2.5. Statistics Ž
. Data were analysed by ANOVA Statistical Analysis Systems, version 6.10
to Ž
. compare the frequency and the duration only in the video recording of behaviours,
position, latency and timidity of rabbits from the two systems. In addition, the effects of Ž
. gender and time throughout a 24-h recording were analysed. The majority of the data
Ž .
had to be transformed using a power transformation inherent in the SAS program to meet the requirements for the parametric test. If these could not be met, then Mann–
Whitney U-test or Wilcoxon signed ranks tests were performed on the untransformed data. In the experiments, age, types of immunisation and location of the cages in the row
were tested for significant differences. In the video recording, a significant difference
Ž .
between the three placements of the cage in the row was found Section 3.3 . Significant differences were occasionally found between age groups and types of immunisation, but
they were not general which indicates random variation. Differences found between observation periods and between days within a period were not related to the difference
in cage systems and are not reviewed in this article.
3. Results
3.1. BehaÕiour 3.1.1. Video recording
The mean values for the behavioural elements observed in the two cage systems are presented in Table 1. The rabbits in the enriched cage system performed the behavioural
Table 1 Ž
. Mean duration and frequency S.E. of the behaviours per rabbit in the two cage systems during video
recording and scan sampling. The total frequency of behaviours per rabbit observed during video recording is Ž
Ž .
Ž ..
also given N s 24 video recording and N s96 scan sampling Ž
. Ž
. Behaviours
Video recording min Scan sampling frequency
Enriched Conventional
Enriched Conventional
U UU
Active-head 54.05.4
50.03.5 2.90.1
3.40.1
UU UU
Active-other 1.00.3
3.71.1 0.20.1
0.40.1
UU UU
Ambulate 20.02.7
42.14.6 2.00.1
3.20.2 Consumption
166.36.4 160.54.1
14.00.2 14.50.2
UU
Gnawing 28.44.1
42.97.9 4.10.2
5.00.2
U UU
Grooming 264.310.8
294.710.9 8.30.2
7.20.2
UU
Lying 627.723.0
605.914.8 11.60.4
7.80.3
UU
Lying stretch 119.821.8
87.016.4 8.30.3
9.20.3
a a
Marking 15.13.1
27.011.4 0.30.03
0.50.1
U U
Rearing 3.70.9
0.20.1 0.30.03
0.10.02
UU
Sitting 142.710.6
152.711.8 5.90.2
6.70.2 In the box
12.14.6 –
1.60.1 –
Total 1440.00.1
1439.20.1 59.50.1
58.00.1
UU
Total frequency in video recording 1453.8109.0
2021.9134.4
a
Frequency.
Ž .
Ž Fig. 2. Mean frequency and duration S.E. of activity including all behavioural elements except ‘sitting’,
. Ž
. ‘lying’ and ‘lying stretch’ and in-activity per rabbit per 4-h interval N s 24 .
Ž .
elements ‘active-head’ and ‘rearing’ with longest duration P - 0.05 while these had Ž
. Ž
. the shortest duration of ‘active-other’ P - 0.01 ; ‘ambulate’ P - 0.01 ; and ‘groom-
Ž .
ing’ P - 0.05 . There was no significant difference between cage systems for the other behaviours. The rabbits in the enriched cage system changed their pattern of behaviour
Ž .
less frequently than rabbits in the conventional cage P - 0.05 . Ž
The total activity of the rabbits all behavioural elements except ‘sitting’; ‘lying’ and .
‘lying stretched’ were performed with highest frequency and longest duration from Ž
. Ž .
0400 to 1600 h P - 0.01 Fig. 2 . The total in-activity of the rabbits were performed
Ž .
Ž .
with lowest frequency P - 0.05 from 1600 to 0400 h Fig. 2 . The males performed the behavioural elements ‘active-other’ and ‘grooming’ with
Ž .
Ž .
longest duration P - 0.05 and performed ‘marking’ with highest frequency P - 0.01 Ž
. Ž
. Table 2 . ‘Gnawing’ was performed with longest duration by the females P - 0.01
Table 2 Ž
. Mean duration and frequency S.E. of the behaviours per rabbit during video recording and scan sampling.
Ž Ž
. Ž
.. The elements are divided in sex N s 24 video recording and N s96 scan sampling
Ž .
Ž .
Behaviours Video recording min
Scan sampling frequency Males
Females Males
Females
U
Active-head 53.23.7
48.66.8 3.40.1
3.00.1
U
Active-other 2.90.8
1.20.5 0.40.1
0.30.04
UU
Ambulate 30.23.7
33.55.5 3.20.2
2.00.1
U UU
Gnawing 25.73.2
65.611.9 3.40.2
4.80.2
U
Grooming 286.29.2
263.514.5 7.90.2
7.60.2
UU
Lying 618.516.8
611.421.6 9.00.3
10.50.4
UU a
a
Marking 28.27.3
4.21.0 0.60.1
0.20.03
U
Sitting 157.98.4
117.216.5 6.60.2
5.90.2
a
Frequency.
Ž .
Table 2 . there was no significant difference between the sexes in the remaining behaviours.
3.1.2. Scan sampling Rabbits in the enriched cage system performed the behaviours ‘grooming’; ‘lying’
Ž .
and ‘rearing’ more frequently P - 0.01 and ‘active-head’; ‘active-other’; ‘ambulate’; ‘gnawing’; ‘lying stretched’ and ‘sitting’ less frequently compared with rabbits kept in
Ž . Ž
. the conventional cage P - 0.01
Table 1 . There was no significant difference between Ž
. the two cage systems for the remaining behaviours Table 1 .
Ž .
Ž .
Males performed the behaviours ‘ambulate’ P - 0.01 ; ‘active-head’
P - 0.05 ; Ž
. Ž
. Ž
. ‘marking’ P - 0.01 and ‘sitting’ P - 0.05 with highest frequency Table 2 . ‘Gnaw-
Ž .
ing’ and ‘lying’ P - 0.01 were performed with highest frequency by the females. In the remaining behaviours, there was no significant difference between the two sexes
Ž .
Table 2 . 3.2. Position in the cage
From the video recording animals remaining in one part of the cage occurred with Ž
. Ž .
highest frequency in the conventional cage system P - 0.01 Table 3 . The duration
Ž .
was not significantly different between the two cage systems Table 3 . There was no significantly difference between the two sexes.
In the scan sampling the time spent at the front and in the middle of the cage Ž
. occurred with highest frequency in the conventional cage system P - 0.01 . Staying at
the back of the cage occurred with highest frequency in the enriched cage system Ž
. Ž .
P - 0.01 Table 3 .
When rabbits kept in the enriched cage system were at the back of the cage they were Ž
. Ž .
nearly always on the roof of the cage P - 0.01 Fig. 3a and b . In the scan sampling
Ž .
the males stayed at the back of the cage more frequently than the females P - 0.01 , but when the females were at the back they stayed in the nest box more than the males
Ž . Ž
. P - 0.01
Fig. 3b .
Table 3 Ž
. Mean duration and frequency S.E. of position in the cage per rabbit in the two cage systems during video
Ž Ž
. ..
recording and scan sampling N s 24 video recording and N s96 Placement
Video recording Scan sampling
in the cage Ž .
Frequency Duration h
Frequency Enriched
Conventional Enriched
Conventional Enriched
Conventional
U UU
Front 134.915.9
234.819.1 1.90.1
2.50.1 13.00.2
16.90.3
U UU
Middle 166.713.4
307.231.9 8.01.1
7.20.8 22.00.5
23.50.4
U UU
Back 126.521.6
253.526.9 14.01.1
14.30.8 23.00.5
17.50.4
Ž .
Fig. 3. Mean duration and frequency S.E. per rabbit of staying on the roof and in the box in the enriched Ž .
Ž . Ž . Ž
Ž .
cage system during the video recording a and scan sampling divided by sex b
N s 24 video recording Ž
.. and N s96 scan sampling .
3.3. Location of cages in the row The video recording showed that the rabbits in both cage systems, in the four cages
located nearest the central gangway, had a significantly higher frequency of total activity Ž
. all behavioural elements except ‘sitting’; ‘lying’ and ‘lying stretched’ than rabbits
Ž . Ž
. further away from the gangway
P - 0.01 Table 4 . There was no significant
difference in the duration of the total activity. 3.4. The open-field test
3.4.1. BehaÕiour The rabbits from the enriched cage system performed the behavioural element
Ž .
‘sitting’ with longest duration P - 0.05
while they had the shortest duration of Ž
. Ž
. ‘standing rear’
P - 0.01 and ‘pawscraping’ P - 0.05 . ‘Bounding’ was performed
Ž .
more frequently by these rabbits P - 0.01 . There were no significant differences
Ž .
between the two cage systems for the remaining behaviours Table 5 . The males performed the behavioural elements ‘active-head’ and ‘pawscraping’ with
Ž .
longest duration and ‘defecation’ and ‘marking’ with highest frequency P - 0.01
Ž .
Table 5 . The behavioural elements ‘standing rear’: ‘sitting rear’ and ‘sitting’ were Ž
. performed with longest duration by the females P - 0.01 . In the remaining behaviours,
Ž .
there were no significant differences between the two sexes Table 5 .
Table 4 Ž
. Ž
Mean frequency and duration S.E. of total activity including all behaviours except ‘sitting’, ‘lying’ and .
Ž .
‘lying stretch’ per rabbit in the three locations of the cages in a row during video recording N s 24 Cage system
Near the path In the middle
At the wall
UU
Frequency enriched
1158.3127.1 678.837.0
674.657.0
UU
conventional 1147.6117.9
955.845.1 810.446.6
Duration enriched
10.00.3 8.60.5
8.90.2 conventional
9.80.4 10.10.4
9.80.2
Table 5 Ž
. Mean duration and frequency S.E. per rabbit of behaviours and other recordings in the open-field test in
Ž .
the two cage systems and sex N s96 Behaviours
Cage Sex
Enriched Conventional
Males Females
Ž .
States duration
UU
Active-head 246.36.6
243.16.6 278.85.6
209.96.2 Ambulate
176.56.3 194.77.3
185.97.2 184.86.4
Freezing 7.71.4
9.21.4 8.51.4
8.31.4 Grooming
9.10.9 8.40.8
9.70.9 7.80.7
U UU
Pawscraping 2.70.9
6.31.3 7.21.5
1.60.5
U UU
Sitting 95.16.4
73.85.8 54.64.6
115.56.4
UU
Sitting rear 40.22.3
42.42.7 37.72.3
45.12.3
UU UU
Standing rear 15.61.1
20.21.5 15.31.3
20.31.3 Ž
. Events frequency
UU
Bounding 2.50.3
1.20.2 2.40.4
1.30.2
UU
Defecation 5.80.5
4.90.4 7.20.5
3.40.3
U
Marking 11.71.4
15.31.6 21.01.6
5.81.1 Thumping
0.20.1 0.20.1
0.10.1 0.20.1
Urinating 0.70.1
0.50.1 0.50.1
0.70.1 Ž
. Placement seconds per time
Edge 22.90.8
21.11.3 23.11.3
20.90.9 Middle
5.60.2 5.40.2
5.60.2 5.40.2
UU
Lines crossed 175.14.4
183.94.3 172.24.3
186.74.2 Ž
. Latency mean number of rabbits
0.10.1 0.20.1
0.20.1 0.20.1
Rabbits that were recorded as not timid after the open-field test had a higher Ž
. Ž Ž
. frequency of ‘bounding’ P - 0.01
not timid: 10.33 S.E.: 1.4 per rabbit; timid: 0.89 Ž
. .
S.E.: 0.2 per rabbit . 3.4.2. Other recordings in the open-field test
There were no significant differences in the position in the open-field arena, or in the number of rabbits with latency to move either between the two cage systems or between
Ž .
Fig. 4. The mean number of times S.E. per rabbit, showing timidity of being captured after the open-field Ž
. test. The element is divided into cage system and sex N s96 .
Ž .
the sexes Table 5 . There was no significant difference in the number of lines crossed Ž
. between the two cage systems, but females crossed more lines than males P - 0.01
Ž .
Table 5 . Rabbits from the conventional cage system showed more timidity to capture than
Ž .
from the enriched system P - 0.05 with females being more timid, although the males Ž
. in both cage systems showed no significant difference Fig. 4 .
4. Discussion
