Suchergebnisse

Transport is a multifactorial stressor. For some pigs with certain pre-transport characteristics, the challenges of transport make their fitness for transport questionable from a scientific point of view. The European regulation (Council Regulation 1/2005 and to a lesser extent 853/2004) lays down rules for the protection of animals during transport including information about fitness for transport of pigs. In 2016, DG Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE) published a report providing an overview of systems to prevent the transport of unfit animals in the EU (DG SANTE, 2016). In this EURCAW-Pigs review, the scientific knowledge about fitness for transport is reviewed against the background of the relevant European legislation, including a discussion of central terms in the European regulation – such as injury and unnecessary suffering. In addition, the usefulness of these terms as indicators of fitness for transport, to be used during inspection, is discussed, and potential indicators of fitness for transport of different categories of pigs are proposed, in addition to the criteria listed in the legislation.

EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of the control measures against diseases included in the Category A list according to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases ('Animal Health Law'). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where these control measures will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period, (iii) the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones, and (iv) the minimum length of time the measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Different clinical and laboratory sampling procedures are proposed depending on the scenarios considered. The monitoring period of 45 days was assessed as not effective and at least 90 days (3 months) is recommended in affected areas where high awareness is expected; when the index case occurs in an area where the awareness is low the monitoring period should be at least 180 days (6 months). Since transmission kernels do not exist and data to estimate transmission kernels are not available, the effectiveness of surveillance and protection zones for CBPP was based on expert knowledge. A surveillance zone of 3 km was considered effective, while a protection zone including establishments adjacent to affected ones is recommended. Recommendations, provided for each of the scenarios assessed, aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad hoc requests in relation to CBPP.

EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of the control measures against diseases included in the Category A list according to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases ('Animal Health Law'). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where these control measures will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia (CCPP). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period, (iii) the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones and iv) the minimum length of time the measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Different clinical and laboratory sampling procedures are proposed depending on the scenarios considered. The monitoring period of 45 days was assessed as effective in affected areas where high awareness is expected, and when the index case occurs in an area where the awareness is low the monitoring period should be at least 180 days (6 months). Since transmission kernels do not exist and data to estimate transmission kernels are not available, a surveillance zone of 3 km was considered effective based on expert knowledge, while a protection zone should also be developed to include establishments adjacent to affected ones. Recommendations, provided for each of the scenarios assessed, aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad hoc requests in relation to CCPP.

EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of the control measures against diseases included in the Category A list according to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases ('Animal Health Law'). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where these control measures will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for peste des petits ruminants (PPR). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period and (iii) the minimum radii of the protection and surveillance zones, and the minimum length of time the measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere; nonetheless, the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radii of the protection and surveillance zones are shown. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. The monitoring period of 21 days was assessed as effective, except for the first affected establishments detected, where 33 days is recommended. It was concluded that beyond the protection (3 km) and the surveillance zones (10 km) only 9.6% (95% CI: 3.1–25.8%) and 2.3% (95% CI: 1–5.5%) of the infections from an affected establishment may occur, respectively. This may be considered sufficient to contain the disease spread (95% probability of containing transmission corresponds to 5.3 km). Recommendations provided for each of the scenarios assessed aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad-hoc requests in relation to PPR.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). ; The AGRI committee of the European Parliament requested EFSA to assess the welfare of rabbits farmed in different production systems, including organic production, and to update its 2005 scientific opinion about the health and welfare of rabbits kept for meat production. Considering reproducing does, kits and growing rabbits, this scientific opinion focusses on six different housing systems, namely conventional cages, structurally enriched cages, elevated pens, floor pens, outdoor/partially outdoor systems and organic systems. To compare the level of welfare in the different housing systems and rabbit categories, welfare impact scores for 20 welfare consequences identified from the literature were calculated, taking their occurrence, duration and severity into account. Based on the overall welfare impact score (sum of scores for the single welfare consequences), obtained via a 2‐step expert knowledge elicitation process, the welfare of reproducing does is likely (certainty 66–90%) to be lower in conventional cages compared to the five other housing systems. In addition, it is likely to extremely likely (certainty 66–99%) that the welfare of kits is lower in outdoor systems compared to the other systems and that the welfare is higher in elevated pens than in the other systems. Finally, it is likely to extremely likely (certainty 66–99%) that the welfare of growing rabbits is lower in conventional cages compared to the other systems and that the welfare is higher in elevated pens than in the other systems. Ranking of the welfare consequences allowed an analysis of the main welfare consequences within each system and rabbit category. It was concluded that for reproducing does, as well as growing rabbits, welfare consequences related to behavioural restrictions were more prominent in conventional cages, elevated pens and enriched cages, whereas those related to health problems were more important in floor pens, outdoor and organic systems. Housing in organic rabbit farming is diverse, which can result in different welfare consequences, but the overall welfare impact scores suggest that welfare in organic systems is generally good. ; Peer reviewed

This opinion on the killing of rabbits for human consumption ('slaughtering') responds to two mandates: one from the European Parliament (EP) and the other from the European Commission. The opinion describes stunning methods for rabbits known to the experts in the EFSA working group, which can be used in commercial practice, and which are sufficiently described in scientific and technical literature for the development of an opinion. These are electrical stunning, mechanical stunning with a penetrative and non‐penetrative captive bolt and gas stunning. The latter method is not allowed in the EU anymore following Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009, but may still be practiced elsewhere in the world. Related hazards and welfare consequences are also evaluated. To monitor stunning effectiveness as requested by the EP mandate, the opinion suggests the use of indicators for the state of consciousness, selected on the basis of their sensitivity, specificity and ease of use. Similarly, it suggests indicators to confirm animals are dead before dressing. For the European Commission mandate, slaughter processes were assessed from the arrival of rabbits in containers until their death, and grouped in three main phases: pre‐stunning (including arrival, unloading of containers from the truck, lairage, handling/removing of rabbits from containers), stunning (including restraint) and bleeding (including bleeding following stunning and bleeding during slaughter without stunning). Ten welfare consequences resulting from the hazards that rabbits can be exposed to during slaughter are identified: consciousness, animal not dead, thermal stress (heat or cold stress), prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, restriction of movements, pain, fear, distress and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures (indicators) are described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, indicators, origins, preventive and corrective measures are developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are also proposed.

This opinion on the killing of rabbits for human consumption ('slaughtering') responds to two mandates: one from the European Parliament (EP) and the other from the European Commission. The opinion describes stunning methods for rabbits known to the experts in the EFSA working group, which can be used in commercial practice, and which are sufficiently described in scientific and technical literature for the development of an opinion. These are electrical stunning, mechanical stunning with a penetrative and non‐penetrative captive bolt and gas stunning. The latter method is not allowed in the EU anymore following Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009, but may still be practiced elsewhere in the world. Related hazards and welfare consequences are also evaluated. To monitor stunning effectiveness as requested by the EP mandate, the opinion suggests the use of indicators for the state of consciousness, selected on the basis of their sensitivity, specificity and ease of use. Similarly, it suggests indicators to confirm animals are dead before dressing. For the European Commission mandate, slaughter processes were assessed from the arrival of rabbits in containers until their death, and grouped in three main phases: pre‐stunning (including arrival, unloading of containers from the truck, lairage, handling/removing of rabbits from containers), stunning (including restraint) and bleeding (including bleeding following stunning and bleeding during slaughter without stunning). Ten welfare consequences resulting from the hazards that rabbits can be exposed to during slaughter are identified: consciousness, animal not dead, thermal stress (heat or cold stress), prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, restriction of movements, pain, fear, distress and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures (indicators) are described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, indicators, origins, preventive and corrective measures are developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise ...

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). ; This opinion on the killing of rabbits for human consumption ('slaughtering') responds to two mandates: one from the European Parliament (EP) and the other from the European Commission. The opinion describes stunning methods for rabbits known to the experts in the EFSA working group, which can be used in commercial practice, and which are sufficiently described in scientific and technical literature for the development of an opinion. These are electrical stunning, mechanical stunning with a penetrative and non‐penetrative captive bolt and gas stunning. The latter method is not allowed in the EU anymore following Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009, but may still be practiced elsewhere in the world. Related hazards and welfare consequences are also evaluated. To monitor stunning effectiveness as requested by the EP mandate, the opinion suggests the use of indicators for the state of consciousness, selected on the basis of their sensitivity, specificity and ease of use. Similarly, it suggests indicators to confirm animals are dead before dressing. For the European Commission mandate, slaughter processes were assessed from the arrival of rabbits in containers until their death, and grouped in three main phases: pre‐stunning (including arrival, unloading of containers from the truck, lairage, handling/removing of rabbits from containers), stunning (including restraint) and bleeding (including bleeding following stunning and bleeding during slaughter without stunning). Ten welfare consequences resulting from the hazards that rabbits can be exposed to during slaughter are identified: consciousness, animal not dead, thermal stress (heat or cold stress), prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, restriction of movements, pain, fear, distress and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures (indicators) are described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, indicators, origins, preventive and corrective measures are developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are also proposed. ; Peer reviewed

This opinion describes outdoor farming of pigs in the EU, assesses the risk of African swine fewer (ASF) introduction and spread associated with outdoor pig farms and proposes biosecurity and control measures for outdoor pig farms in ASF‐affected areas of the EU. Evidence was collected from Member States (MSs) veterinary authorities, farmers' associations, literature and legislative documents. An Expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) was carried out to group outdoor pig farms according to their risk of introduction and spread of ASF, to rank biosecurity measures regarding their effectiveness with regard to ASF and propose improvements of biosecurity for outdoor pig farming and accompanying control measures. Outdoor pig farming is common and various farm types are present throughout the EU. As there is no legislation at European level for categorising outdoor pig farms in the EU, information is limited, not harmonised and needs to be interpreted with care. The baseline risk of outdoor pig farms for ASFV introduction and its spread is high but with considerable uncertainty. The Panel is 66–90% certain that, if single solid or double fences were fully and properly implemented on all outdoor pig farms in areas of the EU where ASF is present in wild boar and in domestic pigs in indoor farms and outdoor farms (worst case scenario not considering different restriction zones or particular situations), without requiring any other outdoor‐specific biosecurity measures or control measures, this would reduce the number of new ASF outbreaks occurring in these farms within a year by more than 50% compared to the baseline risk. The Panel concludes that the regular implementation of independent and objective on‐farm biosecurity assessments using comprehensive standard protocols and approving outdoor pig farms on the basis of their biosecurity risk in an official system managed by competent authorities will further reduce the risk of ASF introduction and spread related to outdoor pig farms.