Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Beatriz Beltrán-Beck.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Simon J. More; Anette Bøtner; Andrew Butterworth; Paolo Calistri; Klaus Depner; S. A. Edwards; Bruno Garin‐Bastuji; Margaret Good; Christian Gortázar Schmidt; Virginie Michel; Miguel Angel Miranda; Søren Saxmose Nielsen; Mohan Raj; Liisa Sihvonen; Hans Spoolder; J.A. Stegeman; Hans-Hermann Thulke; Antonio Velarde; Preben Willeberg; Christoph Winckler; Francesca Baldinelli; Alessandro Broglia; Gabriele Zancanaro; Beatriz Beltrán-Beck; Lisa Kohnle; Joana Morgado; Dominique Bicout
Abstract Paratuberculosis 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 the eligibility of paratuberculosis to be listed, Article 9 for the categorisation of paratuberculosis according to disease prevention and control rules as in Annex IV and Article 8 on the list of animal species related to paratuberculosis. The assessment has been performed following a methodology composed of information collection and compilation, expert judgement on each criterion at individual and, if no consensus was reached before, also at collective level. The output is composed of the categorical answer, and for the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported. Details on the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. According to the assessment performed, paratuberculosis can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention as laid down in Article 5(3) of the AHL. The disease would comply with the criteria in Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Annex IV of the AHL, for the application of the disease prevention and control rules referred to in points (c), (d) and (e) of Article 9(1). The animal species to be listed for paratuberculosis according to Article 8(3) criteria are several species of mammals and birds as susceptible species and some species of the families Bovidae, Cervidae and Leporidae as reservoirs.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Simon J. More; Anette Bøtner; Andrew Butterworth; Paolo Calistri; Klaus Depner; S. A. Edwards; Bruno Garin‐Bastuji; Margaret Good; Christian Gortázar Schmidt; Virginie Michel; Miguel A. Miranda; Søren Saxmose Nielsen; Mohan Raj; Liisa Sihvonen; Hans Spoolder; J.A. Stegeman; Hans-Hermann Thulke; Antonio Velarde; Preben Willeberg; Christoph Winckler; Francesca Baldinelli; Alessandro Broglia; Beatriz Beltrán-Beck; Lisa Kohnle; Dominique Bicout
Abstract Salmonella infection in poultry (Salmonella Pullorum, Salmonella Gallinarum and Salmonella arizonae) 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 the eligibility of Salmonella to be listed, Article 9 for the categorisation of Salmonella according to disease prevention and control rules as in Annex IV and Article 8 on the list of animal species related to Salmonella. The assessment has been performed following a methodology composed of information collection and compilation, expert judgement on each criterion at individual and, if no consensus was reached before, also at collective level. The output is composed of the categorical answer, and for the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported. Details on the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. According to the assessment performed, Salmonella can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention as laid down in Article 5(3) of the AHL. The disease would comply with the criteria as in Sections 4 and 5 of Annex IV of the AHL, for the application of the disease prevention and control rules referred to in points (d) and (e) of Article 9(1). The assessment here performed on compliance with the criteria as in Section 1 of Annex IV referred to in point (a) of Article 9(1) is inconclusive. The main animal species to be listed for Salmonella according to Article 8(3) criteria are all species of domestic poultry and wild species of mainly Anseriformes and Galliformes, as indicated in the present opinion.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Simon J. More; Anette Bøtner; Andrew Butterworth; Paolo Calistri; Klaus Depner; S. A. Edwards; Bruno Garin‐Bastuji; Margaret Good; Christian Gortázar Schmidt; Virginie Michel; Miguel A. Miranda; Søren Saxmose Nielsen; Mohan Raj; Liisa Sihvonen; Hans Spoolder; J.A. Stegeman; Hans-Hermann Thulke; Antonio Velarde; Preben Willeberg; Christoph Winckler; Francesca Baldinelli; Alessandro Broglia; Beatriz Beltrán-Beck; Lisa Kohnle; Dominique Bicout
Abstract Enzootic bovine leucosis (EBL) 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 the eligibility of EBL to be listed, Article 9 for the categorisation of EBL according to disease prevention and control rules as in Annex IV and Article 8 on the list of animal species related to EBL. The assessment has been performed following a methodology composed of information collection and compilation, expert judgement on each criterion at individual and, if no consensus was reached before, also at collective level. The output is composed of the categorical answer, and for the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported. Details on the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. According to the assessment performed, it is inconclusive whether EBL can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention as laid down in Article 5(3) of the AHL because there was no full consensus on the criteria 5 B(i) and 5 B(iii). Consequently, since it is inconclusive whether EBL can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention as laid down in Article 5(3) of the AHL, then the assessment on compliance of EBL with the criteria as in Sections 4 and 5 of Annex IV to the AHL, for the application of the disease prevention and control rules referred to in points (d) and (e) of Article 9(1), and which animal species can be considered to be listed for EBL according to Article 8(3) of the AHL is also inconclusive.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Simon J. More; Anette Bøtner; Andrew Butterworth; Paolo Calistri; Klaus Depner; S. A. Edwards; Bruno Garin‐Bastuji; Margaret Good; Christian Gortázar Schmidt; Virginie Michel; Miguel A. Miranda; Søren Saxmose Nielsen; Mohan Raj; Liisa Sihvonen; Hans Spoolder; J.A. Stegeman; Hans-Hermann Thulke; Antonio Velarde; Preben Willeberg; Christoph Winckler; Francesca Baldinelli; Alessandro Broglia; Beatriz Beltrán-Beck; Lisa Kohnle; Dominique Bicout
Abstract Bovine tuberculosis 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 the eligibility of bovine tuberculosis to be listed, Article 9 for the categorisation of bovine tuberculosis according to disease prevention and control rules as in Annex IV and Article 8 on the list of animal species related to bovine tuberculosis. The assessment has been performed following a methodology composed of information collection and compilation, expert judgement on each criterion at individual and, if no consensus was reached before, also at collective level. The output is composed of the categorical answer, and for the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported. Details on the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. According to the assessment performed, bovine tuberculosis can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention as laid down in Article 5(3) of the AHL. The disease would comply with the criteria as in Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Annex IV of the AHL, for the application of the disease prevention and control rules referred to in points (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Article 9(1). The main animal species to be listed for bovine tuberculosis according to Article 8(3) criteria are several mammal species, as indicated in the present opinion.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Simon J. More; Anette Bøtner; Andrew Butterworth; Paolo Calistri; Klaus Depner; S. A. Edwards; Bruno Garin‐Bastuji; Margaret Good; Christian Gortázar Schmidt; Virginie Michel; Miguel A. Miranda; Søren Saxmose Nielsen; Mohan Raj; Liisa Sihvonen; Hans Spoolder; J.A. Stegeman; Hans-Hermann Thulke; Antonio Velarde; Preben Willeberg; Christoph Winckler; Francesca Baldinelli; Alessandro Broglia; Sofie Dhollander; Beatriz Beltrán-Beck; Lisa Kohnle; Joana Morgado; Dominique Bicout
Abstract West Nile fever (WNF) 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 the eligibility of WNF to be listed, Article 9 for the categorisation of WNF according to disease prevention and control rules as in Annex IV and Article 8 on the list of animal species related to WNF. The assessment has been performed following a methodology composed of information collection and compilation, expert judgement on each criterion at individual and, if no consensus was reached before, also at collective level. The output is composed of the categorical answer, and for the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported. Details on the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. According to the assessment performed, WNF can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention as laid down in Article 5(3) of the AHL. The disease would comply with the criteria as in Sections 2 and 5 of Annex IV of the AHL, for the application of the disease prevention and control rules referred to in points (b) and (e) of Article 9(1). The animal species to be listed for WNF according to Article 8(3) criteria are several orders of birds and mammals as susceptible species and several families of birds as reservoir. Different mosquito species can serve as vectors.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Simon J. More; Anette Bøtner; Andrew Butterworth; Paolo Calistri; Klaus Depner; S. A. Edwards; Bruno Garin‐Bastuji; Margaret Good; Christian Gortázar Schmidt; Virginie Michel; Miguel A. Miranda; Søren Saxmose Nielsen; Mohan Raj; Liisa Sihvonen; Hans Spoolder; J.A. Stegeman; Hans-Hermann Thulke; Antonio Velarde; Preben Willeberg; Christoph Winckler; Francesca Baldinelli; Alessandro Broglia; Sofie Dhollander; Beatriz Beltrán-Beck; Lisa Kohnle; Joana Morgado; Dominique Bicout
Abstract Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) 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 the eligibility of VEE to be listed, Article 9 for the categorisation of VEE according to disease prevention and control rules as in Annex IV and Article 8 on the list of animal species related to VEE. The assessment has been performed following a methodology composed of information collection and compilation, expert judgement on each criterion at individual and, if no consensus was reached before, also at collective level. The output is composed of the categorical answer, and for the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported. Details on the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. According to the assessment performed, it is inconclusive whether VEE is eligible to be listed for Union intervention as laid down in Article 5(3) of the AHL because there was no full consensus on the criterion 5 A(v). Consequently, since it is inconclusive whether VEE can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention as laid down in Article 5(3) of the AHL, the assessment on compliance of VEE with the criteria as in Sections 4 and 5 of Annex IV to the AHL, for the application of the disease prevention and control rules referred to in points (d) and (e) of Article 9(1), and which animal species can be considered to be listed for VEE according to Article 8(3) of the AHL is also inconclusive.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Simon J. More; Anette Bøtner; Andrew Butterworth; Paolo Calistri; Klaus Depner; S. A. Edwards; Bruno Garin‐Bastuji; Margaret Good; Christian Gortázar Schmidt; Virginie Michel; Miguel A. Miranda; Søren Saxmose Nielsen; Mohan Raj; Liisa Sihvonen; Hans Spoolder; J.A. Stegeman; Hans-Hermann Thulke; Antonio Velarde; Preben Willeberg; Christoph Winckler; Francesca Baldinelli; Alessandro Broglia; Denise Candiani; Beatriz Beltrán-Beck; Lisa Kohnle; Dominique Bicout
Abstract Trichomonosis 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 the eligibility of trichomonosis to be listed, Article 9 for the categorisation of trichomonosis according to disease prevention and control rules as in Annex IV and Article 8 on the list of animal species related to trichomonosis. The assessment has been performed following a methodology composed of information collection and compilation, expert judgement on each criterion at individual and, if no consensus was reached before, also at collective level. The output is composed of the categorical answer, and for the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported. Details on the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. According to the assessment performed, trichomonosis can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention as laid down in Article 5(3) of the AHL. The disease would comply with the criteria as in sections 3, 4 and 5 of Annex IV of the AHL, for the application of the disease prevention and control rules referred to in points (c), (d) and (e) of Article 9(1). The animal species to be listed for trichomonosis according to Article 8(3) criteria is cattle as susceptible and reservoir.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Simon J. More; Anette Bøtner; Andrew Butterworth; Paolo Calistri; Klaus Depner; S. A. Edwards; Bruno Garin‐Bastuji; Margaret Good; Christian Gortázar Schmidt; Virginie Michel; Miguel A. Miranda; Søren Saxmose Nielsen; Mohan Raj; Liisa Sihvonen; Hans Spoolder; J.A. Stegeman; Hans-Hermann Thulke; Antonio Velarde; Preben Willeberg; Christoph Winckler; Francesca Baldinelli; Alessandro Broglia; Denise Candiani; Beatriz Beltrán-Beck; Lisa Kohnle; Dominique Bicout
Abstract Ovine epididymitis (Brucella ovis) 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 the eligibility of ovine epididymitis to be listed, Article 9 for the categorisation of ovine epididymitis according to disease prevention and control rules as in Annex IV and Article 8 on the list of animal species related to ovine epididymitis. The assessment has been performed following a methodology composed of information collection and compilation, expert judgement on each criterion at individual and, if no consensus was reached before, also at collective level. The output is composed of the categorical answer, and for the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported. Details on the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. According to the assessment performed, ovine epididymitis can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention as laid down in Article 5(3) of the AHL. The disease would comply with the criteria as in Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Annex IV of the AHL, for the application of the disease prevention and control rules referred to in points (c), (d) and (e) of Article 9(1). The animal species to be listed for ovine epididymitis according to Article 8(3) criteria are mainly sheep and other species of the families Bovidae and Cervidae as susceptible and sheep and deer as reservoirs.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Simon J. More; Anette Bøtner; Andrew Butterworth; Paolo Calistri; Klaus Depner; S. A. Edwards; Bruno Garin‐Bastuji; Margaret Good; Christian Gortázar Schmidt; Virginie Michel; Miguel A. Miranda; Søren Saxmose Nielsen; Mohan Raj; Liisa Sihvonen; Hans Spoolder; J.A. Stegeman; Hans-Hermann Thulke; Antonio Velarde; Preben Willeberg; Christoph Winckler; Francesca Baldinelli; Alessandro Broglia; Sofie Dhollander; Beatriz Beltrán-Beck; Lisa Kohnle; Joana Morgado; Dominique Bicout
Abstract Japanese encephalitis (JE) 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 the eligibility of Japanese encephalitis to be listed, Article 9 for the categorisation of Japanese encephalitis according to disease prevention and control rules as in Annex IV and Article 8 on the list of animal species related to Japanese encephalitis. The assessment has been performed following a methodology composed of information collection and compilation, expert judgement on each criterion at individual and, if no consensus was reached before, also at collective level. The output is composed of the categorical answer, and for the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported. Details on the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. According to the assessment performed, JE can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention as laid down in Article 5(3) of the AHL. The disease would comply with the criteria as in Section 5 of Annex IV of the AHL, for the application of the disease prevention and control rules referred to in point (e) of Article 9(1). The main animal species to be listed for JE according to Article 8(3) criteria are waterfowl, pigs and equines as susceptible species and waterfowl as reservoir, as reported in the present document.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Simon J. More; Anette Bøtner; Andrew Butterworth; Paolo Calistri; Klaus Depner; S. A. Edwards; Bruno Garin‐Bastuji; Margaret Good; Christian Gortázar Schmidt; Virginie Michel; Miguel A. Miranda; Søren Saxmose Nielsen; Mohan Raj; Liisa Sihvonen; Hans Spoolder; J.A. Stegeman; Hans-Hermann Thulke; Antonio Velarde; Preben Willeberg; Christoph Winckler; Francesca Baldinelli; Alessandro Broglia; Denise Candiani; Frank Verdonck; Beatriz Beltrán-Beck; Lisa Kohnle; Dominique Bicout
Abstract Infestation with Varroa spp. (varroosis) 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 the eligibility of varroosis to be listed, Article 9 for the categorisation of varroosis according to disease prevention and control rules as in Annex IV and Article 8 on the list of animal species related to varroosis. The assessment has been performed following a methodology composed of information collection and compilation, expert judgement on each criterion at individual and, if no consensus was reached before, also at collective level. The output is composed of the categorical answer, and for the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported. Details on the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. According to the assessment performed, it is inconclusive whether varroosis can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention as laid down in Article 5(3) of the AHL because there was no full consensus on the criterion 5 A(v). Consequently, the assessment on compliance of varroosis with the criteria as in Annex IV to the AHL, for the application of the disease prevention and control rules referred to in Article 9(1), and which animal species can be considered to be listed for varroosis according to Article 8(3) are also inconclusive.