Search

On request of the EU Commission, EFSA carried out an Extensive Literature Review (ELR) to provide a list of vector species or reservoirs species of pathogens of crustaceans, listed in Annex II to the AHL, aiming to update the Annex of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1882. In this Technical Report, the detailed review protocol of the ELR and assessment of potential vector and reservoir species is described of the crustacean pathogens listed in Annex II to the AHL: Taura syndrome virus (TSV), Yellow head virus (YHV) or White spot syndrome virus (WSSV). In total 2,530 research publications were collected for abstract screening and from these, 110 were selected for further full text analysis. In the final data collection and assessment 34 relevant research publications were used for extracting information on vector and reservoir species of the above crustacean pathogens. The results for crustacean species for which scientific evidence indicates that a role as vector species or reservoir species is likely are presented as tables in the supplementary material of this report.

On request of the EU Commission, EFSA carried out an Extensive Literature Review (ELR) to provide a list of vector species or reservoirs species of pathogens of crustaceans, listed in Annex II to the AHL, aiming to update the Annex of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1882. In this Technical Report, the detailed review protocol of the ELR and assessment of potential vector and reservoir species is described of the crustacean pathogens listed in Annex II to the AHL: Taura syndrome virus (TSV), Yellow head virus (YHV) or White spot syndrome virus (WSSV). In total 2,530 research publications were collected for abstract screening and from these, 110 were selected for further full text analysis. In the final data collection and assessment 34 relevant research publications were used for extracting information on vector and reservoir species of the above crustacean pathogens. The results for crustacean species for which scientific evidence indicates that a role as vector species or reservoir species is likely are presented as tables in the supplementary material of this report.

Rift Valley fever (RVF ) is a vector‐borne disease transmitted by different mosquito species, especially Aedes and Culex genus, to animals and humans. In November 2018, RVF re‐emerged in Mayotte (France) after 11 years. Up to the end of October 2019, 126 outbreaks in animals and 143 human cases were reported. RVF mortality was 0.01%, and the number of abortions reported in polymerase chain reaction (PCR )‐positive ruminants was fivefold greater than the previous 7 years. Milk loss production in 2019 compared to 2015–2018 was estimated to be 18%, corresponding to an economic loss of around €191,000 in all of Mayotte. The tropical climate in Mayotte provides conditions for the presence of mosquitoes during the whole year, and illegal introductions of animals represent a continuous risk of (re)introduction of RVF . The probability of RVF virus (RVFV ) persisting in Mayotte for 5 or more years was estimated to be < 10% but could be much lower if vertical transmission in vectors does not occur. Persistence of RVF by vertical transmission in Mayotte and Réunion appears to be of minor relevance compared to other pathways of re‐introduction (i.e. animal movement). However, there is a high uncertainty since there is limited information about the vertical transmission of some of the major species of vectors of RVFV in Mayotte and Réunion. The only identified pathways for the risk of spread of RVF from Mayotte to other countries were by infected vectors transported in airplanes or by wind currents. For the former, the risk of introduction of RVF to continental France was estimated to 4 × 10−6 epidemic per year (median value; 95% CI : 2 × 10−8; 0.0007), and 0.001 epidemic per year to Réunion (95% CI : 4 × 10−6; 0.16). For the latter pathway, mosquitoes dispersing on the wind from Mayotte between January and April 2019 could have reached the Comoros Islands, Madagascar, Mozambique and, possibly, Tanzania. However, these countries are already endemic for RVF , and an incursion

Rabbits of different ages may have to be killed on‐farm for purposes other than slaughter (where slaughter is defined as killing for human consumption) either individually or on a large scale (e.g. for production reasons or for disease control). The purpose of this opinion was to assess the risks associated to the on‐farm killing of rabbits. The processes during on‐farm killing that were assessed included handling, stunning and/or killing methods (including restraint). The latter were grouped into four categories: electrical methods, mechanical methods, controlled atmosphere method and lethal injection. In total, 14 hazards were identified and characterised, most of these related to stunning and/or killing. The staff was identified as the origin for all hazards, either due to lack of the appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. Possible corrective and preventive measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for five hazards and the staff was shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Five welfare consequences of the welfare hazards to which rabbits can be exposed to during on‐farm killing were identified: not being dead, consciousness, pain, fear and distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal‐based measures, origins, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are proposed.

Rabbits of different ages may have to be killed on‐farm for purposes other than slaughter (where slaughter is defined as killing for human consumption) either individually or on a large scale (e.g. for production reasons or for disease control). The purpose of this opinion was to assess the risks associated to the on‐farm killing of rabbits. The processes during on‐farm killing that were assessed included handling, stunning and/or killing methods (including restraint). The latter were grouped into four categories: electrical methods, mechanical methods, controlled atmosphere method and lethal injection. In total, 14 hazards were identified and characterised, most of these related to stunning and/or killing. The staff was identified as the origin for all hazards, either due to lack of the appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. Possible corrective and preventive measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for five hazards and the staff was shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Five welfare consequences of the welfare hazards to which rabbits can be exposed to during on‐farm killing were identified: not being dead, consciousness, pain, fear and distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal‐based measures, origins, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are proposed.

This opinion on the killing of rabbits for human consumption (‘slaughtering’) responds to two mandates: one from the European Parliament (EP) and the other from the European Commission. The opinion describes stunning methods for rabbits known to the experts in the EFSA working group, which can be used in commercial practice, and which are sufficiently described in scientific and technical literature for the development of an opinion. These are electrical stunning, mechanical stunning with a penetrative and non‐penetrative captive bolt and gas stunning. The latter method is not allowed in the EU anymore following Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009, but may still be practiced elsewhere in the world. Related hazards and welfare consequences are also evaluated. To monitor stunning effectiveness as requested by the EP mandate, the opinion suggests the use of indicators for the state of consciousness, selected on the basis of their sensitivity, specificity and ease of use. Similarly, it suggests indicators to confirm animals are dead before dressing. For the European Commission mandate, slaughter processes were assessed from the arrival of rabbits in containers until their death, and grouped in three main phases: pre‐stunning (including arrival, unloading of containers from the truck, lairage, handling/removing of rabbits from containers), stunning (including restraint) and bleeding (including bleeding following stunning and bleeding during slaughter without stunning). Ten welfare consequences resulting from the hazards that rabbits can be exposed to during slaughter are identified: consciousness, animal not dead, thermal stress (heat or cold stress), prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, restriction of movements, pain, fear, distress and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures (indicators) are described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, indicators, origins, preventive and corrective measures are developed for eac

The AGRI committee of the European Parliament requested EFSA to assess the welfare of rabbits farmed in different production systems, including organic production, and to update its 2005 scientific opinion about the health and welfare of rabbits kept for meat production. Considering reproducing does, kits and growing rabbits, this scientific opinion focusses on six different housing systems, namely conventional cages, structurally enriched cages, elevated pens, floor pens, outdoor/partially outdoor systems and organic systems. To compare the level of welfare in the different housing systems and rabbit categories, welfare impact scores for 20 welfare consequences identified from the literature were calculated, taking their occurrence, duration and severity into account. Based on the overall welfare impact score (sum of scores for the single welfare consequences), obtained via a 2‐step expert knowledge elicitation process, the welfare of reproducing does is likely (certainty 66–90%) to be lower in conventional cages compared to the five other housing systems. In addition, it is likely to extremely likely (certainty 66–99%) that the welfare of kits is lower in outdoor systems compared to the other systems and that the welfare is higher in elevated pens than in the other systems. Finally, it is likely to extremely likely (certainty 66–99%) that the welfare of growing rabbits is lower in conventional cages compared to the other systems and that the welfare is higher in elevated pens than in the other systems. Ranking of the welfare consequences allowed an analysis of the main welfare consequences within each system and rabbit category. It was concluded that for reproducing does, as well as growing rabbits, welfare consequences related to behavioural restrictions were more prominent in conventional cages, elevated pens and enriched cages, whereas those related to health problems were more important in floor pens, outdoor and organic systems. Housing in organic rabbit farm

Rift Valley fever (RVF ) is a vector‐borne disease transmitted by different mosquito species, especially Aedes and Culex genus, to animals and humans. In November 2018, RVF re‐emerged in Mayotte (France) after 11 years. Up to the end of October 2019, 126 outbreaks in animals and 143 human cases were reported. RVF mortality was 0.01%, and the number of abortions reported in polymerase chain reaction (PCR )‐positive ruminants was fivefold greater than the previous 7 years. Milk loss production in 2019 compared to 2015–2018 was estimated to be 18%, corresponding to an economic loss of around €191,000 in all of Mayotte. The tropical climate in Mayotte provides conditions for the presence of mosquitoes during the whole year, and illegal introductions of animals represent a continuous risk of (re)introduction of RVF . The probability of RVF virus (RVFV ) persisting in Mayotte for 5 or more years was estimated to be < 10% but could be much lower if vertical transmission in vectors does not occur. Persistence of RVF by vertical transmission in Mayotte and Réunion appears to be of minor relevance compared to other pathways of re‐introduction (i.e. animal movement). However, there is a high uncertainty since there is limited information about the vertical transmission of some of the major species of vectors of RVFV in Mayotte and Réunion. The only identified pathways for the risk of spread of RVF from Mayotte to other countries were by infected vectors transported in airplanes or by wind currents. For the former, the risk of introduction of RVF to continental France was estimated to 4 × 10−6 epidemic per year (median value; 95% CI : 2 × 10−8; 0.0007), and 0.001 epidemic per year to Réunion (95% CI : 4 × 10−6; 0.16). For the latter pathway, mosquitoes dispersing on the wind from Mayotte between January and April 2019 could have reached the Comoros Islands, Madagascar, Mozambique and, possibly, Tanzania. However, these countries are already endemic for RVF , and an incursion

Rift Valley fever (RVF) is a vector-borne disease transmitted by a broad spectrum of mosquito species, especially Aedes and Culex genus, to animals (domestic and wild ruminants and camels) and humans. Rift Valley fever is endemic in sub-Saharan Africa and in the Arabian Peninsula, with periodic epidemics characterised by 5–15 years of inter-epizootic periods. In the last two decades, RVF was notified in new African regions (e.g. Sahel), RVF epidemics occurred more frequently and low-level enzootic virus circulation has been demonstrated in livestock in various areas. Recent outbreaks in a French overseas department and some seropositive cases detected in Turkey, Tunisia and Libya raised the attention of the EU for a possible incursion into neighbouring countries. The movement of live animals is the most important pathway for RVF spread from the African endemic areas to North Africa and the Middle East. The movement of infected animals and infected vectors when shipped by flights, containers or road transport is considered as other plausible pathways of introduction into Europe. The overall risk of introduction of RVF into EU through the movement of infected animals is very low in all the EU regions and in all MSs (less than one epidemic every 500 years), given the strict EU animal import policy. The same level of risk of introduction in all the EU regions was estimated also considering the movement of infected vectors, with the highest level for Belgium, Greece, Malta, the Netherlands (one epidemic every 228–700 years), mainly linked to the number of connections by air and sea transports with African RVF infected countries. Although the EU territory does not seem to be directly exposed to an imminent risk of RVFV introduction, the risk of further spread into countries neighbouring the EU and the risks of possible introduction of infected vectors, suggest that EU authorities need to strengthen their surveillance and response capacities, as well as the collaboratio

Rabbits of different ages may have to be killed on‐farm for purposes other than slaughter (where slaughter is defined as killing for human consumption) either individually or on a large scale (e.g. for production reasons or for disease control). The purpose of this opinion was to assess the risks associated to the on‐farm killing of rabbits. The processes during on‐farm killing that were assessed included handling, stunning and/or killing methods (including restraint). The latter were grouped into four categories: electrical methods, mechanical methods, controlled atmosphere method and lethal injection. In total, 14 hazards were identified and characterised, most of these related to stunning and/or killing. The staff was identified as the origin for all hazards, either due to lack of the appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. Possible corrective and preventive measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for five hazards and the staff was shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Five welfare consequences of the welfare hazards to which rabbits can be exposed to during on‐farm killing were identified: not being dead, consciousness, pain, fear and distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal‐based measures, origins, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are proposed.

Rift Valley fever (RVF ) is a vector‐borne disease transmitted by different mosquito species, especially Aedes and Culex genus, to animals and humans. In November 2018, RVF re‐emerged in Mayotte (France) after 11 years. Up to the end of October 2019, 126 outbreaks in animals and 143 human cases were reported. RVF mortality was 0.01%, and the number of abortions reported in polymerase chain reaction (PCR )‐positive ruminants was fivefold greater than the previous 7 years. Milk loss production in 2019 compared to 2015–2018 was estimated to be 18%, corresponding to an economic loss of around €191,000 in all of Mayotte. The tropical climate in Mayotte provides conditions for the presence of mosquitoes during the whole year, and illegal introductions of animals represent a continuous risk of (re)introduction of RVF . The probability of RVF virus (RVFV ) persisting in Mayotte for 5 or more years was estimated to be < 10% but could be much lower if vertical transmission in vectors does not occur. Persistence of RVF by vertical transmission in Mayotte and Réunion appears to be of minor relevance compared to other pathways of re‐introduction (i.e. animal movement). However, there is a high uncertainty since there is limited information about the vertical transmission of some of the major species of vectors of RVFV in Mayotte and Réunion. The only identified pathways for the risk of spread of RVF from Mayotte to other countries were by infected vectors transported in airplanes or by wind currents. For the former, the risk of introduction of RVF to continental France was estimated to 4 × 10−6 epidemic per year (median value; 95% CI : 2 × 10−8; 0.0007), and 0.001 epidemic per year to Réunion (95% CI : 4 × 10−6; 0.16). For the latter pathway, mosquitoes dispersing on the wind from Mayotte between January and April 2019 could have reached the Comoros Islands, Madagascar, Mozambique and, possibly, Tanzania. However, these countries are already endemic for RVF , and an incursion

The AGRI committee of the European Parliament requested EFSA to assess the welfare of rabbits farmed in different production systems, including organic production, and to update its 2005 scientific opinion about the health and welfare of rabbits kept for meat production. Considering reproducing does, kits and growing rabbits, this scientific opinion focusses on six different housing systems, namely conventional cages, structurally enriched cages, elevated pens, floor pens, outdoor/partially outdoor systems and organic systems. To compare the level of welfare in the different housing systems and rabbit categories, welfare impact scores for 20 welfare consequences identified from the literature were calculated, taking their occurrence, duration and severity into account. Based on the overall welfare impact score (sum of scores for the single welfare consequences), obtained via a 2‐step expert knowledge elicitation process, the welfare of reproducing does is likely (certainty 66–90%) to be lower in conventional cages compared to the five other housing systems. In addition, it is likely to extremely likely (certainty 66–99%) that the welfare of kits is lower in outdoor systems compared to the other systems and that the welfare is higher in elevated pens than in the other systems. Finally, it is likely to extremely likely (certainty 66–99%) that the welfare of growing rabbits is lower in conventional cages compared to the other systems and that the welfare is higher in elevated pens than in the other systems. Ranking of the welfare consequences allowed an analysis of the main welfare consequences within each system and rabbit category. It was concluded that for reproducing does, as well as growing rabbits, welfare consequences related to behavioural restrictions were more prominent in conventional cages, elevated pens and enriched cages, whereas those related to health problems were more important in floor pens, outdoor and organic systems. Housing in organic rabbit farm

This opinion on the killing of rabbits for human consumption (‘slaughtering’) responds to two mandates: one from the European Parliament (EP) and the other from the European Commission. The opinion describes stunning methods for rabbits known to the experts in the EFSA working group, which can be used in commercial practice, and which are sufficiently described in scientific and technical literature for the development of an opinion. These are electrical stunning, mechanical stunning with a penetrative and non‐penetrative captive bolt and gas stunning. The latter method is not allowed in the EU anymore following Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009, but may still be practiced elsewhere in the world. Related hazards and welfare consequences are also evaluated. To monitor stunning effectiveness as requested by the EP mandate, the opinion suggests the use of indicators for the state of consciousness, selected on the basis of their sensitivity, specificity and ease of use. Similarly, it suggests indicators to confirm animals are dead before dressing. For the European Commission mandate, slaughter processes were assessed from the arrival of rabbits in containers until their death, and grouped in three main phases: pre‐stunning (including arrival, unloading of containers from the truck, lairage, handling/removing of rabbits from containers), stunning (including restraint) and bleeding (including bleeding following stunning and bleeding during slaughter without stunning). Ten welfare consequences resulting from the hazards that rabbits can be exposed to during slaughter are identified: consciousness, animal not dead, thermal stress (heat or cold stress), prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, restriction of movements, pain, fear, distress and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures (indicators) are described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, indicators, origins, preventive and corrective measures are developed for eac

BACKGROUND: Culicoides biting midges transmit viruses resulting in disease in ruminants and equids such as bluetongue, Schmallenberg disease and African horse sickness. In the past decades, these diseases have led to important economic losses for farmers in Europe. Vector abundance is a key factor in determining the risk of vector-borne disease spread and it is, therefore, important to predict the abundance of Culicoides species involved in the transmission of these pathogens. The objectives of this study were to model and map the monthly abundances of Culicoides in Europe.METHODS: We obtained entomological data from 904 farms in nine European countries (Spain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Poland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway) from 2007 to 2013. Using environmental and climatic predictors from satellite imagery and the machine learning technique Random Forests, we predicted the monthly average abundance at a 1 km2 resolution. We used independent test sets for validation and to assess model performance.RESULTS: The predictive power of the resulting models varied according to month and the Culicoides species/ensembles predicted. Model performance was lower for winter months. Performance was higher for the Obsoletus ensemble, followed by the Pulicaris ensemble, while the model for Culicoides imicola showed a poor performance. Distribution and abundance patterns corresponded well with the known distributions in Europe. The Random Forests model approach was able to distinguish differences in abundance between countries but was not able to predict vector abundance at individual farm level.CONCLUSIONS: The models and maps presented here represent an initial attempt to capture large scale geographical and temporal variations in Culicoides abundance. The models are a first step towards producing abundance inputs for R0 modelling of Culicoides-borne infections at a continental scale.

Rift Valley fever (RVF) is a vector-borne disease transmitted by a broad spectrum of mosquito species, especially Aedes and Culex genus, to animals (domestic and wild ruminants and camels) and humans. Rift Valley fever is endemic in sub-Saharan Africa and in the Arabian Peninsula, with periodic epidemics characterised by 5–15 years of inter-epizootic periods. In the last two decades, RVF was notified in new African regions (e.g. Sahel), RVF epidemics occurred more frequently and low-level enzootic virus circulation has been demonstrated in livestock in various areas. Recent outbreaks in a French overseas department and some seropositive cases detected in Turkey, Tunisia and Libya raised the attention of the EU for a possible incursion into neighbouring countries. The movement of live animals is the most important pathway for RVF spread from the African endemic areas to North Africa and the Middle East. The movement of infected animals and infected vectors when shipped by flights, containers or road transport is considered as other plausible pathways of introduction into Europe. The overall risk of introduction of RVF into EU through the movement of infected animals is very low in all the EU regions and in all MSs (less than one epidemic every 500 years), given the strict EU animal import policy. The same level of risk of introduction in all the EU regions was estimated also considering the movement of infected vectors, with the highest level for Belgium, Greece, Malta, the Netherlands (one epidemic every 228–700 years), mainly linked to the number of connections by air and sea transports with African RVF infected countries. Although the EU territory does not seem to be directly exposed to an imminent risk of RVFV introduction, the risk of further spread into countries neighbouring the EU and the risks of possible introduction of infected vectors, suggest that EU authorities need to strengthen their surveillance and response capacities, as well as the collaboratio

Poultry of different ages may have to be killed on-farm for urposes other than slaughter (in which slaughtering is defined as being for human consumption) either individually or on a large scale (e.g. because unproductive, for disease control, etc.). The processes of on-farm killing that were assessed are handling and stunning and/or killing methods (including restraint). The latter were grouped into four categories: electrical methods, modified atmosphere, mechanical methods and lethal injection. In total, 29 hazards were identified and characterised, most of these regard stunning and/or killing. Staff were identified as origin for 26 hazards and 24 hazards were attributed to lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. Specific hazards were identified for day-old chicks killed via maceration. Corrective and preventive measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for 13 hazards, and management showed to have a crucial role in prevention. Eight welfare consequences, the birds can be exposed to during on-farm killing, were identified: not dead, consciousness, heat stress, cold stress, pain, fear, distress and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal-based measures were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origins, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences were also proposed.

Poultry of different ages may have to be killed on-farm for urposes other than slaughter (in which slaughtering is defined as being for human consumption) either individually or on a large scale (e.g. because unproductive, for disease control, etc.). The processes of on-farm killing that were assessed are handling and stunning and/or killing methods (including restraint). The latter were grouped into four categories: electrical methods, modified atmosphere, mechanical methods and lethal injection. In total, 29 hazards were identified and characterised, most of these regard stunning and/or killing. Staff were identified as origin for 26 hazards and 24 hazards were attributed to lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. Specific hazards were identified for day-old chicks killed via maceration. Corrective and preventive measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for 13 hazards, and management showed to have a crucial role in prevention. Eight welfare consequences, the birds can be exposed to during on-farm killing, were identified: not dead, consciousness, heat stress, cold stress, pain, fear, distress and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal-based measures were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origins, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences were also proposed.

Poultry of different ages may have to be killed on-farm for urposes other than slaughter (in which slaughtering is defined as being for human consumption) either individually or on a large scale (e.g. because unproductive, for disease control, etc.). The processes of on-farm killing that were assessed are handling and stunning and/or killing methods (including restraint). The latter were grouped into four categories: electrical methods, modified atmosphere, mechanical methods and lethal injection. In total, 29 hazards were identified and characterised, most of these regard stunning and/or killing. Staff were identified as origin for 26 hazards and 24 hazards were attributed to lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. Specific hazards were identified for day-old chicks killed via maceration. Corrective and preventive measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for 13 hazards, and management showed to have a crucial role in prevention. Eight welfare consequences, the birds can be exposed to during on-farm killing, were identified: not dead, consciousness, heat stress, cold stress, pain, fear, distress and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal-based measures were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origins, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences were also proposed.

BACKGROUND: Biting midges of the genus Culicoides (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) are small hematophagous insects responsible for the transmission of bluetongue virus, Schmallenberg virus and African horse sickness virus to wild and domestic ruminants and equids. Outbreaks of these viruses have caused economic damage within the European Union. The spatio-temporal distribution of biting midges is a key factor in identifying areas with the potential for disease spread. The aim of this study was to identify and map areas of neglectable adult activity for each month in an average year. Average monthly risk maps can be used as a tool when allocating resources for surveillance and control programs within Europe. METHODS: We modelled the occurrence of C. imicola and the Obsoletus and Pulicaris ensembles using existing entomological surveillance data from Spain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Poland. The monthly probability of each vector species and ensembles being present in Europe based on climatic and environmental input variables was estimated with the machine learning technique Random Forest. Subsequently, the monthly probability was classified into three classes: Absence, Presence and Uncertain status. These three classes are useful for mapping areas of no risk, areas of high-risk targeted for animal movement restrictions, and areas with an uncertain status that need active entomological surveillance to determine whether or not vectors are present. RESULTS: The distribution of Culicoides species ensembles were in agreement with their previously reported distribution in Europe. The Random Forest models were very accurate in predicting the probability of presence for C. imicola (mean AUC = 0.95), less accurate for the Obsoletus ensemble (mean AUC = 0.84), while the lowest accuracy was found for the Pulicaris ensemble (mean AUC = 0.71). The most important environmental variables in the models were related to temperature and precipitation f

BACKGROUND: Biting midges of the genus Culicoides (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) are small hematophagous insects responsible for the transmission of bluetongue virus, Schmallenberg virus and African horse sickness virus to wild and domestic ruminants and equids. Outbreaks of these viruses have caused economic damage within the European Union. The spatio-temporal distribution of biting midges is a key factor in identifying areas with the potential for disease spread. The aim of this study was to identify and map areas of neglectable adult activity for each month in an average year. Average monthly risk maps can be used as a tool when allocating resources for surveillance and control programs within Europe.METHODS: We modelled the occurrence of C. imicola and the Obsoletus and Pulicaris ensembles using existing entomological surveillance data from Spain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Poland. The monthly probability of each vector species and ensembles being present in Europe based on climatic and environmental input variables was estimated with the machine learning technique Random Forest. Subsequently, the monthly probability was classified into three classes: Absence, Presence and Uncertain status. These three classes are useful for mapping areas of no risk, areas of high-risk targeted for animal movement restrictions, and areas with an uncertain status that need active entomological surveillance to determine whether or not vectors are present.RESULTS: The distribution of Culicoides species ensembles were in agreement with their previously reported distribution in Europe. The Random Forest models were very accurate in predicting the probability of presence for C. imicola (mean AUC = 0.95), less accurate for the Obsoletus ensemble (mean AUC = 0.84), while the lowest accuracy was found for the Pulicaris ensemble (mean AUC = 0.71). The most important environmental variables in the models were related to temperature and

Biting midges of the genus Culicoides (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) are vectors of bluetongue virus (BTV), African horse sickness virus and Schmallenberg virus (SBV). Outbreaks of both BTV and SBV have affected large parts of Europe. The spread of these diseases depends largely on vector distribution and abundance. The aim of this analysis was to identify and quantify major spatial patterns and temporal trends in the distribution and seasonal variation of observed Culicoides abundance in nine countries in Europe. We gathered existing Culicoides data from Spain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Poland. In total, 31,429 Culicoides trap collections were available from 904 ruminant farms across these countries between 2007 and 2013. The Obsoletus ensemble was distributed widely in Europe and accounted for 83% of all 8,842,998 Culicoides specimens in the dataset, with the highest mean monthly abundance recorded in France, Germany and southern Norway. The Pulicaris ensemble accounted for only 12% of the specimens and had a relatively southerly and easterly spatial distribution compared to the Obsoletus ensemble. Culicoides imicola Kieffer was only found in Spain and the southernmost part of France. There was a clear spatial trend in the accumulated annual abundance from southern to northern Europe, with the Obsoletus ensemble steadily increasing from 4000 per year in southern Europe to 500,000 in Scandinavia. The Pulicaris ensemble showed a very different pattern, with an increase in the accumulated annual abundance from 1600 in Spain, peaking at 41,000 in northern Germany and then decreasing again toward northern latitudes. For the two species ensembles and C. imicola, the season began between January and April, with later start dates and increasingly shorter vector seasons at more northerly latitudes. We present the first maps of seasonal Culicoides abundance in large parts of Europe covering a gradient from southern Spain to northern Scan

El flamenco y la ciudad de Granada son una constante en la vida de Isaac AlbénizManuel de Falla. Se reflejan en sus obras de carácter nacionalista y representan dos formas diferentes de entender el flamenco: para Albéniz, una fuente de inspiración, para Falla, una concepción más folklórica. La finalidad de este artículo es conocer los estilos rítmicos flamencos en la obra de estos autores, atendiendo a su época. Para interpretar este tipo de obras, principalmente pianísticas, debemos conocerinspiración y la forma conocida como nota-ritmo, algo que va mas allá del ritmosí mismo, derivada de la música barroca, es esencial en los compases flamencos yla música de eminente carácter español., Flamenco and the city of Granada are a constant in the life of Isaac Albéniz and Manuel de Falla, flamenco in his work a reflection of a nationalistic, being two forms of understand and express it: to Albéniz a source of inspiration to more failure close to folklore.The purpose of this article is to know the flamenco rhythmic styles in the work of these authors, serving his time, to interpret this type of work mainly piano, we must find inspiration and how-note rhythm known as something that goes rate beyond itself, derived from the essential baroque music in bars and flamenco music eminent Spanish character.

ARKIVOC: vol. 2007, no. 8, (issn) 1551-7012, (dlps) 5550190.0008.817, This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License. Please contact mpub-help@umich.edu to use this work in a way not covered by the license.

ARKIVOC: vol. 2007, no. 8, (issn) 1551-7012, (dlps) 5550190.0008.817, This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License. Please contact mpub-help@umich.edu to use this work in a way not covered by the license.

Flamenco music is a product of the cultural interactions of the diverse peoples who have passed through Spain over many centuries. All these civilizations contributed unique elements that have enriched Andalusian music, song and dance. Andalusian popular music was nourished in turn by the artistic rites of the Greeks, Romans, Visigoths, Arabs, Moriscos and Christians. The first distinctive nuances of what might be considered pre-fla-menco music derive from these. Although many of their characteristic features originated in or at least were inspired by earlier cultures such as the Greeks and Romans, the musical traditions of the Arabs and Moriscos (Andalusi\ Arabigo-Andalusi and Hispano-Muslim music) were particularly influential in the evolution of flamenco music. We customarily associate flamenco music with the Gypsies. Indeed the connections between flamenco and gypsy music are beyond question. During the Middle Ages, Gypsies lived in conditions of extreme misery and poverty. Along with other marginalised groups like the Moriscos, they occupied the lowest social rung and their customs and beliefs were held in contempt. Gypsies and Moriscos lived together and interchanged forms, customs, ways of life and experience, and they expressed these through dance and song; hence the possible similarities between Arab melodies and certain manifestations of flamenco song and dance.

ARKIVOC: vol. 2007, no. 4, (issn) 1551-7012, (dlps) 5550190.0008.431, This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License. Please contact mpub-help@umich.edu to use this work in a way not covered by the license.

ARKIVOC: vol. 2007, no. 4, (issn) 1551-7012, (dlps) 5550190.0008.431, This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License. Please contact mpub-help@umich.edu to use this work in a way not covered by the license.