Indicator 4.2.1.8.5

Filter content

by selecting applicable filters below

System

Water Type

Feed Dependent

Species

Indicator 4.2.1.8.5

by Contact on 8 October 2026

Table 1. Requirements for Indicator 4.2.1.8.5

Indicator

Requirement

4.2.1.8.5

Indicator applicability: every UoC using feed The UoC shall ensure the HWMP includes a traffic light system for water quality (Indicator 4.2.1.8.1), morphological scoring (Indicator 4.2.1.8.2), behavioural scoring (Indicator 4.2.1.8.3), and mortality (Indicator 4.2.1.8.4). The system shall identify ranges of acceptable levels (green), warning levels (amber), and unacceptable levels (red) of health or welfare. Where levels are identified as amber or red, the UoC shall increase monitoring and implement appropriate corrective actions to restore the levels back to green.


How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • The traffic light system should be tailored to accommodate the species being farmed, their life stage and the UoC’s monitoring procedures.

  • General guidelines on how to develop the traffic light system for each OWI are presented as follows:

Water Quality Indicators:

Step 1. Identify the parameters to be monitored according to Appendix 12 (Table 3).

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

  • Base these values on either published scientific literature, the recommendation of a veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional, or ASC reference table for water quality.

  • If the site is growing more than one life stage or species, then the creation of specific values for each stage and species will be expected.

For example, based on the FAI shrimp score card for shrimp, the traffic light system for three of the indicators could be:

|   | Acceptable | Warning levels | Unacceptable |

| Temperature  | 25.5-32.4°C | 14.5-25.4°C or | ≤14.4C or ≥35.5°C |

| | | | |

| | | 32.5-35.4°C | |

| DO | ≥65% | 49-64% | ≤48% |

| Transparency | 35-50cm | 21-34cm or 51-59cm | ≤20cm or ≥60cm |

Morphological Indicators:

Step 1. Develop a scoring system for each of the morphological parameters required by Indicator 4.2.1.8.2.

  • It is recommended to score morphological parameters based on their severity, location and timing, when applicable.

Parameters  Severity  Locality  Timing 

  0  1  2  3  0  1  2  3  0  1  2

Eyes  None  Mild  Moderate  Severe  None  One eye  One eye  Both

Antennas  None  Mild  Moderate   Missing  None  One  Both

Rostrum  None  Mild  Moderate   Severe  None  Mild  Moderate  Severe

Appendages  None  Mild  Moderate   Missing  None  Few  Many  Extreme

Loss of appendages: Bacterial infection  None  Mild  Moderate  Severe  None  Few  Many  Extreme

Loss of appendages: Cannibalism  None  Mild  Moderate  Severe  None  Few  Many  Extreme

Hepatopancreas colouration and size  Normal  Mild  Moderate  Severe  None  Some  Diffuse

Gill colouration  Normal  Mild  Moderate  Severe  None  Mild  Diffuse

Size dispersion/ variation  Normal  Mild  Moderate  Severe          None  End cycle  Mid cycle

Shell blisters and necrosis  Low  Mild  Moderate  Severe  None  Mild  Diffuse

Empty digestive tube and colouration  Normal  Mild  Moderate  Severe          Before feed    After feed

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

  • The best case, e.g. where shrimp have no morphologic issues.

  • The second-best scenario, e.g. where shrimp have mild morphologic issues.

  • The third-best scenario, e.g. where shrimp have moderate morphologic issues.

  • The worst case, e.g. where shrimp have the highest score possible.

Each scenario will have a corresponding score:

Best case scenario

Parameters  Severity  Locality  Timing

  0  1  2  3  0  1  2  3  0  1  2

Eyes  0

Antennas  0

Rostrum  0

Appendages  0

Loss of appendages: Bacterial infection  0

Loss of appendages: Cannibalism  0

Hepatopancreas colouration and size  0

Gill colouration 

Size dispersion/ variation  0

Shell blisters and necrosis  0

Empty digestive tube and colouration  0

Total  0

Worst case scenario

Parameters  Severity  Locality  Timing

  0  1  2  3  0  1  2  3  0  1  2

Eyes      3        3

Antennas      3      2

Rostrum      3        3

Appendages      3        3

Loss of appendages: Bacterial infection      3        3

Loss of appendages: Cannibalism      3        3

Hepatopancreas colouration and size      3      2

Gill colouration      3      2

Size dispersion/ variation      3               2

Shell blisters and necrosis      3      2         

Empty digestive tube and colouration      3               2

Total  60

Third best case scenario

Parameters  Severity  Locality  Timing 

  0  1  2  3  0  1  2  3  0  1  2

Eyes      2        2  3

Antennas      2      1 

Rostrum      2        2  3

Appendages      2        2  3

Loss of appendages: Bacterial infection      2        2  3

Loss of appendages: Cannibalism      2        2  3

Hepatopancreas colouration and size      2      1 

Gill colouration      2      1 

Size dispersion/ variation      2              1

Shell blisters and necrosis      2      1 

Empty digestive tube and colouration      2              1

Total  38

Second best case scenario

Parameters  Severity  Locality  Timing 

  0  1  2  3  0  1  2  3  0  1  2

Eyes    1

Antennas    1        1

Rostrum    1      0 

Appendages    1        1

Loss of appendages: Bacterial infection    1        1

Loss of appendages: Cannibalism    1        1

Hepatopancreas colouration and size    1      0

Gill colouration    1      0

Size dispersion/ variation    1              0

Shell blisters and necrosis    1      0

Empty digestive tube and colouration    1              0

Total  16

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

0 to 16 17 to 38 39 to 60

Acceptable Threshold Not acceptable

No action required Action required Action required

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

Behavioural Indicators:

Step 1. Identify feeding behaviours that are relevant for the species of shrimp and the life stage being farmed (see example in Indicator 4.2.1.8.3 Table 13).

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

  • How to interpret these behaviours will vary depending on the species of shrimp, the life stage and the farming system.

  • It is important to understand that, apart from the species and life stage variability, there will also be an individual component that will vary from one shrimp to the other.

| |   | | |

| | | | |

| | Score | | |

| | | | |

| |   | | |

| Feeding Behaviour | 0 | 1 | 2 |

| Feeding behaviour | Most shrimp react quickly by moving to the newly offered food | Only some of the shrimp react to the newly offered food | Most shrimp do not react to the newly offered food |

| Feed consumption efficiency | Tray is consistently emptied during feeding time | Partial feed remains (<20% uneaten) | Significant feed remains (>20% uneaten) |

| Interaction with feeding environment | Shrimp feed calmly without aggression or erratic movement | Occasional signs of stress or avoidance behaviour | Persistent signs of stress or aggression |

Step 3. Simulate scenarios.

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

Score

Feeding behaviour 0 1 0 2

Feed Consumption Efficiency 0 1 1 2

Interaction with Feeding Environment 0 1 1 2

Total   0 3 2 6

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

0-2
2-3
4-6

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 shrimp are reared). Staff must be trained in the mortality classification. Broadly, the following groupings can be made:

  • Infectious:

    • Bacterial.

    • Viral.

    • Parasitic.

    • Fungal.

    • Amoebic.

  • Non-infectious:

    • Husbandry related (e.g. acclimatisation, etc.)

    • Environmental (e.g. extreme temperatures, etc.)

    • Predation (e.g. birds, others).

    • Physical lesions.

    • Moribund.

    • Deformities.

    • Undiagnosed/unknown.

    • Decomposed.

    • Sampled.

>

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.

  • Mortality thresholds should be based on shrimp numbers, and it is recommended that they are also expressed as biomass thresholds.

    • The use of both metrics is considered complementary.

    • Using biomass on its own is discouraged, as small biomasses might lead to inaccurate assessments when shrimp are small.

Step 3: Create a traffic light system, for example for shrimp mortality based on the FAI Course:

≤10 % production mortality 11-25 % production mortality ≥26% production mortality

Acceptable Warning levels Unacceptable

Evidence of Implementation

  • The traffic light system for the required OWIs that identify ranges of acceptable (green), warning (amber) and unacceptable (red) levels of health or welfare, included in the HWMP.

    • Records that confirm the increased monitoring and associated short-term corrective measures in case of amber or red traffic light results.

    • Rationale for the grading of the OWIs (e.g.: based on scientific literature available or the recommendation of a veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional).

    • Employees should demonstrate awareness of the established traffic light system.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The traffic light system included in the HWMP incorporates the minimum required elements and is implemented.

    • Implementation can be verified by cross-checking the system with relevant records, information from employee interviews and observations.