Transport certifications of cattle moved from France to Southern Italy and Greece: do they comply with Reg. EC 1/2005?

Are regulations addressing farm animal welfare issues during live transportation fit for purpose? A multi-country jurisdictional check

Growing animal welfare concerns have pushed some jurisdictions to strengthen regulations addressing live farm animal transportation, but whether they provide satisfactory levels of protection for animals remains to be shown. Using the recent peer-reviewed literature, we identified four major risk factors associated with live animal transportation (fitness for transport, journey duration, climatic conditions and space allowances) and explored how regulations were structured to prevent animal welfare issues in five English-speaking Western jurisdictions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the EU and the USA). All legally binding federal regulations were systematically reviewed and compared. Whether these rules were fit for purpose was assessed using the relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature. Our findings indicate the majority of regulations in most jurisdictions are often insufficient or too vague to be deemed fit for purpose. All five jurisdictions fall short in guaranteeing adequate protection to livestock during transport. Using recent changes as well as future policy proposals under discussion, we identify future directions that could form the basis for regulatory changes that may significantly improve the welfare of farm animals during transportation.

Transmission of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) during animal transport

The transmission of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) between food-producing animals (poultry, cattle and pigs) during short journeys (< 8 h) and long journeys (> 8 h) directed to other farms or to the slaughterhouse lairage (directly or with intermediate stops at assembly centres or control posts, mainly transported by road) was assessed. Among the identified risk factors contributing to the probability of transmission of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria (ARB) and antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs), the ones considered more important are the resistance status (presence of ARB/ARGs) of the animals pre-transport, increased faecal shedding, hygiene of the areas and vehicles, exposure to other animals carrying and/or shedding ARB/ARGs (especially between animals of different AMR loads and/or ARB/ARG types), exposure to contaminated lairage areas and duration of transport. There are nevertheless no data whereby differences between journeys shorter or longer than 8 h can be assessed. Strategies that would reduce the probability of AMR transmission, for all animal categories include minimising the duration of transport, proper cleaning and disinfection, appropriate transport planning, organising the transport in relation to AMR criteria (transport logistics), improving animal health and welfare and/or biosecurity immediately prior to and during transport, ensuring the thermal comfort of the animals and animal segregation. Most of the aforementioned measures have similar validity if applied at lairage, assembly centres and control posts. Data gaps relating to the risk factors and the effectiveness of mitigation measures have been identified, with consequent research needs in both the short and longer term listed. Quantification of the impact of animal transportation compared to the contribution of other stages of the food-production chain, and the interplay of duration with all risk factors on the transmission of ARB/ARGs during transport and journey breaks, were identified as urgent research needs.