The Accuracy and Repeatability of Sow Body Condition Scoring

Abstract

The objective of this study was to estimate observer accuracy and repeatability of body condition scoring sows when scorers have different levels of prior experience. Three groups of participants (n = 10) for this study were identified as having no (NE, n = 3), some (SE, n = 4), and extensive (EE, n = 3) prior experience evaluating conformation or body condition in livestock species. Two persons having extensive prior experience with body condition scoring served as instructors (TR) during the training sessions. Twenty-five of a total 150 sows were utilized in the participant training session, and the remaining sows (n = 125) were utilized during the independent scoring process. Sows utilized in the scoring process were objectively categorized into a 5and 9-point body condition score (BCS5 and BCS9, respectively) using last rib backfat estimates. Participants were in poor agreement with BCSbackfat as overall Kappa values were 0.23 on the BCS5 and 0.13 on the BCS9 scales. While the trainers consistently averaged the largest measures of intra-and interobserver agreement with BCSbackfat, other participants primarily in the EE and SE groups achieved similar levels of agreement. Participant BCS5 and BCS9 deviation evaluations from BCSbackfat, revealed a tendency for participants to overestimate BCS in some sows and underestimate BCS in others. While the trainers consistently averaged the largest measures of intra-and interobserver agreement with BCSbackfat, other participants primarily in the EE and SE groups achieved similar levels of agreement.Keywords body condition score, interobserver agreement, intraobserver agreement, sows Disciplines Agriculture | Animal Sciences | Statistical Methodology | Veterinary Medicine CommentsThis is a manuscript of an article published as

The importance of optimal body condition to maximise reproductive health and perinatal outcomes in pigs

“…The visual body condition score is affected by parity and gestational phase. The visual body score condition has moderate correlation with more objective and precise indicators of body composition such as BFT and loin area measurements (r = 0•48 and 0•43, respectively), with the lowest correlation observed in gilts (14,46) .…”

“…In many herds, body condition is evaluated by visual scoring, on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 (14,46) . This method is widely used owing to its easy application and can provide relevant information about the sow's body composition.…”

“…This method is widely used owing to its easy application and can provide relevant information about the sow's body composition. However, the visual body condition score is a subjective and inaccurate method that largely depends upon the training of farm personnel (14,46) . The accuracy of body condition score is affected by the scale adopted, whereas 1-5 with a scale of 0•5 points is more precise than 1-5 with scale of 1 point (46) .…”

“…However, the visual body condition score is a subjective and inaccurate method that largely depends upon the training of farm personnel (14,46) . The accuracy of body condition score is affected by the scale adopted, whereas 1-5 with a scale of 0•5 points is more precise than 1-5 with scale of 1 point (46) . The visual body condition score is affected by parity and gestational phase.…”

A Body Condition Score for Crocodilians

“…One method to achieve this is through the body condition score (BCS), which was originally designed for goats (Jefferies, 1961). This index classifies individuals into different categories from malnourished to obese (Edmonson et al, 1989) and has been widely used in the research of productive domestic species (Herd and Sprott, 1996;Fitzgerald et al, 2009;Sánchez et al, 2016) such as dairy cows (Edmonson et al, 1989;Agrawal et al, 2017;Keyserlingk et al, 2017), as well as in the clinical evaluation of domestic species (Jeusette et al, 2010;Aptekmann et al, 2014). However, it has also been modified and implemented for several wildlife species (Schiffmann et al, 2017;Singh et al, 2017).…”