Effect of doe–litter separation and photostimulation on reproductive performance of rabbit does
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17205/SZIE.AWETH.2019.1.009Keywords:
sexual receptivity, nursing, photoperiod, reproductionAbstract
The reproductive performance of controlled nursing Hycole rabbits (n=1800) subjected to light stimulation (F) or doe–litter-separation plus light stimulation (DF) before AI (on day 11) instead of hormonal oestrus synchronization was compared with evaluating two reproduction cycles in spring in Galgamácsa and Kartal rabbit farms. At both farms on day 8 before AI the daily 9 h and 50 lux basal LED lighting was increased to 16 h and 100 lux light intensity that was gradually set back until day 5 after AI to basal lighting. The F rabbits nursed controlled until day 14 (from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m.) using metal-plate as separation. The DF rabbits also nursed controlled but they skipped the nursing on day 10 and so there was a 47–48 h doe–litter separation (DLS) prior to AI combined with light stimulation. The DF rabbits turned already on day of AI to free nursing. DLS with light stimulation seemed to improve reproduction but sexual receptivity, pregnancy and kindling rates of the DF and F does did not differ significantly in Galgamácsa (DF: 60, 90 and 89%; F: 59, 89 and 88%) nor in Kartal (DF: 61, 88 and 88%; F: 59, 87 and 86%). With DLS and light stimulation the number of born kits per litter increased (P<0.05) in Galgamácsa (DF: 13.3 and F: 12.9) but hardly changed in Kartal (DF: 11.5 and F: 11.3). Compared to the F rabbits the productivity (number of total born kits per 100 AI) of the DF rabbits was 3.8% better in Galgamácsa (1139 vs 1184) and 4.1% better in Kartal (1008 vs 968). Based on our results a 1–7% improvement in productivity can be expected with the use of DLS and photostimulation compared to the farm practice (only light stimulation) depending on the farm conditions and reproduction cycles.
References
Eiben, Cs., Gódor-Surmann, K., Kustos, K. (2013): Effect of a transitory controlled nursing on days 9–11 or a 24-h fast on the production of free-nursing rabbits. Livest.Sci.155, 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2013.03.025
Eiben, Cs., Tóbiás, G., Kustos, K., Gódor-Surmann, K., Kotány, Sz., Gulyás, B., Szira, G. (2007): The change of nursing for oestrus induction (biostimulation): effect of contact between rabbit doe and its young. Livest.Sci. 111, 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.01.146
Eiben, Cs., Sándor, M., Sándor, F., Kustos, K. (2016): Effect of photostimulation, light source and season on reproductive performance of rabbit does. Proc. 11th World Rabbit Congress. Qingdao, China, pp. 189–192.
García-Dalmán, C., González-Mariscal, G. (2012): Major role of suckling stimulation for inhibition of estrous behaviors in lactating rabbits: Acute and chronic effects. Horm. Behav. 61, 108–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.11.003
Gerencsér, Zs., Matics, Zs., Nagy, I., Radnai, I., Szendrő, É,. Szendrő, Zs. (2012): Effect of lighting programme and nursing method on the production and nursing behaviour of rabbit does. World Rabbit Sci., 20 (2), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2012.1078
González-Mariscal, G., García-Dalmán, C., Jiménez, A. (2015): Biostimulation and nursing modify mating-induced c-FOS immunoreactivity in the female rabbit forebrain. Brain Research, 1608, 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.02.033
Matics, Zs., Gerencsér, Zs., Radnai, I., Dalle-Zolle, A., Palumbo, M., Mikó, A., Kasza, R., Szendrő, Zs. (2013): Effect of different lighting schedules (16L:8D or 12L:6D) on reproductive performance and nursing behaviour of rabbit does. Livest Sci., 157, 545–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2013.09.006
Najjar, A., Ben Aicha, E., Ben Mrad, M. (2013): Receptivity of the rabbit doe: which methods that could be predictive for receptivity. The Experiment, 12 (3), 786–790.
Quintela, L., Peña, A., Barrio, M., Vega, M. D., Diaz, R., Maseda, F., Garcia, P. (2001): Reproductive performance of multiparous rabbit lactating does: effect of lighting programs and PMSG use. Reprod. Nutr. Dev., 41, 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1051/rnd:2001104
Schuh, D., Hoy, S. T., Selzer, D. (2005): Einfluss einer zeitweiligen Mutter-Wurf-Separierung auf das Verhalten der Häsin. Proc. 14. Arbeitstagung über Haltung und Krankheiten der Kaninchen, Pelztiere und Heimtiere. Celle, Germany, pp. 47–51.
Statgraphics ® (1992): Reference Manual, Version 6.0, Manugistics Inc., Rockville, MD, USA.
Sun, L., Wu, Z., Li, F., Liu, L., Li, J., Zhang, D., Sun, C. (2017): Effect of light intensity on ovarian gene expression, reproductive performance and body weight of rabbit does. Anim. Reprod. Sci., 183, 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2017.05.009
Szendrő, Zs., Gerencsér, Zs., McNitt, J. I., Matics, Zs. (2016): Effect of lighting on rabbits and its role in rabbit production: A review. Livest. Sci., 183, 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.11.012
Theau-Clément, M. (2007): Preparation of the rabbit doe to insemination: a review. World Rabbit Sci., 15, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2007.604
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Eiben Csilla, Sándor Máté, Sándor Ferenc, Mohaupt Mónika, Kustos Károly
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
