Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:47:13.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Welfare of Farmed Mink (Mustela Vison) in Relation to Behavioural Selection: A Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

J Malmkvist  and
S W Hansen
J Malmkvist*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre Foulum, P O Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
S W Hansen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre Foulum, P O Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
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.

Animal welfare is a major issue in Europe, and the production of mink, Mustela vison, has also been under debate. One common method of solving animal welfare problems is to adapt the environment to fit the behavioural needs of the animals. In comparison with other forms of husbandry, the mink production environment has remained relatively unchanged over the years and provides for some of the most obvious needs of mink. Whether today's typical housing conditions adequately meet the welfare requirements of mink is currently a topic of discussion. An alternative approach to improving welfare is to modify the animals so that they are better adapted to farming conditions. In large-scale animal production, handling of the individual can be a sporadic event, making an animal's inherent characteristics for temperament and adaptability important factors to consider with respect to its resultant welfare.

In this review we present and discuss experiments on behavioural selection for temperament, and against undesirable behaviours, such as fur chewing, in mink. Fur chewing behaviour can be reduced by selection, apparently without any negative effects, whereas only a little is known about the nature and consequences of selecting against stereotypic behaviours. Long-term selection experiments have shown that it is possible to reduce fearfulness in farmed mink. Using a relatively simple test, it is possible for farmers to add behavioural measurements to their normal selection criteria and thereby improve the welfare of farmed mink.

Keywords

animal welfaredomesticationfearfur chewingminktemperament
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , February 2001 , pp. 41 - 52
Copyright
© 2001 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bakken, M, Braastad, B O, Harri, M, Jeppesen, L L and Pedersen, V 1994 Production conditions, behaviour and welfare of farm foxes. Scientifur 18: 233–248Google Scholar
Belyaev, D K and Trut, L N 1987 The role of behaviour in the evolutionary reorganization of wild animals into domesticated forms. In: Leonovicova, V and Novak, V J A (eds) Behaviour as One of the Main Factors of Evolution pp 25–31. Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences: Prague, CzechoslovakiaGoogle Scholar
Braastad, B O, Westbye, I and Bakken, M 1999 Frequencies of behaviour problems and heritability of behaviour traits in breeds of domestic cat. In: Bøe K E, Bakken M and Braastad B O (eds) Proceedings of 33rd International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Lillehammer, Norway August 17-21 p 85. Agricultural University of Norway: Ås, NorwayGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J J and Mason, G J 2000 Increasing costs of access to resources cause re-scheduling of behaviour in American mink (Mustela vison): implications for the assessment of behavioural priorities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66: 135–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, J V, Craig, T P and Dayton, A D 1983 Fearful behaviour by caged hens of two genetic stocks. Applied Animal Ethology 10: 263–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, J V and Muir, W M 1989 Fearful and associated responses of caged White Leghorn hens: genetic parameter estimates. Poultry Science 68: 1040–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damgaard, B M and Hansen, S W 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
Danish Ministry of Justice 1991 Dyreværnsloven. Justitsministeriets Lov Nr 386 af 6 Juni 1991. Justitsministeriets: Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
De Jonge, G 1988 Genetics and evolution of tailbiting in mink. In: Murphy, B D and Hunter, D B (eds) Biology, Pathology and Genetics of Fur Bearing Animals, Proceedings of the 4 th International Scientific Congress in Fur Animal Production August 21-14 pp 503–505. University of Saskatchewan: Saskatoon, CanadaGoogle Scholar
De Jonge, G 1992 Selectie tegen activiteit (1). De Pelsdierhouder 42: 104–108Google Scholar
Dickson, D P, Barr, G R, Johnson, L P and Wieckert, D A 1970 Social dominance and temperament of Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 53: 904–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H, Rushen, J, and Lawrence, A B 1993 Conclusions and implications for animal welfare. In: Lawrence, A B and Rushen, J (eds) Stereotypic Animal Behaviour: Fundamentals and Applications to Welfare pp 193–206. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Dunstone, N 1993 The Mink. T & AD Poyser Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Flottorp, G and Foss, I 1979 Development of hearing in hereditarily deaf white mink (Hedlund) and normal mink (standard) and the subsequent deterioration of the auditory response in Hedlund mink. Acta Otolaryngologica 87: 16–27CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goddard, M E and Beilharz, R G 1982 Genetic and environmental factors affecting the suitability of dogs as guide dogs for the blind. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 62: 97–102CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goddard, M E and Beilharz, R G 1983 Genetics of traits which determine the suitability of dogs as guide dogs for the blind. Applied Animal Ethology 9: 299–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 1998 (ed) Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals. Academic Press: San Diego, USAGoogle Scholar
Gray, J A 1987 The Psychology of Fear and Stress, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Hansen, C P B 1993 Stereotypies in ranch mink: the effect of genes, litter size and neighbours. Behavioural Processes 29: 165–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, S W 1988 Effect of variable cage sizes and lack of admission to nest box on the behaviour, physiology, and production of mink kits. In: Murphy, B D and Hunter, D B (eds) Biology, Pathology and Genetics of Fur Bearing Animals, Proceedings of the 4 th International Scientific Congress in Fur Animal Production August 21-14 pp 153–162. University of Saskatchewan: Saskatoon, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Hansen, S W 1990 Activity pattern of lactating mink and the effect of water trays or wire netting cylinders in mink cages. Scientifur 14: 187–193Google Scholar
Hansen, S W 1993 Selection for behavioural characteristics in mink and the effect on reproduction results. In: Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction of Fur Animals, NJF Report No 90, Proceedings of a NJF-workshop, Viborg, Denmark 29 April pp 35–41. Scandinavian Association of Agricultural Scientists (NJF): Viborg, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Hansen, S W 1996 Selection for behavioural traits in mink. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49: 137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, S W 1997 Selection for tame and fearful behaviour in mink and the effect on the HPA-axis. In: Hemsworth P H, Spinka M and Kostal L (eds) Proceedings of the 31st International Congress of the ISAE, Prague, Czech Republic 13-16 August ρ 72. Research Institute of Animal Production: Prague, Czech RepublicGoogle Scholar
Hansen, S W 1999 Restriktiv fodring - en udløsende faktor for stereotypier hos mink. In: Møller, S H (ed) Hvordan Forbereder vi Minktæver til Parring, Fødsel og Diegivning. (Internal Report No 123 from the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences) pp 55–61. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences: Tjele, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Hansen, S W and Møller, S H 1988 Sammenhæng mellem adfærdsrespons og eosinofilniveau hos minktæver. In: Meddelelse fra Statens Husdyrbrugsforsøg 721 pp 1–4. Statens Husdyrbrugsforsøg: Frederiksberg, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Hansen, S W and Møller, S H (in press) Application of a temperament test for farm selection of mink. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica. Section A, Animal Science 51:Google Scholar
Hansen, S W, Hansen, B K 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, S W, Houbak, B and Malmkvist, J 1998 Development and possible causes of fur chewing in farm mink - significance of social environment. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica. Section A, Animal Science 48: 58–64Google Scholar
Hansen, S W, Jensen, M B, Pedersen, L J, Munksgaard, L, Ladewig, J and Matthews, L 2000 Methodological aspects of operant conditioning: do type of work and duration of access to reward affect demand functions in mink. In: Bakken, M and Andersen, I L (eds) Proceedings of the 12th Nordic Symposium of the International Society for Applied Ethology 27-29 January, Siggerud, Norway pp 29–30. Agricultural University of Norway: Ås, NorwayGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P H, Barnett, J L, Treacy, D and Madgwick, P 1990 The heritability of the trait fear of humans and the association between this trait and subsequent reproductive performance of gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25: 85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P H and Coleman, G J 1996 Human-animal relationship and productivity in pigs. In: Monetti, P G and Vignola, G (eds) Proceedings of the 14th International Pig Veterinary Society Congress, Bologna, Italy, 7-10 July pp 3–5. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Bologna: Bologna, ItalyGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B 1986 The tonic immobility reaction of the domestic fowl: a review. World's Poultry Science Journal 42: 82–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, B and Vestergaard, T 1990 Genetics of leg weakness in boars at the Danish pig breeding stations. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica. Section A, Animal Science 40: 59–69Google Scholar
Kjær, J B 1995 Fjerkræ. In: Husdyrvelfærd og Husdyrproduktion - en Rapport om Forskning i Velfærd hos Husdyr pp 73–84. Danish Ministry of Agriculture and Fishery: Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Kjaer, J B and Sørensen, P 1997 Feather pecking behaviour in White Leghorns, a genetic study. British Poultry Science 38: 335–343CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolsnikova, L, Lucenko, N, Trut, L, Jurisova, M and Belyaev, D 1985 Selection of silver foxes for domestic type of behaviour: morphological and functional characteristics of organ systems. In: Mlikovsky, J and Novak, V J A (eds) Evolution and Morphogenesis pp 663–670. Academia: Prague, CzechoslovakiaGoogle Scholar
Korhonen, H, Hansen, S W, Malmkvist, J and Houbak, B 2000 Stress-induced hyperthermia in farm mink selected for confident and timid behaviour. In: Bakken M and Andersen I L (eds) Proceedings of the 12th Nordic Symposium of the International Society for Applied Ethology 27-29 January, Siggerud, Norway p 17. Agricultural University of Norway: Ås, NorwayGoogle Scholar
Le Neindre, P, Poindron, P, Trillat, G and Orgeur, P 1993 Influence of breed on reactivity of sheep to humans. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 25: 447–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Neindre, P, Trillat, G, Sapa, J, Menissier, F, Bonnet, J N and Chupin, J M 1995 Individual differences in docility in Limousine cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73: 2249–2253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malmkvist, J 1996 Selection of farm mink on basis of two tests of temperament. Animal Production Review, Applied Science Reports 29: 9–15Google Scholar
Malmkvist, J and Berg, P 1997 Selektion efter øget velfærd. In: Damgaard, B and Hansen, S W (eds) Velfærd hos Pelsdyr - Adfærdsmæssige og Sundhedsmæssige Perspektiver. Report No 94 pp 33–38. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences: Foulum, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Malmkvist, J and Hansen, S W 1997 Why do farm mink fur chew? In: NJF Report No 116, Proceedings from NJF Congress No 280, Helsinki, Finland, October 6-8 pp 211–216. Nordiska Jorbruksforskares Förening: Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
Malmkvist, J and Hansen, S W 1999 Effects of serotonergic drugs on approach behaviour in farm mink. In: Bøe K E, Bakken M and Braastad B 0 (eds) Proceedings of 33rd International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Lillehammer, Norway, August 17-21 p 71. Agricultural University of Norway: Ås, NorwayGoogle Scholar
Malmkvist, J, Houbak, B and Hansen, S W 1997 Mating time and litter size in farm mink selected for confident or timid behaviour. Animal Science 65: 521–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, G J 1991 Stereotypies: a critical review. Animal Behaviour 41: 1015–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MasonGJ 1992 Stereotypy and welfare in mink. Journal of Animal Science 70 (Suppl 1): 158Google Scholar
Mason, G J 1993 Age and context affect the stereotypies of caged mink. Behaviour 127: 191–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, G J 1994 Tail-biting in mink (Mustela vison) is influenced by age at removal from the mother. Animal Welfare 3: 285–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moberg, G P 1985 Biological response to stress: key to assessment of animal well-being? In: Moberg G P (ed) Animal Stress pp 27–49. American Physiological Society: Bethesda, Maryland, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naumenko, E V and Belyaev, D K 1980 Neuroendocrine mechanisms in animal domestication. Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of Genetics, Volume II pp 12-25. Mir Publishers: Moscow, USSRGoogle Scholar
Nes, N N, Einarsson, E J and Lohi, O 1988 Beautiful Fur Animals - and Their Colour Genetics. Scientifur: Glostrup, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, U L 1996 Genotype-environment interactions in relation to selection for and against pelt chip in mink. Animal Production Review, Applied Science Reports 27: 167–173Google Scholar
Nielsen, U L and Therkildsen, N 1995 Selektionsforsøg for og imod pelsgnav hos mink. In: Therkildsen N (ed) Faglig Årsberetning 1993/94 p 209. Pelsdyrerhvervets Forsøgs - og Rådgivningsvirksomhed A/S: Holsterbro, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Nimon, A J and Broom, D M 1999 The welfare of farmed mink (Mustela vison) in relation to housing and management: a review. Animal Welfare 8: 205–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osadchuk, L V 1992 Endocrine gonadal function in silver fox under domestication. Scientifur 16: 116–121Google Scholar
Roumeyer, A and Bouissou, M F 1992 Assessment of fear reaction in domestic sheep and influence of breed and rearing conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34: 93–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, P 1992 Genetics of leg disorders. In: Whitehead, C C (ed) Bone Biology and Skeletal Disorders in Poultry pp 213–229. Carfax Publishing Company: Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UKGoogle Scholar
Tauchi, M, Yuan, Y, Aulerich, R J and Zanella, A J 1999 The association between genotype, stereotypies and fecal steroids in mink In: Bøe K E, Bakken M and Braastad B 0 (eds) Proceedings of the 33rd International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Lillehammer, Norway, August 17-21 p 87. Agricultural University of Norway: Ås, NorwayGoogle Scholar
Trapezov, O V 1987 Selected transformations of defensive reactions to man in the American mink (Mustela vison SCHREB). Genetika 23: 1120–1127 (in Russian)Google Scholar
Zanella, A J and Mason, G M 1998 Selective breeding can affect the performance of abnormal behavior and neurophysiological indicators in mink. In: Veissier I and Boissy A (eds) Proceedings of 32nd International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Clermont-Ferrand, France, 21-25 July p 89. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique: Clermont-Ferrand, FranceGoogle Scholar