Scientific Opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for bovines

This scientific opinion proposes toolboxes of welfare indicators for developing monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for bovines stunned with penetrative captive bolt or slaughtered without stunning. In particular, the opinion proposes welfare indicators together with their corresponding outcomes of consciousness, unconsciousness or death. In the case of slaughter with captive bolt stunning, the opinion proposes a toolbox of indicators and the outcomes to be used to assess consciousness in bovine animals at three key stages of monitoring: (a) after stunning and during shackling and hoisting; (b) during neck cutting or sticking; and (c) during bleeding. For slaughter of bovines without stunning, a set of indicators and outcomes are proposed in another toolbox to be used for (a) assessing unconsciousness, before releasing bovines from restraint; and (b) confirming death before carcass dressing begins. Various activities—including a systematic literature review, an online survey and stakeholders’ and hearing experts’ meetings—were conducted to gather information about the specificity, sensitivity and feasibility of the indicators that can be included in the toolboxes. The frequency of checking differs according to the role of each person responsible for ensuring animal welfare. Personnel performing stunning, shackling, hoisting and/or bleeding will have to check all the animals and confirm that they are not conscious following stunning or before release from the restraint. For the animal welfare officer, who has the overall responsibility for animal welfare, a mathematical model for the sampling protocols is proposed, giving some allowance to set the sample size of animals that he/she needs to check at a given throughput rate (total number of animals slaughtered in the slaughterhouse) and tolerance level (number of potential failures). Finally, different risk factors and scenarios are proposed to define a ‘normal’ or a ‘reinforced’ monitoring protocol, according to the needs of the slaughterhouse

Guidance on the assessment criteria for studies evaluating the effectiveness of stunning interventions regarding animal protection at the time of killing

This guidance defines the assessment process and the criteria that will be applied by the Animal Health and Welfare Panel to studies on known new or modified legal stunning interventions to determine their suitability for further assessment. The criteria that need to be fulfilled are eligibility criteria, reporting quality criteria and methodological quality criteria. The eligibility criteria are based upon the legislation and previously published scientific data. They focus on the intervention and the outcomes of interest, i.e. immediate onset of unconsciousness and insensibility or absence of avoidable pain, distress and suffering until the loss of consciousness and sensibility, and duration of the unconsciousness and insensibility (until death). If a study fulfils the eligibility criteria, it will be assessed regarding a set of reporting quality criteria that are based on the REFLECT and the STROBE statements. As a final step in this first assessment phase, the methodological quality of the submitted study will be assessed. If the criteria regarding eligibility, reporting quality and methodological quality are fulfilled, a full assessment of the animal welfare implications of the proposed alternative stunning intervention, including both pre-stunning and stunning phases, and an evaluation of the quality, strength and external validity of the evidence presented would be carried out at the next level of the assessment. In the case that the criteria regarding eligibility and reporting quality and methodological quality are not fulfilled, the assessment report of the panel will highlight the shortcomings and indicate where improvements are required before the study can be assessed further. In addition to the assessment criteria, the guidance also specifies general aspects applicable to studies on stunning interventions that should be considered when studying the effectiveness of stunning interventions

Scientific Opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for poultry

This scientific opinion proposes toolboxes of welfare indicators, and their corresponding outcomes of consciousness, unconsciousness or death, for developing monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for poultry stunned using electrical waterbaths and gas mixtures or slaughtered without stunning. For waterbath stunning, the opinion proposes a toolbox of indicators for assessing consciousness in poultry at two key stages of monitoring: (a) between the exit from the waterbath stunner and neck cutting and (b) during bleeding. For gas stunning, the opinion proposes a toolbox of indicators for assessing consciousness in poultry at two key stages of monitoring: (a) during shackling and (b) during bleeding. For slaughter without stunning, a toolbox is proposed for confirming death prior to entering scald tanks. Various activities—including a systematic literature review, an online survey and stakeholders‘ and hearing experts‘ meetings—were conducted to gather information about the specificity, sensitivity and feasibility of the indicators. On the basis of such information, a methodology was developed to select the most appropriate indicators to be used in the monitoring procedures. The frequency of checking differs according to the role of each person with responsibility for ensuring poultry welfare. The personnel will have to check all the birds and confirm that they are not conscious following stunning with electrical waterbaths or gas mixtures and that they are dead before entering scald tanks. For the animal welfare officer, a mathematical model for the sampling protocols is proposed, giving some allowance to set the sample size of birds that he/she needs to check at a given throughput rate (total number of birds slaughtered in the slaughterhouses) and threshold failure rate (number of potential failures—birds that are conscious after stunning). Finally, different risk factors and scenarios are proposed to define a =normal‘ or a =reinforced‘ monitoring protocol, according to the needs of the slaughterhouse

Scientific Opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for pigs

This scientific opinion proposes toolboxes of welfare indicators for developing monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for pigs stunned with the head-only electrical method or carbon dioxide at high concentration. In particular, the opinion proposes welfare indicators together with their corresponding outcomes of consciousness, unconsciousness or death. The opinion proposes a toolbox of indicators and the outcomes to be used to assess consciousness in pigs at three key stages of monitoring: (a) after stunning and during shackling and hoisting, (b) during sticking and (c) during bleeding. Various activities—including a systematic literature review, an online survey and stakeholders‘ and hearing experts‘ meetings—were conducted to gather information about specificity, sensitivity and feasibility of the indicators that are to be included in the toolboxes for monitoring welfare. On the basis of information gathered during these activities, a methodology was developed to select the most appropriate indicators that could be used in the monitoring procedures. The frequency of checking differs according to the role of each person with responsibility for ensuring animal welfare at slaughter. The personnel performing stunning, shackling, hoisting and/or bleeding will have to check all the animals and confirm that they are not conscious following stunning. For the animal welfare officer, who has the overall responsibility for animal welfare, a mathematical model for the sampling protocols is proposed, giving some allowance to set the sample size of animals that he/she needs to check at a given throughput rate (total number of animals slaughtered in the slaughterhouses) and tolerance level (number of potential failures—animals that are conscious after stunning; animals that are not unconscious or not dead after slaughter without stunning). The model can also be applied to estimate threshold failure rate at a chosen throughput rate and sample size. Finally, different risk factors and scenarios are proposed to define a =normal‘ or a =reinforced‘ monitoring protocol, according to the needs of the slaughterhouse

Scientific Opinion on the use of low atmosphere pressure system (LAPS) for stunning poultry

The EFSA's Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the use of a low atmosphere pressure system (LAPS) for stunning poultry. Four documents were provided by the European Commission (EC) as the basis for an assessment of the extent to which the LAPS is able to provide a level of animal welfare at least equivalent to that ensured by the current allowed methods for stunning poultry. The LAPS is described as rendering poultry unconscious by gradually reducing oxygen tension in the atmosphere leading to progressive hypoxia in the birds. In order to be allowed in the EU, new stunning methods must ensure 1) absence of pain, distress and suffering until the onset of unconsciousness, and 2) that the animal remains unconscious until death. The submitted studies were peer-reviewed by the AHAW Panel as outlined in its “Guidance on the assessment criteria for studies evaluating the effectiveness of stunning intervention regarding animal protection at the time of killing”. It is unclear from the submitted documents whether the rate of decompression used in LAPS induces unconsciousness and death without causing avoidable pain and suffering in poultry. The assessed studies did not pass the eligibility assessment and, therefore, no further assessment was undertaken

Scientific Opinion concerning a Multifactorial approach on the use of animal and non-animal-based measures to assess the welfare of pigs

Pigs have a need for manipulable materials to satisfy a range of behavioural needs, which can be different in different classes of pig. When these needs are not met, a range of adverse welfare consequences result, one of these being an increased risk for tail-biting in weaners and rearing pigs. The ability to control the risk of tail- biting is essential when aiming to avoid tail-docking. Based on available scientific information this Opinion identifies the multiple interactions between risk factors, welfare consequences and animal and non-animal-based measures on the two subjects requested (i) the absence of functional manipulable materials, for pigs at different stages in life and (ii) tail-biting, for weaners and rearing pigs only. An attempt is made to quantify the relationships between the identified interactions by carrying out a statistical analysis of information from available databases, those being an international dataset collected using the Welfare Quality® protocol, which was not designed to evaluate risk factors for tail-biting and therefore, it had limitations in fitness for this analysis, and a large Finnish dataset with undocked pigs. Based on the current state of knowledge, the AHAW Panel proposes two simple tool-boxes for on farm use to assess (i) the functionality of the supplied manipulable material and (ii) the presence and strength of risk factors for tail biting. Both proposed tool-boxes include a combination of the most important resource-based and animal-based measures. Further development and validation of decision–support tools for customised farm assessment is strongly recommended and a proposal for harmonised data collection across the range of European farming circumstances is presented. A series of further recommendations are made by the AHAW Panel

Immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome : Secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE database

The aim of this study was to describe data on epidemiology, ventilatory management, and outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in immunocompromised patients. Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis on the cohort of immunocompromised patients enrolled in the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE) study. The LUNG SAFE study was an international, prospective study including hypoxemic patients in 459 ICUs from 50 countries across 5 continents. Results: Of 2813 patients with ARDS, 584 (20.8%) were immunocompromised, 38.9% of whom had an unspecified cause. Pneumonia, nonpulmonary sepsis, and noncardiogenic shock were their most common risk factors for ARDS. Hospital mortality was higher in immunocompromised than in immunocompetent patients (52.4% vs 36.2%; p < 0.0001), despite similar severity of ARDS. Decisions regarding limiting life-sustaining measures were significantly more frequent in immunocompromised patients (27.1% vs 18.6%; p < 0.0001). Use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) as first-line treatment was higher in immunocompromised patients (20.9% vs 15.9%; p = 0.0048), and immunodeficiency remained independently associated with the use of NIV after adjustment for confounders. Forty-eight percent of the patients treated with NIV were intubated, and their mortality was not different from that of the patients invasively ventilated ab initio. Conclusions: Immunosuppression is frequent in patients with ARDS, and infections are the main risk factors for ARDS in these immunocompromised patients. Their management differs from that of immunocompetent patients, particularly the greater use of NIV as first-line ventilation strategy. Compared with immunocompetent subjects, they have higher mortality regardless of ARDS severity as well as a higher frequency of limitation of life-sustaining measures. Nonetheless, nearly half of these patients survive to hospital discharge. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073. Registered on 12 December 2013

Resolved versus confirmed ARDS after 24&#160;h: insights from the LUNG SAFE study

Purpose: To evaluate patients with resolved versus confirmed ARDS, identify subgroups with substantial mortality risk, and to determine the utility of day 2 ARDS reclassification. Methods: Our primary objective, in this secondary LUNG SAFE analysis, was to compare outcome in patients with resolved versus confirmed ARDS after 24\ua0h. Secondary objectives included identifying factors associated with ARDS persistence and mortality, and the utility of day 2 ARDS reclassification. Results: Of 2377 patients fulfilling the ARDS definition on the first day of ARDS (day 1) and receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, 503 (24%) no longer fulfilled the ARDS definition the next day, 52% of whom initially had moderate or severe ARDS. Higher tidal volume on day 1 of ARDS was associated with confirmed ARDS [OR 1.07 (CI 1.01\u20131.13), P = 0.035]. Hospital mortality was 38% overall, ranging from 31% in resolved ARDS to 41% in confirmed ARDS, and 57% in confirmed severe ARDS at day 2. In both\ua0resolved and confirmed\ua0ARDS, age, non-respiratory SOFA score, lower PEEP and P/F ratio, higher peak pressure and respiratory rate were each\ua0associated with mortality. In confirmed ARDS, pH and the presence of immunosuppression or neoplasm were also associated\ua0with mortality. The increase in area under the receiver operating curve for ARDS reclassification on day 2 was marginal. Conclusions: ARDS, whether resolved or confirmed at day 2, has a high mortality rate. ARDS reclassification at day 2 has limited predictive value for mortality. The substantial mortality risk in severe confirmed ARDS suggests that complex interventions might best be tested in this population. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02010073. \ua9 2018, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature and ESICM