The use of high expansion foam for stunning and killing pigs and poultry.

The EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the use of high-expansion foam for stunning and killing pigs and poultry. A dossier was provided by the applicant as the basis for an assessment of the extent to which the method is able to provide a level of animal welfare at least equivalent to that ensured by the currently allowed methods for pigs and poultry. According to legislation, to be approved in the EU, new stunning methods must ensure (1) the absence of pain, distress or suffering until the onset of unconsciousness, and (2) that the animal remains unconscious until death. An ad hoc Working Group set up by EFSA performed the assessment as follows: (1) The data provided were checked against the criteria laid down in the EFSA Guidance (EFSA, 2018), and was found to partially fulfil those criteria; (2) extensive literature search; (3) data extraction for quantitative assessment; (4) qualitative exercise based on non-formal expert elicitation. The assessment led to conclude that it is more likely than not (certainty > 50%-100%) that high-expansion foam for stunning and killing pigs and poultry, named NEFS in container (Nitrogen Expansion Foam Stunning in container), provides a level of welfare at least equivalent to one or more of the currently allowed methods listed in Annex I of Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009. The overall assessment of EFSA is valid only under the technical conditions described in this Opinion for laying hens, broiler chickens of all age and pigs weighing 15-41 kg in situations other than slaughter. The overall assessment of EFSA is that NEFS can be suitable for depopulation using containers for pig and poultry farms respecting the technical conditions and the categories and types of animals defined in this Scientific Opinion.

Welfare of sheep and goats during killing for purposes other than slaughter.

Sheep and goats 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 (i.e. on-farm killing of unproductive, injured or terminally ill animals) or on a large scale (i.e. depopulation for disease control purposes and for other situations, such as environmental contamination and disaster management) outside the slaughterhouses. The purpose of this opinion was to assess the hazards and welfare consequences associated with the on-farm killing of sheep and goats. The whole killing procedure was divided into Phase 1 (pre-killing) - that included the processes (i) handling and moving the animals to the killing place and (ii) restraint of the animals before application of the killing methods and Phase 2 - that included stunning and killing of the animals. The killing methods for sheep and goats were grouped into three categories: (1) mechanical, (2) electrical and (3) lethal injection. Welfare consequences that sheep and goats may experience during each process were identified (e.g. handling stress, restriction of movements and tissue lesions during restraint) and animal-based measures (ABMs) to assess them were proposed. During application of the killing method, sheep and goats will experience pain and fear if they are ineffectively stunned or if they recover consciousness. ABMs related to the state of consciousness can be used to indirectly assess pain and fear. Flowcharts including ABMs for consciousness specific to each killing method were included in the opinion. Possible welfare hazards were identified for each process, together with their origin and related preventive and corrective measures. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, ABMs, origins, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences were proposed.

Vaccination of poultry against highly pathogenic avian influenza - Part 2. Surveillance and mitigation measures.

Selecting appropriate diagnostic methods that take account of the type of vaccine used is important when implementing a vaccination programme against highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). If vaccination is effective, a decreased viral load is expected in the samples used for diagnosis, making molecular methods with high sensitivity the best choice. Although serological methods can be reasonably sensitive, they may produce results that are difficult to interpret. In addition to routine molecular monitoring, it is recommended to conduct viral isolation, genetic sequencing and phenotypic characterisation of any HPAI virus detected in vaccinated flocks to detect escape mutants early. Following emergency vaccination, various surveillance options based on virological testing of dead birds ('bucket sampling') at defined intervals were assessed to be effective for early detection of HPAIV and prove disease freedom in vaccinated populations. For ducks, virological or serological testing of live birds was assessed as an effective strategy. This surveillance could be also applied in the peri-vaccination zone on vaccinated establishments, while maintaining passive surveillance in unvaccinated chicken layers and turkeys, and weekly bucket sampling in unvaccinated ducks. To demonstrate disease freedom with > 99% confidence and to detect HPAI virus sufficiently early following preventive vaccination, monthly virological testing of all dead birds up to 15 per flock, coupled with passive surveillance in both vaccinated and unvaccinated flocks, is recommended. Reducing the sampling intervals increases the sensitivity of early detection up to 100%. To enable the safe movement of vaccinated poultry during emergency vaccination, laboratory examinations in the 72 h prior to the movement can be considered as a risk mitigation measure, in addition to clinical inspection; sampling results from existing surveillance activities carried out in these 72 h could be used. In this Opinion, several schemes are recommended to enable the safe movement of vaccinated poultry following preventive vaccination.

The Effectiveness of Protection and Surveillance Zones in Detecting Further African Swine Fever Outbreaks in Domestic Pigs-Experience of the Baltic States.

In the event of an outbreak of African swine fever (ASF) in pig farms, the European Union (EU) legislation requires the establishment of a restricted zone, consisting of a protection zone with a radius of at least 3 km and a surveillance zone with a radius of at least 10 km around the outbreak. The main purpose of the restricted zone is to stop the spread of the disease by detecting further outbreaks. We evaluated the effectiveness and necessity of the restricted zone in the Baltic States by looking at how many secondary outbreaks were detected inside and outside the protection and surveillance zones and by what means. Secondary outbreaks are outbreaks with an epidemiological link to a primary outbreak while a primary outbreak is an outbreak that is not epidemiologically linked to any previous outbreak. From 2014 to 2023, a total of 272 outbreaks in domestic pigs were confirmed, where 263 (96.7%) were primary outbreaks and 9 (3.3%) were secondary outbreaks. Eight of the secondary outbreaks were detected by epidemiological enquiry and one by passive surveillance. Epidemiological enquiries are legally required investigations on an outbreak farm to find out when and how the virus entered the farm and to obtain information on contact farms where the ASF virus may have been spread. Of the eight secondary outbreaks detected by epidemiological investigations, six were within the protection zone, one was within the surveillance zone and one outside the restricted zone. Epidemiological investigations were therefore the most effective means of detecting secondary outbreaks, whether inside or outside the restricted zones, while active surveillance was not effective. Active surveillance are legally prescribed activities carried out by the competent authorities in the restricted zones. Furthermore, as ASF is no longer a rare and exotic disease in the EU, it could be listed as a "Category B" disease, which in turn would allow for more flexibility and "tailor-made" control measures, e.g., regarding the size of the restricted zone.

Wild boar (Sus scrofa) carcasses as an attraction for scavengers and a potential source for soil contamination with the African swine fever virus.

The wild boar (Sus scrofa) is a social animal species native to Eurasia. During the last decade, the wild boar population in Estonia has been severely affected by the African swine fever virus (ASFV), which has also affected domestic pig farming. The potential transmission routes of ASFV remain unclear and are currently under intensive investigation. This pilot study aimed to clarify the frequency and characteristics of contacts between living wild boars and the carcasses of their conspecifics, which could play a role in the transmission of ASFV. Wild animals' contact and scavenging behavior on wild boar carcasses were studied using trail cameras in an experimental setting on Hiiumaa, Western Estonia. Four legally hunted carcasses were used in the present study. This study aimed to determine whether intraspecies scavenging occurs in wild boars. The persistence of ASFV DNA in soil contaminated with infected wild boar carcasses was investigated separately. Among the 17 identified wildlife species that visited wild boar carcasses, the common raven (Corvus corax) was the most frequent one (37.26%), followed by raccoon dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides; 4.25%), carcass conspecific/wild boars (3.16%), and red foxes (Vulpes vulpes; 2.14%). Regarding the direct contact with the carcass, the same species ranking was detected: common raven (74.95%), raccoon dogs (9.94%), wild boars (4.21%), and red foxes (4.21%). No clear signs of cannibalism were noted among the wild boars, although brief physical contact with the carcasses was evident. The persistence of ASFV DNA in soil contaminated by infected wild boar carcasses was investigated separately. This study revealed that ASFV DNA from infected carcasses could be detected in forest soil for prolonged periods, even after removing the carcasses. Hence, the carcasses of infected wild boars may play an important role in spreading the African swine fever virus in wild boar populations; thus, prompt removal and disinfection of the soil could be considered necessary to limit the spread of the infection.

Understanding Smallholder Pigkeepers' Awareness and Perceptions of African Swine Fever and Its Control Measures in Ukraine.

African swine fever (ASF) has posed a significant threat to Ukrainian pig farming since its identification in 2012. In this study, recognising the pivotal role of pigkeepers in disease control, we conducted ten focus groups involving 52 smallholders across eight regions in Ukraine. Using participatory methods, we revealed their awareness of ASF signs, transmission routes, preventive measures, and the perceptions of stakeholders involved in ASF control. Furthermore, we identified the smallholders' acceptance of eradication and restriction measures, the perceived impact of zoning consequences, and their main sources of ASF information. Smallholders identified fever and skin haemorrhage as the most indicative signs of ASF and highlighted rodents as a primary transmission concern. Disinfection was seen as the most effective measure for preventing the introduction of ASF. Pigkeepers who perceived their stakeholder role in ASF control showed more trust in themselves and veterinarians than in central veterinary authorities. Farm-level ASF eradication measures were generally accepted; however, culling within the protection zone was least accepted, with economic losses listed as the most impactful consequence for pigkeepers. For ASF information, pigkeepers favour web searches and veterinarians, as well as traditional media and word-of-mouth news. This study provides valuable insights into refining the ASF communication strategies in Ukraine.

Application of multiblock analysis to identify key areas and risk factors for dairy cow persistence.

The present study analysed the importance of individual variables and different thematic blocks of production areas, management, and herd infectious disease status on cow persistence, characterised by herd on-farm mortality rate (MR), culling rate (CR), and mean age of culled cows (MAofCC) applying multiblock partial least squares (mbPLS) analysis. This study included 120 free-stall dairy herds with ≥ 100 cows. Data on the previous year's predominant cow housing system and management practices were collected, and on-farm measurements and cow scoring were performed. Bulk tank milk (BTM) and heifer blood samples (10 samples per herd) were collected and analysed for antibodies against the selected pathogens. In total, 172 variables were aggregated into 14 thematic blocks. The annual CR, MR, and MAofCC values were calculated for each herd. Thematic blocks with significant impact on cow persistence (included herd MR, CR and MAofCC) were 'infectious diseases' (block importance index out of all blocks = 13.6%, 95% CI 10.3; 20.5), 'fertility management' (16.3%, 95% CI 6.8; 26.9), 'lactating cow management' (11.5%, 95% CI 6.4; 17.8), 'milking' (11.3%, 95% CI 3.2; 17.1), 'herd characteristics' (10.1%, 95% CI 6.3; 14.2), 'close-up period management' (9.7%, 95% CI 2.7; 15.7), 'calving management' (7.9%, 95% CI 3.1; 11.4) and 'disease management' (7.3%, 95% CI 0.2; 12.0). Variable categories with the highest importance in explaining composite outcome including herd MR, CR and MAofCC were rear-end and udder lesions in ≥ 20% of the cows, BTM and heifers seropositive to bovine respiratory syncytial virus, vaccination against bovine herpesvirus 1, twice daily milking and herd location in Northwest region. Larger herd size, higher levels of milk yield, and rearing predominantly Holstein breed cattle were herd factors associated with poorer cow persistency. Grazing cows and having semi-insulated barns were associated with lower CR and MR, respectively. Heat detection and farm pregnancy testing strategies were significant factors in the fertility block. Using disposable dry papers for teat cleaning and not using any wet teat-cleaning tools were risk factors for high MR. A robotic milking system was protective for increased herd MR and CR. A high pre-calving body condition score and poor rear body cleanliness of ≥ 30% of cows were associated with inferior herd persistency outcomes. Calving in group pens with deep litter bedding was associated with a lower CR. Multiblock PLS model is innovative tool that helped to identify most influential farming areas but also single risk factors associated with cow persistency described by multiple parameters.

Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) 2016/429): infection with Gyrodactylus salaris (GS).

Infection with Gyrodactylus salaris was assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular, the criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as laid down in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to infection with G. salaris. The assessment was performed following the ad hoc method for data collection and assessment previously developed by AHAW panel and already published. The outcome reported is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with an uncertain outcome. According to the assessment here performed, it is uncertain whether infection with G. salaris can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (33-70% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that Infection with G. salaris does not meet the criteria in Section 1 and 3 (Category A and C; 1-5% and 10-33% probability of fulfilling the criteria, respectively) and it is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 2, 4 and 5 (Categories B, D and E; 33-80%, 33-66% and 33-80% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for infection with G. salaris according to Article 8 criteria are provided.

Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) 2016/429): Bacterial kidney disease (BKD).

Bacterial kidney disease (BKD) was assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular the criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as laid out in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to BKD. The assessment was performed following the ad hoc method on data collection and assessment developed by AHAW Panel and already published. The outcome reported is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with an uncertain outcome. According to this assessment, BKD can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (66-90% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that BKD does not meet the criteria in Sections 1, 2 and 3 (Categories A, B and C; 1-5%, 33-66% and 33-66% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively) but meets the criteria in Sections 4 and 5 (Categories D and E; 66-90% and 66-90% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for BKD according to Article 8 criteria are provided.

Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU)2016/429): Infection with salmonid alphavirus (SAV).

Infection with salmonid alphavirus (SAV) was assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular the criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as laid out in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to infection with SAV. The assessment was performed following the ad hoc method on data collection and assessment developed by AHAW Panel and already published. The outcome reported is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with an uncertain outcome. According to the assessment, it was uncertain whether infection with salmonid alphavirus can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (50-80% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that infection with salmonid alphavirus does not meet the criteria in Section 1 (Category A; 5-10% probability of meeting the criteria) and it is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Categories B, C, D and E; 50-90%, probability of meeting the criteria). The animal species to be listed for infection with SAV according to Article 8 criteria are provided.

Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) 2016/429): Spring Viraemia of Carp (SVC).

Spring Viraemia of Carp (SVC) was assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular the criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to SVC. The assessment was performed following the ad hoc method for data collection and assessment previously developed by the AHAW panel and already published. The outcome reported is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with an uncertain outcome. According to the assessment performed here, it is uncertain whether SVC can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (45-90% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that SVC does not meet the criteria in Section 1 (Category A; 5-33% probability of meeting the criteria) and it is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Categories B, C, D and E; 33-66%, 10-66%, 45-90% and 45-90% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for SVC according to Article 8 criteria are provided.

A Review of Slaughter Practices and Their Effectiveness to Control Microbial - esp. Salmonella spp. - Contamination of Pig Carcasses.

The BIOPIGEE project (part of the One Health European Joint Programme under Horizon 2020) aimed to identify relevant measures to effectively control Salmonella, and another zoonotic pathogen, hepatitis E virus (HEV) within the pig meat food chain. The aim of this study was to identify biosecurity measures or management practices that are relevant for limiting Salmonella and/or HEV occurrence and spread within pig slaughterhouses. This was with the final goal of compiling a list of biosecurity measures for different processes and operations along the slaughter line with evidence of their effectiveness. To achieve this, a literature review was conducted on studies estimating the effectiveness of measures applied in slaughterhouses to reduce the microbial contamination of pig carcasses. Results of this literature search are discussed and presented in summary tables that could be used as a source of information for the pig slaughter industry to further develop their guidelines on hygienic slaughter.

Vaccination of poultry against highly pathogenic avian influenza - part 1. Available vaccines and vaccination strategies.

Several vaccines have been developed against highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), mostly inactivated whole-virus vaccines for chickens. In the EU, one vaccine is authorised in chickens but is not fully efficacious to stop transmission, highlighting the need for vaccines tailored to diverse poultry species and production types. Off-label use of vaccines is possible, but effectiveness varies. Vaccines are usually injectable, a time-consuming process. Mass-application vaccines outside hatcheries remain rare. First vaccination varies from in-ovo to 6 weeks of age. Data about immunity onset and duration in the target species are often unavailable, despite being key for effective planning. Minimising antigenic distance between vaccines and field strains is essential, requiring rapid updates of vaccines to match circulating strains. Generating harmonised vaccine efficacy data showing vaccine ability to reduce transmission is crucial and this ability should be also assessed in field trials. Planning vaccination requires selecting the most adequate vaccine type and vaccination scheme. Emergency protective vaccination is limited to vaccines that are not restricted by species, age or pre-existing vector-immunity, while preventive vaccination should prioritise achieving the highest protection, especially for the most susceptible species in high-risk transmission areas. Model simulations in France, Italy and The Netherlands revealed that (i) duck and turkey farms are more infectious than chickens, (ii) depopulating infected farms only showed limitations in controlling disease spread, while 1-km ring-culling performed better than or similar to emergency preventive ring-vaccination scenarios, although with the highest number of depopulated farms, (iii) preventive vaccination of the most susceptible species in high-risk transmission areas was the best option to minimise the outbreaks' number and duration, (iv) during outbreaks in such areas, emergency protective vaccination in a 3-km radius was more effective than 1- and 10-km radius. Vaccine efficacy should be monitored and complement other surveillance and preventive efforts.

Species which may act as vectors or reservoirs of diseases covered by the Animal Health Law: Listed pathogens of molluscs.

Vector or reservoir species of five mollusc diseases listed in the Animal Health Law were identified, based on evidence generated through an extensive literature review, to support a possible updating of Regulation (EU) 2018/1882. Mollusc species on or in which Mikrocytos mackini, Perkinsus marinus, Bonamia exitiosa, Bonamia ostreae and Marteilia refringens were detected, in the field or during experiments, were classified as reservoir species with different levels of certainty depending on the diagnostic tests used. Where experimental evidence indicated transmission of the pathogen from a studied species to another known susceptible species, this studied species was classified as a vector species. Although the quantification of the risk of spread of the pathogens by the vectors or reservoir species was not part of the terms of reference, such risks do exist for the vector species, since transmission from infected vector species to susceptible species was proven. Where evidence for transmission from infected molluscs was not found, these were defined as reservoir. Nonetheless, the risk of the spread of the pathogens from infected reservoir species cannot be excluded. Evidence identifying conditions that may prevent transmission by vectors or reservoir mollusc species during transport was collected from scientific literature. It was concluded that it is very likely to almost certain (90-100%) that M. mackini, P. marinus, B. exitiosa B. ostreae and M. refringens will remain infective at any possible transport condition. Therefore, vector or reservoir species that may have been exposed to these pathogens in an affected area in the wild or at aquaculture establishments or through contaminated water supply can possibly transmit these pathogens. For transmission of M. refringens, the presence of an intermediate host, a copepod, is necessary.

Species which may act as vectors or reservoirs of diseases covered by the Animal Health Law: Listed pathogens of crustaceans.

Vector or reservoir species of three diseases of crustaceans listed in the Animal Health Law were identified based on evidence generated through an extensive literature review, to support a possible updating of Regulation (EU) 2018/1882. Crustacean species on or in which Taura syndrome virus (TSV), Yellow head virus (YHV) or White spot syndrome virus (WSSV) were identified, in the field or during experiments, were classified as reservoir species with different levels of certainty depending on the diagnostic tests used. Where experimental evidence indicated transmission of the pathogen from a studied species to another known susceptible species, the studied species was classified as vector species. Although the quantification of the risk of spread of the pathogens by the vectors or reservoir species was not part of the terms of reference, such risks do exist for the vector species, since transmission from infected vector species to susceptible species was proven. Where evidence for transmission from infected crustaceans was not found, these were defined as reservoirs. Nonetheless, the risk of the spread of the pathogens from infected reservoir species cannot be excluded. Evidence identifying conditions that may prevent transmission by vectors during transport was collected from scientific literature. It was concluded that it is very likely to almost certain (90-100%) that WSSV, TSV and YHV will remain infective at any possible transport condition. Therefore, vector or reservoir species that may have been exposed to these pathogens in an affected area in the wild or aquaculture establishments or by water supply can possibly transmit WSSV, TSV and YHV.

Species which may act as vectors or reservoirs of diseases covered by the Animal Health Law: Listed pathogens of fish.

Vector or reservoir species of five fish diseases listed in the Animal Health Law were identified, based on evidence generated through an extensive literature review (ELR), to support a possible updating of Regulation (EU) 2018/1882. Fish species on or in which highly polymorphic region-deleted infectious salmon anaemia virus (HPR∆ ISAV), Koi herpes virus (KHV), epizootic haematopoietic necrosis virus (EHNV), infectious haematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV) or viral haemorrhagic septicaemia virus (VHSV) were detected, in the field or during experiments, were classified as reservoir species with different levels of certainty depending on the diagnostic tests used. Where experimental evidence indicated transmission of the pathogen from a studied species to another known susceptible species, the studied species was classified as a vector species. Although the quantification of the risk of spread of the pathogens by the vectors or reservoir species was not part of the terms or reference, such risks do exist for the vector species, since transmission from infected vector species to susceptible species was proven. Where evidence for transmission from infected fish was not found, these were defined as reservoirs. Nonetheless, the risk of the spread of the pathogens from infected reservoir species cannot be excluded. Evidence identifying conditions that may prevent transmission by vectors or reservoir fish species during transport was collected from scientific literature. For VHSV, IHNV or HPR∆ ISAV, it was concluded that under transport conditions at temperatures below 25°C, it is likely (66-90%) they will remain infective. Therefore, vector or reservoir species that may have been exposed to these pathogens in an affected area in the wild, aquaculture establishments or through water supply can possibly transmit VHSV, IHNV or HPR∆ ISAV into a non-affected area when transported at a temperature below 25°C. The conclusion was the same for EHN and KHV; however, they are likely to remain infective under all transport temperatures.

Assessing pig farm biosecurity measures for the control of Salmonella on European farms.

Salmonella spp. is a common zoonotic pathogen, causing gastrointestinal infections in people. Pigs and pig meat are a major source of infection. Although farm biosecurity is believed to be important for controlling Salmonella transmission, robust evidence is lacking on which measures are most effective. This study enrolled 250 pig farms across nine European countries. From each farm, 20 pooled faecal samples (or similar information) were collected and analysed for Salmonella presence. Based on the proportion of positive results, farms were categorised as at higher or lower Salmonella risk, and associations with variables from a comprehensive questionnaire investigated. Multivariable analysis indicated that farms were less likely to be in the higher-risk category if they had '<400 sows'; used rodent baits close to pig enclosures; isolated stay-behind (sick) pigs; did not answer that the hygiene lock/ anteroom was easy to clean; did not have a full perimeter fence; did apply downtime of at least 3 days between farrowing batches; and had fully slatted flooring in all fattener buildings. A principal components analysis assessed the sources of variation between farms, and correlation between variables. The study results suggest simple control measures that could be prioritised on European pig farms to control Salmonella.

Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): infectious pancreatic necrosis (IPN).

Infectious pancreatic necrosis (IPN) was assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular, the criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as in Article 9, and Article 8 for listing animal species related to IPN. The assessment was performed following a methodology previously published. The outcome reported is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with an uncertain outcome. According to the assessment here performed, it is uncertain whether IPN can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (50-90% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that IPN does not meet the criteria in Section 1 (Category A; 0-1% probability of meeting the criteria) and it is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Categories B, C, D and E; 33-66%, 33-66%, 50-90% and 50-99% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for IPN according to Article 8 criteria are provided.

Differentiation of African Swine Fever Virus Strains Isolated in Estonia by Multiple Genetic Markers.

The African swine fever virus (ASFV) was first detected in Estonia, in September 2014. In the subsequent three years, the virus spread explosively all over the country. Only one county, the island of Hiiumaa, remained free of the disease. Due to the drastic decrease in the wild boar population in the period of 2015-2018, the number of ASFV-positive cases among wild boar decreased substantially. From the beginning of 2019 to the autumn of 2020, no ASFV-positive wild boar or domestic pigs were detected in Estonia. A new occurrence of ASFV was detected in August 2020, and by the end of 2022, ASFV had been confirmed in seven counties in Estonia. Investigations into proven molecular markers, such as IGR I73R/I329L, MGF505-5R, K145R, O174L, and B602L, were performed with the aim of clarifying whether these cases of ASFV were new entries or remnants of previous epidemics. The sequences from the period of 2014-2022 were compared to the Georgia 2007/1 reference sequence and the variant strains present in Europe. The results indicated that not all the molecular markers of the virus successfully used in other geographical regions were suitable for tracing the spread of ASFV in Estonia. Only the B602L-gene analysis enabled us to place the ASFV isolates spreading in 2020-2022 into two epidemiologically different clusters.

Welfare of ducks, geese and quail on farm.

This Scientific Opinion concerns the welfare of Domestic ducks (Anas platyrhynchos domesticus), Muscovy ducks (Cairina moschata domesticus) and their hybrids (Mule ducks), Domestic geese (Anser anser f. domesticus) and Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) in relation to the rearing of breeders, birds for meat, Muscovy and Mule ducks and Domestic geese for foie gras and layer Japanese quail for egg production. The most common husbandry systems (HSs) in the European Union are described for each animal species and category. The following welfare consequences are described and assessed for each species: restriction of movement, injuries (bone lesions including fractures and dislocations, soft tissue lesions and integument damage and locomotory disorders including lameness), group stress, inability to perform comfort behaviour, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour and inability to express maternal behaviour (related to prelaying and nesting behaviours). Animal-based measures relevant for the assessment of these welfare consequences were identified and described. The relevant hazards leading to the welfare consequences in the different HSs were identified. Specific factors such as space allowance (including minimum enclosure area and height) per bird, group size, floor quality, characteristics of nesting facilities and enrichment provided (including access to water to fulfil biological needs) were assessed in relation to the welfare consequences and, recommendations on how to prevent the welfare consequences were provided in a quantitative or qualitative way.