Search

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

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

The aim of this study was to evaluate the general characteristics of commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) to detect antibody against classical swine fever (CSF), as well as to assess their potential use as accompanying marker tests able to differentiate infected from vaccinated animals (DIVA). The Chekit* CSF-Sero and the HerdChek* CSFV Ab, both of which detect antibodies against the E2 protein of classical swine fever virus (CSFV), had the highest sensitivity. Both tests were practicable and showed good reproducibility. Comparable sensitivity was shown by the Chekit* CSF-Marker, an Erns ELISA. However, this test does not allow differentiation between antibodies directed against ruminant pestiviruses and those against CSFV. Therefore, it is not suitable for use with the chimeric marker vaccines tested. The PrioCHECK CSFV Erns was the only ELISA suitable for use in DIVA with marker vaccines containing Erns proteins from ruminant pestiviruses. However, this test was less sensitive and selective than the E2-ELISAs and cannot be recommended.

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

This scientific opinion proposes toolboxes of welfare indicators for developing monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for sheep and goats stunned with the head-only electrical method or slaughtered without stunning. In particular, the opinion proposes welfare indicators together with their corresponding outcomes of consciousness, unconsciousness or death. In the case of slaughter with head-only electrical stunning, the opinion proposes a toolbox to assess consciousness at three key stages of monitoring: (a) after electrical stunning and during shackling and hoisting, (b) during neck cutting and (c) during bleeding. For slaughter without stunning, another toolbox is proposed for (a) assessing unconsciousness before releasing the animals from restraint, and (b) confirming death before carcass dressing begins. Various activities—including a systematic literature review, an online survey and stakeholders‘ and hearing experts‘ meetings—were conducted to gather information about the sensitivity, specificity and feasibility of the indicators. On the basis of such information, a methodology was developed to select the most appropriate indicators to be used in the monitoring procedures. The frequency of checking differs according to the role of each person with responsibility for ensuring animal welfare. The personnel performing stunning, shackling, hoisting and/or bleeding will have to check all the animals and confirm that they are not conscious following stunning or before releasing from the restraint. For the animal welfare officer, who has the overall responsibility for animal welfare, a mathematical model for the sampling protocols is proposed, giving some allowance to set the sample size of animals to be checked at a given throughput rate (total number of animals slaughtered in the slaughterhouses) and threshold failure rate (number of potential failures—proportion of animals that are conscious after stunning). Finally, different risk factors and scenarios are proposed to define a =normal‘ or a =reinforced‘ monitoring protocol, according to the needs of the slaughterhouse.

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

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

The biological hazards posed by micro-organisms have lead to their categorisation into risk groups and the elaboration of classification lists. Current classification systems rely on criteria defined by the World Health Organization, which cover the severity of the disease the micro-organism might cause, its ability to spread and the availability of prophylaxis or efficient treatment. Animal pathogens are classified according to the definitions of the World Organization of Animal Health, which also consider economic aspects of disease. In Europe, classification is often directly linked to containment measures. The Belgian classification system however, only considers the inherent characteristics of the micro-organism, not its use, making the risk classification independent of containment measures. A common classification list for human and animal pathogens has been developed in Belgium using as comprehensive an approach as possible. Evolution of scientific knowledge will demand regular updating of classification lists. This paper describes the Belgian risk classification system and the methodology that was used for its peer-reviewed revision (with a focus on animal pathogens).