Filter content

by selecting applicable filters below

System

Water Type

Feed Dependent

Species

Indicator 4.1.1.20

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?

Useful Resources

Indicator 4.1.1.19

Requirement

The UoC shall only stock batches of cleaner fish that have been tested prior to stocking and are free from diseases of regional concern.7171An exemption applies to wild caught species sourced from zones or compartments declared disease free. See COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals and European Union Reference Laboratory for Fish Diseases: Cleaner fish in aquaculture: Health management and legislative issues.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • The testing will be determined on where fish are sourced from:

Wild caught:

  • Should be held in a quarantine facility to observe for disease symptoms before stocking.

  • There should be enhanced biosecurity employed during capture and holding phases to minimise pathogen exposure.

  • Are to be caught from aquatic disease-free zones.

  • Note: Since lumpfish and wrasse species are not listed as susceptible species or vector species in accordance with Part II of Annex IV of the Council Directive 2006/88/EC, these species can be traded between aquaculture sites in Europe, including those in Member states, zones or compartments declared disease-free, and are only subject to notification under the Traces system. Therefore, these species can be freely traded between intra-community and third country without any certification declaring VHS freedom.

Farmed:

  • Testing will be relevant to:

    • The species.

    • The production system.

    • The scale of production.

    • The local regulations.

    • For example- viral haemorrhagic septicaemia in lumpfish and wrasse.

  • Testing might consist of:

    • Clinical examination of the fish.

    • Laboratory tests:

      • Bacteriology.

      • Molecular biology (e.g. PCR).

      • Histopathology.

      • Virology (e.g. cell culture).

  • The designated veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional should determine:

    • The diseases to include in the testing, based on local regulations, scientific literature and/or publicly available.

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

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

Evidence of Implementation

  • List of relevant diseases for the species in the country.

  • For wild caught cleaner fish, quarantine information and report from designated veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional.

  • For farmed cleaner fish, testing results written report or document that includes as a minimum:

    • The batch of fish being tested.

    • The date of the test.

    • The pathogen tested.

    • The results of the test.

  • Records:

    • Purchase.

    • Transportation.

    • Delivery.

    • Stocking.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • That every batch of wild caught cleaner fish has a record of quarantine and assessment.

  • The record of capture of the wild caught cleaner fish including disease free status.

  • That every batch of farmed cleaner fish has been tested by cross-checking the list of relevant diseases for the species in the country with the testing result’s written report or document and records.

Useful Resources

Indicator 4.1.1.18

Requirement

The UoC shall carry out a risk assessment prior to stocking cleaner fish, considering at least the following: a) the suitability of use of cleaner fish for parasite control (see Indicator 4.5.17); and b) the disease history of the cleaner fish to avoid cross contamination (only where using farmed cleaner fish); and c) site-specific environmental conditions considering the species-specific needs of cleaner fish; and d) net mesh size; and e) salmon size in relation to cleaner fish.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • A risk assessment regarding the use of cleaner fish should be developed.

  • As part of the risk assessment the site should, along with the designated veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional, review previous information:

    • Parasite infection history at the site.

    • Disease history at the site.

    • Disease history of available farmed cleaner fish.

    • Water quality history at the site.

    • Site specific environmental conditions.

    • Net mesh size.

    • Salmon size.

Evidence of Implementation

  • A completed risk assessment

    • This is to be reviewed at the start of each cycle.

    • Developed in accordance with the designated veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • That at the start of each cycle, a risk assessment is carried out to ensure that cleaner fish are a viable option for the site.

Useful Resources

Indicator 4.1.1.17

Requirement

The UoC shall only use native cleaner fish species. Useful resources: – Marine Conservation Society (2021) Use of ‘Cleaner Fish’ in UK aquaculture: Current use, concerns and recommendations.

Indicator 4.1.1.13

Requirement

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

Indicator 4.1.1.12

Requirement

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

Indicator 4.1.1.11

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 fish; and c) 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 4.1.1.10) an emergency response procedure for culling the affected batches of fish (see also Criterion 4.1.3).

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 fish.

  • National regulations. In some countries where WOAH-notifiable diseases are considered endemic, the UoC should follow the legal reporting requirements.

    • Records:

      • Reporting to 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 4.1.1.10).

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

    • Reporting to authorities and implementation of regulatory measures.

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

    • Increased monitoring to other batches of fish.

    • Veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional coordination

Useful Resources

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