Competition for feed from rabbits reduces the productivity of grazing lands, but their consumption of green-feed and environmental impacts have economic consequences for grain production, lucerne growing, perennial and annual horticulture, viticulture, nursery, forestry and revegetation initiatives. They can also undermine or otherwise damage infrastructure and harm peri-urban properties and culturally important sites.
The ‘cost’ of rabbits includes the losses in production they cause, funds to repair infrastructure, the costs of their control, and the social costs of confronting rabbits.
Rabbits can devastate ground-cover, shrubs and even trees.
In this section:
Production & Profit – livestock, crops, horticulture, viticulture, forestry and revegetation
Social Costs – affecting peri-urban and rural communities
Production & Profit
Grazing industries suffer obvious losses from competition by rabbits and from the feral predators (foxes and cats) they support, but all commodities growing plants in the open experience some loss through grazing, soil erosion and weeds. As an example, vegetables often targeted by rabbits include beans, peas, beet, broccoli, carrot, lettuce, and herbs like parsley. The economic loss to primary industries can be considered from assessments of the Costs to Producers and the Gains from Rabbit Control.
It has been estimated that in the early 2000s the direct cost of rabbits in Australia, due to lost beef, lamb and wool production and expenditure on control measures, was $206 million – five times greater than losses from wild dogs and almost ten times the losses from foxes and mice (Gong et al, 2009). A 2016 study estimated wool, sheepmeat and beef production losses for 2013-14 of $217 million for an average rabbit scenario and predicted it would be $108 million in a low rabbit scenario and $251 million for a high one.
Active rabbit warrens are the epicentres of land degradation. They can severely reduce the stocking capacity of the land.
Research has shown that as rabbit numbers increase pasture biomass decreases, species composition changes (e.g. there are fewer legumes and more grasses) and bare areas increase (Croft et al, 2002). Production (sheep liveweight and wool production) declines at higher rabbit densities (Fleming et al, 2002). It only takes around 12-16 rabbits to consume as much feed as a grown sheep (RABFS3, 2012) – see Dry sheep equivalents for more information. When in large numbers, rabbits can foul pastures.
Growers involved in grain production, horticulture and viticulture, nurseries, forestry, carbon plantings, and revegetation, can all experience losses from rabbit grazing (from edge effects in crops, to removing new growth or buds from vines), soil erosion and weeds, plus damage to infrastructure – even through rabbits gnawing on irrigation fixtures.
A guide for southern Queensland concludes the losses to production due to rabbits are at least:
$1/rabbit/year for sheep and cattle,
$50/rabbit/year for irrigated pasture, and
$100/rabbit/year for vegetable production (DPI&F, 2008).
The costs of rabbit control and measures to avoid damage by rabbits (e.g. fencing or tree guards) are additional to the ‘costs’ of lost production, and apply to environmental plantings (revegetation) as well as to productive lands.
Croft JD, Fleming PJS & van de Ven R. (2002) ‘The impact of rabbits on a grazing system in eastern NSW. 1 – Ground cover and pastures.’ Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 42(7) 909 – 916
DPI&F – Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries. (2008) ‘Rabbit control in Queensland. A guide for land managers.’ The State of Queensland.
Fleming PJS, Croft JD & Nicol HI. (2002) ‘The impact of rabbits on a grazing system in eastern NSW. 2 – Sheep production.’ Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 42(7) 917 – 923
Gong W, Sinden J, Brasher M & Jones R. (2009) ‘The economic impacts of vertebrate pests in Australia’. Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra.
McCleod R (2016) ‘Cost of Pest Animals in NSW and Australia, 2013-14.’ eSYS Development Pty Ltd, NSW Natural Resources Commission.
RABFS3 (2012) ‘Economic and environmental impacts of rabbits in Australia. Rabbit Factsheet.’ Pestsmart.
Indications of the lost production due to rabbits is provided by productivity increases following the introduction of biological controls:
Following myxomatosis, there was a 25% increase in wool and mutton production, ascribed to increased feed production and the subsequent increase in stock numbers (Waithman, 1979).
Following RHDV, grazing productivity increased annually by $43 per square kilometre, equating to $206 million over eight years, for cattle in inland Australia, and $7-38 million per year for sheep in higher rainfall areas (Mutze et. al, 2008).
The economic benefit of biological controls has been estimated to be $1.9 billion p.a. for myxomatosis and $0.35 million p.a. for RHDV. Collectively, bio-controls have generated a $70 billion nett benefit up to around 2010 (Cooke et.al, 2013).
Sheep grazing on rabbit-free Kangaroo Island. (Image: Day P)
While RHDV reduced rabbit numbers by up to 98% in arid areas it was less effective in other areas. Rabbits still persisted and began to recover over time, presumably due to changes in rabbits and the virus. In 2001 rabbit densities on grazing land in south-west Queensland were from 1 to 5 rabbits/hectare, sufficient to cause significant production loss from their grazing.
Gains References:
Cooke B, ChudlieghP, Simpson S & Cooke B, (2013) ‘The Economic Benefits of Biological Control of Rabbits in Australia, 1950-2011.’ Australian Economic History Review Vol 53, Issue 1 Pg 91-107. https://doi.org/10.1111/aehr.12000
Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries. (2008) ‘Rabbit control in Queensland. A guide for land managers.’ The State of Queensland.
Mutze G, Bird P, Cooke B & Henzell R. (2008) ‘Geographic and seasonal variation in the impact of rabbit haemorrhagic disease on European rabbits, Oryctolagus cuniculus, and rabbit damage in Australia’, in: C. Alves, N.F.a.K.H. (Ed.), Lagomorph Biology: Evolution, Ecology and Conservation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 279-293
Waithman, J. (1979). ‘Rabbit control in New South Wales – past, present and future’. Wool Technology and Sheep Breeding, 27, 25 – 30.
Infrastructure & Peri-urban Costs
Rabbits are a risk to infrastructure ranging from undermining major transport or communications infrastructure like roads, railways and towers, to damaging golf courses or lawns in suburban back yards. The diversity has made any assessment of the quantum of damage and control costs difficult to determine.
Left un-managed wild rabbits in the garden can quickly escalate to the undermining of infrastructure like sheds and water-tanks. Local governments and various regional and state agencies must periodically provide advice to peri-urban landholders on how to manage rabbits.
An example of guidance for urban or semi-urban areas is ‘Rabbit control in urban and peri-urban areas’, by the Port Phillip & Westernport CMA and local governments of the area. Rabbits in peri-urban areas are a national issue with similar advice available from:
For peri-urban residents, invasive pests in their garden may be their first exposure to wild rabbits. Coming to grips with the need to control the rabbits and bewildered by trying to understand where to go for advice or assistance can be stressful.
Rural land managers may also face dilemmas and stress when dealing with rabbits or coping with the consequences of their presence. Documented social impacts of wild rabbits include psychological stress, (e.g. anxiety, frustration and depression due to financial loss through reduced agricultural production), trauma (associated with members of the public finding sick animals), and concern about potential injury to livestock (horses) from warrens (Fitzgerald & Wilkinson 2009).
A further cost of rabbit burrowing is the disturbance to, and exposure of, Aboriginal burial sites and other features of cultural significance. Rabbits can be a threat to archaeological evidence and a painful denigrator of sacred features. Special care is needed for rabbit control in such situations.
Rabbits must be controlled to avoid massive environmental, economic and social harm, but control also has its costs. One of them is the dilemma of killing an animal for a greater good. A code of practice has been developed to facilitate animal welfare considerations in the process of rabbit control. The ‘Code of practice for the humane control of rabbits’ is available at the pestSMART website.
Social Cost References:
Peacock D, Cox T, Strive T, Mutze G, West P & Saunders P. (2021) ‘Benefits of Rabbit Biocontrol in Australia: An Update.’ Centre for Invasive Species Solutions. Canberra.
Fitzgerald G & Wilkinson. (2009) ‘Assessing the social impact of invasive animals in Australia.’ Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra
