Beef Cow Body Condition Score Chart
Body Condition Scoring of Cows
- Jump To:
- Condition Scores
- Why Trunk Condition is Of import
- Decision
- References
Status Scores
The trunk condition scoring (BCS) system is used to assess body free energy stores in beefiness cows. Energy stores are reflected primarily by the relative amount of fat available to metabolize every bit an energy source. When dietary free energy is inadequate to meet the animal's energy need, fat is mobilized along with some muscle and organ tissue. Said another mode, when cows lose weight, they burn down fatty and some protein tissue (muscle and organ weight). When cows proceeds weight, they gain primarily fat tissue with minimal gain in protein tissue.
Body condition is important because there is a close relationship betwixt BCS at calving and the showtime 90 days later on calving to reproductive success. In addition, cow body condition influences the calf'due south power to develop a potent immune organization.
Current BCS is a snapshot in time of the rest between recent nutrient supply and recent food requirements. Many different management factors influence this balance of supply vs demand. Overgrazing, for example, often leads to a situation where inadequate food supply is bachelor to run into the animal'south requirements, eventually leading to weight loss. Body status is a expert reflection of the match or mismatch of a cow'south genetic potential to the forage and management system.
The BCS system used for beef cows range from 1 to 9, with a score of ane reflecting cows that are emaciated and a score of ix reflecting cows that are obese. Sparse cows should receive a lower score and fat cows should receive a higher score. A description of each score follows and the appearance of key areas of the body are provided in Effigy 1.
Figure 1. Key areas to examine for body status scoring.
Cattle descriptions past the ix condition scores follow:
BCS i. The cow is severely emaciated and physically weak with all ribs and bone construction easily visible. Cattle in this score are extremely rare and are usually inflicted with a affliction and/or parasitism.
Figure ii. BCS 1.
BCS 2. (Figure 2) The cow appears emaciated, similar to BCS ane, merely not weakened. Musculus tissue seems severely depleted through the hindquarters and shoulder.
BCS 3. (Effigy 3) The moo-cow is very thin with no fatty on ribs or in brisket and the backbone is hands visible. Some muscle depletion appears axiomatic through the hindquarters.
Figure 3. BCS iii.
BCS 4. (Effigy 4) The cow appears thin, with ribs easily visible and the backbone showing. The spinous processes (along the border of the loin) are still very abrupt and barely visible individually. Muscle tissue is not depleted through the shoulders and hindquarters.
Figure 4. BCS 4.
BCS 5. (Figure 5) The cow may exist described as moderate to thin. The last two ribs can be seen and piffling testify of fatty is present in the brisket, over the ribs or around the tail caput. The spinous processes are smooth and difficult to identify.
Figure v. BCS 5.
BCS 6. (Figure 6) The moo-cow exhibits a good smooth advent throughout. Some fat deposition is nowadays in the brisket and over the tail head. The dorsum appears rounded and fat tin be palpated over the ribs and pin basic.
Figure half dozen. BCS half dozen.
BCS 7. (Effigy 7) The cow appears in very good mankind. The brisket is total, the tail head shows pockets of fat and the dorsum appears square due to fatty. The ribs are very smooth and soft handling due to fat cover.
Effigy seven. BCS – 7.
BCS 8. The cow is obese. Her neck is thick and short and her back appears very square due to excessive fat. The brisket is distended and she has heavy fat pockets effectually the tail head.
BCS ix. These cows are extremely obese and may have issues with mobility due to excessive weight and restriction of limbs. The animal'due south topline will exist square and flat with large dimples or pockets due to excessive fatty cover. The front end leg set will be wide due to a bulging brisket. The unabridged underline will bulge with fat, including the udder and naval. The tail head will non be visible every bit information technology volition be covered in a large mass of fatty.
When status scoring cows, the technician should disregard (or look across) age, frame size, rib depth, body length, pregnancy condition and pilus coat. Condition scoring is intended to provide a consistent system to quantify relative fatness regardless of these other factors that create differences in cows' advent.
In that location is a strong relationship between weight and body status score. For each i-unit modify in BCS, cows should gain or lose approximately 7% of their BCS-v weight (NASEM, 2016). For instance, a cow that weighs ane,200 pounds when she is in BCS 5 should achieve a BCS 6 at one,284 pounds and a BCS 4 at 1,116 pounds.
Why Body Condition is Important
One of the major constraints in the comeback of reproductive efficiency of beef cows is the duration of the mail service-calving anestrous menses. If cows are to maintain a calving interval of one year, they must conceive within fourscore days to 85 days after calving. Body status at calving time determines the rebreeding functioning of beefiness cows in the subsequent breeding season to a great extent (Selk).
Figure viii. Percent rebred at next breeding season per day, co-ordinate to body condition at calving (summary of six trials in four states) BCS 4 or less, BCS five, BCS 6 or more. Source: Field and Sands.
Figure 8 represents the rebreeding per centum of six research herds in iv states and includes mature likewise as young cows. It conspicuously shows the torso condition at calving greatly determines the rebreeding percentage of cows during the subsequent 60- to 90-day breeding flavour. Based on research with mature and young cows, those maintaining torso weight, therefore, having aplenty free energy reserves earlier parturition, exhibited rut sooner than cows that lost considerable body weight and consequently had poor energy reserves. Body weight change during pregnancy is confounded with embryo and placenta growth. Therefore, the interpretation of body fat past use of trunk status scores is more useful in quantifying the energy status of beef cows. The numeric organization of body condition scoring is an excellent estimator of pct body fatty in beef cows. Torso status score accounted for 85% to 91% of the variation in stored body energy (percentage fat) in cows.
The processes of fetal development, delivering a calf, milk production and repair of the reproductive tract all are physiological stresses. These stresses require the availability and utilization of large quantities of energy to enable cows to be rebred in the required 85 days. Add to these physiological stresses the environmental stress of cold, wet weather on bound calving cows and the nutritional stress of energy intake that is below trunk maintenance needs. As the intake falls short of the energy utilized, the moo-cow compensates by mobilizing stored energy or adipose tissue, and through a period of several weeks, a noticeable change in the outward advent of the moo-cow takes place.
This is a modify in the torso condition and tin can be monitored past assigning torso status scores to cows and quantifying the degree of alter. Cows in a thin torso status at calving return to estrus slowly. Postpartum increases in energy intake can alter the length of the postpartum interval. However, increases in the quality and quantity of feed to increment postpartum trunk condition tin be very expensive.
Improvement in reproductive performance accomplished by expensive postpartum feeding to thin cows may not be adequate to justify the cost of the boosted nutrients. Oklahoma scientists used 81 Hereford and Angus x Hereford heifers to study the furnishings of body condition score at calving and postpartum nutrition on rebreeding rates at xc days and 120 days postpartum (Bong et al.). Heifers were divided into two groups in November and allowed to lose torso condition or maintain torso condition until calving in February and March. Each of those groups was so divided and fed to gain weight and body status postpartum or to maintain torso condition postpartum.
Figure 9 illustrates the modify in body weight of heifers that calved with a greater than BCS 5, or those that calved with a BCS less than or equal to 4.9. The same pattern has been illustrated in the other experiments is manifest conspicuously with these heifers. Thin heifers that were given ample opportunity to regain weight and body condition after calving actually weighed more than and had greater body status by eight weeks than those heifers that had expert body condition at calving and maintained their weight through the breeding season. All the same, the rebreeding performance (on the right side of the legend of the graph) was significantly lower for those that were sparse (67%) at parturition compared to heifers that were in adequate body condition at calving and maintained status through the breeding season (91%). Postpartum increases in energy therefore, weight and torso condition gave a modest comeback in rebreeding functioning, simply the increased expense was not fairly rewarded. The groups that were fed to maintain postpartum condition and weight received iv pounds of cottonseed meal supplement (41% crude protein; $.xiii per pound) per twenty-four hours.
Effigy 9. Postpartum torso weight of heifers with body condition < 5 or ≥ 5 at calving and fed to gain or maintain weight. Pregnancy rates are indicated on the right side of the legend. Source: Bell.
The supplement cost for the 69-day feeding period was approximately $36 per cow. The cows in the gain groups were fed 28 pounds of a grain mix (12% CP; $.073 per pound) at a total supplement cost of $141. Both groups had gratuitous option access to grass hay (Wettemann). The improvement in reproductive performance (67% pregnant versus 36% pregnant) of the thin 2-year-old heifers was non enough to offset the big investment in feed costs in most cases.
Other data sets have shown conclusively cows that calve in thin trunk status, but regain weight and condition going into the breeding flavor, practice not rebreed at the same charge per unit as those that calve in good condition and maintain that condition into the convenance flavor. Table ane from Missouri researchers illustrates the number of days between calving to the render to heat cycles depending on torso status at calving and body condition modify after calving.
This data clearly shows immature cows that calve in thin trunk condition (BCS 3 or BCS 4) cannot gain enough torso status after calving to accomplish the aforementioned rebreeding performance as cows that calve in moderate body status (BCS 5.5) and maintain or lose only a slight amount of condition.
Cows must be rebred by 85 days later on calving to calve once more at the same time the side by side year. Notice that none of the averages for cows that calved in thin body condition were recycling in fourth dimension to maintain a 12-month calving interval.
Table ane. Predicted number of days from calving to first heat every bit affected by torso status score at calving and body condition score modify afterward calving in young beef cows. (body status score scale : 1 = emaciated; 9 = obese).
| Status score change after calving to day 90 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BCS at calving | -1 | -0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 |
| 3 | 189 | 173 | 160 | 150 | 143 | 139 | 139 |
| 4 | 161 | 145 | 131 | 121 | 115 | 111 | 111 |
| 5 | 133 | 116 | 103 | 93 | 86 | 83 | 82 |
| 5.5 | 118 | 102 | 89 | 79 | 72 | 69 | 66 |
Source: Lalman et al.
Determination
Producers should manage their calving flavour, genetics, grazing system, supplementation program and herd health to attain herd average BCS of five to vi in mature cows at calving fourth dimension and BCS six in first-calf heifers at calving time. Subsequently, producers should manage their functioning with the goal of minimizing the amount of weight and BCS loss between the fourth dimension of calving and breeding. Early management to come across these goals are of import because drastic changes in BCS during tardily-pregnancy and early on lactation are extremely difficult and plush to achieve.
References
Bell, D. et al. (1990) Effects of Body Condition Score at Calving and Postpartum Nutrition on Performance of Two-Year-Old Heifers. OSU Beast Scientific discipline Inquiry Report MP-129.
M.J. Field and R.South. Sand, Eds. Factors Affecting Calf Ingather (1994). CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.
Lalman, D.L. et al. (1997) Influence of Weight and Torso Status Change on Duration of Anestrus by Undernourished Suckled Beef Heifers. Journal of Animal Science 75.
Selk, 1000.E. et al. (1988) Relationships amongst Weight Change, Torso Condition and Reproductive Performance of Range Beef Cows. Journal of Animal Science 66:3153.
Vizcarra, J.A. et al. (1995) Torso Condition Score is a Precise Tool to Evaluate Beef Cows. OSU Animal Scientific discipline Inquiry Report P-943.
Wettemann, R.P. (2004) Personal Communication.
Was this information helpful?
YESNO
Source: https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/body-condition-scoring-of-cows.html
Postar um comentário for "Beef Cow Body Condition Score Chart"