The objective of this study was to monitor the quality of ground water supplied to animal farms and 2 villages and of surface water (rivers) in the same area (Košice basin, eastern Slovakia) with the aim to assess contamination of water by potential sources in this area. Samples for physico-chemical and microbiological examination were collected at 12 sampling points (6-surface water; 6-ground water) from May 2014 up to March 2015, covering all four seasons. The examination and evaluation of individual parameters was carried out according to relevant Slovak legislation compatible with EU Drinking water directive. The physico-chemical evaluation focused on parameters that indicate pollution of water resulting from human activities and farming. Microbiological examination included determination of counts of bacteria cultivated at 22 • C and 37 • C (BC22 and BC37), total coliforms, E. coli and fecal streptococci. Ground water intended for mass consumption (farms, villages) is abstracted from wells, collected in storage reservoirs and disinfected before brought to consumers. Some families in the villages use their own wells. Water for individual consumption (individual households) originates directly from individual wells. Examination of potable water used on agricultural farms showed some possibility of contamination of sources by runoff and inappropriate manipulation with excrements. Surface water in in the area close to both farms was polluted with organic substances (COD Mn ), however they did not exceed the limit set for surface water. At many samplings we detected in surface water presence of total coliforms, E. coli and occasionally also fecal enterococci indicating fecal pollution that could eventually affect ground water in individual wells. Our investigations showed that protection zones of water sources were not always sufficient. There were considerable variations in the quality of surface water during the year but no clear relationship between microbial contamination and seasons was observed. Quality of ground water supplied for mass consumption complied with legislative regulations except for BC 22 (heterotrophic count at 22 • C) in summer and autumn). Water from individual wells contained occasionally presence of total coliforms, E. coli and enterococci and higher heterotrophic counts.

Ear cropping is a controversial subject with both supporters as well as detractors. Some consider that the procedure is cruel and unnecessary, while others consider it to be routine and harmless. The cropping of the ears of dogs for cosmetic reasons has no medical merit. It is a cosmetic, surgical procedure performed to achieve a specific appearance that matches the desired image and sometimes the standard of certain breeds of dogs. Cosmetic surgery offers the dog the desired look, but it is not a necessity. This procedure must be performed by a licensed veterinarian. Those interventions cause pain and anxiety and, like all surgical procedures, are associated with the risk of anaesthesia problems, blood loss and infection. There is only a thin line between what is convenient for the animal and what is good. Almost every community has legislation on animal welfare which includes amputation issues. If something is considered normal in some countries, this does not necessarily mean that it is also moral. The lack of legal consequences may lead some owners to produce certain breeds of dogs to their liking, but they should not be allowed to cripple their dog for their own personal benefit. Amputation can only be performed legally by a veterinarian and a new problem arises. This is because there are veterinarians who refuse to practice that kind of intervention. Some of them may think that since the legislation is unclear, they might be charged with a crime.

Mutilation of dogs is an emotive and controversial subject for veterinarians and animal keepers. The elective docking of a dog’s tail is illegal under both UK and Slovak law except for specific breeds that are intended to be used for specific purposes while the elective cropping of dogs’ ears is illegal under all circumstances. In the EU, there is much variation between countries with some having a total ban on these procedures and others allowing elective ear cropping specifically. Under the current UK as well as Slovak legislation there is no legal requirement for a central monitoring of the number of docking procedures undertaken, therefore it is not possible to analyse the efficacy of the legislation, specifically, the monitoring of the number of legally docked dogs that are not eventually used for the purpose for which their exemption was granted. There is also no certification scheme for dogs undergoing ear cropping legally in EU countries that permit it. It is suggested that greater monitoring be implemented of the eventual use of docked dogs and the EU granting proof of legality to ear cropped dogs in order to understand how great a risk is posed by illegal docking and cropping procedures.

The welfare of cattle, pigs, sheep and goats was assessed by measuring trauma detected during veterinary postmortem inspection at slaughterhouses. The subject of this evaluation were all bovine, porcine, ovine and caprine animals slaughtered at Czech slaughterhouses in the monitored period, i.e., a total of 1,136,754 cows, 257,912 heifers, 1,015,541 bulls, 104,459 calves, 586,245 sows, 25,027,303 finisher pigs, 123,191 piglets, 22,815 ewes, 114,264 lambs, 1348 does and 5778 kids. The data on the numbers of traumatic findings were obtained retrospectively from a national veterinary database collecting data from slaughterhouse postmortem examinations. The results showed that findings of trauma were observed at a low frequency in the studied species. Injuries were detected most frequently in cows (1.71%). In contrast, no findings associated with the presence of trauma were recorded in does and kids. From the viewpoint of trauma localization, findings on the limbs were more frequent than findings on the body (p < 0.01). The only exceptions to this were lambs, does and kids, for which there was no statistically significant difference between findings on the limbs and the body (p = 1.00). The results show that housing system (bedding, the presence of slats, floor hardness), transport of animals to the slaughterhouse (moving animals to the vehicle, loading ramps, floors in transport vehicles and the transport of animals itself) and design of the slaughterhouse (unloading ramps, passageways and slaughterhouse floors) have a greater impact on the limbs than the bodies of animals in the majority of species. A difference was also demonstrated in the occurrence of findings of trauma in the limbs and body (p < 0.01) between culled adult animals and fattened animals, namely in cattle and pigs. A difference (p < 0.01) between ewes and lambs was found only in the occurrence of traumatic injury to the limbs. The results showed that fattened animals are affected by the risk of trauma to a lesser extent than both culled adult animals and young animals. Statistically significant differences (p < 0.01) were also found between the studied species and categories of animals. The category most affected from the viewpoint of injury both to the limbs and body was cows. In contrast to cows that are typically reared indoors, the low frequency of traumatic findings was found in small ruminants and in bulls, i.e., animals typically reared outdoors. Assumedly, access to pasture may be beneficial considering the risk of traumatic injury.

No abstract