Establishing a European network for wildlife health surveillance

Surveillance of wildlife health in Europe remains informal and reporting wildlife diseases is not yet coordinated among countries. At a meeting in Brussels on 15 October 2009, delegates from 25 countries provided an overview of the current status of wildlife health surveillance in Europe. This showed that every year in Europe over 18,000 wild animals are examined as part of general surveillance programmes and over 50,000 wild animals are examined in the course of targeted surveillance. The participants at the Brussels meeting agreed to set up a European network for wildlife health surveillance. The goals of this network, which was established in February 2010, are to improve procedures for the rapid exchange of information, harmonise procedures for investigation and diagnosis of wildlife diseases, share relevant expertise, and provide training opportunities for wildlife health surveillance.

Risk assessment for the design of a risk-based surveillance programme for fish farms in Switzerland (in accordance with Council Directive 2006/88/EC of the European Union).

Swiss aquaculture farms were assessed according to their risk of acquiring or spreading viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS) and infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN). Risk factors for the introduction and spread of VHS and IHN were defined and assessed using published data and expert opinions. Among the 357 aquaculture farms identified in Switzerland, 49.3% were categorised as high risk, 49.0% as medium risk and 1.7% as low risk. According to the new Directive 2006/88/EC for aquaculture of the European Union, the frequency of farm inspections must be derived from their risk levels. A sensitivity analysis showed that water supply and fish movements were highly influential on the output of the risk assessment regarding the introduction of VHS and IHN. Fish movements were also highly influential on the risk assessment output regarding the spread of these diseases.

The impact of environmental enrichment on the outcome variability and scientific validity of laboratory animal studies.

It has been widely accepted for some time that species-appropriate environmental enrichment is important for the welfare of research animals, but its impact on research data initially received little attention. This has now changed, as the use of enrichment as one element of routine husbandry has expanded. In addition to its use in the care of larger research animals, such as nonhuman primates, it is now being used to improve the environments of small research animals, such as rodents, which are used in significantly greater numbers and in a wide variety of studies. Concern has been expressed that enrichment negatively affects both experimental validity and reproducibility. However, when a concise definition of enrichment is used, with a sound understanding of the biology and behaviour of the animal as well as the research constraints, it becomes clear that the welfare of research animals can be enhanced through environmental enrichment without compromising their purpose. Indeed, it is shown that the converse is true: the provision of suitable enrichment enhances the well-being of the animal, thereby refining the animal model and improving the research data. Thus, the argument is made that both the validity and reproducibility of the research are enhanced when proper consideration is given to the research animal's living environment and the animal's opportunities to express species-typical behaviours.