Prediction of total quarter milk somatic cell counts based on foremilk sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determination of somatic cell count (SCC) is used worldwide in dairy practice to describe the hygienic status of the milk and the udder health of cows. When SCC is tested on a quarter level to detect single quarters with high SCC levels of cows for practical reasons, mostly foremilk samples after prestimulation (i.e. cleaning of the udder) are used. However, SCC is usually different in different milk fractions. Therefore, the goal of this study was the investigation of the use of foremilk samples for the estimation of total quarter SCC. A total of 378 milkings in 19 dairy cows were performed with a special milking device to drain quarter milk separately. Foremilk samples were taken after udder stimulation and before cluster attachment. SCC was measured in foremilk samples and in total quarter milk. Total quarter milk SCC could not be predicted precisely from foremilk SCC measurements. At relatively high foremilk SCC levels (>300 x 10(3) cells/ml) foremilk SCC were higher than total quarter milk. At around (50-300) x 10(3) cells/ml foremilk and total quarter SCC did not differ considerably. Most interestingly, if foremilk SCC was lower than 50 x 10(3) cells/ml the total quarter SCC was higher than foremilk SCC. In addition, individual cows showed dramatic variations in foremilk SCC that were not very well related to total quarter milk SCC. In conclusion, foremilk samples are useful to detect high quarter milk SCC to recognize possibly infected quarters, only if precise cell counts are not required. However, foremilk samples can be deceptive if very low cell numbers are to be detected.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".