Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-05T15:11:20.948Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stereotypic Behaviour and Tail Biting in Farmed Mink (Mustela Vison) in a New Housing System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

C M Vinke ,
N C Eenkhoorn ,
W J Netto ,
P C J Fermont  and
B M Spruijt
C M Vinke*
Affiliation:
Centre of Ethology and Animal Welfare, Department of Animals and Society, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Utrecht, Yalelaan 17, 3584 CL Utrecht, The Netherlands
N C Eenkhoorn
Affiliation:
Centre of Ethology and Animal Welfare, Department of Animals and Society, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Utrecht, Yalelaan 17, 3584 CL Utrecht, The Netherlands
W J Netto
Affiliation:
The Faculty of Biology, University of Utrecht, Sorbonnelaan 16, 3584 CA Utrecht, The Netherlands
P C J Fermont
Affiliation:
Centre of Ethology and Animal Welfare, Department of Animals and Society, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Utrecht, Yalelaan 17, 3584 CL Utrecht, The Netherlands
B M Spruijt
Affiliation:
Centre of Ethology and Animal Welfare, Department of Animals and Society, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Utrecht, Yalelaan 17, 3584 CL Utrecht, The Netherlands
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Farmed mink are known for showing stereotypies and tail biting, behaviours that are mostly viewed as indicators of reduced welfare. Among the factors that are often described as being relevant for the welfare of mink are food management systems, age at weaning, and type/presence of nest boxes and bedding. In the present study of commercially farmed mink, all of these factors have been integrated in one housing system. The occurrence of stereotypies and tail biting were observed at six Dutch mink farms, which differed from one another with respect to the number of modifications and the time since the introduction of these modifications. On each farm, 60 non-lactating female mink were observed during winter and 50 lactating female mink (with kits) were observed during summer. Mink on the farm with the most modifications spent 4.1% and 0.8% of their time performing stereotypies in winter and in summer, respectively. Mink on the farm with the least modifications spent 32% and 10.9% of their time performing stereotypies in winter and in summer, respectively. The occurrence of stereotypic behaviour in winter gradually increased as feeding time approached. This gradual increase was not observed at the farm with the least modifications. In general, mink spent less time performing stereotypies in summer than in winter. No clear differences were found between the farms for the occurrence of tail biting in relation to the modifications of the new system, although one farm showed a lower percentage (4%) of tail biters during summer. In conclusion, the farms that had introduced more modifications into their husbandry system housed animals showing less stereotypic behaviour. The results of this field study demonstrate an inverse relationship between the number of modifications and the occurrence of stereotypies; because of the experimental design, however, a causal relationship is not implied. Further work is required to investigate the impact of each measure both in isolation and in the integrated system under more carefully standardised conditions.

Keywords

animal welfareenrichmenthousingmanagementminkstereotypies
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , May 2002 , pp. 231 - 245
Copyright
© 2002 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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

Appleby, M C and Lawrence, A B 1987 Food restriction as a cause of stereotyped behaviour in tethered gilts. Animal Production 45: 103–110Google Scholar
Baumans, V 1997 Environmental enrichment: practical applications. In: van Zutphen LFM and Balls M (eds) 1997 Animal Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics. Developments in Animal and Veterinary Sciences 27 pp 187–191. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Bildsøe, M, Heller, K E and Jeppesen, L L 1990a Stereotypies in adult ranch mink. Scientifur 14: 169–177Google Scholar
Bildsøe, M, Heller, K E and Jeppesen, L L 1990b Stereotypies in female ranch mink: seasonal and diurnal variations. Scientifur 14: 243–247Google Scholar
Bildsøe, M, Heller, K E and Jeppesen, L L 1991 Effect of immobility stress and food restriction on stereotypies in low and high stereotyping female ranch mink. Behavioural Processes 25: 179–189CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broom, D M and Johnson, K G 1993 Stress and Animal Welfare. Chapman & Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J J and Mason, G J 1996 Environmental requirements in mink (Mustela vison). In: Duncan I J H, Widowski T M and Haley D B (eds) Proceedings of the 30th International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, 14-17 August, Guelph, Ontario, Canada p 37. The Colonel K L Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare: Guelph, CanadaGoogle 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
Dunstone, N 1993 The Mink. T & AD Poyser: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Erlebach, S 1994 Effects of environment on the behaviour of mink. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40: 77 (Abstract)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, S W 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, S W 1996 Selection for behavioural traits in farm mink. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49: 137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, S W and Damgaard, B 1991 Effect of environmental stress and immobilisation on stress physiological variables in farmed mink. Behavioural Processes 25: 191–204CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 44: 120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, K E 1991 Stress and stereotypies in farmed mink. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30: 179 (Abstract)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeppesen, L L and Falkenberg, H 1990 Effects of play balls on pelt biting, behaviour and level of stress in ranch mink. Scientifur 14: 179–186Google Scholar
Jeppesen, L L, Heller, K E and Dalsgaard, T 2000 Effects of early weaning and housing conditions on the development of stereotypies in farmed mink. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68: 85–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jonasen, B 1987 Ontogeny of mink pups. Scientifur 11: 109–110Google Scholar
de Jonge, G 1989 De erfelijkheidsaspecten van pelsbijten en staartbijten. De Pelsdierenhouder 39: 199–201 [Title translation: Genetic aspects of pelt-biting and tail-biting behaviour]Google Scholar
de Jonge, G 1993 Bevordert selectie tegen activiteit het welzijn van nertsen? De Pelsdierenhouder 43: 54–56 [Title translation: Does selection against activity improve the welfare of mink?]Google Scholar
de Jonge, G 1994 Beperkt voeren lijkt belangrijkste oorzaak stereotiep gedrag. De Pelsdierenhouder 44: 74–76 [Title translation: Food restriction seems the most important cause for stereotypic behaviour]Google Scholar
de Jonge, G 1997a Angst, nieuwsgierigheid en agressie zijn deels aangeboren. De Pelsdierenhouder 47: 136–138 [Title translation: Fearfulness, curiosity and aggression have partly genetic bases]Google Scholar
de Jonge, G 1997b Platforms en Cilinders voor nertsen. De Pelsdierenhouder 47: 168–169 [Title translation: Platforms and cylinders for mink]Google Scholar
de Jonge, G and Carlstead, K 1987 Abnormal behaviour in farm mink. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17: 375 (Abstract)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jonge, G and Leipoldt, A L 1994 De invloed van strooisel op het gedrag en de pelskwaliteit van pups. De Pelsdierenhouder 44: 71–73 [Title translation: The influence of bedding material on the behaviour and pelt quality of mink pups]Google Scholar
Kuby, F 1982 Über die Verhaltensontogenese von Farmnerze (Mustela vison F. dom.) in Großgehegen. PhD thesis, Tierärztliche Hochschule, Hannover, Germany [Title translation: The ontogeny of farmed mink (Mustela vison F. dom) in a semi-natural housing system]Google Scholar
Markowitz, H 1982 Behavioral Enrichment in the Zoo. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Mason, G J 1991 Stereotypies: acritical review. Animal Behaviour 41: 1015–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, G J 1993a Age and context affect the stereotypies of caged mink. Behaviour 127: 191–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, G J 1993b Forms of stereotypic behaviour. In: Lawrence, A B and Rushen, J (eds) Stereotypic Animal Behaviour: Fundamentals and Applications to Welfare pp 7–40. CAB International: Wallingford, Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Mason, G J 1994 Tail biting in mink (Mustela vison) is influenced by age at removal from the mother. Animal Welfare 3: 305–311Google Scholar
Mason, G J and Mendl, M 1997 Do the stereotypies of pigs, chickens and mink reflect adaptive species differences in the control of foraging? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53: 45–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, G J, Cooper, J J and Clarebrough, C 2001 Frustrations of fur-farmed mink. Nature 410: 35–36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer-Holzapfel, M 1968 Abnormal behavior in zoo animals. In: M W Fox (ed) Abnormal Behavior in Animals pp 476–503. WB Saunders Company: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Møller, S 1990 The need for nest boxes and drop-in bottoms in the whelping period of female mink. Scientifur 14: 95–100Google Scholar
Møller, S 1998 Management and welfare in mink. Scientifur 22: 279–285Google Scholar
Newberry, R C 1995 Environmental enrichment: increasing the biological relevance of captive environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 229–244CrossRefGoogle 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: 205–228Google Scholar
Ödberg, F 1987 Behavioural responses to stress in farm animals. In: van Adrichem, P W M and Wiepkema, P R (eds) The Biology of Stress in Farm Animals: An Integrative Approach pp 135–149. Martinus Nijhoff: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, V and Jeppesen, L L 2001 Effects of family housing on behaviour, plasma Cortisol and performance in adult female mink (Mustela vison). Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A (51): 7788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pham, T M, lckes, B, Albeck, D, Söderström, S, Granholm, A C and Mohammed, A H 1999 Changes in brain nerve growth factor levels and nerve growth factor receptors in rats exposed to environmental enrichment for one year. Neuroscience 94: 279–286CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Redbo, I and Nordblad, A 1997 Stereotypies in heifers are affected by feeding regime. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53: 193–202Google Scholar
Reinhardt, V and Roberts, A 1997 Effective feeding enrichment for non-human primates: a brief review. Animal Welfare 6: 265–272Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, M R and Bennett, E L 1976 Enriched environments: facts, factors, and fantasies. In: McGaugh J L and Petrinovich L (eds) Knowing, Thinking and Believing pp 179-213. Plenum Press, New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, Lawrence, A B and Terlouw, CEM 1993 The motivational basis of stereotypies. In: Lawrence, A B and Rushen, J (eds) Stereotypic Animal Behaviour: Fundamentals and Applications to Welfare pp 41–64. CAB International: Wallingford, Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Sambrook, T D and Buchanan-Smith, H M 1997 Control and complexity in novel object enrichment. Animal Welfare 6: 207–216Google Scholar
Siegel S and Castellan N J Jr 1988 Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, Second Edition. McGraw-Hill: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Terlouw, EMC, Lawrence, A B and Illius, AW 1991 Influences of feeding levels and physical restriction on development of stereotypies in sows. Animal Behaviour 42: 981–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, B 1991 Stereotypies in polar bears. Zoo Biology 10: 177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F 1993a Animal boredom. Towards an empirical approach of animal subjectivity pp 186. PhD thesis, University of Leiden, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F 1993b The concept of animal boredom and its relationship to stereotyped behaviour. In: Lawrence, A B and Rushen, J (eds) Stereotypic Animal Behaviour: Fundamentals and Applications to Welfare pp 65–95. CAB International: Wallingford, Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Wiepkema, P R 1994 Advies omtrent het houden van nertsen (policy report). Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University, The Netherlands [Title translation: Advice on the housing and management of farmed mink]Google Scholar