Key fact: The 16 October report examines ASF in wild boar, not individual feed consignments. Its findings do not provide shipment clearance. October research report
New research distinguishes persistence from spread
A new report on African swine fever, published on 16 October 2026, offers a useful distinction for businesses monitoring animal-health developments: factors associated with a disease remaining established are not necessarily the same as those associated with its geographical expansion.
The external study in EFSA Supporting Publications analysed wild boar data across seven European countries. Statistical analyses found limited evidence linking available density estimates to local occurrence or persistence. A separate model of northern Italian epidemic waves from January 2022 to November 2025 supported a role for density in spread between neighbouring habitats. These different findings should not be collapsed into a single risk label. October research report
Commercial interpretation for feed procurement
GT Nutritions' interpretation is that purchasing teams should avoid reducing disease-related sourcing checks to one country label. The recommendations below concern procurement evidence and decision-making. They are not new scientific findings, veterinary clearance or a replacement for applicable official controls.
For a proposed ingredient, start with its identity, production location, raw-material origin where relevant, processing establishment and intended use. Keep the dispatch warehouse separate from the production site. Ask which of these details the supporting declaration actually covers, and how that declaration connects to the lot being offered.
Check the specific origin and applicable controls
The European Commission explains that EU ASF controls include restricted zones and identifies Regulation 2023/594 as the framework for special disease-control measures. Its mapping tools are indicative, and its information page directs users to competent authorities where clarification or updates are needed. A map is therefore a reference for checking, not a consignment certificate. European Commission ASF controls
For the buying file, request a dated eligibility check covering the actual material, relevant locations and destination. Have the responsible regulatory or veterinary specialist identify which controls apply. Do not assume that a restriction on one category of animals or products automatically answers the position for every processed feed material from the same country.
Where an establishment or source changes after quotation, reopen that check before accepting the substitution. Record the revised approval rather than attaching a declaration that describes the original source. An unresolved location is a question to close, not a detail to infer from an invoice address.
Match processing evidence to the material
Older experimental research provides a separate caution about interpreting laboratory evidence. An EFSA Supporting Publications report first published on 24 April 2024 examined ASF virus survival in feed, bedding materials and mechanical vectors. It distinguished viral-genome detection from detection of infectious virus and found that results depended on material and conditions. This is earlier background research, not a new October experiment. Feed and bedding survival study
In procurement, ask what the processing declaration establishes for the offered product and lot. Where a treatment claim is important to approval, refer its validation and operating records to the competent technical reviewer. Do not turn a study on another matrix into a universal storage period, treatment instruction or guarantee for a rendered meal.
Likewise, ask the laboratory or qualified reviewer to interpret any analytical result in the context of sampling, method and intended decision. Keep the report itself available, rather than retaining only an email summary saying that the material has been tested.
Include storage and transport in the review
Ask how the supplier protects finished material during storage, handling and dispatch. Request the relevant segregation arrangements, loading controls and transport-cleaning records under the agreed supply procedure. Identify who is responsible when material moves between a processor, warehouse and carrier.
Use those answers to document the proposed shipment, not to claim that paperwork eliminates biological risk. Where a carrier or loading point changes, decide whether the technical approval needs updating. Give each unresolved item a responsible person and a deadline before loading, and keep the receiving team informed of conditions attached to release.
Preserve species and use restrictions
GT's catalogue presents porcine meal, poultry meal and corn gluten meal as distinct profiles with source-specific specifications and destination conditions. They are not automatically interchangeable, and a catalogue listing does not establish permission for a particular species or market. GT catalogue
Keep species of origin and intended feeding use in separate fields. Do not interpret this article's discussion of porcine ingredients as a recommendation to feed porcine protein to pigs. Obtain the applicable use and destination approval before progressing an offer, alongside nutritional and commercial review.
The immediate task is a targeted refresh of open enquiries: confirm the exact source, relevant official position, processing evidence and shipment arrangements. The new research is a reason to ask better questions about geography and context, not a reason to declare every ingredient from an affected country unsafe or every processed ingredient automatically cleared.