Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:25:46.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mean difference in live-weight per incremental difference in body condition score estimated in multiple sheep breeds and crossbreds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2018

N. McHugh ,
F. McGovern ,
P. Creighton ,
T. Pabiou ,
K. McDermott ,
E. Wall  and
D. P. Berry Open the ORCID record for D. P. Berry [Opens in a new window]
N. McHugh*
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, FermoyP61 P302, Co. Cork, Ireland
F. McGovern
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Mellows Campus, Athenry, Co. Galway H65 R718, Ireland
P. Creighton
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Mellows Campus, Athenry, Co. Galway H65 R718, Ireland
T. Pabiou
Affiliation:
Sheep Ireland, Highfield House, Shinagh, Bandon P72 X050, Co. Cork, Ireland
K. McDermott
Affiliation:
Sheep Ireland, Highfield House, Shinagh, Bandon P72 X050, Co. Cork, Ireland
E. Wall
Affiliation:
Sheep Ireland, Highfield House, Shinagh, Bandon P72 X050, Co. Cork, Ireland
D. P. Berry
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, FermoyP61 P302, Co. Cork, Ireland
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Body condition score (BCS) is a subjective assessment of the proportion of body fat an animal possesses and is independent of frame size. There is a growing awareness of the importance of mature animal live-weight given its contribution to the overall costs of production of a sector. Because of the known relationship between BCS and live-weight, strategies to reduce live-weight could contribute to the favouring of animals with lesser body condition. The objective of the present study was to estimate the average difference in live-weight per incremental change in BCS, measured subjectively on a scale of 1 to 5. The data used consisted of 19 033 BCS and live-weight observations recorded on the same day from 7556 ewes on commercial and research flocks; the breeds represented included purebred Belclare (540 ewes), Charollais (1484 ewes), Suffolk (885 ewes), Texel (1695 ewes), Vendeen (140 ewes), as well as, crossbreds (2812 ewes). All associations were quantified using linear mixed models with the dependent variable of live-weight; ewe parity was included as a random effect. The independent variables were BCS, breed (n=6), stage of the inter-lambing interval (n=6; pregnancy, lambing, pre-weaning, at weaning, post-weaning and mating) and parity (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5+). In addition, two-way interactions were used to investigate whether the association between BCS and live-weight differed by parity, a period of the inter-lambing interval or breed. The association between BCS and live-weight differed by parity, by a period of the inter-lambing interval and by breed. Across all data, a one-unit difference in BCS was associated with 4.82 (SE=0.08) kg live-weight, but this differed by parity from 4.23 kg in parity 1 ewes to 5.82 kg in parity 5+ ewes. The correlation between BCS and live-weight across all data was 0.48 (0.47 when adjusted for nuisance factors in the statistical model), but this varied from 0.48 to 0.53 by parity, from 0.36 to 0.63 by stage of the inter-lambing interval and from 0.41 to 0.62 by breed. Results demonstrate that consideration should be taken of differences in BCS when comparing ewes on live-weight as differences in BCS contribute quite substantially to differences in live-weight; moreover, adjustments for differences in BCS should consider the population stratum, especially breed.

Keywords

regressionparityovinecorrelationlambing interval
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , March 2019 , pp. 549 - 553
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

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.)

References

Berry, DP, Buckley, F and Dillon, P 2011. Relationship between live weight and body condition score in Irish Holstein-Friesian dairy cows. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 50, 141–147.Google Scholar
Berry, DP and Evans, RD 2014. Genetics of reproductive performance in seasonal calving beef cows and its association with performance traits. Journal of Animal Science 92, 1412–1422.Google Scholar
Berry, DP, Lee, JM, Macdonald, KA and Roche, JR 2007a. Body condition score and body weight effects on dystocia and stillbirths and consequent effects on postcalving performance. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 4201–4211.Google Scholar
Berry, DP, Lee, JM, Macdonald, KA, Stafford, K, Matthews, L and Roche, JR 2007b. Associations among body condition score, body weight, somatic cell count, and clinical mastitis in seasonally calving dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 637–648.Google Scholar
Berry, DP, Macdonald, KA, Penno, JW and Roche, JR 2006. Association between body condition score and liveweight in pasture-based Holstein-Friesian dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research 73, 487–491.Google Scholar
Corner-Thomas, RA, Hickson, RE, Morris, ST, Back, PJ, Ridler, AL, Stafford, KJ and Kenyon, PR 2015. Effects of body condition score and nutrition in lactation on twin-bearing ewe and lamb performance to weaning. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 58, 156–169.Google Scholar
Drennan, MJ and Berry, DP 2006. Factors affecting body condition score, live weight and reproductive performance in spring-calving suckler cows. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 45, 25–38.Google Scholar
Ferrell, CL and Jenkins, TG 1985. Cow type and the nutritional environment: nutritional aspects. Journal of Animal Science 61, 725–741.Google Scholar
Frutos, P, Mantecón, AR and Giráldez, FJ 1997. Relationship of body condition score and live weight with body composition in mature Churra ewes. Animal Science 64, 447–452.Google Scholar
Gilmour, AR, Gogel, B, Cullis, BR and Thompson, R 2009. ASReml user guide release 3.0. VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, UK.Google Scholar
Jefferies, BC 1961. Body condition scoring and its use in management. Tasmanian Journal of Agriculture 32, 19–21.Google Scholar
Montaño-Bermudez, M, Nielsen, MK and Deutscher, GH 1990. Energy requirements for maintenance of crossbred beef cattle with different genetic potential for milk. Journal of Animal Science 68, 2279–2288.Google Scholar
Morel, PCH, Schreurs, NM, Corner-Thomas, RA, Greer, AW, Jenkinson, CMC, Ridler, AL and Kenyon, PR 2016. Live weight and body composition associated with an increase in body condition score of mature ewes and the relationship to dietary energy requirements. Small Ruminant Research 143, 8–14.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Roche, JR, MacDonald, KA, Burke, CR, Lee, JM and Berry, DP 2007. Associations among body condition score, body weight and reproductive performance in seasonal-calving dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 376–391.Google Scholar
Sanson, DW, West, TR, Tatman, WR, Riley, ML, Judkins, MB and Moss, GE 1993. Relationship of body composition of mature ewes with condition score and body weight. Journal of Animal Science 71, 1112–1116.Google Scholar
Sezenler, T, Ozder, M, Yildirir, M, Ceyhan, A and Yuksel, MA 2011. The relationship between body weight and body condition score some indigenous sheep breeds in Turkey. Journal of Animal and Plant Science 21, 443–447.Google Scholar
Treacher, TT and Filo, S 1995. Relationships between fat depots and body condition score or live weight in Awassi ewes. Options Méditerranéennes Série A, Séminaires Méditerranéens 27, 13–17.Google Scholar
Wheeler, JL, Reardon, TF, Hedges, DA and Rocks, RL 1971. The contribution of the conceptus to weight change in pregnant Merino ewes at pasture. Journal of Agricultural Science 76, 347–353.Google Scholar