Abstract
Body condition scores (BCS) measure a cow’s fat reserves and is important for management and research. Manual BCS assessment is subjective, time-consuming, and requires trained personnel. The BodyMat F (BMF, Ingenera SA, Cureglia, Switzerland) is an automated body condition scoring system using a 3D sensor to estimate BCS. This study assesses the BMF. One hundred and three Holstein Friesian cows were assessed by the BMF and two assessors throughout a lactation. The BMF output is in the 0–5 scale commonly used in France. We develop and report the first equation to convert these scores to the 1–5 scale used by the assessors in Ireland in this study ((0–5 scale × 0.38) + 1.67 → 1–5 scale). Inter-assessor agreement as measured by Lin’s concordance of correlation was 0.67. BMF agreement with the mean of the two assessors was the same as between assessors (0.67). However, agreement was lower for extreme values, particularly in over-conditioned cows where the BMF underestimated BCS relative to the mean of the two human observers. The BMF outperformed human assessors in terms of reproducibility and thus is likely to be especially useful in research contexts. This is the second independent validation of a commercially marketed body condition scoring system as far as the authors are aware. Comparing the results here with the published evaluation of the other system, we conclude that the BMF performed as well or better.
Highlights
Formalised body condition scoring (BCS) scales classify cows on a range from emaciated to obese
Two highly trained BCS scorers, Frank Buckley (FB) and Jonathon Kenneally (JK), over 10 and 6 sessions assessed cows, creating 560 and 476 BCS score records, respectively, on a 1–5 scale commonly used in Ireland [3,13]
FB and JK scored the same cow in the same week
Summary
Formalised body condition scoring (BCS) scales classify cows on a range from emaciated to obese. Manual BCS scorers visually assess cow body shape and/or palpitate defined anatomical regions—the specifics vary by scale [3]. Assessor skill and subjectivity limit sensitivity to smaller differences in condition and reproducibility even among highly trained scorers [2,4,5]. In this context, reproducibility relates to the extent that one scorer will be consistent with themselves when assessing the same animal at a later time. In addition to reproducibility of data collected, data collection itself is limited by the time intensive nature of manual scoring.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
