A Primer on Body Scoring

By Hannah Polk, Communications Consultant, Regina

In livestock production, success often lies in the details—those small but significant practices that help producers make decisions, reduce costs, and ultimately improve animal health and productivity.

One of these practices, though simple in theory, can have a powerful impact on herd performance: body condition scoring (BCS).

Body condition scoring is a hands-on, visual-and-tactile method used to assess the amount of fat cover on livestock. It’s not about evaluating muscle tone or weight specifically, but rather gauging the animal’s energy reserves, which play a critical role in everything from reproduction to calving ease and milk production.

For Natasha Wilkie, a livestock and feed extension specialist with Saskatchewan’s Ministry of Agriculture, it’s one of the most practical tools a producer can use to keep tabs on their herd’s health.

“Body condition scoring is a numerical rating on a one-to-five scale,” she explains. “It’s the ability to measure the amount of fat cover that’s on your animal.”

The sweet spot, she says, lies between a score of 2.5 and 3. Animals scoring in this range have an optimal amount of fat cover: enough to maintain good reproductive and immune function, but not so much that it leads to complications. A score of 1 indicates too little fat, while a score of 5 indicates excessive fat cover.

“If she’s too fat,” Wilkie notes, “you might have been overfeeding her, and that could be a cost-saving opportunity. But it also puts her at risk of calving difficulties and milk production issues. If she’s too thin, she may not breed back, her milk production can suffer, and her overall health declines.”

The risks aren’t limited to the extremes. Even small shifts in condition can impact reproductive efficiency, calf growth, and the producer’s bottom line.

 “It’s about getting a better understanding of the actual shape your livestock are in—not just relying on how they look from a distance,” says Wilkie.

While producers often rely on visual cues to assess their livestock, appearances can be deceiving. Factors like winter coats or when they were last fed can distort how an animal looks. That’s where the hands-on approach comes in.

“You feel along specific parts of the body—like the short ribs, tail head, spine, and hook and pin bones,” she explains. “These areas don’t have muscle covering them, so what you’re feeling is mostly fat.”

A good example, she says, is the short ribs.

“If you can push really hard and just barely feel individual ribs, that’s ideal. If you can easily feel individual ribs without much pressure, she’s likely too thin. If you can’t feel any of the ribs with a lot of pressure, she’s likely too fat.”

The tactile component gives producers more accurate and reliable information than visuals alone.

“It’s a fact-checking tool,” Wilkie says. “It verifies what your eyes are seeing.”

Perhaps the best part about body condition scoring is its simplicity. “No formal training is required,” Wilkie emphasizes. “It’s pretty simple and intuitive once you understand where to feel and what to look for.”

For those wanting to dive deeper, resources like the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture’s Body Condition Scoring Handbook or videos from the Beef Cattle Research Council offer helpful visual guides. Once producers are comfortable with BCS, they can begin using it to inform herd management. For instance, animals with lower scores can be grouped and fed higher quality feed to help them recover condition, while animals with higher scores can be put on maintenance rations.

“You can take it to the extreme if you want,” Wilkie says. “You can score every animal, write it down, and manage feeding groups based on those numbers. Or you can just use it as a spot-checking tool. Either way, it’s a tool that can be used to manage your herd.”

The consequences of neglecting body condition are not just theoretical; they directly affect productivity and profit. Under-conditioned cows have lower conception rates, longer calving intervals, and reduced milk production, while over-conditioned cows are more likely to experience dystocia (calving difficulty), metabolic issues, and lower feed efficiency.

“Fat can build up in the udder of young animals, limiting their milk-producing tissue,” Wilkie says. “On the flip side, if an animal is too thin, her body will prioritize survival over milk production, and she’ll likely have a compromised immune system.”

To visualize the impact, Wilkie suggests checking out the Beef Cattle Research Council’s online body condition scoring calculator. Producers can input the number of animals in their herd and current market prices to compare the value of weaned calves based on different maternal condition scores. For example, if a herd of 100 cows is all in optimal condition at calving, the value of their calves might be around $188,000. But if they’re under-conditioned, that number could drop to $141,000. The difference comes from reduced pregnancy rates, slower calf growth, and lower weaning weights.

“That’s a $47,000 difference,” Wilkie says. “That’s not nothing.”

Whether used for fine-tuning nutrition plans or simply verifying that your animals are in good shape, body condition scoring offers a practical and accessible way to support the well-being and profitability of any livestock operation.

For those looking to start, Wilkie’s advice is simple: start small and be curious.

“Pick a few animals next time they’re in the chute and get your hands on them. Compare what you feel to what you see, and go from there.”