NEW FIELD/FORMAT: Parasite information

[odontaster]

From a document by Ingeborg de Bois from the 20th January 2022 Ingeborg de Boois, 20 January 2022

Problem definition and requirements Within the fish surveys there is a shift towards collecting more information on parasites and diseases. Examples are registration of liver infections requested by WGBIFS (recommendation 2021-61) and registration of parasites and abnormal growth in haddock during IBTS. Currently, individual fish data can be stored, but there is no possibility to add information on diseases/parasites to it. Only the fact if parasites have been sampled can be filled in in DATRAS (ParSamp).

The main requirements are: • direct linkage to the individual fish in DATRAS CA • possibility to link multiple diseases/parasite types to one fish

[odontaster]

Potential solutions: a. Addition of new field(s) to CA recordtype The advantage of adding one or multiple columns to the CA record is that it is easy to implement. The unified format is more flexible than the old format, and the fact that headers are used creates the option for adding the information when available, without having to update the existing information in DATRAS.

The drawback of this option is that only one disease/parasite type can be added to an individual fish, while multiple infection types can take place in one fish.

b. Adding disease/parasite information to a different database Within the suite of ICES dataportals, storage of disease/parasite information is already possible (http://vocab.ices.dk/?CodeID=51748). The advantage is that the existing database storage option can be used for these data.

The risk of this option is that it is complicated or impossible to link the trawl and individual fish information in DATRAS (easily) to the disease/parasite information. If the disease/parasite information is stored in a different database than DATRAS, a direct link should exist between the DATRAS information on individual fish level and the disease/parasite information. Submission to and extraction from the disease/parasite information should be made ad easy as possible for DATRAS submitters and users (e.g. like the current submission of LT records for fish trawl surveys).

c. Adding disease/parasite information to a DATRAS in a separate table The advantages of this option (Table 1) are that there is a direct connection to the individual fish data in DATRAS, and that multiple diseases/parasite types can be added to the same fish. Furthermore, this is a sustainable solution for future, and provides the opportunity to make more information on fish diseases available next to the dedicated disease/parasite information collected during other research.

The drawback is that a new table has to be developed, and, more importantly, the import and export facilities have to be updated to store the data properly. This may be quite a lot of work.

[odontaster]

[odontaster]

Action: Ingeborg sends the document to the survey groups chairs, with the request to discuss in their survey working groups how urgent the issue is, and if the data is being used. After that, WGDG can again discuss the proposal and create a recommendation for ICES Data centre on a preferred option.

[odontaster]

Action for Adriana: Check the content of DOME in relation to fish disease/parasites with Anna O.

[odontaster]

Anna O suggests first to think about the expected end users of this information, secong to check with WGPDMO whether they would be interested in this information, in that case DOME would be the right place. In DOME there is a field equivalent to FishID, so the link could exist. https://www.ices.dk/community/groups/Pages/WGpdmo.aspx

[odontaster]

@Ingeborg1312 will contact WGPDMO chair, to set up the linkage

[Ingeborg1312]

WGPDMO chair contacted multiple times, asking: a. Would you be interested in using the data? b. Do you have the reference to fish disease and parasites, so we can see if there is already vocabulary for the information collected, or that we have to request for new vocabulary? c. If you’re interested in the disease data collected during fisheries independent monitoring, would it be problematic to retrieve that information from DATRAS instead of DOME?

but no response. Based on the fact that linkage to DATRAS CA has to be possible, and that that is not possible when storing the parasite information in DOME, I propose to move forward with development in/directly related to DATRAS