Furries
Warren Scout
I'm new to rabbits - I got my first two at the beginning of this year.
When I was a child in the 70s I kept guinea-pigs and took very good care of them (unlike most children, I liked cleaning them out, because they were very vocal in their appreciation). We bought them from a breeder who lived on the same street as us. They had free-run of the garden during the day, including a small lawn, and were shut up in their hutch at night (with hay). They both lived to be 7-years-old and never ailed a thing, apart from a skin mite (caused by petshop hay - we normally got ours from a farmer), which I successfully treated with weak Tetmasol (which was the recommended treatment in one of the books I owned).
The more I learn about rabbits, the more stunned I am -they seem to be an unhealthy lot compared to guinea-pigs. I read an article from a symposium on rabbit health for vets, which stated that rabbits have evolved to eat grass and most illnesses arise from this lack in their diet. This has made me wonder whether my guinea-pigs remained healthy because they had daily access to grass, and if they would have suffered the same ill health that I keep hearing about rabbits, had it not been for this fact, or whether rabbits have been poorly bred and so are prone to far more health problems than guinea-pigs (like pedigree dogs are less healthy than mongrels).
I can appreciate that all animals get sick and need to be treated by a vet when they do, I'm talking about a higher prevalence. Using the above example of pedigree v mongrel dogs - The Kennel Club's own insurance policy will insure a cross-breed for much less than a pedigree(!), i.e. pedigree dogs are more prone to illness than mongrels. So, are rabbits far more prone to ill-health than guinea-pigs (and if so, is this down to poor breeding, or lack of space/suitable care).
Does anybody know?
When I was a child in the 70s I kept guinea-pigs and took very good care of them (unlike most children, I liked cleaning them out, because they were very vocal in their appreciation). We bought them from a breeder who lived on the same street as us. They had free-run of the garden during the day, including a small lawn, and were shut up in their hutch at night (with hay). They both lived to be 7-years-old and never ailed a thing, apart from a skin mite (caused by petshop hay - we normally got ours from a farmer), which I successfully treated with weak Tetmasol (which was the recommended treatment in one of the books I owned).
The more I learn about rabbits, the more stunned I am -they seem to be an unhealthy lot compared to guinea-pigs. I read an article from a symposium on rabbit health for vets, which stated that rabbits have evolved to eat grass and most illnesses arise from this lack in their diet. This has made me wonder whether my guinea-pigs remained healthy because they had daily access to grass, and if they would have suffered the same ill health that I keep hearing about rabbits, had it not been for this fact, or whether rabbits have been poorly bred and so are prone to far more health problems than guinea-pigs (like pedigree dogs are less healthy than mongrels).
I can appreciate that all animals get sick and need to be treated by a vet when they do, I'm talking about a higher prevalence. Using the above example of pedigree v mongrel dogs - The Kennel Club's own insurance policy will insure a cross-breed for much less than a pedigree(!), i.e. pedigree dogs are more prone to illness than mongrels. So, are rabbits far more prone to ill-health than guinea-pigs (and if so, is this down to poor breeding, or lack of space/suitable care).
Does anybody know?