Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T22:56:12.857Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproductive performance in purebred and crossbred commercial rabbits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. G. Partridge ,
S. Foley  and
W. Corrigall
G. G. Partridge
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
S. Foley
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
W. Corrigall
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
Get access

Abstract

The reproductive performance of does of New Zealand White (N) and Californian (C) strains of rabbit was compared with that of the two reciprocal crosses, C × N and N × C (sire × dam). Both types of crossbred doe showed a reproductive performance superior to the purebred strains, having both a higher conception rate and mean litter size at birth. C × N, N × C, N and C does reared on average 6·6, 7·4, 5·0 and 4·9 pups to weaning age respectively. Expressed in terms of an estimated annual production of weanlings the N × C does produced nearly twice as many progeny to 4 weeks of age as the purebreds N and C (37 pups cf. 21 and 19 pups respectively). Total losses prior to weaning were approximately 25% in all breeds, largely from stillbirths, and subsequent chilling and/or starvation in the nest (36% and 38% of diagnosed deaths respectively). Other contributory factors are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , June 1981 , pp. 325 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1981

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

REFERENCES

Adams, C. E. 1972. In The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals. 4th ed., p. 169. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Delaveau, A. 1979. [Mortality of young rabbits in the nest.] Annls Zootech. 28: 165–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. 1978. Animal size and efficiency: basic concepts. Anim. Prod. 27: 367–379.Google Scholar
Hinton, M. 1979. Post mortem survey of diseases in young rabbits. Vet. Rec. 104: 53–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hugh-Jones, M. E., Parkin, R. S. and Whitney, J. C. 1975. The cost of premature death in young rabbits. Vet. Ree. 96: 353–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
May, D. and Simpson, Kathleen B. 1975. Reproduction in the rabbit. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 43: 253–261.Google Scholar
Ross, S., Sawin, P. B., Zarrow, M. X. and Denenberg, V. H. 1963. Maternal behaviour in the rabbit. In Maternal Behaviour in Mammals (ed. Rheingold, H. L.). Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Rouvier, R. 1980. Genetique du lapin (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Proc. 2nd Wld Rabbit Congr., Barcelona, pp. 159–191.Google Scholar
Rukhni-Castrovilli, C. and Nordio-Baldissera, C. 1980. Induction of labor with PGF2AL PHA and post natal growth in the rabbit. Proc. 2nd Wld Rabbit Congr. Barcelona, pp. 100–106.Google Scholar
Sinkovics, G. 1978. Rabbit dysentery. Vet. Rec. 103: 326–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van den broek, V. L. and Lampo, P. 1975. Der Einflußeiniger nicht generischer Faktoren auf die Zuchtresultate des Kaninchens. Arch. Geflügelk. 39: 84–90.Google Scholar
Walsingham, J. M. 1972. Ecological efficiency studies. 1. Meat production from rabbits. Tech. Rep. Grassld Res. Inst., Hurley, Maidenhead, No. 12.Google Scholar
Whitney, J. D., Blackmore, D. K., Townsend, G. H., Parkin, R. J., Hugh-jones, M. E., Crossman, P. J., Graham-marr, T., Rowland, A. C., Festing, M. F. W., and Krzysiak, D. 1976. Rabbit mortality survey. Lab. Anim. 10: 203–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zarrow, M. X., Denenberg, V. H. and Anderson, C. O. 1965. Rabbit: frequency of suckling in the pup. Science, Wash. 150: 1835–1836.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed