Tagging: on the use of passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags for the identification of fish

Abstract

To determine the ef®cacy of passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags for marking rohu Labeo rohita (Ham.) in the selective breeding programme, a series of experiments has been carried out at the Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture (CIFA) under the Indo±Norwegian project of`Selective breeding of rohu'. Six groups of rohu ®ngerlings with weight ranging from 2 g to 20 g were tagged with PIT tags to determine a suitable size range for tagging. Fingerlings weighing 8±15 g were found to be quite suitable for tagging with a PIT tag. Recovery of the PIT tag depends upon the survival of tagged ®sh under ®eld conditions. Rejection of the PIT tag by rohu was observed to be only 0.05%. Through effective management practice, the survival of tagged ®sh increased up to 95%, and thus tag loss was minimized.

Application of PIT tags for individual identification of turbot (<i>Scophthalmus maximus</i>)

“…Additionally, the fish were obviously vital, no signs of diseases were observed and neither ulcers and bleedings nor other signs of intraabdominal inflammation were found within the abdominal cavity during evisceration. These findings are in concordance with several previous studies in other species (Baras et al 2000, Das Mahapatra et al 2001, Acolas et al 2007. Based on these results, it can be concluded that the intraabdominal implantation of PIT tags has no negative effects on animal health and performance in turbot.…”

“…Therefore, a simple and reliable individual identification method is required that does not affect animal health, is easy to handle and provides a large number of different identifications. In many species, radio frequency identification systems are an adequate alternative to meet these requirements (Baras et al 2000, Das Mahapatra et al 2001, Navarro et al 2006, Hopko et al 2010. In the present study, we applied PIT tags to almost 6 000 turbots.…”

“…Low costs and simple attachment are in favour of these common methods in aquaculture (Moffet et al 1997, Navarro et al 2006. However, a high risk of loss, inaccurate recognition, the possibility of secondary infections and a limited number of different labels are clear disadvantages (Das Mahapatra et al 2001). Internal marking procedures require the implantation of passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags, which can be detected via an external reading device.…”

“…Furthermore, many studies have reported that PIT tags have no or only very little influence on growth and on the survival rate of fish (Prentice et al 1989, Quartararo & Bell 1992, Baras et al 2000, Gries & Letcher 2002. However, PIT tags are expensive and implantation requires special equipment and species-specific procedures to assure that the implant does not cause injuries upon migration (Baras et al 2000, Das Mahapatra et al 2001, Gheorghiu et al 2010, Hopko et al 2010. Especially if fish are marked at a young age, the subcutaneous or intramuscular application may be problematic (Baras et al 2000, Gries & Letcher 2002.…”

The use of visual and automatized behavioral markers to assess methodologies: a study case on PIT-tagging in the Alpine newt

“…No detrimental effect has been found on survival (Bolland, Cowx, & Lucas, 2009;Navarro et al, 2006;Ombredane, Baglinière, & Marchand, 1998), growth (Acolas, Roussel, Lebel, & Baglinière, 2007;Knaepkens, Maerten, Tudorache, De Boeck, & Eens, 2007;Lee, Park, & Cho, 2009), reproduction (Baras, Malbrouck, Houbart, Kestemont, & Mélard, 2000;Mahapatra et al, 2001), feeding behavior (Newby, Binder, & Stevens, 2007;, and swimming ability (Moore, Russell, & Potter, 1990;Mueller, Moursund, & Bleich, 2006;). The few studies on snakes have shown that PIT-tagging does not affect growth, movement, and speed (Keck, 1994;Jemison et al, 1995).…”