MP373

Feeding Beef Cows Based

on Body Condition Scores

DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE
RESEARCH & EXTENSION
University of Arkansas System

United States Department of Agriculture, University of Arkansas, and County Governments Cooperating
 Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Practical Importance of Body Condition Scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Body Condition Scores (BCS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Guidelines for BCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Effect of BCS on Body Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Effect of BCS on Reproductive Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

BCS at Calving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

BCS at Breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

BCS and Age Affect Pregnancy Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Grouping Cows Based on BCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Nutritional Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Management Strategies to Improve BCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

SHANE GADBERRY is an assistant professor - nutrition with the Department of Animal Science, University of
Arkansas Division of Agriculture in Little Rock.
 Feeding Beef Cows Based

on Body Condition Scores

Shane Gadberry

Assistant Professor - Nutrition

Introduction Body condition affects the amount and type of

winter feed supplements that will be needed. Fat,
The amount and type of supplementation gestating cows may need only mineral and vitamin
required for satisfactory performance in beef herds is supplementation. Thin cows usually need very good
greatly influenced by the body condition or body quality forage or large amounts of supplements
reserves, both protein and fat, of the cattle. high in energy (+70 percent TDN), medium in
protein (15 to 30 percent), plus mineral and
To optimize performance, body condition
vitamin supplementation.
scores of cows should fall within a range of 5 to
7 (optimum condition) at the initiation of the Body condition or changes in body condition,
calving season and remain in this range rather than live weight or shifts in weight, are a
throughout the breeding season. To achieve more reliable guide for evaluating the nutritional
this goal, cows should be condition scored status of a cow. Live weight is sometimes mistakenly
when calves are weaned. Feeding programs used as an indication of body condition and fat
should be planned for cows of varying condi­ reserves, but gut fill and the products of pregnancy
tion so they will reach optimum body condition prevent weight from being an accurate indicator of
by the start of the calving season. condition. Live weight does not accurately reflect
Drastic changes in body condition should be changes in nutritional status. In winter feeding
avoided so that supplementation of the herd may be studies where live weight and body condition scores
minimized. To achieve this, cattle should be matched have been measured, body condition commonly
to the forage supply and management available, and decreases proportionally more than live weight,
body condition evaluations should be made at vari­ implying a greater loss of energy relative to weight.
ous times throughout the year. For spring calving
Two animals can have markedly different live
herds, the logical times are:
weights and have similar body condition scores.
• Midsummer Conversely, animals of similar live weight may
• Weaning, in the fall differ in condition score. As an example, an
• 60 days before calving 1,100 pound cow may be a 1,000 pound animal
• Calving carrying an extra 100 pounds of body reserves, or a
• The beginning of breeding in the spring 1,200 pound cow which has lost 100 pounds of body
reserves. These two animals would differ markedly
Changes in management and the use of in both biological and economical response to the
supplemental feed may be warranted, even during same feeding and management regime with possible
the summer, to prevent drastic body weight serious consequences.
changes. There are few economical ways to increase
body condition once winter has arrived. In commercial practice, body condition scoring can
be carried out regularly and satisfactorily in circum­
Practical Importance of Body stances where weighing may be impractical. The tech­
nique is easy to learn and useful when practiced by
Condition Scoring the same person in the same herd over several years.
Variation in the condition of beef cows has a
number of practical implications. The condition of Body Condition Scores (BCS)
cows at calving is associated with length of post­
partum interval, subsequent lactation performance, BCS are numbers used to suggest the relative
health and vigor of the newborn calf and the inci­ fatness or body composition of the cow. Most pub­
dence of calving difficulties in extremely fat heifers. lished reports are using a range of 1 to 9, with a
Condition is often overrated as a cause of dystocia in score of 1 representing very thin body condition and
older cows. The condition of cows at breeding 9 extreme fatness (Table 1). Scoring done by differ­
affects their reproductive performance in ent people will not agree exactly; however, scoring
terms of services per conception, calving is not likely to vary by more than one score between
interval and the percentage of open cows. trained evaluators, if a 1 to 9 system is used.

For BCS to be most helpful, producers need to BCS 1

calibrate the 1 to 9 BCS system under their
own conditions.

Table 1. Cow Body Condition Score (BCS).

Condition
Score Appearance of Cowa
1 Emaciated – Bone structure of shoulder, ribs,
back, hooks and pins sharp to touch and
easily visible. Little evidence of fat deposits
or muscling.
2 Very thin – Little evidence of fat deposits but
some muscling in hindquarters. The spinous
processes feel sharp to the touch and are
easily seen, with space between them.
3 Thin – Beginning of fat cover over the loin,
back and foreribs. Backbone still highly
visible. Processes of the spine can be identi­
fied individually by touch and may still be
visible. Spaces between the processes are
less pronounced.
BCS 4
4 Borderline – Foreribs not noticeable; 12th and
13th ribs still noticeable to the eye, particu­
larly in cattle with a big spring of rib and ribs
wide apart. Full but straightness of muscling
in the hindquarters. The transverse spinous
processes can be identified only by palpa­
tion (with slight pressure) to feel rounded
rather than sharp.
5 Moderate – 12th and 13th ribs not visible to
the eye unless animal has been shrunk.
Areas on each side of the tail head are fairly
well filled but not mounded. The transverse
spinous processes can only be felt with firm
pressure to feel rounded – not noticeable
to the eye. Spaces between processes not
visible and only distinguishable with
firm pressure.
6 Good – Ribs fully covered, not noticeable
to the eye. Hindquarters plump and full.
Noticeable sponginess to covering of
foreribs and on each side of the tail head.
Firm pressure now required to feel BCS 7
transverse process.
7 Very good – Abundant fat cover on either side
of tail head with some patchiness evident.
Ends of the spinous processes can only be
felt with very firm pressure. Spaces between
processes can barely be distinguished at all.
8 Fat – Animal taking on a smooth, blocky
appearance; bone structure disappearing
from sight. Fat cover thick and spongy with
patchiness likely.
9 Very fat – Bone structure not seen or easily
felt. Tail head buried in fat. Animal’s mobility
may actually be impaired by excess amount
of fat.
a Adapted from Herd and Sprott, 1986.

2
BCS 2 BCS 3

BCS 5 BCS 6

BCS 8 BCS 9

3
Guidelines for BCS muscle. Since many factors affect a cow’s weight
(stage of pregnancy, frame size) in addition to body
Keep the program simple. A thin cow looks very condition, body condition scoring is a more reliable
sharp, angular and skinny, while a fat one looks measure of nutritive reserves than weight alone.
smooth and boxy with bone structure hidden from
sight or feel. All others fall somewhere in between. 100

Fat deposits are visible over the back, tail head, 90

pins, hooks, ribs and brisket of cattle (Figure 1). A 80

BCS of 5 should look average – neither thin nor fat. 70

Percentage in a Lb of BW Change
Once you have established what a BCS 5 looks like, 60

it is much easier to determine variations from this. Fat

50
For cattle with long hair, handling the cattle over the Protein

back and ribs and feeling the flesh over the trans­ 40

verse processes can be helpful. Keep in mind that 30

shrink can alter the look and feel of the cattle as 20

much as one score. Animals in late pregnancy also 10

tend to look fuller and a bit fatter. 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
BCS

Figure 2. Percentage protein and fat in body weight

change for each body condition score.

Effect of BCS on Reproductive

Performance
Calving Interval and Profitability

Calving interval is defined as the period from the

birth of one calf to the next. To have a 12-month
brisket
calving interval, a cow must rebreed within 80 days
after the birth of her calf. Cows that do, produce a
pound of weaned calf cheaper than cows that take
longer than 80 days to rebreed.

Trials have shown that thin cows may take up to

200 days to rebreed. Cows requiring that long to
rebreed will not have a 12-month calving interval,
which subsequently reduces total herd production
and profitability.

Calving intervals in excess of 12 months are often

Figure 1. Anatomic areas that are used for scoring body caused by nutritional stress on the cow at some point,
condition in beef cows. either before the calving season or during the subse­
quent breeding season. This results in thin body
condition and poor reproductive performance. The
relationship of body condition to calving interval is
Effect of BCS on Body Composition shown in Figure 3. The thinnest cows have the longest
The body weight change in protein and fat for calving intervals, while fatter cows have shorter calv­
different body condition scores is illustrated in ing intervals. Producers should evaluate cows for
Figure 2. Gain or loss in body condition (energy condition and apply appropriate supplemental feeding
reserves) primarily involves fat. When body condition practices to correct nutritional deficiencies which are
score falls below 5, cows will lose muscle tone because indicated when cows become thin. These deficiencies
less fat is available to supply energy to sustain vital must be corrected or reproductive efficiency will
bodily functions and the cow begins to mobilize remain low for cows in thin body condition.

4
 BCS at Breeding
Cows should be in optimum condition at calving
and should maintain that body condition during the
breeding period. Table 3 shows results of a trial
involving more than 1,000 cows where the effect of
body condition during the breeding season on preg­
nancy rates was studied. That trial supports the fact
that condition scores of less than 5 during breeding
will result in extremely low pregnancy rates. Proper
nutrition during the breeding season is necessary for
acceptable reproduction. Cattle in excessive body
condition have been shown to have a higher percent­
age cycling early in the breeding season; however,
overall pregnancy rates were lower for these cattle,
suggesting excess body condition may be detrimental
to overall herd reproductive performance.

Table 3. Effect of body condition during the breeding

season on pregnancy.

Figure 3. Relationship between cow body condition score Body Condition During Breeding
at mating and subsequent calving interval. 4 or 6 or
less 5 more
Number of cows 122 300 619
BCS at Calving Percent pregnant 58 85 95
The effect of body condition at calving on Sprott, 1985.
subsequent reproductive performance is shown in
Table 2. The percentage of cows that had been in BCS and Age Affect Pregnancy Rate
heat within 60 or 90 days after calving was lower for
cows with a body condition of 4 or less than for cows Young cows (first three calves) that are thin
scoring more than 5. Low body condition leads to low have shown lower pregnancy rates than mature
pregnancy rates. Cows scoring less than 5 at calving cows (Table 4). This emphasizes the importance of
time had the lowest pregnancy rates, indicating that maintaining a BCS of 5 or higher in young cows.
thin condition at calving time is undesirable. The First-calf heifers should have a BCS of at least 6 at
acceptable body condition score prior to calving is 5 calving time.
to 7. These should be the target condition scores at
Table 4. Pregnancy rate (%) related to age and body
calving for all cows in the herd. Anything higher
condition score of beef cowsa.
than 6 may or may not be helpful. Scores at calving
of less than 5 will impede reproduction. Developing Body Condition Scorec
cows on a higher plane of nutrition to achieve the Calving Weighted
desired (5 to 7) body condition at calving will not Opportunityb ≥3 4 ≥5 Average
result in calving difficulties from increased fetal size. 1 20 53 90 84
2 28 50 84 71
Table 2. Effect of body condition at calving on subsequent 3 23 60 90 85
reproductive performance.
4-7 48 72 92 87
8 37 67 89 74
Body Condition at Calving
4 or 7 or Weighted
less 5 or 6 more Average 31 60 89 82

Number of cows 272 364 50 a Rae et al., 1993, Theriogenology 39:1143; Body condition scored at
Percent in heat within pregnancy testing.
b Number of calving opportunities, present age minus age at first
60 days after calving 46 61 91
calving (years).
90 days after calving 66 92 100 c Body condition scored at pregnancy testing from 1 to 9, 3 = thin,
Adapted from Whitman, 1975. 4 = borderline, 5 = moderate.

5
Grouping Cows Based on BCS In a commercial cow-calf program, the energy
requirement of the cow and calf should come from
At calf weaning time, a typical Arkansas herd forage produced on the operator’s farm or ranch.
would usually have cows with BCS of 4, 5, 6 and 7 Purchasing large amounts of energy supplements on
with possibly a few 3’s and 8’s. The cows should be a regular basis is not economically feasible. A cow’s
assigned to groups for feeding to encourage the energy deficit periods must be satisfied from body
weight changes needed (Table 5) to have all cows stores established during periods of surplus forage.
with BCS of 5 to 7 by calving time. Protein, mineral and vitamin supplements facilitate
Table 5. Weight changes needed by calving time and
this process efficiently from both a biological and
general feed recommendations for beef cows. economical basis.

BCS Recommendations Body condition significantly alters the

requirement for TDN and slightly alters the need
1 Needs to gain 350 lb (cull)
for protein, but it is not a determining factor of min­
2 Needs to gain 300-350 lb (cull) eral or vitamin supplementation (Table 6). Mineral
3 Needs to gain 200-300 lb, improved ration, grain supplementation with emphasis on salt, calcium,
needed phosphorus, magnesium and microminerals is advis­
able in all situations. Vitamin A supplementation
4 Needs to gain 150-200 lb, improved ration, excellent
may not be needed with excellent forage, unless it is
forage
hay stored for a lengthy period. Vitamin A should be
5 Needs to gain weight of fetus (100 lb), good forage supplemented, especially for lactating cows, with
6 Needs to gain weight of fetus (100 lb), good forage lower quality forages regardless of body condition.
7 No weight gain needed, fair forage Table 6. Forage (ration) crude protein and total digestible
8 Needs to lose 50-100 lb, limit ration, too fat to calve nutrient level required by dry, pregnant, mature cows of
varying body condition to reach or maintain optimum
9 Needs to lose 100-200 lb, may need to be culled, body condition by calving in 90 or 120 days. (For cows
usually low in fertility that should weigh 1,100 lb at body condition score of 5.)

Ideally, with unlimited resources, cows Body Condition

representing each BCS in the herd would be Nutrienta and Days to Calving 3 4 5 6 7
assigned to a separate group for feeding. However,
b
this is usually impractical in Arkansas herds due to Crude protein, %
small herd size, inadequate facilities, etc. Often a 90 days 9 8.5 8 7.5 7.5
more practical method would be to separate cows
into two or three groups. If only a few cows have 120 days 9 8.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
BCS of 3 and/or 8, cows could be assigned to two Total digestible nutrients, %b
groups: one group consisting of BCS 3, 4 and 5, and
another group with BCS 6, 7 and 8. When several 90 days 64 59 53 51 48
cows have BCS of 3 and/or 8, if feasible, the herd 120 days 61 57 52 50 48
should be divided into three groups as follows: 3’s
a
and 4’s, 5’s and 6’s, and 7’s and 8’s. Nutrient requirements based on 1996 National Research Council
recommendations
b
Supplemental Feeding Based on BCS Dry-matter basis

Regular use of BCS will help evaluate the body All cattle, fat or thin, need protein supplementa­
composition or fatness of cattle in a fairly accurate tion to consume and utilize low quality forage with
and rather easy manner. Cows that score 5 or any degree of effectiveness. Protein supplementation
greater and still have reproductive problems likely is recommended with low quality forage regardless of
have a mineral or vitamin deficiency, disease or the BCS or lactation status of the cow. The efficiency
genetic problem, or the problem may exist with the of response to protein supplementation is normally
bull. Cows scoring less than 5 may not be receiving greater than that to energy.
adequate levels of energy (total digestible nutrients,
TDN) and protein, although other factors such as Numerous supplemental feeds are available in
phosphorus and internal parasites may be involved. a variety of different forms. None of the supple­
A combination of these nutritional problems is ments are best suited for all situations. The body
frequently observed. condition of the cow, lactation status and quality of

6
Table 7. Pounds of feed needed daily for 90 days by a mature, 1,100 pound cow (last 1/3 of gestation) of varying body
condition, when fed forage of varying quality, to reach optimum body condition of 5 to 7 by the start of the calving season.

Hay or Pasture Quality, Percent Composition on Dry-Matter Basis

Very Good Good Poor
13% Crude Protein 10% Crude Protein 7% Crude Protein
Item 57% TDN 53% TDN 47% TDN
Condition score of cows 3 4 5 or 6 7 3 4 5 or 6 7 3 4 5 or 6 7

Cow weight, lb 954 1022 1100 1300 954 1022 1100 1300 954 1022 1100 1300
or or or
1191 1191 1191

Daily weight gain, lb1 2.5 1.7 0.9 0 2.5 1.7 0.9 0 2.5 1.7 0.9 0
Required by cow2

Crude protein, lb 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7

TDN, lb 14.5 13.2 12 11 14.5 13.2 12 11 14.5 13.2 12 11

Daily ration, lb3 per head

Hay or pasture, lb 21 25 25 23 18 22 26 24 16 19 22 26

Cottonseed meal, lb --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ 1 0.5 0.5 0.5

Corn, lb 5.5 1.5 --­ --­ 8 4 --­ --­ 9.5 7 3.5 --­
1 Weight gain includes 0.9 pound daily fetal growth.

2 Based on 1996 National Research Council recommendations.

3 Eighty-seven percent dry-matter basis. Rations were formulated based on an average daily dry matter intake (DMI) of 22.5 pounds.

forage are major factors to consider in choosing a To optimize herd performance, producers should
supplement. The influence these factors have on choose a calving season that complements their
supplementation requirements is illustrated in forage program, use a good mineral and consider
Table 7 for a cow that weighs 1,100 pounds at protein supplementation whenever forage protein
BCS 5. Producers should remember that other is less than 7 percent on a dry-matter basis (e.g.,
factors also influence nutritional requirements, summer drought pasture, etc.). Since protein supple­
such as weight, mature size, breed type, milk mentation stimulates the intake and digestion of low
production level and environmental stresses. protein forage (< 7 percent), body condition can be
improved on droughty summer pasture and condition
Nutritional Management losses can be decreased. This approach minimizes
the amount and expense of energy supplementation
Many cows in Arkansas need a higher level of but may not eliminate it completely. Where minerals,
condition at calving and breeding to improve repro­ vitamins and protein are furnished in adequate
ductive performance and income. Grain feeding can amounts but body condition continues to decline,
be used to maintain or increase body condition, but large amounts of energy supplementation will be
this approach has economic limitations. required to stop further decline or to produce an
improvement. Because combinations of low quality
In spring calving herds, fall-seeded small grain forage and high starch grain (supplement < 0.5%
pasture is often used as an economical source of feed body weight) are used so inefficiently, it would be
nutrients to improve body condition of cows prior to more economical to produce or buy a higher quality
calving. Other feed sources such as chicken litter and forage when high levels of animal performance
corn, crop by-products, feed grains and supplemental are desired.
protein sources may also be used when forage
supplies are inadequate.

7
 If the requirement for energy supplementation Management Strategies to
is a yearly necessity, a change in management is
necessary. The supply of nutrients from forage must Improve BCS
be increased, both in quality and quantity, or the Proper management of cattle and feed resources
nutritional requirements of the cattle must be is the key to successful cattle production and profit.
reduced (cattle with less milk potential and proba­
Several management strategies that may help
bly smaller in size). The stocking rate of many
maximize profit include:
herds needs to be reduced to allow a greater volume
of forage for each animal, thus reducing the need for • Target a calving season that fits the forage,
excess supplement. supplements, marketing plan and management.

Economics • Adjust stocking rate to ensure adequate forage

during the stocking rate limiting months.
Cows with a BCS less than 5 bring in
• Provide a good mineral free-choice all year.
significantly lower income from calves produced.
Body condition score is related to pregnancy rate • Control parasites and diseases.
(Table 3), calving interval (Figure 3), calf daily gain
and calf age at weaning. Kunkle et al summarized • Cull open and poor producing cows.
data from several research trials to determine yearly
• Group cattle by age and nutritional needs. May
income per cow as influenced by BCS (Table 8).
need to separate the following groups for part or
Estimated TDN requirements were determined for
cows with BCS 3 and 4 to reach BCS 5 by calving. all of the year.
Also, the amount of TDN saved by a decrease in BCS – Weaned heifers
from 6 to 5 was determined. Estimated feed costs
were used to determine the increased income per cow – Yearling heifers
due to feeding cows with BCS of 3, 4 and 6 to reach
– First-calf heifers
BCS 5 by calving (Table 8).
Yearly income for BCS 3 and BCS 4 cows – Young cows
increased by $161 and $93, respectively, when they – Mature cows
were fed to reach BCS 5 by calving. Allowing BCS 6
cows to lose weight to reach BCS 5 by calving • Test forage, especially hay, for nutritive value.
decreased income per cow by $14. Due to reduced Provide highest quality forage to animals with
performance of thin cows, providing adequate nutri­ the greatest nutrient needs. Supplemental
tion for cows with BCS of 3 and 4 usually pays sig­ protein and energy may also be needed.
nificant dividends. However, increases in income
from improving BCS will vary in different situations. • Develop replacement heifers to BCS of 6 by
Therefore, additional supplement cost required to calving time. Provide adequate protein and
change body condition needs to be critically evalu­ energy (TDN) to young cows to improve breeding
ated to make sure that more than $1 of income will rate. This may require managing first and second
be returned for each $1 in additional expenses. calf cows in separate herds during the winter.

Table 8. Relationship of body condition score to beef cow performance and income.

Increased
Yearly Income Lb TDN Feed Cost Yearly Income
Body Yearly Per Cow, Gain Required Per Cow Per Cow by
Condition Pregnancy Income (+) or Loss (-) to Reach to Reach Reaching
Score Rate, %a Per Cowa vs. BCS 5 BCS 5b BCS 5c BCS 5

3 43 $142 -$187 348 $26 $161

4 61 $222 -$107 186 $14 $93

5 86 $329 $0 – – –

6 93 $356 $+27 -175 -$13 -$14

a Kunkle et al.
b Based on 1996 National Research Council feed requirements.
c Feed cost based on TDN at $7.50 per cwt.

8
• Evaluate body condition of the herd at various Summary
times throughout the year, and make needed
nutritional management changes. Special A BCS of 5 to 7 at calving and through breeding
consideration should be given to evaluating body is required for good reproductive performance.
condition at the following times: Overstocking pastures is a common cause of poor
– One month prior to weaning calves. If cows body condition and reproductive failure. Proper
are thin, consider weaning the calves earlier stocking, year-round mineral supplementation and
than normal. timely use of protein supplements offer the greatest
potential for economically improving body condition
– At calf weaning time, cows with a BCS less scores and rebreeding performance of beef cows in
than 5 should be assigned to one or more Arkansas. Sorting cows by condition 90 to 120 days
groups based on BCS. Provide high quality ahead of calving and providing adequate nutrients so
forage or supplemental energy and protein as that all cows will calve in BCS 5 to 7 will maintain
needed to reach BCS 5 by calving. Cows with high reproductive performance and increase income.
a BCS greater than 7 should be fed to lose Nutritional and reproductive decisions, so important
condition to BCS 7 by calving time (refer to to profitability, are made with more precision and
Table 5). accuracy when a body condition scoring system is
routinely used.
– 60 days prior to calving. Fine-tune the
feeding program for cows to reach BCS 5 or
greater by calving. Maintain BCS 5 or above
through the breeding season.

Printed by University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service Printing Services.

Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Director, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Arkansas. The Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service offers its
programs to all eligible persons regardless of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability, marital or veteran status, or any
other legally protected status and is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer.
MP373-PD-1-10RV