This study was conducted to observe the occurrence of aflatoxin in chicken feed from Peninsular Malaysia. A total of 336 samples of chicken feed from Peninsular Malaysia were conveniently collected in this survey. The chicken feed represented the following three categories which are starter, grower and finisher. All samples werecollected from local poultry farms in East Coast Region (Kelantan, Terengganu, and Pahang), Northern Region (Perlis, Kedah, Penang, and Perak), Southern Region (Malacca, Johor) and Central Region (Selangor, Negeri Sembilan) of Peninsular Malaysia for a periodof six months (July-December 2015). Enzymelinked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was used for screening of total aflatoxin (TA) in the samples. High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with fluorescence detector was used for determination of aflatoxin B and G. Moisture content of samples was determined using the hot airoven method (AOAC International, 2011). Overall, the incidence of positive TA >20 µg/kg in chicken feed is 14.9% (50 samples). The average level of TA was found significantly different between different states at p<0.05 for both broiler grower and finisher. Thechromatograph results showed that positive samples were found in broiler finisher from Kedah (94.6 µg/kg and 42.1 µg/kg) and Penang(56.4 µg/kg) with aflatoxin B1. In this study, the range of moisture content were around 6.5-27.3%. About 40% samples have more than12% moisture content. One of the predisposing factors for aflatoxin accumulation in chicken feed is moisture content. The results warrantthe need for surveillance and constant monitoring programmes for the prevention of aflatoxin incidence in poultry farms.

Forty-nine fresh goat’s milk samples produced by local farmers and sold in market for public consumption as well as raw goat milk in Johor, Malaysia were analysed for total plate count(TPC) , E. coli, Coliform, Brucella melitensis, Brucella abortus,Coxiella burnetii as well as aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) content, as measures for food safety. The mean counts per ml for TPC were 4.90 x 105, 6.50 x 105, 1.60 x 105 and 1.48 x 106 for pasteurised, unpasteurised and unknown (status of pasteurisation) milk sold in the market as well as the raw milk from milkcollection center (MCC), respectively. Among pasteurised samples, only one had TPC count higher than the permitted level whereas the rest were all within the permitted level. The mean counts per ml for E. coli were <1.00 x 102 for pasteurised and unknown milkwhereas 1.67 x 101 for unpasteurised and 1.18 x 102 for raw milk. The mean counts per ml for coliform were 9.53 x 103, 9.76 x103, 1.20 x 102 and 1.16 x 104 for pasteurised, unpasteurised, unknown milk and raw milk, respectively. Overall, no significantdifferences on the bacterial counts in both pasteurised and unpasteurised milk. All milk samples were negative of B. melitensis and B. abortus, but one unknown sample fromthe market and two raw samples from MCC were positive of C. burnetii through the ELISA test. The unknown sample from the market showed the presence of C. burnetii when further analysed microscopically. Meanwhile, no sample exceeded the permitted level of AFM1 in milk.

The mycotoxin test data base (2005–2009) of the Veterinary PublicHealth Laboratory (VPHL), Department of Veterinary Services, Malaysia (DVS) showed that there was a significant increase (51%) of overall aflatoxin occurrences in various types of animal feed samples, especially those formulated from agricultural by-product, for the year 2008. A study was thus conducted to investigate if there could be some sources of mycotoxin contamination during theperiod of sample handling. Three different laboratory storage conditions were chosen for the study within a period of fourteendays i.e 4 °C, room temperature (in light) with mean relative humidity of 62.5%, and room temperature (in dark) with mean relative humidity of 55.7%. The observations showed that there were nosignificant differences in total aflatoxin, zearalenone, and fumonisin detections in all storage conditions as screened by the ELISA technique. However 11– 50% inconsistencies of the mycotoxinconcentrations detected were observed within the samples.