MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989626140 · doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0170

Exploration of Relationships Between Claw Disorders and Milk Yield in Holstein Cows via Recursive Linear and Threshold Models

2007· article· en· W1989626140 on OpenAlexaff
S. König, Xiao‐Lin Wu, Daniel Gianola, B. Heringstad, H. Simianer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersDivision of Environmental BiologyDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftU.S. Department of AgricultureNational Science Foundation
KeywordsClawTraitMilk productionDairy cattleMathematicsIce calvingThreshold modelAnimal scienceLinear modelStatisticsBiologyLactationEcologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relationships between claw disorders and test-day milk yield recorded in 2005 on 5,360 Holstein cows, kept on 11 large-scale dairy farms in eastern Germany, were analyzed in a Bayesian framework with standard linear and threshold models and recursive linear and threshold models. Four different claw disorders, digital dermatitis (DD), sole ulcer (SU), wall disorder (WD), and interdigital hyperplasia (IH), were scored as binary traits within 200 d after calving and analyzed separately. Incidences of disorders were 13.7% for DD, 16.5% for SU, 9.8% for WD, and 6.7% for IH. Heritabilities of disorders were greater when applying threshold or recursive threshold models than with linear or linear recursive models. Posterior means of genetic correlations between test-day milk production and claw disorders ranged from 0.17 to 0.44, suggesting that breeding strategies focusing on increased milk yield will increase incidences of disorders as a correlated response. A progressive path of lagged relationships was postulated for recursive models describing first the influence of test-day milk yield (MY1) on claw disorders and second, the effect of the disorder on milk production level at the following test day (MY2). In recursive models, structural coefficients describe recursive relationships at the phenotypic level. The structural coefficient lambda21 was the gradient of disease (trait 2) with respect to MY1 (trait 1) for a model with a recursive effect of trait 1 on trait 2. The increase of disease incidence of the 4 different disorders per 1-kg increase of MY1 ranged from lambda21 = 0.006 to lambda21 = 0.024 on the visible scale when applying recursive linear models, and from lambda21 = 0.003 to lambda21 = 0.016 on the underlying liability scale for recursive threshold models. The rate of change in MY2 (trait 3) with respect to the previous claw disorder is given by lambda32 for a model with a recursive effect from trait 2 to trait 3. Structural coefficients lambda32 ranged from -0.12 to -0.68 predicting that a 1-unit increase in the incidence of any disorder reduces milk yield at the following test day by up to 0.67 kg. Rank correlations between sire posterior means for the same claw disorders among different models were >0.84, but some changes in rank of sires in distinct top-10 lists were observed. Structural equation models are of increasing importance in genetic evaluations, and this study showed the possible application of recursive systems, even for categorical data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207