Mondin Chiara, Trestini Samuele, Trocino Angela, Di Martino Guido
Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry (TESAF), University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro, Padova, Italy.
Department of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science (BCA), University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro, Padova, Italy.
Animals (Basel). 2021 Oct 23;11(11):3040. doi: 10.3390/ani11113040.
This research evaluates the economic sustainability of rabbit farms using different housing systems-bicellular (BI), conventional dual-purpose (DP) and enriched cages designed according to the World Rabbit Science Association guidelines (WRSA)-through a field-based study involving six farms over the course of five years. The cages were compared based on three productivity indices expressed in kg of produced live weight/m and on eight cost indices expressed in EUR/kg of produced live weight. The results showed that WRSA significantly reduced the productivity index per walkable cage area in buildings and cages, thanks to the longer platform area included in the cage compared to the other systems. Concerning cost indexes, total variable costs were not different among housing systems, whereas significant differences were observed within costs items. As for the feed costs, DP underperforms compared to BI or WRSA (1.15 vs. 1.02 and 0.99 EUR/kg produced live weight); for drugs costs, BI was less competitive compared to DP and WRSA (0.12 vs. 0.06 and 0.05 EUR /kg). In conclusion, under the conditions of the present study, the economic results of farms that adopted housing systems designed to improve rabbit welfare, such as WRSA enriched systems, were economically sustainable and, comparable to conventional housing systems based on BI or DP cages, also provided a significant reduction in drug use in the tested farms. A comprehensive collection of data from more farms at a European level would be necessary to confirm these results on the economics of farms adopting alternative housing systems for rabbits.
本研究通过一项为期五年、涉及六个养殖场的实地研究,评估了采用不同养殖系统的养兔场的经济可持续性,这些养殖系统包括双单元(BI)、传统两用(DP)以及根据世界兔子科学协会指南(WRSA)设计的富集笼。根据每平方米生产活体重(kg)表示的三个生产力指标以及每千克生产活体重(EUR/kg)表示的八个成本指标对笼子进行了比较。结果表明,由于与其他系统相比,WRSA笼子中的平台面积更长,因此显著降低了建筑物和笼子中每可步行笼面积的生产力指标。关于成本指标,不同养殖系统的总可变成本没有差异,但在成本项目中观察到了显著差异。至于饲料成本,DP的表现不如BI或WRSA(每千克生产活体重分别为1.15欧元、1.02欧元和0.99欧元);在药物成本方面,BI与DP和WRSA相比竞争力较弱(每千克分别为0.12欧元、0.06欧元和0.05欧元)。总之,在本研究条件下,采用旨在改善兔子福利的养殖系统(如WRSA富集系统)的养殖场的经济结果在经济上是可持续的,并且与基于BI或DP笼子的传统养殖系统相当,还显著减少了受试养殖场的药物使用。有必要在欧洲层面从更多养殖场全面收集数据,以证实这些关于采用替代兔子养殖系统的养殖场经济情况的结果。