175 Use of a semester-long assignment to influence student learning of equine body condition scoring

2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 457-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.K. Suagee ◽  
K. Bennet-Wimbush
2017 ◽  
Vol 27.2 (02) ◽  
pp. 10-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Störk

Sensors ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 1414
Author(s):  
Ramūnas Antanaitis ◽  
Vida Juozaitienė ◽  
Dovilė Malašauskienė ◽  
Mindaugas Televičius ◽  
Mingaudas Urbutis ◽  
...  

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the relation of automatically determined body condition score (BCS) and inline biomarkers such as β-hydroxybutyrate (BHB), milk yield (MY), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and progesterone (mP4) with the pregnancy success of cows. The cows (n = 281) had 2.1 ± 0.1. lactations on average, were 151.6 ± 0.06 days postpartum, and were once tested with “Easy scan” ultrasound (IMV imaging, Scotland) at 30–35 d post-insemination. According to their reproductive status, cows were grouped into two groups: non-pregnant (n = 194 or 69.0% of cows) and pregnant (n = 87 or 31.0% of cows). Data concerning their BCS, mP4, MY, BHB, and LDH were collected each day from the day of insemination for 7 days. The BCS was collected with body condition score camera (DeLaval Inc., Tumba, Sweden); mP4, MY, BHB, and LDH were collected with the fully automated real-time analyzer Herd Navigator™ (Lattec I/S, Hillerød, Denmark) in combination with a DeLaval milking robot (DeLaval Inc., Tumba, Sweden). Of all the biomarkers, three differences between groups were significant. The body condition score (BCS) of the pregnant cows was higher (+0.49 score), the milk yield (MY) was lower (−4.36 kg), and milk progesterone in pregnant cows was (+6.11 ng/mL) higher compared to the group of non-pregnant cows (p < 0.001). The pregnancy status of the cows was associated with their BCS assessment (p < 0.001). We estimated that cows with BCS > 3.2 were 22 times more likely to have reproductive success than cows with BCS ≤ 3.2.


animal ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 1971-1977 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Isensee ◽  
F. Leiber ◽  
A. Bieber ◽  
A. Spengler ◽  
S. Ivemeyer ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo O. Fiems ◽  
Wim Van Caelenbergh ◽  
Sam De Campeneere ◽  
Daniël L. De Brabander

2020 ◽  
Vol 82 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa A. Reamer ◽  
Sarah J. Neal Webb ◽  
Rebekah Jones ◽  
Erica Thiele ◽  
Rachel L. Haller ◽  
...  

1981 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 349-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. M. Mulvany

Records on animal performance form a basic part of management. Without records it is not possible to measure the effect of changes in management nor assess the individual performance of an animal. Condition scoring provides a means of recording body condition and may assist in monitoring changes in body reserves. However, it is of limited use if other, more significant, records are not kept. It provides an enhancement to a recording scheme in which reproduction, production health and feeding/grazing records are kept. These records should be simple. Some data are required on calvings and inseminations, milk yield and/or rate of growth, preventative and curative health measures and on the probable feed available to an animal and how this feed is utilized. Body condition scoring will provide some data for this final item.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document