المؤلفون: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Denise Candiani, Julian Drewe, Björn Forkman, Mette S Herskin, Ann Van Soom, Gizella Aboagye, Sean Ashe, Maria Mountricha, Yves Van der Stede, Chiara Fabris

المصدر: EFSA Journal, Vol 21, Iss 9, Pp n/a-n/a (2023)

مصطلحات موضوعية: animal welfare, cats, dogs, commercial breeding, housing, health, Nutrition. Foods and food supply, TX341-641, Chemical technology, TP1-1185

الوصف: Abstract This Scientific Report addresses a mandate from the European Commission according to Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 on the welfare of cats and dogs in commercial breeding establishments kept for sport, hunting and companion purposes. The aim was to scrutinise recent recommendations made by the EU Platform on Animal Welfare Voluntary Initiative on measures to assist the preparation of policy options for the legal framework of commercial breeding of cats and dogs. Specifically, the main question addressed was if there is scientific evidence to support the measures for protection of cats and dogs in commercial breeding related to housing, health considerations and painful procedures. Three judgements were carried out based on scientific literature reviews and, where possible a review of national regulations. The first judgement addressed housing and included: type of accommodation, outdoor access, exercise, social behaviour, housing temperature and light requirements. The second judgement addressed health and included: age at first and last breeding, and breeding frequency. Judgement 3 addressed painful procedures (mutilations or convenience surgeries) and included: ear cropping, tail docking and vocal cord resections in dogs and declawing in cats. For each of these judgements, considerations were provided indicating where scientific literature is available to support recommendations on providing or avoiding specific housing, health or painful surgical interventions. Areas where evidence is lacking are indicated.

وصف الملف: electronic resource

العلاقة: https://doaj.org/toc/1831-4732Test

الوصول الحر: https://doaj.org/article/44453881f5424898afc10b35353536d8Test

المؤلفون: EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (AHAW Panel), Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Elisabetta Canali, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin‐Bastuji, Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gortázar Schmidt, Mette Herskin, Virginie Michel, Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Barbara Padalino, Helen Clare Roberts, Hans Spoolder, Karl Stahl, Arvo Viltrop, Christoph Winckler, Charlotte Berg, Sandra Edwards, Ute Knierim, Anja Riber, Attila Salamon, Inga Tiemann, Chiara Fabris, Aikaterini Manakidou, Olaf Mosbach‐Schulz, Yves Van der Stede, Marika Vitali, Antonio Velarde

المصدر: EFSA Journal, Vol 21, Iss 5, Pp n/a-n/a (2023)

مصطلحات موضوعية: On‐farm animal welfare, ducks, geese, quail, foie gras, welfare consequences, Nutrition. Foods and food supply, TX341-641, Chemical technology, TP1-1185

الوصف: Abstract 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.

وصف الملف: electronic resource

العلاقة: https://doaj.org/toc/1831-4732Test

الوصول الحر: https://doaj.org/article/f81e34385fc349cba95467fb5ad97a50Test

المؤلفون: EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Elisabetta Canali, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin‐Bastuji, Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Gortázar Schmidt, Mette Herskin, Virginie Michel, Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Olaf Mosbach‐Schulz, Barbara Padalino, Helen Clare Roberts, Karl Stahl, Antonio Velarde, Arvo Viltrop, Christoph Winckler, Sandra Edwards, Sonya Ivanova, Christine Leeb, Beat Wechsler, Chiara Fabris, Eliana Lima, Yves Van der Stede, Marika Vitali, Hans Spoolder

المصدر: EFSA Journal, Vol 20, Iss 8, Pp n/a-n/a (2022)

مصطلحات موضوعية: on‐farm pig welfare, pig categories, husbandry systems, welfare consequences, animal‐based measures, end the cage age, Nutrition. Foods and food supply, TX341-641, Chemical technology, TP1-1185

الوصف: Abstract This scientific opinion focuses on the welfare of pigs on farm, and is based on literature and expert opinion. All pig categories were assessed: gilts and dry sows, farrowing and lactating sows, suckling piglets, weaners, rearing pigs and boars. The most relevant husbandry systems used in Europe are described. For each system, highly relevant welfare consequences were identified, as well as related animal‐based measures (ABMs), and hazards leading to the welfare consequences. Moreover, measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate the welfare consequences are recommended. Recommendations are also provided on quantitative or qualitative criteria to answer specific questions on the welfare of pigs related to tail biting and related to the European Citizen's Initiative ‘End the Cage Age’. For example, the AHAW Panel recommends how to mitigate group stress when dry sows and gilts are grouped immediately after weaning or in early pregnancy. Results of a comparative qualitative assessment suggested that long‐stemmed or long‐cut straw, hay or haylage is the most suitable material for nest‐building. A period of time will be needed for staff and animals to adapt to housing lactating sows and their piglets in farrowing pens (as opposed to crates) before achieving stable welfare outcomes. The panel recommends a minimum available space to the lactating sow to ensure piglet welfare (measured by live‐born piglet mortality). Among the main risk factors for tail biting are space allowance, types of flooring, air quality, health status and diet composition, while weaning age was not associated directly with tail biting in later life. The relationship between the availability of space and growth rate, lying behaviour and tail biting in rearing pigs is quantified and presented. Finally, the panel suggests a set of ABMs to use at slaughter for monitoring on‐farm welfare of cull sows and rearing pigs.

وصف الملف: electronic resource

العلاقة: https://doaj.org/toc/1831-4732Test

الوصول الحر: https://doaj.org/article/a9492ab12feb4a2a9ef76e5d840d2246Test

المؤلفون: EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Elisabetta Canali, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin‐Bastuji, Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gortázar Schmidt, Mette Herskin, Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Virginie Michel, Barbara Padalino, Paolo Pasquali, Helen Clare Roberts, Hans Spoolder, Karl Stahl, Antonio Velarde, Arvo Viltrop, Sandra Edwards, Sean Ashe, Denise Candiani, Chiara Fabris, Eliana Lima, Olaf Mosbach‐Schulz, Cristina Rojo Gimeno, Yves Van der Stede, Marika Vitali, Christoph Winckler

المصدر: EFSA Journal, Vol 20, Iss 7, Pp n/a-n/a (2022)

مصطلحات موضوعية: animal welfare assessment, Farm to Fork Strategy, husbandry systems, welfare consequences, animal‐based measures, Nutrition. Foods and food supply, TX341-641, Chemical technology, TP1-1185

الوصف: Abstract This document provides methodological guidance developed by the EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare to produce Scientific Opinions in response to mandates received from the European Commission in the context of the Farm to Fork Strategy. The mandates relate to the welfare of (i) animals during transport, (ii) calves, (iii) laying hens, (iv) broilers, (v) pigs, (vi) ducks, geese and quails, and (vii) dairy cows. This guidance was developed in order to define the methods and strategy to be applied for responding to the Terms of Reference (ToRs) of the mandates. The mandates each consist of a set of General ToRs which refer to the husbandry systems used in the production of each animal species or the current transport practices for free moving animals and animals transported in cages, and a set of specific ToRs for which difficulties in ensuring animal welfare have been identified and where specific scenarios are envisaged. Part I of the guidance includes a description of welfare consequences for the animals. Part II includes a new methodology for providing quantitative recommendations regarding animal welfare. The proposed methodology follows the assumption that the effect of an exposure variable (e.g. space allowance) on animal welfare can be quantified by comparing the expression of an animal‐based measure (ABM) under ‘unexposed conditions’ (e.g. unlimited space) and under high exposure (e.g. restrictive conditions). The level of welfare as assessed through this ABM can be quantified for different levels of the exposure variable (e.g. at increasing space allowances) and quantitative recommendations can thus be provided. The final version of the methodological guidance was endorsed for public consultation, which took place between 14 February 2022 and 31 March 2022. The comments received are integrated in this document.

وصف الملف: electronic resource

العلاقة: https://doaj.org/toc/1831-4732Test

الوصول الحر: https://doaj.org/article/de710a579b014ec49d15ee49229ec498Test

المؤلفون: Anas El Fathi, Chiara Fabris, Marc D. Breton

المصدر: Frontiers in Endocrinology, Vol 12 (2022)

مصطلحات موضوعية: type 1 diabetes, multiple daily injections, long-acting insulin, insulin titration, continuous glucose monitoring, smart insulin pens, Diseases of the endocrine glands. Clinical endocrinology, RC648-665

الوصف: ObjectiveMultiple daily injections (MDI) therapy is the most common treatment for type 1 diabetes (T1D), consisting of long-acting insulin to cover fasting conditions and rapid-acting insulin to cover meals. Titration of long-acting insulin is needed to achieve satisfactory glycemia but is challenging due to inter-and intra-individual metabolic variability. In this work, a novel titration algorithm for long-acting insulin leveraging continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and smart insulin pens (SIP) data is proposed.MethodsThe algorithm is based on a glucoregulatory model that describes insulin and meal effects on blood glucose fluctuations. The model is individualized on patient’s data and used to extract the theoretical glucose curve in fasting conditions; the individualization step does not require any carbohydrate records. A cost function is employed to search for the optimal long-acting insulin dose to achieve the desired glycemic target in the fasting state. The algorithm was tested in two virtual studies performed within a validated T1D simulation platform, deploying different levels of metabolic variability (nominal and variance). The performance of the method was compared to that achieved with two published titration algorithms based on self-measured blood glucose (SMBG) records. The sensitivity of the algorithm to carbohydrate records was also analyzed.ResultsThe proposed method outperformed SMBG-based methods in terms of reduction of exposure to hypoglycemia, especially during the night period (0 am–6 am). In the variance scenario, during the night, an improvement in the time in the target glycemic range (70–180 mg/dL) from 69.0% to 86.4% and a decrease in the time in hypoglycemia (

وصف الملف: electronic resource

العلاقة: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2021.795895/fullTest; https://doaj.org/toc/1664-2392Test

الوصول الحر: https://doaj.org/article/0eee5a5a2a9d4e3eaa123fd8e4c0adc2Test

المؤلفون: EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Klaus Depner, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin‐Bastuji, Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gortázar Schmidt, Virginie Michel, Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Helen Clare Roberts, Liisa Helena Sihvonen, Hans Spoolder, Karl Stahl, Arvo Viltrop, Christoph Winckler, Denise Candiani, Chiara Fabris, Yves Van der Stede, Antonio Velarde

المصدر: EFSA Journal, Vol 18, Iss 7, Pp n/a-n/a (2020)

مصطلحات موضوعية: pigs, on‐farm killing, hazards, animal welfare consequences, animal‐based measures, preventive/corrective measures, Nutrition. Foods and food supply, TX341-641, Chemical technology, TP1-1185

الوصف: Abstract Pigs at different stages of the production cycle may have to be killed on‐farm for purposes other than slaughter (where slaughter is defined as killing for human consumption) either individually (e.g. severely injured pigs) or on a large scale (e.g. unproductive animals or for disease control reasons). This opinion assessed the risks associated with the on‐farm killing of pigs and included two phases: 1) handling and moving of pigs and 2) killing methods (including restraint). The killing methods were subdivided into four categories: electrical methods, mechanical methods, gas mixture methods and lethal injection. Four welfare consequences to which pigs can be exposed to during on‐farm killing were identified: pain, fear, impeded movement and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures were described. In total, 28 hazards were associated with the welfare consequences; majority of the hazards (24) are related to Phase 2 (killing). The main hazards are associated with lack of staff skills and training, and poor‐designed and constructed facilities. Staff was identified as an origin of all hazards, either due to lack of skills needed to perform appropriate killing or due to fatigue. Corrective measures were identified for 25 hazards. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal‐based measures, hazard origins, preventive and corrective measures were developed and mitigation measures proposed.

وصف الملف: electronic resource

العلاقة: https://doaj.org/toc/1831-4732Test

الوصول الحر: https://doaj.org/article/b9c68ce7c9294c83820e9d296bd775aaTest

المؤلفون: EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Klaus Depner, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin‐Bastuji, Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gortázar Schmidt, Virginie Michel, Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Helen Clare Roberts, Liisa Helena Sihvonen, Hans Spoolder, Karl Stahl, Arvo Viltrop, Christoph Winckler, Denise Candiani, Chiara Fabris, Yves Van der Stede, Antonio Velarde

المصدر: EFSA Journal, Vol 18, Iss 6, Pp n/a-n/a (2020)

مصطلحات موضوعية: pig, slaughter, hazards, animal welfare consequences, animal‐based measures, preventive/corrective measures, Nutrition. Foods and food supply, TX341-641, Chemical technology, TP1-1185

الوصف: Abstract The killing of pigs for human consumption (slaughtering) can take place in a slaughterhouse or on farm. The processes of slaughtering that were assessed for welfare, from the arrival of pigs until their death, were grouped into three main phases: pre‐stunning (including arrival, unloading from the truck, lairage, handling and moving of pigs); stunning (including restraint); and bleeding. Stunning methods were grouped into three categories: electrical, controlled atmosphere and mechanical. Twelve welfare consequences the pigs can be exposed to during slaughter were identified: heat stress, cold stress, fatigue, prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, impeded movement, restriction of movements, resting problem, negative social behaviour, pain, fear and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures were described. In total, 30 welfare hazards that could occur during slaughter were identified and characterised, most of them related to stunning and bleeding. Staff were identified as the origin of 29 hazards, which were attributed to the lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or to fatigue. Corrective and preventive measures for these hazards were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified, and management was shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal‐based measures, origins and preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are proposed.

وصف الملف: electronic resource

العلاقة: https://doaj.org/toc/1831-4732Test

الوصول الحر: https://doaj.org/article/e69d443c50114af1958c0acc4058b8aaTest

المؤلفون: EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Klaus Depner, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin‐Bastuji, Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gortázar Schmidt, Virginie Michel, Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Helen Clare Roberts, Liisa Helena Sihvonen, Karl Stahl, Antonio Velarde Calvo, Arvo Viltrop, Christoph Winckler, Denise Candiani, Chiara Fabris, Olaf Mosbach‐Schulz, Yves Van der Stede, Hans Spoolder

المصدر: EFSA Journal, Vol 18, Iss 1, Pp n/a-n/a (2020)

مصطلحات موضوعية: rabbit, on‐farm killing, hazards, animal welfare consequences, welfare indicators, preventive/corrective measures, Nutrition. Foods and food supply, TX341-641, Chemical technology, TP1-1185

الوصف: Abstract Rabbits 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 or on a large scale (e.g. for production reasons or for disease control). The purpose of this opinion was to assess the risks associated to the on‐farm killing of rabbits. The processes during on‐farm killing that were assessed included handling, stunning and/or killing methods (including restraint). The latter were grouped into four categories: electrical methods, mechanical methods, controlled atmosphere method and lethal injection. In total, 14 hazards were identified and characterised, most of these related to stunning and/or killing. The staff was identified as the origin for all hazards, either due to lack of the appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. Possible corrective and preventive measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for five hazards and the staff was shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Five welfare consequences of the welfare hazards to which rabbits can be exposed to during on‐farm killing were identified: not being dead, consciousness, pain, fear and distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal‐based measures, origins, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are proposed.

وصف الملف: electronic resource

العلاقة: https://doaj.org/toc/1831-4732Test

الوصول الحر: https://doaj.org/article/a4cee56f8d994a6b98e0767bebe993b8Test

المؤلفون: EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Klaus Depner, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin‐Bastuji, Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gortázar Schmidt, Virginie Michel, Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Helen Clare Roberts, Liisa Helena Sihvonen, Karl Stahl, Antonio Velarde Calvo, Arvo Viltrop, Christoph Winckler, Denise Candiani, Chiara Fabris, Olaf Mosbach‐Schulz, Yves Van der Stede, Hans Spoolder

المصدر: EFSA Journal, Vol 18, Iss 1, Pp n/a-n/a (2020)

مصطلحات موضوعية: rabbit, slaughter, hazards, animal welfare consequences, welfare indicators, preventive/corrective measures, Nutrition. Foods and food supply, TX341-641, Chemical technology, TP1-1185

الوصف: Abstract This opinion on the killing of rabbits for human consumption (‘slaughtering’) responds to two mandates: one from the European Parliament (EP) and the other from the European Commission. The opinion describes stunning methods for rabbits known to the experts in the EFSA working group, which can be used in commercial practice, and which are sufficiently described in scientific and technical literature for the development of an opinion. These are electrical stunning, mechanical stunning with a penetrative and non‐penetrative captive bolt and gas stunning. The latter method is not allowed in the EU anymore following Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009, but may still be practiced elsewhere in the world. Related hazards and welfare consequences are also evaluated. To monitor stunning effectiveness as requested by the EP mandate, the opinion suggests the use of indicators for the state of consciousness, selected on the basis of their sensitivity, specificity and ease of use. Similarly, it suggests indicators to confirm animals are dead before dressing. For the European Commission mandate, slaughter processes were assessed from the arrival of rabbits in containers until their death, and grouped in three main phases: pre‐stunning (including arrival, unloading of containers from the truck, lairage, handling/removing of rabbits from containers), stunning (including restraint) and bleeding (including bleeding following stunning and bleeding during slaughter without stunning). Ten welfare consequences resulting from the hazards that rabbits can be exposed to during slaughter are identified: consciousness, animal not dead, thermal stress (heat or cold stress), prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, restriction of movements, pain, fear, distress and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures (indicators) are described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, indicators, origins, preventive and corrective measures are developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are also proposed.

وصف الملف: electronic resource

العلاقة: https://doaj.org/toc/1831-4732Test

الوصول الحر: https://doaj.org/article/80c128c99e334c5c96c971c1760621d4Test

المؤلفون: EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Klaus Depner, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin‐Bastuji, Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gortázar Schmidt, Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Helen Clare Roberts, Liisa Helena Sihvonen, Hans Spoolder, Karl Stahl, Antonio Velarde Calvo, Arvo Viltrop, Christoph Winckler, Denise Candiani, Chiara Fabris, Yves Van der Stede, Virginie Michel

المصدر: EFSA Journal, Vol 17, Iss 11, Pp n/a-n/a (2019)

مصطلحات موضوعية: poultry, slaughter, hazards, animal welfare consequences, ABMs, preventive/corrective measures, Nutrition. Foods and food supply, TX341-641, Chemical technology, TP1-1185

الوصف: Abstract The killing of poultry for human consumption (slaughtering) can take place in a slaughterhouse or during on‐farm slaughter. The processes of slaughtering that were assessed, from the arrival of birds in containers until their death, were grouped into three main phases: pre‐stunning (including arrival, unloading of containers from the truck, lairage, handling/removing of birds from containers); stunning (including restraint); and bleeding (including bleeding following stunning and bleeding during slaughter without stunning). Stunning methods were grouped into three categories: electrical, controlled modified atmosphere and mechanical. In total, 35 hazards were identified and characterised, most of them related to stunning and bleeding. Staff were identified as the origin of 29 hazards, and 28 hazards were attributed to the lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or to fatigue. Corrective and preventive measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for 11 hazards, with management shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Ten welfare consequences, the birds can be exposed to during slaughter, were identified: consciousness, heat stress, cold stress, prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, restriction of movements, pain, fear, distress and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal‐based measures, origins, and preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences were also proposed.

وصف الملف: electronic resource

العلاقة: https://doaj.org/toc/1831-4732Test

الوصول الحر: https://doaj.org/article/512aafc65a0d44cfbc9cc916665ebeecTest