Abstract: The data set for this study comprised 1,488,474 test-day records for milk, fat, and protein yields and fat and protein percentages from 191,012 first-, second-, and third-parity Holstein cows from 484 farms. Data were collected from 2001 through 2007 and merged with meteorological data from 35 weather stations. A linear model (M1) was used to estimate the effects of the temperature-humidity index (THI) on production traits. Least squares means from M1 were used to detect the THI thresholds for milk production in all parities by using a 2-phase linear regression procedure (M2). A multiple-trait repeatability test-model (M3) was used to estimate variance components for all traits and a dummy regression variable (t) was defined to estimate the production decline caused by heat stress. Additionally, the estimated variance components and M3 were used to estimate traditional and heat-tolerance breeding values (estimated breeding values, EBV) for milk yield and protein percentages at parity 1. An analysis of data (M2) indicated that the daily THI at which milk production started to decline for the 3 parities and traits ranged from 65 to 76. These THI values can be achieved with different temperature/humidity combinations with a range of temperatures from 21 to 36°C and relative humidity values from 5 to 95%. The highest negative effect of THI was observed 4 d before test day over the 3 parities for all traits. The negative effect of THI on production traits indicates that first-parity cows are less sensitive to heat stress than multiparous cows. Over the parities, the general additive genetic variance decreased for protein content and increased for milk yield and fat and protein yield. Additive genetic variance for heat tolerance showed an increase from the first to third parity for milk, protein, and fat yield, and for protein percentage. Genetic correlations between general and heat stress effects were all unfavorable (from -0.24 to -0.56). Three EBV per trait were calculated for each cow and bull (traditional EBV, traditional EBV estimated with the inclusion of THI covariate effect, and heat tolerance EBV) and the rankings of EBV for 283 bulls born after 1985 with at least 50 daughters were compared. When THI was included in the model, the ranking for 17 and 32 bulls changed for milk yield and protein percentage, respectively. The heat tolerance genetic component is not negligible, suggesting that heat tolerance selection should be included in the selection objectives.

Abstract: The European Union Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) will require a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 compared with 2005 from the sectors not included in the European Emissions Trading Scheme, including agriculture. This will require the estimation of current and future emissions from agriculture, including dairy cattle production systems. Using a farm-scale model as part of a Tier 3 method for farm to national scales provides a more holistic and informative approach than IPCC (2006) Tier 2 but requires independent quality control. Comparing the results of using models to simulate a range of scenarios that explore an appropriate range of biophysical and management situations can support this process by providing a framework for placing model results in context. To assess the variation between models and the process of understanding differences, estimates of GHG emissions from four farm-scale models (DailyWise, FarmAC, HolosNor and SFARMMOD) were calculated for eight dairy farming scenarios within a factorial design consisting of two climates (cool/dry and warm/wet) x two soil types (sandy and clayey) x two feeding systems (grass only and grass/maize). The milk yield per cow, follower cow ratio, manure management system, nitrogen (N) fertilisation and land area were standardised for all scenarios in order to associate the differences in the results with the model structure and function. Potential yield and application of available N in fertiliser and manure were specified separately for grass and maize. Significant differences between models were found in GHG emissions at the farm-scale and for most contributory sources, although there was no difference in the ranking of source magnitudes. The farm-scale GHG emissions, averaged over the four models, was 10.6 t carbon dioxide equivalents (CO(2)e)/ha per year, with a range of 1.9 t CO(2)e/ha per year. Even though key production characteristics were specified in the scenarios, there were still significant differences between models in the annual milk production per ha and the amounts of N fertiliser and concentrate feed imported. This was because the models differed in their description of biophysical responses and feedback mechanisms, and in the extent to which management functions were internalised. We conclude that comparing the results of different farm-scale models when applied to a range of scenarios would build confidence in their use in achieving ESR targets, justifying further investment in the development of a wider range of scenarios and software tools.