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

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

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.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

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

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.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

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

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

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.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Assessment of the control measures of category A diseases of the Animal Health Law: Infection with rinderpest virus (Rinderpest)

EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of 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 are assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for rinderpest (RP), the only animal disease to have been globally eradicated. In this opinion, the AHAW Panel reviewed 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. The transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones are shown. Several scenarios for which control measures had to be assessed were agreed prior to the assessment. Considering that RP has been eradicated globally, a re-emergence that is not stopped in its early phases could have a devastating impact on animal health and the economy. The panel concludes that no suitable strategies are available to entirely mitigate the risk associated with granting derogations from killing of animals in an affected establishment or for animal movements. Therefore, the panel recommends to not grant any derogations. The monitoring period of 21 days was assessed as effective, except for the hypothetical first re-emergence of RP, when lack of awareness and diagnostic capability may extend the time to detection. It was concluded that the protection and the surveillance zones would contain 90% and > 99%, respectively, of the infections from an affected establishment. Enlarging the protection zone to 4 km would contain the disease spread with 95% probability.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio