Search

Classic swine fever (CSF) is one of the most devastating diseases for pig production. Currently, on the basis of phylogenetic analysis, classic swine fever virus (CSFV) can be divided into three groups with three or four subgroups but only one serogroup is recognized. Two types of CSFV vaccines are commercially available: the MLV and the newer marker vaccines that allow differentiation of field virus‐infected versus vaccinated animals (DIVA principle). From an evolutionary point of view, CSFV is relatively stable for a RNA virus and only one serogroup has so far been recognized. Convalescent or vaccinated pigs present a long and stable immunity against all the variants of CSFV, based on neutralizing antibodies against NS3, E2, and Erns viral proteins. Postvaccination monitoring based on serosurveillance for undisclosed infection and the analysis of outbreak data should be seen as an essential component for all vaccination programs.

The European Commission requested that EFSA provide study designs for the investigation of four research domains according to major gaps in knowledge identified by EFSA in a report published in 2019: (i) the patterns of seasonality of African Swine Fever (ASF) in wild boar and domestic pigs in the EU; (ii) the epidemiology of ASF in wild boar; (iii) survival of ASF virus (ASFV) in the environment and (iv) transmission of ASFV by vectors. In this Scientific Opinion, the fourth research domain on ASFV transmission by vectors is addressed. Eleven research objectives were proposed by the EFSA working group and broader ASF expert networks, such as ASF stop, ENETWILD, VectorNet, AHAW network and the AHAW Panel Experts. Of the 11 research objectives, six were prioritised based on the following set of criteria: (1) the impact on ASF management; (2) the feasibility or practicality to carry out the study; (3) the potential implementation of study results in practice; (4) a possible short time-frame study (< 1 year); (5) the novelty of the study and (6) if it was a priority for risk managers. The prioritised research objectives were: (I) Studies on the potential vector fauna at the pig-wild boar interface and the feeding preference of blood-feeding potential vectors in ASF-affected areas; (II) Assessment of the efficacy of insect screens on indoor/outdoor pig holdings to prevent the entry of blood-sucking vectors (i.e. Stomoxys) in ASF endemic areas; (III) Assess the role of mechanical vectors in the virus transmission in ASF-affected areas; (IV) Distribution of the potential mechanical transmission vectors in ASF-affected areas of the EU; (V) ASFV transmission by synanthropic birds; and (VI) Assessment on the presence/absence of the soft tick Ornithodoros erraticus in ASF-affected areas in Europe. For each of the selected research objectives, a research protocol has been proposed considering the potential impact on ASF management and the period of 1 year for the research activities. (C) 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.

The European Commission requested that EFSA provide study designs for the investigation of four research domains according to major gaps in knowledge identified by EFSA in a report published in 2019: i) the patterns of seasonality of African Swine Fever (ASF) in wild boar and domestic pigs in the EU; ii) the epidemiology of ASF in wild boar; iii) survival of ASF virus (ASFV) in the environment and iv) transmission of ASFV by vectors. In this Scientific Opinion, the third research domain on ASFV survival is addressed. Nine research objectives were proposed by the working group and broader ASF expert networks, such as ASF stop, ENETWILD, VectorNet, AHAW network and the AHAW Panel Experts. Of the nine research objectives, only one was prioritised and elaborated into a general protocol/study design research proposal, pertaining ASFV survival in feed and bedding. To investigate the survival of ASFV in feed, bedding and roughage, laboratory survival studies are proposed. To investigate possible risk mitigation measures, proof-of-concept approaches should be investigated. (C) 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.

EFSA assessed the role of seropositive wild boar in African swine fever (ASF) persistence. Surveillance data from Estonia and Latvia investigated with a generalised equation method demonstrated a significantly slower decline in seroprevalence in adult animals compared with subadults. The seroprevalence in adults, taking more than 24 months to approach zero after the last detection of ASFV circulation, would be a poor indicator to demonstrate the absence of virus circulation. A narrative literature review updated the knowledge on the mortality rate, the duration of protective immunity and maternal antibodies and transmission parameters. In addition, parameters potentially leading to prolonged virus circulation (persistence) in wild boar populations were reviewed. A stochastic explicit model was used to evaluate the dynamics of virus prevalence, seroprevalence and the number of carcasses attributed to ASF. Secondly, the impact of four scenarios on the duration of ASF virus (ASFV) persistence was evaluated with the model, namely a: (1) prolonged, lifelong infectious period, (2) reduction in the case-fatality rate and prolonged transient infectiousness; (3) change in duration of protective immunity and (4) change in the duration of protection from maternal antibodies. Only the lifelong infectious period scenario had an important prolonging effect on the persistence of ASF. Finally, the model tested the performance of different proposed surveillance strategies to provide evidence of the absence of virus circulation (Exit Strategy). A two-phase approach (Screening Phase, Confirmation Phase) was suggested for the Exit Strategy. The accuracy of the Exit Strategy increases with increasing numbers of carcasses collected and tested. The inclusion of active surveillance based on hunting has limited impact on the performance of the Exit Strategy compared with lengthening of the monitoring period. This performance improvement should be reasonably balanced against an unnecessary prolonged 'time free' with only a marginal gain in performance. Recommendations are provided for minimum monitoring periods leading to minimal failure rates of the Exit Strategy. The proposed Exit Strategy would fail with the presence of lifelong infectious wild boar. That said, it should be emphasised that the existence of such animals is speculative, based on current knowledge. (C) 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.

EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of the control measures against diseases included in the Category A list according to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases ('Animal Health Law'). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where these control measures will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for peste des petits ruminants (PPR). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period and (iii) the minimum radii of the protection and surveillance zones, and the minimum length of time the measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere; nonetheless, the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radii of the protection and surveillance zones are shown. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. The monitoring period of 21 days was assessed as effective, except for the first affected establishments detected, where 33 days is recommended. It was concluded that beyond the protection (3 km) and the surveillance zones (10 km) only 9.6% (95% CI: 3.1-25.8%) and 2.3% (95% CI: 1-5.5%) of the infections from an affected establishment may occur, respectively. This may be considered sufficient to contain the disease spread (95% probability of containing transmission corresponds to 5.3 km). Recommendations provided for each of the scenarios assessed aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad-hoc requests in relation to PPR. (C) 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.

Cattle of different ages may have to be killed on farm for purposes other than slaughter (the latter being defined as killing for human consumption) either individually or on a large scale, e.g. for economic reasons or for disease control. The purpose of this scientific opinion is to assess the risks associated with the on-farm killing of cattle. The processes during on-farm killing that were assessed included handling and moving, stunning and/or killing methods (including restraint). The killing methods were grouped into mechanical and electrical methods as well as lethal injection. In total, 21 hazards compromising animal welfare were identified and characterised, most of these related tostunning and/or killing. Staff was identified as an origin for all hazards, either due to lack of appropriate skills needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. Possible preventive and corrective measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for 19 hazards, and the staff was shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Three welfare consequences of hazards to which cattle can be exposed during on-farm killing were identified: impeded movement, pain and fear. The welfare consequences and relevant animal-based measures related to these were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origins of the hazards, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise the welfare consequences are proposed.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW)., Cattle of different ages may have to be killed on farm for purposes other than slaughter (the latter being defined as killing for human consumption) either individually or on a large scale, e.g. for economic reasons or for disease control. The purpose of this scientific opinion is to assess the risks associated with the on‐farm killing of cattle. The processes during on‐farm killing that were assessed included handling and moving, stunning and/or killing methods (including restraint). The killing methods were grouped into mechanical and electrical methods as well as lethal injection. In total, 21 hazards compromising animal welfare were identified and characterised, most of these related to stunning and/or killing. Staff was identified as an origin for all hazards, either due to lack of appropriate skills needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. Possible preventive and corrective measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for 19 hazards, and the staff was shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Three welfare consequences of hazards to which cattle can be exposed during on‐farm killing were identified: impeded movement, pain and fear. The welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures related to these were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal‐based measures, origins of the hazards, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise the welfare consequences are proposed.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing lists in Annex I the stunning interventions currently allowed in the EU, together with the related conditions under which those interventions can be implemented. The regulation allows the Commission to amend Annex I, listing additional stunning interventions, provided they ensure a level of animal welare at least equivalent to that ensured by the one already approved. EFSA was requested to perform such assessment with regard to the implementation of the low atmospheric pressure stunning (LAPS) system on broiler chickens. The ad hoc Working Group (WG) set up by EFSA performed the assessment in three main steps, i.e. checking the data provided against the criteria laid down in the EFSA Guidance (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2013); running an extensive literature search, followed by data extraction and performing a judgemental ranking exercise based on expert opinion. As main outcome, the LAPS intervention was found to be able to provide a level of animal welfare not lower than that provided by at least one of the currently allowed methods. The overall assessment of EFSA is valid ONLY under the technical conditions described in the submission and for broiler chickens, intended for human consumption, weighting less than 4 kg. Deviations from these conditions might have different consequences for animal welfare which were not assessed in this exercise. The LAPS method may, in addition to commercial slaughter, be suitable for depopulation, respecting the technical conditions defined in the present conclusions. The WG considers that a revision of the present version of the EFSA Guidance could be beneficial.

Japanese encephalitis (JE) 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 Japanese encephalitis to be listed, Article 9 for the categorisation of Japanese encephalitis according to disease prevention and control rules as in Annex IV and Article 8 on the list of animal species related to Japanese encephalitis. The assessment has been performed following a methodology composed of information collection and compilation, expert judgement on each criterion at individual and, if no consensus was reached before, also at collective level. The output is composed of the categorical answer, and for the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported. Details on the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. According to the assessment performed, JE can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention as laid down in Article 5(3) of the AHL. The disease would comply with the criteria as in Section 5 of Annex IV of the AHL, for the application of the disease prevention and control rules referred to in point (e) of Article 9(1). The main animal species to be listed for JE according to Article 8(3) criteria are waterfowl, pigs and equines as susceptible species and waterfowl as reservoir, as reported in the present document.

Bovine tuberculosis 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 bovine tuberculosis to be listed, Article 9 for the categorisation of bovine tuberculosis according to disease prevention and control rules as in Annex IV and Article 8 on the list of animal species related to bovine tuberculosis. The assessment has been performed following a methodology composed of information collection and compilation, expert judgement on each criterion at individual and, if no consensus was reached before, also at collective level. The output is composed of the categorical answer, and for the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported. Details on the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. According to the assessment performed, bovine tuberculosis can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention as laid down in Article 5(3) of the AHL. The disease would comply with the criteria as in Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Annex IV of the AHL, for the application of the disease prevention and control rules referred to in points (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Article 9(1). The main animal species to be listed for bovine tuberculosis according to Article 8(3) criteria are several mammal species, as indicated in the present opinion.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW)., The killing of pigs for human consumption (slaughtering) can take place in a slaughterhouse or on farm. The processes of slaughtering that were assessed for welfare, from the arrival of pigs until their death, were grouped into three main phases: pre‐stunning (including arrival, unloading from the truck, lairage, handling and moving of pigs); stunning (including restraint); and bleeding. Stunning methods were grouped into three categories: electrical, controlled atmosphere and mechanical. Twelve welfare consequences the pigs can be exposed to during slaughter were identified: heat stress, cold stress, fatigue, prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, impeded movement, restriction of movements, resting problem, negative social behaviour, pain, fear and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures were described. In total, 30 welfare hazards that could occur during slaughter were identified and characterised, most of them related to stunning and bleeding. Staff were identified as the origin of 29 hazards, which were attributed to the lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or to fatigue. Corrective and preventive measures for these hazards were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified, and management was shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal‐based measures, origins and preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are proposed.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW)., Rabbits 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 or on a large scale (e.g. for production reasons or for disease control). The purpose of this opinion was to assess the risks associated to the on‐farm killing of rabbits. The processes during on‐farm killing that were assessed included handling, stunning and/or killing methods (including restraint). The latter were grouped into four categories: electrical methods, mechanical methods, controlled atmosphere method and lethal injection. In total, 14 hazards were identified and characterised, most of these related to stunning and/or killing. The staff was identified as the origin for all hazards, either due to lack of the appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. Possible corrective and preventive measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for five hazards and the staff was shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Five welfare consequences of the welfare hazards to which rabbits can be exposed to during on‐farm killing were identified: not being dead, consciousness, pain, fear and distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal‐based measures, origins, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are proposed.

Cattle of different ages may have to be killed on farm for purposes other than slaughter (the latter being defined as killing for human consumption) either individually or on a large scale, e.g. for economic reasons or for disease control. The purpose of this scientific opinion is to assess the risks associated with the on-farm killing of cattle. The processes during on-farm killing that were assessed included handling and moving, stunning and/or killing methods (including restraint). The killing methods were grouped into mechanical and electrical methods as well as lethal injection. In total, 21 hazards compromising animal welfare were identified and characterised, most of these related to stunning and/or killing. Staff was identified as an origin for all hazards, either due to lack of appropriate skills needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. Possible preventive and corrective measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for 19 hazards, and the staff was shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Three welfare consequences of hazards to which cattle can be exposed during on-farm killing were identified: impeded movement, pain and fear. The welfare consequences and relevant animal-based measures related to these were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origins of the hazards, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise the welfare consequences are proposed.

Rift Valley fever (RVF) is a vector-borne disease transmitted by different mosquito species, especially Aedes and Culex genus, to animals and humans. In November 2018, RVF re-emerged in Mayotte (France) after 11 years. Up to the end of October 2019, 126 outbreaks in animals and 143 human cases were reported. RVF mortality was 0.01%, and the number of abortions reported in polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive ruminants was fivefold greater than the previous 7 years. Milk loss production in 2019 compared to 2015-2018 was estimated to be 18%, corresponding to an economic loss of around Euro191,000 in all of Mayotte. The tropical climate in Mayotte provides conditions for the presence of mosquitoes during the whole year, and illegal introductions of animals represent a continuous risk of (re)introduction of RVF. The probability of RVF virus (RVFV) persisting in Mayotte for 5 or more years was estimated to be

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

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (EFSA AHAW Panel)., Effectiveness of surveillance and control measures against Rift Valley Fever (RVF) in Mayotte (overseas France) and in continental EU were assessed using mathematical models. Surveillance for early detection of RVF virus circulation implies very low design prevalence values and thus sampling a high number of animals, so feasibility issues may rise. Passive surveillance based on notified abortions in ruminants is key for early warning and at present the only feasible surveillance option. The assessment of vaccination and culling against RVF in Mayotte suggests that vaccination is more effective when quickly implemented throughout the population, e.g. at a rate of 200 or 2,000 animals vaccinated per day. Test and cull is not an option for RVF control in Mayotte given the high number of animals that would need to be tested. If the risk of RVFV introduction into the continental EU increases, ruminant establishments close to possible points of disease incursion should be included in the surveillance. An enhanced surveillance on reproductive disorders should be applied during summer in risk areas. Serosurveillance targets of 0.3% animals should be at least considered. RVF control measures possibly applied in the continental EU have been assessed in the Netherlands, as an example. Culling animals on farms within a 20 km radius of detected farms appears as the most effective measure to control RVF spread, although too many animals should be culled. Alternative measures are vaccination in a 50 km radius around detection, ring vaccination between 20 and 50 km and culling of detected farms. The assessment of zoning showed that, following RVFV introduction and considering an R0 = 2, a mean vector dispersal of 10 km and 10 farms initially detected, RVFV would spread beyond a radius of up to 100 km or 50 km from the infected area with 10% or 55% probability, respectively.

The killing of cattle for human consumption (slaughtering) can take place in a slaughterhouse or on farm. The processes of slaughtering that were assessed for welfare, from the arrival of cattle until their death (including slaughtering without stunning), were grouped into three main phases: pre-stunning (including arrival, unloading from the truck, lairage, handling and moving of cattle); stunning (including restraint); and bleeding. Stunning methods were grouped into two categories: mechanical and electrical. Twelve welfare consequences that cattle may be exposed to during slaughter were identified: heat stress, cold stress, fatigue, prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, impeded movement, restriction of movements, resting problems (inability to rest or discomfort during resting), social stress, pain, fear and distress. Welfare consequences and their relevant animal-based measures are described. In total, 40 welfare hazards that could occur during slaughter were identified and characterised, most of them related to stunning and bleeding. Staff were identified as the origin of 39 hazards, which were attributed to the lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or to fatigue. Measures to prevent and correct hazards were identified, and structural and managerial measures were identified as those with a crucial role in prevention. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origin of hazards, and preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are proposed. (C) 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority. Non

The killing of poultry for human consumption (slaughtering) can take place in a slaughterhouse or during on-farm slaughter. The processes of slaughtering that were assessed, from the arrival of birds in containers until their death, were grouped into three main phases: pre-stunning (including arrival, unloading of containers from the truck, lairage, handling/removing of birds from containers); stunning (including restraint); and bleeding (including bleeding following stunning and bleeding during slaughter without stunning). Stunning methods were grouped into three categories: electrical, controlled modified atmosphere and mechanical. In total, 35 hazards were identified and characterised, most of them related to stunning and bleeding. Staff were identified as the origin of 29 hazards, and 28 hazards were attributed to the lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or to fatigue. Corrective and preventive measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for 11 hazards, with management shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Ten welfare consequences, the birds can be exposed to during slaughter, were identified: consciousness, heat stress, cold stress, prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, restriction of movements, pain, fear, distress and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal-based measures were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origins, and preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences were also proposed. (C) 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority. Non