Mirrors Can Affect Growth Rate, Blood Profile, Carcass and Meat Traits and Caecal Microbial Activity of Rabbits Reared in a “Small Group” Free-Range System
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Design, Animals and Diets
2.2. Blood Analyses
2.3. Carcass and Meat Traits
2.4. Caecal Microbial Activity
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Loponte, R.; Secci, G.; Mancini, S.; Bovera, F.; Panettieri, V.; Nizza, A.; Di Meo, C.; Piccolo, G.; Parisi, G. Effect of the housing system (free-range vs. open air cages) on growth performance, carcass and meat quality and antioxidant capacity of rabbits. Meat Sci. 2018, 145, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Daszkiewicz, T.; Gugołek, A.; Janiszewski, P.; Kubiak, D.; Czoik, M. The effect of intensive and extensive production systems on carcass quality in New Zealand White rabbits. World Rabbit Sci. 2012, 20, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Princz, Z.; Dalle Zotte, A.; Metzger, Sz.; Radnai, I.; Biró-Németh, E.; Orova, Z.; Szendrő, ZS. Response of fattening rabbits reared under different housing conditions. 1. Live performance and health status. Livest. Sci. 2009, 121, 86–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dal Bosco, A.; Castellini, C.; Bernardini, M. Productive performance and carcass and meat characteristics of cage- or pen-raised rabbits. World Rabbit Sci. 2000, 8, 579–583. [Google Scholar]
- Lambertini, L.; Vignola, G.; Zaghini, G. Alternative pen housing system for fattening rabbits: Effects of group density and litter. World Rabbit Sci. 2001, 9, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rommers, J.; Meijerhof, R. Effect of group size on performance, bone strength and skin lesions of meat rabbits housed under commercial conditions. World Rabbit Sci. 1998, 6, 299–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bigler, L.; Oester, H. Group housing for male rabbits. In Proceedings of the 6th World Rabbit Congress, Toulouse, France, 9–12 July 1996; pp. 411–415. [Google Scholar]
- Maertens, L.; van Herck, A. Performance of weaned rabbits raised in pens or in classical cages: First results. World Rabbit Sci. 2000, 8, 435–440. [Google Scholar]
- Princz, Z.; Szendrő, Z.; Dalle Zotte, A.; Radnai, I.; Biró Németh, E.; Metzger, Sz.; Gyovai, M.; Orova, Z. Effect of different housing on productive traits and on some behaviour patterns of growing rabbits. In Proceedings of the 17th Hungarian Conference on Rabbit Production, Kaposvár, Hungary, 25 May 2005; pp. 95–102. [Google Scholar]
- McAfee, L.M.; Mills, D.S.; Cooper, J.J. The use of mirrors for the control of stereotypic weaving behaviour in the stabled horse. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002, 78, 159–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piller, C.A.K.; Stookey, J.M.; Watts, J.M. Effects of mirror-image exposure on heart rate and movement of isolated heifers. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1999, 63, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, S.E.; Phillips, C.J.C. The effects of mirrors on the welfare of caged rabbits. Anim. Welfare 2005, 14, 195–202. [Google Scholar]
- Dalle Zotte, A.; Princz, Z.; Matics, Z.; Gerencsér, Z.; Metzger, S.; Szendrő, Z. Rabbit preference for cages and pens with or without mirrors. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 116, 273–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reddi, A.K.G.; Gouri, M.D.; Raeshwari, Y.B.; Ningaraju, K. Growth performance and behaviour changes in rabbits housed in cages with or without mirror. Mysore J. Agric. Sci. 2011, 45, 688–690. [Google Scholar]
- AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 18th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Fernandez-Carmona, J.; Cervera, C.; Blas, E. Prediction of the energy value of rabbit feeds varying widely in fibre content. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1996, 64, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blasco, A.; Ouhayoun, J. Harmonization of criteria and terminology in rabbit meat research. Revised proposal. World Rabbit Sci. 1996, 4, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 19th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Arlington, VA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Stanco, G.; Di Meo, C.; Piccolo, G.; Nizza, A. Effect of storage duration on frozen inoculum to be used for the in vitro gas production technique in rabbit. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2003, 2, 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SAS/STAT software, (Statistical Analyses System), version 9; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2000.
- Edgar, J.L.; Seaman, S.C. The effect of mirrors on the behaviour of singly housed male and female laboratory rabbits. Anim. Welfare 2010, 19, 461–471. [Google Scholar]
- Šimek, V.; Zapletal, D.; Straková, E.; Pavlík, A.; Suchý, P. Physiological values of some blood indicators in selected dwarf rabbit breeds. World Rabbit Sci. 2017, 25, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Garcia-Tomas, M.; Sanchez, J.; Piles, M. Post-natal sexual development of testis and epididymis in the rabbit: Variability and relationships among macroscopic and microscopic markers. Anim. Rep. Sci. 2009, 110, 347–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Soppi, E.T. Iron deficiency without anemia—a clinical challenge. Clin. Case Rep. 2018, 6, 1082–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caporal, F.A.; Comar, S.R. Evaluation of RDW-CV, RDW-SD, and MATH-1SD for the detection of erythrocyte anisocytosis observed by optical microscopy. J. Bras. Patol. Med. Lab. 2013, 49, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, A.K.; Maney, D.L.; Maerz, J.C. The use of leukocyte profiles to measure stress in vertebrates: A review for ecologists. Funct. Ecol. 2008, 22, 760–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnstone, C.P.; Reina, R.D.; Lill, A. Interpreting indices of physiological stress in free-living vertebrates. J. Comp. Physiol. B 2012, 182, 861–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bovera, F.; Moniello, G.; De Riu, N.; Di Meo, C.; Pinna, W.; Nizza, A. Effect of diet on the metabolic profile of ostriches (Struthio camelus var. domesticus). Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2007, 39, 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moniello, G.; Bovera, F.; Solinas, I.L.; Piccolo, G.; Pinna, W.; Nizza, A. Effect of age and blood collection site on the metabolic profile of ostriches. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2005, 35, 267–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gidenne, T. Nutritional and ontogenic factors affecting the rabbit caecocolic digestive physiology. In Proceedings of the 6th World Rabbit Congress; Lebas, F., Ed.; INRA: Toulouse, France, 1996; pp. 13–28. [Google Scholar]
- Van Soest, P.J. Cell wall matrix interactions and degradation—Session synopsis. In Forage cell wall structure and digestibility; Jung, H.G., Buxton, D.R., Eds.; American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1993; p. 377. [Google Scholar]
- Bovera, F.; Marono, S.; Di Meo, C.; Piccolo, G.; Iannaccone, F.; Nizza, A. Effect of mannanoligosaccharides supplementation on caecal microbial activity of rabbits. Animal 2010, 4, 1522–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mroz, Z. Organic acids as potential alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters for pigs. In Advances in Pork Production; Ball, R.O., Zijlstra, R.T., Eds.; Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica: Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2005; pp. 169–182. [Google Scholar]
- Den Besten, G.; van Eunen, K.; Groen, A.K.; Venema, K.; Reijngoud, D.J.; Bakker, B.M. The role of short-chain fatty acids in the interplay between diet, gut microbiota, and host energy metabolism. J. Lipid Res. 2013, 54, 2325–2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Borrelli, L.; Coretti, L.; Dipineto, L.; Bovera, F.; Menna, F.; Chiariotti, L.; Nizza, A.; Lembo, F.; Fioretti, A. Insect-based diet, a promising nutritional source, modulates gut microbiota composition and SCFAs production in laying hens. Sci. Rep.-UK 2017, 7, 16269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Soest, P.J. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant, 2nd ed.; Comstock Publishing Associates: Ithaca, NY, Greece, 1994; pp. 354–370. [Google Scholar]
- Bovera, F.; D’Urso, S.; Calabrò, S.; Tudisco, R.; Di Meo, C.; Nizza, A. Use of faeces as an alternative inoculum to caecal content to study in vitro feed digestibility in domesticated ostriches (Struthio camelus var. domesticus). Br. Poult. Sci. 2007, 48, 354–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mastellone, V.; Bovera, F.; Musco, N.; Panettieri, V.; Piccolo, G.; Scandurra, A.; Di Meo, C.; Attia, Y.A.; Lombardi, P. Mirrors improve rabbit natural behavior in a free-range breeding system. Animals 2019, 9, 533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Chemical Composition | Item |
---|---|
Crude protein, % as feed | 15.6 |
Ether extract, % as feed | 3.6 |
Ash, % as feed | 7.4 |
Acid Detergent Fibre, % as feed | 19.4 |
Ca, % as feed | 0.74 |
P, % as feed | 0.53 |
Na, % as feed | 0.23 |
Lysine, % as feed | 0.66 |
Methionine, % as feed | 0.22 |
Digestible Energy, MJ/kg | 11.9 |
Rabbits’ Performance | Initial Weight (g) | Final Weight (g) | DWG (g/d) | FI (g/d) | FCR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Face to Face | 1421.5 | 2496.9 a | 25.01 a | 132.0 | 5.36 AB |
Blind | 1419.8 | 2334.6 b | 21.28 b | 125.2 | 5.88 A |
Mirrors | 1426.6 | 2490.5 a | 24.74 a | 122.1 | 4.97 B |
RMSE | 79.76 | 85.91 | 2.23 | 9.81 | 0.35 |
p-Value | 0.9841 | 0.0423 | 0.0461 | 0.0929 | 0.0002 |
Carcass’ Traits | Face to Face | Blind | Mirrors | RMSE | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Live weight, g | 2420.0 | 2340.0 | 2410.7 | 428.8 | 0.0843 |
Skin, % LW | 16.55 A | 14.76 B | 16.87 A | 0.79 | 0.0004 |
Full GIT, %LW | 20.58 | 21.01 | 26.83 | 5.91 | 0.1396 |
Empty GIT, %LW | 10.09 | 10.87 | 8.51 | 1.67 | 0.0879 |
Urogenital tract, %LW | 0.2435 a | 0.1415 b | 0.1968 ab | 0.0649 | 0.0322 |
Spleen, % LW | 0.079 | 0.078 | 0.071 | 0.0229 | 0.8021 |
Hot carcass, g | 1372.5 | 1260.0 | 1420.0 | 326.3 | 0.6867 |
Gross dressing out, % | 56.71 ab | 53.73 b | 58.90 a | 1.98 | 0.0352 |
Net dressing out, % | 64.05 b | 63.05 b | 69.38 a | 1.61 | 0.0250 |
pHLD1h | 6.75 | 6.63 | 6.75 | 0.2954 | 0.6969 |
pHBF1h | 7.10 | 7.17 | 7.06 | 0.3387 | 0.8400 |
Carcass’ Traits | Face to Face | Blind | Mirrors | RMSE | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chilled carcass, g | 1357.9 | 1253.0 | 1402.0 | 322.3 | 0.7152 |
Gross dressing out, % | 56.11 ab | 53.54 b | 58.16 a | 2.09 | 0.0184 |
Net dressing out, % | 63.30 b | 62.57 b | 68.61 a | 2.82 | 0.0273 |
RC, g | 1092.3 | 1175.7 | 1168.8 | 309.0 | 0.8521 |
Liver, % CC | 5.07 | 6.17 | 4.84 | 1.45 | 0.5321 |
Kidney, % CC | 1.36 | 1.38 | 1.05 | 0.43 | 0.4123 |
Lungs + heart, % CC | 2.50 a | 187 b | 1.83 b | 0.20 | 0.0324 |
Head, % CC | 11.44 | 11.22 | 10.10 | 2.11 | 0.1196 |
Carcass length, cm | 43.50 | 42.33 | 44.17 | 1.54 | 0.1417 |
Carcass circumference | 18.75 | 16.67 | 17.50 | 1.88 | 0.1445 |
pHLD24h | 5.86 | 5.93 | 5.82 | 0.17 | 0.5588 |
pHBF24h | 6.04 | 6.00 | 5.95 | 0.1384 | 0.4387 |
Carcass’ Constituents | Face to Face | Blind | Mirrors | RMSE | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Meat, % RC | 70.77 A | 69.52 AB | 68.61 B | 1.103 | 0.0070 |
Bone, % RC | 28.06 | 28.93 | 27.97 | 3.13 | 0.2312 |
Fat, % RC | 0.45 | 0.86 | 2.57 | 1.92 | 0.1259 |
M:B | 2.52 | 2.40 | 2.45 | 0.13 | 0.1836 |
Carcass’ Composition | Face to Face | Blind | Mirrors | RMSE | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Crude protein | 90.88 | 90.34 | 92.08 | 1.711 | 0.486 |
Crude lipids | 3.58 | 2.10 | 1.73 | 1.161 | 0.201 |
Ash | 5.14 | 5.75 | 5.38 | 0.403 | 0.258 |
Hematological Traits | Face to Face | Blind | Mirrors | RMSE | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hematocrit, % | 37.7 | 41.0 | 40.8 | 4.95 | 0.3416 |
Hemoglobin, g/dL | 10.8 | 11.6 | 11.6 | 1.43 | 0.4681 |
RBC, 103/mm3 | 5.75 b | 6.65 a | 6.26 ab | 0.69 | 0.0444 |
WBC, 103/mm3 | 8.06 | 7.29 | 4.49 | 2.09 | 0.0890 |
Neutrophils, 103/mm3 | 4.51 | 4.51 | 2.07 | 1.85 | 0.0911 |
Lymphocytes, 103/mm3 | 3.25 A | 1.67 B | 1.36 B | 0.47 | <0.0001 |
Eosinophils, 103/mm3 | 0.23 | 0.55 | 0.05 | 0.46 | 0.1055 |
Monocities, 103/mm3 | 0.40 | 0.66 | 0.70 | 0.602 | 0.5615 |
Basophils, 103/mm3 | 0.12 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.014 | 0.1708 |
N/L | 1.39 B | 2.71 A | 1.51 B | 0.1423 | 0.0093 |
RDW, % | 15.35 | 15.83 | 14.81 | 1.08 | 0.9471 |
Platelets, 103/μL | 240.0 | 190.1 | 491.6 | 106.4 | 0.0878 |
MPV, fL | 5.72 | 4.98 | 5.72 | 0.69 | 0.1185 |
MCV, fL | 65.6 A | 61.6 B | 65.1 A | 2.10 | 0.0017 |
MCH, pg | 18.9 A | 17.4 B | 18.5 A | 0.71 | 0.0016 |
MCHC, g/dL | 28.8 | 28.4 | 28.5 | 0.52 | 0.5816 |
Serum Biochemistry | Face to Face | Blind | Mirrors | RMSE | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Glucose, mg/dL | 112.5 B | 132.5 A | 135.4 A | 11.5 | 0.0007 |
Total Protein, g/dL | 6.63 AB | 7.10 A | 6.23 B | 0.40 | 0.0013 |
Albumin, g/dL | 3.51 | 3.37 | 3.40 | 0.15 | 0.1383 |
Globulin, g/dL | 3.33 a | 3.02 ab | 2.92 b | 0.35 | 0.0463 |
A/G | 1.06 | 1.13 | 1.16 | 0.13 | 0.2268 |
Cholesterol mg/dL | 58.6 AB | 49.7 B | 64.0 A | 6.87 | 0.0257 |
Triglycerides mg/dL | 88.4 b | 99.0 a | 69.0 c | 8.56 | 0.0298 |
Urea, mg/dL | 59.2 a | 44.0 b | 37.0 b | 9.76 | 0.0471 |
Creatinine, mg/dL | 1.41 b | 1.35 b | 1.63 a | 0.14 | 0.0380 |
ALT, U/L | 80.2 | 72.3 | 71.0 | 15.72 | 0.3994 |
AST, U/L | 62.0 A | 36.0 B | 51.8 A | 11.53 | 0.0010 |
CPK, UI/L | 2356.3 A | 1296.8 B | 1189.6 B | 540.9 | 0.0005 |
LDH, UI/L | 825.8 A | 367.7 B | 472.6 B | 203.1 | 0.0005 |
SCFA | Face to Face | Blind | Mirrors | RMSE | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mmol/L | |||||
Acetate | 24.3 b | 33.2 a | 24.1 b | 2.83 | 0.0230 |
Propionate | 2.27 B | 3.54 A | 1.86 B | 0.32 | 0.0057 |
Butyrate | 2.81 ab | 4.33 a | 2.22 b | 0.38 | 0.0235 |
Isovaleric acid | 0.35 A | 0.23 AB | 0.15 B | 0.02 | 0.0046 |
Valeric acid | 2.55 | 2.48 | 2.38 | 0.43 | 0.6791 |
C3/C4 | 0.81 | 0.82 | 0.84 | 0.07 | 0.8521 |
Total SCFA | 32.5 b | 43.9 a | 30.9 b | 3.77 | 0.0114 |
% total SCFA | |||||
Acetate | 74.5 B | 75.3 B | 78.1 A | 1.77 | 0.0005 |
Propionate | 7.21 a | 7.76 a | 6.07 b | 0.37 | 0.0174 |
Butyrate | 7.97 ab | 9.80 a | 7.13 b | 0.81 | 0.0223 |
Isovaleric acid | 1.19 A | 0.54 B | 0.49 B | 0.39 | 0.0011 |
Valeric acid | 8.24 a | 6.05 b | 7.69 ab | 0.55 | 0.0367 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Musco, N.; Lombardi, P.; Addeo, N.F.; Secci, G.; Parisi, G.; Pero, M.E.; Piccolo, G.; Nizza, A.; Bovera, F. Mirrors Can Affect Growth Rate, Blood Profile, Carcass and Meat Traits and Caecal Microbial Activity of Rabbits Reared in a “Small Group” Free-Range System. Animals 2019, 9, 639. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9090639
Musco N, Lombardi P, Addeo NF, Secci G, Parisi G, Pero ME, Piccolo G, Nizza A, Bovera F. Mirrors Can Affect Growth Rate, Blood Profile, Carcass and Meat Traits and Caecal Microbial Activity of Rabbits Reared in a “Small Group” Free-Range System. Animals. 2019; 9(9):639. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9090639
Chicago/Turabian StyleMusco, Nadia, Pietro Lombardi, Nicola Francesco Addeo, Giulia Secci, Giuliana Parisi, Maria Elena Pero, Giovanni Piccolo, Antonino Nizza, and Fulvia Bovera. 2019. "Mirrors Can Affect Growth Rate, Blood Profile, Carcass and Meat Traits and Caecal Microbial Activity of Rabbits Reared in a “Small Group” Free-Range System" Animals 9, no. 9: 639. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9090639