African swine fever (ASF) prevention is mostly about blocking introduction routes. Feed is one route to manage because research shows ASFV can remain infectious in certain ingredients during simulated long-distance shipping, making “feed biosecurity” a real (and actionable) layer of protection. Dee et al. 2018 showed multiple livestock viruses—including ASFV—could maintain infectivity in select feed ingredients under transboundary shipping models.
Prioritize controls for ingredients with higher likelihood of exposure and long supply chains. Stoian et al. 2019 showed ASFV half-lives in 9 shipped feed ingredients ranging roughly 9.6–14.2 days under a 30-day shipment model, supporting the idea that “time + matrix” matters.
Don’t assume feed exposure is automatically low risk. Niederwerder et al. 2019 showed ASFV can transmit via natural consumption of contaminated feed or liquid, and quantified infectious dose differences between liquid and feed exposure.
When feasible, hold ingredients before use to allow viral decay—especially for imports or ingredients with complex logistics. Stoian et al. 2019 supports time-based mitigation because ASFV can persist long enough to survive typical shipping windows.
If your regulatory environment allows, use feed additives with evidence against ASFV. Niederwerder et al. 2020 showed medium-chain fatty acid (MCFA) and formaldehyde-based additives reduced ASFV infectivity in a dose-dependent manner under experimental conditions.
Jackman et al. 2020 showed selected MCFAs (caprylic/capric/lauric) and glycerol monolaurate inhibited ASFV in liquid and feed conditions, identifying inclusion rates that may help mitigate ASFV in feed environments.
Acidifiers don’t behave uniformly across materials. McOrist et al. 2022 showed a buffered formic acid formulation consistently acidified cereals to <pH 4 and reduced ASFV measures in some cereal contexts, but effects differed by ingredient (e.g., buffering in meat/bone meal).
Even if you process or treat feed, contamination can occur during cooling, conveying, storage, and delivery. Dee et al. 2018 reinforces why “last-mile” hygiene matters: if virus can survive in the matrix, re-entry after processing remains a risk.
Detection method matters in decision-making. Lazov et al. 2025 noted that qPCR can detect ASFV DNA without necessarily indicating infectious virus, so interpret positives with that limitation in mind when building protocols.
Treat trucks, bins, augers, and cross-contamination points as part of the feed system. (This is also echoed in industry guidance—with multiple sources emphasizing contamination can occur throughout processing, packing and transport, so protection against recontamination and lifecycle controls are important.)
Because ASFV can be orally infectious (Niederwerder et al. 2019), rapid response matters: lot tracking, ingredient holds, sanitation actions, and clear escalation steps reduce hesitation when something looks wrong.
Feed is not a standalone ASF risk, but it is a repeatable exposure pathway—and the science supports treating it as a core biosecurity layer. The most resilient programs combine ingredient risk ranking, time/process controls, validated mitigants where appropriate and disciplined prevention of recontamination. To pressure-test your current approach and prioritize the highest-impact controls for your supply chain, reach out to your clean feed expert today.