The housing system you choose for rabbits has direct, measurable consequences on their health, stress levels, and welfare. As research continues to uncover the physiological and behavioral needs of rabbits, it’s increasingly clear that outdated or oversimplified housing practices need to evolve. Free-Choice Housing Preferences According to Orova et al. (2005), rabbits prefer wire net flooring over deep litter when given a choice, especially in environments maintained at optimal temperatures (16–18°C). This counters common assumptions that litter bedding is more natural or comfortable. Rabbits consistently selected wire, likely due to its cleanliness and reduced moisture retention. > "At normal temperature (16–18°C), rabbits prefer wire net floor, compared to deep litter." — Orova et al., 2005, 8th World Rabbit Congress Flooring and Feed Efficiency Trocino et al. (2005) evaluated the effect of cage floor types on growth, feed efficiency, and behavior. Their findings showed wire flooring slightly reduced feed intake late in the growth period but improved overall feed efficiency. Rabbits also showed higher exploration activity when housed on wire, without increased stress responses in immobility tests. > "Wire net floor showed higher exploration activity (P<0> "Rabbits raised in straw-bedded pens gave the poorest results due to straw ingestion and more direct contact with excreta." — Dal Bosco et al., 2002 Housing Size: European vs American Standards Many negative findings in European studies stem from the use of extremely cramped cages. In a 2022 pilot study (DOI:10.3389/fvets.2022.936643), cage sizes were as small as: Grow out pens: 1,200 cm² (1.29 ft²) Standard doe cages: 3,300 cm² (3.55 ft²) Enriched cages: 4,739 cm² (5.10 ft²) By comparison, MMC Farmstead's housing standards are: Singles (New Zealand): 3,716 cm² (4 ft²) Does with litters (min): 5,574 cm² (6 ft²) Does with litters (max): 5,806 cm² (6.25 ft²) The European cages often cited in welfare debates are barely larger than transport carriers. Many issues blamed on "single housing" vanish when rabbits are provided adequate space and enrichment. Colony Housing and Chronic Stress While group or colony housing is often portrayed as more natural, long-term studies tell a different story. Chronic stress markers—such as elevated cortisol levels—are often higher in group-housed rabbits due to social hierarchy conflicts and lack of retreat spaces. > "Group farming fosters social bonding but can also lead to increased levels of chronic and acute stress in rabbits." — August 9, 2022, Pilot Study on Rabbit Welfare (DOI:10.3389/fvets.2022.936643) Group housing does have merits, especially in large parks or when paired with strict management and plentiful resources. However, for many farms, individualized pens—when properly sized and enriched—outperform group housing in every key welfare metric: fewer injuries, better feed conversion, lower disease transmission, and measurable reductions in stress indicators. A Balanced Conclusion Welfare is not as simple as "group good, cages bad." Instead, quality rabbit housing balances space, sanitation, enrichment, and social needs. Properly sized wire cages with toys (pinecones, paper rolls, untreated wood) offer many of the benefits without the drawbacks of colony settings. Research shows it’s not the cage itself—but its size, flooring, and management—that determines welfare. Choose housing systems rooted in behavioral science and physiological data, not emotion or outdated activism. --- Cited Studies: Orova, Z. et al. (2005). Free choice of growing rabbits between deep litter and wire net floor in pens. 8th World Rabbit Congress. Trocino, A. et al. (2005). Group housing of growing rabbits: effect of stocking density and cage floor. 8th World Rabbit Congress. Dal Bosco, A., Castellini, C., Mugnai, C. (2002). Rearing rabbits on a wire net floor or straw litter. Livestock Production Science, 75(2). Frontiers in Veterinary Science (2022). A pilot study about on-farm assessment of health and welfare in rabbits kept in different housing systems. [DOI:10.3389/fvets.2022.936643]