See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266152130

Characterization of Rabbit Production Systems in Kenya

Article · September 2013

DOI: 10.14511/jasa.2013.020304

CITATIONS READS

4 4,018

8 authors, including:

Jared Serem Margaret Wanyoike

University of Nairobi University of Nairobi
9 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS    30 PUBLICATIONS   162 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Charles Gachuiri Stephen Mailu

University of Nairobi 15 PUBLICATIONS   17 CITATIONS   
41 PUBLICATIONS   240 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

BABOON PAPILLOMAVIRUS View project

Master of science in biotechnology kenyatta university View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jared Serem on 29 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Agricultural Science and Applications (J. Agric. Sci. Appl.)

Characterization of Rabbit Production Systems in

Kenya
J K Serem1, M M Wanyoike1, C K Gachuiri1, S K Mailu 2, P K Gathumbi1, R N Mwanza 3, N Kiarie1, D K Borter 3
1
College of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences, University of Nairobi, Kenya
2
Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
3
Ministry of Livestock Developments, Kenya
Corresponding Author’s E-mail: drjserem@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Rabbit production systems in Kenya were studied; challenges to production were identified and recommendations to boost rabbit
productivity were suggested in this research. Four regions of Kenya with significant rabbit farming were selected: Rift valley (Nakuru
county), Central (Kiambu and Nyeri counties), Eastern (Meru county) and Coastal (Taita Taveta county) regions. Data were obtained through
a field survey, questionnaires and personal observations between August and September 2011. The study covered the key areas of rabbit
production including: general farm details, number of rabbits, breeds and breeding practices, housing, feeds and feeding practices,
Constraints to production and recommendations appertaining to the key production challenges. Results showed that rabbit production in
Kenya were mainly small scale (84.8%) principally for income generation and home consumption (89.6%). The majority (75%) of the rabbit
farms were owned by either the household heads or by the spouses. Farmers of higher education levels kept more rabbits compared to those
of lower education. The main breeds kept were New Zealand white (29%), Crossbreeds (24%), Californian white (12%), Chinchilla (11.5%),
Dutch (8%), Flemish Giant (5.5%) and French Lop (4%). The main breeding stocks were selected from own stocks or from the neighboring
farms (90%). Exchange of males (bucks) for breeding was observed among some rabbit farmers, either for free or at an agreed fee. The four
most important challenges to rabbit farming were rabbit diseases (71%), lack of market for rabbits (51%), inadequate husbandry (28%) and
lack of quality breeding stock (15.5%), insufficient funds (11%) and lack of rabbit feeds (8.7%). To address these challenges, sensitization of
the Kenyan population on the benefits of rabbit meat consumption should be promoted, farmers should be trained on proper husbandry
practices, better breeding stocks must be introduced to the farmers to avoid inbreeding, research on rabbit feeding and disease management
must be improved to provide information on proper husbandry practices so as to boost rabbit productivity.
Keywords: rabbit farming; rabbit breeds; rabbit feeding; rabbit challenges.

The population of rabbits was estimated to be about

I. INTRODUCTION
Nearly all of the world population depend on food
produced on small farms which have continued to get
smaller as the human population pressure increases
(McIntire et al., 1992). Currently, most of the consumed
animal protein is from large ruminants, poultry and pigs.
However, ruminant livestock is decreasing due to decline in
household land holdings because of the high costs of
maintenance (Schiere, 2004). On the other hand, poultry and
pigs require more of commercial feeds which often
incorporate ingredients leading to direct competition for
food resources with humans and are usually too expensive
for most small scale farmers.
To address these challenges therefore, rabbits
(Oryctolagus caniculus) are a viable option, because of their
prolificacy, early maturity, fast growth rate, high genetic
selection potential, high feed conversion efficiency and
economic utilization of space (Lebas et al. 1997; Hassan et
al. 2012).
In Kenya, rabbit keeping was for a long time considered
an activity for young boys who kept them as a hobby
(MOLD, 2004). However, the interest in rabbit keeping for
commercial purposes has been renewed.
600,000 with the greatest numbers in the Rift valley, Central
and Coastal regions (MOLD, 2010). The development of the
rabbit sub-sector in Kenya has been hindered by lack of
documentation of rabbit production systems and constraints
to rabbit keeping (Borter and Mwanza, 2011), which
necessitated this study.
The main objective of our study was to collect baseline
information on the current status of rabbit production in
Kenya, identify the main constraints to production and
suggest appropriate intervention measures to improve rabbit
productivity.
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
A. Sources of Information and Period of Study
Data were obtained through a field survey, structured-
questionnaire administration and personal observations
between August and September 2011.
B. Scope
Information on the general farm details, rabbit numbers,
breeds and breeding practices, housing structures and
equipments, Common feeds and feeding practices,

J. Agric. Sci. Appl. Volume 2, Issue 3 Sep. 2013 PP. 155-159 DOI: 10.14511/jasa.2013.020304 © American V-King Scientific Publishing
155
 Journal of Agricultural Science and Applications (J. Agric. Sci. Appl.)
Figure 1. Proportion of the household members owning rabbits.
constraints to production and suggestions to address the
challenges were collected.
C. Study Area
The regions were purposively selected based on
significant rabbit farming (MOLD, 2010). The four regions
were: Rift valley (Nakuru county), central (Kiambu and
Nyeri counties), Eastern (Meru county) and coastal (Taita
taveta county) regions.
D. Sample Size
The sample size was based on the rule of a minimum 30
respondents per county (strata) (Cohen, 1988). However,
due to the vastness of the counties and in an effort to capture
variations due to land use intensity and agro-ecological
zones, 60 rabbit farmers in each of the counties were
randomly selected. This also took into consideration the fact
that larger samples more accurately represent the
characteristics of the populations from which they are
derived (Cronbach et al. 1972; Marcoulides, 1993).
E. Data Management and Analysis
By the end of the research period, 300 questionnaires
had been delivered. Chi squares and t tests were then used to
establish significant differences and relationships in various
aspects of rabbit production. Data analyses were performed
with the statistical pack SAS v9.0 (SAS Institute Inc., 2002)
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
A. Farmer and Farm Characteristics
Of the total (n=300) farmers interviewed, 53% were
male while 47% were female. The sex proportion of the
respondents did not differ significantly. Among the
respondents, 27% were young (19 – 30 years), 58% adults
(31 - 60 years) and 15% mature adults (above 60 years).
The proportions of the rabbit owners in the households were
variable (fig. 1).
Rabbit keeping was undertaken by all the household
members unlike the past, when the activity was relegated to
the youth hobbyists (MOLD, 2004). This indicated that the
sector was undergoing commercialization since the adults
kept rabbits either for income or for food.
J. Agric. Sci. Appl. Volume 2, Issue 3 Sep. 2013 PP. 155-159 DOI: 10.14511/jasa.2013.020304 © American V-King Scientific Publishing
156
Figure 2. Average number of rabbits owned per farmer educational
level.
This observation agrees with those of Borter and Mwanza
(2010) and Hungu et al. (2013), who conducted similar
studies in other regions of Kenya.
The farmers’ level of education conditioned the number
of rabbits kept significantly (p=0.0009; fig. 2). Farmers with
mid-level and university education appeared to keep more
rabbits mainly for commercial purposes (62%), while those
of basic education (Primary and High school) kept fewer
rabbits mainly for subsistence (55%). This implies that
farmers with higher education levels were more
commercially oriented, obtained more benefits from using
new farming technologies, made better use of information
from Ministry of livestock development and media enabling
them to make more informed production decisions
compared to those of lower education standards. As a result,
their farms were more productive than those of lower
education standards. These results are in agreement with
Mendoza et al. (2008) in Mexico.
Majority (84.8%) of the farmers were of small scale
while those of medium and large scales were less numerous
(15.2%; Table I). The dominance of small scale rabbit
producers could be attributed to limited resources,
inadequate technological knowhow and limited market
access which may have prevented farmers from expanding
their companies. Borter and Mwanza (2010) reported that
inadequate funds and limited information are the main
factors hindering commercialization in Kenya. The
dominance of small-scale operations has also been reported
in other developing countries, with poor husbandry
knowledge and funds for expansion cited as the main causes
(Colin and Lebas, 1996; Lukefahr, 2007; Oseni et al. 2008).
TABLE I. SCALE OF PRODUCTION BASED ON THE NUMBER OF DOES KEPT.
Number of Scale of
Frequency Percentage
does operation
0-2 Ultra small-scale 121 40.2%
3-10 Small-scale 134 44.6%
11-50 Medium-scale 37 12.8%
> 50 Large-scale 8 2.4%
Classification scale as by Oseni et al. (2008).
 Journal of Agricultural Science and Applications (J. Agric. Sci. Appl.)
B. The Main Objectives of Keeping Rabbits
The main objectives of rabbit keeping were both for sale
and home consumption (89.6%). Other less important
purposes were as pets and source of farm manure (10.4%;
fig. 3).
Despite the main objective being for sale, majority (65%)
of the respondents had not sold any rabbits, reflecting the
underdeveloped market system. However, during the same
period, majority (73.6%) of respondents had slaughtered
rabbits for home consumption hence achieving the second
most important objective (home consumption). This was
slightly different from Nigeria where similar studies by
Oseni et al. (2008) and Abu et al. 2008, revealed household
food source to be the main objective with occasional sales.
Figure 3. Main objectives for keeping rabbits.
C. Rabbit Breeds and Breeding Practices
New Zealand White (29%), Crossbreed (22%) and
Californian White (12%) were the most common breeds
kept. The most common crossbreeds were those between
New Zealand and Californian rabbit (25%) and those of
Chinchilla and New Zealand White (20%), which was
between the most common pure breeds justified by the
ready availability of their breeding stocks on the farms (fig.
4).
Figure 4. Rabbit breeds and proportions (%) kept by farmers in study area.
NZW, New Zealand White; CW, Californian; FG, Flemish Giant; CC,
Chinchilla, FEL, French Lop; DU, Dutch; ER, English rabbit; CB,
J. Agric. Sci. Appl. Volume 2, Issue 3 Sep. 2013 PP. 155-159 DOI: 10.14511/jasa.2013.020304 © American V-King Scientific Publishing
157
Checkered back; ANG, Angora; CRSS, Crossbred; KW, Kenyan White;
ANG, Angora.
New Zealand and Californian rabbits were the most
common because their breeding stocks were readily
available (43% and 38% respectively). Larger litter sizes
and good mothering abilities were also cited for their
popularity. The larger breeds such as the French Lop and
Flemish Giant were mostly (80%) preferred for meat
production. Borter and Mwanza (2010) and Hungu et al.
(2013) had also observed similar trends. The most common
breeds observed in this study (New Zealand White and
Californian rabbit) have also been reported to be most
popular breeds for meat production in other parts of the
world due to their good growth characteristics and a high
meat: bone ratio (Lebas et al. 1997; Mailafia et al. 2010;
McNitt et al. 2000).
The majority (90%) of the farmers selected their
breeding bucks from their own stocks or through exchange
with their neighbours since these were the cheapest and
reliable sources. The main reason why breeding stocks
should be sourced off-farm is to avoid inbreeding. However,
this may not rule out inbreeding in Kenya as rabbits reared
by most farmers originated from the same source, the
National Rabbit Multiplication Centre, Ngong. Lack of
breeding records further worsened the situation as this made
development of a reliable breeding program difficult. The
non existence of organized rabbit breeding programs is a
characteristic of the developing countries (Onifade, 1999).
D. Rabbit Housing
Caging was the most predominant form of housing
(87%), compared to non-caged housing (13%). Most of the
farmers using caged housing systems cited ease of
management as opposed to non-caged systems, where the
routine husbandry practices were difficult to carry out, and
therefore encouraging rapid spread of rabbit diseases. Caged
housing has been recommended in Europe by the ARRP
(2003) due to its advantages of close rabbit monitoring and
better disease control.
The cages were mostly at one-level tier (67%) as
opposed to multiple-tier systems (33%). This clearly
reflected on the low-level housing as majority of the farmers
were of small scale (Table I). The larger proportion of one-
level tier system was also reported by Oseni et al. (2008) in
Nigeria, attributing this to ease of design and low costs of
construction. A wide variety of construction materials were
used for constructing the rabbit hutches. Hutch roofs were
mainly made of iron sheets (95.3%), walls made of either
wood (28%) or a combination of wood and wire mesh (30%)
while the floors were mainly made of wood (67%). These
materials were mostly low-cost and were easy to find in the
farming areas of Kenya. The use of the locally available
materials especially wood to construct rabbit hutches was
also described by Oseni et al. (2008) in a similar study in
Nigeria, stating affordability and ready availability as the
main reasons for their use. The use of locally available
construction materials for rabbit housing is amenable to
participation of resource-poor farmers in rabbit production
 Journal of Agricultural Science and Applications (J. Agric. Sci. Appl.)
as suggested by Lukefahr et al. (2000) in Cameroon, where
rabbits were used to empower women and children.
However, Schiere (2004) encouraged the use of wire mesh
as opposed to wood for the floor so that the maze can
letdown the droppings reducing disease incidences. This is
because a wooden floor would soak up urine and ammonia
which would accumulate in the hutch and also difficult to
keep clean.
E. Rabbit Feeds and Feeding Management
Majority of the farmers (57.2%) fed their rabbits on
locally available forages with minimal concentrate
supplementation (fig. 5).
The level of concentrate supplementation in the form of
pellets ranged from 20 g to 150 g with an average rate of 70
g per rabbit and day. However, most of the farmers did not
provide daily supplement, but rather and only when the
concentrates were available. The low level of feed inputs
where forages form the greater proportion of the rabbit diet
in Kenya have also been reported by Borter and Mwanza
(2010) and Cheeke (1986) in other developing countries.
Furthermore, in this study, the intensity of feeding reflected
on the production levels and indirectly to the purposes for
which the rabbits were kept. For instance, Producers with
lower rabbit numbers (7.2, on average) used mostly locally
available forages as the sole diet and kept the rabbits mainly
for home consumption. On the other hand, those with
relatively larger number of rabbits (23.8, on average),
mainly for commercial purposes, supplemented their rabbits
with commercial feeds (concentrates).
F. Challenges to Rabbit Production in Kenya
The most important production challenges encountered
in the study areas were: Rabbit diseases (71%), lack of
market for rabbits (51%), inadequate knowledge on rabbit
husbandry practices, lack of quality breeding stock (15.5%),
insufficient funds for expansion (11%) and inadequate
Figure 5. Percentage of farmers using each feed type and average number
of rabbits kept. LOCAFOR, locally available forages; PURCONC,
purchased concentrates; HMECONC, homemade concentrates; LOCAFOR
& PURCONC, locally available forages and purchased concentrates;
LOCAFOR & HMECONC, locally available forages and homemade
concentrates.
J. Agric. Sci. Appl. Volume 2, Issue 3 Sep. 2013 PP. 155-159 DOI: 10.14511/jasa.2013.020304 © American V-King Scientific Publishing
158
rabbit feeding (8.7%). The absence of reliable sources for
quality genetic stocks of rabbits, inadequate feeds, lack of
funds and poor marketing system was also reported by
Oseni et al. (2008) in a similar study in Nigeria. Lack of
awareness on the benefits of consuming rabbit meat
consumption influenced the consumer preference for other
meats such as chicken over rabbit in Burkina Faso (Hoffman
et al. 2004). In addition to the poorly developed market,
Schiere, (2004) noted unavailability of both veterinary drugs
and experienced animal health experts on rabbit diseases to
be a hindrance to rabbit farming.
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Small-scale production systems directed towards home
consumption and income generation were the most
predominant in this study. The most popular rabbit breeds
were New Zealand white and the Californian rabbit due to
their readily available breeding stocks and ability to
multiply rapidly. Caged housing made of locally available
materials was the most common. Low input feeding was
common, with a majority of farmers using locally available
forages with or without supplements. The main challenges
included: rabbit diseases, lack of market for rabbits, poor
breeding stocks, inadequate funds and insufficient feeds.
Currently, there are efforts to commercialize rabbit
farming by the Kenyan Government through the revival of
rabbit multiplication centres to allow easy access to quality
breeding stocks by farmers. However, these multiplication
centres are few and due to high demand for rabbits, farmers
are forced to queue for a long time eventually resorting to
other sources, the fellow farmers. This therefore calls for
additional rabbit multiplication centres. Further, rabbit
husbandry information and hutch plans are still not available
in the Ministry of Livestock Development and if available,
farmers do not get this information due to inefficient
livestock extension services. Agricultural credit facilities for
farmers are mostly offered by the commercial banks but
farmers still cannot access such funds due to high interest
rates and probably inability to service the loans due to other
production challenges such as rabbit diseases and poor
marketing system. To improve on the local marketing
system, Sensitization of the Kenyan population on the
benefits of consuming rabbit meat should be emphasized.
Farmers also should be trained on proper husbandry
practices such as breeding, feeding, disease management
and record keeping. Last but not least, research on rabbit
feeding and disease management should be enhanced so as
to provide information on proper husbandry practices to
boost rabbit productivity.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following persons and organizations are
acknowledged: National Council for Science and
Technology for providing funds for this project, the authors
for their inputs, Ministry of livestock development for the
logistical support and finally all the respondent farmers for
participating in the survey.
 Journal of Agricultural Science and Applications (J. Agric. Sci. Appl.)

REFERENCES rabbit production in the State of Mexico. In: 9th World

Rabbit Congress. Verona. Pp.: 1575-1578.
Abu, A., Onifade, A.A., Abanikanda, O.T.F., Obineye, R.I. 2008. MOLD. 2004. Annual Report, Department of Livestock Production.
Status and Promotional Strategies for Rabbit Production Ministry of Livestock Development. Nairobi.
in Nigeria. In: 9th World Rabbit Congress. Verona. Pp.:
1499-1503. MOLD. 2010. Annual Report, Department of Livestock Production.
Ministry of Livestock. Nairobi.
ARRP. 2003. Guidelines for the Housing of Rabbits in Scientific
Institutions. Guideline 18 August 2003. Animal Research Onifade, A.A., Abu, O.A., Obiyan, R.I., Abanikanda, O.T.F. 1999.
Review Panel. Orange, NSW. Rabbit production in Nigeria: Some aspects of current
status and promotional strategies. World rabbit science, 7,
Borter, D.K., Mwanza, R.N. 2011. Rabbit production in Kenya, 51-58.
current status and way forward. In: Proceedings of
Annual Scientific Symposium of the Anumal Production Oseni, S.O., Ajayi, B.A., Komolafe, S.O., Siyanbola, O., Ishola,
Society of Kenya. Driving Livestock Entrepreneurship M., Madamidola, G. 2008. Smallholder Rabbit
towards attainment of Food sufficiency and Kenya Production in Southwestern Nigeria: Current Status,
Vision 2030. Animal Production Society of Kenya. Emerging Issues and Ways Forward. In: 9th World
Nairobi. Pp.: 13-19. Rabbit Congress. Verona. Pp.: 1597-1602
Cheeke. P.R. 1986. Potentials of rabbit production in tropical and S.D. Lukefar, H. I. Nkwocha, H. Njakoi, E. Tawah, J. M. Akob, F.
subtropical agricultural systems. Journal of Animal A. Kongyu, R. M. Njwe and D. Gudahl. (2000). Present
Science 63, 1581-1586 status of Heifer ProjectInternational-Cameroonrabbit
program: Back to the future. World rabbit science. Vol 8.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
Number 2:75-83.
sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum. Hillsdale, NJ.
SAS Institute Inc. 2002. SAS v9.0. Cary, NC.
Colin, M., Lebas, F. 1996. Rabbit meat production in the world. A
proposal for every country. In: Proc. 6th World Rabbit Schiere, J.B. 2004. Agrodok 20 Backyard rabbit farming in the
Congress, 1996 July, Vol. 3. Toulouse. Pp.: 323-330. tropics (4th Edition). Agromisa Foundation, Wageningen.
Cronbach, L.J., Gleser, G.C., Nanda H., Rajaratnam, N. 1972. The
dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of
generalizability for scores and profiles. Wiley. New
York, NY.
Hassan, H.E., Elamin, K.M., Yousif, I.A., Musa, A.M., Elkhairey,
M.A. 2012. Evaluation of body weight and some
morphometric traits at various ages in local rabbits of
Sudan. Journal of Animal Science Advances 2, 407-415.
Hoffman, L.C., Nkhabutlane, P., Schutte, D.W., Vosloo, C. 2004.
Factors affecting the purchasing of rabbit meat: A study
of ethnic groups in the Western Cape. Journal of Family
Ecology and Consumer Sciences 32, 26-35.
Hungu, W. Gathumbi, P.K., Maingi, N., Ng’ang’a, C.J. 2013.
Production characteristics and constraints of rabbit
farming in Central, Nairobi and Rift-valley provinces in
Kenya. Livestock Research for Rural Development 25,
Article #3.
Lebas, F., Coudert, P., de Rochambeua, H., Thébault, R.G. 1997.
The rabbit – Husbandry, Health and Production. FAO
Animal Production and Health Series No. 21. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome.
Lukefahr, S.D. 2007. Strategies for the development of small- and
medium-scale rabbit farming in South-East Asia.
Livestock Research for Rural Development. 19, Article
#138.
Mailafia, S., Onakpa, M.M., Owoleke, O.E. 2010. Problems and
prospects of rabbit production in Nigeria - A review.
Bayero Journal of Pure and Applied Science 3, 20-25.
Marcoulides, A. 1993. Maximizing power in generalizability
studies under budget constraints. Journal of Educational
Statistics 18, 197-206.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1165086
McIntire, J., Bouzert, D., Pingali, P. 1992. Crop-Livestock
interactions in sub-sahara Africa. World Bank.
Washington, DC.
McNitt, J.I., Patton, N.M., Lukefahr, S.D., Cheeke, P.R. 2000.
Rabbit Production. 8th Ed. Interstate Printers and
Publishers. Danville, IL.
Mendoza, B.J., Díaz, Z.S., Velázquez, O.V., Alonso, F.M.U.,
Ortega B.E. 2008. Social and economic contribution of

J. Agric. Sci. Appl. Volume 2, Issue 3 Sep. 2013 PP. 155-159 DOI: 10.14511/jasa.2013.020304 © American V-King Scientific Publishing
159

View publication stats