Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:04:15.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Wire-Floor Pens as an Alternative to Metallic Cages in Fattening Rabbits: Influence on Some Welfare Traits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

A Martrenchar*
Affiliation:
Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments BP 53, 22440 Ploufragan, France
E Boilletot
Affiliation:
Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments BP 53, 22440 Ploufragan, France
J-P Cotte
Affiliation:
Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments BP 53, 22440 Ploufragan, France
J-P Morisse
Affiliation:
Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments BP 53, 22440 Ploufragan, France
*
Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The possibility of improving the welfare of fattening rabbits by rearing them in pens instead of cages was investigated. Time budgets, locomotion, ear lesions, breaking strength of the femur and productivity were compared in fattening rabbits kept at the same stocking density (15 rabbits m−2) either in standard cages of 0.4m2 (6 animals) or in pens of 1.6m2 (24 animals). Behavioural observations, performed by video recording at 6 and 9 weeks of age, indicated that the frequency of rabbits walking over one another was higher in cages than in pens at 9 weeks of age. Although the time spent in locomotion did not differ significantly, the number of consecutive hops performed by animals was clearly increased in pens at 6 weeks and tended to be higher at 9 weeks. In pens (without a ceiling), rabbits were observed ‘keeping watch’ with a characteristic fully upright posture; this was not possible for rabbits in cages (with ceilings at 30cm).

Ear lesions were more frequent in caged rabbits than in penned; this might be due to the caged rabbits walking on one another, due to the lack of space to perform locomotory behaviour. Weight, diameter and breaking strength of femur tended to increase in rabbits kept in pens. In penned rabbits, body and carcase weight were significantly reduced (by 2.0% and 3.4% respectively) when compared with caged ones. However, overall, the use of wire-floor pens of 1.6m2, housing 24 animals, was considered to be beneficial to fattening rabbits’ welfare when compared to standard-sized cages holding 6 animals.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2001 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Altman, J 1974 Observational study of behaviour: Sampling methods. Behaviour 49: 227267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drescher, B and Schlender-Bobbis, L 1996 Etude pathologique de la pododermatite chez les lapins reproducteurs de souche lourde sur grillage. World Rabbit Science 4: 143148Google Scholar
Council Directive 1993 Council Directive 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. Official Journal of the European Communities L 340: 2127Google Scholar
Henaff, R and Ponsot, J F 1986 La viabilité ‘sevrage-vente’. Utilisation de la GTE en vue d'une approche des facteurs favorables à son amélioration. In: 4ème Journée de la Recherche Cunicole en France, Communication n° 29. INRA: Castanet Tolosan, FranceGoogle Scholar
Knowles, T G and Broom, D M 1990 Limb bone strength and movement in laying hens from different housing systems. Veterinary Record 126: 354356CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krohn, T C, Ritskes-Hoitinga, J and Svendsen, P 1999 The effects of feeding and housing on the behaviour of the laboratory rabbits. Laboratory Animals 33: 101107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebas, F 1994 La production du lapin en France: Situation en 1993. Comptes Rendus de l'Académie d'Agriculture de France 80: 2338Google Scholar
Lehman, M 1991 Social behaviour in young domestic rabbits under semi-natural conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32: 269292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Löliger, H C 1992 Consideration of animal protection and welfare in domestic rabbit housing and management. Journal of Applied Rabbit Research 15: 684691Google Scholar
Marcato, P S and Rosmini, R 1996 Ulcerative pododermatitis. In: Esculapio (ed) Pathology of the Rabbit and Hare, pp 11-12. Bologna, ItalyGoogle Scholar
McFarland, D 1981 The Oxford Companion to Animal Behaviour, ρ 1013. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Morisse, J P and Maurice, R 1994 Welfare and the intensive production of rabbits. Revue Scientifique et Techique de l'Office International des Epizooties 13: 143152Google ScholarPubMed
Morisse, J P 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: 351357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morisse, J P, 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: 7180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, L B 1978 A Review of Animal Welfare and Intensive Animal Production. Queensland Department of Primary Industry: Brisbane, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Nørgaard-Nielsen, G 1990 Bone strength of laying hens kept in an alternative system, compared with hens in cages and on deep litter. British Poultry Science 31: 8189Google Scholar
Rommers, J M and Meijerhof, R 1996 The effect of different floor types on foot pad injuries of rabbit does. In: Lebas, F (ed) Proceedings of the 6th World Rabbit Congress, pp 431436. Association Française de Cuniculture (AFC): Lempdes, France.Google Scholar
Rommers, J M and Meijerhof, R 1998 Effect of group size on performance, bone strength and skin lesions of meat rabbit housed under commercial conditions. World Rabbit Science 6: 299302Google Scholar
Stauffacher, M 1992 Group housing and enrichment cages for breeding, fattening and laboratory rabbits. Animal Welfare 1: 105125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verga, M 1992 Some characteristics of rabbit behaviour and their relationship with husbandry systems. Journal of Applied Rabbit Research 15: 5563Google Scholar