The growing threat of antimicrobial resistance worldwide has led to an increasing concern in the human, veterinary, and environmental fields, highlighting the need for strategies to effectively control bacterial contamination. Correct biosecurity practices, including the appropriate use of disinfectants, play a crucial role in controlling bacterial contamination. This study aimed to verify whether the recommended concentrations defined according to the Defra General Orders concentration (GO, published by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ disinfectant-approval scheme) of five commercial disinfectant preparations (peroxygen-based, phenol-based, two halogen-releasing agents, and glutaraldehyde/quaternary ammonium compound-based; disinfectants A to E, respectively) were sufficient to inhibit growth and inactivate selected bacterial strains, including some that carry known phenotypic patterns of multidrug resistance. The effectiveness of each disinfectant was expressed as the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) values, determined by the broth-microdilution method. The results indicate that the type of disinfectant and its concentration influence the inhibitory and bactericidal efficacy. The glutaraldehyde/quaternary ammonium compound-based (disinfectant D) and chlorocresol-based products (disinfectant B) were the most effective, and the GO concentration was bactericidal in all the strains tested. The efficacy of the other compounds varied, depending on the bacterial species tested. The GO concentrations were at least able to inhibit the bacterial growth in all the products and bacterial strains tested. A greater tolerance to the compounds was observed in the strains of E. coli with multidrug-resistance profiles compared to the strains that were sensitive to the same antimicrobials.

The growing sensitivity of consumers about animal welfare and the awareness of its impact on food security and safety recently influenced international policies and law scenario. To response to these needs, in 2018, the Italian Ministry of Health commissioned the development of a system named ClassyFarm able to categorizes the level of risk arising from farm animal welfare. The experts involved in the project provided specific checklists to analyze different animal species and housing system. The developed welfare measurement protocols consist of both resource-based and animal-based measures and are divided into three areas: (Area A) “Farm management and staff training”, Area B) “Housing and equipment”, (Area C) “Animal-based measures”. The aim of this study was to measure welfare conditions in cattle herds reared in the Aosta Valley through the ClassyFarm checklist for tie-stall dairy cattle. The scores (%) for each area of assessment were divided into three classes (insufficient, acceptable, and optimal) while the total Animal Welfare Score (AWS), obtained by summing the scores of the 3 areas, was divided into five classes. The total AWS showed the majority of the farm included in good to optimal result.

African swine fever (ASF) is one of the most threatening animal diseases for the global swine industry. Due to the high risk of ASF virus (ASFv) transmission via infected suid meat and derived products, Italy adopted specific risk mitigation measures during 2023 and 2024. Two targeted programs were established to implement these measures: one addressing the illegal domestic trade of wild boar meat and meat products and the second focusing on irregularities in food imports. In both programs, products with traceability irregularity and improper or missing labels were seized. ASFv detection by real‐time PCR was conducted on all suid meat and derived products originating from illegal national trade, as well as on illegally imported products in which suid DNA was detected. While smuggled local products did not show any ASFv contamination, a large proportion of the illegally imported products tested positive for ASFv by real‐time PCR. However, experimental infection tests conducted both in vitro and in vivo using samples that tested positive by real‐time PCR, yielded negative results indicating that the virus was inactivated. These programs highlighted the existence of an illegal network responsible for smuggling suid meat and derived products into Italy. Although in vivo and in vitro testing excluded the presence of infectious virus in illegally imported products, the potential risk of transboundary transmission through illegal importation remains a significant concern, necessitating ongoing surveillance and stringent biosecurity measures.