Why Mycotoxin Products Must Be Supported by Validated In Vitro and In Vivo Testing
The market offers many products for mycotoxin control, but not all of them are supported by the same level of scientific evidence. Some products rely mainly on general claims, while others are backed by laboratory and animal trials that show how they perform under controlled and practical conditions.
When choosing a mycotoxin control product, one of the most important questions is simple: has its efficacy been properly validated?
Why In Vitro Testing Matters
In vitro testing is usually the first step in evaluating a mycotoxin product. These tests are performed under controlled laboratory conditions and help determine how well a product can bind or reduce the availability of specific mycotoxins.
Good in vitro testing should not simply show that a product can bind one toxin in one condition. It should evaluate performance under conditions that simulate the digestive tract, including different pH values and, ideally, adsorption and desorption behavior. This is important because a product that binds a toxin in one part of the digestive tract may release it later if the bond is not stable.
Recent research confirms that in vitro assays are useful as an initial screening tool and can provide insight into adsorption mechanisms, but also highlights that efficacy depends on the type of mycotoxin, adsorbent, dosage and pH conditions.
Why In Vitro Results Are Not Enough
Although in vitro testing is important, it cannot fully reproduce what happens inside a living animal. The gastrointestinal tract is dynamic. Feed composition, animal species, age, health status, passage rate, microbiota and digestive conditions can all influence the final result.
This is why in vivo testing is essential. In vivo trials show whether the product works in real animals, under practical feeding conditions. They allow researchers to measure parameters that laboratory tests cannot fully confirm, such as body weight gain, feed conversion, organ health, immune response, toxin residues and overall biological relevance.
EFSA guidance for products intended to reduce mycotoxin contamination in feed states that efficacy should be demonstrated in vivo, normally through short-term studies in the relevant target species.
Validated Products Give More Reliable Protection
A product may show good binding results in a simple laboratory test, but that does not automatically mean it will protect animals in practice. Some binders are effective mainly against aflatoxins, while their effect on other mycotoxins may be limited. Others may require specific conditions to perform properly.
Scientific evaluations also show that no single material is equally effective against all mycotoxins, and that further in vivo studies are needed to confirm efficacy, safety and nutritional compatibility under practical feeding conditions.
This is why broad-spectrum claims should always be supported by proof. A credible product should clearly show which mycotoxins it targets, at what dosage, under which test conditions and with what results.
Inberg’s internal technical positioning for Mycostop emphasizes exactly this point: strong product claims should be supported by in vitro and in vivo validation, because unsupported broad claims have limited long-term credibility.
What Farmers and Feed Producers Should Ask
Before choosing a mycotoxin product, it is useful to ask:
- Has the product been tested only in vitro, or also in vivo?
- Which mycotoxins were included in the tests?
- Were the tests performed under relevant pH and digestive conditions?
- Were target animal species included?
- Are the results based on performance, health, tissue or residue parameters?
- Are the claims realistic for the product’s composition?
These questions help separate marketing claims from proven performance.
Proof Builds Trust
Mycotoxin control is too important to be based only on promises. Feed producers and farmers need products that are technically credible, scientifically supported and practically relevant.
Validated in vitro testing shows how a product behaves under controlled conditions. Validated in vivo testing shows whether that performance translates into real animal production.
Together, they provide the evidence needed to build trust — and trust is essential when animal health, performance and profitability are at stake.