To swim or not to swim: An interpretation of farmed mink's motivation for a water bath

Abstract

SummaryHow an animal's behavioural (ethological) needs can be met is a pivotal issue in the assessment of welfare for captive animals. The value of swimming water for farmed mink is an example how scientific and societal questions relating to animal welfare can be answered. A number of studies have addressed the issue of the indispensability of swimming water for mink; however, so far with inconclusive evidence. In this paper, the results of these studies and related literature are reviewed.First, the biological definition of need is discussed. Subsequently, attention is paid to the effects of the presence, absence and the removal of swimming water on behavioural and physiological correlates of well-being including stereotypic and anticipatory behaviour and urinary cortisol.Thereafter we discuss individual differences in the use of swimming water, the price animals pay for access to a water bath, and the effect of access to swimming water on juvenile play.The main conclusions of the literature review are that 1) the use of a water bath for mink is most likely related to foraging behaviour (foraging areas: land and water); 2) absence of swimming water, without prior experience, does not lead to consistent changes in level of stereotypic behaviour, or anticipatory responses; 3) removal of a previously experienced water bath may induce short-term stress as indicated by behavioural parameters and elevated cortisol responses; 4) mink work hard for access to a swimming bath and running wheel in consumer demand studies. Other cage modifications such as tunnels and biting objects, may also provide environmental enrichment, if they are added to otherwise impoverished conditions; 5) There are individual differences in the use of swimming water: these are related in part to variation in prior experience of aquatic resources.; 6) As prior experience is important both with respect to individual use of swimming water and the response to deprivation, swimming water can not be described as biological need in the sense of a fixed requirement for survival. As swimming water appears to act as an incentive that induces its own motivation a more accurate term may be an "incentive induced or environmentally facilitated need". Given the available evidence, it is not possible to conclude whether mink that have never experienced swimming water, suffer as a consequence of its absence. However, it is possible to predict that mink with access to water have improved quality of life, due to increased behavioural opportunities, in comparison to farmed mink without access to swimming water. In practical terms, it is still open to debate whether mink should be provided with swimming water, or if alternative, less valued, but easier to install and maintain forms of environmental enrichment, should be provided in mink housing.To clarify these issues a number of future studies would be valuable. These include; 1) whether specific environmental cues affect motivation to swim, such as the form of drinking water delivery systems ; 2) whether prior ex...

Water for Domestic Ducks: The Benefits and Challenges in Commercial Production

“…Although 8 weeks of age is older than most Pekin ducks raised for meat production, the findings are consistent with the suggestion that ducks are motivated to access open water sources [but see Jones et al (2009) on preferences across different types of water sources in Section Water Depth and Temperature]. Comparisons with commercially farmed mink that are also semi-aquatic and typically raised without water access show some benefits of water provision such as increases in positive play behavior and reduced incidences of stereotypic behaviors (Mononen et al, 2008;Vinke et al, 2008;Kornum et al, 2017). Mink have also shown a high stress response when their water access is removed (Vinke et al, 2008) but it remains a challenge to provide them open water access in a commercial setting.…”

“…Comparisons with commercially farmed mink that are also semi-aquatic and typically raised without water access show some benefits of water provision such as increases in positive play behavior and reduced incidences of stereotypic behaviors (Mononen et al, 2008;Vinke et al, 2008;Kornum et al, 2017). Mink have also shown a high stress response when their water access is removed (Vinke et al, 2008) but it remains a challenge to provide them open water access in a commercial setting.…”

A One Health Perspective on the Human–Companion Animal Relationship with Emphasis on Zoonotic Aspects

“…The lack of foraging opportunities, the appetitive phase of feeding behavior [74] might be another reason for the possible development of ARBs in companion animals. Foraging is often regarded as a high priority behavior [75,76], i.e., an internally motivated behavioral pattern that should be performed, or otherwise may induce a state of chronic stress, which may result in behavioral pathology like ARBs as described in many other animal species [77][78][79]. Foraging patterns may include walking, running, jumping, nose pushing, digging, and overseeing the area, all active patterns that imply the daily need for physical exercise and mental challenges in most of our companion animals.…”

Wheel running in the wild

“…Stereotypic behaviour itself is characterized by several traits: it is repetitive, invariant and devoid of obvious goal or function [ 26 , 27 ]; if it consists of natural behavioural elements, these occur at higher rates and for longer durations than found in nature [ 8 ] and it is partially or not at all dependent on external stimuli [ 28 , 29 ]. Even though authors disagree over whether stereotypies reflect bad welfare [ 30 – 33 ] or a coping strategy that may even increase welfare [ 27 , 32 ], they all agree that stereotypic behaviour only occurs in captivity. Wheel running can be considered repetitive, invariant, devoid of obvious goal and function [ 8 , 10 ], but it remains reactive to external stimuli [ 10 ], and our results indicate that it is neither restricted to captivity nor occurring for longer durations in captive mice of at least six months old than in free-ranging mice in the field.…”