Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:07:44.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing Animal Welfare in a Strictly Synchronous Production System: The Mink Case

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

S H Møller ,
S W Hansen  and
J T Sørensen
S H Møller*
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Health and Welfare, PO Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
S W Hansen
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Health and Welfare, PO Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
J T Sørensen
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Health and Welfare, PO Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: SteenH.Moller@agrsci.dk
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.

Most on-farm welfare assessment systems have been developed for use in dairy and pig farms. These production systems are non-synchronous, in the sense that the same processes occur continuously throughout the year. Animal welfare during most or all phases of production may therefore be assessed at any time of the year, except for some effects of season. Many domesticated farm animals such as sheep, goats, deer and mink are seasonally synchronised in their production, in the same way as were their wild ancestors. A comprehensive welfare assessment system including animal-based indicators for these species must therefore take an entire production cycle into consideration. This can be illustrated by a welfare assessment protocol developed and tested by the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences (DIAS) for mink production. The DIAS concept is based on indicators from four sources: the system, the system's management, animal behaviour, and animal health. An advantage of seasonality is that the measurement of welfare indicators can be optimised and standardised in terms of age/season and sample size, making reliable results relatively cheap to obtain. Furthermore, there is ample time to plan the requisite interventions. A disadvantage of seasonality is that the entire herd may have been at risk when a welfare problem is disclosed by direct animal-based indicators; for example, the entire herd may have been exposed to a social grouping causing bite marks, which can be observed at pelting. Based on observation of the social grouping, this can be corrected before fighting and biting occurs. Based on observation of the bite marks, corrections are postponed until next season. Welfare assessment intended for decision support in a synchronous production system should therefore include a higher proportion of early indicators based on the system and management, in order to prevent the development of potential welfare problems involving the entire herd. The assessment of animal-based indicators may be relatively cheap and more reliable in synchronous production compared to non-synchronous production, and these indicators are therefore given high priority as they reflect the welfare resulting from the corrections made based on indirect system and management indicators.

Keywords

animal welfareminksynchronous production
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 12 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2003 , pp. 699 - 703
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bartussek, H 1999 A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the assessment of animals’ well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science 61(2-3): 179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, M B M 2001 Modelling of animal welfare: the development of a decision support system to assess the welfare status of pregnant sows. PhD thesis, Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, Livestock Production and Environmental Engineering Department, Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Capdeville, J and Veissier, I 2001 A method for assessing welfare in loose housed dairy cows at farm level, focusing on animal observation. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 62–68 (Suppl)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Møller, S H and Hansen, S W 2000 Information value and applicability of mink welfare indicators for on farm assessment. Scientifur 24 (4) IV-B: 121–125Google Scholar
Møller, S H and Sørensen, J T 2003 A systems description of a strictly synchronised animal production: the case of mink production. Scientifur 27 (in press)Google Scholar
Rousing, T, Bonde, M and Sørensen, J T 2000 Indicators for the assessment of animal welfare in a dairy cattle herd with a cubicle housing system. In: Blokhuis, H J, Ekkel, E D and Wechsler, B (eds) Improving Health and Welfare in Animal Production pp 37–44. EAAP Publication No 102. European Association for Animal Production: Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
Rousing, T, Bonde, M and Sørensen, J T 2001 Aggregating welfare indicators into an operational welfare assessment system: a bottom up approach. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 53–57 (Suppl)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauson, A-H 1993 Effect of body condition and dietary energy supply on reproductive processes in the female mink (Mustela vison). Journal of Reproduction and Fertility Suppl 47: 37–45Google ScholarPubMed