AbstractRevisiting the Henneke Body Condition Scoring System: 25 Years Later
Introduction
Body Condition Scoring is a subjective measure of adiposity in domestic livestock as well as companion animals. The body condition scoring system used in horses was created in 1985 by researchers at Texas A & M University.1 A body condition score is meant to assess subcutaneous adipose tissue accumulation and to evaluate management and feeding programs as related to energy balance.2 The system is used by veterinarians, nutritionists, farm managers and many others. The importance of this system and its use is highlighted in almost every animal science curriculum across the country.
Recent research in the swine industry has indicated that subjective body condition scores (BCS) are a relatively poor basis for determining feed requirements for breeding stock and that objective ultrasonic measurements are much more precise.3 Therefore, the objective of our experiment was to explore if a similar situation exists in the equine industry. Our specific objectives were to determine the precision of subjective BCS relative to ultrasonic measurements and to determine the efficacy of BCS for reflecting changes in body fat tissue mass over time as determined by ultrasonic measurements.
Section snippets
Materials and Methods
This experiment used fifty-six horses that were scored for body condition and scanned at three anatomic locations; rump, rib and shoulder. The rump scan location was 5 cm off the midline with the subcutaneous fat measured at the cranial tip of the semitendinosus muscle where it overlays the gluteal muscle. The rib scan was obtained from the intercostal space between the ribs 12 & 13 with the subcutaneous fat measured over the top of the longissimus muscle at a point three-quarters of its width
Results
Correlation coefficients between mean BCS (mean of 5 scorers) for each horse and the May fat measurements were 0.577, 0.729, and 0.763 (all with P < .01) for the rump, shoulder, and rib locations respectively. The correlation coefficients between mean BCS (mean of 4 scorers) for each horse and fat were 0.429, 0.731 & 0.725 (all with P < .01) for rump, shoulder, and rib respectively. There was some variability in the correlation coefficients between the spring individual BCS and spring rib fat
Exercised subset
With the exercised subset, the numerical change in mean rib fat measurement from spring to fall was not statistically different (spring = 1.27 cm, fall = 1.07 cm, P = .064). When individual changes in BSC were correlated with individual changes in rib fat, the coefficient of determination value for the best scorer was 47.1% (A) and the others were in the mid 20's. The change in mean rump fat between spring and fall was significant (spring = 2.25 cm, fall = 1.95 cm, P = .019). The highest coefficient of
Discussion
The scorers in this study were all experts in the equine industry. The correlations between their BCS and scan measurements were in a range that would generally be considered acceptable or even good. None-the-less, they really only accounted for about 50% of the variability in fat levels. Even more, their ability to detect changes in adiposity over time was relatively poor, with most scorers having a coefficient of determination between change in BCS and change in fat of less than 10%. It is
References
1. Henneke D, Potter G, Kreider J, Yeates B. Relationship between condition score, physical measurements and body fat percentage in mares. Equine Vet J 1983;15:371-372.
2. Westervelt RG, Stouffer JR, Hintz HF, Schryver HF. Estimating fatness in horses and ponies. J Anim Sci 1976;43:781-785.
3. Young MG, Tokach MD, Aherne FX, Main RG, Dritz SS, Goodband RD, Nelssen JL. Comparison of three methods of feeding sows in gestation and the subsequent effects on lactation performance. J Anim Sci
Acknowledgements
Society of Undergraduate Research, Scholarly and Creative Activity at the Univeristy of Wisconsin-River Falls