Journal article
Comparison of a classical with a highly formularized body condition scoring system for dairy cattle
Publication Details
Authors: | Isensee, A.; Leiber, F.; Bieber, A.; Spengler, A.; Ivemeyer, S.; Maurer, V.; Klocke, P. |
Publication year: | 2014 |
Journal: | Animal |
Pages range : | 1971-1977 |
Journal acronym: | Animal |
Volume number: | 8 |
ISSN: | 1751-7311 |
eISSN: | 1751-732X |
DOI-Link der Erstveröffentlichung: |
URN / URL: |
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 ofconsidering the cows overall appearance on the scoring process and on the validity of the results. Therefore, two different methodsto reveal body condition scores (BCS), ‘independent BCS' (iBCS) and ‘dependent BCS' (dBCS), were used to assess 1111 SwissBrown Cattle. The iBCS and the dBCS systems were both working with the same flowchart with a decision tree structure for visualand palpatory assessment using a scale from 2 to 5 with increment units of 0.25. The iBCS was created strictly complying with thedefined frames of the decision tree structure. The system was chosen due to its formularized approach to reduce the influenceof 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 generatingthe final score. Ultrasound measurement of the back fat thickness (BFT) was applied as a validation method. The dBCS turned outto 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 mostdeviations between dBCS and iBCS, but also assessing the pelvis line, the hook bones and the ligaments led to divergences inaround 20% of the scored animals. The study showed that during the assessment of body condition a strict adherence to adecision tree is a possible source of inexact classifications. Some body regions, especially the pin bones, proved to be particularlychallenging for scoring due to difficulties in assessing them. All the more, the inclusion of the overall appearance of the cow intothe assessment process counteracted these errors and led to a fair predictability of BFT with the flowchart-based BCS. This mightbe particularly important, if different cattle types and breeds are assessed.
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 ofconsidering the cows overall appearance on the scoring process and on the validity of the results. Therefore, two different methodsto reveal body condition scores (BCS), ‘independent BCS' (iBCS) and ‘dependent BCS' (dBCS), were used to assess 1111 SwissBrown Cattle. The iBCS and the dBCS systems were both working with the same flowchart with a decision tree structure for visualand palpatory assessment using a scale from 2 to 5 with increment units of 0.25. The iBCS was created strictly complying with thedefined frames of the decision tree structure. The system was chosen due to its formularized approach to reduce the influenceof 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 generatingthe final score. Ultrasound measurement of the back fat thickness (BFT) was applied as a validation method. The dBCS turned outto 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 mostdeviations between dBCS and iBCS, but also assessing the pelvis line, the hook bones and the ligaments led to divergences inaround 20% of the scored animals. The study showed that during the assessment of body condition a strict adherence to adecision tree is a possible source of inexact classifications. Some body regions, especially the pin bones, proved to be particularlychallenging for scoring due to difficulties in assessing them. All the more, the inclusion of the overall appearance of the cow intothe assessment process counteracted these errors and led to a fair predictability of BFT with the flowchart-based BCS. This mightbe particularly important, if different cattle types and breeds are assessed.
