Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating in different environments

External Scientific Report Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating in different environments Enetwild Consortium1, Vada R.2, Broz L.³, Citterio C.⁴, Obber F.⁴ Ferroglio E.2, Gómez M. A.5, Hahn N.⁶, Knauf S.⁷, Kreutzer M.8, O'Mahony K.³, Platovšek Z.10, Pokorny B.10, SauterLouis C.⁷, Staubach C.8,9, Campana S.5, Arseni M.5, Zanet S.2, Vicente J5. 1https://enetwild.com/, ²Università di Torino, Italy; ³Czech Academy of Sciences, Czech Republic; ⁴Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Italy; ⁵Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Spain; ⁶WILCON-Wildlife Consulting, Gomadingen, Germany; ⁷Institute of Epidemiology, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Greifswald - Insel Riems, Germany. 8Institute of International Animal Health/One Health, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Greifswald - Insel Riems, Germany; 9Professorship for One Health/International Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany; 10Faculty of Environmental Protection, University of Primorska, Slovenia Abstract The prompt and efficient detection and disposal of wild boar carcasses is crucial in minimising the transmission of African Swine Fever (ASF). Additionally, accurately and quickly determining the post-mortem interval (PMI) of carcasses provides valuable information on the timing of ASF introduction, or on confirming disease elimination in the area. ENETWILD consortium already reviewed methods for locating and dating wild boar carcasses in various scenarios. However, these activities are not generally implemented systematically (due to the absence of protocols or detailed guidance), and information on field surveys is often neither reported nor made available to the public. The aim of this report is to highlight the key factors to consider when planning wild boar carcass search and dating methods in different scenarios. Our goal is to provide general guidance to facilitate the harmonised collection of the minimum necessary data during field activities related to carcass search and dating. © European Food Safety Authority, 2025 Key words: ASF management, surveillance, wild boar carcass search, forensic dating, early detection, freedom of disease, recommendations Correspondence: [email protected] Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 2 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Disclaimer: The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as authors. It is based on information and data that were available to the consortium at the time of drafting the report. Since information on this topic is scarce, we recognise that some parts presented in this report lack substantial evidence, which indicates that more research is needed in this field. This task has been carried out exclusively by the authors in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the authors, awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors. Acknowledgements: Suggested citation: Enetwild Consortium, Vada R., Broz L., Citterio C., Obber F. Ferroglio E., Gómez M. A., Hahn N., Knauf S., Kreutzer M., O'Mahony K., Platovšek Z., Pokorny B., SauterLouis C., Staubach C, Campana S, Arseni M., Zanet S., Vicente J., 2025. Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and carcass dating in different environments. EFSA supporting publication 2025, pp. 37. 10.5281/zenodo.17591551 ISSN: 2397-8325 © European Food Safety Authority, 2025 Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 3 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Table of contents Abstract ....................................................................................................................... 1 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Review of methods for locating and dating wild boar carcasses under different scenarios ......................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Background and Terms of Reference .................................................................... 11 Scope of the report ...................................................................................................... 11 2. Methods and general descriptors ............................................................................. 12 3. Guidance on wild boar carcass search ...................................................................... 13 3.1. Planning for searching wild boar carcasses ............................................................ 14 3.2 Wild boar carcass search data collection forms ...................................................... 23 4. Guidance on wild boar carcass dating ...................................................................... 29 4.1. Wild boar carcass dating data collection ............................................................... 32 4.2 Wild boar carcass dating collection form ............................................................... 33 5 References ........................................................................................................... 36 Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 4 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Summary Background: Efficient detection, rapid removal and safe disposal of wild boar carcasses are crucial to minimising the transmission of African swine fever (ASF), with the term 'carcass' encompassing not only the complete body, but also individual parts (such as bones), depending on the decomposition stage. Additionally, accurately and quickly determining the post-mortem interval (PMI) of carcasses provides valuable information on the timing of ASF introduction or eventual disease elimination in the area. A previous report by the ENETWILD consortium reviewed methods for locating and dating wild boar carcasses in various scenarios (ENETWILD Consortium, 2025). This review revealed a lack of systematic and harmonised approaches within European countries to carcass search and dating (due to the absence of protocols or detailed guidance), and that information such as protocols, method applications and field survey results are often not reported or are kept as internal documents. This report aims to provide recommendations for the implementation of wild boar carcass detection and dating in different environments. Methods: Information collected from literature and grey sources (presented in a separate report) outlines the key elements determining the applicability and performance of different methods for searching for and dating wild boar carcasses. It also includes a descriptive analysis of the relative advantages and disadvantages of the methods, approaches and strategies employed in different scenarios based on peer-reviewed literature but also on grey sources and interviews to key stakeholders involved in carcass search and dating activities. This foundational dataset will provide the basis for developing guidelines and adaptable data formats designed to standardise and harmonise the monitoring of these activities. The structure is presented as follows: ● The main limitations and factors determining the applicability and performance of different wild boar carcass search and dating methods in different scenarios are presented and discussed, along with the best-known and recommended options in every case. This is summarised in comparative tables reporting relative advantages and disadvantages. ● The main considerations for designing and implementing activities involving the search for and dating of wild boar carcasses. ● Flexible, indicative template forms for collecting essential data during field activities involving carcass searches and dating. These forms are designed to be adaptable across a wide range of scenarios, facilitating the standardisation of data collection for further analysis, as well as the improvement of search and dating strategies. Guidance on wild boar carcass search: The effective planning of field operations for wild boar carcass search is generally context dependent but should involve several key steps: 1. BEFORE: planning the search Define objectives and scope • Primary objective: detect and remove ASF-infected carcasses to prevent disease spread. • Clearly define the search area: include both infected zones and surrounding areas (focal outbreaks or large fronts). • Align objectives with available resources, collaborative frameworks, and feasible methodologies. Build the team and the collaboration framework • Define roles and responsibilities for all team members. Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 5 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). • Engage relevant stakeholders: veterinary services, forestry departments, hunters, local communities. • Establish clear communication channels and coordination mechanisms. • Plan training and simulation exercises to improve readiness and coordination. Prepare resources and train the team • Train all personnel on: o ASF epidemiology and transmission o Carcass detection and identification o Biosecurity protocols and PPE use o Safe carcass handling and sampling o Data collection and reporting o Use of GPS and navigation tools • Prepare and distribute equipment: o GPS devices, PPE, disinfectants, communication tools o Documentation tools: notebooks, pens, cameras, mobile devices o Maps, signalling tape, data recording forms/apps Design the search strategy • Select search patterns and methods (grid search, transects, detection dogs, drones). • Use habitat-based strategies for targeted searches and grid-based strategies for systematic coverage; often combine both. • Identify hotspots through local knowledge (hunters, foresters, farmers). • Plan the search area coverage: o Start at the outbreak centre and search outward. o Include car patrols in risky zones. o Adjust the area as new cases emerge. • Plan search frequency and timing, considering risk levels and seasonal/environmental factors 2. DURING: coordinate and carry out the search Coordinate the search operations • Ensure all teams follow the planned strategy and communication protocols. • Monitor biosecurity compliance to prevent further disease spread. • Adapt activities dynamically as new findings emerge. Carry out the carcass search • Execute the planned search methods (visual search, detection dogs, drones, beaters, etc.). • Document all findings: o GPS coordinates o Carcass decomposition stage o Environmental context • Follow safe carcass handling and biosecurity procedures. 3. AFTER: Communicate and build upon Manage and report data • Record data accurately and consistently using standardized forms/apps. Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 6 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). • Ensure data integrity and secure storage. • Share results through coordinated reporting systems for surveillance and response planning. Review and improve the process • Regularly review search protocols based on field experience and scientific updates. • Share search results to support adaptive management and collaborative learning. • Use findings to improve future search strategies and coordination. Proposed tools for data collection Two standard forms are recommended to facilitate data collection: 1. Search Event Form: documenting methods, area covered, and effort applied. 2. Carcass Record Form: describing each carcass found. Both forms can be integrated into mobile apps to streamline data entry and sharing. Guidance on wild boar carcass dating: The stages of decomposition of a wild boar carcass can vary significantly due to environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, sunlight exposure and the activity of both vertebrate and invertebrate scavengers. To improve accuracy, we recommend implementing a standardised method of recording the decomposition status alongside the date of discovery. This would minimise discrepancies in estimating infection dating, particularly in high-risk zones where systematic carcass searches are conducted rather than relying on opportunistic findings. One practical solution would be to classify carcasses into five distinct decomposition categories, which should be included in standardised data collection forms. This approach would enhance the reliability of ASF surveillance and outbreak analyses. First, we summarised the main advantages and disadvantages of the different methods for dating wild boar carcasses, as well as their applicability. Next, we present a general guidance plan, including a field protocol form, for dating wild boar carcasses in the context of ASF control. The aim is to accurately determine the post-mortem interval (PMI) of wild boar carcasses to improve ASF surveillance. The plan below ensures systematic data collection for further carcass dating, which supports ASF monitoring and helps to estimate infection timelines. 1. Preparation before fieldwork Equipment needed (dependent on applied technique): ● PPE, including disposable gloves and boot covers. ● Sampling kit: swabs, scalpel, forceps, sample bags, containers, labels and a cooler with ice. ● Documentation tools: o GPS device o Camera o Datasheet o Waterproof pen o Electronic devices ● Carcass assessment tools: decomposition scoring sheet and measuring tape. ● Disinfection supplies: ASF-approved disinfectants ● Safety considerations: follow biosecurity protocols to prevent the spread of ASF (disinfect equipment and avoid cross-contamination). ● Record GPS coordinates and mark the carcass location for follow-up. ● Measures for personal protection and equipment required during ground-based carcass searches and recovery operations. Considerations include whether to carry firearms to euthanise live diseased wild boar if encountered, or for the teams' own safety. Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 7 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). 2. Carcass discovery and initial assessment. ● Step 1: Locate and document. Record: ● GPS coordinates ● Date and time of discovery ● Age class: age determination should be based on teeth eruption for accuracy ● Habitat type (forest, field, water proximity) ● Habitat at the location of the carcass ● Weather conditions (temperature, humidity, recent rainfall) ● Step 2: Photograph the carcasses: ● Take multiple angles (surrounding of the carcass, whole body, head, limbs, visible lesions, insects present on the body, especially mouth and anus, teeth – primarily incisors, if possible, also cheek teeth, i.e. premolars and molars) ● Include a scale (e.g., ruler or glove for size reference) 3. Post-Mortem decomposition assessment A standardised decomposition scoring system is presented for indicative purposes only, including some indications specific to a moderate climate and additional indicators. It should be noted that the estimated PMI requires regionally performed experimental studies over different seasons, with a sufficient variety of carcasses deployed under natural conditions. 4. Collect information on environmental factors affecting decomposition (more relevant for experimental studies). ● Temperature: Use a thermometer to record ambient temperature ● Humidity and rainfall: Accelerates decomposition ● Sun exposure: Direct sunlight accelerates decay compared to shaded areas ● Insects’ activity 5. Carcass disposal. ● As required by national and local regulations Finally, we present a structured field data collection form for estimating PMI in wild boar carcasses. This form can easily be incorporated into portable devices as an app, ensuring systematic data collection for PMI estimation in wild boar carcasses while accounting for environmental factors, decomposition stages and key indicators. Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 8 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). 1. Introduction In areas where African swine fever (ASF) is prevalent, the presence of infected wild boar carcasses enables the ASF virus to persist, even when the wild boar population has been significantly reduced. Therefore, the efficient detection, removal and disposal of these carcasses is crucial to minimise ASF transmission. Additionally, accurately and quickly determining the post-mortem interval (PMI) of carcasses provides valuable information on the timing of ASF introduction. This aids disease control strategies and surveillance, such as defining restriction zones and later confirming that the area is free of disease. A separate report by the ENETWILD consortium (ENETWILD Consortium, 2025) reviewed various methods for locating and dating wild boar carcasses in different scenarios, considering the factors affecting their effectiveness and practical application. However, the performance of these methods was rarely quantified, and the approaches varied widely, making comparisons difficult. While experimental studies may compare the number of carcasses found to those hidden, in real scenarios the number of carcasses is unknown. Sometimes, estimates can be made based on modelling. Performance could also be estimated relative to the wild boar population; however, these estimations are typically unreliable, and the local impact of mortality depends on the epidemic phase. 1.1 Review of methods for locating and dating wild boar carcasses under different scenarios The main conclusions regarding wild boar carcass search were: - Although the timely removal of wild boar carcasses following the detection of initial cases (and in subsequent phases) is of critical importance, protocols and guidance for their detection are often notably lacking. - This scarcity of publicly available protocols and guidance on wild boar carcass search indicates the need for publishing and transferring what is already known locally based on experience, both concerning the large front of disease in Europe and focal outbreaks of ASF. - Relevant research steps, mainly in central Europe, have experimentally been done in relation to wild boar carcass search and carcass dating (Rietz et al. 2023; Müller et al. 2024; Probst et al. 2020). Further testing and adapting these studies over different biogeographical and epidemiological scenarios in Europe is needed to evaluate their efficiency (carcass search) as well as precision (carcass dating). - In Europe, the majority of specific literature originated from few ASF affected countries. Most national veterinary administrations often answered that no systematic protocol on wild boar carcass search exists. We advocate for agreeing on and incorporating detailed guidance on wild boar carcass search as part of the plans for wild boar monitoring and population control requested by the Commission to Countries in the frame of the fight against ASF. - Priority criteria used in the surveyed literature to select areas for wild boar carcass search are mainly related to increased risk of finding dead wild boar, and the estimated ASF risk. The optimal approach may involve integrating different strategies to maximize effectiveness. Habitat-based strategies would be more efficient in targeted areas with known wild boar activity and grid-based strategies provide comprehensive coverage and are useful in areas with less known habitat data. The features usually considered for habitat-based strategy include presence of forest types as primary, and then, proximity to water sources, terrain type, and areas with minimal human disturbance. - One important handicap to build strategies of carcass search on known experiences is that, in addition to the scarcity of data, the performance of wild boar search of different methods has hardly ever been quantified, and worse, the ways and metrics used were not always Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 9 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). comparable. By nature, the number of carcasses found relative to hidden cases is unknown. Another relevant handicap is the scarcity of comparisons of methods (results, efforts and costs, potential complementarity), and particularly, fair comparisons under similar circumstances. - Priority criteria used in the surveyed literature to select areas for wild boar carcass search are mainly related to increased risk of finding dead wild boar, and the estimated ASF risk. The optimal approach may involve integrating different strategies to maximize effectiveness. Habitat-based strategies would be more efficient in targeted areas with known wild boar activity and grid-based strategies provide comprehensive coverage and are useful in areas with less known habitat data. The features usually considered for habitat-based strategy include presence of forest types as primary, and then, proximity to water sources, terrain type, and areas with minimal human disturbance. - One important handicap to build strategies of carcass search on known experiences is that, in addition to the scarcity of data, the performance of wild boar search of different methods has hardly ever been quantified, and worse, the ways and metrics used were not always comparable. By nature, the number of carcasses found relative to hidden cases is unknown. Another relevant handicap is the scarcity of comparisons of methods (results, efforts and costs, potential complementarity), and particularly, fair comparisons under similar circumstances. - An essential part that requires guidance is about the efforts required and the availability of resources to be deployed over time. The parameters provided here offer some guidance to determine human effort and material resources. - The main factors reported in the literature that may determine the applicability and performance of different protocols for wild boar carcass search are of different nature, and their relevance depends on the local scenario and applied methods, even a given factor may diminish or increase efficacy under different circumstances. The main factors included knowledge of wild boar ecology, economic compensation, use of trained dogs, coordination of administrations, weather conditions and season, visibility of carcasses, and the use of complementary methods. - Surveillance and searching techniques, such as active ground searching by humans or aerial surveillance, have varying efficacy. While this review identified four main methods for active detection of wild boar carcasses, an integrated approach could enhance the efficiency and coverage of such surveillance efforts, especially in areas that are difficult to access: o Ground surveys teams may work in conjunction with other surveillance tools, such as drones equipped with thermal imaging cameras and carcass detection dogs. o Patrolling by car over known/possible hotspots for wild boar activity or death beds (riskbased surveillance) might complement more systematic search by teams of beaters, drones, and dogs, particularly for initial preliminary estimation of the infected area where more systematic search activities can be developed thereafter. Some habitats in Europe (e.g., forest areas), however, are not accessible for car patrols, while it may work on other regions (e.g., Mediterranean and open areas, Gortazar et al. 2002) o The search for carcasses by dog handlers with specially trained dogs is an effective tool for carcass detection, even in close vegetation environments and for small carcasses. Welltrained dogs are probably the most portable and versatile tools in use today for odour. - Further integration and generalization of use of drone technology into wildlife surveillance is still developing. Drones equipped with thermal imaging cameras have been deployed to monitor wild boar populations, enhancing surveillance and containment efforts in difficult-toaccess areas, with use for rapid, efficient, and safe detection of wild boar carcasses. Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 16 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). ● Necessary equipment, including GPS devices, PPE, and communication tools, which should be readily available: ○ GPS devices for accurate location recording ○ Maps of the search area ○ Disinfectants effective against ASFV (e.g., potassium peroxymonosulfate) for equipment and surface decontamination. Note that the use of the different disinfectants might be regulated by law. ○ To ensure effective documentation and data collection during wild boar carcass searches, the following tools are recommended: ■ Documentation Tools: waterproof notebooks and pens for taking notes in all weather conditions; ■ Imaging devices: digital cameras or mobile devices for capturing photographic evidence; ■ Navigation and tracking: GPS devices to accurately record locations; ■ Data recording: field data sheets or mobile applications designed for logging observations efficiently. ○ Signalling tape - Defining wild boar carcass search strategy ● Describe the search patterns (e.g., grid searches or transect lines) and methods (e.g., visual searches or the use of detection dogs or drones). This could involve guidelines for selecting search areas, optimising search patterns and combining different methods to enhance efficiency. Search strategies should be systematic and thorough, and adapted to the geographical area and specific epidemiological situation of the search. Initially, the search for wild boar carcasses will include presumably infected zones and surrounding areas. The results of these initial investigations into the scale, spread and chronology of ASF introduction should then inform subsequent actions. ● From the first known cases, the infected zone must be searched for wild boar carcasses. Different strategies can be employed, either working from the centre outwards or vice versa, depending on the situation. All carcasses found must be registered, removed and disposed of safely. This should be complemented by surveying the riskiest hotspots in the surrounding area. Confirmation of new cases will determine subsequent areas to be surveyed. ● Cooperate with local stakeholders, such as hunters, farmers and foresters, to share indepth knowledge of the area and determine the main hotspots for searching for wild boar carcasses, particularly in remote sites, and facilitate prompt access to them. Good communication is essential for surveying the area for dead wild boar. Stakeholders such as hunters and the forestry/agriculture office can provide additional key contacts (e.g. local private rangers and hunters) who can be asked for evidence of dead wild boar in the area. The public can also report sightings of carcasses. ● Once the infected zone has been delineated, search activities will focus on the infected area and its surroundings. ● Priority areas for searching for wild boar carcasses, as well as the natural characteristics of the habitat (e.g. the distribution and abundance of forests) and the available information (e.g. the first cases versus already-delimited infected areas), may determine the shape, size and strategies of the searches. For example, this could involve using systematic spatial grids, habitat-driven methods, or first conducting a broad inspection of risky sites (which are favourable as deathbeds) through cost-effective surveillance or systematic combing. Depending on the size of the area, utilise methods such as grid Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 17 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). searches, transect lines and targeted searches in high-risk habitats, which are often forested areas. The choice between habitat-based and grid-based search strategies can significantly impact efficiency. ○ Habitat-based strategies can be more efficient in targeted areas with known wild boar activity. These strategies prioritise searching areas where wild boar carcasses are most likely to be found, based on local, ecological and behavioural knowledge. Features usually considered for a habitat-based strategy include the presence of forests, proximity to water sources, forest types, terrain and areas with minimal human disturbance. This approach can save time and resources as searches are concentrated in areas where carcasses are most likely to be found, particularly in large or complex landscapes. However, this approach requires accurate habitat data and a good understanding of wild boar ecology, and it may miss carcasses located in less typical habitats. ○ Grid-based strategies provide more comprehensive coverage and are useful in areas where habitat data is limited and local knowledge is lacking. While habitatbased strategies offer efficiency by targeting likely carcass locations, grid-based strategies prioritise thoroughness (Allepuz et al., 2022; Rogoll et al., 2024). A grid-based strategy involves a systematic search of a defined area by dividing it into a grid and searching each cell, thus ensuring comprehensive coverage of the search area. This systematic approach reduces the risk of missing carcasses in less obvious locations, but it can be very time-consuming and resource-intensive, especially in large areas and difficult terrain. It may also be inefficient as it involves searching areas with a low probability of finding carcasses and is less adaptable to varying terrain and habitat types. The size of the grids used to search for wild boar carcasses can vary depending on the specific objectives, method and landscape. Generally, grids are designed to ensure thorough coverage of the area while remaining manageable for search teams. For instance, grids ranging from 50 to 500 metres have been employed. The grid size can be adjusted based on factors such as the density of the wild boar population, the terrain, and the available resources. ● In many real-world scenarios, a combination of the two strategies is employed. For example, habitat-based strategies can be employed to identify high-priority areas, which are then thoroughly covered by grid-based searches. This balanced approach reduces the likelihood of missed carcasses. Based on our available data, habitat-based strategies can be efficient in targeted areas with known wild boar activity. Conversely, grid-based strategies provide comprehensive coverage and are useful in areas where habitat data is limited. Therefore, the choice between habitat-based and grid-based strategies should depend on the specific goals, the local situation and the available resources. ● Search frequency and timing: Search frequency should be increased in high-risk areas or following ASF outbreaks. It is advisable to consider seasonal factors and environmental conditions that may affect carcass visibility and decomposition rates. - Define methodologies Combining different methods, such as combing by teams of beaters, drones and canine units, can further enhance the efficiency of searching for wild boar carcasses. The main advantages and limitations of the applicable search techniques are summarised in Table 1. Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 18 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Table 1. The main advantages and limitations of the techniques that can be used to search for wild boar carcasses. Technique Description Advantages Disadvantages Applicability Ground surveys: systematic searches by teams on foot Teams systematically screening designated areas to locate and mark the carcasses (their location), may include dogs not necessarily trained on purpose. Relatively high detection ratio, if nº of operators are sufficient, well trained and with good coordination, can be targeted to high-risk areas, allows for sample collection and onsite investigation. Labourintensive and timeconsuming, limited coverage area, can be hampered by difficult terrain and weather conditions. Areas with known or suspected infection, outbreak areas with high wild boar density, surveillance in specific zones (e.g., near farms). Number of beaters and between-distance can be adapted. An integrated approach may enhance the efficiency and coverage of surveillance efforts, especially in areas that are difficult to access. Ground survey teams may work in conjunction with other surveillance tools, such as drones equipped with thermal imaging cameras and carcass detection dogs to enhance the efficiency of searches in dense forest areas. Ground surveys: patrolling known/possible hotspots by vehicles Surveying known hotspots for wild boar activity and/or potential deathbed sites (risk-based surveillance), performed by teams with sound knowledge of the terrain, is a good approach to quickly identify carcasses over large areas. Can be targeted to high-risk areas at site (if habitat allows), allows for sample collection and on-site investigation. Useful to initial delimitation of potential infected areas and early response (cover risky sites over large areas in a short time). Not useful for systematic surveying of a delimited area but complements and guides first actions. May not be feasible in many areas in Europe due to limited terrestrial accessibility. By surveying, based on risk (e.g., water points) large areas with known or suspected infection, outbreak, it may help to delimit the infected zone over large areas, complementing further systematic searches. When wild boar carcasses are found, more systematic search activities (grids can be used) can be developed thereafter. Road/river transects, focus on linear features where carcasses accumulate. Trained dogs: use of specially trained dogs to locate carcasses by scent The use of specially trained dogs to locate carcasses by scent. Systematic search patterns: Probably highest detection ratio allows for sample collection and onsite investigation. Trained dogs are Need of trained dogs (specific to detect wildlife carcasses, and namely, wild boar) and dogs’ Areas with known or suspected infection, outbreak areas with high wild boar density, but also surrounding areas can be surveyed. By considering Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 19 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). implementing systematic search patterns, such as grid or transect searches, can help maximize the coverage and efficiency of the search. These patterns ensure that the area is covered thoroughly and that no sections are missed. significantly faster due to their specialized training, experience and their ability to cover difficult habitats. Their ability to cover significant areas efficiently makes them an essential tool in disease surveillance and management efforts. handlers. Dogrelated biosecurity may be an issue. Need of permits may delay their rapid use. Their use may be limited by the availability of trained dogs and handlers. Heavy rain, extreme heat or specific wind regimes and air circulation dynamics in the search area can mask scents. factors such as terrain, training, and environmental conditions, search teams can optimize the use of detection dogs to achieve the best possible results. The use of trained dogs may have up to three times higher efficiency in dense vegetation compared to searches conducted with human search chains. Drones/ unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs): use of UAVs to cover large areas Drones equipped with thermal imaging cameras. Covers large areas quickly, can access difficult terrain, effective in open landscapes. Expensive, requires skilled personnel and specialized equipment, can be affected by weather conditions (e.g., fog, rain). Local and large-scale surveillance, surveillance in remote or inaccessible areas, rapid assessment of outbreak extent, use for detecting living wild boar in areas aiming for freedom of ASF, use for pre-harvest scans of field (in order to avoid spread of ASFV-infected wild boar). - Estimating required effort Table 2 presents general indicators of possible sampling efforts for searching wild boar carcasses according to methodology. Table 2. Indicators of possible sampling effort for searching wild boar carcasses according to methodology. Technique Effort Ground surveys: systematic searches by teams on foot As indicative, the average number of people in teams participating in surveys (average per event) in most cases ranges from 5 to 10 people, the area screened per team and day also presented wide variation, with the majority of values around 100-200 hectares (ha) by team and day, whereas in terms of person per day, the screened surface ranged in most of the cases between 15-20 ha. Travel length most frequently ranging between 2-3 km, average speed mostly between 0.25 and 0.75 km/h, with some values above 1 km/h when dogs were used. Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 20 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). When present, the number of dog handlers per group typically was 1 or 2. As indicative, the practical implementation, for a 1 km² area (100 ha): 50 m grid: 20 transects × 1 km = 20 km of walking paths (needs 10 people x 50 m spacing). 200 m grid: 5 transects × 1 km = 5 km of walking (needs 3 people). See guidance for spacing recommendations below*. Difficult terrain (e.g., dense vegetation, mountainous): smaller grids (50-100 m) due to topography. Tools for grid planning can be used (e.g., GPS apps) to mark search lines. Ground surveys: patrolling known/possible hotspots by vehicles Area covered per day is on the order of thousands of hectares a day but depends on accessibility by car. Cover is not systematic, as search is focused on potential hotspots for wild boar activity and/or potential deathbed sites (risk-based surveillance). Typical team of 2-3 people. Trained dogs: use of specially trained dogs to locate carcasses by scent The travel speed of dogs searching for wild boar carcasses can vary depending on several factors, including the breed, the dogs and their handlers training, the terrain, and the specific conditions of the search. Trained hunting dogs typically have an average search speed of around 5-8 km/h. Dogs without specialized training for carcass detection generally have a lower average search speed of about 4.5-5 km/h. Daily coverage: trained detection dogs can cover an area of approximately 10 to 20 ha per day. This coverage can vary depending on the intensity of the search, the weather conditions, and the specific site characteristics of the area being surveyed. Hourly coverage: on an hourly basis, trained dogs can cover around 1 to 2 hectares per hour. In addition to the limitations mentioned above, this rate can be influenced by factors such as terrain complexity and the presence of obstacles. See the guidance below for recommended spacing. ** A typical team may consist of 2–3 people (one handler and one to two assistants/samplers). Considering the previously mentioned limitations related to terrain, weather, training, and other factors, dog-assisted searches can be organized using 200-meter grids, as dogs are able to detect carcasses up to 50 to 100 meters away from the transect line. Drones/unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs): use of UAVs to cover large areas Area covered per day of the order of several hundreds of hectares. However, the surface area covered by drones during wild boar carcass searches depends on drone type, flight parameters (the altitude at which it flies determines image resolution and area covered per flight and set of batteries), terrain, season, ambient Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 21 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). temperature, and technology used (e.g., resolution of the thermal imaging camera). A typical drone team is composed of up to 4 people including 1 drone operator. Typically, drones can cover large areas quickly. For example, a drone flying at an altitude of 100 meters with a high-resolution thermal camera can cover several tens or few hundreds of ha a single flight. * The optimal distance between beaters (searchers) during wild boar carcass searches for ASF control depends on the experience of the beaters and the visibility of the terrain. Thick vegetation and undergrowth reduce visibility, requiring closer spacing of beaters. If a very thorough search is required, closer spacing is essential. However, if the goal is to gain a quick overview, wider spacing may suffice. Experienced beaters may be able to cover more ground, allowing for wider spacing. We provide literature-derived spacing ranges in Table 3. . Table 3. Range of separations between beaters (searchers) during wild boar carcass searches. Terrain type Beater separation Rationale Dense forest (visibility <10m) 5-20 meters Ensures overlapping visual coverage for small/decomposed carcasses Open woodland (visibility 3050 m) 20-40 meters Balances effort with detection probability Grassland/fields (visibility >100 m) 40-60 meters Wide spacing possible with clear sightlines With dogs, the beater separation can be up to 100 m spacing (dogs scent range covers gaps), without dogs: 50m maximum in forests. To consider the relationship between spacing beaten beaters and search effort per time unit: - 20 m spacing: increases the detection rate but is relatively slow (0.5 ha/person/hour) - 50 m spacing: lower detection rate (2 ha/person/hour) - 100 m spacing: probably <50% detection rate (4 ha/person/hour) As shown in Figure 1 below, we present the comparative data from a separate report indicating the screened surface area (ha) per team and day, depending on the method used, which varies considerably. For example, in the case of dogs, the coverage depends on the size of the team (i.e. the number of dogs and dog handlers). It is likely that drones plus two ground teams could cover 50–100 ha/day (ENETWILD Consortium et al., 2025). Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 22 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Figure 1. Boxplot of the screened surface (ha) by a team and day, dependent on the method. The optimal number of people for screening wild boar carcasses in ASF control areas depends on the type of terrain, vegetation, visibility, wild boar density and carcass density, as well as the search methodology. Reported values regarding the areas searched do not provide insight into the effectiveness of carcass detection. No scientific study has yet been conducted to quantify search efficiency. 3.1.2 DURING: coordinate and carry out the search - Coordinate search operations During search operations, teams should implement the planned strategy while remaining flexible to adapt as the epidemiological situation evolves. The defined search areas must be systematically covered using the selected methods to ensure thoroughness and consistency. Close collaboration with stakeholders and local contacts is essential throughout the operations, as their knowledge and support can facilitate access and improve efficiency. Any new carcasses found should be reported promptly, allowing search priorities to be updated based on the latest findings. - Data management and reporting systems ● Accurate and consistent data recording should include the following: ○ Date ○ GPS coordinates ○ Carcass decomposition condition ○ Environmental data (which may be considered when determining carcass PMI) ● Efficient data storage and reporting systems should be in place to ensure data integrity and accessibility. ● Ensure accurate and consistent recording of all relevant data. This includes standardised forms for recording data (see below), procedures for entering data into databases and guidelines for ensuring data accuracy and completeness. Accurate and consistent data recording is essential to ensure that the collected data is useful and can be analysed effectively. - Ensuring biosecurity ● Strict biosecurity measures are essential to prevent the spread of disease during the search for and subsequent handling and disposal of wild boar carcasses. Carcass searches can expose personnel and equipment to pathogens such as ASFV, and these individuals Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 23 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). and items could then act as potential carriers and disseminators. Protocols must include proper biosecure behaviour when carcasses are found, as well as at the end of search operations (i.e. in situ before leaving the area). ● Protocols must include guidelines on personal safety and the safe handling of carcasses (unlike protocols on wild boar carcass searches, according to our review), including mandatory PPE and disinfection procedures. ● Boot baths must be used with ASF-approved disinfectants. ● Dogs must be washed down after completing searches or upon leaving the search area. Transport kennels and vehicles must also be cleaned using ASF-approved disinfectants. ● 3.1.3 Communicate and improve - Post search data management After the search operations, it is essential to ensure that all collected data are properly stored and remain accessible for future use. This information plays a critical role in supporting surveillance activities, guiding disease management decisions, and contributing to scientific research on ASF and wild boar populations. - Continuous improvement and adaptation ● Wild boar carcass search protocols must be regularly reviewed and updated based on field experience and new scientific information. The results of carcass search surveys (in terms of design, method, effort and number of carcasses found) should be made available for further evaluation, comparison and improvement. ● Feedback mechanisms should be in place to allow for protocol adjustments and improvements, as well as facilitating mutual learning processes between different administrations and countries. 3.2 Wild boar carcass search data collection forms Accurate and complete data sets are crucial for effective ASF surveillance, disease management and research, and form the basis for evidence-based decision making. We propose two forms to standardise the collection of data during wild boar carcass search operations: the first applies to the event and involves recording information describing the methods and effort applied; the second involves annotating wild boar carcasses found. These forms can easily be incorporated into apps on portable devices. 1. Form for the carcass search event (Complete one form per search event) General ● Search event ID: ● Search method: ● Date: ● Team/Personnel ID: ● Municipality: ● Hunting ground: ● Weather conditions: o Temperature (°C) Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 24 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). o Wind Speed (km/h or m/s) o Precipitation (mm of rainfall or snowfall) o Humidity (Percentage,%). o Visibility (Meters or qualitative scale, e.g., clear, foggy, low visibility). o Cloud Cover (influences lighting conditions for aerial imaging, Oktas or percentage) Ground Surveys: systematic searches by teams on foot ● Start: (HH:MM) ● Ending: (HH:MM) ● Strategy (Y/N): 1. Grid________________ Indicate grid size (m) _________ 2. Habitat-based_________ 3. Other ____________ ● Area screened (ha): ________ ● Number of people: ● Team members (tasks): 1._________ 2._________ 3._________ etc. ● Number of dogs used: ● Number of dogs handlers: ● Location Data o GPS Coordinates of the beater on the left-corner at start: Lat ______ Lon ______ (WGS84) o GPS Coordinates of the beater on the left-corner in the end: Lat ______ Lon ______ (WGS84) o Depict the screened area in a map (can be done in an app) ● Habitat Type: o Forest o Agricultural field o Grassland o Wetland o Other: _________ Ground Surveys: patrolling known/possible hotspots by vehicles ● Search event ID: ● Start: (HH:MM) ● Ending: (HH:MM) ● Area screened (the surface that encompasses the visited sites, ha): ________ ● Number of people: ● Team members (tasks): 1._________ 2._________ 3._________ etc. ● Location data (for every hot spot visited) Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 25 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). ● GPS coordinates: o 1. Lat ______ Lon ______ (WGS84) Site (habitat, use, e.g. water point, other) type: o 2. Lat ______ Lon ______ (WGS84) Site type: o 3. Lat ______ Lon ______ (WGS84) Site type: o 4. etc ● Use of dogs? __________ Trained dogs: use of specially trained dogs to locate carcasses by scent ● Search event ID: ● Start: (HH:MM) ● Ending: (HH:MM) ● Strategy (Y/N): 1. Grid________________ Indicate grid size (m) _________ 2. Habitat-based_________ 3. Other __________ ● Area screened (ha): ________ ● Nº people per team ● Team members (tasks): 1._________ 2._________ 3._________ etc. ● Nº dogs per team: ● Number of dogs handlers: ● Location data o GPS coordinates at start: Lat ______ Lon ______ (WGS84) o GPS coordinates in the end: Lat ______ Lon ______ (WGS84) o Depict the screened area in a map (can be done in an app) ● Habitat type: o Forested areas, Dense vegetation, under bushes, in thickets, or near tree roots. o Wetlands and marshes, consider wild boar carcasses can be partially submerged or hidden in reeds. o Agricultural fields, especially near corn, wheat, sunflower or other fields where boars forage. May be found at field edges or within crop rows. o Open grasslands or meadows, possible if the animal collapses while moving, easier to spot from drones or elevated observation points. o Near water sources, rivers, ponds, or artificial waterholes, carcasses may also be found along banks or in shallow water. o Human-modified landscapes, roadsides, abandoned buildings and structures providing shelter o Burrows or natural depression, as shallow beds or use natural hollows Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 32 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). staging (need to determine how molecular decay rates correlate with visual stages) In wild boar carcass surveillance, each dead animal found must be sampled and documented individually using a standardised dataset. To ensure accuracy, age determination should be based on tooth eruption. Assessing the stage of decomposition in the field can help to estimate the approximate date of death, particularly for individuals infected with ASF. . 4.1. Wild boar carcass dating data collection We present a general guidance plan, including a field protocol form for dating wild boar carcasses in the context of ASF control. The aim is to accurately determine the PMI of wild boar carcasses in order to improve ASF surveillance. The plan below ensures systematic data collection for further carcass dating, which supports ASF monitoring and helps to estimate infection timelines. Preparation before fieldwork Equipment needed: ● Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): disposable gloves, boot covers ● Sampling kit: swabs, scalpel, forceps, sample bags, containers, labels, cooler with ice ● Documentation tools: GPS device, camera, datasheet, waterproof pen, or digital devices ● Carcass assessment tools: decomposition scoring sheet, measuring tape ● Disinfection supplies: ASF approved disinfectants for people and equipment) ● Safety considerations: follow biosecurity protocols to prevent ASF spread (disinfect equipment, avoid cross-contamination) ● Means to record GPS coordinates and mark carcass location for follow-up Carcass discovery and initial assessment ● Step 1: Locate and document. Record: ● GPS coordinates ● Date and time of discovery ● Age class: age determination should be based on teeth eruption for accuracy ● Habitat type (forest, field, water proximity) ● Weather conditions (temperature, humidity, recent rainfall) ● Step 2: Photograph the carcass ● Take multiple angles (surrounding, whole body, head, limbs, visible lesions, teeth – molars-, insects present, especially around mouth and anus) ● Include a scale (e.g., ruler or glove for size reference) Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 33 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Post-mortem decomposition assessment Use a standardized decomposition scoring system (e.g., 5-stage scale): Stage Characteristics Estimated timeframe PMI, only indicative in moderate climate, but other factors may be relevant 1 (Fresh) No bloating, eyes clear, rigor mortis may be present <24–48 hours 2 (Bloat) Gaseous distension, tongue protruding, skin discoloration Few days to few weeks 3 (Active decay) Skin rupture, strong odour, maggot activity Few weeks 4 (Advanced decay) Reduced maggot mass, exposed bones, drying tissue Few weeks to few months 5 (Skeletal) Mostly bones, dried remnants, no soft tissue Normally months (maybe >1 year) Note that the estimated PMI requires experimental studies being regionally performed and over different seasons by enough carcasses deployed under natural conditions (in moderate climate), only indicative. Additional indicators: ● Insect activity: presence of eggs, larvae (maggots), pupae ● Scavenging: bite marks, missing body parts (indicates predator/scavenger interference) ● Vegetation growth: grass/plants growing under carcass (longer TSD) ● Season: in winter slower decay as in summer Collect information on environmental factors affecting decomposition ● Temperature: use a thermometer to record ambient and carcass core temperature (if fresh) ● Humidity and rainfall: accelerates decomposition ● Sun exposure: direct sunlight speeds up decay vs. shaded areas Carcass disposal ● As required by regulations 4.2 Wild boar carcass dating collection form Next, we present a structured field data collection form for estimating PMI in wild boar carcasses. This form can easily be incorporated into portable devices as an app, ensuring systematic data collection for PMI estimation in wild boar carcasses while accounting for environmental factors, decomposition stages and key indicators. Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 34 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Field data collection form for PMI estimation in wild boar carcasses See Probst et al. 2020, Annex 1. (Complete one form per carcass found, it can be embedded in the above presented for wild boar carcass search) General ● Search event ID: ● Search method: ● Observer name: __________ ● Organization: __________ ● Contact info: __________ 1. Carcass discovery and initial assessment I. Carcass identification ● Date of discovery: (DD/MM/YYYY), time of discovery: (HH:MM) ● Team/Personnel ID: ● Carcass ID (if tagged): ● Number of carcasses around (indicate the radius, m) ● Age class II. Location data ● GPS coordinates: o Latitude: o Longitude: ● Coordinate format: (e.g., WGS84) ● Location description: (e.g., Forest, Field, Near Water Source) ● Distance to nearest landmark: (meters) III. Habitat type: ● Forested areas, Dense vegetation, under bushes, in thickets, or near tree roots. ● Wetlands and marshes, consider wild boar carcasses can be partially submerged or hidden in reeds. ● Agricultural fields, especially near corn, wheat, sunflower or other fields where boars forage. May be found at field edges or within crop rows. ● Open grasslands or meadows, possible if the animal collapses while moving, easier to spot from drones or elevated observation points. ● Near water sources, rivers, ponds, or artificial waterholes, carcasses may also be found along banks or in shallow water. (specify distance: _____ m) ● Human-modified landscapes, roadsides, abandoned buildings and structures providing shelter ● Other (describe: __________) IV. Weather conditions: ● Temperature: _____°C ● Humidity: _____% ● Recent rainfall (last 3 days): [ ] Yes [ ] No (if yes, amount: _____ mm) Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 35 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). V. Photographic documentation ● Photos taken? [ ] Yes [ ] No ● Angle captured: ● Surrounding ● Whole body ● Head (including teeth/molars) ● Limbs ● Visible lesions ● Scale included (ruler/glove for reference) ● Teeth ● Insects on carcase 2. Post-mortem decomposition assessment Decomposition stage (select one) (see annex 2). Stage Characteristics Estimated PMI (moderate climate) [ ] 1 (Fresh) No bloating, clear eyes, rigor mortis possible <24–48 hours [ ] 2 (Bloat) Gaseous distension, tongue protruding, discoloration Few days–few weeks [ ] 3 (Active decay) Skin rupture, strong odour, maggot activity Few weeks [ ] 4 (Advanced decay) Reduced maggots, exposed bones, drying tissue Few weeks–months [ ] 5 (Skeletal) Mostly bones, dried remnants Months–>1 year Additional indicators ● Insect activity: o Eggs present o Larvae (maggots) – stage: _____ ( if known) o Pupae ● Scavenging evidence: o Bite marks o Missing body parts (specify: __________) ● Vegetation growth under carcass: o None o Slight growth o Significant overgrowth 3. Environmental factors affecting decomposition ● Ambient temperature: _____°C ● Carcass core temperature (if fresh): _____°C ● Humidity at site: _____% ● Sun exposure: o Full sun o Partial shade o Full shade Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 36 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). ● Soil type: [ ] Dry [ ] Moist [ ] Muddy [ ] Other (_____) 4. Age estimation (based on teeth eruption) ● Juvenile/piglet (no permanent incisors) ● Subadult/yearling (2nd molar is visible, 1st incisor is permanent) ● Adult (full dentition) ● Teeth photos taken? [ ] Yes [ ] No ● 3 molar present [ ] Yes [ ] No 5. Additional Notes Notes: Decomposition rates vary with climate, season, surrounding vegetation, insect activity, and scavenger activity. PMI estimates are indicative and should be validated with regional experimental data. Further lab analyses may complement field data. 5 Conclusions In conclusion, the recommendations presented in this report are the result of a comprehensive review of the available knowledge on wild boar carcass search and dating, combining evidence from the scientific literature, grey sources, and the practical experience of field professionals. Insights gathered through direct interviews with officials actively engaged in carcass detection and dating have been essential to complement the literature review and ensure that the proposed guidance reflects real-world challenges and solutions. By integrating these diverse sources of information, the report offers practical and evidencebased recommendations aimed at improving the systematic detection and dating of wild boar carcasses for ASF surveillance and control. The proposed strategies and tools provide a harmonized approach to optimize field operations, enhance biosecurity, and standardize data collection. Their implementation will strengthen the ability to estimate the timing of ASF introduction, improve outbreak response, and support coordinated disease management efforts across affected and at-risk areas. Regular application, transparent reporting, and continuous refinement of these practices—grounded in both science and field experience—will contribute to more effective ASF preparedness and control across Europe. 5 References Allepuz, A., Hovari, M., Masiulis, M., Ciaravino, G., Beltrán-Alcrudo, D., 2022. Targeting the search of African swine fever-infected wild boar carcasses: A tool for early detection. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2022 Sep;69(5):e1682-e1692. doi: 10.1111/tbed.14504 ENETWILD Consortium, Blanco, J. A., Broz, L., Citterio, C., Ferroglio, E., Gómez, M. A., Hahn, N., Knauf, S., Kreutzer, M., O'Mahony, K., Platovšek, Z., Pokorny, B., Sauter-Louis, C., Staubach, C., Zanet, S., & Vada, R., 2025. A review of different methods to find and date wild boar carcasses in different countries (EFSA Supporting Publication 2025:EN-NNNN). EFSA Journal. Recommendations to implement wild boar carcass detection and dating 37 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Goff, M. L., 2009. Estimation of postmortem interval using arthropod development and successional patterns. In J. H. Byrd & J. L. Castner (Eds.), Forensic entomology: The utility of arthropods in legal investigations (2nd ed., pp. 367-388). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420008869.ch12 Gortázar, C., Vicente, J., Fierro, Y., León, L., Cubero, M.J., & González, M., 2022. Natural Aujeszky's disease in a Spanish wild boar population. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 969: 210-212. Keough, N, Myburgh, J, Steyn M., 2017. Scoring of Decomposition: A Proposed Amendment to the Method When Using a Pig Model for Human Studies. J Forensic Sci 62: 986-993. LaHoven, A. L., Goff, M. L., 1996. Decomposition and arthropod succession on exposed rat carrion in a tropical rainforest in Malaysia. Journal of Medical Entomology, 33(4), 521-531. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmedent/33.4.521 Megyesi, M. S., Nawrocki, S. P., Haskell, N. H., 2005. Using accumulated degree-days to estimate the postmortem interval from decomposed human remains. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 50(3), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS2004017 Müller, J., Rietz, J., Hoerman C., Conraths F., Benbow, M., Mitesser O., Schlüter J., Lackner, T., Reckel F., Heurich M., 2024. Season, decay stage, habitat, temperature and carrion beetles allow estimating the post-mortem interval of wild boar carcasses. Ecological Solutions and Evidence. 5. 12305. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12305 Parsons, H. R., 2009. The Postmortem Interval: A Systematic Study of Pig Decomposition in West Central Montana [Master's thesis]. University of Montana. Probst, C., Gethöffer, F., Sauter-Louis, C., Conraths, F. J., 2020. Estimating the post-mortem interval of wild boar carcasses. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 56(3), 631-641. https://doi.org/10.7589/2019-05-121 Rietz, J., van Beeck Calkoen, S., Ferry N., Schlüter, J., Wehner H., Schindlatz, K-H., Lackner, T., & Hoermann C., Conraths F., Müller J., Heurich M.,2023. Drone-Based Thermal Imaging in the Detection of Wildlife Carcasses and Disease Management. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases 2023, https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5517000 Rogoll, L., Schulz, K., Staubach, C., Seržants, M., Lamberga, K., Conraths, F.J., Sauter-Louis, C., 2024. Identification of predilection sites for wild boar carcass search based on spatial analysis of Latvian ASF surveillance data. Scientific Reports, 14, 382. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598023-50477-7 Zacometti, C., Massaro, A., Stella, R., Leone, A., Celva, R., Assirelli, G., Da Rold, G., Franzoso, A., Casara, A., Verin, R., Rocca, G., Sadocco, A., Obber, F., Citterio, C., Pozzato N., Tata, A., 2025. Thanatometabolomics in wildlife: Identifying potential metabolic markers of post-mortem intervals in wild boars by direct analysis in real time high resolution mass spectrometry (DARTHRMS), Microchemical Journal, 212, 2025, 113296, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2025.113296