During the last two decades the traditional subjective
appraisal of the body fat
stores in farm animals, made by eye and touch, has been
rationalized by the
introduction of numerical systems of rating specific
anatomical points.
Palpation of the lumbar vertebrae, the pin and hook bones
(tail head) (Lowman et al. 1973), and, occasionally,
width behind the shoulders (Treacher et al. 1986)
provides an assessment of the fatness of the animal.
This is calibrated from standard
photographic charts, in the use of which the operator is
trained. Body condition
scoring (CS) by this method has been widely developed for
dairy cows (Earle, 1976;
Mulvany, 1977; MacCarthy, 1978; Scott & Smeaton, 1980;
Wildman et al. 1982;
Aalseth et al. 1983; Anon. 1986; Garcia Paloma, 1990).
The actual numerical scales have varied among systems.
Thus over the range
from very thin to very fat cows the scale is 1, 2…7, 8
(Earle, 1976) and 0½, 1,…4½, 5
(Mulvany, 1977), for example. CS is thus a discrete variate
with a limited number
of readings. Several authors have sought to decrease the
division size, for example 1,
1 1/3; 1 2/3;…4 2/3, 5
(Ducker et al. 1985a, see also Dewhurst
et al. 1996) and by using the
means of the separate values obtained by two operators
judging CS independently
(W. H. Broster, V. J. Broster, A. J. Clements, J. W. Siviter
and T. Smith, unpublished results). In this review CS will
be stated in the units given by Mulvany (1977),
to which other ranges have been scaled. Inspection of CS
data has usually been
conducted by analysis of variance, but also by the
Mann–Whitney signed rank test
(Moorby et al. 1996).
Evans (1978) and Nicoll (1981) studied the variation in
recording CS. Both
investigators concluded that a system of observation by
two independent assessors
per recording occasion is advantageous and that revision
training is necessary to
maintain operator standardization. Of total variance in
CS, some 60–70% was
found attributable to ‘between-animal’
differences, <5% to assessor variation and
<10% to animal×assessor variation. Croxton &
Stollard (1976) found good
repeatability of CS measurements ‘between’ and
‘within’ operators. It is regrettable
that few reports of experimentation give full details of
method of and number of operators engaged in body
score recording.