Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:16:49.848Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Group housing in row cages: an alternative housing system for juvenile mink

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2008

S. Hänninen ,
L. Ahola ,
T. Pyykönen ,
H. T. Korhonen  and
J. Mononen
S. Hänninen*
Affiliation:
Department of Biosciences, University of Kuopio, PO Box 1627, FIN-70211 Kuopio, Finland
L. Ahola
Affiliation:
Department of Biosciences, University of Kuopio, PO Box 1627, FIN-70211 Kuopio, Finland
T. Pyykönen
Affiliation:
Department of Biosciences, University of Kuopio, PO Box 1627, FIN-70211 Kuopio, Finland
H. T. Korhonen
Affiliation:
Agrifood Research Finland, Animal Production Research, PO Box 44, FIN-69101 Kannus, Finland
J. Mononen
Affiliation:
Department of Biosciences, University of Kuopio, PO Box 1627, FIN-70211 Kuopio, Finland
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

We studied a group housing system as an alternative to the traditional pair housing of juvenile mink. The focus was on both the welfare and production of mink. The pairs were housed in standard mink cages, whereas the groups were in row cage systems consisting of three standard mink cages connected to each other. The welfare of the mink was evaluated by behavioural observations (stereotypies and social contacts), evaluation of the incidence of scars assumed to be caused by biting, and adrenal function (serum cortisol level after adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) administration and adrenal mass). Feed consumption, pelt length, quality and price were used for comparing the two housing systems from the economic point of view. Although the incidence of scars showed that there might have been more aggressive behaviour among the group-housed than among the pair-housed mink, this was not observed unambiguously in behavioural observations, and, at least, aggression did not cause mortality or serious injuries to the animals as has been observed in some earlier studies. In addition, the housing system did not affect pelt size, and, although the quality of the pelts was slightly lower in the group than in pair-housed mink, there was only a tendency for lower pelt prices. The lower pelt prices in the group-housed mink might even be partially compensated for by the group-housed mink eating 10% to 20% less in the late autumn, due to thermoregulatory benefits, than their pair-housed conspecifics. The results on the frequency of stereotypic behaviour (but not adrenal function) suggest that the group-housed animals were possibly less stressed than the pair-housed animals. Group housing of juvenile farmed mink in a row cage system cannot be recommended before the effects on welfare and production are clarified in further studies.

Keywords

fur farmingfur qualitygroup housingminkwelfare
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 12 , December 2008 , pp. 1809 - 1817
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arts J, Vinke CM, Houx BB, de Buisonje F, van den Bos R and Spruijt BM 2004. Effects of group housing and cage enrichment on physiology and behaviour of farmed mink (Mustela vison). In Cage enrichments and welfare of farmed mink (ed. CM Vinke). PhD, Utrecht University, pp. 105–129.Google Scholar
Birks, J 1986. Mink. The mammal society. Anthony Nelson Ltd, Shropshire, UK.Google Scholar
Broom, DM, Johnson, KG 1993. Stress and animal welfare. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damgaard, BM, Hansen, SW 1996. Stress physiological status and fur properties in farm mink placed in pairs or singly. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica Section A Animal Science 46, 253–259.Google Scholar
Dunstone, N 1993. The mink. T & AD Payser, London, UK.Google Scholar
European Commission 2001. The welfare of animals kept for fur production. Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate – General. Directorate C – Scientific Opinions. C2 – Management of Scientific Co-Operation and Networks. Adopted on 12–13 December 2001.Google Scholar
European Convention 1999. European Convention, Standing committee of the European convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes (T-AP). Recommendations concerning fur animals, The Standing Committee. 36th Meeting, Strasbourg, 22–25 June 1999.Google Scholar
Finnish Fur Breeders’ Association 2008. Minkinnahkojen tarjontamäärät maailmanmarkkinoilla v. 2005–2007. Retrieved July 17, 2008, http://www.stkl-fpf.fi/modules/system/stdreq.aspx?P=64&VID=default&SID=381053956340420&S=0&C=22127 (in Finnish).Google Scholar
Gómez, F, Lahmame, A, de Kloet, ER, Armario, A 1996. Hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal response to chronic stress in five inbred strains: differential responses are mainly located at the adrenocortical level. Neuroendocrinology 63, 327–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hänninen, S, Mononen, J, Harjunpää, S, Pyykönen, T, Sepponen, J, Ahola, L 2008. Effects of family housing on some behavioural and physiological parameters of juvenile farmed mink (Mustela vison). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109, 384–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, SW, Damgaard, BM 1991. Stress physiological, haematological and clinical-chemical status of farm mink placed in groups or singly. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica Section A Animal Science 41, 355–366.Google Scholar
Hansen, SW, Houbak, B 2005. To skridt frem og tre tilbage – gruppeindhusning af mink. In Faglig Årsberetning 2004 (ed. P Sandbøl), pp. 39–47. Pelsdyrerhvervets Forsøgs- og ForskningsCenter, Holstebro, Danmark.Google Scholar
Hansen, SW, Houbak, B, Malmkvist, J 1997. Does the ‘solitary’ mink benefit from having company?Nordiska jordbruksforskares förening, Utredning, Rapport nr. 116, NJF seminarium nr. 280. NJF, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
Hansen, SW, Houbak, B, Malmkvist, J 1998. Development and possible causes of fur damage in farm mink – significance of social environment. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica Section A Animal Science 48, 58–64.Google Scholar
Hemmer, H 1990. Domestication: the decline of environmental appreciation, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Campbell, RG 1996. A study of the relative aversiveness of a new daily injection procedure for pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeppesen, LL, Heller, KE, Dalsgaard, T 2000. Effects of early weaning and housing conditions on the development of stereotypes in farmed mink. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68, 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joergensen, G (ed.) 1985. Mink production. Scientifur. K. Larsen & Søn, Glostrup, Denmark.Google Scholar
Jonge de, G 1996. A new housing system for mink. Progress in fur animal science, animal production review, Polish Society of Animal Production (Warsaw). Applied Science Report 29, 45–51.Google Scholar
Korhonen, H, Harri, M 1984. Thermophysical properties of nests of farm mustelids: thermal insulation. Scientifur 8, 285–290.Google Scholar
Lindberg H, Aldén E and Lidfors L 2005. Group housed mink – effect on welfare and production. Conference at the Autumn Meeting of the Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientists, Subsection for Fur Animals, Seminar no. 377, Uppsala, Sweden, 2 pp.Google Scholar
Lindberg H, Hansen S, Aldén E and Lidfors L 2007. Effects of climbing cages and group size on behaviour and production in juvenile mink. Conference at the Autumn Meeting of the Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientists, Subsection for Fur Animals, Seminar no. 403, Kolding, Denmark, 6 pp.Google Scholar
Martin, P, Bateson, P 1993. Measuring behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, GJ, Latham, NR 2004. Can’t stop, won’t stop: is stereotypy a reliable animal welfare indicator? Animal Welfare 13, S57–S69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 1999. Decision on animal welfare requirements for fur animals. 16/VFO/1999. Retrieved July 17, 2008, http://www.mmm.fi/el/laki/f/f26.html (in Finnish).Google Scholar
Møller, SH 1991. Weight gain and hair chewing in mink kits placed singly or in pairs from September. Scientifur 15, 21–27.Google Scholar
Niemimaa, J, Pokki, J 1997. Minkki. In Suomen luonto, Eläimet, Nisäkkäät (ed. J Lokki, P Nummi, V Neuvonen, K Miettinen and R-L Kuosmanen), pp. 192–197Weilin+Göös, Porvoo, Finland.Google Scholar
Nieminen, P, Käkelä, R, Pyykönen, T, Mustonen, A-M 2006. Selective fatty acid mobilization in the American mink (Mustela vison) during food deprivation. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 145, 81–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nimon, AJ, Broom, DM 1999. The welfare of farmed mink (Mustela vison) in relation to housing and management: a review. Animal Welfare 8, 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, V 1999. Alternative Burmiljøer til Mink – Hvad er Vore Erfaringer?. In Faglig Årsberetning (ed. P Sandbøl), pp. 17–23. Pelsdyrerhvervets Forsøgs- og ForskningsCenter, Holstebro, Danmark.Google Scholar
Pedersen, V, Jeppesen, L, Jeppesen, N 2004. Effects of group housing on behaviour and production performance in farmed juvenile mink (Mustela vison). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 88, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J 1991. Problems associated with the interpretation of physiological data in the assessment of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28, 381–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selye, H 1950. The physiology and pathology of exposure to stress. Acta, Inc., Medical Publishers, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
Siegel, S, Castellan, NJ Jr 1988. Nonparametric statistics for behavioral sciences, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill International Editions, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Tauson, A-H, Chwalibog, A, Tygesen, MP 2006. Late development of homeothermy in mink (Mustela vison) kits – a strategy for maximum survival rate. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 90, 34–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terlouw, EMC, Schouten, WGP, Ladewig, J 1997. Physiology. In Animal welfare (ed. MC Appleby and BO Hughes), pp. 143–158. CAB International, University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Tuori, M, Kaustell, K, Valaja, J, Aimonen, E, Saarisalo, E, Huhtanen, P 2000. Rehutaulukot ja ruokintasuositukset (Feed tables and feeding recommendations), 3rd edition. Yliopistopaino, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
Vinke CM, Baars A, Spruijt BM and Ruis M 2002. Do family group housing systems improve the welfare of farmed mink? In Proceedings of the 36th International Congress of the ISAE (ed. P Koene and Scientific Committee), 164 pp. Ponsen and Looijen, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Vinke, CM, van Leeuwen, J, Spruijt, BM 2005. Juvenile farmed mink (Mustela vison) with additional access to swimming water play more frequently than animals housed with a cylinder and platform, but without swimming water. Animal Welfare 14, 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voitenko, NN, Trapezov, OV 2001. Effect of four coat color mutations (Cr, S, S H, and h) on brain monoamine oxidase in mink. Russian Journal of Genetics 37, 519–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar