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

Poor water quality can cause health and welfare hazards in an aquaculture facility, e.g. heavy rain promoting quick pH changes in a flow-through system or leaking from equipment in a recirculating aquaculture system (RAS).

Poor water quality can also result from poor husbandry practices resulting in a risk to health and welfare, e.g. if stocking density is too high the water quality is likely to deteriorate, especially in closed and semi-closed systems.

While Table 3 of Appendix 12 of the ASC Farm Standard specifies water quality parameters that must be included in the monitoring process, other parameters may be considered based on the site-specific requirements of the UoC.

Conformance with maximum and minimum thresholds for the required parameters, customised to suit the species and environmental conditions, should be incorporated as part of the water quality monitoring process.

Table 11 below gives examples that may be considered acceptable as a reference to develop and implement a water quality monitoring process.

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

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

Must be developed by the UoC in collaboration with a veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional who approves it.

Developing standardised health and welfare monitoring protocols.

This may involve conducting visual inspections, monitoring OWIs and performing diagnostic tests for pathogens.

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

Implementing an early detection system.

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

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.

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.

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.

Developing procedures (e.g. Standard Operating Procedures, ‘SOPs’) 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.

Identifying potential predators.

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

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.

Physical barriers such as nets, fences or screens to prevent access to crustacean 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 crustaceans 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.

The UoC should develop feedback mechanisms to inform the review, e.g. proactively seeking feedback from employees and subcontracted personnel, such as the harvest 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 programmes and monitoring systems.

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.

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.

Outlines the site’s feeding strategy.

Time and frequency, e.g. at daybreak and early afternoon (06:00 am and 01:00 pm).

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

Feeding adaptation to fit different life stages, e.g. maturation diets for black tiger with excellent digestible protein, essential fatty acids, cholesterol and chemo-attractant properties similar to which are found in natural food sources in the crustacean habitat.

Feeding adaptation to fit different ambient conditions, e.g. at times of crustacean stress due to water quality issues, it is accepted to reduce feeding by 50% or completely stop feeding for 2 to 4 days.

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.

Purchase.

Transportation.

Delivery.

Stocking.

Maintenance.

Environmental and health.

Feeding periods (time and frequency).

Feeding rations.

Employees should demonstrate adequate knowledge of the feeding plan.

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

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

Reactive: Performed in response to deterioration or concerns for the health or welfare status of the farmed crustaceans.

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

Gather and organise relevant information: Compile relevant information about the operations including, for example, species being cultured, production systems, stocking densities, recent health history including treatments, water quality monitoring results, behaviour, morphology and mortalities data, feeding plan, any previous health report and 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.

Veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional qualifications.

Veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional visit.

Recommendations or actions discussed during the visit.

The species.

The production system.

The scale of production.

The local regulations.

Early mortality syndrome (EMS), which is also known as acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease (AHPND).

Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei (EHP).

White spot syndrome (WSS).

Clinical examination of the crustaceans.

Laboratory tests:

The diseases to include in the testing, based on local regulations, scientific literature and/or publicly available information (see interpretation for Indicator 4.2.1.8).

The sample size, based on local regulations and/or technical judgement.

Compulsory governmental testing programme results are acceptable for demonstrating conformance with this requirement.

The batch of crustaceans being tested.

The date of the test.

The pathogen tested.

The results of the test.

Purchase.

Transportation.

Delivery.

Stocking.

The cleaner fish should be removed prior to the salmonid stunner system.

The cleaner fish should undergo a specific stunning and killing process.

The dead cleaner fish should be disposed of appropriately.

This will depend on:

The approval by the registered veterinarian or animal health professional.

The original source of cleaner fish.

The date of the addition of the cleaner fish.

The date of the end of the salmon production cycle.

The approval by the registered veterinarian or animal health professional.