Suchergebnisse

The new legislation for laying hens in the European Union put a ban on conventional cages. Production systems must now provide the hens with access to a nest, a perch, and material for dust bathing. These requirements will improve the behavioral aspects of animal welfare. However, when hens are kept with access to litter, it is a concern that polluted air may become an increased threat to health and therefore also a welfare problem. This article reviews the literature regarding the health and welfare effects birds experience when exposed to barn dust. Dust is composed of inorganic and organic compounds, from the birds themselves as well as from feed, litter, and building materials. Dust may be a vector for microorganisms and toxins. In general, studies indicate that housing systems where laying hens have access to litter as aviaries and floor systems consistently have higher concentrations of suspended dust than caged hens with little (furnished cages) or no access to litter (conventional cages). The higher dust levels in aviaries and floor housing are also caused by increased bird activity in the non-cage systems. There are gaps in both the basic and applied knowledge of how birds react to dust and aerosol contaminants, i.e., what levels they find aversive and/or impair health. Nevertheless, high dust levels may compromise the health and welfare of both birds and their caretakers and the poor air quality often found in new poultry housing systems needs to be addressed. It is necessary to develop prophylactic measures and to refine the production systems in order to achieve the full welfare benefits of the cage ban.

National audience ; Le moteur principal de la prise en compte du bien‐être animal dans les pratiques lors des phases d'élevage, de transport et d'abattage en Europe a été la réglementation. Toutefois, à l'instar de pays tiers, de nombreuses démarches et de divers statuts intègrent désormais la dimension bien‐être à des degrés variables. Cela va du simple respect de la réglementation (labels nationaux, tel IKB aux Pays‐Bas) à des normes plus exigeantes (label Bio), une sensibilisation accrue des acteurs par la formation et des outils d'auto‐contrôle (code of welfare de Nouvelle‐Zélande) ou des audits plus élaborés d'évaluation (TGI en Allemagne, WelfareQuality®).Ceci reflète l'aspect multifactoriel du bien‐être. Différents types de mesures sont utilisés, sur l'animal et/ou son environnement. D'autres informations peuvent être collectées, tels que des documents techniques. La qualité de l'évaluation dépend dans tous les cas de la qualité des mesures (validité, répétabilité, robustesse) et le choix des indicateurs est lié à la nature de la démarche et de la finalité de l'outil (contrôle/certification, analyse de risque, intervention/conseil). L'objectif de la synthèse est de présenter les modalités de construction des outils de suivi d'élevage intégrant une dimension bien-être, de préciser les différents buts recherchés et les différentes démarches existantes. Nous évaluons ensuite les perspectives de développement de ces initiatives dans le contexte politique et réglementaire présent et à venir dans l'Union Européenne.

National audience ; Le moteur principal de la prise en compte du bien‐être animal dans les pratiques lors des phases d'élevage, de transport et d'abattage en Europe a été la réglementation. Toutefois, à l'instar de pays tiers, de nombreuses démarches et de divers statuts intègrent désormais la dimension bien‐être à des degrés variables. Cela va du simple respect de la réglementation (labels nationaux, tel IKB aux Pays‐Bas) à des normes plus exigeantes (label Bio), une sensibilisation accrue des acteurs par la formation et des outils d'auto‐contrôle (code of welfare de Nouvelle‐Zélande) ou des audits plus élaborés d'évaluation (TGI en Allemagne, WelfareQuality®).Ceci reflète l'aspect multifactoriel du bien‐être. Différents types de mesures sont utilisés, sur l'animal et/ou son environnement. D'autres informations peuvent être collectées, tels que des documents techniques. La qualité de l'évaluation dépend dans tous les cas de la qualité des mesures (validité, répétabilité, robustesse) et le choix des indicateurs est lié à la nature de la démarche et de la finalité de l'outil (contrôle/certification, analyse de risque, intervention/conseil). L'objectif de la synthèse est de présenter les modalités de construction des outils de suivi d'élevage intégrant une dimension bien-être, de préciser les différents buts recherchés et les différentes démarches existantes. Nous évaluons ensuite les perspectives de développement de ces initiatives dans le contexte politique et réglementaire présent et à venir dans l'Union Européenne.

Le moteur principal de la prise en compte du bien‐être animal dans les pratiques lors des phases d'élevage, de transport et d'abattage en Europe a été la réglementation. Toutefois, à l'instar de pays tiers, de nombreuses démarches et de divers statuts intègrent désormais la dimension bien‐être à des degrés variables. Cela va du simple respect de la réglementation (labels nationaux, tel IKB aux Pays‐Bas) à des normes plus exigeantes (label Bio), une sensibilisation accrue des acteurs par la formation et des outils d'auto‐contrôle (code of welfare de Nouvelle‐Zélande) ou des audits plus élaborés d'évaluation (TGI en Allemagne, WelfareQuality®).Ceci reflète l'aspect multifactoriel du bien‐être. Différents types de mesures sont utilisés, sur l'animal et/ou son environnement. D'autres informations peuvent être collectées, tels que des documents techniques. La qualité de l'évaluation dépend dans tous les cas de la qualité des mesures (validité, répétabilité, robustesse) et le choix des indicateurs est lié à la nature de la démarche et de la finalité de l'outil (contrôle/certification, analyse de risque, intervention/conseil). L'objectif de la synthèse est de présenter les modalités de construction des outils de suivi d'élevage intégrant une dimension bien-être, de préciser les différents buts recherchés et les différentes démarches existantes. Nous évaluons ensuite les perspectives de développement de ces initiatives dans le contexte politique et réglementaire présent et à venir dans l'Union Européenne.

This article is based upon work in the COST Action CA15134—Synergy for preventing damaging behaviour in group housed pigs and chickens (GroupHouseNet), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) ; International audience ; Since the ban in January 2012 of conventional cages for egg production in the European Union (Council Directive 1999/74/EC), alternative systems such as floor, aviary, free-range, and organic systems have become increasingly common, reaching 50% of housing for hens in 2019. Despite the many advantages associated with non-cage systems, the shift to a housing system where laying hens are kept in larger groups and more complex environments has given rise to new challenges related to management, health, and welfare. This review examines the close relationships between damaging behaviours and health in modern husbandry systems for laying hens. These new housing conditions increase social interactions between animals. In cases of suboptimal rearing and/or housing and management conditions, damaging behaviour or infectious diseases are likely to spread to the whole flock. Additionally, health issues, and therefore stimulation of the immune system, may lead to the development of damaging behaviours, which in turn may result in impaired body conditions, leading to health and welfare issues. This raises the need to monitor both behaviour and health of laying hens in order to intervene as quickly as possible to preserve both the welfare and health of the animals.

This article is based upon work in the COST Action CA15134—Synergy for preventing damaging behaviour in group housed pigs and chickens (GroupHouseNet), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) ; International audience ; Since the ban in January 2012 of conventional cages for egg production in the European Union (Council Directive 1999/74/EC), alternative systems such as floor, aviary, free-range, and organic systems have become increasingly common, reaching 50% of housing for hens in 2019. Despite the many advantages associated with non-cage systems, the shift to a housing system where laying hens are kept in larger groups and more complex environments has given rise to new challenges related to management, health, and welfare. This review examines the close relationships between damaging behaviours and health in modern husbandry systems for laying hens. These new housing conditions increase social interactions between animals. In cases of suboptimal rearing and/or housing and management conditions, damaging behaviour or infectious diseases are likely to spread to the whole flock. Additionally, health issues, and therefore stimulation of the immune system, may lead to the development of damaging behaviours, which in turn may result in impaired body conditions, leading to health and welfare issues. This raises the need to monitor both behaviour and health of laying hens in order to intervene as quickly as possible to preserve both the welfare and health of the animals.

Since the ban in January 2012 of conventional cages for egg production in the European Union (Council Directive 1999/74/EC), alternative systems such as floor, aviary, free-range, and organic systems have become increasingly common, reaching 50% of housing for hens in 2019. Despite the many advantages associated with non-cage systems, the shift to a housing system where laying hens are kept in larger groups and more complex environments has given rise to new challenges related to management, health, and welfare. This review examines the close relationships between damaging behaviours and health in modern husbandry systems for laying hens. These new housing conditions increase social interactions between animals. In cases of suboptimal rearing and/or housing and management conditions, damaging behaviour or infectious diseases are likely to spread to the whole flock. Additionally, health issues, and therefore stimulation of the immune system, may lead to the development of damaging behaviours, which in turn may result in impaired body conditions, leading to health and welfare issues. This raises the need to monitor both behaviour and health of laying hens in order to intervene as quickly as possible to preserve both the welfare and health of the animals.

Since the ban in January 2012 of conventional cages for egg production in the European Union (Council Directive 1999/74/EC), alternative systems such as floor, aviary, free-range, and organic systems have become increasingly common, reaching 50% of housing for hens in 2019. Despite the many advantages associated with non-cage systems, the shift to a housing system where laying hens are kept in larger groups and more complex environments has given rise to new challenges related to management, health, and welfare. This review examines the close relationships between damaging behaviours and health in modern husbandry systems for laying hens. These new housing conditions increase social interactions between animals. In cases of suboptimal rearing and/or housing and management conditions, damaging behaviour or infectious diseases are likely to spread to the whole flock. Additionally, health issues, and therefore stimulation of the immune system, may lead to the development of damaging behaviours, which in turn may result in impaired body conditions, leading to health and welfare issues. This raises the need to monitor both behaviour and health of laying hens in order to intervene as quickly as possible to preserve both the welfare and health of the animals.

Since the ban in January 2012 of conventional cages for egg production in the European Union (Council Directive 1999/74/EC), alternative systems such as floor, aviary, free-range, and organic systems have become increasingly common, reaching 50% of housing for hens in 2019. Despite the many advantages associated with non-cage systems, the shift to a housing system where laying hens are kept in larger groups and more complex environments has given rise to new challenges related to management, health, and welfare. This review examines the close relationships between damaging behaviours and health in modern husbandry systems for laying hens. These new housing conditions increase social interactions between animals. In cases of suboptimal rearing and/or housing and management conditions, damaging behaviour or infectious diseases are likely to spread to the whole flock. Additionally, health issues, and therefore stimulation of the immune system, may lead to the development of damaging behaviours, which in turn may result in impaired body conditions, leading to health and welfare issues. This raises the need to monitor both behaviour and health of laying hens in order to intervene as quickly as possible to preserve both the welfare and health of the animals. © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. ; Funding: This research received no external funding. Acknowledgments: This article is based upon work in the COST Action CA15134—Synergy for preventing damaging behaviour in group housed pigs and chickens (GroupHouseNet), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology; www.cost.eu).

Few studies have previously investigated how poor animal welfare might be associated with infection of zoonotic pathogens in humans. This paper assesses the predictive value of the presence of Campylobacter spp. in broiler chicken flocks when animal-based measures related to footpad dermatitis, hock burns, body lesions and arthritis are identified under commercial conditions (high density). The study population included 32 flocks analysed on farm and at slaughter, slaughtered between April and August 2008 in six different slaughter plants in Brittany, France. Welfare and health indicators are those indicated by the European legislation and sampling was carried out in the framework of the European baseline survey on the prevalence of Campylobacter in broiler chicken. Caecal contents, sampled both on farm and at slaughter, and carcass skin samples from the neck and breast at slaughter, were investigated for the presence of Campylobacter spp. Logistic models/classification trees were used to estimate the probability of the presence (or absence) of a specific foodbome pathogen in a flock based on specific animal-based measures (or combinations of measures) in order to study the potential relationship between welfare indicators and foodbome pathogen prevalence/incidence levels. On farm, flocks with more than 25% animals with severe lesions on between 25 and 50% of the footpad are predicted to be Campylobacter-positive whereas flocks where less than 13 individuals have arthritis are predicted to be Campylobacter-negative. The error rate on farm and at slaughter was 10 and 4% respectively indicating good predicting abilities. A poor welfare environment may result in stress, which reduces chicken immunocompetence making them more susceptible to Campylobacter spp. An infection with Campylobacter spp may lead to impaired defence and susceptibility to other pathogens which may result in greater intestinal excretion. Poor welfare and high growing rate lead to digestive troubles that lead to litter humidity. Litter humidity that, among other things, causes footpad dermatitis may also influence the horizontal transmission of the Campylobacter spp. infection due to the normal coprophagic behaviour of poultry. Reducing welfare problems by a better management of rearing conditions would not only improve broiler welfare, but it would also decrease the risks of Campylobacter contamination, of carcass condemnations and of economic loss for the poultry industry.

EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of the control measures against diseases included in the Category A list according to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases ('Animal Health Law'). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where these control measures will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period, (iii) the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones, and (iv) the minimum length of time the measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Different clinical and laboratory sampling procedures are proposed depending on the scenarios considered. The monitoring period of 45 days was assessed as not effective and at least 90 days (3 months) is recommended in affected areas where high awareness is expected; when the index case occurs in an area where the awareness is low the monitoring period should be at least 180 days (6 months). Since transmission kernels do not exist and data to estimate transmission kernels are not available, the effectiveness of surveillance and protection zones for CBPP was based on expert knowledge. A surveillance zone of 3 km was considered effective, while a protection zone including establishments adjacent to affected ones is recommended. Recommendations, provided for each of the scenarios assessed, aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad hoc requests in relation to CBPP.

EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of the control measures against diseases included in the Category A list according to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases ('Animal Health Law'). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where these control measures will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia (CCPP). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period, (iii) the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones and iv) the minimum length of time the measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Different clinical and laboratory sampling procedures are proposed depending on the scenarios considered. The monitoring period of 45 days was assessed as effective in affected areas where high awareness is expected, and when the index case occurs in an area where the awareness is low the monitoring period should be at least 180 days (6 months). Since transmission kernels do not exist and data to estimate transmission kernels are not available, a surveillance zone of 3 km was considered effective based on expert knowledge, while a protection zone should also be developed to include establishments adjacent to affected ones. Recommendations, provided for each of the scenarios assessed, aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad hoc requests in relation to CCPP.

EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of the control measures against diseases included in the Category A list according to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases ('Animal Health Law'). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where these control measures will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for peste des petits ruminants (PPR). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period and (iii) the minimum radii of the protection and surveillance zones, and the minimum length of time the measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere; nonetheless, the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radii of the protection and surveillance zones are shown. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. The monitoring period of 21 days was assessed as effective, except for the first affected establishments detected, where 33 days is recommended. It was concluded that beyond the protection (3 km) and the surveillance zones (10 km) only 9.6% (95% CI: 3.1–25.8%) and 2.3% (95% CI: 1–5.5%) of the infections from an affected establishment may occur, respectively. This may be considered sufficient to contain the disease spread (95% probability of containing transmission corresponds to 5.3 km). Recommendations provided for each of the scenarios assessed aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad-hoc requests in relation to PPR.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). ; The AGRI committee of the European Parliament requested EFSA to assess the welfare of rabbits farmed in different production systems, including organic production, and to update its 2005 scientific opinion about the health and welfare of rabbits kept for meat production. Considering reproducing does, kits and growing rabbits, this scientific opinion focusses on six different housing systems, namely conventional cages, structurally enriched cages, elevated pens, floor pens, outdoor/partially outdoor systems and organic systems. To compare the level of welfare in the different housing systems and rabbit categories, welfare impact scores for 20 welfare consequences identified from the literature were calculated, taking their occurrence, duration and severity into account. Based on the overall welfare impact score (sum of scores for the single welfare consequences), obtained via a 2‐step expert knowledge elicitation process, the welfare of reproducing does is likely (certainty 66–90%) to be lower in conventional cages compared to the five other housing systems. In addition, it is likely to extremely likely (certainty 66–99%) that the welfare of kits is lower in outdoor systems compared to the other systems and that the welfare is higher in elevated pens than in the other systems. Finally, it is likely to extremely likely (certainty 66–99%) that the welfare of growing rabbits is lower in conventional cages compared to the other systems and that the welfare is higher in elevated pens than in the other systems. Ranking of the welfare consequences allowed an analysis of the main welfare consequences within each system and rabbit category. It was concluded that for reproducing does, as well as growing rabbits, welfare consequences related to behavioural restrictions were more prominent in conventional cages, elevated pens and enriched cages, whereas those related to health problems were more important in floor pens, outdoor and organic systems. Housing in organic rabbit farming is diverse, which can result in different welfare consequences, but the overall welfare impact scores suggest that welfare in organic systems is generally good. ; Peer reviewed