The use of new practices for assessment of body condition score

Contenido principal del artículo

Autores

Deniz Alic Ural

Resumen

ABSTRACT

Objective. Two body condition scoring systems were compared to those of interpretation of cow’s body condition at a local farm located in Aydin region, Turkey. Materials and methods. A total of 50 head Holstein-Friesian cows at 1st-4rd parity (mid-lactation), raised at a private dairy farm located in Aydin, Turkey was constituted the animal material of the present study. Scores were obtained by use of the primary systems utilized within the US (1-5 scale with 0.25 intervals) and compared to those of Bayer Health Care Animal Health’s BCS Cowdition Smartphone App. Results. The overall means of BCS were found as 3.37±0.068 and 3.45±0.060 for BCS Cowdition and USBCS, respectively. The positive correlation among BCS Cowdition and USBCS systems was found as 0.81 in evaluating body condition (p<0.01). The positive linear relationship (p<0.001) was found between BCS Cowdition and USBCS systems (R2=0.66). The linear relationship between the latter assessment methods demonstrated that both usual and digital systems tended to scare cows similarly. Conclusions. This comparison represented progress within the understanding of the relationship between these two systems. Moreover, it may be suggested that BCS Cowdition Smartphone App. may be a good alternative for interpretation of BCS.

RESUMEN

Objetivo. Dos sistemas de puntuación de la condición corporal se compararon con (el) de la interpretación de la condición corporal de las vacas en una granja local ubicada en la región de Aydin, Turquía. Materiales y métodos. Un total de 50 vacas Holstein Friesian en (su) primera a cuarta parición (a mediados de la lactancia), explotadas en una granja lechera privada situada en Aydin, Turquía constituyó el material animal del presente estudio. Las puntuaciones se obtuvieron mediante el uso de los sistemas primarios utilizados dentro de los EE.UU. (1-5 escala con intervalos de 0.25) y se compararon con (el) de BCS Cowdition Smartphone App de Bayer Health Care Salud Animal. Resultados. Los promedios globales de BCS encontrados fueron de 3.37±0.08 y 3.45±0.060 para BCS Cowdition y USBCS, respectivamente. La correlación entre BCS sistemas Cowdition y USBCS (para la evaluación de la condición corporal fue de 0.81 (p<0.01) con un coeficiente de determinación de. Se encontró que la relación lineal positiva (p<0.001) entre BCS Cowdition y sistemas USBCS (R2=0.66). La relación lineal entre los métodos de evaluación demostró que tanto los sistemas usuales y digitales tienden a calificar a las vacas de manera similar. Conclusiones. Esta comparación constituye un avance en la comprensión de la relación entre estos dos sistemas. Por otra parte, se puede sugerir que a pesar de los cambiarlo por un término adecuado entre evaluadores visuales, BCS Cowdition Smartphone App. Puede ser una buena alternativa para la interpretación de BCS.


Palabras clave:

Detalles del artículo

Referencias

1. Ferguson JD, Galligan DT, and Thornsen N. Principal descriptors of body condition score in Holstein cows. J Dairy Sci 1994; 77:2695-2703. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)77212-X

2. Roche JR, Dillon PG, Stockdale CR, Baumgard LH, VanBaale MJ. Relationships among international body condition scoring systems. J Dairy Sci 2004; 87(9):3076-3079. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73441-4

3. Bewley JM, Schutz MM. An interdisciplinary review of body condition scoring for dairy cattle. The Professional Anim Sci 2008; 24(6):507–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30901-3

4. Bewley JM, Boyce RE, Roberts DJ, Coffey MP, Schutz MM. Comparison of two methods of assessing dairy cow body condition score. J Dairy Sci 2010; 77(1):95-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022029909990446

5. Battiato S, Farinella GM, Guarnera GC, Puglisi G, Azzaro G, Caccamo M, Licitra G, Ferguson JD. Estimation of cow's body condition score from images. 2010; (access February 5, 2015). URL available in: http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/VAIB10PAPERS/gfVAIB2010Final.pdf

6. Klopčič1 M, Hamoen A, Bewley J. Body condition scoring of dairy cows. Republika Slovenija Ministrstvo Za Kmetijstvo, Gozdarstvo in Prehrano 2011, 42p. (access February 5, 2015). URL available in: https://rodica.bf.uni-lj.si/web/gov/pub/2011_Klopcic_et_al_Body_condition_of_dairy_cows.pdf

7. Azzaro G, Caccamo M, Ferguson JD, Battiato S, Farinella GM, Guarnera GC, Puglisi G, Petriglieri R, Licitra G. Objective estimation of body condition score by modeling cow body shape from digital images. J Dairy Sci 2012; 94(4):2126–2137. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3467

8. Thorup VM,Edwards D, Friggens NC. On-farm estimation of energy balance in dairy cows using only frequent body weight measurements and body condition score. J Dairy Sci 2012; 95(4):1784-1793. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4631

9. Sablik P, Kobak P, Skrzypiec A, Klenowicz A, Derezi'nska D. Comparison of body condition scores in Polish Holstein-Friesian Cows of Black-and-White variety managed in different housing systems. Acta Sci Pol Zootech 2014; 13(1):57–66.

10. Yaylak E, Kumlu S. The effects of body condition score and some environmental factors on 305-day milk yield of Holstein cows. Ege Univ Zir Fak Derg 2005; 42(3):55-66.

11. Garnsworthy PC. Body condition score in dairy cows: Targets for production and fertility. Rec Adv Anim Nut 2006; 1: 61-86.

12. Grubić G, Novaković Ž, Aleksić S, Sretenović Lj, Pantelić V, Ostojić-Andrić D. Evaluation of the body condition of high yielding cows. Biotech Anim Husb 2009; 25(1-2):81-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/BAH0902081G

13. Roche JR, Friggens NC, Kay JK, Fisher MW, Stattford KJ, Berry DP. Invited review: Body condition score and its association with dairy cow productivity, health, and welfare. J Dairy Sci 2009; 92(12):5769-5801. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2431

14. Isensee A, Leiber F, Bieber A, Spengler A, Ivemeyer S, Maurer Vi Klocke P. Comparison of a classical with a highly formularized body condition scoring system for dairy cattle. Animal 2014; 8(12):1971-1977. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114001888

15. Domecq JJ, Skidmore AL, Lloyd JW, Kaneene JB. Relationship between body condition scores and milk yield in a large dairy herd of high yielding Holstein cows. J Dairy Sci 1997; 80(1):101-112.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)75917-4
http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)75918-6

16. Garcia A, Hippen A. Feeding dairy cows for body condition score. Progressive Dairyman 2011; (access February 5, 2015). URL available in: http://www.thecattlesite.com/articles/1512/feeding-dairy-cows-for-body-condition-score

17. Wildman EE, Jones GM, Wagner PE, Bowman RL. A dairy cow body condition scoring system and its relationship to selected production characteristics. J Dairy Sci 1982; 65(3):495-501. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(82)82223-6

18. Edmonson AJ, Lean IJ, Weaver LD, Farver T, Webster G. A body condition scoring chart for Holstein dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 1989; 72(1): 68-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(89)79081-0

19. Bayer HealthCare. New BCS Cowdition App. Animal Health 2014, (access February 5, 2015). URL available in: http://animalhealth.bayer.com/ah/5942.0.html

20. SPSS. SPSS release 18.0.0, Standard version for windows, 2009.

21. Duncan DB. Multiple range and multiple F test. Biometrics 1995; 11:42.

22. Roche JR, Macdonald KA, Burke CR, Lee JM, Berry DP. Associations among body condition score, body weight, and reproductive performance in seasonal-calving dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 2007; 90(1): 376-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(07)72639-5

23. Berry DP, Buckley F, Dillon P. Body condition score and live-weight effects on milk production in Irish Holstein-Friesian dairy cows. Animal 2007; 1(9):1351–1359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731107000419

24. McCarthy S, Berry DP, Dillon P, Rath M, Horan B. Influence of Holstein-Friesian strain and feed system on body weight and body condition score lactation profiles. J Dairy Sci 2007; 90(4):1859-1869. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-501

25. Berry DP, Buckley F, Dillon P. Relationship between live weight and body condition score in Irish Holstein-Friesian dairy cows. Irish J Agric Food Res 2011; 50, 141-147.

26. Gergovska Z, Mitev Y, Angelova T, Yordanova D, Miteva T. Effect of changes in body condition score on the milk yield of Holstein-Friesian and Brown Swiss cows. Bulg Agric J Sci 2011; 17(6): 837-845.

27. Bayram B, Aksakal V, Akbulut O. Effect of the body condition score on some reproduction and milk yield traits of Swedish red and white cows. J Anim Plant Sci 2012; 22(3):545-551.

28. Vasseur E, Gibbons J, Rushen J and de Passillé AM. Development and implementation of a training program to ensure high repeatability of body condition scoring of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2013; 96(7): 4725–4737. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6359

29. Alic Ural D. A Study on body condition score of Holstein-Friesian cows raised at Bozdogan. Kocatepe Vet J 2012; 5(2):9-15.

30. Samarütel J, Ling K, Jaakson H, Kaart T, Kärt O. Effect of body condition score at parturition on the production performance, fertility and culling in primiparous Estonian Holstein cows. Vet Zootech 2006; 36(58):69-74.

Descargas

La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.