Effect of Restricted Access to Drinking Water on Growth, Feed Efficiency and Carcass Characteristics of Fattening Rabbits

Elmaghraby, Mahmoud

doi:10.3923/ajas.2011.136.144

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Water restriction was confirmed as an effective way to reduce feed intake. This result agrees with the findings of El Maghraby et al (2011) who reported that feed intake of rabbits was reduced by 19.1% when the access to water was reduced to 2 h/day in the period from 35 to 63 days of age. The same authors found that feed intake was reduced by 13.3% in the entire growing period of rabbits slaughtered at 77 days of age.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Effects of water restriction on growth performance, feed nutrient digestibility, carcass and meat traits of rabbits

Bovera

Lestingi

Piccolo

et al. 2013

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study investigates the effects of a post-weaning water restriction on performance, nutrient digestibility, carcass traits and meat quality of 84-day-old rabbits. A total of 1388 weaned rabbits (35 days) were randomly divided into two groups on the basis of BW and sex. The two groups were fed the same diets ad libitum both in the post-weaning (35 to 60 days) and fattening (61 to 84 days) periods. In the post-weaning period, one group (AL) also received drinking water ad libitum, whereas the other (WR) had a water restriction from 35 to 41 days 2 h/day; from 42 to 48 days 2.5 h/day; from 49 to 55 days 3 h/day; and from 56 to 60 days 4 h/day. During the fattening period, both groups had water-free access. Individual live weights and feed intake per cage were recorded weekly for 32 cages randomly chosen per group (64 rabbits) to calculate the BW gain, feed intake and feed conversion ratio (FCR). The apparent digestibility values of nutrients were measured using acid-insoluble ash. Carcass data were collected from 16 rabbits (8 males and 8 females) per group selected for similar final BW in both groups. Mortality from 35 to 60 days was higher in the AL group (10.1% v. 5.2%, for AL and WR, respectively, P , 0.0001). BW gain was higher for the AL group during both the post-weaning (122.4%, P , 0.01) and the entire period (17.5%, P , 0.05). Water restriction reduced feed intake both in the post-weaning (217.4%, P , 0.0001) and in the entire period (29.9%, P , 0.05). During the fattening period, FCR was lower for the WR group (5.15 v. 5.75 g/g, for WR and AL, respectively, P , 0.05). The apparent digestibilities of dry matter, organic matter, NDF, ADF and cellulose were greater in the restricted rabbits (14.7%, 14.5%, 110.2%, 118.8% and 112.8%, P , 0.01, P , 0.01, P , 0.05, P , 0.01, P , 0.05, respectively). Perirenal and scapular fat percentages were higher in the AL rabbits (130.7% and 1116.6%, P , 0.01 and P , 0.001, respectively). Water restriction increased saturated fatty acids (C16:0, 112.9%, P , 0.05), lauroleic acid (C12:1, 175.0%, P , 0.01), n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (C20:5, 150.0%, P , 0.01 and C22:5, 116.6%, P , 0.05) and the n-3/n-6 ratio (128.6%, P , 0.05). The applied water restriction between 35 and 60 days executed during the winter months improved the digestive health of rabbits, with no negative effects on carcass traits, or physical and chemical meat characteristics. However, from the animal welfare point of view, a water restriction can be criticized as a method to restrict feed intake.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Effects of water restriction on growth performance, feed nutrient digestibility, carcass and meat traits of rabbits

Bovera

Lestingi

Piccolo

et al. 2013

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this favourable impact of a reduced intake seems to occur only during the restriction period, and does not continue when animals return to AL intake (Gidenne et al, 2009a;Romero et al, 2010). Similar results were also obtained by reducing the intake level through a time-limited access to drinking water (Boisot et al, 2004;Verdelhan et al, 2004;El Maghraby, 2011).…”

Section: Effect Of a Post-weaning Feed Restriction On Digestion And Dmentioning

confidence: 64%

Feed intake limitation strategies for the growing rabbit: effect on feeding behaviour, welfare, performance, digestive physiology and health: a review

Gidenne

Combes

Fortun-Lamothe

2012

Animal

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review aims to present the different effects produced by a post-weaning intake limitation strategy on the growing rabbit, now largely used by French professional rabbit breeders. Although a quantitative feed restriction leads to slower growth, feed conversion (FC) is improved, particularly when the rabbits are again fed freely, as compensatory growth occurs. This better FC or the healthy rabbit is because of better digestion resulting from slower passage through the intestine, whereas the digestive physiology is slightly modified (morphometry of the intestinal mucosa, fermentation pattern, microbiota). Meat quality and carcass characteristics are not greatly affected by feed restriction, except for a lower dressing-out percentage. One of the main advantages of limiting post-weaning intake of the rabbit is to reduce the mortality and morbidity rate due to digestive disorders (particularly epizootic rabbit enteropathy syndrome). The consequences for animal welfare are debatable, as feed restriction probably leads to hunger, but it reduces the incidence of digestive troubles after weaning. However, the growing rabbit adapts very well to an intake limitation strategy, without any aggressive behaviour for congener. In conclusion, restriction strategies could improve profitability of rabbit breeding, but they should be adapted to any specific breeding situation, according to the national market, feed prices, etc.

show abstract

“…One possibility to give rise to transitory thirst corresponds to a strategy of feed restriction through a deliberate limitation of the time of access to drinking water (Foubert et al, 2008;El Maghraby, 2011;Bovera et al, 2013). Farmers, who do not have a system to quantitatively restrict the feed intake, may use a drinking restriction to induce feed restriction.…”

Section: Prolonged Thirstmentioning

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

Effect of Restricted Access to Drinking Water on Growth, Feed Efficiency and Carcass Characteristics of Fattening Rabbits

Cited by 5 publications

References 5 publications

Effects of water restriction on growth performance, feed nutrient digestibility, carcass and meat traits of rabbits

Effects of water restriction on growth performance, feed nutrient digestibility, carcass and meat traits of rabbits

Feed intake limitation strategies for the growing rabbit: effect on feeding behaviour, welfare, performance, digestive physiology and health: a review

Health and welfare of rabbits farmed in different production systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About