Relative value of a nest box, sand floor and extra space during the breeding season in adult blue fox males

Koistinen, Tarja; Jauhiainen, Lauri; Korhonen, Hannu T.

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2009.07.004

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Chicken [ 95 , 109 ] and duck [ 89 ] hens demonstrated motivation to access nesting boxes for oviposition by pushing through increasingly narrow gaps and weighted push doors to access the nest boxes. Foxes also demonstrated motivation to access hiding areas by pushing weighted doors [ 66 , 110 ]. However, dairy cows did not demonstrate motivation to access secluded calving areas around parturition; the authors posited that the cows could not demonstrate the learned push-door task in combination with the desire to access the secluded area during calving [ 91 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of providing hiding spaces to farmed animals: A scoping review

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many wild animals perform hiding behaviours for a variety of reasons, such as evading predators or other conspecifics. Unlike their wild counterparts, farmed animals often live in relatively barren environments without the opportunity to hide. Researchers have begun to study the impact of access to hiding spaces (“hides”) in farmed animals, including possible effects on animal welfare. The aims of this scoping review were to: 1) identify the farmed species that have been most used in research investigating the provision of hides, 2) describe the context in which hides have been provided to farmed animals, and 3) describe the impact (positive, negative or neutral/inconclusive) that hides have on animals, including indicators of animal welfare. Three online databases (CAB Abstracts, Web of Science, and PubMed) were used to search for a target population of farmed animals with access to hiding spaces. From this search, 4,631 citations were screened and 151 were included in the review. Fourteen animal types were represented, most commonly chickens (48% of papers), cattle (9%), foxes (8%), and fish (7%). Relatively few papers were found on other species including deer, quail, ducks, lobsters, turkeys, and goats. Hides were used in four contexts: at parturition or oviposition (56%), for general enrichment (43%), for neonatal animals (4%), or for sick or injured animals (1%). A total of 218 outcomes relevant to our objectives were found including 7 categories: hide use, motivation, and/or preference (47% of outcomes), behavioural indicators of affective state (17%), health, injuries, and/or production (16%), agonistic behaviour (8%), abnormal repetitive behaviours (6%), physiological indicators of stress (5%), and affiliative behaviours (1%). Hiding places resulted in 162 positive (74%), 14 negative (6%), and 42 neutral/inconclusive (19%) outcomes. Hides had a generally positive impact on the animals included in this review; more research is encouraged for under-represented species.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of providing hiding spaces to farmed animals: A scoping review

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Usually the studies have focused on situations where there have been only one or a few EEs in a standard fox cage [5] [8]. If the foxes had had available several EEs simultaneously, the EEs would have been provided in large cage systems [4] [9]. However, several studies have shown recently that providing farmed mink with environmental complexity, i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Study on Multi-Enriched Housing Environment in Blue Foxes

Korhonen¹,

Eskeli²

2015

OJAS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A traditional fox cage was furnished with both activating environmental enrichments (EE) (a bone, a scratching plate, a hockey buck, a ceiling rope and a wall rope and straw) and EEs enabling resting or observation (a wire-mesh platform and a top nest box). The aim was to find out to which extent blue foxes (Vulpes lagopus) utilized these EEs, and to collect practical experiences of the EEs. The experimental animals were 12 adult blue fox vixens that had been housed in cages furnished with a platform and a bone for about 1.5 years before they were transferred to the multi-enriched cages. The frequency and duration of the active contacts with the EEs were measured with continuous recording on Days 1, 2, 7 and 16 after the transfer, with three hours (13:30-14:30, 18:00-19:00 and 2:00-3:00) on each day. The total use of the EEs was 15 times per hour and more than 20% of the time. For most EEs both the time spent in contact and the frequency of contacts with the EEs declined steeply after Day 1, reflecting a novelty effect of the EEs. This decline was not so evident for the platform, top nest box and wall rope. These three EEs were also the ones used the most by the foxes. The ropes were badly damaged during the experiments, whereas other EEs remained in good condition. Explorativity markedly increased when animals were transferred from home cage to enriched cages. Explorativity remained high during entire study period when foxes were kept in enriched enrichment. Furthermore, it remained high also after transferring of animals back to home cages. Capture reaction was quite similar in home and enriched cages. The amount of stereotypy varied among recording days (P < 0.05). When foxes were transferred from home cages to multi-enriched cages, no change was found in the amount stereotypy during Days 1 and 2. Thereafter, the amount of stereotypy showed a declined trend. Stereotypy tended to increase when foxes were transferred back to home cages. Our results indicated that foxes used readily the opportunities for more diverse behaviours.

show abstract

“…For example, both the mesh platform and the wooden roof of a nest box enable observation of the surroundings from an elevated location, and the wooden block, the nest box and the sand floor represent a substrate for oral activities. In only one study, where all of the resources were not actually simultaneously available, the relative attractiveness of the nest box was evaluated as being higher than that of empty extra space or a sand floor, and no clear preference between the roof of the nest box and platform was observed (Koistinen et al, 2009a). Thus, it is quite unclear whether the foxes would utilise all the resources when they are available simultaneously, and whether the suggested nest box and sand floor, would be used when the required platform and activity object, are already available.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complex housing environment for farmed blue foxes (Vulpes lagopus): use of various resources

Koistinen

Korhonen

2013

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study was designed to measure the use of various, simultaneously available resources in a complex housing environment in juvenile blue foxes. Twelve blue fox sibling (male–female) pairs were housed in two-section experimental cages from the age of 8 weeks until the age of 7 months (from June to December). Each experimental cage was furnished with two platforms, a nest box, a sand box and a wooden block. This housing set-up provided the foxes with social contact, and an opportunity for oral manipulation, scratching and nesting, as well as the choice of staying on a solid floor material or on an elevated location. The foxes’ behaviour was recorded at three time points during autumn (September, November and December). The foxes used all available resources. The most utilised resource was the nest box, possibly because it could be utilised in several ways (as a shelter, an elevated location, an object for scratching and for oral manipulation). The foxes also stayed more in the cage section containing the nest box than in the cage section containing a sand box. The foxes rested much on the cage floor, but they also used the interior of the nest box and elevated locations for resting. Social contact often occurred during resting. Thus, the nest box and elevated location, in conjunction with social contact seem to be valuable while resting. While active, the foxes utilised the cage floor and roof of the nest box instead of the platforms. Scratching, digging and an interaction with the wooden block were seldom observed. Activity occurred mainly on the ‘empty’ cage area. In conclusion, all studied resources provided blue foxes with a distinct value, as they all were used in the complex housing environment. The nest box is used most and for most variable behaviours.

show abstract

Relative value of a nest box, sand floor and extra space during the breeding season in adult blue fox males

Cited by 5 publications

References 12 publications

The impact of providing hiding spaces to farmed animals: A scoping review

The impact of providing hiding spaces to farmed animals: A scoping review

A Study on Multi-Enriched Housing Environment in Blue Foxes

Complex housing environment for farmed blue foxes (Vulpes lagopus): use of various resources

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About