Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 310

Biosecurity: application in aquaculture

Gary D. Pruder
The Oceanic Institute, 41-202 Kalanianaole Highway, Suite 9, Waimanalo, HI 96795 USA

Abstract

The introduction and discussion of biosecurity in aquaculture occurred in 1997 in a World Aquacul-
ture Society (WAS) Special Session titled, Sustainable Shrimp Farming: Emerging Technologies and
Products for Biosecurity and Zero Discharge. By 2003, proceedings of several workshops were pub-
lished which offer very valuable information on the need, application and problems with biosecurity.
These published proceedings are identified and discussed.
While biosecurity is relatively new to aquaculture, other agricultural animal production systems,
namely poultry, have fully developed and finely tuned biosecurity procedures in place. The adoption
of biosecurity protocols in shrimp aquaculture has required significant changes in the shrimp stocks
and adjustments in feeds and feeding, genetic traits for selection, and overall production procedures.
Biosecurity in aquaculture is a maturing activity, still in need of improved information on diag-
nostics, disease transmission, clean up and eradication. Biosecurity, health, nutrition genetics and
environmental quality must be integrated to achieve a uniform and low cost product on demand.
2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Poultry; Shrimp; SPF; Water Exchange; Feed Nutrition; Microbes

1. Introduction

The invitation from Dr. Tony Schurr to present a paper on Biosecurity in Aquaculture
was directed to the Oceanic Institute (OI). Having been involved in the intricacies of rec-
ognizing the need for and initiating initial applications of biosecurity in marine shrimp
culture and knowing that the audience would be largely engineers, I personally accepted
the invitation. The preparation of this manuscript led me to three principal references which
together summarize biosecurity applications in aquaculture and events leading up to the

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 808 259 3102; fax: +1 808 259 5971.
E-mail address: gpruder@oceanicinstitute.org (G.D. Pruder).

0144-8609/$ see front matter 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.aquaeng.2004.05.002
4 G.D. Pruder / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 310

need for biosecurity in marine shrimp farming. The references are listed below with a brief
description of their content and contributors.
The special session was conceived and planned at a time when the shrimp industry
worldwide was suffering severe mortality problems related to diseases (Browdy, C.L. and
Hopkins, J.S., 1995 (Editors)). Twenty-two scientists worldwide, selected for their exper-
tise across the whole range of sustainability problems, were invited to prepare and present
manuscripts. Each of the authors made significant contribution of time and expertise. The
results of their dedication provide a valuable compendium of some of the best and latest in-
formation on shrimp farming for researchers, and producers addressing recent sustainability
problems.
For a number of years, investigators dedicated to the development of advanced shrimp
farming technologies have drawn comparison, with agricultural animal husbandry industries
(Bullis, R.A. and Pruder, G.D., 2000 (Editors)). Principal comparisons have centered on
the integration of genetically-improved, high-health stocks, advanced feeds and feeding
methods and disease control and biosecurity. The planners and organizers of the special
session offered direct comparisons by alternating presentations by chickens and shrimp
experts, followed by a round table discussion. Of the ten papers, four were by industry and
university chicken experts, the remaining six were by research scientists of the U.S. Marine
Shrimp Farming Consortium.
This workshop was organized by the Aquaculture Exchange Program of OI and funded
by the Department of Commerce (Lee, C.-S. and OBryen, P.J., 2003 (Editors)). Sci-
entists worldwide were identified and invited to participate based upon their expertise
in biosecurity measures used against the spread of bacterial disease, viral diseases and
parasites in production systems for major aquaculture species. The workshop was orga-
nized to allow information exchange regarding regulations and management practices in
preventing disease outbreaks in finfish, crustaceans and mollusks. Sixteen papers and a
summary discussion are included in the publications. Discussions focused on biosecurity
basics, type of diseases that should be addressed through biosecurity, detecting and elim-
inating disease transmission, non-fish disease vectors and the effectiveness of regulatory
enforcement.
The quality of this information should be instructive for those wishing a sound under-
standing of principles, practices and weaknesses of current efforts in aquaculture.
Therefore, this manuscript will highlight various aspects and attempt to show that, while
biosecurity is a vital activity, it is one of several vital activities that are interactive and in-
terdependent. These other activities are genetics, nutrition, health and improved production
systems.
The poultry industry is used as a cornerstone or point of departure for application of
biosecurity in aquaculture. Perhaps more than any other segment of animal agriculture
poultry has relied on technological innovations made possible through scientific discovery.
Poultry remains a viable model for aquacultural development.
It is noted that the poultry model extends beyond science and technology. Although not a
core subject, this manuscript highlights various marketing, product forms (over 3,000) and
product differentiation are crucial aspects whose effect may have exceeded technology in
underpinning the world competitiveness of the poultry industry. A successful aquaculture
industry in the United States cannot be built solely on technology.
 G.D. Pruder / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 310 5

2. Biosecurity

Guillermo Zavala (2000) defined biosecurity in the poultry as an essential group of tools
for the prevention, control and eradication of economically important infectious diseases in
poultry. Biosecurity in aquaculture has been defined as the sum of all procedures in place
to protect living organisms from contracting, carrying, and spreading diseases and other
non-desirable health conditions (Moss et al., 1998).
As applied to aquaculture, the scope of biosecurity has yet to be adequately defined
but its activities will be comprised of preventive medicine, adequate diagnosis, contain
outbreaks that occur, disinfection and eradication. Biosecurity is a shared responsibility, in
that each individual in the process of animal production plays a different but critical role in
the implementation of an overall program. Any failure in the chain of process will undercut
the overall effort to establish and maintain biosecurity.
In general, biosecure operations should have a defined structure and barriers, such as
fences and gates in place. The faculty should be constructed with materials that can be
disinfected easily should a disease outbreak occur and is free from unauthorized access
such as vehicles or people. Structurally, it should also prevent the escape of target animals
and the entry of other animals. It should be sited away from hazards that are potential
sources of infection or contamination. Untreated surface water should not be used as the
source water because it may contain pathogens. The ideal system should have appropriate
back-up water, life support systems and operational procedures that allow one-way flow, so
that nothing can be returned to the facility without disease screening.
Biosecurity is practiced at three intensity levels: (1) specific pathogen-free (free of de-
fined infectious agents) for vaccine and laboratory reagent production (2) primary breeding
industry, (3) commercial grower level. In general terms the resources for disease control
involve one or more of the following aspectsquarantine; control traffic of personnel, ve-
hicles and equipment; vaccination and/or medication; diagnostic testing; depopulations and
eradication.

3. The poultry case

In 1948, it took 94 days to grow a four pound chicken and the feed conversion ra-
tio was 3.85/1. Today the same weight chicken takes 38 days with a feed conversion of
1.80. In other words, todays chicken grows more than twice as fast on less than half
the feed. These resulted through an integration of health, biosecurity, improved produc-
tion systems, nutrition and genetics. Without biosecurity this revolution could not have
occurred.
The half century of innovation in poultry productions is an excellent example and perhaps
a model for aquaculture. Samuel L. Pardue (2000) provided an instructive review, from
which the following extracts are highlighted.
Within the past half century, a barnyard enterprise has evolved into a dynamic global
poultry industry. Through the adoption of management philosophy that embraces technol-
ogy, the poultry industry has witnessed advances in efficiency and uniformity of production
that are unparalleled.
6 G.D. Pruder / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 310

The United States alone produced nearly a quarter of the 51 M mt of chicken produced
around the world. There were major forces that contributed to the development of the
poultry industry including expansion, consolidation, integration, scale, marketing, product
differentiation, overall automation, and scientific discovery. Repeating a point made in the
introduction.
However, for the purposes of this paper on biosecurity, this manuscript concentrates only
on scientific discovery. Two major disciplines, genetics and nutrition, have had a mutually
beneficial relationship with poultry for much of this century. Several characteristics have
contributed including relatively short generation time, small body mass, low cost of mainte-
nance and a non-ruminant digestive system. Understanding of the nutritional requirements
of the chick probably exceeds that of all other animals including humans. Bruce Glicks
discovery of bursal-derived lymphocytes (B cells) in the chicken revolutionized our under-
standing of humoral immunity Glick et al. (1956). The poultry industry is most advanced in
the understanding and exploitation of immunosuppressive diseases. Vaccines, thus, play a
cornerstone role in modern poultry production.
However, the largest single contributor to advances in poultry production is selective
breeding supported by nutrition, management and health activities. Milton L. Boyle III,
stated that, the similarities between the genetics of poultry and shrimp are striking and
include economic traits of interest as well as their heritabilities and genetic interactions.
Poultry breeding involves intense and sophisticated selection schemes, even to the point of
niche marketing and multiproduct development. Biosecurity is vital and exists at a stringent
level at the breeding facilities, where disease outbreaks would be catastrophic.
Importantly, very early chicken breeding efforts initially targeted growth rates and disease
resistance. Broiler commercial traits now include growth rate, feed efficiency, meat yield,
body conformation, livability, skeletal integrity and feathering. Reproductive traits include
hatching egg production, age at first egg, egg size, egg shape, breeder livability, fertility, and
hatchability. In many cases the traits are antagonistic to each other so that balanced breeding
schemes are utilized. Specific efforts to breed for disease resistance resulted in much slower
growing chickens. The advent of vaccines and the development and exploitation biosecurity
protocols replaced the much costlier and unreliable genetic selection for disease resistance.
Decades of research in poultry diseases have rendered invaluable information that is
now used by the poultry industry on a daily basis. Many microorganisms have been well
characterized in their pathogenesis, even to the molecular level. This was essential for the
development of vaccines and diagnostic tools. Without the research and understanding of
such poultry pathogens it would have been impossible to control them. The parallel between
the poultry industry a generation ago and aquaculture are more than apparent. Whether aqua-
culture can utilize the poultry model remains to be seen. The poultry model does, however,
raise intriguing questions as to the future of this growing aquaculture agri-business.

4. The marine shrimp case

4.1. Specific pathogen-free (SPF) shrimp

In the 1990s shrimp farms around the world were experiencing severe economic losses
due to low yields and high mortalities. The problems cut across national boundaries, species,
 G.D. Pruder / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 310 7

culture system and environmental conditions. The principal disease vector appeared to be
diseased or disease carrying shrimp seed, both wild and hatchery-reared. Farms in the
United States that were using high-health shrimp provided by OI as part of the U.S. Marine
Shrimp Farming Consortium (USMSFC), were seemingly unaffected. However, the import
of foreign produced shrimp seed to both South Carolina and Texas resulted in severe crop
loss. The point had been made that bringing diseased or disease carrying shrimp onto farms
was an invitation to disaster.
In 1993, Wyban et al. differentiated between high-health and specific pathogen-free
broodstock and seed, commonly used terms that are poorly understood and often misused. It
was explained that reference to high-health stock, rather than SPF, reflects a loss of control
over the health status of the stock. In this paper, SPF stocks relate only to stocks retained in
the breeding center that have already undergone rigorous quarantine and screening efforts.
Once stocks leave the breeding center, they are considered high-health, which means they
are free of certain pathogens to the best of our ability and understanding. The process of
establishing SPF stocks is shown (Fig. 1) and the list of specific pathogens is also shown
(Table 1).
The cornerstone of the emerging genetic improvement program is SPF stock gathered
from around the world. Genetic research on shrimp indicates that their heritability estimates
for commercially important traits are similar to poultry. This indicates the potential for
genetic advance in shrimp is formidable. Rapid progress is being made in breeding shrimp
for very high growth rates at very high densities.

Fig. 1. Development of SPF shrimp.

8 G.D. Pruder / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 310

Table 1
Working list of specific pathogens for SPF shrimp
Pathogen type Pathogen/pathogen group Pathogen category

Viruses
TSVpicornavirus C-1
WSSVnimavirus (new family) C-1
YHV/GAV/LOV3 roniviruses (new family) C-1
IHHNVsystemic parvovirus C-2
BPoccluded enteric baculovirus C-2
MBVoccluded enteric baculovirus C-2
BMNnonoccluded enteric baculovirus C-2
HPVenteric parvoviruses C-2
Procaryote
NHPalpha proteobacteria C-2
Protozoa
Microsporidians C-2
Haplosporidians C-2
Gregarines C-3
Pathogen category with C-1 pathogens defined as excludable pathogens that can potentially cause catastrophic
losses in one or more American penaeid species; C-2 pathogens cause economically significant disease and are
excludable; and C-3 pathogens cause less serious disease, but should be excluded from breeding centers, hatcheries,
and some types of farms.

Although vaccines, medicated feeds, and immunostimulants are effective in combating

some pathogens in other meat-producing industries, they are either unavailable to shrimp
farmers or their efficacy is unproven. Various strategies are being employed to mitigate the
risk of disease including, high-health seed, reduced water exchange rates and screening
influent water. Genetic selection can enhance disease resistance in farmed plants and ani-
mals, including fish (Gjedrem et al., 1991). However, the heritability estimate for disease
resistance in white shrimp was 0.09 0.03. Tave (1993) reported that heritability estimates
less than 0.15 are difficult to improve by selection. Nonetheless, OI was able to increase
resistance to Taura syndrome virus (TSV) in a few generations. However, note that sub-
sequently TSV now occurs as TSV 1, TSV 2, and TSV 3, due to natural phenomenon for
which the selected shrimp have less resistance.
In light of the limitations in breeding for disease resistance, selective breeding should
not be perceived as a panacea to the health problems plaguing the shrimp industry. In the
absence of vaccines and effective selection for disease resistance, the shrimp industry has
two principal opportunities to control diseasehigh-health stocks and biosecurity.

4.2. Zero-water exchange

The second most likely source of disease and/or disease causing organism is water ex-
change. The using of raw or untreated make up water is responsible for continued disease
problems when ponds are stocked with high-health shrimp seed. Fill and exchange water
needs to be disinfected. The cost of water disinfection quickly drove production system re-
search under the zero-water exchange banner. Biosecure shrimp production systems stocked
 G.D. Pruder / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 310 9

Fig. 2. Growout and system management.

with high-health seed represent an emerging technology with an environmentally sustain-

able and economically viable alternative to conventional shrimp culture. Such systems have
been described previously (Moss, 2002; Browdy and Bratvold, 1998; Pruder et al., 1995;
Wyban et al., 1993).

4.3. Feed, nutrition and microbes

The restricted use of water exchange rippled through shrimp growout technologies caus-
ing major changes in feeds and feeding and the maintenance of mixed microbial populations.
These matters are complex and cannot be adequately covered in this manuscript. However,
the principal citations listed in the introduction provide insights and unresolved challenges
in designing and operating an economical biosecure shrimp production system (Fig. 2).
More clearly stated, the institution of biosecurity protocols is having an indirect but sub-
stantial impact on traits selected for genetic selection as well as feeds and feeding and water
quality.
Biosecurity is and will remain an absolutely essential part of intensive animal production
systems. Aquaculture remains well behind the poultry industry in its understanding of
diseases/pathogens and efficient methods of biosecurity.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge funding from the USDA/CSREES Contract Number 99-38808-7431,

which supports the U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program.
10 G.D. Pruder / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 310

References

Swimming through Troubled Water, 1995. In: Browdy, C.L., Hopkins, J.S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Special
Session on Shrimp Farming. Aquaculture, 14 February 1995, San Diego, California. World Aquaculture
Society, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States, p. 253.
Browdy, C.L., Bratvold, D., 1998. Preliminary Development of a Biosecure Shrimp Production System. In: Moss,
S.M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the US Marine Shrimp Farming Program Biosecurity Workshop, 14 February 1998,
Hawaii, United States. The Oceanic Institute, Hawaii, United States, pp. 1938.
Controlled and Biosecure Production Systems: Evolution and Integration of Shrimp and Chicken Models. In:
Bullis, R.A., Pruder, G.D. (Eds.), Proceedings of a Special Session, World Aquaculture Society, 2730 April
1999, Sydney, Australia. The Oceanic Institute, Hawaii, United States, 2000, p. 106.
Gjedrem, T., Salte, R., Gjoen, H.M., 1991. Genetic variation in susceptibility of Atlantic salmon to furunculosis.
Aquaculture 97, 16.
Glick, B., Chang, T.S., Japp, R.G., 1956. The bursa of Fabricius and antibody production. Poult. Sci. 35, 224225.
Guillermo, Z., 2000. Biosecurity in the Poultry Industry. In: Bullis, R.A., Pruder, G.D. (Eds.). Proceedings of
a Special Session, Controlled and Biosecure Production Systems: Evolution and Integration of Shrimp and
Chicken Models, World Aquaculture Society, 2730 April 1999, Sydney, Australia. The Oceanic Institute,
Hawaii, United States pp. 7578.
Lee, C.-S., OBryen, P.J. (Eds.), Biosecurity in Aquaculture Production Systems: Exclusion of Pathogens and
Other Undesirables, The World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, United States, 2003,
p. 188.
Moss, S.M., Reynolds, W.J., Mahler, L.E., 1998. Design and Economic Analysis of a Protogype Biosecure Shrimp
Growout Facility. In: Moss, S.M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the US Marine Shrimp Farming Program Biosecurity
Workshop, 14 February 1998, Hawaii, United States. The Oceanic Institute, Hawaii, United States, pp. 514.
Moss, S.M., 2002. Marine Shrimp Farming in the Western Hemisphere: Past Problems, Present Solutions,
and Future Visions. In: Lee, C.-S., P.J. OBryen (Eds.), Proceedings of a workshop held by the Oceanic
Institute, 1215 February 2001, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States. Aquaculture Growout Systems-Challenges
and Technological Solutions, Reviews in Fisheries Science, 101 (34), 601620.
Pardue, S.L., 2000. A Half-Century of Innovation in Poultry Production. In: Bullis, R.A., Pruder, G.D. (Eds.),
Proceedings of a Special Session, World Aquaculture Society, 2730 April 1999, Sydney, Australia. Controlled
and Biosecure Production Systems: Evolution and Integration of Shrimp and Chicken Models. The Oceanic
Institute, Hawaii, United States pp. 8595.
Pruder, G.D., Brown, C.L., Sweeney, J.N., Carr, W.C., 1995. High Health Shrimp Systems: Seed Supply-Theory
and Practice. In: Browdy, C.L., Hopkins, J.S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Special Session on Shrimp Farming
Aquaculture 1995. Proceedings of the Special Session on Shrimp Farming, 14 February 1995, San Diego,
California. Swimming Through Troubled Water. World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United
States pp. 4052.
Tave, D., 1993. Genetics for Fish Hatchery Managers, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, p. 415.
Wyban, J.A., Swingle, J.S., Sweeney, J.N., Pruder, D.G., 1993. Specific pathogen free Penaeus vannamei. J. World
Aquacult. Soc. 24 (1), 3945.