A newly discovered iridescent virus that causes severe disease and high mortality in farmed Litopenaeus vannamei in Zhejiang, China, has been verified and temporarily specified as shrimp hemocyte iridescent virus (SHIV). Histopathological examination revealed basophilic inclusions and pyknosis in hematopoietic tissue and hemocytes in gills, hepatopancreas, periopods and muscle. Using viral metagenomics sequencing, we obtained partial sequences annotated as potential iridoviridae. Phylogenetic analyses using amino acid sequences of major capsid protein (MCP) and ATPase revealed that it is a new iridescent virus but does not belong to the five known genera of Iridoviridae. Transmission electron microscopy showed that the virus exhibited a typical icosahedral structure with a mean diameter of 158.6 ± 12.5 nm (n = 30)(v-v) and 143.6 ± 10.8 nm (n = 30)(f-f), and an 85.8 ± 6.0 nm (n = 30) nucleoid. Challenge tests of L. vannamei via intermuscular injection, per os and reverse gavage all exhibited 100% cumulative mortality rates. The in situ hybridization showed that hemopoietic tissue, gills, and hepatopancreatic sinus were the positively reacting tissues. Additionally, a specific nested PCR assay was developed. PCR results revealed that L. vannamei, Fenneropenaeus chinensis, and Macrobrachium rosenbergii were SHIV-positive, indicating a new threat existing in the shrimp farming industry in China.

Macrobrachium rosenbergii is a valuable freshwater prawn in Asian aquaculture. In recent years, a new symptom that was generally called “white head” has caused high mortality in M. rosenbergii farms in China. Samples of M. rosenbergii, M. nipponense, Procambarus clarkii, M. superbum, Penaeus vannamei, and Cladocera from a farm suffering from white head in Jiangsu Province were collected and analyzed in this study. Pathogen detection showed that all samples were positive for Decapod iridescent virus 1 (DIV1). Histopathological examination revealed dark eosinophilic inclusions and pyknosis in hematopoietic tissue, hepatopancreas, and gills of M. rosenbergii and M. nipponense. Blue signals of in situ digoxigenin-labeled loop-mediated isothermal amplification appeared in hematopoietic tissue, hemocytes, hepatopancreatic sinus, and antennal gland. Transmission electron microscopy of ultrathin sections showed a large number of DIV1 particles with a mean diameter about 157.9 nm. The virogenic stromata and budding virions were observed in hematopoietic cells. Quantitative detection with TaqMan probe based real-time PCR of different tissues in naturally infected M. rosenbergii showed that hematopoietic tissue contained the highest DIV1 load with a relative abundance of 25.4 ± 16.9%. Hepatopancreas and muscle contained the lowest DIV1 loads with relative abundances of 2.44 ± 1.24% and 2.44 ± 2.16%, respectively. The above results verified that DIV1 is the pathogen causing white head in M. rosenbergii. M. nipponense and Pr. clarkii are also species susceptible to DIV1.

A 30-day experiment was performed to investigate the effects of bioflocs on water quality, and survival, growth and digestive enzyme activities of the white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. Altogether 28 shrimp (7.4 ± 0.1 g) were stocked in each 150 L tank. Two bioflocs treatments and one control were managed: ‘bioflocs 1’ and ‘bioflocs 2’ based on two different densities of the bioflocs, and clean water control without the bioflocs. Brown sugar was added to the bioflocs 1 and bioflocs 2 treatment tanks accounting for 28% and 80% of the shrimp feed respectively (corresponding to proximate C/N ratios of 10 and 14 in daily additions of organic matter respectively), so as to promote bioflocs production and approximately 14 mL L⁻¹ in treatment bioflocs 1 and 20 mL L⁻¹ in treatment bioflocs 2 were maintained from day 15. Monitoring of selected water quality parameters throughout the whole experiment period showed that all parameters remained within recommended levels for shrimp culture in the bioflocs treatments at zero-water exchange, especially low total ammonia nitrogen and nitrite nitrogen levels. By the end of the experiment, shrimp survival rates were above 86%, with no significant differences (P > 0.05) among the three groups. Both weight gain rate and special growth rate tended to increase in the bioflocs treatments compared to those in the control. Meanwhile, the overall specific activities of protease, amylase, cellulase and lipase of the shrimp in the bioflocs treatments were all higher than those in the control; and for the specific activity of the same digestive enzyme, the differences between the bioflocs treatments and the control performed inconsistently among different organs: hepatopancreas, stomach and intestine. Present results suggest that the bioflocs can not only maintain favourable water quality conditions for shrimp culture and help shrimp grow well in zero-water exchange culture systems, but may also have a positive effect on digestive enzyme activities of the shrimp.

The challenges and problems of managing good biosecurity are wide‐ranging and multifactorial with many compounding factors to pre‐dispose farmed stocks to an increased risk of infection with consequential stock losses. Many challenges are anthropogenic in origin and may be the result of the physical location (site) and/or the poor design of the production facility (i.e., water re‐use; lack of zoning based on biosecurity risk, etc.) as well as from inappropriate decisions and practices made once the site is in production (i.e., pushing the system for increased biomass production). There is a need for better regulation and health legislation across aquaculture—an industry that embraces the culture of >500 species. In the absence of regulatory frameworks and culture guidelines, it is difficult for farmers to apply certain measures such as maximum stocking densities and maximum allowed biomass, conduct disease surveillance and regular health checks, and report diseases to relevant authorities for advice. In this review, we have identified several issues which are continuing to challenge the design and implementation of efficient and effective biosecurity strategies and protocols at all levels, requiring attention over the coming decade. They are, not in any order of priority: (a) healthy seed, (b) emergency preparedness and response, (c) diagnostics, (d) microbial management at the production level, (e) disease and pathogen surveillance, (f) trade in aquatic species, (g) policies and regulatory framework, (h) welfare, (i) research and technology development, (j) antimicrobial resistance, (k) non‐conventional ways of pathogen transfer, and (l) Progressive Management Pathway.