@article{fdi:010062300,
  title = {{M}inimal body size for tagging fish with electronic microchips as studied in the {N}ile {T}ilapia},
  author = {{O}uedraogo, {C}. and {C}anonne, {M}. and {D}'{C}otta, {H}. and {B}aroiller, {J}. {F}. and {B}aras, {E}tienne},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{I}ndividual identification of fish is often desirable for the smallest possible size, but it is crucial that tagging does not interfere with fish survival, physiology, or behavior. {W}e evaluated radio-frequency identification ({RFID}) tags (10 mg) and {PIT} tags ({PIT}; 32 mg) in fish of two different size-classes of {N}ile {T}ilapia {O}reochromis niloticus: 200-500 mgand 640-1,600 mg, wet mass ({WM}). {T}his produced four categories of tag load for each type of tag: 5.0, 3.3, 2.5, and 2.0% of {WM}. {W}e tested 30 fish per category. {S}urvival averaged 95.8% for {RFID} tags and 98.3% for {PIT} tags. {T}ag retention after 35 d was 99.1% for {RFID} tags and 96.6% for {PIT} tags. {T}agged fish grew more slowly than controls. {G}rowth penalty was proportional to tag load, but restricted to the first 4 d after tagging and compensated by catch-up growth, except in fish <300 mg presumably due to greater difficulties of handling and tagging. {S}mall {PIT} tags can thus be used confidently in tilapia of about 1.3 g and {RFID} tags in tilapia of about 0.4 g. {I}f growth is not a premium, the corresponding minimal sizes are 1.0 (for {PIT}) and 0.3 g (for {RFID}).},
  keywords = {},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{N}orth {A}merican {J}ournal of {A}quaculture},
  volume = {76},
  numero = {3},
  pages = {275--280},
  ISSN = {1522-2055},
  year = {2014},
  DOI = {10.1080/15222055.2014.911228},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010062300},
}