A standardised protocol was used to evaluate health and welfare of lactating does and their litters on 12 commercial farms of the North of Italy in 36 visits (three per farm) during three productive cycles (autumn, winter, and summer) over one year. Farms used four different housing systems (standard breeding cages, dual purpose breeding cages, enriched cages, and parks). At late lactation (27-31 d after kindling), 82% of does had adequate body condition score (BCS). The main health concerns were diarrhoea (mean prevalence: 6.6%), ulcerative pododermatitis (3.4%), mastitis (3.0%), and dermatomycosis (2.8%) in does; dermatomycosis (1.6%) and diarrhoea (1.1%) in litters. Regarding the housing system, the females kept in parks and enriched cages were heavier (4968 g and 4914 g vs. 4431 and 4765 g) and had a higher BCS than those in standard and dual-purpose cages (0.001<0.01). Litter size was higher in parks and enriched cages (9.18 and 8.61) than in standard and dual-purpose cages (8.08 and 8.21); kit weight was higher in dual-purpose cages (575 g) and lower in standard and enriched cages (541 g and 540 g) (P<0.001). The prevalence of health concerns in does and litters was similar across all housing systems. Performance and health of the animals also changed according to the productive cycle: doe and kit weight were higher in the autumn and winter cycles than in summer, BCS was higher in the winter and summer cycles than in autumn (1.98 and 2.01 vs. 1.92), and litter size was higher in the winter cycle than in the autumn and summer ones (8.83 vs. 8.24 and 8.19; P<0.001). Lastly, a higher prevalence of diarrhoea in does was recorded in autumn and summer than in winter (9.3% and 6.7% vs. 3.5%; P<0.001).

A protocol for measuring health and welfare of reproducing does and litters in rabbit farms

Zomeño C.;Trocino A.
;
Birolo M.;Xiccato G.;
2021

Abstract

A standardised protocol was used to evaluate health and welfare of lactating does and their litters on 12 commercial farms of the North of Italy in 36 visits (three per farm) during three productive cycles (autumn, winter, and summer) over one year. Farms used four different housing systems (standard breeding cages, dual purpose breeding cages, enriched cages, and parks). At late lactation (27-31 d after kindling), 82% of does had adequate body condition score (BCS). The main health concerns were diarrhoea (mean prevalence: 6.6%), ulcerative pododermatitis (3.4%), mastitis (3.0%), and dermatomycosis (2.8%) in does; dermatomycosis (1.6%) and diarrhoea (1.1%) in litters. Regarding the housing system, the females kept in parks and enriched cages were heavier (4968 g and 4914 g vs. 4431 and 4765 g) and had a higher BCS than those in standard and dual-purpose cages (0.001<0.01). Litter size was higher in parks and enriched cages (9.18 and 8.61) than in standard and dual-purpose cages (8.08 and 8.21); kit weight was higher in dual-purpose cages (575 g) and lower in standard and enriched cages (541 g and 540 g) (P<0.001). The prevalence of health concerns in does and litters was similar across all housing systems. Performance and health of the animals also changed according to the productive cycle: doe and kit weight were higher in the autumn and winter cycles than in summer, BCS was higher in the winter and summer cycles than in autumn (1.98 and 2.01 vs. 1.92), and litter size was higher in the winter cycle than in the autumn and summer ones (8.83 vs. 8.24 and 8.19; P<0.001). Lastly, a higher prevalence of diarrhoea in does was recorded in autumn and summer than in winter (9.3% and 6.7% vs. 3.5%; P<0.001).
2021
Proceedings of the 12th World Rabbit Congress
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
X363-2021WRCProtocolMeasuringWelfareRabbitFarmsPasqualin.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Published (publisher's version)
Licenza: Accesso gratuito
Dimensione 66.69 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
66.69 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/3408840
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact