Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T21:12:06.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance and welfare of rabbit does in various caging systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2014

A. Mikó ,
Zs. Matics ,
Zs. Gerencsér ,
M. Odermatt ,
I. Radnai ,
I. Nagy ,
K. Szendrő  and
Zs. Szendrő
A. Mikó
Affiliation:
Faculty of Animal Science, Kaposvár University, Guba S. str. 40, PO Box 16, H-7401 Kaposvár, Hungary
Zs. Matics
Affiliation:
Faculty of Animal Science, Kaposvár University, Guba S. str. 40, PO Box 16, H-7401 Kaposvár, Hungary
Zs. Gerencsér
Affiliation:
Faculty of Animal Science, Kaposvár University, Guba S. str. 40, PO Box 16, H-7401 Kaposvár, Hungary
M. Odermatt
Affiliation:
Olivia Ltd, 6050 Lajosmizse, Mizse 94, Hungary
I. Radnai
Affiliation:
Faculty of Animal Science, Kaposvár University, Guba S. str. 40, PO Box 16, H-7401 Kaposvár, Hungary
I. Nagy
Affiliation:
Faculty of Animal Science, Kaposvár University, Guba S. str. 40, PO Box 16, H-7401 Kaposvár, Hungary
K. Szendrő
Affiliation:
Faculty of Animal Science, Kaposvár University, Guba S. str. 40, PO Box 16, H-7401 Kaposvár, Hungary
Zs. Szendrő*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Animal Science, Kaposvár University, Guba S. str. 40, PO Box 16, H-7401 Kaposvár, Hungary Olivia Ltd, 6050 Lajosmizse, Mizse 94, Hungary
*
† E-mail: szendro.zsolt@ke.hu
Get access

Abstract

The objective of the study was to compare production and welfare of rabbit does and their kits housed in various types of cages. Female rabbits were randomly allocated to four groups with the following cage types: CN: common wire-mesh flat-deck cage, without footrest; CF: cage similar to the CN but with plastic footrest; ECWP: enlarged cage with wire-mesh platform; and ECPP: extra enlarged cage with plastic-mesh platform. All does were inseminated on the same day, 11 days after kindlings. Reproductive performance was evaluated during the first five consecutive kindlings. Severity of sore hocks was scored at each insemination. Location preference of the does and the platform usage of their kits were evaluated. Kindling rate, litter size (total born, born alive, alive at 21 and 35 days) and kit mortality were not significantly influenced by the cage types. The litter weight at 21 days was higher in ECWP and ECPP cages than in the CF group (3516, 3576 and 3291 g, respectively; P<0.001), and at 35 days the difference was only significant between the groups ECPP and CF (8712 and 8060 g, respectively, P<0.05). At 21 and 35 days of age, the kits were heavier in large (ECWP and ECPP) than in conventional cages (CF and CN) (P<0.001). At the fifth insemination, the percentage of rabbits with sore hocks’ score of 1 to 2 (0=intact foot pads; 1=no hairs, callus formed, <2.5 cm; 2=no hairs, callus formed, >2.5 cm) and 3 to 4 (3=callus opened, cracks present; 4=wounds) were 58%, 60%, 78% and 48%, and 0%, 5%, 0% and 48% in groups ECPP, ECWP, CF and CN, respectively. Higher number of daily nest visits was observed for CF does than for ECWP does (12.5 v. 5.9; P<0.05). The frequency of multiple nursing events (>2/day) was higher in the CF group than in the ECWP group (12.1 v. 3.2%; P<0.01). Within large cages, the does were observed on the platform more frequently in the ECPP cages compared with the ECWP cages (56.9% v. 31.7%; P<0.001). Similarly, 2.7% and 0.2% of kits at 21 days of age, and 33.2% and 5.2% of kits at 28 days of age, were found on the platforms of ECPP and ECWP cages, respectively. In conclusion, cages larger than the conventional ones improved kits’ weaning weight, plastic footrests and plastic-mesh platforms in conventional and/or large cages reduced sore hocks’ problems, plastic-mesh platforms were more used by both does and kits compared with the wire-mesh platforms.

Keywords

rabbit doescage typesreproductionsore hockspreference
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 7 , July 2014 , pp. 1146 - 1152
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Hoy, St 2012. German regulations and guidelines on rabbit housing. In Proceedings of the 10th World Rabbit Congress (ed. A Daader and G Xiccato), pp. 999–1003. Sharm El- Sheikh, Egypt.Google Scholar
Hoy, St, Seitz, K, Selzer, D and Schüddemage, M 2000. Nursing behaviour of domesticated and wild rabbit does under different keeping conditions. World Rabbit Science 8 (suppl. 1), 537–543.Google Scholar
Mirabito, L 2002. Le bien-étre des lapines: impact de nouveaux systémes de logement. Journée nationale, ITAVI, Elevage du lapin de chair, Nantes, France, p. 13.Google Scholar
Mirabito, L 2007. Logement et bien-être du lapin: plus de question que réponses? Inra Productions Animales 20, 59–64.Google Scholar
Mirabito, L, Galliot, P and Souchet, C 2005a. Effet de la surface disponible et de l’aménagement des cages sur les performances zootechniques et le comportement des lapines. 11émes Journées de la Recherche Cunicole, Paris, France, pp. 61–64.Google Scholar
Mirabito, L, Galliot, P, Souchet, C, Dumont, F and Thomeret, F 2005b. Logement collectif des lapines reproductrices: Conséquences zootechniques. 11émes Journées de la Recherche Cunicole, Paris, France, pp. 53–56.Google Scholar
Mirabito, L, Buthon, L, Cialdi, G, Galliot, P and Souchet, C 1999. Effet du logement des lapines en cages rehaussées avec plate-forme: Premiers résultats. 8émes Journées de la Recherche Cunicole, Paris, France, pp. 67–70.Google Scholar
Pérez, SS, Jacksic, D, Meriggi, A and Rosin, VA 2008. Density and habitat use by the European wild rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in an agricultural area of Northern Italy. Hystrix: the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 19, 143–156.Google Scholar
Podberscek, AL, Blackshaw, JK and Beattle, AW 1991. The behaviour of group penned and individually caged laboratory rabbits. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28, 353–363.Google Scholar
Rommers, JM and Meijerhof, R 1998. La dimension de la cage influence-t’elle la productivité et le bien-étre des lapins? Cuniculture 140, 67–72.Google Scholar
Rommers, JM and De Jong, IC 2011. Technical note: plastic mats prevent footpad injuries in rabbit does. World Rabbit Science 19, 233–237.Google Scholar
Rosell, J and De la Fuente, L 2009. Effect of footrests on the incidence of ulcerative pododermatitis in domestic rabbit does. Animal Welfare 18, 199–204.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. 2011. SAS/STAT 9.3 User’s Guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Selzer, D and Hoy, St 2003. Comparative investigations on behaviour of wild and domestic rabbits in the nest. World Rabbit Science 11, 13–21.Google Scholar
Stodart, E and Meyers, K 1964. A comparison of behaviour, reproduction, and mortality of wild and domestic rabbits in confined population. CIRO Wildlife Research 9, 144–159.Google Scholar
Szendrő, Zs and Dalle Zotte, A 2011. Effect of housing condition on production and behaviour of growing meat rabbits: a review. Livestock Science 137, 296–303.Google Scholar
Szendrő, Zs and McNitt, IJ 2012. Housing of rabbit does: group and individual systems: a review. Livestock Science 150, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trocino, A, Majolini, D, Tazzoli, M, Filiou, E and Xiccato, G 2013. Housing of growing rabbits in individual, bicellular and collective cages: fear level and behavioural patterns. Animal 7, 633–639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WBF 2013. Verordnung des EVD über Ethoprogramme (Ethoprogrammverordnung) vom 25. Juni 2008 (Stand am 1. Januar 2010) 910.132.4. Retrieved 1 September 2013 from http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/9/910.132.4.de.pdf Google Scholar
Xiccato, G, Trocino, A, Majolini, D, Tazzoli, M and Zuffellato, A 2013. Housing of growing rabbits in individual, bicellular and collective cages: growth performance, carcass traits and meat quality. Animal 7, 627–632.Google Scholar