Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:15:27.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The reliability of welfare assessment according to the WelFur-protocol in the nursing period of mink (Neovison vison) is challenged by increasing welfare problems prior to weaning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

BIF Henriksen  and
SH Møller
BIF Henriksen*
Affiliation:
Aarhus University, Dept of Animal Science, Blichers Allé 20, Postboks 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
SH Møller
Affiliation:
Aarhus University, Dept of Animal Science, Blichers Allé 20, Postboks 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 objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that the body condition of the mink dam, the frequency of dirty nests, frequency of injuries and diarrhoea change significantly with the day of assessment, post-partum, within the data collection period from parturition to weaning, influencing the scores of WelFur at criteria level, but not at principal level or the overall category of mink (Neovison vison) welfare according to the WelFur-Mink protocol. Data from a representative sample of around 120 dams and litters on four farms were collected three to four times in the period stipulated by the WelFur-Mink protocol. WelFur-scores between 0 (worst) and 100 (best) were calculated, aggregated and compared at criteria and principal level. The score for the criterion, ‘Absence of prolonged hunger’ dropped from 86 to 38 after about five weeks of lactation, affecting the principal score ‘Good feeding’, but not by enough to affect the estimated welfare classification. The score for the three other measures also varied with date of assessment but not enough to affect the classification. However, the observed change in the four measures we focused on indicates that a change in the overall WelFur classification can occur if these or other measures change a little more for the better or worse. Possible solutions to this could be reducing the time window for assessment, development of a valid correction factor or to stratify the visits into an early, middle and late visit on a farm within the three registration periods.

Keywords

animal welfarebody condition scorediarrhoeahousinginjuriesmink production
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , May 2015 , pp. 193 - 201
Copyright
© 2015 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bates, D, Maechler, M, Bolker, B and Walker, S 2014 lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.0-6. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Gaborit, M and Veissier, I 2012 Applying Welfare Quality strategy to design a welfare assessment tool for foxes and mink farms. Scientifur 36: 460–468Google Scholar
Brink, AL and Jeppesen, LL 2005 Behaviour of mink kits and dams (Mustela vison) in the lactation period. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 85: 7–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.4141/A04-028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausen, TN and Dietz, HH 2000 Mastitis in the lactating mink female (Mustela vison S.) and the development of ‘greasy kits’. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 41: 243–247CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clausen, TN and Larsen, PF 2012 Impact of weaning age on kit performance. Scientifur 36: 336–340Google Scholar
Davidson, AC and Hinkley, DV 1997 Bootstrap Methods and their Application. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Englund, L, Chriql, M, Dietz, HH and Hedlund, KO 2002 Astrovirus epidemiologically linked to pre-weaning diarrhoea in mink. Veterinary Microbiology 85: 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1135(01)00472-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faraway, JJ 2006 Extending the Linear Model with R: Generalized Linear, Mixed Effects and Nonparametric Regression Models. Chapman & Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USAGoogle Scholar
Hansen, BK 1997 Mink kit growth performance in the suckling period: I. Environmental factors affecting body size of kits. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica - Section A: Animal Science 47: 82–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09064709709362374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, BK 1999 Mink dam weight changes during the lactation period - II. Energy consumption and plasma concentrations of thyroid hormones and insulin. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A-Animal Science 49: 65–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/090647099424114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Møller, SH 1993 Minktævers og hvalpes ædeadfærd i relation til foderets placering i dieperioden NJF Utredning/Rapport nr 92. NJF Seminar nr 239. 22-24 September 1993, Oslo, Norway. [Title translation: Eating behaviour of mink females and kits in relation to the placement of the feed in the nursing period]Google 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: 699–703Google Scholar
Møller, SH and Lohi, O 1989 Drikkeadfærd og vægtudvikling hos mink med drypvandingssystem. Dansk Pelsdyravlerforening: Faglig års-beretning, Denmark. [Title translation: Drinking behaviour and weight gain in mink with a drip-watering system]Google 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.3.363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team 2014 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.orgGoogle Scholar
Rousing, T, Møller, SH and Hansen, SW 2012 WelFur-mink: on-farm welfare assessment of mink (Neovison vison): effect of sample size on animal based measures. Scientifur 36: 420–425Google Scholar
WelFur 2013 Welfare assessment protocol for mink. European Fur Breeders’ Association. www.efba.euGoogle Scholar