Bones as enrichment for farmed blue foxes (Vulpes lagopus): Interaction with the bones and preference for a cage with the bones

Koistinen, Tarja; Turunen, Antti; Kiviniemi, Vesa; Ahola, Leena; Mononen, Jaakko

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2009.05.003

Cited by 7 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is supported by the behavioral observations, which show that the foxes in the bone group interacted with the bones in 4 6 1% of observations in August and September and 3 6 1% of observations in November (Koistinen et al, 2009). Of all observations with interaction with the bones, 55 6 4% included gnawing the bone.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

“…the behavior of the animals in this study but the detailed behavioral data were published elsewhere (Koistinen et al, 2009). The present results are, however, discussed in the light of the behavioral results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There were two exceptions in this schedule though. As this experiment also aimed at studying how the foxes value bones and how the bones affect the behavior of foxes, the experiment included two 10-day deprivations of the bones, carried out in the late-August (at the cubs' age of 11 to 14 weeks) and at the beginning of October (at the foxes' age of 18 to 21 weeks) (see Koistinen et al, 2009). During these deprivations, the foxes in bone group had no bones in their cages.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To assess the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activity, urinary cortisol as a non-invasive method to measure cortisol levels and serum cortisol after ACTH administration as a measure of maximal cortisol production capacity (see Broom and Johnson, 1993) were determined. By measuring cortisol levels during the two deprivation periods, that is before, during and after the foxes were deprived of the bones (see Koistinen et al, 2009), it is possible to get information about the effects of deprivations per se (samples collected during and after the deprivations) as well as long-term effects of access v. no access to the gnawing bones (samples before the deprivations). The 24 h urine sample of foxes was collected on three occasions associated with each of two deprivation periods (see Koistinen et al, 2009), that is in mid-August (at the cubs' age of 11 to 14 weeks) and at the beginning of October (at the cubs' age of 18 to 21 weeks).…”

Section: Measured Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By measuring cortisol levels during the two deprivation periods, that is before, during and after the foxes were deprived of the bones (see Koistinen et al, 2009), it is possible to get information about the effects of deprivations per se (samples collected during and after the deprivations) as well as long-term effects of access v. no access to the gnawing bones (samples before the deprivations). The 24 h urine sample of foxes was collected on three occasions associated with each of two deprivation periods (see Koistinen et al, 2009), that is in mid-August (at the cubs' age of 11 to 14 weeks) and at the beginning of October (at the cubs' age of 18 to 21 weeks). Urine samples were collected from trays placed under each double cage system just before the 10-day deprivation periods, on the 6th deprivation day and on the 8th day after the deprivation periods.…”

Section: Measured Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Gnawing bones as enrichment for farmed blue foxes (Vulpes lagopus)

Ahola

Turunen

Mononen

et al. 2010

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to present acts and regulations, farmed foxes shall have a gnawing or other enrichment object in their cages. However, research on the welfare effects of gnawing objects has been scarce. We assessed physiology and health, that is weight development, urinary cortisol-creatinine ratio, serum cortisol level after adrenocorticotropic hormone administration, internal organ masses and incidence of gastric ulcerations as well as dental and overall oral health, in pair-housed juvenile blue foxes that were housed either with or without a possibility to interact with bones (cattle femur) during their growing season (July to December). The results show that the physiological effects of the possibility to interact with bones were either non-significant or suggested that competition for bones may jeopardize the welfare of subordinate individuals. However, the results clearly show that gnawing bones are beneficial for the dental health of farmed foxes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Measured Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Measured Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Gnawing bones as enrichment for farmed blue foxes (Vulpes lagopus)

Ahola

Turunen

Mononen

et al. 2010

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Sleeping tight or hiding in fright? The welfare implications of different subtypes of inactivity in mink

Meagher

Campbell

Ahloy‐Dallaire

et al. 2013

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of sub-optimal housing on inactivity vary across species and experiments, probably because inactivity is heterogeneous, reflecting both positive states (e.g. relaxation) and negative ones (e.g. fear). We therefore aimed to identify specific subtypes of inactivity that could indicate poor welfare in mink, by comparing their behaviour in enriched and non-enriched conditions (the former having been previously demonstrated to be highly preferred by mink and to enhance their welfare). We assessed this in three groups of subjects, as well as after housing conditions were reversed for the last group. During live scans, inactive animals were scored for posture, location, and whether awake or apparently asleep. Data on temperament and physiological stress indicators were also collected for one group; these confirmed that non-enriched housing increased faecal cortisol metabolites (FCM; P=0.040). Non-enriched housing also increased locomotor stereotypy in females (sex*housing: P=0.004). Inactivity in the nest-box (vs. in the open cage) was higher among females in non-enriched housing (housing*sex P<0.001), and increased by 20% of observations after enrichment removal (P=0.018) for both sexes. Furthermore, males with fearful temperaments spent the most time inactive in the nest-box (sex*temperament P=0.054), while females whose FCM decreased most when given enrichment also showed the largest decreases in this behaviour (sex*FCM change P=0.019). Together, this suggests that inactivity in the nest-box may reflect anxiety-induced hiding. Lying awake (i.e. prone with eyes open) was also higher in non-enriched housing (3.1% of observations vs. 1.7%; P=0.002); furthermore, this subtype of inactivity increased after enrichment removal (by 1.0% of observations; P=0.021), and decreased when non-enriched mink were given enrichment (by 2.4% of observations; P=0.004). This behaviour did not co-vary with fearfulness, however, nor with FCM (both P>0.05). This suggests that lying awake is not fear-related (e.g. not reflecting enhanced vigilance) but instead reflects some other negative state. Effects on inactivity subtypes as defined by posture were less consistent. For example, time spent lying belly down tended to decrease in mink moved from non-enriched to enriched cages (P=0.054), but enriched mink spent significantly less time belly down (in one of the three groups; P=0.002). Overall, two subtypes of inactivity, lying in the nestbox and lying awake seem likely to be valid indicators of housing-induced poor welfare in this species, being consistently increased by non-enriched cages. Lying in the nest-box may indicate fear or anxiety, and lying awake, a boredom-like state.

show abstract

What can inactivity (in its various forms) reveal about affective states in non-human animals? A review

Fureix

Meagher

2015

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Captive / domestic animals are often described as inactive, with the implicit or explicit implication that this high level of inactivity is a welfare problem. Conversely, not being inactive enough may also indicate or cause poor welfare. In humans, too much inactivity can certainly be associated with either negative or positive affective states. In non-human animals, however, the affective states associated with elevated or suppressed levels of inactivity are still not well understood. Part of the complexity is due to the fact that there are many different forms of inactivity, each likely associated with very different affective states. This paper has two aims. One is to identify specific forms of inactivity that can be used as indicators of specific affective states in animals. The other is to identify issues that need to be resolved before we could validly use the remaining, not yet validated forms of inactivity as indicators of affective state. We briefly discuss how inactivity is defined and assessed in the literature, and then how inactivity in its various forms relates to affective (either negative or positive) states in animals, basing our reasoning on linguistic reports of affective states collected from humans displaying inactivity phenotypically similar to that displayed by animals in similar situations, and, when possible, on pharmacological validation. Specific forms of inactivity expressed in response to perceived threats (freezing, tonic immobility, and hiding) appear to be, to date, the best-validated indicators of specific affective states in animals. We also identify a number of specific forms of inactivity likely to reflect either negative (associated with ill-heath, boredom-like, and depression-like conditions), or positive states (e.g. 'sunbasking', post-consummatory inactivity), although further research is warranted before we could use those forms as indicators of the affective states. We further discuss the relationship between increased inactivity and affective states by presenting misleading situations likely to yield wrong conclusions. We conclude that more attention should be paid to inactivity in animal welfare studies: specific forms of inactivity identified in this paper are, or have the potential to be, useful indicators of affective (welfare) states in animals. Other specific forms are likely to be linked with either negative or positive states. What can inactivity (in its variousWe propose further research directions to further validate those forms of inactivity. Captive / domestic animals are often described as inactive, with the implicit or explicit 16 implication that this high level of inactivity is a welfare problem. Conversely, not being 17 inactive enough may also indicate or cause poor welfare. In humans, too much inactivity can 18 certainly be associated with either negative or positive affective states. In non-human 19 animals, however, the affective states associated with elevated or suppressed levels of 20 inactivity are still not well understood. 21Part of ...

show abstract

Bones as enrichment for farmed blue foxes (Vulpes lagopus): Interaction with the bones and preference for a cage with the bones

Cited by 7 publications

References 19 publications

Gnawing bones as enrichment for farmed blue foxes (Vulpes lagopus)

Gnawing bones as enrichment for farmed blue foxes (Vulpes lagopus)

Sleeping tight or hiding in fright? The welfare implications of different subtypes of inactivity in mink

What can inactivity (in its various forms) reveal about affective states in non-human animals? A review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About