This document summarizes the outcome of a public consultation on a draft guidance document from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) regarding assessment criteria for studies evaluating the effectiveness of stunning interventions for animal protection during slaughter. EFSA received comments from six parties and has assessed and addressed the comments in finalizing the guidance document. The key comments received concerned specifying additional parameters for characterizing stunning interventions and clarifying certain aspects of the guidance. EFSA and its Animal Health and Welfare Panel have updated the guidance document based on the comments received to improve its comprehensiveness and clarity.
EFSA Guidance on assessment new stunning & slaughter methodsHarm Kiezebrink
This guidance defines the assessment process and the criteria that will be applied by the Animal Health and Welfare Panel to studies on known new or modified legal stunning interventions to determine their suitability for further assessment.
The criteria that need to be fulfilled are eligibility criteria, reporting quality criteria and methodological quality criteria. The eligibility criteria are based upon the legislation and previously published scientific data. They focus on the intervention and the outcomes of interest, i.e. immediate onset of unconsciousness and insensibility or absence of avoidable pain, distress and suffering until the loss of consciousness and sensibility, and duration of the unconsciousness and insensibility (until death).
If a study fulfils the eligibility criteria, it will be assessed regarding a set of reporting quality criteria that are based on the REFLECT and the STROBE statements. As a final step in this first assessment phase, the methodological quality of the submitted study will be assessed. If the criteria regarding eligibility, reporting quality and methodological quality are fulfilled, a full assessment of the animal welfare implications of the proposed alternative stunning intervention, including both pre-stunning and stunning phases, and an evaluation of the quality, strength and external validity of the evidence presented would be carried out at the next level of the assessment.
In the case that the criteria regarding eligibility and reporting quality and methodological quality are not fulfilled, the assessment report of the panel will highlight the shortcomings and indicate where improvements are required before the study can be assessed further. In addition to the assessment criteria, the guidance also specifies general aspects applicable to studies on stunning interventions that should be considered when studying the effectiveness of stunning interventions.
EFSA paper on monitoring procedures at slaughterhousesHarm Kiezebrink
The objective of this review was to summarize the currently available data describing the sensitivity and specificity of indicators of unconsciousness and death in the following stun-kill methods and species combinations:
1) Penetrative captive bolt for bovine animals
2) Head-only electrical stunning for pigs
3) Head-only electrical stunning for sheep and goats
4) Electrical waterbath for poultry (chickens and turkeys)
5) Carbon dioxide at high concentration for pigs
6) All authorized gas methods to slaughter chickens and turkeys (carbon dioxide at high concentration, carbon dioxide in two phases, carbon dioxide associated with inert gases and inert gases alone)
7) Slaughter without stunning for bovine animals
8) Slaughter without stunning for sheep and goats
9) Slaughter without stunning for chickens and turkeys
The reference tests for unconsciousness and death were to have been measured using electroencephalography (EEG). The definition of unconsciousness and death based on EEG were not specified, and the definition used by authors was reported. The index tests of interest were a variety of indicators requested by the funding agency such as no corneal reflex and immediate collapse.
The index tests differed by stun-kill methods and species combination. A comprehensive search identified 22 publications contained 24 species-stun/kill method combinations.
No studies explicitly reported the sensitivity and specificity of the indicators in conscious and unconscious animals. Many studies reported the proportion of stunned animals with indicators, rather than the proportion of unconscious or conscious animals at a set time point with the indicators. Such data could not be translated into sensitivity and specificity.
Other studies reported the average time to occurrence of an indicator or average time to cessation of the indicators. Such data cannot be translated into sensitivity and specificity estimates without knowledge of the joint distributions.
EFSA report on Low Atmoshere Pressure System to stun poultryHarm Kiezebrink
There are two different approaches utilize Nitrogen to stun and kill animals: 1) rendering poultry unconscious - causing Anoxia - by placing poultry in foam filled with >98% Nitrogen (the Anoxia method), and 2) rendering poultry unconscious by gradually reducing oxygen tension in the atmosphere leading to progressive hypoxia in the birds (the LAPS method).
The Anoxia method, using a high concentration of Nitrogen under atmospheric circumstances is permitted under EU 1099/2009. The LAPS method is not permitted in the EU. In order to be allowed in the EU, new stunning methods must ensure a level of welfare at least equivalent to that of the methods already provided in Council Regulation 1099/2009.
The EFSA‟s Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the use of a low atmosphere pressure system (LAPS) for stunning poultry.
Four documents were provided by the European Commission (EC) as the basis for an assessment of the extent to which the LAPS is able to provide a level of animal welfare at least equivalent to that ensured by the current allowed methods for stunning poultry.
The LAPS is described as rendering poultry unconscious by gradually reducing oxygen tension in the atmosphere leading to progressive hypoxia in the birds. In order to be allowed in the EU, new stunning methods must ensure 1) absence of pain, distress and suffering until the onset of unconsciousness, and 2) that the animal remains unconscious until death.
The submitted studies were peer-reviewed by the AHAW Panel as outlined in its “Guidance on the assessment criteria for studies evaluating the effectiveness of stunning intervention regarding animal protection at the time of killing”.
It is unclear from the submitted documents whether the rate of decompression used in LAPS induces unconsciousness and death without causing avoidable pain and suffering in poultry. The assessed studies did not pass the eligibility assessment and, therefore, no further assessment was undertaken.
EFSA AHAW report on monitoring procedures at poultry slaughterhousesHarm Kiezebrink
The EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) was asked to deliver scientific opinions on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for different animal species, stunning methods and slaughter without stunning. AHAW agreed that, although it is traditional to look for outcomes of unconsciousness in poultry following stunning, the risk of poor welfare can be detected better if bird welfare monitoring is focused on detecting consciousness, i.e. ineffective stunning or recovery of consciousness.
Therefore, the indicators were phrased neutrally (e.g. corneal reflex) and the outcomes were phrased either suggesting unconsciousness (e.g. absence of corneal reflex) or suggesting consciousness (e.g. presence of corneal reflex). This approach is commonly used in animal health studies (e.g. testing for the presence of a disease) but very new to animal welfare monitoring in slaughterhouses.
A toolbox of selected indicators is proposed to check for signs of consciousness in poultry after stunning with waterbaths or gas mixtures; a different toolbox of indicators is proposed for confirming death of the birds following slaughter without stunning.
Rabbit farming is a small-scale industry that does not have a major national or international representative organisation in most of the EU countries. Over 76% of the total production in the EU is in Italy, Spain and France, and home production is still widespread. The production of jointed and processed products is increasing rapidly compared with whole carcase sales and rabbit meat consumption, although less than other meats, is still significant in some countries.
EFSA Guidance on assessment new stunning & slaughter methodsHarm Kiezebrink
This guidance defines the assessment process and the criteria that will be applied by the Animal Health and Welfare Panel to studies on known new or modified legal stunning interventions to determine their suitability for further assessment.
The criteria that need to be fulfilled are eligibility criteria, reporting quality criteria and methodological quality criteria. The eligibility criteria are based upon the legislation and previously published scientific data. They focus on the intervention and the outcomes of interest, i.e. immediate onset of unconsciousness and insensibility or absence of avoidable pain, distress and suffering until the loss of consciousness and sensibility, and duration of the unconsciousness and insensibility (until death).
If a study fulfils the eligibility criteria, it will be assessed regarding a set of reporting quality criteria that are based on the REFLECT and the STROBE statements. As a final step in this first assessment phase, the methodological quality of the submitted study will be assessed. If the criteria regarding eligibility, reporting quality and methodological quality are fulfilled, a full assessment of the animal welfare implications of the proposed alternative stunning intervention, including both pre-stunning and stunning phases, and an evaluation of the quality, strength and external validity of the evidence presented would be carried out at the next level of the assessment.
In the case that the criteria regarding eligibility and reporting quality and methodological quality are not fulfilled, the assessment report of the panel will highlight the shortcomings and indicate where improvements are required before the study can be assessed further. In addition to the assessment criteria, the guidance also specifies general aspects applicable to studies on stunning interventions that should be considered when studying the effectiveness of stunning interventions.
EFSA paper on monitoring procedures at slaughterhousesHarm Kiezebrink
The objective of this review was to summarize the currently available data describing the sensitivity and specificity of indicators of unconsciousness and death in the following stun-kill methods and species combinations:
1) Penetrative captive bolt for bovine animals
2) Head-only electrical stunning for pigs
3) Head-only electrical stunning for sheep and goats
4) Electrical waterbath for poultry (chickens and turkeys)
5) Carbon dioxide at high concentration for pigs
6) All authorized gas methods to slaughter chickens and turkeys (carbon dioxide at high concentration, carbon dioxide in two phases, carbon dioxide associated with inert gases and inert gases alone)
7) Slaughter without stunning for bovine animals
8) Slaughter without stunning for sheep and goats
9) Slaughter without stunning for chickens and turkeys
The reference tests for unconsciousness and death were to have been measured using electroencephalography (EEG). The definition of unconsciousness and death based on EEG were not specified, and the definition used by authors was reported. The index tests of interest were a variety of indicators requested by the funding agency such as no corneal reflex and immediate collapse.
The index tests differed by stun-kill methods and species combination. A comprehensive search identified 22 publications contained 24 species-stun/kill method combinations.
No studies explicitly reported the sensitivity and specificity of the indicators in conscious and unconscious animals. Many studies reported the proportion of stunned animals with indicators, rather than the proportion of unconscious or conscious animals at a set time point with the indicators. Such data could not be translated into sensitivity and specificity.
Other studies reported the average time to occurrence of an indicator or average time to cessation of the indicators. Such data cannot be translated into sensitivity and specificity estimates without knowledge of the joint distributions.
EFSA report on Low Atmoshere Pressure System to stun poultryHarm Kiezebrink
There are two different approaches utilize Nitrogen to stun and kill animals: 1) rendering poultry unconscious - causing Anoxia - by placing poultry in foam filled with >98% Nitrogen (the Anoxia method), and 2) rendering poultry unconscious by gradually reducing oxygen tension in the atmosphere leading to progressive hypoxia in the birds (the LAPS method).
The Anoxia method, using a high concentration of Nitrogen under atmospheric circumstances is permitted under EU 1099/2009. The LAPS method is not permitted in the EU. In order to be allowed in the EU, new stunning methods must ensure a level of welfare at least equivalent to that of the methods already provided in Council Regulation 1099/2009.
The EFSA‟s Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the use of a low atmosphere pressure system (LAPS) for stunning poultry.
Four documents were provided by the European Commission (EC) as the basis for an assessment of the extent to which the LAPS is able to provide a level of animal welfare at least equivalent to that ensured by the current allowed methods for stunning poultry.
The LAPS is described as rendering poultry unconscious by gradually reducing oxygen tension in the atmosphere leading to progressive hypoxia in the birds. In order to be allowed in the EU, new stunning methods must ensure 1) absence of pain, distress and suffering until the onset of unconsciousness, and 2) that the animal remains unconscious until death.
The submitted studies were peer-reviewed by the AHAW Panel as outlined in its “Guidance on the assessment criteria for studies evaluating the effectiveness of stunning intervention regarding animal protection at the time of killing”.
It is unclear from the submitted documents whether the rate of decompression used in LAPS induces unconsciousness and death without causing avoidable pain and suffering in poultry. The assessed studies did not pass the eligibility assessment and, therefore, no further assessment was undertaken.
EFSA AHAW report on monitoring procedures at poultry slaughterhousesHarm Kiezebrink
The EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) was asked to deliver scientific opinions on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for different animal species, stunning methods and slaughter without stunning. AHAW agreed that, although it is traditional to look for outcomes of unconsciousness in poultry following stunning, the risk of poor welfare can be detected better if bird welfare monitoring is focused on detecting consciousness, i.e. ineffective stunning or recovery of consciousness.
Therefore, the indicators were phrased neutrally (e.g. corneal reflex) and the outcomes were phrased either suggesting unconsciousness (e.g. absence of corneal reflex) or suggesting consciousness (e.g. presence of corneal reflex). This approach is commonly used in animal health studies (e.g. testing for the presence of a disease) but very new to animal welfare monitoring in slaughterhouses.
A toolbox of selected indicators is proposed to check for signs of consciousness in poultry after stunning with waterbaths or gas mixtures; a different toolbox of indicators is proposed for confirming death of the birds following slaughter without stunning.
Rabbit farming is a small-scale industry that does not have a major national or international representative organisation in most of the EU countries. Over 76% of the total production in the EU is in Italy, Spain and France, and home production is still widespread. The production of jointed and processed products is increasing rapidly compared with whole carcase sales and rabbit meat consumption, although less than other meats, is still significant in some countries.
Meeting the Global Challenge - A Guide to Assessing the Safety of Cosmetics w...v2zq
Meeting the Global Challenge - A Guide to Assessing the Safety of Cosmetics without Using Animals - Resources for Healthy Children www.scribd.com/doc/254613619 - For more information, Please see Organic Edible Schoolyards & Gardening with Children www.scribd.com/doc/254613963 - Gardening with Volcanic Rock Dust www.scribd.com/doc/254613846 - Double Food Production from your School Garden with Organic Tech www.scribd.com/doc/254613765 - Free School Gardening Art Posters www.scribd.com/doc/254613694 - Increase Food Production with Companion Planting in your School Garden www.scribd.com/doc/254609890 - Healthy Foods Dramatically Improves Student Academic Success www.scribd.com/doc/254613619 - City Chickens for your Organic School Garden www.scribd.com/doc/254613553 - Huerto Ecológico, Tecnologías Sostenibles, Agricultura Organica www.scribd.com/doc/254613494 - Simple Square Foot Gardening for Schools - Teacher Guide www.scribd.com/doc/254613410 - Free Organic Gardening Publications www.scribd.com/doc/254609890 ~chemicalwatch.com/
Highlights on the EFSA Opinion on the appropriate age range for introduction ...EFSA EU
FENS 2019 - Dublin
Highlights on the EFSA Scientific Opinion on the appropriate age range for introduction of complementary feeding into an infant's diet, Prof M Fewtrell
Perceptions and practices related to pork production chain in Hung Yen provin...ILRI
Presented by Sinh Dang-Xuan, Hung Nguyen-Viet, Huong Thanh Nguyen, Reinhard Fries, Tongkorn Meeyam and Fred Unger at the 4th Food Safety and Zoonoses Symposium for Asia Pacific and 2nd Regional EcoHealth Symposium, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 3-5 August 2015.
EU REACH regulation changed the way to do chemical risk assessment. All chemicals marketed or manufactured in the EU must have its own dossier. Non standard methods including alternatives to animal testing are accepted.
Half Italian, half English
Describes in detail definition, purpose, participants and goal of good clinical practices (GCP). Gives history of GCP staring form Nuremberg code in 1948 to implementation of GCP guidance via WHO handbook in 2005. Also describes Nuremberg's code, declaration of Helsinki and Thirteen principles of GCP.
Endoparasites in pigs raised in smallholder farms in Hung Yen province of Vie...ILRI
Poster prepared by Duong Van Nhiem, Pham Hong Ngan, Vu Thi Thu Tra, Dinh Phuong Nam and Fred Unger presented for the 4th Food Safety and Zoonoses Symposium for Asia Pacific and 2nd Regional EcoHealth Symposium, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 3-5 August 2015.
The guidelines describe about the subacute toxicity studies in rodents with a comparison with the previous guideline.it also includes the comparison of all three subacute toxicity studies OECD 407, OECD 410, and OECD 412
EFSA Scientific report on animal health and welfare aspects of Avian InfluenzaHarm Kiezebrink
In 2005 the Eurpean Commission asks the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to review 2000 and 2003 scientific pinions (SCAHAW, 2000 and 2003) on avian influenza in the light of more recent scientific data.
The EFSA scientific opinion should in particular describe:
1. an assessment of the risk of the introduction, and possible secondary spread, of LPAI and HPAI into the EU via different commodities, such as live poultry, ornamental birds, hatching eggs, table eggs, fresh poultry and other poultry products. In addition the scientific opinion should describe the risk factors for disease introduction into poultry holdings and surveillance tools and procedures available for early detection of AI in poultry holdings in relation to those risks;
2. the role of “backyard” poultry flocks in the epidemiology of avian influenza and available disease control tools for this specific population;
3. the risk of disease transmission between certain avian species in particular with respect to pigeons and anseriformes;
4. the risk of virus persistence in poultry manure and farm waste and a description of the possible inactivation and disinfection procedures that could be applied to these materials;
5. the animal welfare aspects of avian influenza including the implications of the different control strategies.
The relevance of the farming community regarding zoonosesHarm Kiezebrink
During the EFSA’s Stakeholder Consultative meeting in Parma on Wednesday 29th and Thursday 30th June 2011, EFS interacted with the stakeholders on EFSA’s scientific activities and the outlook of the future activities involving the stakeholders. During the meeting Annette TOFT presented the opinion of the European farmers and agricultural cooperatives COPA – COGECA stressing the relevance of zoonoses questions to farmers and agri - cooperatives activities.
Meeting the Global Challenge - A Guide to Assessing the Safety of Cosmetics w...v2zq
Meeting the Global Challenge - A Guide to Assessing the Safety of Cosmetics without Using Animals - Resources for Healthy Children www.scribd.com/doc/254613619 - For more information, Please see Organic Edible Schoolyards & Gardening with Children www.scribd.com/doc/254613963 - Gardening with Volcanic Rock Dust www.scribd.com/doc/254613846 - Double Food Production from your School Garden with Organic Tech www.scribd.com/doc/254613765 - Free School Gardening Art Posters www.scribd.com/doc/254613694 - Increase Food Production with Companion Planting in your School Garden www.scribd.com/doc/254609890 - Healthy Foods Dramatically Improves Student Academic Success www.scribd.com/doc/254613619 - City Chickens for your Organic School Garden www.scribd.com/doc/254613553 - Huerto Ecológico, Tecnologías Sostenibles, Agricultura Organica www.scribd.com/doc/254613494 - Simple Square Foot Gardening for Schools - Teacher Guide www.scribd.com/doc/254613410 - Free Organic Gardening Publications www.scribd.com/doc/254609890 ~chemicalwatch.com/
Highlights on the EFSA Opinion on the appropriate age range for introduction ...EFSA EU
FENS 2019 - Dublin
Highlights on the EFSA Scientific Opinion on the appropriate age range for introduction of complementary feeding into an infant's diet, Prof M Fewtrell
Perceptions and practices related to pork production chain in Hung Yen provin...ILRI
Presented by Sinh Dang-Xuan, Hung Nguyen-Viet, Huong Thanh Nguyen, Reinhard Fries, Tongkorn Meeyam and Fred Unger at the 4th Food Safety and Zoonoses Symposium for Asia Pacific and 2nd Regional EcoHealth Symposium, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 3-5 August 2015.
EU REACH regulation changed the way to do chemical risk assessment. All chemicals marketed or manufactured in the EU must have its own dossier. Non standard methods including alternatives to animal testing are accepted.
Half Italian, half English
Describes in detail definition, purpose, participants and goal of good clinical practices (GCP). Gives history of GCP staring form Nuremberg code in 1948 to implementation of GCP guidance via WHO handbook in 2005. Also describes Nuremberg's code, declaration of Helsinki and Thirteen principles of GCP.
Endoparasites in pigs raised in smallholder farms in Hung Yen province of Vie...ILRI
Poster prepared by Duong Van Nhiem, Pham Hong Ngan, Vu Thi Thu Tra, Dinh Phuong Nam and Fred Unger presented for the 4th Food Safety and Zoonoses Symposium for Asia Pacific and 2nd Regional EcoHealth Symposium, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 3-5 August 2015.
The guidelines describe about the subacute toxicity studies in rodents with a comparison with the previous guideline.it also includes the comparison of all three subacute toxicity studies OECD 407, OECD 410, and OECD 412
EFSA Scientific report on animal health and welfare aspects of Avian InfluenzaHarm Kiezebrink
In 2005 the Eurpean Commission asks the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to review 2000 and 2003 scientific pinions (SCAHAW, 2000 and 2003) on avian influenza in the light of more recent scientific data.
The EFSA scientific opinion should in particular describe:
1. an assessment of the risk of the introduction, and possible secondary spread, of LPAI and HPAI into the EU via different commodities, such as live poultry, ornamental birds, hatching eggs, table eggs, fresh poultry and other poultry products. In addition the scientific opinion should describe the risk factors for disease introduction into poultry holdings and surveillance tools and procedures available for early detection of AI in poultry holdings in relation to those risks;
2. the role of “backyard” poultry flocks in the epidemiology of avian influenza and available disease control tools for this specific population;
3. the risk of disease transmission between certain avian species in particular with respect to pigeons and anseriformes;
4. the risk of virus persistence in poultry manure and farm waste and a description of the possible inactivation and disinfection procedures that could be applied to these materials;
5. the animal welfare aspects of avian influenza including the implications of the different control strategies.
The relevance of the farming community regarding zoonosesHarm Kiezebrink
During the EFSA’s Stakeholder Consultative meeting in Parma on Wednesday 29th and Thursday 30th June 2011, EFS interacted with the stakeholders on EFSA’s scientific activities and the outlook of the future activities involving the stakeholders. During the meeting Annette TOFT presented the opinion of the European farmers and agricultural cooperatives COPA – COGECA stressing the relevance of zoonoses questions to farmers and agri - cooperatives activities.
Final DG SANCO study on various methods of stunning for poultryHarm Kiezebrink
DG SANCO study on the various methods of stunning poultry
The purpose of the study(published December 2012) was to investigate the scale of the use of multiple-bird water bath stunners, the possible alternatives and their respective socio-economic and environmental impacts. Additionally, the study had to examine if phasing out the use of water bath stunning as recommended by EFSA is a feasible option and, if so, under which terms.
It is estimated that there are around 5,300 commercial slaughterhouses in the EU, the majority of which are found in France. Where available, data on slaughterhouse capacity suggest significant differences between Member States in terms of individual capacity. This is reflected by the concentration of slaughterhouse sectors within Member States with a highly concentrated sector in some Member States such as Germany, the Netherlands and Italy and a less concentrated sector in other Member States such as Spain, Poland and Hungary. EU slaughterhouses slaughtered around 5.81 billion broiler chickens and had an estimated economic output between €30.6 to €32.5 billion in 2011.
It was estimated that some 16,000 staff handle live birds across the EU at present. Approximately half of these work in Member States where formal training is required by national law. Just under half work in Member States where there are no formal training requirements, though it is probable that on the job training is provided in some of these Member States.
The majority of poultry in the EU is stunned using multiple bird waterbaths. More precisely:
• 81% of broilers are stunned using waterbaths; 9% using CAS
• 83% of end of lay hens are stunned using waterbaths; 7% using CAS
• 61% of parent stock using waterbaths, and 37% using CAS
• 76% of turkeys are stunned using waterbaths, and 24% using CAS.
The most important driver behind the choice of stunning system is installation and running cost, which is cheapest for waterbath systems. Product quality and revenue is also important with certain stunning systems providing quality advantages for specific end markets which often result in higher revenue, for example for breast fillets resulting from CAS stunning.
A complete mandatory ban on waterbaths was considered difficult. There would be positive aspects of a ban; from a political perspective, it would bring the industry into line with the 2004 recommendation of EFSA, and in social terms there would be a positive impact on animal welfare.
However, there were considered to be significant potential negative impacts and problems. Mandatory phasing out would have strong economic impacts on operators, and these would be accentuated for smaller slaughterhouses due to the technological issue of the current lack of commercial alternatives to waterbath stunning systems.
Death caused by hyperthermia. This questionable method has been developed as a last resort option in case of a large-scale outbreak of High Pathogen Avian Influenza in the UK. Even in EU Regulation EU 1099/2009 there is room for countries to use this kind of methods, when compliance is likely to affect human health or significantly slow down the process of eradication of a disease. (EU 1099/2009; article 18, under 3).
Hyperthermia means that the cause of death is overheating the shed of the birds. The normal core body (CB) temperature of a bird must remain within a narrow range around a mean value of 41.4°C if its welfare is to be safeguarded.
If the core body temperature rises above 45°C most poultry will die quickly. To ensure VSD is effective the temperature in the house must rise to 40°C or greater and remain at that level. Maintaining a relative humidity of at least 75% will help speed the onset of death through hyperthermia.
This DEFRA document provides procedures and instructions on using Ventilation Shutdown (VSD) as an emergency method of killing of poultry for disease control purposes.
Op 5 Juli 2014 werd het langverwachte Besluit Houders van Dieren in de Nederlandse Staatscourant gepubliseerd. Deze nieuwe wetgeving regelt onder andere het dierenwelzijn op productiebedrijven en is op 22 Augustus 2014 definitief van kracht geworden.
In het besluit zijn de Europese bepalingen overgenomen die zijn vervat in Europese Verordening EU 1099/2009. Het regelt onder meer het doden van wrakke of zieke productie dieren die op het landbouwbedrijf noodzakelijk gedood worden omdat ze hun economische waarde hebben verloren en/of uit hun lijden moeten worden verlost.
De Europese verordening voorziet bepalingen die een einde maakt aan de gebruikelijke praktijk om pluimvee door middel van handmatig breken van de nek te doden. Deze methode mag met ingang van het Besluit Houders van Dieren uitluitend nog toegepast worden als backup systeem. Iedere pluimveehouder is gehouden om een een standaard protocol te ontwikkelen en het personeel te trainen in het doden van pluimvee op het bedrijf.
Ventilation Shutdown: who takes the responsibility to flip the switch?Harm Kiezebrink
On September 18, 2015 the USA Government and the American egg producers announced that they would accept the Ventilation shutdown method as a method of mass destruction of poultry when other options, notably water-based foam and CO2, are not available for culling at the farm within 24-36 hours. This is actually the case on all caged layer farms in the USA, in particular in Iowa.
The Ventilation shutdown method consists of stopping ventilation, cutting off drinking water supply, and turning on heaters to raise the temperature in the poultry house to a level between 38 Celsius and 50 Celsius. Birds die of heat stress and by lack of oxygen in a process that easily takes over after a period of at least 3 days. Ventilation shutdown is a killing method without prior stunning of the birds, and as such is contrary to all international Animal Welfare standards.
Animal welfare specialists in disease control strongly oppose this introduction of the cruelest method of killing poultry that lost their economic value. The Humane Society (HSUS) described it as the “inhumane mass baking of live chickens”. With adequate preparation the alternative methods, like the water-based Anoxia foam method, can be available at each farm for immediate use in case of an outbreak. The ban of the Ventilation shutdown method should therefore be maintained and the Anoxia method should be further developed so that is suitable for application to caged layers and turkeys. In Germany, such a system is currently under development and will become commercially available soon.
The poultry industry in the USA ignores this development and asks for a formal approval of the Ventilation Shutdown method. Speaking on August 19, 2015, during the United Egg Producers (UEP) national briefing webinar, UEP President Chad Gregory explained that much research is being done concerning the feasibility of such a depopulation program.
“The government, the producers, the states and UEP, we all recognize that depopulation is going to have to happen faster and ideally within 24 hours.”
Quick depopulation of affected flocks is important, Gregory said, because the sooner a flock is depopulated, the risk of the virus going into fans and out into the atmosphere becomes smaller. Gregory said ventilation shutdown – if approved – would probably only be used in a worst-case scenario or when all other euthanasia options have been exhausted. Gregory did not elaborate on how to adequately prevent outbreaks and how to promote more animal-friendly methods.
Historical overview of male day-old chicks as animal feedHarm Kiezebrink
In 2013, more than 150 million chicks per year, male day-old chicks are used as high quality and nutritious ingredient on the diet of hundreds of species of wild animals that are held in zoos and breading centers.
In the past 30 years, the use of day-old chicks have been changed, from animal waste to high-end food for birds of pray, cranes and other animals living in zoos and fauna parks around the world. This change has become possible first, after the introduction of techniques to kill the animals without unnecessary stress or pain.
With the use of technology and daring to think out of the box and the entrepreneurial courage of only a view, the majority of all male day-old chicks that are produced in Europe are now being treated with respect during slaughter, completely in line with the EU directives EU 1099/2009 and EU 1069/2009.
Influenza in birds is caused by infection with viruses of the family Orthomyxoviridae placed in the genus influenza virus A. Influenza A viruses are the only orthomyxoviruses known to naturally affect birds. Many species of birds have been shown to be susceptible to infection with influenza A viruses; aquatic birds form a major reservoir of these viruses, and the overwhelming majority of isolates have been of low pathogenicity (low virulence) for chickens and turkeys. Influenza A viruses have antigenically related nucleocapsid and matrix proteins, but are classified into subtypes on the basis of their haemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N) antigens (World Health Organization Expert Committee, 1980). At present, 16 H subtypes (H1–H16) and 9 N subtypes (N1–N9) are recognised with proposed new subtypes (H17, H18) for influenza A viruses from bats in Guatemala (Swayne et al., 2013; Tong et al., 2012; 2013). To date, naturally occurring highly pathogenic influenza A viruses that produce acute clinical disease in chickens, turkeys and other birds of economic importance have been associated only with the H5 and H7 subtypes. Most viruses of the H5 and H7 subtype isolated from birds have been of low pathogenicity for poultry. As there is the risk of a H5 or H7 virus of low pathogenicity (H5/H7 low pathogenicity avian influenza [LPAI]) becoming highly pathogenic by mutation, all H5/H7 LPAI viruses from poultry are notifiable to OIE. In addition, all high pathogenicity viruses from poultry and other birds, including wild birds, are notifiable to the OIE.
World Health Organization director- general Margaret Chan Fung Fu-chun warns bird flu H7N9 is particularly worrying as it could be a flu pandemic strain. This is because H7N9 is unique as it does not make chickens sick but is deadly in humans. Sick birds could usually provide early warning for imminent outbreaks, Chan told The Standard. This comes as Macau reported its first human case of H7N9 yesterday. "The biggest challenge for the world is the next influenza pandemic," Chan said.
The Anoxia technique is developed as alternative for existing animal stunning methods that are based on the use of CO2, electrocution, neck dislocation, captive-bolt, as well as killing methods like de-bleeding and maceration.
In the past 10 years, Wageningen University and University of Glasgow conducted several studies that proved that the technique could be applied successfully for culling poultry (Proof of Principle Anoxia Technique). This was the start of the development of several applications based on the Anoxia principle, using high expansion foam filled with >99% Nitrogen that are now introduced for:
1. Stunning and killing of sick and cripple killing piglets less than 5 kg
2. Stunning and killing of sick or cripple poultry (especially poultry > 3kg) who need to be killed on the farm by the staff for welfare purposes (avoiding unnecessary stress or pain)
3. Stunning and killing poultry that arrives on the slaughterhouse but that are unfit to be slaughtered (due to injuries occurred during transportation – providing signs of possible illness etc.)
4. Stunning and killing of male pullets at the hatchery
5. Stunning and killing of half-hatched chickens and embryos in partly-hatched eggs, before destruction
6. Stunning and killing parent stock poultry
7. Killing of animals that has been stunned (captive bolt – blow-on-the-head method, etc.) replacing killing by de-bleeding
8. Culling of ex-layers
9. Culling of poultry for disease control purposes
Last November we started the launch of the commercialization of the Anoxia applications in Holland, Germany and Sweden, focusing on the areas where a solution is most needed: piglets (< 5kg) and poultry (> 3kg) on farms.
Since November 2016, the introduction of these applications took place in Holland, Germany, Sweden and Denmark
One World - One Health presentation Katinka de Balogh FAOHarm Kiezebrink
During the FVE conference in Brussels on April 7, 2014, Katinka de Balogh, leader the global Veterinary Public Health activities of the FAO, presented the One-Health approach to highlight the importance of prevention, ensuring health and welfare of people and animals in a globalized environment:
• The benefit coming from the implementation of good health management in practice, both in terms of health and welfare, as well as, of financial sustainability
• The importance of coordinating actions in both sectors via a One-Health approach, with a particular focus on zoonotic diseases
• The role of the medical and veterinary profession in assuring these matters and educating the society
Katinka de Balogh is of Dutch and Hungarian origins and grew up in Latin-America. She studied veterinary medicine in Berlin and Munich and graduated and obtained her doctorate in tropical parasitology from the Tropical Institute of the University of Munich in 1984. In the late 80’s she had spent two years as a young professional at the Veterinary Public Health Unit of the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva. In 2002 she started working at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in Rome.
Anoxia: High expansion foam
The Anoxia method is unique for creating an environment without oxygen under atmospheric circumstances. High expansion foam is produced by mixing nitrogen and a mixture of water and specially developed high expansion detergent, with an expansion rate upto 1:1000, meaning that 1 litre of water/foam agent mix expands up to 1 m3 foam. Due to the specially designed foam generator, the high expansion foam bubbles are filled with a > 99% concentration of nitrogen. The oxygen level surrounding the animal drops from 21% in atmospheric air to < 1 % once the animal is submerged in the foam.
Anoxia: convulsions, but no stress or pain
The animals need a constant supply of oxygen to the brain. Applying Anoxia foam, the oxygen is replaced by nitrogen. As a result the nitrogen level is raised to > 99% and the oxygen level is lowered to < 1%. Considering the natural reaction to sudden lack of oxygen the animal is rendering quickly into unconsciousness. As a consequence, behavioral indicators like loss of posture and convulsions will appear. With this in mind, unconscious animals are insensitive to perceive unpleasant sensations like pain.
Anoxia: How Anoxia foam is created
A mixture of 97% water and 3% high expansion foam agent is sprayed into the Anoxia foam generator, creating a thin film on the outlet of the generator. At the same time, nitrogen is added with overpressure into the foam generator. The nitrogen expands when it exits the generator, creating robust high expansion foam. The high expansion foam bubbles are filled with > 99% nitrogen.
Anoxia: Single foam generator systems
In practice, one Anoxia foam generator creates a volume of up to 750 liter of high expansion foam per minute. This volume is more than sufficient to fill a wheelie-bin container within 30 seconds. The most common container volumes are: M size - 240 liter; L size - 340 liter; and XL size - 370 liter. The choice of the volume of the container depends of the size of the animal and/or the number of animals that need to be stunned/killed. A lid with a chiffon that seals the container. As soon as the foam exits the chiffon, the gas supply is stopped and the chiffon is closed. The nitrogen gas concentration in the container remains at 99%.
Although commonly used in other settings, defining animal welfare as part of a corporate CSR setting is not new.
There are many ways to define CSR. What they have in common is that CSR describes how companies manage their business processes to produce an overall positive impact on society. The phenomenon CSR is a value concept that is susceptible to particular ideological and emotional interpretations. Different organizations have framed different definitions - although there is considerable common ground between them.
Some important national players of the food chain at different steps (mainly food retailers and food services) have included animal welfare in their CSR.
Guideline on setting health based exposure limits for use in risk identification in the manufacture of different medicinal products in shared facilities
R3-Nordic, the Nordic Society of Cleanroom Technology, is a non-profit, independent association for the promotion of new technologies in cleanroom technology and contamination control in the Nordic countries. The aim of the annual R3Nordic Symposium is to provide knowledge within the pharmaceutical, food and electronic industries as well as hospitals and hospital pharmacies. This year the sessions at the 45th R3Nordic Symposium are Pharma, Hospital and General Sessions and the presentations deal with construction and design, planning, auditing, contamination control, cleanroom technology and management, sterilization techniques, cleaning of clean rooms, protective clothing, monitoring techniques, rapid test methods and regulations in clean and controlled rooms. The venue of the annual symposium 2014 is Naantali Spa in Naantali. The persons involved in the Programme Committee are Satu Salo, Kari Leonsaari, Leila Kakko, Sirkka Malmioja, Antti Mikkola, Raimo Pärssinen and Gun Wirtanen. The editors of the proceedings would like to express their gratitude to the speakers for preparing the abstracts published in the journal Renhetsteknik 1/14 as well as the extended abstracts or full papers published in these electronic proceedings.
Introduction
Historical background
Sections
Principles
Ethics committee
Responsibilities of sponsor, investigator and monitor
Investigator brochure
Informed consent process
The International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines provide internationally recognized standards for the design, conduct, monitoring, recording, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials involving human subjects. These guidelines aim to ensure that the rights, safety, and well-being of trial participants are protected and that the clinical trial data generated is credible and reliable.
Key components of the ICH-GCP guidelines include:
Investigator Responsibilities: The guidelines define the responsibilities of the investigator, who is typically a qualified physician overseeing the conduct of the trial at a study site. This includes ensuring that the trial is conducted in compliance with the protocol, maintaining the confidentiality of participant data, and reporting adverse events and other relevant information promptly.
Ethics Committee/Institutional Review Board (IRB) Oversight: The guidelines stress the importance of independent ethics committees or IRBs in reviewing and approving the trial protocol, providing ongoing oversight, and protecting the rights and well-being of trial participants.
Informed Consent: The guidelines emphasize the importance of obtaining informed consent from each trial participant. Informed consent is a process that involves providing participants with relevant information about the trial, its purpose, potential risks and benefits, and any alternative treatments, enabling them to make an informed decision about participation.
Safety Reporting: The guidelines outline procedures for monitoring and reporting adverse events and any other safety concerns that arise during the course of the trial. Safety reporting ensures that potential risks to participants are identified and communicated appropriately.
Data Integrity: The guidelines emphasize the need for accurate and reliable data collection, recording, and reporting. This includes maintaining source documents and case report forms, as well as implementing data quality control measures.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control: The guidelines highlight the importance of quality assurance and quality control measures to ensure that the trial is conducted in compliance with the protocol, applicable regulations, and Good Clinical Practice.
Monitoring of Clinical Trials: The guidelines stress the need for systematic monitoring of the trial's progress to ensure that it is conducted in compliance with the protocol, applicable regulations, and Good Clinical Practice. Monitoring activities may include on-site visits, source data verification, and assessment of trial conduct.
..
Overall, the ICH-GCP guidelines provide a framework for the ethical and scientific conduct o
Low Atmospheric Pressure Stunning is not a humane alternative to Carbon Dioxi...Harm Kiezebrink
I would like express gratitude to the HSA for their 20 years of tireless advocacy for improving pigs' welfare. Their efforts have empowered those seeking alternatives to carbon dioxide stunning. Over nearly 30 years, I've worked on animal welfare friendly stunning applications, particularly regarding stunning/slaughtering using nitrogen foam, and I believe I've found the definitive answer.
The industry originally adopted large-scale carbon dioxide stunning to optimize food production, reduce costs, and lower meat prices, which is only feasible with parallel processing (simultaneously stunning groups of pigs) rather than serial processing (stunning each pig individually). Electrocution is not viable for large-scale operations due to this need for parallel processing. Therefore, a replacement gas that lacks carbon dioxide's detrimental properties is needed, but only a few gases are suitable.
Additionally, the application of an alternative gas must adhere to several fundamental principles:
a) Applicability of the methods for stunning and killing pigs, including their scalability for large-scale application.
b) Description of the technical.
c) Animal welfare consequences associated with specific techniques, including welfare hazards (ABMs), animal-based indicators (ABIs), preventive and corrective measures, and the sufficiency of scientific literature in describing these consequences.
d) Applicability under field conditions.
Introducing a novel application for large-scale pig slaughter is complex and time-consuming before it can be expected, especially given the substantial economic and financial impact for the industry. However, there is hope on the horizon.
The alternative gas is nitrogen, and the application is based on using high-expansion foam filled with 100% nitrogen, applied in a closed container. Within a minute, all air is displaced by the foam, after which the container is sealed, and the foam is broken down with a powerful nitrogen pulse. This ensures that the foam does not affect the stunning process; the entire process can be visually and electronically monitored, and the residual oxygen level in the container is consistently below 2%. The container dimensions are identical to the gondolas used in the globally implemented carbon dioxide gondola system.
The integration of nitrogen foam technology into European regulation EU1099/2009 is nearing completion. All scientific and technical procedures have been submitted to the EU Commission, with finalization awaiting the presentation of EFSA's scientific opinion to the Commission and subsequent approval for inclusion. This final phase is anticipated to occur during the general meeting slated for June 2024.
This marks the first step toward replacing carbon dioxide in 25 years. Fingers crossed for the EU Commission's decision in June 2024!
Harm Kiezebrink
Independent Expert
Preventief ruimen bij vogelgriep in pluimveedichte gebieden en mogelijkheden ...Harm Kiezebrink
New Risk assessment model
The applications designed for farrow-to-weaner pig farms rely on a novel risk assessment model. This model, developed from a recent study, indicates that the likelihood of an undetected infection on nearby farms notably diminishes 7 to 14 days following the identification of the source farm.
This risk assessment model is based a Dutch study that is published by T.J. Hagenaars et al on June 30, 2023: “Preventief ruimen bij vogelgriep in pluimveedichte gebieden en mogelijkheden voor aanvullende bemonstering” (Preventive culling in areas densely populated with poultry, and possibilities for additional sampling).
According to this premise, instead of the standard depopulation approach of euthanizing pigs on-site, pigs beyond the immediate vicinity of infected farms are slaughtered.
Animal Health Canada is currently evaluating new strategies and technologies for managing large-scale emergency situations involving pigs. I have been actively involved in developing strategies and procedures aimed at implementing strict control measures for pig euthanasia during emergencies, with a focus on substantially reducing costs by avoiding unnecessary culling and destruction of healthy animals.
Opting for slaughtering over on-farm euthanasia not only reduces the operational burden on farms but also repurposes the pigs as a valuable protein source rather than considering them as animal waste. This approach assists in crisis management during widespread outbreaks, significantly reduces expenses, and simultaneously mitigates risks.
While this approach is influenced by the new EU regulations implemented since May 2022, it can be adapted for implementation within the context of any EU Member state, as well as in the USA and Canada.
Managing large-scale outbreaks at Farrow-to-Weaner FarmsHarm Kiezebrink
In the face of large-scale outbreaks of swine Influenza A Virus (swIAV), there's a call for exploring various strategies conducive to managing emergencies in field conditions.
Through subdivision, a customized approach can be embraced to enhance operational efficiency and effectiveness while mitigating the impact on individual farms. This tactic maximizes emergency deployment capacity and streamlines standard procedures. Moreover, leveraging the existing capacity of farming aids in alleviating scrutiny on animal welfare standards, presenting a notable advantage.
Nitrogen filled high expansion foam in open ContainersHarm Kiezebrink
On March 31, 2023 the US National Pork Board validated a study by Todd Williams, of Pipestone Veterinary Services, based on the use of high expansion nitrogen foam for the large-scale depopulation of all classes of swine, utilizing Livetec Systems Nitrogen Foam Delivery System (NFDS).
The high expansion foam produced by the Livetec Systems NFDS surrounds the animal in large bubbles filled with nitrogen with a base expansion ration of between 300 and 350 to 1, as mentioned on the information provided by the producer of the firefighting foam.
The Livetec technology, based on using Compressed Air Foam (CAF) filled with nitrogen instead of air for depopulating pigs, emerges within a critical landscape. The complexities of implementing effective emergency depopulation strategies for livestock, particularly swine, present multifaceted challenges. Livetec's approach relies on high expansion firefighting foam, aiming to euthanize pigs by submerging them in foam.
The Livetec system's claims about the effectiveness of nitrogen-filled high expansion foam for depopulating market pigs lack substantial evidence upon analysis. The discrepancy between the actual foam produced during field trials and the promised high expansion foam, coupled with the absence of concrete proof supporting the method's efficacy, discredits the technology's claims.
World bank evaluating the economic consequences of avian influenzaHarm Kiezebrink
Pandemics cause very serious loss of life, restrictions of freedom and serious economic damage. Potential pandemics all are related to our dealing with animals, both wild and domesticated.
In this Word Bank study of 2006, the effects of a severe HPAI pandemic (with a highly pathogenic avian influenza virus crossing the species barrier and infecting humans) predicted economic losses from 2-10% of the world economy.
The economic impact of the present COVID-19 crisis, caused by the SARS-CoV2 virus spreading from wild animals to humans, probably will reach the upper limits of this prediction even if the losses of life might be near the lower limits mentioned in the report (1,4 millions rather than 71 millions).
A common observation is that governments were late to react on the COVID-19 outbreak.
Pandemics are rare, so due to cost-benefit considerations emergency preparations do usually not get beyond an advisory (paperwork) phase. When an emergency eventually arises, the response is too late, too little, and with disastrous effects on animal and/or human welfare that could have been avoided. Relatively small, short-term financial savings result in big, long-term losses.
Protection against outbreaks cannot be achieved by political decisions during a crisis. Our dealing with animals, especially in animal production, must be inherently safe so that animal health and public health are protected.
This is recognized in the One Health strategy that has been adopted internationally.
An outbreak of animal disease occurs should be contained at a very early stage. This can only be realized if all farms have their own emergency plans, with equipment to deal with contagious diseases already present at the farm.
Gas alternatives to carbon dioxide for euthanasia a piglet perspectiveHarm Kiezebrink
The use of nitrous oxide as an anesthetic/euthanasia agent may prove to be affordable, feasible and more humane than other alternatives.
The neonatal stage is a critical time in the life of a pig, when they are prone to become sick or weak. This is the stage at which most euthanasia procedures are required if the pig is judged unable to recover. Any euthanasia method should be humane, practical, economical and socially acceptable to be universally accepted.
They found that nitrous oxide in oxygen appeared to be less aversive than nitrous oxide, nitrogen, or argon all combined with low (30%) concentrations of carbon dioxide or 90% carbon dioxide by itself.
This study is the first to investigate the use of nitrous oxide at sufficiently high concentrations to cause anesthesia. Nitrous oxide, commonly referred to as laughing gas, has been widely used in human surgery and dental offices for its pain-relieving, sedative and anxiolytic effects. It is cheap, non-flammable, non-explosive, legally accessible and not classified as a drug in the U.S., and already commonly used in the food industry as a propellant for food products.
Development of its use into an automated procedure will allow producers to implement it with little effort. Thus its use as an anesthetic/euthanasia agent may prove to be affordable, feasible and more humane than other alternatives.
Laves presentation practical experiences in the culling of poultry in germanyHarm Kiezebrink
This presentation, based on the practical experiences in culling poultry in Germany, gives an overview of the culling techniques currently in use in Germany. It is presented by dr. Ursula Gerdes, dr. Josef Diekmann and ing. Rainer Thomes.
LAVES is the Lower Saxony State Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, located in Oldenburg, Germany. With around 900 employees they are entrusted with tasks in the areas of food and utensil inspection, feed inspection, meat hygiene, veterinary drug monitoring, eradication of animal diseases, disposal of animal by-products, animal welfare, ecological farming, market surveillance and technical process monitoring.
Berg et al. 2014 killing of spent laying hens using co2 in poultry barnsHarm Kiezebrink
September 2015: In Sweden, spent laying hens are killed either by traditional slaughter; on-farm with CO2 in a mobile container combined with a grinder; or with CO2 stable gassing inside the barn. The number of hens killed using the latter method has increased. During these killings a veterinarian is required to be present and report to the Swedish Board of Agriculture.
Data were registered during four commercial killings and extracted from all official veterinary reports at CO2 whole-house killings in 2008–2010. On-farm monitoring showed that temperature decreased greatly and with high variability. The time until birds became unconscious after coming into contact with the gas, based on time until loss of balance, was 3–5 min.
Veterinary reports show that 1.5 million laying hens were killed, in 150 separate instances. The most common non-compliance with legislation was failure to notify the regional animal welfare authorities prior to the killings. Six out of 150 killings were defined as animal welfare failures, eg delivery of insufficient CO2 or failure to seal buildings to achieve adequate gas concentration.
Eleven were either potentially or completely unacceptable from the perspective of animal welfare. We conclude that, on the whole, the CO2 whole-house gas killing of spent hens was carried out in accordance with the appropriate legislation. Death was achieved reliably.
However, there remain several risks to animal welfare and increased knowledge would appear vital in order to limit mistakes related to miscalculations of house volume, improper sealing or premature ventilation turn-off.
The latest outbreak of High Pathogen Avian Influenza in the USA and Canada in the spring of this year and the inability to avoid animal welfare catastrophes ultimately proves that new emergency response strategies are needed. Strategies that are based on taking away the source of infection instead of killing as many animals as possible within 24 hours, regardless the consequences.
The statement that “It’s possible that human infections with these viruses may occur” and that “these viruses have not spread easily to other people” is confusing. Humans can become infected without showing clinical signs. They can become the major carrier of the infection.
Especially during depopulation activities, viruses easily transmit through responders. Tasks like taking layers out of their cages and transport the birds manually through the narrow walkways between the cages, and disposal of infected animals are specific risks that need to be avoided. Simply switching of the electricity so that sick birds don’t have to be handled is not the solution.
Although humans are supposed to be less susceptible, they can become carrier of the virus. Only the highest level of biosecurity could prevent the transmission through the humans and materials that have been in direct contact with infected animals and materials.
Simply switching of the electricity so that sick birds don’t have to be handled is not the solution. Avoid killing animals is always the better option and in Germany, the discussion on the strategy based on neutralizing risks and is in the making. Avoiding situations demands a proactive role of the poultry industry.
In order to become one step ahead of an outbreak of high pathogen diseases like the current H5N2, the veterinary authorities need to stop the outbreak immediately after the first signals occur. Strict and thorough biosecurity measures are the most fundamental feature to protect poultry flocks on farms.
Without functional culling techniques, the options to effectively and efficiently cull in average more than 925,000 chickens per farm (in Iowa, USA) are limited: either by macerating the chickens alive – or by ventilation shut-down (closing down all ventilation, placing heaters inside the house, and heat the entire house to a temperature higher than 600 C).
Although both methods cause death of the birds, it has not been proven to be effective nor efficient. The primary goal to slowdown outbreaks and bring it to a complete stop but macerating live birds and killing them by heat stress and lack of oxygen would be against all International Animal Welfare standards.
Animal welfare specialists in disease control strongly oppose against the introduction of these most cruel methods of killing poultry and argue that the ban on these methods should be maintained and alternative methods need to be considered.
FLI Seminar on different response strategies: Stamping out or NeutralizationHarm Kiezebrink
During this spring, American poultry producers are losing birds by the millions, due to the High Pathogenic Avian Influenza outbreaks on factory farms. USDA APHIS applied the stamping out strategy in an attempt to prevent the flu from spreading.
With stamping out as the highest priority of the response strategy, large numbers of responders are involved. With in average almost 1 million caged layers per farm in Iowa, there is hardly any room for a proper bio security training for these responders. And existing culling techniques had insufficient capacity, the authorities had to decide to apply drastic techniques like macerating live birds in order to take away the source of virus reproduction.
This strategy didn't work; on the contrary. Instead of slowing down the spreading of the virus, the outbreaks continue to reoccur and have caused death and destruction in 15 USA states, killing almost 50 million birds on mote than 220infected commercial poultry farms, all within a very small time frame.
The question is whether the priority of the response strategy should be on neutralizing the transmission routes instead of on stamping out infections after they occur. All indicators currently point out into the direction that the industry should prioritize on environmental drivers: the connection between outbreaks and wild ducks; wind-mediated transmission; pre-contact probability; on-farm bio security; transmission via rodents etc.
Once the contribution of each transmission route has been determined, a revolutionary new response strategy can be developed based on the principle of neutralizing transmission routes. Neutralizing risks means that fully new techniques need to be developed, based on culling the animals without human – to – animal contact; integrating detergent application into the culling operations; combining culling & disposal into one activity.
This new response strategy will be the main subject of the FLI Animal Welfare and Disease Control Seminar, organized at September 23, 2015 in Celle, Germany
Dossier transmission: Transmission of Avian Influenza Virus to DogsHarm Kiezebrink
Avian influenza was found in a dog on a farm in South Gyeongsang Province amid growing concerns that the disease could spread to other animals, officials the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs said. The dog ― one of three at a duck farm in Goseong-gun, South Gyeongsang Province ― had antigens for the highly pathogenic H5N8 strain of bird flu, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs said. The disease affected the farm on Jan. 23.
Since the first case of a dog being infected with the poultry virus in March 2014, there have been 55 dogs found with antibodies to the bird flu virus. The antibody means the immune system of the dogs eliminated the virus. This is the first time bird flu has been found in a dog in Korea through the detection of antigens.
“None of these dogs had shown symptoms. No antigens or antibodies for the virus were found in the two other dogs, which means that dog-to-dog transmission is unlikely to have happened,” quarantine officials said.
The ministry suspected that the dog may have eaten infected animals at the farm. All poultry and dogs at the concerned farm were slaughtered as part of the preventive measures right after the farm was reported to have been infected with the disease, officials said.
Meanwhile, quarantine officials rejected the possibility of viral transmission to humans. According to the ministry’s report, about 450 workers at infected farms across the country had been given an antigen test, with none showing signs of infection. None of Korea’s 20,000 farm workers have reported any symptoms so far, officials added.
“It is thought that infected dogs do not show symptoms of the disease as they are naturally resistant to bird flu,” the ministry said. Meanwhile, the Agriculture Ministry has toughened the quarantine measures in Goseong-gun. The region is a frequented by migratory birds, which are suspected to have spread the viral disease.
Spatio temporal dynamics of global H5N1 outbreaks match bird migration patternsHarm Kiezebrink
The global spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 in poultry, wild birds and humans, poses a significant pandemic threat and a serious public health risk.
An efficient surveillance and disease control system relies on the understanding of the dispersion patterns and spreading mechanisms of the virus. A space-time cluster analysis of H5N1 outbreaks was used to identify spatio-temporal patterns at a global scale and over an extended period of time.
Potential mechanisms explaining the spread of the H5N1 virus, and the role of wild birds, were analyzed. Between December 2003 and December 2006, three global epidemic phases of H5N1 influenza were identified.
These H5N1 outbreaks showed a clear seasonal pattern, with a high density of outbreaks in winter and early spring (i.e., October to March). In phase I and II only the East Asia Australian flyway was affected. During phase III, the H5N1 viruses started to appear in four other flyways: the Central Asian flyway, the Black Sea Mediterranean flyway, the East Atlantic flyway and the East Africa West Asian flyway.
Six disease cluster patterns along these flyways were found to be associated with the seasonal migration of wild birds. The spread of the H5N1 virus, as demonstrated by the space-time clusters, was associated with the patterns of migration of wild birds. Wild birds may therefore play an important role in the spread of H5N1 over long distances.
Disease clusters were also detected at sites where wild birds are known to overwinter and at times when migratory birds were present. This leads to the suggestion that wild birds may also be involved in spreading the H5N1 virus over short distances.
Spatial, temporal and genetic dynamics of H5N1 in chinaHarm Kiezebrink
The spatial spread of H5N1 avian influenza, significant ongoing mutations, and long-term persistence of the virus in some geographic regions has had an enormous impact on the poultry industry and presents a serious threat to human health.
This study revealed two different transmission modes of H5N1 viruses in China, and indicated a significant role of poultry in virus dissemination. Furthermore, selective pressure posed by vaccination was found in virus evolution in the country.
Phylogenetic analysis, geospatial techniques, and time series models were applied to investigate the spatiotemporal pattern of H5N1 outbreaks in China and the effect of vaccination on virus evolution.
Results showed obvious spatial and temporal clusters of H5N1 outbreaks on different scales, which may have been associated with poultry and wild-bird transmission modes of H5N1 viruses. Lead–lag relationships were found among poultry and wild-bird outbreaks and human cases. Human cases were preceded by poultry outbreaks, and wild-bird outbreaks were led by human cases.
Each clade has gained its own unique spatiotemporal and genetic dominance. Genetic diversity of the H5N1 virus decreased significantly between 1996 and 2011; presumably under strong selective pressure of vaccination. Mean evolutionary rates of H5N1 virus increased after vaccination was adopted in China.
Different environmental drivers of H5N1 outbreaks in poultry and wild birdsHarm Kiezebrink
Different environmental drivers operate on HPAI H5N1 outbreaks in poultry and wild birds in Europe. The probability of HPAI H5N1 outbreaks in poultry increases in areas with a higher human population density and a shorter distance to lakes or wetlands.
This reflects areas where the location of farms or trade areas and habitats for wild birds overlap. In wild birds, HPAI H5N1 outbreaks mostly occurred in areas with increased NDVI and lower elevations, which are typically areas where food and shelter for wild birds are available. The association with migratory flyways has also been found in the intra-continental spread of the low pathogenic avian influenza virus in North American wild birds. These different environmental drivers suggest that different spread mechanisms operate.
Disease might spread to poultry via both poultry and wild birds, through direct (via other birds) or indirect (e.g. via contaminated environment) infection. Outbreaks in wild birds are mainly caused by transmission via wild birds alone, through sharing foraging areas or shelters. These findings are in contrast with a previous study, which did not find environmental differences between disease outbreaks in poultry and wild birds in Europe.
H5N8 virus dutch outbreak (2014) linked to sequences of strains from asiaHarm Kiezebrink
Genetic analysis of influenza A(H5N8) virus from the Netherlands indicates that the virus probably was spread by migratory wild birds from Asia, possibly through overlapping flyways and common breeding sites in Siberia. In addition to the outbreak in the Netherlands, several other outbreaks of HPAI (H5N8) virus infections were reported in Europe at the end of 2014 after exponentially increasing deaths occurred in chicken and turkey flocks.
Genetic sequences submitted to the EpiFlu database indicated that the viruses from Europe showed a strong similarity to viruses isolated earlier in 2014 in South Korea, China, and Japan. An H5N8 virus isolated from a wigeon in Russia in September 2014 is located in the phylogenetic tree near the node of all sequences for H5N8 viruses from Europe.
In regard to time, this location fits the hypothesized route of H5N8 virus introduction into Europe. Furthermore, for several reasons, it is highly likely that the introduction of HPAI (H5N8) virus into the indoor-layer farm in the Netherlands occurred via indirect contact.
First, despite intensive monitoring, H5N8 viruses have never been detected in commercial poultry or wild birds in the Netherlands.
Second, when the virus was detected, the Netherlands had no direct trade contact with other European countries or Asia that might explain a route of introduction.
Third, because of the severity of disease in galliforms, outbreaks of H5N8 in the Netherlands before November 2014 would have been noticed.
Avian influenza virus-infected poultry can release a large amount of virus-contaminated droppings that serve as sources of infection for susceptible birds. Much research so far has focused on virus spread within flocks. However, as fecal material or manure is a major constituent of airborne poultry dust, virus-contaminated particulate matter from infected flocks may be dispersed into the environment.
This study, demonstrates the presence of airborne influenza virus RNA downwind from buildings holding LPAI-infected birds, and the observed correlation between field data on airborne poultry and livestock associated microbial exposure and the OPS-ST model. These findings suggest that geographical estimates of areas at high risk for human and animal exposure to airborne influenza virus can be modeled during an outbreak, although additional field measurements are needed to validate this proposition. In addition, the outdoor detection of influenza virus contaminated airborne dust during outbreaks in poultry suggests that practical measures can assist in the control of future influenza outbreaks.
In general, exposure to airborne influenza virus on commercial poultry farms could be reduced both by minimizing the initial generation of airborne particles and implementing methods for abatement of particles once generated. As an example, emergency mass culling of poultry using a foam blanket over the birds instead of labor-intensive whole-house gassing followed by ventilation reduces both exposure of cullers and dispersion of contaminated dust into the environment, contributing to the control of influenza outbreaks.
Per contact probability of infection by Highly Pathogenic Avian InfluenzaHarm Kiezebrink
Estimates of the per-contact probability of transmission between farms of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza virus of H7N7 subtype during the 2003 epidemic in the Netherlands are important for the design of better control and biosecurity strategies.
We used standardized data collected during the epidemic and a model to extract data for untraced contacts based on the daily number of infectious farms within a given distance of a susceptible farm.
With these data, the ‘maximum likelihood estimation’ approach was used to estimate the transmission probabilities by the individual contact types, both traced and untraced.
The outcomes were validated against literature data on virus genetic sequences for outbreak farms. The findings highlight the need to
1) Understand the routes underlying the infections without traced contacts and
2) To review whether the contact-tracing protocol is exhaustive in relation to all the farm’s day-to-day activities and practices.
Supplementary information wind mediated transmission HPAIHarm Kiezebrink
A comparison between the transmission risk pattern predicted by the model and the pattern observed during the 2003 epidemic reveals that the wind-borne route alone is insufficient to explain the observations although it could contribute substantially to the spread over short distance ranges, for example, explaining 24% of the transmission over distances up to 25 km.
In this generic overview, you will find the date used in the publication “Modelling the Wind-Borne Spread of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus between Farms”, published February 2012 (http://n2gf.com/?p=2377). For the outbreak of avian influenza A(H7N7) in the Netherlands in 2003, much data are available. The overview gives a description of the data used in the analyses of the mentioned publication:
Epidemiological data
There were 5360 poultry farms in the Netherlands in 2003, for all of which geographical information x is available. For 1531 farms the flocks were culled, for all of these the date of culling Tcull is known. For 227 of the 241 infected farms the date of infection tinf has been estimated, based on mortality data. The remaining 14 farms are hobby farms, defined as farms with less than 300 animals, for which no mortality data are available.
The geographic and temporal data together have previously been used to estimate the critical farm density, i.e. above what density of farms outbreaks are can occur.
Genetic data
The HA, NA and PB2 genes of viral samples from 231 farms have previously been sequenced. Sequence data RNA can be found in the GISAID database under accession numbers EPI ISL 68268-68352, EPI ISL 82373-82472 and EPI ISL 83984-84031. These data have previously been used to give general characteristics of the outbreak, to reconstruct the transmission tree and to assess the public health threat due to mutations of the virus in the animal host.
Meteorological data
Available meteorological data include wind speed wv and direction wdir (with a ten degree precision) and the fraction of time r without precipitation for every hour of every day of the outbreak, measured at five weather stations close to the infected farms. These data are available from the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute at www.knmi.nl.
Avian Influenza in the Netherlands 2003: comparing culling methodsHarm Kiezebrink
During the outbreak of H7N7 in Holland, 29,500.000 birds were killed at the farm. This presentation compares different culling techniques, such as stable gas, container gassing and electrocution.
In a May 9, 2024 paper, Juri Opitz from the University of Zurich, along with Shira Wein and Nathan Schneider form Georgetown University, discussed the importance of linguistic expertise in natural language processing (NLP) in an era dominated by large language models (LLMs).
The authors explained that while machine translation (MT) previously relied heavily on linguists, the landscape has shifted. “Linguistics is no longer front and center in the way we build NLP systems,” they said. With the emergence of LLMs, which can generate fluent text without the need for specialized modules to handle grammar or semantic coherence, the need for linguistic expertise in NLP is being questioned.
role of women and girls in various terror groupssadiakorobi2
Women have three distinct types of involvement: direct involvement in terrorist acts; enabling of others to commit such acts; and facilitating the disengagement of others from violent or extremist groups.
हम आग्रह करते हैं कि जो भी सत्ता में आए, वह संविधान का पालन करे, उसकी रक्षा करे और उसे बनाए रखे।" प्रस्ताव में कुल तीन प्रमुख हस्तक्षेप और उनके तंत्र भी प्रस्तुत किए गए। पहला हस्तक्षेप स्वतंत्र मीडिया को प्रोत्साहित करके, वास्तविकता पर आधारित काउंटर नैरेटिव का निर्माण करके और सत्तारूढ़ सरकार द्वारा नियोजित मनोवैज्ञानिक हेरफेर की रणनीति का मुकाबला करके लोगों द्वारा निर्धारित कथा को बनाए रखना और उस पर कार्यकरना था।
‘वोटर्स विल मस्ट प्रीवेल’ (मतदाताओं को जीतना होगा) अभियान द्वारा जारी हेल्पलाइन नंबर, 4 जून को सुबह 7 बजे से दोपहर 12 बजे तक मतगणना प्रक्रिया में कहीं भी किसी भी तरह के उल्लंघन की रिपोर्ट करने के लिए खुला रहेगा।
31052024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
03062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
01062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
2. Public consultation report on the Draft Guidance on stunning studies assessment criteria
EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-530
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Table of contents ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Background as provided by EFSA ........................................................................................................... 3
Terms of reference as provided by EFSA ................................................................................................ 3
Consideration ........................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Public consultation .......................................................................................................................... 4
1.1. Comments received................................................................................................................. 4
1.2. Assessment of comments........................................................................................................ 4
Appendices............................................................................................................................................... 5
Appendix A. Explanatory text for the public consultation on the draft guidance on the assessment
criteria for studies evaluating the effectiveness of stunning interventions regarding animal protection at
the time of killing ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Appendix B. Full list of comments received on the draft guidance on the assessment criteria for
studies evaluating the effectiveness of stunning interventions regarding animal protection at the time
of killing……….. ..................................................................................................................................... 6
3. Public consultation report on the Draft Guidance on stunning studies assessment criteria
EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-530
BACKGROUND AS PROVIDED BY EFSA
Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing defines
“stunning” in Article 2 (f) as “any intentionally induced process which causes loss of consciousness
and sensibility without pain including any process resulting in instantaneous death”. Annex I of the
Regulation lists the stunning interventions and related specifications. Article 4 on stunning
interventions regulates that “animals shall only be killed after stunning in accordance with the methods
and specific requirements related to the application of those methods set out in Annex I of the
Regulation” and “that the loss of consciousness and sensibility shall be maintained until the death of
the animal”. Furthermore, the methods referred to in Annex I which do not result in instantaneous
death shall be followed as quickly as possible by a procedure ensuring death such as bleeding, pithing,
electrocution or prolonged exposure to anoxia. Article 4 (2) of the Regulation allows the Commission
to amend Annex I to this Regulation as to take account of scientific and technical progress on the basis
of an opinion of the EFSA. Any such amendments shall ensure a level of animal welfare at least
equivalent to that ensured by the existing methods.
Several studies assessing the efficacy of modified protocols of stunning interventions listed in Annex I
or new stunning interventions have been submitted to the Commission who has requested EFSA's
view on the studies, and it is likely that more studies of stunning intervention efficacy will be carried
out and submitted to EFSA for assessment. Inconsistencies with reporting of intervention studies in
the animal health area have been documented in the past and the lack of harmonization of designing
and reporting intervention studies investigating stunning interventions’ efficacy has been specifically
identified as a drawback to assessing the proposed stunning interventions in previous EFSA opinions4
.
Therefore it is important to provide clear guidance to researchers on how these studies will be assessed
by EFSA, i.e. what minimum eligibility criteria, reporting quality criteria and further study quality
criteria need to be fulfilled for a given study so that it can be considered for assessment as a potential
alternative to the stunning methods and related specifications listed in Council Regulation (EC) No
1099/2009.
TERMS OF REFERENCE AS PROVIDED BY EFSA
The European Food Safety Authority requests the Animal Health and Welfare Panel to develop a
guidance document which defines the criteria against which studies evaluating the efficacy of
stunning interventions regarding animal protection during stunning will be assessed.
The guidance should comprise a checklist of reporting quality criteria, eligibility criteria and
further study quality criteria, accompanied with the scientific reasoning for each checklist item. It
should also provide a description of the guidance development process and explain how studies
will be evaluated. The guidance should cover mechanical, electrical and gas methods for the main
livestock species (bovines, sheep, goats, pigs, poultry, and rabbits).
Work done on the critical appraisal of scientific studies by the Scientific Assessment Support Unit
of EFSA should be considered during the preparation of the guidance document. A public
consultation of the guidance document will also be made before adoption of the guidance in
November 2013.
4
Scientific Opinion on the electrical requirements for waterbath stunning equipment applicable for poultry.
EFSA Journal 2012;10(6):2757 [80 pp.]. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2757
4. Public consultation report on the Draft Guidance on stunning studies assessment criteria
EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-530
CONSIDERATION
1. Public consultation
In line with EFSA’s policy on openness and transparency, a web-consultation on the draft scientific
output was carried out from 15 July 2013 to 18 September 2013 in order to receive comments from the
scientific community, stakeholders and all interested parties. The public consultation was published
on-line with an invitation for submission of written comments by 18th September 2013. The
comments had to be sent exclusively by means of on-line submission form. Interested parties were
invited to submit comments and to refer to the line and page numbers. Technical criteria for not
considering the comments were also presented (Appendix A).
EFSA received comments from six interested parties. The comments were submitted by two private
institutes, a public institution, one national authority of an EU Member State, one regional authority of
an EU Member State and industry. A seventh comment was not eligible.
All eligible comments were recorded and assessed by the ad hoc Working Group of the AHAW Panel
on the guidance on the assessment criteria for studies evaluating the effectiveness of stunning
interventions regarding animal protection at the time of killing with the support of hearing experts at a
physical meeting. The working group members agreed on the changes to the guidance document
(Appendix B).
1.1. Comments received
The majority of the comments received concerned the eligibility criteria for the different intervention
methods. Several parties suggested additional specifications of parameters to be included with view to
properly characterising the stunning intervention. Some suggestions focussed on improving the clarity
of the guidance document.
1.2. Assessment of comments
The AHAW Panel considered all relevant comments in finalising the guidance document. Details of
the assessment and consequent changes made in finalising the guidance document can be found in
Appendix B.
5. Public consultation report on the Draft Guidance on stunning studies assessment criteria
EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-530
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Explanatory text for the public consultation on the draft guidance on the
assessment criteria for studies evaluating the effectiveness of stunning interventions
regarding animal protection at the time of killing
In line with EFSA’s policy on openness and transparency and in order for EFSA to receive comments
from the scientific community and stakeholders, EFSA’s Panel on Animal Health and Welfare
(AHAW) has launched an open consultation on the draft Guidance on the assessment criteria for
studies evaluating the effectiveness of stunning interventions regarding animal protection at the time
of killing. This document defines the assessment process and the criteria that will be applied to studies
on alternative stunning methods to determine their eligibility for further assessment.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments by 08 September 2013.
Comments regarding the clarity, comprehensiveness, relevance and practicality of the assessment
process and the evaluation criteria presented in the guidance are welcome.
Please use exclusively the electronic template provided with the documents to submit comments and
refer to the line and page numbers. Please note that comments submitted by e-mail or by post cannot
be taken into account and that a submission will not be considered if it is:
• submitted after the deadline set out in the call
• presented in any form other than what is provided for in the instructions and template
• not related to the contents of the document
• contains complaints against institutions, personal accusations, irrelevant or offensive
statements or material
• is related to policy or risk management aspects, which is out of the scope of EFSA's activity.
EFSA will assess all comments from interested parties which are submitted in line with the criteria
above. The comments will be further considered by the relevant EFSA Panel and taken into
consideration if found to be relevant.
6. Public consultation report on the Draft Guidance on stunning studies assessment criteria
EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-530 6
Appendix B. Full list of comments received on the draft guidance on the assessment criteria for studies evaluating the effectiveness of stunning
interventions regarding animal protection at the time of killing
Contributor Section Comment received EFSA comment
EU Member
State
national
authority 1
General
comments
1. Where a 1099/2009 method complies however a new
process is developed (i.e. captive bolt stunning on a
different position to that generally done for a given
species) are researchers expected to follow this
protocol?
2. There are several references across the document to
monitoring indicators – it would be helpful that this are
consistent with the monitoring indicators paper
currently on draft given that both documents are been
prepared under the umbrella of 1099/2009.
3. It would be helpful to have a statement to flag up that
all research studies need to conform with experimental
animal legislation and be carried out under license
issued by the authorities of the relevant country in
which the research takes place.
4. In some industries there are internationally agreed
procedures for testing under ISO (nanotechnology is
one example). I wonder if there is scope for exploring
agreed testing ISO standards for some of the stunning
processes to ensure consistency amongst specific parts
of research studies and ensure they are comparable (i.e.
EEG or ECoG). I did enquire within the British
Standards Institute and it would be possible to do
(though would take some time to get it agreed) however
I have not been able to take forward or explore further
yet.
5. We have funded a research project looking at stunning
piglets and goat kids by concussion as this is not
currently permitted by 1099/2009, however has been
common practice within industry on farm in the past –
given that this opinion considers LAPS, should it also
include concussion by a blow to the head ? We are not
aware of results at this stage, therefore I cannot
1. The AHAW Panel will follow the guidance in assessing
any new stunning method, be it a stunning procedure
included in the Regulation with changed parameters or a
completely new stunning procedure.
2. The indicators mentioned in the guidance are consistent
with those listed in the EFSA scientific opinions on
monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses.
3. A statement on the need for humane endpoints in
research and ethical approval of research has been added
to the document.
4. Applying internationally agreed upon procedures for
testing under ISO standards, while commendable, is
beyond the scope of the mandate.
5. The criteria and rules defined in this document apply also
to back-up stunning methods used in slaughterhouses.
While no detailed eligibility criteria for interventions
other than those already defined in the Regulation can be
provided in this document, the intervention has to be
reported in sufficient detail and the outcome eligibility
criteria must be fulfilled.
7. Public consultation report on the Draft Guidance on stunning studies assessment criteria
EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-530 7
comment on whether we will request in the future
EFSA to review this method for inclusion.
Public
institution
Assessment 1. This comment is a general one about the methodology
proposed. Overall, this guidance document provides
valuable information about the different aspects that
should be considered when assessing new stunning
method and may be considered as a good basis for the
development of such studies. However, it seems that
the proposed methodology intends to apply to
completely new stunning method. As an example, it is
written that “Indicators for recognising a successful stun
should be applied in slaughterhouse settings, after
their correlation with EEGs has been demonstrated
in controlled environment studies” but, on an other side,
EFSA will produce an opinion on “Monitoring
procedure at slaughterhouse” that includes a list of
indicators for assessing stunning efficiency. Therefore
we can suppose that this list may be used to assess signs
of uncounsciousness/consciousness without the need of
revalidation, in particular when assessing new variant of
well known method (eg captive bolt for bovine).
2. Furthermore, Regulation (EC) N° 1099/2009 allows the
Commission to amend Annex I on the basis of new
scientific evidence and that “Any such amendments
shall ensure a level of animal welfare at least
equivalent to that ensured by the existing methods”.
But, in the guidance document, there is no reference to
the comparison to existing methods. In my opinion, the
possibility to assess a new stunning method in
comparison to existing methods especially when based
on the same general principle may be an alternative to
laboratory studies.
3. Field study is of particular importance to assess the
variability of the results obtained with a stunning
method. Key parameters are relevant parameters but
details provide in tables seems sometimes difficult to
measure in practice and not very useful. On the
contrary, it seems to me that there is no information on
1. The indicators mentioned in this document to assess
unconsciousness and absence of pain, distress and
suffering are in agreement with the EFSA opinions on
monitoring procedures at slaughterhouse.
2. Any new stunning method, be it a stunning procedure
included in the Regulation with changed parameters or a
completely new stunning procedure, needs to be assessed
both in laboratory and under slaughterhouse conditions as
described in the guidance.
3. The guidance specifies that for each stunning intervention
description, the target parameters and their variances
need to be reported.
4. The scope of this document is limited to scientific
evidence for welfare at stunning.
8. Public consultation report on the Draft Guidance on stunning studies assessment criteria
EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-530 8
the definition of the objective. For example, when
assessing a new stunning, we will analyse average and
variability compared to expected values. Guidance to
choose expected values may be more relevant than
some requirements on detailed parameter. In
conclusion, I think that comparison to existing method
and analyse of the variability in slaughterhouse should
be an alternative to lab/field study in particular when
assessing new method based on the same general
principle of existing method. This option should be
evaluated by expert panel.
4. My last comment is a more practical one. The
methodology proposed is a very detailed one. But there
is a risk that it may be applicable in a very limited
number of situation because we can suppose that a very
few manufacturers will be able to carry out the whole
process due to resources needed and limited market.
EU Member
State
national
authority 1
1. Introduction 1. It would be helpful to know why stunning methods used
outside slaughterhouses are outside the scope of this
guidance? Annex 1 includes both stunning methods
type and there is no reason why the laboratory
assessment scrutiny process cannot be the same.
2. General aspects applicable to stunning methods– it
would be helpful to review the structure of this section
as it could be made more clear: Page 6 - Figure 2 – part
1 column 3 – suggest that bullets are numbered and
correlated with the relevant explanatory paragraphs
through this section (1-5); bullet 1 – suggest to add “and
key parameters” at the end;; page 6 - Paragraph 3 – this
correlates with bullet 5 from figure 2, part I column 3 if
a number correlation is included; Page 6 - Paragraph 4 –
this correlates with bullet 2; Page 7 – paragraph 4 –this
correlates with bullet 2 ; Page 7 – paragraph 5 – this
correlates with bullet 3 ; Page 7 – paragraph 6 – this
correlates with bullet 4
3. There is a requirement to re-stun and sacrifice animals
as they regain consciousness – it may be important to
flag up that this should be done in accordance with
1. A clarification was added that the scope of this document
is limited to stunning methods used at slaughter and does
not include depopulation nor on-farm killing.
2. The editorial comments have been addressed in the
document.
3. A comment on humane endpoints in research and the
need for ethical approval of research has been added to
the document.
4. While it is certainly important to study a relevant number
of animals, the required minimum number is a study-
specific decision.
5. This editorial comment has been addressed in the
document.
6. The suggestion to add “In addition animal welfare
indicators should be recorded until the time to loss of
consciousness” was accepted.
9. Public consultation report on the Draft Guidance on stunning studies assessment criteria
EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-530 9
relevant legislation under the Animal Scientific
Procedures – for some methods, such as high
concentration CO2 exposure there may need to be a
requirement to use a different stunning method for re-
stunning – again it may be helpful to flag this up.
4. Page 7 – paragraph 2 – does the guidance intend to
specify how many animals EFSA expects data from?
5. Page 7 – paragraph 3 – second line replace “been” for
“are”
6. I suggest to add “In addition AW indicators should be
recorded until the time to loss of consciousness” as per
B in section 2.1
EU Member
State
national
authority 1
2. Approach Page 8 - paragraph 4 (for the outcome) – it would be helpful
to clarify the two possible combinations = [A+C] or [B+C]
to avoid confusion between the insertion of OR / AND as
some may read this as A or [B+C]
The suggestions to change the formatting were followed in
the document.
EU Member
State
national
authority 1
2.3.
Methodological
quality criteria
Page 9 – paragraph 2 – line 2 “compared against those of
related studies”. This may not always be possible as a
current problem is that many studies are not comparable in
the inmediate future (i.e. water bath electrical stunning
papers). Suggest adding “where possible”.
The sentence was modified to “Appraisal of a study’s external
validity (i.e. its generalizability outside the study population)
requires that its results be assessed in the context of related
studies.” to account for this comment.
EU Member
State
regional
authority 1
2.1. Eligibility
criteria
Se puede deducir que el objetivo fundamental de todo el
documento es el control de un correcto aturdimiento ya que
se basa en que “ la pérdida de la conciencia deberia
mantenerse hasta la muerte del animal“ tal como se indica
en las líneas 2 y 3 de la pàgina 8.
Esto no siempre es así por los motivos siguientes :
1.- “ Hay métodos de aturdimiento donde los animales
pueden recuperar la consciencia durante los procedimientos
dolorosos subsiguientes ( pàgina 4, consideración 24 del
reglamento 1099/2009 sobre protección de los animales en
el sacrificio ) “.
2.- Un corte incorrecto/incompleto de los vasos sanguineos.
3.- En el caso del vacuno, la llegada importante de sangre al
cerebro a través de las arterias craneales.
Por todo ello, siempre hay que tener 2 tipos de
controles/indicadores en los mataderos :
This comment is not related to the scope of this guideline
document as it refers to monitoring procedures at
slaughterhouses.
10. Public consultation report on the Draft Guidance on stunning studies assessment criteria
EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-530 10
a) De un correcto aturdimiento.
b) De ausencia de vida antes del escaldado/faenado tal como
establece el Anexo III, punto 3.2 del Reglamento 1099/2009.
Y así hay que tenerlo presente en la elaboración de
guias/dictámenes.
EU Member
State
national
authority 1
3.1. Intervention 1. Page 9 – would the paper not need to demonstrate
compliance with relevant Article 3 requirements of
Regulation 1099 (i.e that it is humane) prior to
demonstrating whether it is simple stunning or not?
2. Page 9 – 3.1 – line 3 – Article 4.1 of Regulation 1099
defines simple stunning as those methods which do not
result in instantaneous death. This includes both
reversible and irreversible methods therefore the
guidance draft text needs amending to reflect this.
Suggest replacing “it needs to be demonstrated whether
the method is a simple stunning method or an
irreversible stunning method” by “it needs to be
demonstrated whether the [the method results in
instantaneous death (stunning) or not (simple stunning).
For simple stunning method it shall demonstrate
whether the stun is reversible or not] “
1. The need to demonstrate compliance with relevant
Article 3 requirements of Regulation 1099 (i.e that it is
humane) is covered in the introduction of the document.
2. This comment has been addressed by modifying the
phrase to “it needs to be demonstrated whether the
method results in immediate unconsciousness and
whether the stun is reversible or not”.
EU Member
State
national
authority 1
3.1.1.1.
Penetrative
captive bolt
1. Page 10 – Table 1 - bolt dimension/mass and velocity –
it may be helpful to consider the energy necessary to
stun an animal type as this will influence the parameters
covered here
2. Page 10 – Table 1 - type and size of animal – you may
wish to include “dimensions” as this are very relevant
of animal restraint purposes (i.e. will the head restraint
fit?, is the restraining box suitable? Is the distance
between the head of the animal and the slaughterman
suitable?)
3. Page 10 – Table 1 – equipment maintenance – it may be
helpful to include a reference to manufacturer
instructions here.
1. This can be derived from the mass and velocity which
need to be reported.
2. It is stated in the guidance document that authors are
expected to provide any information relevant to
describing the restraining system used. It is considered
that the detailed description of species and breed, age and
weight of the animals provides the information needed to
assess the study under scrutiny regarding this parameter.
3. The comment regarding equipment maintenance has been
addressed in the document by adding “Where
manufacturer maintenance instructions are available,
provide the details and how they were implemented.”
11. Public consultation report on the Draft Guidance on stunning studies assessment criteria
EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-530 11
EU Member
State
national
authority 1
3.1.1.2. Non-
penetrative
captive bolt
1. Page 10 -3.1.1.2 – line 2 – need to include poultry
alongside rabbits and hares.
2. Page 11 – Table 2 – comments on energy / animal
dimensions / reference to manufacturer instructions as
per Table 1 above.
1. The species was added to the text.
2. The suggested changes were made in the document.
Private
institute 1
3.1.2. Electrical
stunning methods
1. Page 12 Table 3 Description line 2: wrong spelling
“report the mark:space ratio” (not marks-spaced ratio)
Page 12 Table 3
2. Maximum stun-to-stick / kill interval: Describe also the
method of sticking (which blood vessels have been cut
(neck- or chest-cut) and how).
3. Maximum frequency /Lapse of frequency: Describe if
the frequency in each cycle stays on one level or if and
how it changes (many manufacturers use changing
frequencies, sometimes we do not know what effect this
has).
4. Description line 11: Provide information on the method
used for and the time intervals between consecutive
calibrations of the equipment (including transformer
and electrodes). This is of importance because the
cables and electrodes are often the reason for increasing
electrical resistance leading to different current
application.
5. Table 4 page 16 description line 17: spelling: shackling
(l is missing)
1. The spelling error was corrected.
2. The comment was addressed by requesting a description
of the exsanguination method applied in the study.
3. A respective specification was added to the waveform
section of the table.
4. The term “equipment” includes all components of the
stunning equipment used. Therefore, no change to the
text was considered necessary.
5. The spelling error has been corrected.
EU Member
State
national
authority 1
3.1.2.1. Head-
only and head-to-
body stunning
1. Page 12- 3.1.2.1 – line 1 “at the moment” – this implies
this particular method may be subject to change –
suggest consider a different wording to avoid confusion
2. Page 12 – Table 3 - minimum current level – there is 3
cycle equipment used in cattle – this should be included
alongside assurances that the 2nd and 3rd cycles will
not operate unless the first one is effective.
3. Page 13 – Table 3 – delivered minimum voltage –
should research papers describe somewhere the
mechanism by which the equipment works out the
resistance to adjust minimum current as/if necessary?
4. Page 13 – Table 3 Max. Stun-stick time – final 2 lines.
Why is the recommendation to only report the last
1. This point was changed accordingly in the guidance
document.
2. This comment was addressed by using the term “multiple
cycle system”.
3. The comment was addressed by adding the requirement
to describe how the preset constant current was applied.
4. The recommendation has been deleted from the table.
5. While the pressure applied and the contact achieved are
relevant points, it is not possible to measure/report them
in an objective way. Optimisation of the current flow
could be ascertained from the current profile, which is an
outcome.
12. Public consultation report on the Draft Guidance on stunning studies assessment criteria
EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-530 12
animal that did not recover consciousness rather than all
sampled animals?
5. Page 13 – Table 3 – electrode characteristics – suggest
this refers only to “electrode” and not to “stunning
tongs” as these fit later on within the type of electrode
row. Pressure required for good contact should be part
of the electrode characteristics to consider.
EU Member
State
national
authority 1
3.1.2.2. Electrical
waterbath
stunning
1. Page 14 – line 2-3: what if the study tries to validate
different currents to those in 1099?
2. Page 14 – line 8 – you could add the legal requirements
that the electrode should cover the full length of the
bath and that there should be breast support as per
Annex II 5.7 and 5.8.
3. Page 15 – prevention of electrical shocks – there is a
reference to other measures – note a breast comforter is
a legal requirement (Annex II 5.8)
4. Page 16 – Table 4 – electrical resistance/impedance –
leg keratinisation is considered – cleanliness and
wet/dry state are also factors which could impact
resistance and should be accounted for.
5. Page 16 – Table 4 – max. Shackle duration – this is now
a legal requirement and should be stated so – Annex II
5.2
1. The sentence “ The stunning intervention should be
carried out in accordance with the minimum currents laid
down in Table 2 of Annex I of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1099/2009 and exposure to the currents shall be for a
minimum duration of at least 4 seconds” was deleted.
2. The sentence “In addition, the legislation requires that the
shackles shall be wetted before live birds are shackled
and the birds should be hung by both legs. An alternative
method of slaughter should be used if birds are too small
for the waterbath stunner or if shackling is likely to
induce or increase pain (e.g. in visibly injured animal)”
was deleted.
3. The reference to breast comforters was considered not to
be relevant for this section.
4. The requirement was modified to “Provide details on the
species, breed, age, sex and weight of the birds and on
the cleanliness of the birds.”
5. The maximum duration permitted by law is stated in the
text and it has been specified in the table that it is the
legal limit.
EU Member
State
national
authority 1
3.1.3. Modified
atmosphere
stunning methods
1. Page 16 – 1st paragraph line4 – “this method is only
allowed for pigs {FOR SLAUGHTER} – check
consistency with 1099 Annex I
2. Page 17 – Animal stocking density – this should also
report the animal species/type (i.e. hens / chickens /
turkeys); Page 19 - Animal stocking density – this
should also report the animal species/type
1. The statement was removed as it was misleading.
2. It was specified that, in addition to animal density, which
should be expressed as number and kg per m , the
species, breed and age of animals need to be described.
13. Public consultation report on the Draft Guidance on stunning studies assessment criteria
EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-530 13
Private
institute 1
3.1.3. Modified
atmosphere
stunning methods
1. Table 5 page 17, Description 1st line: Specify the initial
CO2-concentration … and how long they are exposed
within; Table 5 page 17, description line 7: also the time
within lowest CO2 concentration is of importance and
also the time in the highest CO2 concentration
2. Description to quality of the gas description line 13:
besides humidity also the temperature within the
stunning equipment can have an impact, chicken can
bring a lot of temperature within stunning systems
3. Table 7 Description 3rd line: Specify the initial … and
how long they are exposed within.
4. Additional parameters in tables 5, 6 and 7 could be:
Light inside the stunning system and visibility (is it
possible to see the animals during the lapse through the
system?) and vibration.
1. The terms “lowest” and “highest” were changed to
“initial” and to “final” in the component field to reflect
the text in the description field of the table.
2. It was specified that it needs to be reported how and
when humidity of the gas and temperature inside the
chamber were monitored, and, if needed, adjusted.
3. The terms “lowest” and “highest” were changed to
“initial” and to “final” in the component field to reflect
the text in the description field of the table.
4. The working group considers that these issues are taken
care of in the outcome assessment section where it is
required that animals should be assessed for the absence
of pain, distress and suffering before the loss of
consciousness, which necessitates that animals can be
observed during this period.
Private
institute 1
3.1.3.4. Low
atmosphere
pressure
Table 8: Under the Parameter “Final pressure” also the
concentration of O2 is of importance
This sentence has been aligned with the respective
specification from the EFSA Scientific Opinion on Low
Atmosphere Pressure Systems for stunning.
EU Member
State
national
authority 1
3.1.3.4. Low
atmosphere
pressure
1. Page 21 – We have funded a research project looking at
stunning piglets and goat kids by concussion as this is
not currently permitted by 1099/2009 however it has
been common practice within industry on farm in the
past – given that this opinion considers LAPS should it
also include concussion by a blow to the head ? We are
not aware of results at this stage therefore I cannot
comment on whether we will request in the future
EFSA to review this method for inclusion.
2. Page 22 - Animal stocking density – this should also
report the animal species/type
1. The guidance considers all new or modified legal
stunning interventions and back-up stunning
interventions used at slaughter known to the AHAW
Panel at the initiation of the mandate.
2. It was specified that, in addition to animal density, which
should be expressed as number and kg per m , the
species, breed and age of animals need to be described.
14. Public consultation report on the Draft Guidance on stunning studies assessment criteria
EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-530 14
EU Member
State
regional
authority 1
3.2.1. Onset of
unconsciousness
and insensibility
En la pàgina 22, punto 3.2.1 sobre el inicio de la
inconciencia, dice que “ los métodos de aturdimiento
deberian inducir la pérdida de la inconciencia de manera
inmediata ( por ejemplo en menos de 1 segundo ) “, EFSA
2004.
Es por ello que en la elaboración de guias y dictámenes
habria que recomendar de cara al futuro la sustitución
progresiva del aturdimiento por CO2 en cerdos ( la
inconciencia llega en 15-20 segundos ) .
En la pàgina 2 del Reglamento CE 1099/2009 sobre
protección de los animales en el sacrificio dice que
actualmente por el tema económico no se recomienda la
eliminación pero reconoce que es un debate a seguir en el
futuro.
Hay que recordar que hasta el año 2012 se utilizaba el CO2
en aturdimiento de conejos y que actualmente no está
autorizado en esta especie por el citado Reglamento.
This comment is not related to the content of the guidance
document.
EU Member
State
national
authority 1
3.2.1. Onset of
unconsciousness
and insensibility
1. Page 22 – 3.2.1 line 3 (e.g. in less than one second) – I
am concerned about this example – electrical stunning
and captive bolt methods have to be immediate,
however the time delay of 1 second is in my view
unacceptable – at the moment delays to reach
unconsciousness when applying electrodes should be
within milliseconds figures – if, for example, an
electrical stunning method takes on average 1 second to
produce unconsciousness it should not be added to
1099.
2. Page 23 – final 2 paragraphs – Page 24 – final
paragraph line 2-3 – there is a recommendation for
collapse as indicator – check consistency for electrical
stunning indicators in the scientific monitoring opinion
to avoid confusion
3. Page 24 – bullet points – suggest to name A,B, C or
include numbers as preferred and clarify if it should be
A+B OR A+C // A+B OR C
4. Page 24 – final line – reference to electro
immobilisation – it would be helpful to consider
systems with 3 cycles (i.e. Jarvis box) as this would also
1. The example was removed from the document.
2. It has been assured that all references to the use of animal
based measures for welfare made in the guidance
document are consistent with the EFSA opinions on
monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses.
3. The text has been changed to “Therefore, in laboratory
condition studies, unconsciousness and insensibility can
be ascertained by the following EEG patterns:
• induction of a generalised epileptiform activity in the
brain, which can be recognised from the predominance of
8–13 Hz high-amplitude EEG activity, followed by a
quiescent EEG
OR
• an immediate onset of a quiescent EEG
OR
• no somatosensory, visual or auditory evoked responses
or potentials in the brain immediately after the stunning”
4. The document has been modified to consider also
multiple cycle systems.
5. The typing error has been corrected.
15. Public consultation report on the Draft Guidance on stunning studies assessment criteria
EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-530 15
cause immobilisation. I am also aware that there is an
electrified landing platform for captive bolt stunned
cattle used in some countries (not permitted in UK as
we consider this does not allow recognition of effective
stunning) - this may need to be addressed here or in the
monitoring indicators scientific opinion.
5. Page 25 – line 8 from the bottom – there is a typo –
remove “to” between “Poultry” and “seems”
Private
institute 1
3.2.1.2. Electrical
stunning
1. Electrical stunning : The list of EEG patterns
ascertaining unconsciousness should be completed with
the duration during which these symptoms occur (see
Schütt-Abraham et al. 1983 cited in EFSA report on
stunning and killing 2004, page 128)
2. Page 25: first paragraph last sentence: lack of response
to painful stimuli this is not reasonable because external
stimuli can lead to reflexes which must not necessarily
mean, that the animal is suffering from it, I would
suggest to wait and see what happens during the
epileptic activity (tonic, tonic-clonic phase): Do
symptoms occur, which are incompatible with a full
epileptic fit?
3. Page 25 paragraph 7 last third: , hypercapnic hypoxia in
poultry to seems to result … (to must be erased)
1. The text has been changed to “Therefore, in laboratory
condition studies, unconsciousness and insensibility can
be ascertained by the following EEG patterns:
• induction of a generalised epileptiform activity in the
brain, which can be recognised from the predominance of
8–13 Hz high-amplitude EEG activity, followed by a
quiescent EEG
OR
• an immediate onset of a quiescent EEG
OR
• no somatosensory, visual or auditory evoked responses
or potentials in the brain immediately after the stunning”
2. It has been specified in the document that the sequence of
presence of tonic seizures after removal of the current
and apnoea during tonic seizures and lack of response to
painful stimuli needs to be applied to ascertain the
effectiveness of the stun.
3. The typing error has been corrected.
16. Public consultation report on the Draft Guidance on stunning studies assessment criteria
EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-530 16
Industry 3.2.1.2. Electrical
stunning
1. Eligibility criteria to be complied with by stunning
procedures determine that the procedure (to be proposed
as an alternative) should be based on science and
legislation, and its outcome should give rise to:
immediate loss of consciousness and sensitivity OR
absence of pain, suffering and distress until loss of
consciousness and sensitivity AND duration of
unconsciousness and insensitivity (until death) as
follows on item “2.1 Eligibility criteria”. Regarding
criteria for the interventions’ outcome: In addition to the
animal welfare requisites defined in items A or B + C, it
is suggested that product quality criteria should be
included. Therefore, although the procedure is intended
to protect animal welfare at the moment of slaughtering,
meat quality criteria should be considered. By ensuring
this requisite, ethical principles that pervade discussions
on animal welfare, such as non-wasting of food and
sustainability of production, will be respected.
2. Regarding criteria for loss of sensitivity and
consciousness: The use of epilepsy as a reference for
detecting a state of unconsciousness and insensitivity is
controversial in literature, despite being well accepted.
A number of authors noted that as opposed to mammals,
birds not always demonstrate epilepsy following
electrical stunning: "Chickens, unlike red meat species,
do not show grand mal epilepsy in the brain following
electrical stunning.” (RAJ, 2003). “Poultry do not
usually produce the same type of epilepsy as the
redmeat species when they are electrically stunned. So,
for bird species the recommended minimum currents
have been based on other criteria.” (GREGORY, 1992,
and GREGORY, 1998). In Brazil, laboratory studies
(data not published yet) confirmed such findings by
demonstrating that the onset of epilepsy varies
considerably from one individual to another and is not
always evidenced, even in birds that are visibly stunned
and unconscious. This fact has been certified by means
of clinical signal analyses (abolition of somatosensory
1. Meat quality is outside the remit of this document. It has
to be acknowledged that for certain stunning methods,
e.g. multiple bird waterbath stunning, meat quality and
welfare targets are not reconcilable.
2. The interpretation of the referenced publications has
changed in the light of recent scientific understanding of
electrical waterbath stunning of poultry. In addition,
significant technological developments in the digital
recording and analysis of the EEG data also contributed
to a better understanding of the neurophysiological basis
of electrical stunning in poultry. Effective electrical
stunning of poultry produces epileptiform activity in the
brain (see references below) and therefore, the
requirements in this guidance are scientifically valid.
1) Raj, A.B.M. and O’Callaghan, M. 2004. Effect of
amount and frequency of head-only stunning currents on
the electroencephalograms and somatosensory evoked
potentials in broilers. Animal Welfare, 13: 159-170.
2) Raj, A.B.M. and O’Callaghan, M. 2004. Effects of
electrical water bath stunning current frequencies on the
spontaneous electroencephalograms and somatosensory
evoked potentials in hens. British Poultry Science, 45:
230-236.
3) Jackson, G. Raj, A.B.M., Lalies, M.D.M. and Hudson,
A.L. 2004. Identification of 5-HT1B autoreceptors in
hyperstriatal neurones of broiler chickens. British Journal
of Pharmacology, 138: Proceedings supplement 175P.
4) Raj, A.B.M., O’Callaghan, M. and Knowles, T. G.
2006. The effect of amount and frequency of alternating
current used in water bath stunning and neck cutting
methods on spontaneous electroencephalograms in
broilers. Animal Welfare, 15: 7-18.
5) Raj, A.B.M., O’Callaghan, M. and Hughes, S. I. 2006.
The effect of amount and frequency of pulsed direct
current used in water bath stunning and neck cutting
methods on spontaneous electroencephalograms in
broilers. Animal Welfare, 15: 19-24.
6) Raj, A.B.M., O’Callaghan, M. and Hughes, S. I. 2006.
17. Public consultation report on the Draft Guidance on stunning studies assessment criteria
EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-530 17
evoked potentials (SEPs), induction of seizure and loss
of muscle tone or physical reflexes following electrical
stunning).
In addition, cerebral impedance tests have shown that
the estimated current and tension measured in birds’
brains is not significantly affected by the use of 200 Hz
frequency with a tension of 100 V and a current of 100
mA when compared to the electrical parameters
recommended by the Regulation (EC) 1099/2009.
Moreover, electrical parameters of the same magnitude
acting on the brains of birds were unable to produce the
same epilepsy effect in different individuals, although
all birds have shown the absence of induced
somatosensory, visual or aural signals.
Therefore, the adoption of epilepsy as the only criteria
for analyses of the stunning efficacy has important
technical limitations. The suggestion is for
consideration of the amount of electrical current that
reaches birds' brain and its relation with clinical signals
in birds (i.e. confirmation of an absence of induced
somatosensory, visual or aural signals) to be considered
as an additional criteria. Such methodological increment
would consider a likely variation among individuals and
the likelihood of the absence of epilepsy, thus avoiding
the setbacks found in scientific literature and preserving
the broadly accepted criteria of analyses based on the
animal response.
References:
Gregory, N.G. 1998. Animal welfare and meat science.
CABI Publishing, Wallingford,UK.
Raj, A. B. M. (2003): A critical appraisal of electrical
stunning in chickens.World`s Poultry Science Journal
59, 89-98
The effects of pulse width of a pulsed direct current used
in water bath stunning and neck cutting methods on
spontaneous electroencephalograms in broilers. Animal
Welfare, 15: 25-30.
Private
institute 1
3.2.2. Absence of
pain, distress and
suffering until the
loss of
unconsciousness
Page 29 second paragraph first sentence: at least one of the
two additional … (of is missing)
The typing error has been corrected.
18. Public consultation report on the Draft Guidance on stunning studies assessment criteria
EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-530 18
and sensibility
EU Member
State
national
authority 1
3.2.2.
Absence of pain,
distress and
suffering until the
loss of
unconsciousness
and sensibility
1. Page 26 – 3.2.2 – line 1-2 this is very important and
relates to my comment under 3.1 on humanness been a
prerequisite before a stun method is taken further into
research to look at simple stun etc.
2. Page 26 – line 3 – “mechanical and electrical stunning
induce immediate unconsciousness” – this should be
considered carefully – this is the outcome, however
whilst a new method is researched this needs to be
demonstrated. Further it is important to ensure lack of
pain, distress and suffering during the application of the
stun method (i.e. a captive bolt that needs to rest in the
animals head before shooting to achieve
unconsciousness resulting in pain caused at the time of
pressing the trigger)
1. This issue is taken into consideration in the section on
general aspects of stunning research.
2. The sentence has been removed from the document.
EU Member
State
national
authority 1
3.2.3. Duration of
unconsciousness
and insensibility
1. Page 29 – 3.2.3 paragraph 1 line7 – researchers
presenting new stun methods for 1099 should use
indicators consistent with the monitoring indicators
scientific opinion, unless new indicators are described
for a given method, in which case they will have to be
validated.
2. Page 29 – 3.2.3 paragraph 3 – reference to EFSA 2004
opinion on indicators –this should refer to the 1099
monitoring indicators opinion where possible.
1. Consistency with the EFSA scientific opinions on
monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses has been
assured in this document.
2. A reference to the EFSA scientific opinions on
monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses has been added
to the document.
19. Public consultation report on the Draft Guidance on stunning studies assessment criteria
EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-530 19
Private
institute 2
3.2.3. Duration of
unconsciousness
and insensibility
Duration of Unconsciousness and Insensibility During the
Slaughter of Sheep Stunned Using Electronarcosis.
My clinical records show there is a risk of sensibility where
sheep are stunned by electronarcosis prior to slaughter.
Particularly where sheep are hoisted after shackling and the
completion of the incision of the carotids takes over 20
seconds from the stun. The tonic phase turns into the clonic
phase, while the carotid incision initiates a fresh Grand Mal
,probably due to to a fresh Glutamate and Aspartate surge.
These sheep show a 15 second traverse by the third eyelid of
the eyeball during this surge. During this phase the corneal,
palpebral and pupillary reflexes cannot be elicited. After this
15 seconds the corneal,palpebral and pupillary reflexes
return until 40 seconds plus in lambs and 60 seconds plus in
older sheep, timed from the incision of the carotids.
Whereas un-hoisted lambs presented to the stunner in a vee
restrainer have their carotids severed within 6 seconds of the
completion of the electric stun. These lambs are within the
tonic phase of the first Grand Mal, the incision of the
carotids initiates an additional Grand Mal type seizure,
which takes a further 15 seconds for the third eyelid to
traverse the eyeball, after which no corneal or other reflex
were found.
Whereas one found that lambs which have undergone non-
stunned slaughter remain on a cradle for 20 seconds or until
unconsciousness prevails, when hoisted swinging in an
inverted position, they can show corneal reflexes for over 60
seconds. Some of these lambs show in the first 15 seconds a
partial or complete traverse of the third eyelid across the
eyeball. These non-stunned hoisted lambs take longer to die
than the electrically stunned hoisted lambs, with the non-
hoisted lambs stunned and incised within 6 seconds taking
least time to die.
Hoisting and swinging of inverted sheep may distribute
fresh blood to the Circle of Willis by increased gravitational
force. This may be similar to the resuscitation of new born
lambs by swinging them and increasing gravitational force
within the lamb's circulation bathing its brain. The increase
The points raised in relation to the prolonged stun to stick
intervals are covered in the intervention eligibility criteria in
the parameter on maximum stun to stick intervals.
20. Public consultation report on the Draft Guidance on stunning studies assessment criteria
EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-530 20
in blood supply to the Circle of Willis may lead to the
increased risk of resurgence of sensibility which may occur
as a single episode or a drifting in and out of consciousness.
The use of non-lethal electronarcosis has been accepted by
many Religious Authorities, as a reversible method of
stunning sheep during slaughter to produce religiously
approved sheep meat. This method is a commonly used also
to stun sheep during slaughter for the secular market
throughout the EU.
The requirement to have animals continually unconscious
between stunning and death set down in EC Regulation
1099/2009 is in doubt in the systems, where electronarcosis
has been used for stunning prior to slaughter but has waned
after hoisting or prolonged stun to stick intervals or both.
All new systems proposed should be viewed against the
effects of hoisting of long stun to stick intervals intrinsic to
their operation in a slaughterhouse context.
EU Member
State
national
authority 1
5. Methodological
quality
Page 31 – 5 - paragraph 1 point 3 – “allow broad
applicability of the results to populations [insert: AND
EQUIPMENT] beyond those studied [insert: WHERE
POSSIBLE]. For any stunning method, the more parameters
that can be given to help validating different equipment
which stuns following that method (i.e. energy delivered)
the better. In relation to different populations this should
only be done where possible (i.e. gas mixtures in broilers
versus waterfowl]
The sentence has been changed to “….3. allow broad
applicability of the results beyond any single study (= external
validity) “. The other points raised in the comment refer to
intervention eligibility criteria and are taken care of in that
section.