Relationships between milk yield and somatic cell score in Canadian Holsteins from simultaneous and recursive random regression models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple-trait random regression animal models with simultaneous and recursive links between phenotypes for milk yield and somatic cell score (SCS) on the same test day were fitted to Canadian Holstein data. All models included fixed herd test-day effects and fixed regressions within region-age at calving-season of calving classes, and animal additive genetic and permanent environmental regressions with random coefficients. Regressions were Legendre polynomials of order 4 on a scale from 5 to 305 d in milk (DIM). Bayesian methods via Gibbs sampling were used for the estimation of model parameters. Heterogeneity of structural coefficients was modeled across (the first 3 lactations) and within (4 DIM intervals) lactation. Model comparisons in terms of Bayes factors indicated the superiority of simultaneous models over the standard multiple-trait model and recursive parameterizations. A moderate heterogeneous (both across- and within-lactation) negative effect of SCS on milk yield (from -0.36 for 116 to 265 DIM in lactation 1 to -0.81 for 5 to 45 DIM in lactation 3) and a smaller positive reciprocal effect of SCS on milk yield (from 0.007 for 5 to 45 DIM in lactation 2 to 0.023 for 46 to 115 DIM in lactation 3) were estimated in the most plausible specification. No noticeable differences among models were detected for genetic and environmental variances and genetic parameters for the first 2 regression coefficients. The curves of genetic and permanent environmental variances, heritabilities, and genetic and phenotypic correlations between milk yield and SCS on a daily basis were different for different models. Rankings of bulls and cows for 305-d milk yield, average daily SCS, and milk lactation persistency remained the same among models. No apparent benefits are expected from fitting causal phenotypic relationships between milk yield and SCS on the same test day in the random regression test-day model for genetic evaluation purposes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".