Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-6kn8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T07:29:44.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mating time and litter size in farm mink selected for confident or timid behaviour

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. Malmkvist ,
B. Houbak  and
S. W. Hansen
J. Malmkvist
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Research Centre Foulum, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
B. Houbak
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Research Centre Foulum, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
S. W. Hansen
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Research Centre Foulum, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
Get access

Abstract

Farm mink (Mustela vison) have been selected on the basis of their behaviour towards man since 1988 at the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences and in this study were offered the possibility to mate 1 week earlier than usual. The objective was to investigate if the behaviour-related selection has affected the reproduction of the farm mink, measured as mating willingness and reproductive success. The animals belonged to three breeding groups: A: selected for curious/confident reactions (17 males, 73 females), B: selected for timid reactions (17 males, 74 females), and C: selected without any demands on reactions towards humans (18 males, 73 females). The time when an average of 50% of the population were mated was 3-6 days for group A; thus the confident were mated 1·7 to 2·1 days earlier than the timid (B) and the control (C) animals. The length of gestation was shorter in group A (46·0 (s.d. 3·0) days) than in group C (47·6 (s.d. 3·6) days) but not different from group B (47·0 (s.d. 3·2) days). Group C had a lower kit mortality from birth to day 50 (11·3%) than groups A and B (20·4 to 21·2%). No significant differences were found between the groups regarding the frequency of successful matings, the ratio of remated females, number of interrupted matings, barren females or litter size. It is concluded that 8 years of selection has led to the development of reproductive differences primarily in the time of mating readiness, whereas the differences seen in kit loss may be related more to random effects.

Keywords

domesticationminkreproduction

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 65 , Issue 3 , December 1997 , pp. 521 - 525
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Belyaev, D. K. and Trut, L. N. 1987. The role of behaviour in the evolutionary reorganization of wild animals into domestic forms. In Behaviour as one of the main factors of evolution (ed. Leonovicova, V. and Novak, V. J. A.), pp. 25–31. Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Praha.Google Scholar
Berg, P. 1996. The effect of inbreeding on reproduction and production traits in mink. Animal Production Review, Applied Science Reports 27: 57–62.Google Scholar
Dunstone, N. 1993. The mink. T. and A. D. Poyser Ltd, London.Google Scholar
Einarsson, E. J. 1980. Prenatal and early postnatal mortality in mink. Proceedings of the second international scientific congress on fur animal production, 8-10 April, Denmark pp. 13–26.Google Scholar
Elofson, L., Lagerkvist, G., Gustafsson, H. and Einarsson, S. 1989. Mating systems and reproduction in mink. Ada Agriculturae Scandinavica 39: 23–41.Google Scholar
Hansen, S. W. 1996. Selection for behavioural traits in mink. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49:137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H. and Coleman, G. J. 1996. Human-animal relationship and productivity in pigs. Proceedings of the 14th IPVS congress, 7-10 July, Bologna, Italy, pp. 3–5.Google Scholar
Klotchkov, D. V. and Trapesov, O. V. 1991. [Effects of domestication on variation in the reproductive function in minks.] In [Evolutionary-genetic and genetic-physiological aspects of fur animal domestication.] (ed. Trut, L. N., Osadchuk, L. V. and Borodin, P. M.), pp. 232–244. Institute of Cytolology and Genetics, Siberian division, Novosibirsk.Google Scholar
Kohane, M. J. and Parsons, P. A. 1988. Domestication — evolutionary change under stress. Evolutionary Biology 23: 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolesnikova, L., Lucenko, N., Trut, L., Jurisova, M. and Belyaev, D. 1985. Selection of silver foxes for domestic type of behaviour: morphological and functional characteristics of organ-systems. In Evolution and morphogenesis (ed. Mlikovsky, J. and Novak, V. J. A.), pp. 663–670. Academia, Praha.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N. B. 1991. Behavioural ecology, an evolutionary approach, 3rd edition. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
McCullagh, P. and Nelder, J. A. 1989. Generalized linear models, second edition. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLennan, R. R. and Bailey, E. D. 1972. Role of sexual experience in breeding behaviour of male ranch mink. Journal of Mammalogy 53: 381–383.Google Scholar
Malmkvist, J. 1996. Selection of farm mink on basis of two tests of temperament. Animal Production Review, Applied Science Reports 29: 9–15.Google Scholar
Murphy, B. D. and Douglas, D. A. 1992. Reproduction in female mink. In Reproduction in carnivorous fur bearing animals, NJF-report 75 (ed. Tauson, A.-H. and Valtonen, M.), pp. 39–49. Jordbrugsforlaget, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Naumenko, E. V. and Belyaev, D. K. 1980. Neuroendocrine mechanisms in animal domestication. Proceedings of the XIV international congress of genetics, vol. II, pp. 12–25, MIR Publications, Moscow.Google Scholar
Osadchuk, L. V. 1992. Endocrine gonadal function in silver fox under domestication. Scientific 16: 116–121.Google Scholar
Price, E. O. 1984. Behavioural aspects of animal domestication. The Quarterly Review of Biology 59:1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shakelford, R. M. 1984. American Mink. In Evolution of domesticated animals (ed. Mason, I. L.), pp. 229–234. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1989. SAS/STAT user's guide, version 6. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Tauson, A.-H. 1994. Postnatal development in mink kits. Ada Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A, Animal Science 44: 177–184.Google Scholar
Trapezov, O. V. 1987. [Selected transformation of defensive reactions to man in the American mink (Mustek vison SCHREB.).] Genetika 23:1120–1127.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis, second edition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar