| INTRODUCTION | DISCUSSION |
RABBITS
Janice C. Swanson, Ph.D.
Department of Animal Sciences
Room 134 Weber Hall
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas 66506
and
James I. McNitt, Ph.D.
Rabbit Production Specialist
Small Farm Family Resource Development Center
Southern University and A&M College
Southern Branch P.O. Box 11170
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70813-1170
Domestic rabbits are raised primarily for commercial, show, or pet purposes. Commercial use involves the production of meat, pelts, and wool and the production of live animals for breeding and laboratory stock and for pets. With an increasing trend toward urbanization, rabbits make a good choice for youth projects. Their small size and low initial investment are part of their attraction. Teachers often use rabbits as small animal projects in the classroom. For some children the classroom rabbit may be their first contact with an animal other than a dog or cat.
In the United States, a large number of people involved with rabbits are fancier -- people who rear rabbits for show purposes. Although this group may not directly seek advice from an Extension agent, they may serve as a source of information and assistance. The American Rabbit Breeders Association, Inc., is one group that deals with many aspects of rabbit production. They set standards of perfection for judging and sponsor a variety of events for rabbit enthusiasts.
The "Easter Bunny Syndrome" makes rabbit producers particularly vulnerable to criticism. Rabbits are naturally "cute" and possess physical attributes that attract the affection of most people. The production of rabbits as a source of food and fiber has been addressed by animal protection groups (Humans Against Rabbit Exploitation). Questions of humane use and production methodology concerning rabbits are similar to those raised about other intensively raised species such as swine, poultry, and veal calves.
As animal protection actions and concerns continue to rise with regard to the acceptability of standard husbandry practices, people involved in the production and use of rabbits (as a food and fiber resource or 4-H project) need to be aware of potential problem areas. Several commercial production practices may be targeted as welfare concerns:
* confinement rearing,
* post-partum breeding,
* wool harvesting methods,
* fur production,
* transport,
* slaughter,
* sales.
DISCUSSION
In the wild, rabbits are social, group-dwelling animals. A system of burrows is constructed that collectively is referred to as a warren. The social group usually consists of one to three males and one to five females. The social organization of the group is matriarchal, with females constructing the hierarchy and males being attracted to the group. A pecking order is also established among the males in the group. Primary competition among females is centered on access to breeding warrens, while males focus on breeding privilege. The dominant buck defines the group territory by scent-making (glandular secretion, urine, and feces) (Lockley, 1954; Harkness, 1988).
Controversy over the confinement rearing of social species of livestock (calves, poultry, swine) has been a primary welfare issue. Although little attention has been focused on rabbits, it is reasonable to assume that the same complaints of space restriction and social deprivation are tenable. Rabbits are usually caged in groups before sexual maturity and individually as adults. Most fryers (young rabbits harvested for meat), are group-raised littermates. Fryers are marketed at a target age of 56 days but may not attain market weight until 70 days. Commercial rabbit producers house rabbits in caging systems with cage sizes adjusted for breed of rabbit, management system, and intended purpose (e.g., breeding adults vs. laboratory stock). Because of the ventilation problems inherent in multi-deck caging systems, most large rabbitries have a single deck of cages. Water is usually provided by an automatic watering system, and food is hand-distributed to each cage (Cheeke, 1987; McNitt et al. 1996).
Possible welfare concerns may include social deprivation (in the case of singly housed adult breeders), cage sizes, and stocking densities of group-raised market animals. Adult rabbits generally are not housed in groups. Because of the rabbit's territorial nature, each cage is regarded as an individual's own territory by both sexes. Scent marking occurs, and if other rabbits are introduced, fighting is prevalent (Harkness, 1988). Studies have been undertaken in Europe to develop housing systems for breeding groups that reduce competition and fighting among group inhabitants (Stauffacher, 1986). A 3-year study in Canada indicated that rabbits could be successfully group housed on the floor in a facility with smooth concrete floors and epoxy-treated block walls. The rabbits were grouped at 8 to 9 weeks of age. Grouping older rabbits required the use of tranquilizers or castration to avoid fighting (Love and Hammond, 1991). A New Zealand study reported that group-housed does have a significantly lower proportion of young alive at 21 days postpartum than does individually housed in boxes (Muller and Brummer, 1991). However, further study is needed to assess whether well-being is compromised for certain group members and the overall impact on production.
Work has been carried out to determine the effects of environmental enrichment on rabbit performance. This generally has been positive and enrichment objects introduced into the cages have caused stimulation and increased activity (Huls et al., 1991; Brooks et al. 1993). Enrichment objects have included wooden dowels, wooden rings, a brass wire ball and empty aluminum beverage cans. These authors also provided PVC "tunnels" between two cages so the adult female rabbits could be apart or together. Given such a choice, the rabbits spent 90% of their time together. A two tier cage provides spatial enrichment without increasing floor space requirement (Finzi, 1996). The rabbits evidenced no preference for the upper or the lower part and, on average, used both parts with equal frequency.
In market rabbits, stocking densities have been studied to determine the effect of rabbit density on growth and consumption parameters. High stocking densities may result in rabbits reaching slaughter weights 3 to 5 days later than rabbits housed at lower densities (Maertens and DeGroote, 1984). Singly housed control animals reached slaughter weight an average of 1 week earlier than group-raised rabbits. Fur-plucking and ear-biting were behavioral manifestations attributed to overcrowding. Studies conducted at Oregon State University show no consistent difference in rate of gain, feed efficiency, and mortality when rabbits were stocked at densities of 930, 465, and 310 cm2 per rabbit in either conventional or large pens (Lukefahr et al. 1979; Harris et al 1981; Prawirodigdo et al. 1985). European studies have produced similar results. However, confusion remains as to the most productive stocking density. One study found that 500 cm2 per animal gave the best overall performance results (Ferriera, 1984), while another reported that densities of 583 and 700 cm2 per animal were detrimental (Petersen et al. 1988). Hamilton and Lukefahr (1993) found no significant mean differences in feed intake , feed efficiency, survival rate and uniformity of final weight for rabbits housed at 929, 465 or 310 cm2 per rabbit although the rabbits in the first group had better numerical means for all four traits. Recent studies in France have indicated that there are reduced social interactions and locomotory activities with less than about 650 cm2 per animal. It was reported however that even at high densities aggressive encounters were uncommon and mixed sex housing did not result in major problems (Morisse and Maurice, 1996). Similarly, Bell and Bray (1984) found that the sex composition of rearing groups had little effect on weight gain, feed intake or mortality from 30 -93 days of age. The incidence of injuries in male rabbits 60 to 80 days of age increased significantly as the size of the group increased from 15 or less to 16-30 or over 40 animals (Bigler and Ester, 1996).
In recent years, advocacy of "free-range" systems as an alternative to confinement raising has become a popular topic in the animal welfare and sustainable agriculture arenas. Some concern has also been raised that wire floors are not a suitable substrate for rabbits and may result in increased incidence of ulcerative pododermatitis (sore hocks) (Drescher, 1992; Drescher and Schlender-Bobbis, 1996). Rommers and Meijerhof (1996) compared several alternative floors for cages. These included slats and several configurations of synthetic meshes. Most resulted in less footpad injuries than wire floors but did not influence the production of the does. Because of the increased expense of the alternative floors, production costs were increased and profits reduced. There is little data to compare caging systems to "free-range" systems. One study, which compared cage-reared to floor-reared meat rabbits, found that production performance of rabbits was similar between the two housing systems up to 70 days of age. After 70 days, stocking density became an important factor (Crimella et al. 1988). A concern is the spread of coccidiosis in floor-reared rabbits. Future research that focuses on different production philosophies and their companion systems can help to elucidate the benefits of each system to both humans and animals (Cheeke, 1979; Harkness, 1988).
Post-partum breeding is a common practice among rabbit producers in Europe (Camps, 1983). After kindling, does are re-bred within 48 hours. This practice has been condemned by animal protection groups despite the fact that wild rabbits re-breed in the same manner (Lockley, 1954; Harkness, 1988). One British publication does not recommend re-breeding until 3 to 7 days post-partum on welfare grounds (King, 1988). In the United States the majority of producers re-breed at 14 or 35 days post-partum. There is no direct advantage in re-breeding at 1 day versus 14 days post-partum in terms of the total number of kits weaned (Harris et al. 1982).
Wool harvesting practices also have the potential to become an issue. Angora rabbits grow a low-density fine fiber that produces light-weight warm garments. Wool harvesting can be accomplished by shearing or plucking (Schlolaut, 1987; Kilfoyle and Samson, 1988). Some countries have banned the plucking of wool on the grounds of cruelty. Plucking, when done properly, involves the testing and removal of loose hair, preferably during molt. However, some types of Angora rabbits (e.g., German Angora) do not molt readily and should not be plucked (McNitt et al. 1996). Theoretically, plucking removes only the longest fibers and leaves the undercoat to protect the rabbit. It does, however, damage the follicles and change the composition of the coat, thereby reducing the lifetime wool yield (Schlolaut, 1987; Kilfoyle and Samson, 1988).
Shearing is more widely practiced in the United States. Proper handling and methods of restraint should be utilized to ensure protection from nicks and cuts during the process. Other welfare considerations include protection from temperature extremes. Rabbits should have from 1/4 to ½ inch of wool left on the body and should not be sheared or plucked during particularly cold months. When temperatures drop to 35 oF or less, rabbits should be provided with warm quarters and a nest box until the wool has reached at least 1 inch in length (Vermorel, 1988; Vernet, 1988).
The fur industry has been under attack by animal activists for several years, with a dramatic escalation in the past 5 years. Ethical and welfare arguments have been advanced with regard to the necessity for fur garments and the methods used to capture wild fur-bearing animals or to produce and euthanize ranched species (Nilsson, et al. 1980; Commission of the European Communities, 1991). In the United States, few rabbits are commercially grown specifically for their pelts. Most rabbits raised for pelts are of the Rex breed (McNitt, 1988). In the Rex pelt, the guard hairs and underfur are of the same approximate length. This provides a dense, even pelt useful for garment manufacture. The monetary value, however, is not sufficiently high and is generally not a profitable enterprise (McNitt et al. 1996). Unlike other species of ranched fur-bearers where the pelt is the only product produced, the rabbit carcass can be used for meat. Although this is of little comfort to activists, the general public may be more accepting of the use of the entire animal, rather than killing for just the hide.
The transport of rabbits to processing facilities can pose welfare questions similar to those raised for other livestock species. Separation, caging, crating and handling practices, mixing, food and water deprivation, noise, temperature, humidity, and other environmental changes are all variables that affect the physical and psychological welfare of animals. Transport has been shown to affect meat in rabbits by increasing the rate of muscle glycogen depletion, which causes dark, firm, dry meat; increasing plasma glucose; increasing liver glycogen (during long hauls); and decreasing liver weights (Jolley, 1990). Having water available reduces live weight and carcass losses associated with antemortem handling (Coppings, et al. 1989). More research is needed to elucidate transport stressors and to recommend improvements. In the meantime, humane handling and hauling practices should be encouraged and practiced.
Humane slaughter has been and will continue to be a concern of both animal user and animal protection groups. Unlike other farm livestock, rabbits are not covered by the Humane Slaughter Act (Anon. 1906); however, interest is high in securing more humane methods for stunning (Anon. 1992). Rabbits that are processed in commercial facilities undergo electrical stunning, which renders the animal unconscious, and then are decapitated. In smaller processing facilities or on-site slaughter, however, manual methods are used. Two methods have been recommended for manual stunning (Arrington and Kelly, 1976; Sandford, 1986). The first method is cervical dislocation. When performed by a competent person, cervical dislocation renders the rabbit unconscious immediately. The second method involves the use of a blunt stick to strike the rabbit behind the ears at the base of the skull. Generally, cervical dislocation is the preferred method for manual stunning. Welfare problems arise when inexperienced personnel attempt to perform the stunning. Care should be taken to properly train personnel before they attempt to manually stun a rabbit. Trainees should learn the proper way to handle the rabbit to reduce excitability and stress; observe the technique being performed by a competent individual; and perform the technique under supervision until competence is attained.
There is a real possibility for problems for producers who rear rabbits for sale to laboratories for use in consumer product testing. Consumer product testing procedures that specifically use rabbits, such as the Draize eye irritancy test, have been major animal welfare and rights issues for the past 10 years. Another important consideration for producers who sell stock for purposes other than food or fiber is compliance with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulations under the Animal Welfare Act. Rabbit producers who sell to buyers other than processors or individuals purchasing the rabbits for their own use must be licensed by USDA if their gross sales exceed $500 per year (USDA, 1990). USDA sets facility standards and specifies the management practices that must be followed, and inspects facilities to assure compliance. Public complaints about producers are directed to USDA for consideration. Pet stores, carnivals, and other animal sellers or exhibitors often purchase stock from unlicensed producers because of lower prices. This practice should be discouraged, because it discriminates against licensed producers. This practice also leaves the industry open to criticism for non-compliance with the Animal Welfare Act.
Ultimately, it is up to rabbit producers to ensure that they provide for the needs of their rabbits. Proper housing, appropriate and adequate feed, ventilation, clean water, health management, and environments designed to decrease stress are all important contributors to rabbit well-being. Research is needed to further determine factors that contribute to both physiological and psychological well-being of domestic rabbits.
1. Anon. 1906. Humane Slaughter Act. Public Law 85-765; United States Code 1901-1906. (enforced by United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety In United States Code 603(b), 610(b), 620(a)}).
2. Anon. 1992. The Humane Methods of Poultry Slaughter Act of 1992. H.R. 4124, introduced January 28, 1992, to amend the Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1992 (would require the poultry industry to comply with requirements of the Humane Slaughter Act).
3. Arrington, L.R. and K.C. Kelly. 1976. Domestic Rabbit Biology and Production. Gainesville: The University Presses of Florida. pp. 199-201.
4. Bell, D. and G.C. Bray. 1984. Effects of single- and mixed-sex caging on postweaning development in the rabbit. Laboratory Animals, 18:267-270.
5. Bigler, L. and H. Oester. 1996. Group housing for male rabbits. Proceedings of the 6th World Rabbit Congress (Toulouse) 2:411-415.
6. Brooks, D. L., W. Huls, C. Leamon, J. Thomson, J. Parker and S. Twomey. 1993. Cage enrichment for female New Zealand White rabbits. Lab Animal, 22(5):30-38.
7. Camps, J. 1983. European accelerated rabbit breeding program. Journal of Applied Rabbit Research 6:58-61.
8. Cheeke, P.R. 1979. The domestic rabbit: Potentials, problems and current research. In: The Domestic Rabbit: Potentials, Problems, and Current Research -- The Proceedings of a Symposium held at the 71st Annual Meeting, American Society of Animal Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, July 31, 1979. P.R. Cheeke (ed.), Oregon State University Rabbit Research Center, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
9. Cheeke, P.R. 1987. Rabbit Feeding and Nutrition. Orlando: Academic Press, Inc. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Publishers.
10. Commission of the European Communities. 1991. Study into the Legal, Technical and Animal Welfare Aspects of Fur Farming. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
11. Coppings, R.J., N. Ekhator, and A. Ghodrati. 1989. Effects of antemortem treatment and transport on slaughter characteristics of fryer rabbits. Journal of Animal Science 67:872-880.
12. Crimella, C., F. Luzi, and M. Amboini. 1988. Alternative housing systems in meat rabbit breeding. Proceedings of the 4th World Rabbit Congress (Barcelona) 1:214-225.
13. Drescher, B. 1992. Housing of rabbits with respect to animal welfare. Journal of Applied Rabbit Research 15:678-683.
14. Drescher, B. and I. Schlender-Bobbis. 1996. {Pathologic study of pododermatitis among heavy breeders on wire floors} Etude pathologique de la pododermatite chez les lapins reproducteurs de souche lourde sur grillage. (English Summary) World Rabbit Science 4:143-148.
15. Ferriera, W.M. 1984. {Effect of population density on the performance of commercial rabbits} Influencia de la densidade populacional sobre o desempenho produtive de coelhos para corte. (English summary) Arquivo Brasileiro de Medecina Veterinaria e Zootechnie 36:366-371.
16. Finzi, A., R. Margarit and A. Calabrese. 1966. A two-floor cage for rabbit welfare. Proceedings of the 6th World Rabbit Congress (Toulouse) 2:423-424.
17. Hamilton, H.H. and S.D. Lukefahr. 1993. Influence of pen rearing system and stocking density on post-weaning performance of two breed types of rabbits. Animal Production, 56:129-134.
18. Harkness, J.E. 1988. Rabbit behavior as related to environmental stress. Journal of Applied Rabbit Research 11:227-236.
19. Harris, D.J., P.R. Cheeke, and N.M. Patton. 1982. Effect of diet, light and breeding schedule on rabbit performance. Journal of Applied Rabbit Research 5:33-37.
20. Harris, D.J., S.D. Lukefahr, P.R. Cheeke, and N.M. Patton. 1981. A note on growing rabbits in feedlot cages. Journal of Applied Rabbit Research 4:73-74.
21. Huls, W., D.L. Brooks and D. Bean-Knudsen. 1991. Response of adult New Zealand White Rabbits to enrichment objects and paired housing. Laboratory Animal Science 41:609-612.
22. Jolley, P.D. 1990. Rabbit transport and its effect on meat quality. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28(½):119-123.
23. Kilfoyle, S. and L.B. Samson. 1988. Completely Angora. Samson Angoras, Brantford, Ontario, Canada.
24. King, J.O.L. 1988. Rabbits. In: Management and Welfare of Farm Animals: The UFAW Handbook. Bailliere Tindall, Philadelphia. 3rd edition.
25. Lockley, R.H. 1954. The Private Life of the Rabbit. London: Corgi Books, Transword Publishers, Ltd.
26. Love, J.A. and K. Hammond. 1991. Group housing rabbits. Lab Animal 20(8):37-38, 40-43.
27. Lukefahr, S.D., D.D. Caveny, P.R. Cheeke, and N.M. Patton. 1979. Rearing weanling rabbits in large cages. Journal of Applied Rabbit Research 3(1):20-21.
28. Maertens, L. and G. De Groote. 1984. Influence of the number of fryer rabbits per cage on their performance. Journal of Applied Rabbit Research 7(4):151-155.
29. McNitt, J.I. 1988. Rex rabbit production. Missouri Farm 5(4):40-41.
30. McNitt, J.I., N.M. Patton, S.D. Lukefahr, and P.R. Cheeke. 1996. Rabbit Production. 7th edition. Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., Danville, IL.
31. Morisse, J.P. and R. Maurice. 1996. Influence of the stocking density on the behaviour in fattening rabbits kept in intensive conditions. Proceedings of the 6th World Rabbit Congress (Toulouse) 2:425-429.
32. Muller, H. A. and H. Brummer. 1981. {Reproductive behaviour and fertility of rabbits kept individually or in groups.} Untersuchungen uber Fortplanzungsverhalten Fertilitat des hauskaninchens in Einzel- und in Gruppenhaltung. (English summary) Tieraztliche Umschau 36(11):763-767.
33. Nilsson, Greta and others. 3rd edition. 1980. Facts about Fur. Animal Welfare Institute, Washington, D.C.
34. Petersen, J., Gudron Friesecke, H.J. Lammers, and Martina Gerken. 1988. {Influence of density and sex on performance of hybrid rabbits.} Der einflub der besatzdichte und des geschlechts auf die mastleistung von hybridkaninchen. (English summary) Archiv fur Gelflugelkunde 3:11-119.
35. Prawirodigdo, S., Y.C. Raharjo, P.R. Cheeke and N.M. Patton. 1985. Effects of cage density on the performance of growing rabbits. Journal of Applied Rabbit Research 8:85-86.
36. Rommers, J.M. and R. Meijerhof. 1996. The effect of different floor types on footpad injuries of rabbit does. Proceedings of the 6th World Rabbit Congress (Toulouse) 2:431-436.
37. Sandford, J.C. 1986. The Domestic Rabbit. 4th edition. London: William Collins and Sons & Co. Ltd. pp.200-202.
38. Schlolaut, W. 1987. Angora rabbit housing and management. Journal of Applied Rabbit Research 10:164-169.
39. Stauffacher, M. 1986. Regulation of agonistic behaviour in development of a new rabbit housing system for breeding groups. (English summary) KTBL-Schrift 311:153-167.
40. USDA. 1990. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 9CFR Chapter 1. Subchapter A. Animal Welfare.
41. Vermorel, M. 1988. Thermoregulation of Angora rabbits after plucking: II. Heat loss reduction and rewarming of hypothermic rabbits. Journal of Animal Physiology and Nutrition 60(4):219-228.
42. Vernet, J. 1988. Thermoregulation of Angora rabbits after plucking: I. Effects of environmental temperature. Journal of Animal Physiology and Nutrition 60(3):158-167.
Additional information may be obtained from:
American Rabbit Breeders Association
8 Westport Court, Post Office Box 426
Bloomington, Illinois 61704
Telephone: (309)664-7500
Fax: (309)664-0941
| Return to Animal Welfare Issues Main Page | Top of Page |
Last Modified: October 19, 2004