Performance response dynamics of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) to locally sourced, on-farm feed ingredients during the growing phase: Implications for the institutional rabbit multiplier project
Paper Details
Performance response dynamics of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) to locally sourced, on-farm feed ingredients during the growing phase: Implications for the institutional rabbit multiplier project
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the growth performance and nutrient digestibility of rabbits in their growing phase fed with a formulated diet sourced out locally, containing the allocation of 17% Moringa oleifera leaf, 8% Trichanthera gigantea leaf, 20% Morus alba leaf, 4% Psidium guajava leaf, 19% Zea mays bits, 20% D1 (Oryza sativa bran), 3% Saccharum officinarum molasses, and 9% hydrolyzed Gallus gallus domesticus broiler feather meal. Three (3) treatment groups consisted of the CSU-formulated rabbit grower feed and two commercially available all-stage rabbit pellet feeds. Twenty-seven (27) composites of mixed-breed rabbits, aged 3–4 months and of varied sex, were randomly assigned to three dietary treatments, each comprising three replicates, following a completely randomized design. The rabbits had access to water, and the experimental feeds were given once a day for a period of 42 days. The proximate analysis of the CSU-formulated rabbit grower feed demonstrated 21.64% crude protein, 6.43% crude fat, 10.10 % ash, a moisture content of 7.86%, and a crude fiber of 6.73%. The results indicate that CSU-formulated rabbit grower feed was readily accepted and palatable to rabbits, as indicated by consistently elevated weekly consumption rates confirming comparable consumption levels with commercial feeds (p > 0.05). Average daily gain (ADG) exhibited no significant differences (F = 0.110, p = 0.897), denoting that all diets were nutritionally sufficient. For the entire period, no significant Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) variances were found (F = 1.060, p = 0.404), wherein dietary impact was most evident in the later stage, implying how well the assigned groups assimilated the feeds. On the other hand, CSU-formulated rabbit grower feed had displayed clear financial benefits, as revealed by a benefit–cost ratio of 1.17, a return on investment (ROI) of 16.99%, a gross ratio of 0.85, and a net profit margin of 14.53%.
Alvarenga IC, Aldrich CG, Kohles M. 2017. The effect of feed form on diet digestibility and cecal parameters in rabbits. Animals 7(12), 95. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/7/12/95
Arrington LR, Platt JK, Franke DE. 1974. Fat utilization by rabbits. Journal of Animal Science 38(1), 76–80.
Birolo M, Trocino A, Zuffellato A, Xiccato G. 2021. Time based restriction and refeeding programmes in growing rabbits: effects on feeding behaviour, feed efficiency, nutrient digestibility, and caecal fermentative activity. Animal Feed Science and Technology 282.
Bordignon F, Berton M, Trocino A, Zuffellato A, Castellini C, Xiccato G. 2024. Environmental impact of rabbit production: an Italian scenario. In: Book of Abstracts of the 13th World Rabbit Congress. https://hdl.handle.net/11577/3534349
Chamorro S, Gómez-Conde MS, Pérez de Rozas AM, Badiola I, Carabaño R, De Blas JC. 2007. Effect on digestion and performance of dietary protein content and of increased substitution of lucerne hay with soya-bean protein concentrate in starter diets for young rabbits. Animal 1(5), 651–659.
Chen CP, Rao DR, Sunki GR, Johnson WM. 1978. Effect of weaning and slaughter ages upon rabbit meat production. I. Body weight, feed efficiency, and mortality. Journal of Animal Science 46(3), 573–577.
Dal Bosco A, Castellini C, Mancini S, Angelucci E, Di Federico F, Bosa L, Mattioli S. 2025. Productive performance and meat nutritional and sensory characteristics of rabbits fed alfalfa based diet. Meat Science 228.
Gerez CA, Barquilla MB, Zabala VB, Casas KMMD, Dumadag CT. 2025. Naturally formulated chicken feeds for sustainable poultry farming in Iligan City, Philippines. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science 9(06), 2896–2905.
Jones KR, Karuppusamy S, Sundaram V. 2024. Unraveling the promise of agroindustrial byproducts as alternative feed source for sustainable rabbit meat production. Emerging Animal Species 10.
Khan K, Khan S, Khan R, Sultan A, Khan NA, Ahmad N. 2016. Growth performance and meat quality of rabbits under different feeding regimes. Tropical Animal Health and Production 48(8), 1661–1666.
Knudsen C, Combes S, Briens C, Coutelet G, Duperray J, Rebours G, Salaun J-M, Travel A, Weissman D, Gidenne T. 2014. Increasing the digestible energy intake under a restriction strategy improves the feed conversion ratio of the growing rabbit without negatively impacting the health status. Livestock Science 169, 96–105.
Mali S. 2025. Global rabbit feed market report 2025 (8th ed., Report ID: CMR991113). Cogn Market Research. https://www.cognitivemarketresearch.com
Martignon M, Burel C, Cauquil L, Combes S, Gidenne T. 2021. Impact of feed restriction and fragmented feed distribution on performance, intake behaviour and digestion of the growing rabbit. Animal 15(7), 100270.
Mattioli S, Dal Bosco A, Combes S, Moscati L, Crotti S, Cartoni Mancinelli A, Cotozzolo E, Castellini C. 2019. Dehydrated alfalfa and fresh grass supply in young rabbits: effect on performance and caecal microbiota biodiversity. Animals 9(6), 341.
Nistor E, Bampidis VA, Păcală N, Pentea M, Tozer J, Prundeanu H. 2013. Nutrient content of rabbit meat as compared to chicken, beef and pork meat. Journal of Animal Production Advances 3(4), 172–176.
Osório-Santos Z, Suzuki VM. 2025. Evaluation of the nutritional adequacy of commercially available diets for pet and farm rabbits compared to pet rabbit nutritional recommendation. Journal of Small Animal Practice 66(11), 834–842.
Petracci M, Bianchi M, Cavani C. 2009. Development of rabbit meat products fortified with n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Nutrients 1(2), 111–118.
Purwin C, Gugołek A, Strychalski J, Fijałkowska M. 2019. Productivity, nutrient digestibility, nitrogen retention, and meat quality in rabbits fed diets supplemented with Sida hermaphrodita. Animals 9(11), 90.
Ragasa C, Osei-Mensah YO, Amewu S. 2022. Impact of fish feed formulation training on feed use and farmers’ income: evidence from Ghana. Aquaculture 558.
Rothacher M, Hatt JM, Clauss M. 2023. A comparison of commercially available feeds for rabbits, guinea pigs, chinchillas and degus with evidence of their diet and feeding behaviour in natural habitats. Schweizer Archiv für Tierheilkunde 165(11), 726–736.
Sheriff H, Kime YB, Usman K. 2021. Comparative evaluation of locally formulated feed and three commercial feeds on the growth performance and profitability of broilers production. IAR Journal of Agriculture Research and Life Sciences 2(2), 1–4.
Siddiqui SA, Gerini F, Ikram A, Saeed F, Feng X, Chen Y. 2023. Rabbit meat—production, consumption and consumers’ attitudes and behavior. Sustainability 15(3).
Tůmová E, Volek Z, Chodová D, Härtlová H, Makovický P, Svobodová J, Ebeid TA, Uhlířová L. 2016. The effect of 1-week feed restriction on performance, digestibility of nutrients and digestive system development in the growing rabbit. Animal 10(1), 1–9.
Varga M. 2014. Rabbit basic science. In: Textbook of Rabbit Medicine, 3–108.
Vasseur J, Dubois J, Hilbert JL, Couillerot JP. 1995. Somatic embryogenesis in chicory (Cichorium species). In: Bajaj YS (Ed.), Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry, 125–137.
Velasco Galilea M, Piles M, Ramayo Caldas Y, Sánchez JP. 2021. The value of gut microbiota to predict feed efficiency and growth of rabbits under different feeding regimes. Scientific Reports 11, 19495.
Roel T. Calagui*, Janelle G. Cadiguin, Maricel F. Campańano, Jhaysel G. Rumbaoa, Louis Voltaire A. Pagalilauan, Mary Ann M. Santos, 2026. Performance response dynamics of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) to locally sourced, on-farm feed ingredients during the growing phase: Implications for the institutional rabbit multiplier project. Int. J. Biosci., 28(1), 65-72.
Copyright © 2026 by the Authors. This article is an open access article and distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) license.