Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:03:23.491Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The representativeness of a semi-random sampling method for animal welfare assessments on mink farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

AF Marsbøll ,
BIF Henriksen  and
SH Møller
AF Marsbøll
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
BIF Henriksen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
SH Møller*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
* Contact for correspondence: steenh.moller@anis.au.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.

In this study we present a semi-random sampling method developed for the sampling of mink (Neovison vison) for on-farm welfare assessments according to the WelFur-Mink system. The only information required for implementation of this method is the number of cages in use in each shed on the farm. The representativeness of samples selected with this method was evaluated in relation to the physical characteristics of the farm and the mink characteristics by simulated sampling on a farm with a complicated structure in the growth period. The selection of 10,000 samples was simulated. The trueness was, in general, high, ie the method has no systematic skewness. The precision was low for certain factors due to the high variation within sheds. The sampling in sections of six adjacent cages means that it is often not possible to select a sample which is an exact representation of the mink and their housing environment. If accepting a deviation of ± one cage section, the estimated probability of selecting a representative sample was high for most of the individual factors. However, the estimated probability of selecting a sample that is representative according to all factors was rather low. This deviation from exact representativeness ought to be evaluated in the light of the increased feasibility and repeatability offered by the method. Also, we expect that the representativeness of samples selected with this method will be higher on other less-complicated farms. We suggest that this simple method balances feasibility and representative sampling in a way that makes it useful in the WelFur-Mink system.

Keywords

animal welfarefeasibilityminkon-farm welfare assessmentsimulation studyWelFur
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , August 2019 , pp. 307 - 315
Copyright
© 2019 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

AWIN 2015 AWIN welfare assessment protocol for horses.10.13130/AWIN_horses_2015Google Scholar
Fur Europe 2017 4,000 European fur farms to be WelFur certified by 2020. http://www.fureurope.eu/news/4-000-european-fur-farms-to-be-welfur-certified-by-2020/Google Scholar
Jørgensen, G 1985 Mink Production. Scientifur: Tjele, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Knierim, U and Winckler, C 2009 On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future per-spectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality®approach. Animal Welfare 18: 451–45810.1017/S0962728600000865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohr, LS 2010 Sampling: Design and Analysis, Second Edition. Brooks/Cole: Boston, USAGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Barker, ZE, Leach, KA, Bell, NJ, Whay, HR and Browne, WJ 2010 Sampling strategies for monitoring lameness in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 1970–1978. https://doi.org 10.3168/jds.2009-2500CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Main, DCJ, Kent, JP, Wemelsfelder, F, Ofner, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2003 Applications for methods of on farm wel-fare assessment. Animal Welfare 12: 523–52810.1017/S0962728600026129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsbøll, AF, Henriksen, B and Møller, SH 2016 It is possible to take a representative sample of animals based on the number of cages in use in each mink shed. In: Mäki-Tanila, P, Valaja, J, Mononen, J, Sironen, T and Vapalahti, P (eds) Proceedings of the XIth International Scientific Congress in Fur Animal production pp 337–342. 23-26 August 2016, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
Møller, SH, Hansen, SW, Malmkvist, J, Vinke, CM, Lidfors, L, Gaborit, M and Botreau, R 2015 WelFur Welfare assessment pro-tocol for mink. Fur Europe: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle 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: 699–70310.1017/S0962728600026403CrossRefGoogle 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. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.3.363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team 2017 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Sørensen, JT, Rousing, T, Møller, SH, Bonde, M and Hegelund, L 2007 On-farm welfare assessment systems: what are the recording costs? Animal Welfare 16: 237–23910.1017/S0962728600031420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I, Winckler, C, Velarde, A, Butterworth, A, Dalmau, A and Keeling, L 2013 Development of welfare measures and proto-cols for the collection of data on farms or at slaughter. In: Blokhuis, H, Miele, M, Veissier, I and Jones, B (eds) Improving Farm Animal Welfare: Science and Society Working Together: The Welfare Quality Approach pp115-146. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-770-7_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009a Welfare Quality®assessment protocol for pigs. Welfare Quality®Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009b Welfare Quality®assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar