Health and welfare of rabbits farmed in different production systems

SCIENTIFIC OPINION ADOPTED: 21 November 2019 doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.5944 Health and welfare of rabbits farmed in different production systems EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Klaus Depner, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin-Bastuji, Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gort azar Schmidt, Virginie Michel, Miguel  Angel Miranda Chueca, Helen Clare Roberts, Liisa Helena Sihvonen, Hans Spoolder, Karl Stahl, Antonio Velarde Calvo, Arvo Viltrop, Stephanie Buijs, Sandra Edwards, Denise Candiani, Olaf Mosbach-Schulz, Yves Van der Stede and Christoph Winckler Abstract 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. ©2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority. Keywords: animal welfare, rabbit, reproducing doe, housing system, organic farming Requestor: European Parliament Question number: EFSA-Q-2019-00593 Correspondence: [email protected] EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal Panel members: Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Klaus Depner, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin-Bastuji, Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gort azar Schmidt, Miguel  Angel Miranda Chueca, Virginie Michel, Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Helen Clare Roberts, Liisa Helena Sihvonen, Hans Spoolder, Karl Stahl, Antonio Velarde Calvo, Arvo Viltrop and Christoph Winckler. Acknowledgements: The AHAW Panel wishes to thank the following for the support provided to this scientific output: the hearing experts Thierry Gidenne, Zsolt Matics, Joan Rosell, Angela Trocino for their support to the development of the opinion; the trainee Marie Louise Schneider for her full support to the opinion, the ad-interim staff Cristina Rapagn a for her work on the citations (AHAW team, ALPHA unit, EFSA); all external respondents to the survey and the experts Tams Atk ari, Lotti Bigler, Ricard Garriga Baraut, Antonio Lavazza, Laurence Nouvel, Zsolt Szendr€ o, Alessandro Ravagnani and Laura Warin for their participation in the technical workshop on severity for welfare consequences for rabbits. Suggested citation: EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare), Saxmose Nielsen S, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Depner K, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gort azar Schmidt C, Michel V, Miranda Chueca M  A, Roberts HC, Sihvonen LH, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Velarde Calvo A, Viltrop A, Buijs S, Edwards S, Candiani D, Mosbach-Schulz O, Van der Stede Y and Winckler C, 2020. Scientific Opinion on the health and welfare of rabbits farmed in different production systems. EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944, 96 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.5944 ISSN: 1831-4732 ©2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and no modifications or adaptations are made. The EFSA Journal is a publication of the European Food Safety Authority, an agency of the European Union. Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 2 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Summary Council Directive 98/58/EC lays down the minimum standards for the protection of farm animals, including rabbits. Beyond this Directive, there is no specific legislation for protecting the welfare of rabbits used for farming purposes at the European Union (EU) level. Therefore, the AGRI committee of the European Parliament requested the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to update its 2005 scientific opinion about the health and welfare of rabbits in Europe kept for meat production. The mandate also requested an assessment of the welfare of rabbits farmed in different production systems, including organic production systems, by considering the impact of all aspects related to housing, rearing and nutrition on rabbit welfare. To respond to the mandate, at the end of 2018, EFSA set up a working group of European experts on different aspects of rabbit welfare including health. Rabbit farming takes place mainly in five member states of the EU: France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Both between and within countries the practices used for farming rabbits vary widely. To represent some of this variability, this scientific opinion focussed its assessment on six different housing systems: (1) conventional cages, (2) structurally enriched cages, (3) elevated pens, (4) floor pens, (5) outdoor/partially outdoor systems and (6) organic systems. The assessment considered three animal categories: (i) reproducing does (from first kindling till culling); (ii) kits (from birth to weaning) and (iii) growing rabbits (from weaning to slaughter age). A literature review of the available scientific evidence on the welfare of farmed rabbits identified 20 welfare consequences. Comparison of the level of welfare in the different housing systems was based on the calculation of an overall welfare impact score, taking into account the occurrence, duration and severity of the 20 welfare consequences. However, such data could not be fully retrieved from the literature, as comprehensive publications on farmed rabbit welfare are scarce and they rarely include quantitative information on these parameters. Therefore, an expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) process was implemented by EFSA to fill the gap and increase the validity of the qualitative knowledge found in literature. A 2-step EKE process was thus used: a) a survey was sent to 122 rabbit experts in the EU out of 135 which had expressed their interest in such a survey. The respondents (n = 88) estimated occurrence and duration of the 20 welfare consequences separately for the three rabbit categories in one or two of the six housing systems each, resulting in a total of 125 completed surveys. Occurrence referred to the proportion of all rabbits of a given category that are impaired by the stated welfare consequence at least once over their lifetime in this production stage (scale 0–1). Duration referred to the cumulative proportion of time that an average individual rabbit’s welfare is impaired by the consequence in its lifetime in this production stage (scale 0–1). b) an EKE workshop involving eight external experts and three hearing experts was carried out to assess the severity of the welfare consequences. Severity was defined as the level of distress and suffering (scale 0–10 with 10 as the score expressing maximum distress) that is caused by a given related welfare consequence. The values for occurrence, duration and severity obtained from the EKE survey and workshop were used to derive welfare impact scores for each welfare consequence, and these were summed to give an overall welfare impact score for each system, with a higher score indicative of poorer welfare. The overall impact welfare score was used to derive the conclusions related to the welfare comparison among systems. The results show that it is likely (certainty 66–90% based on probabilistic analysis of expert opinion), that the welfare of reproducing does is lower in conventional cages (median overall impact score: 3.2 with 90% probability interval of 1.8–5.4) compared to the five other housing systems (medians ranging between 1.8 [90% probability interval 1.0–3.3] and 2.3 [90% probability interval 1.2–4.0]). However, among the other systems no distinction can be made regarding the welfare impact on does. In addition, it is likely to extremely likely (certainty 66–99%) that the welfare of kits is lower in outdoor systems (median overall impact score: 2.6 with 90% probability interval of 1.8–3.7) compared to the other systems and that the kit welfare is higher in elevated pens (median overall impact score: 1.0 with 90% probability interval of 0.4–1.9) than in the four other systems (medians ranging between 1.3 [90% probability interval 0.5–2.4] and 1.6 [90% probability interval 0.8–2.9]). However, no distinction can be made among the conventional cages, enriched cages, floor pens and organic systems regarding the welfare impact on kits. Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 3 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Finally, it is likely to extremely likely (certainty 66–99%) that the welfare of growing rabbits is lower in conventional cages (median overall impact score: 3.5 with 90% probability interval of 2.1–5.9) but higher in elevated pens (median impact score: 1.0 with 90% probability interval of 0.5–2.0) compared to the other systems (medians ranging between 1.2 [90% probability interval 0.7–2.1] and 2.6 [90% probability interval 1.4–4.7]). However, no distinction can be made among the enriched cages, floor pens, organic systems and outdoor systems regarding the welfare impact on growing rabbits. Additional tables present the top 5 welfare consequences for each system and for each animal category and allowed an analysis of the main welfare consequences within each system. The outcomes of the assessment also highlighted possible welfare consequences in different rabbit categories. For instance, for reproducing does, restriction of movement gave the highest welfare impact scores and this welfare consequence (impact score: 0.87) together with lack of possibility for gnawing behaviour and hunger, made the greatest contribution to the higher impact score in conventional cages. For kits, heat stress gave the highest welfare impact scores (impact score: 0.45) and this welfare consequence, together with neonatal disorders and cold stress, made the greatest contribution to the higher impact score in outdoor systems. For growing rabbits, restriction of movement gave the highest welfare impact scores (impact score: 1.29). This welfare consequence, together with inability to perform gnawing behaviour and resting problems, made the greatest contribution to the higher impact score in conventional cages. Recommendations to address each of these welfare consequences are given in the opinion. It was also 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 occurred more often in floor pens, outdoor and organic systems. Housing in organic rabbit farming is diverse, for example either movable cages or individual paddocks can be used for does. Therefore, organic rabbit farming can –according to the systems used - result in different welfare consequences. Nevertheless, welfare impact scores given by experts suggest that welfare in organic systems is generally good. Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 4 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Table of contents Abstract................................................................................................................................................... 1 Summary................................................................................................................................................. 3 1. Introduction................................................................................................................................7 1.1. Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the requestor.................................................. 7 1.2. Interpretation of the Terms of Reference....................................................................................... 7 2. Data and methodologies .............................................................................................................. 8 2.1. Methodologies............................................................................................................................. 8 2.1.1. Approach.................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.2. Expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) ............................................................................................... 10 2.1.2.1. Technical workshop (EKE Sheffield method) ................................................................................. 10 2.1.2.2. Survey........................................................................................................................................ 11 2.1.3. Literature review ......................................................................................................................... 13 2.1.4. Uncertainty assessment ............................................................................................................... 13 3. Assessment................................................................................................................................. 14 3.1. Rabbit production in Europe......................................................................................................... 14 3.2. Production cycle of meat rabbits and animal categories.................................................................. 15 3.2.1. Life production cycle.................................................................................................................... 15 3.2.2. Animal categories........................................................................................................................ 15 3.3. Rabbit production systems ........................................................................................................... 16 3.3.1. Introduction................................................................................................................................16 3.3.2. Genetic lines ............................................................................................................................... 17 3.3.3. Provision of feed and water ......................................................................................................... 18 3.3.4. Management............................................................................................................................... 19 3.3.4.1. Biosecurity.................................................................................................................................. 19 3.3.4.2. Reproduction .............................................................................................................................. 19 3.3.5. Housing...................................................................................................................................... 20 3.3.5.1. Ambient conditions...................................................................................................................... 20 3.3.5.2. Housing systems ......................................................................................................................... 20 3.3.6. Housing systems for the survey.................................................................................................... 28 3.4. Describing rabbit welfare ............................................................................................................. 28 3.4.1. Animal-based measures ............................................................................................................... 28 3.4.2. Definition of welfare consequences relevant to farmed rabbits ........................................................ 30 3.5. Results from EKE on occurrence, duration and severity of welfare consequences in six housing systems...................................................................................................................................... 32 3.5.1. Results of EKE formal exercise on severity..................................................................................... 32 3.5.2. Results of survey on occurrence and duration................................................................................ 38 3.5.3. Overall welfare impact score ........................................................................................................ 41 3.5.4. Highest ranking welfare consequences for each animal category and housing system....................... 43 3.6. Results from literature on welfare consequences and associated hazards......................................... 47 3.6.1. Prolonged hunger........................................................................................................................ 47 3.6.2. Prolonged thirst........................................................................................................................... 49 3.6.3. Pododermatitis ............................................................................................................................ 50 3.6.4. Locomotory disorders (other than due to pododermatitis) ............................................................. 52 3.6.5. Skin lesions and wounds.............................................................................................................. 52 3.6.6. Respiratory disorders................................................................................................................... 56 3.6.7. Gastroenteric disorders ................................................................................................................ 57 3.6.8. Skin disorders (other than pododermatitis or skin lesions) ............................................................. 57 3.6.9. Reproductive disorders ................................................................................................................ 58 3.6.10. Mastitis....................................................................................................................................... 59 3.6.11. Neonatal disorders (including starvation/mis-mothering and cannibalism/exposure complex) ............ 60 3.6.12. Thermal stress ............................................................................................................................ 61 3.6.13. Restriction of movement .............................................................................................................. 63 3.6.14. Resting problem.......................................................................................................................... 64 3.6.15. Inability to express maternal behaviour......................................................................................... 65 3.6.16. Inability to express positive social interactions ............................................................................... 67 3.6.17. Inability to express gnawing behaviour ......................................................................................... 69 3.6.18. Occurrence of abnormal behaviours.............................................................................................. 70 3.6.19. Fear ........................................................................................................................................... 72 3.6.20. Metabolic disorders (not included in the survey) ........................................................................... 74 Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 5 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 3.6.21. Pain (not included in the survey) ................................................................................................. 75 3.7. Synthesis of findings on different production systems..................................................................... 75 3.7.1. Conventional cages ..................................................................................................................... 76 3.7.2. Elevated pens ............................................................................................................................. 77 3.7.3. Enriched cages............................................................................................................................ 77 3.7.4. Floor pens .................................................................................................................................. 78 3.7.5. Outdoor systems ......................................................................................................................... 78 3.7.6. Organic systems.......................................................................................................................... 79 4. Conclusions................................................................................................................................. 79 5. Recommendations....................................................................................................................... 81 References............................................................................................................................................... 83 Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................... 93 Appendix A –Literature search.................................................................................................................. 94 Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 6 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 1. Introduction 1.1. Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the requestor The Coordinators of the AGRI committee endorsed a request for two scientific opinions by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on the health and welfare of rabbits kept for meat production in Europe. This request is submitted in accordance with Article 29 of Regulation 178/2002 on “laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety”, which provides that the European Parliament may request the Authority to issue a scientific opinion on matters falling within the Authority’s mission. The request is introduced taking into account the worldwide importance of rabbit farming for meat production, including in the EU where rabbits are the second most farmed species in terms of numbers. Council Directive 98/58/EC 1 lays down the minimum standards for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, including rabbits, but there is no species-specific legislation protecting the welfare of farmed rabbits in the EU. The European Animal Welfare Strategy 2012–2015 recommended that existing legislation should be fully implemented before introducing more legislation. However, the developmesnt of guides to best practice should be encouraged. Meanwhile, international nongovernmental organisations, stakeholders and consumer association have raised serious concerns regarding the poor welfare, high stress levels and high mortality and morbidity rates of rabbits farmed in Europe. Other concerns relate to the electrical stunning of rabbits often not rendering the animals fully unconscious and thus leading to pain, stress and suffering. On 14 March 2017, Parliament adopted a resolution on minimum standards for the protection of farm rabbits, on the basis of a report initiated by the AGRI committee (2016/2077(INI) –rapporteur Stefan Eck). The AGRI Committee had proposed, among others, that the setting of minimum standards for the protection of farm rabbits could be assisted by an independent scientific opinion from EFSA. In 2005 and 2006, EFSA published scientific opinions on (i) the impact of housing and husbandry systems on the health and welfare of farmed domestic rabbits 2 and (ii) welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed deer, goats, rabbits, ostriches, ducks and geese, 3 respectively. More scientific studies on rabbit health and welfare became available in recent years. Hence, there is a need to update the EFSA assessments with view to the latest available scientific evidence. The AGRI committee, therefore, considers it opportune for the Parliament to request EFSA to update its scientific opinions on different aspects of health and welfare of rabbits kept for meat production in Europe. In particular, two scientific opinions should be developed addressing the following Terms of Reference (ToRs): 1) Scientific opinion on health and welfare of rabbit farmed in different production systems, including organic production systems. This will include all aspects related to housing, rearing and nutrition and the effects thereof on rabbit health, welfare and behaviour. Interactions between the different areas will also be addressed. 2) Scientific opinion on stunning and killing methods for rabbits. This will include the indication of the most suitable method for stunning and killing of rabbits, including indicators to assess unconsciousness and death of the animals. This scientific opinion relates to health and welfare of rabbit farmed in different production systems. 1.2. Interpretation of the Terms of Reference The EFSA Scientific Opinion EFSA-Q-2004-023 (EFSA, 2005) served as basis for this opinion. This means that, starting from the state of the art in 2005, scientific literature published since 2005 was primarily considered. Only rabbits bred and reared for meat production are considered in this opinion, and not those kept for other commercial purposes such as fur, or for research purposes or as pets. However, scientific literature, e.g. from laboratory or pet rabbits may also be referred to, provided that findings are 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31998L0058&from=EN 2 https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2005.267 3 https://www.efsa.europa.eu/it/efsajournal/pub/326 Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 7 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 applicable to farmed rabbits. While several animal categories can be distinguished in rabbit farming according to age, sex and reproductive stage (breeding does, breeding bucks, non-conceiving adult does, young females/males for breeding, kits, growing rabbits), this opinion focuses on breeding does, kits and growing rabbits. These animal categories are by far the largest in terms of animal numbers, and findings partly also apply to the animal categories not specifically addressed due to similar features of the housing systems they are usually kept in and similar biological requirements (e.g. growing rabbits vs. young females/males for breeding). The ToR request an opinion on health and welfare of rabbits farmed in different production systems. Animal production systems are characterised by complex interactions of many different components such as housing, feeding, breeding and health management. Housing systems are easiest to identify and describe, and so this opinion centres around six different housing systems, ranging from systems frequently found in current intensive rabbit production to alternative systems, including some still in the implementation phase for future adoption and organic farming. The possible interaction effects with other factors are taken into account by describing the management routines (including e.g. breeds/strains, ventilation systems, feeding, reproductive management used) most commonly found associated with the respective housing systems, and by separately considering each of these factors in the risk analyses for each of the different welfare consequences. To address the ToR, this opinion progresses through a series of stages: 1) a description of the range of rabbit production systems in current use or under development, including organic systems; 2) the identification of the possible healthand behaviour-related welfare consequences which might arise from differences in rabbit production systems; 3) a comparison of six housing systems in terms of their effects on these welfare consequences for the animals; scores for each of the welfare consequences were combined to produce an overall welfare impact score. Also, the five welfare consequences ranking highest in each system were identified; 4) a review of the hazards for these welfare consequences, including other aspects of production management that can be influential. 2. Data and methodologies 2.1. Methodologies 2.1.1. Approach This opinion focuses on a range of welfare consequences originating from different housing systems in which various management practices are considered. The target animal populations are breeding does, kits and growing rabbits kept in six different housing systems (conventional cages, structurally enriched cages, elevated pens (indoor parks), floor pens (indoor parks), outdoor/partially outdoor systems and organic systems). Animal categories are described in Section 3.2.2 and a description of the housing systems is provided in Section 3.3.5. The working group identified 21 possible welfare consequences for farmed rabbits (see Sections 3.4.2 and 3.6). Two of these welfare consequences (metabolic disorders and pain) were considered to be mainly the result of others and therefore not assessed independently. One welfare consequence (thermal stress) was subdivided into heat stress and cold stress; therefore in total, 20 welfare consequences were subsequently used in the analysis and comparison of housing systems. To compare the level of rabbit welfare in different housing systems, the occurrence, duration and severity of these 20 welfare consequences were assessed - as suggested in the EFSA guidance on Risk Assessment for animal welfare (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2012) –and combined in an overall welfare assessment score. In this project, for the generation of data on occurrence, duration and severity of welfare consequences, a 2-step expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) process was used (see Section 2.1.2): 1) a technical workshop (EKE –Sheffield method) where a formal exercise of EKE was carried out regarding the severity of the welfare consequences for rabbits. Details are given in Section 2.1.2.1. Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 8 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 2) a survey was carried out to obtain judgements on the occurrence and duration of the 20 welfare consequences for rabbits in the six different housing systems. Details are given in Section 2.1.2.2. Hazards for each welfare consequence were investigated by review of the scientific literature. These hazards can be linked to the management practices most commonly associated with the respective production systems and can be grouped into major categories: housing features, ambient conditions, genetics, nutrition and feeding, biosecurity, management of reproduction and others (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2012). The review focussed primarily on literature published since 2005, to update the previous EFSA Opinion. Each welfare consequence is described in Section 3.6 together with the identification and description of its main associated hazards. A schematic representation of the conceptual model for the development of the scientific opinion is presented in Figure 1, where the various elements needed for the assessment are indicated as well as the activities necessary to retrieve information. Uncertainty analysis is performed to give decisionmakers a clear picture of the scientific uncertainties affecting each assessment (see Section 2.1.4). Figure 1: Conceptual model for the development of the opinion, including activities necessary to retrieve the information and type of uncertainty assessment Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 9 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 All these rabbit categories usually coexist in a farm in relation to the hazards that they are exposed to and the occurrence of certain welfare consequences; similarities can be found among some categories (e.g. growing rabbits and male or female young breeding rabbits), which makes it possible to divide commercially farmed rabbits into three major categories: kits, growing rabbits and reproducing does. For the scope of the survey and in the discussion throughout this opinion it was therefore agreed to limit the number of target populations to 3, i.e. kits, growing rabbits, and reproducing does. 3.3. Rabbit production systems 3.3.1. Introduction Rabbit production is commonly based on a continuous and closed cycle, with all stages simultaneously present on the same farm, and it can be operated under different systems that are a combination of several factors/aspects (Figure 3). These include different building types with different equipment (ventilation system, lighting, feed distribution and drinking pipeline), in which different biosecurity measures may be applied to different animal genetics, housed with different systems and subjected to different management of reproduction, rearing, and feeding (Lebas, 2000; Cerolini et al., 2008; Lavazza et al., 2009; Italian Ministry of Health, 2019). All these factors, as well as their different combinations, may affect animal health and welfare to a varying extent. Table 5: Rabbit categories Category (a) Definition Kits From birth to weaning Growing rabbits From weaning to slaughter age Young females for breeding From selection (as a breeder) till first service Young males for breeding From selection (as a breeder) till appropriate age for mating or semen collection Breeding bucks From first mating/semen collection to culling Non-conceiving does Non-pregnant does after weaning of their litters till the next successful service Reproducing does From first kindling till culling –depending on the moment of the production cycle, this may include pregnant, lactating and lactating pregnant does (a): For this opinion, the animal categories in bold have been selected as target populations for the survey. Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 16 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 A variety of housing systems are used for rabbit farming. These range from conventional barren bicellular cages to alternative pen systems (commonly called ‘parks’), recently introduced in some European Countries and required by the Belgian legislation (Belgium, 2014). Some management practices might be more frequently associated to one or another housing system and thus provide different hazards for health and welfare. Despite not being fully exhaustive, the following chapters aim to address the main production factors within a rabbit production system, which may affect welfare and health to different extents 3.3.2. Genetic lines Most of the industrial production comes from commercial crossbred rabbits (also called ‘hybrids’) based on the crossing of lines from pure breeds selected by genetic suppliers, e.g. Hypharm-Eurolap, Hycole, in France and Italy; in Spain: Universidad Polit ecnica de Valencia (UPV) and Institut of Agrifood Reasearch and Technology (IRTA), additionally to French lines; Zika in Germany; Martini in Italy. Some other commercial rabbit breeds are also available, e.g. SIKA in Slovenia and Pannon White in Hungary. The dam lines are usually based on New Zealand White and Californian medium-size breeds; the sire lines are usually based on heavy breeds. Among heavy breeds, most are based on the Flemish Giant, which has the highest adult body weight. Native breeds are mostly bred in small farms, backyard and hobby production. During the last decades, in rabbits as in other meat species, the genetic selection has been mainly focused to improve traits linked to the increase of growth rate and amount of muscle mass (Gondret et al., 2005; Hern andez et al., 2006), as well as the number of offspring and milk production in females. This may have had some collateral negative effects on robustness, which is defined as the capacity to maintain good production levels, keeping all body functions at the highest performance, in many different environmental/housing conditions and in different production systems of farmed animals; breed or line is a predisposing hazard to some diseases (S anchez et al., 2012; Rosell and de la Fuente, 2018). Figure 3: Production factors within conventional and niche production systems for rabbit farms Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 17 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Selection for reproduction durability has efficacy in delaying senescence and these genetic lines have a lower sensitivity to external environmental factors, being likely mediated by higher body mass and energy supply (Pascual et al., 2013). 3.3.3. Provision of feed and water In conventional farms, feed distribution can be manual or automatic, whereas in niche systems it is usually manual. In indoor and in semi-plein-air (semi-outdoor) systems, drinking is usually guaranteed by automatic distribution and nipple systems, whereas under outdoor conditions, suitable supplementary devices are necessary to assure water availability across all seasons. The water origin may be different, water main or well, and accordingly the chemical and microbiological quality of water may vary and thus should be regularly checked; finally, different cleaning and disinfection procedures may be adopted for the drinking systems (tanks, pipelines and drinkers). Under most farming conditions, complete pelleted diets are used, and feeding is intended to cover the rabbits’physiological and nutritional requirements to assure their health and their productive performance (de Blas and Mateos, 2010; Maertens, 2010; Xiccato and Trocino, 2010; Gidenne et al., 2017a,b). The nutritional requirements depend on animal genetics, conditions for housing, management of reproduction and rearing/growing, as well as their combinations. Some dietary components, e.g. fibre fractions, also play a special role in the control of digestive diseases of the growing rabbit (Gidenne et al., 2010, 2015; Trocino et al., 2014). Regarding breeding females, feeding is usually ad libitum. They usually receive a unique mixed diet formulated to meet the requirements of both the doe, or both the doe and kits, in one feeder. When kits begin to consume solid feed (around 17–21 days of age) they may consume the feed specifically formulated to satisfy the high lactation requirements during the first part of lactation. During the second part of the lactation (24–35 days post AI), the kits’may consume a feed more adapted to their digestive physiology (Xiccato et al., 2008; de Blas and Mateos, 2010). Feed restriction is not used for reproducing females. Nevertheless, young females selected for breeding may be restricted during their growth, using quantitative or qualitative restriction to avoid excessive fattening, especially when a later age is selected for the first insemination. Regarding growing rabbits, the feeding programmes may be different and may use more diets to closely match the specific requirements for each growth stage or may use fewer diets (even only one). Feeding may be ad libitum or restricted. In France, using a 42-day cycle and slaughtering at 10–11 weeks, quantitative feed restriction (15–30% reduction from ad libitum) is usually applied in 95% of conventional farms during the first weeks after weaning, followed by a period of weak restriction or free intake, to reduce post-weaning digestive disorders and to improve the feed efficiency (Gidenne et al., 2017a,b). In the other producing countries, the use of quantitative feed restriction is a less common practice. Table 6summarises the most common feeding programmes adopted in conventional farms for the different categories of rabbits (Maertens, 2010). In outdoor or organic systems, supplementation with fresh forage or hay or access to grazing, besides the distribution of compound diets (pellets or whole grains) may be used. In organic systems, basic requirements according to EU Reg 2018/848 include access to pasture whenever conditions allow for it. Table 6: Example of feeding scheme for conventional rabbit meat production (modified from (Maertens, 2010) Rabbit category Quantity Diet Males Young (until 18 weeks) Ad libitum Growing rabbits Adult Restricted (40 g/kg live weight) Growing rabbits/specific diet for males Young does Early mating (15–16 weeks) Ad libitum Growing rabbits Late mating (17–20 weeks) Restricted (40 g/kg live weight, followed by a 4-day flushing before insemination) Growing rabbits or specific rearing diet Does Late gestation Ad libitum Lactation Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 18 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 3.3.4. Management 3.3.4.1. Biosecurity Within conventional rabbits farms, the biosecurity programmes are largely based on a series of provisions, requirements, rules, facilities and operational practices, all aimed: not only (1) to ‘isolate’ the farm environment from outside and thus to exclude the accidental introduction of disease-causing organisms into the farm, but also (2) to reduce pathogen spread and damage resulting from infectious agents already present in the farm. The setup of biosecurity programmes has to consider all the different aspects of farming, i.e. management, structural requirements, cleaning and disinfection, isolation (i.e. control of people, animals and vehicles movements) and other biosafety measures, preventive treatments and direct prophylaxis actions (Lavazza et al., 2009; Italian Ministry of Health, 2019). Moreover, the differences existing between production systems may condition the applicability and influence the efficacy of such biosecurity programmes. The closed cycle production system of rabbit reproductive does not permit the adoption of complete all in/all out procedures and corresponding cleaning and disinfection procedures (HuneauSala€ un et al., 2015). Therefore, the application of specific biosecurity measures is strongly recommended. This can be complemented by other measures of both direct (sanitary) and indirect (metaphylaxis/immunoprophylaxis) prevention (EFSA, 2005; Lavazza et al., 2009). In particular, infirmary and quarantine procedures, i.e. dedicated areas for ill animals and for entering animals, respectively, should be present and used in rabbit farms. Specific vaccination programmes include those necessary for primary viral infectious diseases of lagomorphs such as myxomatosis and rabbit haemorrhagic disease (Rosell et al., 2019). This is defined in each area according to the epidemiological situation (EFSA, 2005; Italian Ministry of Health, 2019). In some niche systems, certain specific biosecurity measures are impossible to realise. For instance, isolation from wildlife is difficult in systems with outdoor access. 3.3.4.2. Reproduction Conventional farms mostly use artificial insemination (AI), which permits farmers to organise and schedule all the related operations inside the farm in a cyclic manner. Semen may be obtained from specialised farms/centres or from males reared and kept in the same farm, which implies that males may be absent or present in the farm. Usually, the doe is inseminated with 0.5 ml of fresh diluted semen (1:5 to 1:15) and immediately afterwards is subjected to an intramuscular injection of Gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) synthetic analogue to induce ovulation. Natural mating is used only on small farms with few does as it is labour-intensive and time consuming, because it requires frequent movement of the animals between cages. Pregnancy lasts 30–31 days. It is diagnosed by abdominal palpation at 13–17 days. The timing of AI after kindling determines the reproductive rhythm and the interval between two consecutive kindlings. Rabbit does are receptive and may be inseminated immediately after parturition. Nevertheless, under conventional conditions the most common reproductive rhythms are based on AI at 11–12 days or 17–18 days post-partum, which means an interval of 42 days or 49 days between two kindlings. An example of this reproductive rhythm is presented in Figure 4. Longer reproductive rhythms, with AI later than 25 days post-partum, are also applied. At kindling, cross fostering and litter standardisation are usually applied when the does are healthy. The rabbit doe can give birth to 1–20 kits, but she can successfully nurse 8–10 kits. Thus, within 1–2 days after parturition, cross fostering is applied to standardise litter size and kits’weight within the same litter. The litter size nursed varies from 8 to 10 according to the doe parity and genetics. After Rabbit category Quantity Diet Lactating Ad libitum Kits <3 weeks Lactation Kits >3 weeks Weaners In pre-gestation cages Restricted (40 g/kg live weight), but ad libitum 4 days prior to insemination Growing rabbits Growing rabbits 4–6/7 weeks Restricted, 0.75 of ad libitum Growing rabbits 6/7–10/11 weeks Ad libitum Growing rabbits/finishing Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 19 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 2–3 days, some farmers close the entrance of the nest and allow the does to nurse their kits only once per day until 14–15 days after parturition, i.e. controlled lactation. Thereafter, and until litter weaning, the does and their kits are free to move in and out of the nest. The timing of weaning, i.e. separation of kits from their doe, depends on the reproductive rhythm. In does mated immediately after parturition, kits are weaned at 23–25 days of age because the doe is going to give birth to the next litter within a few days, as for wild does. In rabbit farms, weaning age varies from 30 to 35 days of age. To schedule operations in the farm, rabbit does may be managed as a single group (batch), or more groups subjected to the same operations on the same day. In a single batch system, all rabbit does of a barn are inseminated on the same day according to the reproductive rhythm, they will give birth on the same day, kits will be weaned on the same day and sold at the slaughtering age and weight at the same time. In the two-batch system, two groups of does are present in the same barn, while the timing of the operations on the two batches is equal to half of the interval between two kindlings. In some niche systems, such as those producing under the French label ‘Label Rouge’, the batch system can be used, as in conventional farms. However, in outdoor or organic farming, natural mating is used, since in the organic systems hormonal treatment for the reproduction control is forbidden. 3.3.5. Housing 3.3.5.1. Ambient conditions Facilities for rearing rabbits may be placed indoors or outdoors. In conventional indoor systems, buildings are made of different materials (e.g. concrete, plastic) and might contain different equipment to control environmental conditions by automated fan ventilation, heating and cooling systems. Under semi-plein-air and open-air systems, environmental (micro)climate and light schedule are subject to seasonal changes. In semi-plein-air systems, the buildings have a roof, but lateral walls are only partial and openings are not completely closable. In open-air systems, the buildings only comprise a roof to protect animals kept in cages. During summer, trees serve to alleviate heat stress, but above 30°C, artificial ventilation is necessary. In indoor farms, a controlled 16L:8D (16 h light:8 h dark) lighting schedule with automatic lighting (light bulbs, fluorescent light, LED), and even half-hour crepuscular transition, may be used to control the seasonal effect on reproductive performance of breeding rabbits. A minimum intensity of 20 lux is usually provided. In organic systems, reproducing animals and young kits might be housed indoors (according to climatic conditions), whereas growing rabbits are usually housed outdoors in movable cages or paddocks. Outdoor systems may be very different, but usually do not contain equipment to control environmental conditions. 3.3.5.2. Housing systems Especially with view to the housing systems, farms can be distinguished into conventional farms (including conventional cages, enriched cages and elevated pens) and niche systems (including floor pens, outdoor and organic systems). Figure 4: Main operations and physiological state of the doe under reproductive rhythms with 6and 7-week intervals, commonly used in conventional rabbit farms (kindling to kindling interval 42 days and 49 days, respectively) Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 20 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Conventional farms In the large majority of conventional farms, replacement does before breeding, and inseminated but not pregnant does, are housed in small cages for a brief period (5–8 weeks) before entering the batch production management system. Then, reproducing does are housed individually with their offspring. In some farms, the doe always remains in the same cage after the litter weaning, to give birth for the next litter, whereas weaned rabbits are moved into the growing enclosures. In other farms, at weaning, the doe is moved to a clean and disinfected enclosure, whereas the litter remains in the cage where they were born until slaughtering (all-in all-out system, using dual purpose cages). Conventional wire cages are used for housing of both young females for breeding and reproducing does with their litters. More recently, in some countries an increasing number of new or renovated farms have started to use structurally enriched cages, the so-called ‘welfare cage’, i.e. larger cages equipped with elevated platforms and plastic footrests, and sometimes other internal enrichment objects. Moreover, a few farms use alternative systems based on elevated pens, commonly called parks, in which does are normally kept individually but may be kept in groups for some periods (part-time housing) by removing wire walls between single modules of a pen. Such group systems are still being further developed in terms of housing design and management (e.g. re-grouping strategies). Housing for growing rabbits may vary greatly among countries and within countries. In most European countries dual-purpose conventional cages are common and the use of structurally enriched cages is increasing, in which small groups of rabbits are reared (4–5 rabbits). A few conventional farms have recently started to use elevated pens for group-housing of growing rabbits in larger groups (32– 36 rabbits). Bicellular cages are still used, usually in older units. An overview of the different sizes of the housing systems available in conventional farms for housing the different categories of rabbits is presented in the Table 7. Table 7: Sizes of the housing systems available in conventional farms for housing the different categories of rabbits Width (cm) Length (cm) Height (cm) Total available surface (cm 2 ) CONVENTIONAL FARMS Conventional cages Bicellular cages for growing rabbits 25.4 44 28 1,200 Young or non-pregnant female Growing rabbits 38 43.5–66 28–41 1,650–2,510 Basic standard models for reproducing does with litters or for growing rabbits (dual purpose cage) 38 87–102 32–39 3,300–3,900 Wider versions for reproducing does with litters or for growing rabbits (dual purpose cage) 46 95–102 35 4,370–4,700 Structurally enriched cages for reproducing does and litters or for growing rabbits (dual purpose) Enriched cages with wire-mesh platform (width 20 cm) 38–46 95–102 60–65 4,370–5,600 Enriched cages with plastic-mesh platform 46–52.5 102 65–80 5,600–6,400 Alternative elevated pen (park) systems for reproducing does with their litters (4 does) or for growing rabbits (32) (dual purpose) Pen/park with plastic-mesh platform (width 20– 25 cm) 180–200 80–102 Open top Total: 18,000–25,400 Per doe: 4,500–6,350 Per growing rabbit: 563–800 Niche systems Outdoor systems No standards available for housing enclosures Organic systems No standards available for housing enclosures Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 21 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Different types of floor are used for both reproducing does and growing rabbits. The most common is wire mesh, frequently paired with a plastic footrest pad (usually 25 936 cm with space between slats equal to 1.6 97 cm). Plastic slatted floors may also be used. Some niche systems also use a concrete floor covered by litter, combinations of solid and slatted floor, or animals may be kept directly on the ground as in outdoor movable cages (wire floor) or in open-air enclosures. Almost all housing solutions presented in Table 7may contain some enrichment made of different materials. Platforms may be added to increase animal activity (e.g. jumping) and provide escape options, isolation possibilities or shelters. Platforms may be made of wire mesh, slatted plastic floors, or a solid surface of different materials. They may be differently positioned within the enclosure. Hiding places represented by pipes, boxes or walls to provide visual isolation may be included and these may be made of plastic or metal. Finally, gnawing sticks (wood, compressed hay or other materials) may be offered to rabbits. In conventional farms, the stocking density of growing rabbits in terms of animals reared/m 2 and kg final live weight/m 2 differ according to each national regulation or national guidelines (when available) in respect to each housing system and to the slaughter age. Nevertheless, farmers adapt the stocking density used in their farm according to quality of (micro)climate (e.g. building, equipment), genetic lines, conditions for housing (structures in which animals are kept), management of reproduction, management of growing, feeding, and biosecurity measures. The drawings below provide examples of typical conventional cages (Figures 5and 6), enriched cages (Figure 7), elevated pens (Figure 8). Figure 5: Conventional cages. Example of a bicellular conventional cage: this cage is used for housing of 1–2 growing rabbits from weaning until the end of fattening. It is made of wire mesh and it is equipped with a feeder and a nipple drinker Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 22 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 In the drawing (Figure 6), the cage on the right is equipped for the reproducing doe and its litter with a removable plastic nest containing the litter in the front; the nest area is separated from the rest of the cage by a removable wall with a sliding door. The door of the nest can be closed for controlled lactation during the first 1–2 weeks after kindling, as shown in the central cage. Then, the wall between the nest and the rest of the cage (see arrow on the nest wall of the central cage) and the nest box (see arrow on the nest box of the left cage) are removed to obtain a unique space in which growing rabbits will remain after separation of the doe, as shown in the left cage. Figure 6: Conventional cages. Example of a dual-purpose conventional cage: this cage is used for individual housing of the reproducing doe from a few days before kindling until the end of lactation with its litter and then, after removal of the nest box, for housing of growing rabbits. It is made of wire mesh and it is equipped with a feeder and a nipple drinker. A plastic footrest can be also used that could be removed or not during rearing of growing rabbits (see arrow on the plastic footrest of the left cage) Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 23 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 In the drawing (Figure 7), the right cage is equipped for the reproducing doe and its litter with a removable plastic nest containing the litter in the front; the nest area is separated from the rest of the cage by a removable wall with a sliding door. The door of the nest can be closed for controlled lactation during the first 1–2 weeks after kindling. Then, the wall between the nest and the rest of the cage (see arrow on the nest wall of the right cage) and the nest box (see arrow on the nest box of the left cage) are removed to provide a unique space in which growing rabbits will remain after separation of the doe, as shown in the left cage. Figure 7: Enriched cage. Example of a dual-purpose enriched cage: this cage is larger and higher than conventional dual-purpose cages. It is used for individual housing of the reproducing doe from a few days before kindling until the end of lactation with its litter and then, after removal of some items, for housing of growing rabbits. It is made of wire mesh and it is equipped with a feeder and a nipple drinker. It always includes a platform with wire mesh or plastic slats flooring. A plastic footrest is also used that could be removed during rearing of growing rabbits (see arrow on the plastic footrest of the left cage) Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 24 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 In the drawing (Figure 8), the right module is equipped for the reproducing doe and its litter with a removable plastic nest containing the litter in the front; the nest area is separated from the rest of the cage by a removable wall with a sliding door. The door of the nest can be closed for controlled lactation during the first 1–2 weeks after kindling. Then, the wall between the nest and the rest of the cage (see arrow on the nest wall of the central module) and the nest box (see arrow on the nest of the left module) are removed to provide a unique space. After separation of the doe, the walls between single modules are removed (see arrow on the wire mesh wall between the central and the left module) to form a pen/park for group housing of growing rabbits. Usually, four modules are joined to form one pen/park for growing rabbits. Single modules could be joined also for part-time group housing of reproducing does, which is not yet widely implemented in commercial farms. Niche production systems In niche production systems, a variety of solutions exist to house reproducing does and growing rabbits. They can be based on open-air enclosures or underground systems that combine wire cages and underground confined spaces (Figure 8a) as well as hutches (Finzi and Mariani, 2011). These systems are usually for individual housing of reproducing does with their litter and for collective housing of growing rabbits. Moreover, in Switzerland, small farms exist that use indoor deep litter parks, floor pens, for group housing of reproducing does or growing rabbits (Figure 9). A total of about 3,600 reproducing does are kept in this system in Switzerland in small farms (calculated average farm size: 64 does per farm; i.e. 56 farms) (Ruchti et al., 2018). Other niche systems use different fixed (cages, hutches, paddocks) or movable housing systems (usually cages) which may give access to outdoor areas and pasture, here referred as outdoor systems (Figure 10). Figure 8: Elevated pen. Example of a dual-purpose elevated pens (also called parks): this system comprises single modules that can be connected together. The single module is larger than enriched dual-purpose cages and it is open-top. The single module is used for individual housing of the reproducing doe from a few days before kindling until the end of lactation with its litter and then, after removal of some items and after joining the single modules, for group-housing of growing rabbits. Walls are wire mesh, whereas flooring could be made of wire mesh or plastic slats. The single module is equipped with feeders and nipple drinkers. It always includes a platform with wire mesh or plastic slatted flooring. A plastic footrest is used if plastic flooring is not available Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 25 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Neonatal disorders (including starvation/mis-mothering and cannibalism/exposure complex): Definition: The newborn kit shows compromised functions, seen as weakness, which results in death or would lead to death without intervention. Restriction of movement: Definition: The rabbit is unable to perform three consecutive hops because of physical restraint or lack of space. Resting problem: Definition: The animal is unable to lie comfortably because of insufficient amount of space, space of inadequate quality (in terms of floor type, dryness and hygiene), or both. This results in an inability to lie fully stretched or in coat soiling. Inability to express maternal behaviour: Definition: Provision of unsuitable, or absence of, nest material which challenges doe nesting behaviour and kit survival at kindling, restlessness, repeated visits to the nest box, aggression towards the kits. Inability to express positive social interactions: Definition: The absence of social sniffing and grooming of conspecifics or of bodily contact with conspecifics especially during resting. Inability to express gnawing behaviour: Definition: The absence of suitable material for the expression of gnawing behaviour such as roughage or gnawing sticks Occurrence of abnormal behaviours: Definition: The animal shows non-functional behaviours not normally exhibited by healthy animals in an unrestricted environment. These include hair pulling unrelated to nest building, ear chewing or stereotypic behaviours, such as repetitive chewing, nibbling and licking at the bars of the cages or prolonged scratching. Fear: Definition: The animal shows signs of fearfulness such as immobility, repeated escape attempts or increased vigilance. Two further welfare consequences were identified but were not included in the survey because they were viewed as being primarily the secondary result of other welfare consequences which had already been included. Metabolic disorders: Definition: ‘Metabolic disorders’of rabbits, are mainly related with the metabolism of ions/minerals (and hazards leading to e.g. hypokalaemia, hypocalcaemia and hypercalcaemia), or the energetic metabolism (e.g. ketosis). Pain: Definition: Pain can be defined as ‘an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage or described in terms of such damage’(IASP, 1979). 3.5. Results from EKE on occurrence, duration and severity of welfare consequences in six housing systems 3.5.1. Results of EKE formal exercise on severity In a first exercise, the aim was to rank the welfare consequences relative to each other according to the severity that would be experienced by the rabbit doe. Figure 12 shows the relative ranking of behaviourand health-related welfare consequences for a rabbit doe from lower to higher severity. Welfare consequences that change in severity in the different animal categories (kits and growing Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 32 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 rabbits) were judged separately in the following rounds. For this purpose, the welfare consequences were divided into behaviour- (including emotional states such as fear) and health-related consequences (including consequences such as thermal stress, hunger and thirst). Results are reported in the figures below (Figures 13,14 and 15 for does, kits and growing rabbits respectively) from lower severity (e.g. inability to express positive social behaviour) to higher severity (e.g. inability to express maternal behaviour), separately for behaviourand health-related consequences. For the behaviour-related welfare consequences, the severity of the inability to perform positive social behaviour was scored the lowest as the experts concluded that, even though rabbits are gregarious animals, the motivation for a rabbit doe to search for social contact during pregnancy or after kindling would be relatively low. Also, there would be no physical or pathological consequences if the behaviour could not be performed. This, however, could be different for other age groups. In contrast, the motivation for maternal behaviour is high in rabbit does. As in most mammals, the mothering instinct and the connected behaviours are strong. Therefore, the welfare consequence ‘inability to express maternal behaviour’was ranked highest in terms of severity for the rabbit doe. Figure 12: Relative ranking of behaviourand health-related welfare consequences for a rabbit doe from lower to higher severity Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 33 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 For the health-related welfare consequences, skin disorders were ranked lowest in severity relative to the other health-related welfare consequences, whereas prolonged thirst was ranked highest. In a second exercise, the experts, based on the previous relative rankings, merged the two sets of behaviourand health-related welfare consequences and scored them on a severity scale from 0 to 10. The experts agreed that the welfare consequence that is considered to reach this highest level of suffering for the rabbit (doe, kit, growing rabbit) would be a combination of different welfare consequences (such as experienced in myxomatosis). Therefore, it was decided to score the welfare consequence that was considered to have the highest severity with a maximum of 9. The experts discussed possible common criteria to be used to compare health and behaviour related consequences. It was agreed that the common criteria to judge severity of the respective welfare consequences are as shown in Table 9. In the next question, the experts were asked to judge if the severity of the welfare consequences differs among the three defined animal categories (rabbit does, growing rabbits and kits). It was agreed that only direct consequences for animal welfare should be considered. For instance, mastitis in a doe can affect the welfare of kits –but it will not be considered as a consequence for kits although it might contribute to other welfare consequences such as prolonged hunger. The experts concluded that the following welfare consequences do not occur in kits: inability to perform maternal behaviour, reproductive disorders, mastitis, pododermatitis, occurrence of abnormal behaviour. Other consequences are instead expected to have a different severity for kits than for does (neonatal disorders, inability to perform gnawing behaviour, inability to perform positive social behaviour, restriction of movement, thermal stress). Similarly, for growing rabbits some welfare consequences do not occur (inability to perform maternal behaviour, reproductive disorders, mastitis, neonatal disorders) and others are considered to have a different severity (inability to perform positive social behaviour, restriction of movement). A third elicitation exercise was then held to score the severity of the welfare consequences that are expected to have a different severity for kits and growing rabbits. The severity scale resulting from the elicitations is reported in Table 10 below, where welfare consequences are ranked for rabbit does. For kits and growing rabbits, the scores for the welfare consequences for which the median score differs from those of rabbit does are highlighted in bold letters. Table 9: Criteria for judgement of severity Criteria for judgement of severity Behaviour-related welfare consequences Health-related welfare consequences •Unfulfilled essential behaviour (from high to low motivation) •Unfulfilled essential behaviour, e.g. feeding •Pathological/physiological consequences •Pain •Acute stress reaction •Discomfort Table 10: Severity of different welfare consequences experienced by rabbits as scored during the workshop (11 experts) Welfare consequence Severity score Reproducing does Kits Growing rabbits Median Min Max Median Min Max Median Min Max Neonatal disorders na 979 na Inability to express positive social behaviour 104307 318 Inability to express gnawing behaviour 105 104 105 Restriction of movement 216318 428 Skin disorders 314 314 314 Occurrence of abnormal behaviour 317na 317 Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 34 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Welfare consequence Severity score Reproducing does Kits Growing rabbits Median Min Max Median Min Max Median Min Max Skin lesions 325 325 325 Gastrointestinal disorders 436 436 436 Fear 527 527 527 Reproductive disorders 536na na Resting problem 628 628 628 Respiratory disorders 627 627 627 Thermal stress 557769 5 57 Inability to express maternal behaviour 729na na Pododermatitis 748na 748 Mastitis 758na na Prolonged hunger 878 878 878 Locomotory disorders 979 979 979 Prolonged thirst (a) 999 999 999 na: not applicable. (a): Maximum severity score of all the selected welfare consequences. Figure 13: Severity scale for the welfare consequences relevant for does –in grey the health-related welfare consequences, in white the behavioural welfare consequences Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 35 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Figure 14: Severity scale for the welfare consequences relevant for kits –in grey the health-related welfare consequences, in white the behavioural welfare consequences Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 36 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Figure 15: Severity scale for the welfare consequences relevant for growing rabbits –in grey the health-related welfare consequences, in white the behavioural welfare consequences Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 37 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 3.5.2. Results of survey on occurrence and duration The occurrence of each welfare consequence in the different housing systems and the overall duration are shown for each animal category in Tables 11–13. The occurrences described in the tables are given according to the housing system as provided by experts; duration is the median across all system of the estimate provided by the experts per each housing system. Table 11: Median estimates for occurrence and duration of welfare consequences in reproducing does (occurrence depending on the housing system, while duration is assumed to be similar in different housing systems) REPRODUCING DOES Welfare consequence Occurrence (a) Duration (a),(b) Conventional cages Elevated pens Enriched cages Floor pens Organic systemsOutdoor system (All systems) Prolonged hunger 6.3% 2.8% 8.0% 12.6% 2.1% 7.3% 44.0% Prolonged thirst 7.1% 0.1% 8.7% 9.4% 1.1% 6.4% 25.0 Resting problem 14.8% 6.2% 5.0% 11.4% 9.2% 7.5% 25.0 Heat stress 16.1% 2.8% 10.5% 19.6% 20.5% 20.2% 19.0% Cold stress 6.3% 0.2% 1.8% 1.5% 0.5% 7.2% 18.0% Restriction of movement 54.7% 58.9% 57.9% 1.7% 30.2% 3.0% 70.0% Pododermatitis 8.0% 2.7% 2.6% 6.6% 1.6% 10.8% 15.2% Locomotory disorders 2.1% 1.4% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0% 3.1% 12.5% Skin lesions and wounds 1.6% 12.7% 0.5% 14.9% 4.7% 15.1% 20.0% Skin disorders 2.9% 1.1% 1.9% 7.1% 6.5% 5.6% 30.0 Respiratory disorders 6.3% 3.5% 1.2% 4.1% 3.7% 7.1% 25.0% Gastroenteric disorders 3.0% 2.8% 0.0% 5.9% 3.3% 10.4% 10.5% Reproductive disorders 3.1% 4.3% 2.8% 18.7% 24.9% 5.0% 12.5% Mastitis 4.0% 3.7% 2.8% 7.1% 2.2% 5.7% 19.5% Occurrence of abnormal behaviours 5.7% 2.5% 0.8% 12.1% 2.1% 6.4% 20.5% Fear 3.4% 4.5% 0.6% 5.9% 6.4% 13.7% 10.0% Inability to express maternal behaviour 1.7% 2.3% 0.6% 8.7% 3.1% 9.1% 18.5% Inability to express positive social interactions 33.4% 14.6% 10.9% 7.9% 6.2% 6.5% 50.0% Inability to express gnawing behaviour 59.6% 16.7% 10.0% 0.0% 8.3% 6.0% 60.0% (a): For better readability, percentages are provided here. However, please note that for the calculation of the welfare impact scores proportions were used. (b): Duration: Lifetime duration was defined as the proportion of the total lifetime in that production stage that an individual rabbit’s welfare is impaired. www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 38 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Welfare of rabbits on-farm Table 12: Median estimates for occurrence and duration of welfare consequences in kits (occurrence depending on the housing system, while duration is assumed to be similar in different housing systems) KITS Welfare consequence Occurrence (a) Duration (a),(b) Conventional cages Elevated pens Enriched cages Floor pens Organic systemsOutdoor system (All systems) Prolonged hunger 4.9% 5.0% 4.7% 10.6% 7.9% 11.3% 35.0% Prolonged thirst 9.7% 3.3% 8.9% 8.3% 0.0% 2.3% 30.0% Resting problem 6.9% 3.7% 3.2% 5.9% 1.0% 5.3% 32.5% Heat stress 5.5% 1.0% 9.8% 1.5% 15.8% 41.4% 15.0% Cold stress 4.9% 0.0% 0.0% 6.8% 20.3% 26.7% 15.0% Restriction of movement 13.6% 2.8% 42.5% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 15.0% Locomotory disorders 0.8% 0.4% 0.6% 2.3% 0.3% 4.4% 3.0% Skin lesions and wounds 0.9% 2.9% 0.6% 8.0% 0.8% 16.5 15.0% Skin disorders 3.1% 2.9% 15.1% 0.9% 1.5% 3.5% 34.5% Respiratory disorders 1.3% 1.2% 3.3% 7.5% 3.0% 22.7% 17.5% Gastroenteric disorders 2.7% 2.4% 2.2% 9.9% 12.8% 33.8% 17.5% Neonatal disorders 3.3% 4.6% 0.8% 12.3% 6.5% 23.8% 13.5% Fear 2.3% 4.3% 5.0% 3.7% 8.6% 6.7% 25.0% Inability to express positive social interactions 3.4% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.5% 40.0% Inability to express gnawing behaviour 29.7% 37.6% 44.4% 0.0% 22.2% 8.3% 80.0% (a): For better readability, percentages are provided here. However, please note that for the calculation of the welfare impact scores proportions were used. (b): Duration: Lifetime duration was defined as the proportion of the total lifetime in that production stage that an individual rabbit’s welfare is impaired. www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 39 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Welfare of rabbits on-farm Table 13: Median estimates for occurrence and duration of welfare consequences in growing rabbits (occurrence depending on the housing system, while duration is assumed to be similar in different housing systems) GROWING RABBITS Welfare consequence Occurrence (a) Duration (a),(b) Conventional cages Elevated pens Enriched cages Floor pens Organic systemsOutdoor system (All systems) Prolonged hunger 6.4% 1.5% 5.1% 12.6% 0.7% 9.2% 36.2% Prolonged thirst 7.1% 0.1% 9.2% 1.2% 2.3% 3.8% 22.5% Resting problem 16.8% 7.0% 5.8% 9.6% 9.9% 8.8% 36.0% Heat stress 11.9% 2.5% 0.0% 10.7% 16.0% 17.4% 11.5% Cold stress 6.2% 0.2% 1.9% 1.4% 0.5% 9.4% 18.0 Restriction of movement 50.8% 5.8% 52.9% 0.0% 3.0% 5.1% 51.0% Pododermatitis 2.1% 0.3% 0.4% 3.2% 2.5% 5.8% 10.0 Locomotory disorders 1.5% 2.9% 1.4% 4.8% 0.0% 0.8% 10.0% Skin lesions and wounds 4.4% 5.5% 2.3% 17.0% 5.2% 28.3% 17.5% Skin disorders 5.1% 15.9% 26.9% 20.9% 6.1% 4.9% 50.0% Respiratory disorders 3.4% 1.7% 0.9% 2.5% 11.2% 21.8% 20.0% Gastroenteric disorders 8.5% 8.8% 7.0% 24.7% 12.8% 28.3% 25.0% Occurrence of abnormal behaviours 3.7% 1.7% 1.8% 13.6% 1.5% 1.4% 25.0% Fear 2.6% 6.8% 3.1% 11.0% 13.0% 31.0% 20.0% Inability to express positive social interactions 15.2% 3.7% 2.1% 7.3% 0.0% 4.3% 43.7% Inability to express gnawing behaviour 59.5% 10.9% 10.7% 5.0% 8.3% 11.2% 60.0% (a): For better readability, percentages are provided here. However, please note that for the calculation of the welfare impact scores proportions were used. (b): Duration: Lifetime duration was defined as the proportion of the total lifetime in that production stage that an individual rabbit’s welfare is impaired. www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 40 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Welfare of rabbits on-farm These data were then used, together with the severity score, in the calculation of an overall welfare impact score and the identification of the most important welfare consequences in each housing system. 3.5.3. Overall welfare impact score Tables 14,16 and 18 first summarise for each rabbit category the overall welfare impact score for each housing system. For this purpose, the values for each welfare consequence were calculated as the product of occurrence (range 0–1, i.e. proportion of population affected at least once during that stage), duration (range 0–1, i.e. proportion of total time in that stage) and severity (range 0–9). These products were then summed for all relevant welfare consequences to give the overall welfare impact score. Higher values indicate poorer welfare with a maximum possible value of 9 multiplied by the number of different welfare consequences. However, this would represent the hypothetical extreme situation in which 100% of all animals experience the maximum welfare detriment for all consequences for the whole of their life time. As an example, more related to real life situations, if 10% of does experienced a really severe welfare problem for a short period of time e.g. severity 8 for 2 days (0.5% of their lifetime), this contributes 0.1 90.005 98=0.004 to the welfare impact score for that system. Furthermore if 50% of does experience a less severe welfare problem for a long period of time e.g. severity 3 for 200 days (55% of their lifetime), this contributes 0.5 90.55 93=0.825 to the welfare impact score. Therefore, if both of these occur in the same system, they would add together to give 0.004 +0.825 = 0.829. Additionally, the results of the simulation for the overall welfare impact score are provided for each rabbit category, indicating how often a certain housing system would be expected to actually perform lower or higher in terms of overall welfare (Tables 15,17 and 19). For example, the simulation for conventional cages for does (first column in Table 15) revealed that in more than 75% of the runs welfare was lower in conventional cages compared to the other 5 systems (i.e. conventional cages obtained a higher welfare impact score). Based on these tables, statements which translate the percentages from the tables into degrees of certainty were added to the conclusions of the opinion (for example, a percentage of 75% falls into the range for ‘likely’(66–90%) used in the probability scale of the EFSA uncertainty assessment guidance (EFSA, 2019). Table 14: Median overall welfare score and 90% probability intervals for reproducing does in the different housing systems Does Conventional cages Elevated pens Enriched cages Floor pens Organic systems Outdoor systems Median Score 3.2 2.0 2.1 2.3 1.8 2.1 P05 1.8 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 P95 5.4 3.9 4.1 4.0 3.3 3.3 Table 15: Results of the simulation for reproducing does, where the percentage indicates how often a certain housing system achieved a lower or higher overall welfare impact score compared to the other systems Does System has lower welfare (higher welfare impact score) Conventional cages Elevated pens Enriched cages Floor pens Organic systems Outdoor systems System has higher welfare (lower welfare impact score) Conventional cages –20% 21% 25% 13% 17% Elevated pens 80% –49% 59% 40% 51% Enriched cages 79% 51% –58% 42% 51% Floor pens 75% 41% 42% –32% 41% Organic systems 87% 60% 58% 68% –61% Outdoor systems 83% 49% 49% 59% 39% – Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 41 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 supply or where automated systems are not regularly checked and maintained and have no alarm systems to alert staff in case of breakdown. Where feed is restricted, the ability of all animals to access a fair share may be compromised by inadequate width of feeders. In badly designed accommodation with inadequate feeding space, low ranking animals could be unable to access adequate feed and could be subject to aggression from other more dominant rabbits (Dalmau et al., 2015). However, in good farming conditions, a dominant rabbit usually does not express very different feeding behaviour compared to a dominated one (Le Normand et al., 2013). For the reproducing doe, the production level can challenge its metabolic homeostasis, and the liveweight and body condition may be reduced. Situations of ‘under-nutrition’or ‘nutritional hunger’can arise transiently when a doe nurses a large litter (>10 kits) and when her voluntary feed intake does not cover the needs for maintenance and milk production, especially in the first 1–2 productive cycles before does reach their full ingestion capacity (Xiccato and Trocino, 2010). Loss of body condition can also occur in ‘hot environments’, where voluntary feed intake is reduced. Moreover, in intensive rabbit farming, high-prolificacy lines are used and, even when the feeds are correctly formulated, the doe may lose weight and body condition during several days (around the lactation peak), since the need for milk production is positively correlated to the litter size. After the lactation period, with correct feeding, the doe recovers her weight; if not this could compromise rebreeding. However, a feed which is not adequately balanced to meet the doe’s physiological needs could lead to metabolic disorders (specific hungers) and even to severe pathology or sudden death (at the kindling period or start of lactation). Some situations of chronic hunger may arise in kits before weaning, when the milking capacity of the doe is insufficient (poor body condition, pathology, poor maternal behaviour). This situation is particularly hard to manage for young rabbits before three weeks of age, since they are not themselves able to access solid feed (especially before two weeks old) in sufficient quantity. Rabbits may also be temporarily restrict-fed for specific purposes in the production cycle. Two main purposes are relevant for a temporary feed restriction strategy: after the weaning for the young growing rabbit, and for the young females for breeding (between 12 and 17 weeks of age). For the young growing rabbit, feed restriction strategies are currently used in most of the French rabbit farms to reduce the risk of digestive troubles after weaning and improve the resistance against ERE (epizootic rabbit enteropathy). The intake level during feed restriction programs usually ranges from 70% to 90% of the ad libitum daily intake, and the duration of the restriction period ranges between 1 and 4 weeks (Gidenne et al., 2012a). Thus, under such a restriction strategy, the young rabbit experiences transient hunger, every day for 5–8 h, and the growth is impaired in proportion to the restriction intensity. Nevertheless, and contrary to other species, even with a restriction of 25%, welfare detriment of the growing rabbit could not be demonstrated by Martignon et al. (2011), since stereotypic behaviour or aggressive behaviour were not detected. On the other hand, Dalmau et al. (2015) observed that rabbits with 25% restriction showed some competition for feed and drink, with signs of agonistic behaviour such as biting, displacement and animals jumping on top of each other. However, this competition did not impact the growth of the animal and body weigh homogeneity within a cage, suggesting that all animals could consume similar quantities of feed. Similarly, Pinheiro et al. (2012) observed that limiting access to feed to 10 h/day seemed beneficial to rabbits because it did not impair growth and improved feed efficiency, although some behaviours were modified. Besides, no ‘competitive’behaviour to access the feeder and no increase in injury were observed compared to the control group, and variability of growth was similar to the control (Gidenne et al., 2012b). It was hypothesised that, since the rabbit has a natural eating behaviour with numerous meals in a day (n =20 to 30, so a small stomach capacity), one rabbit in a group cannot express ‘dominant’ behaviour for the feed. Furthermore, a restricted growing rabbit drinks more compared to the control (Boisot et al., 2004). In return for a daily ‘transient’hunger, a higher health status is observed and thus a higher welfare. A potential situation of chronic hunger could be found for restrict-fed growing rabbit females destined for breeding since, when fed ad libitum between 12 and 17 weeks of age, the growing female could be over-fattened, thus leading to fertility disorders (Rebollar et al., 2011; Naturil-Alfonso et al., 2017). This situation is encountered in some farms that choose to restrict the level of feed offered, rather than to give a specific‘low density’feed (such as a high-fibre diet). Giving a high-fibre feed increases the feeding time, and a greater dietary bulk promotes satiety (Gidenne et al., 2012a), as found in pigs and poultry (Meunier-Sala€ un et al., 2001; Nielsen et al., 2011). Since rabbits in this category are housed individually, there is no competition for the feed. Furthermore, the presence of a Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 48 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 foraging substrate in the form of bedding or daily provision of a foraging material, such as chopped straw, compressed fodder or wood shavings, allows the animals to express foraging behaviour in a relatively natural way, and reduces the risk of hunger and development of abnormal stereotyped behaviour patterns. In outdoor niche systems, chronic hunger should be encountered more rarely, provided the pasture (or hay supply) is accessible. In conclusion, the occurrence of prolonged hunger appears to be infrequent under current conventional rabbit farming. However, transitory hunger is possible for the young weaned rabbit subjected to a feed restriction strategy, although this is compensated by a lower risk of digestive pathologies. There is also a risk of transitory hunger for the feed restricted young rabbit female (during 5 weeks before the first reproductive cycle), unless ameliorated by use of a low energy diet. Table 24 summarises the information on the main hazards for this welfare consequence and their degree of scientific support. 3.6.2. Prolonged thirst Feed and water intake are closely related (Gidenne et al., 2012a). The ratio of water/feed intake ranges usually around 1.8 for the growing rabbit but reaches 2.1 in the milking doe. It increases in hot climatic conditions, to over 3.1 for a 30°C air temperature (De Blas and Wiseman, 2010). In addition, a rabbit reduces its water intake when the temperature of the water is too low or too high (<10°Cor >25°C; Remois et al., 1999); the comfortable temperature is around 20°C. Another possibility giving rise to insufficient drinking is an inadequate drinking system (position of the drinker or bad nipple, etc.), sometimes observed with backyard rabbit farming. For indoor conventional systems, the main hazard for prolonged thirst is a malfunction of the drinking system. Problems are more likely where automated systems are used but are not regularly maintained (checked and cleaned), and have no alarm system to alert staff in case of breakdown. In outdoor systems, hazards are linked to environmental temperatures which are either too high, increasing the need to provide supplementary/fresh water, or too low, when water may freeze. In addition, the quality of the drinking water can be a hazard. For example, water which is too saline is consumed less, and may lead to insufficient drinking and chronic thirst. 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. For this purpose, the access to water may be limited to 2–3 h per day to reach a 15–30% feed reduction. As a consequence, the water to feed ratio is reduced from 1:74 for rabbits fed ad libitum to 1:54 for those receiving water during only 1.5–4 h/day (Foubert et al., 2008). Apart from a prolonged thirst, such deprivation of water may lead to metabolic disturbances and kidney dysfunction, particularly in a hot season or climate. In conventional systems, drinking behaviour is usually observed through the feed intake behaviour, and the quality of the drinking water is particularly checked. The drinking behaviour of the milking doe is particularly monitored to avoid any disturbance in the milk production and thus in the health of the Table 24: Hazards related to prolonged hunger. Hazards written in bold are scientifically proven by more than one source, those in normal text were found in only one paper, those in italic have been mentioned by the experts invited to the technical hearing meeting Hazard category Hazard Housing Badly designed or managed (soiled) feeder leading to reduced access or increased competition for feed Poorly designed or managed drinker leading to low water intake Ambient condition Low (<10°C) or high (> 30°) ambient temperature High humidity leading to a poor quality of the feeds Genetics High prolificacy lines Nutrition and feeding Breakdown of automatic feeding systems Underfeeding due to too high feed restriction Badly formulated feeds, inadequate for nutritional requirements Management of biosecurity Unhygienic feed through soiling Management of reproduction Intensive reproduction cycle length (35–38 days) Other No hazard identified Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 49 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 young. Therefore, dehydration is almost never observed in a conventional system. In outdoor systems, when the rabbit has access to fresh pasture or plants (roots etc.), the water needs are greatly reduced and thus the drinking behaviour may be less frequent. When the temperature falls below zero, drinking water freezes and this could lead to prolonged thirst without intervention by the farmers. Table 25 summarises the information on the main hazards for this welfare consequence and their degree of scientific support. 3.6.3. Pododermatitis Sore hocks or ulcerative pododermatitis is a multifactorial disease, which often involves Staphylococcus aureus as an opportunistic infectious agent (EFSA, 2005). It can affect the plantar surface of the foot and more frequently the heel of the hind foot. It can affect both front and rear limbs and be monolateral or bilateral. In ulcerative pododermatitis, hyperkeratosis and alopecia are associated firstly to scabs from clear wound secretion and beginning ulceration; then to scabs from bloody wound secretion and ulceration; and, in the worst cases, to crusts from bloody wound secretion, deep ulceration, and degeneration of the surrounding tissues (Dreschen and Schlenden-B€ obbis, 1996). These conditions are painful for the animal, which may reduce movement and adopt postures and abnormal behaviour to alleviate pain (EFSA, 2005). To our knowledge, ulcerative pododermatitis has never been described in growing rabbits kept on the wire mesh floor of conventional cages or on litter floors. However, Masthoff and Hoy (2019) reported that 25.3% of growing rabbits showed injuries on hind limbs, 10.4% of rabbits had moderate lesions and 3.1% had severe lesions, when kept on a plastic floor with maximum slat width of 11 mm and a degree of perforation of the raised level of 15%, designed in accordance with the latest German animal protection regulation. This percentage of injuries was significantly higher compared to values (0.7–7.2% of injured rabbits) recorded on other types of plastic slatted floor with different slot (5–12 mm) and slat width (10–13 mm) and different degrees of perforation both at the floor and platform level (50–75%). Ulcerative pododermatitis mainly affects adult breeding rabbits, both females and males; its occurrence increases with animal age and may vary with genetic lines (Rosell et al., 2000), being more frequent in heavy weight rabbit breeds. In a large data set from 16 conventional farms in Spain, sore hocks accounted for 0.3% of the median monthly cumulative incidence of culling (Rosell and de la Fuente, 2009a). The main data on the prevalence of ulcerative pododermatitis in reproducing does in different studies and under different conditions are summarised in Table 26. Table 25: Hazards related to prolonged thirst. Hazards written in bold are scientifically proven by more than one source, those in normal text were found in only one paper, those on italic have been mentioned by the experts invited to the technical hearing meeting Hazard category Hazard Housing Badly designed drinker leading to competition for water access Ambient condition Low (<10°C) or high (>30°) ambient temperature Genetics No hazard identified Nutrition and feeding Breakdown of automatic watering systems Poor quality of the water Management of biosecurity No hazard identified Management of reproduction No hazard identified Other No hazard identified Table 26: Prevalence of ulcerative pododermatitis in reproducing does (modified from Szendro et al., 2019) Author Period/age Animal category/ production system Prevalence (% of does) Rosell and De La Fuente (2013) Several ages 105,009 does in conventional farms (2001–2012) Ulcerative pododermatitis 5% 0.3 (with footrest) 14% 0.3 (without footrest) Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 50 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Based on literature, the main hazards are flooring (type and integrity) and its hygiene (cleanliness and presence of faecal residuals) (EFSA, 2005). In particular, altered (abrasive, rusty, corroded or broken) wire mesh could favour micro-traumatic lesions which can initiate, after bacterial contamination, the development of sore hocks. Nevertheless, regarding wire diameter, the increase from 2 to 3 mm is not effective in reducing sore hocks (de Jong et al., 2008). The use of a plastic mat over the wire mesh of the cage floor has been shown to reduce ulcerative pododermatitis both in the field (Rosell and de la Fuente, 2009a,b; Rommers and de Jong, 2011; Rosell and De La Fuente, 2013) and under controlled conditions (Miko et al., 2014). On the other hand, when comparing different types of flooring and housing (wire mesh floor in individual cages equipped with plastic mat vs. wire mesh equipped with plastic mats in collective systems vs. fully slatted plastic floor in collective systems), Buijs et al. (2014) did not observe any ulcerative pododermatitis in any doe after four reproducing cycles. Nevertheless, in the same study, the use of fully plastic floors reduced plantar hyperkeratosis (hair loss and callus formation which are expected to be not painful), compared to the other two systems. In Switzerland, under alternative systems based on collective housing in parks with litter on a solid floor or on plastic slats combined with plastic platforms, 25% of the rabbits displayed ulcerative pododermatitis on at least one hind leg (Ruchti et al., 2018). In these systems, nonulcerative (hyperkeratosis, alopecia and scaling) and ulcerative pododermatitis were present in 40% of nulliparous and primiparous does (Ruchti et al., 2018). In these systems, the relative humidity inside the barns, body weight, number of kindlings, age, and claw length were identified as the most important hazards (Ruchti et al., 2019). In contrast, recordings in housing systems that used wire mesh or plastic floors showed no sign of hyperkeratosis in nulliparous and primiparous does (Rommers and de Jong, 2011; Miko et al., 2014). According to EFSA (2005), the production system as such is not considered a hazard for pododermatitis, whereas enabling hazards of the disease are related with type of floors and their degree of hygiene/faecal contamination. Based on literature published after 2005, hazards for pododermatitis can be summarised as shown in Table 27. Author Period/age Animal category/ production system Prevalence (% of does) Rommers and de Jong (2011) At the 5th kindling 250 does in 5 conventional farms (50 per farm) Non–ulcerative and ulcerative pododermatitis 19% (with footrest) 87% (without footrest) Rosell and de la Fuente (2009b) Until the 5th kindling 224 does in 1 conventional farm Accumulated incidence of ulcerative pododermatitis: 15% (with footrest) 72% (without footrest) Curative effect of footrest in 81% of affected does Miko et al. (2014) At the 5th kindling 108 does Ulcerative pododermatitis: 48% in wire cages without footrest 0% in wire cages with footrest 5% in pens with wire mesh platform and footrest 0% in pens with plastic platform Buijs et al. (2014) At the 5th kindling 72 does Ulcerative pododermatitis: 0% in all groups Small (29% of all does) and large (11%) hyperkeratosis area and cracked callus (1.4%): 65% in wire pens with plastic mats 5% in plastic slatted pens 68% in wire floor cages with plastic mats Ruchti et al. (2018) Several ages 1,090 does (=30% of total Switzerland group-housed does) in 17 farms that used floor pens with litter (June-September 2016) Ulcerative pododermatitis: 25% Hyperkeratosis and scaling: 68% Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 51 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 3.6.4. Locomotory disorders (other than due to pododermatitis) The most frequent disorders are torticollis and related loss of stability. Torticollis (wry neck, head tilt) in rabbits is due to infection by Pasteurella multocida, among others, with otitis (Coudert et al., 2006) and, occasionally, infection by Encephalitozoon cuniculi, and central nervous system alterations (K€ unzel and Fisher, 2018). Other clinical signs of encephalitozoonosis can be diagnosed in young rabbits, before weaning; however, wry neck is observed in older rabbits. The sporadic existence of splay leg in runt rabbits during the growing period might be related to the infection due to E. cuniculi. Farmed rabbits can have traumas, such as broken back (in adults) and broken legs (seen in adults, kits and weaned rabbits). There is an increased risk of traumas (i.e. broken back) which are related to management when rough handling occurs. Young rabbits can be caught in the wire mesh if housing design is not optimal (e.g. big holes in the mesh, mobile footrest that can hurt the limb of a kit when sliding). These injuries cause acute pain, and culling is the final solution. Hazards for respiratory disorders causing otitis and torticollis are discussed in Section 3.6.10. Hazards for E. cuniculi are summarised below (Table 28). 3.6.5. Skin lesions and wounds Animals may present minor and limited skin abrasions (<1 cm); extended skin abrasions (>1 cm); extended lesions (>1 cm); deeper, extended (>1 cm), and open lesions (ulcers with bloody exudate); as well as abscesses to the body or ears which may be associated to more or less serious traumas Table 27: Hazards related to Pododermatitis. Hazards written in bold are scientifically proven by more than one source, those in normal text were found in only one paper, those in italic have been mentioned by the experts invited to the technical hearing meeting. Hazard category Hazard Housing Floor type (wire mesh flooring without either plastic mats or plastic platforms) Floor bedding (litter on either full floors or on plastic slatted floors) Any damaged equipment Restriction of movement Ambient condition Ambient humidity in the case of litter floors Genetics Heavy strains Nutrition and feeding No hazard identified Management of biosecurity Proper cleaning and disinfection procedures Absence of the duo system Management of reproduction No hazard identified Other Poor body conditionfeeding Presence of mycosis (growing rabbits) Table 28: Hazards related to locomotory disorders. Hazards written in bold are scientifically proven by more than one source, those in normal text were found in only one paper, those in italic have been mentioned by the experts invited to the technical hearing meeting Hazard category Hazard Housing Inadequate flooring, distance between floor and wall, old feeder (sharp edges) Ambient condition Cold weather compromising the immune system Genetics No hazard identified Nutrition and feeding Dietary imbalances Inadequate oligo-elements, vitamins Management of biosecurity Poorly controlled environmental conditions (increasing risk of infections). Lack of hygienic measures after the sale of a batch of young rabbits, to decrease contamination by E. cuniculi Inadequate control of suppliers of semen and young does Absence of control/ quarantine for new batches of animals Management of reproduction No hazard identified Other Inadequate handling, fear (sudden noise) x rapid movements Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 52 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 (Andrist et al., 2013). Skin lesions and wounds, such as multiple scratches, open or scabbed wounds or abscesses to the body or ears, may cause pain and chronic fear to rabbits, as well as compromise their health and thus their welfare. Lesions and wounds can result from inadequate housing equipment or aggression or chewing (see Section 3.6.15). No literature is available describing the housing equipment conditions which can cause skin lesions and wounds. Logically, any damaged equipment that could come into contact with animals (e.g. broken, corroded or rusty wire mesh) or any sharp element (e.g. from a damaged feeder or nest or an unsuitable platform inside the cage) are likely to cause such lesions to animals of all categories. Trauma and microtrauma are then easily and frequently contaminated by opportunistic bacteria (e.g. Staphylococcus spp.). Lesions from aggression can occur among growing rabbits or reproducing animals when kept in groups, and in kits because of aggression from reproducing does. Growing rabbits Rabbit social behaviour starts at the beginning of their life when their survival is promoted by the increased thermal efficiency provided by the sibling presence (EFSA, 2005). Thereafter, in the wild, rabbit dispersal occurs before sexual maturity, with almost 100% of young males and 50% of young females leaving the original group (EFSA, 2005). Thus, under farming conditions, damaging aggression among growing rabbits kept in groups usually appears when animals are approaching sexual maturity, i.e. after 9–10 weeks of age depending on breed and genotype. Moreover, the steepness of hierarchy in growing rabbits has been found to be positively related to the number of wounds (Vervaecke et al., 2010). Based on previous literature on behaviour and aggression, EFSA (2005) recommended to keep a group size for growing rabbits limited to 7–9 animals, preferably retaining the same litter group. In collective pen/park systems with large group sizes (>10 rabbits/pen), the risk of aggression among animals and the risk of distress as well as injury rates are increased (Szendr€ o et al., 2010; Szendro et al., 2015; Princz et al., 2009), particularly at later ages and when approaching sexual maturity (Lambertini et al., 2005; Szendro and Dalle Zotte, 2011; Trocino et al., 2015). As regards stocking density, EFSA (2005) established 16 rabbits/m 2 (i.e. 40 kg slaughter weight/m 2 at 2.5 kg slaughter weight) as a ‘safe’stocking density from the perspective of both rabbit welfare and performance, based mostly on literature on cage housing. Later studies on alternative pen housing systems and larger group sizes have not identified any benefit of further reductions of stocking density (Szendr} o et al., 2010; Trocino et al., 2013). On the other hand, at 11–12 weeks of age, Trocino et al. (2015) observed a higher percentage of growing rabbits with scratches and lesions due to aggression in pens with 16 animals/m 2 compared with the pens with 12 rabbits/m 2 (26.2% vs. 8.2%, respectively; p≤0.001) (Table 29). However, the increase of group size from 20 to 27 animals per pen (to increase stocking density from 12 to 16 animals/m 2 ) could have contributed to the higher aggression in pens with the higher stocking density, together with developing sexual maturity and reduced available functional surface during the last week of the trial with increasing animal body size under the specific conditions of the study, i.e. heavy live weight (2.6–2.8 kg) and rather late slaughtering (>75 days of age) (Table 29). Aggression, and thus skin lesions and wounds, also depend on the sex of the animals. In mixed groups of growing rabbits, the rate of injured animals averaged 11.3% for females and 25.8% for males (p ≤0.001) (Trocino et al., 2015). Whether this result depended on major aggressiveness of the females towards the males, or major aggressiveness among the males approaching sexual maturity, is not clear. Nevertheless, Bozicovich et al. (2016) also observed a higher number of injured rabbits in cages with only males or mixed-sex compared to females (Table 29). Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 53 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Reproducing does In the wild, or in large near-to-nature enclosures, domestic rabbits live in stable matrilineal family groups of 2–9 does, 1–3 adult bucks, their offspring and, eventually, some sub-adult satellite males (EFSA, 2005). Nevertheless, does with small kits tend to be separated from other adults (EFSA, 2005). Under laboratory conditions, group housing of adult animals (either males or females) usually results in serious injuries and is considered to have deleterious effects on their wellbeing (DiVincenti and Jr, 2016). Under farming conditions, EFSA (2005) stated that insufficient knowledge and technology was available at that time to recommend implementation on farms of the group-housing of reproducing does. Indeed, later literature confirmed that continuous group housing of reproducing does usually results in very high rates of aggression among females and competition for nesting areas, which impairs animal welfare in terms of frequency and degree of injuries among reproducing does, as well as towards kits (Andrist et al., 2013; Szendro et al., 2013) (Table 30). Furthermore, even in ‘part-time’housing systems, in which reproducing does are kept in a group during some periods and individually in others, aggression, fighting and presence of injured rabbits (46–66%) after each re-grouping remain unsolved problems, as shown by several studies (Andrist et al., 2012, 2014; Rommers et al., 2014a; Buijs et al., 2015; Machado et al., 2016; Maertens and Buijs, 2016) (Table 30). Different strategies (platform, plastic pipe, hiding place, straw, territory, dark corridor, group stability, regrouped into home or new pen; sprayed odours) have been tested without huge success to reduce aggression at re-grouping (Graf et al., 2011; Rommers and de Jong, 2011; Rommers et al., 2013, 2014a; Buijs and Tuyttens, 2015). A combined system with four individual modules and a common area has also been tested: 18 days after kindling the entrances of the individual modules were opened and a 21-day group-housing period started, but the prevalence of injured rabbits was higher than 50%; it reached the highest peak on day 2 and remained high for many days in some pens (Gerencs er et al., 2018). The time of group formation (first days after kindling, early or late lactation) may affect the aggression level among does (Zomeno et al., 2017, 2018). Does in late lactation may be less stressed, since more time has passed after kindling and the presence of the kits out of nest boxes may positively modulate female to female aggression (Zomeno et al., 2017). Nevertheless, Rommers and de Greef (2018) found that the percentage of injured does in a part-time system with 5 does increased Table 29: Prevalence of growing rabbits showing skin lesions and wounds under different housing and management conditions Authors Housing system (surface) Age (w =weeks; d=days) Stocking density (rabbits/m 2 ) Group size (no rabbits) Injured animals (%) Szendr€ o et al. (2009) Small cage (0.12 m 2 ) Large cage (0.50 m 2 ) Small pen (0.86 m 2 ) Large pen (1.72 m 2 ) 9 vs. 10 vs. 11 w 3.5% vs. 6.1% vs. 10.4% 12 vs. 16 23.8% vs. 2.7% 2 vs. 6–8 vs. 10–13 vs. 20–26 0.0% vs. 7.1% vs. 8.7% vs. 17.4% Princz et al. (2009) Small cage (0.122 m 2 ) Open top pens (0.86 m 2 ) 11 w 16 2 vs. 13 5.97% vs. 12.1% in cages vs. pens Szendro et al. (2015) Small cage (0.19 m 2 ) Large pen (0.95 m 2 ) 12 w 15 3 vs. 14 0.0% vs. 34.4% in cages vs. pens Trocino et al. (2015) Open-top pens (1.68 m 2 ) 12 vs. 16 20 and 27 8.2% v. 26.2% a 76 v. 83 d 15.0% v. 22.0% (0.10) 11.3% v. 25.8% for females v. males (a) mixed groups Bozicovich et al. (2016) Cage (0.48 m 2 ) 77 d 6 58% vs. 25% vs. 79% male group vs. female group vs. mixed group (a) (a): Prevalence was calculated basing on 24 animals per group (i.e. 6 rabbits 94 cages 9experimental group). Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 54 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 from 34% measured 4 days after group formation (23 days of lactation) to 53% at litter weaning (36 days) (Table 30). The little available information also shows a negative effect of the increase of group size from 2 to 4 or from 4 to 8 does on aggression rates among does (Buijs et al., 2016; Zomeno et al., 2017). In EFSA (2005), skin lesions due to aggression were not analysed separately as a specific welfare consequence, but they were indirectly treated when evaluating hazards for aggression and related wounds. In the case of lactating females, keeping animals in pairs was defined as a serious problem because of aggression and was not recommended. In the case of growing rabbits, group size higher than 7–9 rabbits was considered to increase the risk of aggression and wound rates as well as the risk of disease spread. Based on literature published after 2005 and presented above, hazards for skin lesions and wounds in growing rabbits kept in groups are given in Table 31: Based on literature published after 2005 and presented above, hazards for skin lesions in reproducing does are shown in Table 32: Table 30: Prevalence of injured does in collective housing systems for reproducing does with different management systems (modified from Szendro et al., 2019) Reference Group characteristics Prevalence Mirabito et al. (2005) 4 does/pen, during rearing 32% Rommers et al. (2006) 8 does/pen 16.8–21.0% Andrist et al. (2013) Swiss farms with different systems (generally 8 does/group) 33% (9% severe) Buijs et al. (2015) 4 does/pen regrouped 18 days after kindling 91.7% and 75.0% of does in pens with plastic floor and wire net, respectively Buijs et al. (2016) 4 and 8 does per pen regrouped 18 days after kindling 28.4% score 0 31.3% score 1 33.7% score 2 6.6% score 3 Zomeno et al., 2018 4 does/pen regrouped 2 day after kindling 34%, 47%, 13%, 13% and 10% at 3, 10, 17, 24 and 32 day after regrouping Rommers and de Greef, 2018 5 does/pen regrouped 23 day after kindling 34% and 53% at 4 days after regrouping and at weaning, respectively Table 31: Hazards related to skin lesions in growing rabbits. Hazards written in bold are scientifically proven by more than one source, those in normal text were found in only one paper, those in italic have been mentioned by the experts invited to the technical hearing meeting Hazard category Hazard Housing Collective housing (increased group size) Stocking density (>40 kg/m 2 ) The combination of collective housing with large group size and at high stocking density with late slaughter age Damaged equipment –see does Ambient condition Photoperiod (inducing sexual activity) Genetics lines with early onset of sexual activity Nutrition and feeding No hazard identified Management of biosecurity No hazard identified Management of reproduction No hazard identified Other Late slaughter age (> 10–11 weeks) (developing sexual maturity and reduced available functional surface) Absence of enrichment (gnawing stick) Group social-management (no removal of biting rabbits) Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 55 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 3.6.6. Respiratory disorders Respiratory disorders are most relevant in breeding rabbits, with welfare consequences that include pain and death. Dyspnoea is one of the symptoms of respiratory disease and is considered as painful. It also causes metabolic disorders such as respiratory acidosis (EFSA, 2005). Pneumonia was reported as the most common cause of death in a study of 505 farms in Spain and Portugal visited during 2006–2014; monthly mortality risks were 0.70 % (0.64–0.76) in does, and 0.88% (0.56–1.20) in bucks (Rosell and de la Fuente, 2016a). Disorders of the upper respiratory tract are clinically evaluated through presence of rhinitis (snuffles). Sporadically some cases of atrophic rhinitis can be seen. From the sinus, pathogens can diffuse and cause septicaemia or otitis, metritis and subcutaneous abscesses, which is relevant also in finishing rabbits (Coudert et al., 2006). The mean prevalence of rhinitis in Spanish and Portuguese farms studied from 2001 to 2017 was 18.7 (CI 95 % [18.1–19.3]) (Rosell and de la Fuente, 2018). Pasteurella multocida is the main etiologic agent (Garc ıa-Alvarez et al., 2015; Massacci et al., 2018), but there are also several opportunistic pathogens (Deeb and DiGiacomo, 2000). Lastly, an intercurrent disorder such as myxomatosis can be a causal factor because the myxoma virus is immunosuppressive (Bertagnoli and Marchandeau, 2015), and enables diffusion of P. multocida or S. aureus, causing productive rhinitis, dyspnea, or death. Since EFSA (2005), little new information exists for respiratory disease risks. Hazards for rhinitis can be divided into 2 main groups: predisposing hazards were linked with the line or breed of rabbits, and age, whereas enabling hazards were mainly related with the incorrect combination of the ambient temperature, humidity and air speed (Calvet et al., 2011; da Borso et al., 2016). A genetic component to resistance to Pasteurella has been identified (Gunia et al., 2015, 2018; Shrestha et al., 2019); however, currently commercial lines are not characterised for this trait. Table 33 summarises the information on the main hazards for this welfare consequence and their degree of scientific support. Table 32: Hazards related to skin lesions in reproducing does. Hazards written in bold are scientifically proven by more than one source, those in normal text were found in only one paper, those in italic have been mentioned by the experts invited to the technical hearing meeting Hazard category Hazard Housing Group housing (continuous or part-time) Group size Any damaged equipment, structure of the housing (fleeing into shelter), position of drinker, time of mixing the groupsstability of groups Ambient condition No hazard identified Genetics Some breeds/lines are more aggressive than others Nutrition and feeding No hazard identified Management of biosecurity Hygiene of injections Management of reproduction Time of regrouping Other Physiological state of the doe at the time of group formation Iatrogenic Table 33: Hazards related to respiratory disorders. Hazards written in bold are scientifically proven by more than one source, those in normal text were found in only one paper, those in italic have been mentioned by the experts invited to the technical hearing meeting Hazard category Hazard Housing High stocking density in growing rabbits Ambient condition Temperature, air speed, humidity or sudden change in any of these. Air quality including ammonia and dust levels Genetics High fertility lines- (reduced thoracic space), genetic predisposition to Pasteurella Nutrition and feeding No hazard identified Management of biosecurity Control of new breeders entering to the farm Delayed culling of affected animals Management of reproduction No hazard identified Other No hazard identified Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 56 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 3.6.7. Gastroenteric disorders Digestive troubles are responsible for welfare impairment in the growing rabbit, that can range from slight troubles (transitory low feed intake, light diarrhoea) to acute painful ones (no feed intake, weight losses, acute diarrhoea or caecal impaction, intestinal inflammation, gastric or intestinal dilatation or swelling, mucus excretion, etc.). The young rabbit is particularly susceptible to gastroenteric disorders, and more particularly around the period of weaning. Diarrhoea can sometimes be present in kits during the pre-weaning period (3rd–4th week of age) or more rarely in adults, where it generally represents the ultimate consequence of another affliction. In conventional rabbit farming, digestive disorders are the main cause of morbidity and mortality for the growing rabbit (from 3 weeks of age and after). Two main causes of intestinal pathologies can be differentiated (Marlier et al., 2003; Licois, 2004; Agnoletti, 2012): parasites and bacteria. Intestinal pathologies clearly prevailed over all other health problems in rabbit farms in Spain, France, Italy and Portugal (Boucher and Leplat, 2005; Grilli et al., 2006), without showing seasonal variations (Rosell and de la Fuente, 2009a), with similar reports from France. Mortality levels from digestive disorders typically range from 5% to 15%, depending on the sanitary strategy of the farm (cleaning and hygiene, metaphylactic procedures, etc.). The morbidity from digestive disorders is much more difficult to estimate in conventional rabbit farms, since it is characterised by transient growth depression and poor feed conversion, but often induces important economic losses. Hazards for digestive disorders include poor prophylaxis procedures (including housing, cleaning, etc.). However, the feeding strategy can contribute to prevention of digestive troubles of the growing rabbit. Two main options are available: use of high fibre diets (Gidenne et al., 2010), and use of feed restriction strategies (Gidenne et al., 2012a). Some preventive measures which are more acceptable to the consumer (i.e. no antibiotics) are on the market to combat sub-clinical enteric diseases, such as the use of prebiotics and probiotics (mainly live yeast) or phytotherapeutic products, but their real contribution to reduce the prevalence of digestive disorders is questionable. Studies which are still in progress focus on genetic resistance to enteric diseases (Gunia et al., 2015, 2018) or on the microbiota of the young rabbit, and on factors that can contribute to the maintenance of the gut microbiota equilibrium and digestive immunity (Combes et al., 2013, 2017; Arrazuria et al., 2018). In conclusion, digestive troubles are probably one of the main hazards for welfare impairment in rabbit farming, both in terms of prevalence and pain. Table 34 summarises the information on the main hazards for this welfare consequence and their degree of scientific support. 3.6.8. Skin disorders (other than pododermatitis or skin lesions) Ringworm is the most important skin disorder because it is zoonotic and also affects many rabbits, especially weaners and growers. Ringworm causes pruritus and provokes rabbits to scratching, and subsequent infections with Staphylococcus spp. There were affected rabbits in 50% of 1,100 farms visited in Spain from 1985 to 1999 (Rosell et al., 2000); prevalence of ringworm within a positive farm is variable. There are asymptomatic rabbit carriers of dermatophytes (Vangeel et al., 2000), but there are also farms free of dermatophytes Table 34: Hazards related to gastroenteric disorders. Hazards written in bold are scientifically proven by more than one source, those in normal text were found in only one paper, those in italic have been mentioned by the experts invited to the technical hearing meeting Hazard category Hazard Housing Restricted space, high stocking density, unsuitable floor type (solid floor impairing hygiene), lack of roughage, stress Ambient condition Too high air speed and low temperature Genetics Commercial lines with less resistance to digestive diseases Nutrition and feeding Unbalanced diet,contamination of feed and water, insufficient quantity of milk for kits Excessive feed intake after weaning Management of biosecurity Poor hygiene of housing equipment, poor removal of faeces (cage and nest, feeder), lack of control of insects and rodents (transmission of Salmonella) Management of reproduction Early weaning, intensive reproductive cycle Other Inadequate use of antibiotics for early treatment Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 57 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 older animals was interpreted as resulting from a lack of space with increasing age and thus size of the animals so that they were not able to perform longer hops anymore. This was also supported by the observation that walking over other animals increased with age. To our knowledge, this is the only paper that focused on the characterisation of the number of hops in rabbits kept under farming conditions. When group sizes are kept constant but space allowance is increased, no effect on locomotor behaviour has been found (Buijs et al., 2012): 8 animals per group, cage size 100 cm 940–160 cm; (Stewart and Suckow, 2016): 10 animals per group, 0.46 vs. 0.51 m²). This finding suggests that factors other than the mere space availability (e.g. social dynamics with increasing group size) affect locomotor activity. Increasing space by installing an elevated platform in group cages for growing rabbits may promote jumping. However, hiding places and straw bedding did not affect locomotion in group housed does (Rommers et al., 2014a). Matics et al. (2018) found no difference in productive traits of growing rabbits with and without access to a platform, and, although not directly observing behaviour, concluded from this result that the platform did not substantially alter the locomotor behaviour. Apart from effects on behaviour, the possibility to perform locomotor activity may also have physiological consequences. In growing rabbits, a low space allowance, and therefore a presumed lack of possibilities to exercise, reduces bone thickness (diameter) but not strength of the tibiofibula (Buijs et al., 2012): constant group size at different cage sizes) or bone moment of inertia in tibia and femur (Combes et al., 2009): increased cage and group sizes resulting in constant stocking density). Similarly, rabbits kept in collective pens (stocking density 12–18 animals per m²) had a thicker femur compared to animals kept in bicellular cages, but rabbits kept at 16 animals per m²had a higher femur resistance to fracture than those kept at 12 per m²(Xiccato et al., 2013a,b). Lack of possibility for full rearing (vigilance posture) due to low cage height has also been associated with deformations of the vertebral column and osteoporosis in does (Drescher and Loeffler, 1996). The latter study, however, has been criticised for confounding with dietary deficits. Together with a lack of effect on locomotor behaviour, glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations in rabbit faeces were not affected by cage size (Buijs et al., 2011); dimensions see above). However, ElTarabany et al. (2019) found altered concentrations of serum cortisol and neurotransmitters with changes in stocking density (0.06–0.14 m²per rabbit). Animals kept at the highest stocking density had the highest cortisol and the lowest dopamine, brain serotonin and GABA levels, while brain acetylcholinesterase levels remained unchanged; behavioural data were, however, not recorded in the latter study. Table 42 summarises the information on the main hazards for this welfare consequence and their degree of scientific support. 3.6.14. Resting problem Rabbits rest for 12–18 h a day. During resting, they adopt a crouched position (lying alert) or lying postures characterised by stretching of the hind-legs and of the body, including full lateral lying on the side, that are thought to be associated with relaxation (EFSA, 2005). Lying stretched out also supports thermoregulation in terms of dissipating excess heat (Rafel et al., 2012). Animals which are not able to Table 42: Hazards related to restriction of movement. Hazards written in bold are scientifically proven by more than one source, those in normal text were found in only one paper, those in italic have been mentioned by the experts invited to the technical hearing meeting Hazard category Hazard Housing Low total space available, dimensions (e.g. less possibilities in squared cages/ pens compared to rectangular ones), structural elements (e.g. elevated platforms), floor properties Ambient condition No hazard identified Genetics No hazard identified Nutrition and feeding No hazard identified Management of biosecurity No hazard identified Management of reproduction No hazard identified Other Small group size (at common stocking densities) Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 64 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 adopt relaxed postures, or are forced to lie on inadequate or dirty surfaces, can suffer from physical discomfort (e.g. cold stress, lesions, pain) as well as an impaired affective state. Increased levels of self-grooming in response to soiling suggest that soiling causes discomfort (Dal Bosco et al., 2002). Floor properties are an important determinant of resting behaviour. Rabbits prefer a wire floor over straw littered areas, especially for lying (Morisse et al., 1999). According to the authors, the cleanliness and dryness of the wire is the most plausible explanation for this finding. However, when given the choice between wire floors and other floor types, such as plastic foot mats, plastic grids, plastic slats or galvanised steel bars, which provide more support for the feet, fattening rabbits and breeding rabbits showed a clear preference especially for plastic-mesh floors (Matics et al., 2003; Princz et al., 2008a; Gerencs er et al., 2012; Alfonso-Carrillo et al., 2014a,b). Furthermore, one study revealed a significant avoidance of wire mesh flooring (Gerencs er et al., 2012). However, the size of the openings of plastic floors may affect the animals’cleanliness. Soiling of cages and animals, as well as coccidial oocyte burden, were significantly higher on floors with 12 mm circular holes as compared with 10 mm slats (Tillmann et al., 2019). In a recent study comparing pens with straw-bedded concrete floor and pens with slatted plastic panels (60 rabbits per pen, 9.6 animals/m², additional plastic slatted platforms in both treatments), less rabbits had a soiled fur when reared on straw, and parasitic burden did not differ (Windschnurer et al., 2019). Factors affecting rabbits’postures have been investigated less well. In growing rabbits, an increase in stocking density resulted in an increase in sternal lying (Buijs et al., 2011), which requires less space than lateral lying (Giersberg et al., 2015). At a live weight of 2.5 kg, stretched lying positions required between 593 and 621 cm²per animal, the latter almost equalling (97%) the space allowance at a stocking density of 16 animals per m²(Giersberg et al., 2015). In terms of floor type, Trocino et al. (2018) found that growing rabbits housed on wooden slats rested more in the crouched position (41.4 vs. 35.5% of the observed time) and showed less allogrooming than those housed in plastic grid pens. Finally, higher temperatures (constant 18°C vs. 20.1°C together with a THI of 23.6–28.2 for 7 h) led to more resting behaviour and adoption of a prostrated lying posture in female and male breeding animals (Dalmau et al., 2014). Table 43 summarises the information on the main hazards for this welfare consequence and their degree of scientific support. 3.6.15. Inability to express maternal behaviour Maternal behaviour of rabbits consists of three main components: nest building, kindling and nursing. In farm conditions, boxes or separable parts of the housing system are provided in which the doe kindles. In these nesting places, wood shavings, hay or other materials are provided for the doe to mix with the fur from her body as maternal nest building. The doe generally kindles in the early morning, nurses the litter during or immediately after kindling, and then nurses the kits only once, or exceptionally twice, a day thereafter. The doe seldom removes extraneous tissue from the nest after kindling and does not retrieve those kits that may leave the nest by hanging onto a nipple after nursing or by other means (Gonz alez-Mariscal et al., 2007). Nest building and kindling: Under conventional farm conditions, the following disturbances can be occasionally observed in nest building behaviour: poor nest quality because of inadequate amount of nesting material or hair, or soiling of the nest by the doe with urine or faeces. These challenge kits’welfare in terms of thermal stress and survival. Some does give birth or place the kits outside the nest, which results in Table 43: Hazards related to resting problems. Hazards written in bold are scientifically proven by more than one source, those in normal text were found in only one paper, those in italic have been mentioned by the experts invited to the technical hearing meeting Hazard category Hazard Housing Floor type, space allowance Ambient condition High temperatures Genetics No hazard identified Nutrition and feeding No hazard identified Management of biosecurity No hazard identified Management of reproduction No hazard identified Other Dirty surfaces Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 65 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 hypothermia and death of neonates without intervention. Infanticide is also considered as a behavioural disturbance of does (see Section 3.6.14). According to EFSA (2005), for ability to express maternal behaviour, good farming practice means to provide an adequately sized nest box and suitable material for nest building. No published literature has been found concerning the optimal dimensions of the nest box or nest area but, based on farm data in practice, maternal behaviour is fully expressed with commercial nests measuring at least 25 935 cm. According to Schlolaut et al. (2013), in a nest box with a permanently open top or entrance the doe is exposed to light while building the nest (as well as the kits after birth), which might be one reason for behavioural disturbances in the doe leading to failures in nest building, giving birth and placing the kits outside the nest, or to infanticide. However, kindling mainly occurs during the dark period of the day (Rashwan et al., 2003; cited in EFSA, 2005). Concerning nesting materials, Blumetto et al. (2010) found that does have a strong preference for straw rather than wood shavings as nest material. However, de -Oliveira et al. (2017) observed that wood shavings, Tifton hay and newspapers cut into strips may be used for nest bedding. as there were no negative effects on nest-building behaviour or performance. Farkas et al. (2018) concluded that rabbit does showed the following preference for nest materials: Lignocel ® (fine fibre material for pet animals made of wood) >straw >hay >wood shavings. Based on literature, although rabbit does may have different preferences for the nesting materials mentioned above, they can express their normal maternal behaviour whatever the nesting material. On the other hand, there is a lack of scientific information on the effect of type of nesting material on the mortality of kits. Both in wild (Gonz alez-Redondo and Zamora-Lozano, 2008) and domesticated rabbits (LeoneSinger and Hoop, 2003) infanticide can be observed. The aggression toward kits is more serious problem in group housing of rabbit does (see Section 3.6.5). Nursing: In general, both wild and domesticated rabbit does nurse their kits once a day (Hoy and Selzer 2002). Gonz alez-Mariscal et al. (2013) examined the expression of nursing behaviour in case of different litter sizes and concluded that there is a threshold (5 or more kits) of suckling stimulation which influences the nursing rhythm. Another important factor is that the nest entrance can be closed by the doe’s own activity or by management measures. The limited access to the nest for the doe in rabbit farming may more closely resemble what happens in nature, and limiting the doe’s access to her kits has been proven to reduce mortality and injury to the kits (Verga et al., 1986; Arveux, 1994; Hudson et al., 1996; Verga, 1997; EFSA, 2005). Coureaud et al. (1998) examined the different nursing methods and found that controlled nursing was more favourable during the first 3–5 days after parturition, whereas free nursing was advantageous later on in terms of kit mortality. In contrast, Szendr€ o et al. (1999) found free nursing more favourable in the first 7 days of lactation. Some abnormal maternal behaviours were observed in does by Baumann et al. (2005) when the nest entrance was continuously open, such as excessive nest contacts and stereotyped nest plugging behaviour When the entrance of the nest box was visually closed with a metal cat-flap (with free access to the nest), the does showed half as many potentially disturbing nest contacts than in the case of an open entrance. The mortality of kits between 16 and 35 days was higher when the metal cat-flap was used (2.9% vs. 0%), and the cause of death was identified as weakness of the kits. Rommers et al. (2012) found less frequent nest box visits by the doe in group housing systems than in individual housing and concluded that it can cause reduced weaning weight of kits. Moreover, group housed does spent longer time in the empty nest boxes during the last two weeks of lactation, which might have served as a resting place or a place to hide and withdraw from group mates. Different biostimulation methods have been experimentally tested (Eiben et al., 2007) in which different nest closing periods and methods were applied some days prior to insemination for improving the reproductive performance of does. These interventions can disturb the circadian periodicity of nursing events (Matics et al., 2004b). In recent years, elevated platforms in rabbit housing systems have been tested as environmental enrichment, as they provide opportunities for movement (jumping up and down) (Maertens et al., 2011). They also offer does the possibility of escaping from their kits once the kits leave the nest box and disturb the doe with persistent nursing attempts (Mirabito et al., 1999). Some authors found that does spend more time on the platform when kits begin to leave the nest box (14–16 days of age), but then spend more time on the bottom level of the cage when 3-week-old kits are able to jump up onto the platform (Mirabito et al., 1999, 2004; Miko et al., 2014). Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 66 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Table 44 summarises the information on the main hazards for this welfare consequence and their degree of scientific support. 3.6.16. Inability to express positive social interactions The rabbits’behaviour has not been markedly changed by domestication and domestic rabbits show behaviours typical of wild rabbits (EFSA, 2005; Trocino and Xiccato, 2006). European wild rabbits live in groups, which provide the possibility to express positive social interactions (bodily contact, social sniffing, social grooming), while aggressive behaviour, fighting and infanticide are also well-known among wild rabbits. Group housing of breeding females allows them to develop social interactions, which can be both positive (allogrooming) and negative (aggression). Grouping growing rabbits is important, as they are social animals and show diversity of social interactions. In EFSA (2005), based on available studies until 2005 and practical experience, a group size of 7–9 is suggested for growing rabbits, preferably retaining litter groups. According to EFSA (2005), social isolation can have consequences on animal welfare as this does not meet the behavioural needs of rabbits and restriction of their behaviour may cause mental distress (suffering) involving feelings such as boredom and frustration. Contact-making (neutral) behaviours such as sniffing the nose, body or anogenital region of another rabbit may occur at any time (Lehmann, 1991). Contact-promoting (tolerant) behaviours such as lying against each other and mutual grooming are restricted to resting periods. Rabbits are typically in body-contact with at least one other animal for about 50% of resting time. Does with small kits tend to be separate from other adults (Stauffacher, 1988; cited in EFSA, 2005). Under laboratory conditions, in individually housed laboratory rabbits Gunn and Morton (1995) recorded 1–3 stereotype behavioural events per hour (e.g. hair-chew, chew or lick objects, head-sway, paw and nose slide, head-corner). Chu et al. (2004) compared the behaviour of four individually and eight paired housed laboratory rabbits from 10 to 30 weeks of age. They observed an increase (from 0.25% to 1.77%) in the proportion of time spent in abnormal behaviours (digging, floor chewing, bar biting) in the individually housed group, while such behaviours occurred in an unchanged proportion of time (0.95%) in the case of paired housed rabbits. However, the presence of abnormal behaviour in pair housing suggests that it is not sufficient to eliminate these behavioural patterns. Moreover, paired rabbits showed more locomotory behaviour (2.71%) than individually housed ones (0.70%). Pet rabbits are also suggested not to be housed individually in order to avoid behavioural problems and ensure them social contacts with conspecifics (Crowell-Davis, 2007). In conventional farms, kits are kept with their mother until weaning; then growing rabbits are kept in pairs or groups of different sizes during growth; reproducing does are alone in their cage only for one or two weeks within a reproduction cycle, since they share the space with their kits. Only young futurebreeding and non-pregnant does are housed individually on a longer period (4–8 weeks). This housing can restrict some natural behaviour (allogroming), as it prevents direct social interactions, but it allows olfactory, acoustic and visual contact and neighbour rabbits can have social contacts through the barred walls of the cages (sniffing, licking, removing hair) (Alfonso-Carrillo et al., 2014a,b). Although the best productive performance can be achieved in individual housing of growing rabbits, in practice, growing rabbits (from weaning to slaughtering) are most commonly housed in groups of Table 44: Hazards related to the inability to perform maternal behaviour. Hazards written in bold are scientifically proven by more than one source, those in normal text were found in only one paper, those in italic have been mentioned by the experts invited to the technical hearing meeting Hazard category Hazard Housing Artificially closed nest entrance, inability of doe to close the nest, enforced proximity to the nest, inadequate nesting place (position), group housing of does, absence of platform Ambient condition No hazard identified Genetics No hazard identified Nutrition and feeding No hazard identified Management of biosecurity No hazard identified Management of reproduction Temporary change of nursing methods as ‘biostimulation’ Other Inadequate nest material, presence of mastitis Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 67 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 2–6 animals in cages (Verga et al., 2007), or in larger groups in pens, which allows social contact among rabbits. In case of free choice among different sized cages, early weaned growing rabbits (until 6 weeks of age) preferred to huddle together in the smallest cage during the resting period, occasionally reaching an extremely high stocking density (>100 rabbits/m 2 ) (Matics et al., 2004a). In growing rabbits, concerning different housing systems, Princz et al. (2008b) observed more frequent social behaviour with increasing space allowance. Buijs et al. (2011) could not confirm these findings, but they observed significantly less social contact, cage manipulation behaviour and lateral lying in enriched than in unenriched cages. Bozicovich et al. (2016) found that environmental enrichment (with a wooden stick) decreased the number of positive social interactions (making contact, rubbing, licking and sniffing) among growing rabbits, but the occurrence of stereotyped behaviours (licking or gnawing cage bars, scratching the cage floor insistently) was unaffected. Moreover, the incidence of the above mentioned positive social interactions was higher in mixedgender than in same sex (only males or only females) groups. Trocino et al. (2013) examined the fear level and behavioural patterns of growing rabbits housed individually, in pairs or in collective cages (9 rabbits/pen). Although the housing system did not have an effect on the main activities (resting, feeding), individually and paired housed rabbits spent less time allogrooming (0.27%) than rabbits in collective cages (1.44%). Stereotypic behaviours were not observed in any of the housing systems. To ensure greater possibility for positive social interactions, several studies have been made with group and semi-group (part time group) housing of rabbits. Up to the present time, no acceptable solution has been found to avoid negative social interactions among rabbits in such housing (Andrist et al., 2012, 2013, 2014; Szendro and McNitt, 2012; Rommers and de Greef, 2018; Rommers and de Jong, 2011, Rommers et al., 2013, 2014a,b; Buijs et al., 2015, 2016). The studies showed that negative social interactions overcome positive social ones (see also Section 3.6.8). Mugnai et al. (2009) compared the production and behaviour of does in individual housing and group pens for four does, where half of the does were trained to go into their own nest and the others were not trained. They observed more allogrooming (0.86% vs. 0.20%) and fewer attacks (0.60% vs. 1.29%) and dominance behaviours (0.39% vs. 0.63%) in trained does. Rabbits housed in colonies spent more time lying down with stretched legs, whereas in single-caged does crouching was the most performed static behaviour. In individual housing, fewer moving activities and more stereotypic ones (e.g. biting the cage bars) were observed. However, production performance of grouped does was significantly lower than that of individually housed ones. When four rabbit does were housed together in a pen with four individual cages and a common area (a commercial individual electronic nest box recognition system was used, only allowing a doe to have access to her own nest box), in each replicate at least one doe did not use the common area whereas the other three does used it for very different percentages of time (Hoy and Matics, 2016). In conclusion, in farm practice, breeding males, future breeding animals, non-pregnant does and, temporarily, the reproducing does are housed individually, which restricts the expression of some positive social interactions but avoids negative interactions (e.g. aggression and injuries). Individual housing and restricted social interactions may cause problems more commonly in laboratory and pet rabbits, where the individual housing period is longer and social and visual contacts may also be prevented. Table 45 summarises the information on the main hazards for this welfare consequence and their degree of scientific support. Table 45: Hazards related to the inability to express positive social behaviour. Hazards written in bold are scientifically proven by more than one source, those in normal text were found in only one paper, those in italic have been mentioned by the experts invited to the technical hearing meeting Hazard category Hazard Housing Social isolation, individual housing Restricted space allowance Ambient condition No hazard identified Genetics No hazard identified Nutrition and feeding No hazard identified Management of biosecurity No hazard identified Management of reproduction No hazard identified Other No hazard identified Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 68 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 3.6.17. Inability to express gnawing behaviour Effects of foraging materials (which can be gnawed) on prolonged hunger and digestive disorders are described in Sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.11, respectively. Here, we focus on effects on behaviour and indicators of stress. Gnawing material is considered to be an important type of environmental enrichment for rabbits, as it allows them to perform a species-specific behaviour to a fuller extent (Baumans, 2005). As described in the section on abnormal behaviour (Section 3.6.15), one of the main effects of a lack of suitable materials for the expression of gnawing behaviour is a redirection of gnawing to the cage or conspecifics. This section discusses other effects of the absence of gnawing materials, attraction towards gnawing materials, as well as preferences for different types of gnawing materials. No studies on the rabbit’s motivation to access gnawing materials were identified (e.g. willingness-to-pay or other types of motivation testing). This is an important research gap, as a main consequence of the absence of gnawing material is a redirection towards cage components and conspecifics and it is unknown if, and to what extent, this actually satisfies the rabbit’s motivation to gnaw. EFSA (2005) described a lack of information on how gnawing materials affect rabbit welfare under farm conditions and most knowledge was therefore extrapolated from a laboratory animal context (leading to inconsistencies in age, social grouping, feeding, reproductive status or several of these factors when compared to conventional rabbit farming). However, several studies on gnawing materials carried out under conditions representative of conventional farm practice were discussed. Wooden sticks were reported to increase feeding behaviour and caecotrophy (Luzi et al., 2003), or jumping and smelling the environment (Verga et al., 2004). However, such effects were unique to the respective studies and effects in the opposite direction were even observed (Jordan et al., 2004). Straw was provided in only one study, in which it was found to decrease feeding and locomotion (Postollec et al., 2002). Newer studies have also described effects of the absence of gnawing materials on a variety of behaviours in farmed rabbits, but again there is little consistency in which behaviour was affected (apart from effects on abnormal behaviour discussed in Section 3.6.15). One study indicated that wooden sticks increased locomotion in group housed growing rabbits (Princz et al., 2008b), but no such effect was observed for vertical wooden boards (Buijs et al., 2011) which instead increased lateral lying. A study on individual housed growing rabbits’reports that stick increase feeding, drinking and sniffing (Hesham and Nasr, 2017). Another study found no differences at all in the behavioural repertoire of individually housed sub-adult bucks with and without gnawing sticks (Jordan et al., 2008), and similar results have been described for individually housed reproducing does (Rommers et al., 2014b). Providing straw to group housed reproducing does led them to spend 1% of their time interacting with the straw, but this did not affect their other behaviours (Rommers et al., 2014a). Cardboard and rubber chewing materials increased chewing and reduced sitting in individually housed laboratory rabbits, but left behaviours like locomotion and lying unaffected (Poggiagliolmi et al., 2011). There are some indications that gnawing materials can improve welfare by decreasing stress levels in group housed growing rabbits. Vertical wooden boards reduced glucocorticoid metabolite levels (Buijs et al., 2011), without affecting fluctuating asymmetry (which is suggested to result from increased stress during physical development, Buijs et al., 2012). The combination of gnawing sticks, a platform, wooden hiding box and lowered density decreased fluctuating asymmetry and improved early weight gain of growing rabbits (Tuyttens et al., 2005). One study indicated that groups of growing rabbits reached a higher slaughter weight when they had access to gnawing materials (Princz et al., 2009), but no evidence of increased growth throughout rearing was found by others (Tuyttens et al., 2005; Buijs et al., 2011). Group housed male growing rabbits provided with gnawing sticks had heavier brains than those without such enrichment (Bozicovich et al., 2016), although at present it is not clear what such a difference indicates. Gnawing sticks were also found to decrease cortisol levels in individually housed growing rabbits (Hesham and Nasr, 2017). Obviously, not providing suitable gnawing materials is the main hazard for an inability to express gnawing behaviour. Therefore, knowledge on which gnawing materials are perceived as most suitable by rabbits is of importance. EFSA (2005) stated that, although wooden sticks are the most common form of enrichment, individually housed 12-week-old laboratory rabbits were reported to interact most with hay, less with pressed grass cubes and the least with wooden sticks (Lidfors, 1997). The low interest that older rabbits show in wooden sticks was confirmed in a newer study on reproducing does under conventional conditions, which interacted six times more with straw and three times more with compressed wooden blocks than with sticks of pinewood (Rommers et al., 2014a). When does had access to straw as well as pinewood sticks, the pinewood was barely touched. Although this indicates Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 69 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 that wooden sticks may not be an optimal enrichment for rabbits, growing rabbits did prefer wooden sticks over PVC tubes (Bozicovich et al., 2016), and spent 6–8% more time in cages with sticks than in those without when they could move freely between such cages (Princz et al., 2008a). Apart from not providing the right kind of gnawing material, lack of easy access could also be considered a hazard. Therefore, incorrect positioning of gnawing material, high stocking densities or social tension hindering movement towards the enrichment, and competition are potential additional hazards for the inability to express gnawing behaviour. Little is known about this, although growing rabbits consumed more of their gnawing stick if it was floor mounted rather than ceiling mounted (Marin et al., 2018) and when lactating does spent more time on their platform later in lactation (presumably to avoid their kits) they also used the enrichment mounted above the platform more often (Rommers et al., 2014b). Since younger rabbits gnaw more than older ones (Katsarou et al., 2011), the impact of a lack of suitable material may be greater for them. Table 46 summarises the information on the main hazards for this welfare consequence and their degree of scientific support. 3.6.18. Occurrence of abnormal behaviours: Chewing and gnawing are part of the normal behavioural repertoire of the rabbit (EFSA, 2005; Trocino and Xiccato, 2006). However, when farmed rabbits chew or scratch on parts of the cage or on other rabbits such behaviour is usually classified as abnormal behaviour or behaviour redirected to an abnormal target (Princz et al., 2008b; Verga et al., 2007). Group-housed growing rabbits and individually housed does spend 2–4% of their time chewing or scratching cage parts (Princz et al., 2008b; Buijs et al., 2011; Rommers et al., 2014b). Cage chewing is much more common in younger laboratory rabbits than older ones (2 vs. 6 months, Katsarou et al., 2011) and can thus be expected to be more common in growing rabbits than in breeding animals. Over-grooming (i.e. excessive self-grooming) is sometimes also included as abnormal (Bozicovich et al., 2016; Stewart and Suckow, 2016). However, this poses some difficulty as a certain level of grooming is normal and even necessary, and there is no established level at which grooming would be considered excessive. Grouped growing rabbits and individually housed does spend 15–20% and 11–13% of their time grooming, respectively (Princz et al., 2008b; Buijs et al., 2011, 2015; Rommers et al., 2014b). Information on clinical evidence of over-grooming is lacking for farmed rabbits, but was rare (1%) in pet rabbits (Mullan and Main, 2006). Like cage gnawing, self-grooming is more common in younger laboratory rabbits than in older ones (Katsarou et al., 2011). Behaviours like faeces eating (excluding caecotroph eating or consumption of the mother’s faeces by kits), head swaying, nose sliding, excessive thumping, keeping the head in the corner, sitting in a hunched posture and sham-chewing are also mentioned as examples of abnormal behaviour in laboratory rabbits (Stewart and Suckow, 2016), but these are not commonly observed in farmed rabbits. EFSA (2005) describes the lack of gnawing material as a main hazard for abnormal behaviour. In laboratory rabbits, hay was more effective in reducing abnormal behaviour than grass cubes, wooden sticks, or a hiding box (Lidfors, 1997). However, wooden sticks were still effective enough to cause a significant reduction in abnormal behaviour in individually housed (Hesham and Nasr, 2017) and group housed growing rabbits (Luzi et al., 2003; Verga et al., 2004), although not in all studies (Jordan et al., 2004). Individual housing was also mentioned as a hazard for stereotypic behaviour in lactating and Table 46: Hazards related to the inability to perform gnawing behaviour. Hazards written in bold are scientifically proven by more than one source, those in normal text were found in only one paper, those in italic have been mentioned by the experts invited to the technical hearing meeting Hazard category Hazard Housing Absence of suitable materials to gnaw Lack of easy access to suitable materials to gnaw Ambient condition No hazard identified Genetics No hazard identified Nutrition and feeding No hazard identified Management of biosecurity No hazard identified Management of reproduction No hazard identified Other No hazard identified Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 70 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 non-lactating lactating does (EFSA, 2005). Group size (apart from individual housing) and cage height were reported not to affect abnormal behaviour in growing rabbits (EFSA, 2005), although there is some new evidence to the contrary (see below). Most new research supports the effectiveness of gnawing materials to reduce abnormal behaviours such as stereotypic biting, chewing or licking of the cage in growing rabbits (Verga et al., 2007) and wood is most commonly provided for this purpose. Provision of wood to group housed growing rabbits can reduce cage chewing (Verga et al., 2007; Buijs et al., 2011), non-aggressive social contact (Buijs et al., 2011) and skin and ear lesions (Bozicovich et al., 2016; Princz et al., 2008b, 2009). Gnawing material can reduce abnormal behaviour but does not eliminate it fully because gnawing/ scratching are intrinsically motivated exploratory behaviours for the rabbit. Growing rabbits spend 1–2% less of their total time budget on cage gnawing/scratching when enrichment is present than without (corresponding with a 33–50% reduction in the time spent on such behaviour, Buijs et al., 2011; Princz et al., 2008b; Bozicovich et al., 2016). The effectiveness of enrichment in reducing abnormal behaviour may depend on the number of cage or pen mates. In contrast to the aforementioned effects on group housed growing rabbits, enrichment provision did not affect abnormal behaviour in individually housed rabbits (sub-adult males: Jordan et al., 2008, adult males: Poggiagliolmi et al., 2011, adult females: Maertens et al., 2013; Rommers et al., 2014b). In line with the suggestion that enrichment may be more effective in larger groups, Princz et al. (2009) reported higher stick consumption per rabbit in larger groups of growing rabbits (2 vs. 13) and suggested that social facilitation may lead to greater use of such enrichment. As most studies on individual housing were conducted with adult animals, it is also possible that these reflect that enrichment is less effective in older animals. In line with this, enrichment did not affect abnormal behaviour in adult group housed rabbit does (Rommers et al., 2014a). The effects of space allowance and group composition on abnormal behaviour have been less studied and their interpretation is less clear. Studies on the effect of space allowance on abnormal behaviour in growing rabbits have provided contradictory results (Morisse and Maurice, 1997; Princz et al., 2008b; Jekkel et al., 2010; Buijs et al., 2011). Group housed does are reported to groom themselves less than individually housed ones (Mugnai et al., 2009; Buijs et al., 2015). However, reduced grooming in grouped does may be due to unrest in newly formed groups rather than abnormal over-grooming in individually housed does, as grooming increases later after group formation (Buijs et al., 2015). Mixed-sex groups were shown to spend less time manipulating cage parts than same-sex groups. However, non-aggressive social interactions (a category that may include abnormal and damaging interactions as well as positive interactions, Buijs et al., 2011) were more common in same-sex groups (Bozicovich et al., 2016). Social interactions are described in more detail in chapter 3.6.18. Stewart and Suckow (2016) found no effect of a small difference in cage height (36–38 vs. 40 cm) on an extensive list of abnormal behaviours in individually housed laboratory rabbits. However, grouped growing rabbits in even lower cages (20 cm) had more ear lesions than those in cages ≥30 cm, some of which may have resulted from gnawing (Princz et al., 2008a). When does do not have free access to the litter they are nursing, this can cause them to scratch the nest entrance or the floor in front of it for prolonged periods, in what is assumed to be an attempt to open and close the nest. In does that could smell, but not access, their litter (as would be common when controlled nursing is applied on farm) bouts of such behaviour continued throughout the day, with the exception of the hour after the does had been allowed to nurse their litter (Baumann et al., 2005). Nursing behaviour is discussed in more detail in Section 3.6.17. Feed restrictions can increase bar biting in does (Martinez-Paredes et al., 2015). Table 47 summarises the information on the main hazards for this welfare consequence and their degree of scientific support. Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 71 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 3.6.19. Fear Fear has been defined as ‘a feeling which occurs when there is perceived to be actual danger or a high risk of danger’; it can produce changes in behaviour, physiology and in the brain (Broom and Fraser, 2015). Excessive fear may cause chronic stress, which affects animal welfare and health (Forkman et al., 2007). Moreover, excessive fear may cause serious trauma and injuries during handling when animals struggle and are difficult to handle. In free living conditions, European rabbits differentially increased two different forms of vigilance behaviour in social and anti-predator contexts. Two forms of vigilance of different intensity, i.e. subtle and overt could be distinguished. The frequencies of both forms of vigilance displayed by the rabbits differ significantly in occurrence, duration and distribution over time, e.g. the presence of conspecifics in close proximity affects the display of subtle but not overt vigilance, which was associated with predator presence (Moncl us and R€ odel, 2008). The alert and anti-predator responses of the domestic rabbits consist of ‘look-out’positions, foot-thumping as an alarm signal, rearing on their hind legs, running at high speed for shelter and ‘freezing’. Thus, rabbits not only react to fear or threat by ‘fight-or-flight’response, but also assume motionless postures in tonic immobility (also defined as immobilisation catonia or death feigning) (Giannico et al., 2014). Under different conditions (farmed, lab or pet rabbits), rabbits exposed to different possible threats (noises, presence of man or unknown operators, introduction of new animals) have been observed running away into a hiding place or into a corner of the cage with their head, or freezing, or attacking with teeth and claws (Mullan and Main, 2006; Crowell-Davis, 2007; Verga et al., 2007). Measurements of fear levels in rabbits have been based on changes in behaviour or occurrence of some behaviours, reactivity tests as well as physiological indicators (EFSA, 2005; Verga et al., 2007; Verwer et al., 2009; Buijs and Tuyttens, 2015; Trocino et al., 2018). No measurable (numerical) thresholds have been given to identify and determine with certainty what are unacceptable fear levels with regard to animal welfare and health. Fear can be elicited by different occasional stimuli or even by defective management and housing conditions, which can affect animal response and welfare to a different extent depending on the frequency of occurrence, duration, and severity of the threat. EFSA (2005) recognised every practice producing a negative experience of rabbits towards humans as a hazard and recommended to adopt the following measures: a progressive approach to kits; quiet and slow movements during handling and catching; rabbits must never be picked up or held by ears; rabbits should be caught with a minimum of chasing. To improve human-rabbit relationship and to reduce fearful reaction, the regular daily handling of lactating kits recommended by EFSA (2005) has been confirmed to be useful by later studies (Csatadi et al., 2005; Verga et al., 2007; Verwer et al., 2009; Zucca et al., 2012). Indeed, kit exposure to only human smell reduces fear towards man and improves their welfare (D ucs et al., 2009). Under farming conditions, staff are present daily in proximity to the rabbits. They handle kits at the time of kindling, litter standardisation and litter control during lactation; then, at weaning, litters or does may be moved from one cage to another (depending on the farm management). Thereafter, growing rabbits are not usually touched by the staff until slaughter, when they will be taken out and loaded in baskets and into the transport cages. During the Table 47: Hazards that could lead to the occurrence of abnormal behaviour. Hazards written in bold are scientifically proven by more than one source, those in normal text were found in only one paper, those in italic have been mentioned by the experts invited to the technical hearing meeting Hazard category Hazard Housing Individual housing Very low cages (20 cm) Lack of gnawable materials (e.g. roughage, wood), especially in (larger) groups Ambient condition No hazard identified Genetics No hazard identified Nutrition and feeding Feed restriction Management of biosecurity No hazard identified Management of reproduction Disturbance of maternal behaviour Other Sub-adult animals Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 72 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 reproductive cycle, reproducing does are usually handled at the time of artificial insemination (if used), at the time of pregnancy palpation and at the time of any medical interventions (e.g. vaccination, treatment). In addition, strange situations can be a hazard for fear. Young rabbits should be given appropriate experience of management practices (e.g. particular feeding and watering systems) and environmental conditions (e.g. natural light, litter, ventilation fans and other sounds and noises) to enable them to adapt to the husbandry systems they will encounter later in life. Evidence is available that social isolation may negatively affect fear reactions in rabbits and is explained by the importance of social vigilance in natural conditions. Under farming conditions, growing rabbits reared in individual cages showed a higher level of fear towards humans compared to rabbits kept in bicellular and collective cages, as they were more sensitive to the immobility test (Trocino et al., 2013). Negative reactions towards humans (more aggression) (d’Ovidio et al., 2016) or towards a new environment (Schepers et al., 2009) have also been found in single–caged pet rabbits compared to those caged with mates. Under farming conditions, farmers report that some lactating does may occasionally show aggressive behaviours towards them when approaching the cages. Nevertheless, territoriality, rather than fear towards humans, could explain this behaviour as reported for pet rabbits (Crowell-Davis, 2007). Under farming conditions, an inadequate social environment associated with overcrowding and group housing may affect animal fear and stress levels, due to competition and aggression (Verga et al., 2007). In the case of growing rabbits kept in small groups (8), fear response to a human in the tonic immobility test was not affected by the stocking density (Trocino et al., 2004). In collective pens with large group size (20–27), a fearful reaction towards a new environment was measured in the open field test. At the pre-slaughter age, the highest latency to enter the arena was observed in rabbits kept in pens with 16 rabbits/m 2 compared to those at 12 animals/m 2 , (with group size decreasing from 27 to 20 rabbits/pen). However, this difference was not associated to differences in corticosterone levels in hair or faeces (p >0.05) (Trocino et al., 2018). The higher incidence of injured rabbits (26.2% vs. 8.2%, respectively; p <0.001; Trocino et al., 2015), and the higher related aggression in the larger group at the end of the trial could have accounted for their fearful reaction in the new environment and, especially, for the low motivation the rabbits had to reinstate contact with conspecifics (Forkman et al., 2007; Buijs and Tuyttens, 2015). In the case of reproducing does, to our knowledge, no data are available on fear responses of the animals kept under different farming conditions. In the case of continuous or part-time group housing, the high aggression level and related skin injuries (see Section 3.6.8) might be expected to induce a chronic fear level, especially in low ranking does. In fact, Szendro et al. (2013) found a higher faecal corticosterone level in does housed collectively (4 does and 1 buck/pen) than those kept individually (175 nmol/g vs. 54–61 nmol/g). Direct observations under experimental conditions indicated that injured does spent most time motionless, in a location in the enclosure which guaranteed visual isolation from other rabbits, and reduced feed intake (Trocino, unpublished data). Unsuitable environmental/housing conditions also induce fear and stress levels in rabbits. The use of a wooden slatted floor with too large a space between the slats (3 cm) challenged animal comfort and movement, and negatively affected rabbit response towards humans or objects during different tests when compared to animals kept in the pens with a plastic grid, especially when young (Trocino et al., 2018). The corticosterone levels in the hair confirmed that rabbits reared on the wooden slatted floor had a higher stress level compared to those reared on the plastic grid. Nevertheless, in this case, reaction towards man during the tonic immobility test did not change. Rabbits housed on a strawbedded wire floor exhibited more fearful behaviours (i.e. standing still) in the open field test and were more fearful towards man compared to rabbits kept on other floors (plastic slat and wire-mesh) (Trocino et al., 2008). Finally, in conventional systems, where rabbits are housed in closed barns, no stimulus for predation fear should be present under good farming practice. Nevertheless, in semi-outdoor or outdoor systems, regardless of the specific housing enclosure (fixed or moveable cages, underground systems, garenne, hutches), rabbits may be exposed to predator challenges (from both birds and carnivores). D’Agata et al. (2009) observed more escape attempts and digging and less exploratory biting behaviour during the open field test in rabbits in colony wire cages kept outdoor under a shelter compared to indoor. Even the odour from predator proximity may elicit a fear response in rabbits, which are macrosmatic animals (EFSA, 2005). Moncl us et al. (2006) found that the simulated presence Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 73 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 6) The median welfare impact scores for growing rabbits were more diverse than those observed for reproducing does. It is likely to extremely likely (certainty 66–99%), that the welfare of growing rabbits is lower in conventional cages compared to the other housing systems and that the welfare is higher in elevated pens than in the other systems. However, no distinction can be made among the enriched cages, floor pens, organic systems and outdoor systems regarding the welfare impact. Conclusions about main welfare consequences in different rabbit categories 7) For reproducing does, restriction of movement obtained the highest welfare impact scores. In addition, the lack of possibility for gnawing behaviour and hunger, contributed substantially to the higher impact score in conventional cages (see conclusion no. 4). 8) For kits, heat stress obtained the highest welfare impact scores and this welfare consequence, together with neonatal disorders and cold stress contributed substantially to the higher impact score in outdoor systems (see conclusion no. 5). However, in outdoor systems, the inability to perform gnawing behaviour is not in the top five welfare consequence even though it appears in all other systems. 9) For growing rabbits, restriction of movement gave the highest welfare impact scores. This welfare consequence, together with inability to perform gnawing behaviour and resting problems, made the greatest contribution to the higher impact score in conventional cages (see conclusion no. 6). 10) 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 appeared more often in the top five welfare consequences of ‘niche’housing systems (i.e. floor pens, outdoor, organic systems). Conclusions about organic systems Apart from housing conditions, organic standards also include requirements related to e.g. feeding and health management. Housing in organic rabbit farming is diverse and complex and may consist, for example in does, of either movable cages or individual paddocks that can be used. Therefore, whether one or the other is used this can result in different welfare consequences. 11) Welfare impact scores given by experts suggest that welfare in organic systems is generally good. 12) Welfare consequences relate especially to the outdoor housing. Extreme temperatures can cause heat or cold stress, and movement restriction if access to pasture is restricted. Fear may result from perceived exposure to predators. Health problems may result from exposure to thermal stress and limitations on biosecurity measures. 13) The diversity of organic systems means that solutions to the important hazards need to be tailored to each set of circumstances. 14) Identified hazards suggest that shelter should be insulated to mitigate the effect of climatic extremes, barriers against predators (foxes, dogs, prey birds, etc.) should be checked carefully, and a thorough prophylactic program should be observed to limit the welfare consequences associated to health problems. General conclusions about welfare of farmed rabbits also including feedback on the EFSA, 2005 Opinion. 15) The EFSA 2005 conclusions covered the general provisions regarding welfare in all systems. The Panel agrees with these in the light of new evidence reviewed, except for the following (the chapter number from EFSA, 2005 is also indicated): •EFSA (2005, chapter 3.5.1.3) highlighted hygienic hazards linked to the use of enrichment material. However, it is now concluded that, while certain types of enrichment give the possibility of hygienic hazards, other types of enrichment, such as gnawing sticks, have not given reported problems. However, there is insufficient knowledge on this. •EFSA, 2005, chapter 3.5.1.4. For reproducing animals, beyond the use of floor mats (floor rests), plastic slatted floors have now also been confirmed to reduce Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 80 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 pododermatitis. These can also guarantee hygiene, comparable to wire mesh, provided that their design ensures passage of faeces. •EFSA, 2005, chapter 3.7.4. Dam-litter separation as a bio-stimulation method for oestrus synchronisation is no longer recommended due to adverse welfare consequence for the kits. •EFSA, 2005, chapter 3.5.2.1. In agreement with EFSA 2005, continuous group housing systems for reproducing does cannot be recommended because of the decreased welfare associated to aggression and lesions among does and to kits. Subsequent studies have shown that part-time group housing systems are also associated with high aggression among animals and high injury rates. Nevertheless, these systems may have potential, but existing knowledge is not sufficiently developed to recommend them for implementation on farms. •EFSA, 2005, chapter 3.9. While commercial genetic selection still incorporates litter size, growth rate and feed efficiency, there is now increasing emphasis on other traits including disease resistance. Genetics of body composition and stress resistance are also the subject of research. 16) Many production factors other than housing influence welfare consequences, including genetics, nutrition, and aspects of management such as biosecurity, reproduction and training of farm staff. 17) In general, there is a lack of information on many of the behavioural needs of rabbits. •The present size of conventional cages, enriched cages, elevated pens and organic systems (the latter only in case no access to outdoor area is provided) restricts movement according to EKE experts. However, knowledge on the space requirement which is necessary to acceptably meet the behavioural and physiological needs for all rabbit categories is still lacking. Therefore, it is not possible to recommend a minimum space requirement which gives acceptable welfare. •There is a lack of evidence on which gnawing materials best satisfy the rabbit’s gnawing motivation. •The motivation for social contact in adult rabbits at each of the reproductive phases is insufficiently understood. 5. Recommendations General recommendations 1) A systematic and large-scale data collection exercise should be carried out to provide objective information on rabbit welfare in different housing and management systems in the EU. 2) To facilitate objective comparisons of rabbit welfare, adoption of a validated welfare assessment protocol suitable for on-farm use should be standardised across the EU. 3) Because of the diversity of rabbit farming systems, defining general resource-based standards is difficult. In the future, these should be complemented by use of ABMs. 4) Basic research should be carried out to better understand the behavioural needs of rabbits, and the provisions for these, which are necessary in farm conditions to ensure good welfare. Recommendations regarding different housing systems The following recommendations for specific housing systems are based on the welfare consequences highlighted as most important in the expert survey. 5) For conventional cages: •The main welfare consequences in conventional cages are directly related to the size of the cage (restriction of movement, resting and social behaviour). As such, it can be recommended to increase the size of these cages or to add structures that allow more efficient use of the cage (platforms). Effectively, this means a shift from conventional cages to enriched ones. Problems for growing rabbits can also be addressed by reducing stocking density. Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 81 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 •In case of wire mesh flooring, plastic foot mats should be used. Cage floors (especially any plastic mats) should be cleaned regularly to avoid soiling and faeces accumulation. •Gnawing materials suitable for all production categories (does, growing rabbits, kits) should be supplied. Wooden sticks are one solution to achieve this, especially as conventional cages may lack the space necessary to add hay/straw racks. •Thermal stress, although not directly caused by the cage itself, should be minimised by appropriate building and ventilation design. •Transient hunger (< 6 h/day) may occur in fatteners submitted to a necessary feed restriction programme, and could be addressed by giving more frequent smaller meals. In kits, hunger may be addressed by avoiding factors that disrupt nursing behaviour. The correct functioning of drinkers and automatic feeders should be checked daily. 6) For enriched cages: •Restriction of movement for does in enriched cages cannot be solved without significant changes in the system. Restriction of movement for growing rabbits can be addressed by reducing stocking density. •Risk of skin disorders can be reduced by good management of biosecurity. •Gnawing materials suitable for all production categories (does, growing rabbits, kits) should be supplied. •The risk of resting problems should be decreased with adequate cage size and floor material. In case of wire mesh flooring, plastic foot mats should be used. Cage floors (especially plastic floors) should be cleaned regularly to avoid soiling and faeces accumulation. •Thermal stress, although not directly caused by the cage itself, should be minimised by appropriate building and ventilation design •Gastrointestinal disorders can be minimised by a balanced diet and appropriate weaning age. 7) For elevated pens: •Restriction of movement of does can be ameliorated by group housing but this can come with increased aggressive interactions, inadequate nesting behaviour and poor maternal care. Pens should be equipped with platforms to allow for vertical movements. •Resting problems for growing rabbits can be addressed by reducing stocking density. In addition, resting comfort can be improved by use of appropriate flooring material, such as plastic, and by good hygiene ensured by correct slat design. •Skin disorders in growing rabbits can be reduced by avoiding introduction and transmission of pathogens through good biosecurity procedures, climate control as well as positioning of the drinkers so that wetting of the fur is prevented. •Gnawing materials suitable for all production categories (does, growing rabbits, kits) should be supplied. •Gastrointestinal disorders in kits and growing rabbits can be minimised by a balanced diet and appropriate weaning age. •Fearfulness can be reduced by avoiding rough handling and situations contributing to aggression between rabbit does. 8) For floor pens: •Gastrointestinal disorders, skin disorders, reproductive disorders, neonatal disorders and resting problems can all be ameliorated by maintenance of hygiene through provision of an adequate quantity of suitable bedding and frequent removal of soiled bedding. •Prolonged hunger and thirst can be avoided if feeding and drinking facilities are designed to remain free of soiled bedding and regularly cleaned. For kits, the occurrence of prolonged hunger should be reduced by, firstly, a correct health status and feeding of the doe, and, secondly, by a correct design of the nestbox to only allow kits access to the main cage when sufficiently mature. •Skin lesions and resting problems can be reduced by reducing stocking density for growing rabbits, but may be an unavoidable consequence of group housing of does. Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 82 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 •Thermal stress can be avoided by controlled ventilation systems, to minimise ambient temperature extremes. In hot weather, provision of an unbedded area of floor might be beneficial if well drained. 9) For outdoor systems: •Heat or cold stress for any rabbit category could be reduced by insulating the shelter or by adding shade in the outdoor area. Where possible, supplementary heaters, humidifiers or fans can be employed. For kits, correct management of the nest is important to reduce thermal stress. •Gastrointestinal disorders in growing rabbits could be reduced by using a strict management of housing hygiene combined with a good feeding strategy and a daily checking of the animals looking at their health. •Prolonged Hunger for kits and growing rabbits can be avoided by correct design, location and maintenance of feeding and drinking facilities, and regular checking of availability. For kits, the occurrence of prolonged hunger should be reduced by, firstly, a correct health status and feeding of the doe, and, secondly, by a correct design of the nestbox to only allow kits access to the main cage when sufficiently mature. •Resting problems for does and growing rabbits can be reduced by using items to provide shade in summer and by improving the insulation and hygiene of shelter. 10) For organic systems: •Restriction of movement may be reduced by enlarging the sheltered part of the housing during any period when outdoor access is difficult. •Heat or cold stress for any rabbit category could be reduced by insulating the shelter or by adding shade in the outdoor area. •Resting problems can be reduced by using items to provide shade in summer and by improving the insulation and hygiene of shelter. •Reproductive disorders in does, neonatal disorders in kits and gastrointestinal disorders in growing rabbits could be reduced by using a strict management of housing hygiene combined with a good feeding strategy and a daily checking of the animals looking at their health. •Fear in growing rabbits can be minimised by protections against potential predators (dogs, foxes, birds of prey, etc.), such as a robust electrified fence, a net top protection against birds of prey, and setting up hiding places in paddocks. Familiarity with people by regular visits from the farmer to the animals should also be beneficial. •For kits, the occurrence of prolonged hunger should be reduced by, firstly, a correct health status and feeding of the doe, and, secondly, by a correct design of the nestbox to only allow kits access to the main cage when sufficiently mature. References Agnoletti F, 2012. Update on rabbit enteric diseases: despite improved diagnostic capacity, where does disease control and prevention stand? 10th World Rabbit Congress Sharm. ElSheikh, –Egypt, 1113–1127. Alfonso-Carrillo C, Garcia-Rebollar P, De Bias C, Ibanez MA and Garcia-Ruiz AI, 2014a. Effect of late weaning and use of alternative cages on performance of does, Suckling and Fattening Rabbits under Extensive reproductive management. Livestock Science, 167, 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.05.018 Alfonso-Carrillo C, Martin E, De Blas C, Ibanez MA, Garcia-Rebollar P and Garcia-Ruiz AI, 2014b. Effect of cage type on the behaviour pattern of rabbit does at different physiological stages. World Rabbit Science, 22, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2014.1396 Andrist CA, Bigler LM, W€ urbel H and Roth BA, 2012. Effects of group stability on aggression, stress and injuries in breeding rabbits. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 142, 182–188. Andrist CA, van den Borne BHP, Bigler LM, Buchwalder T and Roth BA, 2013. Epidemiologic survey in Swiss grouphoused Breeding Rabbits: extent of lesions and potential risk factors. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 108, 218–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.07.015 Andrist C, Bigler L, W€ urbel H and Roth B, 2014. Masking odour when regrouping rabbit does: effect on aggression, stress and lesions. Livestock Science, 170, 150–157. Argente M, Santacreu M, Climent A and Blasco A, 1999. Phenotypic and genetic parameters of birth weight and weaning weight of rabbits born from unilaterally ovariectomized and intact does. Livestock Production Science, 57, 159–167. Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 83 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Arrazuria R, P erez V, Molina E, Juste RA and Khafipour E, 2018. Diet induced changes in the microbiota and cell composition of rabbit gut associated lymphoid tissue (GALT). Scientific Report, 8, 14103. https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41598-018-32484-1 Arveux P, 1994. L’allaitement control e. Cuniculture, 21, 240–241. Baumann P, Oester H and Stauffacher M, 2005. Effects of temporary nest box removal on maternal behaviour and pup survival in caged rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 91, 167–178. Baumans V, 2005. Environmental enrichment for laboratory rodents and rabbits: requirements of rodents, rabbits, and research. ILAR Journal, 46, 162–170. Belgium, 2014. Arr^ et e Royal relatif au bien-^ etre des lapins dans les  elevages. Moniteur Belge [C 2014/24303], 60861–60864. Bertagnoli S and Marchandeau S, 2015. La myxomatose. Revue Scientifique et Technique International Office of Epizootics, 34, 539–547. Bignon L, Bouchier M, Coutelet G, Galliot P, Souchet C and Fortun-Lamothe L, 2012. Individual housing of young does in different sized cages: impact on welfare, economic costs and productive data. Proceedings 10th World Rabbit Congress, Sharm ElSheikh, Egypt, 1045–1049. Bignon L, Mika A, Mindus C, Litt J, Souchet C, Bonnaud V, Picchiottino C, Warin L, Dennery G, Brame C, Guesdon V and Bouvarel I, 2017. Une m ethode pratique et partag ee d’ evaluation du bien-^ etre en fili eres avicole et cunicole: EBENE. 12e Journ ees de la Recherche Avicole et Palmip edes  a Foie Gras, 5 & 6 avril 2017, Tours, France, 1015–1019. de Blas C and Mateos GG, 2010. Feed formulation. Nutrition of the rabbit J. (Eds). CAB International, 2. Blokhuis HJ, Veissier I, Miele M and Jones RB, 2010. The Welfare Quality ® project and beyond: safeguarding animal well-being. Acta Agricultura Scandinavia Section A, Animal Science, 60, 129–140. Blumetto O, Olivas I, Torres AG and Villagr a A, 2010. Use of straw and wood shavings as nest material in primiparous does. World Rabbit Science, 18, 237–242. Boisot P, Duperray J, Dugenetais X and Guyonvarch A, 2004. Interest of hydric restriction times of 2 and 3 hours per day to induce feed restriction in growing rabbits. Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 8th World Rabbit Congress, Puebla. Colegio de Postgraduados, Montecillo, Spain, 759–764. Boiti C, 2004. Underlying physiological mechanisms controlling the reproductive axis of rabbit does. Proceedings of the Proc. 8th World Rabbit Congress, September, 7–10. Bolet G, Devinoy E, Vir ag G, Hars anyi I and B€ osze Z, 2007. Association between litter size and the K-casein genotype in the INRA rabbit lines. World Rabbit Science, 15, 147–150. da Borso F, Chiumenti A, Mezzadri M and Teri F, 2016. Noxious gases in rabbit housing systems: effects of cross and longitudinal ventilation. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 47, 222–229. Boucher S and Leplat A, 2005. De quoi meurent nos lapins. In Table Ronde: Effets des conduits post-sevrage sur les performances et la sant e des laperaux. 11e Journ ees de la Recherche Cunicole, 29-30 November. Boucher S, Gracia E, Villa A, Fern andez A, Nouaille L, Briffaud MA, Albizu I and Baselga R, 2001. Pathogens in the reproductive tract of farm rabbits. Veterinary Record, 149, 677–678. Bovera F, Lestingi A, Piccolo G, Iannaccone F, Attia YA and Tateo A, 2013. Effects of water restriction on growth performance, feed nutrient digestibility, carcass and meat traits of rabbits. Animal, 7, 1600–1606. Bozicovich TFM, Moura A, Fernandes S, Oliveira AA and Siqueira ERS, 2016. Effect of environmental enrichment and composition of the social group on the behavior, welfare, and relative brain weight of growing rabbits. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 182, 72–79. Broom DM and Fraser AF, 2015. Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 5th Edition. University of Cambridge Veterinary School, UK, 472 pp. Brownlow ML, Jung SH, Moore RJ, Bechmann N and Jankord R, 2017. Nutritional ketosis affects metabolism and behavior in Sprague-Dawley rats in both control and chronic stress environments. Front Mol Neurosci, 10, 129. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnmol.2017.00129 Buijs S and Tuyttens FAM, 2015. Evaluating the effect of semi-group housing of rabbit does on their offspring’s fearfulness: can we use the open-field test? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 162, 58–66. Buijs S, Keeling LJ and Tuyttens FAM, 2011. Behaviour and use of space in fattening rabbits as influenced by cage size and enrichment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 134, 229–238. Buijs S, Van Poucke E, Van Dongen S, Lens L and Tuyttens FAM, 2012. Cage size and enrichment effects on the bone quality and fluctuating asymmetry of fattening rabbits. Journal of Animal Science, 90, 3568–3573. Buijs S, Hermans K, Maertens L, Van Caelenberg A and Tuyttens FAM, 2014. Effects of semi-group housing and floor type on pododermatitis, spinal deformation and bone quality in rabbit does. Animal, 8, 1728–1734. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1751731114001669 Buijs S, Maertens L, Hermans K, Vangeyte J and Tuyttens FAM, 2015. Behaviour, wounds, weight loss and adrenal weight of rabbit does as affected by semi-group housing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 172, 44–51. Buijs S, Vangeyte J and Tuyttens FA, 2016. Effects of communal rearing and group size on breeding rabbits’postgrouping behaviour and its relation to ano-genital distance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 182, 53–60. Cafarchia C, Camarda A, Coccioli C, Figueredo LA, Circella E, Danesi P, Capelli G and Otranto D, 2010. Epidemiology and risk factors for dermatophytoses in rabbit farms. Medical Mycology, 48, 975–980. https://doi. org/10.3109/13693781003652620 Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 84 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Calvet SM, Cambra-Lopez F, Estelles and Torres AG, 2011. Characterisation of the indoor environment and gas emissions in rabbit farms. World Rabbit Science, 19, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2011.802 Cardasis CA and Sinclair JC, 1972. The effects of ambient temperature on the fasted newborn rabbit. 1. Survival times, weight loss, body temperature and oxygen consumption. Biological of Neonates, 21, 330–346. Castellini C, Dal Bosco A and Mugnai C, 2003. Comparison of different reproduction protocols for rabbit does: effect of litter size and mating interval. Livestock Production Science, 83, 131–139. Castellini C, Dal Bosco A, Arias-Alvarez M, Lorenzo PL, Cardinali R and Rebollar PG, 2010. The main factors affecting the reproductive performance of rabbit does: a review. Animal Reproduction Sciences, 122, 174–182. Castellini C, Dal Bosco A and Mattioli S, 2017. Nuove conoscenze e applicazioni nella riproduzione del coniglio. Il coniglio: storia ed evoluzione dell’allevamento in Italia e in Europa, 51–65. Cerioli M, Brivio R, Tittarelli C, Grilli G and Lavazza A, 2011. Identification of health and welfare parameters for rabbit production and definition of an evaluation score. Journal of Agriculture, Science and Technology, 1, 500–507. Cerolini S, Marzoni Fecia di Cossato M, Romboli I, S A and L Z, 2008. Avicoltura e Coniglicoltura. Point Veterinaire, Milan, Italy. Chu L, Garner JP and Mench JA, 2004. A behavioural comparison of New Zealand White rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) housed individually or in pairs in conventional laboratory cages. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 85, 121–139. Combes S, Postollec G, Cauquil L and Gidenne T, 2009. Influence of cage or pen housing on carcass traits and meat quality of rabbit. Animal, 4, 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109991030 Combes S, Fortune-Lamothe L, Cauiquil L and Gidenne T, 2013. Engineering the rabbit digestive ecosystem to improve digestive health and efficacy. Animal, 7, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113001079 Combes S, Ikken S, Gidenne T, Balmisse E, Aymard P and Travel A, 2017. Effect of solid intake stimulation of suckling rabbit in the nest on survival and growth performance. Conference paper. 68th EAAP annual meeting. Strasbourg, 15 June 2006 Cons 123. Corpa J, Hermans K and Haesebrouck F, 2009. Main pathologies associated with Staphylococcus aureus infections in rabbits: a review. World Rabbit Science, 17, 115–125. Coudert P, Rideaud P, Virag G and Cerrone A, 2006. Pasteurellosis in rabbits. Recent Advances in Rabbit Sciences, 147–162. Council of European Union, 2006. European convention for the protection of vertebrate animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes (ets no. 123) guidelines for accommodation and care of animals (article 5 of the convention). Council of European Union, 1998. Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes (OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte nt/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:01998L0058-20030605 Coureaud G, Schaal B, Orgeur P and Coudert P, 1998. Le contr^ ole de l’acc es au nid chez la lapine: cons equences sur la mortalit e des lapereaux. Proc. 7 emes Journ. Rech. Cunicole, 245–249. Coureaud G, Fortun-Lamothe L, Langlois D and Schaal B, 2007. The reactivity of neonatal rabbits to the mammary pheromone as a probe for viability. Animal, 1, 1026–1032. Crowell-Davis SL, 2007. Behavior problems in pet rabbits. Journal of Exotic Pet Medicine, 16, 38–44. https://doi. org/10.1053/j.jepm.2006.11.022 Csatadi K, Kustos K, Eiben C, Bilko A and Altbacker V, 2005. Even minimal human contact linked to nursing reduces fear responses toward humans in rabbits. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 95, 123–128. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.05.002 Cullere M and dalle Zotte A, 2018. Rabbit meat production and consumption: state of knowledge and future perspectives. Meat Science, 143, 137–146. D’Agata M, Preziuso G, Russo C, Zotte AD, Mourvaki E and Paci G, 2009. Effect of an outdoor rearing system on the welfare, growth performance, carcass and meat quality of a slow-growing rabbit population. Meat Science, 83, 691–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.08.005 Dal Bosco A, Castellini C and Mugnai C, 2002. Rearing rabbits on a wire net floor or straw litter: behaviour, growth and meat qualitative traits. Livestock Production Science, 75, 149–156. Dalmau A, Catanese B, Rafel O, Rodriguez P, Fuentes C, Llonch P, Mainau E, Velarde A, Ram on J, Taberner E, L opez-B ejar M and Piles M, 2014. Effect of high temperatures on breeding rabbit behaviour. Animal Production Science, 55, 1207–1214. Dalmau A, Abdel-Khalek AM, Ramon J, Piles M, Sanchez JP, Velarde A and Rafel O, 2015. Comparison of behaviour, performance and mortality in restricted and ad libitum-fed growing rabbits. Animal, 9, 1172–1180. Dalmau A, Pallisera J, Moles X, Xercavins A and Velarde A, undated a. Protocol for does, bucks and kid rabbits. IRTA. Dalmau A, Pallisera J, Moles X, Xercavins A and Velarde A, undated b. Protocol for growing rabbits. IRTA. De Blas C and Wiseman J, 2010. Nutrition of the rabbit. CABI. Deeb B and DiGiacomo RF, 2000. Respiratory diseases of rabbits. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Exotic Animal Practice, 3, 465–479. DiVincenti L and Jr Rehrig, 2016. The Social Nature of European Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, 55, 729–736. Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 85 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Dixon LM, Hardiman JR and Cooper JJ, 2010. The effects of spatial restriction on the behavior of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Journal of Veterinary Behavior-Clinical Applications and Research, 5, 302–308. Dorning J and Harris S, 2017. Farmed rabbits in commercial production systems. Available online: https://www. ciwf.org.uk/media/7430014/the-welfare-of-farmed-rabbits-in-commercial-production-systems-a-scientific-reviewfebruary-2017.pdf Dreschen B and Schlenden-B€ obbis I, 1996. Pathologic study of pododermatitis among heavy breeders on wire floors. Etude pathologique de la pododermatites chez les lapins reproducteurs de souche loured sur grillage. World Rabbit Science, 4, 143–148. Drescher B and Loeffler K, 1996. Skoliosen, Lordosen und Kyphosen bei Zuchtkaninchen. Tieraerztliche Praxis, 24, 292–300. Drummond H, V azquez E, S anchez-Col on S, Martinez-G omez M and Hudson R, 2000. Competition for milk in the domestic rabbit: survivors benefit from littermate deaths. Ethology, 106, 511–526. D ucs A, Bilk o A and Altb€ acker V, 2009. Physical contact while handling is not necessary to reduce fearfulness in the rabbit. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 121, 51–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.07.005 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2005. The Impact of the current housing and husbandry systems on the health and welfare of farmed domestic rabbits. EFSA Journal 2005;267:1–31. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa. 2005.267 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2014. Guidance on Expert Knowledge Elicitation in Food and Feed Safety Risk Assessment. EFSA Journal 2014;12(6): 278. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3734 https://efsa.onlinelib rary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3734 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), Hart A, Maxim L, Siegrist M, Von Goetz N, da Cruz C, Merten C, MosbachSchulz O, Lahaniatis M, Smith A and Hardy A, 2019. Guidance on Communication of Uncertainty in Scientific Assessments. EFSA Journal 2019;17(1):5520, 73 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5520 EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare), 2012. Guidance on Risk Assessment for Animal Welfare. EFSA Journal 2012;10(1):2513, https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513 Egea MD, Rosell JM and De la Fuente LF, 2000. Enfermedades de la reproducci on: Machos e inseminaci on. Enfermedades del conejo., 2, 70. Eiben C, T obi as G, Kustos K, G odor-Surmann K, Sz Kot any, Guly as B and Szira G, 2007. The change of nursing for oestrus induction (biostimulation): effect of contact between rabbit doe and its young. Livestock Science, 111, 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.01.146 El Maghraby M, 2011. Effect of restricted access to drinking water on growth, feed efficiency and carcass characteristics of fattening rabbits. Asian Journal of Animal Sciences, 5, 136–144. El-Tarabany MS, Ahmed-Farid OA and El-Tarabany AA, 2019. Impact of space allowance on performance traits, brain neurotransmitters and blood antioxidant activity of New Zealand White rabbits. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 163, 44–50. European Commission, 2017. Overview report: commercial rabbit farming in the European Union. Farkas T, Szendr} o Z, Matics Z, Radnai I, Nagy I and Gerencs er Z, 2018. Preference of rabbit does among different nest materials. World Rabbit Sciences, 26(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2018.7373 Farnworth MJ, Walker JK, Schweizer KA, Chuang CL, Guild SJ, Barrett CJ, Leach MC and Waran NK, 2011. Potential behavioural indicators of post-operative pain in male laboratory rabbits following abdominal surgery. Animal Welfare, 20, 225–237. Finzi A and Mariani G, 2011. L’allevamento ecologico del coniglio (Organic rabbit farming). Edagricole, Milano, Italy. 130 pp. ISBN 978-88-506-5367-6. Forkman B, Boissy A, Meunier-Sala€ un MC, Canali E and Jones RB, 2007. A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiology & Behavior, 92, 340–374. Foubert C, Duperray J, Boisot P and Guyonvarch A, 2008. Effect of feed restriction with or without free access to drinking water on performance of growing rabbits in healthy or epizootic rabbit enteropathy conditions. 9th World Rabbit Congress, Verona, Italy, 667–672. de la Fuente LF and Rosell JM, 2012. Body weight and body condition of breeding rabbits in commercial units. Journal of Animal Science, 90, 3252–3258. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4764 Garc ıa-Alvarez AA, Chaves FB, Fern andez AC, Sanz CC, Borobia MM and Cid D, 2015. An ST11 clone of Pasteurella multocida, widely spread among farmed rabbits in the Iberian Peninsula, demonstrates respiratory niche association. Infection, Genetics and Evolution, 34, 81–87. Garreau H, Eady S, Hurtaud J and Legarra A, 2008a. Genetic parameters of production traits and resistance to digestive disorders in a commercial rabbit population, 9th Edition. World Rabbit Congress. Garreau H, Brun JM, Theau-Clement M and Bolet G, 2008b. Evolution of research axes at Inra for the genetic improvement of meat rabbits. Productions Animales, 21, 269–275. Gerencs er Z, Odermatt M, Radnai I, Mik o A, Zs M, Nagy I and Zs S, 2012. Examination of free choice of growing rabbits among different floor-types. Gerencs er Z, Szendro K, Odermatt M, Radnai I and Nagy I, 2014. Effect of floor type on behavior and productive performance of growing rabbits. Livestock Science, 165, 114–119. Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 86 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Gerencs er ZS, Farkas TP, Szendr} o Zs, Nagy I, Odermatt M, Radnai I, Kacsala L, Kasza R, Savany o Zs and Matics Zs, 2018. Location preference, behaviour and performance of rabbit does in a pen system of combination of group and individual housing. 30th Hung. Rabbit Prod. Conf., Kaposv ar, Hungary. Regulation on the protection of farm animals. Available online: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschnutztv/ Germany, 2014. Animal welfare act. http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschg/index.html Germany, 2017. Animal welfare act. http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschg/index.html Giannico AT, Lima L, Lange RR, Froes TR and Montiani-Ferreira F, 2014. Proven cardiac changes during death-feigning (tonic immobility) in rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, Behavioral Physiology, 200, 305–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-014-0884-4 Gidenne T, Garc ıa J, Lebas F and Licois D, 2010. 10 Nutrition and feeding strategy: interactions with pathology. CABI, 233–252. Gidenne T, Combes S and Fortun-Lamothe L, 2012a. Feed intake limitation strategies for the growing rabbit: effect on feeding behaviour, welfare, performance, digestive physiology and health: a review. Animal, 6, 1407–1419. Gidenne T, Fortun-Lamothe L and Combes S, 2012b. Intake restriction for the young rabbit: new strategies to enhance its digestive health and feed efficiency. Inra Productions Animales, 25, 323–336. Gidenne T, Lebas F, Savietto D, Dorchies P, Duperray J, Davoust C and Lamothe L, 2015. Nutrition et alimentation. Le lapin. De la biologie  al’ elevage, 152–196. Gidenne T, Fortun-Lamothe L, Bannelier C, Molette C, Gilbert H, Chemit ML, Segura M, Benitez F, Richard F, Garreau H and Drouilhet L, 2017a. Direct and correlated responses to selection in two lines of rabbits selected for feed efficiency under ad libitum and restricted feeding: III. Digestion and excretion of nitrogen and minerals. Journal of Animal Science, 95, 1301–1312. Gidenne T, Garreau H, Drouilhet L, Aubert C and Maertens L, 2017b. Improving feed efficiency in rabbit production, a review on nutritional, technico-economical, genetic and environmental aspects. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 225. /j.anifeedsci.2017.01.016 Giersberg MF, Kemper N and Fels MJLS, 2015. Planimetric measurement of floor space covered by fattening rabbits and breeding does in different body positions and weight classes. Livestock Science, 177, 142–150. Gondret F, Larzul C, Combes S and De Rochambeau H, 2005. Carcass composition, bone mechanical properties, and meat quality traits in relation to growth rate in rabbits. Journal of Animal Science, 83, 1526–1535. Gonz alez-Mariscal G, McNitt JI and Lukefahr SD, 2007. Maternal care of rabbits in the lab and on the farm: endocrine regulation of behavior and productivity. Hormonal Behavior, 52, 86–91. Gonz alez-Mariscal G, Lemus AC, Vega-Gonzalez A and Aguilar-Roblero R, 2013. Litter size determines circadian periodicity of nursing in rabbits. Chronobiology International, 30, 711–718. https://doi.org/10.3109/07420528. 2013.784769 Gonz alez-Redondo P and Zamora-Lozano M, 2008. Neonatal cannibalism in cage-bred wild rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Archivos de Medicina Veterinaria, 40, 281–287. Graf S, Bigler L, Failing K, Wurbel H and Buchwalder T, 2011. Regrouping rabbit does in a familiar or novel pen: effects on agonistic behaviour, injuries and core body temperature. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 135, 121–127. Greene HSN, 1937. Toxemia of pregnancy in the rabbit. I. Clinical manifestations and pathology. Journal of Experimental Medicine, 65, 809–834. Grilli G, Ferrazzi V, Agnoletti F, Piccirillo A, Pisoni AM and Gallazzi D, 2006. La patologia enterica nel coniglio da carne allevato in Italia. Rivista Zootenic Veterinary, 34, 51–56. Guerrero I, Ferrian S, Penades M, Garcia-Quiros A, Pascual JJ, Selva L, Viana D and Corpa JM, 2015. Host responses associated with chronic staphylococcal mastitis in rabbits. Veterinary Journal, 204, 338–344. Gunia M, David I, Hurtaud J, Maupin M, Gilbert H and Garreau H, 2015. Resistance to infectious diseases is a heritable trait in rabbits. Journal of Animal Sciences, 93, 5631–5638. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-9377 Gunia M, David I, Hurtaud J, Maupin M, Gilbert H and Garreau H, 2018. Genetic parameters for resistance to nonspecific diseases and production traits measured in challenging and selection environments; application to a rabbit case. Frontiers in Genetics, 9, https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2018.00467 Gunn D and Morton DB, 1995. Inventory of the behaviour of New Zealand White rabbits in laboratory cages. Applied Animal Behavorial Sciences, 45, 277–292. Habeeb AA, Marai IFM and Kamal TH, 1992. Heat stress. Farm Animals and the Environment, 27–47. Hafez ESE, Lindsay DR and Moustafa LA, 1966a. Some factors affecting nest building in the domestic rabbit. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie, 23, 691–700. Hafez ESE, Lindsay DR and Moustafa LA, 1966b. Some maternal factors affecting nest building in the domestic rabbit. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie, 6, 691–700. Hern andez P, Ari~ no B, Grimal A and Blasco A, 2006. Comparison of carcass and meat characteristics of three rabbit lines selected for litter size or growth rate. Meat Science, 73, 645–650. Hesham M and Nasr M, 2017. Growth performance, carcass traits, behaviour and welfare of New Zeland White rabbits housed in different enriched cages. Animal Production Science, 57, 1759–1766. https://doi.org/10.1071/ ANI5865 Hoy S, 2009. Rabbit housing with respect to animal welfare. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift, 116, 97–100. Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 87 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Hoy S, 2018. A new parameter describing fertility in rabbits at the farm level: the kit index. Archives Animal Breeding, 61, 463–467. https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-61-463-2018 Hoy S and Selzer D, 2002. Frequency and time of nursing in wild and domestic rabbits housed outdoors in free range. World Rabbit Sciences, 10, 77–84. Hoy S and Matics Z, 2016. Alternative housing systems for rabbit does (Invited paper). Proceedings 11th World Rabbit Congress. 637–651. Hudson R and Distel H, 1982. The pattern of behaviour of rabbit pups in the nest. Behaviour, 79, 255–271. Available online: https://brill.com/view/journals/beh/79/2-4/article-p255_11.xml Hudson R, Schaal B, Bilk o A and Altb€ acker V, 1996. Just three minutes a day: the behaviour of young rabbits viewed in the context of limited maternal care. 6th World Rabbit Congress., 2, 395–403. Huneau-Sala€ un A, Bougeard S, Balaine l, Eono F, le Bouquin S and Chauvin C, 2015. Husbandry Factors and health conditions influencing the productivity of French rabbit farms. World Rabbit Sci., 23, 27–37. https://doi.org/10. 4995/wrs.2015.3076 Hungary, 1998. Law No. XXVIII of 1998 on animal protection. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/hun15674.pdf IASP, 1979. Pain, 6, 250. Italian Ministry of Health, 2014. Attuazione della direttiva 2010/63/UE sulla protezione degli animali utilizzati a fini scientifici. Available online: http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/ita153404.pdf Italian Ministry of Health, 2019. Linee di indirizzo per l’allevamento del coniglio. Prot. N°001620031/07/2014DGSAF-COD_UO-P. Jekkel G, Milisits G and Nagy I, 2010. Effect of alternative rearing methods on the behaviour and on the growth and slaughter traits of growing rabbits. Archiv Fur Tierzucht-Archives of Animal Breeding, 53, 205–215. Johnson HD, 1980. Environmental management of cattle to minimize the stress of climatic change. International Biometeorology, 24, 14. de Jong IC, Reimert H and Rommers JM, 2008. Effect of floor type on footpad injuries in does: a pilot study., Congress, Verona, Italy. de Jong IC, Reuvekamp BF and Rommers JM, 2011. A welfare assessment protocol for commercially housed rabbits=Een protocol voor het meten van welzijn bij commercieel gehouden konijnen. Wageningen UR Livestock Research, 1570–8616. Jordan D, Varga A, Kermauner A, Gorjanc G and Stuhec I, 2004. Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 1, 73–79. Jordan D, Gorjanc G and Stuhec I, 2008. Effect of gnawing wood as environmental enrichment on behaviour of individually housed growing rabbits. Archiv Fur Geflugelkunde, 72, 181–187. Kasa IW and Thwaites CJ, 1992. Semen quality in bucks exposed to 34°C for 8 hours on either 1 or 5 days. Applied Rabbit Research, 15, 560–568. Katsarou A, Tsironi A, Serafetinidou M, Voyazaki C, Baumans V and Kostomitsopoulos N, 2011. Age - related behaviour on individually caged rabbits. Journal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society, 62, 21–28. Keating SC, Thomas AA, Flecknell PA and Leach MC, 2012. Evaluation of EMLA cream for preventing pain during tattooing of rabbits: changes in physiological, behavioural and facial expression responses. PLoS ONE, 7, e44437. K€ unzel F and Fisher PG, 2018. Clinical signs, diagnosis, and treatment of Encephalitozoon cuniculi infection in rabbits. Exotic Animal Practice, 21, 69–82. Lambertini L, Paci G, Morittu VM, Vignola G, Orlandi P, Zaghini G and Formigoni A, 2005. Consequences of behaviour on productive performances of rabbits reared in pens. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 4. Lavazza A, Cerioli M and Grilli G, 2009. Biosicurezza negli allevamenti cunicoli [Biosafety in rabbit breeding]. 74, 91–120. ISBN 978-88-902814-8-8. Le Normand B, Chatellier S and Couteau M, 2013. Comportement individuel de lapins en croissance, log es en cages collectives et rationn es. Premiers r esultats. J. Rech. Cunicol., 15, 51–54. Leach MC, Allweiler S, Richardson C, Roughan JV, Narbe R and Flecknell PA, 2009. Behavioural effects of ovariohysterectomy and oral administration of meloxicam in laboratory housed rabbits. Research in Veterinary Science, 87, 336–347. Lebas F, 2000. Biolog ıa (Biology). Enfermedades del Conejo (Diseases of the Rabbit), 1, 55–126. Available online: http://www.cuniculture.info/Docs/indexbiol.htm Lebas F, Coudert P, Rouvier R and De Rochambeau H, 1986. The Rabbit: husbandry, health, and production. Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations, Rome. Lehmann M, 1989. Das Verhalten junger Hauskaninchen unter verschiedenen Umgebungsbedingungen – Beurteilung von Haltungssystemen sowie Entwicklung eines Haltungskonzeptes f€ ur Mastgruppen. Dissertation, Universit€ at Bern. Lehmann M, 1991. Social behaviour in young domestic rabbit under semi-natural conditions. Applied Animal Behavior Sciences, 32, 269–292. Lenoir G, Garreau H and Banville M, 2012. Estimation of genetic parameters and trends for birth weight criteria in HyCole d line. World Rabbit Science Association, 183–187. Leone-Singer A and Hoop R, 2003. Untersuchung zur S€ auglingsmortalit€ at bei Mastkaninchen in der Schweiz. Tierheilk, 145, 329–335. Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 88 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Licois D, 2004. Domestic rabbit enteropathies. Becerril, 8th World Rabbit Congress, Colegio de Postgraduados for WRSA, 385–403. Available online: http://www.dcam.upv.es/388wrc/ Licois D, 2010. Pathologie d’origine bact erienne et parasitaire chez le Lapin: apports de la derni ere d ecennie. Cuniculture Magazine, 37, 35–49. Available online: https://www.cuniculture.info/Docs/Magazine/Magazine2010/mag37-035. html Lidfors L, 1997. Behavioural effects of environmental enrichment for individually caged rabbits. Applied Animal Behavior Sciences, 52, 157–169. LPHSI, 1990. Livestock and poultry heat stress indices agriculture engineering technology guide. Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA. Luzi F, Ferrante V, Heinzl E and Verga M, 2003. Effect of environmental enrichment on productive performance and welfare aspects in fattening rabbits. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 2(Suppl. 1), 438–440. Machado LC, Mart ınez-Paredes E, Paragliola F and Cervera C, 2016. Performance of rabbit kits originating from collective and individual cages. Proc.: 11th. World Rabbit Congress. pp. 699–702. Maertens L, 2010. 14 Feeding Systems for Intensive Production. Nutrition of the Rabbit, 253. Maertens L and Buijs S, 2016. Comparison of fattening performances housed in parks or enriched cages. Congress, Qingdao, China. Maertens L, Lebas F and Szendro Z, 2006. Rabbit milk: A review of quantity, quality and non-dietary affecting factors. Proceedings of the World Rabbit Science. Maertens L, Rommers J and Jacquet M, 2011. Le logement des lapins en parcs, une alternative pour les cages classiques dans un syst eme “duo”?14  emes Journ. Rech. Cunicole, 85–88. Maertens L, Buijs S and Davoust C, 2013. Gnawing blocks as cage enrichment and dietary supplement for does and fatteners: intake, performance and behaviour. World Rabbit Science, 21, 185–192. Mancinelli E, Keeble E, Richardson J and Hedley J, 2014. Husbandry risk factors associated with hock pododermatitis in UK pet rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Vet. Rec., 174, 429. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.101830 Marai IFM and Rashwan AA, 2004. Rabbits behavioural response to climatic and managerial conditions - a review. Archiv Fur Tierzucht-Archives of Animal Breeding, 47, 469–482. Marai IFM, Ayyat MS and Abd El-Monem UM, 2001. Growth performance and reproductive traits at first parity of New Zealand White female rabbits as affected by heat stress and its alleviation under Egyptian conditions. Tropical Animal Health Production, 33, 457–462. Marin C, Simarro-Catala L and Villagra A, 2018. Technical note: assessment of best location of gnawing sticks in growing rabbit cages. World Rabbit Science, 26, 249–254. https://doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2018.7547 Marlier D, Dewree R, Delleur V, Licois D, Lassence C, Poulipoulis A and Vindevogel H, 2003. A review of the major causes of digestive disorders in the European rabbit. Annales de Medecine Veterinaire, 147, 385–392. Martignon MH, Guinebreti ere M, Postollec G, Huonnic D, Boilletot E, Jourden A, Marie F, Burel C, Gidenne T and Michel V, 2011. Consequences of feed restriction on behaviour and welfare of growing rabbits. Rech. Cunicoles., 25–28. Martinez-Paredes E, Rodenas L, Pascual JJ, Blas E, Brecchia G, Boiti C and Cervera C, 2015. Effects of rearing feeding programme on the young rabbit females’behaviour and welfare indicators. World Rabbit Science, 23, 197–205. https://doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2015.3987 Mart ınez-Paredes E, R odenas L, Pascual J and Savietto D, 2018. Early development and reproductive lifespan of rabbit females: implications of growth rate, rearing diet and body condition at first mating. Animal, 12, 2347– 2355. Martrenchar A, Boilletot E, Cotte JP and Morisse JP, 2001. Wire-floor pens as an alternative to metallic cages in fattening rabbits: influence on some welfare traits. Animal Welfare, 10, 153–161. Massacci FR, Magistrali CF, Cucco L, Curcio L, Bano L, Mangili P, Scoccia E, Bisgaard M, Aalbæk B and Christensen H, 2018. Characterization of Pasteurella multocida involved in rabbit infections. Veterinary Microbiology, 213, 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2017.11.023 Masthoff T and Hoy S, 2019. Investigations on the influence of floor design on dirtiness and foot pad lesions in growing rabbits. Animals, 9, 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9060354 Matics Z, Szendr} o Z, Radnai Edit Bir o-N emeth I and Gyovai M, 2003. Examination of free choice of rabbits among different cage-floors. Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus, 68, 265–269. Matics Z, Zs Szendr} o, Bessei W, Radnai I, Bir o-N emeth E, Orova Z and Gyovai M, 2004a. The free choice of rabbits among identically and differently sized cages. Puebla, Mexico, World Rabbit Congress. pp. 1251–1256. Matics ZS, Szendr} o Z, St Hoy, Nagy I, Radnai I, Bir o-N emeth E and Gyovai M, 2004b. Effect of different management methods on the nursing behaviour of rabbits. World Rabbit Sciences, 12, 95–108. Matics Z T P, Farkas A, Dal Bosco Z, Szendro E, Filiou I, Nagy M, Odermatt G, Paci and Gerencser Z, 2018. Comparison of Pens without and with Multilevel Platforms for Growing Rabbits. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 17, 469–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051x.2017.1363640 Meunier-Sala€ un M, Edwards S and Robert S, 2001. Effect of dietary fibre on the behaviour and health of the restricted fed sow. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 90, 53–69. Miko A, Matics Z, Gerencser M, Odermatt I, Radnai I, Nagy K, Szendro and Szendro S, 2014. Performance and Welfare of Rabbit Does in Various Caging Systems. Animal 8, 1146–1152. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1751731114001244 Welfare of rabbits on-farm www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 89 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 ID Reference 65 Szendro and McNitt (2012) 66 Szendro et al. (2013) 67 Szendro et al. (2015) 68 Szendro et al. (2019) 69 Tillmann et al. (2019) 70 Trocino and Xiccato (2006) 71 Trocino et al. (2013) 72 Trocino et al. (2014) 73 Trocino et al. (2015) 74 Trocino et al. (2018) 75 Tuyttens et al. (2005) 76 Verga et al. (2007) 77 Vervaecke et al. (2010) 78 Windschnurer et al. (2019) 79 Xiccato et al. (2013a) 80 Xiccato et al. (2013b) 81 Zomeno et al. (2017) 82 Zomeno et al. (2018) 83 Zucca et al. (2012) www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 96 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5944 Welfare of rabbits on-farm