Aquaculture Standards Interpretation Committee

Open to public input

Closed to public input

Ouvert à la participation du public

Fermé à la participation du public

1. Mandate of the AquaSIC

The committee mandate is to prepare responses to stakeholder questions regarding the CAN/ CGSB-32.312-2018 standards, which will then, through the AquaSIC process, become binding interpretations adopted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and the organic aquaculture sector.

2. Profile of the AquaSIC

The AquaSIC will consist of a non-voting CFIA representative (appointed by CFIA) and six
appointed voting members who are industry experts in various sectors of organic aquaculture such as fish and shellfish production, fish feed production, fish processing, aquaponics and fish distribution. The confidential nature and transparency of the work shall be respected by AquaSIC members.

3. Member Appointment

CFIA will appoint their representative. COSA will appoint the industry representatives. Industry representatives will be respected and trusted by their colleagues in the organic aquaculture community. They will have expertise in one or more areas of organic aquaculture. Anyone in the sector may submit nominations or self-nominate for membership. Each nomination must be accompanied by an outline of the candidate’s credentials. COSA members will vote to select new AquaSIC members and fill vacancies.

4. Election of Chair

The members of the AquaSIC shall elect a chair from among AquaSIC members. An election for chair occurs each year. The Chair must be neutral and impartial, chair meetings, determine the conflicts of interest, ensure discussions stay focused on the issue, participate in the agenda preparation, verify that minutes reflect the decisions made at meetings, and act as the spokesperson of the AquaSIC. The chair will have a second and tie breaking vote.

5. Length of Term

Industry appointments to the AquaSIC are for three years, and may be staggered to ensure continuity within the committee. Members may be re-appointed.

6. Member Withdrawal

Any member may withdraw from the AquaSIC by delivering a written resignation to COSA. Any member may be expelled if they do not accomplish their mandate in a competent manner or if they do not respect the AquaSIC Terms of Reference. The chair (or other designated AquaSIC member if the chair is the one under consideration) and COSA shall determine grounds for expulsion of a member and shall communicate decisions to the member.

7. Member Compensation

AquaSIC members will participate on a voluntarily basis. On an annual basis, COSA will review whether an honorarium or some other compensation is deemed to be required, and if so, will work on identifying sources of government funding to cover these costs.

8. Interpretation Process

When a question concerning the Canadian organic aquaculture standard arises, the following steps will be taken to address the question:

1. Questions will be submitted to CFIA. CFIA will acknowledge receipt and refer the questions to the AquaSIC via COSA.

     • CFIA will be a liaison between the AquaSIC and inquiring stakeholders, ensuring the inquirer’s identity is kept confidential.
     • AquaSIC members may submit questions to CFIA.

2. COSA will distribute the inquiry to all members of the AquaSIC.

3. COSA will organize meetings of the AquaSIC to discuss and provide interpretation.
Questions will be addressed according to arrival date except if they are judged as high
priorities by CFIA or COSA. The AquaSIC shall communicate and meet as required to
perform their duties.

4. AquaSIC members must declare any actual or potentially perceived conflict of interest to the AquaSIC as it arises. The AquaSIC will determine the requirement for recusal.

5. The AquaSIC will collect information, discuss and interpret as required to develop a
response to the inquiry. The AquaSIC may bring in non-voting technical experts to assist in their deliberations. Quorum for meetings is 3 voting members. Decisions of the AquaSIC shall be made by consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, a vote of a minimum of 3 members is required and a simple majority of 50% plus 1 is sufficient to confirm a decision.

6. Minutes of meetings shall be recorded by a committee member and decisions logged by COSA.

7. COSA will post the response on the COSA website in both official languages for a 30 day public comment period.

8. AquaSIC members will review and consider all comments and may amend the response accordingly.

9. COSA will receive the final response from the AquaSIC and submit the final response in
both official languages to CFIA and to the Committee on Organic Aquaculture of the
Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) for consideration during the next revision of the standard.

10. CFIA will send the response to the inquiring stakeholder.

11. COSA will track each inquiry, including the recording of date received, date of a draft
answer by the AquaSIC, date submitted for public comment, number of comments
received, and date sent to the CGSB and CFIA.

1.  Is cyro-preserved milt permitted for use in organic aquaculture systems?

6.5.1.a of CAN/CGSB-32.312 allows for the use of methods involving human intervention to extract gametes and fertilize eggs. Cryopreservation is a human intervention that is used during gamete extraction and egg fertilization, and therefore permitted.

2.  We have a challenge with the use of some chemicals additives as calcium chloride and anti-foam emulsion (attachment). These products are sometimes use for fish transportation. Also, I would like to propose to a few companies (fish farms), whose water is deficient in calcium, calcium chloride. CaCl2 is a product that does not modify the pH of the water. This is to improve the calcium content in fish scales. Calcium is absorbed mainly in water for salmonids. The scales provide protection against pathogens. I don’t see this product in the list of products that can be used in organic aquaculture. However, it is found in CAN/CGB-32.311-2015, but must be food grade. Can you guide me on the possibility of using calcium chloride and anti-foam Emulsion in aquaculture?

Calcium Chloride

a) Table 3 “Water amendments and crop nutrition” of CAN/CGSB-32.312 has a note which refers to Table 4.2 of CAN/CGB-32.311 as follows: “NOTE Refer to Table 4.2 of CAN/CGSB-32.311. Only exceptions and additions permitted for aquaculture are included in this table”.

Table 4.2 of CAN/CGB-32.311 states the following on Calcium: Calcium - The following calcium products are permitted: mined calcium carbonate, limestone, dolomite (not slaked) and other non-synthetic sources, including shells from aquatic animals (such as oyster shell flour), aragonite, eggshell meal and lime from sugar processing. Non-synthetic calcium chloride is permitted for treatment of nutrient deficiencies and physiological disorders. Calcium products used in controlled atmosphere storage are prohibited. Shall not cause salt buildup in soil through repeated application. See Table 4.2 Calcium sulphate (gypsum). Calcium chloride is permitted.

Anti-foam b) There is no listing for silicone or related products in CAN/CGSB-32.312 or CAN/CGB-32.311. The proposed additive for anti-foam emulsion is not permitted.

3.  Can products produced in other countries be certified under 32.312?

Operators can have their products certified under the Canadian Organic Standard (32.312) should there not be an organic aquaculture standard in their country. Please note that it the product that is certified not the farms or operators themselves. CFIA accredits Certifying Bodies (CBs) that offer certification services work overseas that could inspect operations outside of Canada. Please see the list of international CBs here. As such, operators under the oversight of a CFIA accredited CB would be able to market their products with the Canadian organic logo within their own countries of operation.

4.  If someone is manufacturing and marketing aquaculture livestock feed, this cannot [be] certified under 32.312 since this is “preparation”. Also, it must fall under section 9 of 32.310. Section 9 d) referencing Livestock Feed was not written with 32.312 in mind. Furthermore, 32.312 states that “Feeds for both terrestrial and aquatic livestock are governed by the same laws and regulations, enforced by the animal feed division of the CFIA”. If we were to follow only 32.312 for the certification of organic aquaculture livestock feed, there are no guidelines as to how much organic content would be required. It could in theory be possible to certify feed as organic with no actual organic ingredients.


1) Can livestock aquaculture feed be certified under 32.310 Section 8 and 9?
2) If yes, under which section does it fall under? Just trying to understand the exception of the aquaculture feed. “Therefore, aquaculture products, with the exception of aquaculture feed are treated as though they were agricultural products for the purposes of this section of the standard.

Livestock aquaculture feed does not fall under the scope of CAN/CGB-32.310. Feed for aquatic livestock shall comply with section 6.6.4 of CAN/CGSB-32.312 and can only be certified if it meets the profile described therein.

5.  I have a question regarding wild fish in organic products. I understand that wild fish itself cannot be certified organic, and per the Organic Aquaculture Standards 32-312, wild fish is not included in the definition of livestock from aquaculture. I am wondering then if there are prohibitions to making a “contains X% organic ingredients” claim for a product that contains wild fish. For example, would it be permitted for a product containing 70% organic content and 30% wild fish to claim “contains 70% organic ingredients” on the label?
I ask this question because 9.2.2, 32-310. indicates that an organic product with 70-95% organic content may include up to 30% of “a) non-organic agricultural ingredient subject to the requirements in 1.4 a), 1.4 c), and 1.4 h)”, among other non-organic ingredients and processing aids. If wild animals are not included in the definition of agricultural and aquaculture livestock, does that mean it is not possible to make any organic claim for a product that contains wild animals, even if the product does contain at least 70% organic content?

This question is regulatory in nature and does not fall under the scope of the AquaSIC. This question will be sent back to CFIA for their response. It is correct that wild fish cannot be certified organic.

6.  With the CAN/CGSB-32.312-2018 regulations going into full force with Aquaculture products we have run into some difficulties with the auditing bodies over some interpretations of some sections, particularly how fish meal and fish oil can be applied in the calculation of organic percentage of aquaculture livestock feed.
The sections of direct concern are 6.6.4 and 6.6.6, we are unable to source a sufficient quantity of organic fish meals and oils, as they are the bulk of our organic products, our previous certifier had interpreted section 6.6.4 to mean that meals and oils that comply with section 6.6.7 could be used as part of the organic calculation or be exempt from the calculation similar to water. The certifier we are currently working with said that our product will not be certified organic as it contains non organic fish meals and oils.
As one of the largest feed manufacturers in the world we have excellent sourcing ability and we cannot source this much organic meal and oil, we are unsure how other companies would be able to either. Can you please clarify this section for us? Without being able to use these ingredients as organic (as wild caught products should be, they are the closest thing to natural) we will likely need to cease producing this product, which will have downstream consequences to the organic supply chain (our customers) further reducing the amount of organic materials available.
We hope that this is just an interpretation issue on the part of the certifier as we understand these regulations are just newly enforced. We are hoping you can give us clarity so we can decide to move forward with organic certification or not.

Non-organic fish oil and fish meal are allowed to be used as ingredients in feed fed to organically labelled fish under the conditions stated in 6.6.4, 6.6.6, 6.6.7, and 6.6.8 of CAN/CGSB-32.312-2018. However, if the feed has less than 95% organic ingredients, as defined by the standard, the feed product cannot make an organic claim. Refer to Annex A of the Standard.

7.  One of my clients has asked whether or not he needs to use potable SDR pipping instead of the usual SDR pipping for his organic aquaponic fish farm using trout.

Piping material does not fall within the scope of the Standard. Note that accumulation of contaminants in animals and plants must meet Federal requirements for food production and cannot exceed legal levels.

8.  Is there any specific regulation for stocking densities for species not listed in COR, e.g., Tilapia? (I can only see stocking densities for salmon and shrimp).

The Standard does not prescribe specific maximum fish stocking densities other than those listed in and Note that there are requirements related to general stocking densities as described in sections 6.8.6, 6.9.2 and of the Standard. Also note management must be based on the five domains of animal welfare as per section 6.7.2.

9.  How is “slaughter livestock” defined? This is in context with clause 6.7.14: The operator of an organic livestock operation shall not administer b) synthetic parasiticides to slaughter livestock, except as provided in 6.7.15; c) antibiotics to slaughter livestock. Does it refer to aquaculture livestock, that is soon to be slaughtered (referring to a certain lifetime before slaughter, e.g. 4 weeks), or does it apply in general to animals that are produced to be slaughtered and consumed (in contrary for example to breeder animals). I assume the first is applicable, because the COR says, not to administer antibiotics to slaughter livestock (6.7.14 c). It would be surprising if antibiotics would be prohibited for aquaculture animals in general (those to be slaughtered and consumed).

In the Standard, the term “slaughter livestock” refers to all life stages of livestock cultured under organic management which are intended for animal consumption or human consumption.

10.  Can I use nanobubble technology to treat my fish sludge before it is used as a fertiliser for my organic plants in my decoupled aquaponic facility?

CAN/CGSB-32.312 section 1.4-b-2 lists the following exceptions to nanotechnology use prohibition: "contact surfaces, such as equipment, work surfaces, or packaging, where transference of nano-sized particles to organic crops, livestock or products is unintended and unlikely to occur;". The use of nanobubbles to treat fish sludge falls under this exception.

11. prohibits the use of polystyrene as a flotation devise for new installations and replacement purposes. Are polystyrene flotation devices that are covered in plastic (no exposed polystyrene) permitted?

As per, for invertebrate production, polystyrene flotation is not permitted, covered or not.

12.  For invertebrate production, if it is not possible for the operation to produce seed (under 6.10.2) in accordance with 32.312 and organic or wild seed is not commercially available, can the operation produce its own seed using conventional methods as long as 95% of the final biomass of the final product was produced under organic management (as stated under allows for the use of seed from non-organic sources; the source of which is not specified. Additionally, 6.4.4 allows for broodstock which have not been reared under continuous organic management. If non-organic seed is produced at the same operation, 5.3 specifies the requirements around parallel production.

13.  Is sodium nitrate permitted as a feed for the production of organic plankton?

The specific topic of sodium nitrate relating to permitted substances in Table 4.2 in CAN/CGSB-32.311 has been interpreted by the Agriculture SIC (Q&A #580); thus, this question is deferred to the Agriculture SIC response which reads as follows: "sodium nitrate in any form is prohibited”.

14.  Is the use of PVP-Iodine (Polyvinylpyrrolidone) permitted for disinfecting organic salmonid eggs? The manufacturer indicates it is a formulation of elemental iodine and a carrier (to keep it stable and safe for the salmonid eggs); however, the SDS only lists PVP-Iodine.

Table 5.3 (CAN/CGSB-32/311-2020) lists the origin and use of iodine as follows: "If used as a topical disinfectant: permitted iodine sources include potassium iodide and elmental iodine". This does not exclude other sources; thus, PVP-Iodine is permitted.

15.  32.312 clause 5 Crop production specifically requests a once-off biomass estimate of seaweed at the outset (5.1.3). Does this requirement apply to only cultivated seaweeds or does it also include wild crop seaweeds (7.2)?. It does seem to reason that a biomass calculation be required at the outset of wild crop harvest of seaweed to demonstrate sustainable harvest of the resource and should be included as a requirement under 7.2. Furthermore the calculation should be conducted annually to demonstrate 7.2.3 requirements. If the clause refers only to cultivated seaweed, what is the purpose of estimating a yield/biomass once and not annually? It is my opinion that the biomass calculation is needed annually, and for wild crop seaweed. If seaweed is cultivated per 5 Crop production, then an annual projected yield should be required.

5.1.3 (CAN/CGSB-32.312-2018) does apply to wild crops.

16.  32.312 clause 7.2 Wild crops indicates the need for documented evidence that prohibited substances have not been used for at least 36 months before harvest (7.2.1). Does the term 'used' indicate by the operator only? If 'used' means by anyone, is this purposeful use, or accidental contamination? If the need is to demonstrate that the water environment has not been subject to prohibited substances for a period of 36 months prior to harvest; do test results for pathogens and residues (heavy metals, pesticides) from a composite sample from each season's harvest suffice, or should such tests be conducted regularly throughout a harvest season? 7.2.4 also suggests the need for documentary evidence to demonstrate production zones are situated in locations not subject to contamination by prohibited substances. Please indicate what documentary evidence is required of the operator to demonstrate that the water environment is indeed free of prohibited substances.

Documented evidence as required in 7.2 (CAN/CGSB-32.312-2018) should include what industry and other sources of discharge are located in the vicinity and what has been discharged over the past 36 months. Testing is not required. The certifying body will determine specific evidence requirements.

17.  32.312 7.2.2.a) indicates wild crops harvested from shared or common areas need measures, and records to demonstrate total harvest complies with the standard. How does a single operator measure the sustainability of harvest or resource management when multiple operators (organic or not) harvest from a common area? If such documentary evidence does not exist, does this negate the ability to certify the seaweeds as organic?

If multiple operators harvest from a common area, it must be demondatrated that all operators comply with the standard. The once off biomass estimate (5.1.3) can be used to measure the sustainability of harvest.

18.  Saponin (and rotenone) shall be referred as allowed cleaners, or as pest control substance in aquaculture. In our case, Saponin is used to control predator (Fishes in ponds should be considered as predator but not pest). Kindly let us know whether Saponin and Rotenone can be used or not in shrimp farming.

As per Table 7.4 (CAN/CGSB-32/311-2020), saponin derived from plants can be used with a removal event. Rotenone is not permitted.

19.  An operator registered for COR production of salmon has a proposed scenario for which they need the interpretation in this context of: 1) “continuous organic management” in CAN/CGSB-32.312-2018 standard 6.4.6; and of 2) “existing livestock” in CAN/CGSB-32.312-2018 standard 6.2.1. The operator has already completed its 15 month post-application period for sales as organic (SFRC, 344(3)(d)). It has since entered new sites into COR transition periods. While under the operator’s control, the feed and all other aspects of their management are compliant with the standard. For this batch, the operator proposes: 1) The young fish are sourced without COR status and moved to the first growing site – at least the final 90% of biomass gain happens under the operator’s management; 2) The first growing site entered its transition period before this batch of fish arrived, and will complete its transition while these fish are there; 3) The fish will subsequently move to the second growing site undergoing transition, but will be moved to the third site prior to the end of the second site’s transition period; 4) The fish will arrive at the third growing site which has already completed its transition period, and this is where they will be harvested. By the time the proposed batch of fish is harvested, all three sites will have completed their transition periods. The operator needs to know whether the batch of fish will have COR status.

Since harvest occurs after all sites have completed their transition period, the batch of fish described can be certified organic if it meets all other requirements in the Standard.

20.  Is there an official definition of “production cycle” to determine transition period. E.g. in Salmon the freshwater stage (eyed-egg to smolt) is about 12-13 months. The salt water the grow-out (smolt to adult) is about 11 months. Should the production cycle include both stages of production or just the grow out stage?

The production cycle means the lifespan of an aquaculutre animal, seaweed, or plant from the earliest life stage at the facility until the first commerical harvest. Note that production cycle refers to the typical production cycle for that species and operation.

21.  In certain countries the law e.g. Chile, require use of anesthetic on a monthly basis for Caligus (sea lice). However Canadian Organic Standards allows use anesthetic could be use only twice a year. Are there provisions within Canadian Organic Standards to comply with local laws?

As per CAN/CGSB-32.312 section 6.7.12 c, anaesthetics may be administered no more than twice a year when handling individual fish. Note that removing or marking anaesthtised fish from a net pen may prevent multiple treatments of the same animal.

1.  Est-il permis d’utiliser la laitance cryoconservée dans des systèmes d’aquaculture biologique?

Le point 6.5.1.a de la norme CAN/CGSB-32.-312 permet l’utilisation de méthodes d’intervention humaine pour extraire les gamètes et fertiliser les œufs. La cryoconservation est une intervention humaine qui est utilisée pendant l’extraction des gamètes et la fertilisation des œufs et elle est donc permise.

2.  Nous avons un problème avec l’utilisation de certains additifs chimiques comme le chlorure de calcium et l’émulsion antimousse (fixation). Ces produits sont parfois utilisés pour le transport du poisson. J’aimerais aussi proposer le chlorure de calcium à quelques entreprises (centres de pisciculture) dont l’eau est pauvre en calcium. Le CaCl2 est un produit qui ne modifie pas le pH de l’eau. Cela vise à améliorer la teneur en calcium des écailles de poisson. Les salmonidés absorbent principalement le calcium dans l’eau. Les écailles offrent une protection contre les pathogènes. Je ne vois pas ce produit dans la liste des produits qui peuvent être utilisés dans l’aquaculture biologique. Cependant, il est mentionné dans la norme CAN/CGB-32.311-2015, mais il doit être de grade alimentaire. Pouvez-vous m’orienter sur la possibilité d’utiliser le chlorure de calcium et l’émulsion antimousse en aquaculture?

Chlorure de calcium

a) Le tableau 3 « Amendements de l’eau et nutrition des cultures » de la norme CAN/CGSB-32.312 comporte une note qui renvoie au tableau 4.2 de la norme CAN/CGB-32.311 comme suit : « NOTE Voir le tableau 4.2 de la norme CAN/CGSB-32.311. Seuls les exceptions et les ajouts permis pour l’aquaculture sont indiqués dans le tableau ci-dessous. »

Le tableau 4.2 de la CAN/CGB-32.311 indique ce qui suit au sujet du calcium : Calcium – Les produits de calcium suivants sont permis :
le carbonate de calcium, le calcaire et la dolomite (non hydratée) d’extraction minière et d’autres sources non synthétiques comme les coquilles d’animaux aquatiques (p. ex., farine de coquilles d’huîtres), l’aragonite et la farine de coquilles d’œufs, ainsi que la chaux résultant de la transformation du sucre. Le chlorure de calcium non synthétique peut être utilisé pour combler une carence en nutriments et corriger des problèmes physiologiques.

Les produits de calcium utilisés dans un entreposage à atmosphère contrôlée sont interdits. L’utilisation répétée ne doit pas entraîner d’accumulation de sels dans le sol. Voir le tableau 4.2 Sulfate de calcium. Le chlorure de calcium est permis.

l’émulsion antimousse

b) Il n’y a pas d’inscription pour les silicones ou les produits connexes dans la norme CAN/CGSB-32.312 ou CAN/CGB-32.311. L’additif proposé pour l’émulsion antimousse n’est pas autorisé

3.  Les produits produit dans d’autres pays peuvent-ils être certifiés en vertu de la 32.312?

Les exploitants peuvent faire certifier leurs produits en vertu de la norme biologique canadienne (32.312) s’il n’existe pas de norme sur l’aquaculture biologique dans leur pays. Veuillez noter que c’est le produit qui est certifié et non les fermes ou les exploitants eux-mêmes. L’ACIA accrédite les organismes de certification (OC) qui offrent des services de certification à l’étranger et qui pourraient inspecter des activités à l’extérieur du Canada. Veuillez consulter la liste des OC internationaux ici. Ainsi, les exploitants sous la surveillance d’un OC accrédité par l’ACIA pourraient commercialiser leurs produits arborant le logo biologique canadien dans leur propre pays d’exploitation.

4.  Si quelqu’un fabrique et commercialise des aliments pour animaux d’élevage en aquaculture, ils ne peuvent pas être certifiés en vertu de la norme 32.312 puisqu’il s’agit de “préparation”. De plus, ils doivent être visés par l’article 9 de la norme 32.310. La section 9 d) qui fait référence aux aliments du bétail n’a pas été rédigée en tenant compte de l’article 32.312. De plus, la norme 32.312 stipule que “Les aliments destinés aux animaux d’élevage terrestres et aquatiques sont régis par les mêmes lois et règlements, administrés par la Division des aliments pour animaux de l’Agence canadienne d’inspection des aliments.”. Si nous ne respections que la norme 32.312 pour la certification des aliments pour animaux d’élevage en aquaculture biologique, il n’y aurait pas de lignes directrices sur la quantité de contenu biologique requise. En théorie, il serait possible de certifier des aliments comme étant biologiques sans aucun ingrédient biologique.»

Questions :
1) Les aliments pour animaux d’élevage en aquaculture peuvent-ils être certifiés en vertu des articles 8 et 9 de la norme 32.310?
2) Si oui, en vertu de quel article? J’essaie simplement de comprendre l’exception concernant les aliments en aquaculture. « Par conséquent, les produits de l’aquaculture, à l’exception des aliments pour animaux d’aquaculture, sont traités comme s’il s’agissait de produits agricoles aux fins de la présente section de la norme.

Les aliments pour animaux d’élevage en aquaculture ne sont pas visés par la norme CAN/CGB-32.310. Les aliments pour animaux d’élevage en aquaculture doivent être conformes à la section6.6.4 de la normeCAN/CGSB-32.312 et ne peuvent être certifiés que s’ils respectent le profil qui y est décrit.

5.  Je me questionne au sujet du poisson sauvage dans les produits biologiques. Je comprends que le poisson sauvage lui-même ne peut pas être certifié biologique, et la définition d’animaux d’élevage en aquaculture de la Norme d’aquaculture biologique 32.312 ne comprend pas le poisson sauvage. Je me demande donc s’il est interdit de déclarer qu’un produit contenant du poisson sauvage “contient X % d’ingrédients biologiques”. Par exemple, un produit contenant 70 % d’ingrédients biologiques et 30 % de poisson sauvage pourrait-il porter une étiquette mentionnant qu’il “contient 70 % d’ingrédients biologiques”?
Je pose cette question parce que la section 9.2.2 de la norme 32.310 indique qu’un produit biologique contenant de 70 % à 95 % d’ingrédients biologiques peut comprendre jusqu’à 30 % d’“ingrédients non biologiques d’origine agricole qui respectent les exigences de 1.4 a), 1.4 c) et 1.4 h)”, parmi d’autres ingrédients et auxiliaires de production non biologiques. Si les animaux sauvages ne sont pas inclus dans la définition d’animaux d’élevage en agriculture et en aquaculture, cela signifie-t-il qu’il est interdit de déclarer qu’un produit contenant des animaux sauvages contient des ingrédients biologiques, même si le produit contient au moins 70 % d’ingrédients biologiques?

Cette question est de nature réglementaire et ne relève pas du mandat de l’Aqua-CIN. Cette question sera renvoyée à l’Agence canadienne d’inspection des aliments pour qu’elle y réponde. Il est exact de dire que les poissons sauvages ne peuvent pas être certifiés biologiques.

6.  Compte tenu de l’entrée en vigueur complète des règlements applicables entourant la norme CAN/CGSB-32.312-2018 sur les produits de l’aquaculture, nous avons rencontré certaines difficultés avec les organismes de vérification au sujet de l’interprétation de certains articles, notamment ceux portant sur l’inclusion de la farine de poisson et de l’huile de poisson dans le calcul du pourcentage d’ingrédients biologiques des aliments pour animaux d’élevage en aquaculture.
Les sections 6.6.4 et 6.6.6 nous préoccupent directement, puisque nous ne sommes pas en mesure d’obtenir une quantité suffisante de farine et d’huiles de poisson biologiques, étant donné qu’il s’agit de la majeure partie de nos produits biologiques. Notre organisme de certification précédent avait interprété l’article 6.6.4 comme signifiant que la farine et les huiles conformes à l’article 6.6.7 pouvaient être utilisées dans le calcul des ingrédients biologiques ou être exemptées du calcul, comme l’eau. L’organisme de certification avec qui nous travaillons actuellement nous a dit que notre produit ne pourra pas recevoir de certification biologique puisqu’il contient des farines et des huiles de poisson non biologiques.
Bien que nous soyons l’un des principaux fabricants d’aliments pour animaux de la planète et que nous ayons une excellente capacité d’approvisionnement, nous ne sommes pas en mesure de nous procurer autant de farine et d’huile biologiques, et nous ne comprenons pas comment d’autres entreprises pourraient y arriver. Pourriez-vous clarifier cette section? Si nous ne sommes pas en mesure d’utiliser ces ingrédients comme des ingrédients biologiques (tout comme les produits de poissons sauvages devraient pouvoir l’être, puisque ceux-ci représentent ce qu’il y a de plus près d’un aliment naturel), nous devrons probablement cesser de produire ce produit, ce qui aura des conséquences en aval sur la chaîne d’approvisionnement biologique (nos clients) et réduira davantage la quantité d’ingrédients biologiques disponibles.
Nous espérons qu’il ne s’agit que d’une erreur d’interprétation de la part de l’organisme de certification, étant donné que ces règlements viennent tout juste d’entrer en vigueur, selon ce que nous comprenons. Nous espérons que vous pourrez nous éclairer afin que nous puissions décider de procéder ou non aux démarches de certification biologique.

L’huile et la farine de poisson non biologiques peuvent être utilisées comme ingrédients dans les aliments pour animaux d’élevage, conformément aux conditions énoncées aux articles 6.6.4, 6.6.6, 6.6.7 et 6.6.8 de la norme CAN/CGSB-32.312-2018. Si le produit contient moins de 95 % d’ingrédients biologiques, il ne peut pas être certifié biologique. Voir l’annexe A de la norme.

7.  L’un de mes clients a demandé s’il avait besoin ou non d’utiliser des tuyaux SDR d’eau potable au lieu des tuyaux SDR habituels pour sa pisciculture aquaponique biologique pour l’élevage de truites.

Le matériau de tuyauterie n’est pas inclus dans la portée de la norme. Il est à noter que l’accumulation de contaminants dans les animaux et les végétaux doit répondre aux exigences fédérales en matière de production alimentaire et ne peut dépasser les niveaux légaux.

8.  Y a-t-il un règlement particulier pour les densités de peuplement des espèces qui ne sont pas inscrites dans le RBC, p. ex., le tilapia? (Je ne peux voir que la densité de peuplement pour le saumon et les crevettes.) 

La norme ne prescrit pas de densités maximales de peuplement spécifiques autres que celles énumérées aux paragraphes et Veuillez noter qu’il existe des exigences relatives aux densités de peuplement générales décrites aux articles 6.8.6, 6.9.2 et de la norme. Veuillez également noter que la gestion doit reposer sur les cinq domaines de bien-être des animaux conformément à l’article 6.7.2.

9.  Comment définit-on le terme "animaux d’élevage destinés à l’abattage"? C’est dans le contexte de l’article 6.7.14 : L’exploitant d’un élevage d’animaux d’élevage biologique ne doit pas administrer b) des parasiticides synthétiques aux animaux d’élevage destinés à l’abattage, sous réserve de 6.7.15; c) des antibiotiques pour les animaux d’élevage destinés à l’abattage. Fait-on référence aux animaux d’élevage aquacole qui seront bientôt abattus (c’est-à-dire une certaine durée de vie avant l’abattage, p. ex., quatre semaines), ou cela s’applique-t-il en général aux animaux qui sont élevés pour être abattus et consommés (contrairement aux animaux géniteurs, par exemple)? Je suppose que le premier cas s’applique, parce que le RBC indique de ne pas administrer des antibiotiques pour les animaux d’élevage destinés à l’abattage (6.7.14 c). Il serait surprenant que les antibiotiques soient interdits pour les animaux d’élevage aquacole en général (ceux qui seront abattus et consommés).

Dans la norme, le terme « animaux d’élevage destinés à l’abattage » fait référence à tous les stades de la vie des animaux élevés dans le cadre d’une gestion biologique qui sont destinés à la consommation animale ou humaine.

10.  Puis-je utiliser la technologie des nanobulles pour traiter mes boues de poisson avant de les utiliser comme engrais pour mes plantes biologiques dans mon installation aquaponique découplée?

On retrouve à la section 1.4b)2) de CAN/CGSB-32.312, les exceptions suivantes à l'interdiction d'utilisation de la nanotechnologie : « les surfaces de contact, comme celles de l’équipement, surfaces de travail, ou matériaux d’emballage, lorsque le transfert de particules de taille nanométrique vers les cultures, les animaux d’élevage ou les substances biologiques est imprévu et peu probable. L'utilisation de nanobulles pour traiter les boues de poisson relève de cette exception.

11.  Le paragraphe interdit l'utilisation du polystyrène comme dispositif de flottaison pour les nouvelles installations et les remplacements. Les dispositifs de flottaison en polystyrène qui sont recouverts de plastique (pas de polystyrène apparent) sont-ils autorisés?

Conformément au paragraphe, pour la production d’invertébrés, les dispositifs de flottaison en polystyrène ne sont pas permis, qu’ils soient recouverts ou non.

12.  Pour la production d'invertébrés, s'il n'est pas possible pour l'exploitation de produire de naissain (en vertu de 6.10.2) conformément à la norme 32.312 et que du naissain biologique ou sauvage n’est pas disponible sur le marché, l'exploitation peut-elle produire son propre naissain en utilisant des méthodes conventionnelles pour autant que 95 % de la biomasse finale du produit final ait été produite sous gestion biologique (comme indiqué au

Le paragraphe autorise l'utilisation de naissain provenant de sources non biologiques, dont la source n'est pas précisée. De plus, le paragraphe 6.4.4 permet l'utilisation de géniteurs qui n'ont pas été élevés sous gestion biologique continue. Si du naissain non biologique est produit dans la même exploitation, l’article 5.3 précise les exigences relatives à la production parallèle.

Can’t find what you’re looking for?