Animal Science

Determination of typologies of rabbit production systems in Ciego de Avila municipality, Cuba

0000-0003-4767-9746J. Martínez-Melo^{1  *}  , 0000-0002-4372-5904J.O. Serrano¹  , 0000-0002-3431-9824C.A. Mazorra¹  , 0000-0002-7451-8748Verena Torres²  , 0000-0001-6573-4732Dayami Fontes¹  , 0000-0001-9261-3995Angela Borroto¹ 

¹Universidad de Ciego de Ávila Máximo Gómez Báez, Carretera a Morón km 9 ½, CP: 9450, Cuba

²Instituto de Ciencia Animal, Apartado Postal 24, San José de las Lajas, Mayabeque, Cuba

ABSTRACT

In order to typify the rabbit production systems in Ciego de Avila municipality, Cuba, quantitative and qualitative information of 49 rabbit farms were obtained. The Statistical Model of Impact Measuring was applied with the quantitative variables, which combine the factors analysis by the main components method with the hierarchical cluster, to typify the cases. The frequencies per typologies for qualitative variables were obtained. The rabbit production systems were typified into five groups: I) small farmers with land, younger, apply more mating (14.3 %) pardos. II) small farmers with land and older (42.9 %), III) small farmers without land, late weaning (12.5%), IV) medium farmers with land and semi-intensive reproductive management with low efficiency (28.6%) and V) technical system, with semi-intensive reproductive management with low efficiency (2.0%). In the farmers, the Cuban Brown race, Chinchilla and different crosses predominate. The feeding system in general was based on forage resources, supplementation and little use of protein plants, except Tithonia diversifolia in groups I, III and V. Regardless of the productive scales, technological alternatives that guarantee greater productive and reproductive efficiency are not applied in the feeding system. This study shows that these typologies should be considered to implement an agricultural extension system that contributes to the training of farmers and the management and application of sustainable technological alternatives with the use of endogenous resources.

Key words: multivariate analysis; livestock systems; Oryctolagus cuniculus

Animal production systems in the tropics play an important role because they provide the population with protein products of high nutritional value, such as meat and milk. Currently, they are affected by different factors: input price policies, access to resources, motivational perspectives (social factor), management facilities for product marketing and, no less important, the effects of environmental factors that act directly or indirectly on animals (^{Benítez et al. 2016}); in addition to others that also influence, such as the management system used and the knowledge of farmers.

Knowing the diversity that may exist in productive systems is the basis for determining factors that influence on the results (^{Enríquez et al. 2020}). Multivariate methods allow analyzing a wide set of data and interpreting the relation established between them to reduce the information to be interpreted and determine variability (^{Enríquez et al. 2020} and ^{Vélez et al. 2021}). Authors such as ^{Aquino et al. (2018}) state that obtaining typologies through classification makes it possible to define groups with differences and similarities and lay the foundations for the transformation of systems. In Cuba, the studies that apply multivariate methods in rabbit breeding focus on the evaluation of reproductive indicators in a rabbit farm (^{García et al. 2018}). However, studies of rabbit breeding systems have not been carried out using multivariate methods, such as those reported by ^{Serrano et al. (2022)} to typify sheep production systems.

In the Ciego de Ávila province, in the municipality of the same name, ^{Martínez-Melo et al. (2022)} verified that the rabbit production systems have heterogeneities in terms of the productive characteristics studied. However, it is necessary to classify them to determine the patterns of farms in the territory, so that it serves as a basis for proposing strategies aimed at improving and transforming these systems towards sustainability.

The objective of this study was to typify the rabbit breeding systems in Ciego de Ávila municipality, based on herd, productive, reproductive and social indicators.

Materials and Methods

The study was performed in Ciego de Ávila municipality, belonging to Ciego de Ávila province. This territory stands out for agricultural and livestock activities. In this region, rabbit breeding is characterized by being backyard and specialized. Both types of breeding sell animals to the Empresa Comercializadora de Ganado Menor (^{ONEI, 2021}). Backyard breeding is also used for family self-consumption and sales of animals to others for consumption or breeding.

For the selection of the sample, a total of 49 farmers from the municipality were used, representing 70 % of a total of 70 farmers, registered in the Empresa Comercializadora de Ganado Menor. It was used as selection criteria, which have been in the rabbit breeders activity for more than three years. The average information of three years of the quantitative variables of the productive systems of rabbits was obtained through surveys and productive records.

Variables used in the study. People who work (n), age of the farmer (years), forage area (ha), total herd (n), breeding animal (n), breeders (n), age at slaughter (months), weight at slaughter (kg), age at first mating (months), kits per killings (n), weaned kits (n), pre-weaning deaths (n), post-weaning deaths (n), weaning age (days), weaning weight (kg), mating after handling(days), number of mating per doe (n). Qualitative variables were recorded: rabbit breeds present in the systems, presence of crossbred animals, types of food used, forage carrying, agricultural production and use of manure.

Statistical analysis. With the quantitative variables, the statistical model for measuring impact (MEMI) (^{Torres et al. 2013}) was applied, which uses factorial analysis by the main components method. The assumptions described by ^{Torres et al. (2008)} were checked. The factorial scores of each farm in each main component were used for the classification of farms, with the application of hierarchical cluster analysis according to the Ward method. The groups of farms were described from the mean and standard deviation statistics. The frequencies of the qualitative variables were calculated by groups of farms. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, for its acronym in English: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) (^{SPSS, 2011}) version 8 was used.

Results and Discussion

Five groups of farms were obtained from the analysis to maximize the differences between groups (figure 1). The groups were named for the characteristics that define them: I) system of small farmers with land, younger and who apply more mating per doe, II) Small farmers with land, older, III) small farmers without land, who use late weaning, IV) medium farmers with land and semi-intensive reproductive management with low efficiency and V) technical system, with semi-intensive reproductive management with low efficiency. The small farmers (groups I, II and III) were the most representative with 69.3 % of the cases studied.

Figure 1 Dendrogram of the typification in five groups of rabbit systems. 

The average age of the farmers in group I was the youngest, with 38.2 years. While, the farmers from group II presented the oldest age (54.0 years). In the rest of the groups, the age was between 43.0 and 46.6 years (table 1). The total herd, breeding animal and breeding variables in small farmers (groups I, II and III) showed values between 30.3 and 70.1 total animals, 1.3 and 2.4 breeding animal and 6.1 and 12.4 breeders. These groups differed in land tenure and presence of area for the cultivation of forage plants. Groups I and II showed less than 1 ha of land and dedicated 60.0 and 44.4 % of the total area to sowing forage plants, respectively. While, farmers from group III had backyard breeding systems without the presence of land for plant cultivation and developed a forage cut and carry system to sustain their animals feeding. The medium farmers (group IV) highlighted with 103.7 total animals and 26.9 breeders, as well as the representative system of group V, with 600.0 total animals and 420.0 breeders.

These rabbit breeding differ from others (^{Serem et al. 2013}) that are developed on a small scale and maintain fewer animals than the groups I, II and III of this study. It is evident in these systems the importance of the tenure or not of the land resource, which many farmers use for sowing forage plants destined to rabbits and other animals feeding in the productive system. Likewise, these groups of systems (table 1) show diversity in social indicators, areas and number of animals, which shows different investment and technology capacity (^{Rivas et al. 2014} and ^{Hernández et al. 2019}).

Table 1 Social, animal and forage area indicators by farmers groups 

Variables	Group
	I (7 cases)		II (21 cases)		III (6 cases)		IV (14 cases)		V (1 case)
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Persons (u)	1.0	0.0	1.3	0.49	1.6	0.51	1.2	0.57	5.0	-
Age(years)	38.2	9.65	54.0	13.42	46.6	18.11	43.0	6.78	45.0	-
TH (u)	70.1	66.63	38.7	21.16	30.3	17.82	103.7	92.56	600.0	-
S (u)	2.4	1.13	1.5	0.51	1.3	0.51	3.7	2.75	16.0	-
Bre.(u)	12.4	7.91	9.2	2.79	6.1	1.47	26.9	20.94	420.0	-
FA (ha)	0.3	0.62	0.4	0.63	0.0	0.0	1.5	1.09	6.0	-
TA (ha)	0.5	0.86	0.9	1.69	0.0	0.0	11.1	9.58	13.4	-

Persons: people who work on the farm, Age: farmer age, TH: total herd, S: Breeding animal, Bre: breeders, FA: forage area, TA: total area.

The results of table l show the need to consider them for the elaboration of technological intervention actions aimed at designing and applying technologies that allow satisfying the need for forage food in animals. The absence of forage areas is an indicator that can limit the development and achievement of food self-sufficiency, as is the case of farmers from group III, whose systems are characterized by cut and carry from areas that are outside their properties. In contrast, the medium farmers (groups IV) and the technical system (groups V) highlighted, with a greater number of animals, people who care for them and areas to sowing forage.

Groups I and IV were characterized by having the lowest average number of kits per kindling and weaned kits (table 2), while in group V, which maintains the highest herd, weaned kits showed the lowest value (5.0). The age at slaughter was an indicator that was between 3.4 and 5.0 months in the farmers, with the highest value in the small farmers of groups I and III, who slaughter the animals according to the particular criteria, while generally the farmers use as criterion for slaughter the weight of 2.0 kg per animal. Mortality showed differences between the groups of farmers. The farmers of groups I and V highlighted with higher mortality before weaning, while mortality after weaning showed higher values in the small farmers from group I.

Table 2 Reproductive and productive indicators in farmers groups. 

Variables	Groups
	I (n=7)		II (n=21)		III (n=6)		IV (n=14)		V (n=1)
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
PKindling (u)	7.0	1.00	7.2	0.76	8.9	0.0	6.7	0.95	7.5	-
WP (u)	5.1	1.06	6.2	0.64	8.6	0.51	5.4	0.93	5.0	-
WW (kg)	0.68	0.03	0.69	0.03	0.55	0.10	0.48	0.01	0.60	-
ASlaug (months)	5.0	1.00	3.4	0.50	5.0	0.89	3.8	0.23	4.5	-
DW (u)	1.8	1.46	0.9	0.30	0.6	0.51	0.9	0.26	2.0	-
DW (u)	1.2	0.48	1.0	0.0	0.6	0.52	0.9	0.26	1.0	-
MAK (days)	31.4	13.45	33.1	11.14	25.0	7.74	27.2	12.43	15.0	-
AM (months)	5.8	1.65	5.1	0.71	5.2	0.98	5.0	0.70	5.0	-
AW (days)	38.1	6.86	35.4	5.22	42.5	14.05	38.0	4.96	35.0	-
Mating (u)	2.2	0.48	2.0	0.66	2.0	0.0	2.0	0.0	2.0

PKindling: Kits per kindling, WP: weaned kits, WW: weaning weight, ASlaug: age at slaughter, DW: deaths before weaning, DW: deaths after weaning, MAK: mating after kindling, EC: age at first doe mating, AW: age at weaning, Mating: number of mating per gestation.

The reproductive management system used by the farmers of the municipality showed different means between groups (table 2). The farmers from groups I and II use 31.4 and 33.1 days for mating after kindling, 5.8 and 5.1 months of age at the first mating of the female and 38.1 and 35.4 days of age at weaning, respectively. Group III, with small farmers without land, uses fewer days of mating after kindling than groups I, II and IV. However, the age at weaning was higher in the farmers of group III, while the medium farmers (group IV) use a reproductive management with less than 30.0 open days and lower values for age at first mating. Group V highlighted due to its differences from the rest of farmers, for applying a reproductive management with the lowest mating values after kindling and age at first mating, but with fewer weaned kits and higher pre-weaning mortality. Group I used a higher average for mating per doe.

The results reported by ^{López et al. (2011)} are similar to those of this study (table 2), where groups I, II and V obtain seven kits per kindling. While, the study of ^{López et al. (2011)} reported a higher average number of weaned kits (6.4) in a feeding system with the legume Neonotonia wightii, Morus alba, Saccharum officinarum and the use of a Creole supplement. In these systems, the high temperatures and relative humidity figures that characterize the study region could influence on the results of the productive indicators, criteria that are also referred by other authors (^{Asemota et al. 2017} and ^{Fadare and Fatoba 2018}), which it can affect the reproductive performance of the female and cause heat stress.

There were differences in mortality, before and after weaning, in the farmers groups (table 2). Groups I and V, which use a different productive scale, had the highest values of mortality before weaning. This condition compromises the number of kits that go to the fattening stage and, therefore, the productive and economic efficiency of the systems, aspects that coincide with the criteria of ^{Mora and Solano (2015)} and ^{Hernández et al. (2019)}. However, the results concerning the typification of the farmers have to do with the environmental conditions related to the effects of heat (^{Yassein et al. 2008} and ^{Szendrö et al. 2012}), which has been shown in other studies in Chinchilla and New Zealand breeds (^{García et al. 2019} and ²⁰²¹), in addition to other factors that could have had a part in that results, such as hygienic and sanitary conditions, the state of the nest box and the characteristics and feeding management, criteria that coincide with ^{Cruz-Bacad et al. (2018)} studies.

The farmers of groups I, IV and V, with the lowest average age values of the farmers (table 1), obtained the lowest values for the weaned kits. The farmers of group V use a semi-intensive reproductive management, with 15 days of mating for the doe after kindling. They are followed by those from groups III and IV, who leave less than 30 days open (table 2), while older farmers (group II) leave more days open. These results differ from those reported by ^{Hernández et al. (2019)}, who did not found relation between the social variables and the productive ones.

Regarding this study, the results may respond to the productive systems studied and the reproductive management that each farmer applies, as well as the need to increase the knowledge of farmers. In group V, a greater number of animals are bred semi-intensively and a system similar to others is applied to cover the females after kindling (^{García et al. 2021}), but low productive efficiency is obtained.

It could have influenced the reproductive management system used by the farmers. This is explained by the fact that in groups I and II the days of postpartum mating are between 31 and 33 days, with weaning between 38 and 35 days, respectively, and a few days before weaning the young rabbits. When lactation is ending, the farmers make the mating of the doe again. However, in group III, the next mating is at 25 days postpartum and weaning at 42.5 days, a management that favors that the number of dead kits, before and after weaning, is lower, and that the number of kits born be greater in this group.

^{Lopez et al. (2011)} apply a reproductive management in crossbred doe with weaning at 45 days and 20 days open, results that differ from what the farmers of groups I, II, III and IV refer, who wean between 35.5 and 42.5 days and use between 25.0 and 33.1 days open. They differ from a semi-intensive system with the Cuban Brown breed. This is characterized by the fact that 11 open days pass, from kindling to mating and weaning at 35 days (^{García et al. 2021}).

The results of this study can be explained from the social factor. The man makes adjustments to the breeding techniques in his system, according to the experience and better results in the reproductive management variants applied.

This indicates the importance of taking into account the knowledge of farmers and the experience in rabbits breeders to achieve the appropriate design of technologies that can be applied in systems with effects on animal production (^{Serem et al. 2013}).

It is known that there are different criteria among farmers, regarding the adjustment of environmental conditions: feeding options, hygiene and reproductive management. The relation between the intensity of the system and the genetics of animals must be considered to obtain favorable productive results (^{Gidenne et al. 2017}). ^{Velez et al. (2021)} express the need to promote and strengthen rabbit breeders systems in small farmers as an option for the production of animal protein at low cost.

Another aspect of reproductive management that differs between farmers groups is the number of mating used to gestate the doe (table 2). This may be one of the causes of the different results. ^{Garcia et al. (2018)} express that this indicator can be taken into account when evaluating reproduction. The differences in the number of mating applied by the farmers may be related to the lack of uniformity in the criteria and knowledge of the farmers.

The Mariposa breed was representative in groups I, III and IV (table 3). In all groups there were a large percentage of farms that breed the Cuban Brown and Chinchilla breeds, as well as different crosses. The latter not identified because the farmers do not have reproductive controls. It was found that the California breed was represented in the farmer groups, except for the representative system of group V.

Table 3 Frequencies (percentage of farms) for the presence of breeds and animals crossed by groups. 

Variables	Group I n=7	Group II n=21	Group III n=6	Group IV n=14	Group V n=1
Mariposa	85.7	23.8	66.7	50.0	-
New Zealand	14.3	19.0	-	21.4	-
California	28.6	42.9	-	28.6	100.0
White semigiant	14.3	4.8	33.3	-	-
Cuban Brown	85.7	81.0	66.7	100.0	100.0
Chinchilla	100.0	66.7	66.7	92.9	100.0
Crossed animals	100.0	100.0	100.0	78.6	100.0

The foods used for rabbits (table 4) show that the feeding system is made up of forage plants, cultivated in the system or not, harvest wastes and concentrate, depending on availability. In all groups, a large percentage of farmers state that they carry forage for their animals in the dry season, mainly. The low use of Morus alba and Moringa oleifera protein plants in all groups was highlighted, while Tithonia diversifolia was only more representative in farmers of groups I, III and V.

Table 4 Frequency used (percentage of farms) for feeding in each group. 

Variables	Group I n=7	Group II n=21	Group III n=6	Group IV n=14	Group V n=1
Manihot esculenta (stem)	28.6	42.9	-	7.1	100.0
Manihot esculenta (leaves)	28.6	33.3	33.3	21.4	100.0
Ipomoea batatas (leaves)	57.1	81.0	33.3	64.3	100.0
Saccharum officinarum	28.6	14.3	-	42.9	-
Pennisetum purtureum	-	14.3	-	57.1	-
Morus alba	14.3	28.6	-	21.4	-
Moringa oleifera	42.9	9.5	33.1	21.4	-
Tithonia diversifolia	71.4	42.9	66.7	35.7	100.0
Musa sp. (leaves)	-	23.8	-	14.3	-
Harvest wastes	57.1	71.4	33.3	64.3	-
Euphorbia heterophylla	28.6	33.3	33.3	21.4	-
Phyla scaberrima	100.0	33.3	66.7	57.1	-
Megathyrsus maximus	28.6	19.0	-	42.9	-
Brachiaria mutica	71.4	38.1	66.7	-	-
Other grasses	71.4	76.2	100.0	78.6	100.0
Final molasses	57.1	19.0	100.0	21.4	100.0
Concentrate	100.0	100	100.0	92.9	100.0
Carry feeds	100.0	90.5	100.0	85.7	100.0
Agricultural production	57.1	42.9	-	57.1	100.0
Manure use	28.6	23.8	-	64.3	100.0

In the studied systems there was a great representation of the Cuban Brown breed (table 3). This breed has rusticity traits and lower productive and reproductive results compared to other breeds less represented in these groups of farmers, such as the New Zealand and White Semi-giant.

A large percentage of producers apply crossbreeding as a method for genetic improvement. This study confirms what was stated by ^{García et al. (2021)}, who refer to the adaptation and favorable results of the Cuban Brown breed in Cuba.

In the results of the rabbit breeding systems could have been influenced the characteristics of the feeding (table 4). In general, all groups of farmers use forage foods of low nutritional value and supplementation depending on the availability of the resource. It was possible to verify little use of protein plants, as a source to supply proteins at low cost, as well as insufficient use of manure. ^{Lopez et al. (2011)} consider viable the use of legumes, protein plants and concentrate in a system with crossbred rabbits. ^{Cruz-Bacab et al. (2018)} refer to the effect of the food quality factor in rabbit breeding, an idea that is shared in this study.

This research shows the need for the implementation of training plans, related to the adjustment in the management of reproduction, technological variants for food production and with the aspects that affect the kits, before and after weaning, so that the farmers increase knowledge and achieve better results.

The typification that was carried out in the rabbit breeding systems of Ciego de Ávila municipality showed that there is a diversity of systems, according to social factors, animal tenure, productive and reproductive results. It is necessary to take into account the patterns of systems that are developed in the territory to redesign the systems from technological variants that allow adjusting the environmental conditions to favor animal welfare and achieve superior productive results.

From a practical point of view, the typification of rabbit breeding systems in this region from the use of social indicators, existence of the herd, productive and reproductive, contributes to the knowledge of the different patterns of systems that are developed in the region. They also determine their positive or negative characteristics, in addition to expressing advances in the more integrated knowledge of the rabbit breeding systems in this territory, experience that can be used to improve the management of these systems with the aim of contributing to the sustainability of rabbit breeding in the tropics.

Conclusions

It is concluded that the rabbit breeding systems in Ciego de Ávila municipality, Cuba, were typified into five groups, differentiated in the number of the herd, land tenure, age of farmers, productive indicators, reproduction management and characteristics of the food. Regardless of the production scales and the management applied in the different groups of farmers, technological alternatives are not applied in the feeding system that guarantees greater productive and reproductive efficiency. This study shows that the typologies obtained must be taken into account to implement an agricultural extension system that contributes to the training of farmers and to the management and application of sustainable technological alternatives through the use of endogenous resources.

References

Aquino, V. C., Camarena, F., Juica, A. & Jiménez, J. 2018. "Caracterización multivariada de fincas productoras de tarwi (Lupinus mutabilis Sweet) del Valle del Mantaro, Perú". Scientia Agropecuaria, 9(2): 269-279, ISSN: 2306-6741. http://dx.doi.org/10.17268/sci.agropecu.2018.02.12.

Asemota, O.D., Aduba, P., Bello-Onaghise, G. & Orheruata, A.M. 2017. "Effect of temperature -humidity index (THI) on the performance of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in the humid tropics". Archivos de Zootecnia, 66(254): 257-261, ISSN: 1885-4494.

Benítez, D.G., Vargas, J.C., Torres, V. & Soria, S. R. 2016. "La incidencia de las prácticas ganaderas en la productividad de los rebaños de cría en la provincia de Pastaza de la Amazonia ecuatoriana". Avances en Investigación Agropecuaria, 20(3): 43-61, ISSN: 2683-1716.

Cruz-Bacab, L.E., Ramírez-Vera, S., Vázquez-García, M.C & Zapata-Campos, C.C 2018. "Reproducción de conejos bajo condiciones tropicales, efectos negativos y posibles soluciones". CienciaUAT, 13(1): 135-145, ISSN: 2007-7858. https://doi.org/10.29059/cienciauat.v13i1.989.

Enríquez, A.V., Martín, P.C., García-López, R. & Torres, V. 2020. "Análisis multifactorial de la producción de leche durante 12 años en una lechería con banco de biomasa en Cuba". Avances en Investigación Agropecuaria, 24(1): 21-33. ISSN: 2683-1716.

Fadare, A.O. & Fatoba, T.J. 2018. "Reproductive performance of four breeds of rabbit in the humid tropics". Livestock Research for Rural Development, 30(7), Article #114, ISSN: 0121-3784. Available: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd30/7/delod30114.html.

García, Y., Ponce, R., Rodríguez, Y. & García Quiñonez, D. 2021. "The Cuban Brown rabbit breed. Characterization of reproductive performance in western Cuba". Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science, 55(2): 1-9, ISSN: 2079-3480.

García, Y., Ponce de León, R.E., Ledesma, A., Rodríguez, Y. & García, D. 2019. "Influencia del nivel de calor en rasgos de prolificidad en conejos en Cuba". Livestock Research for Rural Development, 31(1), Article #4, ISSN: 0121-3784. Available: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd31/1/yolei31004.html. [Consulted: June 24, 2021].

García, Y., Torres, V., Ponce, R., García, D. & Mora, M. 2018. "Application of the Statistical Model of Impact Measuring (SMIM) to evaluate reproductive indicators in a rabbit farm". Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science, 52(1): 1-6, ISSN: 2079-3480.

Gidenne, T., Garreau, H., Drouilhet, L., Aubert, C. & Maertens, L. 2017. "Improving feed efficiency in rabbit breeding, a review on nutritional, technico-economical, genetic and environmental aspects". Animal Feed Science and Technology, 225: 109-122, ISSN: 0377-8401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2017.01.016.

Hernández, D., Sánchez, E., Gómez, W. & Martínez, C.G. 2019. "Productive and socioeconomic characterization of a sheep production system in a natural protected area in Mexico". Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias, 10(4): 951-965, ISSN: 2448-6698. https://doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v10i4.4470.

López, O., Montejo, I. L. & Lamela, L. 2011. "Evaluación de indicadores productivos en conejas mestizas con una dieta basada en forraje y pienso criollo". Pastos y Forrajes, 34(1): 97-108, ISSN: 2078-8452.

Martínez-Melo, J., Mazorra-Calero, C.A, Serrano-Torres, J.O. & Borroto-Pérez, A. 2022. "Caracterización de los sistemas productores de conejos en el municipio Ciego de Ávila, Cuba". CienciaUAT, 17(1) 139-151, ISSN: 2007-7858. https://doi.org/10.29059/cienciauat.v17i1.1585.

Mora, D. & Solano, M. 2015. "Estudio bioeconómico para el negocio de producción y semiindustrialización de conejo en Costa Rica". Nutrición Animal Tropical, 9(1): 102- 123, ISSN: 2215-3527.

ONEI, Oficina Nacional de Estadística e Información. 2021. Anuario estadístico de Cuba. "Existencia de ganado menor. Distribución de la tierra del país y su utilización por provincias, en Agricultura, Ganadería Silvicultura y Pesca". Available: http://www.onei.gob.cu/node/16275.

Rivas, J., García, A., Toro-Mujica, P., Angón, E., Perea, J., Morantes, M. & Dios-Palomares, R. 2014. "Caracterización técnica, social y comercial de las explotaciones ovinas manchegas, centro-sur de España". Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias, 5(3): 291-306, ISSN: 2448-6698.

Serem, J. K., Wanyoike, M. M., Gachuiri, C. K., Mailu, S. K., Gathumbi, P. K., Mwanza, R. N., Kiarie, N. & Borter, D. K. 2013. "Characterization of Rabbit breeding Systems in Kenya". Journal of Agricultural Science and Applications, 2(3): 155-159, ISSN: 22276475. https://doi.org/10.14511/jasa.2013.020304.

Serrano, J.O., Martínez-Melo, J., Torres, V., Villares, A., Manuel, F.D., Fonseca, N. & Lorenzo, J.C. 2022. "Determination of typologies of sheep production systems in Ciego de Ávila province". Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science, 56(1): 1-13, ISSN: 2079-3480.

SPSS, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. 2011. Institute. SPSS-X. User´s Guide. Version 8, Chicago IL. USA.

Szendrö, Z., Szendrö, K. & Dalle-Zotte, A. 2012. "Management of reproduction on small, médium and large rabbit farms: A review". Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Science, 25(5): 738-748, ISSN: 1011-2367. http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2012.12015.

Torres, V., Cobo, R., Sánchez, L. & Raez, N. 2013. Statistical tool for measuring the impact of milk production on the local development of a province in Cuba. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 25(9), Article #159, ISSN: 0121-3784. Available: <http://www.lrrd.cipav.org.co/lrrd25/9/torr25159.htm>, [Consulted: July 20, 2021].

Torres, V., Ramos, N., Lizazo, D., Monteagudo, F. & Noda, A. 2008. Statistical model for measuring the impact of innovation or technology transfer in agriculture. Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science. 42(2):131-137, ISSN: 2079-3480.

Vélez, A., Espinosa, J. & Aguilar, F. 2021. "Tipología y caracterización de cunicultores en los Estados del centro de México". Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias, 12(2): 469-486, ISSN: 2448-6698. https://doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v12i2.5811.

Yassein, S. A., Mahmoud, K. G. M., Maghraby, N. & Ezzo, O. H. 2008. "Hot climate effects and their amelioration on some productive and reproductive traits in rabbit does". World Rabbit Science, 16(3): 173-181, ISSN: 1989-8886. https://doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2008.626.

Received: November 20, 2022; Accepted: January 06, 2023

^*Email:[e-mail]

Conflict of interest: The authors declare that there are not conflicts of interests among them.

Author’s contribution: J. Martínez-Melo: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. J.O. Serrano: Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. C.A. Mazorra: Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. V. Torres: Data curation, Formal analysis. D. Fontes: Methodology, Formal analysis. A. Borroto: Methodology, Formal analysis.