Three new babies without the presence of a buck?

by Priscilla Locklear
(Lumberton, NC, USA )

My brother's doe had three babies three weeks ago. He went to feed the doe and found three new babies. The doe and the babies were the only animals in there. No buck at all. Is it possible for her to have babies like that?

***** Karen Sez *****

LOL, it's basic biology -- no way to make babies without a mom and a dad.

That said, there may be a logical explanation, especially if the dad was still living with the mom within a week of the birth of the first set of babies.

If that is the case, here's what I think might have happened:

The doe was housed with the buck during most of her pregnancy. As the time approached, your brother wisely removed the buck, but he didn't realize, first, that the doe had initially been pregnant in only one side of her double-sided uterus, and second, that the buck had opportunity to breed with the doe every day, and eventually got her pregnant in the second side of her uterus 3 weeks after the start of the first pregnancy.

So, the doe delivered the first litter while the second litter continued to grow in her uterus. When ready, the second set of 3 kits was born, surprising the heck out of your brother.

The fact that each "litter" is only 3 kits tends to support the above scenario.

Does this sound logical Priscilla?

Other Rabbit Breeders: do you have similar stories to share? What do you think actually happened in the case of these rabbits?

Click here to post comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to Comments.

Protected by Copyscape Plagiarism Check Software