%0 Journal Article
%9 ACL : Articles dans des revues avec comité de lecture répertoriées par l'AERES
%A Ouedraogo, C.
%A Canonne, M.
%A D'Cotta, H.
%A Baroiller, J. F.
%A Baras, Etienne
%T Minimal body size for tagging fish with electronic microchips as studied in the Nile Tilapia
%D 2014
%L fdi:010062300
%G ENG
%J North American Journal of Aquaculture
%@ 1522-2055
%M ISI:000337669000013
%N 3
%P 275-280
%R 10.1080/15222055.2014.911228
%U https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010062300
%> https://www.documentation.ird.fr/intranet/publi/2014/07/010062300.pdf
%V 76
%W Horizon (IRD)
%X Individual 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. We evaluated radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags (10 mg) and PIT tags (PIT; 32 mg) in fish of two different size-classes of Nile Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus: 200-500 mgand 640-1,600 mg, wet mass (WM). This produced four categories of tag load for each type of tag: 5.0, 3.3, 2.5, and 2.0% of WM. We tested 30 fish per category. Survival averaged 95.8% for RFID tags and 98.3% for PIT tags. Tag retention after 35 d was 99.1% for RFID tags and 96.6% for PIT tags. Tagged fish grew more slowly than controls. Growth 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. Small PIT tags can thus be used confidently in tilapia of about 1.3 g and RFID tags in tilapia of about 0.4 g. If growth is not a premium, the corresponding minimal sizes are 1.0 (for PIT) and 0.3 g (for RFID).
%$ 040