1
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gortázar C, Herskin MS, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Bortolami A, Guinat C, Harder T, Stegeman A, Terregino C, Lanfranchi B, Preite L, Aznar I, Broglia A, Baldinelli F, Gonzales Rojas JL. Vaccination of poultry against highly pathogenic avian influenza - Part 2. Surveillance and mitigation measures. EFSA J 2024; 22:e8755. [PMID: 38638555 PMCID: PMC11024799 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8755] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/20/2024] Open
Abstract
Selecting appropriate diagnostic methods that take account of the type of vaccine used is important when implementing a vaccination programme against highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). If vaccination is effective, a decreased viral load is expected in the samples used for diagnosis, making molecular methods with high sensitivity the best choice. Although serological methods can be reasonably sensitive, they may produce results that are difficult to interpret. In addition to routine molecular monitoring, it is recommended to conduct viral isolation, genetic sequencing and phenotypic characterisation of any HPAI virus detected in vaccinated flocks to detect escape mutants early. Following emergency vaccination, various surveillance options based on virological testing of dead birds ('bucket sampling') at defined intervals were assessed to be effective for early detection of HPAIV and prove disease freedom in vaccinated populations. For ducks, virological or serological testing of live birds was assessed as an effective strategy. This surveillance could be also applied in the peri-vaccination zone on vaccinated establishments, while maintaining passive surveillance in unvaccinated chicken layers and turkeys, and weekly bucket sampling in unvaccinated ducks. To demonstrate disease freedom with > 99% confidence and to detect HPAI virus sufficiently early following preventive vaccination, monthly virological testing of all dead birds up to 15 per flock, coupled with passive surveillance in both vaccinated and unvaccinated flocks, is recommended. Reducing the sampling intervals increases the sensitivity of early detection up to 100%. To enable the safe movement of vaccinated poultry during emergency vaccination, laboratory examinations in the 72 h prior to the movement can be considered as a risk mitigation measure, in addition to clinical inspection; sampling results from existing surveillance activities carried out in these 72 h could be used. In this Opinion, several schemes are recommended to enable the safe movement of vaccinated poultry following preventive vaccination.
Collapse
|
2
|
Lamberga K, Viltrop A, Nurmoja I, Masiulis M, Bušauskas P, Oļševskis E, Seržants M, Laddomada A, Ardelean F, Depner K. The Effectiveness of Protection and Surveillance Zones in Detecting Further African Swine Fever Outbreaks in Domestic Pigs-Experience of the Baltic States. Viruses 2024; 16:334. [PMID: 38543702 PMCID: PMC10974020 DOI: 10.3390/v16030334] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2024] [Revised: 02/14/2024] [Accepted: 02/20/2024] [Indexed: 05/23/2024] Open
Abstract
In the event of an outbreak of African swine fever (ASF) in pig farms, the European Union (EU) legislation requires the establishment of a restricted zone, consisting of a protection zone with a radius of at least 3 km and a surveillance zone with a radius of at least 10 km around the outbreak. The main purpose of the restricted zone is to stop the spread of the disease by detecting further outbreaks. We evaluated the effectiveness and necessity of the restricted zone in the Baltic States by looking at how many secondary outbreaks were detected inside and outside the protection and surveillance zones and by what means. Secondary outbreaks are outbreaks with an epidemiological link to a primary outbreak while a primary outbreak is an outbreak that is not epidemiologically linked to any previous outbreak. From 2014 to 2023, a total of 272 outbreaks in domestic pigs were confirmed, where 263 (96.7%) were primary outbreaks and 9 (3.3%) were secondary outbreaks. Eight of the secondary outbreaks were detected by epidemiological enquiry and one by passive surveillance. Epidemiological enquiries are legally required investigations on an outbreak farm to find out when and how the virus entered the farm and to obtain information on contact farms where the ASF virus may have been spread. Of the eight secondary outbreaks detected by epidemiological investigations, six were within the protection zone, one was within the surveillance zone and one outside the restricted zone. Epidemiological investigations were therefore the most effective means of detecting secondary outbreaks, whether inside or outside the restricted zones, while active surveillance was not effective. Active surveillance are legally prescribed activities carried out by the competent authorities in the restricted zones. Furthermore, as ASF is no longer a rare and exotic disease in the EU, it could be listed as a "Category B" disease, which in turn would allow for more flexibility and "tailor-made" control measures, e.g., regarding the size of the restricted zone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristīne Lamberga
- Food and Veterinary Service, LV 1050 Riga, Latvia; (K.L.); (E.O.); (M.S.)
- Institute of Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment “BIOR”, LV 1076 Riga, Latvia
- Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies, LV 3001 Jelgava, Latvia
| | - Arvo Viltrop
- Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, 51006 Tartu, Estonia;
| | - Imbi Nurmoja
- National Centre for Laboratory Research and Risk Assessment, 51006 Tartu, Estonia;
| | - Marius Masiulis
- Veterinary Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, LT 47181 Kaunas, Lithuania
- State Food and Veterinary Service, LT 07170 Vilnius, Lithuania;
| | | | - Edvīns Oļševskis
- Food and Veterinary Service, LV 1050 Riga, Latvia; (K.L.); (E.O.); (M.S.)
- Veterinary Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, LT 47181 Kaunas, Lithuania
| | - Mārtiņš Seržants
- Food and Veterinary Service, LV 1050 Riga, Latvia; (K.L.); (E.O.); (M.S.)
| | - Alberto Laddomada
- Coordinator of the Better Training for Safer Food Courses on the EU Animal Health Law, 07021 Sardinia, Italy;
| | - Felix Ardelean
- County Sanitary Veterinary Health and Food Safety Directorate, 4400067 Satu Mare, Romania;
| | - Klaus Depner
- Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute, 17493 Greifswald-Riems, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Moskalenko L, Schulz K, Nedosekov V, Mõtus K, Viltrop A. Understanding Smallholder Pigkeepers' Awareness and Perceptions of African Swine Fever and Its Control Measures in Ukraine. Pathogens 2024; 13:139. [PMID: 38392877 PMCID: PMC10893472 DOI: 10.3390/pathogens13020139] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/31/2023] [Revised: 01/25/2024] [Accepted: 01/29/2024] [Indexed: 02/25/2024] Open
Abstract
African swine fever (ASF) has posed a significant threat to Ukrainian pig farming since its identification in 2012. In this study, recognising the pivotal role of pigkeepers in disease control, we conducted ten focus groups involving 52 smallholders across eight regions in Ukraine. Using participatory methods, we revealed their awareness of ASF signs, transmission routes, preventive measures, and the perceptions of stakeholders involved in ASF control. Furthermore, we identified the smallholders' acceptance of eradication and restriction measures, the perceived impact of zoning consequences, and their main sources of ASF information. Smallholders identified fever and skin haemorrhage as the most indicative signs of ASF and highlighted rodents as a primary transmission concern. Disinfection was seen as the most effective measure for preventing the introduction of ASF. Pigkeepers who perceived their stakeholder role in ASF control showed more trust in themselves and veterinarians than in central veterinary authorities. Farm-level ASF eradication measures were generally accepted; however, culling within the protection zone was least accepted, with economic losses listed as the most impactful consequence for pigkeepers. For ASF information, pigkeepers favour web searches and veterinarians, as well as traditional media and word-of-mouth news. This study provides valuable insights into refining the ASF communication strategies in Ukraine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lidiia Moskalenko
- Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Science, 51014 Tartu, Estonia; (K.M.); (A.V.)
| | - Katja Schulz
- Institute of Epidemiology, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, 17493 Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany;
| | - Vitalii Nedosekov
- Department of Epizootology, National University of Life and Environmental Science of Ukraine, 03041 Kyiv, Ukraine;
| | - Kerli Mõtus
- Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Science, 51014 Tartu, Estonia; (K.M.); (A.V.)
| | - Arvo Viltrop
- Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Science, 51014 Tartu, Estonia; (K.M.); (A.V.)
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Mõtus K, Viidu DA, Rilanto T, Niine T, Orro T, Viltrop A, Bougeard S. Application of multiblock analysis to identify key areas and risk factors for dairy cow persistence. Prev Vet Med 2024; 222:106081. [PMID: 38061266 DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2023.106081] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2023] [Revised: 11/16/2023] [Accepted: 11/25/2023] [Indexed: 12/24/2023]
Abstract
The present study analysed the importance of individual variables and different thematic blocks of production areas, management, and herd infectious disease status on cow persistence, characterised by herd on-farm mortality rate (MR), culling rate (CR), and mean age of culled cows (MAofCC) applying multiblock partial least squares (mbPLS) analysis. This study included 120 free-stall dairy herds with ≥ 100 cows. Data on the previous year's predominant cow housing system and management practices were collected, and on-farm measurements and cow scoring were performed. Bulk tank milk (BTM) and heifer blood samples (10 samples per herd) were collected and analysed for antibodies against the selected pathogens. In total, 172 variables were aggregated into 14 thematic blocks. The annual CR, MR, and MAofCC values were calculated for each herd. Thematic blocks with significant impact on cow persistence (included herd MR, CR and MAofCC) were 'infectious diseases' (block importance index out of all blocks = 13.6%, 95% CI 10.3; 20.5), 'fertility management' (16.3%, 95% CI 6.8; 26.9), 'lactating cow management' (11.5%, 95% CI 6.4; 17.8), 'milking' (11.3%, 95% CI 3.2; 17.1), 'herd characteristics' (10.1%, 95% CI 6.3; 14.2), 'close-up period management' (9.7%, 95% CI 2.7; 15.7), 'calving management' (7.9%, 95% CI 3.1; 11.4) and 'disease management' (7.3%, 95% CI 0.2; 12.0). Variable categories with the highest importance in explaining composite outcome including herd MR, CR and MAofCC were rear-end and udder lesions in ≥ 20% of the cows, BTM and heifers seropositive to bovine respiratory syncytial virus, vaccination against bovine herpesvirus 1, twice daily milking and herd location in Northwest region. Larger herd size, higher levels of milk yield, and rearing predominantly Holstein breed cattle were herd factors associated with poorer cow persistency. Grazing cows and having semi-insulated barns were associated with lower CR and MR, respectively. Heat detection and farm pregnancy testing strategies were significant factors in the fertility block. Using disposable dry papers for teat cleaning and not using any wet teat-cleaning tools were risk factors for high MR. A robotic milking system was protective for increased herd MR and CR. A high pre-calving body condition score and poor rear body cleanliness of ≥ 30% of cows were associated with inferior herd persistency outcomes. Calving in group pens with deep litter bedding was associated with a lower CR. Multiblock PLS model is innovative tool that helped to identify most influential farming areas but also single risk factors associated with cow persistency described by multiple parameters.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kerli Mõtus
- Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia.
| | - Dagni-Alice Viidu
- Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Triin Rilanto
- Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Tarmo Niine
- Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Toomas Orro
- Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Arvo Viltrop
- Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Stephanie Bougeard
- French Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational Health Safety, Laboratory of Ploufragan-Plouzané-Niort, Department of Epidemiology and Welfare, Ploufragan, France
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Viltrop A, Niine T, Tobias T, Sassu EL, Bartolo ID, Pavoni E, Alborali GL, Burow E, Smith RP. A Review of Slaughter Practices and Their Effectiveness to Control Microbial - esp. Salmonella spp. - Contamination of Pig Carcasses. J Food Prot 2023; 86:100171. [PMID: 37778508 DOI: 10.1016/j.jfp.2023.100171] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/25/2023] [Revised: 09/06/2023] [Accepted: 09/26/2023] [Indexed: 10/03/2023]
Abstract
The BIOPIGEE project (part of the One Health European Joint Programme under Horizon 2020) aimed to identify relevant measures to effectively control Salmonella, and another zoonotic pathogen, hepatitis E virus (HEV) within the pig meat food chain. The aim of this study was to identify biosecurity measures or management practices that are relevant for limiting Salmonella and/or HEV occurrence and spread within pig slaughterhouses. This was with the final goal of compiling a list of biosecurity measures for different processes and operations along the slaughter line with evidence of their effectiveness. To achieve this, a literature review was conducted on studies estimating the effectiveness of measures applied in slaughterhouses to reduce the microbial contamination of pig carcasses. Results of this literature search are discussed and presented in summary tables that could be used as a source of information for the pig slaughter industry to further develop their guidelines on hygienic slaughter.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arvo Viltrop
- Estonian University of Life Sciences, Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 62, Tartu 51006, Estonia.
| | - Tarmo Niine
- Estonian University of Life Sciences, Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 62, Tartu 51006, Estonia.
| | - Tijs Tobias
- Utrecht University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Population Health Sciences, Farm Animal Health Unit, Yalelaan 7, 3584CL Utrecht, the Netherlands; Royal GD (Animal Health Service), P.O. Box 9, 7400 AA Deventer, the Netherlands.
| | - Elena Lucia Sassu
- Institute of Veterinary Disease Control, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Mödling, Austria.
| | - Ilaria Di Bartolo
- Dept. of Food Safety, Nutrition and Veterinary Public Health, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena 299, 00161 Roma, Italy.
| | - Enrico Pavoni
- Experimental Zooprophylactic Institute of Lombardy and Emilia Romagna, via Bianchi 7/9, 25124 Brescia, Italy.
| | - Giovanni Loris Alborali
- Experimental Zooprophylactic Institute of Lombardy and Emilia Romagna, via Bianchi 7/9, 25124 Brescia, Italy.
| | - Elke Burow
- German Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Department of Biological Safety, Max-Dohrn Str. 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.
| | - Richard Piers Smith
- Department of Epidemiological Sciences, Animal and Plant Health Agency - Weybridge, Woodham Lane, New Haw, Addlestone, Surrey KT15 3NB, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Velarde A, Winckler C, Bastino E, Bortolami A, Guinat C, Harder T, Stegeman A, Terregino C, Aznar Asensio I, Mur L, Broglia A, Baldinelli F, Viltrop A. Vaccination of poultry against highly pathogenic avian influenza - part 1. Available vaccines and vaccination strategies. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08271. [PMID: 37822713 PMCID: PMC10563699 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8271] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Several vaccines have been developed against highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), mostly inactivated whole-virus vaccines for chickens. In the EU, one vaccine is authorised in chickens but is not fully efficacious to stop transmission, highlighting the need for vaccines tailored to diverse poultry species and production types. Off-label use of vaccines is possible, but effectiveness varies. Vaccines are usually injectable, a time-consuming process. Mass-application vaccines outside hatcheries remain rare. First vaccination varies from in-ovo to 6 weeks of age. Data about immunity onset and duration in the target species are often unavailable, despite being key for effective planning. Minimising antigenic distance between vaccines and field strains is essential, requiring rapid updates of vaccines to match circulating strains. Generating harmonised vaccine efficacy data showing vaccine ability to reduce transmission is crucial and this ability should be also assessed in field trials. Planning vaccination requires selecting the most adequate vaccine type and vaccination scheme. Emergency protective vaccination is limited to vaccines that are not restricted by species, age or pre-existing vector-immunity, while preventive vaccination should prioritise achieving the highest protection, especially for the most susceptible species in high-risk transmission areas. Model simulations in France, Italy and The Netherlands revealed that (i) duck and turkey farms are more infectious than chickens, (ii) depopulating infected farms only showed limitations in controlling disease spread, while 1-km ring-culling performed better than or similar to emergency preventive ring-vaccination scenarios, although with the highest number of depopulated farms, (iii) preventive vaccination of the most susceptible species in high-risk transmission areas was the best option to minimise the outbreaks' number and duration, (iv) during outbreaks in such areas, emergency protective vaccination in a 3-km radius was more effective than 1- and 10-km radius. Vaccine efficacy should be monitored and complement other surveillance and preventive efforts.
Collapse
|
7
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar C, Herskin MS, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Bron J, Olesen NJ, Sindre H, Stone D, Vendramin N, Antoniou SE, Broglia A, Karagianni AE, Papanikolaou A, Bicout DJ. Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU)2016/429): Infection with salmonid alphavirus (SAV). EFSA J 2023; 21:e08327. [PMID: 37908450 PMCID: PMC10613945 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8327] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Infection with salmonid alphavirus (SAV) was assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular the 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 laid out in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to infection with SAV. The assessment was performed following the ad hoc method on data collection and assessment developed by AHAW Panel and already published. The outcome reported 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 an uncertain outcome. According to the assessment, it was uncertain whether infection with salmonid alphavirus can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (50-80% 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 infection with salmonid alphavirus does not meet the criteria in Section 1 (Category A; 5-10% probability of meeting the criteria) and it is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Categories B, C, D and E; 50-90%, probability of meeting the criteria). The animal species to be listed for infection with SAV according to Article 8 criteria are provided.
Collapse
|
8
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar C, Herskin MS, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Bron J, Olesen NJ, Sindre H, Stone D, Vendramin N, Antoniou SE, Aznar I, Papanikolaou A, Karagianni AE, Bicout DJ. Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) 2016/429): Bacterial kidney disease (BKD). EFSA J 2023; 21:e08326. [PMID: 37908448 PMCID: PMC10613944 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8326] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Bacterial kidney disease (BKD) was assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular the 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 laid out in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to BKD. The assessment was performed following the ad hoc method on data collection and assessment developed by AHAW Panel and already published. The outcome reported 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 an uncertain outcome. According to this assessment, BKD can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (66-90% 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 BKD does not meet the criteria in Sections 1, 2 and 3 (Categories A, B and C; 1-5%, 33-66% and 33-66% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively) but meets the criteria in Sections 4 and 5 (Categories D and E; 66-90% and 66-90% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for BKD according to Article 8 criteria are provided.
Collapse
|
9
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar C, Herskin MS, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Bron J, Olesen NJ, Sindre H, Stone D, Vendramin N, Antoniou SE, Karagianni AE, Broglia A, Papanikolaou A, Bicout DJ. Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) 2016/429): Spring Viraemia of Carp (SVC). EFSA J 2023; 21:e08324. [PMID: 37908451 PMCID: PMC10613943 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8324] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Spring Viraemia of Carp (SVC) was assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular the 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 SVC. The assessment was performed following the ad hoc method for data collection and assessment previously developed by the AHAW panel and already published. The outcome reported 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 an uncertain outcome. According to the assessment performed here, it is uncertain whether SVC can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (45-90% 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 SVC does not meet the criteria in Section 1 (Category A; 5-33% probability of meeting the criteria) and it is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Categories B, C, D and E; 33-66%, 10-66%, 45-90% and 45-90% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for SVC according to Article 8 criteria are provided.
Collapse
|
10
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar C, Herskin MS, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Bron J, Olesen NJ, Sindre H, Stone D, Vendramin N, Antoniou SE, Karagianni AE, Kohnle L, Papanikolaou A, Bicout DJ. Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) 2016/429): infection with Gyrodactylus salaris (GS). EFSA J 2023; 21:e08325. [PMID: 37908442 PMCID: PMC10613946 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8325] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Infection with Gyrodactylus salaris was assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular, the 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 laid down in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to infection with G. salaris. The assessment was performed following the ad hoc method for data collection and assessment previously developed by AHAW panel and already published. The outcome reported 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 an uncertain outcome. According to the assessment here performed, it is uncertain whether infection with G. salaris can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (33-70% 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 Infection with G. salaris does not meet the criteria in Section 1 and 3 (Category A and C; 1-5% and 10-33% probability of fulfilling the criteria, respectively) and it is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 2, 4 and 5 (Categories B, D and E; 33-80%, 33-66% and 33-80% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for infection with G. salaris according to Article 8 criteria are provided.
Collapse
|
11
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout D, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Smith CG, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MA, Padalino B, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Arzul I, Dharmaveer S, Olesen NJ, Schiøtt M, Sindre H, Stone D, Vendramin N, Aires M, Asensio IA, Antoniou S, Barizzone F, Dhollander S, Gnocchi M, Karagianni AE, Kero LL, Munoz Guajardo IP, Rusina A, Roberts H. Species which may act as vectors or reservoirs of diseases covered by the Animal Health Law: Listed pathogens of fish. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08174. [PMID: 37533750 PMCID: PMC10392593 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8174] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Vector or reservoir species of five fish diseases listed in the Animal Health Law were identified, based on evidence generated through an extensive literature review (ELR), to support a possible updating of Regulation (EU) 2018/1882. Fish species on or in which highly polymorphic region-deleted infectious salmon anaemia virus (HPR∆ ISAV), Koi herpes virus (KHV), epizootic haematopoietic necrosis virus (EHNV), infectious haematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV) or viral haemorrhagic septicaemia virus (VHSV) were detected, in the field or during experiments, were classified as reservoir species with different levels of certainty depending on the diagnostic tests used. Where experimental evidence indicated transmission of the pathogen from a studied species to another known susceptible species, the studied species was classified as a vector species. Although the quantification of the risk of spread of the pathogens by the vectors or reservoir species was not part of the terms or reference, such risks do exist for the vector species, since transmission from infected vector species to susceptible species was proven. Where evidence for transmission from infected fish was not found, these were defined as reservoirs. Nonetheless, the risk of the spread of the pathogens from infected reservoir species cannot be excluded. Evidence identifying conditions that may prevent transmission by vectors or reservoir fish species during transport was collected from scientific literature. For VHSV, IHNV or HPR∆ ISAV, it was concluded that under transport conditions at temperatures below 25°C, it is likely (66-90%) they will remain infective. Therefore, vector or reservoir species that may have been exposed to these pathogens in an affected area in the wild, aquaculture establishments or through water supply can possibly transmit VHSV, IHNV or HPR∆ ISAV into a non-affected area when transported at a temperature below 25°C. The conclusion was the same for EHN and KHV; however, they are likely to remain infective under all transport temperatures.
Collapse
|
12
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout D, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Smith CG, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MA, Padalino B, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Arzul I, Dharmaveer S, Olesen NJ, Schiøtt M, Sindre H, Stone D, Vendramin N, Alemu S, Antoniou S, Aznar I, Barizzone F, Dhollander S, Gnocchi M, Karagianni AE, Kero LL, Munoz Guajardo IP, Roberts H. Species which may act as vectors or reservoirs of diseases covered by the Animal Health Law: Listed pathogens of crustaceans. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08172. [PMID: 37533749 PMCID: PMC10392595 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8172] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Vector or reservoir species of three diseases of crustaceans listed in the Animal Health Law were identified based on evidence generated through an extensive literature review, to support a possible updating of Regulation (EU) 2018/1882. Crustacean species on or in which Taura syndrome virus (TSV), Yellow head virus (YHV) or White spot syndrome virus (WSSV) were identified, in the field or during experiments, were classified as reservoir species with different levels of certainty depending on the diagnostic tests used. Where experimental evidence indicated transmission of the pathogen from a studied species to another known susceptible species, the studied species was classified as vector species. Although the quantification of the risk of spread of the pathogens by the vectors or reservoir species was not part of the terms of reference, such risks do exist for the vector species, since transmission from infected vector species to susceptible species was proven. Where evidence for transmission from infected crustaceans was not found, these were defined as reservoirs. Nonetheless, the risk of the spread of the pathogens from infected reservoir species cannot be excluded. Evidence identifying conditions that may prevent transmission by vectors during transport was collected from scientific literature. It was concluded that it is very likely to almost certain (90-100%) that WSSV, TSV and YHV will remain infective at any possible transport condition. Therefore, vector or reservoir species that may have been exposed to these pathogens in an affected area in the wild or aquaculture establishments or by water supply can possibly transmit WSSV, TSV and YHV.
Collapse
|
13
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout D, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Smith CG, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MA, Padalino B, Roberts H, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Arzul I, Dharmaveer S, Olesen NJ, Schiøtt M, Sindre H, Stone D, Vendramin N, Antoniou S, Dhollander S, Karagianni AE, Kero LL, Gnocchi M, Aznar I, Barizzone F, Munoz Guajardo IP, Roberts H. Species which may act as vectors or reservoirs of diseases covered by the Animal Health Law: Listed pathogens of molluscs. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08173. [PMID: 37533748 PMCID: PMC10392592 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8173] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/21/2023] [Indexed: 08/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Vector or reservoir species of five mollusc diseases listed in the Animal Health Law were identified, based on evidence generated through an extensive literature review, to support a possible updating of Regulation (EU) 2018/1882. Mollusc species on or in which Mikrocytos mackini, Perkinsus marinus, Bonamia exitiosa, Bonamia ostreae and Marteilia refringens were detected, in the field or during experiments, were classified as reservoir species with different levels of certainty depending on the diagnostic tests used. Where experimental evidence indicated transmission of the pathogen from a studied species to another known susceptible species, this studied species was classified as a vector species. Although the quantification of the risk of spread of the pathogens by the vectors or reservoir species was not part of the terms of reference, such risks do exist for the vector species, since transmission from infected vector species to susceptible species was proven. Where evidence for transmission from infected molluscs was not found, these were defined as reservoir. Nonetheless, the risk of the spread of the pathogens from infected reservoir species cannot be excluded. Evidence identifying conditions that may prevent transmission by vectors or reservoir mollusc species during transport was collected from scientific literature. It was concluded that it is very likely to almost certain (90-100%) that M. mackini, P. marinus, B. exitiosa B. ostreae and M. refringens will remain infective at any possible transport condition. Therefore, vector or reservoir species that may have been exposed to these pathogens in an affected area in the wild or at aquaculture establishments or through contaminated water supply can possibly transmit these pathogens. For transmission of M. refringens, the presence of an intermediate host, a copepod, is necessary.
Collapse
|
14
|
Smith RP, May HE, Burow E, Meester M, Tobias TJ, Sassu EL, Pavoni E, Di Bartolo I, Prigge C, Wasyl D, Zmudzki J, Viltrop A, Nurmoja I, Zoche-Golob V, Alborali GL, Romantini R, Dors A, Krumova-Valcheva G, Koláčková I, Aprea G, Daskalov H. Assessing pig farm biosecurity measures for the control of Salmonella on European farms. Epidemiol Infect 2023; 151:e130. [PMID: 37439254 PMCID: PMC10540172 DOI: 10.1017/s0950268823001115] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2022] [Revised: 05/11/2023] [Accepted: 07/04/2023] [Indexed: 07/14/2023] Open
Abstract
Salmonella spp. is a common zoonotic pathogen, causing gastrointestinal infections in people. Pigs and pig meat are a major source of infection. Although farm biosecurity is believed to be important for controlling Salmonella transmission, robust evidence is lacking on which measures are most effective. This study enrolled 250 pig farms across nine European countries. From each farm, 20 pooled faecal samples (or similar information) were collected and analysed for Salmonella presence. Based on the proportion of positive results, farms were categorised as at higher or lower Salmonella risk, and associations with variables from a comprehensive questionnaire investigated. Multivariable analysis indicated that farms were less likely to be in the higher-risk category if they had '<400 sows'; used rodent baits close to pig enclosures; isolated stay-behind (sick) pigs; did not answer that the hygiene lock/ anteroom was easy to clean; did not have a full perimeter fence; did apply downtime of at least 3 days between farrowing batches; and had fully slatted flooring in all fattener buildings. A principal components analysis assessed the sources of variation between farms, and correlation between variables. The study results suggest simple control measures that could be prioritised on European pig farms to control Salmonella.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard P. Smith
- Department of Epidemiological Sciences, Animal and Plant Health Agency – Weybridge, Addlestone, UK
| | - Hannah E. May
- Department of Epidemiological Sciences, Animal and Plant Health Agency – Weybridge, Addlestone, UK
| | - Elke Burow
- Department of Biological Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany
- Ministry of Agriculture, Environment and Climate Protection (MLUK), Potsdam, Germany
| | - Marina Meester
- Department Population Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Tijs J. Tobias
- Department Population Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Elena-Lucia Sassu
- Division for Animal Health, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Mödling, Austria
| | - Enrico Pavoni
- Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e Dell’Emilia Romagna, Brescia, Italy
| | | | - Christopher Prigge
- Division for Animal Health, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Mödling, Austria
- University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Dariusz Wasyl
- National Veterinary Research Institute, Puławy, Poland
| | - Jacek Zmudzki
- National Veterinary Research Institute, Puławy, Poland
| | - Arvo Viltrop
- Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
- National Centre for Laboratory Research and Risk Assessment, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Imbi Nurmoja
- National Centre for Laboratory Research and Risk Assessment, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Veit Zoche-Golob
- Ministry of Agriculture, Environment and Climate Protection (MLUK), Potsdam, Germany
| | - Giovanni L. Alborali
- Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e Dell’Emilia Romagna, Brescia, Italy
| | - Romina Romantini
- Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell’Abruzzo e del Molise Giuseppe Caporale, Teramo, Italy
| | - Arkadiusz Dors
- National Veterinary Research Institute, Puławy, Poland
- Department of Preclinical Sciences and Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, University of Life Sciences, Poznan, Poland
| | | | - Ivana Koláčková
- Veterinary Research Institute, Brno, Czech Republic
- Department of Public Health, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
| | - Guiseppe Aprea
- Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell’Abruzzo e del Molise Giuseppe Caporale, Teramo, Italy
| | - Hristo Daskalov
- National Diagnostic and Research Veterinary Medicine Institute, Sofia, Bulgaria
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Rojas JLG, Gortázar C, Herskin MS, Michel V, Miranda MÁ, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Bron J, Olesen NJ, Sindre H, Stone D, Vendramin N, Antoniou S, Kohnle L, Papanikolaou A, Karagianni A, Bicout DJ. Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): infectious pancreatic necrosis (IPN). EFSA J 2023; 21:e08028. [PMID: 37313317 PMCID: PMC10258726 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/15/2023] Open
Abstract
Infectious pancreatic necrosis (IPN) was assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular, the 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 IPN. The assessment was performed following a methodology previously published. The outcome reported 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 an uncertain outcome. According to the assessment here performed, it is uncertain whether IPN can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (50-90% 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 IPN does not meet the criteria in Section 1 (Category A; 0-1% probability of meeting the criteria) and it is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Categories B, C, D and E; 33-66%, 33-66%, 50-90% and 50-99% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for IPN according to Article 8 criteria are provided.
Collapse
|
16
|
Vilem A, Nurmoja I, Tummeleht L, Viltrop A. Differentiation of African Swine Fever Virus Strains Isolated in Estonia by Multiple Genetic Markers. Pathogens 2023; 12:pathogens12050720. [PMID: 37242390 DOI: 10.3390/pathogens12050720] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2023] [Revised: 05/08/2023] [Accepted: 05/12/2023] [Indexed: 05/28/2023] Open
Abstract
The African swine fever virus (ASFV) was first detected in Estonia, in September 2014. In the subsequent three years, the virus spread explosively all over the country. Only one county, the island of Hiiumaa, remained free of the disease. Due to the drastic decrease in the wild boar population in the period of 2015-2018, the number of ASFV-positive cases among wild boar decreased substantially. From the beginning of 2019 to the autumn of 2020, no ASFV-positive wild boar or domestic pigs were detected in Estonia. A new occurrence of ASFV was detected in August 2020, and by the end of 2022, ASFV had been confirmed in seven counties in Estonia. Investigations into proven molecular markers, such as IGR I73R/I329L, MGF505-5R, K145R, O174L, and B602L, were performed with the aim of clarifying whether these cases of ASFV were new entries or remnants of previous epidemics. The sequences from the period of 2014-2022 were compared to the Georgia 2007/1 reference sequence and the variant strains present in Europe. The results indicated that not all the molecular markers of the virus successfully used in other geographical regions were suitable for tracing the spread of ASFV in Estonia. Only the B602L-gene analysis enabled us to place the ASFV isolates spreading in 2020-2022 into two epidemiologically different clusters.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annika Vilem
- Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, 51006 Tartu, Estonia
- The National Centre for Laboratory Research and Risk Assessment, LABRIS, 51006 Tartu, Estonia
| | - Imbi Nurmoja
- The National Centre for Laboratory Research and Risk Assessment, LABRIS, 51006 Tartu, Estonia
| | - Lea Tummeleht
- Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, 51006 Tartu, Estonia
| | - Arvo Viltrop
- Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, 51006 Tartu, Estonia
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Schmidt CG, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Berg C, Edwards S, Knierim U, Riber A, Salamon A, Tiemann I, Fabris C, Manakidou A, Mosbach‐Schulz O, Van der Stede Y, Vitali M, Velarde A. Welfare of ducks, geese and quail on farm. EFSA J 2023; 21:e07992. [PMID: 37200855 PMCID: PMC10186070 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7992] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/20/2023] Open
Abstract
This Scientific Opinion concerns the welfare of Domestic ducks (Anas platyrhynchos domesticus), Muscovy ducks (Cairina moschata domesticus) and their hybrids (Mule ducks), Domestic geese (Anser anser f. domesticus) and Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) in relation to the rearing of breeders, birds for meat, Muscovy and Mule ducks and Domestic geese for foie gras and layer Japanese quail for egg production. The most common husbandry systems (HSs) in the European Union are described for each animal species and category. The following welfare consequences are described and assessed for each species: restriction of movement, injuries (bone lesions including fractures and dislocations, soft tissue lesions and integument damage and locomotory disorders including lameness), group stress, inability to perform comfort behaviour, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour and inability to express maternal behaviour (related to prelaying and nesting behaviours). Animal-based measures relevant for the assessment of these welfare consequences were identified and described. The relevant hazards leading to the welfare consequences in the different HSs were identified. Specific factors such as space allowance (including minimum enclosure area and height) per bird, group size, floor quality, characteristics of nesting facilities and enrichment provided (including access to water to fulfil biological needs) were assessed in relation to the welfare consequences and, recommendations on how to prevent the welfare consequences were provided in a quantitative or qualitative way.
Collapse
|
18
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar Schmidt C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, De Boyer des Roches A, Jensen MB, Mee J, Green M, Thulke H, Bailly‐Caumette E, Candiani D, Lima E, Van der Stede Y, Winckler C. Welfare of dairy cows. EFSA J 2023; 21:e07993. [PMID: 37200854 PMCID: PMC10186071 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7993] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/20/2023] Open
Abstract
This Scientific Opinion addresses a European Commission's mandate on the welfare of dairy cows as part of the Farm to Fork strategy. It includes three assessments carried out based on literature reviews and complemented by expert opinion. Assessment 1 describes the most prevalent housing systems for dairy cows in Europe: tie-stalls, cubicle housing, open-bedded systems and systems with access to an outdoor area. Per each system, the scientific opinion describes the distribution in the EU and assesses the main strengths, weaknesses and hazards potentially reducing the welfare of dairy cows. Assessment 2 addresses five welfare consequences as requested in the mandate: locomotory disorders (including lameness), mastitis, restriction of movement and resting problems, inability to perform comfort behaviour and metabolic disorders. Per each welfare consequence, a set of animal-based measures is suggested, a detailed analysis of the prevalence in different housing systems is provided, and subsequently, a comparison of the housing systems is given. Common and specific system-related hazards as well as management-related hazards and respective preventive measures are investigated. Assessment 3 includes an analysis of farm characteristics (e.g. milk yield, herd size) that could be used to classify the level of on-farm welfare. From the available scientific literature, it was not possible to derive relevant associations between available farm data and cow welfare. Therefore, an approach based on expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) was developed. The EKE resulted in the identification of five farm characteristics (more than one cow per cubicle at maximum stocking density, limited space for cows, inappropriate cubicle size, high on-farm mortality and farms with less than 2 months access to pasture). If one or more of these farm characteristics are present, it is recommended to conduct an assessment of cow welfare on the farm in question using animal-based measures for specified welfare consequences.
Collapse
|
19
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortazar Schmidt C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MA, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Jensen MB, Waiblinger S, Candiani D, Lima E, Mosbach‐Schulz O, Van der Stede Y, Vitali M, Winckler C. Welfare of calves. EFSA J 2023; 21:e07896. [PMID: 37009444 PMCID: PMC10050971 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7896] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/31/2023] Open
Abstract
This Scientific Opinion addresses a European Commission request on the welfare of calves as part of the Farm to Fork strategy. EFSA was asked to provide a description of common husbandry systems and related welfare consequences, as well as measures to prevent or mitigate the hazards leading to them. In addition, recommendations on three specific issues were requested: welfare of calves reared for white veal (space, group housing, requirements of iron and fibre); risk of limited cow–calf contact; and animal‐based measures (ABMs) to monitor on‐farm welfare in slaughterhouses. The methodology developed by EFSA to address similar requests was followed. Fifteen highly relevant welfare consequences were identified, with respiratory disorders, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, gastroenteric disorders and group stress being the most frequent across husbandry systems. Recommendations to improve the welfare of calves include increasing space allowance, keeping calves in stable groups from an early age, ensuring good colostrum management and increasing the amounts of milk fed to dairy calves. In addition, calves should be provided with deformable lying surfaces, water via an open surface and long‐cut roughage in racks. Regarding specific recommendations for veal systems, calves should be kept in small groups (2–7 animals) within the first week of life, provided with ~ 20 m2/calf and fed on average 1 kg neutral detergent fibre (NDF) per day, preferably using long‐cut hay. Recommendations on cow–calf contact include keeping the calf with the dam for a minimum of 1 day post‐partum. Longer contact should progressively be implemented, but research is needed to guide this implementation in practice. The ABMs body condition, carcass condemnations, abomasal lesions, lung lesions, carcass colour and bursa swelling may be collected in slaughterhouses to monitor on‐farm welfare but should be complemented with behavioural ABMs collected on farm.
Collapse
|
20
|
Neare K, Tummeleht L, Lassen B, Viltrop A. Coxiella burnetii Seroprevalence and Associated Risk Factors in Cattle, Sheep, and Goats in Estonia. Microorganisms 2023; 11:microorganisms11040819. [PMID: 37110243 PMCID: PMC10142450 DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms11040819] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2023] [Revised: 03/16/2023] [Accepted: 03/20/2023] [Indexed: 04/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Q fever, a disease caused by Coxiella burnetii (CB), is an emerging zoonotic health problem. The prevalence data from potential sources are valuable for assessing the risk to human and animal health. To estimate the prevalence of CB antibodies in Estonian ruminants, pooled milk and serum samples from cattle (Bos taurus) and pooled serum samples from sheep (Ovis aries) and goats (Capra hircus) were analyzed. Additionally, bulk tank milk samples (BTM; n = 72) were analyzed for the presence of CB DNA. Questionnaires and herd-level datasets were used to identify the risk factors for exposure using binary logistic regression analysis. The prevalence of CB-positive dairy cattle herds (27.16%) was significantly higher than that in beef cattle herds (6.67%) and sheep flocks (2.35%). No CB antibodies were detected in the goat flocks. CB DNA was found in 11.36% of the BTM samples. The odds of seropositivity were higher in dairy cattle herds, with an increasing number of cattle in the herd, and with location in southwestern, northeastern and northwestern Estonia. Dairy cattle herds had higher odds of testing positive for CB in BTM if the dairy cows were kept loose and lower odds if the herd was located in northwestern Estonia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kädi Neare
- Chair of Veterinary Biomedicine and Food Hygiene, Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, 51006 Tartu, Estonia
| | - Lea Tummeleht
- Chair of Veterinary Biomedicine and Food Hygiene, Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, 51006 Tartu, Estonia
| | - Brian Lassen
- Research Group for Foodborne Pathogens and Epidemiology, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
| | - Arvo Viltrop
- Chair of Veterinary Biomedicine and Food Hygiene, Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, 51006 Tartu, Estonia
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Adlhoch C, Aznar I, Baldinelli F, Boklund A, Broglia A, Gerhards N, Mur L, Nannapaneni P, Ståhl K. SARS-CoV-2 in animals: susceptibility of animal species, risk for animal and public health, monitoring, prevention and control. EFSA J 2023; 21:e07822. [PMID: 36860662 PMCID: PMC9968901 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7822] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/03/2023] Open
Abstract
The epidemiological situation of SARS-CoV-2 in humans and animals is continually evolving. To date, animal species known to transmit SARS-CoV-2 are American mink, raccoon dog, cat, ferret, hamster, house mouse, Egyptian fruit bat, deer mouse and white-tailed deer. Among farmed animals, American mink have the highest likelihood to become infected from humans or animals and further transmit SARS-CoV-2. In the EU, 44 outbreaks were reported in 2021 in mink farms in seven MSs, while only six in 2022 in two MSs, thus representing a decreasing trend. The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into mink farms is usually via infected humans; this can be controlled by systematically testing people entering farms and adequate biosecurity. The current most appropriate monitoring approach for mink is the outbreak confirmation based on suspicion, testing dead or clinically sick animals in case of increased mortality or positive farm personnel and the genomic surveillance of virus variants. The genomic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 showed mink-specific clusters with a potential to spill back into the human population. Among companion animals, cats, ferrets and hamsters are those at highest risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which most likely originates from an infected human, and which has no or very low impact on virus circulation in the human population. Among wild animals (including zoo animals), mostly carnivores, great apes and white-tailed deer have been reported to be naturally infected by SARS-CoV-2. In the EU, no cases of infected wildlife have been reported so far. Proper disposal of human waste is advised to reduce the risks of spill-over of SARS-CoV-2 to wildlife. Furthermore, contact with wildlife, especially if sick or dead, should be minimised. No specific monitoring for wildlife is recommended apart from testing hunter-harvested animals with clinical signs or found-dead. Bats should be monitored as a natural host of many coronaviruses.
Collapse
|
22
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Schmidt CG, Herskin MS, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Tiemann I, de Jong I, Gebhardt‐Henrich SG, Keeling L, Riber AB, Ashe S, Candiani D, García Matas R, Hempen M, Mosbach‐Schulz O, Rojo Gimeno C, Van der Stede Y, Vitali M, Bailly‐Caumette E, Michel V. Welfare of broilers on farm. EFSA J 2023; 21:e07788. [PMID: 36824680 PMCID: PMC9941850 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7788] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/23/2023] Open
Abstract
This Scientific Opinion considers the welfare of domestic fowl (Gallus gallus) related to the production of meat (broilers) and includes the keeping of day-old chicks, broiler breeders, and broiler chickens. Currently used husbandry systems in the EU are described. Overall, 19 highly relevant welfare consequences (WCs) were identified based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: 'bone lesions', 'cold stress', 'gastro-enteric disorders', 'group stress', 'handling stress', 'heat stress', 'isolation stress', 'inability to perform comfort behaviour', 'inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour', 'inability to avoid unwanted sexual behaviour', 'locomotory disorders', 'prolonged hunger', 'prolonged thirst', 'predation stress', 'restriction of movement', 'resting problems', 'sensory under- and overstimulation', 'soft tissue and integument damage' and 'umbilical disorders'. These WCs and their animal-based measures (ABMs) that can identify them are described in detail. A variety of hazards related to the different husbandry systems were identified as well as ABMs for assessing the different WCs. Measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate each of the WCs are listed. Recommendations are provided on quantitative or qualitative criteria to answer specific questions on the welfare of broilers and related to genetic selection, temperature, feed and water restriction, use of cages, light, air quality and mutilations in breeders such as beak trimming, de-toeing and comb dubbing. In addition, minimal requirements (e.g. stocking density, group size, nests, provision of litter, perches and platforms, drinkers and feeders, of covered veranda and outdoor range) for an enclosure for keeping broiler chickens (fast-growing, slower-growing and broiler breeders) are recommended. Finally, 'total mortality', 'wounds', 'carcass condemnation' and 'footpad dermatitis' are proposed as indicators for monitoring at slaughter the welfare of broilers on-farm.
Collapse
|
23
|
Huber N, Andraud M, Sassu EL, Prigge C, Zoche-Golob V, Käsbohrer A, D'Angelantonio D, Viltrop A, Żmudzki J, Jones H, Smith RP, Tobias T, Burow E. What is a biosecurity measure? A definition proposal for animal production and linked processing operations. One Health 2022; 15:100433. [PMID: 36277103 PMCID: PMC9582555 DOI: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2022.100433] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2022] [Revised: 09/13/2022] [Accepted: 09/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
While biosecurity, a central component of the One Health concept, is clearly defined, a harmonized definition of the term ´biosecurity measure´ (BSM) is missing. In turn, particularly at the farm and policy level, this leads to misunderstandings, low acceptance, poor implementation, and thus suboptimal biosecurity along the food animal production chain. Moreover, different views on BSMs affects making comparisons both at the policy level as well as in the scientific community. Therefore, as part of the One Health EJP BIOPIGEE project, a work group i) collected and discussed relevant inclusion and exclusion criteria for measures to be considered in the context of biosecurity and ii) conducted a systematic literature review for potentially existing definitions for the term BSM. This exercise confirmed the lack of a definition of BSM, underlining the importance of the topic. In the pool of articles considered relevant to defining the term BSM, specific research themes were identified. Based on these outcomes, we propose a definition of the term BSM: “A biosecurity measure (BSM) – is the implementation of a segregation, hygiene, or management procedure (excluding medically effective feed additives and preventive/curative treatment of animals) that specifically aims at reducing the probability of the introduction, establishment, survival, or spread of any potential pathogen to, within, or from a farm, operation or geographical area.” The definition provides a basis for policymakers to identify factual BSMs, highlights the point of implementation and supports to achieve the necessary quality standards of biosecurity in food animal production. It also enables clear, harmonized, cross-sectoral communication of best biosecurity practices to and from relevant stakeholders and thus contribute to improving biosecurity and thereby strengthen the One Health approach. We propose a harmonized definition for the term “biosecurity measure”. Policy makers can use this definition to identify factual BSMs. The definition promotes communication of biosecurity practices between stakeholders.
Collapse
|
24
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar Schmidt C, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Earley B, Edwards S, Faucitano L, Marti S, Miranda de La Lama GC, Costa LN, Thomsen PT, Ashe S, Mur L, Van der Stede Y, Herskin M. Welfare of equidae during transport. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07444. [PMID: 36092762 PMCID: PMC9449990 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7444] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
In the framework of its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of animal welfare legislation. This opinion deals with the protection of horses and donkeys during transport. While the opinion focuses primarily on road transport of horses, there are specific sections dealing with the transport of horses on roll-on-roll-off ferries, horses transported by air and the transport of donkeys. In addition, the opinion covers welfare concerns in relation to a specific scenario identified by the European Commission related to the transport of horses on long journeys to slaughterhouses. Current practices related to transport of horses during the different stages (preparation, loading and unloading, transit and the journey breaks) are described. Overall, 13 welfare consequences were identified as being highly relevant for the welfare of horses during transport based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: gastro-enteric disorders, handling stress, heat stress, injuries, isolation stress, motion stress, prolonged hunger, prolonged thirst, respiratory disorders, resting problems, restriction of movement, sensory overstimulation and separation stress. These welfare consequences and their animal-based measures are described. A variety of hazards were identified related to factors such as inexperienced/untrained handlers, lack of horse training, structural deficiencies of vehicles/facilities, poor driving skills/conditions, horse separation/regrouping, unfavourable microclimatic and environmental conditions and poor husbandry practices. The opinion contains general and specific conclusions in relation to the different stages of transport. Recommendations to prevent hazards and correct or mitigate welfare consequences have been developed. Recommendations were also developed to define quantitative thresholds for microclimatic conditions within the means of transport and for space allowance. The development of welfare consequences over time was assessed in relation to maximum journey time.
Collapse
|
25
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar Schmidt C, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Earley B, Edwards S, Faucitano L, Marti S, de La Lama GCM, Costa LN, Thomsen PT, Ashe S, Mur L, Van der Stede Y, Herskin M. Welfare of cattle during transport. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07442. [PMID: 36092766 PMCID: PMC9449995 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7442] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
In the framework of its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of the animal welfare legislation. The present Opinion deals with protection of cattle (including calves) during transport. Welfare of cattle during transport by road is the main focus, but other means of transport are also covered. Current practices related to transport of cattle during the different stages (preparation, loading/unloading, transit and journey breaks) are described. Overall, 11 welfare consequences were identified as being highly relevant for the welfare of cattle during transport based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: group stress, handling stress, heat stress, injuries, motion stress, prolonged hunger, prolonged thirst, respiratory disorders, restriction of movement, resting problems and sensory overstimulation. These welfare consequences and their animal-based measures are described. A variety of hazards, mainly relating to inexperienced/untrained handlers, inappropriate handling, structural deficiencies of vehicles and facilities, poor driving conditions, unfavourable microclimatic and environmental conditions, and poor husbandry practices leading to these welfare consequences were identified. The Opinion contains general and specific conclusions relating to the different stages of transport for cattle. Recommendations to prevent hazards and to correct or mitigate welfare consequences have been developed. Recommendations were also developed to define quantitative thresholds for microclimatic conditions within the means of transport and spatial thresholds (minimum space allowance). The development of welfare consequences over time was assessed in relation to maximum journey duration. The Opinion covers specific animal transport scenarios identified by the European Commission relating to transport of unweaned calves, cull cows, the export of cattle by livestock vessels, the export of cattle by road, roll-on-roll-off ferries and 'special health status animals', and lists welfare concerns associated with these.
Collapse
|
26
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Schmidt CG, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Earley B, Edwards S, Faucitano L, Marti S, de La Lama GCM, Costa LN, Thomsen PT, Ashe S, Mur L, Van der Stede Y, Herskin M. Welfare of pigs during transport. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07445. [PMID: 36092763 PMCID: PMC9449989 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7445] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/23/2023] Open
Abstract
In the framework of its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of the animal welfare legislation. The present Opinion deals with protection of pigs during transport. The welfare of pigs during transport by road is the main focus, but other means of transport are also covered. Current practices related to transport of pigs during the different stages (preparation, loading/unloading, transit and journey breaks) are described. Overall, 10 welfare consequences were identified as highly relevant for the welfare of pigs during transport based on the severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: group stress, handling stress, heat stress, injuries, motion stress, prolonged hunger, prolonged thirst, restriction of movement, resting problems and sensory overstimulation. These welfare consequences and their animal‐based measures are described. A variety of hazards were identified, mainly relating to factors such as mixing of unfamiliar pigs, inappropriate handling methods and devices, the use of pick‐up pens, inexperienced/untrained handlers, structural deficiencies of vehicles and facilities, poor driving conditions, unfavourable microclimatic and environmental conditions and poor husbandry practices leading to these welfare consequences. The Opinion contains general and specific conclusions relating to the different stages of transport of pigs. Recommendations to prevent hazards and to correct or mitigate welfare consequences are made. Recommendations were also developed to define quantitative thresholds for microclimatic conditions and minimum space allowance within means of transport. The development of the welfare consequences over time was assessed in relation to maximum journey duration. The Opinion covers specific animal transport scenarios identified by the European Commission relating to transport of cull sows and ‘special health status animals’, and lists welfare concerns associated with these.
Collapse
|
27
|
Lamberga K, Depner K, Zani L, Oļševskis E, Seržants M, Ansonska S, Šteingolde Ž, Bērziņš A, Viltrop A, Blome S, Globig A. A practical guide for strategic and efficient sampling in African swine fever-affected pig farms. Transbound Emerg Dis 2022; 69:e2408-e2417. [PMID: 35502726 PMCID: PMC9790576 DOI: 10.1111/tbed.14582] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2022] [Revised: 04/13/2022] [Accepted: 04/27/2022] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
In the case of African swine fever (ASF) outbreaks in pig farms, EU legislation requires a thorough epidemiological investigation to determine, among other tasks, the extent of infection in the affected farm. The main aim of this study was to implement a reliable sampling strategy to quickly obtain an overview of the extent of ASF virus spread in an affected pig farm. We developed and tested a three-step approach: (i) identification of sub-units within the affected farm, (ii) categorization of sub-units, and (iii) targeted selection of animals for testing. We used commercially available lateral flow devices (LFDs) to detect ASF antigen and antibodies under field conditions and compared them with routinely performed laboratory tests (qPCR, ELISA, IPT). The study was conducted in three commercial farms in Latvia that were affected by ASF in July 2020. One of the affected farms was relatively small with only 31 pigs, whereas the other two were large with 1800 and 9800 animals, respectively. The approach proved to be helpful and practical for efficient and reliably assess the ASF situation on the farm and to identify sub-units within a farm where infected animals are present and sub-units which might (still) be free of infection. This important epidemiological information helps to better estimate the high-risk period and to track the potential spread of infection outside the farm. It allows also to prioritize culling and, if appropriate, to pursue a partial culling strategy taking into account the absence of clinical signs, implemented biosecurity measures, quarantine and negative test results, among others. This might be of interest for large commercial farms where the infection was identified very early and has not yet spread widely. Due to its limited sensitivity, the antigen LFD test is useful for testing animals showing signs of disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristīne Lamberga
- Food and Veterinary ServiceRigaLatvia,Faculty of Veterinary MedicineLatvia University of Life Sciences and TechnologiesJelgavaLatvia
| | - Klaus Depner
- Friedrich‐Loeffler‐InstituteGreifswald—Insel RiemsGermany
| | - Laura Zani
- Friedrich‐Loeffler‐InstituteGreifswald—Insel RiemsGermany
| | - Edvīns Oļševskis
- Food and Veterinary ServiceRigaLatvia,Institute of Food SafetyAnimal Health and Environment “BIOR”RigaLatvia
| | | | - Santa Ansonska
- Food and Veterinary ServiceRigaLatvia,Institute of Food SafetyAnimal Health and Environment “BIOR”RigaLatvia
| | - Žanete Šteingolde
- Institute of Food SafetyAnimal Health and Environment “BIOR”RigaLatvia
| | - Aivars Bērziņš
- Faculty of Veterinary MedicineLatvia University of Life Sciences and TechnologiesJelgavaLatvia,Institute of Food SafetyAnimal Health and Environment “BIOR”RigaLatvia
| | - Arvo Viltrop
- Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal SciencesEstonian University of Life SciencesTartuEstonia
| | - Sandra Blome
- Friedrich‐Loeffler‐InstituteGreifswald—Insel RiemsGermany
| | - Anja Globig
- Friedrich‐Loeffler‐InstituteGreifswald—Insel RiemsGermany
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar Schmidt C, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Earley B, Edwards S, Faucitano L, Marti S, Miranda de La Lama GC, Nanni Costa L, Thomsen PT, Ashe S, Mur L, Van der Stede Y, Herskin M. Welfare of small ruminants during transport. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07404. [PMID: 36092764 PMCID: PMC9449987 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7404] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
In the framework of its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of animal welfare legislation. The present Opinion deals with the protection of small ruminants (sheep and goats) during transport. The main focus is on welfare of sheep during transport by road but other means of transport and concerns for welfare of goats during transport are also covered. Current practices related to transport of sheep during the different stages (preparation, loading and unloading, transit and journey breaks) are described. Overall, 11 welfare consequences were identified as being highly relevant for the welfare of sheep during transport based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: group stress, handling stress, heat stress, injuries, motion stress, predation stress, prolonged hunger, prolonged thirst, restriction of movement, resting problems and sensory overstimulation. These welfare consequences and their animal-based measures are described. A wide variety of hazards, mainly relating to inappropriate or aggressive handling of animals, structural deficiencies of vehicles and facilities, unfavourable microclimatic and environmental conditions and poor husbandry practices, leading to these welfare consequences were identified. The Opinion contains general and specific conclusions in relation to the different stages of transport. Recommendations to prevent hazards and to correct or mitigate welfare consequences have been developed. Recommendations were also developed to define quantitative thresholds for microclimatic conditions within the means of transport and spatial thresholds (minimum space allowance). The development of welfare consequences over time were assessed in relation to maximum journey time. The Opinion covers specific animal transport scenarios identified by the European Commission relating to the export of sheep by livestock vessels, export of sheep by road, roll-on-roll-off vessels and 'special health status animals', and lists welfare concerns associated with these.
Collapse
|
29
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar Schmidt C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Mitchell M, Vinco LJ, Voslarova E, Candiani D, Mosbach-Schulz O, Van der Stede Y, Velarde A. Welfare of domestic birds and rabbits transported in containers. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07441. [PMID: 36092767 PMCID: PMC9449994 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7441] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
This opinion, produced upon a request from the European Commission, focuses on transport of domestic birds and rabbits in containers (e.g. any crate, box, receptacle or other rigid structure used for the transport of animals, but not the means of transport itself). It describes and assesses current transport practices in the EU, based on data from literature, Member States and expert opinion. The species and categories of domestic birds assessed were mainly chickens for meat (broilers), end-of-lay hens and day-old chicks. They included to a lesser extent pullets, turkeys, ducks, geese, quails and game birds, due to limited scientific evidence. The opinion focuses on road transport to slaughterhouses or to production sites. For day-old chicks, air transport is also addressed. The relevant stages of transport considered are preparation, loading, journey, arrival and uncrating. Welfare consequences associated with current transport practices were identified for each stage. For loading and uncrating, the highly relevant welfare consequences identified are handling stress, injuries, restriction of movement and sensory overstimulation. For the journey and arrival, injuries, restriction of movement, sensory overstimulation, motion stress, heat stress, cold stress, prolonged hunger and prolonged thirst are identified as highly relevant. For each welfare consequence, animal-based measures (ABMs) and hazards were identified and assessed, and both preventive and corrective or mitigative measures proposed. Recommendations on quantitative criteria to prevent or mitigate welfare consequences are provided for microclimatic conditions, space allowances and journey times for all categories of animals, where scientific evidence and expert opinion support such outcomes.
Collapse
|
30
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar Schmidt C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Stahl K, Calvo AV, Viltrop A, Winckler C, De Clercq K, Sjunnesson Y, Gervelmeyer A, Roberts HC. Assessment of the control measures of the Category A diseases of the Animal Health Law: prohibitions in restricted zones and risk-mitigating treatments for products of animal origin and other materials. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07443. [PMID: 35958104 PMCID: PMC9361132 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7443] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of prohibitions of certain activities in restricted zones, and of certain risk mitigation treatments for products of animal origin and other materials with respect to diseases included in the Category A list in the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) 2016/429). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where other disease-specific control measures have been assessed. In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of (i) prohibiting the movements of certain products, notably germinal products (semen, oocytes, embryos and hatching eggs), products of animal origin and animal by-products and feed of plant origin, hay and straw, and (ii) risk mitigation treatments for products of animal origin. In terms of semen, oocytes, embryos and hatching eggs, it was agreed that there was a lack of evidence particularly for embryos and oocytes reflected in a varying degree of uncertainty, whether these commodities could potentially contain the pathogen under consideration. The scenario assessed did not consider whether the presence of pathogen would lead to infection in the recipient animal. In terms of animal products, certain animal by-products and movement of feed of plant origin and straw, the assessment considered the ability of the commodity to transmit disease to another animal if exposed. For most pathogens, products were to some degree considered a risk, but lack of field evidence contributed to the uncertainty, particularly as potential exposure of ruminants to meat products is concerned. In terms of the risk mitigating treatments, recommendations have been made for several of these treatments, because the treatment description is not complete, the evidence is poor or inconclusive, or the evidence points to the treatment being ineffective.
Collapse
|
31
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Schmidt G, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Mosbach‐Schulz O, Padalino B, Roberts HC, Stahl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Edwards S, Ivanova S, Leeb C, Wechsler B, Fabris C, Lima E, Mosbach‐Schulz O, Van der Stede Y, Vitali M, Spoolder H. Welfare of pigs on farm. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07421. [PMID: 36034323 PMCID: PMC9405538 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7421] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
This scientific opinion focuses on the welfare of pigs on farm, and is based on literature and expert opinion. All pig categories were assessed: gilts and dry sows, farrowing and lactating sows, suckling piglets, weaners, rearing pigs and boars. The most relevant husbandry systems used in Europe are described. For each system, highly relevant welfare consequences were identified, as well as related animal-based measures (ABMs), and hazards leading to the welfare consequences. Moreover, measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate the welfare consequences are recommended. Recommendations are also provided on quantitative or qualitative criteria to answer specific questions on the welfare of pigs related to tail biting and related to the European Citizen's Initiative 'End the Cage Age'. For example, the AHAW Panel recommends how to mitigate group stress when dry sows and gilts are grouped immediately after weaning or in early pregnancy. Results of a comparative qualitative assessment suggested that long-stemmed or long-cut straw, hay or haylage is the most suitable material for nest-building. A period of time will be needed for staff and animals to adapt to housing lactating sows and their piglets in farrowing pens (as opposed to crates) before achieving stable welfare outcomes. The panel recommends a minimum available space to the lactating sow to ensure piglet welfare (measured by live-born piglet mortality). Among the main risk factors for tail biting are space allowance, types of flooring, air quality, health status and diet composition, while weaning age was not associated directly with tail biting in later life. The relationship between the availability of space and growth rate, lying behaviour and tail biting in rearing pigs is quantified and presented. Finally, the panel suggests a set of ABMs to use at slaughter for monitoring on-farm welfare of cull sows and rearing pigs.
Collapse
|
32
|
Kass M, Viltrop A, Prakofjewa J, Sõukand R, Kalle R. Control of foot-and-mouth disease in a closed society: A case study of Soviet Estonia. Front Vet Sci 2022; 9:828583. [PMID: 36061119 PMCID: PMC9429994 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2022.828583] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/03/2021] [Accepted: 07/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is a dangerous infectious disease of even-toed ungulates, however since 1991, the European Union has banned preventive vaccination. During the occupation of the USSR, there were two outbreaks in Estonia: the first started in 1952 (at which time the barns typically housed about 20 cows); and the second began in 1982 (a period when barns typically housed several 100 animals). Neither outbreak was reported to the international community. At that time, it was also forbidden to talk about the disease in the internal media, and speakers could be punished. This study sought to find answers as to how the disease was treated and eliminated in the Estonian SSR, how infected animals and milk were handled, and if some of the methods used can be applied today. Written archival sources and 29 interviews with specialists remembering the outbreaks were used. Preventive slaughter of animals in the USSR was prohibited during the outbreak. As a preventive measure vaccination was used, traveling out of their counties by people were restricted and disinfection mats were used on the roads. In sick animals, udder wounds were treated with various wound ointments, such as zinc ointment, but also ointment made from boiled spruce resin. Birch tar was also recommended in the literature for leg treatments. Mouth wounds were washed with potassium permanganate solution. Workers used rubber gloves when handling sick animals. The barns were disinfected with lime and ash water. The milk from the diseased cows was pasteurized and given to calves, pigs, or diseased animals. Animals that did not recover were transferred to a meat processing plant. The meat was kept in potassium permanganate solution before processing and canned or made into sausages. When the disease was discovered, farm workers were locked in barns and released only when the disease had been eliminated. Such inhumane treatment could only be practiced in a totalitarian society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marko Kass
- Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Arvo Viltrop
- Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Julia Prakofjewa
- Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Venezia, Italy
| | - Renata Sõukand
- Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Venezia, Italy
| | - Raivo Kalle
- University of Gastronomic Sciences, Pollenzo, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar Schmidt C, Herskin M, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Michel V, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Edwards S, Ashe S, Candiani D, Fabris C, Lima E, Mosbach‐Schulz O, Gimeno CR, Van der Stede Y, Vitali M, Winckler C. Methodological guidance for the development of animal welfare mandates in the context of the Farm to Fork Strategy. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07403. [PMID: 35846109 PMCID: PMC9275173 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7403] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
This document provides methodological guidance developed by the EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare to produce Scientific Opinions in response to mandates received from the European Commission in the context of the Farm to Fork Strategy. The mandates relate to the welfare of (i) animals during transport, (ii) calves, (iii) laying hens, (iv) broilers, (v) pigs, (vi) ducks, geese and quails, and (vii) dairy cows. This guidance was developed in order to define the methods and strategy to be applied for responding to the Terms of Reference (ToRs) of the mandates. The mandates each consist of a set of General ToRs which refer to the husbandry systems used in the production of each animal species or the current transport practices for free moving animals and animals transported in cages, and a set of specific ToRs for which difficulties in ensuring animal welfare have been identified and where specific scenarios are envisaged. Part I of the guidance includes a description of welfare consequences for the animals. Part II includes a new methodology for providing quantitative recommendations regarding animal welfare. The proposed methodology follows the assumption that the effect of an exposure variable (e.g. space allowance) on animal welfare can be quantified by comparing the expression of an animal-based measure (ABM) under 'unexposed conditions' (e.g. unlimited space) and under high exposure (e.g. restrictive conditions). The level of welfare as assessed through this ABM can be quantified for different levels of the exposure variable (e.g. at increasing space allowances) and quantitative recommendations can thus be provided. The final version of the methodological guidance was endorsed for public consultation, which took place between 14 February 2022 and 31 March 2022. The comments received are integrated in this document.
Collapse
|
34
|
Moskalenko L, Schulz K, Mõtus K, Viltrop A. Pigkeepers’ knowledge and perceptions regarding African Swine Fever and the control measures in Estonia. Prev Vet Med 2022; 208:105717. [DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2022.105717] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/29/2021] [Revised: 07/12/2022] [Accepted: 07/15/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
35
|
Schulz K, Oļševskis E, Viltrop A, Masiulis M, Staubach C, Nurmoja I, Lamberga K, Seržants M, Malakauskas A, Conraths FJ, Sauter-Louis C. Eight Years of African Swine Fever in the Baltic States: Epidemiological Reflections. Pathogens 2022; 11:pathogens11060711. [PMID: 35745565 PMCID: PMC9230151 DOI: 10.3390/pathogens11060711] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2022] [Revised: 06/13/2022] [Accepted: 06/16/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
African swine fever (ASF) was first detected in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia in 2014 and has since been circulating in the Baltic States with a similar epidemiological course characterized by persistence of the disease in the wild boar population and occasional spill-over infections in domestic pigs. The aim of the present study was to evaluate surveillance data on ASF in wild boar from the three countries to improve our understanding of the course of the disease. ASF surveillance and wild boar population data of the countries were analyzed. In all three countries, a decrease in the prevalence of ASF virus-positive wild boar was observed over time. Although somewhat delayed, an increase in the seroprevalence was seen. At the same time, the wild boar population density decreased significantly. Towards the end of the study period, the wild boar population recovered, and the prevalence of ASF virus-positive wild boar increased again, whereas the seroprevalence decreased. The decreasing virus prevalence has obviously led to virus circulation at a very low level. Together with the decreasing wild boar population density, the detection of ASF-infected wild boar and thus ASF control has become increasingly difficult. The course of ASF and its continuous spread clearly demonstrate the necessity to scrutinize current ASF surveillance and control strategies fundamentally and to consider new transdisciplinary approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katja Schulz
- Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Institute of Epidemiology, 17493 Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany; (C.S.); (F.J.C.); (C.S.-L.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +49-3835-171-803
| | - Edvīns Oļševskis
- Food and Veterinary Service, 1050 Riga, Latvia; (E.O.); (K.L.); (M.S.)
- Institute of Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment-“BIOR”, 1076 Riga, Latvia
| | - Arvo Viltrop
- Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Science, 51006 Tartu, Estonia;
| | - Marius Masiulis
- State Food and Veterinary Service, LT07170 Vilnius, Lithuania; (M.M.); (A.M.)
- Dr. L Kriauceliunas Small Animal Clinic, Veterinary Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, LT47181 Kaunas, Lithuania
| | - Christoph Staubach
- Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Institute of Epidemiology, 17493 Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany; (C.S.); (F.J.C.); (C.S.-L.)
| | - Imbi Nurmoja
- Estonian Veterinary and Food Laboratory (VFL), 51006 Tartu, Estonia;
| | - Kristīne Lamberga
- Food and Veterinary Service, 1050 Riga, Latvia; (E.O.); (K.L.); (M.S.)
- Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies, 3001 Jelgava, Latvia
| | - Mārtiņš Seržants
- Food and Veterinary Service, 1050 Riga, Latvia; (E.O.); (K.L.); (M.S.)
| | - Alvydas Malakauskas
- State Food and Veterinary Service, LT07170 Vilnius, Lithuania; (M.M.); (A.M.)
- Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, Veterinary Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, LT44307 Kaunas, Lithuania
| | - Franz Josef Conraths
- Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Institute of Epidemiology, 17493 Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany; (C.S.); (F.J.C.); (C.S.-L.)
| | - Carola Sauter-Louis
- Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Institute of Epidemiology, 17493 Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany; (C.S.); (F.J.C.); (C.S.-L.)
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Nielsen SS, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Baldinelli F, Broglia A, Kohnle L, Alvarez J. Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): antimicrobial-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in dogs and cats. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07310. [PMID: 35515338 PMCID: PMC9063721 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7310] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) 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 P. aeruginosa can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (33–90% 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, 3 and 4 (Categories A, B, C and D; 0–5%, 1–5%, 5–33% and 5–33% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively) and the AHAW Panel was uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Section 5 (Category E, 33–90% probability of meeting the criteria). The animal species to be listed for AMR P. aeruginosa according to Article 8 criteria are mainly dogs and cats.
Collapse
|
37
|
Baños JV, Boklund A, Gogin A, Gortázar C, Guberti V, Helyes G, Kantere M, Korytarova D, Linden A, Masiulis M, Miteva A, Neghirla I, Oļševskis E, Ostojic S, Petr S, Staubach C, Thulke H, Viltrop A, Wozniakowski G, Broglia A, Abrahantes Cortiñas J, Dhollander S, Mur L, Papanikolaou A, Van der Stede Y, Zancanaro G, Ståhl K. Epidemiological analyses of African swine fever in the European Union: (September 2020 to August 2021). EFSA J 2022; 20:e07290. [PMID: 35515335 PMCID: PMC9066549 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7290] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/05/2022] Open
Abstract
This report provides a descriptive analysis of the African swine fever (ASF) Genotype II epidemic in the affected Member States in the EU and two neighbouring countries for the period from 1 September 2020 to 31 August 2021. ASF continued to spread in wild boar in the EU, it entered Germany in September 2020, while Belgium became free from ASF in October 2020. No ASF outbreaks in domestic pigs nor cases in wild boar have been reported in Greece since February 2020. In the Baltic States, overall, there has been a declining trend in proportions of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive samples from wild boar carcasses in the last few years. In the other countries, the proportions of PCR-positive wild boar carcasses remained high, indicating continuing spread of the disease. A systematic literature review revealed that the risk factors most frequently significantly associated with ASF in domestic pigs were pig density, low levels of biosecurity and socio-economic factors. For wild boar, most significant risk factors were related to habitat, socio-economic factors and wild boar management. The effectiveness of different control options in the so-named white zones, areas where wild boar densities have been drastically reduced to avoid further spread of ASF after a new introduction, was assessed with a stochastic model. Important findings were that establishing a white zone is much more challenging when the area of ASF incursion is adjacent to an area where limited control measures are in place. Very stringent wild boar population reduction measures in the white zone are key to success. The white zone needs to be far enough away from the affected core area so that the population can be reduced in time before the disease arrives and the timing of this will depend on the wild boar density and the required population reduction target in the white zone. Finally, establishing a proactive white zone along the demarcation line of an affected area requires higher culling efforts, but has a higher chance of success to stop the spread of the disease than establishing reactive white zones after the disease has already entered in the area.
Collapse
|
38
|
Nielsen SS, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Baldinelli F, Broglia A, Kohnle L, Alvarez J. 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. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07311. [PMID: 35582363 PMCID: PMC9087955 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7311] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
39
|
Nielsen SS, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Baldinelli F, Broglia A, Kohnle L, Alvarez J. Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): antimicrobial-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in cattle and horses. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07312. [PMID: 35582361 PMCID: PMC9087474 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7312] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) was identified among the most relevant antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) bacteria in the EU for cattle and horses 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 S. aureus can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (60-90% 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; 1-5%, 5-10% and 10-33% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively) and the AHAW Panel was uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 3 and 5 (Categories C and E, 33-90% and 60-90% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for AMR S. aureus according to Article 8 criteria include mainly mammals, birds, reptiles and fish.
Collapse
|
40
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Gervelmeyer A, Van der Stede Y, Bicout DJ. Guidance on good practice in conducting scientific assessments in animal health using modelling. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07346. [PMID: 35600270 PMCID: PMC9115711 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7346] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
The EFSA asked the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare to develop a guidance document on good practice in conducting scientific assessments in animal health using modelling. In previous opinions, the AHAW Panel has responded to two‐thirds of animal health‐related mandates using some kind of modelling. These models range from simple to complex, employing a combination of scientific, economic, socio‐economic or other types of data. Hence, there is strong interest in the development of a guidance document to integrate modelling efforts into the routine process of EFSA working groups. In this document, an ‘operating procedure' (OP) for the use of modelling within an AH working group is presented. The OP provides a detailed flowchart enabling modelling to be transparently and consistently integrated in the assessment. The OP is structured into phases. These phases combine the relevant standard operating procedures and working instructions of EFSA with the modelling process. Each phase includes roles and actions to be taken, expected output and the sequence of agreements that need to be made between all partners in the scientific assessment. In conclusion, it is expected that adherence to the OP will improve transparency of models in EFSA outputs, and it is recommended to adopt it as a standard procedure when responding to AHAW mandates.
Collapse
|
41
|
Nielsen SS, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Baldinelli F, Broglia A, Kohnle L, Van der Stede Y, Alvarez J. Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): antimicrobial-resistant Brachyspira hyodysenteriae in swine. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07124. [PMID: 35317125 PMCID: PMC8922405 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7124] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Brachyspira hyodysenteriae (B. hyodysenteriae) was identified among the most relevant antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) bacteria in the EU for swine 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 B. hyodysenteriae 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 and 3 (Categories A, B and C; 1-10%, 10-33% and 10-33% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively) and the AHAW Panel was uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 4 and 5 (Categories D and E, 50-90% and 33-66% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The main animal species to be listed for AMR B. hyodysenteriae according to Article 8 criteria are pigs and some species of birds, such as chickens and ducks.
Collapse
|
42
|
Nielsen SS, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Baldinelli F, Broglia A, Kohnle L, Alvarez J. Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): antimicrobial-resistant Rhodococcus equi in horses. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07081. [PMID: 35136423 PMCID: PMC8808660 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7081] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Rhodococcus equi (R. equi) was identified among the most relevant antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) bacteria in the EU for horses 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 R. equi can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (10-66% 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 and 2 (Categories A and B; 5-10% and 10-33% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively), and the AHAW Panel is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 3, 4 and 5 (Categories C, D and E; 10-66% probability of meeting the criteria in all three categories). The animal species to be listed for AMR R. equi according to Article 8 criteria are mainly horses and other species belonging to the Perissodactyla and Artiodactyla orders.
Collapse
|
43
|
Nielsen SS, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Baldinelli F, Broglia A, Kohnle L, Alvarez J. Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): antimicrobial-resistant Enterococcus faecalis in poultry. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07127. [PMID: 35228848 PMCID: PMC8859914 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7127] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) was identified among the most relevant antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) bacteria in the EU for poultry 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 E. faecalis 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 and 4 (Categories A, B and D; 0-5%, 5-10% and 1-10% 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, 33-66% and 33-66% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for AMR E. faecalis according to Article 8 criteria are mostly birds of the orders Galliformes and Anseriformes, but also mammals and reptiles can serve as reservoirs.
Collapse
|
44
|
Nielsen SS, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Baldinelli F, Broglia A, Kohnle L, Alvarez J. Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): antimicrobial-resistant Enterococcus cecorum in poultry. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07126. [PMID: 36926260 PMCID: PMC10011046 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7126] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Enterococcus cecorum (E. cecorum) was identified among the most relevant antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) bacteria in the EU for poultry 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 E. cecorum can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (33-75% 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; 0-5%, 5-10% 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, 33-66% and 33-75% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for AMR E. cecorum according to Article 8 criteria are mostly birds belonging to the families of Anatidae, Columbidae and Phasianidae.
Collapse
|
45
|
Nielsen SS, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Baldinelli F, Broglia A, Kohnle L, Alvarez J. 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. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07080. [PMID: 35126739 PMCID: PMC8805099 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7080] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
46
|
Nielsen SS, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortazar Schmidt C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MA, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Dewulf J, Guardabassi L, Hilbert F, Mader R, Romalde JL, Smith P, Baldinelli F, Kohnle L, Alvarez J. Assessment of animal diseases caused by bacteria resistant to antimicrobials: kept fish species. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07076. [PMID: 35136422 PMCID: PMC8808658 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7076] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
In this Opinion, the antimicrobial-resistant bacteria responsible for transmissible diseases that constitute a threat to the health of certain kept fish species have been assessed. Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), carp (Cyprinus spp.), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), sea bream (Sparus aurata) and tilapia (Oreochromis spp.), selected as representative of the most important fish species and production systems that are commercially reared in fresh and saltwater farms, were the focus of this assessment. The assessment was 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. The global state of play of antimicrobial resistance in Aeromonas hydrophila, Aeromonas salmonicida, Flavobacterium psychrophilum and Flavobacterium columnare is provided. Among these bacteria, none was identified as being among the most relevant antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in the assessed kept fish species in the EU due to the very limited scientific evidence available.
Collapse
|
47
|
Nielsen SS, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortazar Schmidt C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MA, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Sihvonen LH, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Dewulf J, Guardabassi L, Hilbert F, Mader R, Baldinelli F, Alvarez J. Assessment of animal diseases caused by bacteria resistant to antimicrobials: Swine. EFSA J 2022; 19:e07113. [PMID: 34987628 PMCID: PMC8703240 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.7113] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
In this opinion, the antimicrobial-resistant bacteria responsible for transmissible diseases that constitute a threat to the health of pigs 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 of antimicrobial resistant Escherichia coli, Streptococcus suis, Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae, Pasteurella multocida, Glaeserella parasuis, Bordetella bronchiseptica, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus hyicus, Brachyspira hyodysenteriae, Trueperella pyogenes, Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae, Streptococcus dysgalactiae, Mycoplasma hyosynoviae, Mycoplasma hyorhinis, Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae and Brachyspira pilosicoli has been provided. Among those bacteria, EFSA identified E. coli and B. hyodysenteriae with > 66% certainty as being 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.
Collapse
|
48
|
Nielsen SS, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortazar Schmidt C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MA, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Dewulf J, Guardabassi L, Hilbert F, Mader R, Baldinelli F, Alvarez J. Assessment of animal diseases caused by bacteria resistant to antimicrobials: Poultry. EFSA J 2022; 19:e07114. [PMID: 34987629 PMCID: PMC8703241 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.7114] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
In this opinion, the antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria responsible for transmissible diseases that constitute a threat to poultry health 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 is provided for: Avibacterium (Haemophilus) paragallinarum, Bordetella avium, Clostridium perfringens, Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus cecorum, Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae, Escherichia coli, Gallibacterium spp., Mycoplasma synoviae, Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale, Pasteurella multocida, Riemerella anatipestifer and Staphylococcus aureus. Among those bacteria, EFSA identified Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus cecorum with ≥ 66% certainty as being the most relevant antimicrobial resistant bacteria in the EU based on the available evidence. The animal health impact of these most relevant bacteria, and their eligibility for being listed and categorised within the Animal Health Law Framework, will be assessed in separate scientific opinions.
Collapse
|
49
|
Nielsen SS, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortazar Schmidt C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MA, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Sihvonen LH, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Dewulf J, Guardabassi L, Hilbert F, Mader R, Baldinelli F, Alvarez J. Assessment of animal diseases caused by bacteria resistant to antimicrobials: Horses. EFSA J 2022; 19:e07112. [PMID: 34987627 PMCID: PMC8703245 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.7112] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
In this opinion, the antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria responsible for transmissible diseases that constitute a threat to the health of horses have been assessed. The assessment has been performed following a methodology composed of information collected via an extensive literature review and expert judgement. Details on the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. A global state of play of antimicrobial‐resistant Actinobacillus equuli, Dermatophilus congolensis, Enterococcus spp., Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pasteurella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Rhodococcus equi, Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus dysgalactiae subsp. dysgalactiae/equisimilis and Streptococcus equi subsp. equi and subsp. zooepidemicus has been provided. Among those bacteria, EFSA identified E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus and R. equi with more than 66% certainty as the most relevant antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria in the EU, given their importance as causative agents of clinical disease in horses and the significant levels of resistance to clinically relevant antimicrobials. The animal health impact of these ‘most relevant’ bacteria as well as their eligibility of being listed and categorised within the animal health law framework will be assessed in separate scientific opinions.
Collapse
|
50
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Gubbins S, Stegeman JA, Thiaucourt F, Antoniou SE, Aznar I, Papanikolaou A, Zancanaro G, Roberts HC. Assessment of the control measures for category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07068. [PMID: 35106092 PMCID: PMC8787594 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7068] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of the 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 will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia (CCPP). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period, (iii) the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones and iv) 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. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Different clinical and laboratory sampling procedures are proposed depending on the scenarios considered. The monitoring period of 45 days was assessed as effective in affected areas where high awareness is expected, and when the index case occurs in an area where the awareness is low the monitoring period should be at least 180 days (6 months). Since transmission kernels do not exist and data to estimate transmission kernels are not available, a surveillance zone of 3 km was considered effective based on expert knowledge, while a protection zone should also be developed to include establishments adjacent to affected ones. Recommendations, provided for each of the scenarios assessed, aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad hoc requests in relation to CCPP.
Collapse
|