Filter content

by selecting applicable filters below

System

Water Type

Feed Dependent

Species

Indicator 4.2.1.13

Requirement

Indicator applicability: Penaeus vannamei and Penaeus monodon The UoC shall demonstrate that received nauplii, larvae or post-larvae (PL) originates from ablation free (AF) female broodstock according to the transition periods outlined in Appendix 12 (12.4, Table 4). This includes an agreement with the hatchery that allows ASC or its designated agents to conduct oversight activities to verify the AF sources within the facility.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • Scope applicable to Penaeus vannamei and Penaeus monodon species.

  • Transition periods span from May 2025 to May 2031, with staged percentages for AF broodstock compliance (see Appendix 12 table 4).

  • The objective is to ensure a gradual shift toward using only ablation-free female broodstock, aligning with improved welfare practices.

Evidence of Implementation

  • The monitoring process involves developing and implementing a tracking system to monitor the origin of stock (nauplii, larvae or PL).

  • Where feasible, conduct physical audits or site visits of hatcheries to verify by visual inspection compliance with AF broodstock sourcing.

  • Hatcheries supplying the stock should provide clear documentation of the broodstock’s status (AF or non-AF).

  • Maintain records of sourcing, including certificates or declarations from hatcheries confirming broodstock compliance with AF requirements.

  • Maintain detailed production logs showing the percentage of stock derived from AF broodstock at each transition phase.

  • Employees involved in sourcing should demonstrate understanding to comply with the requirement to ensure they can explain the sourcing process to verify compliance during audits.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The monitoring process to confirm that the UoC has a documented system to track and verify the origin of nauplii, larvae, or PL.

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

Useful Resources

Indicator 4.2.1.12

Requirement

The UoC shall report to ASC survival rate, according to ASC data submission procedures, following the method outlined in Appendix 12 (12.5.1).

Indicator 4.2.1.11

Requirement

The UoC shall calculate stocking densities, following the method outlined in Appendix 12 (12.5.4).

Indicator 4.2.1.10

Requirement

The UoC shall report to the relevant authorities if a WOAH-notifiable disease is confirmed at a site, and shall: a) apply the measures according to applicable legal requirements; and b) increase disease-monitoring in other batches of crustaceans; and coordinate oversight by a registered veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • Upon a WOAH-notifiable disease being confirmed, the UoC should consider within its response mechanism included in the HWMP (see Indicator 4.2.1.8) an emergency response procedure for culling the affected batches of crustaceans (see also Indicator 4.2.1.8.4).

Evidence of Implementation

  • HWMP includes site-specific disease monitoring, responses and reporting requirements.

    • Specific considerations should be given to WOAH-notifiable diseases, including an emergency response procedure for culling the affected batches of crustaceans.

  • National regulations.

  • Records:

    • Reporting to the authorities.

    • Measures applied.

    • Notification to other sites in the vicinity or the ABM.

    • Disease monitoring.

    • Veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional coordination.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The HWMP includes considerations for WOAH-notifiable diseases (see interpretation for Indicator 4.2.1.8.4).

  • In case a WOAH-notifiable disease has been confirmed:

    • Reporting to authorities and implementation of regulatory measures.

    • Increased monitoring of other batches of crustaceans.

    • Veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional coordination

Useful Resources

Indicator 4.2.1.9

Requirement

Indicator applicability: every UoC using feed The UoC shall report the following to a registered veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional: a) all mortality events; and b) crustacean health and welfare concerns identified during mortality classification.

Indicator 4.2.1.8.7

Table 1. Requirements for Indicator 4.2.1.8.7

Indicator

Requirement

4.2.1.8.7

Indicator applicability: every UoC using feed 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 4.2.1.8.6 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 crustacean mortality.

  • When building the program, 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.

    • 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 those 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.

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.

Indicator 4.2.1.8.6

Table 1. Requirements for Indicator 4.2.1.8.6

Indicator

Requirement

4.2.1.8.6

Indicator applicability: every UoC using feed 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 4.2.1.8.5 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 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 shell or antenna damage.

    • 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:

    • 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.

Indicator 4.2.1.8.5

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.

Indicator 4.2.1.8.4

Table 1. Requirements for Indicator 4.2.1.8.4

Indicator

Requirement

4.2.1.8.4

Indicator applicability: every UoC using feed The UoC shall ensure the HWMP includes a mortality monitoring process which includes at least the following: a) monitoring and recording of mortalities when spotted; and b) removal of mortalities when spotted; and c) conduct a post-mortem analysis for each mortality event; and d) investigation of mortality events which remain unexplained or unattributed to crustacean health reasons; and e) collection of moribund crustaceans when spotted and cull them according to Criterion 4.2.3. Where any of the listed items above are not possible, the UoC shall record the reason.


How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

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

    • Employees should be trained on this procedure.

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

  • Slaughtered moribund crustaceans should be considered for the calculations needed to demonstrate compliance with Indicator 4.2.1.4.

    • Whole pond/tank health issues should be addressed under a contingency plan for emergency culling.

    • Possible causes of several moribund crustaceans should be investigated.

  • A contingency plan for emergency culling should be in place.

  • Monitoring for mortality is understood as visual observation of whether there is mortality at the site, e.g. observations of the crustaceans in feeding trays, observations of mortalities at the tank/pond discharge.

  • Possible causes that would justify no monitoring or removal of moribunds and mortality when spotted are severe bad weather, or a major equipment failure not related to poor maintenance.

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

  • 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 crustacean.

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

  • A statistically relevant number of crustaceans 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.

Evidence of Implementation

  • Records:

    • Mortality monitoring.

    • Mortality removal, including the results of post-mortem analysis and the rationale for determining the sample size required for statistical analysis.

    • Culling.

    • The mortality monitoring process, that incorporates the minimum elements required, included in the HWMP.

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

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The mortality monitoring process included in the HWMP incorporates the minimum required elements and is implemented.

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

  • Moribunds are collected when spotted and culled following responsible stunning and killing according to Criterion 4.2.3.

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

  • Contingency plan for ‘treatment’ culling

  • Monitoring and removal of mortality in conformance with the frequency required.

  • Records, employee interviews and observations should demonstrate acceptable frequency.

Useful Resources

Indicator 4.2.1.8.3

Table 1. Requirements for Indicator 4.2.1.8.3

Indicator

Requirement

4.2.1.8.3

Indicator applicability: every UoC using feed The UoC shall ensure the HWMP includes a monitoring process for behavioural scoring on live crustaceans from feeding trays or similar structures. Monitoring shall be conducted daily. An exception applies where deviation from monitoring frequency is justified by any of the following reasons: – immediately after stocking; or – under environmental conditions that affect the welfare of the crustaceans or the health and safety of employees; or – crustaceans are undergoing a disease event and/or being treated. The reason for any deviation shall be recorded.


How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • To meet the ASC methodology for behaviour, only feeding behaviour needs to be monitored (see example in Table 13). However, other behaviours may also be considered. Further time is needed to develop quality behavioural analyses, which, while valuable for welfare and system management, must be tailored to the species, farming systems and available resources.

  • Additionally, changes in behaviour may have a variety of causes and, therefore, must be further analysed before drawing conclusions.

  • Table 13 below gives examples that may be considered acceptable as a reference to develop and implement feeding behaviour scoring.

Table 13: Description of acceptable, warning levels and unacceptable behaviour of shrimp during feeding adapted from Pedrazzani, et al (2023). “Non-Invasive Methods for Assessing the Welfare of Farmed White-Leg Shrimp (Penaeus vannamei)”

Acceptable Warning levels Unacceptable

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

Evidence of Implementation

  • The feeding behaviour scoring monitoring process which incorporates the minimum elements required is included in the HWMP.

  • Records that confirm the monitoring of the feeding behaviour scoring.

  • Employees should demonstrate awareness of the established behavioural scoring monitoring process.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The behavioural scoring monitoring process is included in the HWMP.

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

Useful Resources

  • Darodes de Tailly, J.B., Keitel, J., Owen, M.A.G., Alcaraz-Calero, J.M., Alexander, M.E. & Sloman, K.A. (2021) Monitoring methods of feeding behaviour to answer key questions in penaeid shrimp feeding. Reviews In Aquaculture.

  • Li D, Liu C, Song Z, Wang G. (2021) Automatic Monitoring of Relevant Behaviors for Crustacean Production in Aquaculture: A Review. Animals (Basel).

  • Barrento, S., Pedrazzani, A., Ostrensky, A., & Quintiliano, M. (2023). Shrimp Welfare Indicators [Online course]. In S. Barrento, M. Quintiliano, & J. Muirhead (Eds.), FAI Academy. https://fai.academy/