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.

Avian influenza overview December 2023-March 2024.

Between 2 December 2023 and 15 March 2024, highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A(H5) outbreaks were reported in domestic (227) and wild (414) birds across 26 countries in Europe. Compared to previous years, although still widespread, the overall number of HPAI virus detections in birds was significantly lower, among other reasons, possibly due to some level of flock immunity in previously affected wild bird species, resulting in reduced contamination of the environment, and a different composition of circulating A(H5N1) genotypes. Most HPAI outbreaks reported in poultry were primary outbreaks following the introduction of the virus by wild birds. Outside Europe, the majority of outbreaks in poultry were still clustered in North America, while the spread of A(H5) to more naïve wild bird populations on mainland Antarctica is of particular concern. For mammals, A(H5N5) was reported for the first time in Europe, while goat kids in the United States of America represented the first natural A(H5N1) infection in ruminants. Since the last report and as of 12 March 2024, five human avian influenza A(H5N1) infections, including one death, three of which were clade 2.3.2.1c viruses, have been reported by Cambodia. China has reported two human infections, including one fatal case, with avian influenza A(H5N6), four human infections with avian influenza A(H9N2) and one fatal case with co-infection of seasonal influenza A(H3N2) and avian influenza A(H10N5). The latter case was the first documented human infection with avian influenza A(H10N5). Human infections with avian influenza remain rare and no sustained human-to-human infection has been observed. The risk of infection with currently circulating avian H5 influenza viruses of clade 2.3.4.4b in Europe remains low for the general population in the EU/EEA. The risk of infection remains low to moderate for those occupationally or otherwise exposed to infected animals.

Avian influenza overview September-December 2023.

Between 2 September and 1 December 2023, highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A(H5) outbreaks were reported in domestic (88) and wild (175) birds across 23 countries in Europe. Compared to previous years, the increase in the number of HPAI virus detections in waterfowl has been delayed, possibly due to a later start of the autumn migration of several wild bird species. Common cranes were the most frequently affected species during this reporting period with mortality events being described in several European countries. Most HPAI outbreaks reported in poultry were primary outbreaks following the introduction of the virus by wild birds, with the exception of Hungary, where two clusters involving secondary spread occurred. HPAI viruses identified in Europe belonged to eleven different genotypes, seven of which were new. With regard to mammals, the serological survey conducted in all fur farms in Finland revealed 29 additional serologically positive farms during this reporting period. Wild mammals continued to be affected mostly in the Americas, from where further spread into wild birds and mammals in the Antarctic region was described for the first time. Since the last report and as of 1 December 2023, three fatal and one severe human A(H5N1) infection with clade 2.3.2.1c viruses have been reported by Cambodia, and one A(H9N2) infection was reported from China. No human infections related to the avian influenza detections in animals in fur farms in Finland have been reported, and human infections with avian influenza remain a rare event. The risk of infection with currently circulating avian H5 influenza viruses of clade 2.3.4.4b in Europe remains low for the general population in the EU/EEA. The risk of infection remains low to moderate for occupationally or otherwise exposed people to infected birds or mammals (wild or domesticated); this assessment covers different situations that depend on the level of exposure.

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.

Actions and perceived impact of African swine fever control measures along the smallholder pig value chain in Uganda.

Pig production in Uganda is constrained by African swine fever (ASF) which is endemic in the country. Current measures taken by the Government of Uganda in controlling ASF outbreaks include trade and livestock movement restrictions, called "quarantine." Little is known about the actions of, and impact of value chain actors in response to ASF quarantines. This study describes actions that different stakeholders in the smallholder pig value chain took, and the perceived economic impact, during ASF quarantines. Data was collected in ten focus group discussions (FGD) using participatory epidemiology tools and two key informants' (KIs) interviews with District Veterinary Officers (DVOs) of Kisoro and Moyo districts in Uganda. The results show that during ASF quarantine, pig value chain actors shifted their activities from formal places such as livestock markets, slaughter slabs, pork butcheries and pork joints to informal places such as farmers' homesteads. Farmers were perceived the most economically affected stakeholder group with forgone income due to unsold pigs, costs for implementing biosecurity measures and extra costs for feeding unsold pigs being the major perceived causes of the losses. The continued trade in pigs and pig products in informal marketplaces suggests that quarantine might not be effective for hindering activities that might spread ASF in these settings. The perceived economic losses provide an insight into the negative economic impact of the quarantine for the different stakeholders.

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.

Understanding the interface between European wild boar (Sus scrofa) and domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus) in Sweden through a questionnaire study.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the wildlife/livestock interface has attracted increased attention due to disease transmission between wild and domestic animal populations. The ongoing spread of African swine fever (ASF) in European wild boar (Sus scrofa) emphasize the need for further understanding of the wildlife/livestock interface to prevent disease spill-over between the wild and domestic populations. Although wild boar may also act as a potential source for other infectious disease agents, ASF is currently the most severe threat from wild boar to domestic pigs. To gather information on the wild boar situation at commercial pig producing farms in Sweden, a digital questionnaire survey was distributed through the animal health services. RESULTS: Most pigs produced for commercial purposes in Sweden are raised without outdoor access. Of the 211 responding pig producers, 80% saw wild boar or signs of wild boar activity in the vicinity of their farm at least once during the year. Observations were significantly correlated with geographical region, but there was no correlation between farm characteristics (farm size, main type of production, outdoor access) and observed wild boar presence or proximity. However, a reported higher frequency of wild boar observations was positively correlated with the observations being made in closer proximity to the farm. Hunting and strategic baiting were the most common mitigation strategies used to keep wild boar at bay. Of the 14 farms raising pigs with outdoor access, 12 responded that these pigs could be raised solely indoors if needed. Pigs with outdoor access are required to be fenced in, but double fencing in these outdoor pig enclosures was not practiced by all. A perimeter fence surrounding any type of pig farm was very rare. More than half of the producers that grew crops with intended use for pigs reported crop damage by wild boar. CONCLUSION: This study shows that although pigs raised for commercial purposes in Sweden are, to a large extent, kept indoors the potential for indirect contact with wild boar exists and must be considered. Variable local situations regarding wild boar abundance may require an adaptive approach regarding biosecurity 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.

Avian influenza overview April - June 2023.

Between 29 April and 23 June 2023, highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A(H5N1) virus (clade 2.3.4.4b) outbreaks were reported in domestic (98) and wild (634) birds across 25 countries in Europe. A cluster of outbreaks in mulard ducks for foie gras production was concentrated in Southwest France, whereas the overall A(H5N1) situation in poultry in Europe and worldwide has eased. In wild birds, black-headed gulls and several new seabird species, mostly gulls and terns (e.g. sandwich terns), were heavily affected, with increased mortality being observed in both adults and juveniles after hatching. Compared to the same period last year, dead seabirds have been increasingly found inland and not only along European coastlines. As regards mammals, A(H5N1) virus was identified in 24 domestic cats and one caracal in Poland between 10 and 30 June 2023. Affected animals showed neurological and respiratory signs, sometimes mortality, and were widely scattered across nine voivodeships in the country. All cases are genetically closely related and identified viruses cluster with viruses detected in poultry (since October 2022, but now only sporadic) and wild birds (December 2022-January 2023) in the past. Uncertainties still exist around their possible source of infection, with no feline-to-feline or feline-to-human transmission reported so far. Since 10 May 2023 and as of 4 July 2023, two A(H5N1) clade 2.3.4.4b virus detections in humans were reported from the United Kingdom, and two A(H9N2) and one A(H5N6) human infections in China. In addition, one person infected with A(H3N8) in China has died. The risk of infection with currently circulating avian H5 influenza viruses of clade 2.3.4.4b in Europe remains low for the general population in the EU/EEA, low to moderate for occupationally or otherwise exposed people to infected birds or mammals (wild or domesticated).

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.

Avian influenza overview March - April 2023.

Between 2 March and 28 April 2023, highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A(H5Nx) virus, clade 2.3.4.4b, outbreaks were reported in domestic (106) and wild (610) birds across 24 countries in Europe. Poultry outbreaks occurred less frequently compared to the previous reporting period and compared to spring 2022. Most of these outbreaks were classified as primary outbreaks without secondary spread and some of them associated with atypical disease presentation, in particular low mortality. In wild birds, black-headed gulls continued to be heavily affected, while also other threatened wild bird species, such as the peregrine falcon, showed increased mortality. The ongoing epidemic in black-headed gulls, many of which breed inland, may increase the risk for poultry, especially in July-August, when first-year birds disperse from the breeding colonies. HPAI A(H5N1) virus also continued to expand in the Americas, including in mammalian species, and is expected to reach the Antarctic in the near future. HPAI virus infections were detected in six mammal species, particularly in marine mammals and mustelids, for the first time, while the viruses currently circulating in Europe retain a preferential binding for avian-like receptors. Since 13 March 2022 and as of 10 May 2023, two A(H5N1) clade 2.3.4.4b virus detections in humans were reported from China (1), and Chile (1), as well as three A(H9N2) and one A(H3N8) human infections in China. The risk of infection with currently circulating avian H5 influenza viruses of clade 2.3.4.4b in Europe remains low for the general population in the EU/EEA, and low to moderate for occupationally or otherwise exposed people.

Limitations and opportunities of smallholders' practical knowledge when dealing with pig health issues in northern Uganda.

Pig production has a short history in Uganda. The majority of pigs are kept by smallholder farmers in rural areas where access to veterinary services is limited, and pig keeping has been suggested as a potential pathway out of poverty for smallholders. Previous research has identified the disease of African swine fever (ASF) as a major threat, causing high mortalities in pigs. With no available cure or vaccine, the only option is to implement biosecurity measures, i.e. strategies that prevent the spread of ASF. This paper draws on data from four months of ethnographic fieldwork in rural northern Uganda. Combining methods of participant observation, semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions and a survey, the aim was to improve understanding of smallholders' perceptions and responses to pig health issues such as ASF. Applying the concept of practical knowledge, this paper analyses the potential and limitations of smallholders' practice-based knowledge as a means of dealing with pig health issues. The results show that while pigs were appreciated locally for providing an income, many informants found it difficult to deal with pig diseases effectively. Consequently, informants commonly expressed a need for other kinds of knowledge in their pig production, indicating that veterinary advice can play an important role in reducing the negative impact of pig health issues. For animal health provision to have relevance in this context, however, veterinary practitioners must pay close attention to smallholders' priorities and ways of knowing in their livestock keeping. Results further show that pig health issues made some informants abandon pig production altogether. To enhance the potential of pig production as a poverty mitigation strategy in Uganda, research and policy need to focus on ways of bettering general conditions for smallholder pig keeping, including improving the quality of and access to veterinary services in rural areas.

Epidemiological analysis of African swine fever in the European Union during 2022.

This report presents the epidemiological analysis of African swine fever (ASF) during 2022 based on the surveillance and pig population data submitted by the European Union (EU) affected countries and one neighbouring country. Coinciding with regulatory changes and an important decrease in ASF outbreaks in 2022 in the EU, the number of domestic pig samples tested as part of active surveillance decreased by 80%, while the number of samples from passive surveillance almost doubled compared with 2021. Most outbreaks among domestic pigs in the EU were detected by testing clinical suspicions (93% of outbreaks), followed by tracing activities (5%) and weekly testing of the first two dead pigs per establishment (2%). Although most of the wild boar samples came from hunted animals, the probability of detecting PCR-positive animals was much higher in wild boar found dead. The ASF outbreaks among domestic pigs in the EU decreased by 79% while a decrease of 40% in the wild boar cases was observed in comparison with 2021. This was strongly marked in Romania, Poland and Bulgaria, with a reduction of 50-80% compared with 2021. In many countries, an important decrease in the number of pig establishments was observed, especially of small establishments with fewer than 100 pigs. The regional between farm incidence and proportion of pigs lost due to ASF in the EU was in general very low (average of 1%) apart from some regions in Romania. The impact of ASF on wild boar populations was variable, with a decline in wild boar abundance observed in certain countries versus a stable or even increased population after ASF introduction. This supports the negative relationship observed in this report between the proportion of the country with restricted zones due to ASF in wild boar and wild boar hunting bags.

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.

Welfare of dairy cows.

This Scientific Opinion addresses a European Commission's mandate on the welfare of dairy cows as part of the Farm to Fork strategy. It includes three assessments carried out based on literature reviews and complemented by expert opinion. Assessment 1 describes the most prevalent housing systems for dairy cows in Europe: tie-stalls, cubicle housing, open-bedded systems and systems with access to an outdoor area. Per each system, the scientific opinion describes the distribution in the EU and assesses the main strengths, weaknesses and hazards potentially reducing the welfare of dairy cows. Assessment 2 addresses five welfare consequences as requested in the mandate: locomotory disorders (including lameness), mastitis, restriction of movement and resting problems, inability to perform comfort behaviour and metabolic disorders. Per each welfare consequence, a set of animal-based measures is suggested, a detailed analysis of the prevalence in different housing systems is provided, and subsequently, a comparison of the housing systems is given. Common and specific system-related hazards as well as management-related hazards and respective preventive measures are investigated. Assessment 3 includes an analysis of farm characteristics (e.g. milk yield, herd size) that could be used to classify the level of on-farm welfare. From the available scientific literature, it was not possible to derive relevant associations between available farm data and cow welfare. Therefore, an approach based on expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) was developed. The EKE resulted in the identification of five farm characteristics (more than one cow per cubicle at maximum stocking density, limited space for cows, inappropriate cubicle size, high on-farm mortality and farms with less than 2 months access to pasture). If one or more of these farm characteristics are present, it is recommended to conduct an assessment of cow welfare on the farm in question using animal-based measures for specified welfare consequences.