Publication #SP144
Effects of Body Condition on Productivity in Beef Cattle1
Introduction
The income and profit of a beef cattle operation is closely related to the rebreeding and reproduction rate of the herd. A 1986 survey of cattle producers in nine counties in central Florida indicated the number of calves sold was only 69 percent of the breeding age beef cows. Of the 284 producers that responded, 48 percent indicated that nutrition was the biggest problem they faced in dealing with cattle reproduction; another 24 percent indicated that parasites were their biggest problem. Nutrition and parasites were factors identified by over 70 percent of producers surveyed; both will affect the body condition of the beef cow. Reproductive performance of the beef cow is related to body condition, and body condition can be used by cattle producers to make management decisions. Decisions about grouping cattle and the type and level of supplemental feed for maximum profit should take into consideration body condition. This publication will review the relationship of body condition to productivity, provide pictures of beef cattle representative of different body condition scores (BCS), and give a few examples of how body condition can help in making management decisions about your herd. Importance of Body Condition
Variation in body condition of beef cows has several implications that can be used for management decisions. The number of days to estrus and milk production are related to the condition of cows at calving. The services per conception and calving interval of the cows are related to condition at breeding. The percentage of open cows, the calving interval of cows that breed, milk produced by the cow, and the subsequent weaning weight of the calf are closely related to the condition of the cows at calving and during the breeding season. Body condition affects the amount and type of supplements needed during the winter. Fat cows can lose body reserves, and 1 to 2 pounds per head per day of a 30 to 40 percent protein supplement plus minerals and vitamins is sufficient to maintain adequate body condition in many situations. In contrast, thin cows have little body reserves and often need 4 to 6 pounds or more per head per day of a high-energy supplement with 12 to 16 percent protein plus minerals and vitamins to avoid significant flesh losses and reductions in pregnancy rates. Body condition or change in body condition is a more reliable indicator in evaluating nutritional status than liveweight or change in liveweight. Although cows with higher BCS tend to have higher weights, the body weight alone is not a good estimate of body condition. Most herds have a range in frame and muscling in their cows that make BCS a better measure of body fat than liveweight. Liveweight is also affected greatly by gut fill and pregnancy, which are seasonal, depending on the breeding season, forage quality, and forage availability. In winter feeding studies, the body condition loss is usually much higher than the body weight loss. On many ranches, body condition can be evaluated regularly in circumstances where weighing may be impractical. This technique is easy to learn and can be very useful for making management decisions. Body Condition Scores
Body condition of beef cows is scored from 1 (thin) to 9 (fat); (see Table 1 ). This system has been used by many cattlemen and researchers as a guideline in evaluating body condition. Any visual scoring system will vary depending on the people doing the scoring, and scoring by different people will not agree exactly. However, among experienced evaluators, condition scores are not likely to vary by more than one score. It is not difficult to evaluate body condition of cattle. First, decide which areas of the body are most useful in determining body condition ( Figure 1 ). Fat deposits are visible over the back, tail head, pins, hooks, ribs, and brisket of cattle. A description of body condition scores is given ( Table 1 ) and pictures of cows representative of BCS 1 to 9 are shown. [BCS: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ] Figure 1 .
1 .
2 .
3 .
4 .
5, .
6 .
7 .
8 .
9 .
Relationship to Pregnancy Rate
Body condition scores can be evaluated throughout the year. The relationship of BCS at calving to reproduction has been looked at in several studies. A beef cow must conceive by 80 days after calving to maintain the 365-day calving interval desired in most management programs. Herd and Sprott (1986) reported 62 percent of beef cows with a BCS of 4 or lower at calving were in heat by 80 days after calving. Compare this to 88 percent and 98 percent for cows in BCS 5, or 6 or higher. Other studies have shown that cows with BCS below 5 require more services per conception, implying some depression in fertility of cycling beef cows. A summary of eight trials with over 1000 beef cows showed that cows with a BCS of 4 or lower, 5, or 6 or higher at calving had pregnancy rates of 61 percent, 79 percent, and 90 percent respectively (Table 2) . The pregnancy rate for each condition score was variable from trial to trial, reflecting scoring differences among evaluators and other factors such as weight gain or loss after calving. However, the pregnancy rate improved in all trials when the BCS at calving improved from 4 to 5 and from 5 to 6. Cows with a higher BCS at breeding or pregnancy testing also showed improvements in pregnancy rate ( Table 2 ). The BCS may vary 1 to 2 scores through the year on a herd of cows, but the thinner cows in a herd usually remain the thinner ones throughout the year. In three trials in Florida, the optimum BCS for cows evaluated at pregnancy testing appears to be 5 (Table 2) . This appears to be one BCS lower than most of the research from Oklahoma and Texas and may be related to differences in the time of evaluation, the evaluators, or the type of cattle. Young cows (first 3 calves) that are thin have shown lower pregnancy rates than mature cows ( Table 3 ). Young cows (parity 1, 2, 3) in BCS 4 at pregnancy testing had pregnancy rates of 50 to 60 percent, which was 12 to 22 percentage units lower than mature cows (parities 4 to 7) in BCS 4. Young cows in BCS 3 at pregnancy testing had pregnancy rates of 20 to 28 percent, which was 20 to 28 percentage units lower than mature cows in BCS 3. Old cows (parity > 8) at BCS 3 and 4 also had lower pregnancy rates--5 to 11 percentage units--than mature cows. This points out that maintaining BCS 5 or higher in young cows was even more important than in mature cows, and that thin, young cows have low pregnancy rates . Regardless of whether the cows were scored at calving, breeding, or pregnancy testing, a higher BCS resulted in a higher pregnancy rate ( Figure 2 ). This summary of 12 trials conducted in Florida, Texas, and Oklahoma with over 4000 beef cows, showed pregnancy rates improved for beef cows as BCS increased from 3 to 6. These data show a dramatic increase in pregnancy rate and that a BCS of 5 or higher was needed to achieve pregnancy rates above 90 percent. Figure 2 .
Critical BCS is 5
Groups of cows with an average BCS of 4 or lower at calving, during the breeding season, or at pregnancy testing, had lower pregnancy rates compared to cows averaging BCS 5 or higher. BCS of 5 or higher resulted in good pregnancy rates provided other factors such as diseases were not reducing pregnancy rates. The relationship of BCS to calving interval showed that cows with a BCS of 5 or higher had calving intervals of 365 days or less, and a BCS of 4 or lower resulted in calving intervals over 370 days ( Figure 3 ). It is desirable for productive beef cows to have a BCS above 5 when this is accomplished through good pasture management programs with reasonable costs of production. Figure 3 .
Seasonal Changes in Condition Score
The body condition of the beef herd changes during the year. Body condition is usually highest in mid to late summer then declines in the fall or winter and is lowest in late winter or early spring. Loss of body condition during the fall and winter supplies nutrients that can reduce the amount of supplemental feed needed to maintain good pregnancy rates, calving intervals, and calf gains when cows are BCS 5 and above. The loss of 75 pounds--from BCS 6 to 5--is equivalent to the energy and protein in 250 pounds of shelled corn. At present prices, this is a savings of $15 or more per head in supplemental feed costs. The rate of loss of body condition should be gradual and moderate. If a cow can lose one condition score during the fall and winter (75 pounds of flesh), it is desirable for the cow herd to be supplemented to lose this gradually over 120 days instead of very rapidly in 45 days, then feeding high levels of supplemental feeds to try to prevent further condition losses. It is our observation that some Brahman and Brahman crossbred cattle will lose condition faster than other types of cattle, especially after calving. It is important that these cattle be monitored closely, and that forage and supplemental feeds be adjusted to avoid high rates of condition loss. Improving BCS in Thin Cows
It is desirable to have cows in BCS 5 or higher at calving, and if there is a considerable range in BCS in a herd, it is usually desirable to separate thin cows. In most situations, it is economically prohibitive to supplement the entire herd if only half of the cows will respond to the higher level of nutrition. An alternative is to separate thinner cows and manage these cows to improve BCS prior to calving. This should be done at or soon after weaning to allow 2 to 4 months prior to calving. These cows should be checked for internal parasites and dewormed if needed. The first option to consider is grazing the thin cows on higher quality pasture. The thin cows can graze the pastures first, then use the cows with higher BCS to clean up the residual forage. If additional supplements are needed to increase body condition in thin cows, it is suggested to feed a lower level over a longer period of time to get the most response to the supplement. Higher levels of supplement reduce forage intake and digestibility, and a higher proportion of the supplement replaces forage nutrients. Supplementing with high energy grain or molasses supplements to improve BCS is effective, but costs must be considered. To improve BCS from 4 to 5, a medium-frame-sized cow must gain approximately 75 pounds (Herd and Sprott, 1986) and requires approximately 350 pounds of TDN from high energy supplements in addition to forage. This will require an estimated 450 pounds of corn (4 to 5 pounds per cow per day) or 600 pounds of blackstrap molasses-based supplements (5 to 7 pounds per cow per day) fortified with protein in addition to ample quantities of maintenance quality pasture or hay feed over an 80 to 100-day period. At 1993 prices, the supplement would cost $35 to $40 or more per cow to improve the condition from BCS 4 to 5. These costs are significant; therefore to be cost effective, cattle must be grouped so that only pregnant cows in BCS 4 or below are fed this type and level of supplementation. Economics
Cows in lower BCS bring in significantly lower income from calves produced. Body Condition Score is related to pregnancy rate ( Table 2 ), calving interval ( Figure 3 ), calf age at weaning, and calf daily gain. Income estimates show the income per calf is reduced from $416 per calf for calves from BCS 5 cows to $359 per calf for calves from BCS 3 cows ( Table 4 ). The income per cow is reduced $107 when BCS is decreased from 5 to 4 and $80 when BCS is decreased from 4 to 3. In contrast, the income per cow is reduced only $27 per cow when BCS is reduced from 6 to 5. Using strategies that cost less than $80 per cow for cows in BCS 3 and 4 will improve net income on many ranches. In the example cited in the previous section, the supplement cost $40 to increase the BCS from 4 to 5 between weaning and calving. The net income would increase $40 per cow over 18 months in this example. The increases in income from improving BCS will vary in different situations, and additional supplement needs to be critically evaluated to make sure that over $1 of income will be returned for each $1 in additional expenses. Using BCS in Management Decisions
Body condition is affected by such factors as stocking rate, forage species, forage management, date of calving, weaning age, supplements, genetics, parasites, diseases, and weather to name a few. Strategies that result in BCS above 5, with little additional costs, will require less supplemental feed during the winter and lower costs of production. Managing the herd to improve BCS using supplementation strategies or other management techniques that provide a high return per dollar invested is a key factor in a profitable operation. A good ranch manager must evaluate many management options and adjust the program based on the current situation in each herd. Decisions such as stocking rate, fertilization, supplemental feeding, grouping of cattle, parasite control, and diagnosis of problems can use BCS to provide useful information about the overall nutritional status of the herd and individual cows in the herd. The type, level, and time of supplemental feeding should rely on the BCS of cattle. Forage quality and quantity, time of calving, body condition, milk production level, breed type, pasture size, and weather all must be considered. If cows have a BCS above 5, it may be possible to reduce the level of supplement provided. In other situations, the level of supplement given during the winter may need to be increased to maintain BCS. The amount of supplement usually needs to be adjusted to each herd, and it may need to be adjusted during the winter, depending on the conditions and cattle. An early frost or a drought can change the economically optimum levels of supplements. Body Condition Scores can help identify a problem within a herd. Results from 9 herds in Florida with over 4000 cows showed herd pregnancy rates varied from 61 to 92 percent ( Table 5 ). Pregnancy rates for several herds were below 85 to 90 percent, which is considered to be both achievable and in the economically optimum range for herds using improved pastures. By evaluating the pregnancy rate at each condition score, the managers were able to determine if the below optimum pregnancy rate was explained by nutritional status (BCS), or other factors such as diseases or bulls. As a rule of thumb, if cows in BCS 5 have over a 90 percent pregnancy rate, then factors such as reproductive diseases probably were not limiting pregnancy rate, and improving BCS of thin cows should have improved the pregnancy rate of the herd. In the Manatee C herd, the pregnancy rate was 75 percent, but cows with BCS 5 showed a 93 percent pregnancy rate. The average BCS for the herd was 4.3, and improving the BCS of cows with BCS 2, 3 and 4 would be expected to improve the pregnancy rate. Four of the nine herds evaluated showed pregnancy rates below 90 percent for cows in BCS 5 or above. In these herds, improving the BCS of thin cows would be expected to improve pregnancy rate, but not necessarily to 85 to 90 percent. The Manatee D and Alachua herds appeared to have lower pregnancy rates at all BCS compared to other herds, indicating factors that do not affect BCS were involved. The age of each cow was determined by the year brand, and a summary revealed that heifers (age 1) and 4-year-old cows had the lowest pregnancy rates of all age groups when compared across all herds ( Table 5 ). The management and nutrition were different from herd to herd and an evaluation of cow age is more useful within herds. Manatee herds were bred at 2 years to calve at 3 years, and in 6 of the 7 herds, the pregnancy rate was lowest (46 to 86 percent) for the 4-year-old cows. There was some indication that 4-year-old cows were calving later in the calving season, which would expectedly reduce their pregnancy rate. Even though the pregnancy rate of 3-year-old cows rebreeding after their first calf was good (86 percent), if they were rebreeding late in the breeding season, this would result in later calving as 4-year-old cows, and would likely lower pregnancy rate. In 7 of the 9 herds evaluated, there was a trend for BCS 3 and 4 cows nursing their first or second calf to have lower pregnancy rates than older cows with similar BCS. In other words, when cows nursing their first or second calves were thin (BCS 3 or 4) they had lower pregnancy rates than thin, mature cows. An evaluation of the relationship of pregnancy rate to BCS and age does not pinpoint the exact problem in a herd, but it certainly helps a manager eliminate some possibilities and focus attention on management factors that are important and can help improve production and profit. Management Strategies to Improve BCS
A good ranch manager must evaluate many different options when deciding the ranch management program. Several management strategies that may help maximize profit follow. - Adjust stocking rate to ensure adequate forage during the stocking rate limiting months.
- Target a calving season that fits the forage, supplements, marketing plan, and management.
- Cull open and poorly producing cows.
- Control parasites and diseases.
- Provide a good mineral-free choice all year.
- Provide 0.2 to 0.3 pounds per head per day of supplemental crude protein for cattle grazing forages with less than 7 percent crude protein or that have a TDN to crude protein ratio above 7.
- Provide adequate protein for young cows to improve rebreeding. This may require managing first and second calf cows in separate herds during the winter.
- Group cattle by age and nutritional needs. Separate groups for weaned heifers, yearling heifers, first calf heifers and young cows and adult cows may be needed for part or all of the year.
- Provide higher quality forages or higher levels of energy supplements balanced with protein to reduce weight loss or improve BCS when cow BCS is below 5.
Summary
Good reproductive performance requires a BCS of 5 or higher at calving and through breeding. Proper stocking rates, a good mineral supplementation program, and timely use of protein supplements offer the most potential for economically improving body condition and pregnancy rates. Separating cows by condition at pregnancy testing or two to three months prior to calving and feeding both groups to calve in BCS 5 or above will maintain high reproductive performance while holding supplemental feed costs to a minimum. The routine use of BCS in each herd will provide needed information to manage the cow herd for a high calf crop and profitability. References
Genho, P. 1984. Body condition and nutrition level on the reproduction at Deseret ranch. Proc. Thirty-third Beef Cattle Short Course, pp. 57. Herd, D. B. and L. R. Sprott. 1986. Body condition, nutrition, and reproduction of beef cows. Texas Agricultural Extension Service Bulletin B-1526. Kilkenny, J. B. 1978. Reproductive performance of beef cows. World Review Animal Prod. 14:3. Rae, D. O., W. E. Kunkle, P. J. Chenoweth, R. S. Sand and T. Tran. 1993. Relationship of parity and body condition score to pregnancy rates in Florida beef cattle. Theriogenology 39:1143. Selk, G. E., R. P. Wettemann, K. S. Lusby and R. T. Rusby. 1986. The importance of body condition at calving on reproduction in beef cows. Animal Science Research Report, pp. 316, Oklahoma State Univ. Selk, G. E., R. P. Wettemann, K. S. Lusby, J. W. Oltjen, S. L. Mobely, R. J. Rusby and J. C. Garmendia. 1988. Relationships among weight change, body condition and reproductive performance of range beef cows. J. Animal Sci. 66:3153. Wagner, J. J., K. S. Lusby, J. W. Oltjen, J. Rakestraw, R. P. Wettemann, and L. E. Walters. 1988. Carcass composition in mature Hereford cows: estimation and effect on daily metabolizable energy requirement during winter. J. Animal Sci. 66:603. Wettemann, R. P. and K. S. Lusby. 1987. Body condition at calving, calf survival and reproductive performance of first calf heifers. Animal Science Research Report, pp. 73, Oklahoma State Univ. Wettemann, R. P. , K. S. Lusby, R. T. Rusby and M. W. Richards. 1987. Body condition at calving and post partum intake influence reproductive performance of range cows. Animal Science Research Report, pp. 70, Oklahoma State Univ. Tables
| Table 1. Description of Body Condition Scores (BCS)a |
| Emaciated - (BCS 1) Bone structure of shoulder, ribs, back, hooks and pins sharp to touch and easily visible. Little evidence of fat deposits or muscling. |
| Very Thin - (BCS 2) Little evidence of fat deposits but some muscling in hindquarters. The spinous processes feel sharp to the touch and are easily seen, with space between them. |
| Thin - (BCS 3) Beginning of fat cover over the loin, back and foreribs. Backbone still highly visible. Processes of the spine can be identified individually by touch and may still be visible. Spaces between the processes are less pronounced. |
| Borderline - (BCS 4) Foreribs not noticeable; 12th and 13th ribs still noticeable to the eye, particularly in cattle with a big spring of rib and ribs wide apart. The transverse spinous processes can be identified only by palpation (with slight pressure) to feel rounded rather than sharp. Full but straightness of muscling in the hindquarters. |
| Moderate - (BCS 5) 12th and 13th ribs not visible to the eye unless animal has been shrunk. The transverse spinous processes can only be felt with firm pressure to feel rounded - not noticeable to the eye. Spaces between the processes not visible and only distinguishable with firm pressure. Areas on each side of the tail head are fairly well filled but not mounded. |
| Good - (BCS 6) Ribs fully covered, not noticeable to the eye. Hindquarters plump and full. Noticeable sponginess to covering of foreribs and on each side of the tail head. Firm pressure now required to feel transverse processes. |
| Very Good - (BCS 7) Ends of the spinous processes can only be felt with very firm pressure. Spaces between processes can barely be distinguished at all. Abundant fat cover on either side of tail head with some patchiness evident. |
| Fat - (BCS 8) Animal taking on a smooth, blocky appearance; bone structure disappearing from sight. Fat cover thick and spongy with patchiness likely. |
| Very Fat - (BCS 9) Bone structure not seen or easily felt. Tail head buried in fat. Animal's mobility may actually be impaired by excess amount of fat. |
| _______ |
| aAdapted from Herd and Sprott, 1986 |
Table 2.
| Table 2. Relationship of body condition score to pregnancy rate. |
|||||
| Scoring Period Location |
Body Condition Scorea |
||||
| 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
| ---------------------------------------- Pregnancy rate, % ---------------------------------------------- |
|||||
| Condition scored at calving |
|||||
| Texasb |
-- |
-- |
60c |
76 |
91d |
| Oklahomae |
-- |
12 |
63 |
82 |
88d |
| Average-weighted (for all trials) |
-- |
-- |
61 |
79 |
90 |
| Condition scored during breeding season |
|||||
| Texas |
-- |
-- |
58c |
85 |
95d |
| Condition scored at pregnancy testing |
|||||
| Deseret Ranchfg |
21 |
41 |
77 |
95 |
-- |
| Nassau Countyg |
-- |
-- |
59c |
94 |
100 |
| Manatee Countyg |
4 |
45 |
63 |
93h |
-- |
| Average (all trials) |
13 |
43 |
66 |
94 |
-- |
| aBody condition score 2=very thin, 3=thin, 4=borderline, 5=moderate, 6=good. |
|||||
| bSummary of 4 trials in Texas with over 1000 cows, Herd and Sprott, 1986. |
|||||
| cCondition score 4 and below. |
|||||
| dCondition score 6 and higher. |
|||||
| eSummary of 4 trials in Oklahoma with over 400 cows, Selk et al. (1986, 1988), Wettemann and Lusby (1987) and Wettemann et al. (1987). |
|||||
| fGenho (1984). |
|||||
| gTrials conducted in Florida. |
|||||
| hCondition score 5 or higher. |
|||||
Table 3.
| Table 3. Relationship of parity and body condition score to pregnancy rate, %a. |
||||
| Parityb |
Body Conditon Scorec |
|||
| <3 |
4 |
>5 |
All |
|
| 1 |
20 |
53 |
90 |
84 |
| 2 |
28 |
50 |
84 |
71 |
| 3 |
23 |
60 |
90 |
85 |
| 4-7 |
48 |
72 |
92 |
87 |
| >8 |
37 |
67 |
89 |
74 |
| All |
31 |
60 |
89 |
82 |
| a Rae et al., 1993; Body condition scored at pregnancy testing. |
||||
| b Parity is the number of calving opportunities, present age minus age at first calving (years). |
||||
| c Body condition scored at pregnancy testing from 1 to 9, 3=thin, 4=borderline, 5=moderate. |
||||
Table 4.
| Table 4. Relationship of body condition score to beef cow performance and income. |
||||||||
| Body Condition Score |
Pregnancy Rate, % a |
Calving Interval, days b |
Calf Weaning Age, days c |
Calf Daily Gain, lb d |
Calf Wean Weight, lb e |
Calf Price $/100 lb f |
Income $/Calf g |
Yearly Income $/cow h |
| 3 |
43 |
414 |
190 |
1.60 |
374 |
96 |
359 |
142 |
| 4 |
61 |
381 |
223 |
1.75 |
460 |
86 |
396 |
222 |
| 5 |
86 |
364 |
240 |
1.85 |
514 |
81 |
416 |
329 |
| 6 |
93 |
364 |
240 |
1.85 |
514 |
81 |
416 |
356 |
| a Pregnancy rates averaged across trials when scored at calving, breeding, and pregnancy testing from Table 2. |
||||||||
| b Calving interval from Figure 3. |
||||||||
| c Weaning age is 240 days for cows in body condition scores 5 and 6 and decreases as calving intervals increase. |
||||||||
| d Daily gains based on observations. |
||||||||
| e Calculated as calf age times calf gain plus birth weight (70 lb). |
||||||||
| f Average auction market price for similar weight calves during 1991 and 1992. |
||||||||
| g Calculated as calf weight times calf price. |
||||||||
| h Calculated as income/calf times pregnancy rate times .92 (% calves raised of those pregnant). |
||||||||
Table 5.
| Table 5. Relationship of herd, age and condition score to pregnancy rate, %. |
|||||||
| Condition Scorea |
|||||||
| 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
ALL |
|
| Locationb |
|||||||
| Manatee A |
40 |
21 |
46 |
94 |
-- |
-- |
80 |
| Manatee B |
-- |
20 |
69 |
86 |
-- |
-- |
82 |
| Manatee C |
4 |
45 |
63 |
93 |
-- |
-- |
75 |
| Manatee D |
-- |
8 |
32 |
79 |
-- |
-- |
66 |
| Manatee E |
-- |
33 |
74 |
91 |
-- |
-- |
88 |
| Manatee F |
-- |
75 |
82 |
94 |
-- |
-- |
92 |
| Manatee G |
-- |
100 |
85 |
90 |
-- |
-- |
89 |
| Union |
0 |
68 |
77 |
88 |
90 |
100 |
85 |
| Alachua |
0 |
6 |
49 |
81 |
98 |
100 |
61 |
| Age, Yearsc |
|||||||
| 1 |
-- |
-- |
30 |
74 |
80 |
-- |
73 |
| 2 |
-- |
45 |
70 |
92 |
94 |
-- |
82 |
| 3 |
-- |
10 |
54 |
89 |
100 |
-- |
85 |
| 4 |
0 |
19 |
55 |
84 |
95 |
100 |
72 |
| 5 |
-- |
20 |
66 |
91 |
93 |
-- |
85 |
| 6 |
-- |
38 |
69 |
89 |
100 |
-- |
84 |
| 7 |
14 |
30 |
65 |
94 |
100 |
-- |
83 |
| 8 |
-- |
80 |
78 |
94 |
100 |
-- |
91 |
| 9 |
-- |
60 |
80 |
96 |
-- |
-- |
90 |
| 10 |
8 |
54 |
78 |
93 |
-- |
-- |
82 |
| All Cattle |
8 |
33 |
65 |
89 |
92 |
100 |
81 |
| aCondition scored at pregnancy testing from 1 to 9, 2=very thin, 3=thin, 4=borderline, 5=moderate, 6=good, 7=very good. |
|||||||
| bOver 4000 cows in 9 herds used in this evaluation, Location - county in Florida, Manatee A, B, C and D were evaluated in 1989; Manatee E, F and G, Union and Alachua were evaluated in 1990. |
|||||||
| cAge at breeding. |
|||||||
Footnotes
1. This document is SP-144, one of a series of the Department of Animal Science, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Publication Date: March 1994. Reviewed: December 1997. Formatted for Web: March 1998. Please visit the FAIRS Web site at http://hammock.ifas.ufl.edu
2. William E. Kunkle, Professor, Animal Science; Robert S. Sand, Associate Professor, Animal Science, and D. Owen Rae, Associate Professor, Large Animal Clinical Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611.The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal
Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational
information and other services only to individuals and institutions
that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed,
color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital
status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations.
For more information on obtaining other extension publications,
contact your county Cooperative Extension service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service,
University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A. & M. University Cooperative
Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Larry Arrington, Dean.
