
==== Front
JDS Commun
JDS Commun
JDS Communications
2666-9102
Elsevier

S2666-9102(24)00002-4
10.3168/jdsc.2023-0421
Genetics
Short Communication
Short Communication
Adding behavior traits to select for heat tolerance in dairy cattle
Lemal P. pauline.lemal@uliege.be
1*
Tran M-N. 2
Atashi H. 13
Schroyen M. 1
Gengler N. 1
1 Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium
2 Elevéo, Association Wallonne des Eleveurs, 5590 Ciney, Belgium
3 Department of Animal Science, Shiraz University, 71441-13131 Shiraz, Iran
* Corresponding author pauline.lemal@uliege.be
15 1 2024
9 2024
15 1 2024
5 5 368373
1 7 2023
21 11 2023
© 2024.
2024

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Graphical Abstract

Summary The objective of this study was to evaluate the gain of adding sensor/behavior data to the genetic evaluation systems for heat tolerance in dairy cattle. Several important results were found as favorable genetic correlations for thermotolerance among fat- and protein-corrected milk (FPCM), somatic cell score (SCS), and behavior traits; ability of behavior data to predict drop of FPCM during heat stress; high ratio between the general additive genetic variance and the thermotolerance additive genetic variance; and good heritability values obtained for behavior data including at the maximum temperature-humidity index (THI). Moreover, the daily availability of sensor data allows for the recording of all heat stress events, and the possibility of obtaining records on nonlactating animals opens new opportunities for genetic evaluation systems for heat tolerance.

Highlights

• Behavior traits could provide relevant data to be used in genetic evaluation systems for heat tolerance in dairy cattle.

• Behavior traits could extend records for heat stress to nonlactating animals.

• Activity time seems to be the more promising behavioral trait for heat stress detection and genetic evaluation for heat tolerance.

The increase in periods of heat waves leads to an increase in heat stress events in dairy cattle leading to welfare issues, production losses, and health issues. However, the low frequency of milk recording data makes genetic evaluation for heat tolerance still a challenge. A possible solution could be to add behavior data captured through sensors which are recorded permanently, mostly reported on a daily basis. The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential gain of adding behavior traits as proxies for genetic evaluation of heat tolerance. Behavior traits including activity time (ACT), rumination time (RUM), and eating time (EAT) were recorded for 453 Holstein cows equipped with SenseHub (Allflex Livestock Intelligence) collars from October 2019 to July 2022 in 6 herd located in the Walloon Region of Belgium. A multitrait reaction norm model based on separate temperature and humidity index (THI) thresholds was used. Results showed that behavior traits present not only interesting characteristics for genetic evaluation of heat tolerance but also for heat stress detection in farms. Indeed, sensors allow recording of behavior for all events of heat stress in lactating and nonlactating animals. Moderate heritability values were also found for the behavior traits (0.14 for ACT, 0.19 for RUM, and 0.12 for EAT), and a high ratio between the general and thermotolerance additive genetic variances was obtained. In addition, positive correlations of thermotolerance for ACT and EAT with thermotolerance for milk production (fat- and protein-corrected milk: 0.45 and 0.28, respectively) and negative genetic correlations of thermotolerance for ACT with somatic cells (somatic cell score: −0.39) were estimated. The genetic correlation matrix allows us to explain a high part of the variation for the reaction to heat stress of 2 economic traits (fat- and protein-corrected milk: 59% and somatic cell score: 31%) based on behavior data. Based on these results, behavior traits could be used to assess heat stress in nonlactating cattle for which the number of genetic evaluations for heat tolerance is still limited.
==== Body
pmcHeat stress is well known to negatively affect dairy cattle production, welfare, and health (Becker et al., 2020). Indeed, dairy cows are especially sensitive to heat due to their high metabolic rate (Wang et al., 2020). In the United States, it has been predicted that temperature elevation by 2050 could lead to a decrease of 1.4 kg/d per cow of milk production resulting in an economic loss of $1.7 billion per year (Mauger et al., 2015; Wankar et al., 2021). A proposed solution to alleviate heat stress in a permanent and cumulative way is through genetic selection for thermotolerant animals (Garner et al., 2016; Osei-Amponsah et al., 2019). The most direct way to measure heat stress is to use body temperature as phenotype, but routine measurements are especially difficult to be established in a large-scale system (Ji et al., 2020). Conversely, production performances are available at a large scale through milk recording and are thus frequently used to evaluate heat tolerance in dairy cattle (Hammami et al., 2015). However, milk recording intervals are counted in weeks (ICAR, 2022), which drastically limits the number of records available during hot days (Carabaño et al., 2019). An alternative could be to combine milk recording and behavior data collected using sensors. The objective of this work was thus to evaluate the potential value of adding behavior data for genetic evaluation of heat tolerance in dairy cows.

Behavior data were obtained for 453 Holstein cows distributed in 6 herds equipped with SenseHub (Allflex Livestock Intelligence) collars from October 2019 to July 2022 in the Walloon Region of Belgium. The used sensors provided daily information for activity time (ACT), rumination time (RUM), and eating time (EAT). Milk recording information including milk yield, fat percentage, protein percentage, and SCC were obtained for 1,740 Holstein cows (which included the 453 cows) from the same 6 herds from 2015 to 2022 to fit with the meteorological data obtained during the same period. Meteorological data included hourly temperature (T; °C) and hourly relative humidity (RH; %) from the nearest weather station of every herd. The hourly temperature-humidity index (THI) was calculated following this formula (NRC, 1971):[1] THI = [(1.8 × T) + 32] – {(0.55 – 0.0055 × RH) × [(1.8 × T) – 26]}.

The daily THI was then defined as the mean of the hourly THI of the concerned day. To consider the delay between the onset of high THI and the cow reaction to heat stress, the mean THI of the day and the 3 previous days was then used. Indeed, our preliminary investigation showed that this time point presented the highest variability with THI.

To prevent the dilution effect of a decrease in milk yield on fat and protein contents, fat- and protein-corrected milk (FPCM) was used instead of milk yield, fat percentage, and protein percentage separately. The FPCM was calculated as follows (FAO, 2010):[2] FPCM = milk yield × (0.337 + 0.116 × fat percentage + 0.06 × protein percentage).

The SCC data were converted to SCS using the following formula (Wiggans and Shook, 1987):[3] SCS = [log2 (SCC/100,000)] + 3 with minimum SCS = 0.1.

For the 5 traits (FPCM, SCS, ACT, RUM, and EAT), data outside the range mean ± 3 standard deviations (SD) were excluded. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1.Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the studied traits and the temperature-humidity index (THI)

Trait1 (unit)	Mean	Minimum	Maximum	SD	N	
FPCM (kg)	27.36	1.48	59.95	8.02	32,154	
SCS	2.30	0.10	7.78	1.66	31,564	
ACT (min/24 h)	294.23	141.25	449.73	39.01	130,867	
RUM (min/24 h)	580.62	328.00	804.00	68.24	130,848	
EAT (min/24 h)	297.01	49.50	545.00	80.05	131,907	
THI	49.85	23.94	73.77	9.62	161,949	
1 FPCM = fat- and protein-corrected milk; ACT = activity time; RUM = rumination time; EAT = eating time.

The THI thresholds at which we considered that heat stress starts to affect the different traits were estimated following a multitrait model based on the model proposed by McWhorter et al. (2022):[4] yijklmnop = THIij + HYik + lactil + (DIM × s)im + agein + aio + peio + eijklmnop,

where yijklmnop is the analyzed trait i (FPCM, SCS, ACT, RUM, or EAT), THIij is the categorical fixed effect for the mean THI of the day and the 3 previous days of class j, HYik is the categorical fixed effect for the herd-year of class k, lactil is the categorical fixed effect for the lactation number of class l (lactation 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5+), (DIM × s)im is the categorical fixed effect for the combination of the classes of DIM (classes of 30 d of DIM) and the season of calving of class m, agein is the categorical fixed effect for the age at calving of class n (5 classes), aio is the additive genetic random effect for animal o, peio is the permanent environmental random effect for animal o, and eijklmnop is the residual.

The results for the THI effect and the relative THI effect (THI effect obtained in Equation 4/phenotypic SD) were then represented as a function of the THI to set the THI threshold for every trait. Polynomials of degree 5 were added to help to determine the thresholds (Figure 1). The results show a decrease of the 3 behavior traits with increasing THI. In the literature, Ramón-Moragues et al. (2021) obtained a decrease of RUM and EAT but also an increase of ACT for heat-stressed cows compared with non-heat-stressed cows. Similarly, Abeni and Galli (2017) showed a lower RUM and a slightly higher ACT during a hot day (THI around 80) compared with a cooler day (THI around 70). Conversely, Hut et al. (2022) showed a decrease of walking time, a slight increase of RUM with increasing THI, but also a decrease of EAT. On this basis, the reduction of EAT during heat stress seems to be accepted, whereas the effect of ACT varies a lot with studies. This could be due to various factors including the devices used, the population studied, and the intensity and duration of the heat period.Figure 1 Temperature-humidity index (THI) effect estimated with Equation 4 and represented as THI effect and relative THI effect (THI effect/phenotypic SD) for the 5 traits studied. Dotted line: polynomials of degree 5. Red lines: THI thresholds. FPCM = fat- and protein-corrected milk.

We chose THI thresholds of 60 for EAT; 64 for FPCM, SCS, and ACT; and 66 for RUM (Figure 1). All thresholds appear at similar THI, but behavior data thresholds were clearer than FPCM and SCS thresholds. This could be due to the higher frequency of behavior data. By looking at the relative THI effect, it seems also higher for behavior data but the maximum THI for the behavior data (74) was higher than for FPCM and SCS (70). In this way, a bigger reaction should probably be visible at higher THI also for FPCM and SCS.

Based on the thresholds, a multitrait reaction norm model was then performed based on the model proposed by McWhorter et al. (2022):[5] yihlmnop = HTDih + lactil + (DIM × s)im + agein + aio + αio[f(THI)] + peio + πio[f(THI)] + eihlmnop,

where yihlmnop is the analyzed trait i (FPCM, SCS, ACT, RUM, or EAT), HTDih is the categorical fixed effect for the herd test-day of class h, αio is the slope of the regression on the THI for the random additive genetic effect (thermotolerance additive genetic effect) for animal o, πio is the slope of the regression on the THI for the random permanent environmental effect (thermotolerance permanent environment effect) for animal o, f(THI) = 0 if THItest-day < THIthreshold and f(THI) = THItest-day − THIthreshold if THItest-day ≥ THIthreshold, and eihlmnop is the residual.

All data were prepared in the SAS environment (SAS version 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). The (co)variance components estimation and their standard errors (SE) were estimated with BLUPF90+ programs from the BLUPF90 family of programs (Misztal et al., 2014).

Based on the estimated (co)variances, genetic correlations for thermotolerance for every trait were estimated and listed in Table 2.Table 2 Genetic correlations (± SE) for thermotolerance, heritability values at the temperature-humidity index (THI) of the thresholds or at the maximum THI (THImax), and the ratio between the general additive genetic variance (σa2) and the thermotolerance additive genetic variance (σα2)1

Trait	Genetic correlation for thermotolerance ± SE	Heritability ± SE	σα2/σα2σa2σa2 ± SE	
FPCM	SCS	ACT	RUM	THIthreshold	THImax	
FPCM					0.15 ± 0.02	0.08 ± 0.18	0.006 ± 0.015	
SCS	−0.40 ± 0.18				0.08 ± 0.02	0.09 ± 0.12	0.010 ± 0.044	
ACT	0.45 ± 0.62	−0.39 ± 0.18			0.14 ± 0.06	0.31 ± 0.25	0.023 ± 0.093	
RUM	−0.02 ± 0.46	−0.10 ± 0.43	0.73 ± 0.66		0.19 ± 0.05	0.17 ± 0.29	0.053 ± 0.021	
EAT	0.28 ± 0.70	0.06 ± 0.55	−0.01 ± 0.18	−0.12 ± 0.36	0.12 ± 0.05	0.09 ± 0.21	0.005 ± 0.028	
1 FPCM = fat- and protein-corrected milk; ACT: activity time; RUM: rumination time; EAT: eating time.

Genetic correlations for thermotolerance between traits i and j were estimated using the Pearson correlation formula:[6] rα(i,j)=(covα(i,j))/(covα(i,j))[√(σαi2σαj2)][√(σαi2σαj2)],

where rα(i,j) is the correlation for the thermotolerance additive genetic effect between trait i and trait j, covα(i,j) is the covariance for the thermotolerance additive genetic effect between trait i and trait j, σαi2 is the variance for the thermotolerance additive genetic effect of trait i, and σαj2 is the variance for the thermotolerance additive genetic effect of trait j.

The results show a negative genetic correlation for thermotolerance between FPCM and SCS (−0.40) suggesting that by selecting cows with a lower decrease of FPCM during heat stress events, we are also indirectly selecting cows with a lower increase of SCS during heat stress. This was consistent with the general negative genetic correlation observed between milk yield and SCS. Indeed, animals with higher SCS have the tendency to produce less milk (Banos and Shook, 1990). Similarly, by looking at the genetic correlations between behavior data and FPCM (0.45 for ACT and 0.28 for EAT), we can expect that by selecting cows for a lower decrease of ACT and EAT during events of heat stress we also keep cows with a lower decrease of production during heat stress. Likewise, by selecting cows with a lower drop of ACT during hot days we also indirectly would tend to select cows with a lower increase of SCS during these days. We also looked at eigenvalues and the associated eigenvectors. The first eigenvector of the genetic correlation matrix for thermotolerance for the 5 traits represented 42% of the variability and the standardized coefficients were 0.42, −0.43, 0.65, 0.47, and 0.03, respectively, for FPCM, SCS, ACT, RUM, and EAT. As expected, the same direction of variation was observed for behavior data and FPCM and an opposite direction of variation was found for behavior data and SCS except for EAT, which was neutral.

Regarding these results, behavior information could be used to predict, at least partially, economic traits like FPCM and SCS thermotolerance. To confirm this hypothesis, we estimated the proportion of the variance for thermotolerance for FPCM and SCS that could be explained by behavior data using the following formula:[7] pi = b[Rα(ACT-RUM-EAT)]b′, where b = [rα(i,ACT-RUM-EAT)]′ [Rα(ACT-RUM-EAT)]−1,

where Rα(ACT-RUM-EAT) is the 3 × 3 additive genetic correlation matrix between the 3 behavior traits (ACT, RUM, and EAT) for the thermotolerance effects and rα(i,ACT-RUM-EAT) is the 3 × 1 correlation vector for the thermotolerance additive genetic effect between the performance trait i and the 3 behavior traits.

To also consider the general additive genetic effect of the behavior traits, the formula was adapted:[8] pi = b[Rαa(ACT-RUM-EAT)]b′, where b = [rαa(i,ACT-RUM-EAT)]′ [Rαa(ACT-RUM-EAT)]−1,

where Rαa (ACT-RUM-EAT) is the 6 × 6 correlation matrix for the thermotolerance additive genetic effect and the general additive genetic effect between the 3 behavior traits and rαa(i,ACT-RUM-EAT) is the 6 × 1 correlation vector between the performance trait i for the thermotolerance additive genetic effect and the 3 behavior traits for the thermotolerance additive genetic effect and the general additive genetic effect.

By using the thermotolerance information only as described in Equation 7, behavior traits explained 51% of the variance of thermotolerance for FPCM and 23% for SCS. By adding the general additive variance for the behavior traits as described in Equation 8, the percentage of variability explained increased to 59% for FPCM and to 31% for SCS.

Based on variance estimations, heritability values for every trait (Table 2) were also calculated following Ravagnolo and Misztal (2000):[9] hf(THI)2=[σa2+f(THI)2σα2+2f(THI)σaα]/[σa2+f(THI)2σα2+2f(THI)σaα+σpe2+f(THI)2σπ2+2f(THI)σpeπ+σe2],

where [hf(THI)2 is the heritability at a given THI with f(THI) = 0 if THI < THIthreshold and f(THI) = THI − THIthreshold if THI ≥ THIthreshold, σa2 is the variance for the general additive genetic effect, σα2 is the variance for the thermotolerance additive genetic effect, σaα is the covariance between the general and the thermotolerance additive genetic effects, σpe2 is the variance for the general permanent environmental effect, σπ2 is the variance for the thermotolerance permanent environmental effect, σpeπ is the covariance between the general and the thermotolerance permanent environmental effects, and σe2 is the residual variance.

Heritability values were relatively similar at the THI of the thresholds and at the maximum THI except for ACT. This could be due to the low maximum THI observed in Belgium compared with hotter countries. The heritability of SCS was in line with the literature for Holstein cows (Kheirabadi and Razmkabir, 2016; Tiezzi et al., 2020), whereas heritability for FPCM was relatively low (Manzanilla Pech et al., 2014; Lassen and Løvendahl, 2016). Concerning sensor data, not so much information was available because they are still rarely used in genetics studies. For activity measurement with different devices, heritability values vary from 0.10 to 0.45 (Schöpke, 2014; Poppe et al., 2022), which included the value of 0.19 obtained in this study. For RUM, Moretti et al. (2018) obtained higher values (0.31 to 0.36) with similar sensors. Finally, for EAT, Cavani et al. (2022) estimated a heritability of 0.23 for the average daily time at the feeder. In general, the heritability values obtained in this study were lower compared with the literature. This could be due to differences among populations or the low number of cows used in our study.

The values for the ratio between general additive genetic variance (σa2) and thermotolerance additive genetic variance (σα2) were also estimated (Table 2). The results showed a higher ratio for ACT and RUM compared with FPCM and SCS suggesting that a higher part of the genetic variance was associated with thermotolerance for these 2 traits.

Based on the results, ACT seems to be the most interesting behavior trait. Indeed, it presents the most interesting genetic correlations for thermotolerance with FPCM (0.45) and SCS (−0.39), a high ratio between additive genetic variances (0.023) and the highest heritability at the maximum THI (0.31). The principal component analysis showed the same direction of variation for thermotolerance between ACT and FPCM and an opposite direction of variation between ACT and SCS. In addition, the interest of using ACT to evaluate heat tolerance was supported by Poppe et al. (2022) who showed that animals with a lower activity drop (step count in their case) during disturbances could be more resilient in general.

Based on the results discussed, behavior data present several qualities for genetic evaluation for heat tolerance: (1) positive or neutral genetic correlations for thermotolerance with FPCM and negative or neutral with SCS allowing indirect selection for thermotolerance of FPCM and SCS by selecting for thermotolerance of behavior traits, (2) high ratio between the thermotolerance additive genetic effect and the general additive genetic effect, (3) heritability values allowing selection for behavior traits including at the maximum THI, (4) higher frequency of recording (daily) allowing the coverage of all events of heat stress and a better estimation in less time as shown by the smoother curves obtained for the THI effect in Figure 1. In addition, behavior traits explained 59% of the FPCM reaction to THI. In this way, behavior traits that are not directly economic traits would allow prediction of reactions of economic traits to heat. Finally, heat stress genetic evaluation based on behavior traits will be extendable to nonlactating animals like heifers, bulls, and beef cattle. In this way, in addition to being used for heat stress genetic evaluation for dairy cows, sensors could help to extend heat stress genetic evaluation systems for heat tolerance to all cattle. Indeed, we could expect that nonlactating animals with a high modification of behavior traits during heat stress events will also have high reduction of performances during heat in their subsequent lactations for heifers and dry cows, generate offspring more susceptible to heat for bulls, and present reduced growth performances due to heat for beef cattle. Currently, it is known that heat stress during the dry period has a negative effect on the production for the subsequent lactations (Fabris et al., 2019), but no studies to our knowledge highlighted that dry cows more susceptible to heat will become lactating cows showing a high drop of production during heat waves. Further studies are thus required to test these hypotheses.

The biggest current restraint of large-scale use of sensors and thus the availability of data for genetic evaluation is their cost. However, the first function of sensors is reproductive heat detection. Based on our results, genetic evaluation for heat tolerance should offer an additional purpose for sensor use. In addition, heat stress could also directly affect pregnancy rate by decreasing activity during hot periods. Indeed, the negative impact of heat stress on estrus expression including a lower increase of activity during reproductive heat could reduce the number of detected estrus and thus indirectly reduce the pregnancy rate (Schüller et al., 2017; Hansen, 2019). On this basis, cows with a high drop of activity during heat stress could also present a reduced pregnancy rate during this period.

Finally, behavior data could also be used for heat stress detection due to their daily recording pattern, clear THI thresholds, and high variation along the THI scale as shown by the relative THI effect we reported in this study.

Notes

Pauline Lemal acknowledges her special scholarship of the University of Liège–Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech (Gembloux, Belgium). The authors acknowledge the support of the Walloon Government (Service Public de Wallonie–Direction Générale Opérationnelle Agriculture, Ressources Naturelles et Environnement, SPW-DGARNE, Namur, Belgium) for the ScorWelCow and the WALLeSmart Projects (D65-1420 and D65-1435). Nicolas Gengler, as a former senior research associate, acknowledges the support of the National Fund for Scientific Research (Brussels, Belgium) also through grant number T.W005.23 (WEAVE-DFG “HTwoTHI”). The authors also acknowledge the technical support by the Walloon Breeders Association (Ciney, Belgium; awé groupe–Elevéo). The University of Liège–Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech (Liège, Belgium) supported computations through the technical platform Calcul et Modélisation Informatique (CAMI) of the TERRA Teaching and Research Centre (Gembloux, Belgium), partly supported by the Fund for Scientific Research–FNRS (Brussels, Belgium) under grant no. T.0095.19 (PDR “DEEPSELECT”).

This study was based on data collected noninvasively by the Walloon Breeders Association (awé groupe–Elevéo) in dairy farms and thus does not contain any data from experiments with human or animal subjects requiring Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee or Institutional Review Board approval.

The authors have not stated any conflicts of interest.

Nonstandard abbreviations used: ACT = activity time; EAT = eating time; FPCM = fat- and protein-corrected milk; RUM = rumination time; THI = temperature-humidity index.
==== Refs
References

Abeni F. Galli A. Monitoring cow activity and rumination time for an early detection of heat stress in dairy cow Int. J. Biometeorol. 61 2017 417 425 10.1007/s00484-016-1222-z 27498881 27498881
Banos G. Shook G.E. Genotype by environment interaction and genetic correlations among parities for somatic cell count and milk yield J. Dairy Sci. 73 1990 2563 2573 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(90)78942-4 2258499 2258499
Becker C.A. Collier R.J. Stone A.E. Invited review: Physiological and behavioral effects of heat stress in dairy cows J. Dairy Sci. 103 2020 6751 6770 10.3168/jds.2019-17929 32448584 32448584
Carabaño M.J. Ramón M. Menéndez-Buxadera A. Molina A. Díaz C. Selecting for heat tolerance Anim. Front. 9 2019 62 68 10.1093/af/vfy033 32002241 32002241
Cavani L. Brown W.E. Parker Gaddis K.L. Tempelman R.J. VandeHaar M.J. White H.M. Peñagaricano F. Weigel K.A. Estimates of genetic parameters for feeding behavior traits and their associations with feed efficiency in Holstein cows J. Dairy Sci. 105 2022 7564 7574 10.3168/jds.2022-22066 35863925 35863925
Fabris T.F. Laporta J. Skibiel A.L. Corra F.N. Senn B.D. Wohlgemuth S.E. Dahl G.E. Effect of heat stress during early, late, and entire dry period on dairy cattle J. Dairy Sci. 102 2019 5647 5656 10.3168/jds.2018-15721 31005317 31005317
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), animal production and health division. Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector-A life cycle assessment https://www.fao.org/3/k7930e/k7930e00.pdf 2010
Garner J.B. Douglas M.L. Williams S.R.O. Wales W.J. Marett L.C. Nguyen T.T.T. Reich C.M. Hayes B.J. Genomic selection improves heat tolerance in dairy cattle Sci. Rep. 6 2016 34114 10.1038/srep34114 27682591
Hammami H. Vandenplas J. Vanrobays M.-L. Rekik B. Bastin C. Gengler N. Genetic analysis of heat stress effects on yield traits, udder health, and fatty acids of Walloon Holstein cows J. Dairy Sci. 98 2015 4956 4968 10.3168/jds.2014-9148 25958288 25958288
Hansen P.J. Reproductive physiology of the heat-stressed dairy cow: Implications for fertility and assisted reproduction Anim. Reprod. 16 2019 497 507 10.21451/1984-3143-AR2019-0053 32435293 32435293
Hut P.R. Scheurwater J. Nielen M. van den Broek J. Hostens M.M. Heat stress in a temperate climate leads to adapted sensor-based behavioral patterns of dairy cows J. Dairy Sci. 105 2022 6909 6922 10.3168/jds.2021-21756 35787319 35787319
ICAR International Committee for Animal Recording (ICAR), dairy cattle milk recording working group. Section 2-Guidelines for dairy cattle milk recording https://www.icar.org/index.php/icar-recording-guidelines/ 2022
Ji B. Banhazi T. Perano K. Ghahramani A. Bowtell L. Wang C. Li B. A review of measuring, assessing and mitigating heat stress in dairy cattle Biosyst. Eng. 199 2020 4 26 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2020.07.009
Kheirabadi K. Razmkabir M. Genetic parameters for daily milk somatic cell score and relationships with yield traits of primiparous Holstein cattle in Iran J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 58 2016 38 10.1186/s40781-016-0121-5 27800174 27800174
Lassen J. Løvendahl P. Heritability estimates for enteric methane emissions from Holstein cattle measured using noninvasive methods J. Dairy Sci. 99 2016 1959 1967 10.3168/jds.2015-10012 26805978 26805978
Manzanilla Pech C.I.V. Veerkamp R.F. Calus M.P.L. Zom R. van Knegsel A. Pryce J.E. De Haas Y. Genetic parameters across lactation for feed intake, fat- and protein-corrected milk, and liveweight in first-parity Holstein cattle J. Dairy Sci. 97 2014 5851 5862 10.3168/jds.2014-8165 25022692 25022692
Mauger G. Bauman Y. Nennich T. Salathé E. Impacts of climate change on milk production in the United States Prof. Geogr. 67 2015 121 131 10.1080/00330124.2014.921017
McWhorter T.M. Sargolzaei M. Sattler C.G. Utt M.D. Tsuruta S. Misztal I. Lourenco D. Onset of heat stress and development of genomic predictions for heat tolerance in US Holsteins and Jerseys Veerkamp R.F. de Haas Y. Proceedings of 12th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (WCGALP) 2022 Wageningen Academic Publishers 2883 2886 10.3920/978-90-8686-940-4_699
Misztal I. Tsuruta S. Lourenco D. Aguilar I. Legarra A. Vitezica Z. Manual for BLUPF90 family of programs 2014 University of Georgia Athens, GA
Moretti R. de Rezende M.P.G. Biffani S. Bozzi R. Heritability and genetic correlations between rumination time and production traits in Holstein dairy cows during different lactation phases J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 135 2018 293 299 10.1111/jbg.12346
NRC A Guide to Environmental Research on Animals 1971 Natl. Acad. Sci. Washington, DC
Osei-Amponsah R. Chauhan S.S. Leury B.J. Cheng L. Cullen B. Clarke I.J. Dunshea F.R. Genetic selection for thermotolerance in ruminants Animals (Basel) 9 2019 948 10.3390/ani9110948 31717903 31717903
Poppe M. Mulder H.A. van Pelt M.L. Mullaart E. Hogeveen H. Veerkamp R.F. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding Genet. Sel. Evol. 54 2022 21 10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x 35287581 35287581
Ramón-Moragues A. Carulla P. Mínguez C. Villagrá A. Estellés F. Dairy cows activity under heat stress: A case study in Spain Animals (Basel) 11 2021 2305 10.3390/ani11082305 34438762
Ravagnolo O. Misztal I. Genetic component of heat stress in dairy cattle, parameter estimation J. Dairy Sci. 83 2000 2126 2130 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)75095-8 11003247 11003247
Schöpke K. Use of accelerometer data for genetic evaluation in dairy cattle Interbull Bull. 48 2014 68 72
Schüller L.K. Michaelis I. Heuwieser W. Impact of heat stress on estrus expression and follicle size in estrus under field conditions in dairy cows Theriogenology 102 2017 48 53 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2017.07.004 28743027 28743027
Tiezzi F. Maisano A.M. Chessa S. Luini M. Biffani S. Heritability of teat condition in Italian Holstein Friesian and its relationship with milk production and somatic cell score Animals (Basel) 10 2020 2271 10.3390/ani10122271 33276452
Wang J. Li J. Wang F. Xiao J. Wang Y. Yang H. Li S. Cao Z. Heat stress on calves and heifers: A review J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 11 2020 79 10.1186/s40104-020-00485-8 32789013 32789013
Wankar A.K. Rindhe S.N. Doijad N.S. Heat stress in dairy animals and current milk production trends, economics, and future perspectives: The global scenario Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 53 2021 70 10.1007/s11250-020-02541-x 33398462 33398462
Wiggans G.R. Shook G.E. A lactation measure of somatic cell count J. Dairy Sci. 70 1987 2666 2672 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(87)80337-5 3448115 3448115
