Tarja Koistinen

The development of on-farm welfare assessment protocols for foxes and mink: the WelFur project

The WelFur project aims at the development of on-farm welfare assessment protocols for farmed foxes (the blue fox [Vulpes lagopus], the silver fox [Vulpes vulpes]) and mink (Neovison vison). The WelFur protocols are based on Welfare Quality® (WQ) principles and criteria. Here, we describe the WelFur protocols after two years of developmental work. Reviews for each of the 12 WQ welfare criteria were written for foxes and mink to identify the welfare measures that have been used in scientific studies. The reviews formed the basis for potential measures to be included in the WelFur protocols. All measures were evaluated for their validity, reliability and feasibility. At present, we have identified 15 fox and 9 mink animal-based (or outcome-based) welfare measures, and 11 and 13 input-based (resource-based or management-based) measures. For both foxes and mink, each of the four WQ principles is judged by at least one criterion, and seven out of the 12 criteria include animal-based measures. The protocols will be piloted in 2012. Using the WQ project and protocols as a model has been a fruitful approach in developing the WelFur protocols. The effects of the WelFur protocols will provide benchmarks from which the welfare of animals on European fur farms can be assessed.

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

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.

WelFur – foxes: the inter-observer reliability of the WelFur health measures, and the prevalence of health disorders on fox farms during the growth period

The aim of the present study was to assess the prevalence of health disorders on Finnish and Norwegian fox farms, and the inter-observer reliability (IOR) of the health measures included in the present WelFur fox protocol. Ten and five fox farms were visited in Finland and Norway, respectively, in October-December 2011. Three (Finland) and two (Norway) assessors assessed the same animals on each farm. The results revealed that obesity-related problems, i.e. bent feet, moving difficulties and diarrhoea, were the most common problems on the Finnish fox farms with the majority of the foxes being blue foxes. Bent feet was the most common problem also on the Norwegian fox farms where the majority of the assessed foxes were silver foxes. However, in Norway the percentage of foxes with bent feet was much lower than in Finland. The results also show that IORs of all WelFur health measures but one, i.e. bent feet, are good or even excellent indicating the consistency of assessment between different assessors. It is concluded that all health measures included in the WelFur fox protocol are relevant welfare measures that can be measured reliably enough during a one-day farm visit.

Development of behavioural tests for WelFur on-farm welfare assessment of foxes

Faces are an essential source of information for social species. Sheep are one of the most studied farm species in terms of their ability to process information from faces, but little is known about their face-based emotion recognition abilities. We investigated whether sheep could use images of faces displaying different emotional states as cues in a simultaneous discrimination task. To that end, we took photos of faces of four sheep in three social situations: two with a negative valence (social isolation or aggressive interaction) and a neutral situation (ruminating in the home pen). In a two-armed maze, sheep (n=16) were then presented with pairs of images of the same familiar individual taken in the neutral situation and one of the negative situations. Sheep had to learn to associate one type of image from a pair with a food reward. Once they had reached the learning criterion, sheep then had to generalise the task to new pairs of images of different conspecifics displaying the same emotions as in the previous phase. For every run in the maze, the latency to choose an arm and the outcome of the choice (success or error) were recorded, as well as the total number of runs needed to learn the task (learning speed). Influence of the type of image rewarded and of the side of presentation of the rewarded image were analysed by linear mixed models and learning speed was analysed by Mood’s median test. All sheep learned the task with images of faces. Sheep that had to associate a negative image with a reward learned faster that sheep that had to learn the neutral-reward combination (medians: 40 vs 75 runs, χ2=4.00, df=1, P=0.046). With the exception of sheep from the Aggression-rewarded group, sheep could generalise the discrimination task to images of new faces (F3,26.6=3.37, P=0.033). Sheep chose an arm correctly more often (F1,288.1=5.02, P=0.026) and more quickly (F1,289.3=23.92, P<0.001; right: 8.4±0.6 sec, left: 9.6±0.8 sec) when the rewarded image was displayed on the right side, suggesting the influence of a right hemisphere/left visual field bias in face-based perception of emotions. Our results strongly suggest that sheep can perceive the emotional valence displayed on faces and that this valence affects learning processes.

Bovine bone is a valuable activity object in Finnraccoon (Nyctereutes procyonoides ussuriensis)

Faces are an essential source of information for social species. Sheep are one of the most studied farm species in terms of their ability to process information from faces, but little is known about their face-based emotion recognition abilities. We investigated whether sheep could use images of faces displaying different emotional states as cues in a simultaneous discrimination task. To that end, we took photos of faces of four sheep in three social situations: two with a negative valence (social isolation or aggressive interaction) and a neutral situation (ruminating in the home pen). In a two-armed maze, sheep (n=16) were then presented with pairs of images of the same familiar individual taken in the neutral situation and one of the negative situations. Sheep had to learn to associate one type of image from a pair with a food reward. Once they had reached the learning criterion, sheep then had to generalise the task to new pairs of images of different conspecifics displaying the same emotions as in the previous phase. For every run in the maze, the latency to choose an arm and the outcome of the choice (success or error) were recorded, as well as the total number of runs needed to learn the task (learning speed). Influence of the type of image rewarded and of the side of presentation of the rewarded image were analysed by linear mixed models and learning speed was analysed by Mood’s median test. All sheep learned the task with images of faces. Sheep that had to associate a negative image with a reward learned faster that sheep that had to learn the neutral-reward combination (medians: 40 vs 75 runs, χ2=4.00, df=1, P=0.046). With the exception of sheep from the Aggression-rewarded group, sheep could generalise the discrimination task to images of new faces (F3,26.6=3.37, P=0.033). Sheep chose an arm correctly more often (F1,288.1=5.02, P=0.026) and more quickly (F1,289.3=23.92, P<0.001; right: 8.4±0.6 sec, left: 9.6±0.8 sec) when the rewarded image was displayed on the right side, suggesting the influence of a right hemisphere/left visual field bias in face-based perception of emotions. Our results strongly suggest that sheep can perceive the emotional valence displayed on faces and that this valence affects learning processes.

WelFur – foxes: do feeding test, temperament test and a measure of stereotypic behaviour differentiate between farms?

In the present study we evaluate the suitability of the feeding test, temperament test and assessment of stereotypic behaviour for an on-farm welfare assessment protocol. Ten fox farms in Finland and five fox farms in Norway were visited in January or February. On each farm, a representative sample of foxes was chosen for each measure. The percentage of foxes eating in the feeding test, touching a stick in the temperament test and behaving stereotypically varied between 24-73%, 16-60% and 0-13% on the farms, respectively. On farm-level, the percentage of foxes touching the stick in the temperament test correlated positively with the percentage of foxes eating in the feeding test (rs=0.609, P=0.016), and the percentage of foxes attacking the stick aggressively correlated positively with the percentage of stereotyping foxes (rs=0.604, P=0.017). Accordingly, all three measures can be used to differentiate farms. Furthermore, the correlations between the results from different measures indicate that the temperament test measures partially the same behavioural features of the stock of the animals on the farm as the feeding test and the measure of stereotypic behaviour.

WelFur - foxes: development of the on-farm welfare assessment scheme for foxes

In 2009, European Fur Breeders’ Association made an initiative to develop welfare assurance schemes for farmed foxes and mink. The WelFur welfare assessment protocols are the core of the schemes. The protocols are based on four welfare principles (good feeding, good housing, good health and appropriate behaviour) with 12 welfare criteria (2–4 per principle) developed originally for cattle, pigs and poultry in the Welfare Quality® project. Here we describe the development of the WelFur fox protocol and scheme step by step. These steps were: (1) Potential welfare measures were identified and evaluated for their validity, reliability and feasibility. (2) The preliminary protocol were tested on farm visits and refined based on the experiences from these visits. (3) The final protocol with descriptions of the 25 chosen measures and detailed instructions on how to carry out an assessment visit was written. (4) The scoring system was developed and will be tested in 2012. (5) The implementation of WelFur on-farm welfare assessment scheme for foxes will be launched in 2012. (6) The scientific documentation of the development work has been initiated. (7) The need to further refine the WelFur fox protocol and scheme will be evaluated continuously.