Scientific and technical assistance concerning the survival, establishment and spread of Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal) in the EU

A new fungus, Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal), was identified in wild populations of salamanders in the Netherlands and Belgium, and in kept salamander populations in Germany and the United Kingdom. EFSA assessed the potential of Bsal to affect the health of wild and kept salamanders in the EU, the effectiveness and feasibility of a movement ban of traded salamanders, the validity, reliability and robustness of available diagnostic methods for Bsal detection, and possible alternative methods and feasible risk mitigation measures to ensure safe international and EU trade of salamanders and their products. Bsal was isolated and characterised in 2013 from a declining fire salamander (Salamandra salamandra) population in the Netherlands. Based on the available evidence, it is likely that Bsal is a sufficient cause for the death of S. salamandra both in the laboratory and in the wild. Despite small sample sizes, the available experimental evidence indicates that Bsal is associated with disease and death in individuals of 12 European and 3 Asian salamander species, and with high mortality rate outbreaks in kept salamanders. Bsal experimental infection was detected in individuals of at least one species pertaining to the families Salamandridae, Plethodontidae, Hynobiidae and Sirenidae. Movement bans constitute key risk mitigation measures to prevent pathogen spread into naïve areas and populations. The effectiveness of a movement ban is mainly dependent on the import volumes, possibility of Bsal to remain viable outside susceptible/tolerant species, and the capacity to limit illegal movements. Duplex real-time PCR can be used to detect Bsal DNA, but has not been fully validated. Quarantining salamanders, enacting legislation that requires testing of animals to demonstrate freedom from Bsal, before movement can take place, restricting salamander movements, tracking all traded species, hygienic procedures/biosecurity measures before and during movements, and increasing public awareness are relevant measures for ensuring safe intra-EU and international trade of salamanders

Guidance on the assessment criteria for applications for new or modified stunning methods regarding animal protection at the time of killing

This guidance defines the process for handling applications on new or modified stunning methods and the parameters that will be assessed by the EFSA Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) Panel. The applications, received through the European Commission, should contain administrative information, a checklist of data to be submitted and a technical dossier. The dossier should include two or more studies (in laboratory and slaughterhouse conditions) reporting all parameters and methodological aspects that are indicated in the guidance. The applications will first be scrutinised by the EFSA’s Applications Desk (APDESK) Unit for verification of the completeness of the data submitted for the risk assessment of the stunning method. If the application is considered not valid, additional information may be requested from the applicant. If considered valid, it will be subjected to assessment phase 1 where the data related to parameters for the scientific evaluation of the stunning method will be examined by the AHAW Panel. Such parameters focus on the stunning method and the outcomes of interest, i.e. immediate onset of unconsciousness or the absence of avoidable pain, distress and suffering until the loss of consciousness and duration of the unconsciousness (until death). The applicant should also propose methodologies and results to assess the equivalence with existing stunning methods in terms of welfare outcomes. Applications passing assessment phase 1 will be subjected to the following phase 2 which will be carried out by the AHAW Panel and focuses on the animal welfare risk assessment. In this phase, the Panel will assess the outcomes, conclusions and discussion proposed by the applicant. The results of the assessment will be published in a scientific opinion.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Welfare of cattle at slaughter

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

Welfare of pigs during killing for purposes other than slaughter

Pigs at different stages of the production cycle may have to be killed on-farm for purposes other thanslaughter (where slaughter is dened as killing for human consumption) either individually (e.g.severely injured pigs) or on a large scale (e.g. unproductive animals or for disease control reasons).This opinion assessed the risks associated with the on-farm killing of pigs and included two phases: 1)handling and moving of pigs and 2) killing methods (including restraint). The killing methods weresubdivided into four categories: electrical methods, mechanical methods, gas mixture methods andlethal injec tion. Four welfare consequences to which pigs can be exposed to during on-farm killingwere identied: pain, fear, impeded movement and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences andrelevant animal-based measures were described. In total, 28 hazards were associated with the welfareconsequences; majority of the hazards (24) are related to Phase 2 (killing). The main hazards areassociated with lack of staff skills and training, and poor-designed and constructed facilities. Staff wasidentied as an origin of all hazards, either due to lack of skills needed to perform appropriate killing ordue to fatigue. Corrective measures were identied for 25 hazards. Outcome tables linking hazards,welfare consequences, animal-based measures, hazard origins, prevent ive and corrective measureswere developed and mitigation measures proposed.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Spatial distribution and risk factors of Brucellosis

Background: The role of wildlife as a brucellosis reservoir for humans and domestic livestock remains to be properly established. The aim of this work was to determine the aetiology, apparent prevalence, spatial distribution and risk factors for brucellosis transmission in several Iberian wild ungulates. Methods: A multi-species indirect immunosorbent assay (iELISA) using Brucella S-LPS antigen was developed. In several regions having brucellosis in livestock, individual serum samples were taken between 1999 and 2009 from 2,579 wild bovids, 6,448 wild cervids and4,454 Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa), and tested to assess brucellosis apparent prevalence. Strains isolated from wild boar were characterized to identify the presence of markers shared with the strains isolated from domestic pigs. Results: Mean apparent prevalence below 0.5% was identified in chamois (Rupicapra pyrenaica), Iberian wild goat (Capra pyrenaica), and red deer (Cervus elaphus). Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), fallow deer (Dama dama), mouflon (Ovis aries) and Barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia) tested were seronegative. Only one red deer and one Iberian wild goat resulted positive in culture, isolating B. abortus biovar 1 and B. melitensis biovar 1, respectively. Apparent prevalence in wild boar ranged from 25% to 46% in the different regions studied, with the highest figures detected in South-Central Spain. The probability of wild boar being positive in the iELISA was also affected by age, age-by-sex interaction, sampling month, and the density of outdoor domestic pigs. A total of 104 bacterial isolates were obtained from wild boar, being all identified as B. suis biovar 2. DNA polymorphisms were similar to those found in domestic pigs. Conclusions: In conclusion, brucellosis in wild boar is widespread in the Iberian Peninsula, thus representing an important threat for domestic pigs. By contrast, wild ruminants were not identified as a significant brucellosis reservoir for livestock

Guidance on the assessment criteria for applications for new or modified stunning methods regarding animal protection at the time of killing

This guidance defines the process for handling applications on new or modified stunning methods and the parameters that will be assessed by the EFSA Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) Panel. The applications, received through the European Commission, should contain administrative information, a checklist of data to be submitted and a technical dossier. The dossier should include two or more studies (in laboratory and slaughterhouse conditions) reporting all parameters and methodological aspects that are indicated in the guidance. The applications will first be scrutinised by the EFSA’s Applications Desk (APDESK) Unit for verification of the completeness of the data submitted for the risk assessment of the stunning method. If the application is considered not valid, additional information may be requested from the applicant. If considered valid, it will be subjected to assessment phase 1 where the data related to parameters for the scientific evaluation of the stunning method will be examined by the AHAW Panel. Such parameters focus on the stunning method and the outcomes of interest, i.e. immediate onset of unconsciousness or the absence of avoidable pain, distress and suffering until the loss of consciousness and duration of the unconsciousness (until death). The applicant should also propose methodologies and results to assess the equivalence with existing stunning methods in terms of welfare outcomes. Applications passing assessment phase 1 will be subjected to the following phase 2 which will be carried out by the AHAW Panel and focuses on the animal welfare risk assessment. In this phase, the Panel will assess the outcomes, conclusions and discussion proposed by the applicant. The results of the assessment will be published in a scientific opinion.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Welfare of cattle during killing for purposes other than slaughter

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

Stunning methods and slaughter of rabbits for human consumption

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

Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429):porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS)

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

Research priorities to fill knowledge gaps on ASF seasonality that could improve the control of ASF

The European Commission requested EFSA to provide study designs for the investigation of four research domains according to major gaps in knowledge identified by EFSA in a report published in 2019: i) the patterns of seasonality of ASF in wild boar and domestic pigs in the EU; ii) the ASF epidemiology in wild boar; iii) ASF virus (ASFV) survival in the environment and iv) ASF transmission by vectors. In this Scientific Opinion, the first research domain on ASF seasonality is addressed. Therefore, five research objectives were proposed by the working group and broader ASF expert networks, such as ASF stop, ENETWILD, VectorNet, AHAW network and the AHAW Panel Experts. Of the five research objectives, only two were prioritised and elaborated into a general protocol/study design research proposal, namely: 1) to monitor the herd incidence of ASF outbreaks in EU Member States (MS) and 2) to investigate potential (seasonal) risk factors for ASF incursion in domestic pig herds of different herd types and/or size. To monitor the incidence in different pig herd types, it is advised to collect, besides ASF surveillance data, pig population data describing at least the following parameters per farm from the first moment of incursion in an affected MS: the numbers of pigs (e.g. number of breeding pigs sows and boars, weaners and fatteners) and the location and the type of farm (including details on the level of biosecurity implemented on the farm and the outdoor/indoor production). We suggest collecting data from all ASF‐affected MS through the SIGMA data model, which was developed for this purpose. To investigate potential risk factors for ASF incursion in domestic pig herds, we suggest a matched case–control design. Such a study design can be run either retrospectively or prospectively. The collected data on the pig herds and the ASF surveillance data in the SIGMA data model can be used to identify case and control farms.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio