The killing of sheep and goats for human consumption (slaughtering) can take place in a slaughterhouse or on-farm. The processes of slaughtering that were assessed for welfare, from the arrival of sheep and goats until their death (including slaughtering without stunning), were grouped into three main phases: pre-stunning (including arrival, unloading from the truck, lairage, handling and moving of sheep and goats); stunning (including restraint); and bleeding. Stunning methods were grouped into two categories: mechanical and electrical. Twelve welfare consequences that sheep and goats may experience during slaughter were identified: heat stress, cold stress, fatigue, prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, impeded movement, restriction of movements, resting problems, social stress, pain, fear and distress. These welfare consequences and their relevant animal-based measures are described in detail in this Scientific Opinion. In total, 40 welfare hazards that could occur during slaughter were identified and characterised, most of them related to stunning and bleeding. Staff were identified as the origin of 39 hazards, which were attributed to the lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or to fatigue. Measures to prevent and correct hazards were identified, and structural and managerial measures were identified as those with a crucial role in prevention. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origin of hazards and preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are proposed.

The European Commission requested that EFSA provide study designs for the investigation of four research domains according to major gaps in knowledge identified by EFSA in a report published in 2019: (i) the patterns of seasonality of African Swine Fever (ASF) in wild boar and domestic pigs in the EU; (ii) the epidemiology of ASF in wild boar; (iii) survival of ASF virus (ASFV) in the environment and (iv) transmission of ASFV by vectors. In this Scientific Opinion, the fourth research domain on ASFV transmission by vectors is addressed. Eleven research objectives were proposed by the EFSA working group and broader ASF expert networks, such as ASF stop, ENETWILD, VectorNet, AHAW network and the AHAW Panel Experts. Of the 11 research objectives, six were prioritised based on the following set of criteria: (1) the impact on ASF management; (2) the feasibility or practicality to carry out the study;(3) the potential implementation of study results in practice; (4) a possible short time-frame study (< 1 year); (5) the novelty of the study and (6) if it was a priority for risk managers. The prioritised research objectives were: (I) Studies on the potential vector fauna at the pig-wild boar interface and the feeding preference of blood-feeding potential vectors in ASF-affected areas; (II) Assessment of the efficacy of insect screens on indoor/outdoor pig holdings to prevent the entry of blood-sucking vectors (i.e. Stomoxys) in ASF endemic areas; (III) Assess the role of mechanical vectors in the virus transmission in ASF-affected areas; (IV) Distribution of the potential mechanical transmission vectors in ASF-affected areas of the EU; (V) ASFV transmission by synanthropic birds; and (VI) Assessment on the presence/absence of the soft tick Ornithodoros erraticus in ASF-affected areas in Europe. For each of the selected research objectives, a research protocol has been proposed considering the potential impact on ASF management and the period of 1 year for the research activities.

A descriptive analysis, inter-observer and test–retest reliability of the animal-based measures (ABMs) included in the protocol were performed. This study aimed at the development of a welfare assessment protocol for dogs recruited in the trap-neuter-release (TNR) programmes and the description of the implantation of these programmes in Italy. Nine Italian regions carried out TNR programmes. A varied scenario, along with some critical issues, emerged. Fifty dogs were recruited and assessed simultaneously by two assessors to determine the reliability of ABMs included in the protocol. A subsample of ten dogs were assessed three times to assess test–retest reliability. All females were neutered against 36% of males. Most dogs were adults (58%) and of a large size (68%). Vaccine prophylaxis and parasitic prevention were regular in 13% and 76% of dogs, respectively. Few dogs showed lameness, evidence of pain, other clinical problems, or thermal discomfort. Overall, 82% of dogs did not show fear or aggression to unfamiliar people. The level of agreement between the two assessors was quite high, ranging from substantial (0.61–0.80) to perfect (1) for the majority of measures. This study highlighted some critical issues in TNR implementation and the suitability of the protocol as a tool for animal welfare assessment.

Mapping the 'data sources' on animal diseases, in each European Union (EU) Member State and, since 2020, in Pre-accession countries, is one of the activities of EFSA's SIGMA 1,2,3 project. The aim of this activity is to identify the central competent authorities responsible for managing the data on animal diseases and animal populations in these countries. At present, EFSA is focusing on three diseases that are currently under assessment at the request of the European Commission: African swine fever, avian influenza and lumpy skin disease; and on the corresponding affected animal populations: swine, poultry and bovines, respectively. This technical report presents the results of the implementation of the above activity for Romania and provides information on the authorities which constitute the data sources on animal diseases within the country. It also includes the 'Country Card', that depicts the central competent authorities responsible for the data on animal diseases (data on outbreaks, surveillance activities and laboratory results) and on animal populations (bovines, swine, poultry) in Romania. It has been generated based on the replies submitted by Romania via the EUSurvey questionnaire and on the clarifications provided subsequently. The National Sanitary Veterinary and Food Safety Authority in Romania; the General Directorate for Official Controls -Service for the Identification and Registration of Animals; the General Directorate for Animal Health and Welfare -Service for Control of Diseases within the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development are the central sources of data related to animal diseases and to animal populations in Romania. Within this authority, different divisions and departments are involved with different types of data.