Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T02:45:16.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of semi-group housing and floor type on pododermatitis, spinal deformation and bone quality in rabbit does

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2014

S. Buijs ,
K. Hermans ,
L. Maertens ,
A. Van Caelenberg  and
F. A. M. Tuyttens
S. Buijs*
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Animal Sciences Unit, Scheldeweg 68, Melle, Belgium
K. Hermans
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, Bacteriology and Avian Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, Merelbeke, Belgium
L. Maertens
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Animal Sciences Unit, Scheldeweg 68, Melle, Belgium
A. Van Caelenberg
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medical Imaging and Small Animal Orthopaedics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, Merelbeke, Belgium
F. A. M. Tuyttens
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Animal Sciences Unit, Scheldeweg 68, Melle, Belgium
*
†E-mail: stephanie.buijs@ilvo.vlaanderen.be
Get access

Abstract

The most common housing system for reproduction rabbits, individual cage housing on a wire floor, is increasingly scrutinized because of its potential detrimental impact on animal welfare. We compared three types of housing: (1) individual cage housing on a wire floor (3952 cm2/doe, maximum roof height 63 cm, one 1000 cm2 plastic footrest/doe), (2) semi-group housing on a wire floor (5000 cm2/doe, roofless, one 1000 cm2 plastic footrest/doe) and (3) the same semi-group housing, but with a fully plastic slatted floor. In all housing systems, does had free access to an elevated platform. In the semi-group housing pens, four does were housed communally during 21 days of the reproduction cycle (to allow more space for locomotion and to increase opportunities for social contact), and individually during the other 21 days of the cycle (to minimize doe–doe and doe–kit aggression that peaks around kindling). In all, 24 Hycole does were included per system. The does entered the experiment at 203 days of age (after their first parity). The experiment consisted of four reproductive cycles, ending at 369 days of age. Pododermatitis was scored in cycles 1, 2 and 4. At the end of the 4th cycle the does were euthanized and X-rays were taken to assess spinal deformation. Tibia and femur length, width and cortical thickness were determined and bone strength was assessed using a shear test, as a measure of bone quality. Although severe pododermatitis was absent, the prevalence of plantar hyperkeratosis (hair loss and callus formation) at the end of the 4th cycle was much greater on the wire floor (65% and 68% for semi-group housing and individual cages, respectively) than on the plastic floor (5%, P<0.0001), even though the wire floors were equipped with a plastic footrest known to decrease hyperkeratosis. In contrast to our expectations, semi-group housing did not affect the prevalence of spinal deformations (P>0.10), but in line with our expectations bone quality was affected favourably by semi-group housing. The tibial cortex (and to a lesser extent the femoral cortex) was thicker in semi-group housing than in individual cages (1.45, 1.46 and 1.38 mm for semi-group housing on wire, semi-group housing on plastic and individual housing on wire, respectively, P=0.045). What this increase in cortical thickness means in terms of doe welfare requires further study, as it may reflect an increase in activity resulting either from increased space for locomotion, or from fleeing aggressive pen mates.

Keywords

rabbitfloor typepododermatitisspinal deformationbone quality
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 10 , October 2014 , pp. 1728 - 1734
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

Andrist, CA, Van den Borne, BHP, Bigler, LM, Buchwalder, T and Roth, BA 2013. Epidemiologic survey in Swiss group-housed breeding rabbits: extent of lesions and potential risk factors. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 108, 218–224.Google Scholar
ASAE 2004. Shear and three-point bending test of animal bone – standard S459. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, USA.Google Scholar
Buijs, S, Van Poucke, E, Van Dongen, S, Lens, L and Tuyttens, FAM 2012. Cage size and enrichment effects on the bone quality and fluctuating asymmetry of fattening rabbits. Journal of Animal Science 90, 3568–3573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carmel, B 2013. Radiographic interpretation of the thorax. In BSAVA manual of rabbit surgery, dentistry and imaging (ed. F Harcourt-Brown and J Chitty), pp. 74–75. BSAVA, Gloucester, UK.Google Scholar
Combes, S, Postollec, G, Cauquil, L and Gidenne, T 2010. Influence of cage or pen housing on carcass traits and meat quality of rabbit. Animal 4, 295–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dalle Zotte, AZ, Princz, Sz, Metzger, A, Szabó, I, Radnai, E, Biró-Németh, Z, Orova, and Szendrö, Zs 2009. Response of fattening rabbits reared under different housing conditions 2. Carcass and meat quality. Livestock Science 122, 39–47.Google Scholar
Drescher, B and Loeffler, K 1996. Scoliosis lordosis and kyphosis in breeding rabbits. Tierarztliche Praxis 24, 292–300.Google Scholar
EFSA 2005. The impact of the current housing and husbandry systems on the health and welfare of farmed domestic rabbits: EFSA-Q-2004-023. European Food Safety Authority, Parma, Italy.Google Scholar
Gordon, KR 1989. Adaptive nature of skeletal design. Bioscience 39, 784–790.Google Scholar
Maertens, L, Rommers, J and Jacquet, M 2011. Le logement en parcs, une alternative pour les cages classiques dans un système ‘duo’? Proceedings of the 14ième Journées de la Recherche Cunicole, Le Mans, France, 22 November, pp. 85–88.Google Scholar
Martrenchar, A, Boilletot, E, Cotte, JP and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, OM and Lieberman, DE 2004. The aging of Wolff’s ‘law’: ontogeny and responses to mechanical loading in cortical bone. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 47, 63–99.Google Scholar
Postollec, G, Boilletot, E, Maurice, R and Michel, V 2006. The effect of housing system on the behaviour and growth parameters of fattening rabbits. Animal Welfare 15, 105–111.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rommers, JM, Boiti, C, De Jong, I and Brecchia, G 2006. Performance and behaviour of rabbit does in a group-housing system with natural mating or artificial insemination. Reproduction Nutrition Development 46, 677–687.Google Scholar
Rosell, JM and De la Fuente, LF 2009. Effect of footrests on the incidence of ulcerative pododermatitis in domestic rabbit does. Animal Welfare 18, 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosell, JM and De la Fuente, LF 2013. Assessing ulcerative pododermatitis of breeding rabbits. Animals 3, 318–326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sánchez, JP, De la Fuente, LF and Rosell, JM 2012. Health and body condition of lactating females on rabbit farms. Journal of Animal Science 90, 2353–2361.Google Scholar
Willet, TL, Wynnyckyj, C, Wang, J and Grynpas, MD 2011. The fatigue resistance of rabbit tibiae varies with age from youth to middle age. Osteoporosis International 22, 1157–1165.Google Scholar