BODY CONDITION SCORING OF DAIRY COWS FOR ASSESSMENT OF NUTRITIONAL STATUS UNDER FIELD CONDITION IN DHARMAPURI DISTRICT

V. MEENALOCHANI¹*, D. CHANDRASEKARAN^2
1Veterinary University Training and Research Center, Salem, 636001, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, 600051, Tamil Nadu, India
²Veterinary University Training and Research Center, Salem, 636001, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, 600051, Tamil Nadu, India
* Corresponding Author : meenalochani69@gmail.com

Received : 11-06-2020     Accepted : 20-06-2020     Published : 30-06-2020
Volume : 12     Issue : 12       Pages : 9972 - 9974
Int J Agr Sci 12.12 (2020):9972-9974

Keywords : BCS, Statistical Analysis
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Veterinary University Training and Research Center, Salem, 636001, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, 600051, Tamil Nadu, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

The Body condition scoring (BCS) for 101 Jersey (Jx) and 112 Holstein Friesian (HFx) crossbred cows in various stages of lactation with a history of second calving and animals in the late gestation were assessed for this study. It revealed that he BCS of Jx was 2.4 ,2.4 2.4 and 2.9 in early, mid and late lactation and late gestation, respectively In HFx the BCS was 2.4, 2.6, 2.4 and 3.1 in early, mid, late lactation and late gestation ,respectively. The BCS of dairy cows in late gestation was significantly higher in both breeds, whereas the BCS during different phases of lactation was comparable. This suggests that animal does not lose its body conformation significantly during lactation phase. Though BCS was indicative of energy balance, but influence of experience of the assessors causes individual variation on the BCS value of the same dairy cows. Hence, BCS could not be considered as an accurate measurement for determining the nutritional status of animals.

1. Ruegg and Milton (1995) Journal of Dairy Science, 78(3), 552-564.
2. Novakovic Z., Stretenovic L.J., Aleksic S., Petrovic M.M., Pantelic V., Ostojic-Andric D. and Niksic D. (2010) Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry, 26, 309-318.
3. Pedron O., Cheli F., Senatore E., Baroli D. and Rizzi R. (1993) J. Dairy Sci., 76, 2528-2535.
4. Hayashi Y., Shah S., Shah S.K. and Kumagai H. (2005) Livestock Research for Rural Development, 17, 132-141.
5. Ward W.R., Murray R.D., White A.R. and Rees E.M. (2009) Recent Advances in Feeding of Ruminants, 476-498.
6. Hady P.J., Domecq J.J. and Kaneene J.B. (1994) J.Dairy Sci., 77, 1543-1547.
7. Hamit Yildiz.,Nevzat saat and Halil Simsek (2009) Pakistan Veterinary Journal, 31(2), 125-128.
8. Waltner S., Mc.Namar J.P. and Hillers J.K. (1993) J. Dairy Sci., 76, 3410-3419.
9. Gransworthy P.C. (2008) Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition. P.C. Gransworthy and J. Wiseman, ed. Nottingham,UK, 61-86.
10. Ferguson J.D., Galligan D.T. and Thomas N. (1994) J. Dairy. Sci., 77, 2695-2703.
11. Edmonson A.J., Lean I.J., Weawer I.D., Farver T. and Webster G. (1989) J. Dairy.Sci., 72, 68-74.
12. Snedecor G.W. and Cochran W.G. (1994) Statistical methods, Oxford and I.B.H. publications, New Delhi, India.
13. SPSS (1996) Statistical packages for Social Sciences. Ver.12, SPSS Inc.,Linois, USA.
14. Bell M.J., Maak M., Sorley M. and Proud R. (2018) Frontiers in Sustainable Food System, 2, 1-7
15. Harris B.L. and Kolver E.S. (2006) Livestock Improvement Corporation,1-24.
16. Ruegg P.L., Gooder W.J., Holmberg G.A., Weanes C.A. and Huffman L.D. (1992) American Journal of Veterinary Research, 53, 5-9.