REGULAR ARTICLES Growth and reproductive performance of two rabbit breeds reared under intensive system in Ghana Samuel Obeng Apori & Julius Kofi Hagan & Yaa Doris Osei Received: 14 July 2014 /Accepted: 27 October 2014 /Published online: 13 November 2014 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 Abstract A study on the growth and reproductive perfor- mance of two rabbit breeds was undertaken. Data on 588 kits and 97 does of California White and 574 kits and 90 does of New Zealand White rabbits reared under hot and humid environment in Ghana were taken. The reproductive perfor- mance of the two breeds, in terms of litter size at birth and weaning, litter weight at birth and weaning, kindling interval, age at sexual maturity, and gestation length as influenced by breed, season of kindling (rainy and dry), year of kindling (2005–2012), and parity (first to sixth and over) were deter- mined. The performance of California White in terms of litter size at birth, at weaning, kit weight at birth, and age at first kindling was 5.9±0.2, 4.6±0.1, 54.7±0.4 g, and 159.8± 0.2 days, respectively. That of New Zealand White was 5.9± 0.1, 5.1±0.1, 55.2±1.0 g, and 159.9±0.2 days, respectively. The results obtained also showed a significant breed effects on kit weight at birth, litter weight at weaning, and mortality; whereas no significant differences (p >0.05) were observed between the two breeds regarding the other traits measured. Parity had significant effects (p <0.05) on all the growth and reproductive parameters measured with the exception of age at first kindling. Year of kindling also had significant effect on litter weight at birth, kit weight at birth, and at weaning (p <0.05) but did not have any significant effect on the age at sexual maturity and mortality. Season also had significant (p <0.05) effects on kit weight at birth, gestation length, kin- dling interval, and mortality with better performance experi- enced during the rainy season. Keywords California White . New Zealand White . Parity . Season . Litter size . Kits Introduction Rabbit production in Ghana is gaining momentum and is seen as an important source of income and employment generation. The increasing human population in developing countries especially Ghana, coupled with the ever-increasing demand for animal source of protein which is hardly met from the principal livestock species (cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, and poultry), has, according to Biobaku and Dosunmu (2003) and Fayeye and Ayorinde (2003), made it imperative that attention be shifted to other micro-livestock such as rabbits. The reliance of rabbit production as a source of cheap animal protein in solving the problem of malnutrition cannot be overemphasized. This, according to Ghosh et al. (2008), is attributed largely to the rabbit’ s high rate of reproduction, early maturing ability, rapid growth rate, efficient feed utili- zation, and its ability to produce meat of high nutritional value. Its meat is also known to be highly digestible, whole- some, tasty, and low in cholesterol, sodium, and fat but with high protein content (Herbert 2011). According to Odeyinka et al. (2008), the productive per- formance of commercial rabbits is largely dependent on the litter size at kindling and the survivability of the kits up to weaning. Additionally, the pre-weaning growth is very critical in meat rabbits due to its impact on the meat produced at the finisher stage of production (Gerencser et al. 2011). Further- more, genetic and environmental factors have been implicated to influence the reproductive performance of rabbits (Apori et al. 2014; Lazzaroni et al. 2012). However, rabbit production in Ghana is reliant on the use of introduced exotic breeds whose performances are hindered by the warm and humid environments. In Ghana, the prominent exotic breeds are Blue S. O. Apori : J. K. Hagan (*) Department of Animal Science, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana e-mail: kofihagan30@gmail.com Y. D. Osei Animal Research Institute, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Accra, Ghana Trop Anim Health Prod (2015) 47:221–225 DOI 10.1007/s11250-014-0714-2