The European Commission has requested EFSA to assess animal diseases according to the criteria as laid down in Articles 5, 7, 8 and Annex IV for the purpose of categorisation of diseases in accordance with Article 9 of the Regulation (EU) No 2016/429 (Animal Health Law). This scientific opinion addresses the ad hoc method developed for assessing any animal disease for the listing and categorisation of diseases within the Animal Health Law (AHL) framework. The assessment of individual diseases is addressed in distinct scientific opinions that are published separately. The assessment of Articles 5, 8 and 9 criteria is performed on the basis of the information collected according to Article 7 criteria. For that purpose, Article 7 criteria were structured into parameters and the information was collected at parameter level. The resulting fact sheets on the profile and impact of each disease were compiled by disease scientists. A mapping was developed to identify which parameters from Article 7 were needed to inform each Article 5, 8 and 9 criterion. Specifically, for Articles 5 and 9 criteria, a categorical assessment was performed, by applying an expert judgement procedure, based on the mapped information. The judgement was performed by EFSA Panel experts on Animal Health and Welfare in two rounds, individual and collective judgement. The output of the expert judgement on the criteria of Articles 5 and 9 for each disease is composed by the categorical answer, and for the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported.

Few issues in swine production are as complex as floor space allowances. One method for pork producers to calculate floor space allowance (A) is to convert BW into a 2-dimensional concept yielding an expression of A = k * BW(0.667). Data on ADG, ADFI, and G:F were obtained from published peer-reviewed studies. Five data sets were created: A = grower-finisher pigs, fully slatted floors, and consistent group size; B = grower-finisher pigs and fully slatted floors (group size did not need to be consistent); C = grower-finisher pigs, partially slatted floors, and consistent group size; D = grower-finisher pigs, partially slatted floors (group size did not need to be consistent); and E = nursery pigs, fully slatted or woven wire floors (group size did not need to be consistent). Each data set was analyzed using a broken-line analysis and a linear regression. For the broken-line analyses, the critical k value, below which a decrease in ADG occurred, varied from 0.0317 to 0.0348. In all cases the effect of space allowance on ADG was significant (P < 0.05). Using the linear analyses based on data with k values of < 0.030, the critical k values for the 4 grower-finisher data sets did not differ from those obtained using the broken-line analysis (0.0358 vs. 0.0336, respectively; P > 0.10); however, none of the linear regressions explained a significant proportion of the variation in ADG. The slopes for the nonplateau portion of the broken-line analyses based on percent values varied among data sets. For every 0.001 decrease in k (approximately 3% of the critical k value), ADG decreased by 0.56 to 1.41%, with an average value of 0.98% for the 5%-based analyses. The use of an allometric approach to express space allowance and broken-line analysis to establish space requirements seem to be useful tools for pig production. The critical k value at which crowding becomes detrimental to the growth of the pig is similar in full- and partial-slat systems and in nursery and grower-finisher stages. The critical point for crowding determined in these analyses approximated current recommendations to ensure the welfare of pigs.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The European Commission requested EFSA to compare the reliability of wild boar density estimates across the EU and to provide guidance to improve data collection methods. Currently, the only EU‐wide available data are hunting data. Their collection methods should be harmonised to be comparable and to improve predictive models for wild boar density. These models could be validated by more precise density data, collected at local level e.g. by camera trapping. Based on practical and theoretical considerations, it is currently not possible to establish wild boar density thresholds that do not allow sustaining African swine fever (ASF). There are many drivers determining if ASF can be sustained or not, including heterogeneous population structures and human‐mediated spread and there are still unknowns on the importance of different transmission modes in the epidemiology. Based on extensive literature reviews and observations from affected Member States, the efficacy of different wild boar population reduction and separation methods is evaluated. Different wild boar management strategies at different stages of the epidemic are suggested. Preventive measures to reduce and stabilise wild boar density, before ASF introduction, will be beneficial both in reducing the probability of exposure of the population to ASF and the efforts needed for potential emergency actions (i.e. less carcass removal) if an ASF incursion were to occur. Passive surveillance is the most effective and efficient method of surveillance for early detection of ASF in free areas. Following focal ASF introduction, the wild boar populations should be kept undisturbed for a short period (e.g. hunting ban on all species, leave crops unharvested to provide food and shelter within the affected area) and drastic reduction of the wild boar population may be performed only ahead of the ASF advance front, in the free populations. Following the decline in the epidemic, as demonstrated through passive surveillance, active population management should be reconsidered.

No abstract

No abstract