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 (<i>Vulpes lagopus</i>) 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.
Environmental enrichment (EE) refers to environmental modifications to the housing environment of captive- kept animals that enhance the performance of strongly motivated species-specific behaviours and/or lead to the expression of a more complex behavioural repertoire [
Farmed blue foxes (Vulpes lagopus) are housed in wire-mesh cages under shed. The obligatory EEs in their cages are an elevated platform and suitable chewing material or other enrichment materials [
In the present study, traditional farm fox cage was furnished with versatile enrichments. Here we present the results of a study aiming at designing a multi-enriched housing environment for blue foxes. EEs must be practical [
This study was carried out at Turkistila Luova Ltd. in Kannus, western Finland (63.54˚N; 23.54˚E). Experimental animals were 12 adult female blue foxes. They were housed in their home cages about 1.5 years before the experiment. Behaviour of foxes was recorded in their home cages (107 cm × 115 cm × 70 cm, L × W × H) in December 2012. Thereafter, animals were transferred from their home cages to multi-enriched cages of the same size on 27 December. The home cage was furnished with a wire-mesh platform (105 cm long × 25 cm wide, located 23 cm from the roof of the cage) and a bone (30 cm long × 7 cm diameter). After 26 days, the experimental animals were transferred back to their home cages on January 2013.
Each multi-enriched cage had a similar platform and a bone as the home cage, but also five other EEs (Frondelius et al. 2013). A top nest box (wooden walls and ceiling, wire-mesh floor; 40 cm wide × 70 cm long × 40 cm high) was situated on the roof of the cage, and the access to the box was via the platform. Additional enrichments were straw (placed between the walls of the neighbouring cages), a scratching plate (wooden, mounted against the wall; 45 cm wide × 45 cm high), a wall rope (sisal fiber, from cage to cage, enabled interaction between two neighbouring foxes; diameter 11 mm and length 30 - 40 cm) and a ceiling rope (sisal fiber; hanging 30 cm from the ceiling, diameter 11 mm), and a hockey puck (rubber: diameter 76 mm, 25 mm thick).
Animals were fed once a day (at 10:30) with fresh fox feed manufactured by the local feed kitchen (Kalajoen jäähdyttämö Ltd.). Fresh water was available ad libitum from automatic watering devices. The use of experimental animals was evaluated and approved by the Animal Care Committee. The health of experimental animals was checked visually every day to ensure that the EEs were not hazardous to the animals. At the same time also the condition of the EEs was checked, and any destroyed EEs were replaced with new ones.
The behaviour was monitored during the experiment [
Explorative behaviour was evaluated by a ball test in which a floor ball was placed in the cage. Contact to ball was recorded [
For the statistical analyses, the EEs were grouped to “resting EEs” (platform and top nest box) and “activity EEs” (the wall rope, ceiling rope, hockey buck, bone, scratching plate and straw). The analyses we carried out in two ways: by taking and by not taking into account this grouping. The differences between the use, i.e. durations expressed as % of time and frequencies expressed as times per hour, of the various EEs and four observation days were analysed with non-parametric Friedman’s and Wilcoxon’s tests, since the assumptions of parametric statistics were not fulfilled [
The wall rope of each fox had to be replaced with a new rope at least once during the experimental period, because the rope was totally destroyed. Also most ceiling ropes were damaged, but mostly not to the extent that they should have been replaced with new ones (
Day in multi-enriched cage | Wall rope | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Good | Fairly good | Moderate | Poor | Changed | |
1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 6 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 8 |
5 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 2 |
7 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 4 |
10 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 6 |
13 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 9 |
16 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 1 | 2 |
Day in multi-enriched cage | Ceiling rope | ||||
Good | Fairly good | Moderate | Poor | Changed | |
1 | 0 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
2 | 0 | 7 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
5 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 |
7 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 1 | 0 |
10 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 |
13 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 0 |
16 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 2 |
experiment. No health problems were observed during the experiments.
The platform was visited more frequently than the top nest box, but there was no difference between the total percentages of time the foxes spent on or in, respectively, these activity enrichments (
In total, the foxes used the EEs on average for more than 20% of their time and had 15 contacts per hour with the EEs (
Although the total number of contacts with the EEs dropped to less than one third after Day 1, the average number of active contacts with the EEs was still from eight to ten per hour on Days 2 - 16. The wall rope, ceiling rope and bone covered approximately 60% - 70% of the contacts. The total duration of the contacts with the EEs dropped first to two thirds and then to one third from Day 1 to Days 2 and 7, respectively, but returned then on Day 16 to almost to the same level as on Day 1 (
Platform use varied with time (P < 0.05). It was highest when foxes were in their home cages and lowest in multi-enriched cages (
Enrichment | All days | Day | P1 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 7 | 16 | ||||
“Resting enrichments” | Platform | 8.5 ± 12.3 | 7.1 ± 9.2 | 11.7 ± 25.7 | 6.1 ± 9.7 | 9.1 ± 18.7 | NS |
Top nest box | 7.7 ± 9.2 | 11.5 ± 20.1 | 5.7 ± 12.9 | 0.7 ± 2.2 | 12.9 ± 24.4 | NS | |
Total for resting enrichments | 16.2 ± 16.0 | 18.7 ± 19.2 | 17.4 ± 33.1 | 6.8 ± 11.0 | 22.1 ± 31.4 | NS | |
P2 | NS | NS | NS | <0.01 | NS | ||
“Activity enrichments” | Bone | 0.5 ± 0.6 | 1.1 ± 1.7 | 0.2 ± 0.3 | 0.4 ± 0.9 | 0.4 ± 0.7 | <0.01 |
Hockey puck | 0.4 ± 0.4 | 1.1 ± 1.1 | 0.1 ± 0.3 | 0.3 ± 0.9 | 0.1 ± 0.2 | <0.01 | |
Ceiling rope | 1.2 ± 1.2 | 4.0 ± 5.2 | 0.2 ± 0.5 | 0.4 ± 0.7 | 0.2 ± 0.4 | <0.01 | |
Wall rope | 2.2 ± 1.4 | 3.6 ± 3.4 | 1.1 ± 1.8 | 2.0 ± 3.4 | 2.0 ± 3.6 | <0.1 | |
Straw | 0.2 ± 0.2 | 0.5 ± 0.4 | 0.2 ± 0.4 | 0.03 ± 0.04 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | <0.05 | |
Scratching plate | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.4 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.2 ± 0.4 | <0.01 | |
Total for activity enrichment | 4.7 ± 2.6 | 10.8 ± 6.8 | 1.9 ± 2.1 | 3.2 ± 4.1 | 2.9 ± 3.6 | <0.001 | |
P3 | <0.001 | <0.01 | <0.1 | <0.01 | NS | ||
Total for all enrichments | 20.9 ± 16.8 | 29.4 ± 19.3 | 19.3 ± 33.0 | 10.0 ± 11.9 | 25.0 ± 33.5 | <0.05 | |
P4 | P < 0.1 | NS | NS | NS | NS | ||
P5 | P < 0.001 | P < 0.001 | P < 0.1 | P < 0.001 | NS |
Enrichment | All days | Day | P1 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 7 | 16 | ||||
“Resting enrichments” | Platform | 2.0 ± 1.2 | 3.9 ± 3.1 | 0.9 ± 1.4 | 2.3 ± 1.5 | 0.8 ± 0.7 | <0.01 |
Top nest box | 0.4 ± 0.3 | 1.0 ± 1.1 | 0.2 ± 0.3 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.2 ± 0.4 | <0.01 | |
Total for resting enrichments | 2.3 ± 1.4 | 4.9 ± 4.0 | 1.1 ± 1.6 | 2.3 ± 1.4 | 1.0 ± 0.9 | <0.01 | |
P2 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.05 | <0.01 | <0.05 | ||
“Activity enrichments” | Bone | 2.5 ± 1.2 | 4.6 ± 2.5 | 1.3 ± 2.1 | 1.4 ± 1.4 | 2.6 ± 2.8 | <0.01 |
Hockey puck | 1.3 ± 0.8 | 3.4 ± 2.2 | 0.5 ± 0.5 | 0.8 ± 0.8 | 0.5 ± 0.9 | <0.001 | |
Ceiling rope | 2.8 ± 1.8 | 7.7 ± 7.8 | 1.1 ± 1.8 | 1.5 ± 2.2 | 0.9 ± 1.4 | <0.01 | |
Wall rope | 4.2 ± 1.5 | 7.1 ± 5.6 | 3.1 ± 3.3 | 3.0 ± 4.0 | 3.7 ± 4.3 | NS | |
Straw | 0.8 ± 0.6 | 1.9 ± 1.5 | 0.6 ± 1.2 | 0.2 ± 0.4 | 0.5 ± 0.5 | <0.01 | |
Scratching plate | 1.1 ± 0.9 | 1.9 ± 1.6 | 0.7 ± 1.1 | 0.6 ± 0.7 | 1.1 ± 2.1 | <0.05 | |
Total for activity enrichments | 12.7 ± 3.9 | 26.7 ± 12.2 | 7.3 ± 7.4 | 7.4 ± 6.6 | 9.2 ± 6.6 | <0.01 | |
P3 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | ||
Total for all enrichments | 15.0 ± 5.1 | 31.6 ± 15.1 | 8.3 ± 8.9 | 9.7 ± 7.0 | 10.2 ± 7.0 | <0.001 | |
P4 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.05 | <0.01 | ||
P5 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.01 | <0.001 | <0.01 |
Locomotor activity, sitting and standing varied with time (P < 0.05). Lowest values for locomotor activity and sitting were found when foxes were in multi-enriched cages (Days 2 and 7). The amount of standing was low in Days 2, 7 and 16. The amount of lying did vary with time (
The amount of stereotypy varied between recording days (P < 0.05;
Explorativity markedly increased (P < 0.05) when animals were transferred from their home cages to enriched cages (
Environmental enrichment can be considered as the addition of environmental features that enhance the complexity of the captive animal’s environment, resulting in beneficial effect on behaviour and other aspects of biological function [
Housing systems promoting exploration can be expected to improve animal welfare, or, conversely, conditions which do not encourage animals to behave exploratively often tend to be unfavourable also in terms of animal welfare [
The decrease in the use of the EEs most probably reflects the novelty effect that they had immediately after being provided to the foxes [
The durability of the sisal ropes was very poor, and in future studies alternatives for sisal has to be considered. There were no durability problems with any other EEs. However, the study period was too short to indicate any other than acute durability problems. The present results indicate that our adult blue foxes used these opportunities diversely.
The amount of stereotypic behaviour typically is a clear indicator of animal welfare. In farmed foxes, the amount of stereotypy typically is not high [
Platform and bone were the only enrichments what were available for foxes during the entire study. It was seen that platform was used mostly when foxes were at their home cage, i.e. in situation when other enrichments except bone were not available. So, it looks that foxes compensate lack of enrichments by increased use of platform. Use of gnawing bone, on the other hand, seems to be low despite of enrichments available. According to the present results enrichment value of bone is low compared to platform. Behavioural data did not reveal any dramatic differences between home and enriched cages. Particularly lying on cage floor remained rather similar throughout the study.
For most studied enrichments both the time spent in contact and the frequency of contacts with the enrichments declined steeply after Day 1, reflecting a novelty effect of enrichments. This decline was not so evident for the platform, top nest box and wall rope. Multi-enriched environment increased foxes’ explorativity, and thus probably enhanced animal welfare. Our results indicated that the blue foxes used readily the opportunities for more diverse behaviour in a multi-enriched environment.
This study was financially supported by the Finnish Fur Breeders’ Association.