Welfare of equidae during transport
In the framework of its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of animal welfare legislation. This opinion deals with the protection of horses and donkeys during transport. While the opinion focuses primarily on road transport of horses, there are specific se...
Saved in:
Published in | EFSA journal Vol. 20; no. 9 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Hoboken
John Wiley & Sons, Inc
01.09.2022
European Food Safety Authority John Wiley and Sons Inc Wiley |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | In the framework of its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of animal welfare legislation. This opinion deals with the protection of horses and donkeys during transport. While the opinion focuses primarily on road transport of horses, there are specific sections dealing with the transport of horses on roll‐on–roll‐off ferries, horses transported by air and the transport of donkeys. In addition, the opinion covers welfare concerns in relation to a specific scenario identified by the European Commission related to the transport of horses on long journeys to slaughterhouses. Current practices related to transport of horses during the different stages (preparation, loading and unloading, transit and the journey breaks) are described. Overall, 13 welfare consequences were identified as being highly relevant for the welfare of horses during transport based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: gastro‐enteric disorders, handling stress, heat stress, injuries, isolation stress, motion stress, prolonged hunger, prolonged thirst, respiratory disorders, resting problems, restriction of movement, sensory overstimulation and separation stress. These welfare consequences and their animal‐based measures are described. A variety of hazards were identified related to factors such as inexperienced/untrained handlers, lack of horse training, structural deficiencies of vehicles/facilities, poor driving skills/conditions, horse separation/regrouping, unfavourable microclimatic and environmental conditions and poor husbandry practices. The opinion contains general and specific conclusions in relation to the different stages of transport. Recommendations to prevent hazards and correct or mitigate welfare consequences have been developed. Recommendations were also developed to define quantitative thresholds for microclimatic conditions within the means of transport and for space allowance. The development of welfare consequences over time was assessed in relation to maximum journey time. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | is available under the Supporting Information section of the opinion on European Commission Acknowledgements The small ruminants pigs poultry and rabbits interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu on the Welfare of Animals During Transport Requestor Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Elisabetta Canali, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin‐Bastuji, Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gortázar Schmidt, Mette Herskin, Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Virginie Michel, Barbara Padalino, Paolo Pasquali, Helen Clare Roberts, Hans Spoolder, Karl Stahl, Antonio Velarde, Arvo Viltrop and Christoph Winckler. bovines If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact Outcome of the public consultation Plain language summary , EFSA‐Q‐2022‐00032 . The panel wishes to thank the following for the support provided to this scientific output: hearing experts Nancy De Briyne, Michael Cockram, Yolande Seddon and Clive Phillips. EFSA would like to thank Mariana Geffroy, Mimi Kalcheva and Maria Veggeland from EFSA, for all the support provided in this opinion. EFSA wishes to acknowledge all European competent institutions, Member State bodies and other organisations that provided data for this scientific output. Reproduction of the images listed below is prohibited and permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder: Figure 1: © Oxford University Press; Figure 2: © Australian Veterinary Association; Figure 4: © SAGE Publications; Figures 11 and 12: © Elsevier; Figure 15: © Oxford University Press; Figures 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20: © Elsevier. Panel members Question number Declarations of interest Note In accordance with Article 21 of the Decision of the Executive Director on Competing Interest Management, a waiver was granted to Sandra Edwards, Genaro C Miranda de La Lama and Luigi Faucitano, experts of the Working Group WG/P/AHAW/2020/05‐AHAW Welfare Farm to Fork. Pursuant to Article 21(6) of the aforementioned decision, the concerned experts were allowed to take part in the drafting and in the discussion of the scientific output but were not allowed to take up the role of, or act as, chairman, vice‐chairman or rapporteur of the working group. Any competing interests are recorded in the respective minutes of the meetings of the Working Group WG/P/AHAW/2020/05 – AHAW Welfare Farm to Fork. Waiver A plain language summary of this statement is available under Supporting Information. It aims to enhance transparency and inform interested parties on EFSA's work on the topic using simplified language. Those interested in the more technical analysis should consult the full opinion. horses Note: The Outcome of the public consultation on the Welfare of Animals During Transport (small ruminants,bovines,pigs,horses,poultry and rabbits) is available under the Supporting Information section of the opinion on small ruminants. Question number: EFSA‐Q‐2022‐00032 Waiver: In accordance with Article 21 of the Decision of the Executive Director on Competing Interest Management, a waiver was granted to Sandra Edwards, Genaro C Miranda de La Lama and Luigi Faucitano, experts of the Working Group WG/P/AHAW/2020/05‐AHAW Welfare Farm to Fork. Pursuant to Article 21(6) of the aforementioned decision, the concerned experts were allowed to take part in the drafting and in the discussion of the scientific output but were not allowed to take up the role of, or act as, chairman, vice‐chairman or rapporteur of the working group. Any competing interests are recorded in the respective minutes of the meetings of the Working Group WG/P/AHAW/2020/05 – AHAW Welfare Farm to Fork. Acknowledgements: The panel wishes to thank the following for the support provided to this scientific output: hearing experts Nancy De Briyne, Michael Cockram, Yolande Seddon and Clive Phillips. EFSA would like to thank Mariana Geffroy, Mimi Kalcheva and Maria Veggeland from EFSA, for all the support provided in this opinion. EFSA wishes to acknowledge all European competent institutions, Member State bodies and other organisations that provided data for this scientific output. Plain language summary: A plain language summary of this statement is available under Supporting Information. It aims to enhance transparency and inform interested parties on EFSA's work on the topic using simplified language. Those interested in the more technical analysis should consult the full opinion. Declarations of interest: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu. Panel members: Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Elisabetta Canali, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin‐Bastuji, Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gortázar Schmidt, Mette Herskin, Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Virginie Michel, Barbara Padalino, Paolo Pasquali, Helen Clare Roberts, Hans Spoolder, Karl Stahl, Antonio Velarde, Arvo Viltrop and Christoph Winckler. Adopted: 30 June 2022 Requestor: European Commission |
ISSN: | 1831-4732 1831-4732 2314-9396 |
DOI: | 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7444 |