DOCSLIB.ORG

The Welfare of Animals Kept for Fur Production

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Welfare of Animals Kept for Fur Production EUROPEAN COMMISSION HEALTH & CONSUMER PROTECTION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Directorate C - Scientific Opinions &ÃÃ0DQDJHPHQWÃRIÃVFLHQWLILFÃFRPPLWWHHVÃVFLHQWLILFÃFRRSHUDWLRQÃDQGÃQHWZRUNV 7KH:HOIDUHRI$QLPDOV.HSWIRU)XU3URGXFWLRQ 5HSRUWRIWKH 6FLHQWLILF&RPPLWWHHRQ$QLPDO+HDOWKDQG$QLPDO:HOIDUH $GRSWHGRQ'HFHPEHU &RQWHQWV 7(5062)5()(5(1&( %$&.*5281' :(/)$5(±'(),1,7,216$1'0($685(0(176 3.1. THE CONCEPT OF ANIMAL WELFARE............................................................................................................. 7 3.2. THE ASSESSMENT OF ANIMAL WELFARE....................................................................................................... 8 3.3. THE ASSESSMENT OF WELFARE IN ANIMALS KEPT FOR FUR PRODUCTION ..................................................... 8 0RUWDOLW\DQGPRUELGLW\ %RG\FRQGLWLRQDQGUHSURGXFWLRQ %HKDYLRXU 3K\VLRORJ\ 3.4. CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................................................. 9 *(1(5$/$63(&762)&$51,925(%,2/2*< 4.1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 10 4.2. MUSTELIDS ................................................................................................................................................ 12 7KH$PHULFDQPLQN 0XVWHODYLVRQ 7KH3ROHFDW 0XVWHODSXWRULXV &RPSDULVRQRI$PHULFDQPLQNDQGSROHFDW 4.3. CANIDS ...................................................................................................................................................... 22 7KH5HG)R[ 9XOSHVYXOSHV 7KH$UFWLF)R[ $ORSH[ODJRSXV 7KH5DFFRRQ'RJ 1\FWHUHXWHVSURF\RQRLGHV *(1(5$/$63(&762)52'(17%,2/2*< 5.1. THE COYPU (MYOCASTOR COYPUS) .......................................................................................................... 31 3K\VLFDO&KDUDFWHULVWLFV (FRORJ\ 0RUWDOLW\DQG0RUELGLW\ 5.2. THE CHINCHILLA (CHINCHILLA LANIGER) ................................................................................................. 34 3K\VLFDOFKDUDFWHULVWLFVDQGEDVLFELRORJ\ (FRORJ\ 0RUWDOLW\DQG0RUELGLW\ 5.3. CONCLUSIONS OF CHAPTERS 4 AND 5 ........................................................................................................ 35 '20(67,&$7,21 6.1. THE CONCEPT OF DOMESTICATION ............................................................................................................. 36 'HILQLWLRQVRIGRPHVWLFDWLRQ &KDUDFWHULVWLFVRIGRPHVWLFDWHGDQLPDOV *HQHWLFDQGEUHHGLQJHYLGHQFHIRUGRPHVWLFDWLRQ 2QWRJHQHWLFFRQVHTXHQFHVRIGRPHVWLFDWLRQ :HOIDUHDVSHFWVRIWKHGRPHVWLFDWLRQSURFHVV 6.2. DOMESTICATION OF ANIMALS KEPT FOR FUR PRODUCTION ON FARMS ....................................................... 41 5HGDQGVLOYHUIR[HV 9XOSHVYXOSHV %OXHIR[HV $ORSH[ODJRSXV 0LQN 0XVWHODYLVRQ )HUUHWV 0XVWHODSXWRULXVIXUR 5DFFRRQGRJV 1\FWHUHXWHVSURF\RQRLGHV &R\SX 0\RFDVWRUFR\SXV &KLQFKLOOD &KLQFKLOODVSS 6.3. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................................ 45 5$1*(2))$50,1*&21',7,216,1(8523( 7.1. FOXES ...................................................................................................................................................... 47 2 +RXVLQJDQG(QYLURQPHQW )HHG :DWHU 0DWLQJ 1RUZHJLDQVXUYH\RIWKHKRXVLQJDQGPDQDJHPHQWRIIR[HV 7.2. RACCOON DOGS......................................................................................................................................... 51 7.3. MINK.......................................................................................................................................................... 51 +LVWRU\ +RXVLQJDQG(QYLURQPHQW )HHG :DWHU 0DWLQJ 5HJXODWLRQRIFOLPDWHDQGOLJKW 7.4. THE FERRET............................................................................................................................................... 59 +RXVLQJDQG(QYLURQPHQW )HHG 7.5. COYPU ....................................................................................................................................................... 60 +RXVLQJDQGHQYLURQPHQW )HHG %UHHGLQJ 7.6. CHINCHILLA............................................................................................................................................... 61 +RXVLQJDQG(QYLURQPHQW 7.7. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................................ 62 5(675$,17+$1'/,1*75$163257$7,21$1'.,//,1*2)$1,0$/6.(37)25)85 352'8&7,21 8.1. RESTRAINT................................................................................................................................................. 63 5HVWUDLQWGHYLFHV)R[HV 0LQNUHVWUDLQWGHYLFHV 0LQNWUDQVSRUW &KLQFKLOODUHVWUDLQWGHYLFHV )HUUHWUHVWUDLQWGHYLFHV 5DFFRRQGRJVUHVWUDLQWGHYLFHV &R\SXVUHVWUDLQWGHYLFHV 8.2. KILLING OF ANIMALS KEPT FOR FUR PRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 67 .LOOLQJRIPLQN .LOOLQJRIIR[HVDQGUDFFRRQGRJV .LOOLQJRI&KLQFKLOOD .LOOLQJRI&R\SXV 8.3. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................................ 69 7+(:(/)$5(2)0,1. 9.1. MINK WELFARE INDICATORS: ATTRIBUTES, ASSUMPTIONS, AND MEASUREMENT ISSUES ........................... 71 0RUWDOLW\DQGPRUELGLW\ 2WKHUDVSHFWVRISK\VLFDOKHDOWK 3K\VLRORJLFDOZHOIDUHLQGLFDWRUVLQPLQN 5HSURGXFWLYHZHOIDUHLQGLFDWRUV %HKDYLRXUDOZHOIDUHLQGLFDWRUVLQPLQN &RQFOXVLRQV 9.2. THE WELFARE OF FARMED MINK ................................................................................................................ 89 *HVWDWLRQDQGSUHQDWDOVWUHVV 7KHILUVWWKUHHZHHNV )URPWKUHHZHHNVRIDJHXQWLOZHDQLQJ F±ZHHNV :HDQLQJ %HWZHHQILQDOVSOLWWLQJRIOLWWHU PRQWKV DQGSHOWLQJDJH PRQWKV 7KHVLQJOHKRXVLQJRIDGXOWV1RY0D\ 0DWLQJDQGSUHJQDQF\ 7KHQXUVLQJSHULRG :HDQLQJRIWKHOLWWHUZHDQLQJRIDOONLWVH[FHSWDVRQIDPLO\KRXVLQJV\VWHPVNLWZHDQLQJDJHDQG EH\RQG« 3 1RQSUHJQDQWIHPDOHV 5LVNVIRUROGHUDJHVVSHFLDOLVVXHVIRUROGHUIHPDOHV &RQFOXVLRQV 7+(:(/)$5(2))2;(6 10.1. WELFARE INDICATORS IN FOXES ........................................................................................................ 118 3K\VLRORJLFDOZHOIDUHLQGLFDWRUVLQIDUPHGIR[HV %HKDYLRXUDOZHOIDUHLQGLFDWRUVLQIR[HV 0RUWDOLW\DQGPRUELGLW\ 10.2. FARMING ENVIRONMENT..................................................................................................................... 124 (QULFKPHQWRIFDJHV &DJHVL]H 1HVWER[HVDQGSODWIRUPV 1HVWER[HVIRUVLOYHUIR[HV 1HVWER[HVIRUEOXHIR[HV 10.3. WELFARE EFFECTS OF PLATFORMS AND NEST BOXES .......................................................................... 133 6LOYHUIR[HV %OXHIR[HV 10.4. CAGE FLOOR MATERIAL ...................................................................................................................... 136 'LJJLQJEHKDYLRXU 10.5. GROUP HOUSING OF FARMED FOXES.................................................................................................... 137 5HSURGXFWLRQDQGJURXSKRXVLQJ 7KH+3$D[LVDQGJURXSKRXVLQJ 3K\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQERG\ZHLJKWDQGJURXSKRXVLQJ )HDUWRZDUGVKXPDQVDQGJURXSKRXVLQJ $JJUHVVLRQDQGJURXSKRXVLQJ $FWLYLW\DQGJURXSKRXVLQJ 6WHUHRW\SLHVDQGJURXSKRXVLQJ &RPSRVLWLRQRIJURXSV 10.6. REPRODUCTIVE PROBLEMS ................................................................................................................. 141 10.7. SOCIAL STRESS AND INFANTICIDE AMONG SINGLY-CAGED SILVER FOX VIXENS .................................. 144 ,QIDQWLFLGDOEHKDYLRXU &RPSHWLWLRQFDSDFLW\ 6RFLDOVWUDWHJ\DQGQHLJKERXUUHODWLRQV 10.8. EFFECTS OF PRENATAL STRESS IN FOXES............................................................................................. 146 3UHQDWDOVWUHVVDQGLWVJHQHUDOHIIHFWVDQGPHFKDQLVPV 5HVHDUFKRQSUHQDWDOVWUHVVLQDQLPDOVNHSWIRUIXUSURGXFWLRQ 3K\VLRORJLFDOHIIHFWVRISUHQDWDOVWUHVVRQSUHJQDQWEOXHIR[YL[HQVDQGWKHLUIRHWXVHV 3K\VLRORJLFDOHIIHFWVRQQHRQDWDOIR[RIIVSULQJ %HKDYLRXUDOHIIHFWVRQIR[FXEV 10.9. STEREOTYPIES..................................................................................................................................... 149 10.10. BODY MASS OF BLUE FOXES ................................................................................................................ 150 10.11. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................ 150 7+(:(/)$5(2)&+,1&+,//$6 11.1. BEHAVIOURAL DISTURBANCES............................................................................................................ 153 11.2. REPRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 153 11.3. MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY IN CHINCHILLAS ................................................................................... 154 11.4. ANXIOUS OR AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR................................................................................................ 155 11.5. NORMAL BEHAVIOUR .......................................................................................................................... 156 11.6. USE OF ENRICHMENT..........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Our Full Report
    As we look back over the four years since we announced the Perdue Commitments to Animal Care, it has been a journey of listening, learning and evolving. The Perdue Commitments to Animal Care was shaped with input from diverse stakeholders – including some of our harshest critics – and we continue to seek their input. We learn from a wide range of perspectives, whether they be farmers, our associates, advocates, customers or consumers, in formal and informal ways. Cumulatively this has resulted in 65 initiatives designed to address one of the Five Freedoms or one of the other three pillars of our program. And perhaps more importantly, these initiatives have moved from studies or intentions to programs and best practices that are now embedded in how we do business every day. We’re proud of our progress and eager to continue our journey. The following pages report on the most recent and core ongoing initiatives as well as our future goals. Highlights of our recent progress include: • Expanding the number of farms with free-range, outdoor access • Testing the feasibility and benefits of on-farm hatching to improve early chick care • Collaborating on animal welfare research with Mercy for Animals • Conducting our second farmer contest to tap into their experience and expertise in raising chickens • Opening our third Poultry Learning Center, viewing farms which offer a transparent, interactive experience to learn about poultry farming and proper animal care • Holding our fourth Animal Care Summit, bringing together animal care experts and advocates, customers, farmers, and our leadership, in July 2019. Our next summit will be held in October 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Respiratory Turbinates of Canids and Felids: a Quantitative Comparison
    J. Zool., Lond. (2004) 264, 281–293 C 2004 The Zoological Society of London Printed in the United Kingdom DOI:10.1017/S0952836904005771 Respiratory turbinates of canids and felids: a quantitative comparison Blaire Van Valkenburgh1*, Jessica Theodor 2, Anthony Friscia1, Ari Pollack1 and Timothy Rowe3 1 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1606, U.S.A. 2 Department of Geology, Illinois State Museum, 1011 East Ash Street, Springfield, IL 62703, U.S.A. 3 Department of Geological Sciences, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, U.S.A. (Accepted 31 March 2004) Abstract The respiratory turbinates of mammals are complex bony plates within the nasal chamber that are covered with moist epithelium and provide an extensive surface area for the exchange of heat and water. Given their functional importance, maxilloturbinate size and structure are expected to vary predictably among species adapted to different environments. Here the first quantitative analysis is provided of maxilloturbinate structure based on high-resolution computed tomography (CT) scans of the skulls of eight canid and seven felid species. The key parameters examined were the density of the maxilloturbinate bones within the nasal chamber and how that density varied along the air pathway. In both canids and felids, total maxilloturbinate chamber volume and bone volume increased with body size, with canids having c. 1.5–2.0 times the volume of maxilloturbinate than felids of similar size. In all species, the volume of the maxilloturbinates varies from rostral to caudal, with the peak volume occurring approximately midway, close to where airway cross-sectional area is greatest.
    [Show full text]
  • Trapping Regulations You May Trap Wildlife for Subsistence Uses Only Within the Seasons and Harvest Limits in These Unit Trapping Regulations
    Trapping Regulations You may trap wildlife for subsistence uses only within the seasons and harvest limits in these unit trapping regulations. Trapping wildlife out of season or in excess of harvest limits for subsistence uses is illegal and prohibited. However, you may trap unclassified wildlife (such as all squirrel and marmot species) in all units, without harvest limits, from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2016. Subsistence Trapping Restrictions When taking wildlife for subsistence purposes, ● Take (or assist in the taking of) furbearers by firearm trappers may not: before 3:00 a.m. on the day following the day on which airborne travel occurred. This does not apply to a ● Disturb or destroy a den (except any muskrat pushup trapper using a firearm to dispatch furbearers caught in or feeding house that may be disturbed in the course of a trap or snare. trapping). ● Use a net or fish trap (except a blackfish or fyke trap). ● Disturb or destroy any beaver house. ● Use a firearm other than a shotgun, muzzle-loaded ● Take beaver by any means other than a steel trap or rifle, rifle or pistol using center-firing cartridges, for the snare, except certain times of the year when firearms taking of a wolf or wolverine, except that: may be used to take beaver in Units 9, 12, 17, 18, 20E, ■ You may use a firearm that shoots rimfire 21E, 22 and 23. See Unit-specific regulations. cartridges to take wolf and wolverine under a ● Under a trapping license, take a free-ranging furbearer trapping license. You may sell the raw fur or tanned with a firearm on NPS lands.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Animal Suffering and Vegan Outreach
    Paez, Eze (2016) Wild animal suffering and vegan outreach. Animal Sentience 7(11) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1101 This article has appeared in the journal Animal Sentience, a peer-reviewed journal on animal cognition and feeling. It has been made open access, free for all, by WellBeing International and deposited in the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Animal Sentience 2016.087: Paez Commentary on Ng on Animal Suffering Wild animal suffering and vegan outreach Commentary on Ng on Animal Suffering Eze Paez Department of Legal, Moral and Political Philosophy Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona Abstract: Ng’s strategic proposal seems to downplay the potential benefits of advocacy for wild animals and omit what may be the most effective strategy to reduce the harms farmed animals suffer: vegan outreach. Eze Paez, lecturer in moral and political philosophy at Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, studies normative and applied ethics, especially ontological and normative aspects of abortion and the moral consideration of nonhuman animals. He is a member of Animal Ethics. upf.academia.edu/ezepaez Underestimating the importance of wild animal suffering. Ng’s (2016) view is not that animal advocates should focus only on farmed animals, to the exclusion of those that live in the wild. He concedes that our efforts must also be directed toward raising awareness of the harms suffered by animals in nature. Nonetheless, he seems to suggest that these efforts should be minimal relative to those devoted to reducing the harms farmed animals suffer. Ng underestimates the potential benefits of advocacy for wild animals in terms of net reduction in suffering perhaps because he is overestimating people’s resistance to caring about wild animals and to intervening in nature on their behalf.
    [Show full text]
  • Mink Farming in the U.S. Economics Animal Care & Welfare Sustainability Biosecurity COVID & Mink
    Mink Farming in the U.S. Economics Almost 3 million mink are commercially raised in 22 US states. In 2019, mink farming created over $85 million in taxable revenue in the U.S and supported thousands of jobs in our rural communities. U.S. mink farms are 100% family owned and operated businesses, often with 3 generations working on the farm. Animal Care & Welfare Animal health and welfare is the first priority of American mink farmers. Mink farmers have strict operating guidelines governing the humane care of animals. Farmers follow comprehensive animal husbandry practices developed with scientists, veterinarians, and welfare experts, with rigorous standards for nutrition, housing, biosecurity, veterinary care and humane harvesting. The mink farming standards in the U.S. have been certified by the Professional Animal Auditors Certification Organization (PAACO) and farms are independently inspected by Validus Verification Services. Like in all animal agriculture, mink farmers are subject to state and federal laws. Mink on U.S. farms are harvested according to humane practices and methods as recommended by the AVMA. Mink farms must also abide by all environmental regulations. Less than ¼ of 1 percent of all animals harvested in agriculture are taken for fur products. Sustainability Farmed mink consume food industry by-products not fit for human consumption, keeping it out of our landfills. Each animal will consume more than 20-times their body weight per year of human food production by-product, translating to over 300 million pounds of waste recycled. After harvesting, mink remains are used in organic composts, artisanal pet foods and rendered into oils for conditioners, cosmetic products, and even tire-care products.
    [Show full text]
  • Cruelty on Animals and Related Rights
    PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020) CRUELTY ON ANIMALS AND RELATED RIGHTS Maithili Chaudhury1, Nilanjan Chakraborty2 1,2 Asst. Professer, Faculty of Legal Studies, Siksha O Anusandhan Email: [email protected], [email protected] Maithili Chaudhury, Nilanjan Chakraborty: Cruelty On Animals And Related Rights -- Palarch’s Journal Of Archaeology Of Egypt/Egyptology 17(6). ISSN 1567-214x Keywords: Animal Rights, Animal Husbandry, Anti-cruelty ethic, Social Ethic ABSTRACT Businesses and occupations must remain consistent with social ethics or risk losing their freedom. An important social ethical issue that has arisen over the past four decades is animal welfare in various areas of human use. The ethical interest of the society has outgrown the conventional morality of animal cruelty, which originated in biblical times and is embodied in the laws of all civilized societies. There are five major reasons, most notably the substitution of husbandry-based agriculture with industrial agriculture, for this new social concern. This loss of husbandry to industry has threatened the traditional fair contract between humans and animals, leading to significant animal suffering on four different fronts. Because such suffering is not caused by cruelty, it was necessary to express social concerns with a new ethic for animals. Since ethics is based on pre-existing ethics rather than ex nihilo, society has looked for its properly modified ethics for humans to find moral categories that apply to animals. This concept of legally encoded rights for animals has emerged as a plausible vehicle for reform. The paper provides brief summary of the animal welfare board of India, legal capacity in order to possess rights and tries to establish relation between legal personhood and rights.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of the Ecology of the Raccoon Dog (Nyctereutes Procyonoides) in Europe
    A review of the ecology of the raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) in Europe Jaap L. Mulder De Holle Bilt 17, NL-3732 HM De Bilt, the Netherlands, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) was introduced from East Asia into the former USSR between 1928 and 1957. Since then it has colonised a large part of Europe and is considered an invasive alien spe- cies. This paper reviews the current knowledge on the ecology of the raccoon dog in Europe, undertaken as a basis for a risk assessment. The raccoon dog is about the size of a red fox (Vulpes vulpes). In autumn it accumulates fat and, in areas with cold winters, it may stay underground for weeks. It does not dig and often uses badger (Meles meles) setts and fox earths for reproduction. Raccoon dogs are monogamous. Each pair occupies a fixed home range the periphery of which often overlaps with that of neighbours. Pre-breeding population density usually is between 0.5 and 1.0 adults/km2. Habitat use is characterised by a preference for shores, wet habitats and deciduous forests. Foraging raccoon dogs move quite slowly, mostly staying in cover. They are omnivorous gatherers rather than hunters. Their diet is variable, with amphibians, small mammals, carrion, maize and fruits being important components. There is no proof of a negative effect on their prey populations. Raccoon dogs produce a relatively large litter of usually 6 to 9 cubs. After six weeks the den is left and the whole family roams around. From July onwards the cubs, still only half grown, start to disperse.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Farm Foxes Undermines the Animal Domestication Syndrome, Trends in Ecology & Evolution (2019)
    Please cite this article in press as: Lord et al., The History of Farm Foxes Undermines the Animal Domestication Syndrome, Trends in Ecology & Evolution (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.10.011 Trends in Ecology & Evolution Opinion The History of Farm Foxes Undermines the Animal Domestication Syndrome Kathryn A. Lord,1,2 Greger Larson,3,@ Raymond P. Coppinger,4,6 and Elinor K. Karlsson1,2,5,@,* The Russian Farm-Fox Experiment is the best known experimental study in animal domestication. Highlights By subjecting a population of foxes to selection for tameness alone, Dimitry Belyaev generated The ‘domestication syndrome’ has foxes that possessed a suite of characteristics that mimicked those found across domesticated been a central focus of research species. This ‘domestication syndrome’ has been a central focus of research into the biological into the biological processes un- pathways modified during domestication. Here, we chart the origins of Belyaev’s foxes in derlying domestication. The eastern Canada and critically assess the appearance of domestication syndrome traits across an- Russian Farm-Fox Experiment was imal domesticates. Our results suggest that both the conclusions of the Farm-Fox Experiment the first to test whether there is a and the ubiquity of domestication syndrome have been overstated. To understand the process causal relationship between selec- tion for tameness and the domes- of domestication requires a more comprehensive approach focused on essential adaptations to tication syndrome. human-modified environments. Historical records and genetic The Origins of Domestication Syndrome analysis show that the foxes used in The domestication syndrome describes a suite of behavioral and morphological characteristics the Farm-Fox Experiment origi- consistently observed in domesticated populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Trends in Food Habits of the Raccoon Dog, Nyctereutes Viverrinus, in the Imperial Palace, Tokyo
    Bull. Natl. Mus. Nat. Sci., Ser. A, 42(3), pp. 143–161, August 22, 2016 Long-term Trends in Food Habits of the Raccoon Dog, Nyctereutes viverrinus, in the Imperial Palace, Tokyo Akihito1, Takako Sako2, Makito Teduka3 and Shin-ichiro Kawada4* 1The Imperial Residence, 1–1 Chiyoda, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100–0001, Japan 2Imperial Household Agency, 1–1 Chiyoda, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100–8111, Japan 3Field Work Office, 4–29–2 Asahi-cho, Akishima, Tokyo 196–0025, Japan 4 Department of Zoology, National Museum of Nature and Science, 4–1–1 Amakubo, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305–0005, Japan *E-mail: [email protected] (Received 31 March 2016; accepted 22 June 2016) Abstract The food habits of the raccoon dogs in the Imperial Palace were examined by fecal analysis focused on the long term trend for five years. A total of 95 taxa (including 58 taxa identi- fied as genera or species) of plant seeds were detected from 163 collected feces in 164 weekly sur- veys. Among them, eight taxa were selected as the food resources for the raccoon dogs in the Imperial Palace. The intakes of these taxa showed seasonal succession, i.e. Aphananthe aspera in January, Idesia polycarpa in February, Rubus hirsutus from May to July, Cerasus spp. in May and June, Morus spp. in June, Machilus thunbergii in July and August, Aphananthe aspera from Sep- tember to December until the following January, and also Ficus erecta in September and Celtis sinensis in December. In March and April, plant harvest is rather poor, and therefore raccoon dogs feed on the inside endosperm of Ginkgo biloba and family Fagaceae to supply the insufficient nutrients as observed by broken seed coats from feces.
    [Show full text]
  • Vulpes Vulpes) Evolved Throughout History?
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Environmental Studies Undergraduate Student Theses Environmental Studies Program 2020 TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMANS AND RED FOXES (VULPES VULPES) EVOLVED THROUGHOUT HISTORY? Abigail Misfeldt University of Nebraska-Lincoln Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/envstudtheses Part of the Environmental Education Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, and the Sustainability Commons Disclaimer: The following thesis was produced in the Environmental Studies Program as a student senior capstone project. Misfeldt, Abigail, "TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMANS AND RED FOXES (VULPES VULPES) EVOLVED THROUGHOUT HISTORY?" (2020). Environmental Studies Undergraduate Student Theses. 283. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/envstudtheses/283 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Environmental Studies Program at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Environmental Studies Undergraduate Student Theses by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMANS AND RED FOXES (VULPES VULPES) EVOLVED THROUGHOUT HISTORY? By Abigail Misfeldt A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of The University of Nebraska-Lincoln In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Bachelor of Science Major: Environmental Studies Under the Supervision of Dr. David Gosselin Lincoln, Nebraska November 2020 Abstract Red foxes are one of the few creatures able to adapt to living alongside humans as we have evolved. All humans and wildlife have some id of relationship, be it a friendly one or one of mutual hatred, or simply a neutral one. Through a systematic research review of legends, books, and journal articles, I mapped how humans and foxes have evolved together.
    [Show full text]
  • Organic Livestock Farming: Potential and Limitations of Husbandry Practice to Secure Animal Health and Welfare and Food Quality
    Organic livestock farming: potential and limitations of husbandry practice to secure animal health and welfare and food quality Proceedings of the 2nd SAFO Workshop 25-27 March 2004, Witzenhausen, Germany Edited by M. Hovi, A. Sundrum and S. Padel Sustaining Animal Health and Food Safety in Organic Farming (SAFO) Co-ordinator: Mette Vaarst (Danish Institute of Animal Science, Denmark) Steering Committee Malla Hovi (The University of Reading, England) Susanne Padel (The University of Aberystwyth, Wales) Albert Sundrum (The University of Kassel, Germany) David Younie (Scottish Agricultural College, Scotland) Edited by: Malla Hovi, Albert Sundrum and Susanne Padel Publication date: July 2004 Printed in: The University of Reading ISBN: 07049 1458 1 Contents Foreword M. Hovi, A. Martini, S. Padel 1 Acknowledgements 3 Part A: Organic animal health management and food quality at the farm level: Current state and future challenges Organic livestock production and food quality: a review of current status and future challenges M. Vaarst and M. Hovi 7 Animal health in organic farming defined by experts- concept mapping and the interpretation of the concept of naturalnessl T. Baars, E. Baars and K. Eikmans 17 Animal, welfare and health problem areas from an organic farmer’s point of view U. Schumacher 25 A veterinarian’s perspective of animal health problems on organic farms. P. Plate 27 Part B: Animal health and welfare: organic dairy production Swiss organic dairy milk farmer survey: which path for the organic cow in the future? E. Haas and B. Pabst 35 Animal health in organic dairy farming – results of a survey in Germany. C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Breeding in Captivity of the European Mink. Virgili Vidal, Albert
    The breeding in captivity of the European mink (Mustela lutreola). Virgili Vidal, Albert. Final degree project. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine. June 2019. Objectives To know about the current situation of the European mink (Mustela lutreola), one of the most threatened mammals in Europe, from studies and data related to conservation, population (wild and captive) and causes of extinction. In addition, the research will focus on the effectiveness, results and difficulties of the recovery, conservation, breeding and release programs carried out in Europe, Spain and Catalonia. From this, some possible options will be evaluated to overcome the obstacles that the objective of saving the species is facing and if the programs applied nowadays are useful in the conservation of the European mink. European mink. Biology of the species The European mink is a little semi-aquatic carnivorous mammal of the Mustelidae family., known for it’s brown “chocolate” coat, one of the main reasons for it being hunted, and a white spot covering both lips. Its habitats include riparian forests and humid zones. It has solitary habits and a crepuscular and nocturnal activity in which it Figure 1: Geographic range of European mink. Historical distribution area (red), travels along the fluvial courses. Is a polygamous species, with a area where it is possibly still existent (purple) and confirmed existence area seasonal poliestrus and only breeds once a year giving birth to about (orange). Source: IUCN. three to six pups. In wildlife these animals live about 5-6 years. Conservation, breeding and recovery programs Situation of the species Many European countries (especially in Estonia, Germany, Spain and Until the end of XIX century it was very common and it was widely France) carry out reproduction and environment action programs in distributed around the whole continent, especially central and the wild.
    [Show full text]