Abstract
<p>In society today, there is increasing concern for the welfare of farm animals. New models of rabbit breeding are proposed, such as group housing of rabbit does in a semi-group system or environmental enrichment of individual housing. This work aimed to evaluate the reproductive performance and metabolic aspects of rabbit does housed in collective pens, comparing them to individual cages provided with a platform. Forty-eight animals were distributed in 24 individual cages (40×98×57 cm; width, length and height) and four collective pens (six does per pen; 240×100×65 cm) and remained during four cycles. The does previously housed in collective pens gained less weight and reached lighter weights by the first insemination day (3669 <em>vs.</em> 3872 g; <em>P</em><0.01), but regained weight over the cycles and had a similar weight during the experiment (4306 <em>vs.</em> 4329 g). It was observed that there was a lower feed intake in the period before delivery in collective pens, which contributed to the lower kit birth weights (57.2 <em>vs.</em> 60.1 g/kit for collective pens and individual cage respectively, <em>P</em><0.05). There were no differences in perirenal fat thickness, litter size at birth and milk yield, although does housed in collective pens had a lower feed intake (499 <em>vs.</em> 526 g dry matter/d for collective pens and individual cage, respectively; <em>P</em><0.001) and lost more perirenal fat after grouping (–0.05 <em>vs.</em> +0.15 mm for collective pens and individual cage, respectively; <em>P</em><0.05), and produced less milk the day after grouping (221 <em>vs.</em> 283 g for collective pens and individual cage, respectively; <em>P</em><0.05). In collective pens, a higher number of inseminations to reach a pregnancy (1.43 <em>vs.</em> 1.24 for collective pens and individual cage, respectively; <em>P</em><0.05) and lower number of weaned (56 vs. 66 for collective pens and individual cage, respectively; <em>P</em><0.05) kits per doe per year were revealed for does in individual cages. Overall, the use of collective pens prejudiced some parameters and needs to be economically evaluated for adoption on commercial rabbit farms.</p>
Publisher
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia
Subject
Animal Science and Zoology
Reference20 articles.
1. BOE. 2013. Real Decreto 53/3013 Normas básicas aplicables para la protección de los animales utilizados en experimentación y otros fines científicos, incluyendo la docencia. BOE, 34: 11370-11421.
2. Buijs S., Hermans K., Maertens L., Van Caelenberg A., Tuyttens F. A. M. 2014. Effects of semi-grouping housing and floor type on pododermatitis, spinal deformation and bone quality in rabbit does. Animal, 8: 1728-1734. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114001669
3. Buijs S., Maertens L., Hermans K., Vangeyte J. 2015. Behavior, wounds, weight loss and adrenal weight of rabbit does as affected by semi-group housing. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 172: 44-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.09.003
4. Cervera C., Martínez-Paredes E., Machado L., Villagrá A. 2017. Producción de conejas en sistemas de alojamento individual o colectivo en semigrupo. In Proc.: XLII Symposiun de Cunicultura de ASESCU, Murcia, España, 107-110.
5. European Commission. 2017 - Commercial Rabbit farming in the European Union - Overview report of the directorate-general for health and food safety on commercial farming of rabbits in the European Union. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_food-safety/index_en.htm
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献