English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The relationship between ewe body condition score (BCS) and liveweight (LW) has been exploited previously to predict the former from LW, LW-change, and previous BCS records. It was hypothesized that if fleece weight and conceptus-free liveweight and LW-change, and in addition, height at withers were used, the accuracy of current approaches to predicting BCS would be enhanced. Ewes born in 2017 (n = 429) were followed from 8 mo to approximately 42 mo of age in New Zealand. Individual ewe data were collected on LW and BCS at different stages of the annual production cycle (i.e., prebreeding, at pregnancy diagnosis, prelambing, and weaning). Additionally, individual lambing dates, ewe fleece weight, and height at withers data were collected. Linear regression models were fitted to predict current BCS at each ewe age and stage of the annual production cycle using two LW-based models, namely, unadjusted for conceptus weight and fleece weight (LW alone1) and adjusted (LW alone2) models. Furthermore, another two models based on a combination of LW, LW-change, previous BCS, and height at withers (combined models), namely, unadjusted (combined1) and adjusted for conceptus and fleece weight (combined2), were fitted. Combined models gave more accurate (with lower root mean square error: RMSE) BCS predictions than models based on LW records alone. However, applying adjusted models did not improve BCS prediction accuracy (or reduce RMSE) or improve model goodness of fit (R2) (P &amp;gt; 0.05). Furthermore, in all models, both LW-alone and combined models, a great proportion of variability in BCS, could not be accounted for (0.25 ≥ R2 ≥ 0.83) and there was substantial prediction error (0.33 BCS ≥ RMSE ≥ 0.49 BCS) across age groups and stages of the annual production cycle and over time (years). Therefore, using additional ewe data which allowed for the correction of LW for fleece and conceptus weight and using height at withers as an additional predictor did not improve model accuracy. In fact, the findings suggest that adjusting LW data for conceptus and fleece weight offer no additional value to the BCS prediction models based on LW. Therefore, additional research to identify alternative methodologies to account for individual animal variability is still needed.

translational animal science

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