Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T16:17:07.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of floor type, stocking density, slaughter age and gender on productive and qualitative traits of rabbits reared in collective pens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2015

A. Trocino ,
E. Filiou ,
M. Tazzoli ,
M. Birolo ,
A. Zuffellato  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
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
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
M. Birolo
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy Food Natural Resources Animal and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padova, Viale dell’Università 16, I-35020 Legnaro, Padova, Italy
A. Zuffellato
Affiliation:
Veronesi Verona S.p.A., Via Valpantena18/G, I-37142 Quinto di Valpantena, Verona, 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

At 34 days of age, 376 crossbred rabbits of both sexes were housed in 16 open-top collective pens (1.68 m2) according to a 2×2×2 factorial arrangement with two types of pen floor (plastic v. wooden slatted), two stocking densities (12 v. 16 animals/m2) and two slaughter ages (76 v. 83 days). The rabbits were examined for growth performance, slaughter results and meat quality. The effect of gender was also examined. The percentage of rabbits with wounds due to aggression varied with stocking density (8.2% v. 26.2% for 12 v. 16 animals/m2; P⩽0.001), slaughter age (15.0% v. 22.0% at 76 v. 83 days; P⩽0.10) and gender (11.3% v. 25.8% for females v. males; P⩽0.001). Rearing rabbits on a plastic rather than a wooden slatted floor promoted slaughter weight (2795 v. 2567 g; P⩽0.001), dressing percentage (61.4% v. 60.9%; P⩽0.01), dissectible fat (2.4% v. 2.0%; P⩽0.01) and hind leg muscle-to-bone ratio (5.81 v. 5.35; P⩽0.001). Increased stocking density impaired daily growth (38.5 v. 35.9 g/day; P⩽0.05) and feed intake (140 v. 134 g/day; P⩽0.01) during the second period (55 days to slaughter) and decreased slaughter weight (2725 v. 2637 g; P⩽0.01). At the older slaughter age, the feed conversion ratio was impaired (2.98 v. 3.18; P⩽0.001); the slaughter weight (2574 g v. 2788 g; P⩽0.001), dissectible fat (2.0% v. 2.4%; P⩽0.01) and hind leg muscle-to-bone ratio (5.41 v. 5.75; P⩽0.01) increased; meat thawing losses, cooking losses and shear force decreased (P⩽0.05). The main differences between the females and males were found in the slaughter for transport losses (2.6% v. 2.2%; P⩽0.01) and longissimus lumborum proportions (13.0% v. 12.4%; P⩽0.01). In conclusion, the growth performance of pen-housed rabbits was largely determined by the type of floor and less affected by stocking density. The meat quality depended on ontogenetic factors, such as slaughter age and gender, and not on housing conditions. The differences in the percentages of wounded animals owing to experimental factors deserve further investigation from the perspective of animal welfare issues.

Keywords

pen housingstocking densitygendergrowth performancemeat quality
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 5 , May 2015 , pp. 855 - 861
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Bianchi, M, Petracci, M, Pascual, M and Cavani, C 2007. Comparison between Allo-Kramer and Warner-Bratzler devices to assess rabbit meat tenderness. Italian Journal of Animal Science 6 (suppl.1), 749–751.Google Scholar
Blasco, A and Ouhayoun, J 1996. Harmonization of criteria and terminology in rabbit meat research. Revised proposal. World Rabbit Science 4, 93–99.Google Scholar
Buijs, S, Keeling, LJ and Tuyttens, FAM 2011. Behaviour and use of space in fattening rabbits as influenced by cage size and enrichment. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 134, 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission International de l’Eclairage 1976. Official recommendations on uniform colours spaces, colour differences equations and metric colours terms. Supplement No. 2, Publication No. 15, Colorimetry, Paris, France.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.Google Scholar
Dal Bosco, A, Castellini, C and 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
Dalle Zotte, A, Princz, Z, Metzger, Sz, Szabó, A, Radnai, I, Biró-Németh, E, Orova, Z and Szendrő, Zs 2009. Response of fattening rabbits reared under different housing conditions. 2. Carcass and meat quality. Livestock Science 122, 39–47.Google Scholar
De Blas, JC and Mateos, GG 2010. Feed formulation. In The nutrition of the rabbit, 2nd edition (ed. C De Blas and J Wiseman), pp. 222–232. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Di Meo, C, Piccolo, G, Stanco, G, Gazaneo, MP, Taranto, S and Nizza, A 2003. Effect of density and group composition on the performance of fattening rabbits. Italian Journal of Animal Science 3 (suppl. 1), 441–443.Google Scholar
European Food and Safety Authority (EFSA) 2005. Scientific Report ‘The impact of the current housing and husbandry systems on the health and welfare of farmed domestic rabbit’. EFSA-Q-2004-023. EFSA Journal 267, 1–31. Annex.Google Scholar
Lambertini, L, Vignola, G and Zaghini, G 2001. Alternative pen housing system for fattening rabbits: effect of group density and litter. World Rabbit Science 9, 141–147.Google Scholar
Lambertini, L, Paci, G, Morittu, VM, Vignola, G, Orlandi, P, Zaghini, G and Formigoni, A 2005. Consequences of behaviour on productive performances of rabbits reared in pens. Italian Journal of Animal Science 4 (suppl. 2), 550–552.Google Scholar
Maertens, L and De Groote, G 1984. Influence of the number of fryer rabbits per cage on their performance. Journal Applied Rabbit Research 7, 151–153.Google Scholar
Maertens, L and Van Oeckel, MJ 2001. Effet du logement en cage ou parc et de son enrichissement sur les performances et la couleur de la viande des lapins. In Proceedings of the 9èmes Journées de La Recherché Cunicole, Paris, France, pp. 31–34.Google Scholar
Morisse, JP and 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 and 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
Parigi-Bini, R, Xiccato, G, Cinetto, M and Dalle Zotte, A 1992. Effetto dell’età, del peso di macellazione e del sesso sulla qualità della carcassa e della carne cunicola. 1. Rilievi di macellazione e qualità della carcassa. Zootecnica e Nutrizione Animale 8, 157–172.Google Scholar
Petersen, J, Schlender-Böbbis, I and Mennicken, L 2000. Evaluation of optimal slat distance in slatted floor for rabbits using behavioural studies. In Proceedings of the 7th World Rabbit Congress, Valencia, Spain, vol. B, pp. 559–565. Retrieved July 16, 2014, from http://world-rabbit-science.com Google Scholar
Princz, Z, Dalle Zotte, A, Metzger, Sz, Radnai, I, Biró-Németh, E, Orova, Z and Szendrő, Zs 2009. Response of fattening rabbits reared under different housing conditions. 1. Live performance and health status. Livestock Science 121, 86–91.Google Scholar
Princz, Z, Dalle Zotte, A, Radnai, I, Bíró-Németh, E, Matics, Zs, Gerencsér, Zs, Nagy, I and Szendrő, Zs 2008. Behaviour of growing rabbits under various housing conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 111, 342–356.Google Scholar
Rommers, J and Meijerhof, R 1998. Effect of group size on performance, bone strength and skin lesions of meat rabbits housed under commercial conditions. World Rabbit Science 6, 299–302.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis System Institute Inc. 2013. SAS/STAT(R) 9.2 User’s Guide, 2nd edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA. Retrieved July 16, 2014, from http://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/statug/63033/HTML/default/viewer.htm#glm_toc.htm Google Scholar
Szendrő, Zs and 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
Szendrő, Zs, Princz, Z, Romvári, R, Locsmándi, L, Szabó, A, Bázár, Gy, Radnai, I, Biró-Németh, E, Matics, Zs and Nagy, I 2009. Effect of group size and stocking density on productive, carcass, meat quality and aggression traits of growing rabbits. World Rabbit Science 17, 153–162.Google Scholar
Trocino, A and 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 and Sartori, A 2003. Effect of transport duration and gender on rabbit carcass and meat quality. World Rabbit Science 11, 23–32.Google Scholar
Trocino, A, Xiccato, G, Majolini, D and Fragkiadakis, M 2008. Effect of cage floor and stocking density on growth performance and welfare of group-housed rabbits. In Proceedings of the 9th World Rabbit Congress, Verona, Italy, pp. 1251-1256. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from http://world-rabbit-science.com/WRSA-Proceedings/Congress-2008-Verona/Papers/W-Trocino.pdf Google Scholar
Trocino, A, Filiou, E, Tazzoli, M, Bertotto, D, Negrato, E and Xiccato, G 2014. Behaviour and welfare of growing rabbits housed in cages and pens. Livestock Science 167, 305–314.Google Scholar
Verga, M, Luzi, F and Carenzi, C 2007. Effects of husbandry and management systems on physiology and behaviour of farmed and laboratory rabbits. Hormones Behaviour 52, 122–129.Google Scholar
Vervaecke, H, De Bonte, L, Maertens, L, Tuyttens, F, Stevens, JMG and Lips, D 2010. Development of hierarchy and rank effects in weaned growing rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus). World Rabbit Science 18, 139–149.Google Scholar
Xiccato, G, Trocino, A, Majolini, D, Tazzoli, M and Zuffellato, A 2013a. Housing of growing rabbits in individual, bicellular and collective cages: growth performance, carcass traits and meat quality. Animal 7, 627–632.Google Scholar
Xiccato, G, Trocino, A, Filiou, E, Majolini, D, Tazzoli, M and Zuffellato, A 2013b. Bicellular cage vs. collective housing for rabbits: growth performance, carcass and meat quality. Livestock Science 155, 407–414.Google Scholar