Filter content

by selecting applicable filters below

System

Water Type

Feed Dependent

Species

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/

Indicator 4.2.1.8.2

Table 1. Requirements for Indicator 4.2.1.8.2

Indicator

Requirement

4.2.1.8.2

Indicator applicability: every UoC using feed The UoC shall ensure the HWMP includes a morphological scoring monitoring process for live crustaceans. Monitoring shall be conducted at least once a week, and shall include at least the following scoring parameters: – exoskeleton damage, including at least eyes, antennas, appendages and rostrum; – hepatopancreas colouration and size; – gill colouration; – size dispersion/variation; – shell blisters and necrosis; – full/empty digestive tube and colouration; – loss of appendages, categorised according to causes. 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?

  • Morphological scoring is frequently used as an immediate indicator of welfare.

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

  • Loss of appendages shall be segregated according to potential causes e.g. bacterial infection or cannibalism.

  • Table 12 below gives examples that may be considered acceptable as a reference to develop and implement morphological scoring.

Table 12: Morphological parameters showing acceptable, warning level and unacceptable levels for shrimp based on Pedrazzani, Ana Silvia, Nathieli Cozer, Murilo Henrique Quintiliano, Camila Prestes dos Santos Tavares, Ubiratã de Assis Teixeira da Silva, and Antonio Ostrensky. 2023. “Non-Invasive Methods for Assessing the Welfare of Farmed White-Leg Shrimp (Penaeus vannamei)” and the FAI course.

| Morphological Parameter | | Acceptable | Warning levels | Unacceptable |

| Exoskeleton damage | Eyes | Healthy | Damage, lightening, softening or swelling in one eye | Damage, lightening, softening or swelling in both eyes |

| | | | | |

| | | no damage | | Absence of one or two eyes |

| | Antennas | Healthy | Shortening, darkening or lesions/ necrosis | Absence, blueness, wrinkling, many dark spots |

| | | | | |

| | | No damage | | |

| | Rostrum | Healthy appearance | Mild injury, erosion or necrosis | Severe injury, erosion, necrosis or deformity |

| | | | | |

| | | No changes | | Absence |

| | Appendages | Healthy | One or two damaged legs/ Severe absence | Damage, necrosis, deformity |

| | | | | |

| | | No damage | | Abnormal colour |

| | | | | |

| | | | | Severe absence |

| | | | | |

| | | | | Darkened edges |

| Loss of appendages | Bacterial infection | Intact | Evidence of bacterial infection | Significant damage |

| | | | | |

| | | No damage | | |

| | Cannibalism | Intact | Some damage | Missing appendages |

| | | | | |

| | | No damage | | |

| Hepatopancreas colouration and size | | Healthy | Discrete volume reduction | Decrease in size, colour change, tearing, presence of fluid or wormlike structures |

| | | | | |

| | | No damage | | |

| Gill colouration | | Healthy | Some lesions or darkening | Colour change- pale, yellowish, redness or darkening |

| | | | | |

| | | No damage | | Whiteish spots |

| | | | | |

| | | | | Erosion |

| Size dispersion/variation | | Low | Some | Significant |

| Shell blisters and necrosis | | Healthy | Slight lesions, darkening or debris | Tissue loss, necrosis, colour change, deformity, calcified round white patches, crusting |

| | | | | |

| | | no damage | | |

| Full/empty digestive tube and colouration | | Full | Partially full | Empty |

Evidence of Implementation

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

  • Records that confirm the monitoring of the morphological scoring.

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

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The morphological 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.

Useful Resources

Indicator 4.2.1.8.1

Table 1. Requirements for Indicator 4.2.1.8.1

Indicator

Requirement

4.2.1.8.1

Indicator applicability: every UoC using feed The UoC shall ensure the HWMP includes a water quality monitoring process according to Appendix 12 (12.3, Table 3).


How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • Maintaining good water quality is a critical factor when culturing any aquatic organism.

  • Concentrations of substances within the water system that rise above or fall below specific levels can be harmful to crustacean populations.

  • Concerning health and welfare, water quality has a dual role as a cause or a consequence of poor health and welfare:

    • 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.

Table 11: Water quality parameters for shrimp in ponds based on information from the FAI shrimp course.

| | Acceptable | Warning levels | Unacceptable levels |

| Temperature | 25 — 32.4⁰C | 14.5 -25.4⁰C or 32.5 -35.4⁰C | ≤14.4⁰C or ≥35.5⁰C |

| | | | |

| (twice a day) | | | |

| Dissolved oxygen | ≥65% | 49-64% | ≤48% |

| | | | |

| (twice a day) | | | |

| pH | 6.5 — 8.5 | 5.0 — 6.4 or 8.6 -9.0 | ≤4.9 or ≥9.1 |

| | | | |

| (daily) | | | |

| Salinity (risk assessed) PSU | 10.0-40.9‰ | 0.6-9.9‰ or 41.0 — 59.0‰ | ≤0.5‰ or ≥60.0‰ |

–

Evidence of Implementation

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

  • Records confirming the monitoring of the required parameters and their conformance with maximum and minimum thresholds.

  • Employees should demonstrate awareness of the established water quality monitoring process.

Auditors Should Confirm

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

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

Useful Resources

Indicator 4.2.1.8

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 to prevent disease outbreaks and ensure good health and welfare of farmed crustaceans. 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 at least annually.

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 crustacean health and welfare.

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

  • 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 protocols.

    • This may involve conducting visual inspections, monitoring 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 crustaceans, see interpretation for Indicator 4.2.3.2)

        • 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.

  • 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 wholly 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.

    • 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.

  • 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 crustaceans.

      • 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 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.

Evidence of Implementation

  • 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.

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 4.2.1.7

Requirement

Indicator applicability: every UoC using feed The UoC shall develop and implement a feeding plan which 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 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 (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.

Evidence of Implementation

  • Records:

    • Purchase.

    • Transportation.

    • Delivery.

    • Stocking.

    • Maintenance.

    • Environmental and health.

    • 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 its implemented:

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

Useful Resources

  • Tacon, A.G.J., Jory, D. and Nunes, A. (2013) Shrimp feed management: issues and perspectives. In M.R. Hasan and M.B. New, eds. On-farm feeding and feed management in aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 583. Rome, FAO. pp. 481–488.

  • 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/