No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Changes in the welfare of mink (Neovison vison) with date of assessment in the winter and growth periods have limited effects on the overall WelFur categorisation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2023
Abstract
In this study we investigated the robustness of the WelFur welfare assessment system for farmed mink (Neovison vison) to date of assessment in the winter and growth assessment periods. The prevalence of occurrences of certain measurements was hypothesised to increase with date of assessment (too thin, fur-chewing and stereotypic behaviour in the winter period and injuries, diarrhoea and exploratory mink in the growth period). The welfare was assessed on eight Danish mink farms according to the WelFur-Mink protocol. Each farm was assessed once in the nursing period (to be able to calculate WelFur-Mink scores), four times in the growth period and three times in the winter period. WelFur scores were calculated based on the assessments in the three periods: one calculation for each assessment in the winter and growth periods. The odds of fur-chewing increased with date of assessment in the winter period, and the odds of injuries, diarrhoea and exploratory mink increased with date of assessment in the growth period. The odds of too thin mink in the winter period decreased, ie the change was in the opposite direction to what was expected. The effect of these changes on the aggregated WelFur scores on the higher levels was limited, but could potentially lead to changes in the overall welfare categorisation of farms if the principle scores were close to a threshold between two categories. A potential way to eliminate the effect of date of assessment could be to develop a correction factor for the measurements that can be expected to change within each assessment period.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- © 2019 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
References
Bates, D, Maechler, M, Bolker, B and Walker, S 2015 Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67: 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM and Keeling, LJ 2007 Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 225–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damgaard, BM, Hansen, SW, Børsting, CF and Møller, SH 2004 Effects of different feeding strategies during the winter peri-od on behaviour and performance in mink females (Mustela vison). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 89: 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.04.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, M 1985 Diseases and hygiene. In: Jørgensen, G (ed) Mink Production pp 261–340. Scientifur. http://www.ifasanet.orgGoogle Scholar
Hansen, SW 1996 Selection for behavioural traits in farm mink. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49: 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(96)01045-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, SW, Clausen, TN and Sandbøl, P 2009 Winter feeding to reduce stereotypies and increase reproduction. In: Sandbøl, P (ed) Annual Report 2008 pp 7–18, Danish Fur Breeders Research Center: Holstebro, DemarkGoogle Scholar
Hansen, SW, Møller, SH and Damgaard, BM 2014 Bite marks in mink: induced experimentally and as reflection of aggressive encounters between mink. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 158:76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.06.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, BIF 2015 Assessment of animal welfare in mink farms - based on the WelFur-Mink Protocol. PhD Thesis, Aarhus University, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, BIF and Møller, SH 2015 The reliability of welfare assessment according to the WelFur-protocol in the nursing peri-od of mink (Neovison vison) is challenged by increasing welfare problems prior to weaning. Animal Welfare 24: 193–201. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.24.2.193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, T, Bretz, F and Westfall, P 2008 Simultaneous infer-ence in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal 50: 346–363. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200810425CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houbak, B and Møller, SH 2000 Activity and stereotypic behav-iour in mink dams fed ad libitum or restricted during the winter. In: Murphy, BD and Lohi, U (eds) Proceedings of the VIIth International Scientific Congress in Fur Animal Production pp 146–150.13-15 September 2000, Kastoria, GreeceGoogle Scholar
Hunter, B 1996 Digestive system of mink. In: Hunter, DB and Lemieux, N (eds) Mink… Biology, Health and Disease pp 14.1–14.20. University of Guelph: Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Malmkvist, J and Hansen, SW 2001 The welfare of farmed mink (Mustela vison) in relation to behavioural selection: A review. Animal Welfare 10: 41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malmkvist, J and Hansen, SW 2002 Generalisation of fear in farm mink, Mustela vison, genetically selected for behaviour towards humans. Animal Behaviour 64: 487–501. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2002.3058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malmkvist, J, Palme, R, Svendsen, PM and Hansen, SW 2013 Additional foraging elements reduce abnormal behaviour – fur-chewing and stereotypic behaviour – in farmed mink (Neovison vison). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 149: 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2013.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Møller, SH, Hansen, SW, Malmkvist, J, Vinke, CM, Lidfors, L, Gaborit, M and Botreau, R 2015 WelFur Welfare assessment protocol for mink. European Fur Breeders’ Association: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Møller, SH, Hansen, SW and Sørensen, JT 2003 Assessing ani-mal welfare in a strictly synchronous production system: The Mink Case. Animal Welfare 12: 699–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mononen, J, Møller, SH, Hansen, SW, Hovland, AL, Koistinen, T, Lidfors, L, Malmkvist, J, Vinke, CM and Ahola, L 2012 The development of on-farm welfare assessment proto-cols for foxes and mink: the WelFur project. Animal Welfare 21:363–371. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.3.363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team 2017 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.orgGoogle Scholar