Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T08:36:40.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The concept of behavioural needs in contemporary fur science: do we know what American mink (Mustela vison) really need?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

AL Kornum ,
H Röcklinsberg  and
M Gjerris
AL Kornum
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
H Röcklinsberg
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7068, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
M Gjerris*
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Frederiksberg C, 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.

This paper discusses the ethical implications of applying the concept of behavioural needs to captive animals. This is done on the basis of analysing the scientific literature on farmed mink and their possible need for swimming. In the wild, American mink (Mustela vison) are semi-aquatic predators, lending initial support to the claim that captive mink with no access to adequate swimming facilities experience a thwarted behavioural need. Scientific studies show a disparate picture. Consumer-demand experiments, where the animals have been conditioned to work for environmental resources, consistently show that mink place high value on swimming water, whereas other studies indicate the opposite, which has led scientists to question whether this preference constitutes a genuine behavioural need. In this paper, we take a methodological turn and discuss whether the oft-used concept of behavioural needs provides the best possible account of what is indispensable to an animal. Seen from a more complex understanding of behavioural needs, we suggest that lack of swimming opportunities for farmed mink constitutes a welfare problem. Further, it is argued that the decision of which paradigm to use in research on animal needs has not only ethical consequences, but is in itself a value-based choice.

Keywords

American minkanimal housinganimal welfarebehavioural needsethicsswimming
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , May 2017 , pp. 151 - 164
Copyright
© 2017 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Ahola, L, Mononen, J and Mohaibes, M 2011 Effects of access to extra cage constructions including a swimming opportunity on the development of stereotypic behaviour in singly housed juve-nile farmed mink (Neovison vison). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 134: 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.06.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apfelbach, R 1996 Wild animal, domesticated animal, experi-mental animal: Changes in the brain during early ontogeny depend on environmental conditions. Tierärztliche Umschau 51: 157–162Google Scholar
Axelson, HMK, Alden, E and Lidfors, L 2009 Behaviour in female mink housed in enriched standard cages during winter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121: 222–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.09.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balcombe, JP 2006 Laboratory environments and rodents’ behavioural needs: a review. Laboratory Animals 40: 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367706777611488CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumans, V 2005 Environmental enrichment for laboratory rodents and rabbits: Requirements of rodents, rabbits and research. ILAR Journal 46(2): 163-170. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.46.2.162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bildsøe, M, Heller, KE and Jeppesen, LL 1990 Stereotypies in female ranch mink; seasonal and diurnal variations. Scientifur 14(4): 243–247Google Scholar
Blanchard, RJ and Blanchard, DC 2003 Bringing natural behav-iors into the laboratory: A tribute to Paul MacLean. Physiology & Behaviour 79: 515–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(03)00157-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boissy, A, Manteuffel, G, Jensen, MB, Moe, RO, Spruijt, B, Keeling, LJ, Winckler, C, Forkman, B, Dimitrov, I, Langbein, J, Bakken, M, Veissier, I and Aubert, A 2007 Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology & Behavior 92: 375–397. https://doi.org/10.101 6/j.phys-beh.2007.02.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Born Free, USA 2009 Cruelty uncaged: A review of fur farming in North America. Born Free: USAGoogle 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: 225–228Google Scholar
Bracke, MBM and Hopster, H 2006 Assessing the importance of natural behavior for animal. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19: 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-4493-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM 1991 Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167–4175. https://doi.org/10.2527/1991.69104167xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broom, DM and Johnson, KG 1993 Stress and Animal Welfare. Animal Behaviour Series. Chapman & Hall: London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0980-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burn, CC 2008 What is it like to be a rat? Rat sensory perception and its implications for experimental design and rat welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 112: 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.02.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, DLM, Dallaire, JA and Mason, GJ 2013 Environmentally enriched rearing environments reduce repetitive perseveration in caged mink, but increase spontaneous alternation. Behavioural Brain Research 239: 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2012.11.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, JJ and Mason, GJ 1997 The effect of cost of access on consumption of environmental resources in mink. In: Forbes, JM, Lawrence, TLJ, Rodway, RG and Varley, MA (eds) Animal Choices pp 129–130. British Society of Animal Science: UKGoogle Scholar
Cooper, JJ and Mason, GJ 2000 Increasing costs of access to resources cause re-scheduling of behaviour in American mink (Mustela vison): implications for the assessment of behavioural pri-orities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66(1-2): 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00069-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, JJ and Mason, GJ 2001 The use of operant technology to measure behavioral priorities in captive animals. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 33(3): 427–434. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195397CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Croney, CC and Millman, ST 2007 Board-invited review: The ethical and behavioral bases for farm animal welfare legislation. Journal of Animal Science 85(2): 556–565. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-422CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dallaire, AJ, Meagher, RK and Mason, GJ 2012 Individual dif-ferences in stereotypic behaviour predict individual differences in the nature and degree of enrichment use in caged American mink. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 142: 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.09.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damm, BI, Vestergaard, KS, Schrøder-Petersen, DL and Ladewig, J 2000 The effect of branches on prepartum nest building. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69(2): 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00122-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidson, D 1975 Thought and talk. In: Guttenplan, S (ed) Mind and Language pp 7–23. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 1983 Battery hens name their price: Consumer demand theory and the measurement of ethological ‘needs.’ Animal Behaviour 31: 1195–1205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(83)80026-8Google Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2004 Using behaviour to assess welfare. Animal Welfare 13: 3–7Google Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2006 A user's guide to animal welfare science. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 21(2): 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Jonge, G and Leipoldt, AL 1994 Grote verrijkte kooien, zwemwater en onrustig gedrag van nertsen. De Peldierenhouder 44: 137–143. [Title Translation: Large enriched cages, swimming water and restless behaviour in mink]Google Scholar
Dennett, D 1995 Do animals have beliefs? In: Roitblat, H and Meyer, J (eds) Comparative Approaches to Cognitive Science pp 111–118. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
Diez-Leon, M, Bowman, J, Bursian, S, Filion, H, Galicia, D, Kanefsky, J, Napolitano, A, Palme, R, Schulte-Hostedde, A, Scribner, K and Mason, G 2013 Environmentally enriched male mink gain more copulations than stereotypic, barren-reared competitors. PLoS One 8 (11). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, IJH 1998 Behavior and behavioral needs. Poultry Science 77: 1766–1772. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/77.12.1766CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, IJH 2004 A concept of welfare based on feelings. In: Benson, GJ and Rollin, BE (eds) The Well-Being of Farm Animals. Challenges and Solutions pp 85–103. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470344859.ch5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, IJH and Poole, TB 1990 Promoting the welfare of farm and captive animals. In: Monaghan, P and Wood-Gush, DGM (eds) Managing the Behaviour of Animals pp 193–232. Chapman and Hall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Dunstone, N 1993 The Mink. T & AD Poyser Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Dunstone, N and Birks, JDS 2009 The feeding ecology of mink (Mustela vison). Journal of Zoology 212(1): 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1987.tb05115.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlebach, S 1993 Effects of environment on the behaviour of mink. In: Nichelmann, M, Wierenga, HK and Baun, S (eds) Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied Ethology pp 108–112. 26-30 July 1993, Humboldt University, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Erlebach, S 1994 Effects of environment on the behaviour of mink. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40: 77. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(94)90101-5CrossRefGoogle 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 and Consumer Protection Directorate: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2007 2007/C 306/01. Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007. EC: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1993 Second Report on Priorities for Research and Development in Farm Animal Welfare. MAFF: Tolworth, UKGoogle Scholar
Finley, G, Mason, GJ, Pajor, E, Rouvinen-Watt, K and Rankin, K 2012 Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of mink: Review of Scientific Research on Priority Issues. National Farm Animal Care Council: CanadaGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA and Milligan, BN 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical con-cerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205Google Scholar
Friend, T 1989 Recognizing behavioral needs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(89)90051-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, JJ 1979 The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton: Boston, USAGoogle Scholar
Hagn, AK 2009 Ethologische Untersuchungen zur Nutzung von offe-nen Wassersystemen bei Nerzen ( Neovison vison). Inaugural-Dissertation Zur Erlangung der tiermedizinischen Doktorwürde der Tierärztlichen Fakultät der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany. [Title translation: Behavioural studies on the use of open water systems by mink]Google Scholar
Hammershøj, M 2004 Population ecology of free-ranging American mink Mustela vison in Denmark. National Environmental Research Institute, Ministry of the Environment, DenmarkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, CPB and Jeppesen, LL 1999 The behaviour of farm mink with free access to water. Faglig Årsberetning pp 169–175. Pelsdyrerhvervets forsøgs- og rådgivningsvirksomhed: Holstebro, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Hansen, CPB and Jeppesen, LL 2000a Short term behavioural consequences of denied access to environmental facilities in mink. Agricultural and Food Science in Finland 9: 149–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, CPB and Jeppesen, LL 2000b Effect of blocking farm mink's feed access with open water. Agricultural and Food Science in Finland 9: 157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, CPB and Jeppesen, LL 2001a Swimming activity of farmed mink (Mustela vison) and its relation to stereotypies. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 51: 71–76Google Scholar
Hansen, CPB and Jeppesen, LL 2001b Use of water for swim-ming and its relationship to temperature and other factors in relation to farm mink (Mustela vison). Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 51: 89–93Google Scholar
Hansen, CPB and Jeppesen, LL 2003 The influence of temper-ature on the activity and water use of farmed mink (Mustela vison). Animal Science 76: 111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, SW, Damgaard, BM and Malmkvist, J 2011 Stereotypic behaviour – a useful indicator for unfulfilled feeding motivation in mink. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level, Guelph, Canada pp 63. 8-11 August 2011, Wageningen Academic Publishers: The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Hansen, SW and Jensen, MB 2006a Demand for swimming water and running wheel with 1 min of access per reward. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 98(1-2): 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.08.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, SW and Jensen, MB 2006b Quantitative evaluation of the motivation to access a running wheel or a water bath in farm mink. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 98(1-2): 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.08.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, SW, Malmkvist, J, Palme, R and Damgaard, BM 2007 Do double cages and access to occupational materials improve the welfare of farmed mink. Animal Welfare 16: 63–76Google Scholar
Held, SDE and Spinka, M 2011 Animal play and animal welfare. Animal Behaviour 81(5): 891–899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbe-hav.2011.01.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinde, RA 1970 Animal Behaviour. A Synthesis of Ethology and Comparative Psychology. McGraw-Hill: Kogakusha, Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
Hsia, LC and Wood-Gush, DGM 1983 The relationship between social facilitation and feeding behaviour in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 9: 91–99Google Scholar
Hughes, BO 1980 The assessment of behavioural needs. In: Moss, R (ed) The Laying Hen and its Environment pp 149–166. Martinus Nijhoff: The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8922-1_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, BO and Duncan, IJH 1981 Do animals have behavioral needs? Applied Animal Ethology 7: 381–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(81)90065-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, BO and Duncan, IJH 1988 The notion of ethological ‘need’, models of motivation and animal welfare. Animal Behaviour 36: 1696–1707. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(88)80110-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jedrzejewska, B and Jedrzejewki, W 1998 Predation in Vertebrate Communities. The Bialowieza Primeval Forest as a Case Study. Springer: Berlin, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-35364-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P 1993 Nest building in domestic sows: the role of exter-nal stimuli. Animal Behaviour 45: 351–358. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1993.1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P 2000 Natural Behaviour and Behavioural Needs of Farm Animals, Sustainable Animal Production© 2001. Research Consortium Sustainable Animal Production. http://www.agriculture.deGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P 2002 Behaviour of pigs. In: Jensen, P (ed) The Ethology of Domestic Animals pp 159–172. CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851996028.0159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P and Toates, FM 1993 Who needs ‘behavioural needs’? Motivational aspects of the needs of animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 161–181. https://doi.org/10.1 016/0168-1591(93)90108-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P and Toates, FM 1997 Stress as a state of motivation-al systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53: 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01156-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeppesen, LL 2004 Mink welfare improved by combined imple-mentation of several small initiatives. Scientifur 28: 11–18Google Scholar
Jeppesen, LL and Falkenberg, H 1990 Effects of play balls on peltbiting, behaviour and level of stress in ranch mink. Scientifur 14: 179–186Google Scholar
Kavanau, JL and Rischer, CE 1968 Program clocks in small mammals. Science 21: 337–346Google Scholar
Korhonen, HT, Jauhuhainen, L and Niemela, P 2003 Effect of swimming deprivation on adrenocortical and behavioural responses in farmed mink (Mustela vison). Annuals of Animal Science 3: 145–163Google Scholar
Kruska, D 1996 The effect of domestication on brain size and composition in the mink (Mustela vison). Journal of Zoology 239:645–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1996.tb05468.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuby, F 1982 Über die Verhaltensontogenese von Farmnerze (Mustela vison F. Dom.) in Großgehege. Inaugural-dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doctor Medicinae Veterinariae durch die Tierärztliche Hochschule, Hannover, Germany. [Title translation: The ontogeny of farmed mink (Mustela vison F. Dom.) in a semi-natural housing system]Google Scholar
Kuhn, TS 1996 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Third Edition. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USA. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226458106.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linzey, A 2003 The ethical case against fur farming. Environmental Values 12(3): 269–270Google Scholar
Lorenz, KZ 1950 The comparative method in studying innate behav-iour patterns. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology 4: 221–268Google Scholar
Lundmark, F, Berg, L, Wahlberg, B and Röcklinsberg, H 2015 ‘One animal is no animal’ Consequences of measuring ani-mal welfare at herd level. In: Dumitras, DE, Jitea, IM and Aerts, S (eds) Know your Food: Food Ethics and Innovation. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-813-1_3Google Scholar
Macdonald, D 1987 Running with the Fox. Unwin Hyman: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Malmkvist, J, Jeppesen, LL and Palme, R 2011 Stress and stereotypic behaviour in mink (Mustela vison): A focus on adreno-cortical activity. Stress 14(3): 312–323. https://doi.org/10.3109/10253890.2010.547640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, GJ 1993 Age and context affect the stereotypies of caged mink. Behaviour 127(3-4): 191–229. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853993X00029Google Scholar
Mason, GJ 2008 Why should environmental enrichment be used to improve welfare on mink farms? Scientifur 32: 165–172Google Scholar
Mason, GJ and Burn, CC 2011 Behavioural deprivation. In: Appleby, M, Mench, JA, Olsson, A and Hughes, BO (eds) Animal Welfare pp 98–119. CAB International: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, GJ, Clarebrough, C and Cooper, JJ 1999 Drink or swim? Using substitutability and physiological responses to frus-tration to assess the importance of swimming-water for mink. In: Boe, KE, Bakken, M and Braastad, BO (eds) Proceedings of the 33rd International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology p 83. 17-21 August 1999, Lillehammer, NorwayGoogle Scholar
Mason, GJ, Clubb, R, Latham, N and Vickery, S 2007 Why and how should we use environmental enrichment to tackle stereo-typic behaviour? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102: 162–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, GJ, Cooper, JJ and Clarebrough, C 2001 Frustrations of fur-farmed mink. Nature 410: 35–36. https://doi.org/10.1038/35065157CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, GJ, Cooper, JJ and Garner, J 1997 Models of motivational decision making and how they affect the experimental assessment of motivational priorities. In: Forbes, JM, Lawrence, TLJ, Rodway, RG and Varley, MA (eds) Animal Choices pp 9–18. British Society for Animal Science: Penicuik, UKGoogle Scholar
Mason, GJ and Latham, NR 2004 Can't stop, won't stop: is stereo-typy a reliable animal welfare indicator? Animal Welfare 13: 57–69Google Scholar
Mason, GJ and Mendl, M 1997 Do the stereotypies of pigs, chickens and mink reflect adaptive species differences in the con-trol of foraging? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53: 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01150-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, JW 1975 A historical view of the stress field. Journal of Human Stress 1: 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/0097840X.1975.9940405Google ScholarPubMed
Mohaibes, M, Ahola, L and Mononen, J 2006 Combined effects of water bath and pair-housing on stereotypies in juvenile mink. In: Korhonen, HT, Raussi, S, Hänninen, L and Heikkilä, M (eds) Proceedings of the 18th Nordic Symposium of the International Society for Applied Ethology. 18-19 January 2006, Espoo, FinlandGoogle Scholar
Mohaibes, M, Ahola, L and Mononen, J 2009 A meta-analysis shows that access to a swimming bath reduces stereotyped behaviour in farmed mink (Neovison vison), but… Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientists 5(8): 65–67Google Scholar
Mohaibes, M, Harri, M, Mononen, J, Pyykönen, T, Kasanen, S and Ahola, L 2001 Individual variation in swimming motivation in mink. Proceedings of the 13th Nordic Symposium of the International Society for Applied Ethology p 15. 25-27 January 2001, Lammi, FinlandGoogle Scholar
Mohaibes, M, Mononen, J and Pyykönen, T 2003 The effects of swimming pool or extra space on behaviour of mink. Proceedings of the NJF Meeting No 354. Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientists. 8-10 October 2003, Lillehammer, NorwayGoogle Scholar
Mohaibes, M, Mononen, J, Pyykönen, T, Kasanen, S and Ahola, L 2002 Individual variation in swimming motivation in mink: effect of natural and artificial deprivation. In: Krohn, CC and Ladewig, J (eds) Proceedings of the 14th Nordic Symposium of the International Society for Applied Ethology p 28. 17-19 January 2002, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Tune Landboskole, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Møller, SH, Hansen, SW and Malmkvist, J 2011 VELFÆRD HOS MINK, Notat vedrørende den generelle velfærd i dansk minkpro-duktion samt status i forbindelse med gruppeindhusning og andre management og -miljøforhold. Intern Rapport 104april 2011. Aarhus Universitet, Institut for Husdyrbiologi og -Sundhed, Denmark.[Title translation: Welfare in mink, Note concerning the general welfare in Danish mink production and status associated with group housing and other management]Google Scholar
Mononen, J, Mohaibes, M, Savolainen, S and Ahola, L 2008 Water bath for farmed mink: intra-individual consistency and inter-individual variation in swimming behaviour, and effect on stereotypical behaviour. Agricultural and Food Science 17: 41–52. https://doi.org/10.2137/145960608784182254Google Scholar
Niemimaa, J 1995 Activity patterns and home ranges of the American mink (Mustela vison) in the Finnish outer archipelago. Annales Zoologici Fennici 32: 117–121Google Scholar
Nimon, AJ and Broom, DM 1999 The welfare of farmed mink (Mustela vison) in relation to housing and management: a review. Animal Welfare 8: 205–228Google Scholar
Nordenfelt, L 2006 Animal and Human Health and Welfare: A Comparative Philosophical Analysis. CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845930592.0000Google Scholar
Okasha, S 2002 Philosophy of Science. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press: New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780198745587.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panksepp, J 1998 Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. Oxford University Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, V and Jeppesen, LL 2001 Effects of family housing on behaviour, plasma cortisol levels and production in adult female mink (Mustela vison). Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A 51:77–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/090647001300004826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, TB and Dunstone, N 1976 Underwater predatory behaviour of the American mink (Mustela vison). Journal of Zoology (London) 178: 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1976.tb02277.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, EO 1997 Behavioural genetics and the process of animal domestication. In: Grandin, T (ed) Genetics and the Behaviour of Domestic Animals pp 31–65. Academic Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Proust, J 2009 The representational basis for brute metacognition: a proposal. In: Lurz, RW (ed) The Philosophy of Animal Minds pp 165–143. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819001.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rådet for Dyreetikk 1994 Pelsdyroppdrett, Uttalelse fra Landbruks- Departementets etikkutvalg. http://www.radet-fordyreetikk.no/1994/10/pelsdyroppdrett/. [Title translation: The Department of Agriculture]Google Scholar
Rao, GN 1991 Light intensity-associated eye lesions of Fischer 0344 rats in long-term studies. Toxicologic Pathology 19: 148–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/019262339101900209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rollin, BE 2004 The ethical imperative to control pain and suffering in farm animals. In: Benson, GJ and Rollin, BE (eds) The Well-Being of Farm Animals. Challenges and Solutions pp 3–20. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470344859.ch1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rollin, BE 2015 The inseparability of science and ethics in animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28: 759–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9558-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saidel, E 2009 Attributing mental representations to animals. In: Lurz, RW (ed) The Philosophy of Animal Minds pp 35–52. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819001.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandøe, P, Forkman, B and Christiansen, SB 2004 Scientific uncertainty: how should it be handled in relation to scientific advice regarding animal welfare issues? Animal Welfare 13(1): 121–126Google Scholar
Sandøe, P and Simonsen, HB 1992 Assessing animal welfare – where does science end and philosophy begin? Animal Welfare 1(4): 257–267Google Scholar
Shannon, JS 1989 Social organisation and behavioural ontogeny of otters (Lutra canadensis) in a coastal habitat in northern California. IUCN Otter Specialist Group Bulletin 4: 8–13Google Scholar
Skovgaard, K, Jeppesen, LL and Hansen, CPB 1997a Would you like to swim Madam Mink? Scientifur 21(4): 247–251Google Scholar
Skovgaard, K, Jeppesen, LL and Hansen, CPB 1997b The effect of swimming water and cage size on the behaviour of ranch mink (Mustela vison). Scientifur 21(4): 253–260Google Scholar
Spruijt, BM, van den Bos, R and Pijlman, FT 2001 A concept of welfare based on reward evaluating mechanisms in the brain: anticipatory behaviour as an indicator for the state of reward sys-tems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72: 145–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00204-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stich, SP 1978 Do animals have beliefs? Australian Journal of Philosophy 57: 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048407912341011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svendsen, PM, Hansen, BK, Malmkvist, J, Hansen, SW, Palme, R and Jeppesen, LL 2007 Selection against stereotypic behaviour may have contradictory consequences for the welfare of farm mink (Mustela vison). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 107:110–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.09.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannenbaum, J 1991 Ethics and animal welfare: the inextricable connection. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 198: 1360–1376Google ScholarPubMed
Tauson, AH 1999 Water intake and excretion, urinary solute excretion and some stress indicators in mink (Mustela vison). Effect of ambient temperature and quantitative water supply to adult males. Animal Science 69: 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357729800051213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hemel, PE 1972 Aggression as a reinforce: operant behaviour in the mouse-killing rat. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 2(17): 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1972.17-237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, Van Poucke, E, Pieniak, Z, Nijs, G and Tuyttens, F 2012 The concept of farm animal wel-fare: Citizen perceptions and stakeholder opinion in Flanders. Belgium. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25: 79–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9299-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Lijmbach, S 1998 Animal subjectivity, a study into philosophy and theory of animal experience. PhD Thesis, Landbouwuniversiteit, Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I and Boissy, A 2007 Stress and welfare: Two comple-mentary concepts that are intrinsically related to the animal's point of view. Physiology and Behavior 92(3): 429–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.11.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I, Jensen, KK, Botreau, R and Sandøe, P 2011 Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal wel-fare in the welfare quality scheme. Animal Welfare 20(1): 89–101Google Scholar
Vestergaard, K 1980 The regulation of dustbathing and other behaviour patterns in the laying hen: A Lorenzian approach. In: Moss, R (ed) The Laying Hen and its Environment pp 101–113. Martinus Nijhoff: The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8922-1_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinke, C, Hansen, S, Mononen, J, Korhonen, H, Cooper, J, Mohaibes, M, Bakken, M and Spruijt, BM 2008 To swim or not to swim: An interpretation of farmed mink's motivation for a water bath. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 111: 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.02.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinke, CM 2001 Some comments on the review of Nimon and Broom on the welfare of farmed mink. Animal Welfare 10(3): 315–323Google Scholar
Vinke, CM, Houx, BB, Van Den Bos, R and Spruijt, BM 2006 Anticipatory behaviour and stereotypical behaviour in farmed mink (Mustela vison) in the presence, absence and after the removal of swimming water. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96:129–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.04.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinke, CM, van Leeuwen, J and Spruijt, BM 2005 Juvenile mink (Mustela vison) with additional access to swimming water play more frequently than animals housed with a cylinder and plat-form, but without swimming water. Animal Welfare 14: 53–60Google Scholar
Warburton, H and Mason, G 2003 Is out of sight really out of mind? The effect of resource cues on motivation in mink, Mustela vison. Animal Behaviour 65: 755–762. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2003.2097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warburton, H and Mason, G 2006 Sustainability effects on closed economy set-up: an example using mink. In: Mendl, M, Bradshaw, JWS, Burman, OHP and Butterworth, A (eds) Proceedings of the 40th Congress of ISAE. 8-12 August 2006, University of Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
Widowski, TM, Curtis, SE, Dziuk, PJ, Wagner, WC and Sherwood, OD 1990 Behavioral and endocrine responses of sows to prostaglandin Fl-alpha and Cloprostenol. Biology of Reproduction 43:290–297. https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod43.2.290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiepkema, PR 1994 Advice with regard to mink husbandry in The Netherlands. Study for the Dutch Government (unpublished report), The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wishcner, D, Kemper, N and Krieter, J 2009 Nest-building behaviour in sows and consequences for pig husbandry. Livestock Science 124: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2009.01.015Google Scholar
Yeates, J, Röcklinsberg, H and Gjerris, M 2011 Is welfare all that matters? A discussion of what should be included in policy-making regarding animals. Animal Welfare 20: 423–432Google Scholar