Search

Providing bedding or access to an outdoor run are husbandry aspects intended to improve pig welfare, which is currently financially supported through animal welfare schemes in several European countries. However, they may significantly affect the environment through changes in feed efficiency and manure management. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to compare farms differing in animal welfare relevant husbandry aspects regarding (1) the welfare of growing-finishing pigs and (2) environmental impact categories such as global warming (GW), acidification (AC), and freshwater (FE) and marine eutrophication (ME), by employing an attributional Life Cycle Assessment. We collected data on 50 farms with growing-finishing pigs in seven European countries. Ten animal-based welfare indicators were aggregated into three pig welfare indices using principal component analysis. Cluster analysis of farms based on husbandry aspects resulted in three clusters: NOBED (31 farms without bedding or outdoor run), BED (11 farms with bedding only) and BEDOUT (eight farms with bedding and outdoor run). Pigs on farms with bedding (BED and BEDOUT) manipulated enrichment more often (P < 0.001), pen fixtures less frequently (P = 0.003) and showed fewer oral stereotypies (P < 0.001) than pigs on NOBED farms. There were fewer pigs with a short(er) tail on farms with than without bedding (P < 0.001). Acidification of BEDOUT and BED farms was significantly higher (compared to NOBED farms P = 0.002) due to higher ammonia emissions related to farmyard manure. Also, BEDOUT farms had higher ME than NOBED farms (P = 0.035). There were no significant differences regarding GW and FE between husbandry clusters, due to the large variability within clusters regarding feed composition and conversion. Therefore, both husbandry aspects associated with improved animal welfare have a significant influence on some environmental impacts, such as acidification and marine eutrophication. Nevertheless, the large vari

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) strives to develop new methodologies (quantitative and qualitative) for assessing animal welfare of food-producing animals by 2027 and start collecting standardised and good quality animal welfare (AW) data by 2030. In light of its vision, EFSA identified the need to develop an action Roadmap for the More Welfare project: towards new risk assessment methodologies and harmonised animal welfare data in the EU. This Roadmap maps existing animal welfare assessment methods, tools, and data collection activities for different species of food-producing animals through literature review, desk research, online surveys, and workshops. It identifies data and knowledge gaps as well as challenges and blockers prevalent in AW assessment. In doing so, the roadmap points towards research areas that require further development (i.e., working areas), but also highlights collaboration opportunities and priority strategies (actions and project proposals) necessary for achieving EFSA's vision. Seven working areas for animal welfare assessment were identified and discussed with EFSA and external AW experts during virtual workshops, touching upon the definition of animal welfare, indicators and tools for welfare assessment, and the development of frameworks to assess and/or prioritise animal welfare issues. Finally, the Roadmap formulates five project proposals, each of them presenting high-level recommendations on multi-annual and multi-partner projects that were identified in collaboration with EFSA and AW experts, each supported by a SWOT analysis.

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

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

EURCAW-Pigs Reflection Board meeting 26 October 2021.

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

The questions relate to the action plans that member states have to implement: Do the farmers conduct risk assessments? Are there thoughts about thresholds to allow tail docking? What sort of optimisation measures are expected and proportional?

EURCAW Regional Meeting Southern Europe. For sow group-housing in (early) pregnancy, extensive research shows that the farmer and his/her management is more important than the chosen system. Success factors are animal oriented management and rest and regularity, more space per sow, and extra attention for gilts.

Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal) is an emerging fungal pathogen of salamanders. Despite limited surveillance, Bsal was detected in kept salamanders populations in Belgium, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and in wild populations in some regions of Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. According to niche modelling, at least part of the distribution range of every salamander species in Europe overlaps with the climate conditions predicted to be suitable for Bsal. Passive surveillance is considered the most suitable approach for detection of Bsal emergence in wild populations. Demonstration of Bsal absence is considered feasible only in closed populations of kept susceptible species. In the wild, Bsal can spread by both active (e.g. salamanders, anurans) and passive (e.g. birds, water) carriers; it is most likely maintained/spread in infected areas by contacts of salamanders or by interactions with anurans, whereas human activities most likely cause Bsal entry into new areas and populations. In kept amphibians, Bsal contamination via live silent carriers (wild birds and anurans) is considered extremely unlikely. The risk‐mitigation measures that were considered the most feasible and effective: (i) for ensuring safer international or intra‐EU trade of live salamanders, are: ban or restrictions on salamander imports, hygiene procedures and good practice manuals; (ii) for protecting kept salamanders from Bsal, are: identification and treatment of positive collections; (iii) for on‐site protection of wild salamanders, are: preventing translocation of wild amphibians and release/return to the wild of kept/temporarily housed wild salamanders, and setting up contact points/emergency teams for passive surveillance. Combining several risk‐mitigation measures improve the overall effectiveness. It is recommended to: introduce a harmonised protocol for Bsal detection throughout the EU; improve data acquisition on salamander abundance and dis

Presentatie en agenda in het kader van de Animal welfare challenges.

The activities of this first EU Reference Centre for Animal Welfare (EURCAW) will focus on the welfare of pigs, hence: EURCAW-Pigs. It will cover the entire life cycle from birth to the end of life, and include pig husbandry, transport and slaughter or killing (for other purposes than human consumption). EURCAW-Pigs’ main objective is a harmonised compliance with EU welfare legislation regarding pigs.

Op Van Hall Larenstein in Leeuwarden vond op 12 maart 2014 het Studium Generale 'Gluren bij de buren: Dierenwelzijn in internationaal verband' plaats. Dr. ir. Hans Spoolder van Wageningen UR Livestock Research, maakte op basis van resultaten van grote Europese welzijnsprojecten een vergelijking tussen Europese landen met betrekking tot wet- en regelgeving, onderwijs en onderzoek, en maatschappelijke betrokkenheid.

Europa wil af van het preventief couperen van staarten bij varkens, maar hoe voorkom je welzijnsproblemen door staartbijten? En hoe zit het met het afleidingsmateriaal? Welke materialen leveren een positieve bijdrage aan het dierenwelzijn? De Europese voedselveiligheidsautoriteit EFSA bracht onlangs advies uit over beide kwesties aan de Europese Commissie.

Welfare Quality (WQ) is ontwikkeld om het dierenwelzijn eenduidig en betrouwbaar vast te stellen op basis van wetenschappelijke gegevens. Bij WQ wordt het welzijn aan het dier zélf gemeten in plaats van aan de hokmaten, de hoeveelheid licht en de hokverrijking. Nederland heeft zijn ‘welzijnsmaatlatten’ voor de verschillende diersoorten goeddeels klaar. Nu is het de beurt aan het bedrijfsleven om ermee aan de slag te gaan.

Organic and many ‘low input’ production standards for pigs require outdoor access, and as a consequence expose the animals to a wide range of potential endo- and ectoparasite infection sources. Conventional anthelmintics are used to control parasitic infections, but their preventive use is banned by the organic standards. The present paper investigates the potential of prevention of infection through better hygiene. Attempts were made to break the infection cycle through thorough pen cleaning 10 weeks after the pigs had been introduced to the pen. Although pen fouling can be reduced, the level of roundworm (Ascaris suum) infection was not reduced. Regular deworming with conventional medication is still required in addition to good hygiene.