Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:30:21.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Housing of growing rabbits in individual, bicellular and collective cages: growth performance, carcass traits and meat quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2012

G. Xiccato ,
A. Trocino ,
D. Majolini ,
M. Tazzoli  and
A. Zuffellato
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
A. Trocino*
Affiliation:
Department of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science (BCA), University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, I-35020 Legnaro, Padova, Italy
D. Majolini
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
A. Zuffellato
Affiliation:
Veronesi Verona S.p.A., Via Valpantena, 18/G I-37142, Quinto di Valpantena, Verona, Italy
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

During growth (from 27 to 75 days of age), 384 rabbits were kept in different types of wire-net cages: 72 individual cages (72 rabbits; 10 animals/m2), 48 bicellular cages (96 rabbits; 2 rabbits/cage; 18 animals/m2) and 24 collective cages (216 rabbits; 9 rabbits/cage; 18 animals/m2). The rabbits housed in individual cages showed higher daily weight gain both during the fattening period (from 52 to 75 days of age) and during the whole period of growth (43.0 v. 41.8 and 41.5 g/day; P < 0.05), and they had a higher final live weight at 75 days of age (2678 v. 2619 and 2602 g; P < 0.05) compared with the rabbits in the bicellular and collective cages, respectively. Rabbits in individual cages ingested more feed (133 v. 127 and 126 g/day; P < 0.01), but the feed conversion did not differ significantly among rabbits housed in the three types of cages. At slaughter, the carcass traits and meat quality were weakly affected by the housing system. The transport losses were higher in rabbits kept in individual and bicellular cages compared with those reared in collective cages (3.1% and 2.9% v. 2.2%; P < 0.01). In rabbits kept in individual cages, the hind leg muscle to bone ratio was higher (6.35 v. 6.19 and 5.91; P < 0.05) compared with the bicellular and collective cages, respectively. The pH and colour of the longissimus lumborum did not change with the housing system, while the b* index of the biceps femoris was lower (3.04 and 3.32 v. 4.26; P < 0.001) in the rabbits kept in individual and bicellular cages, respectively, than in those kept in collective cages. In conclusion, the rabbits housed in individual cages showed higher daily growth than rabbits kept in bicellular or collective cages, but they had a similar feed conversion and carcass quality. Differently, neither in vivo performance nor slaughter results differed among the rabbits kept in bicellular cages or in collective cages. The meat colour may be affected by the housing system, but to an extent that is hardly perceivable by the final consumer.

Keywords

housing systemgrowth performanceslaughter traitsmeat qualityrabbits
Type
Behaviour, welfare and health
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , April 2013 , pp. 627 - 632
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Bigler, L, Oester, H 1996. Group housing for male rabbits. In 6th World Rabbit Congress (ed. F Lebas), vol. 2, pp. 411–415. Association Française de Cuniculture (AFC), Lempdes, France.Google Scholar
Blasco, A, Ouhayoun, J, Masoero, G 1993. Harmonization of criteria and terminology in rabbit meat research. World Rabbit Science 1, 3–10.Google Scholar
Cavani, C, Petracci, M, Trocino, A, Xiccato, G 2009. Advances in research on poultry and rabbit meat quality. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8 (suppl. 2), 741–750.Google Scholar
Combes, S, Lebas, F 2003. Les modes de logement du lapin en engraissement: influence sur les qualités des carcasses et de viandes. In 10èmes Journées Recherche Cunicole (ed. G Bolet), pp. 185–200. ITAVI, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Combes, S, Postollec, G, Cauquil, L, Gidenne, T 2010. Influence of cage or pen housing on carcass traits and meat quality of rabbit. Animal 4, 295–302.Google Scholar
Commission International de l'Eclairage (CIE) 1976. Official recommendations on uniform colour spaces, colour difference equations and metric colour terms suppl. 2, Publication no. 15, Colorimetry, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Dal Bosco, A, Castellini, C, 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, 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, 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
European Food and Safety Authority (EFSA) 2005a. Scientific Report “The impact of the current housing and husbandry systems on the health and welfare of farmed domestic rabbit”. EFSA-Q-2004-023, pp. 1–137. Annex to EFSA Journal 267, 1–31.Google Scholar
EFSA 2005b. Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on “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.Google Scholar
Gondret, F, Hernández, P, Rémignon, H, Combes, S 2009. Skeletal muscle adaptations and biomechanical properties of tendons in response to jump exercise in rabbits. Journal of Animal Science 87, 544–553.Google Scholar
Lambertini, L, Vignola, G, Zagnini, G 2001. Alternative pen housing system for fattening rabbits: effect of density and litter. World Rabbit Science 9, 141–147.Google Scholar
Maertens, L, 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
Martrenchar, A, Boilletot, E, Cotte, JP, 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.Google Scholar
Mirabito, L, Galliot, P, Souchet, C 1999. Logement des lapins en engraissement en cage de 2 ou 6 individus: Résultats zootechniques. In 8èmes Journées Recherche Cunicole (ed. JM Perez), pp. 51–54. ITAVI, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Postollec, G, Boilletot, E, Maurice, R, Michel, V 2006. The effect of housing system on the behaviour and growth parameters of fattening rabbits. Animal Welfare 15, 105–111.Google Scholar
Postollec, G, Boilletot, E, Maurice, R, Michel, V 2008. The effect of pen size and an enrichment structure (elevated platform) on the performances and the behaviour of fattening rabbits. Animal Welfare 17, 53–59.Google Scholar
Princz, Z, Dalle Zotte, A, Metzger, SZ, Radnai, I, Biró-Németh, E, Orova, Z, 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
Rommers, J, 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 1991. User's guide, statistics, version 6.03. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Szendrő, ZS, Princz, Z, Romvári, R, Locsmándi, L, Szabó, A, Bázár, GY, Radnai, I, Biró-Németh, E, Matics, ZS, 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, 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, Majolini, D, Tazzoli, M, Filiou, E, Xiccato, G 2012. Housing of growing rabbits in individual, bicellular and collective cages: fear level and behavioural patterns. Animal, published online – doi:10.1017/S1751731112002029.Google Scholar
Verga, M, Luzi, F, 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
Verga, M, Zingarelli, I, Heinzl, E, Ferrante, V, Martino, PA, Luzi, F 2004. Effect of housing and environmental enrichment on performance and behaviour in fattening rabbits. World Rabbit Science 13, 139–140.Google Scholar
Xiccato, G, Verga, M, Trocino, A, Ferrante, V, Queaque, PI, Sartori, A 1999. Influence de l'effectif et de la densité par cage sur les performances productives, la qualité bouchère et le comportement chez le lapin. In 8èmes Journées Recherche Cunicole (ed. JM Perez), pp. 59–62. ITAVI, Paris, France.Google Scholar