559 results on '"Pasquali, Paolo"'
Search Results
2. Rapid displacement of SARS-CoV-2 variant Delta by Omicron revealed by allele-specific PCR in wastewater
- Author
-
Lee, Wei Lin, Armas, Federica, Guarneri, Flavia, Gu, Xiaoqiong, Formenti, Nicoletta, Wu, Fuqing, Chandra, Franciscus, Parisio, Giovanni, Chen, Hongjie, Xiao, Amy, Romeo, Claudia, Scali, Federico, Tonni, Matteo, Leifels, Mats, Chua, Feng Jun Desmond, Kwok, Germaine WC, Tay, Joey YR, Pasquali, Paolo, Thompson, Janelle, Alborali, Giovanni Loris, and Alm, Eric J
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. The role of co-infections in M. hyopneumoniae outbreaks among heavy fattening pigs: a field study
- Author
-
Tonni, Matteo, Formenti, Nicoletta, Boniotti, M. Beatrice, Guarneri, Flavia, Scali, Federico, Romeo, Claudia, Pasquali, Paolo, Pieters, Maria, Maes, Dominiek, and Alborali, Giovanni L.
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
4. Wastewater-based surveillance in Italy leading to the first detection of mcr-10-positive Klebsiella quasipneumoniae
- Author
-
Formenti, Nicoletta, Guarneri, Flavia, Bertasio, Cristina, Parisio, Giovanni, Romeo, Claudia, Scali, Federico, Birbes, Laura, Boniotti, Maria Beatrice, Diegoli, Giuseppe, Candela, Loredana, Romeo, Gianluca Antonio, Pasquali, Paolo, and Alborali, Giovanni Loris
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
5. SAR Stacking Interferometry to Monitor Critical Infrastructures and Detect Deformation Anomalies
- Author
-
Tessari, Giulia, primary, Riccardi, Paolo, additional, Holecz, Francescp, additional, and Pasquali, Paolo, additional
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
6. Genomic variability of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae within pig lung lobes
- Author
-
Tonni, Matteo, Boniotti, M. Beatrice, Gasparrini, Sara, Guarneri, Flavia, Formenti, Nicoletta, Pieters, Maria, Pasquali, Paolo, and Alborali, Giovanni L.
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
7. Occurrence of Salmonella Typhimurium and its monophasic variant (4, [5],12:i:-) in healthy and clinically ill pigs in northern Italy
- Author
-
D’Incau, Mario, Salogni, Cristian, Giovannini, Stefano, Ruggeri, Jessica, Scali, Federico, Tonni, Matteo, Formenti, Nicoletta, Guarneri, Flavia, Pasquali, Paolo, and Alborali, Giovanni Loris
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
8. The ZupT transporter plays an important role in zinc homeostasis and contributes to Salmonella enterica virulence†
- Author
-
Cerasi, Mauro, Liu, Janet Z, Ammendola, Serena, Poe, Adam J, Petrarca, Patrizia, Pesciaroli, Michele, Pasquali, Paolo, Raffatellu, Manuela, and Battistoni, Andrea
- Subjects
Chemical Sciences ,Nutrition ,Emerging Infectious Diseases ,Infectious Diseases ,Digestive Diseases ,Foodborne Illness ,Infection ,Animals ,Bacterial Proteins ,Female ,Gene Deletion ,Gene Expression Regulation ,Bacterial ,Homeostasis ,Membrane Transport Proteins ,Mice ,Mice ,Inbred C57BL ,Salmonella Infections ,Salmonella enterica ,Zinc ,Analytical Chemistry ,Chemical sciences - Abstract
Zinc is an essential metal for cellular homeostasis and function in both eukaryotes and prokaryotes. To acquire this essential nutrient, bacteria employ transporters characterized by different affinity for the metal. Several studies have investigated the role of the high affinity transporter ZnuABC in the bacterial response to zinc shortage, showing that this transporter has a key role in adapting bacteria to zinc starvation. In contrast, the role of the low affinity zinc importer ZupT has been the subject of limited investigations. Here we show that a Salmonella strain lacking ZupT is impaired in its ability to grow in metal devoid environments and that a znuABC zupT strain exhibits a severe growth defect in zinc devoid media, is hypersensitive to oxidative stress and contains reduced levels of intracellular free zinc. Moreover, we show that ZupT also plays a role in the ability of S. Typhimurium to colonize the host tissues. During systemic infections, the single zupT mutant strain was attenuated only in Nramp1(+/+) mice, but competition experiments between znuABC and znuABC zupT mutants revealed that ZupT contributes to metal uptake in vivo independently of the presence of a functional Nramp1 transporter. Altogether, the here reported results show that ZupT plays an important role in Salmonella zinc homeostasis, being involved in metal import both in vitro and in infected animals.
- Published
- 2014
9. Near-real-time focusing of ENVISAT ASAR Stripmap and Sentinel-1 TOPS imagery exploiting OpenCL GPGPU technology
- Author
-
Peternier, Achille, Merryman Boncori, John Peter, and Pasquali, Paolo
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
10. Monitoring subsidence of open pit iron mines at Carajás Province based on SBAS interferometric technique using TerraSAR-X data
- Author
-
Gama, Fábio F., Cantone, Alessio, Mura, José C., Pasquali, Paolo, Paradella, Waldir R., dos Santos, Athos R., and Silva, Guilherme G.
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
11. The complex karst dynamics of the Lisan Peninsula revealed by 25 years of DInSAR observations. Dead Sea, Jordan
- Author
-
Fiaschi, Simone, Closson, Damien, Abou Karaki, Najib, Pasquali, Paolo, Riccardi, Paolo, and Floris, Mario
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
12. Motile aeromonads from farmed and wild freshwater fish in northern Italy: an evaluation of antimicrobial activity and multidrug resistance during 2013 and 2016
- Author
-
Borella, Laura, Salogni, Cristian, Vitale, Nicoletta, Scali, Federico, Moretti, Vittorio Maria, Pasquali, Paolo, and Alborali, Giovanni Loris
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
13. Monitoring Land Subsidence in the Tokyo Region with SAR Interferometric Stacking Techniques
- Author
-
Pasquali, Paolo, Cantone, Alessio, Riccardi, Paolo, De Filippi, Marco, Ogushi, Fumitaka, Tamura, Masayuki, Gagliano, Stefano, Lollino, Giorgio, editor, Manconi, Andrea, editor, Guzzetti, Fausto, editor, Culshaw, Martin, editor, Bobrowsky, Peter, editor, and Luino, Fabio, editor
- Published
- 2015
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
14. Local Ileal Cytokine Responses in Cattle during a Primary Infection with Cryptosporidium parvum
- Author
-
Canals, Ana, Pasquali, Paolo, Zarlenga, Dante S., Fayer, Ronald, Almeria, Sonia, and Gasbarre, Louis C.
- Published
- 1998
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
15. The synergistic effect of organic acids, phytochemicals and a permeabilizing complex reduces Salmonella Typhimurium 1,4,[5],12:i-shedding in pigs
- Author
-
Ruggeri, Jessica, Foresti, Fabio, Pavesi, Roberta, Terrini, Alessia, Giudici, Francesca, Padoan, Diego, Corradi, Attilio, Ossiprandi, Maria Cristina, Pasquali, Paolo, and Alborali, Giovanni Loris
- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
16. Active tectonics from UAS-HR-DSM combined with PSInSAR: Case example along the Longitudinal Valley - Eastern Taiwan
- Author
-
Deffontaines, Benoit, primary, Chang, Kuo-Jen, additional, Li, Ren-Fan, additional, Lin, Chii-Wen, additional, Pasquali, Paolo, additional, Magalhaes, samuel, additional, and Fortunato, Gerardo, additional
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
17. A Comparative Evaluation of Deep Learning Techniques for Photovoltaic Panel Detection from Aerial Images
- Author
-
Arnaudo, Edoardo, primary, Blanco, Giacomo, additional, Monti, Antonino, additional, Bianco, Gabriele, additional, Monaco, Cristina, additional, Pasquali, Paolo, additional, and Dominici, Fabrizio, additional
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
18. Lymphocyte Dynamic Patterns in Cattle during a Primary Infection with Cryptosporidium parvum
- Author
-
Pasquali, Paolo, Fayer, Ronald, Almeria, Sonia, Trout, James, Polidori, Girolamo A., and Gasbarre, Louis C.
- Published
- 1997
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
19. Salmonella Typhimurium infection primes a nutriprive mechanism in piglets
- Author
-
Miarelli, Maria, Drumo, Rosanna, Signorelli, Federica, Marchitelli, Cinzia, Pavone, Silvia, Pesciaroli, Michele, Ruggieri, Jessica, Chirullo, Barbara, Ammendola, Serena, Battistoni, Andrea, Alborali, Giovanni L, Manuali, Elisabetta, and Pasquali, Paolo
- Published
- 2016
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
29. Acid Stimulation Campaign in Ghana Offshore Using Riserless Light Well Intervention Vessel
- Author
-
Leo, Giuseppe, additional, Borra, Simone, additional, Pasquali, Paolo Giovanni, additional, Sala, Gianluigi, additional, Borri, Luca, additional, Flamminio, Davide, additional, Stocchi, Donatella, additional, Mastrocola, Carlo, additional, Lazzari, Andrea, additional, Tadini, Matteo, additional, Ferraro, Lorenzo, additional, and Fiameni, Antonio, additional
- Published
- 2022
- 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 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
31. 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
32. 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
33. 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
34. 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
35. 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
36. 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
37. 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
38. 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
39. 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
40. 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
41. 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
42. 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
43. Mucosal Vaccines for Enteric Bacterial Pathogens
- Author
-
Pasquali, Paolo and Baschieri, Selene, editor
- Published
- 2012
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
44. Nationwide, Operational Sentinel-1 Based InSAR Monitoring System in the Cloud for Strategic Water Facilities in Hungary
- Author
-
Ronczyk, Levente, primary, Zelenka-Hegyi, András, additional, Török, Gábor, additional, Orbán, Zoltán, additional, Defilippi, Marco, additional, Kovács, István Péter, additional, Kovács, Dániel Márton, additional, Burai, Péter, additional, and Pasquali, Paolo, additional
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
45. Evaluation of the immunogenicity and safety of Brucella melitensis B115 vaccination in pregnant sheep
- Author
-
Pérez-Sancho, Marta, Adone, Rosanna, García-Seco, Teresa, Tarantino, Michaela, Diez-Guerrier, Alberto, Drumo, Rosanna, Francia, Massimiliano, Domínguez, Lucas, Pasquali, Paolo, and Álvarez, Julio
- Published
- 2014
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
46. Growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in zinc poor environments is promoted by a nicotianamine‐related metallophore
- Author
-
Mastropasqua, Maria Chiara, DʼOrazio, Melania, Cerasi, Mauro, Pacello, Francesca, Gismondi, Angelo, Canini, Antonella, Canuti, Lorena, Consalvo, Ada, Ciavardelli, Domenico, Chirullo, Barbara, Pasquali, Paolo, and Battistoni, Andrea
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
47. 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
-
Nielsen, Søren Saxmose, Alvarez, Julio, Calistri, Paolo, Canali, Elisabetta, Drewe, Julian Ashley, Garin‐Bastuji, Bruno, Rojas, José Luis Gonzales, 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, and Bron, James
- Subjects
ANIMAL diseases ,ANIMAL health ,ANIMAL laws ,NECROSIS ,ANIMAL species - Abstract
Infectious pancreatic necrosis (IPN) was assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular, the criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as in Article 9, and Article 8 for listing animal species related to IPN. The assessment was performed following a methodology previously published. The outcome reported is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with an uncertain outcome. According to the assessment here performed, it is uncertain whether IPN can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (50–90% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that IPN does not meet the criteria in Section 1 (Category A; 0–1% probability of meeting the criteria) and it is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Categories B, C, D and E; 33–66%, 33–66%, 50–90% and 50–99% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for IPN according to Article 8 criteria are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
48. Bacterial polyarthritis in post-weaning pigs in a high-density swine breeding area in Italy
- Author
-
Salogni, Cristian, primary, Capucchio, Maria Teresa, additional, Colombino, Elena, additional, Pozzi, Paolo, additional, Pasquali, Paolo, additional, and Alborali, Giovanni Loris, additional
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
49. Additional file 1 of The role of co-infections in M. hyopneumoniae outbreaks among heavy fattening pigs: a field study
- Author
-
Tonni, Matteo, Formenti, Nicoletta, Boniotti, M. Beatrice, Guarneri, Flavia, Scali, Federico, Romeo, Claudia, Pasquali, Paolo, Pieters, Maria, Maes, Dominiek, and Alborali, Giovanni L.
- Subjects
mental disorders ,bacteria ,bacterial infections and mycoses - Abstract
Additional file 1. Allele calling table. Each VNTR type is identified as a combination of different VNTR locus. The number of repeats of each locus is determined by the number of base pairs (bp) for that locus.
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
50. Assessment of the control measures for category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia
- 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, 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, SS, Alvarez, J, Bicout, DJ, Calistri, P, Canali, E, Drewe, JA, GarinBastuji, B, Rojas, JLG, Gortazar, C, Herskin, M, Michel, V, Chueca, MAM, Padalino, B, Pasquali, P, Spoolder, H, Stahl, K, Velarde, A, Viltrop, A, Winckler, C, Gubbins, S, Stegeman, JA, Thiaucourt, F, Antoniou, SE, Aznar, I, Papanikolaou, A, Zancanaro, G, Roberts, HC, European Food Safety Authority, Producció Animal, and Benestar Animal
- Subjects
Veterinary (miscellaneous) ,surveillance zone ,TP1-1185 ,Plant Science ,L73 - Maladies des animaux ,Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia ,Microbiology ,Péripneumonie contagieuse bovine ,mycoide ,Surveillance épidémiologique ,TX341-641 ,Disease control measures ,sampling procedures ,Nutrition. Foods and food supply ,Santé animale ,Chemical technology ,Contrôle de maladies ,Mycoplasma mycoides subsp ,Disease control measure ,sampling procedure ,protection zone ,Scientific Opinion ,Maladie des animaux ,Animal Science and Zoology ,Parasitology ,Mycoplasma mycoides subsp. mycoides ,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 Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period, (iii) the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones, and (iv) the minimum length of time the measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Different clinical and laboratory sampling procedures are proposed depending on the scenarios considered. The monitoring period of 45 days was assessed as not effective and at least 90 days (3 months) is recommended in affected areas where high awareness is expected; when the index case occurs in an area where the awareness is low the monitoring period should be at least 180 days (6 months). Since transmission kernels do not exist and data to estimate transmission kernels are not available, the effectiveness of surveillance and protection zones for CBPP was based on expert knowledge. A surveillance zone of 3 km was considered effective, while a protection zone including establishments adjacent to affected ones is recommended. Recommendations, provided for each of the scenarios assessed, aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad hoc requests in relation to CBPP., The EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare wishes to thank P95 and Evangelos Tsiamadis for the support provided to this scientific output.
- Published
- 2022
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.