Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:14:12.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of behaviour, performance and mortality in restricted and ad libitum-fed growing rabbits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2015

A. Dalmau ,
A. M. Abdel-Khalek ,
J. Ramon ,
M. Piles ,
J. P. Sanchez ,
A. Velarde  and
O. Rafel
A. Dalmau*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Subprogram, IRTA, Veinat de Sies s/n, 17121 Monells, Girona, Spain
A. M. Abdel-Khalek
Affiliation:
Poultry Nutrition Research Department, Animal Production Research Institute, Nadi El-seid street, 12618 Dokki, Giza, Egypt
J. Ramon
Affiliation:
Pig Breeding and Genetics Program, IRTA, Torre Marimón, 08140 Caldes de Montbui, Barcelona, Spain
M. Piles
Affiliation:
Pig Breeding and Genetics Program, IRTA, Torre Marimón, 08140 Caldes de Montbui, Barcelona, Spain
J. P. Sanchez
Affiliation:
Pig Breeding and Genetics Program, IRTA, Torre Marimón, 08140 Caldes de Montbui, Barcelona, Spain
A. Velarde
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Subprogram, IRTA, Veinat de Sies s/n, 17121 Monells, Girona, Spain
O. Rafel
Affiliation:
Pig Breeding and Genetics Program, IRTA, Torre Marimón, 08140 Caldes de Montbui, Barcelona, Spain
*
†E-mail: antoni.dalmau@irta.cat
Get access

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine whether rabbits fed in a restricted regimen (75%) showed increased competition for feeding, drinking and use of specific areas of the cages as compared with those provided feed ad libitum. This evaluation was carried out by measuring their space utilisation in the cage, the incidence of agonistic behaviour and rates of mortality. In total, 504 rabbits between 31 and 66 days of age were used in this study. A total of 200 heavy-weight rabbits and 56 light-weight rabbits were randomly housed in 32 cages, each cage containing eight rabbits: 25 cages housing heavy rabbits and seven cages housing the light-weight ones. They were all fed ad libitum (AD). In addition, a total of 208 heavy-weight rabbits and 40 light-weight rabbits were randomly housed in 31 cages, each of them containing eight rabbits: 26 cages housing heavy weight rabbits and five cages housing light-weight ones. They were all fed a restricted diet (R) regimen. The restriction was calculated to be 75% of the feed consumed by the AD group. The total space available in the cage was 3252 cm2, with a stocking density of 24.6 animals/m2. Animals between 32 and 60 days of age from 20 different cages were observed nine times per week (morning or afternoon) by means of scan and focal sampling by one observer. During each period, cages were assessed for 5 min, registering every minute the position of all the animals in relation to Area A (feeder), Area B (central part) or Area C (back and drinker area). The incidence of agonistic behaviour such as displacement, biting and jumping on each other was also assessed. Performance variables such as daily gain and feed conversion ratio, in addition to general health status and mortality rates, were recorded for all rabbits. When the rabbits were under restricted feeding, the competition for feed and drink increased with clear signs of agonistic behaviour such as biting, displacement and animals jumping on top of each other. Although this competition was maintained during the entire growing period, the BW homogeneity between animals in the same cage was similar in both cases, suggesting that all animals could consume similar quantities of feed. The possible advantages of a restricted diet, such as better feed conversion ratio, were observed in this study only in the last few weeks of the growing period.

Keywords

ad libitum feedinganimal welfarebehaviourrabbitsrestricted feeding
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Supplement 7 , July 2015 , pp. 1172 - 1180
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

Altmann, J 1974. Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49, 227–267.Google Scholar
Boisot, P, Licois, D and Gidenne, T 2003. Une restriction alimentaire réduit l’impact sanitaire d’une reproduction expérimentale de l’entéropathie épizootique (EEL) chez le lapin en croissance. Proceedings of the 10èmes Journées de la Recherche Cunicole, 19–20 November, Paris, France, pp. 267–270.Google Scholar
Bovera, F, Lestingi, A, Piccolo, G, Iannaccone, F, Attia, YA and Tateo, A 2013. Effects of water restriction on growth performance, feed nutrient digestibility, carcass and meat traits of rabbits. Animal 7, 1600–1606.Google Scholar
Cameron, AC and Trivedi, PK 1998. Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA, 80pp.Google Scholar
De Lima, V, Piles, M, Rafel, O, López-Béjar, M, Ramón, J, Velarde, A and Dalmau, A 2013. Use of infrared thermography to assess the influency of high environmental temperature on rabbits. Research in Veterinary Science 95, 802–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Meo, C, Bovera, F, Marono, S, Vella, N and Nizza, A 2007. Effect of feed restriction on performance and feed digestibility in rabbits. Italian Journal of Animal Science 6, 765–767.Google Scholar
EFSA Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) 2005. The Impact of the current housing and husbandry systems on the health and welfare of farmed domestic rabbits. EFSA Journal 267, 1–31.Google Scholar
Gidenne, T and Feugier, A 2009. Feed restriction strategy in the growing rabbit. 1. Impact on digestion, rate of passage and microbial activity. Animal 3, 501–508.Google Scholar
Gidenne, T, Garcia, J, Lebas, F and Licois, D 2010. Nutrition and feeding strategy: interactions with pathology. In Nutrition of the rabbit (ed. C de Blas and J Wiseman), pp. 179–199. CAB International Ed., Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Gidenne, T, Murr, S, Travel, A, Corrent, E, Foubert, C, Bebin, K, Mevel, L, Rebours, G and Renouf, B 2009a. Effets du niveau de rationnement et du mode de distribution de l’aliment sur les performances et les troubles digestifs post-sevrage du lapereau. Cuniculture 36, 65–72.Google Scholar
Gidenne, T, Combes, S, Feugier, A, Jehl, N, Arveux, P, Boisot, P, Briens, C, Corrent, E, Fortune, H, Montessuy, S and Verdelhan, S 2009b. Feed restriction strategy in the growing rabbit. 2. Impact on digestive health, growth and carcass characteristics. Animal 3, 509–515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gómez, EA, Rafel, O and Ramon, J 2002. The prat strain (spain). Options Méditerranéennes, Série B: Etudes et Recherches 38, 203–208.Google Scholar
Grant, RJ and Albright, JL 1995. Feeding behaviour and management factors during the transition period in dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2791–2803.Google Scholar
Korthals, RL 2000. Evaluation of space requirements for swine finishing feeders. Transactions of the ASAE 43, 395–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larour, G, Jobert, JL, Balaine, L, Eono, F, Klein, MF, Ledein, T, Le Bouqin, S and Guittet, M 2002. Enquete épidémiologique analytique sur l’entérocolite epizootique du lapin en engraissement. Journée nationale ITVAI élevage du lapin de chair. ITAVI publications, 21 November, Nantes, France, pp. 3–7.Google Scholar
Ledin, I 1984. Effect of restricted feeding and realimentation on compensatory growth in rabbit. Annales De Zootechnie 33, 33–50.Google Scholar
Maertens, L 2001. Feeding rabbits. In Livestock feeds and feeding (ed. R Kellems and DC Church), pp. 478–499. Prentice Hall, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
Maertens, L and Peeters, JE 1988. Effect of feed restriction after weaning on fattening performances and caecal traits of early weaned rabbits. In Deutsche veterinarmediznische gesellschaft (ed. HC Löliger), pp. 158–169. Celle, Germany.Google Scholar
Maertens, L and Coudert, P 2006. Recent advances in rabbit sciences. ILVO, Melle, Belgium. pp. 300.Google Scholar
Marlier, D, Dewrée, R, Delleur, V, Licois, D, Lassence, C, Poulipoulis, A and Vindevogel, H 2003. A review of the major causes of digestive disorders in the European rabbit. Annales de Médecine Veterinaire 147, 385–392.Google Scholar
Perrier, G 1998. Influence de deux niveaux et de deux durées de restriction alimentaire sur l’éfficacité productive du lapin et les caractéristiques bouchères de la carcasse. Proceedings of the 7 Journées de la Recherche Cunicole, 13–14 November, Lyon, France, pp. 179–182.Google Scholar
Piles, M, Gomez, E, Rafel, O, Ramon, J and Blasco, A 2004. Elliptical selection experiment for the estimation of genetic parameters of the growth rate and feed conversion ratio in rabbits. Journal of Animal Science 82, 654–660.Google Scholar
Postollec, G, Boilletot, E, Maurice, R and Michel, V 2006. The effect of housing system on the behaviour and growth parameters of fattening rabbits. Animal Welfare 15, 105–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero, C, Cuesta, S, Astillero, JR, Nicodemus, N and De Blas, C 2010. Effect of early feed restriction on performance and health status in growing rabbits slaughtered at 2 kg live-weight. World Rabbits Science 18, 211–218.Google Scholar
Szendro, Z, Szabo, S and Hullar, I 1988. Effect of reduction of eating time on production of growing rabbits. Proceedings of the 4th World Rabbits Congress, 10–14 October, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 104–114.Google Scholar
Tudela, F 2008. Producción de conejos con restricciones alimentarias. Proceedings of the XXXIII Symposium de ASESCU, 30–31 October, Calahorra, Spain, pp. 14–21.Google Scholar
Tudela, F and Lebas, F 2006. Modalités du rationnement des lapins en engraissement. Effets du mode de distribution de la ration quotidienne sur la vitesse de croissance, le comportement alimentaire et l’homogénéité des poids. Cuniculture Magazine 33, 21–27.Google Scholar
Tumova, E, Skrivan, M, Skrivanova, V and Kacerovska, L 2002. Effect of early feed restriction on growth in broiler chickens, turkeys and rabbits. Czech Journal of Animal Science 47, 418–428.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality 2009. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands, 182pp.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Dalmau supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Dalmau supplementary material(File)
File 160.3 KB