optimize your people, processes and technological assets for agile and effective mycotoxin testing and traceability. Contact EnviroLogix to discuss how their industry-leading QuickScan system, GIPSA-certified QuickTox kits and team of experts can support the necessary training, testing and documentation for meeting the new FSMA regulations.

Portions of this post were reposted with permission from Repete.

To read the original post in its entirety, click here.

Non-GMO Project Verification Free Webinar on Sampling & Testing

Posted on May 20, 2015May 24, 2018 by Brian Harris

We invite you to join EnviroLogix and NSF International on May 27 for a FREE webinar on testing technologies that can be applied to the Non-GMO Project verification process.

Keeping current on emerging Non-GMO market environments is critical in today’s grain industry. Research has shown that demand for non-GMO foods and ingredients is increasing and is projected to account for up to 30 percent of the U.S. retail food and beverage market by 2017.

As a leading provider of testing solutions for Identity Preservation (IP) and Non-GMO programs EnviroLogix will introduce the industry-leading QuickScan testing platform.

The same technology that has supported the grain industry worldwide is an ideal solution for any merchandisers wishing to test, quantify, document, and analyze the GMO status of agricultural commodities. (And it’s useful for mycotoxin testing too!)

We hope you’ll join us for this informative session on May 27 at 10:30-11:30 am PST. And if you can’t make it to that session, there is another one on July 1. To register, click on the link of the date you are interested in.

May 27, 2015

10:30 – 11:30 am Pacific

July 1, 2015

10:30-11:30 am Pacific

Genetic Engineering and Detecting GMOs

Posted on May 19, 2015May 19, 2015 by Brian Harris

What is Genetic Engineering?

In a very short period of time, advances in genetic engineering have created tremendous potential for rapid introduction of traits in a myriad of food and feed crops. Although the technologies for identification and isolation of specific gene sequences are highly sophisticated and precise, the techniques for inserting desired genes in a plant’s DNA are still evolving. They require extensive testing to confirm that the desired gene transfers have been made and that resulting seed stock will express the desired traits at adequate levels.

There are a number of genetically engineered (“GE”) foods in the marketplace, consumers, government agencies, and food retailers in many countries are rapidly gaining awareness and voicing concerns. In some cases, they are demanding labeling –for the ability to distinguish genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or foods from other foods. In some areas, such as parts of Europe and the Pacific Rim, some consumer groups are seeking to ban GMOs altogether until the potential corollary effects are better understood. Threshold levels are being established in some countries to set maximum levels for GMOs in certain foods or crops.

Why Test for GMOs?

Labeling requires knowledge of the genetic status of all ingredients and segregation and identity preservation of GMO and non-GMO ingredients as they move through the grain distribution channels and into food production. This segregation requires tracing back to the seed level and upward through the processing and distribution chain to retail consumption. Testing for genetic markers also includes testing crops during the growing cycle to ensure that no cross- pollination occurs between GE seeds and non-GE seeds of the same crop.

To date, the largest applications of genetic engineering in agriculture have concentrated on the high volume crops: corn, soybeans, cotton, alfalfa and canola. The principal modifications have centered on two different aspects of pest control: i) introduction of a protein produced by the Bacillus thurigiensis (Bt) bacteria into seeds for ingrained insecticide protection, and ii) resistance to the synthetic herbicides such as glyphosate (RoundUp®) in so-called RoundUp Ready seeds or glyphosinate in LibertyLink® seeds. There have been numerous different insect resistant varieties developed utilizing unique Bt gene segments, and thereby expressing different and specific proteins including Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac, Cry1C, Cry1F, Cry2A, Cry3B, Cry34 and Cry9C. Regardless of the protein expressed, these different Bt varieties enable the plant to produce its own internal protection against pests such as the European corn borer in the case of corn plants, or against the boll weevil in the case of cotton plants. Similarly, Bt varieties have been developed for other crops such as potatoes and rice. The herbicide tolerant varieties on the other hand, render the plant resistant to powerful herbicides such as glyphosate (RoundUp) or glyphosinate (Liberty®). This enables the grower to apply herbicides in a more targeted and efficient manner without harming the crop.

Some of these varieties have received regulatory approvals in different countries by international regulatory agencies for specific applications, while others await final resolution and action. Concerns in Europe and parts of Asia have slowed the process of regulatory approvals, which has created the need for further segregation of grain and food ingredients destined for export, in order to comply with different international restrictions.

How Are GMOs Detected?

A 96-well ELISA plate form of the assay is designed for quantitative, high volume, laboratory based testing where certain immunoassay equipment is on-hand and useful in large-scale screening and documentation. The lateral flow membrane formats (LFDs) are also suitable for high volume screening, but are especially designed for use in the field, with no additional equipment or facilities required. The next advancement in molecular GMO detection will be the emergence of more robust, rapid DNA-based testing. Previously, these molecular methods, like PCR (polymerase chain reaction), were time consuming, expensive, and exclusive to centralized laboratories. With the emergence of new technology, GMO DNA testing can be more accessible, rapid, and user-friendly.

GMO Testing Challenges and Applications

Posted on May 19, 2015April 13, 2017 by Brian Harris

Commonly, GMO testing occurs in order to prevent contamination in GMO-free food and feed supplies. This testing for low-level presence of genetically modified organisms (unintentional GMO contamination), is driven by consumer demand for non-GMO products. For this, customers need highly-sensitive and rapid methods to identify GMO contamination, down to as little as 0.1%, or 1 GMO seed in 1,000 conventional seeds.

GMO Testing Applications

Testing for low-level presence can serve multiple markets. If a trait is not approved in China, then grain exports cannot contain the unapproved GMO. Other foreign markets, like Japan and Europe, have different purity requirements in order to meet non-GMO needs. As GMO awareness increases, there will be increasing consumer demand for GMO labelling in foods. Already in other countries, food manufacturers test raw ingredients, like corn and soy, for GMO contamination before it enters their processes; this enables them to screen out contamination before it makes it into product. This will be a growing need in the US, as consumers drive demand for non-GMO products.

There is also need for the opposite application, where seed companies need a rapid method to test for the presence of the GMO traits in order to assure the quality of their GMO products. Instead of testing for contamination, they test for the proper expression of the desired GMO traits in the seed product.

GMO Testing Challenges

Obtaining a representative sample is one of the most important factors when evaluating product for GMO contamination. It can be challenging, depending on the application, to collect a statistically representative sample. For any large amount of material, one should take multiple, representative subsamples and thoroughly blend them together. Think of trying to detect below 1% GMO. That’s less than 10 seeds in 1000. Chances are, you won’t get the right answer if you take a single 10 seed, or even 50 seed, sample and assume it is completely representative.

USDA FGIS (formerly GIPSA) Sampling and Testing Guides

Posted on May 19, 2015November 3, 2022 by Brian Harris

Understanding the quality and condition of your grain is critical, and accurate sampling at many points along the grain chain is necessary to ensure that confidence.

Perhaps the most important aspect of any grain-testing program is obtaining a representative sample from the truck or barge being tested. The USDA has outlined guidelines for effective sampling in a document called Inspecting Grain: Practical Procedures for Grain Handlers.

Section I of the document addresses the importance of proper sampling techniques in order to obtain representative grain samples. They recommend taking at least two probe samples from lots that are 600 bushels or less. For larger lots, draw at least three probe samples. Probe samples should be drawn at random locations from grain sampled at rest, using hand or mechanical probes. Refer to the USDA website for further information on representative sampling methods, techniques and materials.

Once a representative sample is obtained it will be helpful to obtain a smaller yet representative sub-sample for use in the test. A splitter can be used to randomly separate the probe sample(s). By repeatedly taking one of the resulting split samples and re-running it through the splitter, the sample can be reduced to a manageable size for grinding and blending, while still maintaining the representativeness of the original sample.

Alternatively, if using a larger capacity grinder, the entire probe sample can be ground and a representative sample taken from the uniform ground probe sample.

What is Enogen corn?

Impact on Corn Food Product Quality

Cross-Contact Risk

Assessing a Customer Need

A Breakthrough Solution

Ongoing Benefits

Click here to Learn More about the test or Email Us if you have any questions

Download your poster now!

Some of these include positive markers:

And others involve ensuring nothing has contaminated the formula:

Related Reading

Next Steps

Table 1. Immunoassay GMO Trait Proteins and PCR GMO DNA Sequences

Sampling

Proper Pipette Position

Moisture

Temperature

Insects

Damaged Grain

Are your storage practices working?

What is an immunoassay?

What is a Lateral Flow Device?

Interpreting ELISA Immunoassays

Plate and Tube Format Assays

Current GMO Testing Technology

New GMO Testing Technology

What is T-2 toxin?

What is HT-2 toxin?

Are these toxins dangerous?

GMO Testing Applications

GMO Testing Challenges

Want the latest EnviroLogix news in your inbox? Sign up for our newsletter: