553 results on '"Bicout, Dominique"'
Search Results
2. The dynamical Matryoshka model: 2. Modeling of local lipid dynamics at the sub-nanosecond timescale in phospholipid membranes
- Author
-
Cisse, Aline, Matsuo, Tatsuhito, Plazanet, Marie, Natali, Francesca, Koza, Michael Marek, Ollivier, Jacques, Bicout, Dominique J., and Peters, Judith
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. The dynamical Matryoshka model: 1. Incoherent neutron scattering functions for lipid dynamics in bilayers
- Author
-
Bicout, Dominique J., Cisse, Aline, Matsuo, Tatsuhito, and Peters, Judith
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
4. Modelling of the transmission dynamics of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in hospitals and design of control strategies
- Author
-
Changruenngam, Suttikiat, Modchang, Charin, and Bicout, Dominique J.
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
5. Modeling of the combined dynamics of leptospirosis transmission and seroconversion in herds
- Author
-
Chadsuthi, Sudarat, Chalvet-Monfray, Karine, Kodjo, Angeli, Wiratsudakul, Anuwat, and Bicout, Dominique J.
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
6. The use of high expansion foam for stunning and killing pigs and poultry.
- Author
-
Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin‐Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis, Gortázar, Christian, Herskin, Mette S., Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Winckler, Christoph, Viltrop, Arvo, Martin, Jessica, and Raj, Mohan
- Subjects
ANIMAL welfare ,SWINE farms ,BROILER chickens ,HENS ,AD hoc organizations ,POULTRY farms ,ANIMAL welfare laws - 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 FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
7. Literature-Based Inventory of Chemical Substance Concentrations Measured in Organic Food Consumed in Europe.
- Author
-
Choueiri, Joanna, Petit, Pascal, Balducci, Franck, Bicout, Dominique J., and Demeilliers, Christine
- Subjects
PERSISTENT pollutants ,POLLUTANTS ,ORGANIC farming ,BIOPESTICIDES ,PESTICIDE residues in food - Abstract
Populations are exposed daily to numerous environmental pollutants, particularly through food. To address environmental issues, many agricultural production methods have been developed, including organic farming. To date, there is no exhaustive inventory of the contamination of organic foods as there is for conventional foods. The main objective of this work was to construct a growing and updatable database on chemical substances and their levels in organic foods consumed in Europe. To this end, a literature search was conducted, resulting in a total of 1207 concentration values from 823 food–substances pairs involving 166 food matrices and 209 chemical substances, among which 95% were not authorized in organic farming and 80% were pesticides. The most encountered substance groups are "inorganic contaminants" and "organophosphate", and the most studied food groups are "fruit used as fruit" and "Cereals and cereal primary derivatives". Further studies are needed to continue updating the database with robust and comprehensive data on organic food contamination. This database could be used to study the health risks associated with these contaminants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
8. Welfare of sheep and goats during killing for purposes other than slaughter.
- Author
-
Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin‐Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis, Gortázar Schmidt, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Raj, Mohan, and Candiani, Denise
- Subjects
GOATS ,SHEEP ,ANIMAL immobilization ,ANIMAL handling ,EMERGENCY management - 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 FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
9. Vaccination of poultry against highly pathogenic avian influenza – Part 2. Surveillance and mitigation measures.
- Author
-
Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin‐Bastuji, Bruno, Gortázar, Christian, Herskin, Mette S., Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Bortolami, Alessio, and Guinat, Claire
- Subjects
AVIAN influenza ,VACCINATION ,HAZARD mitigation ,POULTRY ,SERODIAGNOSIS ,VACCINATION status ,POULTRY products - 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 FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
10. Size-independence of statistics for boundary collisions of random walks and its implications for spin-polarized gases
- Author
-
Bicout, Dominique J., Kats, Efim, Petukhov, Alexander K., and Whitney, Robert S.
- Subjects
Physics - Atomic Physics ,Condensed Matter - Statistical Mechanics - Abstract
A bounded random walk exhibits strong correlations between collisions with a boundary. For an one-dimensional walk, we obtain the full statistical distribution of the number of such collisions in a time t. In the large t limit, the fluctuations in the number of collisions are found to be size-independent (independent of the distance between boundaries). This occurs for any inter-boundary distance, including less and greater than the mean-free-path, and means that this boundary effect does not decay with increasing system-size. As an application, we consider spin-polarized gases, such as 3-Helium, in the three-dimensional diffusive regime. The above results mean that the depolarizing effect of rare magnetic-impurities in the container walls is orders of magnitude larger than a Smoluchowski assumption (to neglect correlations) would imply. This could explain why depolarization is so sensitive to the container's treatment with magnetic fields prior to its use., Comment: 5 page manuscript with extra details in appendices (additional 3 pages)
- Published
- 2011
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
11. Occupational Health Problem Network : the Exposome
- Author
-
Faisandier, Laurie, De Gaudemaris, Régis, and Bicout, Dominique J
- Subjects
Statistics - Methodology - Abstract
We present a thinking on the concept of relational networks applied to the french national occupational disease surveillance and prevention network (R\'eseau National de Vigilance et de Pr\'evention des Pathologies Professionnelles, RNV3P). This approach consists in searching common exposures to occupational health problems.
- Published
- 2009
12. A network-based approach for surveillance of occupational health exposures
- Author
-
Faisandier, Laurie, Bonneterre, Vincent, De Gaudemaris, Régis, and Bicout, Dominique J
- Subjects
Statistics - Methodology - Abstract
In the context of surveillance of health problems, the research carried out by the French national occupational disease surveillance and prevention network (R\'eseau National de Vigilance et de Pr\'evention des Pathologies Professionnelles, RNV3P) aims to develop, among other approaches, methods of surveillance, statistical analysis and modeling in order to study the structure and change over time of relationships between disease and exposure, and to detect emerging disease-exposure associations. In this perspective, this paper aims to present the concept of the "exposome" and to explain on what bases it is constructed. The exposome is defined as a network of relationships between occupational health problems that have in common one or several elements of occupational exposure (exposures, occupation and/or activity sector). The paper also aims to outline its potential for the study and programmed surveillance of composite disease-occupational exposure associations. We illustrate this approach by applying it to a sample from the RNV3P data, taking malignant tumours and focusing on the subgroup of non-Hodgkin lymphomas.
- Published
- 2009
13. Long range correlations in DNA : scaling properties and charge transfer efficiency
- Author
-
Roche, Stephan, Bicout, Dominique, Macia, Enrique, and Kats, Efim
- Subjects
Condensed Matter - Mesoscale and Nanoscale Physics ,Condensed Matter - Disordered Systems and Neural Networks ,Quantitative Biology - Biomolecules - Abstract
We address the relation between long range correlations and charge transfer efficiency in aperiodic artificial or genomic DNA sequences. Coherent charge transfer through the HOMO states of the guanine nucleotide is studied using the transmission approach, and focus is made on how the sequence-dependent backscattering profile can be inferred from correlations between base pairs., Comment: Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett
- Published
- 2003
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
14. GLAD Scale for Ranking Welfare of Horses on Arrival after Transport to Slaughterhouses
- Author
-
Padalino, Barbara, primary, Benedetti, Beatrice, additional, Felici, Martina, additional, and Bicout, Dominique Joseph, additional
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
15. How the individual human mobility spatio-temporally shapes the disease transmission dynamics
- Author
-
Changruenngam, Suttikiat, Bicout, Dominique J., and Modchang, Charin
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
16. Vaccination of poultry against highly pathogenic avian influenza – part 1. Available vaccines and vaccination strategies.
- Author
-
Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin‐Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis, Gortázar, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Winckler, Christoph, Bastino, Eleonora, and Bortolami, Alessio
- Subjects
AVIAN influenza ,VACCINATION ,VACCINE effectiveness ,VACCINES ,POULTRY - 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. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal article: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.p211001 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
17. Welfare of ducks, geese and quail on farm
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis, Schmidt, Christian Gortázar, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Stahl, Karl, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Berg, Charlotte, Edwards, Sandra, Knierim, Ute, Riber, Anja, Salamon, Attila, Tiemann, Inga, Fabris, Chiara, Manakidou, Aikaterini, Mosbach-Schulz, Olaf, Van der Stede, Yves, Vitali, Marika, Velarde, Antonio, Producció Animal, and Benestar Animal
- Subjects
welfare consequences ,On-farm animal welfare ,ducks ,end the cage age ,geese ,quail ,foie gras - 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. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
- Published
- 2023
18. Welfare of dairy cows
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis, Gortázar Schmidt, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, De Boyer des Roches, Alice, Jensen, Margit Bak, Mee, John, Green, Martin, Thulke, Hans-Hermann, Bailly-Caumette, Elea, Candiani, Denise, Lima, Eliana, Van der Stede, Yves, Winckler, Christoph, Producció Animal, Benestar Animal, and Dominique Joseph Bicout
- Subjects
welfare ,lameness ,husbandry systems ,dairy cows ,mastitis - 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. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
- Published
- 2023
19. Welfare of calves
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis, Gortazar Schmidt, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Angel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Jensen, Margit Bak, Waiblinger, Susanne, Candiani, Denise, Lima, Eliana, Mosbach-Schulz, Olaf, Van der Stede, Yves, Vitali, Marika, Winckler, Christoph, Producció Animal, and Benestar Animal
- Subjects
cow–calf contact ,iron ,individual housing ,husbandry systems ,veal ,calf welfare - 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. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
- Published
- 2023
20. SARS-CoV-2 in animals: susceptibility of animal species, risk for animal and public health, monitoring, prevention and control
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Luis, Gortázar, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Adlhoch, Cornelia, Aznar, Inmaculada, Baldinelli, Francesca, Boklund, Anette, Broglia, Alessandro, Gerhards, Nora, Mur, Lina, Nannapaneni, Priyanka, Ståhl, Karl, Producció Animal, and Benestar Animal
- Subjects
SARS-CoV-2 ,wildlife ,Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,public health ,mink ,Plant Science ,Microbiology ,monitoring ,prevention ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,control ,Food Science - 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. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
- Published
- 2023
21. Welfare of laying hens on farm
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (AHAW), Nielsen, Soren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Rojas, Jose Luis Gonzales, Schmidt, Christian Gortazar, Herskin, Mette, Chueca, Miguel angel Miranda, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Estevez, Inmaculada, Guinebretiere, Maryse, Rodenburg, Bas, Schrader, Lars, Tiemann, Inga, Van Niekerk, Thea, Ardizzone, Michele, Ashe, Sean, Hempen, Michaela, Mosbach-Schulz, Olaf, Gimeno, Cristina Rojo, Van Der Stede, Yves, Vitali, Marika, Michel, Virginie, and AISS Animal Welfare
- Subjects
beak trimming ,on-farm welfare ,welfare consequences ,veterinary (miscalleneous) ,husbandry systems ,laying hens ,end the cage age ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,Plant Science ,animal-based measures ,Microbiology ,Food Science - 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.
- Published
- 2023
22. Welfare of laying hens on farm
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis, Gortázar Schmidt, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Estevez, Inmaculada, Guinebretière, Maryse, Rodenburg, Bas, Schrader, Lars, Tiemann, Inga, Van Niekerk, Thea, Ardizzone, Michele, Ashe, Sean, Hempen, Michaela, Mosbach-Schulz, Olaf, Rojo Gimeno, Cristina, Van der Stede, Yves, Vitali, Marika, Michel, Virginie, Producció Animal, and Benestar Animal
- Subjects
welfare consequences ,Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,laying hens ,end the cage age ,Plant Science ,Microbiology ,on-farm welfare ,beak trimming ,husbandry systems ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,animal-based measures ,Food Science - 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. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
- Published
- 2023
23. Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): infectious pancreatic necrosis (IPN)
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Luis, Gortázar, Christian, Herskin, Mette S, Michel, Virginie, Miranda, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Ståhl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Bron, James, Olesen, Niels Jorgen, Sindre, Hilde, Stone, David, Vendramin, Niccolò, Antoniou, Sotiria-Eleni, Kohnle, Lisa, Papanikolaou, Alexandra, Karagianni, Anna Eleonora, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Producció Animal, and Benestar Animal
- Subjects
listing ,aquatic animals ,categorisation ,infectious pancreatic necrosis ,Animal Health Law ,impact - 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. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
- Published
- 2023
24. Welfare of broilers on farm
- Author
-
EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare), Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis, Gortázar Schmidt, Christian, Herskin, Mette S, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Tiemann, Inga, de Jong, Ingrid, Gebhardt-Henrich, Sabine Gabriele, Keeling, Linda, Riber, Anja Brinch, Ashe, Sean, Candiani, Denis, García Matas, Raquel, Hempen, Michaela, Mosbach-Schulz, Olaf, Rojo Gimeno, Cristina, Van der Stede, Yves, Vitali, Marika, Bailly-Caumette, Eléa, Michel, Virginie, Producció Animal, and Benestar Animal
- Subjects
broilers ,welfare consequences ,Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,end the cage age ,Plant Science ,Microbiology ,on farm welfare ,husbandry systems ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,mutilations ,animal-based measures ,Food Science - 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. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
- Published
- 2023
25. Welfare of equidae during transport
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis, Gortázar Schmidt, Christian, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Earley, Bernadette, Edwards, Sandra, Faucitano, Luigi, Marti, Sonia, Miranda de La Lama, Genaro C., Costa, Leonardo Nanni, Thomsen, Peter T., Ashe, Sean, Mur, Lina, Van der Stede, Yves, Herskin, Mette, Producció Animal, Benestar Animal, Producció de Remugants, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Lui, Gortázar Schmidt, Christian, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Han, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Earley, Bernadette, Edwards, Sandra, Faucitano, Luigi, Marti, Sonia, Miranda de La Lama, Genaro C, Costa, Leonardo Nanni, Thomsen, Peter T, Ashe, Sean, Mur, Lina, Van der Stede, Yve, and Herskin, Mette
- Subjects
welfare consequences ,Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,Plant Science ,nimal-based measures ,Horse ,Microbiology ,animal welfare ,quantitative threshold ,animal‐based measure ,transport ,quantitative thresholds ,Farm to Fork Stregegy ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,Farm to Fork Strategy ,animal-based measures ,Food Science - 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. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
- Published
- 2022
26. Wwelfare of domestic birds and rabbits transported in containers
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis, Gortázar Schmidt, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Stahl, Karl, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Mitchell, Malcolm, Vinco, Leonardo James, Voslarova, Eva, Candiani, Denise, Mosbach-Schulz, Olaf, Van der Stede, Yves, Velarde, Antonio, Producció Animal, Benestar Animal, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Lui, Gortázar Schmidt, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Han, Stahl, Karl, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Mitchell, Malcolm, Vinco, Leonardo Jame, Voslarova, Eva, Candiani, Denise, Mosbach-Schulz, Olaf, Van der Stede, Yve, and Velarde, Antonio
- Subjects
rabbits ,Settore AGR/19 - Zootecnica Speciale ,welfare consequences ,poultry ,Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,animal‐based measures (ABMs) ,rabbit ,Plant Science ,animal-based measures (ABMs) ,Microbiology ,animal transport ,domestic bird ,preventive/corrective/mitigative measures ,domestic birds ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,preventive/corrective/mitigative measure ,Food Science - 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. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
- Published
- 2022
27. Welfare of pigs on farm
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis, Schmidt, Gortázar, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Mosbach-Schulz, Olaf, Padalino, Barbara, Roberts, Helen Clare, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Edwards, Sandra, Ivanova, Sonya, Leeb, Christine, Wechsler, Beat, Fabris, Chiara, Lima, Eliana, Van der Stede, Yves, Vitali, Marika, Spoolder, Hans, Producció Animal, Benestar Animal, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Lui, Schmidt, Gortázar, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Mosbach-Schulz, Olaf, Padalino, Barbara, Roberts, Helen Clare, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Edwards, Sandra, Ivanova, Sonya, Leeb, Christine, Wechsler, Beat, Fabris, Chiara, Lima, Eliana, Van der Stede, Yve, Vitali, Marika, and Spoolder, Hans
- Subjects
welfare consequences ,Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,tail biting ,end the cage age ,pig categorie ,Plant Science ,husbandry system ,Microbiology ,on‐farm pig welfare ,husbandry systems ,animal‐based measure ,pig categories ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,animal-based measures ,on-farm pig welfare ,Food Science - 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. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
- Published
- 2022
28. Methodological guidance for the development of animal welfare mandates in the context of the Farm to Fork Strategy
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis, Gortázar Schmidt, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Michel, Virginie, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Edwards, Sandra, Ashe, Sean, Candiani, Denise, Fabris, Chiara, Lima, Eliana, Mosbach-Schulz, Olaf, Rojo Gimeno, Cristina, Van der Stede, Yves, Vitali, Marika, Winckler, Christoph, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Lui, Gortázar Schmidt, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Michel, Virginie, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Han, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Edwards, Sandra, Ashe, Sean, Candiani, Denise, Fabris, Chiara, Lima, Eliana, Mosbach-Schulz, Olaf, Gimeno, Cristina Rojo, Van der Stede, Yve, Vitali, Marika, Winckler, Christoph, Producció Animal, and Benestar Animal
- Subjects
welfare consequences ,Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,animal welfare assessment ,Plant Science ,husbandry system ,Microbiology ,husbandry systems ,animal‐based measure ,Farm to Fork Strategy ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,animal-based measures ,Food Science - 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. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
- Published
- 2022
29. Dynamical decoration of stabilized-microtubules by Tau-proteins
- Author
-
Hervy, Jordan and Bicout, Dominique J.
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
30. Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): antimicrobial-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in cattle and horses
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Luis, Gortázar, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Ståhl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Baldinelli, Francesca, Broglia, Alessandro, Kohnle, Lisa, Alvarez, Julio, Producció Animal, Benestar Animal, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Lui, Gortázar, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Han, Ståhl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Baldinelli, Francesca, Broglia, Alessandro, Kohnle, Lisa, Alvarez, Julio, and European Food Safety Authority
- Subjects
Staphylococcus aureus ,Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,Plant Science ,Microbiology ,listing ,categorisation ,Animal Health Law ,Staphylococcus aureu ,impact ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,antimicrobial resistance ,Food Science - Abstract
This article also appears in: Assessment of diseases according to Animal Health Law criteria., 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., The AHAW Panel wishes to thank Wannes Vanderhaeghen from AMCRA for conducting the extensive literature review under the contract PO/EFSA/ALPHA/2021/04. The AHAW Panel also wishes to thank Verena Oswaldi from EFSA for the support provided for this scientific output.
- Published
- 2022
31. Species which may act as vectors or reservoirs of diseases covered by the Animal Health Law: Listed pathogens of molluscs.
- Author
-
Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin‐Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Louis, Smith, Christian Gortazar, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Angel, Padalino, Barbara, Roberts, Helen, Spoolder, Hans, Ståhl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, and Arzul, Isabelle
- Subjects
DISEASE vectors ,ANIMAL diseases ,ANIMAL health ,ANIMAL laws ,LITERATURE reviews - Abstract
Vector or reservoir species of five mollusc diseases listed in the Animal Health Law were identified, based on evidence generated through an extensive literature review, to support a possible updating of Regulation (EU) 2018/1882. Mollusc species on or in which Mikrocytos mackini, Perkinsus marinus, Bonamia exitiosa, Bonamia ostreae and Marteilia refringens were detected, in the field or during experiments, were classified as reservoir species with different levels of certainty depending on the diagnostic tests used. Where experimental evidence indicated transmission of the pathogen from a studied species to another known susceptible species, this studied species was classified as a vector species. Although the quantification of the risk of spread of the pathogens by the vectors or reservoir species was not part of the terms of reference, such risks do exist for the vector species, since transmission from infected vector species to susceptible species was proven. Where evidence for transmission from infected molluscs was not found, these were defined as reservoir. Nonetheless, the risk of the spread of the pathogens from infected reservoir species cannot be excluded. Evidence identifying conditions that may prevent transmission by vectors or reservoir mollusc species during transport was collected from scientific literature. It was concluded that it is very likely to almost certain (90–100%) that M. mackini, P. marinus, B. exitiosaB. ostreae and M. refringens will remain infective at any possible transport condition. Therefore, vector or reservoir species that may have been exposed to these pathogens in an affected area in the wild or at aquaculture establishments or through contaminated water supply can possibly transmit these pathogens. For transmission of M. refringens, the presence of an intermediate host, a copepod, is necessary. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8172/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8174/full This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2023.EN-8122/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2023.EN-8123/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2023.EN-8124/full [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
32. Species which may act as vectors or reservoirs of diseases covered by the Animal Health Law: Listed pathogens of fish.
- Author
-
Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin‐Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Louis, Smith, Christian Gortazar, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Angel, Padalino, Barbara, Spoolder, Hans, Ståhl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Arzul, Isabelle, and Dharmaveer, Shetty
- Subjects
FISH pathogens ,ANIMAL diseases ,DISEASE vectors ,ANIMAL health ,ANIMAL laws ,FISHERY processing ,AQUACULTURE industry - Abstract
Vector or reservoir species of five fish diseases listed in the Animal Health Law were identified, based on evidence generated through an extensive literature review (ELR), to support a possible updating of Regulation (EU) 2018/1882. Fish species on or in which highly polymorphic region‐deleted infectious salmon anaemia virus (HPR∆ ISAV), Koi herpes virus (KHV), epizootic haematopoietic necrosis virus (EHNV), infectious haematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV) or viral haemorrhagic septicaemia virus (VHSV) were detected, in the field or during experiments, were classified as reservoir species with different levels of certainty depending on the diagnostic tests used. Where experimental evidence indicated transmission of the pathogen from a studied species to another known susceptible species, the studied species was classified as a vector species. Although the quantification of the risk of spread of the pathogens by the vectors or reservoir species was not part of the terms or reference, such risks do exist for the vector species, since transmission from infected vector species to susceptible species was proven. Where evidence for transmission from infected fish was not found, these were defined as reservoirs. Nonetheless, the risk of the spread of the pathogens from infected reservoir species cannot be excluded. Evidence identifying conditions that may prevent transmission by vectors or reservoir fish species during transport was collected from scientific literature. For VHSV, IHNV or HPR∆ ISAV, it was concluded that under transport conditions at temperatures below 25°C, it is likely (66–90%) they will remain infective. Therefore, vector or reservoir species that may have been exposed to these pathogens in an affected area in the wild, aquaculture establishments or through water supply can possibly transmit VHSV, IHNV or HPR∆ ISAV into a non‐affected area when transported at a temperature below 25°C. The conclusion was the same for EHN and KHV; however, they are likely to remain infective under all transport temperatures. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8172/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8173/full This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2023.EN-8122/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2023.EN-8123/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2023.EN-8124/full [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
33. Species which may act as vectors or reservoirs of diseases covered by the Animal Health Law: Listed pathogens of crustaceans.
- Author
-
Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin‐Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Louis, Smith, Christian Gortazar, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Angel, Padalino, Barbara, Spoolder, Hans, Ståhl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Arzul, Isabelle, and Dharmaveer, Shetty
- Subjects
WHITE spot syndrome virus ,ANIMAL diseases ,DISEASE vectors ,ANIMAL health ,ANIMAL laws - Abstract
Vector or reservoir species of three diseases of crustaceans listed in the Animal Health Law were identified based on evidence generated through an extensive literature review, to support a possible updating of Regulation (EU) 2018/1882. Crustacean species on or in which Taura syndrome virus (TSV), Yellow head virus (YHV) or White spot syndrome virus (WSSV) were identified, in the field or during experiments, were classified as reservoir species with different levels of certainty depending on the diagnostic tests used. Where experimental evidence indicated transmission of the pathogen from a studied species to another known susceptible species, the studied species was classified as vector species. Although the quantification of the risk of spread of the pathogens by the vectors or reservoir species was not part of the terms of reference, such risks do exist for the vector species, since transmission from infected vector species to susceptible species was proven. Where evidence for transmission from infected crustaceans was not found, these were defined as reservoirs. Nonetheless, the risk of the spread of the pathogens from infected reservoir species cannot be excluded. Evidence identifying conditions that may prevent transmission by vectors during transport was collected from scientific literature. It was concluded that it is very likely to almost certain (90–100%) that WSSV, TSV and YHV will remain infective at any possible transport condition. Therefore, vector or reservoir species that may have been exposed to these pathogens in an affected area in the wild or aquaculture establishments or by water supply can possibly transmit WSSV, TSV and YHV. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8173/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8174/full This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2023.EN-8122/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2023.EN-8123/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2023.EN-8124/full [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
34. Extensive literature review on vectors and reservoirs of AHL‐listed pathogens of fish.
- Author
-
Gnocchi, Marzia, Aires, Mariana, Alvarez, Julio, Arzul, Isabelle, Aznar, Inma, Bicout, Dominique, Carmosino, Ilaria, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Dharmaveer, Shetty, Bastuji, Bruno Garin, Karagianni, Anna Eleonora, Chueca, Miguel Ángel Miranda, Olesen, Niels Jørgen, Palaiokostas, Christos, Roberts, Helen, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Schiøtt, Morten, Sindre, Helen, Stone, David, and Rusina, Alessia
- Subjects
PATHOGENIC microorganisms - Abstract
On request of the EU Commission, EFSA carried out an Extensive Literature Review (ELR) to provide a list of vector species or reservoirs species of pathogens of crustaceans, listed in Annex II to the AHL, aiming to update the Annex of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1882. In this Technical Report, the detailed review protocol of the ELR and assessment of potential vector and reservoir species is described of the crustacean pathogens listed in Annex II to the AHL: Taura syndrome virus (TSV), Yellow head virus (YHV) or White spot syndrome virus (WSSV). In total 2,530 research publications were collected for abstract screening and from these, 110 were selected for further full text analysis. In the final data collection and assessment 34 relevant research publications were used for extracting information on vector and reservoir species of the above crustacean pathogens. The results for crustacean species for which scientific evidence indicates that a role as vector species or reservoir species is likely are presented as tables in the supplementary material of this report. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8172/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8173/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8174/full This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2023.EN-8122/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2023.EN-8124/full [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
35. Extensive literature review on vectors and reservoirs of AHL‐listed pathogens of crustaceans.
- Author
-
Kero, Linnea Lindgren, Alemu, Selam, Alvarez, Julio, Arzul, Isabelle, Aznar, Inma, Caumette, Elea Bailly, Bicout, Dominique, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Dharmaveer, Shetty, Bastuji, Bruno Garin, Kohnle, Lisa, Meroc, Estelle, Chueca, Miguel Ángel Miranda, Olesen, Niels Jørgen, Roberts, Helen, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Schiøtt, Morten, Sindre, Helen, Stone, David, and Rusina, Alessia
- Subjects
PATHOGENIC microorganisms - Abstract
On request of the EU Commission, EFSA carried out an Extensive Literature Review (ELR) to provide a list of vector species or reservoirs species of pathogens of crustaceans, listed in Annex II to the AHL, aiming to update the Annex of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1882. In this Technical Report, the detailed review protocol of the ELR and assessment of potential vector and reservoir species is described of the crustacean pathogens listed in Annex II to the AHL: Taura syndrome virus (TSV), Yellow head virus (YHV) or White spot syndrome virus (WSSV). In total 2,530 research publications were collected for abstract screening and from these, 110 were selected for further full text analysis. In the final data collection and assessment 34 relevant research publications were used for extracting information on vector and reservoir species of the above crustacean pathogens. The results for crustacean species for which scientific evidence indicates that a role as vector species or reservoir species is likely are presented as tables in the supplementary material of this report. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8172/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8173/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8174/full This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2023.EN-8123/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2023.EN-8124/full [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
36. In vitro reconstitution of kallikrein-kinin system and progress curve analysis
- Author
-
Favier, Bertrand, primary, Bicout, Dominique J., additional, Baroso, Rémi, additional, Paclet, Marie-Hélène, additional, and Drouet, Christian, additional
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
37. Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): antimicrobial-resistant Enterococcus faecalis in poultry
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Luis, Gortázar, Christian, Herskin, Mette S, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Ståhl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Baldinelli, Francesca, Broglia, Alessandro, Kohnle, Lisa, Alvarez, Julio, Producció Animal, Benestar Animal, European Food Safety Authority, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Lui, Gortázar, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Han, Ståhl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Baldinelli, Francesca, Broglia, Alessandro, Kohnle, Lisa, Alvarez, Julio, S??ren Saxmose Nielsen, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Elisabetta Canali, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin???Bastuji, Jos?? Luis Gonzales Roja, Christian Gort??zar, Mette Herskin, Virginie Michel, Miguel ??ngel Miranda Chueca, Barbara Padalino, Paolo Pasquali, Helen Clare Robert, Hans Spoolder, Karl St??hl, Antonio Velarde, Arvo Viltrop, Christoph Winckler, Francesca Baldinelli, Alessandro Broglia, Lisa Kohnle, and Julio Alvarez
- Subjects
Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,Plant Science ,Microbiology ,listing ,categorisation ,Animal Health Law ,Enterococcus faecalis ,impact ,Enterococcus cecorum ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,antimicrobial resistance ,Enterococcus faecali ,Food Science - 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., The AHAW Panel wishes to thank Rikke Heidemann Olsen and Peter Panduro Damborg from the University of Copenhagen for conducting the extensive literature review under the contract OC/EFSA/ALPHA/2020/02 – LOT 1. The AHAW Panel also wishes to thank Friederike Hilbert from the University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Ana R. Freitas from the University Institute of Health Sciences, Gandra, Paul McMullin from Poultry Health International, and Verena Oswaldi from EFSA for the support provided for this scientific output.
- Published
- 2022
38. Assessment of the control measures for category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Luis, Gortázar, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Spoolder, Hans, Ståhl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Gubbins, Simon, Stegeman, Jan Arend, Thiaucourt, François, Antoniou, Sotiria-Eleni, Aznar, Inma, Papanikolaou, Alexandra, Zancanaro, Gabriele, Roberts, Helen Clare, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Lui, Gortázar, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Spoolder, Han, Ståhl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Gubbins, Simon, Stegeman, Jan Arend, Thiaucourt, Françoi, Antoniou, Sotiria-Eleni, Aznar, Inma, Papanikolaou, Alexandra, Zancanaro, Gabriele, Roberts, Helen Clare, Producció Animal, Benestar Animal, and European Food Safety Authority
- Subjects
Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,surveillance zone ,Plant Science ,TP1-1185 ,L73 - Maladies des animaux ,Microbiology ,Mycoplasma capricolum subsp. capripneumoniae ,Surveillance épidémiologique ,TX341-641 ,Pleuropneumonie contagieuse caprine ,Disease control measures ,Mycoplasma capricolum ,sampling procedures ,Nutrition. Foods and food supply ,Santé animale ,Chemical technology ,Contrôle de maladies ,Disease control measure ,sampling procedure ,Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia ,protection zone ,Scientific Opinion ,veterinary (miscalleneous) ,Maladie des animaux ,Parasitology ,Animal Science and Zoology ,monitoring period ,Food Science - Abstract
This article also appears in: Animal Health Law: Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of terrestrial animals., 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., European Commission: EFSA-Q-2020-0080
- Published
- 2022
39. Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): infection with Equine Herpesvirus-1
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Saxmose Nielsen, Søren, Álvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin‐Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis, Gortázar, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Roberts, Helen Clare, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Spoolder, Hans, Ståhl, Karl, Velarde Calvo, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Carvelli, Andrea, Paillot, Romain, Broglia, Alessandro, Kohnle, Lisa, Baldinelli, Francesca, Stede, Yves van der, Producció Animal, Benestar Animal, European Food Safety Authority, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Lui, Gortázar, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Roberts, Helen Clare, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Spoolder, Han, Ståhl, Karl, Calvo, Antonio Velarde, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Carvelli, Andrea, Paillot, Romain, Broglia, Alessandro, Kohnle, Lisa, Baldinelli, Francesca, and Van der Stede, Yves
- Subjects
Equine herpesvirus‐1 infection ,Nutrition. Foods and food supply ,Chemical technology ,Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,TP1-1185 ,Plant Science ,Equidae ,Microbiology ,horse ,listing ,Scientific Opinion ,categorisation ,Equine herpesvirus-1 infection ,Animal Health Law ,impact ,TX341-641 ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,Food Science - 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., European Commission. Question number: EFSA-Q-2021-00183
- Published
- 2022
40. Welfare of small ruminants during transport
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis, Gortázar Schmidt, Christian, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Earley, Bernadette, Edwards, Sandra, Faucitano, Luigi, Marti, Sonia, Miranda de La Lama, Genaro C, Costa, Leonardo Nanni, Thomsen, Peter T, Ashe, Sean, Mur, Lina, Van der Stede, Yves, Herskin, Mette, Producció Animal, Benestar Animal, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Lui, Gortázar Schmidt, Christian, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Han, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Earley, Bernadette, Edwards, Sandra, Faucitano, Luigi, Marti, Sonia, Miranda de La Lama, Genaro C, Nanni Costa, Leonardo, Thomsen, Peter T, Ashe, Sean, Mur, Lina, Van der Stede, Yve, and Herskin, Mette
- Subjects
sheep ,goats ,welfare consequences ,hazard ,Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,goat ,animal welfare assessment ,Plant Science ,Microbiology ,quantitative threshold ,animal‐based measure ,small ruminant ,transport ,quantitative thresholds ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,Farm to Fork Strategy ,small ruminants ,animal-based measures ,hazards ,Food Science - 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. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
- Published
- 2022
41. Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): antimicrobial-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius in dogs and cats
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Luis, Gortázar, Christian, Herskin, Mette S, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Ståhl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Baldinelli, Francesca, Broglia, Alessandro, Kohnle, Lisa, Alvarez, Julio, European Food Safety Authority, Producció Animal, Benestar Animal, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Lui, Gortázar, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Han, Ståhl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Baldinelli, Francesca, Broglia, Alessandro, Kohnle, Lisa, and Alvarez, Julio
- Subjects
Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,Plant Science ,Microbiology ,Staphylococcus pseudintermedius ,listing ,categorisation ,Animal Health Law ,Staphylococcus pseudintermediu ,impact ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,antimicrobial resistance ,Food Science - Abstract
This article also appears in: Assessment of diseases according to Animal Health Law criteria., 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., The AHAW Panel wishes to thank Peter Panduro Damborg from the University of Copenhagen for conducting the extensive literature review under the contract OC/EFSA/ALPHA/2020/02 – LOT 1. The AHAW Panel also wishes to thank Luca Guardabassi from the University of Copenhagen and Verena Oswaldi from EFSA for the support provided for this scientific output.
- Published
- 2022
42. Assessment of animal diseases caused by bacteria resistant to antimicrobials : kept fish species
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis, Gortazar Schmidt, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Angel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Dewulf, Jeroen, Guardabassi, Luca, Hilbert, Friederike, Mader, Rodolphe, Romalde, Jesús L, Smith, Peter, Baldinelli, Francesca, Kohnle, Lisa, Alvarez, Julio, Producció Animal, Benestar Animal, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Lui, Gortazar Schmidt, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Angel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Han, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Dewulf, Jeroen, Guardabassi, Luca, Hilbert, Friederike, Mader, Rodolphe, Romalde, Jesús L, Smith, Peter, Baldinelli, Francesca, Kohnle, Lisa, and Alvarez, Julio
- Subjects
fish ,EPIDEMIOLOGIC CUTOFF VALUES ,animal diseases ,Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,review ,FLAVOBACTERIUM-COLUMNARE ,ANTIBIOTIC-RESISTANCE ,Plant Science ,AEROMONAS-SALMONICIDA ,SUSCEPTIBILITY ,Microbiology ,extensive literature ,Scientific Opinion ,Animal Health Law ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,Veterinary Sciences ,antimicrobial resistance ,AGENTS ,extensive literature review ,Food Science - 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. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
- Published
- 2022
43. Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): antimicrobial-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in dogs and cats
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Luis, Gortázar, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Ståhl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Baldinelli, Francesca, Broglia, Alessandro, Kohnle, Lisa, Alvarez, Julio, Producció Animal, Benestar Animal, European Food Safety Authority, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Lui, Gortázar, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Han, Ståhl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Baldinelli, Francesca, Broglia, Alessandro, Kohnle, Lisa, and Alvarez, Julio
- Subjects
Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,Plant Science ,Microbiology ,listing ,categorisation ,Animal Health Law ,Pseudomonas aeruginosa ,impact ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,antimicrobial resistance ,Food Science - Abstract
This article also appears in: Assessment of diseases according to Animal Health Law criteria., 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., The AHAW Panel wishes to thank Joanne Leri Fothergill from the University of Liverpool for conducting the extensive literature review under the contract EOI/EFSA/SCIENCE/2020/01. The AHAW Panel also wishes to Verena Oswaldi from EFSA for the support provided for this scientific output.
- Published
- 2022
44. Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Burkholderia mallei (Glanders)
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Luis, Schmidt, Christian Gortázar, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Spoolder, Hans, Ståhl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Gubbins, Simon, Laroucau, Karine, Antoniou, Sotiria-Eleni, Aznar, Inma, Broglia, Alessandro, Lima, Eliana, Van der Stede, Yves, Zancanaro, Gabriele, Roberts, Helen Clare, Producció Animal, Benestar Animal, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Lui, Schmidt, Christian Gortázar, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Spoolder, Han, Ståhl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Gubbins, Simon, Laroucau, Karine, Antoniou, Sotiria-Eleni, Aznar, Inma, Broglia, Alessandro, Lima, Eliana, Van der Stede, Yve, Zancanaro, Gabriele, and Roberts, Helen Clare
- Subjects
sampling procedures ,Nutrition. Foods and food supply ,Chemical technology ,Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,surveillance zone ,TP1-1185 ,Plant Science ,sampling procedure ,Microbiology ,Burkholderia mallei ,protection zone ,disease control measures ,glanders ,disease control measure ,TX341-641 ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,monitoring period ,glander ,Food Science - 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. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
- Published
- 2022
45. Welfare of cattle during transport
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis, Gortázar Schmidt, Christian, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Earley, Bernadette, Edwards, Sandra, Faucitano, Luigi, Marti, Sonia, de La Lama, Genaro C Miranda, Costa, Leonardo Nanni, Thomsen, Peter T, Ashe, Sean, Mur, Lina, Van der Stede, Yves, Herskin, Mette, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Lui, Gortázar Schmidt, Christian, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Han, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Earley, Bernadette, Edwards, Sandra, Faucitano, Luigi, Marti, Sonia, de La Lama, Genaro C Miranda, Costa, Leonardo Nanni, Thomsen, Peter T, Ashe, Sean, Mur, Lina, Van der Stede, Yve, Herskin, Mette, Producció Animal, and Benestar Animal
- Subjects
Settore AGR/19 - Zootecnica Speciale ,welfare consequences ,hazard ,Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,animal welfare assessment ,cattle ,calves ,Farm to Fork Strategy ,animal-based measures ,hazards ,quantitative thresholds ,Plant Science ,Microbiology ,quantitative threshold ,animal‐based measure ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,calve ,Food Science ,cattlee - 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. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
- Published
- 2022
46. Welfare of pigs during transport
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis, Gortázar Schmidt, Christian, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Earley, Bernadette, Edwards, Sandra, Faucitano, Luigi, Marti, Sonia, Miranda de La Lama, Genaro C, Costa, Leonardo Nanni, Thomsen, Peter T, Ashe, Sean, Mur, Lina, Van der Stede, Yves, Herskin, Mette, Producció Animal, Benestar Animal, Producció de Remugants, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Lui, Schmidt, Christian Gortázar, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Han, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Earley, Bernadette, Edwards, Sandra, Faucitano, Luigi, Marti, Sonia, de La Lama, Genaro C Miranda, Costa, Leonardo Nanni, Thomsen, Peter T, Ashe, Sean, Mur, Lina, Van der Stede, Yve, and Herskin, Mette
- Subjects
pig ,welfare consequences ,hazard ,Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,animal welfare assessment ,Plant Science ,Microbiology ,animal welfare ,quantitative threshold ,animal‐based measure ,quantitative thresholds ,sow ,welfare assessment ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,Farm to Fork Stregegy ,Farm to Fork Strategy ,animal-based measures ,hazards ,Food Science - 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. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
- Published
- 2022
47. Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli in dogs and cats, horses, swine, poultry, cattle, sheep and goats
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Luis, Gortázar, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Ståhl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Baldinelli, Francesca, Broglia, Alessandro, Kohnle, Lisa, Alvarez, Julio, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Lui, Gortázar, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Han, Ståhl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Baldinelli, Francesca, Broglia, Alessandro, Kohnle, Lisa, Alvarez, Julio, Producció Animal, Benestar Animal, and European Food Safety Authority
- Subjects
Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,Plant Science ,Microbiology ,listing ,categorisation ,Animal Health Law ,Escherichia coli ,impact ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,antimicrobial resistance ,Food Science - Abstract
This article also appears in: Assessment of diseases according to Animal Health Law criteria., 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., The AHAW Panel wishes to thank Teresa Gonçalves Ribeiro, Filipa Grosso Ledo and Joana Araújo Alves de Campos from the University of Porto, Portugal, for conducting the extensive literature review under the contract PO/EFSA/ALPHA/2021/01. The AHAW Panel also wishes to thank Verena Oswaldi from EFSA for the support provided for this scientific output.
- Published
- 2022
48. Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Rift Valley Fever
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Luis, Gortázar, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Roberts, Helen Clare, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Spoolder, Hans, Ståhl, Karl, Velarde Calvo, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Gubbins, Simon, Broglia, Alessandro, Aznar, Inma, Van der Stede, Yves, Producció Animal, Benestar Animal, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Lui, Gortázar, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Roberts, Helen Clare, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Spoolder, Han, Ståhl, Karl, Calvo, Antonio Velarde, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, Gubbins, Simon, Broglia, Alessandro, Aznar, Inma, and Van der Stede, Yves
- Subjects
Disease control measures ,sampling procedures ,Nutrition. Foods and food supply ,Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,Chemical technology ,surveillance zone ,Plant Science ,TP1-1185 ,Disease control measure ,sampling procedure ,Microbiology ,protection zone ,Scientific Opinion ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,TX341-641 ,monitoring period ,Rift Valley Fever, RVF ,Food Science - Abstract
This article also appears in: Animal Health Law: Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of terrestrial animals., 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., European Commission: EFSA-Q-2020-00801
- Published
- 2022
49. Assessment of the control measures of the Category A diseases of the Animal Health Law: prohibitions in restricted zones and risk-mitigating treatments for products of animal origin and other materials
- Author
-
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (EFSA AHAW Panel), Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Luis, Gortázar Schmidt, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Stahl, Karl, Velarde Calvo, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, De Clercq, Kris, Sjunnesson, Ylva, Gervelmeyer, Andrea, Roberts, Helen Clare, Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin-Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, José Lui, Gortázar Schmidt, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, Stahl, Karl, Calvo, Antonio Velarde, Viltrop, Arvo, Winckler, Christoph, De Clercq, Kri, Sjunnesson, Ylva, Gervelmeyer, Andrea, Roberts, Helen Clare, Producció Animal, and Benestar Animal
- Subjects
animal products ,Category A diseases ,control measures ,Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,risk-mitigating treatments ,movement prohibition ,Category A disease ,Plant Science ,Microbiology ,germinal product ,control measure ,movement prohibitions ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,germinal products ,risk‐mitigating treatments ,Food Science ,animal product - 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. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
- Published
- 2022
50. Welfare of dairy cows.
- Author
-
Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Bicout, Dominique Joseph, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin‐Bastuji, Bruno, Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis, Gortázar Schmidt, Christian, Herskin, Mette, Michel, Virginie, Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel, Padalino, Barbara, Roberts, Helen Clare, Spoolder, Hans, Stahl, Karl, Velarde, Antonio, Viltrop, Arvo, De Boyer des Roches, Alice, and Jensen, Margit Bak
- Subjects
DAIRY cattle ,SCIENTIFIC literature ,DAIRY farms ,ANIMAL herds ,MILK yield ,AGRICULTURE ,BEHAVIOR disorders - 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 FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.