The new E.U. Animal Transport Regulation: improved welfare and health or increased administration?

There is public discussion of the new E.U. Animal Transport Regulation No 1/2005 of Dec. 2004 and its advantages and draw-backs. This Regulation is no longer a Directive, so that it is directly applicable in the Members States. Although the Regulation is recognised to have great potential to improve welfare and health of transported animals, it will also increase administrative work. Most improvements will come through better education and the increased responsibilities of animal attendants, drivers, keepers and transport organisers, and through the stricter control mechanisms (log book, training, instructions etc.) and the introduction of the GPS control systems to further enhance the transparency of animal movements. The formats of the transport certificates used in all Member States will be harmonised. Technical records will be kept on air temperature and water consumption. Contact offices in all member states for transport affairs will improve the exchange of data between the responsible authorities and harmonise control and surveillance practice. Specific regulations are now in place for horses (broken, unbroken, registered) and for the transport age of young animals (piglets, lambs, calves, foals). In spite of some substantial improvements there are still significant gaps in our knowledge of both normal and long transports, for example optimal journey times, food and water supply on long transports, environmental factors such as vibration, motion, light and ventilation requirements in different European geographical regions. The same is true for the epidemiological aspects of the prevention of disease transmission; for example, very little is known about the bacterial and particulate emissions of the animal transport vehicles which travel across Europe. A serious drawback of the regulation is the fact that it does not abolish the unloading of animals on long transports to rest for 24 h at staging points, so that the concomitant risks to health and welfare remain, as do the opportunities for the transmission of infectious diseases at these stations. Two examples are given that demonstrate the physiological (heart rate) and biochemical (cortisol) reactions of cattle during transport. It seems useful to observe how the new Regulation affects practice and to assess the usefulness and practicability of the new rules after one or two years of operation. At the same time, more detailed research should be carried out in order to further adapt the Regulation to the needs of the animal species and gender in terms of travel time periods, food supply and resting schemes. This should also include reconsideration of loading and unloading rules in staging points on long journeys for all animals, particularly in view of risks of injury and transmission of infectious diseases. Investigations should be carried out to improve our understanding of the bio-aerosol emissions from driving and standing vehicles. Transport schemes on long journeys should be more closely adapted to the needs of the animals. The new Regulation represents another step forward toward improved animal welfare during transport in spite of some increase in the administrative measures required. It is necessary to bring together veterinary and animal science, engineering, logistics and practical and technical experience in order to improve the Regulation and the health and welfare of animals during transport.     

Ecology,Epidemiology and Human Health Implications of Avian Influenza Viruses: Why do We Need to Share Genetic Data?

Avian influenza (AI) is a listed disease of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) that has become a disease of great importance both for animal and human health. Until recent times, AI was considered a disease of birds with zoonotic implications of limited significance. The emergence and spread of the Asian lineage highly pathogenic AI H5N1 virus has dramatically changed this perspective; not only has it been responsible of the death or culling of millions of birds, but this virus has also been able to infect a variety of non-avian hosts including human beings. The implications of such a panzootic reflect themselves in animal health issues, notably in the reduction of a protein source for developing countries and in the management of the pandemic potential. Retrospective studies have shown that avian progenitors play an important role in the generation of pandemic viruses for humans, and therefore these infections in the avian reservoir should be subjected to control measures aiming at eradication of the Asian H5N1 virus from all sectors rather than just eliminating or reducing the impact of the disease in poultry. Collection and analysis of information in a transparent environment and close collaboration between the medical and veterinary scientific community are crucial to support the global AI crisis.     

Three open issues on Avian Influenza – H5, H7, H9 against all odds

1. Scientific knowledge and certainties on Avian Influenza infections have been completely shaken following the emergence and spread of three “odd” subtypes, namely H5, H7 and H9.

2. These subtypes, particularly H5N1, also have public health implications in addition to causing animal disease.

3. Control of infection in animals and in-depth analysis of virus antigenic and genetic properties largely rely on the veterinary community which requires better weapons that will be efficacious only if revised tactics are developed and vigorously applied.     

Is dietary choice important to animal welfare?

Scientific interest in farm animal welfare has grown rapidly in recent years because consumers increasingly demand that farm animals are reared, transported, and slaughtered in a humane way. Additionally, nutrition emerges as an important aspect of welfare since in most codes of recommendations for the welfare of animals, adequate nutrition is one of the primary requirements to be satisfied. We submit that in many cases domestic animals are provided with diets that, even when abundant and nutritious, are not necessarily adequate to foster the welfare of animals. The monotonous diets fed in confinement (total mixed rations) and on pasture (monocultures) often contain excesses of nutrients, nutrient imbalances, and toxins that adversely influence animal welfare. How much of any food an animal can eat will depend on the other foods it consumes, because at the biochemical level, nutrients and toxins interact one with another—nutrients with nutrients, nutrients with toxins, and toxins with toxins. Food intake and preference also depend on differences in how individual animals are built morphologically and how they function physiologically, and marked variation is common even among closely related animals relative to the needs for nutrients and tolerance to toxins. An integral part of an animal's ability to meet its particular nutritional requirements and consume substances that improve health depends on having a variety of foods available so each animal can select a diet that best meets its homeostatic needs. Food choice may also offer animals a means to cope with toxins, as certain food combinations have the potential to ameliorate the negative effects of toxins. We suggest that the availability of alternatives may not only contribute to maintain homeostasis but also reduce levels of stress. Thus, food choice is necessary for individual animals to have freedom to express their normal behaviors. We contend this freedom enables the uniqueness of individuals to be manifest, thereby promoting animal welfare and performance and increasing profitability of the people who manage animals.     

Do we care about welfare at slaughter?

In his viewpoint article for Veterinary Record 'Slaughter without stunning' (VR, May 5, 2012, vol 170, pp 468-469), BVA past-president Bill Reilly posed the question, 'Do we care about welfare at slaughter?' And he asked it again as part of his webinar 'Out of sight out of mind', which can be heard on www.vets.tv.     

Prevalence and incidence of Newcastle disease and prevalence of Avian Influenza infection of scavenging village chickens in Timor-Lesté

A longitudinal study to monitor prevalence and incidence of antibodies against Newcastle disease (ND) virus and prevalence of antibodies against Avian Influenza (AI) virus in scavenging village chickens was conducted in 20 villages within 4 districts of Timor-Lesté. A total of 3600 blood samples was collected from 1674 individual birds in 300 household chicken flocks during three sampling periods (December 2008-February 2009, March-May 2009, and June-August 2009). The mean interval between household visits was 101.6±1.9 days. None of the birds enrolled in the study was vaccinated against ND or AI. A haemagglutination inhibition (HI) test was used to determine antibody titres against ND virus and a competitive ELISA and HI tests were used to detect antibody against AI virus. The bird-level ND seroprevalence pooled across all samplings (adjusted for clustering by households) was 4.4% (95% CI 3.5-5.2). The bird-level ND seroprevalence in each of the three sampling periods (adjusted for clustering by household) was 3.0% (95% CI 2.0-4.0), 6.6% (95% CI 5.1-8.0) and 3.6 (95% CI 2.5-4.6), respectively. A total of 12.6% individual birds tested ND seropositive at least once over the total study period (95% CI 10.5-14.7). The flock-level ND seroprevalence (at least one bird tested had antibodies against ND virus) pooled across all samplings was 15.9% (95% CI 13.5-18.3). A total of 35.3% flocks had a minimum of one bird being ND seropositive at least once over the study period. The bird-level incidence rate for the period between the first and the second sampling and between the second and the third sampling was 5.6 (95% CI 4.1-7.5) and 0.5 (95% CI 0.5-3.8) per 10,000 bird-years-at-risk, respectively. A total of 1134 serum samples from the last sampling period between June and August 2009 was tested for antibodies against AI virus. Only 4 samples tested Influenza A positive, indicating a bird-level seroprevalence level for Influenza A of 0.4% (CI 0.0-0.7%). These Influenza A positive samples were further tested for HI antibodies against AI virus subtypes of H5N1, H5N3, H7N3 and H9N2, but all tested negative, suggesting that the influenza antibodies in those four birds resulted from exposure to low pathogenic AI viruses of different H subtypes. Our results indicate that village chickens in Timor-Lesté are exposed to ND virus; there was a higher risk of infection during the early months of 2009 than either immediately prior or subsequent to this. No evidence of infection of village chickens with H5, H7 or H9 AI viruses was detected in this study.     

Veterinary authorities and animal welfare organizations--is cooperation possible?

Veterinarians and private animal welfare workers both work for the importance of animal welfare in our society. Although both work for a common cause, co-operation and communication between the veterinary administration and animal welfare members is often difficult. This paper will demonstrate the cause of problems between the two bodies and the benefits of co-operation will be assessed. Strategies to optimise the co-operation between the veterinary administration and animal rights organisations will be described using the local district Kleve as an example. Experiences with the animal welfare societies in this region will be illustrated with the aim to show the important supporting possibilities of the animal rights organisations to back the official authorities activities. Also the need to encourage the partly disappointing co-operation between these two bodies with the exchange of information would be beneficial for both bodies.