Hans Spoolder

Ad hoc method for the assessment on listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law

Abstract The European Commission has requested EFSA to assess animal diseases according to the criteria as laid down in Articles 5, 7, 8 and Annex IV for the purpose of categorisation of diseases in accordance with Article 9 of the Regulation (EU) No 2016/429 (Animal Health Law). This scientific opinion addresses the ad hoc method developed for assessing any animal disease for the listing and categorisation of diseases within the Animal Health Law (AHL) framework. The assessment of individual diseases is addressed in distinct scientific opinions that are published separately. The assessment of Articles 5, 8 and 9 criteria is performed on the basis of the information collected according to Article 7 criteria. For that purpose, Article 7 criteria were structured into parameters and the information was collected at parameter level. The resulting fact sheets on the profile and impact of each disease were compiled by disease scientists. A mapping was developed to identify which parameters from Article 7 were needed to inform each Article 5, 8 and 9 criterion. Specifically, for Articles 5 and 9 criteria, a categorical assessment was performed, by applying an expert judgement procedure, based on the mapped information. The judgement was performed by EFSA Panel experts on Animal Health and Welfare in two rounds, individual and collective judgement. The output of the expert judgement on the criteria of Articles 5 and 9 for each disease is composed by the categorical answer, and for the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported.

Characteristics of biter and victim piglets apparent before a tail-biting outbreak

Little is known about the characteristics of biters and victims before the appearance of a tail-biting outbreak in groups of pigs. This study aimed to characterise biters and victims (according to gender and performance) and to quantify their behavioural development during the 6 days preceding the tail-biting outbreak. The hypotheses tested were: (a) biters are more often female, are the lighter pigs in the group, are more restless and perform more aggressive behaviour; and (b) victims are more often male, heavier and less active. Using video recordings we carried out a detailed study of 14 pens with a tail-biting outbreak among the weaned piglets. All piglets were individually marked and we observed the behaviour of biters, victims and control piglets (piglet types). In every pen, each piglet type was observed every other day from 6 days before (D-6) to the day of the first visible tail damage (i.e. day of tail biting outbreak; D0). While the number of male biters (6 of the 14 biters) and male victims (11 of the 14 victims) was not significantly different (P = 0.13), this numerical contrast was considerable. The start weight of victims was significantly (P = 0.03) higher (8.6 kg) than those of biters (7.5 kg) and control piglets (8.0 kg). Biters tended (P = 0.08) to spend longer sitting/kneeling (3.1 min/h) than controls (1.7 min/h), but no differences were seen in the time spent lying or standing. Victims tended (P = 0.07) to change posture more often (restlessness) than controls and chased penmates more (P = 0.04) than biters. Victims also performed more (P = 0.04) aggressive behaviour than biters and controls. In contrast, biters tended (P = 0.08) to be chased by penmates more often and tended (P = 0.06) to receive more aggressive behaviour than controls. Furthermore, biters spent longer manipulating the enrichment device (P = 0.01) and the posterior/tail (P = 0.02) of their penmates than controls and tended (P = 0.06) to perform more tail bites than victims. Victims received more posterior/tail manipulation (P = 0.02) and tail bites (P = 0.04) than controls. It was also noticed that, independent of piglet type, restlessness (P = 0.03) increased and the frequency of performed tail bites tended (P = 0.08) to increase in the 6 days preceding a tail-biting outbreak. These findings may contribute to the early identification of biters or victims and support the development of strategies to minimise the occurrence of tail biting.

Development of stereotypic behaviour in sows fed a starch diet or a non-starch polysaccharide diet during gestation and lactation over two parities

The effect of feeding sows a starch diet or a diet with a high level of fermentable non-starch polysaccharides (NSP) during gestation, lactation or both gestation and lactation over the first two parities on the development of stereotypic behaviour was studied in sows housed in groups during gestation and individually during lactation. A total of 119 postpubertal gilts were allotted to a 2 x 2 factorial experiment. Treatments were diet composition during gestation (G-Starch: 274 g/kg starch and 123 g/kg fermentable NSP or G-NSP: 86 g/kg starch and 300 g/kg fermentable NSP) and diet composition during lactation (L-Starch: 293 g/kg starch and 113 g/kg fermentable NSP or L-NSP: 189 g/kg starch and 216 g/kg fermentable NSP). Sows on both gestation diets were fed iso-energetic. During lactation, sows were given free access to the lactation diets. Behavioural measurements were carried out in weeks 3, 12 and 15 after start of the experiment or after weaning in parity 1 and 2 sows, respectively, 3 days before the expected date of parturition and 1 week before weaning in the first 3 h after the morning meal using a scan-sampling technique. Feeding group-housed sows a diet high in fermentable NSP during gestation reduced the frequency of total non-feeding oral activities (=sham chewing + other non-feeding oral activities) in gestation compared with a starch diet (P <0.001 and

Individual piglets' contribution to the development of tail biting.

Conflicting hypotheses exist about the contribution of individual pigs to the development of a tail-biting outbreak, but there is limited quantitative information to support or dismiss them. This study aims to quantify the development of tail-biting behaviour at pen and individual piglet level, before and after the first visible tail damage. Video recordings of 14 pens with tail-biting outbreaks and individually marked weaned piglets were used to observe tail-biting incidents (TBIs; piglet biting a penmates tail). When visible tail damage was first observed in a pen (i.e. day of tail biting outbreak; D0), the video recordings of the previous 6 (till D-6) and the following 6 days (till D6) were analysed every other day for TBIs and the identities of the biter and bitten piglet were recorded. The average TBIs per individual piglet (within each pen) per observation day were analysed to quantify the development of tail-biting behaviour and to identify pronounced biters and/or bitten piglets. The (absence of) coherence for TBIs in a pen was used to test whether biters preferred a specific penmate. There was an exponential increase in the intensity (linear on log scale) of the TBIs from an average of 0.7 bites/h at D-6 to 2.3 bites/h at D6. An additional negative quadratic component suggests that a plateau for tail-biting behaviour was reached by the end of the observation period. Before any visible tail damage was observed (i.e. before D0), 82% of the piglets performed and 96% of them received tail bites. After D0, the figures were 99% and 100%, respectively. One or a few pronounced biters could be identified in almost all pens. These biters already showed more tail biting at D-6 than their penmates. Furthermore, these biters showed a greater increase in tail-biting behaviour during the observation period than the average scores of their penmates. In contrast, there was no apparent increase in the receipt of bites among the piglets that had already been bitten more than their penmates at D-6. Finally, there was no significant coherence between biters and bitten piglets, indicating that biters showed no preference for biting particular penmates, even when some of them had a damaged tail. These results show that, by using observations of TBIs, possible biters or bitten piglets can already be identified 6 days before tail damage is first apparent in a pen.

Urgent request on avian influenza

Abstract Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N8 is currently causing an epizootic in Europe, infecting many poultry holdings as well as captive and wild bird species in more than 10 countries. Given the clear clinical manifestation, passive surveillance is considered the most effective means of detecting infected wild and domestic birds. Testing samples from new species and non‐previously reported areas is key to determine the geographic spread of HPAIV H5N8 2016 in wild birds. Testing limited numbers of dead wild birds in previously reported areas is useful when it is relevant to know whether the virus is still present in the area or not, e.g. before restrictive measures in poultry are to be lifted. To prevent introduction of HPAIV from wild birds into poultry, strict biosecurity implemented and maintained by the poultry farmers is the most important measure. Providing holding‐specific biosecurity guidance is strongly recommended as it is expected to have a high impact on the achieved biosecurity level of the holding. This is preferably done during peace time to increase preparedness for future outbreaks. The location and size of control and in particular monitoring areas for poultry associated with positive wild bird findings are best based on knowledge of the wider habitat and flight distance of the affected wild bird species. It is recommended to increase awareness among poultry farmers in these established areas in order to enhance passive surveillance and to implement enhanced biosecurity measures including poultry confinement. There is no scientific evidence suggesting a different effectiveness of the protection measures on the introduction into poultry holdings and subsequent spread of HPAIV when applied to H5N8, H5N1 or other notifiable HPAI viruses.

Comparison of three different diets for organic broilers: effects on performance and body condition

1. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of 100% organic feed for organic broilers by comparing it with 80% organic feed (situation at the time of the experiment; 2004) and 95% organic feed (alternative). 2. Diets were optimised for nutritional value, allowing a maximum 10% increase in feed price when using 100% organic feedstuffs. This could only be achieved at the expense of the methionine content. 3. The birds were reared from 0 to 3 weeks of age in a broiler house in three groups of 500 broilers each on either an 80, a 95 or a 100% organic starter diet. At 3 weeks of age, they were transferred to 15 pens with an outdoor run. Each treatment group of 500 birds was divided into 5 groups of 95 and given an 80, a 95 or a 100% organic finisher diet. 4. Broilers receiving 100% organic feed reached a lower body weight and grew more slowly than those receiving 95% organic feed, mainly because of a lower feed intake. 5. Broilers on 95 or 100% organic feed had a higher incidence of breast blisters than broilers receiving 80% organic feed. 6. The cost price for meat from broilers that received 80% organic feed was €1·83 per kg live weight. The cost prices for broilers that received 95 and 100% organic feed were €1·84 (+0·8%) and €1·93 (+5·4%) per kg live weight, respectively. 7. In conclusion, 95% organic feed led to a better performance than 100% organic feed in this study. Probably, the lower methionine content in the 100% organic feed negatively affected performance. The results for 95% organic feed were similar to 80% organic feed, except for a higher incidence of breast blisters.

Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): paratuberculosis

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.

African swine fever in wild boar

Abstract The European Commission requested EFSA to compare the reliability of wild boar density estimates across the EU and to provide guidance to improve data collection methods. Currently, the only EU‐wide available data are hunting data. Their collection methods should be harmonised to be comparable and to improve predictive models for wild boar density. These models could be validated by more precise density data, collected at local level e.g. by camera trapping. Based on practical and theoretical considerations, it is currently not possible to establish wild boar density thresholds that do not allow sustaining African swine fever (ASF). There are many drivers determining if ASF can be sustained or not, including heterogeneous population structures and human‐mediated spread and there are still unknowns on the importance of different transmission modes in the epidemiology. Based on extensive literature reviews and observations from affected Member States, the efficacy of different wild boar population reduction and separation methods is evaluated. Different wild boar management strategies at different stages of the epidemic are suggested. Preventive measures to reduce and stabilise wild boar density, before ASF introduction, will be beneficial both in reducing the probability of exposure of the population to ASF and the efforts needed for potential emergency actions (i.e. less carcass removal) if an ASF incursion were to occur. Passive surveillance is the most effective and efficient method of surveillance for early detection of ASF in free areas. Following focal ASF introduction, the wild boar populations should be kept undisturbed for a short period (e.g. hunting ban on all species, leave crops unharvested to provide food and shelter within the affected area) and drastic reduction of the wild boar population may be performed only ahead of the ASF advance front, in the free populations. Following the decline in the epidemic, as demonstrated through passive surveillance, active population management should be reconsidered.

Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): infection with Brucella abortus, B. melitensis and B. suis

Abstract The infection with Brucella abortus, Brucella melitensis and Brucella suis 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 the infection with B. abortus, B. melitensis and B. suis to be listed, Article 9 for the categorisation of the infection with B. abortus, B. melitensis and B. suis according to disease prevention and control rules as in Annex IV and Article 8 on the list of animal species related to the infection with B. abortus, B. melitensis and B. suis. 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, the infection with B. abortus, B. melitensis and B. suis can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention as laid down in Article 5(3) of the AHL. The disease complies 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 animal species to be listed for the infection with B. abortus, B. melitensis and B. suis according to Article 8(3) criteria are several mammal species, as indicated in the present opinion.

Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): Salmonella infection in poultry with serotypes of animal health relevance (S. Pullorum, S. Gallinarum and S. arizonae)

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.