Measuring general animal health status: Development of an animal health barometer

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Preventive Veterinary Medicine

jo u r n al ho me p ag e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / p r e v e t m e d

Measuring general animal health status: Development of an animal health barometer

Pieter Depoorter

, Xavier Van Huffel

, Herman Diricks

, Hein Imberechts

, Jeroen Dewulf

, Dirk Berkvens

, Mieke Uyttendaele

aFederalAgencyfortheSafetyoftheFoodChain(FASFC),DirectorateControlPolicy,Belgium

bVeterinaryandAgrochemicalResearchCentre(CODA-CERVA),OperationalDirectionBacterialDiseases,Belgium

cGhentUniversity,FacultyofVeterinaryMedicine,DepartmentofReproduction,ObstetricsandHerdHealth,Belgium

dInstituteofTropicalMedicine,DepartmentofBiomedicalSciences,Belgium

eGhentUniversity,FacultyofBioscienceEngineering,DepartmentofFoodSafetyandFoodQuality,Belgium

fScientificCommitteeoftheFASFC,Belgium

a rt i c l e i n f o

Articlehistory:

Received19November2013

Receivedinrevisedform2December2014 Accepted5December2014

Keywords:

Barometer Animalhealth Indicators Measurementtool

a b s t ra c t

Thedevelopmentofananimalhealthbarometer,aninstrumenttomeasurethegeneral healthoftheBelgianlivestockpopulationonayearlybasisandtomonitoritsevolution overtime,isdescribed.Theelaborationofasetof13animalhealthindicators(AHIs)as thebasisfortheanimalhealthbarometerisdiscussed.Theseindicatorswereweighted byexperts–includingscientists,policymakersandagro-industrialrepresentatives–to determinetheirrelativeweightinthebarometer.Theresultofthebarometerisexpressed asacomparisonwithapreviousyear.Basedontheresultsofthe13AHIs,itisconcluded thatgeneralanimalhealthinBelgiumshowsapositiveevolutionsince2008.Theanimal healthbarometerprovidesacompositeviewofthestatusoflivestockhealthinBelgiumand isatooltocommunicateinanintelligible,comprehensiblemanneronaspectsofanimal healthtoconsumersandprofessionalstakeholdersintheanimalproductionandfoodchain.

Togetherwiththefoodsafetybarometer(Baertetal.,2011.FoodRes.Int.44,940)andthe planthealthbarometer(Wilmartetal.,2014.Eur.J.PlantPathol.doi:10.1007/s10658-014- 0547-x),theanimalhealthbarometerisoneofthethreeinstrumentstoprovideaholistic viewontheoverallstatusofthesafetyofthefoodchaininBelgium.

©2014ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.

1. Introduction

Anumberofepidemicdiseaseoutbreaksthatoccurred intheEuropeanCommunityinthe1990sandlater(e.g.

BovineSpongiformEncephalopathy,ClassicalSwineFever, Foot-and-MouthDisease,AvianInfluenza)haveshownthat ensuringanimalhealth–andbyextensionfoodsafetyand security–can bestbeachievedbyusinga farmtofork approach,inwhichallstakeholdersofthefoodandfeed

∗ Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+003222118704;fax:+003222118722.

E-mailaddress:[email protected](P.Depoorter).

chainbeartheirownresponsibilityforproductsafetyasa whole.InparallelwiththesteadygrowthoftheEuropean Communityandwiththeincreaseinanimaltradeandrisk ofdiseasetransmissionaprogressiveharmonisationofani- malhealthmeasuresandsystemsofdiseasesurveillance, diagnosisandcontrolhavebeenputinplace(EUAnimal HealthStrategy2007–2013).

Animalhealthandfoodsafetyarecloselylinkedasani- maldiseasestransmissibletoman(zoonosis)affectpublic health.Poorhygieneanddiseaseoccurrenceatthediffer- entstages oftheanimalproductionchaincanaffectthe qualityand thesafety ofanimal products(Singer et al., 2007).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.12.008 0167-5877/©2014ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.

Thesafety of the foodchain hasbeen reinforcedby thegeneralimplementationofprocedures basedonthe

‘Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points’ (HACCP) principlestreated bythe GeneralFoodLaw (Regulation (EC) 178/2002) and the European Hygiene legislation (Regulation (EC) 852/2004). In the various EU Mem- ber States competent authorities inspect and audit the implementationof‘GoodAgriculturalPractices’(GAP)and HACCPbasedprocedures.Theseproceduresarealsoappli- cableintheanimalproductionchainandhaveanindirect effectonanimalhealthassuch.

TheBelgianFederalAgencyfortheSafetyoftheFood Chain(FASFC)wascreatedin2000asaresponseof the governmenttothedioxincrisis(RoyalDecreeof4February 2000)whichhadrevealedthelackofcoordinationbetween differentinspectionservicesofthefoodchain.Theexpec- tationsregardingtheorganisationofthefoodchaincontrol systemwereclearlydefinedandweremeanttocoverthe entirefoodsupplychainfromfarmtofork(startingfrom therawmaterialsandthefeedtotherearingoffoodpro- ductionanimalsuptotheirtransformationintofood),with theobjectivetoprotectpublichealth,animalhealthand planthealth.

All respective segments within the food chain bear their own responsibility to ensure that safe food is offered to the consumer, without the hazardous pres- enceof biological,chemical orphysical agents.Controls and inspections concerningthesanitary status, hygiene andinfrastructure,animalhealthandwelfareandsafety of animal products are important tasks performed by the FASFC. The results are published in annual activ- ity reports which can be consulted on the website (http://www.favv-afsca.fgov.be/rapportsannuels/). How- ever,theseresultsdonotprovideaquickgeneralpictureof thesafetyevolutionofthefoodchain.Therefore,the2009 FASFCbusinessplanmentionedtheneedtoidentifyasetof indicatorstomeasureandfollow-upthesafetywithinthe foodchain(Houins,2009).Thistaskwasdedicatedtothe ScientificCommitteeoftheFASFC(anindependentscien- tificconsultationbody).Theideatodevelopabarometer tomeasure thesafety of thefood chain fitswithin the contextoftheprevailingtrendtowardsmeasurableobjec- tives,performanceindicators,assessments,scoresystems andthelike.Thisideawasalsoinspiredbytheintroduc- tionofsimilarnotionsinothersectors,suchastheBelgian Inter-federalPoverty Barometer (2011) and theBelgian sustainabilitybarometer(SustainableDevelopment Task Force,2009).

Theconceptofthemeasurement ofthesafety ofthe foodchainandtheillustrationofthecasestudyofthefood safetybarometerhasbeendescribedbyBaertetal.(2011, 2012).Nexttothefoodsafetybarometertwootherbarom- etersweredevelopedbytheScientificCommitteeofthe FASFC:theplanthealth(phytosanitarystatus)barometer (Wilmartetal.,2014)andtheanimalhealthbarometer.

Thepresentpaperdescribesthedevelopmentofthelat- terasapracticaltoolfor measuringandmonitoringthe generalhealthsituationofthenationallivestockpopula- tion(14animalgroupsorspecies).Animalhealthinthe contextofthispaperisconsideredasthegeneralsanitary statusof theanimal production chainasobserved from

thestandpointoftheFASFCwhichisresponsibleforthe controlofthecompletefoodchainfromfarmtofork.

2. Materialandmethods

2.1. Objectiveandscopeofthebarometer

Animal health, within the framework of the animal healthbarometer,isdefinedasthesanitaryhealthstatus (includinginfectiousdiseasesandzoonosesbutexcluding metabolicdiseases)ofthelivestockpopulation(14animal groupsorspeciesincludingbeesandfishbutexcludingpets andwildlife)includingthecompliancetostandardsrelated toanimalhusbandry,hygieneandwelfareconditionsinthe primaryproduction.Althoughmostofthedatausedforthe calculationoftheanimalhealthbarometerarecollectedby theFASFCduringitscontrolandinspectionactivities,ithas tobeclearthattheconceptofanimalhealthisnotlimitedto theaspectsthatarerelatedtofoodsafety.Nevertheless,the authorsareconvincedthatthereisastronglinkbetween animalhealthandfoodsafetyasalsomentionedbySinger etal.(2007).

Thegoaloftheanimalhealthbarometeristoconducta measurementofthelevelofanimalhealthofthenational livestockpopulationattheendofacalendaryearandto monitoritsevolutionovertime.Inthepresentstudy,the outcomeoftheanimalhealthbarometerbasicallyrelates tothepresenceofhazards(animaldiseasesandzoonoses) withintheanimalproductionchainaffectingthehealthand well-beingoftheproductionanimalsandposingathreat forthesafetyoftheanimalproducts.Itrelatesalsotothe existenceandfunctioningofpreventiveormitigatingsys- temsforlimitingtheprobabilitiesthatsuchhazardsoccur orposeathreattoanimalandpublichealth.Information abouttheanimalhealthstatusiscollectedyearlyviathe coreactivitiesoftheFASFCandexternalpartners.

2.2. Definitionandselectionofanimalhealthindicators Numerouscontrolsandinspectionsareroutinelycon- ductedbytheFASFCinordertomonitorandcontrolanimal healthandtherelatedactivitiesbytheoperators.Itwould be too complex and unworkable to incorporateall the resultsintothebarometer,themorethatanoverviewof mostofthesedataispublishedintheannualreportsofthe FASFC (http://www.favv-afsca.fgov.be/rapportsannuels/) orotherauthorities,institutionsororganisations.There- fore,itwasdecidedtoworkwithasetofindicators.

An indicator synthesises or simplifies relevant data aboutthestatusorevolutionofanumberofphenomena orsymptoms.Anindicatorcanassumeeitheraquantita- tiveoraqualitative(nominalorordinal)form(Sustainable Development TaskForce,2009).Eachindicatorprovides informationaboutapartialaspectoftheanimalproduc- tionchainandthemonitoringofeachindicatorenablesto achieveatrendanalysisofthisparticularaspect.

Theanimalhealthindicators(AHI)usedintheanimal health barometerarenotperformanceindicators,inthe sensethattheyarenotmeantforevaluatingtheperfor- mance level of a certain setof activities neitherof the performanceoftheVeterinaryServicesasisoftendonein

amanagementcontextwherethegoalshavebeenclearly set.TheAHIsarebasicallydescriptiveinnature.

Inearlierworkonthedevelopmentofabarometerfor thesafetyofthefoodchain(Baertetal.,2011)anumber ofcriteriafortheselectionofindicatorsweredefined.Ani- malhealthindicatorsideallyshouldrespondasmuchas possibletothefollowingcharacteristics:

-Measurability:indicatorsshouldbequantitativelymea- surableastheobjectiveofthebarometeristofollow-up trendsovertime.

-Independence:indicatorsshouldbeindependent.Differ- entindicatorsshouldnotmeasuresimilaraspectsofthe animalproductionchain.

-Reliability: indicators must be robust, reliable and as muchaspossibleinsensitivetobias.

-Availability:thedatausedintheindicatormustbereadily availableinreports,documentsordatabases.

-Representativeforanimalhealth:thewholesetofindica- torsmustincludethevariouscategoriesofanimalhealth hazardswithinthescopeofthebarometer.

-Unambiguityofformulation:anunambiguousrelationship shouldexistbetweentheindicatorandtheoverallanimal healthstatusasmeasuredinthebarometer.

-Durability:theindicators havealready beenmeasured overalongperiodoftime,anditisexpectedthatthey willbefurtherfollowedupduringmanyyearstocome.

Thefoodchainencompassesallpossiblestagesofthe foodsupplychainfromfarmtoforkandanimalproduc- tionisanimportantpartofit.Logically,AHIsarechosen attheleveloftheprimaryproductionsite(farmlevel),at theindividualanimalorherdlevelandatthelevelofthe slaughterhouseordestructionfacility.

AHIshavebeenselectedcoveringkeyactivitiesalongall thestagesoftheanimalproductionchain.Theseactivities encompassaconsiderableproductionvolume,and/ormay haveasignificantimpactonthesafetyofthefoodchain ingeneralandonanimalhealthmoreprecisely.Keyactiv- itiesareforexample:rearingofproductionanimals,milk production,collectionofsemen,slaughtering,etc.

Based ontheabove-mentionedcriteria, aworkgroup oftheScientificCommitteeoftheFASFChasperformeda thoroughexpertevaluationofallpossibledataproviding informationabouttheanimalproductionchainandreadily availablewithintheFASFCandotherBelgianorganisations.

Theworkgroupwascomposedofscientificriskassessment experts,veterinaryanimaldiseasediagnosticexpertsfrom thenationalandregionallaboratoriesandexpertsrepre- sentingthelivestocksector.Theirfeedbackresultedinthe selectionofasetof13AHIs(Table1).Adetailedtechnical sheet for each AHI is available on http://www.favv- afsca.fgov.be/scientificcommittee/advices/documents/

ADVICE09-2011ENDOSSIER2009-09bisappendix1.pdf.

This set of indicators covers all stages of the entire primary animal production sector (producers, traders, collection centres,transportation,artificialinsemination centres,embryocollectionteams,slaughterhousesandfish markets)andthe14animalgroupsorspecies(cattleand (veal)calves,pigs,smallruminants,solidungulates,poul- tryandratites,cervids,bees,rabbits,farmedgame,fish,

molluscsandshellfish).Intheselectionprocessoftheindi- catorstheScientificCommitteeoftheFASFCtriedtocover thevariousanimalspeciesinaccordancewiththeireco- nomicimportanceinBelgium.Becausethedatabasesdid notallowtoseparatemortality dataofcattle according toageandholdingtypes(i.e.dairyversusbeefholdings) and becauseadultcattlewere already wellrepresented in the animal health barometer (AHI6—notification of bovineabortionsandAHI7—milksomaticcellcount),itwas decidedtorestrictmortalitydataofcattletovealcalves.

Theyrepresentaseparateandhighlyspecialisedbranchof theBelgiancattleindustrycharacterisedbyfewbutlarge holdings(Pardonetal.,2012).Vealcalvesmortalitydata areareliableandusefulparameterforthehealthofthe vealcalfproduction.

Someindicators(AHI1,AHI2, AHI4,AHI6)arerelated tothepreventiveapproachofanimalhealthpolicy(notifi- cationofmandatorynotifiableanimalinfectiousdiseases, self-checkingfor the primary animal production sector, traceabilityandnotificationofbovineabortions).Prompt notificationofregulatedanimalinfectiousdiseasesiscru- cialfortheauthoritytoestablisheffectivecontrolmeasures withoutdelayinordertopreventtheearlyspreadofcon- tagiousdiseases.

Self-checkingrefers tothe wholerange of measures takenbybusinessoperatorstomakesurethattheprod- uctsforwhichtheyareresponsiblemeettherequirements laiddownintheregulationsonthesafetyandthequality ofproductsundertheauthorityoftheFASFC,andontrace- ability.Intheprimaryproductionsector,thesettingupof afullyoperatingself-checkingsystembasedontheHACCP principles,isnotmandatory.Businessoperatorsatprimary production must, however, comply with good hygiene practicesandkeeprecordsofcertainoperations.Several incentiveshavebeenputin placein ordertoencourage primaryproductionoperatorstoinstallafullyoperating self-checkingsystemandhavetheirself-checkingsystem certified.Forfoodbusinessoperators(includingprimary production)withanexternallycertifiedself-checkingsys- tem,FASFCinspectionfrequenciesarereducedasistheir annualfinancialcontributiontotheFASFC.

SomeAHIs(AHI3,AHI4and AHI5)arerelated tothe productionprocesscontrol(inspectionandaudits),while others (AHI8 and AHI12) represent observations made by official veterinarians during slaughterhouse inspec- tions. The data for AHI9 (antimicrobial resistance in Escherichiacoliindicatorbacteria)iscollectedwithinthe frameworkoftheBelgianantimicrobialresistancemoni- toringprogramamongindicatorbacteriaoffoodproducing animals.

Aspecificcharacteristicoftheanimalhealthbarometer (comparedwiththefoodsafetybarometerandtheplant healthbarometer)isthatsomeofthedataoriginatedfrom sourcesexternaltotheFASFC.Thisisparticularthecasefor indicatorAHI7(milksomaticcellcount),forwhichthedata originatefromtheWalloonMilkCommitteeandtheFlan- dersMilkControlCentre,aswellasforindicatorsAHI10 (mortalityinslaughterpigs)andAHI11(mortalityinsmall ruminants)forwhichmortalitydataareobtainedfromthe renderingcompany.ThedataforindicatorAHI13(mortal- ityinvealcalves)ontheotherhandarederivedfromthe

Table1

Overviewoftheanimalhealthindicators.

Title Description Interpretation

AHI1:notificationof mandatorynotifiable animaldiseases

Thepercentageofmandatorynotifiableanimal diseasesthattheFASFChasreportedinrelationtothe totalnumberofmandatorynotifiableanimaldiseases (n=73)undertheapplicationofchapterIIIofthe AnimalHealthLawof24thMarch1987

Giventhatmandatorynotificationisaninherentpartofthe preventiveapproach,andiscrucialfortheauthoritiesto establishtimelycontrolmeasurespreventingthespreadof infectiousanimaldiseases,anincreaseoftheindicatoris thereforeconsideredasanindicationofvigilanceandalertness withregardtothesafeguardingofanimalhealthandis thereforeinterpretedaspositive

AHI2:self-checkingfor theprimaryanimal productionsector

Thepercentageofperformedkeyactivitiesusinga certifiedself-checkingsystemintheprimaryanimal productionsector,onanannualbasis

Anincreaseofthepercentageofkeyactivitieswithacertified self-checkingsystemindirectlyleadstoahigherconfidence levelwithregardtoadequatepreventiveactionstakeninorder toensureoverallanimalhealth.Anincreaseoftheindicatoris thereforeinterpretedaspositive

AHI3:inspectionsof infrastructure,facilities andhygiene

Thepercentageofannualinspectionswithregardto infrastructure,facilitiesandhygienethatwerescored

‘favourable’or‘favourablewithremarks’

Thisindicatorshowstheextenttowhichtheoperatorsmeet thelegalrequirementswithregardtoinfrastructure,facilities andhygiene.Anincreaseofthisindicatorincreasesthe likelihoodofanimprovementofanimalwelfareandhealth andisthereforeperceivedaspositive

AHI4:traceability inspections

Thepercentageofannualinspectionsrelatedto traceabilitythatwerescored‘favourable’or

‘favourablewithremarks’

Thisindicatormeasurestheextenttowhichtheoperators havemetthelegalrequirementsconcerningtraceability.An increaseofthisindicatorindicatesabetterabilitytotraceand monitoranimalsandanimalproductsthroughthevarious production,processinganddistributionphasesandis thereforeinterpretedaspositive

AHI5:animalwelfare inspections

Thepercentageofannualinspectionsrelatedtoanimal welfarethatwerescored‘favourable’or‘favourable withremarks’

Thisindicatormeasurestheextenttowhichtheoperators havemetthelegalrequirementsconcerninganimalwelfare.

Anincreaseofthisindicatorindicatesanindirect

improvementofanimalhealthandisinterpretedaspositive AHI6:notificationof

bovineabortions

Thepercentageofbovineabortionstestedannuallyin relationtothetotalnumberoffemalecattleagedover 24months

Bovineabortionsmaybetheresultofinfectiousdiseasessuch asbrucellosis,neosporosis,BVD(BovineViralDiarrhoea),Q fever,Bluetongue,Schmallenbergvirus,etc.Thisindicatorisa surveillancetoolofcattlehealth.Anincreaseofthisindicator, i.e.thepercentageofpathologicalexaminationsperformedon abortedtissues,indicatesgreaterawarenessofthesector regardingabortion.Anincreaseoftheindicatorisinterpreted asafavourabledevelopmentofthesurveillanceofcattlehealth AHI7:bulktank

somaticcellcount

Thepercentageofbovinetankmilksamplesforwhich thenumberofcellsisbeloworequalto400,000mL⁻¹ annually

Anincreaseofthisindicatorindicatesabettergeneraludder healthofthebovinepopulationandimplicatesfewercows with(sub)clinicalmastitis.Anincreaseoftheindicatoris interpretedaspositive

AHI8:parasiticliver damageinpigs

Theannualpercentageofhealthypiglivers(not condemned)relatedtothenumberofslaughterpigs slaughteredinBelgium

Anincreaseofthisindicatorimplicatesfewerslaughterpigs withasubstantialparasiticinfectionandindicatesanindirect improvementofporcinehealth.Anincreaseofthisindicatoris thereforeinterpretedaspositive

AHI9:antimicrobial resistanceinE.coli indicatorbacteria

TheannualpercentageofE.coliisolatesfromlive animalsources,collectedbytheFASFCwithinthe frameworkofthemonitoringofindicatorbacteria, whicharesensitivetoalloftheantimicrobialstested

ThepercentageofE.coliisolatesthataresensitivetoalltypes oftestedantimicrobialsisameasurementoftheoccurrenceof antimicrobialresistanceandindirectlytheuseof

antimicrobials.Anincreaseofthisindicator,i.e.anincreasein thepercentageofE.coliisolatessensitivetoalltypesof antimicrobialstested,isasignofthereductionofantimicrobial resistanceandindirectlyanimprovementofanimalhealth giventhatthereisareducedneedtotreatanimals.Anincrease ofthisindicatoristhereforeinterpretedaspositive

AHI10:mortalityof slaughterpigs

Theannualmortalitypercentageoffatteningpigs comparedtothenumberofslaughteredpigs

Thisindicatorservesasacriterionforthegeneralhealthof fatteningpigs.Areductionofthisindicatorreflectsan improvementinanimalhealth

AHI11:mortalityof smallruminants

Theannualmortalitypercentageofsmallruminants (sheepandgoats)comparedtothetotalnumberof smallruminants

Thisindicatorservesasacriterionforthegeneralhealthof smallruminants.Areductionofthisindicatorreflectsan improvementinanimalhealth

AHI12:poultry carcassesdeclared non-compliant

Theannualpercentageofpoultrycarcassesdeclared noncompliantatslaughter

Thisindicatorservesasacriterionfortherejectionofpoultry carcassesatslaughterforhealthreasons.Areductionofthis indicatorreflectsanimprovementinanimalhealth AHI13:mortalityof

vealcalves

Theannualmortalitypercentageofvealcalves comparedtothenumberofcalvesrearedatvealcalf holdings

Thisindicatorservesasacriterionforthegeneralhealthof vealcalves.Areductionofthisindicatorreflectsan improvementinanimalhealth

Table2

Overviewofthenumberofanimalhealthindicatorsthatarerelatedtothe differentsegmentsoftheanimalproductionchain.

Foodchain stage

Numberof animalhealth indicators

AHI

Suppliers 3 AHI2,3,4

Primaryanimal production

11 AHI1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,13

Processing 6 AHI3,4,5,7,8,12

Distribution 2 AHI3,4

Trade 1 AHI1

Belgian electronicidentificationand registrationsystem (SANITEL).

TheAnimalHealthIndicatormatrix(Table2)showsthe relationshipofthedifferentAHIswiththerespectivestage oftheanimalproductionchain,indicatingthatthewhole animalproductionchainiscovered.

2.3. Assigningaweighttoeachindicator

The concept of measuring ‘Animal Health’ is not as unambiguousasitseemsatfirstsight:theimpactofthe variousindicatorsonanimalhealthmaybeperceivedina differentwaybydifferentprofessionalsorstakeholders.In ordertogetaproperinsightintothedegreeofimportance attachedtocertainindicatorsbythevariousstakeholders andexperts,aweightingoftheindicatorswasperformed.

Thisweightistakenintoaccountwhentheoverallvalue foranimalhealthinthebarometeriscalculated.Amethod similartotheonedescribedbyBaertetal.(2011)duringthe developmentofthefoodsafetybarometerhasbeenused.

Eachofthe13AHIswasscoredbyFASFCriskmanagers and risk assessors (Scientific Committee) and by stake- holdersoftheBelgianfoodchain(agro-industrialsector, consumer organisations and representativesfrom other competentauthoritiesrepresentedintheAdvisoryCom- mitteeoftheFASFC)bymeansofanelectronicsurvey.The participantsgotadetailedtechnicalsheetforeachAHIand instructionsonhowtofillinthesurvey.Thesurveyusedthe LasVegasmethod(Gore,1987).Respondershadtoassign 10pointstotheAHIsaccordingtotheirjudgedimportance toanimalhealth.Severalpointscouldbeassignedtoone AHIandeachAHIcouldreceivepoints,howeverthetotal sumofallassignedpointshadtobeequalto10.

Thesurveywassendto85people(34riskassessors, 12riskmanagersand39stakeholders).Finally,themean weightofeachAHIwascalculated(Table3).

2.4. Calculationoftheanimalhealthbarometer

Forall13AHIs,dataweregatheredfrom2007to2012 andtheproportionalchangesbetween2consecutiveyears werecalculated.ForAHI9(antimicrobialresistanceinE.coli indicator bacteria),only data from 2011onwards were available.Itwasdecidedtoneutraliseanindicatorwhen its valuefor a defined yearwas below1% toavoid the impact of largefluctuations in percentage changefrom one year to another that reflect only a limited impact onanimalhealth. Therefore,AHI2(self-checkingforthe

primaryanimalproductionsector)wasneutralisedin2008 and2009becausethepercentageofperformedkeyactivi- tieswithacertifiedselfcheckingsystemwasbelow1%in 2007and2008.Itwasassumedthattheimpactonanimal healthisonlyverylimitediftheadoptionofthissystem isrestricted toless than1%of theactivitiesin theani- malproductionchain.Onthecontrary,thisreasoningwas notfollowedforAHI12(poultrycarcassesdeclarednon- compliant)becauseitwasassumedthatthepercentageof poultrycarcassesdeclarednon-compliantisnotlikelytobe higherthan1%oftheconsideredpopulationandsmalldevi- ationsdoreflectanimportantchangeinthehealthstatus ofthethispopulation.AlsoforAHI6(notificationofbovine abortion)asimilarreasoningwasappliedbecauseitwas assumedthatthepercentageofcattlewithanotifiedabor- tionislowbecauseofseveralreasons.Firstofall,Belgiumis officiallyfreefrombrucellosisandabortionstormsincat- tlehavenotoccurredlately.Second,abortionisoftennot detectedbythefarmerespeciallyintheearlierstagesof gestation.Indeed,accordingtoForaretal.(1995)only20 to30%ofabortionsaredetectedvisually.Third,Belgium hasanimportantbeefcattleproductionandabortionmay stayundetectedinpregnantbeefcattleonpasture.Fourth, ithasbeendescribedthatvarious,oftensocio-economical reasonsplay aroleintheunderreportingofabortionby farmers(Bronneretal.,2014).Finally,cattleownersare traditionallyoftheopinionthattheyonlyhavetonotify abortionincaseofobservationoftheexpulsionofadead ornon-viablefoetusduringmid-andend-gestation.There- fore,takingallthesefactorsintoconsideration,theauthors postulatedthat thepercentage of cattle witha notified abortionisnotlikelytobehigherthan1%inBelgium,which isinlinewiththestudyofNormanetal.(2012)whofound anabortionfrequencyof1.31%indairycattleover151days ofpregnancy.

CertainAHIs(AHI3,AHI4andAHI5)areexpressedas apercentageofinspectionsthatwerescored‘favourable’

or‘favourablewithremarks’.Theseindicators showthe extenttowhichtheoperatorshavemetthelegalrequire- ments.

Formostindicatorsanincreasewasinterpretedasan ameliorationofthesituation.Forsomeindicatorsrelated tomortality(AHI10,AHI11andAHI13)andtopercentage ofnon-compliantcarcassesatslaughter(AHI12)adecrease oftheindicatorreflectsanimprovementofanimalhealth.

Inordertodeterminethevaluethatreflectsthechange of thestate of animal health, theweighting factor was multipliedwiththeannualproportionalchange(twocon- secutiveyears)ofeachAHIandthemeanofallthesevalues wascalculated.Theindicatorvalues arecountdataand theobserveddifferencesbetweensuccessiveyears were testedbymeansofaPoissonregression(StataCorp,2011), ensuringthevalidityofthemodel(i.e.ensuringabsenceof extra-binomialvariability).Valuesofp<0.05wereconsid- eredsignificant.

3. Results

Theindividualvaluesforeachindicatorforasingleyear, aswellastheproportionalchangebetweentwoconsec- utiveyearsareshowninTable4.Thisanalysisindicates

Table3

Overviewofthemeanweightingscoreforeachindicatorandforthedifferentrespondergroups.

Title Riskmanagers

(n=7)

Stakeholders (n=7)

Riskassessors (n=20)

Overall(amongall responses)n(=34)

AHI1:notificationofmandatorynotifiableanimaldiseases 2.04 2.04 1.76 1.87

AHI2:self-checkingfortheprimaryanimalproductionsector 0.74 0.93 1.30 1.11

AHI3:inspectionsofinfrastructure.facilitiesandhygiene 1.11 2.04 1.56 1.57

AHI4:traceabilityinspections 1.67 1.49 0.91 1.19

AHI5:animalwelfareinspections 0.37 1.30 0.46 0.61

AHI6:notificationofbovineabortions 1.67 1.67 0.91 1.22

AHI7:bulktanksomaticcellcount 0.74 0.56 0.91 0.80

AHI8:parasiticliverdamageinpigs 0.93 0.19 0.33 0.42

AHI9:antimicrobialresistanceinE.coliindicatorbacteria 1.86 1.49 1.37 1.49

AHI10:mortalityofslaughterpigs 0.37 0.56 1.11 0.84

AHI11:mortalityofsmallruminants 0.19 0.19 0.78 0.54

AHI12:poultrycarcassesdeclarednon-compliant 0.93 0.37 0.65 0.65

AHI13:mortalityofvealcalves 0.37 0.19 0.98 0.69

that overall animal health in Belgium hascontinuously improvedbetween2008and2012.

Asdescribedearlier,asurveywasorganisedamongst stakeholdersto obtaina weighting factor for each AHI.

Intotal34responses(40%responserate)wereobtained of which 7 (21%), 7 (21%) and 20 (59%) were pro- videdbyrisk managers,stakeholdersand risk assessors respectively.EachAHIreceivedascore,meaningthatthe stakeholderswereconvincedthateveryAHIwasrelevant for the measurement of animal health in the barome- ter.Based on theanswers themean weight(among all responses) ofeach AHI wascalculated (Tables 3 and 4) indicating their importance assigned by the experts with regard to their contribution in measuring animal health. Table3 gives an overviewof the meanweight- ing scores for each indicator of the different response groups.

Theoverallvalueofthe2008animalhealthbarometer (2008versus2007)was−1.14%.Despiteaclearimprove- mentwithregardtomortality(AHI10,AHI11andAHI13) especially in small ruminantsafterthe bluetongue epi- demicin2007,thisslightdecreasewasmainlyduetoadrop innotificationofmandatorynotifiablediseases(AHI1).

Theoverall valueofthe2009animalhealthbarome- ter(2009versus2008)showedapositiveresultof+4.65%.

Thiswasmainlydue toa riseinnotification ofmanda- torynotifiablediseases(AHI1)andadecreaseofmortality inslaughterpigs,smallruminantsandvealcalves(AHI10, AHI11andAHI13).Ontheotherhand,therewasaclear decrease with regard to vigilance for bovine abortions (AHI6)in2009.

Theoverallvalueofthe2010animalhealthbarometer (2010versus2009)showedapositiveevolutionof+16.71%.

Thiswasmainlytheresultofanincreaseofthenumberof certifiedself-checkingsystemsinprimaryanimalproduc- tion(AHI2).Furthermoretherewasanimprovedvigilance forbovineabortions(AHI6).

Theoverallvalueofthe2011animalhealthbarometer (2011versus2010)amounts+6.54%.Thiswascaused,asin thepreviousyear,byanincreaseinthenumberofcertified self-checkingsystemsinprimaryanimalproduction(AHI2) andanincreasedvigilanceofbovineabortions(AHI6).Mor- talityinslaughterpigs(AHI10)wasconsiderablyhigher comparedto2010.

Finally,the2012animalhealthbarometer(2012versus 2011) showedan increase of +14.3%.This positive evo- lution is mainly due to an increase of notification of mandatorynotifiableanimaldiseases(AHI1)andbovine abortions(AHI6).Furthermore,thereisahighernumber of operatorsintheanimalproduction chainwithacer- tifiedself-checkingsystem(AHI2)andtherewasalower mortalityamongslaughterpigs(AHI10).

AHI2(self-checkingfortheprimaryanimalproduction sector)showedaclearpositiveevolutionoverthe4last years,althoughtheresultsfor2007and2008wereneu- tralisedbecausetheywerelowerthan1%.Between2007 and2010,therehasbeenacontinuousdecreaseinswine mortality(AHI10),whichwasmostnotablebetween2007 and2008andbetween2008and2009.However,in2011a slightincreasewasreportedagain.Themortalityofsmall ruminants(AHI11)hasalsodecreasedsubstantially,partic- ularlybetween2007and2008,probablyasaresultofthe compulsoryvaccinationcampaignagainstbluetonguedis- easefollowingtheepidemicin2007.However,itappears that themortality rate in small ruminants is relatively highinrelationtootheranimalspecies.Between2009and 2010andbetween2010and2011,therewasa substan- tialincreaseinthepercentageofdeclaredbovineabortions (AHI6).ForAHI13,therewasasignificantincreaseinthe mortalityof veal calves between2009and 2010 which continued at a lesser extent between 2010 and 2011;

whilemortalitydeclinedsignificantlybetween2008and 2009.

Theyearlyresultofthebarometeriscommunicatedto thepublicviatheannualFASFCreportandthewebsiteby meansofasimplifiedimageoftheannualevolutionanda spiderdiagram,whichgivesamoreinformativepictureof thefluctuationsoftheindividualindicators.Anexampleis giveninFig.1.Thespiderdiagramsofthedifferentyears are availableonthewebsiteof theFASFC(http://www.

favv-afsca.fgov.be/scientificcommittee/barometer/).

4. Discussion

Theprimarygoalofthebarometeristoconductamea- surementofthenationalanimal healthsituationonthe basisofasetofkeyindicatorsthataredirectlyorindirectly related tothe monitoring of infectious diseases and to

P.Depoorteretal./PreventiveVeterinaryMedicine118(2015)341–350347 Overviewoftheresultsfor2007–2012oftherespectiveanimalhealthindicators(thenumberofsamplesorinspectionsisshownbetweenbrackets)withtheirannualpercentagechange(weightedandnot weighted).

Resultsfor2007 Resultsfor 2008

Resultsfor 2009

Resultsfor 2010

Resultsfor 2011

Resultsfor 2012

%Change (2008/2007)¹

%Change (2009/2008)²

%Change (2010/2009)³

AHI1 16.44% 10.96% 13.70% 9.59% 9.59% 16.44% −33.33% 25.00% −30.00%

AHI2 0.17%(63,689) 0.84%(83,968) 6.19%(85,718) 15.09%(88,419) 22.29%(91,992) 23.96%(95,001) –⁷ –⁷ 143.78%

AHI3 98.20%(2303) 98.47%(2901) 98.63%(3255) 98.12%(3687) 97.26%(3505) 97.20%(2648) 0.27% 0.16% −0.52%

AHI4 94.36%(6720) 94.85%(6066) 95.39%(6763) 94.90%(6968) 95.07%(5637) 93.36%(5118) 0.52% 0.57% −0.51%

AHI5 98.30%(7480) 98.14%(8788) 97.10%(9869) 97.16%(10,744) 97.40%(9836) 97.30%(9203) −0.16% −1.06% 0.06%

AHI6 0.27%(1432,543) 0.29%(1437,991) 0.24%(1437,834) 0.46%(1442,392) 0.57%(1423,991) 0.81%(1392,108) 7.41%⁸ −17.24%⁸ 91.67%⁸ AHI7 89.14%(544,551) 89.16%(517,648) 88.74%(491,654) 88.77%(464,097) 90.05%(445,856) 89.55%(427,459) 0.02% −0.47% 0.03%

AHI8 99.20%⁶(1307,211) 98.94%(11,574,645) 98.44%(11,678,185) 96.78%(11,969,764) 95.64%(11,800,995) 95.76%(11,724,413) −0.26% −0.51% −1.69%

AHI9 –⁹ –⁹ –⁹ –⁹ 20.92%(765) 19.06%(855) – – –

AHI10 5.03%⁶(9500,456) 4.07%(11,171,775) 3.58%(11,285,996) 3.40%(11,688,855) 3.74%(11,579,365) 3.21%(11,479,674) 19.09%¹⁰ 12.04%¹⁰ 5.03%¹⁰ AHI11 21.54%(267,561) 12.82%(254,003) 11.33%(272,633) 11.27%(260,296) 10.28%(277,078) 10.74%(279,130) 40.48%¹⁰ 11.62%¹⁰ 0.53%¹⁰ AHI12 0.79%⁶(28,894,561) 0.6%(273,426,460) 0.81%(291,838,791) 0.82%(312,527,133) 0.79%(308,809,657) 0.78%(313,096,763) 3.80%^10,11 −6.58%^10,11 −1.23%^10,11 AHI13 5.19%(305,161) 5.23%(312,848) 4.19%(332,643) 5.19%(335,415) 5.35%(326,519) 5.46%(303,356) −0.77%¹⁰ 19.89%¹⁰ −23.87%¹⁰

Global 3.37%¹² 3.95%¹² 15.27%¹³

%Change (2011/2010)⁴

%Change (2012/2011)⁵

Weightfactor Weighted result2008

Weighted result2009

Weighted result2010

Weighted result2011

Weighted result2012

AHI1 0.00% 71.43% 1.87 −62.33% 46.75% −56.10% 0.00% 133.57%

AHI2 47.71% 7.49% 1.11 –⁷ –⁷ 159.60% 52.96% 8.32%

AHI3 −0.86% −0.06% 1.57 0.48% 0.22% −0.83% −1.34% −0.10%

AHI4 0.19% −1.80% 1.19 0.63% 0.66% −0.62% 0.23% −2.14%

AHI5 0.25% −0.10% 0.61 −0.09% −0.65% 0.04% 0.15% −0.06%

AHI6 23.91%⁸ 42.11%⁸ 1.22 9.04% −21.03% 111.83% 29.17% 51.37%

AHI7 1.44% −0.56% 0.80 0.02% −0.38% 0.03% 1.15% −0.44%

AHI8 −1.18% 0.13% 0.42 −0.11% −0.21% −0.71% −0.49% 0.05%

AHI9 – −8.89% 1.49 – – – – −13.25%

AHI10 −10.00%¹⁰ 14.17%¹⁰ 0.84 16.03% 10.11% 4.22% −8.40% 11.90%

AHI11 8.78%¹⁰ −4.47%¹⁰ 0.54 21.86% 6.28% 0.29% 4.74%% −2.42%

AHI12 3.66%^10,11 1.27%^10,11 0.65 2.47% −4.28% −0.80% 2.38% 0.82%

AHI13 −3.08%¹⁰ −2.06%¹⁰ 0.69 −0.53% 13.72% −16.47% −2.13% −1.42%

Global 5.90%¹³ 9.13%¹⁴ 13¹⁵ −1.14%¹² 4.65%¹² 16.71%¹³ 6.54%¹³ 14.32%¹⁴

1Percentualchange=(2008result−2007result)/2007result×100%.Significantchangesareindicatedinbold=p<0.05,bolditalic=p<0.01andboldunderlined=p<0.001).

2Percentualchange=(2009result−2008result)/2008result×100%.Significantchangesareindicatedinbold=p<0.05,bolditalic=p<0.01andboldunderlined=p<0.001).

3Percentualchange=(2010result−2009result)/2009result×100%.Significantchangesareindicatedinbold=p<0.05,bolditalic=p<0.01andboldunderlined=p<0.001).

4Percentualchange=(2011result−2010result)/2010result×100%.Significantchangesareindicatedwithinbold=p<0.05,bolditalic=p<0.01andboldunderlined=p<0.001).

5Percentualchange=(2012result−2011result)/2011result×100%.Significantchangesareindicatedinbold=p<0.05,bolditalic=p<0.01andboldunderlined=p<0.001).

6OnlydatacollectedfromNovemberonwardswererecorded.ThedatapriortothisdatewerenotdeemedreliableastheFASFCwasusinganotherdatabaseatthattime.

7Giventhatthepercentageofthekeyactivitieswithacertifiedself-checkingsystemwasbelow1%in2007and2008,theimpactonanimalhealthisonlyverylimited.Thisindicatorisneutralisedinthebarometer for2008/2007and2009/2008.

8Althoughtheprevalenceofthisindicatorisbelow1%,itistakenintoaccountasthepercentageofbovineanimalsthatabortislow.

9Resultnotavailableyet.

10Thesignofthisindicatorwaschangedsinceadecreaseofthisindicatoractuallyshowsanimprovementinanimalhealth.

11Althoughtheprevalenceofthisindicatorisbelow1%,itistakenintoaccountasthepercentageofpoultrycarcassesdeclarednon-compliantisnotlikelytobehigherthan1%.

12Averagevalueofthe11indicators(excludingAHI2andAHI9;see⁷and⁹).

13Averagevalueofthe12indicators(excludingAHI9,see⁹).

14Averagevalueofthe13indicators.

15Sumofallweightfactors.

Fig.1.Spiderdiagramoftheanimalhealthbarometer;evolutionovertheyears2009–2010(:globalanimalhealth;dashedline:0%change;䊉:significant changeoftheanimalhealthindicator(p<0.001);:non-significantchangeoftheanimalhealthindicator).

sanitarymeasuresthroughouttheentireanimalproduc- tion chain. This study aimed to develop a method to estimatetheyearlyevolutionofanimalhealthandeventu- allytoevaluatesanitarymeasuresintroducedatacertain moment.Theultimategoalis tointroducea systematic operatingprocedurebasedonthis“barometer”inorderto enablethemonitoringoftheanimalhealthsituation,inan accessiblewaytoabroaderpublicandtoobserveoranalyse trendsoverthelongerterm.

Thisbarometeraimsatprovidingareflectionofpossi- blehazardsandriskswithintheanimalproductionchain duringagivenperiod.Itservesasaninstrumentforcom- munication,reflectionandtrendobservationwithregardto theanimalhealthstate,intendedbothforabroaderpublic andforprofessionalstakeholdersintheanimalproduction chain.Therefore,itisnotmeanttodrawupacomprehen- sivescientificreportgivinganexactimageofthepresence andstatusofallpotentialhazardswithintheanimalpro- ductionchain,norisitintendedtocarryoutanyformof riskassessment.

Thecompositionofthesetofindicatorsandthecon- text within they were defined is of major importance.

Eachindicatorhasitsownstrengthsandweaknesses,as explainedinthetechnicaldatasheets(availableoninter- net: http://www.favv-afsca.fgov.be/scientificcommittee/

advices/documents/ADVICE09-2011ENDOSSIER2009- 09bisappendix1.pdf). The composition of this set of indicatorsmaybemodifiedperiodically,forinstancewhen it is likely that some indicators areno longerrelevant, or when other indicators may better reflect the actual situationasaresultofnewdevelopments.

Theweightingexercisereflectsthe(subjective) eval- uationof participants ofthe relative importance of the

indicators in the barometer concept. Different consid- erations (economical or others) may have caused the differentinterpretationoftheweightof individualindi- cators in the final barometer result according to the respondentsposition(producer,consumer,riskassessor, risk manager, etc.) and responsibility in thefood chain (Table3).Nevertheless,thefinalresultoftheweighting exerciserepresentsthebalancedopinionofdecisionmak- ers,riskassessorsandstakeholdersofthefoodchain.

During the weighting exercise AHI1 (notification of mandatorynotifiableanimalinfectiousdiseases)received the highest weight since many notifiable diseases can causeepidemicswhich canhaveadevastating effecton animalhealth.Thelistwithmandatorynotifiableanimal diseasescurrentlycontains 73diseasesand isadaptable accordingtoepidemiologicalchanges.However,between 2007and 2012thelisthasremainedstable.Next,AHI9 (antimicrobial resistance in E. coli indicator bacteria) receivedalsoahighweightindicatingthatantimicrobial resistance in (intensive) animal production is generally accepted asanimportant concerninsociety becauseof its negative repercussion on public health. This grow- ingpublicconcernregardingantimicrobialresistancehas alsobeendemonstratedbyanEurobarometerconsumer survey (Eurobarometer,2010).Also, indicatorsconcern- ing inspections of infrastructure, facilities and hygiene (AHI3)and traceability (AHI4)receivedelevatedweight factorsindicatingtheyweredeemedimportantindicators formaintaininganimalhealth.Ontheotherhand,inspec- tionsofanimalwelfare(AHI5)receivedonlyalowweight (<1).Furthermore,AHI6(notificationofbovineabortions) wasconsideredtobeanimportantindicatorasmonitoring ofbovineabortionsiscrucialinthesurveillanceofmany