# Introduction of a standardized semi-quantitative body condition scoring system for cattle and pigs in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

## TL;DR

This paper introduces a standardized six-point body condition scoring system for cattle and pigs in the DRC to improve livestock health assessments and surveillance.

## Contribution

The paper presents a validated multispecies body condition scoring system tailored for use in Congolese agricultural settings.

## Key findings

- BCS ratings varied significantly by site type, age, and illness history.
- Inter-rater reliability showed a maximum difference of 1 score unit with moderate agreement.
- The six-point system improved assessment precision compared to unstandardized methods.

## Abstract

To improve the standardization of veterinary assessments of livestock health and welfare across the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), we piloted and validated the implementation of a multispecies semiquantitative six-point body condition scoring (BCS) system for use in farms, abattoirs, and free-range village herds. BCS systems indicating animal energy balance and overall systemic health are critical to rapid and accurate veterinary surveillance to prevent the spread of zoonotic disease and ensure a safe food supply, among other One Health implications. Livestock species may be intermingled in Congolese agricultural settings, requiring a standard BCS scale; we harmonized existing species-specific scales to improve traditional approaches limited to qualitative assessment only. With a team of Congolese veterinarians and technicians, we completed 124 site visits across nine provinces between June 2023 and July 2024, comparing BCS ratings with various animal health indicators to identify patterns and relationships across 1038 swine and 1157 bovine subjects. Results indicate BCS ratings varied significantly by site type (p < 0.001) and age (p < 0.001), as well as between animals with reported histories of illness (p < 0.001) and lesions at the time of sampling (p = 0.089). At selected sites, the investigation team achieved an agreement with a maximum difference of 1 score unit between raters in an assessment of inter-rater reliability (n = 36, κ = 0.47, 95 % CI: 0.22–0.73) and qualitatively reported improved assessment precision with the six-point system compared to previous unstandardized processes.