Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:00:21.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do double cages and access to occupational materials improve the welfare of farmed mink?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

SW Hansen ,
J Malmkvist ,
R Palme  and
BM Damgaard
SW Hansen*
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Health, Welfare and Nutrition, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
J Malmkvist
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Health, Welfare and Nutrition, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
R Palme
Affiliation:
Institute of Biochemistry, Department of Natural Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, A-1210 Wien, Austria
BM Damgaard
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Health, Welfare and Nutrition, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The effects of cage enrichments and additional space were studied in 60 pairs of mink kits kept in standard cages (STD) and 67 pairs of mink kits kept in enriched cages (ENR). During the period from mid July to the end of September both groups had alternate access to one and two connected cages. From October, half of the mink in each group had permanent access to one cage and the other half permanent access to two cages. The enrichment of the cages consisted of extra resting places (tubes made of wire mesh and plastic) and occupational materials in terms of table-tennis balls and ropes to pull and chew. The mink were observed for an experimental period of nine months, from late lactation until the beginning of the following mating season. The welfare was assessed through behavioural traits (use of nest box and enrichments, activity out in the cage, stereotypies and fur-chewing) consumption of food and straw, bodyweight and level of faecal corticoid metabolites. The presence of enrichments resulted in less tail-chewing, fewer stereotypies, and a reduced level of faecal corticoid metabolites. In addition, the presence of enrichments led to fewer social interactions and reduced the consumption of straw. Regarding the frequency of utilising different occupational materials, the mink did not use the table-tennis balls, but the tubes and pull-ropes were given extensive use. Access to one or double cages had no effect on stereotypies, fur-chewing and physiology linked to welfare, but mink with access to double cages used the nest box less, had a lower consumption of straw and pull-ropes than the mink with access to only one cage. However, there were no indications of frustration when the mink were deprived of using double cages. We conclude that increased environmental complexity in the form of occupational materials improved the welfare of the mink, whereas doubling the cage size had little or no effect in relation to mink welfare.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourcage environmentenrichmentMustela visonspace allowance
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , February 2007 , pp. 63 - 76
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Berg, P, Hansen, BK, Hansen, SW and Malmkvist, J 2002 Both direct and indirect genetic effects influence behavioural responses in mink. Proceedings 7th World Congress in Animal Genetics 32: 11–14. CD-rom communication no. 14-02 ISBN 2-7380-1052-0Google Scholar
Bildsøe, M, Heller, KE and Jeppesen, LL 1991 Effects of immobility stress and food restriction on stereotypies in low and high stereotyping female ranch mink. Behavioral Processes 25: 179–189CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, JJ and Mason, GJ 2001 The use of operant technology to measure behavioural priorities in captive animals. Behavioural Research, Methods, Instruments & Computers 33: 427–434CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Council of Europe 1999 Recommendation Concerning Fur Animal. Adopted by the Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes (T-AP) on 22 June 1999, Strasbourg, FranceGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe 2001 The welfare of Animals Kept for Fur Production. Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, 12 December 2001Google Scholar
Damgaard, BM and Hansen, SW 1996 Stress, physiological status and fur properties in farm mink placed in pairs or singly. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A; Animal Science 46: 253–259Google Scholar
Damgaard, BM, Hansen, SW, Børsting, CF and Møller, SH 2004 Effects of different feeding strategies during the winter period on the behaviour and performance in mink females (Mustela vison). Applied Animal Behavioural Science 89: 163–180Google Scholar
Fernandez-Teruel, A, Gimenez-Llort, L, Escorihuela, RM, Gil, L, Aguilar, R, Steimer, T and Tobena, A 2002 Early-life handling stimulation and environmental enrichment. Are some of their effects mediated by similar neural mechanisms? Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behaviour 73: 233–245CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, SW 1988 Effect of variable cage size and lack of admission to nest box on the behaviour, physiology and reproduction of mink kits. In Murphy, BD and Hunter, DB (eds) Proceedings of the IVth International Congress in Fur Animal Production pp 153–163. IFASA: Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Hansen, SW 1990 Activity pattern of lactating mink and the effect of water trays or wire netting cylinder in mink cages. Scientifur 14: 187–193Google Scholar
Hansen, SW, Hansen, BK and Berg, P 1994 The effect of cage environment and ad libitum feeding on the circadian rhythm, behaviour and feed intake of farm mink. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A; Animal Science 44: 120–127Google Scholar
Hansen, SW, Houbak, B and Malmkvist, J 1997 Does the “solitary” mink benefit from having company? In: NJF Report No. 116, Proceedings of NJF Congress No 280, Helsinki, Finland, October 6-8, 1997 pp 115-121. Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientists (NJF): Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
Hansen, SW, Houbak, B and Malmkvist, J 1998 Development and possible causes of fur damage in farm mink – Significance of social environment. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A; Animal Science 48: 58–64Google Scholar
Hansen, SW and Møller, SH 2001 The application of a temperament test to on-farm selection of mink. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A; Animal Science (S) 30: 93–98Google Scholar
Hansen, SW and Jensen, MB 2006 Quantitative evaluation of the motivation to access a running-wheel or a water-bath in farm mink. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 98: 127–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeppesen, LL, Heller, KE and Dalsgaard, T 2000 Effects of early weaning and housing conditions on the development of stereotypies in farmed mink. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 68: 85–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeppesen, LL 2004 Mink welfare improved by combined implementation of several small initiatives. Scientifur 28: 11–18Google Scholar
Jeppesen, LL and Falkenberg, H 1990 Effects of play balls on peltbiting, behaviour and level of stress in ranch mink. Scientifur 14: 179–186Google Scholar
Littell, RC, Ramos, C, Milliken, GA, Stroup, W and Wolfinger, RD 1996 SAS System for Mixed models. NC, ISBN 1-55544-779-1. SAS Institute: Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
Malmkvist, J and Hansen, SW 1997 Why do farm mink fur chew? In: NJF Report No. 116, Proceedings of NJF Congress No 280, Helsinki, Finland, October 6-8, 1997 pp 211–216. Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientists (NJF): Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
Malmkvist, J and Hansen, SW 2001 The welfare of farmed mink (Mustela vison) in relation to behavioural selection: A review. Animal Welfare 10: 41–52Google Scholar
Malmkvist, J and Hansen, SW 2002 Generalization of fear in farm mink, Mustela vison, genetically selected for behaviour towards humans. Animal Behaviour 64: 487–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malmkvist, J, Palme, R, Hansen, SW and Damgaard, BM 2004 Cortisol og corticoide nedbrydningsprodukter i minkfæces. In: Annual Report 2003, ISBN 1395-198X, pp 7-15. Danish Fur Breeders Research Center: Holstebro, Denmark. [Title translation: Cortisol and corticoid metabolites in mink faeces]Google Scholar
Mason, GJ 1993 Age and context affect the stereotypies of caged mink. Behaviour 127: 191–229Google Scholar
Möstl, E, Maggs, JL, Schrötter, G, Besenfelder, U and Palme, R 2002 Measurement of cortisol metabolites in faeces of ruminants. Veterinary Research Communications 26: 127–139CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nimon, AJ and Broom, DM 1999 The welfare of farmed mink (Mustela vison) in relation to housing and management: a review. Animal Welfare 8: 205–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palme, R and Möstl, E 1997 Measurement of cortisol metabolites in faeces of sheep as a parameter of cortisol concentration in blood. International Journal of Mammalian Biology 62(2): 192–197Google Scholar
Siegel, S and Castellan, NJ 1988 Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Tauson, A-H 1988 Flushing of mink. Effects of level of preceding feed restriction and length of flushing period on reproductive performance. Animal Reproduction Science 17: 243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, RJ 2003 Environmental enrichment for captive animals. UFAW, Blackwell Science Ltd: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, V and Jeppesen, LL 2001 Effects of family housing on the behaviour, plasma cortisol and performance in adult female mink (Mustela vison). Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A; Animal Science. 51: 77–88Google Scholar
Vinke, CM, Eenkhoorn, NC, Netto, WJ and Spruijt, BM 2002 Stereotypic behaviour and tail biting in farmed mink in a new housing system. Animal Welfare 11: 231–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F 1993 The Concept of Animal Boredom and its relationship to Stereotyped Behaviour. In: Lawrence, AB and Rushen, J (eds) Stereotypic Animal Behaviour: Fundamentals and Applications to Welfare. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar