# Standardized body condition scoring system for tropical farm animals (large ruminants, small ruminants, and equines)

Eric Vall, Mélanie Blanchard, Ollo Sib, Boris Cormary, Eliel González-García

► To cite this version:

Eric Vall, Mélanie Blanchard, Ollo Sib, Boris Cormary, Eliel González-García. Standardized body condition scoring system for tropical farm animals (large ruminants, small ruminants, and equines). *Tropical Animal Health and Production*, 2025, 57 (2), pp.106. 10.1007/s11250-025-04328-4. hal-04983348

HAL Id: hal-04983348

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04983348v1

Submitted on 10 Mar 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Standardized body condition scoring system for tropical farm animals (large ruminants, small ruminants, and equines)

Eric Vall<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" /> ID · Mélanie Blanchard<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" /> · Ollo Sib<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="3" /> · Boris Cormary<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="4" /> · Eliel González-García<fnref n="5" />

Received: 29 October 2024 / Accepted: 18 February 2025

© The Author(s) 2025

## Abstract

In tropical regions, subject to significant fluctuations in feedstuffs, the body condition score (BCS) is a relevant indicator for monitoring body reserves status of farm animals. However, the most used BCS grids come from temperate conditions and still not adapted for tropical species, which limits adoption and usefulness. The current work presents for the first time an original, low-cost, standardized BCS assessment system, suited to a large spectrum of tropical farm animals (zebu and/or crossbred cattle, buffaloes, camel, sheep, goats, horses and donkeys). Based on a rigorous set of uniform criteria for practical, easy-to-use on field conditions, the animal model used to calibrate and validate each grid is the adult female (except the male for horses and donkeys). A six-point BCS grid system is proposed (i.e., from very emaciated -0- to overweighed -5- body conditions), based on visual interpretation of the back and right-lateral sides of each animal. The overall BCS assessment criteria is built on three major anatomical regions (hindquarters; thorax and abdomen; shoulder and neck), and ten related anatomical landmarks, which provide a unique consensual global interpretation of the back and right views. On-field tests of the proposed BCS grids for each animal species revealed acceptable reproducibility with regard to the most conventional, established gold-standards BCS methods (r<fnref n="2" />=0.67–0.99). The proposed harmonized BCS is relatively simple and must facilitate the adoption of regular, accurate BCS assessment by adequately trained operators linked to tropical animal production environments.

**Keywords** Body condition assessment · Zebu · Cattle · Buffaloes · Camels · Sheep · Goats · Donkeys · Tropic

## Introduction

The body condition score (BCS) is a widely used and cost-effective method for monitoring the body condition of farm animals, as it is linked to the energy balance and feeding systems. It indirectly reflects the overall welfare status of animals and the individual body reserves (i.e., lipid tissue and muscle mass), required for matching requirements of growth, milk production, work (e.g., animal traction) or reproduction. Numerous studies have highlighted the importance of BCS

in maintaining the health and productivity of domestic farm species (for cattle (*Bos Taurus* and *Bos indicus*): Van Niekerk 1982; Nicholson and Sayers 1987; Roche et al. 2009; Béchir et al. 2010; for buffaloes: Tariq et al. 2013; Carvalho-Delfino et al. 2018; for camels: Faye et al. 2002; for sheep: Bocquier et al. 1999; Yilmaz et al. 2011; Kenyon et al. 2014; Soto-Barrientos et al. 2018; for goats: Hervieu et al. 1991; Cissé et al. 1992; Mendizabal et al. 2011; Battini et al. 2014; for horses: Westervelt et al. 1976; Dugdale et al. 2012; Banse and McFarlane 2014; for donkeys: Valle et al. 2017). Scoring and assessing BCS changes have become a strategic tool in both farm management and research scenarios. Consequently, this parameter has been extensively studied worldwide mainly in large and small ruminants (Roche et al. 2004; Bell et al. 2018) for cattle and sheep, respectively.

Thus, monitoring the animals body condition with the help of low-cost and non-invasive effective tools like BCS is highly relevant in the current context promoting farming system resilience and sustainability. This is particularly significant in tropical countries, which face marked forage seasonality and unpredictable fluctuations in the quantity and

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<footnote>Eric Vall
eric.vall@cirad.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ CIRAD, UMR SELMET, 34398 Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² SELMET, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ CIRAD, UMR SELMET, Dakar, Senegal</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ CIRAD, UMR SELMET, Camagüey, Cuba</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ INRAE, UMR SELMET, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro, Montpellier, France</footnote>
quality of feedstuffs available for animal feeding throughout the year, leading to underfeeding situations, especially on native rangelands. Furthermore, low-income tropical farming systems face challenges in being adequately equipped with common tools such as weighing scales. Other alternative methods (e.g., imaging techniques, ultrasonography), are also available in other latitudes and regularly used in precision livestock farming (for dairy cows: Ferguson et al. 2006; Schroder and Staufenbiel 2006; Halachmi et al. 2008; Bell et al. 2018; for dairy goats: Vieira et al. 2015). Different is the situation in the numerous smallholders or transhumant, nomad farmers found in tropical countries.

The most widely used BCS grids worldwide have been developed in temperate conditions (for dairy cattle: Croxton and Stollard 1976; Lowman et al. 1976; Buxton 1982; Edmonson et al. 1989; Ferguson et al. 1994; for sheep: Russel et al. 1969; for goats: Hervieu et al. 1991; Santucci et al. 1991; for horses: Henneke et al. 1983; Carrol and Huntington 1988). However, in tropical regions farm animals' species and breeds present morphological characteristics very often different (e.g., frame, body size or hair coat). This is why many authors have proposed specific BCS grids, better adapted to tropical and warm areas breeds [for zebu (*Bos indicus*) cattle: Pullan 1978; Nicholson and Butterworth 1989; Ayala et al. 1992; Cissé 1995; Vall et al. 2002; Vall and Bayala 2004; for *Bos Taurus* cattle: Frantz 1988; Ayala et al. 1992; Van der Merve and Stewart 1995; Ezanno 2002; for buffaloes (*Bubalus bubalis*): Ezenwa et al. 2009; Anitha et al. 2010; for camels (*Camelus dromedaries*): Faye et al. 2002; Iglesias et al. 2020; for sheep (*Ovis aries*): Richard 1997; for goats (*Capra hircus*): Poisot 1988; Honhold et al. 1989; Imadine 1991; Gosh et al. 2019; for horses (*Equus caballus*): Diaw 2013; for donkeys (*Equus asinus*): Pearson and Ouassat 2000; Vall et al. 2001).

However, as shown in Table 1, all these BCS grids adapted to tropical breeds are heterogeneous in terms of 1) number of scoring levels (4 to 9); 2) views used to assign a BCS score (rear, right side, or other); 3) additional observations (e.g., palpation of lumbar areas for sheep and goats); 4) number of body landmarks considered (4 to 10). Such heterogeneity, even if better adapted to tropical conditions, reinforces the subjective nature of this practical body condition parameter, which has been pointed out by many authors (Nicholson and Sayers 1987; Bell et al. 2018). Furthermore, the access toto such adapted BCS grids becomes difficult, as most of them have not been published in peer review journals (e.g., Frantz 1988; Poisot 1988; Imadine 1991; Cissé 1995; Richard 1997; Ezanno 2002). Thus, the practical adoption and on-field uses still limited e.g., for regular monitoring of animals or to make comparisons between case studies using BCS grids based on different criteria. As a result, many researchers working in tropical conditions still using BCS assessment systems from temperate regions, which induce biases in their practical application and interpretation.

To address such issue of lacking a homogenous metric for BCS, our research unit (UMR SELMET; https://umr-selmet.cirad.fr/) has been working on developing a harmonized system, adapted to a large spectrum of farm animals species and breeds reared and expanded in different tropical settings. To carry out this work, we have been collaborating since 2019 with researchers and various stakeholders in the livestock sector (farmers, agricultural advisors, and veterinarians) from different regions of sub-Saharan Africa (Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, and Senegal), Vietnam and Cuba.

The work presented here provides, for the first time, a standardized BCS assessment system adapted to a wide range of tropical farm animals (zebu and/or crossed cattle, buffaloes, camels, sheep, goats, horses and donkeys), based on a rigorous set of uniform criteria for practical and easy-to-use field conditions.

# Methodology: proposal of an original, multispecific, standardized BCS assessment system

## Animal species targeted

The work was carried out in several tropical sites of Western Africa (Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, and Senegal), South-East Asia (Vietnam) and Latin America (Cuba). The following specific tropical breeds and/or animal species (*Bos indicus* -zebu- and *Bos Taurus* cattle, buffaloes, camels, sheep, goats, horses and donkeys) were targeted, for developing specific BCS grids based on the same principles:

* *Bos indicus* -zebu- and *Bos taurus* cattle:

- Sudanese zebu (*Bos indicus*) of Sahel and Savannah areas of West Africa

- Ndama cattle (*Bos taurus*) in Ivory Coast

- Crossbred *Bos indicus*×*Bos taurus*: Dairy cattle (Cuba) and Yellow cattle (Vietnam)

* Buffaloes (*Bubalus bubalis*) in Vietnam

* Camels (*Camelus dromedaries*) in Sahel and Saharan areas of West Africa

* Small ruminants (of Sahel and Savannah areas of West Africa):

- Djalonké sheep (*Ovis aries*)

- Goats (*Capra hircus*)

* Equines:

- Barbe horses (*Equus caballus*) in Senegal

- Donkeys (*Equus asinus*) of Sahel and Savannah areas of West Africa
<table><caption>**Table 1** BCS grids used for farm animal species reared in tropical and warm regions</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Animal Specie</th><th rowspan="2">Breed (Country)</th><th rowspan="2">Level of scoring</th><th colspan="3">Views used to assess</th><th colspan="4">Body landmarks used to assess</th></tr><tr><th>Back view</th><th>Right side view</th><th>Other views</th><th>Pelvis and hip bones</th><th>Base of the tail</th><th>Pelvis cover</th><th>Thighs cover</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Zebu</td><td>White Fulani (Nigeria)</td><td>6</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Zebu</td><td>Bos indicus in general</td><td>9</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Zebu</td><td>Gobra (Senegal)</td><td>6</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Zebu</td><td>White &amp; Red, Fulani, Draft zebus (Cameroon)</td><td>6</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td><td>×</td><td></td><td>×</td><td>×</td></tr><tr><td>Zebu</td><td>Sudanese (Burkina Faso)</td><td>6</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>×</td></tr><tr><td>Zebu</td><td>Bos indicus &amp; Holstein (Mexico)</td><td>9</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cattle</td><td>Ndama (Sub-Saharan Africa)</td><td>6</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>Loin area</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cattle</td><td>Dairy cows (South Africa)</td><td>5</td><td>×</td><td></td><td>Loin area</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cattle</td><td>Creole cow (Guadeloupe)</td><td>5</td><td>×</td><td></td><td>Left side</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cattle</td><td>Bos taurus &amp; Holstein cattle (Mexico)</td><td>9</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Buffalo</td><td>Murra buf-faloes</td><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Buffalo</td><td>African buf-faloes</td><td>5</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Camel</td><td>Maghrebi camel (Morocco)</td><td>6</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Camel</td><td>Canarian camel breed (Spain)</td><td>6</td><td>×</td><td></td><td>Left side</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sheep</td><td>Fulani sheep (Sahel)</td><td>6</td><td></td><td></td><td>Lumber area</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Goat</td><td>Goat of sub-Saharan Africa (Tchad)</td><td>4</td><td></td><td></td><td>Lumbar and sternal areas</td><td>×</td><td></td><td>×</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Goat</td><td>Goat (India)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Left side</td><td>×</td><td></td><td>×</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Goat</td><td>Creole goat (Guadeloupe)</td><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 1 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Animal Specie</th><th>Body landmarks used to assess</th><th>Lumbar vertebrae</th><th>Hollow side</th><th>Backline</th><th>Ribs</th><th>Shoulder</th><th>Neckline</th><th>Others landmarks</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Zebu</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Pullan (1978)</td></tr><tr><td>Zebu</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Nicholson and Butterworth (1989)</td></tr><tr><td>Zebu</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Cissé (1995)</td></tr><tr><td>Zebu</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Vall et al. (2002)</td></tr><tr><td>Zebu</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Vall and Bayala (2004)</td></tr><tr><td>Zebu</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Ayala et al. (1992)</td></tr><tr><td>Cattle</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Ezanno (2002)</td></tr><tr><td>Cattle</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Van der Merve and Stewart (1995)</td></tr><tr><td>Cattle</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Frantz (1988)</td></tr><tr><td>Cattle</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Ayala et al. (1992)</td></tr><tr><td>Buffalo</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Anitha et al. (2010)</td></tr><tr><td>Buffalo</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Ezenwa et al. (2009)</td></tr><tr><td>Camel</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Faye et al. (2002)</td></tr><tr><td>Camel</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Iglesias et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Sheep</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Richard (1997)</td></tr><tr><td>Goat</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Imadine (1991)</td></tr><tr><td>Goat</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Richard (1997)</td></tr><tr><td>Goat</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Imadine (1991)</td></tr><tr><td>Goat</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Gosh et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>Goat</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Body landmarks used to assess</td><td>Poisot (1988)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 1 (continued)**</caption><tr><td>Goat</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Palpation</td><td>Honhold et al. (1989)</td></tr><tr><td>Horse</td><td>×</td><td></td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td><td>Diaw (2013)</td></tr><tr><td>Donkey</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Vall et al. (2001)</td></tr><tr><td>Donkey</td><td>×</td><td></td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>×</td><td>Muscle development</td><td>Pearson and Ouassat (2000)</td></tr></table>

## The principles of the standardized BCS system

In the proposed BCS system, the animal model is the adult female. In *Bos indicus*–zebu- and *Bos taurus* cattle, buffaloes, camel, sheep and goat herds, females are the most numerous and important component for the reproduction, playing a key role in keeping a sustainable longitudinal functioning of the flock or herd in a long timespan path. The BCS of the adult female is the best indicator of the quality of the established feeding systems, the inherent energy status of individuals and the overall management of the farm. For example, if a large proportion of emaciated females is present in the herd, it indicates a poor feeding system and/or nutritional management on the farm. Contrary to other species, for equids (donkeys and horses), the animal model chosen was the adult male, considering their often use for animal traction, as draft animals, for land works, cropping and transport.

The proposed BCS system is based on six assessment levels, ranging from 0 (emaciated) to 5 (overweighed). The reason for choosing an intermedium six level scoring is two-fold: firstly, it corresponds to what most often is proposed in other grids (Table 1); and secondly, too many levels add difficulty in practice (thus requiring more training and affecting reproducibility of the operators) whereas too few levels affect the accuracy in the assessment.

The proposed BCS system is based on visual interpretation of the back and right sides of each animal to establish an overall assessment criterion across three anatomical regions (i.e., the hindquarters or rump, the thorax and abdomen, and the shoulders and neck; Fig. 1).

Then, the scoring is based on the visual observation of the following body landmarks:

1. the bones of the pelvis and hip [iliac (a1) and ischial (a2) spines of the pelvis, coxofemoral joint (a3)];

2. the base of the tail [caudal strait and caudal vertebrae (b)],

3. the pelvis (corresponding to the point c);

4. the thighs (corresponding to the point d);

5. the lumbar vertebrae (transverse apophyses of the lumbar vertebrae (e));

6. the hollow side (corresponding to the point f);

7. the back line [spinous apophyses of the dorsal vertebrae (g)];

8. the ribs (corresponding to the point h);

9. the shoulder [scapula (i1), humerus joint (i2)]

10. the neckline [hollow of the neck (j1) and general appearance (j2)]

A first assessment is carried out for each anatomical region or landmark. A BCS score is then assigned for the back and right-side views, respectively. The average of the two scores provides the overall individual's BCS assessment, which is based on a global interpretation of all body landmarks. According to the average BCS score assigned, individual animals are classified as 'Very emaciated, skeletal animal' (Score 0), 'Very thin animal' (Score 1), 'Skinny, lean animal' (Score 2), 'Animal with good body condition' (Score 3), 'Animal with excellent body condition' (Score 4), 'Fat and smooth, overweighed animal' (Score 5). The same criteria were used to validate the system for all the animal species involved in this work (Fig. 1).

## The BCS grids conception and design (source of drawings)

For the BCS score grids, we opted for using hand-made representative drawings rather than pictures taken with cameras. This is because it is not easy to get pictures clearly presenting the details of the anatomical points in the different positions of the animal, as was done by most authors proposing previous BCS grid systems (Poisot 1988; Honhold et al. 1989; Cissé 1995; Richard 1997; Ezanno 2002; Faye et al. 2002; Vall et al. 2001; Vall and Bayala 2004; Anitha et al. 2010; Gosh et al., 2019; Diaw 2013; Iglesias et al. 2020). Even if, some grids are presented with photos (Pullan 1978; Nicholson and Butterworth 1989; Pearson and Ouassat, 2000). Nevertheless, to develop the drawings we used pictures taken to live animals, representing both views (back and right sides, photos taken at 3 m each), and the range of body condition (from emaciated to overweighed), under field conditions, there where animals from the different species and breeds involved in this study were present (Table 2).
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Anatomical regions and body landmarks considered in the proposed standardized body condition scoring system</figcaption></figure>

The drawings represent a typical animal for each of the different BCS levels and from two perspectives angles (right side view, back view). In agreement with that, each animal was photographed from the two perspectives, at approximately a 3 m distance, combining prudence for avoiding disturbance to the animal while warranting the quality of the picture. For this purpose, the animals were controlled, kept in standing position in the free stalls or lot areas and/or restrained in headlocks at the feeders.

From the drawing of a typical animal presenting an average soring (BCS=2) in both views (back view, right side view), and pair of photos corresponding to each score level, the appearance of the typical animal (and of all the corresponding body landmarks) was developed to obtain 6 drawings of a typical animal in back and side perspective corresponding to each score level. In this paper, all draws were hand-made based on representative pictures taken on field, by the first and corresponding author of this work i.e. Eric Vall.

<table><caption>**Table 2** Number of pictures, taken at 3 m of distance, and used to create the BCS grids according to the two complementary views of a given animal with a given body condition</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Animal species</th><th colspan="5">Back view</th><th colspan="5">Right side view</th></tr><tr><th>0</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>0</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sudanese zebu</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Ndama cattle</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Crossbred dairy cattle (Cuba)</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Crossbred Yellow cattle (Vietnam)</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Buffaloes</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Camels</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Djalonké Sheep</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Goats</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Donkeys</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Horses</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 3** Number of scorers, sources (pictures, living animals), and number of views used to assess the reproducibility of the proposed BCS systems</caption><thead><tr><th>Animal species</th><th>Number of scorers</th><th>Pictures (P) Living animal (LA)</th><th>Righth-side view (RSW)</th><th>Back view (BW)</th><th>Average RSD and BW</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Sudanese zebu</td><td>22</td><td>P</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>×</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>LA</td><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Ndama cattle</td><td>18</td><td>P</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>×</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>LA</td><td>14</td><td>14</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Crossbred Cuban dairy cattle</td><td>21</td><td>P</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>LA</td><td>18</td><td>18</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Yellow cattle</td><td>20</td><td>P</td><td>10</td><td>8</td><td>×</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>LA</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Buffaloes</td><td>20</td><td>P</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>×</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>L</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Camel</td><td>22</td><td>P</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>×</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>P</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>×</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Djalonké sheep</td><td>21</td><td>LA</td><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>LA</td><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Goats</td><td>22</td><td>P</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>×</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>LA</td><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Donkeys</td><td>22</td><td>P</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>×</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Validation of the BCS grids by experts and local stakeholders

To validate the constructed BCS grids we organized workshops with livestock experts from each locality involved in the project:

* Ouagadougou workshop (Burkina Faso) in 2020 with around 22 experts from the countries of the Inter-State Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel (CILSS:

Burkina Faso, Senegal, Mauritania, Niger, and Chad), for the validation of the BCS Sudanese zebu, camels, Djalonké sheep, goats, and donkeys' grids;

* Dien Bien Phu workshop (Vietnam) in 2021 with around 20 experts for the validation of the BCS buffaloes and Yellow cattle grids;

* Bouaké workshop (Ivory Coast) in 2022 with around 18 experts for the validation of the BCS Ndama cattle grid;

* Camagüey (Cuba) in December 2024 with around 21 participants coming from different fields or stakeholders related to livestock production in the region; they validated the BCS grid conceived for crossed *Bos indicus* × *Bos taurus* dual purpose cattle

Initially, the workshops participants were trained in the principles of BCS assessment and how to use the BCS grid projects to be validated. Then, they practiced such principles using BCS grid projects during supervised scoring sessions on pictures, then during a practical scoring work for assessing live animals on local markets or directly on farms.

## Evaluating the reproducibility of the BCS assessment ("scoring")

Thereafter, the scoring data collected during the tutorials and practical work made it possible to assess the reproducibility of the scoring for each BCS grid. According to Agabriel et al. (1986), the reproducibility of the BCS is defined as the difference observed between the scores assigned to the same animal by different operators or scorers using the same system. To assess it in a simple analysis of variance model, reproducibility is defined by the correlation between the score given by one (trained, expert) judge, and those given by other judges during the same test. The Table 3 presents the number of scorers, the sources (pictures, living animals), and the number of views used to assess the reproducibility of the proposed BCS systems.

<table><caption>**Table 4** Numbers of BCS assessments used (across different countries) to analyse the accuracy of the standardized BCS system according to the animal species and the reference body condition scoring level (0 à 5)</caption><thead><tr><th>Animal species</th><th>BCSref_0</th><th>BCSref_1</th><th>BCSref_2</th><th>BCSref_3</th><th>BCSref_4</th><th>BCSref_5</th><th>Total per species</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sudanese zebu</td><td>63</td><td>109</td><td>194</td><td>216</td><td>234</td><td>128</td><td>944</td></tr><tr><td>Ndama cattle</td><td>26</td><td>40</td><td>141</td><td>251</td><td>82</td><td>0</td><td>540</td></tr><tr><td>Crossbred Cuban dairy cattle</td><td>63</td><td>84</td><td>474</td><td>470</td><td>389</td><td>80</td><td>1560</td></tr><tr><td>Yellow cattle</td><td>0</td><td>63</td><td>181</td><td>139</td><td>97</td><td>0</td><td>480</td></tr><tr><td>Buffaloes</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>202</td><td>101</td><td>198</td><td>21</td><td>522</td></tr><tr><td>Camel</td><td>22</td><td>22</td><td>110</td><td>88</td><td>110</td><td>88</td><td>440</td></tr><tr><td>Djalonké sheep</td><td>0</td><td>152</td><td>215</td><td>256</td><td>237</td><td>84</td><td>944</td></tr><tr><td>Goats</td><td>0</td><td>44</td><td>274</td><td>232</td><td>370</td><td>0</td><td>920</td></tr><tr><td>Donkeys</td><td>0</td><td>44</td><td>88</td><td>132</td><td>154</td><td>22</td><td>440</td></tr><tr><td>Total per BCSref</td><td>174</td><td>558</td><td>1879</td><td>1885</td><td>1871</td><td>423</td><td>6790</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 0: Very emaciated, skeletal animal</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Very prominent, skin glued to the bones

* Tail base (b): Deep caudal strait, Prominent caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Very concave

* Thighs (d): Skeletal

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Individualized apophyses

* Hollow side (f): Wide and strongly depressed

* Backline (g): Very marked over the entire length of the back

* Ribs (h): All visible, skin glued to the bones

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Skeletal shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Emaciated, hollow of the neck concave

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 2: Skinny, lean animal</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Totally visible

* Tail base (b): Nascent caudal strait and caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Flat

* Thighs (d): Skinny

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses with non-sharp angle

* Hollow side (f): Marked

* Backline (g): Marked behind the withers

* Ribs (h): Visible over 50% of the back of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Angular shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Skinny, hollow of the neck concave to filled

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 4: Animal with excellent body condition</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Barely visible, fat cover visible

* Tail base (b): Filled caudal strait, emerging fat cover

* Pelvis (c): Convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (full)

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses detectable

* Hollow side (f): Barely visible

* Backline (g): Barely visible

* Ribs (h): Barely visible, light fat cover

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line, emerging fat cover

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Muscular, hollow of the neck filled

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 1: Very thin animal</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Very prominent

* Tail base (b): Visible caudal strait and caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Concave

* Thighs (d): Very skinny

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of protruding apophyses marking a sharp angle

* Hollow side (f): Depressed

* Backline (g): Marked to the middle of the back

* Ribs (h): Visible over 75% of the back of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Protruding shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Skinny, hollow of the neck concave

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 3: Animal with good body condition</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Visible, fat deposit sensitive to the touch

* Tail base (b): Barely visible caudal strait

* Pelvis (c): Flat to convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (dry)

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Barely visible line of apophyses with rounded angle

* Hollow side (f): Nascent

* Backline (g): Perceptible behind the withers

* Ribs (h): Visible over 10% of the back of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Full, hollow of the neck filled

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 5: Fat and smooth, overweighed animal</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Difficult to locate, evident fat cover

* Tail base (b): Invisible caudal strait, evident fat cover

* Pelvis (c): Markedly convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (rounded, globular)

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses invisible (due to fat cover)

* Hollow side (f): Barely invisible

* Backline (g): Invisible (due to fat cover)

* Ribs (h): Invisible (due to fat cover)

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line, evident fat cover

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Muscular (globular), hollow of the neck filled

<caption>Fig. 2 BCS grid for Sudanese zebu</caption>

Finally, based on the lessons learned from the practical works made on the field, and the results of the reproducibility assessment sessions for each BCS grid, the participants proposed some modifications to be considered to improve the BCS grids for the description of body landmarks, before validating the final versions of the BCS grids.

## Evaluating the scoring precision according to the grid level

For each animal and from the same angle or perspective (back or lateral views), we analysed the variance of the score attributed by a group of operators (“scorers”) in order to evaluate the accuracy of the BCS assessment (scoring) according to the
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 0: Very emaciated, skeletal animal</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Very prominent, skin glued to the bones

* Tail base (b): Deep caudal strait, Prominent caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Very concave

* Thighs (d): Skeletal

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Individualized apophyses

* Hollow side (f): Wide and strongly depressed

* Backline (g): Very marked over the entire length of the back

* Ribs (h): All visible, skin glued to the bones

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Skeletal shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Emaciated, hollow of the neck concave

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 2: Skinny, lean animal</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Totally visible

* Tail base (b): Nascent caudal strait and caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Flat

* Thighs (d): Skinny

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses with non-sharp angle

* Hollow side (f): Marked

* Backline (g): Marked behind the withers

* Ribs (h): Visible over 50% of the back of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Angular shoulder lin

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Skinny, hollow of the neck concave to filled

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 4: Animal with excellent body condition</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Barely visible, fat cover visible

* Tail base (b): Filled caudal strait, emerging fat cover

* Pelvis (c): Convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (full)

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses detectable

* Hollow side (f): Barely visible

* Backline (g): Barely visible

* Ribs (h): Barely visible, light fat cover

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line, emerging fat cover

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Muscular, hollow of the neck filled

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 1: Very thin animal</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Very prominent

* Tail base (b): Visible caudal strait and caudal vertebrae strait

* Pelvis (c): Concave

* Thighs (d): Very skinny

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of protruding apophyses marking a sharp angle

* Hollow side (f): Depressed

* Backline (g): Marked to the middle of the back

* Ribs (h): Visible over 75% of the back of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Protruding shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Skinny

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 3: Animal with good body condition</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Visible, fat deposit sensitive to the touch

* Tail base (b): Barely visible caudal strait

* Pelvis (c): Flat to convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (dry)

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Barely visible line of apophyses with rounded angle

* Hollow side (f): Nascent

* Backline (g): Perceptible behind the withers

* Ribs (h): Visible over 10% of the back of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Full, hollow of the neck filled

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 5: Fat and smooth, overweight animal</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Difficult to locate, evident fat cover

* Tail base (b): Invisible caudal strait, evident fat cover

* Pelvis (c): Markedly convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (rounded, globular)

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses invisible (due to fat cover)

* Hollow side (f): Barely invisible

* Backline (g): Invisible (due to fat cover)

* Ribs (h): Invisible (due to fat cover)

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line, evident fat cover

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Muscular (globular), hollow of the neck filled

<caption>Fig. 3 BCS grid for Ndama cattle</caption>

level (0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5). Then, we calculated the mean of the performed BCS assessment for each animal and perspective, which was considered to be the reference BCS value (BCSref). For each animal species, the BCS of the scorers attached to the same BCSref were grouped in order to analyse the variance among the scorers. Finally, the 6790 BCS assessment collected throughout all workshops were retained and distributed according to the animal species and to the BCSref (Table 4).

# Results

## Standardized morphological regions and anatomical points

The Fig. 1 represents the anatomical regions and body landmarks considered in the proposed standardized BCS system for all the animal species involved in this study.
<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>SCORE 0: Very emaciated, skeletal animal</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Very prominent, skin glued to the bones

* Tail base (b): Deep caudal strait, Prominent caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Very concave

* Thighs (d): Skeletal

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Individualized apophyses

* Hollow side (f): Wide and strongly depressed

* Backline (g): Very marked over the entire length of the back

* Ribs (h): All visible, skin glued to the bones

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Skeletal shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Emaciated, hollow of the neck concave

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>SCORE 2: Skinny, lean animal</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Totally visible

* Tail base (b): Nascent caudal strait and caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Flat

* Thighs (d): Skinny

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses with non-sharp angle

* Hollow side (f): Marked

* Backline (g): Marked behind the withers

* Ribs (h): Visible over 50% of the back of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Angular shoulder lin

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Skinny, hollow of the neck concave to filled

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /><figcaption>SCORE 4: Animal with excellent body condition</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Barely visible, fat cover visible

* Tail base (b): Filled caudal strait, emerging fat cover

* Pelvis (c): Convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (full)

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses detectable

* Hollow side (f): Barely visible

* Backline (g): Barely visible

* Ribs (h): Barely visible, light fat cover

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line, emerging fat cover

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Muscular, hollow of the neck filled

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /><figcaption>SCORE 1: Very thin animal</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Very prominent

* Tail base (b): Visible caudal strait and caudal vertebrae strait

* Pelvis (c): Concave

* Thighs (d): Very skinny

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of protruding apophyses marking a sharp angle

* Hollow side (f): Depressed

* Backline (g): Marked to the middle of the back

* Ribs (h): Visible over 75% of the back of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Protruding shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Skinny

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /><figcaption>SCORE 3: Animal with good body condition</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Visible, fat deposit sensitive to the touch

* Tail base (b): Barely visible caudal strait

* Pelvis (c): Flat to convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (dry)

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Barely visible line of apophyses with rounded angle

* Hollow side (f): Nascent

* Backline (g): Perceptible behind the withers

* Ribs (h): Visible over 10% of the back of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Full, hollow of the neck filled

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /><figcaption>SCORE 5: Fat and smooth, overweighed animal</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Difficult to locate, evident fat cover

* Tail base (b): Invisible caudal strait, evident fat cover

* Pelvis (c): Markedly convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (rounded, globular)

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses invisible (due to fat cover)

* Hollow side (f): Barely invisible

* Backline (g): Invisible (due to fat cover)

* Ribs (h): Invisible (due to fat cover)

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line, evident fat cover

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Muscular (globular), hollow of the neck filled

<caption>Fig. 4 BCS grid for crossbred *Bos Taurus* × *Bos indicus* (Cuban dairy cattle)</caption>

## Sudanese zebu

The Fig. 2 presents the BCS grid for Sudanese zebu (Vall 2024f).

## Ndama cattle

The Fig. 3 presents the BCS grid for Ndama cattle (Sib et al. 2024).

## Crossbred *Bos Taurus* × *Bos indicus* cattle

The Fig. 4 presents the BCS grid for crossbred Cuban dairy cattle (Comary et al. 2024). The similar BCS grid for Yellow cattle (Vietnam) is not presented in this paper (Blanchard et al. 2024a).
<figure><img src="image_39.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 0: Very emaciated, skeletal animal</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Very prominent, skin glued to the bones

* Tail base (b): Deep caudal strait, Prominent caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Very concave

* Thighs (d): Skeletal

* Feet tendons (k): Very thin

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /></figure>

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Individualized transverse processes

* Hollow side (f): Strongly depressed

* Backline (g): Very marked over the entire length of the back, irregular line of spinal processes

* Ribs (h): Very visible

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Skeletal, Thin & narrow

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Scrawny, concave hollow of the neck

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 2: Skinny, lean animal</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Totally visible

* Tail base (b): Nascent caudal strait and caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Flat

* Thighs (d): Skinny

* Feet tendons (k): Thin

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /></figure>

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses with non-sharp angle

* Hollow side (f): Marked

* Backline (g): Marked behind the withers

* Ribs (h): Visible over 25% of the back of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Angular shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Skinny, hollow of the neck concave to filled

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 4: Animal with excellent body condition</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Barely visible, fat cover visible

* Tail base (b): Filled caudal strait, emerging fat cover

* Pelvis (c): Convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (full)

* Feet tendons (k): Thick

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses detectable

* Hollow side (f): Barely visible

* Backline (g): Barely visible

* Ribs (h): Invisible, light fat cover

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line, emerging fat cover

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Muscular, hollow of the neck filled

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 1: Very thin animal</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Very prominent

* Tail base (b): Visible caudal strait and caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Concave

* Pelvis (c): Concave

* Thighs (d): Very skinny

* Feet tendons (k): Very skinny

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of protruding apophyses marking a sharp angle

* Hollow side (f): Depressed

* Backline (g): Marked to the middle of the back

* Ribs (h): Visible over 50% of the back of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Protruding shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Skinny, hollow of the neck concave

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 3: Animal with good body condition</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Visible, fat deposit sensitive to the touch

* Tail base (b): Barely visible caudal strait

* Pelvis (c): Flat to convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (dry)

* Feet tendons (k): Thick

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Barely visible line of apophyses with rounded angle

* Hollow side (f): Nascent

* Backline (g): Perceptible behind the withers

* Ribs (h): Visible over 10% of the back of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Full, hollow of the neck filled

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 5: Fat and smooth, overweighed animal</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Difficult to locate, evident fat cover

* Tail base (b): Invisible caudal strait, evident fat cover

* Pelvis (c): Markedly convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (rounded)

* Feet tendons (k): Very thick

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses invisible (due to fat cover)

* Hollow side (f): Invisible

* Backline (g): Invisible (due to fat cover)

* Ribs (h): Invisible (due to evident fat cover)

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line, evident fat cover

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Muscular (globular), hollow of the neck filled

<caption>Fig. 5 BCS grid for buffaloes</caption>

## Buffaloes

The Fig. 5 presents the BCS grid for buffaloes (Blanchard et al. 2024b)

## Camels

The Fig. 6 presents the BCS grid for camels (Vall 2024b).

## Djalonké sheep

The Fig. 7 presents the BCS grid for Djalonké sheep (Vall 2024e).

## Goats

The Fig. 8 presents the BCS grid for goats (Vall 2024d).
<figure><img src="image_51.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Very prominent, skin glued to the bones

* Tail base (b): Deep caudal strait, Prominent caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Very concave

* Thighs (d): Skeletal

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Individualized apophyses

* Hollow side (f): Wide and strongly depressed

* Backline (g): Very marked over the entire length of the back

* Ribs (h): All visible

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Skeletal shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Emaciated, hollow of the neck concave

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Totally visible

* Tail base (b): Nascent caudal strait and caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Flat

* Thighs (d): Skinny

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses with non-sharp angle

* Hollow side (f): Marked

* Backline (g): Visible in front of the bump

* Ribs (h): Visible over 25% of the back of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Angular shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Skinny, hollow of the neck concave to filled

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Barely visible, fat cover visible

* Tail base (b): Filled caudal strait, emerging fat cover

* Pelvis (c): Convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (full)

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses detectable

* Hollow side (f): Barely visible

* Backline (g): Barely visible

* Ribs (h): Invisible, light fat cover

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line, emerging fat cover

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Muscular, hollow of the neck filled

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Very prominent

* Tail base (b): Visible caudal strait and caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Concave

* Thighs (d): Very skinny

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of protruding apophyses marking a sharp angle

* Hollow side (f): Depressed

* Backline (g): Marked in front of the bump

* Ribs (h): Visible over 50% of the back of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Protruding shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Skinny, hollow of the neck concave

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Visible, fat deposit sensitive to the touch

* Tail base (b): Barely visible caudal strait

* Pelvis (c): Flat to convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (dry)

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Barely visible line of apophyses with rounded angle

* Hollow side (f): Nascent

* Backline (g): Perceptible in front of the bump

* Ribs (h): Nascent on the back of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Full, hollow of the neck filled

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Difficult to locate, evident fat cover

* Tail base (b): Invisible caudal strait, evident fat cover

* Pelvis (c): Markedly convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (rounded, globular)

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses invisible (due to fat cover)

* Hollow side (f): Invisible

* Backline (g): Invisible (due to fat cover)

* Ribs (h): Invisible (due to evident fat cover)

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line, evident fat cover

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Muscular (globular), hollow of the neck filled

<caption>**Fig. 6** BCS grid for camel</caption>

## Barbe horses

The Fig. 9 presents the BCS grid for *Barbe* horse (Vall 2024a).

## Donkeys

The Fig. 10 presents the BCS grid for donkeys (Vall 2024c).

## Reproducibility of the standardized BCS grids for tropical animals

The reproducibility assessment results presented in Table 5 show that: 1) Reproducibility (between 0.67 and 0.99) is acceptable for all animal species; 2) Reproducibility improves with the training of the operator charged of the scoring (the correlation coefficients of scoring on live animals carried out after photo scoring are higher); 3) The

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_58.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 0: Very emaciated, skeletal animal</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Very prominent, skin glued to the bones

* Tail base (b): Deep caudal strait, Prominent caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Very concave

* Thighs (d): Skeletal

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 2: Skinny, lean animal</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Totally visible

* Tail base (b): Nascent caudal strait and caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Flat

* Thighs (d): Skinny

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 4: Animal with excellent body condition</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Barely visible, fat cover visible

* Tail base (b): Filled caudal strait, emerging fat cover

* Pelvis (c): Convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (full)

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Individualized apophyses

* Hollow side (f): Wide and strongly depressed

* Backline (g): Very marked over the entire length of the back

* Ribs (h): All visible, skin glued to the bones

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Skeletal shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Emaciated, hollow of the neck concave

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /></figure>

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses with non-sharp angle

* Hollow side (f): Marked

* Backline (g): Marked behind the withers

* Ribs (h): Visible over 50% of the back of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line, emerging fat cover

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Muscular, hollow of the neck filled

<figure><img src="image_64.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 1: Very thin animal</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_65.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Very prominent

* Tail base (b): Visible caudal strait and caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Concave

* Thighs (d): Very skinny

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of protruding apophyses marking a sharp angle

* Hollow side (f): Depressed

* Backline (g): Marked to the middle of the back

* Ribs (h): Visible over 75% of the back of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Protruding shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Skinny, hollow of the neck concave

<figure><img src="image_66.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 3: Animal with good body condition</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_67.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Visible, fat deposit sensitive to the touch

* Tail base (b): Barely visible caudal strait

* Pelvis (c): Flat to convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (dry)

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Barely visible line of apophyses with rounded angle

* Hollow side (f): Nascent

* Backline (g): Perceptible behind the withers

* Ribs (h): Visible over 10% of the back of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Full, hollow of the neck filled

<figure><img src="image_68.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 5: Fat and smooth, overweighed animal</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_69.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Difficult to locate, evident fat cover

* Tail base (b): Invisible caudal strait, evident fat cover

* Pelvis (c): Markedly convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (rounded, globular)

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses invisible (due to fat cover)

* Hollow side (f): Invisible

* Backline (g): Invisible (due to fat cover)

* Ribs (h): Invisible (due to fat cover)

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line, evident fat cover

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Muscular (globular), hollow of the neck filled

<caption>Fig. 7 BCS grid for Djalonké sheep</caption>

integration of the two scoring (right side view and back view) improves reproducibility.

## Variance among operators of the BCS assessment ("scoring") according to the BCS level of reference

The Fig. 11 present, for all animal species, the variance of the BCS scores attributed by the operators, in function of the BCS of reference (BCSRef: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). In most of

the case, results show lower variance (i.e., more agreement among scorers in attributing a BCS value to a given animal from a given perspective) in the extreme levels of the grid (0 et 4 et 5) and, conversely, more the animal tend to be in the middle of the scale (BCS scores 1, 2, 3) more variance is observed among the scorers. This result highlights the importance of proposing some solutions (i.e., "tips" to avoid confusion and add clarity) to improve BCS assessment at these points of the grids.
<figure><img src="image_70.png" /><figcaption>SCORE 0: Very emaciated, skeletal animal</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Very prominent, skin glued to the bones

* Tail base (b): Prominent caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Very concave

* Thighs (d): Skeletal

<figure><img src="image_71.png" /></figure>

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Individualized apophyses

* Hollow side (f): Wide and strongly depressed

* Backline (g): Very marked over the entire length of the back

* Ribs (h): Visible over 50% of the back of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Skeletal shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Emaciated, hollow of the neck concave

<figure><img src="image_72.png" /><figcaption>SCORE 2: Skinny, lean animal</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Totally visible

* Tail base (b): Nascent caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Flat

* Thighs (d): Skinny

<figure><img src="image_73.png" /></figure>

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses with non-sharp angle

* Hollow side (f): Marked

* Backline (g): Slightly visible behind the withers

* Ribs (h): Invisible

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Angular shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Skinny, hollow of the neck concave to filled

<figure><img src="image_74.png" /><figcaption>SCORE 4: Animal with excellent body condition</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Barely visible, fat cover visible

* Tail base (b): Emerging fat cover

* Pelvis (c): Convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (full)

<figure><img src="image_75.png" /></figure>

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses detectable

* Hollow side: Barely visible

* Hollow side (f): Barely visible

* Backline (g): Barely visible

* Ribs (h): Invisible, light fat cover

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line, emerging fat cover

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Muscular, hollow of the neck filled

<figure><img src="image_76.png" /><figcaption>SCORE 1: Very thin animal</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_77.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Very prominent

* Tail base (b): Visible caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Concave

* Thighs (d): Very skinny

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of protruding apophyses marking a sharp angle

* Hollow side (f): Depressed

* Backline (g): Marked on the front of the back

* Ribs (h): Visible over 25% of the back of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Protruding shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Skinny, hollow of the neck concave

<figure><img src="image_78.png" /><figcaption>SCORE 3: Animal with good body condition</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_79.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Visible, fat deposit sensitive to the touch

* Tail base (b): Barely visible caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Flat to convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (dry)

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Barely visible line of apophyses with rounded angle

* Hollow side (f): Nascent

* Backline (g): Perceptible behind the withers

* Ribs (h): Invisible, nascent fat cover

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Full, hollow of the neck filled

<figure><img src="image_80.png" /><figcaption>SCORE 5: Fat and smooth, overweighed animal</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_81.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Difficult to locate, evident fat cover

* Tail base (b): Evident fat cover

* Pelvis (c): Markedly convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (rounded, globular)

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses invisible (due to fat cover)

* Hollow side (f): Invisible

* Backline (g): Invisible (due to fat cover)

* Ribs (h): Invisible (due to evident fat cover)

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line, evident fat cover

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Muscular (globular), hollow of the neck filled

<caption>Fig. 8 BCS grid for goat</caption>

To overcome confusion in the middle levels of the grids, we propose to follow in a methodical manner the decisional tree presented in the Fig. 12. A chain of three successive questions may be comprised, which may substantially improve the precision of the attributed score. The chain of this decisional tree must be then interpreted as follows:

- First question: is the BCS of this animal equal or higher to 3 -the mid of the grid-? (BCS ≥ 3?; Yes or Not). Answering this first question may be determinant as a first step as it will lead to discriminate the score in two opposite overall trends

- Second question, if the answer is Yes, i.e., the animal been assessed would be in a positive body condition or, by the contrary, in negative (if the answer is Not)
<figure><img src="image_82.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 0: Very emaciated, skeletal animal</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Very prominent, skin glued to the bones

* Tail base (b): Deep caudal strait, Prominent caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Very concave

* Thighs (d): Skeletal

<figure><img src="image_83.png" /></figure>

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Individualized apophyses

* Hollow side (f): Wide and strongly depressed

* Backline (g): Very marked over the entire length of the back

* Ribs (h): All visible, skin glued to the bones

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Skeletal shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Emaciated, hollow of the neck concave

<figure><img src="image_84.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 2: Skinny, lean animal</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Totally visible

* Tail base (b): Nascent caudal strait and caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Flat

* Thighs (d): Skinny

<figure><img src="image_85.png" /></figure>

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses with non-sharp angle

* Hollow side (f): Marked

* Backline (g): Marked behind the withers

* Ribs (h): Visible over 50% of the front of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Angular shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Skinny, hollow of the neck concave to filled

<figure><img src="image_86.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 4: Animal with excellent body condition</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Barely visible, fat cover visible

* Tail base (b): Filled caudal strait, emerging fat cover

* Pelvis (c): Convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (full)

<figure><img src="image_87.png" /></figure>

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses detectable

* Hollow side (f): Barely visible

* Backline (g): Barely visible

* Ribs (h): Barely visible, light fat cover

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line, emerging fat cover

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Muscular, hollow of the neck filled

<figure><img src="image_88.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 1: Very thin animal</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Very prominent

* Tail base (b): Caudal vertebrae clearly visible

* Pelvis (c): Concave

* Thighs (d): Very skinny

<figure><img src="image_89.png" /></figure>

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of protruding apophyses marking a sharp angle

* Hollow side (f): Depressed

* Backline (g): Marked to the middle of the back

* Ribs (h): Visible over 75% of the front of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Protruding shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Skinny, hollow of the neck concave

<figure><img src="image_90.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 3: Animal with good body condition</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_91.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Visible, fat deposit sensitive to the touch

* Tail base (b): Barely visible caudal strait

* Pelvis (c): Flat to convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (dry)

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Barely visible line of apophyses

* Hollow side (f): Nascent

* Backline (g): Perceptible behind the withers

* Ribs (h): Visible over 10% of the front of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Full, hollow of the neck filled

<figure><img src="image_92.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 5: Fat and smooth, overweighed animal</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_93.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Difficult to locate, evident fat covered

* Tail base (b): Invisible caudal strait, evident fat cover

* Pelvis (c): Markedly convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (rounded, globular)

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses invisible (due to fat cover)

* Hollow side (f): Invisible

* Backline (g): Invisible (due to fat cover)

* Ribs (h): Invisible (due to fat cover)

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line, evident fat cover

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Muscular (globular), hollow of the neck filled

<caption>Fig. 9 BCS grid for Barbe horse</caption>

Third question, is then to apply the more precise “tips” leading to the specific extremes, for attributing the good score at the 0, 1, 4 and 5 levels above.

## Discussion and conclusion

The study presented in this paper proposes for the first time in a scientific (web indexed) journal a set of standardized BCS grids for farm animal species, reared in the tropics (zebu and/or crossed cattle, buffaloes, camels, sheep, goats,

horses and donkeys). These grids are harmonized and based on a set of common principles, including the animal model chosen (adult females, except for equines), six scoring levels ranging from very emaciated (0) to overweight animals (5), two views (back and right-side), observation of three anatomical regions (hindquarters; thorax and abdomen; shoulder and neck), and ten body landmarks (Fig. 1).

This is a novel approach, as such harmonization in a large spectrum of farm animal species had not been previously attempted in either temperate or tropical latitudes (for zebu: Pullan 1978; Frantz 1988; Nicholson and Butterworth 1989;
<figure><img src="image_94.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 0: Very emaciated, skeletal animal</figcaption></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Very prominent, skin glued to the bones

* Tail base (b): Prominent caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Very concave

* Thighs (d): Skeletal

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Individualized apophyses

* Hollow side (f): Wide and strongly depressed

* Backline (g): Very marked over the entire length of the back

* Ribs (h): All visible

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Skeletal shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Emaciated, hollow of the neck concave

<figure><img src="image_95.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 2: Skinny, lean animal</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_96.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Totally visible

* Tail base (b): Nascent caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Flat

* Thighs (d): Skinny

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses with non-sharp angle

* Hollow side (f): Marked

* Backline (g): Marked behind the withers

* Ribs (h): Visible over 25% of the front of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Angular shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Skinny, hollow of the neck concave to filled

<figure><img src="image_97.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 4: Animal with excellent body condition</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_98.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Barely visible, fat cover visible

* Tail base (b): Emerging fat cover

* Pelvis (c): Convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (full)

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses detectable

* Hollow side (f): Barely visible

* Backline (g): Barely visible

* Ribs (h): Invisible, light fat cover

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line, emerging fat cover

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Muscular, hollow of the neck filled

<figure><img src="image_99.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 1: Very thin animal</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_100.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Very prominent

* Tail base (b): Visible caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Concave

* Thighs (d): Very skinny

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of protruding apophyses marking a sharp angle

* Hollow side (f): Depressed

* Backline (g): Marked to the middle of the back

* Ribs (h): Visible over 50% of the front of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Protruding shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Skinny, hollow of the neck concave

<figure><img src="image_101.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 3: Animal with good body condition</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_102.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Visible, fat deposit sensitive to the touch

* Tail base (b): Barely visible caudal vertebrae

* Pelvis (c): Flat to convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (dry)

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Barely visible line of apophyses with rounded angle

* Hollow side (f): Nascent

* Backline (g): Perceptible behind the withers

* Ribs (h): Nascent on the front of the ribcage

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Full, hollow of the neck filled

<figure><img src="image_103.png" /><figcaption>### SCORE 5: Fat and smooth, overweighed animal</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_104.png" /></figure>

* Bones of the pelvis and hip (a₁, a₂, a₃): Difficult to locate, evident fat cover

* Tail base (b): Evident fat cover

* Pelvis (c): Markedly convex

* Thighs (d): Fleshy (rounded, globular)

* Lumbar vertebrae (e): Line of apophyses invisible (due to fat cover)

* Hollow side (f): Invisible

* Backline (g): Invisible (due to fat cover)

* Ribs (h): Invisible (due to evident fat cover)

* Shoulder (i₁, i₂): Round shoulder line, evident fat cover

* Neckline (j₁, j₂): Muscular (globular), hollow of the neck filled

<caption>Fig. 10 BCS grid for donkeys</caption>

Cissé 1995; Vall et al. 2002; Vall and Bayala 2004; for cattle: Croxton and Stollard 1976; Lowman et al. 1976; Buxton 1982; Edmonson et al. 1989; Ferguson et al. 1994; Van der Merve and Stewart 1995; Ezanno 2002; for buffaloes: Ezenwa et al. 2009; Anitha et al. 2010; for camels: Faye et al. 2002; Iglesias et al. 2020; for sheep: Russel et al. 1969; Richard 1997; for goats: Poisot 1988; Honhold et al. 1989; Hervieu et al. 1991; Imadine 1991; Santucci et al. 1991; Ghosh et al. 2019; for horses: Henneke et al. 1983; Carrol and Huntington

1988; Diaw 2013; for donkeys: Pearson and Ouassat 2000; Vall et al. 2001).

Although the importance of BCS as a relevant parameter for assessing the body reserves and welfare of farm animals is widely recognized (for dairy cattle: Edmonson et al. 1989; For zebu: Nicholson and Butterworth 1989; for buffaloes: Carvalho-Delfino et al. 2018; for camels: Faye et al. 2002; for sheep: Russel et al. 1969; Bocquier et al. 1999; for goats: Battini et al. 2014; for horses: Dugdale et al. 2012),
<table><caption>**Table 5** Reproducibility of BCS assessment</caption><thead><tr><th>Animal species</th><th>Sources (*)</th><th>Number of Scorers</th><th>Views (**)</th><th>Pr > P α</th><th>Correlation (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Sudanese zebu</td><td>P</td><td>22</td><td>RSV</td><td>0.724</td><td>0.83</td></tr><tr><td>P</td><td>22</td><td>BV</td><td>0.999</td><td>0.83</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>21</td><td>RSV</td><td>1.000</td><td>0.97</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>21</td><td>BV</td><td>1.000</td><td>0.97</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>21</td><td>AV</td><td>1.000</td><td>0.99</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Ndama cattle</td><td>P</td><td>18</td><td>RSV</td><td>0.811</td><td>0.74</td></tr><tr><td>P</td><td>18</td><td>BV</td><td>0.688</td><td>0.81</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>14</td><td>RSV</td><td>0.537</td><td>0.72</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>14</td><td>BV</td><td>0.146</td><td>0.68</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>14</td><td>AV</td><td>0.676</td><td>0.76</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Crossbred Cuban dairy cattle</td><td>P</td><td>21</td><td>RSV</td><td>0.449</td><td>0.835</td></tr><tr><td>P</td><td>21</td><td>BV</td><td>0.374</td><td>0.833</td></tr><tr><td>P</td><td>21</td><td>AV</td><td>0.428</td><td>0.870</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>20</td><td>RSV</td><td>0.687</td><td>0.835</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>20</td><td>BV</td><td>0.914</td><td>0.831</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>20</td><td>AV</td><td>0.945</td><td>0.870</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Yellow cattle</td><td>P</td><td>20</td><td>RSV</td><td>0.995</td><td>0.78</td></tr><tr><td>P</td><td>20</td><td>BV</td><td>0.995</td><td>0.73</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>17</td><td>RSV</td><td>0.999</td><td>0.93</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>17</td><td>BV</td><td>0.987</td><td>0.90</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>17</td><td>AV</td><td>0.998</td><td>0.93</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Buffaloes</td><td>P</td><td>20</td><td>RSV</td><td>0.992</td><td>0.69</td></tr><tr><td>P</td><td>20</td><td>BV</td><td>0.788</td><td>0.77</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>17</td><td>RSV</td><td>1.000</td><td>0.87</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>17</td><td>BV</td><td>0.996</td><td>0.89</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>17</td><td>RSV</td><td>1.000</td><td>0.93</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Camel</td><td>P</td><td>22</td><td>RSV</td><td>0.999</td><td>0.88</td></tr><tr><td>P</td><td>22</td><td>BV</td><td>0.380</td><td>0.70</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Djalonké sheep</td><td>P</td><td>22</td><td>RSV</td><td>0.914</td><td>0.67</td></tr><tr><td>P</td><td>22</td><td>BV</td><td>0.960</td><td>0.76</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>21</td><td>RSV</td><td>1.000</td><td>0.89</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>21</td><td>BV</td><td>1.000</td><td>0.92</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>21</td><td>AV</td><td>1.000</td><td>0.95</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Goats</td><td>P</td><td>22</td><td>RSV</td><td>1.000</td><td>0.85</td></tr><tr><td>P</td><td>22</td><td>BV</td><td>0.870</td><td>0.84</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>21</td><td>RSV</td><td>1.000</td><td>0.86</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>21</td><td>BV</td><td>1.000</td><td>0.85</td></tr><tr><td>LA</td><td>21</td><td>AV</td><td>1.000</td><td>0.90</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Donkeys</td><td>P</td><td>22</td><td>RSV</td><td>0.445</td><td>0.72</td></tr><tr><td>P</td><td>22</td><td>BV</td><td>0.467</td><td>0.82</td></tr></tbody></table>

Legend: (*) P: pictures; LA: living animals; (**) RSV: Right-side view; BV: Back view; AV: Average

a consistent metric is needed to enhance its precision, accuracy, reproducibility, and repeatability. Thus, the proposed harmonized BCS system presented in this work which standardizes the BCS assessment in a large spectrum of farm animal species reared in tropical and warm regions, address and will reduce the subjectivity of the most used, somehow informal, visual body condition scoring that many authors pointed out (Nicholson and Sayers 1987; Bell et al. 2018).

Although in the standardized BCS system proposed here, the criteria have been harmonized across a wide range of factors, the specificities of the different species in the description of body landmarks have been integrated into the grids. For example, in the case of the buffaloes of Vietnam, the participants of the validation workshop suggested adding a front view (not presented in this paper; see Blanchard et al. 2024a).
<figure><img src="image_105.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 11** Variance in the BCS scores attributed per level in the BCS of reference for each grid (BCS ref: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), according to the animal species</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_106.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 12** Decisional tree helping to attribute a body condition score (BCS) in the more precise and simple manner</figcaption></figure>

Another original aspect of the proposed BCS system is the allocation of scores based on the observation of three anatomical regions of the body from two different perspectives (back and right side). This differs from the majority of proposed BCS systems, which do not consider the neckline (except for Diaw 2013 for horses; and Pearson and Ouassat 2000 for donkeys) and simultaneously the two different perspectives (for zebu: Ayala et al. 1992;

for cattle: Van der Merve and Stewart 1995; Frantz 1988; for buffaloes: Anitha et al. 2010; Ezenwa et al. 2009; for camels: Iglesias et al. 2020; for sheep: Richard 1997; for goats: Poisot 1988; Imadine 1991; Ghosh et al. 2019; Honorold et al. 1989; for donkeys: Pearson and Ouassat 2000).

Animal species from tropical regions most often have short-haired coats making their anatomy always clearly visible. Therefore, lumbar palpation is not essential for scoring,

<figure><img src="image_107.png" /></figure>
as it is for sheep and goats mostly present in temperate zones, which often have woolly or longhaired fleeces (Russel et al. 1969; Hervieu et al. 1991). However, as for small animals, lumbar palpation is an easy observation that can increase the accuracy of the scoring, palpation has been retained in the BCS of sheep and goats (Vall 2024d; Vall 2024e), as has also been suggested by other authors (Poisot 1988; Honhold et al. 1989; Imadine 1991; Richard 1997; Ghosh et al. 2019).

The choice of drawing, instead of pictures (i.e., Pullan 1978; Nicholson and Butterworth 1989; Pearson and Ouassat 2000), allows for a better representation and uniformity in the assessment of the body landmarks at a given level of scoring. This is because it is not easy to get a good picture of an animal in the field, which clearly presents all the criteria assigned to a given score. Therefore, the schematic representation choice (drawing) seems to us to be a benefit of the proposed BCS system. This, while waiting for digital technology to possibly provide solutions that might improve the precision of scoring (e.g., Ferguson et al. 2006; Schroder and Staufenbiel 2006; Halachmi et al. 2008; Bell et al. 2018 for dairy cows; Vieira et al. 2015 for dairy goats).

There is a wide consensus in the subjective nature of the BCS assessment process or method, whatever the animal specie (Nicholson and Sayers 1987; Faye et al. 2002). Therefore, it is important to take the level of caution of each scorer considering the following aspects, which may contribute to increase the accuracy of the assessment: 1) perform regular practical sessions of BCS assessment following the indicated distance from the animal (3 m) for each angle; 2) use of the decisional tree approach, presented in the Fig. 12; 3) take the necessary time to, first of all, respond to the first question (BCS ≥ 3?) through a careful observation of the animal, determining from the start of the assessment in a positive or negative BCS notation.

The standardized BCS system for tropical farm animals presented in this work could be further improved and extended with complementary breeds that are numerous in the tropics, in order to test its robustness and to extend its reach and applicability in a large number of tropical regions and livestock farming conditions.

**Supplementary Information** The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-025-04328-4.

**Acknowledgements** To the anonymous reviewers who accepted to contribute with their comments to the improvement of this work. To the photographers who helped us to produce these standardized grids. The authors are particularly indebted to Bernard Faye and Didier Richard (formers, now retired, researchers from Cirad), Alphonse Sène (Direction des équidés du Ministère de l'élevage et des productions animales du Sénégal), Ousmane Diatta (ISRA, CRZ Dahra), Léa Grohens (Student from Montpellier Institut Agro, SAADS, DARS), Jean-Daniel Césaro (Cirad, UMR Selmet), Simon Taugourdeau (Cirad, UMR Selmet) and Matthieu Lesnoff (Cirad, UMR Selmet).

**Author contributions** “EV, EGG, OS and MB contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by EV, OS, MB and BC. The first draft of the manuscript was written by EV and EG and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.”

**Funding** Open access funding provided by CIRAD. This study was supported by the Projects PRAPS (CILSS countries), C2D Amruge (Ivory Coast), Beef Cattle (Vietnam) and ProLAIF Agroverde (Cuba).

**Data availability** The data and material generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on a reasonable request.

## Declarations

**Ethics approval** Not applicable.

**Consent to participate** Not applicable.

**Consent to publish** Not applicable.

**Competing interests** The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

## References of monospecific standardized BCS grids

Blanchard M, Le Thi Thanh H, Vall E (2024a) Body condition scoring grid for yellow cattle (Vietnam). https://doi.org/10.18167/DVN1/3ALNBU, CIRAD Dataverse, Draft version

Blanchard M, Le Thi Thanh H, Vall E, (2024b) Body condition scoring grid for buffaloes (Vietnam). https://doi.org/10.18167/DVN1/YKL19Q, CIRAD Dataverse, Draft version

Comary B, González-García E, Vall E (2024) Body condition scoring grid for crossbred Bos taurus × Bos indicus cuban dairy cattle. https://doi.org/10.18167/DVN1/MH2XAX, CIRAD Dataverse, Draft version

Sib O, Kouabenan KM, Kouadio E, Kouadja S, Vall E (2024) Body Condition Scoring Grid for Ndama cattle (Ivory Coast). https://doi.org/10.18167/DVN1/GSTAZG, CIRAD Dataverse, Draft version

Vall E (2024a) Body condition scoring grid for Barbe horse (Senegal). https://doi.org/10.18167/DVN1/TTFPBY, CIRAD Dataverse, Draft version

Vall E (2024b) Body condition scoring grid for camel (Sahel and Saharan areas). https://doi.org/10.18167/DVN1/KSUPQ5, CIRAD Dataverse, Draft version
Vall E (2024c) Body condition scoring grid for donkey (Sahel and Savannah areas). https://doi.org/10.18167/DVN1/KIIH1H, CIRAD Dataverse, Draft version

Vall E (2024d) Body condition scoring grid for goat (Sahel and Savan-
nah areas). https://doi.org/10.18167/DVN1/YYZDZQ, CIRAD
Dataverse, Draft version

Vall E (2024e) Body condition scoring grid for sheep (Sahel and Savan-
nah areas). https://doi.org/10.18167/DVN1/BP2GO8, CIRAD
Dataverse, Draft version

Vall E (2024f) Body Condition scoring grid for zebu cattle (Sahel and Savannah areas). https://doi.org/10.18167/DVN1/G5MWYR, CIRAD Dataverse, Draft version

References

Agabriel J, Giraud JM, Petit M (1986) Détermination et utilisation de la note d'état d'engraissement en élevage allaitant. Bull Tech CRZV Inra Theix 66:43–50 (https://productions-animales.org/article/download/4204/12724/30951)

Anitha A, Kapa SR, Jeepalyam S, Moorthy S, Kotilinga R (2010) Vet-
erinary science development of the body condition score system
in Murrah buffaloes : validation through ultrasonic assessment of
body fat reserves. J Vet Sci 11(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.4142/
jvs.2010.11.1.1

Ayala-Burgos A J, Honhold N, Delgado R, Magaña-Monforte J (1992). A visual Condition scoring scheme for crossbreed cattle. In: Anderson S, Wadsworth J (ed) Dual purpose cattle production research, Proceedings of the IFS/FMVZ-UADY International workshop, Mérida, Mexico, pp 119–128. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1698.8005

Banse HE, McFarlane D (2014) Comparison of three methods for evaluation of equine insulin regulation in horses of varied body condition score. J Equine Vet 34:742–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2014.01.001

Battini M, Vieira A, Barbieri S, Ajuda I, Stilwell G, Mattiello S (2014) Invited review: Animal-based indicators for on-farm welfare assessment for dairy goats. J Dairy Sci 97:6625–6648. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.jds.2013-7493

Béchir AB, Grimaud P, Kaboré-Zoungrana C (2010) Facteurs de vari-
ation du poids vif et de l'état corporel du zébu Arabe en zone
soudanienne du Tchad. Sci Nat 7(2):143-153. https://doi.org/10.
4314/scinat.v7i2.59955

Bell MJ, Maak M, Sorley M, Proud R (2018) Comparison of methods for monitoring the body condition of dairy cows. Front Sustain Food Syst 2(80):1-7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00080

Bocquier F, Guillouet P, Barillet F, Chilliard Y (1999) Comparison of three methods for the in vivo estimation of body composition in dairy ewes. Ann Zootech 48:297–308 (https://hal.science/hal-00889803v1)

Buxton DAL (1982) Dairy cattle condition scoring in farm pro-
duction and practice. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries,
Nouvelle-Zélande

Carrol CL, Huntington PJ (1988) Body condition scoring and weight estimation of horses. Equine Vet J 20(1):41–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-3306.1988.tb01451.x

Carvalho-Delfino N, De Aragão F, Bulcão L, Ruiz Alba HD, da Silva Oliveira MX, Soares P, de Queiroz F, Pinto de Carvalho GG, Palma Rennó F, de Freitas Júnior JE (2018) Influence of body condition score at calving on the metabolic status and production performance of Murrah buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) during the transition period. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 31(11):1756–1765. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0223

Cissé M (1995) Grille de notation de l'état corporel du zébu Gobra.
Dakar, Sénégal, ISRA, p 11. No internet link

Cissé M, Mbaye M, Sané I, Corréa A, Ndiaye I (1992) Seasonal changes in body condition of Senegalese Sahel goat. Relationship with reproduction performances. In: Prod 2d biennial conference of the small ruminant African Research Network, AICC, 7–11 December 1992, Arusha, Tanzania: 175–178

Croxton D, Stollard RJ (1976) The use of condition scoring as a management aid in dairy and beef cattle. Anim Prod 22:146

Diaw M (2013) La prise en charge du bien-être des équidés par les propriétaires d'équidés et les conducteurs de charrettes hippomobile dans le département de Bambey, Sénégal : état des lieux et perspectives. Diplôme d'ingénieur des travaux, spécialité élevage, Université de Thiès, Sénégal. http://www.biblio.uadb.edu.sn/pmb/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6284. Accessed 2013

Dugdale AHA, Grove-White D, Curtis GC, Harris PA, McG Argo C (2012) Body condition scoring as a predictor of body fat in horses and ponies. Vet J 194:173–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.03.024

Edmonson AJ, Lean IJ, Weaver LD, Farver T, Webster G (1989) A body condition scoring chart for Holstein dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 72(1):68–78. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(89)79081-0

Ezanno P (2002) Modélisation de la relation entre l'état des réserves corporelles et la productivité des troupeaux bovins : cas des bovins N'Dama en milieu agro-pastoral extensif de zone tropicale humide (Kolda, Sénégal). Thèse de doctorat, ENSAM, Montpellier, France. https://publications.cirad.fr/une_notice.php?dk=512598. Accessed 2002

Ezenwa VO, Jolles AE, O'Brien MP (2009) A reliable body condition scoring technique for estimating condition in African buffalo. Afr J Ecol 47:476–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2008.00960.x

Faye B, Bengoumi M, Messad S, Chillard Y (2002) Estimation des réserves corporelles chez le dromadaire. Revue Élev Méd Vét Pays Trop 55(1):69–78. https://doi.org/10.19182/remvt.9849

Ferguson JD, Azzaro G, Licitra G (2006) Body condition assessment using digital images. J Dairy Sci 89(10):3833–3841. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72425-0

Ferguson JD, Galligan DT, Thornsen N (1994) Principal descriptors of body condition score in Holstein cows. J Dairy Sci 77:2695–2703. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)77212-X

Frantz N (1988) La mise au point d'une méthode visuelle d'estimation des réserves corporelles de la vache créole. Mémoire de fin d'étude, École Nationale d'Ingénieurs des Techniques Agricoles de Clermont-Ferrand, France. No internet link.

Ghosh C, Datta S, Mandal D, Das AK, Roy DC, Tudu NK (2019) Body condition scoring in goat: Impact and significance. J Entomol Zool Stud 7(2):554–560. https://www.entomoljournal.com/archives/2019/vol7issue2/PartJ/7-2-62-202.pdf. Accessed 2019

Halachmi I, Polak P, Roberts DJ, Klopcic M (2008) Cow body shape and automation of condition scoring. J Dairy Sci 91:4444–4451. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0785

Henneke DR, Polter GD, Kreider JL, Yeates BF (1983) Short communications relationship between condition score, physical measurements and body fat percentage in mares. Equine Vet J 15(4):371–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-3306.1983.tb01826.x

Hervieu J, Morand-Fehr P, Schmidely P, Fedele V, Delfa R (1991) Variations des notes sternales, lombaires et caudales utilisées pour estimer l'état corporel des chèvres laitières. CIHEAM, Options Méditerranéennes 13 : 43–56. https://om.ciheam.org/om/pdf/a13/92605094.pdf. Accessed 1991
Honhold N, Petit H, Halliwell R (1989) Condition scoring scheme for small east african goats in Zimbabwe. Trop Anim Health Prod 21:121–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02236191

Iglesias C, Navas F, Ciani E, Arando A, González A, Marín C, Nogales S, Delgado J (2020) Zoometric characterization and body condition score in Canarian camel breed. Archivos de Zootecnia Archivos de Zootecnia 69:14–21. https://doi.org/10.21071/az.v69i265.5034

Imadine M (1991) Mise au point d'une grille de notation de l'état corporel des caprins du Sahel. Mémoire dess productions animales en régions chaude. Cirad-Emvt, Maisons-Alfort, France. https://agritrop.cirad.fr/318024/

Kenyon PR, Maloney SK, Blache D (2014) Review of sheep body condition score in relation to production characteristics. N Z J Agric Res 57(1):38–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.2013.857698

Lowman BG, Scott NA, Somervalle SH (1976) Condition scoring of cattle. East of Escotland College of Agriculture, Edinburgh, 1–13

Mendizabal JA, Delfa R, Arana A, Purroy A (2011) Body condition score and fat mobilization as management tools for goats on native pastures. Small Rumin Res 98:121–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2011.03.029

Nicholson M, Sayers A (1987) Repeatability, reproducibility and sequential use of condition scoring of Bos Indicus cattle. Trop Anim Health Prod 19:127–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02239705

Nicholson MJ., Butterworth MH (1989) Grille de notation de l'état d'engraissement des bovins zébus. Centre international pour l'élevage en Afrique, Addis-Ababa, Ethiopie. https://books.google.fr/books?id=8rhIDD8XRBkC&lpg=PA11&ots=f8YmzvHd2X&dq=Nicholson%20MJ.%2C%20Butterworth%20MH%20(1989)&lr&hl=fr&pg=PA8#v=onepage&q=Nicholson%20MJ.%20Butterworth%20MH%20(1989)&f=false. Accessed 1989

Pearson RA, Ouassat M (2000) A guide to live weight estimation and body conditions scoring of donkeys. Centre for tropical veterinary medicine, University of Edinburgh, Scotland; Institut Agronomique et Veterinaire, Hassan II, Rabat, Morocco. https://www.gov.uk/research-for-development-outputs/a-guide-to-live-weight-estimation-and-body-condition-scoring-of-donkeys. Accessed 2000

Poisot F (1988) Méthode d'appréciation des réserves corporelles des caprins créoles de Guadeloupe. Mémoire de fin d'étude, École Nationale d'Ingénieurs des Techniques Agricoles de Clermont-Ferrand, France. No internet link

Pullan NB (1978) Condition scoring of White Fulani cattle. Trop Anim Health Prod 10:118–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02235322

Richard D (Dir. Scientifique) (1997) Ovins Doc : Système multimé-dia sur la production et la pathologie ovine en Afrique tropicale. AUPELF-UREF, CIRAD, Montpellier, France, CD Rom. No internet link

Roche JR, Dillon PG, Stockdale CR, Baumgard LH, VanBaale MJ (2004) Relationships among international body condition scoring systems. J Dairy Sci 87:3076–3079. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73441-4

Roche JR, Friggens NC, Kay JK, Fisher MW, Stafford KJ, Berry DP (2009) Invited review: Body condition score and its association with dairy cow productivity, health, and welfare. J Dairy Sci 92:5769–5801. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2431

Russel AJF, Doney JM, Gunn RG (1969) Subjective assessment of body fat in live sheep. J Agric Sci 72(3):451–454. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600024874

Santucci PM, Branca A, Napoleone M, Bouche R, Aumont G, Poisot F, Alexandre G (1991) Body condition scoring of goats in extensive

conditions In: Goat Nutrition. Morand-Fehr P (Ed.). EAAP Publication n° 46. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 240–255

Schroder U, Staufenbiel R (2006) Invited review: methods to determine body fat reserves in the dairy cow with special regard to ultrasonographic measurement of backfat thickness. J Dairy Sci 89(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72064-1

Soto-Barrientos N, Chan-Pérez JI, España-España E, Novelo-Chi LK, Palma-Avila I, Ceballos-Mendoza A, Sarabia-Hernandez J, Santos-Ricalde R, Camara-Sarmiento R, Torres-Acosta J (2018) Comparing body condition score and FAMACHA® to identify hair-sheep ewes with high faecal egg counts of gastrointestinal nematodes in farms under hot tropical conditions. Small Rumin Res 167:92–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2018.08.011

Tariq M, Younas M, Basit Khan A, Schlecht E (2013) Body measurements and body condition scoring as basis for estimation of live weight in Nili-Ravi buffaloes. Pak Vet J 33:325–329

Vall E, Bayala I (2004) Note d'état corporel des zébus soudaniens. CIRDES, Fiche technique n°8, Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina Faso. https://agritrop.cirad.fr/531084/. Accessed 2004

Vall E, Ebangi AL, Abakar O (2001) Mise au point d'une grille de notation de l'état corporel des ânes de trait au Nord Cameroun. Revue Élev Méd Vét Pays Trop 54(3-4):255-262. https://doi.org/10.19182/remvt.9782

Vall E, Meyer C, Abakar O, Dongmo Ngoutsop AL (2002) Notes d'état corporel des zébus de trait. Un outil simple pour piloter leur alimentation. Fiche technique traction animale n° 13, PRASAC, N'djaména, Tchad. https://agritrop.cirad.fr/514399/. Accessed 2002

Valle E, Raspa F, Giribaldi M, Barbero R, Bergagna S, Antoniazzi S, Lean AKM, Minero M, Cavallarin L (2017) A functional approach to the body condition assessment of lactating donkeys as a tool for welfare evaluation. PeerJ. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3001

Van Der Merve BJ, Stewart PG (1995) Condition scoring of dairy cows. KwaZulu-Natal Dairy. https://www.kzndard.gov.za/images/Documents/RESOURCE_CENTRE/GUIDELINE_DOCUMENTS/PRODUCTION GuidELINES/Dairying_in_KwaZulu-Natal/Cover_DAIRYING%20IN%20kWAZULU-NATAL.pdf. Accessed 1995

Van Niekerk A (1982) The effect of body condition as influenced by winter nutrition on the reproductive performance of the beef cow. S Afr J Anim Set 12:383–387

Vieira A, Brandão S, Monteiro A, Ajuda I, Stilwell G (2015) Development and validation of a visual body condition scoring system for dairy goats with picture-based training. J Dairy Sci 98:6597–6608. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9428

Westervelt RG, Stouffer JR, Hintz HF, Schryver HF (1976) Estimating fatness in horses and ponies. J Anim Sci 43(4):781–785. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1976.434781x

Yilmaz M, Altin T, Karaca O, Cemal I, Bardakcioglu HE, Yilmaz O, Turgay Taskin T (2011) Effect of body condition score at mating on the reproductive performance of Kivircik sheep under an extensive production system. Trop Anim Health Prod 43:1555–1560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-011-9841-1

**Publisher's Note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.