Review of sheep body condition score in relation to production characteristics

Figures & data

Table 1 Description of the BCS technique and an illustration of the vertebra and ribs and approximate muscle and fat distribution.

Grade	Description	Illustration
Score 1	The spinous processes are prominent and sharp. The transverse processes are also sharp, with fingers passing easily under the end of this process. The eye muscle areas are shallow with little to no fat cover.
Score 2	The spinous processes are smooth but still prominent. The individual processes can still be felt but only as fine corrugations. The transverse processes are smooth and rounded. However, it is still possible to pass the fingers under the ends of the processes with some pressure. The eye muscle areas are of moderate depth, but have sparse fat cover.
Score 3	The spinous processes are smooth and rounded, and individual bones can only be felt with some pressure applied. The transverse processes are also smooth and are well covered. Firm pressure is required to feel over the ends. Eye muscle area is full and covered by a moderate degree of fat.
Score 4	With pressure applied, the spinous processes can just be detected, although the ends of the transverse processes cannot. Eye muscle areas are full with a thick covering of fat.
Score 5	Even with firm pressure applied, the spinous processes cannot be detected. Due to a high level of fat adjacent to the spinous process, a depression directly above where the spinous processes would normally be felt may be present. It is not possible to detect the transverse processes. The eye muscle areas are very full with very thick fat cover. It is possible to have significant deposits of fat cover over the rump and tail.

Adapted from Jefferies (1961); Russel et al. (1969), Russel (1984a, b).

Table 2 Repeatability of the BCS technique between and within assessors.

Reference	Scale system used and smallest units	Assessor experience level	Repeatability between assessors	Repeatability within assessors
Everitt (1962)	1–10, whole units	Inexperienced	Variation between and within assessor over time, values not stated
Russel et al. (1969)	0–5, 0.25 units	Not stated	>70% absolute agreement, <20% differed by 0.5 BCS units and <10% by 1.0	>80%, <15% of observations varied by 0.5 BCS units and <5% by 1.0 units
Milligan & Broadbent (1974)	0–5, units not stated	Not stated		r = 0.49–0.67
Yates & Gleeson (1975)	0–5, 0.25 units	Inexperienced	r^Footnotea = 0.05–0.27	r = 0.16–0.44
Evans (1978)	0–5, 0.5 units	Not stated	r = 0.81	r = 0.88
Teixeira et al. (1989)	0–5, 0.25 units	Experienced	80%	90%
Calavas et al. (1998)	0–5, 0.25 units			k^Footnoteb = 0.6–1.0
Shands et al. (2009)	0–5, 0.25, 0.5 units	Mixed skill level	r = 0.73–0.89	r = 0.64–0.84
van Burgel et al. (2011)	0–5, 0.25, 0.5 units	Experienced		0.2 unit difference in BCS mean of animals tested between assessments
Phythian et al. (2012)	0–5, 1.0 and 0.5 units	Experienced	k = 0.4–0.6	k = 0.6–0.7

^a r = correlation.

^b k = weighted Kappa analysis: <0.4 (poor level agreement); 0.40–0.75 (fair-good); > 0.75 (excellent).

Table 3 Reported change required in live weight per unit of BCS across various breeds and sheep classes.

Reference	Timing of measurement^b	Breed^c	Live weight change per unit of BCS (kg)
Jefferies (1961)			6.8
Russel et al. (1969)			10.6
Geisler & Fenlon (1979)	Breeding	Eight breeds	3.3–7.8
Hossamo et al. (1986)	Breeding	Awassi	5.8
Teixeira et al. (1989)	Dry	Rasa Aragonesa	7.0–16
Sanson et al. (1993)			5.1
Frutos et al. (1997)			5.6
Kenyon et al. (2004a)	Breeding	Romney	7.3
Kenyon et al. (2004b)	Breeding	Romney	7.9
Kenyon et al. (2004b)	Breeding	Romney composite	4.8
Freer et al. (2007)^a	Dry	Polwarth × SA Merino	6.3
	Dry (maiden)	Polwarth × SA Merino	7.3
	Dry	Saxon Merino	5.6
	Dry (maiden)	Saxon Merino	7.0
	Lactating	SA Merino	5.0
	Lactating	Saxon Merino	5.5
	Wethers	Saxon Merino	7.0, 10.0
	Weaners, wethers	Saxon Merino	9.3
	Weaners, ewes	Saxon Merino	7.0
Van Burgel et al. (2011)			9.2

^a Adapted from Freer et al. (2007).

^b Time within production system measured and age if stated.

^c Breed if stated.

Table 4 Summary of studies examining the relationship between BCS and breeding season, ovulation rate and conception rate.

Reference	When BCS recorded and range tested	Nutritional treatment(s) during examination period^a	BCS and length of breeding season relationship	BCS and ovulation rate relationship	BCS and conception rate relationship
Gunn et al. (1969)	Breeding, 1.5 and 3.0	Low, maintenance, high		+
Bastiman (1972)	Breeding, 2.5 to 3.5	N/S		+	+
Gunn et al. (1972)	Breeding, 1.5 and 3.0	Fed to maintain BCS		+
Gunn & Doney (1975)	Breeding, 1.0 to 3.0	Low, maintenance, high		+
Gunn & Doney (1979)	Breeding, 2.0 and 3.0	Fed to maintain BCS		+
Newton et al. (1980)	Breeding, 2.0 and 4.0	Fed to maintain BCS	+ late in breeding season
Knight & Hockey (1982)	Pre-breeding	Commercial conditions		+
Rhind et al. (1984a)	Breeding, 1.8 and 2.8	Fed to maintain BCS		+
Rhind et al. (1984b)	Pre-breeding, 2.5–3.0 and 3.25–3.75	Fed to maintain BCS		+
Rhind & McNeilly (1986)	Pre-breeding, 1.8 and 2.9	Fed to maintain BCS		+
McNeilly et al. (1987)	Pre-breeding, 1.8 and 2.9	Fed to maintain BCS		+
Gunn et al. (1988)	Breeding, ≤1.5, 1.75–2.0, 2.25–2.5 and ≥2.75	Low, high		+ and + to 2.25–2.5 in two differing breeds
Gunn et al. (1991a)	Pre-breeding, ≤2.25, 2.5 and ≥2.75	Low, high		+ and + to BCS 2.5 in two differing breeds	+ and + to BCS 2.5 in two differing breeds
Gunn et al. (1991b)	Pre-breeding, ≤2.25, 2.50–2.75 and ≥3.0	Low, maintenance		+ to BCS 2.5–2.75	+ to 2.5–2.75 then –
Forcada et al. (1992)	Breeding, ≤2.5 and ≥2.75	Fed to maintain BCS	+	+
Rondon et al. (1996)	Breeding, ≤2.5 and ≥2.75	High	+
Kleemann & Walker (2005)	Breeding,	Commercial conditions		+
Sejian et al. (2009)	Pre-breeding, 2.5, 3.0–3.5 and 4.0	Fed to maintain BCS			+ to BCS 3.0–3.5 then –

^a Unless otherwise stated there are no interactions between nutritional treatments and BCS.

N/S, not stated; +, positive relationship; −, negative relationship.

Table 5 Summary of studies examining the relationship between BCS and the number of embryos/fetuses, number of lambs born and lamb survival.

Reference	When BCS recorded and range tested	Nutritional treatment(s) during examination period^a	BCS and number of embryos/fetuses per ewe relationship	BCS and number of lambs born relationship	BCS and lamb survival relationship
Gunn et al. (1969)	Breeding, 1.5 and 3.0	Low, maintenance, high		+
Pollott & Kilkenny (1976)	Breeding, BCS range not stated	N/S		+
Adalsteinsson (1979)	Pre-breeding, 2.0 to 4.0	Commercial conditions		+ to BCS 3.0–3.5
Newton et al. (1980)	Breeding, 2.0 and 4.0	Fed to maintain BCS		+
Gunn et al. (1983)	Pre-breeding, ≤2.25, 2.5–2.75, ≥3.0	Low, high		BCS 2.5–2.75 greater than BCS ≤2.25 and ≥3.0
Rhind et al. (1984b)	Breeding, 2.75, 3.0, 3.25, ≥3.5Pre-breeding, 2.5–3.0 and 3.25–3.75	N/SFed to maintain BCS	–	–
Gunn et al. (1988)	Breeding, ≤1.5, 1.75–2.0, 2.25–2.5 and ≥2.75	Low, high	+ in one breed, NR in second breed
Gunn et al. (1991b)	Pre-breeding, ≤2.25, 2.50–2.75 & ≥3.0	Maintenance, high		BCS 2.50–2.75 greater than ≤2.25 and ≥3.0
Gunn et al. (1991a)	Pre-breeding, ≤2.25, 2.5 and ≥2.75	Low, high	In high BCS + to 2.5, no effect low feeding
Al-Sabbagh et al. (1995)	Pre-lambing, BCS 2.5, 3.0, 3.5	High			NR
Gonzalez et al. (1997)	Breeding, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0	Commercial conditions		+
Litherland et al. (1999)	Pre-lambing, 1.5 and 2.5	Low, high			+ in one of two studies
Atti et al. (2001)	Pre-breeding, BCS range not stated	Commercial conditions		+ to BCS 3.5–4.0
Kenyon et al. (2004b)	Breeding, 1.5 to 4.0	Commercial conditions	+ to BCS 2.0 in one breed and + to BCS 3.0 in second breed
Oregui et al. (2004)	Breeding, ≤1.75, 2.0–2.25, 2.5–2.75, 3.0–3.25, ≥3.5	Commercial conditions		+ to BCS 2.5–2.75
Kleemann & Walker (2005)	Breeding, BCS range not stated	Commercial conditions	+	+	+
Rozeboom et al. (2007)	Pre-lambing, 1.5 to 3.5	N/S		NR
Everett-Hincks & Dodds (2007)	Mid-pregnancy, BCS range not stated	Commercial conditions			+
Abdel-Mageed (2009)	Pre-breeding	Maintenance		+ to BCS 2.5 then – after for BCS 4.0
Kenyon et al. (2011)	Mid-pregnancy, ≤2.0, 2.5 and ≥3.0	Medium, high			BCS 2.5 lower than ≤2.0
Oldham et al. (2011)	Day 100 of pregnancy, 2.0 and 3.0	Various feeding levels			NR
Kenyon et al. (2012a)	Mid-pregnancy, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0	Medium, high			BCS 2.5 lower than 2.0
Kenyon et al. (2012b)	Mid-pregnancy, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0	Medium, high
Aliyari et al. (2012)	Pre-breeding, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5 +	Ad libitum		NR

^a Unless otherwise stated there are no interactions between nutritional treatments and BCS.

NR, no relationship or no effect; N/S, not stated; +, positive relationship; −, negative relationship.

Table 6 Summary of studies examining the relationship between BCS and lamb birth and weaning weight and lamb growth to weaning.

Reference	When BCS recorded and range tested	Nutritional treatment(s) during examination period^a	BCS and lamb birth weight relationship	BCS and lamb growth relationship	BCS and lamb weaning weight relationship
Gibb & Treacher (1980)	Pre-lambing, 2.4 and 3.2	Low, High	NR	+
Gibb & Treacher (1982)	Day 90 pregnancy, 2.6 and 3.3	Low, High in pregnancy, high in lactation	NR	NR
Wilson et al. (1985)	Pre-lambing, 1.0 to 3.5	N/S		+ to BCS 1.5
Hossamo et al. (1986)	Pre-breeding and pre-breeding, 1.0-3.5	Commercial	NR/ +	NR	NR
Molina et al. (1991)	Pre-lambing, <2.5, 2.5–3.0, >3.0		+		+ to BCS > 3.0
Al-Sabbagh et al. (1995)	Pre-lambing, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5	High	NR		NR
Atti et al. (1995)	Pre-lambing, <2 and >3	Maintenance		+
Litherland et al. (1999)	Pre-lambing, 1.5 and 2.5	Low, high		NR	NR
Kenyon et al. (2004a)	Breeding, 1.5 to 4.0	Commercial conditions	BCS 3.5–4.0 < 3.0	+
Alvarez et al. (2007)	Pre-breeding	Commercial conditions		+ for twins, + and NR for singletons
Everett-Hincks & Dodds (2007)	Mid-pregnancy, BCS range not stated	Commercial conditions	+
Maurya et al. (2009)	Breeding, 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5	Commercial conditions	+
Sejian et al. (2009)	Pre-breeding, 2.5, 3.0–3.5 and 4.0	Fed to maintain BCS	+		+ to BCS 3.0–3.5
Kenyon et al. (2011)	Mid-pregnancy, ≤2.0, 2.5 and ≥3.0	Medium, high	NR		BCS ≤2.0 lower than 2.5
Oldham et al. (2011)	Day 100 of pregnancy, 2.0 and 3.0	Various feeding levels	+ in two of four studies
Kenyon et al. (2012a)	Mid-pregnancy, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0	Medium, high	NR		+ to BCS2.5
Kenyon et al. (2012b)	Mid-pregnancy, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0	Medium, high	NR		+ to BCS2.5
Verbeek et al. (2012b)	BCS mid pregnancy, 2.0, 2.9, 3.7	Fed to maintain BCS	NR		NR
Aliyari et al. (2012)	Pre-breeding, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5 +	Ad libitum	NR		NR

^a Unless otherwise stated there are no interactions between nutritional treatments and BCS.

NR, no relationship or no effect; N/S, not stated; +, positive relationship.

Jefferies BC 1961Body condition scoring and its use in management. Tasmanian Journal of Agriculture 32: 19–21.

 Google Scholar

Russel AJF, Doney JM, Gunn RG 1969. Subjective assessment of body fat in live sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge) 72: 451–454. 10.1017/S0021859600024874

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Russel AJF 1984a. Means of assessing the adequacy of nutrition of pregnant ewes. Livestock Production Science 11: 429–436. 10.1016/0301-6226(84)90054-X

 Google Scholar

Russel A 1984b. Body condition scoring of Sheep. In Practice 5: 91–93. 10.1136/inpract.6.3.91

 Google Scholar

Everitt GC 1962. On the assessment of body composition in live sheep and cattle. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 4: 79–89.

 Google Scholar

Milligan KE, Broadbent JS 1974. Condition scoring of sheep. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 34: 114.

 Google Scholar

Yates WJ, Gleeson AR 1975. Relationships between condition score and carcase composition of pregnant Merino sheep. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 15: 467–470. 10.1071/EA9750467

 Google Scholar

Evans DG 1978. The interpretation and analysis of subjective body condition scores. Animal Production 26: 119–125. 10.1017/S0003356100039520

 Google Scholar

Teixeira A, Delfa R, Colomer-Rocher F 1989. Relationships between fat deports and body condition score or tail fatness in the Rasa Aragonesa breed. Animal Production 49: 275–280. 10.1017/S0003356100032402

 Google Scholar

Calavas D, Sulpice P, Lepetitcolin E, Bugnard F 1998. Assessing the accuracy of body condition scoring in ewes under filed conditions. Veterinary Research 29: 129–138.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shands CG, McLeod B, Lollback ML, Duddy G, Hatcher S, O'Halloran WJO 2009. Comparison of manual assessments of ewe fat reserves for on-farm use. Animal Production Sceince 49: 630–636. 10.1071/AN09031

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

van Burgel AJ, Oldham CM, Behrendt R, Curnow M, Gordon DJ, Thompson AN 2011. The merit of condition score and fat scores as alternatives to live weight for managing the nutrition of ewes. Animal Production Science 51: 834–841. 10.1071/AN09146

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Phythian CJ, Hughes D, Michalopoulou E, Cripps PJ, Duncan JS 2012. Reliability of body condition scoring of sheep for cross-farm assessments. Small Ruminant Research 104: 156–162. 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2011.10.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Geisler PA, Fenlon JS 1979. The effect of body weight and its components on lambing performance in some commercial flocks in Britain. Animal Production 28: 245–255. 10.1017/S0003356100042550

 Google Scholar

Hossamo HE, Owen JB, Farid MFA 1986. Body condition score and production in fat-tailed Awassi sheep under range conditions. Research and Development in Agriculture 3: 99–104.

 Google Scholar

Sanson DW, West TR, Tatman WR, Riley ML, Judkins MB, Moss GE 1993. Relationship of body composition of mature ewes with condition score and body weight. Journal of Animal Science 71: 1112–1116.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Frutos P, Mantecon AR, Giraldez FJ 1997. Relationship of body condition score and live weight with body composition in mature Churra ewes. Animal Science 64: 447–452. 10.1017/S1357729800016052

 Google Scholar

Kenyon PR, Morel PCH, Morris ST 2004a. Effect of ewe liveweight and condition score at mating, and mid-pregnancy shearing, on birthweights and growth rates of twin lambs to weaning. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 52: 145–149. 10.1080/00480169.2004.36419

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kenyon PR, Morel PCH, Morris ST 2004b. The effect of individual liveweight and condition scores of ewes at mating on reproductive and scanning performance. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 52: 230–235. 10.1080/00480169.2004.36433

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Freer M, Dive H, Nolan JV 2007. Nutrient requirements of domesticated ruminants. Collingwood, CSIRO Publishing. Pp. 50–61.

 Google Scholar

Gunn RG, Doney JM, Russel AJF 1969. Fertility in Scottish Blackface ewes as influenced by nutrition and body condition at mating. Animal Science 73: 289–294.

 Google Scholar

Bastiman B 1972. The effect of ewe condition at tupping on lambing performance. Experimental Husbandry 22: 22–24.

 Google Scholar

Gunn RG, Doney JM, Russel AJF 1972. Embryo mortality in Scottish Blackface ewes as influenced by body condition at mating and by post mating nutrition. Animal Science 79: 19–25.

 Google Scholar

Gunn RG, Doney JM 1975. The interaction of nutrition and body condition at mating on ovulation rates and early embryo mortality in Scottish Blackface ewes. Journal of Agricultural Science 85: 465–470. 10.1017/S0021859600062341

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gunn RG, Doney JM 1979. Fertility in Cheviot ewes. 1. The effect of body condition at mating on ovulation rate and early embryo mortality in North and South country Cheviot ewes. Animal Production 29: 11–16. 10.1017/S0003356100012101

 Google Scholar

Newton JE, Betts JE, Wilde R 1980. The effect of body condition and time of mating on the reproductive performance of Masham ewes. Animal Production 30: 253–260. 10.1017/S000335610002403X

 Google Scholar

Knight TW, Hockey H-UP 1982. Ovulation rates in Marshall Romney and Romney ewes: effects of body size and condition score. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 42: 25–27.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rhind SM, Doney JM, Gunn RG, Leslie ID 1984a. Effects of body condition and environmental stress on ovulation rate, embryo survival, and associated plasma follicle stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, prolactin and progesterone profiles in Scottish Blackface ewes. Animal Production 38: 201–209. 10.1017/S0003356100002191

 Google Scholar

Rhind SM, Gunn RG, Doney JM, Leslie ID 1984b. A note on the reproductive performance of greyface ewes in moderately fat and very fat condition at mating. Animal Production 38: 305–307. 10.1017/S0003356100002324

 Google Scholar

Rhind SM, McNeilly AS 1986. Follicle populations, ovulation rates and plasma profiles of LH, FSH, and prolactin in Scottish Blackface ewes in high and low levels of body condition. Animal Reproduction Science 10: 105–115. 10.1016/0378-4320(86)90022-9

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McNeilly AS, Janassen JA, Rhind SM 1987. Reduced ovarian follicular development as a consequence of low body condition in ewes. Acta Endocrinologcia 115: 75–83.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gunn RG, Rhind SM, Maxwell TJ, Sim DA, Jones JR, James ME 1988. The effect of sward height and active immunization against androstenedione on reproductive performance of ewes of two Welsh breeds in different body conditions. Animal Production 46: 417–426. 10.1017/S0003356100019024

 Google Scholar

Gunn RG, Maxwell TJ, Sim DA, Jones JR, James ME 1991a. The effect of level of nutrition prior to mating on the reproductive performance of ewes of two Welsh breeds in different levels of body condition. Animal Production 52: 157–163. 10.1017/S0003356100005791

 Google Scholar

Gunn RG, Smith WF, Senior AJ, Barthram E, Sim DA, Hunter EA 1991b. Pre-mating herbage intake and the reproductive performance of north country Cheviot ewes in different levels of body condition. Animal Production 52: 149–156. 10.1017/S000335610000578X

 Google Scholar

Forcada F, Abecia JA, Sierra I 1992. Seasonal changes in oestrous activity and ovulation rate in Rasa Aragonesa ewes maintained at two different body condition levels. Small Ruminant Research 8: 313–324. 10.1016/0921-4488(92)90212-M

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rondon Z, Forcada F, Zarazaga L, Abecia JA, Lozano JM 1996. Oestrous activity, ovulation rates and plasma melatonin concentrations in Rasa Aragonesa ewes maintained at two different and constant body condition scores levels and implanted or reimplanted with melatonin. Animal Reproduction Science 41: 225–236. 10.1016/0378-4320(95)01451-9

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kleemann DO, Walker SK 2005. Fertility in South Australian commercial Merino flocks: relationships between reproductive traits and environmental cues. Theriogenology 63: 2416–2433. 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.09.052

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sejian V, Maurya VP, Naqvi SMK, Kumar D, Joshi A 2009. Effect of induced body condition score differences on physiological response, productive and reproductive performance of Malpura ewes kept in a hot, semi-arid environment. Journal of Animal Physiological and Animal Nutrition 94: 154–161. 10.1111/j.1439-0396.2008.00896.x

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pollott GE, Kilkenny JB 1976. A note on the use of condition scoring in commercial sheep flocks. Animal Production 23: 261–264. 10.1017/S0003356100031366

 Google Scholar

Adalsteinsson S 1979. The independent effects of live weight and body condition on fecundity and productivity of Icelandic ewes. Animal Production 28: 13–23. 10.1017/S0003356100023011

 Google Scholar

Gunn RG, Smith WF, Senior AJ, Barthram E, Sim DA 1983. Pre-mating pasture intake and reproductive responses in north country Cheviot ewes in different body conditions. Animal Production 36: 509.

 Google Scholar

Al-Sabbagh TA, Swanson LV, Thompson JM 1995. The effect of body condition at lambing on colostral immunoglobulin G concentration and lamb performance. Journal of Animal Science 73: 2860–2864.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gonzalez RE, Labuonora D, Russel AJF 1997. The effects of ewe live weight and body condition score around mating on production from four sheep breeds in extensive grazing systems in Uruguay. Animal Science 64: 139–145. 10.1017/S1357729800015642

 Google Scholar

Litherland AJ, Lambert MG, McLaren PN 1999. Effects of herbage mass and ewe condition score at lambing on lamb survival and liveweight gain. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 59: 104–107.

 Google Scholar

Atti N, Theriez M, Abdennebi L 2001. Relationship between ewe body condition at mating and reproductive performance in the fat-tailed Barbarine breed. Animal Research 50: 135–144. 10.1051/animres:2001121

 Google Scholar

Oregui LM, Bravo MV, Gabina D 2004. Relationship between body condition score and reproductive or productive parameters in Latxa ewes. Archivos de Zootecnia 53: 47–58.

 Google Scholar

Rozeboom KJ, Neale BD, Darroch CS 2007. Relationships among ewe body condition scores, lamb vigour, colostral quality, milk composition and reproductive performance. Journal of Animal Science 85: Supplement 2, 138.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Everett-Hincks JM, Dodds KG 2007. Management of maternal-offspring behaviour to improve lamb survival in easy care sheep systems. Journal of Animal Science 86: 259–270. 10.2527/jas.2007-0503

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Abdel-Mageed I 2009. Body condition scoring of local Ossimi ewes at mating and its impact on fertility and prolificacy. Egyptian Journal of Sheep and Goat Sciences 4: 37–44.

 Google Scholar

Kenyon PR, Morris ST, Stafford KJ, West DM 2011. The effect of ewe body condition and nutrition in late pregnancy on the performance of triplet-bearing ewes and their progeny. Animal Production Science 51: 557–564. 10.1071/AN10192

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Oldham CM, Thompson AN, Ferguson MB, Gordon DJ, Kearney GA, Paganoni BL 2011. The birthweight and survival of Merino lambs can be predicted from the profile of live weight change of their mothers during pregnancy. Animal Production Science 51: 776–783. 10.1071/AN10155

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kenyon PR, Hickson RE, Hutton PG, Morris ST, Stafford KJ, West DM 2012a. Effect of twin-bearing ewe body condition score and late pregnancy nutrition on lamb performance. Animal Production Science 52: 483–490. 10.1071/AN12085

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kenyon PR, Morris ST, Hickson RE, Stafford KJ, West DM 2012b. Nutritional restriction of triplet-bearing ewes and body condition score has minimal impacts. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 55: 359–370. 10.1080/00288233.2012.720264

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aliyari D, Moeini MM, Shahir MH, Sirijani MA 2012. Effect of body condition score, live weight and age on reproductive performance of Afshari ewes. Asian Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 7: 904–909. 10.3923/ajava.2012.904.909

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gibb MJ, Treacher TT 1980. The effect of ewe body condition at lambing on the performance of ewes and their lambs at pasture. Journal of Agricultural Science 95: 631–640. 10.1017/S0021859600088031

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gibb MJ, Treacher TT 1982. The effect of body condition and nutrition during late pregnancy on the performance of grazing ewes during lactation. Animal Production 34: 123–129. 10.1017/S0003356100000593

 Google Scholar

Wilson JW, English PR, Macdonald DC, Bampton PR, Warren M, Birnie M, et al. 1985. Factors influencing lamb growth rate in an upland flock of Blackface ewes producing Greyface lambs. Animal Production 40: 519–573. 10.1017/S000335610004023X

 Google Scholar

Molina A, Gallego L, Perez JI, Bernabeu R 1991. Growth of Manchega lambs in relation to body condition of dam, season of birth, type of birth and sex. Avances en Alimentacion y Mejora Animal 31: 198–205.

 Google Scholar

Atti N, Nefzaoui A, Bocquier F 1995. Effect of body condition at lambing on performance, energy balance and concentrations of plasma metabolites in Barbary ewes. Options Mediterraneennes. Serie A, Seminairies Mediterraneens 27: 25–33.

 Google Scholar

Alvarez JM, Garcia Vinent JC, Minon DP, Giorgetti HD, Rodriguez G, Baselga Izquierdo M 2007. Factors that affect lamb growth. 1. Influence of ewe body condition. Revista Argentina de Produccion Animal 27: 317–318.

 Google Scholar

Maurya VP, Kumar S, Kumar D, Gulyani R, Joshi A, Naqvi SM, et al. 2009. Effect of body condition score on reproductive performance of Chokla ewes. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 79: 1136–1138.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar