Filter content

by selecting applicable filters below

System

Water Type

Feed Dependent

Species

Indicator 4.1.1.10.7

Table 1. Requirements for Indicator 4.1.1.10.7

Indicator

Requirement

4.1.1.10.7

The UoC shall ensure the HWMP includes a mortality reduction plan which defines annual targets for both total and unexplained mortalities by considering the results of the trend analysis in Indicator 4.1.1.10.6 and shall implement appropriate actions to meet the annual targets.


How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • The mortality reduction programme should address the various factors contributing to fish mortality.

  • When building the programme, the UoC should consider:

    • Current mortality rates and causes, including unexplained mortality.

    • Set achievable goals and objectives.

    • Identify priority areas for intervention according to the goals and objectives.

    • Develop strategies addressing priority areas for intervention.

    • Monitor and evaluate progress regularly.

    • Provide employees with training.

    • Foster a culture of continuous improvement.

    • Collaborate with industry experts for knowledge sharing.

    • Seek health professionals’ involvement in developing the reduction plan.

  • When building the programme, the UoC should consider:

    • Special attention should be given to unexplained mortalities which may indicate underlying health issues or poor management practices

    • Identifying and addressing the root causes of unexplained mortalities is essential for improving overall management practices and reducing mortality rates.

    • In addition, consistent, clear downward trends in OWIs indicate declining health or welfare.

    • Examples of such trends include a consistent increase in overall morphological scoring, repeated observations of abnormal behaviour, deteriorating water quality with one or more parameters that are outside of the acceptable ranges, or increasing mortality.

    • If a declining trend is observed, then the UoC should assess the situation and investigate the causes behind the trends.

    • One or multiple issues may be causing the decline, including those of infectious or non-infectious origin.

    • In many cases, poor or inadequate husbandry practices can predispose animals to succumb to infectious diseases.

  • Also, when declining trends are observed, the UoC is expected to review at least the following husbandry practices if appropriate:

    • Stocking densities.

    • The feeding plan.

    • Water quality.

    • Handling practices.

    • Enclosure characteristics.

    • Environmental enrichment.

  • The rearing environment, for example:

    • Additional aeration.

    • Deployment of environmental enrichment (EE), (e.g. bubble curtains, change of tank colouration, adjustments in the light system), amongst others.

Evidence of Implementation

  • Mortality reduction programme.

  • Long-term animal health and welfare improvement measures as well as short-term mitigation measures to react to situations of declining health or welfare, included in the HWMP.

  • Mortality records that allow for trend analysis for the development of a mortality reduction programme.

  • Records of long-term animal health and welfare improvement measures and short-term mitigation measures to react to situations of declining health or welfare.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The mortality reduction programme and the improvement and mitigation measures included in the HWMP incorporate the minimum required elements and that its outcome is implemented:

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

Useful Resources

Indicator 4.1.1.10.6

Table 1. Requirements for Indicator 4.1.1.10.6

Indicator

Requirement

4.1.1.10.6

The UoC shall ensure the HWMP includes trend analysis to determine changes in health and welfare over time. This analysis shall consider drivers of the trends and shall be based on the data analysed in indicator 4.1.1.10.5 and feedback from the processing plant where relevant.


How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • The analysis of OWIs data over time, as well as information gathered from the mortality classification and post-mortem analysis and the feedback from the processing plant:

    • Allows for the identification of trends that provide insights into factors influencing health, welfare and mortality events.

      • Regular reviews of trends, such as monthly and at least annually or at the end of the production cycle, are recommended.

    • Inform decision-making to improve overall production.

      • The veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional should assist the UoC with the trends analysis and drawing conclusions to build effective corrective measures for improving health or welfare over time.

    • Feedback from the processing plant can, for example, disclose the presence of recurring trends like skin wounds or deformities.

      • Sharing observations and feedback with the UoC enables prompt and thorough investigations.

Evidence of Implementation

  • The mechanism or trend analysis included in the HWMP.

  • Records that confirm trend analysis has been conducted include as a minimum:

    • Mortality classification.

    • Post-mortem analysis.

    • Feedback from the processing plant.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The trend analysis mechanism included in the HWMP incorporates the minimum required elements and its outcome is implemented:

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

Useful Resources

Indicator 4.1.1.10.5

Table 1. Requirements for Indicator 4.1.1.10.5

Indicator

Requirement

4.1.1.10.5

The UoC shall ensure the HWMP includes a traffic light system for water quality (Indicator 4.1.1.10.1), morphological scoring (Indicator 4.1.1.10.2), behavioural scoring (Indicator 4.1.1.10.3), and mortality (Indicator 4.1.1.10.4). 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 based on Table 2, Appendix 12.

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

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.

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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.

  • How to interpret these behaviours will vary depending on the species of fish, 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 fish to the other.

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:

  • Infectious:

    • Bacterial.

    • Viral.

    • Parasitic.

    • Fungal.

    • Amoebic.

  • Non-infectious:

    • Husbandry related (e.g. transportation, treatment, vaccination, grading, etc.)

    • Environmental (e.g. algal bloom, currents, etc.)

    • Predation (e.g. birds, seals, others).

    • Poor doers or runts.

    • Physical lesions.

    • Nephrocalcinosis.

    • Moribund.

    • Deformities.

    • Undiagnosed/unknown.

    • Decomposed.

    • Sampled.

    • Failed smolts (only for salmon).

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 fish 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 fish are small.

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

  • The traffic light system for the required OWIs identifies 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 as soon as reasonably possible.

  • 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 it is implemented.

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

Useful Resources

Indicator 4.1.1.10.1

Table 1. Requirements for Indicator 4.1.1.10.1

Indicator

Requirement

4.1.1.10.1

The UoC shall ensure the HWMP includes a water quality monitoring process according to Appendix 12 (12.3, Table 2).


How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • Monitoring for mortality is understood as visual observation of whether there is mortality at the site, e.g. observations of the bottom of the pens with cameras; observations by divers or from the surface.

  • Possible causes that would justify no daily monitoring or every second day removal of mortality are severe bad weather, or a major equipment failure not related to poor maintenance.

  • Mortality stems from diverse factors that appear linked to suffering, particularly during disease outbreaks and critical development or production phases.

  • Scrutiny of mortality records and cause determination is essential for preventing further avoidable deaths and improving overall fish health and welfare in aquaculture.

  • Mortality monitoring thresholds should be established as these will identify when the level of mortalities can be classified as a mortality event.

  • If on-site diagnosis is inconclusive, off-site laboratory diagnosis is required.

  • When designing the mortality monitoring process, the UoC should consider carrying out a post-mortem analysis for each mortality event, not necessarily every fish.

    • A statistically relevant number of fish from the mortality event shall be analysed.

  • A statistically relevant number of fish refers to a sample size that is large enough to yield meaningful and reliable results when conducting statistical analysis.

  • In other words, the sample size should be sufficient to accurately represent the population being studied and to draw valid conclusions from the data.

  • The specific size needed for statistical relevance depends on various factors such as the variability within the population, the desired level of confidence, and the statistical methods being used.

    • Typically, larger sample sizes provide more reliable estimates and stronger evidence for drawing conclusions.

  • The designated veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional should assist the site in determining the appropriate sample size required for statistical analysis and must conduct all diagnosis.

  • The UoC should develop a procedure (e.g. SOP) to describe moribund collection and culling operations.

    • Employees should be trained on this procedure.

  • Moribund fish should be collected using appropriate equipment to prevent further injuries and stress, e.g. hand net according to fish size.

    • Collected moribund fish should be humanely slaughtered as per Criterion 4.1.3.

  • Possible causes that would justify no collection of moribund fish include severe bad weather or a major equipment failure not related to poor maintenance.

  • Possible causes of several moribund fish must be investigated.

Evidence of Implementation

  • Mortality monitoring.

  • Mortality removal.

  • The mortality monitoring process, that incorporates the minimum elements required, as well as what they consider a mortality event, included in the HWMP.

  • Records that confirm the monitoring of the mortality including the results of post-mortem analysis and the rationale for determining the sample size required for statistical analysis.

  • Employees should demonstrate awareness of the established mortality removal and monitoring process.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The mortality monitoring process included in the HWMP incorporates the minimum required elements, is implemented and threshold levels to determine mortality events.

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

  • Moribunds are collected daily and culled following responsible stunning and killing according to Criterion 4.1.3.

    • Implementation can be confirmed by cross-checking the frequency of collection and culling methods with records, information from employee interviews and observations.

Useful Resources

Indicator 4.1.1.10

Requirement

The UoC shall develop, implement and maintain a site-specific Health and Welfare Management Plan (HWMP), approved by a registered veterinarian, with the intent of preventing disease outbreaks, and ensuring the good health and welfare of farmed fish. The HWMP shall include all of the following: a) disease monitoring; and b) response, including quarantine, treatment, and humane culling; and c) reporting mechanisms, including reporting WOAH-notifiable disease to authorities; and d) biosecurity risks; and e) predation risks. The HWMP shall be reviewed and revised as necessary: f) at least annually for sites with cycles under one year or using continuous production methods; or g) after each cycle for sites with longer cycles or all-in-all-out production methods.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • The Health and Welfare Management Plan (HWMP):

    • Aims to support the development and implementation of preventive, rather than remedial, actions that ensure good fish health and welfare.

    • Must be developed by the UoC in collaboration with a veterinarian who approves it. In countries where other professions have comparable rights and duties and are subject to the same authorization and regulatory requirements as veterinarians, they may also approve the HWMP (e.g., aqua medicine biologists in Norway).

  • For developing and establishing a site-specific disease monitoring, response and reporting mechanism within the plan, the UoC should consider:

    • Developing standardised health and welfare monitoring protocol

    • This may involve conducting visual inspections, monitoring Operational Welfare Indicators (OWIs) and performing diagnostic tests for pathogens.

    • Producing and maintaining detailed records.

    • Including records of health observations, diagnostic test results, treatments administered, mortalities, and other relevant data.

    • It is recommended to use a centralised database or electronic system for efficient data management and retrieval.

    • Implementing an early detection system.

    • To detect signs of disease outbreaks or abnormal health conditions promptly.

    • This could include environmental monitoring tools.

    • Establishing response protocols for responding to disease outbreaks or health emergencies.

      • Outlining procedures for:

        • Isolating affected individuals or populations.

        • Implementing strategies for treatments or others (e.g. culling affected batches of fish [see interpretation for Indicator 4.1.1.10.4]).

        • Notifying relevant stakeholders, including other sites in the vicinity and the authorities.

    • Establishing communication channels.

      • Effective communication channels should be implemented for reporting health-related issues both internally within the facility and externally to relevant authorities (e.g., WOAH-notifiable diseases) or stakeholders.

        • Employees should understand their roles and responsibilities in reporting and responding to disease events.

    • Maintaining a readily accessible notification list.

      • Including contact names numbers and emails for key employees and other relevant stakeholders.

      • The list should be kept up-to-date to ensure quick and efficient communication during emergencies (see interpretation for Indicator 4.1.2.3).

  • For developing a site-specific biosecurity mechanism within the plan, the UoC should consider:

    • Determining the objectives and scope of the biosecurity mechanism.

    • Identifying relevant regulatory requirements.

    • Gathering information about the site, including an up-to-date layout of buildings and production units identifying the possible movements of animals, animal products, animal waste, water, feed and fomites/vectors.

    • Identifying potential transmission pathways into, within and from the site.

    • Carrying out a risk analysis to identify and evaluate disease threats and ensure that the plan addresses them.

      • A risk analysis can be carried out either on the whole operation or only partially, e.g. disease transmission during transportation.

    • This will depend on the objectives of the biosecurity mechanism.

    • Identifying mitigation measures and assessing their effectiveness and their management requirements.

    • Establishing emergency procedures in the event of a biosecurity failure.

    • Defining internal and external communication procedures, roles, and responsibilities.

    • Creating a monitoring and internal audit schedule.

    • Carrying out performance evaluations.

    • Creating the necessary Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to support the implementation of the mitigation measures and the biosecurity mechanism.

    • Training employees in the different elements of the biosecurity mechanism.

    • Maintaining a record-keeping system that provides evidence of compliance with the biosecurity mechanism.

  • For developing predator control measures within the plan, the UoC should consider:

    • Identifying potential predators.

      • Create a list of the predators that are present in the area and that might interact with the UoC.

        • Predators may include birds, mammals, reptiles, and other aquatic species known to prey on fish.

      • Assessing the risk of predation.

        • Evaluate the risk posed by each predator species identified based on factors such as proximity to the site, population size, means of accessing the site, likelihood of predation, etc.

      • Implementing predator control measures.

  • Develop and implement predator control measures tailored to the specific risks identified. This may include:

    • Physical barriers such as nets, fences, or screens to prevent access to fish tanks or ponds.

    • Scare tactics such as visual deterrents to discourage predators from approaching the facility.

    • Implementing ongoing monitoring and surveillance.

      • To detect predator activity and intervene as needed.

    • Regular reviewing and revision.

      • Based on the outcome of the ongoing monitoring and surveillance.

    • Adjustments to the measures should be made when the results of monitoring indicate the need to optimise protection for fish and the containment system.

    • Collaborating with local authorities or local wildlife agencies to address predator issues in the surrounding area.

    • A periodic review and, if necessary, a revision of the HWMP must be conducted in response to changes in farming activities or external factors or as directed by the veterinarian.

    • As a minimum, the review should occur annually in cases of production cycles shorter than one year or using continuous stocking/cropping methods, or following each production cycle, in the case of UoCs with production cycles longer than one year or using all-in-all-out stocking/cropping methods.

    • The UoC should develop feedback mechanisms to inform the review, e.g. proactively seeking feedback from employees and subcontracted personnel, such as the vaccination team, on the operationalisation of the site-specific biosecurity mechanism.

    • For a single producer overseeing multiple UoCs in a shared waterbody, a unified HWMP that incorporates site-specific details is acceptable; however, for larger companies managing multiple UoCs in one country, while common plans may apply, it is crucial to ensure HWMP adaptation to individual site circumstances, particularly in aspects like biosecurity measures, disease surveillance programs, and monitoring systems.

Evidence of Implementation

  • The HWMP includes considerations for:

    • Site-specific disease monitoring, responses and reporting requirements.

    • Specific considerations should be given to reporting WOAH-notifiable diseases (see interpretation for Indicator 4.1.1.11).

      • Site-specific biosecurity mechanism.

      • Predators control measures.

      • Veterinarian sign-off.

      • Reviews and revisions.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The HWMP includes the required five minimum considerations above and all relevant records associated with the HWMP implementation.

  • Employees are:

    • Familiarised with the HWMP and the feedback mechanisms for its review by conducting employee interviews and observations.

    • Trained on the site-specific biosecurity mechanism by reviewing employees’ training records, conducting employees’ interviews and observations.

Useful Resources

Indicator 4.1.1.9

Requirement

Indicator applicability: every UoC using feed The UoC shall develop and implement a feeding plan that includes at least the following: a) time and frequency of feeding; and b) feed rations; and c) feeding methods; and d) different environmental conditions; and e) prevention of the use of feed which has expired, spoiled or shows signs of excessive leakage; and f) feed types for the nutritional needs and life stages of the species. An exception applies to (f) when such feeds are not available, in which case the UoC shall use feed suitable for animals with similar nutritional needs.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • The feeding plan:

    • Outlines the site’s feeding strategy.

    • As a minimum, it must include the following parameters:

      • Time and frequency, e.g. at daybreak and early afternoon (08:30 am and 02:00 pm).

      • Feed rations, e.g. feed type and daily amount.

      • Feeding adaptation to fit different life stages, e.g. transfer diets for Atlantic salmon smolts recently transferred to saltwater.

      • Feeding adaptation to fit different ambient conditions, e.g. stop feeding during algae blooms or use functional feeds when facing specific health issues.

      • Should include considerations to guarantee the good working order of mechanical equipment used to deliver feed, e.g. scheduled maintenance checks of automatic feeders

      • The UoC should document the rationale for changes in the feeding plan to better inform management decisions.

Evidence of Implementation

  • Records:

    • Purchase.

    • Transportation.

    • Delivery.

    • Stocking.

    • Maintenance which affected feeding.

    • Any environmental or health issues which affected feeding.

    • Feeding periods (time and frequency).

    • Feeding rations.

    • Employees should demonstrate adequate knowledge of the feeding plan.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • Feeding plan includes the minimum required parameters and is implemented:

    • Implementation can be confirmed by cross-checking the plan with records, information from employee interviews and observations.

Useful Resources

Indicator 4.1.1.7

Requirement

The UoC shall only stock batches of fish that have been tested prior to stocking and are free from diseases of regional concern.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • Regular veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional visits may fall into two categories:

    • Routine: Performed on a regular basis to monitor the health and welfare of the farmed fish.

    • Reactive: Performed in response to deterioration of, or concerns about, the health or welfare status of the farmed fish.

      • Sites should be prepared to provide the veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional with detailed information about the observed symptoms, recent changes in behaviour, morphology, water quality or mortality and any relevant history of disease or treatments.

      • The site should use reactive health visits to address immediate health or welfare concerns, diagnose underlying causes of problems, and implement targeted interventions to mitigate risks and prevent further spread of disease.

  • For routine visits, preparation is recommended to ensure a meaningful outcome from the veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional. Below are some practical considerations:

    • Visit scheduling: Ensure key employees are available during the visit to provide relevant required information and to facilitate adequate follow-up.

    • Designate a senior member of the employees to serve as the primary point of contact for the veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional during the visit.

    • This individual can help coordinate the activity, ensure relevant information is available, assist during the visit and ensure follow-up.

  • Gather and organise relevant information:

  • Compile relevant information about the operations, including:

    • Species being cultured,

    • Production systems,

    • Stocking densities,

    • Recent health history, including treatments, water quality monitoring results,

    • Behaviour data,

    • Morphology and mortalities data,

    • Feeding plan,

    • Any previous veterinary reports,

    • Details of any ongoing issue.

    • Having this information readily accessible will facilitate discussion and decision-making during the visit.

    • Prepare the UoC for the visit: Ensure the UoC is prepared for the visit and for providing full access to all relevant areas to the veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional.

      • Address any maintenance issues, clean tanks or ponds as needed and ensure clear access to all relevant areas of the facility.

      • Ensure handling and other equipment that might be needed during the visit, such as nets, containers and sampling equipment is available and in good working condition.

      • Make sure employees are aware of the visit and its objectives and encourage them to proactively participate in it.

    • During the visit: Ensure relevant information is discussed with the veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional and that the visit includes all relevant areas within the UoC.

    • After the visit: Follow up on any recommendations or actions discussed during the visit.

      • Implement any necessary revisions or changes to management practices, treatment protocols, or facility conditions based on the veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional’s feedback and any sample or testing results.

    • Continuous improvement: Use the insights gained from the veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional visit to identify opportunities for continuous improvement in health and welfare management.

Evidence of Implementation

  • Health reports.

  • Testing results.

  • Records:

    • Veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional qualifications.

    • Veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional visit.

    • Recommendations or actions discussed during the visit.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The qualifications of the veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional and cross-check the frequency of visits with records.

  • Existence of health reports and testing results.

Useful Resources

Indicator 4.1.1.6

Requirement

The UoC shall adhere to species-specific mortality limits, according to Appendix 2 (2.3).

Indicator 4.1.1.5

Requirement

Indicator applicability: marine salmonids in cages The UoC shall only stock a single cohort of fish per site.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • Gaps of up to six months between stocking inputs are acceptable as long as:

    • The smolts are derived from the same stripping.

    • There is a period when the site is fully fallow after harvest, in accordance with regulatory requirements.

Evidence of Implementation

  • Records:

    • Purchase.

    • Transportation.

    • Delivery.

    • Stocking.

    • Fallowing.

    • Production (fish size).

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The size of the fish matches that of a single year class by observing the stock.

  • The observation should be cross-checked with records.

Indicator 4.1.1.4

Requirement

The UoC shall implement a vaccination plan that: a) considers the relevant diseases and vaccine availability; and b) includes justification for vaccine selection; and c) is approved by a registered veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • The vaccination plan should consider:

    • Local regulations.

    • Relevant diseases for the species in the country, based on scientific literature and publicly available information.

    • Commercially licensed vaccines registered for the species being farmed and autogenous vaccines produced by a licensed producer.

      • Commercially licensed vaccines are recognised by the relevant country authorities to ensure quality control, safety and efficacy.

      • Autogenous vaccines are custom vaccines produced from pathogens isolated directly from affected sites on which the vaccines are subsequently deployed under a minor use or restricted permit by a licenced producer.

Evidence of Implementation

  • Local regulations.

  • List of relevant diseases for the species in the country and available vaccines.

  • Vaccine permits.

  • Vaccine purchase invoices.

  • Records:

    • Vaccination.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The vaccination plan in place is overseen and signed off by a veterinarian and includes a list of relevant diseases for the country and the vaccines available.

  • The information should be cross-checked with local regulations and records.

Useful Resources