Among all these factors considered, it was found that fore udder length and central ligament contributed significantly (p<0.01) to calculate the difference between the mastitis resistant and susceptible animals. Wilk’s lambda value, F value and p values are indicated in Table 1. Eigen value for the above factors was calculated as 0.076 and the overall Wilks’ lambda value was 0.929. The Chi-square value was 8.83 at 2 degrees of freedom and the model significantly (p<0.01) classified 69.1 per cent of original grouped cases correctly. Further, a linear discriminant function model was constructed by taking into consideration the significant factors only. In this case, the log determinants appear similar and Box’s M is 0.62 with F = 0.20 which is significant at p<.0001 (Table 2). The unstandardized and standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients for the respective factors along with their F value Wilk’s lambda and the p values after reevaluating the significant factors only were represented in Table 3. The Eigenvalue for the later analysis was 0.076 with a canonical correlation value of 0.27 suggests the model explains 7.29% of the variation in the grouping variable. The canonical correlation is the multiple correlations between the predictors and the discriminant function. Unstandardized Canonical Discriminant Coefficients(b) are used to generate the discriminant function (equation). The original observations were correctly classified as 92.1% resistant to mastitis and the remaining 7.9% being misclassified into the mastitis group (Table 4). The discriminant function was able to correctly classify 69.1% of the mastitis and resistance to mastitis in Karan Fries cows. The discriminate function fitted was: D = 0.586+ 0.262 Z1– 0.37 Z2. The function fitted demonstrated 69.1 per cent accuracy with p< 0.001. The functions at group centroids were -0.169 and 0.443 respectively for mastitis resistant and susceptible animals. Centroids are actually the group means of canonical variables. Cases with scores close to a centroid were predicted as belonging to that group. Several different procedures of accuracy have been developed, but the uncomplicated is area under the ROC curve and Box and plots were depicted in Table 5 and Fig 1. In the present study, the area under the ROC curve is 0.68 which is considered acceptable with the standard error of 0.05 in the discriminant analysis model whereas in the regression model it is 0.84.Results indicated that there is 68% chance that the researcher will correctly distinguish animals with mastitis or mastitis resistant based on the udder and teat type traits in discriminant analysis whereas in the regression model chance is more
i.
e. 84%.
Wilk’s lambda statistic is the test for univariate equality of group means. Large values of lambda designated by the factors
viz., SDFT, fore udder attachment, and udder depth indicated that the group means did not appear to be different, while small values indicated that group means appeared to be different. Thus it was found that the fore udder length and central ligament factors played a major role in discriminating Mastitis resistant and susceptible animals. The fore udder should be moderate in length and firmly attached to the body wall, since large fore udder length leads to Decreasing teat-end-to-floor distance serve as risk factors for clinical mastitis and periparturient udder edema
(Slettback et al., 1995) since, there is a negative genetic correlation between clinical mastitis and teat-tip-to-floor distance
(Jensen et al., 1985) and associated with higher SCC
(Slettbakk et al., 1990), leads to an increasing proportion of teat lesions
(Grommers et al., 1971). The stronger central ligament can lead to the minimization of the potential for injuries and maximizing milking management by keeping the teats in place and udder elevated and can have a longer stay in the herd. Box’s M tests the null hypothesis that the covariance matrices do not differ between groups formed by the dependent. This test was found to be nonsignificant in the present study so we fail to reject the null hypothesis of no difference and conclude that, covariance matrices are equal. Wilks’ lambda indicates the significance of the discriminant function indicating a highly significant function (p <0.01) and provides the proportion of total variability not explained,
i.
e. it is the converse of the squared canonical correlation. So we have 92.9% unexplained. A highly significant classificatory variable
i.
e., fore udder length was however introduced in the present model which was not considered by previous workers
(Thirunavukkarasu 2003; Jadhav et al., 2019). From the discriminant equation, it could be inferred that the variables considered in the present analysis together were able to classify effectively normal and infected animals. In the ROC curve, An area of 0.5 represents the diagonal, which means no discrimination exists
i.
e. ability to diagnose animals with mastitis or mastitis resistant. In ROC curve, Area under the curve in the regression model was slightly more above this diagonal line than the discriminant model, so the regression model considered to have a better discriminating ability to diagnose animals with mastitis or mastitis resistant. An area of 1 represents the perfect indicator and accurate test. The present study relates with
Montgomery et al., (1987) who prefers the logistic regression model for the prediction of coliform mastitis as compared to logistic regression. However, this was a pilot study and we meticulously recorded the data so as to avoid any biasedness. With this data, we could see definite trends and hence we aimed at such analysis. In the future, with larger dataset, the study will be repeated.