PEDV in Feed Ingredients — What Commercial Mills Can Control

Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus (PEDv) remains one of the most discussed biosecurity threats tied to feed—because it’s one of the few pathogens where the “ingredient matrix” can meaningfully influence survivability. For mills, that means risk isn’t evenly distributed across all raw materials. 

In this Q&A, Dr. Francisco Domingues—Anitox Global Head of Swine Nutrition and Health—breaks down what the peer-reviewed research tells us about PEDv in feed ingredients, why thermal processing alone doesn’t close the loop and how mill managers can apply a practical, layered framework that prioritizes supplier controls, on-site handling discipline, validated mitigation options and verification.

See the Research Today.

Why is “PEDV in feed ingredients” still a topic for mills?

Because PEDV is an enveloped coronavirus that can remain infectious long enough—in the right ingredient matrix and under the right conditions—to create a realistic exposure route if biosecurity layers fail. Controlled studies have repeatedly shown that survivability is ingredient-dependent (i.e., the “matrix effect”), so feed risk is not uniform across all raw materials. 

What does the peer-reviewed evidence say about survivability in ingredients?

In lab models, PEDV (and related porcine coronaviruses) can persist for extended periods in certain feed ingredients compared with others. A well-cited study evaluated inactivation kinetics of PEDV, PDCoV and TGEV across multiple ingredient matrices (including soybean meal and animal by-products), showing that the matrix strongly influences persistence over time.

A separate evaluation focused on PEDV survival across individual ingredients and highlights why ingredient choice and handling matter in a risk-based program.

Which ingredients tend to show up most in risk conversations?

Soy-based ingredients (notably soybean meal) are frequently referenced in the literature and industry discussion because some soy matrices appear to support longer viral survival under certain conditions. That’s one reason sourcing, receiving controls and targeted treatment protocols often emphasize soy streams.

Animal-derived ingredients (e.g., certain plasma products) have also been studied as potential risk points in specific contexts, reinforcing the need for supplier assurance and validated processing controls. 

If a mill has good thermal processing, isn’t that enough?

Heat can help, but it’s not the whole story. First, thermal lethality depends on time–temperature–moisture conditions and the physical reality of the system. Second—and often more important operationally—recontamination after processing (coolers, conveying, dust, bins, loadout) can erase upstream gains. That’s why “feed biosecurity” programs treat the mill as a chain of control points rather than a single kill step. 

What’s the most practical framework for mill managers?

Think in four layers:

• Keep high-risk materials from entering: supplier qualification, transparent origin documentation and inbound logistics controls.
• Reduce risk during handling: traffic flow, dust management, sequencing and hygienic zoning to prevent cross-contact.
• Apply validated mitigation where it fits: research using more “field-realistic” models (e.g., the SHIC/Pipestone “ice-block challenge”) has evaluated select feed additives for reducing transmission risk of PEDV (along with PRRSV and SVA) through feed.

• Verify and document: environmental monitoring (especially dust-prone niches), corrective actions and traceability are what make programs repeatable.

What should mills do differently during an outbreak “nearby”?

Escalate controls proportionally: tighten receiving criteria, increase sanitation frequency in high-traffic zones, reduce unnecessary bin-to-bin transfers and review ingredient routing to prevent cross-contamination from higher-risk streams. The key is to reduce “unknown exposure” while maintaining production continuity. 

What the main message for ingredient-focused PEDV risk?

Ingredient risk is manageable—but only if it’s treated as a system: sourcing + handling + mitigation + verification. That approach aligns with how third-party industry coverage has framed feed biosecurity discussions with Dr. Domingues in the context of endemic swine viruses and ingredient matrix risk. 

Comprehensive mill biosecurity—grounded in risk-based sourcing, disciplined handling, validated mitigation steps and routine verification—strengthens a clean feed program and helps reduce the likelihood of PEDv transmission through feed ingredients. When these layers work together, operations are better positioned to protect herd health, maintain performance and support consistent production outcomes.

Producers and mills looking to take practical, effective action to manage PEDv in feed ingredients can learn more by contacting a clean feed expert today.

See the Research Today.