Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-d7bbv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T01:13:37.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of a classical with a highly formularized body condition scoring system for dairy cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2014

A. Isensee ,
F. Leiber ,
A. Bieber ,
A. Spengler ,
S. Ivemeyer ,
V. Maurer  and
P. Klocke
A. Isensee*
Affiliation:
FiBL – Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Department of Livestock Sciences, Ackerstr. 113, 5070 Frick, Switzerland
F. Leiber
Affiliation:
FiBL – Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Department of Livestock Sciences, Ackerstr. 113, 5070 Frick, Switzerland
A. Bieber
Affiliation:
FiBL – Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Department of Livestock Sciences, Ackerstr. 113, 5070 Frick, Switzerland
A. Spengler
Affiliation:
FiBL – Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Department of Livestock Sciences, Ackerstr. 113, 5070 Frick, Switzerland
S. Ivemeyer
Affiliation:
FiBL – Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Department of Livestock Sciences, Ackerstr. 113, 5070 Frick, Switzerland University of Kassel, Farm Animal Behaviour and Husbandry Section, Nordbahnhofstr. 1a, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
V. Maurer
Affiliation:
FiBL – Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Department of Livestock Sciences, Ackerstr. 113, 5070 Frick, Switzerland
P. Klocke
Affiliation:
FiBL – Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Department of Livestock Sciences, Ackerstr. 113, 5070 Frick, Switzerland Bovicare – Hermannswerder Haus 14, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
*
† E-mail: anne.isensee@fibl.org
Get access

Abstract

Body condition scoring is a common tool to assess the subcutaneous fat reserves of dairy cows. Because of its subjectivity, which causes limits in repeatability, it is often discussed controversially. Aim of the current study was to evaluate the impact of considering the cows overall appearance on the scoring process and on the validity of the results. Therefore, two different methods to reveal body condition scores (BCS), ‘independent BCS’ (iBCS) and ‘dependent BCS’ (dBCS), were used to assess 1111 Swiss Brown Cattle. The iBCS and the dBCS systems were both working with the same flowchart with a decision tree structure for visual and palpatory assessment using a scale from 2 to 5 with increment units of 0.25. The iBCS was created strictly complying with the defined frames of the decision tree structure. The system was chosen due to its formularized approach to reduce the influence of subjective impressions. By contrast, the dBCS system, which was in line with common practice, had a more open approach, where – besides the decision tree – the overall impression of the cow’s physical appearance was taken into account for generating the final score. Ultrasound measurement of the back fat thickness (BFT) was applied as a validation method. The dBCS turned out to be the better predictor of BFT, explaining 67.3% of the variance. The iBCS was only able to explain 47.3% of the BFT variance. Within the whole data set, only 31.3% of the animals received identical dBCS and iBCS. The pin bone region caused the most deviations between dBCS and iBCS, but also assessing the pelvis line, the hook bones and the ligaments led to divergences in around 20% of the scored animals. The study showed that during the assessment of body condition a strict adherence to a decision tree is a possible source of inexact classifications. Some body regions, especially the pin bones, proved to be particularly challenging for scoring due to difficulties in assessing them. All the more, the inclusion of the overall appearance of the cow into the assessment process counteracted these errors and led to a fair predictability of BFT with the flowchart-based BCS. This might be particularly important, if different cattle types and breeds are assessed.

Keywords

body condition scoreback fat thicknessobserverdairy cowholistic assessment

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 12 , December 2014 , pp. 1971 - 1977
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

BioSuisse 2014. Richtlinien für die Erzeugung, Verarbeitung und den Handel von Knospe-Produkten. BioSuisse, Basel, Switzerland. Retrieved April 14, 2014, from http://www.bio-suisse.ch/media/de/pdf2014/Regelwerk/rl_2014_d.pdf Google Scholar
Bewley, JM and Schutz, MM 2008. Review: an interdisciplinary review of body condition scoring for dairy cattle. The Professional Animal Scientist 24, 507–529.Google Scholar
Butler-Hogg, BW, Wood, JD and Bines, JA 1985. Fat partitioning in British Friesian cows: the influence of physiological state on dissected body composition. The Journal of Agricultural Science 104, 519–528.Google Scholar
EC 1991. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs. Official Journal of the European Communities L198, 1–15.Google Scholar
EC 1999. Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 supplementing Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 on organic crop production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock production. Official Journal of the European Communities L222, 1–28.Google Scholar
Edmonson, AJ, Lean, IJ, Weaver, LD, Farver, T and Webster, G 1989. A body condition scoring chart for Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 72, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elanco 1997. Body condition scoring in dairy cattle. Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, Indianapolis, USA.Google Scholar
Ferguson, JO, Galligan, DT and Thomsen, N 1994. Principal descriptors of body condition score in Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 77, 2695–2703.Google Scholar
Friggens, NC 2003. Body lipid reserves and the reproductive cycle: towards a better understanding. Livestock Production Science 83, 18–18.Google Scholar
Gross, J, van Dorland, HA, Bruckmaier, RM and Schwarz, FJ 2011. Performance and metabolic profile of dairy cows during a lactational and deliberately induced negative energy balance with subsequent realimentation. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 1820–1830.Google Scholar
Grouven, U, Bender, R, Ziegler, A and Lange, S 2007. Der Kappa-Koeffizient – Artikel Nr. 23 der Statistik-Serie in der DMW – The kappa coefficient. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 132, 65–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivemeyer, S, Klocke, P and Spengler Neff, A 2006. Körper-Konditions-Beurteilung. Forschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau (FiBL), Frick, Switzerland. https://www.fibl.org/fileadmin/documents/shop/1650-bcs.pdf Google Scholar
Jilg, T and Weinberg, L 1998. Konditionsbewertung: Jetzt auch beim Fleckvieh. Top Agrar 6, 12–15.Google Scholar
Klawuhn, D and Staufenbiel, R 1997. Aussagekraft der Rückenfettdicke zum Körperfettgehalt beim Rind. Tierärztlliche Praxis 25, 133–138.Google Scholar
Kristensen, E, Dueholm, L, Vink, D, Andersen, JE, Jakobsen, EB, Illum-Nielsen, S, Petersen, FA and Enevoldsen, C 2006. Within- and across-person uniformity of body condition scoring in Danish Holstein Cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 3721–3728.Google Scholar
Leiber, F, Hochstrasser, R, Wettstein, HR and Kreuzer, M 2011. Feeding transition cows with oilseeds: effects on fatty acid composition of adipose tissue, colostrum and milk. Livestock Science 138, 1–12.Google Scholar
Mösenfechtel, S, Eigenmann, UJ, Wanner, W and Rüsch, P 2000. Rückenfettdicke und Fruchtbarkeit bei Braunviehkühen. Schweizer Archiv für Tierheilkunde 142, 679–689.Google Scholar
Rastani, RR, Andrew, SM, Zinn, SA and Sniffen, CJ 2001. Body composition and estimated tissue energy balance in Jersey and Holstein cows during early lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 1201–1209.Google Scholar
R Core Team 2012. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Roche, JR, Friggens, NC, Kay, JK, Fisher, MW, Stafford, KJ and Berry, DP 2009. Invited review: body condition score and its association with dairy cow productivity, health, and welfare. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 5769–5801.Google Scholar
Schröder, UJ and Staufenbiel, R 2006. Invited review: methods to determine body fat reserves in the dairy cow with special regard to ultrasonographic measurement of backfat thickness. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1–14.Google Scholar
Staufenbiel, R 1992. Energie- und Fettstoffwechsel des Rindes – Untersuchungskonzept und Messung der Rückenfettdicke. Monatshefte für Veterinärmedizin 47, 467–474.Google Scholar
Truscott, TG, Wood, JD and Denny, HR 1983. Fat deposition in Hereford and Friesian steers: 2. Cellular development of the major fat depots. The Journal of Agricultural Science 100, 271–276.Google Scholar
Vasseur, E, Gibbons, J, Rushen, J and de Passillé, AM 2013. Development and implementation of a training program to ensure high repeatability of body condition scoring of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 4725–4737.Google Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, TEA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2001. Assessing the ‘whole animal’: a free choice profiling approach. Animal Behaviour 62, 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, IA and Russel, AJF 1984. Partition of fat, body composition and body condition score in mature cows. Animal Production 38, 23–32.Google Scholar