Filter content

by selecting applicable filters below

System

Water Type

Feed Dependent

Species

Indicator 4.1.2.12

Requirement

The UoC shall ensure that the HMP includes a post-handling evaluation process that considers at least the following: a) abnormal behaviour; and, b) morphological scores; and, c) moribund animals and mortalities.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • Abnormal behaviour related to the handling should be recorded.

  • During and post-handling moribund fish and mortalities related to the handling should be recorded and removed.

  • Moribund fish should be collected and culled following responsible stunning and killing according to Criterion 4.1.3.

Evidence of Implementation

  • Behavioural monitoring.

  • Records that confirm the monitoring of the behaviour, moribund and mortalities during and post-handling.

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

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The behavioural monitoring process included in the HMP incorporates the minimum required elements and it is implemented.

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

Useful Resources

Indicator 4.1.2.11

Requirement

The UoC shall ensure that the HMP includes a visual inspection process to identify abnormal behaviour in relation to the handling activity and defines mitigation measures when identified.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • Visual inspection during handling should be included in the HMP.

    • When direct visual inspections are not possible (e.g. pangasius transportation) or considered invasive (e.g. during live fish transport inside a well), cameras can be used. Alternatively, fish behaviour can be assessed when loading and discharging the fish as a minimum requirement.

Evidence of Implementation

  • The monitoring process, that incorporates the corrective actions required, included in the HMP.

  • Records that confirm the monitoring of the behaviour.

    • A checked box on the monitoring records indicating whether monitoring behavioural took place or not is accepted.

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

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The monitoring process included in the HMP that incorporates the corrective actions and is implemented.

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

Useful Resources

Indicator 4.1.2.10

Requirement

The UoC shall ensure that the HMP includes a water quality monitoring process according to Appendix 12 (12.3, Table 2). In the case of live transport,7373An exemption applies where live transport after harvest is conducted by a third party outside of the scope of the UoC’s certification. Once the product leaves the certified supply chain it can no longer be sold as ASC certified. monitoring shall be conducted at the point of departure, during transport and on arrival. An exception applies where monitoring during transport negatively affects fish health and welfare, in which case monitoring is not required.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • Maintaining good water quality is a critical factor during fish handling.

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

  • For developing an adequate environment for fish during handling the UoC should consider:

    • Water quality monitoring equipment e.g.

    • Constant monitoring.

    • Every 15 minutes (by hand, automatic).

    • Water quality monitoring frequency.

      • Prior to, during, and post handling.

    • Water quality monitoring for live transport.

    • Departure/arrival and during live transport unless this could cause detrimental impact.

    • While Table 2 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 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 HMP water quality monitoring process.

    • Corrective actions must be provided according to the HWMP that may be considered acceptable as a reference to develop and implement a water quality monitoring process (Indicator 4.1.1.10.1).

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 during handling.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The water quality monitoring, that incorporates the minimum elements required, included in the HWMP. and cross-checking with the handling operations present in the HMP.

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

Useful Resources

Indicator 4.1.2.9

Requirement

The UoC shall ensure that the HMP considers predation risks specific to the types of handling activities and shall include appropriate predator control measures.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • For developing a site-specific predator control within the HMP, the UoC should consider:

  • The site-specific characteristics required to be assessed by Indicator 4.1.1.10 e) predator control measures specific to the type of handling, e.g.:

    • Birds scaring devices.

    • Use of anti-predator nets while moving fish from one cage/unit/pond to another.

Evidence of Implementation

  • Predator control measures specific to the type of handling operations.

  • Verification of mortalities associated with predators during handling operations.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The HMP includes the required considerations above.

  • Employees are:

    • Familiarised with the predator control considerations in the HMP by conducting employee interviews and observations.

    • Trained on predator control verifications, e.g.:

      • Verification of mortality events specific to the type of handling operations by reviewing employees’ training records, conducting employees’ interviews and observations.

Indicator 4.1.2.8

Requirement

The UoC shall ensure that the HMP considers biosecurity risks specific to the types of handling activities and shall include appropriate biosecurity measures to prevent the transfer of disease.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

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

  • Biosecurity measures related to the type of handling, e.g.:

    • Equipment segregation.

    • Equipment disinfection.

Evidence of Implementation

  • HMP includes the considerations for:

    • Site-specific biosecurity mechanism.

    • Biosecurity specifications related to the type of handling operations.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The HMP includes the required minimum considerations above.

  • Employees are:

    • Familiarised with the biosecurity considerations in the HMP by conducting employee interviews and observations.

    • Trained on biosecurity specifications related to the type of handling operations by reviewing employees’ training records, conducting employees’ interviews and observations.

Useful Resources

Indicator 4.1.2.7

Requirement

The UoC shall ensure that the HMP considers crowding activities with the intent of preventing stress, injury and mortality. Crowding activities shall be carried out: a) under supervision; and b) gradually; and c) partially; and d) for a maximum of two hours. An exception applies where a registered veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional demonstrates that exceeding two hours of crowding does not negatively impact fish welfare, in which case the maximum time period shall be defined by the registered veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • Appropriate crowding intensity is achieved when there is a balance between fish welfare, minimising abnormal behaviour and having sufficient fish in the crowd area for an effective handling.

  • Abnormal behaviour may be defined as fish behaviour commonly found or seen when fish are stressed.

  • During crowding operations consider an appropriate fish density avoiding:

    • Vigorous escape behaviour.

    • Violent splashing.

    • Escape attempts (jumping).

    • Burrowing into the crowding net.

    • Air gasping.

    • Excessive gill movement.

    • Inability to fish maintain body position (white sides constantly on surface).

      • Skin colour changes.

      • Presence of fish scales in the water.

    • Narrow deep nets are recommended over wide shallow nets for fish crowding.

Evidence of Implementation

  • Considerations, plans and actions taken pre- and during crowding for achieving an appropriate crowding intensity.

  • Records:

    • That confirms the monitoring of the crowding, e.g. time and intensity.

    • Employees should demonstrate awareness of the established crowding operation.

    • Rationale for exceeding the crowding time as directed by the veterinarian or aquatic health professional.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The crowding operation incorporates considerations for an appropriate crowding, and it is implemented.

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

Useful Resources

Indicator 4.1.2.6

Requirement

The UoC shall ensure that the HMP includes a fitness assessment of the fish prior to handling activities,7272An exemption applies to handling activities related to health examinations (e.g. health assessment, parasite counting) and in the case of emergencies (e.g. containment of an escape). approved by a registered veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional. For the specific handling activities listed below, the fitness assessment shall be carried out: – within a two-week period prior to transport or treatment that requires handling of the fish, except when the same type of treatment is repeated, in which case the assessment shall be carried out at least once a month after the initial treatment; – within a two-week period prior to net change and passive grading.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • Fitness assessment may fall into two categories:

    • Single assessment: Performed within a two-week period prior to the handling.

    • Recurring assessment: Performed at least once a month in the case of serial, repeated treatments, e.g.:

    • Handling for administering multiple rounds of treatment to fish populations over a period of time, e.g.:

      • Bacterial infections, such as bacterial gill disease, furunculosis, or red spot diseases.

      • Fungal diseases, such as saprolegniasis.

      • Treatments for parasites control such as formalin treatments, hydrolysers or thermal delousing.

  • A successful fitness for handling record should demonstrate:

    • Fish free of diseases.

    • Minimal morphologic damage.

    • Normal behaviour.

    • Low mortality rate.

    • Usual feeding rates.

    • An example of a fitness for handling assessment record is provided in the Table 9 below.

Table 9: An example of a fitness for handling assessment record with information collated from assessments and routine data collected on the site.

Fitness assessment report

Handling activity to be carried out

Date handling expected to be carried out

Disease status comments

Mortality levels Low Consistent Increasing Other:

Feeding rate Normal Sluggish Very active Other:

Fish behaviour

Comments from last morphological checks

Fitness comments

Date: Approved by:

Position:

  • Handling in case of emergencies are exempt from requiring fish fitness assessments e.g.:

    • Containment of an escape.

    • Imminent risk of predation.

    • It is recommended to have a health representative verify the emergency operations together with written advice to support decision-making when handling is required in an emergency.

Evidence of Implementation

  • HMP includes consideration for fitness assessment prior to handling.

  • Fitness assessment report.

  • Records:

    • Veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional handling approval.

    • Documented reasons for exemptions with written advice.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • Fitness assessments status before handling.

  • Implementation can be confirmed by cross-checking the frequency of fitness assessment and handling records, information from employee interviews and observations.

  • The rationale for any deviation from the frequency of fitness assessment before handling is in accordance with those highlighted by the indicator and respective footnotes.

Useful Resources

[

]

Indicator 4.1.2.5

Requirement

The UoC shall ensure that the HMP, following consultation with a registered veterinarian or aquatic animal health professional, considers the use of anaesthesia during handling activities.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • The use of anaesthesia is not required in every handling operation, but it should be considered in operations that can inflict pain, e.g.:

    • Inter-peritoneal vaccinations.

    • Stripping.

    • Handling operations that require fish immobilisation.

Evidence of Implementation

  • HMP includes consideration for the use of anaesthesia during handling.

  • List of handling operations requiring the use of anaesthesia.

  • List of licenced anaesthetics available on site.

  • Records:

    • Anaesthetic prescriptions.

    • Anaesthetic usage.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The HMP includes consideration of the use of anaesthetics during handling.

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

Useful Resources

Indicator 4.1.2.4

Requirement

The UoC shall ensure that the HMP includes consideration of the environmental conditions associated with handling activities, with the intent of preventing handling under adverse conditions that could affect the health and welfare of the fish.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • Examples of considerations of external conditions:

    • Avoid mechanical treatments in the event of storms.

    • Avoid crowding fish for treatment without using a shade net on a sunny day.

  • Avoid transferring juveniles during period where there are less than favourable conditions:

    • Spring tides can result in stronger currents and rapid changes in water levels, juveniles may become disoriented or stressed potentially leading to injuries or escape.

      • Risk of entrapment and loss of equipment can be associated with spring tides.

Evidence of Implementation

  • HMP includes consideration for external conditions necessary to perform handling.

  • Records:

    • Weather forecast verification.

    • Employees should demonstrate knowledge of the considerations and the verification of external conditions before handling.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • HMP includes considerations for external conditions for handling and are implemented.

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

Indicator 4.1.2.3

Requirement

The UoC shall ensure that the HMP includes contingency plans for handling activities, including at least the following: a) immediate response measures in the case of system failure; and b) humane culling response measures (see Indicator 4.1.3.2); and c) mass mortality event response measures.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • The contingency plans should consider:

    • Identification of potential failures.

  • Effective corrective measures, e.g.:

    • Backup power generators.

    • Oxygen support.

Evidence of Implementation

  • HMP includes processes’ contingency plans.

  • Records:

    • Backup system testing.

    • Additional oxygen source available.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • HMP includes considerations on fish health and welfare before handling events, including considerations for the existence of a backup system.

    • Backup system testing records.

  • Presence of backup system.

  • Employees are familiarised with the contingency plans by conducting employee interviews and observations.

  • Records:

    • Backup system testing.

Useful Resources

1. Barathan, B., Wang, Y., Su, Y., Hamilton, D., et al., (2022). Methods to control harmful algal blooms: a review. Environmental Chemistry Letters.

2. FAO eLearning Academy (2024) Emergency preparedness for aquatic disease outbreaks. Online course