Abstract: Renewed interest in heat stress effects on livestock productivity derives from climate change, which is expected to increase temperatures and the frequency of extreme weather events. This study aimed at evaluating the effect of temperature and humidity on milk production in highly selected dairy cattle populations across 3 European regions differing in climate and production systems to detect differences and similarities that can be used to optimize heat stress (HS) effect modeling. Milk, fat, and protein test day data from official milk recording for 1999 to 2010 in 4 Holstein populations located in the Walloon Region of Belgium (BEL), Luxembourg (LUX), Slovenia (SLO), and southern Spain (SPA) were merged with temperature and humidity data provided by the state meteorological agencies. After merging, the number of test day records/cows per trait ranged from 686,726/49,655 in SLO to 1,982,047/136,746 in BEL. Values for the daily average and maximum temperature-humidity index (THIavg and THImax) ranges for THIavg/THImax were largest in SLO (22-74/28-84) and shortest in SPA (39-76/46-83). Change point techniques were used to determine comfort thresholds, which differed across traits and climatic regions. Milk yield showed an inverted U-shaped pattern of response across the THI scale with a HS threshold around 73 THImax units. For fat and protein, thresholds were lower than for milk yield and were shifted around 6 THI units toward larger values in SPA compared with the other countries. Fat showed lower HS thresholds than protein traits in all countries. The traditional broken line model was compared with quadratic and cubic fits of the pattern of response in production to increasing heat loads. A cubic polynomial model allowing for individual variation in patterns of response and THIavg as heat load measure showed the best statistical features. Higher/lower producing animals showed less/more persistent production (quantity and quality) across the THI scale. The estimated correlations between comfort and THIavg values of 70 (which represents the upper end of the THIavg scale in BEL-LUX) were lower for BEL-LUX (0.70-0.80) than for SPA (0.83-0.85). Overall, animals producing in the more temperate climates and semi-extensive grazing systems of BEL and LUX showed HS at lower heat loads and more re-ranking across the THI scale than animals producing in the warmer climate and intensive indoor system of SPA.

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: Genotypic adaptation involves the incorporation of novel traits in crop varieties so as to enhance food productivity and stability and is expected to be one of the most important adaptation strategies to future climate change. Simulation modelling can provide the basis for evaluating the biophysical potential of crop traits for genotypic adaptation. This review focuses on the use of models for assessing the potential benefits of genotypic adaptation as a response strategy to projected climate change impacts. Some key crop responses to the environment, as well as the role of models and model ensembles for assessing impacts and adaptation, are first reviewed. Next, the review describes crop-climate models can help focus the development of future-adapted crop germplasm in breeding programmes. While recently published modelling studies have demonstrated the potential of genotypic adaptation strategies and ideotype design, it is argued that, for model-based studies of genotypic adaptation to be used in crop breeding, it is critical that modelled traits are better grounded in genetic and physiological knowledge. To this aim, two main goals need to be pursued in future studies: (i) a better understanding of plant processes that limit productivity under future climate change; and (ii) a coupling between genetic and crop growth models-perhaps at the expense of the number of traits analysed. Importantly, the latter may imply additional complexity (and likely uncertainty) in crop modelling studies. Hence, appropriately constraining processes and parameters in models and a shift from simply quantifying uncertainty to actually quantifying robustness towards modelling choices are two key aspects that need to be included into future crop model-based analyses of genotypic adaptation.