Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dvmhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-22T06:01:41.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of pen rearing system and stocking density on post-weaning performance of two breed types of rabbits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

H. H. Hamilton  and
S. D. Lukefahr
H. H. Hamilton
Affiliation:
International Small Livestock Research Center, Department of Food Science and Animal Industries, Alabama A&M University, Huntsville, Alabama 35762, USA
S. D. Lukefahr
Affiliation:
International Small Livestock Research Center, Department of Food Science and Animal Industries, Alabama A&M University, Huntsville, Alabama 35762, USA
Get access

Abstract

Effects of alternative pen rearing system, stocking density, breed-type and their interactions on post-weaning rabbit performance were investigated in a replicated experiment. Californian purebred and terminal crossbred weanlings (no. = 502) were randomized amongst four pen treatments: CSD = conventional wire pen (61 × 76 × 46 cm) stocked with five rabbits; PSD = iron framed, wire-fitted, pen (76 × 244 × 46 cm) stocked with 20 rabbits; PDD = pen stocked with 40 rabbits, and PTD = pen stocked with 60 rabbits. Pen traits measured were average daily food intake (Fl), food efficiency (FE), survival rate (SR), and final weight uniformity (CV). Individual traits were initial (IW) and final (FW) weights and average daily gain (ADG) over 6 weeks.

In CSD v. PSD pen trait comparisons, FI was increased (P < 0·05), and numerically poorer FE and greater CV were detected (P > 0·05) in CSD; however, SR means were similar. Non-significant differences were observed in the PSD v. (PDD + PTD)/2 contrast (P > 0·05). For PDD v. PTD, pen FE was numerically better in the former but CV was greater (P > 0·05). Individual FW and ADG were increased (P < 0·05) in PSD v. (PDD + PTD)/2 groups; no other significant contrast differences were observed. Breed-type (B) × pen treatment (P) interaction was not significant (P > 0·05) for IW, ADG and FW; and individual sire/B × P interaction accounted for proportionately less than 0·05 of the total random variation. These results suggest the commercial potential of large pen rearing of rabbits.

Keywords

breedsrabbitsstocking density
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , February 1993 , pp. 129 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1993

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

Bell, D. J. and Bray, G. C. 1984. Effects of single- and mixed-sex caging on postweaning development in the rabbit. Laboratory Animals 18: 267–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Besch, E. L. and Brigmon, R. L. 1991. Adrenal and body temperature changes in rabbits exposed to varying effective temperatures. Laboratory Animal Science 41: 31–34.Google ScholarPubMed
Blouin, D. C. and Saxton, A. M. 1990. General linear mixed models (GLMM) user's manual. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.Google Scholar
Cheeke, P. R. 1983. Editorial: the feedlot, a new frontier in the rabbit industry. Journal of Applied Rabbit Research 6: 78–79.Google Scholar
Coulmin, J. P., Franck, Y., Leloup, P. and Martin, S. 1982. [Effect of number of rabbits per cage on fattening performance.] Proceedings of the third workshop on rabbit research in France, Paris, communication no. 24.Google Scholar
Crimella, C., Luzi, F. and Amboini, M. 1988. Alternative housing systems in meat rabbit breeding. Proceedings of the fourth world rabbit congress, Budapest, Hungary, vol. 1, pp. 215–225.Google Scholar
Dell'Orto, V., Verga, M. and Carenzi, C. 1980. Feeding behaviour of rabbits reared in family littermate and non-family mixed-litter groups. Proceedings of the second world rabbit congress, Barcelona, Spain, vol. 1, pp. 392–398.Google Scholar
Ferreira, W. M. 1984. [Effect of housing density on the performance of broiler rabbits.] Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinaria e Zootecnia 36: 366–371.Google Scholar
Ferreira, W. M., Campos, E. J., Viana, L. S. and Ferreira, S. R. A. 1984. [Consequences of population density on adrenal gland weight in rabbits.] Proceedings of the third world rabbit congress, Rome, Italy, vol. 2, pp. 453–458.Google Scholar
Gippert, T. 1980. [The effect of stocking density on the performance of rabbits.] Baromfitenyesztes es Feldolgozas 27: 118–124.Google Scholar
Institut Technique de l'Aviculture. 1983. [Influence of the number of rabbits per cage on production and economic performances.] Revue Avicole 93: 318–320.Google Scholar
Lehmann, M. 1987. Interference of a restricted environment — as found in battery cages — with normal behaviour of young fattening rabbits. In Rabbit production systems including welfare (ed. Auxilia, T.), pp. 257–268. Official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Lukefahr, S. D., Caveny, D. D., Cheeke, P. R. and Patton, N. M. 1980. Rearing weanling rabbits in large cages. Journal of Applied Rabbit Research 3: 20–21.Google Scholar
Maertens, L. and De Groote, G. 1984. Influence of the number of fryer rabbits per cage on their performance. Journal of Applied Rabbit Research 7:151–155.Google Scholar
Metz, J. H. M. 1987. Behavioural problems of rabbits in cages. In Rabbit production systems including welfare (ed. Auxilia, T.), pp. 221–230. Official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Ozimba, C. E. and Lukefahr, S. D. 1991. Comparison of rabbit breed-types for postweaning litter growth, feed efficiency and survival performance traits. Journal of Animal Science 69: 3493–3500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, H. D. and Thompson, R. 1971. Recovery of interblock information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58: 545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, J., Friesecke, G., Lammers, J. J. and Gehrken, M. 1988. [Influence of density and sex on performance of hybrid rabbits.] Archiv für Geflügelkunde 52:111–119.Google Scholar
Petherick, J. C., Beattie, A. W. and Bodero, D. A. V. 1989. The effect of group size on the performance of growing pigs. Animal Production 49: 497–502.Google Scholar
Podberscek, A. L., Blackshaw, J. K. and Beattie, A. W. 1991. The behaviour of group penned and individually caged laboratory rabbits. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 28: 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephen, E. 1981. [Effect of ambient temperatures on the fattening performances of table rabbits of different breeds.] Kleintierpraxis 26: 313–317.Google Scholar