Predicting ewe body condition score using adjusted liveweight for conceptus and fleece weight, height at withers, and previous body condition score record.

The relationship between ewe body condition score (BCS) and liveweight (LW) has been exploited previously to predict the former from LW, LW-change, and previous BCS records. It was hypothesized that if fleece weight and conceptus-free liveweight and LW-change, and in addition, height at withers were used, the accuracy of current approaches to predicting BCS would be enhanced. Ewes born in 2017 (n = 429) were followed from 8 mo to approximately 42 mo of age in New Zealand. Individual ewe data were collected on LW and BCS at different stages of the annual production cycle (i.e., prebreeding, at pregnancy diagnosis, prelambing, and weaning). Additionally, individual lambing dates, ewe fleece weight, and height at withers data were collected. Linear regression models were fitted to predict current BCS at each ewe age and stage of the annual production cycle using two LW-based models, namely, unadjusted for conceptus weight and fleece weight (LW alone1) and adjusted (LW alone2) models. Furthermore, another two models based on a combination of LW, LW-change, previous BCS, and height at withers (combined models), namely, unadjusted (combined1) and adjusted for conceptus and fleece weight (combined2), were fitted. Combined models gave more accurate (with lower root mean square error: RMSE) BCS predictions than models based on LW records alone. However, applying adjusted models did not improve BCS prediction accuracy (or reduce RMSE) or improve model goodness of fit (R 2) (P > 0.05). Furthermore, in all models, both LW-alone and combined models, a great proportion of variability in BCS, could not be accounted for (0.25 ≥ R 2 ≥ 0.83) and there was substantial prediction error (0.33 BCS ≥ RMSE ≥ 0.49 BCS) across age groups and stages of the annual production cycle and over time (years). Therefore, using additional ewe data which allowed for the correction of LW for fleece and conceptus weight and using height at withers as an additional predictor did not improve model accuracy. In fact, the findings suggest that adjusting LW data for conceptus and fleece weight offer no additional value to the BCS prediction models based on LW. Therefore, additional research to identify alternative methodologies to account for individual animal variability is still needed.

Predicting Ewe Body Condition Score Using Lifetime Liveweight and Liveweight Change, and Previous Body Condition Score Record.

The body condition score (BCS) in sheep (Ovis aries) is a widely used subjective measure of body condition. Body condition score and liveweight have been reported to be statistically and often linearly related in ewes. Therefore, it was hypothesized that current BCS could be accurately and indirectly predicted using a ewe's lifetime liveweight, liveweight change, and previous BCS record. Ewes born between 2011 and 2012 (n = 11,798) were followed from 8 months to approximately 67 months of age in New Zealand. Individual ewe data was collected on liveweight and body condition scores at each stage of the annual cycle (pre-breeding, pregnancy diagnosis, pre-lambing, and weaning). Linear regression models were fitted to predict BCS at a given ewe age and stage of the annual cycle using a ewe's lifetime liveweight records (liveweight alone models). Further, linear models were then fitted using previous BCS and changes in liveweight, in addition to the lifetime liveweight records (combined models). Using the combined models improved (p < 0.01) the R2 value by 39.8% (from 0.32 to 0.45) and lowered the average prediction error by 10% to 12% (from 0.29 to 0.26 body condition scores). However, a significant portion of the variability in BCS remained unaccounted for (39% to 89%) even in the combined models. The procedures found in this study, therefore, may overestimate or underestimate measures by 0.23 to 0.32 BCS, which could substantially change the status of the ewe, leading to incorrect management decisions. However, the findings do still suggest that there is potential for predicting ewe BCS from liveweight using linear regression if the key variables affecting the relationship between BCS and liveweight are accounted for.

The Effect of Age, Stage of the Annual Production Cycle and Pregnancy-Rank on the Relationship between Liveweight and Body Condition Score in Extensively Managed Romney Ewes.

This study determined the nature of the relationship between liveweight and body condition score (BCS) and assessed the influence of the stage of the annual cycle and pregnancy-rank on the relationship between liveweight and BCS in Romney ewes. Data were collected from the same ewes at different ages (8-18, 19-30, 31-42, 43-54, 55-66 and ≥67 months), stages of the annual cycle (pre-breeding, at pregnancy diagnosis, pre-lambing and weaning) and pregnancy-rank (non-pregnant, single or twin). Linear regression was determined as being sufficient to accurately describe the relationship between liveweight and BCS. Across all data, a one-unit change in BCS was associated with 6.2 ± 0.05 kg liveweight, however, this differed by stage of the cycle, pregnancy-rank and ewe age (p <0.05). The average liveweight per unit change in body condition score increased with the age of the ewe and was greatest at weaning and lowest pre-lambing. Among pregnancy-ranks, the average liveweight per unit change was also greater during pregnancy diagnosis than pre-lambing and was greatest among single and lowest in non-pregnant ewes. The results support the hypothesis that the relationship between liveweight and BCS is affected by the interaction between stage of the annual cycle, pregnancy-rank and ewe age.