Innovative Technologies in Swine Feed for ASFv Risk Reduction

Feed isn’t just “nutrition” in an African Swine Fever virus (ASFv) conversation. It’s a sole input that:

(1) touches nearly every site

(2) moves through the most hands

(3) is guaranteed to be consumed

That combination creates a different kind of risk. Not a single dramatic breach, but a long chain of small, ordinary opportunities for the virus to hitchhike.

Listen to the Podcast

The "Shared Surface" Problem

Think of your feed supply chain like a shared surface stretched across continents: ingredient origin → ports → trucks → bins → mill equipment → delivery → feeders. The uncomfortable truth is that you don’t need a catastrophic contamination event for feed to become relevant—you just need a virus that can persist in the matrix long enough to overlap with real logistics.

Dee et al. (2018) shows several livestock viruses (including ASFV) can remain viable in multiple feed ingredients under simulated transboundary shipping conditions, which is the scientific basis for why “feed biosecurity” exists as a category at all. Hefley et al. (2019) shows ASFV can persist in shipped feed ingredients under a 30-day shipment model and reports half-life estimates across ingredients—meaning shipping time alone doesn’t guarantee risk decays away.

Dose Isn’t Just “How Much”—It’s How Often

Another subtlety: oral exposure through natural feeding and drinking behaviors changes how you think about “minimum infectious dose.” Niederwerder et al. (2019) shows ASFV can be transmitted through consumption of contaminated feed and liquid and importantly reports that the infectious dose via liquid can be far lower than via. So the question shifts from “Could one contaminated batch cause ASF?” to “Could routine, repeated feeding turn a small, hard-to-detect contamination into a meaningful probability over time?”

When Prevention Needs a Backstop

This is where aldehyde chemistry gets attention. Killing the virus at one point of contact isn’t enough —it's about buying down risk inside a moving system.

Le et al. (2022) quantified how fast a formaldehyde-based sanitizer can inactivate ASFV in a controlled liquid test using porcine macrophages. They reported D-values (minutes per 1-log reduction) of about 13 min/log at 0.2% and ~45 min/log at 0.03–0.1% and observed conditions that achieved a ~4-log drop within 30–60 minutes depending on concentration.

Termin-8 and Finio, aldehyde-based feed sanitizers, have been included in controlled assessments in soybean meal that track changes in viral detectability for swine-relevant viruses (e.g., PEDV, PRRSV, SVV1). While ingredient performance depends on matrix and process conditions, these evaluations contribute to a more evidence-led discussion of where chemical mitigation can act as a practical control step within feed biosecurity.

Where the Market is Heading: Emerging Technologies

The industry continues to watch emerging chemical technologies that may fit different regulatory, customer or handling requirements. For example, Jackman et al. (2020) shows medium-chain fatty acids and glycerol monolaurate (a monoglyceride) inhibited ASFV in liquid and feed settings, Additionally, Jackman et al. (2023) shows glycerol monolaurate reduced infectivity of a wild-type ASFV strain in a porcine macrophage model, adding weight to why monoglycerides are increasingly viewed as a serious direction of travel—not just a trend.

ASF feed risk is less about a single breach and more about cumulative exposure across a complex, high-touch supply chain. The most valuable technologies are those that help convert that uncertainty into repeatable, measurable control steps within a layered feed biosecurity program. To discuss how aldehyde-based mitigation and emerging options such as monoglycerides may fit your operation, reach out to your clean feed expert today.

Listen to the Podcast