Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:32:37.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Housing of growing rabbits in individual, bicellular and collective cages: fear level and behavioural patterns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2012

A. Trocino ,
D. Majolini ,
M. Tazzoli ,
E. Filiou  and
G. Xiccato
A. Trocino*
Affiliation:
Department of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science (BCA), University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, I-35020 Legnaro, Padova, Italy
D. Majolini
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animal and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, I-35020 Legnaro (Padova), Italy
M. Tazzoli
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animal and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, I-35020 Legnaro (Padova), Italy
E. Filiou
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animal and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, I-35020 Legnaro (Padova), Italy
G. Xiccato
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animal and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, I-35020 Legnaro (Padova), Italy
*
†E-mail: angela.trocino@unipd.it
Get access

Abstract

During growth (27 to 75 days of age), a total of 384 rabbits were kept in 72 individual cages, 48 bicellular cages (2 rabbits/cage) and 24 collective cages (9 rabbits/cage). To evaluate the effects of the housing system on the fear level and behavioural patterns of rabbits at the two ages (39 to 45 days and 66 to 73 days), a tonic immobility test and an open-field test were conducted and their behaviour was video recorded. In the tonic immobility test, the number of attempts to induce immobility (1.38) was lower, and the duration of immobility (47.8 s) was higher (0.05 < P < 0.01) in the rabbits housed in individual cages than in those kept in bicellular (1.72 attempts and 25.0 s of immobility) and collective cages (1.99 attempts and 25.0 s of immobility). During the open-field test, the rabbits from individual and bicellular cages showed higher latency (38.8 and 40.3 v. 27.0 s), a lower number of total (73.3 and 81.7 v. 91.9) and central displacements (3.6 and 2.8 v. 5.4) and a shorter running time (11.8 and 13.6 s v. 17.7 s) and the time biting the pen (5.5 and 9.1 s v. 28.2 s) compared with the rabbits kept in collective cages (0.05 < P < 0.001). During the 24-h video recording, the rabbits in individual and bicellular cages spent less time allogrooming (0.34% and 0.19% v. 1.44%), moving (0.74% and 0.60% v. 1.32%) and running (0.08% and 0.03% v. 0.21%) than the rabbits in the collective cages (0.01 < P < 0.001). The lowest numbers of alerts and hops were observed in the rabbits kept in bicellular cages. With increasing age, a lower number of rabbits were sensitive to the immobility test and more rabbits entered the pen spontaneously during the open-field test (P < 0.001). In conclusion, the rabbits in individual cages exhibited the highest fear level and incomplete behavioural patterns; the rabbits housed in collective cages showed the lowest fear levels and had the possibility of expressing a wider range of behaviour; and the rabbits in bicellular cages exhibited an inconsistent pattern of fear in the tonic immobility and open-field tests. Probably, these rabbits were in a less stressful condition compared with animals in individual cages because social contacts were allowed, even if freedom of movement was more limited.

Keywords

housing systemfear levelbehaviourgrowing rabbits
Type
Behaviour, welfare and health
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , April 2013 , pp. 633 - 639
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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.)

References

Bourguet, C, Deiss, V, Gobert, M, Durand, D, Boissy, A, Terlouw, EMC 2010. Characterising the emotional reactivity of cows to understand and predict their stress reactions to the slaughter procedure. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 125, 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budaev, SV 2010. Using principal components and factor analysis in animal behaviour research: caveats and guidelines. Ethology 116, 472–480.Google Scholar
Buijs, S, Keeling, LJ, Tuyttens, FAM 2011. Behaviour and use of space in fattening rabbits as influenced by cage size and enrichment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 134, 229–238.Google Scholar
Csatádi, K, Kustos, K, Eiben, Cs, Bilkó, A, Altbäcker, V 2005. Even minimal human contact linked to nursing reduces fear responses toward humans in rabbits. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 95, 123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dal Bosco, A, Castellini, C, Mugnai, C 2002. Rearing rabbits on a wire net floor or straw litter: behaviour, growth and meat qualitative traits. Livestock Production Science 75, 149–156.Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 2011. Five Freedoms. Retrieved February 16, 2012, from http://www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm.Google Scholar
Ferrante, V, Verga, M, Canali, E, Mattiello, S 1992. Rabbits kept in cages and in floor pens: reaction in the open-field test. Journal of Applied Rabbit Research 15, 700–707.Google Scholar
Forkman, B, Boissy, A, Meunier-Salaün, MC, Canali, E, Jones, RB 2007. A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiology & Behavior 92, 340–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koolhaas, JM, Korte, SM, De Boer, SF, Van Der Vegt, BJ, Van Reenen, CG, Hopster, H, De Jong, IC, Ruis, MAW, Blokhuis, HJ 1999. Coping styles in animals: current status in behavior and stress-physiology. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 23, 925–935.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martrenchar, A, Boilletot, E, Cotte, JP, Morisse, JP 2001. Wire floor pens as an alternative to metallic cages in fattening rabbits: influence on some welfare traits. Animal Welfare 10, 153–161.Google Scholar
Meijsser, FM, Kersten, AMP, Wiepkema, PR, Metz, JHM 1989. An analysis of the open-field performance of sub-adult rabbits. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24, 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morisse, JP, Maurice, R 1997. Influence of stocking density or group size on behaviour of fattening rabbits kept under intensive conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54, 351–357.Google Scholar
Morisse, JP, Boilletot, E, Martrenchar, A 1999. Preference testing in intensively kept meat production rabbits for straw on wire grid floor. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 64, 71–80.Google Scholar
Orova, Z, Szendrő, Zs, Matics, Zs, Radnai, I, Biró-Németh, E 2005. Free choice of growing rabbits between deep litter and wire net floor in pens. World Rabbit Science 13, 137 (abstract).Google Scholar
Podberscek, AL, Blackshaw, JK, Beattie, AW 1991. The behaviour of group penned and individually caged laboratory rabbits. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28, 353–363.Google Scholar
Postollec, G, Boilletot, E, Maurice, R, Michel, V 2006. The effect of housing system on the behaviour and growth parameters of fattening rabbits. Animal Welfare 15, 105–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postollec, G, Boilletot, E, Maurice, R, Michel, V 2008. The effect of pen size and an enrichment structure (elevated platform) on the performances and the behaviour of fattening rabbits. Animal Welfare 17, 53–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Princz, Z, Dalle Zotte, A, Radnai, I, Bíró-Németh, E, Matics, Zs, Gerencsér, Zs, Nagy, I, Szendrő, Zs 2008. Behaviour of growing rabbits under various housing conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 111, 342–356.Google Scholar
Rödel, HG, Monclús, R, von Holst, D 2006. Behavioural styles in European rabbits: social interactions and responses to experimental stressors. Physiology & Behavior 89, 180–188.Google Scholar
Schepers, F, Koene, P, Beerda, B 2009. Welfare assessment in pet rabbits. Animal Welfare 18, 477–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis System Institute Inc. 1991. User's guide, statistics, version 6.03. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Szendrő, Zs, Dalle Zotte, A 2011. Effect of housing conditions on production and behaviour of growing meat rabbits: a review. Livestock Science 137, 296–303.Google Scholar
Trocino, A, Xiccato, G 2006. Animal welfare in reared rabbits: a review with emphasis on housing system. World Rabbit Science 14, 77–93.Google Scholar
Trocino, A, Xiccato, G, Queaque, PI, Sartori, A 2004. Group housing of growing rabbits: effect of stocking density and cage floor on performance, welfare, and meat quality. Proceedings of the 8th World Rabbit Congress, Puebla, Mexico, pp. 1277–1282. Retrieved February 16, 2012, from http://world-rabbit-science.com/.Google Scholar
Trocino, A, Xiccato, G, Majolini, D, Fragkiadakis, M 2008. Effect of cage floor and stocking density on growth performance and welfare of group-housed rabbits. Proceedings of the 9th World Rabbit Congress, Verona, Italy, pp. 1251–1256. Retrieved February 16, 2012, from http://world-rabbit-science.com/.Google Scholar
Verga, M, Norcen, C, Ferrante, V 1994. Influence of density on production and “open field” behaviour of rabbits reared on ground floor. CIHEAM Options Méditerranéennes 8, 437–441.Google Scholar
Verga, M, Luzi, F, Carenzi, C 2007. Effects of husbandry and management systems on physiology and behaviour of farmed and laboratory rabbits. Hormones and Behavior 52, 122–129.Google Scholar
Verwer, CM, van Amerongen, G, van den Bos, R, Hendriksen, CFM 2009. Handling effects on body weight and behaviour of group-housed male rabbits in a laboratory setting. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 117, 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiccato, G, Verga, M, Trocino, A, Ferrante, V, Queaque, PI, Sartori, A 1999. Influence de l'effectif et de la densité par cage sur les performances productives, la qualité bouchère et le comportement chez le lapin. In 8èmes Journées Recherche Cunicole en France, pp. 59–62. ITAVI, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Xiccato, G, Trocino, A, Majolini, D, Tazzoli, M, Zuffellato, A 2012. Housing of growing rabbits in individual, bicellular and collective cages: growth performance, carcass traits and meat quality. Animal, published online – doi:10.1017/S175173111200198X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar