Indicator 4.1.1.10.5

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

Water Quality Indicators:

Step 1. Identify the parameters to be monitored based on Table 2, Appendix 12.

Step 2. Establish species and life stage-specific thresholds for the parameters identified:

Example 1, for Atlantic salmon farmed in a seawater net pen, the traffic light system could be:

 Acceptable  Warning Levels Unacceptable  

Temperature  6-18°C  <6°C >18°C  <-0.5°C >23°C

DO (at 11C)  >6.5mg/L  <6.5mg/L  <3mg/L

Turbidity  >5m  2-5m  <2m

Example 2, Tilapia farmed in a pond, the traffic light system could be (based on Pedrazzani, A.S., Quintiliano, M.H., Bolfe, F., Sans de Oliveira, E.C. & Molento, C.F.M. (2020) Tilapia On-Farm Welfare Assessment Protocol for Semi-intensive Production Systems. Frontiers in Veterinary Science):

 Acceptable  Warning Levels Unacceptable  

Temperature  25-32°C  20-24 or 33-37°C  ≤19°C ≥38°C

Oxygen saturation  70-90%  40-69% ≤39 ≥96

Turbidity 25-40cm 41-65cm <25 or >65cm

Morphological Indicators:  

Step 1. Develop a scoring system for each of the morphological parameters required by Indicator 4.1.1.10.2.

Parameters  Severity of the lesion  Localisation of the lesion  Timing of the lesion 

  0  1  2  3  0  1  2  3  0  1  2

Eye damage  None  Mild  Moderate Severe  None  unilateral  Bilateral

0perculum damage  None  Mild  Moderate Severe  None  unilateral  Bilateral

**Skin Damage   None  Mild  Moderate Severe  None  Focal  Multifocal  Diffuse

(includes any skin damage, from erosion the wounds) **

Fin damage  None  Mild  Moderate Severe  None  One fin  More than one fin    None or heal  Healing  Active

Deformities  None  Mild  Moderate Severe  None  One type  More than one type

Colouration  None  Abnormal

Emaciation  None  Mild  Moderate Severe

Step 2. Once a scoring system has been developed, simulate different scenarios to develop a traffic light system. These scenarios should include at least:

Each scenario will have a corresponding score:

Best case scenario 

Parameters  Severity of the lesion  Localisation of the lesion  Timing of the lesion 

  0  1  2  3  0  1  2  3  0  1  2

Eye damage  0      0

0perculum damage  0      0

Skin Damage   0      0**

(includes any skin damage, from erosion the wounds) **

Fin damage  0      0        0

Deformities  0      0

Colouration  0

Emaciation  0

Total  0

Worst case scenario 

Parameters  Severity of the lesion  Localisation of the lesion  Timing of the lesion 

  0  1  2  3  0  1  2  3  0  1  2

Eye damage      3      2

0perculum damage      3      2

Skin Damage       3        3**

(includes any skin damage, from erosion the wounds) **

Fin damage      3      2        2

Deformities      3      2

Colouration 

Emaciation      3

Total  31

Second best case scenario 

Parameters  Severity of the lesion  Localisation of the lesion  Timing of the lesion 

  0  1  2  3  0  1  2  3  0  1  2

Eye damage    1      1

0perculum damage    1      1

Skin Damage     1      1**

(includes any skin damage, from erosion the wounds) **

Fin damage    1      1        1

Deformities    1      1

Colouration    1

Emaciation    1

Total  13

Third best case scenario 

Parameters  Severity of the lesion  Localisation of the lesion  Timing of the lesion 

  0  1  2  3  0  1  2  3  0  1  2

Eye damage      2        2

0perculum damage      2        2

Skin Damage       2        2**

(includes any skin damage, from erosion the wounds) **

Fin damage      2        2        2

Deformities      2        2

Colouration    1

Emaciation      2

Total  25

Step 3. Create a traffic light system, for example:

0 to 13 13 to 25 25 to 31

 Acceptable  Warning Levels Unacceptable  

Acceptable Threshold Not acceptable

No action Action recommended Action required

With time, and as more information is gathered, these thresholds might require re-adjustments.

Behavioural Indicators:  

Step 1. Identify behaviours that are relevant for the species and the life stage being farmed.

Step 2. Grade the identified behaviours based on the scientific literature available or the opinion of a veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional. A few possible behaviours to monitor are listed below.

Score

Feeding Behaviour 0 1 2

Active feeding Consistently and eagerly responding to feed, showing good overall appetite. Some fish are not feeding as actively as others, with reduced eagerness or delayed responses to food. A significant portion of the fish are not responding to food, showing reduced or absent feeding behaviour.

Even feeding Fish are spreading out evenly across the cage while feeding. Fish are congregating in specific areas of the cage, indicating a potential issue. Fish are crowding into specific areas of the cage.

Feeding competition Minimal signs of competition or aggression Increased signs of competition or aggression over food Fish are exhibiting signs of extreme aggression or fighting for food

Feeding rate Eating the full amount of feed provided in the designated time period. Consuming most of the feed, but some feed may remain uneaten or uncollected A large amount of feed remains uneaten.

Step 3. Simulate scenarios.

Best case scenario Second-best scenario Third-best scenario Worst case scenario

Score        

Active feeding 0 1 1 2

Even feeding 0 1 1 2

Feeding competition 0 1 0 2

Feeding rate 0 1 0 2

Total 0 4 2 8

Step 4. Create a traffic light system, for example:

0-4 4-6 6-8

Acceptable Threshold Not acceptable

Mortality Indicators:  

Step 1. Develop a mortality classification system that adjusts to the species, the life stage and the farming context (e.g. the geography or farming system where fish are reared). Staff must be trained in the mortalities classification. Broadly, the following groupings can be made:

Step 2. Based on the site’s historic mortality trends and those of the industry, establish mortality thresholds with the support of a veterinarian or health manager.

Step 3. Create a traffic light system, for example for:

Mortality ranges for production period of tilapia grown in a pond based on the FAI Tilapia Welfare Course:

<10 % 11-25% ≥26%

Acceptable Warning Levels Unacceptable

Another example, mortality ranges for the production period of sea bass on-growing in an open water net system based on: Pavlidis, M., Samaras, A., Papaharisis, L., (2024). Welfare assessment study for European sea bass. University of Crete.

<15 % 16-25% ≥26%

Acceptable Warning Levels Unacceptable

Evidence of Implementation

Auditors Should Confirm

Useful Resources