30 research outputs found
Urgent advice on lumpy skin disease EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare
In order to assess the effects on disease spread and persistence of partial stamping out of only
clinically affected animals in holdings where the presence of lumpy skin disease has been confirmed,
against total stamping-out policy of infected herds coupled with vaccination, a mathematical model for
the transmission of LSDV between farms was developed and different scenarios explored. According to
the model, vaccination has a greater impact in reducing LSDV spread than any culling policy, even
when low vaccination effectiveness is considered. When vaccination is evenly applied so that 95% of
the farms are vaccinated with 75% of vaccinated animals effectively protected, then total stamping out
and partial stamping out result in a similar probability of eradicating the infection. When no vaccination
is applied or when vaccination has a lower effectiveness (e.g. 40%), the probability of eradication is
higher when total stamping out is performed as compared to partial stamping out. In general, partial
stamping out results in limited increase of the number of farms affected as compared to total stamping
out. Independently of the culling interventions applied in the model, vaccination was most effective in
reducing LSDV spread if protection had already been developed at the time of virus entry, followed by
protection of herds after virus entry. No vaccination is the least effective option in reducing LSDV
spread. In order to reach the above described effects, it is necessary to implement vaccination of the
entire susceptible population in regions at risk for LSDV introduction or affected by LSDV in order to
minimise the number of outbreaks, and high animal- and farm-level vaccination coverage should be
achieved. Farmers and veterinarians should be trained in the clinical identification of LSD in order to
reduce underreporting, and the effectiveness of partial stamping out should be evaluated under field
conditions.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio
Assessing the health status of managed honeybee colonies (HEALTHY-B): a toolbox to facilitate harmonised data collection
Tools are provided to assess the health status of managed honeybee colonies by facilitating further
harmonisation of data collection and reporting, design of field surveys across the European Union (EU)
and analysis of data on bee health. The toolbox is based on characteristics of a healthy managed
honeybee colony: an adequate size, demographic structure and behaviour; an adequate production of
bee products (both in relation to the annual life cycle of the colony and the geographical location); and
provision of pollination services. The attributes ‘queen presence and performance’, ‘demography of the
colony’, ‘in-hive products’ and ‘disease, infection and infestation’ could be directly measured in field
conditions across the EU, whereas ‘behaviour and physiology’ is mainly assessed through experimental
studies. Analysing the resource providing unit, in particular land cover/use, of a honeybee colony is
very important when assessing its health status, but tools are currently lacking that could be used at
apiary level in field surveys across the EU. Data on ‘beekeeping management practices’ and
‘environmental drivers’ can be collected via questionnaires and available databases, respectively. The
capacity to provide pollination services is regarded as an indication of a healthy colony, but it is
assessed only in relation to the provision of honey because technical limitations hamper the
assessment of pollination as regulating service (e.g. to pollinate wild plants) in field surveys across the
EU. Integrating multiple attributes of honeybee health, for instance, via a Health Status Index, is
required to support a holistic assessment. Examples are provided on how the toolbox could be used by
different stakeholders. Continued interaction between the Member State organisations, the EU
Reference Laboratory and EFSA is required to further validate methods and facilitate the efficient use
of precise and accurate bee health data that are collected by many initiatives throughout the EU.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio
Welfare of pigs at slaughter
The killing of pigs for human consumption (slaughtering) can take place in a slaughterhouse or on
farm. The processes of slaughtering that were assessed for welfare, from the arrival of pigs until their
death, were grouped into three main phases: pre-stunning (including arrival, unloading from the truck,
lairage, handling and moving of pigs); stunning (including restraint); and bleeding. Stunning methods
were grouped into three categories: electrical, controlled atmosphere and mechanical. Twelve welfare
consequences the pigs can be exposed to during slaughter were identified: heat stress, cold stress,
fatigue, prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, impeded movement, restriction of movements, resting
problem, negative social behaviour, pain, fear and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and
relevant animal-based measures were described. In total, 30 welfare hazards that could occur during
slaughter were identified and characterised, most of them related to stunning and bleeding. Staff were
identified as the origin of 29 hazards, which were attributed to the lack of appropriate skill sets needed
to perform tasks or to fatigue. Corrective and preventive measures for these hazards were assessed:
measures to correct hazards were identified, and management was shown to have a crucial role in
prevention. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origins
and preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to
minimise welfare consequences are proposed.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):Salmonella infection in poultry with serotypes of animal health relevance (S. Pullorum, S. Gallinarum and S. arizonae)
Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429):bovine tuberculosis
Assessment of animal diseases caused by bacteria resistant to antimicrobials: cattle
In this opinion, the antimicrobial resistant bacteria responsible for transmissible diseases that constitute a threat to the health of cattle have been assessed. The assessment has been 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. A global state of play on antimicrobial resistance in clinical isolates of Escherichia coli (non-VTEC), Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus uberis, Streptococcus dysgalactiae, Pasteurella multocida, Mannheimia haemolytica, Histophilus somni, Mycoplasma bovis, Moraxella bovis, Fusobacterium necrophorum and Trueperella pyogenes is provided. Among those bacteria, EFSA identified E. coli and S. aureus with ≥ 66% certainty as being the most relevant antimicrobial resistant bacteria in cattle in the EU based on the available evidence. The animal health impact of these most relevant bacteria, as well as their eligibility for being listed and categorised within the animal health law framework will be assessed in separate scientific opinions.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio
Assessment of animal diseases caused by bacteria resistant to antimicrobials: Dogs and cats
In this opinion the antimicrobial-resistant bacteria responsible for transmissible diseases that constitute a threat to dog and cat health have been assessed. The assessment has been performed following a methodology based on information collected via an extensive literature review and expert judgement. Details of the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. A global state of play of antimicrobial resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus schleiferi, Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, Klebsiella spp., Enterobacter spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Clostridium perfringens, Clostridioides difficile, Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium has been provided. Among those bacteria, EFSA identified S. pseudintermedius, E. coli and P. aeruginosa with > 90% certainty as the most relevant antimicrobial resistant bacteria in the EU based on the available evidence. The animal health impact of these most relevant bacteria, as well as their eligibility for being listed and categorised within the animal health law framework will be assessed in separate scientific opinions.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio
Ad hoc method for the assessment of animal diseases caused by bacteria resistant to antimicrobials
The European Commission requested EFSA assess antimicrobial-resistant bacteria responsible for animal transmissible diseases, with a view to listing such pathogens for European Union action. This Scientific Opinion addresses the ad hoc method developed: (i) to give a global state of play as regards resistant animal pathogens that cause transmissible animal diseases, (ii) to identify the most relevant bacteria in the EU and (iii) to summarise their actual or potential animal health impact, and to perform their assessment for being listed and categorised according to the criteria of Articles 7, 5, 9 and 8 within the Animal Health Law (AHL) framework. An extensive literature review is carried out to give the global state of play of selected resistant bacteria that constitute a threat to animal health (i). An expert judgement procedure, based on the outcome of the literature review, is applied to identify which among those bacteria subjected to the literature review are the ‘most relevant’ in the European Union (ii). Their animal health impact in the European Union and their assessment for being listed and categorised according to the AHL framework will follow the ‘ad hoc method for the assessment on listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law’ that EFSA has developed in the past (iii). The assessment of (i) and (ii) is addressed in distinct scientific opinions that are published separately by animal species of interest (dogs and cats, horses, pigs, poultry, cattle, small ruminants, rabbits and aquatic animal species). The assessment of (iii) is addressed in distinct scientific opinions and published separately by the animal pathogen.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio
ASF Exit Strategy: Providing cumulative evidence of the absence of African swine fever virus circulation in wild boar populations using standard surveillance measures
EFSA assessed the role of seropositive wild boar in African swine fever (ASF) persistence. Surveillance data from Estonia and Latvia investigated with a generalised equation method demonstrated a significantly slower decline in seroprevalence in adult animals compared with subadults. The seroprevalence in adults, taking more than 24 months to approach zero after the last detection of ASFV circulation, would be a poor indicator to demonstrate the absence of virus circulation. A narrative literature review updated the knowledge on the mortality rate, the duration of protective immunity and maternal antibodies and transmission parameters. In addition, parameters potentially leading to prolonged virus circulation (persistence) in wild boar populations were reviewed. A stochastic explicit model was used to evaluate the dynamics of virus prevalence, seroprevalence and the number of carcasses attributed to ASF. Secondly, the impact of four scenarios on the duration of ASF virus (ASFV) persistence was evaluated with the model, namely a: (1) prolonged, lifelong infectious period, (2) reduction in the case‐fatality rate and prolonged transient infectiousness; (3) change in duration of protective immunity and (4) change in the duration of protection from maternal antibodies. Only the lifelong infectious period scenario had an important prolonging effect on the persistence of ASF. Finally, the model tested the performance of different proposed surveillance strategies to provide evidence of the absence of virus circulation (Exit Strategy). A two‐phase approach (Screening Phase, Confirmation Phase) was suggested for the Exit Strategy. The accuracy of the Exit Strategy increases with increasing numbers of carcasses collected and tested. The inclusion of active surveillance based on hunting has limited impact on the performance of the Exit Strategy compared with lengthening of the monitoring period. This performance improvement should be reasonably balanced against an unnecessary prolonged ‘time free’ with only a marginal gain in performance. Recommendations are provided for minimum monitoring periods leading to minimal failure rates of the Exit Strategy. The proposed Exit Strategy would fail with the presence of lifelong infectious wild boar. That said, it should be emphasised that the existence of such animals is speculative, based on current knowledge.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio