Search

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the use of high‐expansion foam for stunning and killing pigs and poultry. A dossier was provided by the applicant as the basis for an assessment of the extent to which the method is able to provide a level of animal welfare at least equivalent to that ensured by the currently allowed methods for pigs and poultry. According to legislation, to be approved in the EU, new stunning methods must ensure (1) the absence of pain, distress or suffering until the onset of unconsciousness, and (2) that the animal remains unconscious until death. An ad hoc Working Group set up by EFSA performed the assessment as follows: (1) The data provided were checked against the criteria laid down in the EFSA Guidance (EFSA, 2018), and was found to partially fulfil those criteria; (2) extensive literature search; (3) data extraction for quantitative assessment; (4) qualitative exercise based on non‐formal expert elicitation. The assessment led to conclude that it is more likely than not (certainty > 50%–100%) that high‐expansion foam for stunning and killing pigs and poultry, named NEFS in container (Nitrogen Expansion Foam Stunning in container), provides a level of welfare at least equivalent to one or more of the currently allowed methods listed in Annex I of Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009. The overall assessment of EFSA is valid only under the technical conditions described in this Opinion for laying hens, broiler chickens of all age and pigs weighing 15–41 kg in situations other than slaughter. The overall assessment of EFSA is that NEFS can be suitable for depopulation using containers for pig and poultry farms respecting the technical conditions and the categories and types of animals defined in this Scientific Opinion.

Abstract Sheep and goats of different ages may have to be killed on‐farm for purposes other than slaughter (where slaughter is defined as killing for human consumption) either individually (i.e. on‐farm killing of unproductive, injured or terminally ill animals) or on a large scale (i.e. depopulation for disease control purposes and for other situations, such as environmental contamination and disaster management) outside the slaughterhouses. The purpose of this opinion was to assess the hazards and welfare consequences associated with the on‐farm killing of sheep and goats. The whole killing procedure was divided into Phase 1 (pre‐killing) – that included the processes (i) handling and moving the animals to the killing place and (ii) restraint of the animals before application of the killing methods and Phase 2 – that included stunning and killing of the animals. The killing methods for sheep and goats were grouped into three categories: (1) mechanical, (2) electrical and (3) lethal injection. Welfare consequences that sheep and goats may experience during each process were identified (e.g. handling stress, restriction of movements and tissue lesions during restraint) and animal‐based measures (ABMs) to assess them were proposed. During application of the killing method, sheep and goats will experience pain and fear if they are ineffectively stunned or if they recover consciousness. ABMs related to the state of consciousness can be used to indirectly assess pain and fear. Flowcharts including ABMs for consciousness specific to each killing method were included in the opinion. Possible welfare hazards were identified for each process, together with their origin and related preventive and corrective measures. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, ABMs, origins, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences were proposed.

Abstract Selecting appropriate diagnostic methods that take account of the type of vaccine used is important when implementing a vaccination programme against highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). If vaccination is effective, a decreased viral load is expected in the samples used for diagnosis, making molecular methods with high sensitivity the best choice. Although serological methods can be reasonably sensitive, they may produce results that are difficult to interpret. In addition to routine molecular monitoring, it is recommended to conduct viral isolation, genetic sequencing and phenotypic characterisation of any HPAI virus detected in vaccinated flocks to detect escape mutants early. Following emergency vaccination, various surveillance options based on virological testing of dead birds (‘bucket sampling’) at defined intervals were assessed to be effective for early detection of HPAIV and prove disease freedom in vaccinated populations. For ducks, virological or serological testing of live birds was assessed as an effective strategy. This surveillance could be also applied in the peri‐vaccination zone on vaccinated establishments, while maintaining passive surveillance in unvaccinated chicken layers and turkeys, and weekly bucket sampling in unvaccinated ducks. To demonstrate disease freedom with > 99% confidence and to detect HPAI virus sufficiently early following preventive vaccination, monthly virological testing of all dead birds up to 15 per flock, coupled with passive surveillance in both vaccinated and unvaccinated flocks, is recommended. Reducing the sampling intervals increases the sensitivity of early detection up to 100%. To enable the safe movement of vaccinated poultry during emergency vaccination, laboratory examinations in the 72 h prior to the movement can be considered as a risk mitigation measure, in addition to clinical inspection; sampling results from existing surveillance activities carried out in these 72 h could be used. In this Opinion, several schemes are recommended to enable the safe movement of vaccinated poultry following preventive vaccination.

Abstract Infection with salmonid alphavirus (SAV) was assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular the criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as laid out in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to infection with SAV. The assessment was performed following the ad hoc method on data collection and assessment developed by AHAW Panel and already published. The outcome reported is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with an uncertain outcome. According to the assessment, it was uncertain whether infection with salmonid alphavirus can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (50–80% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that infection with salmonid alphavirus does not meet the criteria in Section 1 (Category A; 5–10% probability of meeting the criteria) and it is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Categories B, C, D and E; 50–90%, probability of meeting the criteria). The animal species to be listed for infection with SAV according to Article 8 criteria are provided.

Abstract Several vaccines have been developed against highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), mostly inactivated whole‐virus vaccines for chickens. In the EU, one vaccine is authorised in chickens but is not fully efficacious to stop transmission, highlighting the need for vaccines tailored to diverse poultry species and production types. Off‐label use of vaccines is possible, but effectiveness varies. Vaccines are usually injectable, a time‐consuming process. Mass‐application vaccines outside hatcheries remain rare. First vaccination varies from in‐ovo to 6 weeks of age. Data about immunity onset and duration in the target species are often unavailable, despite being key for effective planning. Minimising antigenic distance between vaccines and field strains is essential, requiring rapid updates of vaccines to match circulating strains. Generating harmonised vaccine efficacy data showing vaccine ability to reduce transmission is crucial and this ability should be also assessed in field trials. Planning vaccination requires selecting the most adequate vaccine type and vaccination scheme. Emergency protective vaccination is limited to vaccines that are not restricted by species, age or pre‐existing vector‐immunity, while preventive vaccination should prioritise achieving the highest protection, especially for the most susceptible species in high‐risk transmission areas. Model simulations in France, Italy and The Netherlands revealed that (i) duck and turkey farms are more infectious than chickens, (ii) depopulating infected farms only showed limitations in controlling disease spread, while 1‐km ring‐culling performed better than or similar to emergency preventive ring‐vaccination scenarios, although with the highest number of depopulated farms, (iii) preventive vaccination of the most susceptible species in high‐risk transmission areas was the best option to minimise the outbreaks' number and duration, (iv) during outbreaks in such areas, emergency protective vaccination in a 3‐km radius was more effective than 1‐ and 10‐km radius. Vaccine efficacy should be monitored and complement other surveillance and preventive efforts.

Abstract Infection with Gyrodactylus salaris was assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular, the criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as laid down in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to infection with G. salaris. The assessment was performed following the ad hoc method for data collection and assessment previously developed by AHAW panel and already published. The outcome reported is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with an uncertain outcome. According to the assessment here performed, it is uncertain whether infection with G. salaris can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (33–70% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that Infection with G. salaris does not meet the criteria in Section 1 and 3 (Category A and C; 1–5% and 10–33% probability of fulfilling the criteria, respectively) and it is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 2, 4 and 5 (Categories B, D and E; 33–80%, 33–66% and 33–80% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for infection with G. salaris according to Article 8 criteria are provided.

Abstract Bacterial kidney disease (BKD) was assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular the criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as laid out in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to BKD. The assessment was performed following the ad hoc method on data collection and assessment developed by AHAW Panel and already published. The outcome reported is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with an uncertain outcome. According to this assessment, BKD can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (66–90% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that BKD does not meet the criteria in Sections 1, 2 and 3 (Categories A, B and C; 1–5%, 33–66% and 33–66% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively) but meets the criteria in Sections 4 and 5 (Categories D and E; 66–90% and 66–90% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for BKD according to Article 8 criteria are provided.

Abstract Spring Viraemia of Carp (SVC) was assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular the criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to SVC. The assessment was performed following the ad hoc method for data collection and assessment previously developed by the AHAW panel and already published. The outcome reported is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with an uncertain outcome. According to the assessment performed here, it is uncertain whether SVC can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (45–90% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that SVC does not meet the criteria in Section 1 (Category A; 5–33% probability of meeting the criteria) and it is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Categories B, C, D and E; 33–66%, 10–66%, 45–90% and 45–90% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for SVC according to Article 8 criteria are provided.

Abstract Infectious pancreatic necrosis (IPN) was assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular, the criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as in Article 9, and Article 8 for listing animal species related to IPN. The assessment was performed following a methodology previously published. The outcome reported is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with an uncertain outcome. According to the assessment here performed, it is uncertain whether IPN can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (50–90% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that IPN does not meet the criteria in Section 1 (Category A; 0–1% probability of meeting the criteria) and it is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Categories B, C, D and E; 33–66%, 33–66%, 50–90% and 50–99% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for IPN according to Article 8 criteria are provided.

Abstract This Scientific Opinion addresses a European Commission's mandate on the welfare of dairy cows as part of the Farm to Fork strategy. It includes three assessments carried out based on literature reviews and complemented by expert opinion. Assessment 1 describes the most prevalent housing systems for dairy cows in Europe: tie‐stalls, cubicle housing, open‐bedded systems and systems with access to an outdoor area. Per each system, the scientific opinion describes the distribution in the EU and assesses the main strengths, weaknesses and hazards potentially reducing the welfare of dairy cows. Assessment 2 addresses five welfare consequences as requested in the mandate: locomotory disorders (including lameness), mastitis, restriction of movement and resting problems, inability to perform comfort behaviour and metabolic disorders. Per each welfare consequence, a set of animal‐based measures is suggested, a detailed analysis of the prevalence in different housing systems is provided, and subsequently, a comparison of the housing systems is given. Common and specific system‐related hazards as well as management‐related hazards and respective preventive measures are investigated. Assessment 3 includes an analysis of farm characteristics (e.g. milk yield, herd size) that could be used to classify the level of on‐farm welfare. From the available scientific literature, it was not possible to derive relevant associations between available farm data and cow welfare. Therefore, an approach based on expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) was developed. The EKE resulted in the identification of five farm characteristics (more than one cow per cubicle at maximum stocking density, limited space for cows, inappropriate cubicle size, high on‐farm mortality and farms with less than 2 months access to pasture). If one or more of these farm characteristics are present, it is recommended to conduct an assessment of cow welfare on the farm in question using animal‐based measures for specified welfare consequences.

Abstract This Scientific Opinion concerns the welfare of Domestic ducks (Anas platyrhynchos domesticus), Muscovy ducks (Cairina moschata domesticus) and their hybrids (Mule ducks), Domestic geese (Anser anser f. domesticus) and Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) in relation to the rearing of breeders, birds for meat, Muscovy and Mule ducks and Domestic geese for foie gras and layer Japanese quail for egg production. The most common husbandry systems (HSs) in the European Union are described for each animal species and category. The following welfare consequences are described and assessed for each species: restriction of movement, injuries (bone lesions including fractures and dislocations, soft tissue lesions and integument damage and locomotory disorders including lameness), group stress, inability to perform comfort behaviour, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour and inability to express maternal behaviour (related to prelaying and nesting behaviours). Animal‐based measures relevant for the assessment of these welfare consequences were identified and described. The relevant hazards leading to the welfare consequences in the different HSs were identified. Specific factors such as space allowance (including minimum enclosure area and height) per bird, group size, floor quality, characteristics of nesting facilities and enrichment provided (including access to water to fulfil biological needs) were assessed in relation to the welfare consequences and, recommendations on how to prevent the welfare consequences were provided in a quantitative or qualitative way.

Abstract This Scientific Opinion addresses a European Commission request on the welfare of calves as part of the Farm to Fork strategy. EFSA was asked to provide a description of common husbandry systems and related welfare consequences, as well as measures to prevent or mitigate the hazards leading to them. In addition, recommendations on three specific issues were requested: welfare of calves reared for white veal (space, group housing, requirements of iron and fibre); risk of limited cow–calf contact; and animal‐based measures (ABMs) to monitor on‐farm welfare in slaughterhouses. The methodology developed by EFSA to address similar requests was followed. Fifteen highly relevant welfare consequences were identified, with respiratory disorders, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, gastroenteric disorders and group stress being the most frequent across husbandry systems. Recommendations to improve the welfare of calves include increasing space allowance, keeping calves in stable groups from an early age, ensuring good colostrum management and increasing the amounts of milk fed to dairy calves. In addition, calves should be provided with deformable lying surfaces, water via an open surface and long‐cut roughage in racks. Regarding specific recommendations for veal systems, calves should be kept in small groups (2–7 animals) within the first week of life, provided with ~ 20 m2/calf and fed on average 1 kg neutral detergent fibre (NDF) per day, preferably using long‐cut hay. Recommendations on cow–calf contact include keeping the calf with the dam for a minimum of 1 day post‐partum. Longer contact should progressively be implemented, but research is needed to guide this implementation in practice. The ABMs body condition, carcass condemnations, abomasal lesions, lung lesions, carcass colour and bursa swelling may be collected in slaughterhouses to monitor on‐farm welfare but should be complemented with behavioural ABMs collected on farm.

Abstract This Scientific Opinion considers the welfare of domestic fowl (Gallus gallus) related to the production of meat (broilers) and includes the keeping of day‐old chicks, broiler breeders, and broiler chickens. Currently used husbandry systems in the EU are described. Overall, 19 highly relevant welfare consequences (WCs) were identified based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: ‘bone lesions’, ‘cold stress’, ‘gastro‐enteric disorders’, ‘group stress’, ‘handling stress’, ‘heat stress’, ‘isolation stress’, ‘inability to perform comfort behaviour’, ‘inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour’, ‘inability to avoid unwanted sexual behaviour’, ‘locomotory disorders’, ‘prolonged hunger’, ‘prolonged thirst’, ‘predation stress’, ‘restriction of movement’, ‘resting problems’, ‘sensory under‐ and overstimulation’, ‘soft tissue and integument damage’ and ‘umbilical disorders’. These WCs and their animal‐based measures (ABMs) that can identify them are described in detail. A variety of hazards related to the different husbandry systems were identified as well as ABMs for assessing the different WCs. Measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate each of the WCs are listed. Recommendations are provided on quantitative or qualitative criteria to answer specific questions on the welfare of broilers and related to genetic selection, temperature, feed and water restriction, use of cages, light, air quality and mutilations in breeders such as beak trimming, de‐toeing and comb dubbing. In addition, minimal requirements (e.g. stocking density, group size, nests, provision of litter, perches and platforms, drinkers and feeders, of covered veranda and outdoor range) for an enclosure for keeping broiler chickens (fast‐growing, slower‐growing and broiler breeders) are recommended. Finally, ‘total mortality’, ‘wounds’, ‘carcass condemnation’ and ‘footpad dermatitis’ are proposed as indicators for monitoring at slaughter the welfare of broilers on‐farm.

Abstract This scientific opinion focuses on the welfare of laying hens, pullets and layer breeders on farm. The most relevant husbandry systems used in Europe are described. For each system, highly relevant welfare consequences were identified, as well as related animal‐based measures (ABMs), and hazards leading to the welfare consequences. Moreover, measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate the welfare consequences are recommended. The highly relevant welfare consequences based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence are bone lesions, group stress, inability to avoid unwanted sexual behaviour, inability to perform comfort behaviour, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, isolation stress, predation stress, resting problems, restriction of movement, skin disorders and soft tissue lesions and integument damage. The welfare consequences of non‐cage compared to cage systems for laying hens are described and minimum enclosure characteristics are described for laying hens, pullets and layer breeders. Beak trimming, which causes negative welfare consequences and is conducted to reduce the prevalence and severity of pecking, is described as well as the risks associated with rearing of non‐beak‐trimmed flocks. Alternatives to reduce sharpness of the beak without trimming are suggested. Finally, total mortality, plumage damage, wounds, keel bone fractures and carcass condemnations are the most promising ABMs for collection at slaughterhouses to monitor the level of laying hen welfare on farm. Main recommendations include housing all birds in non‐cage systems with easily accessible, elevated platforms and provision of dry and friable litter and access to a covered veranda. It is further recommended to implement protocols to define welfare trait information to encourage progress in genetic selection, implement measures to prevent injurious pecking, rear pullets with dark brooders and reduce male aggression in layer breeders.

Abstract The epidemiological situation of SARS‐CoV‐2 in humans and animals is continually evolving. To date, animal species known to transmit SARS‐CoV‐2 are American mink, raccoon dog, cat, ferret, hamster, house mouse, Egyptian fruit bat, deer mouse and white‐tailed deer. Among farmed animals, American mink have the highest likelihood to become infected from humans or animals and further transmit SARS‐CoV‐2. In the EU, 44 outbreaks were reported in 2021 in mink farms in seven MSs, while only six in 2022 in two MSs, thus representing a decreasing trend. The introduction of SARS‐CoV‐2 into mink farms is usually via infected humans; this can be controlled by systematically testing people entering farms and adequate biosecurity. The current most appropriate monitoring approach for mink is the outbreak confirmation based on suspicion, testing dead or clinically sick animals in case of increased mortality or positive farm personnel and the genomic surveillance of virus variants. The genomic analysis of SARS‐CoV‐2 showed mink‐specific clusters with a potential to spill back into the human population. Among companion animals, cats, ferrets and hamsters are those at highest risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, which most likely originates from an infected human, and which has no or very low impact on virus circulation in the human population. Among wild animals (including zoo animals), mostly carnivores, great apes and white‐tailed deer have been reported to be naturally infected by SARS‐CoV‐2. In the EU, no cases of infected wildlife have been reported so far. Proper disposal of human waste is advised to reduce the risks of spill‐over of SARS‐CoV‐2 to wildlife. Furthermore, contact with wildlife, especially if sick or dead, should be minimised. No specific monitoring for wildlife is recommended apart from testing hunter‐harvested animals with clinical signs or found‐dead. Bats should be monitored as a natural host of many coronaviruses.

Abstract In the framework of its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of the animal welfare legislation. The present Opinion deals with protection of cattle (including calves) during transport. Welfare of cattle during transport by road is the main focus, but other means of transport are also covered. Current practices related to transport of cattle during the different stages (preparation, loading/unloading, transit and journey breaks) are described. Overall, 11 welfare consequences were identified as being highly relevant for the welfare of cattle during transport based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: group stress, handling stress, heat stress, injuries, motion stress, prolonged hunger, prolonged thirst, respiratory disorders, restriction of movement, resting problems and sensory overstimulation. These welfare consequences and their animal‐based measures are described. A variety of hazards, mainly relating to inexperienced/untrained handlers, inappropriate handling, structural deficiencies of vehicles and facilities, poor driving conditions, unfavourable microclimatic and environmental conditions, and poor husbandry practices leading to these welfare consequences were identified. The Opinion contains general and specific conclusions relating to the different stages of transport for cattle. Recommendations to prevent hazards and to correct or mitigate welfare consequences have been developed. Recommendations were also developed to define quantitative thresholds for microclimatic conditions within the means of transport and spatial thresholds (minimum space allowance). The development of welfare consequences over time was assessed in relation to maximum journey duration. The Opinion covers specific animal transport scenarios identified by the European Commission relating to transport of unweaned calves, cull cows, the export of cattle by livestock vessels, the export of cattle by road, roll‐on‐roll‐off ferries and ‘special health status animals’, and lists welfare concerns associated with these.

Abstract In the framework of its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of animal welfare legislation. This opinion deals with the protection of horses and donkeys during transport. While the opinion focuses primarily on road transport of horses, there are specific sections dealing with the transport of horses on roll‐on–roll‐off ferries, horses transported by air and the transport of donkeys. In addition, the opinion covers welfare concerns in relation to a specific scenario identified by the European Commission related to the transport of horses on long journeys to slaughterhouses. Current practices related to transport of horses during the different stages (preparation, loading and unloading, transit and the journey breaks) are described. Overall, 13 welfare consequences were identified as being highly relevant for the welfare of horses during transport based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: gastro‐enteric disorders, handling stress, heat stress, injuries, isolation stress, motion stress, prolonged hunger, prolonged thirst, respiratory disorders, resting problems, restriction of movement, sensory overstimulation and separation stress. These welfare consequences and their animal‐based measures are described. A variety of hazards were identified related to factors such as inexperienced/untrained handlers, lack of horse training, structural deficiencies of vehicles/facilities, poor driving skills/conditions, horse separation/regrouping, unfavourable microclimatic and environmental conditions and poor husbandry practices. The opinion contains general and specific conclusions in relation to the different stages of transport. Recommendations to prevent hazards and correct or mitigate welfare consequences have been developed. Recommendations were also developed to define quantitative thresholds for microclimatic conditions within the means of transport and for space allowance. The development of welfare consequences over time was assessed in relation to maximum journey time.

Abstract This opinion, produced upon a request from the European Commission, focuses on transport of domestic birds and rabbits in containers (e.g. any crate, box, receptacle or other rigid structure used for the transport of animals, but not the means of transport itself). It describes and assesses current transport practices in the EU, based on data from literature, Member States and expert opinion. The species and categories of domestic birds assessed were mainly chickens for meat (broilers), end‐of‐lay hens and day‐old chicks. They included to a lesser extent pullets, turkeys, ducks, geese, quails and game birds, due to limited scientific evidence. The opinion focuses on road transport to slaughterhouses or to production sites. For day‐old chicks, air transport is also addressed. The relevant stages of transport considered are preparation, loading, journey, arrival and uncrating. Welfare consequences associated with current transport practices were identified for each stage. For loading and uncrating, the highly relevant welfare consequences identified are handling stress, injuries, restriction of movement and sensory overstimulation. For the journey and arrival, injuries, restriction of movement, sensory overstimulation, motion stress, heat stress, cold stress, prolonged hunger and prolonged thirst are identified as highly relevant. For each welfare consequence, animal‐based measures (ABMs) and hazards were identified and assessed, and both preventive and corrective or mitigative measures proposed. Recommendations on quantitative criteria to prevent or mitigate welfare consequences are provided for microclimatic conditions, space allowances and journey times for all categories of animals, where scientific evidence and expert opinion support such outcomes.

Abstract In the framework of its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of the animal welfare legislation. The present Opinion deals with protection of pigs during transport. The welfare of pigs during transport by road is the main focus, but other means of transport are also covered. Current practices related to transport of pigs during the different stages (preparation, loading/unloading, transit and journey breaks) are described. Overall, 10 welfare consequences were identified as highly relevant for the welfare of pigs during transport based on the severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: group stress, handling stress, heat stress, injuries, motion stress, prolonged hunger, prolonged thirst, restriction of movement, resting problems and sensory overstimulation. These welfare consequences and their animal‐based measures are described. A variety of hazards were identified, mainly relating to factors such as mixing of unfamiliar pigs, inappropriate handling methods and devices, the use of pick‐up pens, inexperienced/untrained handlers, structural deficiencies of vehicles and facilities, poor driving conditions, unfavourable microclimatic and environmental conditions and poor husbandry practices leading to these welfare consequences. The Opinion contains general and specific conclusions relating to the different stages of transport of pigs. Recommendations to prevent hazards and to correct or mitigate welfare consequences are made. Recommendations were also developed to define quantitative thresholds for microclimatic conditions and minimum space allowance within means of transport. The development of the welfare consequences over time was assessed in relation to maximum journey duration. The Opinion covers specific animal transport scenarios identified by the European Commission relating to transport of cull sows and ‘special health status animals’, and lists welfare concerns associated with these.

Abstract In the framework of its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of animal welfare legislation. The present Opinion deals with the protection of small ruminants (sheep and goats) during transport. The main focus is on welfare of sheep during transport by road but other means of transport and concerns for welfare of goats during transport are also covered. Current practices related to transport of sheep during the different stages (preparation, loading and unloading, transit and journey breaks) are described. Overall, 11 welfare consequences were identified as being highly relevant for the welfare of sheep during transport based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: group stress, handling stress, heat stress, injuries, motion stress, predation stress, prolonged hunger, prolonged thirst, restriction of movement, resting problems and sensory overstimulation. These welfare consequences and their animal‐based measures are described. A wide variety of hazards, mainly relating to inappropriate or aggressive handling of animals, structural deficiencies of vehicles and facilities, unfavourable microclimatic and environmental conditions and poor husbandry practices, leading to these welfare consequences were identified. The Opinion contains general and specific conclusions in relation to the different stages of transport. Recommendations to prevent hazards and to correct or mitigate welfare consequences have been developed. Recommendations were also developed to define quantitative thresholds for microclimatic conditions within the means of transport and spatial thresholds (minimum space allowance). The development of welfare consequences over time were assessed in relation to maximum journey time. The Opinion covers specific animal transport scenarios identified by the European Commission relating to the export of sheep by livestock vessels, export of sheep by road, roll‐on‐roll‐off vessels and ‘special health status animals’, and lists welfare concerns associated with these.

Abstract This scientific opinion focuses on the welfare of pigs on farm, and is based on literature and expert opinion. All pig categories were assessed: gilts and dry sows, farrowing and lactating sows, suckling piglets, weaners, rearing pigs and boars. The most relevant husbandry systems used in Europe are described. For each system, highly relevant welfare consequences were identified, as well as related animal‐based measures (ABMs), and hazards leading to the welfare consequences. Moreover, measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate the welfare consequences are recommended. Recommendations are also provided on quantitative or qualitative criteria to answer specific questions on the welfare of pigs related to tail biting and related to the European Citizen's Initiative ‘End the Cage Age’. For example, the AHAW Panel recommends how to mitigate group stress when dry sows and gilts are grouped immediately after weaning or in early pregnancy. Results of a comparative qualitative assessment suggested that long‐stemmed or long‐cut straw, hay or haylage is the most suitable material for nest‐building. A period of time will be needed for staff and animals to adapt to housing lactating sows and their piglets in farrowing pens (as opposed to crates) before achieving stable welfare outcomes. The panel recommends a minimum available space to the lactating sow to ensure piglet welfare (measured by live‐born piglet mortality). Among the main risk factors for tail biting are space allowance, types of flooring, air quality, health status and diet composition, while weaning age was not associated directly with tail biting in later life. The relationship between the availability of space and growth rate, lying behaviour and tail biting in rearing pigs is quantified and presented. Finally, the panel suggests a set of ABMs to use at slaughter for monitoring on‐farm welfare of cull sows and rearing pigs.

Abstract EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of prohibitions of certain activities in restricted zones, and of certain risk mitigation treatments for products of animal origin and other materials with respect to diseases included in the Category A list in the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) 2016/429). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where other disease‐specific control measures have been assessed. In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of (i) prohibiting the movements of certain products, notably germinal products (semen, oocytes, embryos and hatching eggs), products of animal origin and animal by‐products and feed of plant origin, hay and straw, and (ii) risk mitigation treatments for products of animal origin. In terms of semen, oocytes, embryos and hatching eggs, it was agreed that there was a lack of evidence particularly for embryos and oocytes reflected in a varying degree of uncertainty, whether these commodities could potentially contain the pathogen under consideration. The scenario assessed did not consider whether the presence of pathogen would lead to infection in the recipient animal. In terms of animal products, certain animal by‐products and movement of feed of plant origin and straw, the assessment considered the ability of the commodity to transmit disease to another animal if exposed. For most pathogens, products were to some degree considered a risk, but lack of field evidence contributed to the uncertainty, particularly as potential exposure of ruminants to meat products is concerned. In terms of the risk mitigating treatments, recommendations have been made for several of these treatments, because the treatment description is not complete, the evidence is poor or inconclusive, or the evidence points to the treatment being ineffective.

Abstract This document provides methodological guidance developed by the EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare to produce Scientific Opinions in response to mandates received from the European Commission in the context of the Farm to Fork Strategy. The mandates relate to the welfare of (i) animals during transport, (ii) calves, (iii) laying hens, (iv) broilers, (v) pigs, (vi) ducks, geese and quails, and (vii) dairy cows. This guidance was developed in order to define the methods and strategy to be applied for responding to the Terms of Reference (ToRs) of the mandates. The mandates each consist of a set of General ToRs which refer to the husbandry systems used in the production of each animal species or the current transport practices for free moving animals and animals transported in cages, and a set of specific ToRs for which difficulties in ensuring animal welfare have been identified and where specific scenarios are envisaged. Part I of the guidance includes a description of welfare consequences for the animals. Part II includes a new methodology for providing quantitative recommendations regarding animal welfare. The proposed methodology follows the assumption that the effect of an exposure variable (e.g. space allowance) on animal welfare can be quantified by comparing the expression of an animal‐based measure (ABM) under ‘unexposed conditions’ (e.g. unlimited space) and under high exposure (e.g. restrictive conditions). The level of welfare as assessed through this ABM can be quantified for different levels of the exposure variable (e.g. at increasing space allowances) and quantitative recommendations can thus be provided. The final version of the methodological guidance was endorsed for public consultation, which took place between 14 February 2022 and 31 March 2022. The comments received are integrated in this document.

Abstract Escherichia coli (E. coli) was identified among the most relevant antimicrobial‐resistant (AMR) bacteria in the EU for dogs and cats, horses, swine, poultry, cattle, sheep and goats in previous scientific opinions. Thus, it has been assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to the bacterium. The assessment has been performed following a methodology previously published. The outcome is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with uncertain outcome. According to the assessment here performed, it is uncertain whether AMR E. coli can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (33–66% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that the bacterium does not meet the criteria in Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 (Categories A, B, C and D; 0–5%, 5–10%, 10–33% and 10–33% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively) and the AHAW Panel was uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Section 5 (Category E, 33–66% probability of meeting the criteria). The animal species to be listed for AMR E. coli according to Article 8 criteria include mammals, birds, reptiles and fish.

Abstract The EFSA asked the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare to develop a guidance document on good practice in conducting scientific assessments in animal health using modelling. In previous opinions, the AHAW Panel has responded to two‐thirds of animal health‐related mandates using some kind of modelling. These models range from simple to complex, employing a combination of scientific, economic, socio‐economic or other types of data. Hence, there is strong interest in the development of a guidance document to integrate modelling efforts into the routine process of EFSA working groups. In this document, an ‘operating procedure' (OP) for the use of modelling within an AH working group is presented. The OP provides a detailed flowchart enabling modelling to be transparently and consistently integrated in the assessment. The OP is structured into phases. These phases combine the relevant standard operating procedures and working instructions of EFSA with the modelling process. Each phase includes roles and actions to be taken, expected output and the sequence of agreements that need to be made between all partners in the scientific assessment. In conclusion, it is expected that adherence to the OP will improve transparency of models in EFSA outputs, and it is recommended to adopt it as a standard procedure when responding to AHAW mandates.

Abstract Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) was identified among the most relevant antimicrobial‐resistant (AMR) bacteria in the EU for cattle and horses in previous scientific opinions. Thus, it has been assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as in Article 9, and Article 8 for listing animal species related to the bacterium. The assessment has been performed following a methodology previously published. The outcome is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with uncertain outcome. According to the assessment here performed, it is uncertain whether AMR S. aureus can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (60–90% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that the bacterium does not meet the criteria in Sections 1, 2 and 4 (Categories A, B and D; 1–5%, 5–10% and 10–33% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively) and the AHAW Panel was uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 3 and 5 (Categories C and E, 33–90% and 60–90% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for AMR S. aureus according to Article 8 criteria include mainly mammals, birds, reptiles and fish.

Abstract Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) was identified among the most relevant antimicrobial‐resistant (AMR) bacteria in the EU for dogs and cats in a previous scientific opinion. Thus, it has been assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as in Article 9, and Article 8 for listing animal species related to the bacterium. The assessment has been performed following a methodology previously published. The outcome is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with uncertain outcome. According to the assessment here performed, it is uncertain whether AMR P. aeruginosa can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (33–90% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that the bacterium does not meet the criteria in Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 (Categories A, B, C and D; 0–5%, 1–5%, 5–33% and 5–33% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively) and the AHAW Panel was uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Section 5 (Category E, 33–90% probability of meeting the criteria). The animal species to be listed for AMR P. aeruginosa according to Article 8 criteria are mainly dogs and cats.

Abstract Brachyspira hyodysenteriae (B. hyodysenteriae) was identified among the most relevant antimicrobial‐resistant (AMR) bacteria in the EU for swine in a previous scientific opinion. Thus, it has been assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as in Article 9, and Article 8 for listing animal species related to the bacterium. The assessment has been performed following a methodology previously published. The outcome is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with uncertain outcome. According to the assessment here performed, it is uncertain whether AMR B. hyodysenteriae can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (33–66% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that the bacterium does not meet the criteria in Sections 1, 2 and 3 (Categories A, B and C; 1–10%, 10–33% and 10–33% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively) and the AHAW Panel was uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 4 and 5 (Categories D and E, 50–90% and 33–66% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The main animal species to be listed for AMR B. hyodysenteriae according to Article 8 criteria are pigs and some species of birds, such as chickens and ducks.

Abstract Enterococcus cecorum (E. cecorum) was identified among the most relevant antimicrobial‐resistant (AMR) bacteria in the EU for poultry in a previous scientific opinion. Thus, it has been assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as in Article 9, and Article 8 for listing animal species related to the bacterium. The assessment has been performed following a methodology previously published. The outcome is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with uncertain outcome. According to the assessment here performed, it is uncertain whether AMR E. cecorum can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (33–75% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that the bacterium does not meet the criteria in Sections 1, 2 and 4 (Categories A, B and D; 0–5%, 5–10% and 10–33% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively) and the AHAW Panel is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 3 and 5 (Categories C and E, 33–66% and 33–75% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for AMR E. cecorum according to Article 8 criteria are mostly birds belonging to the families of Anatidae, Columbidae and Phasianidae.

Abstract In this Opinion, the antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria responsible for transmissible diseases that constitute a threat to the health of certain kept fish species have been assessed. Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), carp (Cyprinus spp.), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), sea bream (Sparus aurata) and tilapia (Oreochromis spp.), selected as representative of the most important fish species and production systems that are commercially reared in fresh and saltwater farms, were the focus of this assessment. The assessment was performed following a methodology based on information collected by an extensive literature review and expert judgement. Details of the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate Opinion. The global state of play of antimicrobial resistance in Aeromonas hydrophila, Aeromonas salmonicida, Flavobacterium psychrophilum and Flavobacterium columnare is provided. Among these bacteria, none was identified as being among the most relevant antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria in the assessed kept fish species in the EU due to the very limited scientific evidence available.

Abstract Rhodococcus equi (R. equi) was identified among the most relevant antimicrobial‐resistant (AMR) bacteria in the EU for horses in a previous scientific opinion. Thus, it has been assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to the bacterium. The assessment has been performed following a methodology previously published. The outcome is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with uncertain outcome. According to the assessment here performed, it is uncertain whether AMR R. equi can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (10–66% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that the bacterium does not meet the criteria in Sections 1 and 2 (Categories A and B; 5–10% and 10–33% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively), and the AHAW Panel is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 3, 4 and 5 (Categories C, D and E; 10–66% probability of meeting the criteria in all three categories). The animal species to be listed for AMR R. equi according to Article 8 criteria are mainly horses and other species belonging to the Perissodactyla and Artiodactyla orders.

Abstract Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (S. pseudintermedius) was identified among the most relevant antimicrobial‐resistant (AMR) bacteria in the EU for dogs and cats in a previous scientific opinion. Thus, it has been assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as in Article 9, and Article 8 for listing animal species related to the bacterium. The assessment has been performed following a methodology previously published. The outcome is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with uncertain outcome. According to the assessment here performed, it is uncertain whether AMR S. pseudintermedius can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (30–90% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that the bacterium does not meet the criteria in Sections 1, 2 and 4 (Categories A, B and D; 0–1%, 1–10% and 10–33% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively) and the AHAW Panel is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 3 and 5 (Categories C and E, 5–66% and 30–90% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for AMR S. pseudintermedius according to Article 8 criteria are mostly species belonging to the families of Canidae and Felidae, such as dogs and cats.

Abstract Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) was identified among the most relevant antimicrobial‐resistant (AMR) bacteria in the EU for poultry in a previous scientific opinion. Thus, it has been assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to the bacterium. The assessment has been performed following a methodology previously published. The outcome is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with uncertain outcome. According to the assessment here performed, it is uncertain whether AMR E. faecalis can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (33–66% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that the bacterium does not meet the criteria in Sections 1, 2 and 4 (Categories A, B and D; 0–5%, 5–10% and 1–10% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively) and the AHAW Panel is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 3 and 5 (Categories C and E, 33–66% and 33–66% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for AMR E. faecalis according to Article 8 criteria are mostly birds of the orders Galliformes and Anseriformes, but also mammals and reptiles can serve as reservoirs.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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 were assessed for several diseases, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for Rift Valley Fever (RVF). 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 radius of the protection and surveillance zone 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 radius 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. Different risk‐based sampling procedures based on clinical visits and laboratory testing are assessed in case of outbreak suspicion, granting animal movements and for repopulation purposes. The length of monitoring period and minimum duration of measures to be implemented in the restricted zones as defined in the Delegated Regulation (30 days) are considered effective for the investigation and control of suspected and confirmed RVF outbreaks, as well as the size of protection and surveillance zone of 20 and 50 km, respectively, which are assessed as sufficient to contain disease transmission with at least 95% probability.

Abstract EFSA received a mandate from the EC 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 are assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD). 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 radius of the protection and surveillance zones, and the minimum length of time that 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 radius 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 was assessed as effective, and based on the transmission kernels available, it was concluded that the protection zone of 20 km radius and the surveillance zone of 50 km radius would comprise > 99% of the transmission from an affected establishment if transmission occurred. Recommendations provided for each of the assessed scenarios 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 LSD.

Abstract 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 glanders. 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 radius of the protection and surveillance zone, 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. Considering the epidemiology and distribution of glanders, it was foreseen that three different situations could lead to a suspicion of the disease. Sampling procedures were defined for each of the three different suspicion types, which can also be applied in most of the other scenarios assessed. The monitoring period (6 months) was assessed as effective in all scenarios. The AHAW Panel of experts considered the minimum radius and duration of the existing protection and surveillance zone, set at the establishment level, effective. 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 glanders.

Abstract EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of 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 are assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for rinderpest (RP), the only animal disease to have been globally eradicated. In this opinion, the AHAW Panel reviewed the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period and (iii) the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zone, 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. The transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones are shown. Several scenarios for which control measures had to be assessed were agreed prior to the assessment. Considering that RP has been eradicated globally, a re‐emergence that is not stopped in its early phases could have a devastating impact on animal health and the economy. The panel concludes that no suitable strategies are available to entirely mitigate the risk associated with granting derogations from killing of animals in an affected establishment or for animal movements. Therefore, the panel recommends to not grant any derogations. The monitoring period of 21 days was assessed as effective, except for the hypothetical first re‐emergence of RP, when lack of awareness and diagnostic capability may extend the time to detection. It was concluded that the protection and the surveillance zones would contain 90% and > 99%, respectively, of the infections from an affected establishment. Enlarging the protection zone to 4 km would contain the disease spread with 95% probability.

Abstract 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.

Abstract Equine Herpesvirus‐1 infection has been assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular criteria of: Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on the eligibility of the disease to be listed, Article 9 for the categorisation of the disease according to disease prevention and control measures as in Annex IV and Article 8 on the list of animal species related to Equine Herpesvirus‐1 infection. The assessment has been performed following a methodology composed of information collection and compilation, and expert judgement on each criterion at individual and collective level. The outcome is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether the criterion is fulfilled (66–100%) or not (0–33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment (33–66%). For the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported. According to the assessment performed, Equine Herpesvirus‐1 infection can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the Animal Health Law with 33–90% certainty. According to the criteria as in Annex IV of the AHL related to Article 9 of the AHL for the categorisation of diseases according to the level of prevention and control, it was assessed with less than 1% certainty that EHV‐1 fulfils the criteria as in Section 1 (category A), 1–5% for the criteria as in Section 2 (category B), 10–66% for the criteria as in Section 3 (category C), 66–90% for the criteria as in Section 4 (category D) and 33–90% for the criteria as in Section 5 (category E). The animal species to be listed for EHV‐1 infection according to Article 8(3) criteria are the species belonging to the families of Equidae, Bovidae, Camelidae, Caviidae, Cervidae, Cricetidae, Felidae, Giraffidae, Leporidae, Muridae, Rhinocerontidae, Tapiridae and Ursidae.

Abstract In this opinion, the antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria responsible for transmissible diseases that constitute a threat to the health of farmed rabbits have been assessed. The assessment has been performed following a methodology based on information collected through an extensive literature review and expert judgement. Details of the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. A global state of play on antimicrobial resistance in clinical isolates of Pasteurella multocida, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Bordetella bronchiseptica, Clostridium difficile, Clostridium perfringens and Clostridium spiroforme is provided. Among these bacteria, none were identified as being the most relevant antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria in rabbits in the EU due to the very limited scientific evidence available.

Abstract In this opinion, the antimicrobial resistant bacteria responsible for transmissible diseases that constitute a threat to the health of cattle have been assessed. The assessment has been performed following a methodology based on information collected by an extensive literature review and expert judgement. Details of the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. A global state of play on antimicrobial resistance in clinical isolates of Escherichia coli (non‐VTEC), Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus uberis, Streptococcus dysgalactiae, Pasteurella multocida, Mannheimia haemolytica, Histophilus somni, Mycoplasma bovis, Moraxella bovis, Fusobacterium necrophorum and Trueperella pyogenes is provided. Among those bacteria, EFSA identified E. coli and S. aureus with ≥ 66% certainty as being the most relevant antimicrobial resistant bacteria in cattle in the EU based on the available evidence. The animal health impact of these most relevant bacteria, as well as their eligibility for being listed and categorised within the animal health law framework will be assessed in separate scientific opinions.

Abstract In this opinion, the antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria responsible for transmissible diseases that constitute a threat to the health of horses have been assessed. The assessment has been performed following a methodology composed of information collected via an extensive literature review and expert judgement. Details on the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. A global state of play of antimicrobial‐resistant Actinobacillus equuli, Dermatophilus congolensis, Enterococcus spp., Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pasteurella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Rhodococcus equi, Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus dysgalactiae subsp. dysgalactiae/equisimilis and Streptococcus equi subsp. equi and subsp. zooepidemicus has been provided. Among those bacteria, EFSA identified E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus and R. equi with more than 66% certainty as the most relevant antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria in the EU, given their importance as causative agents of clinical disease in horses and the significant levels of resistance to clinically relevant antimicrobials. The animal health impact of these ‘most relevant’ bacteria as well as their eligibility of being listed and categorised within the animal health law framework will be assessed in separate scientific opinions.

Abstract In this opinion, the antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria responsible for transmissible diseases that constitute a threat to the health of pigs have been assessed. The assessment has been performed following a methodology based on information collected by an extensive literature review and expert judgement. Details of the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. A global state of play of antimicrobial resistant Escherichia coli, Streptococcus suis, Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae, Pasteurella multocida, Glaeserella parasuis, Bordetella bronchiseptica, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus hyicus, Brachyspira hyodysenteriae, Trueperella pyogenes, Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae, Streptococcus dysgalactiae, Mycoplasma hyosynoviae, Mycoplasma hyorhinis, Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae and Brachyspira pilosicoli has been provided. Among those bacteria, EFSA identified E. coli and B. hyodysenteriae with > 66% certainty as being the most relevant antimicrobial resistant bacteria in the EU based on the available evidence. The animal health impact of these most relevant bacteria, as well as their eligibility for being listed and categorised within the animal health law framework will be assessed in separate scientific opinions.