http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/28b6bd62-5433-4fad-b5a1-8ac61eb671b1/ FAO Second International Technical Seminar/Workshop on Acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease (AHPND) There is a way forward! FAO Technical Cooperation Programme: TCP/INT/3501 and TCP/INT/3502.

1. The Industry Response to
EMS in Mexico
A Case Study
Dan Fegan
(Aquaculture Consultant, Thailand)
&
Jesus Zendejas
(Cargill Purina, Mexico)

2. Synopsis
• Identifying the outbreak – early days
• Information gathering
• Planning activities
• Workshop – Cd. Obregon November 13-14, 2013
• Measures adopted
• Review of successes
• Lessons Learned

3. 3
WSD
EMS

4. Identifying the Outbreak
• First concerns came just after the 1st stock cycle in April/May 2013
• Cause(s) initially unknown but samples analysed in UA strongly
indicated EMS (AHPND)
• Reluctance to accept diagnosis of EMS due to possible trade impacts
and limitations of available tests
• Initial communication between industry players in Mexico and
counterparts in Asia also suggested AHPND or an AHPND-like
epidemic
• Visits to Mexico by global experts with experience in EMS outbreaks
to get information and share experiences

6. Shrimp Industry Analysis, 2013
6

7. AHPND Workshop,
Cd. Obregon November 13-14, 2013
• Sponsored by Cargill/Purina
• Brought together 42 key players from industry,
government and academia with foreign experts
• Representatives from PL suppliers, producers, research
centres, national aquaculture health committees,
aquaculture authorities and feed companies
• Objective: Review current state of knowledge, identify
gaps and plan for the 2014 crop cycle
• Day 1: Presentations and updates on AHPND
• Day 2: Workshop to develop plans to address
knowledge gaps and plan actions for 2014

8. Effect of direct stocking and nursery phase
8
8
Hatchery
Nursery
Ponds

9. a
a
a
b
a
b

10. a
a a
b
a
b

11. 11
Conclusion – Possible association between grow-out survival and PL origin.
Exact reasons not clear

14. What was the effect of direct stocking vs nursery stocking?
1st Production Cycle, Sonora State
Lower survival indicates direct stocking poses higher risk of losses
Ave S% 30%
Median S% 23%
Ave S% 45%
Median S% 45%
Ave DOC 85
Median DOC 75
Ave DOC 85
Median DOC 76
No real difference in cycle duration between direct and nursery stocking strategies

15. What was the effect of direct stocking vs nursery stocking?
1st Production Cycle, Sonora State
Higher FCR (higher production cost) for direct stocking
Reduced yield with direct stocking strategy
Ave Yield 594 Kg
Median Yield 327 Kg
Ave Yield 880 Kg
Median Yield 706 Kg
Ave FCR 2.31
Median FCR 2.31
Ave FCR 1.93
Median FCR 1.7

16. Taller AHPNS/EMS, Cd Obregón, Nov.14-15, 2013
• Revise and apply Manual of Good Management Practices
• Prepare pond bottom well. Remove top 10-20 cm of affected ponds (if possible) or dry the ponds
for at least 2 weeks before stocking.
• Use reservoirs, water disinfection and fertilise to ensure a stable Bloom before stocking.
• Use good quality feeds boosted with appropriate additives
• Increase feeding frequency to 3-5 times daily.
• Monitor pond microbiology during the cycle (Vibrio spp., algal population and algal species).
• Recommend use of nurseries to grow PL >350 mg before stocking. Alternatively, use floating net
pens within the pond
• Investigate different production systems – lined ponds, well wáter lower than 5 ppt, biofloc)
• Use partial harvesting to reduce economic risk and improve production conditions.
• Assess PL and broodstock to ensure that they meet quality standards. Use PCR to test for EMS.
• Polyculture with tilapia may improve shrimp survival (use tilapia that are tolerant to higher salinity)
16

17. Shrimp industry analysis, 2014
17

18. Biosecurity & Risk Management
• Established a simple, basic risk
assessment to support on-farm
biosecurity
• Series of questions based on
known risk factors for EMS
outbreaks, good management
practices and disease prevention
protocols
• Customised recommendations on
actions to reduce risks

19. On-Site Testing
• The Pockit Rapid PCR test kit can
be used for preliminary testing
of AHPND in broodstock and PL
• More specific and sensitive than
traditional TCBS or Biochrome
agar
• Provides a result in 2 hours
allowing farmers to make real-
time decisions

21. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
March April May June July August September
NumberofPonds
Survival based on month of PL stocking
Median Survival N

22. Broodstock Source
Survival Yield
Potential influence of broodstock source on production yield

23. Stocking Strategies
Survival Yield
Indications that split phase stocking strategies (using nurseries or net pens) can increase survival and yield

24. Feed-Based Strategies
Survival Yield
Indications that feed-based strategies based on improving the immune system can have a beneficial effect
However, reinforced (more nutrient dense) diets appear to have a negative impact

25. Stocking Strategy 2014 - survival
25
Total area: 8,800 Ha
Area: 48% of total area
Area (Ha) stocked by hatchery: 1= 3,300, 4= 1,600, 5= 1,400, 6= 1,200, 7= 1,150

26. Shrimp industry analysis, 2016
26

27. Incidence of Disease Issues 2016
Original data from Comite Estatal de
Sanidad Acuicola de Sinaloa, A.C.

28. Incidence of Disease Issues 2016
Original data from Comite Estatal de
Sanidad Acuicola de Sinaloa, A.C.

29. Conclusions
• Industry Investment
• Industry invests significant time, money and resources to deal with disease threats
• Investment is poorly leveraged across the industry and often lacks clear focus
• Significant investment lost in chasing “quick fixes”
• Monitoring and Surveillance
• Unwillingness to accept and report disease outbreaks within the industry loses valuable time to react
• Need to remove the stigma associated with rapid reporting of disease
• Reduce “penalties” associated with reporting disease
• Genetics
• Influence of genetics appears to diminish for unknown reasons
• Local breeding of F1 leading to higher inbreeding coefficients?
• Lack of definition of specific genetic strains
• Little or no information on pedigree or inbreeding coefficients (>6% inbreeding coefficient has a negative impact on
growth/survival)
• Lack of coordination and communication within industry
• Hatcheries and farms often secretive
• Little or no collaboration between neighbouring farms
• Limited sharing of information and analysis of data to support industry

30. Muchas Gracias