2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.10.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Additional foraging elements reduce abnormal behaviour – fur-chewing and stereotypic behaviour – in farmed mink (Neovison vison)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

2
9
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
2
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Growing evidence suggests that simpler, more practical enrichments appropriate for small cages can also improve mink welfare, as indicated by measures of motivation, and decreased stereotypic behaviour and cortisol metabolite output. These include manipulable objects such as balls, structural additions to the cage like suspended wire mesh and shelves, and even ‘chunky’ food requiring more manipulation and time to consume than the minks' typical feed [32] , [43] – [46] . However, their welfare effects are not always consistent, suggesting that simple enrichments of different types vary in efficacy, and that only providing enrichments once mink have reached adulthood may be ineffective [47] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Growing evidence suggests that simpler, more practical enrichments appropriate for small cages can also improve mink welfare, as indicated by measures of motivation, and decreased stereotypic behaviour and cortisol metabolite output. These include manipulable objects such as balls, structural additions to the cage like suspended wire mesh and shelves, and even ‘chunky’ food requiring more manipulation and time to consume than the minks' typical feed [32] , [43] – [46] . However, their welfare effects are not always consistent, suggesting that simple enrichments of different types vary in efficacy, and that only providing enrichments once mink have reached adulthood may be ineffective [47] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, their welfare effects are not always consistent, suggesting that simple enrichments of different types vary in efficacy, and that only providing enrichments once mink have reached adulthood may be ineffective [47] . To illustrate, some enrichments reduced one stereotypic behaviour, fur-chewing, but not locomotor stereotypies [46] ; others even increased locomotor stereotypy, perhaps due to increasing general activity [44] ; while others failed to reduce — or even enhanced — glucocorticoid output (e.g. [45] , [46] ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In minks, the development of stereotypes is influenced by the environment and the routine managements, such as feeding strategies (hunger) [ 42 ]. In a study made by Malmkvist et al [ 43 ], a reduction of stereotyped behavior was noticed when thick food was provided, increasing the consummatory element of their daily foraging. In the same study, fur-chewing was reduced in female minks with access either to biting ropes or to thick food.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides the unsatisfied foraging elements leading to abnormal behavior, it has been suggested that fur-chewing could be related to low stimulation, leading to over-expression of other behaviors such as grooming. According to this, an increase in the daily stimuli could be the reason why biting ropes as well as the thick food reduced fur-chewing [ 43 ]. It has also been observed stress induced fur-chewing in degus ( Octodon degus ), resulting from loneliness of the animals in their individual housing [ 21 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, the authors' main conclusion seems to be that contact duration or "intensity" should be measured in addition to using the qualitative categories typically applied in the stick and glove tests, and yet, they do not justify why this should be done. Duration of contact and time manipulating the object does indeed differ between categories [as previously reported by Malmkvist and Hansen (2002), Malmkvist et al (2003Malmkvist et al ( , 2013, and Meagher et al (2011)]. However, aside from helping validate the use of these categories, it is not clear which additional information these added variables would provide.…”
mentioning
confidence: 84%