Effect of hiding places, straw and territory on aggression in group-housed rabbit does

Rommers, J.M.; Reuvekamp, B.F.J.; Gunnink, H.; Jong, I.C. de

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2014.05.011

Cited by 34 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Does also showed more walking and running when housed in colony cages compared to individual cages (Mugnai et al., ). Reproducing does have been observed to hop or run for a lower time in smaller individual systems (0.11–0.25% of total observation time; Buijs et al., ) compared to larger part‐time group systems (0.17–1.41% of total observation time at 12 days after group formation, Buijs et al., ; 2% of total observation time at 4 days after group formation, Rommers et al., ,b). In these studies, however, the space effect cannot be disentangled from the group effect.…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health and welfare of rabbits farmed in different production systems

Nielsen

Álvarez²,

Bicout³

et al. 2020

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The AGRI committee of the European Parliament requested EFSA to assess the welfare of rabbits farmed in different production systems, including organic production, and to update its 2005 scientific opinion about the health and welfare of rabbits kept for meat production. Considering reproducing does, kits and growing rabbits, this scientific opinion focusses on six different housing systems, namely conventional cages, structurally enriched cages, elevated pens, floor pens, outdoor/partially outdoor systems and organic systems. To compare the level of welfare in the different housing systems and rabbit categories, welfare impact scores for 20 welfare consequences identified from the literature were calculated, taking their occurrence, duration and severity into account. Based on the overall welfare impact score (sum of scores for the single welfare consequences), obtained via a 2-step expert knowledge elicitation process, the welfare of reproducing does is likely (certainty 66-90%) to be lower in conventional cages compared to the five other housing systems. In addition, it is likely to extremely likely (certainty 66-99%) that the welfare of kits is lower in outdoor systems compared to the other systems and that the welfare is higher in elevated pens than in the other systems. Finally, it is likely to extremely likely (certainty 66-99%) that the welfare of growing rabbits is lower in conventional cages compared to the other systems and that the welfare is higher in elevated pens than in the other systems. Ranking of the welfare consequences allowed an analysis of the main welfare consequences within each system and rabbit category. It was concluded that for reproducing does, as well as growing rabbits, welfare consequences related to behavioural restrictions were more prominent in conventional cages, elevated pens and enriched cages, whereas those related to health problems were more important in floor pens, outdoor and organic systems. Housing in organic rabbit farming is diverse, which can result in different welfare consequences, but the overall welfare impact scores suggest that welfare in organic systems is generally good.

show abstract

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health and welfare of rabbits farmed in different production systems

Nielsen

Álvarez²,

Bicout³

et al. 2020

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Animals were categorized on a 0-3 scale according to (Rommers et al, 2014) (0: no increase in lesions, 1: one to four additional short superficial lesions, 2: one to four additional long superficial or short deep lesions, or at least five additional short superficial lesions, 3: at least one additional deep long lesion, or at least five additional long superficial or short deep lesions).…”

Section: Housing and Management Of Experimental Rabbits In The Reprodmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also, they cannot kill or wound each other's litters when these are still very young, immobile and vulnerable (a behaviour observed both in wild (Kunkele, 1992;Rodel et al, 2008) and commercial breeding rabbits (Szendro and Mcnitt, 2012)). However, postgrouping aggression and wounding are still common in these semi-group systems Rommers et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of communal rearing and group size on breeding rabbits’ post-grouping behaviour and its relation to ano-genital distance

Buijs¹,

Vangeyte²,

Tuyttens³

2016

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms Group housing is becoming the standard for many farm animal species, as it is seen as a more welfare friendly way of keeping gregarious animals. Aggression between female breeding rabbits currently obstructs the implementation of group housing for this species.Lack of social experience during the rearing period may be one reason why breeding rabbits can act (excessively) aggressive when grouped as adults. To study this, we either reared breeding rabbits with their same-litter siblings and mother only ("litter-only") or reared four litters and their mothers together from 18 days of life on ("communal rearing"). The litter-only rabbits were born from individually housed mothers, whereas the communally reared rabbits 2 were born from mothers that were group housed during the last three weeks of gestation.After their first kindling, female rabbits from both rearing strategies were housed in groups of four or eight individuals (at an equal space allowance per doe) to assess rearing and group size effects on post-grouping behaviour. Within both treatments we also measured the anogenital distance at birth (an indicator of masculinization) and studied its relation to adult agonistic behaviour. Communal rearing and larger groups were expected to decrease agonistic behaviour and wounding, whereas rabbits with a longer ano-genital distance were expected to show more offensive agonistic behaviour. The first two hypotheses were not confirmed. Communally reared and litter-only rabbits did not differ significantly in the frequency of their offensive or defensive agonistic behaviour directly post-grouping, or in the severity of wounds sustained in the first three days after grouping (P>0.10). Communally reared rabbits sniffed/groomed their pen mates less often than litter-only rabbits (P<0.05). A tendency for a higher frequency of offensive agonistic behaviour in larger groups was found (P<0.10) and the decrease in defensive agonistic behaviour over time that was observed for the smaller groups was lacking in the larger groups. The third hypothesis was confirmed:female rabbits with a greater ano-genital distance at birth showed more offensive agonistic behaviour upon grouping as adults (rs=0.5, P<0.05). When this relation was studied within the separate rearing strategies, it was only confirmed within the communal rearing treatment, possibly suggesting that prenatal social stress increased both ano-genital distance and aggression. To conclude, communal rearing and larger groups did not decrease agonistic behaviour in breeding rabbits, whereas ano-genital distance measurements may be useful when selecting less aggressive breeding rabbits (although this method may be specifically applicable to communally reared rabbits).

show abstract

“…Some methods of reducing the occurrence of aggression and related injuries and stress were tested. Rommers et al (2014a) investigated environmental enrichments such as hiding places, straw and territory in semigroup pens. On average, 52% of the does had injuries on the body and ears, and the percentages of severe injuries were 13-39%.…”

Section: Semi-group Housing Of Rabbit Doesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is a wide range of environmental enrichments including footrests, elevated platforms or hiding places and straw which were used by Rommers et al (2014a) in a semi-group pen. However, the most frequently used enrichment is the gnawing stick.…”

Section: Environmental Enrichmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alternative and enriched housing systems for breeding does: a review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The main results and observations on group and individually housed rabbit does were reviewed by Szendrő and McNitt in 2012, but in recent years several new papers in this field have been published. This provides a new opportunity to summarise the current knowledge on alternative housing systems for breeding does. In Switzerland, rabbit does are generally housed in group systems. The recently legislated Belgian and Dutch housing systems will be converted step by step into group housing systems. Recent research demonstrated that with semi-group housing systems much better performance levels are possible than with the Swiss group housing system. However, solutions to eliminate aggression, stress and injuries which are common among rabbit does in group housing systems have yet to be found. Some authors are of the opinion that individual cages are too small and allow limited possibilities for movement and social contact. Positive results were seen when platforms were inserted into the cages and the possibility for movement increased. The does and their kits could jump up and down using the platforms. Using footrests, the incidence of sore hocks declined. Several environmental enrichments which increase the well-being of rabbit does can also be used. These enriched cages (equipped with platforms, footrests, gnawing sticks, etc.) are fully in line with animal welfare requirements. Increasing the size of cages and enriching them increases the production cost and the meat will be more expensive.

show abstract

Effect of hiding places, straw and territory on aggression in group-housed rabbit does

Cited by 34 publications

References 17 publications

Health and welfare of rabbits farmed in different production systems

Health and welfare of rabbits farmed in different production systems

Effects of communal rearing and group size on breeding rabbits’ post-grouping behaviour and its relation to ano-genital distance

Alternative and enriched housing systems for breeding does: a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About